Picazo dba Salinas Farms v. Aptos Berry Farms, Inc.
Opinion
trial_court Opinion
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 RICARDO PICAZO, Case No. 23-cv-02735-SVK
8 Plaintiff,
ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO
9 v. DISMISS SECOND AMENDED
COMPLAINT WITHOUT
10 APTOS BERRY FARMS, INC., et al., LEAVE TO AMEND 11 Defendants. Re: Dkt. Nos. 48, 49
12 Non-diverse parties litigating solely state-law claims do not have access to the federal 13 courts. Perhaps for that reason, California Plaintiff Ricardo Picazo d/b/a Salinas Farms voluntarily 14 amended his original complaint, in which he asserted only state-law claims against California 15 Defendants Aptos Berry Farms, Inc. (“Aptos”) and Driscoll’s, Inc. (“Driscoll’s”), to add federal- 16 law claims under the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (the “PACA”). The Court 17 dismissed Plaintiff’s first amended complaint (the “FAC”) because, inter alia, Plaintiff failed to 18 state a claim under the PACA. See Dkt. 43 (the “FAC Order”). Following that dismissal, Plaintiff 19 filed a second amended complaint, which primarily expands…