Brothers Market LLC No. 2 v. United States

FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

BROTHERS MARKET LLC NO. 2, No. 24-6374

a California limited liability

D.C. No.

company; BRAD BROWN, an

2:23-cv-06436-

individual,

WLH-E

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

OPINION

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Wesley L. Hsu, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted October 7, 2025

Pasadena, California

Filed April 8, 2026

Before: Johnnie B. Rawlinson, Eric D. Miller, and Anthony

D. Johnstone, Circuit Judges.

Opinion by Judge Johnstone

2 BROTHERS MARKET LLC NO. 2 V. USA

SUMMARY *

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program

The panel affirmed the district court’s summary

judgment for the government in Brothers Market LLC No.

2’s challenge to the final decision of the Food and Nutrition

Service of the United States Department of Agriculture (the

“Agency”) permanently disqualifying the Market from

participating in the federal Supplemental Nutrition

Assistance Program (“SNAP”).

The Agency charged the Market with trafficking in

SNAP benefits.

The panel held that Plaintiffs—the Market and its owner

Brad Brown—failed to raise a genuine dispute over whether

transactions flagged by the Agency evidenced SNAP

trafficking. The government produced evidence of several

suspicious transaction patterns that establish an inference of

SNAP trafficking. Although Plaintiffs had several

opportunities to refute the suspicious patterns with evidence,

they did not. Given the overwhelming evidence of SNAP

trafficking and Plaintiffs’ lack of a meaningful showing to

the contrary, the panel affirmed the district court’s grant of

summary judgment for the government.

*

This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has

been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.

BROTHERS MARKET LLC NO. 2 V. USA 3

COUNSEL

Andrew Z. Tapp (argued), Metropolitan Law Group PLLC,

Brandon, Florida, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Zakariya K. Varshovi (argued), Assistant United States

Attorney; David M. Harris, Assistant United States

Attorney, Chief, Civil Division; Joseph T. McNally, Acting

United States Attorney; Office of the United States Attorney,

United States Department of Justice, Los Angeles,

California; for Defendant-Appellee.

OPINION

JOHNSTONE, Circuit Judge:

Brad Brown owns Brothers Market LLC No. 2 (“the

Market”), a small convenience store in downtown Los

Angeles. The Food and Nutrition Service of the United

States Department of Agriculture (“the Agency”) authorized

the Market to participate in the federal Supplemental

Nutrition Assistance Program (“SNAP”). Many of the

Market’s customers receive SNAP benefits and purchase

food using an electronic benefits transfer (“EBT”) card,

which transfers funds from a customer’s SNAP account to a

SNAP retailer. The Agency prohibits both customers and

retailers from “trafficking” in SNAP benefits: exchanging

benefits for cash or consideration other than eligible food. If

the Agency determines that a store trafficked in SNAP

benefits, it shall disqualify the store from the program.

In February 2022, the Agency began to detect suspicious

patterns in the Market’s SNAP transactions. Over six

4 BROTHERS MARKET LLC NO. 2 V. USA

months, the Market recorded more than 600 unusually large

transactions, nearly 200 transactions that fully or nearly

depleted a SNAP household’s monthly benefits, more than

100 sets of rapid transactions made by the same household,

and scores of large transactions for the same dollar value.

Based on these transactions and a physical inspection of the

Market, the Agency charged it with trafficking in SNAP

benefits. After the Market’s response and appeal, the Agency

issued a final decision permanently disqualifying the store

from participating in SNAP. Plaintiffs sought judicial review

of the decision, and the district court granted summary

judgment for the government. We affirm because Plaintiffs

failed to raise a genuine dispute over whether the flagged

transactions evidence SNAP trafficking.

I. Plaintiffs seek judicial review of the Agency’s

SNAP trafficking determination.

