Pigford v. Veneman
961 F. Supp. 2d 82
D.D.C.2013Background
- Consent Decree in Pigford v. Glickman allows Track A or Track B claims procedures for class members.
- McGinnis chose Track A initially; he later requested Track B in writing, arguing the facilitator erred.
- The Claims Facilitator sent McGinnis’ claim to Track A despite his Track B request; Adjudicator denied Track A in 2000.
- McGinnis petitioned for Monitor review in 2001; the Monitor granted an alternative Track A reexamination in 2008.
- Monitor’s decision did not grant Track B relief; it directed Track A reexamination with supplemental materials.
- McGinnis never cashed the Track A $50,000 award; he sought enforcement years later to have his claim heard under Track B.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authority to grant relief under paragraph 13 | McGinnis argues paragraph 13 authorizes enforcement for violations by neutrals. | USDA contends paragraph 13 only permits enforcement of party violations, not neutral processing errors. | Yes; paragraph 13 authorizes enforcement to remedy violations of any provision, including neutrals' processing. |
| Relation to final adjudicator decisions | Enforcement can correct the allocation error without undoing final Track A decision. | Allowing Track B relief would undermine final Track A reexamination. | Relief does not review the Track A decision; it corrects the misassignment to Track A. |
| Effect of Track A victory on entitlement to Track B relief | McGinnis should be permitted to pursue Track B despite Track A victory due to facilitator error. | Track A finality and waiver provisions constrain relief and avoid retrial under Track B. | McGinnis is entitled to pursue Track B relief consistent with the Decree. |
| Scope of entitlement given neutrals' errors occurred | Two processing errors warrant correction and transfer to Track B. | No further relief should be granted beyond the Monitor’s or Adjudicator’s determinations. | Entitled to have Arbitrator hear the Track B claim as requested. |
Key Cases Cited
- Segar v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 16 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (consent decrees interpreted like contracts for enforcement purposes)
- United States v. ITT Cont’l Baking Co., 420 U.S. 223 (U.S. Supreme Court 1975) (contractual construction aids in interpreting consent decrees)
- United States v. W. Elec. Co., 894 F.2d 1387 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (read consent decrees to give effect to all provisions)
- United States v. Microsoft Corp., 147 F.3d 935 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (interpretation of settlement and enforcement provisions)
- Pigford v. Veneman, 292 F.3d 918 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (enforcement context for consent decree remedies and monitor review)
- Pigford v. Glickman, 185 F.R.D. 82 (D.D.C. 1999) (approval of consent decree and Track A/Track B framework)