Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_08-cv-00122/USCOURTS-cand-5_08-cv-00122-0/pdf.json

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

---

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

 This disposition is not designated for publication and may not be cited. 1

Case No. C 08-00122

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND

SETTING HEARING ON MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

(JFLC1)

**E-Filed 1/10/2008**

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

ASA FARMS, INC., a California corporation and

BRAGA RANCH,

 Plaintiffs,

 v.

FRESH ‘N HEALTHY, INC. A Delaware

corporation, et al.,

 Defendant.

Case Number C08-00122 JF

ORDER DENYING EX PARTE 1

REQUEST FOR TEMPORARY

RESTRAINING ORDER WITHOUT

PREJUDICE AND SETTING

HEARING ON MOTION FOR

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

[re: docket no. 2]

ASA Farms, Inc. and Braga Ranch (“Plaintiffs”) allege that Fresh ‘N Healthy, Inc.

(“Fresh”) owes them $302,756.84 for produce purchased in a series of transactions between

November 9, 2007 and December 28, 2007. Plaintiffs request a temporary restraining order

(“TRO”) and preliminary injunction enjoining Fresh from dissipating the assets of a Perishable

Agricultural Commodities Act (“PACA”) statutory trust. Plaintiffs have not given notice of this

request.

The standard for issuing a TRO is the same as that for issuing a preliminary injunction.

Case 5:08-cv-00122-JF Document 10 Filed 01/10/08 Page 1 of 4
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

2

Case No. C 08-00122

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND

SETTING HEARING ON MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

(JFLC1)

Brown Jordan International, Inc. v. Mind’s Eye Interiors, Inc., 236 F. Supp. 2d 1152, 1154 (D.

Hawaii 2002); Lockheed Missile & Space Co., Inc. v. Hughes Aircraft Co., 887 F. Supp. 1320,

1323 (N.D. Cal. 1995). In the Ninth Circuit, a party seeking a preliminary injunction must show

either (1) a likelihood of success on the merits and the possibility of irreparable injury, or (2) the

existence of serious questions going to the merits and the balance of hardships tipping in the

movant’s favor. Roe v. Anderson, 134 F.3d 1400, 1401-02 (9th Cir. 1998); Apple Computer, Inc.

v. Formula Int’l, Inc., 725 F.2d 521, 523 (9th Cir. 1984). These formulations represent two

points on a sliding scale in which the required degree of irreparable harm increases as the

probability of success decreases. Roe, 134 F.3d at 1402. 

A TRO may be issued without notice to the adverse party only if “(1) it clearly appears

from specific facts shown by affidavit or by the verified complaint that immediate and irreparable

injury, loss, or damage will result to the applicant before the adverse party or that party’s attorney

can be heard in opposition, and (2) the applicant’s attorney certifies to the court in writing the

efforts, if any, which have been made to give the notice and the reasons supporting the claim that

notice should not be required.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b). Moreover, in this district an applicant for

a TRO must give notice to the adverse party “[u]nless relieved by order of a Judge for good cause

shown.” Civ. L.R. 65-1(b).

Plaintiffs argue that they are entitled to a TRO without notice because “[t]he giving of

notice will only provide Defendant Fresh with advance warning that an order may be entered

thereby giving time to Defendant to further dissipate trust assets by paying personal liabilities or

non-trust creditors prior to the entry of the order.” Ex Parte Motion for TRO and Preliminary

Injunction at 5. However, Plaintiffs do not allege any facts in support of this conclusory

statement. 

Plaintiffs assert that the trust is likely to be dissipated because Fresh’s human resources

director informed them that Comerica Bank recently has suspended Fresh’s line of credit and that

consequently Fresh soon will cease operations. Braga Declaration ¶ 15. Standing alone, this

allegation does not demonstrate a likelihood that Fresh would accelerate disbursing the trust to

Case 5:08-cv-00122-JF Document 10 Filed 01/10/08 Page 2 of 4
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

 Plaintiffs also cite a number of cases recognizing that it is difficult to recover trust assets 2

once they have been dissipated. See Frio Ice, S.A. v. Sunfruit, Inc., 918 F.2d 154 (11th Cir.

1990); Cont’l 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); J.R. Brooks &

Son, Inc. v. Norman’s Country Market, Inc., 98 B.R. 47, 50 (Bkrtcy, N.D. Fla. 1989. Notably, in

none of these cases did the Court grant a TRO prior to notice, rather, defendants were provided

an opportunity to be heard. 

3

Case No. C 08-00122

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND

SETTING HEARING ON MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

(JFLC1)

creditors other than Plaintiffs if it were given notice of the request for a TRO. Because Plaintiffs 2

have not shown that providing notice would cause immediate and irreparable injury, their request

for a TRO is denied without prejudice to reconsideration after notice has been given. 

IV. ORDER

Good cause therefor appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiffs’ application for a TRO is DENIED without prejudice;

2. Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction is set for hearing on January 18, 2008

at 9:00am. Each party may file a brief in support of or in opposition to the motion

for preliminary injunction not to exceed fifteen (15) pages in length, on or before

January 15, 2008.

DATED: January 10, 2008

 

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

Case 5:08-cv-00122-JF Document 10 Filed 01/10/08 Page 3 of 4
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

Case No. C 08-00122

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND

SETTING HEARING ON MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

(JFLC1)

This Order has been served upon the following persons:

Kelly McCarthy Sutherland kelly@lomgil.com

James Washburn Sullivan jim@lomgil.com

Case 5:08-cv-00122-JF Document 10 Filed 01/10/08 Page 4 of 4