# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 3- 19 33

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Ny ffel er Co ns tru ct io n, In co rp or at ed

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el la nt

v.

Secr et ary of

Labo r

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll ee

And rea C hr is te ns en Lub y ; Offi ce o f th e So li ci to r

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t s

__ __ __ __ __ __

Pet it io n fo r Rev ie w of a n Ord er o f th e Occu pa ti on al Safe ty & Healt h R ev ie w Comm is si on

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: May 14, 2 01 4
Fil ed : J ul y

28 , 20 14

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re SM ITH, BEAM, an d S HEPHERD, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __

BEAM, Ci rcu it Ju dg e.Ny ffel er Co ns tru ct io n, In c. (N y ff el er ) pe tit ion s fo r rev ie w of an ad ve rs e ag en cy

de ci si on by th e Occu pa ti on al Safe ty an d H e a l t h Rev ie w Co m m is si on (Rev ie w

Co m m is si on ). Bec au se we la ck juri sd ic ti on ov er th is un ti m el y pe ti ti on , we di sm is s.

I. BACKGRO UND

Ny ffel er is a res id en ti al co ns tru ct io n co m pa ny op erat in g in Om ah a, Neb ras ka

. On Feb ru ary 24

, 20 11

, whi le in sp ect in g a ne arb y wor ks it e, Occu pa ti on al Safe ty an d

Heal th A dm ini str at ion (O SH A ) ins pe ct or s ob se rv ed two Ny ffel er em pl oyees on a ro of

wit ho ut fal l pr ot ect io n at a Ny ffel er wor ks it e. The in sp ect or s ph on ed ot he r OSHA

co m pl ia nc e of

fic ers an d al ert ed th em of po ss ib le sa fet y vi ol at io ns

. A c t i ng on th e

refe rral

, two co m

pl ia nc e of

fic ers arri ve d at Ny ffel er's wor ks it e an d ob se rv ed an d
ph ot og rap he d two em

pl oyees in st al li ng ro of sh eat hi ng wit ho ut fal l pr ot ect io n.

Co m pl ia nc e of

fic er Mat th ew Thu rlb y ob se rv ed th at th e ro of 's sl op e was gr eat er th an

fo ur in t w e l v e (v ert ic al to ho riz on ta l), an d, up on fu rth er in ve st ig at io n, th e of fic ers

di sc ov ered th e di st an c e f r o m th e eav e of th e ro of to th e gr ou nd was te n feet

, ni ne

in ch es

. Afte r m ak in g in it ia l ob se rv at io ns , th e co m pl ia nc e of fic ers m ad e co nt act wit h
Greg Ny ffel er, on e of Ny ffel er's own ers , who co m pl ie d w ith thei r in sp ect io n req ue st s.

Eve nt ua ll y , OSHA is su ed a Ci ta ti on an d Not ifi cat io n of Pen al t y t o Ny ffel er,

al le gi ng se rio us vi ol at io ns of th e Occu pa ti on al Safe ty an d Heal th Act (th e "Act ").
Sp eci f i cal ly, OSHA ci te d Ny ffel er fo r fai li ng to us e fal l pr ot ect io n an d fai li ng to

pr ov id e em

pl oyees a tra in in g pr og ram to reco gn iz e fal l ha zard s. Ny ffel er ch al le ng ed

th e ci ta ti on be fo re th e Rev ie w Co m m is si on

. Afte r he ari ng ev id en c e, an

ad m in is tra ti ve la w ju dg e (ALJ) fo r th e Rev i e w C o mm is si on affi rm ed th e two ci te d

vi ol at io ns , bu t red uc ed th e pe na lt y fro m $8 ,40 0 to $3 ,40 0. The ALJ also no te d th at
Ny ffel er ch al le ng ed th e co ns ti tu ti on al it y of th e Act, bu t reco gn iz ed th at it di d no t

ha ve juri sd ic ti on to en te rta in co ns ti tu ti on al ch a l l e n g es

. On Apr il 4, 20 12

, th e ALJ

do ck et ed hi s rep or t an d a Not ic e of Doc ke ti ng was se nt to Ny ffel er. Ny ffel er so ug ht

fu rth er ag en cy rev ie w by th e Rev ie w Co m m is si on

. The Rev ie w Co m m is si on de ni ed

-2

-di sc ret io na ry rev ie w, m ak in g th e ALJ's de ci si on th e Rev ie w Co m m ission ' s fi na l or de r

on May 4, 20 12

.

