On June 2, 2016, the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts dismissed claims brought by Capital Video Corporation against the City of Pittsfield in a case that highlights the unique combination of deep knowledge of the subject matter, common sense, and persistence that Robinson Donovan’s attorneys bring to municipal defense litigation. Capital Video’s claims arose from the denial of a sign permit application by the City’s Building Inspectors Department. Amongst other things, Capital Video sought to challenge the constitutionality of the City’s Zoning Ordinance as it pertains to “Adult Entertainment Establishments” and requested a determination that would allow the operation of a proposed store in a particular location in the City.

Robinson Donovan attorneys Nancy Frankel Pelletier and David Lawless argued in their motion to dismiss the complaint that Capital Video’s claims failed, first, because it had never pursued an administrative appeal of the denial of the sign permit as required by Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, and because it had not supported its Massachusetts and federal civil rights claims.

Prior to the hearing on the motion to dismiss, Capital Video requested the opportunity to seek leave from the Court to amend its complaint. During the course of that process, Nancy and David were able to show that a company with an apparent connection to Capital Video was operating a store similar, if not identical, to the one that Capital Video was allegedly attempting to open from Capital Video’s chosen location. The Court then dismissed the case because there was no longer an actual case or controversy for it to decide.

For more information regarding Capital Video Corporation v. Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Pittsfield, et al., please contact Nancy Frankel Pelletier, Esq. or David S. Lawless, Esq.

See coverage on BerkshireEagle.com.