Opinion ID: 1058775
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Application of Primary Jurisdiction Doctrine

Text: Having determined that TCV's conspiracy claims are not within the jurisdiction of the ABC Board and are not precluded by the Act, the question remains whether the doctrine of primary jurisdiction should be employed nonetheless. The doctrine is specifically applicable to claims properly cognizable in court that contain some issue within the special competence of an administrative agency. Reiter, 507 U.S. at 268, 113 S.Ct. at 1220. The doctrine seeks to produce better informed and uniform legal rulings by allowing courts to take advantage of an agency's specialized knowledge, expertise, and central position within a regulatory regime. Pharmaceutical Res'ch & Mfrs. of Am. v. Walsh, 538 U.S. 644, 672, 123 S.Ct. 1855, 1872, 155 L.Ed.2d 889 (2003) (Breyer, Scalia, Thomas, and O'Connor, JJ., concurring). When utilized to address issues within a claim, the doctrine of primary jurisdiction is meant to merely postpone, not preclude, judicial action in a particular case. [I]t governs only the question whether a court or an agency will initially decide a particular issue, not the question whether a court or an agency will finally decide the issue. Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. San Diego Co. Dist. Council of Carpenters, 436 U.S. 180, 199 n. 29, 98 S.Ct. 1745, 1758 n, 29, 56 L.Ed.2d 209 (1978). A trial court stays the proceedings before it so as to give the parties reasonable opportunity to seek an administrative ruling on the matter within the agency's expertise. Reiter, 507 U.S. at 268, 113 S.Ct. at 1220 (citations omitted). See also Mitchell Coal Co. v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 230 U.S. 247, 267, 33 S.Ct. 916, 924, 57 L.Ed. 1472 (1913) (further action by district court should be stayed until the Commission rules on the issue of reasonableness). Primary jurisdiction should not be confused with exhaustion of administrative remedies. As the Supreme Court of the United States explained: Exhaustion applies where 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. United States v. Western Pac. R.R. Co., 352 U.S. 59, 63-64, 77 S.Ct. 161, 165, 1 L.Ed.2d 126 (1956). In this case, the trial court held that the ABC Board had exclusive jurisdiction over the claims before it, and then applied the doctrine of primary jurisdiction to dismiss with prejudice TCV's claims against Louis Latour. As previously discussed, the trial court erred in this holding. Consequently, we now consider whether the doctrine of primary jurisdiction should apply in this case to permit the agency to initially decide issues within the dispute. No fixed formula exists for applying the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, but [i]n 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. Western Pac. R.R. Co., 352 U.S. at 64, 77 S.Ct. at 165. The framework set forth in National Communications Ass'n v. American Tel. & Tel. Co., 46 F.3d 220, 222-23 (2d Cir.1995), provides the appropriate considerations for deciding whether a trial court should apply the doctrine of primary jurisdiction to stay its proceedings: (1) whether the question at issue is within the conventional experience of judges or whether it involves technical or policy considerations within the agency's particular field of expertise; (2) whether the question at issue is particularly within the agency's discretion; (3) whether there exists a substantial danger of inconsistent rulings; and (4) whether a prior application to the agency has been made. See also Environmental Tech. Council v. Sierra Club, 98 F.3d 774, 789 (4th Cir.1996). TCV had already filed an administrative complaint with the ABC Board claiming that Louis Latour's conduct violated the Act. TCV concedes that violations of the Act are within the particular, superior expertise of the ABC Board. It is uncontested that the ABC Board is the body charged with interpretation and implementation of the Act, and, where appropriate, providing appropriate relief for violations of the Act. Finally, the timing of the civil action and the ABC Board proceedings presented a risk of inconsistent rulings regarding violations of the Act. Upon these considerations, we hold that the doctrine of primary jurisdiction should apply in this case for the purpose of determining whether the wrongful acts underlying the conspiracy claims occurred. When applying the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, a trial court may stay the proceedings or dismiss the action without prejudice. Because the administrative proceeding will involve appeals to the circuit court, the Court of Appeals, and perhaps this Court, the better choice in this case is to stay the proceedings for common law conspiracy and statutory conspiracy. Syntek Semiconductor Co. v. Microchip Tech., 307 F.3d 775, 782 (9th Cir.2002). Otherwise, TCV may be required to file the action anew to avoid the statute of limitations before appeals in the administrative proceeding have concluded.