17 Catt. 4: In re Skydome Lounge
JEREMY, C.J., delivered the opinion of the Cart. CATTLEYA, J., wrote a separate concurrence.
Today, I take up the question of whether the Skydome Lounge—a revolving restaurant at Arlington’s DoubleTree Hotel—falls within the jurisdiction of this Supreme Cart. For the reasons given below, I must conclude that it is not. Which is all the better, for the Forget-Me-Not—a particularly vile concoction of cherry brandy, amaretto, banana liqueur, and orange juice—would not fare well by my quill.
Under Section 2 of the Judiciary Act of 2011 (Cartiorari Act), this Cart “shall have exclusive jurisdiction of all food carts, trucks, and other transitory alimentary establishments within those portions of the District of Columbia or the part thereof retroceded to the Commonwealth of Virginia by Act of [the] Congress assembled in the year of our Lord 1847.” From this statement, Rule of Procedure 1-2 provides that “[t]he jurisdiction of the Cart shall extend to all mobile gastronomic enterprises situated throughout those parts of (a) the County of Arlington, Virginia, (b) the District of Columbia, and (c) the City of Alexandria, Virginia, which are reasonably proximate to public transportation of a reasonably rapid and efficient character.” See In re China Garden, 5 Catt. 1 (2012).
In this case, the second and third prongs of our jurisdictional test—location and proximity to public transportation—are clearly met. Therefore, discussion must center on whether the Skydome Lounge is held to constitute a “mobile gastronomic enterprise,” as that term has been interpreted throughout the jurisprudence of this Supreme Cart. Under the decisions of this Cart, the enterprise must be both (1) “mobile,” i.e., capable of moving in its entirety, see China Garden, 5 Catt. 1, and In re Maine Avenue Fish Market, 11 Catt. 3 (2012), and (2) “gastronomic,” i.e., characterized by at least some minimal pretension to “good eating,” see In re Amtrak Café Car, 14 Catt. 1 (2012) (Jeremy, C.J., concurring).
In the present case, the enterprise that is the Skydome Lounge is admittedly “gastronomic.” Though the Forget-Me-Not was an unimaginably abysmal cocktail, it is easily distinguished from the prepackaged offerings held not to be “gastronomic” in Amtrak Café Car. Some poor mixologist of the Skydome Lounge undoubtedly invented or at least prepared the drink. It therefore meets the de minimis test this Cart has established to determine what constitutes “gastronomy.”
Therefore, because the Skydome Lounge is undoubtedly a gastronomic enterprise, discussion must center on whether it is “mobile.” It is no secret I have, in the past, espoused the rather expansive “plate tectonics” test of “mobility.” See In re Brennan’s, 1 Jer. 1 (2012). Unfortunately, the other member of this Cart has repeatedly rejected the sound logic of that decision. See In re Langston Grille on Wheels, 13 Catt. 5 (2012); Amtrak Café Car, 14 Catt. 1. I will take the peacemaking path and stand down in order to preserve the solemn stature of this august institution.
In a growing line of cases, we have held that the enterprise itself must be mobile. China Garden, 5 Catt. 1; In re Dippin’ Dots, 10 Catt. 5 (2012). Not only that, the enterprise must actually be moved, not merely capable of being moved. Maine Avenue Fish Market, 11 Catt. 3 (2012). My sister has also held that the enterprise must bring food to the customer, in contrast to the enterprise in Amtrak Café Car in which the customer moved with the enterprise. That decision could easily resolve the case before us as, in a revolving restaurant, the customer moves with the enterprise. However, I disputed then and continue to dispute now the veracity of that decision. I wrote in that case that the relationship between the enterprise and its customer can find no clear basis in the texts which establish the jurisdiction of this Cart. I stand by that statement.
Instead, I would find that the Skydome Lounge is not “mobile” because the enterprise is incapable of moving from Point A to Point B. Instead, it revolves endlessly around a single point beneath the center of the restaurant. That is, the enterprise goes nowhere and is thus more like the immobilized barge in Maine Avenue Fish Market than the traveling train in Amtrak Café Car. Because the Skydome Lounge revolves around a single point rather than traveling from Point A to Point B, it cannot be considered “mobile.”
Accordingly, the Cart lacks jurisdiction over the Skydome Lounge, and the case is
DISMISSED.
