What effect if DFI does not request assignment of an Administrative Law Judge?
What effect if the Department of Financial Institutions [DFI] does not request the assignment of an Administrative Law Judge [ALJ] via the Office of Administrative Hearings [OAH] after a party has requested the opportunity for a hearing? When DFI issues its Statement of Charges, one is required to notify the Department in writing within twenty (20) days following service of the charges to request a hearing. Unless indicated otherwise, it will be a formal adjudicative hearing. After DFI receives the application for an adjudicative proceeding, if not regarding a declaratory order, DFI “shall,” within ninety (90) days, approve or deny the application, in whole or in part, commence an adjudicative proceeding under the APA, or dispose of the application under RCW 34.05.416—essentially a decision not to conduct an adjudication. If the latter applies, the agency shall furnish the applicant a copy of its decision in writing with a brief statement of the agency’s reasons and of any additional administrative review available to the applicant. There is an awkward exception, if within thirty (30) days of receipt of an application, after examination of the application, any obvious errors or admissions are noted, it must notify the applicant and request additional information with the appropriate contact agency information for the applicant to respond with. DFI’s form request is usually specific enough that it is hard to imagine any such deficiencies. But what if the agency simply fails to proceed under its “shall” obligation, in commencing adjudicative proceedings? Constructively it is a decision to “dispose” of the application for hearing without providing an express basis, but is it fatal to the agency? Cases that look to any delay relate to the due process needs of the applicant to defend the matter, and not regarding issues with the agency should it want to proceed to prosecute. And as a technical matter, there is nothing to prevent DFI from re-issuing its SOC to restart the clock. There is a history of collateral estoppel doctrine being applied in the administrative context, which requires:
Identical issues
Final judgment on the merits (or at least the opportunity for such)
The party against whom the doctrine is asserted was a party or in privity with a party to the prior adjudication, and
The application of the doctrine must not work an injustice on the party against whom the doctrine is to be applied
As it is, there is no case law specifically regarding DFI for this issue…WAC 208-660-009RCW 34.05.419RCW 34.05.416WA Lic. No. 570DCE, VIN No. 1G1YY3189J5105635 (1997) 91 Wash.App. 320, 963 P.2d 187Kadlec Regional Medical Center v. Department of Health (2013) 177 Wash.App. 171, 310 P.3d 876Irondale Cmty. Action Neighbors v. W. Washington Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 163 Wn. App. 513, 524, 262 P.3d 81, 86 (2011)