Upload
others
View
0
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
State Office of Administrative Hearings0 ~ ~ 7
Fit=~tJiiD tEC l 82015
Cathleen Parsley Chief Administrative Law Judge
l AL
17 December 2015
Sherry Cook Administrator Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission 5806 Mesa Drive Austin Texas 78731
VIA REGULAR MAIL
RE SOAH Docket No 458-15-3318 TABC v 2345 Meacham LLC dba Buckss Cabaret
Dear Ms Cook
Please find enclosed a Proposal for Decision in this case It contains my recommendation and underlying rationale
Exceptions and replies may be filed by any party in accordance with 1 TEX ADMJN CODEsect 155507(c) a SOAH rule which may be found at wwwsoahstatetxus
Sincerely
OBERT F JO ES JR ADMINISTRATI JUDGE STATE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
RFJcj Enclosure xc Sheila Lindsey-Sanders Staff Attorney Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission 427 W 20h Street Suite
600 Houston TX 77008 - VIA REGULAR MAIL
Emily Helm General Counsel Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission 5806 Mesa Drive Austin TX 78731- VIA REG ULAR MAIL
Judith Kennison Senior Attorney Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission 5806 Mesa Drive Austin TX 7873 I - VIA REGULAR MAIL (with Certified Evidentiary Record and Hearing CDs)
Roger Albright Attorney for Respondent 3301 Elm Street Dallas Texas 75226 -VIA REGULAR MAIL
300 W 15u Street Suite 502 Austin Texas 78701 PO Box 13025 Austin Texas 78711-3025 5124754993 (Main) 5124753445 (Docketing) 5123222061 (Fax)
wwwsoahstatetxus
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION
Petitioner
v
2345 MEACHAM LLC DBA BUCKSS CABARET
Respondent
sect sect sect sect sect sect sect sect sect
BEFORE THE STATE OFFICE
OF
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
PROPOSAL FOR DECISION
The Staff of the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission (TABC or Commission) sought
a suspension of the permit held by 2345 Meacham LLC dba Buckss Cabaret (Respondent)
Respondent that it had taken all possible steps to prevent an employee from being intoxicated on
the premises The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) recommends that Respondents permit be
suspended for 36 days or in the alternative Respondent be assessed a civil penalty of $300 per
day for 36 days for a total penalty of$10800
I PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The hearing in this matter convened before ALJ Robert F Jones Jr on October 22 2015
at the State Office of Administrative Hearings (SOAH) in Fort Worth Texas Sheila A Lindsey
of the T ABC Legal Services Division appeared and represented Staff Respondent appeared by
its attorney Roger Albright Evidence was received and the record closed that day
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE2
II DISCUSSION
A Background
Staff alleged that Respondent violated Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code sect l l6l(b)(l3)
which authorizes the Commission to suspend a permit if the permittee was intoxicated on the
licensed premises The events which are the subject of this contested case took place in the
evening of March 1 2014 and the early morning of March 2 2014 TABC Agent Denver
Carleton led a squad of T ABC agents namely Sergeant Charlotte Knox and agents Travis
Shirley Charles Cayea and Christopher Nunnery in an undercover investigation of the
Respondents premises a sexually oriented business Respondent holds Mixed Beverage Permit
MB753709 which includes a Mixed Beverage Late Hours Permit and a Beverage Cartage
Permit Respondents licensed premises are located at 2345 Meacham Boulevard Fort Wo1th
Tarrant County Texas 76106 1
1 Pet Ex I at 4
The squad was split into two teams the undercover team and the open team
Agents Shirley and Cayea were the undercover team Agent Carleton Sergeant Knox and
Agent Nunnery were the open team On the undercover teams cue the open team was to enter
Respondents club approach the person alleged to have committed the violation and investigate
The undercover team was to leave Respondents premises after the open team entered and
accosted the alleged violator The undercover team was not to have contact with the alleged
violator or investigate further
B The Undercover Team
Agents Shirley and Cayea entered Respondents premises at approximately 11 00 pm on
March 1 2014 They seated themselves at the bar of the club where they had a view of the main
dance stage as well as several smaller stages scattered around the club They also had a portion
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE3
of the bar area near them under their observation There were 150 to 200 patrons in the club and
between five and eight floor managers or hosts working in the club
Kaitlyn Walls was a dancer at Respondents bar She began her shift at approximately
700 pm Agents Shirley and Cayea each testified they observed Ms Walls dancing on the main
stage and then on the smaller stages in rotation Ms Wallss demeanor as they observed it from
their seats appeared normal to them Ms Walls was wearing a gold or yellow bikini and high
heels which allowed the agents to distinguish her from the other dancers Mr Wangler was the
general manager of Respondent in 2014 He had also observed Ms Walls during this time
period and agreed that Ms Walls did not act as if she was intoxicated
Ms Walls approached a customer and sat next to him at the bar near the agents
Ms Walls took a black baseball cap from the customers head and placed it on her own
According to the agents the baseball cap fell off and as Ms Walls was leaning down and
attempting to pick up the cap she fell off her bar stool The stool tipped over and fell on
Ms Walls She had difficulty in rising and setting the stool upright
The agents noted that Ms Walls was carrying a small glass containing brown liquid
Agent Shirley recalled that Ms Walls remarked to the bartender that the drink tastes like
water 2 Neither agent saw any bartender serve Ms Walls and had no idea where she got the
glass she was carrying or what was in it Agent Cayea stated that Ms Walls had a glassy blank
stare and disheveled hair Although Agent Shirley did not recall it Agent Cayeas report of the
incident noted that a second man had approached Ms Walls while she at the bar and spoke to
her The agents testified that when Ms Walls left the bar she swayed while walking and ran into
the door frame of the doorway leading to the clubs dancers dressing room
2 Ms Walls testified she did not recall saying This drink tastes like water
Based upon what they had seen Agents Shirley and Cayea contacted the open team and
informed them that they believed Ms Walls was intoxicated They sent the open team
Ms Walls s description and her location in the dressing room by text message Once the open
team entered the club the two agents left
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE4
Mr Wangler testified that the Respondents dancers drank alcohol while dancing The
club did not have a set limit on the amount they could consume The bartenders and wait staff
were instructed to monitor the dancers intake and warn management if they believed a dancer
was or was becoming impaired Respondent employed a house mom stationed in the dancers
dressing room to oversee the dancers on the premises Mr Wangler testified that for the
purposes of sect 116I(b)(13) the Code Respondents dancers were employees Mr Wangler
testified he and Respondent took all reasonable and appropriate steps to monitor alcohol
consumption by dancers and patrons on the premises Respondents policy was to send any
dancer home if she became or was becoming intoxicated
Mr Wangler knew Ms Walls very well She had been dancing at the club for four years
She had no history of intoxication at work and as far as Mr Wangler knew did not have a
drinking problem Mr Wangler observed Ms Walls that night as she was dancing at the main
and subsidiary stages and also observed her approach the patron at the bar Ms Walls did not
appear impaired to him Mr Wangler testified that Ms Walls did not fall off the stool Instead
he believed that Ms Walls pushed back from the bar and the stools back legs caught on a lip
formed by the juncture of the tile floor and the rug that covered most of the club floor The catch
on the lip caused the stool to over-balance and fall with Ms Walls landing on top ofit
Mr Wangler testified he approached Ms Walls at the bar and spoke with her3
Mr Wangler reported that Ms Walls told him she had taken her pills From closer
observation he did not believe that Ms Walls was intoxicated but also was concerned that
Ms Walls was not right Mr Wangler testified he had the perception that something was a
little off or different with Ms Walls which he attributed to her pills or whatever
Mr Wangler related that Ms Walls had lived in his home for a period and based upon his
familiarity with her he was convinced she was not impaired but believed she should have
something to eat and take a cab home He sent her to the dressing room Mr Wangler stated he
was not taking any chances and he sent her home in case she was impaired Mr Wangler
had never had to send Ms Walls home before
3 Mr Wangler was the second man at the bar mentioned in Agent Cayeas report
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGES
After Mr Wangler directed Ms Walls to go to the dressing room he told Jonathon
George a floor manager on duty to get her something to eat Mr Wangler did not think
Ms Walls was actually impaired or intoxicated because she did not smell like alcohol or
anything like that Mr Wangler did not observe Ms Walls to be unsteady when walking or
have difficulty standing upright He ordered her something to eat because he always did that in
similar situations Mr Wangler testified he did not know what type of pills Ms Walls had taken
but he was aware that Ms Walls was taking medication4 He had never asked her about the
medication or its side effects Mr Wangler instrncted the house mom on duty not to allow
Ms Walls back on the floor
Mr George was a floor manager or host at Respondents premises and was working the
night of March I 2014 Mr George was required to monitor the alcohol intake of dancers and
customers at the club and to intervene if needed to cut off a customer offer food and offer a car
ride He watched for signs of intoxication or rising aggressiveness in patrons and dancers
Mr George did not have any particular interaction with Ms Walls prior to the open teams entry
in the club He did not observe anything out of the ordinary Mr George recalled seeing
Ms Walls at the clubs bar during that night but did not see her drinking and did not witness the
incident with the barstool
Ms Walls testified that she began her shift at approximately 700 pm She had not eaten
that day She was allowed to drink while on a dancing shift and that night had two or three
crown and cokes between 700 pm and midnight Ms Walls also took her anxiety medication
that night She knew that the club had a policy that dancers could not be intoxicated on the
premises Ms Walls explained that when she was first hired she was instrncted that if she was
intoxicated she would be fired or lose her right to dance at the club Prior to March I st she had
not been sent home for any reason
Ms Walls testified she was not intoxicated Ms Walls stated she was steady on her feet
that night She stated she did not walk or almost walk into a door frame Ms Walls testified
4 Ms Walls testified that Mr Wangler was aware she was taking medication
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE6
the barstool fell because she had hooked her high-heeled shoes on the barstools foot rest and
leaned back pushing with her hands on the bar The stool caught on the carpet and overshy
balanced She was caught in the stool by her high-heels and fell or stumbled with it She
testified that Mr Wangler approached her told her to eat something and said he might send her
home Mr Wangler sent Ms Walls home because her chair had fallen down and in her words
I made a fool of myself
C The Open Team
Just prior to the TABC agents entering the club Mr Wangler told Mr George that he
was sending Ms Walls home Mr Wangler did not tell Mr George that Ms Walls was
intoxicated but said she was not feeling well or words to that effect Mr George was going to
the front entrance to call a cab when he saw the T ABC open team enter the club He recognized
them as agents he had met before He observed that the agents were intent on a mission and
did not stop to speak to a manager as they usually did on a bar check He followed the agents to
the dressing room They began questioning Ms Walls after apparently identifying her from a
picture or description on one of the agents cell phone Mr George noted that Agent Knox had
most of the preliminary contact with Ms Walls During the course of the questioning an agent
asked Ms Walls how she was going to get home and she responded that she had called her
mother to pick her up at the club
Agent Nunnery was a part of the open team He testified the team went to the club
dressing room as directed by the undercover team Sgt Knox made the initial contact with
Ms Walls while Agent Nunnery stood in the doorway of the dressing room to secure the
location Agent Nunnery testified that he subsequently came into close contact with Ms Walls
She seemed intoxicated Her speech was slurred Ms Walls had her cell phone in her hand or
pocket but kept asking the officers where her cell phone was Agent Nunnery observed that
Ms Walls nearly fell down twice as she was dressing and attempted to place her left shoe on her
right foot 5 Ms Walls dressed in pants at-shirt and tennis shoes
5 Mr George did not recall Ms Walls having any confusion over the location of her cell phone or putting a shoe on the wrong foot
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE7
Ms Walls recalled that she went to the dressing room to wait and shortly afterward the
TABC open team entered Ms Walls stated she was looking for her phone in her garment or
dance bag According to Ms Walls Sergeant Knox grabbed her bag When Ms Walls found
her phone Sgt Knox told her to call her mother to pick her up Ms Walls called her mother and
at Sgt Knoxs insistence allowed Sgt Knox to speak with her mother to arrange a pick-up
Because Ms Walls and her mother lived in Lewisville 45 minutes away Sgt Knox decided
Ms Walls needed to take a cab
According to Ms Walls as she was dressing one of the officers grabbed her purse and
began searching it Ms Walls stated that there was a prescription bottle in the purse for what she
called her anxiety medication According to Ms Walls the officer told her they had permission
to go through her purse or were authorized to because of the presence of the prescription bottle
Ms Walls stated that she did not eat that day and had taken her medication that day She Said
the medication affects [her] on an empty stomach None of the officers asked Ms Walls the
name of the medication she was taking for a copy of the prescription or if she had taken any
that night
Ms Walls testified that after she was dressed she and the officers went to the managers
office As Ms Walls recalled the only field sobriety test was looking in her eyes and the
agent said they were glassy and red
Mr George recalled that at the agents request he took Ms Walls and the agents to the
managers office He noted that the agents did not use a portable breath tester (PBT) or any
other type of breath test device Mr George stated he mediated between Ms Walls and the
agents in the managers office Mr George stated that Ms Walls was cooperative though
anxious confused and agitated Mr George observed that Ms Walls stood balanced in the
dressing room speaking to the officers while she was getting dressed and while speaking on the
phone with her mother The only time he observed her as unsteady was during the field sobriety
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGES
test Mr George stated that Ms Walls told the agents that she has an eating problem and that if
she doesnt eat she will feel weak and unstable and that she hadnt ate all day6
6 Resp Ex I at 2 7 Resp Ex I at 2
Mr George observed Agent Nunnery conduct a field sobriety test and heard him
conclude that Ms Walls was intoxicated Mr George witnessed Agent Nunnery attempt to
conduct the horizontal gaze nystagmus (HGN) with Ms Walls He noted the agent told
Ms Walls to follow the pen he used as a stimulus with her eyes and not to move her head or
body Mr George noted that as Agent Nunnery conducted the test Ms Walls twice stumbled to
her right side7 According to Mr George once he had conducted the HGN Agent Nunnery told
Agent Carleton he had all he needed
According to Mr George Agent Nunnery stated he believed Ms Walls was intoxicated
on more than just alcohol He asked Ms Walls if she was taking any prescription medication
Ms Walls stated she was taking a prescription medication but Mr George did not recall or write
down what the medication was
Mr George stated that he took Ms Walls outside to wait for the cab and at some point
he re-entered inside the club When Mr George returned outside he saw Agent Nunnery
searching Ms Walls s purse According to Mr George Agent Nunnery found a prescription
bottle and told Ms Walls the narcotics he had found justified the search According to
Mr George Agent Knox asked him to be sure Ms Walls took the cab and the agents left before
Ms Wallss cab arrived
Agent Nunnery personally observed Ms Walls in the managers office She had the odor
of an alcoholic beverage on her breath and person had glassy eyes had slurred speech and
swayed standing Agent Nunnery is trained in field sobriety tests In particular Agent Nunnery
is certified to conduct the HGN examinations Agent Nunnery testified that HGN identifies the
level of intoxication Agent Nunnery started the HGN and observed Ms Walls that exhibited
two clues - lack of smooth pursuit in both eyes Agent Nunnery had Ms Walls conduct the test
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE9
standing He stopped the test when she lost her balance twice Agent Nunnery had Ms Walls sit
down He testified that the HGN cannot be conducted when the subject is seated As a
consequence Agent Nunnery testified he could not complete the test
Agent Nunnery agreed he asked Ms Walls if she was taking any medication because
narcotics could affect the HGN results According to Agent Nunnery Ms Walls denied taking
any medications When asked by Agent Nunnery Ms Walls stated she had consumed three
whiskey and cokes
Agent Nunnery stated that Ms Walls was sent home in a cab and he waited outside the
club with Ms Walls to assure she left8 He noted that Mr George was also outside Agent
Nunnery testified that Ms Walls dropped her purse and the contents spilled including cigarette
rolling papers Agent Nunnery asked Ms Walls what the papers were for and she replied for
marijuana Agent Nunnery asked Ms Walls if she had possession of any illegal drugs and she
replied she had already smoked it all9 Agent Nunnery testified that Ms Walls consented to a
search of her purse and Agent Nunnery searched her purse He found nothing He specifically
denied finding a prescription bottle The cab arrived and Ms Walls was released
Ms Walls was not arrested that night Respondent was issued an administrative notice
for violation ofsect 1 l61(b)(l3) of the Code
D Respondents Policies and Procedures
Curtis Wise is the owner of Respondent Mr Wise was not present at the premises on
March 1 2014 Mr Wise is familiar with the statute prohibiting a permittees employee from
being intoxicated on the licensed premises Mr Wise did not object and did not correct
8 Ms Walls did not recall any of the agents waiting outside with her for the cab Instead she recalled that Mr George Mr Wangler the three agents and she waited in the office for the cab and when it arrived Mr George walked her out to the cab 9 Mr Wangler stated he did not know if Ms Walls had smoked marijuana that night and also related that she did not smoke in his house during the eleven months she lived there Ms Walls stated it was possible she had cigarette rolling papers at the bottom of her purse because she had carried the purse for years She denied smoking marijuana that night Ms Walls also denied dropping her purse Mr George did not recall a discussion of rolling papers or marijuana use No witness testified that they smelled the odor of burned marijuana on Ms Wallss person
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGElO
Mr Wanglers testimony that Respondents dancers were employees for the purposes of
sect 1 l61(b)(13) of the Code Mr Wise listed a number of actions Respondent takes to assure
compliance with sect l 161(b)(13) A doorman is on duty every night to screen patrons for
intoxication before they enter Further four to seven or eight managers work each night On
March 1 2014 aside from Mr George and Mr Wangler four other managers would have been
working the floor The managers conduct daily pre-shift meetings with wait staff and bartenders
to emphasize the need to monitor alcohol consumption and signs of intoxication in dancers and
patrons All the bartenders are T ABC sellerserver certified The bartenders and wait staff were
instructed to monitor the dancers intake and warn management if they believed a dancer was or
was becoming impaired Floor managers were required to monitor the alcohol intake of dancers
and customers at the club and to intervene if needed to cut off a customer offer food and offer a
car ride Respondent employed a house mom stationed in the dancers dressing room to
oversee the dancers on the premises Mr Wise asked TABC to conduct an alcohol awareness
class and required all employees and dancers to attend 10
10 The class may have been given in conjunction with Respondents settlement of an earlier violation Resp Ex I
Mr Wise stated that Respondent has a breathalyzer that is kept on the premises The
device is used as a guideline to see what an employees breath alcohol concentration might be if
the employee is acting out of the ordinary or may be intoxicated In the past a manager sent an
employee home after the employee failed an in-house breathalyzer test Respondent does not
request patrons to use the device Mr Wise did not recall what make or model the device was
but did note that it had to be sent to the manufacturer for calibration
Mr Wise explained that if a wait staff employee or dancer had to be sent home it would
be the managers decision and Mr Wise would not need to be consulted The matter would be
discussed at the weekly management meeting when discipline would be decided a second
chance a reduction of time (a week or a month off) or a termination There was such a meeting
after the March 1 2014 incident Mr Wise and his mangers discussed what happened and what
could have been done to prevent it Mr Wise could not recall what discipline might have been
imposed on Ms Walls
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE 11
After the March st event Mr Wangler told Mr Wise that Ms Walls was on medication
and Mr Wise asked Mr Wangler what medication she was taking Mr Wangler sent Mr Wise a
text and Mr Wise looked up the medication which he identified as citalopram That drug is an
antidepressant marketed as Celexa However the medication was not positively identified nor
was the medications interaction with alcohol established in the record of this case Mr Wise
testified that Respondent does not have a policy with respect to an employee or a dancer taking
prescription drugs
E Applicable Law
The T ABC may suspend a permit for not more than sixty days if the permittee was
intoxicated on the licensed premises 11 Permittee means a person who is the holder of a
permit provided for in this code or an agent servant or employee of that person12
Intoxicated means not having the normal use of mental or physical faculties by reason of the
introduction of alcohol a controlled substance a drug a dangerous drug a combination of two
or more of those substances or any other substance into the body13 The Staff has the burden of
proof by a preponderance of the evidence 14
11 Tex Alco Bev Code (the Code)sect I l61(b)(l3 12 sect 104(11) of the Code 13 Tex Penal Codesect 4901(2)(A) 14 I Texas Administrative Code (TAC)sect 155427
F Parties Arguments
Staff argued that a preponderance of the evidence proved that Respondents employee
Ms Walls was intoxicated on the licensed premises on March I 2014 Ms Walls displayed
clear signs of intoxication she was unsteady on her feet (both in high-heeled shoes and in tennis
shoes) Ms Walls used other objects for support when walking appeared confused had glassy
eyes and had the odor of an alcoholic beverage on her breath Ms Wallss testimony
contradicted that of Mr George he (as well as Agent Nunnery) stated they waited outside for the
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE 12
cab Ms Walls denied it Accordingly Staff argued that her testimony should not be considered
to be credible
The Staff noted that Mr Wangler testified that something was wrong or off with
Ms Walls He took steps to remove Ms Walls from the club floor Petitioner argued that
Ms Walls had too much to drink or was under the influence of her medication (which the Staff
termed a narcotic) or both The Staff argued that Ms Walls more likely than not knew she was
taking medication that should not have been mixed with alcohol due to a possible adverse
interaction The Staff asserted that Mr Wanglers action in taking Ms Walls off the dance floor
corroborated the testimony of Agents Shirley and Cayea who observed Ms Walls
The Staff recommended a 36 day suspension of the Respondents permit or in the
alternative a civil penalty of $300 per day for the recommended 36 days for a total penalty of
$] 0800 15
15 16TACsect342
Respondent argued that Agent Nunnerys testimony was not credible due to his failure to
recollect details about the evening such as who was present or which agent performed which act
Respondent argued that the Staff was asserting that the permittee is strictly liable for an
employee being intoxicated on the premises That is if the Staff could show that the person was
an employee was physically present on the premises and was intoxicated then the violation
would be proved Respondent argued that SOAH ALJs recognized a further issue that must be
proved whether the employee was working at the time and was in the course and scope of their
employment citing Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission v 13335 Duluth Restaurant and Bar
dlbla La Chatte 16 Respondent argued that Mr Wranglers actions took Ms Walls out of her
course of employment
16 SOAH Docket No 458-11-3550 (July 6 2011)
The Respondents reliance on La Chatte is misplaced The Commissions Final Order in
the case specifically rejected the notion that an employee had to be acting in the course and
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE 13
scope of employment to be treated as a permittee The Commission stated It is not necessary to
decide whether the employee is on the clock in order to decide whether she is treated as the
permittee The Code does not contain that proviso Nor does the Code require that an employee
be engaged in the work she is hired to do in order for her to be treated as the permittee17
Respondent further argued it had done everything it could to monitor and prevent
Ms Walls or any dancer from becoming intoxicated and took action to send Ms Walls home
when something appeared to be wrong Respondent argued that if Ms Walls was intoxicated
some or all of it could be ascribed to her medication In Respondents view the purpose of
sect l l61(b)(13) is to police persons with easy access to alcohol which Respondent asserted it had
done Ms Wallss use of her medication was beyond Respondents control
Respondent argued that if a penalty is imposed in this contested case Respondent would
be entitled to a variance from the standard penalty chart because of the steps Respondent has
taken to avoid a violation ofsect l l61(b)(13) of the Code 18
G Analysis
Staff has to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Ms Walls was Respondents
employee and that she was intoxicated on the licensed premises
Respondent did not dispute that Ms Walls was Respondents employee on
March I 2014 for the purposes ofsect l l61(b)(13) of the Code Since Ms Wallss opportunity to
dance and earn money through Respondents customers was contingent on her following
Respondents rules and policies Ms Walls is fairly described as Petitioners employee for the
purposes of this Proposal for Decision 19
17 Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission Board Final Order TABC Docket No 599022 (SOAH Docket No 458shy11-3550) (January 18 2012) at 1-2 18 sectsect 11641(a)(3) and 1164(c) of the Code 19 Villatoro v Tex Alcoholic Bev Comm n No 05-12-00444-CV (Tex App-Dallas June 3 2013 no writ)
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE 14
Ms Walls testimony established that she had not eaten on March 1 2014 had consumed
at least two and pmt of a third mixed drinks had consumed the drinks between 700 pm and
midnight and that she had taken her prescribed anxiety medication some time during the day
The exact medication she had taken was not established Ms Walls was not asked to identify the
medication that night or at the hearing nor was she asked to produce or subpoenaed to produce
a copy of the prescription Mr Wises identification of the drug as citalopram or Celexa was
based upon information he received from Mr Wangler and cannot be considered as dispositive
Further assuming Ms Walls was taking citalopram or Celexa that particular drugs interaction
with alcohol was not established There was no evidence that Ms Walls smoked marijuana that
night
The undercover team stated that Ms Walls had a glassy blank stare and disheveled hair
swayed while walking and ran into the frame of the doorway leading to the dressing room
Agent Nunnery testified that Ms Walls seemed intoxicated her speech was sinned Ms Walls
had short term memory loss ( concerning her cell phone) nearly fell down twice as she was
dressing and attempted to place her left shoe on her right foot had the odor of an alcoholic
beverage on her breath and person had glassy eyes and swayed standing
Although Ms Walls admitted drinking alcohol that night Mr Wangler testified he did
not believe that Ms Walls was intoxicated but he also was concerned that Ms Walls was not
right Mr Wangler testified he had the perception that something was a little off or
different with Ms Walls Mr George observed that Ms Walls stood balanced while she was
dressing and speaking on the phone with her mother but lost her balance twice during the field
sobriety test Agent Nunnery conducted the HGN and observed Ms Walls that exhibited two
clues lack of smooth pursuit in both eyes He stopped the test when she lost her balance twice
causing Agent Nunnery to have Ms Walls sit down Agent Nunnery interpreted the two HGN
clues as sufficient to conclude that Ms Walls was intoxicated However Ms Walls was not so
intoxicated that she was arrested for public intoxication that is for being intoxicated to the
degree that [Ms Walls might] endanger [herself] or another20
20 Tex Penal Code sect 4902(a)
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE15
The National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) publication states
that an officer must look for the following three criteria in the HGN test (1) an inability to
pursue smoothly an object or stimulus moving sideways across the suspects field of vision (3)
distinct or pronounced nystagmus at the eyes maximum horizontal deviation and (3) an angle
of onset of nystagmus of less than or equal to 45 degrees The officer must look for these criteria
in each eye for a total of six clues If the officer identifies four or more clues then the officer
classifies the suspect as intoxicated21 Accordingly Agent Nunnery was not justified to
conclude Ms Walls was intoxicated based upon the HGN alone
Mr George noted that the agents did not use a portable breath tester (PBT) or any other
type of breath test device22 Agent Nunnery was not issued a PBT by TABC and testified that a
PBT result would not be admissible in court Agent Nurmery testified he did not have the ability
to give Ms Walls an intoxilyzer or breathalyzer test
Agent Shirley Agent Cayea and Mr Wangler each at about the same moment
concluded that something was wrong with Ms Walls The physical indicators that
Agent Shirley Agent Cayea and Agent Nunnery observed are associated with alcohol
intoxication Ms Wallss recollection of events especially the searching of her purse and her
being escorted outside by Agent Nunnery and Mr George are contradicted by the testimony of
both and their recorded observations23 Ms Walls was and remains confused about the sequence
of the events of the night and that confusion is further evidence of her impairment
21 Emerson at 766 NHTSA SFST Manual at VIII-8 (2006) found at httpoagdcgovnode443812 22 Although Mr Wise testified that Petitioner had an in-house PBT neither Mr Wangler nor Mr George requested Ms Wall to submit a specimen of her breath before or after the TABC arrived 23 Respondent argued that Agent Nunnerys written report contradicted his testimony that he stood outside with Ms Walls waiting for the cab in an effort to impeach his testimony It is true that the report does not mention that episode However Mr Georges testimony and written memorandum agreed with and supported Agent Nunnerys testimony
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE16
The ALJ concludes that a preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that Ms Walls
Respondents employee had lost normal use of her mental or physical faculties by reason of the
introduction of alcohol on the licensed premises 24
24 Ms Wallss anxiety medication was not identified nor was any expert testimony offered on the effects of the mediation or its interaction with alcohol For example Ms Walls testified that she had not eaten that day and that her medication affects her on an empty stomach However Mr George testified Ms Walls told the agents that she has an eating problem and that if she doesnt eat she will feel weak and unstable and that she hadnt ate all day According to Agent Nunnery Ms Walls denied taking any medications Given these contradictions the ALJ recommends that no finding be made on whether Ms Walls was intoxicated due to her medication or its interaction with alcohol 25 16TACsect342 26 Resp Ex I 27 16 TACsect 342 28 16 TACsect 34l(g)(J) and (4)
The ALJ recommends that the Commission find that Petitioner violatedsect 1 l6l(b)(13) of
the Code
The Staff recommended a 36 day suspension of the Respondents permit or in the
alternative a civil penalty of$300 per day for the recommended 36 days or $10800 for a second
violation of sect 1 l6l(b)(l3) of the Code25 According to Petitioners administrative record
Petitioner had a prior violation of sect 1 l61(b)(l3) which occmTed on December 20 2013
Petitioner was assessed an administrative penalty of $5100 (the equivalent of a 17 day
suspension) which was reduced to $4500 (the equivalent of a 15 day suspension) after
completion of an employee educational program on March 21 2014 which was paid on
March 26 201426 A violation of is sect l l6l(b)(13) a health safety and welfare violation27
Under the Commissions rule a subsequent violation of the Code or rule will result in a sanction
in the next higher violation level if the subsequent violation is for a health safety and welfare
violation and occurs within 36 months of the prior violation and the subsequent violation is
issued during an undercover operation28 The subsequent violation was on March 1 2014
which is within 36 months of the prior violation on December 20 2013 The March 1 2014
violation was issued during an undercover investigation
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE 17
Respondent argued that the amount of civil penalty should be reduced upon a
consideration of the ameliorating circumstances concerning the violation29 The ameliorating
circumstances cited by Respondent are Respondents practices and policies described above
and the fact that Mr Wangler immediately removed Ms Walls from the dance floor when he
observed something wrong with her The Commission has stated that Texass policy is for
Neither the permit holder nor an agent servant or employee of the permit holder to be
intoxicated o the premises in the first place30 Moreover Respondents prior violation of
sect l l6l(b)(l3) is an aggravating circumstance under the same statute31 Respondent is not
entitled to a reduction in the proposed suspension or penalty
29 sect l l641(a)(3) of the Code sect J l64Jnotes that ameliorating circumstances include those enumerated in Section l l64(c) The circumstances listed in I l64(c) namely that the violation could not reasonably have been prevented by the permittee or licensee by the exercise of due diligence that the permittee or licensee was entrapped that an agent servant or employee of the permittee or licensee violated this code without the knowledge of the permittee or licensee that the permittee or licensee did not knowingly violate this code that the permittee or licensee has demonstrated good faith including the taking of actions to rectify the consequences of the violation and to deter future violations or (6) that the violation was a technical one have no factual support in the record 30 Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission Board Final Order TABC Docket No 599022 (SOAH Docket No 458shy11-3550) (January 18 2012) at 3 31 sect I I641(a)(4) ofthe Code
The ALJ recommends that Respondents permit be suspended for 36 days or in the
alternative Respondent be assessed a civil penalty of $300 per day for 36 days for a total penalty
of$10800
III FINDINGS OF FACT
I The Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission (TABC) issued Mixed Beverage Permit MB753709 which includes a Mixed Beverage Late Hours Permit and a Beverage Cartage Permit to Respondent 2345 Meacham LLC dba Buckss Cabaret
2 Respondents licensed premises are located at 2345 Meacham Boulevard Fort Worth Tarrant County Texas 76106
3 On March 1 2014 TABC Agent Denver Carleton led a squad of TABC agents namely Sergeant Charlotte Knox and agents Travis Shirley Charles Cayea and Christopher Nunnery in an undercover investigation of the Respondents premises
4 Agents Shirley and Cayea were the undercover team
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE 18
5 Agent Carleton Sergeant Knox and Agent Nunnery were the open team
6 Agents Shirley and Cayea entered Respondents premises at approximately 11 00 pm on March 1 2014
7 Kaitlyn Walls was a dancer at Respondents bar
8 Ms Walls was working that night beginning at approximately 700 pm
9 Ms Walls danced on the main stage and then on the smaller stages in rotation
10 Ms Walls approached a customer and sat next to him at the bar near the agents
11 Ms Walls and her barstool fell to the floor
12 Ms Walls had a glassy blank stare and disheveled hair
13 Ms Walls swayed while walking and ran into the door frame of the doorway leading to the clubs dancers dressing room
14 Agents Shirley and Cayea contacted the open team and informed them that they believed Ms Walls was intoxicated
15 The two agents sent the open team Ms Wallss description and her location in the dressing room by text message
16 Agents Shirley and Cayea left the club after the open team entered the club
17 Agent Nunnery came into close contact with Ms Walls
18 Ms Walls had slmTed speech was not aware of where her cell phone was even though she was holding it nearly fell down twice as she was dressing had glassy eyes swayed standing and lost her balance twice during field sobriety testing
19 Ms Walls admitted to drinking three alcoholic beverages
20 Ms Walls displayed physical and mental indications of intoxication
21 On March 1 2014 Ms Walls did not have the normal use of her mental or physical faculties by reason of the introduction of alcohol into her body
22 On March 1 2014 Ms Walls was an employee of Respondent
23 Petitioner had a prior violation ofsect l l6I(b)(l3) of the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code (the Code) which occurred on December 20 2013 Petitioner was assessed an administrative penalty which was paid on March 26 2014
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE 19
24 The violation which is the subject of this contested case was on March 1 2014 which is within 36 months of the prior violation on December 20 2013
25 The March 1 2014 violation was issued during an undercover investigation
26 On April 14 2015 Staff issued its Notice of Hearing which contained information regarding the date time and place of the hearing the matters asserted the statutes and rules involved and the legal authorities under which the hearing would be held
27 The hearing in this matter convened before Administrative Law Judge Robert F Jones Jr on October 22 2015 at the State Office of Administrative Hearings (SOAH) in Fort Worth Texas Sheila A Lindsey of the TABC Legal Services Division appeared and represented the Staff Respondent appeared by its attorney Roger Albright Evidence was received and the record closed that day
IV CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1 TABC has jurisdiction over this matter Tex Alco Bev Code (the Code) Chapter 5
2 SOAH has jurisdiction to conduct the administrative hearing in this matter and to issue a proposal for decision containing proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law Tex Govt Code Chapter 2003
3 Proper and timely notice of the hearing was provided to Respondent Tex Govt Code sect 2001051-052
4 Respondent violated sect l l6l(b)(l3) of the Code which authorizes the Commission to suspend a pe1mit if the pe1mittee was intoxicated on the licensed premises
5 A 36 day suspension of Respondents Mixed Beverage Permit MB753709 which includes a Mixed Beverage Late Hours Permit and a Beverage Cartage Permit or in the alternative a civil penalty of $300 per day for the recommended 36 days a total of $10800 is appropriate sectsect l l6l(b)(l3) and 1164 of the Code 16 Tex Admin Codesect 342
SIGNED December 17 2015
OBERT F JO ES JR ADMINISTRATI W JUDGE STATE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
STATE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS FT WORTH OFFICE
6777 Camp Bowie Blvd Suite 400 Fort Worth Texas 76116
Phone (817) 731-1733 Fax (512) 322-0473
SERVICE LIST
AGENCY Alcoholic Beverage Commission Texas (TABC)
STYLECASE 2345 MEACHAM LLC DBA BUCKS CABARET
SOAH DOCKET NUMBER 458-15-3318
REFERRING AGENCY CASE 624309
STATE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE
HEARINGS
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
ALJ ROBERT JONES
REPRESENTATIVEADDRESS
SHEILA LINDSEY - SANDERS STAFF ATTORNEY TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION 427 W 20TH STREET SUITE 600 HOUSTON TX 77008 (713) 426-7900 (PH) (713) 862-7478 (FAX)
PARTIES
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION
ROGER ALBRIGHT ATTORNEY AT LAW 3301 ELM STREET DALLAS TX 75226 (214) 939-9224 (PH) (214) 939-9229 (FAX) ralawrogeralbrightcom
ROGER ALBRIGHT
xc Docket Clerk State Office of Administrative Hearings Emily Helm GENERAL COUNSEL TABC Fax No 512-206-3226
Pagel of I
DOCKET NO 624309
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE
COMMISSION Petitioner
VS
2345 MEACHAM LLC
DBA BUCKrsquoS CABARET
Respondent
PERMIT MB753709 LB PE
TARRANT COUNTY TEXAS
(SOAH DOCKET NO 458-15-3318)
BEFORE THE TEXAS
ALCOHOLIC
BEVERAGE COMMISSION
ORDER
CAME ON FOR CONSIDERATION this 14th day of October 2016 the above-styled
and numbered cause
After proper notice was given this case was heard by the State Office of Administrative
Hearings (SOAH) with Administrative Law Judge Robert F Jones Jr presiding The hearing
convened on October 22 2015 and the SOAH record closed the same date The Administrative
Law Judge made and filed a Proposal for Decision containing Findings of Fact and Conclusions
of Law on December 17 2015 The Proposal for Decision was properly served on all parties
who were given an opportunity to file exceptions and replies as part of the record herein No
exceptions were filed
After review and due consideration of the Proposal for Decision I adopt the Findings of
Fact and Conclusions of Law of the Administrative Law Judge that are contained in the Proposal
for Decision and incorporate those Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law into this Order as if
such were fully set out and separately stated herein
All motions requests for entry of Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
and any other requests for general or specific relief submitted by any party are denied unless
specifically adopted herein
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the privileges granted by the Commission and the
activities authorized under the above permit by the Code will be SUSPENDED beginning at
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
__________________________________________
__________________________________________
1201 am on November 30th 2016 and shall remain suspended for THIRTY-SIX (36)
DAYS UNLESS a civil penalty in the amount of $1080000 is paid ON OR BEFORE
November 22nd 2016
This Order will become final and enforceable on the 15th day of November
2016 unless a Motion for Rehearing is filed by the 14th day of November 2016
SIGNED this the 14th day of October 2016 at Austin Texas
Sherry K-Cook Executive Director
Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that the persons listed below were served with a copy of this Order in the manner
indicated below on this the 14th day of October 2016
Martin Wilson Assistant General Counsel
Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission
Robert F Jones Jr
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
State Office of Administrative Hearings
300 W 15th
Street Suite 502
Austin TX 78701
VIA FACSIMILE (512) 322-2061
2345 Meacham LLC
dba Buckrsquos Cabaret
RESPONDENT
PO Box 271289
Flower Mound TX 75027
VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL CMRRR 70160600000046455820
Roger Albright
ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENT
3301 Elm Street
Dallas TX 75226
VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL CMRRR 70160600000046455837
Shelia Lindsey
ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER
TABC Legal Division
VIA E-MAIL Shelialindseytabctexasgov
__________________________________
__________________________________
__________________________________
__________________________________
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION
CIVIL PENALTY REMITTANCE
DOCKET NUMBER 624309 REGISTER NUMBER
NAME 2345 MEACHAM LLC
TRADENAME Buckrsquos Cabaret
ADDRESS PO Box 271289 Flower Mound Texas
DUE DATE November 22 2016
PERMITS OR LICENSES MB753709 LB PE
AMOUNT OF PENALTY $1080000
Amount remitted $____________________ Date remitted ____________________________
You may pay a civil penalty rather than have your permits and licenses suspended if an amount
for civil penalty is included on the attached order
YOU HAVE THE OPTION TO PAY THE CIVIL PENALTY ONLY IF YOU PAY THE
ENTIRE AMOUNT ON OR BEFORE THE DUE DATE AFTER THAT DATE YOUR
LICENSE OR PERMIT WILL BE SUSPENDED FOR THE TIME PERIOD STATED ON
THE ORDER
Mail this form with your payment to
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION
PO Box 13127 Austin Texas 78711
Overnight Delivery Address 5806 Mesa Dr Austin Texas 78731
You must pay by postal money order certified check or cashiers check No personal or
company check nor partial payment accepted Your payment will be returned if anything is
incorrect You must pay the entire amount of the penalty assessed
Attach this form and please make certain to include the Docket on your payment
Signature of Responsible Party
Street Address PO Box No
City State Zip Code
Area CodeTelephone No
Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2
DOCKET NO 624309
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE
COMMISSION Petitioner
sect
sect
sect
sect
VS sect
sect
sect
sect
2345 MEACHAM LLC
DBA BUCKrsquoS CABARET
Respondent
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
PERMIT MB753709 LB PE sect
sect
sect
TARRANT COUNTY TEXAS
(SOAH DOCKET NO 458-15-3318)
sect
sect
BEFORE THE TEXAS
BEVERAGE COMMISSION
ALCOHOLIC
ORDER DENYING M OTION FOR REHEARING
Page 1 of 3
CAME ON FOR CONSIDERATION this 1st day of December 2016 the above-styled
and numbered cause
On October 14 2016 an Order was issued in this cause suspending Respondents permits
for a period of 36 days unless a civil penalty in the amount of $10800 was paid A timely
Motion for RehearingReconsideration was filed by Respondent on November 11 2016 and a
Supplemental Motion for Rehearing was filed by Respondent on November 16 2016 Petitioner
filed a Response to Respondents Motion for RehearingReconsideration on November 22 2016
Having considered Respondents Motion for RehearingReconsideration
Respondents Supplemental Motion for Rehearing and Petitioners Response to Respondents
Motion for RehearingReconsideration Respondents Motion for RehearingReconsideration is
DENIED
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that IF THIS ORDER IS NOT APPEALED
WITHIN THE TIME ALLOWED BY ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CODE sect1167 the
privileges granted by the Commission and the activities authorized under the above permits by
the Code will be SUSPENDED beginning at 1201 am on January 25 2017 and shall remain
suspended for THIRTY SIX (36) CONSECUTIVE DAYS UNLESS a civil penalty in the
amount of $1080000 is paid in lieu of suspension ON OR BEFORE January 17 2017
__________________________________________
_________________________________________
IF THIS ORDER IS APPEALED AND THE DECISION IS AFFIRMED IT IS
ORDERED that the privileges granted by the Commission and the activities authorized under
the above permits by the Code will be SUSPENDED beginning at 1201 am on the fifteenth
(15th
) day following the date the decision is affirmed whether by Order or by operation of law
and shall remain suspended for THIRTY SIX (36) CONSECUTIVE DAYS UNLESS a civil
penalty in the amount of $1080000 is paid in lieu of suspension ON OR BEFORE the seventh
(7th
) day following the date the decision is affirmed whether by Order or by operation of law
SIGNED this the 1st day of December 2016 at Austin Texas
Sherry K-Cook Executive Director
Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that the persons listed below were served with a copy of this Order Denying
Motion for Rehearing in the manner indicated below on this the 1st day of December 2016
Martin Wilson Assistant General Counsel
Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission
Page 2 of 3
Robert F Jones Jr
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
State Office of Administrative Hearings
300 W 15th
Street Suite 502
Austin TX 78701
VIA FACSIMILE (512) 322-2061
2345 Meacham LLC
dba Buckrsquos Cabaret
RESPONDENT
PO Box 271289
Flower Mound TX 75027
VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL CMRRR 70160340000080983298
Roger Albright
ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENT
3301 Elm Street
Dallas TX 75226
VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL CMRRR70160340000080983281
Shelia Lindsey
ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER
TABC Legal Division
VIA E-MAIL Shelialindseytabctexasgov
Page 3 of 3
__________________________________
__________________________________
__________________________________
__________________________________
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION
CIVIL PENALTY REMITTANCE
DOCKET NUMBER 624309 REGISTER NUMBER
NAME 2345 Meacham LLC
TRADENAME Buckrsquos Cabaret
ADDRESS PO Box 271289 Flower Mound Texas
DUE DATE January 17 2017
PERMITS OR LICENSES MB753709 PE LB
AMOUNT OF PENALTY $1080000
Amount remitted $____________________ Date remitted ____________________________
You may pay a civil penalty rather than have your permits and licenses suspended if an amount
for civil penalty is included on the attached order
YOU HAVE THE OPTION TO PAY THE CIVIL PENALTY ONLY IF YOU PAY THE
ENTIRE AMOUNT ON OR BEFORE THE DUE DATE AFTER THAT DATE YOUR
LICENSE OR PERMIT WILL BE SUSPENDED FOR THE TIME PERIOD STATED ON
THE ORDER
Mail this form with your payment to
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION
PO Box 13127 Austin Texas 78711
Overnight Delivery Address 5806 Mesa Dr Austin Texas 78731
You must pay by postal money order certified check or cashiers check No personal or
company check nor partial payment accepted Your payment will be returned if anything is
incorrect You must pay the entire amount of the penalty assessed
Attach this form and please make certain to include the Docket on your payment
Signature of Responsible Party
Street Address PO Box No
City State Zip Code
Area CodeTelephone No
Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2
CAUSE NO 348-289708-16
2345 MEACHAM LLC DBA BUCKS CABARET
Plaintiff
v
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION
Defendant
sect IN THE DISTRICT COURT
348TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
TARRANT COUNTY TEXAS
sect sect sect sect sect sect sect sect sect
ORDER AFFIRMING TABC DECISION fllJ()1)1-j 13J
On tkis day came on to be heard the above-tyled and numbered cause
pursuant to Ch 2001 ofthe Texas Government Code (the Administrative Procedure
Act) and sect 1167 of the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code 2345 Meacham LLC
dba Bucks Cabaret and the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission appeared by
and through their attorneys of record and announced ready All matters of fact and
controversy were submitted The Court after reviewing the evidence and hearing
the arguments of counsel finds that the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission
Order of October 14 2016 is supported by substantial evidence
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED ADJUDGED and DECREED that the
Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commissions Order of October 14 2016 suspending
Plaintiffs Mixed Beverage Permit MB753709 and the associated Beverage Cartage
Permit and Mixed Beverage Late Hours Permit is supported by substantial
evidence and thus is AFFIRMED _1 L IJND Tltld1lt lJAS t-lltJ cflfAfl ltJr tlJ~
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED ADJUDGED and DECREED that the Plaintiff
shall take nothing by this suit and that Defendant shall be in all things discharged
ion
ON ALL SERVED VIAIE-MAILED - HAND DtLIVERY -MAIL
=----WHO 16 TO
_--13 1
SElVE COPIEIS ON gtLL OTHEN
and that the costs ofcourt are taxed against the party incurring same All other relief
not expressly granted herein is denied
This judgment is final disposes of all claims and parties and is appealable f-b
SIGNED and ENTERED this 3 day ofJanuary 2017 L
348TH DISTRICT COURT
2
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION
Petitioner
v
2345 MEACHAM LLC DBA BUCKSS CABARET
Respondent
sect sect sect sect sect sect sect sect sect
BEFORE THE STATE OFFICE
OF
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
PROPOSAL FOR DECISION
The Staff of the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission (TABC or Commission) sought
a suspension of the permit held by 2345 Meacham LLC dba Buckss Cabaret (Respondent)
Respondent that it had taken all possible steps to prevent an employee from being intoxicated on
the premises The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) recommends that Respondents permit be
suspended for 36 days or in the alternative Respondent be assessed a civil penalty of $300 per
day for 36 days for a total penalty of$10800
I PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The hearing in this matter convened before ALJ Robert F Jones Jr on October 22 2015
at the State Office of Administrative Hearings (SOAH) in Fort Worth Texas Sheila A Lindsey
of the T ABC Legal Services Division appeared and represented Staff Respondent appeared by
its attorney Roger Albright Evidence was received and the record closed that day
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE2
II DISCUSSION
A Background
Staff alleged that Respondent violated Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code sect l l6l(b)(l3)
which authorizes the Commission to suspend a permit if the permittee was intoxicated on the
licensed premises The events which are the subject of this contested case took place in the
evening of March 1 2014 and the early morning of March 2 2014 TABC Agent Denver
Carleton led a squad of T ABC agents namely Sergeant Charlotte Knox and agents Travis
Shirley Charles Cayea and Christopher Nunnery in an undercover investigation of the
Respondents premises a sexually oriented business Respondent holds Mixed Beverage Permit
MB753709 which includes a Mixed Beverage Late Hours Permit and a Beverage Cartage
Permit Respondents licensed premises are located at 2345 Meacham Boulevard Fort Wo1th
Tarrant County Texas 76106 1
1 Pet Ex I at 4
The squad was split into two teams the undercover team and the open team
Agents Shirley and Cayea were the undercover team Agent Carleton Sergeant Knox and
Agent Nunnery were the open team On the undercover teams cue the open team was to enter
Respondents club approach the person alleged to have committed the violation and investigate
The undercover team was to leave Respondents premises after the open team entered and
accosted the alleged violator The undercover team was not to have contact with the alleged
violator or investigate further
B The Undercover Team
Agents Shirley and Cayea entered Respondents premises at approximately 11 00 pm on
March 1 2014 They seated themselves at the bar of the club where they had a view of the main
dance stage as well as several smaller stages scattered around the club They also had a portion
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE3
of the bar area near them under their observation There were 150 to 200 patrons in the club and
between five and eight floor managers or hosts working in the club
Kaitlyn Walls was a dancer at Respondents bar She began her shift at approximately
700 pm Agents Shirley and Cayea each testified they observed Ms Walls dancing on the main
stage and then on the smaller stages in rotation Ms Wallss demeanor as they observed it from
their seats appeared normal to them Ms Walls was wearing a gold or yellow bikini and high
heels which allowed the agents to distinguish her from the other dancers Mr Wangler was the
general manager of Respondent in 2014 He had also observed Ms Walls during this time
period and agreed that Ms Walls did not act as if she was intoxicated
Ms Walls approached a customer and sat next to him at the bar near the agents
Ms Walls took a black baseball cap from the customers head and placed it on her own
According to the agents the baseball cap fell off and as Ms Walls was leaning down and
attempting to pick up the cap she fell off her bar stool The stool tipped over and fell on
Ms Walls She had difficulty in rising and setting the stool upright
The agents noted that Ms Walls was carrying a small glass containing brown liquid
Agent Shirley recalled that Ms Walls remarked to the bartender that the drink tastes like
water 2 Neither agent saw any bartender serve Ms Walls and had no idea where she got the
glass she was carrying or what was in it Agent Cayea stated that Ms Walls had a glassy blank
stare and disheveled hair Although Agent Shirley did not recall it Agent Cayeas report of the
incident noted that a second man had approached Ms Walls while she at the bar and spoke to
her The agents testified that when Ms Walls left the bar she swayed while walking and ran into
the door frame of the doorway leading to the clubs dancers dressing room
2 Ms Walls testified she did not recall saying This drink tastes like water
Based upon what they had seen Agents Shirley and Cayea contacted the open team and
informed them that they believed Ms Walls was intoxicated They sent the open team
Ms Walls s description and her location in the dressing room by text message Once the open
team entered the club the two agents left
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE4
Mr Wangler testified that the Respondents dancers drank alcohol while dancing The
club did not have a set limit on the amount they could consume The bartenders and wait staff
were instructed to monitor the dancers intake and warn management if they believed a dancer
was or was becoming impaired Respondent employed a house mom stationed in the dancers
dressing room to oversee the dancers on the premises Mr Wangler testified that for the
purposes of sect 116I(b)(13) the Code Respondents dancers were employees Mr Wangler
testified he and Respondent took all reasonable and appropriate steps to monitor alcohol
consumption by dancers and patrons on the premises Respondents policy was to send any
dancer home if she became or was becoming intoxicated
Mr Wangler knew Ms Walls very well She had been dancing at the club for four years
She had no history of intoxication at work and as far as Mr Wangler knew did not have a
drinking problem Mr Wangler observed Ms Walls that night as she was dancing at the main
and subsidiary stages and also observed her approach the patron at the bar Ms Walls did not
appear impaired to him Mr Wangler testified that Ms Walls did not fall off the stool Instead
he believed that Ms Walls pushed back from the bar and the stools back legs caught on a lip
formed by the juncture of the tile floor and the rug that covered most of the club floor The catch
on the lip caused the stool to over-balance and fall with Ms Walls landing on top ofit
Mr Wangler testified he approached Ms Walls at the bar and spoke with her3
Mr Wangler reported that Ms Walls told him she had taken her pills From closer
observation he did not believe that Ms Walls was intoxicated but also was concerned that
Ms Walls was not right Mr Wangler testified he had the perception that something was a
little off or different with Ms Walls which he attributed to her pills or whatever
Mr Wangler related that Ms Walls had lived in his home for a period and based upon his
familiarity with her he was convinced she was not impaired but believed she should have
something to eat and take a cab home He sent her to the dressing room Mr Wangler stated he
was not taking any chances and he sent her home in case she was impaired Mr Wangler
had never had to send Ms Walls home before
3 Mr Wangler was the second man at the bar mentioned in Agent Cayeas report
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGES
After Mr Wangler directed Ms Walls to go to the dressing room he told Jonathon
George a floor manager on duty to get her something to eat Mr Wangler did not think
Ms Walls was actually impaired or intoxicated because she did not smell like alcohol or
anything like that Mr Wangler did not observe Ms Walls to be unsteady when walking or
have difficulty standing upright He ordered her something to eat because he always did that in
similar situations Mr Wangler testified he did not know what type of pills Ms Walls had taken
but he was aware that Ms Walls was taking medication4 He had never asked her about the
medication or its side effects Mr Wangler instrncted the house mom on duty not to allow
Ms Walls back on the floor
Mr George was a floor manager or host at Respondents premises and was working the
night of March I 2014 Mr George was required to monitor the alcohol intake of dancers and
customers at the club and to intervene if needed to cut off a customer offer food and offer a car
ride He watched for signs of intoxication or rising aggressiveness in patrons and dancers
Mr George did not have any particular interaction with Ms Walls prior to the open teams entry
in the club He did not observe anything out of the ordinary Mr George recalled seeing
Ms Walls at the clubs bar during that night but did not see her drinking and did not witness the
incident with the barstool
Ms Walls testified that she began her shift at approximately 700 pm She had not eaten
that day She was allowed to drink while on a dancing shift and that night had two or three
crown and cokes between 700 pm and midnight Ms Walls also took her anxiety medication
that night She knew that the club had a policy that dancers could not be intoxicated on the
premises Ms Walls explained that when she was first hired she was instrncted that if she was
intoxicated she would be fired or lose her right to dance at the club Prior to March I st she had
not been sent home for any reason
Ms Walls testified she was not intoxicated Ms Walls stated she was steady on her feet
that night She stated she did not walk or almost walk into a door frame Ms Walls testified
4 Ms Walls testified that Mr Wangler was aware she was taking medication
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE6
the barstool fell because she had hooked her high-heeled shoes on the barstools foot rest and
leaned back pushing with her hands on the bar The stool caught on the carpet and overshy
balanced She was caught in the stool by her high-heels and fell or stumbled with it She
testified that Mr Wangler approached her told her to eat something and said he might send her
home Mr Wangler sent Ms Walls home because her chair had fallen down and in her words
I made a fool of myself
C The Open Team
Just prior to the TABC agents entering the club Mr Wangler told Mr George that he
was sending Ms Walls home Mr Wangler did not tell Mr George that Ms Walls was
intoxicated but said she was not feeling well or words to that effect Mr George was going to
the front entrance to call a cab when he saw the T ABC open team enter the club He recognized
them as agents he had met before He observed that the agents were intent on a mission and
did not stop to speak to a manager as they usually did on a bar check He followed the agents to
the dressing room They began questioning Ms Walls after apparently identifying her from a
picture or description on one of the agents cell phone Mr George noted that Agent Knox had
most of the preliminary contact with Ms Walls During the course of the questioning an agent
asked Ms Walls how she was going to get home and she responded that she had called her
mother to pick her up at the club
Agent Nunnery was a part of the open team He testified the team went to the club
dressing room as directed by the undercover team Sgt Knox made the initial contact with
Ms Walls while Agent Nunnery stood in the doorway of the dressing room to secure the
location Agent Nunnery testified that he subsequently came into close contact with Ms Walls
She seemed intoxicated Her speech was slurred Ms Walls had her cell phone in her hand or
pocket but kept asking the officers where her cell phone was Agent Nunnery observed that
Ms Walls nearly fell down twice as she was dressing and attempted to place her left shoe on her
right foot 5 Ms Walls dressed in pants at-shirt and tennis shoes
5 Mr George did not recall Ms Walls having any confusion over the location of her cell phone or putting a shoe on the wrong foot
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE7
Ms Walls recalled that she went to the dressing room to wait and shortly afterward the
TABC open team entered Ms Walls stated she was looking for her phone in her garment or
dance bag According to Ms Walls Sergeant Knox grabbed her bag When Ms Walls found
her phone Sgt Knox told her to call her mother to pick her up Ms Walls called her mother and
at Sgt Knoxs insistence allowed Sgt Knox to speak with her mother to arrange a pick-up
Because Ms Walls and her mother lived in Lewisville 45 minutes away Sgt Knox decided
Ms Walls needed to take a cab
According to Ms Walls as she was dressing one of the officers grabbed her purse and
began searching it Ms Walls stated that there was a prescription bottle in the purse for what she
called her anxiety medication According to Ms Walls the officer told her they had permission
to go through her purse or were authorized to because of the presence of the prescription bottle
Ms Walls stated that she did not eat that day and had taken her medication that day She Said
the medication affects [her] on an empty stomach None of the officers asked Ms Walls the
name of the medication she was taking for a copy of the prescription or if she had taken any
that night
Ms Walls testified that after she was dressed she and the officers went to the managers
office As Ms Walls recalled the only field sobriety test was looking in her eyes and the
agent said they were glassy and red
Mr George recalled that at the agents request he took Ms Walls and the agents to the
managers office He noted that the agents did not use a portable breath tester (PBT) or any
other type of breath test device Mr George stated he mediated between Ms Walls and the
agents in the managers office Mr George stated that Ms Walls was cooperative though
anxious confused and agitated Mr George observed that Ms Walls stood balanced in the
dressing room speaking to the officers while she was getting dressed and while speaking on the
phone with her mother The only time he observed her as unsteady was during the field sobriety
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGES
test Mr George stated that Ms Walls told the agents that she has an eating problem and that if
she doesnt eat she will feel weak and unstable and that she hadnt ate all day6
6 Resp Ex I at 2 7 Resp Ex I at 2
Mr George observed Agent Nunnery conduct a field sobriety test and heard him
conclude that Ms Walls was intoxicated Mr George witnessed Agent Nunnery attempt to
conduct the horizontal gaze nystagmus (HGN) with Ms Walls He noted the agent told
Ms Walls to follow the pen he used as a stimulus with her eyes and not to move her head or
body Mr George noted that as Agent Nunnery conducted the test Ms Walls twice stumbled to
her right side7 According to Mr George once he had conducted the HGN Agent Nunnery told
Agent Carleton he had all he needed
According to Mr George Agent Nunnery stated he believed Ms Walls was intoxicated
on more than just alcohol He asked Ms Walls if she was taking any prescription medication
Ms Walls stated she was taking a prescription medication but Mr George did not recall or write
down what the medication was
Mr George stated that he took Ms Walls outside to wait for the cab and at some point
he re-entered inside the club When Mr George returned outside he saw Agent Nunnery
searching Ms Walls s purse According to Mr George Agent Nunnery found a prescription
bottle and told Ms Walls the narcotics he had found justified the search According to
Mr George Agent Knox asked him to be sure Ms Walls took the cab and the agents left before
Ms Wallss cab arrived
Agent Nunnery personally observed Ms Walls in the managers office She had the odor
of an alcoholic beverage on her breath and person had glassy eyes had slurred speech and
swayed standing Agent Nunnery is trained in field sobriety tests In particular Agent Nunnery
is certified to conduct the HGN examinations Agent Nunnery testified that HGN identifies the
level of intoxication Agent Nunnery started the HGN and observed Ms Walls that exhibited
two clues - lack of smooth pursuit in both eyes Agent Nunnery had Ms Walls conduct the test
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE9
standing He stopped the test when she lost her balance twice Agent Nunnery had Ms Walls sit
down He testified that the HGN cannot be conducted when the subject is seated As a
consequence Agent Nunnery testified he could not complete the test
Agent Nunnery agreed he asked Ms Walls if she was taking any medication because
narcotics could affect the HGN results According to Agent Nunnery Ms Walls denied taking
any medications When asked by Agent Nunnery Ms Walls stated she had consumed three
whiskey and cokes
Agent Nunnery stated that Ms Walls was sent home in a cab and he waited outside the
club with Ms Walls to assure she left8 He noted that Mr George was also outside Agent
Nunnery testified that Ms Walls dropped her purse and the contents spilled including cigarette
rolling papers Agent Nunnery asked Ms Walls what the papers were for and she replied for
marijuana Agent Nunnery asked Ms Walls if she had possession of any illegal drugs and she
replied she had already smoked it all9 Agent Nunnery testified that Ms Walls consented to a
search of her purse and Agent Nunnery searched her purse He found nothing He specifically
denied finding a prescription bottle The cab arrived and Ms Walls was released
Ms Walls was not arrested that night Respondent was issued an administrative notice
for violation ofsect 1 l61(b)(l3) of the Code
D Respondents Policies and Procedures
Curtis Wise is the owner of Respondent Mr Wise was not present at the premises on
March 1 2014 Mr Wise is familiar with the statute prohibiting a permittees employee from
being intoxicated on the licensed premises Mr Wise did not object and did not correct
8 Ms Walls did not recall any of the agents waiting outside with her for the cab Instead she recalled that Mr George Mr Wangler the three agents and she waited in the office for the cab and when it arrived Mr George walked her out to the cab 9 Mr Wangler stated he did not know if Ms Walls had smoked marijuana that night and also related that she did not smoke in his house during the eleven months she lived there Ms Walls stated it was possible she had cigarette rolling papers at the bottom of her purse because she had carried the purse for years She denied smoking marijuana that night Ms Walls also denied dropping her purse Mr George did not recall a discussion of rolling papers or marijuana use No witness testified that they smelled the odor of burned marijuana on Ms Wallss person
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGElO
Mr Wanglers testimony that Respondents dancers were employees for the purposes of
sect 1 l61(b)(13) of the Code Mr Wise listed a number of actions Respondent takes to assure
compliance with sect l 161(b)(13) A doorman is on duty every night to screen patrons for
intoxication before they enter Further four to seven or eight managers work each night On
March 1 2014 aside from Mr George and Mr Wangler four other managers would have been
working the floor The managers conduct daily pre-shift meetings with wait staff and bartenders
to emphasize the need to monitor alcohol consumption and signs of intoxication in dancers and
patrons All the bartenders are T ABC sellerserver certified The bartenders and wait staff were
instructed to monitor the dancers intake and warn management if they believed a dancer was or
was becoming impaired Floor managers were required to monitor the alcohol intake of dancers
and customers at the club and to intervene if needed to cut off a customer offer food and offer a
car ride Respondent employed a house mom stationed in the dancers dressing room to
oversee the dancers on the premises Mr Wise asked TABC to conduct an alcohol awareness
class and required all employees and dancers to attend 10
10 The class may have been given in conjunction with Respondents settlement of an earlier violation Resp Ex I
Mr Wise stated that Respondent has a breathalyzer that is kept on the premises The
device is used as a guideline to see what an employees breath alcohol concentration might be if
the employee is acting out of the ordinary or may be intoxicated In the past a manager sent an
employee home after the employee failed an in-house breathalyzer test Respondent does not
request patrons to use the device Mr Wise did not recall what make or model the device was
but did note that it had to be sent to the manufacturer for calibration
Mr Wise explained that if a wait staff employee or dancer had to be sent home it would
be the managers decision and Mr Wise would not need to be consulted The matter would be
discussed at the weekly management meeting when discipline would be decided a second
chance a reduction of time (a week or a month off) or a termination There was such a meeting
after the March 1 2014 incident Mr Wise and his mangers discussed what happened and what
could have been done to prevent it Mr Wise could not recall what discipline might have been
imposed on Ms Walls
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE 11
After the March st event Mr Wangler told Mr Wise that Ms Walls was on medication
and Mr Wise asked Mr Wangler what medication she was taking Mr Wangler sent Mr Wise a
text and Mr Wise looked up the medication which he identified as citalopram That drug is an
antidepressant marketed as Celexa However the medication was not positively identified nor
was the medications interaction with alcohol established in the record of this case Mr Wise
testified that Respondent does not have a policy with respect to an employee or a dancer taking
prescription drugs
E Applicable Law
The T ABC may suspend a permit for not more than sixty days if the permittee was
intoxicated on the licensed premises 11 Permittee means a person who is the holder of a
permit provided for in this code or an agent servant or employee of that person12
Intoxicated means not having the normal use of mental or physical faculties by reason of the
introduction of alcohol a controlled substance a drug a dangerous drug a combination of two
or more of those substances or any other substance into the body13 The Staff has the burden of
proof by a preponderance of the evidence 14
11 Tex Alco Bev Code (the Code)sect I l61(b)(l3 12 sect 104(11) of the Code 13 Tex Penal Codesect 4901(2)(A) 14 I Texas Administrative Code (TAC)sect 155427
F Parties Arguments
Staff argued that a preponderance of the evidence proved that Respondents employee
Ms Walls was intoxicated on the licensed premises on March I 2014 Ms Walls displayed
clear signs of intoxication she was unsteady on her feet (both in high-heeled shoes and in tennis
shoes) Ms Walls used other objects for support when walking appeared confused had glassy
eyes and had the odor of an alcoholic beverage on her breath Ms Wallss testimony
contradicted that of Mr George he (as well as Agent Nunnery) stated they waited outside for the
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE 12
cab Ms Walls denied it Accordingly Staff argued that her testimony should not be considered
to be credible
The Staff noted that Mr Wangler testified that something was wrong or off with
Ms Walls He took steps to remove Ms Walls from the club floor Petitioner argued that
Ms Walls had too much to drink or was under the influence of her medication (which the Staff
termed a narcotic) or both The Staff argued that Ms Walls more likely than not knew she was
taking medication that should not have been mixed with alcohol due to a possible adverse
interaction The Staff asserted that Mr Wanglers action in taking Ms Walls off the dance floor
corroborated the testimony of Agents Shirley and Cayea who observed Ms Walls
The Staff recommended a 36 day suspension of the Respondents permit or in the
alternative a civil penalty of $300 per day for the recommended 36 days for a total penalty of
$] 0800 15
15 16TACsect342
Respondent argued that Agent Nunnerys testimony was not credible due to his failure to
recollect details about the evening such as who was present or which agent performed which act
Respondent argued that the Staff was asserting that the permittee is strictly liable for an
employee being intoxicated on the premises That is if the Staff could show that the person was
an employee was physically present on the premises and was intoxicated then the violation
would be proved Respondent argued that SOAH ALJs recognized a further issue that must be
proved whether the employee was working at the time and was in the course and scope of their
employment citing Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission v 13335 Duluth Restaurant and Bar
dlbla La Chatte 16 Respondent argued that Mr Wranglers actions took Ms Walls out of her
course of employment
16 SOAH Docket No 458-11-3550 (July 6 2011)
The Respondents reliance on La Chatte is misplaced The Commissions Final Order in
the case specifically rejected the notion that an employee had to be acting in the course and
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE 13
scope of employment to be treated as a permittee The Commission stated It is not necessary to
decide whether the employee is on the clock in order to decide whether she is treated as the
permittee The Code does not contain that proviso Nor does the Code require that an employee
be engaged in the work she is hired to do in order for her to be treated as the permittee17
Respondent further argued it had done everything it could to monitor and prevent
Ms Walls or any dancer from becoming intoxicated and took action to send Ms Walls home
when something appeared to be wrong Respondent argued that if Ms Walls was intoxicated
some or all of it could be ascribed to her medication In Respondents view the purpose of
sect l l61(b)(13) is to police persons with easy access to alcohol which Respondent asserted it had
done Ms Wallss use of her medication was beyond Respondents control
Respondent argued that if a penalty is imposed in this contested case Respondent would
be entitled to a variance from the standard penalty chart because of the steps Respondent has
taken to avoid a violation ofsect l l61(b)(13) of the Code 18
G Analysis
Staff has to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Ms Walls was Respondents
employee and that she was intoxicated on the licensed premises
Respondent did not dispute that Ms Walls was Respondents employee on
March I 2014 for the purposes ofsect l l61(b)(13) of the Code Since Ms Wallss opportunity to
dance and earn money through Respondents customers was contingent on her following
Respondents rules and policies Ms Walls is fairly described as Petitioners employee for the
purposes of this Proposal for Decision 19
17 Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission Board Final Order TABC Docket No 599022 (SOAH Docket No 458shy11-3550) (January 18 2012) at 1-2 18 sectsect 11641(a)(3) and 1164(c) of the Code 19 Villatoro v Tex Alcoholic Bev Comm n No 05-12-00444-CV (Tex App-Dallas June 3 2013 no writ)
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE 14
Ms Walls testimony established that she had not eaten on March 1 2014 had consumed
at least two and pmt of a third mixed drinks had consumed the drinks between 700 pm and
midnight and that she had taken her prescribed anxiety medication some time during the day
The exact medication she had taken was not established Ms Walls was not asked to identify the
medication that night or at the hearing nor was she asked to produce or subpoenaed to produce
a copy of the prescription Mr Wises identification of the drug as citalopram or Celexa was
based upon information he received from Mr Wangler and cannot be considered as dispositive
Further assuming Ms Walls was taking citalopram or Celexa that particular drugs interaction
with alcohol was not established There was no evidence that Ms Walls smoked marijuana that
night
The undercover team stated that Ms Walls had a glassy blank stare and disheveled hair
swayed while walking and ran into the frame of the doorway leading to the dressing room
Agent Nunnery testified that Ms Walls seemed intoxicated her speech was sinned Ms Walls
had short term memory loss ( concerning her cell phone) nearly fell down twice as she was
dressing and attempted to place her left shoe on her right foot had the odor of an alcoholic
beverage on her breath and person had glassy eyes and swayed standing
Although Ms Walls admitted drinking alcohol that night Mr Wangler testified he did
not believe that Ms Walls was intoxicated but he also was concerned that Ms Walls was not
right Mr Wangler testified he had the perception that something was a little off or
different with Ms Walls Mr George observed that Ms Walls stood balanced while she was
dressing and speaking on the phone with her mother but lost her balance twice during the field
sobriety test Agent Nunnery conducted the HGN and observed Ms Walls that exhibited two
clues lack of smooth pursuit in both eyes He stopped the test when she lost her balance twice
causing Agent Nunnery to have Ms Walls sit down Agent Nunnery interpreted the two HGN
clues as sufficient to conclude that Ms Walls was intoxicated However Ms Walls was not so
intoxicated that she was arrested for public intoxication that is for being intoxicated to the
degree that [Ms Walls might] endanger [herself] or another20
20 Tex Penal Code sect 4902(a)
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE15
The National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) publication states
that an officer must look for the following three criteria in the HGN test (1) an inability to
pursue smoothly an object or stimulus moving sideways across the suspects field of vision (3)
distinct or pronounced nystagmus at the eyes maximum horizontal deviation and (3) an angle
of onset of nystagmus of less than or equal to 45 degrees The officer must look for these criteria
in each eye for a total of six clues If the officer identifies four or more clues then the officer
classifies the suspect as intoxicated21 Accordingly Agent Nunnery was not justified to
conclude Ms Walls was intoxicated based upon the HGN alone
Mr George noted that the agents did not use a portable breath tester (PBT) or any other
type of breath test device22 Agent Nunnery was not issued a PBT by TABC and testified that a
PBT result would not be admissible in court Agent Nurmery testified he did not have the ability
to give Ms Walls an intoxilyzer or breathalyzer test
Agent Shirley Agent Cayea and Mr Wangler each at about the same moment
concluded that something was wrong with Ms Walls The physical indicators that
Agent Shirley Agent Cayea and Agent Nunnery observed are associated with alcohol
intoxication Ms Wallss recollection of events especially the searching of her purse and her
being escorted outside by Agent Nunnery and Mr George are contradicted by the testimony of
both and their recorded observations23 Ms Walls was and remains confused about the sequence
of the events of the night and that confusion is further evidence of her impairment
21 Emerson at 766 NHTSA SFST Manual at VIII-8 (2006) found at httpoagdcgovnode443812 22 Although Mr Wise testified that Petitioner had an in-house PBT neither Mr Wangler nor Mr George requested Ms Wall to submit a specimen of her breath before or after the TABC arrived 23 Respondent argued that Agent Nunnerys written report contradicted his testimony that he stood outside with Ms Walls waiting for the cab in an effort to impeach his testimony It is true that the report does not mention that episode However Mr Georges testimony and written memorandum agreed with and supported Agent Nunnerys testimony
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE16
The ALJ concludes that a preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that Ms Walls
Respondents employee had lost normal use of her mental or physical faculties by reason of the
introduction of alcohol on the licensed premises 24
24 Ms Wallss anxiety medication was not identified nor was any expert testimony offered on the effects of the mediation or its interaction with alcohol For example Ms Walls testified that she had not eaten that day and that her medication affects her on an empty stomach However Mr George testified Ms Walls told the agents that she has an eating problem and that if she doesnt eat she will feel weak and unstable and that she hadnt ate all day According to Agent Nunnery Ms Walls denied taking any medications Given these contradictions the ALJ recommends that no finding be made on whether Ms Walls was intoxicated due to her medication or its interaction with alcohol 25 16TACsect342 26 Resp Ex I 27 16 TACsect 342 28 16 TACsect 34l(g)(J) and (4)
The ALJ recommends that the Commission find that Petitioner violatedsect 1 l6l(b)(13) of
the Code
The Staff recommended a 36 day suspension of the Respondents permit or in the
alternative a civil penalty of$300 per day for the recommended 36 days or $10800 for a second
violation of sect 1 l6l(b)(l3) of the Code25 According to Petitioners administrative record
Petitioner had a prior violation of sect 1 l61(b)(l3) which occmTed on December 20 2013
Petitioner was assessed an administrative penalty of $5100 (the equivalent of a 17 day
suspension) which was reduced to $4500 (the equivalent of a 15 day suspension) after
completion of an employee educational program on March 21 2014 which was paid on
March 26 201426 A violation of is sect l l6l(b)(13) a health safety and welfare violation27
Under the Commissions rule a subsequent violation of the Code or rule will result in a sanction
in the next higher violation level if the subsequent violation is for a health safety and welfare
violation and occurs within 36 months of the prior violation and the subsequent violation is
issued during an undercover operation28 The subsequent violation was on March 1 2014
which is within 36 months of the prior violation on December 20 2013 The March 1 2014
violation was issued during an undercover investigation
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE 17
Respondent argued that the amount of civil penalty should be reduced upon a
consideration of the ameliorating circumstances concerning the violation29 The ameliorating
circumstances cited by Respondent are Respondents practices and policies described above
and the fact that Mr Wangler immediately removed Ms Walls from the dance floor when he
observed something wrong with her The Commission has stated that Texass policy is for
Neither the permit holder nor an agent servant or employee of the permit holder to be
intoxicated o the premises in the first place30 Moreover Respondents prior violation of
sect l l6l(b)(l3) is an aggravating circumstance under the same statute31 Respondent is not
entitled to a reduction in the proposed suspension or penalty
29 sect l l641(a)(3) of the Code sect J l64Jnotes that ameliorating circumstances include those enumerated in Section l l64(c) The circumstances listed in I l64(c) namely that the violation could not reasonably have been prevented by the permittee or licensee by the exercise of due diligence that the permittee or licensee was entrapped that an agent servant or employee of the permittee or licensee violated this code without the knowledge of the permittee or licensee that the permittee or licensee did not knowingly violate this code that the permittee or licensee has demonstrated good faith including the taking of actions to rectify the consequences of the violation and to deter future violations or (6) that the violation was a technical one have no factual support in the record 30 Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission Board Final Order TABC Docket No 599022 (SOAH Docket No 458shy11-3550) (January 18 2012) at 3 31 sect I I641(a)(4) ofthe Code
The ALJ recommends that Respondents permit be suspended for 36 days or in the
alternative Respondent be assessed a civil penalty of $300 per day for 36 days for a total penalty
of$10800
III FINDINGS OF FACT
I The Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission (TABC) issued Mixed Beverage Permit MB753709 which includes a Mixed Beverage Late Hours Permit and a Beverage Cartage Permit to Respondent 2345 Meacham LLC dba Buckss Cabaret
2 Respondents licensed premises are located at 2345 Meacham Boulevard Fort Worth Tarrant County Texas 76106
3 On March 1 2014 TABC Agent Denver Carleton led a squad of TABC agents namely Sergeant Charlotte Knox and agents Travis Shirley Charles Cayea and Christopher Nunnery in an undercover investigation of the Respondents premises
4 Agents Shirley and Cayea were the undercover team
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE 18
5 Agent Carleton Sergeant Knox and Agent Nunnery were the open team
6 Agents Shirley and Cayea entered Respondents premises at approximately 11 00 pm on March 1 2014
7 Kaitlyn Walls was a dancer at Respondents bar
8 Ms Walls was working that night beginning at approximately 700 pm
9 Ms Walls danced on the main stage and then on the smaller stages in rotation
10 Ms Walls approached a customer and sat next to him at the bar near the agents
11 Ms Walls and her barstool fell to the floor
12 Ms Walls had a glassy blank stare and disheveled hair
13 Ms Walls swayed while walking and ran into the door frame of the doorway leading to the clubs dancers dressing room
14 Agents Shirley and Cayea contacted the open team and informed them that they believed Ms Walls was intoxicated
15 The two agents sent the open team Ms Wallss description and her location in the dressing room by text message
16 Agents Shirley and Cayea left the club after the open team entered the club
17 Agent Nunnery came into close contact with Ms Walls
18 Ms Walls had slmTed speech was not aware of where her cell phone was even though she was holding it nearly fell down twice as she was dressing had glassy eyes swayed standing and lost her balance twice during field sobriety testing
19 Ms Walls admitted to drinking three alcoholic beverages
20 Ms Walls displayed physical and mental indications of intoxication
21 On March 1 2014 Ms Walls did not have the normal use of her mental or physical faculties by reason of the introduction of alcohol into her body
22 On March 1 2014 Ms Walls was an employee of Respondent
23 Petitioner had a prior violation ofsect l l6I(b)(l3) of the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code (the Code) which occurred on December 20 2013 Petitioner was assessed an administrative penalty which was paid on March 26 2014
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE 19
24 The violation which is the subject of this contested case was on March 1 2014 which is within 36 months of the prior violation on December 20 2013
25 The March 1 2014 violation was issued during an undercover investigation
26 On April 14 2015 Staff issued its Notice of Hearing which contained information regarding the date time and place of the hearing the matters asserted the statutes and rules involved and the legal authorities under which the hearing would be held
27 The hearing in this matter convened before Administrative Law Judge Robert F Jones Jr on October 22 2015 at the State Office of Administrative Hearings (SOAH) in Fort Worth Texas Sheila A Lindsey of the TABC Legal Services Division appeared and represented the Staff Respondent appeared by its attorney Roger Albright Evidence was received and the record closed that day
IV CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1 TABC has jurisdiction over this matter Tex Alco Bev Code (the Code) Chapter 5
2 SOAH has jurisdiction to conduct the administrative hearing in this matter and to issue a proposal for decision containing proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law Tex Govt Code Chapter 2003
3 Proper and timely notice of the hearing was provided to Respondent Tex Govt Code sect 2001051-052
4 Respondent violated sect l l6l(b)(l3) of the Code which authorizes the Commission to suspend a pe1mit if the pe1mittee was intoxicated on the licensed premises
5 A 36 day suspension of Respondents Mixed Beverage Permit MB753709 which includes a Mixed Beverage Late Hours Permit and a Beverage Cartage Permit or in the alternative a civil penalty of $300 per day for the recommended 36 days a total of $10800 is appropriate sectsect l l6l(b)(l3) and 1164 of the Code 16 Tex Admin Codesect 342
SIGNED December 17 2015
OBERT F JO ES JR ADMINISTRATI W JUDGE STATE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
STATE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS FT WORTH OFFICE
6777 Camp Bowie Blvd Suite 400 Fort Worth Texas 76116
Phone (817) 731-1733 Fax (512) 322-0473
SERVICE LIST
AGENCY Alcoholic Beverage Commission Texas (TABC)
STYLECASE 2345 MEACHAM LLC DBA BUCKS CABARET
SOAH DOCKET NUMBER 458-15-3318
REFERRING AGENCY CASE 624309
STATE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE
HEARINGS
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
ALJ ROBERT JONES
REPRESENTATIVEADDRESS
SHEILA LINDSEY - SANDERS STAFF ATTORNEY TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION 427 W 20TH STREET SUITE 600 HOUSTON TX 77008 (713) 426-7900 (PH) (713) 862-7478 (FAX)
PARTIES
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION
ROGER ALBRIGHT ATTORNEY AT LAW 3301 ELM STREET DALLAS TX 75226 (214) 939-9224 (PH) (214) 939-9229 (FAX) ralawrogeralbrightcom
ROGER ALBRIGHT
xc Docket Clerk State Office of Administrative Hearings Emily Helm GENERAL COUNSEL TABC Fax No 512-206-3226
Pagel of I
DOCKET NO 624309
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE
COMMISSION Petitioner
VS
2345 MEACHAM LLC
DBA BUCKrsquoS CABARET
Respondent
PERMIT MB753709 LB PE
TARRANT COUNTY TEXAS
(SOAH DOCKET NO 458-15-3318)
BEFORE THE TEXAS
ALCOHOLIC
BEVERAGE COMMISSION
ORDER
CAME ON FOR CONSIDERATION this 14th day of October 2016 the above-styled
and numbered cause
After proper notice was given this case was heard by the State Office of Administrative
Hearings (SOAH) with Administrative Law Judge Robert F Jones Jr presiding The hearing
convened on October 22 2015 and the SOAH record closed the same date The Administrative
Law Judge made and filed a Proposal for Decision containing Findings of Fact and Conclusions
of Law on December 17 2015 The Proposal for Decision was properly served on all parties
who were given an opportunity to file exceptions and replies as part of the record herein No
exceptions were filed
After review and due consideration of the Proposal for Decision I adopt the Findings of
Fact and Conclusions of Law of the Administrative Law Judge that are contained in the Proposal
for Decision and incorporate those Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law into this Order as if
such were fully set out and separately stated herein
All motions requests for entry of Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
and any other requests for general or specific relief submitted by any party are denied unless
specifically adopted herein
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the privileges granted by the Commission and the
activities authorized under the above permit by the Code will be SUSPENDED beginning at
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
__________________________________________
__________________________________________
1201 am on November 30th 2016 and shall remain suspended for THIRTY-SIX (36)
DAYS UNLESS a civil penalty in the amount of $1080000 is paid ON OR BEFORE
November 22nd 2016
This Order will become final and enforceable on the 15th day of November
2016 unless a Motion for Rehearing is filed by the 14th day of November 2016
SIGNED this the 14th day of October 2016 at Austin Texas
Sherry K-Cook Executive Director
Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that the persons listed below were served with a copy of this Order in the manner
indicated below on this the 14th day of October 2016
Martin Wilson Assistant General Counsel
Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission
Robert F Jones Jr
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
State Office of Administrative Hearings
300 W 15th
Street Suite 502
Austin TX 78701
