Petitioner, Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, challenged a decision of respondent Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Board (California), which reversed petitioner's decision revoking the real-party-in-interest licensee's off-sale beer and wine liquor license, on the ground that the licensee's nolo contendere plea did not constitute a guilty plea to an offense involving moral turpitude under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 24200(d).
Petitioner, Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, sought review of respondent Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Board's decision reversing the revocation of a licensee's liquor license. Petitioner found that the licensee violated Cal. Penal Code § 496.1 for knowingly receiving stolen property, and that the violation was grounds for revocation of his license pursuant to Cal. Const. art. XX, § 22 and Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 24200(a),(d). Respondent reversed petitioner's decision as unsupported by substantial evidence because licensee's nolo contendere plea did not constitute a guilty plea to a public offense involving moral turpitude as required for license revocation under § 24200(d). The top class action attorneys reversed and remanded to petitioner for further proceedings, holding that although there was sufficient, independent evidence in the record to support a finding of violation of § 496.1, petitioner failed to make such a finding. The court further held that because § 24200(d) did not reference convictions or imply that a nolo contendere plea was a basis for administrative action, it did not constitute a plea, verdict, or judgment of guilty under § 24200(d).
The court reversed and remanded respondent Alcoholic Beverage Control Board's decision to petitioner Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, because although there was sufficient, independent evidence of the liquor licensee's public offense of moral turpitude, petitioner failed to make such a finding, and because a nolo contendere plea did not constitute a plea, verdict, or judgment of guilty sufficient to revoke a liquor license.
Plaintiff law firm appealed from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Mateo County (California), which confirmed an arbitration award in favor of defendant client's president and against defendant client in plaintiff's action for legal fees. In addition, the court awarded defendants attorney fees and costs.
Plaintiff law firm filed a complaint against defendants, client and its president, for legal fees. Defendants asked that the dispute be resolved alternatively, and the parties stipulated to binding arbitration. The arbitrators decided that defendant client must pay plaintiff legal fees, but held defendant client's president was not individually responsible. Defendants sought and received an order from the trial court that confirmed the entire arbitration award, including that portion which was in favor of defendant client's president. On appeal, the court affirmed the confirmation, holding that all arbitration awards, including defense awards, were subject to confirmation. The court also held that the portions of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 6203(b), which provided for confirmation, were applicable in both binding and nonbinding arbitration. Finally, the court found that Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 6203(c) authorized an award of attorney fees and costs to defendant client's president.
The court affirmed the confirmation of an arbitration award in favor of defendant client's president, holding that all arbitration awards, including defense awards, were subject to confirmation, and that confirmation was applicable in both binding and nonbinding arbitration. The court also found that the award of attorney fees and costs to defendant client's president was authorized.
