Kern Ridge Growers, LLC v. Seacoast Distributing, Inc. et al

Filing 19

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANTS SEACOAST DISTRIBUTING, INC. AND VINCENT R. TOWLES by Judge Otis D. Wright, II . (lc). Modified on 11/21/2014 (lc).

O

1
2
3
4
5
6

United States District Court
Central District of California

7
8
9
10

Plaintiff,

11
12

Case No. 8:14-cv-00820-ODW(DFMx)

KERN RIDGE GROWERS, LLC,

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR

v.

DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST

13

SEACOAST DISTRIBUTING, INC.;

14

VICTOR M. RODRIGUEZ; VINCENT R. DEFENDANTS SEACOAST

15

TOWLES,

16

DISTRIBUTING, INC. AND
VINCENT R. TOWLES [17]

Defendants.

17
18

I.

INTRODUCTION

19

Plaintiff Kern Ridge Growers, LLC filed this Motion for Default Judgment

20

Against Defendants Seacoast Distributing, Inc. and Vincent R. Towles on

21

October 17, 2014. (ECF No. 17.) Kern Ridge filed suit against Seacoast, Towles and

22

a third Defendant Victor M. Rodriguez on May 28, 2014, seeking to enforce its trust

23

rights under the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (“PACA”), 7 U.S.C.

24

§§ 499a–499t, and collect trust assets in the principal amount of $59,886.40, plus

25

interest. Seacoast and Towles were served with the Complaint and have failed to

26

answer or otherwise defend this action.

27

September 26, 2014. (ECF No. 13.) For the reasons discussed below, the Court

28

GRANTS Kern Ridge’s Motion for Default Judgment. (ECF No. 17.)

The Clerk of Court entered default on

II.

1

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

2

According to the Complaint, in a series of transactions between June 25, 2010

3

and July 22, 2010, Kern Ridge sold and shipped perishable agricultural commodities

4

to Seacoast. (Compl. ¶ 11.) Seacoast agreed to pay Kern Ridge a total principal

5

amount of $66,862.40. (Id.) Kern Ridge alleges that Seacoast received and accepted

6

all product shipped by Kern Ridge per the agreement between the parties. (Id. ¶ 12.)

7

However, after repeated demands and partial payment, Kern Ridge alleges that

8

$59,866.40 remains past due and owing. (Id. ¶¶ 13–14.)

9

At the time of these transactions, Seacoast was engaged in handling produce in

10

interstate and/or foreign commerce as a commission merchant, dealer, retailer, and/or

11

distributor operating under PACA License Number 19871310.

12

individual Defendants in this action, Towles and Rodriguez, were officers, directors,

13

and/or shareholders of Seacoast, responsible for the daily management and control of

14

Seacoast. (Id. ¶ 6.)

(Id. ¶ 10.)

The

15

Kern Ridge filed suit on May 28, 2014. (ECF No. 1.) Seacoast and Towles

16

were personally served with the Summons and Complaint on June 22, 2014.1 (ECF

17

Nos. 8, 9.) Answers were due on July 13, 2014, but Seacoast and Towles failed to

18

make an appearance. The Clerk of Court entered default against Seacoast and Towles

19

on September 26, 2014. (ECF No. 13.) On October 17, 2014, Kern Ridge filed the

20

present Motion for Default Judgment against Seacoast and Towles. (ECF No. 17.)
III.

21

LEGAL STANDARD

22

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b) authorizes a district court to grant default

23

judgment after the default is entered under Rule 55(a). Local Rule 55-1 requires that

24

the movant submit a declaration establishing (1) when and against which party default

25

was entered; (2) identification of the pleading to which default was entered;

26

(3) whether the defaulting party is a minor, incompetent person, or active service

27

1

28

Rodriguez had not yet been served with the Complaint. On September 26, 2014, the Court granted
Kern Ridge’s request for an additional 120 days to serve Rodriguez after repeated attempts to locate
him have failed. (ECF No. 14.)

2

1

member; and (4) that the defaulting party was properly served with notice if required

2

by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(2).

3

A district court has discretion whether to enter default judgment. Aldabe v.

4

Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1092 (9th Cir. 1980). Upon default, the defendant’s liability

5

generally is conclusively established and the well-pleaded factual allegations in the

6

complaint are accepted as true. Televideo Sys., Inc. v. Heidenthal, 826 F.2d 915,

7

917–19 (9th Cir. 1987) (per curiam) (citing Geddes v. United Fin. Grp., 559 F.2d 557,

8

560 (9th Cir. 1977)).

9

In exercising its discretion, a court must consider several factors: (1) the

10

possibility of prejudice to plaintiff; (2) the merits of plaintiff’s substantive claim;

11

(3) the sufficiency of the complaint; (4) the sum of money at stake; (5) the possibility

12

of dispute concerning material facts; (6) whether the defendants default was due to

13

excusable neglect; and (7) the strong policy underlying the Federal Rules of Civil

14

Procedure favoring decisions on the merits. Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471–72

15

(9th Cir. 1986).
IV.

16
17

A.

DISCUSSION

Notice

18

The Court finds that Kern Ridge has complied with all the requirements of

19

Local Rule 55-1. In compliance with the California Code of Civil Procedure, the

20

Summons and Complaint were personally served on Seacoast and Towles. See Cal.

21

Civ. Proc. Code §§ 415.10, 416.10.

22

B.

Eitel Factors 

23

Kern Ridge brings suit against Seacoast and Towles to enforce its trust rights

24

under PACA. The Court finds that the Eitel factors weigh in favor of granting default

25

judgment.

26

1.

Merits and Sufficiency of Kern Ridge’s PACA Claim

27

The Court first focuses on the merits of Kern Ridge’s claim under PACA and

28

the sufficiency of its allegations in the Complaint. “PACA is a federally created

3

1

statutory trust intended to promote efficiency and fairness in the perishable

2

agricultural commodities industry.” Middle Mountain Land & Produce, Inc. v. Sound

3

Commodities, Inc., 307 F.3d 1220, 1223 (9th Cir. 2002). Under the provisions of

4

PACA, a produce dealer holds its produce-related assets as a fiduciary until full

5

payment is made to the produce seller. In re Milton Poulos, Inc., 947 F.2d 1351, 1352

6

(9th Cir. 1991).

7

commodities sold were perishable agricultural commodities; (2) the purchaser of the

8

perishable agricultural commodities was a commission merchant, dealer, or broker;

9

(3) the transaction occurred in contemplation of interstate or foreign commerce;

10

(4) the seller has not received full payment on the transaction; and (5) the seller

11

preserved its trust rights by including statutory language referencing the trust on their

12

invoices. See 7 U.S.C. § 499e(c)(3)–(4); 7 C.F.R. § 46.46; King v. Hartford Packing

13

Co., Inc., 189 F. Supp. 2d 917, 925 (N.D. Ind. 2002).

To prevail on its PACA claim, Kern Ridge must show that (1) the

14

Kern Ridge properly pleaded that it sold and shipped perishable agricultural

15

commodities to Seacoast and that Seacoast was a commission merchant, dealer, and/or

16

broker as defined by PACA. (Compl. ¶¶ 10–11; Botta Decl. ¶ 10.) Kern Ridge

17

further alleges that the perishable agricultural commodities were purchased and sold

18

in or in contemplation of interstate commerce. (Id. ¶¶ 10, 20.) Moreover, as alleged

19

in the Complaint, full payment has not been made on the perishable agricultural

20

commodities shipped to Seacoast by Kern Ridge. (Id. ¶¶ 14, 27.) Kern Ridge also

21

alleges that on the date of each transaction between June 25, 2010 and July 22, 2010,

22

Kern Ridge forwarded invoices to Seacoast containing all the necessary language to

23

preserve Kern Ridge’s PACA trust rights. (Compl. ¶ 21.) The invoices have been

24

submitted in support of this Motion. (Giragosian Decl. ¶ 8, Ex. 1.) Thus, according to

25

Kern Ridge, Seacaost has breached its fiduciary duty as PACA trustee. (Compl. ¶ 35.)

