Lester Altman Produce Company, Incorporated. v. Fruit Fresh Up, Incorporated.
1:13-cv-00213
W.D.N.Y.Mar 1, 2013Background
- Altman filed PACA complaint and moved ex parte for TRO and preliminary injunction on Feb 27, 2013.
- Invoices cover 16 shipments of seedless watermelons July 27–Sept 30, 2011 totaling $43,492.50 with PACA trust language on each invoice.
- Defendants allegedly failed to pay, despite multiple promises, indicating possible dissipation of PACA trust proceeds.
- PACA creates a trust for unpaid produce suppliers; dissipation may prejudice recovery and constitutes irreparable harm.
- Court notes urgency and refers case to Judge Arcara; recommends granting an immediate TRO to preserve the status quo and scheduling further proceedings.
- Standards for TROs and preliminary injunction require likelihood of success, irreparable harm, and balancing equities; court finds sufficient basis to preserve status quo pending further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether TRO should be granted to preserve PACA trust funds | Altman demonstrates risk of dissipation and likelihood of nonpayment | Santora or Fruit Fresh Up contest payment viability and ongoing operations | Yes; TRO warranted to preserve status quo pending further proceedings. |
| Whether Altman has likely to succeed on merits regarding PACA trust and payment | Plaintiff has shown trust eligibility and nonpayment undermining PACA trust | Defendants dispute immediacy or sufficiency of evidence | Likely to succeed on the merits; sufficient showing of PACA trust and nonpayment. |
| Whether the relief serves public interest without harming defendants | Preventing dissipation protects all unpaid suppliers under PACA | TRO could impose burden on defendants | Public interest supported; TRO appropriate to prevent dissipation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (U.S. 2008) (standard for preliminary injunction aligns with TRO)
- Procter & Gamble Co. v. Ultreo, Inc., 574 F. Supp. 2d 339 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (preliminary injunction elements must be shown by a preponderance)
- Tanimura & Antle, Inc. v. Packed Fresh Produce, Inc., 222 F.3d 132 (3d Cir. 2000) (high probability of success on merits in PACA enforcement)
- A. Ferlito Farms, Inc. v. Empire Fresh Cuts, LLC, 2010 WL 3909521 (N.D.N.Y. 2010) (dissipation of PACA trust satisfies irreparable harm when recovery is unlikely)