THIRD STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND THE DEADLINE TO FILE MOTION FOR RULING ON OBJECTIONS TO CLAIMS AS SET FORTH IN THE AMENDED PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ORDER, ESTABLISHING PACA CLAIMS PROCEDURE, AND ALLOWING EXPEDITED DISCOVERY

JOHN A. MENDEZ, District Judge.

Before this Court is the Third Stipulation to Extend the Deadline to File Motion for Ruling on Objections to Claims as set forth in the Amended Preliminary Injunction Order, Establishing PACA Claims Procedure, and Allowing Expedited Discovery agreed to by and between Plaintiff GreenGate Fresh, LLLP, Intervening Plaintiffs Sunterra Produce Traders, Inc., 1st Quality Produce, Inc., Peterson Farms Fresh, Inc., Coastal Pacific Sales, LLC; Froerer Farms, Inc. d/b/a Owyhee Produce (the "Sunterra Group"), Nor-Cal Produce, Inc., Ben E. Keith Company, and Fresh Innovations California, LLC (collectively "Intervening Plaintiffs"), Consolidated Plaintiffs FreshPoint Denver, Inc. and Ruby Robinson Co., LLC (the "FreshPoint Group" with GreenGate and Sunterra Group, and Intervening Plaintiffs are together "Plaintiffs"), and Intervenor Produce Pay, Inc. ("Produce Pay") (Plaintiffs and Produce Pay are the "Parties"), by and through their respective undersigned attorneys. In support thereof, the Parties state as follows:

1. Plaintiffs filed and served Proof of Claims asserting statutory trust beneficiary status arising under the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act ("PACA"), 7 U.S.C. § 499e(c)(2), against Trinity Fresh Procurement, LLC, Trinity Fresh Distribution, LLC, and Trinity Fresh Management, LLC (collectively "Trinity Fresh"), as required by paragraphs 30, 32 and 33 the Amended Preliminary Injunction Order, Establishing PACA Claims Procedure, and Allowing Expedited Discovery ("Claims Order") [Doc. No. 47], as amended by further Orders [Doc. Nos. 48, 93, 94, 103, and 104]. [See, GreenGate Fresh, LLLP, Doc. No. 70; Sunterra Group, Doc. Nos. 61-65; Nor-Cal Produce, Inc., Doc. No. 77; Ben E. Keith Company Doc. Nos. 72, 74; FreshPoint Group, Doc. Nos. 66-67]

2. Paul Abess was the sole shareholder of the Trinity Fresh entities. On April 15, 2019, he filed for bankruptcy protection under the United States Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. § 101 et seq. [Doc. No. 60] The case is now pending in the United State Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of California, Sacramento Division, Case No. 19-22324-C-7. Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(a), all prosecution or continuation of the instant action, consolidated action and intervening actions are stayed as to Mr. Abess. [Doc. No. 60]

3. Intervenor Produce Pay filed its Objection to Plaintiffs' claims and to any late filed claims on May 13, 2019 [Doc. No. 82].

4. The Parties agreed that the deadline to respond to Produce Pay's Objection should be extended to June 10, 2019, which was approved by the Court [Doc. No. 86].

5. Plaintiffs filed their respective Responses to the Objections. [GreenGate Fresh, LLLP, Doc. No. 101; Sunterra Group, Doc. No. 100; Nor-Cal Produce, Inc., Doc. No. 84; Ben E. Keith Company Doc. No. 99; FreshPoint Group, Doc. No. 98]

6. As a consequence of the Court appointed Receiver's death, certain plaintiffs filed the Joint Motion for Court Orders (1) Terminating the Receivership; (2) Enforcing the Liability Bond of Receiver; (3) Appointing a Referee to Complete Auction of Vehicles ("Receivership Termination Motion") [Doc Nos. 87-91]. The Receivership Termination Motion, prompted the Parties to stipulate to extend other deadlines in the Claims Order [Doc. 93], which was approved by the Court [Doc. No. 94].

7. By Stipulation [Doc No. 102], the Parties sought an extension of time in which to file a motion for a ruling on Produce Pay's Objections to Plaintiffs' claims. The Court granted the Stipulation by extending the deadline through July 10, 2019 [Doc. No.103].

8. On or about July 10, 2019, Fresh Innovations California, LLC filed a late Complaint in Intervention and Proof of Claim [Doc. No. 107], alleging good cause for the belated intervention. Fresh Innovations California, LLC also intends to file a response to the Produce Pay objections.

9. Paragraph 39 of the Claims Order required that potential PACA Trust Beneficiaries and the objecting party exercise best efforts to resolve any objections.

10. Under paragraph 7 of the Second Stipulation and Order to Extend the Deadline to file Motion for Ruling on Objections to Claims as set forth in the Amended Preliminary Injunction Order, Establishing PACA Claims Procedure, and Allowing Expedited Discovery [Doc. No. 104], the parties agreed to provide the Court with a status report on their efforts. The joint status report was filed on July 31, 2019 [Doc. No. 114].

11. The Parties continue to meet and confer in an attempt to resolve Produce Pay's Objections. The Parties continue informal discovery to facilitate settlement. As such, the Parties need additional time to complete the informal discovery and to work toward resolution of Produce Pay's Objections [Doc. No. 82] and Produce Pay's intervening complaint [Doc. No. 76].

12. Thereafter, Plaintiffs anticipate submitting a stipulation and proposed order to validate PACA claims, approve a PACA Trust Chart with pro-rata distribution percentages and interim distribution amounts. Plaintiffs further anticipate subsequent distributions because: (1) resolution of the Produce Pay Objections to PACA Claims will allow for final collection of Trinity Fresh accounts receivables; (2) Ascentium Capital, LLC has filed Declarations of Opposition to the vehicle lien sales of two vehicles held by the court appointed referee court appointed referee, Zeb Seidel, of Auction Exchange, Inc. dba Bar None Auction ("Auctioneer") that will delay distribution of the potential vehicle sales proceeds; and (3) Liberty Mutual Insurance Company has filed a motion [Doc. No. 115] to vacate the Order [Doc. No. 105] to enforce the surety bond posted by the former and now deceased court appointed receiver, Patrick Bulmer.

13. Having reviewed the procedural posture of this case, and the steps needed to proceed with the PACA Claims Procedure set out in the Claims Order, and in light of the time required to resolve Objections, the Parties agree that an extension of the deadline to file motion for a ruling on the Objections is necessary for the orderly administration of claims and assets in this matter. The below chart sets forth the current deadline, agreed new deadline, and unchanged deadlines for certain events set out in the Claims Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.