Chula Brand CA., Corp. v. Rodriguez Martinez et al
Filing
4
ORDER granting 2 Application for Temporary Restraining Order Without Notice. Signed by Judge Janis L. Sammartino on 1/11/2017. (kcm)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12
CHULA BRAND CA, Corp., a California
corporation,
15
16
17
18
ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION
FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING
ORDER WITHOUT NOTICE
Plaintiff,
13
14
Case No.: 17cv37-JLS (KSC)
v.
(ECF No. 2)
JOSUE E. RODRIGUEZ MARTINEZ, an
individual, and IRMA P. HERNANDEZ,
an individual, both d/b/a ERVEY
PRODUCE, and ERVEY PRODUCE,
INC., a California corporation,
Defendants.
19
20
Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Chula Brand CA’s Application for Temporary
21
Restraining Order Without Notice (“TRO Appl.”) (ECF No. 2), concurrently filed with a
22
Complaint to Enforce Payment from Produce Trust (“Compl.”) (ECF No. 1). For the
23
reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s TRO.
24
BACKGROUND
25
Plaintiff is engaged in selling wholesale quantities of perishable agricultural
26
commodities, i.e., produce, in interstate commerce. (Compl. ¶ 3.) According to Plaintiff,
27
between October 14, 2014 and November 25, 2014, Plaintiff sold and delivered to
28
Defendants, in interstate commerce, wholesale amounts of produce in the amount of
1
17cv37-JLS (KSC)
1
$9,480.60. (Id. ¶ 6.) Defendants accepted this produce, and Plaintiff timely delivered
2
invoices to Defendants containing language preserving its PACA rights. (Ludlow Decl. ¶¶
3
7–8, ECF No. 1-3.) Plaintiff contends it has not been paid any monies by Defendants for
4
the $9,480.60 worth of commodities sold, that—despite, “until recently, extend[ing] the
5
due date for payment pursuant to the request from Defendants”—the payment is past due,
6
and that Defendants have not disputed the debt in any way. (Compl. ¶ 10; see id. ¶¶ 6, 12.)
7
Additionally, several of Defendants “long time” friends recently extended
8
Defendants a loan in the amount of $27,000.00. (Halbo Decl. ¶ 3, ECF No. 1-4.) The
9
purpose of the loan was to “enable Defendants to repay their debts to certain produce
10
suppliers, namely to the Plaintiff . . . [and] to enable Defendants to carry on their business
11
. . . .” (Id.) After Defendants repaid $6,000 of the debt, they defaulted on the balance. (Id.)
12
Upon default, Defendants’ friends assigned the loan to Plaintiff. (Id.; Compl. ¶ 12.)
13
Plaintiff seeks enforcement of the statutory trust established under the Perishable
14
Agricultural Commodities Act (“PACA”), 7 U.S.C. § 499a to t, and the regulations issued
15
pursuant thereto. (TRO Appl. 1–2.) Plaintiff alleges that it has preserved its interest in the
16
PACA trust in the full amount of $9,480.60 and that Defendants are failing to comply with
17
their statutory duties under PACA to hold this undisputed amount in trust for the benefit of
18
Plaintiff and to pay said sum to Plaintiff. (Compl. ¶¶ 9, 11–12.) Plaintiff also argues that
19
the unpaid amount on the assigned loan—$21,000.00—“was made to the Defendants for
20
the express purpose of replenishing PACA trust assets to their PACA creditors” and
21
therefore also “qualifies for trust protection.” (TRO Appl. 3.) Accordingly, Plaintiff
22
requests that this Court issue an immediate injunction “restraining the transfer of any and
23
all PACA assets of Defendants Josue E. Rodriguez Martinez, . . . Irma P. Hernandez, and
24
Ervey corporation” until “there is payment to Plaintiff of $30,480.60 plus interest, attorney
25
fees, and costs, pending entry of a Preliminary Injunction.” (TRO Appl. 1.)
26
///
27
///
28
///
2
17cv37-JLS (KSC)
1
LEGAL STANDARD
2
PACA was enacted in 1930 to “suppress unfair and fraudulent practices in the
3
marketing of fruits and vegetables in interstate and foreign commerce” and “provides a
4
code of fair play . . . and aid to [agricultural] traders in enforcing their contracts.”