CATTLEYA, J., concurring in the result.
Under our decision in In re Amtrak Café Car, 14 Catt. 1 (2012), Skydome Lounge is outside the jurisdiction of the Cart. The “other member of this Cart” will take the “peacemaking path” by saying only that and nothing more, for in the end the correct result is reached.
from → Jurisdiction, Skydome Lounge
17 Catt. 3: In re Kafta Mania
OPINION OF JUSTICE CATTLEYA, in chambers.
Before the Cart today is Kafta Mania (“KM”), a Lebanese food truck serving the streets of Virginia. Last week I reviewed KM’s Classic Kafta sandwich and stuffed grape leaves, see In re Kafta Mania, 17 Catt. 2 (2013), and now I consider its Halloumi Cheese Panini and baba ghanoush.
I. The Street Food Test
The first issue to be settled can be done so easily. Our regular reader knows that in order to establish who bears the burden of proof in this case, it must be determined whether the food before us qualifies as “street food.” Street food is entitled to the presumption of affirmance by this court, unless the Cart meets the high burden to prove that there is something wrong with the food. See In re Big Cheese, 6 Catt. 2 (2012). We have defined street food as “the kind[] of food[] that can be cooked in front of you and [is] meant to be eaten with your hands, without forks, while standing up.” In re Eat Wonky, 2 Catt. 5 (2011).
Our case law is clear that sandwiches are street food. See, e.g., In re Kababji Food Truck, 15 Catt. 2 (2012); In re Hometown Heros, 14 Catt. 2 (2012); In re Pepe, 13 Catt. 4 (2012); In re Wassub, 13 Catt. 1 (2012); In re Borinquen Lunch Box, 10 Catt. 3 (2012); In re Willie’s Po’Boy, 7 Catt. 4 (2012); Big Cheese, 6 Catt. 2. What is more, because a sandwich is the main component of the meal being reviewed today, the side dish does not need to be street food for the presumption of affirmance to apply. See In re OoH DaT ChickeN, 16 Catt. 3 (2013) (explaining that where “the principal component of a food truck combination platter is reasonably considered ‘street food,’ the presumption of affirmance should apply.”). Thus, without determining whether baba ghanoush is street food, I can say that KM is entitled to the presumption that this Cart should affirm its dishes in toto.
Halloumi Cheese Panini with Baba Ghanoush
II. Halloumi Cheese Panini ($6.99)
KM describes its Halloumi Cheese Panini as “[g]rilled halloumi cheese, tomato and oregano on a 6 inch baguette.” I have tasted a great many cheeses in my life, but I have never had the pleasure to try Halloumi cheese before. (I also have never tried Wensleydale cheese, but I hear good things about it from a cheese connoisseur named Wallace, and I hope to try it soon.) My law clerk tells me that Halloumi is a white cheese with a high melting point. If I had opened my Styrofoam container expecting a melted and oozy grilled cheese sandwich, I might have been disappointed. Maybe, for a second, until I gave KM’s panini a try. The Halloumi cheese was texturally similar to mozzarella, except a bit drier and saltier. It was quite tasty. The combination of cheese, tomato, and oregano was very classic, but with a slightly salty twist. Everything was encased nicely by KM’s choice of bread. The sandwich roll developed beautiful grill marks and a nice crust on the outside.
III. Baba Ghanoush ($1.50)
KM’s baba ghanoush, a mix of mashed eggplant, tahini, garlic, and lemon, was served with pita chips. The chips and dip were very good. The baba ghanoush was marked by a strong smoky taste, which was probably the result of the eggplant being expertly roasted over an open flame. The pita chips were fresh, crunchy, herby, and salty. The pita chips ran out before my portion of baba ghanoush did, but I was more than happy to eat the baba ghanoush on its own . . . and then maybe clean off my Styrofoam container so as to not miss a single drop.
IV. Conclusion
For the reasons above, the case is
AFFIRMED. It is so ordered.
from → $8 to $10, In-Chambers Opinions, Kafta Mania, Lebanese, Proceedings, Under $8
17 Catt. 2: In re Kafta Mania
OPINION OF JUSTICE CATTLEYA, in chambers.