26

Under PACA, any person in a position to control the PACA trust assets but fails

27

to do so is personally liable to unpaid sellers for breach of the PACA trust. See

28

Sunkist Growers, Inc. v. Fisher, 104 F.3d 280, 283 (9th Cir. 1997). Here, Kern Ridge

4

1

alleges that Towles was an officer, director, and/or managing member of Seacoast

2

with actual and constructive knowledge of the PACA trust and was responsible for the

3

daily management and control of Seacoast. (Compl. ¶¶ 6, 31–32.) Kern Ridge also

4

alleges that Towles controlled the PACA trust assets that are the subject of this suit

5

and was a statutory trustee of those PACA trust assets. (Id.) Towles breached his

6

fiduciary duty as PACA trustee by failing to preserve sufficient trust assets to pay

7

Kern Ridge. (Id. ¶¶ 23–24.)
Based on the above, the Court finds that Kern Ridge has adequately pleaded a

8
9

meritorious claim under PACA.

10

2.

Remaining Eitel Factors

11

The Court finds that the merits of Kern Ridge’s PACA claim and the

12

sufficiency of the allegations in the Complaint favor granting default judgment.

13

While the policy favoring judgments on the merits will always weight against default

14

judgment, the remaining Eitel factors also favor Kern Ridge’s Motion.

15

Without default judgment, Kern Ridge will be left without a remedy.

16

Moreover, the sum of money at stake is consistent with Kern Ridge’s allegations of

17

harm. Kern Ridge is merely seeking the benefit of the bargain, $59,886.40—the

18

principal amount due and owing for delivery of the perishable agricultural

19

commodities—as well as pre- and post-judgment interest.

20

material dispute of fact is also low as Kern Ridge has filed a well-pleaded complaint

21

alleging the facts necessary to prevail on its claims. It is also unlikely that Seacoast

22

and Towles’ failure to appear in this action is due to excusable neglect. The Summons

23

and Complaint were personally served on Seacoast and Towles in compliance with the

24

California Code of Civil Procedure.

25

C.

The possibility of a

Damages 

26

Kern Ridge asks for a damages award pursuant to PACA. See 7 U.S.C. § 499e.

27

First, Kern Ridge requests the principal amount of $59,886.40. The Court finds this

28

amount justified based on the declarations filed in support of this Motion.

5

1

Kern Ridge also seeks pre- and post-judgment interest at a rate of 10% based on

2

California Civil Code section 3289(b). (Mot. 9–10.) Prejudgment interest may be

3

awarded in a PACA trust claim if supported by a contractual right; alternatively, a

4

court has discretion to award reasonable prejudgment interest if such an award

5

promotes the interests of PACA claimants.

6

at 1225–26. Here, the Court finds the award of prejudgment interest appropriate.

7

Furthermore, the Court is satisfied with Kern Ridge’s reasoning for application of

8

California Civil Code section 3289(b), which sets out a legal rate of interest in breach-

9

of-contract cases. The Court relies on the calculations set forth in the declaration of

10

Kern Ridge’s counsels and awards prejudgment interest in the amount of $25,807.19,

11

plus $16.40 a day from November 17, 2014 until the date of this Order. (See Botta

12

Decl. ¶¶ 15–17, Ex. 2.) However, the Court will not diverge from 28 U.S.C. § 1961

13

with regard to post-judgment interest, and awards post-judgment interest as allowed in

14

that section.
V.

15

See Middle Mountain, 307 F.3d

CONCLUSION

16

For the reasons discussed above, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion for

17

Default Judgment Against Seacoast and Towles. (ECF No. 17.) The Court awards

18

Plaintiff damages in the amount set forth above and in the separate judgment to issue.

19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20
21

November 21, 2014

22
23
24

____________________________________
OTIS D. WRIGHT, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

25
26
27
28

6