Court Opinion

ID: 9427717
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:21:39.352322+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:23:09.320657
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Marshall,
dissenting.
The Court today summarily reverses the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit setting aside an order of the Interstate Commerce Commission which concededly lacked a statutorily required finding. The Court takes this action because of two subsequent orders which the Commission issued after the petition for review had been filed with the Court of Appeals without seeking the permission of that court or taking any of the proper procedural steps. I dissent.
Since the procedural timetable' involved in this case is important to the issue presented, it is necessary to set out more fully the proceedings below. Respondent Benmar Transport & Leasing Corp. filed a petition to review the order of the ICC with the Court of Appeals on January 13, 1978. There were no petitions for reconsideration still pending at that time. Thereafter, counsel for Benmar notified the ICC that the order was patently defective because of the lack of a statutorily required finding. The ICC on its own motion reopened the administrative proceedings on January 27, 1978, and made the necessary statutory finding. The parties then, filed a motion in the Court of Appeals for an extension of *8time in which to file the record and briefs, and an extension was granted until March 8, 1978. Benmar filed an administrative petition for reconsideration and for reopening the ICC proceedings for receipt of new evidence on February 27, 1978. The reply to this petition was not filed with the ICC by respondent Consolidated Truck Service, Inc., until March 16, 1978 — well after the deadline for filing the record and briefs with the Court of Appeals. Meanwhile, on March 7, 1978, the day before the record and briefs were due to be filed with the court, the ICC moved to have further judicial proceedings held in abeyance pending the Commission's disposition of Benmar’s petition. Before the Court of Appeals could rule on this motion, the Clerk of that court was informed by Ben-mar’s counsel that as an alternative to the motion to hold the action in abeyance Benmar intended to withdraw the petition for judicial review subject to reinstatement within 30 days after the disposition of the administrative petition. Benmar and the ICC attempted to draft a stipulation to that effect, but no stipulation was ever filed with the court. On April 18, 1978, the ICC denied Benmar’s petition for reconsideration, thus making the January 27 order final. Benmar then filed an amended petition for judicial review, and a new schedule for filing the record and briefs had to be established by the court.
In light of this procedural history, it is astounding that the majority can assert that “the Commission’s action did not interfere in any manner with the proceedings in the Court of Appeals, and the Commission acted before that court was ready to hear arguments on the merits and before it received the record.” The ICC simply ignored the time limits established by the Court of Appeals and thereby prevented judicial review altogether. The Court of Appeals was not ready to hear argument and had not received the record solelv because the ICC did not deign to comply with the scheduling orders of the court. The Commission did not even bother to move for *9a second extension. Such actions by a litigant should not be condoned by this Court.*
The case upon which the majority relies so heavily, American Farm Lines v. Black Ball Freight Service, 397 U. S. 532 (1970), is not controlling. In that case there was a multiparty proceeding before the ICC. Some carriers filed petitions for reconsideration before the Commission, but while those petitions were pending other carriers filed for judicial review. The District Court temporarily restrained operation of the ICC’s original order but did not affect the pending administrative petitions. For those parties whose petitions were pending before the Commission, there was “no final action” and the ICC retained “jurisdiction to complete the administrative process.” Id., at 541 (emphasis added). It was for this reason that “both tribunals have jurisdiction” of the matter. Ibid., quoting Wrather-Alvarez Broadcasting, Inc. v. FCC, 101 U. S. App. D. C. 324, 327, 248 F. 2d 646, 649 (1957). This Court stressed, however, that the Commission “did not act inconsistently” with the court but rather had acted “in full harmony with the court’s jurisdiction.” 397 U. S., at 541-542.
This concurrent-jurisdiction concept is inapplicable in the present case. At the time the petition for judicial review was filed no petitions for reconsideration were pending before the ICC. The administrative proceedings were complete and the *10order was final as to all parties. In addition, as already noted, the ICC here did not act in full harmony with the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals. Instead, the Commission through its actions simply forced the court to forgo the proper exercise of its jurisdiction until the ICC and the other litigants decided for themselves that they would file the record and briefs. The decision in American Farm Lines was not meant to give the Commission the power to stall judicial review. Contrary to the assertions of the majority, preventing the court from being effectively deprived of jurisdiction through the willful actions of litigants ignoring proper scheduling orders hardly constitutes “empty formalities.” Since this Court today encourages the ICC to interfere with the proper exercise of jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals, I dissent.

In light of the conceded facts that after one extension the record and briefs were to be filed with the Court of Appeals by March 8, 1978, and that the ICC did not even render its revised final order until April 18, 1978, much less file the record and briefs, it does not require specific language in the lower court’s opinion for this Court to be aware of the necessary conclusion that judicial review was delayed by the actions of the Commission. The majority’s repeated assertion that there was no interference with the proceedings in the Court of Appeals simply ignores the procedural history below. The fact that Benmar consented to the ICC’s actions does not change the fact that these litigants, like all other litigants, owe an obligation to the court not to delay judicial proceedings.