throbber
Case 4:22-cv-04032-SOH Document 3 Filed 04/05/22 Page 1 of 18 PageID #: 5
`
`
`JUSTIN GARNER
`
`vs.
`
`JBS LIVE PORK, LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`WESTERN DISTRICT
`TEXARKANA DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No ________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF
`
`DEFENDANT
`
`COMES NOW, the Plaintiff, by and through his counsel, and for his Complaint states as
`
`
`
`
`follows:
`
`
`PARTIES, JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`Justin Garner is an adult resident and citizen of Howard County, Arkansas.
`
`JBS USA Food Company is one of the world’s largest beef and pork processing
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`companies and a wholly owned subsidiary of JBS USA Food Company Holdings. JBS is one of
`
`the world’s largest food companies with operations in 15 countries, including the U.S. It is the
`
`second largest pork producer in the world, with operations in the United States, Brazil, the United
`
`Kingdom and Australia. Defendant JBS Live Pork, LLC is a subsidiary of JBS USA Food
`
`Company. JBS Live Pork, LLC (“JBS”) is a Delaware limited liability company, which is a
`
`subsidiary of JBS USA Food Company. JBS’s principal place of business is 151 N. Main Street,
`
`Wichita, Kansas 67202. JBS is a citizen of Delaware and Kansas. JBS is registered to do business
`
`in Arkansas and its agent for service of process is the Corporation Service Company, 300 South
`
`Spring Street, Suite 900, Little Rock, Arkansas 72201.
`
`3.
`
`The Court has jurisdiction over this lawsuit under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1) because
`
`Garner and JBS are citizens of different U.S. states, and the amount in controversy exceeds
`
`$75,000, excluding interest and costs. Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2)
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-04032-SOH Document 3 Filed 04/05/22 Page 2 of 18 PageID #: 6
`
`because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to Garner’s claims occurred in this
`
`district.
`
`4.
`
`Garner has standing under Article III of the U.S. Constitution because he has
`
`suffered a concrete, monetary harm caused by JBS’s conduct described herein.
`
`JBS’ contracting procedures with individual farmers
`
`JBS employs vertical integration to supply pork to the marketplace.
`
`Hog farming has changed drastically over the last 30 years. Instead of thousands of
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`independent family farms, hogs are now “being raised in concentrated animal feeding operations
`
`(CAFOs) — huge barns holding thousands of animals.” 1
`
`7.
`
`“The auction houses (where the bidding of multiple buyers formerly ensured
`
`farmers a fair price) have been replaced by contracts, under which farmers raise animals for a large
`
`pork company according to strict specifications, and for prices they have little say in
`
`determining.”2
`
`8.
`
` Farmers who wish to produce pigs for JBS must use concentrated animal feeding
`
`operations (factory farms) which comply with JBS’ various requirements.
`
`9.
`
`JBS requires farmers to enter into adhesion contracts which subject the farmers to
`
`strict specifications that benefit JBS.
`
`10.
`
` Recent litigation involving JBS reveals that the pork industry is horizontally
`
`concentrated because only a few companies buy, slaughter and process the majority of hogs.3
`
`
`1 FoodPrint, October 30, 2020. https://foodprint.org/issues/communities-organizing-against-big-
`pork/
`2 Id.
`3 In Re Pork Antitrust Litigation, 2019 WL 3752497, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 133165 (D.C.
`Minn., Aug. 8, 2019).
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-04032-SOH Document 3 Filed 04/05/22 Page 3 of 18 PageID #: 7
`
`11.
`
`JBS and three other companies control an almost 70 percent of the U.S. pork
`
`industry.4 The largest pork integrators, like JBS, “do not produce their own pigs but instead enter
`
`into contracts with independent farmers who raise the pigs until they are ready to be slaughtered.”5
`
`12.
`
`“Because most of the hogs produced in the U.S. are sold under a multi-year
`
`contract, it is difficult for any potential competitor to find pigs to purchase.”6
`
`13.
`
`“In 2015, JBS acquired Cargill's pork business, combining the third-and fourth-
`
`largest pork producers into the second-largest producer.”7
`
`14.
`
`In 2018, several antitrust class actions against JBS and other pork producers were
`
`consolidated for pretrial purposes. The plaintiffs in those cases alleged that the JBS and others
`
`“conspired or colluded to artificially raise, fix, or maintain prices in the pork market in violation
`
`of federal antitrust laws.”8
`
`15.
`
`Plaintiffs alleged that JBS had conspired in restraint of trade, the purpose of which
`
`was to suppress competition and to allow it and other pork producers to charge supra-competitive
`
`prices for pork products in violation of state and federal laws.9
`
`16.
`
`Among other things, plaintiffs alleged that part of JBS’ scheme was that “JBS
`
`undertook an unspecified reduction in the number of sows it produced despite increased consumer
`
`demand."10
`
`
`
`4 Id.
`5 Id.
`6 Id. (internal quotations omitted).
`7 In re Pork Antitrust Litig., 495 F. Supp. 3d 753, (D.C. Minn. October 16, 2020).
`8 In re Pork Antitrust Litig., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20038, 2019 WL 480518 (D. Minn., Feb. 7,
`2019)
`9 http://porkcommercialcase.com/
`10 495 F. Supp. 3d 753 (D.C. Minn. October 16, 2020).
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-04032-SOH Document 3 Filed 04/05/22 Page 4 of 18 PageID #: 8
`
`17.
`
`The plaintiffs also alleged that JBS decreased overall production which led to
`
`increased prices for their products.11
`
`18.
`
` Last year, while denying liability, JBS agreed to pay $12,750,000 to settle those
`
`claims.12
`
`19.
`
`JBS’ arrangement with farmers like the Plaintiff involves contracts which are
`
`extremely favorable to JBS. Farmers are provided with term contracts, drafted by JBS, through
`
`which the farmers are paid a set price for animals which they ship during the contract period. JBS
`
`establishes the requirements for the physical facilities of the farming operation and farmers like
`
`the Plaintiff are saddled with providing the labor and expense of owning and operating the facility
`
`and must assume total responsibility for the financing, maintenance and insurance of the farm.
`
`The farmers are also fully responsible for the livestock and the enormous waste produced by the
`
`animals. JBS dictates the requirements for the farm’s day-to-day operation, the conditions for
`
`animals’ care, feeding and medications and the transportation of the animals while the farmers are
`
`merely paid a set sum, determined by JBS, for marketable animals that are ultimately shipped to
`
`another location.
`
`20.
`
`Under this business model, independent farmers are essentially converted into
`
`contract employees who merely perform work for JBS. Despite bearing the entire investment costs
`
`
`11 In Re Pork Antitrust Litigation, 2019 WL 3752497, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 133165 (D.C.
`Minn., Aug. 8, 2019).
`12 http://porkcommercialcase.com/ . Also, just last month, JBS confirmed that it had approved a
`$52.5 million settlement in a lawsuit in which the company was accused of conspiring to fix beef
`prices. https://www.meatpoultry.com/articles/26147-jbs-usa-agrees-to-525-million-settlement-in-
`price-fixing-lawsuit.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-04032-SOH Document 3 Filed 04/05/22 Page 5 of 18 PageID #: 9
`
`of a farming facility, the farmers are only paid a set cost per pig as established by JBS. Meanwhile,
`
`JBS retains control over the production processes and the amount of production.
`
`21.
`
`Even under perfect conditions, many farmers are barely able to generate enough
`
`revenue under these term contracts to pay their expenses. In this case, JBS unilaterally terminated
`
`Garner’s contract two years before the end of the contract term and refused to pay him for the
`
`animals it removed.
`
`JBS’ dealings with Justin Garner
`
`22. In late 2017, Garner was working as a deputy-sheriff for the Howard County Sheriff’s
`
`office and also operated a family farm.
