Discrimination defense lawyer for employers

 

In a proceeding in mandamus, appellant liquor license sought to overturn the judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California), which held that respondent Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (department) properly revoked the licensee's right to sell liquor and which refused to issue a writ of mandate on behalf of the licensee. Previously, the department affirmed the decision of a hearing officer.

The licensee owned an establishment that was permitted to sell liquor, but the licensee did not visit the establishment often. The licensee's bartender and the bartender's wife openly sold heroin on the licensee's premises. The Discrimination defense lawyer for employers officer revoked the licensee's right to sell liquor, the department affirmed the hearing officer's decision, and the lower court affirmed the decision of the department. The court affirmed the lower court's judgment, holding that the licensee had violated Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 24200(a), (b), (e) and Cal. Bus.& Prof. Code § 25601(a) by permitting drugs to be sold on the premises. The court ruled that even if the licensee was not actually aware of the drug sales, the knowledge of his employee, the bartender, was imputed to the licensee.

The court affirmed the lower court's judgment, which held that the department correctly revoked the licensee's right to sell liquor and denied the writ of mandate requested by the licensee.

Defendant landowner appealed from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County (California) and from an order refusing to vacate and set aside judgment and default in favor of plaintiff contractor in his suit for the foreclosure of a mechanic's lien.

The contractor served the complaint on the landowner and took a default judgment on the earliest possible date. The landowner filed a motion to vacate on the ground of mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. A proposed answer and counterclaim, which alleged that the contractor failed to complete the work costing the landowner extra money, was attached to the motion. The trial court denied the motion. Reversing, the court held that denial of the motion might have been an abuse of discretion because the motion was made immediately after the default was taken, it included a claim which, if proved, would defeat most or all of the contractor's claim, and failed to take into consideration the sufficiency of the contractor's complaint. The court found that the complaint failed to state a cause of action at the time the default judgment was entered because the contractor failed to sufficiently plead under the requirements of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 7031.

The court reversed both the order refusing to set aside the default judgment and the default judgment itself, in the contractor's action against the landowner to foreclose a mechanic's lien.