Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-04923/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-04923-0/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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

E-Filed 5/2/16

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHONG'S PRODUCE, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

PUSHPAK RESTAURANTS INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-04923-HRL 

INTERIM ORDER ON MOTION FOR 

DEFAULT JUDGMENT

Re: Dkt. No. 15

Chong’s Produce, Inc. (“Chong’s Produce”) sues Pushpak Restaurants Inc. (“Pushpak”)

and Prasad Vasireddy (“Vasireddy”), the owner of Pushpak, for failure to pay $52,843.17 due on a 

series of fresh-produce sales that began at some point in 2014. Chong’s Produce raises several 

claims under the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (“PACA”) and one claim for breach of 

contract. Defendants have not appeared. The Clerk of Court entered defaults; Chong’s Produce

moves for default judgment.

The undersigned sees several deficiencies in the motion. What particular facts plausibly 

show Pushpak buys enough fresh produce to qualify as a PACA dealer? What particular facts, if 

any, plausibly show Vasireddy was an active owner who might be held personally liable for 

breach of a fiduciary duty? See Tom Ver LLC v. Organic Alliance, Inc., 13-cv-03506-LHK, 2015 

WL 2412381, at *3-4 (N.D. Cal. May 20, 2015) (granting summary judgment to an individual 

fiduciary for lack of any evidence that he personally played a role in causing a PACA violation). 

What evidence would permit the court to calculate, transaction by transaction, that the total unpaid 

principal balance is equal to $52,843.17? TeleVideo Sys., Inc. v. Heidenthal, 826 f.2d 915, 917-18 

(9th Cir. 1987) (district courts may not accept conclusory allegations to establish the amount of 

damages when entering default judgment). And does Chong’s Produce have any basis for its 

attorney-fees request other than a case which discusses when a court may sanction a party who 

Case 5:15-cv-04923-BLF Document 20 Filed 05/02/16 Page 1 of 2
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 California

repeatedly defaults? Nilsson, Robbins, Dalgarn, Berliner, Carson & Wurst v. Louisiana Hydrolec, 

854 F.2d 1538, 1546 (9th Cir. 1988).

The hearing on this motion set for May 3, 2016, is vacated. Chong’s Produce shall file, no 

later than May 23, 2016, a statement in response to this order. The statement shall describe any 

evidence responsive to the court’s concerns. The statement may also include citations to 

additional authority that might justify the request for an award of attorney fees. Chong’s Produce 

shall support its statement, as necessary, with declarations and exhibits; the court cautions 

Chong’s Produce that it shall not rely on a “sample” of the damages evidence as justification for 

the requested judgment. See Dkt. No. 15-5 at 1.

The court shall set a new date for a hearing on this motion, if appropriate, after Chong’s 

Produce submits its statement in response to this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 5/2/16

HOWARD R. LLOYD

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:15-cv-04923-BLF Document 20 Filed 05/02/16 Page 2 of 2