Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-03509/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-03509-5/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Federal Crop Insurance Corporation
Defendant
Michael Hat Farming Company
Plaintiff
Risk Management Agency
Defendant
John Van Curen
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

JOHN VAN CUREN,

Plaintiff,

v

FEDERAL CROP INSURANCE

CORPORATION and RISK MANAGEMENT

AGENCY,

Defendants. /

No C 09-3509 VRW

ORDER

Defendants Federal Crop Insurance Corporation ("FCIC")

and Risk Management Agency ("RMA") (collectively "defendants") move

to dismiss plaintiff John Van Curen's amended complaint under FRCP

12(b)(1), 12(b)(3) and 12(b)(6). Doc #22. The FCIC is a whollyowned government corporation. RMA administers claims against the

FCIC. 

Plaintiff’s complaint alleges as follows:

Plaintiff attempted, as trustee of the Michael Hat

Farming Company’s Chapter 11 estate, to resolve insurance

claims through administrative actions. Plaintiff first

submitted claims to a Nebraska state liquidation court

("liquidation court") in June 2005, and the claims were

Case 3:09-cv-03509-VRW Document 40 Filed 06/26/10 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

2

eventually forwarded through RMA to the FCIC. Doc #18 at 5-6. 

In June 2008 plaintiff submitted amended claims for $4,826,274

to the liquidation court and RMA. Id at 7-8. 

On August 19, 2008, the liquidation court entered an

order denying the original claims and the amended claims. Id

at 8. The court held: "The terms of this order are intended

to constitute a denial of the Original Claims and the Amended

Claims for all purposes of 7 USC § 1508(j)(2)(B)." Id at Ex

P. The text of 7 USC § 1508(j)(2)(B) reads: 

Statute of limitations. A suit on the claim may be

brought not later than 1 year after the date on which a

final notice of denial of the claim is provided to the

claimant.

Plaintiff thus understood that the statute of limitations on

his claims began to run on August 19, 2008, even though RMA

had not yet rendered a decision on his amended claims. Doc

#18 at 10. 

RMA did not resolve the amended claims prior to

August 19, 2009, the date plaintiff believed the statute of

limitations would expire. Id at 8. Plaintiff filed the

instant lawsuit on July 30, 2009, prior to administrative

resolution of his claims, because he feared his claims might

otherwise be time barred under 7 USC § 1508(j)(2)(B). Id at

10.

Plaintiff's complaint asserts five claims: (i) violation

of due process; (ii) violations of the Administrative Procedure 

Act, 5 USC §§ 701-706; (iii) mandamus under 28 USC § 1361

compelling RMA to act on the amended claims; (iv) damages under 7

USC § 400.96; and (v) breach of contract. Id at 10-16. 

Defendants move to dismiss plaintiff's complaint for

failure to state a claim and lack of subject matter jurisdiction,

and in the alternative for improper venue. Doc #19. Shortly after

the motion to dismiss was filed, RMA issued a decision on the

Case 3:09-cv-03509-VRW Document 40 Filed 06/26/10 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

3

amended claims and outlined procedures for plaintiff to seek 

further administrative review. Doc #34-1 at 3. Plaintiff is

currently pursuing mediation with RMA. Id. 

The recent RMA decision renders plaintiff's first three

claims moot; accordingly, the claims are DISMISSED. 

The parties agree that the court need not presently

consider the fourth and fifth claims; plaintiff asks that the

fourth and fifth claims be "suspended and deferred," Doc #34 at 9,

and defendant agrees that the fourth and fifth claims are

"premature," Doc #37 at 8. The parties were unable to reach a

stipulation regarding dismissal. Doc #38.

Plaintiff has raised a concern that the liquidation

court's August 19th, 2008 order triggered the one year statute of

limitations period in 7 USC § 1508(j)(2)(B). The interpretation of

7 USC § 1508(j)(2)(B) is not presently before the court, and the

parties agree that plaintiff's remaining claims are not ripe for

adjudication. Accordingly, the clerk is DIRECTED administratively 

to terminate all motions and close the file. The hearing scheduled

for July 6, 2010 is VACATED. Plaintiff may, upon a showing of good

cause, move to re-open the case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

VAUGHN R WALKER

United States District Chief Judge

Case 3:09-cv-03509-VRW Document 40 Filed 06/26/10 Page 3 of 3