Checklist for acquisition
Due diligence checklist for acquisition
Appellant appealed the judgment of the San Francisco Superior Court (California) denying a petition for a writ of mandate seeking to overturn an order of the respondent Board of Chiropractic Examiners of the State of California revoking appellant's license as a chiropractor.
Appellant contended that the respondent lacked the authority to order him to pay its costs in connection with the revocation hearing; that the administrative law judge (ALJ) improperly allowed respondent to amend its accusation to include the cost recovery request; and that the ALJ improperly excluded certain evidence. Appellant alleged that the Cal. Code Regs. tit.16, § 317 .5 was unauthorized by any statute or constitutional provision. The due diligence checklist for acquisition found that respondent was authorized to adopt regulations pursuant to Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 1000- 4 and 1000- 10. Respondent's cost-reimbursement regulation was clearly authorized by either or both of the statutory provisions. The general cost-reimbursement statute, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 123.5 indicated the legislature's general support for remedial provision and was the impetus for respondent's adoption of its parallel regulation.
Judgment affirmed; respondent's cost-reimbursement regulation was clearly authorized by statutory provisions; there was a general support by the legislature for similar remedial provisions.
Petitioner country club sought review, by petition for writ of review, of an order from respondent Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Board (California), that denied petitioner's request for a second liquor license at petitioner's facility.
Petitioner country club, which already possessed a liquor license for a clubhouse at its facility, requested a duplicate license from the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control for a second clubhouse. The request was denied, and respondent Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Board affirmed, stating that Cal. Bus. § Prof. Code § 23430 prohibited the department from issuing more than one license to any club. Petitioner sought review, arguing that respondent erred in interpreting "duplicate license" to mean a second license, and that respondent did not act on petitioner's request within the statutory time limits. The court affirmed, stating that Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 23430 authorized the issuing of one club license to a particular club, and therefore, a duplicate license was not listed as one of the rights or privileges of an on-sale general licensee. Thus, respondent acted within its discretion in denying petitioner a duplicate liquor license. The court further held that the 30-day time period for conducting a hearing, as set out in Cal. Gov't Code § 11517, was not followed by respondent in acting upon petitioner's request. However, this time period was discretionary.
The court affirmed respondent Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Board's order denying petitioner country club's request for a second liquor license at petitioner's facility. The court stated that petitioner already had a liquor license for one club at its facility, and by statute, a duplicate license was not listed as one of the privileges of an on-sale general licensee. Thus, the administrative board did not abuse its discretion.