•Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW

• Document 1-4 Filed 07/12/05

1
Richard W. Kuhling 2 Devra S. Hermosilla 3 PAINE, HAMBLEN, COFFIN, BROOKE
&MILLERLLP 4 717 West Sprague Avenue, Suite 1200
Spokane, WA 99201-3505 5 (509) 455-6000

FILED IN THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
JUL 12 2005

6 Lori Jordan Isley 7 Mirta Laura Contreras
COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 8 6 South Second Street, Suite 600
Yakima, WA 98901 9 (509) 575-5593

10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

12 JOSE GUADALUPE PEREZ-FARIAS, JOSE F. SANCHEZ, RICARDO
13 BETANCOURT, and all other similarly 14 situated persons

CLASS ACTION
No. CV-05-3061-FVS

15

Plaintiffs,

COMPLAINT FOR

DECLARATORY AND

16

vs.

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND

17 GLOBAL HORIZONS, INC., GREEN

DAMAGES

18 ACRE FARMS, INC, VALLEY FRUIT

ORCHARDS, LLC, and PLATTE RIVER

19 INSURANCE COMPANY,

20

Defendants.

21

22

23
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES - 1

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 6 South Second Street, Suite 600 Yakima, WA 98901 (509) 575-5593

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 1-4 Filed 07/12/05

1

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

2

1. Federal law requires that United States agricultural workers be given

3
preference over all foreign agricultural workers that employers seek to import
4

under the federal H-2A program. This is a class action brought by three United
5

6 States farm workers from the Yakima Valley who were illegally denied or

7 terminated from agricultural employment in 2004 because defendants Global

8 Horizons, Inc. ("Global"), Green Acre Farms, Inc. ("Green Acre"), and Valley

9 Fruit Orchards, LLC ("Valley Fruit") systematically and intentionally preferred

10
H-2A laborers from Thailand in violation of federal and state law.
11

12

2. Plaintiffs seek to bring class claims for violations of the Migrant and

13 Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act ("AWPA"), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1801 et

14 seq., including: providing false and misleading information concerning the terms

15 and conditions of employment; failure to comply with the working arrangement;

16
failure to pay wages as promised; and failure to provide adequate written pay
17
statements.
18

19

3. Plaintiffs seek to bring class claims for violations of the Farm Labor

20 Contractors Act ("FLCA"), Chapter 19.30 RCW et seq., including: engaging in

21 farm labor contracting activity without a license; failure to adequately disclose the

22 terms and conditions of employment; providing false and misleading information
23

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES - 2

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 6 South Second Street, Suite 600 Yakima, WA 98901 (509) 575-5593

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 1-4 Filed 07/12/05

1 about the terms, conditions, and existence of employment; failure to comply with
2 the terms and conditions of employment; failure to pay wages as promised; and
3
failure to provide adequate written pay statements.
4
4. Plaintiffs seek to bring class claims for violations ofRCW 49.52.050
5
6 for willful withholding of wages.

7

5. Plaintiffs also seek to bring class claims for violations of 42 U.S.C. §

8 1981 and the Washington Law Against Discrimination ("WLAD"), Chapter 49.60
9
RCW et seq., including: discrimination in hiring, terms and conditions of
10
employment, and firing based on race and national origin.
11

12

JURSIDICTION

13
6. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
14
1331 (Federal Questions).
15

16

7. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §

17 1854(AWPA).

18

8. This Court also has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

19
§ 1367 (Supplemental Jurisdiction).
20
II
21
22 II

23
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES - 3

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 6 South Second Street, Suite 600 Yakima, WA 98901 (509) 575-5593

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 1-4 Filed 07/12/05

1

PARTIES

2

9. At all times relevant to this complaint, the plaintiffs were all either

3
seasonal agricultural workers within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 1802 (1 O)(A) or
4
migrant agricultural workers within the meaning of29 U.S.C. §1802(8).
5

6

10. PlaintiffRicardo Betancourt sought and was unlawfully denied

7 employment with defendants Global, Green Acre, and Valley Fruit in 2004.

8

11. Plaintiff Jose F. Sanchez ("Jose Sanchez") worked for defendants

9
Global and Green Acre at Green Acre Farms from January 2004 through August
10
2004.
11

12

12. Plaintiff Jose Guadalupe Perez-Farias ("Jose Perez") worked for

13 defendants Global and Valley Fruit at Valley Fruit Orchards from February 2004

14 through August 2004.

15
13. Plaintiffs and the class they seek to represent are primarily ofMexican
16
or other Hispanic ancestry.
17

18

14. Defendant Global is a Washington Corporation with its principal

19 place ofbusiness in Los Angeles, California.

20

15. Defendant Global is an agricultural employer as defined by 29 U.S.C.

21
§ 1802(2) and RCW 19.30.010(4). 22

23
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES - 4

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 6 South Second Street, Suite 600 Yakima, WA 98901 (509) 575-5593

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 1-4 Filed 07/12/05

1

16. Defendant Global is a farm labor contractor as defined by 29 U.S.C. §

2 1802(7) and RCW 19.30.010(2).
3
17. Defendant Green Acre is a Washington Corporation with its principal
4
place of business in Harrah, Washington.
5

6

18. Defendant Green Acre is an agricultural employer as defined by 29

7 U.S.C. § 1802(2) and RCW 19.30.010(4).

8
19. Defendant Global had actual and apparent authority to act on behalf of
9
defendant Green Acre to recruit, hire, employ, and terminate the employment of
10
workers on the property of Green Acre.
11

12

20. Defendant Valley Fruit is a limited liability Washington Corporation

13 with its principal place of business in Wapato, Washington.

14
21. Defendant Valley Fruit is an agricultural employer as defined by 29

15
U.S.C. § 1802(2) and RCW 19.30.010(4).
16

17

22. Defendant Global had actual and apparent authority to act on behalf of

18 defendant Valley Fruit to recruit, hire, employ, and terminate the employment of

19 workers on the property ofValley Fruit.
20
21
22
23
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES - 5

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 6 South Second Street, Suite 600 Yakima, WA 98901 (509) 575-5593

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 1-4 Filed 07/12/05

1

23. Defendant Platte River Insurance Company ("Platte River") is a

2 Nebraska corporation with its principal place of business in City of Madison,

3
Wisconsin.
4

5

24. Defendant Platte River financed a surety bond in the amount of

6 $20,000 for defendant Global for the Washington state farm labor contractor

7 licensing period from October 1, 2004 through December 31, 2004.

8

25. Defendant Platte River financed an additional surety bond in the

9
amount of$10,000 for defendant Global for the period from July 21, 2004 through
10
December 31, 2004.
11

12

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

13

14

A. PLAINTIFF CLASS- U.S. RESIDENT WORKERS

15

26. Plaintiffs bring this action on their own behalf and on behalf of the

16 class of persons similarly situated, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
17
23(a), (b)(2) and (b)(3), consisting of all workers who were U.S. residents and who
18
sought employment with or worked for defendants Global Horizons, Green Acre,
19
20 or Valley Fruit in 2004. Plaintiffs also seek certification of three subclasses as set

21 forth below.

22

23
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES - 6

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 6 South Second Street, Suite 600 Yakima, WA 98901 (509) 575-5593

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 1-4 Filed 07/12/05

1

27. Representative plaintiffs are represented by experienced counsel who

2 will vigorously prosecute the litigation on behalf of the class.
3
28. Defendants have acted or refused to act on grounds generally
4
applicable to the class, thereby making declaratory and injunctive relief appropriate
5

6 with respect to the class as a whole.

7

29. Questions of law and fact common to the members of the class

8 predominate over any questions affecting only individual members and a class
9
action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication
10
of the controversy because:
11

12

a. Members of the class do not have an overriding interest in

13

individually controlling the prosecution of separate actions;

14

b. No litigation concerning this controversy has been commenced

15
by any member of the class;
16
c. Concentration of the litigation in this forum is desirable in order
17

18

to have all claims resolved in one case; and,

19

d. A class action can be managed without undue difficulty because

20

the issues presented are common to the class, defendants are

21
required to maintain detailed records concerning each member
22

23

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES - 7

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 6 South Second Street, Suite 600 Yakima, WA 98901 (509) 575-5593

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 1-4 Filed 07/12/05

1

of the class, and plaintiffs' counsel have experience in

2

prosecuting cases of this nature.

3
30. Common questions of law and fact include:
4
a. Whether defendants Global, Green Acre and Valley Fruit
5

6

provided false and misleading information concerning the terms

7

and conditions of employment in violation of 29 U.S.C. §

8

1831(e), 29 U.S.C. § 1821(f) and RCW 19.30.120(2);

9
b. Whether defendant Global was an unlicensed farm labor
10
contractor until October 2004 in violation of RCW 19.30 et
11

12

seq.;

13

c. Whether Green Acre and Valley Fruit knowingly used the

14

services of defendant Global, an unlicensed farm labor

15
contractor, making them personally, jointly, and severally liable
16
for violations of the Farm Labor Contractors Act, RCW 19.30
17
et. seq.; and
18

19

d. Whether defendant Global failed to provide adequate

20

disclosures of the terms and conditions of employment in

21

violation ofRCW 19.30.110(7).

22

23
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES - 8

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 6 South Second Street, Suite 600 Yakima, WA 98901 (509) 575-5593

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 1-4 Filed 07/12/05

1

31. The claims of the representative plaintiffs Ricardo Betancourt, Jose

2 Sanchez and Jose Perez are typical of the claims of the plaintiff class they seek to
3
represent and they will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.
4

5

B. PLAINTIFF SUBCLASS I- DENIED WORK

6
32. Plaintiff Ricardo Betancourt seeks certification of a subclass of all
7
workers who were U.S. residents and who sought and were denied employment
8
with defendants Global, Green Acre or Valley Fruit for employment at Green Acre
9

10 Farms or Valley Fruit Orchards in Washington State in 2004 (Denied Work

11 subclass).

12

33. The Denied Work subclass is so numerous that joinder of all members

13
is impracticable. The exact size of the class is not known; however, on
14
information and belief the class consists of approximately 300 persons.
15

16

34. Questions of law and fact common to the members of the Denied

17 Work subclass predominate over any questions affecting only individual members

18 and a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient
19
adjudication of the controversy.
20
35. Questions of law and fact common to the Denied Work subclass
21
22 include those set forth in paragraph 30 and:

23

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES - 9

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 6 South Second Street, Suite 600 Yakima, WA 98901 (509) 575-5593

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 1-4 Filed 07/12/05

1

a. Whether defendants Global, Green Acre, and Valley Fruit

2

violated the working arrangement by failing to offer

3
employment to plaintiffs in violation of29 U.S.C. § 1832(c), 29
4
U.S.C § 1822(c), and whether the same conduct violated
5

6

agreements with plaintiffs pursuant to RCW 19.30.110(5);

7

b. Whether defendant Global unlawfully discriminated against

8

plaintiffs based on race in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981; and,

9
c. Whether defendant Global unlawfully discriminated against
10
plaintiffs based on race, or national origin in violation ofRCW
11

12

49.60.180.

13

36. The claims of the representative plaintiff Ricardo Betancourt are

14 typical of the claims of the Denied Work subclass he seeks to represent and he will
15
fairly and adequately protect the interests of this subclass.
16

17

c. PLAINTIFF SUBCLASS II- GREEN ACRE

18

37. Plaintiff Jose Sanchez seeks certification of a subclass of all workers

19
who were U.S. residents and who were employed by defendants Global and Green
20
Acre in 2004 (Green Acre subclass).
21

22

23
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES - 10

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 6 South Second Street, Suite 600 Yakima, WA 98901 (509) 575-5593

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 1-4 Filed 07/12/05

1

38. The Green Acre subclass is so numerous that joinder of all members is

2 impracticable. The exact size of the class is not known; however on information

3
and beliefthe class consists of approximately 150 persons.
4

5

39. Questions of law and fact common to the members of the Green Acre

6 subclass predominate over any questions affecting only individual members and a

7 class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient

8 adjudication of the controversy.

9
40. Questions of law and fact common to the Green Acre subclass include
10
those set forth in paragraph 30 and:
11

12

a. Whether defendants Global and Green Acre failed to comply

13

with the terms and conditions of employment as promised in

14

violation of29 U.S.C. § 1832(c), 29 U.S.C. § 1822(c) and

15
RCW 19.30.110(5);
16
b. Whether defendants Global and Green Acre violated the
17

18

working arrangement by terminating members of the Green

19

Acre subclass before the end of the promised work period in

20

violation of 29 U.S.C. § 1832 (c), 29 U.S.C. § 1822(c) and

21

RCW 19.30.110(5);

22

23
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES - 11

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 6 South Second Street, Suite 600 Yakima, WA 98901 (509) 575-5593

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 1-4 Filed 07/12/05

1

c. Whether defendants Global and Green Acres failed to pay

2

workers the wages they were due when they made unlawful

3 deductions for Washington state income tax in violation of 29
4

U.S.C. § 1832(a), 29 U.S.C. § 1822(a), RCW 19.30.110(4), and 5

6

RCW 49.52.050;

7

d. Whether defendants Global and Green Acre failed to provide

8

adequate written pay statements in violation of29 U.S.C. §

9 1831(c), 29 U.S.C. §1821(d) and RCW 19.30.110(8);
10 e. Whether defendants Global and Green Acre unlawfully
11

12

discharged members of the Green Acre subclass and

13

discriminated against them in the terms and conditions of

14

employment based on race in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981;

15

and,

16
f. Whether defendants Global and Green Acre unlawfully 17

18

discharged members of the Green Acre subclass and

19

discriminated against them in the terms and conditions of

20

employment based on race or national origin in violation of

21

RCW 49.60.180(2) and (3).

22

23

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES - 12

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 6 South Second Street, Suite 600 Yakima, WA 98901 (509) 575-5593

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 1-4 Filed 07/12/05

1

41. The claims of the representative plaintiff Jose Sanchez are typical of

2 the claims of the Green Acre subclass he seeks to represent, and he will fairly and
3
adequately protect the interests of this subclass.
4

5

D. PLAINTIFF SUBCLASS III -VALLEY FRUIT

6
42. Plaintiff Jose Perez seeks certification of a subclass of all workers
7
who were U.S. residents and who were employed by defendants Global and Valley
8
Fruit in 2004 (Valley Fruit subclass).
9

1 o

43. The Valley Fruit subclass is so numerous that joinder of all members

11 is impracticable. The exact size of the subclass is not known; however on
12 information and belief the class consists of approximately 40 persons.
13
44. Questions of law and fact common to the members ofthe Valley Fruit
14
subclass predominate over any questions affecting only individual members and a
15
16 class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient

17 adjudication of the controversy.

18

45. Questions of law and fact common to the Valley Fruit subclass

19
include those set forth in paragraph 30 and: 20
a. Whether defendants Global and Valley Fruit failed to comply
21

22

with the terms and conditions of employment as promised in

23

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES - 13

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 6 South Second Street, Suite 600 Yakima, WA 98901 (509) 575-5593

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 1-4 Filed 07/12/05

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES- 14

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 6 South Second Street, Suite 600 Yakima, WA 98901 (509) 575-5593

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 1-4 Filed 07/12/05

1

f. Whether defendants Global and Valley Fruit unlawfully

2

discharged members of the Valley Fruit subclass or

3
discriminated against them in the terms and conditions of
4
employment based on race or national origin discrimination in
5

6

violation ofRCW 49.60.180(2) and (3).

7

46. The claims of the representative plaintiff Jose Perez are typical of the

8 claims of the Valley Fruit subclass he seeks to represent and he will fairly and
9
adequately protect the interests of this class.
10

11

STATEMENT OF FACTS

12

47. Defendant Global acted as a farm labor contractor in Washington

13
State beginning in or before December 2003 through the present date.
14
48. Defendant Global failed to obtain a license to work as a farm labor
15

16 contractor in Washington State until October 7, 2004.

17

49. Defendant Global failed to file a surety bond or other security meeting

18 the requirements ofRCW 19.30.040 with the Director of the Department of Labor
19
and Industries until October 1, 2004.
20

21

22

23
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES- 15

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 6 South Second Street, Suite 600 Yakima, WA 98901 (509) 575-5593

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 1-4 Filed 07/12/05

1

50. Defendant Green Acre knowingly used the services of defendant

2 Global, an unlicensed farm labor contractor, from December 18, 2003 through
3
October 6, 2004.
4
51. Defendant Valley Fruit knowingly used the services of defendant
5

6 Global, an unlicensed farm labor contractor, from December 11, 2003 through

7 October 6, 2004.

8

52. On May 10, 2005, the Washington State Employment Security

9
Department sent a Notice of Discontinuation of Employment Services to defendant
10
Global for failure to comply with the basic requirements of state law including
11

12 failure to secure a state farm labor contractor's license.

13

53. On June 3, 2005, the Washington State Department of Labor and

14 Industries sent a Notice of Violation and Assessment of Wages and Penalties to
15
defendant Global for violations of state law including operating as an unregistered
16
farm labor contractor when defendant Global contracted with Green Acre and
17
Valley Fruit.
18

19

54. Defendant Global failed to provide all class members at the time of

20 recruiting or hiring a written statement adequately describing the terms and 21 conditions of employment. 22

23
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES- 16

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 6 South Second Street, Suite 600 Yakima, WA 98901 (509) 575-5593

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 1-4 Filed 07/12/05

1

55. Defendants Global, Green Acre, and Valley Fruit failed to disclose

2 production standards for pruning, thinning, harvesting and other activities in the
3
written statement of the terms and conditions of employment.
4
56. A significant number of class members were not fluent or literate in
5

6 English; the language common to the workers was Spanish.

7

57. Defendant Global failed to provide all class members at the time of

8 recruiting or hiring a written statement describing the terms and conditions of
9
employment in Spanish.
10
Green Acre Job Order
11

12

58. On December 18, 2003, defendant Global submitted to the U.S.

13 Department of Labor (DOL) an application for H-2A workers, attached as Exhibit

14 1 (hereinafter "Green Acre order").

15
59. The Green Acre order was also filed with the Washington State
16
Employment Security Department (ESD) Central Office in Olympia, Washington.
17

18

60. The ESD Central Office referred the Green Acre order to the ESD

19 WorkSource office in Yakima for recruitment of local U.S. workers.

20

61. WorkSource Yakima's Employer Services Unit entered the Green

21
Acre order into its computer job data base and posted it on a job board.
22

23

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES - 17

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 6 South Second Street, Suite 600 Yakima, WA 98901 (509) 575-5593

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 1-4 Filed 07/12/05

1

62. The Green Acre order sought 150 workers to be employed as farm

2 workers at Green Acre from February 2, 2004 through November 5, 2004.
3
63. The Green Acre order stated: "No U.S. worker will be rejected for or
4
terminated from employment for other than a lawful job-related reason."
5

6

64. The Yakima WorkSource office referred more than 150 U.S. workers

7 to defendant Global to fill the job openings on the Green Acre order.

8
65. On January 21, 2004, defendant Global sent a letter to DOL stating it

9
had made offers of employment to U.S. workers for all 150 jobs.
10

11

66. In the January 21, 2004letter, defendant Global further informed

12 DOL that additional U.S. workers were accepted as referrals in case some of the

13 150 U.S. workers did not show up for work or abandoned their employment.

14
67. In the January 21, 2004letter, defendant Global also noted that it may
15
request from DOL a re-determination of need if sufficient U.S. workers did not
16
report for work or remain on the job.
17

18

68. In the January 21, 2004letter, defendant Global also requested that

19 DOL terminate recruitment of U.S. workers for the Green Acre order because all
20 150 jobs were filled.
21
II 22

23
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES- 18

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 6 South Second Street, Suite 600 Yakima, WA 98901 (509) 575-5593

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 1-4 Filed 07/12/05

1

69. On January 22, 2004, DOL denied defendant Global's request for

2 H-2A workers because the Green Acre order had been filled by U.S. workers.
3
70. On February 27, 2004, defendant Global sent a letter by facsimile and
4
5 overnight mail to DOL stating that only 7 U.S. workers, less than 5% of the

6 original U.S. workforce hired by defendant Global, remained employed under the

7 Green Acre order.

8

71. In the February 27, 2004 letter, defendant Global further told DOL

9
that 150 U.S. workers were no longer available to work the Green Acre order.
10

11

72. In the February 27, 2004letter, defendant Global told DOL that 98

12 U.S. workers had been offered employment at Green Acre but failed to report to

13 work.

14

73. In the February 27, 2004letter, defendant Global told DOL that 22

15
U.S. workers had been terminated from work at Green Acre for job-related
16
reasons.
17

18

74. In the February 27, 2004letter, defendant Global told DOL that 19

19 U.S. workers had started work at Green Acre but abandoned the job after a brief

20 period.
21
75. In the February 27, 2004 letter, defendant Global requested a new
22
labor certification determination for 140 H-2A workers, unless 140 additional
23

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES - 19

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 6 South Second Street, Suite 600 Yakima, WA 98901 (509) 575-5593

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 1-4 Filed 07/12/05

1 qualified U.S. workers could be identified and available for work within 72 hours
2 of the receipt of the letter.
3
76. On or about March 3, 2004, DOL granted defendant Global temporary
4
labor certification for 131 H-2A workers to be employed pursuant to the Green
5
6 Acre order.

7

77. Defendant Global recruited all131 H-2A workers exclusively from

8 Thailand to fill the Green Acre order.
9
78. On March 5, 2004, staff from ESD sent an electronic message (ESD
10
e-mail) to DOL stating they had "evidence which suggests there is a willing and
11
12 available pool of [U.S.] workers" to fill defendant Global's request for H-2A labor.

13

79. The March 5, 2004 ESD e-mail stated that an "internal inquiry" of

14 defendant Global's hiring process and procedures of U.S. workers revealed several
15
problems.
16
80. The March 5, 2004 ESD e-mail stated that after U.S. workers were
17
18 screened they were provided with a toll-free number for defendant Global. The
19 U.S. worker would then be interviewed by defendant Global staff over the

20 telephone and be told that they were "hired."
21

22

23
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES - 20

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 6 South Second Street, Suite 600 Yakima, WA 98901 (509) 575-5593

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 1-4 Filed 07/12/05

1

81. The March 5, 2004 ESD e-mail stated that defendant Global would

2 then only call back a limited number of the U.S. workers who were informed that
3
they had been hired, and invite those limited few to an orientation meeting.
4
82. On or about March or April2004, despite ESD's complaints to DOL
5
6 regarding defendant Global's flawed recruitment of U.S. workers, approximately

7 131 Thai H-2A workers departed for the Yakima Valley to fill the Green Acre

8 order.
9
83. On information and belief, the employment contracts between
10
defendant Global and the Thai H-2A workers recruited for work at Green Acre
11
were from March 2004, until November 5, 2004.
12
13 Valley Fruit I Job Order

14

84. On December 11, 2003, defendant Global submitted to DOL an

15 application for H-2A workers, attached as Exhibit 2 (hereinafter "Valley Fruit I

16
order").
17
85.
18

The Valley Fruit I order was also filed with the ESD Central Office in

19 Olympia, Washington.

20

86. The Central Office referred the Valley Fruit I order to the ESD

21 WorkSource office in Yakima for recruitment of local U.S. workers.
22

23
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES- 21

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 6 South Second Street, Suite 600 Yakima, WA 98901 (509) 575-5593

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 1-4 Filed 07/12/05

1

87. WorkSource Yakima's Employer Services Unit entered the Valley

2 Fruit I order into its computer job data base and posted it on a job board.
3
88. The Valley Fruit I order sought 30 workers to be employed as farm
4
workers at Valley Fruit from January 26, 2004 through April1, 2004.
5

6

89. The Valley Fruit I order stated: "No U.S. worker will be rejected for

7 or terminated from employment for other than a lawful job-related reason."

8
90. The Yakima WorkSource office made a total of 117 referrals ofU.S.

9
workers to defendant Global to fill the 30 job openings on the Valley Fruit I order.
10

11

91. On January 20, 2004, defendant Global sent a letter to DOL stating it

12 had made offers of employment to U.S. workers for all 30 Valley Fruit I jobs.

13

92. On January 20, 2004, defendant Global sent a letter to DOL stating

14
that additional U.S. workers were accepted as referrals in case some workers did

15
not show up for work at Valley Fruit or abandoned their employment.
16

17

93. In the January 20, 2004letter, defendant Global also noted that it may

18 request from DOL a re-determination of need if sufficient workers did not report

19 for work or remain on the job.
20
21
22

23
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES - 22

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 6 South Second Street, Suite 600 Yakima, WA 98901 (509) 575-5593

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 1-4 Filed 07/12/05

1

94. In the January 20, 2004letter, defendant Global also requested that

2 DOL terminate recruitment of U.S. workers for the Valley Fruit I order because all
3
30 jobs were filled.
4
95. On January 31,2004, DOL denied defendant Global's request for
5

6 H-2A workers because the Valley Fruit I order had been filled by U.S. workers.

7

96. On February 18, 2004, defendant Global sent a letter by facsimile and

8 overnight mail to DOL stating that only 18 U.S. workers remained employed under
9
the Valley Fruit I order.
10
97. In the February 18, 2004letter, defendant Global further told DOL
11

12 that an additional49 U.S. workers were no longer available to work the Valley

13 Fruit I order.

14

98. In the February 18, 2004 letter, defendant Global told DOL that 38

15
U.S. workers were offered employment, but failed to report to work.
16
99. In the February 18, 2004letter, defendant Global told DOL that 5 U.S.
17

18 workers who had started work had abandoned their jobs after a brief period of

19 work.

20

100. In the February 18, 2004letter, defendant Global told DOL that 3 U.S.

21
workers had been terminated for job-related reasons. 22

23
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES - 23

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 6 South Second Street, Suite 600 Yakima, WA 98901 (509) 575-5593

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 1-4 Filed 07/12/05

1

101. In the February 18, 2004letter, defendant Global told DOL that 4 U.S.

2 workers were offered employment, but had Social Security number mismatches.
3
102. In the February 28, 2004 letter, defendant Global requested a new
4
labor certification determination for 12 H-2A workers, unless 12 additional
5

6 qualified U.S. workers could be identified and available for work within 72 hours

7 of the receipt of the letter.

8

103. Upon information and belief, all Valley Fruit I job openings were

9
filled by U.S. workers and the job order was closed by DOL.
10
Valley Fruit II Job Order
11

12

104. On or about June 28, 2004, defendant Global submitted to DOL an

13 application for H-2A workers, attached as Exhibit 3 (hereinafter "Valley Fruit II

14 order").
15
105. The Valley Fruit II order was submitted for 70 temporary H-2A
16
workers to be employed as farm workers at Valley Fruit from August 15, 2004
17
18 through October 31, 2004.

19

106. The Valley Fruit II order stated: "No U.S. worker will be rejected for

20 or terminated from employment for other than a lawful job-related reason."
21
107. The Yakima WorkSource office made a total of 46 referrals of U.S. 22
workers to defendant Global to fill the 70 job openings on the Valley Fruit II order.
23

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES - 24

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 6 South Second Street, Suite 600 Yakima, WA 98901 (509) 575-5593

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 1-4 Filed 07/12/05

1

108. Defendant Global only hired 8 of the U.S. workers referred by

2 Yakima WorkSource.
3
109. On August 6, 2004, DOL granted defendant Global's temporary labor
4
certification for 62 H-2A workers to be employed pursuant to the Valley Fruit II
5

6 order.

7

110. On information and belief, defendant Global hired all 62 H-2A

8 workers from Thailand to fill the Valley Fruit II Order.
9
111. On information and belief, the employment contracts between the
10
Thai H-2A workers and defendant Global extended from August 15, 2004, until
11

12 October 31,2004.

13

A. ADDITIONAL FACT ALLEGATIONS PERTAINING TO

14

THE DENIED WORK SUBCLASS

15

112. In February, 2004, plaintiff Ricardo Betancourt went to WorkSource

16
in Yakima, Washington, to apply for work.
17
113. While at the WorkSource office, plaintiff Betancourt had a telephone
18

19 interview with defendant Global.

20

114. Defendant Global hired plaintiff Betancourt and told him to expect a

21 phone call about his start date.
22 115. Defendant Global failed to contact plaintiffBetancourt.
23

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES - 25

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 6 South Second Street, Suite 600 Yakima, WA 98901 (509) 575-5593

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 1-4 Filed 07/12/05

1

116. Defendant Global failed to provide plaintiff Betancourt with work as

2 promised.
3
117. Defendant Global similarly failed to contact members of the Denied
4
Work subclass following their application for employment or acceptance of
5

6 employment to inform them of when and where to report for work.

7

118. Defendant Global discouraged the Denied Work subclass from

8 obtaining employment by failing to inform members of scheduled orientations and
9
by refusing to allow members to participate in orientation meetings
10
119. Defendant Global rejected members ofthe Denied Work subclass
11
12 from employment for other than lawful job-related reasons.

13

120. Defendant Global failed to offer employment to members of the

14 Denied Work subclass workers.
15
121. On May 10, 2005, ESD sent a Notice of Discontinuation of
16
Employment Services to defendant Global for consistently failing to make a good
17
18 faith effort to recruit U.S. workers before hiring workers pursuant to an H-2A visa.

19

122. The May 10, 2005 letter from ESD stated that defendant Global's

20 recruitment practices improperly discouraged U.S. workers.
21

22

23
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES - 26

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 6 South Second Street, Suite 600 Yakima, WA 98901 (509) 575-5593

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 1-4 Filed 07/12/05

1

123. The May 10, 2005 letter from ESD stated that defendant Global failed

2 to inform recruits of promised orientations and conducted orientations only in
3
English.
4
124. The May 10, 2005 letter from ESD stated that of the 1,026 referrals
5

6 ESD made to defendant Global, only 166 individuals were hired.

7

125. The May 10,2005 letter from ESD stated that ESD followed up with

8 51 workers who were not hired by defendant Global, and of these 48 workers
9
provided information which contradicted the rationale provided by defendant
10
Global for refusing employment to the workers.
11

12

126. Defendant Global discriminated against members of the Denied Work

13 subclass based on national origin or race when it refused to hire or employ

14 plaintiffs and hired and employed H-2A workers from Thailand.

15

16

B. ADDITIONAL FACT ALLEGATIONS PERTAINING TO

THE GREEN ACRE SUBCLASS

17

127. In January 2004, plaintiff Jose Sanchez went to WorkSource in
18

19 Yakima, Washington, to apply for work.

20

128. In January 2004, plaintiff Sanchez met with defendant Global at the

21 WorkSource office. 22

23

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES - 27

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 6 South Second Street, Suite 600 Yakima, WA 98901 (509) 575-5593

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 1-4 Filed 07/12/05

1

129. In January 2004, defendant Global hired plaintiff Sanchez at the

2 WorkSource office.
3
130. Defendants Global Horizons and Green Acre directed members of the
4
Green Acre subclass, including plaintiff Sanchez, to meet certain production
5

6 standards in the pruning, thinning, and harvesting.

7

131. The Green Acre job orders provided to DOL, ESD, and the workers

8 recruited for Green Acre did not include any production standards for pruning,
9
thinning or harvesting.
10
132. At the end of August 2004, defendant Global instructed the entire
11
12 crew of Green Acre subclass members then working with plaintiff Sanchez at

13 Green Acre orchards, including plaintiff Sanchez, to stop working without giving a

14 reason why they were to stop.
15
133. Plaintiff Sanchez returned to Green Acre orchards the following day
16
and spoke with a supervisor for defendant Global who informed him that there was
17
18 no work for him.

19

134. Defendants Global and Green Acre continued to employ H-2A

20 workers from Thailand at the Green Acre orchards, at the same time U.S. resident
21
workers were told there was no more work. 22

23
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES - 28

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 6 South Second Street, Suite 600 Yakima, WA 98901 (509) 575-5593

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 1-4 Filed 07/12/05

1

135. Defendants Global and Green Acre failed to comply with a

2 progressive disciplinary process before terminating plaintiff Sanchez.
3
136. Defendants Global and Green Acre failed to comply with the working
4
arrangement and the terms and conditions of employment of U.S. resident workers
5

6 by:

7

a. Imposing productivity standards not included in the job orders

8

provided to DOL, ESD and workers recruited for Green Acre;

9
b. Failing to provide employment for the promised work period; 10

11

c. Failing to comply with a progressive discipline process before

12

terminating plaintiffs; and

13

d. Failing to provide employer-provided transportation as

14 promised in the job orders provided to DOL, ESD and workers

15 recruited for Green Acre.
16

17

137. Defendant Global and Green Acre failed to pay wages due to

18 members of the Green Acre subclass by making improper deductions for taxes not

19 required by Washington state government.

20

138. Defendant Global and Green Acre failed to provide adequate written

21 pay statements to members of the Green Acre subclass.
22

23
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES - 29

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 6 South Second Street, Suite 600 Yakima, WA 98901 (509) 575-5593

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 1-4 Filed 07/12/05

1

139. On May 10, 2005, the Washington State Employment Security

2 Department sent a Notice of Discontinuation of Employment Services to defendant
3
Global for failure to comply with basic requirements of state law, including
4
improperly deducting Washington state income tax from workers' pay.
5

6

140. On June 3, 2005, the Washington State Department of Labor and

7 Industries ("L&I") sent a Notice of Violation and Assessment of Wages and

8 Penalties to defendant Global for violations of state law including making
9
improper deductions for taxes not required by the Washington state government.
10
141. The June 3, 2005, notice from L&I noted that defendant Global had
11
12 unlawfully deducted $80.96 in state income tax from plaintiff Sanchez.

13

142. On June 3, 2005, the Washington State Department of Labor and

14 Industries sent a Notice of Violation and Assessment of Wages and Penalties to
15
defendant Global for failing to provide all information required on statements of
16
earnings to workers including the employer's address and telephone number, the
17
beginning and ending dates of the pay period, and the rate of pay for "other" hours.
18

19

143. Defendants Global and Green Acre discharged plaintiff Sanchez and

20 members of the Green Acre subclass from employment for other than lawful job21 related reasons. 22

23
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES - 30

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 6 South Second Street, Suite 600 Yakima, WA 98901 (509) 575-5593

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 1-4 Filed 07/12/05

1

144. Defendants Global and Green Acre discriminated against plaintiff

2 Sanchez and members of the Green Acre subclass in the terms and conditions of
3
employment and discharged them from employment based on national origin and
4
race.
5

6

C. ADDITIONAL FACT ALLEGATIONS PERTAINING TO

7

THE VALLEY FRUIT SUBCLASS

8

145. In January 2004, plaintiff Jose Perez went to WorkSource in Yakima,

9 Washington to apply for work.

10
146. In January 2004, plaintiff Perez met with defendant Global at the

11
WorkSource office.
12

13

147. In January 2004, defendant Global hired plaintiff Perez at the

14 WorkSource office.

15

148. Defendant Global directed members of the Valley Fruit subclass,

16 including plaintiff Perez, to meet certain production standards in the pruning,

17
thinning, and harvesting.
18

19

149. The Valley Fruit job orders provided to DOL, ESD and workers

20 recruited for Valley Fruit did not include any production standards for pruning,

21 thinning or harvesting. 22

23
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES - 31

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 6 South Second Street, Suite 600 Yakima, WA 98901 (509) 575-5593

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 1-4 Filed 07/12/05

1

150. During the pear harvest, members of the Valley Fruit subclass asked

2 to be paid by piece rate.
3
151. Defendant Global refused to pay plaintiffPerez and members of the
4
5 Valley Fruit subclass the piece rate of$19 per bin as promised in the work order.

6

152. In mid August 2004, after the members of the Valley Fruit subclass

7 objected to the pay rate offered by defendant Global in the amount of$13.50 a bin,
8 defendant Global fired the entire crew of Valley Fruit subclass members then
9
working with plaintiff Perez at Valley Fruit orchards, including plaintiff Perez.
10
153. At the same time Valley Fruit subclass members were fired as set
11
12 forth in paragraph 152, a supervisor for defendant Global informed the members of

13 the Valley Fruit subclass that defendant Global had another group of workers to do

14 the work.
15
154. Defendants Global and Valley Fruit failed to comply with the
16
progressive disciplinary process before terminating plaintiff Perez and other
17
18 members of the Valley Fruit subclass.

19

155. Defendants Global and Valley Fruit failed to provide written

20 statements of earnings to plaintiff Perez that consistently included the employer's
21
address and telephone number, the beginning and ending dates of the pay period,
22
and the number of piece work units earned when paid by the piece rate.
23

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES - 32

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 6 South Second Street, Suite 600 Yakima, WA 98901 (509) 575-5593

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 1-4 Filed 07/12/05

1

156. Defendants Global and Valley Fruit failed to comply with the working

2 arrangement and the terms and conditions of employment by:
3
a. Imposing productivity standards not included in the job orders
4
provided to DOL, ESD and workers recruited for Valley Fruit;
5

6

b. Failing to provide employment for the promised work period;

7

and

8
c. Failing to comply with the progressive discipline process set

9
forth in the job order before terminating plaintiffs.
10

11

157. Defendants Global and Valley Fruit failed to pay wages due to

12 members of the Valley Fruit subclass by failing to pay the promised piece rate.

13

158. Defendant Global and Valley Fruit failed to provide adequate written

14
pay statements to members of the Valley Fruit subclass.
15
159. On June 3, 2005, the Washington State Department ofLabor and
16
17 Industries sent a Notice of Violation and Assessment of Wages and Penalties to

18 defendant Global for failing to provide all information required on statements of

19 earnings to workers including the employer's address and telephone number, the 20 beginning and ending dates of the pay period, and the rate of pay for "other" hours.
21

22

23
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES - 33

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 6 South Second Street, Suite 600 Yakima, WA 98901 (509) 575-5593

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 1-4 Filed 07/12/05

1

160. Defendants Global and Valley Fruit discharged plaintiffPerez and

2 members of the Valley Fruit subclass from employment for other than lawful job-
3
related reasons.
4
161. Defendants Global and Valley Fruit discriminated against plaintiff
5

6 Perez and members of the Valley Fruit subclass in the terms and conditions of

7 employment and discharged them from employment based on national origin and

8 race.
9 10

CAUSES OF ACTION

11

A. PLAINTIFF CLASS- U.S. RESIDENT WORKERS

12
AWPA Violations
13

14

162. Defendants Global, Green Acre and Valley Fruit intentionally

15 provided false and misleading information to the plaintiff class about the terms,

16 conditions, and existence of employment in violation of29 U.S.C. § 1831(e) and

17 29 u.s.c. § 1821(±).
18
FLCA Violations
19

20

163. Defendant Global violated the rights of the plaintiff class by providing

21 false and misleading information about the terms, conditions, and existence of

22 employment in violation of RCW 19.30.120(2).
23
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES - 34

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 6 South Second Street, Suite 600 Yakima, WA 98901 (509) 575-5593

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 1-4 Filed 07/12/05

1

164. Defendant Global violated the rights of the plaintiff class by failing to

2 provide an adequate written disclosure of the terms and conditions of employment
3
at the time of recruitment or hiring and failing to provide the disclosure in Spanish
4
as required by RCW 19.30.110(7).
5

6

165. Defendant Global violated the rights of the plaintiff class by acting as

7 a farm labor contractor and failing to carry a current farm labor contractor's license

8 and surety bond at all times as required by RCW 19.30.020, 040, and 110.
9
166. Defendants Green Acre and Valley Fruit knowingly used the services
10
of an unlicensed farm labor contractor, making them personally, jointly, and
11
12 severally liable for defendant Global's violations of the Farm Labor Contractors
13 Act, under RCW 19.30.200.

14

B. DENIED WORK SUBCLASS

15
AWPA Violations
16
167. Defendants Global, Green Acre, and Valley Fruit intentionally failed
17
18 to offer and provide employment to the Denied Work subclass in violation of 29

19 U.S.C. § 1832(c) and 29 U.S.C. § 1822(c).

20

21

22

23
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES- 35

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 6 South Second Street, Suite 600 Yakima, WA 98901 (509) 575-5593

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 1-4 Filed 07/12/05

1 FLCA Violations

2

168. Defendant Global violated the rights of members ofthe Denied Work

3
subclass by failing to offer and provide employment to the subclass in violation of
4
RCW 19.30.110(5).
5

6 Section 1981 -Race Discrimination

7

169. Defendant Global unlawfully discriminated against plaintiffs based on

8 race in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 when it refused to hire members of the
9
Denied Work subclass or failed to provide the subclass with adequate information
10
to report for work because it preferred to hire H-2A workers from Thailand.
11
WLAD - National Origin Discrimination
12

13

170. Defendant Global unlawfully discriminated against plaintiffs based on

14 race or national origin in violation ofRCW 49.60.180 when it refused to hire
15 members of the Denied Work subclass or failed to provide the subclass with
16
adequate information to report for work because it preferred to hire H-2A workers
17
from Thailand.
18

19
20

21
22

23
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES - 36

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 6 South Second Street, Suite 600 Yakima, WA 98901 (509) 575-5593

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 1-4 Filed 07/12/05

1

c. GREEN ACRE SUBCLASS

2 AWPA Violations
3
171. Defendants Global and Green Acre intentionally violated the working
4
arrangement with members of the Green Acre subclass by failing to provide hours
5

6 of work promised, failing to provide employment for the promised work period,

7 failing to provide employer provided transportation, enforcing undisclosed
8 productivity standards, and failing to comply with the promised discipline process
9
before termination, in violation of29 U.S.C. § 1832(c) and 29 U.S.C. § 1822(c).
10
172. Defendants Global and Green Acre intentionally failed to pay wages
11
12 due to the Green Acre subclass under the terms of the working arrangement, in
13 violation of29 U.S.C. § 1832(a) and (c) and 29 U.S.C. § 1822(a) and (c).

14

173. Defendants Global and Green Acre intentionally failed to provide

15
adequate written pay statements to the Green Acre subclass as required by 29
16
U.S.C. § 1831(c) and 29 U.S.C. § 1821(d).
17
FLCA Violations
18

19

174. Defendant Global violated the agreement it had with members of the

20 Green Acre subclass by failing to provide hours of work promised, to provide

21 employment for the promised work period, to provide employer provided
22 transportation, enforcing undisclosed productivity standards and failing to comply
23

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES- 37

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 6 South Second Street, Suite 600 Yakima, WA 98901 (509) 575-5593

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 1-4 Filed 07/12/05

1 with the promised discipline process before termination, in violation of RCW

2 19.30.110(5).

3
175. Defendant Global violated the rights of members of the Green Acre
4
subclass by failing to pay wages due in violation ofRCW 19.30.110(4).
5

6

176. Defendant Global violated the rights of members ofthe Green Acre

7 subclass by failing to provide adequate written pay statements as required by RCW

8 19.30.110(8).
9
Washington State Wage Claims
10
177. Defendants Global and Green Acre willfully withheld wages of the
11
12 Green Acre subclass in violation ofRCW 49.52.050.
13 Section 1981 -Race Discrimination

14

178. Defendants Global and Green Acre unlawfully discriminated against

15
members of the Green Acre subclass based on race in violation of 42 U.S.C. §
16
1981.
17
WLAD- National Origin Discrimination
18

19

179. Defendants Global and Green Acre unlawfully discriminated against

20 members of the Green Acre subclass based on race or national origin in violation 21 ofRCW 49.60.180(2) and (3). 22

23
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES- 38

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 6 South Second Street, Suite 600 Yakima, WA 98901 (509) 575-5593

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 1-4 Filed 07/12/05

1

D. VALLEY FRUIT SUBCLASS

2 AWPA Violations
3
180. Defendants Global and Valley Fruit intentionally violated the working
4
arrangement with members of the Valley Fruit subclass by failing to provide
5

6 employment for the promised work period, enforcing undisclosed productivity

7 standards, and failing to comply with the promised discipline process before
8 termination, as provided by 29 U.S.C. § 1832(c) and 29 U.S.C. § 1822(c).
9
181. Defendants Global and Valley Fruit intentionally failed to pay wages
10
due to the Valley Fruit subclass, including the applicable piece rate, under the
11
12 terms ofthe working arrangement, in violation of29 U.S.C. § 1832(a) and (c) and
13 29 U.S.C. § 1822(a) and (c).

14

182. Defendants Global and Valley Fruit intentionally failed to provide

15
adequate written pay statements for the Valley Fruit subclass as required by 29
16
U.S.C. § 1831(c)(1)(a) and 29 U.S.C. § 1821(d)(l)(a).
17
FLCA Violations
18

19

183. Defendant Global violated the agreement it had with members of the

20 Valley Fruit subclass by failing to provide employment for the promised work

21 period, enforcing undisclosed productivity standards, and failing to comply with 22

23
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES - 39

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 6 South Second Street, Suite 600 Yakima, WA 98901 (509) 575-5593

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 1-4 Filed 07/12/05

1 the promised discipline process before termination, in violation of RCW

2 19.30.110(5).
3
184. Defendant Global violated the rights of members of the Valley Fruit
4
subclass by failing to pay wages due, including the applicable piece rates, in
5
6 violation ofRCW 19.30.110(4).

7

185. Defendant Global violated the rights of members of the Valley Fruit

8 subclass by failing to provide adequate written pay statements as required by RCW

9
19.30.110(8).
10
Washington State Wage Claims
11

12

186. Defendants Global and Valley Fruit willfully withheld wages of the

13 Valley Fruit subclass in violation ofRCW 49.52.050.

14 Section 1981- Race Discrimination
15
187. Defendants Global and Valley Fruit unlawfully discriminated against
16
members of the Valley Fruit subclass based on race in violation of 42 U.S.C. §
17
1981.
18
19 WLAD - National Origin Discrimination

20

188. Defendants Global and Valley Fruit unlawfully discriminated against

21 members of the Valley Fruit subclass based on race or national origin in violation 22
ofRCW 49.60.180(2) and (3).
23

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES - 40

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 6 South Second Street, Suite 600 Yakima, WA 98901 (509) 575-5593

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 1-4 Filed 07/12/05

1

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

2

Plaintiffs ask this Court to grant them the following relief:

3
1. Certify this action as a class action and all subclasses pursuant to Fed.
4
R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) and (b)(3);
5

6

2. Declare that defendants Global, Green Acre and Valley Fruit

7 intentionally violated the AWPA;

8

3. Enter a permanent injunction pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1831(c) and (e)

9
and 29 U.S.C. § 1821(d) and (f) requiring defendant Global to provide accurate
10
disclosure of information in job orders, and accurate and complete written pay
11

12 statements;

13

4. Award each of the plaintiffs and the other members of the class their

14 actual damages or statutory damages of up to $500, whichever is greater, for each
15
violation of the AWPA;
16
5. Declare that defendants Green Acre and Valley Fruit knowingly used
17
18 the services of an unlicensed farm labor contractor and therefore are jointly and
19 severally liable for the actions of defendant Global pursuant to RCW 19.30.200;

20

6. Declare that defendant Global violated the FLCA;

21
7. Award each of the plaintiffs and the other members of the class their
22
actual damages or statutory damages of $500 whichever is greater, for each
23

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES- 41

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 6 South Second Street, Suite 600 Yakima, WA 98901 (509) 575-5593

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 1-4 Filed 07/12/05

1 violation of the FLCA, together with the cost of suit including reasonable
2 attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to RCW 19.30.180;
3
8. Order the surety to tender to the Court an amount equal to the full
4
amount of all applicable bonds, or the damages awarded to plaintiffs, whichever is
5
6 less, and provide notice of the intent to tender this amount to the Director of Labor
7 and Industries pursuant to RCW 19.30.170(6);

8

9. Enter a permanent injunction pursuant to RCW 19.30.180 requiring

9
defendant Global to comply with FLCA's licensing, bonding and disclosure
10
requirements, and specifically to provide all workers with a written statement
11
12 adequately describing the terms and conditions of employment in Spanish or the

13 language common to workers who are not fluent or literate in English;

14

10. Award each of the plaintiffs and the other members of the class twice

15 the amount of wages willfully withheld as exemplary damages, together with costs
16
of suit and reasonable attorney's fees pursuant to RCW 49.52.070;
17
11. Award each of the plaintiffs and all class members their actual
18

19 damages for violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 together with the cost of suit, including

20 reasonable attorney's fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988;

21

12. Award each of the plaintiffs and all class members their actual

22 damages for violations of the Washington State Law Against Discrimination,
23

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES - 42

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 6 South Second Street, Suite 600 Yakima, WA 98901 (509) 575-5593

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 1-4 Filed 07/12/05
1 together with the cost of suit including reasonable attorneys' fees and costs 2 pursuant to RCW 49.60.030(2);
3
13. Grant other further relief as just and appropriate.
4
5 DATED this _l_k_fd'ay of July, 2005
6
COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES
7

~~-.... .~~.,...~AN ISLEY, WSBA # 4 10 MIRTA LAURA CONTRERAS, SBA # 21721
JOACHIM MORRISON, WSBA 23094 11 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
12
PAINE, HAMBLEN, COFFIN, BROOKE & MILLER LLP
13

15

17 18 19 20 21
22
23
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES - 43

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 6 South Second Street, Suite 600 Yakima, WA 98901 (509) 575-5593

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 1-4 Filed 07/12/05
EXHIBIT 1

-.--i:A::( !·~~~~tllt/ Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 1-4 Filed 07/12/05

.!' .---------""'"" \

' ·- '·.' _(; tJf{'?"''

U.S. DEPARTMENT 0

OR

•· ·

r

Employment and Training Administration

APPLICATION

IMPORTANT: READ
PRINT legibly In Ink or use a typeWriter. If you need more space to answtheer qnuuemstbioenr sofInthtehicsofrorremsp, ounsdeinagsqeupeasratitoens. hSeIeGt.NIAdeNnDtifDy AeaTcEheaancshwer
In original signature.

FOR ALIEN EMPLOYMENT CERTIFICATION

supplfeunrnneisnhtbtyahne$yr1ef0ato,l0so0e0r itnfoifnoaerimdo,arat5iboyenet,IanorrsthcienoupthnreespepalerananHtoioetnhnteioarfrtytoh, idosorfbosroomthis

1. Name of Alien
Unknown

(Family name in capital letter,
City and Town, State ZIP code or Province,

5. Telephone
310-234-8475

Green Acre Farms, 451 N. Island Rd., Harrah, Washington 98933

8. Nature Employer's Business Acti>ity ..
Farm Labor
Contractor

FarmworkBr, Fruit II

13. Describe Fully the job to be
pW pot((reauhfoeapolrlcalppklhlesiaefe)rsniss,seed,, w sladpnrniedee(ltsalacrhurptapsaappr,crreluviterpnnesveese)siha,sstaco)(dhc,ar(oepeh. hnsopc,daplleru(sonvsC)ct,e,etohcsnp,\ttt't~rc1i"ehl0na(rerurauiksenpli,tdnleprgslapwoe)iae,nsenas,eitcadnhpahtstgi,eeanmsacp,r(ehlsam(man,apbneppeeptcprnleetltotaaes)rcsf.r)eih,, neaepsesspce,srr)a(een,arwasepdc,cpuotlpbnnaeeiddrsnai)uen,csrchetites(hnfa)sre,,psotpntssalruetelapslcis,etnearptvruieinpsaierossn,),

TRAINING
EXPERf.. ENCE

Related OccupaUon (specify)
- - Field Supervisor
•

Ability to stand, bend, stoop and crouch for prolonged periods; good eye-hand coordination; ability to lift and carry up to 75 pounds.

•

.....C: ENDORSEMENTS
section • for Government use

(Make only)

no

entry

In

•

•

Occ. 1979)

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 1-4 Filed 07/12/05

c. Will free board and private room not shared with any· one be provided?
(Specify Sources of Recruitment by Name)
Advertising as specified by USDOL. Posting help wanted notice on employers' web site.

rx· one)
DYES 0 NO

22.

read Part II of the instructions to assure that appropriate

By Virtue of my signature below, I HEREBY CERTIFY the following conditions of employment

a. I have enough funds avaftable to pay lhe wage or salary offered the-.~lien.

b. The wage offered eitu'!IS or exceeds the pre-

vaifing wage and I gUarantee lhat, if a labor cerli·

wage flcation is granted, !~]e.·

paid to the allen when

the allen baglns woik;wlll equal or exceed lhe pre-
vailing wage which 1~. applicable at the time the

alien begins work.

e. The job oppor1unlty does not Involve unlawful discrimination by race, creed, color, national origin, age,
· sex, religion, handicap, or ciUzenshlp.
f. The job opportunity Is not:
(1) Vacant because the former occupanlls on strike or Is being locked out In lhe course of a labor dispute Involving a work stoppage.

c. The wage offered is _not based on commissions,

. .bonuses, or other ine&ntives, unless I guarantee

ll wage paid on a ~el<ly, bl-weekly, or monthly

basis.

..

d. 1will be able to place_ the allen on the payroll
on or before the daie Of ihe alien's proposed
entrance Into the United States.

(2) At Issue In a labor dispute Involving a work stoppage•
g. The job opportunity's terms, conditions and occupational environment are not contrary 1o Federal, State or local law.
h. The job opportunity has been and is clearly open 1o any qualified U.S. worker.

OF EMPLOYER
SiGNATURE

the foregoing Is true and oorrecL

DATE

Mordechai Orian

TITLE
President

AUTHORIZATION OF AGENT OF EMPLOYER
SIGNATURE OF EMPLOYER

··~

I HEREBY DESIGNATE the agent below lo represent me for lloe purposes of labor certification and t TAKE FULL RESPONSIBILITY for accuracy of any representations made by my agenl

DATE

NAME OF AGENT (Type or Print) .

ADDRESS OF AGENT (Number, Straet, City, State, ZIP code)

 
 Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 133 Filed 07/19/06

1 Richard W. Kuhling

Devra S. Hermosilla 2 PAINE, HAMBLEN, COFFIN, BROOKE 3 & MILLER LLP
717 West Sprague Avenue, Suite 1200 4 Spokane, WA 99201-3505
(509) 455-6000
5

Lori Jordan Isley 6 Mirta Laura Contreras
7 COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 6 South Second Street, Suite 600

8 Yakima, WA 98901

(509) 575-5593
9

° Joachim Morrison
1 COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 11 300 Okanogan Avenue, Suite 2A
Wenatchee, WA 98801 12 (509)662-9681

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

13

EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

14
JOSE GUADALUPE PEREZ-FARIAS, JOSE F.

15 SANCHEZ, RICARDO BETANCOURT, and

all other similarly situated persons

16

Plaintiffs,

vs.
17

18 GLOBAL HORIZONS, INC., MORDECHAI ORlAN, JANE DOE ORlAN, GREEN ACRE
19 FARMS, INC, JIM MORFORD, KATHERINE M. MORFORD, VALLEY FRUIT
20 ORCHARDS, LLC, JOHN VERBRUGGE, 21 DESIREE C. VERBRUGGE, and PLATTE
RIVER INSURANCE COMPANY,
22 Defendants.
23

CLASS ACTION
No. 05 CV 3061 MWL
PLAINTIFFS' THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FORDECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES

PLAINTIFFS' THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES - 1

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 6 South Second Street, Suite 600 Yakima, WA 98901 (509) 575-5593

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 133 Filed 07/19/06

1

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

2

1. Federal law requires that United States agricultural workers be given

3
preference over all foreign agricultural workers that employers seek to import
4

under the federal H-2A program. This is a class action brought by three United
5

6 States farm workers from the Yakima Valley who were illegally denied or

7 terminated from agricultural employment in 2004 because defendants Global

8 Horizons, Inc. ("Global"), Green Acre Farms, Inc. ("Green Acre"), and Valley

9 Fruit Orchards, LLC ("Valley Fruit") systematically and intentionally preferred

10
H-2A laborers from Thailand in violation of federal and state law.
11

12

2. Plaintiffs seek to bring class claims for violations of the Migrant and

13 Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act ("AWPA"), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1801 et

14 seq., including: providing false and misleading information concerning the terms

15 and conditions of employment; failure to comply with the working arrangement;

16
failure to pay wages as promised; and failure to provide adequate written pay
17
statements.
18

19

3. Plaintiffs seek to bring class claims for violations of the Farm Labor

20 Contractors Act ("FLCA"), Chapter 19.30 RCW et seq., including: engaging in

21 farm labor contracting activity without a license; failure to adequately disclose the 22 terms and conditions of employment; providing false and misleading information
23

PLAINTIFFS' THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES - 2

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 6 South Second Street, Suite 600 Yakima, WA 98901 (509) 575-5593

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 133 Filed 07/19/06

1 about the terms, conditions, and existence of employment; failure to comply with
2 the terms and conditions of employment; failure to pay wages as promised; and
3
failure to provide adequate written pay statements.
4
4. Plaintiffs seek to bring class claims for violations ofRCW 49.52.050
5
6 for willful withholding of wages.

7

5. Plaintiffs also seek to bring class claims for violations of 42 U.S.C. §

8 1981 and the Washington Law Against Discrimination ("WLAD"), Chapter 49.60

9
RCW et seq., including: discrimination in hiring, terms and conditions of
10
employment, and firing based on race and national origin.
11

12

JURSIDICTION

13

6. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

14 1331 (Federal Questions).

15
7. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §
16
1854 (AWPA).
17

18

8. This Court also has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

19 § 1367 (Supplemental Jurisdiction).

20 II
21 II 22

23

PLAINTIFFS' THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES - 3

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 6 South Second Street, Suite 600 Yakima, WA 98901 (509) 575-5593

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 133 Filed 07/19/06

1

PARTIES

2

9. At all times relevant to this complaint, the plaintiffs were all either

3
seasonal agricultural workers within the meaning of29 U.S.C. § 1802 (lO)(A) or
4

migrant agricultural workers within the meaning of29 U.S.C. §1802(8).
5

6

10. Plaintiff Ricardo Betancourt sought and was unlawfully denied

7 employment with defendants Global, Green Acre, and Valley Fruit in 2004.

8

11. Plaintiff Jose F. Sanchez ("Jose Sanchez") worked for defendants

9
Global and Green Acre at Green Acre Farms from January 2004 through August
10
2004.
11

12

12. Plaintiff Jose Guadalupe Perez-Farias ("Jose Perez") worked for

13 defendants Global and Valley Fruit at Valley Fruit Orchards from February 2004

14 through August 2004.

15
13. Plaintiffs and the class they seek to represent are primarily of Mexican
16
or other Hispanic ancestry.
17

18

14. Defendant Global is a California Corporation with its principal place

19 of business in Los Angeles, California.

20

15. Defendant Mordechai Orian ("Orian") is the president and sole

21
shareholder of Defendant Global.
22

23

PLAINTIFFS' THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES - 4

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 6 South Second Street, Suite 600 Yakima, WA 98901 (509) 575-5593

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 133 Filed 07/19/06

1

16. Defendant Orian committed or authorized the acts and omissions

2
alleged herein to have been committed by Defendant Global.
3
17. Defendants Global and Orian are agricultural employers as defined by
4
29 U.S.C. § 1802(2) and RCW 19.30.010(4).
5

6

18. Defendant Global is a farm labor contractor as defined by 29 U.S.C. §

7 1802(7) and RCW 19.30.010(2).

8
19. On information and belief, Defendants Orian and Jane Doe Orian are
9
individuals who reside in Malibu, California.
10

11

20. On information and belief, at all times relevant to this action

12 Defendants Orian and Jane Doe Orian were married to each other.

13

21. On information and belief, all acts or omissions alleged herein,

14
committed by Defendant Orian, were committed on behalf of the marital

15
community.
16

17

22. Defendant Green Acre is a Washington Corporation with its principal

18 place of business in Harrah, Washington.

19

23. Defendant Jim Morford represents himself as the owner of Defendant

20 Green Acre and contracted with Global to provide workers for Green Acre in 2004.
21
24. Defendant Jim Morford committed or authorized the acts and
22

23 omissions alleged herein to have been committed by Defendant Green Acre.

PLAINTIFFS' THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES - 5

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 6 South Second Street, Suite 600 Yakima, WA 98901 (509) 575-5593

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 133 Filed 07/19/06

1

25. Defendants Green Acre and Jim Morford are agricultural employers

2 as defined by 29 U.S.C. § 1802(2) and RCW 19.30.010(4).
3
26. Defendant Global had actual and apparent authority to act on behalf of
4
5 defendant Green Acre to recruit, hire, employ, and terminate the employment of

6 workers on the property of Green Acre.

7

27. Defendants Jim Morford and Katherine M. Morford are individuals

8 who reside in Washington.
9
28. On information and belief, at all times relevant to this action
10
Defendants Jim Morford and Katherine M. Morford were married to each other.
11

12

29. All acts or omissions alleged herein, committed by Defendant Jim

13 Morford, were committed on behalf of the marital community.

14

30. Defendant Valley Fruit is a limited liability Washington Company

15
with its principal place of business in Wapato, Washington.
16

17

31. Defendant John Verbrugge represents himself as the owner and a

18 partner of Defendant Valley Fruit and contracted with Global to provide workers

19 for Valley Fruit in 2004.

20

32. Defendant John Verbrugge committed or authorized the acts and

21
omissions alleged herein to have been committed by Defendant Valley Fruit.
22

23

PLAINTIFFS' THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES- 6

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 6 South Second Street, Suite 600 Yakima, WA 98901 (509) 575-5593

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 133 Filed 07/19/06

1

33. Defendants Valley Fruit and John Verbrugge are agricultural

2 employers as defined by 29 U.S.C. § 1802(2) and RCW 19.30.010(4).
3
34. Defendant Global had actual and apparent authority to act on behalf of
4
5 defendants Valley Fruit to recruit, hire, employ, and terminate the employment of

6 workers on the property of Valley Fruit.

7

35. Defendants John Verbrugge and Desiree C. Verbrugge are individuals

8 who reside in Washington.
9
36. On information and belief, at all times relevant to this action
10
Defendants John Verbrugge and Desiree C. Verbrugge were married to each other.
11

12

37. All acts or omissions alleged herein, committed by Defendant John

13 Verbrugge, were committed on behalf of the marital community.

14
38. Defendant Platte River Insurance Company ("Platte River") is a
15
Nebraska corporation with its principal place of business in City of Madison,
16
Wisconsin.
17

18

39. Defendant Platte River financed a surety bond in the amount of

19 $20,000 for defendant Global for the Washington state farm labor contractor
20 licensing period from October 1, 2004 through December 31, 2004.
21
Ill
22
Ill
23

PLAINTIFFS' THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES - 7

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 6 South Second Street, Suite 600 Yakima, WA 98901 (509) 575-5593

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 133 Filed 07/19/06

1

40. Defendant Platte River financed an additional surety bond in the

2 amount of $10,000 for defendant Global for the period from July 21, 2004 through
3
December 31, 2004.
4
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
5

6

A. PLAINTIFF CLASS- U.S. RESIDENT WORKERS

7

41. Plaintiffs bring this action on their own behalf and on behalf of the

8 class of persons similarly situated, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
9
23(a), (b)(2) and (b)(3), consisting of all workers who were U.S. residents and who
10
sought employment through defendant Global Horizons to work at either Green
11
12 Acre Farms or Valley Fruit Orchards in 2004, and all U.S. residents who, in the

13 future, seek employment with or obtain employment with Global, Green Acre, or

14 Valley Fruit. Plaintiffs seek only declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to Fed.
15 R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) for workers who seek or obtain employment with defendants in
16
the future. Plaintiffs also seek certification of three subclasses as set forth below.
17
42. The U.S. Resident class is so numerous that joinder of all members is
18
19 impracticable. The exact size of the class is not known; however on information

20 and belief the class size consists of at least 600 persons and an additional
21 undetermined number of U.S. resident workers who seek or obtain employment 22
with the defendants in the future.
23

PLAINTIFFS' THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES - 8

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 6 South Second Street, Suite 600 Yakima, WA 98901 (509) 575-5593

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 133 Filed 07/19/06

1

43. Representative plaintiffs are represented by experienced counsel who

2 will vigorously prosecute the litigation on behalf of the class.
3
44. Defendants have acted or refused to act on grounds generally
4
5 applicable to the class, thereby making declaratory and injunctive relief appropriate

6 with respect to the class as a whole.

7

45. Questions of law and fact common to the members of the class

8 predominate over any questions affecting only individual members and a class
9
action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication
10
of the controversy because:
11

12

a. Members of the class do not have an overriding interest in

13

individually controlling the prosecution of separate actions;

14

b. No litigation concerning this controversy has been commenced

15
by any member of the class;
16
c. Concentration of the litigation in this forum is desirable in order
17

18

to have all claims resolved in one case; and,

19

d. A class action can be managed without undue difficulty because

20

the issues presented are common to the class, defendants are

21
required to maintain detailed records concerning each member 22

23

PLAINTIFFS' THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES - 9

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 6 South Second Street, Suite 600 Yakima, WA 98901 (509) 575-5593

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 133 Filed 07/19/06

1

of the class, and plaintiffs' counsel have experience in

2

prosecuting cases of this nature.

3
46. Common questions of law and fact include:
4

5

a. Whether defendants Global, Green Acre and Valley Fruit

6

provided false and misleading information concerning the terms

7

and conditions of employment in violation of29 U.S.C. §

8

1831(e), 29 U.S.C. § 1821(±) and RCW 19.30.120(2);

9
b. Whether defendant Global was an unlicensed fam1labor
10
contractor until October 2004 in violation of RCW 19.30 et
11

12

seq.;

13

c. Whether Green Acre and Valley Fruit knowingly used the

14

services of defendant Global, an unlicensed farm labor

15
contractor, making them personally, jointly, and severally liable
16
for violations of the Farm Labor Contractors Act, RCW 19.30
17
et. seq.; and
18

19

d. Whether defendant Global failed to provide adequate

20

disclosures of the terms and conditions of employment in

21

violation ofRCW 19.30.110(7).

22

23

PLAINTIFFS' THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES- 10

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 6 South Second Street, Suite 600 Yakima, WA 98901 (509) 575-5593

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 133 Filed 07/19/06

1

47. The claims of the representative plaintiffs Ricardo Betancourt, Jose

2 Sanchez and Jose Perez are typical of the claims of the plaintiff class they seek to
3
represent and they will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.
4
B. PLAINTIFF SUBCLASS I- DENIED WORK
5

6

48. Plaintiff Ricardo Betancourt seeks certification of a subclass of all

7 workers who were U.S. residents and who sought and were denied employment
8 through defendant Global to work at either Green Acre Farms or Valley Fruit
9
Orchards in Washington State in 2004, and all U.S. residents who, in the future,
10
seek employment with or obtain employment with Global, Green Acre, or Valley
11
12 Fruit (Denied Work subclass). Plaintiffs seek only declaratory and injunctive relief
13 pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) for workers who seek or obtain employment

14 with defendants in the future.
15
49. The Denied Work subclass is so numerous that joinder of all members
16
is impracticable. The exact size of the class is not known; however, on
17
information and belief the class consists of approximately 300 persons and an
18
19 additional undetermined number of U.S. resident workers who seek or obtain

20 employment with the defendants in the future.

21

50. Questions of law and fact common to the members of the Denied

22 Work subclass predominate over any questions affecting only individual members
23.

PLAINTIFFS' THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES - 11

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 6 South Second Street, Suite 600 Yakima, WA 98901 (509) 575-5593

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 133 Filed 07/19/06

1 and a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient

2 adjudication of the controversy.
3
51. Questions of law and fact common to the Denied Work subclass
4
include those set forth in paragraph 30 and:
5

6

a. Whether defendants Global, Green Acre, and Valley Fruit

7

violated the working arrangement by failing to offer

8

employment to plaintiffs in violation of29 U.S.C. § 1832(c), 29

9
U.S.C § 1822(c), and whether the same conduct violated
10
agreements with plaintiffs pursuant to RCW 19.30.110(5);
11

12

b. Whether defendant Global unlawfully discriminated against

13

plaintiffs based on race in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981; and,

14

c. Whether defendant Global unlawfully discriminated against

15
plaintiffs based on race, or national origin in violation of RCW
16
49.60.180.
17

18

52. The claims of the representative plaintiff Ricardo Betancourt are

19 typical of the claims of the Denied Work subclass he seeks to represent and he will

20 fairly and adequately protect the interests of this subclass.
21 Ill
22
Ill
23

PLAINTIFFS' THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES- 12

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 6 South Second Street, Suite 600 Yakima, WA 98901 (509) 575-5593

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 133 Filed 07/19/06

1

C. PLAINTIFF SUBCLASS II - GREEN ACRE

2 53. Plaintiff Jose Sanchez seeks certification of a subclass of all workers
3
who were U.S. residents and who were employed through defendant Global to
4
work at Green Acre Farms in 2004, and all U.S. residents who, in the future, seek
5

6 employment with or obtain employment with Global and Green Acre (Green Acre

7 subclass). Plaintiffs seek only declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to Fed. R.
8 Civ. P. 23(b)(2) for workers who seek or obtain employment with defendants
9
Global and Green Acre in the future.
10
54. The Green Acre subclass is so numerous that joinder of all members is
11
12 impracticable. The exact size of the class is not known; however on information
13 and belief the class consists of approximately 150 persons and an additional

14 undetermined number of U.S. resident workers who seek or obtain employment
15 with the defendants Global or Green Acre in the future.
16
55. Questions oflaw and fact common to the members of the Green Acre
17
subclass predominate over any questions affecting only individual members and a
18
19 class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient

20 adjudication of the controversy.

21

56. Questions of law and fact common to the Green Acre subclass include

22 those set forth in paragraph 30 and:
23

PLAINTIFFS' THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES- 13

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 6 South Second Street, Suite 600 Yakima, WA 98901 (509) 575-5593

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 133 Filed 07/19/06

1

a. Whether defendants Global and Green Acre failed to comply

2

with the terms and conditions of employment as promised in

3 violation of29 U.S.C. § 1832(c), 29 U.S.C. § 1822(c) and
4

RCW 19.30.11 0(5); 5

6

b. Whether defendants Global and Green Acre violated the

7

working arrangement by terminating members of the Green

8

Acre subclass before the end of the promised work period in

9
violation of29 U.S.C. § 1832 (c), 29 U.S.C. § 1822(c) and
10 RCW 19.30.110(5);
11

12

c. Whether defendants Global and Green Acres failed to pay

13

workers the wages they were due when they made unlawful

14

deductions for Washington state income tax in violation of29

15

U.S.C. § 1832(a), 29 U.S.C. § 1822(a), RCW 19.30.110(4), and

16 RCW 49.52.050;
17

18

d. Whether defendants Global and Green Acre failed to provide

19

adequate written pay statements in violation of29 U.S.C. §

20

183l(c), 29 U.S.C. §182l(d) and RCW 19.30.110(8);

21

e. Whether defendants Global and Green Acre unlawfully

22 discharged members of the Green Acre subclass and
23

PLAINTIFFS' THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES- 14

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 6 South Second Street, Suite 600 Yakima, WA 98901 (509) 575-5593

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 133 Filed 07/19/06

1

discriminated against them in the terms and conditions of

2

employment based on race in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981;

3
and,
4
f. Whether defendants Global and Green Acre unlawfully
5

6

discharged members of the Green Acre subclass and

7

discriminated against them in the terms and conditions of

8

employment based on race or national origin in violation of

9

RCW 49.60.180(2) and (3).

10
57. The claims of the representative plaintiff Jose Sanchez are typical of
11

12 the claims of the Green Acre subclass he seeks to represent, and he will fairly and

13 adequately protect the interests of this subclass.

14

D. PLAINTIFF SUBCLASS III -VALLEY FRUIT

15
58. Plaintiff Jose Perez seeks certification of a subclass of all workers
16
who were U.S. residents and who were employed through defendant Global to
17
work at Valley Fruit Orchards in 2004, and all U.S. residents who, in the future,
18

19 seek employment with or obtain employment with Global and Valley Fruit (Valley

20 Fruit subclass). Plaintiffs seek only declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to
21 Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) for workers who seek or obtain employment with 22
defendants Global or Valley Fruit in the future.
23

PLAINTIFFS' THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES - 15

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 6 South Second Street, Suite 600 Yakima, WA 98901 (509) 575-5593

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 133 Filed 07/19/06

1

59. The Valley Fruit subclass is so numerous that joinder of all members

2 is impracticable. The exact size of the subclass is not known; however on
3
information and belief the class consists of at least 160 persons and an additional
4
undetermined number of U.S. resident workers who seek or obtain employment
5

6 with the defendants Global or Valley Fruit in the future.

7

60. Questions of law and fact common to the members of the Valley Fruit

8 subclass predominate over any questions affecting only individual members and a

9
class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient
10
adjudication of the controversy.
11

12

61. Questions of law and fact common to the Valley Fruit subclass

13 include those set forth in paragraph 30 and:

14

a. Whether defendants Global and Valley Fruit failed to comply

15
with the terms and conditions of employment as promised in
16
violation of29 U.S.C. § 1832(c), 29 U.S.C. § 1822(c), and
17
RCW 19.30.110(5);
18

19

b. Whether defendants Global and Valley Fruit violated the

20

working arrangement by terminating members of the Valley

21

Fruit subclass before the end of the promised work period in

22

23

PLAINTIFFS' THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES - 16

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 6 South Second Street, Suite 600 Yakima, WA 98901 (509) 575-5593

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 133 Filed 07/19/06

PLAINTIFFS' THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES - 17

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 6 South Second Street, Suite 600 Yakima, WA 98901 (509) 575-5593

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 133 Filed 07/19/06

1

62. The claims of the representative plaintiff Jose Perez are typical of the

2 claims of the Valley Fruit subclass he seeks to represent and he will fairly and
3
adequately protect the interests of this class.
4
STATEMENT OF FACTS
5

6

63. Defendant Global acted as a farm labor contractor in Washington

7 State beginning in or before December 2003 through the present date.

8

64. Defendant Global failed to obtain a license to work as a farm labor

9
contractor in Washington State until October 7, 2004.
10
65. Defendant Global failed to file a surety bond or other security meeting
11

12 the requirements ofRCW 19.30.040 with the Director of the Department of Labor

13 and Industries until October 1, 2004.

14

66. Defendant Green Acre knowingly used the services of defendant

15
Global, an unlicensed farm labor contractor, from December 18, 2003 through
16
October 6, 2004.
17

18

67. Defendant Valley Fruit knowingly used the services of defendant

19 Global, an unlicensed farm labor contractor, from December 11, 2003 through

20 October 6, 2004.
21
68. On May 10, 2005, the Washington State Employment Security
22
Department sent a Notice of Discontinuation of Employment Services to defendant
23

PLAINTIFFS' THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES - 18

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 6 South Second Street, Suite 600 Yakima, WA 98901 (509) 575-5593

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 133 Filed 07/19/06

1 Global for failure to comply with the basic requirements of state law including
2 failure to secure a state farm labor contractor's license.
3
69. On June 3, 2005, the Washington State Department of Labor and
4
Industries sent a Notice of Violation and Assessment of Wages and Penalties to
5
6 defendant Global for violations of state law including operating as an unregistered
7 farm labor contractor when defendant Global contracted with Green Acre and

8 Valley Fruit.

9
70. Defendant Global failed to provide all class members at the time of
10
recruiting or hiring a written statement adequately describing the terms and
11
conditions of employment.
12

13

71. Defendants Global, Green Acre, and Valley Fruit failed to disclose

14 production standards for pruning, thinning, harvesting and other activities in the

15 written statement of the terms and conditions of employment.
16
72. A significant number of class members were not fluent or literate in
17
English; the language common to the workers was Spanish.
18

19

73. Defendant Global failed to provide all class members at the time of

20 recruiting or hiring a written statement describing the terms and conditions of
21 employment in Spanish.
22
II
23

PLAINTIFFS' THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES - 19

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 6 South Second Street, Suite 600 Yakima, WA 98901 (509) 575-5593

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 133 Filed 07/19/06

1 Green Acre Job Order

2

74. On December 18, 2003, defendant Global submitted to the U.S.

3
Department of Labor (DOL) an application for H-2A workers, attached as Exhibit
4

l (hereinafter "Green Acre order").
5

6

75. The Green Acre order was also filed with the Washington State

7 Employment Security Department (ESD) Central Office in Olympia, Washington.

8

76. The ESD Central Office referred the Green Acre order to the ESD

9
WorkSource office in Yakima for recruitment of local U.S. workers.
10

77. WorkSource Yakima's Employer Services Unit entered the Green
11

12 Acre order into its computer job data base and posted it on a job board.

13

78. The Green Acre order sought 150 workers to be employed as farm

14 workers at Green Acre from February 2, 2004 through November 5, 2004.
15
79. The Green Acre order stated: "No U.S. worker will be rejected for or
16
terminated from employment for other than a lawful job-related reason."
17

18

80. The Yakima WorkSource office referred more than 150 U.S. workers

19 to defendant Global to fill the job openings on the Green Acre order.

20

81. On January 21,2004, defendant Global sent a letter to DOL stating it

21
had made offers of employment to U.S. workers for all 150 jobs.
22

23

82. In the January 21, 2004 letter, defendant Global further informed

PLAINTIFFS' THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES - 20

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 6 South Second Street, Suite 600 Yakima, WA 98901 (509) 575-5593

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 133 Filed 07/19/06

1 DOL that additional U.S. workers were accepted as referrals in case some of the
2 150 U.S. workers did not show up for work or abandoned their employment.
3
83. In the January 21, 2004letter, defendant Global also noted that it may
4
request from DOL a re-determination of need if sufficient U.S. workers did not
5
6 report for work or remain on the job.

7

84. In the January 21, 2004 letter, defendant Global also requested that

8 DOL terminate recruitment of U.S. workers for the Green Acre order because all
9
150 jobs were filled.
10
85. On January 22, 2004, DOL denied defendant Global's request for
11
12 H-2A workers because the Green Acre order had been filled by U.S. workers.

13

86. On February 27, 2004, defendant Global sent a letter by facsimile and

14 overnight mail to DOL stating that only 7 U.S. workers, less than 5% of the

15 original U.S. workforce hired by defendant Global, remained employed under the
16
Green Acre order.
17

18

87. In the February 27, 2004 letter, defendant Global further told DOL

19 that 150 U.S. workers were no longer available to work the Green Acre order.

20

88. In the February 27, 2004 letter, defendant Global told DOL that 98

21 U.S. workers had been offered employment at Green Acre but failed to report to
22 work.
23

PLAINTIFFS' THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES- 21

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 6 South Second Street, Suite 600 Yakima, WA 98901 (509) 575-5593

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 133 Filed 07/19/06

1

89. In the February 27, 2004 letter, defendant Global told DOL that 22

2 U.S. workers had been terminated from work at Green Acre for job-related

3
reasons.
4

5

90. In the February 27, 2004 letter, defendant Global told DOL that 19

6 U.S. workers had stmied work at Green Acre but abandoned the job after a brief

7 period.

8

91. In the February 27, 2004 letter, defendant Global requested a new

9
labor certification determination for 140 H-2A workers, unless 140 additional
10
qualified U.S. workers could be identified and available for work within 72 hours
11

12 of the receipt of the letter.

13

92. On or about March 3, 2004, DOL granted defendant Global temporary

14 labor certification for 131 H-2A workers to be employed pursuant to the Green
15
Acre order.
16
93. Defendant Global recruited all131 H-2A workers exclusively from
17
18 Thailand to fill the Green Acre order.

19

94. On March 5, 2004, staff from ESD sent an electronic message (ESD

20 e-mail) to DOL stating they had "evidence which suggests there is a willing and
21
available pool of [U.S.] workers" to fill defendant Global's request for H-2A labor. 22

23

PLAINTIFFS' THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES - 22

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 6 South Second Street, Suite 600 Yakima, WA 98901 (509) 575-5593

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 133 Filed 07/19/06

1

95. The March 5, 2004 ESD e-mail stated that an "internal inquiry" of

2 defendant Global's hiring process and procedures of U.S. workers revealed several

3
problems.
4

5

96. The March 5, 2004 ESD e-mail stated that after U.S. workers were

6 screened they were provided with a toll-free number for defendant Global. The

7 U.S. worker would then be interviewed by defendant Global staff over the

8 telephone and be told that they were "hired."
9
97. The March 5, 2004 ESD e-mail stated that defendant Global would
10
then only call back a limited number of the U.S. workers who were informed that
11
12 they had been hired, and invite those limited few to an orientation meeting.

13

98. On or about March or April 2004, despite ESD's complaints to DOL

14 regarding defendant Global's flawed recruitment of U.S. workers, approximately

15 131 Thai H-2A workers departed for the Yakima Valley to fill the Green Acre

16
order.
17

18

99. On information and belief, the employment contracts between

19 defendant Global and the Thai H-2A workers recruited for work at Green Acre

20 were from March 2004, until November 5, 2004.
21 Ill
22
Ill
23

PLAINTIFFS' THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES - 23

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 6 South Second Street, Suite 600 Yakima, WA 98901 (509) 575-5593

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 133 Filed 07/19/06

1 Valley Fruit I Job Order

2

100. On December 11, 2003, defendant Global submitted to DOL an

3
application for H-2A workers, attached as Exhibit 2 (hereinafter "Valley Fruit I
4

order").
5

6

101. The Valley Fruit I order was also filed with the ESD Central Office in

7 Olympia, Washington.

8

102. The Central Office referred the Valley Fruit I order to the ESD

9
WorkSource office in Yakima for recruitment oflocal U.S. workers.
10

103. WorkSource Yakima's Employer Services Unit entered the Valley
11

12 Fruit I order into its computer job data base and posted it on a job board.

13

104. The Valley Fruit I order sought 30 workers to be employed as farm

14 workers at Valley Fruit from January 26, 2004 through April1, 2004.
15
105. The Valley Fruit I order stated: "No U.S. worker will be rejected for
16
or terminated from employment for other than a lawful job-related reason."
17

18

106. The Yakima WorkSource office made a total of 117 referrals ofU.S.

19 workers to defendant Global to fill the 30 job openings on the Valley Fruit I order.

20

107. On January 20,2004, defendant Global sent a letter to DOL stating it

21
had made offers of employment to U.S. workers for all 30 Valley Fruit I jobs.
22

23

PLAINTIFFS' THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES - 24

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 6 South Second Street, Suite 600 Yakima, WA 98901 (509) 575-5593

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 133 Filed 07/19/06

1

108. On January 20, 2004, defendant Global sent a letter to DOL stating

2 that additional U.S. workers were accepted as referrals in case some workers did

3
not show up for work at Valley Fruit or abandoned their employment.
4

5

109. In the January 20, 2004letter, defendant Global also noted that it may

6 request from DOL a re-determination of need if sufficient workers did not report

7 for work or remain on the job.

8

110. In the January 20, 2004 letter, defendant Global also requested that

9
DOL terminate recruitment of U.S. workers for the Valley Fruit I order because all
10
30 jobs were filled.
11

12

111. On January 31,2004, DOL denied defendant Global's request for

13 H-2A workers because the Valley Fruit I order had been filled by U.S. workers.

14

112. On February 18, 2004, defendant Global sent a letter by facsimile and

15
overnight mail to DOL stating that only 18 U.S. workers remained employed under
16
the Valley Fruit I order.
17

18

113. In the February 18, 2004 letter, defendant Global further told DOL

19 that an additional49 U.S. workers were no longer available to work the Valley
°2 Fruit I order.
21
114. In the February 18, 2004 letter, defendant Global told DOL that 38
22
U.S. workers were offered employment, but failed to report to work.
23

PLAINTIFFS' THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES - 25

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 6 South Second Street, Suite 600 Yakima, WA 98901 (509) 575-5593

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 133 Filed 07/19/06

1

115. In the February 18, 2004letter, defendant Global told DOL that 5 U.S.

2 workers who had started work had abandoned their jobs after a brief period of

3
work.
4

5

116. In the February 18, 2004 letter, defendant Global told DOL that 3 U.S.

6 workers had been terminated for job-related reasons.

7

117. In the February 18, 2004 letter, defendant Global told DOL that 4 U.S.

8 workers were offered employment, but had Social Security number mismatches.
9
118. In the February 28, 2004 letter, defendant Global requested a new
10
labor certification determination for 12 H-2A workers, unless 12 additional
11

12 qualified U.S. workers could be identified and available for work within 72 hours

13 of the receipt of the letter.

