Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My Public Portal
About
18-9538 Brown Law Group to Represent the City vs B & G Holdings
Sponsored by: City Attorney/City Manager RESOLUTION NO. 18-9538 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF OPA-LOCKA, FLORIDA, AUTHORIZING THE BROWN LAW GROUP, LLC, TO REPRESENT THE CITY OF OPA-LOCKA AND THE CITY MANAGER, NEWALL J. DAUGHTREY, IN B & G OPA HOLDINGS, INC., AND B & G OPA LAND HOLDINGS, LLC, cl/b/a KLUB 24 v. CITY OF OPA LOCKA, FLORIDA, CASE NO.: 18-CV-23269; PROVIDING FOR INCORPORATION OF RECITALS; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, on August 10, 2018, the Plaintiff filed suit and an accompanying Complaint against the City of Opa-locka("City"); and WHEREAS, the City Commission finds that it is in the best interest of the City to authorize The Brown Law Group, LLC, to provide representation to the City and the City Manager, Newall J. Daughtrey, in B & G Opa Holdings, Inc., and B & G Opa Land Holdings, LLC, D/B/A Klub 24 v. City of Opa-Locka, Florida, Case No. 18-CV-23269. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF OPA-LOCKA, FLORIDA: Section 1. RECITALS ADOPTED. The recitals to the preamble herein are incorporated by reference. Section 2. AUTHORIZATION Pursuant to the agreement the City has with The Brown Law Group, LLC, the City Commission authorizes The Brown Law Group, LLC, to represent the City and the City Manager, Newall J. Daughtrey, in B & G Opa Holdings, Inc., and B & G Opa Land Holdings, LLC, D/B/A Klub 24 v. City of Opa-Locka, Florida, Case No. 18- CV-23269 attached hereto as Exhibit A. Section 3. SCRIVENER'S ERRORS. Sections of this Resolution may be renumbered or re-lettered and corrections of typographical errors which do not affect the intent may be authorized by the City Manager, or the City Manager's designee, without need of public hearing, by filing a corrected copy of same with the City Clerk. Resolution No. 18-9538 Section 4. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon adoption and is subject to the approval of the Governor or his designee. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 12`" day of September, 2018. yra L. Taylor -4ayor Attest to: Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: LI %- Joa a Flores THE BROWN LAW GROUP, LLC City lerk City Attorney Moved by: VICE MAYOR KELLEY Seconded by: COMMISSIONER RILEY Commissioner Vote: 5-0 Commissioner Holmes: YES Commissioner Riley: YES Commissioner Pigatt: YES Vice Mayor Kelley: YES Mayor Taylor: YES City of Opa-Locka Agenda Cover Memo • Department Department ' - t r, Director: Director Signature: Finance Bryan Hamilton FD Signature: Director: Department City Manager: Newall J. Daughtrey ACM Signature: i '� _a.i:' �:�WiWi Commission 09.12.18 Item Type: Meeting Date: X (EnterXin box) Fiscal Impact Ordinance Reading: (EnterXin box) (EnterXin box) X Public Hearing: (EnterXin box) Funding (Enter Fund& Advertising Requirement: `` Source: Dept) (Enter X in box) x Account#: Ex: 28-514390 Contract/P.O. RFP/RFQ/Bid#: Required: x (EnterXin box) Strategic Plan Strategic Plan Priority Area: Strategic Plan Obj./Strategy: Related Enhance Organizational 0 Out the specific objective/strategy this (Enter X in box) X Bus.&Economic Dev D item will address) Public Safety D Quality of Education 0 Qual.of Life&City Image 0 Communication 0 _ Sponsor Name City Manager Department: City Manager A Resolution of the City of Opa-locka, Florida authorizing the City Manager to obtain legal representation in the case of B&G Opa Holdings, Inc.vs Neall Daughtrey in his official role as Acting City Manager for the City of Opa-locka. Acting City Manager Newall Daughtrey authorized the closure of Klub 24 and as a result the plaintiff filed declatory judg,emt and damages against Mr.Daughtey,therefore it is in the City's best interest to provide legal representation to Mr. Daughtrey. :17 . ' c., AttaKhment . i • • . • chatoUlaietgat-grigim Document 3 i Entered on FLSD Docket 08/11/2018 Page 1 of 2 • . • UNTIED STATES DISTRICT COURT • I for the i Sootheni District of Florida • lf.,fi P1 IT','7 ■ in ..r, •,v,• t. 1; ti_ f 1 •4 :, -LI 4/ U CU UPA HULUINto,ne.;.„a ) • Florida Profit Comondloa and B&0 OA ■ x 7 -.'n'fF.D LAND HOLDINGS,LLC,A*Florida• . j si • t.7 7•,' r' ':- c.:.A.. LCCi.-c.A - • Umiled Uabilly Company;dibia •! . ) . KLUB 74,••• • I ) • ". ,,,-; • ( ---- Pk/64/0) ! ) .. .. C70k4 ge,rtf • • v. • • • • i 1 avil Action No. 18-aelOW • • tal Y UP.UPA UJUIIA,HANN"a roman - i ,/ 23 (el . -. eubdklion eta*Mks airtime..and NIEWALL J. 1 ) . ,. awithiTIVIY,an Imbillith liesiblel aim*.. I ) • • ) ILed Ill . • FfultibvIr • • ). bostalartaN • . ) I ,'-‘ . . • • • - • . .• . . • •SUMMONS Iii A.avn.ACTION ,2_,...tot 19)'-• - • i NU.J.UMW I IckY - • To:(ThiPatissu's Nom owl okbox# 7a0 figHEnmAN gr,01 ROM " • • : • ' CPPe• :KA,FL 33142 • • r\ • I . • - . • 1 D I wriCe- a ct;Tivi • • . . .•. • i . • • . 1 • • • i . . . . . • A lawnli hos basailled esebetiais. - I . " . i • ' - - W 2l doe slew Ned*ems swam)xt you(Rota Moly yea esocised it)—or 0 amp Wyis • eis ibs UAW awls sr*MOW ewe ifethsy,ei an Older or.satokfles silo Dabs&States dowiribeini Poll. P.12(a)C2)ar(3)—re NW arm se ihs phistiff eh=Mr ID Ibp MAW SIMIlait ar a motion webs Ads l2 el the Federal Pails stChil paesibeh Ms mow or Madan most be mad Mk the pisirtMf or phins atemempi. • • "abase aims art sikbess saw NAmpi many.Ego • . . • • 11701111.1211114 IT..SW 2t8 • • • - AIWA Pl..WM I • • . . . ••• - ; .- 1 . • • • . • ' • . • I- . • . ' ■ . . . - . • If rm Nib emisad,*smug by desalt will boaleaed spina you ler the relief clemwabil ia is ammplaist. You also mewl Mb yam maw or modes with the cotrt. . . • . . :. Stainfl. Larimore . . • . . - • i CLERK OF COURT • • . • me 1 3 MS ! . „ . i . II.,41,.< • . • I i i Signahre of am k or Dopey am* . . • . ' '" • : . . , • , 1 • . ; ' • I • • . . • ,. 1 • . , • • . • • • : - - - -'• • • .;• I . • - : • • • • CAO ase�1.1 1:1_8 -2232269-DDPGG Document 3; Entered on FLSD Docket 08/13/2018 Page 2 of 2 UNTIED STAFFS DISTRICT COURT Soup District of Fbrids . f tl i ii UM I11)LUINVIS,INCI,e I ) . Fbrida Prat Corporadon and B&0 OPA LAND HOLDINGS,LL.C,A Florida ) . Lyrdlsd Liability Company,dlbk ) • • KLUB 24, . 1 • ). • v. • )) • t Adam No. IS Siltir I Irk*u w,a.I•LCwur�a Whirr - 2.1 2t,I OAUGKTREY,in kaIvIdui Is Ids m ai aloft Ii. ). • • vwiaaw N , . ) - I�wr trsIDrx� w tTt►!L. •TE lik/iniwr i mime ea ellemi 790 r in Sr.emi FLOOR . • • R 3111.0g• • - • • . I • - • . • i • . • Mos.hoe bean f l i e d aisiei p o i :- Mak 21 drys after=Vies stalk yen Coot camas 1r 11seti itfQ—cr till days Wpm . •w!s'Iiin WWI Man or a United MaiaseissrM or�nL oramployee el'�se �Mt1�ie�seribedin Red.R dr. P.li to(1)—you mot Serra to*.,6611 lit weir td the aNaehei Iniegidei ntr a artatior under ltn1 12 if is Penal D eka&(aril Procedure. ee meat be erreedon as giltirif or yiaiottd'a namely, • easeeneneaad address cast Myst :M . . i rrs It gill et. 214 s • !Ryan fill to ra fiend, by Moat 1 be entered spai■st pas ix tie wlie[ii ceded in the angdeiut. Yen an neat file your answer ormstla l with the cosrt. - , • _ Ian U. Latfmot • rrartirOFCOURT - •Date AUG 1 3 2018 I/ . . • i al aDepgam% i• • , • .� j • 1 Case-1:18-cv-23269-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLS.t••D Docket 08/10/2018 Page 1 of 50 i • UNITED STlfTES DISTR GT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: B A©OFA HOLDINGS,INC.,a . FksidO Proms Corporation and B&G OPA LLC,A Florida ` Liam Liability many,dlb/a • FLUB 24: Plaintiff, vs. r CITY OF OPA LOCICA+FLORIDA,s . She of the babe of Florida,and . ALL J. DAUB,as individual in bin . • Dam , • ► M 144 4 1111ce'lu1, 0 +4w ' ." ..; Inc. S B&0�Land�,LLC Ply B*©,Opa Hold, � LOC�A aid its files CHy(AQFA KLUB 24(the"Plaintiffs"), - . Ong interim City Manager, Newell J.Daitgbtrey,pursuant to 42 U.S.C.§1983,seeking a that Resolution No. 1849478(Authorizing The Clore of I 24)adopted j°dgrnent of the acting interim city 'Newell J. by the City of Opa-Locke and the actions unconstitutional on its face'and as applied to Plaintiff under the Fourth,Eighth Daa$htreY'are unco and the ContractClause . and Fourteenth Amendments,the Supremacy Clause(Article 6,cL 2) I 10,c1. 1)of the United States Constitution,and because it is preempted by state law;and (Art. , § 13,2018"Cease and Desist Order"was imposed without due process and in that the April � 1 i { Case 1:18-cv-23269-DPG 'Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/10/2018 Page 2 of 50 violation of Plaintiff's First,Fourth,Fomt and Eighth Amy Rights~ Plaintiff further demands damages against the City for losses occasioned by the unconstitutional application of the City's laws and policies against the Plaintiff and for just compensation moulting from the taking of property within the meaning of the just compensation clause of the Pifth Amt to the Utid motes Constitution and for of equal ptoiecti©w under the law. Ba 1. 'mss suit is brought pustunt at 42 0.S.C.§1983: & .y puree who,antler near et taryststute,erdhwiS,r. a.eastem, sr seage,of any State Sr Territory er the District of Coliivallao preen 'or ssrrses to be subjected,say the dim of*e.0 of say rights, within irjoriedietioaaielirtuadon p if imisswilase Neared by the Certiaidlia and laws,shall be IMO la the party Wood in as safes at law,snit is war,or Ober proper pro sriiei rouser.... 2. 1100 Coot hes"Federal Question"judastion puma to 28 U.S.C. §1S#1 M taw cases aria*under the Constitution of tbe'(aiitug States,pursuant to 23 U.S.C.p134)(3) to teem the dapshation under'oolor emits law of ray right,privilege ix issisumill socuredb y SW Constitution,and under 2$6.11.C. §1343(4)to secure eqsieshis or ether relief for the protection of civil rights. , 3.The Court has the authority to issue declaratory judgments pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§2201 and 2202,and Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. lion to grant equitable relief for violation of civil rights 4. This Court also has}utisdi and liberties pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983. • 5. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1367. 2 Case 1:18-cv-23269-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/10/2018 Page 3 of 50 6. The Court may enter an award of attorney's fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C.§1988. 