Lopez et al v. Ham Farms, LLC et al

Filing 94

ORDER denying 79 Motion to Dismiss; denying 81 Motion to Dismiss and for a Motion for More Definite Statement; denying 83 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. Signed by US District Judge James C. Dever, III on 1/15/2019. (Stouch, L.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
WESTERN DMSION
No. 5:17-CV-329-D

ADAN LOPEZ, et al.,
Plaintiff,
v.
HAM FARMS, LLC, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER

On May 31, 2018, Adan Lopez ("Lopez"), Alejandro Martinez.,.Mendez ("Martinez-"

Mendez"), Francisco Mendez ("Mendez"), Jose Jimenez-Olivarez ("Jimenez-Olivarez"), Ezequiel
Aburto-Hernandez ("Aburto-Hernandez"), Elena Rafael-Peralta ("Rafael-Peralta"), Jose Pablo
Sandoval-Montalvo ("Sandoval-Montalvo"), Isaias Espinosa-Vazquez ("Espinosa-Vazquez"),
Francisco Palacios-Hernandez ("Palacios-Hernandez"), and Humberto De La Luz Armenta ("De La
Luz Armenta") (collectively "plaintiffs") flied an amended complaint [D.E. 77]. The amended
complaint, which is 106 pages long, alleges several claims against 5 G Harvesting, LLC ("5 G
L

,

Harvesting"); Cirila Garcia-Pineda ("Garcia-Pineda''); Gutierrez Harvesting, LLC ("Gutierrez
Harvesting"); Ham Farms, LLC ("Ham Farms"); Ham Produce, LLC ("Ham Produce"); Hugo
Martinez ("Martinez"); Ismael Pacheco ("Pacheco"); Pacheco Contractors, Inc. ("Pacheco
Contractors"); Roberto Torres-Lopez ("Torres-Lopez"); Bladimir Moreno ("Moreno"); Los
Villatoros Harvesting, LLC ("Los Villatoros Harvesting"); and Rodrigo Gutierrez-Tapia, Sr.
("Gutierrez-Tapia") (collectively "defendants"). See Am. Compl. [D.E. 77] ~ 1. On June 14, 2018,
several defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint, or in the alternative, for a more definite
statement [D.E. 79, 81, 83]. Defendants Ham Farms, Harm Produce, and Hugo Martinez filed

memoranda in support [D.E. 80, 82]. On July 5, 2018, plaintiffs responded in opposition [D.E. 86].
On July 19, 2018, Ham Farms and Ham Produce replied [D.E. 90]. As explained below, the court
denies the motions to dismiss.
I.
Ham Farms and Ham Produce are a farming business that operates in and around Greene
County, North Carolina. See Am. Compl. [D.E. 77] ,, 6, 12, 16. Plaintiffs are farm workers ~om
Mexico who worked seasonally for that business during the fall months of2015, 20,16, and 2017.
See id. ,, 1, 8-11B, 28-31. Specifically, plaintiffs worked in a sweet potato house that Ham Farms
and Ham Produce own and operate. See id. , 18. The work included planting, harvesting, packing,
and operating equipment. ld. , 36. The remaining defendants are various farm labor contractors
who provide migrant farm workers, including plaintiffs, to Ham Farms and Ham Produce for
seasonal work. See id. ,, 19-30.
Plaintiffs allege several claims on behalf of themselves and putative classes composed of
similarly-situated migrant farm workers. See id. ,, 50-79. First, Aburto-Hemandez, on behalf of
himself and at least twenty other migrant farm workers, asserts a claim under ,the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq., against Ham Produce and Hugo Martinez for
failure to pay overtime wages. See Am. Compl. [D.E. 77] ,, 11, S0-53, 81-82, 109-11. Second,
all named plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the proposed classes under Rule 23, assert a claim
against all defendants under the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act (''NCWHA"), N.C. Gen. Stat.
§ 95-25.1 et seq., for failure to pay wages. See id. ,, 54-SS, 81-83, 90, 92, 94-95, 97, 99-100,
105--08, 112-14. Third, plaintiffs Rafael-Peralta, Jimenez-Olivares, Espinosa-Vazquez, De La Luz
Armenta, Palacios Hernandez, and Sandoval-Montalvo assert a "clearance order contract" claim
under 20 C.P.R.§ 655.122(q) against defendants Ham Farms, Torres-Lopez, Gutierrez, Gutierrez

