CARLO BAY ENTERPRISE, INC. D/B/A PRANA YBOR’S PREMIER NITESPOT
v.
CITY OF TAMPA
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court denied a petition for writ of prohibition filed by a nightclub owner challenging the City of Tampa's authority to hold a revocation/suspension hearing regarding alleged violations of mask-wearing and dancing restrictions. The court found that the City Council plainly had jurisdiction under the city code to conduct such a hearing, making prohibition an inappropriate remedy.
Yes. The City Council has clear jurisdiction under Section 27-318(c)(1) and 27-318(c)(1)(f) of the City of Tampa Code to revoke or suspend an alcohol sales license for cause following a public hearing, and therefore the petition for writ of prohibition was properly denied.
[1] Prohibition is an extraordinary writ that is extremely narrow in scope and operation.
[2] Prohibition exists to prevent an inferior tribunal from acting in excess of jurisdiction, not to prevent an erroneous exercise of jurisdiction.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Prohibition is an extraordinary writ that is extremely narrow in scope and operation. It exists to prevent an inferior tribunal from acting in excess of jurisdiction but not to prevent an erroneous exercise of jurisdiction.”
Establishes the standard for when a writ of prohibition is appropriate, limiting it to jurisdictional issues only.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe City of Tampa issued two civil citations to Carlo Bay Enterprise, Inc. d/b/a Prana Ybor's Premier Nitespot on January 1 and January 8, 2021, for v…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Excess Of Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
d/b/a PRANA YBOR’S PREMIER NITESPOT, Circuit Ct. Case No.: 21-CA-1109
Petitioner,
Division: E
vs.
CITY OF TAMPA,
Respondent.
________________________________________/
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION
This case is before the Court on a Petition for Writ of Prohibition filed February 8, 2021, by Petitioner Carlo Bay Enterprise, Inc. d/b/a Prana Ybor’s Premier Nitespot. On review of the petition, appendix, and applicable authority, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, the Petition is due to be denied for the reasons set forth here.
I. Jurisdiction
This Court has jurisdiction. See Art. V, Sec. 5, Fla. Const. II. Legal Standard
“Prohibition is an extraordinary writ that is extremely narrow in scope and operation. It exists to prevent an inferior tribunal from acting in excess of jurisdiction but not to prevent an erroneous exercise of jurisdiction.” Panagakos v. Laufer, 779 So. 2d 296, 297 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). The only issue relevant in a prohibition proceeding is the nature and extent of a lower court or tribunal’s jurisdiction; prohibition is not intended to remedy errors that are capable of correction on an appeal from a final order. Id.; Haridopolos v. Citizens for Strong Schools, Inc., 81 So. 3d 465 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011).
III. Facts
On January 1, 2021, the City of Tampa issued Civil Citation number TC-20861 (“Civil Citation 1”) to Petitioner for violation of Executive Order 2020-42(5). Civil Citation 1 described the violation as “[e]mployee not wearing a mask. No dancing on floor area.” It provided two options for a response: either pay the fine of $150.00 or challenge the citation in court.
On January 8, 2021, the City of Tampa issued Civil Citation number TC-20802 (“Civil Citation 2”) to Petitioner for violation of Executive Order 2020-42(3)(b). Civil Citation 2 described the violation as “[e]mployees and patrons observed not wearing a facemask and dancing on dance floor, observed.” Like Civil Citation 1, Civil Citation 2 provided that Petitioner could either pay a fine or challenge the violation in court. Petitioner alleges that it timely followed the procedure to challenge Civil Citation 1 and Civil Citation 2 (together, the “Civil Citations”) in court. Petitioner further alleges that the City has implied that the court challenge provided for in the Civil Citations will not occur and in lieu of the challenge procedure, the City Council will conduct a revocation/suspension hearing to be held on February 22, 2021.
IV. Analysis
The nature of a prohibition proceeding mandates a narrow focus on the issue of whether the City Council has jurisdiction to conduct the revocation/suspension hearing on February 22, 2021. Plainly, it does. See Section 27-318(c)(1) and 27-318(c)(1)(f) of the City of Tampa Code (providing for the revocation or suspension of alcohol sales for cause following a public hearing). As a consequence, the petition is due to be denied.
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED and ADJUDGED that:
1. The Petition for Writ of Prohibition is DENIED.
By:______________________________________________
Anne-Leigh Gaylord Moe, Circuit Court Judge
Electronic copies provided through JAWS
Electronically Conformed 2/17/2021 Anne-Leigh Gaylord Moe
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Haridopolos v. Citizens FOR Strong Schs., Inc., 78 So. 3d 605 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)
- McCUNE v. State, 779 So. 2d 296 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)