Opinion ID: 71635
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Challenge of Mims' Status as Responsibly Connected with Mims Produce

Text: 18 The Secretary had determined previously that Mims Produce violated the PACA and that Mims, as a vice president and director, was responsibly connected with the company. Responsibly connected is defined as affiliated or connected with a commission merchant, dealer, or broker as (A) partner in a partnership, or (B) officer, director, or holder of more than 10 per centum of the outstanding stock of a corporation or association. 7 U.S.C. § 499a(b)(9). Bama contends that Mims should not be barred from its employment because he was not responsibly connected with Mims Produce. In support of this conclusion, Bama points to case law from the District of Columbia Circuit which holds that a director's status as responsibly connected can be rebutted if he shows that he had only a nominal role in the operations of the business. 12 See, e.g., Minotto v. United States Dep't of Agric., 711 F.2d 406, 408 (D.C.Cir.1983). The circuits have split, however, on whether the statutory definition of responsibly connected, as it existed prior to the 1996 amendment, was a per se rule or a rebuttable presumption. Compare, e.g., Veg-Mix, Inc. v. United States Dep't of Agric., 832 F.2d 601, 611 (D.C.Cir.1987) (allowing a person to prove that he was not at fault or in control of those at fault to avoid the employment bar provision) with Pupillo v. United States, 755 F.2d 638, 643-44 (8th Cir.1985) (holding that the statutory definition of responsibly connected provided a per se rule). We need not reach the issue here, however, because neither Mims nor Mims Produce previously challenged the Secretary's conclusion that Mims was responsibly connected, despite the notification sent by the USDA to Mims which indicated that he could raise such a challenge. Mims, therefore, waived his right to contest the issue of whether he was responsibly connected to Mims Produce by failing to challenge directly the determination. See Farley and Calfee, Inc. v. United States Dep't of Agric., 941 F.2d 964, 969 (9th Cir.1991) (holding that failure to respond to notices from the USDA constitutes a waiver of the right to a hearing to contest the issue of whether a person is responsibly connected with a PACA violator). Thus, Bama cannot step into Mims' shoes and challenge the final determination that Mims is subject to the employment bar provisions of the PACA.