Source: http://ca.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20080527_0000829.SCA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2017-04-27 05:28:57
Document Index: 47637239

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 499', '§ 499', '§ 499', '§ 499', '§ 499', '§ 46', '§ 499']

| Sammy's Produce, Inc. v. Hierro's Market & Carniceria
Sammy's Produce, Inc. v. Hierro's Market & Carniceria
SAMMY'S PRODUCE, INC., PLAINTIFF,v.HIERRO'S MARKET & CARNICERIA, INC.; AND EDUARDO HIERRO, DEFENDANTS.
On May 14, 2008, plaintiff Sammy's Produce, Inc. filed a complaint against defendants Hierro's Market & Carniceria, Inc. ("Hierro's Market") and Eduardo Hierro. (Doc. No. 1.) On May 15, 2008, Plaintiff filed an ex parte application for a temporary restraining order ("TRO") enforcing a statutory trust pursuant to Section 5(c) of the Perishable Agriculture Commodities Act ("PACA"), 7 U.S.C. § 499e(c), by restraining the transfer of assets of Hierro's Market and Carniceria, Inc. (Doc. No. 3.) Plaintiff also filed a motion for a preliminary injunction. (Doc. No. 4.) On May 16, 2008, the Court issued an order setting a hearing on Plaintiff's motion for a TRO for May 19, 2008. (Doc. No. 6.) The Court directed Plaintiff to give notice to Defendants of the hearing and instructed Plaintiff to make reasonable efforts to effect service upon Defendants prior to the hearing. (Id.)
On May 19, 2008, the Court held a hearing on Plaintiff's motion for a TRO. Bryan W. Pease appeared for Plaintiff. Defendant Eduardo Hierro appeared with the assistance of an interpreter. The Court granted Plaintiff's motion for a TRO and set a hearing regarding
Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction for May 27, 2008. (Doc. Nos. 7, 8.) On May 27, 2008, Bryan W. Pease appeared on behalf of Plaintiff. For the reasons discussed below, the Court grants Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction.
Plaintiff is a wholesaler of produce. (Decl. of Yan Skwara ISO App. for TRO ("Skwara Decl.") ¶ 3.) Plaintiff and defendant Hierro's Market are both produce "dealers" as defined by PACA. 7 U.S.C. § 499a(b)(6). Plaintiff states that defendant Eduardo Hierro is, and was during the time in question, responsible for the daily operations of Hierro's Market and was in a position of control over the trust assets belonging to Plaintiff. (Skwara Decl. ¶ 4.) Plaintiff alleges that between June 8, 2007 and July 27, 2007, Plaintiff sold and delivered to Defendants wholesale quantities of produce worth $96,547.59. (Id. ¶ 6.) Defendants provided to Plaintiff several checks that were dishonored by the bank due to insufficient funds. (Id. ¶ 12.) Plaintiff has provided the Court with copies of outstanding invoices for produce sold and delivered to Defendants, as well as copies of checks that were dishonored for insufficient funds. (Skwara Decl., Exs. 1, 2.) At the May 19, 2008 hearing on Plaintiff's motion for a TRO, Mr. Hierro stated that he intends to pay Plaintiff but lacks adequate funds at the present time, and therefore desires an agreement regarding monthly payments. Mr. Hierro acknowledged that his signature appeared on many of the invoices submitted by Plaintiff but disputed other invoices.
A. Statutory Trust Under PACA
Congress enacted PACA in 1930 to "suppress unfair and fraudulent practices in the marketing of fruits and vegetables in interstate and foreign commerce." 49 Fed. Reg. at 45737. PACA "provides . . . aid to [agricultural] traders in enforcing their contracts." Id. In 1984, Congress amended PACA to insure that suppliers of produce are paid by providing for the imposition of a statutory trust on all produce-related assets. 7 U.S.C. § 499e(c)(2). Under PACA, "perishable agricultural commodities, inventories of food or other derivative products, and any receivables or proceeds from the sale of such commodities or products, are to be held in a non-segregated floating trust for the benefit of unpaid sellers. Tanimura & Antle, Inc. v. Packed Fresh Produce, Inc., 222 F.3d 132, 136 (3d Cir. 2000). The produce buyer is the trustee of a statutory trust under PACA. Id. PACA requires that the trust be maintained for the benefit of the suppliers, sellers or agents who provided the commodities until full payment has been made. 7 U.S.C. § 499e(c)(2). In providing for the imposition of this statutory trust, Congress intended to provide "a self-help tool that will enable [sellers of produce] to protect themselves against the abnormal risk of losses resulting from slow-pay and no-pay practices by buyers or receivers of fruits and vegetables." 49 Fed. Reg. at 45737.
Under PACA, failure to maintain the trust assets and to make full payment promptly to the trust beneficiary is unlawful. 7 U.S.C. § 499b(4). Produce dealers must "maintain trust assets in a manner that such assets are freely available to satisfy outstanding obligations to sellers of perishable agricultural commodities." 7 C.F.R. § 46.46(e)(1). PACA prohibits acts or omissions, including dissipation of trust assets or impairment of a seller's right to obtain payment, that are inconsistent with this duty. Id. PACA provides that the "district courts of the United States are vested with jurisdiction specifically to entertain . . . actions by trust beneficiaries to enforce payment from the trust." 7 U.S.C. § 499e(c)(5).
B. Preliminary Injunction -- Legal Standard
A plaintiff is entitled to a preliminary injunction when the plaintiff demonstrates a strong likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm if injunctive relief is not granted, that the threatened injury to the plaintiff outweighs whatever damage the proposed injunction might cause to the opposing party, and that the issuance of the injunction will not be adverse to the public interest. See Regents of Univ. of Cal. v. ABC, Inc., 747 F.2d 511, 515 (9th Cir. 1984). Alternatively, in the Ninth Circuit a plaintiff may be entitled to a preliminary injunction by establishing "the existence of serious questions going to the merits and that the balance of hardships tips sharply in his favor." See Roe v. Anderson, 134 F.3d 1400, 1402 (9th Cir. 1998). These alternative formulations "represent two points on a sliding scale in which the required degree of irreparable harm increases as the probability of success decreases." Id.; see Clear Channel Outdoor Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 340 F.3d 810, 813 (9th Cir. 2003).
C. Plaintiff's Motion Demonstrates That Injunctive Relief Is Warranted
Here, the Court concludes that Plaintiff's complaint, motion and supporting materials demonstrate a strong likelihood of success on the merits, that Plaintiff will suffer irreparable harm if injunctive relief is not granted, that the threatened injury to Plaintiff outweighs whatever damage injunctive relief might cause to Defendants, and that the issuance of an injunction will not be adverse ...