708 F.3d 33
1st Cir.2013Background
- 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.
Issues
| 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. |
Key Cases Cited
- 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)