211 F. Supp. 3d 421
D. Conn.2016Background
- Cecilia’s Market (owned by Justo Duchimaza) was authorized for SNAP but FNS investigated after EBT-alerted suspicious transactions (Oct–Dec 2013) and an on-site contractor visit.
- FNS’s charge letter alleged 388 trafficking violations across three EBT-pattern categories: (1) many transactions ending in .00/.50 cents; (2) multiple withdrawals from the same EBT account within 24 hours; and (3) numerous high-dollar SNAP purchases.
- Plaintiffs responded to the charge letter with denials, store price list, limited customer worksheets/receipts, and photos, but did not request a civil monetary penalty or submit evidence meeting the regulatory CMP criteria.
- FNS permanently disqualified Cecilia’s Market; the Administrative Review Branch affirmed. Plaintiffs sued under 7 U.S.C. § 2023(a)(13) for de novo review in district court.
- The court considered Plaintiffs’ expert (a former FNS official) but found his critiques were lay recharacterizations of the administrative record, lacked statistical/EBT expertise, and would not create a genuine issue material to the ruling.
- Court granted summary judgment for the United States: found genuine dispute only as to the same-cent transactions (Attachment 1) but ruled that Attachments 2 and 3, plus other evidence and store visit comparisons, supported trafficking and justified permanent disqualification.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of using EBT data to show trafficking | Duchimaza: EBT printouts are insufficient; patterns have innocent explanations | FNS: Regulations permit EBT transaction reports and inconsistent redemption data as bases for disqualification | Held for Defendant: EBT data (with site visit and comparators) may support trafficking findings |
| Sufficiency of Plaintiffs’ explanations for Attachment 1 (same-cent txns) | Price list and store pricing practices explain .00/.50-cent transactions | FNS: patterns are contrived and inconsistent with comparators; plaintiff’s explanations speculative | Court: Genuine factual dispute exists as to same-cent transactions (precludes summary judgment on that narrow point alone) |
| Sufficiency of Plaintiffs’ explanations for Attachment 2 (multiple txns same card in 24 hrs) | Multiple household members use same card; credit/payoff practice; location explains patterns | FNS: worksheets/receipts fail to tie specific suspicious transactions to these explanations; comparators lacked similar patterns | Held for Defendant: Plaintiffs failed to raise genuine issues for Attach. 2; FNS evidence supports trafficking |
| Sufficiency of Plaintiffs’ explanations for Attachment 3 (high-dollar txns) | Store carries many higher-priced items; national averages show no anomaly | FNS: store size, inventory, lack of carts, and local comparators show Cecilia’s unusually high number of large purchases | Held for Defendant: Plaintiffs provided no evidence to rebut; Attach. 3 supports trafficking and disqualification |
Key Cases Cited
- Idias v. United States, 359 F.3d 695 (4th Cir. 2004) (EBT transaction reports can form the basis for disqualification)
- Ibrahim v. United States, 834 F.2d 52 (2d Cir. 1987) (de novo trial in district court on fresh record for SNAP disqualification)
- Traficanti v. United States, 227 F.3d 170 (4th Cir. 2000) (upholding strict-liability rationale for trafficking sanctions)
- Amorgianos v. National R.R. Passenger Corp., 303 F.3d 256 (2d Cir. 2002) (expert testimony must be reliable at each analytical step)
- City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., 473 U.S. 432 (U.S. 1985) (rational-basis standard for substantive due process challenges)
- Willy’s Grocery v. United States, 656 F.2d 24 (2d Cir. 1981) (sanction review is for arbitrary and capricious application of agency rules)