Sun Pacific Marketing Cooperative, Inc. v. Dimare Fresh, Inc.

Filing 165

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law ORDER, signed by Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 8/12/2011. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
10
11
12
13
14

SUN PACIFIC MARKETING
COOPERATIVE, INC.,

)
)
)
Appellant,
)
)
v.
)
)
DIMARE FRESH, INC.,
)
)
Appellee.
)
____________________________________ )

CIV-F-06-1404 AWI GSA
FINDINGS OF FACT AND
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

15
16
17
18

The matter before the court is an appeal. Both Plaintiff-Appellant Sun Pacific Marketing

19

Cooperative, Inc. (“Sun Pacific”) and Defendant-Appellee DiMare Fresh, Inc. (“DiMare”) filed

20

suit in the Eastern District of California alleging breach of contract. DiMare then dropped its suit

21

and filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Agriculture under 7 U.S.C. §499f of the

22

Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (“PACA”). This present federal case was stayed

23

pending the outcome of the U.S. Department of Agriculture proceeding (“PACA Hearing”).

24

Administrative Law Judge William Jenson found in favor of DiMare, awarding $1,136, 599 in

25

damages, plus $43,930.97 in attorney’s fees and costs, plus interest. Sun Pacific appealed the

26

decision, which was merged with Sun Pacific’s preexisting suit. Though the case is technically

27

an appeal, the trial is undertaken on a de novo basis.

28
1

1

I. Findings of Fact

2

1.

Sun Pacific is a produce company which grows, packs, and ships fresh tomatoes (among

3

other agricultural products) in the San Joaquin Valley. DiMare is a repacker of tomatoes,

4

which purchases and repacks fresh tomatoes for sale to restaurants and retailers.

5

2.

In July 2006, Sun Pacific contracted to sell tomatoes to DiMare from July 17 through

6

October 31, 2006 on a weekly basis, free on board from Sun Pacific’s facility in Exeter,

7

CA (“Contract”). The Contract called for the sale of six distinct categories of tomatoes at

8

fixed prices and quantities. The specific varieties of tomato, quantities per week, and

9

price specified in the Contract to are as follows:

10

Loads

Boxes

Price

11

Medium Round 6x7 #1 grade

2.5

4,000

$5.45

12

Medium Round 6x7 #2 grade

2.5

4,000

$4.45

13

Large Round 6x6 #1 grade

2.5

4,000

$6.45

14

Large Round 6x6 #2 grade

2.5

4,000

$5.45

15

Jumbo Round 5x5 (or St. Regis 5x5)

2

3,200

$7.95

16

Medium Roma

2

3,200

$7.35

17

One load is equal to 1,600 boxes (or cartons). 5x5, 6x6, and 6x7 refer to tomato sizes.

18

Tomatoes are graded; those of a sufficient quality are termed #1. A #1 grade load

19

contains a minimum of 85% #1 tomatoes; a #2 grade load only contains a minimum of

20

60% #1 tomatoes. Trial Transcript, at 22:17-19. Sun Pacific markets #1 tomatoes as

21

Airchiefs and #2 tomatoes as Stardusts; the exhibits do not label the loads as #1 and #2.

22

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 29. The Rounds were to be tomatoes that were picked when green. St.

23

Regis tomatoes are pink tomatoes that have begun to ripen on the vine. Trial Transcript,

24

at 30:9-19. The terms Airchief, Stardust, and St. Regis are marketing names used by Sun

25

Pacific; other growers use different marketing names for different grades and different

26

color tomatoes. The listed prices include $1.45 for palletization. Trial Transcript, at

27

33:13-24. The Contract was not for tomatoes in general but for specific volumes at

28

specific prices of these six categories of tomatoes. Trial Transcript, at 56:25-57:5.
2

1

3.

The Contract also contained a provision which states “6. Shippers’ obligation. In the

2

event of a product shortage caused by an Act of God, Natural disaster or other incident

3

that could not be foreseen and is beyond the control of Sun Pacific, then performance

4

under this contract shall be excused.” Joint Exhibit 1. The parties ended up in a dispute

5

over this clause of the Contract which affected sales from the week of 9/4-9/10 through

6

10/30-10/31.

7

4.

The Contract was negotiated between DiMare’s sales representative, Sam Licato, and Sun

8

Pacific’s sales representative, Tom Valenzuela. It was then signed by Mr. Licato and Al

9

Bates, general manager of Sun Pacific. Mr. Valenzuela drafted the Contract borrowing

10

the language of a contract between Sun Pacific and DiMare in 2005. Trial Transcript, at

11

131:11-17. Mr. Valenzuela testified that during the course of negotiating the Contract,

12

he and Mr. Licato did not discuss the meaning of the term “product shortage.” Trial

13

Transcript, at 127:14-18. Mr. Licato testified that during the course of negotiating the

14

Contract, he let Mr. Valenzuela know that DiMare expected to get tomatoes if Sun Pacific

15

had them packed from its fields. Trial Transcript, at 35:15-36:5. These testimonies

16

appear to contradict each other. Mr. Valenzuela was not a witness at the PACA Hearing.

17

In that proceeding, Mr. Licato was not asked about any communication between the

18

parties concerning the term “product shortage” during the negotiation of the Contract. Cf.

19

PACA Hearing Transcript, at 228:20-229:1 and 256:5-22 (Mr. Licato states what he

20

believed the term meant at the time the Contract was negotiated, but was not asked if he

21

informed Mr. Valenzuela of his interpretation). On this point, the court credits Mr.

22

Licato’s testimony.

23

5.

On a day to day basis, Mr. Licato dealt with Mr. Valenzuela until early August, when Mr.

24

Valenzuela left Sun Pacific’s employment. Trial Transcript, at 130:13-18. After Mr.

25

Valenzuela left, Mr. Licato dealt with Tom Gilardi, Sun Pacific’s sales representative, to

26

arrange the shipments under the Contract. PACA Hearing, at 342:17-343:3. For a week’s

27

shipments, Mr. Licato and Mr. Gilardi would discuss the matter the prior week. Mr.

28

Licato would fill out an order sheet, specifying the category, quantity, price, and specific
3

1

day he wanted the shipments to be available for pickup. Trial Transcript, at 343:6-344:6.

2

He would normally fax that order to Mr. Gilardi on the Thursday. Trial Transcript, at

3

59:22-24. Mr. Gilardi would then send the form back with pick-up numbers for the

4

requested loads to finalize the arrangement. Trial Transcript, at 50:13-24. Afterwards,

5

Sun Pacific sent DiMare invoices for the shipments.

6

6.

The tomato crop was affected by a heat wave during the contract period. The heat

7

decreased the number of tomatoes harvested. Trial Transcript, at 158:13-22. Further,

8

some of the harvested tomatoes were of a faulty quality and so were not packed for sale.

9

Trial Transcript, at 158:23-159:10. Packed tomatoes are available for shipment to buyers.

10

From early in the contract period, Sun Pacific was not able to pack sufficient tomatoes of

11

certain categories to fulfill the quantities of the Contract. Mr. Licato admitted that there

12

were weeks when Sun Pacific was not able to pack enough tomatoes of a specific size

13

and/or grade to meet the requirements of the Contract. Trial Transcript, at 39:13-40:14.

14

7.

Mr. Bates testified that Defendant’s Exhibit B represents what was actually sold by Sun

15

Pacific to DiMare over a number of weeks in 2006. Trial Transcript, at 175:20-176:2. A

16

partial record of the boxes of tomatoes actually shipped shows that the parties did not

17

follow the categories and quantities specified by the Contract:

18

Medium

Large

Jumbo

Extra

Large

Round 6x7

Round 6x6

Round 6x6

Round 5x5

Large 5x6

Roma

#1 grade

20

Large

Round 6x7

19

Medium

#2 grade

#1 grade

#2 grade

21

7/31-8/6

6,800

1,200

7,360

640

3,200

0

1,520

22

8/7-8/13

4,800

1,520

2,240

2,320

1,680

1,520

3,200

23

8/14-8/20

6,000

960

2,880

1,840

2,227

843

1,600

24

8/21-8/27

5,200

1,120

3,840

960

2,400

800

3,200

25

8/28-9/3

5,840

560

3,920

880

1,040

2,160

3,200

26

Defendant’s Exhibit B. It appears that the shipments for each week were separately

27

negotiated between Mr. Licato and Mr. Gilardi (or Mr. Valenzuela).

28

8.

The Contract specifically permitted the substitution of St. Regis tomatoes for Jumbo
4

1

Round 5x5 tomatoes. Mr. Licato and Mr. Valenzuela agreed that Sun Pacific could not

2

make any other substitutions (of variety, size, and/or quality) without DiMare’s express

3

approval. Trial Transcript, at 30:20-22 and 130:3-12. Conversely, Mr. Licato agreed

4

that, based on his understanding of what the Contract meant, Sun Pacific did not have to

5

offer any substitutions. Trial Transcript, at 37:14-15. When Sun Pacific did not produce

6

enough of a category of tomato to fulfill the Contract amounts, Mr. Licato says he

7

permitted Sun Pacific to make up the amounts at a later date, but agreed that Sun Pacific

8

could not unilaterally be short without his permission. Trial Transcript, at 39:10-40:14.

9

Mr. Valenzuela agreed that Sun Pacific could not substitute tomatoes or change the

10

quantities without DiMare’s permission. Trial Transcript, at 125:1-8; Trial Transcript, at

11

130:3-12.

12

9.

In the course of performing the Contract, the parties made several modifications. Mr.

13

Licato allowed Sun Pacific to substitute Extra Large Round 5x6 tomatoes for Jumbo

14

Round 5x5 tomatoes, but agreed that Sun Pacific did not have to under the Contract. Trial

15

Transcript, at 37:5-15. The records of tomatoes shipped shows that Sun Pacific also sold

16

more Medium Round 6x7 #1 grade tomatoes than was required by the Contract and fewer

17

Medium Round 6x7 #2 tomatoes. Similarly, more Large Round 6x6 #1 grade tomatoes

18

were shipped and fewer Large Round 6x6 #2 grade tomatoes were shipped. Defendant’s

19

Exhibit B. Mr. Licato stated Sun Pacific was substituting some #1 grade tomatoes for #2

20

grade tomatoes early in the contract period. Trial Transcript, at 77:13-15.

21

10.

The parties modified the Contract to reduce the number of Large Round 6x6s. Trial

22

Transcript, at 27:10-16. From the week of 8/8-8/13 through the end of the contract period

23

the number of Large Round 6x6 #1 grade and #2 grade tomatoes required was each

24

decreased from 2.5 loads to 1.5 loads (4,000 boxes to 2,400 boxes). The parties also

25

substituted Large Roma tomatoes in place of Medium Roma tomatoes. Defendant’s

26

Exhibit B. In fact, there is no evidence in the record that Sun Pacific ever sold DiMare

27

any Medium Roma tomatoes. The weekly order sheets for 8/21-8/27 and 8/28-9/3 (the

28

weeks before the dispute began) sent by Mr. Licato to Mr. Gilardi reflect the following
5

categories, quantities, and prices:

1
2

Loads

Boxes

Price

3

Medium Round 6x7 #1 grade

2.5

4,000

$5.45

4

Medium Round 6x7 #2 grade

2.5

4,000

$4.45

5

Large Round 6x6 #1 grade

1.5

2,400

$6.45

6

Large Round 6x6 #2 grade

1.5

2,400

$5.45

7

Jumbo Round 5x5 (or St. Regis 5x5)

2

3,200

$7.95

8

Large Roma

2

3,200

$7.35

9

Joint Exhibit 2. The weekly order sheets for 9/4-9/10 and 9/11-9/17 also reflect these

10

categories and quantities (but not prices). Joint Exhibit 4 and 8. The order sheets for

11

8/21-8/27 and 8/28-9/3 only show what Mr. Licato requested; it does not show Mr.

12

Gilardi’s response. Defendant’s Exhibit B demonstrates that the categories and quantities

13

actually shipped do not correspond to Mr. Licato’s requests:

14

Medium

Medium

Large

Large

Jumbo

Extra

Large

15

Round 6x7

Round 6x7

Round 6x6

Round 6x6

Round 5x5

Large 5x6

Roma

16

#1 grade

#2 grade

#1 grade

#2 grade

17

8/21-8/27

5,200

1,120

3,840

960

2,400

800

3,200

18

8/28-9/3

5,840

560

3,920

880

1,040

2,160

3,200

19

The specific details of how Mr. Gilardi and Mr. Licato negotiated these shipments has not

20

been presented. The parties have not provided Mr. Gilardi’s response to these weekly

21

order sheets with pick-up numbers filled in. Overall, Mr. Licato did say that he got all of

22

the tomatoes he requested before the dispute. Trial Transcript, at 55:11-12.

23

11.

The parties’ dispute began with the shipments for 9/4-9/10. On August 31, 2006, Mr.

24

Gilardi forwarded an e-mail to Mr. Licato; the e-mail was between third parties and

25

explained that a grower was canceling its tomato contracts due a 50% decrease in tomato

26

yields in its facilities in Virginia and California. Joint Exhibit 3; Trial Transcript, at 46:7-

27

47:9. Mr. Gilardi and Mr. Licato then talked on the phone that same day. Mr. Gilardi

28

told Mr. Licato that Sun Pacific would be invoking a product shortage under the Contract.
6

1

PACA Hearing, at 350:4-14. On the phone, Mr. Licato requested a formal letter. Trial

2

Transcript, at 49:23-50:5. During the August 31 conversation, Mr. Gilardi said that Mr.

3

Licato disagreed with Sun Pacific’s reasons for invoking a product shortage, but did agree

4

to buy tomatoes at market prices. PACA Hearing, at 351:19-353:16. Mr. Licato sent Mr.

5

Gilardi a letter dated September 1 which requested Sun Pacific give a formal rationale for

6

invoking a product shortage: “Tom please send me a letter from Sun Pacific stating your

7

reason for calling the ‘Act of God’ and your assurance once conditions are normal or

8

close to normal, you will resume the contract signed by both yourself and DiMare Fresh,

9

Inc. We need this letter today September 1, 2006, if you could show us some proof that

10

supplies at Sun Pacific are in fact 50% less than normal.” Joint Exhibit 5; Trial

11

Transcript, at 54:1-5. Mr. Bates sent a letter to Mr. Licato dated September 4, 2006 in

12

which Sun Pacific formally invoked a product shortage due to an Act of God. Joint

13

Exhibit 6.

14

12.

Mr. Licato sent the weekly order sheet for 9/4-9/10 to Mr. Gilardi on August 31 and Mr.

15

Gilardi sent it back on September 1. Trial Transcript, at 52:2-12. Mr. Licato filled in the

16

sheet with Contract prices and Mr. Gilardi sent it back with those prices struck out and

17

the words “market price let me know.” Joint Exhibit 4. On the weekly order sheet for

18

9/11-9/17, Mr. Licato requested 12 loads of tomatoes and in the cost box, he wrote

19

“market.” Joint Exhibit 8. He sent the fax to Mr. Gilardi on September 8, 2006. Trial

20

Transcript, at 60:9-11.

21

13.

Mr. Licato stated that he repeatedly told Mr. Gilardi, starting on September 1, 2006, that

22

DiMare did not accept the sale of tomatoes at market price and that the dispute would

23

have to be settled through PACA. Trial Transcript, at 67:17-68:6 and 79:23-80:7. He said

24

“I never agreed to pay the market price except - because I couldn’t get the tomatoes if I

25

didn’t say that. But I also told him that we would be going to PACA because I disagreed

26

with it. That’s what I Told Tom Gilardi.” Trial Transcript, at 79:8-11. On this point, the

27

court credits Mr. Licato’s testimony.

28

14.

DiMare’s attorneys sent Sun Pacific a letter dated September 12, 2006 in which DiMare
7

1

formally rejected Sun Pacific’s invocation of a product shortage due to an Act of God.

2

Joint Exhibit 10. For the shipments of 9/4-9/10 and 9/11-9/17, Sun Pacific invoiced

3

DiMare market prices, but DiMare only paid Sun Pacific the contract prices. Trial

4

Transcript, at 194:23-195:6. On September 13, 2006, Mr. Gilardi informed Mr. Licato

5

that if DiMare was not going to pay market prices, then Sun Pacific would not longer

6

supply DiMare. Trial Transcript, at 114:15-22. As DiMare refused, Sun Pacific stopped

7

shipping. Trial Transcript, at 214:15-18.

