ILNews

Sidebars: La Margarita is anything but traditional Mexican food

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

SidebarsRecently sick of the political boxing matches we have been subjected to, I thought it pertinent to reach across the aisle and dine with a couple of my adversaries, Brad Banks and Adam Brower, currently of the Marion County Prosecutor’s Office. We are all lawyers first and then representative of our respective areas of practice, and civility must govern our interactions. What better way to remind ourselves of that than breaking tortilla chips together. Further, Brad and Adam are departing the MCPO for private practice with each other and wanted some friendly advice about such an adventure into private criminal, family and general practice. If you have not ventured south on Virginia Avenue in Indianapolis lately – go. In Fountain Square you are going to find a treasure trove of good, new eateries that are unique to each other and in themselves. One such place is La Margarita, housed in the Murphy Arts Center. It is a restaurant and tequila bar. The décor is, well, really cool. On nice days the garage door wall opens to the patio overlooking Virginia Avenue into downtown. Inside is a comfortable modern setting with clean lines and design that plays off the garage door wall. You can just imagine the patio and bar areas filled with cool people with cool lives talking about cool stuff and drinking cool tequilas and craft beers.

My first piece of advice to Brad and Adam was “don’t be late” when they walked in late. Albeit they were only a few minutes late, but that can seem like hours when you are really hungry. By then I had already dug into the warm tortilla chips and the three salsas offered – mild (chunky with fresh tomatoes and pieces of avocado), medium (just so-so), and hot (which really did have some kick to it. Brad and I did not necessarily like the consistency, but Adam did, so it must have been a matter of taste). Also before they arrived, I had ordered the chile con queso, which was delivered as they arrived – late. You may think my choice fairly ordinary for a Mexican restaurant, but this appetizing dish was anything but ordinary. The inclusion of their homemade mild red sauce uniquely distinguishes this popular Mexican appetizer. Other starters include queso fundido (cheeses, poblano peppers, and onions, baked bubbly hot and served with small flour tortillas, to which you can add chorizo), fresh guacamole and nachos supreme.

La Margarita offers daily specials, but every day a special is half quesadilla (chicken, beef, veggie or chorizo) with a bowl of tortilla soup. We wandered deeper into the menu and all had clean plates by the end of the meal. Brad devoured the quesadillas with tender, pulled chicken. He commented how they were prepared crispy to his liking without being overcooked. A healthy side of guacamole, rice and beans adorned his plate. Adam opted for El Toro, a combination platter with two enchiladas with ground beef topped with an appropriate amount of mild red sauce and cheese. The chimichangas were my choice and sated my day’s craving for Mexican fare. Adam and I both noticed a hint of sweetness to the ground beef that really complimented our entrees. The menu offers variations of tacos, burritos, and chilaquiles. The menu appears fairly traditional; however, the actual product is anything but.

Go check it out at 1043 Virginia Avenue and at www.lamargaritaindy.com •

__________

Fred Vaiana and Jennifer M. Lukemeyer practice at Voyles Zahn & Paul in Indianapolis, focusing in criminal defense. Vaiana is a 1992 graduate of the John Marshall Law School in Chicago. Lukemeyer earned her J.D. from Southern Methodist University in 1994 and is active in the Indianapolis Bar Association, Indianapolis Inn of Courts and the Teen Court Program. The opinions expressed in this column are those of the authors.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Living in South Bend, I travel to Michigan a lot. Virtually every gas station sells cold beer there. Many sell the hard stuff too. Doesn't seem to be a big deal there.

  2. Mr. Ricker, how foolish of you to think that by complying with the law you would be ok. Don't you know that Indiana is a state that welcomes monopolies, and that Indiana's legislature is the one entity in this state that believes monopolistic practices (such as those engaged in by Indiana Association of Beverage Retailers) make Indiana a "business-friendly" state? How can you not see this????

  3. Actually, and most strikingly, the ruling failed to address the central issue to the whole case: Namely, Black Knight/LPS, who was NEVER a party to the State court litigation, and who is under a 2013 consent judgment in Indiana (where it has stipulated to the forgery of loan documents, the ones specifically at issue in my case)never disclosed itself in State court or remediated the forged loan documents as was REQUIRED of them by the CJ. In essence, what the court is willfully ignoring, is that it is setting a precedent that the supplier of a defective product, one whom is under a consent judgment stipulating to such, and under obligation to remediate said defective product, can: 1.) Ignore the CJ 2.) Allow counsel to commit fraud on the state court 3.) Then try to hide behind Rooker Feldman doctrine as a bar to being held culpable in federal court. The problem here is the court is in direct conflict with its own ruling(s) in Johnson v. Pushpin Holdings & Iqbal- 780 F.3d 728, at 730 “What Johnson adds - what the defendants in this suit have failed to appreciate—is that federal courts retain jurisdiction to award damages for fraud that imposes extrajudicial injury. The Supreme Court drew that very line in Exxon Mobil ... Iqbal alleges that the defendants conducted a racketeering enterprise that predates the state court’s judgments ...but Exxon Mobil shows that the Rooker Feldman doctrine asks what injury the plaintiff asks the federal court to redress, not whether the injury is “intertwined” with something else …Because Iqbal seeks damages for activity that (he alleges) predates the state litigation and caused injury independently of it, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not block this suit. It must be reinstated.” So, as I already noted to others, I now have the chance to bring my case to SCOTUS; the ruling by Wood & Posner is flawed on numerous levels,BUT most troubling is the fact that the authors KNOW it's a flawed ruling and choose to ignore the flaws for one simple reason: The courts have decided to agree with former AG Eric Holder that national banks "Are too big to fail" and must win at any cost-even that of due process, case precedent, & the truth....Let's see if SCOTUS wants a bite at the apple.

  4. I am in NJ & just found out that there is a judgment against me in an action by Driver's Solutions LLC in IN. I was never served with any Court pleadings, etc. and the only thing that I can find out is that they were using an old Staten Island NY address for me. I have been in NJ for over 20 years and cannot get any response from Drivers Solutions in IN. They have a different lawyer now. I need to get this vacated or stopped - it is now almost double & at 18%. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you.

  5. I am in NJ & just found out that there is a judgment against me in an action by Driver's Solutions LLC in IN. I was never served with any Court pleadings, etc. and the only thing that I can find out is that they were using an old Staten Island NY address for me. I have been in NJ for over 20 years and cannot get any response from Drivers Solutions in IN. They have a different lawyer now. I need to get this vacated or stopped - it is now almost double & at 18%. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you.

ADVERTISEMENT