### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03-0 8 -00 562 -CV

Je r m an C oo kie Co m pany , A ppe lla nt

v. Susa n Co m bs, Co m pt r oll e r of P ublic Ac c ount s o f the St at e of Te xa s; and Greg A bbott, Attor ney Ge neral of the State of Texas , Appellees

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY , 126TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. D-1- GN-01- 0014 92 , HO NORAB LE GUS J. STRAUSS JR. , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N
Th is is a sal e s and us e ta x re fu nd su it. Ap pe lla

nt Jer man Cook ie Com

pa ny a sse rt s that c e rt a in bak ery pr od

uc ts s old by Jer man a re e xemp te d f

ro m T e xas s a le s tax as “ fo od pr od uc ts for human consumption” in acc ordanc e with the Te x as Tax Code and applica ble re g ulations. J erma

n fi le d s uit a g a ins t app e lle e s— Sus an Co mbs , Co mpt ro lle r o f P ub lic Ac c ounts of the State of

Te xas, and Gr egAbbott, Attorney Gene ral of the State of Texas—seekinga refund of sa les tax paid on the sa le s o f t

he bake ry pr od uc ts. Th e dis tr ic t court g ra nte d ap pe lle e s’ mot ion fo r sum mary jud g me nt, and Jerman ap p ea l s . We conclude that whether J erma n’s bake ry

products ar e within the “f ood products for

human consumption” tax ex emption depends on wh et h er Jerman provide s eating fac iliti es, and that the summary judgme nt evidence demonstrates a g enuine issue as to this m ater ial fac t. Consequently , we r ever se the district cour t’s judgme nt and re mand.“ Th e su it mus t be br ou g ht a g a ins t bo th the c omp tr oll e r a nd the a tto rn e y

g e ne ra l and

mus t 1 be filed in a

district court.” Te x . Tax Code Ann. § 112.151(b) (West 2008). I n addition to its c laim f

or a ref und, J erma

n in its pleading s soug ht declar atory relief and 2 a tto rn e y s’ fe e s. Jer

man d oe s n ot a

pp e a l th e dis tr ic t c ourt ’s dis mis sa l of tho se c la ims

. 2 Fac tua l an d P

ro c e dural B ac kg

ro und Jer man Co ok ie Com

pa ny op e rates as a re ta ile r w ith in t he Vi sta Rid g e Ma ll i n L ewisville, Texas. J erma n sells c ookies and brownies in “ individual-siz ed” portions, in “quantities of fi ve or le ss, ” and

no t in a he a te d s tate , a

nd do e s n ot p ro vid e e a tin g ute ns ils

. The Comptroller audited Jerman f or Texas sales a

n d u s e t ax compliance for the per iod of Dec ember

1, 1992, throug h Marc h 31, 1997. T h e au d i t re s ulted in sales tax due on the baker y products sold from Jerman’s store . On Dec ember 6, 2000, J erma

n filed a c laim with the Com ptr oll e r f or a re fu nd of the sa le s tax that J e rm an ha d pa id in ac c or da nc e wi th the a

ud it r e su lts

. See Tex. Tax Code Ann. § 111.104 (West 2008). Af ter holding an administrat i v e h ea ri n g on the

m at ter, see id. § 1 1 1

. 1 0 5 ( a ) ( We s t 2 0 0 8 ) , th e Co mp tr o ll e r is s u e d a d e c is io n o n M ar c h 1 9, 2001, see id. § 111.105(b), de termining that J erma n’s sales wer e not e x empt from taxation. J erma n filed a motion for re hear ing, see id. § 111.105(c) , which the Comptroller de nied on April 16, 2001.

With in 3 0 d ay s o f t

he de nia l of

the mot io n for rehe ari ng , Jer man f ile d s uit a g a ins t

a pp e lle e s in

dis tr ic t c ourt
. See id. § 112.151(a) , (c) (West 2008). I n May 2 0 0 8 , t h e p arties f iled 1 cross motions for summary judgme nt. On J une 23, 2008, the district cour t gr anted a

