Source: https://casetext.com/case/american-beef-packers-inc-v-icc
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 22:42:20+00:00

Document:
J. Carol Brooks, Atty., I.C.C., Washington, D.C., for respondent.
Eugene D. Anderson, Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
On Motion to Dismiss Petition for Review of an Order of the Interstate Commerce Commission.
Before MIKVA and EDWARDS, Circuit Judges, and MacKINNON, Senior Circuit Judge.
The instant motion requires this court to determine whether a litigant has selected the proper forum for review of an agency decision, given a statute which bifurcates judicial review between the district courts and the courts of appeals. It is settled in this circuit that an appeal of an Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) order involving the payment of money must be taken initially to the district court. In its present posture, the attempted appeal seeks review of an ICC order denying monetary reparations and consequently should have been taken to the district court. Formerly the practice of this court would have been to dismiss the petition for review. However, a relatively new statutory provision authorizes the court to transfer such actions to the court in which the petition for review should have been filed. We exercise our authority under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1631 (West Supp. 1982) and transfer this case to the district court.
In March of 1973 American Beef Packers, Inc. (American Beef Packers) complained to the ICC about rates charged by Burlington Northern, Inc. (Burlington) for trailer-on-flatcar shipments of meat from Fort Morgan, Colorado to Chicago, Illinois. An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that Burlington's rates were unreasonable and discriminatory. The ALJ ordered Burlington (1) to cease and desist from charging the unlawful rates and to establish new rates, and (2) to pay American Beef Packers monetary reparations.
Burlington appealed to the ICC. Before the ICC acted on the appeal, American Beef Packers filed a bankruptcy petition. The ICC granted American Beef Packers' request to hold the case in abeyance pending the outcome of the bankruptcy proceedings. Years later the case was placed on the ICC's active docket, and in December of 1982 the ICC reversed the ALJ's initial decision awarding reparations. ICC Decision No. 35802 (December 30, 1982) (unpublished). The ICC did not act on the cease and desist order because during the years the proceedings had been inactive, the ICC had deregulated trailer-on-flatcar traffic. Id. American Beef Packers appealed to this court. The ICC moves to dismiss.
The Commission, under 49 U.S.C. § 10505, exempted from regulation rail and truck transportation provided by rail carriers in connection with trailer-on-flatcar and container-on-flatcar service. Improvement of TOFC/COFC Regulations, 364 I.C.C. 391 (1980), 365 I.C.C. 728 (1982). See American Trucking Associations, Inc. v. ICC, 656 F.2d 1115 (5th Cir. 1981) (ICC did not exceed its authority in exempting trailer-on-flatcar and container-on-flatcar service from regulation).
(5) all rules, regulations or final orders of the Interstate Commerce Commission made reviewable by section 2321 of this title.
Id. § 1336(a). The jurisdiction of the district courts and the courts of appeals is on the whole mutually exclusive.
The courts of appeals, however, may review ICC reparations orders when they accompany other reviewable orders, such as cease and desist orders. See, e.g., Bangor Aroostook R. Co. v. ICC, 574 F.2d 1096 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 837, 99 S.Ct. 121, 58 L.Ed.2d 133 (1978).
This court has three times construed Section 1336(a) literally. In Aluminum Co. of America v. ICC, 553 F.2d 1268 (D.C. Cir. 1977) (per curiam) this court, on a motion to dismiss, found that the challenged ICC orders denying the petitioners' over-charge claims were properly reviewable in the district court because they involved the payment of money. This court in Genstar Chemical Ltd. v. ICC, 665 F.2d 1304 (D.C. Cir. 1981) cert. denied, 456 U.S. 905, 102 S.Ct. 1750, 72 L.Ed.2d 161 (1982) dismissed a petition for review challenging the ICC's partial denial of a refund because it involved the payment of money. Finally, on jurisdictional grounds, the court dismissed an ICC order awarding reparations because it involved the payment of money in Consolidated Rail Corp. v. ICC, 685 F.2d 687 (D.C. Cir. 1982).
Other circuits have adopted a rule of jurisdiction which focuses on the character and importance of the legal issues involved. See, e.g., Empire-Detroit Steel Div. of Cyclops Corp. v. ICC, 659 F.2d 396 (3rd Cir. 1981) (ICC Order denying reparations on legal or policy grounds is reviewable in the courts of appeals); Island Creek Coal Sales Co. v. ICC, 561 F.2d 1219, 1222 (6th Cir. 1977) (review of ICC order denying reparations available in court of appeals where ICC rate making authority is challenged).
The ICC's deregulation of trailer-on-flatcar shipments left only the ALJ's order for reparations subject to meaningful review by the Commission. The ICC decision thus reviews only the propriety of the reparations award. Consequently, jurisdiction of the cause required that the petition for review should have been filed in the district court.
ORDERED by the court that the petition for review is transferred to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia Circuit.

References: § 1631
 § 10505
 v. 
 § 1336
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.