Bobadilla-German et al v. Bear Creek Orchards, Inc.

Filing 357

Opinion and Order. Plaintiffs' Motion 290 for leave to file an Amended Complaint is granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiff's Motion 293 to Correct/Amend the Order for Class Certification 118 is granted to the extent that the Sub-Class Three is deleted, and denied as to the other proposed modifications. Please access document by number hyperlink for complete review and details of Opinion and Order. Signed on 6/17/2009 by Judge Owen M. Panner. (dkj)

FILEJr09 ~ 1? 10J27USoc-{ll1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON ELIAS BOBADILLA-GERMAN, et al., Plaintiffs, CV 0 7 - 3 0 5 8 - P A
O P I N I O N AND ORDER

v.
BEAR CREEK ORCHARDS, I N C . , Defendant.
PAlmER, J u d g e . Background

Plaintiffs filed this action in August 2007. 2007, Plaintiffs sought class certification.

In December

After briefing and

discovery regarding proposed class representatives, the court set forth preliminary thoughts regarding proposed class definitions and o t h e r m a t t e r s , and i n v i t e d comments from t h e p a r t i e s . In

O c t o b e r 2008, f o l l o w i n g s e v e r a l rounds o f comments and r e v i s i o n s , the court certified a class action with five sub-classes, and approved the form of Notice to the Class. T r i a l was s e t f o r J u l y

1 - OPINION AND ORDER

14, 2 0 0 9 , w i t h a p r e t r i a l c o n f e r e n c e o n J u n e 2 2 , 2 0 0 9 . On J u n e 3 , 2 0 0 9 , P l a i n t i f f s moved f o r L e a v e t o F i l e a n Amended C o m p l a i n t , a n d t o n C o r r e c t / A m e n d " t h e s u b - c l a s s definitions. Defendant opposes most of the proposed changes.
Discussion A. M o t i o n t o Amend C o m p l a i n t

" T h e c o u r t s h o u l d f r e e l y g i v e l e a v e [ t o amend t h e c o m p l a i n t ] when j u s t i c e s o r e q u i r e s . " F e d . R. C i v . P . l S ( a } ( 2 ) . A district

c o u r t d e t e r m i n e s t h e p r o p r i e t y o f a m o t i o n t o amend t h e C o m p l a i n t by ascertaining the presence of any of four factors: bad faith, undue delay, prejudice to the opposing party, and/or f u t i l i t y . G r i g g s v . P a c e A m e r i c a n G r o u p , I n c . , 1 7 0 F . 3 d 8 7 7 , 880 ( 9 t h C i r . 1993). Generally, this determination should be performed with Id. Class

all inferences in favor of granting the motion.

An a d d i t i o n a l f a c t o r p r e s e n t h e r e i s a c l a s s a c t i o n .

actions are analogous to an ocean liner; efficient for transporting large numbers of people but lacking the nimbleness of smaller vessels. Claims and class definitions, once fixed,

cannot easily be modified once Notice has been furnished to the Class and the opt out period has expired. Depending on the

c i r c u m s t a n c e s , a new N o t i c e a n d o p t o u t p e r i o d may b e n e c e s s a r y .

//// ////

2 - OPINION AND ORDER

1.

H o u s e k e e p i n g Amendments

Some o f P l a i n t i f f s ' p r o p o s e d a m e n d m e n t s t o t h e C o m p l a i n t a r e mere housekeeping, and do not affect the Class Notice or definitions. The c o u r t g r a n t s l e a v e t o amend t h e C o m p l a i n t :

(a) t o u p d a t e t h e e s t i m a t e d s i z e o f t h e C l a s s i (b) t o u p d a t e t h e n a m e s o f t h e C l a s s R e p r e s e n t a t i v e s t o reflect prior rUlings by the court; (c) t o c o n f o r m t h e a l l e g a t i o n s i n t h e C o m p l a i n t t o t h e subclasses, and the claims embodied in those subclasses, that were certified by this court; (d) t o d e l e t e p h r a s e s s u c h a s "Upon b e l i e f t h a t f u r t h e r investigation will provide evidentiary support . (e)
.n; and

to delete Sub-class Three, counsel for the Class having

c o n c l u d e d t h e f a c t s do n o t s u p p o r t t h e u n d e r l y i n g c l a i m .
2. S u b s t a n t i v e Amendments

P l a i n t i f f s s e e k t o a l l e g e a new AWPA v i o l a t i o n : t h a t Defendant used an unlicensed farm labor contractor to recruit migrant workers. c l a i m now. Defendant argues i t is too late to plead that

P l a i n t i f f s r e s p o n d t h a t D e f e n d a n t h a s known o f t h i s

new a l l e g a t i o n f o r s o m e t i m e , o r a t l e a s t t h e f a c t u a l b a s i s f o r i t , and Plaintiffs were unable to include this allegation in the original Complaint because Plaintiffs f i r s t learned of the alleged violation during discovery.

