Tuscaloosa Resources, Inc. v. Alabama Department of Environmental Management et al.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 10/04/2013 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , A l a b a m a A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS SPECIAL TERM, 2013 2120482 Tuscaloosa Resources, Inc. v. Alabama Department o f Environmental Management e t a l . Appeal from Tuscaloosa C i r c u i t Court (CV-10-900300) THOMPSON, P r e s i d i n g Tuscaloosa Judge. Resources, I n c . ("TRI"), judgment o f t h e T u s c a l o o s a C i r c u i t C o u r t dismissing TRI's a p p e a l of a decision appeals ("the t r i a l from a court") of t h e Environmental 2120482 Management Commission ("the C o m m i s s i o n " ) Department o f E n v i r o n m e n t a l The procedural follows. Alabama Management history relevant of Alliance and Alabama ("ADEM"). to this TRI s o u g h t a w a t e r - p o l l u t i o n p e r m i t Rivers the Friends of appeal i s as f r o m ADEM. The Hurricane Creek ( h e r e i n a f t e r r e f e r r e d t o c o l l e c t i v e l y as "ARA") c h a l l e n g e d t h e issuance of the permit process. the through ADEM's a d m i n i s t r a t i v e - a p p e a l s One o f t h e g r o u n d s TRI a s s e r t e d i n i t s d e f e n s e issuance of the permit contest the permit. TRI p r e s e n t e d of was w h e t h e r ARA h a d s t a n d i n g t o At the e v i d e n t i a r y hearing of the matter, evidence regarding the standing issue. After the h e a r i n g , t h e h e a r i n g o f f i c e r s u b m i t t e d h i s recommendations to t h e Commission. adopting I n t u r n , t h e C o m m i s s i o n e n t e r e d an o r d e r the hearing officer's other t h i n g s , concluded the permit, among t h a t ARA d i d have s t a n d i n g t o c o n t e s t and i t u p h e l d TRI a p p e a l e d recommendation, which, the issuance of the permit t o TRI. t h e Commission's order t o t h e t r i a l court. The t r i a l c o u r t n o t e d t h a t , b y s t a t u t e , o n l y a g g r i e v e d p a r t i e s can a p p e a l a d e c i s i o n o f t h e Commission t o t h e c i r c u i t and that found administrative TRI was action" not a "person o f t h e Commission. 2 aggrieved court by the Therefore, the 2120482 trial c o u r t h e l d , i t d i d n o t have s u b j e c t - m a t t e r over the appeal, and i t d i s m i s s e d TRI's TRI h a s now a p p e a l e d t h e t r i a l court. that I t asserts that the t r i a l i t was not aggrieved because, i t says, issue that have as a r e s u l t standing appeal. court's judgment t o t h i s court i n c o r r e c t l y by concluded t h e Commission's decision t h e Commission r u l e d a d v e r s e l y o f ARA's s t a n d i n g to contest case, t o TRI on t h e the permit. o f t h e Commission's i n this jurisdiction decision i t " i s now TRI a r g u e s that faced ARA d i d with the a d d i t i o n a l t i m e , e x p e n s e a n d r i s k s i n v o l v e d i n d e f e n d i n g ARA's pending appeal of the part u p h o l d i n g ADEM's i s s u a n c e C i r c u i t Court. the Commission's "injurious litigation. o f t h e Commission's of the permit" i n t h e Montgomery TRI a l s o a s s e r t s t h a t , among o t h e r determination precedent" leading that decision things, ARA h a d s t a n d i n g to the threat of sets increased TRI s a y s t h a t , b e c a u s e i t r e c e i v e d l e s s t h a n a l l of t h e r e l i e f i t sought from t h e Commission, i t i s e n t i t l e d t o appeal from t h e d e c i s i o n . This case does not involve C o m m i s s i o n ' s p r o c e d u r e s when h e a r i n g issues related to the t h e a p p e a l o f an a c t i o n t a k e n b y ADEM, s e e § 22-22A-7, A l a . Code 1975; t h e r e f o r e , o u r 3 2120482 review o f t h i s case i s governed by t h e Alabama A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Procedure Alabama A c t ("AAPA"), Dep't Found., I n c . , of Envtl. § 41-22-20, Mgmt. A l a . Code v. L e g a l 1975. Envtl. See Assistance 973 So. 2d 369, 375 n. 3 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2007) ( q u o t i n g P l u m b e r s & S t e a m f i t t e r s , L o c a l 52 v. A l a b a m a Dep't o f Envtl. Mgmt., 647 So. 2d 793, 794-95 ("'because [the case] concerns p e r f e c t i n g o f an a p p e a l , (Ala. Civ. a matter j u d i c i a l review App. 1994) unrelated to the of a decision of the C o m m i s s i o n i s g o v e r n e d b y §§ 41-22-20 a n d - 2 1 ' " ) . Section 41-22-20 p r o v i d e s , i n pertinent part: "(a) A person who has exhausted a l l a d m i n i s t r a t i v e remedies a v a i l a b l e w i t h i n t h e agency, o t h e r t h a n r e h e a r i n g , a n d who i s a g g r i e v e d b y a f i n a l d e c i s i o n i n a c o n t e s t e d case i s e n t i t l e d t o j u d i c i a l review under t h i s c h a p t e r . " (Emphasis added.) Black's "aggrieved Law D i c t i o n a r y 1232 ( 9 t h e d . 2009) defines p a r t y " as " [ a ] p a r t y e n t i t l e d t o a remedy; e s p . , p a r t y whose p e r s o n a l , p e c u n i a r y , or property an a r i g h t s have b e e n a d v e r s e l y a f f e c t e d by another person's a c t i o n s o r by a c o u r t ' s decree o r judgment." I n Alabama Department o f E n v i r o n m e n t a l Management v . F r i e n d s of Hurricane 4 Creek, 114 So. 3d 47, 51 2120482 ( A l a . C i v . App. an "aggrieved" 2012), t h i s c o u r t d i s c u s s e d what c o n s t i t u t e d p e r s o n u n d e r t h e AAPA. "We s t a r t w i t h the p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t , f o r a p e r s o n t o demonstrate s t a n d i n g t o seek r e l i e f i n the c o u r t s o f A l a b a m a , t h a t p e r s o n must show '"(1) an actual concrete and particularized 'injury in fact' 'an invasion of a legally protected interest'; (2) a ' c a u s a l c o n n e c t i o n between the i n j u r y and t h e c o n d u c t c o m p l a i n e d o f ' ; and (3) a l i k e l i h o o d t h a t t h e i n j u r y w i l l be ' r e d r e s s e d by a f a v o r a b l e d e c i s i o n . ' " ' Ex p a r t e H e a l t h S o u t h Corp., 974 So. 2d 288, 293 ( A l a . 2007) ( q u o t i n g S t i f f v. A l a b a m a A l c o h o l i c B e v e r a g e C o n t r o l Bd., 878 So. 2d 1138, 1141 ( A l a . 2 0 0 3 ) , q u o t i n g i n t u r n L u j a n v. D e f e n d e r s o f W i l d l i f e , 504 U.S. 555, 560-61, 112 S. C t . 2130, 119 L. Ed. 2d 351 ( 1 9 9 2 ) ) . Those e l e m e n t s o f an a c t u a l o r i m m i n e n t i n j u r y , c a u s a t i o n , and r e d r e s s a b i l i t y , w h i c h have t h e i r o r i g i n s i n t h e 'case o r c o n t r o v e r s y ' interpretive jurisprudence p e r t a i n i n g t o A r t i c l e I I I of the U n i t e d States C o n s t i t u t i o n , amount t o c o n s t i t u t i o n a l m i n i m a , a t l e a s t as t o t h e j u d i c i a l b r a n c h . See Hollywood M o b i l e E s t a t e s , L t d . v. S e m i n o l e T r i b e o f F l o r i d a , 641 F.3d 1259, 1265 ( 1 1 t h C i r . 2 0 1 1 ) ; see also P h a r m a c i a C o r p . v. Suggs, 932 So. 2d 95, 97 n. 4 ( A l a . 