`
`23. In late 2017, Garner considering the purchase of an existing hog farm facility in
`
`Howard County, Arkansas. The facility, which was being used to produce pigs for JBS, was
`
`located on a forty-acre tract of property.
`
`24. The facility had no value as a hog farm unless JBS agreed to give Garner a production
`
`contract.
`
`25. JBS advised Garner that it would provide him a contract if he purchased the subject
`
`hog farm.
`
`26. In November, 2017, JBS supplied Garner with a Letter of Intent as evidence of its
`
`commitment to provide him a production contract for a five-year term. Exhibit 1.
`
`27. Garner, and his lender, relied on this Letter of Intent in connection with Garner’s efforts
`
`to secure the financing necessary to buy the facility.
`
`28. Garner relied on JBS’ representations and purchased the hog farm facility.
`
`29. After he borrowed money and purchased the farm, JBS entered into a Sow Production
`
`Agreement (“contract”) with him in March, 2018. Exhibit 2.
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-04032-SOH Document 3 Filed 04/05/22 Page 6 of 18 PageID #: 10
`
`30. JBS established the contract term for a period of five years, through March 14, 2023.
`
`Then, if the contract was not terminated by either party, it would continue on a three-year evergreen
`
`term.
`
`31. Among other things, this astonishingly one-sided contract provided that JBS would
`
`supply Garner with 575 gilts and sows. Then, it agreed to pay him a certain sum for each piglet
`
`shipped from his farm
`
`32. In exchange, the contract (Exhibit 2) required Garner to:
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`Provide and maintain the hog farm facility at his own expense.
`
`Provide all equipment required to breed, feed, water and care for the pigs.
`
`Pay all maintenance, repairs, utilities and insurance on the facility.
`
`Provide all labor.
`
`Monitor pig and breeding stock health.
`
`Manage the breeding stock and offspring.
`
`Manage the animals’ breeding.
`
`Follow JBS’ feeding and management policies.
`
`Dispose of all waste and manure.
`
`Obtain and maintain a “Nutrient Management Plan,” that complied with all federal,
`
`state and local laws (a/k/a, a reservoir for the massive amounts of manure produced by JBS’
`
`animals).
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`and internet.
`
`Dispose of dead animals.
`
`Euthanize defective animals.
`
`Maintain communication equipment, including an answering machine, computer
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-04032-SOH Document 3 Filed 04/05/22 Page 7 of 18 PageID #: 11
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`Load and unload pigs brought to or taken from the facility.
`
`Maintain adequate roads to and from the facility.
`
`Provide and maintain feeding systems and pig loading equipment.
`
`Maintain daily, weekly and monthly records.
`
`Subscribe to production record systems as directed by JBS.
`
`Allow JBS’ representatives to enter and inspect the facility.
`
`Protect the pigs from mortgage, lien or financial encumbrance.
`
`Indemnify JBS from claims.
`
`Participate in environmental training.
`
`Furnish JBS with proof of liability insurance.
`
`Be responsible for workers compensation, unemployment, disability and health
`
`insurance for himself and any of his workers.
`
`•
`
`Make sure that all pigs meet JBS’ specifications, which required that animals be
`
`castrated, tattooed and have docked tails and that the animals not have lice, mange or skin lesions
`
`or be wounded, unthrifty, lame, stiff, coughing or anemic.
`
`•
`
`Maintain automatic curtains and ventilation systems, operational flush systems
`
`capable of removing animal waste, operational feed delivery systems, and maintain gates, stalls,
`
`walls and panels.
`
`Pay for any capital investments.
`
`Not become bankrupt.
`
`•
`
`•
`
`
`
`33. In addition to saddling Garner with all of these obligations, JBS disclaimed any
`
`warranties with respect to feed or supplies delivered, disclaimed any warranties as to the health of
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-04032-SOH Document 3 Filed 04/05/22 Page 8 of 18 PageID #: 12
`
`any pigs it delivered to Garner and disclaimed any warranties as to Garner’s profitability.
