Grier v. United States Department of Housing & Urban Development, 418 U.S. App. D.C. 185 (2015)

Citation: Grier v. United States Department of Housing & Urban Development, 418 U.S. App. D.C. 185 (2015)
Parent Document: Grier v. United States Department of Housing & Urban Development, 418 U.S. App. D.C. 185 (2015)
Jurisdiction: United States (federal)
Effective Date: 2015-07-14
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2816866/grier-v-united-states-departmen... ↗

Full Text

1,402 chars

Our first task when presented with any case is determining
whether we have jurisdiction. See, e.g., Nat’l Treasury Emp.
Union v. FLRA, 754 F.3d 1031, 1038 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (“The
first and fundamental question we are bound to ask and answer
is whether we have jurisdiction to decide [the] petition for
review.” (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)).
Here, HUD questions our jurisdiction. Pursuant to 12 U.S.C.
§ 1735f-15(e), a party seeking judicial review of an order
imposing civil money penalties must file a petition in the
appropriate court of appeals “within 20 days after the entry of
such order or determination.” The statute does not otherwise
define “entry,” its meaning is not self-evident, and we have had
no occasion to address the issue. HUD argues that here we
should consider the date of entry to be the date of the Secretary’s
order imposing civil money penalties, May 28, 2013. HUD
further argues that the 20-day period for filing a petition for
review expired on June 17, 2013. Since the petitioners did not
file their petition until one day later, i.e., June 18, 2013, HUD
contends that the petition was late and therefore this court lacks
jurisdiction to review it. See Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205,
209 (2007) (“the taking of an appeal within the prescribed time
limit is mandatory and jurisdictional.”) (internal quotation marks
                                  6

Other Sections in This Document (46)

Full Text