VIA FACSIMILE (512) 322-2061
2345 Meacham LLC
dba Buckrsquos Cabaret
RESPONDENT
PO Box 271289
Flower Mound TX 75027
VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL CMRRR 70160600000046455820
Roger Albright
ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENT
3301 Elm Street
Dallas TX 75226
VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL CMRRR 70160600000046455837
Shelia Lindsey
ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER
TABC Legal Division
VIA E-MAIL Shelialindseytabctexasgov
__________________________________
__________________________________
__________________________________
__________________________________
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION
CIVIL PENALTY REMITTANCE
DOCKET NUMBER 624309 REGISTER NUMBER
NAME 2345 MEACHAM LLC
TRADENAME Buckrsquos Cabaret
ADDRESS PO Box 271289 Flower Mound Texas
DUE DATE November 22 2016
PERMITS OR LICENSES MB753709 LB PE
AMOUNT OF PENALTY $1080000
Amount remitted $____________________ Date remitted ____________________________
You may pay a civil penalty rather than have your permits and licenses suspended if an amount
for civil penalty is included on the attached order
YOU HAVE THE OPTION TO PAY THE CIVIL PENALTY ONLY IF YOU PAY THE
ENTIRE AMOUNT ON OR BEFORE THE DUE DATE AFTER THAT DATE YOUR
LICENSE OR PERMIT WILL BE SUSPENDED FOR THE TIME PERIOD STATED ON
THE ORDER
Mail this form with your payment to
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION
PO Box 13127 Austin Texas 78711
Overnight Delivery Address 5806 Mesa Dr Austin Texas 78731
You must pay by postal money order certified check or cashiers check No personal or
company check nor partial payment accepted Your payment will be returned if anything is
incorrect You must pay the entire amount of the penalty assessed
Attach this form and please make certain to include the Docket on your payment
Signature of Responsible Party
Street Address PO Box No
City State Zip Code
Area CodeTelephone No
Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2
DOCKET NO 624309
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE
COMMISSION Petitioner
sect
sect
sect
sect
VS sect
sect
sect
sect
2345 MEACHAM LLC
DBA BUCKrsquoS CABARET
Respondent
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
PERMIT MB753709 LB PE sect
sect
sect
TARRANT COUNTY TEXAS
(SOAH DOCKET NO 458-15-3318)
sect
sect
BEFORE THE TEXAS
BEVERAGE COMMISSION
ALCOHOLIC
ORDER DENYING M OTION FOR REHEARING
Page 1 of 3
CAME ON FOR CONSIDERATION this 1st day of December 2016 the above-styled
and numbered cause
On October 14 2016 an Order was issued in this cause suspending Respondents permits
for a period of 36 days unless a civil penalty in the amount of $10800 was paid A timely
Motion for RehearingReconsideration was filed by Respondent on November 11 2016 and a
Supplemental Motion for Rehearing was filed by Respondent on November 16 2016 Petitioner
filed a Response to Respondents Motion for RehearingReconsideration on November 22 2016
Having considered Respondents Motion for RehearingReconsideration
Respondents Supplemental Motion for Rehearing and Petitioners Response to Respondents
Motion for RehearingReconsideration Respondents Motion for RehearingReconsideration is
DENIED
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that IF THIS ORDER IS NOT APPEALED
WITHIN THE TIME ALLOWED BY ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CODE sect1167 the
privileges granted by the Commission and the activities authorized under the above permits by
the Code will be SUSPENDED beginning at 1201 am on January 25 2017 and shall remain
suspended for THIRTY SIX (36) CONSECUTIVE DAYS UNLESS a civil penalty in the
amount of $1080000 is paid in lieu of suspension ON OR BEFORE January 17 2017
__________________________________________
_________________________________________
IF THIS ORDER IS APPEALED AND THE DECISION IS AFFIRMED IT IS
ORDERED that the privileges granted by the Commission and the activities authorized under
the above permits by the Code will be SUSPENDED beginning at 1201 am on the fifteenth
(15th
) day following the date the decision is affirmed whether by Order or by operation of law
and shall remain suspended for THIRTY SIX (36) CONSECUTIVE DAYS UNLESS a civil
penalty in the amount of $1080000 is paid in lieu of suspension ON OR BEFORE the seventh
(7th
) day following the date the decision is affirmed whether by Order or by operation of law
SIGNED this the 1st day of December 2016 at Austin Texas
Sherry K-Cook Executive Director
Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that the persons listed below were served with a copy of this Order Denying
Motion for Rehearing in the manner indicated below on this the 1st day of December 2016
Martin Wilson Assistant General Counsel
Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission
Page 2 of 3
Robert F Jones Jr
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
State Office of Administrative Hearings
300 W 15th
Street Suite 502
Austin TX 78701
VIA FACSIMILE (512) 322-2061
2345 Meacham LLC
dba Buckrsquos Cabaret
RESPONDENT
PO Box 271289
Flower Mound TX 75027
VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL CMRRR 70160340000080983298
Roger Albright
ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENT
3301 Elm Street
Dallas TX 75226
VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL CMRRR70160340000080983281
Shelia Lindsey
ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER
TABC Legal Division
VIA E-MAIL Shelialindseytabctexasgov
Page 3 of 3
__________________________________
__________________________________
__________________________________
__________________________________
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION
CIVIL PENALTY REMITTANCE
DOCKET NUMBER 624309 REGISTER NUMBER
NAME 2345 Meacham LLC
TRADENAME Buckrsquos Cabaret
ADDRESS PO Box 271289 Flower Mound Texas
DUE DATE January 17 2017
PERMITS OR LICENSES MB753709 PE LB
AMOUNT OF PENALTY $1080000
Amount remitted $____________________ Date remitted ____________________________
You may pay a civil penalty rather than have your permits and licenses suspended if an amount
for civil penalty is included on the attached order
YOU HAVE THE OPTION TO PAY THE CIVIL PENALTY ONLY IF YOU PAY THE
ENTIRE AMOUNT ON OR BEFORE THE DUE DATE AFTER THAT DATE YOUR
LICENSE OR PERMIT WILL BE SUSPENDED FOR THE TIME PERIOD STATED ON
THE ORDER
Mail this form with your payment to
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION
PO Box 13127 Austin Texas 78711
Overnight Delivery Address 5806 Mesa Dr Austin Texas 78731
You must pay by postal money order certified check or cashiers check No personal or
company check nor partial payment accepted Your payment will be returned if anything is
incorrect You must pay the entire amount of the penalty assessed
Attach this form and please make certain to include the Docket on your payment
Signature of Responsible Party
Street Address PO Box No
City State Zip Code
Area CodeTelephone No
Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2
CAUSE NO 348-289708-16
2345 MEACHAM LLC DBA BUCKS CABARET
Plaintiff
v
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION
Defendant
sect IN THE DISTRICT COURT
348TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
TARRANT COUNTY TEXAS
sect sect sect sect sect sect sect sect sect
ORDER AFFIRMING TABC DECISION fllJ()1)1-j 13J
On tkis day came on to be heard the above-tyled and numbered cause
pursuant to Ch 2001 ofthe Texas Government Code (the Administrative Procedure
Act) and sect 1167 of the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code 2345 Meacham LLC
dba Bucks Cabaret and the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission appeared by
and through their attorneys of record and announced ready All matters of fact and
controversy were submitted The Court after reviewing the evidence and hearing
the arguments of counsel finds that the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission
Order of October 14 2016 is supported by substantial evidence
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED ADJUDGED and DECREED that the
Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commissions Order of October 14 2016 suspending
Plaintiffs Mixed Beverage Permit MB753709 and the associated Beverage Cartage
Permit and Mixed Beverage Late Hours Permit is supported by substantial
evidence and thus is AFFIRMED _1 L IJND Tltld1lt lJAS t-lltJ cflfAfl ltJr tlJ~
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED ADJUDGED and DECREED that the Plaintiff
shall take nothing by this suit and that Defendant shall be in all things discharged
ion
ON ALL SERVED VIAIE-MAILED - HAND DtLIVERY -MAIL
=----WHO 16 TO
_--13 1
SElVE COPIEIS ON gtLL OTHEN
and that the costs ofcourt are taxed against the party incurring same All other relief
not expressly granted herein is denied
This judgment is final disposes of all claims and parties and is appealable f-b
SIGNED and ENTERED this 3 day ofJanuary 2017 L
348TH DISTRICT COURT
2
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE2
II DISCUSSION
A Background
Staff alleged that Respondent violated Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code sect l l6l(b)(l3)
which authorizes the Commission to suspend a permit if the permittee was intoxicated on the
licensed premises The events which are the subject of this contested case took place in the
evening of March 1 2014 and the early morning of March 2 2014 TABC Agent Denver
Carleton led a squad of T ABC agents namely Sergeant Charlotte Knox and agents Travis
Shirley Charles Cayea and Christopher Nunnery in an undercover investigation of the
Respondents premises a sexually oriented business Respondent holds Mixed Beverage Permit
MB753709 which includes a Mixed Beverage Late Hours Permit and a Beverage Cartage
Permit Respondents licensed premises are located at 2345 Meacham Boulevard Fort Wo1th
Tarrant County Texas 76106 1
1 Pet Ex I at 4
The squad was split into two teams the undercover team and the open team
Agents Shirley and Cayea were the undercover team Agent Carleton Sergeant Knox and
Agent Nunnery were the open team On the undercover teams cue the open team was to enter
Respondents club approach the person alleged to have committed the violation and investigate
The undercover team was to leave Respondents premises after the open team entered and
accosted the alleged violator The undercover team was not to have contact with the alleged
violator or investigate further
B The Undercover Team
Agents Shirley and Cayea entered Respondents premises at approximately 11 00 pm on
March 1 2014 They seated themselves at the bar of the club where they had a view of the main
dance stage as well as several smaller stages scattered around the club They also had a portion
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE3
of the bar area near them under their observation There were 150 to 200 patrons in the club and
between five and eight floor managers or hosts working in the club
Kaitlyn Walls was a dancer at Respondents bar She began her shift at approximately
700 pm Agents Shirley and Cayea each testified they observed Ms Walls dancing on the main
stage and then on the smaller stages in rotation Ms Wallss demeanor as they observed it from
their seats appeared normal to them Ms Walls was wearing a gold or yellow bikini and high
heels which allowed the agents to distinguish her from the other dancers Mr Wangler was the
general manager of Respondent in 2014 He had also observed Ms Walls during this time
period and agreed that Ms Walls did not act as if she was intoxicated
Ms Walls approached a customer and sat next to him at the bar near the agents
Ms Walls took a black baseball cap from the customers head and placed it on her own
According to the agents the baseball cap fell off and as Ms Walls was leaning down and
attempting to pick up the cap she fell off her bar stool The stool tipped over and fell on
Ms Walls She had difficulty in rising and setting the stool upright
The agents noted that Ms Walls was carrying a small glass containing brown liquid
Agent Shirley recalled that Ms Walls remarked to the bartender that the drink tastes like
water 2 Neither agent saw any bartender serve Ms Walls and had no idea where she got the
glass she was carrying or what was in it Agent Cayea stated that Ms Walls had a glassy blank
stare and disheveled hair Although Agent Shirley did not recall it Agent Cayeas report of the
incident noted that a second man had approached Ms Walls while she at the bar and spoke to
her The agents testified that when Ms Walls left the bar she swayed while walking and ran into
the door frame of the doorway leading to the clubs dancers dressing room
2 Ms Walls testified she did not recall saying This drink tastes like water
Based upon what they had seen Agents Shirley and Cayea contacted the open team and
informed them that they believed Ms Walls was intoxicated They sent the open team
Ms Walls s description and her location in the dressing room by text message Once the open
team entered the club the two agents left
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE4
Mr Wangler testified that the Respondents dancers drank alcohol while dancing The
club did not have a set limit on the amount they could consume The bartenders and wait staff
were instructed to monitor the dancers intake and warn management if they believed a dancer
was or was becoming impaired Respondent employed a house mom stationed in the dancers
dressing room to oversee the dancers on the premises Mr Wangler testified that for the
purposes of sect 116I(b)(13) the Code Respondents dancers were employees Mr Wangler
testified he and Respondent took all reasonable and appropriate steps to monitor alcohol
consumption by dancers and patrons on the premises Respondents policy was to send any
dancer home if she became or was becoming intoxicated
Mr Wangler knew Ms Walls very well She had been dancing at the club for four years
She had no history of intoxication at work and as far as Mr Wangler knew did not have a
drinking problem Mr Wangler observed Ms Walls that night as she was dancing at the main
and subsidiary stages and also observed her approach the patron at the bar Ms Walls did not
appear impaired to him Mr Wangler testified that Ms Walls did not fall off the stool Instead
he believed that Ms Walls pushed back from the bar and the stools back legs caught on a lip
formed by the juncture of the tile floor and the rug that covered most of the club floor The catch
on the lip caused the stool to over-balance and fall with Ms Walls landing on top ofit
Mr Wangler testified he approached Ms Walls at the bar and spoke with her3
Mr Wangler reported that Ms Walls told him she had taken her pills From closer
observation he did not believe that Ms Walls was intoxicated but also was concerned that
Ms Walls was not right Mr Wangler testified he had the perception that something was a
little off or different with Ms Walls which he attributed to her pills or whatever
Mr Wangler related that Ms Walls had lived in his home for a period and based upon his
familiarity with her he was convinced she was not impaired but believed she should have
something to eat and take a cab home He sent her to the dressing room Mr Wangler stated he
was not taking any chances and he sent her home in case she was impaired Mr Wangler
had never had to send Ms Walls home before
3 Mr Wangler was the second man at the bar mentioned in Agent Cayeas report
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGES
After Mr Wangler directed Ms Walls to go to the dressing room he told Jonathon
George a floor manager on duty to get her something to eat Mr Wangler did not think
Ms Walls was actually impaired or intoxicated because she did not smell like alcohol or
anything like that Mr Wangler did not observe Ms Walls to be unsteady when walking or
have difficulty standing upright He ordered her something to eat because he always did that in
similar situations Mr Wangler testified he did not know what type of pills Ms Walls had taken
but he was aware that Ms Walls was taking medication4 He had never asked her about the
medication or its side effects Mr Wangler instrncted the house mom on duty not to allow
Ms Walls back on the floor
Mr George was a floor manager or host at Respondents premises and was working the
night of March I 2014 Mr George was required to monitor the alcohol intake of dancers and
customers at the club and to intervene if needed to cut off a customer offer food and offer a car
ride He watched for signs of intoxication or rising aggressiveness in patrons and dancers
Mr George did not have any particular interaction with Ms Walls prior to the open teams entry
in the club He did not observe anything out of the ordinary Mr George recalled seeing
Ms Walls at the clubs bar during that night but did not see her drinking and did not witness the
incident with the barstool
Ms Walls testified that she began her shift at approximately 700 pm She had not eaten
that day She was allowed to drink while on a dancing shift and that night had two or three
crown and cokes between 700 pm and midnight Ms Walls also took her anxiety medication
that night She knew that the club had a policy that dancers could not be intoxicated on the
premises Ms Walls explained that when she was first hired she was instrncted that if she was
intoxicated she would be fired or lose her right to dance at the club Prior to March I st she had
not been sent home for any reason
Ms Walls testified she was not intoxicated Ms Walls stated she was steady on her feet
that night She stated she did not walk or almost walk into a door frame Ms Walls testified
4 Ms Walls testified that Mr Wangler was aware she was taking medication
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE6
the barstool fell because she had hooked her high-heeled shoes on the barstools foot rest and
leaned back pushing with her hands on the bar The stool caught on the carpet and overshy
balanced She was caught in the stool by her high-heels and fell or stumbled with it She
testified that Mr Wangler approached her told her to eat something and said he might send her
home Mr Wangler sent Ms Walls home because her chair had fallen down and in her words
I made a fool of myself
C The Open Team
Just prior to the TABC agents entering the club Mr Wangler told Mr George that he
was sending Ms Walls home Mr Wangler did not tell Mr George that Ms Walls was
intoxicated but said she was not feeling well or words to that effect Mr George was going to
the front entrance to call a cab when he saw the T ABC open team enter the club He recognized
them as agents he had met before He observed that the agents were intent on a mission and
did not stop to speak to a manager as they usually did on a bar check He followed the agents to
the dressing room They began questioning Ms Walls after apparently identifying her from a
picture or description on one of the agents cell phone Mr George noted that Agent Knox had
most of the preliminary contact with Ms Walls During the course of the questioning an agent
asked Ms Walls how she was going to get home and she responded that she had called her
mother to pick her up at the club
Agent Nunnery was a part of the open team He testified the team went to the club
dressing room as directed by the undercover team Sgt Knox made the initial contact with
Ms Walls while Agent Nunnery stood in the doorway of the dressing room to secure the
location Agent Nunnery testified that he subsequently came into close contact with Ms Walls
She seemed intoxicated Her speech was slurred Ms Walls had her cell phone in her hand or
pocket but kept asking the officers where her cell phone was Agent Nunnery observed that
Ms Walls nearly fell down twice as she was dressing and attempted to place her left shoe on her
right foot 5 Ms Walls dressed in pants at-shirt and tennis shoes
5 Mr George did not recall Ms Walls having any confusion over the location of her cell phone or putting a shoe on the wrong foot
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE7
Ms Walls recalled that she went to the dressing room to wait and shortly afterward the
TABC open team entered Ms Walls stated she was looking for her phone in her garment or
dance bag According to Ms Walls Sergeant Knox grabbed her bag When Ms Walls found
her phone Sgt Knox told her to call her mother to pick her up Ms Walls called her mother and
at Sgt Knoxs insistence allowed Sgt Knox to speak with her mother to arrange a pick-up
Because Ms Walls and her mother lived in Lewisville 45 minutes away Sgt Knox decided
Ms Walls needed to take a cab
According to Ms Walls as she was dressing one of the officers grabbed her purse and
began searching it Ms Walls stated that there was a prescription bottle in the purse for what she
called her anxiety medication According to Ms Walls the officer told her they had permission
to go through her purse or were authorized to because of the presence of the prescription bottle
Ms Walls stated that she did not eat that day and had taken her medication that day She Said
the medication affects [her] on an empty stomach None of the officers asked Ms Walls the
name of the medication she was taking for a copy of the prescription or if she had taken any
that night
Ms Walls testified that after she was dressed she and the officers went to the managers
office As Ms Walls recalled the only field sobriety test was looking in her eyes and the
agent said they were glassy and red
Mr George recalled that at the agents request he took Ms Walls and the agents to the
managers office He noted that the agents did not use a portable breath tester (PBT) or any
other type of breath test device Mr George stated he mediated between Ms Walls and the
agents in the managers office Mr George stated that Ms Walls was cooperative though
anxious confused and agitated Mr George observed that Ms Walls stood balanced in the
dressing room speaking to the officers while she was getting dressed and while speaking on the
phone with her mother The only time he observed her as unsteady was during the field sobriety
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGES
test Mr George stated that Ms Walls told the agents that she has an eating problem and that if
she doesnt eat she will feel weak and unstable and that she hadnt ate all day6
6 Resp Ex I at 2 7 Resp Ex I at 2
Mr George observed Agent Nunnery conduct a field sobriety test and heard him
conclude that Ms Walls was intoxicated Mr George witnessed Agent Nunnery attempt to
conduct the horizontal gaze nystagmus (HGN) with Ms Walls He noted the agent told
Ms Walls to follow the pen he used as a stimulus with her eyes and not to move her head or
body Mr George noted that as Agent Nunnery conducted the test Ms Walls twice stumbled to
her right side7 According to Mr George once he had conducted the HGN Agent Nunnery told
Agent Carleton he had all he needed
According to Mr George Agent Nunnery stated he believed Ms Walls was intoxicated
on more than just alcohol He asked Ms Walls if she was taking any prescription medication
Ms Walls stated she was taking a prescription medication but Mr George did not recall or write
down what the medication was
Mr George stated that he took Ms Walls outside to wait for the cab and at some point
he re-entered inside the club When Mr George returned outside he saw Agent Nunnery
searching Ms Walls s purse According to Mr George Agent Nunnery found a prescription
bottle and told Ms Walls the narcotics he had found justified the search According to
Mr George Agent Knox asked him to be sure Ms Walls took the cab and the agents left before
Ms Wallss cab arrived
Agent Nunnery personally observed Ms Walls in the managers office She had the odor
of an alcoholic beverage on her breath and person had glassy eyes had slurred speech and
swayed standing Agent Nunnery is trained in field sobriety tests In particular Agent Nunnery
is certified to conduct the HGN examinations Agent Nunnery testified that HGN identifies the
level of intoxication Agent Nunnery started the HGN and observed Ms Walls that exhibited
two clues - lack of smooth pursuit in both eyes Agent Nunnery had Ms Walls conduct the test
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE9
standing He stopped the test when she lost her balance twice Agent Nunnery had Ms Walls sit
down He testified that the HGN cannot be conducted when the subject is seated As a
consequence Agent Nunnery testified he could not complete the test
Agent Nunnery agreed he asked Ms Walls if she was taking any medication because
narcotics could affect the HGN results According to Agent Nunnery Ms Walls denied taking
any medications When asked by Agent Nunnery Ms Walls stated she had consumed three
whiskey and cokes
Agent Nunnery stated that Ms Walls was sent home in a cab and he waited outside the
club with Ms Walls to assure she left8 He noted that Mr George was also outside Agent
Nunnery testified that Ms Walls dropped her purse and the contents spilled including cigarette
rolling papers Agent Nunnery asked Ms Walls what the papers were for and she replied for
marijuana Agent Nunnery asked Ms Walls if she had possession of any illegal drugs and she
replied she had already smoked it all9 Agent Nunnery testified that Ms Walls consented to a
search of her purse and Agent Nunnery searched her purse He found nothing He specifically
denied finding a prescription bottle The cab arrived and Ms Walls was released
Ms Walls was not arrested that night Respondent was issued an administrative notice
for violation ofsect 1 l61(b)(l3) of the Code
D Respondents Policies and Procedures
Curtis Wise is the owner of Respondent Mr Wise was not present at the premises on
March 1 2014 Mr Wise is familiar with the statute prohibiting a permittees employee from
being intoxicated on the licensed premises Mr Wise did not object and did not correct
8 Ms Walls did not recall any of the agents waiting outside with her for the cab Instead she recalled that Mr George Mr Wangler the three agents and she waited in the office for the cab and when it arrived Mr George walked her out to the cab 9 Mr Wangler stated he did not know if Ms Walls had smoked marijuana that night and also related that she did not smoke in his house during the eleven months she lived there Ms Walls stated it was possible she had cigarette rolling papers at the bottom of her purse because she had carried the purse for years She denied smoking marijuana that night Ms Walls also denied dropping her purse Mr George did not recall a discussion of rolling papers or marijuana use No witness testified that they smelled the odor of burned marijuana on Ms Wallss person
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGElO
Mr Wanglers testimony that Respondents dancers were employees for the purposes of
sect 1 l61(b)(13) of the Code Mr Wise listed a number of actions Respondent takes to assure
compliance with sect l 161(b)(13) A doorman is on duty every night to screen patrons for
intoxication before they enter Further four to seven or eight managers work each night On
March 1 2014 aside from Mr George and Mr Wangler four other managers would have been
working the floor The managers conduct daily pre-shift meetings with wait staff and bartenders
to emphasize the need to monitor alcohol consumption and signs of intoxication in dancers and
patrons All the bartenders are T ABC sellerserver certified The bartenders and wait staff were
instructed to monitor the dancers intake and warn management if they believed a dancer was or
was becoming impaired Floor managers were required to monitor the alcohol intake of dancers
and customers at the club and to intervene if needed to cut off a customer offer food and offer a
car ride Respondent employed a house mom stationed in the dancers dressing room to
oversee the dancers on the premises Mr Wise asked TABC to conduct an alcohol awareness
class and required all employees and dancers to attend 10
10 The class may have been given in conjunction with Respondents settlement of an earlier violation Resp Ex I
Mr Wise stated that Respondent has a breathalyzer that is kept on the premises The
device is used as a guideline to see what an employees breath alcohol concentration might be if
the employee is acting out of the ordinary or may be intoxicated In the past a manager sent an
employee home after the employee failed an in-house breathalyzer test Respondent does not
request patrons to use the device Mr Wise did not recall what make or model the device was
but did note that it had to be sent to the manufacturer for calibration
Mr Wise explained that if a wait staff employee or dancer had to be sent home it would
be the managers decision and Mr Wise would not need to be consulted The matter would be
discussed at the weekly management meeting when discipline would be decided a second
chance a reduction of time (a week or a month off) or a termination There was such a meeting
after the March 1 2014 incident Mr Wise and his mangers discussed what happened and what
could have been done to prevent it Mr Wise could not recall what discipline might have been
imposed on Ms Walls
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE 11
After the March st event Mr Wangler told Mr Wise that Ms Walls was on medication
and Mr Wise asked Mr Wangler what medication she was taking Mr Wangler sent Mr Wise a
text and Mr Wise looked up the medication which he identified as citalopram That drug is an
antidepressant marketed as Celexa However the medication was not positively identified nor
was the medications interaction with alcohol established in the record of this case Mr Wise
testified that Respondent does not have a policy with respect to an employee or a dancer taking
prescription drugs
E Applicable Law
The T ABC may suspend a permit for not more than sixty days if the permittee was
intoxicated on the licensed premises 11 Permittee means a person who is the holder of a
permit provided for in this code or an agent servant or employee of that person12
Intoxicated means not having the normal use of mental or physical faculties by reason of the
introduction of alcohol a controlled substance a drug a dangerous drug a combination of two
or more of those substances or any other substance into the body13 The Staff has the burden of
proof by a preponderance of the evidence 14
11 Tex Alco Bev Code (the Code)sect I l61(b)(l3 12 sect 104(11) of the Code 13 Tex Penal Codesect 4901(2)(A) 14 I Texas Administrative Code (TAC)sect 155427
F Parties Arguments
Staff argued that a preponderance of the evidence proved that Respondents employee
Ms Walls was intoxicated on the licensed premises on March I 2014 Ms Walls displayed
clear signs of intoxication she was unsteady on her feet (both in high-heeled shoes and in tennis
shoes) Ms Walls used other objects for support when walking appeared confused had glassy
eyes and had the odor of an alcoholic beverage on her breath Ms Wallss testimony
contradicted that of Mr George he (as well as Agent Nunnery) stated they waited outside for the
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE 12
cab Ms Walls denied it Accordingly Staff argued that her testimony should not be considered
to be credible
The Staff noted that Mr Wangler testified that something was wrong or off with
Ms Walls He took steps to remove Ms Walls from the club floor Petitioner argued that
Ms Walls had too much to drink or was under the influence of her medication (which the Staff
termed a narcotic) or both The Staff argued that Ms Walls more likely than not knew she was
taking medication that should not have been mixed with alcohol due to a possible adverse
interaction The Staff asserted that Mr Wanglers action in taking Ms Walls off the dance floor
corroborated the testimony of Agents Shirley and Cayea who observed Ms Walls
The Staff recommended a 36 day suspension of the Respondents permit or in the
alternative a civil penalty of $300 per day for the recommended 36 days for a total penalty of
$] 0800 15
15 16TACsect342
Respondent argued that Agent Nunnerys testimony was not credible due to his failure to
recollect details about the evening such as who was present or which agent performed which act
Respondent argued that the Staff was asserting that the permittee is strictly liable for an
employee being intoxicated on the premises That is if the Staff could show that the person was
an employee was physically present on the premises and was intoxicated then the violation
would be proved Respondent argued that SOAH ALJs recognized a further issue that must be
proved whether the employee was working at the time and was in the course and scope of their
employment citing Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission v 13335 Duluth Restaurant and Bar
dlbla La Chatte 16 Respondent argued that Mr Wranglers actions took Ms Walls out of her
course of employment
16 SOAH Docket No 458-11-3550 (July 6 2011)
The Respondents reliance on La Chatte is misplaced The Commissions Final Order in
the case specifically rejected the notion that an employee had to be acting in the course and
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE 13
scope of employment to be treated as a permittee The Commission stated It is not necessary to
decide whether the employee is on the clock in order to decide whether she is treated as the
permittee The Code does not contain that proviso Nor does the Code require that an employee
be engaged in the work she is hired to do in order for her to be treated as the permittee17
Respondent further argued it had done everything it could to monitor and prevent
Ms Walls or any dancer from becoming intoxicated and took action to send Ms Walls home
when something appeared to be wrong Respondent argued that if Ms Walls was intoxicated
some or all of it could be ascribed to her medication In Respondents view the purpose of
sect l l61(b)(13) is to police persons with easy access to alcohol which Respondent asserted it had
done Ms Wallss use of her medication was beyond Respondents control
Respondent argued that if a penalty is imposed in this contested case Respondent would
be entitled to a variance from the standard penalty chart because of the steps Respondent has
taken to avoid a violation ofsect l l61(b)(13) of the Code 18
G Analysis
Staff has to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Ms Walls was Respondents
employee and that she was intoxicated on the licensed premises
Respondent did not dispute that Ms Walls was Respondents employee on
March I 2014 for the purposes ofsect l l61(b)(13) of the Code Since Ms Wallss opportunity to
dance and earn money through Respondents customers was contingent on her following
Respondents rules and policies Ms Walls is fairly described as Petitioners employee for the
purposes of this Proposal for Decision 19
17 Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission Board Final Order TABC Docket No 599022 (SOAH Docket No 458shy11-3550) (January 18 2012) at 1-2 18 sectsect 11641(a)(3) and 1164(c) of the Code 19 Villatoro v Tex Alcoholic Bev Comm n No 05-12-00444-CV (Tex App-Dallas June 3 2013 no writ)
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE 14
Ms Walls testimony established that she had not eaten on March 1 2014 had consumed
at least two and pmt of a third mixed drinks had consumed the drinks between 700 pm and
midnight and that she had taken her prescribed anxiety medication some time during the day
The exact medication she had taken was not established Ms Walls was not asked to identify the
medication that night or at the hearing nor was she asked to produce or subpoenaed to produce
a copy of the prescription Mr Wises identification of the drug as citalopram or Celexa was
based upon information he received from Mr Wangler and cannot be considered as dispositive
Further assuming Ms Walls was taking citalopram or Celexa that particular drugs interaction
with alcohol was not established There was no evidence that Ms Walls smoked marijuana that
night
The undercover team stated that Ms Walls had a glassy blank stare and disheveled hair
swayed while walking and ran into the frame of the doorway leading to the dressing room
Agent Nunnery testified that Ms Walls seemed intoxicated her speech was sinned Ms Walls
had short term memory loss ( concerning her cell phone) nearly fell down twice as she was
dressing and attempted to place her left shoe on her right foot had the odor of an alcoholic
beverage on her breath and person had glassy eyes and swayed standing
Although Ms Walls admitted drinking alcohol that night Mr Wangler testified he did
not believe that Ms Walls was intoxicated but he also was concerned that Ms Walls was not
right Mr Wangler testified he had the perception that something was a little off or
different with Ms Walls Mr George observed that Ms Walls stood balanced while she was
dressing and speaking on the phone with her mother but lost her balance twice during the field
sobriety test Agent Nunnery conducted the HGN and observed Ms Walls that exhibited two
clues lack of smooth pursuit in both eyes He stopped the test when she lost her balance twice
causing Agent Nunnery to have Ms Walls sit down Agent Nunnery interpreted the two HGN
clues as sufficient to conclude that Ms Walls was intoxicated However Ms Walls was not so
intoxicated that she was arrested for public intoxication that is for being intoxicated to the
degree that [Ms Walls might] endanger [herself] or another20
20 Tex Penal Code sect 4902(a)
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE15
The National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) publication states
that an officer must look for the following three criteria in the HGN test (1) an inability to
pursue smoothly an object or stimulus moving sideways across the suspects field of vision (3)
distinct or pronounced nystagmus at the eyes maximum horizontal deviation and (3) an angle
of onset of nystagmus of less than or equal to 45 degrees The officer must look for these criteria
in each eye for a total of six clues If the officer identifies four or more clues then the officer
classifies the suspect as intoxicated21 Accordingly Agent Nunnery was not justified to
conclude Ms Walls was intoxicated based upon the HGN alone
Mr George noted that the agents did not use a portable breath tester (PBT) or any other
type of breath test device22 Agent Nunnery was not issued a PBT by TABC and testified that a
PBT result would not be admissible in court Agent Nurmery testified he did not have the ability
to give Ms Walls an intoxilyzer or breathalyzer test
Agent Shirley Agent Cayea and Mr Wangler each at about the same moment
concluded that something was wrong with Ms Walls The physical indicators that
Agent Shirley Agent Cayea and Agent Nunnery observed are associated with alcohol
intoxication Ms Wallss recollection of events especially the searching of her purse and her
being escorted outside by Agent Nunnery and Mr George are contradicted by the testimony of
both and their recorded observations23 Ms Walls was and remains confused about the sequence
of the events of the night and that confusion is further evidence of her impairment
21 Emerson at 766 NHTSA SFST Manual at VIII-8 (2006) found at httpoagdcgovnode443812 22 Although Mr Wise testified that Petitioner had an in-house PBT neither Mr Wangler nor Mr George requested Ms Wall to submit a specimen of her breath before or after the TABC arrived 23 Respondent argued that Agent Nunnerys written report contradicted his testimony that he stood outside with Ms Walls waiting for the cab in an effort to impeach his testimony It is true that the report does not mention that episode However Mr Georges testimony and written memorandum agreed with and supported Agent Nunnerys testimony
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE16
The ALJ concludes that a preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that Ms Walls
Respondents employee had lost normal use of her mental or physical faculties by reason of the
introduction of alcohol on the licensed premises 24
24 Ms Wallss anxiety medication was not identified nor was any expert testimony offered on the effects of the mediation or its interaction with alcohol For example Ms Walls testified that she had not eaten that day and that her medication affects her on an empty stomach However Mr George testified Ms Walls told the agents that she has an eating problem and that if she doesnt eat she will feel weak and unstable and that she hadnt ate all day According to Agent Nunnery Ms Walls denied taking any medications Given these contradictions the ALJ recommends that no finding be made on whether Ms Walls was intoxicated due to her medication or its interaction with alcohol 25 16TACsect342 26 Resp Ex I 27 16 TACsect 342 28 16 TACsect 34l(g)(J) and (4)
The ALJ recommends that the Commission find that Petitioner violatedsect 1 l6l(b)(13) of
the Code
The Staff recommended a 36 day suspension of the Respondents permit or in the
alternative a civil penalty of$300 per day for the recommended 36 days or $10800 for a second
violation of sect 1 l6l(b)(l3) of the Code25 According to Petitioners administrative record
Petitioner had a prior violation of sect 1 l61(b)(l3) which occmTed on December 20 2013
Petitioner was assessed an administrative penalty of $5100 (the equivalent of a 17 day
suspension) which was reduced to $4500 (the equivalent of a 15 day suspension) after
completion of an employee educational program on March 21 2014 which was paid on
March 26 201426 A violation of is sect l l6l(b)(13) a health safety and welfare violation27
Under the Commissions rule a subsequent violation of the Code or rule will result in a sanction
in the next higher violation level if the subsequent violation is for a health safety and welfare
violation and occurs within 36 months of the prior violation and the subsequent violation is
issued during an undercover operation28 The subsequent violation was on March 1 2014
which is within 36 months of the prior violation on December 20 2013 The March 1 2014
violation was issued during an undercover investigation
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE 17
Respondent argued that the amount of civil penalty should be reduced upon a
consideration of the ameliorating circumstances concerning the violation29 The ameliorating
circumstances cited by Respondent are Respondents practices and policies described above
and the fact that Mr Wangler immediately removed Ms Walls from the dance floor when he
observed something wrong with her The Commission has stated that Texass policy is for
Neither the permit holder nor an agent servant or employee of the permit holder to be
intoxicated o the premises in the first place30 Moreover Respondents prior violation of
sect l l6l(b)(l3) is an aggravating circumstance under the same statute31 Respondent is not
entitled to a reduction in the proposed suspension or penalty
29 sect l l641(a)(3) of the Code sect J l64Jnotes that ameliorating circumstances include those enumerated in Section l l64(c) The circumstances listed in I l64(c) namely that the violation could not reasonably have been prevented by the permittee or licensee by the exercise of due diligence that the permittee or licensee was entrapped that an agent servant or employee of the permittee or licensee violated this code without the knowledge of the permittee or licensee that the permittee or licensee did not knowingly violate this code that the permittee or licensee has demonstrated good faith including the taking of actions to rectify the consequences of the violation and to deter future violations or (6) that the violation was a technical one have no factual support in the record 30 Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission Board Final Order TABC Docket No 599022 (SOAH Docket No 458shy11-3550) (January 18 2012) at 3 31 sect I I641(a)(4) ofthe Code
The ALJ recommends that Respondents permit be suspended for 36 days or in the
alternative Respondent be assessed a civil penalty of $300 per day for 36 days for a total penalty
of$10800
III FINDINGS OF FACT
I The Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission (TABC) issued Mixed Beverage Permit MB753709 which includes a Mixed Beverage Late Hours Permit and a Beverage Cartage Permit to Respondent 2345 Meacham LLC dba Buckss Cabaret
2 Respondents licensed premises are located at 2345 Meacham Boulevard Fort Worth Tarrant County Texas 76106
3 On March 1 2014 TABC Agent Denver Carleton led a squad of TABC agents namely Sergeant Charlotte Knox and agents Travis Shirley Charles Cayea and Christopher Nunnery in an undercover investigation of the Respondents premises
4 Agents Shirley and Cayea were the undercover team
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE 18
5 Agent Carleton Sergeant Knox and Agent Nunnery were the open team
6 Agents Shirley and Cayea entered Respondents premises at approximately 11 00 pm on March 1 2014
7 Kaitlyn Walls was a dancer at Respondents bar
8 Ms Walls was working that night beginning at approximately 700 pm
9 Ms Walls danced on the main stage and then on the smaller stages in rotation
10 Ms Walls approached a customer and sat next to him at the bar near the agents
11 Ms Walls and her barstool fell to the floor
12 Ms Walls had a glassy blank stare and disheveled hair
13 Ms Walls swayed while walking and ran into the door frame of the doorway leading to the clubs dancers dressing room
14 Agents Shirley and Cayea contacted the open team and informed them that they believed Ms Walls was intoxicated
15 The two agents sent the open team Ms Wallss description and her location in the dressing room by text message
16 Agents Shirley and Cayea left the club after the open team entered the club
17 Agent Nunnery came into close contact with Ms Walls
18 Ms Walls had slmTed speech was not aware of where her cell phone was even though she was holding it nearly fell down twice as she was dressing had glassy eyes swayed standing and lost her balance twice during field sobriety testing
19 Ms Walls admitted to drinking three alcoholic beverages
20 Ms Walls displayed physical and mental indications of intoxication
21 On March 1 2014 Ms Walls did not have the normal use of her mental or physical faculties by reason of the introduction of alcohol into her body
22 On March 1 2014 Ms Walls was an employee of Respondent
23 Petitioner had a prior violation ofsect l l6I(b)(l3) of the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code (the Code) which occurred on December 20 2013 Petitioner was assessed an administrative penalty which was paid on March 26 2014
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE 19
24 The violation which is the subject of this contested case was on March 1 2014 which is within 36 months of the prior violation on December 20 2013
25 The March 1 2014 violation was issued during an undercover investigation
26 On April 14 2015 Staff issued its Notice of Hearing which contained information regarding the date time and place of the hearing the matters asserted the statutes and rules involved and the legal authorities under which the hearing would be held
27 The hearing in this matter convened before Administrative Law Judge Robert F Jones Jr on October 22 2015 at the State Office of Administrative Hearings (SOAH) in Fort Worth Texas Sheila A Lindsey of the TABC Legal Services Division appeared and represented the Staff Respondent appeared by its attorney Roger Albright Evidence was received and the record closed that day
IV CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1 TABC has jurisdiction over this matter Tex Alco Bev Code (the Code) Chapter 5
2 SOAH has jurisdiction to conduct the administrative hearing in this matter and to issue a proposal for decision containing proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law Tex Govt Code Chapter 2003
3 Proper and timely notice of the hearing was provided to Respondent Tex Govt Code sect 2001051-052
4 Respondent violated sect l l6l(b)(l3) of the Code which authorizes the Commission to suspend a pe1mit if the pe1mittee was intoxicated on the licensed premises
5 A 36 day suspension of Respondents Mixed Beverage Permit MB753709 which includes a Mixed Beverage Late Hours Permit and a Beverage Cartage Permit or in the alternative a civil penalty of $300 per day for the recommended 36 days a total of $10800 is appropriate sectsect l l6l(b)(l3) and 1164 of the Code 16 Tex Admin Codesect 342
SIGNED December 17 2015
OBERT F JO ES JR ADMINISTRATI W JUDGE STATE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
STATE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS FT WORTH OFFICE
6777 Camp Bowie Blvd Suite 400 Fort Worth Texas 76116
Phone (817) 731-1733 Fax (512) 322-0473
SERVICE LIST
AGENCY Alcoholic Beverage Commission Texas (TABC)
STYLECASE 2345 MEACHAM LLC DBA BUCKS CABARET
SOAH DOCKET NUMBER 458-15-3318
REFERRING AGENCY CASE 624309
STATE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE
HEARINGS
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
ALJ ROBERT JONES
REPRESENTATIVEADDRESS
SHEILA LINDSEY - SANDERS STAFF ATTORNEY TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION 427 W 20TH STREET SUITE 600 HOUSTON TX 77008 (713) 426-7900 (PH) (713) 862-7478 (FAX)
PARTIES
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION
ROGER ALBRIGHT ATTORNEY AT LAW 3301 ELM STREET DALLAS TX 75226 (214) 939-9224 (PH) (214) 939-9229 (FAX) ralawrogeralbrightcom
ROGER ALBRIGHT
xc Docket Clerk State Office of Administrative Hearings Emily Helm GENERAL COUNSEL TABC Fax No 512-206-3226
Pagel of I
DOCKET NO 624309
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE
COMMISSION Petitioner
VS
2345 MEACHAM LLC
DBA BUCKrsquoS CABARET
Respondent
PERMIT MB753709 LB PE
TARRANT COUNTY TEXAS
(SOAH DOCKET NO 458-15-3318)
BEFORE THE TEXAS
ALCOHOLIC
BEVERAGE COMMISSION
ORDER
CAME ON FOR CONSIDERATION this 14th day of October 2016 the above-styled
and numbered cause
After proper notice was given this case was heard by the State Office of Administrative
Hearings (SOAH) with Administrative Law Judge Robert F Jones Jr presiding The hearing
convened on October 22 2015 and the SOAH record closed the same date The Administrative
Law Judge made and filed a Proposal for Decision containing Findings of Fact and Conclusions
of Law on December 17 2015 The Proposal for Decision was properly served on all parties
who were given an opportunity to file exceptions and replies as part of the record herein No
exceptions were filed
After review and due consideration of the Proposal for Decision I adopt the Findings of
Fact and Conclusions of Law of the Administrative Law Judge that are contained in the Proposal
for Decision and incorporate those Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law into this Order as if
such were fully set out and separately stated herein
All motions requests for entry of Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
and any other requests for general or specific relief submitted by any party are denied unless
specifically adopted herein
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the privileges granted by the Commission and the
activities authorized under the above permit by the Code will be SUSPENDED beginning at
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
__________________________________________
__________________________________________
1201 am on November 30th 2016 and shall remain suspended for THIRTY-SIX (36)
DAYS UNLESS a civil penalty in the amount of $1080000 is paid ON OR BEFORE
November 22nd 2016
This Order will become final and enforceable on the 15th day of November
2016 unless a Motion for Rehearing is filed by the 14th day of November 2016
SIGNED this the 14th day of October 2016 at Austin Texas
Sherry K-Cook Executive Director
Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that the persons listed below were served with a copy of this Order in the manner
indicated below on this the 14th day of October 2016
Martin Wilson Assistant General Counsel
Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission
Robert F Jones Jr
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
State Office of Administrative Hearings
300 W 15th
Street Suite 502
Austin TX 78701
VIA FACSIMILE (512) 322-2061
2345 Meacham LLC
dba Buckrsquos Cabaret
RESPONDENT
PO Box 271289
Flower Mound TX 75027
VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL CMRRR 70160600000046455820
Roger Albright
ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENT
3301 Elm Street
Dallas TX 75226
VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL CMRRR 70160600000046455837
Shelia Lindsey
ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER
TABC Legal Division
VIA E-MAIL Shelialindseytabctexasgov
__________________________________
__________________________________
__________________________________
__________________________________
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION
CIVIL PENALTY REMITTANCE
DOCKET NUMBER 624309 REGISTER NUMBER
NAME 2345 MEACHAM LLC
TRADENAME Buckrsquos Cabaret
ADDRESS PO Box 271289 Flower Mound Texas
DUE DATE November 22 2016
PERMITS OR LICENSES MB753709 LB PE
AMOUNT OF PENALTY $1080000
Amount remitted $____________________ Date remitted ____________________________
You may pay a civil penalty rather than have your permits and licenses suspended if an amount
for civil penalty is included on the attached order
YOU HAVE THE OPTION TO PAY THE CIVIL PENALTY ONLY IF YOU PAY THE
ENTIRE AMOUNT ON OR BEFORE THE DUE DATE AFTER THAT DATE YOUR
LICENSE OR PERMIT WILL BE SUSPENDED FOR THE TIME PERIOD STATED ON
THE ORDER
Mail this form with your payment to
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION
PO Box 13127 Austin Texas 78711
Overnight Delivery Address 5806 Mesa Dr Austin Texas 78731
You must pay by postal money order certified check or cashiers check No personal or
company check nor partial payment accepted Your payment will be returned if anything is
incorrect You must pay the entire amount of the penalty assessed
Attach this form and please make certain to include the Docket on your payment
Signature of Responsible Party
Street Address PO Box No
City State Zip Code
Area CodeTelephone No
Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2
DOCKET NO 624309
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE
COMMISSION Petitioner
sect
sect
sect
sect
VS sect
sect
sect
sect
2345 MEACHAM LLC
DBA BUCKrsquoS CABARET
Respondent
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
PERMIT MB753709 LB PE sect
sect
sect
TARRANT COUNTY TEXAS
(SOAH DOCKET NO 458-15-3318)
sect
sect
BEFORE THE TEXAS
BEVERAGE COMMISSION
ALCOHOLIC
ORDER DENYING M OTION FOR REHEARING
Page 1 of 3
CAME ON FOR CONSIDERATION this 1st day of December 2016 the above-styled
and numbered cause
On October 14 2016 an Order was issued in this cause suspending Respondents permits
for a period of 36 days unless a civil penalty in the amount of $10800 was paid A timely
Motion for RehearingReconsideration was filed by Respondent on November 11 2016 and a
Supplemental Motion for Rehearing was filed by Respondent on November 16 2016 Petitioner
filed a Response to Respondents Motion for RehearingReconsideration on November 22 2016
Having considered Respondents Motion for RehearingReconsideration
Respondents Supplemental Motion for Rehearing and Petitioners Response to Respondents
Motion for RehearingReconsideration Respondents Motion for RehearingReconsideration is
DENIED
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that IF THIS ORDER IS NOT APPEALED
WITHIN THE TIME ALLOWED BY ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CODE sect1167 the
privileges granted by the Commission and the activities authorized under the above permits by
the Code will be SUSPENDED beginning at 1201 am on January 25 2017 and shall remain
suspended for THIRTY SIX (36) CONSECUTIVE DAYS UNLESS a civil penalty in the
amount of $1080000 is paid in lieu of suspension ON OR BEFORE January 17 2017
__________________________________________
_________________________________________
IF THIS ORDER IS APPEALED AND THE DECISION IS AFFIRMED IT IS
ORDERED that the privileges granted by the Commission and the activities authorized under
the above permits by the Code will be SUSPENDED beginning at 1201 am on the fifteenth
(15th
) day following the date the decision is affirmed whether by Order or by operation of law
and shall remain suspended for THIRTY SIX (36) CONSECUTIVE DAYS UNLESS a civil
penalty in the amount of $1080000 is paid in lieu of suspension ON OR BEFORE the seventh
(7th
) day following the date the decision is affirmed whether by Order or by operation of law
SIGNED this the 1st day of December 2016 at Austin Texas
Sherry K-Cook Executive Director
Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that the persons listed below were served with a copy of this Order Denying
Motion for Rehearing in the manner indicated below on this the 1st day of December 2016
Martin Wilson Assistant General Counsel
Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission
Page 2 of 3
Robert F Jones Jr
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
State Office of Administrative Hearings
300 W 15th
Street Suite 502
Austin TX 78701
VIA FACSIMILE (512) 322-2061
2345 Meacham LLC
dba Buckrsquos Cabaret
RESPONDENT
PO Box 271289
Flower Mound TX 75027
VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL CMRRR 70160340000080983298
Roger Albright
ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENT
3301 Elm Street
Dallas TX 75226
VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL CMRRR70160340000080983281
Shelia Lindsey
ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER
TABC Legal Division
VIA E-MAIL Shelialindseytabctexasgov
Page 3 of 3
__________________________________
__________________________________
__________________________________
__________________________________
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION
CIVIL PENALTY REMITTANCE
DOCKET NUMBER 624309 REGISTER NUMBER
NAME 2345 Meacham LLC
TRADENAME Buckrsquos Cabaret
ADDRESS PO Box 271289 Flower Mound Texas
DUE DATE January 17 2017
PERMITS OR LICENSES MB753709 PE LB
AMOUNT OF PENALTY $1080000
Amount remitted $____________________ Date remitted ____________________________
You may pay a civil penalty rather than have your permits and licenses suspended if an amount
for civil penalty is included on the attached order
YOU HAVE THE OPTION TO PAY THE CIVIL PENALTY ONLY IF YOU PAY THE
ENTIRE AMOUNT ON OR BEFORE THE DUE DATE AFTER THAT DATE YOUR
LICENSE OR PERMIT WILL BE SUSPENDED FOR THE TIME PERIOD STATED ON
THE ORDER
Mail this form with your payment to
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION
PO Box 13127 Austin Texas 78711
Overnight Delivery Address 5806 Mesa Dr Austin Texas 78731
You must pay by postal money order certified check or cashiers check No personal or
company check nor partial payment accepted Your payment will be returned if anything is
incorrect You must pay the entire amount of the penalty assessed
Attach this form and please make certain to include the Docket on your payment
Signature of Responsible Party
Street Address PO Box No
City State Zip Code
Area CodeTelephone No
Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2
CAUSE NO 348-289708-16
2345 MEACHAM LLC DBA BUCKS CABARET
Plaintiff
v
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION
Defendant
sect IN THE DISTRICT COURT
348TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
TARRANT COUNTY TEXAS
sect sect sect sect sect sect sect sect sect
ORDER AFFIRMING TABC DECISION fllJ()1)1-j 13J
On tkis day came on to be heard the above-tyled and numbered cause
pursuant to Ch 2001 ofthe Texas Government Code (the Administrative Procedure
Act) and sect 1167 of the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code 2345 Meacham LLC
dba Bucks Cabaret and the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission appeared by
and through their attorneys of record and announced ready All matters of fact and
controversy were submitted The Court after reviewing the evidence and hearing
the arguments of counsel finds that the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission
Order of October 14 2016 is supported by substantial evidence
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED ADJUDGED and DECREED that the
Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commissions Order of October 14 2016 suspending
Plaintiffs Mixed Beverage Permit MB753709 and the associated Beverage Cartage
Permit and Mixed Beverage Late Hours Permit is supported by substantial
evidence and thus is AFFIRMED _1 L IJND Tltld1lt lJAS t-lltJ cflfAfl ltJr tlJ~
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED ADJUDGED and DECREED that the Plaintiff
shall take nothing by this suit and that Defendant shall be in all things discharged
ion
ON ALL SERVED VIAIE-MAILED - HAND DtLIVERY -MAIL
=----WHO 16 TO
_--13 1
SElVE COPIEIS ON gtLL OTHEN
and that the costs ofcourt are taxed against the party incurring same All other relief
not expressly granted herein is denied
This judgment is final disposes of all claims and parties and is appealable f-b
SIGNED and ENTERED this 3 day ofJanuary 2017 L
348TH DISTRICT COURT
2
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE3
of the bar area near them under their observation There were 150 to 200 patrons in the club and
between five and eight floor managers or hosts working in the club
Kaitlyn Walls was a dancer at Respondents bar She began her shift at approximately
700 pm Agents Shirley and Cayea each testified they observed Ms Walls dancing on the main
stage and then on the smaller stages in rotation Ms Wallss demeanor as they observed it from
their seats appeared normal to them Ms Walls was wearing a gold or yellow bikini and high
heels which allowed the agents to distinguish her from the other dancers Mr Wangler was the
general manager of Respondent in 2014 He had also observed Ms Walls during this time
period and agreed that Ms Walls did not act as if she was intoxicated
Ms Walls approached a customer and sat next to him at the bar near the agents
Ms Walls took a black baseball cap from the customers head and placed it on her own
According to the agents the baseball cap fell off and as Ms Walls was leaning down and
attempting to pick up the cap she fell off her bar stool The stool tipped over and fell on
Ms Walls She had difficulty in rising and setting the stool upright
The agents noted that Ms Walls was carrying a small glass containing brown liquid
Agent Shirley recalled that Ms Walls remarked to the bartender that the drink tastes like
water 2 Neither agent saw any bartender serve Ms Walls and had no idea where she got the
glass she was carrying or what was in it Agent Cayea stated that Ms Walls had a glassy blank
stare and disheveled hair Although Agent Shirley did not recall it Agent Cayeas report of the
incident noted that a second man had approached Ms Walls while she at the bar and spoke to
her The agents testified that when Ms Walls left the bar she swayed while walking and ran into
the door frame of the doorway leading to the clubs dancers dressing room
2 Ms Walls testified she did not recall saying This drink tastes like water
Based upon what they had seen Agents Shirley and Cayea contacted the open team and
informed them that they believed Ms Walls was intoxicated They sent the open team
Ms Walls s description and her location in the dressing room by text message Once the open
team entered the club the two agents left
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE4
Mr Wangler testified that the Respondents dancers drank alcohol while dancing The
club did not have a set limit on the amount they could consume The bartenders and wait staff
were instructed to monitor the dancers intake and warn management if they believed a dancer
was or was becoming impaired Respondent employed a house mom stationed in the dancers
dressing room to oversee the dancers on the premises Mr Wangler testified that for the
purposes of sect 116I(b)(13) the Code Respondents dancers were employees Mr Wangler
testified he and Respondent took all reasonable and appropriate steps to monitor alcohol
consumption by dancers and patrons on the premises Respondents policy was to send any
dancer home if she became or was becoming intoxicated
Mr Wangler knew Ms Walls very well She had been dancing at the club for four years
She had no history of intoxication at work and as far as Mr Wangler knew did not have a
drinking problem Mr Wangler observed Ms Walls that night as she was dancing at the main
and subsidiary stages and also observed her approach the patron at the bar Ms Walls did not
appear impaired to him Mr Wangler testified that Ms Walls did not fall off the stool Instead
he believed that Ms Walls pushed back from the bar and the stools back legs caught on a lip
formed by the juncture of the tile floor and the rug that covered most of the club floor The catch
on the lip caused the stool to over-balance and fall with Ms Walls landing on top ofit
Mr Wangler testified he approached Ms Walls at the bar and spoke with her3
Mr Wangler reported that Ms Walls told him she had taken her pills From closer
observation he did not believe that Ms Walls was intoxicated but also was concerned that
Ms Walls was not right Mr Wangler testified he had the perception that something was a
little off or different with Ms Walls which he attributed to her pills or whatever
Mr Wangler related that Ms Walls had lived in his home for a period and based upon his
familiarity with her he was convinced she was not impaired but believed she should have
something to eat and take a cab home He sent her to the dressing room Mr Wangler stated he
was not taking any chances and he sent her home in case she was impaired Mr Wangler
had never had to send Ms Walls home before
3 Mr Wangler was the second man at the bar mentioned in Agent Cayeas report
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGES
After Mr Wangler directed Ms Walls to go to the dressing room he told Jonathon
George a floor manager on duty to get her something to eat Mr Wangler did not think
Ms Walls was actually impaired or intoxicated because she did not smell like alcohol or
anything like that Mr Wangler did not observe Ms Walls to be unsteady when walking or
have difficulty standing upright He ordered her something to eat because he always did that in
similar situations Mr Wangler testified he did not know what type of pills Ms Walls had taken
but he was aware that Ms Walls was taking medication4 He had never asked her about the
medication or its side effects Mr Wangler instrncted the house mom on duty not to allow
Ms Walls back on the floor
Mr George was a floor manager or host at Respondents premises and was working the
night of March I 2014 Mr George was required to monitor the alcohol intake of dancers and
customers at the club and to intervene if needed to cut off a customer offer food and offer a car
ride He watched for signs of intoxication or rising aggressiveness in patrons and dancers
Mr George did not have any particular interaction with Ms Walls prior to the open teams entry
in the club He did not observe anything out of the ordinary Mr George recalled seeing
Ms Walls at the clubs bar during that night but did not see her drinking and did not witness the
incident with the barstool
Ms Walls testified that she began her shift at approximately 700 pm She had not eaten
that day She was allowed to drink while on a dancing shift and that night had two or three
crown and cokes between 700 pm and midnight Ms Walls also took her anxiety medication
that night She knew that the club had a policy that dancers could not be intoxicated on the
premises Ms Walls explained that when she was first hired she was instrncted that if she was
intoxicated she would be fired or lose her right to dance at the club Prior to March I st she had
not been sent home for any reason
Ms Walls testified she was not intoxicated Ms Walls stated she was steady on her feet
that night She stated she did not walk or almost walk into a door frame Ms Walls testified
4 Ms Walls testified that Mr Wangler was aware she was taking medication
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE6
the barstool fell because she had hooked her high-heeled shoes on the barstools foot rest and
leaned back pushing with her hands on the bar The stool caught on the carpet and overshy
balanced She was caught in the stool by her high-heels and fell or stumbled with it She
testified that Mr Wangler approached her told her to eat something and said he might send her
home Mr Wangler sent Ms Walls home because her chair had fallen down and in her words
I made a fool of myself
C The Open Team
Just prior to the TABC agents entering the club Mr Wangler told Mr George that he
was sending Ms Walls home Mr Wangler did not tell Mr George that Ms Walls was
intoxicated but said she was not feeling well or words to that effect Mr George was going to
the front entrance to call a cab when he saw the T ABC open team enter the club He recognized
them as agents he had met before He observed that the agents were intent on a mission and
did not stop to speak to a manager as they usually did on a bar check He followed the agents to
the dressing room They began questioning Ms Walls after apparently identifying her from a
picture or description on one of the agents cell phone Mr George noted that Agent Knox had
most of the preliminary contact with Ms Walls During the course of the questioning an agent
asked Ms Walls how she was going to get home and she responded that she had called her
mother to pick her up at the club
Agent Nunnery was a part of the open team He testified the team went to the club
dressing room as directed by the undercover team Sgt Knox made the initial contact with
Ms Walls while Agent Nunnery stood in the doorway of the dressing room to secure the
location Agent Nunnery testified that he subsequently came into close contact with Ms Walls
She seemed intoxicated Her speech was slurred Ms Walls had her cell phone in her hand or
pocket but kept asking the officers where her cell phone was Agent Nunnery observed that
Ms Walls nearly fell down twice as she was dressing and attempted to place her left shoe on her
right foot 5 Ms Walls dressed in pants at-shirt and tennis shoes
5 Mr George did not recall Ms Walls having any confusion over the location of her cell phone or putting a shoe on the wrong foot
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE7
Ms Walls recalled that she went to the dressing room to wait and shortly afterward the
TABC open team entered Ms Walls stated she was looking for her phone in her garment or
dance bag According to Ms Walls Sergeant Knox grabbed her bag When Ms Walls found
her phone Sgt Knox told her to call her mother to pick her up Ms Walls called her mother and
at Sgt Knoxs insistence allowed Sgt Knox to speak with her mother to arrange a pick-up
Because Ms Walls and her mother lived in Lewisville 45 minutes away Sgt Knox decided
Ms Walls needed to take a cab
According to Ms Walls as she was dressing one of the officers grabbed her purse and
began searching it Ms Walls stated that there was a prescription bottle in the purse for what she
called her anxiety medication According to Ms Walls the officer told her they had permission
to go through her purse or were authorized to because of the presence of the prescription bottle
Ms Walls stated that she did not eat that day and had taken her medication that day She Said
the medication affects [her] on an empty stomach None of the officers asked Ms Walls the
name of the medication she was taking for a copy of the prescription or if she had taken any
that night
Ms Walls testified that after she was dressed she and the officers went to the managers
office As Ms Walls recalled the only field sobriety test was looking in her eyes and the
agent said they were glassy and red
Mr George recalled that at the agents request he took Ms Walls and the agents to the
managers office He noted that the agents did not use a portable breath tester (PBT) or any
other type of breath test device Mr George stated he mediated between Ms Walls and the
agents in the managers office Mr George stated that Ms Walls was cooperative though
anxious confused and agitated Mr George observed that Ms Walls stood balanced in the
dressing room speaking to the officers while she was getting dressed and while speaking on the
phone with her mother The only time he observed her as unsteady was during the field sobriety
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGES
test Mr George stated that Ms Walls told the agents that she has an eating problem and that if
she doesnt eat she will feel weak and unstable and that she hadnt ate all day6
6 Resp Ex I at 2 7 Resp Ex I at 2
Mr George observed Agent Nunnery conduct a field sobriety test and heard him
conclude that Ms Walls was intoxicated Mr George witnessed Agent Nunnery attempt to
conduct the horizontal gaze nystagmus (HGN) with Ms Walls He noted the agent told
Ms Walls to follow the pen he used as a stimulus with her eyes and not to move her head or
body Mr George noted that as Agent Nunnery conducted the test Ms Walls twice stumbled to
her right side7 According to Mr George once he had conducted the HGN Agent Nunnery told
Agent Carleton he had all he needed
According to Mr George Agent Nunnery stated he believed Ms Walls was intoxicated
on more than just alcohol He asked Ms Walls if she was taking any prescription medication
Ms Walls stated she was taking a prescription medication but Mr George did not recall or write
down what the medication was
Mr George stated that he took Ms Walls outside to wait for the cab and at some point
he re-entered inside the club When Mr George returned outside he saw Agent Nunnery
searching Ms Walls s purse According to Mr George Agent Nunnery found a prescription
bottle and told Ms Walls the narcotics he had found justified the search According to
Mr George Agent Knox asked him to be sure Ms Walls took the cab and the agents left before
Ms Wallss cab arrived
Agent Nunnery personally observed Ms Walls in the managers office She had the odor
of an alcoholic beverage on her breath and person had glassy eyes had slurred speech and
swayed standing Agent Nunnery is trained in field sobriety tests In particular Agent Nunnery
is certified to conduct the HGN examinations Agent Nunnery testified that HGN identifies the
level of intoxication Agent Nunnery started the HGN and observed Ms Walls that exhibited
two clues - lack of smooth pursuit in both eyes Agent Nunnery had Ms Walls conduct the test
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE9
standing He stopped the test when she lost her balance twice Agent Nunnery had Ms Walls sit
down He testified that the HGN cannot be conducted when the subject is seated As a
consequence Agent Nunnery testified he could not complete the test
Agent Nunnery agreed he asked Ms Walls if she was taking any medication because
narcotics could affect the HGN results According to Agent Nunnery Ms Walls denied taking
any medications When asked by Agent Nunnery Ms Walls stated she had consumed three
whiskey and cokes
Agent Nunnery stated that Ms Walls was sent home in a cab and he waited outside the
club with Ms Walls to assure she left8 He noted that Mr George was also outside Agent
Nunnery testified that Ms Walls dropped her purse and the contents spilled including cigarette
rolling papers Agent Nunnery asked Ms Walls what the papers were for and she replied for
marijuana Agent Nunnery asked Ms Walls if she had possession of any illegal drugs and she
replied she had already smoked it all9 Agent Nunnery testified that Ms Walls consented to a
search of her purse and Agent Nunnery searched her purse He found nothing He specifically
denied finding a prescription bottle The cab arrived and Ms Walls was released
Ms Walls was not arrested that night Respondent was issued an administrative notice
for violation ofsect 1 l61(b)(l3) of the Code
D Respondents Policies and Procedures
Curtis Wise is the owner of Respondent Mr Wise was not present at the premises on
March 1 2014 Mr Wise is familiar with the statute prohibiting a permittees employee from
being intoxicated on the licensed premises Mr Wise did not object and did not correct
8 Ms Walls did not recall any of the agents waiting outside with her for the cab Instead she recalled that Mr George Mr Wangler the three agents and she waited in the office for the cab and when it arrived Mr George walked her out to the cab 9 Mr Wangler stated he did not know if Ms Walls had smoked marijuana that night and also related that she did not smoke in his house during the eleven months she lived there Ms Walls stated it was possible she had cigarette rolling papers at the bottom of her purse because she had carried the purse for years She denied smoking marijuana that night Ms Walls also denied dropping her purse Mr George did not recall a discussion of rolling papers or marijuana use No witness testified that they smelled the odor of burned marijuana on Ms Wallss person
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGElO
Mr Wanglers testimony that Respondents dancers were employees for the purposes of
sect 1 l61(b)(13) of the Code Mr Wise listed a number of actions Respondent takes to assure
compliance with sect l 161(b)(13) A doorman is on duty every night to screen patrons for
intoxication before they enter Further four to seven or eight managers work each night On
March 1 2014 aside from Mr George and Mr Wangler four other managers would have been
working the floor The managers conduct daily pre-shift meetings with wait staff and bartenders
to emphasize the need to monitor alcohol consumption and signs of intoxication in dancers and
patrons All the bartenders are T ABC sellerserver certified The bartenders and wait staff were
instructed to monitor the dancers intake and warn management if they believed a dancer was or
was becoming impaired Floor managers were required to monitor the alcohol intake of dancers
and customers at the club and to intervene if needed to cut off a customer offer food and offer a
car ride Respondent employed a house mom stationed in the dancers dressing room to
oversee the dancers on the premises Mr Wise asked TABC to conduct an alcohol awareness
class and required all employees and dancers to attend 10
10 The class may have been given in conjunction with Respondents settlement of an earlier violation Resp Ex I
Mr Wise stated that Respondent has a breathalyzer that is kept on the premises The
device is used as a guideline to see what an employees breath alcohol concentration might be if
the employee is acting out of the ordinary or may be intoxicated In the past a manager sent an
employee home after the employee failed an in-house breathalyzer test Respondent does not
request patrons to use the device Mr Wise did not recall what make or model the device was
but did note that it had to be sent to the manufacturer for calibration
Mr Wise explained that if a wait staff employee or dancer had to be sent home it would
be the managers decision and Mr Wise would not need to be consulted The matter would be
discussed at the weekly management meeting when discipline would be decided a second
chance a reduction of time (a week or a month off) or a termination There was such a meeting
after the March 1 2014 incident Mr Wise and his mangers discussed what happened and what
could have been done to prevent it Mr Wise could not recall what discipline might have been
imposed on Ms Walls
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE 11
After the March st event Mr Wangler told Mr Wise that Ms Walls was on medication
and Mr Wise asked Mr Wangler what medication she was taking Mr Wangler sent Mr Wise a
text and Mr Wise looked up the medication which he identified as citalopram That drug is an
antidepressant marketed as Celexa However the medication was not positively identified nor
was the medications interaction with alcohol established in the record of this case Mr Wise
testified that Respondent does not have a policy with respect to an employee or a dancer taking
prescription drugs
E Applicable Law
The T ABC may suspend a permit for not more than sixty days if the permittee was
intoxicated on the licensed premises 11 Permittee means a person who is the holder of a
permit provided for in this code or an agent servant or employee of that person12
Intoxicated means not having the normal use of mental or physical faculties by reason of the
introduction of alcohol a controlled substance a drug a dangerous drug a combination of two
or more of those substances or any other substance into the body13 The Staff has the burden of
proof by a preponderance of the evidence 14
11 Tex Alco Bev Code (the Code)sect I l61(b)(l3 12 sect 104(11) of the Code 13 Tex Penal Codesect 4901(2)(A) 14 I Texas Administrative Code (TAC)sect 155427
F Parties Arguments
Staff argued that a preponderance of the evidence proved that Respondents employee
Ms Walls was intoxicated on the licensed premises on March I 2014 Ms Walls displayed
clear signs of intoxication she was unsteady on her feet (both in high-heeled shoes and in tennis
shoes) Ms Walls used other objects for support when walking appeared confused had glassy
eyes and had the odor of an alcoholic beverage on her breath Ms Wallss testimony
contradicted that of Mr George he (as well as Agent Nunnery) stated they waited outside for the
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE 12
cab Ms Walls denied it Accordingly Staff argued that her testimony should not be considered
to be credible
The Staff noted that Mr Wangler testified that something was wrong or off with
Ms Walls He took steps to remove Ms Walls from the club floor Petitioner argued that
Ms Walls had too much to drink or was under the influence of her medication (which the Staff
termed a narcotic) or both The Staff argued that Ms Walls more likely than not knew she was
taking medication that should not have been mixed with alcohol due to a possible adverse
interaction The Staff asserted that Mr Wanglers action in taking Ms Walls off the dance floor
corroborated the testimony of Agents Shirley and Cayea who observed Ms Walls
The Staff recommended a 36 day suspension of the Respondents permit or in the
alternative a civil penalty of $300 per day for the recommended 36 days for a total penalty of
$] 0800 15
15 16TACsect342
Respondent argued that Agent Nunnerys testimony was not credible due to his failure to
recollect details about the evening such as who was present or which agent performed which act
Respondent argued that the Staff was asserting that the permittee is strictly liable for an
employee being intoxicated on the premises That is if the Staff could show that the person was
an employee was physically present on the premises and was intoxicated then the violation
would be proved Respondent argued that SOAH ALJs recognized a further issue that must be
proved whether the employee was working at the time and was in the course and scope of their
employment citing Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission v 13335 Duluth Restaurant and Bar
dlbla La Chatte 16 Respondent argued that Mr Wranglers actions took Ms Walls out of her
course of employment
16 SOAH Docket No 458-11-3550 (July 6 2011)
The Respondents reliance on La Chatte is misplaced The Commissions Final Order in
the case specifically rejected the notion that an employee had to be acting in the course and
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE 13
scope of employment to be treated as a permittee The Commission stated It is not necessary to
decide whether the employee is on the clock in order to decide whether she is treated as the
permittee The Code does not contain that proviso Nor does the Code require that an employee
be engaged in the work she is hired to do in order for her to be treated as the permittee17
Respondent further argued it had done everything it could to monitor and prevent
Ms Walls or any dancer from becoming intoxicated and took action to send Ms Walls home
when something appeared to be wrong Respondent argued that if Ms Walls was intoxicated
some or all of it could be ascribed to her medication In Respondents view the purpose of
sect l l61(b)(13) is to police persons with easy access to alcohol which Respondent asserted it had
done Ms Wallss use of her medication was beyond Respondents control
Respondent argued that if a penalty is imposed in this contested case Respondent would
be entitled to a variance from the standard penalty chart because of the steps Respondent has
taken to avoid a violation ofsect l l61(b)(13) of the Code 18
G Analysis
Staff has to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Ms Walls was Respondents
employee and that she was intoxicated on the licensed premises
Respondent did not dispute that Ms Walls was Respondents employee on
March I 2014 for the purposes ofsect l l61(b)(13) of the Code Since Ms Wallss opportunity to
dance and earn money through Respondents customers was contingent on her following
Respondents rules and policies Ms Walls is fairly described as Petitioners employee for the
purposes of this Proposal for Decision 19
17 Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission Board Final Order TABC Docket No 599022 (SOAH Docket No 458shy11-3550) (January 18 2012) at 1-2 18 sectsect 11641(a)(3) and 1164(c) of the Code 19 Villatoro v Tex Alcoholic Bev Comm n No 05-12-00444-CV (Tex App-Dallas June 3 2013 no writ)
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE 14
Ms Walls testimony established that she had not eaten on March 1 2014 had consumed
at least two and pmt of a third mixed drinks had consumed the drinks between 700 pm and
midnight and that she had taken her prescribed anxiety medication some time during the day
The exact medication she had taken was not established Ms Walls was not asked to identify the
medication that night or at the hearing nor was she asked to produce or subpoenaed to produce
a copy of the prescription Mr Wises identification of the drug as citalopram or Celexa was
based upon information he received from Mr Wangler and cannot be considered as dispositive
Further assuming Ms Walls was taking citalopram or Celexa that particular drugs interaction
with alcohol was not established There was no evidence that Ms Walls smoked marijuana that
night
The undercover team stated that Ms Walls had a glassy blank stare and disheveled hair
swayed while walking and ran into the frame of the doorway leading to the dressing room
Agent Nunnery testified that Ms Walls seemed intoxicated her speech was sinned Ms Walls
had short term memory loss ( concerning her cell phone) nearly fell down twice as she was
dressing and attempted to place her left shoe on her right foot had the odor of an alcoholic
beverage on her breath and person had glassy eyes and swayed standing
Although Ms Walls admitted drinking alcohol that night Mr Wangler testified he did
not believe that Ms Walls was intoxicated but he also was concerned that Ms Walls was not
right Mr Wangler testified he had the perception that something was a little off or
different with Ms Walls Mr George observed that Ms Walls stood balanced while she was
dressing and speaking on the phone with her mother but lost her balance twice during the field
sobriety test Agent Nunnery conducted the HGN and observed Ms Walls that exhibited two
clues lack of smooth pursuit in both eyes He stopped the test when she lost her balance twice
causing Agent Nunnery to have Ms Walls sit down Agent Nunnery interpreted the two HGN
clues as sufficient to conclude that Ms Walls was intoxicated However Ms Walls was not so
intoxicated that she was arrested for public intoxication that is for being intoxicated to the
degree that [Ms Walls might] endanger [herself] or another20
20 Tex Penal Code sect 4902(a)
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE15
The National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) publication states
that an officer must look for the following three criteria in the HGN test (1) an inability to
pursue smoothly an object or stimulus moving sideways across the suspects field of vision (3)
distinct or pronounced nystagmus at the eyes maximum horizontal deviation and (3) an angle
of onset of nystagmus of less than or equal to 45 degrees The officer must look for these criteria
in each eye for a total of six clues If the officer identifies four or more clues then the officer
classifies the suspect as intoxicated21 Accordingly Agent Nunnery was not justified to
conclude Ms Walls was intoxicated based upon the HGN alone
Mr George noted that the agents did not use a portable breath tester (PBT) or any other
type of breath test device22 Agent Nunnery was not issued a PBT by TABC and testified that a
PBT result would not be admissible in court Agent Nurmery testified he did not have the ability
to give Ms Walls an intoxilyzer or breathalyzer test
Agent Shirley Agent Cayea and Mr Wangler each at about the same moment
concluded that something was wrong with Ms Walls The physical indicators that
Agent Shirley Agent Cayea and Agent Nunnery observed are associated with alcohol
intoxication Ms Wallss recollection of events especially the searching of her purse and her
being escorted outside by Agent Nunnery and Mr George are contradicted by the testimony of
both and their recorded observations23 Ms Walls was and remains confused about the sequence
of the events of the night and that confusion is further evidence of her impairment
21 Emerson at 766 NHTSA SFST Manual at VIII-8 (2006) found at httpoagdcgovnode443812 22 Although Mr Wise testified that Petitioner had an in-house PBT neither Mr Wangler nor Mr George requested Ms Wall to submit a specimen of her breath before or after the TABC arrived 23 Respondent argued that Agent Nunnerys written report contradicted his testimony that he stood outside with Ms Walls waiting for the cab in an effort to impeach his testimony It is true that the report does not mention that episode However Mr Georges testimony and written memorandum agreed with and supported Agent Nunnerys testimony
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE16
The ALJ concludes that a preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that Ms Walls
Respondents employee had lost normal use of her mental or physical faculties by reason of the
introduction of alcohol on the licensed premises 24
24 Ms Wallss anxiety medication was not identified nor was any expert testimony offered on the effects of the mediation or its interaction with alcohol For example Ms Walls testified that she had not eaten that day and that her medication affects her on an empty stomach However Mr George testified Ms Walls told the agents that she has an eating problem and that if she doesnt eat she will feel weak and unstable and that she hadnt ate all day According to Agent Nunnery Ms Walls denied taking any medications Given these contradictions the ALJ recommends that no finding be made on whether Ms Walls was intoxicated due to her medication or its interaction with alcohol 25 16TACsect342 26 Resp Ex I 27 16 TACsect 342 28 16 TACsect 34l(g)(J) and (4)
The ALJ recommends that the Commission find that Petitioner violatedsect 1 l6l(b)(13) of
the Code
The Staff recommended a 36 day suspension of the Respondents permit or in the
alternative a civil penalty of$300 per day for the recommended 36 days or $10800 for a second
violation of sect 1 l6l(b)(l3) of the Code25 According to Petitioners administrative record
Petitioner had a prior violation of sect 1 l61(b)(l3) which occmTed on December 20 2013
Petitioner was assessed an administrative penalty of $5100 (the equivalent of a 17 day
suspension) which was reduced to $4500 (the equivalent of a 15 day suspension) after
completion of an employee educational program on March 21 2014 which was paid on
March 26 201426 A violation of is sect l l6l(b)(13) a health safety and welfare violation27
Under the Commissions rule a subsequent violation of the Code or rule will result in a sanction
in the next higher violation level if the subsequent violation is for a health safety and welfare
violation and occurs within 36 months of the prior violation and the subsequent violation is
issued during an undercover operation28 The subsequent violation was on March 1 2014
which is within 36 months of the prior violation on December 20 2013 The March 1 2014
violation was issued during an undercover investigation
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE 17
Respondent argued that the amount of civil penalty should be reduced upon a
consideration of the ameliorating circumstances concerning the violation29 The ameliorating
circumstances cited by Respondent are Respondents practices and policies described above
and the fact that Mr Wangler immediately removed Ms Walls from the dance floor when he
observed something wrong with her The Commission has stated that Texass policy is for
Neither the permit holder nor an agent servant or employee of the permit holder to be
intoxicated o the premises in the first place30 Moreover Respondents prior violation of
sect l l6l(b)(l3) is an aggravating circumstance under the same statute31 Respondent is not
entitled to a reduction in the proposed suspension or penalty
29 sect l l641(a)(3) of the Code sect J l64Jnotes that ameliorating circumstances include those enumerated in Section l l64(c) The circumstances listed in I l64(c) namely that the violation could not reasonably have been prevented by the permittee or licensee by the exercise of due diligence that the permittee or licensee was entrapped that an agent servant or employee of the permittee or licensee violated this code without the knowledge of the permittee or licensee that the permittee or licensee did not knowingly violate this code that the permittee or licensee has demonstrated good faith including the taking of actions to rectify the consequences of the violation and to deter future violations or (6) that the violation was a technical one have no factual support in the record 30 Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission Board Final Order TABC Docket No 599022 (SOAH Docket No 458shy11-3550) (January 18 2012) at 3 31 sect I I641(a)(4) ofthe Code
The ALJ recommends that Respondents permit be suspended for 36 days or in the
alternative Respondent be assessed a civil penalty of $300 per day for 36 days for a total penalty
of$10800
III FINDINGS OF FACT
I The Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission (TABC) issued Mixed Beverage Permit MB753709 which includes a Mixed Beverage Late Hours Permit and a Beverage Cartage Permit to Respondent 2345 Meacham LLC dba Buckss Cabaret
2 Respondents licensed premises are located at 2345 Meacham Boulevard Fort Worth Tarrant County Texas 76106
3 On March 1 2014 TABC Agent Denver Carleton led a squad of TABC agents namely Sergeant Charlotte Knox and agents Travis Shirley Charles Cayea and Christopher Nunnery in an undercover investigation of the Respondents premises
4 Agents Shirley and Cayea were the undercover team
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE 18
5 Agent Carleton Sergeant Knox and Agent Nunnery were the open team
6 Agents Shirley and Cayea entered Respondents premises at approximately 11 00 pm on March 1 2014
7 Kaitlyn Walls was a dancer at Respondents bar
8 Ms Walls was working that night beginning at approximately 700 pm
9 Ms Walls danced on the main stage and then on the smaller stages in rotation
10 Ms Walls approached a customer and sat next to him at the bar near the agents
11 Ms Walls and her barstool fell to the floor
12 Ms Walls had a glassy blank stare and disheveled hair
13 Ms Walls swayed while walking and ran into the door frame of the doorway leading to the clubs dancers dressing room
14 Agents Shirley and Cayea contacted the open team and informed them that they believed Ms Walls was intoxicated
15 The two agents sent the open team Ms Wallss description and her location in the dressing room by text message
16 Agents Shirley and Cayea left the club after the open team entered the club
17 Agent Nunnery came into close contact with Ms Walls
18 Ms Walls had slmTed speech was not aware of where her cell phone was even though she was holding it nearly fell down twice as she was dressing had glassy eyes swayed standing and lost her balance twice during field sobriety testing
19 Ms Walls admitted to drinking three alcoholic beverages
20 Ms Walls displayed physical and mental indications of intoxication
21 On March 1 2014 Ms Walls did not have the normal use of her mental or physical faculties by reason of the introduction of alcohol into her body
22 On March 1 2014 Ms Walls was an employee of Respondent
23 Petitioner had a prior violation ofsect l l6I(b)(l3) of the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code (the Code) which occurred on December 20 2013 Petitioner was assessed an administrative penalty which was paid on March 26 2014
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE 19
24 The violation which is the subject of this contested case was on March 1 2014 which is within 36 months of the prior violation on December 20 2013
25 The March 1 2014 violation was issued during an undercover investigation
26 On April 14 2015 Staff issued its Notice of Hearing which contained information regarding the date time and place of the hearing the matters asserted the statutes and rules involved and the legal authorities under which the hearing would be held
27 The hearing in this matter convened before Administrative Law Judge Robert F Jones Jr on October 22 2015 at the State Office of Administrative Hearings (SOAH) in Fort Worth Texas Sheila A Lindsey of the TABC Legal Services Division appeared and represented the Staff Respondent appeared by its attorney Roger Albright Evidence was received and the record closed that day
IV CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1 TABC has jurisdiction over this matter Tex Alco Bev Code (the Code) Chapter 5
2 SOAH has jurisdiction to conduct the administrative hearing in this matter and to issue a proposal for decision containing proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law Tex Govt Code Chapter 2003
3 Proper and timely notice of the hearing was provided to Respondent Tex Govt Code sect 2001051-052
4 Respondent violated sect l l6l(b)(l3) of the Code which authorizes the Commission to suspend a pe1mit if the pe1mittee was intoxicated on the licensed premises
5 A 36 day suspension of Respondents Mixed Beverage Permit MB753709 which includes a Mixed Beverage Late Hours Permit and a Beverage Cartage Permit or in the alternative a civil penalty of $300 per day for the recommended 36 days a total of $10800 is appropriate sectsect l l6l(b)(l3) and 1164 of the Code 16 Tex Admin Codesect 342
SIGNED December 17 2015
OBERT F JO ES JR ADMINISTRATI W JUDGE STATE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
STATE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS FT WORTH OFFICE
6777 Camp Bowie Blvd Suite 400 Fort Worth Texas 76116
Phone (817) 731-1733 Fax (512) 322-0473
SERVICE LIST
AGENCY Alcoholic Beverage Commission Texas (TABC)
STYLECASE 2345 MEACHAM LLC DBA BUCKS CABARET
SOAH DOCKET NUMBER 458-15-3318
REFERRING AGENCY CASE 624309
STATE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE
HEARINGS
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
ALJ ROBERT JONES
REPRESENTATIVEADDRESS
SHEILA LINDSEY - SANDERS STAFF ATTORNEY TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION 427 W 20TH STREET SUITE 600 HOUSTON TX 77008 (713) 426-7900 (PH) (713) 862-7478 (FAX)
PARTIES
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION
ROGER ALBRIGHT ATTORNEY AT LAW 3301 ELM STREET DALLAS TX 75226 (214) 939-9224 (PH) (214) 939-9229 (FAX) ralawrogeralbrightcom
ROGER ALBRIGHT
xc Docket Clerk State Office of Administrative Hearings Emily Helm GENERAL COUNSEL TABC Fax No 512-206-3226
Pagel of I
DOCKET NO 624309
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE
COMMISSION Petitioner
VS
2345 MEACHAM LLC
DBA BUCKrsquoS CABARET
Respondent
PERMIT MB753709 LB PE
TARRANT COUNTY TEXAS
(SOAH DOCKET NO 458-15-3318)
BEFORE THE TEXAS
ALCOHOLIC
BEVERAGE COMMISSION
ORDER
CAME ON FOR CONSIDERATION this 14th day of October 2016 the above-styled
and numbered cause
After proper notice was given this case was heard by the State Office of Administrative
Hearings (SOAH) with Administrative Law Judge Robert F Jones Jr presiding The hearing
convened on October 22 2015 and the SOAH record closed the same date The Administrative
Law Judge made and filed a Proposal for Decision containing Findings of Fact and Conclusions
of Law on December 17 2015 The Proposal for Decision was properly served on all parties
who were given an opportunity to file exceptions and replies as part of the record herein No
exceptions were filed
After review and due consideration of the Proposal for Decision I adopt the Findings of
Fact and Conclusions of Law of the Administrative Law Judge that are contained in the Proposal
for Decision and incorporate those Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law into this Order as if
such were fully set out and separately stated herein
All motions requests for entry of Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
and any other requests for general or specific relief submitted by any party are denied unless
specifically adopted herein
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the privileges granted by the Commission and the
activities authorized under the above permit by the Code will be SUSPENDED beginning at
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
__________________________________________
__________________________________________
1201 am on November 30th 2016 and shall remain suspended for THIRTY-SIX (36)
DAYS UNLESS a civil penalty in the amount of $1080000 is paid ON OR BEFORE
November 22nd 2016
This Order will become final and enforceable on the 15th day of November
2016 unless a Motion for Rehearing is filed by the 14th day of November 2016
SIGNED this the 14th day of October 2016 at Austin Texas
Sherry K-Cook Executive Director
Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that the persons listed below were served with a copy of this Order in the manner
indicated below on this the 14th day of October 2016
Martin Wilson Assistant General Counsel
Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission
Robert F Jones Jr
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
State Office of Administrative Hearings
300 W 15th
Street Suite 502
Austin TX 78701
VIA FACSIMILE (512) 322-2061
2345 Meacham LLC
dba Buckrsquos Cabaret
RESPONDENT
PO Box 271289
Flower Mound TX 75027
VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL CMRRR 70160600000046455820
Roger Albright
ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENT
3301 Elm Street
Dallas TX 75226
VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL CMRRR 70160600000046455837
Shelia Lindsey
ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER
TABC Legal Division
VIA E-MAIL Shelialindseytabctexasgov
__________________________________
__________________________________
__________________________________
__________________________________
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION
CIVIL PENALTY REMITTANCE
DOCKET NUMBER 624309 REGISTER NUMBER
NAME 2345 MEACHAM LLC
TRADENAME Buckrsquos Cabaret
ADDRESS PO Box 271289 Flower Mound Texas
DUE DATE November 22 2016
PERMITS OR LICENSES MB753709 LB PE
AMOUNT OF PENALTY $1080000
Amount remitted $____________________ Date remitted ____________________________
You may pay a civil penalty rather than have your permits and licenses suspended if an amount
for civil penalty is included on the attached order
YOU HAVE THE OPTION TO PAY THE CIVIL PENALTY ONLY IF YOU PAY THE
ENTIRE AMOUNT ON OR BEFORE THE DUE DATE AFTER THAT DATE YOUR
LICENSE OR PERMIT WILL BE SUSPENDED FOR THE TIME PERIOD STATED ON
THE ORDER
Mail this form with your payment to
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION
PO Box 13127 Austin Texas 78711
Overnight Delivery Address 5806 Mesa Dr Austin Texas 78731
You must pay by postal money order certified check or cashiers check No personal or
company check nor partial payment accepted Your payment will be returned if anything is
incorrect You must pay the entire amount of the penalty assessed
Attach this form and please make certain to include the Docket on your payment
Signature of Responsible Party
Street Address PO Box No
City State Zip Code
Area CodeTelephone No
Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2
DOCKET NO 624309
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE
COMMISSION Petitioner
sect
sect
sect
sect
VS sect
sect
sect
sect
2345 MEACHAM LLC
DBA BUCKrsquoS CABARET
Respondent
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
PERMIT MB753709 LB PE sect
sect
sect
TARRANT COUNTY TEXAS
(SOAH DOCKET NO 458-15-3318)
sect
sect
BEFORE THE TEXAS
BEVERAGE COMMISSION
ALCOHOLIC
ORDER DENYING M OTION FOR REHEARING
Page 1 of 3
CAME ON FOR CONSIDERATION this 1st day of December 2016 the above-styled
and numbered cause
On October 14 2016 an Order was issued in this cause suspending Respondents permits
for a period of 36 days unless a civil penalty in the amount of $10800 was paid A timely
Motion for RehearingReconsideration was filed by Respondent on November 11 2016 and a
Supplemental Motion for Rehearing was filed by Respondent on November 16 2016 Petitioner
filed a Response to Respondents Motion for RehearingReconsideration on November 22 2016
Having considered Respondents Motion for RehearingReconsideration
Respondents Supplemental Motion for Rehearing and Petitioners Response to Respondents
Motion for RehearingReconsideration Respondents Motion for RehearingReconsideration is
DENIED
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that IF THIS ORDER IS NOT APPEALED
WITHIN THE TIME ALLOWED BY ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CODE sect1167 the
privileges granted by the Commission and the activities authorized under the above permits by
the Code will be SUSPENDED beginning at 1201 am on January 25 2017 and shall remain
suspended for THIRTY SIX (36) CONSECUTIVE DAYS UNLESS a civil penalty in the
amount of $1080000 is paid in lieu of suspension ON OR BEFORE January 17 2017
__________________________________________
_________________________________________
IF THIS ORDER IS APPEALED AND THE DECISION IS AFFIRMED IT IS
ORDERED that the privileges granted by the Commission and the activities authorized under
the above permits by the Code will be SUSPENDED beginning at 1201 am on the fifteenth
(15th
) day following the date the decision is affirmed whether by Order or by operation of law
and shall remain suspended for THIRTY SIX (36) CONSECUTIVE DAYS UNLESS a civil
penalty in the amount of $1080000 is paid in lieu of suspension ON OR BEFORE the seventh
(7th
) day following the date the decision is affirmed whether by Order or by operation of law
SIGNED this the 1st day of December 2016 at Austin Texas
Sherry K-Cook Executive Director
Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that the persons listed below were served with a copy of this Order Denying
Motion for Rehearing in the manner indicated below on this the 1st day of December 2016
Martin Wilson Assistant General Counsel
Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission
Page 2 of 3
Robert F Jones Jr
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
State Office of Administrative Hearings
300 W 15th
Street Suite 502
Austin TX 78701
VIA FACSIMILE (512) 322-2061
2345 Meacham LLC
dba Buckrsquos Cabaret
RESPONDENT
PO Box 271289
Flower Mound TX 75027
VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL CMRRR 70160340000080983298
Roger Albright
ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENT
3301 Elm Street
Dallas TX 75226
VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL CMRRR70160340000080983281
Shelia Lindsey
ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER
TABC Legal Division
VIA E-MAIL Shelialindseytabctexasgov
Page 3 of 3
__________________________________
__________________________________
__________________________________
__________________________________
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION
CIVIL PENALTY REMITTANCE
DOCKET NUMBER 624309 REGISTER NUMBER
NAME 2345 Meacham LLC
TRADENAME Buckrsquos Cabaret
ADDRESS PO Box 271289 Flower Mound Texas
DUE DATE January 17 2017
PERMITS OR LICENSES MB753709 PE LB
AMOUNT OF PENALTY $1080000
Amount remitted $____________________ Date remitted ____________________________
You may pay a civil penalty rather than have your permits and licenses suspended if an amount
for civil penalty is included on the attached order
YOU HAVE THE OPTION TO PAY THE CIVIL PENALTY ONLY IF YOU PAY THE
ENTIRE AMOUNT ON OR BEFORE THE DUE DATE AFTER THAT DATE YOUR
LICENSE OR PERMIT WILL BE SUSPENDED FOR THE TIME PERIOD STATED ON
THE ORDER
Mail this form with your payment to
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION
PO Box 13127 Austin Texas 78711
Overnight Delivery Address 5806 Mesa Dr Austin Texas 78731
You must pay by postal money order certified check or cashiers check No personal or
company check nor partial payment accepted Your payment will be returned if anything is
incorrect You must pay the entire amount of the penalty assessed
Attach this form and please make certain to include the Docket on your payment
Signature of Responsible Party
Street Address PO Box No
City State Zip Code
Area CodeTelephone No
Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2
CAUSE NO 348-289708-16
2345 MEACHAM LLC DBA BUCKS CABARET
Plaintiff
v
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION
Defendant
sect IN THE DISTRICT COURT
348TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
TARRANT COUNTY TEXAS
sect sect sect sect sect sect sect sect sect
ORDER AFFIRMING TABC DECISION fllJ()1)1-j 13J
On tkis day came on to be heard the above-tyled and numbered cause
pursuant to Ch 2001 ofthe Texas Government Code (the Administrative Procedure
Act) and sect 1167 of the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code 2345 Meacham LLC
dba Bucks Cabaret and the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission appeared by
and through their attorneys of record and announced ready All matters of fact and
controversy were submitted The Court after reviewing the evidence and hearing
the arguments of counsel finds that the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission
Order of October 14 2016 is supported by substantial evidence
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED ADJUDGED and DECREED that the
Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commissions Order of October 14 2016 suspending
Plaintiffs Mixed Beverage Permit MB753709 and the associated Beverage Cartage
Permit and Mixed Beverage Late Hours Permit is supported by substantial
evidence and thus is AFFIRMED _1 L IJND Tltld1lt lJAS t-lltJ cflfAfl ltJr tlJ~
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED ADJUDGED and DECREED that the Plaintiff
shall take nothing by this suit and that Defendant shall be in all things discharged
ion
ON ALL SERVED VIAIE-MAILED - HAND DtLIVERY -MAIL
=----WHO 16 TO
_--13 1
SElVE COPIEIS ON gtLL OTHEN
and that the costs ofcourt are taxed against the party incurring same All other relief
not expressly granted herein is denied
This judgment is final disposes of all claims and parties and is appealable f-b
SIGNED and ENTERED this 3 day ofJanuary 2017 L
348TH DISTRICT COURT
2
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE4
Mr Wangler testified that the Respondents dancers drank alcohol while dancing The
club did not have a set limit on the amount they could consume The bartenders and wait staff
were instructed to monitor the dancers intake and warn management if they believed a dancer
was or was becoming impaired Respondent employed a house mom stationed in the dancers
dressing room to oversee the dancers on the premises Mr Wangler testified that for the
purposes of sect 116I(b)(13) the Code Respondents dancers were employees Mr Wangler
testified he and Respondent took all reasonable and appropriate steps to monitor alcohol
consumption by dancers and patrons on the premises Respondents policy was to send any
dancer home if she became or was becoming intoxicated
Mr Wangler knew Ms Walls very well She had been dancing at the club for four years
She had no history of intoxication at work and as far as Mr Wangler knew did not have a
drinking problem Mr Wangler observed Ms Walls that night as she was dancing at the main
and subsidiary stages and also observed her approach the patron at the bar Ms Walls did not
appear impaired to him Mr Wangler testified that Ms Walls did not fall off the stool Instead
he believed that Ms Walls pushed back from the bar and the stools back legs caught on a lip
formed by the juncture of the tile floor and the rug that covered most of the club floor The catch
on the lip caused the stool to over-balance and fall with Ms Walls landing on top ofit
Mr Wangler testified he approached Ms Walls at the bar and spoke with her3
Mr Wangler reported that Ms Walls told him she had taken her pills From closer
observation he did not believe that Ms Walls was intoxicated but also was concerned that
Ms Walls was not right Mr Wangler testified he had the perception that something was a
little off or different with Ms Walls which he attributed to her pills or whatever
Mr Wangler related that Ms Walls had lived in his home for a period and based upon his
familiarity with her he was convinced she was not impaired but believed she should have
something to eat and take a cab home He sent her to the dressing room Mr Wangler stated he
was not taking any chances and he sent her home in case she was impaired Mr Wangler
had never had to send Ms Walls home before
3 Mr Wangler was the second man at the bar mentioned in Agent Cayeas report
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGES
After Mr Wangler directed Ms Walls to go to the dressing room he told Jonathon
George a floor manager on duty to get her something to eat Mr Wangler did not think
Ms Walls was actually impaired or intoxicated because she did not smell like alcohol or
anything like that Mr Wangler did not observe Ms Walls to be unsteady when walking or
have difficulty standing upright He ordered her something to eat because he always did that in
similar situations Mr Wangler testified he did not know what type of pills Ms Walls had taken
but he was aware that Ms Walls was taking medication4 He had never asked her about the
medication or its side effects Mr Wangler instrncted the house mom on duty not to allow
Ms Walls back on the floor
Mr George was a floor manager or host at Respondents premises and was working the
night of March I 2014 Mr George was required to monitor the alcohol intake of dancers and
customers at the club and to intervene if needed to cut off a customer offer food and offer a car
ride He watched for signs of intoxication or rising aggressiveness in patrons and dancers
Mr George did not have any particular interaction with Ms Walls prior to the open teams entry
in the club He did not observe anything out of the ordinary Mr George recalled seeing
Ms Walls at the clubs bar during that night but did not see her drinking and did not witness the
incident with the barstool
Ms Walls testified that she began her shift at approximately 700 pm She had not eaten
that day She was allowed to drink while on a dancing shift and that night had two or three
crown and cokes between 700 pm and midnight Ms Walls also took her anxiety medication
that night She knew that the club had a policy that dancers could not be intoxicated on the
premises Ms Walls explained that when she was first hired she was instrncted that if she was
intoxicated she would be fired or lose her right to dance at the club Prior to March I st she had
not been sent home for any reason
Ms Walls testified she was not intoxicated Ms Walls stated she was steady on her feet
that night She stated she did not walk or almost walk into a door frame Ms Walls testified
4 Ms Walls testified that Mr Wangler was aware she was taking medication
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE6
the barstool fell because she had hooked her high-heeled shoes on the barstools foot rest and
leaned back pushing with her hands on the bar The stool caught on the carpet and overshy
balanced She was caught in the stool by her high-heels and fell or stumbled with it She
testified that Mr Wangler approached her told her to eat something and said he might send her
home Mr Wangler sent Ms Walls home because her chair had fallen down and in her words
I made a fool of myself
C The Open Team
Just prior to the TABC agents entering the club Mr Wangler told Mr George that he
was sending Ms Walls home Mr Wangler did not tell Mr George that Ms Walls was
intoxicated but said she was not feeling well or words to that effect Mr George was going to
the front entrance to call a cab when he saw the T ABC open team enter the club He recognized
them as agents he had met before He observed that the agents were intent on a mission and
did not stop to speak to a manager as they usually did on a bar check He followed the agents to
the dressing room They began questioning Ms Walls after apparently identifying her from a
picture or description on one of the agents cell phone Mr George noted that Agent Knox had
most of the preliminary contact with Ms Walls During the course of the questioning an agent
asked Ms Walls how she was going to get home and she responded that she had called her
mother to pick her up at the club
Agent Nunnery was a part of the open team He testified the team went to the club
dressing room as directed by the undercover team Sgt Knox made the initial contact with
Ms Walls while Agent Nunnery stood in the doorway of the dressing room to secure the
location Agent Nunnery testified that he subsequently came into close contact with Ms Walls
She seemed intoxicated Her speech was slurred Ms Walls had her cell phone in her hand or
pocket but kept asking the officers where her cell phone was Agent Nunnery observed that
Ms Walls nearly fell down twice as she was dressing and attempted to place her left shoe on her
right foot 5 Ms Walls dressed in pants at-shirt and tennis shoes
5 Mr George did not recall Ms Walls having any confusion over the location of her cell phone or putting a shoe on the wrong foot
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE7
Ms Walls recalled that she went to the dressing room to wait and shortly afterward the
TABC open team entered Ms Walls stated she was looking for her phone in her garment or
dance bag According to Ms Walls Sergeant Knox grabbed her bag When Ms Walls found
her phone Sgt Knox told her to call her mother to pick her up Ms Walls called her mother and
at Sgt Knoxs insistence allowed Sgt Knox to speak with her mother to arrange a pick-up
Because Ms Walls and her mother lived in Lewisville 45 minutes away Sgt Knox decided
Ms Walls needed to take a cab
According to Ms Walls as she was dressing one of the officers grabbed her purse and
began searching it Ms Walls stated that there was a prescription bottle in the purse for what she
called her anxiety medication According to Ms Walls the officer told her they had permission
to go through her purse or were authorized to because of the presence of the prescription bottle
Ms Walls stated that she did not eat that day and had taken her medication that day She Said
the medication affects [her] on an empty stomach None of the officers asked Ms Walls the
name of the medication she was taking for a copy of the prescription or if she had taken any
that night
Ms Walls testified that after she was dressed she and the officers went to the managers
office As Ms Walls recalled the only field sobriety test was looking in her eyes and the
agent said they were glassy and red
Mr George recalled that at the agents request he took Ms Walls and the agents to the
managers office He noted that the agents did not use a portable breath tester (PBT) or any
other type of breath test device Mr George stated he mediated between Ms Walls and the
agents in the managers office Mr George stated that Ms Walls was cooperative though
anxious confused and agitated Mr George observed that Ms Walls stood balanced in the
dressing room speaking to the officers while she was getting dressed and while speaking on the
phone with her mother The only time he observed her as unsteady was during the field sobriety
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGES
test Mr George stated that Ms Walls told the agents that she has an eating problem and that if
she doesnt eat she will feel weak and unstable and that she hadnt ate all day6
6 Resp Ex I at 2 7 Resp Ex I at 2
Mr George observed Agent Nunnery conduct a field sobriety test and heard him
conclude that Ms Walls was intoxicated Mr George witnessed Agent Nunnery attempt to
conduct the horizontal gaze nystagmus (HGN) with Ms Walls He noted the agent told
Ms Walls to follow the pen he used as a stimulus with her eyes and not to move her head or
body Mr George noted that as Agent Nunnery conducted the test Ms Walls twice stumbled to
her right side7 According to Mr George once he had conducted the HGN Agent Nunnery told
Agent Carleton he had all he needed
According to Mr George Agent Nunnery stated he believed Ms Walls was intoxicated
on more than just alcohol He asked Ms Walls if she was taking any prescription medication
Ms Walls stated she was taking a prescription medication but Mr George did not recall or write
down what the medication was
Mr George stated that he took Ms Walls outside to wait for the cab and at some point
he re-entered inside the club When Mr George returned outside he saw Agent Nunnery
searching Ms Walls s purse According to Mr George Agent Nunnery found a prescription
bottle and told Ms Walls the narcotics he had found justified the search According to
Mr George Agent Knox asked him to be sure Ms Walls took the cab and the agents left before
Ms Wallss cab arrived
Agent Nunnery personally observed Ms Walls in the managers office She had the odor
of an alcoholic beverage on her breath and person had glassy eyes had slurred speech and
swayed standing Agent Nunnery is trained in field sobriety tests In particular Agent Nunnery
is certified to conduct the HGN examinations Agent Nunnery testified that HGN identifies the
level of intoxication Agent Nunnery started the HGN and observed Ms Walls that exhibited
two clues - lack of smooth pursuit in both eyes Agent Nunnery had Ms Walls conduct the test
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE9
standing He stopped the test when she lost her balance twice Agent Nunnery had Ms Walls sit
down He testified that the HGN cannot be conducted when the subject is seated As a
consequence Agent Nunnery testified he could not complete the test
Agent Nunnery agreed he asked Ms Walls if she was taking any medication because
narcotics could affect the HGN results According to Agent Nunnery Ms Walls denied taking
any medications When asked by Agent Nunnery Ms Walls stated she had consumed three
whiskey and cokes
Agent Nunnery stated that Ms Walls was sent home in a cab and he waited outside the
club with Ms Walls to assure she left8 He noted that Mr George was also outside Agent
Nunnery testified that Ms Walls dropped her purse and the contents spilled including cigarette
rolling papers Agent Nunnery asked Ms Walls what the papers were for and she replied for
marijuana Agent Nunnery asked Ms Walls if she had possession of any illegal drugs and she
replied she had already smoked it all9 Agent Nunnery testified that Ms Walls consented to a
search of her purse and Agent Nunnery searched her purse He found nothing He specifically
denied finding a prescription bottle The cab arrived and Ms Walls was released
Ms Walls was not arrested that night Respondent was issued an administrative notice
for violation ofsect 1 l61(b)(l3) of the Code
D Respondents Policies and Procedures
Curtis Wise is the owner of Respondent Mr Wise was not present at the premises on
March 1 2014 Mr Wise is familiar with the statute prohibiting a permittees employee from
being intoxicated on the licensed premises Mr Wise did not object and did not correct
8 Ms Walls did not recall any of the agents waiting outside with her for the cab Instead she recalled that Mr George Mr Wangler the three agents and she waited in the office for the cab and when it arrived Mr George walked her out to the cab 9 Mr Wangler stated he did not know if Ms Walls had smoked marijuana that night and also related that she did not smoke in his house during the eleven months she lived there Ms Walls stated it was possible she had cigarette rolling papers at the bottom of her purse because she had carried the purse for years She denied smoking marijuana that night Ms Walls also denied dropping her purse Mr George did not recall a discussion of rolling papers or marijuana use No witness testified that they smelled the odor of burned marijuana on Ms Wallss person
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGElO
Mr Wanglers testimony that Respondents dancers were employees for the purposes of
sect 1 l61(b)(13) of the Code Mr Wise listed a number of actions Respondent takes to assure
compliance with sect l 161(b)(13) A doorman is on duty every night to screen patrons for
intoxication before they enter Further four to seven or eight managers work each night On
March 1 2014 aside from Mr George and Mr Wangler four other managers would have been
working the floor The managers conduct daily pre-shift meetings with wait staff and bartenders
to emphasize the need to monitor alcohol consumption and signs of intoxication in dancers and
patrons All the bartenders are T ABC sellerserver certified The bartenders and wait staff were
instructed to monitor the dancers intake and warn management if they believed a dancer was or
was becoming impaired Floor managers were required to monitor the alcohol intake of dancers
and customers at the club and to intervene if needed to cut off a customer offer food and offer a
car ride Respondent employed a house mom stationed in the dancers dressing room to
oversee the dancers on the premises Mr Wise asked TABC to conduct an alcohol awareness
class and required all employees and dancers to attend 10
10 The class may have been given in conjunction with Respondents settlement of an earlier violation Resp Ex I
Mr Wise stated that Respondent has a breathalyzer that is kept on the premises The
device is used as a guideline to see what an employees breath alcohol concentration might be if
the employee is acting out of the ordinary or may be intoxicated In the past a manager sent an
employee home after the employee failed an in-house breathalyzer test Respondent does not
request patrons to use the device Mr Wise did not recall what make or model the device was
but did note that it had to be sent to the manufacturer for calibration
Mr Wise explained that if a wait staff employee or dancer had to be sent home it would
be the managers decision and Mr Wise would not need to be consulted The matter would be
discussed at the weekly management meeting when discipline would be decided a second
chance a reduction of time (a week or a month off) or a termination There was such a meeting
after the March 1 2014 incident Mr Wise and his mangers discussed what happened and what
could have been done to prevent it Mr Wise could not recall what discipline might have been
imposed on Ms Walls
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE 11
After the March st event Mr Wangler told Mr Wise that Ms Walls was on medication
and Mr Wise asked Mr Wangler what medication she was taking Mr Wangler sent Mr Wise a
text and Mr Wise looked up the medication which he identified as citalopram That drug is an
antidepressant marketed as Celexa However the medication was not positively identified nor
was the medications interaction with alcohol established in the record of this case Mr Wise
testified that Respondent does not have a policy with respect to an employee or a dancer taking
prescription drugs
E Applicable Law
The T ABC may suspend a permit for not more than sixty days if the permittee was
intoxicated on the licensed premises 11 Permittee means a person who is the holder of a
permit provided for in this code or an agent servant or employee of that person12
Intoxicated means not having the normal use of mental or physical faculties by reason of the
introduction of alcohol a controlled substance a drug a dangerous drug a combination of two
or more of those substances or any other substance into the body13 The Staff has the burden of
proof by a preponderance of the evidence 14
11 Tex Alco Bev Code (the Code)sect I l61(b)(l3 12 sect 104(11) of the Code 13 Tex Penal Codesect 4901(2)(A) 14 I Texas Administrative Code (TAC)sect 155427
F Parties Arguments
Staff argued that a preponderance of the evidence proved that Respondents employee
Ms Walls was intoxicated on the licensed premises on March I 2014 Ms Walls displayed
clear signs of intoxication she was unsteady on her feet (both in high-heeled shoes and in tennis
shoes) Ms Walls used other objects for support when walking appeared confused had glassy
eyes and had the odor of an alcoholic beverage on her breath Ms Wallss testimony
contradicted that of Mr George he (as well as Agent Nunnery) stated they waited outside for the
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE 12
cab Ms Walls denied it Accordingly Staff argued that her testimony should not be considered
to be credible
The Staff noted that Mr Wangler testified that something was wrong or off with
Ms Walls He took steps to remove Ms Walls from the club floor Petitioner argued that
Ms Walls had too much to drink or was under the influence of her medication (which the Staff
termed a narcotic) or both The Staff argued that Ms Walls more likely than not knew she was
taking medication that should not have been mixed with alcohol due to a possible adverse
interaction The Staff asserted that Mr Wanglers action in taking Ms Walls off the dance floor
corroborated the testimony of Agents Shirley and Cayea who observed Ms Walls
The Staff recommended a 36 day suspension of the Respondents permit or in the
alternative a civil penalty of $300 per day for the recommended 36 days for a total penalty of
$] 0800 15
15 16TACsect342
Respondent argued that Agent Nunnerys testimony was not credible due to his failure to
recollect details about the evening such as who was present or which agent performed which act
Respondent argued that the Staff was asserting that the permittee is strictly liable for an
employee being intoxicated on the premises That is if the Staff could show that the person was
an employee was physically present on the premises and was intoxicated then the violation
would be proved Respondent argued that SOAH ALJs recognized a further issue that must be
proved whether the employee was working at the time and was in the course and scope of their
employment citing Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission v 13335 Duluth Restaurant and Bar
dlbla La Chatte 16 Respondent argued that Mr Wranglers actions took Ms Walls out of her
course of employment
16 SOAH Docket No 458-11-3550 (July 6 2011)
The Respondents reliance on La Chatte is misplaced The Commissions Final Order in
the case specifically rejected the notion that an employee had to be acting in the course and
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE 13
scope of employment to be treated as a permittee The Commission stated It is not necessary to
decide whether the employee is on the clock in order to decide whether she is treated as the
permittee The Code does not contain that proviso Nor does the Code require that an employee
be engaged in the work she is hired to do in order for her to be treated as the permittee17
Respondent further argued it had done everything it could to monitor and prevent
Ms Walls or any dancer from becoming intoxicated and took action to send Ms Walls home
when something appeared to be wrong Respondent argued that if Ms Walls was intoxicated
some or all of it could be ascribed to her medication In Respondents view the purpose of
sect l l61(b)(13) is to police persons with easy access to alcohol which Respondent asserted it had
done Ms Wallss use of her medication was beyond Respondents control
Respondent argued that if a penalty is imposed in this contested case Respondent would
be entitled to a variance from the standard penalty chart because of the steps Respondent has
taken to avoid a violation ofsect l l61(b)(13) of the Code 18
G Analysis
Staff has to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Ms Walls was Respondents
employee and that she was intoxicated on the licensed premises
Respondent did not dispute that Ms Walls was Respondents employee on
March I 2014 for the purposes ofsect l l61(b)(13) of the Code Since Ms Wallss opportunity to
dance and earn money through Respondents customers was contingent on her following
Respondents rules and policies Ms Walls is fairly described as Petitioners employee for the
purposes of this Proposal for Decision 19
17 Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission Board Final Order TABC Docket No 599022 (SOAH Docket No 458shy11-3550) (January 18 2012) at 1-2 18 sectsect 11641(a)(3) and 1164(c) of the Code 19 Villatoro v Tex Alcoholic Bev Comm n No 05-12-00444-CV (Tex App-Dallas June 3 2013 no writ)
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE 14
Ms Walls testimony established that she had not eaten on March 1 2014 had consumed
at least two and pmt of a third mixed drinks had consumed the drinks between 700 pm and
midnight and that she had taken her prescribed anxiety medication some time during the day
The exact medication she had taken was not established Ms Walls was not asked to identify the
medication that night or at the hearing nor was she asked to produce or subpoenaed to produce
a copy of the prescription Mr Wises identification of the drug as citalopram or Celexa was
based upon information he received from Mr Wangler and cannot be considered as dispositive
Further assuming Ms Walls was taking citalopram or Celexa that particular drugs interaction
with alcohol was not established There was no evidence that Ms Walls smoked marijuana that
night
The undercover team stated that Ms Walls had a glassy blank stare and disheveled hair
swayed while walking and ran into the frame of the doorway leading to the dressing room
Agent Nunnery testified that Ms Walls seemed intoxicated her speech was sinned Ms Walls
had short term memory loss ( concerning her cell phone) nearly fell down twice as she was
dressing and attempted to place her left shoe on her right foot had the odor of an alcoholic
beverage on her breath and person had glassy eyes and swayed standing
Although Ms Walls admitted drinking alcohol that night Mr Wangler testified he did
not believe that Ms Walls was intoxicated but he also was concerned that Ms Walls was not
right Mr Wangler testified he had the perception that something was a little off or
different with Ms Walls Mr George observed that Ms Walls stood balanced while she was
dressing and speaking on the phone with her mother but lost her balance twice during the field
sobriety test Agent Nunnery conducted the HGN and observed Ms Walls that exhibited two
clues lack of smooth pursuit in both eyes He stopped the test when she lost her balance twice
causing Agent Nunnery to have Ms Walls sit down Agent Nunnery interpreted the two HGN
clues as sufficient to conclude that Ms Walls was intoxicated However Ms Walls was not so
intoxicated that she was arrested for public intoxication that is for being intoxicated to the
degree that [Ms Walls might] endanger [herself] or another20
20 Tex Penal Code sect 4902(a)
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE15
The National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) publication states
that an officer must look for the following three criteria in the HGN test (1) an inability to
pursue smoothly an object or stimulus moving sideways across the suspects field of vision (3)
distinct or pronounced nystagmus at the eyes maximum horizontal deviation and (3) an angle
of onset of nystagmus of less than or equal to 45 degrees The officer must look for these criteria
in each eye for a total of six clues If the officer identifies four or more clues then the officer
classifies the suspect as intoxicated21 Accordingly Agent Nunnery was not justified to
conclude Ms Walls was intoxicated based upon the HGN alone
Mr George noted that the agents did not use a portable breath tester (PBT) or any other
type of breath test device22 Agent Nunnery was not issued a PBT by TABC and testified that a
PBT result would not be admissible in court Agent Nurmery testified he did not have the ability
to give Ms Walls an intoxilyzer or breathalyzer test
Agent Shirley Agent Cayea and Mr Wangler each at about the same moment
concluded that something was wrong with Ms Walls The physical indicators that
Agent Shirley Agent Cayea and Agent Nunnery observed are associated with alcohol
intoxication Ms Wallss recollection of events especially the searching of her purse and her
being escorted outside by Agent Nunnery and Mr George are contradicted by the testimony of
both and their recorded observations23 Ms Walls was and remains confused about the sequence
of the events of the night and that confusion is further evidence of her impairment
21 Emerson at 766 NHTSA SFST Manual at VIII-8 (2006) found at httpoagdcgovnode443812 22 Although Mr Wise testified that Petitioner had an in-house PBT neither Mr Wangler nor Mr George requested Ms Wall to submit a specimen of her breath before or after the TABC arrived 23 Respondent argued that Agent Nunnerys written report contradicted his testimony that he stood outside with Ms Walls waiting for the cab in an effort to impeach his testimony It is true that the report does not mention that episode However Mr Georges testimony and written memorandum agreed with and supported Agent Nunnerys testimony
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE16
The ALJ concludes that a preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that Ms Walls
Respondents employee had lost normal use of her mental or physical faculties by reason of the
introduction of alcohol on the licensed premises 24
24 Ms Wallss anxiety medication was not identified nor was any expert testimony offered on the effects of the mediation or its interaction with alcohol For example Ms Walls testified that she had not eaten that day and that her medication affects her on an empty stomach However Mr George testified Ms Walls told the agents that she has an eating problem and that if she doesnt eat she will feel weak and unstable and that she hadnt ate all day According to Agent Nunnery Ms Walls denied taking any medications Given these contradictions the ALJ recommends that no finding be made on whether Ms Walls was intoxicated due to her medication or its interaction with alcohol 25 16TACsect342 26 Resp Ex I 27 16 TACsect 342 28 16 TACsect 34l(g)(J) and (4)
The ALJ recommends that the Commission find that Petitioner violatedsect 1 l6l(b)(13) of
the Code
The Staff recommended a 36 day suspension of the Respondents permit or in the
alternative a civil penalty of$300 per day for the recommended 36 days or $10800 for a second
violation of sect 1 l6l(b)(l3) of the Code25 According to Petitioners administrative record
Petitioner had a prior violation of sect 1 l61(b)(l3) which occmTed on December 20 2013
Petitioner was assessed an administrative penalty of $5100 (the equivalent of a 17 day
suspension) which was reduced to $4500 (the equivalent of a 15 day suspension) after
completion of an employee educational program on March 21 2014 which was paid on
March 26 201426 A violation of is sect l l6l(b)(13) a health safety and welfare violation27
Under the Commissions rule a subsequent violation of the Code or rule will result in a sanction
in the next higher violation level if the subsequent violation is for a health safety and welfare
violation and occurs within 36 months of the prior violation and the subsequent violation is
issued during an undercover operation28 The subsequent violation was on March 1 2014
which is within 36 months of the prior violation on December 20 2013 The March 1 2014
violation was issued during an undercover investigation
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE 17
Respondent argued that the amount of civil penalty should be reduced upon a
consideration of the ameliorating circumstances concerning the violation29 The ameliorating
circumstances cited by Respondent are Respondents practices and policies described above
and the fact that Mr Wangler immediately removed Ms Walls from the dance floor when he
observed something wrong with her The Commission has stated that Texass policy is for
Neither the permit holder nor an agent servant or employee of the permit holder to be
intoxicated o the premises in the first place30 Moreover Respondents prior violation of
sect l l6l(b)(l3) is an aggravating circumstance under the same statute31 Respondent is not
entitled to a reduction in the proposed suspension or penalty
29 sect l l641(a)(3) of the Code sect J l64Jnotes that ameliorating circumstances include those enumerated in Section l l64(c) The circumstances listed in I l64(c) namely that the violation could not reasonably have been prevented by the permittee or licensee by the exercise of due diligence that the permittee or licensee was entrapped that an agent servant or employee of the permittee or licensee violated this code without the knowledge of the permittee or licensee that the permittee or licensee did not knowingly violate this code that the permittee or licensee has demonstrated good faith including the taking of actions to rectify the consequences of the violation and to deter future violations or (6) that the violation was a technical one have no factual support in the record 30 Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission Board Final Order TABC Docket No 599022 (SOAH Docket No 458shy11-3550) (January 18 2012) at 3 31 sect I I641(a)(4) ofthe Code
The ALJ recommends that Respondents permit be suspended for 36 days or in the
alternative Respondent be assessed a civil penalty of $300 per day for 36 days for a total penalty
of$10800
III FINDINGS OF FACT
I The Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission (TABC) issued Mixed Beverage Permit MB753709 which includes a Mixed Beverage Late Hours Permit and a Beverage Cartage Permit to Respondent 2345 Meacham LLC dba Buckss Cabaret
2 Respondents licensed premises are located at 2345 Meacham Boulevard Fort Worth Tarrant County Texas 76106
3 On March 1 2014 TABC Agent Denver Carleton led a squad of TABC agents namely Sergeant Charlotte Knox and agents Travis Shirley Charles Cayea and Christopher Nunnery in an undercover investigation of the Respondents premises
4 Agents Shirley and Cayea were the undercover team
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE 18
5 Agent Carleton Sergeant Knox and Agent Nunnery were the open team
6 Agents Shirley and Cayea entered Respondents premises at approximately 11 00 pm on March 1 2014
7 Kaitlyn Walls was a dancer at Respondents bar
8 Ms Walls was working that night beginning at approximately 700 pm
9 Ms Walls danced on the main stage and then on the smaller stages in rotation
10 Ms Walls approached a customer and sat next to him at the bar near the agents
11 Ms Walls and her barstool fell to the floor
12 Ms Walls had a glassy blank stare and disheveled hair
13 Ms Walls swayed while walking and ran into the door frame of the doorway leading to the clubs dancers dressing room
14 Agents Shirley and Cayea contacted the open team and informed them that they believed Ms Walls was intoxicated
15 The two agents sent the open team Ms Wallss description and her location in the dressing room by text message
16 Agents Shirley and Cayea left the club after the open team entered the club
17 Agent Nunnery came into close contact with Ms Walls
18 Ms Walls had slmTed speech was not aware of where her cell phone was even though she was holding it nearly fell down twice as she was dressing had glassy eyes swayed standing and lost her balance twice during field sobriety testing
19 Ms Walls admitted to drinking three alcoholic beverages
20 Ms Walls displayed physical and mental indications of intoxication
21 On March 1 2014 Ms Walls did not have the normal use of her mental or physical faculties by reason of the introduction of alcohol into her body
22 On March 1 2014 Ms Walls was an employee of Respondent
23 Petitioner had a prior violation ofsect l l6I(b)(l3) of the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code (the Code) which occurred on December 20 2013 Petitioner was assessed an administrative penalty which was paid on March 26 2014
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE 19
24 The violation which is the subject of this contested case was on March 1 2014 which is within 36 months of the prior violation on December 20 2013
25 The March 1 2014 violation was issued during an undercover investigation
26 On April 14 2015 Staff issued its Notice of Hearing which contained information regarding the date time and place of the hearing the matters asserted the statutes and rules involved and the legal authorities under which the hearing would be held
27 The hearing in this matter convened before Administrative Law Judge Robert F Jones Jr on October 22 2015 at the State Office of Administrative Hearings (SOAH) in Fort Worth Texas Sheila A Lindsey of the TABC Legal Services Division appeared and represented the Staff Respondent appeared by its attorney Roger Albright Evidence was received and the record closed that day
IV CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1 TABC has jurisdiction over this matter Tex Alco Bev Code (the Code) Chapter 5
2 SOAH has jurisdiction to conduct the administrative hearing in this matter and to issue a proposal for decision containing proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law Tex Govt Code Chapter 2003
3 Proper and timely notice of the hearing was provided to Respondent Tex Govt Code sect 2001051-052
4 Respondent violated sect l l6l(b)(l3) of the Code which authorizes the Commission to suspend a pe1mit if the pe1mittee was intoxicated on the licensed premises
5 A 36 day suspension of Respondents Mixed Beverage Permit MB753709 which includes a Mixed Beverage Late Hours Permit and a Beverage Cartage Permit or in the alternative a civil penalty of $300 per day for the recommended 36 days a total of $10800 is appropriate sectsect l l6l(b)(l3) and 1164 of the Code 16 Tex Admin Codesect 342
SIGNED December 17 2015
OBERT F JO ES JR ADMINISTRATI W JUDGE STATE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
STATE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS FT WORTH OFFICE
6777 Camp Bowie Blvd Suite 400 Fort Worth Texas 76116
Phone (817) 731-1733 Fax (512) 322-0473
SERVICE LIST
AGENCY Alcoholic Beverage Commission Texas (TABC)
STYLECASE 2345 MEACHAM LLC DBA BUCKS CABARET
SOAH DOCKET NUMBER 458-15-3318
REFERRING AGENCY CASE 624309
STATE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE
HEARINGS
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
ALJ ROBERT JONES
REPRESENTATIVEADDRESS
SHEILA LINDSEY - SANDERS STAFF ATTORNEY TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION 427 W 20TH STREET SUITE 600 HOUSTON TX 77008 (713) 426-7900 (PH) (713) 862-7478 (FAX)
PARTIES
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION
ROGER ALBRIGHT ATTORNEY AT LAW 3301 ELM STREET DALLAS TX 75226 (214) 939-9224 (PH) (214) 939-9229 (FAX) ralawrogeralbrightcom
ROGER ALBRIGHT
xc Docket Clerk State Office of Administrative Hearings Emily Helm GENERAL COUNSEL TABC Fax No 512-206-3226
Pagel of I
DOCKET NO 624309
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE
COMMISSION Petitioner
VS
2345 MEACHAM LLC
DBA BUCKrsquoS CABARET
Respondent
PERMIT MB753709 LB PE
TARRANT COUNTY TEXAS
(SOAH DOCKET NO 458-15-3318)
BEFORE THE TEXAS
ALCOHOLIC
BEVERAGE COMMISSION
ORDER
CAME ON FOR CONSIDERATION this 14th day of October 2016 the above-styled
and numbered cause
After proper notice was given this case was heard by the State Office of Administrative
Hearings (SOAH) with Administrative Law Judge Robert F Jones Jr presiding The hearing
convened on October 22 2015 and the SOAH record closed the same date The Administrative
Law Judge made and filed a Proposal for Decision containing Findings of Fact and Conclusions
of Law on December 17 2015 The Proposal for Decision was properly served on all parties
who were given an opportunity to file exceptions and replies as part of the record herein No
exceptions were filed
After review and due consideration of the Proposal for Decision I adopt the Findings of
Fact and Conclusions of Law of the Administrative Law Judge that are contained in the Proposal
for Decision and incorporate those Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law into this Order as if
such were fully set out and separately stated herein
All motions requests for entry of Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
and any other requests for general or specific relief submitted by any party are denied unless
specifically adopted herein
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the privileges granted by the Commission and the
activities authorized under the above permit by the Code will be SUSPENDED beginning at
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
__________________________________________
__________________________________________
1201 am on November 30th 2016 and shall remain suspended for THIRTY-SIX (36)
DAYS UNLESS a civil penalty in the amount of $1080000 is paid ON OR BEFORE
November 22nd 2016
This Order will become final and enforceable on the 15th day of November
2016 unless a Motion for Rehearing is filed by the 14th day of November 2016
SIGNED this the 14th day of October 2016 at Austin Texas
Sherry K-Cook Executive Director
Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that the persons listed below were served with a copy of this Order in the manner
indicated below on this the 14th day of October 2016
Martin Wilson Assistant General Counsel
Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission
Robert F Jones Jr
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
State Office of Administrative Hearings
300 W 15th
Street Suite 502
Austin TX 78701
VIA FACSIMILE (512) 322-2061
2345 Meacham LLC
dba Buckrsquos Cabaret
RESPONDENT
PO Box 271289
Flower Mound TX 75027
VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL CMRRR 70160600000046455820
Roger Albright
ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENT
3301 Elm Street
Dallas TX 75226
VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL CMRRR 70160600000046455837
Shelia Lindsey
ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER
TABC Legal Division
VIA E-MAIL Shelialindseytabctexasgov
__________________________________
__________________________________
__________________________________
__________________________________
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION
CIVIL PENALTY REMITTANCE
DOCKET NUMBER 624309 REGISTER NUMBER
NAME 2345 MEACHAM LLC
TRADENAME Buckrsquos Cabaret
ADDRESS PO Box 271289 Flower Mound Texas
DUE DATE November 22 2016
PERMITS OR LICENSES MB753709 LB PE
AMOUNT OF PENALTY $1080000
Amount remitted $____________________ Date remitted ____________________________
You may pay a civil penalty rather than have your permits and licenses suspended if an amount
for civil penalty is included on the attached order
YOU HAVE THE OPTION TO PAY THE CIVIL PENALTY ONLY IF YOU PAY THE
ENTIRE AMOUNT ON OR BEFORE THE DUE DATE AFTER THAT DATE YOUR
LICENSE OR PERMIT WILL BE SUSPENDED FOR THE TIME PERIOD STATED ON
THE ORDER
Mail this form with your payment to
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION
PO Box 13127 Austin Texas 78711
Overnight Delivery Address 5806 Mesa Dr Austin Texas 78731
You must pay by postal money order certified check or cashiers check No personal or
company check nor partial payment accepted Your payment will be returned if anything is
incorrect You must pay the entire amount of the penalty assessed
Attach this form and please make certain to include the Docket on your payment
Signature of Responsible Party
Street Address PO Box No
City State Zip Code
Area CodeTelephone No
Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2
DOCKET NO 624309
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE
COMMISSION Petitioner
sect
sect
sect
sect
VS sect
sect
sect
sect
2345 MEACHAM LLC
DBA BUCKrsquoS CABARET
Respondent
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
PERMIT MB753709 LB PE sect
sect
sect
TARRANT COUNTY TEXAS
(SOAH DOCKET NO 458-15-3318)
sect
sect
BEFORE THE TEXAS
BEVERAGE COMMISSION
ALCOHOLIC
ORDER DENYING M OTION FOR REHEARING
Page 1 of 3
CAME ON FOR CONSIDERATION this 1st day of December 2016 the above-styled
and numbered cause
On October 14 2016 an Order was issued in this cause suspending Respondents permits
for a period of 36 days unless a civil penalty in the amount of $10800 was paid A timely
Motion for RehearingReconsideration was filed by Respondent on November 11 2016 and a
Supplemental Motion for Rehearing was filed by Respondent on November 16 2016 Petitioner
filed a Response to Respondents Motion for RehearingReconsideration on November 22 2016
Having considered Respondents Motion for RehearingReconsideration
Respondents Supplemental Motion for Rehearing and Petitioners Response to Respondents
Motion for RehearingReconsideration Respondents Motion for RehearingReconsideration is
DENIED
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that IF THIS ORDER IS NOT APPEALED
WITHIN THE TIME ALLOWED BY ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CODE sect1167 the
privileges granted by the Commission and the activities authorized under the above permits by
the Code will be SUSPENDED beginning at 1201 am on January 25 2017 and shall remain
suspended for THIRTY SIX (36) CONSECUTIVE DAYS UNLESS a civil penalty in the
amount of $1080000 is paid in lieu of suspension ON OR BEFORE January 17 2017
__________________________________________
_________________________________________
IF THIS ORDER IS APPEALED AND THE DECISION IS AFFIRMED IT IS
ORDERED that the privileges granted by the Commission and the activities authorized under
the above permits by the Code will be SUSPENDED beginning at 1201 am on the fifteenth
(15th
) day following the date the decision is affirmed whether by Order or by operation of law
and shall remain suspended for THIRTY SIX (36) CONSECUTIVE DAYS UNLESS a civil
penalty in the amount of $1080000 is paid in lieu of suspension ON OR BEFORE the seventh
(7th
) day following the date the decision is affirmed whether by Order or by operation of law
SIGNED this the 1st day of December 2016 at Austin Texas
Sherry K-Cook Executive Director
Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that the persons listed below were served with a copy of this Order Denying
Motion for Rehearing in the manner indicated below on this the 1st day of December 2016
Martin Wilson Assistant General Counsel
Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission
Page 2 of 3
Robert F Jones Jr
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
State Office of Administrative Hearings
300 W 15th
Street Suite 502
Austin TX 78701
VIA FACSIMILE (512) 322-2061
2345 Meacham LLC
dba Buckrsquos Cabaret
RESPONDENT
PO Box 271289
Flower Mound TX 75027
VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL CMRRR 70160340000080983298
Roger Albright
ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENT
3301 Elm Street
Dallas TX 75226
VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL CMRRR70160340000080983281
Shelia Lindsey
ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER
TABC Legal Division
VIA E-MAIL Shelialindseytabctexasgov
Page 3 of 3
__________________________________
__________________________________
__________________________________
__________________________________
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION
CIVIL PENALTY REMITTANCE
DOCKET NUMBER 624309 REGISTER NUMBER
NAME 2345 Meacham LLC
TRADENAME Buckrsquos Cabaret
ADDRESS PO Box 271289 Flower Mound Texas
DUE DATE January 17 2017
PERMITS OR LICENSES MB753709 PE LB
AMOUNT OF PENALTY $1080000
Amount remitted $____________________ Date remitted ____________________________
You may pay a civil penalty rather than have your permits and licenses suspended if an amount
for civil penalty is included on the attached order
YOU HAVE THE OPTION TO PAY THE CIVIL PENALTY ONLY IF YOU PAY THE
ENTIRE AMOUNT ON OR BEFORE THE DUE DATE AFTER THAT DATE YOUR
LICENSE OR PERMIT WILL BE SUSPENDED FOR THE TIME PERIOD STATED ON
THE ORDER
Mail this form with your payment to
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION
PO Box 13127 Austin Texas 78711
Overnight Delivery Address 5806 Mesa Dr Austin Texas 78731
You must pay by postal money order certified check or cashiers check No personal or
company check nor partial payment accepted Your payment will be returned if anything is
incorrect You must pay the entire amount of the penalty assessed
Attach this form and please make certain to include the Docket on your payment
Signature of Responsible Party
Street Address PO Box No
City State Zip Code
Area CodeTelephone No
Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2
CAUSE NO 348-289708-16
2345 MEACHAM LLC DBA BUCKS CABARET
Plaintiff
v
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION
Defendant
sect IN THE DISTRICT COURT
348TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
TARRANT COUNTY TEXAS
sect sect sect sect sect sect sect sect sect
ORDER AFFIRMING TABC DECISION fllJ()1)1-j 13J
On tkis day came on to be heard the above-tyled and numbered cause
pursuant to Ch 2001 ofthe Texas Government Code (the Administrative Procedure
Act) and sect 1167 of the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code 2345 Meacham LLC
dba Bucks Cabaret and the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission appeared by
and through their attorneys of record and announced ready All matters of fact and
controversy were submitted The Court after reviewing the evidence and hearing
the arguments of counsel finds that the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission
Order of October 14 2016 is supported by substantial evidence
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED ADJUDGED and DECREED that the
Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commissions Order of October 14 2016 suspending
Plaintiffs Mixed Beverage Permit MB753709 and the associated Beverage Cartage
Permit and Mixed Beverage Late Hours Permit is supported by substantial
evidence and thus is AFFIRMED _1 L IJND Tltld1lt lJAS t-lltJ cflfAfl ltJr tlJ~
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED ADJUDGED and DECREED that the Plaintiff
shall take nothing by this suit and that Defendant shall be in all things discharged
ion
ON ALL SERVED VIAIE-MAILED - HAND DtLIVERY -MAIL
=----WHO 16 TO
_--13 1
SElVE COPIEIS ON gtLL OTHEN
and that the costs ofcourt are taxed against the party incurring same All other relief
not expressly granted herein is denied
This judgment is final disposes of all claims and parties and is appealable f-b
SIGNED and ENTERED this 3 day ofJanuary 2017 L
348TH DISTRICT COURT
2
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGES
After Mr Wangler directed Ms Walls to go to the dressing room he told Jonathon
George a floor manager on duty to get her something to eat Mr Wangler did not think
Ms Walls was actually impaired or intoxicated because she did not smell like alcohol or
anything like that Mr Wangler did not observe Ms Walls to be unsteady when walking or
have difficulty standing upright He ordered her something to eat because he always did that in
similar situations Mr Wangler testified he did not know what type of pills Ms Walls had taken
but he was aware that Ms Walls was taking medication4 He had never asked her about the
medication or its side effects Mr Wangler instrncted the house mom on duty not to allow
Ms Walls back on the floor
Mr George was a floor manager or host at Respondents premises and was working the
night of March I 2014 Mr George was required to monitor the alcohol intake of dancers and
customers at the club and to intervene if needed to cut off a customer offer food and offer a car
ride He watched for signs of intoxication or rising aggressiveness in patrons and dancers
Mr George did not have any particular interaction with Ms Walls prior to the open teams entry
in the club He did not observe anything out of the ordinary Mr George recalled seeing
Ms Walls at the clubs bar during that night but did not see her drinking and did not witness the
incident with the barstool
Ms Walls testified that she began her shift at approximately 700 pm She had not eaten
that day She was allowed to drink while on a dancing shift and that night had two or three
crown and cokes between 700 pm and midnight Ms Walls also took her anxiety medication
that night She knew that the club had a policy that dancers could not be intoxicated on the
premises Ms Walls explained that when she was first hired she was instrncted that if she was
intoxicated she would be fired or lose her right to dance at the club Prior to March I st she had
not been sent home for any reason
Ms Walls testified she was not intoxicated Ms Walls stated she was steady on her feet
that night She stated she did not walk or almost walk into a door frame Ms Walls testified
4 Ms Walls testified that Mr Wangler was aware she was taking medication
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE6
the barstool fell because she had hooked her high-heeled shoes on the barstools foot rest and
leaned back pushing with her hands on the bar The stool caught on the carpet and overshy
balanced She was caught in the stool by her high-heels and fell or stumbled with it She
testified that Mr Wangler approached her told her to eat something and said he might send her
home Mr Wangler sent Ms Walls home because her chair had fallen down and in her words
I made a fool of myself
C The Open Team
Just prior to the TABC agents entering the club Mr Wangler told Mr George that he
was sending Ms Walls home Mr Wangler did not tell Mr George that Ms Walls was
intoxicated but said she was not feeling well or words to that effect Mr George was going to
the front entrance to call a cab when he saw the T ABC open team enter the club He recognized
them as agents he had met before He observed that the agents were intent on a mission and
did not stop to speak to a manager as they usually did on a bar check He followed the agents to
the dressing room They began questioning Ms Walls after apparently identifying her from a
picture or description on one of the agents cell phone Mr George noted that Agent Knox had
most of the preliminary contact with Ms Walls During the course of the questioning an agent
asked Ms Walls how she was going to get home and she responded that she had called her
mother to pick her up at the club
Agent Nunnery was a part of the open team He testified the team went to the club
dressing room as directed by the undercover team Sgt Knox made the initial contact with
Ms Walls while Agent Nunnery stood in the doorway of the dressing room to secure the
location Agent Nunnery testified that he subsequently came into close contact with Ms Walls
She seemed intoxicated Her speech was slurred Ms Walls had her cell phone in her hand or
pocket but kept asking the officers where her cell phone was Agent Nunnery observed that
Ms Walls nearly fell down twice as she was dressing and attempted to place her left shoe on her
right foot 5 Ms Walls dressed in pants at-shirt and tennis shoes
5 Mr George did not recall Ms Walls having any confusion over the location of her cell phone or putting a shoe on the wrong foot
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE7
Ms Walls recalled that she went to the dressing room to wait and shortly afterward the
TABC open team entered Ms Walls stated she was looking for her phone in her garment or
dance bag According to Ms Walls Sergeant Knox grabbed her bag When Ms Walls found
her phone Sgt Knox told her to call her mother to pick her up Ms Walls called her mother and
at Sgt Knoxs insistence allowed Sgt Knox to speak with her mother to arrange a pick-up
Because Ms Walls and her mother lived in Lewisville 45 minutes away Sgt Knox decided
Ms Walls needed to take a cab
According to Ms Walls as she was dressing one of the officers grabbed her purse and
began searching it Ms Walls stated that there was a prescription bottle in the purse for what she
called her anxiety medication According to Ms Walls the officer told her they had permission
to go through her purse or were authorized to because of the presence of the prescription bottle
Ms Walls stated that she did not eat that day and had taken her medication that day She Said
the medication affects [her] on an empty stomach None of the officers asked Ms Walls the
name of the medication she was taking for a copy of the prescription or if she had taken any
that night
Ms Walls testified that after she was dressed she and the officers went to the managers
office As Ms Walls recalled the only field sobriety test was looking in her eyes and the
agent said they were glassy and red
Mr George recalled that at the agents request he took Ms Walls and the agents to the
managers office He noted that the agents did not use a portable breath tester (PBT) or any
other type of breath test device Mr George stated he mediated between Ms Walls and the
agents in the managers office Mr George stated that Ms Walls was cooperative though
anxious confused and agitated Mr George observed that Ms Walls stood balanced in the
dressing room speaking to the officers while she was getting dressed and while speaking on the
phone with her mother The only time he observed her as unsteady was during the field sobriety
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGES
test Mr George stated that Ms Walls told the agents that she has an eating problem and that if
she doesnt eat she will feel weak and unstable and that she hadnt ate all day6
6 Resp Ex I at 2 7 Resp Ex I at 2
Mr George observed Agent Nunnery conduct a field sobriety test and heard him
conclude that Ms Walls was intoxicated Mr George witnessed Agent Nunnery attempt to
conduct the horizontal gaze nystagmus (HGN) with Ms Walls He noted the agent told
Ms Walls to follow the pen he used as a stimulus with her eyes and not to move her head or
body Mr George noted that as Agent Nunnery conducted the test Ms Walls twice stumbled to
her right side7 According to Mr George once he had conducted the HGN Agent Nunnery told
Agent Carleton he had all he needed
According to Mr George Agent Nunnery stated he believed Ms Walls was intoxicated
on more than just alcohol He asked Ms Walls if she was taking any prescription medication
Ms Walls stated she was taking a prescription medication but Mr George did not recall or write
down what the medication was
Mr George stated that he took Ms Walls outside to wait for the cab and at some point
he re-entered inside the club When Mr George returned outside he saw Agent Nunnery
searching Ms Walls s purse According to Mr George Agent Nunnery found a prescription
bottle and told Ms Walls the narcotics he had found justified the search According to
Mr George Agent Knox asked him to be sure Ms Walls took the cab and the agents left before
Ms Wallss cab arrived
Agent Nunnery personally observed Ms Walls in the managers office She had the odor
of an alcoholic beverage on her breath and person had glassy eyes had slurred speech and
swayed standing Agent Nunnery is trained in field sobriety tests In particular Agent Nunnery
is certified to conduct the HGN examinations Agent Nunnery testified that HGN identifies the
level of intoxication Agent Nunnery started the HGN and observed Ms Walls that exhibited
two clues - lack of smooth pursuit in both eyes Agent Nunnery had Ms Walls conduct the test
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE9
standing He stopped the test when she lost her balance twice Agent Nunnery had Ms Walls sit
down He testified that the HGN cannot be conducted when the subject is seated As a
consequence Agent Nunnery testified he could not complete the test
Agent Nunnery agreed he asked Ms Walls if she was taking any medication because
narcotics could affect the HGN results According to Agent Nunnery Ms Walls denied taking
any medications When asked by Agent Nunnery Ms Walls stated she had consumed three
whiskey and cokes
Agent Nunnery stated that Ms Walls was sent home in a cab and he waited outside the
club with Ms Walls to assure she left8 He noted that Mr George was also outside Agent
Nunnery testified that Ms Walls dropped her purse and the contents spilled including cigarette
rolling papers Agent Nunnery asked Ms Walls what the papers were for and she replied for
marijuana Agent Nunnery asked Ms Walls if she had possession of any illegal drugs and she
replied she had already smoked it all9 Agent Nunnery testified that Ms Walls consented to a
search of her purse and Agent Nunnery searched her purse He found nothing He specifically
denied finding a prescription bottle The cab arrived and Ms Walls was released
Ms Walls was not arrested that night Respondent was issued an administrative notice
for violation ofsect 1 l61(b)(l3) of the Code
D Respondents Policies and Procedures
Curtis Wise is the owner of Respondent Mr Wise was not present at the premises on
March 1 2014 Mr Wise is familiar with the statute prohibiting a permittees employee from
being intoxicated on the licensed premises Mr Wise did not object and did not correct
8 Ms Walls did not recall any of the agents waiting outside with her for the cab Instead she recalled that Mr George Mr Wangler the three agents and she waited in the office for the cab and when it arrived Mr George walked her out to the cab 9 Mr Wangler stated he did not know if Ms Walls had smoked marijuana that night and also related that she did not smoke in his house during the eleven months she lived there Ms Walls stated it was possible she had cigarette rolling papers at the bottom of her purse because she had carried the purse for years She denied smoking marijuana that night Ms Walls also denied dropping her purse Mr George did not recall a discussion of rolling papers or marijuana use No witness testified that they smelled the odor of burned marijuana on Ms Wallss person
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGElO
Mr Wanglers testimony that Respondents dancers were employees for the purposes of
sect 1 l61(b)(13) of the Code Mr Wise listed a number of actions Respondent takes to assure
compliance with sect l 161(b)(13) A doorman is on duty every night to screen patrons for
intoxication before they enter Further four to seven or eight managers work each night On
March 1 2014 aside from Mr George and Mr Wangler four other managers would have been
working the floor The managers conduct daily pre-shift meetings with wait staff and bartenders
to emphasize the need to monitor alcohol consumption and signs of intoxication in dancers and
patrons All the bartenders are T ABC sellerserver certified The bartenders and wait staff were
instructed to monitor the dancers intake and warn management if they believed a dancer was or
was becoming impaired Floor managers were required to monitor the alcohol intake of dancers
and customers at the club and to intervene if needed to cut off a customer offer food and offer a
car ride Respondent employed a house mom stationed in the dancers dressing room to
oversee the dancers on the premises Mr Wise asked TABC to conduct an alcohol awareness
class and required all employees and dancers to attend 10
10 The class may have been given in conjunction with Respondents settlement of an earlier violation Resp Ex I
Mr Wise stated that Respondent has a breathalyzer that is kept on the premises The
device is used as a guideline to see what an employees breath alcohol concentration might be if
the employee is acting out of the ordinary or may be intoxicated In the past a manager sent an
employee home after the employee failed an in-house breathalyzer test Respondent does not
request patrons to use the device Mr Wise did not recall what make or model the device was
but did note that it had to be sent to the manufacturer for calibration
Mr Wise explained that if a wait staff employee or dancer had to be sent home it would
be the managers decision and Mr Wise would not need to be consulted The matter would be
discussed at the weekly management meeting when discipline would be decided a second
chance a reduction of time (a week or a month off) or a termination There was such a meeting
after the March 1 2014 incident Mr Wise and his mangers discussed what happened and what
could have been done to prevent it Mr Wise could not recall what discipline might have been
imposed on Ms Walls
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE 11
After the March st event Mr Wangler told Mr Wise that Ms Walls was on medication
and Mr Wise asked Mr Wangler what medication she was taking Mr Wangler sent Mr Wise a
text and Mr Wise looked up the medication which he identified as citalopram That drug is an
antidepressant marketed as Celexa However the medication was not positively identified nor
was the medications interaction with alcohol established in the record of this case Mr Wise
testified that Respondent does not have a policy with respect to an employee or a dancer taking
prescription drugs
E Applicable Law
The T ABC may suspend a permit for not more than sixty days if the permittee was
intoxicated on the licensed premises 11 Permittee means a person who is the holder of a
permit provided for in this code or an agent servant or employee of that person12
Intoxicated means not having the normal use of mental or physical faculties by reason of the
introduction of alcohol a controlled substance a drug a dangerous drug a combination of two
or more of those substances or any other substance into the body13 The Staff has the burden of
proof by a preponderance of the evidence 14
11 Tex Alco Bev Code (the Code)sect I l61(b)(l3 12 sect 104(11) of the Code 13 Tex Penal Codesect 4901(2)(A) 14 I Texas Administrative Code (TAC)sect 155427
F Parties Arguments
Staff argued that a preponderance of the evidence proved that Respondents employee
Ms Walls was intoxicated on the licensed premises on March I 2014 Ms Walls displayed
clear signs of intoxication she was unsteady on her feet (both in high-heeled shoes and in tennis
shoes) Ms Walls used other objects for support when walking appeared confused had glassy
eyes and had the odor of an alcoholic beverage on her breath Ms Wallss testimony
contradicted that of Mr George he (as well as Agent Nunnery) stated they waited outside for the
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE 12
cab Ms Walls denied it Accordingly Staff argued that her testimony should not be considered
to be credible
The Staff noted that Mr Wangler testified that something was wrong or off with
Ms Walls He took steps to remove Ms Walls from the club floor Petitioner argued that
Ms Walls had too much to drink or was under the influence of her medication (which the Staff
termed a narcotic) or both The Staff argued that Ms Walls more likely than not knew she was
taking medication that should not have been mixed with alcohol due to a possible adverse
interaction The Staff asserted that Mr Wanglers action in taking Ms Walls off the dance floor
corroborated the testimony of Agents Shirley and Cayea who observed Ms Walls
The Staff recommended a 36 day suspension of the Respondents permit or in the
alternative a civil penalty of $300 per day for the recommended 36 days for a total penalty of
$] 0800 15
15 16TACsect342
Respondent argued that Agent Nunnerys testimony was not credible due to his failure to
recollect details about the evening such as who was present or which agent performed which act
Respondent argued that the Staff was asserting that the permittee is strictly liable for an
employee being intoxicated on the premises That is if the Staff could show that the person was
an employee was physically present on the premises and was intoxicated then the violation
would be proved Respondent argued that SOAH ALJs recognized a further issue that must be
proved whether the employee was working at the time and was in the course and scope of their
employment citing Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission v 13335 Duluth Restaurant and Bar
dlbla La Chatte 16 Respondent argued that Mr Wranglers actions took Ms Walls out of her
course of employment
16 SOAH Docket No 458-11-3550 (July 6 2011)
The Respondents reliance on La Chatte is misplaced The Commissions Final Order in
the case specifically rejected the notion that an employee had to be acting in the course and
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE 13
scope of employment to be treated as a permittee The Commission stated It is not necessary to
decide whether the employee is on the clock in order to decide whether she is treated as the
permittee The Code does not contain that proviso Nor does the Code require that an employee
be engaged in the work she is hired to do in order for her to be treated as the permittee17
Respondent further argued it had done everything it could to monitor and prevent
Ms Walls or any dancer from becoming intoxicated and took action to send Ms Walls home
when something appeared to be wrong Respondent argued that if Ms Walls was intoxicated
some or all of it could be ascribed to her medication In Respondents view the purpose of
sect l l61(b)(13) is to police persons with easy access to alcohol which Respondent asserted it had
done Ms Wallss use of her medication was beyond Respondents control
Respondent argued that if a penalty is imposed in this contested case Respondent would
be entitled to a variance from the standard penalty chart because of the steps Respondent has
taken to avoid a violation ofsect l l61(b)(13) of the Code 18
G Analysis
Staff has to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Ms Walls was Respondents
employee and that she was intoxicated on the licensed premises
Respondent did not dispute that Ms Walls was Respondents employee on
March I 2014 for the purposes ofsect l l61(b)(13) of the Code Since Ms Wallss opportunity to
dance and earn money through Respondents customers was contingent on her following
Respondents rules and policies Ms Walls is fairly described as Petitioners employee for the
purposes of this Proposal for Decision 19
17 Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission Board Final Order TABC Docket No 599022 (SOAH Docket No 458shy11-3550) (January 18 2012) at 1-2 18 sectsect 11641(a)(3) and 1164(c) of the Code 19 Villatoro v Tex Alcoholic Bev Comm n No 05-12-00444-CV (Tex App-Dallas June 3 2013 no writ)
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE 14
Ms Walls testimony established that she had not eaten on March 1 2014 had consumed
at least two and pmt of a third mixed drinks had consumed the drinks between 700 pm and
midnight and that she had taken her prescribed anxiety medication some time during the day
The exact medication she had taken was not established Ms Walls was not asked to identify the
medication that night or at the hearing nor was she asked to produce or subpoenaed to produce
a copy of the prescription Mr Wises identification of the drug as citalopram or Celexa was
based upon information he received from Mr Wangler and cannot be considered as dispositive
Further assuming Ms Walls was taking citalopram or Celexa that particular drugs interaction
with alcohol was not established There was no evidence that Ms Walls smoked marijuana that
night
The undercover team stated that Ms Walls had a glassy blank stare and disheveled hair
swayed while walking and ran into the frame of the doorway leading to the dressing room
Agent Nunnery testified that Ms Walls seemed intoxicated her speech was sinned Ms Walls
had short term memory loss ( concerning her cell phone) nearly fell down twice as she was
dressing and attempted to place her left shoe on her right foot had the odor of an alcoholic
beverage on her breath and person had glassy eyes and swayed standing
Although Ms Walls admitted drinking alcohol that night Mr Wangler testified he did
not believe that Ms Walls was intoxicated but he also was concerned that Ms Walls was not
right Mr Wangler testified he had the perception that something was a little off or
different with Ms Walls Mr George observed that Ms Walls stood balanced while she was
dressing and speaking on the phone with her mother but lost her balance twice during the field
sobriety test Agent Nunnery conducted the HGN and observed Ms Walls that exhibited two
clues lack of smooth pursuit in both eyes He stopped the test when she lost her balance twice
causing Agent Nunnery to have Ms Walls sit down Agent Nunnery interpreted the two HGN
clues as sufficient to conclude that Ms Walls was intoxicated However Ms Walls was not so
intoxicated that she was arrested for public intoxication that is for being intoxicated to the
degree that [Ms Walls might] endanger [herself] or another20
20 Tex Penal Code sect 4902(a)
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE15
The National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) publication states
that an officer must look for the following three criteria in the HGN test (1) an inability to
pursue smoothly an object or stimulus moving sideways across the suspects field of vision (3)
distinct or pronounced nystagmus at the eyes maximum horizontal deviation and (3) an angle
of onset of nystagmus of less than or equal to 45 degrees The officer must look for these criteria
in each eye for a total of six clues If the officer identifies four or more clues then the officer
classifies the suspect as intoxicated21 Accordingly Agent Nunnery was not justified to
conclude Ms Walls was intoxicated based upon the HGN alone
Mr George noted that the agents did not use a portable breath tester (PBT) or any other
type of breath test device22 Agent Nunnery was not issued a PBT by TABC and testified that a
PBT result would not be admissible in court Agent Nurmery testified he did not have the ability
to give Ms Walls an intoxilyzer or breathalyzer test
Agent Shirley Agent Cayea and Mr Wangler each at about the same moment
concluded that something was wrong with Ms Walls The physical indicators that
Agent Shirley Agent Cayea and Agent Nunnery observed are associated with alcohol
intoxication Ms Wallss recollection of events especially the searching of her purse and her
being escorted outside by Agent Nunnery and Mr George are contradicted by the testimony of
both and their recorded observations23 Ms Walls was and remains confused about the sequence
of the events of the night and that confusion is further evidence of her impairment
21 Emerson at 766 NHTSA SFST Manual at VIII-8 (2006) found at httpoagdcgovnode443812 22 Although Mr Wise testified that Petitioner had an in-house PBT neither Mr Wangler nor Mr George requested Ms Wall to submit a specimen of her breath before or after the TABC arrived 23 Respondent argued that Agent Nunnerys written report contradicted his testimony that he stood outside with Ms Walls waiting for the cab in an effort to impeach his testimony It is true that the report does not mention that episode However Mr Georges testimony and written memorandum agreed with and supported Agent Nunnerys testimony
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE16
The ALJ concludes that a preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that Ms Walls
Respondents employee had lost normal use of her mental or physical faculties by reason of the
introduction of alcohol on the licensed premises 24
24 Ms Wallss anxiety medication was not identified nor was any expert testimony offered on the effects of the mediation or its interaction with alcohol For example Ms Walls testified that she had not eaten that day and that her medication affects her on an empty stomach However Mr George testified Ms Walls told the agents that she has an eating problem and that if she doesnt eat she will feel weak and unstable and that she hadnt ate all day According to Agent Nunnery Ms Walls denied taking any medications Given these contradictions the ALJ recommends that no finding be made on whether Ms Walls was intoxicated due to her medication or its interaction with alcohol 25 16TACsect342 26 Resp Ex I 27 16 TACsect 342 28 16 TACsect 34l(g)(J) and (4)
The ALJ recommends that the Commission find that Petitioner violatedsect 1 l6l(b)(13) of
the Code
The Staff recommended a 36 day suspension of the Respondents permit or in the
alternative a civil penalty of$300 per day for the recommended 36 days or $10800 for a second
violation of sect 1 l6l(b)(l3) of the Code25 According to Petitioners administrative record
Petitioner had a prior violation of sect 1 l61(b)(l3) which occmTed on December 20 2013
Petitioner was assessed an administrative penalty of $5100 (the equivalent of a 17 day
suspension) which was reduced to $4500 (the equivalent of a 15 day suspension) after
completion of an employee educational program on March 21 2014 which was paid on
March 26 201426 A violation of is sect l l6l(b)(13) a health safety and welfare violation27
Under the Commissions rule a subsequent violation of the Code or rule will result in a sanction
in the next higher violation level if the subsequent violation is for a health safety and welfare
violation and occurs within 36 months of the prior violation and the subsequent violation is
issued during an undercover operation28 The subsequent violation was on March 1 2014
which is within 36 months of the prior violation on December 20 2013 The March 1 2014
violation was issued during an undercover investigation
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE 17
Respondent argued that the amount of civil penalty should be reduced upon a
consideration of the ameliorating circumstances concerning the violation29 The ameliorating
circumstances cited by Respondent are Respondents practices and policies described above
and the fact that Mr Wangler immediately removed Ms Walls from the dance floor when he
observed something wrong with her The Commission has stated that Texass policy is for
Neither the permit holder nor an agent servant or employee of the permit holder to be
intoxicated o the premises in the first place30 Moreover Respondents prior violation of
sect l l6l(b)(l3) is an aggravating circumstance under the same statute31 Respondent is not
entitled to a reduction in the proposed suspension or penalty
29 sect l l641(a)(3) of the Code sect J l64Jnotes that ameliorating circumstances include those enumerated in Section l l64(c) The circumstances listed in I l64(c) namely that the violation could not reasonably have been prevented by the permittee or licensee by the exercise of due diligence that the permittee or licensee was entrapped that an agent servant or employee of the permittee or licensee violated this code without the knowledge of the permittee or licensee that the permittee or licensee did not knowingly violate this code that the permittee or licensee has demonstrated good faith including the taking of actions to rectify the consequences of the violation and to deter future violations or (6) that the violation was a technical one have no factual support in the record 30 Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission Board Final Order TABC Docket No 599022 (SOAH Docket No 458shy11-3550) (January 18 2012) at 3 31 sect I I641(a)(4) ofthe Code
The ALJ recommends that Respondents permit be suspended for 36 days or in the
alternative Respondent be assessed a civil penalty of $300 per day for 36 days for a total penalty
of$10800
III FINDINGS OF FACT
I The Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission (TABC) issued Mixed Beverage Permit MB753709 which includes a Mixed Beverage Late Hours Permit and a Beverage Cartage Permit to Respondent 2345 Meacham LLC dba Buckss Cabaret
2 Respondents licensed premises are located at 2345 Meacham Boulevard Fort Worth Tarrant County Texas 76106
3 On March 1 2014 TABC Agent Denver Carleton led a squad of TABC agents namely Sergeant Charlotte Knox and agents Travis Shirley Charles Cayea and Christopher Nunnery in an undercover investigation of the Respondents premises
4 Agents Shirley and Cayea were the undercover team
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE 18
5 Agent Carleton Sergeant Knox and Agent Nunnery were the open team
6 Agents Shirley and Cayea entered Respondents premises at approximately 11 00 pm on March 1 2014
7 Kaitlyn Walls was a dancer at Respondents bar
8 Ms Walls was working that night beginning at approximately 700 pm
9 Ms Walls danced on the main stage and then on the smaller stages in rotation
10 Ms Walls approached a customer and sat next to him at the bar near the agents
11 Ms Walls and her barstool fell to the floor
12 Ms Walls had a glassy blank stare and disheveled hair
13 Ms Walls swayed while walking and ran into the door frame of the doorway leading to the clubs dancers dressing room
14 Agents Shirley and Cayea contacted the open team and informed them that they believed Ms Walls was intoxicated
15 The two agents sent the open team Ms Wallss description and her location in the dressing room by text message
16 Agents Shirley and Cayea left the club after the open team entered the club
17 Agent Nunnery came into close contact with Ms Walls
18 Ms Walls had slmTed speech was not aware of where her cell phone was even though she was holding it nearly fell down twice as she was dressing had glassy eyes swayed standing and lost her balance twice during field sobriety testing
19 Ms Walls admitted to drinking three alcoholic beverages
20 Ms Walls displayed physical and mental indications of intoxication
21 On March 1 2014 Ms Walls did not have the normal use of her mental or physical faculties by reason of the introduction of alcohol into her body
22 On March 1 2014 Ms Walls was an employee of Respondent
23 Petitioner had a prior violation ofsect l l6I(b)(l3) of the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code (the Code) which occurred on December 20 2013 Petitioner was assessed an administrative penalty which was paid on March 26 2014
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE 19
24 The violation which is the subject of this contested case was on March 1 2014 which is within 36 months of the prior violation on December 20 2013
25 The March 1 2014 violation was issued during an undercover investigation
26 On April 14 2015 Staff issued its Notice of Hearing which contained information regarding the date time and place of the hearing the matters asserted the statutes and rules involved and the legal authorities under which the hearing would be held
27 The hearing in this matter convened before Administrative Law Judge Robert F Jones Jr on October 22 2015 at the State Office of Administrative Hearings (SOAH) in Fort Worth Texas Sheila A Lindsey of the TABC Legal Services Division appeared and represented the Staff Respondent appeared by its attorney Roger Albright Evidence was received and the record closed that day
IV CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1 TABC has jurisdiction over this matter Tex Alco Bev Code (the Code) Chapter 5
2 SOAH has jurisdiction to conduct the administrative hearing in this matter and to issue a proposal for decision containing proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law Tex Govt Code Chapter 2003
3 Proper and timely notice of the hearing was provided to Respondent Tex Govt Code sect 2001051-052
4 Respondent violated sect l l6l(b)(l3) of the Code which authorizes the Commission to suspend a pe1mit if the pe1mittee was intoxicated on the licensed premises
5 A 36 day suspension of Respondents Mixed Beverage Permit MB753709 which includes a Mixed Beverage Late Hours Permit and a Beverage Cartage Permit or in the alternative a civil penalty of $300 per day for the recommended 36 days a total of $10800 is appropriate sectsect l l6l(b)(l3) and 1164 of the Code 16 Tex Admin Codesect 342
SIGNED December 17 2015
OBERT F JO ES JR ADMINISTRATI W JUDGE STATE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
STATE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS FT WORTH OFFICE
6777 Camp Bowie Blvd Suite 400 Fort Worth Texas 76116
Phone (817) 731-1733 Fax (512) 322-0473
SERVICE LIST
AGENCY Alcoholic Beverage Commission Texas (TABC)
STYLECASE 2345 MEACHAM LLC DBA BUCKS CABARET
SOAH DOCKET NUMBER 458-15-3318
REFERRING AGENCY CASE 624309
STATE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE
HEARINGS
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
ALJ ROBERT JONES
REPRESENTATIVEADDRESS
SHEILA LINDSEY - SANDERS STAFF ATTORNEY TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION 427 W 20TH STREET SUITE 600 HOUSTON TX 77008 (713) 426-7900 (PH) (713) 862-7478 (FAX)
PARTIES
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION
ROGER ALBRIGHT ATTORNEY AT LAW 3301 ELM STREET DALLAS TX 75226 (214) 939-9224 (PH) (214) 939-9229 (FAX) ralawrogeralbrightcom
ROGER ALBRIGHT
xc Docket Clerk State Office of Administrative Hearings Emily Helm GENERAL COUNSEL TABC Fax No 512-206-3226
Pagel of I
DOCKET NO 624309
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE
COMMISSION Petitioner
VS
2345 MEACHAM LLC
DBA BUCKrsquoS CABARET
Respondent
PERMIT MB753709 LB PE
TARRANT COUNTY TEXAS
(SOAH DOCKET NO 458-15-3318)
BEFORE THE TEXAS
ALCOHOLIC
BEVERAGE COMMISSION
ORDER
CAME ON FOR CONSIDERATION this 14th day of October 2016 the above-styled
and numbered cause
After proper notice was given this case was heard by the State Office of Administrative
Hearings (SOAH) with Administrative Law Judge Robert F Jones Jr presiding The hearing
convened on October 22 2015 and the SOAH record closed the same date The Administrative
Law Judge made and filed a Proposal for Decision containing Findings of Fact and Conclusions
of Law on December 17 2015 The Proposal for Decision was properly served on all parties
who were given an opportunity to file exceptions and replies as part of the record herein No
exceptions were filed
After review and due consideration of the Proposal for Decision I adopt the Findings of
Fact and Conclusions of Law of the Administrative Law Judge that are contained in the Proposal
for Decision and incorporate those Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law into this Order as if
such were fully set out and separately stated herein
All motions requests for entry of Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
and any other requests for general or specific relief submitted by any party are denied unless
specifically adopted herein
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the privileges granted by the Commission and the
activities authorized under the above permit by the Code will be SUSPENDED beginning at
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
__________________________________________
__________________________________________
1201 am on November 30th 2016 and shall remain suspended for THIRTY-SIX (36)
DAYS UNLESS a civil penalty in the amount of $1080000 is paid ON OR BEFORE
November 22nd 2016
This Order will become final and enforceable on the 15th day of November
2016 unless a Motion for Rehearing is filed by the 14th day of November 2016
SIGNED this the 14th day of October 2016 at Austin Texas
Sherry K-Cook Executive Director
Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that the persons listed below were served with a copy of this Order in the manner
indicated below on this the 14th day of October 2016
Martin Wilson Assistant General Counsel
Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission
Robert F Jones Jr
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
State Office of Administrative Hearings
300 W 15th
Street Suite 502
Austin TX 78701
VIA FACSIMILE (512) 322-2061
2345 Meacham LLC
dba Buckrsquos Cabaret
RESPONDENT
PO Box 271289
Flower Mound TX 75027
VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL CMRRR 70160600000046455820
Roger Albright
ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENT
3301 Elm Street
Dallas TX 75226
VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL CMRRR 70160600000046455837
Shelia Lindsey
ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER
TABC Legal Division
VIA E-MAIL Shelialindseytabctexasgov
__________________________________
__________________________________
__________________________________
__________________________________
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION
CIVIL PENALTY REMITTANCE
DOCKET NUMBER 624309 REGISTER NUMBER
NAME 2345 MEACHAM LLC
TRADENAME Buckrsquos Cabaret
ADDRESS PO Box 271289 Flower Mound Texas
DUE DATE November 22 2016
PERMITS OR LICENSES MB753709 LB PE
AMOUNT OF PENALTY $1080000
Amount remitted $____________________ Date remitted ____________________________
You may pay a civil penalty rather than have your permits and licenses suspended if an amount
for civil penalty is included on the attached order
YOU HAVE THE OPTION TO PAY THE CIVIL PENALTY ONLY IF YOU PAY THE
ENTIRE AMOUNT ON OR BEFORE THE DUE DATE AFTER THAT DATE YOUR
LICENSE OR PERMIT WILL BE SUSPENDED FOR THE TIME PERIOD STATED ON
THE ORDER
Mail this form with your payment to
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION
PO Box 13127 Austin Texas 78711
Overnight Delivery Address 5806 Mesa Dr Austin Texas 78731
You must pay by postal money order certified check or cashiers check No personal or
company check nor partial payment accepted Your payment will be returned if anything is
incorrect You must pay the entire amount of the penalty assessed
Attach this form and please make certain to include the Docket on your payment
Signature of Responsible Party
Street Address PO Box No
City State Zip Code
Area CodeTelephone No
Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2
DOCKET NO 624309
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE
COMMISSION Petitioner
sect
sect
sect
sect
VS sect
sect
sect
sect
2345 MEACHAM LLC
DBA BUCKrsquoS CABARET
Respondent
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
PERMIT MB753709 LB PE sect
sect
sect
TARRANT COUNTY TEXAS
(SOAH DOCKET NO 458-15-3318)
sect
sect
BEFORE THE TEXAS
BEVERAGE COMMISSION
ALCOHOLIC
ORDER DENYING M OTION FOR REHEARING
Page 1 of 3
CAME ON FOR CONSIDERATION this 1st day of December 2016 the above-styled
and numbered cause
On October 14 2016 an Order was issued in this cause suspending Respondents permits
for a period of 36 days unless a civil penalty in the amount of $10800 was paid A timely
Motion for RehearingReconsideration was filed by Respondent on November 11 2016 and a
Supplemental Motion for Rehearing was filed by Respondent on November 16 2016 Petitioner
filed a Response to Respondents Motion for RehearingReconsideration on November 22 2016
Having considered Respondents Motion for RehearingReconsideration
Respondents Supplemental Motion for Rehearing and Petitioners Response to Respondents
Motion for RehearingReconsideration Respondents Motion for RehearingReconsideration is
DENIED
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that IF THIS ORDER IS NOT APPEALED
WITHIN THE TIME ALLOWED BY ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CODE sect1167 the
privileges granted by the Commission and the activities authorized under the above permits by
the Code will be SUSPENDED beginning at 1201 am on January 25 2017 and shall remain
suspended for THIRTY SIX (36) CONSECUTIVE DAYS UNLESS a civil penalty in the
amount of $1080000 is paid in lieu of suspension ON OR BEFORE January 17 2017
__________________________________________
_________________________________________
IF THIS ORDER IS APPEALED AND THE DECISION IS AFFIRMED IT IS
ORDERED that the privileges granted by the Commission and the activities authorized under
the above permits by the Code will be SUSPENDED beginning at 1201 am on the fifteenth
(15th
) day following the date the decision is affirmed whether by Order or by operation of law
and shall remain suspended for THIRTY SIX (36) CONSECUTIVE DAYS UNLESS a civil
penalty in the amount of $1080000 is paid in lieu of suspension ON OR BEFORE the seventh
(7th
) day following the date the decision is affirmed whether by Order or by operation of law
SIGNED this the 1st day of December 2016 at Austin Texas
Sherry K-Cook Executive Director
Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that the persons listed below were served with a copy of this Order Denying
Motion for Rehearing in the manner indicated below on this the 1st day of December 2016
Martin Wilson Assistant General Counsel
Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission
Page 2 of 3
Robert F Jones Jr
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
State Office of Administrative Hearings
300 W 15th
Street Suite 502
Austin TX 78701
VIA FACSIMILE (512) 322-2061
2345 Meacham LLC
dba Buckrsquos Cabaret
RESPONDENT
PO Box 271289
Flower Mound TX 75027
VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL CMRRR 70160340000080983298
Roger Albright
ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENT
3301 Elm Street
Dallas TX 75226
VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL CMRRR70160340000080983281
Shelia Lindsey
ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER
TABC Legal Division
VIA E-MAIL Shelialindseytabctexasgov
Page 3 of 3
__________________________________
__________________________________
__________________________________
__________________________________
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION
CIVIL PENALTY REMITTANCE
DOCKET NUMBER 624309 REGISTER NUMBER
NAME 2345 Meacham LLC
TRADENAME Buckrsquos Cabaret
ADDRESS PO Box 271289 Flower Mound Texas
DUE DATE January 17 2017
PERMITS OR LICENSES MB753709 PE LB
AMOUNT OF PENALTY $1080000
Amount remitted $____________________ Date remitted ____________________________
You may pay a civil penalty rather than have your permits and licenses suspended if an amount
for civil penalty is included on the attached order
YOU HAVE THE OPTION TO PAY THE CIVIL PENALTY ONLY IF YOU PAY THE
ENTIRE AMOUNT ON OR BEFORE THE DUE DATE AFTER THAT DATE YOUR
LICENSE OR PERMIT WILL BE SUSPENDED FOR THE TIME PERIOD STATED ON
THE ORDER
Mail this form with your payment to
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION
PO Box 13127 Austin Texas 78711
Overnight Delivery Address 5806 Mesa Dr Austin Texas 78731
You must pay by postal money order certified check or cashiers check No personal or
company check nor partial payment accepted Your payment will be returned if anything is
incorrect You must pay the entire amount of the penalty assessed
Attach this form and please make certain to include the Docket on your payment
Signature of Responsible Party
Street Address PO Box No
City State Zip Code
Area CodeTelephone No
Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2
CAUSE NO 348-289708-16
2345 MEACHAM LLC DBA BUCKS CABARET
Plaintiff
v
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION
Defendant
sect IN THE DISTRICT COURT
348TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
TARRANT COUNTY TEXAS
sect sect sect sect sect sect sect sect sect
ORDER AFFIRMING TABC DECISION fllJ()1)1-j 13J
On tkis day came on to be heard the above-tyled and numbered cause
pursuant to Ch 2001 ofthe Texas Government Code (the Administrative Procedure
Act) and sect 1167 of the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code 2345 Meacham LLC
dba Bucks Cabaret and the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission appeared by
and through their attorneys of record and announced ready All matters of fact and
controversy were submitted The Court after reviewing the evidence and hearing
the arguments of counsel finds that the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission
Order of October 14 2016 is supported by substantial evidence
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED ADJUDGED and DECREED that the
Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commissions Order of October 14 2016 suspending
Plaintiffs Mixed Beverage Permit MB753709 and the associated Beverage Cartage
Permit and Mixed Beverage Late Hours Permit is supported by substantial
evidence and thus is AFFIRMED _1 L IJND Tltld1lt lJAS t-lltJ cflfAfl ltJr tlJ~
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED ADJUDGED and DECREED that the Plaintiff
shall take nothing by this suit and that Defendant shall be in all things discharged
ion
ON ALL SERVED VIAIE-MAILED - HAND DtLIVERY -MAIL
=----WHO 16 TO
_--13 1
SElVE COPIEIS ON gtLL OTHEN
and that the costs ofcourt are taxed against the party incurring same All other relief
not expressly granted herein is denied
This judgment is final disposes of all claims and parties and is appealable f-b
SIGNED and ENTERED this 3 day ofJanuary 2017 L
348TH DISTRICT COURT
2
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE6
the barstool fell because she had hooked her high-heeled shoes on the barstools foot rest and
leaned back pushing with her hands on the bar The stool caught on the carpet and overshy
balanced She was caught in the stool by her high-heels and fell or stumbled with it She
testified that Mr Wangler approached her told her to eat something and said he might send her
home Mr Wangler sent Ms Walls home because her chair had fallen down and in her words
I made a fool of myself
C The Open Team
Just prior to the TABC agents entering the club Mr Wangler told Mr George that he
was sending Ms Walls home Mr Wangler did not tell Mr George that Ms Walls was
intoxicated but said she was not feeling well or words to that effect Mr George was going to
the front entrance to call a cab when he saw the T ABC open team enter the club He recognized
them as agents he had met before He observed that the agents were intent on a mission and
did not stop to speak to a manager as they usually did on a bar check He followed the agents to
the dressing room They began questioning Ms Walls after apparently identifying her from a
picture or description on one of the agents cell phone Mr George noted that Agent Knox had
most of the preliminary contact with Ms Walls During the course of the questioning an agent
asked Ms Walls how she was going to get home and she responded that she had called her
mother to pick her up at the club
Agent Nunnery was a part of the open team He testified the team went to the club
dressing room as directed by the undercover team Sgt Knox made the initial contact with
Ms Walls while Agent Nunnery stood in the doorway of the dressing room to secure the
location Agent Nunnery testified that he subsequently came into close contact with Ms Walls
She seemed intoxicated Her speech was slurred Ms Walls had her cell phone in her hand or
pocket but kept asking the officers where her cell phone was Agent Nunnery observed that
Ms Walls nearly fell down twice as she was dressing and attempted to place her left shoe on her
right foot 5 Ms Walls dressed in pants at-shirt and tennis shoes
5 Mr George did not recall Ms Walls having any confusion over the location of her cell phone or putting a shoe on the wrong foot
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE7
Ms Walls recalled that she went to the dressing room to wait and shortly afterward the
TABC open team entered Ms Walls stated she was looking for her phone in her garment or
dance bag According to Ms Walls Sergeant Knox grabbed her bag When Ms Walls found
her phone Sgt Knox told her to call her mother to pick her up Ms Walls called her mother and
at Sgt Knoxs insistence allowed Sgt Knox to speak with her mother to arrange a pick-up
Because Ms Walls and her mother lived in Lewisville 45 minutes away Sgt Knox decided
Ms Walls needed to take a cab
According to Ms Walls as she was dressing one of the officers grabbed her purse and
began searching it Ms Walls stated that there was a prescription bottle in the purse for what she
called her anxiety medication According to Ms Walls the officer told her they had permission
to go through her purse or were authorized to because of the presence of the prescription bottle
Ms Walls stated that she did not eat that day and had taken her medication that day She Said
the medication affects [her] on an empty stomach None of the officers asked Ms Walls the
name of the medication she was taking for a copy of the prescription or if she had taken any
that night
Ms Walls testified that after she was dressed she and the officers went to the managers
office As Ms Walls recalled the only field sobriety test was looking in her eyes and the
agent said they were glassy and red
Mr George recalled that at the agents request he took Ms Walls and the agents to the
managers office He noted that the agents did not use a portable breath tester (PBT) or any
other type of breath test device Mr George stated he mediated between Ms Walls and the
agents in the managers office Mr George stated that Ms Walls was cooperative though
anxious confused and agitated Mr George observed that Ms Walls stood balanced in the
dressing room speaking to the officers while she was getting dressed and while speaking on the
phone with her mother The only time he observed her as unsteady was during the field sobriety
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGES
test Mr George stated that Ms Walls told the agents that she has an eating problem and that if
she doesnt eat she will feel weak and unstable and that she hadnt ate all day6
6 Resp Ex I at 2 7 Resp Ex I at 2
Mr George observed Agent Nunnery conduct a field sobriety test and heard him
conclude that Ms Walls was intoxicated Mr George witnessed Agent Nunnery attempt to
conduct the horizontal gaze nystagmus (HGN) with Ms Walls He noted the agent told
Ms Walls to follow the pen he used as a stimulus with her eyes and not to move her head or
body Mr George noted that as Agent Nunnery conducted the test Ms Walls twice stumbled to
her right side7 According to Mr George once he had conducted the HGN Agent Nunnery told
Agent Carleton he had all he needed
According to Mr George Agent Nunnery stated he believed Ms Walls was intoxicated
on more than just alcohol He asked Ms Walls if she was taking any prescription medication
Ms Walls stated she was taking a prescription medication but Mr George did not recall or write
down what the medication was
Mr George stated that he took Ms Walls outside to wait for the cab and at some point
he re-entered inside the club When Mr George returned outside he saw Agent Nunnery
searching Ms Walls s purse According to Mr George Agent Nunnery found a prescription
bottle and told Ms Walls the narcotics he had found justified the search According to
Mr George Agent Knox asked him to be sure Ms Walls took the cab and the agents left before
Ms Wallss cab arrived
Agent Nunnery personally observed Ms Walls in the managers office She had the odor
of an alcoholic beverage on her breath and person had glassy eyes had slurred speech and
swayed standing Agent Nunnery is trained in field sobriety tests In particular Agent Nunnery
is certified to conduct the HGN examinations Agent Nunnery testified that HGN identifies the
level of intoxication Agent Nunnery started the HGN and observed Ms Walls that exhibited
two clues - lack of smooth pursuit in both eyes Agent Nunnery had Ms Walls conduct the test
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE9
standing He stopped the test when she lost her balance twice Agent Nunnery had Ms Walls sit
down He testified that the HGN cannot be conducted when the subject is seated As a
consequence Agent Nunnery testified he could not complete the test
Agent Nunnery agreed he asked Ms Walls if she was taking any medication because
narcotics could affect the HGN results According to Agent Nunnery Ms Walls denied taking
any medications When asked by Agent Nunnery Ms Walls stated she had consumed three
whiskey and cokes
Agent Nunnery stated that Ms Walls was sent home in a cab and he waited outside the
club with Ms Walls to assure she left8 He noted that Mr George was also outside Agent
Nunnery testified that Ms Walls dropped her purse and the contents spilled including cigarette
rolling papers Agent Nunnery asked Ms Walls what the papers were for and she replied for
marijuana Agent Nunnery asked Ms Walls if she had possession of any illegal drugs and she
replied she had already smoked it all9 Agent Nunnery testified that Ms Walls consented to a
search of her purse and Agent Nunnery searched her purse He found nothing He specifically
denied finding a prescription bottle The cab arrived and Ms Walls was released
Ms Walls was not arrested that night Respondent was issued an administrative notice
for violation ofsect 1 l61(b)(l3) of the Code
D Respondents Policies and Procedures
Curtis Wise is the owner of Respondent Mr Wise was not present at the premises on
March 1 2014 Mr Wise is familiar with the statute prohibiting a permittees employee from
being intoxicated on the licensed premises Mr Wise did not object and did not correct
8 Ms Walls did not recall any of the agents waiting outside with her for the cab Instead she recalled that Mr George Mr Wangler the three agents and she waited in the office for the cab and when it arrived Mr George walked her out to the cab 9 Mr Wangler stated he did not know if Ms Walls had smoked marijuana that night and also related that she did not smoke in his house during the eleven months she lived there Ms Walls stated it was possible she had cigarette rolling papers at the bottom of her purse because she had carried the purse for years She denied smoking marijuana that night Ms Walls also denied dropping her purse Mr George did not recall a discussion of rolling papers or marijuana use No witness testified that they smelled the odor of burned marijuana on Ms Wallss person
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGElO
Mr Wanglers testimony that Respondents dancers were employees for the purposes of
sect 1 l61(b)(13) of the Code Mr Wise listed a number of actions Respondent takes to assure
compliance with sect l 161(b)(13) A doorman is on duty every night to screen patrons for
intoxication before they enter Further four to seven or eight managers work each night On
March 1 2014 aside from Mr George and Mr Wangler four other managers would have been
working the floor The managers conduct daily pre-shift meetings with wait staff and bartenders
to emphasize the need to monitor alcohol consumption and signs of intoxication in dancers and
patrons All the bartenders are T ABC sellerserver certified The bartenders and wait staff were
instructed to monitor the dancers intake and warn management if they believed a dancer was or
was becoming impaired Floor managers were required to monitor the alcohol intake of dancers
and customers at the club and to intervene if needed to cut off a customer offer food and offer a
car ride Respondent employed a house mom stationed in the dancers dressing room to
oversee the dancers on the premises Mr Wise asked TABC to conduct an alcohol awareness
class and required all employees and dancers to attend 10
10 The class may have been given in conjunction with Respondents settlement of an earlier violation Resp Ex I
Mr Wise stated that Respondent has a breathalyzer that is kept on the premises The
device is used as a guideline to see what an employees breath alcohol concentration might be if
the employee is acting out of the ordinary or may be intoxicated In the past a manager sent an
employee home after the employee failed an in-house breathalyzer test Respondent does not
request patrons to use the device Mr Wise did not recall what make or model the device was
but did note that it had to be sent to the manufacturer for calibration
Mr Wise explained that if a wait staff employee or dancer had to be sent home it would
be the managers decision and Mr Wise would not need to be consulted The matter would be
discussed at the weekly management meeting when discipline would be decided a second
chance a reduction of time (a week or a month off) or a termination There was such a meeting
after the March 1 2014 incident Mr Wise and his mangers discussed what happened and what
could have been done to prevent it Mr Wise could not recall what discipline might have been
imposed on Ms Walls
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE 11
After the March st event Mr Wangler told Mr Wise that Ms Walls was on medication
and Mr Wise asked Mr Wangler what medication she was taking Mr Wangler sent Mr Wise a
text and Mr Wise looked up the medication which he identified as citalopram That drug is an
antidepressant marketed as Celexa However the medication was not positively identified nor
was the medications interaction with alcohol established in the record of this case Mr Wise
testified that Respondent does not have a policy with respect to an employee or a dancer taking
prescription drugs
E Applicable Law
The T ABC may suspend a permit for not more than sixty days if the permittee was
intoxicated on the licensed premises 11 Permittee means a person who is the holder of a
permit provided for in this code or an agent servant or employee of that person12
Intoxicated means not having the normal use of mental or physical faculties by reason of the
introduction of alcohol a controlled substance a drug a dangerous drug a combination of two
or more of those substances or any other substance into the body13 The Staff has the burden of
proof by a preponderance of the evidence 14
11 Tex Alco Bev Code (the Code)sect I l61(b)(l3 12 sect 104(11) of the Code 13 Tex Penal Codesect 4901(2)(A) 14 I Texas Administrative Code (TAC)sect 155427
F Parties Arguments
Staff argued that a preponderance of the evidence proved that Respondents employee
Ms Walls was intoxicated on the licensed premises on March I 2014 Ms Walls displayed
clear signs of intoxication she was unsteady on her feet (both in high-heeled shoes and in tennis
shoes) Ms Walls used other objects for support when walking appeared confused had glassy
eyes and had the odor of an alcoholic beverage on her breath Ms Wallss testimony
contradicted that of Mr George he (as well as Agent Nunnery) stated they waited outside for the
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE 12
cab Ms Walls denied it Accordingly Staff argued that her testimony should not be considered
to be credible
The Staff noted that Mr Wangler testified that something was wrong or off with
Ms Walls He took steps to remove Ms Walls from the club floor Petitioner argued that
Ms Walls had too much to drink or was under the influence of her medication (which the Staff
termed a narcotic) or both The Staff argued that Ms Walls more likely than not knew she was
taking medication that should not have been mixed with alcohol due to a possible adverse
interaction The Staff asserted that Mr Wanglers action in taking Ms Walls off the dance floor
corroborated the testimony of Agents Shirley and Cayea who observed Ms Walls
The Staff recommended a 36 day suspension of the Respondents permit or in the
alternative a civil penalty of $300 per day for the recommended 36 days for a total penalty of
$] 0800 15
15 16TACsect342
Respondent argued that Agent Nunnerys testimony was not credible due to his failure to
recollect details about the evening such as who was present or which agent performed which act
Respondent argued that the Staff was asserting that the permittee is strictly liable for an
employee being intoxicated on the premises That is if the Staff could show that the person was
an employee was physically present on the premises and was intoxicated then the violation
would be proved Respondent argued that SOAH ALJs recognized a further issue that must be
proved whether the employee was working at the time and was in the course and scope of their
employment citing Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission v 13335 Duluth Restaurant and Bar
dlbla La Chatte 16 Respondent argued that Mr Wranglers actions took Ms Walls out of her
course of employment
16 SOAH Docket No 458-11-3550 (July 6 2011)
The Respondents reliance on La Chatte is misplaced The Commissions Final Order in
the case specifically rejected the notion that an employee had to be acting in the course and
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE 13
scope of employment to be treated as a permittee The Commission stated It is not necessary to
decide whether the employee is on the clock in order to decide whether she is treated as the
permittee The Code does not contain that proviso Nor does the Code require that an employee
be engaged in the work she is hired to do in order for her to be treated as the permittee17
Respondent further argued it had done everything it could to monitor and prevent
Ms Walls or any dancer from becoming intoxicated and took action to send Ms Walls home
when something appeared to be wrong Respondent argued that if Ms Walls was intoxicated
some or all of it could be ascribed to her medication In Respondents view the purpose of
sect l l61(b)(13) is to police persons with easy access to alcohol which Respondent asserted it had
done Ms Wallss use of her medication was beyond Respondents control
Respondent argued that if a penalty is imposed in this contested case Respondent would
be entitled to a variance from the standard penalty chart because of the steps Respondent has
taken to avoid a violation ofsect l l61(b)(13) of the Code 18
G Analysis
Staff has to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Ms Walls was Respondents
employee and that she was intoxicated on the licensed premises
Respondent did not dispute that Ms Walls was Respondents employee on
March I 2014 for the purposes ofsect l l61(b)(13) of the Code Since Ms Wallss opportunity to
dance and earn money through Respondents customers was contingent on her following
Respondents rules and policies Ms Walls is fairly described as Petitioners employee for the
purposes of this Proposal for Decision 19
17 Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission Board Final Order TABC Docket No 599022 (SOAH Docket No 458shy11-3550) (January 18 2012) at 1-2 18 sectsect 11641(a)(3) and 1164(c) of the Code 19 Villatoro v Tex Alcoholic Bev Comm n No 05-12-00444-CV (Tex App-Dallas June 3 2013 no writ)
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE 14
Ms Walls testimony established that she had not eaten on March 1 2014 had consumed
at least two and pmt of a third mixed drinks had consumed the drinks between 700 pm and
midnight and that she had taken her prescribed anxiety medication some time during the day
The exact medication she had taken was not established Ms Walls was not asked to identify the
medication that night or at the hearing nor was she asked to produce or subpoenaed to produce
a copy of the prescription Mr Wises identification of the drug as citalopram or Celexa was
based upon information he received from Mr Wangler and cannot be considered as dispositive
Further assuming Ms Walls was taking citalopram or Celexa that particular drugs interaction
with alcohol was not established There was no evidence that Ms Walls smoked marijuana that
night
The undercover team stated that Ms Walls had a glassy blank stare and disheveled hair
swayed while walking and ran into the frame of the doorway leading to the dressing room
Agent Nunnery testified that Ms Walls seemed intoxicated her speech was sinned Ms Walls
had short term memory loss ( concerning her cell phone) nearly fell down twice as she was
dressing and attempted to place her left shoe on her right foot had the odor of an alcoholic
beverage on her breath and person had glassy eyes and swayed standing
Although Ms Walls admitted drinking alcohol that night Mr Wangler testified he did
not believe that Ms Walls was intoxicated but he also was concerned that Ms Walls was not
right Mr Wangler testified he had the perception that something was a little off or
different with Ms Walls Mr George observed that Ms Walls stood balanced while she was
dressing and speaking on the phone with her mother but lost her balance twice during the field
sobriety test Agent Nunnery conducted the HGN and observed Ms Walls that exhibited two
clues lack of smooth pursuit in both eyes He stopped the test when she lost her balance twice
causing Agent Nunnery to have Ms Walls sit down Agent Nunnery interpreted the two HGN
clues as sufficient to conclude that Ms Walls was intoxicated However Ms Walls was not so
intoxicated that she was arrested for public intoxication that is for being intoxicated to the
degree that [Ms Walls might] endanger [herself] or another20
20 Tex Penal Code sect 4902(a)
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE15
The National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) publication states
that an officer must look for the following three criteria in the HGN test (1) an inability to
pursue smoothly an object or stimulus moving sideways across the suspects field of vision (3)
distinct or pronounced nystagmus at the eyes maximum horizontal deviation and (3) an angle
of onset of nystagmus of less than or equal to 45 degrees The officer must look for these criteria
in each eye for a total of six clues If the officer identifies four or more clues then the officer
classifies the suspect as intoxicated21 Accordingly Agent Nunnery was not justified to
conclude Ms Walls was intoxicated based upon the HGN alone
Mr George noted that the agents did not use a portable breath tester (PBT) or any other
type of breath test device22 Agent Nunnery was not issued a PBT by TABC and testified that a
PBT result would not be admissible in court Agent Nurmery testified he did not have the ability
to give Ms Walls an intoxilyzer or breathalyzer test
Agent Shirley Agent Cayea and Mr Wangler each at about the same moment
concluded that something was wrong with Ms Walls The physical indicators that
Agent Shirley Agent Cayea and Agent Nunnery observed are associated with alcohol
intoxication Ms Wallss recollection of events especially the searching of her purse and her
being escorted outside by Agent Nunnery and Mr George are contradicted by the testimony of
both and their recorded observations23 Ms Walls was and remains confused about the sequence
of the events of the night and that confusion is further evidence of her impairment
21 Emerson at 766 NHTSA SFST Manual at VIII-8 (2006) found at httpoagdcgovnode443812 22 Although Mr Wise testified that Petitioner had an in-house PBT neither Mr Wangler nor Mr George requested Ms Wall to submit a specimen of her breath before or after the TABC arrived 23 Respondent argued that Agent Nunnerys written report contradicted his testimony that he stood outside with Ms Walls waiting for the cab in an effort to impeach his testimony It is true that the report does not mention that episode However Mr Georges testimony and written memorandum agreed with and supported Agent Nunnerys testimony
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE16
The ALJ concludes that a preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that Ms Walls
Respondents employee had lost normal use of her mental or physical faculties by reason of the
introduction of alcohol on the licensed premises 24
24 Ms Wallss anxiety medication was not identified nor was any expert testimony offered on the effects of the mediation or its interaction with alcohol For example Ms Walls testified that she had not eaten that day and that her medication affects her on an empty stomach However Mr George testified Ms Walls told the agents that she has an eating problem and that if she doesnt eat she will feel weak and unstable and that she hadnt ate all day According to Agent Nunnery Ms Walls denied taking any medications Given these contradictions the ALJ recommends that no finding be made on whether Ms Walls was intoxicated due to her medication or its interaction with alcohol 25 16TACsect342 26 Resp Ex I 27 16 TACsect 342 28 16 TACsect 34l(g)(J) and (4)
The ALJ recommends that the Commission find that Petitioner violatedsect 1 l6l(b)(13) of
the Code
The Staff recommended a 36 day suspension of the Respondents permit or in the
alternative a civil penalty of$300 per day for the recommended 36 days or $10800 for a second
violation of sect 1 l6l(b)(l3) of the Code25 According to Petitioners administrative record
Petitioner had a prior violation of sect 1 l61(b)(l3) which occmTed on December 20 2013
Petitioner was assessed an administrative penalty of $5100 (the equivalent of a 17 day
suspension) which was reduced to $4500 (the equivalent of a 15 day suspension) after
completion of an employee educational program on March 21 2014 which was paid on
March 26 201426 A violation of is sect l l6l(b)(13) a health safety and welfare violation27
Under the Commissions rule a subsequent violation of the Code or rule will result in a sanction
in the next higher violation level if the subsequent violation is for a health safety and welfare
violation and occurs within 36 months of the prior violation and the subsequent violation is
issued during an undercover operation28 The subsequent violation was on March 1 2014
which is within 36 months of the prior violation on December 20 2013 The March 1 2014
violation was issued during an undercover investigation
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE 17
Respondent argued that the amount of civil penalty should be reduced upon a
consideration of the ameliorating circumstances concerning the violation29 The ameliorating
circumstances cited by Respondent are Respondents practices and policies described above
and the fact that Mr Wangler immediately removed Ms Walls from the dance floor when he
observed something wrong with her The Commission has stated that Texass policy is for
Neither the permit holder nor an agent servant or employee of the permit holder to be
intoxicated o the premises in the first place30 Moreover Respondents prior violation of
sect l l6l(b)(l3) is an aggravating circumstance under the same statute31 Respondent is not
entitled to a reduction in the proposed suspension or penalty
29 sect l l641(a)(3) of the Code sect J l64Jnotes that ameliorating circumstances include those enumerated in Section l l64(c) The circumstances listed in I l64(c) namely that the violation could not reasonably have been prevented by the permittee or licensee by the exercise of due diligence that the permittee or licensee was entrapped that an agent servant or employee of the permittee or licensee violated this code without the knowledge of the permittee or licensee that the permittee or licensee did not knowingly violate this code that the permittee or licensee has demonstrated good faith including the taking of actions to rectify the consequences of the violation and to deter future violations or (6) that the violation was a technical one have no factual support in the record 30 Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission Board Final Order TABC Docket No 599022 (SOAH Docket No 458shy11-3550) (January 18 2012) at 3 31 sect I I641(a)(4) ofthe Code
The ALJ recommends that Respondents permit be suspended for 36 days or in the
alternative Respondent be assessed a civil penalty of $300 per day for 36 days for a total penalty
of$10800
III FINDINGS OF FACT
I The Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission (TABC) issued Mixed Beverage Permit MB753709 which includes a Mixed Beverage Late Hours Permit and a Beverage Cartage Permit to Respondent 2345 Meacham LLC dba Buckss Cabaret
2 Respondents licensed premises are located at 2345 Meacham Boulevard Fort Worth Tarrant County Texas 76106
3 On March 1 2014 TABC Agent Denver Carleton led a squad of TABC agents namely Sergeant Charlotte Knox and agents Travis Shirley Charles Cayea and Christopher Nunnery in an undercover investigation of the Respondents premises
4 Agents Shirley and Cayea were the undercover team
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE 18
5 Agent Carleton Sergeant Knox and Agent Nunnery were the open team
6 Agents Shirley and Cayea entered Respondents premises at approximately 11 00 pm on March 1 2014
7 Kaitlyn Walls was a dancer at Respondents bar
8 Ms Walls was working that night beginning at approximately 700 pm
9 Ms Walls danced on the main stage and then on the smaller stages in rotation
10 Ms Walls approached a customer and sat next to him at the bar near the agents
11 Ms Walls and her barstool fell to the floor
12 Ms Walls had a glassy blank stare and disheveled hair
13 Ms Walls swayed while walking and ran into the door frame of the doorway leading to the clubs dancers dressing room
14 Agents Shirley and Cayea contacted the open team and informed them that they believed Ms Walls was intoxicated
15 The two agents sent the open team Ms Wallss description and her location in the dressing room by text message
16 Agents Shirley and Cayea left the club after the open team entered the club
17 Agent Nunnery came into close contact with Ms Walls
18 Ms Walls had slmTed speech was not aware of where her cell phone was even though she was holding it nearly fell down twice as she was dressing had glassy eyes swayed standing and lost her balance twice during field sobriety testing
19 Ms Walls admitted to drinking three alcoholic beverages
20 Ms Walls displayed physical and mental indications of intoxication
21 On March 1 2014 Ms Walls did not have the normal use of her mental or physical faculties by reason of the introduction of alcohol into her body
22 On March 1 2014 Ms Walls was an employee of Respondent
23 Petitioner had a prior violation ofsect l l6I(b)(l3) of the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code (the Code) which occurred on December 20 2013 Petitioner was assessed an administrative penalty which was paid on March 26 2014
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE 19
24 The violation which is the subject of this contested case was on March 1 2014 which is within 36 months of the prior violation on December 20 2013
25 The March 1 2014 violation was issued during an undercover investigation
26 On April 14 2015 Staff issued its Notice of Hearing which contained information regarding the date time and place of the hearing the matters asserted the statutes and rules involved and the legal authorities under which the hearing would be held
27 The hearing in this matter convened before Administrative Law Judge Robert F Jones Jr on October 22 2015 at the State Office of Administrative Hearings (SOAH) in Fort Worth Texas Sheila A Lindsey of the TABC Legal Services Division appeared and represented the Staff Respondent appeared by its attorney Roger Albright Evidence was received and the record closed that day
IV CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1 TABC has jurisdiction over this matter Tex Alco Bev Code (the Code) Chapter 5
2 SOAH has jurisdiction to conduct the administrative hearing in this matter and to issue a proposal for decision containing proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law Tex Govt Code Chapter 2003
3 Proper and timely notice of the hearing was provided to Respondent Tex Govt Code sect 2001051-052
4 Respondent violated sect l l6l(b)(l3) of the Code which authorizes the Commission to suspend a pe1mit if the pe1mittee was intoxicated on the licensed premises
5 A 36 day suspension of Respondents Mixed Beverage Permit MB753709 which includes a Mixed Beverage Late Hours Permit and a Beverage Cartage Permit or in the alternative a civil penalty of $300 per day for the recommended 36 days a total of $10800 is appropriate sectsect l l6l(b)(l3) and 1164 of the Code 16 Tex Admin Codesect 342
SIGNED December 17 2015
OBERT F JO ES JR ADMINISTRATI W JUDGE STATE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
STATE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS FT WORTH OFFICE
6777 Camp Bowie Blvd Suite 400 Fort Worth Texas 76116
Phone (817) 731-1733 Fax (512) 322-0473
SERVICE LIST
AGENCY Alcoholic Beverage Commission Texas (TABC)
STYLECASE 2345 MEACHAM LLC DBA BUCKS CABARET
SOAH DOCKET NUMBER 458-15-3318
REFERRING AGENCY CASE 624309
STATE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE
HEARINGS
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
ALJ ROBERT JONES
REPRESENTATIVEADDRESS
SHEILA LINDSEY - SANDERS STAFF ATTORNEY TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION 427 W 20TH STREET SUITE 600 HOUSTON TX 77008 (713) 426-7900 (PH) (713) 862-7478 (FAX)
PARTIES
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION
ROGER ALBRIGHT ATTORNEY AT LAW 3301 ELM STREET DALLAS TX 75226 (214) 939-9224 (PH) (214) 939-9229 (FAX) ralawrogeralbrightcom
ROGER ALBRIGHT
xc Docket Clerk State Office of Administrative Hearings Emily Helm GENERAL COUNSEL TABC Fax No 512-206-3226
Pagel of I
DOCKET NO 624309
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE
COMMISSION Petitioner
VS
2345 MEACHAM LLC
DBA BUCKrsquoS CABARET
Respondent
PERMIT MB753709 LB PE
TARRANT COUNTY TEXAS
(SOAH DOCKET NO 458-15-3318)
BEFORE THE TEXAS
ALCOHOLIC
BEVERAGE COMMISSION
ORDER
CAME ON FOR CONSIDERATION this 14th day of October 2016 the above-styled
and numbered cause
After proper notice was given this case was heard by the State Office of Administrative
Hearings (SOAH) with Administrative Law Judge Robert F Jones Jr presiding The hearing
convened on October 22 2015 and the SOAH record closed the same date The Administrative
Law Judge made and filed a Proposal for Decision containing Findings of Fact and Conclusions
of Law on December 17 2015 The Proposal for Decision was properly served on all parties
who were given an opportunity to file exceptions and replies as part of the record herein No
exceptions were filed
After review and due consideration of the Proposal for Decision I adopt the Findings of
Fact and Conclusions of Law of the Administrative Law Judge that are contained in the Proposal
for Decision and incorporate those Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law into this Order as if
such were fully set out and separately stated herein
All motions requests for entry of Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
and any other requests for general or specific relief submitted by any party are denied unless
specifically adopted herein
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the privileges granted by the Commission and the
activities authorized under the above permit by the Code will be SUSPENDED beginning at
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
__________________________________________
__________________________________________
1201 am on November 30th 2016 and shall remain suspended for THIRTY-SIX (36)
DAYS UNLESS a civil penalty in the amount of $1080000 is paid ON OR BEFORE
November 22nd 2016
This Order will become final and enforceable on the 15th day of November
2016 unless a Motion for Rehearing is filed by the 14th day of November 2016
SIGNED this the 14th day of October 2016 at Austin Texas
Sherry K-Cook Executive Director
Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that the persons listed below were served with a copy of this Order in the manner
indicated below on this the 14th day of October 2016
Martin Wilson Assistant General Counsel
Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission
Robert F Jones Jr
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
State Office of Administrative Hearings
300 W 15th
Street Suite 502
Austin TX 78701
VIA FACSIMILE (512) 322-2061
2345 Meacham LLC
dba Buckrsquos Cabaret
RESPONDENT
PO Box 271289
Flower Mound TX 75027
VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL CMRRR 70160600000046455820
Roger Albright
ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENT
3301 Elm Street
Dallas TX 75226
VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL CMRRR 70160600000046455837
Shelia Lindsey
ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER
TABC Legal Division
VIA E-MAIL Shelialindseytabctexasgov
__________________________________
__________________________________
__________________________________
__________________________________
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION
CIVIL PENALTY REMITTANCE
DOCKET NUMBER 624309 REGISTER NUMBER
NAME 2345 MEACHAM LLC
TRADENAME Buckrsquos Cabaret
ADDRESS PO Box 271289 Flower Mound Texas
DUE DATE November 22 2016
PERMITS OR LICENSES MB753709 LB PE
AMOUNT OF PENALTY $1080000
Amount remitted $____________________ Date remitted ____________________________
You may pay a civil penalty rather than have your permits and licenses suspended if an amount
for civil penalty is included on the attached order
YOU HAVE THE OPTION TO PAY THE CIVIL PENALTY ONLY IF YOU PAY THE
ENTIRE AMOUNT ON OR BEFORE THE DUE DATE AFTER THAT DATE YOUR
LICENSE OR PERMIT WILL BE SUSPENDED FOR THE TIME PERIOD STATED ON
THE ORDER
Mail this form with your payment to
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION
PO Box 13127 Austin Texas 78711
Overnight Delivery Address 5806 Mesa Dr Austin Texas 78731
You must pay by postal money order certified check or cashiers check No personal or
company check nor partial payment accepted Your payment will be returned if anything is
incorrect You must pay the entire amount of the penalty assessed
Attach this form and please make certain to include the Docket on your payment
Signature of Responsible Party
Street Address PO Box No
City State Zip Code
Area CodeTelephone No
Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2
DOCKET NO 624309
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE
COMMISSION Petitioner
sect
sect
sect
sect
VS sect
sect
sect
sect
2345 MEACHAM LLC
DBA BUCKrsquoS CABARET
Respondent
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
PERMIT MB753709 LB PE sect
sect
sect
TARRANT COUNTY TEXAS
(SOAH DOCKET NO 458-15-3318)
sect
sect
BEFORE THE TEXAS
BEVERAGE COMMISSION
ALCOHOLIC
ORDER DENYING M OTION FOR REHEARING
Page 1 of 3
CAME ON FOR CONSIDERATION this 1st day of December 2016 the above-styled
and numbered cause
On October 14 2016 an Order was issued in this cause suspending Respondents permits
for a period of 36 days unless a civil penalty in the amount of $10800 was paid A timely
Motion for RehearingReconsideration was filed by Respondent on November 11 2016 and a
Supplemental Motion for Rehearing was filed by Respondent on November 16 2016 Petitioner
filed a Response to Respondents Motion for RehearingReconsideration on November 22 2016
Having considered Respondents Motion for RehearingReconsideration
Respondents Supplemental Motion for Rehearing and Petitioners Response to Respondents
Motion for RehearingReconsideration Respondents Motion for RehearingReconsideration is
DENIED
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that IF THIS ORDER IS NOT APPEALED
WITHIN THE TIME ALLOWED BY ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CODE sect1167 the
privileges granted by the Commission and the activities authorized under the above permits by
the Code will be SUSPENDED beginning at 1201 am on January 25 2017 and shall remain
suspended for THIRTY SIX (36) CONSECUTIVE DAYS UNLESS a civil penalty in the
amount of $1080000 is paid in lieu of suspension ON OR BEFORE January 17 2017
__________________________________________
_________________________________________
IF THIS ORDER IS APPEALED AND THE DECISION IS AFFIRMED IT IS
ORDERED that the privileges granted by the Commission and the activities authorized under
the above permits by the Code will be SUSPENDED beginning at 1201 am on the fifteenth
(15th
) day following the date the decision is affirmed whether by Order or by operation of law
and shall remain suspended for THIRTY SIX (36) CONSECUTIVE DAYS UNLESS a civil
penalty in the amount of $1080000 is paid in lieu of suspension ON OR BEFORE the seventh
(7th
) day following the date the decision is affirmed whether by Order or by operation of law
SIGNED this the 1st day of December 2016 at Austin Texas
Sherry K-Cook Executive Director
Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that the persons listed below were served with a copy of this Order Denying
Motion for Rehearing in the manner indicated below on this the 1st day of December 2016
Martin Wilson Assistant General Counsel
Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission
Page 2 of 3
Robert F Jones Jr
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
State Office of Administrative Hearings
300 W 15th
Street Suite 502
Austin TX 78701
VIA FACSIMILE (512) 322-2061
2345 Meacham LLC
dba Buckrsquos Cabaret
RESPONDENT
PO Box 271289
Flower Mound TX 75027
VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL CMRRR 70160340000080983298
Roger Albright
ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENT
3301 Elm Street
Dallas TX 75226
VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL CMRRR70160340000080983281
Shelia Lindsey
ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER
TABC Legal Division
VIA E-MAIL Shelialindseytabctexasgov
Page 3 of 3
__________________________________
__________________________________
__________________________________
__________________________________
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION
CIVIL PENALTY REMITTANCE
DOCKET NUMBER 624309 REGISTER NUMBER
NAME 2345 Meacham LLC
TRADENAME Buckrsquos Cabaret
ADDRESS PO Box 271289 Flower Mound Texas
DUE DATE January 17 2017
PERMITS OR LICENSES MB753709 PE LB
AMOUNT OF PENALTY $1080000
Amount remitted $____________________ Date remitted ____________________________
You may pay a civil penalty rather than have your permits and licenses suspended if an amount
for civil penalty is included on the attached order
YOU HAVE THE OPTION TO PAY THE CIVIL PENALTY ONLY IF YOU PAY THE
ENTIRE AMOUNT ON OR BEFORE THE DUE DATE AFTER THAT DATE YOUR
LICENSE OR PERMIT WILL BE SUSPENDED FOR THE TIME PERIOD STATED ON
THE ORDER
Mail this form with your payment to
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION
PO Box 13127 Austin Texas 78711
Overnight Delivery Address 5806 Mesa Dr Austin Texas 78731
You must pay by postal money order certified check or cashiers check No personal or
company check nor partial payment accepted Your payment will be returned if anything is
incorrect You must pay the entire amount of the penalty assessed
Attach this form and please make certain to include the Docket on your payment
Signature of Responsible Party
Street Address PO Box No
City State Zip Code
Area CodeTelephone No
Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2
CAUSE NO 348-289708-16
2345 MEACHAM LLC DBA BUCKS CABARET
Plaintiff
v
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION
Defendant
sect IN THE DISTRICT COURT
348TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
TARRANT COUNTY TEXAS
sect sect sect sect sect sect sect sect sect
ORDER AFFIRMING TABC DECISION fllJ()1)1-j 13J
On tkis day came on to be heard the above-tyled and numbered cause
pursuant to Ch 2001 ofthe Texas Government Code (the Administrative Procedure
Act) and sect 1167 of the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code 2345 Meacham LLC
dba Bucks Cabaret and the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission appeared by
and through their attorneys of record and announced ready All matters of fact and
controversy were submitted The Court after reviewing the evidence and hearing
the arguments of counsel finds that the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission
Order of October 14 2016 is supported by substantial evidence
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED ADJUDGED and DECREED that the
Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commissions Order of October 14 2016 suspending
Plaintiffs Mixed Beverage Permit MB753709 and the associated Beverage Cartage
Permit and Mixed Beverage Late Hours Permit is supported by substantial
evidence and thus is AFFIRMED _1 L IJND Tltld1lt lJAS t-lltJ cflfAfl ltJr tlJ~
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED ADJUDGED and DECREED that the Plaintiff
shall take nothing by this suit and that Defendant shall be in all things discharged
ion
ON ALL SERVED VIAIE-MAILED - HAND DtLIVERY -MAIL
=----WHO 16 TO
_--13 1
SElVE COPIEIS ON gtLL OTHEN
and that the costs ofcourt are taxed against the party incurring same All other relief
not expressly granted herein is denied
This judgment is final disposes of all claims and parties and is appealable f-b
SIGNED and ENTERED this 3 day ofJanuary 2017 L
348TH DISTRICT COURT
2
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE7
Ms Walls recalled that she went to the dressing room to wait and shortly afterward the
TABC open team entered Ms Walls stated she was looking for her phone in her garment or
dance bag According to Ms Walls Sergeant Knox grabbed her bag When Ms Walls found
her phone Sgt Knox told her to call her mother to pick her up Ms Walls called her mother and
at Sgt Knoxs insistence allowed Sgt Knox to speak with her mother to arrange a pick-up
Because Ms Walls and her mother lived in Lewisville 45 minutes away Sgt Knox decided
Ms Walls needed to take a cab
According to Ms Walls as she was dressing one of the officers grabbed her purse and
began searching it Ms Walls stated that there was a prescription bottle in the purse for what she
called her anxiety medication According to Ms Walls the officer told her they had permission
to go through her purse or were authorized to because of the presence of the prescription bottle
Ms Walls stated that she did not eat that day and had taken her medication that day She Said
the medication affects [her] on an empty stomach None of the officers asked Ms Walls the
name of the medication she was taking for a copy of the prescription or if she had taken any
that night
Ms Walls testified that after she was dressed she and the officers went to the managers
office As Ms Walls recalled the only field sobriety test was looking in her eyes and the
agent said they were glassy and red
Mr George recalled that at the agents request he took Ms Walls and the agents to the
managers office He noted that the agents did not use a portable breath tester (PBT) or any
other type of breath test device Mr George stated he mediated between Ms Walls and the
agents in the managers office Mr George stated that Ms Walls was cooperative though
anxious confused and agitated Mr George observed that Ms Walls stood balanced in the
dressing room speaking to the officers while she was getting dressed and while speaking on the
phone with her mother The only time he observed her as unsteady was during the field sobriety
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGES
test Mr George stated that Ms Walls told the agents that she has an eating problem and that if
she doesnt eat she will feel weak and unstable and that she hadnt ate all day6
6 Resp Ex I at 2 7 Resp Ex I at 2
Mr George observed Agent Nunnery conduct a field sobriety test and heard him
conclude that Ms Walls was intoxicated Mr George witnessed Agent Nunnery attempt to
conduct the horizontal gaze nystagmus (HGN) with Ms Walls He noted the agent told
Ms Walls to follow the pen he used as a stimulus with her eyes and not to move her head or
body Mr George noted that as Agent Nunnery conducted the test Ms Walls twice stumbled to
her right side7 According to Mr George once he had conducted the HGN Agent Nunnery told
Agent Carleton he had all he needed
According to Mr George Agent Nunnery stated he believed Ms Walls was intoxicated
on more than just alcohol He asked Ms Walls if she was taking any prescription medication
Ms Walls stated she was taking a prescription medication but Mr George did not recall or write
down what the medication was
Mr George stated that he took Ms Walls outside to wait for the cab and at some point
he re-entered inside the club When Mr George returned outside he saw Agent Nunnery
searching Ms Walls s purse According to Mr George Agent Nunnery found a prescription
bottle and told Ms Walls the narcotics he had found justified the search According to
Mr George Agent Knox asked him to be sure Ms Walls took the cab and the agents left before
Ms Wallss cab arrived
Agent Nunnery personally observed Ms Walls in the managers office She had the odor
of an alcoholic beverage on her breath and person had glassy eyes had slurred speech and
swayed standing Agent Nunnery is trained in field sobriety tests In particular Agent Nunnery
is certified to conduct the HGN examinations Agent Nunnery testified that HGN identifies the
level of intoxication Agent Nunnery started the HGN and observed Ms Walls that exhibited
two clues - lack of smooth pursuit in both eyes Agent Nunnery had Ms Walls conduct the test
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE9
standing He stopped the test when she lost her balance twice Agent Nunnery had Ms Walls sit
down He testified that the HGN cannot be conducted when the subject is seated As a
consequence Agent Nunnery testified he could not complete the test
Agent Nunnery agreed he asked Ms Walls if she was taking any medication because
narcotics could affect the HGN results According to Agent Nunnery Ms Walls denied taking
any medications When asked by Agent Nunnery Ms Walls stated she had consumed three
whiskey and cokes
Agent Nunnery stated that Ms Walls was sent home in a cab and he waited outside the
club with Ms Walls to assure she left8 He noted that Mr George was also outside Agent
Nunnery testified that Ms Walls dropped her purse and the contents spilled including cigarette
rolling papers Agent Nunnery asked Ms Walls what the papers were for and she replied for
marijuana Agent Nunnery asked Ms Walls if she had possession of any illegal drugs and she
replied she had already smoked it all9 Agent Nunnery testified that Ms Walls consented to a
search of her purse and Agent Nunnery searched her purse He found nothing He specifically
denied finding a prescription bottle The cab arrived and Ms Walls was released
Ms Walls was not arrested that night Respondent was issued an administrative notice
for violation ofsect 1 l61(b)(l3) of the Code
D Respondents Policies and Procedures
Curtis Wise is the owner of Respondent Mr Wise was not present at the premises on
March 1 2014 Mr Wise is familiar with the statute prohibiting a permittees employee from
being intoxicated on the licensed premises Mr Wise did not object and did not correct
8 Ms Walls did not recall any of the agents waiting outside with her for the cab Instead she recalled that Mr George Mr Wangler the three agents and she waited in the office for the cab and when it arrived Mr George walked her out to the cab 9 Mr Wangler stated he did not know if Ms Walls had smoked marijuana that night and also related that she did not smoke in his house during the eleven months she lived there Ms Walls stated it was possible she had cigarette rolling papers at the bottom of her purse because she had carried the purse for years She denied smoking marijuana that night Ms Walls also denied dropping her purse Mr George did not recall a discussion of rolling papers or marijuana use No witness testified that they smelled the odor of burned marijuana on Ms Wallss person
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGElO
Mr Wanglers testimony that Respondents dancers were employees for the purposes of
sect 1 l61(b)(13) of the Code Mr Wise listed a number of actions Respondent takes to assure
compliance with sect l 161(b)(13) A doorman is on duty every night to screen patrons for
intoxication before they enter Further four to seven or eight managers work each night On
March 1 2014 aside from Mr George and Mr Wangler four other managers would have been
working the floor The managers conduct daily pre-shift meetings with wait staff and bartenders
to emphasize the need to monitor alcohol consumption and signs of intoxication in dancers and
patrons All the bartenders are T ABC sellerserver certified The bartenders and wait staff were
instructed to monitor the dancers intake and warn management if they believed a dancer was or
was becoming impaired Floor managers were required to monitor the alcohol intake of dancers
and customers at the club and to intervene if needed to cut off a customer offer food and offer a
car ride Respondent employed a house mom stationed in the dancers dressing room to
oversee the dancers on the premises Mr Wise asked TABC to conduct an alcohol awareness
class and required all employees and dancers to attend 10
10 The class may have been given in conjunction with Respondents settlement of an earlier violation Resp Ex I
Mr Wise stated that Respondent has a breathalyzer that is kept on the premises The
device is used as a guideline to see what an employees breath alcohol concentration might be if
the employee is acting out of the ordinary or may be intoxicated In the past a manager sent an
employee home after the employee failed an in-house breathalyzer test Respondent does not
request patrons to use the device Mr Wise did not recall what make or model the device was
but did note that it had to be sent to the manufacturer for calibration
Mr Wise explained that if a wait staff employee or dancer had to be sent home it would
be the managers decision and Mr Wise would not need to be consulted The matter would be
discussed at the weekly management meeting when discipline would be decided a second
chance a reduction of time (a week or a month off) or a termination There was such a meeting
after the March 1 2014 incident Mr Wise and his mangers discussed what happened and what
could have been done to prevent it Mr Wise could not recall what discipline might have been
imposed on Ms Walls
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE 11
After the March st event Mr Wangler told Mr Wise that Ms Walls was on medication
and Mr Wise asked Mr Wangler what medication she was taking Mr Wangler sent Mr Wise a
text and Mr Wise looked up the medication which he identified as citalopram That drug is an
antidepressant marketed as Celexa However the medication was not positively identified nor
was the medications interaction with alcohol established in the record of this case Mr Wise
testified that Respondent does not have a policy with respect to an employee or a dancer taking
prescription drugs
E Applicable Law
The T ABC may suspend a permit for not more than sixty days if the permittee was
intoxicated on the licensed premises 11 Permittee means a person who is the holder of a
permit provided for in this code or an agent servant or employee of that person12
Intoxicated means not having the normal use of mental or physical faculties by reason of the
introduction of alcohol a controlled substance a drug a dangerous drug a combination of two
or more of those substances or any other substance into the body13 The Staff has the burden of
proof by a preponderance of the evidence 14
11 Tex Alco Bev Code (the Code)sect I l61(b)(l3 12 sect 104(11) of the Code 13 Tex Penal Codesect 4901(2)(A) 14 I Texas Administrative Code (TAC)sect 155427
F Parties Arguments
Staff argued that a preponderance of the evidence proved that Respondents employee
Ms Walls was intoxicated on the licensed premises on March I 2014 Ms Walls displayed
clear signs of intoxication she was unsteady on her feet (both in high-heeled shoes and in tennis
shoes) Ms Walls used other objects for support when walking appeared confused had glassy
eyes and had the odor of an alcoholic beverage on her breath Ms Wallss testimony
contradicted that of Mr George he (as well as Agent Nunnery) stated they waited outside for the
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE 12
cab Ms Walls denied it Accordingly Staff argued that her testimony should not be considered
to be credible
The Staff noted that Mr Wangler testified that something was wrong or off with
Ms Walls He took steps to remove Ms Walls from the club floor Petitioner argued that
Ms Walls had too much to drink or was under the influence of her medication (which the Staff
termed a narcotic) or both The Staff argued that Ms Walls more likely than not knew she was
taking medication that should not have been mixed with alcohol due to a possible adverse
interaction The Staff asserted that Mr Wanglers action in taking Ms Walls off the dance floor
corroborated the testimony of Agents Shirley and Cayea who observed Ms Walls
The Staff recommended a 36 day suspension of the Respondents permit or in the
alternative a civil penalty of $300 per day for the recommended 36 days for a total penalty of
$] 0800 15
15 16TACsect342
Respondent argued that Agent Nunnerys testimony was not credible due to his failure to
recollect details about the evening such as who was present or which agent performed which act
Respondent argued that the Staff was asserting that the permittee is strictly liable for an
employee being intoxicated on the premises That is if the Staff could show that the person was
an employee was physically present on the premises and was intoxicated then the violation
would be proved Respondent argued that SOAH ALJs recognized a further issue that must be
proved whether the employee was working at the time and was in the course and scope of their
employment citing Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission v 13335 Duluth Restaurant and Bar
dlbla La Chatte 16 Respondent argued that Mr Wranglers actions took Ms Walls out of her
course of employment
16 SOAH Docket No 458-11-3550 (July 6 2011)
The Respondents reliance on La Chatte is misplaced The Commissions Final Order in
the case specifically rejected the notion that an employee had to be acting in the course and
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE 13
scope of employment to be treated as a permittee The Commission stated It is not necessary to
decide whether the employee is on the clock in order to decide whether she is treated as the
permittee The Code does not contain that proviso Nor does the Code require that an employee
be engaged in the work she is hired to do in order for her to be treated as the permittee17
Respondent further argued it had done everything it could to monitor and prevent
Ms Walls or any dancer from becoming intoxicated and took action to send Ms Walls home
when something appeared to be wrong Respondent argued that if Ms Walls was intoxicated
some or all of it could be ascribed to her medication In Respondents view the purpose of
sect l l61(b)(13) is to police persons with easy access to alcohol which Respondent asserted it had
done Ms Wallss use of her medication was beyond Respondents control
Respondent argued that if a penalty is imposed in this contested case Respondent would
be entitled to a variance from the standard penalty chart because of the steps Respondent has
taken to avoid a violation ofsect l l61(b)(13) of the Code 18
G Analysis
Staff has to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Ms Walls was Respondents
employee and that she was intoxicated on the licensed premises
Respondent did not dispute that Ms Walls was Respondents employee on
March I 2014 for the purposes ofsect l l61(b)(13) of the Code Since Ms Wallss opportunity to
dance and earn money through Respondents customers was contingent on her following
Respondents rules and policies Ms Walls is fairly described as Petitioners employee for the
purposes of this Proposal for Decision 19
17 Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission Board Final Order TABC Docket No 599022 (SOAH Docket No 458shy11-3550) (January 18 2012) at 1-2 18 sectsect 11641(a)(3) and 1164(c) of the Code 19 Villatoro v Tex Alcoholic Bev Comm n No 05-12-00444-CV (Tex App-Dallas June 3 2013 no writ)
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE 14
Ms Walls testimony established that she had not eaten on March 1 2014 had consumed
at least two and pmt of a third mixed drinks had consumed the drinks between 700 pm and
midnight and that she had taken her prescribed anxiety medication some time during the day
The exact medication she had taken was not established Ms Walls was not asked to identify the
medication that night or at the hearing nor was she asked to produce or subpoenaed to produce
a copy of the prescription Mr Wises identification of the drug as citalopram or Celexa was
based upon information he received from Mr Wangler and cannot be considered as dispositive
Further assuming Ms Walls was taking citalopram or Celexa that particular drugs interaction
with alcohol was not established There was no evidence that Ms Walls smoked marijuana that
night
The undercover team stated that Ms Walls had a glassy blank stare and disheveled hair
swayed while walking and ran into the frame of the doorway leading to the dressing room
Agent Nunnery testified that Ms Walls seemed intoxicated her speech was sinned Ms Walls
had short term memory loss ( concerning her cell phone) nearly fell down twice as she was
dressing and attempted to place her left shoe on her right foot had the odor of an alcoholic
beverage on her breath and person had glassy eyes and swayed standing
Although Ms Walls admitted drinking alcohol that night Mr Wangler testified he did
not believe that Ms Walls was intoxicated but he also was concerned that Ms Walls was not
right Mr Wangler testified he had the perception that something was a little off or
different with Ms Walls Mr George observed that Ms Walls stood balanced while she was
dressing and speaking on the phone with her mother but lost her balance twice during the field
sobriety test Agent Nunnery conducted the HGN and observed Ms Walls that exhibited two
clues lack of smooth pursuit in both eyes He stopped the test when she lost her balance twice
causing Agent Nunnery to have Ms Walls sit down Agent Nunnery interpreted the two HGN
clues as sufficient to conclude that Ms Walls was intoxicated However Ms Walls was not so
intoxicated that she was arrested for public intoxication that is for being intoxicated to the
degree that [Ms Walls might] endanger [herself] or another20
20 Tex Penal Code sect 4902(a)
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE15
The National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) publication states
that an officer must look for the following three criteria in the HGN test (1) an inability to
pursue smoothly an object or stimulus moving sideways across the suspects field of vision (3)
distinct or pronounced nystagmus at the eyes maximum horizontal deviation and (3) an angle
of onset of nystagmus of less than or equal to 45 degrees The officer must look for these criteria
in each eye for a total of six clues If the officer identifies four or more clues then the officer
classifies the suspect as intoxicated21 Accordingly Agent Nunnery was not justified to
conclude Ms Walls was intoxicated based upon the HGN alone
Mr George noted that the agents did not use a portable breath tester (PBT) or any other
type of breath test device22 Agent Nunnery was not issued a PBT by TABC and testified that a
PBT result would not be admissible in court Agent Nurmery testified he did not have the ability
to give Ms Walls an intoxilyzer or breathalyzer test
Agent Shirley Agent Cayea and Mr Wangler each at about the same moment
concluded that something was wrong with Ms Walls The physical indicators that
Agent Shirley Agent Cayea and Agent Nunnery observed are associated with alcohol
intoxication Ms Wallss recollection of events especially the searching of her purse and her
being escorted outside by Agent Nunnery and Mr George are contradicted by the testimony of
both and their recorded observations23 Ms Walls was and remains confused about the sequence
of the events of the night and that confusion is further evidence of her impairment
21 Emerson at 766 NHTSA SFST Manual at VIII-8 (2006) found at httpoagdcgovnode443812 22 Although Mr Wise testified that Petitioner had an in-house PBT neither Mr Wangler nor Mr George requested Ms Wall to submit a specimen of her breath before or after the TABC arrived 23 Respondent argued that Agent Nunnerys written report contradicted his testimony that he stood outside with Ms Walls waiting for the cab in an effort to impeach his testimony It is true that the report does not mention that episode However Mr Georges testimony and written memorandum agreed with and supported Agent Nunnerys testimony
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE16
The ALJ concludes that a preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that Ms Walls
Respondents employee had lost normal use of her mental or physical faculties by reason of the
introduction of alcohol on the licensed premises 24
24 Ms Wallss anxiety medication was not identified nor was any expert testimony offered on the effects of the mediation or its interaction with alcohol For example Ms Walls testified that she had not eaten that day and that her medication affects her on an empty stomach However Mr George testified Ms Walls told the agents that she has an eating problem and that if she doesnt eat she will feel weak and unstable and that she hadnt ate all day According to Agent Nunnery Ms Walls denied taking any medications Given these contradictions the ALJ recommends that no finding be made on whether Ms Walls was intoxicated due to her medication or its interaction with alcohol 25 16TACsect342 26 Resp Ex I 27 16 TACsect 342 28 16 TACsect 34l(g)(J) and (4)
The ALJ recommends that the Commission find that Petitioner violatedsect 1 l6l(b)(13) of
the Code
The Staff recommended a 36 day suspension of the Respondents permit or in the
alternative a civil penalty of$300 per day for the recommended 36 days or $10800 for a second
violation of sect 1 l6l(b)(l3) of the Code25 According to Petitioners administrative record
Petitioner had a prior violation of sect 1 l61(b)(l3) which occmTed on December 20 2013
Petitioner was assessed an administrative penalty of $5100 (the equivalent of a 17 day
suspension) which was reduced to $4500 (the equivalent of a 15 day suspension) after
completion of an employee educational program on March 21 2014 which was paid on
March 26 201426 A violation of is sect l l6l(b)(13) a health safety and welfare violation27
Under the Commissions rule a subsequent violation of the Code or rule will result in a sanction
in the next higher violation level if the subsequent violation is for a health safety and welfare
violation and occurs within 36 months of the prior violation and the subsequent violation is
issued during an undercover operation28 The subsequent violation was on March 1 2014
which is within 36 months of the prior violation on December 20 2013 The March 1 2014
violation was issued during an undercover investigation
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE 17
Respondent argued that the amount of civil penalty should be reduced upon a
consideration of the ameliorating circumstances concerning the violation29 The ameliorating
circumstances cited by Respondent are Respondents practices and policies described above
and the fact that Mr Wangler immediately removed Ms Walls from the dance floor when he
observed something wrong with her The Commission has stated that Texass policy is for
Neither the permit holder nor an agent servant or employee of the permit holder to be
intoxicated o the premises in the first place30 Moreover Respondents prior violation of
sect l l6l(b)(l3) is an aggravating circumstance under the same statute31 Respondent is not
entitled to a reduction in the proposed suspension or penalty
29 sect l l641(a)(3) of the Code sect J l64Jnotes that ameliorating circumstances include those enumerated in Section l l64(c) The circumstances listed in I l64(c) namely that the violation could not reasonably have been prevented by the permittee or licensee by the exercise of due diligence that the permittee or licensee was entrapped that an agent servant or employee of the permittee or licensee violated this code without the knowledge of the permittee or licensee that the permittee or licensee did not knowingly violate this code that the permittee or licensee has demonstrated good faith including the taking of actions to rectify the consequences of the violation and to deter future violations or (6) that the violation was a technical one have no factual support in the record 30 Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission Board Final Order TABC Docket No 599022 (SOAH Docket No 458shy11-3550) (January 18 2012) at 3 31 sect I I641(a)(4) ofthe Code
The ALJ recommends that Respondents permit be suspended for 36 days or in the
alternative Respondent be assessed a civil penalty of $300 per day for 36 days for a total penalty
of$10800
III FINDINGS OF FACT
I The Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission (TABC) issued Mixed Beverage Permit MB753709 which includes a Mixed Beverage Late Hours Permit and a Beverage Cartage Permit to Respondent 2345 Meacham LLC dba Buckss Cabaret
2 Respondents licensed premises are located at 2345 Meacham Boulevard Fort Worth Tarrant County Texas 76106
3 On March 1 2014 TABC Agent Denver Carleton led a squad of TABC agents namely Sergeant Charlotte Knox and agents Travis Shirley Charles Cayea and Christopher Nunnery in an undercover investigation of the Respondents premises
4 Agents Shirley and Cayea were the undercover team
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE 18
5 Agent Carleton Sergeant Knox and Agent Nunnery were the open team
6 Agents Shirley and Cayea entered Respondents premises at approximately 11 00 pm on March 1 2014
7 Kaitlyn Walls was a dancer at Respondents bar
8 Ms Walls was working that night beginning at approximately 700 pm
9 Ms Walls danced on the main stage and then on the smaller stages in rotation
10 Ms Walls approached a customer and sat next to him at the bar near the agents
11 Ms Walls and her barstool fell to the floor
12 Ms Walls had a glassy blank stare and disheveled hair
13 Ms Walls swayed while walking and ran into the door frame of the doorway leading to the clubs dancers dressing room
14 Agents Shirley and Cayea contacted the open team and informed them that they believed Ms Walls was intoxicated
15 The two agents sent the open team Ms Wallss description and her location in the dressing room by text message
16 Agents Shirley and Cayea left the club after the open team entered the club
17 Agent Nunnery came into close contact with Ms Walls
18 Ms Walls had slmTed speech was not aware of where her cell phone was even though she was holding it nearly fell down twice as she was dressing had glassy eyes swayed standing and lost her balance twice during field sobriety testing
19 Ms Walls admitted to drinking three alcoholic beverages
20 Ms Walls displayed physical and mental indications of intoxication
21 On March 1 2014 Ms Walls did not have the normal use of her mental or physical faculties by reason of the introduction of alcohol into her body
22 On March 1 2014 Ms Walls was an employee of Respondent
23 Petitioner had a prior violation ofsect l l6I(b)(l3) of the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code (the Code) which occurred on December 20 2013 Petitioner was assessed an administrative penalty which was paid on March 26 2014
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE 19
24 The violation which is the subject of this contested case was on March 1 2014 which is within 36 months of the prior violation on December 20 2013
25 The March 1 2014 violation was issued during an undercover investigation
26 On April 14 2015 Staff issued its Notice of Hearing which contained information regarding the date time and place of the hearing the matters asserted the statutes and rules involved and the legal authorities under which the hearing would be held
27 The hearing in this matter convened before Administrative Law Judge Robert F Jones Jr on October 22 2015 at the State Office of Administrative Hearings (SOAH) in Fort Worth Texas Sheila A Lindsey of the TABC Legal Services Division appeared and represented the Staff Respondent appeared by its attorney Roger Albright Evidence was received and the record closed that day
IV CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1 TABC has jurisdiction over this matter Tex Alco Bev Code (the Code) Chapter 5
2 SOAH has jurisdiction to conduct the administrative hearing in this matter and to issue a proposal for decision containing proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law Tex Govt Code Chapter 2003
3 Proper and timely notice of the hearing was provided to Respondent Tex Govt Code sect 2001051-052
4 Respondent violated sect l l6l(b)(l3) of the Code which authorizes the Commission to suspend a pe1mit if the pe1mittee was intoxicated on the licensed premises
5 A 36 day suspension of Respondents Mixed Beverage Permit MB753709 which includes a Mixed Beverage Late Hours Permit and a Beverage Cartage Permit or in the alternative a civil penalty of $300 per day for the recommended 36 days a total of $10800 is appropriate sectsect l l6l(b)(l3) and 1164 of the Code 16 Tex Admin Codesect 342
SIGNED December 17 2015
OBERT F JO ES JR ADMINISTRATI W JUDGE STATE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
STATE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS FT WORTH OFFICE
6777 Camp Bowie Blvd Suite 400 Fort Worth Texas 76116
Phone (817) 731-1733 Fax (512) 322-0473
SERVICE LIST
AGENCY Alcoholic Beverage Commission Texas (TABC)
STYLECASE 2345 MEACHAM LLC DBA BUCKS CABARET
SOAH DOCKET NUMBER 458-15-3318
REFERRING AGENCY CASE 624309
STATE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE
HEARINGS
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
ALJ ROBERT JONES
REPRESENTATIVEADDRESS
SHEILA LINDSEY - SANDERS STAFF ATTORNEY TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION 427 W 20TH STREET SUITE 600 HOUSTON TX 77008 (713) 426-7900 (PH) (713) 862-7478 (FAX)
PARTIES
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION
ROGER ALBRIGHT ATTORNEY AT LAW 3301 ELM STREET DALLAS TX 75226 (214) 939-9224 (PH) (214) 939-9229 (FAX) ralawrogeralbrightcom
ROGER ALBRIGHT
xc Docket Clerk State Office of Administrative Hearings Emily Helm GENERAL COUNSEL TABC Fax No 512-206-3226
Pagel of I
DOCKET NO 624309
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE
COMMISSION Petitioner
VS
2345 MEACHAM LLC
DBA BUCKrsquoS CABARET
Respondent
PERMIT MB753709 LB PE
TARRANT COUNTY TEXAS
(SOAH DOCKET NO 458-15-3318)
BEFORE THE TEXAS
ALCOHOLIC
BEVERAGE COMMISSION
ORDER
CAME ON FOR CONSIDERATION this 14th day of October 2016 the above-styled
and numbered cause
After proper notice was given this case was heard by the State Office of Administrative
Hearings (SOAH) with Administrative Law Judge Robert F Jones Jr presiding The hearing
convened on October 22 2015 and the SOAH record closed the same date The Administrative
Law Judge made and filed a Proposal for Decision containing Findings of Fact and Conclusions
of Law on December 17 2015 The Proposal for Decision was properly served on all parties
who were given an opportunity to file exceptions and replies as part of the record herein No
exceptions were filed
After review and due consideration of the Proposal for Decision I adopt the Findings of
Fact and Conclusions of Law of the Administrative Law Judge that are contained in the Proposal
for Decision and incorporate those Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law into this Order as if
such were fully set out and separately stated herein
All motions requests for entry of Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
and any other requests for general or specific relief submitted by any party are denied unless
specifically adopted herein
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the privileges granted by the Commission and the
activities authorized under the above permit by the Code will be SUSPENDED beginning at
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
__________________________________________
__________________________________________
1201 am on November 30th 2016 and shall remain suspended for THIRTY-SIX (36)
DAYS UNLESS a civil penalty in the amount of $1080000 is paid ON OR BEFORE
November 22nd 2016
This Order will become final and enforceable on the 15th day of November
2016 unless a Motion for Rehearing is filed by the 14th day of November 2016
SIGNED this the 14th day of October 2016 at Austin Texas
Sherry K-Cook Executive Director
Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that the persons listed below were served with a copy of this Order in the manner
indicated below on this the 14th day of October 2016
Martin Wilson Assistant General Counsel
Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission
Robert F Jones Jr
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
State Office of Administrative Hearings
300 W 15th
Street Suite 502
Austin TX 78701
VIA FACSIMILE (512) 322-2061
2345 Meacham LLC
dba Buckrsquos Cabaret
RESPONDENT
PO Box 271289
Flower Mound TX 75027
VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL CMRRR 70160600000046455820
Roger Albright
ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENT
3301 Elm Street
Dallas TX 75226
VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL CMRRR 70160600000046455837
Shelia Lindsey
ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER
TABC Legal Division
VIA E-MAIL Shelialindseytabctexasgov
__________________________________
__________________________________
__________________________________
__________________________________
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION
CIVIL PENALTY REMITTANCE
DOCKET NUMBER 624309 REGISTER NUMBER
NAME 2345 MEACHAM LLC
TRADENAME Buckrsquos Cabaret
ADDRESS PO Box 271289 Flower Mound Texas
DUE DATE November 22 2016
PERMITS OR LICENSES MB753709 LB PE
AMOUNT OF PENALTY $1080000
Amount remitted $____________________ Date remitted ____________________________
You may pay a civil penalty rather than have your permits and licenses suspended if an amount
for civil penalty is included on the attached order
YOU HAVE THE OPTION TO PAY THE CIVIL PENALTY ONLY IF YOU PAY THE
ENTIRE AMOUNT ON OR BEFORE THE DUE DATE AFTER THAT DATE YOUR
LICENSE OR PERMIT WILL BE SUSPENDED FOR THE TIME PERIOD STATED ON
THE ORDER
Mail this form with your payment to
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION
PO Box 13127 Austin Texas 78711
Overnight Delivery Address 5806 Mesa Dr Austin Texas 78731
You must pay by postal money order certified check or cashiers check No personal or
company check nor partial payment accepted Your payment will be returned if anything is
incorrect You must pay the entire amount of the penalty assessed
Attach this form and please make certain to include the Docket on your payment
Signature of Responsible Party
Street Address PO Box No
City State Zip Code
Area CodeTelephone No
Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2
DOCKET NO 624309
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE
COMMISSION Petitioner
sect
sect
sect
sect
VS sect
sect
sect
sect
2345 MEACHAM LLC
DBA BUCKrsquoS CABARET
Respondent
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
PERMIT MB753709 LB PE sect
sect
sect
TARRANT COUNTY TEXAS
(SOAH DOCKET NO 458-15-3318)
sect
sect
BEFORE THE TEXAS
BEVERAGE COMMISSION
ALCOHOLIC
ORDER DENYING M OTION FOR REHEARING
Page 1 of 3
CAME ON FOR CONSIDERATION this 1st day of December 2016 the above-styled
and numbered cause
On October 14 2016 an Order was issued in this cause suspending Respondents permits
for a period of 36 days unless a civil penalty in the amount of $10800 was paid A timely
Motion for RehearingReconsideration was filed by Respondent on November 11 2016 and a
Supplemental Motion for Rehearing was filed by Respondent on November 16 2016 Petitioner
filed a Response to Respondents Motion for RehearingReconsideration on November 22 2016
Having considered Respondents Motion for RehearingReconsideration
Respondents Supplemental Motion for Rehearing and Petitioners Response to Respondents
Motion for RehearingReconsideration Respondents Motion for RehearingReconsideration is
DENIED
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that IF THIS ORDER IS NOT APPEALED
WITHIN THE TIME ALLOWED BY ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CODE sect1167 the
privileges granted by the Commission and the activities authorized under the above permits by
the Code will be SUSPENDED beginning at 1201 am on January 25 2017 and shall remain
suspended for THIRTY SIX (36) CONSECUTIVE DAYS UNLESS a civil penalty in the
amount of $1080000 is paid in lieu of suspension ON OR BEFORE January 17 2017
__________________________________________
_________________________________________
IF THIS ORDER IS APPEALED AND THE DECISION IS AFFIRMED IT IS
ORDERED that the privileges granted by the Commission and the activities authorized under
the above permits by the Code will be SUSPENDED beginning at 1201 am on the fifteenth
(15th
) day following the date the decision is affirmed whether by Order or by operation of law
and shall remain suspended for THIRTY SIX (36) CONSECUTIVE DAYS UNLESS a civil
penalty in the amount of $1080000 is paid in lieu of suspension ON OR BEFORE the seventh
(7th
) day following the date the decision is affirmed whether by Order or by operation of law
SIGNED this the 1st day of December 2016 at Austin Texas
Sherry K-Cook Executive Director
Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that the persons listed below were served with a copy of this Order Denying
Motion for Rehearing in the manner indicated below on this the 1st day of December 2016
Martin Wilson Assistant General Counsel
Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission
Page 2 of 3
Robert F Jones Jr
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
State Office of Administrative Hearings
300 W 15th
Street Suite 502
Austin TX 78701
VIA FACSIMILE (512) 322-2061
2345 Meacham LLC
dba Buckrsquos Cabaret
RESPONDENT
PO Box 271289
Flower Mound TX 75027
VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL CMRRR 70160340000080983298
Roger Albright
ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENT
3301 Elm Street
Dallas TX 75226
VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL CMRRR70160340000080983281
Shelia Lindsey
ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER
TABC Legal Division
VIA E-MAIL Shelialindseytabctexasgov
Page 3 of 3
__________________________________
__________________________________
__________________________________
__________________________________
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION
CIVIL PENALTY REMITTANCE
DOCKET NUMBER 624309 REGISTER NUMBER
NAME 2345 Meacham LLC
TRADENAME Buckrsquos Cabaret
ADDRESS PO Box 271289 Flower Mound Texas
DUE DATE January 17 2017
PERMITS OR LICENSES MB753709 PE LB
AMOUNT OF PENALTY $1080000
Amount remitted $____________________ Date remitted ____________________________
You may pay a civil penalty rather than have your permits and licenses suspended if an amount
for civil penalty is included on the attached order
YOU HAVE THE OPTION TO PAY THE CIVIL PENALTY ONLY IF YOU PAY THE
ENTIRE AMOUNT ON OR BEFORE THE DUE DATE AFTER THAT DATE YOUR
LICENSE OR PERMIT WILL BE SUSPENDED FOR THE TIME PERIOD STATED ON
THE ORDER
Mail this form with your payment to
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION
PO Box 13127 Austin Texas 78711
Overnight Delivery Address 5806 Mesa Dr Austin Texas 78731
You must pay by postal money order certified check or cashiers check No personal or
company check nor partial payment accepted Your payment will be returned if anything is
incorrect You must pay the entire amount of the penalty assessed
Attach this form and please make certain to include the Docket on your payment
Signature of Responsible Party
Street Address PO Box No
City State Zip Code
Area CodeTelephone No
Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2
CAUSE NO 348-289708-16
2345 MEACHAM LLC DBA BUCKS CABARET
Plaintiff
v
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION
Defendant
sect IN THE DISTRICT COURT
348TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
TARRANT COUNTY TEXAS
sect sect sect sect sect sect sect sect sect
ORDER AFFIRMING TABC DECISION fllJ()1)1-j 13J
On tkis day came on to be heard the above-tyled and numbered cause
pursuant to Ch 2001 ofthe Texas Government Code (the Administrative Procedure
Act) and sect 1167 of the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code 2345 Meacham LLC
dba Bucks Cabaret and the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission appeared by
and through their attorneys of record and announced ready All matters of fact and
controversy were submitted The Court after reviewing the evidence and hearing
the arguments of counsel finds that the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission
Order of October 14 2016 is supported by substantial evidence
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED ADJUDGED and DECREED that the
Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commissions Order of October 14 2016 suspending
Plaintiffs Mixed Beverage Permit MB753709 and the associated Beverage Cartage
Permit and Mixed Beverage Late Hours Permit is supported by substantial
evidence and thus is AFFIRMED _1 L IJND Tltld1lt lJAS t-lltJ cflfAfl ltJr tlJ~
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED ADJUDGED and DECREED that the Plaintiff
shall take nothing by this suit and that Defendant shall be in all things discharged
ion
ON ALL SERVED VIAIE-MAILED - HAND DtLIVERY -MAIL
=----WHO 16 TO
_--13 1
SElVE COPIEIS ON gtLL OTHEN
and that the costs ofcourt are taxed against the party incurring same All other relief
not expressly granted herein is denied
This judgment is final disposes of all claims and parties and is appealable f-b
SIGNED and ENTERED this 3 day ofJanuary 2017 L
348TH DISTRICT COURT
2
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGES
test Mr George stated that Ms Walls told the agents that she has an eating problem and that if
she doesnt eat she will feel weak and unstable and that she hadnt ate all day6
6 Resp Ex I at 2 7 Resp Ex I at 2
Mr George observed Agent Nunnery conduct a field sobriety test and heard him
conclude that Ms Walls was intoxicated Mr George witnessed Agent Nunnery attempt to
conduct the horizontal gaze nystagmus (HGN) with Ms Walls He noted the agent told
Ms Walls to follow the pen he used as a stimulus with her eyes and not to move her head or
body Mr George noted that as Agent Nunnery conducted the test Ms Walls twice stumbled to
her right side7 According to Mr George once he had conducted the HGN Agent Nunnery told
Agent Carleton he had all he needed
According to Mr George Agent Nunnery stated he believed Ms Walls was intoxicated
on more than just alcohol He asked Ms Walls if she was taking any prescription medication
Ms Walls stated she was taking a prescription medication but Mr George did not recall or write
down what the medication was
Mr George stated that he took Ms Walls outside to wait for the cab and at some point
he re-entered inside the club When Mr George returned outside he saw Agent Nunnery
searching Ms Walls s purse According to Mr George Agent Nunnery found a prescription
bottle and told Ms Walls the narcotics he had found justified the search According to
Mr George Agent Knox asked him to be sure Ms Walls took the cab and the agents left before
Ms Wallss cab arrived
Agent Nunnery personally observed Ms Walls in the managers office She had the odor
of an alcoholic beverage on her breath and person had glassy eyes had slurred speech and
swayed standing Agent Nunnery is trained in field sobriety tests In particular Agent Nunnery
is certified to conduct the HGN examinations Agent Nunnery testified that HGN identifies the
level of intoxication Agent Nunnery started the HGN and observed Ms Walls that exhibited
two clues - lack of smooth pursuit in both eyes Agent Nunnery had Ms Walls conduct the test
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE9
standing He stopped the test when she lost her balance twice Agent Nunnery had Ms Walls sit
down He testified that the HGN cannot be conducted when the subject is seated As a
consequence Agent Nunnery testified he could not complete the test
Agent Nunnery agreed he asked Ms Walls if she was taking any medication because
narcotics could affect the HGN results According to Agent Nunnery Ms Walls denied taking
any medications When asked by Agent Nunnery Ms Walls stated she had consumed three
whiskey and cokes
Agent Nunnery stated that Ms Walls was sent home in a cab and he waited outside the
club with Ms Walls to assure she left8 He noted that Mr George was also outside Agent
Nunnery testified that Ms Walls dropped her purse and the contents spilled including cigarette
rolling papers Agent Nunnery asked Ms Walls what the papers were for and she replied for
marijuana Agent Nunnery asked Ms Walls if she had possession of any illegal drugs and she
replied she had already smoked it all9 Agent Nunnery testified that Ms Walls consented to a
search of her purse and Agent Nunnery searched her purse He found nothing He specifically
denied finding a prescription bottle The cab arrived and Ms Walls was released
Ms Walls was not arrested that night Respondent was issued an administrative notice
for violation ofsect 1 l61(b)(l3) of the Code
D Respondents Policies and Procedures
Curtis Wise is the owner of Respondent Mr Wise was not present at the premises on
March 1 2014 Mr Wise is familiar with the statute prohibiting a permittees employee from
being intoxicated on the licensed premises Mr Wise did not object and did not correct
8 Ms Walls did not recall any of the agents waiting outside with her for the cab Instead she recalled that Mr George Mr Wangler the three agents and she waited in the office for the cab and when it arrived Mr George walked her out to the cab 9 Mr Wangler stated he did not know if Ms Walls had smoked marijuana that night and also related that she did not smoke in his house during the eleven months she lived there Ms Walls stated it was possible she had cigarette rolling papers at the bottom of her purse because she had carried the purse for years She denied smoking marijuana that night Ms Walls also denied dropping her purse Mr George did not recall a discussion of rolling papers or marijuana use No witness testified that they smelled the odor of burned marijuana on Ms Wallss person
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGElO
Mr Wanglers testimony that Respondents dancers were employees for the purposes of
sect 1 l61(b)(13) of the Code Mr Wise listed a number of actions Respondent takes to assure
compliance with sect l 161(b)(13) A doorman is on duty every night to screen patrons for
intoxication before they enter Further four to seven or eight managers work each night On
March 1 2014 aside from Mr George and Mr Wangler four other managers would have been
working the floor The managers conduct daily pre-shift meetings with wait staff and bartenders
to emphasize the need to monitor alcohol consumption and signs of intoxication in dancers and
patrons All the bartenders are T ABC sellerserver certified The bartenders and wait staff were
instructed to monitor the dancers intake and warn management if they believed a dancer was or
was becoming impaired Floor managers were required to monitor the alcohol intake of dancers
and customers at the club and to intervene if needed to cut off a customer offer food and offer a
car ride Respondent employed a house mom stationed in the dancers dressing room to
oversee the dancers on the premises Mr Wise asked TABC to conduct an alcohol awareness
class and required all employees and dancers to attend 10
10 The class may have been given in conjunction with Respondents settlement of an earlier violation Resp Ex I
Mr Wise stated that Respondent has a breathalyzer that is kept on the premises The
device is used as a guideline to see what an employees breath alcohol concentration might be if
the employee is acting out of the ordinary or may be intoxicated In the past a manager sent an
employee home after the employee failed an in-house breathalyzer test Respondent does not
request patrons to use the device Mr Wise did not recall what make or model the device was
but did note that it had to be sent to the manufacturer for calibration
Mr Wise explained that if a wait staff employee or dancer had to be sent home it would
be the managers decision and Mr Wise would not need to be consulted The matter would be
discussed at the weekly management meeting when discipline would be decided a second
chance a reduction of time (a week or a month off) or a termination There was such a meeting
after the March 1 2014 incident Mr Wise and his mangers discussed what happened and what
could have been done to prevent it Mr Wise could not recall what discipline might have been
imposed on Ms Walls
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE 11
After the March st event Mr Wangler told Mr Wise that Ms Walls was on medication
and Mr Wise asked Mr Wangler what medication she was taking Mr Wangler sent Mr Wise a
text and Mr Wise looked up the medication which he identified as citalopram That drug is an
antidepressant marketed as Celexa However the medication was not positively identified nor
was the medications interaction with alcohol established in the record of this case Mr Wise
testified that Respondent does not have a policy with respect to an employee or a dancer taking
prescription drugs
E Applicable Law
The T ABC may suspend a permit for not more than sixty days if the permittee was
intoxicated on the licensed premises 11 Permittee means a person who is the holder of a
permit provided for in this code or an agent servant or employee of that person12
