Nyffeler Construction, Inc. v. Secretary of Labor
760 F.3d 837
| 8th Cir. | 2014Background
- Nyffeler Construction employees were observed working on a roof without fall protection; OSHA inspected, cited Nyffeler for serious violations, and proposed penalties.
- Nyffeler contested the citation before an ALJ; the ALJ affirmed violations and reduced penalties; ALJ docketed report on April 4, 2012.
- The Review Commission denied discretionary review, making the ALJ's decision final on May 4, 2012; a petition for judicial review had to be filed within 60 days (by July 3, 2012).
- Nyffeler mistakenly filed for review in federal district court on July 5, 2012 (two days late); the Secretary asked the district court to transfer the case to the Eighth Circuit and mistakenly stated the final order date was May 7, 2012.
- The district court transferred the case to the Eighth Circuit under 28 U.S.C. § 1631; after transfer, the Secretary moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction because the petition was untimely.
- The Eighth Circuit panel analyzed whether jurisdiction exists despite the late filing and denied Nyffeler’s arguments for excusing the untimeliness; the court dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Nyffeler's Argument | Secretary's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court has jurisdiction despite a late petition for review under 29 U.S.C. § 660(a) | Filing was effectively timely because district court transfer cured procedural error; Secretary waived jurisdictional challenge by failing to object and misstating the final order date | Timeliness is jurisdictional and mandatory; the petition was filed after the 60-day limit, so court lacks jurisdiction | Court held it lacked jurisdiction; petition untimely and dismissal required |
| Whether the Secretary waived the jurisdictional defense by misstating the final order date to the district court | Secretary’s transfer motion misled the district court; estoppel/waiver should apply | Jurisdictional time limits cannot be waived; courts must independently assess subject-matter jurisdiction | Court rejected waiver argument; jurisdictional deadline is mandatory and not waivable |
| Whether the prior administrative panel denial of the Secretary’s motion to dismiss bars relitigation (law of the case) | Administrative panel denied the motion, so that ruling should control | Administrative panel rulings are summary and do not bind a plenary hearing panel on jurisdiction | Court held law-of-the-case did not apply because the administrative panel did not clearly decide the jurisdictional merits |
| Whether the district court’s transfer (under 28 U.S.C. § 1631) conferred jurisdiction despite untimeliness | Transfer should remedy filing in wrong court and preserve timeliness | § 1631 cannot cure an untimely filing; transfer is not authorized if original court lacked jurisdiction due to untimeliness | Court held § 1631 cannot cure an untimely petition; transfer did not confer jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205 (taking of appeal within prescribed time is mandatory and jurisdictional)
- Dolan v. United States, 130 S. Ct. 2533 (statutory appeal deadlines are rigid; equitable tolling/extension not permitted for jurisdictional limits)
- Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500 (courts have independent obligation to determine subject-matter jurisdiction)
- In re Rodriguez, 258 F.3d 757 (administrative panel rulings are summary and not entitled to weight of full-panel decisions)
- Hyun Min Park v. Heston, 245 F.3d 665 (28 U.S.C. § 1631 cannot remedy an untimely filing)
- In re Apex Oil Co., 884 F.2d 343 (appellate court must independently determine whether transfer conferred jurisdiction)