Limnia, Inc. v. United States Department of Energy
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 8788
| D.C. Cir. | 2017Background
- Limnia, Inc. (battery systems maker) applied in 2009 for DOE support under two programs: the Loan Guarantee Program and the Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing loan program; both applications were denied (one for alleged nonpayment of an application fee, the other for failure to meet program requirements).
- Limnia sued under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), alleging the denials were arbitrary and capricious and motivated by political favoritism; it sought judicial review to have the agency actions set aside.
- After the District Court denied DOE's motion to dismiss, DOE moved for a voluntary remand, offering to review only any new applications Limnia might submit (and insisting on payment of the then-current application fee), not to reconsider the original 2009 denials.
- The District Court granted DOE’s remand motion in January 2016 without clarifying whether DOE would reconsider the original decisions or require new applications and fees, then stayed the case while retaining jurisdiction.
- Parties disputed remand terms; in July 2016 the District Court denied Limnia’s request to lift the stay, accepted DOE’s conditions (i.e., new applications/fees), relinquished jurisdiction and closed the case—characterizing that order as final.
- Limnia appealed; the D.C. Circuit held the July 2016 order was a final, appealable decision and reversed because DOE’s voluntary-remand request did not intend to revisit the challenged 2009 agency decisions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the District Court properly granted DOE's voluntary remand when DOE did not intend to reconsider the original 2009 application decisions | Limnia: remand improper because DOE refused to revisit the challenged 2009 denials and required new applications/fees, so remand functions as dismissal and forecloses APA relief | DOE: voluntary remand appropriate; remand would conserve resources and ensure Limnia can reapply and obtain the same relief a successful suit would provide | Court: remand was improper because a voluntary remand ordinarily requires agency intent to reconsider the original decision; DOE did not intend to revisit the 2009 denials, so District Court abused its discretion and order reversed |
| Whether the July 2016 order was final and appealable | Limnia: appealed the July order as a final termination of its APA claims | DOE: argued the remand order is not final and thus not appealable | Court: July 2016 order was final and appealable because it accepted DOE’s conditions, terminated the APA action on the 2009 decisions, and left no avenue for review |
Key Cases Cited
- Ethyl Corp. v. Browner, 989 F.2d 522 (D.C. Cir.) (voluntary remand appropriate when agency requests remand to reconsider in light of new evidence)
- American Hawaii Cruises v. Skinner, 893 F.2d 1400 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (voluntary remand proper to allow agency reconsideration of its ruling)
- SKF USA Inc. v. United States, 254 F.3d 1022 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (agency may request voluntary remand to reconsider its prior position)
- Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83 (1998) (threshold requirement to establish appellate jurisdiction)
- Dhiab v. Obama, 787 F.3d 563 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (discussing finality under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and orders that terminate an action)