Gibson v. Alaska Alcoholic Beverage Control Board, Civ. No. A-80-72.

CourtUnited States District Courts. 9th Circuit. District of Alaska
Writing for the CourtTimothy G. Middleton, Asst. Atty. Gen., Anchorage, Alaska for Alcoholic Bev. Control Board
Citation377 F. Supp. 151
PartiesRuby Lee GIBSON, d/b/a Mermaid Room, Appellant, v. ALASKA ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL BOARD et al., Appellees.
Decision Date05 April 1974
Docket NumberCiv. No. A-80-72.

377 F. Supp. 151

Ruby Lee GIBSON, d/b/a Mermaid Room, Appellant,
v.
ALASKA ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL BOARD et al., Appellees.

Civ. No. A-80-72.

United States District Court, D. Alaska.

April 5, 1974.


377 F. Supp. 152

William R. De Vries, of Dickerson & De Vries, Inc., Anchorage, Alaska, for appellant.

Timothy G. Middleton, Asst. Atty. Gen., Anchorage, Alaska for Alcoholic Bev. Control Board.

G. Kent Edwards, U. S. Atty., and A. Lee Peterson Asst. U. S. Atty., Anchorage, Alaska, for SBA and USA.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

PLUMMER, Senior District Judge.

This case comes before the court on motion by appellant Gibson for summary judgment against appellees Alaska Alcoholic Beverage Control Board (hereinafter the Board) and Small Business Administration (hereinafter SBA), and upon cross-motion for summary judgment by SBA. The court concludes it has jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C. §§ 1444 and 2410.

The facts are not in dispute and are summarized as follows. For many years appellant owned an establishment in which liquor was sold. The Board issued a beverage dispensary liquor license, last renewed for 1971, to appellant, for the establishment. In 1967, appellant executed a security agreement with SBA,1 which listed as collateral, among other things, "Liquor license for 1967 and subsequent years."

Appellant subsequently defaulted and SBA foreclosed, taking over the physical collateral and petitioning the Board for the transfer of the liquor license to SBA. The Board transferred the license to SBA in 1972 over appellant's argument that the license could not be transferred because it was a privilege and not a property right. Appellant appealed the decision to the Superior Court of Alaska, from which SBA removed the action to this court.

The issues to be determined are as follows:

(1) whether to apply state or federal law to this case,

(2) what is the applicable standard for administrative review, and

(3) whether the license could be transferred to SBA.

The issues concerning the merits in this case pertain to an area covered by state rather than federal law. Compare United States v. Brosnan, 264 F.2d 762, 765 (3d Cir. 1959), aff'd 363 U.S. 237, 80 S.Ct. 1108, 4 L.Ed.2d 1192 (1960), with United States v. John Hancock Mutual Life Ins. Co., 364 U.S. 301, 81 S.Ct. 1, 5 L.Ed.2d 1 (1960). Thus, the issues are to be determined under Alaska law.

377 F. Supp. 153

The present case involves the liquor license only as property which may or may not be subject to a security transaction. This question does not pertain to the

". . . particularized experience and knowledge of the administrative personnel . . ." Kelly v. Zamarello, 486 P.2d 906, 916 (Alaska 1971).

Instead the issue concerns

". . . statutory interpretations requiring the special competency of the courts." Mukluk Freight Lines, Inc. v. Nabors Alaska Drilling, Inc., 516 P.2d 408, at 412 (filed December 3, 1973, Alaska Supreme Court).

Thus, the court need not accord great deference to the findings of the Board and apply the reasonable basis standard. The court interprets the statutes involved here employing normal procedures for such interpretation.

The court discerns the parties' arguments on the transferability issue to fall into four categories: (a) the applicability of the Uniform Commercial Code, Article 9, codified as AS 45.05.690-45.05.794, (b) the applicability of AS 04.10.180, (c) the capacity of SBA to hold a liquor license, and (d) the applicability of the estoppel doctrine against appellant.

