MARC STEIN v. City of Philadelphia, Sawyer, Et Al

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania
8/27/13 9:49 PM
STANDARD
United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:13-cv-04644-PBT
STEIN v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA et al Assigned to: CHIEF JUDGE PETRESE B. TUCKER Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act Plaintiff MARC STEIN doing business as 626 FRONT LLC also known as AURA RESTAURANT & LOUNGE represented by MARIROSE ROACH ROACH LEITE & MANYIN LLC 2938 LEVICK STREET GROUND FLOOR PHILADELPHIA, PA 19149 267-343-5818 Email: marirose@rlmfirm.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Date Filed: 08/12/2013 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question
V. Defendant CITY OF PHILADELPHIA Defendant CITY OF PHILADELPHIA POLICE DEPARTMENT Defendant MICHAEL BRENNAN SERGEANT Defendant BRIAN KORN CAPTAIN Defendant NORTHERN LIBERTIES NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION Defendant
https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?23474603603335-L_1_0-1 Page 1 of 3
8/27/13 9:49 PM
DAVID WITZ Defendant MATT RUBEN Defendant LARRY FREEDMAN Defendant JUDY DONOVAN Defendant RICHARD DONOVAN Defendant JAMES BROSSY Defendant DEBBIE RUDMAN Defendant CHRISTOPHER SAWYER doing business as PHILADELINQUINCY Defendant PHILADELINQUINCY Defendant PHILEBRITY.COM Date Filed 08/12/2013 # Docket Text 1 COMPLAINT against All Defendants ( Filing fee $ 400 receipt number 086562.), filed by MARC STEIN. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheets)(tj, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/12/2013: # 2 Ex A, # 3 Ex AA, # 4 Ex B, # 5 Ex BB, # 6 Ex C, # 7 Ex CC, # 8 Ex D, # 9 Ex DD, # 10 Ex E, # 11 Ex EE, # 12 Ex F, # 13 Ex FF, # 14 Ex G, # 15 Ex GG) (tj, ). (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/12/2013: # 16 Ex H, # 17 Ex HH, # 18 Ex I, # 19 Ex II, # 20 Ex J, # 21 Ex JJ, # 22 Ex K, # 23 Ex KK, # 24 Ex L, # 25 Ex LL, # 26 Ex M, # 27 Ex MM, # 28 Ex N, # 29 Ex NN, # 30 Ex O) (tj, ). (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/12/2013: # 31 Ex OO, # 32 Ex P, # 33 Ex PP, # 34 Ex Q, # 35 Ex R, # 36 Ex S, # 37 Ex T, # 38 Ex U, # 39 Ex V, # 40 Ex W, # 41 Ex X, # 42 Ex Y, # 43 Ex Z) (tj, ). (Entered: 08/12/2013) Summons Issued as to MICHAEL BRENNAN, JAMES BROSSY, CITY OF
Page 2 of 3
08/12/2013
https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?23474603603335-L_1_0-1
8/27/13 9:49 PM
PHILADELPHIA, CITY OF PHILADELPHIA POLICE DEPARTMENT, JUDY DONOVAN, RICHARD DONOVAN, LARRY FREEDMAN, BRIAN KORN, NORTHERN LIBERTIES NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, PHILADELINQUINCY, PHILEBRITY.COM, MATT RUBEN, DEBBIE RUDMAN, CHRISTOPHER SAWYER, DAVID WITZ. Forwarded To: Counsel on 8/12/13 (tj, ) (Entered: 08/12/2013) 08/12/2013 DEMAND for Trial by Jury by MARC STEIN. (tj, ) (Entered: 08/12/2013)
PACER Service Center

Transaction Receipt
08/27/2013 21:16:42 PACER Login: cs7934 Description: Billable Pages: 2 Client Code: Cost: 0.20 Docket Report Search Criteria: 2:13-cv-04644-PBT
https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?23474603603335-L_1_0-1
Page 3 of 3
Case 2:13-cv-04644-PBT Document 1 Filed 08/12/13 Page 1 of 55
ROACH, LEITE & MANYIN, LLC

