Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00901/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00901-14/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KINGSBURG APPLE PACKERS INC. )

D/B/A KINGSBURG ORCHARDS, et. al. )

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. )

)

BALLANTINE PRODUCE Co., Inc., et. al., )

)

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

NO. 1:09-CV-901-AWI-JLT

ORDER ON DIBUDUO’S MOTION

TO DETERMINE THE VALIDITY OF

PACA CLAIMS

(Doc. No. 119 )

On October 28, 2009, this court issued an order that directed DiBuduo Land Management

Company (“DiBuduo”) to file a motion with the court to determine the validity of its Perishable

and Agricultural and Commodities Act (“PACA”) claims. See Doc. No. 116. DiBuduo

complied and filed its motion the same day. Kingsburg Group and Bank of the West oppose the

motion and assert that DiBuduo’s claims are invalid because DiBuduo’s Notice of Intent to

Preserve Trust Benefits (“Notice of Intent”) was served late. For the reasons described below,

the court finds that DiBuduo failed to preserve its PACA trust claims.

Case 1:09-cv-00901-AWI-JLT Document 150 Filed 02/18/10 Page 1 of 10
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

FACTUAL BACKGROUND1

 DiBuduo sold and delivered to Ballantine Produce Co. (“Ballantine”) perishable

agricultural commodities on credit. See DiBuduo Proof of Claim dated July 29, 2009. DiBuduo

was not licensed by the United States Department of Agriculture (“USDA”) as a PACA licensee

during the period applicable to the transactions. DiBuduo shipped produce to Ballantine between

November and December 2008, and delivered shipments in January 2009. Ballantine received

and accepted the produce. DiBuduo received accountings from Ballantine in December 2008,

and January 2009. DiBuduo alleges that there is no evidence that it entered into a post-default

written agreement for different terms. 

 On June 19, 2009, DiBuduo served a Notice of Intent upon Ballantine. The June 19,

2009 Notice of Intent provides, in pertinent part: 

DiBuduo ... expressly states its intent to preserve trust benefits relating to the

commodities described in this notice... The dates of the transactions between the

parties to which this notice applies are open and unpaid invoices for deliveries of

2008 commodities (described below) dated January 2, January 8, and January 15,

2009.

See Exhibit A to DiBuduos Motion to Determine Validity of PACA Claims. 

According to DiBuduo, it did not send its Notice of Intent prior to June 19, 2009 because

Jerry DiBuduo (DiBuduo’s president) relied on the representations of principals and managing

agents of Ballantine that DiBuduo would be promptly paid for the fruit deliveries. DiBuduo

contends that it reasonably relied upon those representations, especially since Jerry DiBuduo

personally knew David Albertson (“Albertson”), the treasurer and principal of Ballantine. The

Notice of Intent addressed the representations of Albertson as follows:

Trust claimant through its principal, Jerry DiBuduo was repeatedly advised by

Ballantine’s principal, David Albertson, that “it was not a question of whether but

when” claimant would be paid. Over a two and one half year period, Jerry

DiBuduo was negotiating the sale of a property co-owned with Ballantine and

later in February 2009 Mr. DiBuduo negotiated the purchase of a Ballantine

The factual history is provided for background only and does not form the basis of the 1

court’s decision; the assertions contained herein are not necessarily taken as adjudged to be true. 

The legally relevant facts relied upon by the court are discussed within the analysis.

2

Case 1:09-cv-00901-AWI-JLT Document 150 Filed 02/18/10 Page 2 of 10
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

owned property and as part of those negotiations, was assured that trust claimant’s

account would be brought current so that sufficient cash would be available for

closing the transactions. The first transaction was concluded and trust claimant’s

grower account partially paid as a result of trust claimant’s continued diligence. 

The second transaction never materialized but representations were made to Jerry

DiBuduo which he reasonably relied on in delaying trust claimant’s assertion of

this claim. Ballantine at least partially paid when in connection with the first

escrow.

Throughout February and March 2009 after trust claimant’s repeated requests,

some payments were made on the account albeit late payments. These delays

interrupted claimant’s cash flow and caused claimant to borrow substantial

advances on a personal line of credit to pay ordinary operating expenses. From the

weeks of March 6, through the week of March 23, 2009, trust claimant received

$25,000 per week to reduce the outstanding claim along with further assurances of

full payment.

In April 2009, trust claimant was informed by John Pelton, then acting as

Ballantine’s CEO, that a dispute arose concerning the settlement of the first

property transaction and payments were going to be suspended. After trust clamant

[sic] promptly provided requested evidence, Mr. Pelton submitted the error and on

April 20, 2009, assured trust claimant that he would be paid in full by the first

week of May 2009. No payments have been received as of the date of presentation

of this claim, less than 45 days after the date by which trust claimant was assured

by the then acting CEO of Ballantine that trust claimant would be paid.

Trust claimant has repeatedly pursued payment but was assured payment was forthcoming. 

Trust claimant received some payments and therefore reasonably relied on the statements. 

Neither Mr. Albertson nor Mr. Pelton ever denied Ballantine’s liability for trust claimant’s

claim. 

See Exhibit A to DiBuduos Motion to Determine Validity of PACA Claims. 

DiBuduo alleges that the total amount past due and unpaid from Ballantine totals

$100,498.00, all of which qualifies for PACA trust protection. 

DISCUSSION

I. PACA

Congress enacted PACA in 1930 with the intent of “preventing unfair business practices

and promoting financial responsibility in the fresh fruit and produce industry.” Sunkist Growers,

Inc. v. Fisher, 104 F.3d 280, 282 (9th Cir. 1997). Under PACA, a statutory trust is created in

favor of all unpaid suppliers or sellers of perishable agricultural commodities upon receipt of such

3

Case 1:09-cv-00901-AWI-JLT Document 150 Filed 02/18/10 Page 3 of 10
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

goods by a “commission merchant, dealer, or broker.” The PACA trust “was established by 2

Congress to protect sellers and suppliers of perishable agricultural commodities until full payment

of sums due have been received.” In re Southland + Keystone, 132 B.R. 632, 639 (9th Cir. BAP

1991), (quoting In re Milton Poulos, Inc., 94 B.R. 648, 650 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 1988)). The statute

provides, in relevant part:

Perishable agricultural commodities received by a commission merchant, dealer, or

broker in all transactions, and all inventories of food or other products derived

from perishable agricultural commodities, and any receivables or proceeds from

the sale of such commodities or products, shall be held by such commission

merchant, dealer, or broker in trust for the benefit of all unpaid suppliers or sellers

of such commodities or agents involved in the transaction, until full payment of the

sums owing in connection with such transactions has been received by such unpaid

suppliers, sellers, or agents. 

7 U.S.C. §499e(c)(2). The PACA trust is a “nonsegregated floating trust” that applies to the

perishable “commodities, products derived therefrom, and any receivables or proceeds from their

sale in the hands of the commission merchant, dealer, or broker.” H.R. REP. NO. 98-98-543, at 2

(1983), reprinted in 1984 U.S.C.C.A.N. 405, 406.

Any supplier or seller of agricultural commodities who gives proper notice of its interest in

the PACA trust has a claim against the trust. In re Southland,132 B.R. at 639. PACA requires the

beneficiary to preserve its trust right by providing written notice of its intent to preserve the trust

within thirty days after the time payment is due. The PACA trust preservation provision provides:

The unpaid supplier, seller, or agent shall lose the benefits of such trust unless such

person has given written notice of intent to preserve the benefits of the trust to the

commission merchant, dealer or broker within thirty calendar days (i) after

expiration of the time prescribed by which payment must be made, as set forth in

regulations issued by the Secretary, (ii) after expiration of such other time by which

payment must be made, as the parties have expressly agreed to in writing before

entering into the transaction, or (iii) after the time the supplier, seller, or agent has

received such notice that the payment instrument promptly presented for payment

has been dishonored. The written notice to the commission merchant, dealer, or

broker shall set forth information in sufficient detail to identify the transaction

subject to the trust. When the parties expressly agree to a payment time period

different from that established by the Secretary, a copy of any such agreement shall

The term “received” means at “the time when the buyer, receiver, or agent gains 2

ownership, control, or possession of the perishable agricultural commodities.” See 7 C.F.R.

§46.36(a)(1).

4

Case 1:09-cv-00901-AWI-JLT Document 150 Filed 02/18/10 Page 4 of 10
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

be filed in the records of each party to the transaction and the terms of payment

shall be disclosed on invoices, accountings, and other documents relating to the

transaction.

7 U.S.C. §499e(c)(3). If a beneficiary does not comply with the notice requirements, it loses the

benefits of the PACA trust. See In re Marvin Properties, Inc., 854 F.2d 1183, 1186 (9th Cir.

1988) (“The language of section 499e(c)(3) is unambiguous on its face. It clearly states that the

seller shall lose the trust benefits unless ‘such person has given written notice of intent to preserve

benefits of the trust to the commission merchant, dealer, or broker and has filed such notice with

the Secretary....’”); see also In re Fresh Approach, Inc., 51 B.R. 412, 423 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. 1985)

(“Use of the words ‘shall lose’ and ‘preserve’ plainly refer to rights or interests existing prior to

perfection. The clear meaning of the preservation provisions is that a beneficiary’s pre-existing

beneficial interest would evaporate absent affirmative steps by such a beneficiary to protect such

interests. In short, the beneficial interest arises, by operation of law, upon delivery to a dealer of

qualifying produce, and said interest exists unless and until either the claim is satisfied or the

beneficiary fails to take the necessary steps to perfect.”). 

Thus, under the statutory language, a PACA trust is created, in favor of unpaid suppliers,

sellers, or their agents at the time the perishable commodities are received by a commission

merchant, dealer, or broker but, in order to preserve the PACA trust, the beneficiaries are further

required to provide written notice to the commission merchant, dealer, or broker in receipt of

those commodities within a specified time period. See 7 U.S.C. §§499e(c)(2), (c)(3). If the

beneficiary is a licensee, however, then it may perfect its PACA trust rights by including certain

statutory language on its invoices. See 7 U.S.C. §§499e(c)(4). Under the plain language of the

statute, a beneficiary that is not also a licensee cannot rely on invoices to preserve its trust rights. 

See In re Enoch Packing Company, Inc. v. Joe Flores, 2007 WL 1589537 (E.D. Cal. June 1,

2007). 

5

Case 1:09-cv-00901-AWI-JLT Document 150 Filed 02/18/10 Page 5 of 10
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

II. DiBuduo’s Arguments 

 DiBuduo contends that it perfected its PACA trust rights for the following reasons: (1)

DiBuduo’s June 19, 2009 Notice of Intent complied with PACA’s statutory timing requirements

under 7 U.S.C. §499e(c)(3); (2) DiBuduo preserved its trust rights because it served its Notice of

Intent after Ballantine stopped making payments; (3) PACA’s timing requirements do not apply to

disputed transactions and that a disputed transaction existed between DiBuduo and Ballantine; (4)

DiBuduo did not waive its PACA rights because DiBuduo did not enter into a post-default written

agreement, oral agreement, or course of dealing, which altered the terms of PACA; and (5) Even

if this court determines that the claim was not timely, the objecting parties are estopped from

asserting timeliness objections to DiBuduo’s claim because Albertson’s representations equitably

tolled PACA’s statute of limitation periods.

