DOCUMENT 2

ELECTRONICALLY FILED
8/10/2023 1:31 PM
47-CV-2023-900928.00
CIRCUIT COURT OF
MADISON COUNTY, ALABAMA
DEBRA KIZER, CLERK
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR MADISON COUNTY, ALABAMA

MADISON SQUARE HOTEL, LLC, )

)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. )
CASE NO. 47-CV-________
)
RCP COMPANIES, LLC; MID-CITY )
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
OWNER, LLC; )
and OCTO HOSPITALITY, LLC, )
)
Defendants. )
)

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff MADISON SQUARE HOTEL, LLC (“MSH”) files this Complaint against

Defendants RCP COMPANIES, LLC (“RCP”); MID-CITY OWNERS, LLC (“MCO”); and

OCTO HOSPITALITY, LLC (“Octo” and, together with RCP and MCO, “Defendants”).

PARTIES

1. MSH owns and operates a Holiday Inn situated in Madison County, Alabama

located at 5903 University Drive, Huntsville, Alabama 35806.

2. RCP is an Alabama limited liability company located at 920 Bob Wallace Avenue

SW, Suite 320, Huntsville, Alabama 35801.

3. MCO is an Alabama limited liability company located at 4245 Balmoral Drive SW,

Suite 204, Huntsville, Alabama 35801.

4. Octo is an Alabama limited liability company located at 920 Bob Wallace Avenue

SW, Suite 320, Huntsville, Alabama 35801.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

5. MSH seeks, among other things, compensatory and punitive damages in excess of

$20,000. This Court possesses subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to Alabama
 DOCUMENT 2

Code §§ 12-11-30 and 12-11-33.

6. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to Alabama Code §§ 6-3-2 and 6-2-7

because: (a) a substantial part of the acts and/or omissions giving rise to this Complaint occurred

in Madison County, Alabama; (b) MSH operates in Madison County, Alabama; (c) RCP operates

in Madison, County, Alabama; (d) Octo maintains an office in Madison County, Alabama and; (e)

Defendants’ conduct caused and continues to cause a substantial, extensive nuisance in Madison

County, Alabama, resulting in material harm to the MSH which gives rise to this action.

7. The Court possesses personal jurisdiction over Defendants because: (a) Defendants

purposefully availed themselves of the benefits and burdens of Alabama’s laws by conducting

business activities within this state; and/or (b) Defendants’ actions and omissions caused and

continue to cause substantial and material harm to MSH in Madison County, Alabama.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

8. MSH opened its Mid-City Holiday Inn location in 1986 and has faithfully serviced

the Huntsville community for the last 36 years.

9. Defendants, and each of them in their own specific role, manage, operate, and

control the day to day operations of an open-air bar and event venue named “The Camp” situated

in Madison County, Alabama at 5909 University Dr. NW, Huntsville, AL 35806.

10. The Camp is located and operates on a parcel of property immediately adjacent to

the Holiday Inn, less than 100 yards away.

11. RCP constitutes a real estate and asset management company that owns, operates,

finances, and/or manages The Camp. In fact, RCP’s website lists The Camp in its portfolio.

12. Octo operates a hospitality consulting company that manages The Camp’s day-to-

day operations. In emails to Pete Doyle (“Mr. Doyle”), MSH’s Mid-City Holiday Inn General

2
 DOCUMENT 2

Manager, Octo represented that it controls The Camp’s activities.

13. MCO constitutes a property management company that owns the property on which

The Camp is built.

14. During construction in 2018, one or more persons representing The Camp informed

MSH that The Camp intended to offer live music one or two nights per week. Understandably,

MSH had concerns. At that time and multiple times since, MSH voiced its concerns to persons

representing The Camp. In response, the persons representing The Camp (i.e., Defendants)

represented and assured MSH that the music would only be acoustical and played at low volumes.

They also represented and assured MSH that The Camp’s location was temporary. Both

representations and assurances were completely false.

15. Despite the representations and assurances, The Camp continues to operate in the

“temporary” location, offers events and live music more frequently than promised (up to four or

five nights per week), and plays amplified music at deafening volumes. In fact, The Camp

generates music and other noises so loud that it causes the Holiday Inn’s windows to rattle and

vibrate.

16. The Camp routinely plays live music after 11:00 p.m. and, on occasion, even past

midnight. Unsurprisingly, the loud and obnoxious music generates voluminous and repeated

complaints from Holiday Inn customers. A small sampling of the complaints received by MSH

from its customers in 2022 are set forth below:

• “There was an outdoor food truck venue/bar located right next door.
That evening there was music BLARING so loud that we could hear
it in our hotel room. This noise that rattled windows continued until
11:00 PM. It was impossible to sleep! Disappointing!”

• “They have concerts in the adjacent parking lot on weekends. The

music blasts into all rooms well past midnight.”

3
 DOCUMENT 2

• “You can’t control this, but the open-air facility next door blaring
music until 11pm one night disturbed everyone’s rest.”

• “Here on business for 5 days. There is an outdoor bar/concert venue

next door and the music played loud EVERY NIGHT until 11pm or
after without stopping!! People were loud in the parking lot and
resting was impossible!! So frustrating!!”

• “[T]here is an outdoor dining place next door and my last night

there, before a long flight, they had a DJ flapping his gums and
playing loud music until 1am. Even with the AC fan on constant,
there was no sleep to be had. This is not the Hotels fault, or even in
their control.”

• “Music from the CAMP (club next door) is entirely too loud. I
realize this is not the hotel but if things don’t change, I’ll have to
find somewhere else to stay on my next business trip.”

• “Not being in a hotel that is next to a bar that blasts music all night
long and you are unable to sleep and then miserable the next day.”

• “I was staying at the hotel for my daughter to run in a cross country

meet the next morning. She needed to get to bed early. We tried to
go to bed and apparently there is a bar right by the hotel that has
outside, extremely loud music. For hours we tried to go to sleep, it
was ridiculous how loud this music was. Why would a hotel allow
this?”

• “I will say even the backside of this hotel on the 5th floor, the next
door establishments music was insanely loud and could cause an
unpleasant stay if you can’t block out the noise.”

• “The location next to ‘the Camp’ makes this place a never stay
again. First the noise/music is a huge issue, second patrons for the
Camp park in the hotel parking lot and are extremely rude and
aggressive.”

• “I’m irritated. Its 12:21 am and there’s a party going on next door
that is ridiculously loud. They have awoken our baby twice. Never
again here!”

• “We could not relax and go to sleep at the time we wanted because
of the loud music. We could hear the music over the television and
the shower.”

• “[T]he business next door blaring the music RUINED our relaxation

4
 DOCUMENT 2

and sleep time.”

17. Aside from the numerous complaints about The Camp, MSH customers signed a

petition stating that The Camp disturbed their peace and comfort with loud music and/or profanity.

18. MSH’s Mid-City Holiday Inn is also located near Orion, an 8,000-seat

amphitheater, and a TopGolf facility. Orion regularly hosts concerts on weeknights and weekends.

TopGolf operates seven (7) nights per week and also permits the playing of music. However,

MSH has not received any complaints about the noise from either Orion or TopGolf.

19. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendants’ acts and omissions, MSH suffered

damages, including, for example, lost customers and received negative customer reviews, because

of the noise emanating from The Camp.

20. Mr. Doyle attempted to propose a solution with Defendants. Every time Mr. Doyle

raised the situation with Defendants; however, he received the same answer: MSH should expect

“some noise” because it is located in an entertainment district.

21. At one point, Defendants agreed to lower the volume for events with profanity and

establish a cut off time of 11:00 p.m. for all events. However, like all of their other promises,

Defendants failed to fulfill any such promises.

22. Because Defendants failed regulate the activities and nuisance created by The

Camp, Mr. Doyle contacted the City of Huntsville and the Huntsville Police Department. The City

of Huntsville investigated MSH’s complaints and assessed fines for The Camp’s violation of

Huntsville’s noise ordinance.

23. Huntsville’s noise ordinance possesses qualitative and quantitative aspects to

address noise. Quantitatively, Huntsville’s noise ordinance establishes a limit of 62 decibels for

commercial or business spaces. However, Defendants cause, permit, and even encourage music

5
 DOCUMENT 2

in excess of 70 decibels on a regular basis, leaving MSH’s customers addressing noise levels

commensurate with a vacuum cleaner running constantly inside their hotel room. Qualitatively,

even when the noise falls within the decibel limit, vibrations from the events and live music shake

the windows of the Holiday Inn and disturb its guests.

24. In addition to the noise, The Camp’s patrons often park in the Holiday Inn parking

lot, taking spots from MSH’s paying customers. Defendants are well-aware of this problem but

failed or refused to adequately address it. As a result, MSH had to install a security fence and hire

security guards to keep The Camp’s customers from trespassing onto MSH’s property.

25. Aside from noise and improper use of the Holiday Inn parking lot, The Camp hosts

parades and events, without permits, on the public road leading to the Holiday Inn’s entrance.

During these parades and events, The Camp blocks off the road, frustrating or eliminating MSH

customer access to the Holiday Inn during these activities.

26. Defendants openly defied, and continue to defy, Alabama’s nuisance laws under

the assumption that entertainment districts allow unfettered noise. Because of Defendant’s

nuisance, MSH has suffered a loss of business, loss of reputation, fines, and negative reviews.

CAUSES OF ACTION

COUNT I – NUISANCE

27. MSH re-alleges and reasserts the preceding factual allegations as if fully set forth

herein.

