Scahill v. District of Columbia
271 F. Supp. 3d 216
| D.D.C. | 2017Background
- HRH Services, LLC (owned by Rachel and Richard Traverso) obtained a D.C. liquor license for the Alibi subject to Board conditions requiring HRH to bar Martin Scahill from the premises for five years and to prevent Scahill from working for, having an interest in, or accessing the business; violations could lead to license revocation.
- Scahill is not an owner of HRH but is the lease guarantor and had prior involvement with an earlier business at the same address; the Board placed conditions based on concerns about prior violations associated with Scahill.
- HRH sought reconsideration and petitioned for review in D.C. Court of Appeals; that court dismissed HRH’s petition for lack of standing.
- Plaintiffs (Scahill and HRH) filed a § 1983 suit alleging First and Fifth Amendment violations, unconstitutional conditions, and retaliation; defendants (the District and ABC Board) moved to dismiss for lack of standing and failure to state a claim.
- The district court took judicial notice of the Board’s orders, applied issue preclusion to bar HRH from litigating standing (based on the D.C. Court of Appeals dismissal), and found that Scahill—though not the direct target of the Board’s order—plausibly had standing because the Board’s order likely compelled HRH to enforce the bar against him.
- The court dismissed HRH’s claims (including the unconstitutional-conditions count) for lack of standing and dismissed the remaining claims against the District on the merits for failure to state a claim; the ABC Board was dismissed as a separate defendant (not sui juris).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing of HRH to challenge Board order | HRH contends it was coerced and thus injured by the Board’s conditions | Board/Dist.: HRH voluntarily stipulated to conditions; any injury is self-inflicted | D.C. Court of Appeals already dismissed HRH for lack of standing; district court applied issue preclusion and HRH barred from relitigating standing |
| Standing of Scahill to challenge Board order | Scahill says barring notice and conditions injure him (as lease guarantor and by excluding him from business) | Board/Dist.: Order does not directly regulate Scahill; any harm is speculative or caused by HRH | Scahill plausibly alleged injury fairly traceable to Board and redressable; Scahill has standing at pleading stage |
| First Amendment claims (association and retaliation) | Plaintiffs: conditions restrict Scahill’s ability to do business and Board retaliated after appeals and the suit | Defendants: business association isn't protected; retaliation allegations are implausible or misaligned (actions aimed at HRH, not Scahill) | Association claim dismissed (business relations not protected); retaliation claims dismissed for failure to plausibly allege causation/timing (HRH’s retaliation claim dismissed; Scahill’s retaliation claim dismissed for misalignment) |
| Procedural/substantive due process, freedom of movement, unconstitutional conditions | Plaintiffs: conditions infringe liberty, movement, property (guarantor exposure), and constitute unconstitutional conditioning | Defendants: plaintiffs fail to identify protected liberty/property interests; claims are speculative or not pleaded | Substantive due process and freedom-of-movement claims dismissed; procedural due process claim dismissed for lack of protected property/liberty interest; unconstitutional-conditions claim dismissed because HRH lacks standing |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (complaint must contain factual matter that makes claims plausible)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility pleading standard)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (constitutional standing requirements)
- Monell v. New York City Dep’t of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (municipal liability requires policy or custom causing injury)
- Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati, 475 U.S. 469 (1986) (activity by authorized policymakers can impose municipal liability)
- Doe v. District of Columbia, 796 F.3d 96 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (elements of First Amendment retaliation claim)
- Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007) (causation may be satisfied by defendant causing an incremental part of injury)