Lynn bar owners to wait after hearing postponed

SALEM – Bar owners across the city will have to wait a few more days to find out whether a temporary restraining order will be granted by the court against the Dec. 19 decision by the Licensing Board to rollback bar hours from 2 a.m. to 1 a.m.If approved, the restraining order would allow attorneys Joseph Dever and Frederick Riley who are representing the proprietors, to seek additional information to support their case and reverse the ruling.Dever presented his argument to Judge Maureen Hogan at Salem Superior Court Wednesday for the request of a 60-day temporary restraining order.However before the case began, City Attorney Vincent Phelan presented Dever with an affidavit and memorandum, which Dever said he had yet to review and requested additional time to do so.?For the record, I was just handed this while standing here and I haven?t had a chance to read it,” Dever said. “I faxed the Defendant our memorandum and affidavit on Jan. 4. This is unfair to hold against me.”In response, Hogan granted the Plaintiff two business days to review the Defendants? affidavits and memorandum and they are allowed to submit any additional documents by Friday at 4 p.m. if they so desire and ordered the case recessed.Hogan will then review the entire case and enter her decision regarding the temporary restraining order sometime next week.If the request for a temporary restraining order were to be granted, it would in essence restrain the city from enforcing the rollback until the case has been decided.Prior to the recess, Dever specifically made the case to Hogan that the Licensing Board violated the open meeting law in its decision to rollback bar hours from 2 a.m. to 1 a.m. and requested a temporary restraining order to maintain the status quo and to investigate whether the Mayor (Edward J. Clancy Jr.) discussed the rollback with the Board in between hearings.?But you don?t have any other evidence other than speculation right now do you?” Hogan asked.?Precisely your honor, we need to find out more information and reconvene at a later date,” Dever said. “We also need to check telephone calls, other meetings to see if they are relevant, but we can?t do that without the opportunity to conduct a discovery.”Phelan said the Plaintiff?s appear to be alleging fraud, duress, or undue influence by the Lynn Licensing Board in their motion for a temporary restraining order, and also that their request is merely a moot point since all allegations of an open meeting law violation were corrected during a court-ordered second hearing on Nov. 28.?The Board properly noticed all three of the hearings, rescinded prior votes and made detailed findings, so this is basically a continuation of a hearing on the same topic and the violations alleged are over,” he said. “The Plaintiff?s basically want time to see if something maybe happened and then come back in 60 days and add it to their complaint. If they had evidence, they wouldn?t be coming in with a search warrant, they would just have it.”Dever alleged that Clancy contacted several bars in the city in September 2007, said he was thinking about pursuing a rollback, then called the bars back and said that he was going to forward with it.Then he supposedly contacted the Licensing Board to have a public hearing on the rollback.?There was no indication that this matter was discussed at the Licensing Board, but yet they issued a notice for a hearing,” Dever said. “There had to be communications beforehand.”Phelan said the city was fairly efficient in getting the hearing scheduled and that there aren?t any continuing violations.?At the end of the Nov. 28 hearing, Coppinger (Chair of the Board) asked if you (Dever, Riley) believe that we have complied with the courts, and both of you said yes,” he said.In regards to a loss of money from the rollback, Dever said the Plaintiff?s have suffered greatly since they were ordered to close one hour earlier.Phelan agreed that a loss of money would likely occur over time with a