MB Doral, LLC v. State, 1D19-820

• Court: Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
• Writing for the Court: Roberts, J.
• Citation: 295 So.3d 850
• Parties: MB DORAL, LLC, d/b/a Martinibar, Appellant, v. State of Florida, DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, DIVISION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES AND TOBACCO, Appellee.
• Docket Number: No. 1D19-820,1D19-820
• Decision Date: 27 April 2020

295 So.3d 850

MB DORAL, LLC, d/b/a Martinibar, Appellant,
v.
State of Florida, DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, DIVISION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES AND TOBACCO, Appellee.

No. 1D19-820

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 27, 2020

Louis J. Terminello and Michael Martinez of Greenspoon Marder, LLP, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Ross Marshman, Beth A. Miller, and Joseph Y. Whealdon, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Roberts, J.

295 So.3d 852

MB Doral, a limited liability company doing business as "Martinibar," appeals a final order from the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) denying its rule challenge. We agree with MB Doral that Florida Rule of Administrative Procedure 61A-4.020 is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority and violates section 120.52(8), Florida Statutes (2019), and reverse the order on appeal.

Facts

MB Doral operates an alcoholic beverage establishment, Martinibar, in Miami-Dade County. It holds a liquor license (referred to as a "quota" license) issued by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco (the Division). See § 561.20, Fla. Stat. (2019). Quota licenses are issued in relation to the population of a county, so the license is tied to the county in which the licensee conducts its business—in this case Miami-Dade County. In addition to operating Martinibar, MB Doral also caters alcoholic beverages at large open-air events throughout Florida. It does so through an exemption to the quota license. See § 561.20(2)(a) 5., Fla. Stat. (2019).

Vendor licensees of the Division are permitted to store their inventory in limited locations. See § 562.03, Fla. Stat. (2019). Inventory may be stored in the building or room shown in the diagram accompanying a license application or "in another building or room approved by the [D]ivision." § 562.03, Fla. Stat. (2019). To provide guidance as to when "off-premises storage" (OPS) permits would be approved, the Division promulgated Florida Administrative Rule 61A-4.020. OPS permits are unlimited in number for licensees and require no fee. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 61A-4.020.

MB Doral applied for, and was granted, an OPS permit for storage facilities in Miami-Dade County. However, when MB Doral sought OPS permits outside of Miami-Dade County to store alcoholic beverages for use in its catering business, the Division denied the permit based on the language of rule 61A-4.020, which provided in relevant part¹ :

61A-4.020 Storage Permits.

(1) Manufacturers, rectifiers, distributors, vendors and cooperatives or pool buying vendors who require additional storage outside of their licensed premises must obtain a permit therefor. Such permits can be obtained from the Division without fee, provided that the storage room is located in the same county as the parent place of business of the licensee or agent of such cooperatives or pool buying vendors to whom the permit was issued and provided that no such permits shall be issued to a structure which is or is a part of the residence or garage of a licensee or any employee of any licensee. Such permits authorize the storage of alcoholic beverages only in sealed containers. Applications for such permits shall be made on forms prescribed by the Division for that purpose and shall be submitted to the district supervisor of the district in which the licensed place of business for which the permit is sought is located.

(Emphasis added.)

MB Doral filed a petition pursuant to section 120.56(3), Florida Statutes (2018), arguing rule 61A-4.020 was an invalid exercise

295 So.3d 853

of delegated legislative authority. MB Doral specifically took issue with the rule's requirement that OPS storage be in the same county as the parent place of business of the licensee. In a final order, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) concluded the rule was a valid exercise of delegated legislative authority because section 562.03's pronouncement that a vendor may store alcoholic beverages "in another building or room approved by the [D]ivision" gave the Division the ability to restrict the location where alcoholic beverages are stored, as well as the ability to approve additional locations for off-premises storage. The ALJ concluded the rule's county-based limitation was consistent with and provided clarity to section 562.03. MB Doral seeks review of the ALJ's final order.

...