Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-akd-3_12-cv-00158/USCOURTS-akd-3_12-cv-00158-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 899
Nature of Suit: Other Statutes - Administrative Procedure Act/Review or Appeal of Agency Decision
Cause of Action: 05:0701 Maritime Subsidy Board

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ALASKA

FURIE OPERATING ALASKA, LLC, )

)

Plaintiff, ) 3:12-CV-00158 JWS

)

vs. ) ORDER AND OPINION

)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND )

SECURITY; SECRETARY OF )

HOMELAND SECURITY JANET ) [Re: Motion at docket 97]

NAPOLITANO, in her official )

capacity; U.S. CUSTOMS AND )

BORDER PROTECTION; and ACTING )

COMMISSIONER DAVID V. AGUILAR, )

in his official capacity, )

)

)

Defendants. )

)

I. MOTION PRESENTED

At docket 97, plaintiff Furie Operating Alaska, LLC (“Plaintiff” or “Furie”) filed a

motion to augment and compel completion of the administrative record. Its’ supporting

memorandum is at docket 98, and its’ supporting exhibits are at dockets 100 through

104. Defendants U.S. Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”), Secretary of

Homeland Security Janet Napolitano (“Secretary”), U.S. Customs and Border Protection

(“CBP”), and CBP Commissioner Gil Kerlikowske (collectively, the “Government” or

Case 3:12-cv-00158-JWS Document 114 Filed 12/23/14 Page 1 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

“Defendants”) respond at docket 109, raising new issues as to the reviewability of

Furie’s Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”)1 claims. Furie replies at docket 113. 

II. BACKGROUND

Furie filed this lawsuit to challenge action by CBP, which determined that Furie

should pay a $15 million penalty for transporting merchandise from Texas to Alaska via

Vancouver, British Columbia, using a foreign vessel for a segment of the trip in violation

of the Jones Act requirement that such transportation be accomplished using American

vessels.2 Furie’s complaint pled four claims for relief under the APA: (1) the penalty

imposed was unlawful, because the Spartan was not being transported as

merchandise; (2) the Secretary failed to exercise independent judgment when she

denied a wavier requested by Furie which was arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of

discretion; (3) the Secretary’s refusal to grant a waiver when her predecessor had done

so was an unexplained action which was arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of

discretion; and (4) the Secretary’s refusal to mitigate the $15 million penalty was also

arbitrary and capricious in light of her statements where she said the agency would

come up with an equitable way to allow transportation. Furie’s complaint also pled two

constitutional claims: (1) the $15 million penalty was unlawful and unenforceable

because it constituted an excessive fine under the Eighth Amendment, and (2) the $15

million penalty was unlawful and unenforceable because Defendants violated Furie’s

due process rights.3 In addition to Furie’s claims, the lawsuit includes a counterclaim by

Defendants alleging that “Furie’s transportation of the Spartan Rig from Texas to

15 U.S.C. § 701 et seq.

246 U.S.C. § 55102(b).

3Doc. 1.

-2-

Case 3:12-cv-00158-JWS Document 114 Filed 12/23/14 Page 2 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Alaska, in part by a non-coastwise qualified vessel, violated the Jones Act”4 which

entitles the United States to recover a $15 million penalty from Furie.5 

The Government filed an administrative record at docket 91. Furie subsequently

filed the motion to compel, arguing the record does not include communications and

documents relevant to all of Furie’s APA claims. It also filed exhibits of the materials it

would like included in the record. These materials consist of communications and

documents related to the Secretary’s denial of Furie’s Jones Act waiver request and the

CBP’s refusal to mitigate the $15 million penalty. 

The Government filed a motion for an extension of time in which to respond to

the motion to compel. It stated that it needed additional time “to review the motion,

coordinate with the agency, and try to see if there might be agreement on some of the

documents that Furie proposes to add to the administrative record.”6 The request was

granted. The Government then filed its response, but rather than provide the court with

its position on the requested expansion of the record, the Government presents an

entirely new argument: it asserts that Furie’s claims related to the waiver and mitigation

decisions are not subject to APA review, and thus it did not need to produce an

administrative record. 

Furie filed a reply at docket 113. In the reply, Furie argues that the Government

is inappropriately attempting to force a judgment on the merits through a response to a

motion to compel and that the Government had an opportunity to raise such dispositive

issues in a motion to dismiss but did not do so. Furie asserts that the Government’s

failure to address its substantive arguments about the expansion of the record should

4Doc. 38 at p. 57 ¶ 22.

