Boeuf River Farm Inc v. Trigleth et al
Filing
43
OPINION AND ORDER denying pltf's 21 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting USDA's 29 Motion for Summary Judgment; pltf's claims against Rocky Trigleth are remanded to the Circuit Court of Chicot County, Arkansas. Signed by Chief Judge J. Leon Holmes on 11/16/11. (vjt)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
PINE BLUFF DIVISION
BOEUF RIVER FARM, INC.
v.
PLAINTIFF
No. 5:10CV00279 JLH
ROCKY TRIGLETH and UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
FARM SERVICES AGENCY
DEFENDANTS
OPINION AND ORDER
Boeuf River Farm, Inc., sued Rocky Trigleth and the United States Department of
Agriculture Farm Services Agency in the Circuit Court of Chicot County, Arkansas, seeking to
recover farm rent that Trigleth allegedly owed to Boeuf River Farm for the 2009 crop year. The
USDA Farm Services Agency removed the action to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1)
and § 1444. Boeuf River Farm and the USDA Farm Services Agency have filed cross motions for
summary judgment. Because the USDA Farm Services Agency is protected from suit by sovereign
immunity, the claims against it will be dismissed without prejudice, and the claims against Trigleth
will be remanded to the Circuit Court of Chicot County, Arkansas.
The amended complaint alleges that Trigleth entered into a farm lease with Boeuf River
Farm for the 2009 crop year and that Trigleth defaulted on paying the rent at the end of the crop
year. The complaint further alleges that Boeuf River Farm perfected its landlord’s lien in the crops
and proceeds from the crops pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 18-41-101. Trigleth, according to the
complaint, paid funds that were subject to Boeuf River Farm’s landlord’s lien to the USDA Farm
Services Agency while the agency knew of Boeuf River Farm’s lien on those proceeds. Boeuf River
Farm alleges that representatives of the USDA Farm Services Agency stated that the agency would
honor the landlord’s lien but the agency then failed to do so. The amended complaint alleges that
the USDA Farm Services Agency applied those payments to Trigleth’s debt on a crop loan even
though it knew that the funds were subject to a superior lien in favor of Boeuf River Farm.
Boeuf River Farm has now filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that, as a matter
of law, its landlord’s lien is superior to the USDA Farm Service Agency’s right to collect payment
on its crop lien. In turn, the USDA Farm Service Agency has filed a motion for summary judgment
arguing, in part, that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction because Boeuf River Farm’s claim
is, in effect, a claim for the tort of conversion, which must be brought against the United States
under the Federal Tort Claims Act. Boeuf River Farm contends that the action is not really one for
the tort of conversion but one to enforce the landlord lien statute, Ark. Code Ann. § 18-41-101.
Boeuf River Farm concedes, however, that if the action is one for the tort of conversion, the action
should be dismissed without prejudice because Boeuf River Farm has not exhausted its
administrative remedies as the Federal Tort Claims Act requires.1
For present purposes, it is unnecessary to decide whether Boeuf River Farm’s claim against
the USDA Farm Services Agency is a claim for the tort of conversion because the claim must be
dismissed either way: if this is a tort action, Boeuf River Farm has not exhausted the administrative
remedy as required by the Federal Tort Claims Act, and if this is not a tort action, Boeuf River Farm
has not shown that the United States has waived its sovereign immunity.
1
In response to the USDA Farm Services Agency’s statement of material facts not
in dispute, Boeuf River Farm admitted that it did not file an administrative tort claim with
the USDA Farm Services Agency. See Document #40, ¶ 11. Boeuf River Farm did
notify the USDA Farm Services Agency of its lien by letter dated March 19, 2010, and in
that letter requested assistance in collecting. That letter did not, however, make a claim
for the tort of conversion, nor did it make a demand on the agency for any amount of
money. See Document #40, p. 9.
2
“Absent a waiver, sovereign immunity shields the Federal Government and its agencies from
suit.” F.D.I.C. v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 475, 114 S. Ct. 996, 1000, 127 L. Ed. 2d 308 (1994). To
bring an action against an agency of the federal government, a party “must show both a waiver of
sovereign immunity and a grant of subject matter jurisdiction.” V S Ltd. Partnership v. Dep’t of
Housing & Urban Dev., 235 F.3d 1109, 1112 (8th Cir. 2000). When congress gives consent for the
United States or an agency thereof to be sued, the terms of that consent define the Court’s
jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Meyer, 510 U.S. at 475, 114 S. Ct. at 1000; United States v.
Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584, 586, 61 S. Ct. 767, 770, 85 L. Ed. 1058 (1941). Although congress has
given consent for tort actions against the United States, it has required as a condition of that consent
that any such claim must be presented to the appropriate federal agency before an action can be
instituted. See 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b) and § 2675(a). Thus, the administrative remedy must be
exhausted before suit can be commenced under the Federal Tort Claims Act. McNeil v. United
States, 508 U.S. 106, 110-11, 113 S. Ct. 1980, 1983, 124 L. Ed. 2d 21 (1993); Mader v. United
States, 654 F.3d 794 (8th Cir. 2011). Boeuf River Farm admittedly has not exhausted its
administrative remedy under the Federal Tort Claims Act. Therefore, if this is an action for which
the congress has waived sovereign immunity pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act, it must be
dismissed because Boeuf River Farm has not complied with the condition imposed by congress
when it gave consent in that statute for tort actions to be instituted against the United States.
On the other hand, if Boeuf River Farm is correct that this is not a tort action but an action
having some other character or nature, the action still must be dismissed. “It is axiomatic that the
United States may not be sued without its consent and that the existence of consent is a prerequisite
for jurisdiction.” United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206, 212, 103 S. Ct. 2961, 2965, 77 L. Ed. 2d
580 (1983). Boeuf River Farm has not identified any potentially applicable statute in which
3
congress has given consent for the United States to be sued other than the Federal Tort Claims Act.
Consequently, even if Boeuf River Farm is correct that its action against the USDA Farm Services
Agency is not in the nature of a tort action, the action still must be dismissed because the agency is
protected from suit by sovereign immunity.
The claims of Boeuf River Farm, Inc., against the United States Department of Agriculture
Farm Services Agency will be dismissed without prejudice.
Boeuf River Farm and Trigleth are citizens of the State of Arkansas, and the dispute between
them arises under state law. Either the Court never had jurisdiction over the claims of Boeuf River
Farm against Trigleth, or if the Court has jurisdiction over those claims, it is supplemental
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. In the later event, the Court declines to exercise
jurisdiction over those claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). In either event, now that the
federal agency is dismissed, the proper course is to remand this action to the Circuit Court of Chicot
County, Arkansas. Williams v. City of Atlanta, 794 F.2d 624, 628-29 (11th Cir. 1986).
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated, Boeuf River Farm, Inc.’s motion for summary judgment is denied,
and the USDA Farm Services Agency’s motion for summary judgment is granted. Documents #21
and #29. The claims of Boeuf River Farm, Inc., against Rocky Trigleth are remanded to the Circuit
Court of Chicot County, Arkansas.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 16th day of November, 2011.
___________________________________
J. LEON HOLMES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?