IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

In Re: :

Appeal of Hotel Liquor License :

#H-2892 :

: No. 411 C.D. 2015

v. :

: Argued: September 14, 2015

Tabs Entertainment, Inc., T/A Tabs :

Tavern and Inn, :

Appellant :

BEFORE: HONORABLE BERNARD L. McGINLEY, Judge

HONORABLE ROBERT SIMPSON, Judge

HONORABLE PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge

OPINION BY

JUDGE McCULLOUGH FILED: October 8, 2015

TABS Entertainment, Inc., trading as TABS Tavern and Inn (TABS), 

appeals from the December 5, 2014 order of the Court of Common Pleas of Monroe 

County (trial court), which affirmed a decision of the Pennsylvania Liquor Control 

Board (Board) denying TABS’ application to renew a liquor license.

TABS owns a hotel liquor license for premises it leases at 370 Route 

196, Tobyhanna, Monroe County. Robert Mathews is currently the sole shareholder, 

president, and manager of TABS. On June 6, 2012, Mathews purchased one hundred 

percent of TABS’ shares from Jahan Tabatabaie after the bar had been closed for one 

and a half years. On February 4, 2013, the Board approved Mathews’ application for 

Notice of Change in Business Structure. Mathews operated the bar and restaurant 

under the name “The Doo Wop Lounge,” and changed the atmosphere to attract an 
2

older, more “respectful” clientele. On the official license, Mathews was listed as the 

“owner,” the Doo Wop Lounge as the “business name,” and TABS as the “licensee.” 

In June 2014, Mathews closed the bar due to ongoing health issues. (Findings of Fact 

(F.F.) at Nos. 1-4; Reproduced Record (R.R.) at 99a, 140a, 211a-12a.)

By letter dated September 20, 2013, the Board notified TABS that it 

objected to the renewal of its license for the period effective October 1, 2013. The 

Board asserted that from October 27, 2008, to February 1, 2010, during Tabatabaie’s 

ownership, TABS received seven citations to which it admitted the violations. 

Notably, four of the adjudicated citations involved instances where TABS issued 

checks to vendors to purchase malt or brewed beverages and had insufficient funds to 

cover the payments. The Board also asserted that TABS, under Mathews’ ownership, 

violated a Conditional Licensing Agreement (CLA) dated April 20, 2011, and signed 

by Tabatabaie. Specifically, the Board alleged that TABS and Mathews breached the 

CLA in the following particulars: failure to become compliant with the Responsible 

Alcohol Management Program (RAMP); failure to maintain and enforce a written 

barred patrons list; failure to employ at least one security guard to work on the 

premises on Friday and Saturday nights; and failure to ensure sufficient funds to pay 

all vendors. (F.F. at Nos. 7-8, 11.) 

With respect to the latest-mentioned violation of the CLA, the Board 

sent Mathews and TABS thirty insufficient fund letters from December 19, 2012, to 

October 2, 2013, listing instances where TABS issued checks to various distributors 

for the purchase of malt or brewed beverages and had insufficient funds for payment.1 

 

1

The reproduced record does not contain all of the letters, but contains a vast majority of 

them, and shows that the amounts of the returned checks were as follows: December 10, 2012 

($185.98); December 10, 2012 ($230.78); April 26, 2013 ($223.03); May 21, 2013 ($314.08); May 

28, 2013 ($277.56); May 28, 2013 ($333.79); May 29, 2013 ($40.70); June 21, 2013 ($331.04); 

(Footnote continued on next page...)
3

The letters stated that TABS had ten days to make full payment. In turn, TABS failed 

to remedy six of its dishonored checks by the time of the Board’s December 2013 

hearing and the matters were referred to the Pennsylvania State Police, Bureau of 

Liquor Control Enforcement. (F.F. at No. 18.)

A hearing examiner convened a hearing on December 27, 2013. By 

order dated March 19, 2014, the Board denied TABS’ application to renew its liquor 

license. When TABS filed an appeal to the trial court, the Board issued an opinion in 

support of its order. (R.R. at 153a-83a.) 

