S. Katzman Produce Inc. v. Abraham Produce Corp.

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedDecember 19, 2022
Docket1:22-cv-10108
StatusUnknown

This text of S. Katzman Produce Inc. v. Abraham Produce Corp. (S. Katzman Produce Inc. v. Abraham Produce Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
S. Katzman Produce Inc. v. Abraham Produce Corp., (S.D.N.Y. 2022).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

S. KATZMAN PRODUCE INC., Case No. 22-cv-10108 (VSB)

Plaintiff,

- against -

ABRAHAM PRODUCE CORP. t/a H LEE a/t/a H LEE TRUCKING and NAM H. LEE,

Defendants.

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ORDER AND ORDER ESTABLISHING PACA TRUST CLAIMS PROCEDURE AND GRANTING RELATED RELIEF

Plaintiff S. Katzman Produce Inc. (“Plaintiff” or “Katzman”) seeks an order enjoining defendants Abraham Produce Corp. trading as H Lee also trading as H Lee Trucking (“Abraham”) and Nam H. Lee (“Lee”) (collectively, “Defendants”) and their customers, agents, employees, officers, directors, successors, subsidiaries, related entities, assigns, and banking institutions from taking any action to assign, transfer, convey, spend or dissipate funds or other assets in their possession that are subject to the statutory trust established by the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act, 7 U.S.C. § 499a, et seq. (“PACA”), directing and requiring Defendants to account for the assets and liabilities of Abraham and its affiliated entities, and establishing a PACA Claims Procedure whereby Abraham’s assets can be liquidated and claims against Abraham can be determined in the context of this action. Upon consideration of the order to show cause entered by the Court on November 30, 2022 (Doc. 14) (the “Order”), the documents submitted by Plaintiff in support (Docs. 1, 6–10) (collectively, the “Application”), and the hearing held on December 9, 2022, the Court, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 65, makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law: 1. Plaintiff is engaged in the business of buying and selling wholesale quantities of produce in interstate commerce and is licensed as a dealer under PACA. Declaration of Gary Allen in Support of Emergency Motions for Relief Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 65 (Doc. 8) (“Allen Decl.”) at ¶ 3; Exhibit A.

2. Abraham is and/or was engaged in the business of buying and selling wholesale quantities of produce in interstate commerce and was licensed as a dealer under PACA at all relevant times. Allen Decl. at ¶ 4; Exhibit B. 3. Plaintiff sold to Defendants various wholesale lots of produce, which had been moved in interstate commerce or contemplation thereof, worth $447,581.00, of which $442,350.50 remains unpaid. Allen Decl. at ¶ 8; Exhibit C. 4. Defendants accepted the produce received from Plaintiff without protest. Allen Decl. at ¶ 9. 5. Plaintiff preserved it interest in the PACA trust in the amount of $442,350.50 by sending invoices to Defendants that contained the language

required by 7 U.S.C. § 499e(c)(4). Allen Decl. at ¶ 10; Exhibit C. 6. Defendants have refused to make full payment for the produce despite repeated demands. Allen Decl. at ¶ 11. 7. On November 23, 2022, Plaintiff learned that Abraham ceased operations without making payment to numerous other produce suppliers. Allen Decl. at ¶ 11. 8. On November 28, 2022, Defendants’ attorney told Plaintiff’s attorney that Abraham had ceased operations despite owing as many as 30 produce suppliers several million dollars for produce Abraham had received from its suppliers. Declaration of Gregory Brown in Support of Emergency Motions for Injunctive Relief and Certification of Counsel Why Notice Should Not Be Required Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 65 (Doc. 9) (“Brown Decl.”) at ¶ 5. 9. Defendant’s counsel acknowledged that Abraham had no funds

coming in, less than $100,000.00 in its bank account and that Abraham and Lee have no other assets. Brown Decl. at ¶ 6. 10. Defendants were served with the Order and the Application as required by this Court. (Doc. 15.) 11. Defendants have other produce suppliers that are likely to assert an interest in the PACA statutory trust (the “PACA Trust Beneficiaries”). Based on the factual showings made by Plaintiff, it appears that the PACA trust assets in Defendants’ possession have been dissipated and are further threatened with dissipation. Therefore, the Court finds that the requirements for the issuance of a preliminary injunction are met1: (1) there is a likelihood that Plaintiff will be successful on the merits of its claims; (2) there

is a likelihood of irreparable harm to Plaintiff and other similarly situated PACA trust creditors if the injunctive relief does not issue; (3) the balance of the equities favors Plaintiff, whose funds may be dissipated, whereas there would appear to be little harm to Defendants if the injunctive relief is granted, since Defendants are only ordered to do that which they are required to do under the statute (i.e., maintain the trust assets as required by the statute and pay the undisputed debt or, failing that, turn over documents as hereinafter set forth); and (4) the public interest would be furthered by the granting of injunctive relief, as PACA states that its trust provisions were promulgated to benefit the public interest that suffers due to non-payment for produce.

1 Winter v. Natural Res. Defense Council, 129 S. Ct. 365, 374, 172 L. Ed. 2d 249 (2008); Salinger v. Colting, 607 F.3d 68, 79 (2d Cir.2010). In addition, Defendants’ PACA Trust Beneficiaries hold a beneficial interest in the single pool of PACA trust assets, defined by applicable law and regulation as: (1) perishable agricultural commodities received by Abraham in all transactions; (2) all inventories of food or other products derived from such perishable agricultural commodities; (3) all receivables or proceeds from the

sale of such commodities and food or products derived therefrom; and (4) all assets commingled with, purchased with or otherwise acquired with such proceeds (the “PACA Trust Assets”). 7 U.S.C. § 499e(c)(2). Applicable case law establishes that assets purchased with funds held in an account containing comingled proceeds from the sale of produce and non-produce items are trust assets.2 Based on the foregoing facts and conclusions of law, the Court has determined that the entry of the following Order is reasonable and necessary to: (1) provide a procedural framework for the orderly liquidation of the PACA Trust Assets; (2) provide for the review, qualification and satisfaction of any and all claims asserted by PACA Trust Beneficiaries against the PACA Trust Assets (“PACA Trust Claims”); (3) maximize the recovery for all unpaid PACA Trust

Beneficiaries; and (4) ensure the rights of all potential claimants are efficiently addressed in a single proceeding without the expense of administering multiple separate actions to enforce Defendants’ obligations to all potential PACA Trust Beneficiaries. Accordingly, this 19 day of December, 2022, it is ORDERED, that Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction and PACA Claims Procedure is granted; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that Defendants, their customers, agents, employees,

2 A & J Produce Corp. v. Bronx Overall Economic Development Corp., 542 F.3d 54 (2d Cir. 2008); In re Kornblum & Co., Inc., 81 F.3d 280 (2d Cir. 1996); Chiquita Fresh N. Am., LLC v.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
S. Katzman Produce Inc. v. Abraham Produce Corp., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/s-katzman-produce-inc-v-abraham-produce-corp-nysd-2022.