GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE REGULATION ADMINISTRATION ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL BOARD

***
NOTICE OF STATUS AND SHOW CAUSE HEARINGS IN THE MATTER OF: Mimi & D,LLC t/aMood Respondent To: Abeba Abye Beyene, Managing Member Mimi & D, LLC t/a Mood 1318 9th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001 Case No. 12-251-00001,II-CMP-00470, I I-CMP-0051 I License No. 86037 Retailer's Class CT

The licensee is hereby directed to appear before the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board ("the Board"), Reeves Center, 2000 14th St., N.W., Suite 400, Washington, D.C. 20009, on ---------:c' 2012, at (a.m.! p.m.) for a Status Hearing and also on _ _ _ _ _, 2012, at (a.m.!p.m.) for a Show Cause Hearing. The Status Hearing is a non-adversarial proceeding where the Board will ask whether the licensed establishment is contesting the charge(s) dcscribed below. If you are not contesting the charge(s), you will have the opportunity to present to the Board, at thc status hearing, any offer in compromise reached with the Office ofthe Attorney General, pursuant to Title 23 ofthe District of Columbia Municipal Regulations (hereinafter "DCMR") Section 1604.5. The offer in compromise will be based upon the statutory fine range for the specific violation(s) pursuant to 23 DCMR Section 800 through Section 802. If you choose to contest the chargees) at the status hearing, the matter will be continued until your scheduled Show Cause Hearing date to show cause why the license should not be fined, and suspended orrevoked pursuant to D.C. Official Code 25-822, 823 and 830 (2001) and 23 DCMR 1604. The District of Columbia is represented by the Office of the Attorney General in these proceedings. A copy of any pleading or any other written communication addressed to the Board should also be delivered to Michael Stern or Louise Phillips, Assistant Attorneys General, Office of the Attorney General for the District of Columbia, Civil Enforcement Section, 441 4th Street, N.W., Suite 650 North, Washington, D.C. 20001. You, or your legal counsel if represented, should contact this attorney at (202) 727-3881 and (202) 727-0874 respectively upon receipt of this notice to discuss any potential offer in compromise to be considered by the Board at the Status Hearing.

You may personally appear at these hearings, and you, as well as the licensed establishment, may be represented by legal counsel. At your scheduled show cause hearing, you have the right to produce witnesses and evidence on your behalf and to cross-examine witnesses. You may examine evidence produced and have subpoenas issued on your behalfto require the production of witnesses and evidence. All hearings are conducted before the Board in the English language. If you, any corporate officer, or any witnesses to be called are deaf, have a hearing impediment or cannot readily understand or communicate in the spoken English language, an application may be made to the Board for the appointment of a qualified interpreter. The basis of the contemplated action is certain information received by the Board which, if proven to be true, would justify the imposition of a fine, and suspension orrevocation ofyour license by the Board. The charges upon which the show cause notice is based are set forth below.

Charge I:

You interfered with an investigation for which the Board may take the proposed action pursuant to D.C. Official Code 25-823 (5) (2001).
On Friday, December 30, 20 11, two persons were stabbed and seriously wounded immediately outside the establishment. Just prior to the stabbing there was an altercation inside the establishment. The security officers ofthe establishment removed all patrons involved in the altercation. The stabbing occurred shortly thereafter when one performer at the establishment and one promoter for the establishment were assaulted. One of the stabbed persons returned inside the establishment to obtain a ride to Howard University Hospital. No one from the establishment called the Metropolitan Police Department concerning the initial altercation or the subsequent stabbing. When Alcoholic Beverage Regulation Administration investigators went to the establishment to investigate, the establishment made several attempts to hinder the investigation. There was an employee stationed at the door to the establishment at all times, blood found within 2-3 feet of the entry way, yet when asked by investigators, the owner indicated no one at the establishment or any of its employees were aware of the stabbing. The owner told members of MPD that the establishment was closed early because people were smoking in the establishment. However, the owner told investigators that the establishment was scheduled to close early at 12:30 a.m. In contradiction, the first MPD officer to arrive on the scene saw patrons leaving the establishment well after 1:00 a.m. The chief of security indicated to investigators that the patrons were removed for smoking inside the establishment. However, witnesses reported there was a fight in the establishment, and that patrons were removed because of the fight. The owner of the establishment indicated to the investigators that the security cameras were not working on the evening 2

in question. The investigators later learned that several cameras, including a camera on the inside front door, were working. The owner of the establishment indicated that there was no tape of the night of the incident. Additionally, the establishment failed to follow its own security plan designed to ensure the safety ofpatrons. The security plan calls for groups removed from the establishment to be separated and for time to pass before groups are allowed to intermingle. However, in this instance all offending patrons were removed at the same time and through the same exit door. The security plan calls for security cameras to be monitored and recordable to a compact disc. However, in this instance no one was monitoring the camera, and the cameras were not capable of recording. Further, investigators found the hard disk ofthe recording device was full, and that the status screen ofthe system indicated that portions ofthe device was off and disconnected. The security plan called for the establishment to make incident reports and call the Metropolitan Police ifthere is a violation ofthe law. In this instance the establishment did neither.

