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.



Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?