1999) ( i n d i c a t i n g t h a t S e c t i o n 139 o f t h e A l a b a m a C o n s t i t u t i o n o f 1901 s i m i l a r l y empowers t h i s s t a t e ' s j u d i c i a r y to '"decide d i s c r e t e cases and controversies involving particular parties and specific facts"' r a t h e r than answering a b s t r a c t q u e s t i o n s ) ( q u o t i n g A l a b a m a Power Co. v. C i t i z e n s o f A l a b a m a , 740 So. 2d 371, 381 ( A l a . 1 9 9 9 ) ) ; b u t see C l i m a x Molybdenum Co. v. S e c r e t a r y o f L a b o r , 7 03 F.2d 447, 451 ( 1 0 t h C i r . 1983) (indicating that administrative agencies are not bound by c o n s t i t u t i o n a l 'case o r c o n t r o v e r s y ' r e q u i r e m e n t s ) . " One that i t of was the cases TRI aggrieved cites by the 5 i n support of Commission's i t s argument decision is 2120482 P e r s o n n e l B o a r d o f J e f f e r s o n C o u n t y v. B a i l e y , 475 (Ala. C i v . App. grievance Board") with 1985). the Jefferson complaining transferred him In B a i l e y , that a deputy s h e r i f f County Personnel Sheriff Bailey duty jail from p a t r o l to after reinstating So. 2d at a the hearing on the deputy s h e r i f f merits, to the s e e k i n g a judgment d e c l a r i n g to determined that properly review the by the a Board. that by the Board but 475 to the matters of the s h e r i f f The also circuit held a court, and The had capricious. deputy s h e r i f f a s s e r t e d court's this he did court not and matter that the was deputy s h e r i f f appealed to t h i s S h e r i f f Bailey cross-appealed. prevailed, However, The of court Board's r e i n s t a t e m e n t of the deputy s h e r i f f t o p a t r o l duty a r b i t r a r y and and decision decision d e p u t y s h e r i f f ' s c o m p l a i n t was considered Board "grievable" S h e r i f f B a i l e y appealed the a ("the patrol division. 865. subject filed The entered j o b a s s i g n m e n t were w i t h i n t h e p r e r o g a t i v e not 863 improperly duty. court, circuit 2d Board had f o u n d t h a t t h e d e p u t y s h e r i f f ' s c o m p l a i n t was then, So. have concluded Id. t h a t , because S h e r i f f B a i l e y standing because cross-appeal. the circuit d e c i s i o n " c o u l d have a p r e j u d i c i a l e f f e c t on [Sheriff 6 that, to 2120482 Bailey's] authority to assign and d i s c i p l i n e subordinates h i s d e p a r t m e n t , " he h a d t h e r i g h t t o c r o s s - a p p e a l t h a t t h e c o m p l a i n t was " g r i e v a b l e . " We find the rationale a p p l i c a b l e i n t h i s case. have standing standing, the finding I d . a t 8 66. forth in Bailey to be TRI s o u g h t a r u l i n g t h a t ARA d i d n o t to challenge ADEM h a d i s s u e d . set in the w a t e r - p o l l u t i o n I t argues that, t h e Commission's r u l i n g i n holding subjects permit that that ARA h a d TRI t o a d d i t i o n a l l i t i g a t i o n , t h a t i s , TRI now must t a k e on t h e e x p e n s e a n d r i s k r e q u i r e d t o d e f e n d ARA's a p p e a l o f t h e C o m m i s s i o n ' s i n t h e Montgomery C i r c u i t C o u r t . in the underlying the issue address appeal reverses o f ARA's the merits standing, of F u r t h e r m o r e , we a g r e e w i t h weakens procedural court t h e Commission's r u l i n g issuance TRI t h a t protections p e r m i t s TRI m i g h t r e q u i r e However, i f t h e t r i a l TRI w o u l d the decision n o t be r e q u i r e d of the challenges f o r future operations. ruling t o any Therefore, we c o n c l u d e t h a t TRI h a s d e m o n s t r a t e d t h a t i t was a g g r i e v e d the the C o m m i s s i o n ' s d e c i s i o n t h a t ARA h a d s t a n d i n g permit. 7 to permit. t h e Commission's against on to by challenge 2120482 B e c a u s e TRI was a g g r i e v e d the trial Accordingly, we court erred we r e v e r s e by t h e Commission's in this TRI's t h e judgment o f t h e t r i a l remand t h e c a u s e f o r T R I ' s entering dismissing judgment, decision, appeal. c o u r t , and a p p e a l t o be r e i n s t a t e d . this court expresses no In opinion r e g a r d i n g t h e m e r i t s o f T R I ' s c o n t e n t i o n t h a t ARA d i d n o t have standing to challenge answered, i n t h e f i r s t the permit. That i s a q u e s t i o n i n s t a n c e , by t h e t r i a l REVERSED AND REMANDED. Pittman Moore, a n d Thomas, J J . , c o n c u r . J . , dissents, with Donaldson, J . , recuses writing. himself. 8 court. t o be 2120482 MOORE, J u d g e , d i s s e n t i n g . Tuscaloosa Resources, Inc. ("TRI"), a r g u e s on a p p e a l the d e c i s i o n o f the Environmental Commission") Management Friends of t h e Alabama ("ADEM") of that Hurricane collectively as "ARA") additional litigation Management C o m m i s s i o n ("the Department t h e Alabama Creek had that of Environmental Rivers Alliance (hereinafter standing and referred "subjects to TRI t o ( e . g . , ARA's Montgomery a p p e a l ) , damages T R I ' s p u b l i c image, and weakens p r o c e d u r a l p r o t e c t i o n s a g a i n s t f u t u r e c h a l l e n g e s t o TRI's p e r m i t ( s ) at the operation locations." covered and o p e r a t i o n s , n o t o n l y by t h e Permit, other TRI c o r r e c t l y a s s e r t s t h a t "a c i t i z e n who w i s h e s t o c o n t e s t i s s u a n c e o f an e n v i r o n m e n t a l constitutional standing b u t a t TRI's standing i s dependent, causal connection t o do p e r m i t must e s t a b l i s h so and t h a t i n part, the citizen's on t h e c i t i z e n proving between t h e p e r m i t t e d a c t i v i t i e s a sought t o be c h a l l e n g e d a n d t h e c i t i z e n ' s a l l e g e d i n j u r y . " See L u j a n v . Defenders (1972); of W i l d l i f e , 504 U.S. 5 5 5 , 560-61 A l a b a m a Dep't o f E n v t l . Mgmt. v . F r i e n d s o f H u r r i c a n e 114 So. 3d 47 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 1 2 ) . 9 and Creek, 2120482 I agree w i t h the f o l l o w i n g s t a t e m e n t of law i n the opinion: " S e c t i o n 4 1 - 2 2 - 2 0 [ , A l a . Code 1975,] in pertinent part: provides, " ' ( a ) A p e r s o n who has e x h a u s t e d a l l a d m i n i s t r a t i v e remedies a v a i l a b l e w i t h i n t h e a g e n c y , o t h e r t h a n r e h e a r i n g , and who i s a g g r i e v e d by a f i n a l d e c i s i o n i n a contested case i s e n t i t l e d t o judicial review under t h i s chapter.' " ( E m p h a s i s added.) " B l a c k ' s Law D i c t i o n a r y 1232 ( 9 t h ed. 2009) d e f i n e s an ' a g g r i e v e d p a r t y ' as '[a] p a r t y e n t i t l e d to a remedy; esp., a party whose personal, p e c u n i a r y , o r p r o p e r t y r i g h t s have b e e n a d v e r s e l y a f f e c t e d by a n o t h e r p e r s o n ' s a c t i o n s o r by a c o u r t ' s decree or judgment.' In Alabama Department of Environmental Management v. F r i e n d s o f Hurricane C r e e k , 114 So. 3d 47, 51 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 1 2 ) , t h i s c o u r t d i s c u s s e d what c o n s t i t u t e d an 'aggrieved' p e r s o n u n d e r t h e [Alabama A d m i n i s t r a t i v e P r o c e d u r e Act]. "'We s t a r t w i t h the p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t , for a person to demonstrate standing to seek r e l i e f i n the c o u r t s of Alabama, t h a t p e r s o n must show "'(1) an a c t u a l c o n c r e t e and p a r t i c u l a r i z e d " i n j u r y i n f a c t " " a n i n v a s i o n of a l e g a l l y p r o t e c t e d i n t e r e s t " ; (2) a " c a u s a l c o n n e c t i o n b e t w e e n t h e i n j u r y and t h e c o n d u c t c o m p l a i n e d o f " ; and (3) a likelihood that the injury will be " r e d r e s s e d by a f a v o r a b l e d e c i s i o n . " ' " Ex p a r t e H e a l t h S o u t h C o r p . , 974 : So. 2d 288, 293 ( A l a . 2007) ( q u o t i n g S t i f f v. A l a b a m a A l c o h o l i c B e v e r a g e C o n t r o l Bd., 878 So. 2d 1138, 1141 ( A l a . 2003), q u o t i n g i n t u r n 7\ 1 ^ ^1^. ^ 1 A ^ T) ^^-r ^ . ^ ^ ^ 10 A- ^ 1 T) ^ main 2120482 L u j a n v. D e f e n d e r s o f W i l d l i f e , 504 U.S. 555, 560-61, 112 S. C t . 2130, 119 L. Ed. 2d 351 (1992)). Those e l e m e n t s o f an actual or imminent injury, causation, and r e d r e s s a b i l i t y , w h i c h have t h e i r o r i g i n s i n the "case or controversy" interpretive j u r i s p r u d e n c e p e r t a i n i n g to A r t i c l e I I I of t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s C o n s t i t u t i o n , amount t o c o n s t i t u t i o n a l m i n i m a , a t l e a s t as t o t h e j u d i c i a l branch. See Hollywood Mobile E s t a t e s , L t d . v. S e m i n o l e T r i b e o f F l o r i d a , 641 F.3d 1259, 1265 (11th C i r . 2 0 1 1 ) ; see a l s o P h a r m a c i a C o r p . v. Suggs, 932 So. 2d 95, 97 n.4 ( A l a . 1999) (indicating that S e c t i o n 139 o f t h e A l a b a m a C o n s t i t u t i o n of 1901 similarly empowers this state's j u d i c i a r y to "'decide d i s c r e t e cases and controversies involving particular parties and s p e c i f i c f a c t s ' " r a t h e r t h a n a n s w e r i n g a b s t r a c t q u e s t i o n s ) ( q u o t i n g A l a b a m a Power Co. v. C i t i z e n s o f A l a b a m a , 740 So. 2d 371, 381 ( A l a . 1 9 9 9 ) ) ; b u t see C l i m a x Molybdenum Co. v. S e c r e t a r y o f L a b o r , 703 F.2d 447, 451 (10th Cir. 1983) (indicating that administrative a g e n c i e s a r e n o t b o u n d by constitutional "case or controversy" requirements).'" So. 3d however, stated that at that TRI therein. TRI has c o n c r e t e and of . I is cannot an So. not aggrieved 3d a t shown . that particularized a legally protected agree w i t h it party the within 11 the opinion, law as S p e c i f i c a l l y , I conclude has suffered 'injury in fact' interest.'" main "an 'an actual invasion 2120482 The main opinion, citing Personnel Board of Jefferson C o u n t y v. B a i l e y , 475 So. 2d 863 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 8 5 ) , a d o p t s TRI's a s s e r t i o n s t h a t t h e Commission's r u l i n g s u b j e c t s additional expense litigation and risk because required "TRI now t o defend must ARA's TRI t o take on t h e appeal of the C o m m i s s i o n ' s d e c i s i o n i n t h e Montgomery C i r c u i t C o u r t . " So. 3d a t . The m a i n o p i n i o n the trial court in the f u r t h e r observes that, " i f underlying appeal reverses C o m m i s s i o n ' s r u l i n g on t h e i s s u e o f ARA's s t a n d i n g , n o t be r e q u i r e d t o a d d r e s s t h e m e r i t s permit." So. 3d a t Although the present grievance TRI w o u l d of the issuance of the . t h e main o p i n i o n circumstances the relies on B a i l e y , I f i n d the i n B a i l e y t o be d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e f r o m t h o s e i n case. with In B a i l e y , the Jefferson a deputy County sheriff Personnel filed Board a ("the B o a r d " ) , a s s e r t i n g t h a t t h e s h e r i f f had t r a n s f e r r e d him from patrol duty disciplinary determined to j a i l duty reasons. that the i n the s h e r i f f ' s 475 So. deputy 2d at and 865. sheriff's " g r i e v a b l e , " proceeded t o hear the merits The complaint of the u l t i m a t e l y r u l e d i n the deputy s h e r i f f ' s 12 department f o r favor, Board was complaint, ordering 2120482 that he sheriff a be reinstated declaring p l a c e m e n t , and not patrol was that c i r c u i t court, matters of job Id. The The seeking assignment, of the t o r e v i e w by t h e B o a r d and erroneous. Id. sheriff t h a t the c i r c u i t court and, Board's ultimately a f i n a l judgment r u l i n g t h a t the Board's d e c i s i o n arbitrary and capricious; the deputy a p p e a l e d from t h a t p o r t i o n of the The division. t r a n s f e r are p r e r o g a t i v e s subject decision entered the then f i l e d a c o m p l a i n t i n the judgment thus, to c i r c u i t court had previously sheriff and the c i r c u i t court's entered was Board order. a partial Id. summary j u d g m e n t , f i n d i n g t h a t t h e d e p u t y s h e r i f f ' s c o m p l a i n t had b e e n properly before cross-appealed In the Board f o r i t s c o n s i d e r a t i o n ; from t h a t p o r t i o n of the determining prevailing party that, below, the appeal the c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s this court observed that prejudicial although e f f e c t on sheriff judgment. the had the sheriff right sheriff Id. was to the cross- f i n d i n g on t h e g r i e v a b i l i t y i s s u e , "the court's [the s h e r i f f ' s ] d i s c i p l i n e subordinates the decision could have a u t h o r i t y to assign i n h i s department." I d . a t 866. court considered 2d 184 and This t h e c a s e o f P r i c e v. S o u t h C e n t r a l B e l l , Ala. 144, 313 So. (1975), i n r e a c h i n g 13 a i t s conclusion 294 as 2120482 to that matter below and i n Bailey. the appellee attempted to circumvent its favor before decision the the p r e v a i l i n g Alabama party Supreme Court t h e d e c i s i o n r e a c h e d on t h e m e r i t s i n i n the c i r c u i t unfavorable In P r i c e , 1 on court appeal and by to avoid arguing a potentially that the action s h o u l d have b e e n d i s m i s s e d b e c a u s e t h e a p p e l l a n t h a d f a i l e d t o prosecute the interest. action in the name of the real 294 A l a . a t 150, 313 So. 2d a t 189. party The in Alabama Supreme C o u r t e x p l a i n e d t h a t " [ i ] f an a p p e l l e e w i s h e s t o have r u l i n g s of the t r i a l court adverse t o i t reviewed, must e i t h e r t a k e the or c r o s s - a s s i g n e r r o r s r e c o r d b r o u g h t up by a p p e l l a n t . " This had a cross-appeal present for an on t h e g r i e v a b i l i t y case i m p r o p e r l y independent merely n o t t o i n i t i a t e an i n d e p e n d e n t issue. The m a i n o p i n i o n expands t h a t d e t e r m i n a t i o n appeal upon Id. court determined i n B a i l e y that the s h e r i f f the r i g h t to cross-appeal, appeal an a p p e l l e e for appellants who i n the to allow are the T h i s c o u r t a l s o c i t e d K a t z v. Red Top Sedan S e r v i c e , I n c . , 136 So. 2d 11 ( F l a . D i s t . C t . App. 1962) . I n t h a t c a s e , however, t h e a p p e l l a n t s had been s u c c e s s f u l i n t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t , b u t a s s i g n e d e r r o r s b a s e d on t h e i r a s s e r t i o n t h a t t h e damages a w a r d e d h a d been t o o m i n i m a l . I d . Thus, t h e d e c i s i o n i n t h a t c a s e has no b e a r i n g on t h e c o n s i d e r a t i o n s a t i s s u e i n the present case. 1 14 2120482 prevailing parties i n the circuit court. The reliance on P r i c e by t h i s c o u r t i n B a i l e y s u p p o r t s t h e a s s e r t i o n t h a t t h e s h e r i f f i n B a i l e y , and TRI i n t h e p r e s e n t c a s e , w o u l d n o t have s t a n d i n g t o b r i n g an i n d e p e n d e n t p r e v a i l i n g p a r t y i n the lower In Hollywood Florida, 641 a p p e a l b e c a u s e t h e y were t h e court. Mobile Estates, F.3d 1259, 1265 L t d . v. (11th Seminole C i r . 2011), T r i b e of cited in A l a b a m a D e p a r t m e n t o f E n v i r o n m e n t a l Management v. F r i e n d s o f H u r r i c a n e Creek, and recited supra, which above, the i s q u o t e d by Eleventh Circuit the main o p i n i o n Court of Appeals observed: "'"[W]e should not speculate concerning the e x i s t e n c e o f s t a n d i n g " ' b e c a u s e we '"lack[] the power t o c r e a t e j u r i s d i c t i o n by e m b e l l i s h i n g a deficient allegation of injury."' DiMaio v. D e m o c r a t i c N a t ' l Comm., 520 F.3d 1299, 1301 (11th C i r . 2008) ( q u o t i n g E l e n d v. Basham, 471 F.3d 1199, 1206 ( 1 1 t h C i r . 2 0 0 6 ) ) . " TRI f i l e d t h e p r e s e n t a p p e a l t o t h i s c o u r t on A p r i l 26, ARA filed an appeal of the Commission's Montgomery C i r c u i t C o u r t on May TRI filed decision i t s a p p e a l , no in favor of p u r p o r t e d damage t o TRI TRI 26, a p p e a l by was 2010. ARA pending. decision to Thus, a t t h e of the As a the time Commission's result, as a r e s u l t o f i t s p o t e n t i a l l y 15 2010. any being 2120482 r e q u i r e d t o d e f e n d an a p p e a l by ARA concrete, at the time TRI filed was o n l y s p e c u l a t i v e , not i t s appeal. w i t h the i n s t r u c t i o n of Hollywood Mobile In accordance E s t a t e s , i t would e r r o r t o s p e c u l a t e so as t o b e s t o w TRI w i t h s t a n d i n g t o in this case. With be appeal 2 regard to TRI's argument, and the main opinion's a g r e e m e n t t h e r e w i t h , t h a t , had t h e C o m m i s s i o n d e t e r m i n e d t h a t ARA d i d n o t have s t a n d i n g , TRI w o u l d n o t have b e e n r e q u i r e d t o undergo f u r t h e r l i t i g a t i o n and the m e r i t s of the permit, we of the issuance i n c u r expenses i n note t h a t , under such c i r c u m s t a n c e s , ARA So. addressing 3d a t could appeal C o m m i s s i o n ' s d e c i s i o n t h a t i t d i d n o t have s t a n d i n g , TRI t o undergo f u r t h e r l i t i g a t i o n , i n c l u d i n g c o s t s and T R I ' s argument i s c i r c u l a r ; t o a c c e p t , the causing time. i t s argument as t h e m a i n o p i n i o n has done w o u l d a l l o w any p r e v a i l i n g p a r t y t o c l a i m as damage possibility the of a d d i t i o n a l time and expense in S e e a l s o ACS E n t e r s . , I n c . v. N o r r i s t o w n B o r o u g h Z o n i n g H e a r i n g Bd., 659 A.2d 651, 654 (Pa. Cmwlth. C t . 1995) ("[A] p r e v a i l i n g p a r t y ' s disagreement w i t h the l e g a l r e a s o n i n g or basis f o r a d e c i s i o n does n o t amount t o a cognizable a g g r i e v e m e n t n e c e s s a r y t o e s t a b l i s h s t a n d i n g . ... [T]he mere possibility of future litigation does n o t satisfy the r e q u i r e m e n t t h a t t o be c o n s i d e r e d an a g g r i e v e d p a r t y , t h e party's interest must be immediately affected by a decision."). 2 16 2120482 d e f e n d i n g an a p p e a l a n d / o r f u r t h e r l i t i g a t i o n by t h e party i n any t h a t ARA to take action. d i d not on I n d e e d , had determined TRI m i g h t have b e e n a d d i t i o n a l time the n o t have s t a n d i n g and expense of as w e l l . required defending Accordingly, TRI an does to independently appeal a d e c i s i o n wholly in favor. The main Commission's challenges opinion ruling to that permits So. statement is distinguished above. authority support in however, t h a t i n o r d e r had standing also weakens any operations." ARA Commission have s t a n d i n g , a p p e a l o f t h a t d e c i s i o n by ARA its the opposing agrees "that protections TRI require . grounded of TRI procedural 3d a t TRI with might A g a i n , the in offered that only Bailey, no assertion. I against for future support for which further the I have citation note further, f o r the Commission's d e t e r m i n a t i o n i n the p r e s e n t case t o a f f e c t the i s s u a n c e f u t u r e p e r m i t s by TRI, have t o i n v o k e t h e any doctrine challenger that of to f u t u r e permits would of c o l l a t e r a l estoppel. "In order for the doctrine of collateral estoppel to apply to an issue raised in an a d m i n i s t r a t i v e p r o c e e d i n g , the f o l l o w i n g elements must be p r e s e n t : 17 to 2120482 "'"'(1) t h e r e i s i d e n t i t y of the p a r t i e s or their privies; (2) t h e r e i s i d e n t i t y o f issues; (3) t h e p a r t i e s had an a d e q u a t e o p p o r t u n i t y to l i t i g a t e the i s s u e s i n the a d m i n i s t r a t i v e p r o c e e d i n g ; (4) t h e i s s u e s t o be e s t o p p e d were a c t u a l l y l i t i g a t e d and determined in the administrative p r o c e e d i n g ; and (5) t h e f i n d i n g s on the i s s u e s t o be e s t o p p e d were n e c e s s a r y t o t h e administrative decision.'"'" Wal-Mart S t o r e s , 1999) (quoting Ex 1996) , q u o t i n g So. 2d Co., 63, 941 t h a t ARA 68 parte i n t u r n Ex Smith, parte (Ala. 1990)). So. had I n c . v. S m i t h e r m a n , 743 2d 273, standing 277 See 683 So. So. 2d 442, 2d S h e l b y Med. a l s o Ex (Ala. 2006). 445 431, 433 Ctr., Inc., parte (Ala. Buffalo Because the i n t h e p r e s e n t c a s e was (Ala. allow being ARA standing s o u g h t by TRI. without merit. future impacted is potential any future not n e c e s s a r y t o challenge Thus, t h a t a r g u m e n t by TRI A d d i t i o n a l l y , I n o t e t h a t any potential speculation, in applications similarly as are based TRI's for permits on remaining bring to a act permit is similarly assertion by TRI may conjecture assertions that be and regarding damage. Because I b e l i e v e the main o p i n i o n to pure Rock finding the a d m i n i s t r a t i v e d e c i s i o n , c o l l a t e r a l e s t o p p e l w i l l not to 564 an independent appeal, 18 improperly misconstruing allows TRI Bailey, and 2120482 because have I b e l i e v e T R I , as a p r e v a i l i n g p a r t y b e l o w does standing appeal. to bring this appeal, I would Accordingly, I respectfully dissent. 19 dismiss not TRI's

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.