5
Regulations Under the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act; Addition of Provisions
6
to Effect a Statutory Trust, 49 Fed. Reg. 45735, 45737 (Nov. 20, 1984) (to be codified at
7
7 C.F.R. pt. 46).
8
In 1984, PACA was amended to assure that suppliers of produce are paid by
9
imposing a statutory trust on all produce-related assets, such as the produce itself or other
10
products derived therefrom, as well as any receivables or proceeds from the sale thereof,
11
held by agricultural merchants, dealers, and brokers. 7 U.S.C. § 499e(c)(2); Tanimura &
12
Antle, Inc. v. Packed Fresh Produce, Inc., 222 F.3d 132 (3rd Cir. 2000); Frio Ice, S.A. v.
13
Sunfruit, Inc., 918 F.2d 154 (11th Cir. 1990). The trust must be maintained for the benefit
14
of the unpaid suppliers, sellers, or agents who provided the commodities until full payment
15
has been made. § 499(e)(c). The trust provision thus offers sellers of produce, “a self-help
16
tool that will enable them to protect themselves against the abnormal risk of losses resulting
17
from slow-pay and no-pay practices by buyers or receivers of fruits and vegetables.” 49
18
Fed. Reg. at 45737.
19
Failure to maintain the trust and make full payment promptly to the trust beneficiary
20
is unlawful. 7 U.S.C. § 499b(4). Produce dealers “are required to maintain trust assets in a
21
manner that such assets are freely available to satisfy outstanding obligations to sellers of
22
perishable agricultural commodities[,]” and any act or omission inconsistent with this
23
responsibility, including dissipation of trust assets, is proscribed. 7 C.F.R. § 46.46(e)(1).
24
Dissipation of trust assets, defined as the diversion of trust assets or the impairment of a
25
seller’s right to obtain payment, (7 C.F.R. § 46.46(b)(2)), is forbidden. 7 C.F.R.
26
§ 46.46(e)(i).
27
A valid contractual claim for attorney fees and interest is within the scope of a PACA
28
trust claim because the fees and interest are “sums owing in connection with perishable
3
17cv37-JLS (KSC)
1
agricultural commodities transactions.” See Middle Mountain Land & Produce Inc. v.
2
Sound Commodities, Inc., 307 F.3d 1220, 1222–25 (9th Cir. 2002) (interpreting 7 U.S.C.
3
§ 499e(c)(2)). Additionally, a district court may, in its discretion, “award reasonable
4
prejudgment interest to PACA claimants if such an award is necessary to protect the
5
interests of PACA claimants . . . .” Id. at 1226.
6
7
ANALYSIS
I.
TRO Standard
8
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b), a plaintiff must make a showing that
9
immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result if the court does not grant her
10
motion for a TRO. In particular, a court may not grant a TRO without notice to the adverse
11
party unless “specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint” show immediate and
12
irreparable harm, and “the movant’s attorney certifies in writing any efforts made to give
13
notice and the reasons why it should not be required.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1)(A)–(B).
14
TROs are governed by the same standard applicable to preliminary injunctions. Stuhlbard
15
Int’l Sales Co. v. John D. Brush and Co., 240 F.3d 832, 839 n.7 (9th Cir. 2001); see Cal.
16
Indep. Sys. Operator Corp. v. Reliant Energy Servs., Inc., 181 F. Supp. 2d 1111, 1126 (E.D.
17
Cal. 2001).
18
The Ninth Circuit has set forth two separate sets of criteria for determining whether
19
to grant preliminary injunctive relief. Ranchers Cattlemen Action Legal Fund v. U.S. Dep’t.
20
of Agric., 415 F.3d 1078, 1092–93 (9th Cir. 2005) (internal quotations and citations
21
omitted); see also Preminger v. Principi, 422 F.3d 815, 826 (9th Cir. 2005). “Under the
22
traditional test, a plaintiff must show: (1) a strong likelihood of success on the merits, (2)
23
the possibility of irreparable injury to plaintiff if preliminary relief is not granted, (3) a
24
balance of hardships favoring the plaintiff, and (4) advancement of the public interest (in
25
certain cases).” Ranchers Cattlemen, 415 F.3d at 1092. “The alternative test requires that
26
a plaintiff demonstrate either a combination of probable success on the merits and the
27
possibility of irreparable injury or that serious questions are raised and the balance of
28
hardships tips sharply in his favor.” Id.
4
17cv37-JLS (KSC)
1
A.
2
The facts of this case show that Plaintiff is entitled to a TRO under the traditional
3
The Traditional TRO Test as to the $9,480.60
test as discussed below.
4
(i)
Likelihood of Success on the Merits
5
Plaintiff demonstrates a strong likelihood of success on the merits because Plaintiff
6
appears entitled to enforce the PACA trust provisions and regulations to secure its trust
7
claim for $9,480.60. First, Plaintiff is a supplier or seller of wholesale quantities of produce.
