Paradox Corp., etc. v. Virginia ABC Board ( 1995 )

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Baker, Benton and Senior Judge Hodges
Argued at Norfolk, Virginia
PARADOX CORPORATION, T/A THE EDGE
v. Record No. 2333-94-1 MEMORANDUM OPINION *
PER CURIAM
VIRGINIA ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL BOARD MAY 16, 1995
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
A. Bonwill Shockley, Judge
Kevin E. Martin-Gayle (Moody E. Stallings,
Jr.; John W. Richardson; Stallings &
Richardson, on briefs), for appellant.
J. Patrick Griffin, Assistant Attorney
General (James S. Gilmore, III, Attorney
General; Michael K. Jackson, Senior Assistant
Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.
Paradox Corporation, t/a The Edge (The Edge) appeals from a
circuit court affirmance of a decision of the Virginia Alcoholic
Beverage Control Board (the Board) to revoke The Edge's ABC
licenses. The Edge presents the following nine questions on
appeal:
1. Did the trial court err in failing to reverse the Board
on the basis that the Board's method of revoking the
appellant violated Due Process of law?
2. Did the trial court err in failing to reverse the Board
on the basis that the Board was "tainted" by the March
29, 1994, meeting?
3. Did the trial court err in refusing to continue the
case, in refusing to order Board Member Giordano to
appear and testify, and in refusing to order the City
Attorneys to appear and testify?
4. Did the trial court err in failing to reverse the Board
on the basis that the Board acted arbitrarily and
*
Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not
designated for publication.
capriciously?
5. Did the trial court err in failing to reverse the Board
on the basis that the Board abused its discretion by
issuing revocations without any justification
whatsoever for adopting the harshest penalty possible?
6. Did the trial court err in failing to reverse the Board
on the basis that the Board erred in issuing
revocations despite the presence of mitigating
evidence?
7. Did the trial court err in failing to reverse the Board
on the basis that the Board abused its discretion in
modifying the decision of the hearing officer by
issuing revocations?
8. Did the trial court err in failing to reverse the Board
on the basis that the Board erred in issuing
revocations where the ends/goals of the Board are not
furthered by such a harsh result, while The Edge is put
out of business?
9. Did the trial court err in granting the Board's Motion
to Strike?
Finding no error, we affirm the circuit court's decision.
Issues 1 and 2
To show a due process violation, The Edge must overcome "the
presumption of official regularity" which is bestowed upon agency
decisions. Code § 9-6.14:17. The Edge's "taint" argument is
deficient.
First, the membership of the Board changed on February 21,
1994. The "Old" Board, by notice dated February 10, 1994,
proposed to revoke The Edge's licenses. The "New" Board acted on
the proposal. This sequence of events demonstrates that the
"Old" Board questioned the penalty decided upon by the hearing
officer, and it set into motion the events leading up to the
2
"New" Board's revocation of the licenses. Such a scenario hardly
supports The Edge's theory that the Board and Virginia Beach
officials conspired to shut down The Edge.
Second, a review of the transcript of the November 18, 1994
hearing reveals that all nine witnesses, with minor differences,
agreed that the main purpose of the meeting was to address
rowdiness and drinking problems in the oceanfront area by the
coordinated efforts of Virginia Beach police and ABC enforcement
personnel. While some witnesses testified that "The Block" was
mentioned, it was mentioned in the context of being part of the
larger oceanfront area. No witness recalled The Edge being
mentioned at the meeting.
There is no proof that The Edge, either overtly or covertly,
was the topic of conversation at the March 29 meeting.
Accordingly, nothing happened at the meeting which would
necessitate an opportunity by The Edge to respond. As such,
there was no due process violation.
Finally, The Edge's reliance on Virginia Board of Medicine
v. Fetta, 244 Va. 276, 421 S.E.2d 410 (1992), is misplaced.
There, four Board members, who later ruled on Fetta's case, sat
in on the hearing before the hearing officer. Id. at 277, 421
S.E.2d at 411. Here, the November 18 meeting, of which there is
no evidence that The Edge was even mentioned, is no parallel to
the hearing condemned in Fetta.
Issue 3
3
First, The Edge argues that the circuit court erred in not
granting a continuance so that it could serve Board member
Giordano with a subpoena. Whether to grant or deny a continuance
lies in the sound discretion of the trial court, and its decision
will not be disturbed absent an abuse of that discretion. See
McNew v. Dunn, 233 Va. 11, 15, 353 S.E.2d 713, 716 (1987). The
Edge successfully served eleven other potential witnesses. The
court quashed the subpoena as to two of these witnesses, but the
other nine were in court and prepared to testify on November 18.
Under these circumstances, we cannot conclude that the court
abused its discretion in denying the motion for a continuance.
Second, The Edge argues that the court should have compelled
Giordano to appear and testify. Giordano was not served with a
subpoena. The Edge cites no authority that would enable the
court, under those circumstances, to compel her attendance and
testimony.
Third, The Edge argues that the court erred in ruling that
City Attorney Lilley and Assistant City Attorney Byman need not
testify. In their "Motion to Quash Subpoenas to Testify," Lilley
and Byman asserted that they "were present at the meeting . . .
solely in their capacity as attorneys in order to provide legal
advice to City Council and/or City officials." The trial court
accepted this assertion. The transcript of the November 18
hearing contains nothing that contradicts this assertion. There
is no suggestion in this transcript that Lilley or Byman were
4
active participants in the meeting or that their roles
transgressed their status as legal advisors to the city
councilmen or city officials.
Issues 4 through 7
The Board adopted the hearing officer's findings of fact,
but disagreed as to the appropriate punishment. The Edge, while
conceding that the Board has the authority, in the exercise of
its discretion, to revoke The Edge's licenses, nonetheless argues
that the Board, under these circumstances, owed some degree of
deference to the hearing officer's determination of punishment.
There is no support for this argument. Code § 4.1-103(13)
specifically grants "The Board" the power to "[g]rant, suspend,
and revoke licenses . . . ." See also Code § 4.1-225. No
condition is placed on this power.
Furthermore, a close review of the record reveals that
Chicho's, a nearby establishment, was not similarly situated to
The Edge, and, as such, the Board did not act arbitrarily and
capriciously in arriving at a less severe punishment for
Chicho's. Of particular note are the findings that, as to
Chicho's, the violations involved actions of employees and/or
officers which were apparently unknown to the owners. In
contrast, The Edge's owners were directly involved in its
violations.
Issue 8
The Edge argues that the Board erred in revoking its
5
licenses because the Board's "goal" of ensuring the public safety
is not furthered by the revocation. This public policy argument
is without merit. As noted above, Code §§ 4.1-103(13) and
4.1-225 specifically grant the Board the authority to revoke
licenses for violations such as those committed by The Edge.
Issue 9
The Edge incorrectly argues that the trial judge erred in
granting the motion to strike. Rule 1:11 and Code § 8.01-378,
cited by The Edge, specifically apply to jury trials. Rather,
the proper posture for a trial court to assume in considering a
motion to strike is to "view the evidence and all reasonable
inferences drawn from the evidence in the light most favorable to
the plaintiff. Any reasonable doubt as to whether the plaintiff
has produced sufficient evidence of the wrong alleged must be
resolved in the plaintiff's favor and the motion to strike
denied." Izadpanah v. Boeing Joint Venture, 243 Va. 81, 83, 412
S.E.2d 708, 709 (1992).
The purpose of the November 18 hearing was to demonstrate
that the Board was tainted when it considered The Edge's
licensing status, and, correspondingly, denied The Edge due
process guarantees. As noted earlier, nothing produced at the
hearing supported this claim. Accordingly, the circuit court did
not err in granting the motion to strike.
Affirmed.
6