Rosas et al v. Sarbanand Farms, LLC et al

Filing 149

ORDER denying Plaintiffs' 135 Motion for Reconsideration or, in the alternative, to certify a question to the Washington Supreme Court signed by U.S. District Judge John C Coughenour. (TH)

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8
9
10

BARBARO ROSAS and GUADALUPE
TAPIA, as individuals and on behalf of all
other similarly situated persons

11

ORDER

Plaintiffs,
v.

12
13

CASE NO. C18-0112-JCC

SARBANAND FARMS, LLC, et al.,

14

Defendants.

15
16

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration or, in the

17

alternative, to certify a question to the Washington Supreme Court pursuant to Wash. Rev. Code

18

§ 2.60.020 (Dkt. No. 135). Having thoroughly considered the parties’ briefing and the relevant

19

record, the Court finds oral argument unnecessary and hereby DENIES the motion for the

20

reasons explained herein.

21

I.

22

BACKGROUND
On February 15, 2019, Plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment on their claims

23

arising under the Washington Farm Labor Contractors Act (“FLCA”), Wash. Rev. Code

24

§ 19.30.010 et seq. (Dkt. No. 84.) On June 13, 2019, the Court granted in part and denied in part

25

Plaintiffs’ motion. (Dkt. No. 134.) The Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion as to class members who

26

were “sent directly to Washington to work for Defendant Sarbanand Farms pursuant to a contract
ORDER
C18-0112-JCC
PAGE - 1

1

between Defendant Sarbanand Farms and CSI, and for whom CSI received a fee.” (Id. at 14.)

2

The Court denied Plaintiffs’ motion and dismissed their claims “as to CSI and Growers’ liability

3

under the FLCA for class members who were initially sent to California pursuant to a contract

4

between CSI and Defendant Munger Bros. or Crowne Cold Storage and later transferred by

5

Growers to Washington, and for whose transfer CSI did not receive an additional fee.” (Id.)

6

Plaintiffs move for reconsideration of the Court’s dismissal of their FLCA claims as to

7

class members initially sent to California before being transferred to Washington. (Dkt. No. 135

8

at 2, 4–6.) In the alternative, Plaintiffs request that the Court certify a question to the Washington

9

Supreme Court pursuant to Wash. Rev. Code § 2.60.020. (Id. at 6–7.) 1

10

II.

DISCUSSION

11

A.

Motion to Reconsider

12

Motions for reconsideration are generally disfavored. W.D. Wash. Local Civ. R. 7(h)(1).

13

Reconsideration is only appropriate where there is “manifest error in the prior ruling or a

14

showing of new facts or legal authority which could not have been brought to [the Court’s]

15

attention earlier with reasonable diligence.” Id. “A motion for reconsideration should not be used

16

to ask the court to rethink what the court had already thought through—rightly or wrongly.”

17

Premier Harvest LLC v. AXIS Surplus Insurance Co., Case No. C17-0784-JCC, Dkt. No. 61 at 1

18

(W.D. Wash. 2017) (quoting U.S. v. Rezzonico, 32 F. Supp. 2d 1112, 1116 (D. Ariz. 1998)).

19

Plaintiffs assert that the Court committed manifest error when it dismissed their FLCA

20

claims as to class members who were initially sent to California and for whose later transfer CSI

21

did not receive an additional fee. (Dkt. No. 135 at 2, 4–6.) Plaintiffs argue that the Court did not

22

construe evidence in Plaintiffs’ favor as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 or that a

23

genuine factual dispute exists that precludes dismissal of Plaintiffs’ claims. (See id.) Plaintiffs’

24
25
26

1

Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify the following question: “whether a farm labor
contractor subject to FLCA includes an entity that receives a flat fee to simultaneously recruit
and supply agricultural workers to work in one state before beginning work in Washington
state?” (Dkt. No. 135 at 2, 7.)
ORDER
C18-0112-JCC
PAGE - 2

1

argument asks the Court to revisit the evidence it considered in ruling on their motion for partial

2

summary judgment but arrive at a different conclusion. Plaintiffs’ argument is insufficient to

3

warrant reconsideration of the Court’s decision, and Plaintiffs have not otherwise identified a

4

manifest error in the Court’s ruling meriting reconsideration. See Premier Harvest, Case No.

5

C17-0784-JCC, Dkt. No. 61 at 1; W.D. Wash. Local Civ. R. 7(h)(1). Therefore, Plaintiffs’

6

motion for reconsideration is DENIED.

7

B.

8

Federal courts in Washington may certify questions to the Washington Supreme Court:

9

When in the opinion of [the] court before whom a proceeding is pending, it is
necessary to ascertain the local law of this state in order to dispose of such
proceeding and the local law has not been clearly determined, such federal court
may certify to the supreme court for answer the question of local law involved and
the supreme court shall render its opinion in answer thereto.

10
11

Motion to Certify Question

12

Wash. Rev. Code § 2.60.020. “There is a presumption against certifying a question to a state

13

supreme court after the federal district court has issued a decision. A party should not be allowed

14

‘a second chance at victory’ through certification by the appeals court after an adverse district

15

court ruling.” Thompson v. Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1065 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting In re Complaint

16

of McLinn, 744 F.2d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 1984)). Certification is within the Court’s discretion. See

17

Micomonaco v. State of Wash., 45 F.3d 316, 322 (9th Cir. 1995).

18

Plaintiffs assert that the Court’s dismissal of Plaintiffs’ claims “involves an unsettled

19

question of Washington law that is determinative of many of the FLCA liability matters before

20

this Court” and “is a matter of significant public policy,” and thus certification of a question to

21

the Washington Supreme Court is merited. (Dkt. No. 135 at 6–7.) But Plaintiffs’ argument

22

contradicts their election to litigate the issue via their motion for partial summary judgment

23

rather than moving to certify the question when it first arose. Plaintiffs have only brought their

24

motion to certify the question after receiving an adverse decision from the Court and have not

25

overcome the presumption against such post hoc requests for certification. See Thompson, 547

26

F.3d at 1065. Therefore, Plaintiffs’ motion to certify a question to the Washington Supreme
ORDER
C18-0112-JCC
PAGE - 3

1

Court is DENIED.

2

III.

3
4
5

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration or, in the alternative, to

certify a question to the Washington Supreme Court (Dkt. No. 135) is DENIED.
DATED this 1st day of August 2019.

A

6
7
8

John C. Coughenour
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
ORDER
C18-0112-JCC
PAGE - 4