ECEIVED BEFORE THE CITY OF KNOXVILLE RECEIVE! BEER BOARD NOV 04 2022 CITY OF KNOXVILLE, CITY COUNCIL OFFI Plaintiff, v. PERMIT NO. P082322006 ARAMARK SPORTS AND ENTERTAINMENT SERVICES, LLC D/B/A NEYLAND STADIUM-ARAMARK BOWL 1300 Phillip Fulmer Way Knoxville, TN 37906 Permittee. MOTION TO STRIKE CERTAIN ALLEGATIONS AND COUNTS OF CITY OF KNOXVILLE’S NON-COMPLIANCE COMPLAINT. Aramark Sports and Entertainment Services, LLC d/b/a Neyland Stadium-Aramark Bowl (“Aramark” or “Permittee”), hereby submits this Motion to Strike Certain Allegations and Counts (the “Motion”) in response to the Non-Compliance Complaint (the “Complaint”) filed by the City of Knoxville (the “City”). This Motion shall serve as Aramark’s answer in accordance with Knoxville City Code § 4-86. Aramark now states as follows: I. Procedural Posture and Applicable Standard on a Motion to Strike This matter was initiated by the City before the Knoxville Beer Board by the filing of its, Complaint on October 19, 2022, Notice was served upon Aramark on October 21, 2022. This timely motion to strike is now submitted for the consideration of the Honorable Hearing Officer, and Aramark requests a hearing on this motion before the matter proceeds to a hearing on the merits.In the Complaint, the City alleges, among other things, that Aramark should be sanctioned for alleged violations of the City’s municipal code related to the service of beer. Aramark is the duly licensed holder of Permit No. P082322006, as noted in the caption of this matter. In its Complaint, the City has recited a number of alleged violations which do not relate to Permit No. P082322006. Furthermore, these unrelated allegations have already been adjudicated and are not properly before the Beer Board at this time. For these reasons, as more fully outlined below, the subject allegations should be stricken from the Complaint, Additionally, the City has raised a series of allegations in its Complaint against Aramark which, essentially, appear to argue that the University of Tennessee’s Neyland Stadium is operating as a “disorderly establishment” within the meaning of the City’s municipal ordinances, ‘These puzzling allegations related to the stadium, as lodged against Aramark in the context of this, hearing, are both factually and legally inappropriate and should be stricken from the Complaint. A motion to strike, as contemplated by the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure, permits a party, before responding to a pleading, to move to strike from any pleading allegations which are “redundant, immaterial, impertinent or scandalous.” Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.06. While Aramark acknowledges that the standard Rules of Evidence and Rules of Procedure are not directly binding upon proceedings before the Beer Board, the concepts applicable in the Rules should be considered where justice so requires and in order to provide an appropriate forum that comports with constitutional due process rights to the litigants before the Board. Because the allegations outlined below should not be considered by the hearing officer, Aramark respectfully moves that those allegations be stricken from the Complaint as contemplated by Rule 12.06; that the City be required to prepare and file a modified Complaint consistent withthe order of this tribunal; and that Aramark be permitted to answer and duly defend upon the filing of an appropriately stated Complaint. Il, Count V should be stricken because Neyland Stadium is not a “disorderly” establishment and Aramark is neither the owner nor the operator of the stadium Knoxville City Code § 4-73(c) states, in pertinent part, that the Board “shall revoke the permit of any permittee who operates or allows his establishment to be operated in a disorderly manner.” (emphasis added). Continuing, the Code instructs that evidence of the chronic occurrence of disorderly conduct and/or the occurrence of criminal activity shall be “prima facie evidence” that a particular establish is being operated in a “disorderly manner,” for which revocation is then mandatory. The City, in its Complaint, provides a lengthy recitation of alleged criminal conduct purporting to illustrate that Neyland Stadium itself is a “disorderly” establishment within the meaning of Knoxville’s municipal code. Aside from the potentially monumental implications of this position as it relates to the operation of the University of Tennessee and its athletic and other venues within the City of Knoxville, this argument appears to equate Aramark, the permittee, with the same status as the ‘owner or operator of an establishment which has been determined to be “disorderly” within the meaning of the law. Indeed, state and local nuisance laws, such as the provision cited by the City in this case concerning Neyland Stadium, are most notably utilized by municipalities in responding. to the needs of the community stemming from allegedly dangerous or hazardous establishments. In recent years within Knoxville and Knox County, state and local nuisance laws, combined withrelevant crime logs for a site under scrutiny, have been applied to close adult entertainment clubs, bars, night clubs, and restaurants.’ Yet, in this instance, it appears the City of Knoxville now takes the extraordinary position that Neyland Stadium itself is a “disorderly” establishment within the meaning of the law. Specifically, in Count V, including paragraphs 93 through 95 of the Complaint, the City alleges “a number of criminal violations that have occurred within Neyland Stadium” to support its position that Aramark has allowed “its establishment” to operate in a disorderly manner under Knoxville City Code § 4-73(c). Paragraph 93 of the Complaint identifies even categories of violations alleged to have “occurred within Neyland Stadium.” In support of its allegations in Count V, the City also includes a purported Tennessee Police Crime Log as Exhibit 26 to the Complaint which includes 619 violations from August 10, 2022 to October 17, 2022 at alf locations on the University of Tennessee campus. These allegations misrepresent which purported disorderly conduct allegedly occurred on premises at Permittee’s establishment within the meaning of Knoxville City Code § 4-73(c) and wholly ignore the complexities of security and law enforcement efforts at Neyland Stadium. Of the 619 criminal violations included in Exhibit 26, only 137 were listed as having occurred on an actual game day in the 2022 football season, at or notably, including, owsside Neyland Stadium, including 24 arrests and 113 ejections. Moreover, a number of the purported criminal violations and ejections now cited by the City occurred prior to the subject individual ever ' See e.g., hitps://www_knoxnews.com/story/news/local/2022/06/02/ball-strip-club-shut-down- knox-county-district-attorney/748621500 1/; https://archive.knoxnews.com/business/bearden- residents-businesses-voice-concern-over-nightclub-ep-36235 1608-3572768 1 html.entering the stadium, as intoxicated and disorderly individuals are turned away at the gate by law enforcement before they can ever enter the stadium or potentially have a sip of a beer served by Aramark For example, Aramark’s research into the specific allegations now cited by the City in support of its position has demonstrated that at least seven out of 24 arrests occurred before the individual ever entered the stadium, and two are criminal trespass violations occurring at 3:00 AM. and 3:26 A.M., long after the football game would have concluded and longer still after ‘Aramark would have stopped serving beer, and without any evidence whatsoever that the individuals involved were ever actually inside or served beer at Neyland Stadium. Similarly, at least two of the violations occurring within the stadium were completely unrelated to alcohol (an outstanding warrant/simple possession charge, and a violation of a prior criminal trespass charge arising out of a domestic dispute). In other words, 137 incidents—without any proof that the subject individuals were ever served beer by Aramark—out of nearly 400,000 guests attending the first four home football games falls far short of “prima facie evidence” that disorderly conduct “chronically occurs” on the Neyland Stadium premises, as required for revocation pursuant to Knoxville City Code § 4-73(¢) Additionally, Count V directly contradicts the first and last (unnumbered) paragraphs of the Complaint. Paragraph 95 of Count V provides that “the City would state that the Hearing Officer should consider revoking the Permittee’s permit.” However, in the first and last paragraph of the Complaint, the City states that it is requesting that Aramark’s permit “be suspended for a period of not less than sixty (60) days and that [Aramark] pay a fine of no less than $1,500.00 per violation, for a total of $4,500.00.” ‘The ambiguity as to what punishment the City is seeking failsto provide Aramark with notice of the charges against it and therefore, violates Aramark’s due process rights under the Tennessee and United States Constitutions. Moreover, the allegations set forth in Count V suggest that Aramark, as permittee, is responsible for all conduct occurring at Neyland Stadium. Security enforcement at Neyland Stadium, including the prevention of disorderly conduct, is a coordinated and complex effort between several well-qualified entities including, among others, the City’s own Knoxville Police Department, as well as the Knox County Sheriff, the Blount County Sheriff, the University of ‘Tennessee Police Department, and the University of Tennessee. ‘The allegations made by the City against Aramark in the context of this Beer Board matter should not include crime logs, University of Tennessee or law enforcement operational statistics, or other unrelated and inflammatory materials. ‘The heart of the issue before the Beer Board is whether Aramark, as holder of a specific permit, has committed a violation of the applicable law and, if so, what the proper recourse should be, Aramark is not the owner or the operator of any University of Tennessee property, up to and including Neyland Stadium. Aramark does not control, the premises, does not provide security, does not control who may or may not enter University property, and is not authorized to remove or eject patrons from the premises, To be clear, Aramark denies without reservation any suggestion by the City that Neyland Stadium or any other UT property is operated in a “disorderly manner.” Nonetheless, Knoxville City Code § 4-73(c) contemplates that the Board “shall revoke the permit of any permittee who operates or allows his establishment to be operated in a disorderly manner.” (emphasis added). Because Aramark neither operates nor allows its establishment to be operated in a disorderlymanner, these inflammatory and improper allegations should not be considered by the hearing officer in this matter. For these reasons, the allegations set forth in Count V should be stricken from the Complaint as immaterial and impertinent within the meaning of Rule 12, and because they plainly violate Aramark’s constitutional rights. IIL, Any allegation pertaining to Permit Number 1 and Permit Number 2, as set forth in the Complaint, is immaterial and impertinent to the claims at issue The City