HUNTER BROTHERS, INC. v. DELMONTE FARMS, LLC. et al
Filing
38
OPINION. Signed by Chief Judge Renee Marie Bumb on 4/25/2024. (dmr)
[Docket No. 33–34]
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
CAMDEN VICINAGE
HUNTER BROTHERS, INC.,
Plaintiff,
Civ. No. 12-6197 (RMB-AMD)
v.
DELMONTE FARMS LLC, DANIEL
DEL MONTE,
OPINION
Defendants.
RENÉE MARIE BUMB, Chief United States District Judge
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Defendant Daniel Del Monte’s
Motion to Reopen the Case, [Docket No. 33], Motion to Cancel Record of Judgment
pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2A:16-49.1, [Docket No. 34], (together, “Motions”), and the
Court’s Order to Show Cause requiring Del Monte to submit evidence of his
satisfaction of a settlement agreement in a bankruptcy court adversary proceeding,
[Docket No. 36.] Del Monte argues that a $9,540 judgment entered against him in
2014 by this Court, [see Docket No. 32], in favor of Plaintiff Hunter Brothers, Inc.
should be canceled under N.J.S.A. 2A:16-49.11 because Del Monte received a
discharge of his debts from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of New
Jersey over nine years ago. [Docket No. 34-2 at 4–5.]
I.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Hunter Brothers filed this suit nearly twelve years ago under the Perishable
Agricultural Commodities Act, 7 U.S.C. § 499a et seq., to recover damages for an
alleged failure by Del Monte and his company, Delmonte Farms LLC (together,
“Defendants”) to pay Hunter Brothers for the purchase of perishable agricultural
commodities. [See Docket No. 1 at 1–3.] The parties reached a settlement and
proposed an order of monetary judgment in the amount of $9,540.00 for the Court to
enter in favor of Hunter Brothers and against Defendants. [Docket No. 31.] The Court
entered that order of judgment on January 15, 2014 and closed the case. [Docket No.
32 (the “2014 Judgment”).]
Del Monte filed for bankruptcy under Chapter 7 of the United States
Bankruptcy Code in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of New
Jersey. See In re Del Monte, No. 14-34354-ABA (Bankr. D.N.J. filed Dec. 1, 2024)
(“Bankr. Docket”); see also Docket No. 34-1 Certification of Daniel Del Monte in
Support of Motion to Cancel Record of Judgment and Discharge (“Del Monte
Cert.”) ¶ 3.] Del Monte received a discharge from the Bankruptcy Court on March
20, 2015 which he argues discharged his obligation to pay Hunter Brothers
pursuant to the 2014 Judgment. [See Del Monte Cert. ¶¶ 4–6; Bankr. Docket No.
21 (order of the Bankruptcy Court discharging Del Monte of his debts).]
Del Monte, however, failed to inform the Court that Hunter Brothers initiated
an adversary proceeding against him requesting that the Bankruptcy Court declare Del
2
Monte’s debt to Hunter Brothers to be nondischargable. See Hunter Brothers, Inc. v. Del
Monte, No. 15-01296-ABA, Docket No. 1 (Bankr. D.N.J. filed Mar. 17, 2015) (“Ad.
Pro. Docket”). Del Monte and Hunter Brothers settled the adversary proceeding
(“Adversary Proceeding Settlement”) with the Bankruptcy Court entering a
settlement order requiring Del Monte to pay $4,000 to Hunter Brothers instead of
$9,540. [Ad. Pro. Docket No. 7 ¶ 4.] The Adversary Proceeding Settlement further
provided that if payment was not made when due, Del Monte agreed to permit a
nondischargable consent judgment to be entered against him in favor of Hunter
Brothers in the original amount of the 2014 Judgment (i.e., $9,540). [Id. ¶ 3.] If Del
Monte paid on time, Hunter Brothers was directed to execute a satisfaction of release
and agreed to not oppose Del Monte seeking to avoid any and all liens on property in
favor of Hunter Brothers after one year following the entry of an order of discharge in
Del Monte’s underlying bankruptcy proceeding. [Id. ¶ 4.]
Although Hunter Brothers did not oppose the instant relief Del Monte now
seeks and appears to have received notice of the Motions through its registered agent
and its counsel, [see Docket No. 35], it was still unclear whether Del Monte ever
satisfied the Adversary Proceeding Settlement. Hunter Brothers never sought entry of
a nondischargable consent judgment against Del Monte nor did it execute a
satisfaction of release. Given the uncertainty, the Court issued an Order to Show
Cause requiring Del Monte to submit evidence of his satisfaction of the Adversary
Proceeding Settlement.
3
In response to the Court’s show cause order, Del Monte submitted a
certification averring that he satisfied the terms of the Adversary Proceeding
Settlement in 2015, paying Hunter Brothers in accordance with the settlement’s terms.
[Docket No. 37 (“Supp. Del. Monte Certif.”) ¶ 2.] Since then, Del Monte avers that
he has heard nothing from Hunter Brothers. [Id. ¶ 4.] Believing the matter settled, Del
Monte never sought a satisfaction and release from Hunter Brothers, nor did Hunter
Brothers provide one to the Bankruptcy Court on its own. [Id. ¶ 5.] Other than Del
Monte’s own certification, he is without evidence that proves that he satisfied the
Adversary Proceeding Settlement. [Id. ¶ 7.]
