A&B Alternative Mktg. Inc. v. Int'l Quality Fruit Inc., 35 F.4th 913

A&B Alternative Marketing sued International Quality Fruit (IQF), H&A International Fruit (H&A), Sheroz Mamayev, and Alon Maman under the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (PACA) for unpaid produce; defendants did not timely answer and default was entered.
The District Court entered default judgment for A&B and denied defendants’ Rule 12(b)(1) motion, stating PACA statutory elements are merits questions, not jurisdictional limits.
A&B alleged IQF and H&A purchased over $230,000 annually and/or at least 2,000 lbs in a day (the PACA "dealer" thresholds) and that the produce originated in Pennsylvania, supporting interstate commerce.
Defendants appealed, arguing the PACA "dealer" definition and the "interstate or foreign commerce" requirement are jurisdictional — i.e., the federal court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction.
The Second Circuit treated those contentions under Supreme Court precedent as nonjurisdictional statutory requirements and alternatively reviewed whether the District Court abused its discretion in entering default judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether PACA's "dealer" definition (7 U.S.C. § 499a(b)(6)) is jurisdictional	A&B: requirement goes to merits; complaint alleges dealer thresholds met	Defs: lack of dealer status means no federal jurisdiction	Not jurisdictional; it is a merits element. A&B alleged facts satisfy dealer definition; default judgment stands.
Whether transactions were in "interstate or foreign commerce" (7 U.S.C. § 499a(b)(3),(8))	A&B: alleged interstate commerce and submitted evidence showing produce purchased in Pennsylvania	Defs: transactions were not interstate so court lacked jurisdiction	Not jurisdictional; allegations and affidavit support interstate commerce; default judgment not an abuse of discretion.

Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500 (statutory limitations not jurisdictional unless Congress says so)
Lexmark Int’l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 572 U.S. 118 (absence of a valid cause of action is not a subject-matter jurisdiction issue)
Zipes v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 455 U.S. 385 (statutory provisions lacking jurisdictional language are read as nonjurisdictional)
Lotes Co. v. Hon Hai Precision Indus. Co., 753 F.3d 395 (requirements that define a claim go to the merits, not adjudicative power)
City of New York v. Mickalis Pawn Shop, LLC, 645 F.3d 114 (standard for reviewing district court’s entry of default judgment)
Bricklayers & Allied Craftworkers Loc. 2 v. Moulton Masonry & Const., LLC, 779 F.3d 182 (a party’s default concedes well-pleaded allegations)