United States District Court

for the

Southern District of Florida

Produce Pay, Inc., Plaintiff,

v.

Agrosale, Inc. and others, 

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil Action No. 20-22585-Civ-Scola

Order Regarding Reports and Recommendations

Plaintiff Produce Pay, Inc., commenced the main litigation in this case to 

recover amounts it claimed it was owed by Defendant Agrosale, Inc., and various 

Agrosale principals (collectively, “Agrosale”), for shipments of malanga, a 

Caribbean root vegetable, that Produce Pay said Agrosale failed to pay for. 

(Compl., ECF No. 1.) Produce Pay explained that it did not itself sell the malanga 

to Agrosale but, instead, bought the account receivables from another company, 

Comercializadora Agropecuaria del Tropico, S.A. de C.V. (“Tropico”), which had 

previously contracted with Agrosale for the delivery and sale of the malanga. (Id. 

at ¶¶ 14–16.) Agrosale, in responding to the complaint, at the same time lodged a 

purported third-party complaint against Caribbean Produce Exchange, LLC, and 

its alleged principals, Gualberto Rodriguez Rodriguez and Gualberto Rodriguez 

Feliciano III (collectively, “Caribbean Produce”). (ECF No. 23.) Agrosale said it 

sold the malanga it ordered from Tropico to Caribbean Produce, but that 

Caribbean Produce still owes Agrosale $141,233.61. Caribbean Produce, arguing 

that it was not a proper third-party defendant in this case, moved for dismissal 

of Agrosale’s complaint against it (ECF No. 42), which the Court granted (ECF 

No. 73). At the same time, the Court also denied Agrosale’s request to amend the 

third-party complaint, finding amendment futile. (Id.) Thereafter, Agrosale 

sought the Court’s reconsideration of the dismissal, as well as the Court’s denial 

of Agrosale’s motion for leave to amend (Agrosale’s Mot., ECF No. 75), which the 

Court denied (ECF No. 85). In the meantime, Caribbean Produce filed a motion 

for fees as the prevailing party and two motions for sanctions, complaining about 

Agrosale’s prosecution of its case against Caribbean Produce. (ECF Nos. 80–82.) 

The Court referred those three motions, at issue here, to United States 

Magistrate Judge Edwin G. Torres. (ECF No. 84). 

After Judge Torres entered a report and recommendation (ECF No. 128), 

recommending the denial of Caribbean Produce’s motion for prevailing-party 

fees, Caribbean Produce withdrew its motion (ECF No. 134, 17). Based on that

withdrawal, and without objection from Agrosale, the Court vacates Judge 

Case 1:20-cv-22585-RNS Document 145 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/01/2021 Page 1 of 2
Torres’s report and recommendation (ECF No. 128), regarding that fees motion,

as moot and, thus, denies Caribbean Produce’s underlying motion for fees (ECF 

No. 80) as moot, as well. 

Separately, Judge Torres entered an order (ECF No. 129), denying both of

Caribbean Produce’s motions for sanctions. Caribbean Produce objected to that 

order (ECF No. 134) and Agrosale thereafter timely responded (ECF No. 135). The 

parties quarrel about whether the relief afforded by Judge Torres was dispositive 

and therefore whether, for the purposes of this Court’s review, his decision 

should be characterized as an order or a report and recommendation. For the 

sake of simplicity, the Court deems Judge Torres’s order a report and 

recommendation and has therefore reviewed it, in its entirety, along with the 

record, the parties’ briefing, and the relevant legal authorities, on a de novo 

basis. Along with that review, the Court has carefully considered Caribbean 

Produce’s objections and is unpersuaded that Judge Torres erred in finding 

Agrosale’s conduct did not rise to a sanctionable level. While the Court agrees 

Agrosale’s litigation of this case, with respect to Caribbean Produce’s 

involvement, fell far wide of the goal in many respects, the Court finds no 

showing that it ever strayed completely out of bounds, into actually frivolous or 

bad-faith territory. In sum, after a de novo review, the Court finds, Judge 

Torres’s findings and conclusions of law cogent and compelling and agrees with 

them in every respect.

In sum, then, the Court adopts what the Court construes as Judge 

Torres’s report and recommendations (ECF No. 129), in whole, overruling

Caribbean Produce’s objections (ECF No. 134) and, thus, denying both of 

Caribbean Produce’s motions for sanctions (ECF No. 81, 82). 

Done and ordered at Miami, Florida, on October 29, 2021.

________________________________

Robert N. Scola, Jr.

United States District Judge

Case 1:20-cv-22585-RNS Document 145 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/01/2021 Page 2 of 2