Jacobs Silver K Farms, Inc. et al v. Taylor Produce, LLC, et al
Filing
233
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that the motion for entry of judgment (docket no. 230 ) is DENIED. Signed by Judge B. Lynn Winmill. (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 by the Nonpareil Entities for entry of judgment
against defendants. The motion is fully briefed and at issue. For the reasons explained
below, the Court will deny the motion.
ANALYSIS
This is a PACA case where plaintiff Jacobs shipped potatoes to Taylor Produce
but never received payment. Jacobs prevailed and was awarded $1.3 million against
Taylor. Jacobs also sued the Nonpareil Entities who had marketed and sold Jacob’s
potatoes for Taylor. The Nonpareil Entities had collected over $1 million in sales
proceeds that they retained on the ground that they were entitled to be reimbursed for
their marketing expenses.
Following a bench trial to resolve Jacobs’ suit against the Nonpareil Entities,
Jacobs prevailed and was awarded $1,089,798.90. The Court held that the Nonpareil
Memorandum Decision & Order – p. 1
Entities failed to prove at trial that the marketing expenses they claimed were related to
Jacobs’ potatoes. See Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law (Dkt. No. 197) at p. 6.
The Nonpareil Entities challenged that decision on appeal, and argued in the
alternative that if the decision was affirmed, Taylor should be liable to satisfy the
Judgment on a subrogation/indemnification theory. While the appeal was pending, the
Nonpareil Entities agreed to pay Jacobs $1,089,798.90 in settlement of its claims. See
Satisfaction of Judgment (Dkt. No. 227). This settlement ended the appeal by the
Nonpareil Entities as against Jacobs, but the Nonpareil Entities continued their appeal as
against Taylor, arguing that Taylor should be liable for this settlement sum paid to
Jacobs. The Ninth Circuit, however, dismissed that appeal, holding that it lacked
jurisdiction because this Court had never ruled on the Nonpareil Entities’
subrogation/indemnification claim. See Order (Dkt. No. 229).
The Nonpareil Entities now ask the Court to enter Judgment on their claim against
Taylor for subrogation/indemnification. Taylor responds that the claim is “time-barred”
because the Nonpareil Entities failed to obtain a resolution of their indemnification claim
before taking the appeal. But they cite no authority to support that argument, and the
Court finds it unpersuasive.
A stronger reason to deny the Nonpareil Entities’ claim is that at trial they were
unable to prove that their expenses were related to Jacobs’ potatoes. Under Idaho law,
indemnity and subrogation are overlapping equitable principles “based on the general
theory that one compelled to pay damages caused by another should be able to seek
recovery from that party.” Chenery v. Agri-Lines Corporation, 766 P.2d 751, 754
Memorandum Decision & Order – p. 2
(1988). If the Nonpareil Entities had been able to prove that they incurred expenses
marketing Jacobs’ potatoes under their agreement with Taylor, they would have a strong
case to be indemnified by Taylor for the $1 million Nonpareil Entities paid to Jacobs.
Equity would demand indemnification under those circumstances. But here, the
Nonpareil Entities were unable to prove at trial that the expenses they claimed were
related in any way to Jacobs’ potatoes. Certainly, the Nonpareil Entities incurred
expenses marketing Jacobs’ potatoes for Taylor, but it was their burden to prove the
amount of those expenses. Failing to do so makes it unclear whether those expenses were
incurred marketing Jacobs’ potatoes, marketing Taylor’s potatoes bought from a source
other than Jacobs, or marketing another’s potatoes altogether – equity would not demand
charging Taylor with the expenses of marketing another’s potatoes. The failure of proof
has injected such uncertainty into the record that the Court cannot find that equity
compels indemnification. The Court will therefore deny the motion for judgment.
ORDER
In accordance with the Memorandum Decision set forth above,
NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that the motion for entry of
judgment (docket no. 230) is DENIED.
DATED: July 2, 2018
_________________________
B. Lynn Winmill
Chief U.S. District Court Judge
Memorandum Decision & Order – p. 3
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?