Vintage Imp., Ltd. v. Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc.
Decision Date | 11 March 1976 |
Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 75-568-N. |
Citation | 409 F. Supp. 497 |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia |
Parties | VINTAGE IMPORTS, LTD., Plaintiff, v. JOSEPH E. SEAGRAM & SONS, INC. and Gold Seal Vineyards, Inc., Defendants. |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Morris H. Fine, Lewis Allen Fine, Fine, Legum & Fine, Norfolk, Va., for plaintiff.
Thomas G. Johnson, Jr., James R. Warner, Jr., Willcox, Savage, Lawrence, Dickson & Spindle, Norfolk, Va., for Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc.
Conrad M. Shumadine, David Y. Faggert, Kaufman, Oberndorfer & Spainhour, Norfolk, Va., for Gold Seal Vineyards, Inc.
Vintage Imports, Ltd. (hereinafter "Vintage"), a duly licensed wholesale wine distributor, alleges that Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc. (hereinafter "Seagram") and Gold Seal Vineyards, Inc. (hereinafter "Gold Seal") ceased selling Vintage its products in derogation of its obligations pursuant to Section 4-80.2 Code of Virginia (1950, as amended). Vintage filed suit in the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, on October 15, 1975. Defendants filed a petition for removal on November 6, 1975, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1441(a). Jurisdiction is attained pursuant to the Court's authority to preside over disputes among citizens of different states. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Venue is established because the events in issue occurred within the Eastern District of Virginia.
Defendants aver that the Virginia statute upon which plaintiff is proceeding is unconstitutional. Three grounds are forwarded to support this conclusion. First, the defendants argue that the statute is allegedly void for vagueness. Another purported infirmity of the statute is that the state legislature exceeded the scope of its police power authority by enacting the legislation. Finally, the statute is arguably proscribed by the Virginia Constitution prohibition against special or exclusive legislation.
Section 4-80.2 of the Code of Virginia (1950, as amended) provides:
The Court is confronted by the threshold question of whether it should abstain to permit the state court to interpret the challenged statute.1 The abstention issue is complicated by the fact that the Court's jurisdiction is premised on diversity of citizenship requiring the Court to apply Virginia law. On a theoretical level, this Court should not be expected to render a different result on the merits than the Virginia state court. However, defendants sought to avoid the state court of the Commonwealth of Virginia by their invocation of 28 U.S.C. § 1441. It would indeed appear cyclic to require defendants to litigate their claims in the very state court they seek to avoid. Nevertheless, there is not any constitutional or statutory obstacle to abstaining in diversity of citizenship cases.2
Abstention is a judicially created vehicle designed to avoid premature constitutional decisions of matters relating to state law. The doctrine of abstention was first enunciated in Railroad Commission v. Pullman Co., 312 U.S. 496, 61 S.Ct. 643, 85 L.Ed. 971 (1941). Abstention is appropriate to avoid "the waste of a tentative decision as well as the friction of a premature constitutional adjudication," Pullman, supra at 500, 61 S.Ct. at 645, 85 L.Ed. at 974. Abstention contemplates remitting issues raising questions of state law to the state courts to permit state construction or limiting interpretation thereby potentially alleviating a premature constitutional determination by the Federal courts. Harrison v. NAACP, 360 U.S. 167, 79 S.Ct. 1025, 3 L.Ed.2d 1152 (1959). The state court decision may resolve the state law issues in a manner mooting the Federal constitutional issues. This policy fosters the concepts of federalism and comity in circumventing needless friction with state policy.
Although the abstention policy had its genesis in Pullman, its application has been broadened to encompass circumstances where a complex state regulatory scheme is coupled with a clearly delineated state procedure for handling the issues in controversy. Burford v. Sun Oil Co., 319 U.S. 315, 63 S.Ct. 1098, 87 L.Ed. 1424 (1943). The Burford approach is appropriate when a Federal court decision may disrupt a state's management of affairs uniquely within its purview.
Abstention has been raised sua sponte by the Court. In oral argument, both parties urged the Court to consider the case on its merits and not to abstain.3 A succinct recitation of the facts is necessary to put this case in context.
Vintage, a wine wholesaler, received wine products from Gold Seal for distribution in the environs of Virginia Beach, Virginia, until August 1, 1975. On that date, Seagram assumed the position of the national distributor of Gold Seal products.4 After August 1, 1975 Vintage was unable to purchase Gold Seal products. Vintage claims that its termination was in direct contravention of Section 4-80.2 of the Code of Virginia (1950, as amended).
The Court must determine whether the circumstances in the instant case dictate that the Court abstain. The very statute in controversy had been challenged previously in AFA Distributing Co., Inc. v. Pearl Brewing Co.,5 470 F.2d 1210 (4th Cir. 1973). In AFA Distributing, the plaintiff beer distributing company attempted to prevent the beer manufacturer from terminating an exclusive franchise to distribute a specific brand of beer in Northern Virginia. The wholesaler invoked Section 4-80.2, Code of Virginia (1950, as amended) to prohibit the termination. The United States District Court construed the statute in favor of the manufacturer and dismissed the wholesaler's Complaint. The District Court construed the statute to apply only to contracts entered into...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Goldstein v. Miller
...Inc. v. South Carolina Tax Comm'n, 409 U.S. 275, 283, 93 S.Ct. 483, 488, 34 L.Ed.2d 472 (1972); Vintage Imports, Ltd. v. Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc., 409 F.Supp. 497, 506-07 (E.D.Va.1976); National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Miller, 358 F.Supp. 1321, 1327 et seq. (D.Kan.) (three-judge c......
-
Carico Investments v. Texas' Alcoholic Beverage, Civil Action 11-03-5532.
...there is little showing that Burford abstention is warranted. This conclusion is bolstered by Vintage Imports, Ltd. v. Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc., 409 F.Supp. 497, 507-08 (E.D.Va.1976). The Vintage Imports court held that Burford abstention was unwarranted, noting that "the Court is not......
-
Housworth v. Glisson
...statute regulating relationships between brewers or vintners and wholesalers met a similar fate.10 Vintage Imports, Ltd. v. Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc., 409 F.Supp. 497 (E.D.Va.1976). In Clark v. City of Fremont, 377 F.Supp. 327 (D.Neb.1974), the court declared unconstitutional a local o......
-
Lamar Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. Mississippi State Tax Com'n
...by reason of the 21st Amendment;" due process requirements apply to liquor licensing procedure); Vintage Imports, Ltd. v. Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc., 409 F.Supp. 497, 506-07 (E.D.Va.1976). The relationship between the Twenty-first Amendment and other constitutional provisions was explic......