`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
`GAINESVILLE DIVISION
`
`
`CV-2021-_______________
`
`*
`CLAMTASTIC SEAFOOD, INC.,
`*
`and DIANA TOPPING.
`
`
`*
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`*
`PETITIONERS,
`
`
`
`*
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`*
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`*
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`*
`FARM SERVICE AGENCY,
`
`*
`and UNITED STATES
`
`
`DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, *
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`*
`RESPONDENTS
`
`
`
`*
`
`
`PETITION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION,
`AND HEARING DE NOVO
`
`Clamtastic Seafood, Inc. and Diana Topping suffered losses in their clam
`
`
`
`
`farming operation as a result of severe weather resulting from Hurricane Irma in
`
`2017. They applied for reimbursement of their losses through the WHIP program.
`
`Although the county and state committees denied their claims, the administrative
`
`judge, presented with formidable evidence on the issue of weather causation
`
`regarding the losses, reversed the county and state committees, awarding the denied
`
`reimbursement to the Petitioners. Unfortunately, the Director of the USDA National
`
`Appeals Division, Secretary of Agriculture, reversed the administrative judge’s
`
`ruling on May 28 of this year. Now Clamtastic Seafood, Inc. and Diana Topping,
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-00121-RH-GRJ Document 1 Filed 07/15/21 Page 2 of 20
`
`the petitioners, ask this Honorable Court to overturn the Director’s rulings in Case
`
`Nos. 2020S000187 and 2020S000188.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`This Petition arises from the denial of claim benefits and the denial of
`
`statutory allowable equitable relief under the Wildfires and Hurricane Indemnity
`
`Program (WHIP) pursuant to provisions of the 2018 Bipartisan Budget Act, Pub. L.
`
`115-123, 132 Stat. 65-66 (Feb. 9, 2018) and the provisions of the Federal
`
`Agricultural Improvement and Reform Act of 1966. (7 USC § 7333; 7 USC §
`
`1996(b) (1)(2); 7 C.F.R. Part 760 Subpart O §§ 1500-1517 (July 18, 2018); 7 CFR
`
`§ 760.1500; and the WHIP Handbook (HB) 1-WHIP, Par. 6A and Par. 210.
`
`2.
`
`The Petitioners file this joint petition seeking relief from the denial of
`
`benefits made on May 28, 2021 by the Director, USDA National Appeals Division,
`
`Secretary of Agriculture in Case Nos. 2020S000187 and 2020S000188. Ex. 1,
`
`Director Decision. The May 28 decision by the director reversed the decision of the
`
`hearing officer rendered in favor of the Petitioners. Ex. 2, Adm Judge Op.
`
`3.
`
`Your Petitioners have exhausted all administrative remedies, including
`
`available County Committee reviews, State Committee reviews, the USDA National
`
`Appeals Division Review and the Director Review. This Petition appeals the final
`
`Agency actions by the Director and asks this Court to reinstate the opinion of the
`
`Hearing Judge and to obtain other equitable relief hereinafter requested.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-00121-RH-GRJ Document 1 Filed 07/15/21 Page 3 of 20
`
`PARTIES
`
`4.
`
`Petitioner Clamtastic Seafood, Inc. is a corporation owned by
`
`Christopher Topping and his wife, Diana Topping, and is incorporated in the State
`
`of Florida with its principal place of business located in Levy County in the
`
`Gainesville Division of the Northern District of Florida. Petitioner Diana Topping is
`
`over the age of 21 years and is a resident citizen of the Northern District of Florida,
`
`Gainesville Division. Respondent Farm Service Agency (FSA) is an authority or
`
`agency of the Respondent, United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). The
`
`respondents FSA and USDA are jointly referred to as Agency, or Government.
`
`5.
`
`The records of the Agency Actions, as well as various statutes and
`
`regulations, are attached and specifically incorporated herein by reference.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`6.
`
`This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 5 USC § 706; 7 USC §
`
`1508(b)(c)(h); 7 USC §§ 6998, 7333 & 7996, 7997; 7 C.F.R. § 1437; 7 C.F.R. § 11;
`
`7 CFR §§ 760.1500-1700; 28 USC §§ 1331, 1391, 1346(a),1402(a); 28 USC § 2341
`
`et. seq.
`
`7.
