Opinion ID: 309671
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Stay Order

Text: 13 The district court stayed further proceedings below pending final action by the ICC on Brinke's freight forwarder permit because it concluded that central issues in the case lay within the particular expertise and primary jurisdiction of the Interstate Commerce Commission. 8 We do not believe, however, that the doctrine of primary jurisdiction may properly be invoked to stay a suit brought under 49 U.S.C.A. Sec. 1017(b)(2). 14 The judge-made doctrine of primary jurisdiction comes into play when a court and an administrative agency have concurrent jurisdiction over the same matter, and no statutory provision coordinates the work of the court and of the agency. The doctrine operates, when applicable, to postpone judicial consideration of a case to administrative determination of important questions involved by an agency with special competence in the area. It does not defeat the court's jurisdiction over the case, but coordinates the work of the court and the agency by permitting the agency to rule first and giving the court the benefit of the agency's views, see 3 K. Davis Administrative Law Treatise Sec. 19.01 (1958). Mr. Justice Harlan has summarized the development of the primary jurisdiction doctrine and the considerations which underlie it and govern its application: 15 The doctrine of primary jurisdiction, like the rule requiring exhaustion of administrative remedies, is concerned with promoting proper relationships between the courts and administrative agencies charged with particular regulatory duties. Exhaustion applies when a claim is cognizable in the first instance by an administrative agency alone; judicial interference is withheld until the administrative process has run its course. Primary jurisdiction, on the other hand, applies where a claim is originally cognizable in the courts, and comes into play whenever enforcement of the claim requires the resolution of issues which, under a regulatory scheme, have been placed within the special competence of an administrative body; in such a case the judicial process is suspended pending referral of such issues to the administrative body for its views. General American Tank Car Corp. v. El Dorado Terminal Co., 308 U.S. 422, 433, 60 S.Ct. 325, 331, 84 L.Ed. 361. 16 No fixed formula exists for applying the doctrine of primary jurisdiction. In every case the question is whether the reasons for the existence of the doctrine are present and whether the purposes it serves will be aided by its application in the particular litigation. These reasons and purposes have often been given expression by this Court. In the earlier cases emphasis was laid on the desirable uniformity which would obtain if initially a specialized agency passed on certain types of administrative questions. See Texas & Pacific Railroad Company v. Abilene Cottonoil Company, 204 U.S. 426, 27 S.Ct. 350, 51 L.Ed. 553. More recently the expert and specialized knowledge of agencies involved has been particularly stressed. See Far East Conference v. United States, 342 U.S. 570, 72 S.Ct. 492, 96 L.Ed. 576. 17 United States v. Western Pacific Company, 1956, 352 U.S. 59, 63-64, 77 S.Ct. 161, 165, 1 L.Ed.2d 126; see also Watts v. Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad Company, 5th Cir. 1967, 383 F.2d 571, 581; Carter v. American Telephone & Telegraph Company, 5th Cir. 1966, 365 F.2d 486, 493-498, cert. denied 385 U.S. 1008, 87 S.Ct. 714, 17 L.Ed.2d 546. 18 Primary jurisdiction reference to an agency is favored when it will promote even-handed treatment and uniformity in a highly regulated area or when sporadic action by federal courts would disrupt an agency's delicate regulatory scheme. United States v. Radio Corporation of America, 1959, 358 U.S. 334, 348, 79 S.Ct. 457, 466, 3 L.Ed.2d 354. The importance of uniformity has been recognized especially in cases involving reasonableness of tariffs or rates. E. g., Arrow Transportation Company v. Southern Railroad Company, 1963, 372 U.S. 658, 83 S.Ct. 984, 10 L.Ed.2d 52; Texas & Pacific Railroad Company v. Abilene Cottonoil Company, 1907, 204 U.S. 426, 27 S.Ct. 350, 51 L.Ed. 553. Similarly, primary jurisdiction reference is favored when the agency possesses expertise in a specialized area with which the courts are relatively unfamiliar. In Watts v. Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad Company, supra, 383 F.2d at 583, for example, this court in affirming the applicability of the primary jurisdiction doctrine acknowledged judicial lack of expertise in technical questions of railroad financing. 9 19 With these principles in mind, we turn to the case at hand. We note at the outset that plaintiffs have not sued under a traditional common law of equity theory or under a statute which is arguably foreign or inimical to the regulatory scheme of the Interstate Commerce Act, but under a section of the Act itself-Sec. 417(b)(2), 49 U.S.C.A. Sec. 1017(b)(2). Further, the statute itself is not silent on the problem of coordinating the work of the district courts and the ICC in this type of action, but makes express provision for coordination. Section 1017(b)(2) provides, The Commission may appear as of right in any such action, and Section 1017(b)(3) explicitly gives the ICC the power to assert primary jurisdiction in an appropriate case: 20 In any action brought under paragraph (2) of this subsection [Sec. 1017(b)(2)], the Commission may notify the district court of the United States in which such action is pending that it intends to consider the matter in a proceeding before the Commission. Upon the filing of such notice the Court shall stay further action pending disposition of the proceeding before the Commission. 