Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/05/2005

Home

104 Page 2 --March 25, 2005 Official Acts -- Restaurant claims city actions 'shocked the conscience' City inspects illegal construction, 'raids'. restaurant itself Citation: Galanopoulas v. Smithgall, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of ?ennsytvania, No. 02-8362 (2005) PENNSYLVgaNIA (01/26/05) m Fairmount House was a bar/restaurant located in the city of Lancaster. A zoning officer went to/.nspect an unauthorized lean-to garage on the premises, and the garage was subsequently removed. When later asked, the zoning officer could not remember who informed him of the improper construction. Two months later, the city conducted a "mid" on the restaurant. At that time, city officials observed several plumbing and electrical issues, a closed fire exit, and dirty conditions. The city revoked the restaurant's food and liquor licenses, alleging build- ing and health code violations. The restaurant necessa, r/ly stopped operating. Four days later, the city re-inspected the restaurant and again, the restaurant was found in violation of city regulations. To fix the problem, the restaurant was .required to obtain building permits; however, it took the city two months to issue them. By that point, the restaurant had lost its lease. The restaurant sued, arguing the actions of the city were so illegal as to :'shock the conscience." DECISION: Judgment in favor of the city. There was no evidence the city's behavior "shocked the conscience/' The restaurant focused heavily on the deficiencies of the actions of the city officials, such as the two-month time period in issuing the building permit, the failure to have a follow-up date on the inspection.report, the failure to secure a restaurant signature on the inspection report, the failure to properly notify the restaurant of a public meeting, and the lack of:information about who informed the city of the restaurant's construction violations. However, the restaurant failed t.o show how these ~lleged deficiencies were more than simply human error, or, in the case of the failure to get signatures for the inspection reports, the result of the restaurant's own refusal to cooperate. Additionally, the raid was unannounced, as was customary with these types of raids. Also, the restaurant would not have complained about the follow-up inspec- tion so soon after the revocation of the food and liquor license if the restaurant had passed the inspection and the licenses had been quickly reinstated. Therefore, the restaurant could not point to any action of the city as "shock- ing" to the conscience. see also: United Artists Theatre Circuit v. Township of Warrington, 316 E3d 392 (2003). see also: Co,tory of Sacramento v. LeMs, 523 U.S. 833, 1]8 S. Ct. ]708, I40 L. Ed. 2d 1043 (]998). © 2005 Quinlan Publish,~g Group. Any reproduction is prohibited. For more information plea~,e call (617) 542-0048.