Pinnacle Armor, Inc. v. United States, 1:07-cv-01655

Background

Pinnacle Armor, Inc. sued the United States (NIJ) over decertification of its Dragon Skin vest under NIJ 2005 Interim Requirements.
NIJ required warranty-related data or a written officer certification to show the model would maintain ballistic performance over the warranty period.
Pinnacle provided testimonials, photos, and a limited test report, but NIJ deemed it insufficient evidence.
NIJ decertified Pinnacle’s SOV2000.1/MIL3AF01 on August 3, 2007 and removed it from compliance.
In 2008 NIJ issued a new 0101.06 standard; Pinnacle argued the 2005 Interim Requirements still controlled review and that the 2006/2008 changes did not moot the case.
The district court denied the initial mootness/standing arguments but later granted summary judgment for the USA on the APA claim.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the 2005 Interim Requirements provide a judicially reviewable standard	Pinnacle: no workable standard; NIJ’s decertification lacks a meaningful standard	NIJ’s 2005 Interim Requirements and 6 U.S.C. § 162 provide a standard to evaluate evidence of warranty	NIJ had a meaningful standard to review the warranty evidence
Whether NIJ’s decertification was arbitrary and capricious	NIJ ignored relevant data and failed to articulate basis for outcomes	NIJ reasonably evaluated evidence and acted within its expertise	NIJ’s decertification was supported by the record and not arbitrary or capricious
Whether technical standards or NTTAA principles constrained NIJ’s actions	NTTAA requires use of consensus technical standards; NIJ acted beyond lawful discretion	No applicable technical standard existed; NIJ acted within discretion given lack of standard	NIJ acted within statutory framework; absence of specific technical standard did not render action unlawful
Whether post-2008 standards render the case moot	Claims remain live because Pinnacle’s warranty issues pre-date 2008 standard	06 Standard does not invalidate prior compliance determinations; issues remain demonstrable	Not moot; court, however, grants summary judgment for Defendant on the APA claim
Whether the broad residual evidentiary record supports reconsideration	Additional records should be considered to show compliance	Administrative record governs; new materials not properly before the court	Court declined to rely on post-decisional materials; reliance remained on RAR

Key Cases Cited

Pinnacle Armor v. United States, 648 F.3d 708 (9th Cir. 2011) (affirmed due-process ruling but remanded on APA; relevance to standard for review and preservation of standard claims)
Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821 (1985) (agency discretion is reviewable where a meaningful standard exists; not inherently unreviewable)
Beno v. Shalala, 30 F.3d 1057 (9th Cir. 1994) (reviewability where agency provides some standards despite discretion)
Newman v. Apfel, 223 F.3d 937 (9th Cir. 2000) (agency discretion not to justify with specious grounds; accountability value)