Intoxicated means not having the normal use of mental or physical faculties by reason of the
introduction of alcohol a controlled substance a drug a dangerous drug a combination of two
or more of those substances or any other substance into the body13 The Staff has the burden of
proof by a preponderance of the evidence 14
11 Tex Alco Bev Code (the Code)sect I l61(b)(l3 12 sect 104(11) of the Code 13 Tex Penal Codesect 4901(2)(A) 14 I Texas Administrative Code (TAC)sect 155427
F Parties Arguments
Staff argued that a preponderance of the evidence proved that Respondents employee
Ms Walls was intoxicated on the licensed premises on March I 2014 Ms Walls displayed
clear signs of intoxication she was unsteady on her feet (both in high-heeled shoes and in tennis
shoes) Ms Walls used other objects for support when walking appeared confused had glassy
eyes and had the odor of an alcoholic beverage on her breath Ms Wallss testimony
contradicted that of Mr George he (as well as Agent Nunnery) stated they waited outside for the
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE 12
cab Ms Walls denied it Accordingly Staff argued that her testimony should not be considered
to be credible
The Staff noted that Mr Wangler testified that something was wrong or off with
Ms Walls He took steps to remove Ms Walls from the club floor Petitioner argued that
Ms Walls had too much to drink or was under the influence of her medication (which the Staff
termed a narcotic) or both The Staff argued that Ms Walls more likely than not knew she was
taking medication that should not have been mixed with alcohol due to a possible adverse
interaction The Staff asserted that Mr Wanglers action in taking Ms Walls off the dance floor
corroborated the testimony of Agents Shirley and Cayea who observed Ms Walls
The Staff recommended a 36 day suspension of the Respondents permit or in the
alternative a civil penalty of $300 per day for the recommended 36 days for a total penalty of
$] 0800 15
15 16TACsect342
Respondent argued that Agent Nunnerys testimony was not credible due to his failure to
recollect details about the evening such as who was present or which agent performed which act
Respondent argued that the Staff was asserting that the permittee is strictly liable for an
employee being intoxicated on the premises That is if the Staff could show that the person was
an employee was physically present on the premises and was intoxicated then the violation
would be proved Respondent argued that SOAH ALJs recognized a further issue that must be
proved whether the employee was working at the time and was in the course and scope of their
employment citing Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission v 13335 Duluth Restaurant and Bar
dlbla La Chatte 16 Respondent argued that Mr Wranglers actions took Ms Walls out of her
course of employment
16 SOAH Docket No 458-11-3550 (July 6 2011)
The Respondents reliance on La Chatte is misplaced The Commissions Final Order in
the case specifically rejected the notion that an employee had to be acting in the course and
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE 13
scope of employment to be treated as a permittee The Commission stated It is not necessary to
decide whether the employee is on the clock in order to decide whether she is treated as the
permittee The Code does not contain that proviso Nor does the Code require that an employee
be engaged in the work she is hired to do in order for her to be treated as the permittee17
Respondent further argued it had done everything it could to monitor and prevent
Ms Walls or any dancer from becoming intoxicated and took action to send Ms Walls home
when something appeared to be wrong Respondent argued that if Ms Walls was intoxicated
some or all of it could be ascribed to her medication In Respondents view the purpose of
sect l l61(b)(13) is to police persons with easy access to alcohol which Respondent asserted it had
done Ms Wallss use of her medication was beyond Respondents control
Respondent argued that if a penalty is imposed in this contested case Respondent would
be entitled to a variance from the standard penalty chart because of the steps Respondent has
taken to avoid a violation ofsect l l61(b)(13) of the Code 18
G Analysis
Staff has to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Ms Walls was Respondents
employee and that she was intoxicated on the licensed premises
Respondent did not dispute that Ms Walls was Respondents employee on
March I 2014 for the purposes ofsect l l61(b)(13) of the Code Since Ms Wallss opportunity to
dance and earn money through Respondents customers was contingent on her following
Respondents rules and policies Ms Walls is fairly described as Petitioners employee for the
purposes of this Proposal for Decision 19
17 Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission Board Final Order TABC Docket No 599022 (SOAH Docket No 458shy11-3550) (January 18 2012) at 1-2 18 sectsect 11641(a)(3) and 1164(c) of the Code 19 Villatoro v Tex Alcoholic Bev Comm n No 05-12-00444-CV (Tex App-Dallas June 3 2013 no writ)
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE 14
Ms Walls testimony established that she had not eaten on March 1 2014 had consumed
at least two and pmt of a third mixed drinks had consumed the drinks between 700 pm and
midnight and that she had taken her prescribed anxiety medication some time during the day
The exact medication she had taken was not established Ms Walls was not asked to identify the
medication that night or at the hearing nor was she asked to produce or subpoenaed to produce
a copy of the prescription Mr Wises identification of the drug as citalopram or Celexa was
based upon information he received from Mr Wangler and cannot be considered as dispositive
Further assuming Ms Walls was taking citalopram or Celexa that particular drugs interaction
with alcohol was not established There was no evidence that Ms Walls smoked marijuana that
night
The undercover team stated that Ms Walls had a glassy blank stare and disheveled hair
swayed while walking and ran into the frame of the doorway leading to the dressing room
Agent Nunnery testified that Ms Walls seemed intoxicated her speech was sinned Ms Walls
had short term memory loss ( concerning her cell phone) nearly fell down twice as she was
dressing and attempted to place her left shoe on her right foot had the odor of an alcoholic
beverage on her breath and person had glassy eyes and swayed standing
Although Ms Walls admitted drinking alcohol that night Mr Wangler testified he did
not believe that Ms Walls was intoxicated but he also was concerned that Ms Walls was not
right Mr Wangler testified he had the perception that something was a little off or
different with Ms Walls Mr George observed that Ms Walls stood balanced while she was
dressing and speaking on the phone with her mother but lost her balance twice during the field
sobriety test Agent Nunnery conducted the HGN and observed Ms Walls that exhibited two
clues lack of smooth pursuit in both eyes He stopped the test when she lost her balance twice
causing Agent Nunnery to have Ms Walls sit down Agent Nunnery interpreted the two HGN
clues as sufficient to conclude that Ms Walls was intoxicated However Ms Walls was not so
intoxicated that she was arrested for public intoxication that is for being intoxicated to the
degree that [Ms Walls might] endanger [herself] or another20
20 Tex Penal Code sect 4902(a)
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE15
The National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) publication states
that an officer must look for the following three criteria in the HGN test (1) an inability to
pursue smoothly an object or stimulus moving sideways across the suspects field of vision (3)
distinct or pronounced nystagmus at the eyes maximum horizontal deviation and (3) an angle
of onset of nystagmus of less than or equal to 45 degrees The officer must look for these criteria
in each eye for a total of six clues If the officer identifies four or more clues then the officer
classifies the suspect as intoxicated21 Accordingly Agent Nunnery was not justified to
conclude Ms Walls was intoxicated based upon the HGN alone
Mr George noted that the agents did not use a portable breath tester (PBT) or any other
type of breath test device22 Agent Nunnery was not issued a PBT by TABC and testified that a
PBT result would not be admissible in court Agent Nurmery testified he did not have the ability
to give Ms Walls an intoxilyzer or breathalyzer test
Agent Shirley Agent Cayea and Mr Wangler each at about the same moment
concluded that something was wrong with Ms Walls The physical indicators that
Agent Shirley Agent Cayea and Agent Nunnery observed are associated with alcohol
intoxication Ms Wallss recollection of events especially the searching of her purse and her
being escorted outside by Agent Nunnery and Mr George are contradicted by the testimony of
both and their recorded observations23 Ms Walls was and remains confused about the sequence
of the events of the night and that confusion is further evidence of her impairment
21 Emerson at 766 NHTSA SFST Manual at VIII-8 (2006) found at httpoagdcgovnode443812 22 Although Mr Wise testified that Petitioner had an in-house PBT neither Mr Wangler nor Mr George requested Ms Wall to submit a specimen of her breath before or after the TABC arrived 23 Respondent argued that Agent Nunnerys written report contradicted his testimony that he stood outside with Ms Walls waiting for the cab in an effort to impeach his testimony It is true that the report does not mention that episode However Mr Georges testimony and written memorandum agreed with and supported Agent Nunnerys testimony
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE16
The ALJ concludes that a preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that Ms Walls
Respondents employee had lost normal use of her mental or physical faculties by reason of the
introduction of alcohol on the licensed premises 24
24 Ms Wallss anxiety medication was not identified nor was any expert testimony offered on the effects of the mediation or its interaction with alcohol For example Ms Walls testified that she had not eaten that day and that her medication affects her on an empty stomach However Mr George testified Ms Walls told the agents that she has an eating problem and that if she doesnt eat she will feel weak and unstable and that she hadnt ate all day According to Agent Nunnery Ms Walls denied taking any medications Given these contradictions the ALJ recommends that no finding be made on whether Ms Walls was intoxicated due to her medication or its interaction with alcohol 25 16TACsect342 26 Resp Ex I 27 16 TACsect 342 28 16 TACsect 34l(g)(J) and (4)
The ALJ recommends that the Commission find that Petitioner violatedsect 1 l6l(b)(13) of
the Code
The Staff recommended a 36 day suspension of the Respondents permit or in the
alternative a civil penalty of$300 per day for the recommended 36 days or $10800 for a second
violation of sect 1 l6l(b)(l3) of the Code25 According to Petitioners administrative record
Petitioner had a prior violation of sect 1 l61(b)(l3) which occmTed on December 20 2013
Petitioner was assessed an administrative penalty of $5100 (the equivalent of a 17 day
suspension) which was reduced to $4500 (the equivalent of a 15 day suspension) after
completion of an employee educational program on March 21 2014 which was paid on
March 26 201426 A violation of is sect l l6l(b)(13) a health safety and welfare violation27
Under the Commissions rule a subsequent violation of the Code or rule will result in a sanction
in the next higher violation level if the subsequent violation is for a health safety and welfare
violation and occurs within 36 months of the prior violation and the subsequent violation is
issued during an undercover operation28 The subsequent violation was on March 1 2014
which is within 36 months of the prior violation on December 20 2013 The March 1 2014
violation was issued during an undercover investigation
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE 17
Respondent argued that the amount of civil penalty should be reduced upon a
consideration of the ameliorating circumstances concerning the violation29 The ameliorating
circumstances cited by Respondent are Respondents practices and policies described above
and the fact that Mr Wangler immediately removed Ms Walls from the dance floor when he
observed something wrong with her The Commission has stated that Texass policy is for
Neither the permit holder nor an agent servant or employee of the permit holder to be
intoxicated o the premises in the first place30 Moreover Respondents prior violation of
sect l l6l(b)(l3) is an aggravating circumstance under the same statute31 Respondent is not
entitled to a reduction in the proposed suspension or penalty
29 sect l l641(a)(3) of the Code sect J l64Jnotes that ameliorating circumstances include those enumerated in Section l l64(c) The circumstances listed in I l64(c) namely that the violation could not reasonably have been prevented by the permittee or licensee by the exercise of due diligence that the permittee or licensee was entrapped that an agent servant or employee of the permittee or licensee violated this code without the knowledge of the permittee or licensee that the permittee or licensee did not knowingly violate this code that the permittee or licensee has demonstrated good faith including the taking of actions to rectify the consequences of the violation and to deter future violations or (6) that the violation was a technical one have no factual support in the record 30 Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission Board Final Order TABC Docket No 599022 (SOAH Docket No 458shy11-3550) (January 18 2012) at 3 31 sect I I641(a)(4) ofthe Code
The ALJ recommends that Respondents permit be suspended for 36 days or in the
alternative Respondent be assessed a civil penalty of $300 per day for 36 days for a total penalty
of$10800
III FINDINGS OF FACT
I The Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission (TABC) issued Mixed Beverage Permit MB753709 which includes a Mixed Beverage Late Hours Permit and a Beverage Cartage Permit to Respondent 2345 Meacham LLC dba Buckss Cabaret
2 Respondents licensed premises are located at 2345 Meacham Boulevard Fort Worth Tarrant County Texas 76106
3 On March 1 2014 TABC Agent Denver Carleton led a squad of TABC agents namely Sergeant Charlotte Knox and agents Travis Shirley Charles Cayea and Christopher Nunnery in an undercover investigation of the Respondents premises
4 Agents Shirley and Cayea were the undercover team
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE 18
5 Agent Carleton Sergeant Knox and Agent Nunnery were the open team
6 Agents Shirley and Cayea entered Respondents premises at approximately 11 00 pm on March 1 2014
7 Kaitlyn Walls was a dancer at Respondents bar
8 Ms Walls was working that night beginning at approximately 700 pm
9 Ms Walls danced on the main stage and then on the smaller stages in rotation
10 Ms Walls approached a customer and sat next to him at the bar near the agents
11 Ms Walls and her barstool fell to the floor
12 Ms Walls had a glassy blank stare and disheveled hair
13 Ms Walls swayed while walking and ran into the door frame of the doorway leading to the clubs dancers dressing room
14 Agents Shirley and Cayea contacted the open team and informed them that they believed Ms Walls was intoxicated
15 The two agents sent the open team Ms Wallss description and her location in the dressing room by text message
16 Agents Shirley and Cayea left the club after the open team entered the club
17 Agent Nunnery came into close contact with Ms Walls
18 Ms Walls had slmTed speech was not aware of where her cell phone was even though she was holding it nearly fell down twice as she was dressing had glassy eyes swayed standing and lost her balance twice during field sobriety testing
19 Ms Walls admitted to drinking three alcoholic beverages
20 Ms Walls displayed physical and mental indications of intoxication
21 On March 1 2014 Ms Walls did not have the normal use of her mental or physical faculties by reason of the introduction of alcohol into her body
22 On March 1 2014 Ms Walls was an employee of Respondent
23 Petitioner had a prior violation ofsect l l6I(b)(l3) of the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code (the Code) which occurred on December 20 2013 Petitioner was assessed an administrative penalty which was paid on March 26 2014
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE 19
24 The violation which is the subject of this contested case was on March 1 2014 which is within 36 months of the prior violation on December 20 2013
25 The March 1 2014 violation was issued during an undercover investigation
26 On April 14 2015 Staff issued its Notice of Hearing which contained information regarding the date time and place of the hearing the matters asserted the statutes and rules involved and the legal authorities under which the hearing would be held
27 The hearing in this matter convened before Administrative Law Judge Robert F Jones Jr on October 22 2015 at the State Office of Administrative Hearings (SOAH) in Fort Worth Texas Sheila A Lindsey of the TABC Legal Services Division appeared and represented the Staff Respondent appeared by its attorney Roger Albright Evidence was received and the record closed that day
IV CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1 TABC has jurisdiction over this matter Tex Alco Bev Code (the Code) Chapter 5
2 SOAH has jurisdiction to conduct the administrative hearing in this matter and to issue a proposal for decision containing proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law Tex Govt Code Chapter 2003
3 Proper and timely notice of the hearing was provided to Respondent Tex Govt Code sect 2001051-052
4 Respondent violated sect l l6l(b)(l3) of the Code which authorizes the Commission to suspend a pe1mit if the pe1mittee was intoxicated on the licensed premises
5 A 36 day suspension of Respondents Mixed Beverage Permit MB753709 which includes a Mixed Beverage Late Hours Permit and a Beverage Cartage Permit or in the alternative a civil penalty of $300 per day for the recommended 36 days a total of $10800 is appropriate sectsect l l6l(b)(l3) and 1164 of the Code 16 Tex Admin Codesect 342
SIGNED December 17 2015
OBERT F JO ES JR ADMINISTRATI W JUDGE STATE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
STATE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS FT WORTH OFFICE
6777 Camp Bowie Blvd Suite 400 Fort Worth Texas 76116
Phone (817) 731-1733 Fax (512) 322-0473
SERVICE LIST
AGENCY Alcoholic Beverage Commission Texas (TABC)
STYLECASE 2345 MEACHAM LLC DBA BUCKS CABARET
SOAH DOCKET NUMBER 458-15-3318
REFERRING AGENCY CASE 624309
STATE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE
HEARINGS
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
ALJ ROBERT JONES
REPRESENTATIVEADDRESS
SHEILA LINDSEY - SANDERS STAFF ATTORNEY TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION 427 W 20TH STREET SUITE 600 HOUSTON TX 77008 (713) 426-7900 (PH) (713) 862-7478 (FAX)
PARTIES
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION
ROGER ALBRIGHT ATTORNEY AT LAW 3301 ELM STREET DALLAS TX 75226 (214) 939-9224 (PH) (214) 939-9229 (FAX) ralawrogeralbrightcom
ROGER ALBRIGHT
xc Docket Clerk State Office of Administrative Hearings Emily Helm GENERAL COUNSEL TABC Fax No 512-206-3226
Pagel of I
DOCKET NO 624309
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE
COMMISSION Petitioner
VS
2345 MEACHAM LLC
DBA BUCKrsquoS CABARET
Respondent
PERMIT MB753709 LB PE
TARRANT COUNTY TEXAS
(SOAH DOCKET NO 458-15-3318)
BEFORE THE TEXAS
ALCOHOLIC
BEVERAGE COMMISSION
ORDER
CAME ON FOR CONSIDERATION this 14th day of October 2016 the above-styled
and numbered cause
After proper notice was given this case was heard by the State Office of Administrative
Hearings (SOAH) with Administrative Law Judge Robert F Jones Jr presiding The hearing
convened on October 22 2015 and the SOAH record closed the same date The Administrative
Law Judge made and filed a Proposal for Decision containing Findings of Fact and Conclusions
of Law on December 17 2015 The Proposal for Decision was properly served on all parties
who were given an opportunity to file exceptions and replies as part of the record herein No
exceptions were filed
After review and due consideration of the Proposal for Decision I adopt the Findings of
Fact and Conclusions of Law of the Administrative Law Judge that are contained in the Proposal
for Decision and incorporate those Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law into this Order as if
such were fully set out and separately stated herein
All motions requests for entry of Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
and any other requests for general or specific relief submitted by any party are denied unless
specifically adopted herein
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the privileges granted by the Commission and the
activities authorized under the above permit by the Code will be SUSPENDED beginning at
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
__________________________________________
__________________________________________
1201 am on November 30th 2016 and shall remain suspended for THIRTY-SIX (36)
DAYS UNLESS a civil penalty in the amount of $1080000 is paid ON OR BEFORE
November 22nd 2016
This Order will become final and enforceable on the 15th day of November
2016 unless a Motion for Rehearing is filed by the 14th day of November 2016
SIGNED this the 14th day of October 2016 at Austin Texas
Sherry K-Cook Executive Director
Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that the persons listed below were served with a copy of this Order in the manner
indicated below on this the 14th day of October 2016
Martin Wilson Assistant General Counsel
Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission
Robert F Jones Jr
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
State Office of Administrative Hearings
300 W 15th
Street Suite 502
Austin TX 78701
VIA FACSIMILE (512) 322-2061
2345 Meacham LLC
dba Buckrsquos Cabaret
RESPONDENT
PO Box 271289
Flower Mound TX 75027
VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL CMRRR 70160600000046455820
Roger Albright
ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENT
3301 Elm Street
Dallas TX 75226
VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL CMRRR 70160600000046455837
Shelia Lindsey
ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER
TABC Legal Division
VIA E-MAIL Shelialindseytabctexasgov
__________________________________
__________________________________
__________________________________
__________________________________
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION
CIVIL PENALTY REMITTANCE
DOCKET NUMBER 624309 REGISTER NUMBER
NAME 2345 MEACHAM LLC
TRADENAME Buckrsquos Cabaret
ADDRESS PO Box 271289 Flower Mound Texas
DUE DATE November 22 2016
PERMITS OR LICENSES MB753709 LB PE
AMOUNT OF PENALTY $1080000
Amount remitted $____________________ Date remitted ____________________________
You may pay a civil penalty rather than have your permits and licenses suspended if an amount
for civil penalty is included on the attached order
YOU HAVE THE OPTION TO PAY THE CIVIL PENALTY ONLY IF YOU PAY THE
ENTIRE AMOUNT ON OR BEFORE THE DUE DATE AFTER THAT DATE YOUR
LICENSE OR PERMIT WILL BE SUSPENDED FOR THE TIME PERIOD STATED ON
THE ORDER
Mail this form with your payment to
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION
PO Box 13127 Austin Texas 78711
Overnight Delivery Address 5806 Mesa Dr Austin Texas 78731
You must pay by postal money order certified check or cashiers check No personal or
company check nor partial payment accepted Your payment will be returned if anything is
incorrect You must pay the entire amount of the penalty assessed
Attach this form and please make certain to include the Docket on your payment
Signature of Responsible Party
Street Address PO Box No
City State Zip Code
Area CodeTelephone No
Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2
DOCKET NO 624309
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE
COMMISSION Petitioner
sect
sect
sect
sect
VS sect
sect
sect
sect
2345 MEACHAM LLC
DBA BUCKrsquoS CABARET
Respondent
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
PERMIT MB753709 LB PE sect
sect
sect
TARRANT COUNTY TEXAS
(SOAH DOCKET NO 458-15-3318)
sect
sect
BEFORE THE TEXAS
BEVERAGE COMMISSION
ALCOHOLIC
ORDER DENYING M OTION FOR REHEARING
Page 1 of 3
CAME ON FOR CONSIDERATION this 1st day of December 2016 the above-styled
and numbered cause
On October 14 2016 an Order was issued in this cause suspending Respondents permits
for a period of 36 days unless a civil penalty in the amount of $10800 was paid A timely
Motion for RehearingReconsideration was filed by Respondent on November 11 2016 and a
Supplemental Motion for Rehearing was filed by Respondent on November 16 2016 Petitioner
filed a Response to Respondents Motion for RehearingReconsideration on November 22 2016
Having considered Respondents Motion for RehearingReconsideration
Respondents Supplemental Motion for Rehearing and Petitioners Response to Respondents
Motion for RehearingReconsideration Respondents Motion for RehearingReconsideration is
DENIED
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that IF THIS ORDER IS NOT APPEALED
WITHIN THE TIME ALLOWED BY ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CODE sect1167 the
privileges granted by the Commission and the activities authorized under the above permits by
the Code will be SUSPENDED beginning at 1201 am on January 25 2017 and shall remain
suspended for THIRTY SIX (36) CONSECUTIVE DAYS UNLESS a civil penalty in the
amount of $1080000 is paid in lieu of suspension ON OR BEFORE January 17 2017
__________________________________________
_________________________________________
IF THIS ORDER IS APPEALED AND THE DECISION IS AFFIRMED IT IS
ORDERED that the privileges granted by the Commission and the activities authorized under
the above permits by the Code will be SUSPENDED beginning at 1201 am on the fifteenth
(15th
) day following the date the decision is affirmed whether by Order or by operation of law
and shall remain suspended for THIRTY SIX (36) CONSECUTIVE DAYS UNLESS a civil
penalty in the amount of $1080000 is paid in lieu of suspension ON OR BEFORE the seventh
(7th
) day following the date the decision is affirmed whether by Order or by operation of law
SIGNED this the 1st day of December 2016 at Austin Texas
Sherry K-Cook Executive Director
Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that the persons listed below were served with a copy of this Order Denying
Motion for Rehearing in the manner indicated below on this the 1st day of December 2016
Martin Wilson Assistant General Counsel
Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission
Page 2 of 3
Robert F Jones Jr
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
State Office of Administrative Hearings
300 W 15th
Street Suite 502
Austin TX 78701
VIA FACSIMILE (512) 322-2061
2345 Meacham LLC
dba Buckrsquos Cabaret
RESPONDENT
PO Box 271289
Flower Mound TX 75027
VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL CMRRR 70160340000080983298
Roger Albright
ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENT
3301 Elm Street
Dallas TX 75226
VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL CMRRR70160340000080983281
Shelia Lindsey
ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER
TABC Legal Division
VIA E-MAIL Shelialindseytabctexasgov
Page 3 of 3
__________________________________
__________________________________
__________________________________
__________________________________
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION
CIVIL PENALTY REMITTANCE
DOCKET NUMBER 624309 REGISTER NUMBER
NAME 2345 Meacham LLC
TRADENAME Buckrsquos Cabaret
ADDRESS PO Box 271289 Flower Mound Texas
DUE DATE January 17 2017
PERMITS OR LICENSES MB753709 PE LB
AMOUNT OF PENALTY $1080000
Amount remitted $____________________ Date remitted ____________________________
You may pay a civil penalty rather than have your permits and licenses suspended if an amount
for civil penalty is included on the attached order
YOU HAVE THE OPTION TO PAY THE CIVIL PENALTY ONLY IF YOU PAY THE
ENTIRE AMOUNT ON OR BEFORE THE DUE DATE AFTER THAT DATE YOUR
LICENSE OR PERMIT WILL BE SUSPENDED FOR THE TIME PERIOD STATED ON
THE ORDER
Mail this form with your payment to
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION
PO Box 13127 Austin Texas 78711
Overnight Delivery Address 5806 Mesa Dr Austin Texas 78731
You must pay by postal money order certified check or cashiers check No personal or
company check nor partial payment accepted Your payment will be returned if anything is
incorrect You must pay the entire amount of the penalty assessed
Attach this form and please make certain to include the Docket on your payment
Signature of Responsible Party
Street Address PO Box No
City State Zip Code
Area CodeTelephone No
Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2
CAUSE NO 348-289708-16
2345 MEACHAM LLC DBA BUCKS CABARET
Plaintiff
v
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION
Defendant
sect IN THE DISTRICT COURT
348TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
TARRANT COUNTY TEXAS
sect sect sect sect sect sect sect sect sect
ORDER AFFIRMING TABC DECISION fllJ()1)1-j 13J
On tkis day came on to be heard the above-tyled and numbered cause
pursuant to Ch 2001 ofthe Texas Government Code (the Administrative Procedure
Act) and sect 1167 of the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code 2345 Meacham LLC
dba Bucks Cabaret and the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission appeared by
and through their attorneys of record and announced ready All matters of fact and
controversy were submitted The Court after reviewing the evidence and hearing
the arguments of counsel finds that the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission
Order of October 14 2016 is supported by substantial evidence
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED ADJUDGED and DECREED that the
Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commissions Order of October 14 2016 suspending
Plaintiffs Mixed Beverage Permit MB753709 and the associated Beverage Cartage
Permit and Mixed Beverage Late Hours Permit is supported by substantial
evidence and thus is AFFIRMED _1 L IJND Tltld1lt lJAS t-lltJ cflfAfl ltJr tlJ~
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED ADJUDGED and DECREED that the Plaintiff
shall take nothing by this suit and that Defendant shall be in all things discharged
ion
ON ALL SERVED VIAIE-MAILED - HAND DtLIVERY -MAIL
=----WHO 16 TO
_--13 1
SElVE COPIEIS ON gtLL OTHEN
and that the costs ofcourt are taxed against the party incurring same All other relief
not expressly granted herein is denied
This judgment is final disposes of all claims and parties and is appealable f-b
SIGNED and ENTERED this 3 day ofJanuary 2017 L
348TH DISTRICT COURT
2
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE9
standing He stopped the test when she lost her balance twice Agent Nunnery had Ms Walls sit
down He testified that the HGN cannot be conducted when the subject is seated As a
consequence Agent Nunnery testified he could not complete the test
Agent Nunnery agreed he asked Ms Walls if she was taking any medication because
narcotics could affect the HGN results According to Agent Nunnery Ms Walls denied taking
any medications When asked by Agent Nunnery Ms Walls stated she had consumed three
whiskey and cokes
Agent Nunnery stated that Ms Walls was sent home in a cab and he waited outside the
club with Ms Walls to assure she left8 He noted that Mr George was also outside Agent
Nunnery testified that Ms Walls dropped her purse and the contents spilled including cigarette
rolling papers Agent Nunnery asked Ms Walls what the papers were for and she replied for
marijuana Agent Nunnery asked Ms Walls if she had possession of any illegal drugs and she
replied she had already smoked it all9 Agent Nunnery testified that Ms Walls consented to a
search of her purse and Agent Nunnery searched her purse He found nothing He specifically
denied finding a prescription bottle The cab arrived and Ms Walls was released
Ms Walls was not arrested that night Respondent was issued an administrative notice
for violation ofsect 1 l61(b)(l3) of the Code
D Respondents Policies and Procedures
Curtis Wise is the owner of Respondent Mr Wise was not present at the premises on
March 1 2014 Mr Wise is familiar with the statute prohibiting a permittees employee from
being intoxicated on the licensed premises Mr Wise did not object and did not correct
8 Ms Walls did not recall any of the agents waiting outside with her for the cab Instead she recalled that Mr George Mr Wangler the three agents and she waited in the office for the cab and when it arrived Mr George walked her out to the cab 9 Mr Wangler stated he did not know if Ms Walls had smoked marijuana that night and also related that she did not smoke in his house during the eleven months she lived there Ms Walls stated it was possible she had cigarette rolling papers at the bottom of her purse because she had carried the purse for years She denied smoking marijuana that night Ms Walls also denied dropping her purse Mr George did not recall a discussion of rolling papers or marijuana use No witness testified that they smelled the odor of burned marijuana on Ms Wallss person
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGElO
Mr Wanglers testimony that Respondents dancers were employees for the purposes of
sect 1 l61(b)(13) of the Code Mr Wise listed a number of actions Respondent takes to assure
compliance with sect l 161(b)(13) A doorman is on duty every night to screen patrons for
intoxication before they enter Further four to seven or eight managers work each night On
March 1 2014 aside from Mr George and Mr Wangler four other managers would have been
working the floor The managers conduct daily pre-shift meetings with wait staff and bartenders
to emphasize the need to monitor alcohol consumption and signs of intoxication in dancers and
patrons All the bartenders are T ABC sellerserver certified The bartenders and wait staff were
instructed to monitor the dancers intake and warn management if they believed a dancer was or
was becoming impaired Floor managers were required to monitor the alcohol intake of dancers
and customers at the club and to intervene if needed to cut off a customer offer food and offer a
car ride Respondent employed a house mom stationed in the dancers dressing room to
oversee the dancers on the premises Mr Wise asked TABC to conduct an alcohol awareness
class and required all employees and dancers to attend 10
10 The class may have been given in conjunction with Respondents settlement of an earlier violation Resp Ex I
Mr Wise stated that Respondent has a breathalyzer that is kept on the premises The
device is used as a guideline to see what an employees breath alcohol concentration might be if
the employee is acting out of the ordinary or may be intoxicated In the past a manager sent an
employee home after the employee failed an in-house breathalyzer test Respondent does not
request patrons to use the device Mr Wise did not recall what make or model the device was
but did note that it had to be sent to the manufacturer for calibration
Mr Wise explained that if a wait staff employee or dancer had to be sent home it would
be the managers decision and Mr Wise would not need to be consulted The matter would be
discussed at the weekly management meeting when discipline would be decided a second
chance a reduction of time (a week or a month off) or a termination There was such a meeting
after the March 1 2014 incident Mr Wise and his mangers discussed what happened and what
could have been done to prevent it Mr Wise could not recall what discipline might have been
imposed on Ms Walls
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE 11
After the March st event Mr Wangler told Mr Wise that Ms Walls was on medication
and Mr Wise asked Mr Wangler what medication she was taking Mr Wangler sent Mr Wise a
text and Mr Wise looked up the medication which he identified as citalopram That drug is an
antidepressant marketed as Celexa However the medication was not positively identified nor
was the medications interaction with alcohol established in the record of this case Mr Wise
testified that Respondent does not have a policy with respect to an employee or a dancer taking
prescription drugs
E Applicable Law
The T ABC may suspend a permit for not more than sixty days if the permittee was
intoxicated on the licensed premises 11 Permittee means a person who is the holder of a
permit provided for in this code or an agent servant or employee of that person12
Intoxicated means not having the normal use of mental or physical faculties by reason of the
introduction of alcohol a controlled substance a drug a dangerous drug a combination of two
or more of those substances or any other substance into the body13 The Staff has the burden of
proof by a preponderance of the evidence 14
11 Tex Alco Bev Code (the Code)sect I l61(b)(l3 12 sect 104(11) of the Code 13 Tex Penal Codesect 4901(2)(A) 14 I Texas Administrative Code (TAC)sect 155427
F Parties Arguments
Staff argued that a preponderance of the evidence proved that Respondents employee
Ms Walls was intoxicated on the licensed premises on March I 2014 Ms Walls displayed
clear signs of intoxication she was unsteady on her feet (both in high-heeled shoes and in tennis
shoes) Ms Walls used other objects for support when walking appeared confused had glassy
eyes and had the odor of an alcoholic beverage on her breath Ms Wallss testimony
contradicted that of Mr George he (as well as Agent Nunnery) stated they waited outside for the
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE 12
cab Ms Walls denied it Accordingly Staff argued that her testimony should not be considered
to be credible
The Staff noted that Mr Wangler testified that something was wrong or off with
Ms Walls He took steps to remove Ms Walls from the club floor Petitioner argued that
Ms Walls had too much to drink or was under the influence of her medication (which the Staff
termed a narcotic) or both The Staff argued that Ms Walls more likely than not knew she was
taking medication that should not have been mixed with alcohol due to a possible adverse
interaction The Staff asserted that Mr Wanglers action in taking Ms Walls off the dance floor
corroborated the testimony of Agents Shirley and Cayea who observed Ms Walls
The Staff recommended a 36 day suspension of the Respondents permit or in the
alternative a civil penalty of $300 per day for the recommended 36 days for a total penalty of
$] 0800 15
15 16TACsect342
Respondent argued that Agent Nunnerys testimony was not credible due to his failure to
recollect details about the evening such as who was present or which agent performed which act
Respondent argued that the Staff was asserting that the permittee is strictly liable for an
employee being intoxicated on the premises That is if the Staff could show that the person was
an employee was physically present on the premises and was intoxicated then the violation
would be proved Respondent argued that SOAH ALJs recognized a further issue that must be
proved whether the employee was working at the time and was in the course and scope of their
employment citing Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission v 13335 Duluth Restaurant and Bar
dlbla La Chatte 16 Respondent argued that Mr Wranglers actions took Ms Walls out of her
course of employment
16 SOAH Docket No 458-11-3550 (July 6 2011)
The Respondents reliance on La Chatte is misplaced The Commissions Final Order in
the case specifically rejected the notion that an employee had to be acting in the course and
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE 13
scope of employment to be treated as a permittee The Commission stated It is not necessary to
decide whether the employee is on the clock in order to decide whether she is treated as the
permittee The Code does not contain that proviso Nor does the Code require that an employee
be engaged in the work she is hired to do in order for her to be treated as the permittee17
Respondent further argued it had done everything it could to monitor and prevent
Ms Walls or any dancer from becoming intoxicated and took action to send Ms Walls home
when something appeared to be wrong Respondent argued that if Ms Walls was intoxicated
some or all of it could be ascribed to her medication In Respondents view the purpose of
sect l l61(b)(13) is to police persons with easy access to alcohol which Respondent asserted it had
done Ms Wallss use of her medication was beyond Respondents control
Respondent argued that if a penalty is imposed in this contested case Respondent would
be entitled to a variance from the standard penalty chart because of the steps Respondent has
taken to avoid a violation ofsect l l61(b)(13) of the Code 18
G Analysis
Staff has to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Ms Walls was Respondents
employee and that she was intoxicated on the licensed premises
Respondent did not dispute that Ms Walls was Respondents employee on
March I 2014 for the purposes ofsect l l61(b)(13) of the Code Since Ms Wallss opportunity to
dance and earn money through Respondents customers was contingent on her following
Respondents rules and policies Ms Walls is fairly described as Petitioners employee for the
purposes of this Proposal for Decision 19
17 Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission Board Final Order TABC Docket No 599022 (SOAH Docket No 458shy11-3550) (January 18 2012) at 1-2 18 sectsect 11641(a)(3) and 1164(c) of the Code 19 Villatoro v Tex Alcoholic Bev Comm n No 05-12-00444-CV (Tex App-Dallas June 3 2013 no writ)
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE 14
Ms Walls testimony established that she had not eaten on March 1 2014 had consumed
at least two and pmt of a third mixed drinks had consumed the drinks between 700 pm and
midnight and that she had taken her prescribed anxiety medication some time during the day
The exact medication she had taken was not established Ms Walls was not asked to identify the
medication that night or at the hearing nor was she asked to produce or subpoenaed to produce
a copy of the prescription Mr Wises identification of the drug as citalopram or Celexa was
based upon information he received from Mr Wangler and cannot be considered as dispositive
Further assuming Ms Walls was taking citalopram or Celexa that particular drugs interaction
with alcohol was not established There was no evidence that Ms Walls smoked marijuana that
night
The undercover team stated that Ms Walls had a glassy blank stare and disheveled hair
swayed while walking and ran into the frame of the doorway leading to the dressing room
Agent Nunnery testified that Ms Walls seemed intoxicated her speech was sinned Ms Walls
had short term memory loss ( concerning her cell phone) nearly fell down twice as she was
dressing and attempted to place her left shoe on her right foot had the odor of an alcoholic
beverage on her breath and person had glassy eyes and swayed standing
Although Ms Walls admitted drinking alcohol that night Mr Wangler testified he did
not believe that Ms Walls was intoxicated but he also was concerned that Ms Walls was not
right Mr Wangler testified he had the perception that something was a little off or
different with Ms Walls Mr George observed that Ms Walls stood balanced while she was
dressing and speaking on the phone with her mother but lost her balance twice during the field
sobriety test Agent Nunnery conducted the HGN and observed Ms Walls that exhibited two
clues lack of smooth pursuit in both eyes He stopped the test when she lost her balance twice
causing Agent Nunnery to have Ms Walls sit down Agent Nunnery interpreted the two HGN
clues as sufficient to conclude that Ms Walls was intoxicated However Ms Walls was not so
intoxicated that she was arrested for public intoxication that is for being intoxicated to the
degree that [Ms Walls might] endanger [herself] or another20
20 Tex Penal Code sect 4902(a)
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE15
The National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) publication states
that an officer must look for the following three criteria in the HGN test (1) an inability to
pursue smoothly an object or stimulus moving sideways across the suspects field of vision (3)
distinct or pronounced nystagmus at the eyes maximum horizontal deviation and (3) an angle
of onset of nystagmus of less than or equal to 45 degrees The officer must look for these criteria
in each eye for a total of six clues If the officer identifies four or more clues then the officer
classifies the suspect as intoxicated21 Accordingly Agent Nunnery was not justified to
conclude Ms Walls was intoxicated based upon the HGN alone
Mr George noted that the agents did not use a portable breath tester (PBT) or any other
type of breath test device22 Agent Nunnery was not issued a PBT by TABC and testified that a
PBT result would not be admissible in court Agent Nurmery testified he did not have the ability
to give Ms Walls an intoxilyzer or breathalyzer test
Agent Shirley Agent Cayea and Mr Wangler each at about the same moment
concluded that something was wrong with Ms Walls The physical indicators that
Agent Shirley Agent Cayea and Agent Nunnery observed are associated with alcohol
intoxication Ms Wallss recollection of events especially the searching of her purse and her
being escorted outside by Agent Nunnery and Mr George are contradicted by the testimony of
both and their recorded observations23 Ms Walls was and remains confused about the sequence
of the events of the night and that confusion is further evidence of her impairment
21 Emerson at 766 NHTSA SFST Manual at VIII-8 (2006) found at httpoagdcgovnode443812 22 Although Mr Wise testified that Petitioner had an in-house PBT neither Mr Wangler nor Mr George requested Ms Wall to submit a specimen of her breath before or after the TABC arrived 23 Respondent argued that Agent Nunnerys written report contradicted his testimony that he stood outside with Ms Walls waiting for the cab in an effort to impeach his testimony It is true that the report does not mention that episode However Mr Georges testimony and written memorandum agreed with and supported Agent Nunnerys testimony
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE16
The ALJ concludes that a preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that Ms Walls
Respondents employee had lost normal use of her mental or physical faculties by reason of the
introduction of alcohol on the licensed premises 24
24 Ms Wallss anxiety medication was not identified nor was any expert testimony offered on the effects of the mediation or its interaction with alcohol For example Ms Walls testified that she had not eaten that day and that her medication affects her on an empty stomach However Mr George testified Ms Walls told the agents that she has an eating problem and that if she doesnt eat she will feel weak and unstable and that she hadnt ate all day According to Agent Nunnery Ms Walls denied taking any medications Given these contradictions the ALJ recommends that no finding be made on whether Ms Walls was intoxicated due to her medication or its interaction with alcohol 25 16TACsect342 26 Resp Ex I 27 16 TACsect 342 28 16 TACsect 34l(g)(J) and (4)
The ALJ recommends that the Commission find that Petitioner violatedsect 1 l6l(b)(13) of
the Code
The Staff recommended a 36 day suspension of the Respondents permit or in the
alternative a civil penalty of$300 per day for the recommended 36 days or $10800 for a second
violation of sect 1 l6l(b)(l3) of the Code25 According to Petitioners administrative record
Petitioner had a prior violation of sect 1 l61(b)(l3) which occmTed on December 20 2013
Petitioner was assessed an administrative penalty of $5100 (the equivalent of a 17 day
suspension) which was reduced to $4500 (the equivalent of a 15 day suspension) after
completion of an employee educational program on March 21 2014 which was paid on
March 26 201426 A violation of is sect l l6l(b)(13) a health safety and welfare violation27
Under the Commissions rule a subsequent violation of the Code or rule will result in a sanction
in the next higher violation level if the subsequent violation is for a health safety and welfare
violation and occurs within 36 months of the prior violation and the subsequent violation is
issued during an undercover operation28 The subsequent violation was on March 1 2014
which is within 36 months of the prior violation on December 20 2013 The March 1 2014
violation was issued during an undercover investigation
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE 17
Respondent argued that the amount of civil penalty should be reduced upon a
consideration of the ameliorating circumstances concerning the violation29 The ameliorating
circumstances cited by Respondent are Respondents practices and policies described above
and the fact that Mr Wangler immediately removed Ms Walls from the dance floor when he
observed something wrong with her The Commission has stated that Texass policy is for
Neither the permit holder nor an agent servant or employee of the permit holder to be
intoxicated o the premises in the first place30 Moreover Respondents prior violation of
sect l l6l(b)(l3) is an aggravating circumstance under the same statute31 Respondent is not
entitled to a reduction in the proposed suspension or penalty
29 sect l l641(a)(3) of the Code sect J l64Jnotes that ameliorating circumstances include those enumerated in Section l l64(c) The circumstances listed in I l64(c) namely that the violation could not reasonably have been prevented by the permittee or licensee by the exercise of due diligence that the permittee or licensee was entrapped that an agent servant or employee of the permittee or licensee violated this code without the knowledge of the permittee or licensee that the permittee or licensee did not knowingly violate this code that the permittee or licensee has demonstrated good faith including the taking of actions to rectify the consequences of the violation and to deter future violations or (6) that the violation was a technical one have no factual support in the record 30 Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission Board Final Order TABC Docket No 599022 (SOAH Docket No 458shy11-3550) (January 18 2012) at 3 31 sect I I641(a)(4) ofthe Code
The ALJ recommends that Respondents permit be suspended for 36 days or in the
alternative Respondent be assessed a civil penalty of $300 per day for 36 days for a total penalty
of$10800
III FINDINGS OF FACT
I The Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission (TABC) issued Mixed Beverage Permit MB753709 which includes a Mixed Beverage Late Hours Permit and a Beverage Cartage Permit to Respondent 2345 Meacham LLC dba Buckss Cabaret
2 Respondents licensed premises are located at 2345 Meacham Boulevard Fort Worth Tarrant County Texas 76106
3 On March 1 2014 TABC Agent Denver Carleton led a squad of TABC agents namely Sergeant Charlotte Knox and agents Travis Shirley Charles Cayea and Christopher Nunnery in an undercover investigation of the Respondents premises
4 Agents Shirley and Cayea were the undercover team
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE 18
5 Agent Carleton Sergeant Knox and Agent Nunnery were the open team
6 Agents Shirley and Cayea entered Respondents premises at approximately 11 00 pm on March 1 2014
7 Kaitlyn Walls was a dancer at Respondents bar
8 Ms Walls was working that night beginning at approximately 700 pm
9 Ms Walls danced on the main stage and then on the smaller stages in rotation
10 Ms Walls approached a customer and sat next to him at the bar near the agents
11 Ms Walls and her barstool fell to the floor
12 Ms Walls had a glassy blank stare and disheveled hair
13 Ms Walls swayed while walking and ran into the door frame of the doorway leading to the clubs dancers dressing room
14 Agents Shirley and Cayea contacted the open team and informed them that they believed Ms Walls was intoxicated
15 The two agents sent the open team Ms Wallss description and her location in the dressing room by text message
16 Agents Shirley and Cayea left the club after the open team entered the club
17 Agent Nunnery came into close contact with Ms Walls
18 Ms Walls had slmTed speech was not aware of where her cell phone was even though she was holding it nearly fell down twice as she was dressing had glassy eyes swayed standing and lost her balance twice during field sobriety testing
19 Ms Walls admitted to drinking three alcoholic beverages
20 Ms Walls displayed physical and mental indications of intoxication
21 On March 1 2014 Ms Walls did not have the normal use of her mental or physical faculties by reason of the introduction of alcohol into her body
22 On March 1 2014 Ms Walls was an employee of Respondent
23 Petitioner had a prior violation ofsect l l6I(b)(l3) of the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code (the Code) which occurred on December 20 2013 Petitioner was assessed an administrative penalty which was paid on March 26 2014
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE 19
24 The violation which is the subject of this contested case was on March 1 2014 which is within 36 months of the prior violation on December 20 2013
25 The March 1 2014 violation was issued during an undercover investigation
26 On April 14 2015 Staff issued its Notice of Hearing which contained information regarding the date time and place of the hearing the matters asserted the statutes and rules involved and the legal authorities under which the hearing would be held
27 The hearing in this matter convened before Administrative Law Judge Robert F Jones Jr on October 22 2015 at the State Office of Administrative Hearings (SOAH) in Fort Worth Texas Sheila A Lindsey of the TABC Legal Services Division appeared and represented the Staff Respondent appeared by its attorney Roger Albright Evidence was received and the record closed that day
IV CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1 TABC has jurisdiction over this matter Tex Alco Bev Code (the Code) Chapter 5
2 SOAH has jurisdiction to conduct the administrative hearing in this matter and to issue a proposal for decision containing proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law Tex Govt Code Chapter 2003
3 Proper and timely notice of the hearing was provided to Respondent Tex Govt Code sect 2001051-052
4 Respondent violated sect l l6l(b)(l3) of the Code which authorizes the Commission to suspend a pe1mit if the pe1mittee was intoxicated on the licensed premises
5 A 36 day suspension of Respondents Mixed Beverage Permit MB753709 which includes a Mixed Beverage Late Hours Permit and a Beverage Cartage Permit or in the alternative a civil penalty of $300 per day for the recommended 36 days a total of $10800 is appropriate sectsect l l6l(b)(l3) and 1164 of the Code 16 Tex Admin Codesect 342
SIGNED December 17 2015
OBERT F JO ES JR ADMINISTRATI W JUDGE STATE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
STATE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS FT WORTH OFFICE
6777 Camp Bowie Blvd Suite 400 Fort Worth Texas 76116
Phone (817) 731-1733 Fax (512) 322-0473
SERVICE LIST
AGENCY Alcoholic Beverage Commission Texas (TABC)
STYLECASE 2345 MEACHAM LLC DBA BUCKS CABARET
SOAH DOCKET NUMBER 458-15-3318
REFERRING AGENCY CASE 624309
STATE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE
HEARINGS
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
ALJ ROBERT JONES
REPRESENTATIVEADDRESS
SHEILA LINDSEY - SANDERS STAFF ATTORNEY TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION 427 W 20TH STREET SUITE 600 HOUSTON TX 77008 (713) 426-7900 (PH) (713) 862-7478 (FAX)
PARTIES
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION
ROGER ALBRIGHT ATTORNEY AT LAW 3301 ELM STREET DALLAS TX 75226 (214) 939-9224 (PH) (214) 939-9229 (FAX) ralawrogeralbrightcom
ROGER ALBRIGHT
xc Docket Clerk State Office of Administrative Hearings Emily Helm GENERAL COUNSEL TABC Fax No 512-206-3226
Pagel of I
DOCKET NO 624309
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE
COMMISSION Petitioner
VS
2345 MEACHAM LLC
DBA BUCKrsquoS CABARET
Respondent
PERMIT MB753709 LB PE
TARRANT COUNTY TEXAS
(SOAH DOCKET NO 458-15-3318)
BEFORE THE TEXAS
ALCOHOLIC
BEVERAGE COMMISSION
ORDER
CAME ON FOR CONSIDERATION this 14th day of October 2016 the above-styled
and numbered cause
After proper notice was given this case was heard by the State Office of Administrative
Hearings (SOAH) with Administrative Law Judge Robert F Jones Jr presiding The hearing
convened on October 22 2015 and the SOAH record closed the same date The Administrative
Law Judge made and filed a Proposal for Decision containing Findings of Fact and Conclusions
of Law on December 17 2015 The Proposal for Decision was properly served on all parties
who were given an opportunity to file exceptions and replies as part of the record herein No
exceptions were filed
After review and due consideration of the Proposal for Decision I adopt the Findings of
Fact and Conclusions of Law of the Administrative Law Judge that are contained in the Proposal
for Decision and incorporate those Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law into this Order as if
such were fully set out and separately stated herein
All motions requests for entry of Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
and any other requests for general or specific relief submitted by any party are denied unless
specifically adopted herein
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the privileges granted by the Commission and the
activities authorized under the above permit by the Code will be SUSPENDED beginning at
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
__________________________________________
__________________________________________
1201 am on November 30th 2016 and shall remain suspended for THIRTY-SIX (36)
DAYS UNLESS a civil penalty in the amount of $1080000 is paid ON OR BEFORE
November 22nd 2016
This Order will become final and enforceable on the 15th day of November
2016 unless a Motion for Rehearing is filed by the 14th day of November 2016
SIGNED this the 14th day of October 2016 at Austin Texas
Sherry K-Cook Executive Director
Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that the persons listed below were served with a copy of this Order in the manner
indicated below on this the 14th day of October 2016
Martin Wilson Assistant General Counsel
Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission
Robert F Jones Jr
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
State Office of Administrative Hearings
300 W 15th
Street Suite 502
Austin TX 78701
VIA FACSIMILE (512) 322-2061
2345 Meacham LLC
dba Buckrsquos Cabaret
RESPONDENT
PO Box 271289
Flower Mound TX 75027
VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL CMRRR 70160600000046455820
Roger Albright
ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENT
3301 Elm Street
Dallas TX 75226
VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL CMRRR 70160600000046455837
Shelia Lindsey
ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER
TABC Legal Division
VIA E-MAIL Shelialindseytabctexasgov
__________________________________
__________________________________
__________________________________
__________________________________
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION
CIVIL PENALTY REMITTANCE
DOCKET NUMBER 624309 REGISTER NUMBER
NAME 2345 MEACHAM LLC
TRADENAME Buckrsquos Cabaret
ADDRESS PO Box 271289 Flower Mound Texas
DUE DATE November 22 2016
PERMITS OR LICENSES MB753709 LB PE
AMOUNT OF PENALTY $1080000
Amount remitted $____________________ Date remitted ____________________________
You may pay a civil penalty rather than have your permits and licenses suspended if an amount
for civil penalty is included on the attached order
YOU HAVE THE OPTION TO PAY THE CIVIL PENALTY ONLY IF YOU PAY THE
ENTIRE AMOUNT ON OR BEFORE THE DUE DATE AFTER THAT DATE YOUR
LICENSE OR PERMIT WILL BE SUSPENDED FOR THE TIME PERIOD STATED ON
THE ORDER
Mail this form with your payment to
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION
PO Box 13127 Austin Texas 78711
Overnight Delivery Address 5806 Mesa Dr Austin Texas 78731
You must pay by postal money order certified check or cashiers check No personal or
company check nor partial payment accepted Your payment will be returned if anything is
incorrect You must pay the entire amount of the penalty assessed
Attach this form and please make certain to include the Docket on your payment
Signature of Responsible Party
Street Address PO Box No
City State Zip Code
Area CodeTelephone No
Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2
DOCKET NO 624309
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE
COMMISSION Petitioner
sect
sect
sect
sect
VS sect
sect
sect
sect
2345 MEACHAM LLC
DBA BUCKrsquoS CABARET
Respondent
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
PERMIT MB753709 LB PE sect
sect
sect
TARRANT COUNTY TEXAS
(SOAH DOCKET NO 458-15-3318)
sect
sect
BEFORE THE TEXAS
BEVERAGE COMMISSION
ALCOHOLIC
ORDER DENYING M OTION FOR REHEARING
Page 1 of 3
CAME ON FOR CONSIDERATION this 1st day of December 2016 the above-styled
and numbered cause
On October 14 2016 an Order was issued in this cause suspending Respondents permits
for a period of 36 days unless a civil penalty in the amount of $10800 was paid A timely
Motion for RehearingReconsideration was filed by Respondent on November 11 2016 and a
Supplemental Motion for Rehearing was filed by Respondent on November 16 2016 Petitioner
filed a Response to Respondents Motion for RehearingReconsideration on November 22 2016
Having considered Respondents Motion for RehearingReconsideration
Respondents Supplemental Motion for Rehearing and Petitioners Response to Respondents
Motion for RehearingReconsideration Respondents Motion for RehearingReconsideration is
DENIED
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that IF THIS ORDER IS NOT APPEALED
WITHIN THE TIME ALLOWED BY ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CODE sect1167 the
privileges granted by the Commission and the activities authorized under the above permits by
the Code will be SUSPENDED beginning at 1201 am on January 25 2017 and shall remain
suspended for THIRTY SIX (36) CONSECUTIVE DAYS UNLESS a civil penalty in the
amount of $1080000 is paid in lieu of suspension ON OR BEFORE January 17 2017
__________________________________________
_________________________________________
IF THIS ORDER IS APPEALED AND THE DECISION IS AFFIRMED IT IS
ORDERED that the privileges granted by the Commission and the activities authorized under
the above permits by the Code will be SUSPENDED beginning at 1201 am on the fifteenth
(15th
) day following the date the decision is affirmed whether by Order or by operation of law
and shall remain suspended for THIRTY SIX (36) CONSECUTIVE DAYS UNLESS a civil
penalty in the amount of $1080000 is paid in lieu of suspension ON OR BEFORE the seventh
(7th
) day following the date the decision is affirmed whether by Order or by operation of law
SIGNED this the 1st day of December 2016 at Austin Texas
Sherry K-Cook Executive Director
Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that the persons listed below were served with a copy of this Order Denying
Motion for Rehearing in the manner indicated below on this the 1st day of December 2016
Martin Wilson Assistant General Counsel
Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission
Page 2 of 3
Robert F Jones Jr
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
State Office of Administrative Hearings
300 W 15th
Street Suite 502
Austin TX 78701
VIA FACSIMILE (512) 322-2061
2345 Meacham LLC
dba Buckrsquos Cabaret
RESPONDENT
PO Box 271289
Flower Mound TX 75027
VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL CMRRR 70160340000080983298
Roger Albright
ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENT
3301 Elm Street
Dallas TX 75226
VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL CMRRR70160340000080983281
Shelia Lindsey
ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER
TABC Legal Division
VIA E-MAIL Shelialindseytabctexasgov
Page 3 of 3
__________________________________
__________________________________
__________________________________
__________________________________
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION
CIVIL PENALTY REMITTANCE
DOCKET NUMBER 624309 REGISTER NUMBER
NAME 2345 Meacham LLC
TRADENAME Buckrsquos Cabaret
ADDRESS PO Box 271289 Flower Mound Texas
DUE DATE January 17 2017
PERMITS OR LICENSES MB753709 PE LB
AMOUNT OF PENALTY $1080000
Amount remitted $____________________ Date remitted ____________________________
You may pay a civil penalty rather than have your permits and licenses suspended if an amount
for civil penalty is included on the attached order
YOU HAVE THE OPTION TO PAY THE CIVIL PENALTY ONLY IF YOU PAY THE
ENTIRE AMOUNT ON OR BEFORE THE DUE DATE AFTER THAT DATE YOUR
LICENSE OR PERMIT WILL BE SUSPENDED FOR THE TIME PERIOD STATED ON
THE ORDER
Mail this form with your payment to
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION
PO Box 13127 Austin Texas 78711
Overnight Delivery Address 5806 Mesa Dr Austin Texas 78731
You must pay by postal money order certified check or cashiers check No personal or
company check nor partial payment accepted Your payment will be returned if anything is
incorrect You must pay the entire amount of the penalty assessed
Attach this form and please make certain to include the Docket on your payment
Signature of Responsible Party
Street Address PO Box No
City State Zip Code
Area CodeTelephone No
Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2
CAUSE NO 348-289708-16
2345 MEACHAM LLC DBA BUCKS CABARET
Plaintiff
v
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION
Defendant
sect IN THE DISTRICT COURT
348TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
TARRANT COUNTY TEXAS
sect sect sect sect sect sect sect sect sect
ORDER AFFIRMING TABC DECISION fllJ()1)1-j 13J
On tkis day came on to be heard the above-tyled and numbered cause
pursuant to Ch 2001 ofthe Texas Government Code (the Administrative Procedure
Act) and sect 1167 of the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code 2345 Meacham LLC
dba Bucks Cabaret and the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission appeared by
and through their attorneys of record and announced ready All matters of fact and
controversy were submitted The Court after reviewing the evidence and hearing
the arguments of counsel finds that the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission
Order of October 14 2016 is supported by substantial evidence
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED ADJUDGED and DECREED that the
Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commissions Order of October 14 2016 suspending
Plaintiffs Mixed Beverage Permit MB753709 and the associated Beverage Cartage
Permit and Mixed Beverage Late Hours Permit is supported by substantial
evidence and thus is AFFIRMED _1 L IJND Tltld1lt lJAS t-lltJ cflfAfl ltJr tlJ~
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED ADJUDGED and DECREED that the Plaintiff
shall take nothing by this suit and that Defendant shall be in all things discharged
ion
ON ALL SERVED VIAIE-MAILED - HAND DtLIVERY -MAIL
=----WHO 16 TO
_--13 1
SElVE COPIEIS ON gtLL OTHEN
and that the costs ofcourt are taxed against the party incurring same All other relief
not expressly granted herein is denied
This judgment is final disposes of all claims and parties and is appealable f-b
SIGNED and ENTERED this 3 day ofJanuary 2017 L
348TH DISTRICT COURT
2
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGElO
Mr Wanglers testimony that Respondents dancers were employees for the purposes of
sect 1 l61(b)(13) of the Code Mr Wise listed a number of actions Respondent takes to assure
compliance with sect l 161(b)(13) A doorman is on duty every night to screen patrons for
intoxication before they enter Further four to seven or eight managers work each night On
March 1 2014 aside from Mr George and Mr Wangler four other managers would have been
working the floor The managers conduct daily pre-shift meetings with wait staff and bartenders
to emphasize the need to monitor alcohol consumption and signs of intoxication in dancers and
patrons All the bartenders are T ABC sellerserver certified The bartenders and wait staff were
instructed to monitor the dancers intake and warn management if they believed a dancer was or
was becoming impaired Floor managers were required to monitor the alcohol intake of dancers
and customers at the club and to intervene if needed to cut off a customer offer food and offer a
car ride Respondent employed a house mom stationed in the dancers dressing room to
oversee the dancers on the premises Mr Wise asked TABC to conduct an alcohol awareness
class and required all employees and dancers to attend 10
10 The class may have been given in conjunction with Respondents settlement of an earlier violation Resp Ex I
Mr Wise stated that Respondent has a breathalyzer that is kept on the premises The
device is used as a guideline to see what an employees breath alcohol concentration might be if
the employee is acting out of the ordinary or may be intoxicated In the past a manager sent an
employee home after the employee failed an in-house breathalyzer test Respondent does not
request patrons to use the device Mr Wise did not recall what make or model the device was
but did note that it had to be sent to the manufacturer for calibration
Mr Wise explained that if a wait staff employee or dancer had to be sent home it would
be the managers decision and Mr Wise would not need to be consulted The matter would be
discussed at the weekly management meeting when discipline would be decided a second
chance a reduction of time (a week or a month off) or a termination There was such a meeting
after the March 1 2014 incident Mr Wise and his mangers discussed what happened and what
could have been done to prevent it Mr Wise could not recall what discipline might have been
imposed on Ms Walls
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE 11
After the March st event Mr Wangler told Mr Wise that Ms Walls was on medication
and Mr Wise asked Mr Wangler what medication she was taking Mr Wangler sent Mr Wise a
text and Mr Wise looked up the medication which he identified as citalopram That drug is an
antidepressant marketed as Celexa However the medication was not positively identified nor
was the medications interaction with alcohol established in the record of this case Mr Wise
testified that Respondent does not have a policy with respect to an employee or a dancer taking
prescription drugs
E Applicable Law
The T ABC may suspend a permit for not more than sixty days if the permittee was
intoxicated on the licensed premises 11 Permittee means a person who is the holder of a
permit provided for in this code or an agent servant or employee of that person12
Intoxicated means not having the normal use of mental or physical faculties by reason of the
introduction of alcohol a controlled substance a drug a dangerous drug a combination of two
or more of those substances or any other substance into the body13 The Staff has the burden of
proof by a preponderance of the evidence 14
11 Tex Alco Bev Code (the Code)sect I l61(b)(l3 12 sect 104(11) of the Code 13 Tex Penal Codesect 4901(2)(A) 14 I Texas Administrative Code (TAC)sect 155427
F Parties Arguments
Staff argued that a preponderance of the evidence proved that Respondents employee
Ms Walls was intoxicated on the licensed premises on March I 2014 Ms Walls displayed
clear signs of intoxication she was unsteady on her feet (both in high-heeled shoes and in tennis
shoes) Ms Walls used other objects for support when walking appeared confused had glassy
eyes and had the odor of an alcoholic beverage on her breath Ms Wallss testimony
contradicted that of Mr George he (as well as Agent Nunnery) stated they waited outside for the
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE 12
cab Ms Walls denied it Accordingly Staff argued that her testimony should not be considered
to be credible
The Staff noted that Mr Wangler testified that something was wrong or off with
Ms Walls He took steps to remove Ms Walls from the club floor Petitioner argued that
Ms Walls had too much to drink or was under the influence of her medication (which the Staff
termed a narcotic) or both The Staff argued that Ms Walls more likely than not knew she was
taking medication that should not have been mixed with alcohol due to a possible adverse
interaction The Staff asserted that Mr Wanglers action in taking Ms Walls off the dance floor
corroborated the testimony of Agents Shirley and Cayea who observed Ms Walls
The Staff recommended a 36 day suspension of the Respondents permit or in the
alternative a civil penalty of $300 per day for the recommended 36 days for a total penalty of
$] 0800 15
15 16TACsect342
Respondent argued that Agent Nunnerys testimony was not credible due to his failure to
recollect details about the evening such as who was present or which agent performed which act
Respondent argued that the Staff was asserting that the permittee is strictly liable for an
employee being intoxicated on the premises That is if the Staff could show that the person was
an employee was physically present on the premises and was intoxicated then the violation
would be proved Respondent argued that SOAH ALJs recognized a further issue that must be
proved whether the employee was working at the time and was in the course and scope of their
employment citing Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission v 13335 Duluth Restaurant and Bar
dlbla La Chatte 16 Respondent argued that Mr Wranglers actions took Ms Walls out of her
course of employment
16 SOAH Docket No 458-11-3550 (July 6 2011)
The Respondents reliance on La Chatte is misplaced The Commissions Final Order in
the case specifically rejected the notion that an employee had to be acting in the course and
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE 13
scope of employment to be treated as a permittee The Commission stated It is not necessary to
decide whether the employee is on the clock in order to decide whether she is treated as the
permittee The Code does not contain that proviso Nor does the Code require that an employee
be engaged in the work she is hired to do in order for her to be treated as the permittee17
Respondent further argued it had done everything it could to monitor and prevent
Ms Walls or any dancer from becoming intoxicated and took action to send Ms Walls home
when something appeared to be wrong Respondent argued that if Ms Walls was intoxicated
some or all of it could be ascribed to her medication In Respondents view the purpose of
sect l l61(b)(13) is to police persons with easy access to alcohol which Respondent asserted it had
done Ms Wallss use of her medication was beyond Respondents control
Respondent argued that if a penalty is imposed in this contested case Respondent would
be entitled to a variance from the standard penalty chart because of the steps Respondent has
taken to avoid a violation ofsect l l61(b)(13) of the Code 18
G Analysis
Staff has to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Ms Walls was Respondents
employee and that she was intoxicated on the licensed premises
Respondent did not dispute that Ms Walls was Respondents employee on
March I 2014 for the purposes ofsect l l61(b)(13) of the Code Since Ms Wallss opportunity to
dance and earn money through Respondents customers was contingent on her following
Respondents rules and policies Ms Walls is fairly described as Petitioners employee for the
purposes of this Proposal for Decision 19
17 Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission Board Final Order TABC Docket No 599022 (SOAH Docket No 458shy11-3550) (January 18 2012) at 1-2 18 sectsect 11641(a)(3) and 1164(c) of the Code 19 Villatoro v Tex Alcoholic Bev Comm n No 05-12-00444-CV (Tex App-Dallas June 3 2013 no writ)
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE 14
Ms Walls testimony established that she had not eaten on March 1 2014 had consumed
at least two and pmt of a third mixed drinks had consumed the drinks between 700 pm and
midnight and that she had taken her prescribed anxiety medication some time during the day
The exact medication she had taken was not established Ms Walls was not asked to identify the
medication that night or at the hearing nor was she asked to produce or subpoenaed to produce
a copy of the prescription Mr Wises identification of the drug as citalopram or Celexa was
based upon information he received from Mr Wangler and cannot be considered as dispositive
Further assuming Ms Walls was taking citalopram or Celexa that particular drugs interaction
with alcohol was not established There was no evidence that Ms Walls smoked marijuana that
night
The undercover team stated that Ms Walls had a glassy blank stare and disheveled hair
swayed while walking and ran into the frame of the doorway leading to the dressing room
Agent Nunnery testified that Ms Walls seemed intoxicated her speech was sinned Ms Walls
had short term memory loss ( concerning her cell phone) nearly fell down twice as she was
dressing and attempted to place her left shoe on her right foot had the odor of an alcoholic
beverage on her breath and person had glassy eyes and swayed standing
Although Ms Walls admitted drinking alcohol that night Mr Wangler testified he did
not believe that Ms Walls was intoxicated but he also was concerned that Ms Walls was not
right Mr Wangler testified he had the perception that something was a little off or
different with Ms Walls Mr George observed that Ms Walls stood balanced while she was
dressing and speaking on the phone with her mother but lost her balance twice during the field
sobriety test Agent Nunnery conducted the HGN and observed Ms Walls that exhibited two
clues lack of smooth pursuit in both eyes He stopped the test when she lost her balance twice
causing Agent Nunnery to have Ms Walls sit down Agent Nunnery interpreted the two HGN
clues as sufficient to conclude that Ms Walls was intoxicated However Ms Walls was not so
intoxicated that she was arrested for public intoxication that is for being intoxicated to the
degree that [Ms Walls might] endanger [herself] or another20
20 Tex Penal Code sect 4902(a)
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE15
The National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) publication states
that an officer must look for the following three criteria in the HGN test (1) an inability to
pursue smoothly an object or stimulus moving sideways across the suspects field of vision (3)
distinct or pronounced nystagmus at the eyes maximum horizontal deviation and (3) an angle
of onset of nystagmus of less than or equal to 45 degrees The officer must look for these criteria
in each eye for a total of six clues If the officer identifies four or more clues then the officer
classifies the suspect as intoxicated21 Accordingly Agent Nunnery was not justified to
conclude Ms Walls was intoxicated based upon the HGN alone
Mr George noted that the agents did not use a portable breath tester (PBT) or any other
type of breath test device22 Agent Nunnery was not issued a PBT by TABC and testified that a
PBT result would not be admissible in court Agent Nurmery testified he did not have the ability
to give Ms Walls an intoxilyzer or breathalyzer test
Agent Shirley Agent Cayea and Mr Wangler each at about the same moment
concluded that something was wrong with Ms Walls The physical indicators that
Agent Shirley Agent Cayea and Agent Nunnery observed are associated with alcohol
intoxication Ms Wallss recollection of events especially the searching of her purse and her
being escorted outside by Agent Nunnery and Mr George are contradicted by the testimony of
both and their recorded observations23 Ms Walls was and remains confused about the sequence
of the events of the night and that confusion is further evidence of her impairment
21 Emerson at 766 NHTSA SFST Manual at VIII-8 (2006) found at httpoagdcgovnode443812 22 Although Mr Wise testified that Petitioner had an in-house PBT neither Mr Wangler nor Mr George requested Ms Wall to submit a specimen of her breath before or after the TABC arrived 23 Respondent argued that Agent Nunnerys written report contradicted his testimony that he stood outside with Ms Walls waiting for the cab in an effort to impeach his testimony It is true that the report does not mention that episode However Mr Georges testimony and written memorandum agreed with and supported Agent Nunnerys testimony
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE16
The ALJ concludes that a preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that Ms Walls
Respondents employee had lost normal use of her mental or physical faculties by reason of the
introduction of alcohol on the licensed premises 24
24 Ms Wallss anxiety medication was not identified nor was any expert testimony offered on the effects of the mediation or its interaction with alcohol For example Ms Walls testified that she had not eaten that day and that her medication affects her on an empty stomach However Mr George testified Ms Walls told the agents that she has an eating problem and that if she doesnt eat she will feel weak and unstable and that she hadnt ate all day According to Agent Nunnery Ms Walls denied taking any medications Given these contradictions the ALJ recommends that no finding be made on whether Ms Walls was intoxicated due to her medication or its interaction with alcohol 25 16TACsect342 26 Resp Ex I 27 16 TACsect 342 28 16 TACsect 34l(g)(J) and (4)
The ALJ recommends that the Commission find that Petitioner violatedsect 1 l6l(b)(13) of
the Code
The Staff recommended a 36 day suspension of the Respondents permit or in the
alternative a civil penalty of$300 per day for the recommended 36 days or $10800 for a second
violation of sect 1 l6l(b)(l3) of the Code25 According to Petitioners administrative record
Petitioner had a prior violation of sect 1 l61(b)(l3) which occmTed on December 20 2013
Petitioner was assessed an administrative penalty of $5100 (the equivalent of a 17 day
suspension) which was reduced to $4500 (the equivalent of a 15 day suspension) after
completion of an employee educational program on March 21 2014 which was paid on
March 26 201426 A violation of is sect l l6l(b)(13) a health safety and welfare violation27
Under the Commissions rule a subsequent violation of the Code or rule will result in a sanction
in the next higher violation level if the subsequent violation is for a health safety and welfare
violation and occurs within 36 months of the prior violation and the subsequent violation is
issued during an undercover operation28 The subsequent violation was on March 1 2014
which is within 36 months of the prior violation on December 20 2013 The March 1 2014
violation was issued during an undercover investigation
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE 17
Respondent argued that the amount of civil penalty should be reduced upon a
consideration of the ameliorating circumstances concerning the violation29 The ameliorating
circumstances cited by Respondent are Respondents practices and policies described above
and the fact that Mr Wangler immediately removed Ms Walls from the dance floor when he
observed something wrong with her The Commission has stated that Texass policy is for
Neither the permit holder nor an agent servant or employee of the permit holder to be
intoxicated o the premises in the first place30 Moreover Respondents prior violation of
sect l l6l(b)(l3) is an aggravating circumstance under the same statute31 Respondent is not
entitled to a reduction in the proposed suspension or penalty
29 sect l l641(a)(3) of the Code sect J l64Jnotes that ameliorating circumstances include those enumerated in Section l l64(c) The circumstances listed in I l64(c) namely that the violation could not reasonably have been prevented by the permittee or licensee by the exercise of due diligence that the permittee or licensee was entrapped that an agent servant or employee of the permittee or licensee violated this code without the knowledge of the permittee or licensee that the permittee or licensee did not knowingly violate this code that the permittee or licensee has demonstrated good faith including the taking of actions to rectify the consequences of the violation and to deter future violations or (6) that the violation was a technical one have no factual support in the record 30 Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission Board Final Order TABC Docket No 599022 (SOAH Docket No 458shy11-3550) (January 18 2012) at 3 31 sect I I641(a)(4) ofthe Code
The ALJ recommends that Respondents permit be suspended for 36 days or in the
alternative Respondent be assessed a civil penalty of $300 per day for 36 days for a total penalty
of$10800
III FINDINGS OF FACT
I The Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission (TABC) issued Mixed Beverage Permit MB753709 which includes a Mixed Beverage Late Hours Permit and a Beverage Cartage Permit to Respondent 2345 Meacham LLC dba Buckss Cabaret
2 Respondents licensed premises are located at 2345 Meacham Boulevard Fort Worth Tarrant County Texas 76106
3 On March 1 2014 TABC Agent Denver Carleton led a squad of TABC agents namely Sergeant Charlotte Knox and agents Travis Shirley Charles Cayea and Christopher Nunnery in an undercover investigation of the Respondents premises
4 Agents Shirley and Cayea were the undercover team
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE 18
5 Agent Carleton Sergeant Knox and Agent Nunnery were the open team
6 Agents Shirley and Cayea entered Respondents premises at approximately 11 00 pm on March 1 2014
7 Kaitlyn Walls was a dancer at Respondents bar
8 Ms Walls was working that night beginning at approximately 700 pm
9 Ms Walls danced on the main stage and then on the smaller stages in rotation
10 Ms Walls approached a customer and sat next to him at the bar near the agents
11 Ms Walls and her barstool fell to the floor
12 Ms Walls had a glassy blank stare and disheveled hair
13 Ms Walls swayed while walking and ran into the door frame of the doorway leading to the clubs dancers dressing room
14 Agents Shirley and Cayea contacted the open team and informed them that they believed Ms Walls was intoxicated
15 The two agents sent the open team Ms Wallss description and her location in the dressing room by text message
16 Agents Shirley and Cayea left the club after the open team entered the club
17 Agent Nunnery came into close contact with Ms Walls
18 Ms Walls had slmTed speech was not aware of where her cell phone was even though she was holding it nearly fell down twice as she was dressing had glassy eyes swayed standing and lost her balance twice during field sobriety testing
19 Ms Walls admitted to drinking three alcoholic beverages
20 Ms Walls displayed physical and mental indications of intoxication
21 On March 1 2014 Ms Walls did not have the normal use of her mental or physical faculties by reason of the introduction of alcohol into her body
22 On March 1 2014 Ms Walls was an employee of Respondent
23 Petitioner had a prior violation ofsect l l6I(b)(l3) of the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code (the Code) which occurred on December 20 2013 Petitioner was assessed an administrative penalty which was paid on March 26 2014
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE 19
24 The violation which is the subject of this contested case was on March 1 2014 which is within 36 months of the prior violation on December 20 2013
25 The March 1 2014 violation was issued during an undercover investigation
26 On April 14 2015 Staff issued its Notice of Hearing which contained information regarding the date time and place of the hearing the matters asserted the statutes and rules involved and the legal authorities under which the hearing would be held
27 The hearing in this matter convened before Administrative Law Judge Robert F Jones Jr on October 22 2015 at the State Office of Administrative Hearings (SOAH) in Fort Worth Texas Sheila A Lindsey of the TABC Legal Services Division appeared and represented the Staff Respondent appeared by its attorney Roger Albright Evidence was received and the record closed that day
IV CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1 TABC has jurisdiction over this matter Tex Alco Bev Code (the Code) Chapter 5
2 SOAH has jurisdiction to conduct the administrative hearing in this matter and to issue a proposal for decision containing proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law Tex Govt Code Chapter 2003
3 Proper and timely notice of the hearing was provided to Respondent Tex Govt Code sect 2001051-052
4 Respondent violated sect l l6l(b)(l3) of the Code which authorizes the Commission to suspend a pe1mit if the pe1mittee was intoxicated on the licensed premises
5 A 36 day suspension of Respondents Mixed Beverage Permit MB753709 which includes a Mixed Beverage Late Hours Permit and a Beverage Cartage Permit or in the alternative a civil penalty of $300 per day for the recommended 36 days a total of $10800 is appropriate sectsect l l6l(b)(l3) and 1164 of the Code 16 Tex Admin Codesect 342
SIGNED December 17 2015
OBERT F JO ES JR ADMINISTRATI W JUDGE STATE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
STATE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS FT WORTH OFFICE
6777 Camp Bowie Blvd Suite 400 Fort Worth Texas 76116
Phone (817) 731-1733 Fax (512) 322-0473
SERVICE LIST
AGENCY Alcoholic Beverage Commission Texas (TABC)
STYLECASE 2345 MEACHAM LLC DBA BUCKS CABARET
SOAH DOCKET NUMBER 458-15-3318
REFERRING AGENCY CASE 624309
STATE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE
HEARINGS
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
ALJ ROBERT JONES
REPRESENTATIVEADDRESS
SHEILA LINDSEY - SANDERS STAFF ATTORNEY TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION 427 W 20TH STREET SUITE 600 HOUSTON TX 77008 (713) 426-7900 (PH) (713) 862-7478 (FAX)
PARTIES
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION
ROGER ALBRIGHT ATTORNEY AT LAW 3301 ELM STREET DALLAS TX 75226 (214) 939-9224 (PH) (214) 939-9229 (FAX) ralawrogeralbrightcom
ROGER ALBRIGHT
xc Docket Clerk State Office of Administrative Hearings Emily Helm GENERAL COUNSEL TABC Fax No 512-206-3226
Pagel of I
DOCKET NO 624309
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE
COMMISSION Petitioner
VS
2345 MEACHAM LLC
DBA BUCKrsquoS CABARET
Respondent
PERMIT MB753709 LB PE
TARRANT COUNTY TEXAS
(SOAH DOCKET NO 458-15-3318)
BEFORE THE TEXAS
ALCOHOLIC
BEVERAGE COMMISSION
ORDER
CAME ON FOR CONSIDERATION this 14th day of October 2016 the above-styled
and numbered cause
After proper notice was given this case was heard by the State Office of Administrative
Hearings (SOAH) with Administrative Law Judge Robert F Jones Jr presiding The hearing
convened on October 22 2015 and the SOAH record closed the same date The Administrative
Law Judge made and filed a Proposal for Decision containing Findings of Fact and Conclusions
of Law on December 17 2015 The Proposal for Decision was properly served on all parties
who were given an opportunity to file exceptions and replies as part of the record herein No
exceptions were filed
After review and due consideration of the Proposal for Decision I adopt the Findings of
Fact and Conclusions of Law of the Administrative Law Judge that are contained in the Proposal
for Decision and incorporate those Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law into this Order as if
such were fully set out and separately stated herein
All motions requests for entry of Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
and any other requests for general or specific relief submitted by any party are denied unless
specifically adopted herein
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the privileges granted by the Commission and the
activities authorized under the above permit by the Code will be SUSPENDED beginning at
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
__________________________________________
__________________________________________
1201 am on November 30th 2016 and shall remain suspended for THIRTY-SIX (36)
DAYS UNLESS a civil penalty in the amount of $1080000 is paid ON OR BEFORE
November 22nd 2016
This Order will become final and enforceable on the 15th day of November
2016 unless a Motion for Rehearing is filed by the 14th day of November 2016
SIGNED this the 14th day of October 2016 at Austin Texas
Sherry K-Cook Executive Director
Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that the persons listed below were served with a copy of this Order in the manner
indicated below on this the 14th day of October 2016
Martin Wilson Assistant General Counsel
Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission
Robert F Jones Jr
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
State Office of Administrative Hearings
300 W 15th
Street Suite 502
Austin TX 78701
VIA FACSIMILE (512) 322-2061
2345 Meacham LLC
dba Buckrsquos Cabaret
RESPONDENT
PO Box 271289
Flower Mound TX 75027
VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL CMRRR 70160600000046455820
Roger Albright
ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENT
3301 Elm Street
Dallas TX 75226
VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL CMRRR 70160600000046455837
Shelia Lindsey
ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER
TABC Legal Division
VIA E-MAIL Shelialindseytabctexasgov
__________________________________
__________________________________
__________________________________
__________________________________
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION
CIVIL PENALTY REMITTANCE
DOCKET NUMBER 624309 REGISTER NUMBER
NAME 2345 MEACHAM LLC
TRADENAME Buckrsquos Cabaret
ADDRESS PO Box 271289 Flower Mound Texas
DUE DATE November 22 2016
PERMITS OR LICENSES MB753709 LB PE
AMOUNT OF PENALTY $1080000
Amount remitted $____________________ Date remitted ____________________________
You may pay a civil penalty rather than have your permits and licenses suspended if an amount
for civil penalty is included on the attached order
YOU HAVE THE OPTION TO PAY THE CIVIL PENALTY ONLY IF YOU PAY THE
ENTIRE AMOUNT ON OR BEFORE THE DUE DATE AFTER THAT DATE YOUR
LICENSE OR PERMIT WILL BE SUSPENDED FOR THE TIME PERIOD STATED ON
THE ORDER
Mail this form with your payment to
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION
PO Box 13127 Austin Texas 78711
Overnight Delivery Address 5806 Mesa Dr Austin Texas 78731
You must pay by postal money order certified check or cashiers check No personal or
company check nor partial payment accepted Your payment will be returned if anything is
incorrect You must pay the entire amount of the penalty assessed
Attach this form and please make certain to include the Docket on your payment
Signature of Responsible Party
Street Address PO Box No
City State Zip Code
Area CodeTelephone No
Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2
DOCKET NO 624309
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE
COMMISSION Petitioner
sect
sect
sect
sect
VS sect
sect
sect
sect
2345 MEACHAM LLC
DBA BUCKrsquoS CABARET
Respondent
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
PERMIT MB753709 LB PE sect
sect
sect
TARRANT COUNTY TEXAS
(SOAH DOCKET NO 458-15-3318)
sect
sect
BEFORE THE TEXAS
BEVERAGE COMMISSION
ALCOHOLIC
ORDER DENYING M OTION FOR REHEARING
Page 1 of 3
CAME ON FOR CONSIDERATION this 1st day of December 2016 the above-styled
and numbered cause
On October 14 2016 an Order was issued in this cause suspending Respondents permits
for a period of 36 days unless a civil penalty in the amount of $10800 was paid A timely
Motion for RehearingReconsideration was filed by Respondent on November 11 2016 and a
Supplemental Motion for Rehearing was filed by Respondent on November 16 2016 Petitioner
filed a Response to Respondents Motion for RehearingReconsideration on November 22 2016
Having considered Respondents Motion for RehearingReconsideration
Respondents Supplemental Motion for Rehearing and Petitioners Response to Respondents
Motion for RehearingReconsideration Respondents Motion for RehearingReconsideration is
DENIED
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that IF THIS ORDER IS NOT APPEALED
WITHIN THE TIME ALLOWED BY ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CODE sect1167 the
privileges granted by the Commission and the activities authorized under the above permits by
the Code will be SUSPENDED beginning at 1201 am on January 25 2017 and shall remain
suspended for THIRTY SIX (36) CONSECUTIVE DAYS UNLESS a civil penalty in the
amount of $1080000 is paid in lieu of suspension ON OR BEFORE January 17 2017
__________________________________________
_________________________________________
IF THIS ORDER IS APPEALED AND THE DECISION IS AFFIRMED IT IS
ORDERED that the privileges granted by the Commission and the activities authorized under
the above permits by the Code will be SUSPENDED beginning at 1201 am on the fifteenth
(15th
) day following the date the decision is affirmed whether by Order or by operation of law
and shall remain suspended for THIRTY SIX (36) CONSECUTIVE DAYS UNLESS a civil
penalty in the amount of $1080000 is paid in lieu of suspension ON OR BEFORE the seventh
(7th
) day following the date the decision is affirmed whether by Order or by operation of law
SIGNED this the 1st day of December 2016 at Austin Texas
Sherry K-Cook Executive Director
Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that the persons listed below were served with a copy of this Order Denying
Motion for Rehearing in the manner indicated below on this the 1st day of December 2016
Martin Wilson Assistant General Counsel
Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission
Page 2 of 3
Robert F Jones Jr
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
State Office of Administrative Hearings
300 W 15th
Street Suite 502
Austin TX 78701
VIA FACSIMILE (512) 322-2061
2345 Meacham LLC
dba Buckrsquos Cabaret
RESPONDENT
PO Box 271289
Flower Mound TX 75027
VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL CMRRR 70160340000080983298
Roger Albright
ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENT
3301 Elm Street
Dallas TX 75226
VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL CMRRR70160340000080983281
Shelia Lindsey
ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER
TABC Legal Division
VIA E-MAIL Shelialindseytabctexasgov
Page 3 of 3
__________________________________
__________________________________
__________________________________
__________________________________
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION
CIVIL PENALTY REMITTANCE
DOCKET NUMBER 624309 REGISTER NUMBER
NAME 2345 Meacham LLC
TRADENAME Buckrsquos Cabaret
ADDRESS PO Box 271289 Flower Mound Texas
DUE DATE January 17 2017
PERMITS OR LICENSES MB753709 PE LB
AMOUNT OF PENALTY $1080000
Amount remitted $____________________ Date remitted ____________________________
You may pay a civil penalty rather than have your permits and licenses suspended if an amount
for civil penalty is included on the attached order
YOU HAVE THE OPTION TO PAY THE CIVIL PENALTY ONLY IF YOU PAY THE
ENTIRE AMOUNT ON OR BEFORE THE DUE DATE AFTER THAT DATE YOUR
LICENSE OR PERMIT WILL BE SUSPENDED FOR THE TIME PERIOD STATED ON
THE ORDER
Mail this form with your payment to
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION
PO Box 13127 Austin Texas 78711
Overnight Delivery Address 5806 Mesa Dr Austin Texas 78731
You must pay by postal money order certified check or cashiers check No personal or
company check nor partial payment accepted Your payment will be returned if anything is
incorrect You must pay the entire amount of the penalty assessed
Attach this form and please make certain to include the Docket on your payment
Signature of Responsible Party
Street Address PO Box No
City State Zip Code
Area CodeTelephone No
Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2
CAUSE NO 348-289708-16
2345 MEACHAM LLC DBA BUCKS CABARET
Plaintiff
v
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION
Defendant
sect IN THE DISTRICT COURT
348TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
TARRANT COUNTY TEXAS
sect sect sect sect sect sect sect sect sect
ORDER AFFIRMING TABC DECISION fllJ()1)1-j 13J
On tkis day came on to be heard the above-tyled and numbered cause
pursuant to Ch 2001 ofthe Texas Government Code (the Administrative Procedure
Act) and sect 1167 of the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code 2345 Meacham LLC
dba Bucks Cabaret and the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission appeared by
and through their attorneys of record and announced ready All matters of fact and
controversy were submitted The Court after reviewing the evidence and hearing
the arguments of counsel finds that the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission
Order of October 14 2016 is supported by substantial evidence
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED ADJUDGED and DECREED that the
Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commissions Order of October 14 2016 suspending
Plaintiffs Mixed Beverage Permit MB753709 and the associated Beverage Cartage
Permit and Mixed Beverage Late Hours Permit is supported by substantial
evidence and thus is AFFIRMED _1 L IJND Tltld1lt lJAS t-lltJ cflfAfl ltJr tlJ~
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED ADJUDGED and DECREED that the Plaintiff
shall take nothing by this suit and that Defendant shall be in all things discharged
ion
ON ALL SERVED VIAIE-MAILED - HAND DtLIVERY -MAIL
=----WHO 16 TO
_--13 1
SElVE COPIEIS ON gtLL OTHEN
and that the costs ofcourt are taxed against the party incurring same All other relief
not expressly granted herein is denied
This judgment is final disposes of all claims and parties and is appealable f-b
SIGNED and ENTERED this 3 day ofJanuary 2017 L
348TH DISTRICT COURT
2
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE 11
After the March st event Mr Wangler told Mr Wise that Ms Walls was on medication
and Mr Wise asked Mr Wangler what medication she was taking Mr Wangler sent Mr Wise a
text and Mr Wise looked up the medication which he identified as citalopram That drug is an
antidepressant marketed as Celexa However the medication was not positively identified nor
was the medications interaction with alcohol established in the record of this case Mr Wise
testified that Respondent does not have a policy with respect to an employee or a dancer taking
prescription drugs
E Applicable Law
The T ABC may suspend a permit for not more than sixty days if the permittee was
intoxicated on the licensed premises 11 Permittee means a person who is the holder of a
permit provided for in this code or an agent servant or employee of that person12
Intoxicated means not having the normal use of mental or physical faculties by reason of the
introduction of alcohol a controlled substance a drug a dangerous drug a combination of two
or more of those substances or any other substance into the body13 The Staff has the burden of
proof by a preponderance of the evidence 14
11 Tex Alco Bev Code (the Code)sect I l61(b)(l3 12 sect 104(11) of the Code 13 Tex Penal Codesect 4901(2)(A) 14 I Texas Administrative Code (TAC)sect 155427
F Parties Arguments
Staff argued that a preponderance of the evidence proved that Respondents employee
Ms Walls was intoxicated on the licensed premises on March I 2014 Ms Walls displayed
clear signs of intoxication she was unsteady on her feet (both in high-heeled shoes and in tennis
shoes) Ms Walls used other objects for support when walking appeared confused had glassy
eyes and had the odor of an alcoholic beverage on her breath Ms Wallss testimony
contradicted that of Mr George he (as well as Agent Nunnery) stated they waited outside for the
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE 12
cab Ms Walls denied it Accordingly Staff argued that her testimony should not be considered
to be credible
The Staff noted that Mr Wangler testified that something was wrong or off with
Ms Walls He took steps to remove Ms Walls from the club floor Petitioner argued that
Ms Walls had too much to drink or was under the influence of her medication (which the Staff
termed a narcotic) or both The Staff argued that Ms Walls more likely than not knew she was
taking medication that should not have been mixed with alcohol due to a possible adverse
interaction The Staff asserted that Mr Wanglers action in taking Ms Walls off the dance floor
corroborated the testimony of Agents Shirley and Cayea who observed Ms Walls
The Staff recommended a 36 day suspension of the Respondents permit or in the
alternative a civil penalty of $300 per day for the recommended 36 days for a total penalty of
$] 0800 15
15 16TACsect342
Respondent argued that Agent Nunnerys testimony was not credible due to his failure to
recollect details about the evening such as who was present or which agent performed which act
Respondent argued that the Staff was asserting that the permittee is strictly liable for an
employee being intoxicated on the premises That is if the Staff could show that the person was
an employee was physically present on the premises and was intoxicated then the violation
would be proved Respondent argued that SOAH ALJs recognized a further issue that must be
proved whether the employee was working at the time and was in the course and scope of their
employment citing Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission v 13335 Duluth Restaurant and Bar
dlbla La Chatte 16 Respondent argued that Mr Wranglers actions took Ms Walls out of her
course of employment
16 SOAH Docket No 458-11-3550 (July 6 2011)
The Respondents reliance on La Chatte is misplaced The Commissions Final Order in
the case specifically rejected the notion that an employee had to be acting in the course and
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE 13
scope of employment to be treated as a permittee The Commission stated It is not necessary to
decide whether the employee is on the clock in order to decide whether she is treated as the
permittee The Code does not contain that proviso Nor does the Code require that an employee
be engaged in the work she is hired to do in order for her to be treated as the permittee17
Respondent further argued it had done everything it could to monitor and prevent
Ms Walls or any dancer from becoming intoxicated and took action to send Ms Walls home
when something appeared to be wrong Respondent argued that if Ms Walls was intoxicated
some or all of it could be ascribed to her medication In Respondents view the purpose of
sect l l61(b)(13) is to police persons with easy access to alcohol which Respondent asserted it had
done Ms Wallss use of her medication was beyond Respondents control
Respondent argued that if a penalty is imposed in this contested case Respondent would
be entitled to a variance from the standard penalty chart because of the steps Respondent has
taken to avoid a violation ofsect l l61(b)(13) of the Code 18
G Analysis
Staff has to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Ms Walls was Respondents
employee and that she was intoxicated on the licensed premises
Respondent did not dispute that Ms Walls was Respondents employee on
March I 2014 for the purposes ofsect l l61(b)(13) of the Code Since Ms Wallss opportunity to
dance and earn money through Respondents customers was contingent on her following
Respondents rules and policies Ms Walls is fairly described as Petitioners employee for the
purposes of this Proposal for Decision 19
17 Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission Board Final Order TABC Docket No 599022 (SOAH Docket No 458shy11-3550) (January 18 2012) at 1-2 18 sectsect 11641(a)(3) and 1164(c) of the Code 19 Villatoro v Tex Alcoholic Bev Comm n No 05-12-00444-CV (Tex App-Dallas June 3 2013 no writ)
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE 14
Ms Walls testimony established that she had not eaten on March 1 2014 had consumed
at least two and pmt of a third mixed drinks had consumed the drinks between 700 pm and
midnight and that she had taken her prescribed anxiety medication some time during the day
The exact medication she had taken was not established Ms Walls was not asked to identify the
medication that night or at the hearing nor was she asked to produce or subpoenaed to produce
a copy of the prescription Mr Wises identification of the drug as citalopram or Celexa was
based upon information he received from Mr Wangler and cannot be considered as dispositive
Further assuming Ms Walls was taking citalopram or Celexa that particular drugs interaction
with alcohol was not established There was no evidence that Ms Walls smoked marijuana that
night
The undercover team stated that Ms Walls had a glassy blank stare and disheveled hair
swayed while walking and ran into the frame of the doorway leading to the dressing room
Agent Nunnery testified that Ms Walls seemed intoxicated her speech was sinned Ms Walls
had short term memory loss ( concerning her cell phone) nearly fell down twice as she was
dressing and attempted to place her left shoe on her right foot had the odor of an alcoholic
beverage on her breath and person had glassy eyes and swayed standing
Although Ms Walls admitted drinking alcohol that night Mr Wangler testified he did
not believe that Ms Walls was intoxicated but he also was concerned that Ms Walls was not
right Mr Wangler testified he had the perception that something was a little off or
different with Ms Walls Mr George observed that Ms Walls stood balanced while she was
dressing and speaking on the phone with her mother but lost her balance twice during the field
sobriety test Agent Nunnery conducted the HGN and observed Ms Walls that exhibited two
clues lack of smooth pursuit in both eyes He stopped the test when she lost her balance twice
causing Agent Nunnery to have Ms Walls sit down Agent Nunnery interpreted the two HGN
clues as sufficient to conclude that Ms Walls was intoxicated However Ms Walls was not so
intoxicated that she was arrested for public intoxication that is for being intoxicated to the
degree that [Ms Walls might] endanger [herself] or another20
20 Tex Penal Code sect 4902(a)
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE15
The National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) publication states
that an officer must look for the following three criteria in the HGN test (1) an inability to
pursue smoothly an object or stimulus moving sideways across the suspects field of vision (3)
distinct or pronounced nystagmus at the eyes maximum horizontal deviation and (3) an angle
of onset of nystagmus of less than or equal to 45 degrees The officer must look for these criteria
in each eye for a total of six clues If the officer identifies four or more clues then the officer
classifies the suspect as intoxicated21 Accordingly Agent Nunnery was not justified to
conclude Ms Walls was intoxicated based upon the HGN alone
Mr George noted that the agents did not use a portable breath tester (PBT) or any other
type of breath test device22 Agent Nunnery was not issued a PBT by TABC and testified that a
PBT result would not be admissible in court Agent Nurmery testified he did not have the ability
to give Ms Walls an intoxilyzer or breathalyzer test
Agent Shirley Agent Cayea and Mr Wangler each at about the same moment
concluded that something was wrong with Ms Walls The physical indicators that
Agent Shirley Agent Cayea and Agent Nunnery observed are associated with alcohol
intoxication Ms Wallss recollection of events especially the searching of her purse and her
being escorted outside by Agent Nunnery and Mr George are contradicted by the testimony of
both and their recorded observations23 Ms Walls was and remains confused about the sequence
of the events of the night and that confusion is further evidence of her impairment
21 Emerson at 766 NHTSA SFST Manual at VIII-8 (2006) found at httpoagdcgovnode443812 22 Although Mr Wise testified that Petitioner had an in-house PBT neither Mr Wangler nor Mr George requested Ms Wall to submit a specimen of her breath before or after the TABC arrived 23 Respondent argued that Agent Nunnerys written report contradicted his testimony that he stood outside with Ms Walls waiting for the cab in an effort to impeach his testimony It is true that the report does not mention that episode However Mr Georges testimony and written memorandum agreed with and supported Agent Nunnerys testimony
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE16
The ALJ concludes that a preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that Ms Walls
Respondents employee had lost normal use of her mental or physical faculties by reason of the
introduction of alcohol on the licensed premises 24
24 Ms Wallss anxiety medication was not identified nor was any expert testimony offered on the effects of the mediation or its interaction with alcohol For example Ms Walls testified that she had not eaten that day and that her medication affects her on an empty stomach However Mr George testified Ms Walls told the agents that she has an eating problem and that if she doesnt eat she will feel weak and unstable and that she hadnt ate all day According to Agent Nunnery Ms Walls denied taking any medications Given these contradictions the ALJ recommends that no finding be made on whether Ms Walls was intoxicated due to her medication or its interaction with alcohol 25 16TACsect342 26 Resp Ex I 27 16 TACsect 342 28 16 TACsect 34l(g)(J) and (4)
The ALJ recommends that the Commission find that Petitioner violatedsect 1 l6l(b)(13) of
the Code
The Staff recommended a 36 day suspension of the Respondents permit or in the
alternative a civil penalty of$300 per day for the recommended 36 days or $10800 for a second
violation of sect 1 l6l(b)(l3) of the Code25 According to Petitioners administrative record
Petitioner had a prior violation of sect 1 l61(b)(l3) which occmTed on December 20 2013
Petitioner was assessed an administrative penalty of $5100 (the equivalent of a 17 day
suspension) which was reduced to $4500 (the equivalent of a 15 day suspension) after
completion of an employee educational program on March 21 2014 which was paid on
March 26 201426 A violation of is sect l l6l(b)(13) a health safety and welfare violation27
Under the Commissions rule a subsequent violation of the Code or rule will result in a sanction
in the next higher violation level if the subsequent violation is for a health safety and welfare
violation and occurs within 36 months of the prior violation and the subsequent violation is
issued during an undercover operation28 The subsequent violation was on March 1 2014
which is within 36 months of the prior violation on December 20 2013 The March 1 2014
violation was issued during an undercover investigation
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE 17
Respondent argued that the amount of civil penalty should be reduced upon a
consideration of the ameliorating circumstances concerning the violation29 The ameliorating
circumstances cited by Respondent are Respondents practices and policies described above
and the fact that Mr Wangler immediately removed Ms Walls from the dance floor when he
observed something wrong with her The Commission has stated that Texass policy is for
Neither the permit holder nor an agent servant or employee of the permit holder to be
intoxicated o the premises in the first place30 Moreover Respondents prior violation of
sect l l6l(b)(l3) is an aggravating circumstance under the same statute31 Respondent is not
entitled to a reduction in the proposed suspension or penalty
29 sect l l641(a)(3) of the Code sect J l64Jnotes that ameliorating circumstances include those enumerated in Section l l64(c) The circumstances listed in I l64(c) namely that the violation could not reasonably have been prevented by the permittee or licensee by the exercise of due diligence that the permittee or licensee was entrapped that an agent servant or employee of the permittee or licensee violated this code without the knowledge of the permittee or licensee that the permittee or licensee did not knowingly violate this code that the permittee or licensee has demonstrated good faith including the taking of actions to rectify the consequences of the violation and to deter future violations or (6) that the violation was a technical one have no factual support in the record 30 Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission Board Final Order TABC Docket No 599022 (SOAH Docket No 458shy11-3550) (January 18 2012) at 3 31 sect I I641(a)(4) ofthe Code
The ALJ recommends that Respondents permit be suspended for 36 days or in the
alternative Respondent be assessed a civil penalty of $300 per day for 36 days for a total penalty
of$10800
III FINDINGS OF FACT
I The Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission (TABC) issued Mixed Beverage Permit MB753709 which includes a Mixed Beverage Late Hours Permit and a Beverage Cartage Permit to Respondent 2345 Meacham LLC dba Buckss Cabaret
2 Respondents licensed premises are located at 2345 Meacham Boulevard Fort Worth Tarrant County Texas 76106
3 On March 1 2014 TABC Agent Denver Carleton led a squad of TABC agents namely Sergeant Charlotte Knox and agents Travis Shirley Charles Cayea and Christopher Nunnery in an undercover investigation of the Respondents premises
4 Agents Shirley and Cayea were the undercover team
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE 18
5 Agent Carleton Sergeant Knox and Agent Nunnery were the open team
6 Agents Shirley and Cayea entered Respondents premises at approximately 11 00 pm on March 1 2014
7 Kaitlyn Walls was a dancer at Respondents bar
8 Ms Walls was working that night beginning at approximately 700 pm
9 Ms Walls danced on the main stage and then on the smaller stages in rotation
10 Ms Walls approached a customer and sat next to him at the bar near the agents
11 Ms Walls and her barstool fell to the floor
12 Ms Walls had a glassy blank stare and disheveled hair
13 Ms Walls swayed while walking and ran into the door frame of the doorway leading to the clubs dancers dressing room
14 Agents Shirley and Cayea contacted the open team and informed them that they believed Ms Walls was intoxicated
15 The two agents sent the open team Ms Wallss description and her location in the dressing room by text message
16 Agents Shirley and Cayea left the club after the open team entered the club
17 Agent Nunnery came into close contact with Ms Walls
18 Ms Walls had slmTed speech was not aware of where her cell phone was even though she was holding it nearly fell down twice as she was dressing had glassy eyes swayed standing and lost her balance twice during field sobriety testing
19 Ms Walls admitted to drinking three alcoholic beverages
20 Ms Walls displayed physical and mental indications of intoxication
21 On March 1 2014 Ms Walls did not have the normal use of her mental or physical faculties by reason of the introduction of alcohol into her body
22 On March 1 2014 Ms Walls was an employee of Respondent
23 Petitioner had a prior violation ofsect l l6I(b)(l3) of the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code (the Code) which occurred on December 20 2013 Petitioner was assessed an administrative penalty which was paid on March 26 2014
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE 19
24 The violation which is the subject of this contested case was on March 1 2014 which is within 36 months of the prior violation on December 20 2013
25 The March 1 2014 violation was issued during an undercover investigation
26 On April 14 2015 Staff issued its Notice of Hearing which contained information regarding the date time and place of the hearing the matters asserted the statutes and rules involved and the legal authorities under which the hearing would be held
27 The hearing in this matter convened before Administrative Law Judge Robert F Jones Jr on October 22 2015 at the State Office of Administrative Hearings (SOAH) in Fort Worth Texas Sheila A Lindsey of the TABC Legal Services Division appeared and represented the Staff Respondent appeared by its attorney Roger Albright Evidence was received and the record closed that day
IV CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1 TABC has jurisdiction over this matter Tex Alco Bev Code (the Code) Chapter 5
2 SOAH has jurisdiction to conduct the administrative hearing in this matter and to issue a proposal for decision containing proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law Tex Govt Code Chapter 2003
3 Proper and timely notice of the hearing was provided to Respondent Tex Govt Code sect 2001051-052
4 Respondent violated sect l l6l(b)(l3) of the Code which authorizes the Commission to suspend a pe1mit if the pe1mittee was intoxicated on the licensed premises
5 A 36 day suspension of Respondents Mixed Beverage Permit MB753709 which includes a Mixed Beverage Late Hours Permit and a Beverage Cartage Permit or in the alternative a civil penalty of $300 per day for the recommended 36 days a total of $10800 is appropriate sectsect l l6l(b)(l3) and 1164 of the Code 16 Tex Admin Codesect 342
SIGNED December 17 2015
OBERT F JO ES JR ADMINISTRATI W JUDGE STATE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
STATE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS FT WORTH OFFICE
6777 Camp Bowie Blvd Suite 400 Fort Worth Texas 76116
Phone (817) 731-1733 Fax (512) 322-0473
SERVICE LIST
AGENCY Alcoholic Beverage Commission Texas (TABC)
STYLECASE 2345 MEACHAM LLC DBA BUCKS CABARET
SOAH DOCKET NUMBER 458-15-3318
REFERRING AGENCY CASE 624309
STATE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE
HEARINGS
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
ALJ ROBERT JONES
REPRESENTATIVEADDRESS
SHEILA LINDSEY - SANDERS STAFF ATTORNEY TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION 427 W 20TH STREET SUITE 600 HOUSTON TX 77008 (713) 426-7900 (PH) (713) 862-7478 (FAX)
PARTIES
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION
ROGER ALBRIGHT ATTORNEY AT LAW 3301 ELM STREET DALLAS TX 75226 (214) 939-9224 (PH) (214) 939-9229 (FAX) ralawrogeralbrightcom
ROGER ALBRIGHT
xc Docket Clerk State Office of Administrative Hearings Emily Helm GENERAL COUNSEL TABC Fax No 512-206-3226
Pagel of I
DOCKET NO 624309
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE
COMMISSION Petitioner
VS
2345 MEACHAM LLC
DBA BUCKrsquoS CABARET
Respondent
PERMIT MB753709 LB PE
TARRANT COUNTY TEXAS
(SOAH DOCKET NO 458-15-3318)
BEFORE THE TEXAS
ALCOHOLIC
BEVERAGE COMMISSION
ORDER
CAME ON FOR CONSIDERATION this 14th day of October 2016 the above-styled
and numbered cause
After proper notice was given this case was heard by the State Office of Administrative
Hearings (SOAH) with Administrative Law Judge Robert F Jones Jr presiding The hearing
convened on October 22 2015 and the SOAH record closed the same date The Administrative
Law Judge made and filed a Proposal for Decision containing Findings of Fact and Conclusions
of Law on December 17 2015 The Proposal for Decision was properly served on all parties
who were given an opportunity to file exceptions and replies as part of the record herein No
exceptions were filed
After review and due consideration of the Proposal for Decision I adopt the Findings of
Fact and Conclusions of Law of the Administrative Law Judge that are contained in the Proposal
for Decision and incorporate those Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law into this Order as if
such were fully set out and separately stated herein
All motions requests for entry of Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
and any other requests for general or specific relief submitted by any party are denied unless
specifically adopted herein
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the privileges granted by the Commission and the
activities authorized under the above permit by the Code will be SUSPENDED beginning at
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
__________________________________________
__________________________________________
1201 am on November 30th 2016 and shall remain suspended for THIRTY-SIX (36)
DAYS UNLESS a civil penalty in the amount of $1080000 is paid ON OR BEFORE
November 22nd 2016
This Order will become final and enforceable on the 15th day of November
2016 unless a Motion for Rehearing is filed by the 14th day of November 2016
SIGNED this the 14th day of October 2016 at Austin Texas
Sherry K-Cook Executive Director
Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that the persons listed below were served with a copy of this Order in the manner
indicated below on this the 14th day of October 2016
Martin Wilson Assistant General Counsel
Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission
Robert F Jones Jr
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
State Office of Administrative Hearings
300 W 15th
Street Suite 502
Austin TX 78701
VIA FACSIMILE (512) 322-2061
2345 Meacham LLC
dba Buckrsquos Cabaret
RESPONDENT
PO Box 271289
Flower Mound TX 75027
VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL CMRRR 70160600000046455820
Roger Albright
ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENT
3301 Elm Street
Dallas TX 75226
VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL CMRRR 70160600000046455837
Shelia Lindsey
ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER
TABC Legal Division
VIA E-MAIL Shelialindseytabctexasgov
__________________________________
__________________________________
__________________________________
__________________________________
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION
CIVIL PENALTY REMITTANCE
DOCKET NUMBER 624309 REGISTER NUMBER
NAME 2345 MEACHAM LLC
TRADENAME Buckrsquos Cabaret
ADDRESS PO Box 271289 Flower Mound Texas
DUE DATE November 22 2016
PERMITS OR LICENSES MB753709 LB PE
AMOUNT OF PENALTY $1080000
Amount remitted $____________________ Date remitted ____________________________
You may pay a civil penalty rather than have your permits and licenses suspended if an amount
for civil penalty is included on the attached order
YOU HAVE THE OPTION TO PAY THE CIVIL PENALTY ONLY IF YOU PAY THE
ENTIRE AMOUNT ON OR BEFORE THE DUE DATE AFTER THAT DATE YOUR
LICENSE OR PERMIT WILL BE SUSPENDED FOR THE TIME PERIOD STATED ON
THE ORDER
Mail this form with your payment to
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION
PO Box 13127 Austin Texas 78711
Overnight Delivery Address 5806 Mesa Dr Austin Texas 78731
You must pay by postal money order certified check or cashiers check No personal or
company check nor partial payment accepted Your payment will be returned if anything is
incorrect You must pay the entire amount of the penalty assessed
Attach this form and please make certain to include the Docket on your payment
Signature of Responsible Party
Street Address PO Box No
City State Zip Code
Area CodeTelephone No
Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2
DOCKET NO 624309
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE
COMMISSION Petitioner
sect
sect
sect
sect
VS sect
sect
sect
sect
2345 MEACHAM LLC
DBA BUCKrsquoS CABARET
Respondent
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
PERMIT MB753709 LB PE sect
sect
sect
TARRANT COUNTY TEXAS
(SOAH DOCKET NO 458-15-3318)
sect
sect
BEFORE THE TEXAS
BEVERAGE COMMISSION
ALCOHOLIC
ORDER DENYING M OTION FOR REHEARING
Page 1 of 3
CAME ON FOR CONSIDERATION this 1st day of December 2016 the above-styled
and numbered cause
On October 14 2016 an Order was issued in this cause suspending Respondents permits
for a period of 36 days unless a civil penalty in the amount of $10800 was paid A timely
Motion for RehearingReconsideration was filed by Respondent on November 11 2016 and a
Supplemental Motion for Rehearing was filed by Respondent on November 16 2016 Petitioner
filed a Response to Respondents Motion for RehearingReconsideration on November 22 2016
Having considered Respondents Motion for RehearingReconsideration
Respondents Supplemental Motion for Rehearing and Petitioners Response to Respondents
Motion for RehearingReconsideration Respondents Motion for RehearingReconsideration is
DENIED
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that IF THIS ORDER IS NOT APPEALED
WITHIN THE TIME ALLOWED BY ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CODE sect1167 the
privileges granted by the Commission and the activities authorized under the above permits by
the Code will be SUSPENDED beginning at 1201 am on January 25 2017 and shall remain
suspended for THIRTY SIX (36) CONSECUTIVE DAYS UNLESS a civil penalty in the
amount of $1080000 is paid in lieu of suspension ON OR BEFORE January 17 2017
__________________________________________
_________________________________________
IF THIS ORDER IS APPEALED AND THE DECISION IS AFFIRMED IT IS
ORDERED that the privileges granted by the Commission and the activities authorized under
the above permits by the Code will be SUSPENDED beginning at 1201 am on the fifteenth
(15th
) day following the date the decision is affirmed whether by Order or by operation of law
and shall remain suspended for THIRTY SIX (36) CONSECUTIVE DAYS UNLESS a civil
penalty in the amount of $1080000 is paid in lieu of suspension ON OR BEFORE the seventh
(7th
) day following the date the decision is affirmed whether by Order or by operation of law
SIGNED this the 1st day of December 2016 at Austin Texas
Sherry K-Cook Executive Director
Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that the persons listed below were served with a copy of this Order Denying
Motion for Rehearing in the manner indicated below on this the 1st day of December 2016
Martin Wilson Assistant General Counsel
Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission
Page 2 of 3
Robert F Jones Jr
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
State Office of Administrative Hearings
300 W 15th
Street Suite 502
Austin TX 78701
VIA FACSIMILE (512) 322-2061
2345 Meacham LLC
dba Buckrsquos Cabaret
RESPONDENT
PO Box 271289
Flower Mound TX 75027
VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL CMRRR 70160340000080983298
Roger Albright
ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENT
3301 Elm Street
Dallas TX 75226
VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL CMRRR70160340000080983281
Shelia Lindsey
ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER
TABC Legal Division
VIA E-MAIL Shelialindseytabctexasgov
Page 3 of 3
__________________________________
__________________________________
__________________________________
__________________________________
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION
CIVIL PENALTY REMITTANCE
DOCKET NUMBER 624309 REGISTER NUMBER
NAME 2345 Meacham LLC
TRADENAME Buckrsquos Cabaret
ADDRESS PO Box 271289 Flower Mound Texas
DUE DATE January 17 2017
PERMITS OR LICENSES MB753709 PE LB
AMOUNT OF PENALTY $1080000
Amount remitted $____________________ Date remitted ____________________________
You may pay a civil penalty rather than have your permits and licenses suspended if an amount
for civil penalty is included on the attached order
YOU HAVE THE OPTION TO PAY THE CIVIL PENALTY ONLY IF YOU PAY THE
ENTIRE AMOUNT ON OR BEFORE THE DUE DATE AFTER THAT DATE YOUR
LICENSE OR PERMIT WILL BE SUSPENDED FOR THE TIME PERIOD STATED ON
THE ORDER
Mail this form with your payment to
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION
PO Box 13127 Austin Texas 78711
Overnight Delivery Address 5806 Mesa Dr Austin Texas 78731
You must pay by postal money order certified check or cashiers check No personal or
company check nor partial payment accepted Your payment will be returned if anything is
incorrect You must pay the entire amount of the penalty assessed
Attach this form and please make certain to include the Docket on your payment
Signature of Responsible Party
Street Address PO Box No
City State Zip Code
Area CodeTelephone No
Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2
CAUSE NO 348-289708-16
2345 MEACHAM LLC DBA BUCKS CABARET
Plaintiff
v
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION
Defendant
sect IN THE DISTRICT COURT
348TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
TARRANT COUNTY TEXAS
sect sect sect sect sect sect sect sect sect
ORDER AFFIRMING TABC DECISION fllJ()1)1-j 13J
On tkis day came on to be heard the above-tyled and numbered cause
pursuant to Ch 2001 ofthe Texas Government Code (the Administrative Procedure
Act) and sect 1167 of the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code 2345 Meacham LLC
dba Bucks Cabaret and the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission appeared by
and through their attorneys of record and announced ready All matters of fact and
controversy were submitted The Court after reviewing the evidence and hearing
the arguments of counsel finds that the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission
Order of October 14 2016 is supported by substantial evidence
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED ADJUDGED and DECREED that the
Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commissions Order of October 14 2016 suspending
Plaintiffs Mixed Beverage Permit MB753709 and the associated Beverage Cartage
Permit and Mixed Beverage Late Hours Permit is supported by substantial
evidence and thus is AFFIRMED _1 L IJND Tltld1lt lJAS t-lltJ cflfAfl ltJr tlJ~
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED ADJUDGED and DECREED that the Plaintiff
shall take nothing by this suit and that Defendant shall be in all things discharged
ion
ON ALL SERVED VIAIE-MAILED - HAND DtLIVERY -MAIL
=----WHO 16 TO
_--13 1
SElVE COPIEIS ON gtLL OTHEN
and that the costs ofcourt are taxed against the party incurring same All other relief
not expressly granted herein is denied
This judgment is final disposes of all claims and parties and is appealable f-b
SIGNED and ENTERED this 3 day ofJanuary 2017 L
348TH DISTRICT COURT
2
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE 12
cab Ms Walls denied it Accordingly Staff argued that her testimony should not be considered
to be credible
The Staff noted that Mr Wangler testified that something was wrong or off with
Ms Walls He took steps to remove Ms Walls from the club floor Petitioner argued that
Ms Walls had too much to drink or was under the influence of her medication (which the Staff
termed a narcotic) or both The Staff argued that Ms Walls more likely than not knew she was
taking medication that should not have been mixed with alcohol due to a possible adverse
interaction The Staff asserted that Mr Wanglers action in taking Ms Walls off the dance floor
corroborated the testimony of Agents Shirley and Cayea who observed Ms Walls
The Staff recommended a 36 day suspension of the Respondents permit or in the
alternative a civil penalty of $300 per day for the recommended 36 days for a total penalty of
$] 0800 15
15 16TACsect342
Respondent argued that Agent Nunnerys testimony was not credible due to his failure to
recollect details about the evening such as who was present or which agent performed which act
Respondent argued that the Staff was asserting that the permittee is strictly liable for an
employee being intoxicated on the premises That is if the Staff could show that the person was
an employee was physically present on the premises and was intoxicated then the violation
would be proved Respondent argued that SOAH ALJs recognized a further issue that must be
proved whether the employee was working at the time and was in the course and scope of their
employment citing Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission v 13335 Duluth Restaurant and Bar
dlbla La Chatte 16 Respondent argued that Mr Wranglers actions took Ms Walls out of her
course of employment
16 SOAH Docket No 458-11-3550 (July 6 2011)
The Respondents reliance on La Chatte is misplaced The Commissions Final Order in
the case specifically rejected the notion that an employee had to be acting in the course and
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE 13
scope of employment to be treated as a permittee The Commission stated It is not necessary to
decide whether the employee is on the clock in order to decide whether she is treated as the
permittee The Code does not contain that proviso Nor does the Code require that an employee
be engaged in the work she is hired to do in order for her to be treated as the permittee17
Respondent further argued it had done everything it could to monitor and prevent
Ms Walls or any dancer from becoming intoxicated and took action to send Ms Walls home
when something appeared to be wrong Respondent argued that if Ms Walls was intoxicated
some or all of it could be ascribed to her medication In Respondents view the purpose of
sect l l61(b)(13) is to police persons with easy access to alcohol which Respondent asserted it had
done Ms Wallss use of her medication was beyond Respondents control
Respondent argued that if a penalty is imposed in this contested case Respondent would
be entitled to a variance from the standard penalty chart because of the steps Respondent has
taken to avoid a violation ofsect l l61(b)(13) of the Code 18
G Analysis
Staff has to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Ms Walls was Respondents
employee and that she was intoxicated on the licensed premises
Respondent did not dispute that Ms Walls was Respondents employee on
March I 2014 for the purposes ofsect l l61(b)(13) of the Code Since Ms Wallss opportunity to
dance and earn money through Respondents customers was contingent on her following
Respondents rules and policies Ms Walls is fairly described as Petitioners employee for the
purposes of this Proposal for Decision 19
17 Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission Board Final Order TABC Docket No 599022 (SOAH Docket No 458shy11-3550) (January 18 2012) at 1-2 18 sectsect 11641(a)(3) and 1164(c) of the Code 19 Villatoro v Tex Alcoholic Bev Comm n No 05-12-00444-CV (Tex App-Dallas June 3 2013 no writ)
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE 14
Ms Walls testimony established that she had not eaten on March 1 2014 had consumed
at least two and pmt of a third mixed drinks had consumed the drinks between 700 pm and
midnight and that she had taken her prescribed anxiety medication some time during the day
The exact medication she had taken was not established Ms Walls was not asked to identify the
medication that night or at the hearing nor was she asked to produce or subpoenaed to produce
a copy of the prescription Mr Wises identification of the drug as citalopram or Celexa was
based upon information he received from Mr Wangler and cannot be considered as dispositive
Further assuming Ms Walls was taking citalopram or Celexa that particular drugs interaction
with alcohol was not established There was no evidence that Ms Walls smoked marijuana that
night
The undercover team stated that Ms Walls had a glassy blank stare and disheveled hair
swayed while walking and ran into the frame of the doorway leading to the dressing room
Agent Nunnery testified that Ms Walls seemed intoxicated her speech was sinned Ms Walls
had short term memory loss ( concerning her cell phone) nearly fell down twice as she was
dressing and attempted to place her left shoe on her right foot had the odor of an alcoholic
beverage on her breath and person had glassy eyes and swayed standing
Although Ms Walls admitted drinking alcohol that night Mr Wangler testified he did
not believe that Ms Walls was intoxicated but he also was concerned that Ms Walls was not
right Mr Wangler testified he had the perception that something was a little off or
different with Ms Walls Mr George observed that Ms Walls stood balanced while she was
dressing and speaking on the phone with her mother but lost her balance twice during the field
sobriety test Agent Nunnery conducted the HGN and observed Ms Walls that exhibited two
clues lack of smooth pursuit in both eyes He stopped the test when she lost her balance twice
causing Agent Nunnery to have Ms Walls sit down Agent Nunnery interpreted the two HGN
clues as sufficient to conclude that Ms Walls was intoxicated However Ms Walls was not so
intoxicated that she was arrested for public intoxication that is for being intoxicated to the
degree that [Ms Walls might] endanger [herself] or another20
20 Tex Penal Code sect 4902(a)
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE15
The National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) publication states
that an officer must look for the following three criteria in the HGN test (1) an inability to
pursue smoothly an object or stimulus moving sideways across the suspects field of vision (3)
distinct or pronounced nystagmus at the eyes maximum horizontal deviation and (3) an angle
of onset of nystagmus of less than or equal to 45 degrees The officer must look for these criteria
in each eye for a total of six clues If the officer identifies four or more clues then the officer
classifies the suspect as intoxicated21 Accordingly Agent Nunnery was not justified to
conclude Ms Walls was intoxicated based upon the HGN alone
Mr George noted that the agents did not use a portable breath tester (PBT) or any other
type of breath test device22 Agent Nunnery was not issued a PBT by TABC and testified that a
PBT result would not be admissible in court Agent Nurmery testified he did not have the ability
to give Ms Walls an intoxilyzer or breathalyzer test
Agent Shirley Agent Cayea and Mr Wangler each at about the same moment
concluded that something was wrong with Ms Walls The physical indicators that
Agent Shirley Agent Cayea and Agent Nunnery observed are associated with alcohol
intoxication Ms Wallss recollection of events especially the searching of her purse and her
being escorted outside by Agent Nunnery and Mr George are contradicted by the testimony of
both and their recorded observations23 Ms Walls was and remains confused about the sequence
of the events of the night and that confusion is further evidence of her impairment
21 Emerson at 766 NHTSA SFST Manual at VIII-8 (2006) found at httpoagdcgovnode443812 22 Although Mr Wise testified that Petitioner had an in-house PBT neither Mr Wangler nor Mr George requested Ms Wall to submit a specimen of her breath before or after the TABC arrived 23 Respondent argued that Agent Nunnerys written report contradicted his testimony that he stood outside with Ms Walls waiting for the cab in an effort to impeach his testimony It is true that the report does not mention that episode However Mr Georges testimony and written memorandum agreed with and supported Agent Nunnerys testimony
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE16
The ALJ concludes that a preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that Ms Walls
Respondents employee had lost normal use of her mental or physical faculties by reason of the
introduction of alcohol on the licensed premises 24
24 Ms Wallss anxiety medication was not identified nor was any expert testimony offered on the effects of the mediation or its interaction with alcohol For example Ms Walls testified that she had not eaten that day and that her medication affects her on an empty stomach However Mr George testified Ms Walls told the agents that she has an eating problem and that if she doesnt eat she will feel weak and unstable and that she hadnt ate all day According to Agent Nunnery Ms Walls denied taking any medications Given these contradictions the ALJ recommends that no finding be made on whether Ms Walls was intoxicated due to her medication or its interaction with alcohol 25 16TACsect342 26 Resp Ex I 27 16 TACsect 342 28 16 TACsect 34l(g)(J) and (4)
The ALJ recommends that the Commission find that Petitioner violatedsect 1 l6l(b)(13) of
the Code
The Staff recommended a 36 day suspension of the Respondents permit or in the
alternative a civil penalty of$300 per day for the recommended 36 days or $10800 for a second
violation of sect 1 l6l(b)(l3) of the Code25 According to Petitioners administrative record
Petitioner had a prior violation of sect 1 l61(b)(l3) which occmTed on December 20 2013
Petitioner was assessed an administrative penalty of $5100 (the equivalent of a 17 day
suspension) which was reduced to $4500 (the equivalent of a 15 day suspension) after
completion of an employee educational program on March 21 2014 which was paid on
March 26 201426 A violation of is sect l l6l(b)(13) a health safety and welfare violation27
Under the Commissions rule a subsequent violation of the Code or rule will result in a sanction
in the next higher violation level if the subsequent violation is for a health safety and welfare
violation and occurs within 36 months of the prior violation and the subsequent violation is
issued during an undercover operation28 The subsequent violation was on March 1 2014
which is within 36 months of the prior violation on December 20 2013 The March 1 2014
violation was issued during an undercover investigation
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE 17
Respondent argued that the amount of civil penalty should be reduced upon a
consideration of the ameliorating circumstances concerning the violation29 The ameliorating
circumstances cited by Respondent are Respondents practices and policies described above
and the fact that Mr Wangler immediately removed Ms Walls from the dance floor when he
observed something wrong with her The Commission has stated that Texass policy is for
Neither the permit holder nor an agent servant or employee of the permit holder to be
intoxicated o the premises in the first place30 Moreover Respondents prior violation of
sect l l6l(b)(l3) is an aggravating circumstance under the same statute31 Respondent is not
entitled to a reduction in the proposed suspension or penalty
29 sect l l641(a)(3) of the Code sect J l64Jnotes that ameliorating circumstances include those enumerated in Section l l64(c) The circumstances listed in I l64(c) namely that the violation could not reasonably have been prevented by the permittee or licensee by the exercise of due diligence that the permittee or licensee was entrapped that an agent servant or employee of the permittee or licensee violated this code without the knowledge of the permittee or licensee that the permittee or licensee did not knowingly violate this code that the permittee or licensee has demonstrated good faith including the taking of actions to rectify the consequences of the violation and to deter future violations or (6) that the violation was a technical one have no factual support in the record 30 Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission Board Final Order TABC Docket No 599022 (SOAH Docket No 458shy11-3550) (January 18 2012) at 3 31 sect I I641(a)(4) ofthe Code
The ALJ recommends that Respondents permit be suspended for 36 days or in the
alternative Respondent be assessed a civil penalty of $300 per day for 36 days for a total penalty
of$10800
III FINDINGS OF FACT
I The Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission (TABC) issued Mixed Beverage Permit MB753709 which includes a Mixed Beverage Late Hours Permit and a Beverage Cartage Permit to Respondent 2345 Meacham LLC dba Buckss Cabaret
2 Respondents licensed premises are located at 2345 Meacham Boulevard Fort Worth Tarrant County Texas 76106
3 On March 1 2014 TABC Agent Denver Carleton led a squad of TABC agents namely Sergeant Charlotte Knox and agents Travis Shirley Charles Cayea and Christopher Nunnery in an undercover investigation of the Respondents premises
4 Agents Shirley and Cayea were the undercover team
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE 18
5 Agent Carleton Sergeant Knox and Agent Nunnery were the open team
6 Agents Shirley and Cayea entered Respondents premises at approximately 11 00 pm on March 1 2014
7 Kaitlyn Walls was a dancer at Respondents bar
8 Ms Walls was working that night beginning at approximately 700 pm
9 Ms Walls danced on the main stage and then on the smaller stages in rotation
10 Ms Walls approached a customer and sat next to him at the bar near the agents
11 Ms Walls and her barstool fell to the floor
12 Ms Walls had a glassy blank stare and disheveled hair
13 Ms Walls swayed while walking and ran into the door frame of the doorway leading to the clubs dancers dressing room
14 Agents Shirley and Cayea contacted the open team and informed them that they believed Ms Walls was intoxicated
15 The two agents sent the open team Ms Wallss description and her location in the dressing room by text message
16 Agents Shirley and Cayea left the club after the open team entered the club
17 Agent Nunnery came into close contact with Ms Walls
18 Ms Walls had slmTed speech was not aware of where her cell phone was even though she was holding it nearly fell down twice as she was dressing had glassy eyes swayed standing and lost her balance twice during field sobriety testing
19 Ms Walls admitted to drinking three alcoholic beverages
20 Ms Walls displayed physical and mental indications of intoxication
21 On March 1 2014 Ms Walls did not have the normal use of her mental or physical faculties by reason of the introduction of alcohol into her body
22 On March 1 2014 Ms Walls was an employee of Respondent
23 Petitioner had a prior violation ofsect l l6I(b)(l3) of the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code (the Code) which occurred on December 20 2013 Petitioner was assessed an administrative penalty which was paid on March 26 2014
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE 19
24 The violation which is the subject of this contested case was on March 1 2014 which is within 36 months of the prior violation on December 20 2013
25 The March 1 2014 violation was issued during an undercover investigation
26 On April 14 2015 Staff issued its Notice of Hearing which contained information regarding the date time and place of the hearing the matters asserted the statutes and rules involved and the legal authorities under which the hearing would be held
27 The hearing in this matter convened before Administrative Law Judge Robert F Jones Jr on October 22 2015 at the State Office of Administrative Hearings (SOAH) in Fort Worth Texas Sheila A Lindsey of the TABC Legal Services Division appeared and represented the Staff Respondent appeared by its attorney Roger Albright Evidence was received and the record closed that day
IV CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1 TABC has jurisdiction over this matter Tex Alco Bev Code (the Code) Chapter 5
2 SOAH has jurisdiction to conduct the administrative hearing in this matter and to issue a proposal for decision containing proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law Tex Govt Code Chapter 2003
3 Proper and timely notice of the hearing was provided to Respondent Tex Govt Code sect 2001051-052
4 Respondent violated sect l l6l(b)(l3) of the Code which authorizes the Commission to suspend a pe1mit if the pe1mittee was intoxicated on the licensed premises
5 A 36 day suspension of Respondents Mixed Beverage Permit MB753709 which includes a Mixed Beverage Late Hours Permit and a Beverage Cartage Permit or in the alternative a civil penalty of $300 per day for the recommended 36 days a total of $10800 is appropriate sectsect l l6l(b)(l3) and 1164 of the Code 16 Tex Admin Codesect 342
SIGNED December 17 2015
OBERT F JO ES JR ADMINISTRATI W JUDGE STATE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
STATE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS FT WORTH OFFICE
6777 Camp Bowie Blvd Suite 400 Fort Worth Texas 76116
Phone (817) 731-1733 Fax (512) 322-0473
SERVICE LIST
AGENCY Alcoholic Beverage Commission Texas (TABC)
STYLECASE 2345 MEACHAM LLC DBA BUCKS CABARET
SOAH DOCKET NUMBER 458-15-3318
REFERRING AGENCY CASE 624309
STATE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE
HEARINGS
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
ALJ ROBERT JONES
REPRESENTATIVEADDRESS
SHEILA LINDSEY - SANDERS STAFF ATTORNEY TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION 427 W 20TH STREET SUITE 600 HOUSTON TX 77008 (713) 426-7900 (PH) (713) 862-7478 (FAX)
PARTIES
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION
ROGER ALBRIGHT ATTORNEY AT LAW 3301 ELM STREET DALLAS TX 75226 (214) 939-9224 (PH) (214) 939-9229 (FAX) ralawrogeralbrightcom
ROGER ALBRIGHT
xc Docket Clerk State Office of Administrative Hearings Emily Helm GENERAL COUNSEL TABC Fax No 512-206-3226
Pagel of I
DOCKET NO 624309
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE
COMMISSION Petitioner
VS
2345 MEACHAM LLC
DBA BUCKrsquoS CABARET
Respondent
PERMIT MB753709 LB PE
TARRANT COUNTY TEXAS
(SOAH DOCKET NO 458-15-3318)
BEFORE THE TEXAS
ALCOHOLIC
BEVERAGE COMMISSION
ORDER
CAME ON FOR CONSIDERATION this 14th day of October 2016 the above-styled
and numbered cause
After proper notice was given this case was heard by the State Office of Administrative
Hearings (SOAH) with Administrative Law Judge Robert F Jones Jr presiding The hearing
convened on October 22 2015 and the SOAH record closed the same date The Administrative
Law Judge made and filed a Proposal for Decision containing Findings of Fact and Conclusions
of Law on December 17 2015 The Proposal for Decision was properly served on all parties
who were given an opportunity to file exceptions and replies as part of the record herein No
exceptions were filed
After review and due consideration of the Proposal for Decision I adopt the Findings of
Fact and Conclusions of Law of the Administrative Law Judge that are contained in the Proposal
for Decision and incorporate those Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law into this Order as if
such were fully set out and separately stated herein
All motions requests for entry of Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
and any other requests for general or specific relief submitted by any party are denied unless
specifically adopted herein
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the privileges granted by the Commission and the
activities authorized under the above permit by the Code will be SUSPENDED beginning at
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
__________________________________________
__________________________________________
1201 am on November 30th 2016 and shall remain suspended for THIRTY-SIX (36)
DAYS UNLESS a civil penalty in the amount of $1080000 is paid ON OR BEFORE
November 22nd 2016
This Order will become final and enforceable on the 15th day of November
2016 unless a Motion for Rehearing is filed by the 14th day of November 2016
SIGNED this the 14th day of October 2016 at Austin Texas
Sherry K-Cook Executive Director
Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that the persons listed below were served with a copy of this Order in the manner
indicated below on this the 14th day of October 2016
Martin Wilson Assistant General Counsel
Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission
Robert F Jones Jr
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
State Office of Administrative Hearings
300 W 15th
Street Suite 502
Austin TX 78701
VIA FACSIMILE (512) 322-2061
2345 Meacham LLC
dba Buckrsquos Cabaret
RESPONDENT
PO Box 271289
Flower Mound TX 75027
VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL CMRRR 70160600000046455820
Roger Albright
ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENT
3301 Elm Street
Dallas TX 75226
VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL CMRRR 70160600000046455837
Shelia Lindsey
ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER
TABC Legal Division
VIA E-MAIL Shelialindseytabctexasgov
__________________________________
__________________________________
__________________________________
__________________________________
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION
CIVIL PENALTY REMITTANCE
DOCKET NUMBER 624309 REGISTER NUMBER
NAME 2345 MEACHAM LLC
TRADENAME Buckrsquos Cabaret
ADDRESS PO Box 271289 Flower Mound Texas
DUE DATE November 22 2016
PERMITS OR LICENSES MB753709 LB PE
AMOUNT OF PENALTY $1080000
Amount remitted $____________________ Date remitted ____________________________
You may pay a civil penalty rather than have your permits and licenses suspended if an amount
for civil penalty is included on the attached order
YOU HAVE THE OPTION TO PAY THE CIVIL PENALTY ONLY IF YOU PAY THE
ENTIRE AMOUNT ON OR BEFORE THE DUE DATE AFTER THAT DATE YOUR
LICENSE OR PERMIT WILL BE SUSPENDED FOR THE TIME PERIOD STATED ON
THE ORDER
Mail this form with your payment to
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION
PO Box 13127 Austin Texas 78711
Overnight Delivery Address 5806 Mesa Dr Austin Texas 78731
You must pay by postal money order certified check or cashiers check No personal or
company check nor partial payment accepted Your payment will be returned if anything is
incorrect You must pay the entire amount of the penalty assessed
Attach this form and please make certain to include the Docket on your payment
Signature of Responsible Party
Street Address PO Box No
City State Zip Code
Area CodeTelephone No
Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2
DOCKET NO 624309
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE
COMMISSION Petitioner
sect
sect
sect
sect
VS sect
sect
sect
sect
2345 MEACHAM LLC
DBA BUCKrsquoS CABARET
Respondent
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
PERMIT MB753709 LB PE sect
sect
sect
TARRANT COUNTY TEXAS
(SOAH DOCKET NO 458-15-3318)
sect
sect
BEFORE THE TEXAS
BEVERAGE COMMISSION
ALCOHOLIC
ORDER DENYING M OTION FOR REHEARING
Page 1 of 3
CAME ON FOR CONSIDERATION this 1st day of December 2016 the above-styled
and numbered cause
On October 14 2016 an Order was issued in this cause suspending Respondents permits
for a period of 36 days unless a civil penalty in the amount of $10800 was paid A timely
Motion for RehearingReconsideration was filed by Respondent on November 11 2016 and a
Supplemental Motion for Rehearing was filed by Respondent on November 16 2016 Petitioner
filed a Response to Respondents Motion for RehearingReconsideration on November 22 2016
Having considered Respondents Motion for RehearingReconsideration
Respondents Supplemental Motion for Rehearing and Petitioners Response to Respondents
Motion for RehearingReconsideration Respondents Motion for RehearingReconsideration is
DENIED
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that IF THIS ORDER IS NOT APPEALED
WITHIN THE TIME ALLOWED BY ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CODE sect1167 the
privileges granted by the Commission and the activities authorized under the above permits by
the Code will be SUSPENDED beginning at 1201 am on January 25 2017 and shall remain
suspended for THIRTY SIX (36) CONSECUTIVE DAYS UNLESS a civil penalty in the
amount of $1080000 is paid in lieu of suspension ON OR BEFORE January 17 2017
__________________________________________
_________________________________________
IF THIS ORDER IS APPEALED AND THE DECISION IS AFFIRMED IT IS
ORDERED that the privileges granted by the Commission and the activities authorized under
the above permits by the Code will be SUSPENDED beginning at 1201 am on the fifteenth
(15th
) day following the date the decision is affirmed whether by Order or by operation of law
and shall remain suspended for THIRTY SIX (36) CONSECUTIVE DAYS UNLESS a civil
penalty in the amount of $1080000 is paid in lieu of suspension ON OR BEFORE the seventh
(7th
) day following the date the decision is affirmed whether by Order or by operation of law
SIGNED this the 1st day of December 2016 at Austin Texas
Sherry K-Cook Executive Director
Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that the persons listed below were served with a copy of this Order Denying
Motion for Rehearing in the manner indicated below on this the 1st day of December 2016
Martin Wilson Assistant General Counsel
Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission
Page 2 of 3
Robert F Jones Jr
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
State Office of Administrative Hearings
300 W 15th
Street Suite 502
Austin TX 78701
VIA FACSIMILE (512) 322-2061
2345 Meacham LLC
dba Buckrsquos Cabaret
RESPONDENT
PO Box 271289
Flower Mound TX 75027
VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL CMRRR 70160340000080983298
Roger Albright
ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENT
3301 Elm Street
Dallas TX 75226
VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL CMRRR70160340000080983281
Shelia Lindsey
ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER
TABC Legal Division
VIA E-MAIL Shelialindseytabctexasgov
Page 3 of 3
__________________________________
__________________________________
__________________________________
__________________________________
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION
CIVIL PENALTY REMITTANCE
DOCKET NUMBER 624309 REGISTER NUMBER
NAME 2345 Meacham LLC
TRADENAME Buckrsquos Cabaret
ADDRESS PO Box 271289 Flower Mound Texas
DUE DATE January 17 2017
PERMITS OR LICENSES MB753709 PE LB
AMOUNT OF PENALTY $1080000
Amount remitted $____________________ Date remitted ____________________________
You may pay a civil penalty rather than have your permits and licenses suspended if an amount
for civil penalty is included on the attached order
YOU HAVE THE OPTION TO PAY THE CIVIL PENALTY ONLY IF YOU PAY THE
ENTIRE AMOUNT ON OR BEFORE THE DUE DATE AFTER THAT DATE YOUR
LICENSE OR PERMIT WILL BE SUSPENDED FOR THE TIME PERIOD STATED ON
THE ORDER
Mail this form with your payment to
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION
PO Box 13127 Austin Texas 78711
Overnight Delivery Address 5806 Mesa Dr Austin Texas 78731
You must pay by postal money order certified check or cashiers check No personal or
company check nor partial payment accepted Your payment will be returned if anything is
incorrect You must pay the entire amount of the penalty assessed
Attach this form and please make certain to include the Docket on your payment
Signature of Responsible Party
Street Address PO Box No
City State Zip Code
Area CodeTelephone No
Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2
CAUSE NO 348-289708-16
2345 MEACHAM LLC DBA BUCKS CABARET
Plaintiff
v
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION
Defendant
sect IN THE DISTRICT COURT
348TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
TARRANT COUNTY TEXAS
sect sect sect sect sect sect sect sect sect
ORDER AFFIRMING TABC DECISION fllJ()1)1-j 13J
On tkis day came on to be heard the above-tyled and numbered cause
pursuant to Ch 2001 ofthe Texas Government Code (the Administrative Procedure
Act) and sect 1167 of the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code 2345 Meacham LLC
dba Bucks Cabaret and the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission appeared by
and through their attorneys of record and announced ready All matters of fact and
controversy were submitted The Court after reviewing the evidence and hearing
the arguments of counsel finds that the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission
Order of October 14 2016 is supported by substantial evidence
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED ADJUDGED and DECREED that the
Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commissions Order of October 14 2016 suspending
Plaintiffs Mixed Beverage Permit MB753709 and the associated Beverage Cartage
Permit and Mixed Beverage Late Hours Permit is supported by substantial
evidence and thus is AFFIRMED _1 L IJND Tltld1lt lJAS t-lltJ cflfAfl ltJr tlJ~
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED ADJUDGED and DECREED that the Plaintiff
shall take nothing by this suit and that Defendant shall be in all things discharged
ion
ON ALL SERVED VIAIE-MAILED - HAND DtLIVERY -MAIL
=----WHO 16 TO
_--13 1
SElVE COPIEIS ON gtLL OTHEN
and that the costs ofcourt are taxed against the party incurring same All other relief
not expressly granted herein is denied
This judgment is final disposes of all claims and parties and is appealable f-b
SIGNED and ENTERED this 3 day ofJanuary 2017 L
348TH DISTRICT COURT
2
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE 13
scope of employment to be treated as a permittee The Commission stated It is not necessary to
decide whether the employee is on the clock in order to decide whether she is treated as the
permittee The Code does not contain that proviso Nor does the Code require that an employee
be engaged in the work she is hired to do in order for her to be treated as the permittee17
Respondent further argued it had done everything it could to monitor and prevent
Ms Walls or any dancer from becoming intoxicated and took action to send Ms Walls home
when something appeared to be wrong Respondent argued that if Ms Walls was intoxicated
some or all of it could be ascribed to her medication In Respondents view the purpose of
sect l l61(b)(13) is to police persons with easy access to alcohol which Respondent asserted it had
done Ms Wallss use of her medication was beyond Respondents control
Respondent argued that if a penalty is imposed in this contested case Respondent would
be entitled to a variance from the standard penalty chart because of the steps Respondent has
taken to avoid a violation ofsect l l61(b)(13) of the Code 18
G Analysis
Staff has to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Ms Walls was Respondents
employee and that she was intoxicated on the licensed premises
Respondent did not dispute that Ms Walls was Respondents employee on
March I 2014 for the purposes ofsect l l61(b)(13) of the Code Since Ms Wallss opportunity to
dance and earn money through Respondents customers was contingent on her following
Respondents rules and policies Ms Walls is fairly described as Petitioners employee for the
purposes of this Proposal for Decision 19
17 Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission Board Final Order TABC Docket No 599022 (SOAH Docket No 458shy11-3550) (January 18 2012) at 1-2 18 sectsect 11641(a)(3) and 1164(c) of the Code 19 Villatoro v Tex Alcoholic Bev Comm n No 05-12-00444-CV (Tex App-Dallas June 3 2013 no writ)
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE 14
Ms Walls testimony established that she had not eaten on March 1 2014 had consumed
at least two and pmt of a third mixed drinks had consumed the drinks between 700 pm and
midnight and that she had taken her prescribed anxiety medication some time during the day
The exact medication she had taken was not established Ms Walls was not asked to identify the
medication that night or at the hearing nor was she asked to produce or subpoenaed to produce
a copy of the prescription Mr Wises identification of the drug as citalopram or Celexa was
based upon information he received from Mr Wangler and cannot be considered as dispositive
Further assuming Ms Walls was taking citalopram or Celexa that particular drugs interaction
with alcohol was not established There was no evidence that Ms Walls smoked marijuana that
night
The undercover team stated that Ms Walls had a glassy blank stare and disheveled hair
swayed while walking and ran into the frame of the doorway leading to the dressing room
Agent Nunnery testified that Ms Walls seemed intoxicated her speech was sinned Ms Walls
had short term memory loss ( concerning her cell phone) nearly fell down twice as she was
dressing and attempted to place her left shoe on her right foot had the odor of an alcoholic
beverage on her breath and person had glassy eyes and swayed standing
Although Ms Walls admitted drinking alcohol that night Mr Wangler testified he did
not believe that Ms Walls was intoxicated but he also was concerned that Ms Walls was not
right Mr Wangler testified he had the perception that something was a little off or
different with Ms Walls Mr George observed that Ms Walls stood balanced while she was
dressing and speaking on the phone with her mother but lost her balance twice during the field
sobriety test Agent Nunnery conducted the HGN and observed Ms Walls that exhibited two
clues lack of smooth pursuit in both eyes He stopped the test when she lost her balance twice
causing Agent Nunnery to have Ms Walls sit down Agent Nunnery interpreted the two HGN
clues as sufficient to conclude that Ms Walls was intoxicated However Ms Walls was not so
intoxicated that she was arrested for public intoxication that is for being intoxicated to the
degree that [Ms Walls might] endanger [herself] or another20
20 Tex Penal Code sect 4902(a)
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE15
The National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) publication states
that an officer must look for the following three criteria in the HGN test (1) an inability to
pursue smoothly an object or stimulus moving sideways across the suspects field of vision (3)
distinct or pronounced nystagmus at the eyes maximum horizontal deviation and (3) an angle
of onset of nystagmus of less than or equal to 45 degrees The officer must look for these criteria
in each eye for a total of six clues If the officer identifies four or more clues then the officer
classifies the suspect as intoxicated21 Accordingly Agent Nunnery was not justified to
conclude Ms Walls was intoxicated based upon the HGN alone
Mr George noted that the agents did not use a portable breath tester (PBT) or any other
type of breath test device22 Agent Nunnery was not issued a PBT by TABC and testified that a
PBT result would not be admissible in court Agent Nurmery testified he did not have the ability
to give Ms Walls an intoxilyzer or breathalyzer test
Agent Shirley Agent Cayea and Mr Wangler each at about the same moment
concluded that something was wrong with Ms Walls The physical indicators that
Agent Shirley Agent Cayea and Agent Nunnery observed are associated with alcohol
intoxication Ms Wallss recollection of events especially the searching of her purse and her
being escorted outside by Agent Nunnery and Mr George are contradicted by the testimony of
both and their recorded observations23 Ms Walls was and remains confused about the sequence
of the events of the night and that confusion is further evidence of her impairment
21 Emerson at 766 NHTSA SFST Manual at VIII-8 (2006) found at httpoagdcgovnode443812 22 Although Mr Wise testified that Petitioner had an in-house PBT neither Mr Wangler nor Mr George requested Ms Wall to submit a specimen of her breath before or after the TABC arrived 23 Respondent argued that Agent Nunnerys written report contradicted his testimony that he stood outside with Ms Walls waiting for the cab in an effort to impeach his testimony It is true that the report does not mention that episode However Mr Georges testimony and written memorandum agreed with and supported Agent Nunnerys testimony
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE16
The ALJ concludes that a preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that Ms Walls
Respondents employee had lost normal use of her mental or physical faculties by reason of the
introduction of alcohol on the licensed premises 24
24 Ms Wallss anxiety medication was not identified nor was any expert testimony offered on the effects of the mediation or its interaction with alcohol For example Ms Walls testified that she had not eaten that day and that her medication affects her on an empty stomach However Mr George testified Ms Walls told the agents that she has an eating problem and that if she doesnt eat she will feel weak and unstable and that she hadnt ate all day According to Agent Nunnery Ms Walls denied taking any medications Given these contradictions the ALJ recommends that no finding be made on whether Ms Walls was intoxicated due to her medication or its interaction with alcohol 25 16TACsect342 26 Resp Ex I 27 16 TACsect 342 28 16 TACsect 34l(g)(J) and (4)
The ALJ recommends that the Commission find that Petitioner violatedsect 1 l6l(b)(13) of
the Code
The Staff recommended a 36 day suspension of the Respondents permit or in the
alternative a civil penalty of$300 per day for the recommended 36 days or $10800 for a second
violation of sect 1 l6l(b)(l3) of the Code25 According to Petitioners administrative record
Petitioner had a prior violation of sect 1 l61(b)(l3) which occmTed on December 20 2013
Petitioner was assessed an administrative penalty of $5100 (the equivalent of a 17 day
suspension) which was reduced to $4500 (the equivalent of a 15 day suspension) after
completion of an employee educational program on March 21 2014 which was paid on
March 26 201426 A violation of is sect l l6l(b)(13) a health safety and welfare violation27
Under the Commissions rule a subsequent violation of the Code or rule will result in a sanction
in the next higher violation level if the subsequent violation is for a health safety and welfare
violation and occurs within 36 months of the prior violation and the subsequent violation is
issued during an undercover operation28 The subsequent violation was on March 1 2014
which is within 36 months of the prior violation on December 20 2013 The March 1 2014
violation was issued during an undercover investigation
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE 17
Respondent argued that the amount of civil penalty should be reduced upon a
consideration of the ameliorating circumstances concerning the violation29 The ameliorating
circumstances cited by Respondent are Respondents practices and policies described above
and the fact that Mr Wangler immediately removed Ms Walls from the dance floor when he
observed something wrong with her The Commission has stated that Texass policy is for
Neither the permit holder nor an agent servant or employee of the permit holder to be
intoxicated o the premises in the first place30 Moreover Respondents prior violation of
sect l l6l(b)(l3) is an aggravating circumstance under the same statute31 Respondent is not
entitled to a reduction in the proposed suspension or penalty
29 sect l l641(a)(3) of the Code sect J l64Jnotes that ameliorating circumstances include those enumerated in Section l l64(c) The circumstances listed in I l64(c) namely that the violation could not reasonably have been prevented by the permittee or licensee by the exercise of due diligence that the permittee or licensee was entrapped that an agent servant or employee of the permittee or licensee violated this code without the knowledge of the permittee or licensee that the permittee or licensee did not knowingly violate this code that the permittee or licensee has demonstrated good faith including the taking of actions to rectify the consequences of the violation and to deter future violations or (6) that the violation was a technical one have no factual support in the record 30 Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission Board Final Order TABC Docket No 599022 (SOAH Docket No 458shy11-3550) (January 18 2012) at 3 31 sect I I641(a)(4) ofthe Code
The ALJ recommends that Respondents permit be suspended for 36 days or in the
alternative Respondent be assessed a civil penalty of $300 per day for 36 days for a total penalty
of$10800
III FINDINGS OF FACT
I The Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission (TABC) issued Mixed Beverage Permit MB753709 which includes a Mixed Beverage Late Hours Permit and a Beverage Cartage Permit to Respondent 2345 Meacham LLC dba Buckss Cabaret
2 Respondents licensed premises are located at 2345 Meacham Boulevard Fort Worth Tarrant County Texas 76106
3 On March 1 2014 TABC Agent Denver Carleton led a squad of TABC agents namely Sergeant Charlotte Knox and agents Travis Shirley Charles Cayea and Christopher Nunnery in an undercover investigation of the Respondents premises
4 Agents Shirley and Cayea were the undercover team
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE 18
5 Agent Carleton Sergeant Knox and Agent Nunnery were the open team
6 Agents Shirley and Cayea entered Respondents premises at approximately 11 00 pm on March 1 2014
7 Kaitlyn Walls was a dancer at Respondents bar
8 Ms Walls was working that night beginning at approximately 700 pm
9 Ms Walls danced on the main stage and then on the smaller stages in rotation
10 Ms Walls approached a customer and sat next to him at the bar near the agents
11 Ms Walls and her barstool fell to the floor
12 Ms Walls had a glassy blank stare and disheveled hair
13 Ms Walls swayed while walking and ran into the door frame of the doorway leading to the clubs dancers dressing room
14 Agents Shirley and Cayea contacted the open team and informed them that they believed Ms Walls was intoxicated
15 The two agents sent the open team Ms Wallss description and her location in the dressing room by text message
16 Agents Shirley and Cayea left the club after the open team entered the club
17 Agent Nunnery came into close contact with Ms Walls
18 Ms Walls had slmTed speech was not aware of where her cell phone was even though she was holding it nearly fell down twice as she was dressing had glassy eyes swayed standing and lost her balance twice during field sobriety testing
19 Ms Walls admitted to drinking three alcoholic beverages
20 Ms Walls displayed physical and mental indications of intoxication
21 On March 1 2014 Ms Walls did not have the normal use of her mental or physical faculties by reason of the introduction of alcohol into her body
22 On March 1 2014 Ms Walls was an employee of Respondent
23 Petitioner had a prior violation ofsect l l6I(b)(l3) of the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code (the Code) which occurred on December 20 2013 Petitioner was assessed an administrative penalty which was paid on March 26 2014
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE 19
24 The violation which is the subject of this contested case was on March 1 2014 which is within 36 months of the prior violation on December 20 2013
25 The March 1 2014 violation was issued during an undercover investigation
26 On April 14 2015 Staff issued its Notice of Hearing which contained information regarding the date time and place of the hearing the matters asserted the statutes and rules involved and the legal authorities under which the hearing would be held
27 The hearing in this matter convened before Administrative Law Judge Robert F Jones Jr on October 22 2015 at the State Office of Administrative Hearings (SOAH) in Fort Worth Texas Sheila A Lindsey of the TABC Legal Services Division appeared and represented the Staff Respondent appeared by its attorney Roger Albright Evidence was received and the record closed that day
IV CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1 TABC has jurisdiction over this matter Tex Alco Bev Code (the Code) Chapter 5
2 SOAH has jurisdiction to conduct the administrative hearing in this matter and to issue a proposal for decision containing proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law Tex Govt Code Chapter 2003
3 Proper and timely notice of the hearing was provided to Respondent Tex Govt Code sect 2001051-052
4 Respondent violated sect l l6l(b)(l3) of the Code which authorizes the Commission to suspend a pe1mit if the pe1mittee was intoxicated on the licensed premises
5 A 36 day suspension of Respondents Mixed Beverage Permit MB753709 which includes a Mixed Beverage Late Hours Permit and a Beverage Cartage Permit or in the alternative a civil penalty of $300 per day for the recommended 36 days a total of $10800 is appropriate sectsect l l6l(b)(l3) and 1164 of the Code 16 Tex Admin Codesect 342
SIGNED December 17 2015
OBERT F JO ES JR ADMINISTRATI W JUDGE STATE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
STATE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS FT WORTH OFFICE
6777 Camp Bowie Blvd Suite 400 Fort Worth Texas 76116
Phone (817) 731-1733 Fax (512) 322-0473
SERVICE LIST
AGENCY Alcoholic Beverage Commission Texas (TABC)
STYLECASE 2345 MEACHAM LLC DBA BUCKS CABARET
SOAH DOCKET NUMBER 458-15-3318
REFERRING AGENCY CASE 624309
STATE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE
HEARINGS
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
ALJ ROBERT JONES
REPRESENTATIVEADDRESS
SHEILA LINDSEY - SANDERS STAFF ATTORNEY TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION 427 W 20TH STREET SUITE 600 HOUSTON TX 77008 (713) 426-7900 (PH) (713) 862-7478 (FAX)
PARTIES
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION
ROGER ALBRIGHT ATTORNEY AT LAW 3301 ELM STREET DALLAS TX 75226 (214) 939-9224 (PH) (214) 939-9229 (FAX) ralawrogeralbrightcom
ROGER ALBRIGHT
xc Docket Clerk State Office of Administrative Hearings Emily Helm GENERAL COUNSEL TABC Fax No 512-206-3226
Pagel of I
DOCKET NO 624309
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE
COMMISSION Petitioner
VS
2345 MEACHAM LLC
DBA BUCKrsquoS CABARET
Respondent
PERMIT MB753709 LB PE
TARRANT COUNTY TEXAS
(SOAH DOCKET NO 458-15-3318)
BEFORE THE TEXAS
ALCOHOLIC
BEVERAGE COMMISSION
ORDER
CAME ON FOR CONSIDERATION this 14th day of October 2016 the above-styled
and numbered cause
After proper notice was given this case was heard by the State Office of Administrative
Hearings (SOAH) with Administrative Law Judge Robert F Jones Jr presiding The hearing
convened on October 22 2015 and the SOAH record closed the same date The Administrative
Law Judge made and filed a Proposal for Decision containing Findings of Fact and Conclusions
of Law on December 17 2015 The Proposal for Decision was properly served on all parties
who were given an opportunity to file exceptions and replies as part of the record herein No
exceptions were filed
After review and due consideration of the Proposal for Decision I adopt the Findings of
Fact and Conclusions of Law of the Administrative Law Judge that are contained in the Proposal
for Decision and incorporate those Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law into this Order as if
such were fully set out and separately stated herein
All motions requests for entry of Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
and any other requests for general or specific relief submitted by any party are denied unless
specifically adopted herein
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the privileges granted by the Commission and the
activities authorized under the above permit by the Code will be SUSPENDED beginning at
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
__________________________________________
__________________________________________
1201 am on November 30th 2016 and shall remain suspended for THIRTY-SIX (36)
DAYS UNLESS a civil penalty in the amount of $1080000 is paid ON OR BEFORE
November 22nd 2016
This Order will become final and enforceable on the 15th day of November
2016 unless a Motion for Rehearing is filed by the 14th day of November 2016
SIGNED this the 14th day of October 2016 at Austin Texas
Sherry K-Cook Executive Director
Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that the persons listed below were served with a copy of this Order in the manner
indicated below on this the 14th day of October 2016
Martin Wilson Assistant General Counsel
Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission
Robert F Jones Jr
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
State Office of Administrative Hearings
300 W 15th
Street Suite 502
Austin TX 78701
VIA FACSIMILE (512) 322-2061
2345 Meacham LLC
dba Buckrsquos Cabaret
RESPONDENT
PO Box 271289
Flower Mound TX 75027
VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL CMRRR 70160600000046455820
Roger Albright
ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENT
3301 Elm Street
Dallas TX 75226
VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL CMRRR 70160600000046455837
Shelia Lindsey
ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER
TABC Legal Division
VIA E-MAIL Shelialindseytabctexasgov
__________________________________
__________________________________
__________________________________
__________________________________
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION
CIVIL PENALTY REMITTANCE
DOCKET NUMBER 624309 REGISTER NUMBER
NAME 2345 MEACHAM LLC
TRADENAME Buckrsquos Cabaret
ADDRESS PO Box 271289 Flower Mound Texas
DUE DATE November 22 2016
PERMITS OR LICENSES MB753709 LB PE
AMOUNT OF PENALTY $1080000
Amount remitted $____________________ Date remitted ____________________________
You may pay a civil penalty rather than have your permits and licenses suspended if an amount
for civil penalty is included on the attached order
YOU HAVE THE OPTION TO PAY THE CIVIL PENALTY ONLY IF YOU PAY THE
ENTIRE AMOUNT ON OR BEFORE THE DUE DATE AFTER THAT DATE YOUR
LICENSE OR PERMIT WILL BE SUSPENDED FOR THE TIME PERIOD STATED ON
THE ORDER
Mail this form with your payment to
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION
PO Box 13127 Austin Texas 78711
Overnight Delivery Address 5806 Mesa Dr Austin Texas 78731
You must pay by postal money order certified check or cashiers check No personal or
company check nor partial payment accepted Your payment will be returned if anything is
incorrect You must pay the entire amount of the penalty assessed
Attach this form and please make certain to include the Docket on your payment
Signature of Responsible Party
Street Address PO Box No
City State Zip Code
Area CodeTelephone No
Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2
DOCKET NO 624309
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE
COMMISSION Petitioner
sect
sect
sect
sect
VS sect
sect
sect
sect
2345 MEACHAM LLC
DBA BUCKrsquoS CABARET
Respondent
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
PERMIT MB753709 LB PE sect
sect
sect
TARRANT COUNTY TEXAS
(SOAH DOCKET NO 458-15-3318)
sect
sect
BEFORE THE TEXAS
BEVERAGE COMMISSION
ALCOHOLIC
ORDER DENYING M OTION FOR REHEARING
Page 1 of 3
CAME ON FOR CONSIDERATION this 1st day of December 2016 the above-styled
and numbered cause
On October 14 2016 an Order was issued in this cause suspending Respondents permits
for a period of 36 days unless a civil penalty in the amount of $10800 was paid A timely
Motion for RehearingReconsideration was filed by Respondent on November 11 2016 and a
Supplemental Motion for Rehearing was filed by Respondent on November 16 2016 Petitioner
filed a Response to Respondents Motion for RehearingReconsideration on November 22 2016
Having considered Respondents Motion for RehearingReconsideration
Respondents Supplemental Motion for Rehearing and Petitioners Response to Respondents
Motion for RehearingReconsideration Respondents Motion for RehearingReconsideration is
DENIED
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that IF THIS ORDER IS NOT APPEALED
WITHIN THE TIME ALLOWED BY ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CODE sect1167 the
privileges granted by the Commission and the activities authorized under the above permits by
the Code will be SUSPENDED beginning at 1201 am on January 25 2017 and shall remain
suspended for THIRTY SIX (36) CONSECUTIVE DAYS UNLESS a civil penalty in the
amount of $1080000 is paid in lieu of suspension ON OR BEFORE January 17 2017
__________________________________________
_________________________________________
IF THIS ORDER IS APPEALED AND THE DECISION IS AFFIRMED IT IS
ORDERED that the privileges granted by the Commission and the activities authorized under
the above permits by the Code will be SUSPENDED beginning at 1201 am on the fifteenth
(15th
) day following the date the decision is affirmed whether by Order or by operation of law
and shall remain suspended for THIRTY SIX (36) CONSECUTIVE DAYS UNLESS a civil
penalty in the amount of $1080000 is paid in lieu of suspension ON OR BEFORE the seventh
(7th
) day following the date the decision is affirmed whether by Order or by operation of law
SIGNED this the 1st day of December 2016 at Austin Texas
Sherry K-Cook Executive Director
Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that the persons listed below were served with a copy of this Order Denying
Motion for Rehearing in the manner indicated below on this the 1st day of December 2016
Martin Wilson Assistant General Counsel
Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission
Page 2 of 3
Robert F Jones Jr
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
State Office of Administrative Hearings
300 W 15th
Street Suite 502
Austin TX 78701
VIA FACSIMILE (512) 322-2061
2345 Meacham LLC
dba Buckrsquos Cabaret
RESPONDENT
PO Box 271289
Flower Mound TX 75027
VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL CMRRR 70160340000080983298
Roger Albright
ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENT
3301 Elm Street
Dallas TX 75226
VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL CMRRR70160340000080983281
Shelia Lindsey
ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER
TABC Legal Division
VIA E-MAIL Shelialindseytabctexasgov
Page 3 of 3
__________________________________
__________________________________
__________________________________
__________________________________
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION
CIVIL PENALTY REMITTANCE
DOCKET NUMBER 624309 REGISTER NUMBER
NAME 2345 Meacham LLC
TRADENAME Buckrsquos Cabaret
ADDRESS PO Box 271289 Flower Mound Texas
DUE DATE January 17 2017
PERMITS OR LICENSES MB753709 PE LB
AMOUNT OF PENALTY $1080000
Amount remitted $____________________ Date remitted ____________________________
You may pay a civil penalty rather than have your permits and licenses suspended if an amount
for civil penalty is included on the attached order
YOU HAVE THE OPTION TO PAY THE CIVIL PENALTY ONLY IF YOU PAY THE
ENTIRE AMOUNT ON OR BEFORE THE DUE DATE AFTER THAT DATE YOUR
LICENSE OR PERMIT WILL BE SUSPENDED FOR THE TIME PERIOD STATED ON
THE ORDER
Mail this form with your payment to
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION
PO Box 13127 Austin Texas 78711
Overnight Delivery Address 5806 Mesa Dr Austin Texas 78731
You must pay by postal money order certified check or cashiers check No personal or
company check nor partial payment accepted Your payment will be returned if anything is
incorrect You must pay the entire amount of the penalty assessed
Attach this form and please make certain to include the Docket on your payment
Signature of Responsible Party
Street Address PO Box No
City State Zip Code
Area CodeTelephone No
Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2
CAUSE NO 348-289708-16
2345 MEACHAM LLC DBA BUCKS CABARET
Plaintiff
v
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION
Defendant
sect IN THE DISTRICT COURT
348TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
TARRANT COUNTY TEXAS
sect sect sect sect sect sect sect sect sect
ORDER AFFIRMING TABC DECISION fllJ()1)1-j 13J
On tkis day came on to be heard the above-tyled and numbered cause
pursuant to Ch 2001 ofthe Texas Government Code (the Administrative Procedure
Act) and sect 1167 of the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code 2345 Meacham LLC
dba Bucks Cabaret and the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission appeared by
and through their attorneys of record and announced ready All matters of fact and
controversy were submitted The Court after reviewing the evidence and hearing
the arguments of counsel finds that the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission
Order of October 14 2016 is supported by substantial evidence
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED ADJUDGED and DECREED that the
Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commissions Order of October 14 2016 suspending
Plaintiffs Mixed Beverage Permit MB753709 and the associated Beverage Cartage
Permit and Mixed Beverage Late Hours Permit is supported by substantial
evidence and thus is AFFIRMED _1 L IJND Tltld1lt lJAS t-lltJ cflfAfl ltJr tlJ~
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED ADJUDGED and DECREED that the Plaintiff
shall take nothing by this suit and that Defendant shall be in all things discharged
ion
ON ALL SERVED VIAIE-MAILED - HAND DtLIVERY -MAIL
=----WHO 16 TO
_--13 1
SElVE COPIEIS ON gtLL OTHEN
and that the costs ofcourt are taxed against the party incurring same All other relief
not expressly granted herein is denied
This judgment is final disposes of all claims and parties and is appealable f-b
SIGNED and ENTERED this 3 day ofJanuary 2017 L
348TH DISTRICT COURT
2
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE 14
Ms Walls testimony established that she had not eaten on March 1 2014 had consumed
at least two and pmt of a third mixed drinks had consumed the drinks between 700 pm and
midnight and that she had taken her prescribed anxiety medication some time during the day
The exact medication she had taken was not established Ms Walls was not asked to identify the
medication that night or at the hearing nor was she asked to produce or subpoenaed to produce
a copy of the prescription Mr Wises identification of the drug as citalopram or Celexa was
based upon information he received from Mr Wangler and cannot be considered as dispositive
Further assuming Ms Walls was taking citalopram or Celexa that particular drugs interaction
with alcohol was not established There was no evidence that Ms Walls smoked marijuana that
night
The undercover team stated that Ms Walls had a glassy blank stare and disheveled hair
swayed while walking and ran into the frame of the doorway leading to the dressing room
Agent Nunnery testified that Ms Walls seemed intoxicated her speech was sinned Ms Walls
had short term memory loss ( concerning her cell phone) nearly fell down twice as she was
dressing and attempted to place her left shoe on her right foot had the odor of an alcoholic
beverage on her breath and person had glassy eyes and swayed standing
Although Ms Walls admitted drinking alcohol that night Mr Wangler testified he did
not believe that Ms Walls was intoxicated but he also was concerned that Ms Walls was not
right Mr Wangler testified he had the perception that something was a little off or
different with Ms Walls Mr George observed that Ms Walls stood balanced while she was
dressing and speaking on the phone with her mother but lost her balance twice during the field
sobriety test Agent Nunnery conducted the HGN and observed Ms Walls that exhibited two
clues lack of smooth pursuit in both eyes He stopped the test when she lost her balance twice
causing Agent Nunnery to have Ms Walls sit down Agent Nunnery interpreted the two HGN
clues as sufficient to conclude that Ms Walls was intoxicated However Ms Walls was not so
intoxicated that she was arrested for public intoxication that is for being intoxicated to the
degree that [Ms Walls might] endanger [herself] or another20
20 Tex Penal Code sect 4902(a)
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE15
The National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) publication states
that an officer must look for the following three criteria in the HGN test (1) an inability to
pursue smoothly an object or stimulus moving sideways across the suspects field of vision (3)
distinct or pronounced nystagmus at the eyes maximum horizontal deviation and (3) an angle
of onset of nystagmus of less than or equal to 45 degrees The officer must look for these criteria
in each eye for a total of six clues If the officer identifies four or more clues then the officer
classifies the suspect as intoxicated21 Accordingly Agent Nunnery was not justified to
conclude Ms Walls was intoxicated based upon the HGN alone
Mr George noted that the agents did not use a portable breath tester (PBT) or any other
type of breath test device22 Agent Nunnery was not issued a PBT by TABC and testified that a
PBT result would not be admissible in court Agent Nurmery testified he did not have the ability
to give Ms Walls an intoxilyzer or breathalyzer test
Agent Shirley Agent Cayea and Mr Wangler each at about the same moment
concluded that something was wrong with Ms Walls The physical indicators that
Agent Shirley Agent Cayea and Agent Nunnery observed are associated with alcohol
intoxication Ms Wallss recollection of events especially the searching of her purse and her
being escorted outside by Agent Nunnery and Mr George are contradicted by the testimony of
both and their recorded observations23 Ms Walls was and remains confused about the sequence
of the events of the night and that confusion is further evidence of her impairment
21 Emerson at 766 NHTSA SFST Manual at VIII-8 (2006) found at httpoagdcgovnode443812 22 Although Mr Wise testified that Petitioner had an in-house PBT neither Mr Wangler nor Mr George requested Ms Wall to submit a specimen of her breath before or after the TABC arrived 23 Respondent argued that Agent Nunnerys written report contradicted his testimony that he stood outside with Ms Walls waiting for the cab in an effort to impeach his testimony It is true that the report does not mention that episode However Mr Georges testimony and written memorandum agreed with and supported Agent Nunnerys testimony
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE16
The ALJ concludes that a preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that Ms Walls
Respondents employee had lost normal use of her mental or physical faculties by reason of the
introduction of alcohol on the licensed premises 24
24 Ms Wallss anxiety medication was not identified nor was any expert testimony offered on the effects of the mediation or its interaction with alcohol For example Ms Walls testified that she had not eaten that day and that her medication affects her on an empty stomach However Mr George testified Ms Walls told the agents that she has an eating problem and that if she doesnt eat she will feel weak and unstable and that she hadnt ate all day According to Agent Nunnery Ms Walls denied taking any medications Given these contradictions the ALJ recommends that no finding be made on whether Ms Walls was intoxicated due to her medication or its interaction with alcohol 25 16TACsect342 26 Resp Ex I 27 16 TACsect 342 28 16 TACsect 34l(g)(J) and (4)