8
9

15.

Mr. Bates testified that Plaintiff’s Exhibits 28 and 29 show the number of boxes Sun
Pacific packed each week. Trial Transcript, at 164:20-165:8 and 186:18-187:5. The

10

following tables show the number of boxes Sun Pacific packed each week in six

11

categories of tomatoes.

12

Medium

Large Round

Jumbo Round

Round 6x7

6x6 #1 grade

6x6 #2 grade

5x5 plus St.

#1 grade

14

Large Round

Round 6x7

13

Medium

#2 grade

Large Roma

Regis 5x5

15

7/17-7/23

22,738

2,751

46,335

5,030

14,753

27,680

16

7/24-7/30

7,908

866

25,205

2,584

19,275

18,080

17

7/31-8/6

15,440

1,258

32,756

3,800

14,082

6,787

18

8/7-8/13

22,480

2,240

33,638

3,120

6,577

9,828

19

8/14-8/20

5,297

640

10,817

1,160

2,919

5,472

8/21-8/27

5,647

911

9,888

1,320

4,113

6,525

8/28-9/3

18,000

1,775

24,444

2,402

7,107

12,429

9/4-9/10

15,320

1,067

22,297

1,405

4,279

6,032

9/11-9/17

30,560

1,760

24,569

1,591

2,807

1,123

23

9/18-9/24

37,466

2,000

26,400

1,360

1,023

872

24

9/25-10/1

27,863

3,144

27,224

2,681

257

558

25

10/2-10/8

11,449

734

16,774

896

1,962

1,767

26

10/9-10/15

35,061

3,763

43,870

4,439

5,653

6,378

27

10/16-10/22

21,274

0

32,061

0

4,391

3,293

10/23-10/29

13,802

0

31,075

0

8,200

11,097

20
21
22

28

8

1

10/30-10/31

2

3,280

0

18,106

0

3,548

13,764

Plaintiff’s Exhibits 28 and 29.

3
4

16.

However, on the weekly order sheet for 9/4-9/10, Mr. Gilardi represented that Sun Pacific

5

could sell DiMare (at market prices) 4,000 boxes of Medium Round 6x7 #2 grade

6

tomatoes and 2,400 boxes of Large Round #2 grade tomatoes. Joint Exhibit 4. Mr.

7

Gilardi provided pick-up numbers for those requests, indicating that they were available

8

for DiMare to pick up on the dates specified. This contradicts Sun Pacific’s exhibits

9

which shows that only 1,067 boxes of Medium Round 6x7 #2 grade tomatoes and 1,405

10

boxes of Large Round 6x6 #2 grade tomatoes were packed that week. Plaintiff’s Exhibit

11

29. No party has explained this discrepancy.

12

17.

Similarly, the weekly order sheet for 9/11-9/17 shows that Mr. Gilardi agreed to ship

13

certain quantities of tomatoes, though the packing records show that lesser quantities

14

were packed. Joint Exhibit 8; Plaintiff’s Exhibit 28; Plaintiff’s Exhibit 29. While Mr.

15

Gilardi did put in some question marks to indicate that Sun Pacific might not have

16

sufficient Medium Round 6x7 #2 grade tomatoes and Large Round 6x6 #2 grade

17

tomatoes to fulfill the order, he represented that Sun Pacific could fulfill the quantities

18

requested of the other categories tomatoes. Trial Transcript, at 60:20-61:7; Joint Exhibit

19

8. Particularly troubling, Mr. Gilardi represented that DiMare could pick up 3,200 boxes

20

of Large Roma tomatoes while Sun Pacific only packed 1,123 boxes that week. Joint

21

Exhibit 8; Plaintiff’s Exhibit 28, at 9. No party has explained this discrepancy.

22

18.

DiMare resold the tomatoes received from Sun Pacific. In 2006, DiMare resold them to

23

third parties Jack in the Box and IPC (the supplier for Subway), among others. DiMare’s

24

contracts with these two restaurant chains included provisions for the renegotiation of

25

prices if average prices as reported by the U.S. Department of Agriculture rose above a

26

certain level. Plaintiff’s Exhibits 18 and 20.

27
28

19.

DiMare purchased tomatoes from various sellers to substitute for the tomatoes it would
have purchased from Sun Pacific under the Contract. DiMare asserts it made 102
9

1

purchases from 9/4-9/10 through 10/30-10/31 to compensate for the cessation of the

2

Contract. Defendant’s Exhibit A; Trial Transcript, at 306:9-12. Included in these 102

3

purchases are ones from Sun Pacific over which the parties dispute pricing. The other

4

purchases consisted of various tomatoes, some of which do not fit the six categories

5

specified in the Contract. Eric Janke, vice president and CEO of DiMare, agreed that “if

6

the product is not a No. 2, or if its not the type found in the contract, it wouldn’t be a

7

cover for that contract.” Trial Transcript, at 316:19-22. He later said that if the specific

8

type of tomato was not available, “we would have to purchase product with similar specs

9

or similar sizing to meet the customer standards.” Trial Transcript, at 323:11-19.

10

However, Mr. Janke admitted that while he believed certain categories of tomato were

11

unavailable, he did not have personal knowledge of their unavailability. Trial Transcript,

12

at 324:3-325:13. Mr. Licato did state in his declaration (admitted into evidence by the

13

Pretrial Order, Doc. 149, at 20:6-8) that at the time, there was a “lack of replacement

14

‘cover’ goods” in the general marketplace. Plaintiff’s Exhibit 7, at 1. Again, the court

15

credits Mr. Licato’s statement.

16
17

II. Conclusions of Law

18

A. Legal Standard

19

In an appeal under PACA, “suit in the district court shall be a trial de novo and shall

20

proceed in all respects like other civil suits for damages, except that the findings of fact and order

21

or orders of the Secretary shall be prima-facie evidence of the facts therein stated.” 7 U.S.C.

22

§499g(c). “Thus the party petitioning for an appeal of a reparation order had the burden of

23

production of evidence that rebuts the findings of fact by the Secretary.” Procacci Bros. Sales

24

Corp. v. Frank’s Distrib. of Produce, LLC, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42671, *16 (D. Ariz. Apr. 6,

25

2009), citing Lee Loi Industries, Inc. v. Impact Brokerage Corp., 473 F.Supp.2d 566, 568

26

(S.D.N.Y. 2007). The heart of the case is a breach of contract claim. The substantive law

27

applied is California commercial law; PACA provides for the forum and procedure.

28
10

1

B. Breach of Contract

2

DiMare asserts Sun Pacific breached the Contract by refusing to ship tomatoes at

3

Contract prices starting the week of 9/4-9/10. Sun Pacific argues it was in full compliance with

4

the Contract in invoking a “product shortage due to an Act of God.” More specifically, the

5

parties disagree whether there was a “product shortage.”

6

The difficulty with interpreting the Contract is that its terms were never fully performed

7

by the parties. The Contract specified sales quantities the parties never honored. From the start,

8

they treated the Contract as a framework for weekly negotiations as to the actual quantities of

9

tomatoes to be sold. It appears the parties sought to use the Contract to fix prices but not

10

quantities. With this background, the court will interpret the Contract as best as possible to give

11

effect to its provisions.

12
13
14

1. Meaning of “Product Shortage” Under the Contract
Cal. Civ. Code §1649 states, “If the terms of a promise are in any respect ambiguous or

15

uncertain, it must be interpreted in the sense in which the promisor believed, at the time of

16

making it, that the promisee understood it.” The court can “consider how one party knew the

17

other party understood the agreement.” Johnston v. Joint Highway Dist., 138 Cal. App. 450, 453

18

(Cal. App. 3rd Dist. 1934). Mr. Licato informed Mr. Valenzuela during the negotiation of the

19

Contract that DiMare expected the category of tomatoes to be delivered if Sun Pacific packed

20

them. The Contract language is reasonably susceptible to this interpretation. Mr. Licato’s

21

statement governs how the term “product shortage” must be interpreted. Thus, under the

22

Contract, there was a “product shortage” of a category of tomato when Sun Pacific did not pack

23

enough to fulfill the Contract quantities.

24
25
26

2. Terms of the Contract at Time of Dispute
While the terms of the Contract with regard to category, quantity, and price are clear, it is

27

evident that the actual performance of the parties did not conform to those terms. The

28

fragmentary evidence provided shows the parties modified the Contract each and every week to
11

1

change the category and quantity of tomatoes shipped. Sometimes, tomatoes that did not belong

2

to any of the six categories contained in the Contract were shipped. Thus, the shipments each

3

week were unique, unlike the shipments the prior week or the subsequent week. Insofar as the

4

Contract is enforceable, these week to week changes can not be deemed to have permanently

5

modified the Contract. However, there appear to be three durable changes the parties agreed to

6

that was meant to permanently change the terms of the Contract: 1) the number of Large Round

7

6x6 #1 grade tomatoes was reduced to 1.5 loads (2,400 boxes) starting the week of August 13,

8

2006; 2) the number of Large Round 6x6 #2 grade tomatoes was reduced to 1.5 loads (2,400

9

boxes) starting the week of August 13, 2006; and 3) Large Romas were to be used instead of

10

Medium Romas for the entire duration of the Contract. The parties agree that they explicitly

11

modified the Contract to reduce the Large Round 6x6 #1 grade and #2 grade tomato quantities.

12

The use of Large Roma tomatoes instead of Medium Roma tomatoes appears to have been

13

implicitly agreed to by both parties though there is no direct testimony to that effect. As far as

14

the evidence shows, Sun Pacific never shipped any Medium Roma tomatoes to DiMare, only

15

Large Roma tomatoes. Joint Exhibit 2; Joint Exhibit 4; Defendant’s Exhibit B. Sun Pacific has

16

shown its intent that this be a permanent change to the Contract by referring to Large Roma

17

tomatoes as contract tomatoes and by submitting Large Roma production figures in an attempt to

18

show that there was a product shortage in a relevant category of tomato. Plaintiff’s Exhibit 28.

19

Sun Pacific has provided no production figures of Medium Roma tomatoes. DiMare has shown

20

its intent that this be a permanent change to the Contract by consistently claiming the purchase of

21

Large Roma tomatoes is valid cover for the Medium Roma quantities. Defendant’s Exhibit A.

22

At the time of the dispute through the end of the contract period, the Contract

23

requirements are deemed to be:

24

Loads

Boxes

Price

25

Medium Round 6x7 #1 grade

2.5

4,000

$5.45

26

Medium Round 6x7 #2 grade

2.5

4,000

$4.45

27

Large Round 6x6 #1 grade

1.5

2,400

$6.45

28
12

1

Large Round 6x6 #2 grade

2
3

1.5

2,400

$5.45

Jumbo Round 5x5 (or St. Regis 5x5)

2

3,200

$7.95

Large Roma

2

3,200

$7.35

4
5
6

3. Evidence of Product Shortage at Time of Dispute
Sun Pacific is arguing that it did not pack sufficient quantities of the specified categories

7

of tomatoes to satisfy the Contract. To show the deficiency, Sun Pacific presents Plaintiff’s

8

Exhibits 28 and 29 which report the number of boxes packed each week of the specified

9

categories. However, there is contradictory evidence that strongly suggests Sun Pacific had more

10

boxes for sale in certain weeks than the number of boxes packed. Sun Pacific does not explain

11

this discrepancy. The court surmises that excess tomatoes in prior weeks might have been stored

12

and made available when production from the fields was low or that the figures are inaccurate.

