Enterprise National Bank v. Johanns

• Decision Date: 26 March 2008
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 06-1344 (RCL).
• Citation: 539 F.Supp.2d 343
• Parties: ENTERPRISE NATIONAL BANK, Plaintiff, v. Mike JOHANNS, Secretary, United States Department of Agriculture, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Columbia

Page 343

539 F.Supp.2d 343

ENTERPRISE NATIONAL BANK, Plaintiff, v. Mike JOHANNS, Secretary, United States Department of Agriculture, Defendant.

Civil Action No. 06-1344 (RCL).

United States District Court, District of Columbia.

March 26, 2008.

John M. Gross, John Joseph Richard, Taylor, Busch, Slipakoff & Duma LLP, Atlanta, GA, for Plaintiff.

Heather D. Graham-Oliver, U.S. Attorney's Office, Washington, DC, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

ROYCE C. LAMBERTH, District Judge.

INTRODUCTION

Before the court are cross-motions [18 and 22] for declaratory judgment by plaintiff Enterprise National Bank ("the Bank") and defendant United States Department of Agriculture. Upon full consideration of the motions, opposition and reply briefs, the entire record herein, and applicable law, the court finds that the Bank's motion for declaratory judgment will be DENIED and that the USDA's motion for declaratory judgment will be GRANTED.

Background

Plaintiff Enterprise National Bank ("the Bank") is a national banking association chartered under the laws of the United States which, among other things, makes commercial and other types of loans. The U.S. Department of Agriculture ("the Agency") operates the Business and Industry ("B & I") guaranteed loan program, through which it offers guarantees of business loans made by qualified private lenders in rural areas. In this instance, a $5,000,000 loan was made by the Bank to Catfish INT, a company created by Mr. Erwin David Rabhan, for the purpose of building a catfish processing plant and attendant facilities. As envisioned, the facility would process live catfish into frozen and packaged fish filets for distribution.

The Agency's Georgia state office issued a B & I program guarantee for 75% of the loan on October 1, 1999. These loan guarantees are backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government with limited exceptions. One such exception is for negligent servicing of the loan. Catfish subsequently defaulted, and the Bank requested that an Estimated Loss Claim, dated November 20, 2002, be paid to it. On October 20, 2003, the Agency's Georgia state office issued an adverse Agency determination letter alleging, among other things, that the Bank was deficient in the processing and prudent monitoring of the loan; did not comply with several covenants of the Lender's Agreement, Loan Agreement, and Conditional Commitment for Guaranty; and was negligent in its performance of its obligations.

Decisions by the Agency to reduce, deny, or dishonor B & I program guarantees are appealable to the National Appeals Division (NAD) pursuant to 7 U.S.C. § 6996 and 7 C.F.R. § 11.3. The Bank filed an appeal with the NAD, whose Hearing Officer upheld the Agency's determinations in its adverse letter and affirmed the Agency's reduction of the Loan Note Guarantee to $0. On November 16, 2004, the Bank filed a Request for Director Review. The NAD Deputy Director then remanded the case to a new Hearing Officer to consider allowing the Lender to request subpoenas for certain witnesses and documentation and to submit exhibits that were denied in the first hearing.

On December 2, 2005, the new NAD Hearing Officer issued his Remand Appeal Determination, finding two losses — an equity injection of $2,950,000 that should have occurred and a maintenance shed and guardhouse valued at $80,000 that were never built — were due to negligence on the part of the Bank Nit also indicating that he could not support the Agency's determination to fully reduce the Loan Note Guarantee. Neither the Bank nor the Agency appealed this Hearing Officer's determination; thus, the Remand Appeal Determination remains intact as the ultimate administrative decision regarding this case.¹ Final determinations by the NAD are enforceable by the U.S. District Courts pursuant to 7 U.S.C. § 6999.

The Agency interpreted this determination by deducting the two losses found by the NAD Hearing Officer from, the loss claim submitted by the Bank, and sending the bank a check for the difference of $956,252.19. The Bank, however, claims in this lawsuit that the final determination requires that its loss claim be paid in full, without any deductions. The question presented here, then, is one of interpretation of the NAD's final determination.

Standard of Review

Under the Administrative Procedure Act, the court is to set aside an agency action that is "arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law." 5 U.S.C. § 706(2). The standard of review is highly deferential to the agency, so that a court need not find that the agency's decision is "the only reasonable one, or even that it is the result [the court] would have reached had the question arisen in the first instance in judicial proceedings." Am. Paper Inst., Inc. v. Am. Elec. Power Serv. Corp., 461 U.S. 402, 422, 103 S.Ct. 1921, 76 L.Ed.2d 22 (1983). The court is not entitled to substitute its judgment for that of the agency. Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402, 416, 91 S.Ct. $144, L.Ed.2d 136 (1971). Moreover, judicial review is confined to the full administrative record before the agency at the time the decision was made. Envtl. Del Fund, Inc. v. Costle, 657 F.2d 275,284 (D.C.Cir.1981). When reviewing that record, the court considers "whether the agency has considered the relevant factors and articulated a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made." Jifry v. FAA, 370 F.3d 1174, 1180 (D.C.Cir.2004).

ANALYSIS

The Bank and the Agency have interpreted the NAD Hearing Officer's Remand Appeal Determination in different and irreconcilable ways — the Agency deducted the two losses found by the NAD Hearing Officer to be caused by the Bank from the loss claim submitted by the Bank, while the Bank has interpreted the final determination as requiring that its loss claim be paid in full, without any deductions. Unfortunately, the...