2011-06-14_ENFORCEMENT - M1977300

Home Browse Search

the August 2010 Order. First, if the Board believed a cease - and - desist order should have been issued in response to the alleged statutory violations found by the Board in its August 2010 Order, then the cease - and - desist order should have been part of that order. It was not. See AR:0212:7 -9 (conceding the August 2010 Order was not a cease - and - desist order). Second, once the Board issued the August 2010 Order and Cotter filed its appeal in September 2010, the Board lacked jurisdiction to change, modify or amend the August 2010 Order to add a cease -and- desist order so long as Cotter's appeal from that order is pending. The Colorado Supreme Court "has repeatedly held that an administrative agency is without authority to change, alter or vacate an order while review proceedings are pending in the district court, even as an inferior court is without authority to vacate or modify a judgment after writ of error has issued out of this court directed to such judgment." Colorado Anti - Discrimination Comm 'n v. Continental Air Lines, Inc., 355 P.2d 83, 86 (Colo. 1960). In other words, "[o]nce the action for judicial review [has] been commenced in the district court, the [administrative agency has] no jurisdiction to enter any further orders in [the] case until final disposition of the judicial proceedings and remand of the case to the [administrative agency]." Marr v. Colorado Dep't of Revenue, 598 P.2d 155, 157 (Colo. Ct. App. 1979); see also, O'Bryant v. Public Utilities Comm 'n, 778 P.2d 648, 656 (Colo. 1989) ( "[W]e hold that such attempt by the [administrative agency] to change or modify its prior decision was invalid and beyond its authority" because it occurred "after the commencement of a judicial review proceeding in the district court"). The December 2010 Order does not purport to find any new basis for the cease - and - desist order that did not exist at the time of the August 2010 Order. Because the Board did not include 19