7.This Complaint seeks declaratory relief to prevent violations of the Plaintiffs rights,privileges and immunities under the Constitution of the United States and 42 U.S.C. §§1983 and 1988, • �y seeking redress for the deprivation under color of state statute,ordinance,regulation, specifically custom and laws of the stom or usage of rights,privily and ties secured by the 'Tire sought to be p of action arise and are seam United States. rights in this cause under the First,Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S.Constibition,as well ss the Contract Clause and Supremacy Ciaaae of the U.S. Constitution. 8. Ns action seeks a judicial deeemawitiata of issues,rights and liabilities embodied in an meal godparent oontrovaay between iiMpecties involving the constitoioarday of certain actions and policies of the City:There are substantial bowsfidr duets,disputes,and questions to be resolved concerns the Ot)"s laws,policies and acme taint i y the City WNW under color and authority ornate law and procedures,in violation dna/stirs rights under the First,Fourth Eighth and Feertenik Amendment'to the United Nita Canstitution as well as the Supremacy Clause and the Contracts Clause. nraa 9.Venue is proper in the Southern District of Florida,Miami Division,since the laws and licies complained of are those of the City of Opa-Looka,Florida,which is within the district Po and geographical area assigned to the Miami Division. TXIR PART11ia 10.Plaintiff,B&G Opa Holdings,Inc,is a Florida for Profit Corporation doing business at 3699 NW 135th Street,Opa Locka,Florida. 3 Case 1:18-cv-23269-DPG Document-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/10/2018 Page 4 of 50 11.Plaintiff B&G Opa Land Holdings,LLC.,is a Florida limited liability Company doing business at 3699 NW 135e'Street,Opa-Lo&Florida. 12.D4 mat,City of Opa-Locka,is a political subdivision of the State of Florida,located in Miami-Dade Coy. I3.Dt, Newell J.Dam+,in his Official ty as Acting Interim City Memoir. • MCPBalllafign 1 own and operate a 24-hem restaurant and loin,ineissive of adult enterteneenut in O, a-Lodra,Florida. 15. The venue provided by Pleineiff a form of non-obaums, eonstitutiorudly profaned empreudes that is entitled to let and Prantessitt Amendment preeK601111 nuke the United SWIM Con.This exinative.sativitY m peefinmed.before a all over the asp of years,with the of CesY°yin of santiviwn to specator& � die is a l& P'lekn lea that providing ti a of - , entity � � e�oeidrr varioce jai s®c�al activity that . sexual candor and tars interest in human sexuality that all brined beings have to WRNS � r a or lesser degree. Plaintiff considers appreciation of t �� ar temporary concepts of human body, with an emphasis on the consideration of p physical attractiveness and the stimulating and entertaining aspects of wine, which are clear characteristics of a normal and healthy inter est in human sexuality.. • has presented nude erotic entertainment through-out South Florida for over twenty ' 17. Plaintiff pies Years years. The Adult Entertainment Business is profitable for both the Plaintiffs and the City that they are located in. 4 Case 1:18-cv-23269-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/10/2018 Page 5 of 50 18. Plaintiffs business is beneficial to the Defendant in that they are creating jobs and tax revenue for the City of Opa-Locka. 19.Prior to Plaintiffs operating a nude entertainment facility at this location,the last owner of the building operated a restmend with a full liquor bar. 20. Plaintiffs have a substantive property right in the oontimation of their existing busing and in the licenses sad permits issued to that btisinsss. 21. Florida law 1900$012a8 and protects Plaintiff's s tive property rights in its existing business and in the lid permits issued to that business. 22. Plaintiffs business falls within the definition of a"amt entertairanaft business"under the Opa-Locka Code:of Oniinutons. 23. The Plaintiff' have apse approidinately Two When Five Hundred Thoussed • $2,500,000.00) Dollms hate the purchase and renovation of firs building, including but not limited to engineering.antiltinetural,licensing,Snd bee. ve ott the Plaintilfm t with City Attorney Vincent Brown, 24. On January 4,2017 a tali Esq. and other employees of the City of O u-Locke to discuss the staff recommendations of the Plaintiffs proposed business. 25; During this meeting with Vincent Brown, Esq. and City staff, the Plait agent was instructed to complete the City of Opa-Locka License Application. See Copy of Occupational License Application attached hereto as Exhibit"1"and made part of this Complaint through this reference. 26. During this meeting with Vincent Brown,Esq.and City staff,the Plaintiffs agent was instructed to complete the City of Opa-Locke Zoning Verification Form along with the application for certificate of use. See Copy of Verification Form attached hereto as Exhibit"2" 5 Case 1:18-cv-23269-DPG Document.l Entered on FLSD Docket 08/10/2018 Page 6 of 50 • and made part of this Complaint through this reference and a Copy of the application for Certificate of Use attached hereto as Exhibit"3"and made part of this Complaint through this reference. the statement In woe with made by the aged of Plaintiff,Attorney'Vin'Vincent in0 Brown oversaw the Plabeith submissions and was specificall Y told by Vincent Brown,Esq.to state on the application ist the intendedattofthepropertY was to be a p stated Vin*awn,Esq. "Playbmus was in the(City of Qp 4 eota's)adult as slat by entertassalt sass end deemed permissible by the code." 28. On Jarmsry 4,2017 Occupational License No.990008920 and Occupational Limes No. 990008921ws issued to the Plaintiff;which would allow the Plaintiffs to operate ender the We of"other club"as dedirsd is the City Ordinance. Satrapy of Occupational Licenses sMssirsd hereto as Baba*"4"sod larks part of this Compli t lard this*reference. 29. Unsure what"ether chths" the Plaintiffs reeprtslsd clarification from the City reprding"other "and on January 5,2017 they were provided a written explanation from the City staff that stated"cataway other includes the description as written in the approval application for certificate of use,playhouse,bar, tavern approved adult wt." See Copy of Letter attached hereto as Exhibit"5"and made part of this Complaint deough this reference. 30. On or about January 4,2018 Occupational License No.990008920 and 99008921 were both owed. See Copy of Occupational License attached hereto as Exhibit"6"and made part of this ren Complaint through this reference. 6 Case 1:18-cv-23269-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/10/2018 Page 7 of 50 31. The Plaintiffs opened their doors for business on or about January 18,2018 as a fully operating restaurant,and lounge inclusive of adult went,and operating twenty four hours a day. 32. It was learned after the fact that on or about March 28,2018 Resolution No. 18-9478 was sponsored lay the City won wherein the City Commission,sough legislation directing the City Manager to close down KLUB 241 See Copy of Resolution 18-9478 attached hereto as Exhibit'T and nos part of this Complaint threftti this reference. 33. Resolution No. 184478 was voted upon and approved by the City Commission however it is not effective until it-is approved by the Governor or his designee,which to date has never been approved. 34. After hearing three*the grapevine that the City ago-Lode was going to dose their business down,Plaisitffi by ad through previous counesl-reached out to Attorney Vincent Brown,Esq. and scheduled*meeting withliim and menthe=of the City staff. 35. On or about April 3043018 the Plaintiff along with their then attorney of record,and with the Office of the City Atlerney;City Manager Ed Brous;The DireCtOr of Building&Liaoning D Esin Daniel Able,'along with Karl Roes,the investigator for Miami=Dade County Coon on Ethics and Public Trust. oa the Director of Building&Licensing 36. At the meeting on April ,2018 it was annouacod by that he was going to revoke the Temporary. Certificate of Occupancy,hereinafter referred to as (the`T.C.O.")based upon the assertions made by the City Attorney,Vincent Brown. 37. In response Attorney Vincent Brown stated that he never said that the T.C.O was obtained illegally and specifically told the Director of Building&Licensing Department,Esin Daniel Abia,not to revoke the Plaintiffs T.C.O.. 7 Case 1:18-cv-23269-DPG Document•1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/10/2018 Page 8 of 50 . 38. Attorney Vincent Brown further assured Plaintiffs that it was the City intention to work this matter out amicably,and farther suggested that and further suggested that counsel for the Plaintiffs send a letter offering to do pay six Hundred Fifty Thousand($650,000.00)if the Plaintiffs wanted to"hurry the process"slang. 39. Plaintiffs were every surprise'd about dale solicitation said ink attorney Vmoeeet Brown, Esq.that they did not feel cow his pr po o,i ho a r they w onlditt bad t©bie i after discussing it among each ether.• 40. On April 13,2018 the interim acting city musert,Newell J.Deughtey, ware was appointed the day before,_acting in his official capacity,loud and served a cease and desist woke red force ter than an hour later. summarily closed the Piai tiffs business by use applies 41. In accordance with tie ems and desist order,Plaint"pureuant to Section 134*fat cods Plaintiffs had been deaeoad to have obtained their barters"by nierepresentation of sa1■eial that on their application,and is therefore by operation®flew were opentOig without a oars." Sae Copy of Cease and Desist Order attached hereto as lahait"8"and.nzsde part of this Canylsint Hugh reference. 42. The Cease and Desist order did not provide fix any administistive review,did net advise Plaintiffs of any administrative or judicial appellate remedies,nor did it stste that any hewing had been set to consider the allegations or that a hearing would be set in the future. 43. Plaintiffs never received any prior notice from the City that it was considering administrative • its Certificate of Use or Business Tax Receipt,in fact they were specifically told in. action age Certificate the April 4,2018 meeting that their licensee would not be revoked and it was the intention of the City of Opa-Locka to work with the Plaintiffs to cure all issues. 8 Case 1:18-cv-23269-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/10/2018 Page 9 of 50 44. Plaintiffs were not afforded any kind of hearing prior to the issuance of the Cease and Desist order. 45. There were no exigent circumstances or serious danger present which would justify the issuance of the Cease and Desist order without pro-deprivation notice and an opportunity to be heard. 