MFW Wine Co., LLC v. Pa. Liquor Control Bd., LEXIS 973 (Pa. Super. July 2, 2024) (Donohue, J.)
MFW Wine Co., LLC v. Pa. Liquor Control Bd., Superior Court of Pennsylvania decided July 2, 2024.
JUSTICE DONOHUE
In this appeal, we consider whether the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board (“PLCB”) is a “person” within the meaning of Section 8303 of the Judicial Code and, if so, whether sovereign immunity bars mandamus damages sought pursuant to that provision.
In MFW Wine Co., LLC v. PLCB, the Commonwealth Court issued a declaratory judgment that PLCB failed to perform its statutory duty to implement procedures to facilitate the direct shipment of special orders to customers. The court also issued a writ of mandamus compelling PLCB to comply with that duty. After prevailing in the declaratory judgment and mandamus actions in MFW I, Wine Vendors applied for mandamus damages pursuant to Section 8303 as well as for costs, interest, and attorneys’ fees. Based on Wine Vendors’ success in MFW I, Log Cabin brought an action for mandamus damages under Section 8303.3
PLCB defended the claims by asserting that it was not a “person” within the meaning of Section 8303 and that, even if it was a person, sovereign immunity4 barred mandamus damages because it is an agency of the Commonwealth. It also challenged any prospective award of attorneys’ fees for the underlying mandamus action as barred by sovereign immunity for the same reasons. The Commonwealth Court rejected those defenses in opinions issued in MFW Wine Co., LLC v. Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, 276 A.3d 1225 (Pa. Commw. 2022) (“MFW II”) and Log Cabin.
PLCB appeals both decisions as collateral orders under Pa.R.A.P. 313, a characterization challenged by both Wine Vendors and Log Cabin.5 Because these appeals involve identical issues, we resolve them in one opinion. First, we conclude that the orders are appealable. On the merits, we conclude that PLCB is a “person” within the meaning of Section 8303 and that sovereign immunity does not bar mandamus damages available under that provision. Additionally, in the appeal from MFW II, we hold that attorneys’ fees awarded in relation Section 8303 are also not barred by sovereign immunity. Thus, we affirm the holdings of the Commonwealth Court in MFW II and Log Cabin, and remand for further proceeding consistent with this opinion.
In 2016, the General Assembly amended Section 305(a) of the Liquor Code to allow for the direct purchase and shipment of alcohol products not otherwise available from PLCB through its Fine Wine and Good Spirits stores (“PLCB Stores”). 47 P.S. § 3-305(a) (“Section 305(a)”). Prior to that amendment, PLCB customers submitted special orders to PLCB for products not typically available from PLCB Stores, PLCB procured the products from licensed importers and vendors, and customers then picked up the products from PLCB stores and paid PLCB’s handling fees. See MFW I, 231 A.3d at 52.
