Carl v. United States Secretary of Agriculture
839 F. Supp. 2d 1351
Ct. Intl. Trade2012Background
- Plaintiff and USDA dispute denial of FY2010 TAA benefits under 19 U.S.C. § 2401e.
- Jurisdiction falls under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(d)(4).
- USDA denied benefits by a May 13, 2011 letter informing of 60-day review rights.
- Plaintiff allegedly received the denial after May 19, 2011; filing was made July 18, 2011.
- Court analyzes whether the 60-day period begins at notice date or receipt date; and whether Rule 6 mailing rules apply.
- The court denies the 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and converts the 12(b)(5) motion to a 56.1 judgment; schedules conference.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| What triggers the 60-day window for TAA appeals? | Plaintiff argues receipt date governs the 60 days. | USDA argues letter date triggers the period. | Trigger is not strictly the letter; timing depends on mailing/receipt evidence. |
| Does service-by-mail extension apply to the 60-day period? | The extension does not apply to a jurisdictional period. | R. 6(d) extension may affect timing. | 5-day service extension does not apply to the 60-day limit. |
| Is the action timely based on receipt date in this case? | Receipt on May 19, 2011 makes filing timely. | Letter date could foreclose timely filing. | Timeliness established by receipt date; not by letter date. |
| Should Rule 12(b)(5) be converted to Rule 56.1 judgment on the record? | Merits should be addressed after resolution of jurisdiction. | Convert to judgment on the agency record to consider merits. | Rule 12(b)(5) converted to Rule 56.1 judgment; merits to be addressed later. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kelley v. U.S. Dept. of Labor, 812 F.2d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (notice provisions can be gap-filled; not limited to Federal Register)
- Conlin Greenhouses v. U.S. Secretary of Agriculture, 32 CIT 467 (2008) (discusses trigger for 60-day period under 2395(a))
- Cedars-Sinai Med. Ctr. v. Watkins, 11 F.3d 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (facial Rule 12(b)(1) attack treated as true for jurisdictional matters)
- Henke v. United States, 60 F.3d 795 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (jurisdictional considerations in agency actions)
- Gould, Inc. v. United States, 935 F.2d 1271 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (failure to state a claim standards)
- Butler v. Principi, 244 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (doctrine of regularity; burden on the plaintiff to prove mailing)
- Conlin, 32 CIT 467 (2008), (unofficial here) (CIT 2008) (discussion of notice timing in Conlin)