DL Enterprises, Inc. v. Briden et al

Filing 9

ORDER denying 6 Motion for Summary Judgment and remanding the matter to the Rhode Island Superior Court. So Ordered by Chief Judge William E. Smith on 9/22/2015. (Jackson, Ryan)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
___________________________________
)
DL ENTERPRISES, INC., d/b/a
)
EAST BAY TAVERN,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
C.A. No. 14-348
)
CITY OF EAST PROVIDENCE
)
CITY COUNCIL; JAMES A. BRIDEN,
)
CHAIRMAN; THOMAS ROSE; CHRISTINE
)
ROSSI; HELDER J. CUNHA; AND TRACY )
A. CAMPOBIANO, ACTING AS LICENSING )
COMMISSIONERS FOR THE CITY OF EAST )
PROVIDENCE, BOARD OF LICENSES,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
___________________________________)
ORDER
WILLIAM E. SMITH, Chief Judge.
Defendants move for summary judgment.

(ECF No. 6.)

For

the reasons that follow, that motion is denied, and the case is
remanded to Rhode Island Superior Court.
In

February

2014,

a

fight

occurred

at

Plaintiff’s

establishment in East Providence, Rhode Island.
Statement of Undisputed Facts ¶ 1, ECF No. 7.)

(See Defs.’
This incident

prompted the East Providence City Council (“City Council”) to
revoke

the

establishment’s

liquor

license.

(Id.

at

¶

2.)

Plaintiff appealed that decision to the Rhode Island Department
of

Business

Regulation

(“DBR”)

and

moved

for

a

stay

pending

appeal.

(Id. at ¶ 3.)

The DBR granted Plaintiff’s motion and

remanded the matter to the City Council for a hearing on the
imposition of any proper public-safety conditions on the liquor
license.

(Id. at ¶¶ 3-4.)

At the hearing, the City Council

voted to revoke Plaintiff’s entertainment license as a permanent
public-safety condition on the liquor license.

(Id. at ¶ 6.)

The City Council determined that the fight “emanated from” the
live

entertainment

at

the

establishment.

(Id.)

Plaintiff

appealed to the DBR and moved for a stay of the revocation of
the entertainment license.

(Id. at ¶ 7.)

motion and dismissed the appeal.

The DBR denied the

(Id.)

Plaintiff filed suit against Defendants, the City Council
and

its

members,

in

Rhode

Island

Superior

Court,

alleging

procedural due process violations as a result of insufficient
and

inadequate

notice

entertainment license.
was

never

notified

and

seeking

reinstatement

of

its

Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that it

that

the

entertainment

license

could

be

revoked because it was at all times under the impression that
only the liquor license was at stake.
1-2.)

(See Compl. ¶ 10, ECF No.

Defendants removed the case to this Court.

(ECF No. 1.)

They now move for summary judgment.
In their motion, Defendants argue that, because Plaintiff
failed to exhaust its procedural due process claim, Defendants
are entitled to summary judgment.
2

Defendants are right about

one

thing:

remedies.

Plaintiff

indeed

failed

to

exhaust

its

state

Before Plaintiff can have its procedural due process

claim relating to the license-revocation proceeding reviewed in
federal court, it needs to exhaust state remedies with respect
to that claim.
2d

106,

109

exhausted

See D’Ambra v. City of Providence, 21 F. Supp.

(D.R.I.

its

1998).

state

At

remedies

present,

with

Plaintiff

respect

to

has

this

not

claim.

Accordingly, the Court cannot adjudicate it at this juncture.
The failure to exhaust state remedies does not, however,
entitle Defendants to summary judgment (or any other judgment on
the merits) because this failure renders the claim unripe, not
meritless.

See Gamble v. Eau Claire City, 5 F.3d 285, 286 (7th

Cir. 1993) (“[A] federal claim is unripe until state remedies
are exhausted.”).

“If a claim is unripe, federal courts lack

subject matter jurisdiction” to adjudicate it.
Depositors

Econ.

Prot.

Corp.,

862

F.

Supp.

Ernst & Young v.
709,

717

(D.R.I.

1994); see also Verizon New England, Inc. v. Int’l Bd. of Elec.
Workers,

Local

(“Ripeness

is

No.
an

2322,

651

F.3d

176,

188

Article

III

jurisdictional

(1st

Cir.

2011)

requirement[.]”).

Because this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this
claim, the case must be remanded to Rhode Island Superior Court. 1

1

The parties squabble over the procedure that
must follow in order to properly exhaust its state
Defendants assert that Plaintiff was required to seek
certiorari from the Rhode Island Supreme Court, while
3

Plaintiff
remedies:
a writ of
Plaintiff

See 28 U.S.C. § 1447 (“If at any time before final judgment it
appears

that

the

district

court

lacks

subject

matter

jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.”); Perfect Puppy, Inc.
v. City of E. Providence, ___ F. Supp. 3d ___, C.A. No. 14-257
S, 2015 WL 1474560, at *7-8 (D.R.I. March 31, 2015).
For

these

reasons,

the

Defendant’s

motion

for

summary

judgment is DENIED, and this case is REMANDED to Rhode Island
Superior Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED:

William E. Smith
Chief Judge
Date: September 22, 2015

contends that its suit in Superior Court was the appropriate
avenue. (See Defs.’ Mot. 1, ECF No. 6-1; Pl.’s Opp’n 3, ECF No.
8.1.) This question is for the Superior Court, not this Court,
to resolve.
Irrespective of the precise state court to which
Plaintiff must bring its claim, the salient fact for purposes of
Defendants’ motion is that Plaintiff has not yet exhausted its
state remedies and that, consequently, the claim is unripe.
4