Before the trial court, the Board introduced into evidence various 

documents, including the notes of testimony from the hearing, exhibits submitted to 

the hearing examiner, and the Board’s opinion. Mathews testified on behalf of TABS 

and introduced into evidence documents and letters that he sent to the Board. (Trial 

court op. at 12.) 

In a comprehensive opinion, the trial court detailed the evidence 

presented in its findings of fact and engaged in a thorough analysis explaining why 

denial of TABS’ application for license renewal was warranted. Particularly, the trial 

court found as fact that the adjudicated citations, specifically those related to 

insufficient funds, were part of TABS’ history as licensee and that Mathews was 

bound by this history when he purchased TABS. The trial court further found that 

 

(continued...)

June 25, 2013 ($440.96); June 28, 2013 ($234.63); July 5, 2013 ($294.25); July 5, 2013 ($380.37); 

July 11, 2013 ($559.79); July 19, 2013 ($557.76); July 26, 2013 ($362.22); August 6, 2013

($638.97); August 6, 2013 ($811.36); August 19, 2013 ($435.98); August 20, 2013 ($591.23); 

August 27, 2013 ($546.20); August 30, 2013 ($468.17); September 4, 2013 ($522.95); September 5, 

2013 ($696.84); September 6, 2013 ($460.25). (R.R. at 102a-24a.) 
4

Mathews violated the CLA’s requirement that the establishment maintain a barred 

patrons list and also its requirement that security personnel wear clothing identifying 

them as security. Finally, the trial court found that Mathews violated two other

conditions of the CLA: he failed to obtain proper RAMP certification and failed, on 

numerous occasions, to ensure that sufficient funds were available to pay vendors. 

(Trial court op. at 16-19.) Based on these findings, the trial court determined that the 

above-mentioned adjudicated citations and breaches of the CLA were sufficient to 

support nonrenewal and that Mathews failed to take adequate corrective measures. 

(Trial court op. at 12-20.) 

Upon our independent review, we conclude that the trial court’s findings 

are supported by substantial evidence and that its legal conclusion is free from error. 

See Section 470(a) of the Liquor Code (Code),247 P.S. §4-470(a) (stating that breach 

of a CLA “will be sufficient cause. . . for the nonrenewal of the license”); St. 

Nicholas Greek Catholic Russian Aid Society v. Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, 

41 A.3d 953, 959-60 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012) (stating that “even a single past citation or 

Code violation is sufficient to support a decision refusing to renew a license.”). See 

also Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board v. Bartosh, 730 A.2d 1029, 1033 (Pa. 

Cmwlth. 1999) (“This Court has consistently held that regardless of when they occur 

the [Board or the trial court] may consider all code violations committed by a licensee 

in determining whether to renew a liquor license.”). 

Of particular significance are the facts that TABS has four adjudicated 

citations for failing to have sufficient funds to pay vendors for malt or brewed 

beverages; TABS entered into a CLA, promising to have sufficient funds to pay all 

 

2 Act of April 12, 1951, P.L. 90, as amended, 47 P.S. §§1-101—10-1001.
5

vendors; and that TABS, while operating under Mathews’ ownership, violated the 

CLA on thirty occasions by having insufficient funds to pay for malt or brewed 

beverages. (Trial court op. at 18-19.) See St. Nicholas, 41 A.3d at 956 (stating that a 

trial court may consider a licensee’s entire history to determine whether there is a 

discernable pattern of violations).

The trial court’s analysis was thorough and legally correct. We discuss 

the issues that TABS raises in this appeal. 

“Our review in a liquor license renewal case is limited to a determination 

of whether the trial court's findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence, 

whether it abused its discretion, or whether it committed an error of law.” St. 

Nicholas, 41 A.3d at 954 n.1. On appeal to this Court, TABS advances, in a cursory 

fashion, six arguments in support of its chief contention that the trial court abused its 

discretion in not renewing TABS’ liquor license. 