13

Based on the evidence presented, the court must conclude that Plaintiff’s Exhibits 28 and 29 do

14

not show the number of boxes available to ship in any given week. Sun Pacific, as the party

15

asserting a product shortage due to an Act of God, has the burden of proof to show the clause

16

applies. San Mateo Cmty. College Dist. v. Half Moon Bay P’ship, 65 Cal. App. 4th 401, 414

17

(Cal. App. 1st Dist. 1998); see also Oosten v. Hay Haulers Dairy Employees & Helpers Union,

18

45 Cal. 2d 784, 788 (Cal. 1955) (“Impossibility of performance is a defense and the burden of

19

proof in establishing it rests on defendant” asserting the defense). As Sun Pacific has not

20

provided credible evidence to show any product shortage, there was no basis for invoking the Act

21

of God clause.

22
23
24

C. Modification and Reservation of Rights
Sun Pacific argues in the alternative that starting August 31, 2006, the parties modified

25

the Contract. That is, even if Sun Pacific was not entitled to invoke the Act of God clause,

26

DiMare agreed to suspend performance of the Contract. The applicable law states “An

27

agreement modifying a contract within this division needs no consideration to be binding....The

28
13

1

requirements of the statute of frauds section of this division (Section 2201) must be satisfied if

2

the contract as modified is within its provisions.” Cal. Com. Code §2209(1) and (3). Section

3

2201 states “a contract for the sale of goods for the price of five hundred dollars ($500) or more

4

is not enforceable by way of action or defense unless there is some writing sufficient to indicate

5

that a contract for sale has been made between the parties and signed by the party against whom

6

enforcement is sought or by his or her authorized agent or broker....Between merchants if within

7

a reasonable time a writing in confirmation of the contract and sufficient against the sender is

8

received and the party receiving it has reason to know its contents, it satisfies the requirements of

9

subdivision (1) against the party unless written notice of objection to its contents is given within

10

10 days after it is received.” Cal. Com. Code §2201(1) and (2). On the telephone, Mr. Licato and

11

Mr. Gilardi did agree that DiMare would purchase limited quantities of tomatoes at market

12

prices. This Modification was evidenced by the weekly order sheets for 9/4-9/10 and 9/11-9/17

13

which listed market prices. Joint Exhibits 4 and 8.

14

However, Mr. Licato did tell Mr. Gilardi that DiMare would dispute Sun Pacific’s

15

invocation of the Act of God clause. Trial Transcript, at 67:17-68:6 and 79:8-80:7. “A party that

16

with explicit reservation of rights performs or promises performance or assents to performance in

17

a manner demanded or offered by the other party does not thereby prejudice the rights reserved.

18

Such words as ‘without prejudice,’ ‘under protest,’ or the like are sufficient.” Cal. Com. Code

19

§1308 (applies to Cal. Com. Code §2209 modification by way of Cal. Com. Code §1102).

20

California’s law derived from and identical to U.C.C. §1-308 whose comment states, “This

21

section provides machinery for the continuation of performance along the lines contemplated by

22

the contract despite a pending dispute, by adopting the mercantile device of going ahead with

23

delivery, acceptance, or payment ‘without prejudice,’ ‘under protest,’ ‘under reserve,’ ‘with

24

reservation of all our rights,’ and the like. All of these phrases completely reserve all rights

25

within the meaning of this section. The section therefore contemplates that limited as well as

26

general reservations and acceptance by a party may be made ‘subject to satisfaction of our

27

purchaser,’ ‘subject to acceptance by our customers,’ or the like.” The code provision is rarely

28

cited, but in at least one case involving a sales contract, the seller who continued to make
14

1

deliveries under protest to a buyer who breached reserved the rights to sue for breach of the

2

underlying contract. Shea-Kaiser-Lockheed-Healy v. Department of Water & Power, 73 Cal.

3

App. 3d 679, 690 (Cal. App. 2nd Dist. 1977) (“As previously noted, however, such delivery was

4

expressly made under protest and with an explicit reservation of rights. It therefore did not

5

prejudice any of the rights reserved by [seller], including the right to sue [buyer] in damages for

6

this breach”). The importance of reserving objections is echoed in other parts of relevant

7

California law: “Where the contract for sale involves repeated occasions for performance by

8

either party with knowledge of the nature of the performance and opportunity for objection to it

9

by the other, any course of performance accepted or acquiesced in without objection shall be

10

relevant to determine the meaning of the agreement.” Cal. Com. Code §2208 (repealed Stats

11

2006 ch. 254 §34, effective January 1, 2007). One commentator even suggests that “To the

12

extent that the protest is given effect under common law or statute, it is obvious that there will be

13

occasions when the coercing party will insist that the protest be withdraw. Under such

14

circumstances a withdrawn protest should act as a protest.” 2 Arthur Linton Corbin, Corbin on

15

Contracts, §7.21 at 480 (Joseph M. Perillo et al. eds., revised ed. 1995). As the court is crediting

16

Mr. Licato’s testimony, DiMare did reserve its right to assert the original terms of the Contract.