45. To date this Plaintiffs have never been In'OVided with any information regarding the alleged misreptes 46. Section 13.8 of the City of Dpa-Loo Ordinances states that: "any ljcenst oMeiafod under the provisions of this article upon misrepresentation of a material fact is null and mid,and the licensee who has thereafrir pared in an,basMa s under such licenses abed bs to Eton of doing business without a license,to the same extent and dogma as though no such license was issued. Sec Copy of Sec 13.8 Fraudulently obtained licenses void ab t`nitio attached hereto as Exhibit"9"and made part of this Complaint through this reference. 47. The penalty under$etion 13.8 is prosecution not closure by use of police force. or power to use police force 48. Moreover the City of Ope-Locke does have the authority po to close the Plaintiffs business without following due process. the Plaintiffs have the 49. The revocation of a license is a judicial or quasi-judicial power and right to be heard before their license is revoked, 50. Defendant,Newell J.Daughtrey,is a statutory administrative officer who can only exercise the statutory authority granted to him. 51. The administrative authority,function,and duties of the Newell Daughtery are not among the powers of government which are by the constitution separated into legislative,executive,and 9 Case 1:18-cv-23269-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/10/2018 Page 10 of 50 judicial powers and which must be exercised only by appropriate officers properly belonging to one of the three departments of the government of the State of Florida. 52. Defendant,Newall J.Daughtrey made a decision not only to dean the Plaintiffs license null and void but close their business down,his actions are materially injurious to legal rights or privileges of the Plaintiffs,withat giving appropriate consideration to matters affecting such rights and privileges,which matters the lave contemplates shall be moldered in making the order coned of. 53. Chapter 13-32 of the City's or+dinancee given the City niaoager the saiterityte revoke and license as authorized by code and Chapter 13-34 gives the proOess in which the rspocation of a license is to ocesr-"Notice of public hearing fix&mil or revocation of a Micmac or permit&all be given ink,sating forth the gro and dmipisting a time and plaoe ix p hearing" 54. There is nothing in the OFa-Locka City Bear©r the Opa Locker code of eadissnses that allows the Cam► ,Newell J.Dauer the authority to.close the Plairla business down without Mowing the procedine referenced aloe or not allowing due process prier to • revocation of the licenses. 55. Defendant,Newall J.Doughboy, acting in his official capacity,has violated the code governing him,along with depriving the Pljaintiffs of their fundamental rights under both the Florida Constitution and the U.S.Constitution. 56. On May 10,.2018 the City of Opa-Locka by and through it employee,.Gregory Gay issued another letter,wherein now despite the above referenced approvals,and zoning verifications;. they are now attempting to make the Plaintiffs restart the process of obtaining approval for liquor 10 • Case 1:18-cv-23269-DPG. Document 1 . Entered on FLSD Docket 08/10/2018 Page 11 of 50 license. See Copy of Letter dated May 104'2018 attached hereto Exhibit"10"and made part of this Complaint through this reference. 57. The City Attorney and City staff Gregory Gay and Gerald Lee are now alleging that they do not have any of the required surveys or an other documents on file despite the numerous • approvals that the State of Florida,Miami-Dade County and the Plaintiffs have detrhumtelly I relied upon. i 58. When asked where the surveys went the Attorney Vincent Brown stated"less did eat know". • 59.Furthermore,after the filing an action ill E the A ni*Dade Circuit Court Vincent Brown and Gregory Gay arenow stating that hours Plaintiffs hours of operation should be restricted despite the previously approved 24 how operation idespite.of the fact that the Plaintiffs bad been given previous authorization to operate 24•hours it day 60. Plaintiffs had agreed that they would employ two of off-duty policeman 24 hours a day at a rate of Forty Five($45.00)Dollars an hour;of which Five($5.00)Dollars of each hour awned was to be paid directly to the City of Opa—Locke a Police Department t the Cii of Opa-Locks Police Department provided the 61. Upon reaching this i tar Plaintiffs with Patrol Service Agreement $en copy of Patrol Service Agreement Off Duty Officers Agreement attached hereto as Exhibit"11" and made part of this complsist through this reference. E _ 62. The Plaintiff estimates that they arref incurring a loss of One Hundred Thousand ($100,000.00)Dollars a week in revenue-d le to the illegal actions of the City of Opa Lorna. 63. They have been forced to cease all operations since April 13,2018 and will have to essentially start their business operation from the ground up,if and when,they are able to re- 11 Case 1:18-cv-23269-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/10/2018 Page 12 of 50 64. The Plaintiffs have spent or have been obligated to spend One Million Five Hundred and (1,500,000.00)in acquiring the parcel,and over One Killion(1,000,000.00)in architectural engineering fees,interest,taxes,permits and other developmental costs. from the Plaintiffs other 24 gentleman's club which also 65. Based upon revenue operates 24 hours a day,which is loaned in another mtmicipabty in Mia3ni Dade County,the approximation a�'Five Hundred Million Plaintiffs ww6d have an expected (2500,000,000.00)Doles in 2018. gatilaMTATIlitdi and operating under the 66. As a political subdivision of the State of Florida,organized laws of the State of Florida, the City of Opa dim+Newell J.Danglitrey and its agents and esisplrjees, were, and are,adios undet color of state law and authority. musaaajaaMBMWEIM 67. Plaintiff has suffered damages as a direct result of the City's Oulinances,policies and• practices and the unconstitutional enforcenient of those Ordinances and policies.Plaintiffs Eger consist of anent upon Plaintiffs constitutional rights as well as monetary kiwis. The monetary losses include lost profits,carrying costs and injury to good will.The injury to good will is reflected in the continuing loss of patronage even after Plaintiff's business was allowed to reopen. 68. Plaintiff has retained the Law Office of Raven Liberty,PA.as its attorneys to represent it in this action and has agreed to pay them a reasonable fee,which fee Defendant must pay pursuant to 42 U.S,C.§1988. 12 Case 1:18-cv-23269-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/10/2018 Page 13 of 50 y g ,n...,n,•.ig U VIOIAIL N$ 69. Resolution 18-9478 under which the City purportedly directed the City manager to close Plaintiffs business,along with the ordinances relied upon to revoke Plaintiff's business licenses- §13.8(fraudulently obtained licenses void ab initio)and§22-81 of the Opa-Locka Land Development Regulations(permitted uSe3 ale-industrial)-are uneeestitutional on face and as applied to this Plaintiff pekes violate`the First A as applied to Plaintiff 70. The business lioenoing because they allowed the City Mergr unfettered discrete to suspend or invoke a•license necessary for speech without judicial approval and without any of the eve or procedund • protections required by / A1110,493 U.S.215,110 S.Ct.596(1990)and figt 489 U.S.46;109 S.Ct.916,928(1989). 71. The business licensing Ordinances violate the due process clause efts Fourteenth Amendment on their face and as applied because they allow for arbitrary,discriminatory,and even bad faiill decision-making,and do not provide a quick or effective poet-deprivation hearing 407 U.S.�67,92 S.Ct. 1983(1972);Sae. also, d as 1equired by - •J32 Niodea,345 F.3d 1225(11th Cir.2003),N F:3d 479(5th Cir.2013). O1 (License Revocation-Violation of First Amendment Rights—Facial Change) 72. ' , Plaintiff re-alley the facts set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 71 of this Complaint and incorporates those facts into this Count by reference. 73. This is an action for declaratory relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2201. 13 Case 1:18-cv-23269-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/10/2018 Page 14 of 50 74. Plaintiff asserts that its position set forth in this Complaint is legally sound and supported by fact and law.The City's action,however,have created a bonafide controversy and Mies with respect between the parties,and Plaintiff is in doubt as to its rights,privileges to the enforcement of the legislation at issue he ein. ant declaring its rights,privileges and 75. Plaintiff therefore requires a YJNdgrn actual, t� and bona fide justifiable controversy • {�unitiea.Thane is a cam,meant, between the parties. ��� ,Newall 76. The Ordinances,policies and actions of the City of� Daughtrey as above-described,are intended' to and have the actual effect of censoring Plaintiff's speech and preventing P1aintifffrom disseminating its message of pmrienca. 77. The Cum aid Desist order,revoking both the Occupational License and the Certificate of Use,violated Plaintiffs First Amendment right to expression aed imposed an unlawful prior restrain. 78. On their face,the subject Ordinances and resolution 18-9478 authorize the City Manager to impose a prior restraint in the form of an emergency closure order for alleged code Amendment does not tolerate s prior restraint withwrt career bmtive and procedural 79. The First Amen immediate post-deprivation safeguards.A cease and desist ceder.with noiprior judicial review and no hearing is a particularly egregious prior restraint. 80. The City Manager is empowered by Resolution 18-9478 and Ordinances,in his unfettered discretion, to declare and determine misrepresentations*of material fact occurred when obtaining the certificate of 'onal license and is authorized without notice to the occupant or owner of the property,to use and occ�ipab. suspend or revoke any Occupational License or Certificate of Use. There are no limits placed on the discretion of the City Manager;that discretion is absolute and unfettered. 14 Case 1:18-cv-23269-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/10/2018 Page 15 of 50 b Defendant,Newell DaughtreY under the authority Resolution 81. The cease and desist order,issued y when applied against First Amendment protected 18-9478 and§13.8 and§22.8,are unconstitutional protections required by�BS v� businesses because the orders lack the substantive and prOOedural Qfpjjy8,493 U.S.215, 110 S.Ct.596(1990). 1 uncoda+ they��the 82. The subject OrdinanCeS and Resolution 18-9478 are facially to' :a prior restraint on speech hn his unfettered a City Manager,Newell Daug�3►+ unpose: sere that does not afford a prompt administrative decision within a specified period provide for prompt judicial review;and does not maintain the Maas quo pending appeal to the justice ryste n. is �hearing.However the time for said hewing 83. The Ordinances nominally allow for apost-depri� Manager(or the Special.Master)at the unfettered discretion of the official,with no to be set by the City Se! safeguards that the bearing will occur in a timely fashion-or at all.Further the hearing Conshtutr'onal the City officer is a Special Master or"designee''of the City Manager and is selected by the City,paid by and whose future employment is obviously contingent on his or her allegiance to the City.This Process does not afford Plaintiff a fair and impartial bearing before a neutral trier of fact 84. The administrative decision to close Plaintiff's businesses tho a City Resolution was maw ugh' neither Resolution 18-9478 or$13.8 of without any judicial review or approval whatsoever.Fmth vide a specified brief period of ti me the City of Opa-Locka Ordinance nor the cease and desist order pro me administrative or judicial review of the City Manager's decision or the City Commission. 85. Neither the Ordinance, or Resolution 18-9487 nor the cease and desist order preserved the stows quo pending judicial review. 15 Case 1:18-cv-23269-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/10/2018 Page 16 of 50 85. The cease and desist order had much more than an incidental effect on Plaintiff's First expression as the order allowed no alternative avenues of communication Amendtn eat P� —an entire category of speech was prohibited. 86. The-Plaintiff has a constitutional right to present non-obscene erotic dance by performers over the age of majority.The arose and desist order prevented Plaintiff from exercising these rights and from presenting constitutionally protect expression.The cease and desist order still poses a threat to those speech rights as the Ordinance uslharizing the Defendant Newell Daughtrey to make unfettered decision about material alle gations still remain in effect. 87. Plaintiffs are entitled to a declamation of their rights. WfEREFORE,Plaintiff prays for the following relief A. That the Court take jurisdiction over the parties and this •B. the Court declare that the April 13,2018 cease and desist order violated Plaintiff's First Amendment rights; C. That the Court declare that Resolution 18-9478 §13.8 and§22.81 of the Opa Locks Code are unconstitutional on their face because those provisions violate Plaintiff's First Amendment rights; D. That the Court enter a perma1Cnt injunction forever enjoining the City from issuing cease and desist orders under 113.8 and§22.81 of the Opa Locka City Code in the absence of an order from a Court directing same; E. That the Court enter a judgment against the City of Opa Locka for compensatory damages to compensate Plaintiff for its losses. F. That this court award Plaintiff its recoverable,costs,including reasonable attorney's fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C.§1988; and 16 Case 1:18-cv-23269-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/10/2018 Page 17 of 50 G. That this Court award Plaintiff all other relief in law and in equity to which it may be entitled. COUNT` I 'License Revocation-Violatign of list AaNldmeat Risfits—As Annliadi Paragraphs 1 through 71 of this Complaint and 88.Phaiontiff'r+�-alle8es the facts set forth in irgtap incorporates those facts into this Count by reference. 89. This is an action for declaratory rOif pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2201. 90.Plaintiff asserts that its'position set forth in this Complaint is legally sound and supported by fact and law.The City's actions,ho4iever,have created a bona fide controversy between the parties,and Plaintiff is in doubt as to its rights,privileges and immunities with respect to the enforcement of the legislation at issue herein.Plaintiff therefore requires a declaratory judgment declaring its rights,privileges and immunities.Thee is a dear,present,actual, substantial,and bona fide justifiable controversy between the parties. 91.Even if the subject Ordinances are not unconstitutional on their face,they have been applied in such a manner as to intentionally deprive Plaintiff of its First Amendment rights by creating a prior restraint.That prior restraint is both created and removed in the sole discretion of the City Manager.Furthermore,that discretion has been intentionally abused with the purpose and effect of depriving Plaintiff of its First Amendment rights. 92. Resolution 18-9478,along with City of Opa Locka ordinances,policies and practices of the City of Opa-Locka and Newell J. Daughtrey as above-described,are intended to and have the actual effect of censoring Plaintiffs speech and preventing Plaintiff from disseminating its message of prurience. 17 Case 1:18-cv-23269-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/10/2018 Page 18 of 50 93. The cease and desist order,revoking both the Occupational License and the Certificate of Use,violated Plaintiff's First Amendment Right to expression and imposed an unlawful prior restraint. 94. The emergency cease and desist order was purportedly based upon alleged misrepresentation of material facts and not Upon a finding that an emaininey condition existed which created a danger to the community. 95. The restraint of revocation wasmmposed without prior notice to the Plaintiff,on the basis of a preliminary administrative determination only,and with no judicial review whattrver. 96.The revocation was baled on allegations that the licenses were obtained by misrepresentation of material fact and is not based on any physical defect in the pianists or other characteristics of the establishments,its employees or contractors.Neither lie revocation based upon the existence of a dangerous condition. 97. The revocation was not based on alaw of general application affecting all Wahiawa, but rather is based on resolution created for and specifically aimed at an establishment engaged in First Amendment protectediactivities. 98.The emergency revocation did not allege that what the alleged misrepresentation of material fact was. 99.The City Manager had no factual basis to believe that any misrepresentation occurred in obtaining the licenses would constitute a threat to the public health,safety or welfare 011ie citizens of Opa-Locka. 100. The revocation order in this instance is exactly the equivalent of closing an adult theater 18 .„ , Case 1:18-cv-23269-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/10/2018 Page 19 of 50 based on the showing of a single obscene movie without a prior judicial determination that future speech is unprotected.Such revocation orders have universally been deemed unconstitutional prior restraints See, e.g.,fort Wayne Books-Inc-v.Indiana,489 U.S.46, 109 S.Ct.916(1989). 101. The actions of the City of Opp-Locke and Newell I Daughtrey will and have deprived the Plaintiff of constitutional rim protected by the First Amami to the United States Constitution. WHEREFORI,Plaintiff prays for the following relict A. That the Court take jurisdiction over the parties and this cause; B. That the Coat declare that the closure order violated the First Amendment as applied to the Plaintiff; • C. That the Court declare that Resolution 18-9478§13.8 and§22.81 of the Opa-Locka Code are unconstitutional on their face because those provisions violate Plaintiffs First Amendment rights; D. That the Court enter a judgment against Defendant for compensatory damages to compensate Plaintiff for its losses. E. That this court award Plaintiff its recoverable costs recoverable costs,including reasonable attorney's fees pursriant to 42 U.S.C. §1988;and F. That this Court award Plaintiff all other relief in law and in equity to which it may be entitled. COUNT Ili (License Revocation-Violation of Due Process Rights—Facial Challenne-Findhiu of 102. Plaintiff re-alleges the facts set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 71 of this Complaint and incorporates those facts into this Count bar reference. 19 Case 1:18-cv-23269-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket-08/1012018 Page 20 of 50 . 103. This is an action for declaratory relief pursuant to 28,U.S.C. §2201. 104. Plaintiff asserts that its position set forth in this Complaint is legally sound and supported by fact and law. The City's actions,however,have created a bona fide controversy between the parties,and Plaintiff is in doubt as to its rights,privileges and immunities with respect to the enforcement of the legislation at issue harem.Plaintiff therefore require a declaratory judgment declaring its rights,privileges abd imunities.There is a clear,present,actual, substantial,and bona fide justifiable controversy between the parties. 105: Plaintiff has a clear legal right to provide exotic entertainment to consenting adult patrons without fear of retaliatory conduct and selective enforcement by the City.Such communication . is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.Furthermore, • government soda. ctions to enforce local laws must afford due process to Plaintiff and similarly situated businesses. • 106. §13.8 of Opa Locka city Codes give the City Manager unbridled discretion to determine whether a misrepresentation occurred in an application which would allow him to revoke the license. 107. The code does not adequately constrain the discretion of the City Manager because it specifically confers on the City Manager the ability to deprive a citizen of its property based solely on the City Manager's personal opinion that an misrepresentation occurred,and in the situation at hand the City Manager to date has never informed the Plaintiffs of what the misrepresentation had been. 108. The other provisions of the subject Ordinances provide for notice and a public hearing to occur prior to the revocation of any license however it appears that the Resolution 18-9478 has 20 Case 1:18-cv-23269-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/10/2018 Page 21 of 50 expanded the authority of the City Manager to issue such orders as he chooses in his unfettered discretion. 109. The inadequacies of the statutory definition are reflected in their application to the Plaintiff in this case.There was no evidence before the City of Opa-Locka that the alleged misrepresentation of material fact occurred and material misrepresentation was not recited in the cease and desist order. 