2019-02-21 Liquor Adjudication Board Minutes (2)

Home

Mukai: So Renee's recommendation is up for discussion now? Masuda: okay. Mukai: I'm totally in agreement with the Chair. I read this and felt we should fine them more, because to notify them and they send us an unsigned check? Then they send us a non-negotiable check? That's unheard of. It's not like the amount of the check is something astronomical. It's $771. I'm in the same mode as the Chairperson that it's a little different scenario and I think the fine should be higher. Taniguchi: Well, with the other one, too. (The Department) called them a couple of times, although it's one day. Gonzalez: Mr. Taniguchi, you are correct. However, I do see a factual distinction in this case from the previous case. And I will have to state that the Board's observation that there's strong circumstantial evidence that there may have been some actions here to mess with the timeliness of the payment exists. So if you are going to recommend a higher fine, I do believe there is circumstantial evidence to support that. The Department, in making its recommendation, was giving the benefit of the doubt to the Licensee, could not definitively prove intent to not pay the Department on time; however in this case, we did at least two written notifications, we called and left a message, and then we gave them the benefit of, that even though it wasn't postmarked by the 15th, we accepted that it was in transit, once they were reminded. And then it was unsigned, and we had to go through those hoops and send an investigator to get another check and then that checked bounced and we had to send an investigator back to let them know that it bounced and we were only going to accept cash now. So, the facts in this (case) are distinguishable from the case we just heard for Leatherman Libations. Mukai: I have another comment. I know times are hard. The restaurant business is a very tough business, but a normal business person, knowing they did not have the funds available, would notify the, if I was the individual I would say, "Hey, you know, I'm sorry. I apologize. Honestly, we don't have the money. I can make it good in two weeks. Or I can make it in a week and a half.'' Then I can see where a fine of $150 or whatever the going fines are, because at least they were on the up and up with us. This almost seems like deceit in my mind. That's why I'm more inclined to have a higher fine in this situation. Smith: What's the highest fine you ever issued in this kind of case? Masuda: Two thousand. Gonzalez: As of now, we've had at least eight violations of Rule 3-0(C), the most recent just occurring a few minutes ago. The highest fine we have ever issued in these cases has been $2,000. Smith: I guess it's compounding the situation that they said they were going to be here and they didn't show up, right? They're supposed to show up for this hearing, right? Taniguchi: But they said they acknowledge the complaint and they waived their rights to this. Schoen: Yes. I would not, I guess because they acknowledged the allegations in the complaint, admitting, disciplinary action should be taken without a hearing, basically when they choose that FEBRUARY 21, 2019 - LIQUOR ADJUDICATION BOARD MINUTES 22