5The parties are familiar with the details of their dispute not summarized above.

Readers who are not will find a much fuller recitation of the background facts in the order at

docket 71.

6Doc. 107 at p. 2.

-3-

Case 3:12-cv-00158-JWS Document 114 Filed 12/23/14 Page 3 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

be considered a concession. Furie also provides a response to the Government’s

reviewability arguments. The Government did not ask for a surreply or oral argument.

III. DISCUSSION

 The Court’s review of agency action under the APA is based on the “whole

record” that was before the agency at the time the challenged decisions were made.7

The whole record “is not necessarily those documents that the agency had compiled

and submitted as the administrative record.”8

 Instead, the record must include “all

documents and materials directly or indirectly considered by agency decision-makers

. . . .”9 Furie contends that the Government failed to provide materials that were both

directly and indirectly considered by the Secretary and the CBP during their waiver and

penalty mitigation decisions, which are the decisions Furie challenges in Counts II

through IV. Its motion includes a detailed and persuasive discussion regarding what

additional communications and documents should have been included in the record as

to these claims. The Government chose not to provide the court with a clear position

as to whether the communications and documents introduced by Furie in its’ motion

were directly or indirectly considered by the agency. Instead, it simply asserted that it

“reserves the right to provide briefing” to address the substance of Furie’s motion—that

is, what should be included in the record—once the court determines whether the

administrative decisions underlying Counts II-IV in Furie’s complaint, which are the

counts challenging the Secretary’s decision regarding the Jones Act waiver and the

CBP’s penalty mitigation decision, are reviewable in the first instance.10 

75 U.S.C. § 706.

8Thompson v. U.S. Dep’t of Labor, 885 F.2d 551, 555 (9th Cir. 1989) (internal quotations

and citations omitted).

9

Id.

10Doc. 109 at p. 4.

-4-

Case 3:12-cv-00158-JWS Document 114 Filed 12/23/14 Page 4 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

The Government has raised important issues about whether Counts II through IV

of Furie’s complaint are reviewable under the APA. It asserts that the court’s subject

matter jurisdiction “remains at issue.” However, at this juncture, the court’s subject

matter jurisdiction is not at issue as there is no pending motion challenging such

jurisdiction. The Government has not requested that these claims be dismissed; rather,

it asks to be excused from providing a record. As such, Counts II-IV remain valid. As

noted by Furie in its’ reply brief, the Government’s “arguments conflate the issues of

reviewabiliity and the existence of an administrative record—indeed, whether Furie’s

claims are reviewable has no bearing on Defendant’s obligation to file a record.”11 The

Government had the opportunity to narrow the claims on such grounds earlier in the

litigation but failed to do so. It now attempts to use its response to a procedural motion

as a mechanism for advancing a decision on the merits. The court chooses not to

proceed in this manner. The dispositive issues raised by the Government are better

addressed separately in order to provide a chance for a full round of briefing and oral

argument. 

Returning to the substantive issues in the motion to compel, the court concludes

that Furie has demonstrated that the administrative record at docket 91 is incomplete. 

Indeed, the Government’s response brief failed to provide the court with an argument

as to what should and should not be included in the record. W hile the Government

attempts to reserve the right to provide an argument about the substance of the record

at a later date, the response brief was the time to present such an argument and that

time has passed. Further briefing on the matter will only delay resolution of the

underlying claims. 

IV. CONCLUSION

Based on the preceding discussion, Furie’s motion to augment and compel

completion of the administrative record at docket 97 is GRANTED. Defendants are

11Doc. 113 at p. 6.

-5-

Case 3:12-cv-00158-JWS Document 114 Filed 12/23/14 Page 5 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

directed to file an amended certified administrative record containing all documents

considered, directly or indirectly, during the administrative proceedings challenged in

Counts II through IV of Furie’s complaint, including the documents submitted by Furie

as exhibits to the motion to compel, within 42 days of this order. 

The court would like to resolve any reviewability and subject matter jurisdiction

issues prior to the merit briefing. Therefore, the briefing schedule ordered at docket 96

is vacated. Within 14 days of filing the expanded certified record, the Government is

directed to file a motion to dismiss based on the arguments presented in its’ response

brief. A briefing schedule will be set as needed upon the resolution of that motion. 

DATED this 23rd day of December 2014.

/s/ JOHN W. SEDWICK

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-6-

Case 3:12-cv-00158-JWS Document 114 Filed 12/23/14 Page 6 of 6