The Birmingham Derby Club, Inc. v. The City of Birmingham et al.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 06/21/2013 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , A l a b a m a A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2012-2013 2120089 The Birmingham Derby Club, Inc. v. The C i t y o f Birmingham e t a l . Appeal from J e f f e r s o n C i r c u i t Court (CV-12-900783) PITTMAN, J u d g e . The Birmingham applicant license f o r , among a n d dance entertainment located Derby other permits Club, I n c . ("Derby things, a lounge Club"), an retail liquor p e r t a i n i n g t o a planned adult- e s t a b l i s h m e n t i n v o l v i n g semi-nude d a n c i n g t o be on D e r b y Way i n B i r m i n g h a m , appeals f r o m a summary judgment p u r p o r t i n g t o a f f i r m the d e c i s i o n o f the Birmingham 2120089 City We Council dismiss The to the deny a p p r o v a l o f appeal i n part record reveals that Derby C l u b ' s and affirm i n part. D e r b y C l u b has leased, an o p t i o n t o p u r c h a s e , a p a r c e l o f r e a l p r o p e r t y industrial park in Birmingham ("the City") highway e x i t . h o s t e d an The the territorial incidents J u l y 2008 and a revocation ordinance had the or repealed two The a at the to "any family former "adult no August ... that r e f l e c t s that well suffered i t s zoning mandating, thereof operated contains or that a single multiple family amended barring 24 between e s t a b l i s h m e n t be property version 2011, amendment t o at business. establishments" adult of past, "Sensations" o p e r a t o r s of t h a t c l u b detached dwelling, record City location ordinance operation of an f e e t of a r e s i d e n t i a l d i s t r i c t . after the e f f e c t i v e date amended z o n i n g o r d i n a n c e , D e r b y C l u b a p p l i e d two the t o an i n t e r s t a t e - known as reported a d u l t e s t a b l i s h m e n t w i t h i n 750 In l o c a t e d i n an been o f f e r e d ; however, a f t e r the that f e e t of dwelling." club owns r e l a t i v e l y recent C i t y a d o p t e d an pertaining 750 of and o f t h e i r l i q u o r l i c e n s e and went o u t o f among o t h e r t h i n g s , family been J u l y 2010, I n A u g u s t 2010, within i n the adult-entertainment w h i c h s e m i - n u d e d a n c i n g has police limits i n close proximity p a r c e l has, applications. to the dance p e r m i t s f o r t h e p r o p e r t y ; p u r s u a n t t o t h e 2 of the City for authority 2120089 conferred 1975, upon t h e C i t y as a C l a s s 1 m u n i c i p a l i t y i n A l a . Code § 28-1-6, D e r b y C l u b a l s o s o u g h t m u n i c i p a l its alcoholic-beverage-license approval application. The of record r e f l e c t s t h a t the L i b e r t y H i g h l a n d s Neighborhood A s s o c i a t i o n , which represents homeowners i n t h e a r e a o f t h e p r o p o s e d e l e c t e d t o oppose Derby C l u b ' s e f f o r t s t o o b t a i n the dance permits majority of Balzli, the liquor lots amended t h e industrial being and park used as establishment. voted to so license, in the a to nightclub governing public hearing body, on or of Clifford applicable l o t i n the an the J. to park the from adult-entertainment C i t y ' s p u b l i c - s a f e t y committee recommend d e n i a l City's any requested owner park, covenants prevent A f t e r the the industrial restrictive as and club, of the Derby C l u b ' s a p p l i c a t i o n s , Birmingham City Council, 24, January had on 2012, three the held a resolutions p r o p o s i n g t o deny t h e a p p l i c a t i o n s s u b m i t t e d by D e r b y C l u b ; a t that hearing, Clifford Balzli, number o f a r e a r e s i d e n t s club, with only Derby speaking i n favor, and his son Adam B a l z l i , spoke i n o p p o s i t i o n Club's the incorporator three to the and resolutions and proposed its counsel r e j e c t i n g Derby C l u b ' s a p p l i c a t i o n s were a d o p t e d w i t h o u t a d i s s e n t i n g On of M a r c h 13, 2012, i t s applications, 49 days a f t e r the Derby Club 3 filed d e n i a l by a a complaint vote. the in City the 2120089 J e f f e r s o n C i r c u i t Court, a s s e r t i n g i n i t s complaint that the a c t i o n o f t h e c i t y c o u n c i l h a d b