2020 Ohio 4074
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background:
- Appellant Floyd's Legacy, LLC (Club De Ja Vu) operated under a Class D-1,2,3,3-A liquor permit; Darlene Harris is managing member.
- On Nov. 4, 2017 a shooting occurred inside the club (on the dance floor) and a second shooting occurred outside the premises; four people were injured.
- Police testimony: officers were initially denied entry for ~15 minutes; an employee mopped blood from the dance floor before police entry; manager/crew did not call police.
- The Ohio Division of Liquor Control denied renewal of the 2017–18 and 2018–19 permits citing disregard for laws, late renewal payment issues, and "good cause" based on environmental/public-order concerns; appellant requested an administrative hearing.
- After a de novo commission hearing (live testimony from police, owner, manager), the commission affirmed the denial; Franklin C.P. Court affirmed on administrative-review standards; appellant appealed to the Tenth District.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appellant's procedural due process rights were violated (notice, counsel notice, hearing officer report, photos) | Appellant argues four discrete due-process defects deprived it of fair notice/hearing | Commission/division provided notice consistent with R.C. 119.07 and Ohio Adm.Code, hearing was de novo, counsel received subsequent notices, and appellant suffered no prejudice | No due process violation; appellant received adequate notice and a meaningful de novo hearing |
| Whether denial of renewal (revocation) was unlawful or excessive and whether it rested solely on Nov. 4 incident without substantial evidence | Appellant contends the penalty is unlawful/unduly harsh and challenges reliance on the Nov. 4 events | Commission may deny renewal for a single permit violation; record contains reliable, probative, substantial evidence (shooting, denial of entry, crime-scene compromise); courts lack authority to modify a lawful commission penalty | Denial upheld: single violation suffices, evidence supports commission, and court may not modify the penalty if within commission's statutory authority |
Key Cases Cited
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976) (framework for procedural due process balancing)
- Univ. of Cincinnati v. Conrad, 63 Ohio St.2d 108 (1980) (administrative-review standard under R.C. 119.12)
- Our Place, Inc. v. Ohio Liquor Control Comm., 63 Ohio St.3d 570 (1992) (definitions of reliable, probative, and substantial evidence)
- Pons v. Ohio State Med. Bd., 66 Ohio St.3d 619 (1993) (appellate review of administrative decisions limited to abuse-of-discretion)
- Doyle v. Ohio Bur. of Motor Vehicles, 51 Ohio St.3d 46 (1990) (procedural-due-process principles in administrative context)
- Henry's Cafe, Inc. v. Bd. of Liquor Control, 170 Ohio St. 233 (1959) (courts lack authority to modify penalties lawfully imposed by liquor commission)