“Frankenstein” Veto Language Interpreted by Federal District Court
A recent post on this blog noted that wine distributors were not covered by an expansion of the definition of “dealer” under 1999 amendments to the Wisconsin Fair Dealership Law (“WFDL”) due to “a creative partial veto from then-Gov. Thompson.”
That creative partial veto was front and center in a decision and order issued last week by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, denying defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The plaintiff, Winebow, Inc., had brought a declaratory judgment action seeking to affirm that it could terminate all wine distribution relationships with defendants Capitol-Husting Co., Inc., and L’eft Bank Wine Company Limited without violating the WFDL.
The crux of the defendants’ motion to dismiss was that the 1999 amendments to the WFDL should be interpreted to define wine distributors as “per se dealers” under the WFDL, subject only to limitations on small producers and sales lines constituting less than 5% of a distributor’s business. They contended that the statute covers distributors of “intoxicating liquor” as defined in section 125.02(8) of the Wisconsin Statutes, regardless of whether such distributors can meet the “community of interest” test ordinarily required for dealer status. Defendants noted that the WFDL definition that provides per se dealer status to distributors of intoxicating liquor defines “wholesalers” with reference to section 125.02(21) of the Wisconsin Statutes, which definition does not exclude wine wholesalers.
The WFDL, however, defines “intoxicating liquor” as having “the meaning given in s. 125.02(8) minus wine.” The words “minus wine” were inserted via Gov. Thompson’s use of what was dubbed a “Frankenstein veto,” with many other words in succeeding clauses of the legislation deleted by his veto pen, leaving only “minus” and “wine” in place. The District Court denied the motion to dismiss, finding that “[t]he statutory definition of “intoxicating liquor” is clear, and wine is expressly excluded.”
Other arguments in this case, however, may also prove to be instructive. The plaintiff’s complaint seemingly alleges that the “minus wine” language means that all wine distribution agreements are exempt from coverage under the WFDL – even if the parties’ relationship satisfies the community of interest test of section 135.02(3)(a). The complaint states the defendants’ wholesale distribution of Winebow portfolio wines does not qualify for protection under the WFDL “as wine is expressly exempt from the WFDL.” Plaintiff’s contention was not directly at issue in the defendants’ motion to dismiss, but presumably would be raised in a motion for summary judgment or for judgment on the pleadings.
