Such related expenses include attorney fees and interest that buyers and sellers have bargained for in their contracts. See Middle Mountain Land Produce, Inc. v. Sound Commodities, Inc., 307 F.3d 1220, 1223 (9th Cir. 2002); see also, e.g., Sherman v. Carter, 353 U.S. 210, 77 S.Ct. 793, 1 L.Ed.2d 776 (1957) (attorney fees encompassed within language allowing recovery of "sums justly due" under Miller Act). This reading of the statute is supported by the purpose and goals of PACA. PACA was designed to give produce sellers a meaningful opportunity to recover full payment of the amounts due for their sales.

In 1930, Congress enacted PACA to promote fair trading practices in the produce industry. See 7 U.S.C. § 449a et seq.; Middle Mountain Land and Produce Inc. v. Sound Commodities Inc., 307 F.3d 1220, 1223-24 (9th Cir. 2002). Under PACA, it is unlawful for buyers of produce to fail to make prompt payments for a shipment of produce.

7 U.S.C. § 499e(c)(2) (emphasis added). Based on this statutory language, two circuits have explicitly held that a contractual obligation for interest may be awarded under PACA. Country Best v. Christopher Ranch, LLC, 361 F.3d 629, 632 (11th Cir. 2004) (stating that the language in 7 U.S.C. § 499e(c)(2) "unambiguously encompasses not only the price of commodities but also additional related expenses * * * includ[ing] attorney fees and interest that buyers and sellers have bargained for in their contracts"); Middle Mountain Land & Produce v. Sound Commodities, 307 F.3d 1220, 1224 (9th Cir. 2002) ("it cannot be contended seriously that interpreting PACA claims to include contractual rights to attorneys' fees and interest under the 'in connection with' language of the statute is contrary to the statute's purpose"). As stated above, none of the Defendants in this matter filed timely, or proper, objections to the Initial Claims.

However, both the Second and Ninth Circuits, as well as various district courts, have held that "a district court may award reasonable prejudgment interest to PACA claimants if such an award is necessary to protect the interests of PACA claimants, and that such an award absent contract is discretionary." Middle Mountain Land and Produce Inc. v. Sound Commodities Inc., 307 F.3d 1220, 1226 (9th Cir. 2002); see also Endico Potatoes, Inc. v. CIT Group/Factoring, Inc., 67 F.3d 1063, 1071-72 (2nd Cir. 1995) (holding that district court has broad discretion to fashion prejudgment interest award to PACA claimants). In Endico, the district court had awarded prejudgment interest at a rate of 6.09%, the Federal Statutory Interest Rate ( 28 U.S.C. § 1961).

Thus, a PACA beneficiary also may recover expenses and fees that are due contractually or otherwise "in connection with" the transaction that is the subject of the PACA trust claim. See Middle Mountain Land Produce, Inc. v. Sound Commodities, Inc., 307 F.3d 1220, 1223 (9th Cir.2002). For example, in Middle Mountain, 307 F.3d at 1223, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit allowed a trust beneficiary to collect attorneys' fees and interest because the invoice for the produce created a contractual right to such fees, and thus the fees were "within the scope of the statute's protection of `full payment owing in connection with the [PACA] transaction.'"

That section, however, also does not evidence any Congressional intent to foreclose the recovery of attorney's fees and interest. Middle Mountain Land & Produce Inc. v. Sound Commodities Inc., 307 F.3d 1220, 1224 (9th Cir. 2002). The statute's language is broad, allowing sellers and producers to recover "full payment of sums owing in connection with" transactions in perishable agricultural commodities.

SeeNeal H. Klausner, The Dynamics of Rule 11: Preventing Frivolous Litigation by Demanding Professional Responsibility, 61 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 300, 303-04 (1986) ("The United State is the only common law jurisdiction in which legal expenses, including attorneys' fees, are not automatically shifted to the losing party."); Middle Mountain Land and Produce Inc. v. Sound Commodities, 307 F.3d 1220, 1225 (9th Cir.2002) ( "Unlike the British legal system rule, in which the winner automatically gets attorneys' fees, the rule in American courts, commonly known as the American Rule, looks with disdain upon awarding attorneys' fees unless an independent basis exists for the award.")(citing Alyeska Pipeline Serv. Co. v. Wilderness Soc'y, 421 U.S. 240, 257–59, 95 S.Ct. 1612, 44 L.Ed.2d 141 (1975) ). "As a general rule, trial courts are without authority to award attorney's fees unless the right exists by contract or statute."

SeeNeal H. Klausner, The Dynamics of Rule 11: Preventing Frivolous Litigation by Demanding Professional Responsibility, 61 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 300, 303-04 (1986) ("The United State is the only common law jurisdiction in which legal expenses, including attorneys' fees, are not automatically shifted to the losing party."); Middle Mountain Land and Produce Inc. v. Sound Commodities, 307 F.3d 1220, 1225 (9th Cir.2002) ( "Unlike the British legal system rule, in which the winner automatically gets attorneys' fees, the rule in American courts, commonly known as the American Rule, looks with disdain upon awarding attorneys' fees unless an independent basis exists for the award.")(citing Alyeska Pipeline Serv. Co. v. Wilderness Soc'y, 421 U.S. 240, 257–59, 95 S.Ct. 1612, 44 L.Ed.2d 141 (1975) ). "As a general rule, trial courts are without authority to award attorney's fees unless the right exists by contract or statute."

The Ninth Circuit has held that, in addition to the invoice value of unpaid produce, PACA permits a plaintiff to recover prejudgment interest as well as attorney's fees and costs if the contract between the plaintiff and the defendant stated that the defendant would be liable for interest, attorney's fees, and costs. Middle Mountain Land & Produce Inc. v. Sound Commodities Inc., 307 F.3d 1220, 1224-25 (9th Cir. 2002); see also Greenfield Fresh, 2014 WL 5700695, at *4-5 (holding that a PACA plaintiff was entitled to prejudgment interest, attorney's fees, and costs based on the contract between the plaintiff and the defendant). The statute that allows a plaintiff to enforce a USDA reparation award in district court also allows the prevailing plaintiff to collect "a reasonable attorney's fee, to be taxed and collected as a part of the costs of the suit."

The Ninth Circuit has determined that a PACA beneficiary may also recover expenses and fees that are due contractually or otherwise "in connection with" the transaction that is the subject of the PACA trust claim. Middle Mountain Land Produce, Inc. v. Sound Commodities, Inc., 307 F.3d 1220, 1223 (9th Cir. 2002). In Middle Mountain, the court allowed a trust beneficiary to collect attorneys' fees and interest because the invoice for the produce created a contractual right to such fees.