`
`Venue is proper in the United States District Court for the Northern
`
`District of Florida, Gainesville Division, because your Petitioner, Diana Topping
`
`(Topping) is over the age of 21 years, resides in Levy County, Florida, and Petitioner
`
`Clamtastic Seafood, Inc.’s (Clamtastic) principal place of business lies in Levy
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-00121-RH-GRJ Document 1 Filed 07/15/21 Page 4 of 20
`
`County, Florida. The actions complained of herein occurred in the Northern District
`
`of Florida, Gainesville Division. 28 USC § 2343.
`
`HISTORY AND BACKGROUND
`
`8. Molluscan shellfish aquaculture is the largest food-use aquaculture
`
`industry in Florida. Hard clams, such as those grown by Clamtastic and Diana
`
`Topping, dominate the industry. Clams, like most molluscs, are filter feeders; that
`
`is, they filter their food, phytoplankton, out of the seawater flowing around them.
`
`9.
`
`There are three stages, essentially, to the production of hard clams. In
`
`the first stage, the hatchery stage, adult clams are induced to spawn in a controlled
`
`facility. The fertilized eggs, and then the free-swimming larvae of the clams, are
`
`reared until they reach about 1 mm in size. The second stage is the nursery stage.
`
`Once the clams reach 1 mm in size, they are moved to a nursery, again a closed or
`
`semi-closed system, where the clams are further nurtured until they reach a size
`
`suitable for planting in open waters on land the clam farmers lease from the state of
`
`Florida. The final stage is the planting stage. When the clams are big enough, clam
`
`farmers place the nursery seed in sea-floor bags of small mesh size, which are staked
`
`to the bottom of the ocean lease site using materials such as PVC pipe. After the
`
`seed reaches a size of around ½ inch, the seed is transferred to sea-floor bags of
`
`larger mesh-size, again staked to the bottom of the ocean lease site, and allowed to
`
`grow to market size. The mesh bags are necessary to protect the cultured clams from
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-00121-RH-GRJ Document 1 Filed 07/15/21 Page 5 of 20
`
`predators such as predatory fish including Black Drum and other inshore ocean fish
`
`and marine invertebrates. At some point after being planted, when the bottom
`
`substrate conditions are right, the clams attach themselves to the seabed floor,
`
`digging into the substrate, but for a while after they are planted, only the stakes hold
`
`the mesh bags to the ocean floor.
`
`10. Clamtastic produces clam seed that it sells to clam farmers and
`
`members of its corporation. The president of Clamtastic is Christopher Topping, and
`
`his spouse is Diana Topping. Ex. 2, Adm. Judge Op. p. 1. The Petitioners’ clam
`
`operations are in Cedar Key, Florida, a cluster of small islands in Levy County
`
`Florida. Its landmass areas are boarded by the Gulf of Mexico. Clamtastic’s clam
`
`lease site, Unit 1713, is on the east side of Cedar Key. Topping’s lease site, Unit
`
`1718, is also on the east side of Cedar Key. Ex. 2, Adm. Judge Op. pp. 2, 3; page 1;
`
`Ex. 5, Lease Sites at Cedar Key; Ex. 6, Wave Depths of Lease Sites at Cedar Key.
`
`11. Throughout the months of July and August 2017, Petitioners planted
`
`nursery size and grow-out size clams in clam bags on their lease sites in the claim
`
`area. After Hurricane Irma struck the area, affecting the weather, the petitioners
`
`discovered that many of their clam bags were missing.
`
`12. Hurricane Irma, tracked by the National Hurricane Center and other
`
`tracking sources as it traveled through the southern, central, and northern counties
`
`made landfall in Florida on September 10, 2017. Tornado watches and warnings
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-00121-RH-GRJ Document 1 Filed 07/15/21 Page 6 of 20
`
`blanketed Florida, and the hurricane’s wind bands spawned other storms in Florida
`
`and Levy County. The hurricane was one of the most damaging events to strike
`
`Florida in recent years. Ex. 2, Adm. Judge Op. pp. 3,4.
`
`13. At 11:30 p.m. on September 10, 2017, 50 miles per hour wind gusts
`
`were recorded at the weather buoy platform observation location at the pier in Cedar
`
`Key. At that time, Hurricane Irma was still several miles southeast of Cedar Key.
`
`Ibid; Ex. 7, Hurricane Irma Overview from 11:30 p.m.
`
`14. Beginning at 1:08 a.m. on September 11, 2017, Cedar Key started
`
`receiving strong rainbands. At 1:30 a.m. on September 11, 2017, the weather buoy
`
`at Cedar Key recorded the strongest winds over Cedar Key. At 1:35 a.m. on
`
`September 11, 2017, Cedar Key experienced an isolated severe storm that traveled
`
`ahead of the hurricane’s main inner rainbands. The storm lasted 11.5 minutes as it
`
`traveled for 14 miles from east to west with lateral ground velocity of 73 miles per
`
`hour. The strongest winds would have impacted the east side of Cedar Key where
`
`Petitioners’ clam sites lay. Ibid; Ex. 8, Tornado Watch 483 Map; Ex. 9, Isolated
`
`Severe Storm over Time Track.
`
`15. The strong hurricane winds and storms caused the tides at Cedar Key
`
`to experience a record low tide of negative 6.28 feet, and produced the lowest tides
`
`for Florida that have been recorded over the past 100 years. Ibid; Ex. 10, Chart for
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-00121-RH-GRJ Document 1 Filed 07/15/21 Page 7 of 20
`
`Cedar Key Peak Winds and MLW, Ex. 11, NOAA Water Level Observations for
`
`Cedar Key, Ex. 12, Extreme Water Levels Chart for Cedar Key.
`
`16. The National Hurricane Center reported that at 2:00 a.m. on September
`
`11, 2017, the eye of Irma was southeast of the clam site, and it registered as a
`
`Category 1 hurricane with sustained winds at 75 miles per hour. Tropical force winds
`
`registering around 65 miles per hour were south of Cedar Key. Ibid; Ex. 7, Hurricane
`
`Irma Overview from 11:30 p.m.
`
`17. At 5:00 a.m. on September 11, 2017, a weather advisory issued by the
`
`National Weather Service Center showed that the hurricane’s damaging winds were
`
`approximately 20 miles southeast of Cedar Key, and it was experiencing 75 miles
`
`per hour hurricane force winds.
`
`18. By 8:00 a.m. on September 11, 2017, the eye of the hurricane was
`
`approximately 29 miles from Florida, and it had reduced its sustained winds to 58
`
`miles per hour. Ex. 2, Adm. Judge Op., pp. 3,4; Ex. 7, Hurricane Irma Overview
`
`from 11:30 p.m.
`
`19. On September 11, 2017, law enforcement observed downed trees,
`
`twisted trees, and scatted debris. Based on his years of experience in working at
`
`weather disaster locations, Cedar Key’s Chief of Police believed that tornadoes or
`
`twisters touched down in Cedar Key during the early morning hours of September
`
`11, 2017. Ibid.
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-00121-RH-GRJ Document 1 Filed 07/15/21 Page 8 of 20
`
`20. The Doppler Radar data from weather stations in four cities in Florida
`
`showed that from 11:30 p.m. on September 10, 2017, through 5:30 a.m. on
`
`September 11, 2017, 50 miles per hour wind gusts were recorded at the pier at Cedar
`
`Key and surrounding areas. Those areas were also under Tornado Watch No. 483 at
`
`the same time. Ibid; Ex. 7, Hurricane Irma Overview from 11:30 p.m.
`
`21. On or around September 12, 2017, Petitioners were able to inspect their
`
`lease sites and noticed that they lost clam bags on the east and west side of the island,
`
`but most clam crop losses occurred on the eastside of cedar Key.
`
`a.
`
`Petitioners attributed their loss of clams on the eastside to the
`
`hurricane, the low tides, and the young age of Petitioners’ clams,
`
`which were too young to have “buried up” over themselves in
`
`the marine sediment.
`
`b.
`
`As an example, Petitioner Clamtastic was only able to locate 39
`
`out of 600 bags of clams that it planted on Unit 1713, and
`
`Topping was only able to locate 25 bags out of 2,748 bags
`
`planted on her lease site Unit 1718.
`
`MAJOR DISASTER DECLARED
`
`22. A few days after hurricane Irma hit Florida, the President declared a
`
`major disaster for numerous Florida Counties, including Levy County, which was
`
`designated as one of the primary counties affected by the hurricane. Ibid.
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-00121-RH-GRJ Document 1 Filed 07/15/21 Page 9 of 20
`
`a.
`
`On September 19, 2017, Petitioners called the Agency’s local
`
`office and reported that weather related to Hurricane Irma caused
`
`the Petitioners to lose their nursery clam grow out clam bags The
`
`Agency gave them an appointment to file a Notice of Loss.
`
`b.
`
`On September 22, 2017, they filed forms CCC-576, Notice of
`
`Loss and Application for Payment Noninsured Crop Disaster
`
`Assistance Program (NAP) because the Hurricane/Tropical
`
`Depression/Other condition caused Clamtastic to lose its nursery
`
`clams on Unit 1713.
`
`c.
`
`Topping reported that the same weather disaster event caused her
`
`to lose her grow out clams on Unit 1718.
`
`CLAMS AND NAP CLAIMS
`
`23. Clams are a value loss crop, meaning NAP payment is based on crop
`
`loss value at the time of the disaster, rather than on loss of production or yield. See
`
`7 C.F.R. §§ 1437.301 and 1437.303(a). A value loss crop is one where the plant or
`
`commodity is sold, rather than the production of the plant. See 7 C.F.R. § 760.1502,
`
`7 C.F.R. § 1437.301(a), and HB 1-WHIP Par. 161A.
`
`a.
`
`Aquaculture is a value loss crop for NAP purposes. See 7 C.F.R.
`
`§ 1437.303(a).
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-00121-RH-GRJ Document 1 Filed 07/15/21 Page 10 of 20
`
`b.
`
`Clams are aquacultural species that qualify as NAP eligible crops
`
`because they qualify as “any species of aquatic organisms grown
`
`as food for human consumption.” See 7 C.F.R. § 1437.303(a)(2).
`
`c.
`
`A producer will be eligible for WHIP payments for a NAP
`
`eligible crop, tree, bush, or vine loss if the producer suffered a
`
`loss due to a qualifying disaster event. See 7 C.F.R. §
`
`760.1508(a).
`
`d.
`
`For a loss due to a hurricane and conditions related to hurricanes,
`
`the loss must have occurred in a county that received either a
`
`Presidential Emergency Disaster Declaration or a USDA
`
`Secretarial Disaster Designation.
`
` Ibid, p 8; 7 CFR §
`
`760.1508(b)(1)-(2).
`
`LOSS CLAIMS ADJUSTMENT
`
`24. On October 9, 2017, the Agency’s Loss Adjuster (LA) inspected
`
`Petitioners’ lease sites. The LA, the only FSA employee or contractor to have visited
`
`the site and to have personally reviewed the circumstances of the weather related
`
`loss, calculated that Clamtastic lost 95 percent of its nursery clams, and Topping lost
`
`99 percent of her grow-out clams. On October 27, 2017, the COC met and denied
`
`the claims.
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-00121-RH-GRJ Document 1 Filed 07/15/21 Page 11 of 20
`
`25. On October 27, 2017 the Agency denied Petitioners’ claims on the basis
`
`that they had not proved that the hurricane caused their losses.
`
`26. On November 26, 2019, the Agency’s State Executive Director (SED)
`
`upheld the denial of WHIP benefit, and both Petitioners appealed that termination.
`
`POST CLAIM EVIDENCE SUPPORTS PETITIONERS
`
`27. The Petitioners appealed. At the appellate hearing, they proved by
`
`competent and convincing evidence that the damages to their clam crops were
`
`caused by the hurricane and accompanying winds. They presented testimony from
`
`an expert witness in weather and climate, hurricanes, severe weather, and tornadoes
`
`in Florida. The expert witness is a meteorologist who has published and/co-authored
`
`approximately ten articles on severe weather and tornados and has received at least
`
`eighteen (18) major honors and awards for his expertise beginning in 1978. Ex. 2,
`
`Adm. Judge Op., pp. 8,9; Ex. 13, Weather Expert CV, pp. 3-9.
`
`28. The expert witness testified that when Irma was several miles south of
`
`Florida, Doppler Radar data from four major weather stations in Florida showed that
`
`from 11:30 p.m. on September 10, 2017, through 5:30 a.m. on September 11, 2017,
`
`50 mile per hour wind gusts were recorded at the pier in Cedar Key and surrounding
`
`areas were under a tornado watch during those same hours. Ex. 2, Adm. Judge Op.,
`
`p. 4, ¶ 12.
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-00121-RH-GRJ Document 1 Filed 07/15/21 Page 12 of 20
`
`a.
`
`The expert testified that for 11.5 minutes beginning at 1:35 a.m.
`
`on September 11, 2017, an isolated severe storm with lateral
`
`ground velocity of 73 miles per hour passed through Cedar Key
`
`with the strongest winds likely on the eastside. Id., p. 3, ¶ 6.
`
`b.
`
`Although he could not confirm that this severe storm was a
`
`tornado because the radar station that recorded the event was
`
`south of Cedar Key, the expert also pointed out that the strongest
`
`winds would have been close to the ground and on the eastside
`
`of Cedar Key. Id., p. 3, ¶ 6.
`
`29. Petitioners’ expert further opined that although Irma did not pass
`
`directly through, the strongest wind gusts from a hurricane often travel ahead of the
`
`hurricane.
`
`a.
`
`Petitioners provided several charts and graphs that also showed
`
`how Irma affected the tides near Cedar Key. (Ex. 7 – 11 attached
`
`hereto).
`
`b.
`
`The expert explained that Irma was the most extreme event that
`
`caused the lowest tides for Cedar Key over the past 100 years.
`
`Ex. 2, Adm Judge Op., p. 3, ¶ 6.
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-00121-RH-GRJ Document 1 Filed 07/15/21 Page 13 of 20
`
`c.
`
`And the expert testified that the strongest winds and rainbands
`
`occurred at low tide around the same time in Cedar Key, which
`
`pushed the tide out to a record low. Id., p. 3, ¶ 7.
`
`d.
`
`The evidence proved damages to the Petitioners’ clam sites were
`
`caused by a combination of low tides and high winds related to
`
`Irma.
`
`30. The Chief of Police reported that based on his many years of experience
`
`working through major weather disasters, and based on what he saw and reports that
`
`he received, he believed that tornados or twisters hit parts of Cedar Key during the
`
`early morning hours of September 11, 2017. Ex. 2, Adm. Judge Op., pp. 3-4, ¶ 11.
`
`31. Even though the Police Chief believes a tornado hit parts of Cedar Key,
`
`there is no WHIP requirement that a hurricane must past directly over a crop for the
`
`Agency to accept it as a cause of loss.
`
`a.
`
`Agency’s rules specifically state that a hurricane and a condition
`
`relating to hurricane are eligible causes of loss. See 7 C.F.R. §
`
`760.1508(b)(1)-(2).
`
`b.
`
`Related conditions include excessive wind, excessive rain,
`
`flooding, storm surges, and tornados. See HB 1-WHP Par. 30B.
`
`c. More notably, the evidence shows that Levy County received a
`
`declaration that a hurricane had occurred on acreage that was
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-00121-RH-GRJ Document 1 Filed 07/15/21 Page 14 of 20
`
`physically located in a county that received a (1) Presidential
`
`Emergency Disaster Declaration authorizing public or individual
`
`assistance due to a hurricane occurring in the 2017 calendar year;
`
`or (2) USDA Secretarial Disaster Designation for a hurricane
`
`occurring
`
`in
`
`the 2017 calendar year. See 7 C.F.R. §
`
`760.1508(b)(1)-(2).
`
`d.
`
`A producer with a crop with a loss on acreage not located in a
`
`county with a Presidential Emergency Disaster Declaration will
`
`be eligible for 2017 WHIP for losses due to a hurricane and
`
`related conditions where, as in this case, the producer provides
`
`supporting documentation that the loss of the crop was
`
`reasonably related to a qualifying disaster event. See 7 C.F.R. §
`
`760.1508(c).
`
`e.
`
`Supporting
`
`documentation may
`
`include
`
`furnishing
`
`climatological data from a reputable source or other information
`
`substantiating the claim of loss due to a qualifying disaster event.
`
`Ibid.
`
`32. Levy County received a Presidential Major Disaster Declaration on
`
`September 14, 2017, because it qualified as a primary county adversely affected by
`
`Irma. Ex. 2, Adm. Judge Op., p. 4, ¶ 15.
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-00121-RH-GRJ Document 1 Filed 07/15/21 Page 15 of 20
`
`33. The Petitioners proved they suffered losses deriving from an eligible
`
`cause of loss as a result of the reported disaster event. Ibid.
`
`34.
`
`In this case, the disaster event that caused Petitioners’ loss occurred at
`
`night, and the hearing judge pointed out that it was unrealistic for the Agency to
`
`expect that Petitioners could prove definitively what caused their loss since the
`
`adverse weather occurred under cover of darkness. Ex. 2, Adm. Judge Op., p. 8. It
`
`is worth noting that under the weather conditions present the night of the loss, it
`
`would have been certain death for Topping and his crew to be “on-site” while the
`
`storm passed in order to verify that the clam loss was caused by the hurricane-caused
`
`conditions. Clam farming takes place using open boats, not more than 25 feet long,
`
`that could not have withstood the bands of tornado activity and heavy rain moving
`
`laterally at over 70 miles per hour lateral ground velocity. As the Administrative
`
`Judge found, however, even absence direct observation, the greater weight of
`
`competent and reliable evidence indicates that Petitioners’ losses were due to Irma
`
`or a condition related to Irma, such as strong winds, low tides, excessive rain, and
`
`tornados. Ex. 2, Adm. Judge Op., p. 3, ¶¶ 5-9, p. 10.
`
`35. Even the Agency, although denying relief, recognized that tornadoes
`
`can impact a single area and have no impact on neighboring areas. The Agency
`
`arbitrarily and capriciously held that the information it reviewed and received from
`
`Petitioners did not prove what caused their clam bag losses.
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-00121-RH-GRJ Document 1 Filed 07/15/21 Page 16 of 20
`
`36. The hearing judge correctly considered the additional evidence that the
`
`Petitioners presented during the hearing and concluded that reliable and competent
`
`evidence shows that a hurricane and/or a condition related to a hurricane caused their
`
`losses. Ex. 2, Adm. Judge Op., pp. 2-3, ¶¶ 3-9.
`
`37. The Agency appealed and the National Director, without hearing any
`
`additional evidence, arbitrarily reversed the Hearing Officer’s conclusion that
`
`Petitioners had proved their losses were caused by the hurricane or related weather
`
`conditions, an arbitrary and capricious decision in disregard of the law and
`
`regulations. Ex. 1, Director’s Review; Ex. 3, 7CFR 760.1508; Ex. 4, 7 CFR 11.8.
`
`JUDICIAL REVIEW
`
`38. The Petitioners seeks judicial review of the decisions of the Director
`
`and Agency and request reinstatement of the determination by the Administrative
`
`Judge, and to overrule the determination by the Director.
`
`39. The Petitioners seek judicial review of the Director’s conclusions in his
`
`decisions that the Petitioners failed to meet their burden of proof that their losses
`
`were caused by a hurricane or related weather conditions.
`
`40. The Petitioners also seek equitable relief pursuant to Congressional
`
`intent, appropriate CFR’s and the FSA handbook. 7 USC § 7996 (a)(1)(2)(3)(b); 7
`
`USC § 6998(d); FSA Handbook, 1-APP (Rev.2) Par. 117 A, B); 7 CFR 1437.16(c).
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-00121-RH-GRJ Document 1 Filed 07/15/21 Page 17 of 20
`
`41. This Joint Petition for Judicial Review is based upon the unreasonable,
`
`arbitrary and capricious actions by the Director, who arbitrarily ignored the findings
`
`by the Administrative Judge, and reached arbitrary, capricious and unsupported
`
`conclusions, including, but not limited to the following:
`
`a.
`
`That the Petitioners did not prove that the losses suffered by the
`
`Petitioners to their clam seed crops were caused by a hurricane
`
`or related weather conditions declared by the United States
`
`President to be a compensable disaster benefit for farmers of
`
`Levy County, Florida.
`
`b.
`
`And denied the Petitioner equitable relief based upon their good
`
`faith efforts to comply with the NAP program.
`
`42. The Agency acted arbitrarily and capriciously in ignoring the
`
`overwhelming evidence of losses by a hurricane or related weather conditions by the
`
`Petitioner.
