Kings River Packing LP v. WKS AG Consultants Inc.
1:25-cv-00022
E.D. Cal.Apr 2, 2025Background
- Kings River Packing LP and other fruit sellers allege that WKS AG Consultants, Inc. (Top Shelf) and its CFO failed to pay for perishable agricultural commodities sold to them between March and August 2024.
- Plaintiffs claim a total unpaid amount of $809,151.25 (plus interest) and seek enforcement of their trust rights under the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (PACA).
- Trinity Fruit Company also sold $119,084.90 in produce to Top Shelf and claims it has not been paid.
- Trinity Fruit filed a motion to intervene as a plaintiff to protect its interest in the PACA trust assets in March 2025.
- No parties opposed the intervention, and the case is at an early procedural stage (no scheduling conference held yet).
- The court considered whether Trinity Fruit’s claims meet the requirements for intervention as of right under Rule 24(a).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Trinity Fruit can intervene under Rule 24(a) | Trinity has a protectable PACA trust interest | No opposition presented | Trinity's motion to intervene is granted |
| Timeliness of the intervention motion | Motion is timely (early stage, no prejudice) | No opposition presented | Motion is timely |
| Whether Trinity Fruit's interest is adequately represented | Plaintiffs’ and Trinity’s interests may diverge over PACA trust funds | No opposition presented | Representation may be inadequate |
| Practical impairment if intervention is denied | Denial would impede Trinity’s ability to claim from the trust | No opposition presented | Practical impairment exists without intervention |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Milton Poulos, Inc., 947 F.2d 1351 (9th Cir. 1991) (PACA trust provisions establish a fiduciary obligation for dealers until payment is made to sellers)
- Country Best v. Christopher Ranch, LLC, 361 F.3d 629 (11th Cir. 2004) (All unpaid PACA trust beneficiaries share the same priority in trust funds)
- Mountain Top Condominium Ass’n v. Dave Stabbert Master Builder, Inc., 72 F.3d 361 (3d Cir. 1995) (Intervenor has sufficient interest when claiming an identifiable stake in funds at issue)
- Sierra Club v. United States EPA, 995 F.2d 1478 (9th Cir. 1993) (Four-factor test for Rule 24(a) intervention as of right)