3 - OPINION AND ORDER

The c o u r t d e c l i n e s t o a l l o w P l a i n t i f f t o a d d t h i s new c l a i m ( o r new a l l e g a t i o n t o a n e x i s t i n g c l a i m ) . Even in an ordinary

c a s e , i t w o u l d b e a c l o s e q u e s t i o n w h e t h e r t o a l l o w t h e amendment at this late date. materials were due. Trial i s next month. The m o t i o n was f i l e d o n l y d a y s b e f o r e t r i a l The p r e t r i a l c o n f e r e n c e i s b u t a week a w a y . Class action status weighs strongly against A d d i n g · a new a l l e g e d v i o l a t i o n o f l a w

allowing the amendment.

will necessitate amending the sub-class definitions to reflect t h a t c h a n g e o r a d d i n g a new s u b - c l a s s , p r e p a r i n g a n d m a i l i n g a new C l a s s N o t i c e , a n d p r o v i d i n g r e c i p i e n t s w i t h a new o p p o r t u n i t y to opt out of the Class. Plaintiffs' notice of supplemental authority l i s t s seven cases, all easily distinguished. F o r i n s t a n c e , German v . F e d e r a l

Home L o a n M o r t g a g e C o r p . , 1 6 8 F . R . D . 1 4 5 ( S . D . N . Y . 1 9 9 6 ) , i n v o l v e d a F e d . R. c i v . P . 2 3 ( b ) (2) r a t h e r t h a n a 2 3 ( b ) (3) c l a s s action. The r e v i s i o n t o t h e c l a s s d e f i n i t i o n o c c u r r e d b e f o r e

n o t i c e was s e n t t o t h e c l a s s , a n d t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t u l t i m a t e l y c o n c l u d e d a 2 3 ( b } (2) c l a s s r e q u i r e d n e i t h e r n o t i c e t o t h e c l a s s nor an opportunity to opt out. Id. at 160-61. In Boucher v.

S y r a c u s e U n i v . , 164 F . 3 d 113, 118-19 (2d C i r . 1 9 9 9 ) , t h e p a n e l concluded the t r i a l court should have bifurcated the class into sub-classes after a conflict of interest arose, rather than simply excluding from the class those with conflicting interests.

4 - OPINION AND ORDER

Bifurcating a n e x i s t i n g c l a s s i s d i f f e r e n t f r o m c r e a t i n g a new class that did not previously exist, to pursue claims not contemplated in the prior certification order, for which p r o s p e c t i v e c l a s s members h a v e r e c e i v e d n e i t h e r n o t i c e n o r a n opportunity to opt out. In re Wells Fargo Loan Processor

O v e r t i m e P a y L i t i g a t i o n , 2 0 0 8 WL 2 3 9 7 4 2 4 (N.D. C a l i f . 2 0 0 8 ) , t h e court permitted the plaintiff to add additional claims to a "putative class action" and to expand the proposed class definition. No c l a s s h a d y e t b e e n c e r t i f i e d , n o t i c e h a d n o t b e e n In Elkind v. Liggett &

s e n t y e t , a n d t r i a l was n o t i m m i n e n t .

M y e r s . I n c . , 77 F . R . D . 708 ( S . D . N . Y . 1 9 7 7 ) , t h e p l a i n t i f f s o u g h t c e r t i f i c a t i o n o f a c l a s s i n c l u d i n g p e r s o n s who b o u g h t t h e company's stock through July 18. A pretrial ruling initially

fixed the cutoff date at July 12, over the p l a i n t i f f ' s objections. A different jUdge, presiding over the court t r i a l ,

d e c i d e d J u l y 18 was t h e c o r r e c t d a t e a f t e r a l l , a n d e n l a r g e d t h e class. The c o u r t ' s o p i n i o n d i d n o t d i s c u s s n o t i c e t o t h e c l a s s Instead, the court simply stated i t s

or the right to opt out.

belief that persons covered by the expanded class definition and claims "will more l i k e l y b e n e f i t than be p r e j u d i c e d [ . l " 711. Id. at

No a u t h o r i t y w a s c i t e d f o r t h e " m o r e l i k e l y b e n e f i t "

s t a n d a r d , w h i c h i s n o t f o u n d i n t h e t e x t o f F e d . R. c i v . P . 2 3 .

