Case: Garcia v. Vilsack
1:00-cv-02445 | U.S. District Court for the District of District of Columbia
Filed Date: Oct. 13, 2000
Closed Date: 2014
Clearinghouse coding complete
Case Summary
On October 13, 2000, a group of Hispanic farmers and ranchers filed this lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Agriculture ("USDA") in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Plaintiffs, represented by private counsel, alleged that the "USDA ha[d] maintained, and continue[d] to maintain, a system of administering its farm credit and non-credit benefit programs that gives virtually unfettered discretion to local officials to enforce highly subjective eligibility criteria that, in turn, give vent to hostility to minority farmers which deprives them of an equal fair opportunity to participate in such programs." Some of the discriminatory practices that Plaintiffs complained of included: discouraging Hispanics from applying for loans, long delays in processing applications, high denial rates, prejudicial delays in providing loans and providing less amount than was requested, and failing to provide loan servicing assistance. Additionally, Plaintiffs claimed it was virtually impossible for them to secure redress through the USDA appeals process, because its Civil Rights Office was so severely limited by lack of funding and interest that there it was incapable of investigating discrimination claims. The statute of limitations for such claims had run, but Plaintiffs cited the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1999, 7 U.S.C. §2279, which waived the statute of limitations for such claims.
Plaintiffs filed under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA), 15 U.S.C. §1691, the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §2201, and the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq., requesting the following relief: (1) declaratory judgment that the practices, policies, patterns and procedures described above were unlawful, (2) a permanent injunction requiring USDA to adopt lending practice in conformity with ECOA and the APA, (3) a permanent injunction prohibiting USDA from engaging in discrimination in the administration of their loan programs and services, (4) an order mandating USDA to remedy its discriminatory practices by taking affirmative action to advertise to Hispanics, adopt a receipt system for all contacts with potential lendees, provide full and equal assistance to all farmers, provide Spanish versions of all application and explanation paperwork, employ fluent Spanish speakers, provide expedited review via independent mediators, and provide semi-annual reports to the Department Secretary, (5) redesign the computerized data collection system in order to ensure that full transparency is achieved, and (6) compensatory damages to deserving plaintiffs.
On December 22, 2000, the U.S. moved to dismiss all claims in Plaintiffs' complaint. On March 20, 2002, District Court Judge James Robertson granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss, dismissing the failure to investigate counts because, he found, they did not state a claim under ECOA or the APA. 2002 WL 33004124 (D.D.C. 2002).
On December 22, 2000, Plaintiffs moved to certify the class. This proposed class was described as: "Hispanics who farmed or ranched, or attempted to farm or ranch, during the period January 1, 1981, to the present and who were discriminated against by the USDA on the basis of national origin when they sought to participate on equal terms in farm loan and disaster benefit programs and who complained to the USDA about such discrimination." Subclasses were also proposed, defined by the phase of lending process in which the discrimination took place. Judge Robertson denied this motion on December 2, 2002, holding that the Plaintiffs had failed to demonstrate a common question of law or fact. 211 F.R.D. 15 (D.D.C. 2002). Plaintiffs entered a renewed motion for class certification, attempting to remedy the commonality issue. However, Judge Robertson denied the renewed motion on September 10, 2004, stating that claims still lacked sufficient commonality. 224 F.R.D. 8 (D.D.C. 2004). Plaintiffs appealed this decision and the March 20, 2002 dismissal order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
On March 31, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals (Judge Karen L. Henderson) affirmed the District Court's denial of class certification and dismissal of the ECOA failure-to-investigate claim. 444 F.3d 625 (D.C. Cir. 2006). However, the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal regarding the APA failure-to-investigate claim, remanding to the District Court to investigate the claim further.
Meanwhile, Plaintiffs had sought a temporary restraining order on March 23, 2001, but on March 27, 2001, District Court Judge Louis F. Oberdorfer denied the motion. Plaintiffs then entered an emergency motion for preliminary injunction to the District Court on November 1, 2004, asking the court to order Defendant to adhere to the USDA policy that prohibits adverse actions against farmers who have filed civil rights complaints. However, Judge Robertson denied this motion on November 18, 2004, ruling that foreclosures were not necessarily prohibited by the policy.
Plaintiffs filed their third amended complain on June 30, 2006.
On November 30, 2007, Judge Robertson, after reconsidering the APA failure-to-investigate claim, dismissed the claim, citing his reasoning in a similar opinion in Love v. Vilsack (see 525 F. Supp. 2d 155). Plaintiffs appealed this decision again to the Court of Appeals. On April 24, 2009, the Court of Appeals (Judge Judith W. Rogers) affirmed the District Court dismissal of the APA claim. 563 F.3d 519 (D.C. Cir. 2009). Plaintiffs petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, but it was denied on January 19, 2010. 558 U.S. 1158 (2010).
In late September 2010, the defendants, seemingly without the support of the plaintiffs, submitted a proposed settlement agreement. On October 6, the Plaintiffs moved for settlement class certification, arguing that the Defendants were attempting to settle the case while preventing the Plaintiffs from the protection of Rule 23 (governing class actions and class settlement). On October 20, 2010, District Court Judge Reggie B. Walton denied the Plaintiffs' motion.
The proposed settlement agreement appeared to go no further. For the next several months, little happened in the case, although the parties presented status reports to the judge regularly.
On January 20, 2012, Defendant submitted its eighth status report, which included the latest proposed settlement agreement framework. The proposal created three tracks of payment claims: Tier 2 ($50,000 reward, requires "substantial evidence" of discrimination), Tier 1(a) ($50,000 reward and debt relief, requires substantial evidence of discrimination), and Tier 1(b) (up to $250,000 reward, required a preponderance of the evidence of discrimination). Plaintiffs complained, however, that this framework lacked the "procedural safeguards" that had existed in similar settlements such as Pigford v. Glickman and Keepseagle v. Vilsack.
On April 4, 2013, the Black Farmers and Agriculturalists Association, Inc., which had been removed as a party by the District Court in In re Black Farmers Discrimination Litigation, moved to intervene in this matter. Both parties opposed this motion. The motion was denied.
In 2014, all but 4 named plaintiffs agreed to participate in an alternative dispute resolution program (ADR). The plaintiffs that elected to participate dismissed their claims with prejudice.
On September 18, 2014 two of the remaining plaintiffs filed motions to sever their claims and for leave to file an amended complaint, and a third plaintiff filed a motion to dismiss without prejudice. These motions were granted. The new docket number was 2:15-cv-00116. On September 2, 2016 this case was dismissed.
On February 16, 2016 the remaining named plaintiff's case was severed and transferred to the Eastern District of California. The new docket number was 1:16-cv-00282. On December 6, 2017 this case was dismissed for lack of standing.
This case is now closed.
Summary Authors
Dan Osher (6/29/2013)
Anna Brito (11/1/2018)
Related Cases
Love v. Vilsack, District of District of Columbia (2000)
Cantu v. United States, District of District of Columbia (2011)
People
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/5098060/parties/garcia-v-veneman/
Feinberg, Adam P (District of Columbia)
Bhattacharyya, Rupa (District of Columbia)
Bucholtz, Jeffrey S. (District of Columbia)
Cohen, Vincent H. (District of Columbia)
Edwards, Christal E (Maryland)
Feinberg, Adam P (District of Columbia)
Ferguson, Laura G (District of Columbia)
Fraas, Philip L (District of Columbia)
Hibey, Alexander John (District of Columbia)
Hill, Stephen S (District of Columbia)
JIMINEZ, PATRICIA (District of Columbia)
Pires, Alexander John Jr. (District of Columbia)
Bhattacharyya, Rupa (District of Columbia)
Bucholtz, Jeffrey S. (District of Columbia)
Cohen, Vincent H. (District of Columbia)
Goitein, Elizabeth (District of Columbia)
Howard, Roscoe (District of Columbia)
Keisler, Peter D. (District of Columbia)
Lin, Jean (District of Columbia)
Mizer, Benjamin C. (District of Columbia)
Olson, Lisa A (District of Columbia)
Documents in the Clearinghouse
Resources
Docket
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/5098060/garcia-v-veneman/
Last updated June 14, 2026, 6:05 a.m.
Case Details
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Fair Housing/Lending/Insurance
Special Collection(s):
Key Dates
Filing Date: Oct. 13, 2000
Closing Date: 2014
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Hispanics who farmed or ranched, or attempted to farm or ranch, during the period January 1, 1981, to the present and who were discriminated against by the USDA on the basis of national origin when they sought to participate on equal terms in farm loan and disaster benefit programs and who complained to the USDA about such discrimination.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: Yes
Class Action Outcome: Denied
Defendants
Federal
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq.
Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201
Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA), 15 U.S.C. § 1691
Other Dockets:
District of District of Columbia 1:00-cv-02445
Eastern District of California 1:16-cv-00282
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 04-05448
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 08-05110
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff OR Mixed
Relief Granted:
Source of Relief:
Form of Settlement:
Content of Injunction:
Issues
General/Misc.:
Discrimination Area:
Discrimination Basis:
National origin discrimination
Affected Language(s):
Affected National Origin/Ethnicity(s):
Case Summary of Garcia v. Vilsack, Civil Rights Litig. Clearinghouse, https://clearinghouse.net/case/12757/ (last updated 11/1/2018).