Summary of a Recent
Judicial
Development in
Packers and Stockyards
Contract Claims are Time Barred Under the
Packers and Stockyards Act
Jillian HishawNational AgLaw Center Graduate Assistant
In Hecksel v. Central Livestock Assn., Inc., No.03-2604JRTJSM, 2005 WL 2406032 (D.Minn. 2005), the United States District Court of Minnesota held that the plaintiffs claim was time-barred because it was filed more than four years after the act that committed the alleged injury. Id at 1. The plaintiffs, Mr. and Mrs. Hecksel entered into a livestock feeding program agreement with the defendant, Central Livestock Association (CLA), a Minnesota livestock cooperative. Id In the agreement, CLA retained ownership and a security interest in the cattle that they supplied to the Hecksels. Id The Hecksels were responsible for all of the costs and fees associated with raising the livestock. Id Once the cattle reached the proper weight, they were sold on the market by CLA, allowing the Hecksels to retain a portion of the profits. Id The Hecksels alleged that CLA violated numerous contract and fiduciary provisions, the Packers and Stockyards Act, the Commodities and Exchange Act, the Rackteer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act, and several state consumer fraud statutes. Id
The Hecksels alleged that CLA supplied them with diseased cattle, retained a security interest in all the cattle including cattle owned separately by the Hecksels, and overcharged them in fees. Id at 2. The court found the Hecksels waived their right to object to the delivery of the diseased cattle since they failed to object within 24 hours of delivery, leaving the Hecksels to bare the death loss. Id at 4. In regards to the security interest claim, the court found the contract clearly stated that CLA’s interests were limited to only the cattle they provided to the Hecksels. Id at 4. Finally, in regards to the alleged overcharge of fees, the court denied CLA’s motion of summary judgment finding it to be a question for the jury since the court could not determine which costs were included in the contract. Id at 5.
In regards to the Packers and Stockyards Act claim of deceptive practices, the actions exceeded the four-year time limitation, barring the claims. 7 U.S.C. § 209(b). Id at 7. According to the court “[g]enerally, the period commences on the date on which the wrongdoer commits an act that injures the business of another.” Id at 7.
The Commodities and Exchange Act violation was also time barred by the statute’s two-year limitation. 7 U.S.C. § 25(c). Id at 7. Failing to provide any proof of racketeering or fraud, the Hecksels racketeering charge was dismissed. CLA’s request for summary judgment was granted in regard to the state consumer and common law fraud claims. Id at 7, 8, 9.
The case was decided on September 29, 2005; this summary was posted June 1, 2006.