Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02162/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02162-0/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 

FILED
 I SEP 20 1011 ] 

CLERK, U.S. a/STRlCT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 
 BY 

DEPUTY 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

PREMIER PRODUCE COMPANY, INC., 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

MIA'S NUTRITION CENTER, INC., et al., 

Defendants. 

CASE NO. l1-CV-2162 BEN (JMA) 

ORDER DENYING TEMPORARY 

RESTRAINING ORDER 

[Docket No.3] 

On September 19, 2011, Plaintiff Premier Produce Company initiated this action against 

Defendants Mia's Nutrition Center, Inc., John Christian Gillette, and Lisa A. Gillette for alleged 

violation ofthe Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act ("PACA"), 7 U .S.C. § 49ge. (Docket No. 

1.) At the same time, Plaintiff filed an Ex Parte Application for Temporary Restraining Order to 

enjoin Defendants from transferring all PACA assets until Defendants pay Plaintiff $3,043 .11, plus 

interest, attorney fees, and costs. (Docket No.3.) For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES 

Plaintifrs ex parte application for a temporary restraining order. 

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure outline the procedures the Court must follow when 

deciding whether to grant a temporary restraining order ("TRO"). See FED. R. CIV. P. 65(b). 

Ordinarily before issuing a TRO, the Court must hold a hearing. In rare circumstances, a TRO may 

issue without notice to the adverse party. [d. Given the strong policy in favor ofproviding notice to 

the nonmoving party, a TRO may issue without notice only if: 

(A) specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint clearly show that 

- 1 - llcv2162 

Case 3:11-cv-02162-BEN-JMA Document 4 Filed 09/20/11 Page 1 of 2
 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

1 

2 

3 

4 

6 

7 

8 

9 

11 

12 

13 

14 

16 

17 

18 

19 

21 

22 

23 

24 

26 

27 

28 

immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant 

before the adverse party can be heard in opposition; and 

(B) the movant's attorney certifies in writing any efforts made to give notice 

and the reasons why it should not be required. 

Id. 

In this case, Plaintiff submits a declaration, stating that "[u]nless the assets ofDefendants are 

frozen, it is likely that the trust assets will continue to be dissipated." (Zaidi Dec!. ~ 15.) Plaintiff 

fails to present specific facts showing that the trust assets will be dissipated immediately, before 

Defendants may be heard in opposition. In addition, Plaintiffs attorney has not certified in writing 

that any effort was made to give notice, or why notice should not be required. In light ofthe above, 

the Court finds that Plaintiff fails to satisfy the requirements for a TRO on an ex parte basis. 

Accordingly, Plaintiffs TRO Application is DENIED. 

In addition, Plaintiffs TRO Application includes a request for an order to show cause why a 

preliminary injunction should not issue. Plaintiff is granted leave to file a motion for preliminary 

injunction. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

~~ DATED: SeptemberV'V_, 2011 

-2- llcv2162 

. - ----_. ._--_...._---------­

Case 3:11-cv-02162-BEN-JMA Document 4 Filed 09/20/11 Page 2 of 2