14

119. Upon information and belief, all Valley Fruit I job openings were

15
filled by U.S. workers and the job order was closed by DOL.
16
Valley Fruit II Job Order
17

18

120. On or about June 28, 2004, defendant Global submitted to DOL an

19 application for H-2A workers, attached as Exhibit 3 (hereinafter "Valley Fruit II

20 order").
21 Ill
22
Ill
23

PLAINTIFFS' THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES - 26

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 6 South Second Street, Suite 600 Yakima, WA 98901 (509) 575-5593

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 133 Filed 07/19/06

1

121. The Valley Fruit II order was submitted for 70 temporary H-2A

2 workers to be employed as farm workers at Valley Fruit from August 15, 2004

3
through October 31, 2004.
4

5

122. The Valley Fruit II order stated: "No U.S. worker will be rejected for

6 or terminated from employment for other than a lawful job-related reason."

7

123. The Yakima WorkSource office made a total of 46 referrals of U.S.

8 workers to defendant Global to fill the 70 job openings on the Valley Fruit II order.
9
124. Defendant Global only hired 8 of the U.S. workers referred by
10
Yakima WorkSource.
11

12

125. On August 6, 2004, DOL granted defendant Global's temporary labor

13 certification for 62 H-2A workers to be employed pursuant to the Valley Fruit II

14 order.
15
126. On information and belief, defendant Global hired all 62 H-2A
16
workers from Thailand to fill the Valley Fruit II Order.
17

18

127. On information and belief, the employment contracts between the

19 Thai H-2A workers and defendant Global extended from August 15, 2004, until
20 October 31, 2004.
21
Ill
22
Ill
23

PLAINTIFFS' THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES - 27

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 6 South Second Street, Suite 600 Yakima, WA 98901 (509) 575-5593

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 133 Filed 07/19/06

1

A. ADDITIONAL FACT ALLEGATIONS PERTAINING TO

THE DENIED WORK SUBCLASS
2

3

128. In February, 2004, plaintiff Ricardo Betancourt went to WorkSource

4 in Yakima, Washington, to apply for work.

5

129. While at the WorkSource office, plaintiff Betancourt had a telephone

6
interview with defendant Global.
7
130. Defendant Global hired plaintiff Betancourt and told him to expect a
8

9 phone call about his start date.

10

131. Defendant Global failed to contact plaintiff Betancourt.

11

132. Defendant Global failed to provide plaintiff Betancourt with work as

12
promised.
13
133. Defendant Global similarly failed to contact members of the Denied
14

15 Work subclass following their application for employment or acceptance of

16 employment to inform them of when and where to report for work.

17

134. Defendant Global discouraged the Denied Work subclass from

18
obtaining employment by failing to inform members of scheduled orientations and
19
by refusing to allow members to participate in orientation meetings
20

21

135. Defendant Global rejected members of the Denied Work subclass

22 from employment for other than lawful job-related reasons.

23

PLAINTIFFS' THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES - 28

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 6 South Second Street, Suite 600 Yakima, WA 98901 (509) 575-5593

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 133 Filed 07/19/06

1

136. Defendant Global failed to offer employment to members of the

2 Denied Work subclass workers.
3
137. On May 10,2005, ESD sent a Notice of Discontinuation of
4
5 Employment Services to defendant Global for consistently failing to make a good

6 faith effort to recruit U.S. workers before hiring workers pursuant to an H-2A visa.

7

138. The May 10, 2005 letter from ESD stated that defendant Global's

8 recruitment practices improperly discouraged U.S. workers.
9
139. The May 10, 2005 letter from ESD stated that defendant Global failed
10
to inform recruits of promised orientations and conducted orientations only in
11

12 English.

13

140. The May 10,2005 letter from ESD stated that of the 1,026 referrals

14 ESD made to defendant Global, only 166 individuals were hired.
15
141. The May 10, 2005 letter from ESD stated that ESD followed up with
16
51 workers who were not hired by defendant Global, and of these 48 workers
17
18 provided information which contradicted the rationale provided by defendant

19 Global for refusing employment to the workers.

20

142. Defendant Global discriminated against members of the Denied Work

21
subclass based on national origin or race when it refused to hire or employ
22
plaintiffs and hired and employed H-2A workers from Thailand.
23

PLAINTIFFS' THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES - 29

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 6 South Second Street, Suite 600 Yakima, WA 98901 (509) 575-5593

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 133 Filed 07/19/06

1

B. ADDITIONAL FACT ALLEGATIONS PERTAINING TO

2

THE GREEN ACRE SUBCLASS

3

143. In January 2004, plaintiff Jose Sanchez went to WorkSource in

4 Yakima, Washington, to apply for work.

5
144. In January 2004, plaintiff Sanchez met with defendant Global at the
6
WorkSource office.
7

8

145. In January 2004, defendant Global hired plaintiff Sanchez at the

9 WorkSource office.

10

146. Defendants Global Horizons and Green Acre directed members of the

11
Green Acre subclass, including plaintiff Sanchez, to meet certain production

12
standards in the pruning, thinning, and harvesting.
13

14

147. The Green Acre job orders provided to DOL, ESD, and the workers

15 recruited for Green Acre did not include any production standards for pruning,

16 thinning or harvesting.

17

148. At the end of August 2004, defendant Global instructed the entire

18
crew of Green Acre subclass members then working with plaintiff Sanchez at
19

Green Acre orchards, including plaintiff Sanchez, to stop working without giving a 20

21 reason why they were to stop.

22

149. Plaintiff Sanchez returned to Green Acre orchards the following day

23

PLAINTIFFS' THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES - 30

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 6 South Second Street, Suite 600 Yakima, WA 98901 (509) 575-5593

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 133 Filed 07/19/06

1 and spoke with a supervisor for defendant Global who informed him that there was

2 no work for him.
3
150. Defendants Global and Green Acre continued to employ H-2A
4
workers from Thailand at the Green Acre orchards, at the same time U.S. resident
5
6 workers were told there was no more work.

7

151. Defendants Global and Green Acre failed to comply with a

8 progressive disciplinary process before terminating plaintiff Sanchez.
9
152. Defendants Global and Green Acre failed to comply with the working 10
arrangement and the terms and conditions of employment of U.S. resident workers
11
12 by:

13

a. Imposing productivity standards not included in the job orders

14

provided to DOL, ESD and workers recruited for Green Acre;

15
b. Failing to provide employment for the promised work period; 16
c. Failing to comply with a progressive discipline process before 17

18

terminating plaintiffs; and

19

d. Failing to provide employer-provided transportation as

20

promised in the job orders provided to DOL, ESD and workers

21 recruited for Green Acre.
22

23

PLAINTIFFS' THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES - 31

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 6 South Second Street, Suite 600 Yakima, WA 98901 (509) 575-5593

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 133 Filed 07/19/06

1

153. Defendant Global and Green Acre failed to pay wages due to

2 members of the Green Acre subclass by making improper deductions for taxes not

3
required by Washington state government.
4

5

154. Defendant Global and Green Acre failed to provide adequate written

6 pay statements to members of the Green Acre subclass.

7

155. On May 10,2005, the Washington State Employment Security

8 Department sent a Notice of Discontinuation of Employment Services to defendant
9
Global for failure to comply with basic requirements of state law, including
10
improperly deducting Washington state income tax from workers' pay.
11

12

156. On June 3, 2005, the Washington State Department of Labor and

13 Industries ("L&I") sent a Notice of Violation and Assessment of Wages and

14 Penalties to defendant Global for violations of state law including making
15
improper deductions for taxes not required by the Washington state government.
16
157. The June 3, 2005, notice from L&I noted that defendant Global had
17
18 unlawfully deducted $80.96 in state income tax from plaintiff Sanchez.

19

158. On June 3, 2005, the Washington State Department of Labor and

20 Industries sent a Notice ofViolation and Assessment of Wages and Penalties to
21 defendant Global for failing to provide all information required on statements of
22

23

PLAINTIFFS' THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES- 32

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 6 South Second Street, Suite 600 Yakima, WA 98901 (509) 575-5593

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 133 Filed 07/19/06

1 earnings to workers including the employer's address and telephone number, the
2 beginning and ending dates of the pay period, and the rate of pay for "other" hours.
3
159. Defendants Global and Green Acre discharged plaintiff Sanchez and
4
s members of the Green Acre subclass from employment for other than lawful job-
6 related reasons.

7

160. Defendants Global and Green Acre discriminated against plaintiff

8 Sanchez and members of the Green Acre subclass in the terms and conditions of

9
employment and discharged them from employment based on national origin and
10
race.
11

12

C. ADDITIONAL FACT ALLEGATIONS PERTAINING TO

THE VALLEY FRUIT SUBCLASS

13

161. In January 2004, plaintiff Jose Perez went to WorkSource in Yakima,
14

15 Washington to apply for work.

16

162. In January 2004, plaintiff Perez met with defendant Global at the

17 WorkSource office.
18
163. In January 2004, defendant Global hired plaintiff Perez at the
19
WorkSource office.
20
21 Ill
22 Ill

23

PLAINTIFFS' THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES - 33

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 6 South Second Street, Suite 600 Yakima, WA 98901 (509) 575-5593

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 133 Filed 07/19/06

1

164. Defendant Global directed members of the Valley Fruit subclass,

2 including plaintiff Perez, to meet certain production standards in the pruning,

3
thinning, and harvesting.
4

5

165. The Valley Fruit job orders provided to DOL, ESD and workers

6 recruited for Valley Fruit did not include any production standards for pruning,

7 thinning or harvesting.

8

166. During the pear harvest, members of the Valley Fruit subclass asked

9
to be paid by piece rate.
10

167. Defendant Global refused to pay plaintiff Perez and members of the
11

12 Valley Fruit subclass the piece rate of $19 per bin as promised in the work order.

13

168. In mid August 2004, after the members of the Valley Fruit subclass

14 objected to the pay rate offered by defendant Global in the amount of$13.50 a bin,

15
defendant Global fired the entire crew of Valley Fruit subclass members then
16
working with plaintiff Perez at Valley Fruit orchards, including plaintiff Perez.
17

18

169. At the same time Valley Fruit subclass members were fired as set

19 forth in paragraph 152, a supervisor for defendant Global informed the members of

20 the Valley Fruit subclass that defendant Global had another group of workers to do
21
the work.
22

23

PLAINTIFFS' THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES - 34

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 6 South Second Street, Suite 600 Yakima, WA 98901 (509) 575-5593

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 133 Filed 07/19/06

1

170. Defendants Global and Valley Fruit failed to comply with the

2 progressive disciplinary process before terminating plaintiff Perez and other

3
members of the Valley Fruit subclass.
4

5

171. Defendants Global and Valley Fruit failed to provide written

6 statements of earnings to plaintiff Perez that consistently included the employer's

7 address and telephone number, the beginning and ending dates of the pay period,

8 and the number of piece work units earned when paid by the piece rate.
9 172. Defendant Global and Valley Fruit failed to pay wages due to
10
members of the Valley Fruit subclass by making improper deductions for taxes not
11
12 required by Washington state government.

13

173. Defendants Global and Valley Fruit failed to comply with the working

14 arrangement and the terms and conditions of employment by:

15
a. Imposing productivity standards not included in the job orders
16
provided to DOL, ESD and workers recruited for Valley Fruit;
17

18

b. Failing to provide employment for the promised work period;

19

and

20

c. Failing to comply with the progressive discipline process set

21
forth in the job order before terminating plaintiffs.
22

23

PLAINTIFFS' THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES- 35

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 6 South Second Street, Suite 600 Yakima, WA 98901 (509) 575-5593

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 133 Filed 07/19/06

1

174. Defendants Global and Valley Fruit failed to pay wages due to

2 members of the Valley Fruit subclass by failing to pay the promised piece rate.
3
175. Defendant Global and Valley Fruit failed to provide adequate written
4
5 pay statements to members of the Valley Fruit subclass.

6

176. On June 3, 2005, the Washington State Department of Labor and

7 Industlies sent a Notice ofViolation and Assessment of Wages and Penalties to

8 defendant Global for failing to provide all information required on statements of
9
earnings to workers including the employer's address and telephone number, the
10
beginning and ending dates of the pay period, and the rate of pay for "other" hours.
11

12

177. Defendants Global and Valley Fruit discharged plaintiff Perez and

13 members of the Valley Fruit subclass from employment for other than lawful job-

14 related reasons.
15
178. Defendants Global and Valley Fruit discriminated against plaintiff
16
Perez and members of the Valley Fruit subclass in the terms and conditions of
17
18 employment and discharged them from employment based on national oligin and

19 race.

20 Ill
21 Ill
22
Ill
23

PLAINTIFFS' THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES - 36

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 6 South Second Street, Suite 600 Yakima, WA 98901 (509) 575-5593

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 133 Filed 07/19/06

1

CAUSES OF ACTION

2

A. PLAINTIFF CLASS- U.S. RESIDENT WORKERS

3
AWPA Violations
4

5

179. Defendants Global, Orian, Green Acre, Jim Morford, Valley Fruit,

6 and John Verbrugge intentionally provided false and misleading information to the

7 plaintiff class about the terms, conditions, and existence of employment in
8 violation of29 U.S.C. § 183l(e) and 29 U.S.C. § 182l(f).
9
FLCA Violations
10
180. Defendants Global and Orian, violated the rights of the plaintiff class
11
12 by providing false and misleading information about the terms, conditions, and
13 existence of employment in violation of RCW 19.30.120(2).

14

181. Defendants Global and Orian violated the rights of the plaintiff class

15
by failing to provide an adequate written disclosure of the terms and conditions of
16
employment at the time of recruitment or hiring and failing to provide the
17
disclosure in Spanish as required by RCW 19.30.110(7).
18

19

182. Defendants Global and Orian violated the rights of the plaintiff class

20 by acting as a farm labor contractor and failing to carry a current farm labor
21 contractor's license and surety bond at all times as required by RCW 19.30.020, 22
040, and 110.
23

PLAINTIFFS' THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES- 37

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 6 South Second Street, Suite 600 Yakima, WA 98901 (509) 575-5593

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 133 Filed 07/19/06

1

183. Defendants Green Acre, Jim Morford, Valley Fruit, and John

2 Verbrugge knowingly used the services of an unlicensed farm labor contractor,
3
making them personally, jointly, and severally liable for defendant Global's
4
violations of the Farm Labor Contractors Act, under RCW 19.30.200, alleged for
5

6 the entire Plaintiff class and the subclasses as set forth below.

7

B. DENIED WORK SUBCLASS

8 AWPA Violations
9
184. Defendants Global, Orian, Green Acre, Jim Morford, Valley Fruit and
10
John Verbrugge intentionally failed to offer and provide employment to the Denied
11
12 Work subclass in violation of29 U.S.C. § 1832(c) and 29 U.S.C. § 1822(c).

13 FLCA Violations

14

185. Defendants Global and Orian violated the rights of members of the

15
Denied Work subclass by failing to offer and provide employment to the subclass
16
in violation ofRCW 19.30.110(5).
17
Section 1981- Race Discrimination
18

19

186. Defendant Global unlawfully discriminated against plaintiffs based on

20 race in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 when it refused to hire members of the
21 Denied Work subclass or failed to provide the subclass with adequate information 22
to report for work because it preferred to hire H-2A workers from Thailand.
23

PLAINTIFFS' THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES - 38

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 6 South Second Street, Suite 600 Yakima, WA 98901 (509) 575-5593

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 133 Filed 07/19/06

1 WLAD- National Origin Discrimination
2 187. Defendant Global unlawfully discriminated against plaintiffs based on
3
race or national origin in violation ofRCW 49.60.180 when it refused to hire
4
members of the Denied Work subclass or failed to provide the subclass with
5
6 adequate information to report for work because it preferred to hire H-2A workers
7 from Thailand.

8

C. GREEN ACRE SUBCLASS

9
AWPA Violations
10
188. Defendants Global, Orian, Green Acre and Jim Morford intentionally
11

12 violated the working arrangement with members of the Green Acre subclass by

13 failing to provide hours of work promised, failing to provide employment for the

14 promised work period, failing to provide employer provided transportation,

15 enforcing undisclosed productivity standards, and failing to comply with the
16
promised discipline process before termination, in violation of29 U.S.C. § 1832(c)
17
and 29 U.S.C. § 1822(c).
18

l9

189. Defendants Global, Orian, Green Acre and Jim Morford intentionally

20 failed to pay wages due to the Green Acre subclass under the terms of the working
21 arrangement, in violation of29 U.S.C. § 1832(a) and (c) and 29 U.S.C. § 1822(a) 22
and (c).
23

PLAINTIFFS' THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES - 39

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 6 South Second Street, Suite 600 Yakima, WA 98901 (509) 575-5593

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 133 Filed 07/19/06

190. Defendants Global, Orian, Green Acre and Jim Morford intentionally

2 failed to provide adequate written pay statements to the Green Acre subclass as
3
required by 29 U.S.C. § 183l(c) and 29 U.S.C. § 1821(d).
4
FLCA Violations
5

6

191. Defendants Global and Orian violated the agreement it had with

7 members of the Green Acre subclass by failing to provide hours of work

8 promised, to provide employment for the promised work period, to provide
9
employer provided transportation, enforcing undisclosed productivity standards
10
and failing to comply with the promised discipline process before termination, in
11
12 violation of RCW 19.30.110(5).

13

192. Defendants Global and Orian violated the rights of members of the

14 Green Acre subclass by failing to pay wages due in violation ofRCW
15 19.30.110(4).
16
193. Defendants Global and Orian violated the rights of members of the
17
Green Acre subclass by failing to provide adequate written pay statements as
18
19 required by RCW 19.30.110(8).

20 Washington State Wage Claims

21

194. Defendants Global and Green Acre willfully withheld wages of the

22 Green Acre subclass in violation ofRCW 49.52.050.
23

PLAINTIFFS' THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES- 40

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 6 South Second Street, Suite 600 Yakima, WA 98901 (509) 575-5593

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 133 Filed 07/19/06

1 Section 1981 -Race Discrimination

2

195. Defendants Global and Green Acre unlawfully discriminated against

3
members of the Green Acre subclass based on race in violation of 42 U.S.C. §
4
1981.
5

6 WLAD- National Origin Discrimination

7

196. Defendants Global and Green Acre unlawfully discriminated against

8 members of the Green Acre subclass based on race or national origin in violation
9
ofRCW 49.60.180(2) and (3).
10
D. VALLEY FRUIT SUBCLASS
11
12 AWPA Violations

13

197. Defendants Global, Orian, Valley Fruit and John Verbrugge

14 intentionally violated the working arrangement with members of the Valley Fruit
15
subclass by failing to provide employment for the promised work period, enforcing
16
undisclosed productivity standards, and failing to comply with the promised
17
discipline process before termination, as provided by 29 U.S.C. § l832(c) and 29
18
19 U.S.C. § l822(c).

20

198. Defendants Global, Orian,Valley Fruit and John Verbrugge

21 intentionally failed to pay wages due to the Valley Fruit subclass, including the 22

23

PLAINTIFFS' THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES- 41

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 6 South Second Street, Suite 600 Yakima, WA 98901 (509) 575-5593

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 133 Filed 07/19/06

1 applicable piece rate, under the terms of the working arrangement, in violation of

2 29 U.S.C. § 1832(a) and (c) and 29 U.S.C. § 1822(a) and (c).
3
199. Defendants Global, Orian, Valley Fruit and John Verbrugge
4
intentionally failed to provide adequate written pay statements for the Valley Fruit
5
6 subclass as required by 29 U.S.C. § 1831(c)(l)(a) and 29 U.S.C. § 1821(d)(l)(a).

7 FLCA Violations

8

200. Defendants Global and Orian violated the agreement it had with

9
members of the Valley Fruit subclass by failing to provide employment for the
10
promised work period, enforcing undisclosed productivity standards, and failing to
11

12 comply with the promised discipline process before termination, in violation of

13 RCW 19.30.110(5).

14

201. Defendants Global and Orian violated the rights of members of the

15 Valley Fruit subclass by failing to pay wages due, including the applicable piece
16
rates, in violation ofRCW 19.30.110(4).
17
202. Defendants Global and Orian violated the rights of members of the
18

19 Valley Fruit subclass by failing to provide adequate written pay statements as

20 required by RCW 19.30.110(8).

21 Ill
22
Ill
23

PLAINTIFFS' THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES - 42

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 6 South Second Street, Suite 600 Yakima, WA 98901 (509) 575-5593

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 133 Filed 07/19/06

1 Washington State Wage Claims

2

203. Defendants Global and Valley Fruit willfully withheld wages of the

3
Valley Fruit subclass in violation ofRCW 49.52.050.
4

Section 1981- Race Discrimination
5

6

204. Defendants Global and Valley Fruit unlawfully discriminated against

7 members of the Valley Fruit subclass based on race in violation of 42 U.S.C. §
8 1981.
9
WLAD- National Origin Discrimination
10
205. Defendants Global and Valley Fruit unlawfully discriminated against
11
12 members of the Valley Fruit subclass based on race or national origin in violation
13 ofRCW 49.60.180(2) and (3).

14

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

15

Plaintiffs ask this Court to grant them the following relief:

16
1. Certify this action as a class action and all subclasses pursuant to Fed.
17

R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) and (b)(3);
18

19

2. Declare that defendants Global, Orian, Green Acre, Jim Morford,

20 Valley Fruit, and John Verbrugge intentionally violated the AWPA;
21
3. Enter a permanent injunction pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1831(c) and (e) 22
and 29 U.S.C. § 182l(d) and (f) requiring defendants Global, Orian, Green Acre,
23

PLAINTIFFS' THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES- 43

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 6 South Second Street, Suite 600 Yakima, WA 98901 (509) 575-5593

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 133 Filed 07/19/06

1 Jim Morford, Valley Fruit and John Verbrugge to provide accurate disclosure of
2 information in job orders, and accurate and complete written pay statements;
3
4. Award each of the plaintiffs and the other members of the class their
4
actual damages or statutory damages of up to $500, whichever is greater, for each
5
6 violation of the AWPA;

7

5. Declare that defendants Green Acre, Jim Morford, Valley Fruit and

10
Global pursuant to RCW 19.30.200;
11

12

6. Declare that defendants Global and Orian violated the FLCA;

13

7. Award each of the plaintiffs and the other members of the class their

14 actual damages or statutory damages of$500 whichever is greater, for each

15
violation of the FLCA, together with the cost of suit including reasonable
16
attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to RCW 19.30.180;
17

18

8. Order the surety to tender to the Court an amount equal to the full

19 amount of all applicable bonds, or the damages awarded to plaintiffs, whichever is

20 less, and provide notice of the intent to tender this amount to the Director of Labor 21 and Industries pursuant to RCW 19.30.170(6); 22

23

PLAINTIFFS' THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES- 44

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 6 South Second Street, Suite 600 Yakima, WA 98901 (509) 575-5593

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 133 Filed 07/19/06

1

9. Enter a permanent injunction pursuant to RCW 19.30.180 requiring

2 defendants Global, Orian, Green Acre, Jim Morford, Valley Fruit and John
3
Verbrugge to comply with FLCA's licensing, bonding and disclosure
4
requirements, and specifically to provide all workers with a written statement
5

6 adequately describing the terms and conditions of employment in Spanish or the

7 language common to workers who are not fluent or literate in English;

8

10. Award each of the plaintiffs and the other members of the class twice

9
the amount of wages willfully withheld as exemplary damages, together with costs
10
of suit and reasonable attorney's fees pursuant to RCW 49.52.070;
11

12

11. Award each of the plaintiffs and all class members their actual

13 damages for violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1981, including compensatory and punitive

14 damages, together with the cost of suit, including reasonable attorney's fees and
15 costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988;
16
12. Award each of the plaintiffs and all class members their actual
17
18 damages for violations of the Washington State Law Against Discrimination,
19 together with the cost of suit including reasonable attorneys' fees and costs

20 pursuant to RCW 49.60.030(2);

21 Ill
22
Ill
23

PLAINTIFFS' THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES - 45

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 6 South Second Street, Suite 600 Yakima, WA 98901 (509) 575-5593

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 133 Filed 07/19/06

1

13. Enter a permanent injunction requiring defendants Global, Green Acre

2 and Valley Fruit to comply with federal and state law prohibiting discrimination

3
based on race and national origin in hiring, conditions of employment, and firing.
4

5

14. Grant other further relief as just and appropriate.

6 DATED this 19th day of July, 2006.
7
s COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES

9

10
ori Jo an Isley, WSBA # 1 11 Mirta Laura Contreras, WS
Joachim Morrison, WSBA # 23094 12 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
13
14 PAINE, HAMBLEN, COFFIN, BROOKE & MILLER LLP

19
20
21
22
23
PLAINTIFFS' THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES - 46

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 6 South Second Street, Suite 600 Yakima, WA 98901 (509) 575-5593

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 133 Filed 07/19/06

1

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

2

I hereby certify that on this 19th day of July, 2006, I electronically filed the

3
foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send
4
notification of such filing to the following:
5

6 Devra Sigle Hermosilla, devra.hermosilla@painehamblen.com 7 Richard W. Kuhling, richard.kuhling@painehamblen.com
Ryan M. Edgley, edgleyr@hscis.net 8 Paul H. Beattie, hrappgray@aol.com
Joachim Morrison, joe.morrison@columbialegal.org 9 Howard W. Foster, fosterh@jbltd.com 10 Jeffery Cole Loudon, jloudon@talbottlaw.com

11

12

~L£_

13

Linda Banda

14

Columbia Legal Services

6 S. 2nd Street, Suite 600

15

Yakima, WA 98901

(509)575-5593

16

linda.banda@columbialegal.org

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

PLAINTIFFS' THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES- 47

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 6 South Second Street, Suite 600 Yakima, WA 98901 (509) 575-5593

 
 Case 2:05-cv-03061-AAM Document 507 Filed 07/11/2007

1

2

3

4

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
7

8 JOSE GUADALUPE PEREZ-FARIAS, )

et al.,

)

9

)

Plaintiffs, )

10

)

v.

)

11

)

GLOBAL HORIZONS, INC., et al., )

12

)

Defendants. )

13 ________________________________)

NO. CV-05-3061-AAM ORDER

14

On May 25, 2007, Plaintiffs filed motions for partial summary

15 judgment claiming that Defendants violated FCLA, AWPA and

16 Washington Wage Payment law (Ct. Rec. 465) and that Defendants

17 Green Acre Farms, Inc., and Valley Fruit Orchards, LLC, are liable

18 for violations of AWPA and FLCA (Ct. Rec. 459). The motions were

19 noted for hearing, with oral argument, on June 28, 2007. However,

20 on June 1, 2007, the Court granted Defendants’ motion to reset the

21 hearing date on Plaintiffs’ motions for partial summary judgment.

22 (Ct. Rec. 490). The Court reset the hearing date for July 24,

23 2007, but explicitly stated that Defendants must comply with the

24 Court’s local rules with respect to timely filing responsive

25 memorandums. (Ct. Rec. 490). Defendants did not request

26 additional time in which to respond to Plaintiffs’ motions. (Ct.

27 Rec. 482). No Defendant filed a timely response to Plaintiffs’

28 motions for partial summary judgment in this matter. In fact, to

ORDER - 1

Case 2:05-cv-03061-AAM Document 507 Filed 07/11/2007

1 date, the Court has received no response to Plaintiffs’ motions

2 for partial summary judgment from any Defendant. Accordingly, all

3 Defendants are in default with respect to Plaintiffs’ motions for

4 partial summary judgment.

5

In addition, on June 22, 2007, Plaintiffs filed a motion,

6 pursuant to Fed. R. Civ P. 39(a), to strike Defendants’ jury

7 demand with respect to Plaintiffs’ AWPA and FLCA summary judgment

8 claims. (Ct. Rec. 498). Plaintiffs moved for a Court

9 determination of statutory damages under FLCA for their summary

10 judgment claims. (Ct. Rec. 498). Again, no Defendant filed a

11 timely response to Plaintiffs’ June 22, 2007 motion. All

12 Defendants are additionally in default with regard to this motion.

13

As stated by this Court in numerous previous orders, Local

14 Rule 7.1(h)(5) holds that “[a] failure to timely file a memorandum

15 of points and authorities in support of or in opposition to any

16 motion may be considered by the Court as consent on the part of

17 the party failing to file such memorandum to the entry of an Order

18 adverse to the party in default.” In addition, pursuant to Local

19 Rule 56.1(d), the failure to file a statement of specific facts in

20 opposition to a motion for summary judgment allows the Court to

21 assume the facts as claimed by the moving party exist without

22 controversy.

23

Based on the lack of a timely response to the instant motions

24 (Ct. Rec. 459, 465 and 498) by any Defendant, and pursuant to this

25 Court’s authority under Local Rule 7.1(h)(3), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED

26 that the hearing date of July 24, 2007, is VACATED. The Court

27 shall address these motions without oral presentation.

28 / / /

ORDER - 2

Case 2:05-cv-03061-AAM Document 507 Filed 07/11/2007

1

SANCTIONS

2

Despite several orders issued by this Court requiring

3 Defendants Global Horizons, Inc., Mordechai Orian and Jane Doe

4 Orian to produce discovery and pay sanctions, these defendants 5 have repeatedly failed to respond as directed.1

6

Following the April 17, 2007 hearing on Plaintiffs’ motion

7 for contempt and sanctions, the Court issued an order for

8 Defendants to comply with this Court’s previous orders and produce

9 all documents previously ordered no later than the close of

10 business on April 23, 2007. (Ct. Rec. 404). Defendants were

11 advised that their failure to comply in this manner would result

12 in daily sanctions of $500.00 until they fully complied with the

13 Court’s order. (Ct. Rec. 404). Despite this warning, Attorney

14 for Defendants, Mr. Shiner, indicated in a declaration on May 14,

15 2007, that Defendants had still not produced all previously 16 ordered discovery.2 (Ct. Rec. 452). On May 18, 2007, based on

17 the admitted lack of compliance by Defendants, the Court ordered

18 sanctions against Defendants in the amount of $12,500.00,

19 calculated at $500.00 per day for each calendar day from April 23,

20 2007 to the date of that order. (Ct. Rec. 458). In addition, the

21 Court warned that Defendants’ continued failure to comply with

22 this Court’s orders would result in continued monetary sanctions,

23 in the amount of $500.00 a day, for each calender day, until there

24

25

1Defendants have failed to fully comply with seven separate

orders of this Court regarding the production of discovery. (Ct. 26 Rec. 274; Ct. Rec. 298; Ct. Rec. 329; Ct. Rec. 351; Ct. Rec. 363;

Ct. Rec. 404; Ct. Rec. 458). 27

2Counsel for Defendants admitted that they had still not 28 “turned over” the emails which had been ordered to be produced.

(Ct. Rec. 452, pp. 8-9).

ORDER - 3

Case 2:05-cv-03061-AAM Document 507 Filed 07/11/2007

1 was full compliance, and could result in other sanctions as

2 determined by the Court. (Ct. Rec. 458). Defendants were

3 forewarned that “continued noncompliance with this Court’s orders

4 may result in case dispositive sanctions.” (Ct. Rec. 458, p. 8).

5

The Court ordered counsel for Plaintiffs and counsel for

6 Defendants to meet and confer and file a statement that provides

7 an outline of what items have not been produced as previously

8 ordered by the Court. (Ct. Rec. 458). Plaintiffs filed a timely

9 statement on May 29, 2007 (Ct. Rec. 472), and Defendants filed an

10 untimely statement on May 31, 2007 (Ct. Rec. 486).

11

Plaintiffs’ statement indicates that, in addition to not

12 paying the Court ordered costs to Plaintiffs, Defendants had still

13 not provided complete and unredacted email and had not provided

14 all communication with Holt, Schwartz, Gonnene and the recruitment

15 agencies. (Ct. Rec. 472; Ct. Rec. 473, p. 5). Plaintiffs

16 additionally asserted that Defendants had still not provided

17 supplemental responses with respect to Defendants’ violations of

18 AWPA and H-2A, the documentation related to Bruce Schwartz and

19 Taft Farms was incomplete, and Defendants had provided no contract

20 for services with James Holt and no contracts for services with

21 Amnon Gonnene for 2003 and 2004. (Ct. Rec. 472).

22

Defendants untimely statement admits that Defendants had not

23 supplemented responses to an interrogatory request and request for

24 production as ordered by the Court. (Ct. Rec. 486, p. 5).

25 Counsel for Defendants indicated that his goal was to have those

26 items completed by June 1, 2007, but it did not appear likely that

27 he would reach that goal. (Ct. Rec. 486, pp. 5-6). It was

28 further admitted that Defendants had not produced email between

ORDER - 4

Case 2:05-cv-03061-AAM Document 507 Filed 07/11/2007

1 Ms. Tubchumpol and recruiting agencies. (Ct. Rec. 486, p. 8).

2 Despite this Court’s repeated orders for Defendants to produce all

3 relevant email, counsel for Defendants indicated that “Global

4 would endeavor, in short order, to look for and produce all of

5 said relevant email.” (Ct. Rec. 486, p. 8). Defendants asserted

6 that they had delivered all documents related to Taft Farms and

7 Bruce Schwartz on May 31, 2007, they had produced all email

8 regarding Holt, Schwartz, and Gonnene (with certain redactions),

9 and there was no contract for services with Holt, nor any

10 contracts for services in 2003 and 2004 with Gonnene, to be

11 produced.

12

The statements of the parties reveal that, despite this

13 Court’s order for Defendants to produce all documents previously

14 ordered no later than the close of business on April 23, 2007, in

15 the face of daily monetary sanctions (Ct. Rec. 404), Defendants

16 have still not fully complied with this Court’s orders to produce

17 all discovery and had not complied with this Court’s orders to pay

18 Plaintiffs’ costs of bringing prior discovery motions.

19

On June 8 and June 11, 2007, the Court received declarations

20 from Plaintiffs’ counsel (Ct. Rec. 493-495), as well as a

21 declaration from Mr. Shiner (Ct. Rec. 496), that reveal that there

22 has been continued difficulty with Defendants’ ability to comply

23 with this Court’s orders. Despite the continued imposition of

24 monetary sanctions, the Court has received no information since

25 that time regarding Defendants’ compliance.

26

On June 1, 2007, the Court also received a declaration of

27 Mordechai Orian which stated that Defendants refused to pay to the

28 ///

ORDER - 5

Case 2:05-cv-03061-AAM Document 507 Filed 07/11/2007

1 Court the monetary sanctions imposed for Defendants’ continued

2 refusal to comply with the Court’s orders. (Ct. Rec. 491).

3

Where it is determined that counsel or a party has acted

4 willfully or in bad faith in failing to comply with rules of

5 discovery or with Court orders enforcing the rules or in flagrant

6 disregard of those rules or orders, it is within the discretion of

7 the Court to dismiss the action or to render judgment by default

8 against the party responsible for noncompliance. Fed. R. Civ. P.

9 37(b). The Court will impose a default judgment as a sanction

10 when a party’s violations are due to the “willfulness, bad faith,

11 or fault” of the party, and where lesser sanctions are considered

12 by the Court to be inadequate. Hyde & Drath v. Baker, 24 F.3d

13 1162, 1167 (9th Cir. 1994) (citing Fjelstad v. Am. Honda Motor

14 Co., 762 F.2d 1334, 1341 (9th Cir. 1985)); United Artists Corp. v.

15 La Cage Aux Folles, Inc., 771 F.2d 1265, 1270-71 (9th Cir. 1985).

16 “Disobedient conduct not shown to be outside the control of the

17 litigant is sufficient to demonstrate willfulness, bad faith, or

18 fault.” Hyde & Drath, 24 F.3d at 1166.

19

“Litigants who are willful in halting the discovery process

20 act in opposition to the authority of the court and cause

21 impermissible prejudice to their opponents. It is even more

22 important to note, in this era of crowded dockets, that they also

23 deprive other litigants of an opportunity to use the courts as a

24 serious dispute-settlement mechanism . . . . As the Supreme Court

25 stated in upholding a dismissal for failure to comply with a

26 discovery order, [although] it might well be that these

27 [litigants] would faithfully comply with all future discovery

28 orders entered by the District Court in this case . . . [if the

ORDER - 6

Case 2:05-cv-03061-AAM Document 507 Filed 07/11/2007

1 order of dismissal were overturned] other parties to other

2 lawsuits would feel freer than we think Rule 37 contemplates they

3 should feel to flout other discovery orders of other district

4 courts.” G-K Properties v. Redevelopment Agency of City of San

5 Jose, 577 F.2d 645, 647-648 (9th Cir. 1978) (quoting National

6 Hockey League v. Metropolitan Hockey Club, Inc., 427 U.S. 639, 643

7 (1976)).

8

There is no dispute in this case concerning Defendants’

9 failure to fully comply with the Court’s repeated orders regarding

10 discovery. It is undisputed that Defendants have not produced all

11 discovery as ordered by the Court in the context of seven separate

12 discovery orders. (Ct. Rec. 274; Ct. Rec. 298; Ct. Rec. 329; Ct.

13 Rec. 351; Ct. Rec. 363; Ct. Rec. 404; Ct. Rec. 458). Defendants

14 have provided no valid basis to persuade this Court that

15 circumstances outside Defendants’ control have caused their

16 repeated transgressions. Furthermore, the Court has imposed

17 lesser sanctions, with warnings of greater sanctions, in an

18 attempt to achieve Defendants’ compliance. As noted above, these

19 lesser sanctions have had no effect with respect to garnering

20 Defendants’ full compliance. Defendants’ actions in this case are

21 unacceptable.

22

While the Court has considered issuing case dispositive

23 sanctions against Defendants Global Horizons, Inc., Mordechai

24 Orian and Jane Doe Orian for their continued refusal to obey this

25 Court’s orders with respect to discovery, the Court has instead

26 decided to merely address Plaintiffs’ motions for partial summary

27 judgment and for statutory damages, in light of Defendants’

28 failure to oppose said motions.

ORDER - 7

Case 2:05-cv-03061-AAM Document 507 Filed 07/11/2007

1

However, Defendants Global Horizons, Inc., and Mordechai

2 Orian are compelled to comply with the May 18, 2007 order of the

3 Court regarding monetary sanctions. (Ct. Rec. 458). Although,

4 Defendant Mordechai Orian stated on June 1, 2007, that Defendants

5 refused to pay the monetary sanctions imposed by the Court for

6 Defendants’ continued refusal to comply with the Court’s orders

7 (Ct. Rec. 491), that baseless refusal is unacceptable.

8

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants Global Horizons, Inc.,

9 and Mordechai Orian, shall pay to the Court the monetary sanctions

10 previously imposed, in the amount of $12,500.00, as well as the

11 additional amount of $27,000.00, calculated at $500.00 per day for

12 each calendar day since the initial imposition of sanctions to the

13 date of this order, for Defendants’ continued refusal to comply

14 with the Court’s orders. A check payable to the United States

15 District Court, Eastern District of Washington, from Defendants

16 Global Horizons, Inc., and Mordechai Orian, in the amount of

17 $39,500.00 is due immediately. Moreover, monetary sanctions, in

18 the amount of $500.00 a day, for each calender day, shall continue

19 until Defendants provide full payment to the Court.

20

Should Defendants fail to make payment to the Court in the

21 above amount, Defendant Mordechai Orian shall appear before the

22 Court on July 24, 2007 at 2:00 p.m., to face the charge of

23 criminal contempt pursuant to this Court’s authority under 18

24 U.S.C. § 401(3).

25

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

26

Summary judgment is appropriate when it is demonstrated that

27 there exists no genuine issue as to any material fact, and that

28 the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

ORDER - 8

Case 2:05-cv-03061-AAM Document 507 Filed 07/11/2007

1 Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). Under summary judgment practice, the

2 moving party

3

[A]lways bears the initial responsibility of informing the

district court of the basis for its motion, and identifying

4

those portions of “the pleadings, depositions, answers to

interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the

5

affidavits, if any,” which it believes demonstrate the

absence of a genuine issue of material fact.

6

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). “[W]here the

7

nonmoving party will bear the burden of proof at trial on a

8

dispositive issue, a summary judgment motion may properly be made

9

in reliance solely on the ‘pleadings, depositions, answers to

10

interrogatories, and admissions on file.’” Id. Indeed, summary

11

judgment should be entered, after adequate time for discovery and

12

upon motion, against a party who fails to make a showing

13

sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to

14

that party’s case, and on which that party will bear the burden of

15

proof at trial. Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 322. “[A] complete

16

failure of proof concerning an essential element of the nonmoving

17

party’s case necessarily renders all other facts immaterial.” Id.

18

In such a circumstance, summary judgment should be granted, “so

19

long as whatever is before the district court demonstrates that

20

the standard for entry of summary judgment, as set forth in Rule

21

56(c), is satisfied.” Id. at 323.

22

If the moving party meets its initial responsibility, the

23

burden then shifts to the opposing party to establish that a

24

genuine issue as to any material fact actually does exist.

25

Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574,

26

586 (1986). In attempting to establish the existence of this

27

factual dispute, the opposing party may not rely upon the denials

28

of its pleadings, but is required to tender evidence of specific

ORDER - 9

Case 2:05-cv-03061-AAM Document 507 Filed 07/11/2007

1 facts in the form of affidavits, and/or admissible discovery

2 material, in support of its contention that the dispute exists.

3 Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e); Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 586 n. 11. The

4 opposing party must demonstrate that the fact in contention is

5 material, i.e., a fact that might affect the outcome of the suit

6 under the governing law, Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S.

7 242, 248 (1986); T.W. Elec. Serv., Inc. v. Pacific Elec.

8 Contractors Ass’n, 809 F.2d 626, 630 (9th Cir. 1987), and that the

9 dispute is genuine, i.e., the evidence is such that a reasonable

10 jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party, Wool v.

11 Tandem Computers, Inc., 818 F.2d 1433, 1436 (9th Cir. 1987).

12

In the endeavor to establish the existence of a factual

13 dispute, the opposing party need not establish a material issue of

14 fact conclusively in its favor. It is sufficient that “the

15 claimed factual dispute be shown to require a jury or judge to

16 resolve the parties’ differing versions of the truth at trial.”

17 T.W. Elec. Serv., 809 F.2d at 631. Thus, the “purpose of summary

18 judgment is to ‘pierce the pleadings and to assess the proof in

19 order to see whether there is a genuine need for trial.’”

20 Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 587 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)

21 advisory committee’s note on 1963 amendments).

22

In resolving the summary judgment motion, the court examines

23 the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and

24 admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any. Fed. R.

25 Civ. P. 56(c). The evidence of the opposing party is to be

26 believed, Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255, and all reasonable inferences

27 that may be drawn from the facts placed before the court must be

28 drawn in favor of the opposing party, Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 587

ORDER - 10

Case 2:05-cv-03061-AAM Document 507 Filed 07/11/2007

1 (citing United States v. Diebold, Inc., 369 U.S. 654, 655 (1962)

2 (per curiam). Nevertheless, inferences are not drawn out of the

3 air, and it is the opposing party’s obligation to produce a

4 factual predicate from which the inference may be drawn. Richards

5 v. Nielsen Freight Lines, 602 F. Supp. 1224, 1244-45 (E.D. Cal.

6 1985), aff'd, 810 F.2d 898, 902 (9th Cir. 1987).

7

Finally, to demonstrate a genuine issue, the opposing party

8 “must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical

9 doubt as to the material facts. Where the record taken as a whole

10 could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving

11 party, there is no ‘genuine issue for trial.’” Matsushita, 475

12 U.S. at 587 (citation omitted).

13 I. Ct. Rec. 465

14

By way of Ct. Rec. 465, Plaintiffs move the Court for an

15 order of partial summary judgment finding that Defendants Global

16 Horizons, Inc. (“Global”), Green Acre Farms, Inc. (“Green Acre”),

17 and Valley Fruit Orchards, LLC (“Valley Fruit”), violated the

18 following provision of the Farm Labor Contractors Act (“FLCA”),

19 RCW 19.30, et seq., and the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural

20 Workers Protection Act (“AWPA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1801, et seq.:

21 (1) failing to provide required disclosures, (2) providing false

22 and misleading information about the terms of employment,

23 (3) violating the terms of the working agreement, (4) failing to

24 pay wages due, and (5) failing to provide adequate written pay

25 statements. (Ct. Rec. 465). Plaintiffs also seek summary

26 judgment against Defendant Mordechai Orian (“Orian”) for AWPA

27 violations and against Global and Orian for the willful

28 withholding of wages under RCW 49.52.050. (Ct. Rec. 465). As

ORDER - 11

Case 2:05-cv-03061-AAM Document 507 Filed 07/11/2007

1 noted above, Defendants failed to file an opposition memorandum to

2 Plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment.

3

A. Failure To Provide Required Disclosures

4

FLCA requires farm labor contractors to provide disclosures

5 to workers about the terms and conditions of employment at the

6 time of hiring, recruiting, soliciting, or supplying, whichever

7 occurs first, on a form provided by the State of Washington. RCW

8 19.30.110(7). The written statement must be in English and any

9 other language common to workers who are not fluent or literate in

10 English. RCW 19.30.110(7).

11

Plaintiffs’ statement of material facts, which has not been

12 disputed by Defendants, indicates that Global took applications

13 from over one-hundred U.S. Resident Workers who were Spanish

14 speaking. (Ct. Rec. 467, p. 4). Global failed to provide U.S.

15 Resident Workers with the disclosures on the form required by the

16 State of Washington and failed to provide the statement in 17 Spanish. (Ct. Rec. 467, pp. 4-6).3

18

The evidence presented by Plaintiffs is undisputed.

19 Therefore, Summary judgment with respect to Plaintiffs’ claim that

20 Global failed to provide adequate disclosures in violation of

21 FLCA, RCW 19.30.110(7), is appropriate.

22 ///

23
3As part of a settlement agreement Global entered with the 24 State of Washington, Global stipulated that it did not provide any
employees with the required Washington State FLC-Worker agreement 25 forms in 2004, an attorney for Global wrote in January of 2005
that Global “was not aware that it was required to provide a copy 26 of the Washington State ‘Farm Labor Contractor and Worker
Agreement’ to H-2A and domestic workers in their language,” and 27 Plaintiffs requested in this lawsuit that Global and Orian produce
all Washington State FLC-Worker agreement forms provided to U.S. 28 Resident Workers in 2004, to which they responded “none.” (Ct.
Rec. 467, pp. 5-6).

ORDER - 12

Case 2:05-cv-03061-AAM Document 507 Filed 07/11/2007

1

B. Providing False And Misleading Information About The

Terms Of Employment

2

Providing false and misleading information regarding any of

3

the terms or conditions of employment to either a migrant or a

4

seasonal worker is a violation of AWPA. 29 U.S.C. §§ 1821(f),

5

1831(e). AWPA requires each farm labor contractor, agricultural

6

employer, and agricultural association to provide written

7

disclosures of the terms and conditions of employment and to post

8

in a conspicuous place a poster provided by the Secretary setting

9

forth the rights and protections afforded to the workers under

10

AWPA, including the terms and conditions, if any, of occupancy of

11

housing. 29 U.S.C. §§ 1821(a)-(c), 1831(a)-(c). AWPA holds that

12

“[n]o farm labor contractor, agricultural employer, or

13

agricultural association shall knowingly provide false or

14

misleading information to any migrant agricultural worker

15

concerning the terms, condition, or existence of agricultural

16

employment required to be disclosed.” 29 U.S.C. §§ 1821(f),

17

1831(e). FLCA prohibits any person acting as a farm labor

18

contractor from making or causing to be made, to any person,

19

false, fraudulent, or misleading information concerning the terms

20

or conditions of employment. RCW 19.30.120(2).

21

Plaintiffs’ statement of material facts, which, again, has

22

not been disputed by Defendants, indicates that the Clearance

23

Orders used by Defendants in the State of Washington in 2004

24

provide that “[d]aily transportation from the employer-provided

25

housing to the fields, if necessary, will be offered to workers by

26

the employer at no cost to workers. Local workers, may, but are

27

not required, to use this transportation.” (Ct. Rec. 467, p. 6).

28

Global did not advise applicants of the availability of

ORDER - 13

Case 2:05-cv-03061-AAM Document 507 Filed 07/11/2007

1 transportation benefits, as promised in the Clearance Orders.

2 (Ct. Rec. 467, pp. 6-8). In fact, Global used the application

3 process to exclude prospective employees who did not have their 4 own transportation. (Ct. Rec. 467, pp. 6-8).4

5

The Clearance Orders used by Global in Washington State in

6 2004 contain no information with respect to production standards.

7 (Ct. Rec. 467, p. 8). Production standards were, however, set and

8 communicated to Global by Valley Fruit and Green Acres. (Ct. Rec.

9 467, p. 9). Global did not inform U.S. Resident Workers that they

10 would have to meet specific production standards at the time of

11 their recruitment, nor were U.S. Resident Workers’ applications

12 modified to include additional terms to their job orders once

13 production standards were communicated. (Ct. Rec. 467, p. 9).

14 Defendants imposed specific production standards on U.S. Resident

15 Workers and fired U.S. Resident Workers for failing to meet those

16 standards. (Ct. Rec. 467, p. 9).

17

Based on the foregoing undisputed material facts, it is

18 apparent that Global provided false and misleading information to

19 Plaintiffs regarding the availability of transportation and with

20 respect to the existence of production standards. Plaintiffs are

21 therefore entitled to summary judgment against Global for

22 providing false and misleading information regarding the terms and

23
4Maria Ramirez, who was employed by Global and involved with 24 recruiting workers in 2004, stated that she would never advise
applicants about the availability of transportation, and, instead, 25 an applicant would be told they would have to provide their own
transportation. (Ct. Rec. 467, p. 7). Ebony Williams, an 26 employee of Global in 2004, stated that Global never provided or
offered transportation to workers. (Ct. Rec. 467, p. 8). Ms. 27 Williams indicated that the rationale for asking applicants
whether they had their own transportation, was to determine who 28 they would hire based on the fact that they were not able to
provide transportation if an employee requested it. (Id.).

ORDER - 14

Case 2:05-cv-03061-AAM Document 507 Filed 07/11/2007

1 conditions of employment in violation of AWPA (29 U.S.C. §§

2 1821(f), 1831(e)) and in violation of FLCA (RCW 19.30.120(2)).

3

C. Violating The Terms Of The Working Agreement

4

Pursuant to AWPA, an agricultural employer is prohibited from

5 violating the terms of any working arrangement with a worker

6 without justification. 29 U.S.C. §§ 1822(c), 1832(c). Under

7 FLCA, a farm labor contractor must comply with the terms and

8 provisions of all legal and valid agreements and contracts. RCW

9 19.30.110(5).

10

Plaintiffs’ statement of material facts indicates that the

11 Clearance Orders, approved by the DOL and used by Global in

12 Washington State in 2004, called for a progressive discipline

13 process requiring workers to be provided with a written reprimand

14 upon a second violation of a work rule. (Ct. Rec. 467, p. 10).

15 Despite the uncontested fact that U.S. Resident Workers were

16 terminated for not keeping up with production standards, Global

17 did not provide written reprimands or warnings prior to the

18 workers’ terminations. (Ct. Rec. 467, pp. 11-12). Global has not

19 produced a single written reprimand from 2004. (Id.).

20

Plaintiffs’ undisputed facts also reveal that Global employed

21 H-2A workers without approval from the DOL. (Ct. Rec. 466; Ct.

22 Rec. 467). Nonimmigrant foreign workers cannot be employed in the

23 United States unless the employer has obtained prior certification

24 from the DOL. 8 U.S.C. §1188(a)(1). The certification process

25 requires an employer to submit clearance orders that include the

26 material terms of the job and an agreement to comply with

27 employment related laws and regulations. 20 C.F.R. §§

28 655.101(b)(1), 655.101(b)(2), 655.102 and 655.103(b).

ORDER - 15

Case 2:05-cv-03061-AAM Document 507 Filed 07/11/2007

1

Global’s Clearance Orders used in Washington State in 2004

2 state that “[t]he employer agrees to abide by the assurances

3 required at 20 C.F.R. Part 655, Subpart B, including the

4 regulations at 20 C.F.R. § 655.103 and 20 C.F.R. § 653.501. This

5 Clearance Order describes the actual terms and conditions of the

6 employment being offered by Global . . . and contains all the

7 material terms and conditions of employment.” (Ct. Rec. 467, p.

8 12).

9

An employer may not change the terms or working conditions,

10 including increasing the number of workers requested without

11 approval from the DOL. 20 C.F.R. § 655.101(c), (d), and (e); 20

12 C.F.R. § 655.106(c). Job opportunities may not be transferred

13 from one employer to another. 20 C.F.R. § 655.106(c)(1). The

14 only exception that allows an employer to transfer workers from

15 one farm to another farm is if the initial application was made on

16 behalf of an association of member farms, not an individual farm.

17 8 U.S.C. § 1188(c)(3)(B)(iv); 20 C.F.R. § 655.106(c)(2)(ii).

18 Plaintiffs’ undisputed facts reveal that Defendants did not apply

19 to the DOL for H-2A workers as an association of member farms in

20 Washington State in 2004. (Ct. Rec. 467, p. 13).

21

The undisputed facts demonstrate that, on February 23, 2004,

22 Global obtained approval from the DOL to employ up to twelve H-2A

23 workers at Valley Fruit between February 23 and April 1, 2004,

24 and, on August 6, 2004, Global obtained additional approval from

25 the DOL to employ up to sixty-two H-2A workers at Valley Fruit

26 between August 15 and October 31, 2004. (Ct. Rec. 467, pp. 13-

27 14). Global did not obtain any other approval from the DOL to

28 employ H-2A workers at Valley Fruit in 2004. Nevertheless, Global

ORDER - 16

Case 2:05-cv-03061-AAM Document 507 Filed 07/11/2007

1 had crews of H-2A workers from Thailand working at Valley Fruit

2 between June 20 and August 11, 2004. (Ct. Rec. 467, pp. 14-15).

3

The undisputed facts also show that, on March 18, 2004,

4 Global obtained approval from the DOL to bring in a maximum of 131

5 H-2A foreign workers at Green Acre between March 18 and November

6 5, 2004. (Ct. Rec. 467, p. 16). However, during the week of

7 August 8-14, 2004, 154 H-2A workers from Thailand were working at

8 Green Acre; during the week of August 15-21, 2004, 151 H-2A

9 workers were working at Green Acre; during the week of August 29-

10 September 4, 2004, 145 H-2A workers were working at Green Acre;

11 during the week of September 5-11, 2004, 145 H-2A workers were

12 working at Green Acre; during the week of September 12-18, 2004,

13 145 H-2A workers were working at Green Acre; during the week of

14 September 19-25, 2004, 145 H-2A workers were working at Green

15 Acre; during the week of September 26-October 2, 2004, 172 H-2A

16 workers were working at Green Acre; and during the week of October

17 3-9, 2004, 172 H-2A workers were working at Green Acre. (Ct. Rec.

18 467, pp. 16-17). Accordingly, despite the cap of 131 H-2A workers

19 placed on Global by the DOL, Global employed a greater number of

20 H-2A foreign workers at Green Acre between August 8 and October 9,

21 2004.

22

The failure to comply with the statutory and regulatory

23 requirements noted above, by using unapproved H-2A workers at

24 Valley Fruit and exceeding the DOL limit for H-2A workers at Green

25 Acre, is a violation of the specific assurance made in the

26 Clearance Orders in 2004 that indicated Global would comply with

27 the law. Therefore, Plaintiffs are entitled to summary judgment

28 on their AWPA and FLCA claims for Global’s violations of the

ORDER - 17

Case 2:05-cv-03061-AAM Document 507 Filed 07/11/2007

1 working arrangements and violations of legal and valid agreements

2 and contracts.

3

D. Failure To Pay Wages Due

4

Pursuant to AWPA, an agricultural employer must pay to each

5 worker the wages owed when due. 29 U.S.C. §§ 1822(a), 1832(a).

6 Under FLCA, a farm labor contractor must pay or distribute to the

7 individuals entitled thereto all moneys owed promptly when due.

8 RCW 19.30.110(4).

9

Global admits that, for a limited period of time and “due to

10 clerical error,” Global deducted from the pay of certain employees

11 taxes that were not required by the State of Washington. (Ct.

12 Rec. 467, pp. 17-18). While U.S. Resident Workers may have been

13 reimbursed by Global for the deductions in 2005, Global admittedly

14 failed to pay Plaintiffs the wages they were owed when due in

15 violation of AWPA and FLCA. (Ct. Rec. 467, pp. 17-24).

16

On July 30, 2004, the DOL accepted Global’s temporary labor

17 certification application for work to be performed at Valley

18 Fruit. (Ct. Rec. 467, p. 24). The Valley Fruit Clearance Order

19 included a piece rate of $19 per bin for the pear harvest which

20 commenced at Valley Fruit in August of 2004. (Ct. Rec. 467, p.

21 25). Workers at Valley Fruit were thus entitled to be paid the

22 piece rate of $19 per bin in the pear harvest in 2004. The

23 uncontested facts show that Plaintiffs were not paid a piece rate

24 for the pear harvest at Valley Fruit in August of 2004. (Ct. Rec.

25 467, pp. 25-27).

26

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs are entitled to summary

27 judgment for Defendants failure to pay Plaintiffs the wages they

28 were owed when due in violation of AWPA and FLCA.

ORDER - 18

Case 2:05-cv-03061-AAM Document 507 Filed 07/11/2007

1

E. Failure To Provide Adequate Written Pay Statements

2

According to AWPA, an agricultural employer must provide to

3 each worker, for each pay period, an itemized written statement

4 that includes the basis on which wages are paid, the number of

5 piecework units earned, the number of hours worked, the total pay

6 period earnings, the specific sums withheld and the purpose of

7 each sum withheld, and the net pay. 29 U.S.C. §§ 1821(d),

8 1831(c). Under FLCA, a farm labor contractor must furnish to each

9 worker a written statement itemizing the total payment and the

10 amount and purpose of each deduction therefrom, hours worked, rate

11 of pay, and pieces done if the work is done on a piece rate basis.

12 RCW 19.30.110(8).

13

In response to Plaintiffs’ request for copies of all pay

14 statements provided to U.S. Resident Workers in 2004, Global

15 responded “none.” (Ct. Rec. 467, p. 28). Global nevertheless

16 concedes that it failed to itemize the pieces done on the pay

17 statement when work was paid on a piece rate basis at Valley Fruit

18 in 2004. (Ct. Rec. 467, p. 27). Based on the undisputed facts,

19 Plaintiffs are entitled to summary judgment for Global’s failure

20 to provide adequate pay statements in violation of AWPA and FLCA.

21 II. Ct. Rec. 465 (Willful Withholding of Wages)

22

A violation of RCW 49.52.050(2) occurs when an employer or

23 officer, vice principal or agent of any employer “[w]illfully and

24 with intent” deprives an employee of any part of his wages. RCW

25 49.52.050(2). Any employer and any officer who violates RCW

26 49.52.050 “shall be liable in a civil action by the aggrieved

27 employee . . . to judgment for twice the amount of the wages

28 ///

ORDER - 19

Case 2:05-cv-03061-AAM Document 507 Filed 07/11/2007

1 unlawfully rebated or withheld . . . cost of suit and a reasonable

2 sum for attorney’s fees.” RCW 49.52.070.

3

Plaintiffs allege that Global, as the employer, and Orian, as

4 an officer of the employer, are liable under RCW 49.52.070 for the

5 willful failure to pay wages. (Ct. Rec. 466, pp. 13-16). “There

6 are two instances when an employer’s failure to pay wages is not

7 willful: the employer was careless or erred in failing to pay, or

8 a ‘bona fide’ dispute existed between the employer and employee

9 regarding the payment of wages.” Schilling v. Radio Holdings,

10 Inc., 136 Wash.2d 152, 159 (1998).

11

Although Plaintiffs assert that Global’s unlawful deductions

12 of Washington State income tax may not, as a matter of law, be

13 considered the result of carelessness or error, the facts

14 presented by Plaintiffs compel a different conclusion.

15

Global admits that, for a limited period of time and “due to

16 clerical error,” Global deducted from the pay of certain employees

17 taxes that were not required by the State of Washington. (Ct.

18 Rec. 467, pp. 17-18). The uncontested facts of Plaintiffs show

19 that Global “unintentionally” withheld money from the workers’

20 paychecks due to computer programming problems. (Ct. Rec. 467, p.

21 18). The facts show that the software Global starting using in

22 June 2004 deducted state taxes when it should not have. (Ct. Rec.

23 467, p. 20). On September 22, 2005, Global entered into a

24 settlement agreement with the State of Washington and stipulated

25 that it had withheld $3,235.64 in wages from U.S. Resident Workers

26 for Washington State income tax in 2004 and that Washington State

27 does not have a state income tax. (Ct. Rec. 467, p. 18). The

28 error was discovered in late 2004 or early 2005 and refunds were

ORDER - 20

Case 2:05-cv-03061-AAM Document 507 Filed 07/11/2007

1 administered in September of 2005. (Ct. Rec. 467, pp. 17-23).

2 The problem with the deductions for taxes was corrected in late

3 2005 when Orian purchased a different software system. (Ct. Rec.

4 467, p. 24).

5

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds the existence of an

6 issue of fact regarding the willfulness of the withholding of

7 wages. Plaintiffs are thus denied summary judgment on their

8 claim, pursuant to RCW 49.52.070, that Global and Orian

9 intentionally deprived employees of their wages.

10 III. Ct. Rec. 459

11

By way of Ct. Rec. 459, Plaintiffs move the Court for an

12 order of partial summary judgment finding that Defendants Green

13 Acre and Valley Fruit are liable for alleged violations of FLCA,

14 RCW 19.30, et seq., and AWPA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 1801, et seq. (Ct.

15 Rec. 459). Plaintiffs assert that Green Acre and Valley Fruit are

16 jointly liable for all AWPA violations as joint employers of

17 Plaintiffs and because an agency relationship existed with Global.

18 Plaintiffs additionally assert that Green Acre and Valley Fruit

19 are liable for all FLCA violations because they illegally employed

20 Global as an unlicensed farm labor contractor in 2004. (Ct. Rec.

21 460). Again, as noted above, no Defendant has filed an opposition

22 memorandum to Plaintiffs’ motion.

23

A. Joint Employment Relationship

24

Plaintiffs argue that Defendants Green Acre and Valley Fruit

25 are liable for AWPA damages as joint employers along with Global.

26 (Ct. Rec. 460, pp. 2-17).

27 ///

28 ///

ORDER - 21

Case 2:05-cv-03061-AAM Document 507 Filed 07/11/2007

1

A grower’s liability under AWPA depends on whether it

2 “employed” workers. 29 U.S.C. § 1802(2). An entity “employs” a

3 person under AWPA if it “suffers or permits” the individual to

4 work. 29 U.S.C. § 1802(5) (AWPA holds that the term “employ” has

5 the meaning given such term under section 3(g) of the Fair Labor

6 Standards Act of 1938 (“FLSA”)); Antenor v. D & S Farms, 88 F.3d

7 925 (11th Cir. 1996). AWPA’s adoption of FLSA’s definition of

8 employment “was deliberate and done with the clear intent of

9 adopting the ‘joint employer’ doctrine as a central foundation of

10 this new statute; it is the indivisible hinge between certain

11 important duties imposed for the protection of migrant and

12 seasonal workers and those liable for any breach of these duties.”

13 Antenor, 88 F.3d at 929-930 (quoting H.R.Rep. No. 97-885, 97th

14 Cong., 2d Sess. 1982) 6, reprinted in 1982 U.S.C.C.A.N 4547,

15 4552); 29 C.F.R. § 500.20(h)(5)(ii).

16

The concept of joint employment, in the context of an AWPA

17 case, maintains that two or more employers may jointly employ an

18 individual, and every employer is individually liable for any

19 violations that may occur. Zhao v. Bebe Stores, Inc., et al., 247

20 F.Supp.2d 1154, 1157 (C.D. Cal. 2003).

21

To determine whether a joint employment relationship exists,

22 a court applies the “economic reality” test. Torres-Lopez v. May,

23 111 F.3d 633, 638 (9th Cir. 1997). Under the economic reality

24 tests, “[a] court should consider all those factors which are

25 ‘relevant to [the] particular situation’ in evaluating the

26 ‘economic reality’ of an alleged joint employment relationship.”

27 Torres, 111 F.3d at 639 (quoting, Bonnette v. California Health &

28 Welfare Agency, 704 F.2d 1465, 1470 (9th Cir. 1983)). In making

ORDER - 22

Case 2:05-cv-03061-AAM Document 507 Filed 07/11/2007

1 its joint employment determination, the Ninth Circuit in Torres

2 considered five “regulatory factors”5 as well as the following

3 “nonregulatory” factors: (1) whether the work was a specialty job

4 on the production line, (2) whether responsibility under the

5 contracts between a labor contractor and an employer pass from one

6 labor contractor to another without material changes, (3) whether

7 the premises and equipment of the employer are used for the work,

8 (4) whether the employees had a business organization that could

9 or did shift as a unit from one worksite to another, (5) whether

10 the work was piecework and not work that required initiative,

11 judgment or foresight, (6) whether the employee had an opportunity

12 for profit or loss depending upon the alleged employer’s

13 managerial skill, (7) whether there was permanence in the working

14 relationship, and (8) whether the service rendered is an integral

15 part of the alleged employer’s business.” Torres, 111 F.3d at

16 639. The Torres Court considered the foregoing regulatory and

17 non-regulatory factors and concluded, as a matter of law, that a

18 grower (Bear Creek Farms) was a joint employer along with its farm

19 labor contractor (Ag-Labor) for purposes of FLSA and AWPA.

20 Torres, 111 F.3d at 644-645.

21

Following the Torres decision, new regulations were issued to

22 remedy the “overly restrictive” court interpretations of the

23 regulations in defining the concept of “joint employer.” Torres,

24

25

5The “regulatory factors” considered by the Court were as

follows: (A) the nature and degree of control of the workers; (B) 26 the degree of supervision, direct or indirect, of the work; (C)

the power to determine the pay rates or the methods of payment of 27 the workers; (D) the right, directly or indirectly, to hire, fire,

or modify the employment conditions of the workers; and (E) 28 preparation of payroll and the payment of wages. Torres, 111 F.3d

at 639-640; former 29 C.F.R. § 500.20(h)(4)(ii).

ORDER - 23

Case 2:05-cv-03061-AAM Document 507 Filed 07/11/2007

1 111 F.3d at 641 n. 6. The new AWPA regulations regarding joint

2 employment contain the following seven non-exhaustive factors to

3 be analyzed:

4

(A) Whether the agricultural employer has the power, either

alone or through control of the farm labor contractor to

5

direct, control or supervise the workers or work performed;

6

(B) Whether the agricultural employer has the power, either

alone or in addition to another employer, directly or

7

indirectly, to hire or fire, modify the employment

conditions, or determine the pay rates or the methods of wage

8

payments for workers;

9

(C) The degree of permanency and duration of the relationship

of the parties;

10

(D) The extent to which the services rendered by the workers

11

are repetitive, rote tasks requiring skills which are

acquired with relatively little training;

12

(E) Whether the activities performed by the workers are an

13

integral part of the overall business operation of the

agricultural employer;

14

(F) Whether the work is performed on the agricultural

15

employer’s premises, rather than on the premises owned or

controlled by another business entity; and,

16

(G) Whether the agricultural employer undertakes

17

responsibilities in relation to the workers which are

commonly performed by employers.

18

29 C.F.R. § 500.20(h)(5)(iv)(A)-(G).

19

The undisputed facts establish that the contracts with Green

20

Acre and Valley Fruit required them to tell Global how many

21

employees were needed and what to do on a daily basis. (Ct. Rec.

22

461, p. 3). Green Acre and Valley Fruit made all decisions

23

regarding when to start and stop all work tasks performed by

24

Global crews and had the right to inspect the work of Global crews

25

at all times. (Ct. Rec. 461, p. 4). Both Jim Morford, the co-

26

owner of Green Acre, and John Verbrugge, a manager at Valley

27

Fruit, constantly reviewed the quality and quantity of the work

28

performed by the Global crews. (Ct. Rec. 461, pp. 5-20). Mr.

ORDER - 24

Case 2:05-cv-03061-AAM Document 507 Filed 07/11/2007

1 Morford and Mr. Verbrugge set forth performance standards for

2 Global crews. (Ct. Rec. 461, pp. 7, 15, 22). Global provided

3 both Mr. Morford and Mr. Verbrugge with daily reports to keep them

4 apprised of costs. (Ct. Rec. 461, pp. 8-9, 15). Green Acre and

5 Valley Fruit closely tracked the progress and performance of

6 Global’s workers. (Ct. Rec. 461, pp. 5-20).

7

Green Acre and Valley Fruit set the productivity standards,

8 and some of Global’s workers were terminated because Green Acre

9 and Valley Fruit were not happy with the production. (Ct. Rec.

10 461, pp. 12-13, 22). With respect to Green Acre, a crew of Global

11 workers “didn’t come back” after Mr. Morford complained about the

12 productivity of the crew to Global employees. (Ct. Rec. 461, pp.

13 12-13). With respect to Valley Fruit, based on instructions from

14 Stan Buechler, a manager at Valley Fruit, a Global employee gave

15 workers written warnings and fired workers for not meeting

16 expectations. (Ct. Rec. 461, pp. 19-20). Mr. Verbrugge testified

17 that he individually fired a crew of Global’s workers for lack of

18 productivity at Valley Fruit. (Ct. Rec. 461, p. 20). In

19 addition, Mr. Verbrugge agreed to a change to a piece rate rather

20 than an hourly rate, as requested by Global’s workers, during the

21 2004 cherry harvest at Valley Fruit. (Ct. Rec. 461, p. 19)

22 Therefore, Valley Fruit exercised authority regarding changes in

23 wages, as well.

24

The Clearance Orders used by Global in 2004 at Green Acre and

25 Valley Fruit did not require job applicants to have prior orchard

26 experience, nor did the jobs of pruning, thinning and harvesting

27 require great “initiative, judgment, or foresight.” Torres, 111

28 F.3d at 644; (Ct. Rec. 461, p. 14).

ORDER - 25

Case 2:05-cv-03061-AAM Document 507 Filed 07/11/2007

1

Plaintiff’s work was an “integral part” of the business of

2 Green Acre and Valley Fruit. Without Global’s workers tending and

3 harvesting the orchards, neither Green Acre nor Valley Fruit would

4 have realized any economic benefits.

5

Green Acre and Valley Fruit owned or controlled the land upon

6 which Global’s workers worked in 2004, paid the costs associated

7 with applying fertilizers and pesticides and for transporting the

8 harvested fruit from the fields to the packing sheds, and owned

9 the orchard equipment utilized for the various orchard tasks.

10 (Ct. Rec. 461, p. 3-4).

11

Based on these uncontested facts, which demonstrate that

12 Green Acre and Valley Fruit had control and oversight over the

13 day-to-day working conditions of Global’s workers, and taking into

14 consideration the AWPA regulations regarding joint employment (29

15 C.F.R. § 500.20(h)(5)(iv)(A)-(G)), it is determined, as a matter

16 of law, that Green Acre and Valley Fruit were joint employers with

17 Global for purposes of Plaintiffs’ AWPA claims. Plaintiffs are

18 thus entitled to summary judgment with respect to this issue.

19

B. Global as Agent for Green Acre and Valley Fruit

20

Plaintiffs assert that Defendant Global was the agent for

21 Defendants Green Acre and Valley Fruit, and; therefore, Green Acre

22 and Valley Fruit are liable for all AWPA recruitment violations

23 committed by Global. (Ct. Rec. 460, pp. 17-18).

24

The uncontested facts show that both Green Acre and Valley

25 Fruit contracted with Global, in or about December of 2003, to

26 recruit and provide labor at their respective fruit orchards in

27 2004. (Ct. Rec. 461, p. 2). It is undisputed that Green Acre and

28 Valley Fruit contracted with Global for the purpose of recruiting

ORDER - 26

Case 2:05-cv-03061-AAM Document 507 Filed 07/11/2007

1 labor to their orchards. Accordingly, Plaintiffs are entitled to

2 judgment, as a matter of law, that Global served as the agent for

3 Green Acre and Valley Fruit for recruitment purposes during the

4 relevant time period.

5

C. Hiring Unlicensed Farm Labor Contractor

6

Plaintiffs contend that Green Acre and Valley Fruit are

7 liable under FLCA for hiring Global, an unlicensed farm labor

8 contractor. (Ct. Rec. 460, pp. 18-19).

9

FLCA holds that “[a]ny person who knowingly uses the services

10 of an unlicensed farm labor contractor shall be personally,

11 jointly, and severally liable with the person acting as a farm

12 labor contractor.” RCW 19.30.200.

13

It is undisputed that Global operated as an unlicensed farm

14 labor contractor in Washington State on behalf of Green Acre and

15 Valley Fruit from January to October 6, 2004. (Ct. Rec. 461, p.

16 23). The uncontested facts reveal that neither Mr. Morford nor

17 Mr. Verbrugge investigated whether Global possessed a valid

18 Washington State farm labor contractor license, and, after they

19 were each advised that no license existed in July of 2004, they

20 continued to use Global’s services. (Ct. Rec. 461, pp. 23-26).

21 Green Acre and Valley Fruit continued to use the services of

22 Global between July and October of 2004. (Ct. Rec. 461, p. 26).

23

Based on these undisputed facts, Plaintiffs are entitled to

24 summary judgment on their claim that Green Acre and Valley Fruit

25 knowingly used the services of an unlicensed farm labor contractor

26 in 2004. Accordingly, Green Acre and Valley Fruit are jointly and

27 severally liable with Global, the farm labor contractor, for all

28 violations of FLCA.

ORDER - 27

Case 2:05-cv-03061-AAM Document 507 Filed 07/11/2007

1

STATUTORY DAMAGES

2

As noted above, on June 22, 2007, Plaintiffs filed a motion,

3 pursuant to Fed. R. Civ P. 39(a), to strike Defendants’ jury

4 demand with respect to Plaintiffs’ AWPA and FLCA summary judgment

5 claims. (Ct. Rec. 498). Plaintiffs moved for a Court

6 determination of statutory damages under FLCA. (Ct. Rec. 498).

7 Defendants did not respond to this motion. Accordingly, as

8 indicated above, the Court vacated the July 24, 2007 hearing on

9 Plaintiffs’ motion. Plaintiffs filed a reply memorandum and

10 supporting documentation on July 10, 2007. (Ct. Rec. 505; Ct.

11 Rec. 506).

12

Pursuant to this Court’s local rules, Defendants had eleven

13 (11) calendar days, from service, to file a timely responsive

14 memorandum. LR 7.1(c). No response from Defendants has been

15 received by the Court. Local Rule 7.1(h)(5) holds that “[a]

16 failure to timely file a memorandum of points and authorities in

17 support of or in opposition to any motion may be considered by the

18 Court as consent on the part of the party failing to file such

19 memorandum to the entry of an Order adverse to the party in

20 default.”

21

A. Jury Demand

22

Based on the above award of summary judgment by the Court on

23 Plaintiffs’ AWPA and FLCA claims (see, supra), Defendants’ failure

24 to oppose those motions, and Defendants’ failure to oppose

25 Plaintiffs’ motion to strike Defendants’ jury demand, Plaintiffs

26 motion, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ P. 39(a), to strike Defendants’

27 jury demand with respect to Plaintiffs’ AWPA and FLCA summary

28 judgment claims (Ct. Rec. 498) is GRANTED. Defendants’ jury

ORDER - 28

Case 2:05-cv-03061-AAM Document 507 Filed 07/11/2007

1 demand with respect to Plaintiffs’ AWPA and FLCA summary judgment

2 claims is therefore STRICKEN.

3

B. Statutory Damages

4

Plaintiffs elect to seek recovery of only statutory damages

5 under FLCA, as opposed to the federal statute.6 (Ct. Rec. 498).

6 Pursuant to FLCA, the Court may award the prevailing party, in

7 addition to costs and reasonable attorney fees, actual damages or

8 statutory damages of five hundred dollars per plaintiff per

9 violation, whichever is greater. RCW 19.30.170(1), (2). While

10 the more modest damage structure under AWPA7 appears reasonable

11 based on the bizarre circumstances the Court is currently

12 presented with, Defendants’ failure to contest Plaintiffs’ motion

13 for damages under FLCA directs otherwise. The Court GRANTS

14 Plaintiffs’ request for statutory damages under FLCA (Ct. Rec.

15 498).

16

Plaintiffs have produced uncontested evidence in the form of

17 pleadings and exhibits which demonstrate the following number of

18 persons in each of the three subclasses: U.S. Resident Workers

19 Denied Work - 423; Valley Fruit - 169; and Green Acre - 138 (38

20

21

6Plaintiffs indicate that they seek only statutory damages

under FLCA, because the statutory award remedies under the state 22 statute is more generous (automatic $500.00 award for each

violation, separate awards for multiple violations of a 23 subsection, no cap for class action awards, and attorneys’ fees

and costs available). Compare RCW 19.30.170 with 29 U.S.C. § 24 1854(c).

25

7Pursuant to AWPA, if the court finds that a defendant has

intentionally violated any provision of the Act, it may award 26 actual damages or statutory damages of up to $500 per plaintiff

per violation except that multiple infractions of a single 27 provision constitute only one violation for purposes of

determining the amount of statutory damages and, the court shall 28 make an award no greater than $500,000.00 if certified as a class

action. 29 U.S.C. § 1854(c)

ORDER - 29

Case 2:05-cv-03061-AAM Document 507 Filed 07/11/2007

1 members of the Green Acre subclass also worked at Valley Fruit and

2 will be considered part of the Valley Fruit subclass for purposes

3 of assessing statutory damages). (Ct. Rec. 498; Ct. Rec. 499; Ct.

4 Rec. 505; Ct. Rec. 506).

5

As determined above, Plaintiffs are entitled to judgment

6 against Global, as a matter of law, for Global’s failure to

7 provide adequate disclosures in violation of FLCA, for Global’s

8 violation of AWPA and FLCA by providing false and misleading

9 information regarding the terms and conditions of employment, for

10 Global’s violations of the working arrangements and violations of

11 legal and valid agreements and contracts in violation of AWPA and

12 FLCA, for Global’s failure to pay Plaintiffs the wages they were

13 owed when due in violation of AWPA and FLCA, and for Global’s

14 failure to provide adequate pay statements in violation of AWPA

15 and FLCA. Supra. Furthermore, Green Acre and Valley Fruit are

16 liable, as a matter of law, as joint employers with Global for

17 purposes of Plaintiffs’ AWPA claims, it is established that Global

18 served as the agent for Green Acre and Valley Fruit for

19 recruitment purposes, and it is established that Green Acre and

20 Valley Fruit knowingly used the services of an unlicensed farm

21 labor contractor in 2004 in violation of FLCA. Supra.

22

Plaintiffs’ uncontested motion reveals that four of the above

23 violations affected the U.S. Resident Workers Denied Work subclass

24 (failure to provide required disclosures, providing false and

25 misleading information about transportation benefits, providing

26 false and misleading information about production standards, and

27 failure to comply with the working arrangement by not complying

28 with the law); nine violations affected the Valley Fruit subclass

ORDER - 30

Case 2:05-cv-03061-AAM Document 507 Filed 07/11/2007

1 (failure to provide required disclosures, providing false and

2 misleading information about transportation benefits, providing

3 false and misleading information about production standards,

4 failure to comply with the working arrangement by not complying

5 with the law, failure to comply with the working arrangement by

6 not complying with the disciplinary procedures, failure to pay

7 wages due, failing to provide adequate pay statements in violation

8 of WAC 296-131-015, failing to provide adequate pay statements by

9 not itemizing the piece rate units earned (only 115 members of the

10 Valley Fruit subclass), and failing to pay wages due by not paying

11 the approved bin rate (only 24 members of the Valley Fruit

12 subclass)); and seven violations affected the Green Acre subclass

13 (failure to provide required disclosures, providing false and

14 misleading information about transportation benefits, providing

15 false and misleading information about production standards,

16 failure to comply with the working arrangement by not complying

17 with the law, failure to comply with the working arrangement by

18 not complying with the disciplinary procedures, failure to pay

19 wages due, and failing to provide adequate pay statements in

20 violation of WAC 296-131-015).

21

Plaintiffs are entitled to statutory damages, pursuant to

22 FLCA, calculated as follows: U.S. Resident Workers Denied Work -

23 423 workers x 4 violations x $500 = $846,000.00; Valley Fruit -

24 169 workers x 7 violations x $500 = $591,500.00; Valley Fruit -

25 115 workers x 1 violation x $500 = $57,500.00; Valley Fruit - 24

26 workers x 1 violation x $500 = $12,000.00; and Green Acre - 100

27 workers x 7 violations x $500 = $350,000.00. Therefore, judgment

28 / / /

ORDER - 31

Case 2:05-cv-03061-AAM Document 507 Filed 07/11/2007

1 in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendants is ordered in the

2 total amount of $1,857,000.00.

3

CONCLUSION

4

Based upon the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED as follows:

5

1. The hearing date on Plaintiffs’ Motions for Partial

6 Summary Judgment (Ct. Rec. 459, 465) and to Strike Defendants’

7 Jury Demand (Ct. Rec. 498) previously set for July 24, 2007, is

8 VACATED.

9

2. Defendants Global Horizons, Inc., and Mordechai Orian,

10 shall pay to the Court the monetary sanctions previously imposed,

11 in the amount of $12,500.00, as well as the additional amount of

12 $27,000.00, calculated at $500.00 per day for each calendar day

13 since the initial imposition of sanctions to the date of this

14 order, for Defendants’ continued refusal to comply with the

15 Court’s orders. A check payable to the United States District

16 Court, Eastern District of Washington, from Defendants Global

17 Horizons, Inc., and Mordechai Orian, in the amount of $39,500.00

18 is due immediately. Monetary sanctions, in the amount of $500.00

19 a day, for each calender day, shall continue until Defendants

20 provide full payment to the Court.

21

Should Defendants fail to make payment to the Court in the

22 above amount, Defendant Mordechai Orian shall appear before the

23 Court on July 24, 2007 at 2:00 p.m., in Yakima, Washington, to

24 face the charge of criminal contempt pursuant to this Court’s

25 authority under 18 U.S.C. § 401(3).

26

3. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Ct.

27 Rec. 465) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

28 / / /

ORDER - 32

Case 2:05-cv-03061-AAM Document 507 Filed 07/11/2007

1

Plaintiffs are entitled to judgment against Global, as a

2 matter of law, for Global’s failure to provide adequate

3 disclosures in violation of FLCA, for Global’s violation of AWPA

4 and FLCA by providing false and misleading information regarding

5 the terms and conditions of employment, for Global’s violations of

6 the working arrangements and violations of legal and valid

7 agreements and contracts in violation of AWPA and FLCA, for

8 Global’s failure to pay Plaintiffs the wages they were owed when

9 due in violation of AWPA and FLCA, and for Global’s failure to

10 provide adequate pay statements in violation of AWPA and FLCA.

11

However, Plaintiffs are denied summary judgment on their

12 claim, pursuant to RCW 49.52.070, that Global and Orian

13 intentionally deprived employees of wages.

14

4. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Ct.

15 Rec. 459) is GRANTED.

16

Plaintiffs are awarded judgment, as a matter of law,

17 that Green Acre and Valley Fruit were joint employers with Global

18 for purposes of Plaintiffs’ AWPA claims, that Global served as the

19 agent for Green Acre and Valley Fruit for recruitment purposes,

20 and that Green Acre and Valley Fruit knowingly used the services

21 of an unlicensed farm labor contractor in 2004 in violation of

22 FLCA.

23

5. Plaintiffs’s June 22, 2007 motion to strike Defendants’

24 jury demand with respect to Plaintiffs’ AWPA and FLCA summary

25 judgment claims (Ct. Rec. 498) is GRANTED. Defendants’ jury

26 demand with respect to Plaintiffs’ AWPA and FLCA summary judgment

27 claims is STRICKEN and Plaintiffs are entitled to statutory

28 damages, pursuant to FLCA, in the total amount of $1,857,000.00.

ORDER - 33

Case 2:05-cv-03061-AAM Document 507 Filed 07/11/2007

1

IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Executive shall enter

2 judgment accordingly and forward copies to counsel for Plaintiffs

3 and Defendants and the Court’s Financial Administrator.

4

DATED this

11th

day of July, 2007.

5

6

s/ Alan A. McDonald

ALAN A. MCDONALD

7

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER - 34

 
 1

2

3

4

5

6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

7

8

JOSE GUADALUPE PEREZFARIAS, JOSE F. SANCHEZ,

9

RICARDO BETANCOURT, and all other similarly situated persons,

NO. CV-05-3061-RHW

10

Plaintiffs,

11

v.

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

12 GLOBAL HORIZONS, INC., et al.,

13

Defendants.

