[media-credit name=’BRYAN FAUST/Herald photo’ align=’alignnone’ width=’648′][/media-credit]A judge found that the 24 Madison-Dane County Tavern League bars sued in a class-action lawsuit were not illegally price fixing and conspiring, following a Wisconsin Circuit Court ruling Thursday.

The lawsuit filed by three University of Wisconsin students ended in dismissal by Dane County Circuit Court Judge Angela Bartell, who said the bar owners were forced into the voluntary drink-special situation only after they received pressure and demands from the City of Madison in Sept. 2002, according to the court order.

In a summary judgment, Bartell dismissed the lawsuit on account of the taverns’ agreement to limit Friday and Saturday drink specials after 8 p.m. following requests from the city’s Alcohol License and Review Committee, city officials and members of UW’s Policy Alternatives Community and Education committee.

Because the taverns voluntarily agreed to the ban following “regulatory demands,” Bartell ruled the city’s ability to place conditions on licenses and also to regulate the sale of alcohol “impliedly repeals” the application of state antitrust laws, especially when action is taken for public health issues such as alcohol.

While the students labeled the suit an issue of “statutory construction” and not one concerned with “whether competition is a good thing or a bad thing in the tavern industry,” Thursday’s ruling dismisses it from carrying on to trial.

The plaintiffs were unavailable for comment.

Attorney Kevin O’Connor of LaFollete Godfrey & Kahn, who represented 21 of the 24 taverns involved in the lawsuit, said there was no conspiracy, adding state antitrust laws “don’t apply to this case” due to the “political compromise” which occurred between the city and the bar owners involved in the ban.

O’Connor said the bar owners he represents, including the Nitty Gritty, Bullfeather’s and State Street Brats, are “delighted with the ruling and vindicated.”

The bar owners sued in the lawsuit “felt they were reacting from what [city] regulators asked them to do,” O’Connor said.

He added the student plaintiffs may have complaints with the ruling and can now file a notice of appeal to the court following Bartell’s summary judgment dismissal.

Marsh Shapiro, owner of the Nitty Gritty and ALRC Tavern League representative, said he does not see an appellate court looking favorably on the case, adding he is elated with today’s ruling but not surprised.

“We felt from day one that this was a frivolous lawsuit,” Shapiro said.

The lawsuit, according to Shapiro, is “absolutely a sham” due to the fact there was no conspiracy — only pressure on downtown establishments from the city, the university and from taverns outside the campus area.

O’Connor added city officials were pushing for seven-day-a-week drink-special restrictions, and the taverns agreed to the voluntary ban in an effort to cooperate.

Agreeing to weekend special bans resulted in a settlement between bar owners and the city. The settlement was “unilaterally forced upon” the owners due to the threat that city officials would impose a tighter restriction on drink sales, according to court documents.

The voluntary ban also affected a number of establishments that did not offer drink specials, O’Connor added.

“It’s a sad commentary on the legal system when … this happens to a group of people who were trying to cooperate with the city and the university to do something positive,” Shapiro said.

Ald. Mike Verveer, District 4, said if the students’ case had been successful, seven-day-a-week drink-special bans would have been reinstated, and many student-favorite bars would have gone out of business.

“This [lawsuit] already affected their livelihoods, and if it had been successful, a lot of ‘Ma and Pa’ operations would have gone out of business,” Verveer said.

The lawsuit hurt the businesses involved, according to Shapiro, because legal fees for the yearlong case amounted to “hundreds of thousands of dollars.”

“It’s a good day for us,” Shapiro said. “The only thing that would make it better would be some sort of legal action against the people who brought this lawsuit against us.”