Ny ffel er th en so ug ht jud ic ia l re vi ew. Howev er, i ns te ad of se ek in g rev ie w i n

th e ap pr op ria te co ur t of app eal s as the Act req ui res , se e 29 U.S.C. § 66 0( a), on Ju ly

5, 2 01 2, Ny ffel er m is ta ke nl y fil ed for rev ie w in th e Uni te d Stat es Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r

th e Dis tri ct of Neb ras ka

. Rec og ni zi ng Ny ffel er's m is ta ke

, th e Secr et ary of Lab or (th e

"Se cret ary") r e q ue st ed th at th e di st ric t co ur t tra ns fer th e cas e to th e Eig ht h Ci rcu it

Co ur t o f A p p eal s. In it s tra ns fer m ot io n, th e Secr et ary in co rrec tl y in fo rm ed th e

di st ric t co ur t th at th e Rev ie w Co m m is si on 's or de r be cam e fin al on May 7, 20 12 –t hr ee

da y s la te r th an th e act ua l fin al or de r da te

. Rel y in g on th e Secr et ary's rep res en ta ti on s,

th e di st ric t cou rt det erm in ed th at if it di sm is se d th e cas e an d ord ered Ny ffel er to refil e in th e Eig ht h Circ ui t, its pe ti ti on wou ld be un ti m el y

. See id

. (req ui rin g pet it io n

fo r ju d i c i al rev ie w to be fil ed wit hi n 60 da y s of or de r's is su an ce). The refo re, th e

di st ric t co ur t tra ns ferr ed th e cas e to th is co ur t pu rs ua nt to 28 U.S.C. § 16 31 (al lo win g

a co ur t wit ho ut juri sd ic ti on to tra ns fer th e cas e to th e ap pr op ria te co ur t if th e pe ti ti on

fo r rev ie w is ti m el y

fil ed an d t he tra ns fer s erv es th e in te res t o f jus ti ce).

Afte r th e cas e was tra ns ferr ed to th is co ur t, th e Secr et a r y, ap pa ren tl y

di sc ov eri ng th at th e Rev ie w Co m m is si on 's or de r be cam e fin al on May 4– no t May 7,

as pr ev io us ly rep res en te d t o th e di st ric t co ur t– m ov ed to di sm is s Ny ffel er's pe ti ti on

fo r rev ie w f

or la ck of juri sd ic ti on

. Ny ffel er m ov ed to s t r i k e th e Secr et ary's moti on

fo r fai li ng to co m

pl y wit h Eig ht h Ci rcu it Ru le 47 A(b ), whi ch req ui res an ap pe ll ee to

fil e a m ot io n to di sm is s ba se d on juri sd ic ti on wit hi n fo ur te en da y s aft er th e cas e ha s

be e n d o c k e t e d. Alt ho ug h Ny ffel er m ov ed to st rik e th e Secr et ary's moti on , i t no te d

th at "ev en if [th e co ur t] st rik es th e pe nd in g m ot io n, th e Co ur t is free to rai se th e is su es

pr es en te d in th e Secr et ary's m ot io n su a sp on te

, if it se es fit

, an d su ch is su es co ul d be

ad dr es se d at or al arg um en t or th ro ug h br ie fin g be fo re or aft er or al arg um en t. "

W it ho ut ex pl an at io n, an ad m in is tra ti ve pa ne l fo r t h i s ci rcu it de ni ed th e Secr et ary's

-3

-m ot io n to di sm is s an d, acco rd in gl y , de ni ed Ny ffel er's m ot io n to st rik e as m oo t. The

pe ti ti on for rev ie w rem ai ns pe nd in g b efo re t hi s co ur t.

II

. DISCUSS IO N

In th is pe ti ti on fo r rev ie w, Ny ffel er ch al le ng es OSHA's refe rral met ho d an d

in sp ect io n of Ny ffel er's wor ks it e on reg ul at or y , st at ut or y , an d co ns ti tu ti on al gr ou nd s.

The Secr et ary, ho wev er, m ai nt ai ns th at it is un ne ces sa ry to reac h th e m eri ts

, be cau se

we la ck su bjec t m at te r juri s d i c t i o n

. W e be gi n an d en d wit h th e juri sd ic ti on al

qu es ti on

.

The Act pe rm it s an em

pl oyer to ch al le ng e a c i t a ti on is su ed by th e Secr et ary

be fo re th e Rev ie w Co m

m is si on

. 29 U.S.C. § 65 9( c). W he n an em pl oyer ch al le ng es

a ci ta ti on , an ALJ fo r th e Rev ie w Co m m is si on sh al l he ar th e gr ie va nc e an d "m ak e a

rep or t of an y su ch de te rm in at io n whi ch co ns ti tu te s hi s fin al di sp os it io n o f th e

pr oc eed in gs ." 29 U.S.C. § 66 1( j). Abs en t furt he r di sc ret io na ry act io n by a Rev ie w

C om m is si on m em

be r, "[t ]he rep or t of th e [ALJ] s ha ll be co m e th e fin al or de r of t h e

Co m m is s i o n w i t h in th irt y da y s aft er su ch rep or t by th e [ALJ]." Id

. An ag en cy

reg ul at io n cl ari fie s th at th e ALJ's de ci si on be co m es th e Rev ie w Co m m is si on 's fin al

or de r th e "t hi rti et h da y f

o l l o win g th e da te of do ck et in g of th e Ju dg e's rep or t." 29

C.F.R. § 22 00 .90 (d ). If th e em pl oyer rem ai ns un sa ti sf ie d w i t h th e Rev ie w

Co m m is si on 's fin al or de r, th e Act al lo ws th e em pl oyer to se ek jud ic ia l rev ie w by

fil in g a pe ti ti on "i n [th e ap pr op ria te co ur t of ap pe al s] wit hi n si xt y da y s fo ll owi ng th e

is su an ce o f su ch ord er." 2 9 U.S.C. § 66 0( a).

Here, th e ALJ do ck et ed hi s rep or t on Apr il 4, 20 12 , a nd be cau se th e Rev ie w

Co m m is si on di d no t gr an t di sc ret io na ry rev ie w, th e ALJ's d e c i s i o n be cam e th e

Rev ie w Co m

m is si on 's fin al or de r on May 4, 20 12

. The refo re, Ny ffel er's fin al da y to

se ek jud ic ia l rev ie w was Ju ly 3, 20 12

, si xt y da y s aft er th e fin al or de r. Ny ffel er se em s

to co nc ed e th at it s Ju ly 5 pe ti ti on was la te

. Howev er, Ny ffel er pr ov id es th ree reas on s

-4

-why th e un ti m el y fil in g do es no t de p r i v e th is co ur t of juri sd ic ti on

. Fi rs t, Ny ffel er

arg ue s th at be cau se th e Secr et ary di d no t ob ject to su bjec t m at te r juri sd ic ti on be fo re

th e di st ric t c o ur t– an d in fact pr ov id ed th e wro ng fin al or de r da te to th e di st ric t

co ur t– th e Secr et ary ha s waiv ed an y ch al le ng e to th is co ur t's juri sd ic ti on

. Seco nd

,

acco rd in g to Ny ffel e r, be cau se an ad m in is tra ti ve pa ne l of th is co ur t de ni ed th e

Secr et ary's m ot io n to di sm is s fo r w a n t of su bjec t m at te r juri sd ic ti on , su ch ru li ng

be cam e th e la w of th e cas e. Fi na ll y , Nyf f e l e r a ss ert s th at whe th er a pe ti ti on fo r

rev ie w is ti m el y fil ed is a qu es ti on of fact

, an d be cau se th e Secr et ary ne ve r ch al le ng ed

th e di st ric t co ur t's fin di ng of fact by ap p e a l i n g t h e tra ns fer or de r, we are bo un d by

su ch fact ua l fi nd in g. We fin d t he se arg um en ts un pe rs ua si ve

.

The Su pr em e Co ur t "h as l o n g h el d th at th e ta ki ng of an ap pe al wit hi n th e

pr es cri be d ti m e is m an da to ry an d juri sd ic ti on al ," an d if a pa rty fai ls to ap pe al "wi th in

th e ti me l i mi t e d b y th e act s of Co ng res s, [th e cas e] m us t be di sm is se d fo r wan t of
juri sd ic ti on ." Bo wles v. Ru ss el l, 55 1 U.S. 20 5, 20 9, 21 3 (2 00 7) (in te rn al qu ot at io ns

om it t e d )

. Th e st at ut or y li m it at io n is rig id

. "Th e pa rti es can no t waiv e it

, no r can a

co ur t ex te nd th at de ad li ne fo r eq ui ta bl e reas on s." Dol an v. Uni te d St at es , 13 0 S. Ct

. 25 33

, 25 38 (2 01 0)

. Not on ly may a p art y ne ve r waiv e th e co ur t's juri sd ic ti on al

au th or it y to he ar a c a s e , bu t we "h av e an in de pe nd en t ob li ga ti on to de te rm in e

w h et he r su bjec t-matte r juri sd ic ti on ex is ts

, ev en in th e ab se nc e of a ch al le ng e f r o m

an y pa rty." Arb au gh v. Y&H Co rp ., 54 6 U.S. 50 0, 51 4 (2 00 6)

. Acco rd in gl y , we fin d

it of no co ns eq ue nc e th at th e Secr et ary m is ta ke nl y be li ev ed th at Ny ffel er's pe ti ti on

was ti m el y

be fo re t he di st ric t co ur t.

