Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1. This court has jurisdiction of this case pursuant to Sections 5(a), 5(b) and
§499e(a), (b), (c)(5)] (“PACA”), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and over derivative state
and common law claims pursuant to F.R.C.P. Rule 18, and the doctrine of ancillary and
PARTIES
material times was, a New York corporation with its principal place of business in Bronx,
NY, and was and is a dealer and commission merchant holding license No. 20080245
issued and renewed by the United States Department of Agriculture under the PACA.
3. Plaintiff Foodland Distributors, Inc. is now, and at all material times was, a
New Jersey corporation with its principal place of business in Kenilworth, NJ, and was
and is a dealer and commission merchant holding license No. 19881322 issued and
4. At all relevant times Defendant The Glazier Group, Inc. [“Glazier”] was
and still is a New York corporation with its primary offices located at 535 5 th Avenue,
16 th Floor, New York, NY, operating a chain of restaurants under the location names of
“Monkey Bar”, “Michael Jordan’s Steak House”, “Strip House New York”, “Strip House
Hotel Westminster”, “Bridgewaters”, and “24 5 th Ave.”, in the New York / New Jersey
Metropolitan area, as well as other names and locations not relevant to the matters herein,
and was operating as a “dealer” as that term is defined under the PACA.
4. Plaintiffs are informed and so believe and allege that Defendant Mathew
Port LLC [“MPL”] is a New Jersey limited liability company with its offices located in
the same suit of offices as Glazier at the 535 5 th Ave. address, however MPL is not
2
Case 1:09-cv-10076-RMB Document 1 Filed 12/09/2009 Page 3 of 14
5. Plaintiffs are informed and so believe and allege that Defendants Penny
Port LLC [“PPL”] and Fifth Avenue Ballroom LLC are New York limited liability
companies with their offices located in the same suit of offices as Defendant Glazier at
6. Plaintiffs are informed and so believe and allege that Defendant Delta
Dallas Alpha Corp. [“DDAC”] is a New York corporation with its offices located in the
7. Plaintiffs are informed and so believe and allege that Defendant Monkey
Bar, L.P. [“Monkey”] is a New York limited partnership with its offices located in the
8. Plaintiffs are informed and so believe and allege that Defendants MPL,
PPL, DDAC and Monkey are, among others, entities used and controlled by Defendant
Glazier as and for middle management and disbursing entities for various of its restaurant
locations, and maintain bank accounts holding the proceeds of Defendant Glazier’s
restaurant operations, but at all times shared one or more principals, owners, and/or
3
Case 1:09-cv-10076-RMB Document 1 Filed 12/09/2009 Page 4 of 14
10. On and between May 19, 2008 and March 5, 2009 Plaintiff D’Arrigo, upon
the written orders of Defendant Glazier, sold to said Defendant’s restaurants, “Monkey
Bar”, “Michael Jordan’s Steak House”, “Strip House New York”, “Strip House Hotel
Westminster”, “Bridgewaters”, and “24 5 th Ave” more than $179,393.00 in fresh fruits
and vegetables moving in interstate commerce. Date ranges and amounts of such sales
are itemized in Schedule A attached to this Complaint, and are incorporated herein by this
reference.
11. On and between November 2, 2008 and January 12, 2009 Plaintiff
Foodland, upon the written orders of Defendant Glazier, sold to said Defendant’s
restaurants, “Michael Jordan’s Steak House”, “Strip House New York”, “Strip House
Hotel Westminster”, and “Bridgewaters” more than $29,819.00 in fresh fruits and
vegetables moving in interstate commerce. Date ranges and amounts of such sales are
itemized in Schedule B attached to this Complaint, and are incorporated herein by this
reference.
12. All of Plaintiffs’ sales were the result of price quotations by Plaintiffs to
and purchase orders from Defendant Glazier’s central management offices and
13. Plaintiffs delivered each contract lot of produce to the particular Glazier
4
Case 1:09-cv-10076-RMB Document 1 Filed 12/09/2009 Page 5 of 14
14. At the times of each delivery, the respective restaurant staff inspected the
commodities tendered for delivery, signed for, and accepted the commodities comprising
15. That each Plaintiff issued invoices for the exact quantity of commodities
delivered and accepted by each restaurant location, and, at the specific request of
Defendant Glazier, sent copies of each invoice, listing the exact quantities of each item
delivered and accepted, and statements of account, to both the respective restaurant and
16. Plaintiffs’ invoices, containing all of the material terms of the contracts and
sales were delivered to both the respective restaurant and the Glazier, and were retained
17. Defendants received and retained said invoices, an exemplar copy of which
18. In breach of their contracts with Plaintiffs and in violation of Section 2(4)
[7 U.S.C. §499b(4)], Defendants have failed to pay for the commodities they received and
accepted.
due to the Plaintiffs as described above, and their violation of the fair conduct code
imposed upon them by the PACA, Plaintiffs have suffered losses and damages in the
principal amount of not less than $209,212 plus interest at the contract rate.
5
Case 1:09-cv-10076-RMB Document 1 Filed 12/09/2009 Page 6 of 14
20. Defendants are indebted to Plaintiffs in the full amount of not less than
$209,212 plus interest, costs, and reasonable attorney’s fees as set forth in Plaintiffs’
20. Plaintiffs repeat, reallege and incorporate by reference all allegations and
references contained in paragraphs 1. through 19. of this Complaint as if fully set forth
herein.
21. At all times relevant Plaintiffs were engaged in the business of selling
22. The perishable agricultural commodities that are the subject of the First
Cause of Action were purchased and sold in the stream of interstate and/or foreign
commerce as defined by the PACA and the respective case precedents interpreting such
term.
§499e(c) and USDA Regulations promulgated under PACA set forth in 7 C.F.R. Part 46,
Plaintiffs became beneficiaries of the trust imposed upon the res of assets held by
Defendants.
24. Plaintiffs, as licensed dealers under the PACA, placed the following legend
6
Case 1:09-cv-10076-RMB Document 1 Filed 12/09/2009 Page 7 of 14
“The perishable agricultural commodities listed on this invoice are subject to the
statutory trust authorized by section 5(c) of the Perishable Agricultural
Commodities Act 1930 (7 U.S.C. 499e(c)). The seller of these commodities
retains a trust claim over these commodities, all inventories of food or other
products derived from these commodities, and any receivables or proceeds from
the sales of these commodities until full payment is received.”
25. Pursuant to the PACA Statutory Trust, upon delivery of their produce to
commodities or products and food and all other assets derived from all produce
§499e(c)(1)-(5)], Plaintiffs performed and fulfilled all duties required to preserve their
PACA Trust benefits in the total amount in excess of $209,000 plus interest, costs, and
27. Pursuant to the PACA and the Statutory Trust, Defendants are the statutory
trustees of the PACA trust assets in their possession or under their control. The PACA
Trust requires the Defendants to hold and preserve all goods, inventories, proceeds and
receivables in trust for the benefit of Plaintiffs until full payment has been made to
28. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and so allege that Defendants have
failed to maintain the Trust assets and keep them freely available to satisfy Defendants’
7
Case 1:09-cv-10076-RMB Document 1 Filed 12/09/2009 Page 8 of 14
obligations to Plaintiffs in that the Defendants have filed and/or refused, in direct and
continuing violation of applicable Federal and State law, to pay Plaintiffs promptly in
accordance with controlling laws and regulations, and Plaintiffs have been informed that
the Defendants, in violation of section 499(b)(4) of the PACA and the Regulations
enforcing the PACA trust provisions, 7 C.F.R. §46.46, have refused to maintain the Trust
as required by law, and are using assets held in trust for purposes other than paying
29. Plaintiffs are informed, believe and allege that during all relevant times,
Defendants have dissipated portions of the PACA Trust assets in their custody or have
30. As a direct and proximate cause and result of the wrongful acts and
$209,000 plus interest, costs, and reasonable attorney’s fees incurred in this action.
RESERVATION OF RIGHTS
further causes of action arising under both Federal and State, including joinder of
additional parties, both individuals and entities, presently unknown to Plaintiffs, and
8
Case 1:09-cv-10076-RMB Document 1 Filed 12/09/2009 Page 9 of 14
4. Ordering Defendants, jointly and severally to pay Plaintiffs the sums proven
to be due of $209,212 or such other and further sum as may be proven at trial plus
applicable interest and costs, and granting Plaintiff a judgment against Defendants
and each of them for said amount; and
6. Granting Plaintiff such other and further relief as the Court deems just and
proper.
s/ Mark C. H. Mandell
Mark C. H. Mandell [MM-5708]
Attorney for Plaintiff
42 Herman Thau Road
Annandale, NJ 08801
(908)638-4434
9
Case 1:09-cv-10076-RMB Document 1 Filed 12/09/2009 Page 10 of 14
SCHEDULE A
SCHEDULE B
EXHIBIT A
Case 1:09-cv-10076-RMB Document 1 Filed 12/09/2009 Page 13 of 14
Case 1:09-cv-10076-RMB Document 1 Filed 12/09/2009 Page 14 of 14