ENFORCE34652 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

.4. The Court Does Not Have Jurisdiction Over This Non-Final .4eencv Action It is a conclusive tenet of Administrative Law chat when a party seeks judicial review of an agency's actions. that party may only seek review of "final agency action." State Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"), § 24-4-106(3), C.R.S. See also State Personnel Board v. District Court, 637 P.2d 333 (Colo. 1981) (absent final agency action, a district court does not have the authority to interfere with administrative agency proceedings); Department of Revenue v. District Court, 172 Colo. 144, 470 P.2d 864 (1970) (until an agency makes a determination, any action of the judiciary is premature). In this case, the Board order presented to the Court by the Plaintiffs is an interim order in the NOV hearing process, entered solely to make a legal determination as to the jurisdiction and authority of the Division under the starute. The order does not constitute the Boazd's final adjudication of the rights of:'t~ -artier. The Plaintiffs azgue that because the Boazd's order is "final," it is a final agency action ripe forjudicial review, That assertion ignores the fact that there aze many instances in adjudicatory proceedings, before administrative agencies and courts alike, when a judge or hearing body enters final orders that pertain to the matter before it that are not themselves subject to appeal or review until the whole proceeding or trial is complete and the court enters judgment as t^ the rights of the parties. In fact, the order in this case ;s, as asserted above, -nerely an interim determination of authority and jurisdiction under the Coal statutes, and therefore is not an order constituting final agency action nor one, therefore, ripe forjudicial review before this Court. The Colorado Supreme Court has addressed this same situation in Colorado Health Facilities Review Council v. District Court, 689 P.2d 617 (Colo. ] 984). ]n Colorado Health