Cobra Natural Resources, LLC v. Federal Mine Safety & Health Review Commission
742 F.3d 82
| 4th Cir. | 2014Background
- Cobra seeks appellate review of a Commission order temporarily reinstating Ratliff, a Cobra employee, following Ratliff's discrimination complaint under the Mine Act.
- An ALJ ruled Ratliff entitled to temporary reinstatement pending final resolution; the Commission affirmed that reinstatement order.
- Cobra asserted tolling of reinstatement due to a later reduction-in-force and contested the tolling analysis at the hearings.
- Cobra filed a petition for review arguing jurisdiction under the collateral order doctrine; the Secretary supported jurisdiction and the Commission did not participate.
- The appellate court dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction, applying the collateral order framework and concluding the order was neither final nor sufficiently collateral.
- A dissent argued the order is a final, reviewable agency action and urged remand for merits proceedings under a corrected standard.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the temporary reinstatement order is a collateral-order appeal. | Cobra (plaintiff) contends the order is collateral and immediately reviewable. | Secretary/Commission contend no collateral-order jurisdiction exists for such interim relief. | No collateral-order jurisdiction; dismissal affirmed. |
| Whether the order is a final agency action subject to § 816(a)(1) review. | Cobra argues the order is final and reviewable under Mine Act finality. | Defendant argues the order is preliminarily interlocutory and not final. | The court concluded the order is not a final agency action for § 816(a)(1) review. |
| Whether tolling changed the analysis to warrant immediate review. | Cobra asserts tolling of reinstatement altered the case dynamics justifying collateral review. | Defendant contends tolling findings do not affect finality of the order for collateral review. | Collateral order review rejected, tolling did not convert the order into a collateral-final decision. |
| Whether the order would be effectively unreviewable on final judgment. | Cobra argues immediate review prevents irreparable harm and preserves rights. | Defendant contends any irreparable harm is outweighed by the strong final-judgment policy. | The order was not deemed effectively unreviewable on final judgment. |
| Whether the court should adopt alternative jurisdictional grounds (e.g., finality under § 816). | Dissent argues the Mine Act provides final-review jurisdiction without collateral-order analysis. | Majority relies on non-finality under collateral-order doctrine rather than § 816 finality. | Court declined to grant jurisdiction under § 816(a)(1) and dismissed for lack of collateral-order jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949) (collateral order doctrine origin)
- Will v. Hallock, 546 U.S. 345 (2006) (three-part collateral order test; importance and unreviewability)
- Mohawk Industries, Inc. v. Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100 (2009) (limits collateral order doctrine; strict approach)
- Digital Equipment Corp. v. Desktop Direct, Inc., 511 U.S. 863 (1994) (collateral order scope; final judgment preference)
- Monterey Coal Co. v. FMSHRC, 635 F.2d 291 (4th Cir. 1980) (finality of agency order; final-order review)
- Jim Walter Resources, Inc. v. FMSHRC, 920 F.2d 738 (11th Cir. 1990) (collateral order review of temporary reinstatement)
- Gatlin v. KenAmerican Resources, Inc., 31 FMSHRC 1050 (2009) (tolling and changed-circumstances in temporary reinstatement)