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

8/27/13 9:49 PMUnited States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania

Page 1 of 3https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?23474603603335-L_1_0-1

STANDARD

United States District CourtEastern District of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia)

CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:13-cv-04644-PBT

STEIN v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA et alAssigned to: CHIEF JUDGE PETRESE B. TUCKERCause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

Date Filed: 08/12/2013Jury Demand: PlaintiffNature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: OtherJurisdiction: Federal Question

PlaintiffMARC STEIN doing business as626 FRONT LLCalso known asAURA RESTAURANT & LOUNGE

represented by MARIROSE ROACH ROACH LEITE & MANYIN LLC 2938 LEVICK STREET GROUND FLOOR PHILADELPHIA, PA 19149 267-343-5818 Email: [email protected] LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.DefendantCITY OF PHILADELPHIA

DefendantCITY OF PHILADELPHIA POLICEDEPARTMENT

DefendantMICHAEL BRENNAN SERGEANT

DefendantBRIAN KORN CAPTAIN

DefendantNORTHERN LIBERTIESNEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION

Defendant



DAVID WITZ

DefendantMATT RUBEN

DefendantLARRY FREEDMAN

DefendantJUDY DONOVAN

DefendantRICHARD DONOVAN

DefendantJAMES BROSSY

DefendantDEBBIE RUDMAN

DefendantCHRISTOPHER SAWYER doing business asPHILADELINQUINCY

DefendantPHILADELINQUINCY

DefendantPHILEBRITY.COM

Date Filed # Docket Text

08/12/2013 1 COMPLAINT against All Defendants ( Filing fee $ 400 receipt number 086562.), filedby 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 ExGG) (tj, ). (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/12/2013: # 16 Ex H, # 17 Ex HH, # 18Ex 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, ). (Additionalattachment(s) added on 8/12/2013: # 31 Ex OO, # 32 Ex P, # 33 Ex PP, # 34 Ex Q, # 35Ex 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)

08/12/2013 Summons Issued as to MICHAEL BRENNAN, JAMES BROSSY, CITY OF

https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_doc.pl?add_padlock=0&caseid=480526&de_seq_num=22&dm_id=11877093&doc_num=1&pdf_header=1

https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/doc1/153112869087













































PHILADELPHIA, CITY OF PHILADELPHIA POLICE DEPARTMENT, JUDYDONOVAN, 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 CenterTransaction Receipt

08/27/2013 21:16:42PACER Login: cs7934 Client Code:Description: Docket Report Search Criteria: 2:13-cv-04644-PBTBillable Pages: 2 Cost: 0.20

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,

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

No.

Compkfot for Damages

and


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., Phüadebhk 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 foïïows:

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.

http://PHILEBRITY.COM


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

matter fo controversy, 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 aü 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 a right, 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 Phüadebhk,

Commonwealth of Pennsylvank, Eastern Dktrict of Pennsylvank.

6. This action k ako against the defendant, Cfty of Phüadebhk 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 Phüadebhk Police Department and their agents, servants and employees, to be

maliciously and purposefully deprived if its aforesaid protected rights under 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 Phüadebhk,

Pennsylvania.

11. The Defendants are:

a. The City of Phüadebhk, 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 Phüadebhk, 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, focfodmg but not limited to the 6th Dktrict, were undertaken by fts duly


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, at fts pkce 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 at fts pkce 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 Phüadebhk, 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 aD times material hereto, the

President and Zonmg Committee Director, and/or authorized agent of the NLNA at fts pkce 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 at fts pkce of busmess at

700 North 2nd Street, Cfty and County of Phüadebhk, 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, fo hk 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 Phüadebhk, 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 Phüadebhk, 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 aforesaid fodividuals, operatbg at 1021 N.

Hancock St., Apartment #1, City and County of Phüadebhk, Pennsylvank.

http://www.phikdelfoquency.corn

http://Phuebrfty.com


12. State and federal ckims set forth below derive from a 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. The owner of Pkmtiff k Marc Stein

15. Pkmtiff entered into a commerckl lease to operate on April 16,2011.

16. 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. The liquor license was approved on January 20, 2012.

19. 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 aflowmg first and 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 on first and second floor wfth

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 dance floors and two DJ music booths. Exhibit A

c. Pkintiffreceived zonmg approval for live entertainment, DJ music and dancbg. Exhibit

A

d. Pkmtiff received approval for busmess privflege licensmg, food preparation certification,

kwful occupancy certification, fire certification, electrical inspection certification, liquor license

and amusement permit. Exhibit B

22. In furtherance of its obligations to complete fts applications 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 k fisted as 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 the first floor and 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. Subsequently, Pkmtiff received approval to renovate the property.

27. 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 obtainfog fts permits, Pkmtiff was required to obtam from the 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, Pkmtiff filed for 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 ülegaDy. The fact k that Pkmtiff was, at aß 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 Pkmtiff from operating its busmess and to effectively shut Pkmtiff down.

40. Actions undertaken by and behalf of the NLNA and fts constituent 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-maüs;

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, ft k 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

compkmts fovolvfog Pkintiff

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 of the defendants, Pkmtiff has struggled to stay


open for busmess.

47. Pkintiff has been unable to operate fo the manner in which ft was 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. Pkintiff mcorporates by reference and reafleges paragraphs 1 to 49 of thk compkint.

51. 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 Phüadebhk.

53. In fts capacity under the applicable kws, the Cfty of Phüadebhk, by and through fts Zonmg

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 privÜege.

54. The City of Phikdebhk, by and through fts duly appomted agencies, approved Pkmtiffs initial

Dcenses and application to renovate and operate their estabikhment as a restaurant and lounge with

accessory five entertainment 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 buüdmg wfth an exkting Restaurant and bar on first and second

floor wfth accessory five entertainment (not as defined as in 14-1605) wfth DJ dancing and stage shows

on first and 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 through fts duly 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 opposition from any 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 Phüadebhk.

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 Phüadebhk 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. Pkmtiff mcorporates by reference and reaDeges paragraphs 1 to 64 of thk compkmt.

66. Pkintiff alleges that Defendant, whüe 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 over time as 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. Pkintiff mcorporates by reference and reafleges paragraphs 1 to 73 of thk compkint.

75. 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 over time as 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

of fts kwful busmess activities.

83. The aforesaid actions of Cap tain Kom were: (Í) objectively unreasonable, (if) dkproportionate

when conpared to other similarly licensed establkhments fo the 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. Pkmtiff mcorporates by reference and reaDeges paragraphs 1 to 83 of thk compkmt.

85. A defemation action k based on an bdividual' s right to 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- Emaü from David- 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- Email from David 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, has finally been

shut down by the city. Reason: no speckl assembly license (and a LOT of neighbor

compkmts.)

The speckl assembly license k needed for five music, 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 of Aura may finally get 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 charges fo the 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 aD times been 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 contamed fo therein and identified m

paragraph 87 were feke when made, and defendant communicated them efther fotentionaDy and

maliciously, or with reckless dkregard for their truth or fekfty, 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 guüty 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 great fihanckl loss 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. Pkmtiff mcorporates by reference and reaDeges paragraphs 1 to 93 of thk compkint.

95. 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 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 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 buüdmg; Witz and Pkintiff had the same kndlord and was an active member of the NLNA.

He spends a substantkl amount of time and exerts dkproportionate energy fo pursuit of removmg


Pkintiff from the 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 buüdmg with Pkintiffs sound teehniekn, vowing instead to close Pkintiffs doors.

99. Wftz repeatedly accused the owners of forcing him to leave and has recruited support from the

other residents on the block. Thk incident has mcfted hostility towards Pkintiff and fts patrons. 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

community figures m an attempt to close Pkmtiffs doors permanently.

101. Defendant calk in compkints to the Police and circuktes fake information about Pkintiff on the

internet.

102. Police are constantly called to the property during busmess hours. Defendant and members of

the NLNA are fifing false 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. Pkmtiff mcorporates by reference and realleges paragraphs 1 to 104 of thk compkht.

106. 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 same right.. .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 through fts agents have singled out Pkmtiff and made it a goal to shut down their

operations solely because of the patrons Pkmtiff has coming out to fts events.

110. Police are constantly called to the property during business hours. Members of the NLNA are

fifing fake reports to the police about Pkintiff and fts customers. 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. Pkmtiff mcorporates by reference and reaUeges paragraphs 1 to 111 of thk compkmt.

113. 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 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 pkmtiff must show that the defendant btended to dkcrimbate on the bask of race, 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.


