S & S Packing, Inc. v. Spring Lake Rattle Ranch, Inc., 702 F. App'x 874

Background

Spring Lake Blueberry Farm contracted S&S Packing (Mills) to pack and market its 2010 blueberry crop; S&S pooled receipts from multiple growers and sold almost exclusively through SunBelle.
Spring Lake filed a PACA complaint alleging improper packing-charge calculations, double commissions (S&S and SunBelle), flawed pooling apportionment, poor invoicing and recordkeeping; claimed $109,295.65 in damages.
A USDA judicial officer found recordkeeping and invoicing violations and, deeming S&S’s records unreliable, used USDA Market News prices to calculate damages (capped at Spring Lake’s claimed amount); S&S posted bond and sought de novo review in district court.
The district court affirmed the judicial officer, including reliance on Market News and disallowing a second commission deduction to Spring Lake; S&S appealed to the Eleventh Circuit.
On appeal the Eleventh Circuit rejected a contract-based traceability requirement for pooled sales, held that damages cannot be awarded for recordkeeping violations absent proof those violations caused harm, reversed use of Market News where actual contract price was reasonably ascertainable, but affirmed that S&S could not deduct SunBelle’s commission absent specific contractual authorization.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether contract/regs required traceability of individual growers' berries through to SunBelle sales	Spring Lake argued contract/regulations required showing what SunBelle paid for each grower’s flats	S&S argued pooling agreement did not require per-lot traceability and pooled receipts could be apportioned by S&S	Court: No traceability requirement — contract and 7 C.F.R. §46.32(b) permit pooling and do not mandate tracing when pooling is agreed
Whether recordkeeping violations justify damages and use of Market News prices	Spring Lake relied on record deficiencies to justify disregarding S&S’s prices and using Market News	S&S produced SunBelle settlement sheets showing actual receipts; argued Market News inappropriate where price is ascertainable	Court: Damages cannot be awarded for recordkeeping violations absent proof they caused injury; Market News may not supplant an ascertainable contract price
Whether Market News prices may replace actual sale price when sale occurred and price is ascertainable	Spring Lake/judicial officer used Market News because of alleged unreliable records	S&S showed SunBelle receipts and data permitting computation of actual per-flat/per-pound prices	Court: Where parties agreed price, sale occurred, and actual price is reasonably ascertainable, Market News may not be used to calculate damages
Whether S&S could deduct SunBelle’s commission (double commission)	Spring Lake argued contract did not specifically authorize use of a commission merchant or double commission	S&S argued contract authorized use of "marketing partners" and net sales price less 8% commission, implying authorization	Court: Affirmed district court — contract did not specifically authorize engaging a commission merchant; S&S could not deduct SunBelle’s commission

Key Cases Cited

Garcia-Celestino v. Ruiz Harvesting, Inc., 843 F.3d 1276 (11th Cir. 2016) (standard of review cited for district court findings and law)
Bocchi Americas Assocs. Inc. v. Commerce Fresh Mktg. Inc., 515 F.3d 383 (5th Cir.) (applies state law where PACA is silent)
C.H. Robinson Co. v. Trust Co. Bank, N.A., 952 F.2d 1311 (11th Cir. 1992) (application of general trust principles in PACA context)
Frito-Lay, Inc. v. Willoughby, 863 F.2d 1029 (D.C. Cir.) (treats USDA findings as rebuttable presumptions in de novo review)
Katz Deli of Aventura, Inc. v. Waterways Plaza, LLC, 183 So. 3d 374 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) (Florida law favoring expectation damages; damages need reasonable certainty)
Combined Prof'l Res., Inc. v. Limeco, Inc., 801 F. Supp. 664 (S.D. Fla. 1992) (PACA does not permit automatic damages for regulatory violations)