Belwise Aquaculture v. US Dept Agri ( 2003 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
______________________
Nos. 02-30091, 02-30306
_______________________
TRUDY TYLER BELGARD; JIMMIE BELGARD,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
versus
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, ANN VENEMAN,
SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE; WILLY COOPER, Executive
Director for Farm Service Agency for Louisiana; CRAIG MCCAIN, County Executive
Director; ROBERT BRADLEY, Farm Service Agency Program Specialist,
Defendants-Appellees.
BELWISE AQUACULTURE SYSTEM INC.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, ANN VENEMAN,
SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE; FARM SERVICES AGENCY;
WILLY COOPER, Executive Director of Farm Service Agency for Louisiana; CRAIG
MCCAIN, County Executive Director; ROBERT BRADLEY, Farm Service Agency
Program Specialist,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________________________
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
________________________________________
March 6, 2003
Before KING, Chief Judge, and DeMOSS and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
EDITH BROWN CLEMENT, Circuit Judge:
Plaintiffs-Appellants Belwise Aquaculture Systems Inc. (“Belwise”) and Trudy and
Jimmie Belgard (“the Belgards”) appeal the district court’s grant of summary judgment in
favor of the Defendants-Appellees. We affirm essentially for the reasons given by the district
court.
Belwise and the Belgards are engaged in the business of farming and harvesting catfish
fingerlings in Louisiana. In 1999, Belwise and the Belgards sought relief under the Crop Loss
1
Disaster Assistance Program (“CLDAP”) for losses suffered due to excessive heat during the
summer of 1998. Belwise and the Belgards lost approximately 90 and 60 percent of their
catfish fingerlings, respectively.1 The U.S. Department of Agriculture (“USDA”) distributed
compensation to Belwise and the Belgards through the CLDAP, but they were unsatisfied
with the amount of disaster assistance they received because the USDA did not compensate
them for the loss of the entire crop. Instead, the USDA reduced their compensation based on
two scientific conclusions: (1) 20 percent of the catfish fingerlings would die in normal
circumstances, and (2) a maximum of 60 percent died as a result of the excessive heat in
1998. Belwise and the Belgards unsuccessfully challenged the USDA’s reduction of their
compensation in a series of administrative actions. In December 2000, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
§ 702 of the Administrative Procedure Act and 7 U.S.C. § 6999, Belwise and the Belgards
filed suit in federal district court. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the
Defendants-Appellees.
This Court reviews grants of summary judgment de novo. Travelers Cas. & Sur. Co.
of Am. v. Baptist Health Sys., 313 F.3d 295, 297 (5t h Cir. 2002). “Summary judgment is
appropriate when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled
to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). We view all evidence and factual
inferences in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion.” Id.During oral arguments, Belwise and the Belgards conceded the authority of the USDA
to establish a normal mortality rate and a maximum loss rate. However, Belwise and the
Belgards argued that: (1) the USDA did not follow the proper procedure in establishing the
normal mortality rate, and (2) the USDA was obliged to consider any identifiable records
supplied by the Plaintiffs-Appellants before applying the maximum loss rate.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-movant, we conclude that
there is no genuine issue of material fact essentially for the reasons set forth by the district
1
Even in the absence of excessive heat, it is normal for those engaged in the farming and harvesting of
catfish fingerlings to lose a certain percentage of catfish fingerlings.
2
court. Therefore, the Defendants-Appellees are entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Accordingly, the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the
Defendants-Appellees is AFFIRMED.
3