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 of time and exerts dkproportionate energy


in pursuit of removmg Pkmtiff from the 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 of what 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 buüdfog at Fairmount

Avenue and 3rd Street was packed to capacity to address the fetal shootings of two people at a

Restaurant located inside the Pkzza, an apartment complex in Northern Liberties. Wfth a captive

audience, Ruben first addressed 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 emaü 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 make ft free and public, or

a private party wfth tickets. And they can pky the music, as long as its not from a live band or from a

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

http://northernliberties.org

http://NorthernLiberties.org


did not m feet come from Pkintiff itself Further, there was no DJ present at any time during 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 other five music." Exhibit U

122. On July 30,2012, after combing thru sockl medk, Ruben found pictures 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 wül 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 Ckim for Defemation

Pkintiff v. Matt Ruben

127. Pkintiff mcorporates by reference and realleges paragraphs 1 to 126 of thk compkint.

128. A defamation action k based on an mdMdual's right to enjoy a reputation unimpaired by fake

and defamatory attacks. Spain v. Vicente, 315 Pa. Super. 135 (1983). Further ft conskts 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


130. On the foDowmg dates, the defendant, mtending to mjure the pkintiff and to deprive him of hk

good name, fame, credit and reputation, kkefy, maliciously, wickedly and ülegalfy communicated

statements concemmg pkmtiff over the mtemet, which contamed the foDowmg scandalous, defamatory



a. On or around July 3, 2012, a meeting held at the NLNA's community buüdmg 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, Ruben first addressed 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-maü 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 that fts patrons are

undesirable.

132. The statements and charges fo the 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


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 contamed fo therein and identified in

paragraph 130 were feke when made, and defendant communicated them efther intentionafiy and

maliciously, or wfth reckless dkregard for their truth or fekity, 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, friends and diverse other persons.

136. By reason of the statements and charges contamed in these communications and identified in

paragraph 130 , the pkintiff has been brought foto scandal 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 and fraudulent practices 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 great financkl loss 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. Pkmtiffmcorporates by reference and reaEeges paragraphs 1 to 136 ofthk compkmt.

138. Federal statute, 42 U.S.C §1981, outkws rackl dkcrirnbation fo the makmg and enforcmg of

private contracts. The statute provides that "[a]31 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 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 Pkintiff k not a mmority hk ebb k

patronized by a crowd comprised of minorities, mainly African American and Hkpanic.


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 have feDen on deaf ears.

144. As a direct result of the concerted effort of NLNA neighbors/members and officers, Pkmtiff

was and s t i 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. Pkmtiff mcorporates by reference and reaDeges paragraphs 1 to 144 of thk compkint.

146. A defamation action k based on an fodividual's right 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, or ridicule; to mjure a person in hk or her business, profession or office; or to deter third

persons from assockting or deafing wfth him Sobelv. Wingard, 366 Pa. Super. 482 (1987);


U.S. 864, 106 S Ct. 182 (1985).

147. At aD times mentioned herem, pkintiffwas a kw abidfog citizen of the Commonwealth of


m the community, and has never been guüty of any crime, offense or vioktion of the kw which would


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 ÜlegaDy communicated

statements concemmg pkintiff over the mtemet, which contained the foDowmg scandalous, defematory


a. In a Philebrfty.com article dated June 21,2012 Defendant stated,

"I have not seen such a blatant disregard for neighbors and authority by an

operator in a long time. I am appalled by their inhuman and uncivilized behavior. They

http://Philebrfty.com


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 contained fo these 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 charges fo the 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 guüty 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 resided from the 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 or fekfty, or negligently and carelessly.



world wide web and read by the pkintiffs neighbors, friends and 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 and fraudulent practices which defendant's article

imputed to pkintiff as a result of which the pkintiff has suffered in his business, his reputation, feelings


ELEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

State Common Law Ckim for Defamation Pkmtiff v. Judy Donovan

156. Pkintiffmcorporates by reference and reaDeges paragraphs 1 to 155 ofthk compkint.

157. A defamation action k based on an mdividual's right to enjoy a reputation unimpaired by fake


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 person fo hk or her business, profession or office; or to deter third

persons from assockting or dealing wfth him. Sobelv. Wingard, 366 Pa. Super. 482 (1987);


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


159. On the foDowing dates, the defendant, intending to fojure the pkmtiff and to deprive him of hk

good name, fame, credit and reputation, falsely, maliciously, wickedly and fllegaDy communicated

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 the first week 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 aüegfog encountered someone

irrinating next to her car;

ni. The e-mafl went on to state that during "the past weekend (her)

husband photographed female customer urinating between cars;"

iv. She further stated without any factual support, "Judging from constant

turnover of parked 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 or fo one 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 our fingers crossed that these sleazoids

don't find a 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 charges fo the 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

http://Philebrfty.com


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


time.

