Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02162/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02162-2/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 

II SEP 29 PM 2: S! 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

PREMIER PRODUCE COMPANY, INC., 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

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

Defendants. 

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

ORDER: 

(1) DENYING MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION 

(2) SETTING HEARING FOR 

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 

[Docket No. 11] 

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

Defendants Mia's Nutrition Centers, 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.) The Court denied Plaintiffs ex parte application 

for a temporary restraining order because (1) Plaintiff failed to present specific facts showing that the 

trust assets will be dissipated immediately, before Defendants may be heard in opposition, and (2) 

Plaintiffs attorney did not certify in writing that any effort was made to give notice, or why notice 

should not be required. (Docket No.4.) On September 20, 2011, Plaintiff filed a second Ex Parte 

Application for Temporary Restraining Order. (Docket No.5.) This second Ex Parte Application 

- 1 - llcv2162 

Case 3:11-cv-02162-BEN-JMA Document 12 Filed 09/29/11 Page 1 of 3
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 

was granted on September 21, 2011, because Plaintiff corrected the deficiencies the Court noted in the 

first Ex Parte Application. (Docket No.6.) A hearing on Plaintiffs application for preliminary 

injunction was set for September 28, 2011, at 3 :30 p.m. In addition, Plaintiff was required to post a 

cash or corporate surety bond with the Clerk of the Southern District of California no later than 

4:30 p.m. on September 23,2011, in the sum of $1,500, and to serve Defendants with a copy of the 

order by September 23, 2011, at 5:00 p.m. On September 22, 2011, Plaintiff filed an Ex Parte 

Application to Amend Temporary Restraining Order, which the Court granted the same day. (Docket 

Nos. 7, 8.) On September 23,2011, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction. (Docket No. 

9.) On September 28, 2011, because Plaintiff failed to post bond as required by the September 21 

Order, the Court vacated the hearing on the motion for preliminary injunction, denied the motion for 

preliminary injunction, and dissolved the temporary restraining order. (Docket No. 10.) 

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration ofthe September 28 Order. 

(Docket No. 11.) Plaintiff seeks another temporary restraining order. First, Plaintiff argues that it did 

not post bond because "Plaintiff discovered that the fees required to be paid to the bond company in 

exchange for producing the bond were prohibitive given the relatively small amount of the total 

damages Plaintiff is seeking in this case." (PI. Mot. at 2.) Plaintiff requests that "Plaintiff be allowed 

to simply post the Fifteen Hundred Dollars $1 ,500 directly with the Court, rather than purchase a bond 

and pay exorbitant fees to the bond company, or in the alternative, that the bond be waived." (ld.) 

Second, Plaintiff argues that his attempts to serve Defendants have not yet been successful. 

Although the September 21 Order required that the Defendants be served by September 23,2011, 

Plaintiff indicates in the present motion that the Defendants have in fact not yet been served. 

Third, Plaintiff requests that the September 21 Order granting the temporary restraining order 

be amended a second time. Plaintiff argues that the language "except in the ordinary course of 

business" should be stricken because that language "renders the TRO unintelligible and unenforceable 

by third parties, especially banks, as any bank which acts as custodian for funds belonging to 

Defendants would not be able to distinguish which funds are 'in the ordinary course ofbusiness' and 

which are not. Further, Plaintiff believes that the intent of PAC A was to impose a statutory trust on 

the statutory trustee, the Defendants, against all funds in the control or possession of the Defendants 

and not to distinguish between funds held in the ordinary course of business and other funds." (ld.) 

- 2 - 1 1 cv2 162 

Case 3:11-cv-02162-BEN-JMA Document 12 Filed 09/29/11 Page 2 of 3
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 

Although Plaintiffs proposed order dated September 22,2011 did not contain the language "in the 

ordinary course of business," Plaintiff did not raise this argument in his Ex Parte Application to 

Amend Temporary Restraining Order. 

The Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED. See Religious Tech. Ctr. v. Scott, 869 F .2d 1306, 

1311 (9th Cir. 1989) (Hall, 1., dissenting) ("As a result of the [plaintiffs] actions in pursuing two 

successive applications for injunctive relief ... there is no question but that the courts as well as the 

defendants have been needlessly burdened. The integrity ofthe judicial process would be seriously 

undermined if every litigant could compel the courts to hear and decide repetitive requests for the 

identical relief."). Plaintiff may re-file the motion for preliminary injunction, which is set for hearing 

on November 7. 2011. at 10:30 a.m. Plaintiff shall serve Defendants with a copy of the motion for 

preliminary injunction-if it chooses to re-file the motion-by October 7. 2011, at 5:00 p.m. and 

immediately file a proof of service with the Court. If Plaintiff chooses to not re-file the motion for 

preliminary injunction, the hearing will be vacated. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

40 

DATED: Septembe~, 2011 

-3- IIcv2162 

Case 3:11-cv-02162-BEN-JMA Document 12 Filed 09/29/11 Page 3 of 3