Court Rules on FDA Complaint by Food Grower
The plaintiffs in the case are Tray Wrap, Inc. The defendants in the case are Pacific Tomato Growers LTD and Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association.
In this case, the defendant Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association is seeking an order for a summary judgment over the plaintiff in the instant action suit. The defendant declares that a summary judgment is warranted for a number of different reasons.
A New York Injury Lawyer said the first cause of action issued by the plaintiff states that the defendant had no factual or legal basis to file a complaint against them with the USDA. The plaintiff alleges that the defendant knew that the allegations made in the complaint were false and they willfully intended to defraud the plaintiff. As a result of this abuse of the process, the plaintiff is seeking punitive damages of $500,000. The second cause of action reiterates the first cause of action.
In support of their case, the plaintiff provides a transcript of Spinale’s deposition, which he states that on June 22, 2001, the defendant FFVA on behalf of Pacific brought a reparation action against the plaintiff. The action was preceded by an informal complaint letter that was dated March 27, 2000. Spinale declares that the instant action was started despite the absence of probable cause because neither of the defendants conducted an investigation to prove that the plaintiff had defrauded them.
The plaintiff also submits an affidavit from Mazie Faraci who reiterates the majority of what was said by Spinale. The plaintiff also submits a portion of the transcript from a senior marketing analyst from the USDA that states that it is his opinion that the USDA inspectors altered reports at the USDA’s discretion and affected the integrity of the USDA.
The defendant in the case is issuing a counterclaim against the plaintiff. A Brooklyn Personal Injury Lawyer said that in the counterclaim, FFVA alleges that in April of 2002, a complaint was filed against the plaintiff for reimbursement of unauthorized adjustments. In this case the plaintiff and Pacific reached an agreement. The plaintiff then commenced the instant action against FFVA; even though the plaintiff had knowledge that FFVA was not a part of the actions between Pacific and the plaintiff.
The defendant issues a copy of the decision that was issued by SDNY in a case called “Tray-Wrap, Inc versus Meyer Tomatoes. This decision shows the amount of cost and fees that were to be awarded to the defendant in that action. This action involves facts that are similar to this case.
The Court has partially granted the summary motion in favor of the defendant. However, the portion of the defendants claim to seek summary judgment in the case of malicious prosecution and abuse of the process is denied. However, the defendant has demonstrated an absence of misrepresentation or falsity in the case and this portion of the summary judgment is granted.
The Court orders that the complaint and all cross claims in the case are dismissed in their entirety, without prejudice. A Bronx Personal Injury Lawyer said it is also ordered that the defendant serve a copy of this order to all of the parties within 30 days of the notice of entry.
If you find yourself in a legal situation, whether it be product liability, premises liability or medical malpractice, Stephen Bilkis & Associates can help you determine the type of legal action that you may need to take. Our team of lawyers understands the type of situation that you may be in and will work with you to make sure you are acting in your best interest in your legal case. Our offices are conveniently located throughout the NY metropolitan area. You may call us for a free consultation.