Charge II:

You failed to follow your security plan filed with the Alcoholic Beverage Regulation Administration for which the Board may take the proposed action pursuant to D.C. Official Code 25-823 (6) (2001).
The allegations contained after charge I are adopted and incorporated herein by reference.

Charge III:

You permitted, in the licensed establishment, the use of a controlled substance identified in the CSA, to wit, marihuana, pursuant to 21 U.S.c. 812, for which the Board may take the proposed action pursuant to D.C. Official Code 25-822 (2) (A) (2001).
When MPD Officers entered the establishment there was an extremely heavy odor of marihuana, such that is was immediately recognizable to anyone who entered the establishment.

Charge IV:

You violated paragraph 6 of the Voluntary Agreement ("VA"), which you entered on March 10,2008, by allowing music to be played at the licensed establishment at volumes that were audible by occupants in their adjacent residential property, in violation of D.C. Official Code 25-446 (2001), for which the Board may take proposed action pursuant to D.C. Official Code 25-823(1) (2001).
On September 2, 2011, at approximately II :00 p.m., an Alcoholic Beverage Regulation Administration (ABRA) investigator visited the complainant's residence, located at 1326 Naylor Court, NW, which is located down the alley to the rear of the establishment. After the ABRA investigator's visit, the complainant sent an email to the establishment to comply with the notice requirement in the Voluntary Agreement. On 3

September 2nd at 12:00 a.m., the ABRA investigator visited the establishment to speak to staff and the owner about the noise complaint. The applicable paragraphs of the Voluntary Agreement were reviewed and discussed. The owner agreed to do what was necessary to lower the volume. The ABRA investigator completed a regulatory inspection and left the establishment. After the September 2nd visit to the original complainant's residence, the ABRA investigator received additional noise complaints from the original complainant and from other residents of adjacent residential properties. There were also complaints about trash pick-up and parking. On Sunday, October 15, 2011, the ABRA investigator concluded that Mood had violated paragraph 6 of its Voluntary Agreement ("VA") after a visit a complainant's residence and noting that music emanating from Mood could be heard inside the residence. The Investigator determined that the establishment had notice and opportunity to cure pursuant to paragraphs 16 and 17 of the VA.

Charge V:

You violated paragraph 6 of the Voluntary Agreement ("VA"), which you entered on March 10, 2008, by allowing music to bc played at tbe licensed establishment at volumes that werc audible by occupants in their adjacent residential property, in violation of D.C. Official Code 25-446 (2001), for which the Board may take proposed action pursuant to D.C. Official Code 25-823(1) (2001).
On October 29,2011, an Alcoholic Beverage Regulation Administration (ABRA) investigator visited the complainant's residence, located at 1316 Naylor Court, NW, to follow-up on noise complaints from Friday, October 28,2011, and Saturday, October 29, 2011. The residence is located directly next to the establishment. The ABRA investigator could hear loud volumes of bass and music which was clearly audible and disruptive inside the residence. On the same night as the ABRA investigator's visit, the complainant sent an email to the establishment to comply with the notice requirement in the Voluntary Agreement. After the October 29 th visit to the original complainant's residence, the ABRA investigator receivcd additional noise complaints from other residents of adjacent residential properties. There were also complaints about noisy patrons outside the establishment and parking. The ABRA investigator and an MPD officer met outside the establishment and conducted a noise meter reading on November 13, 2011, which registered a reading of 18.7 decibels. The maximum allowable decibel level for commercial areas at night is apparently 60 decibels. On Saturday, November 26, 2011, the ABRA investigator visited the residence at 1326

Naylor Court, NW, see charge IV above, and noted low levels of noise (bass) inside the residence. On Monday, November 28, 2011, the ABRA investigator concluded that Mood had violated paragraph 6 of its Voluntary Agreement ("VA") after a visit a complainant's residence and noting that music emanating from Mood could be heard inside the residence. The Investigator determined that the establishment had notice and opportunity to cure pursuant to paragraphs 16 and 17 of the VA. Please note that, under 23 DCMR 1604.3, your failure to appear at the time and place set for the hearing, either in person or through counsel, or both, will not preclude the Board's proceeding in this matter. Should you have any questions, contact ABRA Adjudication Specialist Dannette Walker at (202) 442-4418.

Date

Ruthanne Miller Chairperson Alcoholic Beverage Control Board

~~