Beg Investments, LLC v. Alberti
144 F. Supp. 3d 16
D.D.C.2015Background
- BEG Investments, LLC operated the Twelve Restaurant in DC; Board renewed BEG’s liquor license in 2011 with a reimbursable police detail condition.
- BEG sued six Board members in 2013 alleging extortionate and discriminatory license conditions; BEG later added post-2013 events in 2014.
- The Court previously dismissed most counts but allowed a First Amendment retaliation claim to proceed in part.
- BEG alleges the May 14, 2014 cease-and-desist order and related actions were retaliatory for BEG’s lawsuit activity.
- BEG’s third renewal application was pending when the Board ordered cessation of alcohol service; Board later paused and then permitted renewal processing.
- Defendants move to dismiss the retaliation claim on causation and municipal-liability grounds; the court denies the motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether causation is plausibly pled for retaliation | BEG asserts close temporal link between Amended Complaint and order | Defendants contend temporal proximity is insufficient | Causation plausibly pled despite short two-week gap |
| Whether the District is subject to municipal liability | BEG alleges Board acted as official policy-maker | District not liable due to lack of final policymaker authority | BEG adequately pled municipal liability against the District |
| Whether the Board was a final policymaker for licensing decisions | Board’s final authority to suspend/revoke licenses supports liability | Singletary limits Board as policymaker | Board is final policymaker for licensing; Singletary not controlling in this context |
Key Cases Cited
- Doe v. District of Columbia, 796 F.3d 96 (D.C.Cir. 2015) (establishes elements and causation framework for retaliation claims)
- Aref v. Holder, 774 F.Supp.2d 147 (D.D.C. 2011) (articulates ‘but for’ causation standard in retaliation)
- Singletary v. District of Columbia, 766 F.3d 66 (D.C.Cir. 2014) (discusses whether a board is a final policymaker for purposes of municipal liability)
- Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati, 475 U.S. 469 (U.S. 1986) (policy-maker analysis for municipal liability; acts of authorized decisionmakers)
- McMillian v. Monroe Cnty., Ala., 520 U.S. 781 (U.S. 1997) (identifies final policymaking authority under state law)
- Brown v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs of Bryan Cnty., 520 U.S. 397 (U.S. 1997) (limits respondeat superior against municipalities; liability for official acts)
- Jett v. Dallas Indep. Sch. Dist., 491 U.S. 701 (U.S. 1989) (identifies final policymaker concept in liability analysis)
- Hamilton v. Geithner, 666 F.3d 1344 (D.C.Cir. 2012) (temporal proximity as persuasive but not dispositive for retaliation)