Lebamoff Enterprises, Inc. v. Indiana Alcohol & Tobacco Commission
2013 Ind. App. LEXIS 191
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Lebo-moff appeals a trial court dismissal for failure to timely file the agency record in a judicial review of an ATC order.
- ATC issued six citations to Lebamoff beginning in 2008 over use of common carriers for shipment to customers.
- ALJ findings concluded Lebamoff violated the permit statute and recommended fines and a suspended permit with a deferral conditioned on future compliance.
- ATC approved the ALJ's recommendations and issued a final order on February 7, 2012.
- Lebo-moff filed its petition for judicial review on February 29, 2012; the agency record was filed May 17, 2012.
- Trial court granted dismissal on September 20, 2012; the appeal seeks reversal and remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of agency record filing | Lebamoff contends the petition proposed timely transmission and cites spirit of extension to avoid delay. | ATC asserts no extension was granted; timely filing required absent a court-granted extension. | Dismissal upheld for failure to timely file without a court extension. |
| Sufficiency of original submission for judicial review | Submitted materials were sufficient to resolve the pure question of law without the full record. | Agency record is generally required; the absence precludes review. | Original submission adequate to review the legal issue; case reversed and remanded for merits. |
| ALJ findings of fact and reviewability | Limited findings should not bar review where the issue is pure law. | Deficient findings could render review unreviewable; remand may be needed. | Findings sufficient for the legal issue; remand not necessary for further factual development. |
Key Cases Cited
- Indiana Family & Social Services Admin. v. Meyer, 927 N.E.2d 367 (Ind. 2010) (limits on automatic extensions; court may grant extensions for good cause)
- Wayne Cnty. Prop. Tax Assessment Bd. of Appeals v. United Ancient Order of Druids-Grove No. 29, 847 N.E.2d 924 (Ind.2006) (de novo review of motions to dismiss on paper record)
- Reedus v. Ind. Dep’t of Workforce Dev., 900 N.E.2d 481 (Ind.Ct.App.2009) (AOPA empowers but does not require dismissal; can review on merits)
- Coslett v. Weddle Bros. Constr. Co., Inc., 798 N.E.2d 859 (Ind.2003) (court favors merit disposition; record filing not strictly jurisdictional)
- Meyer, 927 N.E.2d 367 (Ind.2009) (agency record sufficiency depends on case; may be reviewed without full record)