Schalles v. Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board
43 Pa. D. & C.5th 145
Pennsylvania Court of Common P...2014Background
- Owner Vem M. Schalles has operated T’s Circus Bar in Swissvale for ~30 years; the bar is RAMP certified and had few citations prior to recent years.
- Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board denied renewal of Restaurant Liquor License No. R-9633 on Nov. 6, 2013, citing multiple adjudicated citations and police incidents (fights, drugs, disorderly conduct) and alleged breaches of a Conditional Licensing Agreement (CLA).
- Licensee appealed; de novo trial held in Common Pleas on Mar. 26, 2014 with the administrative record admitted as respondent Exhibit 4; no new evidentiary witnesses presented by the Board at trial.
- Board relied on administrative hearing transcript and several police reports to justify non-renewal; Licensee argued corrective measures, community involvement, and lack of direct connection between incidents and bar operations.
- Trial court reviewed individual incidents (2011–2013), finding insufficient evidence that the bar caused or facilitated most events, and questioned the probative value and authentication of some police reports.
- Court concluded Licensee demonstrated commitment to responsible service and ordered renewal of the license.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the PLCB permissibly refused renewal under 47 P.S. §4-470 based on citations and incidents | PLCB: multiple adjudicated citations, police incidents, abuse of license, late renewal, and CLA breaches justify non-renewal | Schalles: incidents do not show bar was a nuisance or that licensee caused/allowed misconduct; remedial measures taken | Court: PLCB failed to show substantial evidence linking incidents to bar operations; renewed license |
| Admissibility and weight of police reports and administrative transcript | PLCB: transcript and police reports admissible (business records/hearsay exceptions) and support findings | Schalles: reports not properly authenticated; hearsay and advocacy-laden; low trustworthiness | Court: allowed records but assigned little weight; many reports irrelevant or not probative |
| Whether alleged breaches of the CLA (e.g., meetings with police) warranted non-renewal | PLCB: failure to meet monthly with chief, failure to produce video, breach of CLA supports sanction | Schalles: made reasonable efforts to comply; met with assistant chief monthly since June 2013; lapses were minor/unintentional | Court: found licensee attempted compliance; CLA issues insufficient to deny renewal |
| Scope of trial court authority on de novo review of PLCB decisions | PLCB: may rely on precedent limiting trial court modifications | Schalles: de novo review permits court to overturn Board even on same evidence | Court: reiterated de novo standard allowing affirmation or denial of Board action; cited limits from Becker’s Cafe on modifying conditions beyond affirm/deny |
Key Cases Cited
- Goodfellas, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, 921 A.2d 559 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (trial court may exercise de novo factfinding and modify PLCB action)
- Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board v. Bartosh, 730 A.2d 1029 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (trial court decision may differ from PLCB if supported by substantial evidence)
- U.S.A. Deli, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, 909 A.2d 24 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (PLCB may refuse renewal under §4-470)
- I.B.P.O.E. of West Mount Vernon Lodge 151 v. Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, 969 A.2d 642 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (licensee required to take substantial measures but not act as police force)
- Two Sophia’s, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, 799 A.2d 917 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (administrative hearing transcript may be admissible in PLCB appeals)
- First Ward Republican Club v. Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, 11 A.3d 38 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (police reports can be admitted as business records if properly authenticated; reiterates de novo standard)
- Philly International Bar v. Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, 973 A.2d 1 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (trial court may sustain, alter, change or modify PLCB order under de novo review)
- Becker’s Cafe, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, 67 A.3d 885 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (limits on trial court authority: court may only affirm or deny PLCB action on renewal, not impose new conditions)
- PLCB v. Richard E. Craft American Legion Home Corp., 717 A.2d 276 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (early articulation of de novo review standard)