`
`
`
`34. While these terms make the contract incredibly one-sided, JBS did not end there. The
`
`agreement also declares that JBS reserves “the unilateral right to amend, revise, or eliminate any
`
`standard,
`
`requirement or policy
`
`identified
`
`in
`
`this Agreement.” Exhibit 2, p. 17.
`
`
`
`35. Thus, at any point, the agreement purported to allow JBS to delete or amend any
`
`provision,
`
`including changing
`
`the amount
`
`it owed Garner
`
`for his performance.
`
`
`
`36. From March, 2018 to November, 2021, Garner complied with the terms of the contract
`
`and produced pigs for JBS.
`
`37. At no time did Garner breach any terms of the parties’ contract.
`
`38. Early in the parties’ dealings, JBS representatives implored Garner to resign as a
`
`deputy-sheriff so that he could devote more time to the operation of the hog farm.
`
`39. While still maintaining his job as a deputy-sheriff, Garner worked at the farm every
`
`day and also employed two persons who worked at the farm on a full-time basis.
`
`40. Garner believed that he could effectively manage the farm while maintaining his
`
`employment at the sheriff’s office. However, as a result of JBS’ repeated requests, he eventually
`
`gave up his position with the sheriff’s office in September, 2021.
`
`41. After resigning his deputy-sheriff job, Garner began spending more time working at
`
`the hog farm facility and continued to employ two full-time workers.
`
`42. During the course of the parties’ dealings, JBS failed to comply with several provisions
`
`of the agreement.
`
`43. In 2021, JBS unilaterally changed the weight specifications for pigs shipped from the
`
`farm. After changing these amounts, JBS began to “dock” Garner $5 per pig for any pig that was
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-04032-SOH Document 3 Filed 04/05/22 Page 9 of 18 PageID #: 13
`
`under eight pounds at the time of shipping. This change, which was a deviation from the Sow
`
`Production Agreement, caused Garner to suffer thousands of dollars in financial loss.
`
`44. There were several times during the term of the contract when JBS failed to provide
`
`Garner with gilts. This failure negatively impacted Garner’s ability to produce under the contract
`
`and caused him thousands of dollars in damages.
`
`45. In September, 2021, JBS advised Garner that he would not be receiving any gilts
`
`because the gilts had all been sent to market due to delta coronavirus. JBS further advised Garner
`
`that he would not receive any compensation whatsoever as a result of JBS’ failure to provide the
`
`gilts. As a direct result of JBS’ failure, this action cost Garner a minimum of $5,405.00.
`
`46. During the first week of November, 2021, JBS representatives called Garner and told
`
`him that they were going to be in the area and wanted to drop by his farm to see him. Garner was
`
`out of town at the time, but advised the JBS representatives that he would be back at the farm on
`
`November 8, 2021.
`
`47. On November 8, 2021, JBS representatives arrived at his farm and told him that JBS
`
`was terminating his contract.
`
`48. Prior to November, 2021, Garner had no reason to believe that JBS intended to cancel
`
`his contract.
`
`49. The JBS representatives provided Garner with a document and told him he had to sign
`
`it.
`
`50. Before signing the document, Garner requested additional time so that he could
`
`properly review the document and seek consultation from others.
`
`51. In response, the JBS representatives told Garner that he had to sign the document on
`
`November 8, 2021, in their presence.
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-04032-SOH Document 3 Filed 04/05/22 Page 10 of 18 PageID #: 14
`
`52. The JBS representatives told Garner that, if he signed the document, he would receive
`
`pay for the remaining batches of piglets from his farm but, if he refused to sign the document on
`
`November 8, 2021 in the presence of the JBS representatives, JBS would not provide him any
`
`payment of any kind.
`
`53. Garner did not sign the document and was not given a copy of it. However, he was
`
`able to take photographs of the document. Exhibit 3.
`
`54. The document was a waiver, drafted by JBS, designed to prevent Garner from
`
`exercising any and all legal rights or pursuing any claims against JBS for its unilateral termination
`
`of the contract. The document also required Garner to keep its terms “secret and confidential” and
`
`precluded him from disclosing its terms to anyone.
