Lorenzo-Zamorano et al v. Overlook Harvesting Company, LLC et al

Filing 50

ORDER ATTACHED denying 49 Motion for Joinder and Motion to Amend Complaint. Signed by Judge Richard A. Lazzara on 3/2/2012. (CCB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION

ALEJANDRO LORENZO-ZAMORANO, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.

CASE NO: 8:11-cv-2105-T-26TBM

OVERLOOK HARVESTING COMPANY, LLC, et al.,
Defendants.
/

ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Permissive Joinder and for Leave to File
Amended Complaint. (Dkt. 49). After careful consideration of the motion and the file in
this action for unpaid wages on theories of breach of contract and violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act (the FLSA) and Florida Minimum Wage Provisions of the Florida
Constitution, the Court concludes that a response is unnecessary and that the motion
should be denied.
Earlier in this case, Plaintiffs sought to certify a class.1 On September 14, 2011,
Judge Steele adopted Magistrate Judge Frazier’s report and recommendation only in part2
and denied the motion for class certification, stating “whether there were breaches of

1

See docket 24.

2

See docket 36.

contract with regard to payment of wages” must be determined on an individual basis, and
therefore this action was not suitable to be treated as a class action. The district court set
forth the highly individualized calculations necessary to prove the breaches. The district
court noted that the weekly work records for two harvest seasons would need to be
examined to ascertain whether each Plaintiff was paid the appropriate amount based on
the correct rate. In short, on the breach of contract claim alone, tedious, individualized
calculations will necessarily take place, and thus class certification was denied.
Plaintiffs now request this Court to permit joinder of some additional eighty “H2A workers.” Even assuming the claims of the additional eighty potential plaintiffs may
be identical to the fourteen Plaintiffs, as asserted by Plaintiffs,3 the district court originally
assigned to this case has already decided that class consideration was not suitable for the
individualized assessment regarding breach of contract and violations of the FLSA and
Florida’s provisions on minimum wage. Consequently, joinder of so many more
Plaintiffs would not serve to expedite the resolution of this case, as is the purpose of
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20. See Swan v. Ray, 293 F.3d 1252, 1253 (11th Cir.
2002). Plaintiffs’ request for joinder appears as though it is an attempt to circumvent a
prior ruling in this case. If numerous Plaintiffs are joined at this time, there may very
well be a request for severance of the trials based on any one particular Plaintiff’s

3

See docket 49 at p. 7 (“The claims by the 80 persons whose joinder is sought are
identical to those of the current 14 Plaintiffs . . .”).
-2-

individual circumstances, which would not lend itself to any promotion of convenience at
trial, another object of Rule 20. Swan, 293 F.3d at 1253.
It is therefore ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for
Permissive Joinder and for Leave to File Amended Complaint (Dkt. 49) is DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED at Tampa, Florida, on March 2, 2012.

s/Richard A. Lazzara
RICHARD A. LAZZARA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

COPIES FURNISHED TO:

Counsel of Record

-3-