ORDERS:
ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
In the above-captioned matter, Petitioner Cost Plus, Inc., seeks the renewal of its seven-day off-premises beer and wine permit for its World Market store in Summerville, South Carolina. Respondent South Carolina Department of Revenue (Department) denied Petitioner’s application for the renewal of its permit because the Town of Summerville has not held a referendum specifically authorizing the issuance of such permits by the Department. On August 15, 2005, the Department filed a Motion for Summary Judgment in this matter on the ground that there are no genuine issues of material fact regarding Petitioner’s renewal application and the Department is entitled to judgment in its favor as a matter of law based on a recent en banc decision issued by the South Carolina Administrative Law Court. For the reasons set forth below, the Department’s motion for summary judgment is hereby granted.
BACKGROUND
On May 24, 2005, Petitioner submitted an application to the Department for the renewal of its seven-day off-premises beer and wine permit for its World Market store located at 460 Azalea Square Boulevard in the Town of Summerville, South Carolina. This permit would allow Petitioner to sell beer and wine for off-premises consumption on Sundays. See S.C. Code Ann. § 61-4-510(A) (Supp. 2004). By a Final Determination issued on June 9, 2005, the Department denied Petitioner’s renewal application because, while the Town of Summerville had conducted a referendum in 2003 authorizing on-premises sales of alcoholic beverages on Sundays, the town had not yet held a referendum specifically authorizing the issuance of permits for the off-premises sale of beer and wine on Sundays. In reaching this conclusion, the Department relied explicitly upon the en banc decision issued by the South Carolina Administrative Law Court on July 20, 2004, in which this Court held that, pursuant to the current language of Section 61-4-510 and Section 61-6-2010, permits for the off-premises sale of beer and wine on Sundays may only be issued in counties and municipalities that have held referenda specifically authorizing such sales. See Piedmont Petroleum Corp. v. S.C. Dep’t of Revenue, Docket No. 03-ALJ-17-0337-CC (S.C. Admin. Law Ct. July 20, 2004) (en banc). On July 5, 2005, Petitioner requested a contested case hearing before this Court to challenge the Department’s denial of its renewal application, resulting in the instant case.
DISCUSSION
As noted above, the Department moves for summary judgment of this case in its favor based upon this Court’s en banc decision in Piedmont Petroleum. I find that this motion should be granted.
Summary judgment is appropriate where there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Rule 56(c), SCRCP; Hendricks v. Clemson Univ., 353 S.C. 449, 455, 578 S.E.2d 711, 714 (2003); see also ALC Rule 68 (authorizing the application of the South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure to answer questions not addressed by the ALC Rules). In the case at hand, there are no genuine issues of material fact regarding Petitioner’s renewal application or the referendum held by the Town of Summerville, and the Department is entitled to judgment in its favor as a matter of law. There is no dispute that the referendum conducted by the Town of Summerville in May 2003 regarding Sunday sales did not specifically authorize the issuance of permits for the sale of beer and wine for off-premises consumption on Sundays, but instead only referenced sales of alcoholic liquors in minibottles. See Dept.’s Mot. for Summ. J., Ex. A. Nor is there any dispute that Petitioner filed its renewal application after the current versions of Sections 61-4-510 and 61-6-2010—the sections addressed by this Court in the Piedmont Petroleum en banc decision—went into effect in June 2003. See S.C. Code Ann. §§ 61-4-510 (Supp. 2004), 61-6-2010 (Supp. 2004).
Rather, the parties differ on the legal effect of Summerville’s 2003 referendum under Sections 61-4-510 and 61-6-2010. Petitioner contends that the town’s 2003 referendum on Sunday liquor sales authorizes the Department to issue seven-day permits for the sale of beer and wine for off-premises consumption. The Department maintains that, because the town has not held a referendum specifically authorizing Sunday sales of beer and wine for off-premises consumption, it is not authorized to issue a permit for such sales and is thus precluded from renewing Petitioner’s permit. As recognized by the Department, this issue is fully decided by this Court’s en banc decision in Piedmont Petroleum, in which this Court held that, under the current language of Section 61-4-510(A) and Section 61-6-2010(C), permits for Sunday sales of beer and wine for off-premises consumption may only be issued in those counties and municipalities that have held referenda specifically authorizing such sales of beer and wine. See Piedmont Petroleum, supra, at 11 (“Seven-day permits [for off-premises beer and wine sales] can be issued only in counties or municipalities which have already had a favorable vote on the beer and wine question . . . .”) (emphasis added). This decision is binding upon this Court in this matter pursuant to ALC Rule 70(F). Therefore, pursuant to the en banc decision in Piedmont Petroleum, because the Town of Summerville has not held a referendum specifically authorizing the sale of beer and wine for off-premises consumption on Sundays, the Department may not renew Petitioner’s permit for such sales. Accordingly, the Department is entitled to judgment in this case as a matter of law.
ORDER
For the reasons set forth above,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Department’s Motion for Summary Judgment of this case is GRANTED and its decision to deny Petitioner’s application for the renewal of its seven-day off-premises beer and wine permit for its World Market store in Summerville, South Carolina, is SUSTAINED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Petitioner’s Motion for Stay, the effect of this Order shall be STAYED for thirty (30) days pursuant to ALC Rule 29(E) to allow for any appeals of this decision.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
______________________________
JOHN D. GEATHERS
Administrative Law Judge
1205 Pendleton Street, Suite 224
Columbia, South Carolina 29201-3731
October 25, 2005
Columbia, South Carolina |
