Highroller Transp. v. Nev. Transp. Auth.
| Docket Number | 85007-COA |
| Decision Date | 30 November 2023 |
| Parties | HIGHROLLER TRANSPORTATION, LLC, Appellant, v. NEVADA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, Respondent. |
| Court | Nevada Court of Appeals |
Appeal from a district court order granting in part and denying in part a petition for judicial review of an administrative decision by the Nevada Transportation Authority. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Eric Johnson, Judge.
Affirmed.
James S. Kent, Las Vegas, for Appellant.
Aaron D. Ford, Attorney General, and Louis V. Csoka, Deputy Attorney General, Carson City, for Respondent.
BEFORE THE COURT OF APPEALS, GIBBONS, C.J., and BULLA and WESTBROOK JJ.
In this opinion, we consider for the first time the scope and application of the waiver rule to the adjudication of contested cases before the Nevada Transportation Authority (NTA or Authority). We also emphasize the importance of a developed record at the agency level to enable district courts and appellate courts to meaningfully address the arguments raised in petitions for judicial review.
The NTA administers and enforces Nevada's laws governing the transportation of persons and property on Nevada's roadways. See NRS 706.166. The Authority generally conducts its business at public hearings during open meetings of the NTA general session. See NRS 706.1514(2). However, in cases involving the imposition of civil penalties or fines, administrative proceedings may be conducted by a hearing officer designated by the Authority. NRS 706.1514(2); NRS 706.771. At the conclusion of such administrative proceedings, the hearing officer delivers the record of the hearing and a proposed decision to the Authority for its consideration. Nevada Administrative Code (NAC) 706.4015. The Authority then reviews the hearing officer's proposed decision and, at a meeting of the NTA general session, enters a final order affirming, modifying, or setting aside the decision, NAC 706.4017.
In contested cases before the NTA, we conclude that arguments not raised during the administrative proceedings are generally waived and that the NTA need not consider arguments raised for the first time at the general session. Moreover when a party to a contested case before the NTA stipulates to informally dispose of the case and waive the findings of fact and conclusions of law otherwise required by NRS 233B.125, that party is bound by the terms of the stipulation and may not subsequently challenge the legal or factual underpinnings of the NTAs decision on judicial review. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's order granting in part and denying in part the petition for judicial review.
In 2015, Highroller Transportation, LLC, obtained authorization to operate charter buses in Nevada when the NTA granted Highroller a certificate of public convenience and necessity. Under the terms of its certificate, Highroller was prohibited from, “stag[ing] or stand[ing] a vehicle at any location except while currently chartered or awaiting a preexisting charter client." Highroller accepted this restriction as a condition of its right to operate and did not challenge it at any point prior to the instant case.
In December 2020, Highroller received an administrative citation for improperly staging a vehicle at a casino without a charter order in violation of its certificate restriction and NAC 706.360.[1] Three months after receiving this citation, Highroller was issued a second citation, also for improperly staging its vehicles without a charter order. At a subsequent administrative hearing on both citations, Highroller stipulated to the facts underlying each citation and agreed to fines totaling $10,000.[2] The parties then signed written stipulations waiving formal findings of fact and conclusions of law. Under the terms of these stipulations, "[t]he parties ... [agreed] to dispose of the case[s] by stipulation . . . [and waived] the requirement under Nevada Revised Statute ('NRS') 233B.125 that the Authority's final order include findings of fact and conclusions of law." The stipulations further provided that "a final order will issue which includes, generally: (1) The stipulations and admissions of the parties; (2) The [h]earing [officer's recommendations to the Authority . . . [;] and (3) An order from the Authority approving, modifying, or setting aside the [h]earing [officer's recommendations." The hearing officer then submitted a proposed decision for review by the NTA, recommending that the NTA accept the stipulations and enter the fines against Highroller.
