BHP PETROLEUM SOUTH
PACIFIC, INC., Petitioner,
v.
AMERICAN SAMOA GOVERNMENT,
OFFICE OF PROCUREMENT, a duly organized agency of the
Governor of
____________________________________
MOBIL OIL AUSTRALIA,
LTD., Intervenor/Real Party in Interest.
High Court of
Appellate Division
[1]
Under A.S.C.A. § 4.1041(b) a stay of an administrative decision may be issued
on appropriate terms without an evidentiary hearing.
[2]
Under A.S.C.A. § 43.1303(a)(1) a preliminary injunction may be issued only
after a hearing in which sufficient grounds for the issuance of such injunction
has been established by a preponderance of the evidence.
[3]
A quasi-judicial proceeding where a panel appointed by the governor reviews the
decision of an administrative agency is governed by criteria of fair play under
the Administrative Procedures Act, A.S.C.A. § 4.1044, and is not governed by
the standards of law, procedural rules, and evidentiary rules reserved for
appellate review of judicial decisions.
Before:
KRUSE Chief Justice, RICHMOND Associate Justice, WARD*
Acting Associate Justice, TUAOLO Associate Judge, and SAGAPOLUTELE Associate
Judge.
Counsel:
For Appellant, Brian M.
For
Appellee
For
Intervenor/Real Party in Interest Mobil Oil Australia, Inc.,
ORDER
DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Intervenor/Real
Party In Interest Mobil Oil Australia, Ltd. (“Mobil”) moves for reconsideration
of the court’s Order Staying Contract Implementation and Judicial Proceedings
issued on
Mobil’s
position, which is supported by appellees American Samoa Government Office of
Procurement (“ASGOP”) and
[1-2] This Court issued a
stay, not a preliminary injunction. A
preliminary injunction may be issued only after “there has been a hearing in
which sufficient grounds for the issuance of a preliminary injunction has been
established by a preponderance of the evidence.” A.S.C.A. § 43.1303(a)(1). A stay of an administrative decision, on the
other hand, may be issued by the court “on appropriate terms.” A.S.C.A. § 4.1041(b). An evidentiary hearing for such a stay is not
mandated by statute nor is it contemplated in the applicable court rules. See A.C.R. 18.
We
issued a stay only after considering the effects of preserving the status quo
upon the parties and the public at large.
We also considered the likelihood of petitioner’s success upon judicial
review and the apparent impracticality of appellant BHP applying for a stay
from ASGOP. Although not articulated in
our order, we determined that no change in the tank farm operator status should
be allowed until further order of the court only after carefully weighing these
factors and finding cause to issue the stay.
[3] The instant case
involves a contested case, a quasi-judicial proceeding where a panel appointed
by the governor reviews the decision of an administrative agency. Judicial review of these administrative
proceedings is not governed by the standards of law, procedural rules, and
evidentiary rules reserved for appellate review of judicial decisions. It is governed instead by the statutorily
established criteria of fair play set forth under the Administrative Procedures
Act, A.S.C.A. § 4.1044.
We
are presented with no compelling arguments to dissolve the stay or to hold any
further hearings upon cause for its issuance.
The stay stays. The motion for
reconsideration is denied. [2ASR3d3]
The
parties have expressed concern with the pending administrative appeals process
and its attendant delays. Our decision
today does not foreclose any future reconsideration of our stay of judicial
proceedings. Should any party believe
that any issue joined in this matter is ripe for judicial review, it may file
the appropriate motion.
It
is so Ordered.
**********
* Honorable