Petitioner licensee challenged the judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco (California), which denied his petition for a writ of mandate to overturn the order of respondent state board of equalization that revoked the licensee's on-sale liquor license.

The licensee was an owner of a tavern. The accusation upon which the board acted charged the licensee with violating Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 24200 because the licensee employed as a manager, a person who did not have the qualifications of a licensee because of a police record. The licensee also employed as manager and permitted him to own one-third of the corporate stock, a person that also had a police record. The employment attorneys san diego can do anything if you face any employment issues.

The licensee conceded that both employees did not possess the qualifications required of licensees. However, it argued that the evidence did not show by convincing proof to a reasonable certainty that the employees acted as managers. The court affirmed the denial of the writ because there was sufficient evidence that the employees had certain powers that qualified them as managers of the establishment. Even though there was no evidence of questionable activities at the tavern, there was no abuse of discretion in the revocation of the liquor license based on the importance of strict enforcement of the law as to the character of the persons to be permitted the privilege of liquor licenses.

The denial of the licensee's petition for a writ of mandate was affirmed.

 The decision to admit someone to a residential care facility for the elderly may be a health care decision under the Health Care Decisions Law (HCDL), Prob. Code, § 4600 et seq., and such a health care decision, if made pursuant to a power of attorney, must be made pursuant to a health care power of attorney (POA); a personal care POA under the Power of Attorney Law (PAL) (Prob. Code, § 4000 et seq.) does not authorize the attorney-in-fact to make a health care decision; An attorney-in-fact who admitted her principal to a residential care facility for the elderly, which had dementia care services, made a "health care" decision that was outside the scope of her authority under a personal care POA; thus, the admission agreement she signed, and the arbitration clause that the facility sought to enforce, were void. 

Order affirmed.