Hardin v. Jackson
393 U.S. App. D.C. 167
| D.C. Cir. | 2010Background
- Arkansas tomato growers sue EPA and BASF seeking cancellation of Facet registrations due to alleged drift damages since 1992.
- EPA conditionally registered Facet 50 in 1992 under FIFRA subsections 3(c)(7)(A)-(B).
- Facet 75 and Facet GR were later registered under 3(c)(7)(A).
- Plaintiffs filed state court suits in 1995 alleging drift damage; later joined a 2000 federal class action preempted but settled.
- Plaintiffs filed administrative petition in 2003 and this civil action in 2004 alleging procedural deficiencies in the Facet registrations.
- District court dismissed as time-barred under 28 U.S.C. § 2401(a); on appeal the D.C. Circuit affirms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Accrual date under §2401(a) | Hardin argues discovery rule delays accrual | EPA/BASF contend accrual is final agency action date, not discovery | Accrual date is the final agency action date (Oct 13, 1992) or earlier, not subject to discovery rule for this claim |
| Application of discovery rule to procedural challenges | Discovery rule applies to when injury discovered | Rule does not apply to §2401(a) accrual or procedural claims | Court assumes possible application of discovery rule but still finds time-barred |
| Timeliness under §2401(a) | Complaint timely under discovery rule | Filed after six-year window elapsed from accrual | Even with discovery rule, filing on August 3, 2004 was untimely |
| Notice from earlier suits and due diligence | State suits began in 1995; discovery should have occurred | Appellants delayed inquiry; not excused by prior actions | Appellants knew or should have known by 1995; period began before 2004 |
| Scope of final agency action for procedural challenges | Court treats final agency action as accrual trigger; procedural defects do not rescue time-barred claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Harris v. FAA, 353 F.3d 1006 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (accrual follows date of final agency action; discovery not typical rule here)
- Felter v. Kempthorne, 473 F.3d 1255 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (discusses accrual and discovery considerations in agency actions)
- Rotella v. Wood, 528 U.S. 549 (U.S. 2000) (discovery accrual tied to harm awareness; protect timely filings)
- United States v. Kubrick, 444 U.S. 111 (U.S. 1979) (explains accrual when plaintiff has facts to pursue claim)
- City of Dania Beach v. FAA, 485 F.3d 1181 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (procedural injury standing requires injury-in-fact and risk to interest)