When a party appeals the decision of the Board, the trial court hears the 

appeal de novo and makes its own findings of fact and conclusions of law. The trial 

court must receive the record of the proceedings before the Board, if it is offered, and 

is permitted to take additional evidence. Todd’s By The Bridge, Inc. v. Pennsylvania 

Liquor Control Board, 74 A.3d 287, 295-96 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013). As the ultimate 

fact-finder, the trial court is empowered to determine the weight and credibility of the 

evidence, resolve conflicts in the evidence, and is free to reject even uncontradicted 

testimony. See St. Nicholas, 41 A.3d at 960; Two Sophia’s, Inc. v. Pennsylvania 

Liquor Control Board, 799 A.2d 917, 922 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002).

First, TABS asserts that the trial court erred in considering TABS’ seven 

adjudicated citations, contending that “very little, if any, weight should be given to 

this history, since ownership of TABS has changed and at the time of the hearing, no 
6

citations had been adjudicated against TABS during the period of the new 

ownership.” (TABS’ brief at 16-17.) 

However, it is well-established that in determining whether to renew a 

liquor license, the trial court may consider all citations, regardless of when they 

occurred, Bartosh, 730 A.2d at 1033, and the trial court has exclusive authority over 

the weight it assigns to the evidence. See St. Nicholas, 41 A.3d at 960; Two Sophia’s, 

Inc., 799 A.2d at 922. Because TABS’ argument merely challenges the weight the 

trial court provided to evidence which is properly considered in liquor license 

renewal matters, it must fail. In any event, it is apparent from the trial court’s opinion 

that the trial court placed relatively minor weight on the adjudicated citations and was 

predominately concerned with TABS’ violations of the CLA while Mathews was the 

owner. (See Trial court op. at 16-19.)

Moreover, as the trial court observed, the transaction between 

Tabatabaie and Mathews effectuated a change of ownership only – as opposed to 

transferring the license to a new entity and at a new location. Consequently, 

Mathews was bound by the terms of the CLA even though it was signed by 

Tabatabaie. (Trial court op. at 16-17.) See R.R. at 92a (the CLA) (“Failure to adhere 

to this Agreement may result in citation(s) by the Bureau, and/or nonrenewal of this 

license by the Board. These terms will remain in effect both on the license and on the 

premises unless and until a subsequent agreement is reached with the Board 

rescinding these restrictions or until the license is transferred to a new owner for use 

at a new location.”); Derry Street Pub, Inc. v. Pennsylvania State Police, 111 A.3d 

1240, 1248-49 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015) (“We interpret the CLA’s express language to 

mean that it remains in effect unless and until a subsequent agreement or a grant of 

rescission by the Board”); Todd’s By The Bridge, 74 A.3d at 291 (reflecting the 
7

Board’s conclusion that a new owner is bound by the terms of a CLA entered into by 

a prior owner). Nonetheless, we note, as did the trial court, that Mathews could have 

petitioned the Board to alter the terms of the CLA based upon the changes he brought 

to the atmosphere and clientele of his bar. (Trial court op. at 17.) 

Second, TABS contends that the trial court erred in finding that TABS 

contravened the CLA’s requirement that TABS maintain a written barred patrons list. 

TABS asserts that Mathews did not have any barred patrons during his ownership 

and, thus, there were no names to put on the list. The trial court ably disposed of this 

argument:

[TABS] did not meet the CLA’s requirement that the 

establishment maintain a barred patrons list. [Mathews] 

stated in both the [Board] hearing in December 2013 and in 

the hearing in June 2014 that he did not keep a barred 

patrons list because his business, “The Doo Wop Lounge,” 

did not have any barred patrons. However, [Mathews] did 

not ask [Tabatabaie] if there had been a barred patrons list 

from the previous business, even though [Mathews] was 

“well aware” of the previous business’s reputation and 

violent patrons. [Mathews’] problem here is that he did not 

technically comply with the CLA. It appears that under his 

management, troublesome patrons stayed away, so he had 

no one to add to the “barred patrons list.” However, in 

compliance with the CLA, he should have maintained such 

a list, including people who had been violent on or about 

the premises in the past. It was not unreasonable for the 

Board to require this safety precaution, considering the 

bar’s history and the possibility that violent patrons might 

return. 

