Earthmix Fruit & Vegetable Co. v. National Produce Sales, Inc. et al
MOTION by Plaintiff Earthmix Fruit & Vegetable Co. for judgment JOINT MOTION FOR ENTRY OF CONSENT JUDGMENT (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A-Declaration, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit A1-Settlement Agreement, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit A2-Notice of Default, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit A3-PACA Trust Chart, # 5 Text of Proposed Order Exhibit B - Proposed Signed Consent Judgment)(Adelman, David)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EARTHMIX FRUIT & VEGETABLE CO.
NATIONAL PRODUCE SALES, INC.;
DAVID M. EL-ABOUDI, individually; and
) Case No. 16-cv-9243
) Judge: Hon. Marvin E. Aspin
DECLARATION OF DAVID A. ADELMAN IN SUPPORT OF JOINT MOTION FOR
ENTRY OF CONSENT JUDGMENT
David A. Adelman, the attorney for plaintiff Earthmix Fruit & Vegetable Co.
(“Plaintiff”), submits the following declaration in support of the parties’ Joint Motion for Entry
of Consent Judgment (“Motion”):
I represent Plaintiff in this matter with regards to the enforcement of the statutory
trust created pursuant to the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (“PACA”), 7 U.S.C. §
499a-t, the breach of contract, and the breach of fiduciary duties to Plaintiff as a beneficiary of
the PACA trust, with a request for relief that includes pre-judgment interest and pre-judgment
collection costs such as attorneys’ fees.
Mary E. Gardner is the attorney representing the National Produce Sales, Inc.,
David M. El-Aboudi and Michael Hughes (collectively, the “Defendants”) in the present case.
The parties, through their respective attorneys, reached a settlement and each of
the parties, either directly or through authorized representatives, signed a Settlement Agreement
and Mutual Release of All Claims (“Settlement Agreement”), attached hereto as Exhibit A-1 and
fully incorporated as if set forth herein.
As part of the Settlement Agreement, Defendants were to make an initial down
payment of $4,830.50 on 11/28/16 and five (5) weekly installments in the amount of $7,634.48
each beginning Monday, 12/5/16 and payable each Monday thereafter.
As part of the Settlement Agreement, the parties, either directly or through their
authorized agents, executed a Consent Judgment and a Joint Motion for Entry of Consent
Judgment, which are incorporated by reference, to be held in escrow unless Defendants defaulted
under the agreement.
Defendants have only made two payments under the Settlement Agreement,
namely one payment for $4,830.50 and a second payment of $7,634.48 for a total payment of
Defendants failed to make their $7,634.48 payment, which was due on December
12, 2016. Plaintiff gave Defendants an extra day to December 13, 2016 but Defendants did not
make the payment and have not paid.
Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, as counsel for Plaintiff, I sent
to Mary E. Gardner, counsel for Defendants, on December 15, 2016 a Notice of Default by fax
and email giving Defendants two (2) days to cure. A copy of the Notice of Default and delivery
confirmation are attached hereto as Exhibit A-2. Over a week has elapsed since the Notice of
Default and Defendants still have not cured the default.
Pursuant to terms of the Settlement Agreement, Plaintiff request entry of a
consent judgment in the amount of $37,776.27, which consists of the agreed default judgment
amount of $47,506.52 (which consists of $39,991.10 for Produce, $4,515.42 in interest as of
9/13/16 at the contractual rate of 2% per month, plus $3,000 for collection costs & attorney’s
fees as sought in the Complaint), less $12,464.98 paid, plus additional interest per the parties
contract of $2,734.73 as set forth in Exhibit A-3, plus post-judgment interest pursuant to 28
I declare under penalty of perjury, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1746(2), the
foregoing statements are true and correct.
Dated: December 26, 2016
s/ David A. Adelman
Attorney for Plaintiff
David A. Adelman
ADELMAN LAW OFFICES LLC
904 S. Roselle Road #342
Schaumburg, Illinois 60193
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?