Pinnacle Armor, Inc. v. United States
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 10568
| 9th Cir. | 2011Background
- NIJ certifies body armor under its Body Armor Compliance Testing Program, with subsidies for compliant models.
- NIJ Standard 0101.04 (2001) established initial performance standards; 2005 Interim Requirements added life-cycle maintenance criteria and evidence or officer certification to sustain compliance.
- Pinnacle manufactured the dragon skin vest and its model qualified under 2001 standards; Pinnacle provided a 2005 officer certification and evidence to comply.
- December 2006 NIJ issued a Notice of Compliance for dragon skin; Pinnacle spent substantial funds producing vests premised on that certification.
- June–August 2007 NIJ requested further evidence about long-term ballistic performance; NIJ ultimately revoked the model’s compliance in August 2007 after finding evidence insufficient.
- In 2008 NIJ published NIJ Standard-0101.06, stating it did not invalidate models compliant under 2005 Interim Requirements, keeping live controversy on 2005 standards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Pinnacle had due process rights in revocation | Pinnacle asserts a protected property interest and seeks hearing before revocation. | NIJ provided notice and an opportunity to submit evidence; formal hearing not required. | NIJ provided adequate due process |
| Whether NIJ's decision is reviewable under the APA | Pinnacle argues NIJ acted arbitrarily and capriciously and decisions are reviewable. | District court ruled § 701(a)(2) bars review because of agency discretion. | § 701(a)(2) does not categorically preclude review; claims are reviewable |
| Whether the APA claim can survive on the merits | NIJ's testing methods do not align with the 2005 standards and evidence was insufficient to revoke. | NIJ acted within its discretion to determine sufficiency of evidence. | Pinnacle's APA claim survives Rule 12(b)(6) as pleaded |
| Mootness given new 2008 standards | Case remains live because 2008 standards do not invalidate prior compliant models; dragon skin controversy persists. | New standards supersede prior ones, potentially mooting claims. | Not moot; controversy persists |
Key Cases Cited
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976) (balancing test for due process adequacy)
- Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (1985) (notice and opportunity for hearing appropriate to the case)
- Headwaters, Inc. v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 893 F.2d 1012 (9th Cir. 1990) (mootness requires present controversy with potential relief)
- Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821 (1985) (limits on when there is no law to apply; reviewability rescued by APA)
- Beno v. Shalala, 30 F.3d 1057 (9th Cir. 1994) (agency discretion and reviewability under APA)
- Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136 (1967) (presumption of judicial review under the APA)
- Feldman v. Bomar, 518 F.3d 637 (9th Cir. 2008) (mootness and standing in administrative challenges)
- Webster v. Doe, 486 U.S. 592 (1988) (cases with no meaningful standard to apply)
- Mendez-Gutierrez v. Ashcroft, 340 F.3d 865 (9th Cir. 2003) (use of regulation and policy standards for review)