276 A.3d 1225
Pa. Commw. Ct.2022Background
- In 2016 Act 39 amended 47 P.S. § 3-305(a) to permit licensed importers/vendors to ship special orders (SOs) directly to customers, prohibit PLCB handling fees on direct-shipped SOs, and require the PLCB to implement a processing procedure (initially by Jan. 1, 2017; fiscal-code language allowed implementation by June 1, 2017).
- The PLCB did not implement a direct-shipment processing procedure and continued charging SO handling fees; during the COVID-19 store closures this prevented Petitioners from filling SO business and prompted litigation.
- MFW, A6, and Bloomsday Café sued in mandamus/declaratory relief; this Court in MFW I (231 A.3d 50) held the PLCB had a mandatory duty to permit direct SO shipments and to implement a procedure and granted mandamus/declaratory relief (May 1, 2020); the Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed per curiam.
- Petitioners then filed a separate Damages Application under 42 Pa.C.S. § 8303 seeking costs, damages, interest, and attorneys’ fees; the Court limited briefing/argument to (a) whether the PLCB is a “person” under § 8303 and (b) whether mandamus damages are recoverable from the PLCB.
- The en banc Court (majority) held the PLCB is a “person” for § 8303 in this context, concluded Petitioners may recover mandamus damages to the extent proved (sovereign immunity does not bar mandamus damages here), awarded taxable costs, held Petitioners may recover interest if they prove harm, and found MFW and A6 entitled to attorneys’ fees; the PLCB may pursue limited discovery/hearing on damages, interest, and fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether PLCB is a “person” under 42 Pa.C.S. § 8303 | §1991’s exclusion of “the Commonwealth” was not meant to immunize Commonwealth agencies; PLCB is a person for §8303 purposes | SCA §1991 excludes the Commonwealth (and by extension agencies); PLCB is not a “person” and thus not liable for mandamus damages | Court: PLCB is a “person” in this context and subject to §8303 liability |
| Whether sovereign immunity bars mandamus damages against PLCB | Mandamus damages are available when an agency fails to perform mandatory duties; sovereign immunity does not bar such damages here | Sovereign immunity shields PLCB from monetary damages under §8303 | Court: Sovereign immunity does not bar mandamus damages here; damages allowed to extent proved and directly related to the mandamus relief sought |
| Recoverable relief: costs and interest | Entitled to taxable costs, interest at legal rate (6%) on proven damages and costs | PLCB accepts taxable costs but disputes damages/interest absent statutory/contractual obligation | Court: Taxable costs awarded (parties agreed $946.26); interest may be awarded on costs/damages if Petitioners prove PLCB’s delay caused financial harm |
| Attorneys’ fees entitlement | Fees should be payable because PLCB’s inaction/defenses were arbitrary, dilatory, obdurate under 42 Pa.C.S. § 2503(7),(9) | No statutory basis to award fees; PLCB’s defense not vexatious or in bad faith; Rule 2744 inapplicable in original-jurisdiction matter | Court: MFW and A6 are entitled to attorneys’ fees under §2503 because PLCB’s conduct was at least arbitrary/dilatory/obdurate; PLCB may seek limited discovery/hearing on fees/amounts |
Key Cases Cited
- MFW Wine Co., LLC v. Pa. Liquor Control Bd., 231 A.3d 50 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2020) (holding PLCB had mandatory duty under amended §305(a) to allow direct SO shipments and to implement processing procedure)
- Commonwealth v. Runion, 662 A.2d 617 (Pa. 1995) (interpreting SCA definition of “person” and exclusion of Commonwealth in penal-statute context)
- Finn v. Rendell, 990 A.2d 100 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (explaining requirement to name specific Commonwealth party in mandamus and treating Commonwealth distinct from its agencies)
- Richard Allen Preparatory Charter Sch. v. Dep’t of Educ., 161 A.3d 415 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2017) (en banc) (awarding attorneys’ fees against Commonwealth agency under §2503 for arbitrary/dilatory conduct; aff’d, 185 A.3d 984 (Pa. 2018))
- Brimmeier v. Pa. Turnpike Comm’n, 147 A.3d 954 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016) (mandamus not barred by sovereign immunity; discussion of damages and remedies)
- Stoner v. Twp. of Lower Merion, 587 A.2d 879 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1991) (mandamus damages available where agency erroneously interprets law and fails to perform ministerial duty)
- Maurice A. Nernberg & Assocs. v. Coyne, 920 A.2d 967 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007) (lost profits and mandamus damages principles)
- City of Pittsburgh v. Pa. Dep’t of Transp., 416 A.2d 461 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1980) (discussing historical availability of mandamus damages under prior mandamus statute)