Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Nick v. Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control

California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, Third Division

December 23, 2014

ADAM NICK et al., Petitioners,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL et al., Respondents, 7-ELEVEN, INC., Real Party in Interest.

[As modified Jan. 15, 2015.]

[CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION[*]]

Original proceeding; review of decision of Alcoholic Beverage Appeals Board No. AB-9335 of the State of California.

Page 195

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 196

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 197

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 198

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 199

COUNSEL

Law Offices of Joshua Kaplan, Joshua Kaplan; Law Offices of Stephen W. Berger and Stephen W. Berger for Petitioners.

Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Alicia M. B. Fowler, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Celine M. Cooper and Gary S. Balekjian, Deputy Attorneys General, for Respondents.

Solomon, Saltsman & Jamieson, Ralph Barat Saltsman and Stephen Warren Solomon for Real Party in Interest.

OPINION

ARONSON, ACTING P. J.

In this original proceeding, petitioners Adam Nick and Sherry Nick (collectively, Nick) challenge respondent Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control’s (Department) decision granting real party in

Page 200

Interest 7-Eleven, Inc. (7-Eleven) a license to sell beer and wine at its store located in the City of Lake Forest (City). The Alcoholic Beverage Control Act (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 23000 et seq.; hereinafter Act)[1] prohibits the Department from issuing a license that would result in or add to an undue concentration of licenses unless the local governing body of the area where the applicant premises is located determines that issuing the license would serve “public convenience or necessity.” (§ 23958.4, subd. (b)(2); see id., § 23958.) The City determined issuing the license would serve public convenience or necessity and the Department relied on that determination in deciding to grant 7-Eleven’s application.

In the published portion of this opinion, we address Nick's contention the Department improperly “ceded” its exclusive constitutional authority by treating the City’s public convenience or necessity determination as binding and conclusive, rather than independently making its own determination. As explained below, this contention fails because it misconstrues the duties of the Department and the City under the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.