Appellate Law

CA1: First finds an exception to Younger abstention for administrative proceedings involving Esso

By S. COTUS

Esso Standard Oil v. Mujica Cotto,  No. 07-1218 (4/10/08).  The District Court enjoined the Puerto Rico Environmental Quality Board from imposing a fine on the plaintiffs essentially because the administrative proceedings were quite biased and didn?t have enough due process.  The Board says Younger abstention should have applied.  Proceedings have progressed in state and federal courts. 

Essentially, the First says that because Esso has come back to the First with proof of immediate irreparable harm (i.e. the Puerto Rican courts didn?t seem too interested in interlocutory appeals), and a showing of extreme bias, Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), doesn?t require abstention.  The First rejects the arguing that the proceedings must be collaterally attacked in state court because ?There is no requirement, however, that a litigant file a new, independent claim in state court prior to obtaining federal relief.?

Next the First explains how biased the Board is.  Most of this has something to do with how their budget is dependant on fines, how the hearing examiners are on one-year contracts, and how the Senate exerted pressure on the board. 

Finally, the District Court says that the injunction is narrowly tailored and okay.

What gets me about this decision is that it seems to be a remarkable coincidence that the First seems so willing to re-examine the proceedings in an administrative proceeding involving a large company, but almost paralyzed when it comes to intervening in any state proceeding where the person losing their life is poor.  But hey, maybe the First will start intervening in those kangaroo courts the hold in prisons to take prisoners privileges away now. 

Full post as published by Appellate Law and Practice on April 11, 2008 (boomark / email).