14

15

A bench trial on statutory damages was held in Yakima, Washington on

16 March 3, 2009. Plaintiffs were represented by Lori Isley, Richard Kuhling, and

17 Joe Morrison. The Grower Defendants were represented by Ryan Edgely and

18 Brendan Monahan. The Global Defendants were represented by Matthew Gibbs

19 and local counsel Gary Lofland.1

20

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

21

Plaintiffs filed their class action in May, 2006. On July 28, 2006, Judge

22 Leavitt certified the class and also bifurcated the trial, separating the liability and

23 damages issues. Magistrate Judge Michael Leavitt died before ruling on the

24 substantive motions on liability and damages. Judge Alan McDonald took over the

25 case.

26

On July 11, 2007, Judge McDonald granted Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial

27 1At the beginning of the proceedings, the Court excused Mr. Lofland’s
28 presence at the bench trial.

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ~ 1

1 Summary Judgment, finding that Defendants violated the Migrant and Seasonal

2 Agricultural Worker Protection Act (“AWPA”) and the Washington Farm Labor

3 Contract Act (“FLCA”), and awarding statutory damages under FLCA. None of

4 the Defendants had filed a responsive brief to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial

5 Summary Judgment. The brief available to Judge McDonald did not cite to

6 relevant Ninth Circuit case law with respect to the awarding of statutory damages.

7 Defendants filed Motions for Reconsideration of Judge McDonald’s order alleging

8 excusable neglect as grounds for failing to respond to the Partial Summary

9 Judgement motions. Judge McDonald died before considering the Motions for

10 Reconsideration. This Court ruled on these motions and has handled the case

11 thereafter.

12

On August 10, 2007, this Court vacated the Judgment with respect to the

13 amount of damages, based on its consideration of relevant Ninth Circuit case law

14 that had not been cited to Judge McDonald (Ct. Rec. 597). The Court did not

15 vacate the portion of Judge McDonald’s Order that found that Defendant Global

16 committed the alleged violations of the FLCA and the AWPA. Instead, the Court

17 vacated the award of statutory damages in the amount of $500 per violation per

18 person.

19

Judge McDonald did not rule on Plaintiffs’ claims of racial discrimination

20 and failure to provide work. These claims were tried to a jury in September, 2007.

21 The jury found that Defendant Global Horizons and Defendant Mordechai Orian

22 violated the Farm Labor Contractors Act by failing to employ, or discharging or

23 laying off members of the subclasses, and discriminated against the subclasses

24 because of their race (Ct. Rec. 747). The jury awarded $300,000 in punitive

25 damages to the class and awarded the following damages to the representative

26 Plaintiffs: Ricardo Betancourt: $5099.50 for lost wages, $2500.00 for emotional

27 distress; Jose F. Sanchez: $492.20 for lost wages, $5,000.00 for emotional distress;

28 Jose Guadalupe Perez-Farias; $0.00 for lost wages, $4,000.00 for emotional

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ~ 2

1 distress. Judgment was entered on October 23, 2007, consistent with the jury

2 findings.

3

In March 27, 2009, the Court entered its Findings of Fact and Conclusions

4 of Law on Plaintiffs’ Claims Against Grower Defendants (Ct. Rec. 863). The

5 Court also addressed the Global Defendants’ Post-Trial Motions. The Court

6 upheld the jury verdict with respect to the discrimination claim against Global and

7 Mordechai Orian. The Court held that the evidence was sufficient to uphold the

8 FLCA claims asserted against Global, but found as a matter of law that Mordechai

9 Orian could not be held individually liable for violations of the FLCA.

10

On May 23, 2008, the judgment was amended and the Denied Work

11 Subclass definition used was:

12

U.S. Resident farm workers who claim they were offered

employment by Global Horizons to work at Green Acre Farms, Inc. or

13

Valley Fruit Orchards, LLC in 2004, but were not employed by

Global Horizons in 2004.

14 (Ct. Rec. 884).2

15

CLASS DEFINITION

16

On July 28, 2006, Judge Leavitt granted Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class

17 Certification (Ct. Rec. 136). Judge Leavitt certified the Denied Work subclass

18 using the following definition.

19

U.S. Resident Workers: All farm workers living in the United States

(with the exception of guest workers) who applied, or who may apply

20

in the future, at Global Horizons for agricultural employment in

Washington State at Green Acres or Valley Farm.

21

Denied Work Subclass: All farm workers living in the United States

22

(with the exception of guest workers) who applied, or who may apply

23 2The judgment was amended to address the concern that the proposed
24 amendment could be read broadly to include farm workers offered work by Global
25 with other employers or in other states and during periods of time other than 2004.
26 Although Global now maintains that the Court did not consider its objections to the
27 proposed amendment, it is clear from the briefing that Global did not object to the
28 amending of the judgment for this purpose. See Ct. Rec. 876.

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ~ 3

1

in the future, at Global Horizons for agricultural employment in

Washington State at Green Acres or Valley Farm.

2

As set forth above, a different Denied Work subclass definition was used at

3

trial. For ease of use, the Court will refer to Judge Leavitt’s definition as the

4

Denied Work - Applied subclass and to the definition used at the jury trial as the

5

Denied Work - Offered subclass. The subtle distinction between the two means

6

that anyone who applied is a member of the Denied Work - Applied subclass,

7

while only those Denied Work - Applied subclass members who were offered work

8

are members of the Denied Work-Offered subclass.

9

In reviewing Plaintiffs’ proposed class membership list and corresponding

10

methodology for identifying class members, it appears that the distinction between

11

the two class definitions affects nine potential class members. These nine people

12

were listed on Global’s Exhibit A, but were unable to provide any additional

13

information that would indicate that they received a job offer. Plaintiffs ask the

14

Court to presume that these persons were offered work based on the

15

inconsistencies within Global’s records.

16

Neither Defendant objected to the inclusion of these nine persons in the

17

Denied Work - Offered subclass. Because of this, and because of the

18

inconsistencies within Global records, the Court concludes that these nine

19

members should be included in the Denied Work-Offered subclass.

20

IDENTIFICATION OF CLASS MEMBERS

21

A. Denied Work Subclass

22

In support of Plaintiffs’ Phase II Memorandum on Class Membership,

23

Injunctive Relief & Damages, Plaintiffs submitted Exhibit A, which was Plaintiff’s

24

summarization of Global’s Exhibit A. Plaintiffs’ Exhibit A included 402 purported

25

Denied Work Subclass members.

26

The Grower Defendants did not file any objection to Plaintiffs’ Exhibit A.

27

The Global Defendants objected to the admission of Plaintiffs’ Exhibit A. In reply

28

to the Global Defendants’ objections, Plaintiffs clarified which exhibits they

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ~ 4

1 intended to seek admission. Plaintiffs indicated that they no longer intended to

2 seek the admission of the summary charts and would use the summary Exhibits for

3 demonstrative purposes only. Plaintiffs did submit Plaintiffs’ Exhibit A -

4 Amended. In reviewing the data, Plaintiffs were able to identify duplicates, as well

5 as identify additional class members. Exhibit A - Amended lists 399 Denied Work

6 Subclass members.

7

At the hearing, Global’s only objections to Exhibit A - Amended related to

8 the accuracy of some of the social security numbers. The Court finds Exhibit A -

9 Amended reliable and adopts Plaintiffs’ identification of class members contained

10 in Plaintiffs’ Exhibit A - Amended. In Plaintiffs’ Amended Exhibit T, Plaintiffs

11 indicate there are 397 members of the Denied Work subclass. This number does

12 not include those subclass members who opted out of damages. The Court will

13 award damages based on 397 Denied Work Subclass members.

14 B. Green Acre Subclass

15

In support of Plaintiffs’ Phase II Memorandum on Class Membership,

16 Injunctive Relief & Damages, Plaintiffs submitted Exhibit K, which is a summary

17 that contains a list of purported Green Acre subclass members and the criteria used

18 to determine class membership. Plaintiffs relied on Global’s Exhibit B, Exhibit 50,

19 wage and hour records, crew lists, and other miscellaneous documents to establish

20 class membership.

21

The Defendants did not lodge specific objections to Plaintiffs’ list. The

22 Court concludes that the individuals listed in Plaintiffs’ Exhibit K are

23 presumptively members of the Green Acre Subclass. In Plaintiffs’ Amended

24 Exhibit T, Plaintiffs indicate there are 107 members of the Green Acre Subclass.

25 The Court will award damages based on 107 members of the Green Acre Subclass.

26 C. Valley Fruit Subclass

27

In support of Plaintiffs’ Phase II Memorandum on Class Membership,

28 Injunctive Relief & Damages, Plaintiffs submitted Exhibit P, which is a summary

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ~ 5

1 that contains a list of purported Valley Fruit Subclass members and the criteria

2 used to determine class membership. Plaintiffs relied on Global’s Exhibit B,

3 Exhibit 50, Trial Exhibit 38, wage and hour records, and timesheets to establish

4 class membership.

5

The Defendants did not lodge specific objections to Plaintiffs’ list. The

6 Court concludes that the individuals listed in Plaintiffs’ Exhibit P are

7 presumptively members of the Green Acre Subclass. In Plaintiffs’ Amended

8 Exhibit T, Plaintiffs indicate there are 146 members of the Valley Fruit Subclass.

9 The Court will award damages based on 146 members of the Valley Fruit Subclass.

10

STATUTORY DAMAGES

11

In its Order Vacating Judgment, the Court concluded that under the clear

12 language of Wash. Rev. Code § 19.30.170(2), the Court has discretion to decide

13 whether to award damages, either actual or statutory, or other equitable relief, or to

14 decide not to award damages even if a violation has occurred, and significantly, the

15 Court has discretion to award statutory damages of less than $500 per violation.

16

In determining the appropriate amount of statutory damages, the Court

17 indicated that it would look to the Ninth Circuit case of Six(6) Mexican Workers

18 for guidance.3 Six (6) Mexican Workers v. Arizona Citrus Growers, 904 F.2d 1301

19 (9th Cir. 1990). In that case, the Circuit instructed district courts to consider the

20 following factors in determining whether a particular award serves the statute’s

21 deterrence and compensation objectives: (1) the amount of award to each plaintiff;

22

23

3The Six (6) Mexican Workers case addressed the federal Farm Labor

24 Contractor Registration Act (FLCRA). Because § 19.30.170(2) has never been

25 interpreted by an appellate court in the state of Washington, the parties agreed that

26 it is proper for this Court to look to federal court decisions interpreting the

27 analogous provision of AWPA or FLCRA. See also Escobar v. Baker, 814

28 F.Supp. 1491 (W.D. Wash. 1993).

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ~ 6

1 (2) the total award; (3) the nature and persistence of the violations; (4) the extent of

2 the defendant’s culpability; (5) damage awards in similar cases; (6) the substantive

3 or technical nature of the violations; and (7) the circumstances of each case. Id. at

4 1309.

5

FLCA and AWPA are two statutes that attempt to address the same problem,

6 namely the protection of farmers and farm workers against exploitation by farm

7 labor contractors by requiring the disclosure of terms and conditions of

8 employment and through registration of contractors and regulation of their

9 activities. Wash. Rev. Code § 19.30 et seq; 7 U.S.C. § 2041. Although the

10 authority applying the federal statutes is instructive, it is not binding on this Court.

11 Notably, there are significant differences between FLCA and AWPA. First,

12 AWPA requires that before awarding any damages, the Court must find that the

13 defendant intentionally violated the provisions. 29 U.S.C. § 1854(c).4 Second,

14 AWPA limits damages for multiple infractions of a single provision to only one

15 violation for purposes of determining the amount of statutory damages. Finally, if

16

17

18

19

20

4U.S.C. § 1854(c) provides:

21

If the court finds that the respondent has intentionally violated any provision of this chapter or any regulation under this chapter, it may

22

award damages up to and including an amount equal to the amount of actual damages, or statutory damages of up to $500 per plaintiff per

23

violation, or other equitable relief, except that (A) multiple infractions of a single provision of this chapter or of regulations under this

24

chapter shall constitute only one violation for purposes of determining the amount of statutory damages due a plaintiff; and (B) if such

25

complaint is certified as a class action, the court shall award no more than the lesser of up to $500 per plaintiff per violation, or up to

26

$500,000 or other equitable relief.

27

(2) In determining the amount of damages to be awarded under paragraph (1), the court is authorized to consider whether an attempt

28

was made to resolve the issues in dispute before the resort to litigation.

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ~ 7

1 a class action is pursued, damages are capped at $500,000.5

2

There is little Ninth Circuit precedent that has addressed the awarding of

3 statutory damages under AWPA or FLCRA. Notably, although one of the factors

4 the Court should consider is whether the violation is technical or substantive in

5 nature, no court has attempted to define or explain these terms.

6

Courts have recognized, however, that technical violations should result in

7 less damages, whereas substantive violations have been awarded greater amounts.

8 The Seventh Circuit, in De La Fuente v. Stokely-Van Camp, Inc., concluded that

9 the failure to post a written statement of the terms and conditions of employment,

10 and the failure to give the workers clearance orders in Spanish were technical

11 violations of FLCRA. 713 F.2d 225, 239-40 (7th Cir. 1983). Recently, Judge

12 Sharp of the District Court of Northern Indiana awarded a total of $16,950 to four

13 plaintiffs and two minor children. See Martinez v. Mendoza, 595 F.Supp.2d 923,

14 928 (N.D. Ind. 2009). In that case, it appears that Judge Sharp awarded $100 for

15 each technical violation per plaintiff and $500 per plaintiff for those violations that

16 directly and adversely affected the plaintiffs. For instance, he awarded $100 per

17 plaintiff per violation of 29 U.S.C. § 1811(a) (failure to register ); § 1821(b)

18 (failure to provide written disclosures); § 1821(c) (failure to post in conspicuous

19

20

5Additionally, although other circuits have concluded that statutory damages

21 under AWPA are punitive in nature, the Ninth Circuit has specifically declined to

22 permit the imposition of a “penalty disproportionate to the offense.” Six Mexican

23 Workers, 904 F.2d 1301, 1309 (9th Cir. 1990); Alvarez v. Longboy, 697 F.2d 1333,

24 1320 (9th Cir. 1983). It is not clear whether the Washington legislature intended

25 statutory damages under FLCA to be punitive. Nevertheless, as discussed below,

26 Plaintiffs’ interpretation of section 19.30.170(2) would necessarily result in a

27 punitive award because the amount of damages would have no relationship to the

28 harm caused by the wrongful conduct.

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ~ 8

1 place the rights and protections afforded workers under the AWPA); § 1821(d)

2 (failure to post requirements imposed upon housing providers); § 1821(e) (failure

3 to provide records); § 1822(c) (violation of terms of working arrangement); § 1843

4 (failure to provide written statement regarding working conditions); § 1823(b)(1)

5 (failure to post certificate). The court awarded $500 per plaintiff per violation of

6 29 U.S.C. § 1821(d)(1) (failure to keep records); § 1821(d)(2) (failure to provide

7 itemized written pay statements); § 1821(f) (knowingly provide false or misleading

8 information); § 1821(a) (safety and health of housing); and § 1841(b) (vehicle /

9 transportation safety).

10

Based on its review of the case law, the Court defines a technical violation

11 as conduct that violates the plain language of the statute, but does not necessarily

12 result in actual or specific harm to the worker. Substantive violations are conduct

13 that violates the plain language of the statute and results in specific harm to the

14 worker.

15

Plaintiffs initially argued to Judge McDonald that statutory damages under

16 FLCA are mandatory, and courts must award $500 per class member per violation.

17 As noted, no brief in opposition was filed. Based on Plaintiffs’ briefing, Judge

18 McDonald awarded $1,857,000.00 in statutory damages under FLCA. Plaintiffs

19 now ask the Court to exercise its discretion and award statutory damages in the

20 amount of $500 per class member per violation for a total award of $1,998,500.00.

21 See Pl. Ex. T (Amended).

22

Plaintiffs’ primary justification for the large award is its insistence that such

23 an award is necessary to punish and deter future violations. At the hearing, the

24 Court told the parties that an award of $500 per class member per violation may

25 violate due process. The Court recognizes that the state of Washington possesses

26 discretion over the imposition of statutory damages; nevertheless, any damage

27 award must meet both procedural and substantive constitutional requirements.

28 State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408, 416 (2003). In the

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ~ 9

1 world of punitive damages, where the goals are punishment and deterrence, the

2 award of damages should be reasonably predictable in its severity. Exxon Shipping

3 Co. v. Baker, 128 S.Ct. 2605, 2627 (2008) (“The common sense of justice would

4 surely bar penalties that reasonable people would think excessive for the harm

5 caused in the circumstances.”); State Farm, 538 U.S. at 416 (reasoning that

6 “[e]lementary notions of fairness enshrined in our constitutional jurisprudence

7 dictate that a person receive fair notice not only of the conduct that will subject

8 him to punishment, but also of the severity of the penalty that a State may

9 impose.”). Moreover, it is recognized that while punitive damages may serve the

10 same purposes as criminal penalties, defendants subjected to punitive damages in

11 civil cases have not been accorded the protections applicable in a criminal

12 proceeding. Id. at 417.

13

Recently, the Ninth Circuit reviewed an award of punitive damages and

14 made the following observations. See Southern Union Company v. James M. Irvin,

15 2009 WL 792475 (9th Cir. Mar. 27, 2009). First, due process “prohibits the

16 imposition of grossly excessive or arbitrary punishments on a tortfeasor.” Id. at

17 *2. Second, the objective of punitive damages is deterrence and punishment,

18 without being unreasonable and disproportionate. Id. Finally, the Circuit noted

19 that determining the constitutional limits with respect to punitive damages will

20 vary from case to case. Id. at *3. “Determining that limit is an art, not a science;

21 no mathematical formula controls; no single asymptote defines the limit for all

22 cases.” Id.

23

The Court believes it must consider these due process concerns when

24 determining the appropriate amount of statutory damages under FLCA. In doing

25 so, the Court will consider (1) the degree of reprehensibility of the defendant’s

26 misconduct; (2) the disparity between the actual or potential harm suffered by the

27 plaintiff and the statutory damages award; and (3) the difference between the

28 statutory damages authorized by FLCA and the civil penalties authorized or

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ~ 10

1 imposed in comparable cases. Id.

2

The Court is also convinced that these same due process concerns reinforce

3 the Court’s interpretation that section 19.30.170(2) provides the Court with

4 discretion to award no statutory damages, or to award less than $500 in statutory

5 damages for each violation that was found by Judge McDonald. For instance,

6 Global put its address and phone number of the paycheck that was given to its

7 employees, but did not place its name, address, and phone number on the detached

8 pay stub. Plaintiffs are seeking over $126,000.00 in statutory damages for

9 Global’s failure to put its name and address on the pay stub, even when no class

10 member complained or was prejudiced by this omission. Plaintiffs are seeking

11 over $225,000.00 in statutory damages for Global’s failure to explicitly provide

12 production standards that in all practicality would have been technically useless

13 given that production standards change daily based on wide variety of factors that

14 are unique to the orchard industry. These violations are technical violations and

15 are in no way proportional to the harm that the Washington statute intended to

16 prevent. To say that the Court has absolutely no discretion but to award such

17 exorbitant amounts of statutory damages would violate all notions of fairness

18 inherent in our judicial system.

19

This case was preceded by an investigation by the Washington Department

20 of Labor that ultimately resulted in a Settlement Agreement between the state of

21 Washington, the Global Defendants and the Grower Defendants. As part of the

22 settlement process, Global admitted to violating Washington state and federal laws.

23 (Ct. Rec. 467-3, Ex. G). The state of Washington assessed $10,250.00 in penalties

24 and $216,650.08 in wage assessments (Ct. Rec. 1081-2).6 Plaintiffs’ complaint

25

26 6On April 9, 2009, the Global Defendants requested the Court to take
27 judicial notice of the June 3, 2005 letter from the Washington Department of Labor
28 and Industries that was relied upon by Mr. Gibbs during his argument at the

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ~ 11

1 followed the State’s investigation, alleging many of the same violations of state

2 law. The Court finds it significant that the state of Washington has vindicated the

3 public’s interest in deterring the wrongful conduct that occurred in 2004. The

4 investigation produced a significant record that was relied upon by Plaintiffs in

5 developing their case.

6

The Court notes that with respect to the violation regarding the inadequate

7 pay statements, the state of Washington assessed a $1000.00 penalty, yet Plaintiffs

8 are seeking $500.00 for each member of the Green Acre and Valley Fruit subclass

9 for a total of $126,500.7 Likewise, with respect to the violation regarding the

10

11 damages hearing (Ct. Rec. 1081-1). Plaintiffs objected to Defendants’ request for

12 judicial notice (Ct. Rec. 1082). Although Mr. Gibbs referred to this letter in his

13 argument at the hearing, Plaintiffs did not object at that time. Therefore, any

14 objection to the use of the letter is waived. Additionally, this letter was a

15 culmination of an investigation conducted by the Department of Labor and

16 Industries. Documents from this investigation were relied upon heavily by

17 Plaintiffs in support of their summary judgment motions and at the trial on

18 liability. Notably, this letter was included in Plaintiffs’ Exhibits submitted to the

19 Court in anticipation for the jury trial on liability. See Pl. Trial Ex. 10. Thus, it has

20 been part of the Court’s record since September, 2007. Moreover, in their

21 opposition, Plaintiffs argue that the Court should limit judicial notice to the fact

22 that penalties were assessed for violations. As set forth below, the Court is relying

23 on the 2005 letter for that reason. Finally, Plaintiffs are not disputing its

24 authenticity, accuracy, or relevance of the letter. For these reasons, the Court

25 believes it is appropriate to take judicial notice of the 2005 letter.

26

7Wash. Rev. Code § 19.30.160 states:

27

(1) In addition to any criminal penalty imposed under RCW

19.30.150, the director may assess against any person who violates

28

this chapter, or any rule adopted under this chapter, a civil penalty of

not more than one thousand dollars for each violation.

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ~ 12

1 unlawful deduction of Washington state income tax, the state of Washington

2 assessed a $1000 penalty. As set forth above, Plaintiffs are seeking $500 for each

3 member of the Green Acre and Valley Fruit subclass for a total of $126,500. Thus,

4 where the state of Washington concluded that $2000.00 was an appropriate penalty

5 for violations of FLCA, Plaintiffs are seeking over $250,000.00 in statutory

6 damages.

7

Moreover, awarding Plaintiffs $1,998,500.00 in statutory damages as

8 requested would not only punish the Grower Defendants, who are jointly and

9 severally liable for the damages, but would ultimately harm Plaintiffs, whose

10 welfare is linked to the region’s fruit-growing industry. Salazar-Calderon v.

11 Presidio Valley Farmers Ass’n, 765 F.2d 1334, 1347 (5th Cir. 1985).

12

Finally, it is worth noting that the jury awarded two of the individually-

13 named Plaintiffs actual damages with respect to the breach of contract claim.

14 Thus, it was not impossible to try the actual damages portion of the proceedings.

15 Plaintiffs deliberately chose not to seek actual damages in favor of the statutory

16 damages, where the primary focus is not necessarily on compensating the

17 individual class members, but rather to effectuate the purposes of the Act.

18

With these considerations in mind, the Court now addresses the question as

19 to the appropriate amount of statutory damages that should be awarded to class

20 members, based on the record before the Court.

21 Given that the statute permits the state to award damages for each violation,
22 the potential penalty for this violation could have been in the hundreds of
23 thousands. Likewise, the State found that Global unlawfully deducted Washington
24 state income tax from 260 workers’ pay. Thus, the State had the opportunity to
25 assess $1000 for each worker for a total of $260,000.00, but chose to assess only
26 $1000 in penalties. Additionally, the State found that Global failed to pay full
27 wages to four bus drivers. Rather than assess $4000 in penalties, the State chose to
28 assess $1000 for this violation.

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ~ 13

1 A. Judge McDonald’s Order

2

Judge McDonald found that the Global Defendants violated FLCA and

3 awarded statutory damages of $ 500 per plaintiff per violation. In doing so, Judge

4 McDonald cited to Wash. Rev. Code § 19.30.170(1), (2), which states:

5

(1) After filing a notice of a claim with the director, in addition to any

other penalty provided by law, any person aggrieved by a violation of

6

this chapter or any rule adopted under this chapter may bring suit in

any court of competent jurisdiction of the county in which the claim

7

arose, or in which either the plaintiff or respondent resides, without

regard to the amount in controversy and without regard to exhaustion

8

of any alternative administrative remedies provided in this chapter. No

such action may be commenced later than three years after the date of

9

the violation giving rise to the right of action. In any such action the

court may award to the prevailing party, in addition to costs and

10

disbursements, reasonable attorney fees at trial and appeal.

11

(2) In any action under subsection (1) of this section, if the court finds

that the respondent has violated this chapter or any rule adopted under

12

this chapter, it may award damages up to and including an amount

equal to the amount of actual damages, or statutory damages of five

13

hundred dollars per plaintiff per violation, whichever is greater, or

other equitable relief.

14

Wash. Rev. Code § 19.30.170(1),(2).

15

Judge McDonald interpreted these provisions to support an automatic

16

$500.00 award for each violation, separate awards for multiple violations of a

17

subsection, no cap for class action awards, and attorneys’ fees and costs. Ct. Rec.

18

507 p. 29, n.6.

19

As noted above, the Court reviewed the Ninth Circuit case law and

20

concluded that rather than provide for mandatory damages, the statute permits the

21

Court to exercise its discretion in awarding statutory damages. The Court

22

concluded that a bench trial on the appropriate amount of damages would permit

23

this Court to exercise its discretion in awarding the appropriate amount of

24

damages.

25

The Court did not address whether it would reconsider the question as to

26

whether Plaintiffs would have to show that the class members were aggrieved

27

before they can obtain statutory damages. Clearly Judge McDonald found that the

28

class members had demonstrated that they were aggrieved because, according to

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ~ 14

1 subsection (1), a person who was not aggrieved would not be entitled to statutory

2 damages.

3

In their Motion for Reconsideration, the Grower Defendants argued that

4 statutory damages were not mandatory, but did not specifically argue that the

5 judgment should be vacated because the class members were not aggrieved. The

6 Grower Defendants now argue that for some violations, however, statutory

7 damages are not warranted because Plaintiffs cannot show that they were

8 aggrieved.

9

Just as the Court accepts Judge McDonald’s findings that violations

10 occurred, the Court will accept Judge McDonald’s conclusion that class members

11 were aggrieved. Judge McDonald and the jury found that Plaintiffs had met their

12 burden of showing class-wide damages. Plaintiffs are asking for liquidated

13 statutory damages for class-wide claims. As such, the Court does not need to make

14 specific factual calculations of actual injury. See Six (6) Mexican Workers, 904

15 F.2d at 1310; see also Montelongo v. Meese, 803 F.2d 1341, 1352 (5th Cir. 1986)

16 (rejecting argument that individual class members are not entitled to damages

17 because they had either forgotten or never known the details of the job offers).

18 B. Evidence to be Considered

19

The parties agreed that the available evidence for the damages phase consists

20 of the evidence that was introduced at summary judgment and trial. The Global

21 Defendants asserted that Plaintiffs should be required to present a separate

22 evidentiary record for the damages phase because irrelevant and inadmissible

23 evidence should not be considered by the Court and due process demands that

24 Defendants be able to specifically contest any and all of the evidence supporting

25 Plaintiffs’ alleged damages as well as class membership.

26

The Court disagrees. The Court sat through the jury trial. It can filter out

27 the irrelevant and inadmissible evidence. Likewise, the complete summary

28 judgment record is also before the Court. The Global Defendants’ due process

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ~ 15

1 rights were waived when they failed to respond to Plaintiffs’ summary judgment

2 motions. Moreover, the Global Defendants fully participated in the jury trial,

3 including challenging the admission of evidence based on relevancy and other

4 grounds. Plaintiffs are not required to present to the Court a separate evidentiary

5 record in support of their request for statutory damages.

6 C. Analysis

7

The Six (6) Mexican Workers factors require the Court to consider the

8 circumstances in each case. The circumstances in this case are unique. Here, the

9 jury and the Court found that Global Horizons deliberately took steps to discourage

10 local workers from obtaining work at Global Horizons. And in doing so, it

11 violated various provisions of the Washington Farm Labor Contractors Act. But, it

12 is clear that the underlying harm was the failure to hire the local workers in favor

13 of hiring the H-2A workers. A corollary to that harm is the finding by Judge

14 McDonald that Global committed a number of technical violations of FLCA.

15

The ten FLCA violations found by Judge McDonald can be divided into four

16 separate categories: recruitment violations, working arrangement violations, failing

17 to pay wages; and failing to pay adequate pay statements.

18

1. Recruitment Violations

19

(a) Failure to Provide Required Disclosures

20

Judge McDonald found that Global failed to provide U.S. Resident Workers

21 with the disclosures on the form required by the Washington Department of Labor

22 and failed to provide the statement in Spanish.

23

Defendants argue that, notwithstanding the fact that the correct form was not

24 used, Plaintiffs received all of the required information from the two-page

25 summary that Worksource provided the applicant. Defendants allege that the

26 summary contained information about the wages offered, the date, duration and

27

28

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ~ 16

1 description of the available employment.8 Defendants assert that a WorkSource

2 employee would explain to each applicant, in Spanish, information about the

3 Clearance Order for which the person was applying.

4

The difficulty in assessing the harmed caused by the failure to use the

5 required form is that the neither party provided Judge McDonald with the required

6 form.9 Moreover, there is nothing in the record to establish exactly what

7 information contained in the Clearance Order was presented to the applicant. The

8 Clearance Order and attachments constitute a 17-page technical document.

9 Providing the Clearance Order is not the same as providing a document that clearly

10 and simply states the rate of pay, whether bonuses will be provided, whether

11 personal loans will be provided, whether transportation, housing, health and day

12 care services will be provided, the employment conditions, whether any equipment

13 or clothing is required for the job, the owner of the operations, the working

14 conditions and whether there is an arrangement with a farm labor contractor. See

15 Wash. Rev. Code § 19.30.110(7). Moreover, because this form was mandated by

16 the State of Washington, farm laborers would be familiar with this form and the

17 information contained on the form. Use of a consistent form would facilitate the

18 worker’s understanding of the job benefits and requirements. The Clearance Order

19 was not an adequate substitute for the failure to use the required form. Moreover,

20 the Court finds that throughout the recruitment process, Global deliberately tried to

21 8This two-page summary was never introduced in the record.
22 9At the bench trial, Plaintiffs introduced a copy of the required form.
23 Additionally, the Court was able to locate an “Agreement - Farm Labor Contractor
24 and Workers” from the Washington Department of Labor & Industries. See
25 http://www.lni.wa.gov/Forms/pdf/700046a0.pdf (English) and
26 http://www.lni.wa.gov/Forms/pdf/700046z0.pdf (Spanish) (last visited Feb. 26,
27 2009). It appears that this form was updated on March, 2008. This form is
28 consistent with the requirements of Wash. Rev. Code § 19.30.110(7).

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ~ 17

1 under-inform the prospective local workers in an attempt to discourage them from

2 applying for work with Global.

3

The state of Washington did not find a violation of Wash. Rev. Code §

4 19.30.110(7) and did not assess any penalties for the failure to provide the required

5 form.

6

The Court concludes that although this is a technical violation, the failure to

7 provide the information on the required form merits an award of $100.00 per class

8 member. The Court awards $39,700.00 to the Denied Work subclass; $10,700.00

9 to the Green Acre subclass; and $14,600.00 to the Valley Fruit Subclass.

10

(b) Providing False and Misleading Information about the

11

Terms of Employment

Judge McDonald found that Global failed to inform the applicants of the

12

availability of the transportation benefits that were promised in the Clearance

13

Orders and failed to inform the applicants that they would have to meet specific

14

production standards. Judge McDonald found that Global imposed specific

15

production standards on the workers and fired workers for failing to meet those

16

standards.

17

Wash. Rev. Code § 19.30.120(2) provides:

18

No person acting as a farm labor contractor shall:

19

(2) Make or cause to be made, to any person, any false,

20

fraudulent, or misleading representation, or publish or circulate or

cause to be published or circulated any false, fraudulent, or misleading

21

information concerning the terms or conditions or existence of

employment at any place or places, or by any person or persons, or of

22

any individual or individuals.

23 (i) Transportation Benefits
24 Plaintiffs assert that rather than inform the applicants that they could obtain
25 transportation to the work site, Global weeded out prospective employees who did
26 not have their own transportation. Plaintiffs did not provide any specific instances
27 of where a person was not offered a job because they did not have transportation,
28 or any testimony that had they known about the transportation service as set forth

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ~ 18

1 in the Clearance Order, the employees would have utilized the service.10 On the

2 other hand, there was testimony that a worker tried to board a bus taking the Thai

3 workers to the Green Acres Orchard but was told that the bus was only available

4 for the Thai workers.

5

Traditionally, agricultural workers are some of the lowest paid workers. The

6 Court finds that if offered, many of the workers would have accepted

7 transportation benefits. Moreover, the Court finds that the failure to inform the

8 workers regarding the transportation benefits that were set forth in the Clearance

9 Order was a deliberate attempt on the part of Global to misinform the local workers

10 and discourage them from obtaining work at Global.

11

The state of Washington did not address this conduct and therefore did not

12 assess a penalty for the failure to accurately inform the employees regarding

13 transportation benefits.

14

(ii) Production Standards

15

Judge McDonald found that Defendants provided false and misleading

16 information regarding the production standards. As explained in the hearing,

17 however, the testimony presented at trial indicated that, in the context of orchards,

18 production standards can change daily, depending on the weather, the time of year,

19 the type of crop, the type of work, the size and age of the trees, etc. and that it

20 would be nearly impossible to set forth the type of production standards in the

21 Clearance Order that Plaintiffs argue should have been provided.

22

The state of Washington concluded that Global Horizons applied a

23 productivity standard that was not contained in the January 20, 2005 H-2A

24 application, but did not assess a penalty based on this conduct.

25

The Court does not believe a separate award of statutory damages for failing

26 to provide productions standards in the Clearance Order is necessary or warranted.

27 10The nature of the transportation benefits provided in the Clearance Order
28 consisted of transportation from the employer-provided housing to the fields.

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ~ 19

1

Nevertheless, the Court concludes Global’s conduct in providing false and

2 misleading information during the recruitment process regarding transportation

3 benefits warrants an award of $100.00 per class member. The Court awards

4 $39,700.00 to the Denied Work subclass; $10,700.00 to the Green Acre subclass;

5 and $14,600.00 to the Valley Fruit Subclass.

6

2. Working Arrangement Violations

7

Judge McDonald found that Global violated Wash. Rev. Code §

8 19.30.110(5), which provides:

9

Every person acting as a farm labor contractor shall:

10

5) Comply with the terms and provisions of all legal and valid

agreements and contracts entered into between the contractor in the

11

capacity of a farm labor contractor and third persons.

12

Judge McDonald found that this provision was violated in two ways: (1) by

13 failing to provide written reprimands upon a second violation of a work rule; and

14 (2) by employing H-2A workers without approval from the Department of Labor.

15

(a) Employing H-2A Workers

16

The theory of the harm from employing H-2A workers without approval of

17 the Department of Labor is the same as the failure to provide work. Presumably, if

18 the H-2A workers were not used, local workers would have been provided the

19 work. This will be addressed below. There is no private cause of action under the

20 H-2A statutes and regulations. The Court declines to award separate statutory

21 damages under FLCA for violations of the H-2A statutes and regulations, but will

22 consider the fact that H-2A workers were hired in lieu of local workers when

23 determining the appropriate amount of damages for the failure to employ and the

24 discharging and laying off of workers.

25

The state of Washington assessed a $1000 penalty for failing to notify the

26 U.S. Department of Labor under H-2A requirements when Global moved workers

27 from one location to another and did not house their workers in locations identified

28 in their application. An additional $1000 penalty was assessed for

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ~ 20

1 misrepresentations in documents provided to the Department of Labor & Industries

2 of the number of workers that were to be brought to work in Washington.

3

(b) Failure to Provide Written Reprimands

4

The evidence presented at trial was that persons were given verbal

5 reprimands regarding discipline, but not written reprimands. Jose Cuevas and

6 Ignacio Ramos both testified that they gave workers verbal reprimands but never

7 provided written warnings as required by the Clearance Order.

8

The State of Washington did not address this conduct and therefore did not

9 assess a penalty for the failure to provide written reprimands.

10

The Court concludes that $10.00 per class member is an appropriate amount

11 of statutory damages for Global’s failure to provide written reprimands as required

12 by the Clearance Order. The Court awards $1070.00 to the Green Acres subclass

13 and $1460.00 to the Valley Fruit subclass.

14

3. Failure to Pay Wages Due

15

(a) Unlawful Deduction of State Income Tax

16

At summary judgment, Global admitted that, for a limited time and due to

17 clerical error, it deducted from the pay of certain Green Acre and Valley Fruit

18 subclass members taxes that were not required by the state of Washington. The

19 employees were reimbursed for the deductions in 2005. The total amount withheld

20 were $4,386.51. Judge McDonald found questions of fact with regard to whether

21 the withholding of the wages was willful. No evidence was presented at trial to

22 support a finding that the withholding of the Washington state tax was anything but

23 a clerical error.

24

The state of Washington assessed a $1000.00 penalty for the improper

25 deductions for taxes not required by the State and ordered the reimbursement of the

26 withheld amount.

27

Under Washington law, where a employee demonstrates that wages have

28 been willfully withheld, damages are equal double the amount of wages that was

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ~ 21

1 withheld. The Court finds that this is an appropriate criteria from which to award

2 statutory damages for the unlawful deduction of Washington state income tax. The

3 Court awards $8773.02 in statutory damages for this violation. This amount will

4 be allocated to the 72 Green Acre subclass members and 49 Valley Fruit subclass

5 members set forth in Plaintiff’s Exhibit J.

6

(b) Failure to Pay Piece Rate

7

Judge McDonald also found that twenty-four workers at Valley Fruit were

8 entitled to be paid the piece rate of $19.00 per bin in the pear harvest in 2004 and

9 that it was undisputed that the workers were not, in fact, paid a piece rate. Instead,

10 workers were paid an hourly rate in which they earned almost $70.00 per day,

11 which computes to be more than they would have received at the approved piece

12 rate. Plaintiffs did not present any evidence to Judge McDonald or during the trial

13 that the workers’ productivity would have increased significantly to earn more by

14 piece rate than they actually received. These twenty-four workers picked pears for

15 two days.

16

Even so, the failure to pay the bin rate represents willful conduct on the part

17 of Global, which is evidence by the fact that Global initially filed an application for

18 a Clearance Order that did not include a bin rate. The Department of Labor

19 rejected the application for the Clearance Order, stating that Global needed to

20 include a bin rate. Global eventually acquiesced and included a bin rate in a

21 resubmitted application for a Clearance Order. Nevertheless, Global failed to

22 notify the workers that a bin rate was included in the Clearance Order.

23

The Court awards $100 to the twenty-four workers identified in Plaintiffs’

24 Exhibit R.

25

4. Failure to Provide Adequate Written Pay Statements

26

(a) Failure to Itemize Piece Rates Earned

27

Judge McDonald found that Global failed to itemize the pieces picked on the

28 pay statement when work was paid on a piece rate basis at Valley Fruit in 2004.

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ~ 22

1

Pursuant to Wash. Rev. Code § 19.30.110(8):

2

Every person acting as a farm labor contractor shall:

3

(8) Furnish to the worker each time the worker receives a

compensation payment from the farm labor contractor, a written

4

statement itemizing the total payment and the amount and purpose of

each deduction therefrom, hours worked, rate of pay, and pieces done

5

if the work is done on a piece rate basis, and if the work is done under

the Service Contract Act (41 U.S.C. Secs. 351 through 401) or related

6

federal or state law, a written statement of any applicable prevailing

wage.

7

This violation affected 99 Valley Fruit subclass workers who worked in the

8

cherry harvest.

9

The evidence indicated that Mr. Verbrugge unilaterally offered the piece rate

10

to the workers in the field, after which he contacted Global. Global’s accounting

11

system was not equipped to handle the piece rate and this was the reason why the

12

piece rate was not included in the pay statements. There was no evidence that any

13

of the workers complained to Global regarding the lack of piece rate. There was

14

no evidence that Global failed to properly pay the workers for the piece units that

15

were picked by the workers. At best, this was an oversight caused by the exigent

16

circumstances of ripening fruit and the threat of losing labor to pick the fruit.

17

The Court awards $10.00 to the 99 Valley Fruit subclass workers identified

18

in Plaintiffs’ Exhibit Q.

19

(b) Failure to Provide Employers Name, Address and

20

Telephone Number on Pay Statement

21

In addressing statutory damages, Judge McDonald indicated that one of the

22 violations was failing to provide adequate pay statements in violation of Wash.

23 Admin. Code 296-131-015. In their briefing, Plaintiffs argued that Defendants

24 were required to provide pay statements that identified the pay period and include

25 the employer’s name, address, and telephone number, pursuant to Wash. Admin.

26 Code 296-131-015.

27

FLCA does not require the employer’s name, address, and telephone

28 number, rather this is required by the Washington regulations. As noted above, the

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ~ 23

1 state of Washington sought $1000.00 in penalties for this violation. The Court

2 concludes that this amount provides an appropriate gauge to access the need to

3 deter and to adequately compensate Plaintiffs for this violation. Plaintiffs did not

4 introduce any evidence that any class member was prejudiced by the failure to

5 provide the information on the pay statement. It is undisputed that this information

6 was provided on the pay check. There was no evidence presented that any of the

7 class members complained to Global that its name and address were not provided

8 on the pay statement, or demanded that this information be provided to the

9 workers.

10

The state of Washington assessed a $1000.00 for the failure to provide all

11 information required on the statement of earnings to the workers. It found that

12 Global failed to provide the its address, telephone number, beginning and ending

13 dates of the pay period, and failed to include rate of pay for “other” hours.

14

The Court awards $10.00 to each member of the Green Acres and Valley

15 Fruit subclasses. The Court awards $1070.00 to the Green Acres subclass and

16 $1460.00 to the Valley Fruit subclass.

17

5. Failure to Provide Work

18

The jury found that Defendants failed to employ the Denied Work Subclass

19 and laid off or fired the members of the Green Acre and Valley Fruit Subclass in

20 violation of the Clearance Order. Plaintiffs’ theory was that Global Horizons

21 deliberately took steps to discourage the local workers to work for Global Horizons

22 because Global wanted to utilize Thai workers. The Court also accepted this

23 theory at trial. Clearly, this was the most egregious violation.

24

The evidence at trial, however, was that the WorkSource accepted and

25 referred more applicants than were available jobs. In reviewing the evidence

26 presented at trial and found by Judge McDonald, the most H-2A workers that were

27 employed at any given time was 172 Thai workers (Ct. Rec. 507, p. 17). This

28 represents the number of jobs that would have been available to the local workers

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ~ 24

1 if the Thai workers would not have been utilized. In determining the appropriate

2 amount of statutory damages, the Court concludes that multiplying $500.00 times

3 this number is a good starting point for determining the amount of statutory

4 damages to award the class members. This amount is $86,000.00. If this amount

5 is divided by the total number of class members (650), each class member would

6 receive approximately $132.00. The Court finds that an award of $150.00 per class

7 member is an appropriate amount to meet the goals of compensation and

8 deterrence. The evidence is undisputed that not every person who applied for a job

9 with Global would have been hired even if Global chose not to utilize the Thai

10 workers. Even so, an award for $150.00 for each Denied Work - Offered subclass

11 member, and each Valley Fruit and Green Acres subclass member is appropriate.

12 The Court awards $59,550.00 to the Denied Work subclass, $16,050.00 to the

13 Green Acres subclass; and $21,900.00 to the Valley Fruit subclass.

14 D. Conclusion

15

The Court awards the following statutory damages:

16 Denied Work Subclass 17 Violation 18 Failure to Provide Required Disclosures
Providing False and Misleading 19 Information: transportation benefits and
production standards 20
Employing H-2A Workers 21 Failing to Employ 22 Total
23

No. of Members
397 397

Individual Award $100 $100

Total
$39,700 $39,700

397

0

0

397

$150 $59,550

397

$350 $138,950

24 Green Acre Subclass Violation
25 Failure to Provide Required Disclosures

26 Providing False and Misleading

27

Information: transportation benefits and production standards

28 Employing H-2A Workers

No. of Members
107 107

Individual Award $100 $100

107

0

Total $10,700 $10,700
0

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ~ 25

1 Laying Off in violation of Clearance 2 Order 3 Failure to Provide Written Reprimands
Failure to Provide Adequate Pay 4 Statements - name and address

5

Failure to Pay Wages Due - Deducting Washington State Tax

6 Total

7

107

$150 $16,050

107

$10 $1,070

107

$10 $1,070

72

11

12

$370 $39,590

8 Valley Fruit Subclass 9 Violation
Failure to Provide Required Disclosures 10
Providing False and Misleading 11 Information: transportation benefits and
production standards 12 Employing H-2A Workers
13 Laying Off in violation of Clearance 14 Order
Failure to Provide Written Reprimands 15
Failure to Provide Adequate Pay 16 Statements - name and address

17

Failure to Provide Adequate Pay Statements - itemization

18

No. of Members
146 146

Individual Award $100 $100

146

0

146

$150

146

$10

146

$10

99

$10

Total $10,700 $10,700
0 $21,900
$1,460 $1,460
$990

19

20

21

22

23

24 11The Court is unable to determine the exact number of Green Acre Subclass
25 members who were affected by this violation. The total amount of the damages
26 award is $8773.02, which will be divided between the two subclass members
27 identified in Plaintiffs’ Exhibit J.
28 12See note 9.

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ~ 26

1 Failure to Pay Wages Due - Deducting 2 Washington State Tax

3

Failure to Pay Wages Due - Not paying Approved Bin Rate of $19 in Pear

4 Harvest

Total 5

49

13

14

24

$100 $2,400

$480 $49,610

6

The Court has considered the Six Mexican Workers factors as well as the

7 unique circumstances of this case and determined that statutory damages in the

8 amount set forth above represent an appropriate amount of damages to compensate

9 Plaintiffs, deter Defendants, and encourage Plaintiffs to enforce their rights.

10

FLCA, which was modeled after FLCRA, was enacted to protect the migrant

11 worker population. Indeed, previous cases documented the horrors that migrant

12 workers experienced at the hand of unscrupulous farm labor contractors. See

13 Martinez v. Mendoza, 595 F.Supp.2d 923 (N.D. Ind. 2009) (plaintiffs traveled from

14 Texas to Indiana on a bus that was not safe and in inadequate housing); Velasquez

15 v. Khan, 2005 WL 1683768 (E.D. Cal. 2005) (plaintiffs traveled from Arizona to

16 California, housing that was provided was in grossly substandard conditions);

17 Castillo v. Case Farms of Ohio, Inc., 96 F.Supp. 2d 578 (W.D. Tex. 1999)

18 (plaintiffs traveled from Texas to Ohio, terms and conditions of employment,

19 transportation, and housing did not coincide with promises made to induce them to

20 travel to Ohio).

21

Here, the class members in this case are not traditional migrant workers.

22 Rather, the class is local workers who resided in the Yakima Valley area and were

23

24 13The Court is unable to determine the exact number of Valley Fruit Subclass
25 members who were affected by this violation. The total amount of the damages
26 award is $8773.02, which will be divided between the two subclass members
27 identified in Plaintiffs’ Exhibit J.
28 14See note 13.

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ~ 27

1 seeking work. Notably, there is nothing in the record to suggest that the local

2 workers had traveled to the region to obtain work, nor did they expect to receive

3 housing or subsistence while employed with Global Horizon. These differences

4 are important in determining the appropriate amount of statutory damages. The

5 Court is also mindful that the jury awarded Plaintiffs punitive damages for failing

6 to provide work or for firing, based on race. The conduct the jury considered in

7 awarding the punitive damages is the same conduct that is at issue with respect to

8 statutory damages.

9

The Court awards approximately $235,000.00 in statutory damages. The

10 Court finds that this amount is sufficient to deter future violations and encourage

11 enforcement of the Act. The individual class members will be receiving $350.00

12 or more in statutory damages. The Court finds this amount to be adequate to

13 compensate the individual class members for any injury experienced as a result of

14 Global’s wrongful conduct.

15

INDIVIDUAL LIABILITY FOR THE GROWER DEFENDANTS

16

Plaintiffs seek to hold Jim Morford and John Verbrugge personally liable for

17 their companies’ use of an unlicensed farm labor contractor. Previously, the Court

18 concluded that Defendant Mordechai Orien could not be held individually liable

19 for violations of FLCA (Ct. Rec. 863). The Court concluded that in order to be

20 held liable under FLCA, a person must act as a farm labor contractor and, because

21 Plaintiffs did not argue that Orian personally acted as a farm labor contractor or

22 that he personally needed to obtain a license under FLCA, he could not be held

23 individually liable as a matter of law.

24

The analysis is somewhat different because the corporate Grower

25 Defendants are jointly and severally liable as a result of the corporation’s use of the

26 services of an unlicensed farm labor contractor. The provision at issue is Wash.

27 Rev. Code § 19.30.200, which provides, in part:

28

Any person who knowingly uses the services of an unlicensed

farm labor contractor shall be personally, jointly, and severally liable

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ~ 28

1

with the person acting as a farm labor contractor to the same extent

and in the same manner as provided in this chapter.

2

Plaintiffs argue that other state labor laws make officers liable with their

3

corporations for violations of wage payment laws, and refer to Wash. Rev. Code §

4

49.52.020, which specifically states that “[a]ny employer or officer, vice principal

5

or agent of any employer who [list of wrongful conduct] . . . shall be guilty of a

6

misdemeanor.” There, however, the plain language of the statute specifically

7

provides liability on the part of an employer or officer. If anything, Plaintiffs’

8

example supports the premise that liability under § 19.30.200 would not extend to

9

the officers of a corporation who uses the services of an unlicensed farm labor

10

contractor. If the Washington legislation intended to hold officers liable, it could

11

have clearly written the statute in a manner similar to § 49.52.020. It did not. As

12

such, the Court is left with the plain language of the statute, which requires the

13

person to use the services of an unlicensed farm labor contractor. There is nothing

14

in the record to suggest that Mr. Morford or Verbrugge personally used the

15

services of an unlicensed farm labor contractor. The Court declines to impose joint

16

and several liability on these Defendants.

17

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

18

Plaintiffs seek a permanent injunction against Global Horizon to prevent it

19

from operating as a farm labor contractor in Washington until the company obtains

20

valid federal and state contracting licenses. Plaintiffs request that any injunction

21

remain in place until Global has paid in full all sums owing from this lawsuit and

22

any other money judgments owed to farm workers they employed in Washington.

23

Plaintiffs also seek a permanent injunction against the Grower Defendants to

24

enjoin them from using the services of an unlicensed farm labor contractor.

25

Wash. Rev. Code 19.30.180 provides:

26

The director or any other person may bring suit in any court of

27

competent jurisdiction to enjoin any person from using the services of

an unlicensed farm labor contractor or to enjoin any person acting as a

28

farm labor contractor in violation of this chapter, or any rule adopted

under this chapter, from committing future violations. The court may

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ~ 29

1

award to the prevailing party costs and disbursements and a

reasonable attorney fee.

2

Generally, when issuing an injunction, the Court is exercising its equitable

3

powers. eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388, 391 (2006). In this

4

case, however, the authority to issue the injunction is not necessarily a function of

5

the Court’s equitable powers, but is a statutorily-conferred power. Even so, the

6

Court concludes that the proper test to apply is the traditional four-factor test

7

recognized in eBay, Inc. See id. (applying test where party was seeking an

8

injunction under the Patent Act). Therefore, in order to obtain a permanent

9

injunction, Plaintiffs must demonstrate the following:

10

(1) they have suffered an irreparable injury;

11

(2) that remedies available at law, such as monetary damages, are inadequate

12

to compensate for that injury;

13

(3) that, considering the balance of hardships between plaintiffs and

14

defendants, a remedy in equity is warranted; and

15

(4) that the public interest would not be dis-served by a permanent

16

injunction.

17

Id. at 390; see also Geertson Seed Farms v. Johanns, 541 F.3d 938, 943 (9th Cir.

18

2008).

19

An injunction is an extraordinary remedy. Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo,

20

456 U.S. 305, 312 (1982). “An injunction should issue only where the intervention

21

of a court of equity ‘is essential in order effectually to protect property rights

22

against injuries otherwise irremediable.’ ” Id. The relief granted must not be

23

“more burdensome than necessary to redress the complaining parties.” Bresgal v.

24

Brock, 843 F.2d 1163, 1169 (9th Cir. 1988). Moreover, under the teachings of

25

eBayInc., an injunction should not “automatically issue” when a FLCA violation is

26

found. See Geertson, 541 F.3d at 944 (holding that traditional balancing test is

27

appropriate and that an injunction is not automatic when a NEPA violation is

28

found).

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ~ 30

1

Plaintiffs seek an injunction against both the Global Defendants and the

2 Grower Defendants. Plaintiffs have failed to show that the extraordinary relief of a

3 permanent injunction is warranted in this matter.

4

(1) Irreparable Harm

5

Plaintiffs argue that they will suffer irreparable harm because the Global

6 Defendants are unlikely to pay for past violations, and future violations would

7 require multiple lawsuits and leave Plaintiffs in an untenable position.

8

The test is whether the parties will suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is

9 not granted. Here, the record does not support a finding that it is likely that Global

10 will commit further violations. Global has admitted to committing violations under

11 FLCA. And there is evidence in the record that Global took steps to remedy past

12 violations. For instance, although it did operate as an unlicensed farm labor

13 contractor for a period of time, it is undisputed that it eventually obtained the

14 Washington state license.

15

Likewise, Plaintiffs argue that the harm suffered by them would have been

16 prevented if the Grower Defendant had not contracted with Global. This may be

17 true but it does not support a finding of irreparable harm if the injunction would

18 not be granted.

19

The Court does not find that the record supports an inference that Global or

20 the Grower Defendants are likely to violate the FLCA in the future.

21

(2) Adequate Remedy at Law

22

The FLCA provides for actual and statutory damages for violations of

23 FLCA. Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that these damages are inadequate.

24

(3) Balance of Hardships

25

Plaintiffs urge the Court to find that Global is likely to violate the FLCA in

26 the future, which presumably would tip the balance of hardship in favor of

27 Plaintiffs. Likewise, the Grower Defendants’ complicity in Global’s unlawful

28 objectives to replace local workers with H-2A workers tips the balance in

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ~ 31

1 Plaintiffs’ favor.

2

Plaintiffs’ arguments do not demonstrate that the balance of hardships tip in

3 favor of Plaintiffs.

4

(4) Interest of the Public

5

Plaintiffs argue that there is no public interest in allowing Global to operate

6 as a farm labor contractor in the state of Washington unless farm workers have

7 been made whole regarding past abuses. Plaintiffs have not provided any case law

8 that would give the Court the authority to do what Plaintiffs are asking the Court to

9 do.

10

The Court finds that Plaintiffs have not met their burden of showing that an

11 injunction is necessary or appropriate in this case.

12

PROOF OF IMMIGRATION STATUS

13

The question of whether the class members would have to prove

14 immigration status in order to recover actual or statutory damages permeated

15 throughout the proceedings. The Court declined to address the issue as it related to

16 damages based on the summary judgment motion, but in a prior order indicated

17 that proof of immigration status was going to be required for those persons who

18 sought damages under the claims proven at trial. At the time of making that

19 statement, the Court presumed that Plaintiffs would be seeking actual damages.

20

In response to the Court’s statement, Plaintiffs filed a motion asking the

21 Court to clarify its ruling (Ct. Rec. 868). In ruling on Plaintiffs’ motion, the Court

22 concluded that the relationship between the claims decided on summary judgment

23 and the claims decided by the jury needed to be analyzed in the context of

24 Plaintiff’s anticipated damage presentation for each claim for which liability had

25 been established (Ct. Rec. 883). Specifically, the Court stated, “whether and how

26 much an illegal alien can recover for violations of FLCA will depend on the

27 circumstances of the alien and the nature and scope of the violation.”

28

Upon further reflection, the Court makes the following observations. The

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ~ 32

1 representative Plaintiffs have established that they were legally eligible to work.

2 There is no evidence to the contrary in the record. Similarly, there is no evidence

3 in the record that absent class members were not legally eligible to work, just as

4 there is no evidence in the record that absent class members were not able to meet

5 the physical requirements of the Clearance Order. Therefore, the Court finds that

6 absent class members are eligible to work.

7

Moreover, denied work class members only have to show that they were

8 offered employment to meet their eligibility for class membership. Global made

9 offers prior to verifying immigration status. Global was required to do so to avoid

10 possible exposure to charges of discrimination. Since Global was not required to

11 verify authorization to work prior to the Denied Work subclass members actually

12 starting work, the Court declines to impose verification requirements to recover

13 statutory damages for FLCA violations. A class member would not have been

14 required to show proof of authorization to work until they commenced work–an

15 opportunity Global denied them by failing to provide work as promised.

16

The Court is also concerned that immigration status is an issue in this case

17 only as a result of an unspoken perception that persons with Hispanic last names

18 are not eligible for work. The Court declines to perpetuate any stereotyping of the

19 local Hispanic population by assuming that persons with Hispanic surnames who

20 applied for work with Global are not eligible to work.

21

Given that Plaintiffs are no longer seeking actual damages, the Court finds

22 that the Denied Work subclass will not have to show proof of eligibility to work in

23 order to recover statutory damages. The purpose of statutory damages is to

24 compensate, deter and encourage persons to enforce their rights under the statute.

25 Plaintiffs were aggrieved irrespective of their eligibility to work. As such, proof of

26 eligibility to work is not necessary in order to receive statutory damages.

27

DISTRIBUTION OF PUNITIVE DAMAGES

28

The jury awarded punitive damages to each of the three subclasses for

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ~ 33

1 violating 42 U.S.C. § 1981. For the reasons stated above, the Court concludes that

2 members of the Denied Work subclass are entitled to share in the award of punitive

3 damages without proving they were authorized to work.

4

Plaintiffs ask that the Court distribute the punitive damages on a pro-rata

5 basis to all subclass members. Here, it would be difficult to determine the

6 comparative value of an individual class member’s lost opportunity and suffering

7 relative to the other class members as a result of Global’s discriminatory conduct.

8 The Court adopts Plaintiffs’ request to distribute the punitive damages award

9 among subclass members on a pro rata basis.

10

PROPOSED COURSE OF ACTION

11

In Court Record 901, the parties agreed that all class members will need to

12 submit claim forms and agreed to a ninety-day period for class members to submit

13 their claim forms. As set forth above, class members will not be required to verify

14 his or her entitlement to any of the damages. Thus, there is no need to appoint a

15 claims administrator. Instead, the Court finds that it is appropriate for Plaintiffs’

16 counsel to administer the claims process. Plaintiffs are directed to submit a

17 proposed plan regarding the claims process to the Court, consistent with this Order.

18

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

19

1. Plaintiffs’ Motion in Support of Award of FLCA Statutory Damages

20 (Ct. Rec. 761) is GRANTED.

21

2. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Admit Evidence; Motion to Quash Subpoenas (Ct.

22 Rec. 1029) is GRANTED, pursuant to the Court’s oral ruling.

23

3. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Expedite; Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages

24 (Ct. Rec. 1066) is GRANTED.

25

4. Within 10 days from the date of this Order, Plaintiffs are directed to

26 submit a proposed plan regarding the claims process to the Court. Defendants can

27 file a response according to the Local Rules.

28

5. A telephonic hearing on Plaintiffs’ proposed plan is set for May 21,

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ~ 34

1 2009, at 9:30 a.m. Counsel are directed to dial the Court conference line, (509)

2 458-6380, to participate in the hearing.

3

IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Executive is directed to enter this

4 Order and to provide copies to counsel.

5

DATED this 15th day of April, 2009.

6

s/ Robert H. Whaley

7

ROBERT H. WHALEY

Chief United States District Court

8

9
Q:\CIVIL\2005\Perez-Farias, et al\FFCL3.wpd
10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ~ 35

 
 1

2

3

4

5

6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

7 JOSE GUADALUPE PEREZ-
8 FARIAS, JOSE F. SANCHEZ, RICARDO BETANCOURT, and all
9 other similarly situated persons,

NO. CV-05-3061-RHW

10

Plaintiffs,

11

v.

12 GLOBAL HORIZONS, INC., et al.,

13

Defendants.

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ON PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS AGAINST GROWER DEFENDANTS; ORDER ADDRESSING GLOBAL’S POSTTRIAL MOTIONS

14

15

Before the Court are four Motions for Judgment as a Matter of Law (Ct.

16 Recs. 791, 794, 797, and 799). A hearing on the motions was held on December

17 17, 2007. Plaintiffs were represented by Lori Isley, Mirta Contreras, and Richard

18 Kuhling. The Defendant Global Horizon and Mordechai Orian were represented

19 by Chrystal Bobbit and Gary Lofland. Defendants Green Acre Farms and Valley

20 Fruit were represented by Ryan Edgley and Brendan Monahan.

21

On September 27, 2001, the jury found that Defendant Global Horizons, Inc.

22 and Mordechai Orian violated the Farm Labor Contractors Act, Section 1981, and

23 the Washington Law Against Discrimination. Judgment was entered on October

24 23, 2007, in favor of Plaintiff Ricardo Betancourt for $5,099.50 in lost wages and

25 $2,500.00 for emotional distress; in favor of Plaintiff Jose Sanchez for $492.20 in

26 lost wages and $5,000.00 for emotional distress; in favor of Plaintiff Jose G. Perez-

27 Farias for $4,000.00 for emotional distress; in favor of the Denied Work subclass

28 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ON PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS AGAINST GROWER DEFENDANTS; ORDER ADDRESSING GLOBAL’S POST-TRIAL MOTIONS ~ 1

1 in the amount of $100,000.00 for punitive damages; in favor of the Green Acre

2 subclass in the amount of $100,000.00 for punitive damages, and in favor of the

3 Valley Fruit subclass in the amount of $100,000.00 in punitive damages (Ct. Rec.

4 767).

5

DISCUSSION

6

In their Motions for Judgment as a Matter of Law, Defendants Global

7 Horizons, Inc. and Mordechai Orian make the following arguments: Defendant

8 Mordechai Orian cannot be held individually liable for the discrimination claims;

9 the damages against the absent class members cannot stand because there was no

10 op-out notice sent to the absent class members; Plaintiffs failed to produce a

11 legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find Global liable for discrimination;

12 Plaintiffs failed to produce a legally sufficient basis to find Global liable for

13 emotional distress; and Plaintiffs failed to prove that they were entitled to back pay

14 because they failed to prove they could legally work in the United States.

15 1. Standard of Review

16

The Court reviews motions for judgment as a matter of law under the

17 standard set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a).1 The Court may grant a motion for

18

19

1Plaintiffs argue that Defendants failed to timely make a Rule 50(a) motion,

20 therefore they are precluded from making a post-trial motion for judgment as a

21 matter of law. There is a limited exception to the rule that the sufficiency of the

22 evidence is not reviewable on appeal unless a motion under Rule 50(a) is made to

23 the trial court. The Ninth Circuit has recognized such an exception where there is

24 “plain error apparent on the face of the record that if unnoticed, would result in a

25 manifest miscarriage of justice.” Yeti by Molly Ltd. v. Deckers Outdoor Corp., 259

26 F.3d 1101, 1109 (9th Cir. 2001). “This exception, however, permits only

27 extraordinarily deferential review that is limited to whether there was any evidence

28 to support the jury’s verdict, irrespective of its sufficiency.” Id. (citations omitted); FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ON PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS AGAINST GROWER DEFENDANTS; ORDER ADDRESSING GLOBAL’S POST-TRIAL MOTIONS ~ 2

1 judgment as a matter of law if “the court finds that a reasonable jury would not

2 have a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find for the party” on the issue. Fed.

3 R. Civ. P. 50(a); Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 150

4 (2000). In doing so, “the court must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the

5 nonmoving party, and it may not make credibility determinations or weigh the

6 evidence.” Reeves, 530 U.S. at 150 (citations omitted). “Credibility

7 determinations, the weighing of the evidence, and the drawing of legitimate

8 inferences from the facts are jury functions, not those of a judge.” Id. (quoting

9 Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986)). The court is required

10 to review the entire evidentiary record, but it must disregard all evidence favorable

11 to the moving party that the jury is not required to believe. Id. “The court should

12 give credence to the evidence favoring the nonmovant as well as that ‘evidence

13 supporting the moving party that is uncontradicted and unimpeached, at least to the

14 extent that that evidence comes from disinterested witnesses.’” Id. (citation

15 omitted).

16

A jury verdict must be upheld if it is supported by substantial evidence.

17 Wallace v. City of San Diego, 479 F.3d 616, 624 (9th Cir. 2007). “Substantial

18 evidence is evidence adequate to support the jury’s conclusion, even if it is also

19 possible to draw a contrary conclusion from the same evidence.” Id. Judgment as

20 a matter of law may be granted only where, in viewing the evidence in the light

21 most favorable to Plaintiff, the evidence permits only one reasonable conclusion,

22 and that conclusion is contrary to the jury’s verdict. Id.

23

The standards for granting a new trial is set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 59. The

24 Court may grant a new trial “for any of the reasons for which new trials have

25

26 but see Nitco Holding Corp. v. Boujikian, 491 F.3d 1086 (9th Cir. 2007) (holding

27 that failure to file a Rule 50(b) motion precludes a later challenge to the sufficiency

28 of the evidence on appeal). FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ON PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS AGAINST GROWER DEFENDANTS; ORDER ADDRESSING GLOBAL’S POST-TRIAL MOTIONS ~ 3

1 heretofore been granted[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 59. Those reasons include when “the

2 verdict is contrary to the clear weight of the evidence, or is based upon evidence

3 which is false, or to prevent, in the sound discretion of the trial court, a miscarriage

4 of justice.” Silver Sage Partners, Ltd. v. City of Desert Hot Springs, 251 F.3d 814,

5 819 (9th Cir. 2001) (internal quotation omitted); see also Union Oil Co. of Cal. v.

6 Terrible Herbst, Inc., 331 F.3d 735, 742 (9th Cir. 2003) (“trial court may grant a

7 new trial only if the jury's verdict was against the clear weight of the evidence.”).

8 When, however, the new trial motion is based on insufficiency of the evidence, a

9 “stringent standard” applies, and the motion should be granted only if the verdict

10 “is against the great weight of the evidence or it is quite clear that the jury has

11 reached a seriously erroneous result.” Johnson v. Paradise Valley Unified Sch.

12 Dist., 251 F.3d 1222, 1229 (9th Cir. 2001) (internal quotation omitted).

13

Although the trial court may weigh the evidence and credibility of the

14 witnesses, “the court is not justified in granting a new trial merely because it might

15 have come to a different result from that reached by the jury.” Roy v. Volkswagen

16 of Am., Inc., 896 F.2d 1174, 1176 (9th Cir.1990) (internal quotation omitted); see

17 also Union Oil Co., 331 F.3d at 743 (“It is not the courts’ place to substitute our

18 evaluations for those of the jurors.”); Silver Sage Partners, 251 F.3d at 819 (a

19 district court may not grant a new trial simply because it would have arrived at a

20 different verdict).

21

The Court has reviewed the transcript of the trial. There are three instances

22 where Defendants approached the issue of judgment as a matter of law.

23

First, on September 9, 2007, on the eve of trial, the Global Defendants filed

24 a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Ct. Rec. 701). The Global Defendants

25 argued that Plaintiff’s claims under the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker

26 Protection Act (“AWPA”) and the Washington state Farm Labor Contractor Act

27 (“FLCA”) are preempted by federal law—specifically, the H-2A statute and

28 regulations. On the first day of trial, the Court declined to rule on the motion at FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ON PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS AGAINST GROWER DEFENDANTS; ORDER ADDRESSING GLOBAL’S POST-TRIAL MOTIONS ~ 4

1 that time. At the end of the day on September 18, 2007, counsel for the Global

2 Defendants again brought the pending motion to the Court’s attention, but the

3 Court did not rule on the motion. This motion addresses a legal question, and will

4 be addressed below.

5

On the morning of September 18, 2007, after the Court heard argument

6 regarding Plaintiff’s exhibits and after the jury had been seated, counsel for the

7 Global Defendants asked that before she begin her opening statement, she be

8 permitted to make a motion for a directed verdict. The Court ruled that such a

9 motion was untimely, given that the jury was already seated. The Court stated that

10 any motion for a directed verdict should have been made the previous night or

11 before the jury was seated.2

12

Later on, after the jury had been excused for the day, counsel for the Global

13 Defendants sought to make an oral motion challenging the sufficiency of the

14 evidence. The Court stated that motions challenging the sufficiency of the case

15 should have been made at the end of Plaintiff’s case and found that the motions

16 were untimely, but took the motions under advisement. The Global Defendants

17 argued that the evidence was insufficient to establish racial discrimination.

18

Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 50 and 52, the oral motions made on September 18,

19 2007, were timely. Rule 50(a)(2) states that the motion for judgment as a matter of

20 law may be made at any time before the case is submitted to the jury. Rule 52(c)

21 only requires that a party be fully heard on an issue. Notwithstanding this, the

22 Global Defendants never presented, during any stage of the trial, the argument that

23 the evidence was insufficient to support the damages award for emotional distress,

24 and that Plaintiffs failed to prove they were entitled to back pay because they failed

25

26

2The day before, on September 17, 2007, the Court excused the jury early

27 due to the unavailability of the Grower Defendants’ witnesses.

28 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ON PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS AGAINST GROWER DEFENDANTS; ORDER ADDRESSING GLOBAL’S POST-TRIAL MOTIONS ~ 5

1 to prove that they could legally work in the United States, as set forth in their

2 motions for judgment as a matter of law. Nonetheless, the Court will review the

3 motions under the substantial evidence standard because the Global Defendants

4 may have been misled by the Court’s statement that the motions were untimely.

5 2. Sufficiency of the Evidence of Racial Discrimination

6

Shortly before trial, the parties stipulated to a jury trial for all issues

7 involving the Global Defendants and a non-jury trial for all issues involving the

8 Grower Defendants. Plaintiffs contended that the Global Defendants discriminated

9 against the Plaintiff sub-classes on account of race and this issue was submitted to

10 the jury. The jury found against the Global Defendants and the Global Defendants

11 have moved for judgement not withstanding the verdict.

12

Against the Grower Defendants, the Plaintiffs contended that the Global

13 Defendants discriminated against the Plaintiff sub-classes on account of race and

14 that the Grower Defendants are liable as joint employers for any discrimination

15 against the Plaintiff sub-classes committed by Global. For the claim against the

16 Grower Defendants, the Court has to decide the same issue tried to the jury, i.e. did

17 the Global Defendants discriminate against the Plaintiff sub-classes on account of

18 race. If the Court concludes that the Global Defendants did so discriminate, the

19 Court has to decide the second question, namely, whether the Grower Defendants

20 were joint employers and therefore liable for the Global Defendant’s

21 discrimination. The Plaintiffs and the Grower Defendants presented these two

22 issues for decision by the Court.

23

For the reasons that follow, the Court denies the Global Defendant’s Motion

24 for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict and grants judgment of dismissal of the

25 claims for racial discrimination against the Grower Defendants.

26

To establish a claim under § 1981 the plaintiff must prove that he or she was

27 subjected to intentional discrimination based upon his or her race, rather than

28 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ON PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS AGAINST GROWER DEFENDANTS; ORDER ADDRESSING GLOBAL’S POST-TRIAL MOTIONS ~ 6

1 solely on the basis of the place or nation of their origin. Pavon v. Swift Transp.

2 Co., Inc., 192 F.3d 902, 908 (9th Cir. 1999). To establish a claim under the

3 Washington Law Against Discrimination, the plaintiff must prove that national

4 origin or race was a substantial factor in the defendant employer’s decision not to

5 hire, to terminate, or otherwise discriminate against the plaintiff. Zhang v.

6 American Gem Seafoods, Inc., 339 F.3d 1020, 1034 (9th Cir. 2003), citing 6A

7 Wash. Prac. Wash. Pattern Jury Inst. WPI 330, 01 (4th ed. 2002); see also Mackay

8 v. Acorn Custom Cabinetry, 127 Wash. 2d 302, 310 (1995).

9

A. Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law on the Discrimination Claims Asserted Against the Grower Defendants

10

Congress created a program whereby employers that needed workers could

11 hire foreign workers if there were not enough local workers to do the work. See 8

12 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(ii), § 1188, and 20 C.F.R. § 655, et seq. The program

13 goes by the acronym H-2A. Defendant Global Horizons is a labor contractor that

14 uses foreign workers pursuant to the H-2A program to fill temporary labor

15 shortages in the agricultural field. The Global Defendants contracted to supply

16 labor to the Grower Defendants, pursuant to the H-2A program.

17

While there are many details to the program that are too lengthy to recite, the

18 heart of the program is the requirement that the employer must offer work to local

19 workers and hire local workers first before offering work to foreign workers. Only

20 if insufficient numbers of local workers qualify for the job can the employer hire

21 foreign workers.3

22

23

24

3Under this statutory and regulatory regime, agricultural employers who

25 anticipate temporary domestic labor shortages may petition the Attorney General

26 for authorization to utilize the services of H-2A workers. See 8 U.S.C. §

27 1188(a)(1); 20 C.F.R. § 655.101. Prior to Attorney General approval, the employer

28 must successfully apply to the Secretary of the United States Department of Labor FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ON PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS AGAINST GROWER DEFENDANTS; ORDER ADDRESSING GLOBAL’S POST-TRIAL MOTIONS ~ 7

1

In this case, two sub-classes of local workers were formed. The first class

2 are local workers that claim that they were qualified to work, but were not hired by

3 the Global Defendants. The second class were local workers that were hired by the

4 Global Defendants, but claim they were fired in violation of their contract to work.

5

On Motion for Summary Judgment (Ct. Rec. 507) and at a jury trial, the

6 Global Defendants were found to have failed to hire qualified local workers and to

7 have fired qualified local workers in violation of their contract. Those findings are

8 supported by substantial evidence. The question that remains is whether there is

9 sufficient evidence to show that a substantial factor or contributing cause in the

10 Global Defendants not hiring or firing local workers was because of their race.

11

Unlike most discrimination cases, the sub-classes claiming discrimination

12 were not defined by race: the classes were local workers that were not hired and

13 local workers that were fired. Under the regulations of the H-2A program, the

14 Global Defendants had to offer work to and hire the local work force before

15 bringing foreign workers into the United States. The regulations contemplate that

16 the H-2A offer to local workers be made through the state work force office. 20

17

18 (“DOL”) for certification that

19

(A) there are not sufficient workers who are able, willing and qualified, and

20 who will be available at the time and place needed, to perform the labor or services

21 involved in the petition, and

22

(B) the employment of the aliens in such labor or services will not adversely

23 affect the wages and working conditions of workers in the United States similarly

24 employed.

25 Id.; see also 20 C.F.R. § 655.90.

26

Absent this two-fold showing, no certification will issue, and the petitioner's

27 H-2A application will not be approved. See 8 U.S.C. § 1188(a)(1); 20 C.F.R. §

28 655.90(b)(2). FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ON PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS AGAINST GROWER DEFENDANTS; ORDER ADDRESSING GLOBAL’S POST-TRIAL MOTIONS ~ 8

1 C.F.R. § 655.101(c)(4).4 People that were unemployed came to the state work

2 force office and were told about the Global job being offered pursuant to the H-2A

3 program.

4

The local work force in the Yakima area is about 60 to 70% Hispanic, with

5 the remainder consisting of other ethnic groups. Thus, the local worker class

6 consisted of any local worker that was offered work or hired by Global Horizons,

7 regardless of their ethnicity. See Ct. Rec. 731, Jury Instruction No. 12. In this

8 case, one of the sub-classes is local workers that attended the orientation sessions

9 for the Global job offer at the state work force office and were offered a job, but

10 were not hired. The other two sub-classes consisted of local workers that went to

11 work for Global Horizons and were fired.

12

In typical discrimination cases, the favored class of employee is defined by

13 race, gender, or age—for instance, Caucasians, men, or young people. In this case,

14 the alleged favored workers were simply foreign workers. The foreign workers

15 involved in this case were from Thailand, although Global Horizons hired workers

16 from other foreign countries for other contracts in other states. Thus, the

17 disfavored class and the favored class were defined by the H-2A program, and

18 were not based upon impermissible racial characteristics. Because the local

19 workers included 30-40% non-Hispanic workers, one would expect the

20 discrimination against Hispanic local workers to result in the hiring of a

21 disproportionate number of non-Hispanic local workers. There was no evidence

22 that Global favored non-Hispanic local workers in the hiring and firing process.

23 No evidence was presented that Global contacted non-Hispanic local workers to

24 work, rather than contact the Hispanic local workers. Rather, the evidence was

25

26

4The local office will prepare an “agricultural clearance order,” which,

27 following the acceptance of the employer’s application for consideration, is used to

28 recruit local workers through an interstate clearance system. Id. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ON PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS AGAINST GROWER DEFENDANTS; ORDER ADDRESSING GLOBAL’S POST-TRIAL MOTIONS ~ 9

1 that Global failed to hire local workers as a group, regardless of their race, in favor

2 of hiring foreign workers.

3

The evidence showed that Global favored the hiring of foreign workers over

4 local workers and fired local workers to permit foreign workers to take their place.

5 There was no testimony by any class member that race was a reason that Global

6 did not hire or fired them. In fact, Plaintiffs’ evidence showed that Global had a

7 strong economic motive to favor foreign workers, in that its President, Mordechai

8 Orian, was paid $8,000 for every foreign worker hired. He was paid nothing for

9 local workers hired. According to Plaintiffs’ witnesses, Global favored all foreign

10 workers over all local workers, whether the jobs were in Washington or elsewhere.

11 Moreover, Plaintiffs’ witnesses established that Global needed to keep its hired

12 foreign worker crews busy once they arrived in the United States and would move

13 them from job to job to keep them employed. Global moved foreign workers from

14 other states to Washington without complying with the H-2A regulations and, in

15 doing so, denied jobs to local workers. Global had to pay the living expenses of

16 the foreign workers and pay them wages once they were in the United States, even

17 if not fully employed. Local workers paid their own subsistence and were not paid

18 by Global if laid off. This evidence presented a strong case that the Global

19 Defendants abused the H-2A program and breached the contracts offered to local

20 workers, and had an economic incentive to do so.

21

To make the case that race was a significant or motivating factor, Plaintiffs

22 relied on two types of evidence. The first is that local workers were treated

23 differently than foreign workers.

24

Global had two types of employees. The foreign workers were captives of

25 Global. They remained in the custody of Global, lived in housing provided by

26 Global, used Global buses for transportation to and from the job, were paid even if

27 not working, and had no choice to seek other employment in this country. If they

28 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ON PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS AGAINST GROWER DEFENDANTS; ORDER ADDRESSING GLOBAL’S POST-TRIAL MOTIONS ~ 10

1 did not want to work for Global, they were sent back to Thailand.

2

The local workers lived at home, commuted to the job, could decide to quit,

3 could negotiate for better wages, and could change jobs without any penalty. The

4 difference in treatment of the two classes of workers by Global is explained by the

5 different circumstances of the two classes and the proven preference of Global to

6 use foreign workers. While ordinarily the different treatment of workers can give

7 rise to an inference of discrimination, the inference does not fit well in this case.

8 The differences were driven and explained by the different circumstances of the

9 foreign and local workers and the requirements of the H-2A regulations. While the

10 bulk of the local worker class was Hispanic and the foreign workers were from

11 Thailand, the different treatment is explained by factors other than race.

12

The only evidence of the firing of local workers, as opposed to being laid off

13 at the end of a particular job, occurred in the gala apple harvest and the pear

14 harvest in August 2004. Two local crews comprised of Hispanic workers were laid

15 off. Thai crews were brought in to complete the work. The reasons for the

16 dismissal of the crews were disputed and complicated. None of the direct

17 evidence, however, suggested that the reason the local workers were fired was

18 because of race. The local crew was composed of Hispanics and were replaced by

19 a Thai crew. It is not clear to the Court that the Thai crew performed any better or

20 worse than the local crew. While such evidence shows a breach of contract, the

21 replacement by foreign workers, that happen to be Thai, does not establish that

22 race was a motiving or substantial factor in the firing of the local crew. While it is

23 possible that a jury could make such an inference, to the Court it only shows that

24 the H-2A program was abused and Global may have wrongfully fired the local

25 workers. The normal inference made from different treatment of different racial

26 groups does not fit well in the explanation of the employment decisions made in

27 this instance.

28 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ON PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS AGAINST GROWER DEFENDANTS; ORDER ADDRESSING GLOBAL’S POST-TRIAL MOTIONS ~ 11

1

The second type of evidence relied upon by Plaintiffs are racial comments

2 made by Defendant Mordechai Orian, President of Global Horizons. Three

3 witnesses testified about racially-charged statements attributed to Mr. Orian:

4 Ebony Williams, Bruce Steen, and Jose Cuevas.

5

Ebony Williams worked for Global in its operations in Washington and

6 Texas. She described Global’s process of “getting rid of the local workers as we

7 can get the H-2A approval.” She said that Mr. Orian’s objective was to discourage

8 local workers from working for the two growers in Washington State. She said

9 that Orian characterized the local workers in Washington State as lazy, drunks, and

10 drug users, and that local workers filed too many workers’ compensation claims.

11 She described the process of eliminating local workers so that foreign workers

12 could work, but she never said that the workers were eliminated because of race.

13 She testified that, in fact, the same process was used by Global in other markets,

14 the racial composition of which is unknown.

15

Bruce Steen testified to Orian’s and Global’s preference for foreign workers.

16 He testified that Orian said that he did not use Mexican foreign workers because

17 growers had had bad experiences with Mexican labor. This statement was not

18 connected to any event in Washington and it is not an expression of Orian’s

19 personal belief. It is an expression of the experiences of others.

20

The most significant anecdotal evidence is that of Jose Cuevas, an employee

21 of Global during the performance of the contracts in Washington State. He

22 testified to a conversation that he overheard between Orian and Jim Morford in

23 which Orian compared the work of the Thai crews and the local Hispanic crews.

24 In his testimony, Cuevas used the words “local worker,” “Mexican,” and

25 “Hispanic” interchangeably in describing Orian’s statements. According to

26 Cuevas, Orian made the following observations: the Thai crews were hard

27 workers, there was no discussing things with them, they only liked to work hard,

28 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ON PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS AGAINST GROWER DEFENDANTS; ORDER ADDRESSING GLOBAL’S POST-TRIAL MOTIONS ~ 12

1 and they were very happy to be here working. In contrast, he said that the local

2 people (Hispanics) didn’t like to work and didn't want to work. Orian said that the

3 Hispanics were putting a lot of pretexts as far as working, they would ask many

4 questions about how much they were going to be paid or how much they were

5 going to work, they sometimes missed a lot of work, they would quit for any

6 simple reason; therefore Orian preferred people from Thailand.

7

Global’s president used classic racial group stereotypes in an effort to induce

8 the Grower defendants to use the foreign workers during the work season. He used

9 similar arguments to motivate the local growers to enter into labor contracts with

10 Global. The manner in which this testimony was elicited detracted from its weight

11 and significance to the Court, however. Cuevas had to be led into equating the

12 local workers with Hispanics. Because the local crews were composed of Hispanic

13 workers, it was simple to interchange the terms; one giving rise to discriminatory

14 racial intent and the other giving rise to discrimination based on locality. The

15 evidence convinced the Court that the bias was based on the H-2A classifications

16 and not on race.

17

The Court has reviewed this evidence and concludes that race was not a

18 motivating or substantial factor in the hiring and firing decisions of the Global

19 Defendants. The Court concludes that Orian’s statements were a means to

20 accomplish his desire to use foreign workers over local workers, regardless of race

21 or national origin.

22

The Court also concludes that race was not a motiving or substantial factor

23 in any relevant employment decision made by the Grower Defendants.

24 Accordingly, the claims against the Grower Defendants for racial discrimination

25 are dismissed.5

26

27

5Because the Court concludes that the Global Defendants did not

28 discriminate it is not necessary to address whether the Grower Defendants are joint FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ON PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS AGAINST GROWER DEFENDANTS; ORDER ADDRESSING GLOBAL’S POST-TRIAL MOTIONS ~ 13

1

B. The Global Defendants’ Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law

2

Although the Court has come to its own conclusion that the Global

3 Defendants did not discriminate against the Plaintiff sub-classes on the basis of

4 race, it cannot substitute its own judgment for the judgment of the jury, which

5 found that the evidence supported a finding of racial discrimination by the Global

6 Defendants. Johnson v. Paradise Valley Unified Sch. Dist., 251 F.3d 1222, 1227

7 (9th Cir. 2001). When faced with a motion for judgment as a matter of law, the

8 Court must make every inference from the evidence in favor of the Plaintiff, the

9 non-moving party. Summers v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 508 F.3d 923, 925 n.1 (9th

10 Cir. 2007). The standard to be applied in reviewing the jury’s verdict is whether it

11 is supported by substantial evidence. Id.

12

The Court did not infer discrimination by the Global Defendants from the

13 different treatment of foreign workers and local workers for the reasons stated. On

14

15 16 employers. Although the Ninth Circuit has not addressed this issue squarely, the 17 Court concludes that agency principles would apply to determine whether the 18 Grower Defendants could be held liable for the discriminatory actions of the 19 Global Defendants. See Aguello v. Conoco, 207 F.3d 803 (5th Cir. 2000). To this 20 end, based on the evidence presented at trial, the Court concludes that for purposes 21 of § 1981 liability, the Global Defendants were not agents of the Grower 22 Defendants; rather the Global Defendants operated an independent contractors. 23 Also, in Kolstad v. American Dental Ass’n, 527 U.S. 526 (1999), the Supreme 24 Court placed strict limits on the extent to which an agent’s misconduct may be 25 imputed to the principal for purposes of awarding punitive damages. Id. at 542. 26 The Court finds that none of the exceptions set forth in Kolstad apply to the case at 27 bar, and consequently the Grower Defendants should not be vicariously liable for 28 the punitive damages awarded against the Global Defendants.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ON PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS AGAINST GROWER DEFENDANTS; ORDER ADDRESSING GLOBAL’S POST-TRIAL MOTIONS ~ 14

1 the other hand, the jury was entitled to make such inferences if it chose to do so. In

2 like manner, the Court was not persuaded that the racial comments of Orian

3 established racial discrimination in this case. On the other hand, the jury could do

4 so. The use of racial stereotypes has been a traditional method of justifying

5 discrimination in all phases of public and private life. The jury could have found

6 racial animus on the part of the Global Defendants from the use of such

7 stereotypes. The Court was not persuaded by the testimony of Plaintiffs’ expert

8 concerning the lack of a financial explanation for Global’s decision to fire the local

9 crews in the apple and pear harvest. The jury could have reached a different

10 conclusion.

11

Based on the evidence presented at trial, the jury could have concluded that

12 Global’s racial bias against Hispanic workers in the Yakima Valley caused it to

13 hire and fire local workers. Accordingly, there is substantial evidence to support

14 the jury verdict and it is not against the clear weight of the evidence.

15 3. Whether Defendant Mordechai Orian Can Be Held Individually Liable

16

Defendants argue that there is no legal or evidentiary basis to support a

17 finding of individual liability against Defendant Orian.6 Defendants argue that an

18

19

20

6The jury was instructed that an officer of a corporation is responsible for his

21 own acts and for the acts of the corporation that violates the Farm Labor Contractor

22 Act, Section 1981, or the Washington Law Against Discrimination if the officer

23 was personally involved or intentionally caused the corporation to violate these

24 laws. (Ct. Rec. 731, Instruction No. 11.1). The jury found that Mordechai Orian

25 violated the Farm Labor Contractors Act by failing to employ or by discharging the

26 Plaintiff sub-classes in violation of the applicable clearance orders and that he

27 violated 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and the Washington Law Against Discrimination. In so

28 instructing the jury, the Court had concluded that an individual could be held liable FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ON PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS AGAINST GROWER DEFENDANTS; ORDER ADDRESSING GLOBAL’S POST-TRIAL MOTIONS ~ 15

1 individual cannot be held liable for the corporation’s act of discrimination, unless

2 the plaintiff can show that the corporate veil should be pierced. This is not a

3 correct statement of the law with regard to § 1981 discrimination. Instead, case

4 law holds that an employee can be held individually liable if the employee was

5 personally involved in the discrimination, if they intentionally caused the

6 corporation to discriminate, or if they authorized, directed, or participated in the

7 alleged discriminatory conduct. See Bell v. Clackamas County, 341 F.3d 858, 867

8 (9th Cir. 2003) (upholding jury verdict imposing individual liability against

9 defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, without discussion); see also Whidbee v.

10 Garzarelli Food Specialties, Inc., 223 F.3d 62, 75 (2nd Cir. 2000); Allen v. Denver

11 Pub. Sch. Bd., 928 F.2d 978, 983 (10th Cir. 1991) (overruled on other grounds by

12 Kendrick v. Penski Transp. Serv., Inc., 220 F.3d 1220 (10th Cir. 2000); Jones v.

13 Continental Corp., 789 F.2d 1225, 1231 (6th Cir. 1986); Al-Khazraji v. St. Francis

14 College, 784 F.2d 505, 518 (3rd Cir. 1986); Tillman v. Wheaton-Haven

15 Recreational Ass’n., 517 F.2d 1141, 1146 (4th Cir. 1975). Likewise, under the

16 Washington Law Against Discrimination, “a supervisor acting in the interest of an

17 employer who employs eight or more people can be held individually liable for his

18 or her discriminatory acts.” Brown v. Scott Paper Worldwide Co., 143 Wash.2d

19 349, 358 (2001).

20

Thus, there is a legal basis to support a finding of individual liability against

21 Defendant Orian. There is also an evidentiary basis, as explained above. There

22 was sufficient evidence introduced at trial for the jury to find that Defendant Orian

23 was personally involved or intentionally caused the corporation to discriminate.

24 As such, the jury verdict finding Defendant Orian personally liable for acts of

25 26 under § 1981 and the Washington Law Against Discrimination, and reserved the 27 issue of whether an individual could be liable under the Farm Labor Contractor Act 28 to be determined through post-trial motions.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ON PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS AGAINST GROWER DEFENDANTS; ORDER ADDRESSING GLOBAL’S POST-TRIAL MOTIONS ~ 16

1 discrimination must be upheld.

2

Whether Defendant Orian can be held liable for all Farm Labor Contractor

3 Act (“FLCA”) violations proven at summary judgment and at trial is a more

4 difficult question.7

5

Plaintiffs argue that because Orian had complete control of all the business

6 of Global Horizons in 2004 and now, he is personally liable for all FLCA

7 violations at trial and proven at summary judgment. In support of their position,

8 Plaintiffs cite to a district court case involving the Migrant and Seasonal

9 Agricultural Worker Protection Act “(AWPA”), a federal statute that is analogous

10 to the Washington Farm Labor Contractor Act, which was the basis for Plaintiffs’

11 claims at trial (Ct. Rec. 630 p. 39). However, this case, Avila v. A. Sam & Sons,

12 856 F.Supp. 763 (W.D. N.Y. 1994), provides no insight as to whether Defendant

13 Orian should be held individually liable for FLCA violations. In Avila, the district

14 court held the owners of a farm operation were “agricultural employers” as defined

15 by the AWPA. Id. at 769.8 A finding that owners of the farm were “agricultural

16 employers” is irrelevant to determining whether Mordechai Orian is individually

17 liable as a farm labor contractor under the FLCA.

18

The Court rejects Plaintiffs’ argument that they need only show that Orian

19 had complete control of all the business of Global Horizons in order to be held

20

21

7In this regard, Defendants’ argument regarding piercing the corporate veil

22 in relations to individual liability for FLCA violations is applicable.

23

8Under the AWPA, an “agricultural employer” is defined as any person who

24 owns and operates a farm and who recruits, transports or employs migrant workers.

25 29 U.S.C. § 1801(2). AWPA sets forth duties for agricultural employers regarding

26 housing, disclosures, transportation, recording keeping, as well as prohibiting

27 agricultural employers from providing false information. See 29 U.S.C. §§

28 1821(a)-(g), 1823(a). FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ON PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS AGAINST GROWER DEFENDANTS; ORDER ADDRESSING GLOBAL’S POST-TRIAL MOTIONS ~ 17

1 personally liable for all FLCA violations. Under FLCA, a “‘farm labor contractor’

2 means any person, or his or her agent or subcontrator, who, for a fee, performs any

3 farm labor contracting activity.” Wash. Rev. Code § 19.30.010(2). A “person”

4 includes any individual, firm, partnership, association, corporation, or unit or

5 agency of state or local government.” §19.30.010(1). “Farm labor contracting

6 activity” means recruiting, soliciting, employing, supplying, transporting, or hiring

7 agricultural employees. § 19.30.010(3).

8

Notably, the statute requires that a farm labor contractor obtain a license.

9 Indeed, the failure to obtain a license can lead to criminal charges as well as civil

10 penalties. It is logical, then, to conclude that in order to be held individually liable

11 under the statute, the individual, at a minimum, would need to meet the definition

12 of a farm labor contractor.

13

Also, section 19.30.110 provides the duties required of a farm labor

14 contractor. Specifically, this section begins: “Every person acting as a farm labor

15 contractor shall: . . .” (Emphasis added). Section 19.30.120 sets forth the

16 prohibited acts of a farm labor contractor. This section begins: “No person acting

17 as a farm labor contractor shall: . . .” (Emphasis added). Thus, in order to be

18 held individually liable under the FLCA, under the plain meaning of the statute, a

19 person has to be acting as a farm labor contractor, which means “recruiting,

20 soliciting, employing, supplying, transporting, or hiring agricultural employees.” §

21 19.30.010(3).

22

Here, Plaintiffs did not argue that Mordechai Orian personally acted as a

23 farm labor contractor, or that he personally needed to obtain a license under FLCA.

24 See Escobar v. Baker, 814 F.Supp. 1491, 1499 (W.D. Wash. 1993) (looking at

25 whether the individual performed any farm labor contracting activity for a fee to

26 determine whether individual was a farm labor contractor under AWPA and FLCA

27 and holding that FLCA disclosure requirements only apply to farm labor

28 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ON PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS AGAINST GROWER DEFENDANTS; ORDER ADDRESSING GLOBAL’S POST-TRIAL MOTIONS ~ 18

1 contractors). Nor was there any evidence produced at trial that Defendant Orian

2 personally acted as a farm labor contractor.

3

Also, the claims based under the FLCA do not sound in tort law, rather, the

4 basis of the claims under the FLCA are contract law. Plaintiffs did not allege the

5 piercing of the corporate veil theory in its complaint or at trial. No evidence was

6 presented in support of piercing the corporate veil.

7

The Court finds as a matter of law that Mordechai Orian cannot be held

8 individually liable for violations of the FLCA.

9 4. 10

Whether Plaintiffs Were Required to Provide an Opt-Out Notice to Absent Class Members

11

Defendants argue that the judgment awarded against the Plaintiff sub-classes

12 must be vacated because no opt-out notice was given to the absent class members.

13

The initial class certification question was addressed by Judge Leavitt (Ct.

14 Rec. 136). Plaintiffs had moved for class certification primarily under Rule

15 23(b)(2)9 and secondarily under Rule 23 (b)(3).10 Judge Leavitt found that

16 Plaintiffs’ claims for declaratory or injunctive relief were the predominant relief

17 sought and certified the class under Rule 23(b)(2). In the alternative, Judge Leavitt

18 also found that it was appropriate to certify the class action under Rule 23(b)(3),

19 finding that common questions of fact and law predominate over the individual

20 issues presented in the dispute and that class treatment is a superior form of relief.

21

22

9Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) provides that an action may be maintained as a

23 class action if “the party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds

24 generally applicable to the class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief

25 or corresponding declaratory relief with respect to the class as a whole.”

26

10To bring an action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3), Plaintiffs must show that

27 there are common questions of law or fact that predominate over the individual

28 issues and class treatment is a superior form of relief. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ON PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS AGAINST GROWER DEFENDANTS; ORDER ADDRESSING GLOBAL’S POST-TRIAL MOTIONS ~ 19

1

Defendants now seek to undo this order, arguing that because Plaintiffs

2 appear to have abandoned their claims for injunctive and declaratory relief, and

3 monetary damages predominate, the Court should find that the class certification

4 should not have been certified under Rule 23(b)(2). The implications for doing so

5 are significant. Under Rule 23(b)(2), no opt-out notice is required. Under Rule

6 23(b)(3), opt-out notice is required. According to Defendants, the failure to

7 provide opt-out notice requires that the judgment entered in favor of the absent

8 class members be vacated.

9

The Court has broad discretion to determine whether a class should be

10 certified and to revisit that certification throughout the duration of the proceedings

11 before the Court. Dukes v. Wal-Mart, Inc., 509 F.3d 1168, 1176 n.1 (9th Cir. 2007)

12 (“[D]istrict courts retain the authority to amend or decertify a class if, based on

13 information not available or circumstances not anticipated when the class was

14 certified, the court finds that either is warranted.”).

15

Here, under Dukes, certification under Rule 23(b)(2) was proper, even if

16 Plaintiffs were seeking class-action damages, including punitive damages. Id. at

17 1186 (holding that class action can be certified under Rule 23(b)(2) even if the

18 class seeks claims for monetary damages “so long as such damages are not the

19 predominant relief sought, but instead are secondary to the primary claim for

20 injunctive or declaratory relief.”) The Court does not find that the case has

21 somehow changed to disturb Judge Leavitt’s ruling that the above-captioned case

22 was primarily certified under Rule 23(b)(2). Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Motion to

23 Amend Judgment (Ct. Rec. 859) will be granted. By agreement of the parties and

24 without objection, the description of the classes was changed when the jury was

25 instructed. Accordingly, the Court will amend the judgment to include the

26 definitions of the three subclasses of Plaintiffs that were presented to the jury in

27 Instruction No. 12.

28 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ON PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS AGAINST GROWER DEFENDANTS; ORDER ADDRESSING GLOBAL’S POST-TRIAL MOTIONS ~ 20

1 5. 2

Whether Plaintiffs’ Award for Emotional Distress is Supported by the Evidence

3

The jury awarded Plaintiff Betencourt $2,500 for emotional distress;

4 Plaintiff Perez-Farias $5,000 for emotional distress; and Plaintiff Sanchez $4,000

5 for emotional distress.

6

Defendants argue that there is not sufficient evidence to support the jury

7 award of damages for emotional distress. Defendants argue that none of the

8 Plaintiffs testified that they had reason to believe that they were fired because of

9 race.

10

A jury’s award of damages should not be disturbed unless it is clearly

11 unsupported by the evidence, and unless the amount is “grossly excessive or

12 monstrous.” Zhang, 339 F.3d at 1040; Chalmers v. City of Los Angeles, 762 F.2d

13 753, 760 (9th Cir. 1985). Non-economic damages may be awarded for humiliation

14 and emotional distress established by testimony or inferred from the circumstances.

15 Id.; Johnson v. Hale, 940 F.2d 1192, 1193 (9th Cir. 1991). “No evidence of

16 economic loss or medical evidence of mental or physical symptoms stemming from

17 the humiliation need be submitted.” Id. Section 1981, however, does not provide

18 for automatic or presumptive damages. Azimi v. Jordan’s Meats, Inc., 456 F.3d

19 228, 234 (1st Cir. 2006).

20

Under Washington law, the jury’s role in determining non-economic

21 damages is entitled to a presumption of correctness. Bunch v. King County Dept.

22 of Youth Services, 155 Wash.2d 165, 179 (2005). Once a plaintiff has proven

23 discrimination under the Washington law, he or she does not need to prove

24 outrageous or extreme conduct or severe emotional distress. Dean v. Municipality

25 of Metro. Seattle-Metro, 104 Wash.2d 627, 640 (1985). The jury can rely on the

26 plaintiff’s own testimony regarding emotional distress, and it is not necessary to

27 present medical testimony in order to obtain an award for emotional distress.

28 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ON PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS AGAINST GROWER DEFENDANTS; ORDER ADDRESSING GLOBAL’S POST-TRIAL MOTIONS ~ 21

1 Bunch,155 Wash.2d at 179.

2

Plaintiff Perez-Farias testified regarding his feelings about being fired. He

3 started working for Global Horizons in the first part of February 2004 and

4 continued to work until August 2004. In August 2004, he was working in the pear

5 harvest. There was a dispute regarding the amount of pay the workers were to

6 receive for picking the pears. The workers were seeking $24 a bin, while Global

7 offered $13 a bin. The workers walked off the job. The next day, they were told

8 that there was not any work for them. Plaintiff Perez-Farias testified that it was a

9 sad thing when he got fired, and he worried about paying the bills. He also

10 testified that he was able to find work after a few days in a warehouse.

11

Plaintiff Jose Sanchez testified that he began work with Global Horizons in

12 January 2004, and was discharged in August 2004, while he was picking Gala

13 apples. He testified that he felt a little humiliated and maybe discriminated against

14 because he knew that there were people that continued to work at the orchard. He

15 believed that he was a good worker and it made him feel bad to not be asked to

16 come back to work. He testified that he had never been fired from any place, and

17 had never been told in any of his jobs that he was not doing his work. He testified

18 that within a week he was able to find work picking pears.

19

Plaintiff Ricardo Betancourt applied for a job with Global Horizons, but was

20 never called to go to work after he was told he was hired. He stated not being

21 called back to work did not feel good to him because he lost fifteen days of work

22 just waiting for an answer and he was concerned about having to pay the bills.

23

To be fired or rejected for hiring because of race is bound to cause some

24 emotional distress. The Court finds that each Plaintiff provided evidence of

25 emotional distress that was caused by Defendant’s actions, and the evidence is

26 legally sufficient to withstand a motion for judgment as a matter of law.

27 6. Whether Plaintiffs Were Required and Failed to Prove They Were
28 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ON PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS AGAINST GROWER DEFENDANTS; ORDER ADDRESSING GLOBAL’S POST-TRIAL MOTIONS ~ 22

1

Entitled to Work in the U.S. Legally

2

Defendants argue that nothing was put forward in the trial to support a claim

3 that Plaintiffs were United States citizens or that they were legally entitled to work

4 in the United States. Defendants argue that the Court should conclude that the

5 plaintiff class representatives are not U.S. citizens and that they are not eligible to

6 work in the United States, and consequently, that Plaintiffs are foreclosed from

7 seeking damages for breach of the labor certification contracts.

8

At trial, Plaintiffs Betancourt and Perez-Farias testified that they were

9 legally authorized to work in 2004 and Plaintiff Sanchez testified that he was a

10 United States citizen. Defendants did not present any evidence to the contrary.

11 Plaintiffs’ testimony is sufficient to establish their right to bring a breach of

12 contract claim under the clearance orders. Any class member that seeks to prove

13 damages at a later proceeding will have to show that they are qualified to work.

14 An illegal alien is not qualified to work under the clearance orders.

15 7. 16

Whether Plaintiffs’ FLCA Claims are Preempted by the H-2A Statutes and Regulations

17

The Global Defendants argue that Plaintiffs are prevented from bringing

18 claims under the AWPA and FLCA because Plaintiffs’ violations are governed by

19 the Immigration Reform and Control Act (“IRCA”) and cannot be privately

20 enforced. In support of their position, the Global Defendants argue that the H-2A

21 statute is the sole remedy available to Plaintiffs for violations of the clearance

22 order; the AWPA does not apply where there is co-employment of domestic and

23 foreign labor, as this type of employment activity is governed exclusively by

24 immigration law; and the state FLCA laws are preempted by federal immigration

25 law.

26

Defendant does not cite any case law with regard to its first argument,

27 namely that the AWPA does not apply in cases involving the H-2A statues and

28 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ON PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS AGAINST GROWER DEFENDANTS; ORDER ADDRESSING GLOBAL’S POST-TRIAL MOTIONS ~ 23

1 regulations. On the contrary, courts have repeatedly found that domestic farm

2 workers who sought employment or were employed by employers using foreign

3 laborers under the H-2A program were entitled to pursue claims for violations of

4 their rights under AWPA. See Malacara v. Garber, 353 F.3d 393 (5th Cir. 2003);

5 Donaldson v. U.S. Dep’t of Labor, 930 F.2d 339, 349-50 (4th Cir. 1991); Vega v.

6 Nourse Farms, 62 F.Supp.2d 334, 346 (D. Mass. 1999); Villalobos v. North

7 Carolina Growers Assoc., Inc., 42 F.Supp.2d 131, 137-8 (D.P.R. 1999); Marquis v.

8 United States Sugar Corp., 652 F.Supp. 598, 600 (S.D. Fla 1987); see also Arriaga

9 v. Florida Pac. Farms, L.L.C., 305 F.3d 1228, 1235 (11th Cir. 2002) (holding that

10 the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) applied to farmworkers who were employed

11 in the United States pursuant to the H-2A program, relying on 20 C.F.R. §

12 6555.103(b), which states that “[d]uring the period for which the temporary alien

13 agricultural labor certification is granted, the employer shall comply with

14 applicable federal, State, and local employment-related laws and regulations.”).

15

The Court finds that the state FLCA is not pre-empted by the H-2A

16 regulations. “Federal preemption occurs when: (1) Congress enacts a statute that

17 explicitly pre-empts state law; (2) state law actually conflicts with federal law; or

18 (3) federal law occupies a legislative field to such an extent that it is reasonable to

19 conclude that Congress left no room for state regulation in that field.” Engine

20 Mfrs. Ass’n v. South Coast Air Quality, 498 F.3d 1031, 1039 (9th Cir. 2007)

21 (citations omitted). “Preemption analysis ‘start[s] with the assumption that the

22 historic police powers of the States were not to be superseded by the Federal Act

23 unless that was the clear and manifest purpose of Congress.’ ” Id. (citations

24 omitted).

25

No provision in IRCA expressly preempts state law providing employment

26 protections to migrant workers. IRCA’s express preemption clause applies only to

27 “any State or local law imposing civil or criminal sanctions” on persons who

28 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ON PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS AGAINST GROWER DEFENDANTS; ORDER ADDRESSING GLOBAL’S POST-TRIAL MOTIONS ~ 24

1 employ or assist in the employment of illegal aliens. 8 U.S.C. § 1324a(h)(2).

2 Defendants have not shown that FLCA conflicts with IRCA. To do so, Defendants

3 must show that compliance with both FLCA and IRCA is physically impossible, or

4 that FLCA stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full

5 congressional purposes of objectives stated in IRCA. Center for Bio-Ethical

6 Reform, Inc. v. City of and County of Honolulu, 455 F3d 910, 916 (9th Cir. 2006).

7 Defendants have not shown that compliance with both FLCA and IRCA is a

8 physically impossibility, nor do the remedies provided in the FLCA stand as a

9 direct and positive obstacle to IRCA’s objectives.

10

Defendants attempt to argue that Congress intended to occupy the field of

11 immigration when it passed the IRCA. The Court agrees that immigration is a field

12 in which the federal interest dominates. However, state labor laws occupy an

13 entirely different field. “Where . . . the field which Congress is said to have pre-

14 empted includes areas that have been traditionally occupied by the States,

15 congressional intent to supersede state laws must be clear and manifest.” English

16 v. Gen. Elec. Co., 496 U.S. 72, 79 (1990). Here, there is not clear intent of

17 Congress to occupy the field of immigration to the exclusion of state regulation of

18 labor and employment of migrant workers. The Court concludes that the IRCA

19 does not preempt Plaintiff’s claim for breach of contract with regard to the

20 clearance orders.

21 ///

22 8. Conclusion

23

The Court finds that there was substantial evidence to support the jury

24 verdict finding racial discrimination by the Global Defendants. The Court also

25 finds that Defendant Mordechai Orian can be held individually liable for racial

26 discrimination, and finds that there was substantial evidence to support the jury

27 verdict finding that he intentionally discriminated against the Plaintiff sub-classes.

28 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ON PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS AGAINST GROWER DEFENDANTS; ORDER ADDRESSING GLOBAL’S POST-TRIAL MOTIONS ~ 25

1 The Court finds that Defendant Orian could not be held individually liable under

2 the FLCA. The Court finds that Plaintiffs presented evidence of emotional distress

3 and declines to disturb the jury’s award of damages for emotional distress. The

4 Court finds that Plaintiff’s FLCA claims are not preempted by the H-2A statutes

5 and regulations.

6

In reviewing the evidence presented at trial, the Court concludes that the

7 Global Defendants did not intentionally discriminate against the Plaintiff sub-

8 classes, which in turn negates any liability on the part of the Grower Defendants.

9

The Court declines to disturb Judge Leavitt’s order on class certification. As

10 such, the judgment entered against the Global Defendants is binding on all class

11 members. In the same light, the Court grants Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend

12 Judgment to include the description of the class members.

13

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

14

1. Defendants’ Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law (Ct. Rec. 701) is

15 DENIED.

16

2. Defendants’ Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law (Ct. Rec. 794) is

17 DENIED.

18

3. Defendants’ Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law (Ct. Rec. 797) is

19 GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part.

20

4. Defendants’ Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law (Ct. Rec. 799) is

21 DENIED.

22

5. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike Global Defendants’ Pleading (Ct. Rec. 820)

23 is DENIED.

24

6. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend Judgment (Ct. Rec. 859) is GRANTED.

25

7. Plaintiffs’ claims of racial discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and

26 the Washington Law Against Discrimination asserted against the Grower

27 Defendants are dismissed with prejudice.

28 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ON PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS AGAINST GROWER DEFENDANTS; ORDER ADDRESSING GLOBAL’S POST-TRIAL MOTIONS ~ 26

1

8. In two weeks from the date of this order, the Judgment entered on

2 October 23, 2007 (Ct. Rec. 767) will be amended to include the following

3 description of the members of the class:

4

Denied Work Subclass: U.S. Resident farm workers who claim they were

5

offered employment, but were not employed by Global Horizons.

6

Green Acre Subclass: U.S. Resident farm workers who were employed with

7

Global Horizons at Green Acre Farms in 2004.

8

Valley Fruit Subclass: U.S. Resident farm workers who were employed with

9

Global Horizons at Valley Fruit Orchards in 2004.

10

9. If any one objects to the wording of the amended judgment, they are

11 directed to file their opposition within 10 days from the date of this order. If no

12 opposition is filed, the Court will amend the Judgment as set forth above.

13

IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Executive is directed to enter this

14 Order and to provide copies to counsel.

15

DATED this 26th day of March, 2008.

16

17

s/Robert H. Whaley

18

ROBERT H. WHALEY Chief United States District Court

19

20

21 Q:\CIVIL\2005\Perez-Farias, et al\ffclmotions.wpd

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ON PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS AGAINST GROWER DEFENDANTS; ORDER ADDRESSING GLOBAL’S POST-TRIAL MOTIONS ~ 27

 
 Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 114 Filed 06/05/06

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

9

JOSE GUADALUPE PEREZ-FARIAS, ) NO. CV-05-3061-MWL

10 et al.,

)

) ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS'

11

Plaintiffs, ) MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY

) AND FOR SANCTIONS

12

vs.

)

)

13 GLOBAL HORIZONS, INC., GREEN )

ACRE FARMS, INC., VALLEY

)

14 FRUIT ORCHARDS, LLC, and

)

PLATTE RIVER INSURANCE

)

15 COMPANY,

)

)

16

Defendants. )

______________________________)

17

Before the Court is Plaintiffs' May 1, 2006 motion to compel

18

discovery from Defendants Green Acre Farms, Inc., ("Green Acre")

19

and Valley Fruit Orchards, LLC, ("Valley Fruit") and request for

20

discovery sanctions. (Ct. Rec. 89). Plaintiffs specifically

21

request that Green Acre and Valley Fruit respond to Plaintiffs'

22

First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production. (Ct.

23

Rec. 89, 93). Plaintiffs additionally ask the Court to order

24

Defendants Green Acre and Valley Fruit, and the attorneys advising

25

Defendants, Ryan M. Edgley and Paul H. Beattie, to pay Plaintiffs'

26

reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees caused by the

27

failure to timely respond to the discovery requests. (Ct. Rec.

28

89, 93).

-1-

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 114 Filed 06/05/06

1

The function of interrogatory requests includes obtaining

2 evidence, information which may lead to evidence and admissions,

3 and to narrow issues to be tried. United States v. West Virginia

4 Pulp and Paper Co., 36 F.R.D. 250, 252 (S.D. N.Y. 1964) (citing

5 United States v. Watchmakers of Switzerland Information Center,

6 Inc., 2 F.R.Serv.2d 33.353, Case 3 (S.D. N.Y. 1959)). The party

7 answering interrogatories must furnish "such information as is

8 available to the party." Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a). Fed. R. Civ. P.

9 33(b)(1) requires an interrogatory to be answered "separately and

10 fully in writing under oath, unless it is objected to, in which

11 event the objecting party shall state the reasons for objection

12 and shall answer to the extent the interrogatory is not

13 objectionable."

14

Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b) requires a written response to a

15 request for production to "state, with respect to each item or

16 category, that inspection and related activities will be permitted

17 as requested, unless the request is objected to, in which event

18 the reasons for the objection shall be stated." A party is

19 obliged to produce all specified relevant and nonprivileged

20 documents or other things which are in its "possession, custody or

21 control" on the date specified in the request. Fed. R. Civ. P.

22 34(a); Norman Rockwell Int'l Corp. v. H. Wolfe Iron & Metal Co.,

23 576 F.Supp. 511, 512 (W.D. Pa. 1983).

24

Pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, if a party

25 fails to answer an interrogatory submitted under Fed. R. Civ. P.

26 33 or fails to respond to a request for production under Fed. R.

27 Civ. P. 34, the party requesting the discovery may apply for an

28 order compelling discovery and for appropriate sanctions. Fed. R.

-2-

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 114 Filed 06/05/06

1 Civ. P. 37(a). Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(4), the party

2 who prevails on a motion to compel is entitled to his or her

3 expenses, including reasonable attorney's fees incurred in making

4 the motion, unless the losing party was substantially justified in

5 making or opposing the motion or other circumstances that make

6 such an award unjust. The burden is on the losing party to

7 affirmatively demonstrate that its position was substantially

8 justified. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(4), Advisory Comm. Notes (1970).

9

Defendants Green Acre and Valley Fruit failed to provide any

10 response by the agreed date for responses, failed to contact

11 Plaintiffs' counsel for additional time to respond and failed to

12 provide a timely response to the instant motion to compel. (Ct.

13 Rec. 90, pp. 3-4). On May 24, 2006, Plaintiffs filed a response

14 to a different motion which indicated that they had still not been

15 provided with complete discovery responses from Defendants Green

16 Acre and Valley Fruit to discovery requests propounded on March 8,

17 2006. (Ct. Rec. 109, pp. 2-3). To date, Defendants Green Acre

18 and Valley Fruit have not provided a response to Plaintiffs'

19 motion to compel or otherwise advised the Court as to their

20 position regarding the motion.

21

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that Green Acre and

22 Valley Fruit must be required to provide full responses to

23 Plaintiffs' First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for

24 Production.

25

By Defendants' failure to respond to the instant motion,

26 Defendants and their attorneys have also failed to show good faith

27 and/or substantial justification for their failure to respond to

28 Plaintiffs' discovery requests. The evidence before the Court is

-3-

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 114 Filed 06/05/06

1 such that Defendants have clearly failed to timely and adequately

2 respond to Plaintiffs' discovery requests. Defendants have had

3 Plaintiffs' discovery requests since March 8, 2006. (Ct. Rec. 90,

4 p. 2). It appears that, to date, Defendants have failed to

5 provide Plaintiffs with essential information in violation of Fed.

6 R. Civ. P. 26, 33 and 34. Accordingly, the Court grants monetary

7 sanctions against Defendants. Accordingly,

8

IT IS ORDERED as follows:

9

1. Plaintiffs' motion to compel discovery responses

10

from Defendants Green Acre and Valley Fruit and for

11

sanctions (Ct. Rec. 89) is GRANTED.

12

2. Defendants Green Acre and Valley Fruit shall

13

provide full responses to Plaintiffs' First Set of

14

Interrogatories and Requests for Production within

15

ten (10) days from the date of this order.

16

3. Defendants Green Acre and Valley Fruit and/or their

17

attorneys, Ryan M. Edgley and Paul H. Beattie,

18

shall pay to Plaintiffs the amount of $400.00 for

19

their expenses incurred in bringing this motion.

20

IT IS SO ORDERED.

21

DATED this 5th day of June, 2006.

22

23

s/Michael W. Leavitt

MICHAEL W. LEAVITT

24

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

25

26

27

28

-4-

 
 Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 190 Filed 11/29/06

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

3

4

JOSE GUADALUPE PEREZ-FARIAS, et al.

) No. 05-CV-3061-MWL )

5

)

Plaintiffs,

)

6 v.

) ) ORDER GRANTING IN PART

7 GLOBAL HORIZONS, INC., GREEN

) PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL ) AND DENYING SANCTIONS

8

ACRE FARMS, INC., VALLEY FRUIT ) ORCHARDS, LLC, and PLATTE RIVER )

9 INSURANCE COMPANY,

) )

10

Defendants.

)

)

11

12 THIS MATTER came before the above-entitled Court on
13 Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel and for Sanctions. Counsel for
14 Defendants’ Valley Fruit and Green Acres advised the Court that
15 all documents requested by Plaintiffs in discovery that are known
16 to exist by the defendants have been produced. After reviewing
17 the files and the records herein, and the Court being fully
18 advised, it is hereby:
19 ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED, that Plaintiffs’ Motion to
20 Compel is GRANTED (Ct. Rec. 173) and Defendants Green Acre and
21 Valley Fruit are ordered as follows:
22 1. Defendants Green Acre and Valley Fruit shall produce
23 copies of the documents identified by representatives of Defendant
24 Valley Fruit and Green Acres at their CR 30(b)(6) depositions
25 which were used to establish production expectations or standards,
26 and furnish the same to counsel for Plaintiffs by no later than
27 5:00 p.m., Friday, December 8, 2006.
28

ORDER - 1

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 190 Filed 11/29/06

1

2. The Court does not find the circumstances of this

2 discovery matter warrants sanctions against defendants Valley

3 Fruit and/or Green Acres, and their attorney. The Court therefore

4 denies Plaintiffs’ motion for sanctions.

5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6

DATED this 28th

day of November, 2006.

7

s/Michael W. Leavitt

MICHAEL W. LEAVITT

8

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER - 2

 
 Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 199 Filed 12/18/06

1

2

3

4

5

6

7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
9

10 JOSE GUADALUPE PEREZ-FARIAS, )

et al.,

)

11

)

Plaintiffs, )

12

)

vs.

)

13

)

GLOBAL HORIZONS, INC., GREEN )

14 ACRE FARMS, INC., VALLEY

)

FRUIT ORCHARDS, LLC, and

)

15 PLATTE RIVER INSURANCE

)

COMPANY,

)

16

)

Defendants. )

17 ______________________________)

NO. CV-05-3061-MWL
ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY

18

Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ November 20, 2006 motion to

19 compel discovery from Defendant Global Horizons, Inc., (“Global”) and

20 request for discovery sanctions. (Ct. Rec. 173).

21

Background

22

In the instant motion, Plaintiffs request that Global be

23 compelled to answer certain interrogatories from Plaintiffs’ First Set

24 of Interrogatories and Requests for Production. (Ct. Rec. 174, p. 2).

25 In this same motion, Plaintiffs additionally ask the Court to order

26 Defendants Green Acre Farms and Valley Fruit Orchards to respond to

27

28

-1-

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 199 Filed 12/18/06

1 discovery requests. (Ct. Rec. 173). On November 28, 2006, at the

2 hearing on the instant motion, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ request

3 with respect to Green Acre Farms and Valley Fruit Orchards and ordered

4 additional briefing from Plaintiffs and Global with respect to the

5 discovery request of Global. (Ct. Rec. 173, 186, 190). Counsel for

6 Plaintiffs and Global were to file additional briefing with the Court

7 no later than December 6, 2006. (Ct. Rec. 186). Plaintiffs filed a

8 timely supplemental memorandum on December 6, 2006. (Ct. Rec. 195). 9 Global filed an untimely memorandum on December 8, 2006.1 (Ct. Rec.

10 196).

11

Legal Standards

12

The function of interrogatory requests includes obtaining

13 evidence, information which may lead to evidence and admissions, and

14 to narrow issues to be tried. United States v. West Virginia Pulp and

15 Paper Co., 36 F.R.D. 250, 252 (S.D. N.Y. 1964) (citing United States

16 v. Watchmakers of Switzerland Information Center, Inc., 2 F.R.Serv.2d

17 33.353, Case 3 (S.D. N.Y. 1959)). The party answering interrogatories

18 must furnish “such information as is available to the party.” Fed. R.

19 Civ. P. 33(a). Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(1) requires an interrogatory to

20 be answered “separately and fully in writing under oath, unless it is

21 ///

22 ///

23

24
1Although it is within this Court’s discretion to impose sanctions, including 25 striking Global’s supplemental brief, for Global’s failure to follow this Court’s
order to file a supplemental brief no later than December 6, 2006, the Court chooses 26 to ignore the untimeliness of Global’s brief on this occasion. However, all counsel
are hereby forewarned that all future pleadings which are improperly or untimely 27 filed with the Court shall be stricken from the record and disregarded by the Court.

28

-2-

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 199 Filed 12/18/06

1 objected to, in which event the objecting party shall state the

2 reasons for objection and shall answer to the extent the interrogatory

3 is not objectionable.”

4

Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b) requires a written response to a request

5 for production to “state, with respect to each item or category, that

6 inspection and related activities will be permitted as requested,

7 unless the request is objected to, in which event the reasons for the

8 objection shall be stated.” A party is obliged to produce all

9 specified relevant and nonprivileged documents or other things which

10 are in its “possession, custody or control” on the date specified in

11 the request. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a); Norman Rockwell Int’l Corp. v. H.

12 Wolfe Iron & Metal Co., 576 F.Supp. 511, 512 (W.D. Pa. 1983).

13

Pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, if a party

14 fails to answer an interrogatory submitted under Fed. R. Civ. P. 33 or

15 fails to respond to a request for production under Fed. R. Civ. P. 34,

16 the party requesting the discovery may apply for an order compelling

17 discovery and for appropriate sanctions. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a).

18 Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(4), the party who prevails on a

19 motion to compel is entitled to his or her expenses, including

20 reasonable attorney’s fees incurred in making the motion, unless the

21 losing party was substantially justified in making or opposing the

22 motion or other circumstances that make such an award unjust. The

23 burden is on the losing party to affirmatively demonstrate that its

24 position was substantially justified. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(4),

25 Advisory Comm. Notes (1970).

26 ///

27

28

-3-

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 199 Filed 12/18/06

1

Analysis

2 1. Plaintiffs’ motion to compel

3

Plaintiffs argue that they are entitled to obtain evidence of

4 past violations in order to assist in calculating damages and to

5 discover whether Global has engaged in a pattern and practice of

6 violating the AWPA. (Ct. Rec. 174, p. 4).

7

Plaintiffs also assert that they are entitled to discover

8 information as to prior race or national origin discrimination suits

9 or agency actions relevant to their § 1981 race and national origin

10 claims and the requested injunctive relief and punitive damages under

11 those claims. (Ct. Rec. 174, p. 5).

12

Plaintiffs’ supplemental briefing argues that, in order for

13 Plaintiffs to obtain an injunction against Global, they must put forth

14 evidence that what happened in Washington in 2004 was not an

15 aberration, but was consistent with Global’s pattern and practice of

16 conducting business throughout the nation. (Ct. Rec. 195, p. 2).

17 Plaintiffs assert that if Global violated labor laws in other states

18 before or after it conducted business in Washington in 2004, that

19 information is relevant to whether Global has a pattern of repeatedly

20 violating the law. Plaintiffs additionally contend that evidence of

21 past business practices may reveal that Global’s alleged unlawful

22 conduct was part of a larger pattern of discrimination. (Ct. Rec.

23 195, p. 4). Plaintiffs also argue that the “existence and frequency”

24 of a defendant’s similar past conduct or prior violations of laws is

25 relevant in determining the amount of punitive damages. (Ct. Rec.

26 195, pp. 5-6); TXO Production Corp. v. Alliance Resources Corp., 509

27

28

-4-

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 199 Filed 12/18/06

1 U.S. 443, 462 (1993); Hopkins v. Dow Corning Corp., 33 F.3d 1116, 1127 2 (9th Cir. 1994). Finally, with respect to their AWPA claims,

3 Plaintiffs assert that the issues of nature and persistence of alleged

4 violations by Global would be relevant in determining the amount of

5 statutory damaged to be awarded for AWPA violations. (Ct. Rec. 195,

6 pp. 7-9).

7

Global responds that they have produced all documents related to

8 violations alleged by the class members, but have objected to the

9 production as it relates to non-class members. (Ct. Rec. 181, pp. 3-

10 4). Global argues that the extent and persistence of violations

11 relating to class members are relevant for damages under the AWPA, but

12 violations relating to non-class members are not. (Ct. Rec. 181, p.

13 4). Global also asserts that Plaintiffs fail to cite to authority for

14 the proposition that unrelated allegations of discrimination by non-

15 class members is properly discoverable. (Ct. Rec. 181, p. 4).

16

Global’s untimely supplemental brief asserts that Plaintiffs have

17 not demonstrated that prior discrimination allegations are relevant to

18 their Section 1981 claims. Other potential violations involving other

19 plaintiffs are not relevant to the inquiry of whether a defendant’s

20 conduct is shown to be motivated by evil motive or intent. (Ct. Rec.

21 196, pp. 2-3). Global argues that prior allegations of discrimination

22 have no connection with this case. Global also reiterates that

23 Plaintiffs are not entitled to documents related to AWPA violations

24 against individuals who are not class members.

25 ///

26 ///

27

28

-5-

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 199 Filed 12/18/06

1

The purpose of discovery is to make trial “less a game of blind

2 man’s bluff and more a fair contest with the basic issues and facts

3 disclosed to the fullest practicable extent possible,” United States

4 v. Procter & Gamble, 356 U.S. 677, 683, 78 S.Ct. 983, 987 (1958), and

5 to narrow and clarify the issues in dispute, Hickman v. Taylor, 329

6 U.S. 495, 501, 67 S.Ct. 385, 388 (1947).

7

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b) establishes the scope of discovery and

8 states in pertinent part:

9

Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not

privileged, that is relevant to the claim or defense of any

10

party, including the existence, description, nature, custody,

condition, and location of any books, documents, or other

11

tangible things and the identity and location of persons having

knowledge of any discoverable matter. For good cause, the court

12

may order discovery of any matter relevant to the subject matter

involved in the action. Relevant information need not be

13

admissible at trial if the discovery appears reasonably

calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

14
“The party who resists discovery has the burden to show that

15
discovery should not be allowed, and has the burden of clarifying,

16
explaining, and supporting its objections.” Oakes v. Halvorsen Marine

17
Ltd., 179 F.R.D 281, 283 (C.D. Cal. 1998); Nestle Foods Corp. v. Aetna

18
Casualty & Surety Co., 135 F.R.D. 101, 104 (D. N.J. 1990).

19
Global has failed in its burden to show that the discovery of

20
documents related to their prior violations of the Migrant and

21
Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act should not be allowed.

22
This information appears to be relevant to Plaintiffs’ claims and is

23
properly discoverable.

24
With respect to allegations of discrimination, the undersigned

25
agrees with Global that prior allegations of discrimination with no

26
relation to any plaintiff in this case is not relevant. Global shall

27

28

-6-

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 199 Filed 12/18/06

1 not be required to produce information about allegations of

2 discrimination involving non-class members.

3 2. Plaintiffs’ request for attorneys’ fees

4

The evidence before the Court is such that the undersigned does

5 not find that sanctions are warranted. Global’s position with respect

6 to Plaintiffs’ discovery requests was substantially justified. See

7 Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(4), Advisory Comm. Notes (1970). Accordingly,

8 the Court denies Plaintiffs’ motion for monetary sanctions against

9 Global.

10

Conclusion

11

Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED as follows:

12

1. Plaintiffs’ motion to compel discovery responses from

Defendant Global Horizons, Inc., (Ct. Rec. 173) is

13

GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

14

2. Defendant Global Horizons, Inc., shall provide

responses to Plaintiffs’ First Set of Interrogatories

15

and Requests for Production with respect to information

regarding prior violations of the Migrant and Seasonal

16

Agricultural Worker Protection Act (“AWPA”) within ten

(10) days from the date of this order.

17
3. Defendant Global Horizons, Inc., shall not be required

18

to produce information with respect to allegations of

race or national origin discrimination pertaining to

19

non-class members.

20

4. Plaintiff’s request that Defendant Global Horizons,

Inc., be required to pay sanctions for the necessity of

21

bringing the underlying motion is DENIED.

22

IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Executive is directed to

23 enter this Order and forward copies to counsel.

24

DATED this 18th day of December, 2006.

25

s/Michael W. Leavitt

26

MICHAEL W. LEAVITT

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

27

28

-7-

 
 Case 2:05-cv-03061-MWL Document 205 Filed 12/28/2006

1

2

3

4

5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

7

JOSE GUADALUPE PEREZ-FARIAS, )

8 et al.,

)

)

9

Plaintiffs, )

)

10

vs.

)

)

11 GLOBAL HORIZONS, INC.,

)

et al.,

)

12

)

Defendants. )

13 ______________________________)

NO. CV-05-3061-MWL
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER

14
On November 22, 2006, Defendants Global Horizons, Inc., Mordechai
15
Orian, Jane Doe Orian and Platte River Insurance Company
16
(“Defendants”) filed a motion for a protective order relating to the
17
deposition of Defendant Mordechai Orian. (Ct. Rec. 183). Plaintiffs
18
filed a response on December 4, 2006. (Ct. Rec. 191). Defendants
19
filed a reply on December 11, 2006. (Ct. Rec. 197). The matter came
20
on for hearing, without oral argument, on December 28, 2006.
21
BACKGROUND
22
On November 13, 2006, Plaintiffs conducted the deposition of
23
Mordechai Orian. During the deposition, counsel for Defendants,
24
Howard Foster, raised objections, instructed his client not to answer
25
and indicated he would be filing a motion for a protective order with
26
respect to two specific areas of inquiry. (Ct. Rec. 184, Exh. A).
27
Defendants subsequently filed a motion for a protective order seeking
28
to prohibit Plaintiffs from inquiring into the recruitment and

-1-

Case 2:05-cv-03061-MWL Document 205 Filed 12/28/2006

1 transportation of H-2A workers from Thailand by Defendants and the

2 lawsuit between Bruce Schwartz and Global Horizons. (Ct. Rec. 184).

3 Plaintiffs responded that the two areas of inquiry were relevant as

4 they were reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible

5 evidence. (Ct. Rec. 191). Defendants replied that the actual

6 information requested by Plaintiffs at the deposition was not relevant

7 to Plaintiffs’ case. (Ct. Rec. 197).

8

DISCUSSION

9

Protective Orders

10

For “good cause shown,” a court may issue a protective order that

11 “discovery may be had only on specified terms and conditions.” Fed.

12 R. Civ. P. 26(c)(2). Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) is a safeguard to protect

13 parties and witnesses in view of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)’s broad

14 discovery rights. United States v. Columbia Broadcasting System,

15 Inc., 666 F.2d 364, 368-369 (9th Cir. 1982). Under Fed. R. Civ. P.

16 26(c), this Court may issue protective orders for persons subject to a

17 subpoena and “for good cause shown . . . may make any order which

18 justice requires to protect a party or person from annoyance,

19 embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense,” including:

20

1. Prohibiting disclosure or discovery;

21

2. Conditioning disclosure or discovery on specified terms;

22

3. Preventing inquiring into certain matters; or

23

4. Limiting the scope of disclosure or discovery to certain

24

matters.

25

To obtain a protective order, the party resisting discovery or

26 seeking limitations must show “good cause” for its issuance. Fed. R.

27 Civ. P. 26(c); Jepson, Inc. v. Makita Elec. Works, Ltd, 30 F.3d 854,

28 858 (7th Cir. 1994). Generally, a party seeking a protective order

-2-

Case 2:05-cv-03061-MWL Document 205 Filed 12/28/2006

1 has a “heavy burden” to show why discovery should be denied and a

2 strong showing is required before a party will be denied the right to

3 take a deposition. Blankenship v. Hearst Corp., 519 F.2d 418, 429

4 (9th Cir. 1975). “If the motion for protective order is denied in

5 whole or in part, the court may, on such terms and conditions as are

6 just, order that any party or other person provide or permit

7 discovery.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c).

8

Analysis

9

Defendants argue that Plaintiffs inquired into two areas which

10 lack relevancy to Plaintiffs’ case; specifically, Global’s recruitment

11 process and the transportation of H-2A workers from Thailand, the

12 subject of a separate pending lawsuit against Global in this Court

13 (Yapunaya et al. v. Global Horizons, Inc., et al., Case No. CV-06-

14 3048-RHW (E.D. Wash. 2006)), and the facts surrounding a lawsuit

15 between Global and Bruce Schwartz, a former employee. (Ct. Rec. 184,

16 pp. 2-3).

17

Defendants assert that Plaintiffs’ case concerns allegations that

18 Defendants did not follow written employment agreements between itself

19 and the class members, as well as allegations that Global terminated

20 employees based on discriminatory reasons. Defendants contend that

21 Global’s recruitment process of H-2A workers (non-parties in this

22 case) does not relate to Plaintiffs’ allegations in the instant case.

23 With regard to the Schwartz lawsuit, Defendants assert that the case

24 between Schwartz and Global concerns unfair competition and has

25 nothing to do with violations of state or federal discrimination laws

26 or agricultural worker protection acts. (Ct. Rec. 184). For these

27 reasons, Defendants requested that the Court issue a protective order

28 preventing Plaintiffs from inquiring into these areas.

-3-

Case 2:05-cv-03061-MWL Document 205 Filed 12/28/2006

1

Plaintiffs respond that inquiry regarding Defendants’ recruitment

2 process of H-2A workers from Thailand is material since it could lead

3 to information demonstrating that Defendants intended to hire H-2A

4 workers from Thailand rather than Plaintiffs, information directly

5 relevant to a cause of action in their complaint. (Ct. Rec. 191, p.

6 2). Plaintiffs argue that inquiry into the recruitment process of H-

7 2A Thai workers could establish that Defendants had no intention of

8 offering employment to Plaintiffs because it planned on using workers

9 from Thailand.

10

With regard to the Schwartz litigation, Plaintiffs contend that

11 just because the causes of action in that case may be different from

12 the claims alleged in the instant case, it does not mean that

13 information related to Mr. Schwartz is not relevant to this case.

14 (Ct. Rec. 191, pp. 3-4). Regardless of the difference between the

15 causes of action in the two cases, Plaintiffs assert that inquiry into

16 the Global-Schwartz relationship, and their activities in the state of

17 Washington, could lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. It is

18 apparent that the two lawsuits share similar underlying facts;

19 therefore, inquiry could potentially lead to relevant information.

20

Defendants reply that Plaintiffs did not request information

21 relating to Global’s “hiring intent” during the deposition, but

22 focused instead on the recruitment process which is not a relevant

23 subject in the instant case. (Ct. Rec. 197). Defendants argue that

24 Plaintiffs should not be permitted to inquire into the Schwartz

25 litigation but rather may simply inquire into the role Schwartz had in

26 dealing with certain state and federal regulations while employed at

27 Global. (Ct. Rec. 197).

28 ///

-4-

Case 2:05-cv-03061-MWL Document 205 Filed 12/28/2006

1

Defendants, as the party seeking to obtain the protective

2 order, must show “good cause” for its issuance. Fed. R. Civ. P.

3 26(c); Jepson, 30 F.3d at 858. As the party seeking the protective

4 order, Defendants have a “heavy burden” to show why discovery should

5 be limited, and a strong showing is required before the Court will

6 deny Plaintiffs’ privilege to inquire into the areas of which

7 Defendants object. Blankenship, 519 F.2d at 429. For good cause

8 shown, this Court may issue a protective order to protect a party from

9 annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense.

10 Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c).

11

The undersigned agrees with Plaintiffs that inquiry into the two

12 questioned areas could very well lead to admissible evidence. If the

13 discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of

14 admissible evidence, the information is deemed relevant and

15 discoverable. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b). The undersigned thus finds that

16 Defendants have failed to satisfy their burden of demonstrating good

17 cause for the issuance of a protective order to prohibit Plaintiffs

18 from inquiring into Global’s recruitment process of H-2A workers from

19 Thailand and information related to Bruce Schwartz.

20

CONCLUSION

21

Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES Defendants’ motion for a

22 protective order. (Ct. Rec. 183).

23

By denying this motion for a protective order, the Court agrees

24 with Plaintiffs’ position that these areas of inquiry are relevant and

25 that the requested discovery is permissible.

26 ///

27 ///

28 ///

-5-

Case 2:05-cv-03061-MWL Document 205 Filed 12/28/2006

1

IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Executive is directed to

2 enter this order and forward copies to counsel for Plaintiffs and

3 Defendants.

4
DATED this 28th day of December, 2006.
5

6

S/ Michael W. Leavitt

7

MICHAEL W. LEAVITT

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-6-

 
 Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 233 Filed 02/08/07

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

9

JOSE GUADALUPE PEREZ-FARIAS, ) NO. CV-05-3061-MWL

10 et al.,

)

) ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’

11

Plaintiffs, ) MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY

) AND FOR SANCTIONS

12

vs.

)

)

13 GLOBAL HORIZONS, INC., GREEN )

ACRE FARMS, INC., VALLEY

)

14 FRUIT ORCHARDS, LLC, and

)

PLATTE RIVER INSURANCE

)

15 COMPANY,

)

)

16

Defendants. )

______________________________)

17

Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ January 31, 2007 motion to

18

compel discovery from Defendants Green Acre Farms, Inc., (“Green

19

Acre”) and Valley Fruit Orchards, LLC, (“Valley Fruit”) and

20

request for discovery sanctions. (Ct. Rec. 223). Plaintiffs

21

specifically request that Green Acre and Valley Fruit produce

22

answers and documents in response to Plaintiffs’ Second Set of

23

Interrogatories and Requests for Production. (Ct. Rec. 224).

24

Plaintiffs further request that this Court order Defendants Green

25

Acre and Valley Fruit to produce documents identified at the

26

January 17, 2007 deposition of John Verbrugge as well as documents

27

identified at the January 25, 2007 Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6)

28

deposition of Zirkle Fruit. (Ct. Rec. 224). Plaintiffs

-1-

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 233 Filed 02/08/07

1 additionally ask the Court to order Defendants Green Acre and

2 Valley Fruit, and/or the attorney advising Defendants, Ryan M.

3 Edgley, to pay Plaintiffs’ reasonable expenses, including

4 attorney’s fees, caused by the failure to timely respond to

5 Plaintiffs’ discovery requests. (Ct. Rec. 224).

6

Pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, if a party

7 fails to answer an interrogatory submitted under Fed. R. Civ. P.

8 33 or fails to respond to a request for production under Fed. R.

9 Civ. P. 34, the party requesting the discovery may apply for an

10 order compelling discovery and for appropriate sanctions. Fed. R.

11 Civ. P. 37(a). Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(4), the party

12 who prevails on a motion to compel is entitled to his or her

13 expenses, including reasonable attorney’s fees, incurred in making

14 the motion, unless the losing party was substantially justified in

15 making or opposing the motion or other circumstances that make

16 such an award unjust. The burden is on the losing party to

17 affirmatively demonstrate that its position was substantially

18 justified. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(4), Advisory Comm. Notes (1970).

19

Defendants Green Acre and Valley Fruit have failed to timely

20 provide any response to Plaintiffs’ discovery requests, failed to

21 contact Plaintiffs’ counsel to request additional time to respond

22 and failed to provide a response to the instant motion to compel.

23 To date, Defendants Green Acre and Valley Fruit have not provided

24 a response to Plaintiffs’ motion to compel or otherwise advised

25 the Court as to their position regarding this motion.

26

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that Green Acre and

27 Valley Fruit must be required to provide full responses to

28 Plaintiffs’ Second Set of Interrogatories and Requests for

-2-

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 233 Filed 02/08/07

1 Production. Since no response in opposition was received from

2 Defendants, Plaintiffs are additionally entitled to the requested

3 discovery of the documents identified at the January 17, 2007

4 deposition of John Verbrugge, as well as documents identified at

5 the January 25, 2007 Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) deposition of Zirkle

6 Fruit.

7

Furthermore, by Defendants’ failure to respond to the instant

8 motion, Defendants and their attorney have also failed to show

9 good faith and/or substantial justification for their failure to

10 respond to Plaintiffs’ discovery requests. The evidence before

11 the Court is such that Defendants have failed to timely and

12 adequately respond to Plaintiffs’ discovery requests. Defendants

13 have failed to provide Plaintiffs with essential information in

14 violation of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26, 33 and 34. Defendants have

15 failed to file anything in response to Plaintiffs’ motion

16 regarding these discovery requests. Accordingly, the Court

17 further grants monetary sanctions against Defendants.

18

On June 6th, 2006, in the underlying lawsuit, the Court

19 previous ordered sanctions in the amount of $400.00 against

20 Defendants Green Acre and Valley Fruit and/or their attorneys for

21 their failure to timely respond to Plaintiffs’ discovery requests.

22 (Ct. Rec. 114). On that occasion, Defendants also failed to file

23 a response to Plaintiffs’ motion to compel or otherwise contact

24 the Court with respect to Plaintiffs’ motion. This is the second

25 occasion that Court intervention has become necessary for the same

26 type of issue, and the Court finds that monetary sanctions are

27 again warranted.

28 ///

-3-

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 233 Filed 02/08/07

1

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED as follows:

2

1. Plaintiffs’ motion to compel discovery responses from

3 Defendants Green Acre and Valley Fruit and for sanctions (Ct. Rec.

4 223) is GRANTED.

5

2. Defendants Green Acre and Valley Fruit shall provide

6 full responses to Plaintiffs’ Second Set of Interrogatories and

7 Requests for Production within five (5) calendar days from the

8 date of this order.

9

3. Defendants Green Acre and Valley Fruit shall also

10 produce the documents identified at the January 17, 2007

11 deposition of John Verbrugge, as well as the documents identified

12 at the January 25, 2007 Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) deposition of

13 Zirkle Fruit within five (5) calendar days from the date of this

14 order.

15

4. Defendants Green Acre and Valley Fruit and/or their

16 attorney, Ryan M. Edgley, shall pay to Plaintiffs the amount of

17 $500.00 for their expenses incurred in bringing this motion.

18

IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Executive is directed

19 to file this Order and provide copies to counsel for Plaintiffs

20 and Defendants.

21 DATED this 8th day of February, 2007.
22

23

s/Michael W. Leavitt

24

MICHAEL W. LEAVITT

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

25

26

27

28

-4-

 
 Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 274 Filed 03/12/07

1

2

3

4

5

6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

8

JOSE GUADALUPE PEREZ-FARIAS, )

9 et al.,

)

)

10

Plaintiffs, )

)

11

vs.

)

)

12 GLOBAL HORIZONS, INC., et

)

al.,

)

13

)

Defendants. )

14 ______________________________)

NO. CV-05-3061-MWL
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY AND FOR SANCTIONS

15

Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ February 23, 2007 motion to

16 compel discovery from Defendant Global Horizons, Inc.

17 (“Defendant”) and request for discovery sanctions. (Ct. Rec.

18 245). Plaintiffs specifically request that Defendant respond to

19 Plaintiffs’ Third Set of Requests for Production #11 and #12 and

20 Plaintiffs’ Fourth Set of Requests for Production #6; Defendant’s

21 objections to the deposition of James S. Holt be found without

22 merit; and Defendant be required to produce documents pertaining

23 to Mr. Holt’s dealings with Defendant. (Ct. Rec. 245).

24 Plaintiffs additionally ask the Court to order Defendant, and the

25 attorney advising Defendant, Howard Foster, to pay Plaintiffs’

26 reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, in connection with

27 this motion to compel. (Ct. Rec. 245).

28 ///

-1-

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 274 Filed 03/12/07

1

The instant motion was noted for hearing on an expedited

2 basis and without oral argument on March 9, 2007. (Ct. Rec. 254).

3 Defendant was permitted to submit a response to Plaintiffs’ motion

4 on or before the close of business on March 8, 2007. (Ct. Rec.

5 254). Defendant failed to timely provide any response to

6 Plaintiffs’ motion. Defendant has not provided a response to

7 Plaintiffs’ motion to compel or otherwise advised the Court as to

8 their position regarding this motion.

9

Local Rule 7.1(h)(5) holds that “[a] failure to timely file a

10 memorandum of points and authorities in support of or in

11 opposition to any motion may be considered by the Court as consent

12 on the part of the party failing to file such memorandum to the

13 entry of an Order adverse to the party in default.” Accordingly,

14 the undersigned finds that Defendant has acquiesced to the entry

15 of an order granting Plaintiffs’ motion.

16

The Court therefore finds that Defendant must be required to

17 provide full production of documents in response to Plaintiffs’

18 Third Set of Requests for Production #11 and #12 and Plaintiffs’

19 Fourth Set of Requests for Production #6. Since no response in

20 opposition was received by the Court, Defendant’s objections to

21 the deposition of Mr. Holt are deemed without merit. Plaintiffs

22 are additionally entitled to obtain the requested documents

23 identified in Plaintiffs’ motion to compel which pertain to Mr.

24 Holt.

25

Moreover, by Defendant’s failure to respond to the instant

26 motion, Defendant and its attorney have also failed to show good

27 faith and/or substantial justification for the failure to provide

28 discovery to Plaintiffs. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(4),

-2-

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 274 Filed 03/12/07

1 the party who prevails on a motion to compel is entitled to his or

2 her expenses, including reasonable attorney’s fees, incurred in

3 making the motion, unless the losing party was substantially

4 justified in making or opposing the motion or other circumstances

5 that make such an award unjust. The burden is on the losing party

6 to affirmatively demonstrate that its position was substantially

7 justified. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(4), Advisory Comm. Notes (1970).

8 Defendant has failed to file anything in response to Plaintiffs’

9 motion regarding Plaintiffs’ discovery requests. Accordingly, the

10 Court further grants monetary sanctions against Defendant.

11

On June 6, 2006, the Court ordered sanctions in the amount of

12 $400.00 against Defendants Green Acre and Valley Fruit and/or

13 their attorneys for their failure to timely respond to Plaintiffs’

14 discovery requests. (Ct. Rec. 114). On that occasion, the co-

15 defendants also failed to file a response to Plaintiffs’ motion to

16 compel or otherwise contact the Court with respect to Plaintiffs’

17 motion. A second occurrence by these co-defendants warranted

18 sanctions in the amount $500.00 on February 8, 2007. (Ct. Rec.

19 233).

20

Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED as follows:

21

1. Plaintiffs’ motion to compel discovery responses from

22 Defendant Global Horizons, Inc., and for sanctions (Ct. Rec. 245)

23 is GRANTED.

24

2. Defendant Global Horizons, Inc. shall produce all

25 documents requested in Plaintiffs’ Third Set of Requests for

26 Production #11 and #12 and Plaintiffs’ Fourth Set of Requests for

27 Production #6 within five (5) calendar days from the date of this

28 order.

-3-

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 274 Filed 03/12/07

1

3. Defendant’s objections to producing James S. Holt for

2 deposition are deemed without merit as a result of Defendant’s

3 failure to timely respond to the instant motion.

4

4. Defendant Global Horizons, Inc. shall also produce all

5 documents sought by Plaintiffs and identified in Plaintiff’s most

6 recent motion to compel (Ct. Rec. 245, pp. 2-3) within five (5)

7 calendar days from the date of this order. Specifically,

8 Defendant shall provide the following:

9

a. All memorandum or other documents prepared by James

S. Holt regarding the agricultural labor shortage

10

in Washington State in 2004.

11

b. All written training materials produced for and/or

provided to Global Horizons, Inc. and/or its

12

employees related to Global’s use of the H-2A

program by James S. Holt.

13

c. All written manuals produced for and/or provided to

14

Global for use by its employees by James S. Holt

related to Global’s H-2A business operations

15

including, but not limited to, recruitment,

application and interview process, hiring,

16

progressive discipline process and all other

aspects of the business operations.

17

d. All written memorandum provided to Global by James

18

S. Holt related to its business practices

including, but not limited to, the Migrant and

19

Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act, the

Social Security Number Verification process, and/or

20

the recruitment or employment of agricultural

workers.

21

e. All correspondence including, but not limited to,

22

letters, e-mails, and facsimiles, that relates to

the documents referenced above and to Global’s

23

business practices in Washington State in 2003 and

2004 between James S. Holt and Global.

24

f. All contracts for services between James S. Holt

25

and Global from 2002 through 2004.

26 ///

27 ///

28 ///

-4-

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 274 Filed 03/12/07

1

5. Defendant Global Horizons, Inc. shall pay to Plaintiffs

2 the amount of $400.00 for Plaintiffs’ expenses incurred in

3 bringing the instant motion.

4

IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Executive is directed

5 to file this Order and provide copies to counsel for Plaintiffs

6 and Defendants.

7 DATED this 12th day of March, 2007.
8

9

s/Michael W. Leavitt

10

MICHAEL W. LEAVITT

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-5-

 
 Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 298 Filed 03/20/07

1

2

3

4

5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

7

JOSE GUADALUPE PEREZ-FARIAS, )

8 et al.,

)

)

9

Plaintiffs, )

)

10

vs.

)

)

11 GLOBAL HORIZONS, INC., et

)

al.,

)

12

)

Defendants. )

13 ______________________________)

NO. CV-05-3061-MWL
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY AND FOR SANCTIONS

14

Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ March 8, 2007 motion to

15 compel discovery from Defendant Global Horizons, Inc.

16 (“Defendant”) and request for discovery sanctions. (Ct. Rec.

17 266). Plaintiffs specifically ask for the following production of

18 documents:

19

1. Supplement their answer and responses to Plaintiffs’

First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production,

20

Interrogatory No. 1 and Request for Production No. 1 and

include in their response all agency charges, actions,

21

notices of violation or any civil suits related to violations

of the AWPA and H-2A regulations, regardless of whether any

22

charge, action, notice or violation of civil suit has been

appealed or not reached final judgment.

23

2. Produce all documents in response to Plaintiffs’

24

Second Set of Interrogatories and Third Request for

Production, Request for Production No. 17 including all

25

documents and statements made in the course of the DOL

investigation and resulting proceedings related to Taft Farm.

26

3. Produce the documents requested in Plaintiffs’

27

Fourth Request for Production No. 15 in the format requested

by Plaintiffs with all information regarding applicants and

28

employees in Washington State intact.

-1-

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 298 Filed 03/20/07

1

4. Produce the documents requested in Plaintiffs’

Second Set of Interrogatories and Third Requests for

2

Production, Requests for Production Nos. 4 and 5 and

Plaintiffs’ Fourth Request for Production No. 2 involving

3

requests for communication between Defendants and Bruce

Schwartz and Amnon Gonnene as well as all email related to

4

the allegations or defenses in this action. The documents

requested by Plaintiffs in their Third Request for

5

Production, Requests for Production No. 7 shall be included

as email related to the allegations or defenses in this

6

action.

7

5. Produce the documents requested in Plaintiffs’

Second Set of Interrogatories and Third Request for

8

Production, Request for Production No. 13 involving requests

for Defendant Global’s phone records from November 1, 2003,

9

through July 30, 2004.

10

6. Produce the documents requested in Plaintiffs’

Second Set of Interrogatories and Third Requests for

11

Production, Request for Production Nos. 8 and 9 and

Plaintiffs’ Fourth Request for Production No. 7 involving

12

requests for recruitment of H-2A workers.

13

7. Produce the documents requested in Plaintiffs’

Second Set of Interrogatories and Third Requests for

14

Production, Request for Production Nos. 6 and 14, and

Plaintiffs’ Fourth Request for Production No. 14, 17 and 21.

15

8. Produce the document identified in the 30(b)(6)

16

deposition of Global, a spreadsheet summarizing time card

information for U.S. Resident Workers and H-2A Workers in

17

Washington State in 2004 in its electronic and native format.

18 (Ct. Rec. 266-2). In addition to requesting that Defendant be

19 ordered to respond to Plaintiffs’ discovery requests, Plaintiffs’

20 ask the Court to order Defendant, and the attorney advising

21 Defendant, Howard Foster, to pay Plaintiffs’ reasonable expenses,

22 including attorney’s fees, in connection with this motion to

23 compel. (Ct. Rec. 266).

24

The instant motion was noted for hearing on an expedited

25 basis and without oral argument on March 16, 2007. (Ct. Rec.

26 270). Defendant was permitted to submit a response to Plaintiffs’

27 motion on or before the close of business on March 15, 2007. (Ct.

28 Rec. 270). Defendant failed to timely provide any response to

-2-

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 298 Filed 03/20/07

1 Plaintiffs’ motion. Defendant has not provided a response to

2 Plaintiffs’ motion to compel or otherwise advised the Court as to

3 their position regarding this motion. Plaintiffs filed a

4 declaration on March 15, 2007, which indicated that Defendant has

5 not provided any additional documents in response to their

6 discovery requests or this motion to compel. (Ct. Rec. 278).

7

Local Rule 7.1(h)(5) holds that “[a] failure to timely file a

8 memorandum of points and authorities in support of or in

9 opposition to any motion may be considered by the Court as consent

10 on the part of the party failing to file such memorandum to the

11 entry of an Order adverse to the party in default.” Accordingly,

12 the undersigned finds that Defendant has agreed to the entry of an

13 order granting Plaintiffs’ motion.

14

Based on Defendant’s failure to respond, and apparent consent

15 to the entry of an order adverse to their position, the Court

16 finds that Defendant must be required to provide responses to

17 Plaintiffs’ requests for production.

18

Plaintiffs’ Requests

19 1. Violations of AWPA and H-2A Information

20

Plaintiffs argue that Defendants have failed to provide

21 discovery in violation of Court Orders. (Ct. Rec. 267, pp. 3-5).

22

The Court’s December 18, 2005 order directed Global to

23 provide responses to Plaintiffs’ requests regarding prior

24 violations of AWPA. (Ct. Rec. 199). Global apparently provided

25 documents to Plaintiffs which evidence two instances of past

26 violations. (Ct. Rec. 267, p. 4).

27 ///

28 ///

-3-

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 298 Filed 03/20/07

1

The Court’s February 13, 2007 order addressed Defendants’

2 motion for a protective order. (Ct. Rec. 241). The Court denied

3 the motion for a protective order, indicating that discovery of

4 Defendants’ H-2A violations, as related to Plaintiffs’ claims,

5 would not be prohibited. (Ct. Rec. 241, p. 6). However, contrary

6 to Plaintiffs’ argument in the instant motion (Ct. Rec. 267, p.

7 4), the Court did not direct Defendants to respond in any

8 particular manner following the February 13, 2007 order. (Ct.

9 Rec. 241).

10

Nevertheless, since no response in opposition was received by

11 the Court, the Court finds that Defendant is compelled, as

12 requested by Plaintiffs, to supplement their responses and include

13 all agency charges, actions, notices of violation or any civil

14 suits related to violations of the AWPA and H-2A regulations,

15 regardless of whether any charge, action, notice or violation of

16 civil suit has been appealed or not reached final judgment, if

17 such information exists and was not previously provided to

18 Plaintiffs.1

19 2. ACT Database

20

Plaintiffs have requested that Defendant produce its ACT

21 database. (Ct. Rec. 267, pp. 5-7). The ACT database was used by

22 Global to track information related to U.S. Resident Workers in

23 2004. Instead of producing the ACT database in its native format,

24 Defendant produced an Excel spreadsheet of the material in the

25 database. (Ct. Rec. 267, p. 5). Plaintiffs assert that the

26 spreadsheet is inadequate. Having received no opposition from

27

1This finding does not change or dissipate any prior order of the Court

28

with respect to previous discovery issues. All prior orders of this Court

remain in full force and effect.

-4-

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 298 Filed 03/20/07

1 Defendant with regard to the instant motion, the Court finds that

2 Defendant is compelled to produce the ACT database in its native

3 format.

4 3. Promised Production

5

Plaintiffs assert that Defendants have promised to produce

6 all email between Defendants and Bruce Schwartz, email between

7 Defendants and Amnon Gonnene, a recruiter of H-2A workers in 2003

8 and 2004, and all email relevant to this litigation. (Ct. Rec.

9 267, p. 8). There being no response or opposition filed by

10 Defendant, the Court again considers the matter consented to and

11 orders that Defendant produce this information.

12 4. Other Documents

13

Plaintiffs contend that Defendants have also refused to

14 produce phone records from November 1, 2003 through July 30, 2004,

15 a package related to recruiting identified by Mr. Orian, H-2A

16 employee agreements, and the recruitment criteria used by

17 Defendants. (Ct. Rec. 267, pp. 8-9). There being no opposition

18 from Defendant, the Court also orders that Defendant produce this

19 information.

20 5. Agreed Production Not Yet Produced

21

Plaintiffs assert that Defendants have agreed to produce or

22 responded that they “will endeavor” to produce the following

23 documents: the power of attorney with Amnon Gonnene, all

24 communications with Washington State regarding Defendants’ Farm

25 Labor Contractor’s License in 2003 and 2004, all communication

26 with the Social Security Administration regarding class members,

27 all notes prepared by a former Global employee, Maria Ramirez, in

28 2003 and 2004, records of when Global translated Clearance Orders

-5-

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 298 Filed 03/20/07

1 that were certified in Washington State in 2004, and an Excel

2 spreadsheet summarizing time card information for U.S. Resident

3 workers and H-2A workers in Washington State in 2004. (Ct. Rec.

4 267, pp. 9-10). Plaintiffs’ March 15, 2007 declaration indicates

5 that Defendants have still not produced these items. (Ct. Rec.

6 278). Again, since no response in opposition was filed by

7 Defendants, the Court orders that Defendant provide this

8 information to Plaintiffs.

9

Sanctions

10

It is perplexing to this Court why Defendants made no

11 response of any nature to this motion. According to Plaintiffs’

12 motion, Defendants had even previously agreed to produce several

13 of the items which are the subject of this motion but ultimately

14 failed to do so. Defendants have failed to show good faith and/or

15 substantial justification for the failure to provide discovery to

16 Plaintiffs. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(4), the party who

17 prevails on a motion to compel is entitled to his or her expenses,

18 including reasonable attorney’s fees, incurred in making the

19 motion, unless the losing party was substantially justified in

20 making or opposing the motion or other circumstances that make

21 such an award unjust. The burden is on the losing party to

22 affirmatively demonstrate that its position was substantially

23 justified. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(4), Advisory Comm. Notes (1970).

24 Defendant has failed to file anything in response to Plaintiffs’

25 motion regarding Plaintiffs’ discovery requests. Accordingly, the

26 Court further grants monetary sanctions against Defendant.

27 ///

28 ///

-6-

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 298 Filed 03/20/07

1

On March 12, 2007, the Court ordered sanctions in the amount

2 of $400.00 against Defendant Global Horizons, Inc., for its

3 failure to timely respond to Plaintiffs’ motion to compel. (Ct.

4 Rec. 274). In this instance, Defendant again failed to respond in

5 any manner to Plaintiffs’ motion to compel. This repeat

6 occurrence, just days following the Court’s order of sanctions for

7 the same conduct, warrants sanctions of $600.00 to be imposed

8 against Defendant Global Horizons, Inc.

9

Conclusion

10

Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED as follows:

11

1. Plaintiffs’ motion to compel discovery responses from

12 Defendant Global Horizons, Inc., and for sanctions (Ct. Rec. 266)

13 is GRANTED.

14

2. Defendant Global Horizons, Inc. shall produce all

15 documents, as outlined in the body of this order, within five (5)

16 calendar days from the date of this order.

17

3. Defendant Global Horizons, Inc. shall pay to Plaintiffs

18 sanctions in the amount of $600.00.

19

IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Executive is directed

20 to file this Order and provide copies to counsel for Plaintiffs

21 and Defendants.

22 DATED this 20th day of March, 2007.
23

24

s/Michael W. Leavitt

25

MICHAEL W. LEAVITT

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

26

27

28

-7-

 
 Case 2:05-cv-03061-MWL Document 351 Filed 03/30/2007

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

10

11

JOSE GUADALUPE PEREZ-FARIAS, et al.

12

Plaintiffs,

13 v.

14 GLOBAL HORIZONS, INC., et al.,

15

Defendants.

16

) No. CV-05-3061-MWL ) ) ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ ) MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM ORDER ) ) ) ) ) )

17

Before the Court is Defendants’ motion, pursuant to Fed. R.

18 Civ. P. 60(b), for relief from this Court’s orders and for

19 sanctions. (Ct. Rec. 340).

20 I. BACKGROUND

21

On March 12, 2007, the Court ordered Defendant Global to

22 produce all documents requested in Plaintiffs’ Third Set of

23 Requests for Production #11 and #12 and Plaintiffs’ Fourth Set of

24 Requests for Production #6, as well as all documents sought by and

25 identified in Plaintiffs’ motion to compel pertaining to Mr. Holt

26 (Ct. Rec. 245, pp. 2-3) within five (5) calendar days. (Ct. Rec.

27 274).

28 ///

ORDER - 1

Case 2:05-cv-03061-MWL Document 351 Filed 03/30/2007

1

On March 27, 2007, the Court denied Plaintiffs’ motion for

2 contempt and gave Defendants additional time to comply with this

3 Court’s March 12, 2007 order. (Ct. Rec. 329). The Court noted,

4 however, that Plaintiffs’ motion for contempt (Ct. Rec. 301) was

5 in no way inappropriate, frivolous or sanctionable. (Ct. Rec.

6 329, p. 2, n. 1).

7

On March 20, 2007, the Court issued an order granting

8 Plaintiffs’ March 8, 2007 motion to compel. (Ct. Rec. 298).

9 Defendants, again, failed to file any response to Plaintiffs’

10 motion to compel (Ct. Rec. 266). The Court ordered Defendants to

11 produce the requested discovery within five calendar days. (Ct.

12 Rec. 298).

13

Prior to the deadline for Defendants’ to comply with the

14 Court’s March 12, 2007 order (Ct. Rec. 329), Defendants filed

15 their Motion For Relief From Default Orders pursuant to Fed. R.

16 Civ. P. 60(b)(1) and (6) and for sanctions. (Ct. Rec. 340). On

17 March 29, 2007, Defendants filed a supplemental declaration

18 indicating that Plaintiffs should additionally be sanctioned for

19 failing to comply with the Local Rules’ “meet and confer”

20 requirements. (Ct. Rec. 345). Plaintiffs’ filed an opposition on

21 March 29, 2007. (Ct. Rec. 346-348).

22 II. DISCUSSION

23

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) provides in relevant part:

24

On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may

relieve a party or a party’s legal representative from a

25

final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following

reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable

26

neglect; . . . or (6) any other reason justifying relief from

the operation of the judgment. The motion shall be made

27

within a reasonable time, and for reasons (1), (2), and (3)

not more than one year after the judgment, order, or

28

proceeding was entered or taken.

ORDER - 2

Case 2:05-cv-03061-MWL Document 351 Filed 03/30/2007

1

A. 60(b)(1)- Excusable Neglect

2

“At least for purposes of Rule 60(b), ‘excusable neglect’ is

3 understood to encompass situations in which the failure to comply

4 with a filing deadline is attributable to negligence.” Pioneer

5 Investment Services Co. v. Brunswick Associates Ltd. Partnership,

6 507 U.S. 380, 394, 113 S.Ct. 1489, 1497 (1993). There is no

7 “neglect” where a party’s failure to respond is due to matters

8 entirely beyond its control. The “inability to comply with

9 earlier deadlines [takes] the case outside the scope of ‘excusable

10 neglect’ because ‘neglect’ in the context of its subject matter

11 carries the idea of negligence and not merely of non-action.” Id.

12

Defendants do not assert they were unable to comply with the

13 deadlines for filing responses because of any “neglect” on their

14 part. Defendants assert that they placed their case, and their

15 responsibility to timely file responses, in the hands of their

16 previous attorney, Mr. Foster, and, as a result of Mr. Foster’s

17 neglect or carelessness, the necessary responses were not filed.

18 (Ct. Rec. 342). Defendants, however, present nothing indicating

19 that neglect on Mr. Foster’s part was somehow “excusable.” In

20 fact, Defendants assert that Mr. Foster failed to take care of

21 these matters despite being told to “not let anything he was

22 working on drop while Mr. Shiner was getting into the cases.”

23 (Ct. Rec. 344, p. 3).

24

Accordingly, Rule 60(b)(1) has no application here because:

25 1) Defendants do not acknowledge any neglect on their part; and

26 2) there is no evidence that the conduct of Mr. Foster amounted to

27 “excusable neglect.”

28 ///

ORDER - 3

Case 2:05-cv-03061-MWL Document 351 Filed 03/30/2007

1

B. 60(b)(6) - Any Other Reason Justifying Relief

2

Rule 60(b)(6) is a catch-all ground for relief. It gives the

3 Court the power to set aside orders whenever extraordinary

4 circumstances exist making relief necessary to accomplish justice.

5 United States v. Alpine Land & Reservoir Co., 984 F.2d 1047, 1049

6 (9th Cir. 1993). The Rule 60(b)(6) catch-all is for reasons other

7 than those listed in the preceding five clauses of the Rule. In

8 other words, 60(b)(6) and 60(b)(1) are mutually exclusive.

9 Pioneer Investment Services Co., 507 U.S. at 393. To justify

10 relief under 60(b)(6), a party must show “extraordinary

11 circumstances” suggesting the party is faultless in the delay

12 because circumstances beyond its control prevented it from taking

13 timely action to protect its interests. Id.

14

At all times relevant to this motion, Defendants have been

15 represented by counsel. It is clear from the pleadings that

16 Defendants and all counsel were fully aware of their obligations

17 with respect to pending discovery disputes. Defendant Mordechai

18 Orian’s declaration indicates that he learned of this Court’s

19 order compelling discovery on approximately March 12, 2007, and

20 again on March 20, 2007 (Ct. Rec. 344, p. 3) and Defendants’

21 counsel indicates in a March 7, 2007 letter to opposing counsel

22 that he was aware of their preparation of a motion to compel based

23 upon document production (Ct. Rec. 343-3). Numerous emails

24 provided by Defendants indicate their continuing awareness of

25 Plaintiffs’ motions to compel and this Court’s rulings thereon.

26 (Ct. Rec. 343-2). Yet, Defendants filed no response to pending

27 motions and filed nothing with the Court to request relief from

28 ///

ORDER - 4

Case 2:05-cv-03061-MWL Document 351 Filed 03/30/2007

1 deadlines to respond to motions to compel or from deadlines

2 imposed as a result of this Court’s rulings on those motions. In

3 fact, although Defendants’ counsel has promised since early March

4 that a motion for reconsideration would be forthcoming (Ct. Rec.

5 343-2, p. 9), the instant motion was not filed until March 28, 6 2007.1 In the interim, and despite being aware of this Court’s

7 orders with respect to discovery and pending discovery motions,

8 Defendants’ counsel has prepared and filed various pleadings

9 regarding other issues.

10

Based on the foregoing, the Court is compelled to find that

11 Defendants and counsel for Defendants had knowledge of the

12 discovery requests and this Court’s orders on Plaintiffs’ motions

13 to compel. Defendants are not entitled to relief under Rule

14 60(b)(6) because they have not demonstrated that circumstances

15 beyond their control prevented them from taking timely action to

16 protect their interests.

17

C. Discovery at Issue

18

The issues before the Court relate to discovery matters.

19 Accordingly, a determination on these issues is based on rules and

20 principles relating to discovery and not the admissibility of

21 evidence sought. Even if the Court were to reach Defendants’

22 substantive arguments with respect to the disputed discovery, the

23 Court would still find that the discovery should be produced.

24 ///

25 ///

26

27

1Prior to the March 28, 2007 filing of the instant motion, no opposition

had been filed with this Court regarding these discovery requests despite
28 the fact that some of these requests have been outstanding for several

months. (Ct. Rec. 347, p. 2; Ct. Rec. 348, pp. 2-3).

ORDER - 5

Case 2:05-cv-03061-MWL Document 351 Filed 03/30/2007

1

With regard to discovery related to James Holt, Ph.D.,

2 Defendants have not established that it is in any way subject to

3 the attorney work product privilege or the attorney-client

4 privilege. There has simply been no showing to support this

5 assertion by Defendants.

6

Regarding Violations of AWPA and H-2A Information, as

7 previously ordered by the Court, Defendants shall supplement their

8 responses and include all agency charges, actions, notices of

9 violation or any civil suits related to violations of the AWPA and

10 H-2A regulations, regardless of whether any charge, action, notice

11 or violation of civil suit has been appealed or not reached final

12 judgment, if such information exists and was not previously

13 provided to Plaintiffs.

