United States of America v. Third Coast Towing, LLC et al

Filing 37

ORDER granting 17 Motion to Dismiss; granting 33 Motion for Leave to File Sur-Reply. Signed by District Judge Carlton W. Reeves on 8/5/2016. (AC)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
NORTHERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

PLAINTIFF

V.

CAUSE NO. 3:16-CV-34-CWR-FKB

THIRD COAST TOWING, LLC, ET AL.

DEFENDANTS

ORDER
Before the Court is the government’s motion to dismiss Nature’s Way Marine and
Environmental Pollution Group’s counterclaim. The matter is fully briefed and ready for review.
In their counterclaim, these defendants allege that the United States government’s
National Pollution Funds Center erred when it denied their request for reimbursement of oil spill
cleanup expenses. Among other remedies available under the Administrative Procedures Act
(APA), these defendants sought discovery and a trial de novo. The government’s motion to
dismiss now argues that those particular remedies are unavailable under the APA.
In a challenge brought pursuant to the APA, this Court may overturn an agency ruling
only in limited circumstances; judicial review is “highly deferential.” Buffalo Marine Servs. Inc.
v. United States, 663 F.3d 750, 754 (5th Cir. 2011); see also Texas Clinical Labs, Inc. v.
Sebelius, 612 F.3d 771, 774-75 (5th Cir. 2010). The usual articulation of the standard asks
whether the agency ruling was “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in
accordance with law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). But an agency ruling may also be set aside if it is
“unwarranted by the facts to the extent that the facts are subject to trial de novo by the reviewing
court.” Id. § 706(2)(F) (emphasis added).
In APA cases the Court’s review is also typically limited to the administrative record.
Supplementation “is not allowed unless the moving party demonstrates unusual circumstances

justifying a departure from the general presumption that review is limited to the record compiled
by the agency.” Medina Cnty. Envt’l Action Ass’n v. Surface Transp. Bd., 602 F.3d 687, 706 (5th
Cir. 2010) (quotation marks and citation omitted).
Here, these defendants have neither shown that any facts are subject to trial de novo nor
demonstrated unusual circumstances warranting supplementation of the record. The briefing
simply does not reveal that this dispute is so extraordinary as to require discovery. These
defendants’ primary case proffered in support of discovery is an ERISA case, not an APA
authority, so it will not suffice to overcome their high burden, while their bare assertion of
agency bias is similarly unsupported. And although these defendants remain entitled to de novo
review of the agency’s legal conclusions, that is not the same thing as trial de novo. See Buffalo
Marine, 663 F.3d at 753.
Accordingly, the motion is granted, and the APA counterclaim asserted by these
defendants is not subject to discovery or trial de novo. Any remaining issues of relief are
reserved for summary judgment.1
SO ORDERED, this the 5th day of August, 2016.

s/ Carlton W. Reeves
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1

These defendants’ motion for leave to file a sur-reply is granted.

2