164. Defendant knew or should have known that the statements contamed fo therein 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.



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


imputed to pkintiff as a result of which the pkintiff has suffered in hk business, hk reputation, feelings


TWELVTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

State Common Law Ckim for Defemation Pkintiff v. Richard Donovan

167. Pkmtiff incorporates by reference and realeges paragraphs 1 to 166 of thk compkint.

168. 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



reputation and lower him fo the estimation of the community; to expose a person to public hatred,

contempt, or ridicule; to injure a person fo hk or her business, profession or office; or to deter third

persons from assockting or dealing wfth him Sobelv. Wingard, 366 Pa. Super. 482 (1987);


U.S. 864, 106 S Ct. 182 (1985).

169. At aD times mentioned herein, pkintiffwas a kw abiding citizen of the Commonwealth of


fo the cornmunfty, and has never been guilty of any crime, offense or vioktion of the kw which would


170. On the following dates, the defendant, intending to fojure the 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


a. On or around April 2,2012, Defendant and hk wife sent an e-maü 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) photographed female customer urinating between cars;"

iv. It was further stated wfthout any factual support, "Judgfog from constant

turnover of parked cars during cbb hours ft appears 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)omewhat fllegal and 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 succeeded fo the

wild and woory NL [Northern Liberties] about 20 years ago. Why don't you open up

at 10th and Butler or fo one 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 our fingers crossed that these sleazoids

don't find a 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 that fts patrons are

http://Phflebrfty.com


undesirable.

172. The statements and charges fo the 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



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





paragraph 170, the pkintiff has been brought into scandal and reproach, and has been held up to odium,


suspected by them to have been guilty of the crimes and fraudulent practices which defendant's article

imputed to pkmtiff as a result of which the pkintiff has suffered fo hk business, hk reputation, feelings


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. Pkfotiff incorporates by reference and reaDeges paragraphs 1 to 176 of thk compkint.

178. Federal statute, 42 U.S. C. § 1981, outkws rackl dkcrimination fo the making and enforcfog of

private contracts. The statute provides that "[a]fl persons... shall 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 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


heritage.

180. Defendant, James Brossy, k a neighbor of Pkintiff and member of the Northern Liberties


in pursuit of removing Pkfotiff from the 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 fàDen on deaf ears.

185. As a direct result of the conceited effort of defendant and the NLNA neighbors/members and

officers, Pkintiffwas and st i is unable to operate as ft intended 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. Pkmtiff incorporates by reference and reaDeges paragraphs 1 to 185 of thk compkint.

187. 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


heritage.

189. Defendant, Debbie Rudman, k a neighbor of Pkintiff and member of the Northern Liberties


fo pursuit of removing Pkmtiff from the 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 and fts customers. 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 have feilen on 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 as ft btended to.

FIFTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

State Common Law Ckim for Defemation Pkfotiff v. Christopher Sawyer d/b/a Phfladelfoquincy

193. Pkintiff incorporates by reference and reaDeges paragraphs 1 to 192 of thk compkint.


and defematory attacks. Spain v. Vicente, 315 Pa. Super. 135 (1983). Further ft conskts of the



contempt, or ridicule; to injure a person fo his 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);


U.S. 864, 106 S Ct. 182 (1985).

195. At all times mentioned herein, pkintiffwas a kw abiding citizen of the Commonwealth of


fo the community, and has never been guilty of any crime, offense or vioktion of the kw which would


196. At aD times mentioned herein, defendant owned, managed, controlled, conducted, printed,

pub fished, 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 through fts 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.

