Western Onion Sales, Inc. v. Moriah Produce, Inc., et al.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Anthony J. Battaglia (author)
Analysis
The court prepared for a hearing on the plaintiff's motion for default judgment in a PACA action. It ordered counsel to file an updated billing record and be prepared to address specific legal and factual issues regarding jurisdiction, the merits, and the calculation of damages and fees.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Order to file a supplement with updated itemized billing record“the Court directs counsel to file a supplement that includes an updated itemized billing record in support of the requested attorneys’ fees no later than July 21, 2026.” | agree with court The court is exercising its inherent authority to manage the proceedings and ensure that the request for fees is supported by current and accurate documentation before the hearing. This is a standard procedural directive. |
Direction for counsel to address specific issues at the hearing“Additionally, counsel must be prepared to address the following at the hearing: Merits of Plaintiff’s Claim & Sufficiency of Complaint... Sum of Money at Stake in the Action” | agree with court The court is identifying specific legal and factual deficiencies or ambiguities in the motion papers that need to be resolved before it can rule on the motion for default judgment. This is a proper exercise of judicial management. |
The order itself: sound — The order is a pre-hearing directive, not a final ruling on the merits. It correctly identifies issues that require further development or clarification before the court can grant or deny the motion for default judgment. The questions raised regarding PACA jurisdiction, the interstate commerce element, and the calculation of damages are legally relevant. The citation to Missouri v. Jenkins is used appropriately as a comparative reference for fee reasonableness.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 WESTERN ONION SALES, INC., Case No.: 25-cv-03798-AJB-MSB 13 Plaintiff, ORDER IN PREPARTION OF 14 v. MOTION HEARING 15 MORIAH PRODUCE, INC., et al., 16 Defendants. 17 18 On July 22, 2026, the Court will hold a hearing on Plaintiff’s motion for default 19 judgment. (Doc. No. 10.) Having reviewed the papers, the Court directs counsel to file a 20 supplement that includes an updated itemized billing record in support of the requested 21 attorneys’ fees no later than July 21, 2026. Additionally, counsel must be prepared to 22 address the following at the hearing: 23 Merits of Plaintiff’s Claim & Sufficiency of Complaint 24 1. Whether status as a PACA licensee is sufficient to demonstrate that a party is 25 a commission merchant, dealer or broker. 26 2. In light of both Plaintiff and Corporate Defendants being California citizens, 27 whether there is a factual basis to support the allegation that the goods were purchased in 28 contemplation of the course of interstate and/or foreign commerce. l 3. Whether there is a factual basis for alleging the trust assets are unavailable or 2 || otherwise insufficient to satisfy the PACA liability. 3 Sum of Money at Stake in the Action 4 4. The inconsistency with Invoice #63625, which is listed in Plaintiffs 5 || amortization chart as $2,570.50 due (Doc. No. 10-3 at 38) and is listed on the actual invoice 6 $6,525.00 due (Doc. No. 10-2 at 8). 7 5. Whether it is reasonable to bill clerical work completed by Timothy Dorsey 8 a paralegal rate (Doc. No. 10-3 (billing $419.40 for 1.30 hours of electronic filing)). Cf 9 || Missouri v. Jenkins by Agyei, 491 U.S. 274, 288 n.10 (1989). 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 ||Dated: July 17, 2026 © □ 12 Hon. Anthony J. attaglia 13 United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28