Tawakal Halal LLC et al v. United States of America
Filing
59
OPINION AND ORDER granting 49 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Eric C. Tostrud on 7/24/2019. (RMM)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Tawakal Halal LLC, and
Abdifateh Mohamed Omar,
File No. 17-cv-04732 (ECT/TNL)
Plaintiffs,
v.
OPINION AND ORDER
United States of America,
Defendant.
Daniel L. M. Kennedy, Kennedy & Cain PLLC, Minneapolis, MN for Plaintiffs Tawakal
Halal LLC and Abdifateh Mohamed Omar.
David W. Fuller, United States Attorney’s Office, Minneapolis, MN for Defendant United
States of America.
The relevant facts and procedural history of this case may be described briefly.
Plaintiff Tawakal Halal LLC is a grocery store in Minneapolis, and Plaintiff Abdifateh
Mohamed Omar is its owner. Compl. ¶¶ 1, 2, 7 [ECF No. 1]. In this action, they seek
judicial review of a September 2017 final decision of the United States Department of
Agriculture disqualifying Tawakal Halal permanently from participating as an authorized
retailer in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or “SNAP.” Id. ¶ 5; see id.
Ex. 1 at 1–15 (Final Agency Decision) [ECF No. 1-1].1 Federal law authorizes a store
1
No reason has been identified explaining why Omar is a Party to this case. The
challenged administrative action was taken against only Tawakal Halal, Compl. Ex. 1 at 2
(Final Agency Decision) [ECF No. 1-1], and no adverse action against Omar has been
alleged.
aggrieved by a final agency decision disqualifying it from SNAP to “obtain judicial review
thereof.” 7 U.S.C. § 2023(a)(13). But circumstances here have changed since Plaintiffs
commenced this action.
The Department of Agriculture vacated its disqualification
decision in March 2019. Fuller Decl. Ex. A [ECF No. 53-1]. Contending that the agency’s
vacatur of the disqualification decision renders Plaintiffs’ claim moot, the United States
has moved to dismiss this case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). ECF No. 49. The motion will be granted because the vacatur
of the disqualification decision gives Plaintiffs all of the relief they could have obtained in
this case regarding the validity of the disqualification decision, and there is no reasonable
basis to expect that the Department of Agriculture might reinstate its now-vacated
disqualification decision.
The law governing consideration of the United States’ motion is settled. Start with
the standard of review. The United States has introduced matter outside the pleadings—
evidence of the Department of Agriculture’s decision to vacate its disqualification
decision—making its attack on subject-matter jurisdiction “factual.” Branson Label, Inc.
v. City of Branson, 793 F.3d 910, 914 (8th Cir. 2015). The factual nature of the United
States’ attack enables the Court to resolve disputed facts, applying no presumption of truth
to the non-moving party’s allegations or evidence (or, for that matter, to the moving party’s
evidence). Id. at 914–15; Osborn v. United States, 918 F.2d 724, 729–30 & n.6 (8th Cir.
1990). With respect to the substantive standards, the United States Constitution limits the
subject-matter jurisdiction of federal courts to ongoing cases and controversies. See U.S.
Const. art. III, § 2, cl. 1. “[A]n actual [case or] controversy must exist not only at the time
2
the complaint is filed, but through all stages of the litigation.” Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc.,
568 U.S. 85, 90–91 (2013) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). “When, during
the course of litigation, the issues presented in a case ‘lose their life because of the passage
of time or a change in circumstances . . . and a federal court can no longer grant effective
relief,’ the case is considered moot.” Ali v. Cangemi, 419 F.3d 722, 723 (8th Cir. 2005)
(alteration in original) (quoting Haden v. Pelofsky, 212 F.3d 466, 469 (8th Cir. 2000)). If
an action is moot because it no longer satisfies the case-or-controversy requirement, a
federal court “ha[s] no discretion and must dismiss the action for lack of jurisdiction.” Ali,
419 F.3d at 724 (citing Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 496 n.7 (1969)). There are
four exceptions, however. If any of the following exceptions apply, a court should not
dismiss an action as moot:
(1) secondary or ‘collateral’ injuries survive after resolution of
the primary injury; (2) the issue is deemed a wrong capable of
repetition yet evading review; (3) the defendant voluntarily
ceases an allegedly illegal practice but is free to resume it at
any time; or (4) it is a properly certified class action suit.
Abdiwali M. A. v. Sec’y Homeland Sec., No. 18-cv-2793 (DWF/TNL), 2019 WL 2107914,
at *3 (D. Minn. Apr. 17, 2019) (citation omitted), R&R adopted, 2019 WL 2108659
(D. Minn. May 14, 2019).
Here, there is no present controversy regarding Tawakal Halal’s authority to
participate as an authorized retailer in SNAP, and Plaintiffs’ claims are moot. The statute
authorizing Plaintiffs to bring this case, 7 U.S.C. § 2023(a)(13), permits a store aggrieved
by a final determination to pursue judicial review “requesting the court to set aside such
determination.” The statute precludes the agency’s liability “for the value of any sales lost
3
during the disqualification period.” 7 U.S.C. § 2023(a)(18). Consistent with this regime,
Plaintiffs in their complaint did not request monetary relief but requested only that the
disqualification decision be “set aside” or, alternatively, that a civil monetary penalty be
imposed “in lieu of permanent disqualification.” Compl. at 11. The Department of
Agriculture’s vacatur of its disqualification decision gives Plaintiffs the very relief they
sought by filing this action. With respect to their § 2023(a)(13) claim, it is not possible for
the Court to grant Plaintiffs greater relief than they have obtained already.
Relying on the voluntary-cessation rule, Plaintiffs argue that “the possibility that the
USDA brings further charges of trafficking against Plaintiffs remains high.” Mem. in
Opp’n at 3 [ECF No. 56]. And Plaintiffs point out that “[t]here is no settlement agreement
in place that would limit the ability of the USDA to again disqualify the Plaintiffs based
on the same allegations that were made originally.” Id. at 2. These assertions do not show
that Plaintiffs’ claims in this case are not moot. Plaintiffs’ hypothesized future trafficking
charges are unsupported and “too remote to establish an ongoing case or controversy.”
Ayyoubi v. Holder, 712 F.3d 387, 391 (8th Cir. 2013). And any future agency action would
be premised on a different record. See Kargbo v. Brott, No. 15-cv-2713 (PJS/LIB),
2016 WL 3676162, at *2 (D. Minn. July 6, 2016) (“[W]hile it is certainly possible for the
government to again detain Kargbo illegally, that detention would be illegal for different
factual and legal reasons than the detentions challenged by Kargbo in his habeas petitions.
It is now impossible for the government to repeat the same unlawful conduct that Kargbo
challenged, and thus this case does not fall into the voluntary-cessation exception to the
mootness doctrine.”). Plaintiffs do not suggest that there is any realistic possibility the
4
agency will rescind its decision reinstating Tawakal Halal’s participation in SNAP (or
“vacate the vacatur”), and the United States avers there is none. Reply Mem. at 2 [ECF
No. 57] (“Thus, no basis currently exists for USDA to disqualify the store, and to that
extent the reinstatement decision is permanent.”).
At the hearing on this motion, Plaintiffs pointed out that they would be seeking
attorneys’ fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act. But this does not mean Plaintiffs’
claim remains live for purposes of Article III. “An interest in attorney’s fees is insufficient
to create an Article III case or controversy where none exists on the merits of the underlying
claim.” Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 107 (1998) (cleaned up).
ORDER
Based on the foregoing, and all of the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS
ORDERED THAT:
1.
Defendant’s motion to dismiss [ECF No. 49] is GRANTED; and
2.
This action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of
subject-matter jurisdiction.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: July 24, 2019
s/ Eric C. Tostrud
Eric C. Tostrud
United States District Court
5
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?