INDIANAPOLIS FRUIT COMPANY v. HARTLAND FOODS CORP. D/B/A HARTLAND SHOPWORTH et al
Filing
9
ORDER To Show Cause and TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER - Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Indianapolis Fruit Company's ("IFC") Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. [Dkt. 5 .] The Court ORDERS that Defendants, Hartl and Foods Corp. d/b/ Hartland Shopworth ("Hartland") and Stephen Hart, SHOW CAUSE before this Court on Tuesday, November 20, 2012, at 9:00 a.m., in Courtroom 307, Birch Bayh Federal Building and United States Courthouse, 46 East Ohio Stre et, Indianapolis, Indiana, why an order should not be issued pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 enjoining Mr. Hart and Hartland from paying, withdrawing, transferring, assigning or selling any and all existing assets of the trust creat ed by the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act, or otherwise disposing of other corporate or personal assets to any creditors, persons or entities, until further order of this Court or until Hartland and Mr. Hart pay IFC the sum of $25,620. 53 by certified or cashier's check, at which time this Order is dissolved. Therefore, the Court ORDERS that, pending the hearing on IFC's Motion for Issuance of a Preliminary Injunction, [dkt. 7 ], and pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil P rocedure 65, Mr. Hart and Hartland are TEMPORARILY RESTRAINED. It is further ORDERED that, pursuant to Rule 65(c), IFC shall post a de minimus bond of $100.00. Given that the hearing on IFC's Motion for Issuance of a Preliminary Injunction is being scheduled on an expedited basis, the Court DENIES IFC's request, made in that motion, to consolidate the trial on the merits with the hearing on IFC's request for a preliminary injunction, [dkt. 7 at 3]. Finally, the Court ORDERS IFC to serve a copy of this Order by overnight mail upon Hartland and Mr. Hart on or before November 15, 2012, at 6:00 p.m. (SEE ORDER). Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 11/14/2012. (JKS)
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
TERRE HAUTE DIVISION
INDIANAPOLIS FRUIT COMPANY,
Plaintiff,
vs.
HARTLAND FOODS CORP. d/b/a HARTLAND
SHOPWORTH and STEPHEN HART,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
2:12-cv-00336-JMS-MJD
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Indianapolis Fruit Company’s (“IFC”) Emergency
Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. [Dkt. 5.] The Court has considered the Complaint,
[dkt. 1], IFC’s Memorandum of Law in Support of Requests for Injunctive Relief, [dkt. 6], the
affidavits of IFC’s representatives, Beth Mouzin, [dkt. 5-1], and James See, [dkt. 5-4], and the
Attorney Certificate Why Notice Should Not Be Required Under Rule 65(b), [dkt. 5-5].
The Court ORDERS that Defendants, Hartland Foods Corp. d/b/ Hartland Shopworth
(“Hartland”) and Stephen Hart, SHOW CAUSE before this Court on Tuesday, November 20,
2012, at 9:00 a.m., in Courtroom 307, Birch Bayh Federal Building and United States
Courthouse, 46 East Ohio Street, Indianapolis, Indiana, why an order should not be issued
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 enjoining Mr. Hart and Hartland from paying,
withdrawing, transferring, assigning or selling any and all existing assets of the trust created by
the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act, 1930, 7 U.S.C. §§ 499a-499t (“PACA Trust”) or
otherwise disposing of other corporate or personal assets to any creditors, persons or entities,
until further order of this Court or until Hartland and Mr. Hart pay IFC the sum of $25,620.53 by
certified or cashier’s check, at which time this Order is dissolved.
The Court finds that sufficient reason has been shown for the issuance of a temporary
restraining order pursuant to Rule 65. Specifically, the Court finds that, based on the pleadings,
affidavits, and other submissions, it appears that Hartland and Mr. Hart are dissipating, and
continue to dissipate, IFC’s beneficial interest in the PACA Trust. This dissipation causes
irreparable harm to IFC, because IFC may be deprived of recovering its interest in the PACA
Trust. Further, the Court finds that issuance of a temporary restraining order without notice to
Hartland and Mr. Hart is appropriate because such notice may afford Hartland and Mr. Hart the
opportunity to further dissipate the PACA Trust assets. Therefore, the Court ORDERS that,
pending the hearing on IFC’s Motion for Issuance of a Preliminary Injunction, [dkt. 7], and
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65, Mr. Hart and Hartland are temporarily restrained
from paying, withdrawing, transferring, assigning or selling any and all existing assets of the
PACA Trust or otherwise disposing of other corporate or personal assets to any creditors,
persons or entities, until further order of this Court or until Hartland and Mr. Hart pay IFC the
sum of $25,620.53 by certified or cashier’s check, at which time this Order is dissolved.
It is further ORDERED that, pursuant to Rule 65(c), IFC shall post a de minimus bond of
$100.00.
Given that the hearing on IFC’s Motion for Issuance of a Preliminary Injunction is being
scheduled on an expedited basis, the Court DENIES IFC’s request, made in that motion, to
consolidate the trial on the merits with the hearing on IFC’s request for a preliminary injunction,
[dkt. 7 at 3].
Finally, the Court ORDERS IFC to serve a copy of this Order by overnight mail upon
Hartland and Mr. Hart on or before November 15, 2012, at 6:00 p.m.
11/14/2012
_______________________________
Hon. Jane Magnus-Stinson, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana
Distribution via ECF only:
David A. Adelman
ADELMAN LAW OFFICES, PC
adelman@pacaenforcer.com
Jason R. Burke
HOPPER & BLACKWELL
jburke@hopperblackwell.com
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
