Produce Pay, Inc. v. FVF Distributors Inc.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 PRODUCE PAY, INC., Case No.: 20-cv-517-MMA (RBM) 10 ORDER ADOPTING IN PART AND 11 Plaintiff, MODIFYING IN PART REPORT v. AND RECOMMENDATION OF 12 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE FVF DISTRIBUTORS INC., et al., JUDGE; 13 [Doc. No. 55] 14 Defendants. ORDER GRANTING IN PART 15 PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ORDER ENFORCING 16 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

17 [Doc. No. 48] 18

19 20 On March 19, 2020, Produce Pay, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) initiated this action against 21 FVF Distributors Inc. and F. David Avila (collectively, “Defendants”) pursuant to the 22 Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act, 7 U.S.C. §§ 499a et seq. See Doc. No. 1. In 23 October 2020, the parties participated in an Early Neutral Evaluation conference before 24 United States Magistrate Judge Ruth Bermudez Montenegro wherein the case settled. 25 See Doc. No. 43. Thereafter, the parties executed a settlement agreement (the 26 “Settlement Agreement”). See Doc. No. 48-2 at 15–18.1 Plaintiff now seeks to enforce 27 28 1 the Settlement Agreement and asks the Court to enter judgment against Defendants 2 consistent with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. See Doc. No. 48. The matter was 3 referred to Judge Montenegro for preparation of a Report and Recommendation pursuant 4 to Title 28, § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72. Judge Montenegro has 5 issued a thorough and well-reasoned Report recommending that the motion be granted in 6 its entirety. See Doc. No. 55. 7 Pursuant to Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. 8 § 636(b)(1), the Court must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report 9 . . . to which objection is made,” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, 10 the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate [judge].” 28 U.S.C. 11 § 636(b)(1); see also United States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1989). 12 Objections to the Report and Recommendation were due no later than June 1, 2021. See 13 Doc. No. 55 at 11. To date, no objections have been filed, and the time for doing so has 14 expired. See Docket. 15 The Court finds that Judge Montenegro has issued an accurate Report and well- 16 reasoned recommendation that the Court enforce the Settlement Agreement and award 17 attorney’s fees to Plaintiff’s counsel. Specifically, the Court agrees with Judge 18 Montenegro’s analysis and finds that the parties knowingly and voluntarily entered into a 19 valid and binding Settlement Agreement under California law. See Doc. No. 55 at 6. 20 The Court therefore ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation to that extent and 21 GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to enforce the Settlement Agreement. Moreover, as Judge 22 Montenegro aptly concluded, the Settlement Agreement provides for attorney’s fees 23 incurred in enforcing the Settlement Agreement and thus Plaintiff is entitled to them. See 24 id. at 11. Therefore, the Court also ADOPTS that portion of the Report and 25 Recommendation and AWARDS attorney’s fees in the amount of $2,250 to Maurice 26 Wutscher LLP. 27 The Court, however, declines to enter judgment against Defendants in the total 28 amount of $42,250 at this time. Plaintiff’s request is premature. The issue of the 1 Settlement Agreement’s validity and enforceability is distinct from Defendants’ alleged 2 breach and Plaintiff’s entitlement to judgment. The latter has not been sufficiently 3 briefed. Further, even assuming Plaintiff demonstrated that Defendants breached the 4 Settlement Agreement, Plaintiff does not explain how such a breach entitles it to 5 immediate judgment for the full amount under either the terms of the Settlement 6 Agreement or California law. Moreover, it appears that Defendants have until July 13, 7 2021 to tender full payment. See Doc. No. 48-2 at 16. And if Defendants do so, the 8 terms set forth in paragraph 7 of the Settlement Agreement seem to indicate that the 9 parties will stipulate to dismissal of the action in lieu of seeking entry of judgment. See 10 id. at 17. 11 Accordingly, the Court MODIFIES the Report and Recommendation and 12 DENIES Plaintiff’s request for judgment without prejudice. The Court instead 13 DIRECTS the parties to contact Judge Montenegro’s chambers, on or before June 15, 14 2021, to schedule a further Settlement Disposition Conference. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 Dated: June 9, 2021 17 _____________________________ 18 HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28