[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
JANUARY 23, 2007
No. 06-15065
THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar
CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 05-00273-CV-FTM-29-SPC
CASTAWAYS BACKWATER CAFÉ, INC.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS
AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATIONS DIVISION
OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES AND TOBACCO,
GEOFF LUEBKEMANN,
JOHN O. AGWUNOBI,
PAT PARMER,
SIMONE MARSTILLER,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
_________________________
(January 23, 2007)
Before MARCUS, WILSON and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Castaways Backwater Café, Inc. (“Castaways”) appeals the district court’s
dismissal with prejudice of its amended complaint seeking injunctive and declaratory
relief and asserting that the Florida Clean Indoor Air Act (“FCIAA”), Fla. Stat. §
386.01 et seq., was facially unconstitutional because it banned smoking in most
indoor workplaces but included an exemption for smoking in “stand-alone bars.”1
We review a district court’s grant of a motion to dismiss de novo; and we take as true
the facts as alleged in the complaint. Owens v. Samkle Auto., Inc., 425 F.3d 1318,
1320 (11th Cir. 2005). After careful review, we affirm.
In the amended complaint, Castaways alleged that the defendants, in their
official capacities, had attempted to enforce the FCIAA and thereby prevent
Castaways from allowing its patrons to smoke inside of its business premises.
Castaways sought a declaration that the FCIAA created an unconstitutional, arbitrary,
and capricious classification by distinguishing between restaurants and stand-alone
bars and thereby violated the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution
because the classification was not rationally related to a legitimate government
1
Castaways sought injunctive and declaratory relief against the Secretary of the Department
of Business and Professional Regulations of the State of Florida, Division of Alcoholic Beverages
and Tobacco; the Director of the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco; the Secretary of the
Department of Health of the State of Florida; and the Director of the Division of Hotels and
Restaurants of the Department of Business and Professional Regulations of the State of Florida.
2
purpose.2 The district court held that the Florida legislature’s stated objective in
enacting the FCIAA -- to protect citizens from the health hazards of second-hand
tobacco smoke -- satisfied rational-basis review because the distinction drawn
between restaurants and stand-alone bars could legitimately be based on the regular
presence of children in the former type of establishment but not the latter.
In the instant case, no fundamental constitutional right and no suspect
classification is involved. The Equal Protection Clause thus requires only that the
challenged classification be rationally related to a legitimate government interest. See
Lofton v. Sec’y of Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 358 F.3d 804, 818 (11th Cir.
2004), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 1081 (2005). “The central mandate of the equal
protection guarantee is that ‘[t]he sovereign may not draw distinctions between
individuals based solely on differences that are irrelevant to a legitimate
governmental objective.’” Id. at 817 (quoting Lehr v. Robertson, 463 U.S. 248, 265
(1983)). Here, we readily conclude that the district court did not err in its Equal
Protection analysis nor in its conclusion that the Legislature’s distinction between
restaurants and stand-alone bars is rationally related to the legitimate interest of
2
Castaways also asserted the FCIAA violated of its substantive due-process, but has not
appealed as to that claim.
3
protecting public health. Accordingly, the court properly dismissed the amended
complaint.
AFFIRMED.
4