14

As to the ACT database, the Court disagrees with Defendants’

15 assertion that producing the data in its “native” format is

16 impossible. (Ct. Rec. 342, p. 5). Plaintiffs’ counsel, Gregory

17 S. Johnson, has indicated that the production of this information

18 should be relatively easy to accomplish. (Ct. Rec. 346). The

19 Court agrees that such information should be obtainable without

20 much difficulty. Defendants are compelled to produce the ACT

21 database, in its native format.

22

The Court also disagrees with Defendants’ claim that

23 production of emails is overly burdensome. (Ct. Rec. 342, p. 5)

24 As noted by Plaintiffs, discovery of e-mail communications is now

25 commonplace in litigation. (Ct. Rec. 347, pp. 4-5). All email

26 between Defendants and Bruce Schwartz and between Defendants and

27 Amnon Gonnene shall be produced by Defendants.

28 ///

ORDER - 6

Case 2:05-cv-03061-MWL Document 351 Filed 03/30/2007

1

Defendants’ claim that production of their phone records,

2 over a seven-month period of time, is overly broad and burdensome.

3 (Ct. Rec. 342, p. 6). The Court does not agree. Like email, the

4 discovery of phone records is commonplace in litigation and not

5 overly difficult to compile and produce. Defendants shall be

6 required to produce their phone records from November 1, 2003

7 through July 30, 2004.

8

Defendants fail to raise well grounded arguments for their

9 refusal to produce documents related to recruiting identified by

10 Mr. Orian, the H-2A employee agreements, and the recruitment

11 criteria used by Defendants. With respect to information related

12 to the recruitment and transportation of H-2A workers from

13 Thailand, the Court ordered, on December 28, 2006, that such

14 information was relevant and discoverable. (Ct. Rec. 205).

15 Defendants are required to produce the package related to

16 recruiting identified by Mr. Orian, the H-2A employee agreements,

17 and the recruitment criteria used by Defendants.

18

As previously ordered, Defendants shall also produce the

19 following documents: the power of attorney with Amnon Gonnene, all

20 communications with Washington State regarding Defendants’ Farm

21 Labor Contractor’s License in 2003 and 2004, all communication

22 with the Social Security Administration regarding class members,

23 all notes prepared by a former Global employee, Maria Ramirez, in

24 2003 and 2004, records documenting when Global translated

25 Clearance Orders that were certified in Washington State in 2004,

26 and an Excel spreadsheet summarizing time card information for

27 U.S. Resident workers and H-2A workers in Washington State in

28 2004. (Ct. Rec. 298).

ORDER - 7

Case 2:05-cv-03061-MWL Document 351 Filed 03/30/2007

1

It appears from Plaintiffs’ response memorandum (Ct. Rec.

2 347) that some of these items, in particular, the excel

3 spreadsheet for time cards, have not yet been produced, and

4 Defendants have provided no valid argument for withholding this

5 information.

6

D. Sanctions

7

Defendants’ Rule 60(b) motion additionally requests sanctions

8 against Plaintiffs. (Ct. Rec. 342). Defendants argue that

9 Plaintiffs’ discovery motions were filed in bad faith and for the

10 purpose of harassing Defendants. (Ct. Rec. 342, pp. 9-14). The

11 undersigned does not agree.

12

As noted in this Court’s March 27, 2007 order, Plaintiffs’

13 motion for contempt (Ct. Rec. 301) was in no way inappropriate,

14 frivolous or sanctionable. (Ct. Rec. 329, p. 2, n. 1). The Court

15 explained that the Court issued an order, Defendants failed to

16 comply with the Court’s order and Plaintiffs, thereafter, moved

17 for enforcement of that order. (Ct. Rec. 329, p. 2, n. 1). A

18 party’s action of filing motions due to a lack of timely or

19 adequate response from another party is likewise in no way

20 improper. As explained by Plaintiffs, facing an impending

21 discovery deadline, they felt it necessary to file motions in

22 order to move the case forward and to comply with this Court’s

23 orders. The Court finds that Plaintiffs’ motions were not filed

24 in bad faith. Accordingly, sanctions are not warranted.

25 III. CONCLUSION

26

Based on the foregoing, Defendants’ motion, pursuant to Fed.

27 R. Civ. P. 60(b), for relief from this Court’s orders (Ct. Rec.

28 340) is DENIED. Defendants’ request for sanctions is also denied.

ORDER - 8

Case 2:05-cv-03061-MWL Document 351 Filed 03/30/2007

1

Defendants are ordered to fully comply with all orders for

2 production previously ordered by this Court forthwith.

3

IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Executive shall file

4 this order and provide a copy to counsel for Plaintiffs and

5 Defendants.

6 DATED this 30th day of March, 2007.
7

8

s/Michael W. Leavitt

MICHAEL W. LEAVITT

9

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER - 9

 
 Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 404 Filed 04/19/07

1

2

3

4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

6

JOSE GUADALUPE PEREZ-FARIAS, )

7 et al.,

)

)

8

Plaintiffs, )

)

9

vs.

)

)

10 GLOBAL HORIZONS, INC., et

)

al.,

)

11

)

Defendants. )

12 ______________________________)

NO. CV-05-3061-MWL
ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR CONTEMPT AND FOR SANCTIONS

13

Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ April 11, 2007 motion to hold

14 Defendant Global Horizons, Inc. (“Defendant”) in contempt for its

15 failure to comply with the Court’s orders and for sanctions. (Ct.

16 Rec. 377). Defendants filed a response in opposition on April 16,

17 2007. (Ct. Rec. 398).

18

BACKGROUND

19

The following is a time line and synopsis of each filing

20 relevant to the instant motion:

21

1. On December 18, 2006, the Court Granted in part and

Denied in part Plaintiffs’ motion to compel. (Ct. Rec.

22

199). The Court held that documents related to Global’s

prior violations of AWPA were properly discoverable.

23

However, the Court found that prior allegations of

discrimination, with no relation to any plaintiff in the

24

case, was not relevant and no production was ordered as

to this request.

25

2. On December 28, 2006, the Court Denied Defendants’

26

motion for a protective order. (Ct. Rec. 205). In that

order, the Court found that inquiry into Global’s

27

recruitment process of H-2A workers from Thailand and

information related to Bruce Schwartz was relevant and

28

that the requested discovery of this information was

permissible.

-1-

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 404 Filed 04/19/07

1

3. On February 13, 2007, the Court issued two orders. The

Court first Denied Plaintiffs’ motion for

2

reconsideration with regard to this Court’s December 18,

2006 order. (Ct. Rec. 240). The Court held that

3

documents related to Global’s prior violations of AWPA

are discoverable. However, allegations of

4

discrimination, with no relation to any plaintiff in the

case, continued to be deemed irrelevant. The Court

5

indicated in a footnote that allegations are very

different from violations and that this distinction was

6

noted by the Court in making its determination on

December 18, 2006.

7

4. On February 13, 2007, the Court also issued an order

8

Denying Defendants’ motion for a protective order. (Ct.

Rec. 241). Defendants sought to prohibit Plaintiffs

9

from inquiring into any potential nationwide H-2A

violations committed by Defendants. The Court held that

10

inquiry into H-2A violations committed by Defendants

could potentially lead to relevant information and was

11

thus permissible. In a footnote, the Court indicted

that this finding was distinguishable from the Court’s

12

December 18, 2006 order which held that allegations of

past misconduct, not violations, were not properly

13

discoverable.

14

5. On March 12, 2007, the Court entered an order Granting

Plaintiffs’ motion to compel discovery and for

15

sanctions. (Ct. Rec. 274). Defendants failed to

respond to Plaintiffs’ motion. The Court ordered

16

Defendants to produce all documents requested in

Plaintiffs’ Third Set of Requests for Production #11 and

17

#12 and Plaintiffs’ Fourth Set of Requests for

Production #6 as well as the following information:

18

a. All memorandum or other documents prepared by James

19

S. Holt regarding the agricultural labor shortage

in Washington State in 2004.

20

b. All written training materials produced for and/or

21

provided to Global Horizons, Inc. and/or its

employees related to Global’s use of the H-2A

22

program by James S. Holt.

23

c. All written manuals produced for and/or provided to

Global for use by its employees by James S. Holt

24

related to Global’s H-2A business operations

including, but not limited to, recruitment,

25

application and interview process, hiring,

progressive discipline process and all other

26

aspects of the business operations.

27

d. All written memorandum provided to Global by James

S. Holt related to its business practices

28

including, but not limited to, the Migrant and

Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act, the

-2-

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 404 Filed 04/19/07

1

Social Security Number Verification process, and/or

the recruitment or employment of agricultural

2

workers.

3

e. All correspondence including, but not limited to,

letters, e-mails, and facsimiles, that relates to

4

the documents referenced above and to Global’s

business practices in Washington State in 2003 and

5

2004 between James S. Holt and Global.

6

f. All contracts for services between James S. Holt

and Global from 2002 through 2004.

7

6. Defendants did not produce that documentation within the

8

time frame ordered by the Court (within five calendar

days for the date of the Court’s order).

9

7. On March 20, 2007, the Court entered another order

10

Granting Plaintiffs’ motion to compel discovery and for

sanctions. (Ct. Rec. 298). Defendants again failed to

11

respond to Plaintiffs’ motion. The Court ordered as

follows:

12

a. If such information exists and was not previously

13

provided to Plaintiffs, Global should supplement

their responses to include all agency charges,

14

actions, notices of violation or any civil suits

related to violations of the AWPA and H-2A

15

regulations, regardless of whether any charge,

action, notice or violation of civil suit has been

16

appealed or not reached final judgment. The Court

noted that this finding does not change or

17

dissipate any prior order of the Court with respect

to previous discovery issues.

18

b. Global was compelled to produce the ACT database in

19

its native format.

20

c. Global was directed to produce all email between

Global and Bruce Swartz, email between Global and

21

Amnon Gonnene, and all email relevant to the

litigation.

22

d. Global was directed to produce phone records from

23

November 1, 2003 through July 30, 2004, a package

related to recruiting identified by Mr. Orian, H-2A

24

employee agreements, and the recruitment criteria

used by Global.

25

e. Global was directed to produce the power of

26

attorney with Amnon Gonnene, all communication with

Washington State regarding Global’s Farm Labor

27

Contractor’s License in 2003 and 2004, all

communication with the Social Security

28

Administration regarding class members, all notes

prepared by Maria Ramirez in 2003 and 2004, records

-3-

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 404 Filed 04/19/07

1

of when Global translated Clearance Orders in 2004,

and an Excel spreadsheet summarizing time card

2

information for U.S. Resident workers and H-2A

workers in Washington State in 2004.

3

8. Defendants, again, did not produce that documentation

4

within the time frame ordered by the Court (within five

calendar days for the date of the Court’s order).

5

9. On March 27, 2007, the Court Denied Plaintiffs’ motion

6

to hold Defendants in contempt for their failure to

comply with the Court’s March 12, 2007 order. (Ct. Rec.

7

329). Although the Court denied the motion, the Court

indicated that Global’s obligation to comply with the

8

Court’s March 12, 2007 order persisted. Defendants were

given until March 30, 2007 to comply with that order.

9

10. On March 28, 2007, Defendants filed a Motion for Relief

10

from Default Orders pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).

(Ct. Rec. 340).

11

11. On March 30, 2007, the Court Denied Defendants’ motion

12

for relief from this Court’s orders. (Ct. Rec. 351).

Defendants were ordered to fully comply with all orders

13

for production previously ordered by this Court.

14

12. On April 2, 2007, Defendants filed a motion for

reconsideration of this Court’s order denying their

15

motion for relief under Rule 60(b). (Ct. Rec. 354).

16

13. On April 5, 2007, the Court Denied Defendants’ motion

for reconsideration. (Ct. Rec. 363). The Court ordered

17

Global to promptly comply with the Court’s orders with

respect to the discovery ordered.

18

14. On April 11, 2007, Plaintiffs filed the instant motion

19

to hold Global in contempt for its failure to comply

with the Court’s orders to produce discovery. (Ct. Rec.

20

377).

21

15. On April 13, 2007, Plaintiffs submitted a declaration of

counsel indicating that Global had not produced other

22

documents within the time agreed to by counsel. (Ct.

Rec. 383).

23

16. On April 16, 2007, Defendants filed a response in

24

opposition to the instant motion. (Ct. Rec. 398).

25

17. The instant matter came of for hearing on April 17,

2007. Richard W. Kuhling and Mirta Laura Contreras

26

appeared on behalf of the Plaintiffs and I. Randolph S.

Shiner, Gregg R. Smith and Ryan M. Edgley appeared for

27

the Defendants.

28 ///

-4-

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 404 Filed 04/19/07

1

DISCUSSION

2

As noted in the time line above, Defendants have continued to

3 refuse to provide discovery despite several Court orders directing

4 them to produce documents. Defendants have been given ample time

5 to comply with the Court’s orders regarding the discovery

6 requests. There is no basis for Defendants’ continued refusal to

7 provide the production of documents as ordered by the Court.

8 A. Dr. Holt Material/Correspondence

9

Defendants have been previously directed to produce this

10 information1 and shall do so, now, without exception. Mr. Shiner

11 indicated at the time of the hearing that one letter had been

12 completely redacted from Defendants’ production. That letter,

13 unredacted, shall be sent to the Court, the Court shall review the

14 letter in camera, and the Court will thereafter make a

15 determination as to whether the document should be produced to

16 Plaintiffs as previously ordered.

17 B. H-2A Employee Agreements

18

These documents were ordered by the Court to be produced by

19 Defendants. Any privacy concerns Defendants may have are

20 invalidated by the fact that the documents were directed to be

21 produced pursuant to Court order. Defendants shall produce this

22 information as previously ordered by the Court.

23 C. Violations of AWPA and H-2A Information

24

The Court’s December 18, 2005 order directed Global to

25 provide responses to Plaintiffs’ requests regarding prior

26 violations of AWPA. (Ct. Rec. 199). The Court’s February 13,

27
1The information includes Dr. Holt’s training material, all unredacted
28 correspondence with Dr. Holt, recruitment criteria and the contract for
services with Dr. Holt.

-5-

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 404 Filed 04/19/07

1 2007 order denied Defendants’ motion for a protective order and

2 indicated that discovery of Defendants’ H-2A violations, as

3 related to Plaintiffs’ claims, would not be prohibited. (Ct. Rec.

4 241). On March 20, 2007, the Court entered a separate order

5 granting Plaintiffs’ motion to compel discovery and directing

6 Global to supplement their responses to include all agency

7 charges, actions, notices of violation or any civil suits related

8 to violations of the AWPA and H-2A regulations, regardless of

9 whether any charge, action, notice or violation of civil suit has

10 been appealed or not reached final judgment. (Ct. Rec. 298).

11

The Court finds that Defendant shall, as previously ordered,

12 supplement their responses and include all agency charges,

13 actions, notices of violation or any civil suits related to

14 violations of the AWPA and H-2A regulations, regardless of whether

15 any charge, action, notice or violation of civil suit has been

16 appealed or not reached final judgment.

17 D. Information Related to Taft Farms

18

Defendants assert that this information is completely

19 irrelevant to this litigation. The time for arguing relevance of

20 documents has passed. Moreover, whether information is relevant

21 or not is a decision for the Court to make. Defendants have been

22 ordered to produce this information and shall do so in compliance

23 with this Court’s orders.

24 E. All Email and All Communications with Washington State

25

Defendants indicate that these documents are so voluminous

26 that it will take an enormous amount of man-hours to produce.

27 Defendants assert that it would result in shutting down the normal

28 course of Global’s business to accumulate the documentation.

-6-

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 404 Filed 04/19/07

1

As noted by this Court in a previous order, the Court

2 disagrees with Defendants’ claim that the production of email is

3 overly burdensome. Discovery of e-mail communications is now

4 commonplace in litigation and there are means to accumulate the

5 documentation that would not result in shutting down Global’s

6 business. There are, additionally, procedures Defendants could

7 utilize to simplify their obligation to produce their

8 communications with Washington State. As noted at the hearing,

9 for example, Global could simply make the documents available for

10 Plaintiffs’ review at Global’s place of business. In any event,

11 as noted by the Court at the hearing on the instant motion,

12 Defendants are required to comply with this Court’s previous

13 orders to compel. Defendants shall produce all of the

14 documentation, as previously ordered, or promptly have an

15 established agreement with counsel for Plaintiffs with respect to

16 these discovery issues.

17 F. Power of Attorney

18

Defendants’ response to the discovery of the Power of

19 Attorney with Amnon Gonnene indicated that “Global will produce

20 this piece of ‘crucial’ information.” (Ct. Rec. 298, p. 14).

21 Defendants’ characterization of this discovery as “crucial” has

22 not gone unnoticed by this Court. This backhand comment is not

23 only not appreciated but is also not professional. Defendants

24 shall locate this document and produce it to Plaintiffs as

25 previously ordered by the Court.

26 ///

27 ///

28 ///

-7-

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 404 Filed 04/19/07

1 G. All Other Discovery Previously Ordered Produced

2

Defendants are ordered to fully comply with the terms of the

3 Court’s prior orders on discovery without exception. There is no

4 legitimate basis for Defendants’ continued refusal to comply.

5

SANCTIONS

6

The Court finds that monetary sanctions against Defendant

7 Global Horizons, Inc., are warranted. The Court orders sanctions

8 in the amount of $1,000.00 against Defendant Global Horizons,

9 Inc., for its failure to comply with this Court’s orders and for

10 Plaintiffs’ fees in connection with bringing the instant motion.

11

Furthermore, the Court orders Defendant Global Horizons,

12 Inc., to pay Plaintiffs the outstanding balance of $1,000.00 for

13 sanctions previously imposed by the Court.

14

Defendants are ordered to pay the above sanctions and to

15 produce documents as ordered by the Court by the close of business

16 Monday, April 23rd, 2007.

17

If Defendants fail to comply with the instant order,

18 Defendants shall be sanctioned $500.00 a day, each calender day,

19 until Defendants have fully complied with this Court’s orders.

20

CONCLUSION

21

Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED as follows:

22

1. Plaintiffs’ motion to hold Defendant Global Horizons,

23 Inc. in contempt for its failure to comply with the Court’s orders

24 and for sanctions (Ct. Rec. 377) is Granted in part and DENIED in

25 part.

26

2. Defendant Global Horizons, Inc. shall produce all

27 documents, as outlined in the body of this order, by the close of

28 business on Monday, April 23rd, 2007.

-8-

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 404 Filed 04/19/07

1

3. Defendant Global Horizons, Inc. shall pay to Plaintiffs

2 sanctions in the amount of $1,000.00 for the cost of bringing the

3 instant motion and shall also pay to Plaintiffs the $1,000.00 for

4 the sanctions that were previously imposed by the Court.

5

4. Defendant Global Horizons, Inc., is forewarned that its

6 failure to comply with this order shall result in sanctions, in

7 the amount of $500.00 a day, each calender day, until it has fully

8 complied with this Court’s orders.

9

5. Based on the agreement of counsel at the time of the

10 hearing on the instant motion, Defendant Global Horizons, Inc., is

11 granted an additional three-week period of time in order to submit

12 the report of its expert witness.

13

IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Executive is directed

14 to file this Order and provide copies to counsel for Plaintiffs

15 and Defendants.

16 DATED this 19th day of April, 2007.
17

18

s/Michael W. Leavitt

MICHAEL W. LEAVITT

19

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-9-

 
 Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 458 Filed 05/18/07

1

2

3

4

5

6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

8

JOSE GUADALUPE PEREZ-FARIAS, )

9 et al.,

)

)

10

Plaintiffs, )

)

11

vs.

)

)

12 GLOBAL HORIZONS, INC., et

)

al.,

)

13

)

Defendants. )

14 ______________________________)

NO. CV-05-3061-MWL ORDER

15

Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ April 30, 2007 motion to hold

16 Defendants Global Horizons, Inc. and Mordechai Orian

17 (“Defendants”) in contempt for the failure to comply with the

18 Court’s April 19, 2007 order. (Ct. Rec. 423). Pursuant to Local

19 Rule 7.1(c) and this Court’s May 7, 2007 order (Ct. Rec. 442),

20 Defendants were permitted to file a response to the instant motion

21 no later than May 11, 2007. Defendants filed a response in

22 opposition on May 14, 2007. (Ct. Rec. 453). Although this

23 Court’s April 5, 2007 order addressed the failure of Defendants’

24 counsel to follow court procedures and specifically ordered that

25 all future filings that do not comply with this Court’s procedures

26 shall be stricken and disregarded by the Court (Ct. Rec. 363),

27 because of the nature of this motion the Court has reviewed and

28 considered Defendants’ untimely response.

-1-

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 458 Filed 05/18/07

1

The exact nature of the scope of Defendants’ failure to

2 comply with the orders to compel discovery is uncertain. This

3 will be addressed later in this order. However, it is clear and

4 uncontroverted that the emails have not been produced as ordered.

5 In Defendants’ response, counsel states that “the only group of

6 documents that I know for sure have not been turned over are the

7 emails.” (Ct. Rec. 452, pp. 8-9). After multiple orders from

8 this Court to produce the emails, Defendants have continually

9 failed to do so. On March 20, 2007, the Court granted Plaintiffs’

10 motion to compel discovery and ordered Defendants to provide all

11 email relevant to this litigation within five calendar days. (Ct.

12 Rec. 298). Defendants were put on notice as early as March 20,

13 2007, that they were required, by Court order, to provide

14 Plaintiffs’ with all email relevant to the litigation no later

15 than March 25, 2007. While Defendants later filed a motion for

16 relief from judgment (Ct. Rec. 340) and a motion for

17 reconsideration (Ct. Rec. 354) with respect to this discovery and

18 other discovery at issue, the Court denied these motions and

19 Defendants were again ordered on April 5, 2007, to promptly

20 produce all discovery previously ordered (Ct. Rec. 363). By

21 Defendants’ own admission (Ct. Rec. 453), as of May 14, 2007, this

22 has not been accomplished.

23

During the April 17, 2007 hearing on Plaintiffs’ motion for

24 contempt and sanctions this Court indicated that all previously

25 requested discovery was to be produced by the end of the day on

26 April 20, 2007. Attorney Shiner then advised the Court that his

27 client was out of the state or going out of the state and

28 requested some additional time to meet with his client so they

-2-

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 458 Filed 05/18/07

1 could presumably comply with the Court’s order. The Court, upon

2 being so advised, advised the parties that Defendants would have

3 until the close of business on Monday, April 23, 2007, to fully

4 and completely comply with the Court’s order.

5

Further, as a result of discussions between Attorney Kuhling

6 and Attorney Shiner at the April 17 hearing, the Court indicated

7 that if the parties were able to agree to a method or process with

8 respect to the email production no later than the close of

9 business on April 23, 2007, the Court would consider such an

10 agreement to be compliant with the Court’s order. Attorney Shiner

11 asked for clarification regarding his client’s responsibility to

12 produce the emails if an agreement could not be reached. The

13 Court advised Attorney Shiner that the emails must then be fully

14 produced by the close of business on April 23, 2007.

15

Following the April 17 hearing, the Court issued an order for

16 Defendants to comply with this Court’s previous orders and produce

17 all documents previously ordered no later than the close of

18 business on April 23, 2007. (Ct. Rec. 404). Defendants were

19 forewarned that their failure to comply in this manner would

20 result in daily sanctions of $500.00 until they fully complied

21 with the Court’s order. (Ct. Rec. 404).

22

The declaration of Mr. Shiner in opposition to the instant

23 motion incredibly states that “had [Global] or I been told at the

24 beginning that Navigent was going to cost upwards of between

25 $30,000 and $50,000, [Global] could have begun to dig out the

26 emails much earlier and saved everyone a lot of hassle and time.”

27 ///

28 ///

-3-

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 458 Filed 05/18/07

1 (Ct. Rec. 452, p. 6).1 Counsel’s comments appear to indicate that

2 Defendants had not “begun to dig out the emails” despite this

3 Court’s earlier orders to produce them. (Ct. Rec. 452, p. 6). As

4 indicated above, Defendants were first put on notice that they

5 were required to produce this information on March 20, 2007 (Ct.

6 Rec. 298), and that requirement was restated by the Court on April

7 5, 2007 (Ct. Rec. 363). There is no excuse for Defendants to not

8 have taken steps to comply with these discovery matters months

9 earlier.

10

Defendants had argued earlier that to comply with this

11 production request would result in the expenditure of “hundreds of

12 man-hours” which would have the effect of “shutting down the

13 normal course of the business of Global Horizons, Inc.” (Ct. Rec.

14 398, pp. 11-12). From Mr. Shiner’s current declaration on this

15 motion, it appears that one individual, the information technology

16 specialist at Global, spent a few days to acquire the emails and

17 made them available for review on or about May 1, 2007. (Ct. Rec.

18 452, pp. 3-4). Accordingly, it appears that earlier assertions by

19 counsel were misstatements. It would also appear at the time that

20 those statements were made by counsel that no effort had yet been

21 made by Defendants to comply with the Court’s earlier orders.

22 Again, why the emails were not made available when this discovery

23 was initially requested or, at a minimum, when initially ordered

24 to be produced has never been explained.

25

26

1This statement apparently refers to discussions between counsel

regarding an agreement concerning the production of the emails. The Court has
27 no knowledge of the details and was not involved in those discussions. The

Court only allowed an agreement between the parties regarding the emails as an
28 alternate way of complying with a portion of the Court’s order and avoiding

monetary sanctions.

-4-

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 458 Filed 05/18/07

1

Mr. Shiner indicates that the emails were made available for

2 him “to do a privilege review” as early as May 1, 2007. (Ct. Rec.

3 452, p. 4). However, for various reasons given, Mr. Shiner states

4 that he has been unable to perform a privilege review but will do

5 so “[j]ust as soon as [he] can.” (Ct. Rec. 452, p. 5). While Mr.

6 Shiner indicated that he would do his review as soon as he can, he

7 had not done so as of May 14, 2007, about two weeks after he

8 obtained the emails from his client. Mr. Shiner’s statement that

9 he will do so “[j]ust as soon as [he] can” is itself a concern to

10 this Court. It demonstrates that Mr. Shiner and/or his client do

11 not believe the monetary sanctions previously ordered will be

12 enforced and that the orders of this Court do not need to be

13 promptly complied with. Such statements, in the context of all

14 that has occurred with discovery issues in this case, severely try

15 the patience of this Court. The Court expects prompt compliance

16 with its orders and will enforce the same. Moreover, the time to

17 assert any privilege has long since expired. Though the privilege

18 issue has been raised after the Court ordered production of

19 discovery, defense counsel has not made any proposal to this Court

20 regarding any privileged materials that may be produced pursuant

21 to the Court’s orders. Further, Defendants have not produced the

22 requested emails, let alone those for which they may belatedly

23 assert a privilege. The orders of this Court were for the emails

24 to be produced. Defendants’ counsel has taken unilateral action

25 delaying compliance with this Court’s orders which has only

26 resulted in increased monetary sanctions. The emails shall be

27 immediately produced as ordered by the Court. The withholding of

28 these documents since April 23, 2007, has subjected Defendants to

-5-

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 458 Filed 05/18/07

1 daily sanctions of $500.00 and that sanction continues until there

2 has been full production of discovery as ordered by the Court.

3

Although Defendants suggest fault on the part of Plaintiffs’

4 counsel for Defendants’ failure to comply with this Court’s order,

5 the Court was very clear with respect to Defendants’ obligations2

6 and the penalty for continued noncompliance. There is no basis

7 for Defendants’ continued refusal to provide the production of

8 documents as repeatedly ordered by the Court.

9

For the reasons set forth herein, sanctions against

10 Defendants in the amount of $500.00 per day, each calendar day

11 since April 23, 2007, are warranted. Defendants shall be assessed

12 daily sanctions in the amount of $500.00 as previously indicated

13 by the Court (Ct. Rec. 404) until all discovery previously ordered

14 to be produced is produced, and Defendants will continue to be in

15 violation of this Court’s order. Plaintiffs’ indicate that

16 “Defendant Global has failed to fully comply because it still has

17 not produced all the documents and has failed to pay the $2,000

18 sanction.” However, it is unclear, from the state of the current

19 record, as to what documents Defendants have and have not

20 produced.3 What is apparent, as conceded by Defendants, is that

21 Global has not complied with the Court’s order by producing the

22 emails at issue. (Ct. Rec. 453, p. 3).

23 ///

24 ///

25

26

2The Court held that “Defendants shall produce all of the documentation,

as previously ordered, or promptly have an established agreement with counsel

27 for Plaintiffs with respect to these discovery issues.” (Ct. Rec. 404, p. 7).

28

3The clear reference from both parties’ pleadings is that some of the

ordered discovery has been proffered.

-6-

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 458 Filed 05/18/07

1

To create a clearer picture of the current issue, and to

2 assist the Court in considering any subsequent motions with

3 respect to Defendants’ noncompliance with this Court’s orders,

4 counsel for Plaintiffs and counsel for Global are ordered to meet

5 and confer with respect to the underlying issue. The parties are

6 ordered to thereafter file an outline of what items have not been

7 produced as previously ordered by the Court. This joint statement

8 shall be filed with the Court on or before May 29, 2007.

9

Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED as follows:

10

1. Plaintiffs’ motion to hold Defendants in contempt for

11 the failure to comply with the Court’s April 19, 2007 Order (Ct.

12 Rec. 423) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

13

2. Defendants shall immediately produce all documents as

14 previously ordered by this Court.

15

3. Defendants shall immediately pay to Plaintiffs the

16 $2,000.00 for the sanctions that were previously imposed by the

17 Court.

18

4. In addition, Defendants shall, by June 1, 2007, pay to

19 Plaintiffs sanctions in the amount of $1,000.00 for the cost of

20 bringing the instant motion.

21

5. Sanctions are imposed against Defendants for the

22 continued refusal to comply with the Court’s order regarding

23 discovery in the amount of $12,500.00, calculated at $500.00 per

24 day for each calendar day since April 23, 2007 to the date of this

25 order. A check payable to the United States District Court,

26 Eastern District of Washington, from Defendants, in the amount of

27 $12,500.00 is due no later than June 1, 2007.

28 ///

-7-

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 458 Filed 05/18/07

1

6. Defendants’ continued failure to comply with this

2 Court’s order shall result in continued monetary sanctions, in the

3 amount of $500.00 a day, for each calender day, until there is

4 full compliance, and may result in other sanctions, if necessary,

5 as determined by the Court.

6

7. Counsel for Plaintiffs and counsel for Global are

7 ordered to meet and confer and thereafter file a statement, on or

8 before May 29, 2007, that provides an organized and detailed

9 outline of what items have not been produced as previously ordered

10 by the Court.

11

Defendants are ordered to pay the above sanctions and to

12 produce all documents as previously ordered by the Court.

13 Defendants are forewarned that continued noncompliance with this

14 Court’s orders may result in case dispositive sanctions.

15

IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Executive is directed

16 to file this Order and provide copies to counsel for Plaintiffs

17 and Defendants and the Court’s Financial Administrator.

18 DATED this 18th day of May, 2007.
19

20

s/Michael W. Leavitt

MICHAEL W. LEAVITT

21

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-8-

 
 Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 761-2 Filed 10/19/07

1 Richard W. Kuhling
Gregory S. Johnson
2 PAINE HAMBLEN LLP
717 West Sprague Avenue, Suite 1200
3 Spokane, WA 99201-3505
(509) 455-6000

4 Lori Jordan Isley
Mirta Laura Contreras
5 COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES
6 South Second Street, Suite 600
6 Yakima, WA 98901
(509) 575-5593
7 Joachim Morrison
COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES
8 300 Okanogan Avenue, Suite 2A
Wenatchee, WA 98801
9 (509)662-9681

10

Amy Crewdson COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES

711 Capitol Way S, Ste. 304
11 Olympia, WA 98501

(360)943-6260
12

The Honorable Robert H. Whaley
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

13

EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

14 PEREZ-FARIAS, et. al.,

CLASS ACTION

15

Plaintiffs,

16

vs.

17
GLOBAL HORIZONS, INC., et. al.,
18
Defendants.
19

No. CV-05-3061-RHW
PROPOSED ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO AWARD FLCA DAMAGES

20

THIS MATTER came before the Court on November 27, 2007 at 2:00 p.m.,

21
with oral argument, on the Plaintiffs’ motion for FLCA statutory damages of $500
22
per person per violation to be awarded to each class member for all violations
23
proved at summary judgment and trial.

PROPOSED ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO AWARD FLCA DAMAGES - 1

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES
6 S. 2nd Street, Ste. 600
Yakima, WA 98901
(509) 575-5593; fax (509) 575-4404

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 761-2 Filed 10/19/07

1

The Court has considered the materials submitted in support of and in

2 response to this motion for partial summary judgment, the argument of counsel,

3
and the files and records herein.
4
NOW, therefore, having fully considered all materials and arguments herein
5
6 and the Court being fully advised, it is hereby

7

ORDERED that Plaintiffs are entitled to statutory damages from Defendants

8 Global Horizons, Mordechai Orian, Green Acre Farms and Valley Fruit Orchards,

9 pursuant to FLCA, in the total amount of $2,203,000.00, calculated as follows:

10
Subclass Composition

11

U.S. Resident Worker/Denied Work

423 class members

Valley Fruit subclass

12

Green Acre subclass

169 class members 138 class members

13

Damages

14

U.S. Resident Worker/Denied Work 5 violations x $500 x 423 = $1,057,500

Valley Fruit subclass
15 16

8 violations x $500 x 169 = $676,000 1 violation x $500 x 115 = $57,500
1 violation x $500 x 24 = $12,000

Green Acre subclass
17

8 violations x $500 x 100 = $400,000

The District Court Executive shall enter judgment accordingly and forward
18

19 copies to counsel for Plaintiffs and Defendants and the Court’s Financial

20 Administrator.

21

DATED this ____ day of _________________, 2007.

22
_______________________________

23

The Honorable Robert H. Whaley

United Stated District Court Judge

PROPOSED ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO AWARD FLCA DAMAGES - 2

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES
6 S. 2nd Street, Ste. 600
Yakima, WA 98901
(509) 575-5593; fax (509) 575-4404

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 761-2 Filed 10/19/07

1 Presented by:

2 COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES

3
s/ Lori Jordan Isley

4 Lori Jordan Isley WSBA #21724

Mirta Laura Contreras, WSBA # 21721 5 Joachim Morrison, WSBA # 23094

6

Amy Crewdson, WSBA # 09468 Attorneys for Plaintiffs

7
PAINE HAMBLEN LLP
8
s/ Richard W. Kuhling 9 Richard W. Kuhling, WSBA # 07927
Gregory S. Johnson, WSBA # 13782 10 Attorneys for Plaintiffs

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

PROPOSED ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO AWARD FLCA DAMAGES - 3

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES
6 S. 2nd Street, Ste. 600
Yakima, WA 98901
(509) 575-5593; fax (509) 575-4404

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 761-2 Filed 10/19/07

1

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

2

I hereby certify that on this 19th day of October, 2007, I electronically filed

3
the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will
4
send notification of such filing to the following:
5

6

Gregg R Smith

gregg@greggsmithlaw.com

Chrystal L. Bobbitt Chrystal@gmpusa.com

7

Ryan M. Edgley

edgleyr@hscis.net

8

Richard W. Kuhling richard.kuhling@painehamblen.com,

9

linda.house@painehamblen.com, shari.smith@painehamblen.com

10

Gregory S. Johnson gjohnson@painehamblen.com,

jcorbin@painehamblen.com
11

Joachim Morrison

joe.morrison@columbialegal.org

12

Amy Crewdson

amy.crewdson@columbialegal.org

13

14

s/ Linda Banda

Linda Banda
15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

PROPOSED ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO AWARD FLCA DAMAGES - 4

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES
6 S. 2nd Street, Ste. 600
Yakima, WA 98901
(509) 575-5593; fax (509) 575-4404

 
 AO 450 (Rev. 5/85) Judgment in a Civil Case
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Eastern District of Washington

JOSE G. PEREZ-FARIAS, JOSE F. SANCHEZ, RICARDO BETANCOURT, and all other similarly situated persons,
Plaintiffs, v.
GLOBAL HORIZONS, INC., and MORDECHAI ORIAN,
Defendants.

JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE
CASE NUMBER: CV-05-3061-RHW

✘ Jury Verdict. This action came before the Court for a trial by jury. The issues have been tried and the jury has rendered its verdict.

Decision by Court. This action came to trial

before the Court. The issues have been

tried and a decision has been rendered.

IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED

The Plaintiff Ricardo Betancourt recover from the defendants the sum of $5,099.50 for lost wages and $2,500.00 for emotional distress. The Plaintiff Jose Sanchez recover from the defendants the sum of $492.20 for lost wages and $5,000.00 for emotional distress. The Plaintiff Jose G. Perez-Farias recover from the defendants the sum of $4,000.00 for emotional distress.

The Plaintiffs Subclass categories recover from the defendants the following: Denied Work: Punitive damages in the amount of $100,00.00 Green Acre: Punitive damages in the amount of $100,000.00 Valley Fruit: Punitive damages in the amount of $100,000.00

10/23/2007
Date

JAMES R. LARSEN
Clerk
s/ Michelle M. Fox
(By) Deputy Clerk
Michelle Fox

 
 AO 450 (Rev. 5/85) Judgment in a Civil Case
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Eastern District of Washington

JOSE G. PEREZ-FARIAS, JOSE F. SANCHEZ, RICARDO BETANCOURT, and all other similarly situated persons,
Plaintiffs, v.
GLOBAL HORIZONS, INC., and MORDECHAI ORIAN,
Defendants.

A M E N D E D
JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE
CASE NUMBER: CV-05-3061-RHW

✘ Jury Verdict. This action came before the Court for a trial by jury. The issues have been tried and the jury has rendered its verdict.

Decision by Court. This action came to trial

before the Court. The issues have been

tried and a decision has been rendered.

IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED

The Plaintiff Ricardo Betancourt recover from the defendants the sum of $5,099.50 for lost wages and $2,500.00 for emotional distress. The Plaintiff Jose Sanchez recover from the defendants the sum of $492.20 for lost wages and $5,000.00 for emotional distress. The Plaintiff Jose G. Perez-Farias recover from the defendants the sum of $4,000.00 for emotional distress.

The Plaintiffs Subclass categories recover from the defendants the following: Denied Work: Punitive damages in the amount of $100,00.00 Green Acre: Punitive damages in the amount of $100,000.00 Valley Fruit: Punitive damages in the amount of $100,000.00

Denied Work Subclass: U.S. Resident farm workers who claim they were offered employment by Global Horizons to work at Green Acre Farms, Inc. or Valley Fruit Orchards, LLC in 2004, but were not employed by Global Horizons in 2004.

DATE:

May 23, 2008

JAMES R. LARSEN
Clerk s/Linda Emerson
(By) Deputy Clerk
Linda Emerson

 
 Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 913 Filed 07/21/08

1

2

3

4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

6

JOSE GUADALUPE PEREZ-FARIAS, ) NO. CV-05-3061-RHW

7 et al.,

)

) REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

8

Plaintiffs, )

)

9

vs.

)

)

10 GLOBAL HORIZONS, INC., et

)

al.,

)

11

)

Defendants. )

12 ______________________________)

13

14

BACKGROUND

15

On July 2, 2008, Mordechai Orian (“Orian”) the president and

16 chief strategic officer for Global Horizons, Inc. (“Global”)

17 appeared pursuant to the Court’s order to show cause why Global

18 has failed to obey the Court’s orders to pay assessed monetary

19 sanctions. Global’s pro hac vice counsel, Chrystal Bobbitt, also

20 appeared and addressed the Court.

21

The matter before the Court arises out of Global’s abuse of

22 the judicial process. Magistrate Judge Leavitt administered daily

23 monetary sanctions against Global, payable to the Court, beginning

24 on April 23, 2007. (Ct. Rec. 458). On July 11, 2007, Judge

25 McDonald continued the enforcement of the daily sanctions set by

26 Judge Leavitt. (Ct. Rec. 507). Judge Whaley also continued the

27 enforcement of the daily sanctions and indicated the end of the

28 daily toll, as of July 23, 2007. (Ct. Rec. 597). Global has made

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ~ 1

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 913 Filed 07/21/08

1 no payment to the Court as directed by these judges.

2

On April 21, 2008, Judge Whaley referred to this Magistrate

3 Judge the matter of Global’s failure to obey the orders of this

4 Court to pay the assessed monetary sanctions. (Ct. Rec. 871). On

5 April 22, 2008, the Court ordered Global Horizons, Inc. to pay the

6 previously ordered monetary sanctions no later than May 30, 2008.

7 (Ct. Rec. 874). The Court further ordered that should Global fail

8 to make timely payment to the Court, Global, by and through its

9 attorney, would be required to appear before the undersigned and

10 show cause why it has failed to obey the Court’s orders to pay

11 monetary sanctions and why the monetary sanctions should not be

12 reduced to a judgment. (Ct. Rec. 874). Global did not make

13 payment to the Court on or before May 30, 2008. At a show cause

14 hearing on June 3, 2008, Global’s local counsel, Gary Lofland,

15 appeared and reported he had no knowledge to answer a majority of

16 the Court’s questions regarding Global’s financial status. The

17 Court was not satisfied with Global’s presentation at the show

18 cause hearing. The Court directed Mordechai Orian, the individual

19 identified by Global’s counsel as most knowledgeable about

20 Global’s finances, to appear at a supplemental show cause hearing.

21 (Ct. Rec. 893). The supplemental show cause hearing was held on

22 July 2, 2008. (Ct. Rec. 900). Additional documentation was

23 furnished by Global to the Court on July 16, 2008.

24

By way of history, on March 12, 2007, the Court entered an

25 order granting Plaintiffs’ motion to compel discovery and for

26 sanctions against Global Horizons, Inc. (Ct. Rec. 274). Global

27 failed to respond to Plaintiffs’ motion. The Court ordered

28 Defendant “Global Horizons, Inc.” to pay Plaintiffs’ $400.00 and

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ~ 2

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 913 Filed 07/21/08

1 to produce all documents requested in Plaintiffs’ Third Set of

2 Requests for Production #11 and #12 and Plaintiffs’ Fourth Set of

3 Requests for Production #6 as well as other information in

4 Global’s possession. (Ct. Rec. 274). Global did not timely

5 produce that documentation.

6

On March 20, 2007, the Court entered another order granting

7 Plaintiffs’ motion to compel discovery and for sanctions against

8 Global. (Ct. Rec. 298). Global again failed to respond to

9 Plaintiffs’ motion. The Court ordered Defendant “Global Horizons,

10 Inc.” to pay Plaintiffs $600.00 and ordered production. Global,

11 again, did not produce that documentation within the time frame

12 ordered by the Court.

13

On April 19, 2007, the Court ordered Defendant “Global

14 Horizons, Inc.” to produce all documents, as previously ordered,

15 by April 23, 2007. (Ct. Rec. 404). The Court ordered Global to

16 pay Plaintiffs $1,000.00 for the cost of bringing the motion and

17 to pay Plaintiffs the $1,000.00 previously imposed by the Court.

18 The Court further warned “Defendant Global Horizons, Inc.” that

19 the failure to comply with this order shall result in sanctions,

20 in the amount of $500.00 a day, each calender day, until it had

21 fully complied with the Court’s orders.

22

On May 18, 2007, the Court ordered “Defendants,” defined by

23 the Court in that order as “Global Horizons, Inc., and Mordechai

24 Orian,” to pay sanctions for the failure to produce all documents

25 ordered to be produced. (Ct. Rec. 458). Global and Mordechai

26 Orian were ordered to produce all documents previously ordered to

27 be produced, pay to Plaintiffs $2,000.00 for the costs that were

28 previously imposed, pay to Plaintiffs $1,000.00 for the cost of

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ~ 3

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 913 Filed 07/21/08

1 bringing the latest motion, and pay to the Court sanctions in the

2 amount of $12,500.00, calculated at $500.00 per day for each

3 calendar day from April 23, 2007 to May 18, 2007. (Ct. Rec. 458).

4 Defendants were warned that their continued failure to comply with

5 this Court’s orders would result in continued monetary sanctions,

6 in the amount of $500.00 a day, for each calender day, until there

7 was full compliance, and could result in case dispositive

8 sanctions. (Ct. Rec. 458). On June 1, 2007, the Court received a

9 declaration of Defendant Mordechai Orian which stated, “Global

10 Horizons, Inc., does not have $15,000 to pay to the Court or to

11 the Plaintiffs in this matter.” (Ct. Rec. 491 at 2).

12

On July 11, 2007, Judge McDonald entered an order requiring

13 Global Defendants to comply with the earlier monetary sanctions

14 order of the Court and assessed additional, and continuing,

15 monetary sanctions for their continued disobedience. (Ct. Rec.

16 507). The Court ordered Defendants Global Horizons, Inc., and

17 Mordechai Orian to pay to the Court the monetary sanctions

18 previously imposed on May 18, 2007, in the amount of $12,500.00

19 (Ct. Rec. 458), as well as the additional amount of $27,000.00,

20 calculated at $500.00 per day for each calendar day since the

21 initial imposition of sanctions to the date of that order, for

22 Defendants’ continued refusal to comply with the Court’s orders.

23 (Ct. Rec. 507). The Court further noted that monetary sanctions,

24 in the amount of $500.00 a day, for each calender day, would

25 continue until the Global Defendants provided full payment to the

26 Court. (Ct. Rec. 507). Mr. Orian was warned that if he did not

27 make payment to the Court, he would be required to appear before

28 the Court to face a charge of criminal contempt.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ~ 4

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 913 Filed 07/21/08

1

On July 31, 2007, Defendant Mordechai Orian filed a

2 declaration in opposition to criminal contempt. (Ct. Rec. 565).

3 The declaration commented on the financial struggles of Global and

4 indicated that Global could not afford to pay the sanctions

5 assessed. (Ct. Rec. 565). Mr. Orian also indicated surprise that

6 the sanctions were assessed against him individually.

7

On August 1, 2007, a contempt hearing was held. (Ct. Rec.

8 577). At the contempt hearing, the Court ordered Defendants

9 Global Horizons, Inc., and Mordechai Orian to pay the sanctions

10 levied by the Court on July 11, 2007. The Court indicated that

11 monetary sanctions, in the amount of $500.00 a day, for each

12 calender day, would continue until these Defendants fully

13 complied. (Ct. Rec. 577).

14

On August 10, 2007, the Court assessed an additional

15 $6,000.00 in sanctions against Global Horizons, Inc., and

16 Mordechai Orian, calculated at $500.00 per day for each calendar

17 day from July 11, 2007 to July 23, 2007. (Ct. Rec. 597). The

18 Court also discontinued the daily monetary sanctions as of July

19 23, 2007, due to the Global Defendants’ apparent compliance with

20 the Court’s discovery orders on that date. (Ct. Rec. 566; Ct.

21 Rec. 568 at 9; Ct. Rec. 590). The order of continued monetary

22 sanctions, in the amount of $500.00 per day for each calendar day

23 (Ct. Rec. 458, 507), was discontinued as of July 23, 2007. (Ct.

24 Rec. 597).

25

On September 7, 2007, the Court reviewed its previous orders

26 assessing sanctions against Global and Mordechai Orian. (Ct. Rec.

27 700). The Court noted that the compelled discovery was directed

28 solely at Global. The Court found no basis for holding Mordechai

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ~ 5

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 913 Filed 07/21/08

1 Orian personally responsible for the monetary sanctions imposed at

2 that time. Accordingly, the Court released Mordechai Orian from

3 his individual obligation to pay all previously imposed monetary

4 sanctions. However, the Court held that Global remained

5 responsible for the sanctions previously imposed by the Court.

6 (Ct. Rec. 700 ¶ 10).

7

DISCUSSION/FINDINGS OF FACT

8

The purpose of the Court’s July 2, 2008, show cause hearing

9 was to ascertain if Global was still a viable corporate entity and

10 to decide if it had had the financial wherewithal to pay any of

11 the sanctions from the time the Court first imposed those

12 sanctions beginning in April, 2007.

13

The Court had ordered Global to produce certain documents

14 that reflected its most current financial condition in advance of

15 the show cause hearing. Global’s representatives did provide

16 certain documents, albeit incomplete. Counsel for Global agreed to

17 fax additional documents to the Court immediately so that the

18 documents would be complete. Those additional documents, still

19 incomplete, were finally furnished on July 16, 2008.

20

Global’s President and Chief Strategic Officer, Orian, after

21 being placed under oath, testified for approximately 90 minutes in

22 response to questions asked of him by the Court. At the conclusion

23 of his testimony, Counsel for Global made a record as to reasons

24 there had not been any effort to pay the sanctions.

25

Global Horizons Inc. was incorporated by Orian in 1997. Its

26 principal business is/was labor contracting. The corporate stock

27 is owned 49% by Orian and 51% by Global Manpower LTD, an Israeli

28 entity. Global Manpower LTD is an entity that Orian and a woman

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ~ 6

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 913 Filed 07/21/08

1 named Lebi Sigal control. Global Manpower LTD has not been active

2 for the past four to five years. Throughout Global’s existence,

3 Orian has been the nominal head of the corporation and is

4 responsible for making its day-to-day business decisions. Global’s

5 officers are Orian and Robin Rutt. Mr. Rutt served as the chief

6 financial officer of Global but is no longer associated with

7 Global and his whereabouts is unknown.

8

Global was debarred by the U.S. Department of Labor in

9 November, 2006 for a period of three years from further H-2A labor

10 certification applications. This debarment order resulted in the

11 cancellation or repudiation of several labor contracts that Global

12 might have profited from by performing.

13

Global’s assets, according to its most recently filed Federal

14 Income Tax return for the fiscal year ending November, 2006,

15 consist of trade notes and accounts receivable, depreciable

16 personal property (mostly vehicles) and “other”. Orian speculated

17 that “other” was some variety of account receivable but was unable

18 to further clarify or explain and did not furnish the appropriate

19 schedules from the income tax return to the Court for explanation.

20 Orian testified that the corporation does not own, nor has it ever

21 owned any real property. The Federal Income Tax return is also

22 notable for the sale of accounts receivable to Del Monte in the

23 sum of $1.8 million treated in the tax return as long term capital

24 gain. No later Federal Income Tax returns have been filed by

25 Global according to the evidence before the Court.

26

The Court also examined documents produced by Global

27 described as payroll records. It is significant that Global

28 employees continued to receive salaries despite the corporation’s

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ~ 7

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 913 Filed 07/21/08

1 stated insolvency. No fewer than seven Global employees,

2 including Orian, are shown to have received pay during all of 2007

3 and most of those received pay during 2008. Gross salaries paid

4 during the month of December, 2007 exceeded $20,000 to “Global”

5 employees. Orian explained that although Global has been defunct

6 since May of 2007, he has personally contributed funds to pay

7 employees. Additionally, a different corporation, also totally

8 owned and controlled by Orian named Digital Global Accounting,

9 currently provides the payroll checks for all employees, including

10 Ms. Bobbitt, the “In House Litigation Counsel at Global Horizons”.

11 Orian testified that the payroll approaches $30,000.00 per month.

12 The corporate office remains open. Outside counsel continue to be

13 retained. Multiple litigation matters continue to be addressed

14 and vigorously contested.

15

The Court was provided with copies of Global’s bank

16 statements for the period from May 1, 2007 through September 28,

17 2007. These statements represent the main operating account at

18 Bank of America, account number 13970244. This account was linked

19 to at least two savings accounts and a payroll account. None of

20 the statements of the linked accounts were furnished to the Court.

21 Orion had signature power on these accounts. Bank of America

22 closed this account in November 2007.

23

An examination of these bank statements yields tributaries of

24 information that lead to one ocean of a conclusion: During this

25 period of self described insolvency and before closing its bank

26 account, Global had funds deposited to its operating accounts that

27 would have been more than sufficient to pay the Court imposed

28 sanctions had the corporation chosen to apply those funds to that

-8-

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 913 Filed 07/21/08

1 obligation and not elsewhere.

2

Several specific entries in the bank statements illustrate

3 this conclusion.

4

(1) Multiple wire transfers in May 2007 were made from the

5 operating account after sanctions began to be imposed to an entity

6 called “Adoption Worldwide LLC”. These “contributions” or “loans”

7 (as Orian calls them)amounted to a total of $9,000.00. As it

8 turns out, Adoption Worldwide LLC is a favorite charity of Orian,

9 one that he helped to found and supports, apparently to the

10 detriment of paying legitimate corporate creditors.

11

(2) A purchase on a debit card on 5/14/2007 for $241.58 to

12 Ralph’s, a grocery store in California. Orian says he authorized

13 food to be bought for his employees “many times.” He denies this

14 purchase of food was for him personally, but a closer examination

15 of the records might yield information supporting a conclusion

16 that Orian was using the accounts for his personal purposes and

17 was commingling his funds with those belonging to the corporation.

18

(3) An online banking transfer on 6/15/2007 for $20,000.00 to

19 savings account 2487. At this point in time, there would have

20 been no need to “save” anything since the business was closed and

21 insolvent, according to Orian.

22

(4) On 6/29/2007 a wire transfer into the account was made

23 from Digital Global Accounting in the sum of $47,000.00. Orian

24 explained that this was likely for payroll, but again the

25 corporation, acting through its Chief Strategic Officer, made a

26 decision to pay other corporate obligations and ignore the

27 sanctions that had been imposed by the Court.

28

There are numerous other instances of funds being transferred

-9-

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 913 Filed 07/21/08

1 between and among the various linked bank accounts. Orian is a

2 very experienced and shrewd international businessman and it is

3 beyond the time constraints allowed this Court to delve into each

4 transaction of Global and Orian’s related companies that might

5 shed light, rather than continued heat, on the issue of collection

6 of the sum due the Court.

7

Global is also subject to a large federal tax lien amounting

8 to somewhere in the neighborhood of $4 million. A judgment of

9 $819,686 was entered against Global on May 25, 2007 in the

10 District Court of Maryland. There are numerous other judgments,

11 liens and assessments against Global in other jurisdictions.

12

When Global began doing business in Washington state, the

13 State required it to post a corporate surety bond. This bond was

14 obtained through Platte River Insurance Company and Orian believed

15 it to be in the amount of $150,000. Platte River Insurance

16 Company is a named defendant in this case. It is unknown if this

17 bond is available to respond to the Court’s sanction orders.

18

Global has not filed for bankruptcy. Orian testified that he

19 did not want to do so, since the cost of hiring counsel would be

20 prohibitive and since there were no corporate assets remaining for

21 creditors to seize.

22

RECOMMENDATIONS/CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

23

Global is financially insolvent. Its debts far exceed its

24 assets and it is unable to meet its daily obligations of business.

25 Orian has made cash infusions of his own and others to Global in

26 order to keep the business operating, but any business of Global

27 is now being run through the books and records of Digital Global

28 Accounting, Inc. Funds were routinely being wire transferred

-10-

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 913 Filed 07/21/08

1 between Global and Digital Global Accounting, Inc. during the

2 months for which bank statements were furnished.

3

Global has failed and refused to pay any or all of the

4 sanctions determined to be owed by this Court. Global’s arguments

5 that Judge Whaley never addressed the corporation’s responsibility

6 to pay the sanctions in his September 7, 2007 order are without

7 merit. The corporation’s responsibility to pay the sanctions is

8 now and has for many months, been clear. Furthermore, Global had

9 the financial means to pay all of the sanctions imposed at and

10 after the time those sanctions were first imposed. Global cannot

11 avoid its obligation to pay even if it did not have the money to

12 pay in a single payment. Sec v. Musella, 818 F.Supp. 600,602

13 (S.D.N.Y. 1993).

14

The Court cannot determine on the record before it whether

15 Global is the “alter ego” of Orian to the extent that the

16 corporate veil should be pierced and his personal assets should be

17 made available to respond to the sanctions imposed. It is the

18 recommendation of this Magistrate Judge that the sanctions be

19 reduced to a judgment in the sum of $45,500.00 against Global

20 Horizons, Inc. and that counsel be employed to assist the Court in

21 making that determination and in assisting the Court in collecting

22 the judgment if reaching Orian’s personal assets is deemed

23 feasible.

24

Further civil contempt proceedings against the corporation

25 would not be fruitful. Civil contempt sanctions are remedial.

26 United Mine Workers v. Bagwell, 512 U.S. 812, 828 (1994). This

27 Court has already imposed daily or per diem fines against the

28 corporation. Although Orian has not been totally forthcoming with

-11-

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 913 Filed 07/21/08

1 the documents requested of him as Chief Strategic Officer, he did

2 comply with the Court’s Order to Show Cause by making himself

3 available to testify. This Court has already released Orian from

4 any obligation to pay the sanctions imposed against the

5 corporation personally. Court Record 700 ¶ 10.

6

Since Orian, on behalf of Global, insists on continuing to

7 defend the instant litigation, this Magistrate Judge would

8 recommend that the Court consider imposing case dispositive

9 sanctions against Global unless the total amount of sanctions is

10 paid.

11

The record of the show cause examination and the exhibits

12 admitted into evidence during Orian’s examination have been

13 sealed. It is the recommendation that the record be unsealed and

14 made available to the other parties in this litigation.

15

OBJECTIONS

16

Any party may object to a magistrate judge’s proposed

17 findings, recommendations or report within ten (10) days following

18 service with a copy thereof. Such party shall file written

19 objections with the Clerk of the Court and serve objections on all

20 parties, specifically identifying the portions to which objection

21 is being made, and the basis therefor. Any response to the

22 objection shall be filed within ten (10) days after receipt of the

23 objection. Attention is directed to Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d), which

24 adds additional time after certain kinds of service.

25

A district judge will make a de novo determination of those

26 portions to which objection is made and may accept, reject, or

27 modify the magistrate judge’s determination. The judge need not

28 conduct a new hearing or hear arguments and may consider the

-12-

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 913 Filed 07/21/08

1 magistrate judge’s record and make an independent determination

2 thereon. The judge may, but is not required to, accept or

3 consider additional evidence, or may recommit the matter to the

4 magistrate judge with instructions. United States v. Howell, 231 5 F.3d 615, 621 (9th Cir. 2000); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and (C),

6 Fed. R. Civ. P. 72; LMR 4, Local Rules for the Eastern District of

7 Washington.

8

A magistrate judge’s recommendation cannot be appealed to a

9 court of appeals; only the district judge’s order or judgment can

10 be appealed.

11

The District Court Executive is directed to file this Report

12 and Recommendation and provide copies to counsel and the referring

13 district judge.

14 DATED this 21st day of July, 2008.
15

16

S/James P. Hutton

JAMES P. HUTTON

17

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-13-

 
 Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 1289 Filed 01/04/11

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

8

9

JOSE GUADALUPE PEREZFARIAS, JOSE F. SANCHEZ,

10

RICARDO BETANCOURT, and all other similarly situated persons,

NO. CV-05-3061-RHW

11

Plaintiffs,

12

v.

13 GLOBAL HORIZONS, INC., et al.,

ORDER STRIKING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS; GRANTING MOTION TO WITHDRAW

14

Defendants.

15

16

The above-captioned case was filed in 2005. Judgments were entered in

17 2010. Nevertheless, there are four pending matters still in the court record.

18 Having considered the matter, the Court strikes the Report and Recommendations

19 filed by Magistrate Judge Hutton as moot, and grants the Motion to Seal and

20 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney.

21

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

22

1. The Report and Recommendation filed on July 21, 2008 (Ct. Rec. 913)

23 is stricken, as moot.

24

2. The Report and Recommendation filed on July 22, 2008 (Ct. Rec. 914)

25 is stricken, as moot.

26

3. The Motion to Seal (Ct. Rec. 919) is GRANTED.

27

4. Defendant’s Motion to Withdraw as Attorney (Ct. Rec. 1284) is

28 GRANTED.

ORDER STRIKING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS; GRANTING MOTION TO WITHDRAW ~ 1

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 1289 Filed 01/04/11

1

IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Executive is directed to enter

2 this Order and to provide copies to counsel.

3

DATED this 4th day of January, 2011.

4

5

s/Robert H. Whaley

6

ROBERT H. WHALEY

United States District Court

7

8

9 Q:\CIVIL\2005\Perez-Farias, et al\motions5.wpd

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER STRIKING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS; GRANTING MOTION TO WITHDRAW ~ 2

 
 Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 989 Filed 11/14/08

1 Richard W. Kuhling

Gregory S. Johnson

2 PAINE HAMBLEN LLP
717 West Sprague Avenue, Suite 1200

3

Spokane, WA 99201-3505 (509) 455-6000

4 Lori Jordan Isley

Mirta Laura Contreras
5 COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES

6 South Second Street, Suite 600

6 Yakima, WA 98901

(509) 575-5593

7
Joachim Morrison

8 COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES
300 Okanogan Avenue, Suite 2A

9

Wenatchee, WA 98801 (509)662-9681

10 Amy L. Crewdson

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES
11 711 Capitol Way S, Ste. 304

Olympia, WA 98501

12 (360)943-6260

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

13

EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

14 PEREZ-FARIAS, et. al.,

15

Plaintiffs,

vs.

16

GLOBAL HORIZONS, INC., et. al.,
17

18

Defendants.

19

CLASS ACTION
No. 05 CV 3061 RHW
PLAINTIFFS’ PHASE II MEMORANDUM ON CLASS MEMBERSHIP, INJUNCTIVE RELIEF & DAMAGES

20

I. INTRODUCTION

21

Plaintiffs submit this memorandum regarding the issues to be determined in

22 the second phase of this action: class membership, injunctive relief, statutory
23

PLAINTIFFS’ PHASE II MEMORANDUM CLASS MEMBERSHIP, INJUNCTIVE RELIEF & DAMAGES - 1

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 6 South Second Street, Suite 600 Yakima, WA 98901 (509) 575-5593

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 989 Filed 11/14/08

1 damages for violations of the Farm Labor Contractors Act (FLCA), and the

2 distribution of punitive damages awarded at trial. See Proposed Course of Action

3
for Damages Phase (Ct. Rec. 910).

4
II. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
5

6

The Court granted Plaintiffs’ Motions for Class Certification and to

7 Bifurcate the Trial. (Ct. Recs. 136 & 137.) The Court granted Plaintiffs’ Motions

8 for Summary Judgment and awarded judgment. (Ct. Rec. 507.) The Court set

9 aside the judgment, but denied Global Defendants motion for reconsideration of
10 the summary judgment Order.1 (Ct. Rec. 597.)
11
The jury found Global and Mordechai Orian2 violated the FLCA by failing
12
13 to employ the Denied Work Subclass and by discharging or laying off the Green
14 Acre and Valley Fruit Subclasses in violation of an applicable Clearance Order.

15 (Ct. Rec. 474 at 1-2.) The jury also found that Global and Mr. Orian discriminated

16
1 Grower Defendants conceded Global committed the violations of FLCA and
17
18 AWPA established at summary judgment and did not ask the Court to reconsider

19 the summary judgment Order on liability; instead they only requested the Court

20 reconsider the amount of statutory damages awarded. (Ct. Rec. 597 at 6-7.)
21 2 The Court subsequently ruled that Mr. Orian could not be held individually liable
22
under the FLCA. (Ct. Rec. 863 at 15-19.)
23

PLAINTIFFS’ PHASE II MEMORANDUM CLASS MEMBERSHIP, INJUNCTIVE RELIEF & DAMAGES - 2

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 6 South Second Street, Suite 600 Yakima, WA 98901 (509) 575-5593

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 989 Filed 11/14/08

1 against the Denied Work, Green Acre and Valley Fruit Subclasses based on race in
2 violation of § 1981 and the Washington Law Against Discrimination, and awarded
3
a total of $300,000 in punitive damages, $100,000 to each subclass. Id. at 2-5.
4
The claims against the Grower Defendants were tried by the Court. (Ct. Rec.
5
6 700 at 1.) The Court reached its own conclusion that the Global Defendants did not
7 discriminate against the subclasses based on race and dismissed Plaintiffs’
8 discrimination claims against the Grower Defendants. (Ct. Rec. 863 at 7-13.) The
9 Court upheld the jury verdict against the Global Defendants. Id. at 14-15.
10
With respect to the FLCA claims, the Court found: “the Global Defendants
11
were found to have failed to hire qualified local workers and to have fired qualified
12
13 local workers in violation of their contract. Those findings are supported by the
14 evidence.” (Ct. Rec. 863 at 8.) The Court also found that the evidence showed:
15 “Global favored the hiring of foreign workers over local workers and fired local
16 workers to permit foreign workers to take their place …. Global had a strong
17
economic motive to favor foreign workers …. Global moved foreign workers from
18
other states to Washington without complying with the H-2A regulations and, in
19
20 doing so, denied jobs to local workers.” Id. at 10. The Court concluded: “[t]his
21 evidence presented a strong case that the Global Defendants abused the H-2A
22 program and breached the contracts offered to local workers, and had an economic
23

PLAINTIFFS’ PHASE II MEMORANDUM CLASS MEMBERSHIP, INJUNCTIVE RELIEF & DAMAGES - 3

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 6 South Second Street, Suite 600 Yakima, WA 98901 (509) 575-5593

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 989 Filed 11/14/08

1 incentive to do so.” Id. While the Court did not specifically rule that the Grower

2 Defendants are liable for the FLCA violations proven at trial, the Court’s findings
3
combined with the ruling at summary judgment that the Grower Defendants were
4
liable for all FLCA violations (Ct. Rec. 507 at 27) are sufficient to establish
5
6 Grower Defendant liability for the FLCA violations at trial. See Pls. Reply Memo
7 in Support of Relief under Rule 59(e) (Ct. Rec. 880 at 3-11) (summarizing proof of

8 FLCA violations presented at trial).

9

III. CLASS MEMBERSHIP

10

The class is comprised of three subclasses, Denied Work, Green Acre and

11
Valley Fruit. (Ct. Rec. 136 at 2 & 29; Ct. Rec. 731, Inst. No 12.) Plaintiffs rely
12
primarily on records provided by Global to establish class membership. Because
13

14 Global provided incomplete and inaccurate records, some workers should be

15 entitled to a presumption they are class members. See Six Mexican Workers v.

16 Arizona Citrus Growers, 904 F.2d 1301, 1306 n. 3 (9th Cir. 1990) (“[w]here [the
17 contractor’s] records were absent or inaccurate, specific employees were rebuttably
18
presumed to qualify for the relevant statutory damages”). Evidence of class
19
membership in each of the three subclasses is described below.
20
21 ///

22 ///

23

PLAINTIFFS’ PHASE II MEMORANDUM CLASS MEMBERSHIP, INJUNCTIVE RELIEF & DAMAGES - 4

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 6 South Second Street, Suite 600 Yakima, WA 98901 (509) 575-5593

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 989 Filed 11/14/08

1

A. Membership in the Denied Work Subclass

2

At class certification, the Court defined the Denied Work Subclass as farm

3
workers living in the United States who applied at Global Horizons for agricultural
4
employment in Washington State at Green Acre or Valley Fruit in 2004, but who
5

6 were not employed by Global in 2004. (Ct. Rec. 136 at 2, 5 & 29.) At trial, the

7 Court modified the definition as follows: “U.S. Resident farm workers who claim

8 they were offered employment, but were not employed by Global Horizons.” (Ct.
9 Rec. 731, Inst. No. 12.) The Court clarified the definition by subsequent Order to:
10
“U.S. Resident farm workers who claim they were offered employment by Global
11
Horizons to work at Green Acre Farms, Inc. or Valley Fruit Orchards, LLC in
12
13 2004, but were not employed by Global Horizons in 2004.” (Ct. Rec. 883 at 4.)

14

Plaintiffs have identified 402 members of the Denied Work Subclass. The

15 most significant source of evidence establishing subclass membership is a
16 spreadsheet produced by Global Defendants identified as Exhibit A. A copy of
17
Exhibit A with the relevant columns showing is attached as Exhibit 3 to the
18
Declaration of Lori Isley. Isley Decl. ¶ 15; Katell Decl. ¶¶ 2-5, 29-30. Plaintiffs
19
20 identified approximately eighty (80) percent of Denied Work Subclass members

21 through Global’s Exhibit A. The process Plaintiffs used to identify Denied Work

22 Subclass members from Global’s Exhibit A is described in supporting declarations.
23

PLAINTIFFS’ PHASE II MEMORANDUM CLASS MEMBERSHIP, INJUNCTIVE RELIEF & DAMAGES - 5

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 6 South Second Street, Suite 600 Yakima, WA 98901 (509) 575-5593

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 989 Filed 11/14/08

1 Isley Decl. ¶¶ 3-13; Katell Decl. ¶¶ 2-28; Bueno Decl. ¶¶ 2-8. A chart of the class

2 members identified through Global’s Exhibit A is attached as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit A.

3
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit A also includes eighty-eight (88) additional subclass members
4
identified primarily from other documents provided by Global; the supporting
5
6 documents are attached as Exhibits C though F as discussed below.

7

There are five categories of evidence that demonstrate the workers’ claim

8 they were offered employment and therefore are members of the Denied Work

9 Subclass as defined in the Amended Judgment.

10

1. Workers on Global’s Exhibit A who are documented as having

11

accepted the job are class members.

12

Global’s Exhibit A included many columns of information for each

13
individual worker, including a column marked “Accept Job.” Isley Decl. ¶ 15, Ex.
14
3, Column AK; Katell Decl. ¶¶ 22-23. Plaintiffs’ Exhibit B is a chart listing 301
15
workers who were identified as class members from Global’s Ex. A and who in
16

17 addition had the “accept job” column marked. Katell Decl. ¶¶ 22-28; Bueno Decl.

18 ¶ 8. Global’s records document both that the workers in this category applied with

19 Global to work at Green Acre or Valley Fruit in 2004 and that the workers
20
accepted a job. Since workers could not accept the job unless they had been
21
offered the job, this evidence is sufficient to show that workers on Global’s Ex. A
22

23

PLAINTIFFS’ PHASE II MEMORANDUM CLASS MEMBERSHIP, INJUNCTIVE RELIEF & DAMAGES - 6

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 6 South Second Street, Suite 600 Yakima, WA 98901 (509) 575-5593

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 989 Filed 11/14/08

1 with “accept job” marked claim they were offered employment and therefore are

2 members of the Denied Work Subclass.

3
2. Workers who completed a Job Service Questionnaire and

4

agreed to commit to the job are class members.

5

The second type of evidence that demonstrates membership in the Denied

6
Work Subclass is a completed Job Service Questionnaire with an affirmative
7
response to question 12: “Do you want this job and are you willing to commit right
8
now to accept this job?” Plaintiffs identified fifty-five (55) workers who were not
9

10 identified on Global’s Exhibit A as having accepted the job, yet Global produced a

11 completed questionnaire for these workers with an affirmative response to question

12 12. Only one (1) of these fifty-five (55) workers was listed on Global’s Exhibit A,
13
but this one worker was not identified as having accepted the job. Global’s failure
14
to record fifty-four (54) of these workers applied for work and that all of them had
15
accepted the job, demonstrates Global failed to keep or produce accurate records of
16
17 workers seeking employment. A chart identifying these fifty-five (55) workers and

18 copies of the questionnaires are attached as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit C.3

19

20 3 Plaintiffs included the Job Service Questionnaire for Erika Gutierrez even though

21 there is no response indicated to question 12. A note on the document reads: “5/3
22
confirmed with Erika.” Plaintiffs have no further evidence for Ms. Gutierrez so
23

PLAINTIFFS’ PHASE II MEMORANDUM CLASS MEMBERSHIP, INJUNCTIVE RELIEF & DAMAGES - 7

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 6 South Second Street, Suite 600 Yakima, WA 98901 (509) 575-5593

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 989 Filed 11/14/08

1

Mr. Orian testified that Global used Job Service Questionnaires in its

2 application process. Trial Tr. Day 6 at 99-101:21-22. A worker who was asked by
3
Global if he was willing to commit right now to accept the job would reasonably
4
believe he had been offered a job. This is also consistent with Mr. Orian’s trial
5
6 testimony that Global’s practice was to offer workers a job at the end of the phone
7 interview. Trial Tr., Day 6 at 102:18-22. A Job Service Questionnaire with an

8 affirmative response to question 12 is sufficient evidence of a worker’s claim he

9 was offered employment and therefore is a member of the Denied Work subclass.

10

3. Workers who signed an Acknowledgment of Receipt of

11

Clearance Order are class members.

12

The third type of evidence documenting membership in the Denied Work

13
Subclass is signed forms prepared by Global called Acknowledgment of Receipt of
14
Clearance Order. Plaintiffs identified eleven (11) additional class members based
15
on forms they signed acknowledging they received a clearance order and would
16

17 not be terminated prior to receiving two written warnings. A chart identifying these

18 workers and copies of the Acknowledgments are attached as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit D.

19 Only one of these workers was included on Global’s Exhibit A as a worker who
20

21 this document is submitted in support of her membership in the Denied Work
22
Subclass.
23

PLAINTIFFS’ PHASE II MEMORANDUM CLASS MEMBERSHIP, INJUNCTIVE RELIEF & DAMAGES - 8

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 6 South Second Street, Suite 600 Yakima, WA 98901 (509) 575-5593

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 989 Filed 11/14/08

1 had contacted Global, again demonstrating Global’s failure to keep track of

2 workers seeking employment.
3
The text of the Acknowledgment contemplates that the worker is hired when
4
the form is signed. Workers who acknowledged they will receive two written
5
6 warnings prior to being terminated would reasonably conclude they had been
7 offered a job. In addition, Mr. Orian testified at trial that after a worker was

8 offered a job he was required to sign an Acknowledgment to become an employee.

9 Trial Tr., Day 6 at 102-103:18-12. The text of the Acknowledgment and Mr.

10
Orian’s testimony are sufficient to show workers who signed Acknowledgments
11
are members of the Denied Work Subclass.
12

13

4. Workers who attended Global orientation or safety training

are class members.

14
The fourth type of evidence that demonstrates membership in the Denied
15

Work Subclass is proof the worker attended orientation at which safety training
16

17 occurred. Grower Defendants provided safety training sign-in sheets that identify

18 three additional workers who were not included on Global’s Exhibit A. A chart

19 identifying the workers and copies of the sign-in sheets are attached as Plaintiffs’
20
Exhibit E.
21
Ms. Menchaca testified that safety training was conducted during the
22
orientation sessions. Trial Tr. Day 2 at 203:15-18. Additional evidence from
23

PLAINTIFFS’ PHASE II MEMORANDUM CLASS MEMBERSHIP, INJUNCTIVE RELIEF & DAMAGES - 9

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 6 South Second Street, Suite 600 Yakima, WA 98901 (509) 575-5593

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 989 Filed 11/14/08

1 WorkSource documented safety trainings were part of the orientation sessions.

2 Trial Ex. 37, VF00423. Global’s foreman, Jose Cuevas, and Plaintiff Perez-Farias

3
also testified that safety training took place at orientations. Trial Tr., Day 3 at 219-

4
20:25-2; Day 4 at 63:15-22; Day 5 at 246:13-18 & 249:23-25.
5

6

Mr. Orian testified at trial that after Global offered workers a job in the

7 interview process, workers were required to attend an orientation. Trial Tr., Day 6

8 at 102-103:18-12. Global had a practice of restricting participation in orientation

9 sessions to workers who Global had invited. Trial Tr. Day 2 at 213:8-12; Trial Ex.
10
37 at VF000423, VF000437. Based on Mr. Orian’s testimony and other supporting
11
evidence, workers who have proof they attended an orientation also have sufficient
12
13 evidence to show they are members of the Denied Work Subclass.

14

5. Workers who Global reported as hired are class members.

15

The final category of evidence that demonstrates membership in the Denied

16 Work Subclass is a list of workers who were hired based on information Global
17
provided to WorkSource. A chart identifying these workers and the ESD
18
(WorkSource) referral report showing the workers who were hired (previously
19

20 filed as part of Trial Ex. 38) are attached as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit F.

21

At trial, Ms. Menchaca testified that ESD prepared the report identified as

22 Trial Ex. 38 based on the referral status information Global provided to ESD. Trial
23

PLAINTIFFS’ PHASE II MEMORANDUM CLASS MEMBERSHIP, INJUNCTIVE RELIEF & DAMAGES - 10

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 6 South Second Street, Suite 600 Yakima, WA 98901 (509) 575-5593

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 989 Filed 11/14/08

1 Tr., Day 3 at 42-43:21-11; 46-47:2-12. Only one of the twenty four (24) workers

2 identified in this category was included on Global’s Exhibit A and none were
3
shown on Exhibit A as having accepted the job, again demonstrating Global’s
4
failure to properly document workers seeking employment. Workers who Global
5
6 hired meet the definition of the Denied Work Subclass because a worker must be
7 offered employment in order to be hired.

8

6. Workers who applied with Global for work at Green Acre or

Valley Fruit, should at a minimum be awarded damages for

9

violations proven at summary judgment. 4

10
Plaintiffs have identified nine (9) workers from Global’s Exhibit A who do
11
not have supporting documentation in one of the categories listed above. A chart
12

13 identifying these workers is attached as Exhibit G. Each of these workers was

14 included on Global’s Exhibit A indicating the workers applied with Global for

15 work at Green Acre or Valley Fruit in 2004.

16

Plaintiffs have demonstrated that Global failed to keep or produce accurate

17
records of workers seeking employment. Because of this failure, these workers
18

19 4 Plaintiffs asked the Court to clarify that the definition in the Amended Judgment

20 only applied to claims determined by the jury and does not limit the relief granted
21 at summary judgment. (Ct. Rec. 867 at 3-6.) The Court decided to consider the
22
issue after subsequent briefing, but has not yet ruled. (Ct. Rec. 883 at 3-4.)
23

PLAINTIFFS’ PHASE II MEMORANDUM CLASS MEMBERSHIP, INJUNCTIVE RELIEF & DAMAGES - 11

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 6 South Second Street, Suite 600 Yakima, WA 98901 (509) 575-5593

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 989 Filed 11/14/08

1 should be entitled to a presumption they are members of the Denied Work

2 Subclass. See Six Mexican Workers, 904 F.2d at 1306 n. 3. At a minimum, the
3
Court should find the workers identified here are entitled to statutory damages for
4
the violations proven at summary judgment since they met the definition of the
5
6 class at that time. See Pls. Request for Clarification of Denied Work Subclass
7 Definition (Ct. Rec. 867 at 3-6); Pls. Reply Memo in Support of Request for

8 Clarification (Ct. Rec. 882).

9

B. Membership in the Green Acre and Valley Fruit Subclasses

10
As with the Denied Work Subclass, Plaintiffs identified the majority of class
11
members through documents Global provided. Global claimed to identify all
12

13 workers employed by Global at Green Acre and Valley Fruit in 2004 in its

14 document identified as Exhibit B. Isley Decl. ¶ 3. Plaintiffs identified fifteen

15 additional members of the Green Acre and Valley Fruit Subclass who were not

16 included on Exhibit B. A chart summarizing all of the evidence used to identify
17
members of the Green Acre and Valley Fruit Subclasses and a copy of Global’s
18
Exhibit B is attached as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit H.
19

20

Plaintiffs relied primarily on another document Global produced, identified

21 as Plaintiffs’ Deposition Exhibit 50, for evidence of the farm where class members

22 were employed. Global prepared Exhibit 50 to identify all domestic workers
23

PLAINTIFFS’ PHASE II MEMORANDUM CLASS MEMBERSHIP, INJUNCTIVE RELIEF & DAMAGES - 12

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 6 South Second Street, Suite 600 Yakima, WA 98901 (509) 575-5593

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 989 Filed 11/14/08

1 employed by Global at Green Acre and Valley Fruit in 2004 for the Department of

2 Labor & Industries. Trial Ex. 5A at 3-4; Isley Decl. ¶ 16 A chart identifying all
3
workers and whether they were included on the Green Acre (GA), Valley Fruit
4
(VF) or both (VF &GA) spreadsheets in Exhibit 50 and copies of those
5
6 spreadsheets are attached as Exhibit I. Plaintiffs identified five additional workers
7 from Exhibit 50, three from Green Acre and two from Valley Fruit, who were not

8 identified by Global’s Exhibit B.

9

The information Global provided in Exhibit 50 was also not complete.

10
Plaintiffs have provided additional documentation for fifteen (15) class members,
11
eleven (11) at Green Acre and four (4) at Valley Fruit who were not included on
12
13 Exhibit 50. Of these fifteen, five were included on Global’s Exhibit B, but

14 additional documentation was needed to show their membership in the Green Acre

15 or Valley Fruit Subclasses. This additional evidence is described in the Green Acre

16 and Valley Fruit sections below.
17
At summary judgment, Plaintiffs prevailed on their claim that Global
18
unlawfully deducted Washington State income tax from Green Acre and Valley
19
20 Fruit Subclass members. (Ct. Rec. 507 at 18.) Plaintiffs identified one hundred and
21 twenty two (122) workers affected by examining Attachment B to Global’s

22 Settlement Agreement with the State of Washington which was filed in support of

23

PLAINTIFFS’ PHASE II MEMORANDUM CLASS MEMBERSHIP, INJUNCTIVE RELIEF & DAMAGES - 13

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 6 South Second Street, Suite 600 Yakima, WA 98901 (509) 575-5593

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 989 Filed 11/14/08

1 Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment. (Ct. Rec. 467-3 at 81-103.) A chart

2 identifying these workers and a copy of Attachment B to the Settlement Agreement

3
are attached as Exhibit J.
4
1. Membership in the Green Acre Subclass
5

6

Plaintiffs identified one hundred and thirty (130) members of the Green Acre

7 Subclass. The majority of workers were identified based on Global’s Exhibit B

8 and Exhibit 50. Plaintiffs identified eight (8) class members who were not
9 included on Exhibit B or Exhibit 50 and three (3) additional class members who
10
were not included on Exhibit 50. Plaintiffs also identified fifteen (15) class
11
members with evidence demonstrating they worked at both Green Acre and Valley
12
13 Fruit. Plaintiffs identified these class members based on Global’s wage and hour

14 records, an analysis of data included in Global’s Exhibit B, and crew logs produced

15 by the Grower Defendants as discussed below. A chart identifying all of the
16 members in the Green Acre Subclass is attached as Exhibit K.
17
a. Global’s Wage & Hour Records
18
Plaintiffs identified nineteen (19) Green Acre Subclass members from
19
20 Global’s wage and hour records including payroll, time sheets and time cards. A

21 chart identifying the documents and copies of the documents are attached as

22 Exhibit L. Four (4) of these class members were not identified by Global’s Exhibit
23

PLAINTIFFS’ PHASE II MEMORANDUM CLASS MEMBERSHIP, INJUNCTIVE RELIEF & DAMAGES - 14

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 6 South Second Street, Suite 600 Yakima, WA 98901 (509) 575-5593

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 989 Filed 11/14/08

1 B or Exhibit 50. The remaining fifteen (15) class members were identified by

2 Exhibit 50 as working only at Valley Fruit, but additional wage and hour

3 documents show they were also employed at Green Acre.5
4
b. Additional Information in Global’s Exhibit B.
5

6

Plaintiffs identified three additional class members who were not included

7 on Exhibit 50 by analyzing the information included in Global’s Exhibit B and

8 comparing it to information compiled for the Green Acre Subclass. Global’s
9 Exhibit B contains a source column labeled “BSA.” Plaintiffs identified three
10
workers who had “BSA” in the source column who were not included on Exhibit
11
50. Plaintiffs compared all the workers identified on Exhibit B with BSA in the
12
13 source column and found all of the other workers, had evidence demonstrating they

14 were members of the Green Acre Subclass. A chart identifying the three workers

15 and comparing the evidence is attached as Exhibit M. The three additional
16 workers identified with BSA in the source column from Exhibit B should be
17
rebuttably presumed to be members of the Green Acre Subclass.
18
19 5 All the workers, except Francisco Castro, have additional evidence they were

20 employed by Global at Valley Fruit. Plaintiffs were unable to find additional
21 evidence of Mr. Castro’s employment at Valley Fruit. See Pls. Exhibit L (chart
22
identifying workers employed at both farms and supporting evidence).
23

PLAINTIFFS’ PHASE II MEMORANDUM CLASS MEMBERSHIP, INJUNCTIVE RELIEF & DAMAGES - 15

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 6 South Second Street, Suite 600 Yakima, WA 98901 (509) 575-5593

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 989 Filed 11/14/08

1

c. Green Acre Crew Lists

2

Finally, Plaintiffs identified four Green Acre Subclass members by

3
comparing crew lists produced by Grower Defendants with Global’s wage and
4
hour documents. A chart identifying the workers and copies of the crew lists are
5

6 attached as Exhibit N. These documents are evidence that the workers are

7 members of the Green Acre Subclass for the following reasons.

8

First, all of the crew lists appear to indicate the crew boss for all four class

9 members was Ignacio Ramos. Ignacio Ramos was Global’s supervisor at Green
10
Acre. Trial Tr. Day 2 at 112: 9-24. A number of the references to Mr. Ramos on
11
the crew lists appear to be phonetic spellings of his first name including “Iinico”
12

13 (GA00076) and “Inejo” (GA00069).

14

Second, Global payroll documents correspond very closely to the workers

15 listed on the crew sheets for the dates indicated with the exception of the four
16 missing workers. Copies of Global’s payroll documents are attached following the
17
crew sheet to which they correspond in Exhibit N. For example, on the crew list
18
dated June 14, 2004 (GA00076), for hours worked from June 10th through 13th, all
19

20

21

22

23

PLAINTIFFS’ PHASE II MEMORANDUM CLASS MEMBERSHIP, INJUNCTIVE RELIEF & DAMAGES - 16

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 6 South Second Street, Suite 600 Yakima, WA 98901 (509) 575-5593

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 989 Filed 11/14/08

1 of the workers6 except Susana Salinas are included on Global’s payroll document

2 (GH*NB001861) on these dates. Similarly, all of the workers on the June 16, 2004
3
crew list (GA00069), except Jose I. Gonzalez, are included on Global’s payroll
4
document (GH*NB001862) for this date showing they worked for ten hours. In
5
6 addition, on the crew list covering work performed on August 23rd through August
7 25th (GA00665), all of the workers except Bernardo Bernal are include on

8 Global’s payroll document (GH*NB001874) covering these dates.

9

Finally, while one of the crew lists lacks a date (GA00121), preventing

10
comparison with Global’s payroll documents by date, all of the workers, except for
11
Manuel Ramirez, are included on Global’s payroll document for May 31st through
12
13 June 5th. A chart identifying the workers included on the crew list and the payroll

14 document is attached as Exhibit O.

15

It appears that all four workers listed on Exhibit N were apparently omitted

16 from Global’s wage and hour documents, yet they all have evidence they were
17
employed by Global at Green Acre. Accordingly all four workers are members of
18
the Green Acre Subclass.
19

20 6 Many of the names on GA00076 are spelled phonetically. Plaintiffs conclude
21 Abraham Ochoa on GA00076 is the same person as Abraham Macias on
22
GH*NB001861.
23

PLAINTIFFS’ PHASE II MEMORANDUM CLASS MEMBERSHIP, INJUNCTIVE RELIEF & DAMAGES - 17

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 6 South Second Street, Suite 600 Yakima, WA 98901 (509) 575-5593

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 989 Filed 11/14/08

1

2. Membership in the Valley Fruit Subclass

2

Plaintiffs identified one hundred and sixty nine (169) members in the Valley

3
Fruit Subclass. The majority of workers were identified based on Global’s Exhibit
4
B and Exhibit 50. Plaintiffs identified two (2) class members who were not
5

6 included on Exhibit B or Exhibit 50, and two (2) additional class members who

7 were not identified on Exhibit 50 from Global’s time cards for the cherry harvest at

8 Valley Fruit. In addition, Plaintiffs identified twenty-five (25) class members who
9 were identified on Exhibit 50 as working for Green Acre, but who also have
10
evidence they worked at Valley Fruit from Global’s wage and hour records. A
11
chart identifying all of the members in the Valley Fruit Subclass and supporting
12
13 evidence are attached as Exhibit P.7

14

a. Valley Fruit Subclass Members who worked in the

cherry harvest.
15

16

At summary judgment, Plaintiffs prevailed on their claim that Global failed

17 to keep adequate pay statements based on Global’s concession that it failed to

18 itemize the pieces done when work was paid on a piece rate basis at Valley Fruit.
19

20 7 If the worker was identified through wage and hour documents related to the
21 cherry or pear harvests at Valley Fruit, the supporting documentation is attached
22
with Pls. Exhibits Q and R.
23

PLAINTIFFS’ PHASE II MEMORANDUM CLASS MEMBERSHIP, INJUNCTIVE RELIEF & DAMAGES - 18

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 6 South Second Street, Suite 600 Yakima, WA 98901 (509) 575-5593

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 989 Filed 11/14/08

1 (Ct. Rec. 507 at 19.) John Verbrugge testified at trial that he agreed to pay Global

2 workers at Valley Fruit the piece rate in the cherry harvest. Trial Tr., Day 8 at
3
33:21 – 36:12. Plaintiffs identified ninety eight (98) members of the Valley Fruit
4
Subclass who worked in the cherry harvest at Valley Fruit from Global’s time
5
6 cards. A chart identifying the members of the Valley Fruit Subclass who worked
7 in the cherry harvest and copies of the time cards are attached as Exhibit Q.

8

b. Valley Fruit Subclass Members who worked in the pear

harvest.
9

10

Plaintiffs also prevailed on their claim at summary judgment that Global

11 failed to pay the piece rate in the pear harvest at Valley Fruit. (Ct. Rec. 507 at 18.)

12 Plaintiffs identified twenty-four (24) members of the Valley Fruit Subclass who
13
worked in the pear harvest at Valley Fruit from a Global timesheet. A chart
14
identifying the workers in this group and a copy of the timesheet is attached as
15
Exhibit R.
16

17

3. Membership in Both Green Acre and Valley Fruit

Subclasses

18

Based on the information reviewed above, Plaintiffs have identified forty-
19

20 three (43) class members who were employed by Global at both Green Acre and

21 Valley Fruit in 2004. A chart identifying these class members and summarizing

22

23

PLAINTIFFS’ PHASE II MEMORANDUM CLASS MEMBERSHIP, INJUNCTIVE RELIEF & DAMAGES - 19

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 6 South Second Street, Suite 600 Yakima, WA 98901 (509) 575-5593

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 989 Filed 11/14/08

1 the evidence supporting their membership in both groups, and if not attached

2 previously, the supporting documents are attached as Exhibit S.

3
IV. INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES
4
A. Injunctive Relief
5

6

Plaintiffs previously requested injunctive relief in their trial brief. (Ct. Rec.

7 630 at 41-43.) Pursuant to the FLCA, Plaintiffs seek a permanent injunction

8 against Global Horizons to prevent them from operating as a farm labor contractor
9 in Washington until the company obtains valid federal and state contracting
10
licenses. Plaintiffs request that any injunction remain in place until Global has
11
paid in full all sums owing from this lawsuit and any other money judgments owed
12
13 to farm workers they employed in Washington. Plaintiffs also seek a permanent

14 injunction against the Grower Defendants to enjoin them from using the services of

15 any unlicensed farm labor contractor.

16

1. Standard for Awarding Injunctive Relief

17
The FLCA allows a person to:
18

[E]njoin any person using the services of an unlicensed farm labor contractor

19

or to enjoin any person acting as a farm labor contractor in violation of this

20

chapter, or any rule adopted under this chapter, from committing future

violations.

21

22

23

PLAINTIFFS’ PHASE II MEMORANDUM CLASS MEMBERSHIP, INJUNCTIVE RELIEF & DAMAGES - 20

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 6 South Second Street, Suite 600 Yakima, WA 98901 (509) 575-5593

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 989 Filed 11/14/08

1 RCW 19.30.180. There are no reported Washington State FLCA cases addressing

2 injunctive relief. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that in order to obtain a

3
permanent injunction a plaintiff must demonstrate:

4

(1) that it has suffered an irreparable injury; (2) that remedies available at

5

law, such as monetary damages, are inadequate to compensate for that

6

injury; (3) that, considering the balance of hardships between the plaintiff and defendant, a remedy in equity is warranted; and (4) that the public

7

interest would not be disserved by a permanent injunction.

8 eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388, 391, 126 S.Ct. 1837 (2006). A

9 recent federal district court decision granted a permanent injunction after extensive
10
analysis of the impact the eBay and its impact on prior Ninth Circuit injunction
11
decisions. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 518 F.Supp.2d
12
13 1197(C.D. Cal. 2007)(copyright infringement case enjoining defendant from
14 selling software that allowed illegal downloading and copying of audio and video).

15 The reasoning used in Metro-Goldwyn will be followed here.

16

2. Irreparable Injury and Adequate Remedy at Law

17
Judge Wilson noted that the analysis used in the first two eBay factors,
18
irreparable injury and adequate remedy at law, “inevitably overlaps.” Id. at 1219.
19
20 The court determined that both factors weighed in favor of issuing an injunction

21 due to: 1) the defendant’s likely inability to pay for past violations; and, 2) that

22 future violations would require multiple lawsuits and leave plaintiffs in an

23

PLAINTIFFS’ PHASE II MEMORANDUM CLASS MEMBERSHIP, INJUNCTIVE RELIEF & DAMAGES - 21

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 6 South Second Street, Suite 600 Yakima, WA 98901 (509) 575-5593

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 989 Filed 11/14/08

1 “untenable position.” Id. at 1219-1220 (“damages are no remedy at all if they
2 cannot be collected”).
3
Plaintiffs face similar problems with Global Horizons. Affidavits filed by
4
Mr. Orian indicate there are multiple lawsuits and judgments from numerous
5
6 courts around the country along with a $4 million federal tax lien. Trial Tr. Day 6
7 at 185; Ct. Rec. 565. Global has repeatedly violated orders of this Court and
8 refused to pay sanctions imposed on the company. (Ct. Recs. 458, 597 at 16, 900 &
9 913.) These patterns indicate an open hostility toward this Court’s orders and an
10
inability, or unwillingness, to pay monies owed.
11
Future violations by Global and the Grower Defendants would also leave the
12
13 Plaintiffs in an untenable position. Grower Defendants should be enjoined from
14 using unlicensed farm labor contractors in the future, as the harm caused here
15 would have been prevented if the Grower Defendants had not contracted with
16 Global. Plaintiffs should not be put in the position of hoping Global and the
17
Grower Defendants will comply with the FLCA in the future and, when they do
18
not, be forced to spend scarce resources litigating for years against them. For these
19
20 reasons, Plaintiffs believe the first two factors weigh in favor of a permanent
21 injunction.
22
23

PLAINTIFFS’ PHASE II MEMORANDUM CLASS MEMBERSHIP, INJUNCTIVE RELIEF & DAMAGES - 22

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 6 South Second Street, Suite 600 Yakima, WA 98901 (509) 575-5593

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 989 Filed 11/14/08

1

3. Balance of Hardships Favors Plaintiffs.

2

In looking at the balance of hardships factor, the Metro-Goldwyn court ruled

3
evidence of past violations “may give rise to an inference that there will be future
4
violations.” Id. at 1221. In that case “overwhelming” evidence of the defendant’s
5
6 illegal objectives merited issuing an injunction. Id. The evidence presented at

7 summary judgment and trial proved Global’s serial violations of labor laws in

8 Washington and other states. Trial Exs. 9 & 37 at VF000437; Ct. Recs. 507 & 747.

9 That evidence gives rise to the inference that Global is likely to violate the FLCA
10
in the future. The evidence of Global’s illegal scheme to abuse and profit off low-
11
wage workers also indicates a permanent injunction is warranted. The balance of
12
13 hardships also favors an injunction against Grower Defendants because they were
14 complicit in Global’s unlawful objectives to replace local workers with H-2A

15 workers.

16

4. Public Interest Would be Served.

17
There is no public interest in allowing Global to operate as farm labor
18
contractor in Washington unless farm workers have been made whole regarding
19
20 past abuses. See Id. at 1222 (“no public interest will be disserved by enjoining the

21 Defendant from [violating the copyright laws]”). Similarly, the public interest

22 would be served in enjoining the Grower Defendants from using unlicensed farm

23

PLAINTIFFS’ PHASE II MEMORANDUM CLASS MEMBERSHIP, INJUNCTIVE RELIEF & DAMAGES - 23

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 6 South Second Street, Suite 600 Yakima, WA 98901 (509) 575-5593

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 989 Filed 11/14/08

1 labor contractors in the future. Accordingly, this factor also weighs heavily in
2 favor of a permanent injunction.
3
This Court and the jury have determined that ten FLCA violations occurred
4
in 2004. While Global Defendants are not presently licensed, the company
5
6 continues to appeal the loss of its federal license. Trial Exs. 9, 82 & 91; Trial Tr.
7 Day 6 at 208:12-18. Therefore, the possibility exists that Global will try to re-
8 establish business in Washington in the future. If that occurs, there is a strong
9 likelihood that Global will commit future violations of the FLCA. To defeat a
10
request for injunctive relief, it must be “absolutely clear” that a defendant will not
11
return to its old ways of doing business. LGS Architects, Inc. v. Concordia Homes
12
13 of Nevada, 434 F.3d 1150, 1153 (9th Cir. 2006); Braam ex rel. Braam v. State, 150
14 Wash.2d 689, 709, 81 P.3d 851(2003). Moreover, conditioning the dissolution of a
15 permanent injunction against Global on the payment of monies owed to
16 Washington farm workers “insures future compliance where it is assured a
17
wrongdoer is compelled to restore illegal gains.” State v. Ralph Williams' North
18
West Chrysler Plymouth, Inc., 87 Wash.2d 298, 319, 553 P.2d 423 (1976)(car
19
20 dealership enjoined from committing future unfair and deceptive sales practices
21 and required to pay restitution to defrauded customers). Plaintiffs have met the
22
23

PLAINTIFFS’ PHASE II MEMORANDUM CLASS MEMBERSHIP, INJUNCTIVE RELIEF & DAMAGES - 24

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 6 South Second Street, Suite 600 Yakima, WA 98901 (509) 575-5593

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 989 Filed 11/14/08

1 standard for issuance of a permanent injunction and request the Court enjoin the

2 Defendants as set forth above.

3
B. FLCA Statutory Damages

4

1. Summary of Plaintiffs’ Previous FLCA Briefing And Related

5

Court Orders

6

Plaintiffs have extensively briefed the issue of the Global’s multiple

7
violations of the FLCA. (Ct. Rec. 460, 466, 561, 630, 761, & 806.) Plaintiffs’
8
have documented undisputed facts which relate to each FLCA violation and these
9

10 facts should assist the Court with damage determinations. (Ct. Rec. 461 & 467.)

11 In light of this record, Plaintiffs will try to limit repetition of previous arguments.

12 An updated chart of the ten (10) FLCA violations and the proposed damage awards
13 is attached as Exhibit T.8
14
2. Standard for Awarding FLCA Damages
15
This Court has determined that the amount of FLCA damages to be awarded
16
17 shall be determined using the seven factors set forth in Six (6) Mexican Workers v.
18 904 F.2d 1301, 1301 (9th Cir. 1990). (Ct. Rec. 597 at 13.) Those factors are: 1) the

19

20 8 Plaintiffs have updated the previous chart filed (Ct. Rec. 761, Ex. A at 13) based
21 on the information submitted here in support of class membership. See Pls. Exs.
22
A, J, K, Q, R & S.
23

PLAINTIFFS’ PHASE II MEMORANDUM CLASS MEMBERSHIP, INJUNCTIVE RELIEF & DAMAGES - 25

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 6 South Second Street, Suite 600 Yakima, WA 98901 (509) 575-5593

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 989 Filed 11/14/08

1 amount of award to each plaintiff, 2) the total award, 3) the nature and persistence

2 of the violations, 4) the extent of the defendant's culpability, 5) damage awards in

3
similar cases, 6) the substantive or technical nature of the violations, and 7) the

4
circumstances of each case.
5

6

a. Total Award, Amount Awarded To Each Plaintiff, and Damage Awards in Similar Cases – Factors 1, 2, and 5.

7
Plaintiffs propose a total FLCA award of $ 2,006,000. This amounts to $
8
2,500 for each member of the Denied Work Subclass, $ 3,500 to $ 4,000 for each
9

10 member of the Green Acre Subclass, and $ 3,500 to $ 5,000 for each member of

11 the Valley Fruit Subclass. These awards are not disproportionately punitive based

12 on similar awards in other cases as Plaintiffs’ have argued in previous filings. (Ct.
13 Rec. 630 at 30-32; Ct. Rec. 761 at 6-8.)
14
b. Substantive Nature of the Violations – Factor 6.
15
The ten FLCA violations can be divided into four separate categories:
16
17 recruitment violations; working arrangement violations; failing to pay wages; and,

18 failing to provide adequate pay statements. All of these categories have been

19 determined by the Ninth Circuit to be substantive violations of the AWPA. In
20 Martinez v. Shinn, 992 F.2d 997 (9th Cir. 1993), the grower sought to reduce a
21
statutory damage award arguing the violations were technical rather than
22
substantive. The Ninth Circuit refused, ruling that nearly identical provisions of
23

PLAINTIFFS’ PHASE II MEMORANDUM CLASS MEMBERSHIP, INJUNCTIVE RELIEF & DAMAGES - 26

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 6 South Second Street, Suite 600 Yakima, WA 98901 (509) 575-5593

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 989 Filed 11/14/08

1 the AWPA: failure to make written disclosures; failure to keep pay records; failure

2 to pay wages; failure to abide by the terms of the working arrangement; and
3
unlawful firings, were all substantive violations of the Act. Id. at 999-1000. The
4
only violation found to be technical was the failure to post the rights of the workers
5
6 in a conspicuous location. Id. This Court should find that all violations committed
7 by Global in this case are substantive.

8

c. Culpability of Defendants, Extraordinary Circumstances, and

Nature and Persistence of the Violations – Factors 3, 4, and 7.
9

10

It is hard to imagine more extraordinary circumstances and a more culpable

11 defendant than Global Horizons. Global’s wholesale violations of the FLCA

12 allowed it to charge exorbitant recruitment fees to H-2A workers as well as bill the
13 Grower Defendants nearly $ 4 million dollars, a significant portion of which was
14
paid to H-2A workers that should have been paid to local workers who were
15
denied jobs or unjustifiably terminated from work. Trial Exs. 4, 5 & 8A.
16
17 Moreover, the serious nature of the violations and the number of states where

18 Global violated the rights of workers prior to arriving in Washington demonstrates

19 the extraordinary circumstances and Global’s culpability.

20

Global Horizons had a plan that it sold to the Grower Defendants – replace a

21
large portion of the local workforce with submissive workers from Thailand. Trial
22

Exs. 1 & 2. And, between January and August, 2008, the Defendants worked
23

PLAINTIFFS’ PHASE II MEMORANDUM CLASS MEMBERSHIP, INJUNCTIVE RELIEF & DAMAGES - 27

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 6 South Second Street, Suite 600 Yakima, WA 98901 (509) 575-5593

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 989 Filed 11/14/08

1 together to carry out the plan. However, when hundreds of local workers sought or

2 applied for work, the only way to carry out the plan was to violate the FLCA in
3
myriad ways: not provide required disclosures; fail to call workers for
4
employment; lie to workers in the recruitment process; provide false and
5
6 misleading information about the terms and conditions of employment; violate
7 federal law by bringing in H-2A replacement workers without approval; fire and

8 lay off local workers without following disciplinary procedures; and commit wage

9 fraud by deducting non-existent state taxes from workers’ paychecks. While the
10
Grower Defendants may not have known all the details of Global’s wrongdoing,
11
they made the decision to retain Global, continued using the services of an
12
13 unlicensed contractor and were too involved in the day-to-day operations of their
14 respective orchards to be without blame.

15

3. Global’s Culpability

16

Mordechai Orian built Global Horizons on two premises: greed and breaking

17
the law. Former Global employee Ebony Williams described Mr. Orian:

18

He’s a crook. He’s a shady guy.…[H]e will try to make a million dollars off

19

a dollar and he’ll do whatever he…has to do to get it. Cutting corners, you

20

know, cheating DOL. He’s just – one word – a crook.

21 Williams Testimony, Day 1 at 31:4-12. Mr. Zhou described how those dollars

22 came to Global primarily in cash recruitment fees paid by H-2A workers. Orian

23

PLAINTIFFS’ PHASE II MEMORANDUM CLASS MEMBERSHIP, INJUNCTIVE RELIEF & DAMAGES - 28

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 6 South Second Street, Suite 600 Yakima, WA 98901 (509) 575-5593

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 989 Filed 11/14/08

1 instructed Mr. Zhou to provide no receipts and that Global received the money

2 through “special channels.” Zhou Testimony, Day 2 at 37:16 – 38:4 and 47:25 –

3
48:9. Furthermore, Mr. Zhou testified that Mr. Orian knew that taking cash from
4
H-2A workers was illegal, but that a policy was in place to do so in 2004 & 2005.
5
6 Id. at 42:23-9 and 63:20 - 64:9.

7

Mr. Orian also gave his employees financial incentives to violate the law by

8 instituting practices to encourage the hiring of H-2A workers over local workers,

9 contrary to the preference the law provides for local workers. 8 U.S.C. §
10
1188(a)(1)(A); Alfred L. Snapp & Son, Inc. v. Puerto Rico, ex rel., Barez 458 U.S.
11
592, 596, (1982) (“obvious point of this somewhat complicated statutory and
12
13 regulatory framework is to provide…United States workers…a preference over
14 foreign workers for jobs”).

15

Bruce Steen was paid a $50-100 commission for every H-2A worker placed

16 in the United States. Trial Tr. Day 2 at 83:16 – 84:5. Mr. Steen pressured Maria
17
Fernandez and Ebony Williams to get H-2A workers in place at Green Acre and
18
Valley Fruit. Trial Tr. Day 2 at 84:10-85:1. Mr. Steen also felt pressure from John
19
20 Verbrugge who was “impatient” to get H-2A workers at Valley Fruit. Trial Tr.
21 Day 2 at 87:3-17.

22

23

PLAINTIFFS’ PHASE II MEMORANDUM CLASS MEMBERSHIP, INJUNCTIVE RELIEF & DAMAGES - 29

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 6 South Second Street, Suite 600 Yakima, WA 98901 (509) 575-5593

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 989 Filed 11/14/08

1

Mr. Orian also pressured his workers to violate the law. Ebony Williams

2 testified in detail about the “elimination process” employed by Mr. Orian to get rid
3
of local workers. As part of that process, Mr. Orian told Ms. Williams and other
4
Global employees not to provide local workers with information about their rights
5
6 to transportation and housing. Williams Testimony, Day 1 at 82:3-5. Mr. Orian
7 also told Ms. Williams to lie about the reasons local workers were terminated in

8 Washington State. Id. at 33:1–35:2. She also lied to the Department of Labor and

9 forged documents for Mr. Orian. Id. at 31:13-32:12 and 55:3-14; see also Trial Ex.
10
37 at VF000419 (memo regarding lies of Bruce Schwartz to state officials
11
regarding Global’s violations of the law in Washington State). She further testified
12
13 that all of these practices were the business plan the entire two years she worked
14 for Global. Williams Testimony, Tr. Day 1 at 35:15-17 and 15:2-7. Moreover,

15 Ms. Williams testified that Mr. Morford and Mr. Verbrugge were aware of the

16 elimination process: “[t]hey knew that we wouldn’t be able to get the H-2A

17
approved if we kept all the local workers and they didn’t want that to happen….”

18
Williams Testimony, Day 1 at 183:10-12.
19

20

All of these improper business practices were employed in other states prior

21 to Global’s arrival in Washington. The Department of Labor has been

22 investigating Global’s violations of worker rights in Texas, Arizona, Hawaii and,

23

PLAINTIFFS’ PHASE II MEMORANDUM CLASS MEMBERSHIP, INJUNCTIVE RELIEF & DAMAGES - 30

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 6 South Second Street, Suite 600 Yakima, WA 98901 (509) 575-5593

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 989 Filed 11/14/08

1 California. Williams Testimony, Day 1 at 20:9-20 and 22:11–25:5 (Texas); Trial

2 Tr. Day 6 at 219:17- 220:13 (Arizona & Hawaii); 220:14- 224:3 (Taft Farms,

3
California). Global has also been debarred by the federal government from using

4
the H-2A program. Trial Tr. Day 6 at 195:12-17.
5

6

Global’s extreme culpability is demonstrated by the fact that the company

7 had the financial resources to comply with the law, but chose to violate the law

8 instead. Global retained the Washington, D.C. labor law firm of McGuiness,

9 Norris & Williams, to provide training and oversight. Mr. Orian described the
10
close relationship Global had with Dr. James Holt, specialist in H-2A regulations
11
at the firm: “Every application, every question, everything – every question we
12
13 had all the people at the office had direct contact with [Dr. Holt]….” Trial Tr.
14 Day 6 at 34:11-13. (emphasis and bold added)

15

Dr Holt testified he had worked with Global since late 1999 or early 2000.

16 Trial Tr. Day 7 at 14:19-24. He trained Global staff on “all of the regulations and
17
procedures…and how to conduct their activities in compliance with the Labor
18
Department’s regulations, policies, and practices and procedures.” Trial Tr. Day 7
19
20 at 23:6-14. He provided a two-day training session in Los Angeles at which
21 Global staff, including Mr. Orian and Mr. Schwartz, were present. Trial Tr. Day 7

22 at 67:12-15 and 68:3-9.

23

PLAINTIFFS’ PHASE II MEMORANDUM CLASS MEMBERSHIP, INJUNCTIVE RELIEF & DAMAGES - 31

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 6 South Second Street, Suite 600 Yakima, WA 98901 (509) 575-5593

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 989 Filed 11/14/08

1

At that training, Dr. Holt informed Global staff that the company could not

2 bring in H-2A workers unless there was an approved Clearance Order. Trial Tr.
3
Day 7 at 68:10-13. He told staff they could not bring in more H-2A workers than
4
the Clearance Order allowed. Trial Tr. Day 7 at 71:4-14. He advised staff that
5
6 they could not transfer H-2A workers to other employers unless additional
7 approval had been obtained. Trial Tr. Day 7 at 71:15-22.

8

Yet at every key juncture in 2004 when Global violated H-2A regulations,

9 and thus the FLCA, Dr. Holt was never consulted. Dr. Holt testified that had he
10
been asked about Global paying commissions based on the number of H-2A
11
workers employed in the U.S. he would have advised the company it was “not a
12
13 good practice.” Trial Tr. Day 7 at 76:15 – 77:7. Dr. Holt was not consulted about
14 transportation issues in Washington State. Trial Tr. Day 7 at 26:16-18. When

15 Global illegally employed H-2A workers at Valley Fruit, Green Acre, and Zirkle

16 Fruit in 2004, Dr. Holt could not recall ever being consulted by Mr. Orian or

17
anyone else at Global. Trial Tr. Day 7 at 79:1-80:6. If he had been asked, Dr. Holt
18
would have informed Global that they could not employ workers above the number
19
20 approved in the Green Acre Clearance Order. (Ct. Rec. 467 ¶92.)

21

Mr. Orian was directly aware of these violations. He was present in

22 Washington 7-10 times in 2004, stayed 2-3 days each visit, and talked to Mr.

23

PLAINTIFFS’ PHASE II MEMORANDUM CLASS MEMBERSHIP, INJUNCTIVE RELIEF & DAMAGES - 32

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 6 South Second Street, Suite 600 Yakima, WA 98901 (509) 575-5593

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 989 Filed 11/14/08

1 Verbrugge and Mr. Morford during the visits. Trial Tr. Day 6 at 113:8-17. He was
2 called daily by Mr. Schwartz who told him “exactly [what was] going on.” Trial
3
Tr. Day 6 at 113:21-22. Mr. Orian admitted on cross-examination that “it was
4
possible” he knew that H-2A workers were illegally employed by Valley Fruit
5
6 beginning in June, 2004. Trial Tr. Day 6 at 151:6-8. When Mr. Schwartz raised
7 concerns about violating the law by moving H-2A workers from Green Acre to
8 Valley Fruit, Mr. Orian responded to by telling him, “[W]e can move them from
9 farm to farm as needed, so don’t worry about that.” Trial Ex. 77 at GHEM000438.
10
Yet for all this constant contact with Mr. Schwartz, Mr. Orian and Global kept
11
other key staff in the dark about information that would have informed local
12
13 workers about their rights. José Cuevas testified he was never provided H-2A
14 training. Trial Tr. Day 3 at 194:21 - 195:1. Mr. Cuevas only saw Clearance Orders
15 that were in English and he never translated them. Trial Tr. Day 3 at 197:13-24.
16 Mr. Cuevas laid off local workers in March, 2004 at Valley Fruit, but was never
17
told that Global was filing a Clearance Order for 110 workers at that same time.
18
Trial Tr. Day 4 at 71:3 – 72:12. He further testified that he was never told about
19
20 the August, 2004 Valley Fruit Clearance Order that required Global to pay $19 a
21 bin to harvest pears. Trial Tr. Day 3 at 214:20 - 215:19.
22
23

PLAINTIFFS’ PHASE II MEMORANDUM CLASS MEMBERSHIP, INJUNCTIVE RELIEF & DAMAGES - 33

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 6 South Second Street, Suite 600 Yakima, WA 98901 (509) 575-5593

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 989 Filed 11/14/08

1

Based on Global’s ability to comply with the law and Mr. Orian’s

2 knowledge that Global was violating the law, there can be no question of Global

3
Horizon’s culpability and the magnitude of that culpability.

4
4. Valley Fruit’s Culpability
5

6

Valley Fruit is jointly liable with Global of all violations of FLCA because it

7 knowingly used the services of an unlicensed farm labor contractor. (Ct. Rec. 507

8 at 27.) “[N]either Mr. Morford nor Mr. Verbrugge investigated whether Global

9 possessed a valid Washington State farm labor contractor license, and, after they

10
were each advised that no license existed in July of 2004, they continued to use
11
Global’s services.” Id. In addition, Valley Fruit and Mr. Verbrugge were involved
12
13 with Global’s violations in the following ways.

14

Mr. Verbrugge was “extremely knowledgeable about the H-2A program.”

15 Trial Tr. Day 2 at 83:1-5. As of 2003, he understood that H-2A workers could not

16 be employed at Valley Fruit unless there was prior approval from the federal

17
government. Trial Tr. Day 8 at 56:16-25. Despite this personal knowledge, Mr.
18
Verbrugge worked in concert with Global to employ H-2A workers at Valley Fruit
19
20 in violation of the law.

21

Mr. Verbrugge worked with Bruce Steen to create a spread-sheet used by

22 Global to apply to the federal government for H-2A workers that included an

23

PLAINTIFFS’ PHASE II MEMORANDUM CLASS MEMBERSHIP, INJUNCTIVE RELIEF & DAMAGES - 34

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 6 South Second Street, Suite 600 Yakima, WA 98901 (509) 575-5593

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 989 Filed 11/14/08

1 inflated number of workers needed at Valley Fruit. Trial Exhibit 3; Trial Tr. Day 8
2 at 58:13 – 59:1. By the end of June, Mr. Verbrugge signed a letter requesting an
3
additional 20 H-2A workers above the inflated number he previously provided to
4
Global. Trial Tr. Day 8 at 81:12-23. Even though Valley Fruit’s actual labor
5
6 demand for pear and apple harvest was 40 workers, Mr. Verbrugge gave an
7 inflated number to Global of 50 workers, then later signed paperwork authorizing
8 Global to apply to bring in 70 H-2A workers. Trial Exhibit 3; Trial Tr. Day 8 at
9 81:12-23. Mr. Verbrugge admitted that he did not know where he was going to
10
employ these workers. Trial Tr. Day 8 at 82:12-22.
11
Additionally, Mr. Verbrugge permitted Global to illegally employ H-2A
12
13 workers without prior approval from the federal government for over 13,000 hours
14 at Valley Fruit beginning in June, 2004. Trial Tr. Day 8 at 78:15-21. Mr.
15 Verbrugge testified that during the June, 2004 cherry harvest, he knew there were
16 problems with Global’s H-2A application process for Valley Fruit. Trial Tr. Day 8
17
at 77:16-25. He stated, “Mr. Schwartz and Mr. Orian told me there w[ere] a lot of
18
problems.” Trial Tr. Day 8 at 78:4-9. Most tellingly, Mr. Verbrugge admitted in
19
20 his deposition and confirmed at trial he knew it was wrong to employ H-2A
21 workers at Valley Fruit without approval. “I should not have been doing what I
22 was doing.” Trial Tr. Day 8 at 78:24-79:1 (emphasis and bold added).
23

PLAINTIFFS’ PHASE II MEMORANDUM CLASS MEMBERSHIP, INJUNCTIVE RELIEF & DAMAGES - 35

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 6 South Second Street, Suite 600 Yakima, WA 98901 (509) 575-5593

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 989 Filed 11/14/08

1

Finally, Mr. Verbrugge was directly involved with the August, 2004 firing

2 of Global’s local Perez crew during the pear harvest. Trial Tr. Day 8 at 28:17-25.
3
Mr. Verbrugge did not contradict Dr. Schotzko’s testimony that the local crew Mr.
4
Verbrugge fired was replaced by the less productive H-2A Boonlue crew. Trial Tr.
5
6 Day 5 at 56:2 - 59:13. Also unrebutted was Dr. Schotzko’s testimony that the
7 Boonlue crew was illegally employed at Valley Fruit in November 2004, after the

8 H-2A contract expired on October 31, 2004. Trial Ex. 5; Trial Tr. Day 5 at 60:5-

9 62:15. Valley Fruit was a willing participant in Global’s lawlessness.
10
5. Green Acre’s Culpability
11
Green Acre is also jointly liable with Global for all violations of FLCA
12
13 because it knowingly used the services of an unlicensed farm labor contractor as
14 determined at summary judgment. As with Valley Fruit and Mr. Verbrugge, Green

15 Acre and Jim Morford were also involved with Global’s violations by employing

16 H-2A workers in excess of the Clearance Order and terminating local crews at the
17
same time H-2A workers were arriving at Green Acre.
18
Mr. Morford was also “very knowledgeable” about the H-2A program. Trial
19
20 Testimony Day 2 at 83:6-9. Mr. Morford raised no defense about why he allowed
21 more H-2A workers to be employed at Green Acre during an eight week period,

22 between August and October, 2004, than the Clearance Order legally permitted.

23

PLAINTIFFS’ PHASE II MEMORANDUM CLASS MEMBERSHIP, INJUNCTIVE RELIEF & DAMAGES - 36

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 6 South Second Street, Suite 600 Yakima, WA 98901 (509) 575-5593

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 989 Filed 11/14/08

1 Trial Exs. 4 & 5; Ct. Rec. 467 at ¶¶ 83-92. Mr. Morford kept track of all crews

2 working at Green Acre. He testified that he had a large “command board” in his
3
office that allowed him to track “all the crews out in the field every day, how many
4
people were out there. On that command board, there’s also each crew, and we
5
6 kn[ew] how many people were with each crew.” Trial Tr. Day 7 at 190:21-23
7 (emphasis and bold added); Ct. Rec. 461 at ¶ 19. Bruce Scwhartz told Mr. Morford

8 that Green Acre had been approved for H-2A workers in the first part of March,

9 2004. Trial Tr. Day 7 at 195:5-10. As of that date, Mr. Morford should have

10
ascertained the exact number of H-2A workers that had been approved and taken

11
steps to ensure that number was never exceeded. He failed to do so.
12

13

Moreover, Mr. Morford’s close scrutiny of all crews told him that local

14 crews were being terminated at times when H-2A workers were arriving.

15 Rafael Zepeda was terminated from Green Acre on July 2, 2004 during the apple

16 thinning. Trial Tr. Day 5 at 13:11 and 21:14-15. This was two days before Wisit
17
Kampilo arrived in Washington to begin work at Green Acre. Trial Tr. Day 2 at
18
41:3-7. Mr. Zepeda was not given any prior warnings for poor work performance.
19
20 Trial Tr. Day 5 at 14:5-8. Instead, he was told there was “a lot of Thai people, and
21 that there were more on the way.” Trial Tr. Day 5 at 21:1-10. Mr. Zepeda was

22

23

PLAINTIFFS’ PHASE II MEMORANDUM CLASS MEMBERSHIP, INJUNCTIVE RELIEF & DAMAGES - 37

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 6 South Second Street, Suite 600 Yakima, WA 98901 (509) 575-5593

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 989 Filed 11/14/08

1 “laid off” despite the fact there was still a lot of thinning work left to do. Trial Tr.

2 Day 5 at 21:16-20.
3
Mr. Morford was aware of the reduction in the Global Horizons domestic
4
crew during the thinning. “I don’t know the exact numbers, but they did drop
5
6 [during the thinning]….” Trial Tr. Day 7 at 201:22-24. Furthermore, Mr. Morford
7 did not observe any performance problems from Global’s local workers during the

8 thinning. “They had a pretty decent crew going there.” Trial Tr. Day 7 at 201:18.

9

Mr. Morford’s claim to be unaware that local workers were being let go

10
while H-2A workers were arriving during the apple thinning is not consistent with
11
his testimony that he tracked the crews on a daily basis. The Green Acre Crew
12
13 Hours chart in Trial Exhibit 5 shows a dramatic decrease in local workers and a

14 corresponding spike in H-2A workers during the thinning. During a five week

15 span from June 20-July 25, 2004, Global’s domestic crew dropped almost 50%

16 (from 38 to 18), while the number of H-2A workers at Green Acre nearly tripled
17
(from 43 to 123). Trial Ex. 5. The number of H-2A crews also doubled – from 2
18
to 4; adding the Wichai and Narong crews to the already present Prinya and
19
20 Boonlue crews. Id. There was no testimony that Mr. Morford stopped tracking
21 crews and the number of workers on his command board. There was no testimony

22 that he stopped paying attention to the information on his command board. He

23

PLAINTIFFS’ PHASE II MEMORANDUM CLASS MEMBERSHIP, INJUNCTIVE RELIEF & DAMAGES - 38

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 6 South Second Street, Suite 600 Yakima, WA 98901 (509) 575-5593

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 989 Filed 11/14/08

1 must have known and taken note of all these crew changes on his command board.
2 He must have known and taken note of the fact that local workers were being
3
replaced by H-2A workers.
4
Mr. Morford was also directly involved in the mass August firing of the
5
6 local Global Ramos crew that eliminated all but a skeleton local crew whose
7 primary job after the firing was to drive the buses for the H-2A workers. Trial Tr.
8 Day 3 at 211:22 - 212:8. The Ramos crew was fired without any written warnings,
9 and, in fact, Mr. Scwhartz told them they were his “best workers.” Trial Tr. Day 3
10
at 208:11-12.
11
Mr. Morford’s testimony that he simply didn’t want Global’s local crew
12
13 working in Block 19 of the Gala harvest, but they had other assignments on his
14 command board that could have been accomplished, is not credible. Trial Tr. Day
15 7 at 218:2-22. Additionally, Mr. Morford’s testimony that he received a call from
16 José Cuevas asking where to start the crew, and he responded by saying, “[T]alk to
17
Bruce. I can’t tell you what to do with that crew.” likewise lacks credibility. Trial
18
Tr. Day 7 at 218:11-15. That testimony indicates that Mr. Morford delegated some
19
20 decision making to Mr. Schwartz which directly contradicts facts found at
21 summary judgment that Mr. Morford made “all the decisions about when to start
22 or stop particular work tasks performed by Global’s crews” by telling Mr.
23

PLAINTIFFS’ PHASE II MEMORANDUM CLASS MEMBERSHIP, INJUNCTIVE RELIEF & DAMAGES - 39

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 6 South Second Street, Suite 600 Yakima, WA 98901 (509) 575-5593

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 989 Filed 11/14/08

1 Schwartz daily when and where tasks needed to happen. (Ct. Rec. 461 at ¶ 12 &

2 20.) Mr. Cuevas testified that Bruce Schwartz told him “the general” wanted the

3
crew to stop work, and the general was Mr. Morford. Trial Tr. Day 3 at 208:1-4.
4
Mr. Cuevas explained the charade, “[T]hat seemed to me that they were being
5
6 discharged, but they weren’t being told that directly.” Trial Tr. Day 3 at 209:17-18.

7

Mr. Morford, as Green Acre’s “general,” with his command board and daily

8 oversight of all crews, had too much control and knowledge to be ignorant of

9 Global’s violations of the law. He failed to take steps to stop the violations. As

10
with Valley Fruit, Green Acre was a willing participant in Global’s trampling of
11
state and federal law.
12

13

6. Time Value of Damage Award

14

Plaintiffs have previously raised the issue that the Court should consider the

15 time value of money when setting the FLCA damage awards. (Ct. Rec. 630 at 32;

16 Ct. Rec. 761 at 7.) The FLCA became law in 1985 – 23 years ago. At least two

17
federal courts have recognized the need to take this into account when setting
18
statutory damage awards in AWPA cases. Writing in 2000 in this district, Judge
19
20 Nielsen reasoned,

21

Six Mexican Workers was decided in 1990, and addressed violations that

occurred during the 1976-77 picking season. The bench trial at which

22

damages were awarded occurred in 1984. The intervening 16 years between

the Six Mexican Workers' decision and this Court's determination of
23

PLAINTIFFS’ PHASE II MEMORANDUM CLASS MEMBERSHIP, INJUNCTIVE RELIEF & DAMAGES - 40

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 6 South Second Street, Suite 600 Yakima, WA 98901 (509) 575-5593

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 989 Filed 11/14/08

1

statutory damages have witnessed a dramatic change in the value of money.

While an individual class member award of between $400 and $1,600 may

2

have over-compensated a plaintiff for a few hours work in 1984, that award

3

would be much less significant today.

4 Herrera v. Singh, 103 F.Supp.2d 1244, 1249 (E.D. Wash. 2000); see also Castillo

5 v. Case Farms of Ohio, Inc., 96 F.Supp.2d 578, 631 n.64 (W.D.Tex., 1999) (“$500
6 damage award might be necessary to achieve the same level of deterrence as $300
7
in 1983”). Plaintiffs believe all violations of the FLCA warrant a $500 award,
8
however, should this Court rule that certain violations merit lower awards, those
9
10 awards should be adjusted upward based on the principle outlined in Herrera and

11 Castillo.

12

C. Defendants Jim Morford and John Verbrugge are Personally

13

Liable for FLCA Violations.

14

“Any person who knowingly uses the services of an unlicensed farm labor

15 contractor shall be personally, jointly, and severally liable with the person acting as

16 a farm labor contractor to the same extent and in the same manner as provided in
17
this chapter.” RCW 19.30.200. Consistent with the Court’s ruling that Defendants
18
Green Acre and Valley Fruit knowingly used the services of an unlicensed farm
19
20 labor contractor in 2004 and therefore are jointly and severally liable, the Court
21 should also find that Mr. Morford and Mr. Verbrugge are personally liable with

22 Global for all violations of FLCA.

23

PLAINTIFFS’ PHASE II MEMORANDUM CLASS MEMBERSHIP, INJUNCTIVE RELIEF & DAMAGES - 41

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 6 South Second Street, Suite 600 Yakima, WA 98901 (509) 575-5593

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 989 Filed 11/14/08

1

Similar to FLCA, the Agricultural Worker Protection Act (AWPA) provides:

2 “No person shall utilize the services of any farm labor contractor … unless the
3
person first takes reasonable steps to determine that the farm labor contractor
4
possesses a certificate of registration which is valid and which authorizes the
5
6 activity for which the contractor is utilized.” 29 U.S.C. § 1842 (emphasis added).
7 Courts interpreting this provision, as well as similar language in the predecessor

8 statute to AWPA9, found individual corporate officers who dealt with the farm

9 labor contractors, were jointly liable with their corporations for using the services
10
of an unlicensed farm labor contractor. See Avila v. A. Sam & Sons, 856
11
F.Supp.763, 773-74 (W.D.N.Y. 1994) (individual who served as the President of
12
13 the Board of Directors and recruited farm labor contractors was liable with his
14 corporation under AWPA); DeLeon v. Ramirez, 465 F. Supp. 698, 706 (S.D.N.Y.

15 1979) (individual who served as director, president and general manager of a

16 corporation who was responsible for dealing with the contractor, was jointly liable,
17
18 9 AWPA’s predecessor, the Farm Labor Contractor Registration Act (FLCRA),

19 provided that “no person shall engage the services of any farm labor contractor to

20 supply farm laborers unless he first determines that the farm labor contractor
21 possesses a certificate from the Secretary that is in full force and effect at the time
22
he contracts with the farm labor contractor.” 7 U.S.C. § 2043(c) (emphasis added).
23

PLAINTIFFS’ PHASE II MEMORANDUM CLASS MEMBERSHIP, INJUNCTIVE RELIEF & DAMAGES - 42

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 6 South Second Street, Suite 600 Yakima, WA 98901 (509) 575-5593

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 989 Filed 11/14/08

1 along with the corporation, under FLCRA even if the individual acted ostensibly

2 for the corporation). Other state labor laws similarly make officers liable with their
3
corporations for violations of wage payment laws. See Schilling v. Radio
4
Holdings, Inc., 136 Wash.2d 152, 158-59 (1998) (holding president of corporation
5
6 individually responsible for failure to pay wages under RCW 49.52.050 which
7 provides any employer or officer is liable).

8

Mr. Morford and Mr. Verbrugge are both officers or partners of their

9 respective corporations and were personally engaged in retaining the services of
10
Global. Trial Tr. Day 7 at 146:13-20; 242: 3-17; Day 8 at 5: 20-22; at 22: 9-14;
11
24: 1-14; 37:10-23. The Court already determined that “neither Mr. Morford nor
12
13 Mr. Verbrugge investigated whether Global possessed a valid Washington State
14 farm labor contractor license, and, after they were each advised that no license

15 existed in July of 2004, they continued to use Global’s services.” (Ct. Rec. 507 at

16 27.) Accordingly, the Court should also find Mr. Morford and Mr. Verbrugge are

17
jointly liable with their corporations for all violations of FLCA.

18

D. The Court Should Not Require Proof of Immigration Status

19

for FLCA Damages.

20

Plaintiffs requested the Court rule whether class members would be required

21
to present proof of immigration status prior to the issuance of class notice. (Ct.
22

Rec. 931 at 2.) The Court requested additional argument at the September 2, 2008
23

PLAINTIFFS’ PHASE II MEMORANDUM CLASS MEMBERSHIP, INJUNCTIVE RELIEF & DAMAGES - 43

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 6 South Second Street, Suite 600 Yakima, WA 98901 (509) 575-5593

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 989 Filed 11/14/08

1 hearing. Id. at 5. During the hearing, Grower Defendants conceded that proof of

2 immigration status is not required for members of the Green Acre and Valley Fruit
3
Subclasses. The Court did not rule at the hearing, but ordered the parties to meet
4
and confer regarding notice to the class. (Ct. Rec. 942 at 1.) The Court approved
5
6 notices to the class.10 (Ct. Rec. 942.) The Notice to the Green Acre and Valley
7 Fruit Subclass informed all class members that the decision to pursue statutory

8 damages for FLCA means that “people who worked at Green Acre or Valley Fruit

9 will NOT have to show proof of their immigration status.” (Ct. Rec. 939-3 at 3.)

10
Accordingly, Plaintiffs treat this issue as resolved for the Green Acre and Valley
11
Fruit Subclasses and only address whether proof of immigration status should be
12
13 required for FLCA violations for the Denied Work Subclass.

14

Plaintiffs have previously briefed this issue. (Ct. Rec. 868 at 5-7; 897 at 18-

15 21.) The Court observed that one may conclude that immigration status may not

16 be relevant to FLCA violations for failure to provide disclosures and providing
17
false and misleading information since the violations occurred prior to the offer
18
and acceptance of employment. (Ct. Rec. 931 at 3-4.) The two remaining FLCA
19

20 10 The Court concluded Global Defendants waived any objections to the proposed
21 Notice to the Class based on their failure to meet and confer and participate in the
22
hearing on September 3, 2008. (Ct. Rec. 942 at 2.)
23

PLAINTIFFS’ PHASE II MEMORANDUM CLASS MEMBERSHIP, INJUNCTIVE RELIEF & DAMAGES - 44

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 6 South Second Street, Suite 600 Yakima, WA 98901 (509) 575-5593

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 989 Filed 11/14/08

1 violations for the Denied Work Subclass are the violation of RCW 19.30.110(5)

2 proven at summary judgment for employing H-2A workers in violation of federal
3
law (Ct. Rec. 507 at 15-17) and the violation of subsection (5) proven at trial for
4
failure to employ class members (Ct. Rec. 747 at 1). Even if the Court concludes
5
6 that the violation of subsection (5) involves the enforcement of provisions in the
7 clearance order, immigration status is still not relevant as discussed below.

8

The Denied Work Subclass is comprised of class members who never

9 worked for Global in 2004. Class members are only required to show “they claim
10
they were offered employment” or for violations established at summary judgment
11
that they applied at Global. To comply with federal immigration law, employers
12
13 are required to verify that a person is authorized to work at “the actual
14 commencement of employment of an employee for wages or other remuneration.”

15 Collins Foods Int’l, Inc. v. U.S.I.N.S., 948 F.2d 549, 551-52 (9th Cir. 1991)

16 (quoting federal regulation and concluding employer who offered a job over the
17
phone without having seen documentation did not violate 8 U.S.C. § 1324a(1)(A)’s
18
prohibition against hiring unauthorized alien). As the Ninth Circuit recognized,
19
20 waiting to verify immigration status until the day a person commences
21 employment is the preferable approach since pre-employment questioning of

22

23

PLAINTIFFS’ PHASE II MEMORANDUM CLASS MEMBERSHIP, INJUNCTIVE RELIEF & DAMAGES - 45

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 6 South Second Street, Suite 600 Yakima, WA 98901 (509) 575-5593

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 989 Filed 11/14/08

1 citizenship exposes employers to charges of discrimination under Title VII or the

2 unfair immigration related employment practices contained in IRCA. Id. at 552.
3
Because Global was not required to verify authorization to work prior to
4
Denied Work Subclass members actually starting work, the Court should not now
5
6 impose verification requirements to recover statutory damages for FLCA
7 violations. Global violated RCW 19.30.110(5) by employing H-2A workers

8 without approval from the federal government and by failing to employ class

9 members. A class member would not have been required to show proof of
10
authorization to work until they commenced work; an opportunity Global denied
11
for all subclass members. The purpose of statutory damages is to promote
12
13 enforcement and deter violations. Martinez v. Shinn, 992 F.2d 997, 999 (9th Cir.
14 1993). The Court should award statutory damages to all members of the Denied

15 Work subclass and send a clear message that employers may not unlawfully refuse

16 to employ local workers based on discriminatory pre-employment practices.

17
E. The Court Should Distribute Punitive Damages to All Subclass

18

Members on a Pro Rata Basis.

19

The jury awarded punitive damages to each of the three subclasses for

20 violating 42 U.S.C. § 1981. “All persons … shall have the same right in every
21
State and Territory to make and enforce contracts…and to the full and equal
22
benefit of all laws….” 42 U.S.C. § 1981(a). Accordingly, § 1981 protects pre-
23

PLAINTIFFS’ PHASE II MEMORANDUM CLASS MEMBERSHIP, INJUNCTIVE RELIEF & DAMAGES - 46

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 6 South Second Street, Suite 600 Yakima, WA 98901 (509) 575-5593

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 989 Filed 11/14/08

1 employment violations as well as termination of contracts. Punitive damages focus

2 on the conduct of the person violating the law, not the victims of discrimination.
3
See Dukes v. Wal-Mart, Inc., 509 F.3d 1168, 1191 n. 16 (9th Cir. 2007) (plaintiffs
4
are entitled to punitive damages where an employer’s pattern and practice of
5
6 discrimination was undertaken maliciously or recklessly in the face of a perceived
7 risk that such actions would violate federal law).

8

All of the members of the Green Acre and Valley Fruit subclasses were

9 employed by Global. Post-Hoffman, courts have concluded that undocumented
10
workers who have performed work for their employer are entitled to punitive
11
damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Singh v. Jutla & C.D. & R’s Oil,
12
13 Inc., 214 F.Supp.2d 1056, 1061 (N.D. Cal. 2002). In addition, Mr. Orian testified
14 that Global verified whether class members were legally authorized to work. Trial

15 Tr., Day 6 at 206:2-4. As Grower Defendants conceded with respect to FLCA

16 violations for the Green Acre and Valley Fruit Subclasses, Global should be

17
precluded from now arguing class members must prove they were authorized to
18
work to share in an award of punitive damages when Global asserts it already
19
20 verified work authorization.

21

Because § 1981 prohibits pre-employment discrimination, members of the

22 Denied Work Class should also be entitled to share in the award of punitive

23

PLAINTIFFS’ PHASE II MEMORANDUM CLASS MEMBERSHIP, INJUNCTIVE RELIEF & DAMAGES - 47

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 6 South Second Street, Suite 600 Yakima, WA 98901 (509) 575-5593

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 989 Filed 11/14/08

1 damages without proving they were authorized to work. As set forth above, an

2 employer is not required to verify authorization to work until the person begins
3
working. Global’s unlawful discrimination deprived Denied Work Subclass
4
members of the opportunity to work and commensurate obligation to prove their
5
6 authorization to work. The Court should not now impose this additional burden on
7 class members.

8

The Court should order the punitive damages awarded by the jury to be

9 distributed on a pro-rata basis to all subclass members. See, Hilao v. Estate of
10
Marcos, 103 F.3d 789, 791 (9th Cir. 1996) (district court ruled that jury verdict of
11
$1.2 billion in exemplary damages was an aggregate award to be divided pro rata
12
13 amount all plaintiffs); see also, In re Northern Dist. of California Dalkon Shield
14 IUD Products Liability Litigation, 526 F.Supp. 887, 920 (N.D. Cal. 1981)

15 (punitive damages awarded by a jury in personal injury case would be established

16 as a fund from which all successful claimants would be entitled to a pro-rata share
17
based either on the total number of claimants or based on the amount actually
18
awarded in actual damages). A pro rata distribution of punitive damages is also
19
20 supported by the Ninth Circuit’s approach to damages in Domingo v. New England
21 Fish Co., 727 F.2d 1429, 1444 (9th Cir. 1994). The Court found a class-wide

22 approach to the determination of back pay was warranted where an individual

23

PLAINTIFFS’ PHASE II MEMORANDUM CLASS MEMBERSHIP, INJUNCTIVE RELIEF & DAMAGES - 48

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 6 South Second Street, Suite 600 Yakima, WA 98901 (509) 575-5593

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 989 Filed 11/14/08

1 approach to damages would lead to a “quagmire of hypothetical judgment.”

2 Domingo v. New England Fish. Co, 727 F.2d 1429, 1444 (9th Cir. 1994) citing
3
Pettway v. American Cast Iron Pipe Co., 494 F.2d 211, 261 (5th Cir. 1974). Here it
4
would be very difficult to determine the comparative value of an individual class
5
6 member’s lost opportunity and suffering relative to that of the other class members
7 as a result of the Global Defendants’ discriminatory conduct. Therefore, the court

8 should distribute the punitive damage award among subclass members on a pro

9 rata basis.

10

V.

CONCLUSION

11
The Court should approve membership in the three subclasses as proposed.

12

The Court should enter a permanent injunction against Global and the Grower
13

14 Defendants to prevent workers from being similarly harmed in the future and to

15 promote payment of the damages awarded. The Court should enter judgment in

16 the amount of $ 2,006,000 for FLCA statutory damages against Global, Green
17 Acre, Jim Morford, Valley Fruit and John Verbrugge. The Court should order that
18
punitive damages be disbursed on a pro-rata basis to all class members and that
19
proof of authorization to work will not be required for any class members to
20
21 recover the statutory and punitive damages awarded.

22

23

PLAINTIFFS’ PHASE II MEMORANDUM CLASS MEMBERSHIP, INJUNCTIVE RELIEF & DAMAGES - 49

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 6 South Second Street, Suite 600 Yakima, WA 98901 (509) 575-5593

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 989 Filed 11/14/08

1

Finally, the Court should order Platte River Insurance Co. to tender to the

2 Court the full amount of all applicable bonds, not to exceed the damages awarded
3
to Plaintiffs, and to notify the Department of Labor and Industries of its intent to
4
tender this amount to the Court pursuant to RCW 19.30.170(6). The Court should
5
6 order this amount to be disbursed to Plaintiffs to satisfy the judgment for FLCA
7 damages.

8
Respectfully submitted this 14th day of November, 2008.

9
COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES

PAINE HAMBLEN LLP

10

s/ Lori Jordan Isley

s/ Richard W. Kuhling

11 Lori Jordan Isley, WSBA #21724

Richard W. Kuhling, WSBA #7927

Mirta Laura Contreras, WSBA # 21721 12 Joachim Morrison, WSBA # 23094

Gregory S. Johnson, WSBA #13782 Attorneys for Plaintiffs

13 Amy L. Crewdson, WSBA # 9468 Attorneys for Plaintiffs

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

PLAINTIFFS’ PHASE II MEMORANDUM CLASS MEMBERSHIP, INJUNCTIVE RELIEF & DAMAGES - 50

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 6 South Second Street, Suite 600 Yakima, WA 98901 (509) 575-5593

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 989 Filed 11/14/08

1

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

2

I hereby certify that on this 14th day of November, 2008, I electronically

3
filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which
4
will send notification of such filing to the following:
5

6

Matthew S. Gibbs

Matthew@gmpusa.com

Ryan M. Edgley

edgleyr@hscis.net

7

Gary Lofland

glofland@charterinternet.com

8

Brendan V. Monahan brendan.monahan@stokeslaw.com

9

Richard W. Kuhling richard.kuhling@painehamblen.com,

linda.house@painehamblen.com,

10

shari.smith@painehamblen.com

11

Gregory S. Johnson gjohnson@painehamblen.com,

jcorbin@painehamblen.com

12

Joachim Morrison

joe.morrison@columbialegal.org

13

Amy Crewdson

amy.crewdson@columbialegal.org

14

s/ Yolanda B. Lopez

15

Yolanda B. Lopez

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

PLAINTIFFS’ PHASE II MEMORANDUM CLASS MEMBERSHIP, INJUNCTIVE RELIEF & DAMAGES - 51

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 6 South Second Street, Suite 600 Yakima, WA 98901 (509) 575-5593

 
 Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 1239 Filed 03/24/10

1

2

3

4

5

6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

8 JOSE GUADALUPE PEREZ-

9

FARIAS, JOSE F. SANCHEZ, RICARDO BETANCOURT, and all

10 other similarly situated persons,

11

Plaintiffs,

12

v.

13 GLOBAL HORIZONS, INC., et al.,

14

Defendants.

NO. CV-05-3061-RHW ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES

15

Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorney Fees (Ct. Rec. 1098). A

16 hearing on the motion was held on November 16, 2009. Plaintiffs were

17 represented by Lori Isley, Joe Morrison, and Richard Kuhling. The Global

18 Defendants were represented by Matthew Gibbs. The Grower Defendants were

19 represented by Ryan Edgley and Brendan Monahan.

20

Plaintiffs initially sought $2,265,147.60 in attorneys’ fees and $16,860 in

21 costs (Ct. Rec. 1099, p. 15). In response to objections by Defendants, Plaintiffs

22 adjusted their request to $2,143,666.20 for attorneys’ fees with respect to the Farm

23 Labor Contractor Act claims and $47,505.60 for attorneys’ fees with respect to the

24 Discrimination Claims for a total of $2,191.171.80 (Ct. Rec. 1197, Ex. H).

25 1. Statutory Provisions Authorizing Attorneys’ Fees

26

Under the “American rule” for an award of attorneys’ fees, a prevailing

27 party does not generally recover its attorney fees unless expressly authorized by

28 statute, by agreement of the parties, or upon a recognized equitable ground. City of

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES ~ 1

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 1239 Filed 03/24/10

1 Riverside v. Rivera, 477 U.S. 561, 567 (1986); Guillen v. Contreras, 147 Wash.

2 App. 326, 333 (2008).

3

In cases brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, “the court, in its discretion, may

4 allow the prevailing party, other than the United States, a reasonable attorney’s fee

5 as part of the costs.” 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b). “The purpose of § 1988 is to ensure

6 effective access to the judicial process for persons with civil rights grievances.

7 Accordingly, a prevailing plaintiff should ordinarily recover an attorneys’ fee

8 unless special circumstances would render such an award unjust.” Hensley v.

9 Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 429 (1983) (internal quotation marks and citations

10 omitted).

11

Similarly, the Washington Law Against Discrimination entitles prevailing

12 plaintiffs to “reasonable attorneys’ fees.” Wash. Rev. Code § § 49.60.030(2).

13 Finally, Plaintiffs obtained statutory damages under the Washington Farm Labor

14 Contractors Act (“FLCA”), which provides reasonable attorneys’ fees to the

15 prevailing party. Wash. Rev. Code § 19.30.170(1).

16

The parties disagree as to which law the Court should rely upon for

17 determining reasonable fees–federal or state law. Both jurisdictions rely on the

18 lodestar method in determining the amount of reasonable fees. Hensley, 461 U.S.

19 at 437; Mahler v. Szucs, 135 Wash.2d 398, 433 (1998). Under this methodology,

20 the party seeking fees bears the burden of proving the reasonableness of the fees.

21 Id.

22

The lodestar method begins by determining the amount of a reasonable fee,

23 which is the number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation multiplied by a

24 reasonable hourly rate. Id. After this figure is reached, the court then assesses

25 whether it is necessary to adjust the presumptively reasonable lodestar figure on

26 the basis of twelve factors. Ballen v. City of Redmond, 466 F.3d 736, 746 (9th Cir.

27

28

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES ~ 2

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 1239 Filed 03/24/10

1 2006); Bowers v. Transamerica Title Ins. Co., 100 Wash.2d 581, 596 (1983).1 The

2 twelve factors are: (1) the time and labor required, (2) the novelty and difficulty of

3 the questions involved, (3) the skill requisite to perform the legal service properly,

4 (4) the preclusion of other employment by the attorney due to acceptance of the

5 case, (5) the customary fee, (6) whether the fee is fixed or contingent, (7) time

6 limitations imposed by the client or the circumstances, (8) the amount involved and

7 the results obtained, (9) the experience, reputation, and ability of the attorneys,

8 (10) the “undesirability” of the case, (11) the nature and length of the professional

9 relationship with the client, and (12) awards in similar cases. Ballen, 466 F.3d at

10 746 (citations omitted).

11

The court should exclude from the initial fee calculation hours that were not

12 reasonably expended. Hensley, 461 U.S. at 434 (internal quotation marks omitted).

13 In other words, the court should exclude “hours that [were excessive, redundant, or

14 otherwise unnecessary.” Id. “[P]laintiffs are to be compensated for attorney’s fees

15 incurred for services that contribute to the ultimate victory in the lawsuit. Thus,

16 even if a specific claim fails, the time spent on that claim may be compensable, in

17 full or in part, if it contributes to the success of other claims.” Cabrales v. County

18 of Los Angeles, 935 F.2d 1050, 1052 (9th Cir. 1991). Ultimately, the court must

19 determine whether the fees requested by this particular legal team are justified for

20 the particular work performed and the results achieved in this particular case.

21 Moreno v. City of Sacramento, 534 F.3d 1106, 1115 (9th Cir. 2008).

22

In McCown v. City of Fontana, the Circuit succinctly set forth the analysis

23 the Court must undertake in determining attorneys’ fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.

24 565 F.3d 1097, 1103 (9th Cir. 2009). There, the Circuit stated that the

25 reasonableness of a fee award is determined by answering two questions: “First,

26 1The Bowers court relied on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals approach set
27 forth in Lindy Bros. Bldrs., Inc. v. American Radiator & Standard Sanitary Corp.,
28 487 F.2d 161 (3rd Cir. 1973).

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES ~ 3

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 1239 Filed 03/24/10

1 did the plaintiff fail to prevail on claims that were unrelated to the claims on which

2 he succeeded? Second, did the plaintiff achieve a level of success that makes the

3 hours reasonably expended a satisfactory basis for making a fee award?” Id.

4 (quoting Hensley, 461 U.S. at 434). Even if the answer to the first question is no, it

5 is still necessary to analyze the award in light of the second question. Id. With

6 respect to the first question, the Circuit instructed:

7

A plaintiff is not eligible to receive attorney's fees for time

spent on unsuccessful claims that are unrelated to a plaintiff's

8

successful § 1983 claim. Such unrelated claims must be treated as if

they had been raised in a separate lawsuit to realize “congressional

9

intent to limit awards to prevailing parties.” However, in a lawsuit

where the plaintiff presents different claims for relief that “involve a

10

common core of facts” or are based on “related legal theories,” the

district court should not attempt to divide the request for attorneys

11

fees on a claim-by-claim basis. Instead, the court must proceed to the

second part of the analysis and “focus on the significance of the

12

overall relief obtained by the plaintiff in relation to the hours

reasonably expended on the litigation.”

13 Id. (citations omitted).

14

With respect to the second question, the Circuit instructed that attorneys’

15 fees awarded under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 must be adjusted downward where the

16 plaintiff has obtained limited success on his pleaded claims, and the result does not

17 confer a meaningful public benefit. Id. “A reduced fee award is appropriate if the

18 relief, however significant, is limited in comparison to the scope of the litigation as

19 a whole.” Id. (quoting Hensley, 461 U.S. at 440). The district court should “give

20 primary consideration to the amount of damages awarded as compared to the

21 amount sought.” Id. at 1104.

22

Under Washington law, the size of the attorneys’ fees in relation to the

23 amount of the award is not in itself decisive in fixing the amount of fees. Travis v.

24 Wash. Horse Breeders, 111 Wash.2d 396, 410 (1988). However, it is a significant

25 factor. Bowers, 100 Wash.2d at 596. Moreover, under Washington law, courts are

26 expected “to take an active role in assessing the reasonableness of fee awards,

27 rather than treating cost decisions as a litigation afterthought. Courts should not

28 simply accept unquestioningly fee affidavits from counsel.” Deep Water Brewing,

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES ~ 4

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 1239 Filed 03/24/10

1 LLC v. Fairway Resources, Ltd., 152 Wash. App. 229, 282 (2009)(quoting

2 Nordstrom, Inc. v. Tampourlos, 107 Wash.2d 735, 744 (1987).

3 2. Review of the Proceedings

4

In a previous Order, the Court rejected Plaintiffs’ theory that both

5 Defendants–the Global Defendants and the Grower Defendants–were responsible

6 for the entire amount of attorneys’ fees. Rather, it held that the claim for attorneys’

7 fees must be apportioned based on the claims asserted against the Defendants. The

8 Court concluded that it would be fundamentally unfair to require the Grower

9 Defendants to be responsible for Plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees attributable to their

10 discrimination claim where the Court specifically found that the Grower

11 Defendants did not discriminate. In order to properly determine the reasonable

12 attorneys’ fees and costs and the proper apportionment of these fees to the Grower

13 Defendants, it is necessary to review the course of these proceedings. As described

14 below, the case experienced many twists and turns that necessarily complicated

15 and protracted the proceedings.

16

Global Horizons operated as a farm labor contractor in violation of the

17 Washington Farm Labor Contractor Act. The Washington Department of Labor

18 investigated Global Horizons, held administrative hearings, and made findings of

19 fact and conclusions of law outlining the violations. The administrative record

20 supporting the findings was substantial and comprehensive. Global was fined by

21 the State for the violations.

22

This case followed the Department of Labor proceedings and was filed on

23 July 12, 2005. The claims for discrimination were joined with the federal AWPA2

24 and Washington FLCA claims, relying largely on the same evidence. The

25 complaint sought declaratory and injunctive relief as well as damages, and was

26 filed as a class action. The case was assigned to Judge Van Sickle, but the parties

27 consented to proceed before a Magistrate Judge. The case was then assigned to

28 2Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Workers Protection Act.

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES ~ 5

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 1239 Filed 03/24/10

1 Judge Leavitt on October 12, 2005. There were a number of pretrial and discovery

2 orders issued by Judge Leavitt and the case was set for trial for August 28, 2007.

3 Judge Leavitt died in May, 2007. Plaintiffs filed Motions for Partial Summary

4 Judgment on May, 25, 2007. The case was reassigned to Judge McDonald. The

5 motions were unopposed and granted by Judge McDonald. Judge McDonald

6 found the Global Defendants violated the Farm Labor Contractor Act in the

7 following ways:

8

1. Failed to provide adequate disclosures;

9

2. Provided false and misleading information about the terms of

10 employment–specifically regarding the availability of transportation and with

11 respect to the existence of production standards;

12

3. Violated the working arrangements and violated legal and valid

13 agreements and contracts;

14

4. Failed to pay Plaintiffs wages owed when due;

15

5. Failed to provide adequate written pay statements;

16

Judge McDonald found questions of fact regarding the willfulness of the

17 withholding of wages. He found that the Grower Defendants were joint employers

18 with Global for purposes of Plaintiffs’ AWPA claims and that Global served as the

19 agent for the Grower Defendants for recruitment purposes during the relevant time

20 periods. For purposes of FLCA, Judge McDonald held that the Global Defendants

21 were jointly and severally liable with Global, the farm labor contractor, for all

22 violations of FLCA. Judge McDonald did not rule on Plaintiffs’ claims of racial

23 discrimination and failure to provide work. Judge McDonald died shortly after

24 issuing his Order, and the case was reassigned to this Court.

25

After the entry of the judgment in the amount of $1,857,000 for statutory

26 damages, both the Global and the Grower Defendants filed Motions for

27 Reconsideration. This Court vacated the judgment with respect to the amount of

28 statutory damages, but did not disrupt Judge McDonald’s finding of liability on the

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES ~ 6

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 1239 Filed 03/24/10

1 part of the Global and Grower Defendants.

2

Trial commenced on September 11, 2007 and concluded on September 27,

3 2007. Plaintiffs’ claims of racial discrimination and failure to provide work

4 asserted against the Global Defendants were presented to the jury, while the claims

5 asserted against the Grower Defendants were heard by the Court. Plaintiffs

6 abandoned their claim for wrongful withholding of wages. The jury found that the

7 Global Defendants violated the Farm Labor Contractors Act by failing to employ

8 Plaintiffs and discriminated against Plaintiffs because of their race in violation of

9 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and the Washington Law Against Discrimination. The jury

10 awarded Plaintiff Betancourt $5,099.50 in lost wages and $2,500.00 for emotional

11 distress; Plaintiff Jose Sanchez $492.20 in lost wages and $5,000 for emotional

12 distress; and Plaintiff Jose Guadalupe Perez-Farias $4,000.00 for emotional

13 distress. The jury also awarded each subclass $100,000 in punitive damages for a

14 total award of $300,000 in punitive damages.

15

Although the Class Representatives had been successful in obtaining

16 verdicts for actual and general damages from the jury, Plaintiffs elected to not seek

17 such damages for the class members. Rather, Plaintiffs opted to seek statutory

18 damages for the FLCA violations. The Court heard closing arguments from the

19 parties regarding the claims asserted against the Grower Defendants and the Global

20 Defendants’ post-trial motions. The Court found that Plaintiffs failed to establish

21 that the Grower Defendants discriminated against them, but found that there was

22 sufficient evidence for the jury to find that the Global Defendants discriminated

23 against Plaintiffs.

24

On March 3, 2009, the Court conducted a bench trial on the amount of

25 statutory damages and issued its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on April

26 15, 2009. The Court awarded approximately $237,000 in statutory damages and

27 denied Plaintiffs’ request for injunctive relief.

28 3. Prevailing Party

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES ~ 7

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 1239 Filed 03/24/10

1

The initial question the Court must determine is which parties prevailed on

2 what claims. This question requires a close look because Plaintiffs were not

3 successful on most of their FLCA claims and because Plaintiffs abandoned their

4 claims for actual damages and for wrongful withholding of wages.

5

A. FLCA Claims

6

FLCA permits actual damages to be awarded to each class member. The

7 individual class representatives were awarded lost wages for denied work. Based on

8 the award to the class representatives at trial, the possible award to the rest of the

9 class for lost wages could have exceeded $2,000,000 for the denied work sub-class

10 alone. There was no award for lost work for the classes. Separate from the

11 statutory claims on which Judge McDonald entered summary judgement in favor of

12 the Plaintiffs, the heart of the FLCA case was that the local workers were denied

13 work or laid off in order to hire Thai workers. At the outset of the case and after the

14 verdict, it was predictable that each class member would use the jury finding and

15 submit individual claims for lost wages for either being laid off or not being hired.

16 Having proven liability, the only issue for each class member was damages. None

17 were awarded. Only the three class representatives recovered such damages. On the

18 actual damages component of the FLCA claims, Defendants prevailed.

19

The second part of the FLCA claim was the claim for statutory damages for

20 the violations found by Judge McDonald tried to this Court. The Court has

21 previously entered its order on these damages (Ct. Rec. 1083). As recited in the

22 order, many of these violations were technical and there was no proof of actual

23 damages. Plaintiffs contended that each plaintiff was entitled to $500 per violation

24 regardless of actual injury. If $500 were awarded for each violation, the award

25 would exceed $2,000,000 based on Judge McDonald’s findings and this Court’s

26 findings after trial. The award was $237,000. Considering the award and the prior

27 judgements entered by the Department of Labor, Plaintiffs prevailed but to a limited

28 extent.

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES ~ 8

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 1239 Filed 03/24/10

1

The third claim under the FLCA was for injunctive relief. This claim was

2 central to the entire case because it was the mechanism used to have the class

3 certified. It was evident that the individual damage claims of each class member

4 may dominate the proceedings requiring a finding that there was not commonality

5 of claims justifying a class action. The request for injunctive relief provided the

6 commonality justifying the class treatment. The abandonment of individual

7 damages by Plaintiffs may reflect this fact. The Plaintiffs were not successful in

8 their claim for an injunction. On the injunction issue, Defendants were the

9 prevailing party.

10

The final component of the FLCA claims were the claims against the three

11 individual Defendants and their marital communities. The individual Defendants

12 were the prevailing party on all FLCA claims.

13

The FLCA provides for prevailing party attorneys’ fees unlike many fee

14 shifting statutes that only grant fees to the Plaintiff.3 The statute says that the Court

15 “may” award fees to the prevailing party. The Court construes this language to

16 mean that the Court may or may not award fees depending on the case and that the

17 Court may award fees to prevailing defendants. The Court has twice had to

18 construe whether FLCA provides the Court with discretion–first with respect to

19 statutory damages, and second with respect to attorneys fees. If fees are mandatory,

20 it logically follows that the Court would be required to award fees to Defendants on

21 the claims for which they prevailed, i.e. injunctive relief, individual liability, actual

22

23

3Wash. Rev. Code § 19.30.170(1) provides:

24

After filing a notice of a claim with the director, in addition to any other penalty provided by law, any person aggrieved by a violation of this chapter or any rule

25

adopted under this chapter may bring suit in any court of competent jurisdiction of the county in which the claim arose, or in which either the plaintiff or respondent

26

resides, without regard to the amount in controversy and without regard to exhaustion of any alternative administrative remedies provided in this chapter. No

27

such action may be commenced later than three years after the date of the violation giving rise to the right of action. In any such action the court may award to the

28

prevailing party, in addition to costs and disbursements, reasonable attorney fees at trial and appeal.

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES ~ 9

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 1239 Filed 03/24/10

1 damages. In this case, the Global Defendants have asked for attorneys fees. In like

2 manner, the Grower Defendants and individual Defendants would be entitled to

3 attorneys fees. The plain language of the statute does not permit construing the

4 statute as providing for mandatory attorneys fees only to the prevailing plaintiff.

5

We know that the class did not receive any actual damages for the loss of

6 work or being wrongfully laid off. For statutory damages, the class received

7 around ten percent to fifteen percent of the amount claimed. On the injunctive

8 relief, which was the central common claim justifying class treatment, Defendants

9 prevailed.4 Based on this rough score, the corporate Defendants prevailed on more

10 components of the FLCA claims than Plaintiffs, and the individual Defendants

11 were the prevailing party on all FLCA claims.

12

Faced with this score card, the Court could have awarded attorneys’ fees to

13 only Defendants or only Plaintiffs, or to both, or it could have apportioned the fees

14 awarded based on the success of the parties with respect to the asserted claims. The

15 Court declines to do so. Instead, the record supports a finding by the Court that

16 neither party prevailed to an extent that justifies the award of attorneys’ fees under

17 FLCA.

18

B. Discrimination Claims

19

On the discrimination claims, the classes shared $300,000 in punitive

20 damages. Like the class representative FLCA claims, the jury awarded the class

21 representatives general damages for emotional distress suffered because of race

22 discrimination. $2,500, $4,000, and $5,000 in emotional distress damages were

23 awarded respectively. Based on the class representative recoveries, had these

24 damages been recovered by the class members individually, the amount of damages

25 for the discrimination claims would have exceeded $2,000,000. No general

26 damages were awarded to the class. Only the class representatives recovered

27

28

4We also know that the individual Defendants were dismissed and prevailed.

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES ~ 10

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 1239 Filed 03/24/10

1 general damages.

2

The actual amount recovered on the discrimination claims is obviously

3 substantially less than the reasonably potential claims originally sought by the class.

4

5

Under § 1988, Plaintiffs are considered the “prevailing party” for attorneys’

6 fees purposes “if they succeed on any significant issue in litigation which achieves

7 some of the benefit the parties sought in bringing suit.” Hensley, 461 U.S. at 433.

8 Under Washington law, the party that receives the money judgment is the prevailing

9 party when the question is one of money damages. Blair v. Wash. St. Univ., 108

10 Wash.2d 558, 571 (1987).

11

Here, the Court finds that Plaintiffs are the prevailing party with respect to

12 the discrimination claims asserted against the Global Defendants. However, this

13 merely permits Plaintiffs to cross the statutory threshold to receive attorneys’ fees.

14 Hensley, 461 U.S. at 433. The Court must still determine what is a reasonable fee.

15 4. Apportionment

16

Defendants argue that the Court should reduce the amount of fees by

17 subtracting the hours spent on unsuccessful claims, such as the claim for injunctive

18 relief, the claims against the individual Defendants, and the claim for mandatory

19 statutory damages in the amount of $500. If the Court had found that the Plaintiffs

20 had prevailed on the FLCA claims and awarded attorneys’ fees against the Grower

21 Defendants, the Court would have done a further analysis of the apportionment

22 issue because the Grower Defendants were successful in defending the

23 discrimination claims.5 For the claims against Global, the Court finds that the

24

25

5The Court considered finding that the Plaintiffs prevailed on the FLCA

26 claims and considered apportioning the fees between the Defendants in accordance

27 with the amount of damages awarded for the separate claims. It ultimately

28 concluded that neither party prevailed on the FLCA claims and has not done any

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES ~ 11

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 1239 Filed 03/24/10

1 underlying discrimination, FLCA, AWPA, and claims for injunctive relief involve

2 a common core of facts and were based on related legal theories. As such, the

3 Court accepts the premise that much of counsel’s time was “devoted generally to

4 the litigation as a whole, making it difficult to divide the hours expended on a

5 claim-by-claim basis.” Hensley, 461 U.S. at 435. “Litigants in good faith may raise

6 alternative legal grounds for a desired outcome, and the court’s rejection of or

7 failure to reach certain grounds is not sufficient reason for reducing a fee. The

8 result is what matters.” Id. The Court recognizes that Plaintiffs were unsuccessful

9 in their claim for injunctive relief. Accordingly, Plaintiffs reduced their hours by

10 38.7 hours.6 Nevertheless, Plaintiffs achieved a level of success that makes it

11 appropriate to award attorneys’ fees for hours reasonably expended on the

12 unsuccessful claim for injunctive relief.

13

Thus, the Court must determine the amount of reasonable attorneys’ fees for

14 which the Global Defendants are liable.

15 5. Lodestar Calculations

16

a. Number of Hours Reasonably Expended on the Litigation

17

Each Judge comes to a case with a history. This Court practiced in the private

18 practice of law for twenty years and spent four years working as a lawyer for the

19 Government. It kept hours to bill clients and kept hours to reflect time spent on

20 behalf of the Government. The Court, as a lawyer, sought fees for representing

21 prevailing plaintiffs and opposed fee petitions submitted by others. The Court lived

22 through the transition from billing practices based on a lawyer’s assessment of a

23 ‘reasonable fee’ to those based on billable hours. The number of hours spent in

24

25 further apportionment between Defendants. The apportionment is considered

26 further in the multiplier analysis.

27

6The Court questions whether this is a realistic number given that Plaintiffs

28 relied on their claim for injunctive relief to obtain class certification.

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES ~ 12

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 1239 Filed 03/24/10

1 representing a client should be only one of the factors considered by a lawyer in

2 private practice. Many times the hours are reduced because of inefficiencies. All

3 experienced lawyers have seen associates that will complete a brief within hours,

4 others within days. The responsible attorney must judge whether the hours spent on

5 a matter justify multiplying the hour by a figure and submitting it to the client for

6 payment. Sometimes lawyers will bill more than an hourly rate would suggest

7 because of extraordinary results. The ultimate fee to be paid depends on the fee

8 agreement with the client and the lawyer’s assessment of the reasonableness of the

9 amount of time spent. The Hensley and McCown factors try to quantify the factors

10 that lawyers historically used to determine a reasonable fee.

11

In this case, Plaintiffs are requesting approximately 7,800 hours in attorneys’

12 fees. In determining the lodestar calculation, the Court must determine the number

13 of hours reasonably expended on the litigation. In doing so, the Court makes a

14 number of observations.

15

First, the Court believes that this case was over-staffed by Plaintiffs.7 See

16 Hensley, 461 U.S. at 434 (instructing that courts should exclude from the initial fee

17 calculation hours that were not “reasonably expended” and noting that cases may be

18 overstaffed). Two firms and nine attorneys worked on this case for Plaintiffs. At

19 any particular time, Global was represented by one lawyer (local counsel

20 participated in name only). The two Grower Defendants were represented by two

21 attorneys. Because of the number of Plaintiffs’ attorneys involved, and based on

22 the Court’s review of the billing records, many hours were spent by the nine

23 attorneys to get up to speed and obtain background information regarding the case.

24

25

7The Court is aware that some of the excess or duplicative time spent on this

26 case may have been the result of the problems created by Defendant throughout the

27 discovery process. The Court has considered this factor in its assessment of the

28 reasonable hours.

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES ~ 13

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 1239 Filed 03/24/10

1 Some entries show multiple reviews of a document beyond which could be justified

2 to a client. Others show multiple attorneys at meetings that would normally exceed

3 the number that a paying client would find acceptable. Notably, Plaintiffs have not

4 presented to the Court any justification for the number of attorneys that worked on

5 this case. From the Court’s recollection, Plaintiffs had at least two, if not more,

6 counsel participate in all of the hearings before this Court. At least four were

7 present at the trial. It is the Court’s practice to only have one counsel speak to an

8 issue at a hearing. Thus, it was generally duplicative and unnecessary to have more

9 than two counsel appear at the hearings. The records suggest that the same

10 duplication occurred outside the court proceedings as well.

11

Second, the two lead attorneys were Lori Isley and Joe Morrison. Ms. Isley

12 is requesting reimbursement for 2,992 hours, while Mr. Morrison is requesting

13 reimbursement for 2,305.2 hours. There are significant differences between the two

14 attorneys in the level of detail and accountability with respect to the requested fees.

15 In many cases, on any given day, Ms. Isley has multiple entries for different tasks

16 with the corresponding time, while Mr. Morrison has one entry with a significant

17 amount of time, with very little detail given regarding the tasks completed. Mr.

18 Morrison routinely billed large blocks of time without providing sufficient detail for

19 the parties and the Court to determine the extent and scope of his activities.

20 Notably, during the trial, Mr. Morrison billed for 14 hours, while Ms. Isley billed

21 for 7-8 hours. It is the Court’s experience that in the practice of law in order to bill

22 certain hours of work, one would have to put in more hours than actually billed.

23 Attorneys face interruptions, lunch hours, bathroom breaks, demands of other work,

24 etc. that should not be billed to one’s client. Finally, it is not insignificant that Mr.

25 Morrison is seeking over 2,000 hours. Thus, for at least a quarter of the hours

26 requested, the Court does not have adequate billing records to justify the amount

27 requested. For these reasons, it is appropriate to reduce the number of hours

28 requested by Plaintiffs. See Hensley, 461 U.S. at 434 (“Hours that are not properly

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES ~ 14

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 1239 Filed 03/24/10

1 billed to one’s client are not properly billed to one’s adversary pursuant to one’s

2 adversary.”).

3

Third, the Court recognizes that generally lawyers are not likely to spend

4 unnecessary time on contingency fees cases in the hope of inflating their fees. See

5 Moreno, 534 F.3d at 1112. This case, however, was not a typical contingency fee

6 case. Rather, in this case, with the Department of Labor findings, Plaintiffs were

7 virtually assured success. In his Declaration, Mr. Kuhling indicated that a

8 significant fact in his firm’s acceptance of the representation was the fee-generating

9 causes of action (Ct. Rec. 1100, ¶ 6). The only private attorney who participated

10 throughout the entire proceedings was Mr. Kuhling. Two other Paine Hamblen

11 attorneys also participated at various stages of the proceedings for a total of 1,039

12 hours for the Paine Hamblen attorneys. The other attorneys were employed by

13 Columbia Legal Services. These hours reflect roughly eighty-seven percent of the

14 requested hours. Columbia Legal Services is a non-profit public interest firm and

15 does not normally depend on fees from private clients for funding. Thus, its

16 experience with record-keeping and work for fee-paying clients is limited.8

17 Columbia Legal Services does not operate with the constraints of having to actually

18 bill paying clients for their services, which provides an incentive to provide cost-

19 effective service and a critical eye on the actual hours billed.

20

Four, in response to Defendants’ objections, Plaintiffs attempted to segregate

21

22

8The Court has great respect for the work performed by Columbia Legal

23 Services. It has had interns employed by Columbia Legal Services and is acutely

24 aware of the great contribution it makes in representing the poor and underserved

25 populations. The Court’s comments are not a criticism of Columbia Legal

26 Services; rather they represent an acknowledgment of the difference in the

27 operation of a private law practice in billing clients compared to a public interest

28 firm.

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES ~ 15

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 1239 Filed 03/24/10

1 their hours between the FLCA claims and the discrimination claims. Plaintiffs state

2 that approximately 155 of the 7,500 hours should be attributable to the

3 discrimination claims. The Court does not find this to be a credible or realistic

4 apportionment. For instance, according to Plaintiffs, no attorney from the Paine

5 Hamblen law firm worked on the discrimination claims. However, a review of the

6 billing records for Paine Hamblen reveals that there was work performed by the

7 attorneys on the discrimination claims, including entries by Attorney Greg Johnson

8 regarding punitive damages. Moreover, many of the Paine Hamblen records do not

9 contain sufficient detail to determine what claims were being addressed. However,

10 there were numerous entries which describe strategy sessions in which it is highly

11 likely that the discrimination claims were being discussed. Finally, attorneys from

12 Paine Hamblen actively participated in the deposition of Mordechai Orian, which

13 was crucial in developing the intentional discrimination claims. Additionally,

14 Plaintiffs sought punitive damages at trial, which required Plaintiffs to establish

15 intentional conduct on the part of the Defendants. The jury awarded $300,000 in

16 punitive damages. Attributing a mere 155 hours out of a total of approximately

17 7,500 hours is not a realistic apportionment between the two claims.

18

The Court is aware that the apportionment is not necessary under this order.

19 It discusses the issue because it reflects the difficulty in analyzing billing records

20 and deducting items that may not be justified.

21

Fifth, Plaintiffs are seeking attorneys’ fees for time spent on travel to Yakima

22 and back to the out-of-town attorneys’ place of employment. A significant amount

23 of travel time has been requested by Mr. Morrison. It is the Court’s understanding

24 that Mr. Morrison’s office is in Wenatchee, Washington, which is approximately a

25 one and a half to two hour drive. Other examples include Attorney Crewdson

26 traveling to Yakima from her office in Olympia and the Paine Hamblen attorneys

27 traveling to Yakima for strategy sessions. While the Court agrees that travel time

28 should be compensated, the number of attorneys traveling and the purpose of the

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES ~ 16

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 1239 Filed 03/24/10

1 travel would not normally be undertaken or billed for a paying client.

2

Sixth, in response to Defendants’ objections, Plaintiffs adjusted their requests

3 for attorneys’ fees. The Court does not necessarily find the adjustments to be

4 accurate or credible. On the other hand, it does represent a recognition on the part

5 of Plaintiffs that they initially requested fees that included hours that were not

6 reasonably expended on the litigation.

7

Finally, the Court gives credence to the Declaration of Philip Talmadge, in

8 which he identified approximately 1,081 hours in categories in which it is not

9 apparent that actual legal services were expended. These categories include:

10 advocacy coordination (75.8 hours); background study (279.5 hours); case planning

11 (383.7 hours); and issue consultation (342.2 hours). The Court finds that the billing

12 records include time entries for unnecessary attorney conferences, unnecessary

13 intra-attorney correspondence and phone calls, duplicate time entries, redundant

14 legal research and redundant review of correspondence, discovery and pleadings.

15

Based on these observations, the Court believes that it is necessary to reduce

16 the number of hours requested by Plaintiffs.

17

Plaintiffs submitted over 100 pages of itemized billing records. After

18 reviewing the records the Court observed that it was neither an efficient or

19 productive use of time for the Court to try to make a line-by-line itemized list of

20 deductions it would impose to alleviate its concerns previously discussed. The

21 billing records did not permit such an analysis. The Court has reviewed the entries

22 line by line and concludes that it cannot make the itemizations necessary to reflect

23 its stated concerns. The Court declines to further review each entry line by line. It

24 is Plaintiffs’ burden to provide the justification for the reasonableness of their

25 requested fees.

26

Based on the reasons set forth above, the Court believes that the requested

27 attorneys’ hours should be reduced by twenty percent. This reduction is supported

28 by Mr. Talmadge’s Declaration, and is also based on the reasons set forth above.

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES ~ 17

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 1239 Filed 03/24/10

1

If the reduction of hours is considered inappropriate in arriving at the lodestar

2 amount, the amount should be adjusted downward to reflect the Hensley and

3 McCown factors. As discussed above, the recovery was limited in comparison to

4 the reasonable potential damages to the class. The Court must consider this factor

5 in determining the overall reasonableness of the fees and believes a reduction by

6 twenty percent is appropriate for this reason as well. See McCown, 565 F.3d at

7 1104. The potential damages for the classes could exceed $4,000,000 had such

8 damages been sought. The actual recovery is unremarkable in this context.

9

The Court notes that with respect to the discrimination claims, if Plaintiffs’

10 counsel were to be paid on a contingency basis, they would have only received

11 approximately $128,000 (assuming forty percent contingency fee). They would

12 have received approximately $94,800 in fees for the statutory damages claims.

13

It is also significant that Plaintiffs, late in the proceedings, opted to abandon

14 their claim for actual damages. Given the difference between the actual damages

15 and the statutory damages ultimately awarded, it is likely that if Plaintiffs had

16 chosen to abandon the actual damages early on, the posture of this case and the time

17 spent would be significantly different. If Plaintiffs had elected to pursue actual

18 damages, it is likely that the attorneys’ fees award would not be as significantly

19 disproportionate as is the present case.

20

While the Court believes that Plaintiffs achieved some public benefit with

21 respect to the discrimination claims, this factor is reflected in the application of the

22 multiplier, as set forth below.

23

24

For these reasons, the Court will reduce the requested hours by twenty

25 percent (20%). The Court finds that this is the reasonable number of hours

26 expended on this litigation. The reductions represent the number of hours that were

27 not reasonably expended on the litigation.

28

b. Hourly Rate

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES ~ 18

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 1239 Filed 03/24/10

1

Under federal law, the hourly rate for successful civil rights attorneys is to be

2 calculated by considering certain factors, including the novelty and difficulty of the

3 issues, the skill required to try the case, whether or not the fee is contingent, the

4 experience held by counsel and fee awards in similar cases. Hensley, 461 U.S. at

5 430 n.3.

6

Here, the relevant market is Yakima, Washington. The Court gives credence

7 to the Declaration of J. Jay Carroll, a local Yakima attorney. It is his opinion that

8 the hourly rates sought by Plaintiffs’ attorneys in this case are excessive in the

9 Yakima legal market during the time frames sought. Mr. Carroll reports that his

10 established billing rate for the Yakima, Washington area ranged between $200-$225

11 per hour. Mr. Carroll is an experienced trial lawyer with over twenty years of

12 experience. Mr. Carroll also reported that John Moore, a preeminent trial attorney

13 in Washington state, billed between $240-$290 per hour.

14

Below is a chart summarizing the experience of the attorneys seeking

15 reimbursement for fees in this case:

16 Plaintiff’s Counsel 17 18 Richard Kuhling
19 Gregory S. Johnson
20 Devra Hermosilla
21

Admitted to Bar 1977
9
10

Experience
significant litigation experience computer forensics and electronic discovery expert

Requested Rate
$300 $225 $170

22 9The Court was unable to find a Declaration from Mr. Johnson. According
23 to the Declaration of Mr. Annis, Mr. Johnson has an extensive background in
24 computer forensics with over 27 years of experience.
25 10The Court was unable to find a Declaration from Ms. Hermosilla.
26 According to the Declaration of Mr. Annis, Ms. Hermosilla spent a great deal of
27 time on the initial pleadings and procedures and helped create a database. Ms.
28 Hermosilla is fluent in Spanish.

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES ~ 19

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 1239 Filed 03/24/10

1 Amy L. Crewdson 2 3 Daniel G. Ford
Lori Jordan Isley 4 Joachim Morrison 5
6 M. Laura Contreras 7 8 Griseld Vega

1979 1980 1992 1993
1992 2001

class action litigation; administrative advocacy farm worker representation one federal class action, 1990 class action; wrongful discharge with multiple AWPA violations worked with legal services; one federal court actions worked with legal services

$300 $300 $250 $225
$225 $180

9

The Court finds that the attorneys that practice in this case, with the

10 exception of Richard Kuhling, had less experience than Mr. Carroll. Therefore, the

11 Court finds that the appropriate rate for attorneys is $200 per hour. This rate

12 accurately reflects the rate of lawyers of comparable skill, experience and reputation

13 within the Yakima community. The Court finds that the appropriate rate for Mr.

14 Kuhling is $300.00. He has similar experience to John Moore. Mr. Kuhling is a

15 highly respected trial lawyer with significant trial experience.

16

c. Reasonable Attorneys’ Fees

17

The following chart indicates the deductions the Court imposed as set forth

18 above, and indicates the rate the Court used to determine the lodestar.

19 Plaintiff’s Counsel
20 Richard J. Kuhling
21 Gregory S. Johnson 22 Devra Hermosilla
23 Amy L. Crewdson
24 Daniel G. Ford
25 Lori Jordan Isley 26 Joachim Morrison
M. Laura Contreras 27
Griseld Vega 28

Request Hours
625.5 186
227.6 428.9 56.7 2992 2305.5 627.9 365.2

Reduced Hours 500 149 182 343 45 2394 1844 502 292

Rate
$300 $200 $170 $200 $200 $200 $200 $200 $180

Total
$150,000 $29,800 $30,940 $68,600
$9,000 $478,800 $368,880 $100,400
$52,560

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES ~ 20

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 1239 Filed 03/24/10

1 Clerical11

54.5

$75

2 Paine Hamblen Legal Staff

3 Shari Smith

222.05 222.05 $75

$16,654

4 Stephanie Happold 5 Total

2.5

2.5 $90

$225

$1,305,859.00

6

The Court agrees with Plaintiffs that they had to spend considerable more

7 time litigating the case due to Defendants’ repeated failure to timely file pleadings

8 and comply with the Court orders from discovery, through summary judgment,

9 trial, and post-trial. However, Plaintiffs are being compensated for the extra time

10 and it is reflected in the final amount of fees. Indeed, if Defendants had been

11 cooperative through these proceedings, the Court is confident that they would be

12 facing a significantly less legal bill than what is being assessed today.

13

The Court is aware that it must “strike a balance between granting sufficient

14 fees to attract qualified counsel to civil rights cases and avoiding a windfall to

15 counsel.” Moreno, 354 F.3d at 1111. This case presents difficulty in striking this

16 balance. One option is to eliminate all block billing; another is to go through the

17 11The Circuit instructed that “[i]f the attorney’s hourly rate already
18 incorporates the cost of work performed by non-attorneys, then courts should not
19 compensate for these costs as an additional “reasonable attorney’s fees.” Trustees
20 of Const. Indust. and Laborers Health and Welfare Trust v. Redland Insur. Co.,
21 460 F.3d 1253, 1257 (9th Cir. 2006) (citations omitted). The key is the billing
22 custom in the “relevant market.” Id. Thus, fees for purely clerical secretarial work
23 is compensable if it is customary to bill such work separately, although such tasks
24 “should not be billed at the paralegal rate, regardless of who performs them.” Id.
25 Here, it appears that Plaintiffs are seeking to bill for clerical tasks at the paralegal
26 rate and have not provided justification for billing for clerical work. As such, the
27 Court declines to award the requested fees. The Court assumes that the attorney’s
28 hourly rate already incorporates the cost of work performed by non-attorneys.

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES ~ 21

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 1239 Filed 03/24/10

1 100 pages line by line to try to eliminate times the Court could identify that were

2 not reasonably expended, such as working on press releases. However, doing the

3 line by line analysis does not address the Court’s concern that there were more

4 lawyers working on this case than was justified. Moreover, such an exercise is not

5 required under Ninth Circuit precedent. See Gates v. Deukmejian, 987 F.2d 1392,

6 1400 (9th Cir. 1992)(recognizing that percentages are acceptable, and perhaps

7 necessary, tools for district courts to use in fashioning reasonable fee awards).

8 The Court chose to apply a percentage reduction as the most efficient, just, and

9 reasonable method to address its concerns. A percentage reduction is, by its nature,

10 arbitrary. In this case, the Court carefully considered all the elements of the

11 lodestar formula and arrived at a figure that it believes represents the amount of

12 hours reasonably expended on the litigation. The Court did not impose these

13 reductions lightly, but based these reductions on its familiarity and understanding of

14 the case.

15 6. Multiplier

16

Plaintiffs ask the Court to impose a twenty-percent multiplier. The Court

17 does not believe that a multiplier should be applied for all the hours in the case.

18 While the Court agrees with Plaintiffs’ characterization of this case as risky with

19 respect to the discrimination claims, it was not necessarily risky with respect to the

20 FLCA claims. The underlying basis for the FLCA violations was the Department of

21 Labor findings and the Global Defendants stipulations. From the start, it was

22 probable that these claims would be settled on the basis of summary judgment or a

23 directed verdict and it played out in this case when Plaintiffs moved for summary

24 judgment. Indeed, Plaintiffs relied on the Department of Labor findings and the

25 Global Defendants stipulations at trial and in their summary judgment motions.

26 Moreover, in its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Court concluded that

27 the majority of the FLCA violations could be characterized as technical violations,

28 that is, conduct that violated the plain language of the FLCA, but did require proof

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES ~ 22

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 1239 Filed 03/24/10

1 of actual or specific harm to the worker. The only substantive question the Court

2 needed to answer was the amount of damages.

3

In determining whether to apply the multiplier, the Court must consider (1)

4 the time and labor required, (2) the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved,

5 (3) the skill requisite to perform the legal service properly, (4) the preclusion of

6 other employment by the attorney due to acceptance of the case, (5) the customary

7 fee, (6) whether the fee is fixed or contingent, (7) time limitations imposed by the

8 client or the circumstances, (8) the amount involved and the results obtained, (9) the

9 experience, reputation, and ability of the attorneys, (10) the “undesirability” of the

10 case, (11) the nature and length of the professional relationship with the client, and

11 (12) awards in similar cases. Id. (citations omitted). Ballen, 466 F.3d at 746.

12

The only factor that Plaintiffs point to justify the multiplier is the contingent

13 nature of the case. Plaintiffs did not address the other factors.

14

The loadstar calculation is presumptively reasonable. In this case, the Court

15 believes that the number of hours times the reasonable rate provide reasonable

16 attorneys fees with respect to the FLCA claims. The Court believes that applying a

17 contingency multiplier to the FLCA claims would “likely duplicate in substantial

18 part factors already subsumed in the lodestar.” See City of Burlington v. Dague,

19 505 U.S. 557, 562 (1992).

20

On the other hand, the Court believes that Plaintiffs took on the role as a

21 private attorney general to enforce the discrimination statutes. Both Congress and

22 the Washington legislature have passed fee-shifting statutes in an attempt to

23 encourage the enforcement of discrimination claims that was undertaken in this

24 case.

25

The problem is that Plaintiffs have attributed a mere 155 hours to the

26 discrimination claims. As discussed above, the Court does not believe this to be a

27 realistic number. Rather, the Court believes that a reasonable allocation of the fees

28 between the discrimination claims and the FLCA claims would reflect a ratio based

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES ~ 23

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 1239 Filed 03/24/10

1 on the amount of damages awarded for the various claims.

2

The jury awarded the following amounts in damages:

3

Lost Wages12

$ 5,591.70

Emotional Distress

$ 11,500.00

4

Punitive Damages

$300,000.00

$317,091.70

5

The Court awarded statutory damages for FLCA violations in the amount of

6

$237,283.02. The damages for the discrimination claims represent fifty-seven

7

percent (57%) of the total amount of damages awarded (317,091.70 / 554,374.72)

8

Thus, the Court will apply a twenty-percent multiplier to fifty-seven percent

9

of the requested attorneys fees.13

10

11

Plaintiff’s Counsel Reduced Adjusted Multiplier

Hours Hours

Rate

Total

12 Richard J. Kuhling

500

285

$60

17,100

13 Gregory S. Johnson

149

85

$40

3,400

14 Devra Hermosilla
15 Amy L. Crewdson 16 Daniel G. Ford
Lori Jordan Isley 17 Joachim Morrison 18 M. Laura Contreras 19 Griseld Vega
20 Total

182 343
45 2394 1844
502 292

104 196
26 1365 1051
286 166

$34

3,536

$40

7,840

$40

1,040

$40

54,600

$40

42,040

$40

11,440

$36

5,976

$146,972.00

21 7. 22 23

Cost Bill Liability Plaintiffs submitted a cost bill in the amount of $77,243.26. Given that the

24

12This amount was awarded for either the FLCA violation or the

25 discrimination claim. The Court ordered that the Grower Defendants be jointly

26 and severally liable for this amount.

27

13The Grower Defendants will not be jointly and severally liable for the

28 additional fees assessed by application of the multiplier.

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES ~ 24

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 1239 Filed 03/24/10

1 Court declined to award attorneys’ fees under FLCA, the Court does not assess

2 costs against the Grower Defendants. Nevertheless, the Court awards costs against

3 the Global Defendants based on its finding that Plaintiffs were the prevailing party

4 with respect to the discrimination claims asserted against the Global Defendants.

5

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

6

1. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorneys Fees (Ct. Rec. 1098) is GRANTED.

7

2. The District Court Executive is directed to enter judgment in favor of

8 Plaintiffs and against Global Horizons, Inc. and Mordechai Orian in the amount of

9 $1,452,831.00 for reasonable attorneys’ fees.

10

3. Global Horizons, Inc. and Mordechai Orian are ordered to pay to the

11 Court $1,424.58, which is the costs of the interpretation fees that were provided at

12 trial on a cost-reimbursable basis.

13

4. The District Court Executive is directed to assess the final cost bill

14 against Global Horizons, Inc. and Mordechai Orian only and not against the other

15 named Defendants.

16

IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Executive is directed to enter this

17 Order and to provide copies to counsel.

18

DATED this 24th day of March, 2010.

19

20

s/Robert H. Whaley

21

ROBERT H. WHALEY

United States District Court

22 Q:\CIVIL\2005\Perez-Farias, et al\attorneyfees2.3.24.wpd

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES ~ 25

 
 Case:C0a9s-e3525:0958-cv1-20/31076/210-R10HWPagDeo:c1uomfe2nt 1ID28: 8758F4i1le8d612D/1k7tE/1n0try: 59
FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DEC 17 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

JOSE GUADALUPE PEREZ-FARIAS; et al.,
Plaintiffs - Appellees, Cross - Appellants,

Nos. 09-35598 and 10-35397
D.C. No. 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Eastern District of Washington, Spokane

v. GLOBAL HORIZONS, INC; et al.,

ORDER

Defendants - Appellants Cross - Appellees.

The September 17, 2010 order of the court directed defendant Global Horizons, Inc. to be represented by licensed counsel and stated that failure to cause new counsel to enter an appearance would result in dismissal without further notice. The opening brief was also due December 1, 2010. To date, no motion for appearance by new counsel on behalf of Global Horizons, Inc. has been filed. The remaining appellants have not filed the opening brief. No. 09-35598 is therefore dismissed for lack of prosecution. A copy of this order shall serve as and for the mandate of this court.
The amended briefing schedule for no. 10-35397 is as follows: the opening brief is due February 2, 2011; the answering brief is due March 5, 2011; and the optional reply brief is due within 14 days after service of the answering brief.

amt/Pro Mo 15Dec 2010

Case:C0a9s-e3525:0958-cv1-20/31076/210-R10HWPagDeo:c2uomfe2nt 1ID28: 8758F4i1le8d612D/1k7tE/1n0try: 59 Plaintiffs’ motion for judicial notice is being referred to the merits panel for resolution. Any related response or further requests shall also be referred to the panel. Plaintiffs may provisionally refer to the proposed augmentation with the understanding that the court may strike such arguments if the court declines to grant the motion.
For the Court: MOLLY C. DWYER Clerk of the Court Alihandra M. Totor Deputy Clerk Ninth Cir. R. 27-7/Advisory Note to Rule 27
and Ninth Circuit Rule 27-10
amt/Pro Mo 15Dec 2010

 
 Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 1291 Filed 07/27/11

AO 450 (Rev. 5/85) Judgment in a Civil Case

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Eastern District of Washington

JOSE G. PEREZ-FARIAS, JOSE F. SANCHEZ, RICARDO BETANCOURT, and all other similarly situated persons,
Plaintiffs
v.

AMENDED SECOND AMENDED
JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE

GLOBAL HORIZONS, INC., et al.,

CASE NUMBER: CV-05-3061-RHW

Defendants.

Jury Verdict. This action came before the Court for a trial by jury. The issues have been tried and the jury has rendered its verdict.

✘ Decision by Court. This action came to hearing before the Court. The issues have been heard and a decision has been rendered.

IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: The Second Amended Judgment entered on 8/3/09 (Ct. Rec. 1187), which amended the Amended Judgment entered 6/15/09 (Ct. Rec. 1128), is amended as follows:
Plaintiff Ricardo Betancourt shall recover from Global Horizons, Inc., Mordechai Orian, Green Acre Farms, Inc., and Valley Fruit Orchards, LLC, jointly and severally, $5,099.50 for lost wages, and from Global Horizons, Inc. and Mordechai Orian $2,500.00 for emotional distress.
Plaintiff Jose Sanchez shall recover from Global Horizons, Inc., Mordechai Orian, Green Acre Farms, Inc., and Valley Fruit Orchards, LLC, jointly and severally, $492.20 for lost wages, and from Global Horizons, Inc. and Mordechai Orian $5,000.00 for emotional distress.
Jose G. Perez-Farias shall recover from Global Horizons, Inc. and Mordechai Orian $4,000.00 for emotional distress.
Plaintiffs Subclass categories recover from Global Horizons, Inc. and Mordechai Orian the following:
Denied Work: Punitive Damages in the amount of $100,000.00 Green Acre: Punitive Damages in the amount of $100,000.00 Valley Fruit: Punitive Damages in the amount of $100,000.00 Denied Work Subclass: U.S. Resident farm workers who claim they were offered employment by Global Horizons, Inc. to work at Green Acre Farms, Inc. or Valley Fruit Orchards, LLC in 2004, but were not employed by Global Horizons in 2004. Green Acres Subclass: U.S. Resident farm workers who were employed through Global Horizons, Inc. at Green Acre Farms in 2004. Valley Fruit Subclass: U.S. Resident farm workers who were employed through Global Horizons, Inc. at Valley Fruit Orchards, LLC in 2004.

July 27, 2011
Date

JAMES R. LARSEN
Clerk
s/ Linda Emerson
(By) Deputy Clerk
Linda Emerson

 
 Case: 1C0-a3s5e329:705-c0v9-0/2320/6210-1R1HWID:D7o9c0u2m58e1nt 12D9k3tEnFtriyle: d7209/2P2/a1g1e: 1 of 1
FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SEP 22 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

JOSE GUADALUPE PEREZ-FARIAS; et al.,
Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. GLOBAL HORIZONS, INC; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.

No. 10-35397 D.C. No. 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Eastern District of Washington, Spokane
ORDER

Before: CLIFTON and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and KORMAN, Senior District Judge.*
The Washington State Horticultural Association, Yakima Valley GrowersShippers Association, Wenatchee Valley Traffic Association, Washington Farm Labor Association, and Washington Growers League (Industry Amici) seek permission to file an amicus curiae brief with the Court pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 29. Industry Amici’s amicus brief is hereby deemed filed because it presents reasoned analysis that will aid with disposition of this matter. Fed. R. App. Proc. 29(b).

* The Honorable Edward R. Korman, Senior District Judge for the U.S. District Court for Eastern New York, Brooklyn, sitting by designation.

 
 Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 1294 Filed 10/25/11

1

2

3

4

5

6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

8

9

SOMKHIT NASEE, WISIT KAMPILO, BUNSRI NA METHA,

10

and all other similarly situated persons,

11

Plaintiffs,

12

v.

13 GLOBAL HORIZONS

14

MANPOWER INC., MORDECHAI ORIAN, PLATTE RIVER

15

INSURANCE COMPANY, ACCREDITED SURETY AND

16 CASUALTY COMPANY, INC.,

17

Defendants.

NO. CV-06-3048-RHW ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

18

19

JOSE GUADALUPE PEREZFARIAS, JOSE F. SANCHEZ,

20

RICARDO BETANCOURT, and all other similarly situated persons,

21

Plaintiffs,

22

v.

23 GLOBAL HORIZONS, INC., et al.,

24

Defendants.

25

NO. CV-05-3061-RHW

26

On May 8, 2009, in Nasee, et al. v. Global Horizons, et. al, the Court

27 granted Defendants Global Horizons Manpower and Mordichai Orian’s Motion for

28 Costs and Fees (CV-06-4038-RHW [ECF No. 278]). Rather than order the

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE~ 1

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 1294 Filed 10/25/11

1 payment of the money to Defendants, the Court directed that $3,293.22 be

2 deposited into the Court’s registry due to the significant amounts of sanctions and

3 fees that have been assessed against these Defendants in Perez-Farias, et al. v.

4 Global Horizons, et. al., CV-05-3061-RHW. It is the Court’s intention to order the

5 disbursal of these fees to the plaintiffs’ counsel in Perez-Farias, to offset the

6 amount of fees and costs that have been assessed against the Global Defendants in

7 that case.

8

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

9

1. Within 10 days from the date of this order, the Global Defendants are

10 ordered to show cause as to why the Court should not order the disbursement of the

11 $3,293.22 to Plaintiffs’ counsel in Perez-Farias, et al. v. Global Horizons, et. al.,

12 CV-05-3061-RHW in order to offset the costs and fees that have been assessed

13 against the Global Defendants in that case.

14

IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Executive is directed to enter this

15 Order and forward copies to counsel.

16

DATED this 25th day of October, 2011.

17

18

s/Robert H. Whaley

19

ROBERT H. WHALEY

United States District Judge

20

21

22 Q:\aCIVIL\2006\Nasee, et al\fees and costs.wpd

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE~ 2

 
 Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 1310 Filed 03/09/12

1 Richard W. Kuhling

Gregory S. Johnson

2 PAINE HAMBLEN LLP
717 West Sprague Avenue, Suite 1200

3

Spokane, WA 99201-3505 (509) 455-6000

4 Lori Jordan Isley
COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES
5 6 South Second Street, Suite 600
Yakima, WA 98901
6 (509) 575-5593

7 Joachim Morrison
COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES
8 300 Okanogan Avenue, Suite 2A
Wenatchee, WA 98801
9 (509)662-9681

Amy L. Crewdson
10 COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES

711 Capitol Way S, Ste. 304
11 Olympia, WA 98501

(360)943-6260

12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
13

14 PEREZ-FARIAS, et. al., Plaintiffs,

15

vs.

CLASS ACTION No. 05 CV 3061 RHW

16 GLOBAL HORIZONS, INC., et. al.,

17

Defendants.

STIPULATION REGARDING TENDER OF SURETY BOND

18
The Plaintiffs and Defendant Platte River Insurance Company (“Platte”)
19

20 stipulate as follows:

21

1. Upon filing of this Stipulation Defendant Platte will tender to this Court

22 the surety bond it financed for Global Horizons, Inc., in the amount of $20,000,
23

STIPULATION TENDER OF SURETY BOND - 1

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 6 South Second Street, Suite 600 Yakima, WA 98901 (509) 575-5593

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 1310 Filed 03/09/12

1 consistent with this Court’s order of January 18, 2012.

2

2. Platte shall file a status certificate in Platte River Insurance

3
Company v. Global Horizons, Inc., et al., CV-11-3091-RHW, as ordered by this
4
Court on January 26, 2012, within five days of filing this Stipulation and will
5

6 request that the case be dismissed with prejudice.

7

3. Platte and Plaintiffs stipulate that the $20,000 tendered as described in

8 paragraph 1 above, should be disbursed to counsel for Plaintiffs. Counsel for

9
Plaintiffs will not disburse the funds to the class members without prior order of
10
this Court.
11

12

4. Counsel for Plaintiffs shall mail a copy of this Stipulation to the Director

13 of Labor and Industries.

14

5. Pursuant to RCW 19.30.170(6) upon tender of the $20,0000 bond amount

15
to this Court and notice as provided in paragraph 4, Platte shall be exonerated.
16
DATED this 9th day of March, 2012.
17
COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 18 s/ Lori Jordan Isley 19 Lori Jordan Isley, WSBA #21724
Attorneys for Plaintiffs 20 COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES
6 South 2nd Street, #600 21 Yakima, WA 98901 22 Phone: (509) 575-5593, x217
Fax: (509) 575-4404 23 E-mail: lori.isley@columbialegal.org

STIPULATION TENDER OF SURETY BOND - 2

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 6 South Second Street, Suite 600 Yakima, WA 98901 (509) 575-5593

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 1310 Filed 03/09/12

1
KARR TUTTLE CAMPBELL
2

3 s/ Celeste M. Monroe Celeste Mountain Monroe, WSBA #35843

4 J. Dino Vasquez, WSBA #25533

Attorneys for Platte River Insurance Company

5 KARR TUTTLE CAMPBELL

6

1201 3rd Avenue, Suite 2900 Seattle, Washington 98101

7 Phone: (206) 223-1313 Fax: (206) 682-7100

8 E-mail: cmonroe@karrtuttle.com

E-mail: dvasquez@karrtuttle.com
9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

STIPULATION TENDER OF SURETY BOND - 3

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 6 South Second Street, Suite 600 Yakima, WA 98901 (509) 575-5593

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 1310 Filed 03/09/12

 
 Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 1311 Filed 03/26/12

1

2

3

4

5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

6

7

JOSE GUADALUPE PEREZFARIAS, JOSE F. SANCHEZ,

8

RICARDO BETANCOURT, and all other similarly situated persons,

NO. CV-05-3061-RHW

9

Plaintiffs,

10

v.

ORDER GRANTING STIPULATION; DIRECTING DISBURSEMENT OF FUNDS

11 GLOBAL HORIZONS, INC., et al.,

12

Defendants.

13

14

On March 9, 2012, Plaintiffs and Defendant Platte River Insurance

15 Company filed a stipulation in which they agreed that Defendant Platte will tender

16 to the Court the surety bond it financed for Defendant Global Horizons, in the

17 amount of $20,000, consistent with this Court’s January 18, 2012 order (ECF No.

18 1310). The parties ask that the money be ordered disbursed to counsel for

19 Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs’ counsel have agreed to not disburse the funds to the class

20 members without prior order of this Court.

21

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

22

1. The parties’ Stipulation Regarding Tender of Surety Bond (ECF No.

23 1310) is GRANTED.

24

2. Upon tender from Defendant Platte River Insurance Company of

25 $20,000, the District Court Executive is directed to disburse the money to counsel

26 for Plaintiffs.

27 ///

28 ///

ORDER GRANTING STIPULATION; DIRECTING DISBURSEMENT OF FUNDS ~ 1

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 1311 Filed 03/26/12

1

3. Counsel for Plaintiffs shall not disburse the funds to class members

2 without prior order of the Court.

3

IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Executive is directed to enter this

4 Order and to provide copies to counsel.

5

DATED this 26th day of March, 2012.

6

7

s/Robert H. Whaley

ROBERT H. WHALEY

8

United States District Court

9

10
Q:\aCIVIL\2005\Perez-Farias, et al\stipulation.wpd
11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER GRANTING STIPULATION; DIRECTING DISBURSEMENT OF FUNDS ~ 2

 
 Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 1295 Filed 11/08/11

1

2

3

4

5

6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

8

9

SOMKHIT NASEE, WISIT KAMPILO, BUNSRI NA METHA,

10

and all other similarly situated persons,

11

Plaintiffs,

12

v.

13 GLOBAL HORIZONS

14

MANPOWER INC., MORDECHAI ORIAN, PLATTE RIVER

15

INSURANCE COMPANY, ACCREDITED SURETY AND

16 CASUALTY COMPANY, INC.,

17

Defendants.

NO. CV-06-3048-RHW ORDER OF DISBURSEMENT

18

19

JOSE GUADALUPE PEREZFARIAS, JOSE F. SANCHEZ,

20

RICARDO BETANCOURT, and all other similarly situated persons,

21

Plaintiffs,

22

v.

23 GLOBAL HORIZONS, INC., et al.,

24

Defendants.

25

NO. CV-05-3061-RHW

26

In a previous Order, the Court ordered the Global Defendants to show cause

27 why $3,293.22 should not be disbursed to counsel for Plaintiffs in Perez-Farias, et

28 al. v. Global Horizons, et. al., CV-05-3061-RHW. The Global Defendants did not

ORDER OF DISBURSEMENT ~ 1

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 1295 Filed 11/08/11

1 file a timely response.

2

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

3

1. The District Court Executive is directed to disburse $3,293.22 to

4 Plaintiffs’ attorneys in Perez-Farias, et. al, at Columbia Legal Services.

5

IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Executive is directed to enter this

6 Order and forward copies to counsel.

7

DATED this 8th day of November, 2011.

8

9

s/Robert H. Whaley

10

ROBERT H. WHALEY

United States District Judge

11

12

13 Q:\aCIVIL\2006\Nasee, et al\disburse.wpd

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER OF DISBURSEMENT ~ 2

 
 Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 1319 Filed 03/11/13

1

2

3

4

5

6

7
The Honorable Robert H. Whaley

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

PEREZ-FARIAS, et. al.,
10

11

Plaintiffs,

12

vs.

CLASS ACTION No. CV-05-3061-RHW JOINT REPORT OF THE PARTIES

13 GLOBAL HORIZONS, INC., et. al.,
14
Defendants.
15

16

The parties submit the following Joint Status Report pursuant to the Court’s

17 February 26, 2013 Order:

18

1. The Ninth Circuit, in its December 5, 2012 memorandum, ordered this

19
Court to enter judgment for Workers in the amount of $1,998,500 for FLCA
20
statutory damages. The parties agree the total FLCA judgment, including actual
21

22 FLCA damages awarded by the jury, should be $2,004,091.70 and this Court

23 should enter a judgment for that amount forthwith

JOINT REPORT OF THE PARTIES - 1

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 6 South Second Street, Suite 600 Yakima, WA 98901 (509) 575-5593

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 1319 Filed 03/11/13

1

2. Upon entry of judgment, Grower Defendants anticipate submitting

2 one or more motions pursuant to FRCP 59 and/or 60(b).
3
3. The Ninth Circuit ordered the parties to work with the Ninth Circuit’s
4
mediator to resolve the amount of appellate attorney fees owed to the Plaintiffs.
5
6 The parties shall advise the court when the amount of fees is resolved, whether by
7 agreement or upon order of the Court of Appeals.

8

4. The Ninth Circuit, in its December 5, 2012 memorandum, reversed

9 and remanded to this Court the issue of who is a prevailing party for the purpose of

10
awarding attorney fees under FLCA. The Ninth Circuit directed that “whether
11
actual damages were awarded is irrelevant to determining who is the prevailing
12
13 party [under FLCA].”

14

5. The parties request that this Court set a date for a hearing regarding

15 the award of attorney fees. Plaintiffs contend that this Court should enter the

16 amount of fees previously awarded less the multiplier. Defendants contend that

17
this court should defer any consideration of the attorneys’ fees issue until after

18
consideration of Grower Defendants’ post-judgment motions for relief.
19

20

6. The parties agree it is highly likely that all class members will not be

21 located to receive their award of statutory damages. Plaintiffs contend the Court

22 will need to determine appropriate entities to receive cy pres monies pursuant to

23 the Ninth Circuit’s recent ruling in Dennis v. Kellogg Co., 697 F.3d 858 (9th Cir.

JOINT REPORT OF THE PARTIES - 2

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 6 South Second Street, Suite 600 Yakima, WA 98901 (509) 575-5593

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 1319 Filed 03/11/13

1 2012). To the extent the statutory damages portion of the final judgment may

2 remain unchanged, the Grower Defendants will be asking the Court to permit all or

3
some of any unclaimed portion of such damages to revert to Grower Defendants,
4
as contemplated and discussed in Klier v. Elf Atochem North America, Inc., 658
5
6 F.3d 468 (5th Cir. 2011).

7

7. To the extent any unclaimed statutory damages do not revert to

8 Grower Defendants, the Court will also need to determine appropriate cy pres

9 entities and approve notice to the class of the Court’s determination. The parties
10
agree that this should happen at the same hearing to determine attorney fees.
11
8. Plaintiffs request that a hearing on fees be held during the week of
12
13 April 15-19; the Plaintiffs file their opening brief no later than March 22; the
14 Defendants have until April 3rd to respond; and the Plaintiffs’ file their reply by

15 April 12th. Grower Defendants request that they be allowed to file post-judgment

16 motions pursuant to FRCP 59 and/or 60(b), and that consideration of Plaintiffs’
17
motion for fees be considered after rulings thereon; and that in any event, due to
18
Grower Defendants’ counsel’s trial schedule, that the response to any motion for
19
20 fees not be due before April 29, 2013.
21 ///

22 ///

23 ///

JOINT REPORT OF THE PARTIES - 3

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 6 South Second Street, Suite 600 Yakima, WA 98901 (509) 575-5593

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 1319 Filed 03/11/13

1

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 11th day of March 2013.

2 COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES

3 s/Lori Jordan Isley

4 Lori Jordan Isley, WSBA #21724 Attorneys for Plaintiffs

5 COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES

6 South Second Street, Ste. 600 6 Yakima, WA 98901

7

Phone: (509) 575-5593, ext.217 E-mail: lori.isley@columbialegal.org

8

PAINE HAMBLEN LLP
s/ Richard W. Kuhling Richard W. Kuhling, WSBA #7927 Attorneys for Plaintiffs PAINE HAMBLEN, LLC 717 W. Sprague Ave., Ste 1200 Spokane, WA 99201-3505 Phone: (509) 455-6000 E-mail: richard.kuhling@painehamblen.com

9 STOKES LAWRENCE VELIKANJE MOORE & SHORE

10 s/Brendan V. Monahan

11 Brendan V. Monahan, WSBA #22315 STOKES LAWRENCE

12 VELIKANJE MOORE & SHORE

120 N. Naches Avenue 13 Yakima, Washington 98901

14

(509) 853-3000 E-mail: brendan.monahan@stokeslaw.com

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

JOINT REPORT OF THE PARTIES - 4

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 6 South Second Street, Suite 600 Yakima, WA 98901 (509) 575-5593

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 1319 Filed 03/11/13

 
 Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 1326 Filed 03/27/13

AO 450 (Rev. 5/85) Judgment in a Civil Case

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Eastern District of Washington
JOSE GUADALUPE PEREZ-FARIAS, et al

Plaintiffs,
v.
GLOBAL HORIZONS, INC., et al, Defendants.

JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE
CASE NUMBER: CV-05-3061-RHW

0 Jury Verdict. This action came before the Court for a trial by jury. The issues have been tried and the jury
has rendered its verdict.
[I Decision by Court. This action came to hearing before the Court. The issues have been
heard and a decision has been rendered.

IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED the Plaintiffs Denied Worker Subclass recovers from Global Horizons, Inc., Green Acre Farms, Inc., and Valley Fruit Orchards, LLC,jointly and severally, statutory damages in the amount of $992,000.00 and actual damages in the amount of $5,099.50 (awarded to class representative Ricardo Betancourt by the jury pursuant to Ct. Rec. 747) for a total of $997,099.50.

The PlaintiffGreen Acre Subclass recovers from Global Horizons, Inc., and Green Acre Farms, Inc., jointly and severally, statutory damages in the amount of $41 0,000.00 and actual damages in the amount of $492.20 (awarded to class representative Jose F. Sanchez by the jury pursuant to Ct. Rec. 747) $410,492.20.

The Plaintiff Valley Fruit Subclass recovers from Global Horizons, Inc., and Valley Fruit Orchards, LLC, jointly and severally, statutory damages in the amount of $596,500.00.

Denied Work Subclass: U.S. Resident farm workers who claim they were offered employment by Global Horizons, Inc., to work at Green Acre Farms, Inc. or Valley Fruit Orchards, LLC, in 2004, but were not employed by Global Horizons, Inc., in 2004.

Green Acres Subclass: U.S. Resident farm workers who were employed through Global Horizons, Inc., for agricultural employment at Green Acre Farms, Inc., in 2004.

Valley Fruit Subclass: U.S. Resident farm workers who were employed through Global Horizons, Inc., for agricultural employment at Valley Fruit Orchards, LLC, in 2004.

March 27, 2013
Date

SEAN F. MeA VOY
Clerk
s/ Cheryl Switzer
(By) Deputy Clerk
Cheryl Switzer

 
 Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 1337 Filed 04/26/13

1

2

3

4

5

6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

8 JOSE GUADALUPE PEREZ-

9

FARIAS, JOSE F. SANCHEZ, RICARDO BETANCOURT, and all

10 other similarly situated persons,

11

Plaintiffs,

12

v.

13 GLOBAL HORIZONS, INC., et al.,

14

Defendants.

EX PARTE
NO. CV-05-3061-RHW
EX PARTE ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE RESPONSE

15 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Writs of Garnishment, ECF No.
16 1334. Plaintiff filed the motion ex parte.
17 Here, it is not clear the purpose of filing the motion ex parte. Generally, the
18 public has a federal common law right of access to all information filed with the
19 Court, which in turn “‘creates a strong presumption in favor of access’ to judicial
20 documents which ‘can be overcome’ only by showing ‘sufficiently important
21 countervailing interests.’” Phillips v. General Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1212
22 (9th Cir. 2002), quoting San Jose Mercury News, Inc. v. United States Dist. Court, 23 187 F.3d 1096, 1102 (9th Cir. 1999). Also, under the First Amendment, the public 24
has a presumed right of access to court proceedings and documents. Oregonian 25
Publ’g Co. v. United States Dist. Court for Dist. of Oregon, 920 F.2d 1462, 1465 26 (9th Cir. 1990). This presumed right can be overcome only by an overriding right or 27
interest “based on findings that closure is essential to preserve higher values and is 28
narrowly tailored to serve that interest.” Id., quoting Press-Enterprise Co. v.

EX PARTE ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE RESPONSE ~ 1

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 1337 Filed 04/26/13

1 Superior Court, 464 U.S. 501, 510 (1985). “The interest is to be articulated along

2 with findings specific enough that a reviewing court can determine whether the

3 closure order was properly entered.” Id.

4

There may be special rules, of which the Court is unaware, that permit

5 garnishment proceedings to be presented and filed ex parte. However, the Court is

6 not aware of such rules and intends to file the order addressing Plaintiff’s Motion

7 for Writs of Garnishment in the public record, but Plaintiff will be permitted to file

8 briefing presenting legal support and argument as to why the Court’s order should

9 be filed ex parte.

10

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

11

1. Within seven (7) days from the date of this Order, Plaintiff shall file

12 briefing presenting legal support and argument as to why the Court’s order should

13 be filed ex parte. Plaintiff is permitted to file the brief ex parte.

14

2. If Plaintiff does not file a timely response, the Court will enter its Order

15 addressing Plaintiff’s Motion for Writs of Garnishment in the public record.

16

IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Executive is directed to enter

17 this Order ex parte and to provide copies to Plaintiff’s counsel.

18

DATED this 26th day of April, 2013.

19

20

21

s/Robert H. Whaley

ROBERT H. WHALEY

22

United States District Court

23

24

25
Q:\RHW\aCIVIL\2005\Perez-Farias, et al\order2.wpd
26

27

28

EX PARTE ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE RESPONSE ~ 2

 
 Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 1346 Filed 05/13/13

1

2

3

4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

6 JOSE GUADALUPE PEREZ-

7

FARIAS, JOSE F. SANCHEZ, RICARDO BETANCOURT, and all

8 other similarly situated persons,

9

Plaintiffs,

10

v.

11 GLOBAL HORIZONS, INC., et al.,

12

Defendants.

Ex parte
NO. CV-05-3061-RHW
ORDER STRIKING HEARING ON PLAINTIFFS’ EX PARTE MOTION FOR WRITS OF GARNISHMENT

13 Previously, the Court directed Plaintiffs to respond as to why the Court’s

14 order should be filed ex parte, ECF No. 1337. In their response, Plaintiffs ask the

15 Court to continue the motion until mid-June after the Court has ruled on the

16 pending motions currently set for June 4, 2013.

17 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

18 1. The hearing on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Writs of Garnishment, ECF No.

19 1334, is stricken. Plaintiffs should re-note the hearing if they want the Court to

20 hear the motion.

21 IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Executive is directed to enter

22 this Order ex parte and provide copies to Plaintiffs’ counsel.

23

DATED this 13th day of May, 2013.

24

25

s/Robert H. Whaley

26

ROBERT H. WHALEY

United States District Court

27

28 Q:\RHW\aCIVIL\2005\Perez-Farias, et al\exparte.wpd

ORDER STRIKING HEARING ON PLAINTIFFS’ EX PARTE MOTION FOR WRITS OF GARNISHMENT ~ 1

 
 Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 1347 Filed 05/20/13

1 BRENDAN V. MONAHAN (WSBA #22315) STOKES LAWRENCE
2 VELIKANJE MOORE & SHORE 120 N. Naches Avenue
3 Yakima, Washington 98901-2757 (509) 853-3000
4

5

6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

7

PEREZ-FARIAS, et al.,

8

Case No.: 05-CV-3061 RHW

Plaintiffs,

9

STIPULATION REGARDING

v.

PAYMENT OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES

10

AND FLCA JUDGMENT AND

GLOBAL HORIZONS, INC.,

ADMINISTRATION OF

11 MORDECHAI ORIAN, JANE DOE

JUDGMENT PROCEEDS

ORIAN, PLATTE RIVER

12 INSURANCE COMPANY, VALLEY

FRUIT ORCHARDS, LLC, and

13 GREEN ACRE FARMS, INC.,

14

Defendants.

15

16

Come now Plaintiffs and Grower Defendants and stipulate as follows:

17

1. Judgment was entered against Grower Defendants on March 27, 2013 in

18 the sum of $2,004,091.70. Interest is accruing on the initial judgment against Grower

19 Defendants in amount of $242,847.72 entered by this Court from August 3, 2009, and

20 the remainder of the judgment ($1,761,216.98) from the date of March 27, 2013 in

21 accordance with 28 USC § 1961.

22

23

24

STIPULATION REGARDING PAYMENT OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND FLCA JUDGMENT AND ADMINISTRATION

OF JUDGMENT PROCEEDS - 1
46806-001 \ 13 0520 STIPULATION RE PAYMENT OF JUDGMENTS PAYMENT OF

STOKES LAWRENCE VELIKANJE MOORE & SHORE

CLASS MEMBERS - FINAL.DOCX

120 N. NACHES AVENUE YAKIMA, WASHINGTON 98901-2757
(509) 853-3000

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 1347 Filed 05/20/13

1

2. Plaintiffs have additionally moved for an award of attorneys’ fees (ECF

2 No. 1328) in the amount of $1,358,982.00. A hearing on the fee issue is scheduled for

3 June 4, 2013.

4

3. Grower Defendants have moved for reconsideration of the judgment (ECF

5 No. 1331).

6

4. Grower Defendants have opposed the award of any attorneys’ fees.

7

5. Given the current status of the judgment and fee award, the parties agree

8 that it will save the parties and the Court time and resources to reach a stipulated

9 agreement regarding the manner in which any judgment or fees may be paid by Grower

10 Defendants.

11

6. In order to assure that Plaintiffs are not prejudiced by any delay in

12 collecting any final judgment or taking such other steps as may be reasonably employed

13 to secure payment on such judgment, and for the purposes of assuring that any judgment

14 and/or fee award is timely and fully paid by Grower Defendants, the Parties hereby

15 stipulate and agree as follows:

16

6.1 The full amount of any final judgment shall be paid by Grower

17

Defendants to counsel for the Plaintiffs within 30 days of the Court’s final ruling

18

on Grower Defendant’s Post Judgment Motion (ECF No. 1331). By “final

19

ruling”, the parties mean a ruling by this Court that imposes a final and

20

appealable judgment in favor of plaintiffs. Counsel for the Plaintiffs shall deposit

21

the money into an appropriate separate interest-bearing trust account on behalf of

22

the designated classes.

23

24

STIPULATION REGARDING PAYMENT OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND FLCA JUDGMENT AND ADMINISTRATION

OF JUDGMENT PROCEEDS - 2
46806-001 \ 13 0520 STIPULATION RE PAYMENT OF JUDGMENTS PAYMENT OF

STOKES LAWRENCE VELIKANJE MOORE & SHORE

CLASS MEMBERS - FINAL.DOCX

120 N. NACHES AVENUE YAKIMA, WASHINGTON 98901-2757
(509) 853-3000

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 1347 Filed 05/20/13

1

6.2 The full amount of attorneys’ fees awarded by the Court in addition

2

to the full amount of any appellate fees awarded to Plaintiffs by the 9th Circuit

3

shall be paid by Grower Defendants directly to Plaintiffs’ counsel within 30 days

4

of such award(s).

5

6.3 The Grower Defendants agree they have access to sufficient

6

resources to cover any award presently requested by the Plaintiffs and ultimately

7

ordered by the Court and further agree not to take any steps to make said assets

8

unavailable to satisfy the above judgments.

9

6.4 Should the Grower Defendants fail to make either payment within

10

the time periods set forth above, liquidated damages in the amount of $25,000.00

11

shall be imposed against the Grower Defendants and they shall be jointly and

12

severally liable for the same. Such liquidated damages shall be in addition to any

13

interest that may continue to accrue. Within 10 days of receiving notice of any

14

default, the Grower Defendants also agree to appear for 30(b)(6) depositions and

15

bring documents which are reasonably necessary to ascertain their ability satisfy

16

the amount of the final Judgment and attorney fee Award. Said documents shall

17

include, but not be limited to, documents that set forth the bank and real estate

18

holdings of the Grower Defendants. .

19

7. The Parties stipulate and agree that the judgment proceeds deposited into

20 the above-mentioned trust account shall be administered as follows:

21

7.1 To the extent the final judgment entered by the Court does not so

22

provide, Plaintiffs’ counsel shall allocate the judgment proceeds deposited into

23

the trust account between and amongst each eligible class member;

24

STIPULATION REGARDING PAYMENT OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND FLCA JUDGMENT AND ADMINISTRATION

OF JUDGMENT PROCEEDS - 3
46806-001 \ 13 0520 STIPULATION RE PAYMENT OF JUDGMENTS PAYMENT OF

STOKES LAWRENCE VELIKANJE MOORE & SHORE

CLASS MEMBERS - FINAL.DOCX

120 N. NACHES AVENUE YAKIMA, WASHINGTON 98901-2757
(509) 853-3000

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 1347 Filed 05/20/13

1

7.2 Upon confirmation of the identity and eligibility of each and/or

2

any class member, Plaintiffs’ counsel shall distribute to each such class member

3

his or her allocated statutory damages. All such distributions shall occur within

4

six months of the deposit of the judgment proceeds. Should the Plaintiffs

5

reasonably need additional time to locate and pay class members, they shall

6

communicate that need to counsel for the Grower Defendants and make a request

7

to the Court for additional time prior to the end of the six month period;

8

7.3 At the conclusion of the six month period, Plaintiffs’ counsel shall

9

file a report with the Court indicating the specific amounts distributed, the names

10

of the individuals to whom such amounts were distributed, and their opening brief

11

regarding how the Court should distribute any judgment proceeds left

12

undistributed. Plaintiffs shall engage a third-party agent to independently review

13

Plaintiffs’ distribution efforts and provide a report to the Court to ensure all

14

reasonable efforts have been made to locate and pay eligible class members.

15

7.4 The costs and fees associated with the distribution process may be

16

paid to counsel for the Plaintiffs from the judgment proceeds, but in no event

17

shall such costs and fees exceed the sum of $50,000.00.

18

8. Any judgment proceeds left undistributed at the conclusion of the six

19 month period shall be distributed pursuant to further order of this Court. The Grower

20 Defendants shall file their response brief within 21 days of the Plaintiffs filing their

21 opening brief. The Plaintiffs shall file their reply within 10 days of the Grower

22 Defendants filing their response brief. The parties jointly request that they be entitled to

23 file briefing totaling 20 pages each.

24

STIPULATION REGARDING PAYMENT OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND FLCA JUDGMENT AND ADMINISTRATION

OF JUDGMENT PROCEEDS - 4
46806-001 \ 13 0520 STIPULATION RE PAYMENT OF JUDGMENTS PAYMENT OF

STOKES LAWRENCE VELIKANJE MOORE & SHORE

CLASS MEMBERS - FINAL.DOCX

120 N. NACHES AVENUE YAKIMA, WASHINGTON 98901-2757
(509) 853-3000

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 1347 Filed 05/20/13

1

DATED this 20th day of May, 2013.

2

STOKES LAWRENCE VELIKANJE

MOORE & SHORE

3 By: s/ Brendan V. Monahan

4

Brendan V. Monahan (WSBA #22315)

Attorney for Grower Defendants

5

Stokes Lawrence Velikanje Moore & Shore

6

120 N. Naches Avenue

Yakima, WA 98901-2757

7

Telephone: (509) 853-3000

Fax: (509) 895-0060

8

Email: bvm@stokeslaw.com

9

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES

10

By: s/ Lori Jordan Isley

11

Lori Jordan Isley (WSBA #27124)

Attorney for Plaintiffs

12

6 S Second Street, Ste. 600

Yakima, WA 98901

13

Telephone: (509) 575-5593 x. 217

14

Fax: (509) 575-4404 Email: lori.isley@columbialegal.org

15 PAINE HAMBLEN, LLP

16 By: s/ Richard W. Kuhling

17

Richard W. Kuhling, WSBA #7927

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

18

PAINE HAMBLEN, LLC

717 W. Sprague Ave., Ste. 1200

19

Spokane, WA 99201

20

Telephone: (509) 455-6000

Fax: (509) 509-838-0007

21

Email: richard.kuhling@painehamblen.com

22

23

24

STIPULATION REGARDING PAYMENT OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND FLCA JUDGMENT AND ADMINISTRATION

OF JUDGMENT PROCEEDS - 5
46806-001 \ 13 0520 STIPULATION RE PAYMENT OF JUDGMENTS PAYMENT OF

STOKES LAWRENCE VELIKANJE MOORE & SHORE

CLASS MEMBERS - FINAL.DOCX

120 N. NACHES AVENUE YAKIMA, WASHINGTON 98901-2757
(509) 853-3000

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 1347 Filed 05/20/13

 
 Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 1349 Filed 05/31/13

1

2

3

4

5

6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

7

8

JOSE GUADALUPE PEREZFARIAS, JOSE F. SANCHEZ,

9

RICARDO BETANCOURT, and all other similarly situated persons,

NO. CV-05-3061-RHW

10

Plaintiffs,

11

v.

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES

12 GLOBAL HORIZONS, INC., et al.,

13

Defendants.

14

15

A hearing is set for June 4, 2013, on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorney Fees,

16 ECF No. 1328, in Yakima, Washington.

17

Plaintiff is seeking to recover attorneys fees under the Farm Labor

18 Contractors Act (FLCA) against the Grower Defendants. The basis for awarding

19 the fees against the Grower Defendants is Wash. Rev. Code § 19.30.200, which

20 provides:

21

Any person who knowingly uses the services of an unlicensed farm

labor contractor shall be personally, jointly, and severally liable with

22

the person acting as a farm labor contractor to the same extent and in

the same manner as provided in this chapter.

23 FLCA authorizes attorneys fees and costs to successful litigants:

24

In any such action the court may award to the prevailing party,

25

in addition to costs and disbursements, reasonable attorney fees at

trial and appeal.

26 Wash. Rev. Code § 19.30.170(1).

27 Plaintiffs ask the Court to award the full amount of attorney fees and costs

28 against the Grower Defendants that the Court previously awarded against the

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES ~ 1

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 1349 Filed 05/31/13

1 Global Defendants, less the multiplier fee. The Grower Defendants assert because

2 there was no prevailing party, the Court should decline to award fees, and also,

3 that an award of fees would be inequitable. Additionally, the Grower Defendants

4 argue that should the Court award fees, the amount of fees should be reduced for

5 any hours expended on the unsuccessful discrimination claims, legal research and

6 development of evidence attempting to establish the Grower Defendants’ joint

7 liability, efforts to pursue claims for punitive damages, efforts to establish the

8 individual liability of Jim Morford and John Verbrugge, and efforts to obtain

9 injunctive relief.

10

In order to assist the parties in presenting their arguments at the June 4,

11 2013 hearing, the Court believes it will be beneficial to provide the parties with

12 the Court’s preliminary thoughts regarding Plaintiffs’ motion.

13

In its previous Orders, the Court has made findings that need to be

14 reconciled. Notably, the Court ruled that Section 19.30.200 did not provide joint

15 and several liability on the Grower Defendants for violations other than FLCA

16 violations. The Court specifically found that Section 19.30.200 did not authorize

17 fees for Plaintiffs’ Washington Law Against Discrimination claims or the claims

18 under Section 1981. ECF No. 1229 at 5. These findings support requiring

19 segregation of the fees for discrimination claims against the Grower Defendants

20 and the Global Defendants.

21

The Court also found that the discrimination claims were distinct from the

22 FLCA claims, given that the intent of the Defendants in denying work was not an

23 issue that needed to be decided by the Court or the jury in deciding the FLCA

24 claims. Id. The Court ultimately concluded that the crux of Plaintiffs’ claims at

25 trial was the discrimination claims. Id. at 6. On the other hand, the Court found

26 that with respect to the claims against Global, the underlying discrimination,

27 FLCA, AWPA, and claims for injunctive relief involved a common core of facts

28 and were based on related legal theories.

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES ~ 2

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 1349 Filed 05/31/13

1

The Court preliminarily finds that Plaintiffs are the prevailing party with

2 respect to the FLCA claims. Plaintiffs obtained a significant statutory damages

3 award. Under Washington law, “[a] prevailing party is any party that receives

4 some judgment in its favor. If neither party completely prevails, the court must

5 decide which, if either, substantially prevailed. This question depends on the

6 extent of the relief afforded the parties.” Guillen v. Contreras, 169 Wash.2d 769,

7 775 (2010) (en banc) (internal quotation marks, alteration, and citations omitted).

8

The Court preliminarily finds that the amount of attorneys fees awarded

9 against the Grower Defendants must be reduced for time spent on unsuccessful

10 claims and theories and for claims for which fees may not be recovered. See Pham

11 v. City of Seattle, 159 Wash. 2d. 527, 538 (2007). In their briefing, Plaintiffs argue

12 that the phrase in section 19.30.200 “to the same extent and in the same manner as

13 provided in this chapter” should be interpreted to mean the Grower Defendants are

14 liable for the same amount of attorneys fees (less the multiplier) as the Global

15 Defendants. Under this interpretation, however, there would be no principled

16 reason to subtract the multiplier because the same extent and same manner would

17 mean just that, the same amount of attorneys fees awarded against the Global

18 Defendants without any other reductions. The subtraction of the multiplier may be

19 a concession that FLCA does not authorize attorneys fees for the discrimination

20 claims against the Global Defendants, but this concession would also indicate that

21 FLCA does not authorize attorneys fees for the discrimination claims against the

22 Grower Defendants.

23

Based on the Court’s earlier findings, it is clear that FLCA does not provide

24 derivative liability on the part of the Grower Defendants for Global’s

25 discriminatory conduct. The question is whether Washington case law would

26 impose derivative liability on the Grower Defendants for Global’s discriminatory

27 conduct based the Court’s earlier finding that the claims against Global were

28 intertwined.

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES ~ 3

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 1349 Filed 05/31/13

1

If the Court is correct and segregation is appropriate, the next question is

2 what are the reasonable attorneys fees that should be awarded for the FLCA

3 violations. Under Washington law, in determining reasonable attorney fees, the

4 trial court must first calculate the “lodestar” figure. Bowers v. Transamerica Title

5 Ins. Co., 100 Wash. 2d 581, 597 (1983). This figure represents the number of

6 hours reasonably expended (discounting hours spent on unsuccessful claims,

7 duplicated effort, and otherwise unproductive time) multiplied by the attorney's

8 reasonable hourly rate. Id.

9

Here, the records provided by Plaintiffs do not permit the Court to segregate

10 the time spent on the FLCA and discrimination claims. A similar dilemma was

11 presented to the trial court in Osborne v. Seymour, 164 Wash. App. 820 (2011). In

12 that case, the plaintiff filed a § 1983 action and state law claims against a police

13 officer, the plaintiff’s estranged husband, and the county for damages arising out

14 of an unlawful entry of a residence. Id. at 827-833. In that case, the plaintiff was

15 successful in one of the state law claims against her estranged husband,

16 unsuccessful in her claim against the county, and successful against the police

17 officer.1 Id. at 864. The trial court recognized it was unfair to assess attorneys fees

18 against the police officer for the state law claims of the estranged husband (there

19 being no statutory basis to award the fees). Id. at 864-65. It estimated that the state

20 claims constituted approximately one-third of the claims and reduced the lodestar

21 calculations accordingly. Id. But the trial court did not similarly reduce the

22 attorney fee award for the plaintiff’s unsuccessful claim against the county. Id. at

23 865. The Court of Appeals remanded with instructions to the trial court to consider

24 the similar unfairness in assessing attorneys fees and costs against the police

25

26

27 1The trial court had granted the plaintiff’s motion for partial summary
28
judgment, and the jury was asked to assess damages. Id. at 939.

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES ~ 4

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 1349 Filed 05/31/13

1 officer for the plaintiff’s unsuccessful claims against the county.2 Id.

2

In that case, the plaintiff brought different claims against different

3 defendants arising out of the same course and conduct, the unlawful entry of a

4 residence. Yet, the Court of Appeals approved segregation where it was

5 determined to be unfair to assess attorneys fees against a defendant for

6 unsuccessful, but seemingly related claims against the other defendants.

7

In summary, the Court has preliminarily concluded that Plaintiffs are the

8 prevailing party under FLCA and the Grower Defendants are liable for reasonable

9 attorneys fees associated with the FLCA claims. Also, the Court has preliminarily

10 concluded that in determining the amount of reasonable fees, the amount must be

11 reduced by some manner to take into consideration that Plaintiffs were not

12 successful on the discrimination claims against the Grower Defendants, and

13 possibly by an amount to reflect that the Grower Defendants are not derivatively

14 liable for the Global Defendants’ discrimination claims.

15

At the hearing, the parties are asked to address the apportionment issue and

16 2The Court of Appeals rejected the plaintiff’s contention that the attorney
17 fees award should not be disturbed because the claims involved a common core of
18 facts or were based on related theories. Specifically, the Court of Appeals found
19 “the trial court did not find the purported intertwinement of facts and law in this
20 case to be an obstacle to reducing the attorney fee award by the amount
21 attributable to her claim against Bird: Although the trial court noted that it was
22 “impossible ... to segregate” how much of the attorney fees went to [the plaintiff’s]
23 claims against Bird, nevertheless, it proceeded to reduce [the plaintiff’s] attorney
24 fee request by one-third.” Id. at 865 n. 49. The Court also rejected the plaintiff’s
25 argument that the § 1983 claims were inseparable for attorney fee award purposes
26 given that the trial court had already determined the police officer was liable and
27 the claims against the defendants rested on different legal theories and required
28 different quantities and types of proof. Id.

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES ~ 5

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 1349 Filed 05/31/13

1 the application of Seymour, supra. No further briefing is requested.

2

IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Executive is directed to enter

3 this Order and to provide copies to counsel.

4

DATED this 31st day of May, 2013.

5

6

s/Robert H. Whaley

ROBERT H. WHALEY

7

United States District Court

8

9
Q:\RHW\aCIVIL\2005\Perez-Farias, et al\re attorneys fees.wpd
10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES ~ 6

 
 Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 1351 Filed 06/28/13

1

2

3

4

5

6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

7

8

JOSE GUADALUPE PEREZFARIAS, JOSE F. SANCHEZ,

9

RICARDO BETANCOURT, and all other similarly situated persons,

NO. CV-05-3061-RHW

10

Plaintiffs,

11

v.

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS FEES

12 GLOBAL HORIZONS, INC., et al.,

13

Defendants.

14

15

Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorneys Fees, ECF No. 1328. A

16 hearing on the motion was held on June 4, 2013, in Yakima, Washington.

17 Plaintiffs were represented by Richard Kuhling and Lori Isley. Defendants were

18 represented by Brendan Monahan and Matthew Harrington.

19

In a prior ruling, the Court preliminarily found that Plaintiffs are the

20 prevailing party with respect to the FLCA claims. The Court adopts that finding as

21 a final ruling.

22

The Court also preliminarily found that the amount of attorneys fees

23 awarded against the Grower Defendants must be reduced for time spent on

24 unsuccessful claims and theories and for claims for which fees may not be

25 recovered. Plaintiffs disagree with this finding, and argue that under Hensley v.

26 Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 440 (1983), the Court should award attorneys fees in the

27 amount of $1,358,982. Defendants argue the Court should segregate the FLCA

28 fees from the fees for the discrimination claims and other unsuccessful claims.

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS FEES ~ 1

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 1351 Filed 06/28/13

1 Defendants assert that 25% of the attorneys fees awarded against Global would be

2 reasonable.

3

Under Washington law1, a court may award attorneys fees only when based

4 upon a contract, statute, or recognized ground in equity. Loeffelholz v. Citizens for

5 Leaders with Ethics and Accountability Now (C.L.E.A.N.), 119 Wash. App. 695,

6 690 (2004). As set forth in its prior order, FLCA authorizes attorneys fees against

7 the Grower Defendants for FLCA violations. Wash. Rev. Code §§ 19.30.170(1);

8 19.30.200.

9

When a party can recover attorneys fees for only some of its claims, the

10 award should reflect a segregation of the time spent on issues for which fees are 11 authorized.2 The trial court must separate the time spent on those theories essential

12 to the fee-authorized claims from the time spent on other theories and claims.

13 Hume v. Am. Disposal Co., 124 Wash.2d 656, 673 (1994). Segregation of fees is

14 required even where claims overlap or are interrelated. Loeffelholz, 119 Wash.

15 App. at 690; Fisher Properties, Inc. v. Arden-Mayfair, Inc., 106 Wash. 2d 826,

16 850 (1986); Smith v. Behr Process Corp., 113 Wash. App. 306, 344-45 (2002); but

17 see Ethridge v. Hwang, 105 Wash. App. 447, 461 (2001) (noting the court is not

18

19

1A federal court sitting in diversity applies the law of the forum state

20 regarding an award of attorneys fees. Kona Enterprises, Inc. v. Estate of Bishop,

21 229 F.3d 877, 883 (9th Cir. 2000).

22

2Hume v. Am. Disposal Co., 124 Wash.2d 656, 672 (1994) (citing Gaglidari

23 v. Denny' s Restaurants, Inc., 117 Wash.2d 426, 450 (1991)); Travis v. Wash.

24 Horse Breeders Ass’n, 111 Wash.2d 396, 410-11 (1988); Boeing Co. v. Sierracin

25 Corp., 108 Wash.2d 38, 66 (1987); Nordstrom, Inc. v. Tampourlos, 107 Wash.2d

26 735, 744 (1987); Fisher Properties, Inc. v. Arden-Mayfair, Inc., 106 Wash.2d 826,

27 849-50 (1986); Kastanis v. Educ. Employees Credit Union, 122 Wash.2d 483

28 (1993).

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS FEES ~ 2

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 1351 Filed 06/28/13

1 required to artificially segregate time where the claims all relate to the same fact

2 pattern, but allege different bases for recovery.) Where the trial court finds the

3 claims to be so related that no reasonable segregation of successful and

4 unsuccessful claim can be made, it need not segregate the fees. Hume, 124 Wn.2d

5 at 673. “Ultimately, the fee award must be reasonable in relation to the results

6 obtained.” Brand v. Department of Labor & Industries, 91 Wash. App. 280, 294

7 (1998), rev'd on other grounds, 139 Wash.2d 659 (1999).

8

The above-cited cases addressed attorneys fees under the Consumer

9 Protection Act. Given the broad remedial purpose of the Consumer Protection Act,

10 the Court finds these cases provide the analysis the Court must undertake when

11 awarding fees under FLCA. Compare Perez-Farias v. Global Horizons, Inc., 175

12 Wash.2d 518, 530 (2012) (recognizing remedial nature of FLCA) with Bowers v.

13 Transamerica Title Insur. Co., 100 Wash.2d 581, 594-95 (1983) (recognizing

14 beneficial purpose of the CPA).

15

Here, it would be unfair to assess attorneys fees against the Grower

16 Defendants for the total amount of the attorneys fees assessed against the Global

17 Defendants. There is no statutory basis for awarding fees for the Global

18 Defendants’ discrimination claims, and the Grower Defendants were successful in

19 defending the claims of discrimination and the claims based on vicarious liability

20 and joint employer liability for the Global Defendant’s discrimination.

21

This case is similar to Fisher, Travis, and Loeffelholz in that the facts

22 pertaining to the FLCA violations were not so interrelated to the discrimination

23 claims as to excuse segregation. If Plaintiffs had brought only the FLCA claims,

24 their attorneys would have spent considerable less time establishing the facts,

25 given that summary judgment was granted on all relevant FLCA claims except the

26 failure to provide work in violation of the Clearance Order, and the bulk of the

27 evidence submitted in support of the summary judgment motion was derived from

28 the Department of Labor investigation. Moreover, with respect to the failure to

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS FEES ~ 3

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 1351 Filed 06/28/13

1 provide work, the intent of the Defendants in denying work was not an issue.

2

As stated in its prior order, the records provided by Plaintiffs do not permit

3 the Court to segregate the time spent on the FLCA and discrimination claims. The

4 question then is what is the appropriate method to segregate the claims.

5 In Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs alleged class action violations

6 of AWPA,3 FLCA, Wash. Rev. Code § 49.52.050 for willful withholding of

7 wages,4 and violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and the Washington Law Against

8 Discrimination. ECF No. 133. Liability for most of the AWPA and FLCA claims

9 were decided on summary judgment.

10

To assist in answering this question, the Court created a timeline of the

11 proceedings in this case, which provided some perspective as to the time spent on

12 the various claims. Plaintiffs filed their complaint in July, 2005. In the first two

13 years, the parties litigated a motion to bifurcate, class certification, and numerous

14 motions to compel caused by Defendants’ unwillingness to engage in discovery.

15

A jury trial was held in September, 2007. Trial lasted approximately three

16 weeks. The Court has reviewed the Joint Pre-Trial Order, ECF No. 599, Plaintiffs’

17 Trial Brief, ECF No. 630, Plaintiffs’ Proposed Findings and Conclusions on

18 Grower Defendants’ Liability, ECF No. 782, and other pre-trial and post-trial

19 briefing, including the requested jury instructions. These documents reflect that

20 the focus of the issues presented at trial was the discrimination claims and the

21 various theories seeking to establish the Grower Defendants’ liability for the acts

22 of the Global Defendants. Significant testimony was presented to the jury to prove

23 the discrimination claims on the part of the Global Defendants, although some

24 evidence was heard regarding the failure to provide work. Notably, Plaintiffs

25

26

3Plaintiffs abandoned their AWPA claims prior to trial.

27

4Plaintiffs abandoned their claim for wrongful withholding of wages at the

28 September, 2007 trial. See ECF No. 1239 at 7.

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS FEES ~ 4

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 1351 Filed 06/28/13

1 chose not to present evidence of actual damages for class members, except for the

2 three individually-named Plaintiffs. The Court heard closing arguments on the

3 Grower’s liability in December 2007, and entered Findings of Fact and

4 Conclusions of Law in March 2008. The Court concluded the Grower Defendants

5 did not discriminate against the Plaintiff sub-classes and were not joint employers

6 and therefore were not liable for the Global Defendant’s discrimination. The focus

7 of the proceedings from August, 2007 to March, 2008 was the Global and the

8 Grower Defendants’ liability for the discrimination claims.

9

A year later, a bench trial on statutory damages was held in March, 2009. In

10 addition to awarding statutory damages, the Court declined to hold the

11 individually-named Defendants liable for the statutory damages under FLCA, and

12 denied Plaintiffs’ request for injunctive relief. In March, 2010, the Court granted

13 Plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorneys Fees.

14

This brief summary does not provide the complete picture of the necessary

15 work expended by Plaintiffs’ counsel on behalf of their clients, particularly the

16 amount of work that was caused by the dilatory conduct of Defendants. The Court

17 is very familiar with the entire record and has considered all aspects of it in

18 resolving how to fairly segregate the attorneys fees.

19

Although rudimentary, the timeline proved helpful in devising a realistic

20 formula with which to segregate the fees. In reviewing the timeline, it became

21 apparent that the majority of the proceedings involved or included the FLCA

22 claims, and because of this the Grower Defendants should be jointly and severally

23 liable for the majority of the Global Defendants’ attorneys fees.

24

On the other hand, the September, 2007 jury trial represents that portion of

25 the proceedings that focused mostly on the discrimination claims and the liability

26 of the Grower Defendants for which the Grower Defendants should not be held

27 jointly and severally liable for the Global Defendants’ attorneys fees. This

28 involved a time period between August, 2007 and March 2008, which the Court

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS FEES ~ 5

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 1351 Filed 06/28/13

1 estimates to be 20% of the duration of the proceedings. During trial, Plaintiffs’

2 counsel was billing significant hours. Attorneys billed in excess of 10 hours a day.

3 See ECF No. 1101, Ex. A. Also, certain aspects of discovery in the matter

4 pertained only to the discrimination claims, especially given that the intent of the

5 Defendants was not an issue with respect to the FCLA violations. As such, the

6 Court concludes the discrimination claims and claims for individual liability make

7 up roughly 25% of Plaintiffs’ attorneys’ time and energy.

8

Based on these observations, the Court concludes that 75% of the work

9 performed was on the successful claims and that the Grower Defendants should be

10 jointly and severally liable for 75% of the attorneys fees awarded against the

11 Global Defendants. This reduction segregates out the time spent on the

12 discrimination claims and other unsuccessful claims as required by Washington

13 law.

14

Previously, the Court awarded $1,305,859.00 in reasonable attorneys fees,

15 $146,972 as a multiplier for the discrimination claims, and $53,123.55 in costs

16 against the Global Defendants. In their briefing Plaintiffs indicate the Court should

17 not include the multiplier in assessing the attorneys fees (which the Court agrees

18 should not be assessed against the Grower Defendants). The Court will amend the

19 judgment to order that the Grower Defendants be jointly and severally liable for

20 75% of $1,358,982.55 ($1,305,859 + $53,123.55), or $1,019,236.80.

21

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

22

1. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorneys fees, ECF No. 1328, is GRANTED.

23

2. The District Court Executive is directed to amend the Judgment filed

24 on March 24, 2012, ECF 1240, to reflect that the Grower Defendants are jointly

25 and severally liable with Global Horizons, Inc. and Mordechai Orian for

26 $979,394.25 of the $1,452,831.00 for reasonable attorneys fees and $39,842.66 of

27 the $53,123.55 in costs set forth in ECF Nos. 1243 and 1279.

28

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS FEES ~ 6

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 1351 Filed 06/28/13

1

3. If Plaintiffs seek an award of fees for the work performed since the

2 appeal, they should file the appropriate request by July 15, 2013.

3

IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Executive is directed to enter

4 this Order and to provide copies to counsel.

5

DATED this 28th day of June, 2013.

6

7

8

s/Robert H. Whaley

ROBERT H. WHALEY

9

United States District Court

10

11
Q:\RHW\aCIVIL\2005\Perez-Farias, et al\grantattfees.wpd
12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS FEES ~ 7

 
 Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 1352 Filed 06/28/13
AO 450 (Rev. 11/11) Judgment in a Civil Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT for thH_ Eastern District of Washington

JOSE GUADALUPE PEREZ-FARIAS, JOSE F. SANCHEZ, RICARDO BETANCOURT, and all
other similarly situated persons, Plaintiff
v.
GLOBAL HORIZONS, INC., MORDECHAI ORIAN, et al,

)

)

)

Civil Action No. CV-05-3061-RHW

)

)

Defendant

JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL ACTION

The court has ordered that (check one):

u the plaintiff (name) defendant (name)
interest at the rate of

dollars ($ %, plus post judgment interest at the rate of

recover from the the amount of
), which includes prejudgment % per annum, along with costs.

u the plaintiff recover nothing, the action be dismissed on the merits, and the defendant (name) recover costs from the plaintiff (name) .

u✔ other:

The District Court Executive is directed to amend the Judgment filed on March 24, 2012, ECF 1240, to reflect that the Grower Defendants are jointly and severally liable with Global Horizons, Inc. and Mordechai Orian for $979,394.25 of the $1,452,831.00 for reasonable attorneys fees and $39,842.66 of the $53,123.55 in costs set forth in ECF Nos. 1243 and 1279.

This action was (check one): u tried by a jury with Judge rendered a verdict.
u tried by Judge was reached.
✔u decided by Judge Robert H. Whaley
Attorney Fees was GRANTED.

presiding, and the jury has without a jury and the above decision
on a motion for

Date: June 28, 2013

CLERK OF COURT
SEAN F. McAVOY
s/ Cheryl Switzer
%\Deputy Clerk
Cheryl Switzer

 
 Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 1363 Filed 08/27/13

1

2

3

4

5

6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

8 JOSE GUADALUPE PEREZ-

9

FARIAS, JOSE F. SANCHEZ, RICARDO BETANCOURT, and all

10 other similarly situated persons,

11

Plaintiffs,

12

v.

13 GLOBAL HORIZONS, INC., et al.,

14

Defendants.

NO. CV-05-3061-RHW
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES FOR POSTAPPELLATE WORK

15 Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorneys’ Fees for Post-
16 Appellate Work, ECF No. 1353. The motion was heard without oral argument.
17 Plaintiff seeks $49,448.80 in attorneys fees and costs expended on their
18 fees-on-fees motion and for opposing the Grower Defendants’ Post-Judgment
19 motion. Defendant asks the Court to deny the motion or steeply reduce the request.
20 Defendant maintains the fee request contains excessive and duplicative requests
21 for the time of three senior lawyers performing straightforward briefing of the
22 post-judgment motion and attorney fees issues. Defendant also asks the Court to
23 reduce the fees for time spent unnecessarily on garnishment and supplemental
24 proceedings.
25 The Court does not find the request to contain excessive and duplicative
26 fees. Defendants’ post-trial motion asked the Court to reconsider the finding of
27 liability that resulted in an approximately two million dollar judgment. It was
28

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES FOR POST-APPELLATE WORK ~ 1

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 1363 Filed 08/27/13

1 reasonable for Plaintiffs to expend considerable efforts to oppose this motion. The

2 fact that the Court reduced Plaintiffs’ request for attorneys’ fees by twenty-five

3 percent does not justify reducing the fees-on-fees request by the same amount

4 because Plaintiffs’ post-appellate efforts including successfully defending against 5 the post-trial motion. See Thompson v. Gomez, 45 F.3d 1265, 1367 (9th Cir. 1995).

6 (recognizing district courts have the discretion to reduce a fees-on-fees request by

7 the same percentage reduction imposed on the “merits fees” recovered).

8 Moreover, Plaintiffs’ counsel have admirably represented Plaintiffs’ claims

9 throughout the past eight years and this complex case required a high level of

10 preparation and advocacy.

11

Applying the lodestar method, the Court finds the requested hours and the

12 requested rates to be reasonable, with the following exception. Given the status of

13 the case at the time, the garnishment proceedings were unnecessary and therefore

14 the fees related to the garnishment proceedings are not subject to recovery from

15 Defendants. The Court will reduce the amount of fees awarded by $8,323.25.

16

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

17

1 . Plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorneys’ Fees for Post-Appellate Work, ECF

18 No. 1353, is GRANTED.

19

2. The Court awards $41,125.55 in attorneys’ fees and costs to Plaintiffs.

20

3. The District Court Executive is directed to enter judgment in the

21 amount of $41,125.55 in favor of Plaintiffs and against the Grower Defendants.

22

4. The District court Executive is directed to unseal or file the following

23 documents in the public record:

24

a. ECF No. 1334

25

b. ECF No. 1337

26 ///

27 ///

28 ///

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES FOR POST-APPELLATE WORK ~ 2

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 1363 Filed 08/27/13

1

c. ECF No. 1344

2

d. ECF No. 1346

3

IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Executive is directed to enter

4 this Order, provide copies to counsel, and close the file.

5

DATED this 27th day of August, 2013.

6

7

8

s/Robert H. Whaley

ROBERT H. WHALEY

9

United States District Court

10

11
Q:\RHW\aCIVIL\2005\Perez-Farias, et al\feeonfee.wpd
12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES FOR POST-APPELLATE WORK ~ 3

 
 Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 1364 Filed 11/04/13

1 Richard W. Kuhling
PAINE HAMBLEN LLP
2 717 West Sprague Avenue, Suite 1200
Spokane, WA 99201
3 (509) 455-6000
Lori Jordan Isley
4 COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES
6 South Second Street, Suite 600
5 Yakima, WA 98901
(509) 575-5593
6 Joachim Morrison
COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES
7 300 Okanogan Avenue, Suite 2A
Wenatchee, WA 98801
8 (509) 662-9681

The Honorable Robert H. Whaley

9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

10
JOSE GUADALUPE PEREZ-FARIAS, CLASS ACTION

11 et. al.,

No. CV-05-3061-RHW

12

Plaintiffs,

13

vs.

14
GLOBAL HORIZONS, INC., et. al.,
15

SATISFACTION OF JUDGMENTS AS TO JUDGMENT DEBTORS GREEN ACRE FARM, INC. AND VALLEY FRUIT ORCHARDS, LLC

Defendants.
16

17

Plaintiffs, by and through their counsel of record, hereby state:

18

1. The judgment entered by this Court in Plaintiffs’ favor against Green

19 Acre Farm, Inc., Valley Fruit Orchards, LLC, and Global Horizons, Inc. on March

20
27, 2013 (ECF 1326) has been paid in full and is hereby satisfied.
21
2. The judgment entered by this Court in Plaintiffs’ favor against Green
22

23 Acre Farm, Inc. and Valley Fruit Orchards, LLC on June 28, 2013 (ECF 1352), as

SATISFACTION OF JUDGMENTS AS TO JUDGMENT DEBTORS GREEN ACRE FARM, INC. AND VALLEY FRUIT ORCHARDS, LLC - 1

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES
300 Okanogan Ave., Ste. 2A Wenatchee, WA 98801 (509) 662-9681

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 1364 Filed 11/04/13

1 to attorney fees in the amount of $979,394.25 in attorney fees and $39,84.66 in

2 costs has been paid in full and is hereby satisfied.
3
3. All judgments against Green Acre Farm, Inc. and Valley Fruit
4
Orchards, LLC, have accordingly been paid in full and all claims against them
5
6 fully resolved.

