Judge Rules on Nicky Rottens Suit; Both Sides Claim Victory

Written and reported by contributor Gloria Tierney.

A federal judge has dismissed all but one of the claims against the city by the owners of Nicky Rottens Bar & Burger Joint, who accused Coronado officials of violating their constitutional rights to equal protection and due process. 

The owners filed suit last year because of conditions the city imposed on the restaurant, which they agreed to, and for accusations that officials impeded their efforts to alter their liquor license.  

The judge turned away most of those claims, but agreed that the city and City Manager Blair King interfered with the restaurant’s application to the state for a change in its liquor license. 

“Normally a downgraded license takes 90 days,” said restaurant co-owner George Green. “Ours took almost three years.” 

The city's role, the judge ruled last month, caused the licensing process to take years rather than months, but he still denied the owners’ demand that conditions placed upon the restaurant should be lifted. 

“The city appears to have refused to cooperate with the Alcoholic Beverage Control,” Judge Jeffery T. Miller wrote of the state agency. “The city allegedly attempted to usurp ABC’s power by failing to provide the information necessary for ABC to down grade (the) license … the city should not be able to enforce the ABC regulations when the discretion squarely lies with ABC officials.”

The city issued a measured response to the Court’s ruling:

“Even relying on the facts as presented by the plaintiff, which are disputed, the court found in favor of the city and dismissed on all causes of action with the exception of one. The city will address the only remaining cause of action on the facts and will file a subsequent motion to dismiss.”

The owners of the restaurant, however, saw the ruling as a clear victory and believe the court fully agreed with their claim that King hindered their efforts. They had sought a downgraded license to allow drinking in some parts of the restaurant, but not in others, so children can dine in the eatery. 

The court dismissed the claim that permit conditions imposed by the city violated their right to equal protection.

They include having a security guard and only allowing 18 people on the patio at a time. They don’t include terms Aaron and his partners negotiated with the ABC earlier this year. The conditions with the city are “weird and apply (only) to us,” Aaron said. 

He acknowledged that he had agreed to these conditions, but claims he did so “under protest.” The judge didn’t buy it. 

“You can not operate a restaurant under conditions and simultaneously sue the city for substantial damages,” Miller wrote in his ruling. “(the owners) accepted the permits to operate its business with various conditions and the court must accept that agreement.”

He did suggest a remedy: “Reapply for a new permit without conditions and  decline to accept any less favorable treatment.”

This is exactly what the the partners plan to do. “We’re a family-owned business and we just want to be treated like everyone else,” Green said.