17
18
19

D. Damages
“Where the seller fails to make delivery or repudiates...the buyer may cancel and whether

20

or not he has done so may in addition to recovering so much of the price as has been paid (a)

21

‘Cover’ and have damages under the next section as to all the goods affected whether or not they

22

have been identified to the contract; or (b) Recover damages for nondelivery as provided in this

23

division (Section 2713).” Cal. Com. Code §2711(1). “[T]he buyer may ‘cover’ by making in

24

good faith and without unreasonable delay any reasonable purchase of or contract to purchase

25

goods in substitution for those due from the seller. (2) The buyer may recover from the seller as

26

damages the difference between the cost of cover and the contract price together with any

27

incidental or consequential damages as hereinafter defined (Section 2715), but less expenses

28

saved in consequence of the seller’s breach. (3) Failure of the buyer to effect cover within this
15

1

section does not bar him from any other remedy.” Cal. Com. Code §2712. “[T]he measure of

2

damages for non-delivery or repudiation by the seller is the difference between the market price

3

at the time when the buyer learned of the breach and the contract price together with any

4

incidental and consequential damages provided in this division (Section 2715), but less expenses

5

saved in consequence of the seller’s breach.” Cal. Com. Code §2713(1).

6

DiMare seeks to collect cover damages under Section 2712. In the alternative, DiMare

7

asserts it can collect damages under Section 2713. See Procacci Bros. Sales Corp. v. Frank’s

8

Distrib. of Produce, LLC, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42671, *31 (D. Ariz. Apr. 6, 2009) (applying

9

U.C.C. language identical to California law). DiMare has provided a summary of the cover

10

purchases made and how they correspond to the Contract tomatoes. Defendant’s Exhibit A. This

11

table lists 102 purchases for the period 9/4-9/10 through 10/30-10/31 and seeks damages of

12

$1,225,362. The information on this table comes from invoices DiMare received from the

13

suppliers. Joint Exhibit 12. Additionally, DiMare seeks attorney’s fees and costs for both the

14

present trial and the PACA Hearing. Sun Pacific objects to DiMare’s measure of damages on a

15

number of different bases.

16

First, DiMare’s cover purchases did not always match the tomato categories of the

17

Contract. DiMare purchased different types, sizes, and grades of tomatoes. Sun Pacific argues

18

these purchases do not constitute valid cover. “A buyer can cover through ‘any reasonable

19

purchase,’ and failure to mitigate reduces recoverable damages only when the course of action

20

chosen is affirmatively unreasonable or in bad faith. ‘The test of proper cover is whether at the

21

time and place the buyer acted in good faith and in a reasonable manner, and it is immaterial that

22

hindsight may later prove that the method of cover used was not the cheapest or most effective.’”

23

Huntington Beach Union High School Dist. v. Continental Information Systems Corp., 621 F.2d

24

353, 357 (9th Cir. 1980), quoting Cal. Com. Code §2712 and U.C.C. §2-712, Official Comment

25

2. “[T]here is no cover if the buyer does not purchase like goods but rather purchases goods

26

substantially different. This is not to say that the goods must be identical with those contracted

27

for, but the cover goods must be commercially usable as reasonable substitutes under the

28

circumstances of the particular case.” Kanzmeier v. McCoppin, 398 N.W.2d 826, 831 (Iowa
16

1

1987) (applying Iowa law whose wording is identical to Cal. Com. Code §2712), citations

2

omitted.

3

In this case, the tomatoes under the Contract were resold to third parties. Plaintiff has

4

provided DiMare’s agreements with two of these third parties. DiMare agreed to sell “US No 1

5

6x6 gas green tomato” to Jack in the Box and “25# 6x7 red & pink firm” tomatoes to IPC.

6

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 18 and 20. While the Jack in the Box contract appears to involve tomatoes

7

that fit a category covered by the Contract, the IPC contract does not. From this evidence, it

8

appears that some variance in the grade, size, and color of tomato is considered commercially

9

reasonable. Further, it is not clear whether the cover purchases of similar tomatoes cost more in

10

the aggregate. The invoices show that Roma tomatoes of different sizes were often sold for the

11

same price. See Joint Exhibit 12, at 10, 11, 22, 35, 59, 71, 73; contra Joint Exhibit 12, at 9, 35,

12

48, 73. As for differing grades, Mr. Janke was not able to state whether any of the cover

13

purchases were for #2 tomatoes. Trial Transcript, at 315:6-316:6. However, some invoices do

14

indicate that #2 tomatoes were purchased. For example, DiMare purchased from Pacific Triple E

15

both 6x6 Sunripe Jackie tomatoes for $18 and 6x6 JE tomatoes for $14. Joint Exhibit 12, at 31.

16

As Sun Pacific calls #1 tomatoes Airchiefs and #2 tomatoes Stardusts, Pacific Triple E appears to

17

call #1 tomatoes Sunripe Jackies and #2 tomatoes Stardusts. While the quantities do not match

18

those required under the Contract, the court again relies on Mr. Licato’s statement that there were

19

shortages in the specific tomato categories contained in the Contract. DiMare’s purchases,

20

though they do not all fit into the six catogories of the Contract, appear to generally qualify as

21

cover under Section 2712; the court need not resort to Section 2713.

22

Second, Sun Pacific argues that DiMare has made mathematical errors in calculating

23

damages. For the week of 9/11-9/17, DiMare bought 1,760 boxes of vine ripened 4x5 Rounds

24

from Gargiulo (invoice number 182594) to cover 1,600 boxes of 5x5 rounds. Defendant’s

25

Exhibit A, purchase 14. DiMare asserts it bought 1,600 boxes of unspecified tomatoes from

26

Oceanside Produce to cover 6x7 Rounds the week of 9/11-9/17, but the corresponding invoice is

27

from Del Campo and shows sales of 1,600 boxes of Romas. Defendant’s Exhibit A, purchase 21;

28

Joint Exhibit 12, at 9. DiMare asserts it bought 1,600 boxes of Large Roma tomatoes from Del
17

1

Campo, load number 58311 to cover tomatoes for 10/30-10/31, but there is no invoice for that

2

purchase. Defendant’s Exhibit A, purchase 102. These errors call for minor adjustments to the

3

total damages.

4

Third, DiMare admits that it may have saved money on a number of purchases in

5

October; those purchases were labeled “Load replaced at or below contract.” Defendant’s Exhibit

6

A, at 4-5. There is no evidence that DiMare has counted the monies saved through these

7

purchases in calculating damages. Sun Pacific argues that any savings on specific purchases

8

should be offset against other damages. Doc. 158, Sun Pacific’s Proposed FOFCOL, at 48:27. It

9

appears that market prices for several categories of tomatoes fell below the Contract prices in

10

October. If Sun Pacific had not breached the Contract, DiMare would have been forced to

11

purchase tomatoes at prices above market rates. These savings logically constitute “expenses

12

saved in consequence of the seller’s breach.” “The remedies provided by this code shall be

13

liberally administered to the end that the aggrieved party may be put in as good a position as if

14

the other party had fully performed.” Cal. Com. Code §1305(a). Cover works that result quite

15

literally. The buyer obtains the breached goods and is reimbursed by the seller for any total cost

16

above that specified in a contract; from the perspective of the buyer, the result is as if the seller

17

had fully performed. In an analogous case, a Michigan court ruled, “In procuring substitute

18

goods to meet Phase II production requirements, defendant incurred additional charges on five of

19

the purchase orders. One of the purchase orders was for precisely the same cost by the new

20

subcontractor as would have been incurred for production of the goods by plaintiff. Three of the

21

purchase orders for substitute goods resulted in a savings to defendant from the price that would

22

have been owed to plaintiff for production of these same items. It is disingenuous of defendant to

23

suggest that the monies saved on three of the purchase orders securing the substitute goods are

24

not included as ‘expenses saved in consequence of the seller’s breach.’” Precision Master v.

25

Mold Masters Co., 2007 Mich. App. LEXIS 1736, *13 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007) (applying

26

Michigan law whose wording is identical to Cal. Com. Code §2712). This result is consonant

27

with the reasoning of commentators James White and Robert Summers who theorized that in a

28

situation when the cover price was greater than the contract price but the shipping costs lower,
18

1

the savings from shipping should be offset against the increased purchase price as “the goal [is]

2

placing the buyer in the position he would have been in had no breach occurred.” See 1 White &

3

Summers, Uniform Commercial Code § 6-3 (5th ed.).

4

DiMare did not provide figures showing the cost of cover purchases when it was able to

5

buy tomatoes below Contract prices; there are no corresponding invoices. DiMare has the

6

burden of proving damages for breach of contract. See Diversified Paratransit, Inc. v. Checkmate

7

Staffing, Inc., 359 Fed. Appx. 736, 737 (9th Cir. 2009). There are 16 purchases for which

8

DiMare may have saved money. Defendant’s Exhibit A, purchases 77, 82, 85-94, and 97-100.

9

DiMare obtained 13 of the purchases from Sun Pacific in early September for which DiMare

10
11

remitted the Contract price. DiMare seeks damages for the remaining 73 purchases.
Overall, DiMare’s invoices are incomplete. Most strikingly, DiMare does not provide

12

invoices for those purchases labeled “Load replaced at or below contract.” It is clear that

13

DiMare’s damages are less than claimed. However, without the complete invoices, the court can

14

not determine an exact amount by which they should be reduced. Since there is no evidence of

15

the actual amount DiMare saved, the court will have to make an estimate, weighted towards Sun

16

Pacific to protect the party that does not carry the burden of proof. To account for these various

17

failures of proof, the court will reduce DiMare’s damages by 20%. DiMare is awarded $980,289

18

($1,225,362 minus 20%) as cover damages.

19

DiMare was awarded $43,930.97 in attorney’s fees and expenses for the PACA Hearing

20

which Sun Pacific was to pay within thirty days of August 22, 2008. As the prevailing party of

21

an appeal under PACA, DiMare is entitled to additional attorney’s fees and costs. 7 U.S.C.

22

§499g(c). The interest rate DiMare asks for is 2.18% pursuant to Judge Jenson’s award and 28

23

U.S.C. §1961. Doc. 157, DiMare’s Proposed FOFCOL, at 20:23-28. Sun Pacific suggests that

24

Cal. Civ. Code §3289(b), which prescribes a 10% interest rate, applies to breach of contract

25

claims. Doc. 158, Sun Pacific’s Proposed FOFCOL, at 35:2-3. As DiMare only asks for 2.18%,

26

the court will award the lesser rate and assume no objection on the part of Sun Pacific.

27
28
19

IV. Order

1
2

For contract damages, Sun Pacific shall pay DiMare $980,289 with interest of 2.18% per

3

annum from November 1, 2006 until paid. For attorney’s fees and costs before the PACA

4

Hearing, Sun Pacific shall pay Dimare $43,930.97 with interest of 2.18% per annum from

5

September 23, 2008 until paid. DiMare may submit a motion for attorney’s fees and costs

6

associated with this bench trial in accord with Local Rule 230.

7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9
10

Dated:
0m8i78

August 12, 2011
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
20