`
`55. Since Garner declined to sign JBS’ document, JBS subsequently took possession of
`
`all the porcine livestock on his farm, and refused to pay him anything.
`
`56. JBS gave Garner no opportunity to continue operating under the contract. JBS did not
`
`identify any alleged, material problems or give him any opportunity to “cure” any alleged problems
`
`that would have allowed him to continue producing animals for JBS.
`
`57. As a direct result of JBS’ actions, Garner had no alternative but to shutter the hog farm
`
`facility.
`
`58. JBS’ unilateral cancellation of the contract placed Garner in a dire financial condition.
`
`Not only did he lose revenue as a result of the contract termination and JBS’ failure to compensate
`
`him for the animals it removed from his farm, he was faced with the inability to service the debt
`
`on the loan he had obtained to purchase the hog farm facility.
`
`59. Garner’s hog farm facility was built according to JBS’ specifications and had been
`
`approved for the production of pigs for JBS.
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-04032-SOH Document 3 Filed 04/05/22 Page 11 of 18 PageID #: 15
`
`60. JBS was, and is, the only company which is involved in industrial pork production in
`
`the Howard County area.
`
`61. In the absence of a production agreement with JBS, Garner’s hog farm facility had no
`
`value.
`
`62. Not only did the facility lack value in the absence of a production agreement, the real
`
`property where the facility was located was left with a waste lagoon that would require thousands
`
`of dollars to remediate.
`
`63. When JBS’ representatives were on his farm on November 8, 2021, they made it clear
`
`that JBS would not do any further business with him.
`
`64. On or around November 9, 2021, a JBS veterinarian came to the farm while JBS was
`
`removing the animals. The veterinarian told Garner that the animals “looked good,” but did not
`
`provide any further explanation for why JBS had unilaterally decided to cancel the contract.
`
`66. JBS has never provided Garner with any credible basis for its unilateral cancelation of
`
`the five-year Sow Production Agreement.
`
`66. Garner’s hog farm facility became inactive after JBS terminated his contract and
`
`removed the livestock.
`
`67. When it became clear that the hog farm facility lay fallow, several persons inquired
`
`about the possibility of purchasing it and becoming producers for JBS.
`
`68. Since Garner had debt problems and had lost his stream of income from the hog farm
`
`as a result of JBS’ unilateral termination of his contract, he was keen to sell the facility so that he
`
`could attempt to recoup his losses and mitigate his damage.
`
`69. Just like with Garner, any prospective purchaser would not be able to use the hog farm
`
`facility for any other purposes except as a producer for JBS. Consequently, prospective purchasers
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-04032-SOH Document 3 Filed 04/05/22 Page 12 of 18 PageID #: 16
`
`contacted JBS to inquire about whether JBS would provide them a contract if they purchased
`
`Garner’s facility.
`
`70. Some prospective purchasers were simply told by JBS that it would not provide a
`
`contract for the production of pigs at Garner’s farm.
`
`71. JBS told at least one individual that it was not interested in giving a contract to anyone
`
`who purchased Garner’s farm because the farm was “out-of-date” and because it would be cost-
`
`prohibitive to ship animals from the farm to JBS’ other facilities.
`
`72. As a result of JBS’ comments to prospective purchasers, JBS actively discouraged
`
`anyone from buying the facility and actively interfered with Garner’s attempts to sell it.
`
`73. Garner’s hog farm facility, which he is unable to sell, now sits idle. While he has lost
`
`any source of revenue from the facility, he is forced to deal with the debt on the farm and faces the
`
`prospect of being required to remediate the environmental issues related to the waste created by
`
`the animals which he had produced for JBS.
`
`CAUSES OF ACTION
`
`I.
`
`Breach of Contract
`
`74. Plaintiff realleges the foregoing Paragraphs as if set forth herein, word for word.
`
`75. JBS breached one or more terms of its contract with Garner.
`
`76. Garner suffered damages as a result of these breaches.
`
`77. Garner is entitled to judgment for his actual, incidental and consequential damages.
`
`78. Garner is entitled to judgment for his reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of litigation.
`
`II.
`
`Estoppel
`
`79. Plaintiff realleges the foregoing Paragraphs as if set forth herein, word for word.
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-04032-SOH Document 3 Filed 04/05/22 Page 13 of 18 PageID #: 17
`
`80. Garner relied on JBS’ representations that it would contract with him and pay him for
`
`animals over a term of years. Based on that reliance, he borrowed money and purchased the farm.
`
`81. JBS knew that Garner was relying on its representations and that he took action as a
`
`result of that reliance.
`
`82. During the course of his dealings with JBS, JBS never told Garner that his farm was
`
`out-of-date or that, because of its location, it was cost-prohibitive for JBS to ship animals from his
`
`farm. If JBS had made these representations to Garner back in March, 2018, Garner would have
`
`never borrowed money to purchase the hog fam facility, entered into any contract with JBS or
`
`resigned his job as a deputy-sheriff.
`
`83. Because of Garner’s detrimental reliance, JBS should be estopped from unilaterally
`
`canceling the contract and failing to pay him for the animals he produced.
`
`84. Garner has suffered damages as a result of his reliance on JBS’ representations.
`
`85. Garner is entitled to judgment for his damages, reasonable attorneys fees and costs of
`
`litigation.
`
`
`
`III. Tortious Interference
`
`86. Plaintiff realleges the foregoing Paragraphs as if set forth herein, word for word.
`
`87. JBS knew that it’s unilateral termination of Garner’s contract would place Garner in a
`
`dire financial situation.
`
`
`
`88. JBS knew that Garner would have potential legal claims as a result of its termination
`
`of his contract.
`
`
`
`89. JBS tried to pressure Garner into abandoning his legal rights by trying to coerce him
`
`into signing a written waiver on the same day that it advised him that it was canceling his contract.
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-04032-SOH Document 3 Filed 04/05/22 Page 14 of 18 PageID #: 18
`
`
`
`90. JBS refused to allow Garner additional time to review the waiver or to seek counsel
`
`from others before signing it. JBS’s representatives told Garner that he was required to sign the
`
`waiver in their presence and that the company would not pay him if he refused to sign.
`
`
`
`91. After Garner refused to sign JBS’ waiver, JBS decided to discourage prospective
`
`purchasers from buying Garner’s facility. Among other things, JBS did this to exact additional
`
`pressure on Garner and to further decrease the likelihood that he would file suit and pursue his
`
`legal claims against the company.
`
`
`
`92. JBS lacked any legitimate basis for preventing prospective purchasers from buying
`
`Garner’s farm.
`
`
`
`93. JBS’ intentional conduct has prevented several interested buyers from purchasing
`
`Garner’s hog farm facility.
`
`
`
`94. JBS’ conduct constitutes tortious interference with Garner’s business activities and has
`
`directly damaged Garner.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`95. Garner is entitled to judgment for his damages as a result of JBS’ tortious interference.
`
`96. JBS’ actions were intentional and malicious.
`
`97. Garner is entitled to judgment against JBS for exemplary damages to punish JBS and
`
`to deter JBS and others from engaging in similar activity in the future.
`
`IV. Conversion
`
`98. Plaintiff realleges the foregoing Paragraphs as if set forth herein, word for word.
`
`99. When JBS canceled the contract in November, 2021, there were pigs at Garner’s farm
`
`for which he was entitled to payment.
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-04032-SOH Document 3 Filed 04/05/22 Page 15 of 18 PageID #: 19
`
`
`
`100. JBS knew that it owed Garner for these animals but refused to pay him unless he
`
`agreed to sign a “Mutual Termination and Release” on November 8, 2021 while in the presence of
`
`JBS’ representatives.
`
`
`
`101. When Garner was denied any additional time to seek consultation about the “Mutual
`
`Termination and Release” document, JBS told him that he would not receive any of the payment
`
`he was due, unless he signed the document on that day.
