Daniel Corp. v. Reed, 291 Ga. 596

SPI Club held two alcohol licenses issued July 2010 for two Atlanta clubs; City of Atlanta Code § 10-69(a) requires opening within nine months or automatic forfeiture; Daniel sued for mandamus to compel recognition of forfeiture; District court denied; SPI Club intervened and stipulations show two August 2010 events (birthday ~100, wedding ~50) with food/beverage service and third-party staffing; October 2010 event hosted by promoter with ~110 attendees, non-alcoholic beverages, DJ, venue rental charged; Daniel argues failure to open or use license means noncompliance; Court considered whether opening occurred within nine months and whether any use of license was required to satisfy “open for business.”
Stipulated facts indicate bona fide business activity at both clubs, albeit irregular; no sale of alcohol occurred within first nine months of licenses; the parties agree on material facts for interpretation of § 10-69(a).
The ordinance comprises subsection (a) (begin operation within nine months with automatic forfeiture for non-opening) and subsection (b) (automatic forfeiture after nine months of ceasing operation following initial opening).
The court engages in plain-meaning interpretation of the text, treats forfeiture provisions with some caution, and harmonizes § 10-69 with related ordinances and definitional provisions regarding “establishment.”
Judgment below denying mandamus affirmed; court did not address constitutional challenges to § 10-69(a).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does ‘open for business’ require regularity/continuity?	Daniel argues opening must be regular and ongoing.	SPI Club/City argues opening is a discrete point in time, not requiring regularity.	No regularity requirement; opening is a discrete start moment.
Must a license be used (selling alcohol) to satisfy ‘open for business’?	Daniel contends use of license is necessary.	SPI Club asserts opening need not involve actual use of license.	No use requirement; opening may occur without alcohol sales within nine months.

Risser v. City of Thomasville, 248 Ga. 866 (1982) (statutory interpretation framework for ordinances)
Opensided MRI of Atlanta v. Chandler, 287 Ga. 406 (2010) (plain meaning; look to text)
Judicial Council of Ga. v. Brown & Gallo, 288 Ga. 294 (2010) (ordinary meanings of terms; interpret in context)
Jones v. Douglas County, 262 Ga. 317 (1992) (read statutes to avoid narrowing/expanding operation)
East West Express v. Collins, 264 Ga. 774 (1994) (construe related ordinances together when possible)
Cisco v. State of Ga., 285 Ga. 656 (2009) (forfeitures; general rule disfavoring forfeitures)
Monses v. State of Ga., 78 Ga. 110 (1886) (opening a place for business moment doctrine)
City Council of Augusta v. Augusta-Aiken R. & Elec. Corp., 150 Ga. 524 (1920) (caption not controlling meaning)