e e n a r b i t r a r y and and t h a t "[t]he only remedy o f " i t s a p p l i c a t i o n s was City a v a i l a b l e to [ i t ] f o r the d e n i a l "by a p p e a l t o " t h e t r i a l a n s w e r e d t h e c o m p l a i n t and a v e r r e d been warranted additionally, by the the substantive Balzlis were that favor, moved f o r the entry s u p p o r t e d by, c i t y - c o u n c i l hearing the incorporator decision Derby of among o t h e r permitted was i t s action to had presented; intervene as The C i t y a n d t h e summary j u d g m e n t s things, The in the record their of the and t h e t r a n s c r i p t o f t h e d e p o s i t i o n of o f D e r b y C l u b ; t h e movants p o s i t e d t h a t t h e o f t h e C i t y t o deny Club court. evidence p a r t i e s i n support of the C i t y ' s p o s i t i o n . Balzlis capricious reasonably the a p p l i c a t i o n s justified given the submitted by restrictive covenants i n force i n the i n d u s t r i a l park, the f a c t o r s listed i n § 2 8 - 1 - 6 ( a ) ( 1 ) b . , A l a . Code 1975, p e r t a i n i n g t o d e n i a l o f approval in of l i q u o r l i c e n s e s i n Class Birmingham), hearing. and Derby C l u b the testimony filed 1 municipalities offered a response at (i.e., the public i n opposition to the motions, p r i n c i p a l l y opposing the v a l i d i t y of the r e s t r i c t i v e c o v e n a n t s as a b a s i s f o r d i s a p p r o v a l . a summary j u d g m e n t Club to i n favor The t r i a l c o u r t o f t h e movants, appeal. 4 prompting entered Derby 2120089 Although no p a r t y has c h a l l e n g e d t h i s court's appellate j u r i s d i c t i o n , t h e l a c k o f s u b j e c t - m a t t e r j u r i s d i c t i o n may n o t be w a i v e d by t h e p a r t i e s , and i t i s an a p p e l l a t e c o u r t ' s to duty c o n s i d e r l a c k o f s u b j e c t - m a t t e r j u r i s d i c t i o n e x mero motu. See PQ, I n c . v. B i r m i n g h a m R e a l t y (Ala. 2011). filed i t s complaint January In this case, Co., on M a r c h i n the t r i a l 78 court 3d 391, 393 2012, 13, So. Derby Club appealing 24, 2012, d e c i s i o n o f t h e g o v e r n i n g from the body o f t h e C i t y t o deny D e r b y C l u b ' s l i q u o r - l i c e n s e a p p l i c a t i o n ; h o w e v e r , A l a . Code 1975, § 2 8 - 1 - 6 ( a ) ( 2 ) , p r o v i d e s t h a t " [ a ] n y p r o c e e d i n g review the denial of approval of a [liquor] to license a p p l i c a t i o n s h a l l be commenced w i t h i n 14 d a y s o f t h e a c t i o n b y the m u n i c i p a l g o v e r n i n g body." Thus, t o t h e e x t e n t t h a t Derby C l u b s o u g h t r e v i e w o f t h e C i t y ' s d e c i s i o n t o deny D e r b y Club's l i q u o r - l i c e n s e a p p l i c a t i o n , i t d i d not t i m e l y invoke the t r i a l court's subject-matter j u r i s d i c t i o n , summary j u d g m e n t p u r p o r t i n g t o u p h o l d to the l i q u o r - l i c e n s e will not support application thus d i s m i s s the appeal was, therefore, void See, e.g., ( A l a . C i v . App. i n s o f a r as i t c o n c e r n s liquor-license application. 5 of the t h e C i t y ' s d e c i s i o n as an a p p e a l t o t h i s c o u r t . v. L o w e r y , 107 So. 3d 212, 215-16 Derby Club's and t h a t a s p e c t and Boswell 2012). We the d e n i a l of 2120089 In provide contrast to the provisions of § f o r a r i g h t of appeal w i t h respect C l a s s 1 m u n i c i p a l i t y t o deny t h e i s s u a n c e the parties do not cite, and we a municipality's Instead, for denial Alabama a p p e l l a t e a writ judicial of certiorari review of i s the Dothan, 437, municipal review, law So. 2d business and does not aware 440 of, c o u r t t o h e a r an have h e l d that proper method as exists. See (Ala. license). the scope of review not decisions municipal review to a d e c i s i o n of a any appeal dance-permit a p p l i c a t i o n s . courts p r e s c r i b e d method o f 642 of which of a l i q u o r l i c e n s e , are a u t h o r i t y t h a t would permit a c i r c u i t from 28-1-6(a), petition for to on seeking which S a n d e r s v. 1994) However, a no City (revocation such of certiorari i s l i m i t e d s o l e l y to questions extend to preponderance of the evidence; review of