Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_20-cv-01122/USCOURTS-cand-5_20-cv-01122-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 891
Nature of Suit: Agricultural Acts
Cause of Action: 07:499 Agricultural Commodities Act

---

Case No.: 5:20-cv-01122-EJD

ORDER DENYING EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER 

 1 

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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION 

PCH FARMS, LP, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

AMERICA BERRY FARMS, INC., et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 5:20-cv-01122-EJD 

ORDER DENYING EX PARTE 

APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY 

RESTRAINING ORDER 

Re: Dkt. No. 7 

On February 13, 2020, Plaintiff PCH Farms, LP filed an ex parte application for a 

temporary restraining order against Defendants American Berry Farms, Inc., Adrian Mendez, and 

Bertha Fernandez. Dkt. No 7. On February 14, 2020 the case was reassigned to the undersigned. 

Dkt. No. 9. For the reasons discussed below, the Court denies the application. 

This case arises under the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (“PACA”). Plaintiff, 

a dealer of fresh produce, contends that it is a beneficiary of a statutory trust established under 

PACA. Defendants, dealers of perishable agricultural produce, are trustees under the PACA 

statutory trust. Plaintiff contends that Defendants have a duty to hold in trust for Plaintiff all 

produce, produce-related inventory, and assets acquired through the sale of produce—including 

any receivables or proceeds from the sale thereof until Plaintiff’s trust claim is fully paid. Plaintiff 

alleges that it grew and sold several shipments of produce to Defendants for $58,968 in August 

and September of 2018. Plaintiff alleges that balance remains outstanding. Plaintiff further 

alleges Defendants are in dire financial straits, which jeopardizes Plaintiff’s outstanding trust 

claim. Plaintiff bases this contention on a representation from February 2019 that Defendants had 

begun contemplating Chapter 11 Bankruptcy. Lewis Dec. ¶ 5, Ex. 3. Plaintiff also raises other 

allegations based on events that took place on May 2019. Dkt. No. 7-4 at 13. Plaintiff now seeks 

a temporary restraining order compelling Defendants to deposit the outstanding $58,968 (in 

addition to interest and attorneys’ fees) in a separate trust, and enjoining Defendants from 

Case 5:20-cv-01122-SVK Document 10 Filed 02/14/20 Page 1 of 2
Case No.: 5:20-cv-01122-EJD

ORDER DENYING EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER 

 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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

dissipating their assets. 

“The same legal standard applies to a motion for a temporary restraining order and a 

motion for a preliminary injunction.” Henry Schein, Inc. v. Cook, 191 F. Supp. 3d 1072, 1076 

(N.D. Cal. 2016). “A plaintiff seeking either remedy must establish that he is likely to succeed on 

the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the 

balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Id. (internal 

citation and quotation omitted). On a TRO, a plaintiff must demonstrate that there exists a 

significant threat of irreparable injury. See, e.g., Baker DC v. NLRB, 102 F. Supp. 3d 194, 198 

(D.D.C. 2015). Where a plaintiff delays in seeking a TRO, courts have held that such a delay to 

indicate that no immediate threat exists. See Rovio Entm’t Ltd. v. Royal Plush Toys, Inc., 907 F. 

Supp. 2d 1086 (N.D. Cal. 2012); see also Bieros v. Nicola, 857 F. Supp. 445 (E.D. Pa. 1994) 

(denying TRO where threat had been made 10 months before the plaintiff filed the application). 

Here, Plaintiff has not shown that any immediate threat of harm exists. While Plaintiff 

contends that Defendants considered bankruptcy 12 months ago and that the IRS recorded liens 

against Defendants as recently as May 2019, that does not show why a TRO is necessary now. 

Plaintiff makes no attempt to explain its delay in seeking this relief. Accordingly, the Court finds 

that Plaintiff has not satisfied the irreparable harm factor and the Court denies the application on 

that basis. 

 The application is denied. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: February 14, 2020 

______________________________________ 

EDWARD J. DAVILA 

United States District Judge 

Case 5:20-cv-01122-SVK Document 10 Filed 02/14/20 Page 2 of 2