Butnaru v. Ford Motor Co.
2002 Tex. LEXIS 95, 45 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 916, 84 S.W.3d 198 (2002)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An administrative agency has exclusive jurisdiction only over claims and issues directly governed by its enabling statute. For common-law claims that raise an ancillary issue of statutory construction within the agency's expertise, courts should apply the doctrine of primary jurisdiction by abating the case to allow the agency to resolve the specific issue before the court proceeds.
Facts:
- Martin Graf was the owner of Graf Ford, a car dealership operating under an agreement with Ford Motor Co.
- The dealership agreement contained a clause granting Ford a right of first refusal to purchase the dealership if Graf proposed to sell it to a third party.
- In 1999, Hanan and Gil Butnaru entered into a contract with Graf to purchase the dealership and a separate contract to purchase the real property on which the dealership was located.
- These purchase agreements were expressly conditioned on Ford's approval of Hanan Butnaru as an authorized dealer.
- Graf notified Ford of his intent to sell to the Butnarus, and the Butnarus submitted a dealer application to Ford.
- Ford subsequently informed Graf that it was exercising its right of first refusal and assigned this right to another existing Ford dealer.
- Ford also agreed to indemnify Graf against any damages arising from its exercise of the right of first refusal.
Procedural Posture:
- Hanan and Gil Butnaru sued Ford Motor Co. in a Texas trial court for tortious interference with contract and sought declaratory and injunctive relief.
- Ford filed a plea to the jurisdiction, asserting that the Texas Motor Vehicle Board had exclusive jurisdiction over the claims.
- The trial court denied Ford's plea to the jurisdiction and granted the Butnarus a temporary injunction.
- Ford filed an interlocutory appeal of the temporary injunction to the court of appeals.
- The court of appeals held that the Board had exclusive jurisdiction over claims based on the Code, reversed the trial court's jurisdictional ruling, and dissolved the temporary injunction.
- The Butnarus petitioned the Supreme Court of Texas for review, which was granted to resolve a conflict between appellate court decisions.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Texas Motor Vehicle Board have exclusive jurisdiction over common-law claims, such as tortious interference, that hinge on the interpretation of the Texas Motor Vehicle Commission Code, thereby requiring a plaintiff to exhaust administrative remedies before suing in court?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Baker
No. The Texas Motor Vehicle Board does not have exclusive jurisdiction over common-law claims that are not created or governed by the Texas Motor Vehicle Commission Code. The court reasoned that while a recent legislative amendment granted the Board 'exclusive, original jurisdiction,' this power is limited to 'those aspects... as governed by this Act.' The Butnarus' claims for tortious interference and declaratory relief are well-established common-law actions, and the Code provides no remedy or procedure for prospective transferees to pursue such claims before the Board. Therefore, the requirement to exhaust administrative remedies does not apply. However, the doctrine of primary jurisdiction does apply because the core of the Butnarus' claim—whether Ford’s right of first refusal is void under the Code—is an issue within the Board's special competence and expertise. The proper course is for the trial court to abate (pause) the proceedings and allow the Board to make an initial determination on the Code construction issue, after which the court may resume its adjudication of the common-law claims.
Analysis:
This case provides a crucial clarification on the boundary between exclusive and primary jurisdiction for administrative agencies. It establishes that an agency's 'exclusive jurisdiction' is limited to claims and remedies specifically created by statute, preserving a litigant's access to courts for traditional common-law causes of action. By endorsing abatement under primary jurisdiction, the decision creates a procedural framework that respects both the judiciary's role in resolving common-law disputes and the specialized expertise of administrative bodies. This prevents the wholesale dismissal of meritorious claims while ensuring that complex regulatory questions are first answered by the agency best equipped to do so, promoting uniform interpretation of state law.
