Jacobs Silver K Farms, Inc. et al v. Taylor Produce, LLC, et al

Filing 217

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER granting ( 204 in 4:13-cv-00535-BLW) MOTION to Alter Judgment or Amend. The Court will issue a separate judgmentawarding prejudgment interest in the sum of $489,170.20 against the NonpareilDefendants. Signed by Judge B. Lynn Winmill. Associated Cases: 4:13-cv-00535-BLW, 4:14-cv-00141-BLW, 4:14-cv-00247-BLW(caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (cjs)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO
JACOBS SILVER K FARMS, INC., et al.,
Plaintiffs,

Case No. 4:13-CV-535-BLW
Consolidated Cases:
4:14-CV-141-BLW
4:14-CV-247-BLW

v.
TAYLOR PRODUCE, LLC, et al.,

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER

Defendants.

INTRODUCTION
The Court has before it a motion to alter or amend the Court’s Judgment against
certain defendants. The motion is fully briefed and at issue. For the reasons set forth
below, the Court will grant the motion.
LITIGATION BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs delivered over $1 million worth of agricultural produce to defendant
Taylor Produce LLC but were never paid. To recover their loss, plaintiffs – referred to
collectively as “Jacobs” – brought this lawsuit against Taylor Produce under the
Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act of 1930 (PACA).
In addition to their claims against Taylor Produce1, Jacobs sued a group of
defendants referred to as the Nonpareil Defendants. Jacobs claimed that the produce it
delivered to Taylor Produce was turned over to the Nonpareil Defendants for sale, but

1

The Court will use the term “Taylor Produce” to refer to defendants Taylor Produce LLC and
Alan Taylor.
Memorandum Decision & Order– page 1

that the Nonpareil Defendants never remitted the sale proceeds to Taylor Produce, who in
turn was unable to pay Jacobs. Jacobs sued the Nonpareil Defendants for conversion of
PACA Trust assets, arguing that the Nonpareil Defendants breached a duty to hold the
sale proceeds in trust for the PACA beneficiaries, specifically Jacobs.
The Court issued summary judgment on Jacobs’ claims against Taylor Produce
finding that Jacobs’ PACA notices were sufficient, and that Jacobs had a valid PACA
Trust claim over Taylor Produce in the amount of $1,327,478.16. See Order (Dkt. No.
136). The Court then held a bench trial to resolve Jacobs’ claims against the Nonpareil
Defendants.
Following that trial, the Court issued its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law,
and entered Judgment in the amount of $1,327,478.16 in favor of Jacobs and against the
Nonpareil Defendants. The decision did not discuss prejudgment interest, and no award
for prejudgment interest was made in the Judgment.
Jacobs responded by filing the motion now under consideration asking the Court
to award prejudgment interest against the Nonpareil Defendants in the amount of
$489,170.20.
ANALYSIS
The Nonpareil Defendants wrongfully converted PACA funds, as this Court held
in its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and therefore deprived Jacobs of its
proceeds for about 4 years. These circumstances justify an award of prejudgment interest
in a PACA case. See Middle Mountain Land & Produce Inc. v. Sound Commodities Inc.,
307 F.3d 1220, 1226 (9th Cir. 2002) (concluding that “a district court may award
Memorandum Decision & Order– page 2

reasonable prejudgment interest to PACA claimants if such an award is necessary to
protect the interests of PACA claimants”). Moreover, motions for prejudgment interest
are properly brought as motions to alter or amend previously-entered judgments, as
Jacobs has done here. See, Osterneck v. Ernst & Whinney, 489 U.S. 169, 175 (1989).
Relying on these authorities, the Court rejects the Nonpareil Defendants’
arguments that no legal grounds exist for both Jacob’s motion and the award of
prejudgment interest. The final argument raised by the Nonpareil Defendants is that they
were blocked from presenting evidence concerning the dates the payments to Jacobs were
due. But the Court rejected that argument in an earlier decision. See Memorandum
Decision (Dkt. No. 168). The Nonpareil Defendants had a full opportunity to challenge
the PACA notices, and the dates on those notices, but failed to do so, as the Court held in
that earlier decision. Id.
For all of these reasons, the Court finds that an award of prejudgment interest is
warranted, and that the sum of $489,170.20 reasonably represents the loss of PACA
funds wrongfully converted by the Nonpareil Defendants. The Court will therefore grant
the motion to alter or amend filed by Jacobs, and issue a separate judgment under Rule
58(a) for $489,170.20 in prejudgment interest. The Nonpareil Defendants are made up of
the following defendants: Idaho Potato Packers Corporation (“IPPC”), Nonpareil
Corporation, Nonpareil Farms Incorporated, Nonpareil Processing Corporation, and
Nonpareil Dehydrated Potatoes Incorporated. In the Court’s earlier Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law, the Court found them jointly and severally liable for the underlying

Memorandum Decision & Order– page 3

Judgment, and the Court will follow that ruling in holding them jointly and severally
liable for this prejudgment interest award.
ORDER
In accordance with the Memorandum Decision set forth above,
NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that the motion to alter or
amend (docket no. 204) is GRANTED, and the Court will issue a separate judgment
awarding prejudgment interest in the sum of $489,170.20 against the Nonpareil
Defendants.

DATED: August 29, 2017

_________________________
B. Lynn Winmill
Chief Judge
United States District Court

Memorandum Decision & Order– page 4