2938 Levick Street, Ground Floor Phikdebhk, PA 19149 By: Marirose E. Roach, Esquire Attorney Identification No. 205225 marftose@;rIrnfirmcoro office: (267) 343-5818 fax:(215)405-3765
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Marc Stem d/b/a 626 FRONT LLC a.k.a. AURA RESTAURANT & LOUNGE 626-628 North Front Street Phikdebhk, PA 19123 Pkmtiff, Compkfot for Damages CITY OF PHILADELPHIA Law Department One Parkway 1515 Arch St., Phikdebhk PA 19102-1595 and CITY OF PHILADELPHIA POLICE DEPARTMENT 750 Race St., Phikdebhk PA 19106 and SERGEANT MICHAEL BRENNAN 750 Race St., Phikdebhk PA 19106 and
No.
Case 2:13-cv-04644-PBT
Document 1 Filed 08/12/13 Page 2 of 55
CAPTAIN BRIAN KORN 750 Race St., Phikdebhk PA 19106 and NORTHERN LIBERTIES NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION : NLNA Community Center 700 N. 3rd St., 19123 Phikdebhk, PA and DAVID WITZ 511 Montrose st., Phikdebhk PA 19147 and MATT RUBEN NLNA Community Center 700 N. 3rd St., 19123 Phikdebhk, PA and LARRY FREEDMAN NLNA Community Center 700 N. 3rd St., 19123 Phikdebhk, PA and JUDY DONOVAN 117 Fairmount Ave., Phikdebhk PA 19123 and RICHARD DONOVAN 117 Fairmount Ave., Phikdebhk PA 19123
and JAMES BROSSY 106 Fairmount Ave., Phadebhk PA 19123 and DEBBIE RUDMAN 106 Fairmount Ave., Phikdebhk PA 19123 and CHRISTOPHER SAWYER d/b/a PHTLADELINQUINCY and PHILADELINQUINCY 2434 East Cumberland Street Phikdebhk, PA 19125
and PHILEBRITY.COM 1021 N. Hancock #1, Phikdebhk PA 19123
COMPLAINT Pkmtiff states as foows: JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. Jurisdiction is conferred upon thk Court pursuant to 28 U.S. CA. 1331 and 28 U.S. CA.
1343 because the matters b controversy arise under the Constitution and kws of the United States.
This Court has supplemental jurisdiction to hear the state ckims of Marc Stem, d/b/a 626 Front LLC ako known as Aura Restaurant & Lounge, ("Pkbtiff) under 28 U.S.CA. 1367(a). 2. Jurisdiction ako is conferred upon thk Court pursuant to 28 U.S. CA. 1332 because the
matterfocontroversy, excbsive mterest and costs, exceeds the sum of $75,000. 3. Venue k proper b thk Court under 28 U.S. C.A. 1391(b) because a substantial part of the
events that gave rise to Pkfotiffs ckims took pkce and a defendants reside wfthfo the Eastern Divkion of the Dktrict of Pennsylvank. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 4. This k an action at kw to redress the deprivation under color of statute, ordinance, reguktion,
custom, or usage of aright,privilege and immunity secured to Pkfotiffby the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, 42 U.S. C 1983 and 1981, and arisfog under the kw and statutes of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvank. 5. Thk action k against the defendant, City of Phikdebhk, located b the County of Phadebhk,
Commonwealth of Pennsylvank, Eastern Dktrict of Pennsylvank. 6. This action k ako against the defendant, Cfty of Phadebhk Police Department, its agents,
servants and employees, mcfodmg but not limited to Sgt. Brennan and Captam Korn, who were at aD times material hereto, elected and/or duly appomted, employed and acting as officers of the kw bthe City of Phikdebhk. Said agents, servants and/or employees are bemg sued both m their mdividual and offickl capacities. 7. There are further causes of action stated herem against private defendants, not directly
assockted with and/or employed by the City of Phikdebhk, as w l be set forth at length herem
8.
It k aDeged, among other thfogs, that the private defendants conspired wfth the Cfty of
Phikdebhk, Cfty of Phadebhk Police Department and their agents, servants and employees, to be maliciously and purposefully deprived if its aforesaid protectedrightsunder the Constitution of the United States, and the kws and statutes of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvank for illegal reasons. 9. Specifically, the pkmtiff sought to peaceably operate as a Restaurant and lounge with music and
dancbg, but has been unable to do so because of the organized opposition of the private defendants fo harmony wfth the acts of the public actors identified as defendants herem.
PARTIES 10. Pkmtiff conducts busmess at 626- 62 8 North Front Street, County of Phadebhk,
Pennsylvania. 11. The Defendants are: a. The City of Phadebhk, k a municbal corporation, Ckss 1 Cfty, and/or political
subdivision which operates, by and through its elected and/or duly appomted or employed, officers, employees, representatives, agents and servants, wfth a pkce of busmess at One Parkway, 1515 Arch Street, Cfty and County of Phadebhk, Pennsylvank. b. The Cfty of Phikdebhk Police Department k a municbal kw enforcement agency,
authorized and establkhed under the kws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvank and the Cfty of Phikdebhk, and at aD times material hereto, the actions of said Police Department and fts constituent dktricts,focfodmgbut not limited to the 6th Dktrict, were undertaken byftsduly
appomted and empfoyed officers, employees, agents, servants and representatives, wfth a pkce of busmess at 750 Race Street, County of Phikdebhk, Pennsylvank. c. Defendant, Sergeant Michael Brennan, k on information and belief an mdividual duly
appomted and employed by the Phikdebhk Police Department, 6th Dktrict, who under the color of the kw at au times material hereto acted as an authorized agent of defendant, Cfty of Phikdebhk, Phikdebhk Police Department, atftspkce of busmess at 750 Race Street, City and County of Phikdebhk, Pennsylvania. d. Defendant Captam Brian Kom k, on mformation and belief an mdividual duly
appomted and employed by the Phikdebhk Police Department, 6th Dktrict, who under the color of the kw acted at aD times material hereto as an authorized agent of defendant, City of Phikdebhk, Phikdebhk Police Department atftspkce of busmess at 750 Race Street, City and County of Phikdebhk, Pennsylvank. e. Defendant Northern Liberties Neighborhood Assocktion (hereafter "NTLN A") k, on
mformation and belief a civic assocktion conductbg busmess at 700 North 2nd Street, City and County of Phadebhk, Pennsylvank. Defendant, David Wftz, k an mdividual residmg at 511 Montrose Street, Cfty and
County of Phikdebhk, Pennsylvank, and on mformation and belief was at afl times material hereto, a member of the Northern Lberties Neighborhood Assocktion. g. Defendant Matt Ruben, was on bformation and belief at aDtimesmaterial hereto, the
President and Zonmg Committee Director, and/or authorized agent of the NLNA atftspkce of busmess at 700 North 2nd Street, City and County of Phikdebhk, Pennsylvank.
h.
Defendant Larry Freedman, was, at all times material hereto, the Vice President and
Zoning Committee Director, and/or authorized agent of the NLNA atftspkce of busmess at 700 North 2nd Street, Cfty and County of Phadebhk, Pennsylvank. i. Defendant Judy Donovan, in her capacity as an mdividual and on information and belief
a member of the NLNA, mamtamed a kst pkce of residence at 117 Fairmotint Ave, City and County of Phikdebhk, Pennsylvank. j. Defendant Richard Donovan,fohk capacity as an mdividual and on mformation and
belief as a member of the NLNA, mamtained a kst pkce of residence at 117 Fairmount Ave, Cfty and County of Phikdebhk, Pennsylvank. k. Defendant James Brossy, m hk capacity as an mdividual and on mformation and belief
as a member of the NLNA, mamtamed a kst pkce of residence at 106 Fairmount Ave., Cfty and County of Phadebhk, Pennsylvank. L Defendant Debbie Rudman, m her capacity as an mdividual and on mformation and
beHef as a member of the NLNA, mamtained a kst pkce of residence at 106 Fairmount Ave., City and County of Phadebhk, Pennsylvank. m. Defendant Christopher Sawyer, in his capacity as an mdividual and d/b/a
Predelinquency, an onlfoe blog at www.phikdelfoquency.corn, operating at 2434 East Cumberknd Street, City and County of Phikdebhk, Pennsylvank. a Defendant, Phuebrfty.com, fts owners, agents, representatives and/or employees, m its
capacity as an entity and by and through the aforesaidfodividuals,operatbg at 1021 N. Hancock St., Apartment #1, City and County of Phadebhk, Pennsylvank.
12.
State andfederalckims setforthbelow derivefroma common nucleus of operative facts so
that thk court may exercke supplemental jurisdiction over the state-kw ckims under 28 U.S. C 1367. ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS 13. Pkmtiff k a Restaurant and bar operating at 62 8 North Front Street in the Northern Liberties
section of Phikdebhk. 14. 15. 16. The owner of Pkmtiff k Marc Stein Pkmtiff entered into a commerckl lease to operate on April 16,2011. In March of 2011, Pkmtiff commenced its Liquor Control Board application, a process which
took approxirnately nfoe months. 17. The Northern Liberties Neighborhood Assocktion ("NLNA") did not oppose Pkbtiffs original
application for a liquor license. 18. 19. The liquor license was approved on January 20, 2012. In preparing to open a fully licensed Restaurant and bar, Pkmtiff applied for additional Dcenses
and inspections. 20. On March 24,2011, the establkhment Pkmtiff operates had a use permit, zonmg ckssification
C-2 aflowmgfirstand second floor accessory live entertainment with D.J. dancbg and stage shows. See the Use Permit attached hereto as Exhibit A 21. Prior to openmg for busmess, Pkmtiff had obtamed the following approvak and licenses: a. Zonmg Ckssification C-2: Use for Restaurant and Bar onfirstand secondfloorwfth
accessory live entertainment - incbdes DJ music, dancmg and stage show. b. Renovations to Pkmtiff approved by the City Department of License and Inspections
for two dancefloorsand two DJ music booths. Exhibit A c. A d. Pkmtiff received approval for busmess privflege licensmg, food preparation certification, Pkintiffreceived zonmg approval for live entertainment, DJ music and dancbg. Exhibit
kwful occupancy certification, fire certification, electrical inspection certification, liquor license and amusement permit. Exhibit B 22. In furtherance of its obligations to completeftsapplications for proper Dcensure, Pkmtiff hired a
contractor to submit engfoeering pkns to the city. These pkns were submitted to the Cfty of Phuadebhia on April 8, 2011 23. On or about May 19, 2011, the Cfty of Phikdebhk approved the pkns and sealed the
bbeprmts for Cbb Shok. Mr. Stein kter changed the name of the venue to Aura. The archftect providmg these bbeprmts were HBD Assocktes Inc. ~ Archftect of Record k Joseph CateDi Archftect, Inc. The Tenant Use Ckssification kfistedas A-2 & A-3 Restaurant and Lounge Project Description: "Commerckl Tenant Interior Fit-Out for Dinfog, Entertainment as Use Groups A-2 & A-3". Further, the 'Proposed Floor Pkns" clearly show a DJ booth on thefirstfloorand a 'DJ Console" on the second floor. See, "Drawfog Sheet A-1.4" and 'Wall Construction Pkns A-1.6, " attached hereto as Exhibit C 24. At no pofot during the approval process were there objections to the proposed renovations or
transfer of Dcenses. 25. Pkmtiff received the necessary licenses to operate as a restaurant bar wfth dkc jockey and
dancmg.
26. 27.
Subsequently, Pkmtiff received approval to renovate the property. Renovations to the premises made by Pkmtiff mcfodmg but not limited to soundproofing, other
renovations, were substantial and cost approximately $624,628.35 plus licensfog and permit fees. 28. On January 28, 2012, Pkmtiff opened its doors as a Restaurant & bar. wfth .a dkc jockey and
dancmg wfth expected hours of operation were Monday thru Sunday 10:00 AM to 2:00 AM. Event mcbded: barmftzvah, batmitzvah, sweet 16, engagement, bachelor, bachelorette, openmic, five performance, weddmg receptions, bridal, birthdays, DJ parties - ktm, house. As a result of Pkmtiff denkl of a Speckl Assembly License it's hours were restricted to 9:00 PM to 2:00 AM on Fridays and Saturdays. 29. The music pkyed at Pkmtiff k R&B, Hp-Hop and Reggae and the targeted demographic for
clientele k "upscale urban." 3 0. Pkmtiff patrons are predominantly African American and the establkhment hosts events
sponsored by sororities, fraternities, sockl groups, entertainment groups and busmesses aD over the country. 31. The zonmg permitted on the premises when Pkmtiff opened mcbded use for a restaurant and
bar, live entertainment, dkc jockey and dancmg. 32. In furtherance of obtainfogftspermits, Pkmtiffwas required to obtamfromthe Cfty of
Phikdebhk a Speckl Assembly and Amusement License. 33. By March of 2012, Pkmtiff had obtamed aD of the necessary pre-requkfte approvak needed to
obtam the Speckl Assembly and Amusement License. These mcbded a zonmg permit, busmess privilege license, certificate of occupancy, kwful occupancy certificates, criminal hktory check, tax
clearance and Amusement License. 34. On April 3,2012, Pkmtifffiledfor said licenses. There were no notices of vioktion ksued prior
to thk fing nor after the fifing. 35. Even though Pkbtiffobtamed aD of the necessary approvak for the Speckl Assembly and
Amusement License, their application was denied by the Cfty of Phikdebhk, Board of Review on May 29, 2012. 36. It k, on mformation and belief averred that the license application was denied in part due to a
comprehensive and purposeful campaign of opposition between and among the defendants herem wfth a specific goal of effecting a denkl of the application and preventmg Pkmtiff from operating pursuant to its pknned objectives. 37. Pkmtiff dkcovered that the Phikdebhk Police Department, 6th Dktrict opposed the Speckl
Assembly and Amusement License application because the NLNA informed the 6th Dktrict that Pkmtiff was operating legaDy. The fact k that Pkmtiff was, at a times material hereto, operating m a legal manner. 3 8. Members of the Northern Liberties community and NLNA have tirelessly made efforts to inhibit
Pkmtiffs busmess operations. 39. On mformation and belief members of the NLNA were instructed to take action designed to
prevent Pkmtifffromoperating its busmess and to effectively shut Pkmtiff down. 40. Actions undertaken by and behalf of the NLNA andftsconstituent members, mdividually and
coDectively, against Pkmtiffs kwful busmess operations mcbded but were not limited to: a. Photographfogthe patrons of Pkmtiff and their activities;