110. Therefore,if there had been an emergency,that emergency had been fully abated and there was no continuing"serious danger"'Ito the public health,safety or welfare.The emergency closure in this case could not be justified on the basis of§13.8 of Opa-Locka Codes,as when read with the other sections of the code it appears§13.8 allows for punishment in the form of fines or arrest not revocation. 111. Although he subject Ordinances provide for notice and opportunity tube heard at a due process hearing to validate the emergency administrative determination.,it appears that • Defendant,Newell Daughtrey acted under-the authority of Resolution 18-9478 and issued a cease and desist letter to revoke the license without any type of opportunity to dispute the allegations. 112. The City of Opa-Locka prevented the Plaintiffs from using any administrative remedy as the City Commission acted sua-sponte to close the business of the Plaintiff 113. No judicial review can be had until'the post deprivation hearing is unilaterally set by the City and a decision is rendered;i.e. administrative remedies must be exhausted before a citizen can turn to the Courts for review. 114. This process of creating a resolution to close the Plaintiffs business does not afford Plaintiff a fair and impartial hearing before a neutral trier of fact. 21 Case 1:18-cv-23269-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/10/2018 Page 22 of 50 115. The subject Ordinances along with Resolution 18-9478are therefore unconstitutional on their face because: a. They do not provide for pyre-deprivation notice and an opportunity to be heard before the seizure and loss of property and speech rights; b. In those rare cases where exigent circumstances justify action without prior notice or a hearing there;is no guaranty of an immediate post-deprivation hearing to chafange the revocation order. c. There are no limits on the City Manager's discretion and there are no guidelines or standards td curtail his unbridled discretion. d. Resolution 18-9478 is neither neutral nor impartial. WHEREFORE,Plaintiff prays for the following relief: A. That the Court take Jurisdiction over the parties and this cause; B. That the Court declare that the cease and desist order issued against ' Plaintiff violated Plaintiff's due process rights; C. That the Court declare thatResolution 18-9478 §13.8 and§22:81 of the Opa-Locka Code are unconstitutional on their face because those provisions violate Plaintiff's due process rights; D. That the Court enter a permanent injunction forever enjoining the City from issuing emergency cloeure orders Resolution 18-9478§13.8 and§22.81 of the Opa-Locka Code in the absence of an order from a Court directing same; E. That the Court enter:a judgment against the City of Opa Locks and Newell Daughtrey for compensatory damages to compensate Plaintiff for its losses. 22 Case1:18-cv-23269-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/10/2018 Page 23 of 50 F. That this court award Plaintiff its recoverable costs,including reasonable attorney's fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1988;and CL That this Court award Plaintiff all other relief in law and in equity to which it maybe entitled. • COUNT IV (License Revocadpn-Violation of Due Process Riahts—Facial Challenge— - 116. Plaintiff re-alleges the facts set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 71 of this Complaint and • incorporates those facts into this Count by reference. 117. This is an action for declaratory relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2201. 118. Plaintiff assets that its position set forth in this Complaint is legally sound and supported by fact and law.The City of Opa-Locks's actions,however,have created a bona fide controversy between the parties,and Plaintiff is in doubt as to its rights,privileges and immunities with respect to the enforct of the legislation at issue herein.Plaintiff therefore require a declaratory judgment declaring its rights,privileges and immunities. There is a clear,present, actual;substantial,and bona fide justifiable controversy between the parties. 119. Plaintiff has a clear legal right to provide intimate entertainment to c ones Ling adult patrons without fear of retaliatory conduct and selective enforcement by the City of Opa-locks. . Such communication is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Furthermore,government actions to enforce local laws must afford due process to Plaintiff and similarly situated businesses. 120. The subject Ordinances along with Resolution 18-9478 give the City Manager unbridled discretion to determine whether an misrepresentation of material fact exists that would justify a cease and desist order. 23 Case 1:18-cv-23269-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/10/2018 Page 24 of 50 121. The subject Ordinances and City resolution do not require any prior notice to the landowner or party in possession before revoking business licenses and requiring a business to close;Le.,there are no provisions for pm-deprivation notice. 122. The subject Ordinances and City Resolution do not require that the landowner or party in possession be afforded a hearing before the City Manager issues revocation orders and directs the closure of businesses;i.e.,there aro no provisions for a pre-deprives hearing, 123: The subject Ordinances along with Resolution 18-9478 are therms unconstitutional on their face because: A. They do not provide for pre-deprivation notice and an opportunity to be heard prior to the seizure of property and the loss of property and speech rights; B. They afford the decision maker(the City Manager)unfettered discretion and do- not limit the issuance of cease and desist orders to exigent circumstances; C. In those rare cases where exigent circumstances justify action without prior notice or a. hearing,' there are no provisions for an immediate post deprivation hearing to challenge the closure order. 137. The absolute power of the City Manager to declare that an application had a material misrepresentation and then order the closure of Plaintiff's establishment without prior notice is an unconstitutional in&ingernent upon Plaintiffs Fourteenth Amendment right to due process. 138. The subject Ordinances and Resolution- 18-9478 do not provide for notice and an opportunity to be heard before issuance of a cease and desist order and closure of a business. 139. In the rare case where exigent circumstances may actually be present, the subject Ordinances do not provide for an immediate or effective post-deprivation hearing. 140. Plaintiff is entitled to a declaration of its rights. WHEREFORE,Plaintiff prays for the following relief. 24 Case A.18-cv-23269-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/10/2018 Page 25 of 50 A. That the Court take jurisdiction over the parties and this cause; • B. That the Court declare that Resolution 18-9478 §13.8 and §22.81 of the Opa- Locka Code are unconstitutional on their face because those provisions violate Plaintiff's due process rights; C. ; That the Court enter a permanent ikon forever enjoining the City from • issuing emergency closure orders Resolution 18-9478 §13.8 and §22.81 of the Opa- Locke Code in the absence of an order from a Court directing same; D. That the Court enter a judgment against Defendant City of Opa-Locka and Defendant,Newell J. Daughtrey for compensatory damages to compensate Plaintiff for its losses. E. That this court award Plaintiff its recoverable, including reasonable attorney's fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1988;and F. That this Court award Plaintiff all other relief in law and in equity to which it may be entitled. COUNT V V 141. Plaintiff re-alleges the facts set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 71 of this Complaint and incorporates those facts into this Count by reference. 142. This is an action for declaratory relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2201. 143. Plaintiff asserts that its position se forth in this Complaint is legally sound and supported by fact and law.The City's actions,however,have created a bona fide controversy between the parties,and Plaintiff is in doubt as to its rights,privileges and immunities with 25 Case 1:18-cv-23269-DPG- Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/10/2018 Page 26 of 50 respect to the enforcement of the legislation at issue herein.Plaintiff therefore requires a declaratory judgment declaring its rights,privileges and immunities.There is a clear,present, f actual,substantial,and bona fide justifiable controversy between the parties. 144. Plaintiff has a clear legal right to provide exotic entertainment to consenting adult patrons without fear of retaliatory conduct and selective enforceinatt by the City.Such communication is protected under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.Furthermore, government actions to enforce local laws must afford due process to'Plaintiff and similarly situated businesses. 145. The cease and desist order issued by the City Manager to the Plaintiff was inadequate and failed to afford due process to the Plaintiff.Plaintiff alleges the following particulars: A.The cease and desist order issued by the City Manager did not identify what the misrepresentation of material fact was; B.The cease and desist order issued by the City Manager did not provide a hearing date at which Plaintiff could appear and contest or•defend against the alleged violations. C. The cease and desist order issued by the City Manager did not inform Plaintiff that it had a right to challenge the revocation. D.The cease and desist order did not advise Plaintiff of when the post-deprivation hearing. would be held and no other notice of hearing was delivered contemporaneously or at any time after service of the order. 146. There were no exigent circumstances or serious danger present in the instant case. 147. The subject Ordinances along with Resolution 18-9478 did not require any prior notice to the landowner or party in possession before issuing a revocation order or directing the closure of a business. 26 Case 1:18-cv-23269-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/10/2018 Page 27 of 50 148. The subject Ordinances and Resolution 18-9478 did not require that the landowner or party in possession be afforded a hearing before the City Manager issues a revocation order. 149. The subject Ordinances and Resolution 18-9478 do not require that the City to set a "prompt"public hearing before the Special Master and to give immediate notice of that hearing, . although no specific time periods are established. 