Can Colorado Administrative Agencies Settle Judicial Review Actions?
| Jurisdiction | Colorado,United States |
| Citation | Vol. 19 No. 5 Pg. 835 |
| Pages | 835 |
| Publication year | 1990 |
1990, May, Pg. 835. Can Colorado Administrative Agencies Settle Judicial Review Actions?
It is well-settled in Colorado that the law favors settlements of legal disputes in all forms of litigation, so there may be an end to the litigation.(fn1) Until 1989, no Colorado court had seriously questioned whether administrative agencies had the legal authority and discretion to settle cases while at the appellate or judicial review stage of the litigation when the agency is a party to the action.(fn2) Articles written on the subject have stated firmly that an administrative agency, as a party to a judicial review action, has the right to defend its decisions and to participate in settlements.(fn3)
However, on September 18, 1989, the Colorado Supreme Court issued its decision in O'Bryant v. Public Utilities Commission(fn4) and thereby clouded the conventional wisdom that administrative agencies have all of the rights of any party on appeal to settle judicial review proceedings. This article discusses the O'Bryant case and analyzes whether its holding prohibits or merely limits the authority of administrative agencies to settle judicial review proceedings.
In O'Bryant, a customer of a local telephone company filed a formal complaint with the Public Utilities Commission ("PUC"), alleging that the telephone company had violated a PUC rule governing disconnections of service. The complaint also requested reinstatement of the customer's service without charge and any further relief as might be appropriate. The long distance company whose unpaid charges formed the basis for the disconnection intervened as a party. After a stipulation of facts was reached, all parties submitted motions for summary judgment by the PUC.
A PUC hearing examiner recommended a decision in favor of the customer. In addition to permanently restoring the customer's service without charge, the examiner ordered certain remedial relief affecting customers who were not parties to the suit, even though the customer presented no evidence that any other customers had been similarly disconnected. This relief included directives that (1) the telephone company cease disconnections under circumstances similar to the complainant's until the PUC could change or grant a waiver of the disconnection rule and (2) the company immediately reconnect any customers whose service had been similarly disconnected. After exceptions were filed by all parties, the PUC adopted the hearing examiner's decision as its own.(fn5) After exhausting administrative remedies, the telephone company filed a judicial review action and named both the PUC and the customer as respondents.(fn6)
Settlement discussions occurred between all parties.(fn7) Ultimately, the customer declined to sign a Settlement Agreement executed by the PUC and the telephone company, partially because he believed the settlement detrimentally affected non-party customers. The PUC and the telephone company filed a joint motion to dismiss, requesting approval of the settlement and dismissal with prejudice. The district court granted the motion and approved the settlement agreement, finding that
[t]he P.U.C. cannot, by construction of case law, modify a decision while a case is on appeal because it has lost jurisdiction to so act. The exception is when there is a court-approved settlement involving all parties and the Court authorizes a modification of the Commission's decision. The reasoning is that the Court has jurisdiction over the matter, and can approve or order a modification...
To continue reading
Request your trial