b. Directing negative comments to Pkmtiffs patrons and staff during events; c. Attackmg Pkmtiff on sockl networkmg and bloggmg sites, as weD as through e-mas; and d. Fifing scores of unfounded compkmts with the City of Phikdebhk, Police Department. 41. Northern Liberties k a nightlife destination Moreover, bars, ebbs, Restaurants and lounges
surround aD of the residential areas, specifically the proximate to the neighbors makmg compkmts on Pkmtiffs operations. Although,ftk several nightlife locations generate busmess m that area, neighbors and members of the NLNA try to attribute activfty solely to Pkmtiff See a map of the area showmg the nightfife destinations attached hereto as Exhibit D 42. Pkmtiff k the only bar, restaurant, or nightebb m Northern Liberties that has been persecuted m
thk fashion, and not cobcidentaDy, k the only such establkbment that caters to the "upscale urban" demographic. 43. Despite the absence of any nukance vioktions or crirniral infractions, Pkmtiffs Speckl
Assembly and Amusement License was revoked on or about June 27, 2012. See attached letter and notice of denkl as Exhibit E 44. To date, and on mformation and belief the Phikdebhk Nukance Task Force has no regktered
compkmtsfovolvfogPkintiff 45. Without the Speckl Assembly and Amusement License permit Pkmtiff cannot have a dkc
jockey, and attendmg patrons are not even aDowed to dance. 46. Due to the concerted and purposeful efforts ofthe defendants, Pkmtiff has struggled to stay
open for busmess. 47. Pkintiff has been unable to operatefothe manner in whichftwas originally conceived, and
which was originally approved by the Cfty of Phikdebhk. 48. Accordmgly, Pkmtiff has sustafoed a substantial loss of business, manifested by, among other
thfogs, the canceDation of events due to Pkmtiffs mability to provide a dkc jockey and dancmg, and also due to the adverse effect of false and malicious ckims made on the Internet and other open forums. 49. Denkl of Pkintiff s Speckl Assembly and Amusement License application was arbitrary and
capricious and denied Pkmtiff their fundamental and constitutionally protected rights under the Constitutions of the United States and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvank. Said rights, mcfode a vioktbn of due process wfth notice and opportunity to be heard, and equal protection under the kw. FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF Art. XIV, U.S. Constitution, Deprivation of CM Rights 42 U.S.C. 1983 Pkintiff v. Cfty of Phikdebhk 50. 51. Pkintiff mcorporates by reference and reafleges paragraphs 1 to 49 of thk compkint. Pkmtiff contends under 42 U.S. CS. 1983, the Cfty, acting under color of state kw, deprived
them of a property mterest (speckl assembly license) without accordbg them due process of kw. 52. The City of Phikdebhk k a Ckss 1 Cfty authorized under the kws of the United States and the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvank to administer and govern afi necessary agencies and departments for the City and County of Phadebhk. 53. Inftscapacity under the applicable kws, the Cfty of Phadebhk, by and throughftsZonmg
Board of Adjustment, and rekted agencies, departments, divisions, directors, officers, employees and representatives, has the power to ksue busmess licenses, mcbdmg but not limited to Use and
Occupancy and Speckl Assembly Licenses, Liquor License, Amusement Permit, fire certification, electrical inspection, food preparation and busmess privege. 54. The City of Phikdebhk, by and throughftsduly appomted agencies, approved Pkmtiffs initial
Dcenses and application to renovate and operate their estabikhment as a restaurant and lounge with accessoryfiveentertainment such as dkc jockey, dancmg and stage shows. 55. On March 24, 2011, a Use Permit was ksued for the foDowmg: Office on third floor of
626-628 N. Front Street m the same budmg wfth an exkting Restaurant and bar onfirstand second floor wfth accessoryfiveentertainment (not as defined as in 14-1605) wfth DJ dancing and stage shows onfirstand second floor" See attached Permit attached hereto as Exhibit A 56. Sealed engmeer pkns were submitted to the City of Phikdebhk clearly outfinmg space for two
dkc jockey booths and two dance floors. 57. On or about May 19, 2011, the sealed engmeer pkns were approved by the Cfty of
Phikdebhk, Department of Licenses and Inspections, by and throughftsduly appomted agents, employees and/or representatives. 58. Renovations and improvements were performed over the next nbe months and, on information
and belief without any known protest or oppositionfromany party herem. 59. Renovations and improvements were made at an approximate cost to Pkmtiff of $624,628.35
plus licensing and permit fees. Exhibit F. 60. With aD requisite licenses, certifications and inspections obtamed, and wfth renovations havmg
been made, Pkmtiff opened for business on January 28,2012. 61. During the application process Pkmtiff submitted an application fee for $100.00 that was
processed and cleared. Further, Pkintiff had to provide a $5,000.00 bond to the Cfty of Phadebhk. Pkintiffwas never notified that permits were to be denied. Exhibit G. The $5,000.00 bond was never returned. 62. Plamtiff contends under 42 U. S. CS. . 1983, the Cfty of Phuadebhia, acting under color of
state kw, deprived Plaintiff of a property mterest (Speckl Assembly License) wfthout accordmg them due process of kw. 63. On or around June 27, 2012, the Phadebhk L&I Review Board voted to deny Pkmtiffs
appeal for a Speckl Assembly license. See Notice of Deckion attached hereto as Exhibit E 64. Pursuant Philadelphia Code 9-703, Pkmtiff has complied wfth afi the statutory requirements
necessary to obtam annual renewal of a Speckl Assembly License. SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF Art. XIV, U.S. Constitution, Equal Protection on the Bask of Selective Enforcement 42 U.S.C. 1983 Pkmtiff v. Sergeant Michael Brennan 65. 66. Pkmtiff mcorporates by reference and reaDeges paragraphs 1 to 64 of thk compkmt. Pkintiff alleges that Defendant, whe actbg under Pennsylvank kw, deprived them of equal
protection under the kwand due process. See U.S. Const, amend. XIV. Pkintiff seeks to vindicate hk rights under the Equal Protection Ckuse because Defendant "selectively enforced" state and local kws against the cbb. 67. S ergeant Michael Brennan was at aD times material hereto a duly appomted officer of the City of
Phikdebhk Pofice Department (hereafter "PPD"), and on information and belief was assigned to the 6th Police Dktrict
68.
On numerous occasions after the opening of the Restaurant & Lounge, Sgt. Brennan acting m
his ofiickl capacity as an officer of the PPD would conduct or cause to be conducted unfounded and unnecessary inspections during busmess operations with the mtent and result of mtimidating, harassmg and threatening patrons 69. Patrons and staff were mterrogated and intimidated on the premkes and without probable cause
for domg so. 70. Defendant and the PPD continued a purposeful practice of mtimidation and harassment which
mcbded, but was not limited to, stopping at Pkmtiff at least eight times per weekend. Officers were directed to surround the premises with police vehicles, walk through the cbb and interrogate patrons and staff These acts of mtimidation were performed regularly, purposefully, maliciously, selectively, and without proper cause for doing so. 71. Said acts of the PPD served no legitimate or reasonable kw enforcement purpose and
somewhat counterintuitively dkrupted the surroundmg neighborhood and neighbors. 72. Even overtimeas the Defendant and the PPD realized that the derivative compkmts were
unfounded and fake, Pkintiff continues to suffer from an unwarranted police presence to the detriment of its kwful business activities. 73. The aforesaid actions of Sgt. Brennan were: (i) objectively unreasonable, (ii) dkproportionate
when compared to other simikrly licensed establishments in the same community, (in) calcukted to harass and mtimidate the club's patrons, (iv) motivated by rackl animus, and (v) wfth the object of driving away its patrons.
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Art. XIV, U.S. Constitution, Equal Protection on the Bask of Selective Enforcement 42 U.S.C. 1983 Pkmtiff v. Captam Brian Kom 74. 75. Pkintiff mcorporates by reference and reafleges paragraphs 1 to 73 of thk compkint. The pkmtiff repeats the aDegations set forth in paragraphs one through seventy-two of thk
Compkint and mcorporates them by reference herein as if pleaded at length. 76. Pkmtiff alleges that Defendant, while actbg under Pennsylvank kw, deprived them of equal
protection under the kw and due process. See U.S. Const, amend. XIV. Pkmtiff seeks to vmdicate hk rights under the Equal Protection Ckuse because Defendant "selectively enforced" state and local kws against the cbb. 77. Captam Brian Kom was at aD times material hereto a duly appomted officer of the City of
Phikdebhk Police Department (hereafter "PPD"), and on information and belief was assigned to the 6th Police Dktrict. 78. On numerous occasions after the opening of Pkmtiff Captain Kom acting in hk offickl capacity
as an officer of the PPD would conduct or cause to be conducted unfounded and unnecessary surveifiance during busmess operations wfth the intent and result of mtimidating, harassmg and threatening patrons. 79. Patrons and staff were mterrogated and intimidated on the premises and wfthout probable cause
for domg so. 80. Defendant and the PPD continued a purposeful practice of mtimidation and harassment which
mcbded, but was not limited to, stoppmg at Pkmtiff at least eight times per weekend. Officers were directed to surround the premises wfth police vehicles, walk through the cbb and mterrogate patrons
and staff These acts of mtimidation were performed regukrty, purposefuDy, maliciously, selectively, and without proper cause for domg so. 81. Said acts of the PPD served no legitimate or reasonable kw enforcement purpose and
somewhat coimteiiituftively dkiupted the surroundbg neighborhood and neighbors 82. Even overtimeas the Defendant and the PPD realized that the derivative compkmts were
unfounded and fake, Pkmtiff continues to suffer from an unwarranted police presence to the detriment offtskwful busmess activities. 83. The aforesaid actions of Cap tain Kom were: () objectively unreasonable, (if) dkproportionate
when conpared to other similarly licensed establkhmentsfothe same community, (in) calcukted to harass and btimidate the club's patrons, (iv) motivated by rackl anfoius, and (v) wfth the object of drivfog away its patrons.
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF State Common Law Ckim for Defamation Pkfotiffv. David Wftz 84. 85. Pkmtiff mcorporates by reference and reaDeges paragraphs 1 to 83 of thk compkmt. A defemation action k based on an bdividual' srightto enjoy a reputation unimpaired by false
and defamatory attacks. Spain v. Vicente, 315 Pa. Super. 135(1983). Further it consists of the utterance or publication of defematory words or written material which tends to bkcken a person's reputation and lower him m the estimation of the community; to expose a person to public hatred,
contempt, or ridicule; to mjure a person m hk or her busmess, profession or office; or to deter third persons from assockting or deafing with him Sobelv. Wingard, 366 Pa. Super. 482 (1987); Marcone v. Penthouse Int'l Magazine for Men, 754 F.2d 1072 (3d Or. 1985), cert, denied, 474 U.S. 864, 106 S.O. 182 (1985). 86. At all times mentioned herein, pkmtiff was a kw abiding citizen of the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvank, who enjoyed the respect, confidence and esteem of hk neighbors, as weD as of aD others m the community, and has never been guflty of any crime, offense or vioktbn of the kw which would tend to lessen the respect, confidence and esteem which he has enjoyed, and to which he was entitled. 87. On the foDowmg dates, the defendant, mtendmg to mjure the pkmtiff and to deprive him of hk
good name, fame, credit and reputation, fakery, maliciously, wickedly and legally communicated statements concemmg pkmtiff over the mtemet, which contamed the foHowmg scandalous, defamatory and libelous statements: a. April 6,2012- David Witz, Twitter - 'I'D be on Fox 29 at 10pm. .bitching about our
block's nukance dance cbb." Exhibit H b. David Wftz moved out of Northern Liberties next door to Pkmtiff on May 15, 2012.
Yet he continued to harass Pkfotiff through sockl medk. Exhibit I c. May 23, 2012 - David Witz, Twitter - "Club Aura: Grand openfog, grand closing?
Exhibit J d. June 21,2012 - David Wftz, Twitter - "Here's why Cbb Aura was shut down..." Link
to phflebrity "Fare thee weD Cbb Pkintiff you totally sucked" Exhibit K e. June 21,2012- David Wftz, Twitter - 'Tarewefi, Club Aura. You wifi not be missed."
Exhibit L f June 27, 2012 - David Wftz, Twitter - "Nukance bar Cbb Aura appealed their
cease-operations notice. The hearmg was yesterday. They lost. The neighbors rejoice." Exhibit M g. June 27,2012- EmafromDavid- Speaks about how Pkmtiff lost the appeal for the
cease-operations order. He then urges neighbors to keep eyes and ears on the cbb and "report any legit vioktion noke or music escapmg the cbb, raucous customers disrupting the street at let-out, public urination,fistfights,any of those things that made Cbb Aura such an unwelcome and illegal mvasion of a peaceful Northern Liberties community." Exhibit N h. June 29, 2012- EmailfromDavid mentionmg the outcome of the Hearmg that previous
Tuesday. Ako mentioned that they have asked the neighbors on Fairmount to keep a close eye and ear on the cbb, and the 6th Dktrict Police was asked to put the cbb on their roD caD notice. Exhibit O L August 9, 2012 - David Wftz, Twitter - "Farewell, Cbb Aura. For good thk time."
Exhibit P j. On October 4,2012- David wrote a post on NorthernLiberties. org titled: Cbb Aura
loses another cbb stating: "ChibAura's skter nightmare in Old Cfty, Dreemz aka Rain, hasfinallybeen shut down by the city. Reason: no speckl assembly license (and a LOT of neighbor compkmts.) The speckl assembly license k needed forfivemusic, DJs dance floors and
such The owners of Dreemz aka Rain k Marc Stem, who owns Cbb Aura, and he never bothered to get a speckl assembly license for that cbb, efther. That's why Aura k partially shut down now. I can only hope hk getting caught and shut down in Old Cfty means the Northern Liberties neighbors ofAura mayfinallyget some relief from thk toxic, unlicensed dance cbb." Exhibit Q 88. The statements contamed m these communications were btended to and did convey to the
readers thereof either directly or by mplication, that Pkmtiff operates unkwfuDy and that its patrons are undesirable. Moreover, cbb Dreemz closed because Pkmtiff sold ft. 89. The statements and chargesfothe article are feke so far as they reflect upon pkmtiffs character
and reputation. 90. The pkintiff has never, committed any vioktions afleged by defendant, nor was he or the cbb
ever an accessory to, nor an aider and abettor of such unkwful acts, nor has he ever been guilty of any other vioktbn of kw, but he has at aDtimesbeen a peaceable and kw abidmg busmess operator and inhabitant of the several communities m which he has resided from the day of hk birth to the present time. 91. Defendant knew or should have known that the statements contamedfotherein and identified m
paragraph 87 were feke when made, and defendant communicated them eftherfotentionaDyand maliciously, or with reckless dkregard for their truth orfekfty,or negligently and carelessly. 92. The statements were posted, communicated on the dates articukted above, vk mtemet over the
world wide web and read by the pkmtiffs neighbors, friends and diverse other persons. 93. By reason of the statements and charges contamed b these communications and identified m
paragraph 87, the pkmtiff has been brought into scandal and reproach, and has been held up to odium, scorn and contempt among hk neighbors, busmess acquaintances, and other good citizens, and k suspected by them to have been guty of the crimes and fraudulent practices which defendant's article imputed to pkmtiff, as a result of which the pkmtiff has suffered m hk busmess, hk reputation, feelings and peace of mind, to hk greatfihancklloss and damage. FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF Art. XIV, U.S. Constitution, Dkcrirnbation by Interfering with a Contractual mterest 42 U.S.C. 1981 Pkmtiff v. David Wftz 94. 95. Pkmtiff mcorporates by reference and reaDeges paragraphs 1 to 93 of thk compkint. Federal statute, 42 U.S. C 1981, outkws rackl dkcrirnbation m the makmg and enforcmg of
private contracts. The statute provides that "[a]Dpersons... shafihave the sameright...to make and enforce contracts.. .as k enjoyed by white citizens." 42 U.S. C 1981 (West 2007). To prove a 1981 ckim, a pkmtiff must show that the defendant btended to dkcrirnbate on the bask of race, and that the dkcrirnbation mterfered wfth a contractual mterest. See, e.g., Denny v. Elizabeth Arden Salons, Inc., 456 F.3d 427, 434 (4th Or. 2006) (citing cases). 96. Pkmtiff target demographic k "upscale urban". Although the Pkmtiff k not a mmority hk ebb k
patronized by a crowd comprised of mborities, mainly persons of African American or Hkpanic heritage. 97. David Wftz (hereinafter "Wftz") resided next door to 628 North Front Street at the time Pkintiff
rented thk budmg; Witz and Pkintiff had the same kndlord and was an active member of the NLNA. He spends a substantkl amount oftimeand exerts dkproportionate energyfopursuit of removmg
Pkintifffromthe Northern Liberties neighborhood. 98. Whfle Wftz still resided next door to Pkintiff he ordered the owners of Aura to close their
business and refused to meet to inspect the addftfonal soundproofing work. He rejected an offer to tour the budmg with Pkintiffs sound teehniekn, vowing instead to close Pkintiffs doors. 99. Wftz repeatedly accused the owners of forcing him to leave and has recruited supportfromthe
other residents on the block. Thk incident has mcfted hostility towards Pkintiff andftspatrons. At no time did the owners of Aura request that Wftz lease be revoked or that he be asked to vacate the residence. 100. Wftz moved out of the residence adjacent to Pkmtiff but continued to harass them by incbdmg
but not limited to: sitting outside the cbb m hk vehicle and takmg pictures of Pkmtiff and its patrons, spreadbg fakities on the internet, conspiring with NLNA members/neighbors, police and other communityfiguresm an attempt to close Pkmtiffs doors permanently. 101. internet. 102. Police are constantly called to the property during busmess hours. Defendant and members of Defendant calk in compkints to the Police and circuktes fake information about Pkintiff on the
the NLNA arefifingfalse reports to the police about Pkmtiff and its customers. Moreover, when officers mvestigate these calk none of the reports are founded. 103. Pkmtiffs attempts to communicate and assockte with defendant, the NLNA
neighbors/members and officers have faDen on deaf ears. 104. As a direct result of the concerted effort of defendant and the NLNA neighbors/members and
officers, Pkintiffwas and still k unable to operate as it intended to. SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Art. XTV, US. Constitution, Dkcrimination by Interfering wfth a Contractual mterest 42 U.S.C. 1981 Pkmtiff v. Northern Lberties Neighborhood Assocktion 105. 106. Pkmtiff mcorporates by reference and realleges paragraphs 1 to 104 of thk compkht. Federal statute, 42 U.S. C. 1981, outkws rackl dkcrirnbation m the makmg and enforcmg of
private contracts. The statute provides that "[a]fipersons... shaD have the sameright...to make and enforce contracts.. .as is enjoyed by white citizens." 42 U.S.C. 1981 (West 2007). To prove a 1981 ckim, a pkmtiff must show that the defendant btended to dkcriminate on the bask of race, and that the dkcrimination interfered wfth a contractual mterest. See, e.g., Denny v. Elizabeth Arden Salons, Inc., 456F.3d 427, 434 (4th Or. 2006) (citing cases). 107. Pkintiff target demographic k "upscale urban". Although the Pkintiff k not a rnfoority hk ebb k
patronized by a crowd comprised of minorities, mainly persons of African American or Hkpanic heritage. 108. Matt Ruben and Larry Freedman, officers of Northern Liberties Neighborhood Assocktion,
met with Pkmtiff m the begmnfog to dkcuss Pkmtiffs operating policies. Once thk target demographic was dkcovered, Matt Ruben representmg the NLNA at a Speckl Assembly License Hearing in August spoke against Pkintiff 109. The NLNA throughftsagents have singled out Pkmtiff and made it a goal to shut down their
operations solely because of the patrons Pkmtiff has coming out toftsevents. 110. Police are constantly called to the property during business hours. Members of the NLNA are
fifing fake reports to the police about Pkintiff andftscustomers. Moreover, when officers mvestigate these calk none of the reports are founded.
111.
As a direct result of the concerted effort of NLNA members and officers, Pkmtiff was and still
is unable to operate as it intended to. SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF Art. XIV, U.S. Constitution, Dkcifoiinationby Interfering with a Contractual interest 42 U.S.C. 1981 Pkintiff v. Matt Ruben 112. 113. Pkmtiff mcorporates by reference and reaUeges paragraphs 1 to 111 of thk compkmt. Federal statute, 42 U.S. C 1981, outkws rackl dkcrimination m the makmg and enforcmg of
private contracts. The statute provides that "[a]D persons... shaD have the sameright...to make and enforce contracts.. .as k enjoyed by white citizens." 42 U.S.C 1981 (West 2007). To prove a 1981 ckim, a pkmtiff must show that the defendant btended to dkcrimbate on the bask ofrace, and that the discrimbation interfered wfth a contractual mterest. See, e.g., Denny v. Elizabeth Arden Salons, Inc., 456F.3d427, 434 (4th Or. 2006) (citing cases). 114. Pkmtiff target demographic k "upscale urban". Afthoughthe Pkmtiff k not a minority hk ebb k
patronized by a crowd comprised of mmorfties, mainly persons of African American or Hispanic heritage. 115. Matt Ruben and Larry Freedman, officers of Northern Liberties Neighborhood Assocktion,
met wfth Pkintiff in the begfonfog to dkcuss Pkmtiffs operatbg policies. Once thk target demographic was dkcovered, Matt Ruben representmg the NLNA at a Speckl Assembly License Hearing m August spoke against Pkintiff 116. Matt Ruben, k the President of the Board of the Directors of the Northern Liberties
Neighborhood Assocktion. He spends a substantkl amount oftimeand exerts dkproportionate energy
in pursuit of removmg Pkmtifffromthe Northern Lfoerties neighborhood. 117. On or aroimd July 6,2012, Ruben expkmed Pkmtiffs permit situation m detail m a post on the
website northernliberties.org. The post informed people ofwhat k and kn't aDowed on the premises, what vioktions to look for inside and outside the premises, and urged those watching-to contfoufog making reports. Exhibit R 118. On or around July 3, 2012, a meeting held at the NLNA's community budfog at Fairmount
Avenue and 3rd Street was packed to capacity to address thefetalshootings of two people at a Restaurant located inside the Pkzza, an apartment complex in Northern Liberties. Wfth a captive audience, Rubenfirstaddressed the unfounded ckim that Pkmtiff is operating illegally (wfthout licensmg and permits) by havfog a DJ at an upcomfog event, yet nothing m promotional materkk supported this
ckim Exhibits
119. On or around Jury 6, Ruben sent an ema to Shawn Ward and posted on NorthernLiberties.org
expkining what Pkintiffis and k not aDowed to do under legal bar/Restaurant use. Further he stated, "they can have a single-release party, and have a speckl guest, and they can makeftfreeand public, or a private party wfth tickets. And they can pky the music, as long as its not from a live band orfroma DJ....So Folks should keep their eyes and ears open, and report any problems, just as they were domg before." Exhibit P 120. On July 9, 2012, Ruben alerted the 6th Police Dktrict, Sargent LaTorre of Pennsylvank Liquor
Enforcement, Councilman Mark Squilk, State Representative Michael O'Brien, Ann PasquarieDo at the Phikdebhk City Solicitor's office and Pkmtiff zonmg attorney Shawn Ward that there was a post from an unknown user that Pkmtiff would have a DJ workfog at the cbb that evening. Exhibit T. The post
did not mfeetcome from Pkintiff itself Further, there was no DJ present at anytimeduring Pkmtiffs operations. 121. A response was sent from Councilman SquiDa (???) the same day to Matt Ruben - stating,
"Matt, good job in contacting aD parties. Let's see if Aura k reaDy going to try and use a DJ. If thk k documented by the police then a cease of aD operations can be ksued. Please caD Police if anyone sees DJ or any otherfivemusic." Exhibit U 122. On July 30,2012, after combing thru sockl medk, Rubenfoundpictures onfine depicting the
interior of Pkintiffs venue. Ruben then attached them to an e-rrail which was forwarded to several people mcbdmg the Cfty Solicitor as weD as Pennsylvank Liquor Enforcement. Ruben attempted to assert vioktions of the Phikdebhk Code based on these pictures, but agafo the aDeged vioktions proved to be unfounded. Exhibit V 123. Ruben makes ft a priority to be informed on Pkintiffs permit situation. Moreover, he makes
Pkintiffs permit situation known to anyone that wl listen. Yet on August 13, 2012, he was unable to articukte with certainty the nature of the permits held by the Arrow Swim Cbb, another Northern Liberties bar/ebb venue. Ruben has therefore selectively targeted Pkmtiff Exhibit W 124. Police are constantly caDed to the property during busmess hours. Members of the NLNA are
fifing fake reports to the police about Pkmtiff and its customers. Moreover, when officers investigate these caDs none of the reports are founded. 125. Pkintiffs attempts to communicate and assockte with the NLNA neighbors/members and
officers have faDen on deaf ears. 126. As a direct result of the concerted effort of NLNA neighbors/members and officers, Pkmtiff
was and still k unable to operate pursuant to its initial intent and the Cfty of Phikdefohk's initial authorization. EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF State Common Law CkimforDefemation Pkintiff v. Matt Ruben 127. 128. Pkintiff mcorporates by reference and realleges paragraphs 1 to 126 of thk compkint. A defamation action k based on an mdMdual'srightto enjoy a reputation unimpaired by fake
and defamatory attacks. Spain v. Vicente, 315 Pa. Super. 135 (1983). Furtherftconskts of the utterance or publication of de&matory words or written material which tends to bkcken a person's reputation and lower him in the estimation of the community; to expose a person to public hatred, contempt, or ridicule; to mjure a person m his or her busmess, profession or office; or to deter third persons from assockting or deafing with him. Sobel v. Wingard, 366 Pa. Super. 482 (1987); Marcone v. Penthouse Int'l Magazine for Men, 754 F. 2d 1072 (3d Or. 1985), cert, denied, 474 U.S. 864, 106 S. Ct. 182 (1985). 129. At aD times mentioned herein, pkmtiff was a kw abiding citizen of the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvank, who enjoyed the respect, confidence and esteem of his neighbors, as weU as of aD others m the community, and has never been guilty of any crime, offense or vioktion of the kw which would tend to lessen the respect, confidence and esteem which he has enjoyed, and to which he was entitled. 130. On thefoDowmgdates, the defendant, mtending to mjure the pkintiff and to deprive him of hk
good name, fame, credit and reputation, kkefy, maliciously, wickedly and legalfy communicated statements concemmg pkmtiff over the mtemet, which contamed thefoDowmgscandalous, defamatory and libelous statements:
a.
On or around July 3, 2012, a meeting held at the NLNA's community budmg at
Fairmoimt Avenue and 3rd Street was packed to capacity to address the fatal shootings of two people at a Restaurant located inside the Pkzza, an apartment complex in Northern Liberties. With a captive audience, Rubenfirstaddressed the unfounded ckim that Pkintiff k operating ifiegafiy (without licensing and permits) by having a DJ at an vrocoming event, yet nothing fo promotional materials supported thk ckim Exhibit S b. On Jury 30, 2012, after combing thru sockl medk, Ruben found pictures online
depicting the interior of Pkintiff s venue. He then attached them to an e-ma which was foiwarded to several people incbdfog the City Solicitor as weD as Pennsylvank Liquor Enforcement. Ruben attempted to assert vioktions of the Phikdebhk Code based on these pictures but again hk vioktions were unfounded. Exhibit V 131. The statements contamed m these communications were btended to and did convey to the
readers thereof either directly or by implication, that Pkmtiff operates unkwfuDy and thatftspatrons are undesirable. 132. The statements and chargesfothe article are feke so far as they reflect uponpkmtiff s character
and reputation. 133. The pkmtiff has never, committed any vioktions afieged by defendant, nor was he or the cbb
ever an accessory to, nor an aider and abettor of such unkwful acts, nor has he ever been guilty of any other vioktbn of kw, but he has at aD times been a peaceable and kw abiding busmess operator and inhabitant of the several communities in which he has resided from the day of hk birth to the present time.
134.
Defendant knew or should have known that the statements contamedfotherein and identified in
paragraph 130 were feke when made, and defendant communicated them efther intentionafiy and maliciously, or wfth reckless dkregard for their truth orfekity,or negligently and carelessly. 135. The statements were posted, communicated on the dates articukted above, vk internet over the
worldwide web and read by the pkintiffs neighbors,friendsand diverse other persons. 136. By reason of the statements and charges contamed in these communications and identified in
paragraph 130 , the pkintiff has been broughtfotoscandal and reproach, and has been held up to odfom, scorn and contempt among hk neighbors, business acquamtances, and other good citizens, and is suspected by them to have been guilty of the crimes andfraudulentpractices which defendant's article imputed to pkfotiff as a result of which the pkintiff has suffered in hk busmess, hk reputation, feelings and peace of mind, to hk greatfinancklloss and damage. NINTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF Art. XIV, U.S. Constitution, Dkcrirnbation by Interfering with a Contractual interest 42 U.S.C. 1981 Pkmtiff v. Larry Freedman 137. 138. Pkmtiffmcorporates by reference and reaEeges paragraphs 1 to 136 ofthk compkmt. Federal statute, 42 U.S.C 1981, outkws rackl dkcrirnbationfothe makmg and enforcmg of
private contracts. The statute provides that "[a]31 persons... shaD have the sameright...to make and enforce contracts.. .as k enjoyed by white citizens." 42 U.S. C 1981 (West 2007). To prove a 1981 ckim, a pkmtiff must show that the defendant intended to dkcrimfoate on the bask of race, and that the dkcrirnbation mterfered with a contractual interest. See, e.g., Denny v. Elizabeth Arden Salons, Inc., 456F.3d 427, 434 (4th Or. 2006) (citing cases).
139.
Pkmtiff target demographic k "upscale urban". Although the Pkintiffk not a mmority hk ebb k
patronized by a crowd comprised of minorities, mainly African American and Hkpanic. 140. Matt Ruben and Larry Freedman, officers of Northern Liberties Neighborhood Assocktion,
met wfth Pkintiff m the beginning to dkcuss Pkintiff s operating poficies. Once this target demographic was discovered, Matt Ruben representmg the NLNA at a Speckl Assembly License Hearing in August spoke against Pkmtiff 141. Larry Freedman, k the Zoning Committee Chair of the Northern Liberties Neighborhood
Assocktion. He spends a substantial amount of time and exerts dkproportionate energy in pursuit of removing Pkintiff from the Northern Liberties neighborhood. 142. Police are constantly caDed to the property during busmess hours. Members of the NLNA are
fifing false reports to the police about Pkintiff and its customers. Moreover, when officers investigate these caDs none of the reports are founded. 143. Pkintiffs attempts to communicate and assockte with the NLNA neighbors/members and
officers havefeDenon deaf ears. 144. As a direct result of the concerted effort of NLNA neighbors/members and officers, Pkmtiff
was and sti k unable to operate pursuant to its initial intent and the Cfty of Phikdefohk's initial authorization.
TENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF State Common Law Ckim for Defamation
Pkintiff v. Larry Freedman 145. 146. Pkmtiff mcorporates by reference and reaDeges paragraphs 1 to 144 of thk compkint. A defamation action k based on anfodividual'sright to enjoy a reputation unimpaired by feke
and defematory attacks. Spain v. Vicente, 315 Pa. Super. 135(1983). Further it consists of the utterance or publication of defamatory words or written material which tends to bkcken a person's reputation and lower him b the estimation of the community; to expose a person to public hatred, contempt, orridicule;to mjure a person in hk or her business, profession or office; or to deter third personsfromassockting or deafing wfth him Sobelv. Wingard, 366 Pa. Super. 482 (1987); Marcone v. Penthouse Int'l Magazine for Men, 754 F. 2d 1072 (3d Or. 1985), cert, denied, 474 U.S. 864, 106 S Ct. 182 (1985). 147. At aD times mentioned herem, pkintiffwas a kw abidfog citizen of the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvank, who enjoyed the respect, confidence and esteem of hk neighbors, as weD as of aD others m the community, and has never been guty of any crime, offense or vioktion of the kw which would tend to lessen the respect, confidence and esteem which he has enjoyed, and to which he was entitled. 148. On the foDowfog dates, the defendant, btendbg to injure the pkmtiff and to deprive him of his
good name,feme,credit and reputation,fekely,maliciously, wickedly and legaDy communicated statements concemmg pkintiff over the mtemet, which contained the foDowmg scandalous, defematory and libelous statements: a. In a Philebrfty.com article dated June 21,2012 Defendant stated, "I have not seen such a blatant disregardfor neighbors and authority by an operator in a long time. I am appalled by their inhuman and uncivilized behavior. They
have not intention of fixing the problems of excessive noise, rowdy behavior, etc. all in violation of the LCB regulations. In addition, they are not operating with the required Special Assembly License. lam requesting that they [Plaintiff] be shut down immediately until these infractions are remedied. " Exhibit X 149. Pkmtiff has not been charged wfth any vioktions by the LCB, further contrary to sockl medk
they have not acted unkwfuDy period. 150. The statements containedfothese communications were intended to and did convey to the
readers thereof efther directly or by implication, that Pkmtiff operates unkwfuDy and that its patrons are undesirable. 151. The statements and chargesfothe article are false so fer as they reflect upon pkmtiffs character
and reputation. 152. The pkmtiff has never, committed any vioktions afieged by defendant, nor was he or the cbb
ever an accessory to, nor an aider and abettor of such unkwful acts, nor has he ever been guty of any other vioktion of kw, but he has at all times been a peaceable and kw abidmg business operator and inhabitant of the several communities m which he has residedfromthe day of hk birth to the present time. 153. Defendant knew or should have known that the statements contamed b therein and identified m
paragraph 148 were false when made, and defendant communicated them either intentionally and maliciously, or wfth reckless dkregard for their truth orfekfty,or negligently and carelessly. 154. The statements were posted, communicated on the dates articukted above, vk internet over the
world wide web and read by the pkintiffs neighbors,friendsand diverse other persons. 155. By reason of the statements and charges contained in these communications and identified fo
paragraph 148, the pkintiff has been brought into scandal and reproach, and has been held up to odium, scorn and contempt among hk neighbors, business acquaintances, and other good citizens, and k suspected by them to have been guflty of the crimes andfraudulentpractices which defendant's article imputed to pkintiff as a result of which the pkintiff has suffered in his business, his reputation, feelings and peace of mind, to hk greatfinancklloss and damage.
ELEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF State Common Law Ckim for Defamation Pkmtiff v. Judy Donovan 156. 157. Pkintiffmcorporates by reference and reaDeges paragraphs 1 to 155 ofthk compkint. A defamation action k based on an mdividual's right to enjoy a reputation unimpaired by fake
and defamatory attacks. Spain v. Vicente, 315 Pa. Super. 135 (1983). Furtherftconskts of the utterance or publication of defamatory words or written material which tends to bkcken a person's reputation and lower him m the estimation of the community; to expose a person to public hatred, contempt, or ridicule; to mjure a personfohk or her business, profession or office; or to deter third persons from assockting or dealing wfth him. Sobelv. Wingard, 366 Pa. Super. 482 (1987); Marcone v. Penthouse Int'l Magazine for Men, 754 F. 2d 1072 (3d Or. 1985), cert, denied, 474 U.S. 864, 106 S. Ct. 182 (1985). 158. At aD times mentioned herem, pkmtiff was a kw abiding citizen of the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvank, who enjoyed the respect, confidence and esteem of his neighbors, as weD as of aD others
m the coirmiunfty, and has never been guflfy of any crime, offense or vioktion of the kw which would tend to lessen the respect, confidence and esteem which he has enjoyed, and to which he was entitled. 159. On the foDowing dates, the defendant, intending tofojurethe pkmtiff and to deprive him of hk
good name, fame, credit and reputation, falsely, maliciously, wickedly andfllegaDycommunicated statements concerning pkintiff over the mtemet, which contamed the following scandalous, defematory and libelous statements: a. On or around April 2,2012, Defendant and her husband sent an e-mafl to Pkmtiff
kndlord, Ykhai Kedar wagbg compkints regarding prior three weeks on her "otherwke quiet block." L In thefirstweek of Pkmtiff s operation Donovan reported "Loud noke
by drunken customers shouting and screaming and pkying music." Thk was reported by her son to the pofice; ii. The foDowing week her husband aegfog encountered someone
irrinating next to her car; ni. The e-mafl went on to state that during "the past weekend (her)
husband photographedfemalecustomer urinating between cars;" iv. She further stated without any factual support, "Judgingfromconstant
turnover ofparked cars during cbb hours it appears that the clientele of Pkmtiff are ako engaged fo.fthe) sale of drugs." v. Any doubt about Ms. Donovan's mindset was erased by her statement
that she has had the "satisfyfog experience" sfoce 1981 "of evicting several nukance
bars." She was particukrly enraged by the "...(s)omewhat illegal and sinkter operation Eke Aura." Exhibit Y b. On or around August 10,2012, Defendant made posted the following on
Philebrfty.com an online magazfoe: "Rot m hefl, club Aura! ! Your kbd of operation might have succeeded in the wild and woory NL [Northern Liberties] about 20 years ago. Why don't you open up at 10th and Butler orfoone of the neighborhoods that your 'high ckss' clientele come from? (BTW [by the way] the sleazy owner of the pkce, Mark Stein, testified in court that hk pkce was a 'high ckss Restaurant' that required people 'to wear shoes.' They apparently don't have bathrooms either smce their ckssy clientele uses Fairmount avenue as their bathroom,. I have a picture of a woman squatting between cars m front of my house. I and my neighbors are keepfog ourfingerscrossed that these sleazoids don'tfinda way to rise again." Exhibit Z 160. The statements contamed fo these communications were btended to and did convey to the
readers thereof either directly or by implication, that Pkmtiff operates unkwfuDy and that its patrons are undesirable. 161. The statements and chargesfothe article are false so fer as they reflect upon pkintiffs character
and reputation. 162. The reference to "1 Oth and Butler" k most definitely a reference to the primarily mmority
demographic ofthat neighborhood of the Cfty of Phikdebhk. 163. The pkmtiff has never, committed any vioktions aDeged by defendant, nor was he or the club
ever an accessory to, nor an aider and abettor of such unkwfiil acts, nor has he ever been guilty of any other vioktion of kw, but he has at aD times been a peaceable and kw abiding business operator and inhabitant of the several communities in which he has resided from the day of hk birth to the present time. 164. Defendant knew or should have known that the statements contamedfotherein and identified in
paragraph 159 were fake when made, and defendant communicated them efther intentionally and maliciously, or with reckless dkregard for their truth or fakfty, or negligently and carelessly. 165. The statements were posted, communicated on the dates articukted above, vk internet over the
world wide web and read by the pkintiffs neighbors, friends and diverse other persons. 166. By reason of the statements and charges contained in these communications and identified in
paragraph 159, the pkmtiff has been brought mto scandal and reproach, and has been held up to odium, scorn and contempt among hk neighbors, busmess acquaintances, and other good citizens, and is suspected by them to have been guflty of the crimes andfraudulentpractices which defendant's article imputed to pkintiff as a result of which the pkintiff has suffered in hk business, hk reputation, feelings and peace of mind, to hk greatfinancklloss and damage. TWELVTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF State Common Law Ckim for Defemation Pkintiff v. Richard Donovan 167. 168. Pkmtiff incorporates by reference and realeges paragraphs 1 to 166 of thk compkint. A defemation action k based on an individual'srightto enjoy a reputation unimpaired by feke
and defematory attacks. Spain v. Vicente, 315 Pa. Super. 135 (1983). Furtherftconskts of the utterance or publication of defematory words or written material which tends to bkcken a person's
