Brother's Mini Market Inc. v. United States Department of Agriculture

Background

Fares Al Gabbari and Brother’s Mini Market Inc. sued the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and its Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) under the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008. They sought judicial review of a decision disqualifying the store from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) for six months.

The Government filed a motion under Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. It argued that the United States had not waived sovereign immunity for a suit against the USDA, the only named defendant, and that the plaintiffs had not exhausted the administrative process required by 7 U.S.C. § 2023(a).

Sovereign-immunity ruling

The court explained that the United States generally cannot be sued without its consent, and that consent is required for jurisdiction. The Food and Nutrition Act expressly waives sovereign immunity for suits against the United States, but the court relied on precedent holding that the waiver does not extend to claims against the USDA, FNS, or their officials under the Act.

Because the plaintiffs named the USDA rather than the United States, the court held that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the case as pleaded. The court noted that the proper defendant would have been the United States.

Administrative-exhaustion ruling

The court also considered whether the plaintiffs could amend the complaint to substitute the United States as defendant. Under Section 2023(a)(3), a store receiving notice of disqualification has ten days to request an opportunity to submit information supporting its position. Section 2023(a)(4) provides that the administrative determination becomes final if the store fails to make that request or fails to submit supporting information after making it.

The court concluded that this exhaustion requirement is a claim-processing rule, not a jurisdictional requirement. It nevertheless considered the issue in deciding whether amendment would be futile. The plaintiffs did not dispute that they failed to submit supporting information after requesting review of the August 29, 2022 disqualification. Their July 7 and August 3 letters came before that disqualification notice and therefore did not satisfy the statutory requirement. The court also stated that the complaint’s contrary, conclusory allegation was contradicted by documents incorporated into the complaint and by the plaintiffs’ position in opposing the motion.

Because the failure to exhaust was clear from the face of the complaint, the court concluded that substituting the United States would not cure the problem. The court therefore denied leave to amend.

Disposition

Judge Jesse M. Furman granted the Government’s motion to dismiss and denied leave to amend. The Clerk was directed to enter judgment for the defendant, terminate the motion, and close the case. The order did not decide whether the store’s six-month SNAP disqualification was substantively lawful.