Ayco Farms Inc. on Monday filed a petition against Los Angeles Produce Distributors LLC, appealing a United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) reparation order. The petitioner is a Florida corporation which claimed that the California-based defendant, which purchased cantaloupes from the petitioner, did not fully pay Ayco Farms as agreed in the parties’ contract.
The petition reported that the contract between the parties provides a price for the first few loads of each week, depending on the size. Any loads past the initial nine are priced based on the market value. Additionally, according to the contract, the fruit is inspected by the USDA and if the quality does not meet the standard it should be reported to the plaintiff within 24 hours or the defendant will pay the full price for the products.
According to the petition, Ayco Farms filed its reparation complaint in October 2018 asking to be fully compensated for the cantaloupe sales and the sale of some additional watermelons. Los Angeles Produce Distributors responded in December alleging that the cantaloupes were in a “distressed condition” and asked for the petitioner to handle the price of the cantaloupes “on a consignment basis” instead of according to the contract.
The USDA in its Decision and Order, which was issued in September 2020, ruled that the respondent should pay $13,959.42, because it “found that the parties verbally agreed that Respondent would pay Petitioner ‘the net sales proceeds.’” The petitioner, however, claimed that it was owed $128,908.44 based on the parties’ contract and 19 separate invoices cited in its recent complaint.
Ayco Farms previously asked the USDA to reconsider its order and rule that the terms of the parties’ written contract should have been used in the decision. The plaintiff purported that the terms of the contract were mentioned in the findings section of the initial USDA order, but were not placed in the conclusion or order. Following this, the USDA reportedly issued an Order on Reconsideration which explained its reasoning that the contract was determined to decide the price paid when “there were no issues with the melons,” which would not include the instance which led to the reparation complaint.
The plaintiff claimed that the USDA in both orders did not take into account statements from its owner claiming that some of the aspects of the Respondents were not true, specifically, that Ayco Farms did not agree that the respondent did not need a USDA inspection. Ayco asked in its petition to the district court for a jury trial and for the court to award damages and a judgment in its favor.
Ayco Farms is represented by the Law Office of Robert E. Goldman.
