PER CURIAM:
Cities Service Co. (“Cities”) appeals from a decision of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (Staple-ton, J.), entered January 4, 1983, denying Cities’ application to intervene in an action brought by Pennzoil Co. against the Department of Energy (“DOE”), and from an order of the same court, entered January 19, 1983, approving an “Agreed Final Judgment” which settles DOE’s counterclaim against Pennzoil in that action. We affirm the district court’s decision to deny Cities’ application to intervene and dismiss Cities’ appeal from the order approving the Agreed Final Judgment.
In an earlier opinion, which describes the background of the case, we affirmed the district court’s decision to grant summary judgment to DOE on Pennzoil’s claim against it. Pennzoil Co. v. DOE, 680 F.2d 156 (Temp.Em.App.1982), cert, denied,U.S. -, 103 S.Ct. 841, 74 L.Ed.2d 1032 (1983). That claim challenged the validity of a 1975 ruling of the Federal Energy Administration as applied to crude oil production at the Walker Creek Field operated by Pennzoil in Arkansas. DOE’s counterclaim, which the district court had not yet addressed at the time of our earlier opinion, was brought under section 209 of the Economic Stabilization Act (“ESA”), 12 U.S.C. § 1904 note, and alleged violations by Pennzoil of price controls governing the sale of crude oil. In settlement of the counterclaim, the Agreed Final Judgment requires Pennzoil to pay $14,750,000 to the United States Treasury.
In its decision of January 4, 1983, the district court found that Cities had no “interest” within the meaning of Fed.R.Civ.P. 24(a)(2)1 in the litigation between Pennzoil and the DOE, pointing out that Cities could sue Pennzoil for damages in a separate proceeding under section 210 of the ESA. Accordingly, the court denied Cities’ application to intervene. Cities contends that, contrary to the district court’s finding, it has an interest in the funds to be paid to the Treasury by Pennzoil, and that its interest would be impaired if it were not permitted to intervene. We disagree.
Section 209 of the ESA, the basis of DOE’s counterclaim, authorizes the Attorney General to bring an action to enjoin practices which violate the regulations promulgated by DOE under the ESA. It further provides that: “In addition to such injunctive relief, the court may also order restitution of moneys received in violation of any such ... regulation.” Section 210 authorizes treble damage suits by “any person suffering legal wrong” as a result of practices which violate the regulations.
While sections 209 and 210 have a common purpose — the enforcement of DOE’s regulations — they vindicate different rights. “Actions by the United States under ESA § 209 are taken to enforce public, not private, rights.” Citronelle-Mobile Gathering, Inc. v. Edwards, 669 F.2d 717, 722 (Temp.Em.App.), cert, denied,-U.S. [574]*574—, 103 S.CL 172, 74 L.Ed.2d 141 (1982). By contrast, the action authorized by section 210 “is intended to be brought by private persons against other private persons.” S.Rep. No. 92-507, 92d Cong., 1st Sess., reprinted in 1971 U.S.Code Cong. & Ad. News 2283, 2291. We have previously warned against “[t]he commingling of private and agency enforcement devices for which Congress has made separate provision .... ” Dyke v. Gulf Oil Corp., 601 F.2d 557, 567 (Temp.Em.App.1979); see also Bulzan v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 620 F.2d 278, 281-83 (Temp.Em.App.1980) (emphasizing “the independence of the administrative and private remedies provided by the ESA”). The outcome of the instant case, an agency enforcement action brought by DOE, will in no way affect Cities’ private right to sue Pennzoil directly for damages. See U.S. Oil Co. v. DOE, 510 F.Supp. 910, 913 (E.D.Wis.1981). Under these circumstances, the district court correctly concluded that Cities has no interest that would be impaired by disposition of this action.
Since Cities was properly denied leave to intervene, there is no need for us to address its contention that the district court erred in approving the Agreed Final Judgment. In keeping with the general rule that “[o]ne who is not a party to a record and judgment is not entitled to appeal therefrom,” Ex Parte Leaf Tobacco Board of Trade, 222 U.S. 578, 581, 32 S.Ct. 833, 56 L.Ed. 323 (1911) (per curiam), it has been held that, “one properly denied the status of intervenor cannot appeal on the merits of the case.” Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Rizzo, 530 F.2d 501, 508 (3d Cir.), cert, denied, 426 U.S. 921, 96 S.Ct. 2628, 49 L.Ed.2d 375 (1976).
For the foregoing reasons, the decision of the district court denying Cities’ application to intervene is affirmed and Cities’ appeal from the order approving the Agreed Final Judgment is dismissed.
[575]*575DECISIONS WITHOUT OPINIONS 575 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Fifth Circuit DECISIONS WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINIONS The following cases have been decided without formal opinion prepared for publication in the permanent law reports: 8/24/83 AFFIRMED Docket Date of Title Number Decision Disposition * Younger Transp. v. Bourg .. 83-3004 8/22/83 AFFIRMED * † Benham & Co. v. Rodriguez..............83-2188 8/22/83 AFFIRMED * † de Benavides v. I.N.S.......83-4235 8/22/83 AFFIRMED * † U. S. v. Merida ...........83-1444 8/22/83 AFFIRMED * U. S. v. Follis.............83-1474 8/22/83 VACATED * U. S. v. Dunn.............83-1475 8/22/83 VACATED * Chavis v. Heckler .........82-4582 8/23/83 AFFIRMED *Gulf Coast Invst. Corp. v. McClanahan............83-4060 8/23/83 AFFIRMED * Brecheen v. U. S...........83-4200 8/23/83 AFFIRMED * Shinn v. Thompson........82-3384 8/24/83 AFFIRMED * Explorer Drilling Co. v. Martin Explor. Co.......83-3067 * Bagley, Walcott & Assoc, v. Caroma................83-4147 8/24/83 REVERSED U. S. v. Smalley...........83-1393 8/25/83 AFFIRMED Shorty v. Shell Oil Co. .....82-3095 8/25/83 AFFIRMED * Tacos Mi Anita’s v. United Pacific Ins. Co...........82-4511 8/26/83 AFFIRMED * Sorrels v. J. Ray McDermott & Co...................82-4509 8/26/83 AFFIRMED * Owens v. Nalco Chemical Co.....................83-2024 8/26/83 AFFIRMED * Mercantile Nat’l Bank v. ABC Computers.........83-1032 8/26/83 AFFIRMED PTA Marketing v. Haile .... 82-1023 8/29/83 AFFIRMED * French v. Black & Decker Mfg....................82 — 4579 8/29/83 AFFIRMED * Gentsch v. Estelle.........83-2034 8/29/83 REMANDED * U. S. v. Marbury & Doherty 83^4117 8/29/83 REMANDED * Perry v. New World Management ...............83-1321 8/29/83 REVERSED Shuler v. Delta Elec. Power Assoc..................82 — 4104 8/31/83 AFFIRMED U. S. v.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
PER CURIAM:
Cities Service Co. (“Cities”) appeals from a decision of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (Staple-ton, J.), entered January 4, 1983, denying Cities’ application to intervene in an action brought by Pennzoil Co. against the Department of Energy (“DOE”), and from an order of the same court, entered January 19, 1983, approving an “Agreed Final Judgment” which settles DOE’s counterclaim against Pennzoil in that action. We affirm the district court’s decision to deny Cities’ application to intervene and dismiss Cities’ appeal from the order approving the Agreed Final Judgment.
In an earlier opinion, which describes the background of the case, we affirmed the district court’s decision to grant summary judgment to DOE on Pennzoil’s claim against it. Pennzoil Co. v. DOE, 680 F.2d 156 (Temp.Em.App.1982), cert, denied,U.S. -, 103 S.Ct. 841, 74 L.Ed.2d 1032 (1983). That claim challenged the validity of a 1975 ruling of the Federal Energy Administration as applied to crude oil production at the Walker Creek Field operated by Pennzoil in Arkansas. DOE’s counterclaim, which the district court had not yet addressed at the time of our earlier opinion, was brought under section 209 of the Economic Stabilization Act (“ESA”), 12 U.S.C. § 1904 note, and alleged violations by Pennzoil of price controls governing the sale of crude oil. In settlement of the counterclaim, the Agreed Final Judgment requires Pennzoil to pay $14,750,000 to the United States Treasury.
In its decision of January 4, 1983, the district court found that Cities had no “interest” within the meaning of Fed.R.Civ.P. 24(a)(2)1 in the litigation between Pennzoil and the DOE, pointing out that Cities could sue Pennzoil for damages in a separate proceeding under section 210 of the ESA. Accordingly, the court denied Cities’ application to intervene. Cities contends that, contrary to the district court’s finding, it has an interest in the funds to be paid to the Treasury by Pennzoil, and that its interest would be impaired if it were not permitted to intervene. We disagree.
Section 209 of the ESA, the basis of DOE’s counterclaim, authorizes the Attorney General to bring an action to enjoin practices which violate the regulations promulgated by DOE under the ESA. It further provides that: “In addition to such injunctive relief, the court may also order restitution of moneys received in violation of any such ... regulation.” Section 210 authorizes treble damage suits by “any person suffering legal wrong” as a result of practices which violate the regulations.
While sections 209 and 210 have a common purpose — the enforcement of DOE’s regulations — they vindicate different rights. “Actions by the United States under ESA § 209 are taken to enforce public, not private, rights.” Citronelle-Mobile Gathering, Inc. v. Edwards, 669 F.2d 717, 722 (Temp.Em.App.), cert, denied,-U.S. [574]*574—, 103 S.CL 172, 74 L.Ed.2d 141 (1982). By contrast, the action authorized by section 210 “is intended to be brought by private persons against other private persons.” S.Rep. No. 92-507, 92d Cong., 1st Sess., reprinted in 1971 U.S.Code Cong. & Ad. News 2283, 2291. We have previously warned against “[t]he commingling of private and agency enforcement devices for which Congress has made separate provision .... ” Dyke v. Gulf Oil Corp., 601 F.2d 557, 567 (Temp.Em.App.1979); see also Bulzan v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 620 F.2d 278, 281-83 (Temp.Em.App.1980) (emphasizing “the independence of the administrative and private remedies provided by the ESA”). The outcome of the instant case, an agency enforcement action brought by DOE, will in no way affect Cities’ private right to sue Pennzoil directly for damages. See U.S. Oil Co. v. DOE, 510 F.Supp. 910, 913 (E.D.Wis.1981). Under these circumstances, the district court correctly concluded that Cities has no interest that would be impaired by disposition of this action.
Since Cities was properly denied leave to intervene, there is no need for us to address its contention that the district court erred in approving the Agreed Final Judgment. In keeping with the general rule that “[o]ne who is not a party to a record and judgment is not entitled to appeal therefrom,” Ex Parte Leaf Tobacco Board of Trade, 222 U.S. 578, 581, 32 S.Ct. 833, 56 L.Ed. 323 (1911) (per curiam), it has been held that, “one properly denied the status of intervenor cannot appeal on the merits of the case.” Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Rizzo, 530 F.2d 501, 508 (3d Cir.), cert, denied, 426 U.S. 921, 96 S.Ct. 2628, 49 L.Ed.2d 375 (1976).
For the foregoing reasons, the decision of the district court denying Cities’ application to intervene is affirmed and Cities’ appeal from the order approving the Agreed Final Judgment is dismissed.
[575]*575DECISIONS WITHOUT OPINIONS 575 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Fifth Circuit DECISIONS WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINIONS The following cases have been decided without formal opinion prepared for publication in the permanent law reports: 8/24/83 AFFIRMED Docket Date of Title Number Decision Disposition * Younger Transp. v. Bourg .. 83-3004 8/22/83 AFFIRMED * † Benham & Co. v. Rodriguez..............83-2188 8/22/83 AFFIRMED * † de Benavides v. I.N.S.......83-4235 8/22/83 AFFIRMED * † U. S. v. Merida ...........83-1444 8/22/83 AFFIRMED * U. S. v. Follis.............83-1474 8/22/83 VACATED * U. S. v. Dunn.............83-1475 8/22/83 VACATED * Chavis v. Heckler .........82-4582 8/23/83 AFFIRMED *Gulf Coast Invst. Corp. v. McClanahan............83-4060 8/23/83 AFFIRMED * Brecheen v. U. S...........83-4200 8/23/83 AFFIRMED * Shinn v. Thompson........82-3384 8/24/83 AFFIRMED * Explorer Drilling Co. v. Martin Explor. Co.......83-3067 * Bagley, Walcott & Assoc, v. Caroma................83-4147 8/24/83 REVERSED U. S. v. Smalley...........83-1393 8/25/83 AFFIRMED Shorty v. Shell Oil Co. .....82-3095 8/25/83 AFFIRMED * Tacos Mi Anita’s v. United Pacific Ins. Co...........82-4511 8/26/83 AFFIRMED * Sorrels v. J. Ray McDermott & Co...................82-4509 8/26/83 AFFIRMED * Owens v. Nalco Chemical Co.....................83-2024 8/26/83 AFFIRMED * Mercantile Nat’l Bank v. ABC Computers.........83-1032 8/26/83 AFFIRMED PTA Marketing v. Haile .... 82-1023 8/29/83 AFFIRMED * French v. Black & Decker Mfg....................82 — 4579 8/29/83 AFFIRMED * Gentsch v. Estelle.........83-2034 8/29/83 REMANDED * U. S. v. Marbury & Doherty 83^4117 8/29/83 REMANDED * Perry v. New World Management ...............83-1321 8/29/83 REVERSED Shuler v. Delta Elec. Power Assoc..................82 — 4104 8/31/83 AFFIRMED U. S. v. Medina-Reyes .....82-1432 8/31/83 AFFIRMED IN PART * Saghian v. I.N.S...........81-^4073 8/31/83 DISMISSED * Miller v. Estelle...........82-2380 9/ 1/83 AFFIRMED * Thompson v. City of El Paso...................82-1324 9/ 1/83 DISMISSED * Allen v. Clybum ..........83-2059 9/ 1/83 AFFIRMED * U. S. v. Rodriguez.........83-1158 9/ 1/83 AFFIRMED * Fed.R.App. P. 34(a); 5th Cir. R. 34.2. † Local Rule 47.6 case. Appeal from and Citation (if reported! E.D.La. E.D.Tex. I.N.S. W.D.Tex. W.D.Tex. W.D.Tex. W.D.La. W.D.La. W.D.La. E.D.La. E.D.La. S.D.Miss. N.D.Tex. E.D.La. W.D.La. W.D.La. E.D.Tex. N.D.Tex. N.D.Tex. S.D.Miss. S.D.Tex. S.D.Miss. N.D.Tex. N.D.Miss. W.D.Tex. I.N.S. S.D.Tex. W.D.Tex. E.D.Tex. W.D.Tex.
[576]*576576 715 FEDERAL REPORTER, 2d SERIES DECISIONS WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINIONS Title Docket Date of Number Decision Disposition * Robinson v. McElveen .....83-4246, 9/ 1 /83 83-4276 * Hicks v. MS Employment Sec. Comm.............83-^1173 9/ 1/83 *Leev. Maggio ..... 83-3170 9/ 1/83 * U. S. v. Rains.............82-1451 9/ 2/83 * Hermez v. City of Pasadena 82-2414 9/ 2/83 * Ashagre v. Southland Corp. 82-2417 9/ 2/83 * † Blackburn v. Elevator Boats 82-3626 9/ 2/83 Levenson v. Heckler.......83-1033 9/ 2/83 DISMISSED AFFIRMED REVERSED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED ■Continued Appeal from and Citation (if reported! W.D.La. S.D.Miss. E.D.La. W.D.Tex. S.D.Tex. S.D.Tex. E.D.La. W.D.Tex. * Fed.R.App. P. 34(a); 5th Cir. R. 34.2. † Local Rule 47.6 case.
[577]*577DECISIONS WITHOUT OPINIONS 577 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Fifth Circuit DENIALS OF REHEARING EN BANC (Rule 35 Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure; Local Fifth Circuit Rule 35) Group 1 — Denials where no member of the panel nor Judge in regular active service on the Court requested that the Court be polled on rehearing en banc. Group 2 — Denials after a poll requested by a member of the panel or a Circuit Judge in regular active service. Group 3 — Denials on the Court’s own motion after a poll requested by a member of the panel or a Circuit Judge in regular active service. Title GROUP 1 Crawford v. Pittman................ De Oliveira v. Delta Marine Drilling Co. E. E. O. C. v. Kimbrough Inv. Co...... Porter v. Estelle.................... Roccaforte v. C. I. R................. Vela v. Estelle ..................... Docket Number Date of Denial Citation of Panel Decision .82-4222 .82-2024 . 81 — 1429, 82-4043 .82-2499 .82-4048 .82-1236 8/31/83 8/26/83 8/23/83 8/31/83 8/30/83 8/23/83 N.D.Miss., 708 F.2d 1028 S.D.Tex., 707 F.2d 843 S.D.Miss., 703 F.2d 98 S.D.Tex., 709 F.2d 944 U.S.T.C., 708 F.2d 986 N.D.Tex., 708 F.2d 954
[578]*578578 715 FEDERAL REPORTER, 2d SERIES UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Eleventh Circuit DECISIONS WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINIONS The following cases have been decided without formal opinion prepared for publication in the permanent law reports: Docket Date of Title Number Decision * Lamson v. Provident Life ... 82-5377 8/23/83 ** Bangert v. Hoyt...........82-5597 8/23/83 */**U. S. v. Childress .........82-7378 8/23/83 */** Blair v. Wyeth Laboratories 82-8705 8/23/83 */** Booker v. Clayton.........83-3039 8/23/83 * Hieserman v. Monsanto Co. 83-3092 8/23/83 */** Rogers v. Heckler.........83-7253 8/23/83 * Rowe v. U. S..............82-3141 8/24/83 * U.S. v. Aguilera-Bauta .....82-5827 8/24/83 * United Assoc, of Journeymen v. N. L. R. B............82-7350 * N. L. R. B. v. United Assoc. of Journeymen..........82-7386 8/24/83 * Fancher v. Veterans Admin. 83-3105 8/24/83 * Carnahan v. National Ry. Corp...................83-8099 8/24/83 * Harrell v. Kirbo...........83-8144 8/24/83 * Sanford Const. Co. v. Griffin.................83-8232 8/24/83 * Marrero v. Wainwright ____81-6038 8/25/83 Outrigger v. Wood Masters .. 81-5057 8/26/83 Outrigger v. Miami........81-5220 8/26/83 ** Action Capital Corp. v. Balboa Ins..............82-8437 ** U. S. v. Wolfson ..........82-3096 ** Hudgins v. Wainwright ____82-5379 ** Dade County Dairies v. Southland..............82-5703 *U. S.v. White ............82-5751 Fieldstone Farms v. Amer. Cyanamid..............82-8526 * Smith v. Heckler..........83-3095 Garrett R.R. v. Treadwell ..82-5131 * U. S. v. Andree ...........82-5718 * U. S. v. Gonzalez-Rivera ... 82-5783 ** City Nat’l Bank v. Foxcroft Bldg...................82-5877 Disposition VACATED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED VACATED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED 8/24/83 AFFIRMED 8/26/83 8/29/83 8/29/83 8/29/83 8/29/83 8/29/83 8/29/83 8/30/83 8/30/83 8/30/83 AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED DISMISSED REMANDED AFFIRMED IN PART AFFIRMED IN PART AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED 8/30/83 AFFIRMED Appeal from and Citation (if reported! S.D.Fla. M. D.Fla. N. D.Ala. N.D.Ga. N.D.Fla. N.D.Fla. N.D.Ala. M. D.Fla. S.D.Fla. N. L.R.B. N.L.R.B. M. D.Fla. N. D.Ga. M.D.Ga. S.D.Ga. M.D.Fla. S.D.Fla. S.D.Fla. N.D.Ga. M.D.Fla. S.D.Fla. S.D.Fla. S.D.Fla. M. D.Ga. N. D.Fla. M.D.Fla. S.D.Fla. S.D.Fla. S.D.Fla. * Fed.R.App. P. 34(a); 11th Cir. R. 23. ** Local Rule 25 case.
