Rodriguez v. RCO Reforesting, Inc. et al.
Filing
42
ORDER signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 8/8/2017 GRANTING 33 Motion to Certify Class; ORDERING that expert reports be produced by 1/30/2018; ORDERING that all discovery be completed by 4/2/2018; ORDERING that all motions be filed by 4/16/2 018; CONTINUING the Final Pretrial Conference to 7/16/2018 at 01:30 PM in Courtroom 5 (WBS) before Senior Judge William B. Shubb; CONTINUING the Jury Trial to 9/18/2018 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 5 (WBS) before Senior Judge William B. Shubb. (Michel, G.)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
----oo0oo----
11
12
13
JESUS SILVA RODRIGUEZ and
RIGOBERTO ZEPEDA LOA,
16
17
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE:
AMENDED MOTION FOR
CONDITIONAL CERTIFICATION AND
MOTION TO MODIFY THE PRETRIAL
SCHEDULING ORDER
Plaintiffs,
14
15
CIV. NO. 2:16-2523 WBS CMK
v.
RCO REFORESTING, INC. and
ROBERTO OCHOA,
Defendants.
18
----oo0oo----
19
20
Plaintiffs Jesus Rodriguez and Rigoberto Loa brought
21
this action against defendants RCO Reforesting, Inc. (“RCO”) and
22
Roberto Ochoa, asserting various wage and hour and employment law
23
claims under federal and California law.
24
(“FAC”) (Docket No. 24).)
25
amended Motion to conditionally certify this action as an FLSA
26
collective action, issue notice to similarly situated individuals
27
under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), and modify the February 17, 2017,
28
pretrial scheduling order.
(First Am. Compl.
Before the court is plaintiffs’
(Pls.’ Mot. (Docket No. 33).)
1
Defendants employed plaintiffs as temporary forestry
1
2
workers pursuant to the H-2B visa program.
(Docket No. 35
3
(“Rodriguez Decl.”) ¶ 2; Docket No. 33-4 (“Loa Decl.”) ¶ 2.)
4
Plaintiffs allege that defendants had a policy of not paying
5
plaintiffs for overtime work and not reimbursing plaintiffs for
6
their travel and visa costs, which reduced their first week pay
7
to below minimum wage.
8
practices allegedly violate the FLSA.
9
court denied plaintiffs’ previous Motion to conditionally certify
(FAC ¶¶ 1, 23-26, 49-52.)
These
(See id. at 10-12.)
10
this as a collective action on June 16, 2017.
11
Order (Docket No. 31).)
12
I.
The
13
(See June 16, 2017
Conditional Certification
Employees may bring suits for FLSA violations on behalf
14
of “other employees similarly situated.”
15
The FLSA does not define “similarly situated,” and neither the
16
Supreme Court nor the Ninth Circuit has offered clarification.
17
Brown v. Citicorp Credit Servs., Civ. No. 1:12-62 BLW, 2013 WL
18
4648546, at *2 (D. Idaho Aug. 29, 2013).
19
Court has noted a collective action addresses “claims of multiple
20
plaintiffs who share ‘common issues of law and fact arising from
21
the same alleged [prohibited] activity.’”
22
La Roche, Inc. v. Sperling, 493 U.S. 165, 170 (1989)).
23
29 U.S.C. § 216(b).
However, the Supreme
Id. (quoting Hoffmann–
Under the two-step process for FLSA actions, the court
24
first determines whether to conditionally certify the proposed
25
class and send notice of the action based on the pleadings and
26
affidavits.
27
(E.D. Cal. 2010).
28
appropriate is within the discretion of the district court.”
Murillo v. Pac. Gas & Elec. Co., 266 F.R.D. 468, 471
“Determining whether a collective action is
2
1
Leuthold v. Destination Am., 224 F.R.D. 462, 466 (N.D. Cal. 2004)
2
(citation omitted).
3
searching review of whether plaintiffs are similarly situated,
4
often triggered by a motion to decertify by defendant.
After discovery, the court engages in a more
Id.
Courts apply a lenient standard to the first-step.
5
6
Leuthold, 224 F.R.D. at 467.
This step requires that “plaintiffs
7
make substantial allegations that the putative class members were
8
subject to a single illegal policy, plan or decision.”
9
266 F.R.D. at 471.
Murillo,
However, a plaintiff must supply “some modest
10
evidentiary showing,” and the court need not rely on statements
11
that indicate a lack of personal knowledge of alleged employer
12
practices.
13
burden to show that they are similarly situated “to all potential
14
class members, not merely some portion of them.”
15
Entm’t U.S.A. Inc., 67 F. Supp. 3d 1061, 1066 (D. Ariz. 2014).
