Opinion ID: 1860840
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Did trial court wrongly deny Cedar Valley's application to submit additional evidence?

Text: Relevant here is the following portion of § 17A.19(7), The Code: Before the date set for hearing a petition for judicial review of agency action in a contested case, application may be made to the court for leave to present evidence in addition to that found in the record of the case. If it is shown to the satisfaction of the court that the additional evidence is material and that there were good reasons for failure to present it in the contested case proceeding before the agency, the court may order that the additional evidence be taken before the agency upon conditions determined by the court. The agency may modify its findings and decision in the case by reason of the additional evidence and shall file that evidence and any modifications, new findings, or decisions with the reviewing court and mail copies of the new findings or decisions to all parties. Cedar Valley timely filed its application for permission to present to the Department the following additional evidence: A. Testimony of the President of Petitioner, James E. Anderson, concerning the procedures used by Petitioner in each of its transactions when a farmer leases equipment; and B. Documentary evidence, including the applications, orders, invoices, and equipment leases utilized in Petitioner's business. Department resisted on several grounds. Trial court denied the application. A § 17A.19(7) application must show (1) materiality and (2) good reasons for failure to present the evidence earlier. The Department concedes materiality but contends the second element is lacking. We agree. Cedar Valley argues that this evidence, available when the protest was submitted to the hearing officer, was withheld in order to simplify the factual matters. It claims the evidence became necessary when the hearing officer misinterpreted the stipulated facts. It also claims surprise from the finding that two separate transactions were involved. There is no merit to Cedar Valley's claim of surprise. Cedar Valley's supplemental brief filed with the hearing officer argued [t]he purchase and rental of farm equipment by [Cedar Valley] constitutes a single transaction, rather than separate transactions. It discussed the relevant facts and tried to distinguish authorities cited by the Department. Cedar Valley was fully aware of the need for material evidence on this issue. Its decision to withhold certain proof for the sake of simplicity is one of those irretrievable elections that face parties in any litigation. It does not constitute a good reason for failing to present the evidence to the agency. NLRB v. Fournier, 182 F.2d 621, 622 (2d Cir. 1950). Moreover, Cedar Valley's protest, its petition for judicial review, and its factual stipulations clearly show two transactions with reference to each item of equipment: a purchase and a lease. Remand for additional evidence to controvert that record is not contemplated by § 17A.19(7). Additional evidence to show the two transactions occurred simultaneously or almost so would be immaterial under our analysis set out in division I. Trial court did not err in denying the application for limited remand. Trial court's judgment is affirmed. AFFIRMED.