The opinion
Slip Op. 05-93
UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE
BEFORE: SENIOR JUDGE NICHOLAS TSOUCALAS
________________________________________
:
LARRY CABANA, :
:
Plaintiff, :
: Court No.
v. : 04-00634
:
UNITED STATES SECRETARY :
OF AGRICULTURE, :
:
Defendant. :
________________________________________:
Defendant, United States Secretary of Agriculture (“USDA”),
moves pursuant to USCIT R. 12(b)(5) to dismiss for failure to state
a claim upon which relief may be granted. The USDA contends that
plaintiff, Larry Cabana, has failed to allege sufficient facts in
the complaint to find eligibility for trade adjustment assistance
(“TAA”). Specifically, the USDA asserts that Cabana is not
eligible for TAA benefits because his net fishing income in 2002
was not less than his 2001 net fishing income. Cabana responds
that the statute references “net farm income” and that he properly
alleges in the complaint that his net fishing income in 2002 was
less than his 2001 net fishing income although his business income
increased marginally during the relevant time period.
Held: Defendant’s USCIT R. 12(b)(5) motion is denied.
Grunfeld, Desiderio, Lebowitz, Silverman & Klestadt LLP,
(William F. Marshall) for plaintiff.
Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, David M. Cohen,
Director, Patricia M. McCarthy, Assistant Director, Commercial
Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of
Justice (David S. Silverbrand); of counsel: Jeffrey Kahn, Office of
the General Counsel, United States Department of Agriculture, for
defendant.
August 1, 2005
Court No. 04-00634 Page 2
OPINION & ORDER
TSOUCALAS, Senior Judge: Defendant, United States Secretary of
Agriculture (“USDA”), moves pursuant to USCIT R. 12(b)(5) to
dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted. The USDA contends that plaintiff, Larry Cabana, has
failed to allege sufficient facts in the complaint to find
eligibility for trade adjustment assistance (“TAA”). Specifically,
the USDA asserts that Cabana is not eligible for TAA benefits
because his net fishing income in 2002 was not less than his 2001
net fishing income. Cabana responds that the statute references
“net farm income” and that he properly alleges in the complaint
that his net fishing income in 2002 was less than his 2001 net
fishing income although his business income increased marginally
during the relevant time period.
JURISDICTION
The Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 19
U.S.C. § 2395 (2000) amended by 19 U.S.C. § 2395 (Supp. II 2002).1
1
Section 284(a) of the Trade Act of 1974 was amended,
effective August 6, 2002, and provided this Court with jurisdiction
over trade adjustment assistance matters brought by agricultural
commodity producers. See Trade Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-210,
§ 142, 116 Stat. 953 (2002). In relevant part the statute states
that “an agricultural commodity producer (as defined in section
2401(2) of this title) aggrieved by a determination of the
Secretary of Agriculture under section 2401b . . . may, within
sixty days after notice of such determination, commence a civil
action in the United States Court of International Trade for review
Court No. 04-00634 Page 3
STANDARD OF REVIEW
A court should not dismiss a complaint for failure to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted “unless it appears beyond
doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of
his claim which would entitle him to relief.” Conley v. Gibson,
355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957); see also Halperin Shipping Co., Inc. v.
United States, 13 CIT 465, 466 (1989). Moreover, the Court must
accept all well-pleaded facts as true and view them in the light
most favorable to the non-moving party. See United States v.
Islip, 22 CIT 852, 854, 18 F. Supp. 2d 1047, 1051 (1998) (citing
Gould, Inc. v. United States, 935 F.2d 1271, 1274 (Fed. Cir.
1991)). A pleading that sets forth a claim for relief must contain
“a short and plain statement” of the grounds upon which
jurisdiction depends and “of the claim showing that the pleader is
entitled to relief . . . .” USCIT R. 8(a). “To determine the
sufficiency of a claim, consideration is limited to the facts
stated on the face of the complaint, documents appended to the
complaint, and documents incorporated in the complaint by
reference.” Fabrene, Inc. v. United States, 17 CIT 911, 913
(1993). Accordingly, the Court must decide whether plaintiff is
of such determination.” 19 U.S.C. § 2395(a) . Accordingly, the
Court “shall have jurisdiction to affirm the action of the
Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of Commerce, or the Secretary of
Agriculture, as the case may be, or to set such action aside, in
whole or in part.” 19 U.S.C. § 2395(c).