`
`
`
`102. After Garner declined to sign the “Mutual Termination and Release,” JBS took all of
`
`the pigs from his facility without properly compensating him.
`
`
`
`103. JBS knew that Garner was entitled to compensation for the pigs that it removed from
`
`his farm.
`
`
`
`
`
`104. JBS’ failure to compensate Garner constituted intentional conversion.
`
`105. JBS’ action was designed not only to prevent Garner from receiving payment for his
`
`work, it was also designed as a punitive sanction for his refusal to sign a document, which had
`
`been drafted by JBS, waiving any and all of his legal rights and remedies.
`
`
`
`106. Garner suffered damages as a result of JBS’ failure to pay him for the animals it
`
`removed from his farm.
`
`
`
`107. JBS’ actions were intentional and malicious and were designed to punish Garner.
`
`108. Garner is entitled to judgment for his damages and judgment for exemplary damages
`
`to punish JBS and to deter JBS and others from engaging in similar activity in the future.
`
`DAMAGES
`
`109. Garner has suffered damages as a direct result of JBS’ conduct described herein.
`
`Garner is entitled to judgment for his actual, consequential and incidental damages. Garner is
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-04032-SOH Document 3 Filed 04/05/22 Page 16 of 18 PageID #: 20
`
`entitled to judgment for his reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of litigation and for exemplary
`
`damages.
`
`110. Garner’s damages include, but are not limited to: his losses resulting from JBS’
`
`breaches and lack of compliance with the original terms of the parties’ contract; his losses resulting
`
`from the pigs taken from his facility for which he was never paid; his losses as a result of JBS’
`
`wrongful termination of the contract; and his losses as a result of JBS’ interference with his
`
`attempts to sell the facility.
`
`JURY DEMAND
`
`
`
`111. JBS’ contract contains a provision that purports to cause Garner to waive the right to
`
`a trial by jury. However, prior to wrongfully canceling the contract, JBS breached one or more
`
`terms of the agreement. As a result of these prior breaches, JBS should not be allowed to enforce
`
`the purported waiver of jury trial and Garner demands a trial by jury on all of his legal claims.
`
`
`
`112. In the alternative, the purported waiver of jury trial is expressly limited to “any action
`
`or proceeding to enforce or defend any rights under this agreement.” Exhibit 2, p. 17 (emphasis
`
`added). Counts II, III and IV, above, do not involve claims to enforce or defend any rights under
`
`the parties’ agreement. Instead, they involve claims related to JBS’ conduct outside the agreement.
`
`Therefore, even if the Court determines that the contract claims are subject to a waiver of jury trial,
`
`Garner demands a trial by jury on the remaining claims.
`
`
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that he be granted the relief requested herein, that he be
`
`granted judgment against the Defendant for his actual, incidental and consequential damages in an
`
`amount greater than that required for federal diversity of citizenship jurisdiction, judgment for his
`
`reasonable attorney’s fees and costs, judgment for his exemplary damages, and for any and all
`
`other just and proper relief to which he may be entitled.
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-04032-SOH Document 3 Filed 04/05/22 Page 17 of 18 PageID #: 21
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`/s/ Corey D. McGaha
`Corey D. McGaha Ark. Bar No. 2003047
`COREY D. MCGAHA PLLC
`5507 Ranch Drive 104-D
`Little Rock, AR 72223
`Phone: (501) 205-4027
`Fax: (501) 367-8208
`cmcgaha@mcgahalaw.com
`
`and
`
`Todd M. Turner Ark. Bar No. 92266
`TURNER AND TURNER, PA
`501 Crittenden Street
`P.O. Box 480
`Arkadelphia, AR 71923
`Telephone: (870) 246-9844
`Fax: (888) 866-9897
`todd@tandtlaw.net
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-04032-SOH Document 3 Filed 04/05/22 Page 18 of 18 PageID #: 22
`Case 4:22-cv-04032-SOH Document3
`Filed 04/05/22 Page 18 of 18 PagelD #: 22
`
`
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket