United Transportation Union, B & O System--c & T, Petitioner, v. Interstate Commerce Commission and the United States Ofamerica, Respondents, 951 F.2d 1324 (D.C. Cir. 1991)Annotate this Case
Before HARRY T. EDWARDS, SILBERMAN and STEPHEN F. WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Upon consideration of the motion to dismiss, the opposition thereto and the reply, it is
ORDERED that the motion be granted. The December 3, 1990 order of the Interstate Commerce Commission is nonfinal. The order imposes no obligation, denies no right, and fixes no legal relationship, nor does it dispose of all issues as to all parties. See Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. NRC, 680 F.2d 810, 815 (D.C. Cir. 1982). Review at this time might disrupt the administrative process, see Papago Tribal Utility Authority v. FERC, 628 F.2d 235, 239 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1061 (1980), and engage the court in inappropriate piecemeal review. See WMATA v. Director, Office of Workers' Comp. Programs, 824 F.2d 94, 95 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (per curiam). Moreover, failure to review at this time will not result in irreparable injury to petitioner, with no practical means of procuring effective relief at the close of the administrative proceeding. See Papago Tribal Authority, 628 F.2d at 240.
The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after disposition of any timely petition for rehearing. See D.C. Cir. Rule 15.