The ALJ recommends that the Commission find that Petitioner violatedsect 1 l6l(b)(13) of
the Code
The Staff recommended a 36 day suspension of the Respondents permit or in the
alternative a civil penalty of$300 per day for the recommended 36 days or $10800 for a second
violation of sect 1 l6l(b)(l3) of the Code25 According to Petitioners administrative record
Petitioner had a prior violation of sect 1 l61(b)(l3) which occmTed on December 20 2013
Petitioner was assessed an administrative penalty of $5100 (the equivalent of a 17 day
suspension) which was reduced to $4500 (the equivalent of a 15 day suspension) after
completion of an employee educational program on March 21 2014 which was paid on
March 26 201426 A violation of is sect l l6l(b)(13) a health safety and welfare violation27
Under the Commissions rule a subsequent violation of the Code or rule will result in a sanction
in the next higher violation level if the subsequent violation is for a health safety and welfare
violation and occurs within 36 months of the prior violation and the subsequent violation is
issued during an undercover operation28 The subsequent violation was on March 1 2014
which is within 36 months of the prior violation on December 20 2013 The March 1 2014
violation was issued during an undercover investigation
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE 17
Respondent argued that the amount of civil penalty should be reduced upon a
consideration of the ameliorating circumstances concerning the violation29 The ameliorating
circumstances cited by Respondent are Respondents practices and policies described above
and the fact that Mr Wangler immediately removed Ms Walls from the dance floor when he
observed something wrong with her The Commission has stated that Texass policy is for
Neither the permit holder nor an agent servant or employee of the permit holder to be
intoxicated o the premises in the first place30 Moreover Respondents prior violation of
sect l l6l(b)(l3) is an aggravating circumstance under the same statute31 Respondent is not
entitled to a reduction in the proposed suspension or penalty
29 sect l l641(a)(3) of the Code sect J l64Jnotes that ameliorating circumstances include those enumerated in Section l l64(c) The circumstances listed in I l64(c) namely that the violation could not reasonably have been prevented by the permittee or licensee by the exercise of due diligence that the permittee or licensee was entrapped that an agent servant or employee of the permittee or licensee violated this code without the knowledge of the permittee or licensee that the permittee or licensee did not knowingly violate this code that the permittee or licensee has demonstrated good faith including the taking of actions to rectify the consequences of the violation and to deter future violations or (6) that the violation was a technical one have no factual support in the record 30 Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission Board Final Order TABC Docket No 599022 (SOAH Docket No 458shy11-3550) (January 18 2012) at 3 31 sect I I641(a)(4) ofthe Code
The ALJ recommends that Respondents permit be suspended for 36 days or in the
alternative Respondent be assessed a civil penalty of $300 per day for 36 days for a total penalty
of$10800
III FINDINGS OF FACT
I The Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission (TABC) issued Mixed Beverage Permit MB753709 which includes a Mixed Beverage Late Hours Permit and a Beverage Cartage Permit to Respondent 2345 Meacham LLC dba Buckss Cabaret
2 Respondents licensed premises are located at 2345 Meacham Boulevard Fort Worth Tarrant County Texas 76106
3 On March 1 2014 TABC Agent Denver Carleton led a squad of TABC agents namely Sergeant Charlotte Knox and agents Travis Shirley Charles Cayea and Christopher Nunnery in an undercover investigation of the Respondents premises
4 Agents Shirley and Cayea were the undercover team
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE 18
5 Agent Carleton Sergeant Knox and Agent Nunnery were the open team
6 Agents Shirley and Cayea entered Respondents premises at approximately 11 00 pm on March 1 2014
7 Kaitlyn Walls was a dancer at Respondents bar
8 Ms Walls was working that night beginning at approximately 700 pm
9 Ms Walls danced on the main stage and then on the smaller stages in rotation
10 Ms Walls approached a customer and sat next to him at the bar near the agents
11 Ms Walls and her barstool fell to the floor
12 Ms Walls had a glassy blank stare and disheveled hair
13 Ms Walls swayed while walking and ran into the door frame of the doorway leading to the clubs dancers dressing room
14 Agents Shirley and Cayea contacted the open team and informed them that they believed Ms Walls was intoxicated
15 The two agents sent the open team Ms Wallss description and her location in the dressing room by text message
16 Agents Shirley and Cayea left the club after the open team entered the club
17 Agent Nunnery came into close contact with Ms Walls
18 Ms Walls had slmTed speech was not aware of where her cell phone was even though she was holding it nearly fell down twice as she was dressing had glassy eyes swayed standing and lost her balance twice during field sobriety testing
19 Ms Walls admitted to drinking three alcoholic beverages
20 Ms Walls displayed physical and mental indications of intoxication
21 On March 1 2014 Ms Walls did not have the normal use of her mental or physical faculties by reason of the introduction of alcohol into her body
22 On March 1 2014 Ms Walls was an employee of Respondent
23 Petitioner had a prior violation ofsect l l6I(b)(l3) of the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code (the Code) which occurred on December 20 2013 Petitioner was assessed an administrative penalty which was paid on March 26 2014
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE 19
24 The violation which is the subject of this contested case was on March 1 2014 which is within 36 months of the prior violation on December 20 2013
25 The March 1 2014 violation was issued during an undercover investigation
26 On April 14 2015 Staff issued its Notice of Hearing which contained information regarding the date time and place of the hearing the matters asserted the statutes and rules involved and the legal authorities under which the hearing would be held
27 The hearing in this matter convened before Administrative Law Judge Robert F Jones Jr on October 22 2015 at the State Office of Administrative Hearings (SOAH) in Fort Worth Texas Sheila A Lindsey of the TABC Legal Services Division appeared and represented the Staff Respondent appeared by its attorney Roger Albright Evidence was received and the record closed that day
IV CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1 TABC has jurisdiction over this matter Tex Alco Bev Code (the Code) Chapter 5
2 SOAH has jurisdiction to conduct the administrative hearing in this matter and to issue a proposal for decision containing proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law Tex Govt Code Chapter 2003
3 Proper and timely notice of the hearing was provided to Respondent Tex Govt Code sect 2001051-052
4 Respondent violated sect l l6l(b)(l3) of the Code which authorizes the Commission to suspend a pe1mit if the pe1mittee was intoxicated on the licensed premises
5 A 36 day suspension of Respondents Mixed Beverage Permit MB753709 which includes a Mixed Beverage Late Hours Permit and a Beverage Cartage Permit or in the alternative a civil penalty of $300 per day for the recommended 36 days a total of $10800 is appropriate sectsect l l6l(b)(l3) and 1164 of the Code 16 Tex Admin Codesect 342
SIGNED December 17 2015
OBERT F JO ES JR ADMINISTRATI W JUDGE STATE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
STATE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS FT WORTH OFFICE
6777 Camp Bowie Blvd Suite 400 Fort Worth Texas 76116
Phone (817) 731-1733 Fax (512) 322-0473
SERVICE LIST
AGENCY Alcoholic Beverage Commission Texas (TABC)
STYLECASE 2345 MEACHAM LLC DBA BUCKS CABARET
SOAH DOCKET NUMBER 458-15-3318
REFERRING AGENCY CASE 624309
STATE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE
HEARINGS
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
ALJ ROBERT JONES
REPRESENTATIVEADDRESS
SHEILA LINDSEY - SANDERS STAFF ATTORNEY TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION 427 W 20TH STREET SUITE 600 HOUSTON TX 77008 (713) 426-7900 (PH) (713) 862-7478 (FAX)
PARTIES
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION
ROGER ALBRIGHT ATTORNEY AT LAW 3301 ELM STREET DALLAS TX 75226 (214) 939-9224 (PH) (214) 939-9229 (FAX) ralawrogeralbrightcom
ROGER ALBRIGHT
xc Docket Clerk State Office of Administrative Hearings Emily Helm GENERAL COUNSEL TABC Fax No 512-206-3226
Pagel of I
DOCKET NO 624309
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE
COMMISSION Petitioner
VS
2345 MEACHAM LLC
DBA BUCKrsquoS CABARET
Respondent
PERMIT MB753709 LB PE
TARRANT COUNTY TEXAS
(SOAH DOCKET NO 458-15-3318)
BEFORE THE TEXAS
ALCOHOLIC
BEVERAGE COMMISSION
ORDER
CAME ON FOR CONSIDERATION this 14th day of October 2016 the above-styled
and numbered cause
After proper notice was given this case was heard by the State Office of Administrative
Hearings (SOAH) with Administrative Law Judge Robert F Jones Jr presiding The hearing
convened on October 22 2015 and the SOAH record closed the same date The Administrative
Law Judge made and filed a Proposal for Decision containing Findings of Fact and Conclusions
of Law on December 17 2015 The Proposal for Decision was properly served on all parties
who were given an opportunity to file exceptions and replies as part of the record herein No
exceptions were filed
After review and due consideration of the Proposal for Decision I adopt the Findings of
Fact and Conclusions of Law of the Administrative Law Judge that are contained in the Proposal
for Decision and incorporate those Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law into this Order as if
such were fully set out and separately stated herein
All motions requests for entry of Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
and any other requests for general or specific relief submitted by any party are denied unless
specifically adopted herein
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the privileges granted by the Commission and the
activities authorized under the above permit by the Code will be SUSPENDED beginning at
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
__________________________________________
__________________________________________
1201 am on November 30th 2016 and shall remain suspended for THIRTY-SIX (36)
DAYS UNLESS a civil penalty in the amount of $1080000 is paid ON OR BEFORE
November 22nd 2016
This Order will become final and enforceable on the 15th day of November
2016 unless a Motion for Rehearing is filed by the 14th day of November 2016
SIGNED this the 14th day of October 2016 at Austin Texas
Sherry K-Cook Executive Director
Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that the persons listed below were served with a copy of this Order in the manner
indicated below on this the 14th day of October 2016
Martin Wilson Assistant General Counsel
Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission
Robert F Jones Jr
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
State Office of Administrative Hearings
300 W 15th
Street Suite 502
Austin TX 78701
VIA FACSIMILE (512) 322-2061
2345 Meacham LLC
dba Buckrsquos Cabaret
RESPONDENT
PO Box 271289
Flower Mound TX 75027
VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL CMRRR 70160600000046455820
Roger Albright
ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENT
3301 Elm Street
Dallas TX 75226
VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL CMRRR 70160600000046455837
Shelia Lindsey
ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER
TABC Legal Division
VIA E-MAIL Shelialindseytabctexasgov
__________________________________
__________________________________
__________________________________
__________________________________
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION
CIVIL PENALTY REMITTANCE
DOCKET NUMBER 624309 REGISTER NUMBER
NAME 2345 MEACHAM LLC
TRADENAME Buckrsquos Cabaret
ADDRESS PO Box 271289 Flower Mound Texas
DUE DATE November 22 2016
PERMITS OR LICENSES MB753709 LB PE
AMOUNT OF PENALTY $1080000
Amount remitted $____________________ Date remitted ____________________________
You may pay a civil penalty rather than have your permits and licenses suspended if an amount
for civil penalty is included on the attached order
YOU HAVE THE OPTION TO PAY THE CIVIL PENALTY ONLY IF YOU PAY THE
ENTIRE AMOUNT ON OR BEFORE THE DUE DATE AFTER THAT DATE YOUR
LICENSE OR PERMIT WILL BE SUSPENDED FOR THE TIME PERIOD STATED ON
THE ORDER
Mail this form with your payment to
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION
PO Box 13127 Austin Texas 78711
Overnight Delivery Address 5806 Mesa Dr Austin Texas 78731
You must pay by postal money order certified check or cashiers check No personal or
company check nor partial payment accepted Your payment will be returned if anything is
incorrect You must pay the entire amount of the penalty assessed
Attach this form and please make certain to include the Docket on your payment
Signature of Responsible Party
Street Address PO Box No
City State Zip Code
Area CodeTelephone No
Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2
DOCKET NO 624309
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE
COMMISSION Petitioner
sect
sect
sect
sect
VS sect
sect
sect
sect
2345 MEACHAM LLC
DBA BUCKrsquoS CABARET
Respondent
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
PERMIT MB753709 LB PE sect
sect
sect
TARRANT COUNTY TEXAS
(SOAH DOCKET NO 458-15-3318)
sect
sect
BEFORE THE TEXAS
BEVERAGE COMMISSION
ALCOHOLIC
ORDER DENYING M OTION FOR REHEARING
Page 1 of 3
CAME ON FOR CONSIDERATION this 1st day of December 2016 the above-styled
and numbered cause
On October 14 2016 an Order was issued in this cause suspending Respondents permits
for a period of 36 days unless a civil penalty in the amount of $10800 was paid A timely
Motion for RehearingReconsideration was filed by Respondent on November 11 2016 and a
Supplemental Motion for Rehearing was filed by Respondent on November 16 2016 Petitioner
filed a Response to Respondents Motion for RehearingReconsideration on November 22 2016
Having considered Respondents Motion for RehearingReconsideration
Respondents Supplemental Motion for Rehearing and Petitioners Response to Respondents
Motion for RehearingReconsideration Respondents Motion for RehearingReconsideration is
DENIED
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that IF THIS ORDER IS NOT APPEALED
WITHIN THE TIME ALLOWED BY ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CODE sect1167 the
privileges granted by the Commission and the activities authorized under the above permits by
the Code will be SUSPENDED beginning at 1201 am on January 25 2017 and shall remain
suspended for THIRTY SIX (36) CONSECUTIVE DAYS UNLESS a civil penalty in the
amount of $1080000 is paid in lieu of suspension ON OR BEFORE January 17 2017
__________________________________________
_________________________________________
IF THIS ORDER IS APPEALED AND THE DECISION IS AFFIRMED IT IS
ORDERED that the privileges granted by the Commission and the activities authorized under
the above permits by the Code will be SUSPENDED beginning at 1201 am on the fifteenth
(15th
) day following the date the decision is affirmed whether by Order or by operation of law
and shall remain suspended for THIRTY SIX (36) CONSECUTIVE DAYS UNLESS a civil
penalty in the amount of $1080000 is paid in lieu of suspension ON OR BEFORE the seventh
(7th
) day following the date the decision is affirmed whether by Order or by operation of law
SIGNED this the 1st day of December 2016 at Austin Texas
Sherry K-Cook Executive Director
Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that the persons listed below were served with a copy of this Order Denying
Motion for Rehearing in the manner indicated below on this the 1st day of December 2016
Martin Wilson Assistant General Counsel
Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission
Page 2 of 3
Robert F Jones Jr
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
State Office of Administrative Hearings
300 W 15th
Street Suite 502
Austin TX 78701
VIA FACSIMILE (512) 322-2061
2345 Meacham LLC
dba Buckrsquos Cabaret
RESPONDENT
PO Box 271289
Flower Mound TX 75027
VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL CMRRR 70160340000080983298
Roger Albright
ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENT
3301 Elm Street
Dallas TX 75226
VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL CMRRR70160340000080983281
Shelia Lindsey
ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER
TABC Legal Division
VIA E-MAIL Shelialindseytabctexasgov
Page 3 of 3
__________________________________
__________________________________
__________________________________
__________________________________
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION
CIVIL PENALTY REMITTANCE
DOCKET NUMBER 624309 REGISTER NUMBER
NAME 2345 Meacham LLC
TRADENAME Buckrsquos Cabaret
ADDRESS PO Box 271289 Flower Mound Texas
DUE DATE January 17 2017
PERMITS OR LICENSES MB753709 PE LB
AMOUNT OF PENALTY $1080000
Amount remitted $____________________ Date remitted ____________________________
You may pay a civil penalty rather than have your permits and licenses suspended if an amount
for civil penalty is included on the attached order
YOU HAVE THE OPTION TO PAY THE CIVIL PENALTY ONLY IF YOU PAY THE
ENTIRE AMOUNT ON OR BEFORE THE DUE DATE AFTER THAT DATE YOUR
LICENSE OR PERMIT WILL BE SUSPENDED FOR THE TIME PERIOD STATED ON
THE ORDER
Mail this form with your payment to
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION
PO Box 13127 Austin Texas 78711
Overnight Delivery Address 5806 Mesa Dr Austin Texas 78731
You must pay by postal money order certified check or cashiers check No personal or
company check nor partial payment accepted Your payment will be returned if anything is
incorrect You must pay the entire amount of the penalty assessed
Attach this form and please make certain to include the Docket on your payment
Signature of Responsible Party
Street Address PO Box No
City State Zip Code
Area CodeTelephone No
Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2
CAUSE NO 348-289708-16
2345 MEACHAM LLC DBA BUCKS CABARET
Plaintiff
v
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION
Defendant
sect IN THE DISTRICT COURT
348TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
TARRANT COUNTY TEXAS
sect sect sect sect sect sect sect sect sect
ORDER AFFIRMING TABC DECISION fllJ()1)1-j 13J
On tkis day came on to be heard the above-tyled and numbered cause
pursuant to Ch 2001 ofthe Texas Government Code (the Administrative Procedure
Act) and sect 1167 of the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code 2345 Meacham LLC
dba Bucks Cabaret and the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission appeared by
and through their attorneys of record and announced ready All matters of fact and
controversy were submitted The Court after reviewing the evidence and hearing
the arguments of counsel finds that the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission
Order of October 14 2016 is supported by substantial evidence
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED ADJUDGED and DECREED that the
Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commissions Order of October 14 2016 suspending
Plaintiffs Mixed Beverage Permit MB753709 and the associated Beverage Cartage
Permit and Mixed Beverage Late Hours Permit is supported by substantial
evidence and thus is AFFIRMED _1 L IJND Tltld1lt lJAS t-lltJ cflfAfl ltJr tlJ~
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED ADJUDGED and DECREED that the Plaintiff
shall take nothing by this suit and that Defendant shall be in all things discharged
ion
ON ALL SERVED VIAIE-MAILED - HAND DtLIVERY -MAIL
=----WHO 16 TO
_--13 1
SElVE COPIEIS ON gtLL OTHEN
and that the costs ofcourt are taxed against the party incurring same All other relief
not expressly granted herein is denied
This judgment is final disposes of all claims and parties and is appealable f-b
SIGNED and ENTERED this 3 day ofJanuary 2017 L
348TH DISTRICT COURT
2
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE15
The National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) publication states
that an officer must look for the following three criteria in the HGN test (1) an inability to
pursue smoothly an object or stimulus moving sideways across the suspects field of vision (3)
distinct or pronounced nystagmus at the eyes maximum horizontal deviation and (3) an angle
of onset of nystagmus of less than or equal to 45 degrees The officer must look for these criteria
in each eye for a total of six clues If the officer identifies four or more clues then the officer
classifies the suspect as intoxicated21 Accordingly Agent Nunnery was not justified to
conclude Ms Walls was intoxicated based upon the HGN alone
Mr George noted that the agents did not use a portable breath tester (PBT) or any other
type of breath test device22 Agent Nunnery was not issued a PBT by TABC and testified that a
PBT result would not be admissible in court Agent Nurmery testified he did not have the ability
to give Ms Walls an intoxilyzer or breathalyzer test
Agent Shirley Agent Cayea and Mr Wangler each at about the same moment
concluded that something was wrong with Ms Walls The physical indicators that
Agent Shirley Agent Cayea and Agent Nunnery observed are associated with alcohol
intoxication Ms Wallss recollection of events especially the searching of her purse and her
being escorted outside by Agent Nunnery and Mr George are contradicted by the testimony of
both and their recorded observations23 Ms Walls was and remains confused about the sequence
of the events of the night and that confusion is further evidence of her impairment
21 Emerson at 766 NHTSA SFST Manual at VIII-8 (2006) found at httpoagdcgovnode443812 22 Although Mr Wise testified that Petitioner had an in-house PBT neither Mr Wangler nor Mr George requested Ms Wall to submit a specimen of her breath before or after the TABC arrived 23 Respondent argued that Agent Nunnerys written report contradicted his testimony that he stood outside with Ms Walls waiting for the cab in an effort to impeach his testimony It is true that the report does not mention that episode However Mr Georges testimony and written memorandum agreed with and supported Agent Nunnerys testimony
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE16
The ALJ concludes that a preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that Ms Walls
Respondents employee had lost normal use of her mental or physical faculties by reason of the
introduction of alcohol on the licensed premises 24
24 Ms Wallss anxiety medication was not identified nor was any expert testimony offered on the effects of the mediation or its interaction with alcohol For example Ms Walls testified that she had not eaten that day and that her medication affects her on an empty stomach However Mr George testified Ms Walls told the agents that she has an eating problem and that if she doesnt eat she will feel weak and unstable and that she hadnt ate all day According to Agent Nunnery Ms Walls denied taking any medications Given these contradictions the ALJ recommends that no finding be made on whether Ms Walls was intoxicated due to her medication or its interaction with alcohol 25 16TACsect342 26 Resp Ex I 27 16 TACsect 342 28 16 TACsect 34l(g)(J) and (4)
The ALJ recommends that the Commission find that Petitioner violatedsect 1 l6l(b)(13) of
the Code
The Staff recommended a 36 day suspension of the Respondents permit or in the
alternative a civil penalty of$300 per day for the recommended 36 days or $10800 for a second
violation of sect 1 l6l(b)(l3) of the Code25 According to Petitioners administrative record
Petitioner had a prior violation of sect 1 l61(b)(l3) which occmTed on December 20 2013
Petitioner was assessed an administrative penalty of $5100 (the equivalent of a 17 day
suspension) which was reduced to $4500 (the equivalent of a 15 day suspension) after
completion of an employee educational program on March 21 2014 which was paid on
March 26 201426 A violation of is sect l l6l(b)(13) a health safety and welfare violation27
Under the Commissions rule a subsequent violation of the Code or rule will result in a sanction
in the next higher violation level if the subsequent violation is for a health safety and welfare
violation and occurs within 36 months of the prior violation and the subsequent violation is
issued during an undercover operation28 The subsequent violation was on March 1 2014
which is within 36 months of the prior violation on December 20 2013 The March 1 2014
violation was issued during an undercover investigation
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE 17
Respondent argued that the amount of civil penalty should be reduced upon a
consideration of the ameliorating circumstances concerning the violation29 The ameliorating
circumstances cited by Respondent are Respondents practices and policies described above
and the fact that Mr Wangler immediately removed Ms Walls from the dance floor when he
observed something wrong with her The Commission has stated that Texass policy is for
Neither the permit holder nor an agent servant or employee of the permit holder to be
intoxicated o the premises in the first place30 Moreover Respondents prior violation of
sect l l6l(b)(l3) is an aggravating circumstance under the same statute31 Respondent is not
entitled to a reduction in the proposed suspension or penalty
29 sect l l641(a)(3) of the Code sect J l64Jnotes that ameliorating circumstances include those enumerated in Section l l64(c) The circumstances listed in I l64(c) namely that the violation could not reasonably have been prevented by the permittee or licensee by the exercise of due diligence that the permittee or licensee was entrapped that an agent servant or employee of the permittee or licensee violated this code without the knowledge of the permittee or licensee that the permittee or licensee did not knowingly violate this code that the permittee or licensee has demonstrated good faith including the taking of actions to rectify the consequences of the violation and to deter future violations or (6) that the violation was a technical one have no factual support in the record 30 Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission Board Final Order TABC Docket No 599022 (SOAH Docket No 458shy11-3550) (January 18 2012) at 3 31 sect I I641(a)(4) ofthe Code
The ALJ recommends that Respondents permit be suspended for 36 days or in the
alternative Respondent be assessed a civil penalty of $300 per day for 36 days for a total penalty
of$10800
III FINDINGS OF FACT
I The Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission (TABC) issued Mixed Beverage Permit MB753709 which includes a Mixed Beverage Late Hours Permit and a Beverage Cartage Permit to Respondent 2345 Meacham LLC dba Buckss Cabaret
2 Respondents licensed premises are located at 2345 Meacham Boulevard Fort Worth Tarrant County Texas 76106
3 On March 1 2014 TABC Agent Denver Carleton led a squad of TABC agents namely Sergeant Charlotte Knox and agents Travis Shirley Charles Cayea and Christopher Nunnery in an undercover investigation of the Respondents premises
4 Agents Shirley and Cayea were the undercover team
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE 18
5 Agent Carleton Sergeant Knox and Agent Nunnery were the open team
6 Agents Shirley and Cayea entered Respondents premises at approximately 11 00 pm on March 1 2014
7 Kaitlyn Walls was a dancer at Respondents bar
8 Ms Walls was working that night beginning at approximately 700 pm
9 Ms Walls danced on the main stage and then on the smaller stages in rotation
10 Ms Walls approached a customer and sat next to him at the bar near the agents
11 Ms Walls and her barstool fell to the floor
12 Ms Walls had a glassy blank stare and disheveled hair
13 Ms Walls swayed while walking and ran into the door frame of the doorway leading to the clubs dancers dressing room
14 Agents Shirley and Cayea contacted the open team and informed them that they believed Ms Walls was intoxicated
15 The two agents sent the open team Ms Wallss description and her location in the dressing room by text message
16 Agents Shirley and Cayea left the club after the open team entered the club
17 Agent Nunnery came into close contact with Ms Walls
18 Ms Walls had slmTed speech was not aware of where her cell phone was even though she was holding it nearly fell down twice as she was dressing had glassy eyes swayed standing and lost her balance twice during field sobriety testing
19 Ms Walls admitted to drinking three alcoholic beverages
20 Ms Walls displayed physical and mental indications of intoxication
21 On March 1 2014 Ms Walls did not have the normal use of her mental or physical faculties by reason of the introduction of alcohol into her body
22 On March 1 2014 Ms Walls was an employee of Respondent
23 Petitioner had a prior violation ofsect l l6I(b)(l3) of the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code (the Code) which occurred on December 20 2013 Petitioner was assessed an administrative penalty which was paid on March 26 2014
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE 19
24 The violation which is the subject of this contested case was on March 1 2014 which is within 36 months of the prior violation on December 20 2013
25 The March 1 2014 violation was issued during an undercover investigation
26 On April 14 2015 Staff issued its Notice of Hearing which contained information regarding the date time and place of the hearing the matters asserted the statutes and rules involved and the legal authorities under which the hearing would be held
27 The hearing in this matter convened before Administrative Law Judge Robert F Jones Jr on October 22 2015 at the State Office of Administrative Hearings (SOAH) in Fort Worth Texas Sheila A Lindsey of the TABC Legal Services Division appeared and represented the Staff Respondent appeared by its attorney Roger Albright Evidence was received and the record closed that day
IV CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1 TABC has jurisdiction over this matter Tex Alco Bev Code (the Code) Chapter 5
2 SOAH has jurisdiction to conduct the administrative hearing in this matter and to issue a proposal for decision containing proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law Tex Govt Code Chapter 2003
3 Proper and timely notice of the hearing was provided to Respondent Tex Govt Code sect 2001051-052
4 Respondent violated sect l l6l(b)(l3) of the Code which authorizes the Commission to suspend a pe1mit if the pe1mittee was intoxicated on the licensed premises
5 A 36 day suspension of Respondents Mixed Beverage Permit MB753709 which includes a Mixed Beverage Late Hours Permit and a Beverage Cartage Permit or in the alternative a civil penalty of $300 per day for the recommended 36 days a total of $10800 is appropriate sectsect l l6l(b)(l3) and 1164 of the Code 16 Tex Admin Codesect 342
SIGNED December 17 2015
OBERT F JO ES JR ADMINISTRATI W JUDGE STATE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
STATE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS FT WORTH OFFICE
6777 Camp Bowie Blvd Suite 400 Fort Worth Texas 76116
Phone (817) 731-1733 Fax (512) 322-0473
SERVICE LIST
AGENCY Alcoholic Beverage Commission Texas (TABC)
STYLECASE 2345 MEACHAM LLC DBA BUCKS CABARET
SOAH DOCKET NUMBER 458-15-3318
REFERRING AGENCY CASE 624309
STATE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE
HEARINGS
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
ALJ ROBERT JONES
REPRESENTATIVEADDRESS
SHEILA LINDSEY - SANDERS STAFF ATTORNEY TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION 427 W 20TH STREET SUITE 600 HOUSTON TX 77008 (713) 426-7900 (PH) (713) 862-7478 (FAX)
PARTIES
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION
ROGER ALBRIGHT ATTORNEY AT LAW 3301 ELM STREET DALLAS TX 75226 (214) 939-9224 (PH) (214) 939-9229 (FAX) ralawrogeralbrightcom
ROGER ALBRIGHT
xc Docket Clerk State Office of Administrative Hearings Emily Helm GENERAL COUNSEL TABC Fax No 512-206-3226
Pagel of I
DOCKET NO 624309
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE
COMMISSION Petitioner
VS
2345 MEACHAM LLC
DBA BUCKrsquoS CABARET
Respondent
PERMIT MB753709 LB PE
TARRANT COUNTY TEXAS
(SOAH DOCKET NO 458-15-3318)
BEFORE THE TEXAS
ALCOHOLIC
BEVERAGE COMMISSION
ORDER
CAME ON FOR CONSIDERATION this 14th day of October 2016 the above-styled
and numbered cause
After proper notice was given this case was heard by the State Office of Administrative
Hearings (SOAH) with Administrative Law Judge Robert F Jones Jr presiding The hearing
convened on October 22 2015 and the SOAH record closed the same date The Administrative
Law Judge made and filed a Proposal for Decision containing Findings of Fact and Conclusions
of Law on December 17 2015 The Proposal for Decision was properly served on all parties
who were given an opportunity to file exceptions and replies as part of the record herein No
exceptions were filed
After review and due consideration of the Proposal for Decision I adopt the Findings of
Fact and Conclusions of Law of the Administrative Law Judge that are contained in the Proposal
for Decision and incorporate those Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law into this Order as if
such were fully set out and separately stated herein
All motions requests for entry of Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
and any other requests for general or specific relief submitted by any party are denied unless
specifically adopted herein
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the privileges granted by the Commission and the
activities authorized under the above permit by the Code will be SUSPENDED beginning at
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
__________________________________________
__________________________________________
1201 am on November 30th 2016 and shall remain suspended for THIRTY-SIX (36)
DAYS UNLESS a civil penalty in the amount of $1080000 is paid ON OR BEFORE
November 22nd 2016
This Order will become final and enforceable on the 15th day of November
2016 unless a Motion for Rehearing is filed by the 14th day of November 2016
SIGNED this the 14th day of October 2016 at Austin Texas
Sherry K-Cook Executive Director
Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that the persons listed below were served with a copy of this Order in the manner
indicated below on this the 14th day of October 2016
Martin Wilson Assistant General Counsel
Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission
Robert F Jones Jr
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
State Office of Administrative Hearings
300 W 15th
Street Suite 502
Austin TX 78701
VIA FACSIMILE (512) 322-2061
2345 Meacham LLC
dba Buckrsquos Cabaret
RESPONDENT
PO Box 271289
Flower Mound TX 75027
VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL CMRRR 70160600000046455820
Roger Albright
ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENT
3301 Elm Street
Dallas TX 75226
VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL CMRRR 70160600000046455837
Shelia Lindsey
ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER
TABC Legal Division
VIA E-MAIL Shelialindseytabctexasgov
__________________________________
__________________________________
__________________________________
__________________________________
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION
CIVIL PENALTY REMITTANCE
DOCKET NUMBER 624309 REGISTER NUMBER
NAME 2345 MEACHAM LLC
TRADENAME Buckrsquos Cabaret
ADDRESS PO Box 271289 Flower Mound Texas
DUE DATE November 22 2016
PERMITS OR LICENSES MB753709 LB PE
AMOUNT OF PENALTY $1080000
Amount remitted $____________________ Date remitted ____________________________
You may pay a civil penalty rather than have your permits and licenses suspended if an amount
for civil penalty is included on the attached order
YOU HAVE THE OPTION TO PAY THE CIVIL PENALTY ONLY IF YOU PAY THE
ENTIRE AMOUNT ON OR BEFORE THE DUE DATE AFTER THAT DATE YOUR
LICENSE OR PERMIT WILL BE SUSPENDED FOR THE TIME PERIOD STATED ON
THE ORDER
Mail this form with your payment to
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION
PO Box 13127 Austin Texas 78711
Overnight Delivery Address 5806 Mesa Dr Austin Texas 78731
You must pay by postal money order certified check or cashiers check No personal or
company check nor partial payment accepted Your payment will be returned if anything is
incorrect You must pay the entire amount of the penalty assessed
Attach this form and please make certain to include the Docket on your payment
Signature of Responsible Party
Street Address PO Box No
City State Zip Code
Area CodeTelephone No
Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2
DOCKET NO 624309
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE
COMMISSION Petitioner
sect
sect
sect
sect
VS sect
sect
sect
sect
2345 MEACHAM LLC
DBA BUCKrsquoS CABARET
Respondent
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
PERMIT MB753709 LB PE sect
sect
sect
TARRANT COUNTY TEXAS
(SOAH DOCKET NO 458-15-3318)
sect
sect
BEFORE THE TEXAS
BEVERAGE COMMISSION
ALCOHOLIC
ORDER DENYING M OTION FOR REHEARING
Page 1 of 3
CAME ON FOR CONSIDERATION this 1st day of December 2016 the above-styled
and numbered cause
On October 14 2016 an Order was issued in this cause suspending Respondents permits
for a period of 36 days unless a civil penalty in the amount of $10800 was paid A timely
Motion for RehearingReconsideration was filed by Respondent on November 11 2016 and a
Supplemental Motion for Rehearing was filed by Respondent on November 16 2016 Petitioner
filed a Response to Respondents Motion for RehearingReconsideration on November 22 2016
Having considered Respondents Motion for RehearingReconsideration
Respondents Supplemental Motion for Rehearing and Petitioners Response to Respondents
Motion for RehearingReconsideration Respondents Motion for RehearingReconsideration is
DENIED
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that IF THIS ORDER IS NOT APPEALED
WITHIN THE TIME ALLOWED BY ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CODE sect1167 the
privileges granted by the Commission and the activities authorized under the above permits by
the Code will be SUSPENDED beginning at 1201 am on January 25 2017 and shall remain
suspended for THIRTY SIX (36) CONSECUTIVE DAYS UNLESS a civil penalty in the
amount of $1080000 is paid in lieu of suspension ON OR BEFORE January 17 2017
__________________________________________
_________________________________________
IF THIS ORDER IS APPEALED AND THE DECISION IS AFFIRMED IT IS
ORDERED that the privileges granted by the Commission and the activities authorized under
the above permits by the Code will be SUSPENDED beginning at 1201 am on the fifteenth
(15th
) day following the date the decision is affirmed whether by Order or by operation of law
and shall remain suspended for THIRTY SIX (36) CONSECUTIVE DAYS UNLESS a civil
penalty in the amount of $1080000 is paid in lieu of suspension ON OR BEFORE the seventh
(7th
) day following the date the decision is affirmed whether by Order or by operation of law
SIGNED this the 1st day of December 2016 at Austin Texas
Sherry K-Cook Executive Director
Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that the persons listed below were served with a copy of this Order Denying
Motion for Rehearing in the manner indicated below on this the 1st day of December 2016
Martin Wilson Assistant General Counsel
Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission
Page 2 of 3
Robert F Jones Jr
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
State Office of Administrative Hearings
300 W 15th
Street Suite 502
Austin TX 78701
VIA FACSIMILE (512) 322-2061
2345 Meacham LLC
dba Buckrsquos Cabaret
RESPONDENT
PO Box 271289
Flower Mound TX 75027
VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL CMRRR 70160340000080983298
Roger Albright
ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENT
3301 Elm Street
Dallas TX 75226
VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL CMRRR70160340000080983281
Shelia Lindsey
ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER
TABC Legal Division
VIA E-MAIL Shelialindseytabctexasgov
Page 3 of 3
__________________________________
__________________________________
__________________________________
__________________________________
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION
CIVIL PENALTY REMITTANCE
DOCKET NUMBER 624309 REGISTER NUMBER
NAME 2345 Meacham LLC
TRADENAME Buckrsquos Cabaret
ADDRESS PO Box 271289 Flower Mound Texas
DUE DATE January 17 2017
PERMITS OR LICENSES MB753709 PE LB
AMOUNT OF PENALTY $1080000
Amount remitted $____________________ Date remitted ____________________________
You may pay a civil penalty rather than have your permits and licenses suspended if an amount
for civil penalty is included on the attached order
YOU HAVE THE OPTION TO PAY THE CIVIL PENALTY ONLY IF YOU PAY THE
ENTIRE AMOUNT ON OR BEFORE THE DUE DATE AFTER THAT DATE YOUR
LICENSE OR PERMIT WILL BE SUSPENDED FOR THE TIME PERIOD STATED ON
THE ORDER
Mail this form with your payment to
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION
PO Box 13127 Austin Texas 78711
Overnight Delivery Address 5806 Mesa Dr Austin Texas 78731
You must pay by postal money order certified check or cashiers check No personal or
company check nor partial payment accepted Your payment will be returned if anything is
incorrect You must pay the entire amount of the penalty assessed
Attach this form and please make certain to include the Docket on your payment
Signature of Responsible Party
Street Address PO Box No
City State Zip Code
Area CodeTelephone No
Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2
CAUSE NO 348-289708-16
2345 MEACHAM LLC DBA BUCKS CABARET
Plaintiff
v
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION
Defendant
sect IN THE DISTRICT COURT
348TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
TARRANT COUNTY TEXAS
sect sect sect sect sect sect sect sect sect
ORDER AFFIRMING TABC DECISION fllJ()1)1-j 13J
On tkis day came on to be heard the above-tyled and numbered cause
pursuant to Ch 2001 ofthe Texas Government Code (the Administrative Procedure
Act) and sect 1167 of the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code 2345 Meacham LLC
dba Bucks Cabaret and the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission appeared by
and through their attorneys of record and announced ready All matters of fact and
controversy were submitted The Court after reviewing the evidence and hearing
the arguments of counsel finds that the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission
Order of October 14 2016 is supported by substantial evidence
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED ADJUDGED and DECREED that the
Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commissions Order of October 14 2016 suspending
Plaintiffs Mixed Beverage Permit MB753709 and the associated Beverage Cartage
Permit and Mixed Beverage Late Hours Permit is supported by substantial
evidence and thus is AFFIRMED _1 L IJND Tltld1lt lJAS t-lltJ cflfAfl ltJr tlJ~
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED ADJUDGED and DECREED that the Plaintiff
shall take nothing by this suit and that Defendant shall be in all things discharged
ion
ON ALL SERVED VIAIE-MAILED - HAND DtLIVERY -MAIL
=----WHO 16 TO
_--13 1
SElVE COPIEIS ON gtLL OTHEN
and that the costs ofcourt are taxed against the party incurring same All other relief
not expressly granted herein is denied
This judgment is final disposes of all claims and parties and is appealable f-b
SIGNED and ENTERED this 3 day ofJanuary 2017 L
348TH DISTRICT COURT
2
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE16
The ALJ concludes that a preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that Ms Walls
Respondents employee had lost normal use of her mental or physical faculties by reason of the
introduction of alcohol on the licensed premises 24
24 Ms Wallss anxiety medication was not identified nor was any expert testimony offered on the effects of the mediation or its interaction with alcohol For example Ms Walls testified that she had not eaten that day and that her medication affects her on an empty stomach However Mr George testified Ms Walls told the agents that she has an eating problem and that if she doesnt eat she will feel weak and unstable and that she hadnt ate all day According to Agent Nunnery Ms Walls denied taking any medications Given these contradictions the ALJ recommends that no finding be made on whether Ms Walls was intoxicated due to her medication or its interaction with alcohol 25 16TACsect342 26 Resp Ex I 27 16 TACsect 342 28 16 TACsect 34l(g)(J) and (4)
The ALJ recommends that the Commission find that Petitioner violatedsect 1 l6l(b)(13) of
the Code
The Staff recommended a 36 day suspension of the Respondents permit or in the
alternative a civil penalty of$300 per day for the recommended 36 days or $10800 for a second
violation of sect 1 l6l(b)(l3) of the Code25 According to Petitioners administrative record
Petitioner had a prior violation of sect 1 l61(b)(l3) which occmTed on December 20 2013
Petitioner was assessed an administrative penalty of $5100 (the equivalent of a 17 day
suspension) which was reduced to $4500 (the equivalent of a 15 day suspension) after
completion of an employee educational program on March 21 2014 which was paid on
March 26 201426 A violation of is sect l l6l(b)(13) a health safety and welfare violation27
Under the Commissions rule a subsequent violation of the Code or rule will result in a sanction
in the next higher violation level if the subsequent violation is for a health safety and welfare
violation and occurs within 36 months of the prior violation and the subsequent violation is
issued during an undercover operation28 The subsequent violation was on March 1 2014
which is within 36 months of the prior violation on December 20 2013 The March 1 2014
violation was issued during an undercover investigation
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE 17
Respondent argued that the amount of civil penalty should be reduced upon a
consideration of the ameliorating circumstances concerning the violation29 The ameliorating
circumstances cited by Respondent are Respondents practices and policies described above
and the fact that Mr Wangler immediately removed Ms Walls from the dance floor when he
observed something wrong with her The Commission has stated that Texass policy is for
Neither the permit holder nor an agent servant or employee of the permit holder to be
intoxicated o the premises in the first place30 Moreover Respondents prior violation of
sect l l6l(b)(l3) is an aggravating circumstance under the same statute31 Respondent is not
entitled to a reduction in the proposed suspension or penalty
29 sect l l641(a)(3) of the Code sect J l64Jnotes that ameliorating circumstances include those enumerated in Section l l64(c) The circumstances listed in I l64(c) namely that the violation could not reasonably have been prevented by the permittee or licensee by the exercise of due diligence that the permittee or licensee was entrapped that an agent servant or employee of the permittee or licensee violated this code without the knowledge of the permittee or licensee that the permittee or licensee did not knowingly violate this code that the permittee or licensee has demonstrated good faith including the taking of actions to rectify the consequences of the violation and to deter future violations or (6) that the violation was a technical one have no factual support in the record 30 Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission Board Final Order TABC Docket No 599022 (SOAH Docket No 458shy11-3550) (January 18 2012) at 3 31 sect I I641(a)(4) ofthe Code
The ALJ recommends that Respondents permit be suspended for 36 days or in the
alternative Respondent be assessed a civil penalty of $300 per day for 36 days for a total penalty
of$10800
III FINDINGS OF FACT
I The Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission (TABC) issued Mixed Beverage Permit MB753709 which includes a Mixed Beverage Late Hours Permit and a Beverage Cartage Permit to Respondent 2345 Meacham LLC dba Buckss Cabaret
2 Respondents licensed premises are located at 2345 Meacham Boulevard Fort Worth Tarrant County Texas 76106
3 On March 1 2014 TABC Agent Denver Carleton led a squad of TABC agents namely Sergeant Charlotte Knox and agents Travis Shirley Charles Cayea and Christopher Nunnery in an undercover investigation of the Respondents premises
4 Agents Shirley and Cayea were the undercover team
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE 18
5 Agent Carleton Sergeant Knox and Agent Nunnery were the open team
6 Agents Shirley and Cayea entered Respondents premises at approximately 11 00 pm on March 1 2014
7 Kaitlyn Walls was a dancer at Respondents bar
8 Ms Walls was working that night beginning at approximately 700 pm
9 Ms Walls danced on the main stage and then on the smaller stages in rotation
10 Ms Walls approached a customer and sat next to him at the bar near the agents
11 Ms Walls and her barstool fell to the floor
12 Ms Walls had a glassy blank stare and disheveled hair
13 Ms Walls swayed while walking and ran into the door frame of the doorway leading to the clubs dancers dressing room
14 Agents Shirley and Cayea contacted the open team and informed them that they believed Ms Walls was intoxicated
15 The two agents sent the open team Ms Wallss description and her location in the dressing room by text message
16 Agents Shirley and Cayea left the club after the open team entered the club
17 Agent Nunnery came into close contact with Ms Walls
18 Ms Walls had slmTed speech was not aware of where her cell phone was even though she was holding it nearly fell down twice as she was dressing had glassy eyes swayed standing and lost her balance twice during field sobriety testing
19 Ms Walls admitted to drinking three alcoholic beverages
20 Ms Walls displayed physical and mental indications of intoxication
21 On March 1 2014 Ms Walls did not have the normal use of her mental or physical faculties by reason of the introduction of alcohol into her body
22 On March 1 2014 Ms Walls was an employee of Respondent
23 Petitioner had a prior violation ofsect l l6I(b)(l3) of the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code (the Code) which occurred on December 20 2013 Petitioner was assessed an administrative penalty which was paid on March 26 2014
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE 19
24 The violation which is the subject of this contested case was on March 1 2014 which is within 36 months of the prior violation on December 20 2013
25 The March 1 2014 violation was issued during an undercover investigation
26 On April 14 2015 Staff issued its Notice of Hearing which contained information regarding the date time and place of the hearing the matters asserted the statutes and rules involved and the legal authorities under which the hearing would be held
27 The hearing in this matter convened before Administrative Law Judge Robert F Jones Jr on October 22 2015 at the State Office of Administrative Hearings (SOAH) in Fort Worth Texas Sheila A Lindsey of the TABC Legal Services Division appeared and represented the Staff Respondent appeared by its attorney Roger Albright Evidence was received and the record closed that day
IV CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1 TABC has jurisdiction over this matter Tex Alco Bev Code (the Code) Chapter 5
2 SOAH has jurisdiction to conduct the administrative hearing in this matter and to issue a proposal for decision containing proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law Tex Govt Code Chapter 2003
3 Proper and timely notice of the hearing was provided to Respondent Tex Govt Code sect 2001051-052
4 Respondent violated sect l l6l(b)(l3) of the Code which authorizes the Commission to suspend a pe1mit if the pe1mittee was intoxicated on the licensed premises
5 A 36 day suspension of Respondents Mixed Beverage Permit MB753709 which includes a Mixed Beverage Late Hours Permit and a Beverage Cartage Permit or in the alternative a civil penalty of $300 per day for the recommended 36 days a total of $10800 is appropriate sectsect l l6l(b)(l3) and 1164 of the Code 16 Tex Admin Codesect 342
SIGNED December 17 2015
OBERT F JO ES JR ADMINISTRATI W JUDGE STATE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
STATE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS FT WORTH OFFICE
6777 Camp Bowie Blvd Suite 400 Fort Worth Texas 76116
Phone (817) 731-1733 Fax (512) 322-0473
SERVICE LIST
AGENCY Alcoholic Beverage Commission Texas (TABC)
STYLECASE 2345 MEACHAM LLC DBA BUCKS CABARET
SOAH DOCKET NUMBER 458-15-3318
REFERRING AGENCY CASE 624309
STATE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE
HEARINGS
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
ALJ ROBERT JONES
REPRESENTATIVEADDRESS
SHEILA LINDSEY - SANDERS STAFF ATTORNEY TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION 427 W 20TH STREET SUITE 600 HOUSTON TX 77008 (713) 426-7900 (PH) (713) 862-7478 (FAX)
PARTIES
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION
ROGER ALBRIGHT ATTORNEY AT LAW 3301 ELM STREET DALLAS TX 75226 (214) 939-9224 (PH) (214) 939-9229 (FAX) ralawrogeralbrightcom
ROGER ALBRIGHT
xc Docket Clerk State Office of Administrative Hearings Emily Helm GENERAL COUNSEL TABC Fax No 512-206-3226
Pagel of I
DOCKET NO 624309
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE
COMMISSION Petitioner
VS
2345 MEACHAM LLC
DBA BUCKrsquoS CABARET
Respondent
PERMIT MB753709 LB PE
TARRANT COUNTY TEXAS
(SOAH DOCKET NO 458-15-3318)
BEFORE THE TEXAS
ALCOHOLIC
BEVERAGE COMMISSION
ORDER
CAME ON FOR CONSIDERATION this 14th day of October 2016 the above-styled
and numbered cause
After proper notice was given this case was heard by the State Office of Administrative
Hearings (SOAH) with Administrative Law Judge Robert F Jones Jr presiding The hearing
convened on October 22 2015 and the SOAH record closed the same date The Administrative
Law Judge made and filed a Proposal for Decision containing Findings of Fact and Conclusions
of Law on December 17 2015 The Proposal for Decision was properly served on all parties
who were given an opportunity to file exceptions and replies as part of the record herein No
exceptions were filed
After review and due consideration of the Proposal for Decision I adopt the Findings of
Fact and Conclusions of Law of the Administrative Law Judge that are contained in the Proposal
for Decision and incorporate those Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law into this Order as if
such were fully set out and separately stated herein
All motions requests for entry of Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
and any other requests for general or specific relief submitted by any party are denied unless
specifically adopted herein
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the privileges granted by the Commission and the
activities authorized under the above permit by the Code will be SUSPENDED beginning at
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
__________________________________________
__________________________________________
1201 am on November 30th 2016 and shall remain suspended for THIRTY-SIX (36)
DAYS UNLESS a civil penalty in the amount of $1080000 is paid ON OR BEFORE
November 22nd 2016
This Order will become final and enforceable on the 15th day of November
2016 unless a Motion for Rehearing is filed by the 14th day of November 2016
SIGNED this the 14th day of October 2016 at Austin Texas
Sherry K-Cook Executive Director
Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that the persons listed below were served with a copy of this Order in the manner
indicated below on this the 14th day of October 2016
Martin Wilson Assistant General Counsel
Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission
Robert F Jones Jr
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
State Office of Administrative Hearings
300 W 15th
Street Suite 502
Austin TX 78701
VIA FACSIMILE (512) 322-2061
2345 Meacham LLC
dba Buckrsquos Cabaret
RESPONDENT
PO Box 271289
Flower Mound TX 75027
VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL CMRRR 70160600000046455820
Roger Albright
ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENT
3301 Elm Street
Dallas TX 75226
VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL CMRRR 70160600000046455837
Shelia Lindsey
ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER
TABC Legal Division
VIA E-MAIL Shelialindseytabctexasgov
__________________________________
__________________________________
__________________________________
__________________________________
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION
CIVIL PENALTY REMITTANCE
DOCKET NUMBER 624309 REGISTER NUMBER
NAME 2345 MEACHAM LLC
TRADENAME Buckrsquos Cabaret
ADDRESS PO Box 271289 Flower Mound Texas
DUE DATE November 22 2016
PERMITS OR LICENSES MB753709 LB PE
AMOUNT OF PENALTY $1080000
Amount remitted $____________________ Date remitted ____________________________
You may pay a civil penalty rather than have your permits and licenses suspended if an amount
for civil penalty is included on the attached order
YOU HAVE THE OPTION TO PAY THE CIVIL PENALTY ONLY IF YOU PAY THE
ENTIRE AMOUNT ON OR BEFORE THE DUE DATE AFTER THAT DATE YOUR
LICENSE OR PERMIT WILL BE SUSPENDED FOR THE TIME PERIOD STATED ON
THE ORDER
Mail this form with your payment to
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION
PO Box 13127 Austin Texas 78711
Overnight Delivery Address 5806 Mesa Dr Austin Texas 78731
You must pay by postal money order certified check or cashiers check No personal or
company check nor partial payment accepted Your payment will be returned if anything is
incorrect You must pay the entire amount of the penalty assessed
Attach this form and please make certain to include the Docket on your payment
Signature of Responsible Party
Street Address PO Box No
City State Zip Code
Area CodeTelephone No
Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2
DOCKET NO 624309
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE
COMMISSION Petitioner
sect
sect
sect
sect
VS sect
sect
sect
sect
2345 MEACHAM LLC
DBA BUCKrsquoS CABARET
Respondent
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
PERMIT MB753709 LB PE sect
sect
sect
TARRANT COUNTY TEXAS
(SOAH DOCKET NO 458-15-3318)
sect
sect
BEFORE THE TEXAS
BEVERAGE COMMISSION
ALCOHOLIC
ORDER DENYING M OTION FOR REHEARING
Page 1 of 3
CAME ON FOR CONSIDERATION this 1st day of December 2016 the above-styled
and numbered cause
On October 14 2016 an Order was issued in this cause suspending Respondents permits
for a period of 36 days unless a civil penalty in the amount of $10800 was paid A timely
Motion for RehearingReconsideration was filed by Respondent on November 11 2016 and a
Supplemental Motion for Rehearing was filed by Respondent on November 16 2016 Petitioner
filed a Response to Respondents Motion for RehearingReconsideration on November 22 2016
Having considered Respondents Motion for RehearingReconsideration
Respondents Supplemental Motion for Rehearing and Petitioners Response to Respondents
Motion for RehearingReconsideration Respondents Motion for RehearingReconsideration is
DENIED
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that IF THIS ORDER IS NOT APPEALED
WITHIN THE TIME ALLOWED BY ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CODE sect1167 the
privileges granted by the Commission and the activities authorized under the above permits by
the Code will be SUSPENDED beginning at 1201 am on January 25 2017 and shall remain
suspended for THIRTY SIX (36) CONSECUTIVE DAYS UNLESS a civil penalty in the
amount of $1080000 is paid in lieu of suspension ON OR BEFORE January 17 2017
__________________________________________
_________________________________________
IF THIS ORDER IS APPEALED AND THE DECISION IS AFFIRMED IT IS
ORDERED that the privileges granted by the Commission and the activities authorized under
the above permits by the Code will be SUSPENDED beginning at 1201 am on the fifteenth
(15th
) day following the date the decision is affirmed whether by Order or by operation of law
and shall remain suspended for THIRTY SIX (36) CONSECUTIVE DAYS UNLESS a civil
penalty in the amount of $1080000 is paid in lieu of suspension ON OR BEFORE the seventh
(7th
) day following the date the decision is affirmed whether by Order or by operation of law
SIGNED this the 1st day of December 2016 at Austin Texas
Sherry K-Cook Executive Director
Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that the persons listed below were served with a copy of this Order Denying
Motion for Rehearing in the manner indicated below on this the 1st day of December 2016
Martin Wilson Assistant General Counsel
Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission
Page 2 of 3
Robert F Jones Jr
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
State Office of Administrative Hearings
300 W 15th
Street Suite 502
Austin TX 78701
VIA FACSIMILE (512) 322-2061
2345 Meacham LLC
dba Buckrsquos Cabaret
RESPONDENT
PO Box 271289
Flower Mound TX 75027
VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL CMRRR 70160340000080983298
Roger Albright
ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENT
3301 Elm Street
Dallas TX 75226
VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL CMRRR70160340000080983281
Shelia Lindsey
ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER
TABC Legal Division
VIA E-MAIL Shelialindseytabctexasgov
Page 3 of 3
__________________________________
__________________________________
__________________________________
__________________________________
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION
CIVIL PENALTY REMITTANCE
DOCKET NUMBER 624309 REGISTER NUMBER
NAME 2345 Meacham LLC
TRADENAME Buckrsquos Cabaret
ADDRESS PO Box 271289 Flower Mound Texas
DUE DATE January 17 2017
PERMITS OR LICENSES MB753709 PE LB
AMOUNT OF PENALTY $1080000
Amount remitted $____________________ Date remitted ____________________________
You may pay a civil penalty rather than have your permits and licenses suspended if an amount
for civil penalty is included on the attached order
YOU HAVE THE OPTION TO PAY THE CIVIL PENALTY ONLY IF YOU PAY THE
ENTIRE AMOUNT ON OR BEFORE THE DUE DATE AFTER THAT DATE YOUR
LICENSE OR PERMIT WILL BE SUSPENDED FOR THE TIME PERIOD STATED ON
THE ORDER
Mail this form with your payment to
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION
PO Box 13127 Austin Texas 78711
Overnight Delivery Address 5806 Mesa Dr Austin Texas 78731
You must pay by postal money order certified check or cashiers check No personal or
company check nor partial payment accepted Your payment will be returned if anything is
incorrect You must pay the entire amount of the penalty assessed
Attach this form and please make certain to include the Docket on your payment
Signature of Responsible Party
Street Address PO Box No
City State Zip Code
Area CodeTelephone No
Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2
CAUSE NO 348-289708-16
2345 MEACHAM LLC DBA BUCKS CABARET
Plaintiff
v
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION
Defendant
sect IN THE DISTRICT COURT
348TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
TARRANT COUNTY TEXAS
sect sect sect sect sect sect sect sect sect
ORDER AFFIRMING TABC DECISION fllJ()1)1-j 13J
On tkis day came on to be heard the above-tyled and numbered cause
pursuant to Ch 2001 ofthe Texas Government Code (the Administrative Procedure
Act) and sect 1167 of the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code 2345 Meacham LLC
dba Bucks Cabaret and the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission appeared by
and through their attorneys of record and announced ready All matters of fact and
controversy were submitted The Court after reviewing the evidence and hearing
the arguments of counsel finds that the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission
Order of October 14 2016 is supported by substantial evidence
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED ADJUDGED and DECREED that the
Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commissions Order of October 14 2016 suspending
Plaintiffs Mixed Beverage Permit MB753709 and the associated Beverage Cartage
Permit and Mixed Beverage Late Hours Permit is supported by substantial
evidence and thus is AFFIRMED _1 L IJND Tltld1lt lJAS t-lltJ cflfAfl ltJr tlJ~
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED ADJUDGED and DECREED that the Plaintiff
shall take nothing by this suit and that Defendant shall be in all things discharged
ion
ON ALL SERVED VIAIE-MAILED - HAND DtLIVERY -MAIL
=----WHO 16 TO
_--13 1
SElVE COPIEIS ON gtLL OTHEN
and that the costs ofcourt are taxed against the party incurring same All other relief
not expressly granted herein is denied
This judgment is final disposes of all claims and parties and is appealable f-b
SIGNED and ENTERED this 3 day ofJanuary 2017 L
348TH DISTRICT COURT
2
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE 17
Respondent argued that the amount of civil penalty should be reduced upon a
consideration of the ameliorating circumstances concerning the violation29 The ameliorating
circumstances cited by Respondent are Respondents practices and policies described above
and the fact that Mr Wangler immediately removed Ms Walls from the dance floor when he
observed something wrong with her The Commission has stated that Texass policy is for
Neither the permit holder nor an agent servant or employee of the permit holder to be
intoxicated o the premises in the first place30 Moreover Respondents prior violation of
sect l l6l(b)(l3) is an aggravating circumstance under the same statute31 Respondent is not
entitled to a reduction in the proposed suspension or penalty
29 sect l l641(a)(3) of the Code sect J l64Jnotes that ameliorating circumstances include those enumerated in Section l l64(c) The circumstances listed in I l64(c) namely that the violation could not reasonably have been prevented by the permittee or licensee by the exercise of due diligence that the permittee or licensee was entrapped that an agent servant or employee of the permittee or licensee violated this code without the knowledge of the permittee or licensee that the permittee or licensee did not knowingly violate this code that the permittee or licensee has demonstrated good faith including the taking of actions to rectify the consequences of the violation and to deter future violations or (6) that the violation was a technical one have no factual support in the record 30 Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission Board Final Order TABC Docket No 599022 (SOAH Docket No 458shy11-3550) (January 18 2012) at 3 31 sect I I641(a)(4) ofthe Code
The ALJ recommends that Respondents permit be suspended for 36 days or in the
alternative Respondent be assessed a civil penalty of $300 per day for 36 days for a total penalty
of$10800
III FINDINGS OF FACT
I The Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission (TABC) issued Mixed Beverage Permit MB753709 which includes a Mixed Beverage Late Hours Permit and a Beverage Cartage Permit to Respondent 2345 Meacham LLC dba Buckss Cabaret
2 Respondents licensed premises are located at 2345 Meacham Boulevard Fort Worth Tarrant County Texas 76106
3 On March 1 2014 TABC Agent Denver Carleton led a squad of TABC agents namely Sergeant Charlotte Knox and agents Travis Shirley Charles Cayea and Christopher Nunnery in an undercover investigation of the Respondents premises
4 Agents Shirley and Cayea were the undercover team
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE 18
5 Agent Carleton Sergeant Knox and Agent Nunnery were the open team
6 Agents Shirley and Cayea entered Respondents premises at approximately 11 00 pm on March 1 2014
7 Kaitlyn Walls was a dancer at Respondents bar
8 Ms Walls was working that night beginning at approximately 700 pm
9 Ms Walls danced on the main stage and then on the smaller stages in rotation
10 Ms Walls approached a customer and sat next to him at the bar near the agents
11 Ms Walls and her barstool fell to the floor
12 Ms Walls had a glassy blank stare and disheveled hair
13 Ms Walls swayed while walking and ran into the door frame of the doorway leading to the clubs dancers dressing room
14 Agents Shirley and Cayea contacted the open team and informed them that they believed Ms Walls was intoxicated
15 The two agents sent the open team Ms Wallss description and her location in the dressing room by text message
16 Agents Shirley and Cayea left the club after the open team entered the club
17 Agent Nunnery came into close contact with Ms Walls
18 Ms Walls had slmTed speech was not aware of where her cell phone was even though she was holding it nearly fell down twice as she was dressing had glassy eyes swayed standing and lost her balance twice during field sobriety testing
19 Ms Walls admitted to drinking three alcoholic beverages
20 Ms Walls displayed physical and mental indications of intoxication
21 On March 1 2014 Ms Walls did not have the normal use of her mental or physical faculties by reason of the introduction of alcohol into her body
22 On March 1 2014 Ms Walls was an employee of Respondent
23 Petitioner had a prior violation ofsect l l6I(b)(l3) of the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code (the Code) which occurred on December 20 2013 Petitioner was assessed an administrative penalty which was paid on March 26 2014
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE 19
24 The violation which is the subject of this contested case was on March 1 2014 which is within 36 months of the prior violation on December 20 2013
25 The March 1 2014 violation was issued during an undercover investigation
26 On April 14 2015 Staff issued its Notice of Hearing which contained information regarding the date time and place of the hearing the matters asserted the statutes and rules involved and the legal authorities under which the hearing would be held
27 The hearing in this matter convened before Administrative Law Judge Robert F Jones Jr on October 22 2015 at the State Office of Administrative Hearings (SOAH) in Fort Worth Texas Sheila A Lindsey of the TABC Legal Services Division appeared and represented the Staff Respondent appeared by its attorney Roger Albright Evidence was received and the record closed that day
IV CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1 TABC has jurisdiction over this matter Tex Alco Bev Code (the Code) Chapter 5
2 SOAH has jurisdiction to conduct the administrative hearing in this matter and to issue a proposal for decision containing proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law Tex Govt Code Chapter 2003
3 Proper and timely notice of the hearing was provided to Respondent Tex Govt Code sect 2001051-052
4 Respondent violated sect l l6l(b)(l3) of the Code which authorizes the Commission to suspend a pe1mit if the pe1mittee was intoxicated on the licensed premises
5 A 36 day suspension of Respondents Mixed Beverage Permit MB753709 which includes a Mixed Beverage Late Hours Permit and a Beverage Cartage Permit or in the alternative a civil penalty of $300 per day for the recommended 36 days a total of $10800 is appropriate sectsect l l6l(b)(l3) and 1164 of the Code 16 Tex Admin Codesect 342
SIGNED December 17 2015
OBERT F JO ES JR ADMINISTRATI W JUDGE STATE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
STATE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS FT WORTH OFFICE
6777 Camp Bowie Blvd Suite 400 Fort Worth Texas 76116
Phone (817) 731-1733 Fax (512) 322-0473
SERVICE LIST
AGENCY Alcoholic Beverage Commission Texas (TABC)
STYLECASE 2345 MEACHAM LLC DBA BUCKS CABARET
SOAH DOCKET NUMBER 458-15-3318
REFERRING AGENCY CASE 624309
STATE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE
HEARINGS
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
ALJ ROBERT JONES
REPRESENTATIVEADDRESS
SHEILA LINDSEY - SANDERS STAFF ATTORNEY TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION 427 W 20TH STREET SUITE 600 HOUSTON TX 77008 (713) 426-7900 (PH) (713) 862-7478 (FAX)
PARTIES
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION
ROGER ALBRIGHT ATTORNEY AT LAW 3301 ELM STREET DALLAS TX 75226 (214) 939-9224 (PH) (214) 939-9229 (FAX) ralawrogeralbrightcom
ROGER ALBRIGHT
xc Docket Clerk State Office of Administrative Hearings Emily Helm GENERAL COUNSEL TABC Fax No 512-206-3226
Pagel of I
DOCKET NO 624309
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE
COMMISSION Petitioner
VS
2345 MEACHAM LLC
DBA BUCKrsquoS CABARET
Respondent
PERMIT MB753709 LB PE
TARRANT COUNTY TEXAS
(SOAH DOCKET NO 458-15-3318)
BEFORE THE TEXAS
ALCOHOLIC
BEVERAGE COMMISSION
ORDER
CAME ON FOR CONSIDERATION this 14th day of October 2016 the above-styled
and numbered cause
After proper notice was given this case was heard by the State Office of Administrative
Hearings (SOAH) with Administrative Law Judge Robert F Jones Jr presiding The hearing
convened on October 22 2015 and the SOAH record closed the same date The Administrative
Law Judge made and filed a Proposal for Decision containing Findings of Fact and Conclusions
of Law on December 17 2015 The Proposal for Decision was properly served on all parties
who were given an opportunity to file exceptions and replies as part of the record herein No
exceptions were filed
After review and due consideration of the Proposal for Decision I adopt the Findings of
Fact and Conclusions of Law of the Administrative Law Judge that are contained in the Proposal
for Decision and incorporate those Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law into this Order as if
such were fully set out and separately stated herein
All motions requests for entry of Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
and any other requests for general or specific relief submitted by any party are denied unless
specifically adopted herein
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the privileges granted by the Commission and the
activities authorized under the above permit by the Code will be SUSPENDED beginning at
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
__________________________________________
__________________________________________
1201 am on November 30th 2016 and shall remain suspended for THIRTY-SIX (36)
DAYS UNLESS a civil penalty in the amount of $1080000 is paid ON OR BEFORE
November 22nd 2016
This Order will become final and enforceable on the 15th day of November
2016 unless a Motion for Rehearing is filed by the 14th day of November 2016
SIGNED this the 14th day of October 2016 at Austin Texas
Sherry K-Cook Executive Director
Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that the persons listed below were served with a copy of this Order in the manner
indicated below on this the 14th day of October 2016
Martin Wilson Assistant General Counsel
Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission
Robert F Jones Jr
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
State Office of Administrative Hearings
300 W 15th
Street Suite 502
Austin TX 78701
VIA FACSIMILE (512) 322-2061
2345 Meacham LLC
dba Buckrsquos Cabaret
RESPONDENT
PO Box 271289
Flower Mound TX 75027
VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL CMRRR 70160600000046455820
Roger Albright
ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENT
3301 Elm Street
Dallas TX 75226
VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL CMRRR 70160600000046455837
Shelia Lindsey
ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER
TABC Legal Division
VIA E-MAIL Shelialindseytabctexasgov
__________________________________
__________________________________
__________________________________
__________________________________
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION
CIVIL PENALTY REMITTANCE
DOCKET NUMBER 624309 REGISTER NUMBER
NAME 2345 MEACHAM LLC
TRADENAME Buckrsquos Cabaret
ADDRESS PO Box 271289 Flower Mound Texas
DUE DATE November 22 2016
PERMITS OR LICENSES MB753709 LB PE
AMOUNT OF PENALTY $1080000
Amount remitted $____________________ Date remitted ____________________________
You may pay a civil penalty rather than have your permits and licenses suspended if an amount
for civil penalty is included on the attached order
YOU HAVE THE OPTION TO PAY THE CIVIL PENALTY ONLY IF YOU PAY THE
ENTIRE AMOUNT ON OR BEFORE THE DUE DATE AFTER THAT DATE YOUR
LICENSE OR PERMIT WILL BE SUSPENDED FOR THE TIME PERIOD STATED ON
THE ORDER
Mail this form with your payment to
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION
PO Box 13127 Austin Texas 78711
Overnight Delivery Address 5806 Mesa Dr Austin Texas 78731
You must pay by postal money order certified check or cashiers check No personal or
company check nor partial payment accepted Your payment will be returned if anything is
incorrect You must pay the entire amount of the penalty assessed
Attach this form and please make certain to include the Docket on your payment
Signature of Responsible Party
Street Address PO Box No
City State Zip Code
Area CodeTelephone No
Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2
DOCKET NO 624309
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE
COMMISSION Petitioner
sect
sect
sect
sect
VS sect
sect
sect
sect
2345 MEACHAM LLC
DBA BUCKrsquoS CABARET
Respondent
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
PERMIT MB753709 LB PE sect
sect
sect
TARRANT COUNTY TEXAS
(SOAH DOCKET NO 458-15-3318)
sect
sect
BEFORE THE TEXAS
BEVERAGE COMMISSION
ALCOHOLIC
ORDER DENYING M OTION FOR REHEARING
Page 1 of 3
CAME ON FOR CONSIDERATION this 1st day of December 2016 the above-styled
and numbered cause
On October 14 2016 an Order was issued in this cause suspending Respondents permits
for a period of 36 days unless a civil penalty in the amount of $10800 was paid A timely
Motion for RehearingReconsideration was filed by Respondent on November 11 2016 and a
Supplemental Motion for Rehearing was filed by Respondent on November 16 2016 Petitioner
filed a Response to Respondents Motion for RehearingReconsideration on November 22 2016
Having considered Respondents Motion for RehearingReconsideration
Respondents Supplemental Motion for Rehearing and Petitioners Response to Respondents
Motion for RehearingReconsideration Respondents Motion for RehearingReconsideration is
DENIED
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that IF THIS ORDER IS NOT APPEALED
WITHIN THE TIME ALLOWED BY ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CODE sect1167 the
privileges granted by the Commission and the activities authorized under the above permits by
the Code will be SUSPENDED beginning at 1201 am on January 25 2017 and shall remain
suspended for THIRTY SIX (36) CONSECUTIVE DAYS UNLESS a civil penalty in the
amount of $1080000 is paid in lieu of suspension ON OR BEFORE January 17 2017
__________________________________________
_________________________________________
IF THIS ORDER IS APPEALED AND THE DECISION IS AFFIRMED IT IS
ORDERED that the privileges granted by the Commission and the activities authorized under
the above permits by the Code will be SUSPENDED beginning at 1201 am on the fifteenth
(15th
) day following the date the decision is affirmed whether by Order or by operation of law
and shall remain suspended for THIRTY SIX (36) CONSECUTIVE DAYS UNLESS a civil
penalty in the amount of $1080000 is paid in lieu of suspension ON OR BEFORE the seventh
(7th
) day following the date the decision is affirmed whether by Order or by operation of law
SIGNED this the 1st day of December 2016 at Austin Texas
Sherry K-Cook Executive Director
Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that the persons listed below were served with a copy of this Order Denying
Motion for Rehearing in the manner indicated below on this the 1st day of December 2016
Martin Wilson Assistant General Counsel
Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission
Page 2 of 3
Robert F Jones Jr
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
State Office of Administrative Hearings
300 W 15th
Street Suite 502
Austin TX 78701
VIA FACSIMILE (512) 322-2061
2345 Meacham LLC
dba Buckrsquos Cabaret
RESPONDENT
PO Box 271289
Flower Mound TX 75027
VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL CMRRR 70160340000080983298
Roger Albright
ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENT
3301 Elm Street
Dallas TX 75226
VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL CMRRR70160340000080983281
Shelia Lindsey
ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER
TABC Legal Division
VIA E-MAIL Shelialindseytabctexasgov
Page 3 of 3
__________________________________
__________________________________
__________________________________
__________________________________
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION
CIVIL PENALTY REMITTANCE
DOCKET NUMBER 624309 REGISTER NUMBER
NAME 2345 Meacham LLC
TRADENAME Buckrsquos Cabaret
ADDRESS PO Box 271289 Flower Mound Texas
DUE DATE January 17 2017
PERMITS OR LICENSES MB753709 PE LB
AMOUNT OF PENALTY $1080000
Amount remitted $____________________ Date remitted ____________________________
You may pay a civil penalty rather than have your permits and licenses suspended if an amount
for civil penalty is included on the attached order
YOU HAVE THE OPTION TO PAY THE CIVIL PENALTY ONLY IF YOU PAY THE
ENTIRE AMOUNT ON OR BEFORE THE DUE DATE AFTER THAT DATE YOUR
LICENSE OR PERMIT WILL BE SUSPENDED FOR THE TIME PERIOD STATED ON
THE ORDER
Mail this form with your payment to
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION
PO Box 13127 Austin Texas 78711
Overnight Delivery Address 5806 Mesa Dr Austin Texas 78731
You must pay by postal money order certified check or cashiers check No personal or
company check nor partial payment accepted Your payment will be returned if anything is
incorrect You must pay the entire amount of the penalty assessed
Attach this form and please make certain to include the Docket on your payment
Signature of Responsible Party
Street Address PO Box No
City State Zip Code
Area CodeTelephone No
Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2
CAUSE NO 348-289708-16
2345 MEACHAM LLC DBA BUCKS CABARET
Plaintiff
v
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION
Defendant
sect IN THE DISTRICT COURT
348TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
TARRANT COUNTY TEXAS
sect sect sect sect sect sect sect sect sect
ORDER AFFIRMING TABC DECISION fllJ()1)1-j 13J
On tkis day came on to be heard the above-tyled and numbered cause
pursuant to Ch 2001 ofthe Texas Government Code (the Administrative Procedure
Act) and sect 1167 of the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code 2345 Meacham LLC
dba Bucks Cabaret and the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission appeared by
and through their attorneys of record and announced ready All matters of fact and
controversy were submitted The Court after reviewing the evidence and hearing
the arguments of counsel finds that the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission
Order of October 14 2016 is supported by substantial evidence
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED ADJUDGED and DECREED that the
Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commissions Order of October 14 2016 suspending
Plaintiffs Mixed Beverage Permit MB753709 and the associated Beverage Cartage
Permit and Mixed Beverage Late Hours Permit is supported by substantial
evidence and thus is AFFIRMED _1 L IJND Tltld1lt lJAS t-lltJ cflfAfl ltJr tlJ~
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED ADJUDGED and DECREED that the Plaintiff
shall take nothing by this suit and that Defendant shall be in all things discharged
ion
ON ALL SERVED VIAIE-MAILED - HAND DtLIVERY -MAIL
=----WHO 16 TO
_--13 1
SElVE COPIEIS ON gtLL OTHEN
and that the costs ofcourt are taxed against the party incurring same All other relief
not expressly granted herein is denied
This judgment is final disposes of all claims and parties and is appealable f-b
SIGNED and ENTERED this 3 day ofJanuary 2017 L
348TH DISTRICT COURT
2
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE 18
5 Agent Carleton Sergeant Knox and Agent Nunnery were the open team
6 Agents Shirley and Cayea entered Respondents premises at approximately 11 00 pm on March 1 2014
7 Kaitlyn Walls was a dancer at Respondents bar
8 Ms Walls was working that night beginning at approximately 700 pm
9 Ms Walls danced on the main stage and then on the smaller stages in rotation
10 Ms Walls approached a customer and sat next to him at the bar near the agents
11 Ms Walls and her barstool fell to the floor
12 Ms Walls had a glassy blank stare and disheveled hair
13 Ms Walls swayed while walking and ran into the door frame of the doorway leading to the clubs dancers dressing room
14 Agents Shirley and Cayea contacted the open team and informed them that they believed Ms Walls was intoxicated
15 The two agents sent the open team Ms Wallss description and her location in the dressing room by text message
16 Agents Shirley and Cayea left the club after the open team entered the club
17 Agent Nunnery came into close contact with Ms Walls
18 Ms Walls had slmTed speech was not aware of where her cell phone was even though she was holding it nearly fell down twice as she was dressing had glassy eyes swayed standing and lost her balance twice during field sobriety testing
19 Ms Walls admitted to drinking three alcoholic beverages
20 Ms Walls displayed physical and mental indications of intoxication
21 On March 1 2014 Ms Walls did not have the normal use of her mental or physical faculties by reason of the introduction of alcohol into her body
22 On March 1 2014 Ms Walls was an employee of Respondent
23 Petitioner had a prior violation ofsect l l6I(b)(l3) of the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code (the Code) which occurred on December 20 2013 Petitioner was assessed an administrative penalty which was paid on March 26 2014
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE 19
24 The violation which is the subject of this contested case was on March 1 2014 which is within 36 months of the prior violation on December 20 2013
25 The March 1 2014 violation was issued during an undercover investigation
26 On April 14 2015 Staff issued its Notice of Hearing which contained information regarding the date time and place of the hearing the matters asserted the statutes and rules involved and the legal authorities under which the hearing would be held
27 The hearing in this matter convened before Administrative Law Judge Robert F Jones Jr on October 22 2015 at the State Office of Administrative Hearings (SOAH) in Fort Worth Texas Sheila A Lindsey of the TABC Legal Services Division appeared and represented the Staff Respondent appeared by its attorney Roger Albright Evidence was received and the record closed that day
IV CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1 TABC has jurisdiction over this matter Tex Alco Bev Code (the Code) Chapter 5
2 SOAH has jurisdiction to conduct the administrative hearing in this matter and to issue a proposal for decision containing proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law Tex Govt Code Chapter 2003
3 Proper and timely notice of the hearing was provided to Respondent Tex Govt Code sect 2001051-052
4 Respondent violated sect l l6l(b)(l3) of the Code which authorizes the Commission to suspend a pe1mit if the pe1mittee was intoxicated on the licensed premises
5 A 36 day suspension of Respondents Mixed Beverage Permit MB753709 which includes a Mixed Beverage Late Hours Permit and a Beverage Cartage Permit or in the alternative a civil penalty of $300 per day for the recommended 36 days a total of $10800 is appropriate sectsect l l6l(b)(l3) and 1164 of the Code 16 Tex Admin Codesect 342
SIGNED December 17 2015
OBERT F JO ES JR ADMINISTRATI W JUDGE STATE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
STATE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS FT WORTH OFFICE
6777 Camp Bowie Blvd Suite 400 Fort Worth Texas 76116
Phone (817) 731-1733 Fax (512) 322-0473
SERVICE LIST
AGENCY Alcoholic Beverage Commission Texas (TABC)
STYLECASE 2345 MEACHAM LLC DBA BUCKS CABARET
SOAH DOCKET NUMBER 458-15-3318
REFERRING AGENCY CASE 624309
STATE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE
HEARINGS
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
ALJ ROBERT JONES
REPRESENTATIVEADDRESS
SHEILA LINDSEY - SANDERS STAFF ATTORNEY TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION 427 W 20TH STREET SUITE 600 HOUSTON TX 77008 (713) 426-7900 (PH) (713) 862-7478 (FAX)
PARTIES
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION
ROGER ALBRIGHT ATTORNEY AT LAW 3301 ELM STREET DALLAS TX 75226 (214) 939-9224 (PH) (214) 939-9229 (FAX) ralawrogeralbrightcom
ROGER ALBRIGHT
xc Docket Clerk State Office of Administrative Hearings Emily Helm GENERAL COUNSEL TABC Fax No 512-206-3226
Pagel of I
DOCKET NO 624309
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE
COMMISSION Petitioner
VS
2345 MEACHAM LLC
DBA BUCKrsquoS CABARET
Respondent
PERMIT MB753709 LB PE
TARRANT COUNTY TEXAS
(SOAH DOCKET NO 458-15-3318)
BEFORE THE TEXAS
ALCOHOLIC
BEVERAGE COMMISSION
ORDER
CAME ON FOR CONSIDERATION this 14th day of October 2016 the above-styled
and numbered cause
After proper notice was given this case was heard by the State Office of Administrative
Hearings (SOAH) with Administrative Law Judge Robert F Jones Jr presiding The hearing
convened on October 22 2015 and the SOAH record closed the same date The Administrative
Law Judge made and filed a Proposal for Decision containing Findings of Fact and Conclusions
of Law on December 17 2015 The Proposal for Decision was properly served on all parties
who were given an opportunity to file exceptions and replies as part of the record herein No
exceptions were filed
After review and due consideration of the Proposal for Decision I adopt the Findings of
Fact and Conclusions of Law of the Administrative Law Judge that are contained in the Proposal
for Decision and incorporate those Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law into this Order as if
such were fully set out and separately stated herein
All motions requests for entry of Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
and any other requests for general or specific relief submitted by any party are denied unless
specifically adopted herein
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the privileges granted by the Commission and the
activities authorized under the above permit by the Code will be SUSPENDED beginning at
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
__________________________________________
__________________________________________
1201 am on November 30th 2016 and shall remain suspended for THIRTY-SIX (36)
DAYS UNLESS a civil penalty in the amount of $1080000 is paid ON OR BEFORE
November 22nd 2016
This Order will become final and enforceable on the 15th day of November
2016 unless a Motion for Rehearing is filed by the 14th day of November 2016
SIGNED this the 14th day of October 2016 at Austin Texas
Sherry K-Cook Executive Director
Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that the persons listed below were served with a copy of this Order in the manner
indicated below on this the 14th day of October 2016
Martin Wilson Assistant General Counsel
Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission
Robert F Jones Jr
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
State Office of Administrative Hearings
300 W 15th
Street Suite 502
Austin TX 78701
VIA FACSIMILE (512) 322-2061
2345 Meacham LLC
dba Buckrsquos Cabaret
RESPONDENT
PO Box 271289
Flower Mound TX 75027
VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL CMRRR 70160600000046455820
Roger Albright
ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENT
3301 Elm Street
Dallas TX 75226
VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL CMRRR 70160600000046455837
Shelia Lindsey
ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER
TABC Legal Division
VIA E-MAIL Shelialindseytabctexasgov
__________________________________
__________________________________
__________________________________
__________________________________
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION
CIVIL PENALTY REMITTANCE
DOCKET NUMBER 624309 REGISTER NUMBER
NAME 2345 MEACHAM LLC
TRADENAME Buckrsquos Cabaret
ADDRESS PO Box 271289 Flower Mound Texas
DUE DATE November 22 2016
PERMITS OR LICENSES MB753709 LB PE
AMOUNT OF PENALTY $1080000
Amount remitted $____________________ Date remitted ____________________________
You may pay a civil penalty rather than have your permits and licenses suspended if an amount
for civil penalty is included on the attached order
YOU HAVE THE OPTION TO PAY THE CIVIL PENALTY ONLY IF YOU PAY THE
ENTIRE AMOUNT ON OR BEFORE THE DUE DATE AFTER THAT DATE YOUR
LICENSE OR PERMIT WILL BE SUSPENDED FOR THE TIME PERIOD STATED ON
THE ORDER
Mail this form with your payment to
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION
PO Box 13127 Austin Texas 78711
Overnight Delivery Address 5806 Mesa Dr Austin Texas 78731
You must pay by postal money order certified check or cashiers check No personal or
company check nor partial payment accepted Your payment will be returned if anything is
incorrect You must pay the entire amount of the penalty assessed
Attach this form and please make certain to include the Docket on your payment
Signature of Responsible Party
Street Address PO Box No
City State Zip Code
Area CodeTelephone No
Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2
DOCKET NO 624309
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE
COMMISSION Petitioner
sect
sect
sect
sect
VS sect
sect
sect
sect
2345 MEACHAM LLC
DBA BUCKrsquoS CABARET
Respondent
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
PERMIT MB753709 LB PE sect
sect
sect
TARRANT COUNTY TEXAS
(SOAH DOCKET NO 458-15-3318)
sect
sect
BEFORE THE TEXAS
BEVERAGE COMMISSION
ALCOHOLIC
ORDER DENYING M OTION FOR REHEARING
Page 1 of 3
CAME ON FOR CONSIDERATION this 1st day of December 2016 the above-styled
and numbered cause
On October 14 2016 an Order was issued in this cause suspending Respondents permits
for a period of 36 days unless a civil penalty in the amount of $10800 was paid A timely
Motion for RehearingReconsideration was filed by Respondent on November 11 2016 and a
Supplemental Motion for Rehearing was filed by Respondent on November 16 2016 Petitioner
filed a Response to Respondents Motion for RehearingReconsideration on November 22 2016
Having considered Respondents Motion for RehearingReconsideration
Respondents Supplemental Motion for Rehearing and Petitioners Response to Respondents
Motion for RehearingReconsideration Respondents Motion for RehearingReconsideration is
DENIED
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that IF THIS ORDER IS NOT APPEALED
WITHIN THE TIME ALLOWED BY ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CODE sect1167 the
privileges granted by the Commission and the activities authorized under the above permits by
the Code will be SUSPENDED beginning at 1201 am on January 25 2017 and shall remain
suspended for THIRTY SIX (36) CONSECUTIVE DAYS UNLESS a civil penalty in the
amount of $1080000 is paid in lieu of suspension ON OR BEFORE January 17 2017
__________________________________________
_________________________________________
IF THIS ORDER IS APPEALED AND THE DECISION IS AFFIRMED IT IS
ORDERED that the privileges granted by the Commission and the activities authorized under
the above permits by the Code will be SUSPENDED beginning at 1201 am on the fifteenth
(15th
) day following the date the decision is affirmed whether by Order or by operation of law
and shall remain suspended for THIRTY SIX (36) CONSECUTIVE DAYS UNLESS a civil
penalty in the amount of $1080000 is paid in lieu of suspension ON OR BEFORE the seventh
(7th
) day following the date the decision is affirmed whether by Order or by operation of law
SIGNED this the 1st day of December 2016 at Austin Texas
Sherry K-Cook Executive Director
Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that the persons listed below were served with a copy of this Order Denying
Motion for Rehearing in the manner indicated below on this the 1st day of December 2016
Martin Wilson Assistant General Counsel
Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission
Page 2 of 3
Robert F Jones Jr
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
State Office of Administrative Hearings
300 W 15th
Street Suite 502
Austin TX 78701
VIA FACSIMILE (512) 322-2061
2345 Meacham LLC
dba Buckrsquos Cabaret
RESPONDENT
PO Box 271289
Flower Mound TX 75027
VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL CMRRR 70160340000080983298
Roger Albright
ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENT
3301 Elm Street
Dallas TX 75226
VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL CMRRR70160340000080983281
Shelia Lindsey
ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER
TABC Legal Division
VIA E-MAIL Shelialindseytabctexasgov
Page 3 of 3
__________________________________
__________________________________
__________________________________
__________________________________
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION
CIVIL PENALTY REMITTANCE
DOCKET NUMBER 624309 REGISTER NUMBER
NAME 2345 Meacham LLC
TRADENAME Buckrsquos Cabaret
ADDRESS PO Box 271289 Flower Mound Texas
DUE DATE January 17 2017
PERMITS OR LICENSES MB753709 PE LB
AMOUNT OF PENALTY $1080000
Amount remitted $____________________ Date remitted ____________________________
You may pay a civil penalty rather than have your permits and licenses suspended if an amount
for civil penalty is included on the attached order
YOU HAVE THE OPTION TO PAY THE CIVIL PENALTY ONLY IF YOU PAY THE
ENTIRE AMOUNT ON OR BEFORE THE DUE DATE AFTER THAT DATE YOUR
LICENSE OR PERMIT WILL BE SUSPENDED FOR THE TIME PERIOD STATED ON
THE ORDER
Mail this form with your payment to
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION
PO Box 13127 Austin Texas 78711
Overnight Delivery Address 5806 Mesa Dr Austin Texas 78731
You must pay by postal money order certified check or cashiers check No personal or
company check nor partial payment accepted Your payment will be returned if anything is
incorrect You must pay the entire amount of the penalty assessed
Attach this form and please make certain to include the Docket on your payment
Signature of Responsible Party
Street Address PO Box No
City State Zip Code
Area CodeTelephone No
Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2
CAUSE NO 348-289708-16
2345 MEACHAM LLC DBA BUCKS CABARET
Plaintiff
v
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION
Defendant
sect IN THE DISTRICT COURT
348TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
TARRANT COUNTY TEXAS
sect sect sect sect sect sect sect sect sect
ORDER AFFIRMING TABC DECISION fllJ()1)1-j 13J
On tkis day came on to be heard the above-tyled and numbered cause
pursuant to Ch 2001 ofthe Texas Government Code (the Administrative Procedure
Act) and sect 1167 of the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code 2345 Meacham LLC
dba Bucks Cabaret and the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission appeared by
and through their attorneys of record and announced ready All matters of fact and
controversy were submitted The Court after reviewing the evidence and hearing
the arguments of counsel finds that the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission
Order of October 14 2016 is supported by substantial evidence
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED ADJUDGED and DECREED that the
Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commissions Order of October 14 2016 suspending
Plaintiffs Mixed Beverage Permit MB753709 and the associated Beverage Cartage
Permit and Mixed Beverage Late Hours Permit is supported by substantial
evidence and thus is AFFIRMED _1 L IJND Tltld1lt lJAS t-lltJ cflfAfl ltJr tlJ~
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED ADJUDGED and DECREED that the Plaintiff
shall take nothing by this suit and that Defendant shall be in all things discharged
ion
ON ALL SERVED VIAIE-MAILED - HAND DtLIVERY -MAIL
=----WHO 16 TO
_--13 1
SElVE COPIEIS ON gtLL OTHEN
and that the costs ofcourt are taxed against the party incurring same All other relief
not expressly granted herein is denied
This judgment is final disposes of all claims and parties and is appealable f-b
SIGNED and ENTERED this 3 day ofJanuary 2017 L
348TH DISTRICT COURT
2
DOCKET NO 458-15-3318 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PAGE 19
24 The violation which is the subject of this contested case was on March 1 2014 which is within 36 months of the prior violation on December 20 2013
25 The March 1 2014 violation was issued during an undercover investigation
26 On April 14 2015 Staff issued its Notice of Hearing which contained information regarding the date time and place of the hearing the matters asserted the statutes and rules involved and the legal authorities under which the hearing would be held
27 The hearing in this matter convened before Administrative Law Judge Robert F Jones Jr on October 22 2015 at the State Office of Administrative Hearings (SOAH) in Fort Worth Texas Sheila A Lindsey of the TABC Legal Services Division appeared and represented the Staff Respondent appeared by its attorney Roger Albright Evidence was received and the record closed that day
IV CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1 TABC has jurisdiction over this matter Tex Alco Bev Code (the Code) Chapter 5
2 SOAH has jurisdiction to conduct the administrative hearing in this matter and to issue a proposal for decision containing proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law Tex Govt Code Chapter 2003
3 Proper and timely notice of the hearing was provided to Respondent Tex Govt Code sect 2001051-052
4 Respondent violated sect l l6l(b)(l3) of the Code which authorizes the Commission to suspend a pe1mit if the pe1mittee was intoxicated on the licensed premises
5 A 36 day suspension of Respondents Mixed Beverage Permit MB753709 which includes a Mixed Beverage Late Hours Permit and a Beverage Cartage Permit or in the alternative a civil penalty of $300 per day for the recommended 36 days a total of $10800 is appropriate sectsect l l6l(b)(l3) and 1164 of the Code 16 Tex Admin Codesect 342
SIGNED December 17 2015
OBERT F JO ES JR ADMINISTRATI W JUDGE STATE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
STATE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS FT WORTH OFFICE
6777 Camp Bowie Blvd Suite 400 Fort Worth Texas 76116
Phone (817) 731-1733 Fax (512) 322-0473
SERVICE LIST
AGENCY Alcoholic Beverage Commission Texas (TABC)
STYLECASE 2345 MEACHAM LLC DBA BUCKS CABARET
SOAH DOCKET NUMBER 458-15-3318
REFERRING AGENCY CASE 624309
STATE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE
HEARINGS
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
ALJ ROBERT JONES
REPRESENTATIVEADDRESS
SHEILA LINDSEY - SANDERS STAFF ATTORNEY TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION 427 W 20TH STREET SUITE 600 HOUSTON TX 77008 (713) 426-7900 (PH) (713) 862-7478 (FAX)
PARTIES
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION
ROGER ALBRIGHT ATTORNEY AT LAW 3301 ELM STREET DALLAS TX 75226 (214) 939-9224 (PH) (214) 939-9229 (FAX) ralawrogeralbrightcom
ROGER ALBRIGHT
xc Docket Clerk State Office of Administrative Hearings Emily Helm GENERAL COUNSEL TABC Fax No 512-206-3226
Pagel of I
DOCKET NO 624309
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE
COMMISSION Petitioner
VS
2345 MEACHAM LLC
DBA BUCKrsquoS CABARET
Respondent
PERMIT MB753709 LB PE
TARRANT COUNTY TEXAS
(SOAH DOCKET NO 458-15-3318)
BEFORE THE TEXAS
ALCOHOLIC
BEVERAGE COMMISSION
ORDER
CAME ON FOR CONSIDERATION this 14th day of October 2016 the above-styled
and numbered cause
After proper notice was given this case was heard by the State Office of Administrative
Hearings (SOAH) with Administrative Law Judge Robert F Jones Jr presiding The hearing
convened on October 22 2015 and the SOAH record closed the same date The Administrative
Law Judge made and filed a Proposal for Decision containing Findings of Fact and Conclusions
of Law on December 17 2015 The Proposal for Decision was properly served on all parties
who were given an opportunity to file exceptions and replies as part of the record herein No
exceptions were filed
After review and due consideration of the Proposal for Decision I adopt the Findings of
Fact and Conclusions of Law of the Administrative Law Judge that are contained in the Proposal
for Decision and incorporate those Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law into this Order as if
such were fully set out and separately stated herein
All motions requests for entry of Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
and any other requests for general or specific relief submitted by any party are denied unless
specifically adopted herein
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the privileges granted by the Commission and the
activities authorized under the above permit by the Code will be SUSPENDED beginning at
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
__________________________________________
__________________________________________
1201 am on November 30th 2016 and shall remain suspended for THIRTY-SIX (36)
DAYS UNLESS a civil penalty in the amount of $1080000 is paid ON OR BEFORE
November 22nd 2016
This Order will become final and enforceable on the 15th day of November
2016 unless a Motion for Rehearing is filed by the 14th day of November 2016
SIGNED this the 14th day of October 2016 at Austin Texas
Sherry K-Cook Executive Director
Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that the persons listed below were served with a copy of this Order in the manner
indicated below on this the 14th day of October 2016
Martin Wilson Assistant General Counsel
Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission
Robert F Jones Jr
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
State Office of Administrative Hearings
300 W 15th
Street Suite 502
Austin TX 78701
VIA FACSIMILE (512) 322-2061
2345 Meacham LLC
dba Buckrsquos Cabaret
RESPONDENT
PO Box 271289
Flower Mound TX 75027
VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL CMRRR 70160600000046455820
Roger Albright
ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENT
3301 Elm Street
Dallas TX 75226
VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL CMRRR 70160600000046455837
Shelia Lindsey
ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER
TABC Legal Division
VIA E-MAIL Shelialindseytabctexasgov
__________________________________
__________________________________
__________________________________
__________________________________
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION
CIVIL PENALTY REMITTANCE
DOCKET NUMBER 624309 REGISTER NUMBER
NAME 2345 MEACHAM LLC
TRADENAME Buckrsquos Cabaret
ADDRESS PO Box 271289 Flower Mound Texas
DUE DATE November 22 2016
PERMITS OR LICENSES MB753709 LB PE
AMOUNT OF PENALTY $1080000
Amount remitted $____________________ Date remitted ____________________________
You may pay a civil penalty rather than have your permits and licenses suspended if an amount
for civil penalty is included on the attached order
YOU HAVE THE OPTION TO PAY THE CIVIL PENALTY ONLY IF YOU PAY THE
ENTIRE AMOUNT ON OR BEFORE THE DUE DATE AFTER THAT DATE YOUR
LICENSE OR PERMIT WILL BE SUSPENDED FOR THE TIME PERIOD STATED ON
THE ORDER
Mail this form with your payment to
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION
PO Box 13127 Austin Texas 78711
Overnight Delivery Address 5806 Mesa Dr Austin Texas 78731
You must pay by postal money order certified check or cashiers check No personal or
company check nor partial payment accepted Your payment will be returned if anything is
incorrect You must pay the entire amount of the penalty assessed
Attach this form and please make certain to include the Docket on your payment
Signature of Responsible Party
Street Address PO Box No
City State Zip Code
Area CodeTelephone No
Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2
DOCKET NO 624309
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE
COMMISSION Petitioner
sect
sect
sect
sect
VS sect
sect
sect
sect
2345 MEACHAM LLC
DBA BUCKrsquoS CABARET
Respondent
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
PERMIT MB753709 LB PE sect
sect
sect
TARRANT COUNTY TEXAS
(SOAH DOCKET NO 458-15-3318)
sect
sect
BEFORE THE TEXAS
BEVERAGE COMMISSION
ALCOHOLIC
ORDER DENYING M OTION FOR REHEARING
Page 1 of 3
CAME ON FOR CONSIDERATION this 1st day of December 2016 the above-styled
and numbered cause
On October 14 2016 an Order was issued in this cause suspending Respondents permits
for a period of 36 days unless a civil penalty in the amount of $10800 was paid A timely
Motion for RehearingReconsideration was filed by Respondent on November 11 2016 and a
Supplemental Motion for Rehearing was filed by Respondent on November 16 2016 Petitioner
filed a Response to Respondents Motion for RehearingReconsideration on November 22 2016
Having considered Respondents Motion for RehearingReconsideration
Respondents Supplemental Motion for Rehearing and Petitioners Response to Respondents
Motion for RehearingReconsideration Respondents Motion for RehearingReconsideration is
DENIED
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that IF THIS ORDER IS NOT APPEALED
WITHIN THE TIME ALLOWED BY ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CODE sect1167 the
privileges granted by the Commission and the activities authorized under the above permits by
the Code will be SUSPENDED beginning at 1201 am on January 25 2017 and shall remain
suspended for THIRTY SIX (36) CONSECUTIVE DAYS UNLESS a civil penalty in the
amount of $1080000 is paid in lieu of suspension ON OR BEFORE January 17 2017
__________________________________________
_________________________________________
IF THIS ORDER IS APPEALED AND THE DECISION IS AFFIRMED IT IS
ORDERED that the privileges granted by the Commission and the activities authorized under
the above permits by the Code will be SUSPENDED beginning at 1201 am on the fifteenth
(15th
) day following the date the decision is affirmed whether by Order or by operation of law
and shall remain suspended for THIRTY SIX (36) CONSECUTIVE DAYS UNLESS a civil
penalty in the amount of $1080000 is paid in lieu of suspension ON OR BEFORE the seventh
(7th
) day following the date the decision is affirmed whether by Order or by operation of law
SIGNED this the 1st day of December 2016 at Austin Texas
Sherry K-Cook Executive Director
Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that the persons listed below were served with a copy of this Order Denying
Motion for Rehearing in the manner indicated below on this the 1st day of December 2016
Martin Wilson Assistant General Counsel
Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission
Page 2 of 3
Robert F Jones Jr
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
State Office of Administrative Hearings
300 W 15th
Street Suite 502
Austin TX 78701
VIA FACSIMILE (512) 322-2061
2345 Meacham LLC
dba Buckrsquos Cabaret
RESPONDENT
PO Box 271289
Flower Mound TX 75027
VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL CMRRR 70160340000080983298
Roger Albright
ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENT
3301 Elm Street
Dallas TX 75226
VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL CMRRR70160340000080983281
Shelia Lindsey
ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER
TABC Legal Division
VIA E-MAIL Shelialindseytabctexasgov
Page 3 of 3
__________________________________
__________________________________
__________________________________
__________________________________
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION
CIVIL PENALTY REMITTANCE
DOCKET NUMBER 624309 REGISTER NUMBER
NAME 2345 Meacham LLC
TRADENAME Buckrsquos Cabaret
ADDRESS PO Box 271289 Flower Mound Texas
DUE DATE January 17 2017
PERMITS OR LICENSES MB753709 PE LB
AMOUNT OF PENALTY $1080000
Amount remitted $____________________ Date remitted ____________________________
You may pay a civil penalty rather than have your permits and licenses suspended if an amount
for civil penalty is included on the attached order
YOU HAVE THE OPTION TO PAY THE CIVIL PENALTY ONLY IF YOU PAY THE
ENTIRE AMOUNT ON OR BEFORE THE DUE DATE AFTER THAT DATE YOUR
LICENSE OR PERMIT WILL BE SUSPENDED FOR THE TIME PERIOD STATED ON
THE ORDER
Mail this form with your payment to
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION
PO Box 13127 Austin Texas 78711
Overnight Delivery Address 5806 Mesa Dr Austin Texas 78731
You must pay by postal money order certified check or cashiers check No personal or
company check nor partial payment accepted Your payment will be returned if anything is
incorrect You must pay the entire amount of the penalty assessed
Attach this form and please make certain to include the Docket on your payment
Signature of Responsible Party
Street Address PO Box No
City State Zip Code
Area CodeTelephone No
Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2
CAUSE NO 348-289708-16
2345 MEACHAM LLC DBA BUCKS CABARET
Plaintiff
v
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION
Defendant
sect IN THE DISTRICT COURT
348TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
TARRANT COUNTY TEXAS
sect sect sect sect sect sect sect sect sect
ORDER AFFIRMING TABC DECISION fllJ()1)1-j 13J
On tkis day came on to be heard the above-tyled and numbered cause
pursuant to Ch 2001 ofthe Texas Government Code (the Administrative Procedure
Act) and sect 1167 of the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code 2345 Meacham LLC
dba Bucks Cabaret and the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission appeared by
and through their attorneys of record and announced ready All matters of fact and
controversy were submitted The Court after reviewing the evidence and hearing
the arguments of counsel finds that the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission
Order of October 14 2016 is supported by substantial evidence
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED ADJUDGED and DECREED that the
Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commissions Order of October 14 2016 suspending
Plaintiffs Mixed Beverage Permit MB753709 and the associated Beverage Cartage
Permit and Mixed Beverage Late Hours Permit is supported by substantial
evidence and thus is AFFIRMED _1 L IJND Tltld1lt lJAS t-lltJ cflfAfl ltJr tlJ~
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED ADJUDGED and DECREED that the Plaintiff
shall take nothing by this suit and that Defendant shall be in all things discharged
ion
ON ALL SERVED VIAIE-MAILED - HAND DtLIVERY -MAIL
=----WHO 16 TO
_--13 1
SElVE COPIEIS ON gtLL OTHEN
and that the costs ofcourt are taxed against the party incurring same All other relief
not expressly granted herein is denied
This judgment is final disposes of all claims and parties and is appealable f-b
SIGNED and ENTERED this 3 day ofJanuary 2017 L
348TH DISTRICT COURT
2
STATE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS FT WORTH OFFICE
6777 Camp Bowie Blvd Suite 400 Fort Worth Texas 76116
Phone (817) 731-1733 Fax (512) 322-0473
SERVICE LIST
AGENCY Alcoholic Beverage Commission Texas (TABC)
STYLECASE 2345 MEACHAM LLC DBA BUCKS CABARET
SOAH DOCKET NUMBER 458-15-3318
REFERRING AGENCY CASE 624309
STATE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE
HEARINGS
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
ALJ ROBERT JONES
REPRESENTATIVEADDRESS
SHEILA LINDSEY - SANDERS STAFF ATTORNEY TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION 427 W 20TH STREET SUITE 600 HOUSTON TX 77008 (713) 426-7900 (PH) (713) 862-7478 (FAX)
PARTIES
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION
ROGER ALBRIGHT ATTORNEY AT LAW 3301 ELM STREET DALLAS TX 75226 (214) 939-9224 (PH) (214) 939-9229 (FAX) ralawrogeralbrightcom
ROGER ALBRIGHT
xc Docket Clerk State Office of Administrative Hearings Emily Helm GENERAL COUNSEL TABC Fax No 512-206-3226
Pagel of I
DOCKET NO 624309
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE
COMMISSION Petitioner
VS
2345 MEACHAM LLC
DBA BUCKrsquoS CABARET
Respondent
PERMIT MB753709 LB PE
TARRANT COUNTY TEXAS
(SOAH DOCKET NO 458-15-3318)
BEFORE THE TEXAS
ALCOHOLIC
BEVERAGE COMMISSION
ORDER
CAME ON FOR CONSIDERATION this 14th day of October 2016 the above-styled
and numbered cause
After proper notice was given this case was heard by the State Office of Administrative
Hearings (SOAH) with Administrative Law Judge Robert F Jones Jr presiding The hearing
convened on October 22 2015 and the SOAH record closed the same date The Administrative
Law Judge made and filed a Proposal for Decision containing Findings of Fact and Conclusions
of Law on December 17 2015 The Proposal for Decision was properly served on all parties
who were given an opportunity to file exceptions and replies as part of the record herein No
exceptions were filed
After review and due consideration of the Proposal for Decision I adopt the Findings of
Fact and Conclusions of Law of the Administrative Law Judge that are contained in the Proposal
for Decision and incorporate those Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law into this Order as if
such were fully set out and separately stated herein
All motions requests for entry of Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
and any other requests for general or specific relief submitted by any party are denied unless
specifically adopted herein
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the privileges granted by the Commission and the
activities authorized under the above permit by the Code will be SUSPENDED beginning at
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
__________________________________________
__________________________________________
1201 am on November 30th 2016 and shall remain suspended for THIRTY-SIX (36)
DAYS UNLESS a civil penalty in the amount of $1080000 is paid ON OR BEFORE
November 22nd 2016
This Order will become final and enforceable on the 15th day of November
2016 unless a Motion for Rehearing is filed by the 14th day of November 2016
SIGNED this the 14th day of October 2016 at Austin Texas
Sherry K-Cook Executive Director
Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that the persons listed below were served with a copy of this Order in the manner
indicated below on this the 14th day of October 2016
Martin Wilson Assistant General Counsel
Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission
Robert F Jones Jr
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
State Office of Administrative Hearings
300 W 15th
Street Suite 502
Austin TX 78701
VIA FACSIMILE (512) 322-2061
2345 Meacham LLC
dba Buckrsquos Cabaret
RESPONDENT
PO Box 271289
Flower Mound TX 75027
VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL CMRRR 70160600000046455820
Roger Albright
ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENT
3301 Elm Street
Dallas TX 75226
VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL CMRRR 70160600000046455837
Shelia Lindsey
ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER
TABC Legal Division
VIA E-MAIL Shelialindseytabctexasgov
__________________________________
__________________________________
__________________________________
__________________________________
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION
CIVIL PENALTY REMITTANCE
DOCKET NUMBER 624309 REGISTER NUMBER
NAME 2345 MEACHAM LLC
TRADENAME Buckrsquos Cabaret
ADDRESS PO Box 271289 Flower Mound Texas
DUE DATE November 22 2016
PERMITS OR LICENSES MB753709 LB PE
AMOUNT OF PENALTY $1080000
Amount remitted $____________________ Date remitted ____________________________
You may pay a civil penalty rather than have your permits and licenses suspended if an amount
for civil penalty is included on the attached order
YOU HAVE THE OPTION TO PAY THE CIVIL PENALTY ONLY IF YOU PAY THE
ENTIRE AMOUNT ON OR BEFORE THE DUE DATE AFTER THAT DATE YOUR
LICENSE OR PERMIT WILL BE SUSPENDED FOR THE TIME PERIOD STATED ON
THE ORDER
Mail this form with your payment to
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION
PO Box 13127 Austin Texas 78711
Overnight Delivery Address 5806 Mesa Dr Austin Texas 78731
You must pay by postal money order certified check or cashiers check No personal or
company check nor partial payment accepted Your payment will be returned if anything is
incorrect You must pay the entire amount of the penalty assessed
Attach this form and please make certain to include the Docket on your payment
Signature of Responsible Party
Street Address PO Box No
City State Zip Code
Area CodeTelephone No
Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2
DOCKET NO 624309
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE
COMMISSION Petitioner
sect
sect
sect
sect
VS sect
sect
sect
sect
2345 MEACHAM LLC
DBA BUCKrsquoS CABARET
Respondent
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
PERMIT MB753709 LB PE sect
sect
sect
TARRANT COUNTY TEXAS
(SOAH DOCKET NO 458-15-3318)
sect
sect
BEFORE THE TEXAS
BEVERAGE COMMISSION
ALCOHOLIC
ORDER DENYING M OTION FOR REHEARING
Page 1 of 3
CAME ON FOR CONSIDERATION this 1st day of December 2016 the above-styled
and numbered cause
On October 14 2016 an Order was issued in this cause suspending Respondents permits
for a period of 36 days unless a civil penalty in the amount of $10800 was paid A timely
Motion for RehearingReconsideration was filed by Respondent on November 11 2016 and a
Supplemental Motion for Rehearing was filed by Respondent on November 16 2016 Petitioner
filed a Response to Respondents Motion for RehearingReconsideration on November 22 2016
Having considered Respondents Motion for RehearingReconsideration
Respondents Supplemental Motion for Rehearing and Petitioners Response to Respondents
Motion for RehearingReconsideration Respondents Motion for RehearingReconsideration is
DENIED
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that IF THIS ORDER IS NOT APPEALED
WITHIN THE TIME ALLOWED BY ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CODE sect1167 the
privileges granted by the Commission and the activities authorized under the above permits by
the Code will be SUSPENDED beginning at 1201 am on January 25 2017 and shall remain
suspended for THIRTY SIX (36) CONSECUTIVE DAYS UNLESS a civil penalty in the
amount of $1080000 is paid in lieu of suspension ON OR BEFORE January 17 2017
__________________________________________
_________________________________________
IF THIS ORDER IS APPEALED AND THE DECISION IS AFFIRMED IT IS
ORDERED that the privileges granted by the Commission and the activities authorized under
the above permits by the Code will be SUSPENDED beginning at 1201 am on the fifteenth
(15th
) day following the date the decision is affirmed whether by Order or by operation of law
and shall remain suspended for THIRTY SIX (36) CONSECUTIVE DAYS UNLESS a civil
penalty in the amount of $1080000 is paid in lieu of suspension ON OR BEFORE the seventh
(7th
) day following the date the decision is affirmed whether by Order or by operation of law
SIGNED this the 1st day of December 2016 at Austin Texas
Sherry K-Cook Executive Director
Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that the persons listed below were served with a copy of this Order Denying
Motion for Rehearing in the manner indicated below on this the 1st day of December 2016
Martin Wilson Assistant General Counsel
Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission
Page 2 of 3
Robert F Jones Jr
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
State Office of Administrative Hearings
300 W 15th
Street Suite 502
Austin TX 78701
VIA FACSIMILE (512) 322-2061
2345 Meacham LLC
dba Buckrsquos Cabaret
RESPONDENT
PO Box 271289
Flower Mound TX 75027
VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL CMRRR 70160340000080983298
Roger Albright
ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENT
3301 Elm Street
Dallas TX 75226
VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL CMRRR70160340000080983281
Shelia Lindsey
ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER
TABC Legal Division
VIA E-MAIL Shelialindseytabctexasgov
Page 3 of 3
__________________________________
__________________________________
__________________________________
__________________________________
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION
CIVIL PENALTY REMITTANCE
DOCKET NUMBER 624309 REGISTER NUMBER
NAME 2345 Meacham LLC
TRADENAME Buckrsquos Cabaret
ADDRESS PO Box 271289 Flower Mound Texas
DUE DATE January 17 2017
PERMITS OR LICENSES MB753709 PE LB
AMOUNT OF PENALTY $1080000
Amount remitted $____________________ Date remitted ____________________________
You may pay a civil penalty rather than have your permits and licenses suspended if an amount
for civil penalty is included on the attached order
YOU HAVE THE OPTION TO PAY THE CIVIL PENALTY ONLY IF YOU PAY THE
ENTIRE AMOUNT ON OR BEFORE THE DUE DATE AFTER THAT DATE YOUR
LICENSE OR PERMIT WILL BE SUSPENDED FOR THE TIME PERIOD STATED ON
THE ORDER
Mail this form with your payment to
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION
PO Box 13127 Austin Texas 78711
Overnight Delivery Address 5806 Mesa Dr Austin Texas 78731
You must pay by postal money order certified check or cashiers check No personal or
company check nor partial payment accepted Your payment will be returned if anything is
incorrect You must pay the entire amount of the penalty assessed
Attach this form and please make certain to include the Docket on your payment
Signature of Responsible Party
Street Address PO Box No
City State Zip Code
Area CodeTelephone No
Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2
CAUSE NO 348-289708-16
2345 MEACHAM LLC DBA BUCKS CABARET
Plaintiff
v
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION
Defendant
sect IN THE DISTRICT COURT
348TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
TARRANT COUNTY TEXAS
sect sect sect sect sect sect sect sect sect
ORDER AFFIRMING TABC DECISION fllJ()1)1-j 13J
On tkis day came on to be heard the above-tyled and numbered cause
pursuant to Ch 2001 ofthe Texas Government Code (the Administrative Procedure
Act) and sect 1167 of the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code 2345 Meacham LLC
dba Bucks Cabaret and the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission appeared by
and through their attorneys of record and announced ready All matters of fact and
controversy were submitted The Court after reviewing the evidence and hearing
the arguments of counsel finds that the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission
Order of October 14 2016 is supported by substantial evidence
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED ADJUDGED and DECREED that the
Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commissions Order of October 14 2016 suspending
Plaintiffs Mixed Beverage Permit MB753709 and the associated Beverage Cartage
Permit and Mixed Beverage Late Hours Permit is supported by substantial
evidence and thus is AFFIRMED _1 L IJND Tltld1lt lJAS t-lltJ cflfAfl ltJr tlJ~
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED ADJUDGED and DECREED that the Plaintiff
shall take nothing by this suit and that Defendant shall be in all things discharged
ion
ON ALL SERVED VIAIE-MAILED - HAND DtLIVERY -MAIL
=----WHO 16 TO
_--13 1
SElVE COPIEIS ON gtLL OTHEN
and that the costs ofcourt are taxed against the party incurring same All other relief
not expressly granted herein is denied
This judgment is final disposes of all claims and parties and is appealable f-b
SIGNED and ENTERED this 3 day ofJanuary 2017 L
348TH DISTRICT COURT
2
DOCKET NO 624309
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE
COMMISSION Petitioner
VS
2345 MEACHAM LLC
DBA BUCKrsquoS CABARET
Respondent
PERMIT MB753709 LB PE
TARRANT COUNTY TEXAS
(SOAH DOCKET NO 458-15-3318)
BEFORE THE TEXAS
ALCOHOLIC
BEVERAGE COMMISSION
ORDER
CAME ON FOR CONSIDERATION this 14th day of October 2016 the above-styled
and numbered cause
After proper notice was given this case was heard by the State Office of Administrative
Hearings (SOAH) with Administrative Law Judge Robert F Jones Jr presiding The hearing
convened on October 22 2015 and the SOAH record closed the same date The Administrative
Law Judge made and filed a Proposal for Decision containing Findings of Fact and Conclusions
of Law on December 17 2015 The Proposal for Decision was properly served on all parties
who were given an opportunity to file exceptions and replies as part of the record herein No
exceptions were filed
After review and due consideration of the Proposal for Decision I adopt the Findings of
Fact and Conclusions of Law of the Administrative Law Judge that are contained in the Proposal
for Decision and incorporate those Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law into this Order as if
such were fully set out and separately stated herein
All motions requests for entry of Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
and any other requests for general or specific relief submitted by any party are denied unless
specifically adopted herein
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the privileges granted by the Commission and the
activities authorized under the above permit by the Code will be SUSPENDED beginning at
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
__________________________________________
__________________________________________
1201 am on November 30th 2016 and shall remain suspended for THIRTY-SIX (36)
DAYS UNLESS a civil penalty in the amount of $1080000 is paid ON OR BEFORE
November 22nd 2016
This Order will become final and enforceable on the 15th day of November
2016 unless a Motion for Rehearing is filed by the 14th day of November 2016
SIGNED this the 14th day of October 2016 at Austin Texas
Sherry K-Cook Executive Director
Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that the persons listed below were served with a copy of this Order in the manner
indicated below on this the 14th day of October 2016
Martin Wilson Assistant General Counsel
Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission
Robert F Jones Jr
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
State Office of Administrative Hearings
300 W 15th
Street Suite 502
Austin TX 78701
VIA FACSIMILE (512) 322-2061
2345 Meacham LLC
dba Buckrsquos Cabaret
RESPONDENT
PO Box 271289
Flower Mound TX 75027
VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL CMRRR 70160600000046455820
Roger Albright
ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENT
3301 Elm Street
Dallas TX 75226
VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL CMRRR 70160600000046455837
Shelia Lindsey
ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER
TABC Legal Division
VIA E-MAIL Shelialindseytabctexasgov
__________________________________
__________________________________
__________________________________
__________________________________
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION
CIVIL PENALTY REMITTANCE
DOCKET NUMBER 624309 REGISTER NUMBER
NAME 2345 MEACHAM LLC
TRADENAME Buckrsquos Cabaret
ADDRESS PO Box 271289 Flower Mound Texas
DUE DATE November 22 2016
PERMITS OR LICENSES MB753709 LB PE
AMOUNT OF PENALTY $1080000
Amount remitted $____________________ Date remitted ____________________________
You may pay a civil penalty rather than have your permits and licenses suspended if an amount
for civil penalty is included on the attached order
YOU HAVE THE OPTION TO PAY THE CIVIL PENALTY ONLY IF YOU PAY THE
ENTIRE AMOUNT ON OR BEFORE THE DUE DATE AFTER THAT DATE YOUR
LICENSE OR PERMIT WILL BE SUSPENDED FOR THE TIME PERIOD STATED ON
THE ORDER
Mail this form with your payment to
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION
PO Box 13127 Austin Texas 78711
Overnight Delivery Address 5806 Mesa Dr Austin Texas 78731
You must pay by postal money order certified check or cashiers check No personal or
company check nor partial payment accepted Your payment will be returned if anything is
incorrect You must pay the entire amount of the penalty assessed
Attach this form and please make certain to include the Docket on your payment
Signature of Responsible Party
Street Address PO Box No
City State Zip Code
Area CodeTelephone No
Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2
DOCKET NO 624309
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE
COMMISSION Petitioner
sect
sect
sect
sect
VS sect
sect
sect
sect
2345 MEACHAM LLC
DBA BUCKrsquoS CABARET
Respondent
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
PERMIT MB753709 LB PE sect
sect
sect
TARRANT COUNTY TEXAS
(SOAH DOCKET NO 458-15-3318)
sect
sect
BEFORE THE TEXAS
BEVERAGE COMMISSION
ALCOHOLIC
ORDER DENYING M OTION FOR REHEARING
Page 1 of 3
CAME ON FOR CONSIDERATION this 1st day of December 2016 the above-styled
and numbered cause
On October 14 2016 an Order was issued in this cause suspending Respondents permits
for a period of 36 days unless a civil penalty in the amount of $10800 was paid A timely
Motion for RehearingReconsideration was filed by Respondent on November 11 2016 and a
Supplemental Motion for Rehearing was filed by Respondent on November 16 2016 Petitioner
filed a Response to Respondents Motion for RehearingReconsideration on November 22 2016
Having considered Respondents Motion for RehearingReconsideration
Respondents Supplemental Motion for Rehearing and Petitioners Response to Respondents
Motion for RehearingReconsideration Respondents Motion for RehearingReconsideration is
DENIED
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that IF THIS ORDER IS NOT APPEALED
WITHIN THE TIME ALLOWED BY ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CODE sect1167 the
privileges granted by the Commission and the activities authorized under the above permits by
the Code will be SUSPENDED beginning at 1201 am on January 25 2017 and shall remain
suspended for THIRTY SIX (36) CONSECUTIVE DAYS UNLESS a civil penalty in the
amount of $1080000 is paid in lieu of suspension ON OR BEFORE January 17 2017
__________________________________________
_________________________________________
IF THIS ORDER IS APPEALED AND THE DECISION IS AFFIRMED IT IS
ORDERED that the privileges granted by the Commission and the activities authorized under
the above permits by the Code will be SUSPENDED beginning at 1201 am on the fifteenth
(15th
) day following the date the decision is affirmed whether by Order or by operation of law
and shall remain suspended for THIRTY SIX (36) CONSECUTIVE DAYS UNLESS a civil
penalty in the amount of $1080000 is paid in lieu of suspension ON OR BEFORE the seventh
(7th
) day following the date the decision is affirmed whether by Order or by operation of law
SIGNED this the 1st day of December 2016 at Austin Texas
Sherry K-Cook Executive Director
Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that the persons listed below were served with a copy of this Order Denying
Motion for Rehearing in the manner indicated below on this the 1st day of December 2016
Martin Wilson Assistant General Counsel
Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission
Page 2 of 3
Robert F Jones Jr
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
State Office of Administrative Hearings
300 W 15th
Street Suite 502
Austin TX 78701
VIA FACSIMILE (512) 322-2061
2345 Meacham LLC
dba Buckrsquos Cabaret
RESPONDENT
PO Box 271289
Flower Mound TX 75027
VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL CMRRR 70160340000080983298
Roger Albright
ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENT
3301 Elm Street
Dallas TX 75226
VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL CMRRR70160340000080983281
Shelia Lindsey
ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER
TABC Legal Division
VIA E-MAIL Shelialindseytabctexasgov
Page 3 of 3
__________________________________
__________________________________
__________________________________
__________________________________
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION
CIVIL PENALTY REMITTANCE
DOCKET NUMBER 624309 REGISTER NUMBER
NAME 2345 Meacham LLC
TRADENAME Buckrsquos Cabaret
ADDRESS PO Box 271289 Flower Mound Texas
DUE DATE January 17 2017
PERMITS OR LICENSES MB753709 PE LB
AMOUNT OF PENALTY $1080000
Amount remitted $____________________ Date remitted ____________________________
You may pay a civil penalty rather than have your permits and licenses suspended if an amount
for civil penalty is included on the attached order
YOU HAVE THE OPTION TO PAY THE CIVIL PENALTY ONLY IF YOU PAY THE
ENTIRE AMOUNT ON OR BEFORE THE DUE DATE AFTER THAT DATE YOUR
LICENSE OR PERMIT WILL BE SUSPENDED FOR THE TIME PERIOD STATED ON
THE ORDER
Mail this form with your payment to
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION
PO Box 13127 Austin Texas 78711
Overnight Delivery Address 5806 Mesa Dr Austin Texas 78731
You must pay by postal money order certified check or cashiers check No personal or
company check nor partial payment accepted Your payment will be returned if anything is
incorrect You must pay the entire amount of the penalty assessed
Attach this form and please make certain to include the Docket on your payment
Signature of Responsible Party
Street Address PO Box No
City State Zip Code
Area CodeTelephone No
Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2
CAUSE NO 348-289708-16
2345 MEACHAM LLC DBA BUCKS CABARET
Plaintiff
v
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION
Defendant
sect IN THE DISTRICT COURT
348TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
TARRANT COUNTY TEXAS
sect sect sect sect sect sect sect sect sect
ORDER AFFIRMING TABC DECISION fllJ()1)1-j 13J
On tkis day came on to be heard the above-tyled and numbered cause
pursuant to Ch 2001 ofthe Texas Government Code (the Administrative Procedure
Act) and sect 1167 of the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code 2345 Meacham LLC
dba Bucks Cabaret and the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission appeared by
and through their attorneys of record and announced ready All matters of fact and
controversy were submitted The Court after reviewing the evidence and hearing
the arguments of counsel finds that the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission
Order of October 14 2016 is supported by substantial evidence
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED ADJUDGED and DECREED that the
Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commissions Order of October 14 2016 suspending
Plaintiffs Mixed Beverage Permit MB753709 and the associated Beverage Cartage
Permit and Mixed Beverage Late Hours Permit is supported by substantial
evidence and thus is AFFIRMED _1 L IJND Tltld1lt lJAS t-lltJ cflfAfl ltJr tlJ~
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED ADJUDGED and DECREED that the Plaintiff
shall take nothing by this suit and that Defendant shall be in all things discharged
ion
ON ALL SERVED VIAIE-MAILED - HAND DtLIVERY -MAIL
=----WHO 16 TO
_--13 1
SElVE COPIEIS ON gtLL OTHEN
and that the costs ofcourt are taxed against the party incurring same All other relief
not expressly granted herein is denied
This judgment is final disposes of all claims and parties and is appealable f-b
SIGNED and ENTERED this 3 day ofJanuary 2017 L
348TH DISTRICT COURT
2
__________________________________________
__________________________________________
1201 am on November 30th 2016 and shall remain suspended for THIRTY-SIX (36)
DAYS UNLESS a civil penalty in the amount of $1080000 is paid ON OR BEFORE
November 22nd 2016
This Order will become final and enforceable on the 15th day of November
2016 unless a Motion for Rehearing is filed by the 14th day of November 2016
SIGNED this the 14th day of October 2016 at Austin Texas
Sherry K-Cook Executive Director
Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that the persons listed below were served with a copy of this Order in the manner
indicated below on this the 14th day of October 2016
Martin Wilson Assistant General Counsel
Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission
Robert F Jones Jr
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
State Office of Administrative Hearings
300 W 15th
Street Suite 502
Austin TX 78701
VIA FACSIMILE (512) 322-2061
2345 Meacham LLC
dba Buckrsquos Cabaret
RESPONDENT
PO Box 271289
Flower Mound TX 75027
VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL CMRRR 70160600000046455820
Roger Albright
ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENT
3301 Elm Street
Dallas TX 75226
VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL CMRRR 70160600000046455837
Shelia Lindsey
ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER
TABC Legal Division
VIA E-MAIL Shelialindseytabctexasgov
__________________________________
__________________________________
__________________________________
__________________________________
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION
CIVIL PENALTY REMITTANCE
DOCKET NUMBER 624309 REGISTER NUMBER
NAME 2345 MEACHAM LLC
TRADENAME Buckrsquos Cabaret
ADDRESS PO Box 271289 Flower Mound Texas
DUE DATE November 22 2016
PERMITS OR LICENSES MB753709 LB PE
AMOUNT OF PENALTY $1080000
Amount remitted $____________________ Date remitted ____________________________
You may pay a civil penalty rather than have your permits and licenses suspended if an amount
for civil penalty is included on the attached order
YOU HAVE THE OPTION TO PAY THE CIVIL PENALTY ONLY IF YOU PAY THE
ENTIRE AMOUNT ON OR BEFORE THE DUE DATE AFTER THAT DATE YOUR
LICENSE OR PERMIT WILL BE SUSPENDED FOR THE TIME PERIOD STATED ON
THE ORDER
Mail this form with your payment to
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION
PO Box 13127 Austin Texas 78711
Overnight Delivery Address 5806 Mesa Dr Austin Texas 78731
You must pay by postal money order certified check or cashiers check No personal or
company check nor partial payment accepted Your payment will be returned if anything is
incorrect You must pay the entire amount of the penalty assessed
Attach this form and please make certain to include the Docket on your payment
Signature of Responsible Party
Street Address PO Box No
City State Zip Code
Area CodeTelephone No
Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2
DOCKET NO 624309
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE
COMMISSION Petitioner
sect
sect
sect
sect
VS sect
sect
sect
sect
2345 MEACHAM LLC
DBA BUCKrsquoS CABARET
Respondent
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
PERMIT MB753709 LB PE sect
sect
sect
TARRANT COUNTY TEXAS
(SOAH DOCKET NO 458-15-3318)
sect
sect
BEFORE THE TEXAS
BEVERAGE COMMISSION
ALCOHOLIC
ORDER DENYING M OTION FOR REHEARING
Page 1 of 3
CAME ON FOR CONSIDERATION this 1st day of December 2016 the above-styled
and numbered cause
On October 14 2016 an Order was issued in this cause suspending Respondents permits
for a period of 36 days unless a civil penalty in the amount of $10800 was paid A timely
Motion for RehearingReconsideration was filed by Respondent on November 11 2016 and a
Supplemental Motion for Rehearing was filed by Respondent on November 16 2016 Petitioner
filed a Response to Respondents Motion for RehearingReconsideration on November 22 2016
Having considered Respondents Motion for RehearingReconsideration
Respondents Supplemental Motion for Rehearing and Petitioners Response to Respondents
Motion for RehearingReconsideration Respondents Motion for RehearingReconsideration is
DENIED
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that IF THIS ORDER IS NOT APPEALED
WITHIN THE TIME ALLOWED BY ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CODE sect1167 the
privileges granted by the Commission and the activities authorized under the above permits by
the Code will be SUSPENDED beginning at 1201 am on January 25 2017 and shall remain
suspended for THIRTY SIX (36) CONSECUTIVE DAYS UNLESS a civil penalty in the
amount of $1080000 is paid in lieu of suspension ON OR BEFORE January 17 2017
__________________________________________
_________________________________________
IF THIS ORDER IS APPEALED AND THE DECISION IS AFFIRMED IT IS
ORDERED that the privileges granted by the Commission and the activities authorized under
the above permits by the Code will be SUSPENDED beginning at 1201 am on the fifteenth
(15th
) day following the date the decision is affirmed whether by Order or by operation of law
and shall remain suspended for THIRTY SIX (36) CONSECUTIVE DAYS UNLESS a civil
penalty in the amount of $1080000 is paid in lieu of suspension ON OR BEFORE the seventh
(7th
) day following the date the decision is affirmed whether by Order or by operation of law
SIGNED this the 1st day of December 2016 at Austin Texas
Sherry K-Cook Executive Director
Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that the persons listed below were served with a copy of this Order Denying
Motion for Rehearing in the manner indicated below on this the 1st day of December 2016
Martin Wilson Assistant General Counsel
Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission
Page 2 of 3
Robert F Jones Jr
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
State Office of Administrative Hearings
300 W 15th
Street Suite 502
Austin TX 78701
VIA FACSIMILE (512) 322-2061
2345 Meacham LLC
dba Buckrsquos Cabaret
RESPONDENT
PO Box 271289
Flower Mound TX 75027
VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL CMRRR 70160340000080983298
Roger Albright
ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENT
3301 Elm Street
Dallas TX 75226
VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL CMRRR70160340000080983281
Shelia Lindsey
ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER
TABC Legal Division
VIA E-MAIL Shelialindseytabctexasgov
Page 3 of 3
__________________________________
__________________________________
__________________________________
__________________________________
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION
CIVIL PENALTY REMITTANCE
DOCKET NUMBER 624309 REGISTER NUMBER
NAME 2345 Meacham LLC
TRADENAME Buckrsquos Cabaret
ADDRESS PO Box 271289 Flower Mound Texas
DUE DATE January 17 2017
PERMITS OR LICENSES MB753709 PE LB
AMOUNT OF PENALTY $1080000
Amount remitted $____________________ Date remitted ____________________________
You may pay a civil penalty rather than have your permits and licenses suspended if an amount
for civil penalty is included on the attached order
YOU HAVE THE OPTION TO PAY THE CIVIL PENALTY ONLY IF YOU PAY THE
ENTIRE AMOUNT ON OR BEFORE THE DUE DATE AFTER THAT DATE YOUR
LICENSE OR PERMIT WILL BE SUSPENDED FOR THE TIME PERIOD STATED ON
THE ORDER
Mail this form with your payment to
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION
PO Box 13127 Austin Texas 78711
Overnight Delivery Address 5806 Mesa Dr Austin Texas 78731
You must pay by postal money order certified check or cashiers check No personal or
company check nor partial payment accepted Your payment will be returned if anything is
incorrect You must pay the entire amount of the penalty assessed
Attach this form and please make certain to include the Docket on your payment
Signature of Responsible Party
Street Address PO Box No
City State Zip Code
Area CodeTelephone No
Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2
CAUSE NO 348-289708-16
2345 MEACHAM LLC DBA BUCKS CABARET
Plaintiff
v
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION
Defendant
sect IN THE DISTRICT COURT
348TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
TARRANT COUNTY TEXAS
sect sect sect sect sect sect sect sect sect
ORDER AFFIRMING TABC DECISION fllJ()1)1-j 13J
On tkis day came on to be heard the above-tyled and numbered cause
pursuant to Ch 2001 ofthe Texas Government Code (the Administrative Procedure
Act) and sect 1167 of the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code 2345 Meacham LLC
dba Bucks Cabaret and the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission appeared by
and through their attorneys of record and announced ready All matters of fact and
controversy were submitted The Court after reviewing the evidence and hearing
the arguments of counsel finds that the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission
Order of October 14 2016 is supported by substantial evidence
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED ADJUDGED and DECREED that the
Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commissions Order of October 14 2016 suspending
Plaintiffs Mixed Beverage Permit MB753709 and the associated Beverage Cartage
Permit and Mixed Beverage Late Hours Permit is supported by substantial
evidence and thus is AFFIRMED _1 L IJND Tltld1lt lJAS t-lltJ cflfAfl ltJr tlJ~
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED ADJUDGED and DECREED that the Plaintiff
shall take nothing by this suit and that Defendant shall be in all things discharged
ion
ON ALL SERVED VIAIE-MAILED - HAND DtLIVERY -MAIL
=----WHO 16 TO
_--13 1
SElVE COPIEIS ON gtLL OTHEN
and that the costs ofcourt are taxed against the party incurring same All other relief
not expressly granted herein is denied
This judgment is final disposes of all claims and parties and is appealable f-b
SIGNED and ENTERED this 3 day ofJanuary 2017 L
348TH DISTRICT COURT
2
Robert F Jones Jr
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
State Office of Administrative Hearings
300 W 15th
Street Suite 502
Austin TX 78701
VIA FACSIMILE (512) 322-2061
2345 Meacham LLC
dba Buckrsquos Cabaret
RESPONDENT
PO Box 271289
Flower Mound TX 75027
VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL CMRRR 70160600000046455820
Roger Albright
ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENT
3301 Elm Street
Dallas TX 75226
VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL CMRRR 70160600000046455837
Shelia Lindsey
ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER
TABC Legal Division
VIA E-MAIL Shelialindseytabctexasgov
__________________________________
__________________________________
__________________________________
__________________________________
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION
CIVIL PENALTY REMITTANCE
DOCKET NUMBER 624309 REGISTER NUMBER
NAME 2345 MEACHAM LLC
TRADENAME Buckrsquos Cabaret
ADDRESS PO Box 271289 Flower Mound Texas
DUE DATE November 22 2016
PERMITS OR LICENSES MB753709 LB PE
AMOUNT OF PENALTY $1080000
Amount remitted $____________________ Date remitted ____________________________
You may pay a civil penalty rather than have your permits and licenses suspended if an amount
for civil penalty is included on the attached order
YOU HAVE THE OPTION TO PAY THE CIVIL PENALTY ONLY IF YOU PAY THE
ENTIRE AMOUNT ON OR BEFORE THE DUE DATE AFTER THAT DATE YOUR
LICENSE OR PERMIT WILL BE SUSPENDED FOR THE TIME PERIOD STATED ON
THE ORDER
Mail this form with your payment to
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION
PO Box 13127 Austin Texas 78711
Overnight Delivery Address 5806 Mesa Dr Austin Texas 78731
You must pay by postal money order certified check or cashiers check No personal or
company check nor partial payment accepted Your payment will be returned if anything is
incorrect You must pay the entire amount of the penalty assessed
Attach this form and please make certain to include the Docket on your payment
Signature of Responsible Party
Street Address PO Box No
City State Zip Code
Area CodeTelephone No
Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2
DOCKET NO 624309
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE
COMMISSION Petitioner
sect
sect
sect
sect
VS sect
sect
sect
sect
2345 MEACHAM LLC
DBA BUCKrsquoS CABARET
Respondent
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
PERMIT MB753709 LB PE sect
sect
sect
TARRANT COUNTY TEXAS
(SOAH DOCKET NO 458-15-3318)
sect
sect
BEFORE THE TEXAS
BEVERAGE COMMISSION
ALCOHOLIC
ORDER DENYING M OTION FOR REHEARING
Page 1 of 3
CAME ON FOR CONSIDERATION this 1st day of December 2016 the above-styled
and numbered cause
On October 14 2016 an Order was issued in this cause suspending Respondents permits
for a period of 36 days unless a civil penalty in the amount of $10800 was paid A timely
Motion for RehearingReconsideration was filed by Respondent on November 11 2016 and a
Supplemental Motion for Rehearing was filed by Respondent on November 16 2016 Petitioner
filed a Response to Respondents Motion for RehearingReconsideration on November 22 2016
Having considered Respondents Motion for RehearingReconsideration
Respondents Supplemental Motion for Rehearing and Petitioners Response to Respondents
Motion for RehearingReconsideration Respondents Motion for RehearingReconsideration is
DENIED
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that IF THIS ORDER IS NOT APPEALED
WITHIN THE TIME ALLOWED BY ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CODE sect1167 the
privileges granted by the Commission and the activities authorized under the above permits by
the Code will be SUSPENDED beginning at 1201 am on January 25 2017 and shall remain
suspended for THIRTY SIX (36) CONSECUTIVE DAYS UNLESS a civil penalty in the
amount of $1080000 is paid in lieu of suspension ON OR BEFORE January 17 2017
__________________________________________
_________________________________________
IF THIS ORDER IS APPEALED AND THE DECISION IS AFFIRMED IT IS
ORDERED that the privileges granted by the Commission and the activities authorized under
the above permits by the Code will be SUSPENDED beginning at 1201 am on the fifteenth
(15th
) day following the date the decision is affirmed whether by Order or by operation of law
and shall remain suspended for THIRTY SIX (36) CONSECUTIVE DAYS UNLESS a civil
penalty in the amount of $1080000 is paid in lieu of suspension ON OR BEFORE the seventh
(7th
) day following the date the decision is affirmed whether by Order or by operation of law
SIGNED this the 1st day of December 2016 at Austin Texas
Sherry K-Cook Executive Director
Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that the persons listed below were served with a copy of this Order Denying
Motion for Rehearing in the manner indicated below on this the 1st day of December 2016
Martin Wilson Assistant General Counsel
Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission
Page 2 of 3
Robert F Jones Jr
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
State Office of Administrative Hearings
300 W 15th
Street Suite 502
Austin TX 78701
VIA FACSIMILE (512) 322-2061
2345 Meacham LLC
dba Buckrsquos Cabaret
RESPONDENT
PO Box 271289
Flower Mound TX 75027
VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL CMRRR 70160340000080983298
Roger Albright
ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENT
3301 Elm Street
Dallas TX 75226
VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL CMRRR70160340000080983281
Shelia Lindsey
ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER
TABC Legal Division
VIA E-MAIL Shelialindseytabctexasgov
Page 3 of 3
__________________________________
__________________________________
__________________________________
__________________________________
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION
CIVIL PENALTY REMITTANCE
DOCKET NUMBER 624309 REGISTER NUMBER
NAME 2345 Meacham LLC
TRADENAME Buckrsquos Cabaret
ADDRESS PO Box 271289 Flower Mound Texas
DUE DATE January 17 2017
PERMITS OR LICENSES MB753709 PE LB
AMOUNT OF PENALTY $1080000
Amount remitted $____________________ Date remitted ____________________________
You may pay a civil penalty rather than have your permits and licenses suspended if an amount
for civil penalty is included on the attached order
YOU HAVE THE OPTION TO PAY THE CIVIL PENALTY ONLY IF YOU PAY THE
ENTIRE AMOUNT ON OR BEFORE THE DUE DATE AFTER THAT DATE YOUR
LICENSE OR PERMIT WILL BE SUSPENDED FOR THE TIME PERIOD STATED ON
THE ORDER
Mail this form with your payment to
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION
PO Box 13127 Austin Texas 78711
Overnight Delivery Address 5806 Mesa Dr Austin Texas 78731
You must pay by postal money order certified check or cashiers check No personal or
company check nor partial payment accepted Your payment will be returned if anything is
incorrect You must pay the entire amount of the penalty assessed
Attach this form and please make certain to include the Docket on your payment
Signature of Responsible Party
Street Address PO Box No
City State Zip Code
Area CodeTelephone No
Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2
CAUSE NO 348-289708-16
2345 MEACHAM LLC DBA BUCKS CABARET
Plaintiff
v
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION
Defendant
sect IN THE DISTRICT COURT
348TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
TARRANT COUNTY TEXAS
sect sect sect sect sect sect sect sect sect
ORDER AFFIRMING TABC DECISION fllJ()1)1-j 13J
On tkis day came on to be heard the above-tyled and numbered cause
pursuant to Ch 2001 ofthe Texas Government Code (the Administrative Procedure
Act) and sect 1167 of the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code 2345 Meacham LLC
dba Bucks Cabaret and the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission appeared by
and through their attorneys of record and announced ready All matters of fact and
controversy were submitted The Court after reviewing the evidence and hearing
the arguments of counsel finds that the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission
Order of October 14 2016 is supported by substantial evidence
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED ADJUDGED and DECREED that the
Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commissions Order of October 14 2016 suspending
Plaintiffs Mixed Beverage Permit MB753709 and the associated Beverage Cartage
Permit and Mixed Beverage Late Hours Permit is supported by substantial
evidence and thus is AFFIRMED _1 L IJND Tltld1lt lJAS t-lltJ cflfAfl ltJr tlJ~
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED ADJUDGED and DECREED that the Plaintiff
shall take nothing by this suit and that Defendant shall be in all things discharged
ion
ON ALL SERVED VIAIE-MAILED - HAND DtLIVERY -MAIL
=----WHO 16 TO
_--13 1
SElVE COPIEIS ON gtLL OTHEN
and that the costs ofcourt are taxed against the party incurring same All other relief
not expressly granted herein is denied
This judgment is final disposes of all claims and parties and is appealable f-b
SIGNED and ENTERED this 3 day ofJanuary 2017 L
348TH DISTRICT COURT
2
__________________________________
__________________________________
__________________________________
__________________________________
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION
CIVIL PENALTY REMITTANCE
DOCKET NUMBER 624309 REGISTER NUMBER
NAME 2345 MEACHAM LLC
TRADENAME Buckrsquos Cabaret
ADDRESS PO Box 271289 Flower Mound Texas
DUE DATE November 22 2016
PERMITS OR LICENSES MB753709 LB PE
AMOUNT OF PENALTY $1080000
Amount remitted $____________________ Date remitted ____________________________
You may pay a civil penalty rather than have your permits and licenses suspended if an amount
for civil penalty is included on the attached order
YOU HAVE THE OPTION TO PAY THE CIVIL PENALTY ONLY IF YOU PAY THE
ENTIRE AMOUNT ON OR BEFORE THE DUE DATE AFTER THAT DATE YOUR
LICENSE OR PERMIT WILL BE SUSPENDED FOR THE TIME PERIOD STATED ON
THE ORDER
Mail this form with your payment to
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION
PO Box 13127 Austin Texas 78711
Overnight Delivery Address 5806 Mesa Dr Austin Texas 78731
You must pay by postal money order certified check or cashiers check No personal or
company check nor partial payment accepted Your payment will be returned if anything is
incorrect You must pay the entire amount of the penalty assessed
Attach this form and please make certain to include the Docket on your payment
Signature of Responsible Party
Street Address PO Box No
City State Zip Code
Area CodeTelephone No
Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2
DOCKET NO 624309
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE
COMMISSION Petitioner
sect
sect
sect
sect
VS sect
sect
sect
sect
2345 MEACHAM LLC
DBA BUCKrsquoS CABARET
Respondent
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
PERMIT MB753709 LB PE sect
sect
sect
TARRANT COUNTY TEXAS
(SOAH DOCKET NO 458-15-3318)
sect
sect
BEFORE THE TEXAS
BEVERAGE COMMISSION
ALCOHOLIC
ORDER DENYING M OTION FOR REHEARING
Page 1 of 3
CAME ON FOR CONSIDERATION this 1st day of December 2016 the above-styled
and numbered cause
On October 14 2016 an Order was issued in this cause suspending Respondents permits
for a period of 36 days unless a civil penalty in the amount of $10800 was paid A timely
Motion for RehearingReconsideration was filed by Respondent on November 11 2016 and a
Supplemental Motion for Rehearing was filed by Respondent on November 16 2016 Petitioner
filed a Response to Respondents Motion for RehearingReconsideration on November 22 2016
Having considered Respondents Motion for RehearingReconsideration
Respondents Supplemental Motion for Rehearing and Petitioners Response to Respondents
Motion for RehearingReconsideration Respondents Motion for RehearingReconsideration is
DENIED
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that IF THIS ORDER IS NOT APPEALED
WITHIN THE TIME ALLOWED BY ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CODE sect1167 the
privileges granted by the Commission and the activities authorized under the above permits by
the Code will be SUSPENDED beginning at 1201 am on January 25 2017 and shall remain
suspended for THIRTY SIX (36) CONSECUTIVE DAYS UNLESS a civil penalty in the
amount of $1080000 is paid in lieu of suspension ON OR BEFORE January 17 2017
__________________________________________
_________________________________________
IF THIS ORDER IS APPEALED AND THE DECISION IS AFFIRMED IT IS
ORDERED that the privileges granted by the Commission and the activities authorized under
the above permits by the Code will be SUSPENDED beginning at 1201 am on the fifteenth
(15th
) day following the date the decision is affirmed whether by Order or by operation of law
and shall remain suspended for THIRTY SIX (36) CONSECUTIVE DAYS UNLESS a civil
penalty in the amount of $1080000 is paid in lieu of suspension ON OR BEFORE the seventh
(7th
) day following the date the decision is affirmed whether by Order or by operation of law
SIGNED this the 1st day of December 2016 at Austin Texas
Sherry K-Cook Executive Director
Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that the persons listed below were served with a copy of this Order Denying
Motion for Rehearing in the manner indicated below on this the 1st day of December 2016
Martin Wilson Assistant General Counsel
Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission
Page 2 of 3
Robert F Jones Jr
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
State Office of Administrative Hearings
300 W 15th
Street Suite 502
Austin TX 78701
VIA FACSIMILE (512) 322-2061
2345 Meacham LLC
dba Buckrsquos Cabaret
RESPONDENT
PO Box 271289
Flower Mound TX 75027
VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL CMRRR 70160340000080983298
Roger Albright
ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENT
3301 Elm Street
Dallas TX 75226
VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL CMRRR70160340000080983281
Shelia Lindsey
ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER
TABC Legal Division
VIA E-MAIL Shelialindseytabctexasgov
Page 3 of 3
__________________________________
__________________________________
__________________________________
__________________________________
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION
CIVIL PENALTY REMITTANCE
DOCKET NUMBER 624309 REGISTER NUMBER
NAME 2345 Meacham LLC
TRADENAME Buckrsquos Cabaret
ADDRESS PO Box 271289 Flower Mound Texas
DUE DATE January 17 2017
PERMITS OR LICENSES MB753709 PE LB
AMOUNT OF PENALTY $1080000
Amount remitted $____________________ Date remitted ____________________________
You may pay a civil penalty rather than have your permits and licenses suspended if an amount
for civil penalty is included on the attached order
YOU HAVE THE OPTION TO PAY THE CIVIL PENALTY ONLY IF YOU PAY THE
ENTIRE AMOUNT ON OR BEFORE THE DUE DATE AFTER THAT DATE YOUR
LICENSE OR PERMIT WILL BE SUSPENDED FOR THE TIME PERIOD STATED ON
THE ORDER
Mail this form with your payment to
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION
PO Box 13127 Austin Texas 78711
Overnight Delivery Address 5806 Mesa Dr Austin Texas 78731
You must pay by postal money order certified check or cashiers check No personal or
company check nor partial payment accepted Your payment will be returned if anything is
incorrect You must pay the entire amount of the penalty assessed
Attach this form and please make certain to include the Docket on your payment
Signature of Responsible Party
Street Address PO Box No
City State Zip Code
Area CodeTelephone No
Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2
CAUSE NO 348-289708-16
2345 MEACHAM LLC DBA BUCKS CABARET
Plaintiff
v
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION
Defendant
sect IN THE DISTRICT COURT
348TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
TARRANT COUNTY TEXAS
sect sect sect sect sect sect sect sect sect
ORDER AFFIRMING TABC DECISION fllJ()1)1-j 13J
On tkis day came on to be heard the above-tyled and numbered cause
pursuant to Ch 2001 ofthe Texas Government Code (the Administrative Procedure
Act) and sect 1167 of the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code 2345 Meacham LLC
dba Bucks Cabaret and the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission appeared by
and through their attorneys of record and announced ready All matters of fact and
controversy were submitted The Court after reviewing the evidence and hearing
the arguments of counsel finds that the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission
Order of October 14 2016 is supported by substantial evidence
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED ADJUDGED and DECREED that the
Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commissions Order of October 14 2016 suspending
Plaintiffs Mixed Beverage Permit MB753709 and the associated Beverage Cartage
Permit and Mixed Beverage Late Hours Permit is supported by substantial
evidence and thus is AFFIRMED _1 L IJND Tltld1lt lJAS t-lltJ cflfAfl ltJr tlJ~
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED ADJUDGED and DECREED that the Plaintiff
shall take nothing by this suit and that Defendant shall be in all things discharged
ion
ON ALL SERVED VIAIE-MAILED - HAND DtLIVERY -MAIL
=----WHO 16 TO
_--13 1
SElVE COPIEIS ON gtLL OTHEN
and that the costs ofcourt are taxed against the party incurring same All other relief
not expressly granted herein is denied
This judgment is final disposes of all claims and parties and is appealable f-b
SIGNED and ENTERED this 3 day ofJanuary 2017 L
348TH DISTRICT COURT
2
Page 2 of 2
DOCKET NO 624309
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE
COMMISSION Petitioner
sect
sect
sect
sect
VS sect
sect
sect
sect
2345 MEACHAM LLC
DBA BUCKrsquoS CABARET
Respondent
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
PERMIT MB753709 LB PE sect
sect
sect
TARRANT COUNTY TEXAS
(SOAH DOCKET NO 458-15-3318)
sect
sect
BEFORE THE TEXAS
BEVERAGE COMMISSION
ALCOHOLIC
ORDER DENYING M OTION FOR REHEARING
Page 1 of 3
CAME ON FOR CONSIDERATION this 1st day of December 2016 the above-styled
and numbered cause
On October 14 2016 an Order was issued in this cause suspending Respondents permits
for a period of 36 days unless a civil penalty in the amount of $10800 was paid A timely
Motion for RehearingReconsideration was filed by Respondent on November 11 2016 and a
Supplemental Motion for Rehearing was filed by Respondent on November 16 2016 Petitioner
filed a Response to Respondents Motion for RehearingReconsideration on November 22 2016
Having considered Respondents Motion for RehearingReconsideration
Respondents Supplemental Motion for Rehearing and Petitioners Response to Respondents
Motion for RehearingReconsideration Respondents Motion for RehearingReconsideration is
DENIED
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that IF THIS ORDER IS NOT APPEALED
WITHIN THE TIME ALLOWED BY ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CODE sect1167 the
privileges granted by the Commission and the activities authorized under the above permits by
the Code will be SUSPENDED beginning at 1201 am on January 25 2017 and shall remain
suspended for THIRTY SIX (36) CONSECUTIVE DAYS UNLESS a civil penalty in the
amount of $1080000 is paid in lieu of suspension ON OR BEFORE January 17 2017
__________________________________________
_________________________________________
IF THIS ORDER IS APPEALED AND THE DECISION IS AFFIRMED IT IS
ORDERED that the privileges granted by the Commission and the activities authorized under
the above permits by the Code will be SUSPENDED beginning at 1201 am on the fifteenth
(15th
) day following the date the decision is affirmed whether by Order or by operation of law
and shall remain suspended for THIRTY SIX (36) CONSECUTIVE DAYS UNLESS a civil
penalty in the amount of $1080000 is paid in lieu of suspension ON OR BEFORE the seventh
(7th
) day following the date the decision is affirmed whether by Order or by operation of law
SIGNED this the 1st day of December 2016 at Austin Texas
Sherry K-Cook Executive Director
Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that the persons listed below were served with a copy of this Order Denying
Motion for Rehearing in the manner indicated below on this the 1st day of December 2016
Martin Wilson Assistant General Counsel
Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission
Page 2 of 3
Robert F Jones Jr
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
State Office of Administrative Hearings
300 W 15th
Street Suite 502
Austin TX 78701
VIA FACSIMILE (512) 322-2061
2345 Meacham LLC
dba Buckrsquos Cabaret
RESPONDENT
PO Box 271289
Flower Mound TX 75027
VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL CMRRR 70160340000080983298
Roger Albright
ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENT
3301 Elm Street
Dallas TX 75226
VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL CMRRR70160340000080983281
Shelia Lindsey
ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER
TABC Legal Division
VIA E-MAIL Shelialindseytabctexasgov
Page 3 of 3
__________________________________
__________________________________
__________________________________
__________________________________
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION
CIVIL PENALTY REMITTANCE
DOCKET NUMBER 624309 REGISTER NUMBER
NAME 2345 Meacham LLC
TRADENAME Buckrsquos Cabaret
ADDRESS PO Box 271289 Flower Mound Texas
DUE DATE January 17 2017
PERMITS OR LICENSES MB753709 PE LB
AMOUNT OF PENALTY $1080000
Amount remitted $____________________ Date remitted ____________________________
You may pay a civil penalty rather than have your permits and licenses suspended if an amount
for civil penalty is included on the attached order
YOU HAVE THE OPTION TO PAY THE CIVIL PENALTY ONLY IF YOU PAY THE
ENTIRE AMOUNT ON OR BEFORE THE DUE DATE AFTER THAT DATE YOUR
LICENSE OR PERMIT WILL BE SUSPENDED FOR THE TIME PERIOD STATED ON
THE ORDER
Mail this form with your payment to
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION
PO Box 13127 Austin Texas 78711
Overnight Delivery Address 5806 Mesa Dr Austin Texas 78731
You must pay by postal money order certified check or cashiers check No personal or
company check nor partial payment accepted Your payment will be returned if anything is
incorrect You must pay the entire amount of the penalty assessed
Attach this form and please make certain to include the Docket on your payment
Signature of Responsible Party
Street Address PO Box No
City State Zip Code
Area CodeTelephone No
Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2
CAUSE NO 348-289708-16
2345 MEACHAM LLC DBA BUCKS CABARET
Plaintiff
v
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION
Defendant
sect IN THE DISTRICT COURT
348TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
TARRANT COUNTY TEXAS
sect sect sect sect sect sect sect sect sect
ORDER AFFIRMING TABC DECISION fllJ()1)1-j 13J
On tkis day came on to be heard the above-tyled and numbered cause
pursuant to Ch 2001 ofthe Texas Government Code (the Administrative Procedure
Act) and sect 1167 of the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code 2345 Meacham LLC
dba Bucks Cabaret and the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission appeared by
and through their attorneys of record and announced ready All matters of fact and
controversy were submitted The Court after reviewing the evidence and hearing
the arguments of counsel finds that the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission
Order of October 14 2016 is supported by substantial evidence
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED ADJUDGED and DECREED that the
Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commissions Order of October 14 2016 suspending
Plaintiffs Mixed Beverage Permit MB753709 and the associated Beverage Cartage
Permit and Mixed Beverage Late Hours Permit is supported by substantial
evidence and thus is AFFIRMED _1 L IJND Tltld1lt lJAS t-lltJ cflfAfl ltJr tlJ~
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED ADJUDGED and DECREED that the Plaintiff
shall take nothing by this suit and that Defendant shall be in all things discharged
ion
ON ALL SERVED VIAIE-MAILED - HAND DtLIVERY -MAIL
=----WHO 16 TO
_--13 1
SElVE COPIEIS ON gtLL OTHEN
and that the costs ofcourt are taxed against the party incurring same All other relief
not expressly granted herein is denied
This judgment is final disposes of all claims and parties and is appealable f-b
SIGNED and ENTERED this 3 day ofJanuary 2017 L
348TH DISTRICT COURT
2
DOCKET NO 624309
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE
COMMISSION Petitioner
sect
sect
sect
sect
VS sect
sect
sect
sect
2345 MEACHAM LLC
DBA BUCKrsquoS CABARET
Respondent
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
sect
PERMIT MB753709 LB PE sect
sect
sect
TARRANT COUNTY TEXAS
(SOAH DOCKET NO 458-15-3318)
sect
sect
BEFORE THE TEXAS
BEVERAGE COMMISSION
ALCOHOLIC
ORDER DENYING M OTION FOR REHEARING
Page 1 of 3
CAME ON FOR CONSIDERATION this 1st day of December 2016 the above-styled
and numbered cause
On October 14 2016 an Order was issued in this cause suspending Respondents permits
for a period of 36 days unless a civil penalty in the amount of $10800 was paid A timely
Motion for RehearingReconsideration was filed by Respondent on November 11 2016 and a
Supplemental Motion for Rehearing was filed by Respondent on November 16 2016 Petitioner
filed a Response to Respondents Motion for RehearingReconsideration on November 22 2016
Having considered Respondents Motion for RehearingReconsideration
Respondents Supplemental Motion for Rehearing and Petitioners Response to Respondents
Motion for RehearingReconsideration Respondents Motion for RehearingReconsideration is
DENIED
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that IF THIS ORDER IS NOT APPEALED
WITHIN THE TIME ALLOWED BY ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CODE sect1167 the
privileges granted by the Commission and the activities authorized under the above permits by
the Code will be SUSPENDED beginning at 1201 am on January 25 2017 and shall remain
suspended for THIRTY SIX (36) CONSECUTIVE DAYS UNLESS a civil penalty in the
amount of $1080000 is paid in lieu of suspension ON OR BEFORE January 17 2017
__________________________________________
_________________________________________
IF THIS ORDER IS APPEALED AND THE DECISION IS AFFIRMED IT IS
ORDERED that the privileges granted by the Commission and the activities authorized under
the above permits by the Code will be SUSPENDED beginning at 1201 am on the fifteenth
(15th
) day following the date the decision is affirmed whether by Order or by operation of law
and shall remain suspended for THIRTY SIX (36) CONSECUTIVE DAYS UNLESS a civil
penalty in the amount of $1080000 is paid in lieu of suspension ON OR BEFORE the seventh
(7th
) day following the date the decision is affirmed whether by Order or by operation of law
SIGNED this the 1st day of December 2016 at Austin Texas
Sherry K-Cook Executive Director
Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that the persons listed below were served with a copy of this Order Denying
Motion for Rehearing in the manner indicated below on this the 1st day of December 2016
Martin Wilson Assistant General Counsel
Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission
Page 2 of 3
Robert F Jones Jr
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
State Office of Administrative Hearings
300 W 15th
Street Suite 502
Austin TX 78701
VIA FACSIMILE (512) 322-2061
2345 Meacham LLC
dba Buckrsquos Cabaret
RESPONDENT
PO Box 271289
Flower Mound TX 75027
VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL CMRRR 70160340000080983298
Roger Albright
ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENT
3301 Elm Street
Dallas TX 75226
VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL CMRRR70160340000080983281
Shelia Lindsey
ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER
TABC Legal Division
VIA E-MAIL Shelialindseytabctexasgov
Page 3 of 3
__________________________________
__________________________________
__________________________________
__________________________________
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION
CIVIL PENALTY REMITTANCE
DOCKET NUMBER 624309 REGISTER NUMBER
NAME 2345 Meacham LLC
TRADENAME Buckrsquos Cabaret
ADDRESS PO Box 271289 Flower Mound Texas
DUE DATE January 17 2017
PERMITS OR LICENSES MB753709 PE LB
AMOUNT OF PENALTY $1080000
Amount remitted $____________________ Date remitted ____________________________
You may pay a civil penalty rather than have your permits and licenses suspended if an amount
for civil penalty is included on the attached order
YOU HAVE THE OPTION TO PAY THE CIVIL PENALTY ONLY IF YOU PAY THE
ENTIRE AMOUNT ON OR BEFORE THE DUE DATE AFTER THAT DATE YOUR
LICENSE OR PERMIT WILL BE SUSPENDED FOR THE TIME PERIOD STATED ON
THE ORDER
Mail this form with your payment to
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION
PO Box 13127 Austin Texas 78711
Overnight Delivery Address 5806 Mesa Dr Austin Texas 78731
You must pay by postal money order certified check or cashiers check No personal or
company check nor partial payment accepted Your payment will be returned if anything is
incorrect You must pay the entire amount of the penalty assessed
Attach this form and please make certain to include the Docket on your payment
Signature of Responsible Party
Street Address PO Box No
City State Zip Code
Area CodeTelephone No
Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2
CAUSE NO 348-289708-16
2345 MEACHAM LLC DBA BUCKS CABARET
Plaintiff
v
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION
Defendant
sect IN THE DISTRICT COURT
348TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
TARRANT COUNTY TEXAS
sect sect sect sect sect sect sect sect sect
ORDER AFFIRMING TABC DECISION fllJ()1)1-j 13J
On tkis day came on to be heard the above-tyled and numbered cause
pursuant to Ch 2001 ofthe Texas Government Code (the Administrative Procedure
Act) and sect 1167 of the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code 2345 Meacham LLC
dba Bucks Cabaret and the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission appeared by
and through their attorneys of record and announced ready All matters of fact and
controversy were submitted The Court after reviewing the evidence and hearing
the arguments of counsel finds that the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission
Order of October 14 2016 is supported by substantial evidence
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED ADJUDGED and DECREED that the
Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commissions Order of October 14 2016 suspending
Plaintiffs Mixed Beverage Permit MB753709 and the associated Beverage Cartage
Permit and Mixed Beverage Late Hours Permit is supported by substantial
evidence and thus is AFFIRMED _1 L IJND Tltld1lt lJAS t-lltJ cflfAfl ltJr tlJ~
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED ADJUDGED and DECREED that the Plaintiff
shall take nothing by this suit and that Defendant shall be in all things discharged
ion
ON ALL SERVED VIAIE-MAILED - HAND DtLIVERY -MAIL
=----WHO 16 TO
_--13 1
SElVE COPIEIS ON gtLL OTHEN
and that the costs ofcourt are taxed against the party incurring same All other relief
not expressly granted herein is denied
This judgment is final disposes of all claims and parties and is appealable f-b
SIGNED and ENTERED this 3 day ofJanuary 2017 L
348TH DISTRICT COURT
2
__________________________________________
_________________________________________
IF THIS ORDER IS APPEALED AND THE DECISION IS AFFIRMED IT IS
ORDERED that the privileges granted by the Commission and the activities authorized under
the above permits by the Code will be SUSPENDED beginning at 1201 am on the fifteenth
(15th
) day following the date the decision is affirmed whether by Order or by operation of law
and shall remain suspended for THIRTY SIX (36) CONSECUTIVE DAYS UNLESS a civil
penalty in the amount of $1080000 is paid in lieu of suspension ON OR BEFORE the seventh
(7th
) day following the date the decision is affirmed whether by Order or by operation of law
SIGNED this the 1st day of December 2016 at Austin Texas
Sherry K-Cook Executive Director
Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that the persons listed below were served with a copy of this Order Denying
Motion for Rehearing in the manner indicated below on this the 1st day of December 2016
Martin Wilson Assistant General Counsel
Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission
Page 2 of 3
Robert F Jones Jr
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
State Office of Administrative Hearings
300 W 15th
Street Suite 502
Austin TX 78701
VIA FACSIMILE (512) 322-2061
2345 Meacham LLC
dba Buckrsquos Cabaret
RESPONDENT
PO Box 271289
Flower Mound TX 75027
VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL CMRRR 70160340000080983298
Roger Albright
ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENT
3301 Elm Street
Dallas TX 75226
VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL CMRRR70160340000080983281
Shelia Lindsey
ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER
TABC Legal Division
VIA E-MAIL Shelialindseytabctexasgov
Page 3 of 3
__________________________________
__________________________________
__________________________________
__________________________________
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION
CIVIL PENALTY REMITTANCE
DOCKET NUMBER 624309 REGISTER NUMBER
NAME 2345 Meacham LLC
TRADENAME Buckrsquos Cabaret
ADDRESS PO Box 271289 Flower Mound Texas
DUE DATE January 17 2017
PERMITS OR LICENSES MB753709 PE LB
AMOUNT OF PENALTY $1080000
Amount remitted $____________________ Date remitted ____________________________
You may pay a civil penalty rather than have your permits and licenses suspended if an amount
for civil penalty is included on the attached order
YOU HAVE THE OPTION TO PAY THE CIVIL PENALTY ONLY IF YOU PAY THE
ENTIRE AMOUNT ON OR BEFORE THE DUE DATE AFTER THAT DATE YOUR
LICENSE OR PERMIT WILL BE SUSPENDED FOR THE TIME PERIOD STATED ON
THE ORDER
Mail this form with your payment to
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION
PO Box 13127 Austin Texas 78711
Overnight Delivery Address 5806 Mesa Dr Austin Texas 78731
You must pay by postal money order certified check or cashiers check No personal or
company check nor partial payment accepted Your payment will be returned if anything is
incorrect You must pay the entire amount of the penalty assessed
Attach this form and please make certain to include the Docket on your payment
Signature of Responsible Party
Street Address PO Box No
City State Zip Code
Area CodeTelephone No
Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2
CAUSE NO 348-289708-16
2345 MEACHAM LLC DBA BUCKS CABARET
Plaintiff
v
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION
Defendant
sect IN THE DISTRICT COURT
348TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
TARRANT COUNTY TEXAS
sect sect sect sect sect sect sect sect sect
ORDER AFFIRMING TABC DECISION fllJ()1)1-j 13J
On tkis day came on to be heard the above-tyled and numbered cause
pursuant to Ch 2001 ofthe Texas Government Code (the Administrative Procedure
Act) and sect 1167 of the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code 2345 Meacham LLC
dba Bucks Cabaret and the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission appeared by
and through their attorneys of record and announced ready All matters of fact and
controversy were submitted The Court after reviewing the evidence and hearing
the arguments of counsel finds that the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission
Order of October 14 2016 is supported by substantial evidence
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED ADJUDGED and DECREED that the
Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commissions Order of October 14 2016 suspending
Plaintiffs Mixed Beverage Permit MB753709 and the associated Beverage Cartage
Permit and Mixed Beverage Late Hours Permit is supported by substantial
evidence and thus is AFFIRMED _1 L IJND Tltld1lt lJAS t-lltJ cflfAfl ltJr tlJ~
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED ADJUDGED and DECREED that the Plaintiff
shall take nothing by this suit and that Defendant shall be in all things discharged
ion
ON ALL SERVED VIAIE-MAILED - HAND DtLIVERY -MAIL
=----WHO 16 TO
_--13 1
SElVE COPIEIS ON gtLL OTHEN
and that the costs ofcourt are taxed against the party incurring same All other relief
not expressly granted herein is denied
This judgment is final disposes of all claims and parties and is appealable f-b
SIGNED and ENTERED this 3 day ofJanuary 2017 L
348TH DISTRICT COURT
2
Robert F Jones Jr
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
State Office of Administrative Hearings
300 W 15th
Street Suite 502
Austin TX 78701
VIA FACSIMILE (512) 322-2061
2345 Meacham LLC
dba Buckrsquos Cabaret
RESPONDENT
PO Box 271289
Flower Mound TX 75027
VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL CMRRR 70160340000080983298
Roger Albright
ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENT
3301 Elm Street
Dallas TX 75226
VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL CMRRR70160340000080983281
Shelia Lindsey
ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER
TABC Legal Division
VIA E-MAIL Shelialindseytabctexasgov
Page 3 of 3
__________________________________
__________________________________
__________________________________
__________________________________
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION
CIVIL PENALTY REMITTANCE
DOCKET NUMBER 624309 REGISTER NUMBER
NAME 2345 Meacham LLC
TRADENAME Buckrsquos Cabaret
ADDRESS PO Box 271289 Flower Mound Texas
DUE DATE January 17 2017
PERMITS OR LICENSES MB753709 PE LB
AMOUNT OF PENALTY $1080000
Amount remitted $____________________ Date remitted ____________________________
You may pay a civil penalty rather than have your permits and licenses suspended if an amount
for civil penalty is included on the attached order
YOU HAVE THE OPTION TO PAY THE CIVIL PENALTY ONLY IF YOU PAY THE
ENTIRE AMOUNT ON OR BEFORE THE DUE DATE AFTER THAT DATE YOUR
LICENSE OR PERMIT WILL BE SUSPENDED FOR THE TIME PERIOD STATED ON
THE ORDER
Mail this form with your payment to
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION
PO Box 13127 Austin Texas 78711
Overnight Delivery Address 5806 Mesa Dr Austin Texas 78731
You must pay by postal money order certified check or cashiers check No personal or
company check nor partial payment accepted Your payment will be returned if anything is
incorrect You must pay the entire amount of the penalty assessed
Attach this form and please make certain to include the Docket on your payment
Signature of Responsible Party
Street Address PO Box No
City State Zip Code
Area CodeTelephone No
Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2
CAUSE NO 348-289708-16
2345 MEACHAM LLC DBA BUCKS CABARET
Plaintiff
v
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION
Defendant
sect IN THE DISTRICT COURT
348TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
TARRANT COUNTY TEXAS
sect sect sect sect sect sect sect sect sect
ORDER AFFIRMING TABC DECISION fllJ()1)1-j 13J
On tkis day came on to be heard the above-tyled and numbered cause
pursuant to Ch 2001 ofthe Texas Government Code (the Administrative Procedure
Act) and sect 1167 of the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code 2345 Meacham LLC
dba Bucks Cabaret and the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission appeared by
and through their attorneys of record and announced ready All matters of fact and
controversy were submitted The Court after reviewing the evidence and hearing
the arguments of counsel finds that the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission
Order of October 14 2016 is supported by substantial evidence
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED ADJUDGED and DECREED that the
Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commissions Order of October 14 2016 suspending
Plaintiffs Mixed Beverage Permit MB753709 and the associated Beverage Cartage
Permit and Mixed Beverage Late Hours Permit is supported by substantial
evidence and thus is AFFIRMED _1 L IJND Tltld1lt lJAS t-lltJ cflfAfl ltJr tlJ~
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED ADJUDGED and DECREED that the Plaintiff
shall take nothing by this suit and that Defendant shall be in all things discharged
ion
ON ALL SERVED VIAIE-MAILED - HAND DtLIVERY -MAIL
=----WHO 16 TO
_--13 1
SElVE COPIEIS ON gtLL OTHEN
and that the costs ofcourt are taxed against the party incurring same All other relief
not expressly granted herein is denied
This judgment is final disposes of all claims and parties and is appealable f-b
SIGNED and ENTERED this 3 day ofJanuary 2017 L
348TH DISTRICT COURT
2
__________________________________
__________________________________
__________________________________
__________________________________
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION
CIVIL PENALTY REMITTANCE
DOCKET NUMBER 624309 REGISTER NUMBER
NAME 2345 Meacham LLC
TRADENAME Buckrsquos Cabaret
ADDRESS PO Box 271289 Flower Mound Texas
DUE DATE January 17 2017
PERMITS OR LICENSES MB753709 PE LB
AMOUNT OF PENALTY $1080000
Amount remitted $____________________ Date remitted ____________________________
You may pay a civil penalty rather than have your permits and licenses suspended if an amount
for civil penalty is included on the attached order
YOU HAVE THE OPTION TO PAY THE CIVIL PENALTY ONLY IF YOU PAY THE
ENTIRE AMOUNT ON OR BEFORE THE DUE DATE AFTER THAT DATE YOUR
LICENSE OR PERMIT WILL BE SUSPENDED FOR THE TIME PERIOD STATED ON
THE ORDER
Mail this form with your payment to
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION
PO Box 13127 Austin Texas 78711
Overnight Delivery Address 5806 Mesa Dr Austin Texas 78731
You must pay by postal money order certified check or cashiers check No personal or
company check nor partial payment accepted Your payment will be returned if anything is
incorrect You must pay the entire amount of the penalty assessed
Attach this form and please make certain to include the Docket on your payment
Signature of Responsible Party
Street Address PO Box No
City State Zip Code
Area CodeTelephone No
Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2
CAUSE NO 348-289708-16
2345 MEACHAM LLC DBA BUCKS CABARET
Plaintiff
v
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION
Defendant
sect IN THE DISTRICT COURT
348TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
TARRANT COUNTY TEXAS
sect sect sect sect sect sect sect sect sect
ORDER AFFIRMING TABC DECISION fllJ()1)1-j 13J
On tkis day came on to be heard the above-tyled and numbered cause
pursuant to Ch 2001 ofthe Texas Government Code (the Administrative Procedure
Act) and sect 1167 of the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code 2345 Meacham LLC
dba Bucks Cabaret and the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission appeared by
and through their attorneys of record and announced ready All matters of fact and
controversy were submitted The Court after reviewing the evidence and hearing
the arguments of counsel finds that the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission
Order of October 14 2016 is supported by substantial evidence
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED ADJUDGED and DECREED that the
Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commissions Order of October 14 2016 suspending
Plaintiffs Mixed Beverage Permit MB753709 and the associated Beverage Cartage
Permit and Mixed Beverage Late Hours Permit is supported by substantial
evidence and thus is AFFIRMED _1 L IJND Tltld1lt lJAS t-lltJ cflfAfl ltJr tlJ~
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED ADJUDGED and DECREED that the Plaintiff
shall take nothing by this suit and that Defendant shall be in all things discharged
ion
ON ALL SERVED VIAIE-MAILED - HAND DtLIVERY -MAIL
=----WHO 16 TO
_--13 1
SElVE COPIEIS ON gtLL OTHEN
and that the costs ofcourt are taxed against the party incurring same All other relief
not expressly granted herein is denied
This judgment is final disposes of all claims and parties and is appealable f-b
SIGNED and ENTERED this 3 day ofJanuary 2017 L
348TH DISTRICT COURT
2
Page 2 of 2
CAUSE NO 348-289708-16
2345 MEACHAM LLC DBA BUCKS CABARET
Plaintiff
v
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION
Defendant
sect IN THE DISTRICT COURT
348TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
TARRANT COUNTY TEXAS
sect sect sect sect sect sect sect sect sect
ORDER AFFIRMING TABC DECISION fllJ()1)1-j 13J
On tkis day came on to be heard the above-tyled and numbered cause
pursuant to Ch 2001 ofthe Texas Government Code (the Administrative Procedure
Act) and sect 1167 of the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code 2345 Meacham LLC
dba Bucks Cabaret and the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission appeared by
and through their attorneys of record and announced ready All matters of fact and
controversy were submitted The Court after reviewing the evidence and hearing
the arguments of counsel finds that the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission
Order of October 14 2016 is supported by substantial evidence
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED ADJUDGED and DECREED that the
Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commissions Order of October 14 2016 suspending
Plaintiffs Mixed Beverage Permit MB753709 and the associated Beverage Cartage
Permit and Mixed Beverage Late Hours Permit is supported by substantial
evidence and thus is AFFIRMED _1 L IJND Tltld1lt lJAS t-lltJ cflfAfl ltJr tlJ~
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED ADJUDGED and DECREED that the Plaintiff
shall take nothing by this suit and that Defendant shall be in all things discharged
ion
ON ALL SERVED VIAIE-MAILED - HAND DtLIVERY -MAIL
=----WHO 16 TO
_--13 1
SElVE COPIEIS ON gtLL OTHEN
and that the costs ofcourt are taxed against the party incurring same All other relief
not expressly granted herein is denied
This judgment is final disposes of all claims and parties and is appealable f-b
SIGNED and ENTERED this 3 day ofJanuary 2017 L
348TH DISTRICT COURT
2
CAUSE NO 348-289708-16
2345 MEACHAM LLC DBA BUCKS CABARET
Plaintiff
v
TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION
Defendant
sect IN THE DISTRICT COURT
348TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
TARRANT COUNTY TEXAS
sect sect sect sect sect sect sect sect sect
ORDER AFFIRMING TABC DECISION fllJ()1)1-j 13J
On tkis day came on to be heard the above-tyled and numbered cause
pursuant to Ch 2001 ofthe Texas Government Code (the Administrative Procedure
Act) and sect 1167 of the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code 2345 Meacham LLC
dba Bucks Cabaret and the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission appeared by
and through their attorneys of record and announced ready All matters of fact and
controversy were submitted The Court after reviewing the evidence and hearing
the arguments of counsel finds that the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission
Order of October 14 2016 is supported by substantial evidence
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED ADJUDGED and DECREED that the
Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commissions Order of October 14 2016 suspending
Plaintiffs Mixed Beverage Permit MB753709 and the associated Beverage Cartage
Permit and Mixed Beverage Late Hours Permit is supported by substantial
evidence and thus is AFFIRMED _1 L IJND Tltld1lt lJAS t-lltJ cflfAfl ltJr tlJ~
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED ADJUDGED and DECREED that the Plaintiff
shall take nothing by this suit and that Defendant shall be in all things discharged
ion
ON ALL SERVED VIAIE-MAILED - HAND DtLIVERY -MAIL
=----WHO 16 TO
_--13 1
SElVE COPIEIS ON gtLL OTHEN
and that the costs ofcourt are taxed against the party incurring same All other relief
not expressly granted herein is denied
This judgment is final disposes of all claims and parties and is appealable f-b
SIGNED and ENTERED this 3 day ofJanuary 2017 L
348TH DISTRICT COURT
2
and that the costs ofcourt are taxed against the party incurring same All other relief
not expressly granted herein is denied
This judgment is final disposes of all claims and parties and is appealable f-b
SIGNED and ENTERED this 3 day ofJanuary 2017 L
348TH DISTRICT COURT
2