State of Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management v. Administrative Adjudication Division
60 A.3d 921
R.I.2012Background
- May 22, 2007, DEM officers alleged Barlow violated RI Marine Fisheries Reg. §7.7.2-2 by landing 137 lbs of summer flounder (exceeding 100-lb limit).
- DEM suspended Barlow’s commercial licenses for 30 days; Barlow appealed for a hearing before the AAD.
- Mid-December 2008: parties entered a consent agreement: 10-day license suspension, absolving Barlow of liability, and a future first-tier penalty if he violated regulations; agreement stated it had the full force of a final administrative adjudication.
- In 2010, Barlow sought to participate in DEM’s Summer Flounder Sector Allocation Pilot Program and was denied due to the prior administrative penalty; he appealed to the AAD.
- AAD reversed DEM, holding the consent agreement was not an administrative penalty and allowed participation; DEM appealed to Superior Court under the Administrative Procedures Act; the trial court sustained the agency.
- Supreme Court granted certiorari and ultimately quashed the Superior Court’s judgment, remanding with instructions to enter judgment for Barlow consistent with the opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the case is moot and within the extreme public importance exception. | Barlow argues mootness exception applies due to livelihood and repetition. | DEM contends the program ended and mootness applies. | Yes, extreme public importance and capable of repetition; court addresses merits. |
| Whether the consent agreement was an administrative penalty that justifies disqualification from the pilot program. | Barlow contends consent absolved liability and was not an administrative penalty. | DEM contends consent agreement functions as an administrative adjudication/penalty. | Consent agreement was not an administrative penalty; DEM erred in denying participation. |
| What is the proper interpretation of the consent agreement and its effect on future penalties? | Consent absolves liability and cannot yield future penalties not agreed to. | Consent allows future penalties if violations occur later. | Consent resolved all disputed issues; DEM failed to uphold its end; not reach other arguments. |
Key Cases Cited
- Durfee v. Ocean State Steel, Inc., 636 A.2d 698 (R.I. 1994) (consent agreements treated as contracts to be construed accordingly)
- Rhode Island Temps, Inc. v. Department of Labor and Training, Board of Review, 749 A.2d 1121 (R.I. 2000) (scope of judicial review under the APA)
- Rodrigues v. DePasquale Building and Realty Co., 926 A.2d 616 (R.I. 2007) (de novo review of contract interpretation; clear terms control)
- 1800 Smith Street Associates, L.P. v. Gencarelli, 888 A.2d 46 (R.I. 2005) (contract interpretation; ambiguity governs legality of terms)
- Rotelli v. Catanzaro, 686 A.2d 91 (R.I. 1996) (interpretation of contractual provisions in agency decisions)
- Hodor v. United Services Automobile Association, 637 A.2d 357 (R.I. 1994) (interpretation of insurance/contract terms in administrative context)
- Trahan v. Trahan, 455 A.2d 1307 (R.I. 1983) (contract interpretation principles in awards/consent contexts)
- Durfee (listed above), 636 A.2d 698 (R.I. 1994) (consent agreements treated as contracts to be construed accordingly (duplicate for emphasis))
- Cicilline v. Almond, 809 A.2d 1101 (R.I. 2002) (public-rights/livelihood considerations in mootness determinations)