reputation and lower himfothe estimation of the community; to expose a person to public hatred, contempt, or ridicule; to injure a personfohk or her business, profession or office; or to deter third persons from assockting or dealing wfth him Sobelv. Wingard, 366 Pa. Super. 482 (1987); Marcone v. Penthouse Int'l Magazine for Men, 754 F.2d 1072 (3d Or. 1985), cert, denied, 474 U.S. 864, 106 S Ct. 182 (1985). 169. At aD times mentioned herein, pkintiffwas a kw abiding citizen of the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvank, who enjoyed the respect, confidence and esteem of hk neighbors, as weD as of aD others fo the cornmunfty, and has never been guilty of any crime, offense or vioktion of the kw which would tend to lessen the respect, confidence and esteem which he has enjoyed, and to which he was entitled. 170. On the following dates, the defendant, intending tofojurethe pkintiff and to deprive him of hk
good name,feme,credit and reputation,fekery,maliciously, wickedly and illegally cornmunicated statements concerning pkintiff over the internet, which contained the following scandalous, defamatory and libelous statements: a. On or around April 2,2012, Defendant and hk wife sent an e-ma to Pkintiff kndlord,
Ykhai Kedar waging compkmts regarding prior three weeks on her "otherwise quiet block." i In the first week of Plaintiff s operation Donovan reported 'Loud noke
by drunken customers shouting and screaming and pkyfog music." Thk was reported by hk son to the police; ft The foDowing week Mr. Donovan alleged encountered someone
urinating next to hk car; fii The e-mafl went on to state that during "the past weekend (Mr.
Donovan) photographedfemalecustomer urinating between cars;" iv. It was further stated wfthout any factual support, "Judgfogfromconstant
turnover ofparked cars during cbb hoursftappears that the cfientele of Pkintiff are ako engaged m,..(the) sale of drugs." v. Any doubt about Mr. Donovan's mindset was erased by the statement
that he has had the "satisfying experience" since 1981 "of evicting several nukance bars." He was particukrly enraged by the "...(s)omewhatfllegaland sinkter operation like Aura." Exhibit Y b. On or around August 10,2012, Defendant made posted the foDowing on
Phflebrfty.com an online magazine: "Rot in heD, club Aura! ! Your kind of operation might have succeededfothe wild and woory NL [Northern Liberties] about 20 years ago. Why don't you open up at 10th and Butler orfoone of the neighborhoods that your 'high ckss' clientele come from? (BTW [by the way] the sleazy owner of the pkce, Mark Stein, testified fo court that hk pkce was a 'high ckss Restaurant' that required people 'to wear shoes. ' They apparently don't have bathrooms either since their ckssy clientele uses Fairmount avenue as their bathroom,. I have a picture of a woman squatting between cars in front of my house. I and my neighbors are keeping ourfingerscrossed that these sleazoids don'tfinda way to rise again." Exhibit Z 171. The statements contained in these communications were intended to and did convey to the
readers thereof either directly or by implication, that Pkintiff operates unkwfulty and thatftspatrons are
undesirable. 172. The statements and chargesfothe article are fake so far as they reflect upon pkintiffs character
and reputation. 173. The pkintiff has never, committed any vioktions aDeged by defendant, nor was he or the cbb
even an accessory to, nor an aider and abettor of such unkwfiil acts, nor has he ever been guilty of any other vioktion of kw, but he has at aDtimesbeen a peaceable and kw abiding business operator and inhabitant of the several communities in which he has resided from the day of hk birth to the present time. 174. Defendant knew or should have known that the statements contained in therein and identified in
paragraph 170 were feke when made, and defendant communicated them either intentionally and maliciously, or with reckless dkregard for their truth orfekfty,or negligently and carelessly. 175. The statements were posted, communicated on the dates articukted above, vk internet over the
world wide web and read by the pkintiffs neighbors,friendsand diverse other persons. 176. By reason of the statements and charges contained in these communications and identified in
paragraph 170, the pkintiff has been brought into scandal and reproach, and has been held up to odium, scorn and contempt among hk neighbors, business acquaintances, and other good citizens, and k suspected by them to have been guilty of the crimes andfraudulentpractices which defendant's article imputed to pkmtiff as a result of which the pkintiff has suffered fo hk business, hk reputation, feelings and peace of mind, to hk greatfinancklloss and damage. THIRTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF Art. XIV, U.S. Constitution, Dkcrirnbation by Interfering wfth a Contractual interest 42 U.S.C. 1981 Pkintiff v. James Brossy
177. 178.
Pkfotiff incorporates by reference and reaDeges paragraphs 1 to 176 of thk compkint. Federal statute, 42 U.S. C. 1981, outkws rackl dkcriminationfothe making and enforcfog of
private contracts. The statute provides that "[a]fl persons... shall have the sameright...to make and enforce contracts... as k enjoyed by white citizens." 42 U.S. C. 1981 (West 2007). To prove a 1981 ckim, a pkfotiff must show that the defendant intended to dkcriminate on the bask of race, and that the dkcrimination mterfered wfth a contractual interest. See, e.g., Denny v. Elizabeth Arden Salons, Inc., 456 F.3d 427, 434 (4th Or. 2006) (citing cases). 179. Pkfotiff target demographic is "upscale urban". Although the Pkintiff k not a minority hk ebb k
patronized by a crowd comprised of minorities, mainly persons of African American or Hkpanic heritage. 180. Defendant, James Brossy, k a neighbor of Pkintiff and member of the Northern Liberties
Neighborhood Assocktion. He spends a substantkl amount of time and exerts dkproportionate energy in pursuit of removing Pkfotifffromthe Northern Liberties neighborhood. 183. Police are constantly caDed to the property during business hours. Defendant and members of
the NLNA are filing false reports to the police about Pkfotiff and its customers. Moreover, when officers mvestigate these cafls none of the reports are founded. 184. Pkintiffs attempts to communicate and assockte wfth defendant, the NLNA
neighbors/members and officers have fDen on deaf ears. 185. As a direct result of the conceited effort of defendant and the NLNA neighbors/members and
officers, Pkintiffwas and sti is unable to operate asftintended to. FOURTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Art. XIV, U.S. Constitution, Dkcrirnbation by Interfering wfth a Contractual interest 42 U.S.C. 1981 Pkfotiff v. Debbie Rudman 186. 187. Pkmtiff incorporates by reference and reaDeges paragraphs 1 to 185 of thk compkint. Federal statute, 42 U.S. C 1981, outkws rackl dkcrimination in the making and enforcing of
private contracts. The statute provides that "[a]D persons... shaD have the same right.. .to make and enforce contracts. ..as k enjoyed by white citizens." 42 U.S.C 1981 (West 2007). To prove a 1981 ckim, a pkintiff must show that the defendant intended to dkcrimfoate on the bask of race, and that the dkcrimination interfered with a contractual interest. See, e.g., Denny v. Elizabeth Arden Salons, Inc., 456F.3d427, 434 (4th Or. 2006) (citing cases). 188. Pkfotiff target demographic k "upscale urban". Although the Pkintiff k not a minority hk ebb k
patronized by a crowd comprised of minorities, mainly persons of African American or Hkpanic heritage. 189. Defendant, Debbie Rudman, k a neighbor of Pkintiff and member of the Northern Liberties
Neighborhood Assocktion. He spends a substantkl amount of time and exerts dkproportionate energy fo pursuit of removing Pkmtifffromthe Northern Liberties neighborhood. 190. Police are constantly caDed to the property during business hours. Defendant and members of
the NLNA are filing feke reports to the police about Pkmtiff andftscustomers. Moreover, when officers investigate these calk none of the reports are founded. 191. Pkintiff s attempts to communicate and assockte with defendant, the NLNA
neighbors/members and officers havefeilenon deaf ears. 192. As a direct result of the concerted effort of defendant and the NLNA neighbors/members and
officers, Pkmtiff was and still k unable to operate asftbtended to. FIFTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF State Common Law Ckim for Defemation Pkfotiff v. Christopher Sawyer d/b/a Phfladelfoquincy 193. 194. Pkintiff incorporates by reference and reaDeges paragraphs 1 to 192 of thk compkint. A defemation action k based on an individual'srightto enjoy a reputation unimpaired by feke
and defematory attacks. Spain v. Vicente, 315 Pa. Super. 135 (1983). Furtherftconskts of the utterance or publication of defematory words or written material which tends to bkcken a person's reputation and lower himfothe estimation of the community; to expose a person to public hatred, contempt, orridicule;to injure a personfohis or her busmess, profession or office; or to deter third persons from assockting or dealing with him Sobel v. Wingard, 366 Pa. Super. 482 (1987); Marcone v. Penthouse Int'l Magazine for Men, 754 F.2d 1072 (3d Or. 1985), cert, denied, 474 U.S. 864, 106 S Ct. 182 (1985). 195. At all times mentioned herein, pkintiffwas a kw abiding citizen of the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvank, who enjoyed the respect, confidence and esteem of hk neighbors, as weD as of aD others fo the community, and has never been guilty of any crime, offense or vioktion of the kw which would tend to lessen the respect, confidence and esteem which he has enjoyed, and to which he was entitled. 196. At aD times mentioned herein, defendant owned, managed, controlled, conducted, printed,
pubfished,and circukted a certain online blog known as the " Phfladefinquency," fo the Cfty and County of Phikdebhk, Pennsylvank. 197. At aD times mentioned herein, defendant acted or failed to act throughftsagents, servants or
employees who acted for defendant's benefit, under defendant's control and within the course and
scope of their authority or employment. 198. On the foDowing dates, the defendant, intending tofojurethe pkfotiff and to deprive him of hk
good name,feme,credft and reputation,fekety,maliciously, wickedly andfllegafiycommunicated statements concerning pkfotiff over the internet, which contained the foDowmg scandalous, defamatory and libelous statements: a. August 13,2012 they posted an articletitled,"The Candy Stripe Is L&I's Way of
Saying "We Hate You" Exhibit AA b. August 14,2012 they posted an article titled, "Cbb Aura, Supposed to be Shut
Wednesday, Wfll Host Fashion Event Thursday" - "Looking at the expected VIPs, other than Councilman Curtis Jones,ftseems like the cream of Phikdefohk's B-Listers wfll be there to celebrate." Exhibit BB c. August 14, 2012 they posted an article titled, "Remember Cbb Aurafromearlier
today?" Exhibit CC d. August 17,2012 they posted an article titled, "COURT UPDATE - Cbb Aura: If You
Fuck Up Again, You Wfll Be Padlocked" Exhibit DD e. September 19,2012 they posted an articletitled,"Get Ready for Mad River II, a/k/a
'Craft And Ckw. '" Exhibit EE f O ctober 9,2012 they posted an article titled, "Cbb Rain, Rain Go Away And
Flying Cheesesteaks - "People got kflled there (at Rain). ..Marc Stem, the owner of Rain has sic'd hk attorney on the L&I Review Board hoping to re-open and it wfll be Cbb Rain-fog its terror back on Old Cfty tourists and neighbors...reopening nukance bars hasn't been getting
better ktely, as with the case of the near-death of Cbb Aura. PostedfoThe Law and tagged Aura, nukance establishments.... Summary of video posted online: "...officer returns up Chestnut and goes off camera on Letftk." Exhibit FF g. February 25,2013 they posted an article titled, "Club Oh We Hate You So Much:
Aura Faces PLCB Hearing Tomorrow" Exhibit GG h. February 27, 2013, they posted an article titled, "Northern Liberties Residents Are AD
RACISTS" Exhibit HH 199. The statements contained in these communications were intended to and did convey to the
readers thereof efther directly or by implication, that Pkintiff operates unkwfuDy and that its patrons are undesirable. 200. The statements and chargesfothe article are feke so fer as they reflect upon pkintiffs character
and reputation. 201. The pkintiff has never, committed any vioktions alleged by defendant, nor was he or the club
ever an accessory to, nor an aider and abettor of such unkwful acts, nor has he ever been guilty of any other vioktion of kw, but he has at aD times been a peaceable and kw abiding business operator and inhabitant of the several cornmunities in which he has resided from the day of hk birth to the present time. 202. Defendant knew or should have known that the statements containedfotherein and identified in
paragraph 198 were feke when made, and defendant conmunicated them efther intentionally and maliciously, or with reckless dkregard for their truth orfekfty,or negligently and carelessly. 203. The statements were posted, communicated on the dates articukted above, vk internet over the
world wide web and read by the pkintiffs neighbors,friendsand diverse other persons. 204. By reason of the statements and charges contained in these communications and identified in
paragraph 198, the pkfotiff has been brought into scandal and reproach, and has been held up to odium, scorn and contempt among hk neighbors, business acquaintances, and other good citizens, and k suspected by them to have been guilty of the crimes andfraudulentpractices which defendant's article imputed to pkintiff as a result of which the pkfotiff has suffered fo his business, hk reputation, feelings and peace of mind, to hk greatfinancklloss and damage. SIXTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF State Common Law Ckim for Defamation Pkfotiff v. Philebrity 205. 206. Pkfotiff incorporates by reference and reaDeges paragraphs 1 to 204 of thk compkint. A defamation action k based on an individual'srightto enjoy a reputation iinimpaired by feke
