ILNews

Court split over whether petition for review should be dismissed

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The dissenting judge in a case involving the dismissal of a company’s petition for judicial review of a decision by the Alcohol and Tobacco Commission believed the petition must be dismissed based on the language of the Administrative Orders and Procedures Act. The majority ordered resolution of the issue on the merits.

In Lebamoff Enterprises, Inc. v. Indiana Alcohol & Tobacco Commission, 49A02-1210-MI-826, Lebamoff Enterprises, which operates liquor stores in northern Indiana and holds a liquor dealer permit, received six citations from the ATC alleging violations of its permit stemming from the use of common carriers to transport product to customers for sales generated through fulfillment companies. Lebamoff appealed, and an administrative law judge found the company violated statute by using the common carriers. A fine was imposed and it was recommended that Lebamoff’s permit be suspended for 60 days but deferred as long as Lebamoff paid the fines and didn’t have any more violations. The ATC approved the recommendations in February 2012.

Lebamoff filed a petition for judicial review on Feb. 29, 2012, but did not file an agency record within 30 days or seek an extension. The ATC moved for dismissal, which the trial court granted in September. Lebamoff did not receive and file the certified agency record until May 2012.

Lebamoff admits it didn’t timely file the record or an extension but said it followed the spirit of the AOPA by including in its petition a statement that it would transmit the agency record within 30 days after receiving notification that the ATC prepared the record. The COA disagreed with Lebamoff that the Legislature’s intent was to permit automatic extensions. Requiring a petitioner to request and be granted an extension leaves it in the court’s hands to determine whether good cause has been shown, Chief Judge Margret Robb wrote.

“While, as outlined above, the filing of a request for extension plays a valuable role in the larger context and moreover is required by the statute, the ATC was hardly being harmed by a delay in filing the record where the ATC itself was the cause of that delay,” she wrote. “We believe the onus was on Lebamoff to file an extension, but the actions of the ATC here are of the sort that would begin to lend support to concerns that the AOPA could in some cases be a ‘trap’ for unwary litigants.”

But the majority found dismissal was not mandatory, citing Ind. Family & Soc. Servs. Admin. V. Meyer, 927 N.E.2d 367, 370-71 (Ind. 2010). Because there is a question of law regarding the interpretation of the statute as it concerns use of common carriers, and there were no disputed facts, the limited findings of the ALJ were sufficient to allow judicial review of the issue, even in the absence of the agency record, Robb wrote, ordering the case back to the trial court for resolution on the merits.

Judge Kirsch argued that the AOPA is the exclusive means for judicial review of an administrative action and the mandates of the Act as adopted by the General Assembly are clear. Lebamoff did not follow them so that failure is cause for dismissal.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT