B.O.B. appeal backfires: hit with 10 day liquor license suspension

 

I guess I don't understand how the appeals process works.  The B.O.B. was hit with a 3 day suspension after a drunk customer fell to his death when trying to jump across an open stair case.  Lawyers for the B.O.B. appealed the finding at a hearing today.

But, instead of overturning the finding, or merely validating it, state officials extended the liquor license ban to 10 consecutive days, and then added another "guilty charge" for something that wasn't in the original complaint (the new charge was for allowing a drunk customer to loiter on premises, something that tends to happen often at bars in my experience).

I'd like to hear what the lawyers on this board think of this.  It's as if they are being punished for pursuing a vigorous defense.  

12 angry men

Rodeo Burger wrote: 

I guess I don't understand how the appeals process works.  The B.O.B. was hit with a 3 day suspension after a drunk customer fell to his death when trying to jump across an open stair case.  Lawyers for the B.O.B. appealed the finding at a hearing today.

But, instead of overturning the finding, or merely validating it, state officials extended the liquor license ban to 10 consecutive days, and then added another "guilty charge" for something that wasn't in the original complaint (the new charge was for allowing a drunk customer to loiter on premises, something that tends to happen often at bars in my experience).

I'd like to hear what the lawyers on this board think of this.  It's as if they are being punished for pursuing a vigorous defense.  

12 angry men

The LCC is nothing like a regular court of law. They can pretty much do whatever they want without repercussions.

That's effed up

Next time stick to single story bars.

Alcohol and open staircases. What could possibly go awry?

LoneWolfSparty wrote:Alcohol and open staircases. What could possibly go awry?

According to the state, it was up to code. FWIW, it has now been enclosed.

Snake Plissken wrote:That's effed up

They should have never appealed the original ruling. 3 days was a small penalty for the violation and the commission doesn't respond well when challenged. Very poor job by the lawyers.

duffy munn wrote:

They should have never appealed the original ruling. 3 days was a small penalty for the violation and the commission doesn't respond well when challenged. Very poor job by the lawyers.

Yeah, but 3 days without a license, especially if during the summer and/or a weekend, can really hurt a place like that which carries a huge overhead, as well as an entire staff that will be without pay during that time, and that will make problems with the staff because of it, that loss of income, which will now be a 1/4 of their monthly pay, will cut deep.

Isn't that place white trash central?

Mentalstate wrote:

Yeah, but 3 days without a license, especially if during the summer and/or a weekend, can really hurt a place like that which carries a huge overhead, as well as an entire staff that will be without pay during that time, and that will make problems with the staff because of it, that loss of income, which will now be a 1/4 of their monthly pay, will cut deep.

They likely would have been able to name the days they were closed. A Sunday, Monday and Tuesday in June wasn't going to break the bank. Again, poor decision to challenge the ruling.

The B.O.B has avoided other penalties in the past, little fines here or there, nothing ever mentioned to the public.

The MLCC was going to go after them for an original penalty of 10 days, some negotiations with the MLCC and B.O.B made them change it to 3 days and the B.O.B still wanted to fight it. Instead of losing a weekend, they will now lose 150k-200k over a 10 day span.

duffy munn wrote:

They likely would have been able to name the days they were closed. A Sunday, Monday and Tuesday in June wasn't going to break the bank. Again, poor decision to challenge the ruling.

If that was the case, then yes, although maybe their lawyers wanted to set a precedent legally for not being responsible for adult's behavior for any future suits moving forward, as a ruling like this paints them in shaky legal ground for future lawsuits. And, of course, their are some potentially huge hidden costs with the 3 day ruling as well that led them to that challenge, such as a huge increase in insurance costs.

duffy munn wrote:

They likely would have been able to name the days they were closed. A Sunday, Monday and Tuesday in June wasn't going to break the bank. Again, poor decision to challenge the ruling.

Original plan for the MLCC was to hit them with 10 days in April, then it was changed to 3 days and scheduled for May 30th-June 1st (Fri-Sun) until they decided to challenge the ruling. Then the MLCC dropped the hammer on them.

duffy munn wrote:
They should have never appealed the original ruling. 3 days was a small penalty for the violation and the commission doesn't respond well when challenged. Very poor job by the lawyers.

They sound like tRCMB mods.  

Giant Moose wrote:
They sound like tRCMB mods.  

Pretty much.

Talk about Holland's lcc and how much better it is? That's another thirty days