Rosas et al v. Sarbanand Farms, LLC et al

Filing 24

ORDER granting Plaintiffs' 14 Motion to serve Defendant CSI Visa Processing S.C. pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f)(3). Plaintiffs may serve CSI S.C.'s Washington-based employee, Roxana Macias, by first-class U.S. mail at her address in Olympia and attorney Adam Belzberg at his law office in Seattle. Signed by U.S. District Judge John C Coughenour. (PM)

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8
9

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

10
11

CASE NO. C18-0112-JCC
ORDER

Plaintiffs,
v.

12
13

SARBANAND FARMS, LLC,
MUNGERBROS., LLC., NIDIA PEREZ,
and CSI VISA PROCESSING S.C.,

14
15

Defendants.

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs’ motion to serve Defendant CSI Visa
Processing S.C. pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f)(3) (Dkt. No. 14). Having
thoroughly considered the unopposed motion and the relevant record, the Court hereby
GRANTS the motion for the reasons explained herein.

I.

BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs bring a putative class action on behalf of approximately 600 Mexican farm

workers for alleged labor law violations during the 2017 blueberry harvest in Sumas,
Washington. (Dkt. No. 14 at 1.) Plaintiffs have personally served both grower Defendants and
seek Court leave to serve Defendant CSI Visa Processing S.C. (“CSI S.C.”), a Mexican farm
labor contractor, by mail to CSI S.C.’s employee based in Olympia, Washington and by service
ORDER
C18-0112-JCC
PAGE - 1

1

on U.S. counsel. 1 (Id.) Plaintiffs assert that the alternative option—service through the Hague

2

Convention—would involve a year’s delay and approximately $3,000 in costs. (Id.) No

3

Defendant opposed or otherwise responded to Plaintiffs’ present motion.

4

II.

5

DISCUSSION
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 4(h)(2) and 4(f)(3) allow for service of process on a

6

foreign business entity by “means not prohibited by international agreement, as the court orders.”

7

Service provided for under Rule 4(f)(3) is not a “last resort,” but rather one of several options a

8

plaintiff has to serve an international defendant. Rio Props., Inc. v. Rio Int'l Interlink, 284 F.3d

9

1007, 1015 (9th Cir. 2002). A district court has discretion to determine “when the particularities

10

and necessities of a given case require alternate service of process under Rule 4(f)(3).” Id. at

11

1016. Upon finding alternative service appropriate, a court must determine that the proposed

12

means of service are “reasonably calculated . . . to apprise interested parties of the pendency of

13

the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections. Id.

14

A. Alternative Service under FRPC 4(f)(3)

15

The Court finds that the particularities of this case require alternate service under Rule

16

4(f)(3). Plaintiffs’ initial complaint named CSI USA, a company with the same personnel as CSI,

17

S.C., but registered in the state of Washington. (Dkt. No. 14 at 2.) Plaintiffs made repeated

18

attempts to serve CSI USA at its Washington address before CSI USA’s counsel, Adam

19

Belzberg, agreed to accept service. (Id. at 4.) Upon consulting with Mr. Belzberg, Plaintiffs

20

amended their complaint to substitute CSI S.C. for CSI USA. (Id. at 5.) Mr. Belzberg declined to

21

accept or waive service on behalf of CSI S.C., stating that he represented only CSI USA. (Id.)

22

Plaintiffs represent that effecting service of process on CSI S.C. in Mexico will take

23

approximately one year and cost approximately $3,000. (Id. at 1.) Given Plaintiffs’ attempts to

24

effect service in the U.S., the close relationship between CSI S.C. and CSI USA, and the Court’s

25

interest in efficiently advancing this class action litigation, the Court finds alternative service

26

1

Adam Belzberg, counsel for CSI USA.

ORDER
C18-0112-JCC
PAGE - 2

1

under Rule 4(f)(3) necessary here.

2

This result is not precluded by the Hague Convention, which does not come into force

3

where “valid service [can occur] in the United States.” Brown v. China Integrated Energy, Inc.,

4

285 F.R.D. 560, 564 (C.D. Cal. 2012) (citing Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft v. Schlunk, 486

5

U.S. 694, 707 (1988).

6

B. Means of Alternative Service Comport with Due Process

7

Plaintiffs’ proposed means of alternative service are reasonably calculated to provide

8

notice to CSI S.C. and to it provide an opportunity to present objections. See Rio Props., 284

9

F.3d at 1016. Plaintiffs propose service on Mr. Belzberg, attorney for CSI USA, and Roxana

10

Macias, employee of CSI USA and CSI S.C. 2 An individual served on behalf of a foreign

11

defendant need not “[represent] them or [be] authorized to accept service on their behalf.”

12

Brown, 285 F.R.D. at 566. Service on a U.S. agent is reasonable if it is “reasonably certain to

13

inform those affected.” Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., et al., 339 U.S. 306, 315

14

(1950).

15

Service on Mr. Belzberg and Ms. Macias is reasonably certain to inform CSI S.C. of the

16

pending lawsuit. Mr. Belzberg has stated that he represents only CSI, USA, which “has never

17

been used for anything.” (Dkt. No. 14 at 4, 5.) However, he has communicated with CSI S.C.

18

about the pending lawsuit, he knows CSI’s legal position regarding waiver or authorization of

19

service, and he has provided CSI S.C. with a copy of the amended complaint. (Dkt. No. 14 at 7.)

20

Mr. Belzberg has further represented that CSI S.C. and CSI USA are “the same owners; the same

21

people.” (Id.) This is reflected in the Ms. Macias paperwork filed to form CSI Visa Processing,

22

USA, LLC. (Dkt. No. 14 at 3.) The filing lists Guillermo Mathus and Tania de la Fuente as the

23
24
25
26

2

Ms. Macias is identified on her CSI Visa Processing business card as “Director of
Compliance” and is alleged to be the primary contact between CSI and hiring farms. (Dkt. No.
14 at 2–3.) In January 2017, she filed the paperwork to form CSI Visa Processing, USA, LLC.
(Id. at 3.) A 2016 biography describes her as a CSI Visa Processing employee responsible for
ensuring compliance with “applicable laws and regulations.” (Id. at 4.)
ORDER
C18-0112-JCC
PAGE - 3

1

two other executors of the company. (Id.) Mr. Mathus is also the president of CSI S.C. and de la

2

Fuente is the general manager for the company, which has been active in Washington since at

3

least 2012. (Id.) Service on Mr. Belzberg and Ms. Macias is reasonably calculated under these

4

circumstances, to apprise CSI S.C. of the pendency of the action and to afford a full and fair

5

opportunity to respond. Accord Rio Props., 284 F.3d at 1017 (service on U.S.-based attorney was

6

appropriate where he had been consulted by the defendant about the suit and was clearly in

7

contact with the defendant).

8

III.

9

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ motion for alternative service (Dkt. No. 14) is

10

GRANTED. Plaintiffs may serve CSI S.C.’s Washington-based employee, Roxana Macias, by

11

first-class U.S. mail at her address in Olympia and attorney Adam Belzberg at his law office in

12

Seattle.

13

DATED this 27th day of April 2018.

A

14
15
16

John C. Coughenour
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
ORDER
C18-0112-JCC
PAGE - 4