I granted cartiorari to Kafta Mania (“KM”), a food truck serving up Lebanese food. KM’s menu features a variety of sandwiches, including three versions of a kafta sandwich, and side dishes like hummus, baba ghanoush, and stuffed grape leaves. In today’s opinion, I review KM’s signature sandwich, the so-called Classic Kafta, as well as the stuffed grape leaves. In a companion case to be discussed next week, In re Kafta Mania, 17 Catt. 3 (2012), I review KM’s Halloumi Cheese Panini with a side of baba ghanoush.
My first question upon seeing a black-painted food truck with “Kafta Mania” written in white bold letters was, “What is kafta?” KM’s website explains that kafta is “made by grinding meat, mixing it with spices, and forming it into balls or cylinders for cooking.” In other words, kafta is a mix of ground meat and spices, which is shaped into a meatball or patty, and then grilled (or baked or fried). In other other words, kafta is kind of like a hamburger.
In the case of KM’s Classic Kafta, the ground meat is beef; the spices include (at least) parsley, salt, and pepper; and the shape is a rectangular patty. The patty is topped with tomato, red onions, and KM’s “special Mediterranean sauce.” It is then served on a six-inch baguette. (I did not measure KM’s bread, but I assume that KM means to give a measurement of the bread’s length, unlike Subway which describes the length of its subs without intending to give a measurement of length.)
Kafta Mania
Before I discuss the merits of KM’s Classic Kafta, I must determine whether the sandwich and side order before the Cart today are street food. This Cart has defined street food as “the kind[] of food[] that can be cooked in front of you and [is] meant to be eaten with your hands, without forks, while standing up.” See In re Eat Wonky, 2 Catt. 5 (2011). This Cart has repeatedly held that sandwiches are street food. See, e.g., In re Kababji Food Truck, 15 Catt. 2 (2012); In re Hometown Heros, 14 Catt. 2 (2012); In re Pepe, 13 Catt. 4 (2012); In re Wassub, 13 Catt. 1 (2012); In re Borinquen Lunch Box, 10 Catt. 3 (2012); In re Willie’s Po’Boy, 7 Catt. 4 (2012); In re Big Cheese, 6 Catt. 2 (2012).
A dish’s status as street food affects the burden of proof in its case before the Cart. We presume that street food should be fully affirmed unless we meet the high burden to prove that there is something wrong with the food. See Big Cheese, 6 Catt. 2. Because KM’s Classic Kafta is street food, I need not determine whether the side dish of stuffed grape leaves is street food. This is because where “the principal component of a food truck combination platter is reasonably considered ‘street food,’ the presumption of affirmance should apply.” In re OoH DaT ChickeN, 16 Catt. 3 (2013). Here, the principal component (a sandwich) is street food, so the entire sandwich-and-side-dish platter must be affirmed, unless I show that there is a significant flaw with the platter.
Classic Kafta with Stuffed Grape Leaves
I now turn to the Classic Kafta ($7.99). I start first with the bread–the first thing that one’s teeth sinks into when eating the sandwich. Although I have a great passion for crusty bread (especially when dipped into a mix of olive oil and balsamic vinegar), I was afraid that KM’s choice of bread would ruin the sandwich. I feared that a baguette would be too rough against the roof of the mouth and too tough to chew. But to my great delight, I was wrong. KM’s choice of bread (more of a roll than a baguette) was very pleasing–lightly toasted on the outside, and soft and fluffy on the inside.
The filling was even more pleasing. The ground beef patty was succulent when it very easily could have been dried out like an overcooked hamburger. And it was packed with flavor. Whatever was mixed in with the beef (certainly onion and parsley, and maybe allspice and garlic) gave it a very full flavor. The add-ons of a fresh tomato slice, diced red onions, and KM’s special sauce completed the sandwich nicely. The overall effect was a well-rounded, earthy flavor that I’ve never quite tasted before. It was delicious.
My side of stuffed grape leaves ($2 for 4 pieces) matched the high quality of the sandwich. I must admit that I’ve never enjoyed stuffed grape leaves before, but KM’s version changed my mind about the dish. The versions I’ve had in the past either used mint leaves too heavily (I’m not a fan of fresh mint leaves) or didn’t quite manage to fuse the grape leaves and filling into a cohesive dish. KM didn’t do the first and achieved the second. Plus, KM’s stuffed grape leaves were obviously homemade and very, very fresh.
My sandwich-and-one-side lunch came out to $10. Although on the pricey side, the food was very good. And, for me, it was worth paying a little more than usual for lunch in order to try something (i.e., kafta) that I’ve never eaten before. For all these reasons, the case is
AFFIRMED. It is so ordered.
from → $8 to $10, In-Chambers Opinions, Kafta Mania, Lebanese, Proceedings, Under $8
17 Catt. 1: In re Yumpling
CATTLEYA, J., delivered the opinion of the Cart. JEREMY, C.J., wrote a separate concurrence.
We granted cartiorari to Yumpling, which describes itself as “DC’s first and finest dumplings coming fresh out of [a] tricked out truck.” This Cart has previously tried dumplings from a food truck, one based in Arlington, VA. At the time, I wished (to no avail) that the food truck, called Hot People Food, would change its menu to focus exclusively on dumplings—steamed dumplings, fried dumplings, and soup dumplings. See In re Hot People Food, 6 Catt. 4 (2012) (Cattleya, J., concurring). I wanted a dumpling truck on our streets then, and almost a year later, I’m still looking for a dumpling truck. Is Yumpling that dumpling truck?
Yumpling
I. Street Food
Our first order of business is to determine whether Yumpling’s dumplings are “street food” as the Cart has defined the term. This is an issue of who bears the burden of proof in this case. Street food, defined as “the kind[] of food[] that can be cooked in front of you and [is] meant to be eaten with your hands, without forks, while standing up,” In re Eat Wonky, 2 Catt. 5 (2011), is entitled to the presumption that it should be affirmed by this court, unless we can show that the food suffers from a significant flaw. See In re Big Cheese, 6 Catt. 2 (2012). It is the well-settled case law of this judicial body that dumplings are street food. See Hot People Food, 6 Catt. 4. Thus, we have the burden to prove a flaw or else we must conclude that Yumpling’s dumplings belong on the streets.
Beef Dumplings
II. Yumpling’s Beef Dumplings
When we visited Yumpling, it was serving beef, chicken, and vegetable steamed dumplings. It has since added pork and shrimp dumplings to the menu. You can get six pieces for $5 or 10 pieces for $8. Any order can mix and match the different fillings. We opted for six beef dumplings. For the New Year’s calorie counters among us (which includes me), Yumpling advertises that six dumplings are less than 300 calories. You also have the option to pair your dumplings with a side of lobster bisque or edamame. As we were looking for dumplings as an appetizer to start off a long day of oral arguments, we passed on the add-ons. (Plus, our palates—prepared for Asian-style dumplings—were a bit confused by the inclusion of a creamy French-style soup.)
As we explained when we granted cartiorari to a dumpling meal in a previous case, there are two principal considerations of a dumpling: (1) the skin and (2) the filling. See Hot People Food, 6 Catt. 4. In Yumpling’s case, the skin was done well. It was chewy and not too thin. For the most part, it held up to the steaming process (only one dumpling in our container of six was not intact). The beef filling was mild but nice. The problem was that there was so little of it inside each dumpling. I wish there had been more so that the beef flavor came through in every bite. Overall, the dumplings were like the dumplings from your everyday cheap takeout restaurant. Not amazing, but not bad.
In the end, Yumpling is not the dumpling truck of my dreams. I’m still waiting for a food truck to pull up in front of the court with a menu of steamed, fried, and soup dumplings. Dumplings of different textures and different flavors. Dumplings to fill the stomach and warm the soul.
III. Conclusion
For the reasons above, the case is
AFFIRMED in part and REMANDED in part to Yumpling for revision.
JEREMY, C.J., concurring.
I agree with every line of my sister’s well-reasoned opinion. I write separately only because it would pain me not to have the last word.
from → Chinese, Opinions of the Cart, Proceedings, Under $8, Yumpling
Orders, 2/1/13
No. 68. Yumpling. Cartiorari granted on the question of beef dumpling.
No. 69. Kafta Mania. Cartiorari granted on the questions of (1) Classic Kafta and (2) stuffed grape leaves.
No. 70. Kafta Mania. Cartiorari granted on the questions of (1) Halloumi Cheese Panini and (2) baba ghanoush.
No. 71. Skydome Lounge. Cartiorari granted on the question of whether drinks are within the jurisdiction of the Cart.
from → Orders