Major Farms, Inc v. Salyer American Fresh Foods et al

Filing 89

ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT. Signed by Judge Jeremy Fogel on August 26, 2011. (jflc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/26/2011)

1

**E-Filed 8/26/2011**

2
3
4
5
6
7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
SAN JOSE DIVISION
10
11

Case Number 5:09-cv-04985-JF/PVT
MAJOR FARMS, INC.,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.
SALYER AMERICAN FRESH FOODS, et al.,

15

ORDER1 GRANTING IN PART
PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR
ENTRY OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT
[re: document no. 57, 70]

Defendants.

16
17
18

On October 20, 2009, Plaintiff Major Farms brought suit against Salyer American Fresh

19

Foods (“SAFF”), an agriculture commodities broker, and its principal Scott Salyer, alleging

20

violations of the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (“PACA”) and breach of contract.

21

The suit also named defendants Bank of the West, a secured creditor of SAFF, and Steve

22

Franson, a court appointed receiver for SAFF. Both Salyer and SAFF failed to appear, and

23

default has been entered as to those parties. Major subsequently settled its PACA claims with

24

respect to Defendants Bank of the West and Franson, and it dismissed its claims as to SAFF.

25

Major now seeks entry of default judgment against Salyer in the amount of $454,313.24 for

26

claims relating to unharvested crops.

27
28

Default judgments are governed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 55. Major attests that to the best of its
1

This disposition is not designated for publication in the official reports.

Case Nos. 5:09-cv-04985-JF/PVT
ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT
(JFLC3)

1

knowledge Salyer is not an infant or incompetent person, nor within the ambit of the

2

Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, 50 U.S.C. App. § 501 et seq. Thus the decision to grant a

3

default judgment lies within the discretion of the Court. See Dabu v. Becks Creek Indus., No.

4

CV-08:5626, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 119737, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 23, 2009) (citing Eitel v.

5

McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir. 1986)).

6

“[U]pon default the factual allegations of the complaint, except those relating to the

7

amount of damages, will be taken as true.” Geddes, 559 F.2d at 560 (citing Pope v. United

8

States, 323 U.S. 1 (1944); Flaks v. Koegel, 504 F.2d 702, 707 (2d Cir. 1974)). Major alleges that

9

Salyer violated its contract for the harvest and sale of 31.4 acres of lettuce crops and 47.5 acres

10

of celery crops. Compl. ¶ 15. Major alleges that the crops were valued at $372,350.00. Id. ex.

11

B. Major also seeks prejudgment interest at the California statutory interest rate at ten percent

12

annum from the date the debt is alleged to have come due, July 24, 2009.2 Major calculates that

13

$73,347.85 in interest has accrued.

14

In addition, Major also seeks attorneys’ fees and costs in the amount of $8,615.39.

15

However, under the traditional “American Rule” attorneys’ fees are not recoverable in federal

16

court except by statute, an enforceable contract between the parties, or where a party or attorney

17

has acted in bad faith, wantonly, vexatiously, or for oppressive reasons. Kreager v. Soloman &

18

Flanagan, P.A., 775 F.2d 1541 (11th Cir. 1985). Major has not provided a basis for an award of

19

attorneys’ fees. In its previous order, the Court rejected claims for attorneys’ fees with respect to

20

the PACA claims. See Order of May 4, 2011. Nor has Major alleged that there is a contractual

21

basis for the fees. Accordingly, an award of attorneys’ fee is not appropriate here.

22
23
24
25

Good cause therefor appearing, the motion for default judgment is granted in part. Major
shall recover $372,350.00 for breach of contract and $73,347.85 in prejudgment interest.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: August 26, 2011
JEREMY FOGEL
United States District Judge

26
27
28

2

In an earlier order, this Court concluded that interest at the California statutory rate was
appropriate for the PACA claims in this case. See Order of May 4, 2011.
2
Case Nos. 5:09-cv-04985-JF/PVT
ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT
(JFLC3)