Opinion ID: 2630537
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Mt Hood Beverage Co., et al. v. Constellation Brands, Inc., d/b/a Canandaigua Wine Co., et al.

Text: The appellants in this case, including Alaska, the appellant in the case described above, are all licensed wholesale distributors of wine in Washington. Clerk's Papers Mount Hood (CPMH) at 22, 23. The respondent, CWC, is the same out-of-state supplier that purchased the TRV line from Sebastiani in the above case. CPMH at 22, 23. In this case, each of the appellant/distributors (hereinafter Distributors) had a written distributorship agreement to distribute CWC products within a particular geographic region of Washington State. In March 2001, CWC sent a letter to some of the Distributors, notifying them that CWC was terminating its distribution agreement effective April 7, 2001. [4] CPMH at 26. The letter did not give any reason for the termination. CWC then found replacement distributors for each of the regions covered by the canceled agreements. For other regions, CWC merely assigned new distributors, without sending a notice of termination to the Distributors holding contracts for those regions. [5] Simultaneously, CWC sent a letter to the purchasing agents for the retailers in those regions, recommending they purchase CWC products only from the new distributors. CPMH at 28. The Distributors who received termination letters sued CWC for violating RCW 19.126 by not giving a cause for termination. CPMH at 26. The Distributors who were replaced without notice alleged CWC constructively terminated them in violation of RCW 19.126. CPMH at 30. They also brought nonstatutory breach of contract claims. CPMH at 29. Both groups of Distributors sued for damages and attorney fees as allowed under RCW 19.126. CWC responded that RCW 19.126 was unconstitutional because it violated the commerce clause by treating in-state and out-of-state wineries differently and counterclaimed for a declaratory judgment to that effect. The Distributors and CWC filed cross motions for partial summary judgment on the issue of the constitutionality of RCW 19.126. The superior court granted CWC's motion and denied the Distributors' motion to reconsider. The superior court entered a final judgment pursuant to CR 54(b), [6] finding that because the constitutionality of RCW 19.126 was central to the case, it makes no sense to proceed with discovery and trial of the nonstatutory contract claims while the constitutionality of the Beverages Act remains in question. CPMH at 276. The trial court thus did not rule on the merits of Mt. Hood's nonstatutory claims and they are not before us. CWC moved for attorney fees and costs, as provided under RCW 19.126. CPMH at 282. The superior court granted this motion, awarding CWC $49,371.00 in attorney fees and $1,874.40 in costs, for a total of $51,245.40. CPMH at 401.