(Trial court op. at 16; see also F.F. at No. 27.) 

Given the trial court’s findings and analysis, TABS’ argument merely 

seeks to excuse its non-compliance with the CLA and contests the weight to be 

afforded to the evidence, which is a matter exclusively reserved to the trial court. 
8

Third, TABS argues that it had security personnel at the premises, but 

admits that it did not comply with the CLA’s requirement that its security personnel 

be identifiable by clothing. TABS maintains that it did not require its security 

personnel to wear such attire because it “would scare off the new clientele” and make 

them “believe that something was wrong.” (TABS’ brief at 17.) Fourth, TABS 

admits that it did not complete the final step of RAMP certification, i.e. the filing of 

an affidavit, in violation of the CLA, but maintains that this error could have been 

easily corrected. On this basis, TABS contends that these two breaches of the CLA 

were de minimis. 

Again, TABS’ arguments pertain to the trial court’s determinations 

regarding the weight of the evidence. The evidence established that TABS breached 

the CLA with respect to security attire and RAMP certification. Accordingly, the 

trial court acted within its discretion in affording weight to TABS’ noncompliance 

with the CLA in these regards. 

Fifth, TABS asserts that the trial court should not have considered the 

thirty letters from the Board notifying Mathews that TABS had checks returned for 

insufficient funds. TABS claims that this evidence was irrelevant because the letters 

did not result in an adjudicated citation. 

We disagree. The letters established that TABS breached the CLA’s 

requirement that it have sufficient funds to pay all vendors. See Derry Street Pub, 

Inc., 111 A.3d at 1255 (reiterating that breach of a CLA “will be sufficient cause . . . 

for the nonrenewal of the license”) (quoting section 470(a) of the Code). Once more, 

the trial court was free to consider this evidence and afford it evidentiary weight. We 

note that Mathews’ repeated failure to issue honorable checks was a predominate 
9

factor in the trial court’s decision to uphold the denial of TABS’ renewal application. 

As the trial court explained:

Between December 19, 2012, and October 2, 2013, the 

Board sent [Mathews] a total of 30 letters concerning 

checks returned for insufficient funds. As Licensee had 

citations pertaining to insufficient funds in the past, this 

issue was detailed in the CLA. These letters were all sent 

after [Mathews’] purchase of the shares, and the sheer 

number of them indicates that this was a consistent problem 

during the entirety of [Mathews’] management. 

(Trial court op. at 18-19.)

Sixth, and finally, TABS contends that the trial court “failed to consider 

or did not give proper weight to . . . the corrective measures TABS accomplished 

after [Mathews] became the owner,” i.e., his change to the bar’s atmosphere and 

clientele. (TABS’ brief at 18.) 

To the contrary, the trial court expressly acknowledged Mathews’ “good 

intentions” and “successful” changes to TABS “to attract a law-abiding crowd,” but 

nevertheless found that this evidence was outweighed by TABS’ citations, and, more 

importantly, the numerous violations of the CLA that occurred while TABS was 

under Mathew’s ownership. (Trial court op. at 19-20.) As the fact-finder, the trial 

court acted within its discretion in making this determination. 

After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the 

applicable law, and the exhaustive and well-reasoned opinion of the trial court, we 

conclude that there is no merit to TABS’ appellate issues, which simply attack the 

trial court’s determinations of evidentiary weight. Accordingly, we affirm.

________________________________

PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

In Re: :

Appeal of Hotel Liquor License :

#H-2892 :

: No. 411 C.D. 2015

v. :

:

Tabs Entertainment, Inc., T/A Tabs :

Tavern and Inn, :

Appellant :

ORDER

AND NOW, this 8

th day of October, 2015, the December 5, 2014 

order of the Court of Common Pleas of Monroe County is affirmed.

________________________________

PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge