Nickey Gregory Company, LLC et al v. Agricap, LLC

Filing 22

Report and Recommendation on Third Party Complaint. Signed by Judge LARSON on May 9, 2011. (jllc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/11/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
Nickey Gregory Company, LLC, et al.,

12
13

No. C 10-80297 MISC JSW (JL)

Plaintiffs,
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION RE
THIRD PARTY CLAIM (Docket # 6)

v.

14

Agricap, LLC, et al.,

15

Defendants.
________________________________/

16
17

I.

18

The Third Party Claim of FCC, LLC dba in California as First Capital Western

Introduction

19

Region, LLC, was referred by the district court (Hon. Jeffrey S. White) under 28 U.S.C.

20

§636(b). The matter came on for hearing before this Court. Attorney for Plaintiff was Mary

21

Jean Fassett, Pro Hac Vice, McCARRON & DIESS, Washington, D.C.. Attorney for FCC

22

was Erin Welsh, BUCHALTER NEMER, Los Angeles. Attorneys for AgriCap were Ayse

23

Kuzucuoglu and Christopher Heisenberg, HINCKLEY & HEISENBERG LLP, New York

24

City. The Court carefully considered the moving and opposing papers, the applicable law,

25

and the arguments of counsel, and hereby concludes that the Third Party Claim should be

26

denied. The levied funds are part of a PACA Trust Account and are payable only to

27

Plaintiffs, regardless of the security status or seniority of liens of all other creditors of

28

Defendants, including FCC. For the foregoing reasons, this Court recommends that the

C-10-80297 REPORT & RECOMMENDATION

Page 1 of 12

1

district court enter judgment dismissing the Third Party Complaint, ordering that Plaintiffs

2

are entitled to the proceeds of the levies, and awarding Nickey Gregory fees and costs

3

under Local Rule 54-5.
Factual and Procedural Background

A.

Previous Rulings

6

1.

District court judgment

7

The case before this Court arises from levies on bank accounts of AgriCap, LLC

8

(“AgriCap”) pursuant to two Writs of Execution issued by this Court based on an unpaid

9

final judgment entered by the United States District Court for South Carolina in favor of

10

Plaintiffs and against AgriCap in the amount of $204,305.86. The district court originally

11
For the Northern District of California

II.

5

United States District Court

4

filed an Opinion and Order which directed AgriCap to disgorge trust assets to Plaintiffs for a

12

lesser amount of $88,690.75. Nickey Gregory Company, LLC v. AgriCap, LLC, 592

13

F.Supp.2d 862, 878 (D.S.C. 2008). Cross-appeals were taken by Plaintiffs and AgriCap to

14

the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The Fourth Circuit concisely summarized

15

the issues and its decision as follows.

16
17
18
19
20
21
22

Two sellers of perishable agricultural commodities, Nickey Gregory Company, LLC,
and Poppell's Produce Inc., commenced this action under the Perishable Agricultural
Commodities Act, 1930 ("PACA"), 7 U.S.C. §§499a-499t, to recover $106,696 owed
them for the sale of produce to Robison Farms, LLC., a bankrupt South Carolina
produce distributor. They named as defendant AgriCap, LLC, a finance company
that provided secured financing to Robison Farms for working capital, and they
demanded that AgriCap disgorge the proceeds of Robison Farms' accounts
receivable held by AgriCap as collateral to secure repayment of monies advanced
by AgriCap to Robison Farms. The two produce sellers claim that 7 U.S.C.
§499e(c)(2) created a trust for their benefit over the proceeds of their produce,
including the accounts receivable that Robison Farms used for collateral in its
arrangement with AgriCap, and that they therefore had a superior interest in the
accounts receivable and proceeds held by AgriCap.

23
AgriCap claimed that it purchased Robison Farms' accounts receivable under a
24
traditional factoring agreement and that it therefore held no assets of Robison Farms that
25
were subject to a PACA trust. It also asserted as a defense that it was a bona fide
26
purchaser for value.
27
28

C-10-80297 REPORT & RECOMMENDATION

Page 2 of 12

1

The district court rejected AgriCap's position and found that AgriCap had a lending

2

arrangement with Robison Farms secured by Robison Farms' accounts receivable (“AR”).

3

Accordingly, it concluded that AgriCap held the accounts receivable as part of the PACA

4

trust, the assets of which had to be used to pay unpaid commodities sellers before any

5

other creditor.

6
7
8
9

For the reasons that follow, we affirm the district court's conclusion that Robison
Farms' accounts receivable were held by AgriCap as collateral for a loan and
therefore were subject to a PACA trust , but we disagree with the amount that the
district court required AgriCap to pay the commodities sellers. Accordingly, we affirm
in part, vacate in part, and remand for a reassessment of damages in accordance
with this opinion.
Nickey Gregory Co., LLC v. AgriCap, LLC, 597 F.3d 591, 594 (4th Cir. 2010). (Emphasis

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
added.)
12
On remand, the district court awarded full damages to Plaintiffs, plus attorney fees to
13
Nickey Gregory Company, LLC, in accord with the Fourth Circuit’s opinion, and entered
14
final judgment awarding Plaintiffs $204,305.86 against AgriCap. Nickey Gregory Co., LLC
15
v. AgriCap, LLC, 2010 U.S. Dist LEXIS 34804 (D.S.C. April. 8, 2010), and 2010 U.S. Dist
16
LEXIS 56395 (D.S.C. June 8, 2010). This is the final judgment upon which the writs of
17
execution were issued, and not the original judgment entered in 2008, as misstated by
18
FCC. Third Party Claim of FCC, p. 2:9-10.
19
B.
20

The court of appeals and the district court ruled that AgriCap unlawfully
held Plaintiffs’ PACA trust assets from Robison Farms as collateral for
its secured loan.

21
22

Plaintiffs obtained a judgment against AgriCap and levied on its bank accounts. FCC

23

claims a priority position over the levied funds in AgriCap’s accounts because it holds a

24

blanket security interest over all of AgriCap’s assets, including funds in those accounts

25

levied upon. But such security interests do not trump the claims of PACA trust creditors.

26

Nickey Gregory, 597 F.3d at 595. See also Boulder Fruit Express & Heger Organic Farm

27

Sales v. Transp. Factoring, Inc., 251 F.3d 1268, 1270 (9th Cir. 2001) (PACA trust meant to

28

remedy the burden on commerce in perishable agricultural commodities caused by

C-10-80297 REPORT & RECOMMENDATION

Page 3 of 12

1

accounts receivable financing arrangements that give lenders a security interest’ in the

2

perishable agricultural commodities superior to the growers). Although the court cited

3

Boulder Fruit to define the purpose of the PACA trust, it distinguished the holding in that

4

case from this case. In Boulder Fruit, the court found for the finance company, but only

5

because, “That case involved a true factoring relationship, in which the receivables were

6

actually sold to the factor. Thus, unlike in this case, the receivables no longer remained

7

PACA trust assets.” Nickey Gregory Co., LLC v. AgriCap, LLC 597 F.3d at 604 (4th Cir.

8

2010)

9

In addition, the loan documents FCC submitted with its Third Party Claim show that,
before it filed its Statement of Claim, FCC knew that it held the same Robison Farms’

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

PACA trust assets as collateral for its secured loan to AgriCap, which the court of appeals

12

and the district court ruled were subject to the PACA trust. Thus, FCC’s claim that it has

13

priority over the levied funds based on its security interest has no merit.

14

III.

ARGUMENT

15

A.

Summary

16

FCC contends that the levied funds are not PACA trust assets because they have

17

long since disappeared through its revolving line of credit to Agricap; and that Plaintiffs

18

have the burden of tracing the trust funds, which they cannot satisfy under the common law

19

“lowest intermediate balance rule,” citing ITT Commercial Finance Corp. v. Tech Power,

20

Inc., 43 Cal. App. 4th 1551, 1558 (1996). On the contrary, FCC, as the party challenging

21

the PACA trust, has the burden of proving that trust funds were not in the levied accounts.

22

Sanzone-Palmisano Co. v. M. Seaman Enters., Inc., 986 F.2d 1010 (6th Cir. 1993). Since

23

the trust funds were commingled with non-trust funds, FCC cannot meet its burden. Id.

24

Furthermore, common law trust principles do not apply if they conflict with the

25

language of the statute, the clear intent of Congress in enacting the statute, or the

26

accompanying regulations. Boulder Fruit, 251 F.3d at 1271; C.H. Robinson Co. v. Alanco

27

Corp., 239 F.3d 483, 487 (2d Cir. 2001). Under the “lowest intermediate balance rule,”

28

secured lenders could easily evade the PACA trust by recycling trust funds through multiple

C-10-80297 REPORT & RECOMMENDATION

Page 4 of 12

1

accounts, and then depleting such accounts, as occurred in this case. Since this conflicts

2

with the clear intent of Congress that PACA trust creditors have priority to trust assets over

3

secured lenders, the “lowest intermediate balance rule” does not apply. Finally, Nickey

4

Gregory is entitled to attorney fees in connection with this proceeding under the rulings of

5

the Fourth Circuit and the district court, since the fees incurred in this legal action are

6

“sums due in connection with the transactions,” and payable from the PACA trust funds

7

held in AgriCap’s accounts. Nickey Gregory, 597 F.3d at 597.

8

IV.

Analysis

9

A.

FCC’s security interest does not have priority over the funds levied
under Plaintiff’s PACA Trust Judgment.

FCC’s argument that it has priority over the levied funds in AgriCap’s accounts
11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
because it holds a security interest in those funds is erroneous. It is black letter law that
12
such security interests do not trump the claims of PACA trust creditors. Nickey Gregory,
13
597 F.3d at 595. See also Boulder Fruit, 251 F.3d at 1270 (“In 1984, Congress amended
14
PACA ‘to remedy [the] burden on commerce in perishable agricultural commodities and to
15
protect the public interest" caused by accounts receivable financing arrangements that
16
‘encumber or give lenders a security interest’ in the perishable agricultural commodities
17
superior to the growers. 7 U.S.C. §499e(c)(1).”) To the extent that FCC argues its security
18
interest is first in time so first in right, because it arose prior to the judgment entered in
19
favor of Plaintiffs, FCC is incorrect. See Third Party Claim, p. 2:22-3:7. The PACA trust
20
arises upon delivery of the produce and remains in effect until there is full payment. 7
21
U.S.C. §499e(c)(2). Thus, FCC’s security interest cannot have priority over the PACA trust
22
either because FCC’s lien existed before a PACA trust arose or before a PACA trust
23
judgment is entered, because the trust arose on delivery of the produce and is not
24
extinguished until the producer has been paid.
25
In addition, FCC’s loan documents with AgriCap reveal that FCC knew, before it filed
26
its Third Party Claim, that it held the same Robison Farms’ PACA trust assets as collateral
27
for its secured loan to AgriCap, which the court of appeals and the district court ruled were
28

C-10-80297 REPORT & RECOMMENDATION

Page 5 of 12

1

subject to the PACA trust. AgriCap provided accounts receivable financing to Robison

2

Farms from March 2005 through July 2006. Nickey Gregory, 597 F.3d at 596?. On March

3

6, 2006, FCC commenced providing receivable financing to AgriCap via a revolving line of

4

credit. FCC Third Party Claim, p.4:6-10; see also, Exhibit 4 to FCC Third Party Claim, the

5

Loan and Security Agreement between FCC and AgriCap. AgriCap used the funds from

6

FCC to provide accounts receivable financing to its “Clients.” Id; see also, FCC Third Party

7

Claim, p. 4:13-15. (“FCC agreed to lend AgriCap money secured by collateral in the form of

8

Accounts Receivable (“AR”) which is pledged to FCC in the Loan Agreement.”) FCC held

9

the receivables, which AgriCap obtained under its financing agreements with its Clients, as
collateral for its loans to AgriCap. Exhibit 4, p. 24 ¶5, and p. 2 (defining “Client”). Robison

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

Farms, the PACA trustee in the litigation against AgriCap resulting in the judgment at issue,

12

is specifically identified as an AgriCap Factoring “Client” in Schedule 21 to Exhibit 4, the

13

FCC Loan and Security Agreement. Robison Farms is again shown as one of the sources

14

of accounts receivable used as collateral for FCC’s loan to AgriCap in the March 9, 2006

15

Borrowing Base Certificate to FCC, attached as Exhibit A to Exhibit 4, the FCC Loan and

16

Security Agreement.

17

Under the FCC Loan and Security agreement, PACA trust assets in the form of

18

payments received from the Customers of Robinson Farms were deposited in a Lockbox

19

controlled by FCC. “Borrower [AgriCap] shall cause each Client [Robison Farms] to advise

20

its Customers [Accounts Receivable of Robison Farms] to remit payment on all Client

21

Accounts and all other amounts owing to such Client directly to the Lockbox.” Exhibit 4, p.

22

21 ¶(vii). “‘Lockbox’ means that [a] certain post office box maintained on behalf of Borrower

23

[AgriCap] and subject to a control agreement in favor of Lender [FCC] in form and

24

substance acceptable to Lender into which Borrower shall have instructed all of its

25

Customers to remit payments.” Id. p. 11. “‘Client Accounts Customer’ means any Person

26

that (I) has entered into a Factoring Agreement with the Borrower, or (ii) sold or will sell

27

their Accounts to Borrower …”. Id. p. 2. “‘

28

C-10-80297 REPORT & RECOMMENDATION

Page 6 of 12

1

Thus, before it filed its Third Party Claim, FCC knew that it both: wrongfully held the

2

same PACA accounts receivable of Robison Farms as security for its advances to AgriCap,

3

as the court of appeals and the district court had ruled that AgriCap wrongfully held as

4

security for its advances to Robison Farms; and received into its Lockbox over $668,000 in

5

PACA trust assets in the form of Robison Farms’s accounts receivable after May 11, 2006,

6

in breach of the trust. Id. Thus, FCC’s Third Party Claim regarding the priority of its security

7

interest over the PACA trust claims of Plaintiffs has no merit and is an improper attempt to

8

relitigate issues that have already been decided.

9

B.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

FCC also contends without effect that none of the accounts levied upon
contain PACA trust assets as follows. To the contrary, FCC has the
burden of tracing which it fails to meet.

“Under the terms of the Loan Documents, all of AgriCap’s AR was provided as

12

collateral to secure cash advances made by FCC to AgriCap. As explained by Mark A

13

Parreira, in his affidavit accompanying this Third Party Claim, when that AR was paid by

14

AgriCap’s client it was wired to an account other than one of those levied upon. (Parreira

15

Aff. ¶7.) Simply put, FCC loaned money to AgriCap based, in part, on the amount of AR

16

that AgriCap pledged to FCC. AgriCap’s customers then paid on invoices directly into an

17

account other than one of those levied upon.” FCC Third Party Claim p. 5:12-15. Emphasis

18

added.

19

The “account other than one of those levied upon,” is the Lockbox controlled by

20

FCC, into which the Robison Farms PACA trust funds were deposited. FCC contends

21

Plaintiffs have the burden of tracing, and they cannot trace the trust assets to the accounts

22

levied upon, based upon the “lowest intermediate balance rule,” citing ITT Commercial

23

Finance Corp. v. Tech Power, Inc., et al., 43 Cal. App. 4th

24

First, FCC, as the party which commingled the PACA trust funds, has the burden of

25

proof on the tracing issue, not Plaintiffs. As explained in Sanzone-Palmisano Co. v. M.

26

Seaman Enterprises, Inc., 986 F.2d 1010, 1013-1014 (6th Cir. Ohio 1993). 1551, 1558

27

(1996).

28

The trust impressed by section 5(c)(2) is a nonsegregated "floating trust" made up of
all a firm's commodity related liquid assets, under which there may be a
commingling of trust assets. Under this provision there is no necessity to specifically
C-10-80297 REPORT & RECOMMENDATION

Page 7 of 12

1

identify all of the trust assets through each step of the assets accrual and disposal
process. Since commingling is contemplated, all trust assets would be subject to the
claims of unpaid seller-suppliers and agents to the extent of the amount owed them.
H.R. Rep. No. 98-543 at 5. Congress enacted the 1984 Amendments to protect what
it determined to be an especially vulnerable class. Courts have recognized this
purpose and consistently placed the burden of tracing on the purchaser in cases
where the purchaser deals exclusively in produce.

2
3
4
5

See, e.g., In re Atlantic Tropical Market Corp., 118 Bankr. 139 at 142 (Bankr. S.D. Fla.

6

1990).

7

Also, at least one circuit court has placed the tracing burden on the purchaser or

8

PACA debtor when the purchaser commingled proceeds from the sale of produce with

9

proceeds from the sale of other commodities. Six L's Packing Co. v. West Des Moines

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14

State Bank, 967 F.2d 256, 258 (8th Cir. 1992).
We see no reason to shift the tracing burden to the produce supplier when the
purchaser commingles produce proceeds with the proceeds from the sale of other
commodities. The harsh effect on other suppliers is not persuasive. Although the
PACA trust may not adversely affect suppliers of non-produce commodities when
the purchaser deals exclusively in produce, other unsecured creditors -- and even
secured creditors -- must still suffer the "harsh effect" of the produce suppliers being
elevated from the status of unsecured creditors to trust beneficiaries.

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

We hold that a purchaser, or PACA debtor, has the burden of showing that disputed
assets were not acquired with proceeds from the sale of produce or produce-related
assets. This holding is consistent with PACA's statutory language, the legislative
history, and past court decisions interpreting PACA. We recognize that in most
cases it will be virtually impossible for a PACA debtor to trace the origin of the
disputed assets. In re Gotham Provision Company, Inc., 669 F.2d 1000, 1011 (5th
Cir.) (discussing the impossibility of tracing assets under similar trust provisions of
the Packers and Stockyards Act), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 858, 74 L. Ed. 2d 111, 103
S. Ct. 129 (1982); In re Fresh Approach, 51 Bankr. at 422. See also In re Gotham
Provision Co., 669 F.2d 1000, 1011 (5th Cir.1982) cert. denied, 459 U.S. 858, 74 L.
Ed. 2d 111, 103 S. Ct. 129 (1982), cited in Sanzone-Palmisano, noting the
impossibility of tracing assets under similar trust provisions of the Packers and
Stockyards Act, and holding that, "The only burden on the (trust creditors) in such a
case is to prove the balance due to them and the existence of a floating pool of
commingled inventories of livestock products, accounts receivables and proceeds
derived from cash and credit livestock sales." In this case, FCC as the party
directing the deposit and commingling of trust funds has the tracing burden. Absent
such a rule, secured lenders could defeat the trust by moving trust funds in and out
of different accounts, contrary to PACA and the intent of Congress.

25
26

FCC’s own evidence demonstrates that it cannot meet its burden of tracing. In the

27

Affidavit of Mark A. Parreira, he states that he is “presently” the Chief Financial Officer of

28

AgriCap (¶2), and that he is “informed that the account (the “Funding Account”) has never
received and will not receive, monies deposited by AgriCap and that the Funding Account
C-10-80297 REPORT & RECOMMENDATION

Page 8 of 12

loan to AgriCap.” Id. ¶6. He further states that the Operating Account levied upon never

3

received monies from any source other than from the Funding Account. Id. ¶7. But AgriCap

4

received PACA trust assets and commingled them with other assets which were held as

5

security by FCC and received by FCC. Furthermore, based on the FCC’s Loan and

6

Security Agreement (Exhibit 4), and the Exhibits thereto, PACA trust assets, in the form of

7

payments of at least $668,000 from the Robison Farms’ customers, went into the Lockbox

8

controlled by FCC. These funds were commingled with other FCC funds, which were

9

recycled and advanced to AgriCap, as part of its revolving line of credit, into the Funding

10

Account and Operating Account levied upon. Such commingling does not defeat the trust,

11
For the Northern District of California

has never received monies from any source other than advances made by FCC under its

2

United States District Court

1

and under such circumstances, FCC cannot meet its burden of tracing. See Boulder Fruit,

12

251 F.3d at 1270, “This provision imposes a ‘nonsegregated floating trust’ on the

13

commodities and their derivatives, and permits the commingling of trust assets without

14

defeating the trust,” citing Endico Potatoes, Inc. v. CIT Group/Factoring, Inc., 67 F.3d 1063,

15

1067 (2d Cir. 1995) (citations omitted); Sanzone-Palmisano, supra.

16

Second, the "lowest intermediate balance rule" used in tracing trust funds is a

17

common law rule. ITT Commercial Finance Corp. v. Tech Power, Inc., 43 Cal. App. 4th

18

1551, 1558 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. 1996) citing Chrysler Credit Corp. v. Superior Court, 17 Cal.

19

App. 4th 1303, 1316 (Cal. App. 1st Dist. 1993). Such common law trust rules do not apply if

20

they conflict with PACA. Nickey Gregory 597 F.3d at 595-596; Boulder Fruit, 251 F.3d at

21

1271. As explained in C.H. Robinson Co. v. Alanco Corp., 239 F.3d 483, 487 (2d Cir.

22

2001):

23
24
25
26
27
28

Trusts created under PACA are statutory trusts, and common law trust principles are
not applicable if they conflict with the language of the statute, the clear intent of
Congress in enacting the statute, or the accompanying regulations. Cf. Varity Corp.
v. Howe, 516 U.S. 489, 497, 134 L. Ed. 2d 130, 116 S. Ct. 1065 (1996) (interpreting
ERISA and holding that ‘in some instances, trust law will offer only a starting point,
after which courts must go on to ask whether, or to what extent, the language of the
statute, its structure, or its purposes require departing from common-law trust
requirements’). For example, trustees are generally required to keep trust assets
separate from non-trust assets. Restatement (Second) of Trusts §179 (1959). Under
PACA, however, PACA trustees are specifically permitted to commingle PACA trust
assets. 7 C.F.R. §46.46(b) (Trust assets are to be preserved as a nonsegregated
'floating' trust. Commingling of assets is contemplated.) The applicability of any

C-10-80297 REPORT & RECOMMENDATION

Page 9 of 12

1

principle of trust law to a PACA trust must be tested against the language and
purpose of the statute and the accompanying regulations.

2
The "lowest intermediate balance rule" conflicts with the purpose of PACA and the
3
intent of Congress because it places the burden of proof on the trust creditor contrary to the
4
law under PACA, and it would allow secured lenders to obtain trust funds, and then recycle
5
those funds to other accounts which are then depleted to avoid the PACA trust under the
6
“lowest intermediate balance rule.” This is exactly what FCC says happened in this case, in
7
order for it to try to sidestep the PACA trust. Third Party Claim, p. 7:9-14. Thus, use of the
8
“lowest intermediate balance rule” would allow commingling and depletion of trust assets
9
that would defeat the PACA trust, contrary to the statute and case law, which “permits the
commingling of trust assets without defeating the trust.” Boulder Fruit, 251 F.3d at 1270.
11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
FCC also claims that the judgment at issue is merely a money judgment, and does
12
not require disgorgement of the PACA trust assets. Third Party Claim, p. 6:21-7:1. But the
13
district court’s Opinion and Order that accompanied its original judgment states that
14
AgriCap, a secured lender of Robison Farms, “shall disgorge the trust assets.” Nickey
15
Gregory Company, LLC v. AgriCap, LLC, 592 F.Supp.2d 862, 878 (D.S.C. 2008).
16
Furthermore, even if the district court had stated in its judgment that “AgriCap is required to
17
disgorge the trust assets,” as FCC suggests, such relief would have been illusory due to
18
FCC and AgriCap moving its money around multiple banks accounts. FCC would then
19
make the same argument that it cannot find any PACA trust assets to disgorge. FCC’s
20
argument demonstrates the wisdom of the rule that FCC and AgriCap have the burden of
21
tracing because otherwise commingling would defeat the trust, which is contrary to the law.
22
Nickey Gregory, 597 F.3d at 595?, citing 7 C.F.R. 46.46(b). Since FCC and AgriCap
23
commingled the trust assets, the levies upon the funds in the commingled accounts based
24
on the PACA trust money judgment result in disgorgement of the PACA trust assets.
25
C.

Nickey Gregory is entitled to attorney fees incurred in this proceeding.

26
Plaintiff Nickey Gregory is entitled to an award of attorney fees incurred in this
27
proceeding brought by FCC. The district court and the court of appeals held that Nickey
28

C-10-80297 REPORT & RECOMMENDATION

Page 10 of 12

1

Gregory should be awarded attorney fees necessary to collect any balance due under its

2

invoices. The district court explained why an award of attorney fees was required.

3

Further, as noted in the court’s December 2008 order, the case law supports an

language on their invoices as “sums owing in connection with such transactions.” 7 U.S.C

6

§499e(c)(2). Coosemans Specialties, Inc. v. Gargiulo, 485 F.3d 701, 707 (2d Cir. 2007);

7

Country Best v. Christopher Ranch, LLC, 361 F.3d 629, 632 (11th Cir. 2004); Middle

8

Mountain Land & Produce, Inc. v. Sound Commodities, Inc., 307 F.3d 1220, 1224 (9th Cir.

9

2002). The language on Nickey Gregory’s invoices to Robison Farms provides in pertinent

10

part: “Interest at 1.5% added to unpaid balance. Interest and attorney’s fees necessary to

11
For the Northern District of California

award of attorneys’ fees to PACA trust creditors who have the requisite attorney fee

5

United States District Court

4

collect any balance due hereunder shall be considered sums owing in connection with this

12

transaction under the PACA trust.” (Nickey Gregory Mem. Supp. Pet. Att’y Fees 4.) Since

13

Nickey Gregory “has taken legal action to collect past due amounts, its attorneys’ fees

14

constitute ‘sums owing in connection with such transactions’ and are payable from the

15

PACA trust amounts.” E. Armata, Inc. v. Platinum Funding Corp., 887 F. Supp. 590, 594-95

16

(S.D.N.Y. 1995). Thus, Nickey Gregory is entitled to reasonable attorney fees. Nickey

17

Gregory Co., LLC v. AgriCap, LLC, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56395 *4-5 (D.S.C. June 8,

18

2010). Nickey Gregory has now had to incur additional legal fees and costs to collect its

19

past due trust funds because of FCC’s Third Party Claim, which has no legal merit. Such

20

fees constitute “‘sums owing in connection with such transactions’ and are payable from the

21

PACA trust accounts.” Middle Mountain Land & Produce, Inc. v. Sound Commodities, Inc.,

22

307 F.3d 1220, 1224 (9th Cir. 2001).

23

V.

24

For the foregoing reasons, this Court recommends that the district court enter

25

judgment dismissing the Third Party Complaint, order that Plaintiffs are entitled to the

26

proceeds of the levies, and award Nickey Gregory fees and costs under Local Rule 54-5.

27
28

Conclusion and Recommendation

Respectfully submitted.
DATED: May 9, 2011
__________________________________
C-10-80297 REPORT & RECOMMENDATION

Page 11 of 12

1

JAMES LARSON
United States Magistrate Judge

2
3

G:\JLALL\CASES\CIV-REF\10-80297\R&R DENY 6.wpd

4
5
6
7
8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

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

C-10-80297 REPORT & RECOMMENDATION

Page 12 of 12