LTC 505-2023 Appellate Court Victory in Amnesia International, LLC dba Story Nightclub v. City of Miami BeachMIAMI BEACH
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
LTC No.
_505-2023______ _ LETTER TO COMMISSION
TO: Mayor Dan Gelber and Members of the City Commission
FROM:
DATE:
Rafael A Paz, City Attorney �
November 13, 2023
SUBJECT: Appellate Court Victory in Amnesia International, LLC d/bla Story
Nightclub v. City of Miami Beach
This letter is to advise you of our recent appellate court victory, in which Florida's Third
District Court of Appeal affirmed the City's trial court win relating to enforcement of the
2:00 a.m. rollback of alcohol hours in the South of Fifth neighborhood, a measure which
was sponsored by Commissioner Laura Dominguez earlier this year, and approved by
the City Commission on a 5/7ths vote in an effort to protect residents' quality of life.
The opinion, published as Amnesia Int'/, LLC v. City of Miami Beach, No. 3023-0459,
2023 WL 7006781 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023), agreed with the trial court's well-reasoned order,
which found that the 2:00 a.m. alcohol hours rollback for establishments with live
entertainment and/or occupancy of 100 people or more served a legitimate public interest
and was rationally related to that purpose.
I am also pleased to report that on November 11, 2023, the Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed
its case rather than seek any further relief from the court. This means that the entire
lawsuit is now over, thereby bringing this matter to a successful conclusion in favor of the
City, and ending any uncertainty regarding the legal status of the 2 a.m. rollback in the
South of Fifth residential neighborhood.
The legal team was assisted by many members of the Administration, including Planning
Director Thomas Mooney, who testified at the evidentiary hearing, as well as personnel
from Code Compliance and the Miami Beach Police Department, who provided critical
evidence. I also personally testified at the hearing to help explain the City Commission's
rationale for enacting the Ordinance.
A copy of the Third District Court of Appeal's October 25th decision is attached. We are
pleased to have defended the City Commission's decision to enact the Ordinance and to protect City residents' quality of life.
As always, please feel free to contact me or Rob Rosenwald for further information about
this or any City litjgation matter.
We are committed to providing excellent public service and safety to all who live, work, and play in our vibrant, tropical, historic
community.
Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed October 25, 2023.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D23-0459
Lower Tribunal No. 23-3316
________________
Amnesia International, LLC, etc.,
Appellant,
vs.
City of Miami Beach, etc.,
Appellee.
An Appeal from a non-final order from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade
County, Reemberto Diaz, Judge.
Burstyn Law PLLC, and Sean A. Burstyn; Crabtree & Auslander,
Charles M. Auslander, John G. Crabtree, Linda Ann Wells, and Brian C.
Tackenberg, for appellant.
Rafael A. Paz, City Attorney, Robert F. Rosenwald, Jr., Chief Deputy
City Attorney, and Freddi R. Mack, Senior Assistant City Attorney; Weiss
Serota Helfman Cole & Bierman, P.L., and Edward G. Guedes, Joseph H.
Serota, Eric P. Hockman, and Lindsay M. Behnke, for appellee.
Before EMAS, MILLER and LOBREE, JJ.
EMAS, J.
2
Amnesia International, LLC, d/b/a Story Nightclub, appeals an order
denying its motion seeking a temporary injunction to prevent enforcement of
City of Miami Beach ordinance 2023-4542, which prohibits, with some
exceptions, the sale of alcohol after 2 a.m. at establishments south of Fifth
Street.1 Following an evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied Amnesia’s
motion for temporary injunction.
“‘The standard of review of trial court orders on requests for temporary
injunction is a hybrid. To the extent the trial court’s order is based on factual
findings, we will not reverse unless the trial court abused its discretion;
however, any legal conclusions are subject to de novo review.’” Law Offices
of Kravitz & Guerra, P.A. v. Brannon, 338 So. 3d 1022, 1023 (Fla. 3d DCA
2022) (quoting Quirch Foods LLC v. Broce, 314 So. 3d 327, 337 (Fla. 3d
DCA 2020) (additional citations omitted)).
Upon our review of the record, and applying the above-described
hybrid standard of review, there is competent substantial evidence to support
the trial court’s order. We find neither an abuse of discretion in the trial
court’s decision to deny the motion for temporary injunction, nor any error in
its attendant legal conclusions. See Fla. Dep’t of Health v. Florigrown, LLC,
1 We have jurisdiction. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.130(a)(3)(B) (authorizing
appellate review of nonfinal orders that “grant, continue, modify, deny, or
dissolve injunctions, or refuse to modify or dissolve injunctions.”)
3
317 So. 3d 1101, 1110-11 (Fla. 2021) (“A temporary injunction is
extraordinary relief that should be granted only when the party seeking the
injunction has established four elements: (1) a substantial likelihood of
success on the merits, (2) the unavailability of an adequate remedy at law,
(3) irreparable harm absent entry of an injunction, and (4) that the injunction
would serve the public interest. . . . [A] movant’s failure to establish any single
element means that the injunction must be denied”) (citing Provident Mgmt.
Corp. v. City of Treasure Island, 796 So. 2d 481, 485 (Fla. 2001)
(extraordinary relief) and Reform Party of Fla. v. Black, 885 So. 2d 303, 305
(Fla. 2004) (elements of a claim for a temporary injunction).
Affirmed.