W e are al so un co nc ern ed th at a pr io r ad m in is tra ti ve pa ne l fo r th is ci rc uit de ni ed

th e Secr et ary's m ot io n to di sm is s fo r wan t of juri sd ic ti on

. As t h e pr es en t cas e

il lu st rat es , ad m in is tra ti ve pa ne l rev ie w is ge ne ral ly "s um m ary in ch arac te r, m ad e

of te n on a sc a n t y reco rd

, an d no t en ti tl ed to th e weig ht of a de ci si on m ad e aft er pl en ary su bm is si on ." In re Ro dr ig ue z, 25 8 F.3 d 75 7, 75 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 01 ) (p er cu ria m )
(q uo ta ti on om it te d)

. Thu s, th e pr ev ai li ng vi ew in th is ci rcu it is th at "a he ari ng pa ne l

-5

-of th is co ur t to who m th e en ti re cas e ha s be en refe rred fo r di sp os it io n is free to rev is it

a m ot io n to di sm is s fo r wan t of ap pe ll at e juri sd ic ti on ev en th ou gh an ad m in is tra ti ve

p an el of th e co ur t ha s pr ev io us ly de ni ed su ch a m ot io n." Id

. at 75 8; se e a l s o I o w a Leag ue of Ci ti es v. E.P.A., 71 1 F.3 d 84 4, 85 4- 55 n.1 (8 th Ci r. 20 13 ) ("Ou r ab il it y to

m ak e a fin al de ci s i o n o n ju r is di ct io n is un affe ct ed by th e ru li ng s of [p rio r

ad m in is tra ti ve pa ne ls .] "); 18 B Ch arl es Alan W rig ht & Arth ur R

. M i l l er, Fed eral

Prac ti ce an d Pro ced ur e § 44 78 .5 (2 d ed .) (d is cu ss in g ap pr op ria te ne ss of m eri ts pa ne l

reco ns id eri ng juri sd ic ti on an d t im el in es s o f ap pe al ).

Des pi te th is cl ear juri sp ru de nc e on th e is su e, pr eced en t pr ed at in g th is ci rcu it 's

no w-p rev ai li ng vi ew su gg es ts th at an ad m in is tr at ive pa ne l's de ci si on to de ny a m ot io n

to di sm is s fo r la ck of juri sd ic ti on be co m es "t he la w of th e cas e, or di na ril y t o be

ad he red to in th e ab se nc e of cl ear erro r or m an ife st in jus ti ce." McC ue n v. Am

. Cas

. Co

. of R e a d i n g , P a

. , 94 6 F.2 d 14 01

, 14 03 (8 th Ci r. 19 91 ); se e al so Ri tc hi e Sp eci al

Cred it I n v s

. , Lt d v. Uni te d St at es Tr., 6 20 F.3 d 84 7, 85 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ) (Co ll ot on , J., co nc ur rin g)

. Fo r th e la w of th e cas e do ct rin e to ha ve an y ap pl ic at io n, ho wev er, th e

pr ior ad m in is tra ti ve pa ne l m

us t ha ve act ua ll y de ci de d th e sp eci fic juri sd ic ti on al is sue.

See 1 8B W rig ht & Mi ll er, Fed eral Prac ti ce an d Pro ced ur e § 4 47 8 (2 d e d.) ( "Act ua l

de ci si on of an is su e is req ui red to es ta bl is h th e la w of th e cas e. Law of th e cas e do es

no t reac h a m at te r th at was no t de ci de d." ). In th is ve in

, we ha ve refu se d to ap pl y th e

do ct rin e w h e r e a d eci si on fai ls to pr ov id e "s uf fic ie nt di rect ne ss an d cl ari ty to

es ta bl is h th e se tt le d ex pe ct at io ns of th e pa rti es ne ces sa ry fo r th e su bs eq ue nt

ap pl ic at io n of th e la w of th e cas e do ct rin e." Fi rs t Uni on Nat'l Ban k v. Pi ct et Ove rs eas

Trus t Co rp ., 47 7 F .3d 61 6, 6 21 (8t h C ir. 2 00 7)

.

