Grafas v. Borough of Brielle

LARRY GRAFAS, 608 GREEN AVENUE ASSOCIATES LLC, andHOFFMAN'S RESTAURANTS LLC Plaintiffs, v. BOROUGH OF BRIELLE; PLANNING BOARD OF BOROUGH OF BRIELLE; andJOHN DOES 1-10, Defendants.

Case No. 3:19-cv-9467-BRM-LHG

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

May 19, 2020

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

OPINION

MARTINOTTI, DISTRICT JUDGE

Before this Court is a Motion filed by Defendant Borough of Brielle ("Brielle") to dismiss Plaintiffs Larry Grafas, 608 Green Avenue Associates LLC, and Hoffman's Restaurants LLC's (collectively, "Plaintiffs") Complaint. (ECF No. 12.) Also before the Court is Defendant Planning Board of Borough of Brielle's (the "Board") Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint. (ECF No. 14.) Both Motions are opposed. (ECF No. 18.) Having reviewed the submissions filed in connection with the motion and having declined to hold oral argument pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78(b), for the reasons set forth below and for good cause appearing, Brielle's Motion to Dismiss is DENIED and the Board's Motion to Dismiss is DENIED.

I. BACKGROUND

For the purposes of this Motion to Dismiss, the Court accepts the factual allegations in the Amended Complaint as true and draws all inferences in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs. See Phillips v. Cty. of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 228 (3d Cir. 2008). Furthermore, the Court also considers any "document integral to or explicitly relied upon in the complaint." In re Burlington Coat Factory Secs. Litig., 114 F.3d 1410, 1426 (3d Cir. 1997) (quoting Shaw v. Dig. Equip. Corp., 82 F.3d 1194, 1220 (1st Cir. 1996)).

This matter stems from allegedly discriminatory actions taken by Brielle through its Board, the members of its administration, and its council (the "Council") against Plaintiffs. Plaintiff Larry Grafas ("Grafas") is the sole member of Plaintiffs 608 Green Avenue Associates ("608 Associates") and Hoffman's Restaurant LLC ("Hoffman") d/b/a Waypoint 622 ("Waypoint"). (ECF No. 1 ¶ 6.)

On January 9, 2015, Grafas, through 608 Associates purchased the bar/restaurant formally known as Union Landing ("UL") in Brielle, which included a liquor license. (Id. ¶ 10.) In anticipation of Waypoint's Memorial Day Weekend opening, Grafas commenced significant improvements (the "Improvements") to the restaurant that were overseen and approved by Elissa Commins ("Commins"), the Zoning Official of Brielle. (Id. ¶ 12.) However, despite prior approval of the Improvements, Brielle—in response to complaints by Waypoint's neighbors—formed a committee to investigate whether the Improvements violated local ordinances (the "Committee"). (Id. ¶ 15.) The Committee, through member and Board engineer Allan Hilla ("Hilla"), issued a report (the "Report") citing: "(i) de minimis inconsistencies from the previously approved Improvements and (ii) various supposed land use violations (some of which were already existing when Mr. Grafas purchased the property)." (Id.) The Report threatened Grafas with fines and possible imprisonment if he did not remediate the cited conditions. (Id.)

In response, Grafas appealed the Report and simultaneously filed a formal site plan application (the "Site Plan Application") with the Board. (Id. ¶ 16.) While the Site Plan Application was before the Board, the Council passed an ordinance limiting all bands in Brielle establishmentsto a maximum of three pieces. (Id. ¶ 17.) Soon after, an objector took an unauthorized video of a band with more than three pieces playing at Waypoint and sent the video to Brielle. (Id.) Grafas received a summons for violating the ordinance, which was eventually dismissed after Grafas challenged the summons and charges. (Id.)

Additionally, in 2016, the Council passed an ordinance which prevented the operation of any instrument, amplifier, or device that can be heard at a distance of 100 feet. (Id. ¶ 23.) A member of the Brielle Police Department hand-delivered a copy of the site plan for Waypoint to Grafas with a 100-foot radius drawn around the restaurant. (Id.) To Grafas's knowledge, no other property owner received such a copy. (Id.)

On or about June 26, 2017, Grafas appeared before the Mayor and three other members of the Council for renewal of Hoffman's liquor license (the "Liquor License") (the "2017 Renewal"). (Id. ¶ 18.) The 2017 Renewal involved the Council placing additional restrictions on the Liquor License which required Waypoint to (i) close at 11:00 p.m. and (ii) only seat 72 patrons at a time (the "2017 Restrictions"). (Id. ¶ 19.) Waypoint is the only restaurant in Brielle to have its liquor license subject to restrictions regarding hours or seating capacity. (Id.)

Initially, the Council voted 2-1 in favor of approving the renewal of the Liquor License without the 2017 Restrictions. (Id.) However, Brielle's attorney informed the Council that a 2-1 vote was insufficient to pass a resolution and subsequently, after a re-vote, the Council voted 3-0 to renew the Liquor License with the 2017 Restrictions. (Id.) In response, Waypoint appealed the Council's decision to the Director of the NJ Division of Alcoholic Beverage Control alleging the original 2-1 vote was valid and the license was therefore lawfully granted without the 2017 Restrictions. (Id. ¶ 20.) Thereafter, the Director issued a stay of the enforcement of the 2017 Restrictions and the matter is currently pending before an Administrative Law Judge. (Id. ¶ 21.)

On or about April 10, 2018¹, the Board adopted a resolution memorializing its decision on the Site Plan Application. (Id. ¶ 24.) In doing so, the Board found: (1) Waypoint is permitted to stay open until 2:00am, (2) Waypoint is permitted to seat approximately 280 patrons at one time, (3) Waypoint is not permitted to allow any bands playing to use amplification, and (4) Waypoint must have a valet during "busy" times. (Id.) According to Grafas, no other similar restaurant has been subject to such restrictions. (Id.) Furthermore, the Council did not hold a hearing to discuss the 2018 Restrictions or give Plaintiffs the opportunity to present their position. (Id.) Consequently, Grafas appealed the Board's decisions in New Jersey Superior Court, where a case is currently pending (the "Superior Court Action"). (Id.)

In June of 2018, the Council once again renewed the Liquor License (the "2018 Renewal") with additional restrictions, including that: (1) Waypoint could no longer play live music, and (2) Waypoint was required to have valet parking for its patrons (the "2018 Restrictions"). (Id. ¶ 25.) The Council did not hold a hearing to discuss the 2018 Restrictions or give Plaintiffs opportunity to present their position. (Id.) As with the 2017 Renewal, the 2018 Renewal is stayed pending the resolution of an appeal before an Administrative Law Judge. (Id.)

Finally, in 2018, Brielle removed eight parking spots previously available to Waypoint patrons by prohibiting parking on the street directly in front of Waypoint. (Id. ¶ 26.) This action was taken even after Waypoint reconfigured its parking lot to promote traffic flow and safer conditions. (Id.)

On April 10, 2019, Plaintiffs filed their two-count Complaint against Defendants for violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Count Two) and to declare the policy unconstitutional pursuant to28 U.S.C. § 2201 (Count One). (ECF No. 1.) Brielle and the Board filed answers to the Complaint on June 24, 2019 and June 25, 2019, respectively. (ECF Nos. 6 & 7.) On October 25, 2019, Brielle filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint. (ECF No. 12.) On October 28, 2019, the Board filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint. (ECF No. 14.) On November 18, 2019, Plaintiffs filed an Opposition to both Motions. (ECF No. 18.) Finally, on October 25, 2019, Brielle and the Board filed Reply Briefs to their respective Motions. (ECF Nos. 19 & 20.)

II. LEGAL STANDARD

In deciding a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a district court is "required to accept as true all factual allegations in the complaint and draw all inferences in the facts alleged in the light most favorable to the [plaintiff]." Phillips, 515 F.3d at 228. "[A] complaint attacked by a . . . motion to dismiss does not need detailed factual allegations." Bell Atl. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). However, the Plaintiff's "obligation to provide the 'grounds' of his 'entitle[ment] to relief' requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." Id. (citing Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986)). A court is "not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation." Papasan, 478 U.S. at 286. Instead, assuming the factual allegations in the complaint are true, those "[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555.

"To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.'" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). "A claim has facial plausibility when the pleaded factual content allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for misconduct alleged." Id. This "plausibility standard" requires the complaint allege"more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully," but it "is not akin to a 'probability requirement.'" Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). "Detailed factual allegations" are not required, but "more than an unadorned, the defendant-harmed-me accusation" must be pled; it must include "factual enhancements" and not just conclusory statements or a recitation of the elements of a cause of action. Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 557).

"Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief [is] . . . a context specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense." Iqbal, 556...