198. On the foDowing dates, the defendant, intending to fojure the pkfotiff and to deprive him of hk

good name, feme, credft and reputation, fekety, maliciously, wickedly and fllegafiy communicated

statements concerning pkfotiff over the internet, which contained the foDowmg scandalous, defamatory


a. August 13,2012 they posted an article titled, "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, ft seems 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 Aura from earlier

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 article titled, "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. Posted fo The 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 charges fo the 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



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 contained fo therein and identified in

paragraph 198 were feke when made, and defendant conmunicated them efther intentionally and






paragraph 198, the pkfotiff has been brought into scandal and reproach, and has been held up to odium,


suspected by them to have been guilty of the crimes and fraudulent practices which defendant's article

imputed to pkintiff as a result of which the pkfotiff has suffered fo his business, hk reputation, feelings


SIXTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

State Common Law Ckim for Defamation Pkfotiff v. Philebrity

205. Pkfotiff incorporates by reference and reaDeges paragraphs 1 to 204 of thk compkint.

206. A defamation action k based on an individual's right to enjoy a reputation iinimpaired by feke




contempt, or ridicule; to fojure a 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);


U.S. 864, 106 S. Ct. 182 (1985).

207. At all times mentioned herein, pkintiffwas a kw abiding citizen of the Commonwealth of


in the community, and has never been guflty of any crime, offense or vioktion of the kw which would



208. At aD times mentioned herem, defendant owned, managed, controlled, conducted, printed,

pubfished, and circukted a certain online blog known as the " Philebrity," fo the City and County of

Phikdebhk, Pennsylvank.

209. At all times mentioned herein, defendant acted or foiled to act through fts agents, servants or

employees who acted for defendant's benefit, under defendant's control, and within the course and


210. On the foDowfog dates, the defendant, intending to fojure the pkfotiff and to deprive him of hk

good name, feme, credft and reputation, falsely, maliciously, wickedly and fllegafiy communicated

statements concerning pkfotiff over the internet, which contained the foDowmg scandalous, defematory


a. April 16,2012 they posted an article titled, 'You can stay fo business, 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 community ft was 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

of fixing the 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 contained fo these communications were intended to and did convey to the

readers thereof either directly or by implication, that Pkfotiff operates unkwfulfy and that fts patrons are

undesirable.

212. The statements and charges fo the 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


inhabitant of the several communities fo which he has resided from the 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, vk fotemet over the



paragraph 210, the pkintiff has been brought into scandal and reproach and has been held up to odium,



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. Pkmtiff incorporates by reference and reaDeges paragraphs 1 to 215 of thk compkint.


and defematory attacks. Spain v. Vicente, 315 Pa. Super. 135(1983). Further ft conskts of the



contempt, or ridicule; to fojure a person fo hk 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


http://Northernliberties.org


fo the community, and has never been guilty of any crime, offense or vioktion of the kw which would


220. At aD times mentioned herein, defendant owned, managed, controDed, conducted, printed,

pub fished, 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


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 to fojure the pkfotiff and to deprive him of hk

good name, fame, credft and reputation, fekety, maliciously, wickedly and fllegaDy communicated

statements concerning pkintiff over the internet, which contained the foDowfog scandalous, defematory


http://northemfiberties.org

http://Northernliberties.org


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 gun fo the 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 post from defendant, David Wftz stating, "I never saw

armed security at Metro or 2nd Street Annies, which were both fo the 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 nightmare fo Old City, Dreemz aka Rain, has finally been shut down by the

cfty." "The owner...k Marc Stein...I can onty hope hk gettfog caught and shut down fo Old Cfty

means the...neighbors of Aura may finally get some relief from thk toxic, unlicensed dance cbb.

http://NortherriLiberties.org


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' fives and 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 that fts patrons are

undesirable.

227. The statements and charges fo the 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


other vioktion of kw, but he has at afl times been a peaceable and kw abiding business operator and


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 or fekfty, or negligently and carelessly.




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,



imputed to pkfotiff as a result of which the pkfotiffhas suffered fo hk busfoess, hk reputation, feelings

and peace of mind, to hk great financkl loss and damage..

EIGHTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

State Common Law Ckim for Tortious Interference wfth Business Pkfotiff v. AD Defendants

232. Pkintiff incorporates by reference and reaDeges paragraphs 1 to 231 of thk compkint.

233. 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 particukrfty fo paragraph 59, supra.

REQUEST FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Pkfotiff respectfully request that the Court:

1. Award compensatory damages fo an amount to be determined accordmg to proof by Pkintiff

against aD Defendants fo their individual capacities;

2. Award punitive damages fo such 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

lk] m^ Dated: _ , 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*- QILK^ Marc Stein

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
























































































































































Documents

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