JGB Enterprises, LLC, dba Twisted River Saloon v. Oregon Liquor and Cannabis Commission

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Administrative Law
  • Date Filed: 06-19-2023
  • Case #: A176066
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Ayogi, P.J. for the Court; Egan, J.; and Jacquot, J.
  • Full Text Opinion

Where a licensee requested a late hearing, licensee must show good cause, which requires more than "the proceedings in total" suggest licensee would request that hearing. Additionally, ORS 471.333(3), which limits the Oregon Liquor and Cannabis Commission (OCCL)'s discretion in suspending licenses in certain circumstances, may still suspend licenses where licensee violated health and safety guidelines set by Oregon Health Authority (OHA) or executive orders.

Twisted River Saloon (licensee) appealed the Oregon Liquor and Cannabis Commission’s (OLCC) denial of its request for a late hearing on its license suspension and the license suspension itself. OLCC issued a notice of a proposed license suspension to licensee for failure to comply with Executive Order (EO) 20-66, which created restrictions on eating and drinking establishments during the COVID-19 pandemic. Specifically, licensee violated OAR 845-00600345(15) and (16), which restricted indoor on-premise consumption of food or drink, required mask mandates and social distancing, and required adherence to Oregon Health Authority (OHA) and executive guidance during a health emergency. Licensee made a late request for a hearing on the suspension. OLCC denied the request and issued a final order by default and suspended the license for 38 days. Licensee appealed the late hearing because “the proceedings in total” suggested it would request a hearing, which licensee argued qualified as good cause for being late, and OLCC abused its discretion in denying that request. The Court of Appeals rejected licensee’s argument because the issue was unpreserved and because good cause cannot be established by “the proceedings in total,” nor is that the correct standard for an abuse of discretion standard of review. Licensee appealed the default license suspension because it did not “comply with ORS 471.333(3) to establish a prima facie case under ORS 183.417(4).” That is, because ORS 471.333(3) forbid OLCC from suspending a business’ license due to it being unsanitary, OLCC was unable to make a prima facie case under ORS 183.417(4). The Court of Appeals rejected licensee’s argument because OLCC did not suspend licensee’s license for being unsanitary, but for violating subsections 15 and 16, which was authorized under ORS chapter 471. AFFIRMED.

Advanced Search

Back to Top