150. The City revoked Plaintiff's certificate of use and occupational license on Friday,April 13, 2018,without any pre-deprivation notice or hearing. 151. The Cease and Desist order did'not advise Plaintiff of its rights to challenge the administrative determination and did not provide notice of when the hearing before the Special Master would take place. 152. Procedural Due Process requires that an aggrieved person be accorded notice and opportunity to be heard"at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.". 153. If exigent circumstances exists the provision of the notice and hearing may be postponed until after the deprivation has occurred. 154. In this case,a prompt hearing Would necessarily mean"within.a matter of days",however the Plaintiff has never been afforded either, Plaintiff alleges the following particulars: 155. The interests at stake are vital and pertain to two fundamental constitutional rights: a. Plaintiff's First Amendment right of free speech along with the associated rights of Plaintiff's performers and patrons; b. Plaintiffs livelihood is threatened as its business was closed at the direction of the City Manager with no Court approval or review. 156. There is a substantial probability that the determination of exigent circumstances and the decision to close the business were both erroneous. That error is manifest on the face of the revocation order: the supposed emergency ithreat,if.previously existing, did not exist at the time 27 Case 1:18-cv-23269-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/10/2018 Page 28 of 50 the order was issued. The risk that First Amendment rights could be wrongfully impaired— or burdened to an improper extent—was and is extremely high. 157. The City failed to set an immediate post-deprivation hearing.As a result,Plaintiffs business has been closed for almost four months without Court review or an opportunity to challenge the City Manager's decision or learn what the material misrepresentation was. 158. The revocation of Plaintiff's licenses violates the Due Process Clause as applied because the City failed to make available or conduct a prompt post-deprivation hearing. 159. Plaintiff is entitled to a declaration of its rights. WHEREFORE,Plaintiff prays fur•the following relief: A. That the Court take jurisdiction over the parties and this cause; B. That the Court•declare that the cease and desist order and closure of Plaintiff's business violated the Due Process Clause as applied to the Plaintiff; C. That the Court declare that Resolution 18-9478 §13.8 and§22.81 of the Opa Locka Code' are unconstitutional on their face because those provisions are unconstitutional as applied to Plaintiff because they were employed to violate Plaintiffs due process rights. E. That the Court enter a judgment against the City or Opa Locica and Newall J..Daughtrey for compensatory damages to compensate Plaintiff for its losses. F. That this court award Plaintiff its recoverable costs, including reasonable attorney's fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1988;and G. That this Court award Plaintiff all other relief in law and in equity to which it may be entitled. 28 Case 1:18-cv-23269-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/10/2018 Page 29 of 50 COUNT VI( kid lalni it+rasa Ration Viaiatton of Firm Amendment and Due Process Rlnhts-_Ba FsL 160. Plaintiff re-alleges the facts,set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 71 of this Complaint and incorporates those facts into this-Count by reference 161. This is an action for declaratory relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§2201. 162. Plaint'*sects that its position set`forth in this Complaint is legally sound and supported by fact and law,The City's actions,however,have created a bona fide controversy between the parties, and Plaintiff is in doubt as to its rights, privileges and immunities with respect to the enforcement of the legislation at issue herein.Plaintiff therefore requires a declaratory judgment declaring its rights, privileges and immunities. There is a clear,present, actual, substantial, and bona fide justifiable controversy between the parties. 163. The declaration of emergency in this case was entirely made up.The purported violation, if in fact it aver existed,was a material misrepresentation of fact on the license applications. 164.. The decision to revoke Plaintiff s business license and certificate of use for an indefinite period was punitive and was not tied to any facts or circumstances of this case. 165. lhuthermore, the City had an obligation to follow their own code and afford notice an opportunity to be heard prior to the revocation of the Plaintiffs licenses. 166. The City utilized the subject Ordinances and resolution 18-9478 against Plaintiff for bad faith,pre-textual and retaliatory reasons because of Plaintiff's prior conduct involving the City. 167. Likewise,the cease and-desist order issued by the Newell I. Daughtrey was not limited to the adult entertainment,but rather the lounge and restaurant were also ordered to be closed by police force. The closure order required that the entire business be closed, thereby prohibiting any associated speech activities. 29 - - Case 1:18-cv-23269-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/10/2018 Page 30 of 50 168. Furthermore, without any opportunity to cure the perceived emergency,speaks for itself. This is a punitive measure,brought in bad faith,and constitutes retaliation against Plaintiff for its . previous refusal to offer the amount of$650,000.00 to the City of Opa-L.ocka as suggested by the City Attorney Vincent Brown in the meeting that occurred on April 4,2018.The cease and desist I 3 order is an attempt to extort the Plaintiff for monies and further silence the Plaintiffs right's erotic expression and speech and to violate its due process rights. 169. The emergency cease and desist'order has much more than an incidental effect on Plaintiff's First Amendment protected expression as the order allowed no alternative avenues of communication—an entire category of speech was prohibited. 170. Reliance on the subject Ordinances and Resolution 18-9478 as a basis for the Opa • L.ocks's emergency cease and desist orders was entirely, pre-textual. The City knew or reasonably should have known that Plaintiffs business did not pose an immediate threat or serious danger to the health,safety or welfare of the community. 171. The closure order was motivated entirely by an intent to harass Plaintiff and deny its right of free speech and access to the Courts. 172. Moreover, the City chose to issue the license revocation on a Friday at 4:00 PM., thus preventing any immediate Court redress as well as additional economic hardship because the forced closure occurred during the more lucrative weekend period. 179. Plaintiff is entitled to a declaration of its rights. WHEREFORE,Plaintiff prays for the following relief: A. That the Court take jurisdiction over the parties and this cause; B. That the Court declare that the revocation order and the closure of Plaintiff's business violated Plaintiff's First Amendment due process rights; 30 _ Case 1:18-cv-23269-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/1W2018 Page 31 of 50 C. That the Court declare that Resolution 18-9478 §13.8 and'§22.81 of the Opa- Locke Code are unconstitutional on their face because those provisions are unconstitutional as applied to the Plaintiff because they were employed to violate Plaintiffs First Amendment and due.process rights. D. That the Court enter a permanent injunction forever enjoining the City and from issuing emergency closure orders under the subject Ordinances in the absence of an Order from a Court directing same; • E. That the Court enter a judgment against the City of Opa Locka and Newall J.Daughtr ey for compensatory damages to compensate Plaintiff for its losses. F. That this court award Plaintiff its recoverable costs, including reasonable attorney's fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1988;and O. That this Court award Plaintiff all other relief in law and in equity to which it may be entitled. LAW OFFICE OF RAVEN LIBERTY,P.A. 1175 N.E. 125TH Street,Ste.215 Miami,FL 33161 Telephone: 305-459-0756 Facsimile: 305-459-4457 Pleadings.libeny@gmail.com Libert fficx2l • s/Raven Ramona Liberty Raven Ramona Liberty,Esq. Fl.Bar#698431 31 Case 1:18-cv-23269-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/10/2018 Page 32 of 50 • 32 Case 1:18-cv-23269-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/10/2018 Page 33 of 50 • EXHIBIT 1 . Kte.e, d----,..... chi OF OPA,LOCIC4 OCCUPATIONAL UMW APPIXATION as, . _, ..,.., ....dlr. ,_, •••-,„... •arege..m., i • aldiellopilre WI 1 cArg 'Vet- KAM Ciaeloglino MI 12:40.: rt""'r , Mt.MIK 1.11 111.11adri kwidier efirmi...... sus TOTALs •ed' EaliNelllirraptsi -5 UMMON # $■.-.....- w-P zie"VALet.' OPP4M4 Mr!. aliP ' % reAltn#4153g„ 871t0 _ ,..• •-; ' 7.- • illanigagilialidlighill".111411111111111111111Milah 2101 i ' 1., - .., . . =4„,..—: iic.....kr, -,,,ort.i.ilif.,,simhiludowisomd"'. . - -.,...: gams . . . . — , p a 4G... sva, ... soavirmounnrmormate , .. . rellOPAPROMIONOWO() , crommet)ipsauriu.C. )M.• 1 ' ' ' () " 2, PONECPUINIMMIMMIXIAL().psiarowspc)comitgrom t)gook4) , NUMMILCIPIPOL01116. . 1 ••• .‘.. iamminiammo owe irmixicrive. -A41 lir r-ervitt,A p-1 in W 4a I ma i k,T.c,eir. • — s , --r Tr- liWIrr.rib.=.11 •• • • _ • MIMS 11111111111 klITAIL-- 11+0 17 • MAILING Acisimucianomai. WM IIIVALID 1011111 WINO . • . . . . , . ammerratmaseruicrOCCUICI6LLICINIBIllaiAlTACIlionoreemasinte : " a CRAIIIMIUtt Wale MIMI OMB() • ice. . t . . i mixsampleg saw . . • . • idleart4pea . i t , • ..,1 , -plarpassuastabwappwawirionsidetipailloprumpopeat A . ,. _ at iimine______§ i p _ =..,w.. T1 . l,i iv 11 111111 • J t ii1:17/:7. 41r1.... . 1 Vor„.- 0 41'Ai . dirf P4P1 I,aNiejlefiEVIIIIiiiinlidariMill iligelaaldallelb.1 silaruottlgitgaw.:111141411111 sitegnouHauttarmbildinetiobs OmpolsolLisra 164orplamsidisimpiCillsiliihrtblail • imuipbsiprititill oda%iv"*Obi vat,jimilikrealkstrootsjogetio solliiiditialw sal airlimstall aft ihalliiNswINIipitsitiZ as claigonlisluilia uptadfig eis geskool,RAN*rialittlialte 40.44ada foam a=sellemidirtiravidItikamegildulkilidsiost oar Noir imams wall esOodoeseilipmaiblim 111141)*Pk* sollhilibibImemanologol• • 1 2. - - •/ I ky4 .. toiroitiogi- -40-i4v- % • ------.----*----t;-..... DM ?. 1111014/41URIANDYITLB ...e_____ - DAY. WORM°AND 11111111011110 BUMS MIBINNI / • AI. ./1.4•! ... ,1. I' ■ # 1 . frA.18011 FLORIDA 1 _ rf 18 TialUBDINI 01M1111111110111111Liff • tert coafturs4 onus: Torsameccaus.