Filed: Oct. 05, 2016
Latest Update: Oct. 05, 2016
Summary: ORDER DENYING MOTIONS WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND REMANDING CASE TO AGENCY CHARLES R. BREYER , District Judge . Following remand from the Ninth Circuit, the parties each filed Motions for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiff's second claim for relief, which pertains to quality adjustments. See P MSJ 2C (dkt. 62); D MSJ 2C (dkt. 66). Both motions ask the Court to decide whether the National Appeals Division's (NAD's) decision, affirming Defendants' denial of certain quality adjustment claims, w
Summary: ORDER DENYING MOTIONS WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND REMANDING CASE TO AGENCY CHARLES R. BREYER , District Judge . Following remand from the Ninth Circuit, the parties each filed Motions for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiff's second claim for relief, which pertains to quality adjustments. See P MSJ 2C (dkt. 62); D MSJ 2C (dkt. 66). Both motions ask the Court to decide whether the National Appeals Division's (NAD's) decision, affirming Defendants' denial of certain quality adjustment claims, wa..
More
ORDER DENYING MOTIONS WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND REMANDING CASE TO AGENCY
CHARLES R. BREYER, District Judge.
Following remand from the Ninth Circuit, the parties each filed Motions for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiff's second claim for relief, which pertains to quality adjustments. See P MSJ 2C (dkt. 62); D MSJ 2C (dkt. 66). Both motions ask the Court to decide whether the National Appeals Division's (NAD's) decision, affirming Defendants' denial of certain quality adjustment claims, was "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law." Id.; 5 U.S.C. § 706. NAD's decision was based on "the 75% Test," something that had not been the explicit basis for Defendants' denial. See Burnett Decl. (dkt. 68) Ex. 20 at 65; P MSJ 2C at 17-21. Plaintiff asserts: "[A]fter the entire record had been closed, long after Plaintiff's opportunity to address any would-be challenge under the 75% Test had passed, NAD itself raised the issue for the first time and then denied Plaintiff's claims for lack of evidence of compliance with the test." P Reply (dkt. 71) at 7.1
The Court understands that the parties make alternative arguments not related to Plaintiff's claimed lack of notice that NAD would be employing the 75% Test. However, the Court concludes that the proper course of action is for NAD to (1) reopen the record to allow both parties to submit evidence relating to the 75% Test before (2) re-examining the quality adjustment claims at issue in the second claim for relief. See Loma Linda Univ. v. Schweiker, 705 F.2d 1123, 1127 (9th Cir. 1983) (reviewing court has inherent power to remand a matter to agency; where agency failed to consider important evidence, proper to remand).2
Plaintiff also recently filed a motion for partial summary judgment as to the third claim for relief, which pertains to the Madera 0100 claim. See P MSJ 3C (dkt. 75). That motion argues, among other things, that NAD affirmed Defendants' denial of the Madera 0100 claim "on a completely new basis" and that "Plaintiff had no opportunity to refute that basis, because it had never been presented by Defendants." Id. at 16.3 In light of the Court's conclusion as to the second claim for relief, the Court takes the same approach here. NAD is to (1) re-open the record to allow both parties to submit evidence relating to the allegedly late harvest of the Madera 0100 grapes before (2) re-examining the Madera 0100 claim at issue in the third claim for relief.
Accordingly, the Court DENIES the parties' motions without prejudice and REMANDS the case to the agency for these limited purposes. The Court further DIRECTS the parties to file a status report in this case within 30 days of the final agency decision.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