21 The statute thus gives the ICC power to effect a stay of a Sec. 1017(b)(2) action, 10 but conspicuously omits mention of any corresponding power in the district court when the ICC does not intervene. We think the conferring of power to stay only on the Commission in this thoughtfully designed procedural provision, enacted as an integral part of the regulatory legislation, strongly suggests that Congress intended to supersede and replace the judicial primary jurisdiction doctrine in Sec. 1017(b)(2) suits. 22 The high jurisdictional threshold of Sec. 1017(b)(2) reinforces our conclusion that application of the primary jurisdiction doctrine is inappropriate in suits brought under it. The section gives the district court power to enjoin only a clear and patent violation of section 1010. Baggett Transportation Company v. Hughes Transportation Company, 8th Cir. 1968, 393 F.2d 710, 716, cert. denied, 393 U.S. 936, 89 S.Ct. 297, 21 L.Ed.2d 272. 11 That this requirement of a clear and patent violation was intended as a jurisdictional one appears clearly in the documents recording the legislative history of the 1965 amendment (P.L. 89-170, 79 Stat. 648) which became Sec. 1017(b). The Conference Report on the bill emphasized this construction: 23 The conferees wish to emphasize that the words clear and patent in the amendments made by the conference substitute two sections 222(b) and 417(b) of the Interstate Commerce Act are intended as a standard of jurisdiction rather than a measure of the required burden of proof and that the district courts of the United States should entertain only those actions under these sections, as amended, which involve clear and patent attempts to circumvent regulation in the areas involved. 24 Conference Report No. 810, 89th Cong. 1st Sess. (1965), 1965 U.S.C. Cong. and Admin.News, pp. 2942, 2943. The fact that the district court has power to enjoin only obvious violations largely removes from Sec. 1017(b)(2) litigation the reasons which underlie the primary jurisdiction doctrine. The courts are unlikely to conflict among themselves or with the ICC in deciding clear cases, and judicial action without prior reference to the Commission therefore would not jeopardize uniformity in the administration of the regulatory scheme. Further, the value of the agency's specialized knowledge and expertise is at a minimum in cases involving clear and patent violations. 25 An analysis of the purposes of the 1965 amendment which became the present Sec. 1017(b)(2) further confirms the inappropriateness of applying the primary jurisdiction doctrine in this type of litigation. A major purpose was to hasten enforcement procedures in cases of clear violations. See Baggett Transportation Company v. Hughes Transportation Company, supra at 715. Before 1965 only the ICC could sue to enjoin unlawful operations; the 1965 amendment allowed broader use by the ICC of this enforcement method by modifying requirements for service of process and, in addition, for the first time gave injured private parties the right to apply directly to the courts for injunctive relief 12 without the necessity of prior, potentially time consuming administrative proceedings. Commenting on the 1965 amendment, Congressman Oren Harris, Chairman of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, made clear the congressional intent to avoid delay in the procedures created and to provide a relatively speedy remedy: 26 . . . We firmly believe this new enforcement tool will be a good one. It should not be subverted by any practice which will avoid or delay prompt settlement of the issues. 13 27 111 Cong.Rec. 9679. Judicial application of the primary jurisdiction doctrine would re-route plaintiffs through administrative proceedings the amendment entitles them to avoid and permit a delay of precisely the type that Congress sought to eliminate in cases of clear violations. 28 In sum, we conclude that application of the judicial primary jurisdiction doctrine is inappropriate in Sec. 1017(b)(2) litigation because (1) the statute expressly provides a method for coordinating the work of courts and the ICC, (2) judicial action which is limited to enjoining openly and obviously unlawful 14 operations will not jeopardize the uniform administration of the regulatory system or require a high degree of specialized knowledge on the part of the courts, and (3) primary jurisdiction reference of cases brought under Sec. 1017(b)(2) would thwart Congress's intention to provide a relatively speedy enforcement procedure and remedy for injured parties. If a plaintiff cannot show a clear and patent violation, the proper disposition of his complaint is dismissal for want of jurisdiction; if he can, he is entitled to injunctive relief.