states multiple allegations within the Complaint that are immaterial and impertinent to the permit at issue, These allegations merely serve to build an inflammatory but irrelevant record and should be stricken. The relevant permit here (Permit No. P082322006) was issued on August 23, 2022. Paragraphs 7 through 65 set forth allegations about two prior Aramark permits (specifically referred to as Permit I and Permit 2 in the Complaint) that are no longer valid, as well as citations alleged to have occurred when those prior permits were effective. Aramark has fulfilled the requirements imposed by Knoxville City Code § 4-78 as it pertains to the citations under these permits—including remedial plans, a revised remedial plan, and payment of a $500.00 fine—to the satisfaction of the Knoxville Police Department and Knoxville Beer Board. These matters are adjudicated and have no place in a hearing on the current matter which has been referred to a hearing officer. Indeed, Aramark argues that a fair hearing affording it appropriate due process simply may not reference or include allegations under old permits which have been previously adjudicated. Evidencing the accuracy of Aramark’s position in this regard, the first citation under the existing permit was issued by the City’s Knoxville Police Department on September 17, 2022, andwas noted to be an alleged first sale to minor violation pursuant to Knoxville City Code § 4-78(b). Likewise, the September 24, 2022 event was an alleged second sale to minor pursuant to Knoxville City Code § 4-78(c) (O-215-2013), and the third alleged violation on October 15, 2022 was referred to a suspension/revocation hearing pursuant to Knoxville City Code § 4-78(d). Neither the Knoxville Beer Board nor the Knoxville Police Department has considered prior alleged violations under the former—now invalid—permits in these proceedings. The record before the hearing officer relates solely to the matters currently pending under duly issued Aramark’s license, as illustrated by the City’s own documentation. It is improper for the previously adjudicated matters to be included here, or for those old matters existing under a prior permit to be considered by the hearing officer. ‘Therefore, paragraphs 7 through 65 are irrelevant and immaterial to the alleged violations at issue in this case and should be stricken from the Complaint. IV. Counts I, II, and III fail to state a cause of action yet to be adjudicated Counts I, II, and III of the Complaint should be stricken, as each count alleges violations that have already been adjudicated and Aramark has fulfilled the requirements imposed by Knoxville City Code § 4-78 as it pertains to the September 17, 2022 and the September 24, 2022 citations, As to the first violation (as outlined in Count 1), paragraph 75 alleges that Aramark has violated Knoxville City Code § 4-34(a). The punishment for violating § 4-34(a) is set forth in Knoxville City Code § 4-78(b), requiring that the permittee submit a written remedial plan to the Inspections Unit of the Knoxville Police Department within twenty days after the citation. Aramark properly submitted this remedial plan and, therefore, complied with its obligations under the Knoxville City Code for this citation,‘As to the second violation (as outlined in Counts II and II1) paragraph 82, again, alleges that Aramark has violated Knoxville City Code § 4-34(a). The punishment for violating § 4-34(a) a second time is set forth in Knoxville City Code § 4-78(c) and 0-215-2013, requiring that the permittee submit a written revised remedial plan and $500.00 to the City Recorders Office at least five days before an administrative hearing, and attend an administrative hearing before the Knoxville Beer Board, Aramark properly submitted the revised remedial plan, the $500.00 fine, and attended the administrative hearing, and therefore, complied with its obligations under the Knoxville City Code for this citation. ‘These Counts I, Il, and III do not allege any specific cause of action, do not include a new charge against Aramark, and do not seek any relief. Instead, these counts merely set out factual background similar to the first 70 paragraphs of the Complaint. Again, the City’s failure to provide ‘Aramark with notice of the punishment sought against it violates Aramark’s due process rights. ‘Therefore, Counts I, Il, and III, including paragraphs 71-86, should be stricken in the interest of justice and as immaterial, redundant, and impertinent. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Aramark respectfully moves that these immaterial, redundant, scandalous, and constitutionally improper allegations in the Complaint be stricken within the guidance provided by Tenn, R. Civ. P. 12.06. Aramark respectfully requests a hearing on this motion, and a stay on the merits and on discovery in these proceedings until the City files an amended non-compliance complaint consistent with this motion. Aramark will provide a substantive answer within 15 days of such filing. Dated November 4, 2022.Respectfully submitted, EESE LLP ff? 7 V2 fg DOI»A OB William T. Cheek, Til Stacia Burns 1600 West End Avenue, Suite 1400 ‘Nashville, Tennessee 37203 Phone: (615) 259-1450 Fax: (615) 259-1470 [email protected] [email protected] ELDRIDGE & BLAKNEY, PC Tasha C. Blakney 400 W Church Ave Suite 101 Knoxville, TN 37902 Telephone: (865) 544-2010 Counsel for Aramark Sports and Entertainment Services, LLC Certificate of Service A copy of the foregoing was transmitted by US Mail and via email to Alyson A. Dyer at [email protected] and Robert B. Frost, Jr, at [email protected] on November 4, 2022. Tasha C. Bla 10