263 P.3d 1020
Or. Ct. App.2011Background
- Plaintiff Wallace participated in the Oregon Savings Growth Plan under PERS administered by PERB for about 15 years.
- PERB policies in 2002 and 2004 restricted trading activity by Plan participants regarding the IS option and authorized a manager to impose restrictions.
- In 2005 Wallace faced a $100,000 transfer limit; in 2006 further restrictions included prohibitions on transfers by phone or Internet after an over-200,000 move.
- In 2007 PERS adopted OAR 459-050-0037 (2008) with further trading restrictions, including $100,000 per trade and 90-day hold periods.
- A DOA contested case proceeding was initiated by Wallace to challenge these restrictions; PERB granted and ultimately issued a final order upholding the restrictions.
- Wallace filed a circuit court action asserting seven claims; the trial court dismissed six for lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to APA exhaustion, and sustained one (section 1983) but later acknowledged error on that claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Wallace must exhaust APA remedies before court review. | Wallace can pursue concurrent jurisdiction; agency review not exclusive for all claims. | APA provides exclusive review for challenged agency actions; exhaustion required. | Court erred in dismissing section 1983 claim; other claims should have been abated rather than dismissed. |
| Whether lack-of-authority and contract-impairment claims are barred without APA exhaustion. | Declaratory relief available concurrently; agency primary jurisdiction not required for these claims. | APA exclusivity bars court action until contested case resolves the issues. | No error in dismissing lack-of-authority and contract-impairment claims. |
| Whether Wallace's breach-of-contract, due process, and equal-treatment claims could be resolved in court without completing the contested case. | Administrative remedies could not provide complete relief; court can award compensatory relief via ORS 183.486(1)(b). | Compensatory relief is unavailable in the contested case or through APA; court should abstain. | Exhaustion should have abated, not dismissed; court should have stayed pending agency resolution. |
| Whether the 1983 claim was properly dismissed for lack of exhaustion. | Section 1983 relief is not barred by APA exhaustion in this context. | APA exhaustion applies; no monetary relief under APA; 1983 claim requires exhaustion. | Section 1983 claim should not have been dismissed; require abatement rather than dismissal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Eppler v. Bd. of Tax Service Examiners, 189 Or.App. 216 (Or. App. 2003) (APA review exclusive for agency actions; avoid declaratory relief circumventing APA)
- Bay River v. Envir. Quality Comm., 26 Or.App. 717 (Or. 1976) (APA provides sole methods of judicial review for agency decisions)
- Nutbrown v. Munn, 311 Or. 328 (Or. 1991) (exhaustion generally not required for §1983 claims)
- Premier Technology v. Oregon State Lottery, 136 Or.App. 124 (Or. App. 1995) (APA review exclusive as to the validity of agency action when agency process used)
- Muller v. Dept. of Agriculture, 164 Or.App. 11 (Or. App. 1999) (validity of agency action under APA; exhaustion or abatement considerations)
- Boise Cascade Corp., 325 Or. 185 (Or. 1997) (primary jurisdiction doctrine; abatement pending agency resolution)
- Dreyer v. PGE, 341 Or. 262 (Or. 2006) (court duty to abate when agency has primary jurisdiction)
- Burns v. Board of Psychologist Examiners, 116 Or.App. 422 (Or. App. 1992) (ancillary monetary relief under ORS 183.486(1)(b) limits damages in review)
- McCarthy v. Madigan, 503 U.S. 140 (U.S. 1992) (federal exhaustion doctrine; administrative remedies may be inadequate for monetary relief)