Picazo

Picazo v. Aptos Berry Farms, Inc.

Good Law
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitApril 18, 202524-2089California1,020 words

Opinion

Opinion

FILED

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

APR 18 2025

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RICARDO PICAZO, DBA Salinas Farms, No. 24-2089

Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 5:23-cv-02735-SVK v.

APTOS BERRY FARMS, MEMORANDUM*

INC.; DRISCOLL’S, INC.,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Susan G. Van Keulen, Magistrate Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted April 10, 2025 San Francisco, California*

Before: S. R. THOMAS, PAEZ, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.

Ricardo Picazo (“Picazo”) appeals the district court’s dismissal of his claims

against Aptos Berry Farms (“Aptos”) and Driscoll’s, Inc. (“Driscoll’s”) under

§ 499b(4) of the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (“PACA”). See

U.S.C. § 499b(4). Because the parties are familiar with the factual and procedural

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. history of the case, we need not recount it here. We have jurisdiction pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1291. We…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.