Hilderbrand
Hilderbrand v. United States
Opinion
lead Opinion
Coyle, J.
ORDER RE CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
On April 3, 1995, the court heard the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment.
Upon due consideration of the written and oral arguments of the parties and the record herein, the court issues its rulings as and for the reasons set forth herein.
On March 17, 1994, plaintiffs Robert S. Hilderbrand and Claudia Hilderbrand (hereinafter referred to as plaintiffs) filed a Complaint for Judicial Review seeking judicial review pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 706 (2)(A) of a Farmers Home Administration (hereinafter referred to as FMHA) decision denying plaintiffs Instruction 1951-S application for debt restructuring.
A. Governing Standard.
“The court may set aside an agency’s order only if its findings or conclusions are arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law, in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right or unsupported by substantial evidence.” California Trucking Ass’n v. I.C.C., 900 F.2d 208, 211 (9th Cir.1990). As explained in State of La. ex rel. Guste v. Verity, 853 F.2d 322, 327 (5th Cir.1988):
1. Augmentation of Record.