Oer 50 PGC Businesses sue Krooked Krystal

Business Owners hate Krystal

Liquor stores, U-Haul, a major self-storage operator and Maryland’s largest indoor shooting range join forces in sweeping lawsuit accusing County Council of imposing an illegal tax

By Maryland Wire

A remarkable coalition of 50 businesses and business entities has gone to court against Prince George’s County, seeking to stop enforcement of a controversial new law requiring certain businesses to pay the county $5,000 every year for what the County Council calls a use-and-occupancy permit renewal fee.

The plaintiffs — a collection of 47 liquor businesses, U-Haul, a major self-storage company and Maryland Small Arms Range — are asking the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County to declare Council Bill 017-2026 unlawful and permanently block the county from enforcing it.

The lawsuit is potentially far more consequential than a dispute over a $5,000 annual charge.

The plaintiffs argue that the County Council has effectively created four new categories of local taxation without authorization from the Maryland General Assembly, targeting liquor stores, tobacco and electronic-cigarette businesses, firearms dealers and self-storage facilities.

They contend that the County simply rebranded a tax as a “fee.”

And they are asking a judge to stop the law altogether.

The complaint is titled Complaint and Jury Demand and was filed in the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County against Prince George’s County, Maryland. The County is the sole defendant named in the case.

The plaintiffs have demanded a jury trial on all claims that are legally triable before a jury.

A lawsuit with an unusually long list of plaintiffs

The sheer number and variety of plaintiffs make this case stand out.

The complaint identifies 47 liquor-store plaintiffs, collectively, along with U-Haul Co. of Maryland, Inc., ESS Storage Acquisition Fifty Two LLC and Maryland Small Arms Range, Inc.

The liquor businesses are located throughout Prince George’s County, while U-Haul operates a storage facility in Capitol Heights, ESS Storage operates a facility in District Heights, and Maryland Small Arms Range operates in Upper Marlboro.

Here are the businesses suing Prince George’s County

The 47 liquor-store plaintiffs named in the complaint are:

- Love Marlboro, LLC, d/b/a Marlboro Liquor

- Gopi Vraj Basna Inc., d/b/a Brightseat Liquors

- Volms Enterprise Corporation

- Rajasahib Inc., d/b/a Tina’s Liquors and Deli

- Jatinder Gosal, Inc., d/b/a Kenilworth Liquors

- Govind Greenway LLC, d/b/a Greenway Liquors

- Crain Highway Sprits LLC, d/b/a Osborne Wine & Spirits

- Matrushakti, Inc., d/b/a Primo’s Liquor

- Ardwick Liquors

- Silesia Fine Wines LLC, d/b/a Silesia Liquor

- Ayva Rai, Inc., d/b/a A-1 Restaurant and Liquor Store

- Big Z Holding Corporation, d/b/a Big Z Liquors

- Community Beverages, LLC, d/b/a Bill’s Wine and Liquor

- Capital Liquors, Inc., d/b/a Capital Liquors

- El Toro

- Rai Family Inc.

- Plaza Beverages, MD, LLC, d/b/a Plaza Liquor

- Keller’s Market, Inc., d/b/a Keller’s Market

- Sunny Gosal, Inc., d/b/a Kent Village Liquors

- Karan Patel

- Halishor LLC

- Radhika, LLC, d/b/a Penn Mar Liquors

- Strick’s Inc., d/b/a Strick’s Restaurant, Inc.

- Mitchellville Wine & Spirits LLC, d/b/a T & T Liquor

- Dhruv, LLC

- Aaryan LLC, d/b/a Tucker’s Restaurant & Liquor

- Dheer LLC, d/b/a Marlboro Pike Restaurant & Liquor

- Othi Corporation

- My Mavadi LLC, d/b/a Freddie’s Liquor

- Woodmore Wine & Spirits

- Drinx Beverages LLC, d/b/a Drinx Market

- Swami Retailer, LLC, d/b/a Bowie Liquors

- Wine & Liquor Depot LLC

- Govind Krupa, LLC, d/b/a Sunnybrook Tavern

- Meads Liquors, Inc., d/b/a Meads Liquors

- Bhav Gosal, Inc., d/b/a Champagne Liquors

- Charlie’s One, LLC, d/b/a Charlie’s Restaurant, Beer, Wine & Liquor

- Mike’s Liquors, Inc., d/b/a Mike’s Liquors

- 2 Brothers Inc.

- Nilkanth Varnl LLC, d/b/a Village Pump Liquors

- 51 Liquors, LLC

- Penn Station Liquor

- Top Liquor Store

- Deep One, LLC, d/b/a Maxey Spirits

- Dev Krupa LLC, d/b/a Livingston Woods Liquors

- 7 Summers Liquors, LLC

- Kettering Liquors, LLC

The complaint identifies these businesses as the “Liquor Store Plaintiffs” and says they are licensed by the Prince George’s County Board of License Commissioners to sell alcoholic beverages.

