Hernandez-Hernandez et al v. Hendrix Produce, Inc. et al

Filing 68

ORDER denying 51 Motion for Approval of Collective Action Notice. Signed by Judge B. Avant Edenfield on 5/29/2014. (loh)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
STATESBORO DIVISION
SERGIO HERNANDEZ-HERNANDEZ,
et al., and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
6:13-cv-53

V.

HENDRIX PRODUCE, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER
I. INTRODUCTION
Plaintiffs have filed their Motion for
Approval of Collective Action Notice. ECF
No. 51. In its previous order, ECF No. 49,
the Court granted conditional class
certification to the Plaintiffs and ordered the
parties to confer about amendments to the
collective action notice. The Court
previously concluded that "the
[Defendants'] proposed additions and
clarifications . . . will result in a clearer,
more balanced notice to potential class
members." Id. at 2. The parties still
disagree about the content of the heading.
ECF Nos. 51; 61. After a de novo review of
the matter in light of the parties' most recent
arguments, the Court concludes that the
Defendants' version of the collective action
notice is most consistent with the pleadings,
and the Court DENIES the motion.

II. ANALYSIS
Plaintiffs propose the heading of the optin notice to read "To: All workers who
performed work with Hendrix Produce, R.E.
Hendrix and Yesenia Merino during the

2011 and 2012 H-2A Contracts." ECF No.
51-4 at 2. Defendants' version replaces the
first word, "All," with "H-2A," effectively
limiting the class members to migrant
workers. ECF No. 61 at 3.
The opt-in notice should be consistent
with the pleadings and briefing, and should
be truthful, accurate, and balanced. Earle v.
Convergent Outsourcing, Inc., No. 2:1 2-CV1050-WKW, 2013 WL 6252422, at *5..7
(M.D. Ala. Sept. 5, 2013) (citing Maddox v.
Knowledge Learning Corp., 499 F. Supp. 2d
1338, 1344 (N.D. Ga. 2007)).
A thorough review of the Complaint,
ECF No. 1, reveals that the Plaintiffs heavily
rely upon their status as foreign H-2A
laborers working under H-2A contract in
this action. "Plaintiffs and Opt-In Plaintiffs
are migrant agricultural workers . . . ." Id at
11. "The Plaintiffs and other similarlysituated workers accepted the employment
offer by signing up with agents of the
Defendants in Mexico." Id at ¶ 57. See
also Id. at ¶1159-64, 94, 99-100. While
domestic laborers may be able to sue for
similar Fair Labor Standards Act violations
related to hourly payment, the recovery of
travel expenses pursuant to the H-2A
program will not be applicable to domestic
workers, and these unpaid expenses are
alleged as damages in both counts of the
Complaint. Id. at ¶11 88, 100. Limiting the
scope of the collective action notice to H-2A
workers will keep the form consistent with
the pleadings.

III. CONCLUSION
The Court DENIES the Motion for
Approval of Collective Action Notice. The
Parties shall style the heading in the manner

proposed by the Defendants, replacing the
word "All" with "H-2A." See ECF No. 61
at 3.

1hisday of May 2014.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

2