Fresco, LLC. v. Sunshine Fresh Foods, LLC
- James Oetken
- 1:20-cv-08733
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Fresco v. Sunshine Fresh Foods, Judge Oetken granted default judgment, awarding $8,177.69 plus interest and denying fees and costs without prejudice.
Fresco, LLC received a default judgment for $8,177.69 plus prejudgment and postjudgment interest. Sunshine Fresh Foods, LLC and Douglas Diaz were held jointly and severally liable for the damages. Fresco’s request for attorney’s fees and costs was denied without prejudice, subject to renewal with supporting documentation within 30 days.
What happened
In Fresco, LLC. v. Sunshine Fresh Foods, LLC, Fresco said it sold avocados, limes, pineapples, and other perishable agricultural products to Sunshine Fresh Foods, LLC and Douglas Diaz. The defendants were served but did not respond, and the clerk entered their defaults.
The court found that Fresco had adequately stated a New York breach-of-contract claim based on the defendants’ alleged failure to pay. It did not decide whether Fresco adequately stated its separate claim under the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act because the requested relief was the same. The court awarded $8,177.69 in damages, plus nine-percent yearly interest before judgment and legally required interest after judgment.
Judge Oetken granted the motion for default judgment and held Sunshine Fresh Foods and Diaz jointly and separately responsible for the damages. The court denied Fresco’s request for attorney’s fees and costs without prejudice, allowing Fresco to renew that request with supporting documentation within 30 days.
The detailed version
- Fresco, LLC. v. Sunshine Fresh Foods, LLC · No. 1:20-cv-08733
- James Oetken
- Mar. 28, 2022
Background
Fresco alleged that it sold perishable agricultural commodities, including avocados, limes, and pineapples, to Sunshine Fresh Foods, LLC and Douglas Diaz. Fresco asserted claims under the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (PACA) and for breach of contract under New York law. According to the complaint, Sunshine purchased fresh fruits and vegetables on credit from January 2019 through August 2019, received and accepted the goods without objection, and failed to pay. Fresco attached invoices showing the amounts it claimed were owed.
The defendants were served but did not appear or file a responsive pleading. The clerk certified their defaults. Fresco then moved for default judgment.
Liability
The court explained that a default judgment requires the court to determine whether the well-pleaded allegations establish liability as a matter of law. Because the defendants defaulted, the court treated the well-pleaded allegations concerning liability as admitted, but it did not treat the claimed damages as automatically admitted.
The court concluded that Fresco had adequately stated its breach-of-contract claim. The allegations supported the existence of a purchase contract, Fresco’s delivery of the goods, the defendants’ failure to pay, and resulting damages. The court stated that it was unclear whether Fresco had adequately stated its PACA claim because the complaint’s allegations about the defendants’ status and the transaction’s size were conclusory. The court did not decide that issue because the requested relief was the same under both claims and the breach-of-contract claim was sufficient.
Damages and interest
The court found that Fresco supported $8,177.69 in principal damages with invoices. It also found that Fresco adequately alleged that Diaz controlled Sunshine Fresh Foods during the relevant period. The court therefore held Sunshine Fresh Foods and Diaz jointly and severally liable, meaning each could be held responsible for the full amount awarded.
The court awarded prejudgment interest at nine percent per year from October 20, 2020, the complaint’s filing date, through the date judgment was entered. It also stated that Fresco was automatically entitled to postjudgment interest at the federal rate applicable under 28 U.S.C. § 1961(a), calculated from entry of judgment.
Attorney’s fees and costs
The court denied Fresco’s request for attorney’s fees and costs without prejudice and allowed renewal. Fresco had not provided the hours worked or billing rate needed to support attorney’s fees and had not identified the costs it sought. The court stated that any renewed, adequately supported request had to be filed within 30 days after the order.
Disposition
The court granted Fresco’s motion for default judgment, awarded $8,177.69 plus the specified interest against Sunshine Fresh Foods and Diaz, denied the request for attorney’s fees and costs without prejudice to renewal, directed the clerk to enter judgment, and closed the case.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.