And then there are the three additional plaintiffs:

U-Haul Co. of Maryland, Inc. — which operates a storage facility at 8671 Central Avenue in Capitol Heights and, according to the complaint, has held a use-and-occupancy permit there since 2005.

ESS Storage Acquisition Fifty Two LLC — a Delaware company operating a self-storage facility in District Heights. Its use-and-occupancy permit was issued in January 2022.

Maryland Small Arms Range, Inc. — the Upper Marlboro firearms dealer and shooting range that the complaint says has operated in Prince George’s County since the 1970s. The lawsuit describes it as the largest indoor shooting range in Maryland and says it serves both law enforcement professionals and the general public.

That makes this much more than a lawsuit by a handful of liquor-store owners.

It is a challenge involving businesses across several politically sensitive industries — alcohol, firearms and self-storage — and one of the nation’s best-known moving and storage companies.

What did the County Council do?

At the center of the case is Council Bill 017-2026, or CB-17.

According to the lawsuit, the bill was introduced by County Council Chair Krystal Oriadha and ultimately became law without the signature of County Executive Aisha Braveboy. The complaint says the County Council adopted the legislation by a 9-2 vote and that it took effect July 7.

CB-17 established what the legislation calls an annual use-and-occupancy permit renewal fee of $5,000 for four categories of businesses:

1. Businesses operating with a Class A beer, wine and liquor license;

2. Tobacco shops, electronic-cigarette shops, retail tobacco businesses and certain convenience stores;

3. Businesses operating under a Maryland regulated firearms dealer’s license; and

4. Consolidated storage facilities.

The complaint says those businesses must pay the $5,000 annually, beginning no later than January 1, 2027, with the amount subject to annual increases based on inflation.

The consequences for refusing to pay are particularly significant.

Under the legislation, the lawsuit says, a business that does not pay can have its use-and-occupancy permit deemed invalid and revoked by the Director of the Department of Permitting, Inspections and Enforcement.

In other words, the plaintiffs argue, the annual payment is effectively a condition of continuing to operate.

From roughly $370 to $5,000 a year

One of the plaintiffs’ central arguments is the enormous difference between the normal use-and-occupancy charge and the new annual payment.

The lawsuit says a typical commercial use-and-occupancy permit has historically cost approximately $370, including the underlying fee, administrative charge and technology fee.

CB-17 takes that figure to $5,000 — and makes the payment recurring every year.

The plaintiffs characterize that as more than a 13-fold increase over the ordinary fee, imposed only on businesses in the four targeted categories.

Even the County Council’s own Budget & Policy Analysis Division, according to the complaint, raised concerns about the legislation.

The fiscal analysis reportedly noted that increasing the existing fee to $5,000 would represent approximately a 1,250 percent increase and observed that an annual use-and-occupancy fee was not common procedure in the county.

The plaintiffs say that distinction is crucial.

A legitimate regulatory fee, they argue, is supposed to defray the cost of the government service being provided.

But CB-17 directs the money into a Quality of Life Improvement Fund, which can be used for such purposes as youth and child-care programs, education, public health, senior wellness, public safety, road and transit safety and economic assistance.

The complaint therefore argues that the charge is actually a tax imposed to raise money for general public purposes.

Oriadha’s words become part of the lawsuit

The lawsuit also puts the bill’s sponsor, Council Chair Krystal Oriadha, at the center of the political story.

According to the complaint, Oriadha told people attending the public hearing that their “free ride” in Prince George’s County was over and that they would have to contribute to county residents.

The lawsuit quotes Oriadha as saying the money could help address issues including child care and the financial problems confronting senior citizens.

That language could become significant in the legal battle because the plaintiffs argue that the legislation demonstrates precisely what they say it is: a revenue-raising measure aimed at particular categories of businesses rather than a fee connected to the actual cost of inspecting and regulating those businesses.

Two council members warned that the bill could be illegal

The complaint also notes that the opposition to CB-17 did not come exclusively from the businesses that are now suing.

Councilmembers Jolene Ivey and Sydney Harrison, who voted against the legislation, are identified in the complaint as having raised legal objections.

According to the lawsuit, Ivey said the bill was a tax and questioned whether the County could legally impose it without permission from the State.

Harrison, meanwhile, reportedly raised what he described as “great legal challenges,” including concerns under the Equal Protection Clause about the different treatment of various categories of businesses.

The bill nonetheless passed.

Now the courts will have to decide whether the County Council had the authority to enact it.

The plaintiffs’ biggest argument: Prince George’s County cannot simply create a new tax

The lawsuit’s central legal argument is straightforward.

The plaintiffs contend that Prince George’s County, as a political subdivision of Maryland, does not possess unlimited taxing authority.

They argue that counties can impose taxes only when the Maryland General Assembly has authorized them to do so.