In June 2021, at the NTA's general session, the Authority addressed the hearing officer's proposed decision in Highroller's contested cases. The meeting agenda for this general session contained a total of 124 docket items, ranging from applications for driver permits, rate and tariff issues, and dozens of citations. At this meeting, Highroller, for the first time, objected to the NTA's legal authority to enter the violations and argued that the NTA's authority was preempted under federal law. Highroller posited that this argument was jurisdictional in nature and therefore could be raised at any time. The NTA declined to consider Highroller's federal preemption argument, noting that it should have been raised at the administrative hearing before the hearing officer. Thereafter, the NTA issued a final order affirming the hearing officer's proposed decision and formally imposing the $10,000 in fines.
Highroller then petitioned for judicial review in the district court. In its petition, Highroller argued that its certificate restriction, which formed the basis of the violations and fines, was federally preempted by 49 U.S.C. § 14501(a)(1)(C), and, as a result, the NTA did not have jurisdiction to find that Highroller was in violation of the restriction. Highroller specifically claimed that the restriction was preempted because the prohibition against staging was not a valid exercise of the NTA's safety regulatory authority; if the restriction were legitimately related to safety, Highroller argued, it would uniformly apply to all commercial vehicle operators in the state or otherwise be codified as a law or regulation. In its answering brief, the NTA argued that Highroller's certificate restriction was a proper exercise of its authority to regulate safety because the purpose of the certificate's prohibition on staging was to ensure that large charter buses would not contribute to traffic congestion by parking or being left unattended in vehicle loading areas at resort properties. The NTA also referenced several other codified regulations containing prohibitions on similar conduct and argued that Highroller's certificate restriction was safety-related when viewed in the context of these other regulations.[3]
The district court agreed with the NTA's position and determined that the restriction in Highroller's certificate was related to safety and thus not federally preempted. The court denied Highroller's petition as to the federal preemption claim, and this appeal followed.[4]
High-roller does not dispute that its conduct violated the restriction in its certificate; rather, Highroller contends on appeal that the restriction is preempted by federal law and thus cannot form the basis for the violations in the NTA's final order. Similar to the argument presented in its petition for judicial review, Highroller argues that its certificate restriction is not related to safety because the NTA does not impose the restriction on all motor carriers, nor is the restriction codified as a uniformly applicable regulation. The NTA's "assertion" of safety in its answering brief on judicial review, Highroller claims, was insufficient, to "provide any basis" or substantiate that the restriction pertains to safety particularly given that there was no explanation of the restriction in 2015 when it was initially included in Highroller's certificate.
In response, the NTA argues that the restriction is related to safety because it was "designed to ensure public safety at the resort properties, by ensuring that the significantly larger charter buses are not whirling around clogging up porte cocherers next to resort properties, are not being left unattended around resort properties . . ., and not otherwise being used as taxicabs around resort properties." In addition, the NTA reiterates that Highroller's certificate restriction is safety-related when viewed in the context of similar administrative regulations.
The NTA argues in the alternative that Highroller waived its federal preemption argument by failing to raise it at the administrative hearing before the hearing officer and also by stipulating to informally dispose of its contested cases. As a result the NTA contends that the safety purpose of the restriction was not fully briefed or argued at the agency level and, therefore, Highroller improperly argued preemption for the first time in its petition for judicial review.
When reviewing a decision of an administrative agency, this court's role "is identical to that of the district court: to review the evidence presented to the agency in order to determine whether the agency's decision was arbitrary or capricious and was thus an abuse of the agency's discretion." United Exposition Serv. Co. v. State Indus. Ins. Sys., 109 Nev. 421, 423, 851 P.2d 423, 424 (1993). Appellate review of a final agency decision is "confined to the record before the agency." Law Offices of Barry Levinson, P.C. v. Milko, 124 Nev. 355, 362, 184 P.3d 378, 384 (2008). However, we review purely legal questions, including matters of statutory interpretation, de novo. Id. "Whether state law is preempted by a federal statute or regulation...
To continue reading
Request your trial