Log Cabin Property, LP v. PA LCB, 292 M.D. 2020

Background:

Act 39 (2016) amended the Liquor Code to permit licensed importers/vendors to deliver special orders (SOs) directly to customers and prohibited PLCB handling fees; related budget language (Act 85) set a June 1, 2017 date for the PLCB to implement an SO procedure.
The PLCB did not implement a direct-ship procedure and continued charging handling fees; SO customers (licensees and vendors) were required to pick up orders at PLCB stores.
MFW Wine Co., A6, and Bloomsday Café sued in MFW I; the Commonwealth Court (May 1, 2020) granted mandamus and declaratory relief directing the PLCB to allow direct shipment and to implement an SO procedure; the court declined to set a fixed compliance deadline. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed per curiam in 2021.
Log Cabin filed a putative class action seeking damages under 42 Pa.C.S. § 8303 for handling fees and pick-up expenses paid since June 1, 2017, asserting the PLCB failed to perform its statutory duty adjudged in MFW I.
The PLCB filed a preliminary objection (demurrer), arguing sovereign immunity bars the claim, the PLCB is not a "person" under § 8303, and mandamus damages are available only to successful mandamus petitioners.
The Commonwealth Court overruled the PLCB’s preliminary objection, holding (a) sovereign immunity did not bar the claim under these circumstances, (b) the PLCB is a "person" for § 8303 purposes in this context, and (c) it is not certain as a matter of law that Log Cabin cannot recover mandamus damages despite not being the MFW I petitioner.

Issues:

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sovereign immunity — does it bar Log Cabin’s § 8303 damages claim?	Sovereign immunity does not apply because PLCB acted outside its statutory duty and § 8303 authorizes damages for failure to perform duties.	Sovereign immunity remains the rule; money-damages claims against Commonwealth agencies are barred absent specific waiver.	Overruled PLCB objection: sovereign immunity does not bar Log Cabin here given MFW I adjudication and precedent permitting mandamus/damages against agencies acting beyond their duties.
Is the PLCB a "person" under § 8303?	§ 8303’s purpose is to allow damages against government actors that fail to perform duties; agencies are included in this context.	The SCA definition of "person" excludes the Commonwealth, so Commonwealth agencies are not "persons" liable under § 8303.	PLCB is a "person" for § 8303 in this context; prior precedent and statutory purpose support liability of agencies for mandamus damages.
Are mandamus damages limited to the successful mandamus petitioner?	Log Cabin may recover because MFW I adjudicated PLCB’s failure and licensees like Log Cabin were identified as injured; Log Cabin could also amend to add a mandamus claim or join MFW I.	§ 8303’s phrase "the person aggrieved" implies damages go only to the successful mandamus petitioner.	Court: not certain as a matter of law that Log Cabin cannot recover; circumstances are novel and relief is not foreclosed—preliminary objection denied.
Pleading sufficiency (demurrer) — does the complaint state a viable cause of action?	Complaint alleges PLCB’s statutory duty, MFW I adjudication of noncompliance, and resulting damages to Log Cabin and class members.	PLCB argues legal defects (immunity, person status, remedy limits) render complaint legally insufficient.	Complaint survives demurrer; the court accepts well-pleaded facts and resolves doubt in favor of overruling the preliminary objection.

Key Cases Cited

MFW Wine Co., LLC v. Pa. Liquor Control Bd., 231 A.3d 50 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2020) (court granted mandamus and declaratory relief requiring PLCB to permit direct-ship SOs and implement procedure)
MFW Wine Co., LLC v. Pa. Liquor Control Bd., 247 A.3d 1008 (Pa. 2021) (Supreme Court affirmed per curiam)
City of Pittsburgh v. Pa. Dep’t of Transp., 416 A.2d 461 (Pa. 1980) (mandamus damages available under predecessor statute to § 8303)
Finn v. Rendell, 990 A.2d 100 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (mandamus context distinguished where Commonwealth reimbursement was not statutorily owed)
Stackhouse v. Pa. State Police, 892 A.2d 54 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006) (sovereign immunity general principles)
Sci. Games Int’l, Inc. v. Commonwealth, 66 A.3d 740 (Pa. 2013) (sovereign immunity protects governmental policymaking absent legislative waiver)
Brimmeier v. Pa. Turnpike Comm’n, 147 A.3d 954 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016) (sovereign immunity does not bar mandamus or declaratory relief)
Richard Allen Preparatory Charter Sch. v. Dep’t of Educ., 161 A.3d 415 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2017) (mandamus damages assessed against Commonwealth agency)