III. Resolution

First, the court finds that DiBuduo failed to properly preserve its trust rights because its

Notice of Intent was delivered late in violation of 7 U.S.C. §499e(c)(3). In order to comply with

PACA regulations, DiBuduo needed to issue its Notice of Intent within thirty days of receiving an

accounting from Ballantine. See 7 C.F.R. §46.2(aa)(9). Dibuduo alleges in its Proof of Claim

that Ballantine submitted accountings between December 6, 2008 and January 16, 2009. Thus,

DiBuduo should have served its Notice of Intent between January 5 and February 15, 2009. 

However, it is undisputed that DiBuduo served its Notice of Intent on June 19, 2009. Because

DiBuduo sent its Notice of Intent several months after the applicable statutory deadline, DiBuduo

lost the benefit of the PACA trust. See In re Marvin, 854 F.2d at 1186; In re Fresh Approach, 51

B.R. at 423. Therefore, DiBuduo did not timely preserve its trust rights under PACA. 

Second, the court is not convinced by DiBuduo’s argument that it preserved its trust rights

because it served its Notice of Intent after Ballantine stopped making payments as opposed to the

deadlines provided by PACA. DiBuduo relies on In re Marvin Properties and In re Richmond

Produce, 112 B.R. 364 (Bankr. N.D. Cal. 1990) to support its argument. In re Marvin and In re

6

Case 1:09-cv-00901-AWI-JLT Document 150 Filed 02/18/10 Page 6 of 10
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

Richmond are not helpful to DiBuduo’s position because neither case involved a grower who

submitted a late notice and neither case held that PACA deadlines are tolled until the grower

realizes that the buyer can no longer make payment. In re Marvin merely held that a grower’s

failure to give notice to the buyer resulted in a forfeiture of trust benefits. In re Richmond is

distinguishable because the suppliers there served their Notice of Intent before the applicable

PACA payment term had expired. Id. In contrast, it is undisputed that DiBuduo served its Notice

of Intent several months after the applicable PACA deadline had expired. 

Third, with respect to DiBuduo’s “disputed transaction” argument, the court does not find

merit to this argument. DiBuduo correctly states that PACA’s prompt payment deadlines only

apply to undisputed amounts. DiBuduo, however, fails to allege that there was a disputed 3

amount that related to the delivery of fruit. Instead, DiBuduo represented in its June 29, 2009

Proof of Claim filed with this Court that: 

In April 2009, trust claimant was informed by John Pelton, then acting as

Ballantine’s CEO, that a dispute arose concerning the settlement of the first

property transaction and payments were going to be suspended. After the trust

clamant [sic] promptly provided requested evidence, Mr. Pelton admitted the error

and on April 20, 2009, assured trust claimant that he would be paid in full by the

first week of May 2009.

See Exhibit A to DiBuduos Motion to Determine Validity of PACA Claims. Based on DiBuduo’s

admissions in its Proof of Claim, the dispute between DiBuduo and Ballantine relates to a

property transaction and does not relate to fruit delivery. Furthermore, DiBuduo does not allege

that it ever disputed the accuracy of the accountings that it received from Ballantine in December

6, 2008, and January 16, 2009. 

Fourth, the court is not persuaded by DiBuduo’s argument that it did not waive its trust

rights because it did not enter into any post-default agreements (i.e. a written agreement or oral

agreement, or course of dealings) that extended the payment terms provided by PACA. In the

instant matter, the presence or absence of a post-default agreement is irrelevant because DiBuduo

7 C.F.R. §46.2(aa) provides in part: “If there is a dispute concerning a transaction, the 3

foregoing time periods for prompt payment apply only to payment of the undisputed amount.” 

7

Case 1:09-cv-00901-AWI-JLT Document 150 Filed 02/18/10 Page 7 of 10
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

did not timely file a Notice of Intent. DiBuduo relies on Hull Company v. Hauser’s Foods, Inc.,

924 F.2d 777 (8th Cir. 1991) and Patterson Frozen Food v. Crown Foods International, 307 F.3d

666 (7th Cir. 2002) to establish that it did not waive its rights. DiBuduo argues that these cases

establish that PACA is to be construed liberally in favor of sellers and that oral agreements or

“course of dealing” will not abrogate PACA trust rights. While the court accepts the general

principle that PACA is to be construed liberally, these cases do not aid DiBuduo’s position. 

Neither Patterson nor Hull dealt with a Notice of Intent that was served outside of the PACA 

deadlines. 

The Hull court held that an oral agreement had no effect on a seller’s rights to trust

protection. Hull, 924 F.2d at 783. Importantly, the Hull court specifically stated that it was not

expressing an opinion on the validity of the district court’s determination that the grower’s Notice

of Intent was valid. Thus, Hull is not applicable to the facts of this case. 

Patterson is distinguishable from the facts of this case because the Patterson court focused

on whether a post-default written agreement between the parties nullified the grower’s PACA

trust rights where a seller had preserved its rights by including the required PACA statutory

language in its invoices. See Patterson, 307 F.3d at 668. Here, it is undisputed that DiBuduo was

not a PACA licensee and needed to preserve its rights by timely filing a Notice of Intent. 

Therefore, even assuming that DiBuduo did not enter into any post-default agreements, it does not

change the fact that DiBuduo did not comply with PACA and timely file a Notice of Intent. 

Accordingly, DiBuduo failed to properly perfect its trust rights pursuant to the applicable

PACA statutes and regulations because it did not timely serve its Notice of Intent.

IV. Equitable Tolling Argument

The facts of this case do not support an extension of the PACA deadlines. DiBuduo

argues that it diligently pursued collection for the outstanding balance from Ballantine. The

relevant question, however, is whether DiBuduo diligently preserved its trust rights. After

reviewing DiBuduo’s efforts to preserve its trust rights, the court finds that DiBuduo did not

8

Case 1:09-cv-00901-AWI-JLT Document 150 Filed 02/18/10 Page 8 of 10
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

exercise diligence in protecting its trust rights, namely, because DiBuduo did not timely file a

Notice of Intent. Furthermore, DiBuduo does not explain in its briefs why it was not able to

timely file a Notice of Intent. 

DiBuduo relies on Santa Maria v. Pacific Bell, 202 F.3d 1170, 1178 (9th Cir. 2000) and

asserts that: “equitable tolling focuses on the plaintiff’s excusable ignorance of the limitations

period and on lack of prejudice to the defendant.” DiBuduo, however, does not present any facts

to the court that would excuse it from not complying with PACA’s limitations period. DiBuduo

seems to be arguing that because it received verbal promises of full payment from Ballantine, that

the PACA’s deadlines should not be enforced. The court does not find that assurances of payment

from Ballantine excuses DiBuduo from complying with PACA in light of the fact that DiBuduo

was aware of the PACA deadlines, and was aware that Ballantine was late in paying the fruit

invoices. See DiBuduo’s Notice of Intent (“In February and March 2009 after [DiBuduo’s]

repeated requests, some payments were made on the account albeit late payments”) (emphasis

added). 

Additionally, DiBuduo alleges in its Notice of Intent that the last payment from Ballantine

was received on March 23, 2009. Therefore, even if the court could look past PACA’s prompt

payment terms and allow DiBuduo to submit a Notice of Intent from the date of last payment

received as opposed to when the invoices were due as required by PACA, Dibuduo’s Notice of

Intent was still late because it was not served until June 19, 2009.

Accordingly, for the reasons listed above, the court finds that DiBuduo has not met

its burden to establish excusable ignorance of the PACA limitations period.

//

//

//

//

9

Case 1:09-cv-00901-AWI-JLT Document 150 Filed 02/18/10 Page 9 of 10
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

ORDER

The Court finds that the notice filed by DiBuduo was untimely and failed to preserve the

trust benefits created by PACA. Thus, the court determines that DiBuduo does not have a valid

PACA claim. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 18, 2010 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

10

Case 1:09-cv-00901-AWI-JLT Document 150 Filed 02/18/10 Page 10 of 10