Tom Ver LLC v. Organic Alliance, Inc et al

Filing 53

ORDER by Judge Ronald M Whyte denying 43 Motion for Sanctions; finding as moot 23 Motion to enforce TRO (rmwlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/7/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

SAN JOSE DIVISION
11
12

TOM VER LLC d/b/a MEXFRESH
PRODUCE,

13

Case No. C-13-03506-LHK

14

v.

15

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
ENFORCE TEMPORARY
RESTRAINING ORDER AS MOOT;
DENYING SANCTIONS

ORGANIC ALLIANCE, INC., PARKER R.
BOOTH, MARK Y. KLEIN, MICHAEL
ROSENTHAL, CHRISTOPHER WHITE, and
BARRY M. BROOKSTEIN, each invidually,

[Re Dkt. Nos. 23, 43]

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Plaintiff,

Defendants.

Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging violations of the Perishable Agricultural Commodities
Act. See 7 U.S.C. 499a et seq. The court granted plaintiff’s motions for a temporary restraining
order (TRO) and preliminary injunction. The TRO required any of defendants’ banking institutions
to turn over “any statements, signature cards, and all other documents” relating to defendants’
accounts within five days of receipt of the order. Dkt. No. 11, TRO ¶ 4. Plaintiff alleges that nonparty Rabobank, N.A. (“Rabobank”) failed to timely comply with the TRO.
Rabobank admits that it received notice of the TRO on August 9, 2013, and placed a hold on
defendants’ account. Dkt. No. 46-3, Ramos Decl. ¶¶ 2-3. On September 4, 2013, Rabobank
received a letter from plaintiff’s counsel requesting the account information described in the TRO
by September 11, 2013. Id. ¶ 4. On September 6, before the deadline set in the letter, plaintiff filed a
ORDER DENYING SANCTIONS
Case No. C-13-03506-LHK
LM

-1-

1

motion to enforce the court’s temporary restraining order and for contempt. Dkt. No. 23. Rabobank

2

sent the requested documents to plaintiff’s counsel on September 11. Ramos Decl. ¶6.

3

On October 21, 2013, the court held a hearing on the motion and allowed plaintiff the

4

opportunity to submit declarations if he wished to pursue monetary sanctions. Dkt. No. 33. On

5

December 27, 2013, plaintiff filed a motion for sanctions and accompanying declarations. Dkt. No.

6

43. Rabobank opposes the motion for sanctions. Dkt. No. 46.

7

Civil contempt sanctions are wholly remedial. Falstaff Brewing Corp. v. Miller Brewing Co.,

8

702 F.2d 770, 778 (9th Cir.1983). They are employed for two purposes: to coerce the defendant into

9

compliance with the Court’s order and to compensate the complainant for losses sustained. United

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

States v. United Mine Workers of Am., 330 U.S. 258, 303-04 (1947); Falstaff, 702 F.2d at 778.

11

Generally, the minimum sanction necessary to obtain compliance should be imposed. Whittaker

12

Corp. v. Execuair Corp., 953 F.2d 510, 517 (9th Cir. 1992).

13

The court declines to apply sanctions against Rabobank. Rabobank responded to the

14

plaintiff’s September 4, 2013 letter within the deadline imposed by plaintiff’s counsel. Plaintiff has

15

not alleged that Rabobank continues to act in violation of the TRO, or that plaintiff needs additional

16

information from Rabobank. Because Rabobank is now in compliance with the TRO, the motion to

17

enforce the TRO, Dkt. No. 23, is denied as moot. Furthermore, filing the motion to enforce the

18

TRO was premature and appears to have been unnecessary, as Rabobank turned over the reqeuested

19

documents within counsel’s deadline. At this point, civil contempt sanctions would serve no

20

remedial purpose and are denied.

21
22
23

Dated February 7, 2014

_________________________________
Ronald M. Whyte
United States District Judge

24
25
26
27
28
ORDER DENYING SANCTIONS
Case No. C-13-03506-LHK
LM

-2-