and defamatory attacks. Spain v. Vicente, 315 Pa. Super. 135 (1983). Furtherftconskts of the utterance or publication of defematory words or written material which tends to bkcken a person's reputation and lower himfothe estimation of the community; to expose a person to public hatred, contempt, orridicule;tofojurea person in hk or her business, profession or office; or to deter third persons from assockting or dealing with him. Sobelv. Wingard, 366 Pa. Super. 482 (1987); Marcone v. Penthouse Int'l Magazine for Men, 754 F. 2d 1072 (3d Or. 1985), cert, denied, 474 U.S. 864, 106 S. Ct. 182 (1985). 207. At all times mentioned herein, pkintiffwas a kw abiding citizen of the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvank, who enjoyed the respect, confidence and esteem of hk neighbors, as weD as of aD others in the community, and has never been guflty of any crime, offense or vioktion of the kw which would
tend to lessen the respect, confidence and esteem which he has enjoyed, and to which he was entitled. 208. At aD times mentioned herem, defendant owned, managed, controlled, conducted, printed,
pubfished, and circukted a certain online blog known as the " Philebrity,"fothe City and County of Phikdebhk, Pennsylvank. 209. At all times mentioned herein, defendant acted orfoiledto act throughftsagents, servants or
employees who acted for defendant's benefit, under defendant's control, and within the course and scope of their authority or employment. 210. On the foDowfog dates, the defendant, intending tofojurethe pkfotiff and to deprive him of hk
good name,feme,credft and reputation, falsely, maliciously, wickedly andfllegafiycommunicated statements concerning pkfotiff over the internet, which contained the foDowmg scandalous, defematory and libelous statements: a. April 16,2012 they posted an articletitled,'You can stayfobusiness, but turn that
music down" Exhibit II b. June 21,2012 they posted an article titled, 'Update: Cbb Aura, At Long Last,
Candy-Striped" and "Fare Thee WeD, Cbb Aura: You TotaDy Sucked" - "Aura was a piece of shit that had bktant dkregard for the communityftwas supposed to be part of" From Larry Freedman: "I have not seen such a bktant dkregard for neighbors and authority by an operator fo a long time. I am appalled by their inhuman and uncivilized behavior. They have no intention offixingthe problems of excessive noise, rowdy behavior, etc." Exhibit JJ c. June 28, 2012 they posted an article titled, 'Update: Cbb Aura, Can't Stop, Won't
Stop (But Should Probably Stop)" posts Aura twitter account and then diverts attention to
@phfllypliaflures - Where Phflly's nightlife goes to die." Exhibit KK d. August 10, 2012 they posted an article titled, "Update: Cbb Pkfotiff At Long Last,
Candy- Striped" A post addressing thk article was written by Judy Gelzfok Donovan commenting that Pkfotiff s cfientele should go back to "10th and Butler." Exhibit Z e. August 13,2012 they posted an article titled, "UPDATE: Cbb Aura Has To C lose By
August 15th Or: Cbb Aura Pkns To Throw Parties hito Late September." Exhibit LL f February 25,2013 they posted an article titled, ""Cbb Aura Update: We're still talking
about Cbb Aura, Unfortunately." Exhibit MM 211. The statements containedfothese communications were intended to and did convey to the
readers thereof either directly or by implication, that Pkfotiff operates unkwfulfy and thatftspatrons are undesirable. 212. The statements and chargesfothe article are feke so fer as they reflect upon pkfotiff s character
and reputation. 213. The pkfotiff has never, committed any vioktions aDeged by defendant, nor was he or the cbb
ever an accessory to, nor an aider and abettor of suchunkwful acts, nor has he ever been guflty of any other vioktion of kw, but he has at aD times been a peaceable and kw abiding business operator and inhabitant of the several communitiesfowhich he has residedfromthe day of hk birth to the present time, 214. Defendant knew or should have known that the statements contained fo therein and identified in
paragraph 210 were fake when made, and defendant communicated them either intentionafiy and maliciously, or with reckless dkregard for their truth or fakity, or negligently and carelessly.
215.
The statements were posted, communicated on the dates articukted above, vkfotemetover the
world wide web and read by the pkintiffs neighbors, friends and diverse other persons. 216. By reason ofthe statements and charges contained in these communications and identified in
paragraph 210, the pkintiff has been brought into scandal and reproach and has been held up to odium, scorn and contempt among hk neighbors, business acquaintances, and other good citizens, and k suspected by them to have been guflty of the crimes andfraudulentpractices which defendant's article imputed to pkfotiff as a result of which the pkfotiffhas suffered in hk business, hk reputation, feelings and peace of mind, to hk great ffoanckl loss and damage. SEVENTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF State Common Law Ckim for Defemation Pkfotiff v. Northernliberties.org 217. 218. Pkmtiff incorporates by reference and reaDeges paragraphs 1 to 215 of thk compkint. A defemation action k based on an individual's right to enjoy a reputation unimpaired by feke
and defematory attacks. Spain v. Vicente, 315 Pa. Super. 135(1983). Further ft conskts of the utterance or publication of defematory words or written material which tends to bkcken a person's reputation and lower himfothe estimation of the community; to expose a person to public hatred, contempt, orridicule;tofojurea personfohk or her business, profession or office; or to deter third persons from assockting or dealing wfth him Sobelv. Wingard, 366 Pa. Super. 482 (1987); Marcone v. Penthouse Int'I Magazine for Men, 754 F. 2d 1072 (3d Or. 1985), cert, denied, 474 U.S. 864, 106 S. Ct. 182 (1985). 219. At aD times mentioned herein, pkintiffwas a kw abiding citizen of the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvank, who enjoyed the respect, confidence and esteem of hk neighbors, as weD as of aD others
fo the community, and has never been guilty of any crime, offense or vioktion of the kw which would tend to lessen the respect, confidence and esteem which he has enjoyed, and to which he was entitled. 220. At aD times mentioned herein, defendant owned, managed, controDed, conducted, printed,
pubfished,and circukted a certafo online blog known as the " northemfiberties.org," in Cfty and County ofPhikdebhk, Pennsylvank. 221. At aD times mentioned herein, defendant acted or failed to act through its agents, servants or
employees who acted for defendant's benefit, under defendant's control, and within the course and scope of their authority or employment. 222. Defendant, Northernliberties.org, k a communication forum and information hub for the
Northern Liberties Community and those bterested in said community. 223. Defendant has a dkckimer on the website stating that, 'It k our hope that thk website can be a
pkce to dkcuss the comings and gofogs of our neighborhood; a forum to dklogue about the events and affairs that shape our common future and a pktform for us to reaffirm our love for thk community. Personal attacks will not be tolerated anywhere on thk site." 224. Defendant has wrongfully interfered with the business operations of Pkfotiff and served as a
conduit of defamatory and harmful remarks through Defendant's message board, which k entirety open to the public. 225. On the foDowfog dates, the defendant, intending tofojurethe pkfotiff and to deprive him of hk
good name, fame, credft and reputation,fekety,maliciously, wickedly andfllegaDycommunicated statements concerning pkintiff over the internet, which contained the foDowfog scandalous, defematory and libelous statements:
a.
August 27, 2012 they foDowfog was posted, August 27,2012 - NortherriLiberties.org -
Jay: "I saw...the bouncers wearing GUNS! WTF k going on in that pkce...? Arctic Spksh: Cbb Aura k under a court order to provide inside and outside security Jay: But..WHY (does) Aura need armed guards. Is there any other bar or Restaurant or ebb fo the neighborhood that needs bouncers with guns? Arctb Spksh: 1 agree wfth you - boimcers wfth guns at ebbs just doesn't seem Kke a delectable cocktail.. Chris: The answer k their cfientele, some of whom may be armed and/or leave a gunfothe car, fo case they get dkrespected and need to settle some business Mythaeus: Presence of armed guards can be effective determined... Exhibit NN b. August 28, 2012 there was a postfromdefendant, David Wftz stating, "I never saw
armed security at Metro or 2nd Street Annies, which were bothfothe space Aura now occupies. If they think they need guns it's because of the situation they themselves created by opening thk unlicensed dance cbb and nukance bar on the comer of Front and Fairmount. Aura's management and kndlord have shown nothing but contempt for the pofice, the neighborhood and the neighbors, and I can only hope their bad behavior gets them padlocked before somebody gets shot." Exhibit 0 0 c. October 4, 2012 defendant posted an article titled, "Cbb Aura loses another cbb."
"Cbb Aura's skter nightmarefoOld City, Dreemz aka Rain, hasfinallybeen shut down by the cfty." "The owner...k Marc Stein...I can onty hope hk gettfog caught and shut downfoOld Cfty means the...neighbors of Aura mayfinallyget some relieffromthk toxic, unlicensed dance cbb.
Exhibit Q d. Defendant posted an article stating, "Hey, L&L.. The same people who own Aura
have been up to the same BS in Old Cfty for a decade, operating the same type of crappy business,ruining their neighbors'fivesand failing to obtain any of the required permits. At least one person has died, and there's been a shooting. Why don't you come check out Rain/Dreemz?" Exhibit PP 226. The statements contained m these communications were intended to and did convey to the
readers thereof efther directty or by implication, that Pkfotiff operates urkwfulty and thatftspatrons are undesirable. 227. The statements and chargesfothe article are feke so far as they reflect upon pkintiffs character
and reputation. 228. The pkfotiffhas never, committed any vioktions aDeged by defendant, nor was he or the cbb
ever an accessory to, nor an aider and abettor of such unkwful acts, nor has he ever been guilty of any other vioktion of kw, but he has at afl times been a peaceable and kw abiding business operator and inhabitant of the several communities in which he has residedfromthe day of hk birth to the present time. 229. Defendant knew or should have known that the statements contained fo therein and identified fo
paragraph 225 were feke when made, and defendant communicated them efther intentionally and maliciously, or wfth reckless dkregard for their truth orfekfty,or negligently and carelessly. 230. The statements were posted, communicated on the dates articukted above, vk internet over the
world wide web and read by the pkintiffs neighbors, friends and diverse other persons.
231.
By reason of the statements and charges contained fo these communications and identified fo
paragraph 225, the pkfotiffhas been brought into scandal and reproach and has been held up to odfom, scorn and contempt among hk neighbors, business acquaintances, and other good citizens, and k suspected by them to have been guflty of the crimes andfraudulentpractices which defendant's article imputed to pkfotiff as a result of which the pkfotiffhas suffered fo hk busfoess, hk reputation, feelings and peace of mind, to hk greatfinancklloss and damage.. EIGHTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF State Common Law Ckim for Tortious Interference wfth Business Pkfotiff v. AD Defendants 232. 233. Pkintiff incorporates by reference and reaDeges paragraphs 1 to 231 of thk compkint. By and through aD individual and coDective acts as heretofore described defendants have
wrongly and maficiousty interfered with the pkintiffs business operations and interests and have deprived, and/or sought to deprive, pkfotiff of its ability to conduct normal and kwful busfoess and to generate revenue. 234. Pkfotiffhas therefore been caused to sustain busfoess and revenue losses as have been
described in greater particukrftyfoparagraph 59, supra. REQUEST FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Pkfotiff respectfully request that the Court: 1. Award compensatory damagesfoan amount to be determined accordmg to proof by Pkintiff
against aD Defendants fo their individual capacities; 2. Award punitive damagesfosuch other amount as the jury may determine constitutional
vioktions alleged in thk compkint;
234.
Plaintiff has therefore been caused to sustain business and revenue losses as have been
described in greater particularity in paragraph 59, supra. REQUEST FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully request that the Court: 1. Award compensatory damages in an amount to be determined according to proof by
Plaintiff against all Defendants in their individual capacities; 2. Award punitive damages in such other amount as the jury may determine constitutional
violations alleged in this complaint; 3. Award Plaintiff costs, expenses, and reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant to inter alia, 42
U.S.C.A. 1988 and other federal and state laws; and 4. Grant such other further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 38(b), and local Rule 48.1, Plaintiff demands trial by jury for all of the issue pled so triable.
Respectfully submitted, ROACH, LEITE & MANYIN, LLC
Dated: _
lk] m^ ,
Marifose Roaoh, Esquire Attorneys for Plaintiff
VERIFICATION On August 8, 2013, Marc Stein, personally appeared before me, the undersigned Notary Public, and, after being duly sworn, he stated under oath that he is the plaintiff in this action; that he has read the complaint; and that every statement contained in the complaint is within his personal knowledge and is true and correct.
'//fax*Marc Stein
QILK^
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME on August 8, 2013, which I certify by my signature and official seal as set out below. [Notary Seal] Notary Public
NOTARIAL SEAL PARTHEN YVES ANTY Notary Public ABINGTON TWP., MONTGOMERY COUNTY My CommtesJQn Espires Mar 18,2014
Case 2:13-cv-04644-PBT Document 1-2 Filed 08/12/13 Page 1 of 2

