Pistachio Growers Whose Duarte Trees Failed Asked for Their Money Back. A Judge Found They Were “Left With No Remedy at All.”

If Duarte Nursery’s trees failed, its contract limited what a pistachio grower could recover to the purchase price. When thousands of those trees did fail, growers asked for at least that much: their money back. A March 2022 Statement of Decision in J. Marchini & Son Inc. v. Duarte Nursery Inc., the combined pistachio case in Stanislaus County Superior Court, describes what they got instead.

What growers were told

According to the decision, John Duarte refused to reimburse one grower’s costs when she raised them with him in June 2014, and he told two other growers “that he was not writing checks for the off-type trees.” The nursery’s sales manager told growers “they weren’t giving refunds.” Growers were offered replacement trees, or credit good only for trees other than pistachios. When another grower asked for a refund, the decision says, John Duarte said he “did not have the deposit funds to return,” and almond trees were offered instead. On Feb. 6, 2015, a lawyer for two farms demanded in writing that the nursery return their deposits. The nursery refused.

Around June 2014, the decision says, John Duarte offered one grower $10 per tree, which “would essentially refund” the purchase price of the defective rootstock and some planting costs. When the grower contacted Duarte to accept, Duarte withdrew the offer and instead offered a $10-per-tree “tree credit” for trees other than pistachios.

What the nursery could offer

After June 2014, when the nursery stopped selling the rootstock and destroyed its inventory, it had no healthy pistachio rootstock left to replace the failed trees, the court found, and it “had no cash to give to growers.” The decision notes that John Duarte admitted the nursery was “struggling to make payroll” around this time. The judge concluded: “Consequently, the growers were left with no remedy at all.”

That finding helped decide the case. As the decision explains, a contract may limit a buyer’s remedy to a refund of the purchase price, but the limit cannot be enforced when the seller is unwilling or unable to provide even that. The judge ruled the contract’s warranty disclaimer and damages limit “unconscionable and, therefore, unenforceable.” “One-sided agreements whereby one party is left without a remedy for another party’s breach are oppressive and should be declared unconscionable,” the decision says, citing an earlier case. Read more about the pistachio case.

How it ended

The case did not wind down until 2025. According to a June 2025 court filing by one group of growers, the nursery had agreed that January to pay them $700,000, backed by a security agreement, within 30 days after both sides signed a final agreement. The growers said the nursery had not yet signed it, and no money had been paid. Duarte’s lawyers responded that the growers’ account contained “misrepresentations” and blamed the delay on the growers’ draft security agreement, which they said sought an interest in property the nursery did not own. They also wrote that the security agreement was “of no value to plaintiffs” because it was “subordinate to the secured interests of at least one third party.” The court records we reviewed do not show whether the payment was made. Other growers dismissed their claims with prejudice in 2025; those filings disclose no terms.

Alexandra Duarte, a Republican, is running for California State Senate District 4 on the Nov. 3, 2026 ballot. She is married to former Rep. John Duarte, who has served as the nursery’s president.