Opinion ID: 2716425
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: USWA Claim

Text: Syngenta bases its USWA claim on Bunge’s decision not to accept corn grown from Viptera seed because Viptera had not been approved for import into the Chinese market. Syngenta argues this decision violated Bunge’s bonded obligation under 7 U.S.C. § 247(a) to treat depositors of agricultural products fairly and Syngenta, as -4- an entity which sells seed to Bunge’s depositors, was harmed as a result. The district court dismissed Syngenta’s USWA claim on the pleadings, concluding the USWA did not authorize the cause of action Syngenta had pled. On appeal, Syngenta offers two arguments the USWA authorizes it to sue a warehouse operator for an alleged breach of a duty to treat depositors fairly. Syngenta first contends the private cause of action expressly authorized by 7 U.S.C. § 245(d) for violations of the USWA allows it to sue Bunge for breach of a warehouse operator’s fair treatment obligation under 7 U.S.C. § 247(a). In the alternative, Syngenta contends the text of 7 U.S.C. § 247(a) itself indicates Congress intended to imply a private cause of action for breach of the fair treatment obligation. 1. Express cause of action in 7 U.S.C. §§ 245(d), 247(a). In pertinent part, 7 U.S.C. § 245(d) sets forth: Any person injured by the breach of any obligation arising under this chapter for which a bond or other financial assurance has been obtained as required by this section may sue with respect to the bond or other financial assurance in a district court of the United States to recover the damages that the person sustained as a result of the breach. As a federally licensed warehouse operator, a status which required Bunge to submit a bond to secure its obligations, Bunge has an obligation to treat depositors of agricultural products in a fair and reasonable manner, provided certain conditions are met. See id. § 247(a). The dispute here is whether Syngenta can sue Bunge under 7 U.S.C. § 245(d) for damages related to its lost market share, profits, and goodwill, allegedly resulting from a breach of a warehouse operator’s fair treatment obligation under 7 U.S.C. § 247(a). -5- Syngenta argues it qualifies as a “person” for the purposes of 7 U.S.C. § 245(d), which it contends allows it to sue Bunge. Assuming without deciding Syngenta qualifies as a “person” for the purposes of 7 U.S.C. § 245(d), we conclude a different provision of the text precludes Syngenta’s USWA claim against Bunge. In pertinent part, 7 U.S.C. § 245(d) authorizes persons injured by a breach of a warehouse operator’s USWA bonded obligations to sue “with respect to the bond or other financial assurance[.]” (Emphasis added). Congress added the “with respect to the bond” provision to the USWA in 2000. The previous version of 7 U.S.C. § 245(d) authorized persons injured by breaches of a warehouse operator’s bonded obligations to sue in their own name “on the bond.” 7 U.S.C. § 249 (amended 2000). In 2000, Congress amended the USWA, moving the section authorizing suits for breaches of a warehouse operator’s bonded obligations to 7 U.S.C. § 245(d) and replacing the “on the bond” provision with the “with respect to the bond” provision. Grain Standards and Warehouse Improvement Act of 2000 § 201. Syngenta asserts Congress replacing “on the bond” with “with respect to the bond” broadened the scope of possible suits authorized by 7 U.S.C. § 245(d). Syngenta argues this broadening allows any person injured by a warehouse operator’s breach of a bonded USWA obligation to sue the warehouse operator for damages resulting from the breach. We disagree. As an initial matter, Syngenta’s proposed interpretation of the statute would render the phrase “with respect to the bond or other financial assurance” superfluous. “We ‘avoid interpreting a statute in a manner that renders any section of the statute superfluous or fails to give effect to all of the words used by Congress.’” Morrison Enters., LLC v. Dravo Corp., 638 F.3d 594, 609 (8th Cir. 2011) (quoting Westerfeld v. Indep. Processing, LLC, 621 F.3d 819, 824 (8th Cir. 2010)). -6- License bonds, like the one Bunge submitted pursuant to the USWA here, “permit payment to the obligee for the loss or damage resulting from . . . violations by the licensee of the duties and obligations imposed on [it].” Black’s Law Dictionary 180 (6th ed. 1990). In addition, “[license] bonds . . . in most cases, provide that private persons harmed by the lack of faithful performance by the licensee have an action against the secondary obligor1 on the bond.” Restatement (Third) of Suretyship & Guaranty § 71 cmt. f (1996) (emphasis added). We find nothing in the text or legislative history of 7 U.S.C. § 245(d) to indicate Congress, in amending the USWA, intended to authorize injured third parties to sue a breaching warehouse operator directly rather than the surety. Accordingly, 7 U.S.C. § 245(d) does not authorize Syngenta to sue Bunge for the alleged violation of 7 U.S.C. § 247(a). 2. Implied private cause of action in 7 U.S.C. § 247(a). Syngenta’s next contends the text of 7 U.S.C. § 247(a) alone authorizes its USWA claim. The text of section 247(a) is silent with respect to any private cause of action. Syngenta, however, argues the statute implicitly authorizes a private cause of action. Whether a statute implicitly authorizes a private cause of action is a question of statutory construction, which we review de novo. Touche Ross & Co. v. Redington, 442 U.S. 560, 568 (1979). “[P]rivate rights of action to enforce federal law must be created by Congress.” Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275, 286 (2001) (citing Touche Ross, 442 U.S. at 578). Our “task is to interpret the statute Congress has passed to determine whether it displays an intent to create not just a private right but also a private remedy.” Id. 1 The Restatement uses the term “secondary obligor” in place of the term “surety.” Restatement (Third) of Suretyship & Guaranty § 1 cmt d. -7- (citing Transamerica Mort. Advisors, Inc. v. Lewis, 444 U.S. 11, 15 (1979)). “Statutory intent . . . is determinative.” Id. (citations omitted). We begin our analysis with the text of the statute. See id. at 288. The text of 7 U.S.C. § 247(a) focuses on the warehouse operator, the regulated entity. In Sandoval, the Supreme Court noted “[s]tatutes that focus on the person regulated rather than the individuals protected create ‘no implication of an intent to confer rights on a particular class of persons.’” Id. (quoting California v. Sierra Club, 451 U.S. 287, 294 (1981)). We also look to the statutory structure. See id. As already discussed, Congress expressly included a private cause of action for violations of bonded USWA obligations in 7 U.S.C. § 245(d), albeit not the one Syngenta has attempted to bring. “The express provision of one method of enforcing a substantive rule suggests that Congress intended to preclude others.” Id. at 290 (citations omitted). Syngenta nonetheless argues the statutory structure weighs in favor of finding an implied cause of action here, pointing to 7 U.S.C. § 255. Section 255, however, is merely a jurisdictional statute. Merely jurisdictional statutes do not create private causes of action. DeVilbiss v. Small Bus. Admin., 661 F.2d 716, 718 (8th Cir. 1981). Finding no indication in either the text of 7 U.S.C. § 247 or the structure of the USWA that Congress intended to imply a private cause of action in 7 U.S.C. § 247, we need not look further. See Sandoval, 532 U.S. at 288-91 (ending the inquiry of whether Title VI provided a private cause of action after finding no evidence of congressional intent to do so in the text or structure of the statute). The text of section 247(a) does not implicitly authorize a private cause of action for violations of a warehouse operator’s fair treatment obligation. -8-