11-1257-ag Mister Sprout v. Williams Farms Produce Sales, Inc. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.

1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals 2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan 3 United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of 4 New York, on the 11th day of April, two thousand twelve.

6 PRESENT: 7 DENNIS JACOBS, 8 Chief Judge, 9 ROBERT A. KATZMANN, 10 Circuit Judge, 11 JOHN F. KEENAN,* 12 District Judge.

14 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X 15 Mister Sprout 16 Appellant, 18 -v.- 11-1257-ag 20 Williams Farms Produce Sales, Inc., 21 Appellee, 23 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X 25 FOR APPELLANT: Linda Strumpf, New Canaan, CT. 27 FOR APPELLEE: Mark A. Amendola, Martyn and 28 Associates, Cleveland, OH.

* The Honorable John F. Keenan, United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.

2 Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Berman, J.).

5 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

9 Appellant Mister Sprout appeals from the judgment of the district court, granting summary judgment for Williams Farms Produce Sales, Inc. The matter came to the district court from an appeal by Mister Sprout of the decision and order of the Secretary for the United States Department of Agriculture in a reparation proceeding brought by Williams Farms to recover damages after Mister Sprout failed to pay the agreed upon price for two loads of tomatoes. See 7 U.S.C. § 499g(c). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying factual allegations, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

20 We affirm for substantially the reasons stated in the district court’s thorough opinion and in the decision and order of the Secretary of Agriculture.

1 We have considered all of Mister Sprout’s additional arguments and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

4 FOR THE COURT: 5 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk