Free Motion for TRO - District Court of California - California

Case 3:08-cv-00930-L-WMC

Document 6

Filed 05/28/2008

Page 1 of 1

1 2 3 4

BRYAN W. PEASE (SB# 239139) 302 Washington St. #404 San Diego, CA 92103 Telephone: (619) 723-0369 Facsimile: (619) 923-1001 email: [email protected] Attorney for Plaintiff

5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1
Sammy's Produce, Inc. v. Rey & Rey Produce, Inc., et al. 08 CV 0930 L WMc Ex Parte Application

SAMMY'S PRODUCE, INC., Plaintiff, v. REY & REY PRODUCE, INC., and MANUEL REYNOSO, Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Civil Action, No.: 08 CV 0930 L WMc EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER WITHOUT NOTICE

Upon the declaration of Yan Skwara, the President/CEO of Plaintiff Sammy's Produce, Inc., the declaration of Bryan W. Pease, and the accompanying memorandum of points and authorities in support, plaintiff hereby moves the Court to issue a temporary restraining order under Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure enforcing the statutory trust pursuant to Section 5(c) of the Perishable Agriculture Commodities Act, 7. U.S.C. § 499e(c), by restraining the transfer of any and all assets of Rey & Rey Produce, Inc.

Dated: May 28, 2008

By: /s/ Bryan W. Pease_______________ Bryan W. Pease Attorney for Plaintiff

Case 3:08-cv-00930-L-WMC

Document 6-2

Filed 05/28/2008

Page 1 of 15

1 2 3 4

BRYAN W. PEASE (SB# 239139) 302 Washington St. #404 San Diego, CA 92103 Telephone: (619) 723-0369 Facsimile: (619) 923-1001 email: [email protected] Attorney for Plaintiff

5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 REY & REY PRODUCE, INC., and MANUEL REYNOSO, Defendants. v. SAMMY'S PRODUCE, INC., Plaintiff, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action, No.: 08 CV 0930 L WMc MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER WITHOUT NOTICE

Sammy's Produce, Inc. ("Plaintiff") submits this Memorandum in Support of its Application for Temporary Restraining Order under Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure enforcing the statutory trust pursuant Section 5(c) of the Perishable Agriculture Commodities Act ("PACA"), 7 U.S.C. §499e(c), by restraining the transfer of any and all PACA trust assets of Sammy's Produce, Inc. ("Sammy's Produce") until there is payment to plaintiff of $95,064.00, pending the entry of a Preliminary Injunction Order. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff is engaged in the business of selling wholesale quantities of perishable agricultural commodities (hereafter "produce") in interstate commerce. Defendant, Rey & Rey Produce, Inc. ("Rey & Rey"), is a California corporation located in Los Angeles, California. Defendant Rey & Rey purchased wholesale quantities of produce, and is and was at all times Sammy's Produce, Inc. 1
v. Rey & Rey Produce, Inc., et al. 08 CV 0930 L WMc Points & Authorities for TRO

Case 3:08-cv-00930-L-WMC

Document 6-2

Filed 05/28/2008

Page 2 of 15

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

pertinent herein, a dealer of produce subject to and/or licensed under the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act, 7 U.S.C. §499a, et seq., ("PACA"). Plaintiff seeks enforcement of the statutory trust established under the PACA, 7 U.S.C. §499e(c), and the regulations issued pursuant thereto, 7 CFR Part 46, 49 Fed. Reg. 45735 (Nov. 20, 1984) (the "PACA regulations"). The Court's jurisdiction is invoked pursuant to 7 U.S.C. §499e(c)(5)(i). THE PACA TRUST The PACA was enacted in 1930 to "suppress unfair and fraudulent practices in the marketing of fruits and vegetables in interstate and foreign commerce" and "provides a code of fair play . . . and aid to [agricultural] traders in enforcing their contracts." 49 Fed. Reg at 45737. In 1984, the PACA was amended to assure that suppliers of produce are paid by imposing a statutory trust on all produce-related assets, such as the produce itself or other products derived therefrom, as well as any receivables or proceeds from the sale thereof, held by agricultural merchants, dealers and brokers. 7 U.S.C. §499e(c)(2). Tanimura & Antle, Inc. v. Packed Fresh Produce, Inc., 222 F.3d 132 (3rd Cir. 2000); Frio Ice, S.A. v. Sunfruit, Inc., 918 F.2d 154 (11th Cir. 1990). The trust must be maintained for the benefit of the unpaid suppliers, sellers or agents who provided the commodities until full payment has been made. Id. The trust provision thus offers sellers of produce, "a self-help tool that will enable them to protect themselves against the abnormal risk of losses resulting from slow-pay and no-pay practices by buyers or receivers of fruits and vegetables." 49 Fed. Reg. at 45737. Failure to maintain the trust and make full payment promptly to the trust beneficiary is unlawful. 7 U.S.C. §499b(4). Produce dealers "are required to maintain trust assets in a manner that such assets are freely available to satisfy outstanding obligations to sellers of perishable agricultural commodities[,]" and any act or omission inconsistent with this responsibility, including dissipation of trust assets, is proscribed. 7 CFR §46.46(e)(1). Dissipation of trust assets, defined as the diversion of trust assets or the impairment of a seller's right to obtain payment (7 CFR §46.46(b)(2)), is forbidden. 7 CFR §46.46(e)(i).

2

Sammy's Produce, Inc. v. Rey & Rey Produce, Inc., et al. 08 CV 0930 L WMc Points & Authorities for TRO

Case 3:08-cv-00930-L-WMC

Document 6-2

Filed 05/28/2008

Page 3 of 15

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

BACKGROUND OF THIS ACTION AND THE INSTANT MOTION Plaintiff is a wholesaler of produce with a principal place of business in California, which sold and delivered wholesale quantities of produce to defendants in the unpaid amount of $95,064.00, all of which qualifies for trust protection. There is no dispute that Plaintiff is owed $95,064.00 in trust assets from Defendants, and Defendants have provided several checks to Plaintiff for the trust payments that were dishonored by the bank due to insufficient funds. Plaintiff is a beneficiary of the statutory trust which defendants are required to maintain until full payment is made to plaintiff for the produce. Defendants are past due in paying plaintiff for the produce. Defendants' failure, refusal and inability to pay Plaintiff, show that Defendants are failing to maintain the trust required by statute, and the trust assets will continue to be dissipated unless the relief requested is granted. THE STANDARD FOR GRANTING RELIEF The standard for granting injunctive relief in the Ninth Circuit requires the moving party to show: (1) a strong likelihood of success on the merits; (2) irreparable harm if the relief is not granted; (3) that the threatened injury to the movant outweighs whatever damage the proposed injunction may cause to the opposing party; and (4) the issuance of the injunction will not be adverse to the public interest. Regents of University of California v. ABC, Inc., 747 F.2d 511, 515 (9th Cir. 1984); Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum Comm'n v. National Football League, 634 F.2d 1197, 1200 (9th Cir. 1980). The facts in this case show that the plaintiff is entitled to the requested relief. 1. Plaintiff Is A Trust Beneficiary Entitled To Enforce The PACA Trust -- The Likelihood That Plaintiff Will Prevail On The Merits Is Great

Plaintiff's entitlement to the relief requested so as to enable it to enforce the trust provisions of PACA and the PACA regulations to secure its trust claim for $95,064.00 is clear. First, Plaintiff is a supplier or seller of wholesale quantities of produce. Second, Plaintiff sold to Defendants, in interstate commerce, wholesale quantities of produce in the aggregate amount of 3
Sammy's Produce, Inc. v. Rey & Rey Produce, Inc., et al. 08 CV 0930 L WMc Points & Authorities for TRO

Case 3:08-cv-00930-L-WMC

Document 6-2

Filed 05/28/2008

Page 4 of 15

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

$95,064.00, which is past due and unpaid. Third, Plaintiff properly preserved its status as a trust creditor of Defendants under PACA by sending invoices for the produce to the Defendant corporation which contained the language as required by 7 U.S.C. §499e(c)(4). Fourth, Defendants are dissipating trust assets in that they have failed and refused to pay plaintiff for the produce supplied by Plaintiff in accordance with the trust provisions of the PACA and have advised Plaintiff that they are unable to pay for the produce. 2. Plaintiff Would Be Irreparably Injured Were Defendants Not Ordered To Immediately Comply With The PACA Trust Act.

In the absence of preliminary relief, there will be no assets in the statutory trust. Loss of such assets would be irreparable because Plaintiff will not be able to recover the trust assets once they are dissipated, and Plaintiff would be forever excluded as a beneficiary of the statutory trust. H.R. Rep. No. 543, 98th Cong. 2d Sess 4 (1983), reprinted in 1984 U.S. Code Cong. & Admin. News, 405, 411; Tanimura & Antle, Inc. v. Packed Fresh, Inc., supra, p. 140; J. R. Brooks & Son, Inc. v. Norman's Country Mart, Inc., 98 B.R. 47 (Bkrtcy. N.D. Fla. 1989); Continental Fruit v. Thomas J. Gatziolis & Co., 774 F.Supp. 449 (N.D. Ill. 1991); Gullo Produce Co., Inc. v. Jordan Produce Co., Inc., 751 F.Supp. 64 (W.D. Pa. 1990). 3. Possible Harm To Defendants Is Slight or Nonexistent.

By enjoining Defendants from dissipating trust assets, Defendants would only be required to fulfill the duties imposed by statute. Requiring fulfillment of such a duty cannot be harmful as a matter of law. Tanimura & Antle, Inc. v. Packed Fresh, Inc., supra, p. 140. 4. The Public Interest Favors Granting An Injunction.

The trust provision specifically declares that the congressional intent behind its passage is to protect the public interest and to remedy the burden on Sammy's Produce, Inc. by receivers who do not pay for produce. Tanimura & Antle, Inc. v. Packed Fresh, Inc., supra, p. 140. 7 U.S.C. §499e(c)(1). Therefore, the public interest favors granting an injunction.

4

Sammy's Produce, Inc. v. Rey & Rey Produce, Inc., et al. 08 CV 0930 L WMc Points & Authorities for TRO

Case 3:08-cv-00930-L-WMC

Document 6-2

Filed 05/28/2008

Page 5 of 15

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

5.

Caselaw Supports Plaintiff's Entitlement To An Injunction.

