Obsession Sports Bar & Grill, Inc. v. City of Rochester
235 F. Supp. 3d 461
| W.D.N.Y. | 2017Background
- Plaintiffs (owners of Obsession Bar & Grill) held a New York State liquor license permitting alcohol sales through 2:00 a.m. (with consumption until 2:30 a.m.).
- Rochester’s C-1 zoning code limited restaurant/bar hours to 6:00 a.m.–11:00 p.m.; §120-34(o) (and predecessor provisions) enforced earlier closing times for C-1.
- Plaintiffs applied for a variance; the City granted limited relief (midnight Mon–Thu; 2:00 a.m. Fri–Sat), leaving hours narrower than state law allowed.
- New York state courts (Supreme Court and Appellate Division, 4th Dept.) held §120-34(o) preempted by the ABC Law and therefore void.
- Plaintiffs sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming a substantive due process violation: the City, acting under color of law, deprived them of a property interest (the liquor license/right to operate during state-authorized hours) by enacting/enforcing the ordinance.
- The District Court denied plaintiffs’ partial summary judgment, granted the City’s 12(b)(6) dismissal (and alternatively summary judgment), and dismissed the action with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the City’s enactment/enforcement of §120-34(o) violated substantive due process by unlawfully depriving plaintiffs of a property interest | The City acted ultra vires and arbitrarily by adopting an ordinance preempted by state ABC Law, thereby infringing plaintiffs’ liquor-license rights | The City had legitimate zoning authority and a rational purpose (protect residential quality of life); a local ordinance inconsistent with state law is not per se a constitutional violation | Dismissed: plaintiffs’ claim fails as a matter of law — enactment of an ordinance later found preempted is not automatically "arbitrary, conscience-shocking, or oppressive" to implicate substantive due process |
| Whether a municipal act that conflicts with state law is "ultra vires" sufficient to support substantive due process | Because §120-34(o) conflicted with ABC Law, the City’s act was ultra vires and constitutionally arbitrary | Distinguishes ultra vires (lack of authority) from acts simply contrary to state law; City retained zoning authority and no fundamental procedural irregularity is shown | Held for City: mere conflict with state law does not equal ultra vires in the constitutional sense; negligence or failure to anticipate preemption is insufficient |
| Whether prior state decisions (e.g., People v. De Jesus) put the City on notice such that enactment was arbitrary | Plaintiffs argue constructive notice of preemption made the City’s action arbitrary/capricious | City contends De Jesus differs materially and the ordinance is a general land-use regulation not specifically targeting alcohol sales | Held for City: prior state cases do not transform routine or negligent mistakes into conscience-shocking conduct; plaintiffs produced no evidence of bad motive or fundamental procedural irregularity |
| Scope of relief under §1983 where state courts void a municipal ordinance | Plaintiffs seek federal relief for deprivation of property rights arising from an invalid local ordinance | City argues federal substantive due process is not implicated by routine or non-egregious state-law violations | Held for City: §1983 claim dismissed; federal courts do not redress every state-law violation—only conduct that is egregious in a constitutional sense |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (establishes pleading standard under Rule 12(b)(6))
- Monell v. Dept. of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (municipalities may be sued under §1983 for official policies/ordinances)
- Cine SK8, Inc. v. Town of Henrietta, 507 F.3d 778 (2d Cir. 2007) (ultra vires amendment of a permit can be conscience-shocking and support substantive due process)
- Brady v. Town of Colchester, 863 F.2d 205 (2d Cir. 1988) (revocation without state-authorized authority can support substantive due process claim)
- Leder v. Am. Traffic Sols., Inc., [citation="630 F. App'x 61"] (2d Cir. 2015) (violation of state law alone does not automatically state a substantive due process claim)
- County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833 (negligence is insufficient to shock the conscience for substantive due process)
- Lone Star Sec. & Video, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 584 F.3d 1232 (9th Cir.) (local ordinances inconsistent with state law are not per se constitutional violations)