275 P.3d 997
Or. Ct. App.2012Background
- Wallace petitioned for judicial review of the Public Employees Retirement Board's final order granting summary determination for PERS and dismissing his contested case hearing request.
- Wallace had been subject to individual trading restrictions in the Oregon Savings Growth Plan beginning in 2002, due to excessive trading in the IS option.
- The 2004 policy authorized the Deferred Compensation Manager to impose reasonable trading restrictions to control costs, performance, and plan integrity.
- In 2005–2006 the manager imposed additional individual restrictions on Wallace; in 2006 the PERS director affirmed the staff determination.
- In 2007, the board adopted OAR 459-050-0037 imposing general trading restrictions; the manager removed Wallace's individual restrictions on May 1, 2007.
- The board concluded Wallace's challenge was moot because the relief he sought (removal of individual restrictions) had already been granted and broader relief was unavailable in a contested case.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the board violate rights to a contested case hearing | Wallace asserts he was entitled to notice, discovery, and an evidentiary hearing | Board provided required notices; mootness bypassed merits | No reversible error; mootness forecloses merits review |
| Is mootness applicable to administrative agencies | Mootness does not apply to agencies; still a contested case | Mootness applies only to courts; agency review can be moot | Court treated review as moot and dismissed |
| Whether remand could provide further relief | Remand could grant declaratory/damages relief | Relief available in petition was already provided; no further relief on remand | Remand would not yield practical relief; case dismissed as moot |
Key Cases Cited
- Brumnett v. PSRB, 315 Or. 402 (1993) (mootness and practical effect in PSRB actions)
- Cyrus v. Board of County Commissioners, 226 Or. App. 1 (2009) (courts assess justiciability and mootness independently)
- Starrett v. City of Portland, 196 Or. App. 534 (2004) (mootness when court's decision lacks practical effect)
- Keeney v. University of Oregon, 178 Or. App. 198 (2001) (administrative review; advisory opinions not proper outcome)
- Thunderbird Hotels, LLC v. City of Portland, 218 Or. App. 548 (2008) (mootness; agencies not unitary to moot problems)
- Meltebeke v. Bureau of Labor and Industries, 322 Or. 132 (1995) (unchallenged findings used for judicial review)
- Wallace v. State ex rel. PERB, 245 Or. App. 16 (2011) (related holdings on damages and administrative remedies during contested cases)