Caselaw supports Plaintiff's entitlement to an immediate injunction requiring nondissipation of trust assets when the produce supplier is not paid. Tanimura & Antle, Inc. v. Packed Fresh, Inc., supra, p. 140 (irreparable injury established and injunction should issue upon a showing that the trust was depleted and payment was not readily forthcoming); Frio Ice, S.A. v. Sunfruit, Inc., supra, p. 159; ("Upon a showing that the trust is being dissipated or threatened with dissipation, a district court should require the PACA debtor to escrow its proceeds from produce sales, identify its receivables, and inventory its assets."); Dole Fresh Fruit Co. v. United Banana Co., 821 F.2d 106 (2d Cir. 1987); In re Richmond Produce Co., Inc., 112 B.R. 364, 367 (Bkrtcy. N.D. Cal. 1990). 6. There is no Tracing Requirement for the PACA Trust

The PACA statute does not require tracing and therefore trust assets are to be preserved as a non-segregated "floating trust." In addition, the statute recognizes that commingling is contemplated. If a dispute arises regarding the identification of trust assets, the debtor has the burden to establish what, if any, assets are not subject to the PACA Trust. See In re Fresh Approach, 51 B.R.412, 422 (Bankr. N.D. Texas 1985) ["Fresh Approach II"], a seminal judicial decision analyzing the impact of the statutory trust provisions. In accordance with legislative directives, the court in Fresh Approach II based its decision upon the Packers and Stockyards Act, 1921 [7 U.S.C. § 181, et seq.] (hereinafter "PSA"), and its subsequent line of cases, concluding that the trust created by the PACA was intended to be a "floating non-segregated statutory trust," to which claimants need not trace funds. See, In re Monterey House, 71 B.R. 244, 247 (Bankr. S.D. Texas 1986). Furthermore, the court in First State Bank v. Gotham Provision Co. (In re Gotham Provision Co.), 699 F.2d 1000, 1011 (5th Cir. 1982) (hereinafter "Gotham"), in holding that the PSA established a floating trust, stated: [W]here trust funds are commingled with funds not subject to the trust, a lien on the entire commingled fund exists for the benefit of the beneficiaries of the trust. 5
Sammy's Produce, Inc. v. Rey & Rey Produce, Inc., et al. 08 CV 0930 L WMc Points & Authorities for TRO

Case 3:08-cv-00930-L-WMC

Document 6-2

Filed 05/28/2008

Page 6 of 15

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

The Gotham court further held that when commingling occurs, the only burden on the unpaid cash sellers is to prove the balance due to them and the existence of a floating pool of commingled inventories of livestock products, accounts receivable and proceeds derived from cash and credit sales. Id. The court in Gotham, however, clearly placed the burden on the bankruptcy trustee (and the lending institution) to show that receivables were not subject to the PACA trust. Id. at 1012. In re Hancock-Nelson Mercantile, Inc., 95 B.R. 982 (Bankr. N.D. Minn. 1989); In re W.L. Bradley Company, Inc., 75 B.R. 505 (E.D. Pa. 1987). In re Kornblum & Co., Inc., 81 F.3d 280 (2d Cir.N.Y. 1996) is particularly instructive because of its analysis of the issue of what property makes up the corpus of the PACA Trust. The Kornblum court rejected the debtor's contention that the only assets that are held in trust for a particular PACA beneficiary are the specific produce or proceeds supplied by that beneficiary. The court accepted the beneficiary's argument that the res of the PACA Trust is not so limited and that "a single PACA trust exists for the benefit of all of the sellers to a Produce Debtor, and continues in existence until all of the outstanding beneficiaries have been paid in full." The Kornblum court set forth a three-prong tested for analyzing whether specific property is part of the PACA Trust. In order to prove that the property is not part of the PACA Trust, the debtor has the burden to establish either that (1) no PACA trust existed when the specific property was purchased; (2) even though a PACA Trust existed at that time, the property was not purchased with trust assets; or (3) although a PACA Trust existed when the property was purchased and the property was purchased with trust assets, the debtor thereafter paid all unpaid sellers in full prioer to the transactions involving the creditors, thereby terminating the trust. Moreover, in In re Atlantic Tropical Market Corporation, 188 B.R. 139 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 1990), the court held that the PACA trust fund is established upon the commencement of the purchaser's produce related business. The court held that any business assets purchased by one who is in the business of buying and selling produce will be presumed to have been purchased with PACA trust assets, and any such assets may thus be viewed as collateral until the PACA trust claim has been paid in full. See also, Sanzone-Palmisano Company v. M. Seamen Enterprises, Inc., 986 F.2d 1010 (6th Cir. 1993). 6
Sammy's Produce, Inc. v. Rey & Rey Produce, Inc., et al. 08 CV 0930 L WMc Points & Authorities for TRO

Case 3:08-cv-00930-L-WMC

Document 6-2

Filed 05/28/2008

Page 7 of 15

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Accordingly, the PACA beneficiary is not required to trace trust funds. To the extent any dispute arises regarding the trust assets, it is the Debtor who must prove which assets, if any, are not subject to the trust. In re Fresh Approach, supra. Defendants are required by federal statute to hold all perishable agricultural commodities, the inventories of food or other products derived from the perishable agricultural commodities and the receivables and proceeds from the sale of the perishable agricultural commodities in trust for the PACA beneficiaries. In the event these liquid and intangible assets are insufficient to fully satisfy Plaintiff's trust claims, Plaintiff may look to other assets of Defendants for security of its trust claims. Defendants herein have failed or otherwise refused to perform their statutory duties and Plaintiff is therefore entitled to injunctive relief, which will require Defendants to set aside sufficient assets to fully satisfy their statutory trust obligations and which will restrain Defendants from any dissipation of the assets required to be held in trust. 7. No Bond Should Be Required to Grant Preliminary Relief

No bond should be required as a condition of preliminary relief, as Defendants are currently in possession and control of $95,064.00 of Plaintiffs' trust assets. Federal Rule of Civl Procedure 65(c) speaks of requiring a bond "for payment of such costs and damages as may be incurred or suffered by any party who is found to have been wrongfully enjoined or restrained." However, the court has the discretion to dispense with the requirement of a bond completely under appropriate circumstances or to require a nominal bond. Sundor Brands, Inc. v. Borden, Inc., 653 F. Supp. 86, 93 (M.D. Fla. 1986). See also, California ex rel. Van De Kamp v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 766 F.2d 1319, 1324-25, as amended 775 F.2d 998 (9th Cir. 1985); Wayne Chemical, Inc. v. Columbus Agency Serv. Corp., 567 F.2d 692, 701 (7th Cir. 1977). In the instant matter, the Restraining Order sought does no more than require Defendants to simply comply with the trust provisions of the PACA. As required under PACA, Defendants are to pay or to preserve sufficient assets to satisfy qualified PACA trust claims which they are already statutorily mandated to do.

7

Sammy's Produce, Inc. v. Rey & Rey Produce, Inc., et al. 08 CV 0930 L WMc Points & Authorities for TRO

Case 3:08-cv-00930-L-WMC

Document 6-2

Filed 05/28/2008

Page 8 of 15

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

The monies are clearly not Defendants' property. Rather, Defendants merely hold them as trustee for Plaintiff. Accordingly, there is no potential harm to Defendants from an order compelling them to comply with the law and to set aside funds that are not Defendants' property. As such, no bond should be required. In none of the other reported cases under PACA trust provisions in which preliminary relief was ordered did the court require a bond. See, e.g., J.R. Brooks & Son, Inc. v. Norman's Country Mkt., Inc., supra, 98 B.R. at 50-51; In re W.L. Bradley Co., 75 B.R. 505, 513-14 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 1987). In Chiquita Fresh, N.A., L.L.C. v. Sammy's Produce, Inc., Civil Action No: 08-CV714 JLS (POR), District Judge Janis L. Sammartino issued an order expressly holding that no bond was necessary. A true and correct copy of this ruling is attached hereto and incorporated by reference as Exhibit 1. Accordingly, Plaintiffs submit that the posting of a bond should not be a condition of obtaining a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction compelling Defendants to comply with the trust provisions of the PACA and to set aside the trust funds in their possession. Alternatively, should this Court feel some bond is appropriate, no more than a nominal bond should be required. CONCLUSION The instant application by which plaintiff seeks an order directing Defendants to comply with PACA and enjoining them from taking any action inconsistent with the duty of trust maintenance imposed upon defendants by PACA, is designed to afford Plaintiff that which is necessary, in the way of preliminary judicial relief, if plaintiff is to be able to avail itself of its statutory trust rights. For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff respectfully submits that its Applications for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction should be granted.

Dated: May 28, 2008

By: /s/ Bryan W. Pease_______________ Bryan W. Pease Attorney for Plaintiff

8

Sammy's Produce, Inc. v. Rey & Rey Produce, Inc., et al. 08 CV 0930 L WMc Points & Authorities for TRO

Case 3:08-cv-00930-L-WMC

Document 6-2

Filed 05/28/2008

Page 9 of 15

Exhibit A

Case 3:08-cv-00930-L-WMC Document 6-25 Case 3:08-cv-00714-JLS-POR Document

Filed 05/28/2008 Page 10 of 6 Filed 04/22/2008 Page 1 15

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CHIQUITA FRESH, N.A., L.L.C. : : : : : : : :

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Plaintiff v. SAMMY'S PRODUCE, INC., et al Defendants

Civil Action No: 08-CV714 JLS (POR) ORDER: GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

This matter is before the Court upon Plaintiff's Motion for A Temporary Restraining Order ("TRO") pursuant to Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 1 [Doc. No. 3.] For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's motion for a TRO.

BACKGROUND Chiquita Fresh, N.A., L.L.C. ("Plaintiff") is a dealer in perishable agricultural commodities, i.e., produce, and is licensed under the provisions of the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act ("PACA"), 7 U.S.C. §499a et seq. Sammy's Produce, Inc. ("Sammy's Produce"), purchases wholesale quantities of produce. According to Plaintiff, between

February 14, 2008 and March 12, 2008, Plaintiff sold and delivered to Defendants, in interstate
26

commerce, wholesale amounts of produce in the amount of $73,545.90. Plaintiff contends it
27 28
1

Plaintiff has also filed a motion for a preliminary injunction. [Doc. No. 4.]

Case 3:08-cv-00930-L-WMC Document 6-25 Case 3:08-cv-00714-JLS-POR Document

Filed 05/28/2008 Page 11 of 6 Filed 04/22/2008 Page 2 15

1 2 3 4 5 6

has not been paid any monies by Defendants for the $73,545.90 worth of commodities that it sold. Plaintiff asserts that Defendants have repeatedly advised that they are unable to pay the $73,545.90 owed because they have severe cash flow problems. Plaintiff argues that

Defendants are failing to comply with their statutory duties under PACA to hold the undisputed amount of $73,545.90 in trust for the benefit of Plaintiff and to pay said sum to Plaintiff. Accordingly, Plaintiff is requesting that this Court issue an immediate injunction requiring non-

7

dissipation of the trust assets.
8 9

LEGAL STANDARD
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
2

Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b), plaintiffs must make a showing that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result if the Court does not grant their motion for a TRO. TROs are governed by the same standard applicable to preliminary injunctions. See Cal. Indep. Sys. Operator Corp. v. Reliant Energy Servs., Inc., 181 F. Supp. 2d 1111, 1126 (E.D. Cal. 2001). The Ninth Circuit has set forth two separate sets of criteria for determining whether to grant preliminary injunctive relief: Under the traditional test, a plaintiff must show: (1) a strong likelihood of success on the merits, (2) the possibility of irreparable injury to plaintiff if preliminary relief is not granted, (3) a balance of hardships favoring the plaintiff, and (4) advancement of the public interest (in certain cases). The alternative test requires that a plaintiff demonstrate either a combination of probable success on the merits and the possibility of irreparable injury or that serious questions are raised and the balance of hardships tips sharply in his favor. These two formulations represent two points on a sliding scale in which the required degree of irreparable harm increases as the probability of success decreases. They are not separate tests but rather outer reaches of a single continuum Ranchers Cattlemen Action Legal Fund v. U.S. Dep't. of Agric., 415 F.3d 1078, 1092-93 (9th Cir. 2005) (internal quotations and citations omitted); see also Preminger v. Principi, 422 F.3d 815, 826 (9th Cir. 2005). 2

Plaintiff argues that it has satisfied the traditional test.

Case 3:08-cv-00930-L-WMC Document 6-25 Case 3:08-cv-00714-JLS-POR Document

Filed 05/28/2008 Page 12 of 6 Filed 04/22/2008 Page 3 15

1 2 3

GOVERNING LAW PACA was enacted in 1930 to "suppress unfair and fraudulent practices in the marketing of fruits and vegetables in interstate and foreign commerce" and "provides a code of

4 5 6 7 8 9

fair play . . . and aid to [agricultural] traders in enforcing their contracts." 49 Fed. Reg at 45737. In 1984, PACA was amended to assure that suppliers of produce are paid by imposing a statutory trust on all produce-related assets, such as the produce itself or other products derived therefrom, as well as any receivables or proceeds from the sale thereof, held by agricultural

10 11 12 13 14 15

merchants, dealers and brokers. 7 U.S.C. §499e(c)(2). Tanimura & Antle, Inc. v. Packed Fresh Produce, Inc., 222 F.3d 132 (3rd Cir. 2000); Frio Ice, S.A. v. Sunfruit, Inc., 918 F.2d 154 (11th Cir. 1990). The trust must be maintained for the benefit of the unpaid suppliers, sellers, or agents who provided the commodities until full payment has been made. Id. The trust provision thus offers sellers of produce, "a self-help tool that will enable them to protect

16 17 18 19 20

themselves against the abnormal risk of losses resulting from slow-pay and no-pay practices by buyers or receivers of fruits and vegetables." 49 Fed. Reg. at 45737. Failure to maintain the trust and make full payment promptly to the trust beneficiary 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 23 24 25 26

perishable agricultural commodities[,]" and any act or omission inconsistent with this responsibility, including dissipation of trust assets, is proscribed. 7 CFR §46.46(e)(1). Dissipation of trust assets, defined as the diversion of trust assets or the impairment of a seller's right to obtain payment (7 CFR §46.46(b)(2)), is forbidden. 7 CFR §46.46(e)(i).

27 28

Case 3:08-cv-00930-L-WMC Document 6-25 Case 3:08-cv-00714-JLS-POR Document

Filed 05/28/2008 Page 13 of 6 Filed 04/22/2008 Page 4 15

1 2 3

ANALYSIS I. Plaintiff Satisfies the Traditional Test for a TRO A. Plaintiff Has a Strong Likelihood of Success on the Merits

4

Plaintiff appears entitled to enforce the PACA trust provisions and regulations to secure
5

its trust claim for $73,545. First, Plaintiff is a supplier or seller of wholesale quantities of
6

produce. Second, Plaintiff sold to Defendants, in interstate commerce, wholesale quantities of
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

produce in the aggregate amount of $73,545.90, which is allegedly past due and unpaid. Third, Plaintiff seems to have properly preserved its status as a trust creditor of Defendants under PACA by sending detailed invoices for the produce to the Defendant corporation. Fourth, Defendants have apparently advised Plaintiff that they are unable to pay.

B.