Plaintiffs bear the
Kesley v.
Here, plaintiffs seek to conditionally certify an FLSA
16
17
Brown, 2013 WL 4648546, at *1-3.
class defined as:
18
All non-exempt workers employed by Defendants
at any time between May 5, 2014 through the
present, as forestry workers either under the
terms of an H-2B job order or who were
engaged in corresponding employment, who
incurred and were not reimbursed for their
travel and visa costs during the first weeks
of employment such that they made less than
minimum wage and/or worked in excess of forty
hours per week and were not compensated for
those hours at the applicable overtime rate.
19
20
21
22
23
24
(Pls.’ Proposed Order (Docket No. 33-6).)
25
Motion, plaintiffs submit affidavits and copies of defendants’ H-
26
2B applications for 2013 through 2016.1
27
28
1
In support of their
(See Docket No. 33-2.)
Defendants requested H-2B visas for 85 workers in 2013,
101 workers in 2014, 80 workers in 2015, and 67 workers in 2016.
3
1
Both plaintiffs attest that they, as H-2B workers, were
2
“not paid overtime for the hours [they] worked more than eight
3
hours a day” and were “not paid more than 40 hours per week
4
regardless of how many hours [they] actually worked.”
5
Decl. ¶ 15; see Loa Decl. ¶ 12.)
6
reimbursed for their visa or travel costs from Mexico to the
7
company office in Yreka, (Rodriguez Decl. ¶¶ 7-8; Loa Decl. ¶¶ 5-
8
7), causing them to make below minimum wage their first week,
9
(FAC ¶ 52).
(Rodriguez
They also allegedly were not
They were aware that other H-2B workers were subject
10
to the same conditions because they witnessed such conduct and
11
discussed these issues with other H-2B workers.
12
Loa Decl. ¶¶ 5, 7, 12.)
13
(Id. ¶¶ 8, 15;
Defendants argue the class is impermissibly vague and
14
overbroad because it includes H-2B visa workers and workers
15
“engaged in corresponding employment.”
16
discretion, narrow the scope of the proposed collective action.
17
See, e.g., Romero v. Producers Dairy Foods, Inc., 235 F.R.D. 474,
18
483-84 (E.D. Cal. 2006) (Coyle, J.) (excluding certain types of
19
drivers from conditional certification of an FLSA collective
20
action because plaintiffs failed to show these drivers were
21
similarly situated); see also Adams v. Inter-Con Sec. Sys., Inc.,
22
242 F.R.D. 530, 539 (N.D. Cal. 2007) (narrowing the class of
23
individuals who are entitled to receive notice of the action).
24
The court agrees that the proposed class is overbroad.
25
The court may, in its
First, including those engaged in corresponding
26
employment introduces ambiguity in the class.
27
F.R.D. at 484 (removing inclusion of individuals engaged in
28
“equivalent delivery positions” from conditional certification
4
See Romero, 235
1
because it “introduces ambiguity in the class”).
2
employment is defined by 20 C.F.R. § 655.5 as someone engaged in
3
“substantially the same work included in the job order or
4
substantially the same work performed by the H-2B workers.”
5
However, it is unclear what constitutes “substantially the same
6
work,” and thus it is unclear to potential plaintiffs who falls
7
within the scope of the class.
8
from determining whether plaintiffs and all potential class
9
members are similarly situated.
10
Corresponding
Ambiguity also prevents the court
Second, and more importantly, plaintiffs’ affidavits
11
are devoid of any information or personal knowledge regarding
12
workers in corresponding employment.
13
allegations that workers in corresponding employment were subject
14
to the same alleged FLSA violations as the H-2B workers.
15
Adams, 242 F.R.D. at 536 (finding conditional certification
16
proper where “the putative class members were subject to a single
17
illegal policy, plan or decision”).
18
Rodriguez’s declarations discuss their knowledge of FLSA
19
violations incurred by other H-2B visa workers, but make no
20
mention of those in corresponding employment.
21
Rodriguez Decl. ¶ 15 (“I know other H-2B workers were not paid
22
for all of the hours they worked because we would discuss our pay
23
and compare our paychecks.”) (emphasis added).)
24
Amended Complaint also contains no allegations regarding workers
25
in corresponding employment.
26
that they have any personal knowledge regarding non-H-2B visa
27
workers, plaintiffs fail to show that those in corresponding
28
employment were subject to the same “single illegal policy, plan
There is no evidence or
See
Plaintiffs Loa’s and
(See, e.g.,
The First
Because plaintiffs fail to indicate
5
1
or decision” as H-2B workers.
See Murillo, 266 F.R.D. at 471.
Because including workers in corresponding employment
2
3
introduces ambiguity and there is no evidence that workers in
4
corresponding employment suffered FLSA violations, plaintiffs
5
have not shown that they are similarly situated “to all potential
6
class members.”
7
will exercise its discretion to narrow the scope of the proposed
8
collective action and exclude those in corresponding employment.
9
The court will conditionally certify a class of:
10
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
The court
All non-exempt workers employed by Defendants
at any time between May 5, 2014 through the
present, as forestry workers under the terms
of an H-2B job order who (1) incurred and
were not reimbursed for their travel and visa
costs during the first weeks of employment
such that they made less than minimum wage
and/or (2) worked in excess of forty hours
per week and were not compensated for those
hours at the applicable overtime rate.
11
15
See Kesley, 67 F. Supp. 3d at 1066.
II.
Notice
Where “the court finds initial certification
appropriate, it may order notice to be delivered to potential
plaintiffs.”
Kress v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP, 263 F.R.D.
623, 628 (E.D. Cal. 2009) (Karlton, J.) (citing Hoffmann-La
Roche, 493 U.S. at 172).
Having found that conditional
certification is proper, the court finds that issuance of notice
to the certified class is proper.
The court will address
plaintiffs’ proposed notice plan and proposed notice.
Plaintiffs seek authorization of a notice plan whereby
defendants provide plaintiffs with the contact information of all
potential class members, plaintiffs send notice of this action to
the potential members, defendants post a copy of the notice in
28
6
1
English and Spanish in their office and employer-provided
2
housing, and defendants provide a copy of the notice with the
3
paychecks of each H-2B worker for the entire opt-in period.
4
Plaintiffs request a six-month opt-in period from the date
5
defendants provide the information of potential plaintiffs.
6
Defendants object to several aspects of this notice plan.
7
Defendants first object to the notice plan because
8
plaintiffs’ opt-in period begins after production of all
9
potential plaintiffs’ information, suggesting that failure by
10
defendants to produce the name, phone number, and address of one
11
potential member would delay commencement of the opt-in period
12
indefinitely.
13
requiring defendants to provide the information of all potential
14
class members for which they have contact information and (2)
15
commencing the opt-in period from the date this Order is signed.
16
The court shall remedy this objection by (1)
Defendants next object to the requirement that
17
defendants post notice of this action in all employer-provided
18
housing and provide a copy of the notice with the paycheck of
19
each H-2B worker for the six month opt-in period.
20
agrees with both objections.
21
notice of the action with each H-2B worker’s paycheck for six
22
months is overly burdensome.
23
notice with an H-2B worker’s paycheck will help facilitate notice
24
to the potential class members.
25
copy of the notice in each H-2B worker’s paycheck for the
26
September 1, 2017, and October 1, 2017, pay periods.
The court
Requiring defendants to provide
However, providing a copy of the
Thus, defendants shall provide a
27
Defense counsel argues that defendants do not own any
28
of the employer-provided housing, and thus defendants would not
7
1
be permitted to post the notices in employer-provided housing.
2
At oral argument, defense counsel confirmed that defendants own
3
no employer-provided housing.
4
parties to this case--the owners of the employer-provided
5
housing--to permit defendants to place a copy of the notice of
6
this action in their facilities.
7
require defendants to post notice of this action in employer-
8
provided housing.
The court will not compel non-
Thus, the court will not
As for the content of the notice, it must “provide
9
10
potential class members ‘accurate . . . notice concerning the
11
pendency of the collective action, so that they can make informed
12
decisions about whether to participate.’”
13
492 (quoting Hoffmann-La Roche, 493 U.S. at 170)).
Romero, 235 F.R.D. at
Defendants first object to the portion of the “Your
14
15
Rights to Join This Lawsuit” section that states those who
16
believe they “were not reimbursed for your transportation and
17
other expenses during the first weeks of work” may seek to join
18
this action.
19
Defendants argue that the reference to “other expenses”
20
inaccurately suggests to potential plaintiffs that they may have
21
broad entitlement for reimbursement of expenses beyond the
22
requirements of the FLSA.
23
potential class members with accurate information, Romero, 235
24
F.R.D. at 492, the court finds that the expenses in this section
25
should reflect the expenses listed in the conditionally certified
26
class.
27
“transportation and other expenses” with “travel and visa costs.”
28
In light of the narrowed class, the court will also require
(See Proposed Notice at 3 (emphasis added).)
Because the notice should provide
The court thus will require plaintiffs to substitute
8
1
plaintiffs to clarify that only individuals employed under the
2
terms of an H-2B job order may join this action.
3
Defendants also object to the portion of the “Your
4
Legal Representation” section that states “However, CRLA and CDM
5
will seek an award of costs and attorneys’ fees from the Court
6
pursuant to an agreement with the Defendants.”
7
Notice at 4.)
8
it suggests the parties will reach an agreement regarding the
9
attorneys’ fees award.
10
(See Proposed
Defendants argue this sentence is improper because
The court agrees and plaintiffs shall
remove the phrase “pursuant to an agreement with the Defendants.”
11
Defendants next object to the notice because it does
12
not provide defense counsel’s contact information and does not
13
inform potential plaintiffs that they have a right to select
14
their own counsel.
15
explicitly rejected these additions because they would “lead to
16
confusion, inefficiency and cumbersome proceedings.”
17
Adams, 242 F.R.D. at 541.
18
objection.
19
Other courts in the Ninth Circuit have
See, e.g.,
The court will overrule this
In all other regards, the court will approve
20
plaintiffs’ notice plan and proposed notice.
21
III. Amend Pretrial Scheduling Order
22
Plaintiffs also move to modify the court’s February 17,
23
2017, pretrial scheduling order (Docket No. 7) to extend
24
discovery and other dates by six months in order to permit
25
potential plaintiffs with time to opt-in.
26
to close on August 31, 2017, and all motions must be filed by
27
September 15, 2017, which will prevent potential plaintiffs from
28
opting-in to this action and prevent the parties from
9
All discovery is set
1
incorporating the opt-in plaintiffs into their dispositive
2
motions.
3
modification because they first moved to modify the Scheduling
4
Order less than three months after the court issued its
5
Scheduling Order.
6
modify the Scheduling Order, and the court will grant plaintiffs’
7
Motion.
8
Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607 (9th Cir. 1992).
Plaintiffs did not delay in moving for this
The court finds that there is good cause to
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4); Johnson v. Mammoth
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiffs’ Motion for
9
10
conditional certification of this action as an FLSA collective
11
action and issuance of notice to class members (Docket No. 33)
12
be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED:
13
(1)
14
collective action for:
15
All non-exempt workers employed by Defendants
at any time between May 5, 2014 through the
present, as forestry workers under the terms
of an H-2B job order who (1) incurred and
were not reimbursed for their travel and visa
costs during the first weeks of employment
such that they made less than minimum wage
and/or (2) worked in excess of forty hours
per week and were not compensated for those
hours at the applicable overtime rate.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
The court conditionally certifies a FLSA
(2)
The court directs defendants to produce to
plaintiffs the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of all
potential class members for which they currently possess
information within fourteen days from the date this Order is
signed.
(3)
The court approves an opt-in period of six months,
commencing from the date this Order is signed.
(4)
The court approves the mailing of the Proposed
28
10
1
Notice (Docket No. 33-1), as amended below, for distribution to
2
potential class members, which shall include notice of the opt-in
3
period as established in this Order.
4
amended notice to the court and defendants within seven days from
5
the date this Order is signed and prior to distribution to any
6
potential class members.
7
Notice as follows:
8
(i)
Plaintiffs shall submit the
Plaintiffs shall amend the Proposed
In the section of the Proposed Notice titled
9
“Your Rights to Join This Lawsuit,” plaintiffs shall substitute
10
the clause “If you worked for Defendants at any time from May 5,
11
2014 through the present (and even if you are not currently
12
employed by Defendants), and believe you were not reimbursed for
13
your transportation and other expenses during the first weeks of
14
work” for “If you worked for Defendants at any time from May 5,
15
2014 through the present (and even if you are not currently
16
employed by Defendants) under the terms of an H-2B job order, and
17
believe you were not reimbursed for your travel and visa costs
18
during the first weeks of work.”
(ii) In the section of the Proposed Notice titled
19
20
“Your Legal Representation,” plaintiffs shall delete the phrase
21
“pursuant to an agreement with the Defendants.”
(5)
22
The court directs that, for the six month opt-in
23
period, defendants shall post a copy of the notice, in Spanish
24
and English, in defendants’ offices.
(6)
25
The court directs defendants to enclose a copy of
26
the notice with the paycheck of each H-2B worker employed by
27
defendants for the September 1, 2017, and October 1, 2017, pay
28
periods.
11
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs’ Motion for to
1
2
modify the court’s February 17, 2017 Scheduling Order (Docket No.
3
33) be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED.
4
17, 2017 Scheduling Order is modified as follows:
The court’s February
5
(1)
Expert Reports are due January 30, 2018;
6
(2)
All discovery closes April 2, 2018;
7
(3)
All motions shall be filed by April 16, 2018;
8
(4)
The Final Pretrial Conference is set for July 16,
2018, at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom No. 5;
9
(5)
10
9:00 a.m.
11
12
The jury trial is set for September 18, 2018, at
Dated:
August 8, 2017
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
12
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?