Jacob Alkov v. City of Miami Beach, No. 05-15696 (11th Cir. 2006)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED ________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT MAY 24, 2006 THOMAS K. KAHN CLERK No. 05-15696 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D. C. Docket No. 05-20304-CV-PAS JACOB ALKOV, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, Defendant-Appellee. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida _________________________ (May 24 ,2006) Before ANDERSON, BIRCH and BARKETT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Upon de novo review of the record in this case, we affirm the district court's dismissal of Jacob Alkov's complaint that Defendant's rejection of certain applications submitted under the City's Nonprofit Vending Ordinance ("the Ordinance"), Miami Beach City Code § 86-143, violated the federal Equal Protection Clause. The court properly found that Alkov lacks standing to bring suit under the Ordinance, which creates rights in non-profit organizations only. Alkov, a self-described vendor and independent contractor, clearly does not fit that description,1 and he offers no reason why his should be one of those "exceptional cases where plaintiffs are permitted to raise the rights of others." Wolff v. Cash 4 Tiles, 351 F.3d 1348, 1357 (11th Cir. 2003). On appeal, Alkov attempts to escape this conclusion by arguing that the Ordinance applies to commercial vendors like himself as well as to non-profit organizations. This reading manifestly contradicts the Ordinance s unambiguous language and express intent. See Miami Beach City Code § 86-141 and accompanying section on "Applicability of [the] Article. Finally, we agree with the district court that Alkov still would lack standing even if the ordinance applied to commercial vendors, because the only applications whose rejection he contests were submitted on behalf of non-profit organizations. AFFIRMED. 1 As the district court correctly noted, "Nowhere has Plaintiff alleged that he is a nonprofit organization within the meaning of the Ordinance. Plaintiff does not assert that he has an interest in distributing books, literature, and message-bearing merchandise in furtherance of promoting his nonprofit organization or that he intended personally to make use of the denied permits." 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