`
`43. The Director acted arbitrarily and capriciously in mischaracterizing and
`
`substituting a different standard of review by ignoring post-committee evidence
`
`submitted by the Petitioners of reasonably available weather and radar data, personal
`
`observations by law enforcement and unchallenged meteorological expert opinions
`
`that Hurricane Irma or related weather conditions caused the clam seed losses of the
`
`Petitioners.
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-00121-RH-GRJ Document 1 Filed 07/15/21 Page 18 of 20
`
`EQUITABLE RELIEF
`
`44. The Administrative Law Judge found that the Petitioners at all times
`
`acted in good faith, and the Petitioners are entitled to equitable relief from the
`
`Agency’s decision to deny WHIP benefits for crop year 2017.
`
`45. The Director’s arbitrary and capricious denial of equitable relief was
`
`made without a reasonable analysis or discussion of why the Petitioners were not
`
`entitled to receive equitable relief based upon the evidence that the hurricane and
`
`related weather damage occurred at night. In addition, a reasonable application of
`
`the standard of review of the evidence to the Petitioners’ burden of proof would have
`
`revealed that the Petitioners proved by substantial, reliable evidence that they were
`
`entitled to Congressionally mandated reasonable consideration for equitable relief
`
`that Petitioners were denied. Ex. 1, Director Review; Ex. 2, Adm. Judge Op.; 7 USC
`
`§ 7996(a)(b).
`
`46. The Agency violated federal statutes and CFR’s in denying equitable
`
`relief by summary denial of equitable relief without reviewing the evidence of good
`
`faith compliance by the Petitioners. (7 CFR 11.9 (e); FSA Handbook, par. 118, p. 6-
`
`131).
`
`47. Such arbitrary and capricious actions violated the Congressional
`
`purpose and Presidential Declaration for WHIP assistance through the NAP program
`
`and arbitrarily denied the Petitioners equitable relief
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-00121-RH-GRJ Document 1 Filed 07/15/21 Page 19 of 20
`
`48. The Agency’s position that participants are not entitled to either
`
`equitable relief or even the consideration of equitable relief directly contradicts and
`
`thwarts Congress’ express intent to allow equitable relief when a participant acts in
`
`good faith, and provides a quieting effect and unlawful restriction on the power of
`
`the Director, and results in an arbitrary, inadequate review and consideration of the
`
`Petitioners’ right to due process, right to equitable review under federal law and
`
`denial of relief intended by Congress.
`
`49. At all times the Petitioner acted in good faith, relied on the action or
`
`advice of the Agency, and even if not fully compliant, made a good faith effort to
`
`comply with the NAP requirements, are entitled to equitable relief, and to be
`
`reinstated in the NAP/WHIP benefit program for crop year 2017. 7 USC § 7996;
`
`FSA Handbook, 7-CP (Rev. 2) pp. 3-1, et seq.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`Based on the foregoing, your Petitioner respectfully requests that this Court
`
`
`
`take jurisdiction of this matter, and award the following relief;
`
`a.
`
`To declare that the Agency decision was arbitrary and capricious
`
`and is unsupported by substantial evidence, and to
`
`b.
`
`Declare unlawful and set aside the Agency action, findings, and
`
`conclusions that denied benefits for crop year 2017, and to
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-00121-RH-GRJ Document 1 Filed 07/15/21 Page 20 of 20
`
`c.
`
`Declare the ruling by the Administrative Law Judge to be correct
`
`as regards to the clear and convincing proof by substantial
`
`evidence of the cause of the losses by the Petitioners, and to
`
`d.
`
`Award the Petitioner equitable relief for the crop year 2017, and
`
`to
`
`e.
`
`Award such other, further and different relief to which your
`
`Petitioners are entitled.
`
`Respectfully submitted, this the day of July, 2021.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Attorney for Petitioner
`
`Charles F. Woodhouse, Esq.
`Woodhouse Shanahan PA
`910 17th St. N.W. Suite 800
`Washington D.C. 20006
`Tel: (202) 293-0033 FAX: (202) 478-0851
`
`P. O. Box 779
`Cedar Key, FL 32635
`Tel: (352) 278-1110 FAX: (202) 478-0851
`E-mail: cfw@regulatory-food-science.com
`Florida Bar # 0498157
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ CHARLES F. WOODHOUSE
`
`Charles F. Woodhouse
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`20
`
`