A. The SNAP program

Congress enacted SNAP “to promote the general

welfare . . . by raising levels of nutrition among low-income

households.” 7 U.S.C. § 2011. SNAP does so by providing

funding to “permit low-income households to obtain a more

nutritious diet through normal channels of trade.” Id. The

Agency provides these households with funds to buy eligible

items from approved stores, see id. § 2013(a)(1), by

depositing credits to SNAP households’ accounts each

month, see id. § 2016(h); 7 C.F.R. § 274.2(b). Those credits

may be used at an authorized retailer, much like a debit card:

a cashier rings up a purchase, a household member pays for

the eligible items with an EBT card, and the funds are

electronically transferred from the household’s SNAP

account to the store’s bank account. See 7 U.S.C. § 2016(h);

7 C.F.R. § 274.8(b). A store must apply to participate in

BROTHERS MARKET LLC NO. 2 V. USA 5

SNAP and agree to comply with the program’s regulations.

See 7 U.S.C. § 2018; 7 C.F.R. § 278.1(a).

A store may accept SNAP benefits “only in exchange for

eligible food,” 7 C.F.R. § 278.2(a), primarily food for “home

consumption,” 7 U.S.C. § 2012(k); see 7 C.F.R. § 271.2

(defining eligible foods). A store may not accept SNAP

benefits for ineligible food items, like hot foods and

alcoholic beverages, or non-food items like toothpaste or

cosmetics, which stores often sell alongside eligible items.

See 7 U.S.C. § 2012(k); 7 C.F.R. § 278.2(a). A store also

may not accept SNAP benefits for cash. 7 C.F.R. § 278.2(a).

If a store exchanges SNAP benefits for anything but SNAP-

eligible items, it commits SNAP “trafficking.” Id. § 271.2;

see 7 U.S.C. § 2024(b). The penalty for SNAP trafficking is

permanent disqualification from the program. 7 U.S.C.

§ 2021(b)(3)(B); see 7 C.F.R. § 278.6(e)(1)(i).

The Agency monitors SNAP transactions for trafficking

using its ALERT system. See 7 U.S.C. § 2021(a)(2).

“ALERT” stands for “Anti-Fraud Locator using EBT

Retailer Transactions.” This system includes a searchable

database that records the household, store, date, time, and

amount for each SNAP transaction. If the Agency detects an

unusual pattern of SNAP transactions at a store, it may refer

the matter to a program specialist, who will arrange for a

contractor to visit the store and conduct an on-site

investigation. After reviewing the relevant data and the on-

site investigation report, the program specialist makes a

recommendation to the Agency. If the specialist

recommends further action, the Agency will issue a charge

letter, detailing the allegations against the store. See 7 C.F.R.

§ 278.6(b). The store may respond to the allegations and

present its own evidence to show that the flagged

transactions did not occur or were legitimate. Id.

6 BROTHERS MARKET LLC NO. 2 V. USA

§ 278.6(b)(1). The Agency then issues its determination

based on the charge letter, the store’s response, and any other

information available to the Agency. Id. § 278.6(c). If the

Agency determines that “[p]ersonnel of the firm have

trafficked” in SNAP benefits, it “shall . . . [d]isqualify” the

“firm permanently.” Id. § 278.6(e).

B. Suspicious transactions at Brothers Market 2

Brad Brown opened the Market in April 2020. Soon, it

became an authorized SNAP retailer. By early 2022, the

Agency began to detect several transaction patterns at the

Market that it deemed suspicious. The Agency conducted an

in-person inspection, which showed that the Market was a

small convenience store with only 540 square feet of retail

space. The Market had one cash register, no shopping carts

or baskets, and minimal counter space.

The Market stocked fresh bread, dairy products, canned

and dry goods, condiments, baking supplies, coffee, and tea.

It also offered bananas and several packaged snacks. At the

time of the inspection, the most expensive SNAP-eligible

item for sale was a $21.99 jar of instant coffee, but the

Market had only two jars in stock.

For the next six months, the Agency monitored the

Market’s SNAP transactions. The Agency summarized its

findings in an ALERT report, which compiled data on the

Market’s SNAP transactions and information from the on-

site inspection. See 7 U.S.C. § 2021(a)(2); 7 C.F.R.

§ 278.6(a). In the report, the Agency identified hundreds of

suspicious transactions based on “patterns of unusual,

irregular, and inexplicable activity” involving unusually

large or otherwise suspicious transactions given the Market’s

layout and inventory.

BROTHERS MARKET LLC NO. 2 V. USA 7

C. The administrative and district court proceedings

In March 2023, the Agency sent the Market a charge

letter, formally charging it with SNAP trafficking and listing

all the flagged transactions. In response, the Market asserted

that “all transactions conducted in our store have been valid

and authorized” and added, “we would never engage in any

fraudulent activity.” The Market did not dispute that the

flagged transactions occurred but tried to explain the

suspicious patterns identified in the charge letter. It noted

that it is located near a women’s rehabilitation center and

that because of COVID-19 pandemic restrictions, the

center’s residents visited the Market to buy “all the items

they needed, as well as items for their friends” who could

not leave their homes. The Market asserted that these

residents often completed “multiple transactions with one

[EBT] card,” as the Market’s point-of-sale system allowed

cashiers to scan all items and hold them until the customer

was ready to pay. The Market also attached several months

of bank and credit card statements recording non-itemized

purchases from various vendors during the reviewed period.

See 7 C.F.R. § 278.6(b)(1).

The Agency, after considering the charge letter and the

Market’s response, determined that the Market had

trafficked in SNAP benefits and permanently disqualified it

from SNAP. See id. § 278.6(c). The Market requested

administrative review and submitted receipts, photos, and

affidavits from customers and employees attesting to their

reliance on the store. The Agency then issued its final

decision permanently disqualifying the Market from SNAP.

Plaintiffs sought judicial review of the Agency’s

permanent disqualification. See 7 U.S.C. § 2023. The

government moved for summary judgment. In opposing

8 BROTHERS MARKET LLC NO. 2 V. USA

summary judgment, Plaintiffs relied on the same evidence

they had put before the Agency—financial statements,

receipts, photos, and affidavits—plus an affidavit from

Brown. The district court granted the government’s motion

for summary judgment because “Plaintiffs have failed to

raise a material issue of fact as to at least one pattern [of]

transactions indicative of trafficking.” Plaintiffs timely

appealed.

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and review

de novo the district court’s grant of summary judgment.

Cohen v. Apple Inc., 46 F.4th 1012, 1025 (9th Cir. 2022).

We consider the facts in the light most favorable to

Plaintiffs, the nonmoving parties. See Anderson v. Liberty

Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986).

II. Plaintiffs do not show a genuine dispute of material

fact as to whether the transaction patterns evidence

SNAP trafficking.

A store may seek judicial review of its disqualification

from SNAP, “requesting the court to set aside such

determination.” 7 U.S.C. § 2023(a)(13). The district court

then reviews the Agency’s decision by conducting a “trial de

novo . . . in which the court shall determine the validity” of

the disqualification—that is, whether the Agency validly

determined that the store trafficked in SNAP benefits. Id.

§ 2023(a)(15); Wong v. United States, 859 F.2d 129, 132 (9th

Cir. 1988) (per curiam). In a trial de novo, the district court

“is not limited to the administrative record;” it may consider

“any relevant evidence” offered by the store to support its

case, “whether or not it has been previously submitted to the

agency.” See Kim v. United States, 121 F.3d 1269, 1272 (9th

Cir. 1997) (citation omitted). This de novo review does not

require a trial: a district court may, where appropriate,

BROTHERS MARKET LLC NO. 2 V. USA 9

resolve a case at summary judgment based on the

administrative record and other evidence before it. See id. at

1276–77; see also Irobe v. USDA, 890 F.3d 371, 379–82 (1st

Cir. 2018).

The district court here granted summary judgment for the

government based on the administrative record before the

Agency and Brown’s affidavit. We must affirm that decision

if there are no genuine disputes of material fact and the

government is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.

R. Civ. P. 56(a). The government produced evidence of

transaction patterns that, given the Market’s size and

inventory, support the Agency’s finding of SNAP trafficking.

Plaintiffs do not dispute that the transactions at issue

occurred. So to genuinely dispute that the Market trafficked,

Plaintiffs must provide evidence, when viewed in the light

most favorable to them, that would allow a factfinder to

conclude that the flagged transaction patterns do not support

a valid trafficking finding. 1

1

Plaintiffs contend that the district court erred in inferring trafficking

from the ALERT report data without expert testimony interpreting the

data. See Fed. R. Evid. 702. According to Plaintiffs, only expert

testimony can show whether the Market’s transaction patterns “actually

indicate that trafficking exists and aren’t instead the result [of] chance or

other factors like competition density, customer shopping habits, traffic

patterns, etc.” We disagree. A court reviewing the record de novo

“give[s] no weight to the agency’s finding that trafficking occurred.”

Irobe, 890 F.3d at 379. But in making this initial determination, a court,

like a factfinder, may draw its own reasonable inferences from the data.

Alam & Sarker, LLC v. United States, 113 F.4th 153, 164–65, 167 (1st

Cir. 2024). Indeed, Congress expressly authorized consideration of

transaction data in investigating potential SNAP trafficking. Irobe, 890

F.3d at 379; see 7 U.S.C. § 2021(a)(2). The district court did not err in

drawing its own reasonable inferences from the transaction data.

10 BROTHERS MARKET LLC NO. 2 V. USA

To determine whether Plaintiffs have done so, we begin

by describing the mechanics of summary judgment. Next,

we consider the government’s evidence that supported the

Agency’s trafficking determination and Plaintiffs’ attempts

to dispute that determination. We then assess whether

Plaintiffs show, on the augmented record before the district

court, a genuine dispute over whether they trafficked in

SNAP benefits.

A. Plaintiffs must show the existence of a genuine

dispute for each transaction pattern to rebut the

government’s circumstantial evidence of SNAP

trafficking.

If a store seeks judicial review of its disqualification

from SNAP, it bears the burden of showing by a

preponderance of the evidence that the Agency’s trafficking

determination is invalid. See Kim, 121 F.3d at 1272. So for

the government to establish that it is entitled to summary

judgment, it must either (1) produce evidence negating an

essential element of the store’s case—that the store has not

trafficked, or (2) show that the store does not have enough

evidence of an essential element to carry its burden of

persuasion at trial—again, that the store has not trafficked.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); see Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S.

317, 322–23 (1986); see also Kim, 121 F.3d at 1272. The

government attempts the former, relying on the Market’s

transaction data and the on-site investigation report to show

that the store trafficked in SNAP benefits. 7 U.S.C.

§ 2021(a)(2); see 7 C.F.R. § 278.6(a).

If the government makes this initial showing, the burden

shifts to the store, as the nonmoving party, to show the

existence of a genuine dispute of material fact. Anderson,

477 U.S. at 249–50. Because the store bears the burden of

BROTHERS MARKET LLC NO. 2 V. USA 11

proof at trial, see Kim, 121 F.3d at 1272, it must show that a

reasonable factfinder could conclude that the Agency’s

decision was invalid, 7 U.S.C. § 2023(a)(15). In other words,

the store must produce sufficient evidence to allow a finding

at trial that it did not engage in SNAP trafficking. Fed. R.

Civ. P. 56(c); see Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249 (“[T]here is no

issue for trial unless there is sufficient evidence favoring the

nonmoving party for a jury to return a verdict for that

party.”).

When the Agency flags suspicious transaction patterns to

validate its trafficking determination, a store can show that

it did not engage in SNAP trafficking by presenting evidence

supporting a legitimate explanation for each flagged

transaction pattern. For example, a store could present its

owner’s declaration denying the trafficking allegations

based on personal knowledge of the flagged transactions.

See, e.g., Betesfa, Inc. v. United States, 410 F. Supp. 3d 132,

139–40 (D.D.C. 2019) (considering store owner’s

declaration denying the trafficking allegations and attesting

that he had “been present for nearly all EBT transactions at

the store”). Or it could present evidence of customer

shopping practices at the store that help explain the flagged

transactions. See, e.g., Kahin v. United States, 101 F. Supp.

