Brian M. Bailey v. Department of Marine Resources
124 A.3d 1125
| Me. | 2015Background
- Bailey appeals a Superior Court dismissal of his MRCP 80C challenge to the DMR's 2014 elver quota of four pounds.
- The quota was based on a March 25, 2014 letter and a March 31, 2014 elver transaction card following Bailey’s meeting with DMR officials.
- Bailey did not file a timely appeal within 30 days after receipt of the March 31 card, the final agency action for the 2014 quota.
- Bailey’s May 1, 2014 inquiry and July 10, 2014 appeal were filed after the 30-day statutory deadline for appeals of final agency actions.
- The Court addressed mootness and held the case fall within a public-interest/repetition-exception framework due to potential future quotas and the short elver season, but ultimately held the March 31 card was final agency action and the appeal was untimely.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the March 31, 2014 elver card final agency action and timely appeal | Bailey argued card lacked explicit findings and may not be final action | DMR contends card resolved all necessary issues and was final action | The card constituted final agency action and the appeal was untimely |
| Do mootness exceptions justify addressing the merits | Bailey asserts ongoing impact and future quotas justify review | DMR contends mootness exceptions do not overcome untimeliness | Mootness exceptions applied, but final action remained untimely; court proceeded to merits and affirmed dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- Anthem Health Plans of Me., Inc. v. Superintendent of Ins., 2011 ME 48 (Me. 2011) (mootness exceptions and standing principles guiding review of agency decisions)
- In re Christopher H., 2011 ME 13 (Me. 2011) (repetition-and-review doctrine for mootness analysis)
- Wheeler v. Me. Unemployment Ins. Comm’n, 477 A.2d 1141 (Me. 1984) (definition of final agency action and dispositive issues)