United States District Court, S.D. California
(1) ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER; (2) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION SHOULD NOT ISSUE; (3) SCHEDULING PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION HEARING [Doc. No. 2]
MARILYN L. HUFF, District Judge.
On July 20, 2015, Plaintiff TQM Food Services, Inc. ("Plaintiff") filed a complaint against Defendants Freedom Market, Inc., Salem Somo, and Feddwon Somo (collectively, "Defendants"), alleging violations of the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act ("PACA"), 7 U.S.C. § 499e(c)(5). (Doc. No. 1.) Also on July 20, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion for a temporary restraining order. (Doc. No. 2.) The Court ordered Plaintiff to serve Defendants with a copy of the complaint, a copy of the motion for a temporary restraining order, and a copy of this order no later than July 21, 2015 at 12:00 p.m. (Doc. No. 4.) Defendants did not file an opposition. The Court held a hearing on Plaintiff's motion on July 24, 2015 at 10:30 a.m. in Courtroom 15A. Attorney Mitch Wallis appeared for Plaintiff. Defendants did not appear. For the reasons that follow, the Court grants Plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order. The Court also orders Defendants to show cause by July 31, 2015 why a preliminary injunction should not issue and schedules a preliminary injunction hearing for August 11, 2015 at 10:30 a.m. in Courtroom 15A.
According to the complaint, Plaintiff is a company that buys and sells wholesale quantities of perishable agricultural commodities. (Doc. No. 1 at ¶ 1.) Plaintiff states that was licensed as a dealer under PACA at all relevant times. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Salem and Feddwon Somo are shareholders and officers of Freedom Market, Inc. ("Somos"), a business that buys wholesale quantities of produce in interstate commerce and is subject to PACA. (Id. at ¶ 2.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendants had control over PACA trust assets belonging to Plaintiff. (Id.)
Plaintiff states that it delivered $5, 005.04 worth of perishable agricultural commodities to Defendants between December 3, 2014 and December 8, 2014. (Id. at ¶¶ 1, 4.) Plaintiff alleges that it sent invoices containing the language required by 7 U.S.C. § 499e(c)(4) to Defendants. (Doc. No. 2-1 at 4-5.) According to Plaintiff, Defendants do not dispute the debt but have failed to repay Plaintiff. (Doc. No. 1 at ¶¶ 8, 9.) Plaintiff also alleges that Defendants told Plaintiff that they lacked sufficient funds to pay the debt. (Id. at ¶ 9.)
Plaintiff asks the Court to issue a temporary restraining order against Defendants pursuant to Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Doc. No. 2 at 1.) Specifically, Plaintiff asks the Court to restrain the transfer of and direct to Plaintiff any and all of Defendants' assets, not to exceed $5, 005.04 plus interest, costs, and attorney fees. 7 U.S.C. § 499e(c). (Id.; Doc. No. 2-1 at 1.)
I. Legal Standards
PACA provides for the creation of a statutory trust "in which a produce dealer holds produce-related assets as a fiduciary until full payment is made to the produce seller." Bowlin & Son, Inc. v. San Joaquin Food Serv. (In re San Joaquin Food Serv., Inc.), 958 F.2d 938, 939 (9th Cir. 1992). "The trust automatically arises in favor of a produce seller upon delivery of produce and is for the benefit of all unpaid suppliers or sellers involved in the transaction until full payment of the sums owing has been received. C&E Enters., Inc. v. Milton Poulos, Inc. (In re Milton Poulos, Inc.), 947 F.2d 1351, 1352 (9th Cir. 1991).
Plaintiff requests a temporary restraining order to preserve PACA trust assets. (Doc. No. 2.) The standard for a temporary restraining order is "substantially identical" to the standard for granting a preliminary injunction. Stuhlbarg Int'l Sales Co. v. John D. Brush & Co., 240 F.3d 832, 839 n.7 (9th Cir. 2001). A preliminary injunction is "an extraordinary remedy that may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief." Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 22 (2008); accord Earth Island Inst. v. Carlton, 626 F.3d 462, 469 (9th Cir. 2010). A party seeking preliminary relief "must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest." Winter, 555 U.S. at 20. In the Ninth Circuit, the court may apply a sliding scale test, under which "the elements of the preliminary injunction test are balanced, so that a stronger showing of one element may offset a weaker showing of another." Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1131 (9th Cir. 2011); see also id. at 1132 ("The serious questions approach survives the Winter decision when applied as part of the four-element Winter test.").
A. Likelihood of Success on the Merits
Plaintiff has shown that it is likely to succeed on the merits of its PACA claim. Winter, 555 U.S. at 20. PACA applies to "perishable agricultural commodit[ies], " defined as "[f]resh fruits and fresh vegetables of every kind and character." 7 U.S.C. § 499a(b)(4). Plaintiff states that it is a licensed dealer under PACA and sells wholesale quantities of perishable agricultural commodities. (Doc. No. 1 at ¶ 1.) Moreover, the PACA trust provisions create a remedy for a produce dealer if a purchaser fails to pay for certain perishable goods. 7 U.S.C. § 499e(c). Plaintiff states that it sent perishable agricultural commodities worth $5, 005.04 to Defendants between December 3 and December 8, 2014, and alleges that Defendants have failed to pay. (Id. at ¶¶ 1, 4, 8, 9; Doc. No. 2-1 at 2.) Finally, the trust provisions of PACA provide that an unpaid, licensed supplier can preserve the benefits of the trust if it uses its ordinary invoice statements to give notice of its intent to preserve the trust. 7 U.S.C. § 499e(c)(4). ...