Opinion ID: 2123383
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Did the alleged failure to name the employer in the petition for judicial review deprive the district court of jurisdiction?

Text: The procedure for seeking judicial review of administrative action is specified in section 17A.19(2). This section, inter alia, provides: Within ten days after the filing of a petition for judicial review file stamped copies of the petition shall be mailed by the petitioner to all parties named in the petition and, if the petition involves review of agency action in a contested case, all parties of record in that case before the agency. The judicial review provisions of 17A.19 are the exclusive means for seeking review [e]xcept as expressly provided otherwise by another statute referring to this chapter by name.... § 17A.19, The Code; see Iowa Industrial Commissioner v. Davis, 286 N.W.2d 658, 660 (Iowa 1979); Jackson County Public Hospital v. PERB, 280 N.W.2d 426, 428-29 (Iowa 1979). A provision of the Iowa Employment Security Act, contained in section 96.6(8), The Code, states: Notwithstanding the terms of the Iowa administrative procedure Act, petitions for judicial review may be filed in the district court of the county in which the claimant was last employed or resides, provided that if the claimant does not reside in the state of Iowa the action shall be brought in the district court of Polk county, Iowa, and any other party to the proceeding before the appeal board shall be named in the petition. (Emphasis supplied.) We have already noted Green's review petition did not name ITT Autowize as a party in the caption. It was named only in exhibits attached to and mentioned in the petition. Job Service claims here for the first time that therefore district court did not acquire subject matter jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. We are not so persuaded. The above-quoted provision of section 96.6(8) is related to venue. Its obvious purpose was to permit the claimant to institute the proceeding in the county where he or she was last employed, a right not provided in the IAPA. See Iowa Public Service Co. v. ICC, 263 N.W.2d 766, 769 (Iowa 1978). The clause that requires other appeal board parties to be named in the petition may have been designed to link with the section 17A.19(2) requirement that all parties named in the petition be mailed a file stamped copy of the petition, although parties of record in a contested case also are provided the same notice. § 17A.19(2), The Code. We find no requirement that the employer be named in a caption to the petition, although that measure might have avoided this appeal. Section 17A.19(4) only provides that [t]he petition for review shall name the agency as respondent.... Assuming but not deciding the issue is jurisdictional, we are left with the question whether naming the employer in exhibits attached to the petition meets the section 96.6(8) naming requirement. Our reasoning in division II of Frost v. S. S. Kresge Co., 299 N.W.2d 646, 647-48 (Iowa 1980), filed today, resolves this issue in Green's favor. It also is clear Green complied with all requirements of section 17A.19. The petition named the agency as respondent and Green properly served the employer, a part[y] of record ... before the agency, with a copy of the petition. Although Job Service argues here for the first time that any less than strict compliance with the naming requirement would violate due process because the employer would not know the review might affect its rights, we remain unconvinced. The papers attached to the petition, showing the course of the controversy and the parties before the agency, together with the petition itself, which requested that the agency decision be reversed and that Green be awarded benefits, were sufficient to alert ITT Autowize its rights might be affected.