2

Harvesting, 5 G Harvesting, Moreno, and Los Villatoros Harvesting for failure to pay wages and
failure to pay inbound travel expenses. See id. 1162-63, 83-90, 92, 94-95, 97, 99-100, 105-08,
115-18. Fourth, Lopez, Mendez, Aburto-Hemandez, and Martinez-Mendez assert claims on behalf
of themselves and the proposed classes against Ham Farms, Ham Produce, Torres-Lopez, Pacheco,
Martinez, and Garcia-Pineda for violations of the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker
Protection Act ("AWPA"), 29 U.S.C. § 1801 et seq. See id. 11 70-71, 80-86, 89-90, 96-97,
101-04, 119-22. Finally, Rafael-Peralta, Espinosa-Vazquez, De La LuzAnnenta, Jimenez-Olivarez,
Sandoval-Montalvo, and Palacios-Hernandez assert collective action claims under 29 U.S.C. §
206(a) and Arriaga v. Fla. Pac. ~arms. LLC, 305 F.3d 1228 (2002), against defendants Ham Farms,
Torres-Lopez, Pacheco Contractors, 5 G Harvesting, Gutierrez Harvesting, Rodrigo GuetierrezTapia, Moreno, and Los Villatoros Harvesting, LLC, for shifting inbound transportation expenses
to the plaintiffs. See id. W76-78, 106-07, 123-25.
A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) tests the complaint's legal and factual sufficiency.
SeeAshcroftv. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,677-80 (2009); BellAtl. Cotp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,55463 (2007); Coleman v. Md. Court of Appeals. 626 F.3d 187, 190 (4th Cir. 2010), affd, 566 U.S. 30
(2012); Giarratano v. Johnson, 521 F.3d 298, 302 (4th Cir. 2008). To withstand a Rule 12(b)(6)
motion, a pleading "must contain su;fficient factual matter, accepted as true, t<? state a claim to relief
that is plausible on its face." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quotation omitted); see Twombly, 550 U.S. at
570; Giarratano, 521 F.3d at 302. In considering the motion, the court must construe the facts and
reasonable inferences "in the light most favorable to the [nonmoying party]." Massey v. Ojanii:t, 759
F.3d343, 347,352-53 (4th Cir. 2014); see Clatterbuckv. City of Charlottesville, 708 F.3d 549,557
(4th Cir. 2013), abrogated on other grounds by Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 135 S. Ct. 2218 (2015).
A court need not accept as true a complaint's legal conclusions, ''unwarranted inferences,

3

unreasonable conclusions, or arguments." Giarratano, 521 F .3d at 302 (quotation omitted); see Iqbal,
556 U.S. at 678-79. Rather, a plaintiff's allegations must "nudge[] [his] claims," Twombly. 550
U.S. at 570, beyond the realm of"mere possibility" into "plausibility." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79.
"[N]aked assertions of wrongdoing," devoid of "factual enhancement," cannot "cross the line
between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief." Francis v. Giacomelli, 588 F.3d 186,
193 (4th Cir. 2009) (quotations omitted). A plaintiff armed with nothing more than "labels and
conclusions," or "a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action," cannot proceed into
the litigation process. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555; see Francis, 588 F.3d at 193.
A legally sufficient complaint must meet the standards of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
8. See Francis, 588 F.3d at 192. Under Rule 8(a)(2), a complaint must contain "a short and plain
statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Rule
8(a)(2) exists to ensure that defendants have adequate notice ofthe nature ofthe claims against them.
See, e.g., Francis, 588 F.3d at 192.
The "proper length and level of clarity" for a complaint cannot be defined with clarity and
is generally a matter within the district court's discretion. Stone v. Warfield, 184 F.R.D. 553, 555

(D. Md. 1999) (quotation omitted). In considering dismissal on this basis, courts consider the length

.

.

and complexity of a complaint, whether a complaint is clear enough to enable a defendant to defend
itself, and whether the plaintiff is proceeding pro se. See Sewraz v. Long, 407 F. App'x 718, 718-19
I

(4th Cir. 2011) (per curiam) (unpublished); cf. U.S. ex rei. Garst v. Lockheed-Martin Com., 328 F .3d
374,378 (7th Cir. 2003); Kittayv. Kornstei!l, 230 F.3d 531, 542 (2d Cir. 2000); Elliottv. Bronson,
872 F .2d 20, 21-22 (2d Cir. 1989) (per curiam). A court may dismiss a complaint that is needlessly
long or complex.

See,~'

Plumhoffv. Cent. Mortg. Co., 286 F. Supp. 3d 699, 702 (D. Md. 2017)

(collecting cases); Parkridge 6 LLC v. U.S. Dep't ofTransp., No. 1:09cv1312, 2010 WL 1404421,

4

j

at* 1 (E.D. Va. Apr. 6, 201 0) (unpublished); S. Volkswagen. Inc. v. Centrix Fin.. LLC, 357 F. Supp.
2d 837, 841 (D. Md. 2005); Hammel v. State Farm Mut. Ins. Co., 114 F. Supp. 2d 478, 481-82
(W.D.N.C. 2000), aff'd, 6 F. App'x 169 (4th Cir. 2001) (per curiam) (unpublished).
The- amended complaint is not a model of clarity and is needlessly long, but it does not
violate the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Cf. Plumhoff, 286 F. Supp. 3d at 702 (noting that a
"district court is not obliged to ferret through a [c]omplaint, sear~hing for viable claims."). The
amended complaint "clearly delineates" claims as to each defendant, which permits defendants to
respond to plaintiffs' factual and legal allegations. Sewraz, 407 F. App'x at 719.

II.
In sum, the court DENIES defendants's motions to dismiss [D.E. 79, 81, 83].
SO ORDERED. This I!" day of January 2019.
'

United States District Judge

5