v. Rodriguez, 943 F.2d 104, 109 n. 5 (1st Cir.1991). But the Town’s claim for restitution lies solely against the defendant that collected the tolls: the Authority. The Authority is a state agency, so the APA does not provide a right of action against it. IV. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 1 . Moreover, it is not obvious to us that the legislative repeal can be attributed to the defendants’ voluntary actions at all. As we have stated in an analogous context, "new legislation is generally considered an intervening, independent event and not voluntary action, particularly when the governmental entity taking the appeal, as here, is not part of the legislative branch.” Diffenderfer v. Gomez-Colon, 587 F.3d 445, 452 (1st Cir.2009) (<HOLDING>). 2 . We note, moreover, that this proposed
recognizing that venue was proper both in district where indictment was filed and district of confinement holding that a panel of the court of appeals is bound by a prior decision of another panel of the same court addressing the same question but in a different case unless overturned by an intervening decision from a higher court holding venue proper where proper when the action was commenced holding that vacatur of district court decision was not proper where case was mooted by intervening legislative act holding that in the absence of an intervening supreme court decision only the en banc court may overrule a decision by a threejudge panel