////

5 - OPINION AND ORDER

In a d d i t i o n t o t h e u n l i c e n s e d f a r m l a b o r c o n t r a c t o r a l l e g a t i o n , P l a i n t i f f s s e e k t o a d d , t o w h a t i s p a r a g r a p h 30 i n the Complaint, an allegation that "Defendant did not pay workers a l l t h e i r w a g e s i m m e d i a t e l y when t h e i r w o r k e n d e d . " a l l e g a t i o n i s n o t new, p e r s e e extant Complaint. The p r o p o s e d a m e n d m e n t w o u l d a d d t h a t same a l l e g a t i o n t o t h e "Facts" section of the Complaint. this change i s not clear.
B.

This

I t i s the Fourth Claim in the

Why P l a i n t i f f s w i s h t o make

The r e q u e s t e d a m e n d m e n t i s d e n i e d .

M o t i o n t o Amend C l a s s D e f i n i t i o n s

Plaintiffs seek to replace the existing Sub-Class Three with a different sub-class also denominated Sub-Class Three. SUbstituting an entirely different sub-class definition, while re-using the sub-class number, will confuse the record. Any n e w

sub-class should be assigned the next available number in sequence, e.g., Sub-Class Five. P l a i n t i f f s ' m o t i o n t o a d d a new s u b - c l a s s p r e m i s e d u p o n t h e Fourth Claim in the Complaint i s denied. Plaintiffs contend that

Defendant unlawfully tendered final pay checks to migrant agricultural workers on the day after an employee's l a s t shift, i n s t e a d o f o n t h e same d a y . Plaintiffs did not seek class

c e r t i f i c a t i o n a s t o t h i s c l a i m e a r l i e r , a n d h a v e n o t s h o w n why c e r t i f i c a t i o n s h o u l d b e p e r m i t t e d now. Certification would

6 - OPINION AND ORDER

require a new C l a s s N o t i c e a n d o p t o u t p e r i o d .

Though " c l a s s " i s

not always co-extensive with "claim," in this instance each subc l a s s d e f i n i t i o n was c r a f t e d a r o u n d a p a r t i c u l a r c l a i m . Plaintiffs can s t i l l proceed with the Fourth Claim as an i n d i v i d u a l c l a i m o n b e h a l f o f t h e named p l a i n t i f f s . will not be a claim on behalf of a class. For the reasons previously stated, the court declines to amend S u b - C l a s s One t o a d d t h e a l l e g a t i o n t h a t c l a s s members w e r e recruited by an unlicensed farm labor contractor, in violation of AWPA. I n a d d i t i o n , t h e c o u r t d e c l i n e s t o amend t h e s u b - c l a s s definitions, at this late date, to add a claim that Defendant f a i l e d t o i n c l u d e t h e name o f t h e e m p l o y e r , a n d t h e e m p l o y e r identification number, on paychecks. This allegation is I t simply

m e n t i o n e d i n t h e C o m p l a i n t , , 4 9 , b u t c e r t i f i c a t i o n was n o t s o u g h t o n t h a t i s s u e u n t i l now. To t h e e x t e n t t h a t c l a i m was

p l e d , i t c a n p r o c e e d a s a c l a i m b y t h e named p l a i n t i f f s . The c o u r t g r a n t s P l a i n t i f f s 1 m o t i o n t o s t r i k e t h e e x i s t i n g S u b - C l a s s T h r e e , d i s c o v e r y h a v i n g shown t h a t t h e u n d e r l y i n g c l a i m lacks merit.
Conclusion

P l a i n t i f f s ' M o t i o n ( # 2 9 0 ) f o r L e a v e t o F i l e a n Amended Complaint i s granted in part and denied in part, as stated above.

7 - OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff's M o t i o n ( # 2 9 3 ) t o C o r r e c t / A m e n d t h e O r d e r f o r C l a s s c e r t i f i c a t i o n (# 1 1 8 ) i s g r a n t e d t o t h e e x t e n t t h a t S u b - C l a s s Three i s deleted, and denied as to the other proposed modifications. I T I S SO ORDERED. DATED t h i s

/7

day of June, 2009.

OWEN M. PANNER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

tl¥/l)/£~

8 - OPINION AND ORDER