ppellees’ motion for sum ma

r y ju d g me n t an d d e n ie d Je r ma n ’ s mo ti o n f

o r s u mm ar

y ju d g me n t. Je r

ma n a p p e a ls the dis tr ic t c ourt ’s summa

ry jud g me nt. 23

Anal y sis We reviewthe district court’s summar y judgme nt de novo. Joe v. Two T hirty Nine J oin t V e ntu re , 145 S.W .3d 150, 156 (Tex. 2004). Under the “tra ditional” rule 166a (c) standard, a summary judgme nt should be g ranted o n l y wh en the movant establishes that ther e is no g enuine issue as t o any materia l fac t and that it is entit led to judgme nt as a matter of law. See Tex. R. C iv. P. 1 66 a (c ); Pr ov ide nt L ife& Ac c ide nt I ns . Co. v. Kno tt , 128 S.W .3d 211, 215-16 (Te x . 2003). When, as here , both parties file motions for summ ary judgme nt and the cour

t gr ants one a

nd denies the oth e r, we mus t de c ide a ll qu e sti on s pr e se nte d and re nd e r t he jud g me nt t

hat th e tr ia l c ourt

sh ou ld have r ender ed. City

of G ar lan d v . D all

as Mo rn ing

Ne ws , 22 S.W .3d 351, 356 (Tex. 2000). Texas sa les tax is imposed on eac h sale of a taxable item in the state. Tex. Tax C ode Ann. § 151.051(a ) (West 2008). An e x emption from sales tax exist s for “food products for human consumption.” Id. § 151.314(a) (West 2008)

. At the time of the applica

ble audit per iod, prior to the

s tatute ’ s a me n dme n t in 2 0 0 3 , s e c ti o n 1 5 1

. 3 1 4 ( c ) d e f in e d th e s tatuto r

y te r m “ f o o d p r o d u c ts ” in a

manner that excluded a varie ty of items f rom the term, thus making the excluded items tax able. The following are among the items that were excluded from the ter m “food produc ts” by

statute:
fo od s and dr ink s ( wh ic h in c lud e me a ls, mil k an d milk pr od uc ts, fr uit and fr uit pr od uc ts, sand wi c he s, sa la ds , p ro c e sse d me a t s a n d s e a f o o d s , v e g e t a

b l e j uic e s, i ce cre am in cones or

small cups) ser

ved, pre pare d, or sold rea dy for imm e diate c on sumptio n in or by re sta ur ants , lu nc h c ounte rs , c a fe te ri a s, vending mach i n es , hotels, or like place s of business or sold rea dy for immediate consumpt ion from pushcarts, motor vehicles, or any other for m of vehicle.4

Act o f M ay 2 5 , 1 9 8 9 , 7 1 s t L e g . , R. S. , c h

. 2 9 9 , § 1 , 1 9 8 9 T e x. G e n . L aw s 1 2 5 8 , 1 258 (ame nded 2003) (c u rr ent version at Tex. Tax Code Ann. § 151.314(c -2)( 1)). The parties dispute whe ther J erma n’s bake ry

products we re sold “r eady for immediate c onsumption.” The phra se “r eady

for im me d ia te c onsumption” was not define d by statute. Howe ver, the Comptroller issued an administrative r ule that def

ined the phra se. Se e Pe rry Ho me s v . S tra y ho rn , 108 S.W .3d 444, 448 (Tex. App.—Austin 2003, no pet.) (Comptroller author ized to adopt rules that clar if y and implement tax code (c iting Te x . Tax Code Ann. § 151.021 (West 2008))). At the tim e of the a pp lic a ble a ud it p e ri od , Co mpt

ro lle r R ule 3. 29 3( a )( 9) de fi ne d “ re a dy fo r i mmediate

c on sumpt ion ” a s f

oll ow s: (A) Food r eady

for immediate c o n s u m p t ion means the ty pe of f ood, be ve ra g e s, or

me a ls n or ma lly pr e pa re d, se rv e d, or so ld by

re sta ur ants , lunch counter s, caf

eter ias, etc., which, when sold, require no further prepa ration prior to c onsumption. (B ) Whe n fo od is so ld by a re ta ile r who pr ov ide s e a tin g fa c ili tie s ( ta ble s, tr ay s, c ha ir s, be nc he s, or bo oth s) , f

oo d r e a dy

fo r i mme diate c on sumpt ion

a lso inc lud e s: (i) all food sold in a heated state; (ii) all food sold in individual-siz ed p ac kag es or por tions when food heating f