The relationship between appellant and SBA is that of debtor and secured party. The liquor license is listed as "Collateral" on the "Security Agreement." Normally, the incidents of such a relationship are governed by UCC...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 practice notes
  • Rushmore State Bank v. Kurylas, Inc., No. 15764
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of South Dakota
    • May 11, 1988
    ...right in the license but merely a privilege to conduct that state regulated business. Gibson v. Alaska Alcoholic Beverage Control Bd., 377 F.Supp. 151 (D.Alaska 1974); Roehm v. Orange County, 32 Cal.2d 280, 196 P.2d 550 (1948); Weller v. Hopper, 85 Idaho 386, 379 P.2d 792 (1963); State v. S......
  • In re Gordon Car and Truck Rental, Inc., Bankruptcy No. 85-00709
    • United States
    • United States Bankruptcy Courts. Second Circuit. U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Northern District of New York
    • June 15, 1987
    ...Paramount Finance Co. v. United States, 379 F.2d 543, 544-45 (6th Cir.1967); Gibson v. Alaska Alcoholic Beverage Control Board, 377 F.Supp. 151, 153 (D.Alaska 1974). The relatively rare clam dredging license has also been classified in this collateral category. First Pennsylvania Bank, N.A.......
  • United States v. Brumage, No. 72 CR 904.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of New York)
    • April 11, 1974
    ...administrative agency to enact. United States v. Grimaud, 220 U.S. 506, 31 S.Ct. 480, 55 L.Ed. 563 (1911).12 Finding that § 2405(b) is 377 F. Supp. 151 neither vague on its face nor as applied in this case, the court denies defendants' motion to So ordered. --------Notes: 1 In addition, Fai......
  • In re L & K Transp. Co., Inc., Bankruptcy No. 80-01768-HL.
    • United States
    • United States Bankruptcy Courts. First Circuit. U.S. Bankruptcy Court — District of Massachusetts
    • February 9, 1981
    ...is "property", and is, therefore, the proper subject of a security interest, see Gibson v. Alaska Alcoholic Beverage Control Board, 377 F.Supp. 151 (D.Alaska 1974); Bogus v. American National Bank of Cheyenne, 401 F.2d 458 (10th Cir. 1968); Paramount Finance Company v. United States, 379 F.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
11 cases
  • Rushmore State Bank v. Kurylas, Inc., No. 15764
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of South Dakota
    • May 11, 1988
    ...right in the license but merely a privilege to conduct that state regulated business. Gibson v. Alaska Alcoholic Beverage Control Bd., 377 F.Supp. 151 (D.Alaska 1974); Roehm v. Orange County, 32 Cal.2d 280, 196 P.2d 550 (1948); Weller v. Hopper, 85 Idaho 386, 379 P.2d 792 (1963); State v. S......
  • In re Gordon Car and Truck Rental, Inc., Bankruptcy No. 85-00709
    • United States
    • United States Bankruptcy Courts. Second Circuit. U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Northern District of New York
    • June 15, 1987
    ...Paramount Finance Co. v. United States, 379 F.2d 543, 544-45 (6th Cir.1967); Gibson v. Alaska Alcoholic Beverage Control Board, 377 F.Supp. 151, 153 (D.Alaska 1974). The relatively rare clam dredging license has also been classified in this collateral category. First Pennsylvania Bank, N.A.......
  • United States v. Brumage, No. 72 CR 904.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of New York)
    • April 11, 1974
    ...administrative agency to enact. United States v. Grimaud, 220 U.S. 506, 31 S.Ct. 480, 55 L.Ed. 563 (1911).12 Finding that § 2405(b) is 377 F. Supp. 151 neither vague on its face nor as applied in this case, the court denies defendants' motion to So ordered. --------Notes: 1 In addition, Fai......
  • In re L & K Transp. Co., Inc., Bankruptcy No. 80-01768-HL.
    • United States
    • United States Bankruptcy Courts. First Circuit. U.S. Bankruptcy Court — District of Massachusetts
    • February 9, 1981
    ...and is, therefore, the proper subject of a security interest, see Gibson v. Alaska Alcoholic Beverage Control Board, 377 F.Supp. 151 (D.Alaska 1974); Bogus v. American National Bank of Cheyenne, 401 F.2d 458 (10th Cir. 1968); Paramount Finance Company v. United States, 379 F.2d 543 (6th Cir......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT