Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Hyatt v. Office of Management and Budget

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

November 15, 2018

Gilbert P. Hyatt; American Association for Equitable Treatment, Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
Office of Management and Budget; Shaun Donovan, Defendants-Appellees.

          Argued and Submitted October 12, 2018 Seattle, Washington

          Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada D.C. No. 2:16-cv-01944-JAD-GWF Jennifer A. Dorsey, District Judge, Presiding

          Andrew M. Grossman (argued) and Mark W. DeLaquil, BakerHostetler LLP, Washington, D.C., for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

          Jennifer L. Utrecht (argued) and Mark R. Freeman, Appellate Staff; Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant Attorney General; Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.; Mark R. Paoletta, General Counsel, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, D.C.; for Defendants-Appellees.

          Before: N. Randy Smith and Morgan Christen, Circuit Judges, and Robert E. Payne, [*] District Judge.

         SUMMARY[**]

         Paperwork Reduction Act / Administrative Procedure Act

         The panel reversed the district court's dismissal of a petition seeking review of the Office of Management and Budget's ("OMB") decision to deny Gilbert Hyatt's Paperwork Reduction Act ("PRA") petition.

         The PRA authorizes individuals to petition the OMB for a determination of whether they must provide information requested by or for a government agency. In January 2013, the Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO") submitted a number of collections of information to the OMB, as required by the PRA. The submission included purported collections of information, contained in PTO Rules 111, 115, and 116, that had not previously been approved or assigned an OMB control number. In a July 2013 Determination, the OMB declared that these purported collections were not subject to the PRA.

         Hyatt filed a complaint in the district court challenging the OMB's July 2013 Determination, and the OMB's denial of his petition based on the July 2013 Determination. The district court determined that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear Hyatt's asserted Administrative Procedure Act claims.

         The panel held that judicial review of the denial of Hyatt's petition was not barred in this case because it did not implicate a review of a decision by the OMB to approve or not act upon a collection of information contained in an agency rule. The panel concluded that the denial of Hyatt's petition was outside the narrow scope of the PRA's judicial review bar, and his Administrative Procedure Act claim challenging the denial of the petition was not statutorily precluded.

         The panel held that the district court erred in determining that the OMB's denial of Hyatt's petition was not a final agency action. The panel held that in denying Hyatt's petition, the OMB made a determination of his rights and obligation to provide information to the PTO, and it did so in an action that consummated the OMB's decisionmaking process. The panel further held that Hyatt did not have another adequate remedy in a court.

         Finally, the panel considered whether the OMB's decision not to provide any remedial action in response to Hyatt's petition was discretionary. First, the panel held that the OMB's initial determination - whether, under the PRA, the petitioner must provide or disclose information to a government agency - was not discretionary; and thus the OMB's decision to deny Hyatt's petition was judicially reviewable under the Administrative Procedure Act. Second, the panel held that the OMB's second determination - of what appropriate remedial action should be taken, if any - was committed to the agency's discretion; and was beyond judicial review. The panel further held that if the first determination is reversed after judicial review, the OMB should revisit its second determination in light of that reversal.

         OPINION

          N.R. SMITH, CIRCUIT JUDGE.

         The Paperwork Reduction Act ("PRA") authorizes individuals to petition the Office of Management and Budget ("OMB") for a determination of whether they must provide information requested by or for a government agency. 44 U.S.C. § 3517(b). Where such a petition does not challenge an OMB decision "to approve or not act upon a collection of information contained in an agency rule," see 44 U.S.C. § 3507(d)(6), [1] the subsequent determination is subject to judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"). See 5 U.S.C. § 704. Thus, the district court has jurisdiction to review the OMB's decision to deny Gilbert Hyatt's PRA petition ("Petition"). We reverse and remand.

         I. BACKGROUND

         In January 2013, the Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO") submitted a number of collections of information to the OMB, as required by the PRA. See 44 U.S.C. § 3507. The PTO's submission included several previously approved collections of information, which had already been issued an OMB control number pursuant to § 3507(d).[2] The OMB renewed these collections and their corresponding OMB control number (0651-0031).

         The submission also included purported collections of information, contained in PTO rules 111, 115, and 116 ("PTO Rules"), that had not previously been approved or assigned an OMB control number.[3] The OMB did not approve or disapprove these purported collections of information. Instead, on July 31, 2013, the OMB affirmatively declared that these purported collections were "not subject to the [PRA]" ("July 2013 Determination"). As a result, the OMB did not issue a control number for the purported collections.

         On August 1, 2013, Hyatt filed his Petition, pursuant to 44 U.S.C. § 3517(b), asking the OMB to determine that he did not need to disclose the information sought by the PTO Rules, because the PTO had not obtained an OMB control number, as required by 44 U.S.C. § 3507(a)(3). The OMB denied the Petition on September 13, 2013. The agency referenced its July 2013 Determination, explaining that the PTO Rules did not contain any collections of information, because three regulatory exceptions to the definition of ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.