Gordon v. U.S.

Full title: RICHARD BRENT GORDON, et al. Plaintiffs, v. U.S., et al., Defendants

Court: United States District Court, D. Utah, Central Division

Date published: Jul 16, 2004

No. 2:03CV01117TC (D. Utah Jul. 16, 2004)

Opinion

No. 2:03CV01117TC.

July 16, 2004

ORDER

TENA CAMPBELL, District Judge

Plaintiffs Robert Brent Gordon, Hilary Gordon, and Gordon's Nursery and Foral filed this action on November 19, 2003, in state court. Thereafter, Defendants United States of America ("United States"), the United States Department of the Agriculture ("USDA"), and the Farm Service Agency ("FSA," collectively, the United States, USDA, and FSA will be referred to as the "Federal Defendants") removed to this court.

With this action, the Plaintiffs seek to have the court prevent the Federal Defendants from collecting on $253,254.28 in loans owed to the Federal Defendants by the Plaintiffs. The Federal Defendants made the loans to the Plaintiffs under the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act for their farm and nursery business. The case is currently before the court on the Federal Defendants' motion to dismiss. Although they have had ample time to respond to the Federal Defendants' motion — approximately 33 days compared to the eighteen days allowed by rule — the Plaintiffs have not opposed it.

The court has thoroughly reviewed the materials, including the Plaintiffs' complaint and the Federal Defendants' motion. Based on this review, the court finds the following: (1) the Federal Defendants have not waived, and are entitled to, sovereign immunity in this matter; (2) the Plaintiffs failed to properly serve the Federal Defendants, and the Plaintiffs have not shown good cause for their delay of nearly three months beyond the service deadline; (3) Plaintiffs' claim that the court should "execute the law of the contract" finding they have satisfied their loan obligations fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; and (4) Plaintiff's claim that the court should release them from any liability on their loans as a result of a "private administrative proceeding" fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Accordingly, the Federal Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED, and Plaintiffs' claims against the Federal Defendants are dismissed with prejudice.

SO ORDERED.