the of of weight and i f any l e g a l e v i d e n c e e x i s t s t o support the d e c i s i o n under review, i . e . , i f any evidence will j u s t i f y t h e d e c i s i o n b a s e d upon a l e g i t i m a t e ( i f n o t a l w a y s a preferred) inference c o n c l u s i v e on The of the any reviewing f a c t s shown, t h a t court. See B i r m i n g h a m C i t y Code p r o v i d e s City, dance p e r m i t , by the from the in acting on an evidence id. t h a t the city application for a concerned and 6 the council Division I s h a l l c o n s i d e r any e v i d e n c e o r t e s t i m o n y person is recommendation offered of the 2120089 a p p r o p r i a t e c o m m i t t e e ( B i r m i n g h a m C i t y Code, § 1 2 - 3 - 1 3 ( b ) ) ; to Division after city council " r e n d e r [ s ] a d e c i s i o n t o g r a n t o r deny t h e similarly I I dance-permit permit" having considered applications, " a l l the presented at" a hearing thereon 25.1). the a p p l i c a t i o n s s u b m i t t e d by the c i t y c o u n c i l heard evidence and information ( B i r m i n g h a m C i t y Code, § H e r e , as we have n o t e d , 1 the as a p u b l i c h e a r i n g was Derby C l u b . statements At 12-3- h e l d on that hearing, from, among o t h e r persons, owners o f r e s i d e n c e s l o c a t e d w i t h i n 750 f e e t of the proposed a d u l t e s t a b l i s h m e n t who noted the adverse e f f e c t s on traffic and p a r k i n g t h a t had r e s u l t e d d u r i n g t h e t w o - y e a r o p e r a t i o n o f the former their adult establishment concerns that similar on the problems would C l u b ' s a p p l i c a t i o n s were t o be g r a n t e d . c o u n c i l heard statements business was open a t the subject premises result i f Derby In a d d i t i o n , the f r o m t h e B a l z l i s , who city s t a t e d t h a t no interstate-highway exit, s u b j e c t p r o p e r t y had b e e n z o n e d f o r l i g h t and that the i n d u s t r i a l use and had b e e n s o l d f o r t h e p u r p o s e o f b e i n g u s e d as a t i r e store, t h a t t h e B a l z l i s had b e e n a s s u r e d upon t h e a n n e x a t i o n o f t h e i r p r o p e r t y i n t o the c o r p o r a t e l i m i t s of the C i t y t h a t the City A l a b a m a c o u r t s , by s t a t u t e , t a k e j u d i c i a l n o t i c e o f t h e ordinances of C l a s s 1 m u n i c i p a l i t i e s . See A l a . Code 1975, § 11-45-11. 1 7 2120089 w o u l d p r o t e c t a g a i n s t bad d e v e l o p m e n t , and t h a t t h e use property as an adult establishment f o r the p r o s p e c t s the that made aware t h a t 449 to p e t i t i o n s seeking another incorporator business of Derby Birmingham had incidents. Given the the Club of the decisions conclusion Based applications operated by the another 60 reported police of l e g a l e v i d e n c e to support over part the of r e q u e s t e d dance p e r m i t s g o v e r n i n g c e r t i o r a r i r e v i e w by of and City in acting agree w i t h the t r i a l court's on the danceimplicit and t h e B a l z l i s were e n t i t l e d t o j u d g m e n t s as a law. upon the appeal i s dismissed foregoing as facts i t pertains and to the deny a l i q u o r l i c e n s e t o D e r b y C l u b ; t h e otherwise affirmed. a p p e a l as been t h a t no g e n u i n e i s s u e o f m a t e r i a l f a c t e x i s t e d t h a t t h e C i t y and matter of had in C i t y t o deny t h e p e r m i t a p p l i c a t i o n s , we the located well existence and t h e a p p l i c a b l e s t a n d a r d judiciary and Further, signatures establishment experienced d e c i s i o n of the d e n i a l of the precedent of f u t u r e development at the e x i t . c i t y c o u n c i l was affixed w o u l d s e t a bad of The authorities, the City's decision to summary j u d g m e n t i s motion of the B a l z l i s to d i s m i s s t o them, s t e m m i n g f r o m t h e i r o m i s s i o n as 8 the appellees 2120089 from the i n i t i a l notice of appeal filed by Derby Club, i s d e n i e d as moot i n l i g h t o f o u r d i s p o s i t i o n on t h e m e r i t s . APPEAL DISMISSED I N PART; JUDGMENT AFFIRMED I N PART. Thompson, P . J . , a n d Thomas, M o o r e , concur. 9 and Donaldson, J J . ,

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.