Summary of a Recent
Judicial Development in
Animal Welfare

Agency Action Complies with Principles of Fundamental Fairness

Eric H. Foy
National AgLaw Center Research Associate

Summary of Decision

In Kollman Ramos v. U.S. Department of Agriculture, No. 08-10236, 2009 WL 922661 (11th Cir. Apr. 7, 2009), the United States Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a Decision and Order of a United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Judicial Officer. Kollman sought to have the Decision and Order set aside and remanded for a full hearing. The USDA filed a complaint against Kollman and others for violations of the Animal Welfare Act (AWA), 7 U.S.C. §§ 2131-2159, and its related regulations. In affirming, the court held that the Judicial Officer's Decision and Order did not violate the principles of fundamental fairness embodied in the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the Administrative Procedure Act, the AWA, and the USDA's own rules.

Background

On April 26, 2005, a representative of the USDA brought a disciplinary action against Kollman for willfully violating the AWA and its accompanying regulations. Id. at *1. The USDA's complaint alleged that Kollman "knowingly operated as a dealer without a valid license"; "caused injuries to two lions that resulted in the death of one of them"; and "lied to investigators about his actions." Id. Additionally, the agency alleged that Kollman failed to "obey a cease and desist order issued by the Secretary of Agriculture pursuant to section 2149(b) of the AWA . . . ." Id. The complaint "sought to have Kollman ordered to cease and desist from violating [AWA] and the Regulations and Standards issued thereunder, be assessed civil penalties, and have his license revoked or suspended." Id. Eventually, the USDA Judicial Officer entered a Default Decision and Order against Kollman because he failed to object to the complaint within the allotted time. Id. at *3. Kollman responded to the notice of default, denying all charges against him. Id. Finally, on July 30, 2007, Kollman motioned to set aside the Default Decision and Order. Id. at *4. On October 2, 2007, the Judicial Officer filed a Decision and Order against Kollman. Id. On November 15, 2007, "Kollman filed a Motion for Rehearing on the Default Decision, which the Judicial Officer treated as a Petition for Rehearing," and "[o]n December 17, 2007, after consideration of the merits of the Petition for Rehearing, the Judicial Officer denied the Petition." Id. Thereafter, Kollman sought to have the Decision and Order set aside and remanded for a full hearing. Id.

Arguments

Kollman raised the following three issues on appeal:

(1) whether the USDA reversibly erred in finding that Kollman defaulted and thereby admitted the allegations against him when in July 2005 he timely responded to the Administrator's Complaint and requested a hearing; (2) whether the Judicial Officer abused his discretion in striking and refusing to consider Kollman's motion to set aside default; and (3) whether the Judicial Officer abused his discretion in revoking Kollman's AWA license.
Id. at *6.

The underlying contention of each of Kollman's arguments was that "these actions by the agency violated principles of fundamental fairness embodied in the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the Administrative Procedure Act, the AWA, and the USDA's own rules." Id.

Analysis and Holdings

In arguing that the agency's actions were fundamentally unfair, Kollman cited Oberstar v. FDIC, 987 F.2d 494 (8th Cir.1993), and Lion Raisins, Inc. v. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Case No. CV-F-04-5844 (E.D. Ca. May 12, 2005); however, the court found that these cases were distinguishable from the instant facts for at least two reasons. Id. at *9. First, in both cases cited by Kollman, the courts were extremely displeased with "the agencies' attempt to 'end run' around the merits of the case with procedural maneuvers." Id. Here, although the "case sat idle with respect to Kollman for almost two years," it was the Administrative Law Judge that "started it with a sua sponte motion to show cause why the complaint should not be dismissed and stricken from the docket for failure to take further action in the case." Id. Additionally, in the cases cited by Kollman, "the courts emphasized that good cause had been shown for the late filing of the respondents' answers such that the rendering of the default decision was unfair." Id. at *10. Here, "Kollman did not establish good cause for the insufficiency of his response to the Complaint which included neither denials nor defenses even after he had been given explicit directions as to how to respond to the complaint and the consequences of a failure to follow said directions." Id. Although the court was not pleased the pace of the agency's actions, the court held that "the Judicial Officer's Decision and Order did not violate the principles of fundamental fairness embodied in the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the Administrative Procedure Act, the AWA, and the USDA's own rules." Id.

The case was decided on April 7, 2009.