II.
ANALYSIS
N.J.S.A. 2A:16–49.1 provides, in relevant part:
At any time after 1 year has elapsed, since a bankrupt was discharged
from his debts, pursuant to the acts of Congress relating to bankruptcy,
he may apply, upon proof of his discharge, to the court in which a
judgment was rendered against him, or to the court of which it has
become a judgment by docketing it, or filing a transcript thereof, for an
order directing the judgment to be canceled and discharged of record. 1
Courts in this District have regularly applied the statute to cancel judgments
discharged in bankruptcy. See Quality King Fragrance Inc. v. Barbanel, 2017 WL
The statute contains an exception not appearing to be relevant here—“[w]here the
judgment was a lien on real property owned by the bankrupt prior to the time he was
adjudged a bankrupt, and not subject to be discharged or released under the provisions
of the Bankruptcy Act, the lien thereof upon said real estate shall not be affected by
said order and may be enforced.” N.J.S.A. 2A:16–49.1. Del Monte has certified that
Hunter Brothers never levied upon any real estate to satisfy the judgement lien arising
from the District Court Judgment. See Midlantic Nat. Bank v. Vessel Canadian Star, 2009
WL 936773, at *1 (D.N.J. Apr. 6, 2009) (canceling and discharging default judgment).
1
4
3259809, at *1 (D.N.J. Feb. 7, 2017), R&R adopted, 2017 WL 3259794 (D.N.J. July
31, 2017) (discharging default judgment under N.J.S.A. 2A:16–49.1) (Wettre, J.); See
Midlantic Nat. Bank, 2009 WL 936773, at *2 (same) (Brown, J.); Summit Bank v. Vessel
Harbor Light’, 260 B.R. 694, 695 (D.N.J. 2001) (same) (Simandle, J.). “New Jersey
caselaw establishes that the purpose of section 2A:16-49.1 is to assure that judgments
‘intended to be discharged under federal bankruptcy law will not continue to cloud the
marketability of title to property owned by the debtor.’” Quality King Fragrance Inc.,
2017 WL 3259809, at *1 (quoting Chemical Bank v. James, 354 N.J. Super. 1, 8 (App.
Div. 2002)). “Consequently, the determinative question on a motion to discharge a
judgment under this statute is ‘whether or not the lien was subject to be discharged or
released under the provisions of the Bankruptcy Code.’” Quality King Fragrance Inc.,
2017 WL 3259809, at *1 (quoting Chemical Bank, 354 N.J. Super. at 9 (internal
quotation marks omitted)).
There does not appear to be any question that Del Monte received a general
discharge of his debts from the Bankruptcy Court over nine years ago. [Bankr. Docket
No. 21.] The only question is whether Del Monte’s satisfied the Adversary
Proceeding Settlement such that his debt to Hunter Brothers can be fairly
characterized as discharged. Del Monte admits that he does not have any evidence
that he paid Hunter Brothers the necessary $4,000 to satisfy the Adversary
Proceeding Settlement. [Supp. Del Monte Certif. ¶ 7.] But Del Monte adequately
served Hunter Brothers with the instant motions through its registered agent and
5
counsel. [Docket No. 35 (certificate of service); Docket No. 37-1 (executed service
return receipts).] 2 Hunter Brothers could have appeared to oppose the relief Del Monte
seeks but it did not. Moreover, if Del Monte did not pay according to the terms of the
Adversary Proceeding Settlement, Hunter Brothers was entitled to seek entry of a
nondischargable consent judgment against Del Monte in the amount of the original
2014 Judgment. [Ad. Pro. Docket No. 7 ¶ 4.] Hunter Brothers sought no such
judgment against Del Monte suggesting that he made the payments as directed and as
averred in his certification. In any case, courts in this District have canceled and
discharged judgments pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2A:16–49.1 upon only certification that
the conditions of the statute have been met combined with the nonopposition of the
judgment creditor and a bankruptcy court discharge. See Gen. Elec. Cap. Corp. v.
Oncology Assocs. of Ocean Cnty., LLC, 2023 WL 7709084, at *1 (D.N.J. Nov. 14, 2023);
Midlantic Nat. Bank, 2009 WL 936773, at *2 (“As nearly sixteen years have passed
since the U.S. Bankruptcy Court discharged [Defendants’] dischargeable debts, and
neither [the] judgment lienholder [] nor its successors-in-interest have levied upon
[Defendants’] property to satisfy the default judgment, this Court concludes that
cancellation of the default judgment entered against [Defendants] on March 16, 1992,
pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2A:16–49.1 is appropriate.”). Those elements are met here. Del
Monte received a discharge from the Bankruptcy Court and has certified credible
Counsel for Hunter Brothers should have also received electronic notice of the
Motions by way of the Court’s Electronic Case Files system.
2
6
evidence without opposition that he satisfied the Adversary Proceeding Settlement,
extinguishing his debt to Hunter Brothers. That is enough.
III.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons expressed herein, the Court GRANTS Del Monte’s Motions.
An accompanying Order shall issue.
Dated: April 25, 2024
s/Renée Marie Bumb
_____
Renée Marie Bumb
Chief United States District Judge
7
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?