Plaintiff Faces the Possibility of Irreparable Injury if the TRO is not Granted

In the absence of preliminary relief, there could be no assets in the statutory trust. Loss of such assets would be irreparable because Plaintiff would not be able to recover the trust assets once they are dissipated, and Plaintiff would be forever excluded as a beneficiary of the statutory trust. See H.R. Rep. No. 543, 98th Cong. 2d Sess 4 (1983), reprinted in 1984 U.S. Code Cong. & Admin. News, 405, 411; Tanimura & Antle, Inc., 222 F.3d at 140; J. R. Brooks & Son, Inc. v. Norman's Country Mart, Inc., 98 B.R. 47 (Bkrtcy. N.D. Fla. 1989); Continental Fruit v. Thomas J. Gatziolis & Co., 774 F.Supp. 449 (N.D. Ill. 1991); Gullo Produce Co., Inc. v. Jordan Produce Co., Inc., 751 F.Supp. 64 (W.D. Pa. 1990).

Case 3:08-cv-00930-L-WMC Document 6-25 Case 3:08-cv-00714-JLS-POR Document

Filed 05/28/2008 Page 14 of 6 Filed 04/22/2008 Page 5 15

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

C.

Issuing a TRO Will Not Cause Defendants Substantial Harm and Will Be in the Public Interest

By enjoining defendants from dissipating trust assets, Defendants would only be required to fulfill the duties imposed by statute. Tanimura & Antle, Inc., 222 F.3d at 140. Further, PACA specifically declares that the congressional intent behind its passage is to protect the public interest and to remedy the burden on dealers, such as Plaintiff, by receivers who do not pay for produce. Id.; 7 U.S.C. §499e(c)(1). 3

CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing reasons and consideration of Plaintiff's motion, the Court finds that Plaintiff risks immediate irreparable injury in the form of the loss of trust assets.

12

Therefore, a TRO should be issued without notice to the Defendants.
13

The Court hereby ORDERS:
14

(1)
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Defendants, their customers, agents, officers, subsidiaries, assigns, banking

institutions and related entities, shall not alienate, dissipate, pay over or assign any assets of Sammy's Produce or its subsidiaries or related companies except for payment to Plaintiff until further order of this Court or until Defendants pay Plaintiff the sum of $73,545.90 by cashiers check or certified check at which time the Order is dissolved. (2) In the event Defendants fail to pay Plaintiff the sum referenced in the previous

paragraph by cashiers or certified check within five (5) business days of service of this Order, then the Defendants shall file with this Court, and provide a copy to Plaintiff's counsel, an accounting which identifies the assets and liabilities and each account receivable of Sammy's Produce signed under penalty of perjury. Defendants shall also supply to Plaintiff's attorney, within ten (10) days
3

In addition, the Court recognizes various decisions that support granting a TRO under similar circumstances. Tanimura & Antle, 222 F.3d at 140; Frio Ice, S.A., 918 F.2d at 159; Dole Fresh Fruit Co. v. United Banana Co., 821 F.2d 106 (2d Cir. 1987); In re Richmond Produce Co., Inc., 112 B.R. 364, 367 (Bkrtcy. N.D. Cal. 1990); Eagle Fruit Traders, LLC v. Fla. Fresh Int'l, Inc., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96798 (S.D. Fla. 2007); W. Onion Sales, Inc. v. KIDCO Farms Processing, Inc., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93216 (D.N.D. 2006).

Case 3:08-cv-00930-L-WMC Document 6-25 Case 3:08-cv-00714-JLS-POR Document

Filed 05/28/2008 Page 15 of 6 Filed 04/22/2008 Page 6 15

1 2 3 4 5 6

of the date of the Order, any and all documents in connection with the assets and liabilities of Sammy's Produce and its related and subsidiary companies, including, but not limited to, the most recent balance sheets, profit/loss statements, accounts receivable reports, accounts payable reports, accounts paid records and income tax returns. (3) Bond shall be waived in view of the fact that Defendants now hold the aggregate

amount of $73,545.90 of Plaintiff's assets.
7

(4)
8 9

This Temporary Restraining Order is entered this 22nd day of April, 2008 at 3:30

p.m. A hearing on Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction is set for May 9, 2008 at 10:30 a.m. in Courtroom 6 of the Edward J. Schwartz United States District Courthouse, 940 Front St.,
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

San Diego, CA 92101. (5) Order. (6) Defendants' opposition to Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction, if any, The Plaintiff shall forthwith serve Defendants and their counsel with a copy of this

shall be filed no later than April 30, 2008 with a courtesy copy to be delivered to chambers on that date. Plaintiff's reply, if any, shall be filed no later than May 5, 2008. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 22, 2008

____________________________ Honorable Janis. L. Sammartino United States District Court

Case 3:08-cv-00930-L-WMC

Document 6-3

Filed 05/28/2008

Page 1 of 45

1 2 3 4

BRYAN W. PEASE (SB# 239139) 302 Washington St. #404 San Diego, CA 92103 Telephone: (619) 723-0369 Facsimile: (619) 923-1001 email: [email protected] Attorney for Plaintiff

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 REY & REY PRODUCE, INC. and MANUEL REYNOSO, Defendants. v. SAMMY'S PRODUCE, INC., Plaintiff, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action, No.: 08 CV 0930 L WMc DECLARATION OF YAN SKWARA IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER WITHOUT NOTICE AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Yan Skwara, being duly sworn, deposes and says: 1. I am the President and CEO of Sammy's Produce, Inc. and make this declaration

in support of an application for emergency relief pursuant to Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 2. I am personally familiar with all matters which are the subject of this proceeding

and the facts set forth in this declaration are within my personal knowledge. If called upon as a witness, I would and could competently testify to all facts stated in this declaration. 3. Sammy's Produce, Inc. is a corporation with a principal place of business in San

Diego, California, which sells wholesale quantities of perishable agricultural commodities (hereafter "produce"). Sammy's Produce is a produce dealer subject to and licensed under the 1
Sammy's Produce, Inc. v. Rey & Rey Produce, Inc., et al. Declaration of Yan Skwara

Case 3:08-cv-00930-L-WMC

Document 6-3

Filed 05/28/2008

Page 2 of 45

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act of 1930, as amended, 7 U.S.C. § 499a et seq. (hereafter "PACA"). 4. a. Defendant, Rey & Rey Produce, Inc., is a produce dealer as defined by 7

U.S.C. § 499a and operates subject to and is licensed under the PACA. b. Upon information or belief, Manuel Reynoso is and was responsible for

the day-to-day operations of Hierro's Market during the time in question and was in a position of control over the PACA trust assets belonging to Sammy's Produce. 5. The sales and accounts receivable records of Sammy's Produce, including

invoices and account statements, are made in the ordinary course of business and are made at or near the time of the occurrence of the event of which they are a record. These business records are made by me or under my direction and supervision by employees whose duty it is to prepare such documents. 6. Between October 12, 2007 and November 3, 2007 Sammy' s Produce sold and

delivered to defendants, in interstate commerce, various wholesale lots of produce worth $95,064.00, which remains unpaid. True and correct copies of the outstanding invoices are attached hereto as Exhibit 1 and are herein incorporated by reference. 7. 10. Defendants accepted the produce received from Sammy's Produce. Sammy's Produce preserved its interest in the PACA trust in the amount of

$95,064.00 by timely delivering invoices to defendants, which contained the language required under Section 5(c) of the PACA, 7 U.S.C. § 499ae(c). (See Exhibit 1 attached hereto). 11. Defendants are obligated to hold in trust all produce-related assets received from

the sale of produce in order to pay $95,064.00 to Sammy' s Produce. 12. Defendants have not disputed the debt in any way, and they have sent checks to

plaintiff that were returned by the bank for insufficient funds, in direct violation of the trust provisions of the PACA. True and correct copies of these returned checks are attached as Exhibit 2 and herein incorporated by reference. 13. Defendants' failure, refusal and inability to pay demonstrate that defendants are

failing to maintain sufficient assets in the statutory trust and are dissipating assets. 2
Sammy's Produce, Inc. v. Rey & Rey Produce, Inc., et al. Declaration of Yan Skwara

Case 3:08-cv-00930-L-WMC

Document 6-3

Filed 05/28/2008

Page 3 of 45

Case 3:08-cv-00930-L-WMC

Document 6-3

Filed 05/28/2008

Page 4 of 45

Exhibit 1

Case 3:08-cv-00930-L-WMC

Document 6-3

Filed 05/28/2008

Page 5 of 45

Case 3:08-cv-00930-L-WMC

Document 6-3

Filed 05/28/2008

Page 6 of 45

Case 3:08-cv-00930-L-WMC

Document 6-3

Filed 05/28/2008

Page 7 of 45

Case 3:08-cv-00930-L-WMC

Document 6-3

Filed 05/28/2008

Page 8 of 45

Case 3:08-cv-00930-L-WMC

Document 6-3

Filed 05/28/2008

Page 9 of 45

Case 3:08-cv-00930-L-WMC

Document 6-3

Filed 05/28/2008

Page 10 of 45

Case 3:08-cv-00930-L-WMC

Document 6-3

Filed 05/28/2008

Page 11 of 45

Case 3:08-cv-00930-L-WMC

Document 6-3

Filed 05/28/2008

Page 12 of 45

Case 3:08-cv-00930-L-WMC

Document 6-3

Filed 05/28/2008

Page 13 of 45

Case 3:08-cv-00930-L-WMC

Document 6-3

Filed 05/28/2008

Page 14 of 45

Case 3:08-cv-00930-L-WMC

Document 6-3

Filed 05/28/2008

Page 15 of 45

Case 3:08-cv-00930-L-WMC

Document 6-3

Filed 05/28/2008

Page 16 of 45

Case 3:08-cv-00930-L-WMC

Document 6-3

Filed 05/28/2008

Page 17 of 45

Case 3:08-cv-00930-L-WMC

Document 6-3

Filed 05/28/2008

Page 18 of 45

Case 3:08-cv-00930-L-WMC

Document 6-3

Filed 05/28/2008

Page 19 of 45

Case 3:08-cv-00930-L-WMC

Document 6-3

Filed 05/28/2008

Page 20 of 45

Case 3:08-cv-00930-L-WMC

Document 6-3

Filed 05/28/2008

Page 21 of 45

Case 3:08-cv-00930-L-WMC

Document 6-3

Filed 05/28/2008

Page 22 of 45

Case 3:08-cv-00930-L-WMC

Document 6-3

Filed 05/28/2008

Page 23 of 45

Case 3:08-cv-00930-L-WMC

Document 6-3

Filed 05/28/2008

Page 24 of 45

Case 3:08-cv-00930-L-WMC

Document 6-3

Filed 05/28/2008

Page 25 of 45

Case 3:08-cv-00930-L-WMC

Document 6-3

Filed 05/28/2008

Page 26 of 45

Case 3:08-cv-00930-L-WMC

Document 6-3

Filed 05/28/2008

Page 27 of 45

Case 3:08-cv-00930-L-WMC

Document 6-3

Filed 05/28/2008

Page 28 of 45

Case 3:08-cv-00930-L-WMC

Document 6-3

Filed 05/28/2008

Page 29 of 45

Case 3:08-cv-00930-L-WMC

Document 6-3

Filed 05/28/2008

Page 30 of 45

Case 3:08-cv-00930-L-WMC

Document 6-3

Filed 05/28/2008

Page 31 of 45

Case 3:08-cv-00930-L-WMC

Document 6-3

Filed 05/28/2008

Page 32 of 45

Case 3:08-cv-00930-L-WMC

Document 6-3

Filed 05/28/2008

Page 33 of 45

Case 3:08-cv-00930-L-WMC

Document 6-3

Filed 05/28/2008

Page 34 of 45

Case 3:08-cv-00930-L-WMC

Document 6-3

Filed 05/28/2008

Page 35 of 45

Case 3:08-cv-00930-L-WMC

Document 6-3

Filed 05/28/2008

Page 36 of 45

Case 3:08-cv-00930-L-WMC

Document 6-3

Filed 05/28/2008

Page 37 of 45

Case 3:08-cv-00930-L-WMC

Document 6-3

Filed 05/28/2008

Page 38 of 45

Case 3:08-cv-00930-L-WMC

Document 6-3

Filed 05/28/2008

Page 39 of 45

Case 3:08-cv-00930-L-WMC

Document 6-3

Filed 05/28/2008

Page 40 of 45

Case 3:08-cv-00930-L-WMC

Document 6-3

Filed 05/28/2008

Page 41 of 45

Case 3:08-cv-00930-L-WMC

Document 6-3

Filed 05/28/2008

Page 42 of 45

Case 3:08-cv-00930-L-WMC

Document 6-3

Filed 05/28/2008

Page 43 of 45

Exhibit 2

Case 3:08-cv-00930-L-WMC

Document 6-3

Filed 05/28/2008

Page 44 of 45

Case 3:08-cv-00930-L-WMC

Document 6-3

Filed 05/28/2008

Page 45 of 45

Case 3:08-cv-00930-L-WMC

Document 6-4

Filed 05/28/2008

Page 1 of 2

1 2 3 4

BRYAN W. PEASE (SB# 239139) 302 Washington St. #404 San Diego, CA 92103 Telephone: (619) 723-0369 Facsimile: (619) 923-1001 email: [email protected] Attorney for Plaintiff

5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 REY & REY PRODUCE, INC. and MANUEL REYNOSO, Defendants. v. SAMMY'S PRODUCE, INC., Plaintiff, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action, No.: 08 CV 0930 L WMc DECLARATION OF BRYAN W. PEASE IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER WITHOUT NOTICE AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Bryan W. Pease, being duly sworn, deposes and says: 1. 2. I am the attorney for Plaintiff in the above entitled action. Because Defendants hold $95,064.00 in trust assets belonging to Plaintiff and

have failed to pay Plaintiff, a Temporary Restraining Order Without Notice is necessary to ensure that Defendants do not dissipate trust assets before being served with the Order. 3. A similar order to what Plaintiff requests here was recently issued against Plaintiff

without notice in another case, Chiquita Fresh v. Sammy's Produce, Case 08-CV-930. The order in that case is attached as Exhibit A to the Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Application for Temporary Restraining Order Without Notice. 1
Sammy's Produce, Inc. v. Rey & Rey Produce, Inc., et al. Declaration of Bryan W. Pease

Case 3:08-cv-00930-L-WMC

Document 6-4

Filed 05/28/2008

Page 2 of 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

4.

Part of the reason Plaintiff had been unable to pay the Chiquita Fresh account was

due to moneys owed to it by Defendant in the present case. Nonetheless, Plaintiff raised the money to pay Chiquita Fresh and settle that case. 5. In the present case, Plaintiff only seeks the moneys held in trust by Defendants for

Plaintiff, and Defendants as a matter of law can suffer no harm from being restrained from dissipating trust assets belonging to Plaintiff. 6. In seeking a Temporary Restraining Order Without Notice, Plaintiff only seeks

the same remedy that was granted to Chiquita Fresh in its case against Plaintiff, and the standard remedy for PACA trust violations.

Executed on May 28, 2008

By:

/s/ Bryan W. Pease____________ Bryan W. Peaase Attorney for Plaintiff

2

Sammy's Produce, Inc. v. Rey & Rey Produce, Inc., et al. Declaration of Bryan W. Pease