673 F.2d 82 (5th Cir. 1982), 81-4026, American Trucking Associations, Inc. v. I. C. C.

• Date: 30 March 1982
• Citation: 673 F.2d 82
• Docket Number: 81-4026.
• Parties: AMERICAN TRUCKING ASSOCIATIONS, INC., et al., Petitioners, v. INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION and the United States of America, Respondents.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

Page 82

673 F.2d 82 (5th Cir. 1982)

AMERICAN TRUCKING ASSOCIATIONS, INC., et al., Petitioners,

v.

INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION and the United States of

America, Respondents.

No. 81-4026.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

March 30, 1982

Page 83

Robert J. Grady, Kenneth P. Kolson, Appellate Section, Robert B. Nicholson, Antitrust Div., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., for respondents.

Serby & Mitchell, P. C., Alan E. Serby, Atlanta, Ga., for Brannan, Owen, Refrigerated.

Brooks & Matthews, Hugh T. Matthews, Dallas, Tex., for Steere.

Perry, Crockett, Morrisson & Starling, Donald B. Morrison, Jackson, Miss., for Merchants.

Alan J. Thiemann, Washington, D. C., for American, Red Arrow, Merchants Truck and Steere.

Robinson, Felts, Starnes & Latting, P. C., Phillip Robinson, Austin, Tex., for Central, Great Western, Miller, and Saia.

Phinney, Hallman, Pulley & Coke, Dallas, Tex., for Frozen and Southwestern.

Leroy Hallman, Dallas, Tex., for Steere.

Alan F. Wohlstetter, Stanley I. Goldman, Washington, D. C., for Aero Mayflower, et al.

Thomas E. James, Dallas, Tex., for Rose Truck Line, et al.

James M. Doherty, Austin, Tex., for Moss Trucking Co.

Bruce E. Mitchell, Alan Serby, Atlanta, Ga., for Motor Carrier Lawyers Assoc.

Eugene C. Ewald, Bloomfield Hills, Mich., for Nat. Auto. Transporters.

Dennis Dean Kirk, Washington, D. C., for Specialized Carriers.

Keith G. O'Brien, Edward K. Wheeler, Washington, D. C., for Intern. Broth. of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America.

On Petition to Compel Enforcement of This Court's Mandate.

Before RUBIN, RANDALL and TATE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Carriers and carrier associations aggrieved by the alleged failure of the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) to follow a mandate issued by this court and to apply our interpretation of the Motor Carrier Act of 1980 in a large number of previously pending cases, now finally decided by the ICC, seek to have those proceedings reopened and to have us determine whether the ICC has disregarded or failed properly to apply our mandate. We conclude that there is no statutory basis for such review and that adequate remedy is available to the petitioners-intervenors by following established procedures. Having issued mandamus to compel future adherence to the prior mandate, we refuse to undertake review of past proceedings.

In an opinion ¹ dated February 25, 1982, we clarified our mandate in American Trucking Ass'ns v. ICC, 659 F.2d 452 (5th Cir. 1981). We specifically "reserve(d) judgment on whether the claim made by the household goods intervenors that the ICC has improperly held that they are not proper parties to protest the grant of contract carrier household goods authority is properly before us." American Trucking

Page 84

Ass'ns v. ICC, 669 F.2d 957, 963 (5th Cir. 1982).

Briefly we recount the arguments made by the petitioners and intervenors on this issue in the briefs accompanying the Petition to Compel Enforcement of This Court's Mandate. The American Trucking Associations Group ² requested this court to "vacat(e) all administratively final decisions and actions by the ICC issued since October 1, 1981, which grant or issue certificates or permits in violation of the mandate." The Household Goods Carriers also asked us to "cause the vacation of all certificates and permits issued by the Commission in violation of this court's opinion." They complained that in some instances their applications for intervention in contract carrier applications had been rejected by the ICC because the "protestants have no standing to appear in opposition, thus precluding these carriers from establishing on a public record that the Commission's proposed grants of household goods carrier authorities are unsupported by any evidence of fitness, willingness and ability to perform the specialized household goods service or any need for such service." The ICC responded that we lacked jurisdiction to review and overturn the numerous agency decisions listed by petitioners, unless proper petitions for review had been filed in those cases with this court. The ICC also noted that the carriers to whom such authorities had been issued were entitled to notice, hearing, and the other concomitants of due process before the rights granted them could be divested. The Household Goods Carriers replied that the "Commission has now immunized its actions from challenge by declaring that household goods carriers are not proper parties to protest the grant of contract carriers household goods authority and now considers these cases as 'unopposed.' "

The American Trucking Associations Group then proposed two alternatives for dealing with certificates or permits issued after our October 1 opinion and in apparent violation of it. The ATA suggested that we "authorize the Commission to enter a show cause order" in each such application proceeding. Individual applicants would "be accorded a reasonable opportunity (20 or 30 days) to demonstrate that a part or parts of authority in conflict with (the) court's opinion should have been granted. A reformed certificate or permit would be issued.... Alternatively, the Commission could be directed to reopen proceedings as required by this court's order and stay taking necessary action on the certificate for a reasonable period of time (20 or 30 days)."

To preserve the right to appeal a decision made in an agency proceeding, a person must ordinarily intervene ³ in that proceeding. 28 U.S.C. § 2344 (1976), provides that "(a)ny party aggrieved by the final order may ... file a petition to review the order in the court of appeals wherein venue lies." (Emphasis added.) The word "party" is used in a definitive sense in the statute, and limits the right of appeal to those who actually participated in the agency...