2d 1299, 1301, 1303 (S.D. Cal. 2000) (observing that

evidence that customers bought “food products in bulk” and

obtained “their entire monthly food supply at the beginning

of the month” may raise a genuine dispute of material fact).

Or it could present receipts, inventory records, or supplier

invoices showing that its customers’ purchases were

consistent with the store’s inventory and total sales. See, e.g.,

Betesfa, 410 F. Supp. 3d at 140 (noting that a store’s receipts

and invoices may show “customers’ purchases are consistent

with [the store’s] inventory and total receipts”); see also

12 BROTHERS MARKET LLC NO. 2 V. USA

Cheema v. United States, 365 F. Supp. 3d 172, 189–90 (D.

Mass. 2019) (“Had [the store] submitted invoices to this

court showing its ability to sell at such a volume, that

evidence may have been enough to survive summary

judgment on this set of transactions.”); Irobe, 890 F.3d at

378, 381.

This is not to say that a store must produce all these

forms of evidence to defeat summary judgment. But when

the government meets its initial burden with evidence of

trafficking, the store must produce some evidence to

genuinely dispute those facts material to the Agency’s

trafficking finding. General denials of trafficking or

speculative theories of how the patterns emerged will not

suffice. See Irobe, 890 F.3d at 380–81.

Nor must a store show a genuine dispute about every

flagged transaction in a suspicious pattern. Although a single

SNAP violation warrants permanent disqualification, see 7

U.S.C. § 2023, the Agency here does not claim that any

single transaction proves trafficking. Instead, it relies on

patterns of suspicious transactions to find that the store

engaged in SNAP trafficking. In such a case, a store need not

rebut every transaction at issue to defeat summary judgment

so long as it raises triable issues as to each flagged

transaction pattern. See Irobe, 890 F.3d at 380 n.3; Euclid

Mkt. Inc. v. United States, 60 F.4th 423, 430 (8th Cir. 2023)

(rejecting the “hardline rule that a store cannot prevail

without transaction-specific evidence for each transaction”).

In sum, the government bears the initial burden to show

that the record does not raise a genuine dispute of material

fact. It may do so by offering its own evidence of trafficking,

including patterns of suspicious transactions, or by showing

that the store’s opposing evidence cannot carry its burden at

BROTHERS MARKET LLC NO. 2 V. USA 13

trial. If the government makes this initial showing, the

burden shifts to the store to show a genuine dispute of

material fact. Put another way, the store must show that a

reasonable juror could conclude, based on the materials cited

to the court at summary judgment, that it did not engage in

SNAP trafficking. The store, however, need not address

every transaction in each of the transaction patterns on which

the Agency relied. To defeat the government’s motion for

summary judgment, it is enough for the store to show that

there are genuine disputes over whether each of those

patterns validates the Agency’s trafficking determination.

B. The government produced evidence of several

suspicious transaction patterns that establish an

inference of SNAP trafficking.

The government argues that there is no genuine dispute

of material fact as to whether Plaintiffs engaged in SNAP

trafficking. It relies primarily on transaction data from the

ALERT system, which identified hundreds of transactions

constituting “patterns of unusual, irregular, and inexplicable

activity” during the six-month period. Those transaction

patterns included (1) unusually large transactions,

(2) benefits-depleting transactions, (3) rapid transactions,

and (4) repeated transactions for the same-dollar value.

Given the Market’s characteristics, the government argues,

these patterns support the Agency’s trafficking

determination. Plaintiffs do not deny that the flagged

transactions occurred, but dispute that the patterns of

transactions show SNAP trafficking. We consider each

pattern in turn.

1. Large transactions

The Agency flagged 649 unusually large SNAP

transactions at the Market during the six-month period.

14 BROTHERS MARKET LLC NO. 2 V. USA

These transactions ranged from about $37 to $400, with 38

transactions over $150.

In determining whether a SNAP transaction is unusually

large, the Agency considers the store’s characteristics and

available food stock. In this case, the Agency noted that the

Market had only 540 square feet of retail space, one cash

register, limited inventory, and no shopping baskets or carts.

The Agency also compared the Market’s SNAP

transaction data with those of similar stores. It found that

during the six-month review period, the Market’s SNAP

transactions were larger than those of comparable

stores: while the average transaction amount for

convenience stores in Los Angeles County was $9.88, the

Market’s was $14.10. See Irobe, 890 F.3d at 379 (comparing

store’s unusually large SNAP transactions with average

SNAP transaction amount in the area). Given the Market’s

characteristics and the large number of high-dollar SNAP

transactions, this pattern of unusually large transactions

shows trafficking.

2. Benefits-depleting transactions

The Agency also identified 190 sets of SNAP

transactions that fully or nearly depleted a SNAP

household’s monthly benefits in a single day. For example,

the Market processed two transactions totaling $445.96

within minutes, leaving only $1.15 in monthly benefits for

that household. Another time, the Market processed four

transactions totaling $351 within five minutes, leaving just

$0.99 in benefits. And another time, the Market processed

three transactions totaling $304 in about one minute,

depleting all the household’s monthly benefits.

BROTHERS MARKET LLC NO. 2 V. USA 15

The Agency determined that these transactions show

SNAP trafficking because “[i]t is unusual that a household

would deplete, or very nearly deplete, their entire SNAP

balance in one day leaving nothing, or nearly nothing, until

their EBT card is replenished with funds.” It cited a

government study showing that an average household takes

three weeks to spend 90% of its monthly SNAP benefit

allotment. See Laura Castner & Juliette Henke, U.S. Dep’t

of Agric., Food & Nutrition Serv., Benefit Redemption

Patterns in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program,

32–33 (2011). That study also revealed that households

typically redeem their SNAP benefits at supermarkets and

supercenters—about 4% of households using SNAP never

shop at a supermarket. Id. at 70. Thus, it is unusual for a

household to spend nearly all its monthly SNAP benefits at

a convenience store. Yet the Market conducted almost 200

sales over six months that depleted a household’s SNAP

benefits, even though several supermarkets were nearby. By

contrast, comparable stores in the area conducted only six

benefits-depleting transactions during the same period.

Plaintiffs do not dispute that the flagged transactions

depleted or nearly depleted those households’ monthly

SNAP benefits. Nor do they dispute the government study

showing that households rarely deplete their monthly SNAP

benefits in a single day or at a convenience store. All told,

this pattern—nearly 200 SNAP transactions that fully or

nearly depleted a SNAP household’s monthly benefits in a

single day—shows trafficking.

3. Rapid transactions

In addition to large and benefits-depleting transactions,

the Agency flagged 127 sets of SNAP transactions

conducted within a few minutes. For example, the Market

16 BROTHERS MARKET LLC NO. 2 V. USA

made two sales to the same household, the first for $101.22

and the second for $115.36, within 17 seconds. The Market

also made three large sales to a second household, one

minute apart, totaling $304; to a third household, four sales,

four minutes apart, totaling $307.71; and to a fourth

household, four sales, six minutes apart, totaling $351.

Eighteen times, the Market processed multiple transactions

from the same household totaling $100 or more in under 30

seconds.

The Agency concluded that these transactions evidence

SNAP trafficking because “[m]ultiple transactions,

conducted within a set time period, are methods which stores

use to avoid single high dollar transactions that cannot be

supported and are indicative of trafficking.” According to

the Agency, it is implausible that these rapid transactions

involved actual purchases of eligible food in such large

amounts. Because of the Market’s small size and limited

inventory, the cashier would need to ring up several eligible

food items at a small, crowded counter without a conveyor

belt or bagging area. The cashier would need to complete

several steps to account for each SNAP transaction, then

repeat them a few seconds later. Considering the Market’s

characteristics and the multi-step process needed to

complete a single transaction, this pattern of rapid

transactions shows trafficking.

4. Repeated same-dollar-value transactions

Lastly, the Agency found that the Market processed

several SNAP transactions with the same dollar value.

Although the Agency identified hundreds of same-dollar-

value transactions above $30, it noted that these transactions

typically clustered at $99 and $100. For example, the Market

conducted 23 transactions for $100 and 29 transactions for

BROTHERS MARKET LLC NO. 2 V. USA 17

$99, each with varying amounts of cents. While the Market

processed 52 transactions for $99 or $100, nearby SNAP-

authorized stores processed only three to eight during the

same period. These transactions stood out to the Agency

because a store’s transactions typically peak at the store’s

average amount, then gradually decrease as transaction

amounts increase. It is therefore unusual for a store’s

transactions to spike at specific dollar amounts, much less at

amounts far exceeding the store’s average transaction

amount. For this reason, the Market’s pattern of same-dollar-

value transactions for $99 or $100 shows trafficking.

C. Plaintiffs do not show a genuine dispute of

material fact as to any of the flagged transaction

patterns.

The government’s evidence of transaction patterns is

circumstantial, but its cumulative effect is compelling. See

Irobe, 890 F.3d at 380 (“Irregular patterns may emerge in

virtually any retail operation, but a drumbeat of irregularities

can be highly probative of unlawful conduct.”); cf. Laurins

v. Comm’r, 889 F.2d 910, 913 (9th Cir. 1989) (considering,

in the tax context, a pattern of unusual conduct to support an

inference of fraud). It reveals several suspicious transaction

patterns, each comprising scores of undisputed transactions

by the Market. Plaintiffs do not meaningfully challenge the

government’s evidence. They offer Brown’s affidavit,

customer and employee affidavits, financial statements, and

a set of receipts. Of the hundreds of flagged SNAP

transactions, the receipts correspond to just a handful, while

the other materials advance general theories attempting to

explain the suspicious patterns. Even when viewed in the

light most favorable to Plaintiffs, no reasonable factfinder

could conclude from this evidence that the Market did not

engage in SNAP trafficking.

18 BROTHERS MARKET LLC NO. 2 V. USA

In his affidavit, Brown generally denies the trafficking

charges and offers several theories to account for the

suspicious transaction patterns. For the unusually large and

benefits-depleting transactions, Brown asserts that many of

the Market’s customers were nearby shelter residents who

used their SNAP benefits to buy large quantities of

nonessential food, while others were homeless or transient

individuals who purchased frequently or in large quantities.

He suspects that many of these customers later resold or

traded the food for cash or other items. But Brown does not

attest to the legitimacy of any one transaction based on his

personal knowledge. Nor does he identify any differences

between the Market and other SNAP-authorized stores near

the shelter that would explain why the Market conducted so

many benefits-depleting transactions compared with those

other stores. And Plaintiffs offer no evidence beyond

Brown’s affidavit to support their theories about the

customers’ shopping behavior.

For the rapid transactions, Brown attests that the

Market’s cash register can pause and resume transactions

and thus “process several high-dollar transactions

consecutively.” He says that the Market uses this feature “to

allow multiple customers to make selections at the same

time.” Yet he does not say that the Market ever used this

feature to process rapid transactions for the same SNAP

household. Brown’s affidavit also does not address the

repeated same-dollar-value transactions or their frequency

compared with other stores. Without other evidence

supporting Brown’s affidavit, Plaintiffs cannot establish a

genuine issue of material fact. See FTC v. Publ’g Clearing

House, Inc., 104 F.3d 1168, 1171 (9th Cir. 1997) (“A

conclusory, self-serving affidavit, lacking detailed facts and

BROTHERS MARKET LLC NO. 2 V. USA 19

any supporting evidence, is insufficient to create a genuine

issue of material fact.”).

The Market’s employee and customer affidavits offer

little more. To begin, no employee or customer attests that

any of the flagged transactions actually took place. Nor do

they attest that the Market used its cash register to pause and

resume large transactions for SNAP-eligible items. They

also do not address the benefits-depleting or same-dollar-

value transactions.