According to the complaint, the General Assembly has authorized various specific categories of county taxation — including property taxes, income taxes, admissions and amusement taxes, transfer taxes and hotel rental taxes — but has not authorized Prince George’s County to impose the type of tax contained in CB-17.

The lawsuit therefore asks the court to declare CB-17 an unlawful tax.

But the plaintiffs don’t stop there.

They say State law specifically blocks the County from taxing liquor

The complaint argues that the alcoholic-beverage portion of CB-17 is separately unlawful because Maryland law expressly prohibits counties from imposing taxes on alcoholic beverages.

The plaintiffs cite Maryland law stating that a county or other political subdivision may not impose a tax on any alcoholic beverage.

They therefore argue that even if the County could somehow characterize its $5,000 payment as a tax, State law expressly prevents it from doing so to businesses holding Class A liquor licenses.

That gives the liquor-store plaintiffs a second line of attack.

The firearms provision faces another State preemption argument

Maryland Small Arms Range has its own potentially significant argument.

The plaintiffs cite Maryland’s firearm-preemption statute and a 2026 Supreme Court of Maryland decision, Engage Armament LLC v. Montgomery County, arguing that State law broadly preempts local regulation of firearms.

The complaint contends that imposing a special $5,000 annual charge on businesses licensed to sell firearms amounts to a local regulation or tax that State law does not permit.

The lawsuit makes a similar preemption argument concerning tobacco and electronic-smoking products, citing State law that prohibits counties and municipalities from imposing taxes on cigarettes, other tobacco products and electronic smoking devices.

The lawsuit goes constitutional

The businesses also make constitutional claims.

One count alleges that CB-17 violates Article 24 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights, which the complaint says guarantees equal protection of the laws.

The plaintiffs argue that the County is imposing a special recurring charge on selected businesses while other similarly situated businesses are not subjected to it — and that there is no legitimate rational basis for the distinction.

Then comes an even more consequential allegation:

The plaintiffs say CB-17 amounts to an unconstitutional taking of their property.

Their argument is that their existing use-and-occupancy permits represent vested property interests. Those permits, they say, were issued without expiration dates and remain valid so long as the businesses comply with county law.

CB-17, according to the lawsuit, effectively threatens to terminate those rights unless the businesses pay the new $5,000 annual charge.

The plaintiffs characterize that as an unlawful taking without compensation.

The plaintiffs accuse the County of targeting businesses it doesn’t like

Perhaps the most politically explosive language in the complaint comes when the plaintiffs characterize the legislation as deliberately punitive.

They argue that the County Council has singled out businesses it considers “disfavored” and imposed a dramatically higher charge on them than on other businesses receiving the same basic use-and-occupancy regulatory service.

The complaint says the covered businesses are being targeted because of the nature of their businesses and alleges that the County acted with “ill-will and malice” and a desire to harm and punish the plaintiffs.

Those are allegations by the plaintiffs, not findings by a court.

But they dramatically raise the stakes of what might otherwise look like a relatively routine fight over county permitting fees.

The businesses want the law stopped before it takes effect against them

The plaintiffs are asking the Circuit Court to declare CB-17 unlawful and issue a temporary, preliminary and permanent injunction preventing Prince George’s County from enforcing it.

They also seek whatever additional relief the court determines they are entitled to receive.

And they have demanded a jury trial on every count for which a jury trial is available.

The lawsuit is being handled for the plaintiffs by Timothy F. Maloney and Alyse L. Prawde of Joseph, Greenwald & Laake, P.A., whose office is in Greenbelt.

A potentially major fight between county government and the State’s power over local taxation

This case now puts a major question before the Prince George’s County Circuit Court:

Can the County Council impose a recurring $5,000 charge on selected businesses under the label of a use-and-occupancy fee when the money is being directed toward broad public programs rather than the cost of regulating those businesses?

And, perhaps even more importantly:

Can Prince George’s County use that mechanism to impose special charges on liquor stores, firearms dealers, tobacco businesses and storage facilities when Maryland law specifically limits or preempts local taxation in several of those areas?

The plaintiffs say the answer to both questions is no.

The County, however, will now have the opportunity to defend the legislation in court.

For the moment, the most striking fact is the sheer size of the coalition challenging it: 47 liquor businesses, U-Haul, a major storage company and Maryland Small Arms Range — all lined up on the same side against Prince George’s County.

What began as a County Council effort to raise money for a “Quality of Life Improvement Fund” has now become a broad legal confrontation over taxing power, State preemption, equal protection, property rights and the authority of local government in Maryland.

And with a jury demand attached to the complaint, this fight is only beginning.This version deliberately makes the 50-plaintiff coalition the hook, rather than burying the names in the legalese. One thing I would emphasize editorially before publication: the allegations about the County, Oriadha and the other officials should remain attributed to the complaint, since this is a newly filed lawsuit and the document itself is not a judicial finding. The complaint expressly asks for injunctions against enforcement and a declaration that CB-17 is unlawful.