Summary
The Georgia Supreme Court affirmed the denial of Daniel Corporation’s petition for a writ of mandamus seeking recognition that SPI Club’s alcohol licenses were automatically forfeited. The court held that Atlanta’s ordinance required a license holder to commence business at the licensed establishment within nine months, but did not require regular or continuous operation or use of the alcohol license. The private events held at SPI Club’s establishments constituted sufficient bona fide business activity to satisfy the ordinance.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the 'open for business' requirement in City of Atlanta Code of Ordinances § 10-69(a) requires a license holder to commence business on a regular and continuing basis.
- Whether a license holder must make some use of its alcohol license (e.g., by selling alcohol) to satisfy the 'open for business' requirement of § 10-69(a).
Holdings
- The 'open for business' requirement refers to a discrete, singular point in time—the commencement of business—and does not impose any requirement of regularity or continuity.
- A license holder is not required to make any use of its alcohol license to satisfy the 'open for business' requirement of § 10-69(a).
Key quotations
“In light of the meaning ordinarily attributed to the word 'open' when used in the context in which it appears in the ordinance... the requirement that an establishment 'open for business' seems to refer to a discrete and singular point in time, the point at which an establishment commences or starts to do business.” (at 598)
“Subsection 10-69(b) picks up where subsection 10-69(a) leaves off. That subsection 10-69(b) is addressed quite clearly to the question of continuity suggests to us that continuity is not an element of the requirement set out in subsection 10-69(a).” (at 599)
“If subsection 10-69(a) were meant to require that an establishment engage specifically in the business for which a license is required, it presumably would say so explicitly.” (at 600)
Factual background
SPI Club, Inc. operated two nightclubs in Atlanta and received alcohol licenses for each in July 2010. Within nine months, one club hosted two private events (August 2010) where food and beverages were served but not sold, and the other hosted one private event (October 2010) where only non-alcoholic beverages were served. SPI Club charged venue rental fees for some events. Daniel Corp. contended SPI Club failed to 'open for business' because it did not operate on a regular/continuing basis and did not sell alcohol under the licenses.
Procedural history
Daniel Corp. petitioned for a writ of mandamus to compel city officials to recognize an automatic forfeiture of alcohol licenses held by SPI Club, Inc. The trial court found SPI Club had opened the clubs for business within the required nine-month period and denied the petition. Daniel appealed.