28. As adjacent landowners, Defendants owe MSH a duty not to interfere with the

comfort and enjoyment of their property.

29. Defendants deafening music, wild parties, parades, and customers’ trespass rise to

a level of a private nuisance because it has caused and continues to cause substantial, serious, and

6
 DOCUMENT 2

on-going damage and inconvenience to MSH.

30. Defendants breached their duty to MSH by, among other things, taking away the

peace and tranquility of their hotel.

31. Any reasonable person would be disturbed by The Camp’s activities, sounds, lights,

parties, and customers.

32. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ actions set out above, MSH has

been and will continue to be inconvenienced and suffer damages, including, for example:

A. A loss of customers and business;

B. Negative reviews on public forums;

C. Installation of additional security devices and private security personnel;

and

D. Loss of use and enjoyment of the Holiday Inn by MSH and its customers.

COUNT II – NEGLIGENCE PER SE

33. MSH re-alleges and reasserts the preceding factual allegations as if fully set forth

herein.

34. At all relevant times, Defendants owed a duty to comply with applicable statutes,

regulations, ordinances, and rules related to the volume of noise emanating from The Camp.

35. Defendants breached this duty when they allowed, and encouraged, profanity and

obnoxiously loud music to be played at The Camp.

36. Defendants further breached this duty by continually allowing The Camp to blast

music over 62 decibels late into the night in violation of HUNTSVILLE, AL CODE OF ORDINANCES

ch.12, art. 5, § 12-265 (the “Noise Ordinance”). The Noise Ordinance makes it unlawful for any

person to “operate, cause to be operated or generate any source of sound in such a manner as to

create a sound level which exceeds” 62 decibels on a commercial or business use property.

7
 DOCUMENT 2

37. Huntsville already fined Defendants for violations of the Noise Ordinance on

multiple occasions.

38. MSH was, and is, within the class of persons and entities the Noise Ordinance was

meant to protect.

39. Defendants’ failure to comply with the Noise Ordinance created and continues to

create the type of noise violation, nuisance, and complaints that the law was designed to protect.

40. Defendants’ failure to comply with the Noise Ordinance was a direct and proximate

cause of MSH’s damages and injuries.

COUNT III – NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION

41. MSH re-alleges and reasserts the preceding factual allegations as if fully set forth

herein.

42. Defendants recklessly or negligently misrepresented material information

regarding The Camp’s temporary status and plans to promote amplified music.

43. Defendants knew or should have known that the information it conveyed to MSH

was false.

44. Defendants failed to exercise reasonable care in obtaining and in communicating

the information regarding The Camp’s business model to MSH.

45. MSH reasonably and justifiably relied on Defendants’ representations about its

temporary status and Defendants’ promises that The Camp would play acoustical music only.

46. MSH would have attempted to take additional steps to protect itself, but for the

misrepresentations of Defendants.

47. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ misrepresentations, MSH suffered

and will continue to suffer damages.

8
 DOCUMENT 2

48. MSH demands judgment against Defendants in the form of compensatory damages,

and other and further relief to which MSH shows it is justly entitled at law or in equity as the jury

deems fit.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, premises considered, MSH respectfully requests that Defendants be

summoned to appear and answer, and that upon final trial, the Court enter a judgment for MSH

and against Defendants as follows:

A. for actual damages, consequential damages, incidental damages, punitive damages

and/or other damages the Court deems appropriate;

B. for pre- and post-judgment interest;

C. for attorneys’ and expert witness fees, court costs and all other expenses associated

with the prosecution of this action;

D. for equitable relief, including, but not limited to, a permanent injunction precluding

the improper acts and omissions set forth above; and

E. for such other and further relief to which MSH shows they are justly entitled at law

or in equity.

MSH DEMANDS A TRIAL BY JURY AS TO ALL CLAIMS SO TRIABLE.

Dated: August 10, 2023

/s/ William R. Lunsford

William R. Lunsford (LUN008)
One of the attorneys for MSH

9
 DOCUMENT 2

OF COUNSEL:

William R. Lunsford
Matthew B. Reeves
Reave W. Shewmake
BUTLER SNOW LLP
200 West Side Square, Suite 100
Huntsville, Alabama 35801
Telephone: (256) 936-5650
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]

Attorneys for MSH

PLAINTIFF TO EFFECT SERVICE BY CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT

REQUESTED:

RCP Companies, LLC

c/o Betty Haynes
920 Bob Wallace Ave SW ST 320
Huntsville, AL 35801

Octo Hospitality, LLC

c/o Betty Haynes
920 Bob Wallace Ave SW ST 320
Huntsville, AL 35801

Mid-City Owner, LLC

c/o Betty Haynes
4245 Balmoral Drive SW STE 204
Huntsville, AL 35801

10