Love v. Veneman
304 F.R.D. 85
D.D.C.2014Background
- Female farmers allege USDA discrimination in loan and disaster programs and delays in discrimination complaints.
- Black Farmers & Agriculturalists Association moves to intervene in Love v. Vilsack and Garcia v. Vilsack actions.
- Pigford I class actions were adjudicated; Pigford II created a separate settlement and administrative claims framework.
- Congress enacted 2008 Farm Bill provision allowing Pigford claimants to seek merits determinations in district court if not previously adjudicated.
- Pigford II class is settled; Association terminated as a party and is not part of the settlement class.
- Association seeks to enforce participation in the Hispanic/female administrative claims process and broader injunctive relief against USDA’s loan process; court denies intervention.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to intervene for first claim | Association claims standing on behalf of members with Pigford claims. | Association lacks Article III standing and redressability for the first claim. | Association lacks standing; cannot intervene as of right |
| Timeliness of intervention | Intervention timely given ongoing administrative process and stayed proceedings. | Intervention is untimely due to long delay and advanced stage of litigation. | Intervention is untimely; not warranted |
| Permissive intervention viability for second claim | Association should be allowed to pursue second claim to curb discrimination in loans. | Even for permissive intervention, timeliness and prejudice concerns apply; not appropriate here. | Permissive intervention not appropriate; prejudice and delay concerns prevail |
Key Cases Cited
- Nat’l Ass’n of Home Builders v. EPA, 667 F.3d 6 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (standing requires injury, causation, and redressability)
- Smoke v. Norton, 252 F.3d 468 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (timeliness factors for intervention)
- Roane v. Leonhart, 741 F.3d 147 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (intervention timeliness and prejudice considerations)
- United States v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 642 F.2d 1285 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (intervention requires direct and substantial interest)
- Nuesse v. Camp, 385 F.2d 694 (D.C. Cir. 1967) (interest inquiry as a practical guide for efficiency)
- Fund for Animals, Inc. v. Norton, 322 F.3d 728 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (standing and representational considerations for intervention)