Silviera-Francisco v. Elizabeth Bd. of Educ., 224 N.J. 126 (2016). “Whether a trial court order is final or interlocutory has bedeviled courts and attorneys for decades.” So said Judge Cuff in her opinion for the Court today in this matter, a 6-0 ruling. The issue here, though, was whether a decision of an administrative agency was final, so that the failure of a party to appeal that decision immediately foreclosed it from appealing later in the case.
Plaintiff, a vice-principal in the Elizabeth school system, filed a petition with the Commissioner of Education that sought to declare plaintiff’s tenure and seniority rights as a principal. Plaintiff had been reassigned to a classroom due to a reduction in force.
Opposing plaintiff’s petition, the Elizabeth Board of Education challenged the Department of Education’s certification of plaintiff as a principal. The matter went to the Office of Administrative Law (“OAL”) as a contested case.
An Administrative Law Judge agreed with the Board and recommended dismissal of the petition. Plaintiff appealed to the Commissioner, who rejected the ALJ’s decision in September 2012. The Commissioner stated that the case was about whether plaintiff had tenure/seniority rights, not whether her certification as a principal was valid. The Commissioner sent the matter back for a determination about plaintiff’s tenure and seniority.
On remand, the ALJ determined that plaintiff had acquired tenure. The Commissioner affirmed that ruling in April 2013.
The Board then appealed to the Appellate Division. The Board’s appeal, however, was premised solely on the Commissioner’s allegedly erroneous September 2012 decision, not the April 2013 ruling. The Appellate Division declined to address the issue, holding that the Board had lost its right to appellate review of the September 2012 decision by failing to appeal it then since, according to the Appellate Division, the September 2012 ruling was a final decision. That lack of jurisdiction issue was raised by the court on its own motion.
The Supreme Court granted certification and reversed, though ruling that because jurisdictional issues can be raised by a court at any time, the Appellate Division had the power and the duty to raise it here. Judge Cuff cautioned, however, that a court that raises a question about its jurisdiction should notify the parties of the issue and allow them to be heard, rather than simply dismissing for lack of jurisdiction.
Article VI, section 5, paragraph 4 of the New jersey Constitution authorizes judicial review of administrative agency actions. Rule 2:2-3 authorizes appeals as of right from final agency decisions. A different part of that same rule, however, allows appeals from interlocutory decisions of administrative agencies only with leave of the Appellate Division. If leave to appeal is not sought, a party may obtain review of that ruling as of right once a final decision in the case has been issued. Thus, the issue here was whether the September 2012 decision was interlocutory or final.
Judge Cuff cited the familiar rule that “[g]enerally, an order is considered final if it disposes of all issues as to all parties.” That principle, she said, also applies to appeals of administrative agency actions. Judge Cuff then offered indicia as to whether an administrative action is interlocutory or final.
One “feature of a final agency decision is the absence of or exhaustion of all avenues of internal administrative review.” Another is a decision that conveys its finality “with unmistakable written notice.” Finally, a final decision contains “findings of fact, conclusions of law, a definitive ruling, and a clear statement that the interested party may seek review of the decision and the manner in which that may be accomplished,” while “a remand order from an agency to the OAL for further consideration is by its very nature interlocutory.”
Here, because the September 2012 decision “failed to resolve any issue presented in [plaintiff’s] petition,” but instead remanded to the OAL, that ruling was interlocutory and could not have been immediately appealed as of right. That decision did contain language that a party who disagreed with it could appeal. But Judge Cuff refused to allow the agency “to confer jurisdiction on the Appellate Division when the substance of the decision plainly and unequivocally provides that a final decision on the petition has not been entered.”
Judge Cuff also rejected a procedural argument made by plaintiff, who contended that the Board had waived its right to appeal by failing to identify the September 2012 decision by date in its notice of appeal. It would have been “better practice” to do that, but since the Board’s Case Information Statement left no doubt that the September 2012 ruling was being appealed, plaintiff and the Appellate Division had adequate notice that that issue was in the case. The matter was therefore remanded for consideration of the Board’s appeal.
Uncertainty about final versus interlocutory decisions likely will continue to “recur[ ] with some regularity,” as Judge Cuff noted had been the case before today. The Court’s decision today, however, clearly and correctly recapped the key principles surrounding this issue, and should make it easier for courts to make proper decisions going forward.