Preview:

Supreme Court
No.   2005-224-M.P.
Cadillac Lounge, LLC                                                  :
v.                                                                    :
The City of Providence et al.                                         :
NOTICE:    This  opinion  is  subject  to  formal  revision  before
publication in the Rhode Island Reporter.  Readers are requested to
notify the Opinion Analyst, Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 250
Benefit Street, Providence, Rhode Island 02903, at Telephone 222-
3258 of any typographical or other formal errors in order that
corrections may be made before the opinion is published




Supreme Court
No.   2005-224-M.P.
Cadillac Lounge, LLC                                                                                  :
v.                                                                                                    :
The City of Providence et al.                                                                         :
Present:  Williams, C.J., Goldberg, Suttell, and Robinson, JJ.
O P I N I O N
Justice Robinson for the Court.   This case came before the Supreme Court for oral
argument on December 5, 2006, pursuant to a petition for writ of certiorari filed by Cadillac
Lounge, LLC (Cadillac Lounge or petitioner).   In its petition, Cadillac Lounge sought review by
this Court of a decision of the Providence Board of Licenses (the Board) dated July 29, 2005, in
which Cadillac Lounge was fined a total of $2,500 for having violated on two separate occasions
the provisions of Providence Ordinance 14-1, which pertains to closing hours, license fees, and
regulations concerning commercial establishments.
For the reasons stated herein, we vacate the fine imposed by the Board, and we direct the
assessment of a fine in the total amount of $1,000.
Facts and Travel
The petitioner is a Rhode Island limited liability corporation that operates an  “adult
entertainment” establishment in the City of Providence.
On April 2, 2004, the Board held a hearing concerning, inter alia, the hour at which
petitioner was required to cease presenting adult entertainment.   In a letter dated April 2, 2004,
- 1 -




the Board communicated its decision to petitioner, explicitly stating that Cadillac Lounge was to
“cease entertainment at 1:00 A.M.,” and cited Providence Ordinance 14-1 as the basis for the
decision.
On August 17, 2004, Richard Shappy, the General Manager of Cadillac Lounge, sent a
letter to the Board requesting permission to remain open for business until 2 a.m. on Friday and
Saturday nights.   The Chairman of the Board responded in a letter dated August 24, 2004, in
which he denied Mr. Shappy’s request.
Thereafter, at approximately 1:30 a.m. on June 11, 2005, Detective Joseph Amoroso of
the License Bureau of the Providence Police Department entered Cadillac Lounge, at which time
he witnessed adult entertainment taking place.   At approximately 1:40 a.m. on June 12, 2005,
Detective Charles Matracia, who was also from the License Bureau of the Providence Police
Department,  made  a  routine  inspection  of  Cadillac  Lounge.     He  too  witnessed  adult
entertainment taking place at that time.   On June 13, 2005, the Providence Police Chief sent a
letter to the Board requesting that “the license holder of the Cadillac Lounge be brought before
the Board for violation of City Ordinance Section 14-1(a)-Closing Hours.”
On June 16, 2005, the Board sent a letter to Cadillac Lounge advising it to appear and
show cause why its adult entertainment, food dispenser, and Sunday sales licenses should not be
suspended or revoked as a result of its alleged violation of Providence Ordinance 14-1 on June
11 and June 12, 2005.   On July 1, 2005, Cadillac Lounge was served with a cease-and-desist
order from the Board, which ordered it to “cease entertainment at 1:00 a.m. as prescribed by City
Ordinance 14-1.”
On July 20, 2005, a hearing concerning the alleged violations was held.   On July 29,
2005, the Board rendered a decision, in which it found that Cadillac Lounge had violated
- 2 -




Providence Ordinance 14-1 by conducting entertainment after 1 a.m. on the aforementioned two
dates. The Board imposed a $2,500 fine for those violations, which fine was to be paid in ten
days.
On August 10, 2005, Cadillac Lounge filed a petition for writ of certiorari, in which it
sought review of the Board’s decision to impose a fine of $2,500; it also sought a stay of that
decision pending the outcome of its petition.   In its petition for writ of certiorari and in its
supporting memorandum, petitioner asserted that the Board had abused its discretion in imposing
a fine in the amount of $2,500 for the violations of Providence Ordinance 14-1 on June 11 and
June 12, 2005.   In support of that contention, petitioner argued that the amount of the fine that
had been imposed could not be reconciled with the provisions of G.L. 1956 § 5-22-3, which
pertains to city and town regulation of closing times for shops, saloons, and places of evening
resort.1    Significantly, Cadillac Lounge’s petition for writ of certiorari did not contain any
assertions of error with respect to the Board’s substantive finding that petitioner had violated
Providence Ordinance 14-1.
In an order dated August 12, 2005, petitioner’s request for a stay of the Board’s decision
was granted, and the petition for writ of certiorari was assigned to the August                      19,                                                      2005
conference calendar for consideration by this Court.  On August 19, 2005, the petition for writ of
certiorari was granted, and the stay that had been issued was continued pending the outcome of
this proceeding.
1                                                                                                    General Laws 1956 § 5-22-3 provides in pertinent part:
“Town and city councils may pass any ordinances, bylaws,
and regulations, not inconsistent with law, that they may think
proper, in relation to the time of closing shops, saloons, and other
places of resort in the evening, * * * and may prescribe penalties
for their violation, not exceeding twenty dollars ($20.00) for each
offense.”
- 3 -




Despite the fact that the petition for writ of certiorari did not contest the Board’s
substantive finding of violations of Providence Ordinance 14-1, in its brief to this Court after the
writ was granted petitioner did assert that said finding was error.   The petitioner now contends
that the Board abused its discretion both in finding that Cadillac Lounge had violated the
ordinance and in imposing a fine of $2,500.
Standard of Review
As this Court has often stated, “[o]ur review on a writ of certiorari is restricted to an
examination of the record to determine whether any competent evidence supports the decision
and whether the decision maker made any errors of law in that ruling.”   Asadoorian v. Warwick
School Committee, 691 A.2d 573, 577 (R.I. 1997); see also Cadillac Lounge, LLC v. City of
Providence, 763 A.2d 993, 995 (R.I. 2001).  In addition, when we are proceeding pursuant to our
certiorari jurisdiction, it is our practice not to address claims that were not included in a
petitioner’s original petition for writ of certiorari.   See Bergquist v. Cesario, 844 A.2d 100, 104
(R.I. 2004).
In reviewing licensing board decisions, this Court examines “whether such boards * * *
have exceeded their jurisdiction in reaching [their] decision.”   Cadillac Lounge, LLC, 763 A.2d
at 995 (internal quotation marks omitted).   This Court will review the action of a licensing board
to determine whether it has exceeded its jurisdiction by examining the evidence to ascertain
whether there is legal evidence to support that action.  Id.
Analysis
In its brief to this Court, petitioner first contends that the Board exceeded its jurisdiction
in finding that Cadillac Lounge had violated Providence Ordinance 14-1 since, according to
petitioner, said ordinance addresses closing hours and not the hours at which adult entertainment
- 4 -




can be presented.   As we have previously indicated, however, petitioner chose not to include
such an argument in its initial petition for writ of certiorari, and that omission precludes our
review of that issue.  See Bergquist, 844 A.2d at 104.
The petitioner next contends that the Board exceeded its jurisdiction by penalizing
Cadillac Lounge with what petitioner characterizes as an excessive monetary fine of $2,500.
Relying on § 5-22-3, petitioner asserts that the maximum fine allowable for each violation of the
closing hour ordinance is $20.   With laudable candor, respondents agree that the $2,500 fine
imposed  by  the  Board  was  in  excess  of  the  statutorily  permitted  amount.    According  to
respondents, however, G.L. 1956 § 45-2-23 is the controlling statute—not § 5-22-3 as petitioner
contends.   The respondents contend that § 45-2-23 expressly allows for the imposition of a fine
of up to $500 for each violation.  We agree with this contention.
Section 45-2-23 provides:
“City    of    Providence—Bureau    of    Licenses.—
Nothwithstanding the provisions of § 45-6-2 or any other general
or special law to the contrary, the bureau of licenses of the city of
Providence  is  authorized  to  impose  a  fine  not  to  exceed  five
hundred  dollars                                                                                      ($500)  upon  any  person,  firm,  or  corporation
which holds a license issued by the bureau for the violation of any
law, ordinance, condition, rule, or regulation applicable to the
license.”                                                                                             (Emphasis added.)
Pursuant to the plain language of the statute, the Board was authorized to impose a fine of up to
$500  for  each  violation  of  Providence  Ordinance                                                 14-1.     The  inclusion  of  the  phrase
“[n]otwithstanding * * * any other general or special law to the contrary” clearly expresses the
General Assembly’s intent to have § 45-2-23 control the imposition of fines in situations such as
this  one.    Accordingly,  we  hold  that  the  maximum  fine  allowable  for  each  violation  of
Providence Ordinance 14-1 is $500 and that the Board exceeded its jurisdiction by imposing a
fine of $2,500.
- 5 -




In view of the fact that there is an adequate record before us, and in the interest of judicial
and administrative economy, we need not remand this case to the Board for further proceedings.
Rather, we shall rely upon our inherent power and simply direct that a fine in the amount of $500
for each of the two violations be assessed.   See Tanner v. Town Council of East Greenwich, 880
A.2d 784, 801 (R.I. 2005).
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, we vacate the $2,500 fine imposed for the two violations, and
we direct the assessment of a fine in the total amount of $1,000.   The file may be remanded to
the Board.
Justice Flaherty did not participate.
- 6 -




COVER SHEET
TITLE OF CASE:                                                     Cadillac Lounge, LLC v. The City of Providence et al.
DOCKET SHEET NO.:                                                  2005-224-M.P.
COURT:                                                             Supreme
DATE OPINION FILED:   January 19, 2007
Appeal from
SOURCE OF APPEAL:    Providence Board of Licenses
JUSTICES:                                                          Williams, CJ., Goldberg, Suttell, and Robinson, JJ.
Not Participating -  Flaherty, J.
WRITTEN BY:      Justice William P. Robinson, III, for the Court
ATTORNEYS:
For Plaintiff:                                                     Kris Macaruso Marotti, Esq.
ATTORNEYS:
For Defendant:                                                     Kevin F. McHugh, Esq.
7

Download 05-224.pdf

Rhode Island Law