8
Second, Plaintiff sold to Defendants, in interstate commerce, wholesale quantities of
9
produce in the aggregate amount of $9,480.60, which is allegedly past due and unpaid.
10
Third, Plaintiff seems to have properly preserved its status as a trust creditor of Defendants
11
under PACA by sending to Defendants PACA-compliant invoices for the produce and
12
timely filing with this Court. See Weis-Buy Servs., Inc. v. Paglia, 411 F.3d 415, 422 (3d
13
Cir. 2005) (noting that PACA is mostly silent regarding its statute of limitations and
14
therefore turning to state law regarding fiduciary duty to determine appropriate limitations
15
period). Fourth, Defendants’ failure to pay and statement to Plaintiff that they lack
16
sufficient funds to pay the outstanding debt indicate a strong likelihood that Defendants
17
are failing to maintain sufficient assets in the statutory trust and are dissipating trust assets.1
18
(ii)
Possibility of Irreparable Injury
19
Plaintiff demonstrates a strong possibility of irreparable injury because in the
20
absence of preliminary relief Defendants could completely deplete the statutory trust. Loss
21
of such assets would be irreparable because Plaintiff would not be able to recover the trust
22
assets once they are dissipated, and Plaintiff would be forever excluded as a beneficiary of
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
As currently pled, there is doubt as to whether Plaintiff will succeed in its request for attorney fees.
Although a valid contractual claim for attorney fees and costs is encompassed by PACA, PACA on its
own does not provide an express statutory basis for attorney fees. Middle Mountain Land & Produce, 307
F.3d at 1225. In the present case, Plaintiff does not allege any specific contractual provision in the invoices
which subject Defendants to liability for attorney fees, nor does Plaintiff explicitly allege any bad faith by
Defendants. (See Compl. ¶¶ 15–17.) However, these potential deficiencies do not ultimately affect the
Court’s overall conclusion regarding the balance of equities implicated by the TRO.
5
17cv37-JLS (KSC)
1
the statutory trust. See H.R. Rep. No. 543, 98th Cong. 2d Sess. 4 (1983), reprinted in 1984
2
U.S. Code Cong. & Admin. News, 405, 411; Tanimura & Antle, Inc., 222 F.3d at 140; J.R.
3
Brooks & Son, Inc. v. Norman’s Country Mkt., Inc., 98 B.R. 47 (Bankr. N.D. Fla. 1989);
4
Cont’l Fruit Co. v. Thomas J. Gatziolis & Co., 774 F. Supp. 449 (N.D. Ill. 1991); Gullo
5
Produce Co. v. A.C. Jordan Produce Co., 751 F. Supp. 64 (W.D. Pa. 1990).
6
(iii)
Balance of Hardships and Public Interest
7
Plaintiff demonstrates that the balance of hardships tips strongly in its favor and that
8
public interest here favors an entry of preliminary relief. By enjoining Defendants from
9
dissipating trust assets, Defendants would only be required to fulfill the duties imposed by
10
statute. Tanimura & Antle, Inc., 222 F.3d at 140. Further, PACA specifically declares that
11
the congressional intent behind its passage is to protect the public interest and to remedy
12
the burden on dealers, such as Plaintiff, by receivers who do not pay for produce. Id.; 7
13
U.S.C. § 499e(c)(1).
14
15
16
(iv)
Conclusion
Plaintiff satisfies the traditional test for an entry of a TRO regarding the outstanding
$9,480.60 of PACA trust assets.
17
B.
18
Plaintiff additionally requests a TRO regarding the $21,000.00 owed on the assigned
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
The Traditional TRO Test as to the $21,000.00
note, alleging that:
Said loan was made for the express purpose to replenish trust assets and
thereby enable Defendants to pay the Plaintiff as well as other similarly
situated PACA creditors. Defendants breached their PACA fiduciary duty
regarding this PACA fund financing by: 1) obtaining the PACA funds falsely
stating that they would use the funds to payoff [sic] PACA creditors with no
intent of doing so; 2) failing to exercise fiduciary care over the PACA funds;
3) failing to use the PACA funds to pay off the Plaintiff who is a PACA
creditor; 4) failing to use the PACA funds to payoff [sic] other PACA
creditors; [and] 5) failing to payback [sic] the PACA loan to the Plaintiff.
27
(Compl. ¶ 12.) In support, Plaintiff cites several cases for the general proposition that a
28
PACA “trust is imbued with an unusual ‘floating’ characteristic, i.e., it applies to all of [a]
6
17cv37-JLS (KSC)
1
[d]ebtor’s produce related inventory and proceeds thereof, regardless of [which] . . .