[579]*579DECISIONS WITHOUT OPINIONS 579 DECISIONS WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINIONS — Continued Docket Title Number */** U. S. v. Piaz-Bustamonte .. .82-5982 */** U. S. v. Escobar...........82-6147 * U. S. v. Curtis ............82-7337 * U. S. v. Chandler..........82-7420 */** U. S. v. Roberson .........82-8764 */** U. S. v. Ingersoll ..........83-3033 *U. S. v. Brake ............83-5081 */** Harrell v. Heckler.........83-7159 */** Wages v. City of Decatur ... 83-8208 */** CIT Corp. v. Powell .......83-8246 * Kelly v. Macon-Bibb Cty. Bd. Educ...................83-8283 * U. S. v. Provost...........82-5334 * Russell v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.................. Fieldcrest Mills v. N. L. R. B.............. * Lindsey v. Graddick ...... Bolling v. Mark.......... ** Scott v. Donovan......... * Tollett v. Photo Promotion Assoc................. Date of Decision 8/30/83 8/30/83 8/30/83 8/30/83 8/30/83 8/30/83 8/30/83 8/30/83 8/30/83 8/30/83 8/30/83 8/31/83 Disposition AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED REVERSED AFFIRMED 82-7313 8/31/83 REVERSED 82-7335 82-7417 82-8525 82-8426 8/31/83 8/31/83 8/31/83 9/ 2/83 DISMISSED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED AFFIRMED 83-8063 9/ 2/83 AFFIRMED Appeal from and Citation (if reported) S.D.Fla. S.D.Fla. S.D.Ala. N.D.Ala. N.D.Ga. M.D.Fla. S.D.Fla. M. D.Ala. N. D.Ga. S.D.Ga. M.D.Ga. M. D.Fla. N. D.Ala. N.L.R.B. N.D.Ala. M. D.Ga. N. D.Ga. N.D.Ga. * Fed.R.App. P. 34(a); 11th Cir. R. 23. ** Local Rule 25 case.
[580]*580580 715 FEDERAL REPORTER, 2d SERIES UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Eleventh Circuit DENIALS OF REHEARING EN BANC (Rule 35 Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure; Local Fifth Circuit Rule 26) Group 1 — Denials where no member of the panel nor Judge in regular active service on the Court requested that the Court be polled on rehearing en banc. Group 2 — Denials after a poll requested by a member of the panel or a Circuit Judge in regular active service. Group 3 — Denials on the Court’s own motion after a poll requested by a member of the panel or a Circuit Judge in regular active service. Docket Date of Title Number Denial GROUP 1 Hamm v. Members of Bd. of Regents of State of Fla.........................82-5319 9/ 1/83 Hyatt Hotels Corp. v. N. L. R. B.........82-8146 8/25/83 Morgado v. Birmingham-Jefferson County Civil Defense Corps..................81-7282 8/25/83 Naviera Neptuno, S. A. v. All Intern. Freight Forwarders, Inc...............82-5876 9/ 1/83 U. S. v. Kattan-Kassin .................81-5474 8/24/83 9/ 1/83 Citation of Panel Decision M. D.Fla., 708 F.2d 647 N. L.R.B., 709 F.2d 715 N.D.Ala., 706 F.2d 1184 S.D.Fla., 709 F.2d 663 S.D.Fla., 708 F.2d 732 S.D.Fla., 715 F.2d 498 U. S. v. McMahon 82-5397