acilities are available for c ustomer use; (i ii) a ll f

oo d s old wi th e a tin g ute ns ils pr ov ide d, inc lud ingplate s, kn ive s, fo rk s, sp oo ns , g la sse s, c up s, or str aws ; (iv) all sandwiche s rea dy for immediate c onsumption . . . ; (v) all individual ice cr eam sundrie s . . . ; (v i) a ll i nd ivi du a l- size d p or ti on s o f b a ke ry

pr od uc ts s old in quantities of five or

less; and5 (vii) all food sold in i n d ividual-sized packag es or por tions requiringno further p roce ssing be fore consumption, when m o r e t h an7 5 % o f

t h e r e t a i l e r ’ s g r o s s s a l e s o nano u t l e t
- b you tle t ba sis c on sis t of

sa le s o f n on fo od

ite ms a nd /or fo od so ld in a heated state, with utensils provided, or in the f orm of sand wi c he s o r i nd ivi du a l ic e c re a m sund ri e s. (C) When food is sold by a reta iler who does not provide e ating fac iliti es (t a ble s, tr ay s, c ha ir s, be nc he s, or bo oth s) , food re a dy

fo r i mme diate c on sumpt ion

a lso inc lud e s: (i) all food sold in a heate d state, whe n the food is heated by the reta iler rather than the customer; (i i) a ll f

oo d s old wi th e a tin g ute ns ils pr ov ide d, inc lud ingplate s, kn ive s, fo rk s, sp oo ns , g la sse s, c up s, or str aws ; (iii) all sandwiche s rea dy for immediate c onsumption . . . ; and (iv) all individual ice cr eam sundrie s . . . .
1 6 T ex. R eg . 4066 (1991), adopted 1 6 T e x. Re g . 6 6 9 1 ( 1 9 9 1 ) ( f o r me r 3 4 T e x. A dmi n . Co de § 3.293(a) (9)) (Tex. Compt roller of Pub. Accounts). Pr ior to i ssu ingits jud g me nt i n th is c a se , th e dis tr ic t c ourt , in a le tte r t o th e pa

rt ie s,
e xpla ine d it s r e a so nin g fo r i ts f ind ing s th a t J erm an’s bake ry pr od uc ts w e re “ re a dy

fo r i mme diate consumption” in acc ordanc e with forme r rule 3.293(a)( 9) and, the ref ore, that J erma

n’s sales of

such products we re not e x empt from sales tax. Acc ordingto the district court, the bakery products we re
cover ed under

subsection (A) , reg ardle ss of whethe r they wer e cove red under subsec tion (B) or (C). This interpretation of former rule 3.293(a )(9) is supported by —and, indee d, the di strict court ba sed its int erpr et at i o n on—the pre sence of the phra se “a lso includes” in both subsections (B ) and ( C). See id.Ap pe lle e s in the ir mot ion fo r s umm ary

jud g me nt s tate d: “ Rul e 3. 29 3 do e s n ot e xpre ssl y 3 addre ss the taxabili ty

of i n d i v i d u al -sized portions of baker y products sold in quantities of five or less whe n the re tailer does not provide e ating fac iliti es. B ut the Comptroller’s policy is to treat sales of suc h baker

y products as e x empt when the r etailer d o es n o t p ro vide eating f acilities.” L ike wi se , in

the ir re sp on se to Je rm an’ s mo tio n for summa ry jud g me nt, a

pp e lle e s sta te d: “Wh ile it is true that the Comptroller does not a ssess tax on sales of cookies in qua ntities of five or le ss from reta il outlets t hat ar e not located in the food court of a mall, the facts in the instant case showthat Jer man’ s r e ta il o utl e t in

the Vi sta Rid g e Ma ll is located in the f ood court.” 6 However, a

ppellees c oncede d at ora l argument befor e this Court that while, under

su bs e c tio n ( B ), “ ind ivi du a l- sized po rt ion s o f b a ke ry pr od uc ts s old in q ua nti tie s o f f

ive or le ss”

are “ re a dy

fo r i mme diate c on sumpt ion ” if so ld b y a re ta ile r who pr ov ide s eati ng fac ili tie s, tho se same bakery

pro ducts are not

“re ady for immediate c onsumption” if sold by a re tailer who doe s not provide eating fac iliti es, in ac corda nce w ith subsection (C). See id. Th is c on c e ssi on a c c ur a te ly ref lects appe llees’ position befor e t h e d i strict court. Appe llees soug ht summary judgme nt based

on the a sse rt ion

that J erman p ro vid e s e a tin g fa c ili tie s. Moreove r, the summary judgme nt rec ord 3

c on ta ins pr ior

state me nts by

the Com

ptr oll e r d e mon str a tin g that th e Com ptr oll e r c on sis te ntl y interpre ted forme r rule 3.293( a)( 9) such that whe ther ba kery products sold by

a re tailer in “qua

ntities of five or less” we re e x empt from sale s tax —if sold without eating ute nsils p ro v i d ed an d not in a heate d state—depe nded on whe the r th e r e ta il e r

p rovided e ating fac iliti es. See, e .g. , Tex. Com ptroller of Pub. Acc ounts, STAR Document No. 9203L 1162E04 (Mar . 20, 1992) (“ [N] o tax i s due on bake ry products sold from a

baker y without eating fac iliti es unless sol d i n a heated state or with eating utensils provided.”); Te x . Comptroller of Pub. Accounts, STAR Docume nt No. 8 0 0 4 T 0 154C14 (Apr. 8, 1980) (“Since t he tax pay er has no seatingfac iliti es, any quantity [of cookies] sol d without utensils provided will not be subject to tax.”).7 An a dmi nis tr a tiv e a g e nc y

ha s th e po we r t o in terpret it s o wn ru le s, and

its interpre tation is entitled to g reat w eig ht a nd defe renc e. ASAP Paging Inc . v. Public Util. Comm’n , 21 3 S. W.3 d 3 80 , 3 94 (T e x. Ap p. —Aus tin 20 06 , p e t. d e nie d)

. Th e a g e nc y ’s c on str uc tio n o f i ts r

ule is controlling unless it is plainly err oneous or inconsistent with the languag e of the rule, c onsidering the rule’s clea

r, unambiguous l anguag e. See id. ; Te x as Citr us Ex c h. v . S

ha rp , 955 S.W .2d 164, 169- 70 (T e x. Ap p. —Aus ti n 19 97 , n o p e t.) . Su bs e c tio n ( B ) o f f

or me r r ule 3. 29 3( a )( 9) lis ts “ a ll individual-siz ed portions of bakery products sold in quantities of five or les s ” s p ec i fica lly

as fo o d “r ea dy fo r i m m ed i at e co n s u mp t i o n ” wh en t h e re t ai l er p ro v i d es ea t i n g fa ci l i t i es . 1 6 T ex . R eg.
a t 40 66

. I n c on tr a st, su

bs e c tio n ( C) omi ts s uc h c a te g or y fr om i ts l ist

of fo od “ re a dy fo r i mme diate

c on sumpt ion ” wh e n th e re ta ile r d oe s not provide e ating fac iliti es. Id. at 40 67

. I t is a re a so na ble int e rp re ta tio n th a t, s inc e the on ly dis tin ction in

a pp lic a bil ity be tw e e n s ub se c tio ns (B ) a nd (C ) i s wh e the r t he re ta ile r p ro vid e s e a tin g fa c ili tie s, wh e n a fo od c a te g or y inc lud e d in subs e c tio n ( B ) i s not included in subsection (C), such food cate g ory is intende d to be taxed f or reta ilers that provide eatingfac iliti es, but not for those that do not. See Mid-Century Ins. Co. v. Kidd , 997 S.W .2d 265, 273-74 (Te x . 1999) (“ expressio unius est e x clusio alterius,” ma x im that ex pression of one implies exclusion of others, while not an abs o l u t e rule, is aid to deter mine leg islative intent). There fore , althoug h we a g ree with the di strict court that former rule 3.293(a)(9) can be re asonably interpre ted such that bake ry

products desc ribed by

subsection (A) are excluded from the tax exempti on reg ardle ss of subsection s (B) and ( C), we de fer to the Comptroller’s conc eded pr actice and

a pp lic a tio n o f its ru le s to the e ff e c t th a t “ ind ivi du a l- size d p or tio ns of bake ry pr od uc ts s old in quantities of five or

less” ar e cove red by

the tax exemption if sold by a re tailer who doe s not provideWe n ote th at ou r ho ldingre g ard ingthe bake ry pr od uc ts at is su e he re do e s n ot a pp ly to 4 sales on or a fter October 1, 2003. The leg islature amende d section 151.314 of the tax code , eff ective Oc tob e r 1 , 2 00 3, to e xpre ssl y inc lud e a ll “b a ke ry

ite ms s old

wi tho ut p late s o r o the r e a tin g ute ns ils ” within the “food produc ts” tax ex emption. See Ac t of June 2, 2003, 78th L eg ., R.S., ch. 1310, §§ 103, 123(f) , 2003 Tex. Gen. L aws 4748, 4786, 4795- 9 6 (codifie d at Tex. Tax C ode Ann. § 151.314(c- 3)(1) (West 2008) ). The Comptroller ame nded its rule 3.293 ac cording ly

. See 3 4 T e x. Admin. Code § 3.293(a) (1), (b), (c)(7)( A), (8) (2009) ( Tex. Com ptroller of Pub. Ac counts, “F ood; Food Produc ts; Meals; Food Service ”). J erma n cites this Court’s opinion in Te xas Ci tr us Ex c ha nge v . S ha rp , 955 S.W .2d 164 5 (Tex. App.—Austin 1997, no p et.), for the proposition that the burden of proof shifts to the Comptroller to show that an exc eption to a tax ex emption applies. I n Texas Citrus Exchange , th is Court construed a s tatute providi ng that “[e]lectricity is exempt from [ sales, excise, and use ] t axes exc ept when it is employ ed for commerc ial use.” See 955 S.W .2d at 166-67. Thus, if the ta x pay er met its burden to prove the “ele ctricity ” tax ex emption a pplied, the Comptroller could still support the impositi on of taxes on the taxpay er’ s activity by showing that th e elec tricity was e mploy ed for “commer cial use.” Howeve r, eve n if Texas Citrus Exchange acc urate ly char acte rizes the proper place ment of burde n of proof , in this case the ter

m “f o o d p roducts”—the cate g ory to which the ta x exem pti on a pp lie s— is defined

to exclude cer

tain items sold “rea dy

for immediate c onsumption.” I f, then, J erma

n’s baker y products ar e sold “re ady

for immediate c onsumption,” J erma n cannot mee t its burden to prove that the tax ex emption applies to its bakery products in the first plac e. 8 eatingfac iliti es, in ac corda nce w ith subsections (B) and (C). See P erry Hom es , 108 S.W .3d at 448 4 (“[W] e need only deter

mine whether the Rule ca

n rea sonably

be re ad in the manne r the Comptroller has chose n to interpret it.”)

.

Consequently , whether

summary judgme nt should be enter ed d epends on whether the summary

judgme nt evi d en ce d em onstrates, a s a matter of law, that Jerman provides e ating fac iliti es—in which case summary judgme nt should be enter ed in f avor of appellee s—or does not provide eating fac iliti es—in which case summ ary judgme nt should be entere d in favor of J erma n. See Te x. R. C iv. P. 1 66 a (c ); Kno tt , 128 S.W .3d at 215-16. As the tax pay er, Jerman ha s the burden to showit is entit led to the “f ood products” ta x exemption. See North Alamo W ater Supply Corp.

v . W illac yCou nty Ap prais al D ist

. , 804 S.W .2d 894, 899 (Tex. 1991). 59 T h e e v i d en ce o nt h i s i s s u e i n d i ca t es t h e f o l l o wi n g:

• J erma

n ’ s s to r e o c c u

p ie s a c o r n e r p o s it io nin s id e th e in d o o r ma ll , w it h o n e s id e f

a c in g the main mal l walkwa

y , and the a djace nt side fac ing the direc tion of the food cour t—which e x t e n d s p e r

p e n d i c u l ar l y o u tf

r o m t h e m a i nm a l l w a l kw ay.

• The 1989 lea se ag ree ment betwee n the owner s of the mall a nd J erma n’s store pr ovides that the lease d premises a

re to be used and occupie d for the purpose of prepa ration, storag e, and reta il sales of bake ry

products “f

or off -pre mises consumption.”

• Michae l Ex um—who was the g ener al manag er at Vista Ridge Mall during the audit period, but had bee n subsequently promoted to another

position wit hin the landlord compa ny not a ffili ate d w iththa

t ma ll— state d b y

a ff ida vit that th e land lor d d oe s n ot c on sid e r Je rm an to be a “ tenant of the food cour t.”

• The lea se ag ree ment co n t ai n s an adde ndum labeled “ Food Court Ar ea,” which states that J erma n’s lease d premises “ are situated in that portion of the Shopping Cente r identified a s the Food Court Ar ea, a

nd it is i ntended that sa id Food Court Are a af ford the e ffe ct of a s i n g l e , u n i f

i e d f o o d s e r v i c e f a c i l i t y. ” E x u m t e s t i f

i e d b y d e p o s i t i o n t h a tt h e r e w a s “ n o tr e a l l y” a diffe renc e betw een the food cour t and the food c ourt are a. The addendum r equire s the land lor d to fu

rn ish and ma int a in a

“ Com mon

Se a tin g F a c ili ty ” and pr ov ide pe rs onne l to clea n and maintain the a

rea , and require s of J erma n that any utensils use d be disposable, that e mpl oy e e s w e ar s tand ard un if or ms, and that Jer man d isp lay

the hig he st d e g re e of

c are in handling its g arba g e and keeping its pre mises in g ood condition a nd repa ir. Acc ording to a 1998 letter fr om Ex um to J erma n, the “Food C ourt Are a” addendum was included as part of the le a se a g re e me nt b e c a

us e Jer man, a lth ou g h n ot c on sid e re d a fo od cou rt te na nt, wa s “ in the vicinit y of the food c ourt” a nd, there fore , neede d to comply with “the g ener al prese ntation require ments that applied to the food c ourt tenants to assure c onsistency among all food vendor s.”

• Th e re fe re nc e to Je rm an b e ingre qu ir e d to pa y “ fo od c ourt CA M” —a

fe e to d e fr ay

the c os ts of food c ourt usag e—wa s stricken from the “F ood Court Area ” adde ndum. I n his deposition, Ex um expressed his opinion that a tenant not payi n g food cour t CAM is not a food c ourt tenant. Also in his deposition, Ex um stated that whether , and the extent, a food court tena nt pay s food cour

t CAM is “up to the people neg otiating the le ase.”

• The summary

judgme nt r ecor d includes a mall br ochure , copy rig ht dated 1997, that contains a map of the mall listi ng J erma

n’s st o re i n t h e “Food Court” categ ory . Ex um stated by aff idavit that the map was pr inted in e rror , and that the err or wa s corr ecte d in the latest draf t of the br oc hure . T he summa ry jud g me nt r e c or d c on ta ins a se c on d b ro c hure wi th a ma p, a lsoWe note that the district court g rante d summary j u d gm en t based on subsec tion (A) of 6 former rule 3.293(a )(9) —not based on s u b s ec tions (B) a nd (C)—and, the ref

ore, did not rule that J erma n provides eating f

acilities as a matter of law

.

10 copy rig ht dated 1997, listi ng J erma n’s store in the “Specia lty Foods” cate g ory , not the “F ood C o u rt ” c a t e g o r

y.

• Ex um stated, by

aff idavit, that “virtually

all” of Jerman’s c ustomers eat the purcha sed bake ry products “w hile strolling and shopping ” at the mall. He admitted in his deposition t hat he
“ pr ob a bly” ha d w itn e sse d c us tom e rs of Jer man e a tin g bake ry

pr od uc ts i n th e fo od

c ourt
.

• Appellee s enclosed a photogr aph of Jerman’s store , taken in J anuar y 1998, that showed tables and c hairs adjac ent to the side of the store f acingthe direc tion of the food cour t are a. A Comptroller employ ee stated by aff idavit that he took picture s of J erma n’s store dur ing the course of the a

udit, and that the tables and chairs w ere “par t of what is know[n] as the food court.” E xu m c o mm e n te d in h is d e p o s it io nth a t t

h e lo c a ti o no f

ta b le s an d c h a ir s is not a uth or itativ e a s to wh e the r a te na nt i s in the fo od c ourt
.
Ba s ed o n this summ ary

judgme nt evidence , we c onclude that a g enuine issue

re ma ins a s to the mate ri a l f a c t of wh e the r Je rm an p ro vid e s e a tin g fa c ili tie s a t its Vi sta Rid g e Ma ll
store. T h er ef

o re , we re v er s e t h e j u d gm en to f t h e d i s t ri ct co u rt an d re m an d fo r f u rt h er p ro ce ed i n gs 6 consistent with this opi nion.

__________________________________________ G. Alan Waldrop, Just ice Be fore J ustices Patterson, Pember ton and Waldrop ConcurringOpinion by

J ustice Patterson Reverse d and Remande d Filed: Jul y

23, 2009