2
produce supplier was the source of such inventory.” In re Fresh Approach, Inc., 51
3
B.R. 412, 422 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. 1985) (citing H.R. Rep. No. 98–543, 98th Cong., 1st
4
Sess. 5 (1983), reprinted in 1984 U.S. Code Cong. & Ad. News 409, and 7 C.F.R. 46.46(c)
5
(1984)); see also In re Gotham Provision Co., Inc., 669 F.2d 1000, 1010–11 (5th Cir. 1982)
6
(construing a highly analogous statutory scheme similarly).
7
Although in the present case it is not absolutely clear that the entire balance of
8
$21,000.00 constitutes delinquent PACA-related debts, (see Halbo Decl. ¶ 3 (noting
9
purpose of loan, in part, was simply “to enable Defendants to carry on their business”), it
10
is ultimately Plaintiff’s burden to show what portion, if any, of the $21,000.00 does not
11
constitute PACA-related debt. See In re Fresh Approach, 51 B.R. at 422 (“[I]ndeed, it is
12
the [d]ebtor who must determine which assets, if any, are not subject to the trust.”). Given
13
this ultimate burden, and that Defendants have continually failed to honor the underlying
14
$9,480.60 debt, the Court thus concludes that this slight uncertainty regarding the specific
15
amount of the $21,000.00 that encompasses PACA-related debt does not bar Plaintiff’s
16
TRO Application on this point. And because the factor analysis set forth above, supra
17
Section I.A, otherwise applies with equal force to the $21,000.00 here at issue, the Court
18
concludes that granting Plaintiff’s requested TRO as to the $21,000.00 is also appropriate.
19
CONCLUSION
20
Based on the foregoing reasons and consideration of Plaintiff’s Application, the
21
Court finds that Plaintiff risks immediate irreparable injury in the form of the loss of trust
22
assets. Further, Plaintiff sufficiently explains its failure to notice Defendants as to this
23
TRO, noting that “Defendants are selling trust assets and are about to flee the jurisdiction
24
with the same[,]” (TRO Appl. 5 (citing Ludlow Decl. and Halbo Decl.)), “Defendants[’]
25
corporation has been suspended by the California Secretary of State[,]” (Wallis Decl. ¶ 5,
26
ECF No. 2-4), and the TRO simply seeks to restrain the transfer of the remaining PACA
27
funds held by third parties, “including Defendants[’] Banking Institutions, specifically
28
Bank of America, and a few retail customers of the Defendants whom [sic] may not have
7
17cv37-JLS (KSC)
1
made final payments to Defendants,” (id. ¶ 6). Therefore, a TRO should be issued. The
2
Court hereby ORDERS:
3
(1) Defendants, their customers, agents, officers, subsidiaries, assigns, banking
4
institutions, and related entities, SHALL NOT alienate, dissipate, pay over, or assign any
5
assets of Ervey Produce, Inc., or its subsidiaries or related companies, or of Josue E.
6
Rodriguez Martinez or Irma P. Hernandez, except for payment to Plaintiff, until further
7
Order of this Court or until Defendants pay Plaintiff the sum of $30,480.60 by cashiers
8
check or certified check. In the event of such payment, this Order shall be dissolved.
9
(2) In the event Defendants fail to pay Plaintiff the sum referenced in the previous
10
paragraph by cashiers or certified check within five business days of service of this Order,
11
then the Defendants shall file with this Court, and provide a copy to Plaintiff’s counsel, an
12
accounting which identifies the assets and liabilities and each account receivable of Ervey
13
Produce, Inc., signed under penalty of perjury. Defendants shall also supply to Plaintiff’s
14
attorney, within ten days of the date of the Order, any and all documents in connection with
15
the assets and liabilities of Ervey Produce, Inc. and its related and subsidiary companies,
16
including, but not limited to, the most recent balance sheets, profit/loss statements,
17
accounts receivable reports, accounts payable reports, accounts paid records and income
18
tax returns.
19
20
(3) Bond SHALL BE WAIVED in light of the fact that Defendants now hold the
aggregate amount of at least $9,480.60 of Plaintiff’s assets.
21
(4) Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b)(2), the TRO SHALL “state
22
the date and hour it was issued; describe the injury and state why it is irreparable; state why
23
the order was issued without notice; and be promptly filed in the clerk’s office and entered
24
in the record.”
25
///
26
///
27
///
28
///
8
17cv37-JLS (KSC)
1
2
3
4
(5) Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b)(2), the TRO SHALL endure
for fourteen days only, unless Plaintiff seeks extend the TRO’s duration.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 11, 2017
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
9
17cv37-JLS (KSC)
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?