Here, th ere are at le as t th ree reas on s th e ad m in is tra ti ve pa ne l m ay ha ve de ni ed

th e Secr et ary's m ot io n, two of whi ch ha ve no th in g to do wit h th e juri sd ic ti on al m eri ts

. To be su re, th e pa ne l m ay ha ve de ni ed th e m ot io n to di sm is s fo r fai li ng to sa ti sf y th e

fo ur te en -d ay ru le ti m e li m it at io n. See 8t h Ci r. R. 47 A(b ). Add it io na ll y , th e

ad m in is tra ti ve pa ne l m ay ha ve ac c e p t e d Ny ffel er's in vi ta ti on to al lo w th e he ari ng

-6

-pa ne l to de ci de th e juri sd ic ti on al qu es ti on

. Co ns eq ue nt ly, ev en i f a he ari ng pa ne l

sh ou ld "o rd in ari ly" a dh ere to an ad m in is tra ti ve pa ne l ' s juri sd ic ti on al de te rm in at io n

on a m ot io n to di sm is s, he re, as is of te n th e cas e, th e ad m in is tra ti ve pa ne l's de ci si on

la ck s "s uf

fic ie nt di rect ne ss an d cl ari ty" fo r us to kn ow whe th er th e ad m in is tra t i v e

pa ne l ev en reac he d th e juri sd ic ti on al m eri ts

. Acco rd in gl y , to th e ex te nt McC ue n an d

ot he r d e c i s i o ns , as th e earl ie r pr eced en t, arg ua bl y ha ve pr eced en ti al fo rce on th is

is su e, se e Uni te d St at es v. Jo hn so n, 68 8 F.3 d 49 4, 50 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ), we co nc lu de

th at th e la w of th e cas e do ct rin e do es no t ap pl y u n d e r p r es en t ci rcu m st an ces , an d,

th eref or e, th e pr io r ad m in is tra ti ve pa ne l's ru li ng do es no t co ns tra in ou r a b i l i t y t o

co ns id er t he juri sd ic ti on al qu es ti on

.

Fi na ll y , we reject Ny ffel er's arg um en t th at th e Secr et ary was req ui red to ap pe al

th e tra ns fer or de r to ch al le ng e th e di st ric t co ur t's fin di ng s on th e pe ti ti on 's ti m el in es s.

Fi rs t, to la be l th e di st ric t co ur t's or de r as co nt ai ni ng an y fin di ng s of fact is a ge ne ro us

read in g of th at or de r. Seco nd , u nd er th e fed eral t r a n s f e r st at ut e, 28 U.S.C. § 16 31

, "[a ] tra ns fer can rem ed y th e m is ta ke of fil in g in th e wro ng co ur t, bu t no t th e m is ta ke

of fil in g in an un ti m el y m an ne r." Hy un Mi n Park v. Hes to n, 24 5 F.3 d 66 5, 66 7 (8 th

Ci r. 20 01 ) (al te rat io n in or ig in al ) (q uo ta ti on om it te d)

. W he n a pa rty fil es an un ti m el y

no ti ce of ap pe al in th e wro ng co ur t, th at co ur t la ck s a u t ho rit y to tra ns fer. See id

. And

, ev en if a tra ns fer or de r ha s no t be en ap pe al ed

, "i t is in cu m be nt up on th is co ur t

to es ta bl is h th at it ha s juri sd ic ti on as a res ul t of th at tra ns fer as th is co ur t ha s on ly th e juri sd ic ti on th at Co ng res s ha s co nf erre d up on it by st at ut e." In re Ape x Oil Co

., 88 4

F.2 d 34 3, 34 6 (8 th Ci r. 19 89 ) (in te rn al qu ot at io n om it te d) ; se e, e.g ., W as te Mg m 't of

Ill

. v. E.P.A., 94 5 F.2 d 41 9, 42 1 (D.C. Ci r. 19 91 ) (p er cu ria m ) (d is m is si ng un ti m el y

pe ti ti on fo r rev ie w aft er tran sf er from di st ric t cou rt un de r § 16 31 ). Here, du e to th e

u n t i mel y pe ti ti on , th e di st ric t co ur t ne ve r ha d au th or it y to tra ns fer th e cas e to t h i s

co ur t pu rs ua nt to § 16 31

, an d reg ard le ss of whe th er th at or de r ha s be en ap pe al ed

, we

m us t st il l de te rm in e whe th er we ha ve juri sd ic ti on as a res ul t o f t he tra ns fer. Giv en

th e u nt im el y

pe ti ti on , we hav e n o ju ris di ct io n u nd er § 66 0( a).

-7

-II I. CONCLUSI ON

W e d is m is s t he pe ti ti on for rev ie w for want of ju ris di ct io n.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-8

-