Wynnewood Ref. Co. v. Occupational Safety & Health Review Comm'n

933 F.3d 499
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedAugust 8, 2019
Docket19-60357
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 933 F.3d 499 (Wynnewood Ref. Co. v. Occupational Safety & Health Review Comm'n) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Wynnewood Ref. Co. v. Occupational Safety & Health Review Comm'n, 933 F.3d 499 (5th Cir. 2019).

Opinion

GREGG COSTA, Circuit Judge:

Appeals of some agency rulings must be filed in only one court of appeals, often the D.C. Circuit. See, e.g. , 47 U.S.C. § 402 (b) (restricting venue for appeals from certain FCC decisions to the D.C. Circuit). But sometimes a party appealing an agency ruling has multiple circuits to choose from. That is the case for decisions of the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission, which may be challenged in the circuit where the alleged safety violations occurred, where the employer has its principal *500 office, or in the D.C. Circuit. 29 U.S.C. § 660 (a) ; see also 29 U.S.C. § 160 (f) (providing similar venue options for appeals of National Labor Relations Board decisions). What happens when different parties appeal the same Commission ruling in different circuits? Because the employer filed this appeal in the Fifth Circuit while the Secretary of Labor appealed the same agency ruling in the Tenth Circuit, we must answer that question.

The Secretary of Labor issued Wynnewood Refining multiple citations alleging safety violations at its Oklahoma refinery. Wynnewood contested the citations. It achieved partial success before the agency. The Commission modified five violations by recharacterizing them as less severe than the Secretary alleged.

This mixed result prompted both the Secretary and Wynnewood to seek judicial review. The Secretary appealed to the Tenth Circuit, where venue is proper because the alleged violations occurred in Oklahoma. 29 U.S.C. § 660 (a) ; see also id. § 660(b) (allowing the Secretary of Labor to petition for review of Commission decisions). Wynnewood appealed to the Fifth Circuit, where venue is also proper because the company's headquarters are in Texas. Id . § 660(a).

Congress set rules for resolving this problem of multiple appeals in multiple circuits. 28 U.S.C. § 2112 (a)(1) ; see generally 16 CHARLES ALAN WRIGHT ET AL., FED. PRAC. & PROC. § 3944 (3d ed.) (chronicling the history of this statute). When, as in this case, none of those petitions is filed within ten days of the challenged agency decision, the Commission "shall file the record in the court in which proceedings with respect to the order were first instituted." 1 28 U.S.C. § 2112 (a)(1). Once the agency properly files the record where a petition for review was first filed, "[a]ll courts ..., other than the court in which the record is filed pursuant to [ section 2112 ], shall transfer those proceedings to the court in which the record is so filed." Id. § 2112(a)(5).

The Secretary's Tenth Circuit appeal was filed first. It was filed at 12:33 p.m. on May 24th. Wynnewood filed its appeal in this court the same day, but not until 3:09 p.m. according to a Clerk's Office receipt. "When one party succeeds in obtaining an earlier time stamp from the Clerk of one court the agency under review must file [the administrative record] there." Southland Mower Co. v. U.S. Consumer Prod. Safety Comm'n , 600 F.2d 12 , 14 (5th Cir. 1979) (quotation omitted). The first-to-file rule governs even for petitions filed on the same day; indeed, we have applied it even when petitions were filed within a minute of each other. Id. (applying first-to-file rule when one petition "was time stamped one minute before" the other); Formaldehyde Inst., Inc. v. U.S. Consumer Prod. Safety Comm'n , 681 F.2d 255 , 261-62 (5th Cir. 1982) (awarding venue to the petition filed ten seconds earlier). So under the first-to-file rule, the Commission should have filed the record in the Tenth Circuit.

The wrinkle is that the Commission filed the record in both circuits and filed it first in the Fifth Circuit. Wynnewood argues this means we should hear the appeal because "[t]he duty of determining who *501 was first to file falls, under the express provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 2112 (a), upon the agency whose proceedings are under review." United Steelworkers of Am., AFL-CIO CLC v. Marshall , 592 F.2d 693 , 696 (3d Cir. 1979). But letting the agency decide the forum would be at odds with the statute's text, which states that the Commission " shall file the record in the court in which proceedings ... were first instituted." 28 U.S.C. § 2112 (a)(1) (emphasis added); see also Southland Mower , 600 F.2d at 14 (holding that the agency "must file" the record where an appeal was first filed).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
933 F.3d 499, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wynnewood-ref-co-v-occupational-safety-health-review-commn-ca5-2019.