Plaintiffs offer financial statements, too, but the non-

itemized statements show only the Market’s total payments

to vendors. They do not show how many SNAP-eligible

items the Market stocked or how expensive those items

were. Similarly, Plaintiffs’ photos of the Market’s inventory

and storage space do not show whether the Market had

enough SNAP-eligible items to conduct the hundreds of

unusually large, benefits-depleting, and rapid transactions

during the relevant period.

That leaves the 75 receipts, the only evidence

corresponding to any of the flagged transactions. Although

most of the receipts record large SNAP transactions, those

transactions account for only a small fraction of the flagged

large transactions, leaving hundreds unaccounted for. The

receipts also do not correspond to any of the flagged

benefits-depleting transactions. And while the receipts

correspond to some rapid transactions, they document only

one out of the 52 transactions for $99 or $100: a sale for

$99.99 consisting of two 36-count boxes of Twix candy bars

for $80, six “Deluxe cream cookies?” for $18, and one

“Jack” for $1.99.

Although plaintiffs are not required to produce evidence

for every flagged transaction, these few receipts are not

20 BROTHERS MARKET LLC NO. 2 V. USA

enough to create a genuine dispute when hundreds of

undisputed transactions support the suspicious patterns at

issue. See Zellmer v. Meta Platforms, Inc., 104 F.4th 1117,

1122 (9th Cir. 2024) (“The mere existence of a scintilla of

evidence in support of the plaintiff’s position will be

insufficient; there must be evidence on which the jury could

reasonably find for the plaintiff.” (quoting Anderson, 477

U.S. at 252)). Even if a jury were to credit the receipts as

establishing some legitimate transactions, the remaining

evidence would still show several patterns of suspicious

transactions on which the Agency’s finding rests. Without

more, a reasonable factfinder could not conclude from the

Plaintiffs’ scattershot business records that the remaining

transactions were legitimate. They do not create a genuine

dispute over whether the Market engaged in SNAP

trafficking. See Irobe, 890 F.3d at 381 (“Nothing about the

purchases evidenced by the receipts impugns the agency’s

finding that, on many occasions, the Store trafficked in

SNAP benefits.”).

III. Conclusion

The record shows that the Market processed hundreds of

unusually large transactions, nearly 200 benefits-depleting

transactions, more than 100 rapid transactions, and scores of

large same-dollar-value transactions. Although Plaintiffs had

several opportunities to refute these suspicious patterns with

evidence, they did not. The Market’s invoices do not show

that it stocked enough eligible food for these transactions. Its

receipts do not show that it accounted for eligible food in

enough of these transactions. Its employees do not say that

they sold eligible food in any of these transactions. And its

customers do not say that they bought eligible food in any of

these transactions. What little material evidence Plaintiffs do

cite is not enough to create a genuine dispute over whether

BROTHERS MARKET LLC NO. 2 V. USA 21

the Agency’s finding of trafficking is valid. Given the

overwhelming evidence of SNAP trafficking and Plaintiffs’

lack of a meaningful showing to the contrary, we affirm the

district court’s grant of summary judgment for the

government. 2

AFFIRMED.

2

Plaintiffs also argue that the Agency violated their due process rights

by failing to provide them with proper notice of the specific conduct that

constituted SNAP trafficking. But Plaintiffs did not assert a due process

claim in their complaint, nor did they otherwise develop such a claim

before the district court. Plaintiffs therefore forfeited the claim. See In re

Mortg. Elec. Registration Sys., Inc., 754 F.3d 772, 780 (9th Cir. 2014).

We also reject Plaintiffs’ argument that the district court erred in

holding a joint hearing on the government’s motions for summary

judgment in this case and in Brothers Market LLC No. 1 v. United States,

No. 24-6373. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure afford district courts

broad discretion to hold joint hearings on “any or all matters at issue” in

cases involving common questions of law and fact. Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a).

Plaintiffs have not shown that the district court’s decision to hold a joint

hearing was an abuse of discretion. See Pierce v. Cnty. of Orange, 526

F.3d 1190, 1203 (9th Cir. 2008) (reviewing a district court’s “decision

on consolidation under an abuse of discretion standard”).