Stew Farm, Ltd. v. Natural Resource Conservation Service
967 F. Supp. 2d 1164
S.D. Ohio2013Background
- Stew Farm, Ltd. sues NRCS, Pickaway County SWCD, Watershed Management, Hamman, and Kohli for money damages and declaratory relief regarding grassed waterways installed for John Neff.
- Neff’s project relied on Watershed and Kohli for design; NRCS certified and approved federal reimbursement.
- Neff and Watershed undertook the project with federal funding up to 90%, and Neff did not pay Watershed.
- Stew Farm sought intervention in a parallel state court case; the trial court denied intervention and Stew Farm did not pursue relief there.
- Stew Farm filed this action in April 2012, alleging federal-law violations and that Watershed was a federal Technical Service Provider (TSP).
- The court granted all defendants’ motions to dismiss on jurisdictional, timing, and pleading grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Little Tucker Act provides jurisdiction for monetary claims against NRCS | Stew Farm relied on the Little Tucker Act for monetary relief | NRCS argues no privity or direct contract with the United States, no waiver | No jurisdiction under Little Tucker Act for monetary claims against NRCS |
| Whether APA § 702 waives sovereign immunity for declaratory relief against NRCS and Pickaway County | Requests for non-monetary relief fall under § 702 waiver | § 702 is not an independent grant of jurisdiction without a specific statutory basis | No waiver of sovereign immunity for declaratory relief against NRCS/Pickaway County |
| Whether the Watershed and Hamman claims arise under federal law for § 1331 jurisdiction | Amended complaint cites federal laws as basis for claims | No federal cause of action; claims are state torts premised on federal law | No federal-question jurisdiction; claims dismissed |
| Whether the two-year Ohio limitations period bars Stew Farm’s claims against Pickaway County | Discovery rule should toll or start later | Awareness of defects by May 20, 2009; no timely filing by May 20, 2011 | Time-barred; claims against Pickaway County dismissed |
| Whether Kohli’s claims relate back or are time-barred | Amendment to add Kohli relates back | Relation back not permitted; time-barred even with relation back | Time-barred; Kohli claims dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- CareToLive v. von Eschenbach, 525 F.Supp.2d 938 (S.D. Ohio 2007) (sovereign immunity and waiver requirements for suits against the United States)
- United States v. White Mountain Apache Tribe, 537 U.S. 465 (2003) (sovereign immunity waiver must be unequivocally expressed)
- United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206 (1983) (sovereign immunity and consent to sue the United States)
- Reed v. Reno, 146 F.3d 392 (6th Cir. 1998) (plaintiff bears burden to show federal jurisdiction)
- Navajo Nation v. United States, 556 U.S. 287 (2009) (Little Tucker Act does not create substantive rights; governs jurisdictional waiver)
- Hercules Inc. v. United States, 516 U.S. 417 (1996) (Tucker Act jurisdiction requires privity of contract with United States)
- Eubanks v. United States, 25 Cl.Ct. 131 (1992) (privity required to sue the United States under Tucker Act)
- Fabrizi Trucking & Paving Co., Inc. v. Portage, 2012 WL 6732734 (N.D. Ohio 2012) (USDA funding alone does not create agency relationship)
- Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals v. Thompson, 478 U.S. 804 (1986) (arising under analysis; state claims premised on federal law do not imply substantial federal issues)
- Fifth Third Bank v. Cope, 162 Ohio App.3d 838 (12th Dist. 2005) (two-year limitations; discovery of defects triggers accrual)
- In re Kent Holland Die Casting & Plating, Inc., 928 F.2d 1448 (6th Cir. 1991) (amendments adding new parties do not relate back; new causes of action)
- Your Home Visiting Nurse Serv’s, Inc. v. Shalala, 525 U.S. 449 (1998) (relation back considerations for jurisdictional claims)