Alphas Company, Inc. v. William H. Kopke, Jr., Inc., 708 F.3d 33

Kopke brought PACA reparation claim against Alphas for unpaid purchase price; district court administered award.
Alphas sought appeal in federal district court within 30 days of the order and filed Bond No. 1.
Bond No. 1 was backdated and allegedly failed to meet timing, amount, and indemnity covenants.
Kopke moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction due to inadequate bond.
District court dismissed; the First Circuit reviews de novo whether bond requirements are jurisdictional.
Court concludes PACA bond requirements are mandatory and jurisdictional; failure to file proper bond defeats jurisdiction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Are PACA bond requirements mandatory and jurisdictional?	Alphas argues bond rules are nonjurisdictional and flexible.	Kopke asserts bond compliance is a jurisdictional prerequisite for review.	Bond requirements are mandatory and jurisdictional.
Does Bond No. 1 meet the PACA bond requirements?	Kopke contends Bond No. 1 is untimely, underfunded, and lacks indemnities.	Alphas argues defects are not substantial and superseding Bond No. 2 cures issues.	Bond No. 1 is defective; timely, proper bond required for jurisdiction.

Kessenich v. CFTC, 684 F.2d 88 (D.C. Cir. 1982) (bond requirements viewed as jurisdictional)
Chidsey v. Geurin, 443 F.2d 584 (6th Cir. 1971) (PACA bond requirements jurisdictional)
Miloslavich v. Frutas del Valle de Guadalupe, 637 F. Supp. 434 (S.D. Cal. 1986) (appeal bond safeguards payment of costs and judgment)
Alphas Co. v. Dan Tudor & Sons Sales, Inc., 679 F.3d 35 (1st Cir. 2012) (bond compliance required for jurisdictional review)
Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Muchnick, 130 S. Ct. 1237 (2010) (distinguishes jurisdictional vs. nonjurisdictional requirements)