Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-04601/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-04601-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 899
Nature of Suit: Other Statutes - Administrative Procedure Act/Review or Appeal of Agency Decision
Cause of Action: 05:551 Administrative Procedure Act

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VAN CUREN,

Plaintiff,

 v.

 FEDERAL CROP INSURANCE

CORPORATION ET AL.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 13-04601 CRB

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS

WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND

REMANDING CASE TO AGENCY

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

Case 3:13-cv-04601-CRB Document 79 Filed 10/05/16 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

1

 Defendants contend, among other things, that “the absence of a specific reference to the 75%

test as the specific basis for a denial of the quality adjustment claims in the 2010 or 2011 [insurer]

decisions” is not dispositive, and that Plaintiff was on notice that the 75% test was “Part and Parcel of

the Parties’ Dispute.” See D MSJ 2C at 15–16, 18–22. Defendants also claim that “Witnesses testified

at the [agency’s] hearing about the 75% test, although Plaintiff objected and blocked or simply declined

to develop the testimony at times.” Id. at 19. 

2

 See also Florida Power & Light Co. v. Lorion, 470 U.S. 729 (1985) (“If the record before the

agency does not support the agency action, if the agency has not considered all relevant factors, or if

the reviewing court simply cannot evaluate the challenged agency action on the basis of the record

before it, the proper course, except in rare circumstances, is to remand to the agency for additional

investigation or explanation.”).

3

 Defendant has not substantively responded to this or any argument in Plaintiff’s motion, but

has sought additional time in which to respond. See D Mot. to Enlarge Time (dkt. 77). That motion is

hereby DENIED as moot.

2

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. 

Case 3:13-cv-04601-CRB Document 79 Filed 10/05/16 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

G:\CRBALL\2013\4601\Van Curen - remand claim 2.wpd 3

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.

Dated: October 5, 2016 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:13-cv-04601-CRB Document 79 Filed 10/05/16 Page 3 of 3