Opinion ID: 510613
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Commission's Motion to Dismiss

Text: 52 Preliminarily, petitioners argue that because the Commission did not oppose the motion to reinstate the 1982 petition, it should not be permitted now ... to raise objections to that motion under the guise of a separate motion to dismiss. The question raised in the Commission's motion goes, however, to the jurisdiction of this court, and as such can be neither foreclosed by the parties nor ignored by the court. See Owen Equipment & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 377 n. 21, 98 S.Ct. 2396, 2404 n. 21, 57 L.Ed.2d 274 (1978). 53 The legal principle upon which the Commission relies in its motion to dismiss is that the Interim Report is not a final order; that being the case, it is not subject to review in this court under the Administrative Orders Review Act, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2342(3) (1982). 54 We approach pragmatically the question whether agency action is final for purposes of judicial review. See FTC v. Standard Oil of California, 449 U.S. 232, 239, 101 S.Ct. 488, 493, 66 L.Ed.2d 416 (1980); Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136, 149, 87 S.Ct. 1507, 1515, 18 L.Ed.2d 681 (1967). Two considerations bear heavily in our analysis. We must determine whether the process of administrative decisionmaking has reached a stage where judicial review will not disrupt the orderly process of adjudication and whether rights or obligations have been determined or legal consequences will flow from the agency decision. Port of Boston Marine Term. Ass'n v. Rederi. Transatlantic, 400 U.S. 62, 71, 91 S.Ct. 203, 209, 27 L.Ed.2d 203 (1970); see ICC v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 383 U.S. 576, 603, 86 S.Ct. 1000, 1016, 16 L.Ed.2d 109 (1966); Rochester Tel. Corp. v. United States, 307 U.S. 125, 143, 59 S.Ct. 754, 763, 83 L.Ed. 1147 (1939). 55 The Commission argues that review of the Interim Report will disrupt Commission proceedings, and that the only consequences of its order were that the petitioner carriers had to undertake the minimal burden of filing the Rules as part of their tariffs and to participate in the agency investigation. 56 The Commission's argument, however, views the Interim Report in the abstract, floating free in time. The essential fact is that when we reinstated the petition for review of that order in 1987, the Commission had concluded its investigation and had issued a determination on the merits that is indisputably final. Therefore, in reality, which is time-bound, there [is] no possible disruption of the administrative process; there [is] nothing else for the Commission to do. Port of Boston Marine Term. Ass'n, 400 U.S. at 71, 91 S.Ct. at 209. 57 Lest we assert our jurisdiction in error, however, we also consider the Commission's argument to be that, upon reinstatement, the petition for review relates back to the original filing date, and that the question of finality must be decided under the circumstances then in existence. Again taking a pragmatic--we would not be abashed to say mundane--view of finality, we are constrained to disagree. 58 The earlier petition for review was terminated without prejudice to its renewal; indeed, the show cause order we issued prior to dismissing the petition expressly contemplated that petitioners would be entitled to have the petition reinstated if, but only if, the final decision of the Commission [did] not otherwise dispose of the issue raised by the petition for review. New York Shipping Ass'n v. FMC, No. 82-1347, Order (D.C. Cir. Feb. 10, 1983). In response, petitioners did not oppose termination of the petition for review, presumably because review of the order would be available at a time when those orders became indisputably final. 59 In its Interim Report, the Commission held that the Rules fall within the tariff matter provision, and therefore not within the exemption for collective bargaining agreements, of section 5 of the MLAA, 46 U.S.C. Sec. 841c (1982). The Commission's final decision did not otherwise dispose of this issue; as a consequence, the conclusions stated by the Commission in its Interim Report merged into the final decision on the merits. See Standard Oil Co. of California, 449 U.S. at 245, 101 S.Ct. at 495. In the present context, therefore, the finality requirement is no bar to this court entertaining the reinstated petition for review. 60 Anticipating this conclusion, the Commission argues in the alternative that because the Interim Report merged into its final decision, the case should be dismissed as an impermissible attempt on the part of the petitioners to split a single cause of action by pursuing review in separate judicial proceedings. Concerns about splitting a single cause of action generally arise when the parties to a lawsuit have obtained a final judgment from a court of competent jurisdiction on some aspect of a claim, but one of those parties, unsatisfied with the judgment, later attempts to litigate an allegedly different claim that arises from facts explored in the prior lawsuit. See RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF JUDGMENTS Secs. 18-19, 24-25 (1982). Of course, simultaneous litigation of allegedly different claims arising out of single controversy poses many of the same risks as do successive lawsuits that either arise out of a common nucleus of operative fact or involve the application of settled legal issues to substantially identical facts involving the same parties. 61 All such multiplicative proceedings tax an already overburdened judicial system, as well as unfairly burden victors with the costs of meeting the vanquished yet again in legal combat. Worse, two or more courts may reach inconsistent results, subjecting the litigants to conflicting obligations. But we deal with this problem not bluntly, by a general prohibition against fragmented litigation over matters arising out of a single controversy; rather, we rely upon the more discriminating principles of issue and claim preclusion. See generally 18 C. WRIGHT, A. MILLER & E. COOPER, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE Sec. 4404 (1981). Where appropriate, devices such as transfer or consolidation may also be usefully employed. 62 In no event, however, is there a jurisdictional bar to fragmented litigation; a defense of preclusion, for example, may be waived. See, e.g., Poulin v. Bowen, 817 F.2d 865, 869 (D.C. Cir.1987). The Commission's failure to oppose the petitioners' motion to reinstate their petition for review, though not precisely a waiver, renders its eleventh-hour motion to dismiss on the basis of an asserted prohibition against splitting a single cause of action considerably less compelling, especially insofar as it invokes the burden on the Commission as a litigant. 63 Moreover, the other drawbacks associated with splitting a single cause of action are simply not present in this case. Both the petition for review of the Commission's Interim Report and the petition for review of the Commission's final order on the merits are being heard in the same court, by the same panel of judges, at the same time; there is no risk of inconsistent judgments, and the inefficient use of scarce judicial resources is of no real concern. 64 We are, furthermore, unable to discern that the Commission will in any way be prejudiced if we allow the petition for review of its jurisdictional conclusions to go forward. We therefore conclude that the Commission's motion to dismiss should be denied. 65