MARC STEIN v. City of Philadelphia, Sawyer, Et Al

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

MARC STEIN v. City of Philadelphia, Sawyer, Et Al

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania

PACER Service Center

Case 2:13-cv-04644-PBT Document 1 Filed 08/12/13 Page 1 of 55

ROACH, LEITE & MANYIN, LLC

Document 1 Filed 08/12/13 Page 2 of 55

Document 1 Filed 08/12/13 Page 3 of 55

and PHILEBRITY.COM 1021 N. Hancock #1, Phikdebhk PA 19123

Document 1 Filed 08/12/13 Page 4 of 55

Document 1 Filed 08/12/13 Page 5 of 55

Document 1 Filed 08/12/13 Page 6 of 55

Document 1 Filed 08/12/13 Page 7 of 55

Document 1 Filed 08/12/13 Page 8 of 55

State andfederalckims setforthbelow derivefroma common nucleus of operative facts so

Document 1 Filed 08/12/13 Page 9 of 55

Document 1 Filed 08/12/13 Page 10 of 55

Case 2:13-cv-04644-PBT Document 1 Filed 08/12/13 Page 11 of 55

Document 1 Filed 08/12/13 Page 12 of 55

Document 1 Filed 08/12/13 Page 13 of 55

Document 1 Filed 08/12/13 Page 14 of 55

Document 1 Filed 08/12/13 Page 15 of 55

Document 1 Filed 08/12/13 Page 16 of 55

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Document 1 Filed 08/12/13 Page 17 of 55

Document 1 Filed 08/12/13 Page 18 of 55

Case 2:13-cv-04644-PBT Document 1 Filed 08/12/13 Page 19 of 55

Document 1 Filed 08/12/13 Page 20 of 55

Document 1 Filed 08/12/13 Page 21 of 55

Document 1 Filed 08/12/13 Page 22 of 55

Document 1 Filed 08/12/13 Page 23 of 55

Document 1 Filed 08/12/13 Page 24 of 55

Document 1 Filed 08/12/13 Page 25 of 55

Neighborhood Assocktion. He spends a substantkl amount oftimeand exerts dkproportionate energy

Document 1 Filed 08/12/13 Page 26 of 55

Document 1 Filed 08/12/13 Page 27 of 55

Document 1 Filed 08/12/13 Page 28 of 55

Document 1 Filed 08/12/13 Page 29 of 55

On or around July 3, 2012, a meeting held at the NLNA's community budmg at

Document 1 Filed 08/12/13 Page 30 of 55

Document 1 Filed 08/12/13 Page 31 of 55

Document 1 Filed 08/12/13 Page 32 of 55

Document 1 Filed 08/12/13 Page 33 of 55

Document 1 Filed 08/12/13 Page 34 of 55

Document 1 Filed 08/12/13 Page 35 of 55

Document 1 Filed 08/12/13 Page 36 of 55

Document 1 Filed 08/12/13 Page 37 of 55

Document 1 Filed 08/12/13 Page 38 of 55

Document 1 Filed 08/12/13 Page 39 of 55

Document 1 Filed 08/12/13 Page 40 of 55

Document 1 Filed 08/12/13 Page 41 of 55

Document 1 Filed 08/12/13 Page 42 of 55

Document 1 Filed 08/12/13 Page 43 of 55

Document 1 Filed 08/12/13 Page 44 of 55

Document 1 Filed 08/12/13 Page 45 of 55

Document 1 Filed 08/12/13 Page 46 of 55

Document 1 Filed 08/12/13 Page 47 of 55

Document 1 Filed 08/12/13 Page 48 of 55

Document 1 Filed 08/12/13 Page 49 of 55

Document 1 Filed 08/12/13 Page 50 of 55

Case 2:13-cv-04644-PBT Document 1 Filed 08/12/13 Page 51 of 55

Document 1 Filed 08/12/13 Page 52 of 55

Document 1 Filed 08/12/13 Page 53 of 55

vioktions alleged in thk compkint;