PCH Farms, LP v. America Berry Farms, Inc.
- Susan Van Keulen
- 5:20-cv-01122
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In PCH Farms v. America Berry Farms, Judge Davila denied PCH Farms’ request for a temporary restraining order because it showed no immediate harm.
PCH Farms, LP and defendants America Berry Farms, Inc., Adrian Mendez, and Bertha Fernandez.
What happened
In PCH Farms, LP v. America Berry Farms, Inc., PCH Farms alleged that it was owed $58,968 for produce sold to the defendants and that the defendants’ financial problems threatened its claim under the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act.
PCH Farms asked the court to require the defendants to place the money, interest, and attorney fees in a separate trust and to stop them from dissipating their assets. The court said PCH Farms had not explained why emergency relief was needed in February 2020 when the alleged bankruptcy discussions and tax liens had occurred months earlier.
The court denied the temporary restraining order application because PCH Farms had not shown a significant immediate threat of harm. The order was signed by United States District Judge Edward J. Davila.
The detailed version
- PCH Farms, LP v. America Berry Farms, Inc. · No. 5:20-cv-01122
- Susan Van Keulen
- Feb. 14, 2020
Background
PCH Farms, LP filed an ex parte application for a temporary restraining order against America Berry Farms, Inc., Adrian Mendez, and Bertha Fernandez. The dispute arose under the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act, which the opinion describes as establishing a statutory trust for certain produce-related assets. PCH Farms alleged that it grew and sold several shipments of produce to the defendants in August and September 2018 for $58,968, that the balance remained unpaid, and that the defendants’ financial condition jeopardized its trust claim.
PCH Farms relied in part on a February 2019 representation that the defendants had begun considering Chapter 11 bankruptcy and on allegations concerning events in May 2019. It sought an order requiring the defendants to deposit the outstanding amount, plus interest and attorney fees, in a separate trust and prohibiting them from dissipating their assets.
Legal standard
The court stated that the same standard applies to a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction. The requesting party must show a likelihood of success on the merits, likely irreparable harm without immediate relief, that the balance of equities favors relief, and that an injunction would serve the public interest. For a temporary restraining order, the party must show a significant threat of irreparable injury. The court also noted that delay in seeking emergency relief may indicate that no immediate threat exists.
Court’s reasoning and ruling
The court found that PCH Farms had not shown an immediate threat of harm. The defendants’ alleged consideration of bankruptcy had occurred about 12 months earlier, and the tax liens had been recorded as recently as May 2019, but PCH Farms did not explain why a temporary restraining order was necessary at the time of its application. The court therefore found that PCH Farms had not satisfied the irreparable-harm requirement and denied the application on that basis.
The opinion states that the application was denied. It does not decide whether PCH Farms ultimately was entitled to the alleged unpaid amount or whether the defendants violated the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act. The opinion text says the case was reassigned to the undersigned on February 14, 2020 and is signed by Edward J. Davila, although the supplied metadata identifies Susan Van Keulen as the judge.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.