-irtnocanwoir YOURDOCIMINCIL 1 Nit? BADAMEOBDISON 1 (t 35 MT cow:saw RIMS I 40, icatuammaiiis 1 Case 1:18-cv-23269-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/10/2018 Page 34 of 50 EXHIBIT 2 • VIBINICATION FORM uomasoWalatikotairm st rit papileillielgialliablas - . IMMINSION111 000.1•016111paAliwiti itge i �T, - Hll T t � • s T • oswevaiiimaimmitiminioiosisOuliheOlisdliareimisisimmilisrammilftelmans wMa...f -, ., -l... I i.o.,+► - .aa .wrr._ ..+r..ra.w-- s.+r --a.�,.nw..- S..-.� '++�wrw"wr...q-S.rs.-' wli, • =r, osirrir...21P, Ar a +.1111.- .14 ofroplIPII NW 1111101,1119”c, ‘/M1/41.41:1110. 1046014/1161.00,hiih■geW1111! Case 1:18-cv-23269-DPG Document 1. Entered on FLSD Docket-08/10/2018 Page 35 of 50 EXHIBIT3___.................................. r /1P . . 41, , , +. tw deml orw w �: alit il . aping!N== I4P g 0 A. 4s ..& 1 4 IwMiisyi c Vof/ 'AJ•s✓ j ri4,0 it IA. #-Q, -y_ , ‘ I owl ireata.alai ElalpOsit ,4 Ous4Wsiesmt. 1irts Astri tt • Min i M limbos In Dena psdeds as,of _ I i jc . i •lssiws Owls:_ ,, - • ` oworMirsu t "- . 1 . —i tide-Ilium...._____ +piosstM/nhon iI.. t . A fi« �br.irr t_ i '. i Mil =,- irlosakriliLITIL,71M111= 'v. :IV ! 4; ❑ llsM►Os�ftorls tJss ❑ Dam ❑ i d of Urs ❑ Apposed Uaidao�sx �� , � 1 D 4....40, F t t 17 gm IVr-_Ji T wwiroreirMm► i G r ,r.r r i r I- . Case 1:18-cv-23269-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/10/2018 Page 36 of 50 EXHIBIT 4 • • • • t • • swami mmoviamma t wroe W ' • ,; 1411° IRA .�..---_--- ----- • yW,isrta111.1100010416 • • • Case 1:18-cv 23269-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/10/2018 Page 37 of 50 EXHIBIT 4 . Q....?)."- . . . }. I i t 1' . S . ci t' �o'�'.1 - mot ,, •• • 1i • - . _4-.A i'. +Oflhf 1122,144.4414"' . 1-Alittgatr'.77 . ti' r cwt Yeartlia Case 1:18-cv-23269-DPG Document 1 : Entered on FLSD Docket 08/10/2018 Page 38 of 50 EXHIBIT 5 .:1) : , • . _. .... .... . :......... ... _. _.i. _._ ...._ ---W --: ....: _.• . ..:a. isitoftv&iire. . . • • i _ • i. • ,. r + • A • • t 1 I • • { 4 if Case 1:18-cv-23269-DPG Document 1< Entered on FLSD Docket 08/10/2018 Page 39 of 50 EXHIBIT 6 ili ) ; BIG Cwt FOXIINOSALC - 8i[6iU#mi-81'- . 3Pt9 . • • ,, 'UMW DIN*.iit011iPOIMON 9 Ott 0100. . _ �: - -- : '~� ` vi,,,• � ♦•ei'..L ,ii.. pi . � � s �N R • Ya +t`- :t - -. ter tit mtt WWII .,l•, � t : a, QIVNIM AiiO a :— - ��� 1 'w!: 424114441441) : 41104,Aft4/141141.--. --Case-±:18-cv=23269-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket-08/10/2018 Pane 40 ofS0 -- �IBI 1 Sponsored by: Vice Mayor Kelley • • RESOLUTION NO.18.9478 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF OPA-LOCKA,FLORIDA,AUTHORIZING THE CLOSURE OF KLUB • 24 AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO DO ALL THAT IS NECESSARY TO ENSURE THE CLOSURE OFKLUB 24 UNTIL iT IS • • IN FULL COMPLIANCE WITH ALL STATE, COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL LAWS AND ORDINANCES;• PROVIDING FOR. INCORPORATION OF RECITALS; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE•DATE. WHEREAS,the Section 22-76 of the City of Opa-Ikea Code of Ordinances defines an Adult Business as follows: Any premises within the city where memb1rs of the public,or any person • for consideration,-are offered any live or:receded performance, or any visual image tangibly fixed in any medium, which performance,`image, or recording has•as its primary or •.• •i'rant theme subject matter depicting,describing,or relating to specifi r• sexual activities or specified • • anatomical areas, and which performance, recording, or visual image requires the exclusion of minors from the!premises pursuant to F.S. ch. • 847;and • WHEREAS,Section 22.81,permitted"Use Table-Industrial Districts,requires adult businesses in the I-2 district to be approved via a special exception;and • - WHEREAS, a special exception must be reviewed and approved by the City's Planning Council,and ultimately approved by the(ity Commission;and • WHEREAS, the City of Opa-Locka Code of Ordinances addresses adult themed . entertainment-in conjuction-with the sale of alcohol'undegr a.separate section: • Sec.417:-Total or'partial mdlty and : • conduct prohibited. • • (a) It shall be unlawful for any person- • .; twining, owning, managing or operating an alcoholic- beverage establishment to knowingly, or with reason to know,suffer or permit total or partial nudity or sexual conduce to occur On the premises of that alcoholic beverage establishment (b) It shall be unlawful for any person, While on the premises of an alcoholic beverage establishment,to expose'to public-view-those portions of his or her anatomy, defined herein as total or partial nudity,-or engage. in any sexual conduct (c) It shall be unlawful for any person meinjtaining, owning, managing or • operating an alcoholic•beverage establishirrent to knowingly, or with reason to know, suffer or permit- the exposition of any graphic representation to public view, including photographs, videotapes or film projection,which depicts total or partial nudity or sexual conduct;and Case 1:18-cv-23269-DP-G -Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/10/2018 Page 41 of 50 • Resolution No. 18-9478 WHEREAS,ache City of Opa-Locka Cock of Ordinances addresses the permissible hours for the sale of alcohol in night clubs in the following section: Sec.4.5.-Hours for nightclubs. ° Nightclubs shall be governed by the restrictions hereinabove set forth, except that no nightclub or owner, operator or employee thereof shall admit customers to its premises, nor sell,'serve, offer to sell,.allow to be consumed or delivered any alcoholic or intoxicating beverages to any person or persons between the hours of 5:00 a.m. and' 11:00 a.m. on weekdays and between the hours of 5:00 alm. and 5:00 p.m. on Sundays. Nightclubs may remain open one-half hourafter the sale and consumption of alcoholic or intoxicating beverages is prohibited herein. • WHEREAS,. pursuant to Section 13-31 of the City of.Opa-Locka Code of Ounces the City Manager shall have the authority to refuse the issuance of or revoke any license or permit issdedd as authorized by this Code;and WHEREAS, an adult entertainment estabhshmen4;Klub 24, opened in the City without obtaining Planning Council and City Commission approval;and • WHEREAS, the City Attorney issued opinions on February 12th and 28th, 2018 (EXHIBIT"A"),advising,the City Commission that Klub 24"is not permitted to operate an adult entertainment business within the City of Opa Locka at this time.";and WHEREAS,the City Commission finds that it is in the best interest of the City that the City Manager take all necessary steps to revoke Klub 24's license to operate an adult entertainment establishment, until it is in full.conjplianc a with all apiicable laws and City ordinances. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF OPA LOCKA,FLORIDA: I baba Essa The recitals to the preamble herein arc incorporated by reference. • A, • The City Commission hereby authorized the closure of Klub 24 and directs the City Manager to do all that is necessary to ensurie the closure of Klub 24 until it is in full compliance with all State,County and Municipal,laws and ordinances ,;ion 3,SCR1VENER'S ERRORS. { Sec�ons of this Resolution may be renumbered or re-lettered and corrections of typographical errors which do not affect the intent may be authorized by the City .Manger,or the City Manager's designee,without need of public hearing,by filing a - corrected copy of same with the City Clerk. • Case 1:18-cv-23269-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/10/2018 Page 42 of 50 Resolution No. 18-9478 • lktifIBARIUMEDage This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon adoption and is subject to the approval of the Governor or his designee. • PASSED AND ADOPTED fide at day og Nub,2018. • • /At L.Taylor . A' - to: Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: J Roses THE BROWN LAW GROUP,LLC. • -Cita • • City Attorney • Moved by: • VICE MAYOR KELIISY Seconded by: COMMISSIONER NO-Arr Coinmissioner Vote: _ 3-2 Commissioner Holmes: YES • Commiuioner Riley: NO • • Commissioner Pigatt: YES • Vice Mayor Kelley: YES Mayor Taylor NO • • • • • • •• Case 1:18-c v 23269-RPM _Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/10/2018 .Page 43 of 50 EXHIBIT ••it .. 4?` '2p•7 f .2.274=. w.10,:tr�''...1''(• . L d ..�.i •``k. J.74e,.-,4•h. rj •t. 1-1 t• +. .. ��.z may`' „" , (. . a 4,.,4 ':� %4h. F tr...:4 �. •∎'' ` X " `is' + �" Sys'_ x..4 "iv `' 4.�.h Q.tr n :.-i '+4Y..{• -,01.i^-,-•,:...§-.' •� • i a • {""d-i{d 'L.h -.. .. '"' +• {�- "'+.Y: "'"-4- fi„r.•o.'4%d::;,i"•r."+4. ' t h•'1.3' ''' . It-'41744P-,2;-=;-;_s R- . y E `f,• ;1:41'"V;Y €'';:1 Y ! R K 4 r;; �� .V i ". .f. '14.4h�'i"•. ',I,- f4.'"::1_1-,....Zr•�, kt:• •��4,} '.sR�,F ti :]"14 y.1...ti. ? 4_,, a hw•:.�s, .ii+' < `� 5,'. - 1 ri � 2 �•".i �,-4.,.,/..;.°.i'-',,,* y ••'*Z+. . 4'�7^'+"gM1v ,fitu. r"# v-,•�,ya ''''""- .--*V-,-".. s '''_ _ -- `,l ,y, ` q ` y', �.,. s..i _..,.'+,•...A...".,-,.-4'.-,. •_ • >t. •,.w►, h t„• y` - - -- ... �' i• F i'•'�5 ...r''�� .. `^hi g rC'1 , •_ di y. +i, ;.�'.,.. :•- •ham, ' . .. 4sit. ham. 4 - a 1. 'i +' . ` 4 ;.•'54 ti`,. -' r, _ , + - ,n 4 ..s:.. 't 'w'ti `''tip ' .iw `R h`•'; y. •.1 4,-,...t-_--,-4;,..".-,� .y_' -4, - :=.,t- ,,,.'-',- ,.'i= '..'p'4..''''.:71'A',4'-7.i ts4..4:'''t. 4 .47i7.,11.4.-'''..,`11'.. . .-i.„"‘. 7} ht',.. a •- ` K, ...~y..,,, `4 3 k fi� k``' ..s -7,.N-- 'f•ice: t"1 3 tk`.R •y.., i` 't �. Fti 77w-- 'i."" `•...', ` + S k Y'a , " ham '"'• • • ‘,,, u c 4"; +iC'y 7* c' - ' 1i i� , t+dt ir4. ' '•tr c.,J. i 7 1. a. J t _ • • t I i Gase1:18-cv-23269-DPG Document 1 • Entered on FLSD Docket 08/10/2018 Page 44 of 50 EXHIBIT 9 Sec.13-8.-Fraudulently obtained licenses void,ab initio. Any license obtained under the provisidns of this article upon a misrepresentation of a material fact shall be deemed null and voidq and the licensee who has thereafter engaged in any business under such license shall be subject to prosecution for doing business without a license, to the same extent and degree as though np such license had ever been issued. (Code 1955,§14-2.3) • • • Case 1:18-cv-23269-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/10/2018 Page 45 of 50 EXHIBIT 10 Plonakq&Community Gregory D.Gay,Director Development Deparbnent 780 I+fiiem=Street,4th Floor • J+1"ir nom (305)953-230 Opa-ieeka,FL 33854 Fax: (385)553.3860 May 10th,2018 B&G Opa Land Holding LLC dba Klub 24 [Sent Via Email to Raven liberty,Esq.] [Former Crabby's Restaurant and Retail Space] 3699 NW 135th Street, Opa locka,FL 33054 RE: Review for to operate a Restaurant&Lounge Business Use at 3699 NW 135 Street Owners/Proprietors of Klub 24, The City of Opa-locks PCD Staff met with Ms.Raven Liberty,Esq.on April 24th regarding the process for Nightclub and Adult Business Use.At this meeting we discussed the process for the application submittal to request Special Exception and Restricted Covenant approval of your nightclub&aduk business use at the aforementioned address. Also discussed was the use of the property as a restaurant and lounge on an interim bases.Based on review by the City Attorney's Office,this letter is being provide to address the concerns raised. The property under discussion is located at the north east comer of NW 135 Street and the LeJeune-Douglas Connector is a 9-bay retail/restaurant building which is approximately a 14,000 SF structure on a 60,000 SF lot with 49 parking spaces. The property is zoned 1-2 Industrial Planned with a MXUOD-Mixed Use Overlay District, and the land use for this property is Commercial. The property owner(s) wants to use the former restaurant space, which is approximately 5,000 SF as a restaaurant/lounge with a nightclub/adult business. • Per your inquiry, the Planning & Community Development Department Staff have been informed, as of April 30th,the owners of Klub 24 are now interested in opening the venue as a restaurant and lounge. As this item was previously review by PCD staff on July 13th, 2017, the proposed use as a Restaurant and Lounge at this location is permitted, subject to an administrative review which include the requirements and conditions necessary for this use to be allowed, and a specific timeline for addressing these issues of concern of the city zoning regulations concerning the permitted uses of an industrial zoned property within the corridor mixed use overlay and the previously submitted license request it was determined that Klub 24 could operate only a restaurant and lounge at the 3699 NW 135'k Street location subject to the requirements and conditions necessary for this use. Case 1:18-cv-23269-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/10/2018 Page 46 of 50 Based on this location's previous use as a restaurant, and the certified survey provided that depicts that the restaurant space where liquor will be sold for onsite and offsite consumption is more than 1000 linear feet from schools,churches,parks and residential properties,that this use should be permitted. The survey must be provided to City staff for verification and administrative review.Additionally,there are concerns related to the proximity of this restaurant and lounge use to the charter school operation located at 3400 NW 13516 Street and staff therefore recommends consideration of a restriction on the hours of operation and onsite consumption of liquor may need to be imposed less than 24 hours consumption. PCD , II ...A'S. 11 S:•.• 4 IJ I •• ILY,I! � S I , �I.• II•ur 1If i1r! i _ 01. Wt.11 and 12 noon to Sam Friday and Saturday. As it relates to the restaurant and lounge operation, the sale by the drink for consumption on premises is prohibited after the hours of serving or consumption of food have elapsed and at least 51%of its gross revenue will be from the service of food and non-alcoholic beverages to sell or serve alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises.Documentation must be provided monthly. I!_-- I /11 '� :__. It.. I ��!S_lyS)I •I 11 L-:.I:I I !III/ I I •t. II : l•ti!.!il I mine to be interpreted as an adult business and is not permitted by right. This use will i.!l!i LL !I :u.'c i1 SIB« �.I�i•it L--1 or slit to !_i }I I•I.- • 1 1. 1)1 , I .'I UV, ' •� ' I. � :L.' 1 j «..1 :LI r' '51•;Oi $ OI I���S: BSI I1�. II - Y_r I I ,II • • 'AL a L L .'.J I�I!'11_ _.'��� 1I_-' I al,« LI �, .�I :l11•.'1 f.l to I . 1 111 ,'In I ' • 11111 V S,1 1; •'• I.: II .+ / /'I :II 1 approval. Until this process has been completed and approved, No Adult Business Use can or shall occur in any form on this property.or your business will be subject to fines.citations.loss of COICU USIGI ure and Liquor Licerosure. We look forward to doing business with you in an appropriate and professional mom er and we are willing to assist you in resolving this matter. If you have any questions,please contact me or a member of my staff at 305-953-2868 x-1503. Thank you for helping us make our City Great! Sincerely, Gregory D.Gay,Director cc. Newell Daughtiey,Imprint City Manager Vincent Brawn,City Attorney Michelle Samaroo,Assist.City Attorney Joanna Flares,City Clerk Bain Daniel Alsia,Building Official,Director Gerald Lee,Zoning Official/Planner }m -• Case 1:18-cv-23269-DPG Document 1 Entered-on FLSD Docket 08110/2M-Page 47 of 50 WCHIBIT 11 rs.t '.r THE CITY OF ORA-LOCRA POLICE DEPARTMENT Patrol Service Agreement Off-Duty Officers Agreement This Agreement to provide off- y Opa.tocka,ce Officers is entered into between: Ithib24 054)6434 ? 5eriteAddreir./411.6 24 3699 Nit t35"Sneed' • Ope-logs,nerlda 33054 perg 2748328 AND • SIOVICi Provider; Oty of Om-locks Poke Department tPo a ors)(01201 2495 Ail Baba Avenue Qpa• .FL 33054 303.681-4033 Arced*, Of.# yiurdiriator lEfEllettAffialaglang The agreement Shat be in effect from-tlee date of signing arta continue Indefinitely. Under oo ciraimnstir s*nay this Agreement be amendodor efferided except t to ard**. Either the Client or WO atsr t service o� times or stiffing r with&soot 7 � wrlttee notice unless exert circumstances dictate otherviise- MaS To inc e,but not.Limits 4 to • I Case 1:18-cv-23269-DPG Document - Entered on FLSD Docket 08/10/2018 Page 48 of 50 The City Of Opa4ocko POLICE DEPARTMENT 1. Potrce Officers will fravide constant Visible taw enforcement presence wing the times prescrted In this Agreement take approbate action ovietkstions of iew when witnessed by the Police Offtcers or brought to the attention of the Police Officers. 2. Police Officers writ do continuous foot and polite car patrols of the Service Addresses, 3. Poke Officers veal be fully uniformed pe4 OLPa requirements and will have a marked OLPO issued vehicle unless othenvise arit hortred. . 4. !oleo#.Officers will generate rrepprta of in incidents that OCCAN and provide infontsatton of said incidents to Cwt's hlarragea ewe_ • S. Polite Officer;will interact.with patrons and employees of the restaurant to devein0 a positive relationship and obtain iniormation on any potential ilk acuity. C. Police Officers %ill take necessary and appropriate action against and who has been tassed°hem tee property. 7- Police OffiCeve will take necessary and appropriate action within the corstriirnts of the law Of the State of Florida.Action to include.but dot tienitad to.verityirig any outstanding anti*trrari*A .a legal Search of the body and personal belongings for any firearms,was,illegal drugs and ll determined or found,take appropriate a S. Additional items as assigned,M writing,and agreed to by both ponies, • iirdiallanatairatirgate lY Monday Orris Friday 14130P.M.thruO5 OAM- Or To e OeternMned by the Cherie tvitti rnnttce • fitati Pay Rate is Forty Dollars($40.00 an hour per'Officer paid ie the Officer's tug name by business cheek following federal business-pay standards through a 1093 tax foret,and provide a federal W2 tot form to the Officer(s)at the end of the tor year,A Cite Surcharge of Five Dollass($S an hour per Officer wdi be paid directly to the City Of Opa4ocka,MIS:a forty Dollar(S4D.001 per week Administrative/Repaint Fee paid to In the name of the off-duty coordinator% I Case 1:18-cv-23269-DPG. Document 1 -Entered on FLSD Docket 08/10/2018 Page 49 of 50 ` The City'.of Opa locka POLICE DEPARTMENT invoices are to be sent to Serves Address wdess otherwise stated. invoices are to be submittal for services from the 1"10 the 356 of the month end from the 16°`to the 3e of the month. Payments will be made within sew 171 days of Mott of invoitte- tr+Aw+yl'SP ' • GieverthilcajOst Omen,Mane jets 1954)643-78)7 1. tt is a essy agreed and understood t¢tr and between the Otis hereto that this agree sent shall be yearned by the laws of the Static of Honda and tit of Opeiataa ordinances. . x. A6 Police Officers furnished hereunder.siial be employees of Ot.PO and not of the tit. • 3. OtPO shall furnish i6 Police Whom assigned hereunder to the Oient's service Address with aN appropriate eouipmeni and uniforms 4. Any equ prner*ley, uppi ,aPOrattP,etc.furnish by O PD hereunder and mad at Alm Service Arkfress shall remain the:property of Ot a. ' shall maintain and mp*te equipment asnecessary• s: The lec a Officers shag pe form duties in confonnity with practices rent in the industry. Client shag haw the right to reject any Pty Offices.for any rational reason and WO shah provide a satisfactory replacement. e. it is amnia*yinderstoad. d agreed by and Wilma the parties that this Agreement is entered into solely for the mutual benefit of die parties herein and that no benefits,rights.duties„or obligations are Intended or emoted by titd Airesrneat as to third perti13:not a 7, The.entire Amt is expressed herein and no verbal understandi�, agreements or aathar ciocwnsnis shalt after. dengue moat the tarns and provisions of this A$r unless in Wu/wand std by both parties her 4o 8. Poke Officers providing services dest ed wit be assigned without regard to race,a$4 cater, creed.serc national origin. handicap conditions snd*or cowed veseran status and/or mother status tot whitt employees are protected in the terms and conditions of employment by Federal, State,and Local law: 9- Client and WO egree that:new party also l hobs another party liable for any toss or 6aWNty incurred as a result of a damn asserted against either related to hiring,training,and supervision of Pete Off , 3 • Ease 1:18-cv-23269-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/10/2018 Page 50 of 50 The City of Opo iocka POLICE DEPARTMENT 10 With the ecceptIo eta above,the allot agrtet to indemrs y the lit,it's Maers.Agents,and employees from and against any and all such claims eveed the claims, costs,liabilities,soits, actors,damages,or tattoo of action Oise from the negligence or alleged negligence of the City of Opa-i.oft aolke Departmen4 aryl any of its employees agents Or WW1. 1. IL teat agrees to agony a!l Mc of loss Qr OMB.to its penises.!saltless and pmpetty and ORD arms to_aasume aif tisk of loss or dainage ca l s property. • memo INTO TINS 470. deft* �... 2OJ U NT:KNib • City of lode Ponce Department Sot,Marcos Gonzalez.dit- trocxdir r fix - ,o 4 Apprmed __ . hint Herne • James Dobson.Chief of%lice T ? k-A0 iiipoec1/4..s_tki • fad Aitgiabkr4 hods . • thief it, • • • 4