Court No. 04-00634 Page 4
entitled to offer evidence in support of its claim, and not whether
plaintiff will prevail in its claim. See Halperin, 13 CIT at 466.
DISCUSSION
The USDA contends that Cabana’s complaint fails to allege
facts sufficient to find eligibility for TAA benefits. See Def.’s
Mem. Supp. Mot. Dismiss Failure State Claim Upon Which Relief May
Be Granted (“USDA’s Mem.”) at 6-8. The USDA notes that to be
certified by the USDA, the statute requires, inter alia, that the
producer’s “net farm income (as determined by [the USDA]) for the
most recent year is less than the producer’s net farm income for
the latest year in which no adjustment assistance was received by
the producer under [the statute].” Id. at 6 (emphasis omitted)
(quoting 19 U.S.C. § 2401e(a)(1)(C) (Supp. II 2002)). The USDA’s
regulations require the producer to establish “that net farm or
fishing income was less than that during the producer’s pre-
adjustment year.” Id. (quoting 7 C.F.R. § 1580.301(e)(4) (2004)).
The USDA argues that Cabana has failed to certify that his net
fishing income for 2002 was less than his net fishing income for
2001. See id. at 7. Cabana concedes in his complaint that his
original case was disqualified because his application for
certification showed that his income in 2002 was more than that of
2001. See id. at 8. The USDA argues that Cabana’s assertion, that
his income from salmon was higher in 2001 than in 2002, is not
Court No. 04-00634 Page 5
relevant because “[n]othing in the relevant statutes or regulations
provides for a determination of an applicant’s ‘farm or fishing
income’ based upon earnings according to individual fish species.”
Id. (emphasis retained). The USDA further asserts that Cabana’s
“2002 net fishing income was $37,331, which is higher than his 2001
net fishing income of $35,759.” Id. The USDA maintains that
Cabana does not qualify for TAA benefits and, therefore, fails to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See id.
Cabana responds that the administrative record established his
eligibility for TAA benefits. See Pl.’s Resp. Def.’s Mot. Dismiss
Failure State Claim Upon Which Relief May Be Granted (“Cabana’s
Resp.”) at 3-5. Cabana asserts that he submitted his application
for benefits “along with business records clearly identifying the
total salmon catch for both 2001 and 2002 as well as tax returns
submitted to the Internal Revenue Service.” Id. at 4. Cabana
argues that the statute does not define the term “net farm income.”
See id. Cabana contends, however, that the USDA’s definition of
“net farm income” is contrary to the statutory language. See id.
at 4-5. Cabana asserts that “if Congress intended to base
eligibility for trade adjustment allowances on income, [then] it
would not have qualified [net income] with the term farm . . . .”
Id. at 5. Cabana maintains that the statutory language indicates
Congress’ intent to grant TAA benefits to agricultural producers
Court No. 04-00634 Page 6
whose income from farming decreased because of competing imported
agricultural commodities. See id. Cabana asserts that his income
from fishing in 2001 and 2002 was $31,663 and $31,195,
respectively. See id. Cabana argues that while his net business
income increased marginally, his net income from fishing decreased.
See id. Accordingly, Cabana maintains that the USDA’s motion to
dismiss should be denied. See id.
After considering the motion before the Court and all relevant
papers filed thereto, the Court finds that Cabana has alleged a
claim upon which relief may be granted. Under the Administrative
Procedures Act, “[a] person suffering legal wrong because of agency
action, or adversely affected or aggrieved by agency action within
the meaning of a relevant statute, is entitled to judicial review
thereof.” 5 U.S.C. § 702 (2000). Having accepted all well-pleaded
facts as true and viewed in the light most favorable to Cabana, the
Court finds that Cabana has sufficiently alleged a cause of action
entitling him to present evidence to support his claim that the
definition of “net farm income” in the USDA’s regulations is
contrary to the statutory language of 19 U.S.C. § 2401e. See
Halperin, 13 CIT at 466. It does not appear “beyond a doubt” that
Cabana is unable to present facts in support of his claim. For the
foregoing reasons, it is hereby
Court No. 04-00634 Page 7
ORDERED that defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted is Denied; and its
is further
ORDERED that the parties proceed on the merits of the case.
/s/ Nicholas Tsoucalas
NICHOLAS TSOUCALAS
SENIOR JUDGE
Dated: August 1, 2005
New York, New York