[24 FSM R. 382]

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2018-021

Hearing: December 6, 2023
Decided: January 25, 2024

APPEARANCES:

For the Plaintiff:         Vincent Kallop, Esq.
                                  Micronesian Legal Services Corporation
                                  P.O. Box 129
                                 Kolonia, Pohnpei FM 96941

For the Defendant:       Debrah Ann Mori Retuyan, Esq.
                                 P.O. Box 1450
                                Kolonia, Pohnpei FM 96941

HEADNOTES

Administrative Law – Exhaustion of Remedies

Exhaustion of remedies is the doctrine that, if an administrative remedy is provided by statute, a claimant must first seek relief from the administrative body before judicial relief is available. The doctrine's purpose is to maintain comity between the courts and administrative agencies and to ensure that the courts will not be burdened by cases in which judicial relief is unnecessary. Ching v. College of Micronesia, 24 FSM R. 382, 385 (Pon. 2024).

Administrative Law – Exhaustion of Remedies

Exhaustion of remedies means that one must follow whatever procedures are in place to seek reconsideration of an agency's allegedly erroneous decision (within the agency itself) or to seek reversal of the decision at the administrative level before bringing the dispute to the judiciary's attention. Once those procedures have been completed, however, the plaintiff is entitled to judicial review, under the appropriate standard, when there is a non-frivolous dispute. Ching v. College of Micronesia, 24 FSM R. 382, 385 (Pon. 2024).

Administrative Law – Exhaustion of Remedies

When a complaint has been filed and it appears that the plaintiff may not have exhausted his administrative remedies, the court may, in its discretion, stay the matter to allow the plaintiff to first pursue his administrative remedies and if he remains aggrieved, the court can then lift the stay and allow the litigation to proceed. Ching v. College of Micronesia, 24 FSM R. 382, 385 (Pon. 2024).

Administrative Law – Exhaustion of Remedies; Administrative Law – Judicial Review

As a corollary to the exhaustion of remedies doctrine, the courts have created the doctrine of primary jurisdiction. This doctrine should not be confused with the exhaustion-of-remedies doctrine, but the goals of both are the same. Primary jurisdiction is a common law doctrine, wholly court-made, that is designed to guide a court in determining whether and when it should refrain from, or postpone, exercising its own jurisdiction so that an agency may first answer some question presented. Ching v. College of Micronesia, 24 FSM R. 382, 385 (Pon. 2024).

Administrative Law – Judicial Review

Agencies and courts often have concurrent jurisdiction. Under the primary jurisdiction doctrine, courts may remand matters to administrative bodies that are familiar with the regulated activity at issue. Courts apply this doctrine in the hope that by remanding matters to an administrative body, the administrative determination will obviate the need for further court action or will make more possible a more informed and precise determination by the court. Ching v. College of Micronesia, 24 FSM R. 382, 386 (Pon. 2024).

Administrative Law – Exhaustion of Remedies

All College of Micronesia disputes must be brought before the administrative body, as a court of first instance, before the court will hear it. Under the primary jurisdiction doctrine, that agency's administrative processes must ordinarily be completed before the court will entertain either a petition for review or an independent common law complaint. Ching v. College of Micronesia, 24 FSM R. 382, 386 (Pon. 2024).

Administrative Law – Exhaustion of Remedies; Administrative Law – Judicial Review

The court will stay further action in a College of Micronesia contract renewal dispute until the plaintiff's administrative remedies are exhausted and will remand certain issues to be first determined by that administrative agency. Ching v. College of Micronesia, 24 FSM R. 382, 386 (Pon. 2024).

COURT'S OPINION

BEAULEEN CARL-WORSWICK, Associate Justice:

On December 6, 2023, this court held a scheduling conference in this matter, Judge Carl-Worswick presiding. Plaintiff was represented by attorney Vincent Kallop. Defendant was represented by Attorney Debrah Ann Mori Retuyan.¹ At this hearing, the court raised the preliminary matter of whether the administrative remedies had been exhausted. They have not. Pursuant to FSM Civil Rule 12(h)(3), "Whenever it appears by suggestion of the parties or otherwise that the court lacks jurisdiction of the subject matter, the court shall dismiss the action." Alternatively, the court may stay and remand the action for administrative proceedings.

EXHAUSTION OF REMEDIES

The exhaustion of remedies is "[t]he doctrine that, if an administrative remedy is provided by statute, a claimant must seek relief first from the administrative body before judicial relief is available. The doctrine's purpose is to maintain comity between the courts and administrative agencies and to ensure that the courts will not be burdened by cases in which judicial relief is unnecessary." Ramirez v. College of Micronesia, 20 FSM R. 254, 261 (Pon. 2015). Generally stated, the "[e]xhaustion of remedies means that one must follow whatever procedures are in place to seek reconsideration of an agency's allegedly erroneous decision (within the agency itself) or to seek reversal of the decision at the administrative level , . . before bringing the dispute to the attention of the judiciary." Asumen Venture, Inc. v. Board of Trustees, 12 FSM R. 84, 89 (Pon. 2003). Once those procedures have been completed, however, the plaintiff is entitled to judicial review, under the appropriate standard, when there is a "non-frivolous dispute." Maradol v. Department of Foreign Affairs, 13 FSM R. 51, 54-55 (Pon. 2004). "[W]hen a complaint has been filed and it appears that the plaintiff may not have exhausted his administrative remedies, the court may, in its discretion, stay the matter to allow the plaintiff to first pursue his administrative remedies and if he remains aggrieved, the court can then lift the stay and allow the litigation to proceed." Aunu v. Chuuk, 18 FSM R. 48, 50 (Chk. 2011).

As a corollary to the exhaustion of remedies doctrine, the courts have created the doctrine of primary jurisdiction. This doctrine should not be confused with the exhaustion of remedies, "but the goals of the two are the same." Ramirez, 20 FSM R. at 261. Primary jurisdiction "is a doctrine of common law, wholly court-made, that is designed to guide a court in determining whether and when it should refrain from or postpone the exercise of its own jurisdiction so that an agency may first answer some question presented." Id. "The doctrine of primary jurisdiction arose in recognition of the need for an orderly coordination between the functions of court and agency in securing the objectives of their often overlapping competency." Id. "Agencies and courts often have concurrent jurisdiction." Id. Under the doctrine of primary jurisdiction "courts may remand matters to administrative bodies that are familiar with the regulated activity at issue. Courts apply the doctrine of primary jurisdiction in the hope that by remanding matters to an administrative body, the administrative determination will obviate the need for further court action or will make more possible a more informed and precise determination by the court." Ruben v. FSM, 15 FSM R. 508, 518 (Pon. 2008). In Ramirez, the court held that "all COM disputes must be brought before the administrative body, as a court of first instance, before it will be heard by this court. Furthermore, under the primary jurisdiction doctrine, the administrative processes created by that agency must ordinarily be completed before this court will entertain either a petition for review or an independent common law complaint." Id. at 264.

ACCORDINGLY, the Court STAYS further action in this matter pending the exhaustion of administrative remedies. The Court requires that the parties complete the hearing on the exhaustion of administrative remedies within 90 days from the date that this Order is entered by the clerk's office. At the completion of the administrative hearing, the parties shall file a report on the status of the administrative hearing. In the event the plaintiff wishes to appeal the final decision of the administrative agency for a judicial review, the parties shall stipulate to the complete record of the administrative proceedings and file it with the court.

FURTHER, the Court hereby REMANDS three issues to be determined by the administrative agency: 1) whether the plaintiff was terminated for cause or whether his contract was not renewed; 2) what process was due to plaintiff by regulation or policy;² and 3) what is the injury in dollar amount, if any, for a violation of those regulations and policies.³ Following the administrative proceedings, this court has jurisdiction to review those decisions by appeal, if necessary.⁴

Footnotes:

¹ Following the hearing, on December 12, 2023, Defendant filed a Request for Clarification of Order Denying Summary Judgment.

² Specifically, which regulation and/or policy from the Employee Handbook is applicable to a termination. Alternatively, which regulation or policy, if any, applies to a non-renewal of a contract.

³ If there was a violation, was the injury adequately remedied by the College?

⁴ In the Request for Clarification, defendant asked if it were necessary to allow plaintiff to challenge the termination or non-renewal clause itself. It is not necessary at the administrative hearing. If this becomes an issue, the Court will address it upon appeal