7

4. The remainder of the judgments entered by this Court in Plaintiffs’

8 favor against Global Horizons, Inc. and Mordechai Orian for attorney fees and
9
costs (ECF Nos. 1243,1279, and 1352) remain unsatisfied in the amount of
10
$473,436.75 plus interest, as to attorney fees, and in the amount of $13,280.89,
11
plus interest, as to costs.
12

13

5. All judgments entered by this Court in Plaintiffs’ favor against Global

14 Horizons, Inc. and Mordechai Orian remain unsatisfied.

15 DATED this 4th day of November, 2013.
16
COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES
17
s/ Joachim Morrison 18 Joachim Morrison, WSBA #23094
Attorneys for Plaintiffs 19 COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 20 300 Okanogan Ave., Suite 2A
Wenatchee, WA 98801 21 Phone: (509) 662-9681, x25
Fax: (509) 662-9684 22 E-mail: joe.morrison@columbialegal.org

23
SATISFACTION OF JUDGMENTS AS TO JUDGMENT DEBTORS GREEN ACRE FARM, INC. AND VALLEY FRUIT ORCHARDS, LLC - 2

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES
300 Okanogan Ave., Ste. 2A Wenatchee, WA 98801 (509) 662-9681

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 1364 Filed 11/04/13

1

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

2

I hereby certify that on this 4th day of November, 2013, I electronically filed

3
the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will
4
send notification of such filing to the following:
5

6

Matthew S. Gibbs

gibbsatty@aol.com, gibbsatty@gmail.com

7

Gary E. Lofland

glofland@glofland.net

8

Brendan V. Monahan brendan.monahan@stokeslaw.com

9

kim.trout@stokeslaw.com, lori.busby@stokeslaw.com

10
Richard W. Kuhling richard.kuhling@painehamblen.com,

11

shari.smith@painehamblen.com

12

Gregory S. Johnson gjohnson@painehamblen.com,

13

suzette.kerbs@painehamblen.com

14

Joachim Morrison

joe.morrison@columbialegal.org,

rachael.pashkowski@columbialegal.org

15

16

Amy L. Crewdson

amy.crewdson@columbialegal.org

17

And I hereby certify that I have mailed by United States Postal Service the

18 document to the following non-CM/ECF participants: None.

19

20

s/ Joachim Morrison

Joachim Morrison

21

22

23
SATISFACTION OF JUDGMENTS AS TO JUDGMENT DEBTORS GREEN ACRE FARM, INC. AND VALLEY FRUIT ORCHARDS, LLC - 3

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES
300 Okanogan Ave., Ste. 2A Wenatchee, WA 98801 (509) 662-9681

 
 Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 1365 Filed 01/06/14

1 Richard W. Kuhling PAINE HAMBLEN LLP
2 717 West Sprague Avenue, Suite 1200 Spokane, WA 99201
3 (509) 455-6000
Lori Jordan Isley 4 COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES
6 South Second Street, Suite 600 5 Yakima, WA 98901
(509) 575-5593
6 Joachim Morrison COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES
7 300 Okanogan Avenue, Suite 2A Wenatchee, WA 98801
8 (509) 662-9681

9

10

The Honorable Robert H. Whaley

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

12 JOSE GUADALUPE PEREZ-FARIAS, CLASS ACTION

et. al.,
13

No. CV-05-3061-RHW

14

Plaintiffs,

15

vs.

16 GLOBAL HORIZONS, INC., et. al.,

PLAINTIFFS’ REPORT ON DISTRIBUTION OF CLASS FUNDS AND MOTION FOR INCENTIVE PAYMENTS AND CY PRES DISTRIBUTION

17

Defendants.

2/4/2014

18

With Oral Argument: 1:00 p.m.

Yakima
19

20

I. INTRODUCTION

21

After six months of diligent efforts, counsel for the Workers has fully

22 compensated 57 % of the class members for violations of their FLCA rights. The 23 Workers propose, consistent with Ninth Circuit guidelines, that the remaining

PLAINTIFFS’ REPORT & MOTION FOR CY PRES DISTRIBUTION - Page 1 of 16

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 6 South Second Street, Suite 600 Yakima, WA 98901 (509) 575-5593

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 1365 Filed 01/06/14

1 funds be distributed in three distinct disbursements. First, each of the three class

2 representatives deserves a modest incentive payment for over eight years of service
3
to the Court and their fellow farm workers in the Yakima Valley. Second, counsel
4
for the Workers should be reimbursed for their costs in connection with the
5
6 distribution efforts as previously stipulated by the parties. And finally, the
7 remaining unclaimed FLCA funds should be distributed pursuant to the cy pres

8 doctrine amongst four non-profit entities that provide direct community education

9 and litigation services to Yakima Valley farm workers regarding their FLCA

10
rights.

11
II. REPORT ON CLASS DISTRIBUTION EFFORTS
12

13

Counsel for Plaintiffs (CLS) is administering the claims process as ordered

14 by the Court. Through the efforts described below, CLS has received 376 claims

15 and distributed $1,195,595.04 to these class members. Isley Decl. at 1 ¶ 2.

16 Approximately $813,500 remains unclaimed. Id.
17
The claims process was approved by this Court in 2009. ECF No. 1127.
18
The parties were permitted to amend the procedures as necessary. Id. CLS
19
20 followed the claims process as proposed with minor amendments to reflect
21 subsequent court decisions, the judgment collected, and other changes over the six

22 year interim period. CLS updated the notices to the class to reflect the damages

23 awarded and made other minor changes. Isley Decl. at 2 ¶ 7. CLS exceeded the

PLAINTIFFS’ REPORT & MOTION FOR CY PRES DISTRIBUTION - Page 2 of 16

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 6 South Second Street, Suite 600 Yakima, WA 98901 (509) 575-5593

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 1365 Filed 01/06/14

1 published notice requirements approved by the Court. Id. at 5-6 ¶¶ 21-26;

2 Declaration of Victor H. Lara at 4-5.
3
CLS also contracted for additional services to reach class members. CLS
4
worked with Rust Consulting, Inc. to conduct address searches using Lexis-Nexis
5
6 and the National Change of Address (NCOA) databases. Id. at 4-5 ¶¶ 17-19. CLS
7 contracted for three series of address searches, immediately prior to the

8 distribution, following the first mailing, and a final search in November. Id. CLS

9 also requested vehicle ownership and driver’s record information from the
10
Washington State Department of Licensing to obtain additional updated addresses.
11
Id. at 8 ¶¶ 31-32. CLS worked with a transnational organization to help collect
12
13 claim forms and conduct outreach in Mexico. Isley Decl. at 7 ¶ 28; Declaration of
14 Griselda Vega at 2-4 ¶¶ 4-6. Finally, CLS hired additional temporary staff to

15 support the class distribution, including staffing a designated phone line, posting

16 notice at various community locations and making personal visits to reach class
17
members. Id. at 7-9 ¶¶ 27, 34-35 & 38. In the opinion of an experienced class
18
action litigator who reviewed CLS’s efforts to reach class members, CLS exceeded
19
20 the normal standard of practice for locating class members and distributing funds.
21 Id. at 9 ¶ 37, Ex. G.

22

CLS stipulated to engage a third-party to independently review CLS’s

23 distribution efforts and provide a report to the Court. ECF No. 1347 at 4 ¶ 7.3.

PLAINTIFFS’ REPORT & MOTION FOR CY PRES DISTRIBUTION - Page 3 of 16

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 6 South Second Street, Suite 600 Yakima, WA 98901 (509) 575-5593

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 1365 Filed 01/06/14

1 After consulting with counsel for the Grower Defendants and obtaining their

2 approval, CLS selected attorney Victor H. Lara. Isley Decl. at 9 ¶ 36. Mr. Lara’s

3
report is filed as Exhibit I to Ms. Isley’s Declaration. CLS proposes to retain
4
$100,000 for an additional year to compensate any class members who come
5
6 forward between January 1, 2014 and December 31, 2014.

7

Grower Defendants agreed that a maximum of $50,000 of the costs and fees

8 associated with the distribution process could be paid from the judgment proceeds.

9 ECF No. 1347 at 4 ¶ 7.4. The costs to distribute the judgment are $25,258.51.

10
Isley Decl. at 10 ¶ 39, Ex. H. Plaintiffs propose to apply $20,000 from the FLCA

11
surety bond to cover the majority of these costs. See ECF No. 1310.
12

13

III. LEGAL AUTHORITY & REQUEST

14

Where a judgment has been entered and the only question is how to

15 distribute the damages, “the interests affected are not the defendant's but rather

16 those of the silent class members.” Six (6) Mexican Workers v. Arizona Citrus

17
Growers, 904 F.2d 1301, 1307 (9th Cir. 1990).

18

A. The Court Should Award a Modest Incentive Payment to the Class

19

Representatives for Years of Service to the Class.

20

Incentive awards to class representatives are typical and courts have

21
discretion to make such awards. Rodriguez v. W. Publ'g Corp., 563 F.3d 948, 958-
22

59 (9th Cir. 2009). Such awards are generally sought after a favorable settlement
23

PLAINTIFFS’ REPORT & MOTION FOR CY PRES DISTRIBUTION - Page 4 of 16

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 6 South Second Street, Suite 600 Yakima, WA 98901 (509) 575-5593

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 1365 Filed 01/06/14

1 or verdict has been achieved. Id. at 959. When evaluating a request for an

2 incentive payment, the district court must use “relevant factors includ[ing] the
3
actions the plaintiff has taken to protect the interests of the class, the degree to
4
which the class has benefitted from those actions, ... the amount of time and effort
5
6 the plaintiff expended in pursuing the litigation ... and reasonabl[e] fear[s of]
7 workplace retaliation.” Staton v. Boeing Co., 327 F.3d 938, 977 (9th Cir. 2003)

8 (citing cases approving incentive awards between $2,000-$10,000).

9

In light of the eight-year commitment made by each of the representative

10
plaintiffs to this class action, an incentive fee is appropriate. Each class
11
representative spent scores of hours assisting the Workers’ counsel with the initial
12
13 investigation, providing answers to written discovery, testifying at lengthy video-

14 taped depositions and during the jury trial, and consulting and attending multiple

15 meetings during the several years this case has been on appeal. Isley Declaration,

16 ¶¶ 40-43. Attorneys for the Workers respectfully suggest that each of the class
17
representatives meets the above test and this Court should award $7,500 per
18
representative out of any residual funds that have not been distributed to class
19
20 members.

21

22

23

PLAINTIFFS’ REPORT & MOTION FOR CY PRES DISTRIBUTION - Page 5 of 16

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 6 South Second Street, Suite 600 Yakima, WA 98901 (509) 575-5593

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 1365 Filed 01/06/14

1 B. Cy Pres Funds Are Properly Awarded to Organizations Dedicated to the

Advancement of Goals Consistent with the Underlying Purposes of the

2

Statute that Gave Rise to the Class Recovery.

3
The “cy pres doctrine allows a court to distribute unclaimed or non-
4
distributable portions of a class action settlement fund to the ‘next best’ class of
5
6 beneficiaries.” Nachshin v. AOL, LLC, 663 F.3d 1034, 1036 (9th Cir. 2011).

7 Reversion of unclaimed funds to the defendant is inappropriate where deterrence is

8 a goal of the underlying statute. Six (6) Mexican Workers v. Arizona Citrus

9 Growers, 904 F.2d 1301, 1308 (9th Cir. 1990)(“In light of the deterrence objective
10
of FLCRA and the nature of the violations, we find that reversion of the funds to
11
the defendants is not an available option.”) The Washington Supreme Court
12
13 recently ruled that one of the purposes of FLCA is to deter future violations. See
14 Perez-Farias v. Global Horizons, Inc., 175 Wash.2d 518, 530 (2012). There

15 should be no reversion to the Defendants consistent with Ninth Circuit precedent

16 as elaborated in Six Mexican Workers.
17
In Dennis v. Kellogg Co., 697 F.3d 858 (9th Cir. 2012), the Ninth Circuit set
18
forth a three-part test for determining the proper recipients of cy pres awards. First,
19
20 all cy pres awards must be guided by and consistent with the “objectives of the
21 underlying statute” used to generate the funds. Id. at 865. Second, courts must

22 consider the “interests of silent class members.” Id. And third, courts must not

23 approve cy pres awards to entities that are “too remote from the plaintiff class,” id.

PLAINTIFFS’ REPORT & MOTION FOR CY PRES DISTRIBUTION - Page 6 of 16

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 6 South Second Street, Suite 600 Yakima, WA 98901 (509) 575-5593

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 1365 Filed 01/06/14

1 (citations omitted), meaning that cy pres beneficiaries must be reasonably “tethered

2 to the nature of the lawsuit and the interests of the silent class members.” Id. at
3
867.
4
Applying this three-part standard, the Ninth Circuit reviewed the underlying
5
6 consumer protection statutes at issue in Dennis and ruled that they were enacted to
7 protect the public from “nefarious” and “deceptive” business practices. Id. at 697.

8 In striking down the proposed cy pres awards in that case (donating food and funds

9 to unnamed charities) the Ninth Circuit concluded the cy pres awards were

10
“divorced from the concerns embodied in consumer protection laws.” Id. at 867.

11

The gravamen of this lawsuit is that Kellogg advertised that its

12

cereal did improve attentiveness. Those alleged

13

misrepresentations are what provided the Plaintiffs with a cause of action under the [California consumer protection laws] . . . .

14

Thus, appropriate cy pres recipients are not charities that feed

the needy, but organizations dedicated to protecting consumers

15

from, or redressing injuries caused by, false advertising.

16 Id. (emphasis in original).
17
Both Six (6) Mexican Workers and Nachshin further illustrate the governing
18
standard for awarding cy pres funds. In Six (6) Mexican Workers, the Ninth
19
20 Circuit rejected a cy pres distribution, in part because the proposed recipient had
21 virtually no track record or guidelines as to how the funds would be spent, thus

22 requiring court monitoring “to ensure that the funds are distributed in accordance

23

PLAINTIFFS’ REPORT & MOTION FOR CY PRES DISTRIBUTION - Page 7 of 16

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 6 South Second Street, Suite 600 Yakima, WA 98901 (509) 575-5593

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 1365 Filed 01/06/14

1 with the goals of the remedy.” 904 F.2d at 1308. The Ninth Circuit ordered the

2 district court to locate an appropriate cy pres organization.
3
In Nachshin, the Ninth Circuit also rejected the district court’s proposed cy
4
pres distribution to three separate organizations as they “ha[d nothing] to do with
5
6 the objectives of the underlying statutes on which Plaintiffs base[d] their claims.”
7 663 F.3d at 1040. Additionally, two of the three operated solely in Los Angeles,

8 yet the class consisted of AOL subscribers from around the country. Id. at 1041

9 (“no indication” absent class members outside Los Angeles would benefit from

10
donations).

11

C. The Court Should Order the Distribution of Cy Pres Funds to Non-

12

Profits Dedicated to Promoting and Enforcing FLCA.

13

The gravamen of this lawsuit is that Yakima Valley farm workers were

14
denied access to employment through a variety of illegal schemes that violated
15

FLCA. Of the 650 class members, 95% at one time resided in the Yakima Valley.
16

17 Isley Decl. at 3 ¶13. This Court also found that class members were from the

18 Yakima area. ECF No. 1083 at 27-28. Thus, under Ninth Circuit law, appropriate

19 cy pres recipients are organizations dedicated to educating class members (and
20 people like class members) about their FLCA rights and organizations that enforce
21
those rights in court in the Yakima Valley.
22

23

PLAINTIFFS’ REPORT & MOTION FOR CY PRES DISTRIBUTION - Page 8 of 16

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 6 South Second Street, Suite 600 Yakima, WA 98901 (509) 575-5593

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 1365 Filed 01/06/14

1

For the reasons detailed below, under the test set by the Ninth Circuit, the

2 Workers propose that residual funds in this case should be distributed as follows:
3
Of the remaining $785,784 in unclaimed funds, $285,784 should be dedicated to
4
non-profit organizations that primarily provide outreach services to farm workers
5
6 regarding FLCA. The balance of the funds ($500,000) should be dedicated to CLS
7 as the primary organization that regularly enforces FLCA and other statutes

8 protecting farm workers through legal representation. As stated above, CLS would

9 reserve $100,000 for an additional year to compensate any outstanding class

10
member who presents a valid claim during 2014.

11

1. The Proposed Cy Pres Award Is Consistent with the Objectives of

12

FLCA.

13

Applying the Ninth Circuit’s test in Dennis, the Workers first turn to the

14
statutory objectives of FLCA. Dennis, 697 F.3d at 866-67. The Washington
15

Court of Appeals ruled that the “legislative history shows that the Legislature
16

17 intended the Act [FLCA] to protect exploited agricultural workers.” Cascade

18 Floral Products, Inc. v. Dept. of Labor and Industries, 142 Wash. App. 613, 622

19 n.13 (2008). The Washington Supreme Court ruled that FLCA is intended to (1)
20 promote enforcement of the statute, and (2) deter future violations. Perez-Farias v.
21
Global Horizons, Inc., 175 Wash.2d at 530.
22

23

PLAINTIFFS’ REPORT & MOTION FOR CY PRES DISTRIBUTION - Page 9 of 16

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 6 South Second Street, Suite 600 Yakima, WA 98901 (509) 575-5593

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 1365 Filed 01/06/14

1

To promote enforcement of a statute, exploited farm workers must be aware

2 of laws that protect their rights. Because many farm workers lack formal
3
education and have low literacy rates, the primary methods for informing workers
4
of their FLCA rights is through direct outreach and the radio. To enforce the
5
6 statute and deter future violations, legal representation in court is necessary by
7 lawyers familiar with the laws protecting farm workers and who are willing to

8 work with farm worker populations who face significant barriers to our judicial

9 system. The proposed distribution is appropriate in light of the dual objectives of

10
FLCA as elaborated by the Washington Supreme Court, and the requirement in
11
Dennis to closely adhere to the statute underlying the case.
12

13

2. The Proposed Cy Pres Award Will Serve the Interests of Silent Class Members.

14
The second Dennis prong requires this Court to ensure the interests of silent
15
class members will be served. 697 F.3d at 865. Silent class members who are
16

17 unable to receive their statutory damage awards have an interest in future

18 education related to farm worker rights and an interest in having lawyers willing,

19 able, and available to enforce those rights in court. As outlined above, the vast
20 majority of absent class members who failed to respond to class notice at one time
21
resided in the Yakima Valley. The Yakima Valley remains a vibrant agricultural
22
region where farm workers will continue to work and live and require direct
23

PLAINTIFFS’ REPORT & MOTION FOR CY PRES DISTRIBUTION - Page 10 of 16

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 6 South Second Street, Suite 600 Yakima, WA 98901 (509) 575-5593

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 1365 Filed 01/06/14

1 outreach services and direct legal representation on issues related to FLCA.

2 Because the Ninth Circuit requires that potential cy pres organizations work and
3
provide direct services to farm workers in the area where absent class members
4
resided (Nachshin, 663 F.3d at 1041; Six (6) Mexican Workers, 904 F.2d at 1307),
5
6 the Workers request that all entities receiving funds provide direct services to farm
7 workers living or working in the Yakima Valley region.

8 3. The Proposed Cy Pres Recipients Work to Achieve the Same Goals and Are Directly Tethered to the Interests of the Worker Class.
9

10

The final prong of the Ninth Circuit’s test requires cy pres beneficiaries to be

11 “tethered to the nature of the lawsuit and the interests of the silent class members.”

12 Dennis, 697 F.3d at 867. Consistent with our recommendation outlined above, the

13 Workers propose below four entities to receive cy pres funds, all of which have
14
lengthy track records providing outreach services and legal representation to farm
15
workers in eastern Washington.
16

17

a) Outreach Entities

18

The Northwest Justice Project (“NJP), Radio KDNA, and the Laurel Rubin

19 Farm Worker Justice Project are the proposed entities to receive cy pres funds to
20 conduct future FLCA outreach to farm workers in the Yakima Valley. NJP has
21
primary responsibility for coordinating outreach to farm workers in Washington
22
State. Declaration of Michele Besso at ¶5. NJP’s Farm Worker Unit has its office
23

PLAINTIFFS’ REPORT & MOTION FOR CY PRES DISTRIBUTION - Page 11 of 16

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 6 South Second Street, Suite 600 Yakima, WA 98901 (509) 575-5593

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 1365 Filed 01/06/14

1 in Yakima. Id. at ¶2. NJP also engages in litigation on behalf of individual farm

2 workers, but is prohibited from filing class actions and engaging in legislative
3
advocacy. Id. at ¶3.
4
Radio KDNA has been a staple of the Yakima Valley, educating farm
5
6 workers about their rights since 1979. Declaration of Jorge Madrazo-Cuéllar at
7 ¶1 & 5. Radio KDNA is the only non-profit media outlet in the Yakima Valley

8 that regularly provides educational programing to farm workers regarding their

9 legal rights, including labor laws. Id. at ¶3, 6-7. This Court regularly approves
10
class notification in farm worker class actions through Radio KDNA. Declaration
11
of Lori Isley at ¶¶24-25 and 47. Radio KDNA was used to communicate with class
12
13 members in this litigation and is an invaluable resource for the farm worker
14 population in the Yakima Valley. Id. at ¶¶ 47-49: Declaration of Michele Besso at

15 ¶11.

16

The Laurel Ruben Farm Worker Justice Project has been funding summer

17
law students to provide direct outreach services to farm workers since 1999.
18
Declaration of Zavala-Suarez, ¶ 3. Over a 15-year period, these law students have
19
20 spent thousands of hours visiting farm workers throughout the Yakima Valley and

21 other parts of Washington State to inform them of their legal rights. Id. ¶¶ 2-3.

22 These law students have also provided key research and litigation support on farm

23 worker cases. Declaration of Michele Besso at ¶¶ 8-10; Isley Declaration at ¶ 46.

PLAINTIFFS’ REPORT & MOTION FOR CY PRES DISTRIBUTION - Page 12 of 16

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 6 South Second Street, Suite 600 Yakima, WA 98901 (509) 575-5593

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 1365 Filed 01/06/14

1

b) Litigation Entity

2

Columbia Legal Services (“CLS”) respectfully requests that it receive the

3
balance of any unclaimed funds to ensure silent class members have legal
4
representation to protect their FLCA and related rights in court, particularly class
5
6 action advocacy. CLS has a lengthy track record enforcing the legal rights of farm

7 workers. Declaration of Aurora Martin at ¶3; Besso Declaration at ¶¶ 3-4. CLS’s

8 predecessor organization was the non-profit law firm that represented farm

9 workers in the state legislature when FLCA was overhauled in 1985. Farm worker
10
clients represented by CLS have filed multiple class action suits under FLCA for
11
violations emanating from the Yakima Valley. Besso Declaration at ¶4. CLS has
12
13 been the primary referral source for farm worker litigation involving FLCA as CLS
14 does not have funding restrictions similar to those that prevent NJP from taking on

15 class actions. Besso Declaration at ¶3. Moreover, CLS would be the primary

16 entity involved in legislative activity around FLCA as NJP is limited in that

17
advocacy as well. Id. Finally, CLS is committed to continued representation of
18
farm workers in the Yakima Valley to enforce the farm worker protections
19
20 embodied in FLCA. Martin Declaration at ¶¶4, 7-8.

21

Courts routinely direct cy pres awards to legal services programs. Gomez v.

22 H & R Gunlund Ranches, Inc., CV F 10-1163 LJO MJS, 2011 WL 5884224, *3

23 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 23, 2011)(farm worker class action based on FLSA violations

PLAINTIFFS’ REPORT & MOTION FOR CY PRES DISTRIBUTION - Page 13 of 16

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 6 South Second Street, Suite 600 Yakima, WA 98901 (509) 575-5593

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 1365 Filed 01/06/14

1 where court approved 50-50 split of cy pres funds with half going to legal

2 services); see also, Cosgrove v. Citizens Auto. Fin., Inc., CIV.A. 09-1095, 2011
3
WL 3740809, *8 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 25, 2011) (equal cy pres division to two separate
4
legal services programs as both “will help to redress the types of wrongs alleged in
5
6 this litigation”); Wiles v. Sw. Bill Tel. Co., 09-4236-CV-C-NKL, 2011 WL
7 2416291, *1 (W.D. Mo. June 9, 2011) (over $575,000 in cy pres funds distributed

8 between four different legal aid organizations).

9

Using the Ninth Circuit’s guidance in Dennis, district courts have also

10
specifically targeted cy pres funds to legal services entities that specialize in labor
11
law representation that meets the underlying goal of the labor law statute involved
12
13 in the class litigation. Eddings v. Health-Net, Inc., 2013 WL 169895, *4 (C.D. Cal.

14 Jan. 16, 2013) (court approved cy pres award to Legal Aid Society – Employment

15 Law Section where mission was to redress injuries from labor laws and regularly

16 engaged in class-action litigation on behalf of workers with wage claims); Greko v.
17
Diesel U.S.A., Inc., 10-CV-02576 NC, 2013 WL 1789602, *6 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 26,
18
2013)(Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles employment unit appropriate cy pres
19
20 recipient as it provides employment law representation regarding violations of the
21 statutes alleged in the underlying class action complaint and two thirds of the class

22 members reside in Southern California where the foundation would provide

23 services).

PLAINTIFFS’ REPORT & MOTION FOR CY PRES DISTRIBUTION - Page 14 of 16

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 6 South Second Street, Suite 600 Yakima, WA 98901 (509) 575-5593

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 1365 Filed 01/06/14

1

In light of the above declarations and case law, the Workers respectfully

2 request this Court to approve the proposed cy pres distributions.
3
IV. CONCLUSION
4
Counsel for the Workers, in conjunction with professional service providers,
5
6 have gone the extra mile to locate and compensate farm workers for the violations
7 of their FLCA rights. Consistent with Ninth Circuit precedent, the remaining

8 funds should be distributed as outlined above: $5,258.51 costs; $22,500 incentive

9 payments to class representatives; $285,784 to the outreach entities; the remainder

10
of approximately $500,000 to CLS (holding $100,000 until December 31, 2014 for

11
any additional class claimants).
12

13

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 6th day of January 2014.

14 COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES

PAINE HAMBLEN LLP

15 s/ Lori Jordan Isley Lori Jordan Isley, WSBA #21724
16 Attorneys for Plaintiffs COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES
17 6 South Second Street, Ste. 600 18 Yakima, WA 98901
Phone: (509) 575-5593, ext.217 19 lori.isley@columbialegal.org

s/ Richard W. Kuhling Richard W. Kuhling, WSBA #7927 Attorneys for Plaintiffs PAINE HAMBLEN, LLC 717 W. Sprague Ave., Ste 1200 Spokane, WA 99201 Phone: (509) 455-6000 richard.kuhling@painehamblen.com

20

21

22

23

PLAINTIFFS’ REPORT & MOTION FOR CY PRES DISTRIBUTION - Page 15 of 16

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 6 South Second Street, Suite 600 Yakima, WA 98901 (509) 575-5593

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 1365 Filed 01/06/14

 
 Case: 10-C35a3s9e72:050-5c/v1-50/32006114-RHW IDD: 9o0cu9m76e6n9t 138D2ktEnFtirleyd: 9095/15P/1a4ge: 1 of 11
FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MAY 15 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

JOSE GUADALUPE PEREZ-FARIAS; JOSE F. SANCHEZ; RICARDO BETANCOURT, and all other similarly situated persons,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,

No. 10-35397
D.C. No. 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Eastern District of Washington, Spokane

v.

ORDER

GLOBAL HORIZONS, INC.; JANE DOE ORIAN; PLATTE RIVER INSURANCE COMPANY; VALLEY FRUIT ORCHARDS, LLC; GREEN ACRE FARMS, INC.; MORDECHAI ORIAN,

Defendants - Appellees.

Before: Peter L. Shaw, Appellate Commissioner. I
Background Jose Guadalupe Perez-Farias, Jose F. Sanchez, and Ricardo Betancourt, class representatives (collectively, “Workers”), brought this employment law class action under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, 29 U.S.C. §§ 1801-1872, and Washington state law against Global Horizons, Inc. (“Global”); Valley Fruit Orchards, LLC, and Green Acre Farms, Inc. (collectively, “Growers”); Platte River Insurance Company;

gml/AppComm

No . 10-35397

Case: 10-C35a3s9e72:050-5c/v1-50/32006114-RHW IDD: 9o0cu9m76e6n9t 138D2ktEnFtirleyd: 9095/15P/1a4ge: 2 of 11
Mordechai Orian; and Jane Doe Orian. The district court held that Global violated the Washington Farm Labor Contractors Act (“FLCA”), Washington Revised Code Annotated §§ 19.30.010 -.30.902, and that Growers were jointly and severally liable for the violations. The court awarded statutory damages to Workers. After a jury trial, the district court found that Global had discriminated against Workers on the basis of race and national origin and awarded punitive and other damages. The district court found, however, that Growers were not liable for Global’s illegal discrimination or for punitive damages. The district court awarded attorneys’ fees to Workers as to Global, but found that Workers were not prevailing parties under the FLCA as to Growers and not entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees against Growers.
Workers appealed. They contended that the district court erred by finding that it had the discretion to award statutory damages of less than $500 per plaintifff per violation under the FLCA. Workers also contended that the district court abused its discretion by determining that they were not prevailing parties, and thus not entitled to attorneys’ fees against Growers under the FLCA. Finally, Workers contended that the district court erred by finding that Growers were not liable as principals for the illegal discrimination Growers’ agent, Global.

gml/AppComm

2

No . 10-35397

Case: 10-C35a3s9e72:050-5c/v1-50/32006114-RHW IDD: 9o0cu9m76e6n9t 138D2ktEnFtirleyd: 9095/15P/1a4ge: 3 of 11
During the appeal, this court certified state law questions to the Washington Supreme Court. After the Washington Supreme Court submitted its certificate of finality addressing the state law issues, this court reversed the district court’s determination of the statutory damages, and remanded for an award of $500 per plaintiff per violation under the FLCA. The court also reversed the prevailing party and attorneys’ fees issue under the FLCA and remanded the matter to the district court for further proceedings. Finally, the court affirmed the district court’s finding that Growers were not liable for Global’s illegal discrimination against Workers.
Workers filed a motion for attorneys’ fees pursuant to the FLCA, Revised Code of Washington section 19.30.170(1), and Growers opposed the motion. The court granted the fee motion “in principle,” and referred the matter to the Appellate Commissioner.
II Analysis A. Applicable Law If the substantive issues raised in a federal court proceeding involve state law, state law governs the award of attorneys’ fees. See In re Baroff, 105 F.3d 439,

gml/AppComm

3

No . 10-35397

Case: 10-C35a3s9e72:050-5c/v1-50/32006114-RHW IDD: 9o0cu9m76e6n9t 138D2ktEnFtirleyd: 9095/15P/1a4ge: 4 of 11
441 (9th Cir. 1997); see also Alyeska Pipeline Serv. Co. v. Wilderness Soc’y, 421 U.S. 240, 260 n.31 (1975).
Here, Workers were prevailing parties and were awarded attorneys’ fees pursuant to the FLCA. Accordingly, Washington state law governs the substantive law concerning the award of fees to Workers.
Like the analysis under federal law, Washington applies the lodestar analysis to a determination of the fee award. See Brand v. Dep’t of Labor & Indus., 989 P.2d 1111, 1114 (Wash. 1999); see also Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 43334 (1983). The lodestar is calculated by multiplying a reasonable hourly rate by the number of hours reasonably expended. Brand, 989 P.2d at 1114; see Hensley, 461 U.S. at 433-34 (“The most useful starting point for determining the amount of a reasonable fee is the number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate.”). B. Fee Request
Workers request $143,033.50 in attorneys’ fees for 510.75 hours of work by their attorneys at the following hourly rates: $275 for Lori Jordan Isley, Esq., $270 for Joachim Morrison, Esq., $300 and $325 for Matthew Geyman, Esq., and $320 for Richard W. Kuhling, Esq.

gml/AppComm

4

No . 10-35397

Case: 10-C35a3s9e72:050-5c/v1-50/32006114-RHW IDD: 9o0cu9m76e6n9t 138D2ktEnFtirleyd: 9095/15P/1a4ge: 5 of 11
C. Documentation Growers contend that the entries in the fee documentation describing the
tasks performed by Growers’ attorneys are not sufficiently detailed to evaluate the reasonableness of the fee request.1 See 9th Cir. R. 39-1.6(b) (fee request must contain a “detailed itemization of the tasks performed and the amount of time spent by each lawyer”).
This contention lacks merit. Counsel “is not required to record in great detail how each minute of his time was expended.” Hensley, 461 U.S. at 437 n.12. Counsel can satisfy the burden of submitting evidence supporting the hours claimed by listing the hours and “identify[ing] the general subject matter of [the]

1 Growers cite to federal case law in analyzing their objections to the fee documentation. Federal case law is applicable and pertinent because the adequacy of the fee documentation is, at least in part, a matter of the procedural requirements for submitting a fee request to federal court. See In re Larry’s Apartment, L.L.C., 249 F.3d 832, 837 (9th Cir. 2001) (federal courts apply state substantive law and federal procedural law under Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938)); see also Mangold v. Cal. Pub. Util. Comm’n, 67 F.3d 1470, 1478 (9th Cir. 1995) (method of calculating attorneys’ fees is governed by state law, but decisions concerning whether to hold an evidentiary hearing, for example, are matters of court administration). In any event, Washington and federal law on the adequacy of documentation do not differ in any meaningful way. Compare Mahler v. Scucz, 957 P.2d 632, 651 (Wash. 1998) (documentation need not be exhaustive or in minute detail), overruled on other grounds by Matsyuk v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 272 P.3d 802 (Wash. 2012) with Hensley, 461 U.S. at 437 n.12 (counsel “is not required to record in great detail how each minute of his time was expended”).

gml/AppComm

5

No . 10-35397

Case: 10-C35a3s9e72:050-5c/v1-50/32006114-RHW IDD: 9o0cu9m76e6n9t 138D2ktEnFtirleyd: 9095/15P/1a4ge: 6 of 11

time expenditures.” Id.; see See Fischer v. SJB-P.D., Inc., 214 F.3d 1115, 1121 (9th Cir. 2000); see also Mahler, 957 P.2d at 651.
Here, each of Workers’ attorneys recorded the tasks they performed in separate entries setting forth the time expended and a description of the tasks that ranged from general to very specific. Growers criticize counsel Isley’s entries for being overly vague, but the examples of defective descriptions and time expenditures identified by Growers contain sufficient detail to permit the court to evaluate the reasonableness of the fee request. See Fischer, 214 F.3d at 1121.
Growers also contend that Workers’ attorneys engaged in “block-billing” in the fee documentation, and that this practice prevents the court from assessing the reasonableness of the fee request. “Block billing” is the failure to itemize each task individually in the billing records. The time requested should be reduced if block billing makes it impossible to evaluate the reasonableness of the time. See Welch v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 480 F.3d 942, 948 (9th Cir. 2007) (citing Role Models Am., Inc. v. Brownlee, 353 F.3d 962, 971 (D.C. Cir. 2004)); see also Mendez v. County of San Bernardino, 540 F.3d 1109, 1129 (9th Cir. 2008).
Counsel Isley and Morrison itemized their tasks individually in tenth of an hour increments. These time sheets contain sufficient detail and itemization of the tasks to evaluate the reasonableness of the tasks and time requested.

gml/AppComm

6

No . 10-35397

Case: 10-C35a3s9e72:050-5c/v1-50/32006114-RHW IDD: 9o0cu9m76e6n9t 138D2ktEnFtirleyd: 9095/15P/1a4ge: 7 of 11

Counsel Geyman recorded his tasks in half-hour increments, but stated in a declaration that he reduced his requested time to the lower half-hour increment of the time actually expended. Furthermore, each entry lists one or more tasks that are related in subject matter. Accordingly, Geyman’s time sheets are also recorded in sufficient detail to allow the court to evaluate the reasonableness of the fee request.
Counsel Kuhling requests compensation for 9.75 hours. Kuhling recorded his tasks in quarter-hour increments, and he states in a declaration that he did not reduce his time. Although the tasks are described in adequate detail in the time sheets, Kuhling’s practice of recording his time in quarter-hour blocks without reduction likely resulted in overstating the time expended. The fee award shall be reduced to account for Kuhling’s failure to document his time properly. See Welch, 480 F.3d at 948. D. Hours
1. Time Expended in Washington Supreme Court Growers assert that fees for time expended in the litigating the certified questions before the Washington Supreme Court “are more properly determined by that court” and that Workers’ request for fees related to the proceedings in that court is “inappropriate.”

gml/AppComm

7

No . 10-35397

Case: 10-C35a3s9e72:050-5c/v1-50/32006114-RHW IDD: 9o0cu9m76e6n9t 138D2ktEnFtirleyd: 9095/15P/1a4ge: 8 of 11

Growers do not explain why the request for fees related to the work before the Washington Supreme Court should be decided by that court or why the Workers’ request for fees related to that work is inappropriate. This court has awarded fees in other cases for fees incurred in necessary and related state court proceedings. See Bartholomew v. Watson, 665 F.2d 910, 913 (9th Cir. 1982). Furthermore, under both federal and Washington state law, fees may be awarded for time reasonably expended. See, e.g., Fischer, 214 F.3d at 1119 (fees may be awarded for hours reasonably expended); Absher Const. Co. v. Kent School Dist., 917 P. 2d 1086, 1089 (Wash. App. 1995) (same). Because the time expended was reasonable and related to the federal appeal, the hours shall be awarded.
2. Time Expended on Unsuccessful Claims, Issues, or Matters Growers next contend that Workers should not be compensated for unsuccessful claims or issues, including work related to the unsuccessful discrimination issue. See Mahler, 957 P.2d at 651 (court should exclude wasteful and duplicative hours and any time pertaining to unsuccessful theories or claims). Counsel Isley, Morrison, and Geyman have all submitted declarations stating that they have not requested fees for time spent on the unsuccessful discrimination issue. Growers have not rebutted this evidence. The fee documentation supports the attorneys’ declarations. Accordingly, Growers’ argument that Workers should

gml/AppComm

8

No . 10-35397

Case: 10-C35a3s9e72:050-5c/v1-50/32006114-RHW IDD: 9o0cu9m76e6n9t 138D2ktEnFtirleyd: 9095/15P/1a4ge: 9 of 11
not be compensated for work on unsuccessful claims or issues is without merit as to the work performed by Isley, Morrison, and Geyman.
Workers have not submitted evidence that counsel Kuhling eliminated from his fee request work performed on the unsuccessful discrimination issue. A review of his time sheets does not show that Kuhling’s time was spent only on the successful issues. Accordingly, Workers are awarded 5 hours for Kuhling’s work in this appeal, to account both for his practice of block-billing his time entries and his failure to eliminate time spent on unsuccessful issues from the fee request.
3. Total Time Claimed A review of the remaining hours claimed in the fee application along with a review of the work product filed in the court reveals that the hours claimed were reasonably expended. E. Hourly Rates Growers contend that the evidence supporting the $275 and $270 hourly rates requested by Isley and Morrison are inadequate because they are based on a survey that was not provided to the court. Growers also contend that Geyman’s requested hourly rates of $300 and $325 are not justified or supported by any evidence. Growers do not challenge Kuhling’s requested hourly rate.

gml/AppComm

9

No . 10-35397

Case: 10-3C5a3s9e72:0055-c/1v5-0/23001641-RHWID:D9o0c9u7m6e6n9t 13D8k2tEnFtrilye:d9095/15P/a1g4e: 10 of 11

Growers’ contentions lack merit. In addition to the survey evidence that Workers contend support their requested hourly rates, Workers presented evidence that Isley, Morrison, and Geyman have similar experience. They practice complex civil litigation, and Isley has practiced since 1992, Morrison has practiced since 1993, and Geyman was admitted to practice in 1987. Isley and Morrison represent low income clients for Columbia Legal Services in Washington, while Geyman is an attorney with a law firm. Workers’ evidence shows that Geyman charged hourly rates of $300 for his services from 2009 to 2011, and $325 after 2011. Geyman’s declaration, submitted with the fee motion, states that courts had previously awarded fees based on Geyman’s standard hourly rates. Similarly, Isley stated that a bankruptcy court awarded her requested hourly rate of $250 in 2010. Furthermore, Workers’ evidence shows that courts had awarded fees based on hourly rates of $325 to $375 for attorneys with experience similar to that of Geyman.
“That a lawyer charges a particular hourly rate, and gets it is evidence bearing on what the market rate is.” Carson v. Billings Police Dept., 470 F.3d 889, 892 (9th Cir. 2006). Evidence that Geyman charged to clients and received the requested hourly rates of $300 to $325 tends to show that those are market rates for attorneys with similar experience with a comparable practice. Furthermore, other

gml/AppComm

10

No . 10-35397

Case: 10-3C5a3s9e72:0055-c/1v5-0/23001641-RHWID:D9o0c9u7m6e6n9t 13D8k2tEnFtrilye:d9095/15P/a1g4e: 11 of 11
court-ordered attorney’s fee awards, including those involving the attorneys here, are relevant to determining the prevailing market rates. See Welch v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 480 F.3d 942, 947 (9th Cir. 2007) (evidence of rate determinations by other courts is relevant to determining the prevailing market rate) Finally, the Appellate Commissioner’s evaluation of rates requested in similar appeals suggests that Workers’ claimed rates are in line with “the prevailing market rate for attorneys of comparable skill, experience and reputation.” Id. (citing Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 895-97 (1984)). Workers’ requested hourly rates are awarded.
III Conclusion Attorneys’ fees in the amount of $141,513.50 are awarded in favor of Workers and against appellees Valley Fruit Orchards, LLC, and Green Acre Farms, Inc. This order amends the court’s mandate.

gml/AppComm

11

No . 10-35397

 
 Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW ECF No. 136 filed 07/28/06 PageID.1301 Page 1 of 29

1

2

3

4

5

6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

8 JOSE GUADALUPE PEREZ-FARIAS, )

et al.,

)

9

)

Plaintiffs, )

10

)

v.

)

11

)

GLOBAL HORIZONS, INC., et al., )

12

)

Defendants. )

13 ________________________________)

NO. CV-05-3061-MWL ORDER RE: CLASS CERTIFICATION

14

On July 5, 2006, Plaintiffs' motion for class certification

15 came on for hearing with oral argument. Mirta Laura Contreras,

16 Lori A. Jordan Isley, and Richard W. Kuhling appeared on behalf of

17 the Plaintiffs and Howard W. Foster, Eric Ben-Ezra and Ryan M.

18 Edgley appeared for the Defendants.

19

On October 13, 2005, the parties consented to proceed before

20 a magistrate judge. (Ct. Rec. 27). Plaintiffs filed their motion

21 for class certification on February 3, 2006. (Ct. Rec. 60).

22 Defendants Global Horizons and Platte River Insurance Company

23 filed a response in opposition on May 9, 2006. (Ct. Rec. 99).

24 Plaintiffs filed a reply on May 19, 2006. (Ct. Rec. 108). It is

25 significant to note, as indicated in Plaintiffs' reply brief (Ct.

26 Rec. 108, p. 2), Defendants Green Acre Farms and Valley Fruit

27 Orchards provided no opposition or other response to Plaintiffs'

28 motion for class certification. Local Rule 7.1(h)(5) holds that

ORDER RE: CLASS CERTIFICATION - 1

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW ECF No. 136 filed 07/28/06 PageID.1302 Page 2 of 29

1 "[a] failure to timely file a memorandum of points and authorities

2 in support of or in opposition to any motion may be considered by

3 the Court as consent on the part of the party failing to file such

4 memorandum to the entry of an Order adverse to the party in

5 default." Accordingly, the undersigned finds that Defendants

6 Green Acre Farms and Valley Fruit Orchards have acquiesced to the

7 entry of an order granting Plaintiffs' motion for class

8 certification.

9 I. CLASS DEFINITIONS

10

A. Plaintiffs' Motion: Plaintiffs seek to represent one

11 class (U.S. Resident Workers) with each named Plaintiff

12 representing three distinct sub-classes (Denied Work, Green Acre,

13 and Valley Fruit). (Ct. Rec. 60).

14

PROPOSED CLASS

15

U.S Resident Workers: All workers who were U.S. residents and

who sought employment through defendant Global Horizons to

16

work at either Green Acre Farms or Valley Fruit Orchards in

2004, and all U.S. residents who, in the future, seek

17

employment with or obtain employment with Global, Green Acre,

or Valley Fruit.

18

PROPOSED SUB-CLASSES

19

Denied Work (Represented by Plaintiff Betancourt): All

20

workers who were U.S. residents and who sought and were

denied employment through defendant Global to work at either

21

Green Acre Farms or Valley Fruit Orchards in Washington state

in 2004, and all U.S. residents who, in the future, seek

22

employment with or obtain employment with Global, Green Acre,

or Valley Fruit.

23

Green Acre (Represented by Plaintiff Sanchez): All workers

24

who were U.S. residents and who were employed through

defendant Global to work at Green Acre Farms in 2004, and all

25

U.S. residents who, in the future, seek employment with or

obtain employment with Global and Green Acre.

26

Valley Fruit (Represented by Plaintiff Perez-Farias): All

27

workers who were U.S. residents and who were employed through

defendant Global Horizons to work at Valley Fruit in 2004,

28

and all U.S. residents who, in the future, seek employment

with or obtain employment with Global or Valley Fruit.

ORDER RE: CLASS CERTIFICATION - 2

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW ECF No. 136 filed 07/28/06 PageID.1303 Page 3 of 29

1

B. Defendants: Defendants allege in their response that

2 Plaintiffs' motion for class certification should be denied

3 because Plaintiffs' proposed class definition is vague, imprecise,

4 and largely unintelligible. (Ct. Rec. 99, p. 24).

5

A class proposed under Rule 23(b)(3) must be sufficiently

6 well defined so that the Court may provide individual notice to

7 all members who can be identified through reasonable effort.

8 Mendoza v. Zirkle Fruit Co., 222 F.R.D. 439, 442 (E.D. Wash.

9 2004).

10

Defendants claim that the term "U.S. Resident" is imprecise.

11 Defendants assert that it is unclear which individuals would

12 actually qualify as a "U.S. Resident" because the phrase can have

13 various meanings under different immigration and tax laws. Even

14 if the Court were to utilize the test provided in LeClerc v. Webb,

15 419 F.3d 405, 427 (5th Cir. 2005), its application evidences the

16 difficulty of determining whether workers qualify as "U.S.

17 Residents" and numerous individual inquiries would be necessary to

18 determine whether a worker satisfies the requisite residency

19 durational requirements. (Ct. Rec. 99, p. 26). Defendants argue

20 that Plaintiffs failed to address how they would conduct such

21 inquires.

22

Defendants also claim that the proposed class is overbroad

23 because the "future employees" included in the class definition

24 are not limited to only workers who sought employment to work at

25 Green Acres or Valley Farm (through Global). (Ct. Rec. 99, p.

26 27). Defendants argue that the definition is overbroad because it

27 includes any person, migrant worker or otherwise, who applies to

28 ///

ORDER RE: CLASS CERTIFICATION - 3

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW ECF No. 136 filed 07/28/06 PageID.1304 Page 4 of 29

1 work at any Global location throughout the world, including

2 management, in-house counsel, technology personnel, janitors, etc.

3

Finally, Defendants assert that the time period for the class

4 is also vague, especially with regard to future workers.

5 Defendants argue that it is unclear when "the future" is being

6 measured from. (Ct. Rec. 99, p. 28).

7

C. Plaintiffs' Reply: Plaintiffs respond that Plaintiffs'

8 proposed class and subclasses are clear and precise. (Ct. Rec.

9 108, pp. 3-4). Plaintiffs indicate that each of the class

10 definitions states that the claims are "presently limited to the

11 year 2004." (Ct. Rec. 108, p. 3). Accordingly, the phrase

12 "future workers" does not include workers in 2005. Plaintiffs

13 assert that the class covers all future U.S. Resident workers

14 employed by Defendants in agriculture in Washington state. (Ct.

15 Rec. 108, p. 3). In their reply brief, Plaintiffs agree with

16 Defendants that the workers covered by the proposed class should

17 be only those U.S. Residents "who are employed by Defendant Global

18 in agricultural work in Washington State." (Ct. Rec. 108, p. 4).

19

D. Analysis: A class does not have to be defined with

20 precision at the outset. 7A C. Wright et al., Federal Practice &

21 Procedure § 1760, at 117 (2d ed. 1986). The test is whether the

22 description of the class is "sufficiently definite so that it is

23 administratively feasible for the court to determine whether a

24 particular individual is a member." Id. at 121. In this case,

25 Defendants' response does not preclude the certification of the

26 class and subclasses proposed by Plaintiffs.

27 ///

28 ///

ORDER RE: CLASS CERTIFICATION - 4

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW ECF No. 136 filed 07/28/06 PageID.1305 Page 5 of 29

1

While Defendants claim that the term "U.S. Resident" is

2 imprecise (Ct. Rec. 99, p. 24), a class proposed under Rule

3 23(b)(3) must only be sufficiently well defined so that the Court

4 may provide individual notice to all members who can be identified

5 through reasonable effort. Mendoza, 222 F.R.D. at 442. The Court

6 gives weight to Plaintiffs' reply brief and finds that the term

7 "U.S. Residents" is sufficiently precise for the court to

8 determine whether a particular individual is a member. (Ct. Rec.

9 108, p. 4). It is apparent that the workers covered by the

10 proposed class include those workers who live in the United States

11 and were employed by Global Horizons. Furthermore, as asserted at

12 the hearing on the motion, as well as in Plaintiff's reply brief,

13 the class should be limited to only farm workers living in the 14 United States (with the exception of guest workers) who applied,1

15 or who may apply in the future, at Global Horizons for

16 agricultural employment in Washington State at Green Acres or

17 Valley Farm. The Court finds that "application," as opposed to

18 using the terms employees who "sought" or who may "seek"

19 employment, is necessary in order to more easily identify and

20 define the class. The class and subclasses shall therefore be

21 limited and defined in this fashion.

22 II. MATCHING SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

23

A. Defendants: Defendants allege in their response that,

24 to the extent that a class is certified, it should be limited to

25 individuals with only matching social security numbers. (Ct. Rec.

26 1For purposes of membership in the class, "application" at
27 Global Horizons for agricultural employment must be supported by documentation or other record in order to verify that he or she
28 applied for employment at Global Horizons for work at Green Acres or Valley Farm.

ORDER RE: CLASS CERTIFICATION - 5

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW ECF No. 136 filed 07/28/06 PageID.1306 Page 6 of 29

1 99, pp. 28-30). Global believes individuals with non-matching

2 social security numbers (264 potential class members provided non-

3 matching social security numbers) are illegal aliens who are not

4 authorized to work in this country. Applicants were terminated by

5 Global if they were not able to correct this "mismatch" within 30

6 days. (Ct. Rec. 99, p. 28).

7

Employees who are discharged because they are illegal aliens

8 do not have a claim for discrimination under federal or state law.

9 Rivera v. NIBCO, Inc., 364 F.3d 1057, 1072 (9th Cir. 2004) (an

10 employer's decision to terminate an undocumented worker is a

11 defense to Title VII claims if the employer can show the firing

12 was based on illegal status); Anderson v. Conboy, 156 F.3d 167,

13 180 (2d Cir. 1998) ("If an employer refuses to hire a person

14 because that person is in the country illegally, that employer is

15 discriminating on the basis not of alienage but of noncompliance

16 with federal law"). Defendants thus contend that 264 putative

17 class members do not have valid claims against Global and cannot

18 assert the same theories of liability as the rest of the putative

19 class. Defendants therefore assert that the class should be

20 limited strictly to those individuals who have matching social

21 security numbers.

22

B. Plaintiffs' Reply: Plaintiffs respond that all workers

23 are entitled to pursue all claims regardless of their immigration

24 status. (Ct. Rec. 108, pp. 4-6). As noted by Plaintiffs, this

25 Court previously ruled that the immigration status of Plaintiffs

26 was not relevant to class certification issues. (Ct. Rec. 50, pp.

27 11-12). There is no basis to limit or exclude class members based

28 on immigration status because all workers have the right to pursue

ORDER RE: CLASS CERTIFICATION - 6

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW ECF No. 136 filed 07/28/06 PageID.1307 Page 7 of 29

1 claims for violations of the laws alleged in this case. (Ct. Rec.

2 108, pp. 5-6). Plaintiffs assert that; moreover, the fact that

3 Defendants contend that certain class members have non-matching

4 social security numbers does not establish that class members are

5 undocumented workers or provide any other reason for limiting the

6 class. Plaintiffs contend that a non-matching social security

7 number does not make any statement about an employee's immigration

8 status, nor is it a basis for taking any adverse action against

9 the employee. (Ct. Rec. 108, p. 6).

10

C. Analysis: The Court agrees with Plaintiffs that the

11 fact that Defendants contend that certain class members have non-

12 matching social security numbers does not establish that class

13 members are undocumented workers or provide any other reason for

14 limiting the class. See, Social Security Administration, Employer

15 Reporting Instructions & Information, (December 7, 2005),

16 http://www.ssa.gov/employer/ssnvrestrict.htm ("A mismatch [of

17 social security numbers] does not make any statement about an

18 employee's immigration status and is not a basis, in and of

19 itself, for taking any adverse action against an employee. Doing

20 so could subject you to anti-discrimination or labor law

21 sanctions.") The Court finds that, at this stage in the

22 litigation, the immigration status of individual plaintiffs is not

23 relevant and certainly does not provide a basis to limit or

24 exclude class members. Accordingly, the undersigned declines to

25 limit the definition of the class strictly to those individuals

26 who have matching social security numbers.

27 ///

28 ///

ORDER RE: CLASS CERTIFICATION - 7

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW ECF No. 136 filed 07/28/06 PageID.1308 Page 8 of 29

1 III. RULE 23(a) PREREQUISITES:

2

Class actions are authorized by Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. All

3 class actions under Rule 23 must meet four prerequisites of Fed.

4 R. Civ. P. 23(a), Numerosity, Commonality, Typicality, and

5 Adequacy of Representation, and at least one of the requirements

6 of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b). Blake v. Arnett, 663 F.2d 906, 912 (9th

7 Cir. 1981).

8

The burden on the motion for class certification is on the

9 party seeking to maintain the class action. In this case,

10 Plaintiffs must establish a prima facie showing of each of the

11 elements of Rule 23(a) prerequisites and the appropriate 23(b)

12 ground for a class action. Taylor v. Safeway stores, Inc. 524

13 F.2d 263, 270 (10th Cir. 1975). Plaintiffs need only present

14 sufficient proof to allow the court to come to a "reasonable

15 judgment" on each requirement. Blackie v. Barrack, 524 F.2d 891,

16 901 (9th Cir. 1975).

17

A. Numerosity: The class must be so numerous that

18 joinder of all members individually is "impracticable." Fed. R.

19 Civ. P. 23(a)(1). No specific numerical threshold is required;

20 each case must be examined. General Tel.C. v. E.E.O.C., 446 U.S.

21 318, 330 (1980). Generally, 40 or more members will satisfy the

22 numerosity requirement. Consolidated Rail Corp. v. Town of Hyde

23 Park, 47 F.3d 473, 483 (2nd Cir. 1995).

24

1. U.S Resident Workers (CLASS): Plaintiffs allege in

25 their amended complaint that approximately 600 U.S. workers were

26 denied work or employed by Defendants in 2004. (Ct. Rec. 77, p.

27 7). Although undetermined at this time, Plaintiffs assert that

28 ///

ORDER RE: CLASS CERTIFICATION - 8

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW ECF No. 136 filed 07/28/06 PageID.1309 Page 9 of 29

1 future workers who will seek employment or be employed by

2 Defendants will likely be in the thousands. (Ct. Rec. 60, p. 6).

3

2. Denied Work (Sub-Class): Plaintiffs allege in their

4 amended complaint that approximately 300 U.S. workers are in their

5 Denied Work subclass. (Ct. Rec. 77, pp. 9-10).

6

3. Green Acre (Sub-Class): Plaintiffs allege in their

7 amended complaint that approximately 150 U.S. workers are in their

8 Green Acre subclass. (Ct. Rec. 77, p. 11).

9

4. Valley Fruit (Sub-Class): Plaintiffs allege in

10 their amended complaint that approximately 150 U.S. workers are in

11 their Valley Fruit subclass. (Ct. Rec. 77, p. 14).

12

Defendant Global did not specifically challenge Plaintiffs'

13 motion for class certification on the ground of numerosity (Fed.

14 R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1)). (Ct. Rec. 99).

15

B. Commonality: There must be questions of law or fact

16 common to the class. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2). Commonality

17 exists "where the question of law linking the class members is

18 substantially related to the resolution of the litigation even

19 though the individuals are not identically situated." Jordan v.

20 County of Los Angeles, 669 F.2d 1311, 1320 (9th Cir. 1982). A

21 "common nucleus of operative facts" is usually enough to satisfy

22 the commonality requirement. Rosario v. Livaditis, 963 F.2d 1013,

23 1017-18 (7th Cir. 1992).

24

1. U.S Resident Workers (CLASS): Plaintiffs seeks

25 claims under the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker

26 Protection Act ("AWPA") and the Farm Labor Contractor's Act

27 ("FLCA"). Plaintiffs' amended complaint sets forth the following

28 questions of law and fact common to members of the proposed class:

ORDER RE: CLASS CERTIFICATION - 9

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW ECF No. 136 filed 07/28/06 PageID.1310 Page 10 of 29

1 whether Defendants provided false and misleading information about

2 the job offers, whether Defendant Global was an unlicensed labor

3 contractor, whether Defendants Green Acre and Valley Fruit

4 knowingly used the services of Defendant Global, an unlicensed

5 contractor, and whether Defendant Global failed to provide

6 adequate disclosure of the terms and conditions of employment.

7 (Ct. Rec. 77, pp. 8-9). Based on Plaintiffs' assertions at

8 argument on the underlying motion, the Court understands that

9 Plaintiffs contend that Defendants provided false and misleading

10 "written" information about job offers.

11

2. Denied Work (Sub-Class): Plaintiffs' amended

12 complaint sets forth the following questions of law and fact

13 common to members of the proposed subclass: whether Defendants

14 violated the working arrangement and whether Defendants

15 discriminated against Plaintiffs on the basis of race or national

16 origin. (Ct. Rec. 77, p. 10).

17

3. Green Acre (Sub-Class): Plaintiffs' amended

18 complaint sets forth the following questions of law and fact

19 common to members of the proposed subclass: whether Defendants

20 failed to comply with the terms and conditions of employment or

21 violated the working arrangement, whether Defendants made unlawful

22 deductions and provided inaccurate pay stubs, and whether

23 Defendants discriminated against the subclass on the basis of race

24 or national origin. (Ct. Rec. 77, pp. 12-13).

25

4. Valley Fruit (Sub-Class): Plaintiffs' amended

26 complaint sets forth the following questions of law and fact

27 common to members of the proposed subclass: whether Defendants

28 failed to comply with the terms and conditions of employment or

ORDER RE: CLASS CERTIFICATION - 10

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW ECF No. 136 filed 07/28/06 PageID.1311 Page 11 of 29

1 violated the working arrangement, whether Defendants made unlawful

2 deductions and provided inaccurate pay stubs, and whether

3 Defendants discriminated against the subclass on the basis of race

4 or national origin. (Ct. Rec. 77, pp. 14-16).

5

Defendant Global did not specifically challenge Plaintiffs'

6 motion for class certification on the ground of commonality (Fed.

7 R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2)). (Ct. Rec. 99).

8

C. Typicality: The claims or defenses of the class

9 representative must be typical of the claims or defenses of the

10 class. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(3). The fact that damage claims

11 will vary among workers, however, does not defeat typicality.

12 Typicality may exist even though "there is a disparity in the

13 damages claimed by the representative parties and the other

14 members of the class." 7A Charles A. Wright, et al., Federal

15 Practice and Procedure § 1764, at 235-236, 241 (1986). The test

16 of typicality is whether (1) other members have the same or

17 similar injury; (2) the action is based on conduct which is not

18 unique to the named plaintiffs; and (3) other class members have

19 been injured by the same course of conduct. Hanon v. Dataproducts

20 Corp., 976 F.2d 497, 508 (9th Cir. 1992). The named Plaintiff

21 must be a member of the class. Bailey v. Patterson, 362 U.S. 31.

22 32 -33, 82 S.Ct. 549 (1962).

23

1. U.S Resident Workers (CLASS): Plaintiffs assert that

24 all Plaintiffs and putative class members in this action have an

25 interest in ensuring that Defendant Global obtains a license

26 before it does business in the state of Washington and complies

27 with farm labor contracting laws. (Ct. Rec. 60, pp. 10-11).

28 ///

ORDER RE: CLASS CERTIFICATION - 11

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW ECF No. 136 filed 07/28/06 PageID.1312 Page 12 of 29

1

2. Denied Work (Sub-Class): Plaintiffs assert that

2 Plaintiff Betancourt's facts mirror those of the Denied Work

3 subclass: he was hired by Defendant Global after a telephone

4 interview, was told by Defendant Global he would receive a return

5 call with a starting date, and Defendant Global failed to contact

6 him thereafter. (Ct. Rec. 77, pp. 26-27).

7

3. Green Acre (Sub-Class): Plaintiffs allege that

8 Plaintiff Sanchez shares a common interest with those of other

9 U.S. workers who were employed at Green Acre. Plaintiffs allege

10 that Sanchez, and a crew of 20 to 30 workers, were illegally fired

11 by Defendants on the basis of race or national origin. (Ct. Rec.

12 77, pp. 28-31).

13

4. Valley Fruit (Sub-Class): Plaintiffs assert that

14 Plaintiff Perez shares a common interest with others in the Valley

15 Fruit subclass as Perez, and approximately 32 to 33 other farm

16 workings in his crew, were illegally discharged by Defendants on

17 the basis of race or national origin. (Ct. Rec. 77, pp. 31-34).

18

Defendant Global did not specifically challenge Plaintiffs'

19 motion for class certification on the ground of typicality (Fed.

20 R. Civ. P. 23(a)(3)). (Ct. Rec. 99).

21

D. Adequacy of Representation: The person representing the

22 class must be able "fairly and adequately to protect the

23 interests" of all members in the class. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4).

24 The representation is "adequate" if the attorney representing the

25 class is qualified and competent and the class representatives are

26 not disqualified by interests antagonistic to the remainder of the

27 class. Lerwill v. Inflight Motion Pictures, Inc. 582 F.2d 597,

28 512 (9th Cir. 1978).

ORDER RE: CLASS CERTIFICATION - 12

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW ECF No. 136 filed 07/28/06 PageID.1313 Page 13 of 29

1

1. Plaintiffs: Plaintiff state that there is no

2 evidence that this litigation is collusive or that the interests

3 of the class representatives are not aligned with those of the

4 proposed class and the three subclasses. (Ct. Rec. 60, p. 13).

5 Plaintiff assert that the class representatives and counsel are

6 prepared to vigorously represent the class in this case. (Ct.

7 Rec. 60, p. 14).

8

2. Defendants: Defendant Global argues that none of

9 the three class representatives are adequate in this case. (Ct.

10 Rec. 108, pp. 9-15). Although Defendants specifically challenge

11 only adequacy of representation and not the other three

12 prerequisites of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) (numerosity, commonality,

13 and typicality), Defendants' arguments pertaining to adequacy of

14 representation, as discussed below, raise similar issues.

15

a. Valley Fruit (Sub-Class): Defendants asserts that

16 Perez-Farias is not an adequate class representative because he

17 does not share the subclass' discrimination claim. (Ct. Rec. 99,

18 p. 9). Defendants provide an excerpt of Perez-Farias' deposition

19 testimony which allegedly shows that he did not believe that he,

20 or any of the Valley Fruit workers, were fired because they were

21 Hispanic. (Ct. Rec. 99, p. 10). Defendants argue that Perez-

22 Farias is not an adequate representative of this subclass because

23 he admitted that he was not discriminated against and therefore

24 has no claim against Global for discrimination. Global also

25 indicates that they would call Perez-Farias as an adverse witness

26 at trial to establish there was no discrimination - - thus his

27 interests would be adverse to those of the subclass. (Ct. Rec.

28 99, p. 10).

ORDER RE: CLASS CERTIFICATION - 13

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW ECF No. 136 filed 07/28/06 PageID.1314 Page 14 of 29

1

Defendants also argue that Plaintiffs' motion for class

2 certification failed to address (even in a cursory fashion) how

3 Perez-Farias is an adequate representative for the claims under

4 the AWPA and FLCA.

5

Plaintiffs reply that Perez-Farias can fairly and adequately

6 protect the interests of the Valley Fruit Subclass. (Ct. Rec.

7 108, pp. 10-14). Plaintiffs point to additional deposition

8 testimony of Perez-Farias, as well as a public statement made by

9 Perez-Farias, to support their claim that he is an adequate class

10 representative in regard to the discrimination claims raised by

11 the Valley Fruit subclass.

12

Plaintiffs additionally argue that Global attempts to take

13 advantage of Perez-Farias' lack of sophistication and knowledge.

14 Plaintiffs allege that Perez-Farias has the requisite basic

15 knowledge of the claims to affectively represent the subclass.

16 (Ct. Rec. 108, p. 14).

17

b. Denied Work (Sub-Class): Defendant Global argues

18 that Betancourt is not even a member of the subclass he seeks to

19 represent, because he failed to show up for work. (Ct. Rec. 99,

20 p. 11). Global contends that their records indicate that it

21 attempted to contact Betancourt by phone on three occasions but

22 Betancourt never answered the call and, even though Betancourt was

23 aware of the start date and the location of the Green Acres Farm,

24 Betancourt failed to show up for work. (Ct. Rec. 99, p. 12).

25 Defendants allege that, because Plaintiffs are without an adequate

26 representative who was "denied employment," class certification

27 cannot be granted with respect to this subclass.

28 ///

ORDER RE: CLASS CERTIFICATION - 14

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW ECF No. 136 filed 07/28/06 PageID.1315 Page 15 of 29

1

Plaintiffs argue that the court does not have "authority to

2 conduct a preliminary inquiry into the merits of a suit in order

3 to determine whether it may be maintained as a class action."

4 Dukes v. Wal-Mart, 222 F.R.D. 137, 144 (N.D. Cal. 2004). In

5 resolving a motion for class certification, a court must accept

6 the substantive allegations of the complaint as true. Blackie v.

7 Barrack, 524 F.2d 891, 901, n. 17 (9th Cir. 1975).

8

Plaintiffs assert that Global raises purely factual issues in

9 direct contradiction with the allegations regarding Betancourt's

10 hiring as set forth in the Complaint. (Ct. Rec. 108, pp. 9-10).

11 Plaintiffs argue that they have alleged sufficient facts to

12 demonstrate that Betancourt is an adequate class representative

13 for the Denied Work subclass.

14

c. Green Acre (Sub-Class): Defendants argue that

15 Sanchez is seeking to represent a subclass of workers from Green

16 Acres with common AWPA and FLCA claims; however, he was actually

17 provided with more work that he was guaranteed. (Ct. Rec. 99, pp.

18 13-14). Because Global's records indicate that Sanchez worked

19 1,208.75 hours, Sanchez cannot claim that Global failed to comply

20 with the terms of employment which allegedly guaranteed Sanchez at

21 least 1200 hours, or 3/4 of the 1600 hours provided in the work

22 contract for the period at issue. (Ct. Rec. 99, pp. 13-14).

23

Plaintiffs contend that Sanchez was hired by Global to work

24 at Green Acre and promised work from February 2, 2004 until

25 November 5, 2004. (Ct. Rec. 108, p. 14). Regardless of the

26 number of hours worked, Plaintiffs allege he was wrongly

27 terminated from his work in August of 2004, replaced by H-2A

28 workers from Thailand. Plaintiffs argue that workers are entitled

ORDER RE: CLASS CERTIFICATION - 15

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW ECF No. 136 filed 07/28/06 PageID.1316 Page 16 of 29

1 to seek AWPA damages for the full amount of work promised under

2 the terms of the job order and the 3/4 guarantee does not absolve

3 an employer of liability for wrongful termination, discriminatory

4 practices and other violations of the law. (Ct. Rec. 108, pp. 15-

5 16). Plaintiffs claim that Sanchez is an adequate class

6 representative of the Green Acres subclass.

7

3. Analysis: Representation is deemed adequate if the

8 named plaintiffs and their attorneys do not have conflicts with

9 absent members and they will prosecute this action vigorously on

10 behalf of the entire class. Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d

11 1011, 1020 (9th Cir. 1998). While Defendant has alleged factual

12 disputes (see supra), in resolving a motion for class

13 certification, a court must accept the substantive allegations of

14 the complaint as true. Blackie, 524 F.2d at 901, n. 17. Taking

15 the allegations of the complaint as true (Blackie, 524 F.2d at

16 901, n. 17), the Court finds that the class representatives and

17 counsel are adequate to represent the class in this case. See,

18 Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4). Furthermore, Defendant Global has not

19 established a conflict between the named plaintiffs and any absent

20 members of the class. Based on the record before the Court, the

21 undersigned finds that the named representatives are able to

22 "fairly and adequately" protect the interests of all members in

23 the class. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4).

24

E. Conclusion RE: Rule 23(a): Based on the foregoing

25 analysis, the undersigned concludes that the prerequisites of Rule

26 23(a) are satisfied in this case.

27 ///

28 ///

ORDER RE: CLASS CERTIFICATION - 16

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW ECF No. 136 filed 07/28/06 PageID.1317 Page 17 of 29

1 IV. RULE 23(b)

2

A. Rule 23(b)(2): Equitable Relief

3

An action may be maintained as a class action if the

4 prerequisites of subdivision (a) are satisfied and at least one of

5 the three requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b) are met. After

6 Plaintiffs satisfy the four initial prerequisites imposed by Rule

7 23(a), the focus shifts to Rule 23(b). In this case, Plaintiffs

8 primarily allege that the matter should be certified as a class

9 under Rule 23(b)(2) and secondarily under Rule 23(b)(3).

10

1. Plaintiffs: Plaintiffs first, and primarily, argue

11 that each of the classes should be certified pursuant to Fed. R.

12 Civ. P. 23(b)(2). (Ct. Rec. 60, p. 14). Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2)

13 holds that an action may be maintained as a class action if "the

14 party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds

15 generally applicable to the class, thereby making appropriate

16 final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief with

17 respect to the class as a whole."

18

Plaintiffs seek relief to stop illegal race and national

19 origin discrimination in Defendants employment practices. (Ct.

20 Rec. 77, p. 43). They also seek injunctive relief pursuant to

21 AWPA and FLCA. (Ct. Rec. 77, pp. 2-3). Plaintiffs indicate that

22 the Court should certify this class so that all future U.S.

23 workers who seek or obtain employment with Defendants can be

24 assured that Defendants will comply with written disclosure

25 requirements and will not provide false and misleading

26 information. (Ct. Rec. 60, p. 15).

27 ///

28 ///

ORDER RE: CLASS CERTIFICATION - 17

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW ECF No. 136 filed 07/28/06 PageID.1318 Page 18 of 29

1

2. Defendants: Defendants argue that, since Global had

2 its Washington State Farm Labor Contractor's License revoked in

3 2005, it can no longer operate its business in Washington state

4 and, thus, there is no threat of re-injury to any of the named

5 Plaintiffs or to future employees. Therefore, Global alleges that

6 Plaintiffs' claims for injunctions are moot and certification

7 under Rule 23(b)(2) is not appropriate. (Ct. Rec. 99, pp. 5-7).

8

Additionally, Defendants assert that certification under Rule

9 23(b)(2) is improper because Plaintiffs are primarily seeking

10 monetary damages. (Ct. Rec. 99, p. 7). Certification under Rule

11 23(b)(2) is not appropriate where the relief requested appears to

12 relate "exclusively or predominately to money damages." Nelsen v.

13 King County, 895 F.2d 1248, 1255 (9th Cir. 1990). Certification

14 under Rule 23(b)(2) is proper only if "injunctive relief appeared

15 to be the primary goal in the litigation." Molski v. Gleich, 318

16 F.3d 937, 950 (9th Cir. 2003).

17

Defendants contend that money damages is the primary form of

18 relief sought because Plaintiffs admit that they are only seeking

19 injunctive relief for a portion of the putative class members.

20 (Ct. Rec. 108, p. 7). Pursuant to Plaintiff's complaint, the

21 injunctive and declaratory relief sought under Rule 23(b)(2) does

22 not apply to any current or former workers (only future workers

23 for each subclass) therefore it does not apply to the entire

24 class.

25

3. Plaintiffs' Reply: Plaintiffs respond that their

26 injunctive claims are not moot. (Ct. Rec. 108, p. 7). "'[A]

27 defendant's voluntary cessation of a challenged practice does not

28 deprive a federal court of its power to determine the legality of

ORDER RE: CLASS CERTIFICATION - 18

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW ECF No. 136 filed 07/28/06 PageID.1319 Page 19 of 29

1 the practice' unless it is 'absolutely clear that the allegedly

2 wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur.'"

3 Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District,

4 377 F.3d 949, 959 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Buckhannon Bd. & Care

5 Home v. W. Va. Dep't of Health & Human Res., 532 U.S. 598, 609

6 (2001) (emphasis added).

7

Plaintiffs claim that, although Global has been forced to

8 stop conducting business in Washington state, the heavy burden of

9 proof remains the same. Furthermore, Global is actively appealing

10 the loss of its Washington license, Global is actively lobbying

11 Governor Christine Gregoire to reinstate the license, and

12 Washington state law allows Global the right to reapply for a

13 license three years after it has been revoked. Therefore,

14 Plaintiffs allege that it is not "absolutely clear" that Global's

15 illegal behavior will never recur in the future and, thus, their

16 claims are not moot. (Ct. Rec. 108, pp. 8-9).

17

Plaintiffs additionally respond that certification under Rule

18 23(b)(2) is appropriate in class actions seeking monetary damages

19 as long as such damages are not the predominant relief sought, but

20 are secondary to claims for declaratory or injunctive relief.

21 (Ct. Rec. 108, p. 19). Plaintiffs argue that the court may

22 consider whether Plaintiffs' would bring the suit to obtain the

23 declaratory and injunctive relief even in the absence of damages,

24 Molski, 318 F.3d at 950, n. 15, and assert that they would have

25 brought suit to obtain injunctive relief even if they could not

26 obtain monetary recovery. (Ct. Rec. 108, pp. 24-25).

27 ///

28 ///

ORDER RE: CLASS CERTIFICATION - 19

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW ECF No. 136 filed 07/28/06 PageID.1320 Page 20 of 29

1

Plaintiffs contend that the claims for declaratory or

2 injunctive relief are the predominant relief sought in order to

3 ensure that U.S. resident workers will be able to obtain work and

4 will not suffer from Defendants' unlawful and discriminatory

5 practices in the future and to ensure Defendants' future

6 compliance with the law. (Ct. Rec. 108, p. 20).

7

4. Analysis: With regard to Defendant Global's

8 assertion that Plaintiffs' requested equitable relief is moot, the

9 undersigned finds to the contrary. As noted by Plaintiffs, unless

10 it is "absolutely clear that the allegedly wrongful behavior could

11 not reasonably be expected to recur," a federal court may

12 determine the legality of the challenged practice. Buckhannon Bd.

13 & Care Home, 532 U.S. at 609 (emphasis added). Since Global is

14 actively appealing the loss of its Washington license, Global is

15 actively lobbying Governor Christine Gregoire to reinstate the

16 license, and Washington state law allows Global the right to

17 reapply for a license three years after it has been revoked, it is

18 not "absolutely clear" that Global's alleged illegal behavior will

19 never recur in the future. Therefore, the Court finds that

20 Plaintiffs' equitable claims are not moot.

21

A class may be certified under Rule 23(b)(2) where "the party

22 opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds

23 generally applicable to the class, thereby making appropriate

24 final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief with

25 respect to the class as a whole." Plaintiffs' amended complaint

26 alleges that Defendants acted on grounds generally applicable to

27 the class, thereby making the injunctive and declaratory relief

28 ///

ORDER RE: CLASS CERTIFICATION - 20

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW ECF No. 136 filed 07/28/06 PageID.1321 Page 21 of 29

1 sought appropriate with respect to the class as a whole.

2 Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief for all class

3 members and money damages only for class members who sought

4 employment or who were employed with Defendants in 2004. (Ct.

5 Rec. 108, p. 17 n. 2). Plaintiffs do not seek money damages for

6 future workers. (Id.) Accordingly, the undersigned finds that

7 Plaintiffs' claims for declaratory or injunctive relief are the

8 predominant relief sought, and certification under Rule 23(b)(2)

9 is appropriate.

10

B. Rule 23(b)(3): Common questions Predominate

11

Although the Court's analysis above indicates that

12 certification in this case is proper under Rule 23(b)(2), the

13 Court shall additionally review Plaintiffs' claim for

14 certification under Rule 23(b)(3).

15

Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) permits a class action if common

16 questions of law or fact predominate over individuals' questions:

17

. . . the questions of law or fact common to the members of

the class predominate over any questions affecting only

18

individual members, and that a class action is superior to

other available methods for the fair and efficient

19

adjudication of the controversy. The matters pertinent to

the findings include: (A) the interest of members of the

20

class in individually controlling the prosecution or defense

of separate actions; (B) the extent and nature of any

21

litigation concerning the controversy already commenced by or

against members of the class; (C) the desirability or

22

undesirability of concentrating the litigation of the claims

in the particular forum; (D) the difficulties likely to be

23

encountered in the management of a class action.

24

Therefore, to bring an action under Rule 23(b)(3), first,

25 common questions of law or fact must predominate over the

26 individual issues presented in the dispute. Next, it must be

27 shown that class treatment is a superior form of relief,

28 considering the four criteria listed in Rule 23(b)(3).

ORDER RE: CLASS CERTIFICATION - 21

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW ECF No. 136 filed 07/28/06 PageID.1322 Page 22 of 29

1

1. Plaintiffs:

2

a. U.S. Resident Workers Class: Common issues include

3 unlawful recruitment practices and the failure to comply with

4 state licensing requirements. (Ct. Rec. 77, pp. 8-9). In

5 addition, the AWPA and FLCA claims are common for all members of

6 the potential class.

7

b. Three Proposed Subclasses: Common issues for each of

8 the proposed three subclasses include the AWPA and FLCA claims and

9 the race and national origin claims.

10

With respect to whether class treatment is a superior form of

11 relief, Plaintiffs argue as follows:

12

(A) the interest of members of the class in individually

13 controlling the prosecution or defense of separate actions: it is

14 hard to imagine that any of the unnamed members of the class or

15 subclasses have a strong interest in initiating and independently

16 controlling their own actions. It is highly unlikely that farm

17 worker plaintiffs, with their lack of English, limited

18 understanding of the legal system, and generally indigent status,

19 would pursue this litigation if class certification were not

20 allowed. (B) the extent and nature of any litigation concerning

21 the controversy already commenced by or against members of the

22 class and (C) the desirability or undesirability of concentrating

23 the litigation of the claims in the particular forum: there is

24 presently no other litigation regarding this controversy commenced

25 by members of the class and it is in all the parties' interests to

26 concentrate the litigation in this Court. (D) the difficulties

27 ///

28 ///

ORDER RE: CLASS CERTIFICATION - 22

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW ECF No. 136 filed 07/28/06 PageID.1323 Page 23 of 29

1 likely to be encountered in the management of a class action:

2 there does not appear to be any extraordinary difficulties in

3 managing this particular case as a class action.

4

2. Defendants: Defendants assert that the numerous

5 statutory claims and myriad damage theories that Plaintiffs allege

6 create individual issues that predominate this case and render it

7 unsuitable for class-wide adjudication under Rule 23(b)(3). (Ct.

8 Rec. 99, p. 15). They argue that certification under Rule

9 23(b)(3) is not proper because numerous individual issues

10 predominate over common issues as evidenced by simply looking at

11 the complaint. Defendants assert that the complaint alleges

12 numerous individual, separate, and unrelated issues as opposed to

13 the alleged common questions at issue. (Ct. Rec. 99, p. 16).

14 Examples given by Defendants are as follows: a worker who was

15 never hired cannot share common issues of fact or law with a

16 worker who was employed, but failed to receive adequate payment

17 statements, or who was provided with misleading terms of

18 employment, and a worker cannot claim that Global failed to

19 provide individuals with the terms and conditions of work, but

20 also provided workers with false and misleading disclosures. (Ct.

21 Rec. 99, pp. 17-18). Defendants argue that the resolution of

22 these issues will require distinctly case-specific inquiries into

23 the facts surrounding each alleged claim - which precludes

24 certification.

25

Defendants also contend that Plaintiffs fail to allege the

26 existence of any common discriminatory policy in their complaint

27 or motion, instead, each putative class members' employment may

28 have ended for a number of different reasons; such as, failure to

ORDER RE: CLASS CERTIFICATION - 23

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW ECF No. 136 filed 07/28/06 PageID.1324 Page 24 of 29

1 show up for work, quitting, job related terminations, and

2 mismatched social security numbers. Predominance requires more

3 than alleging violations of the same statute. Monreal v. Potter,

4 367 F.3d 1244, 1237 (10th Cir. 2004) ("Plaintiffs do not allege

5 any common issues of fact, and the only common issue of law they

6 assert is a violation of Title VII . . . .").

7

Defendants next assert that determining individual class

8 member damages will be unmanageable because Plaintiffs have failed

9 to produce any class wide method. (Ct. Rec. 99, p. 20). Although

10 Plaintiffs summarily contend that there are no manageability

11 problems, such conclusory statements do not satisfy the

12 manageability requirements for Rule 23. Defendants allege that

13 Plaintiffs are ignoring the complexity of the damages they are

14 seeking (1. actual damages and lost wages for race discrimination

15 under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, 2. actual damages and lost wages for race

16 discrimination under RCW 49.60.030(2), 3. emotional distress and

17 punitive damages for race discrimination, 4. actual or statutory

18 damages, whichever is greater, for each violation of the AWPA, 5.

19 actual or statutory damages, whichever is greater, for each

20 violation of the FLCA, and 6. twice the amount of wages willfully

21 withheld as exemplary damages pursuant to RCW 49.52.070), and as a

22 practical matter, mini-trials must be conducted for each class

23 member to determine the amount of damages each is entitled to

24 recover under each of the myriad of federal and state statutes.

25 (Ct .Rec. 99, pp. 21-22).

26

Defendants also separately argue that the fact that

27 Plaintiffs seek "emotional distress damages" renders the class

28 action unmanageable. (Ct. Rec. 99, pp. 23-24). Defendants assert

ORDER RE: CLASS CERTIFICATION - 24

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW ECF No. 136 filed 07/28/06 PageID.1325 Page 25 of 29

1 that these type of damages would require each individual plaintiff

2 to establish that Defendants actions caused her personal injury

3 and would need to show the magnitude of injury to determine

4 compensatory damages (subjective differences of each plaintiff's

5 circumstances with an individual remedy).

6

3. Plaintiffs' Reply: Plaintiffs respond that it is

7 entirely possible for an agricultural employer to be held liable

8 for both failing to provide written disclosures and providing

9 false and misleading verbal information about the working

10 arrangement. Herrera v. Singh, 103 F.Supp.2d 1244, 1247 (E.D.

11 Wash. 2000) (awarding AWPA damages for failure to provide written

12 disclosures and finding that verbal promises were false and

13 misleading and the agricultural employer violated those verbal

14 promises). (Ct. Rec. 108, p. 26).

15

Plaintiffs next contend that they have more than satisfied

16 the requirement that their class claims regarding a common

17 discriminatory purpose are not frivolous or insubstantial. (Ct.

18 Rec. 108, p. 27). Plaintiffs assert that, from the very first

19 paragraph of the complaint, they have stated that Defendants

20 "systematically and intentionally preferred H-2A workers from

21 Thailand in violation of federal and state law." (Ct. Rec. 108,

22 p. 27; Ct. Rec. 77, p. 2).

23

Lastly, Plaintiffs respond that any difficulties that may be

24 associated with Plaintiffs' claims for damages are not

25 extraordinary or substantial enough to warrant a denial of

26 certification. (Ct. Rec. 108, p. 28). Plaintiffs assert that

27 their claims for damages are manageable and that individualized

28 proof that may be required on damages should not preclude a

ORDER RE: CLASS CERTIFICATION - 25

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW ECF No. 136 filed 07/28/06 PageID.1326 Page 26 of 29

1 finding that common questions of law or fact predominate over

2 individual questions. (Ct. Rec. 108, pp. 28-29). Plaintiffs

3 indicate as follows: punitive damages may be awarded based on

4 evidence of conduct that is directed to the class; claims for

5 emotional distress damages have been certified through a hybrid

6 Rule 23(b)(3) class; should they prevail on their AWPA and FLCA

7 claims, courts usually award statutory damages which are easily

8 calculated on behalf of class members; the appointment of a

9 special master to process the claims and assess damages or a lump

10 sum award among class members is an option; and the Court may

11 consider the appointment of a committee of workers employed during

12 the relevant period in order to assist in processing proof of

13 claims. (Ct. Rec. 108, pp. 28-29).

14

Plaintiffs have also filed a motion to bifurcate the trial in

15 this case. (Ct. Rec. 115). Plaintiffs have moved to hold a trial

16 on liability before a separate trial on damages "to conform to the

17 standard approach taken in employment discrimination class

18 actions." (Ct. Rec. 115). This may additionally assist in the

19 manageability of the case.

20

4. Analysis: The complaint alleges a course of

21 discriminatory conduct against U.S. resident workers and in favor

22 of foreign workers and further alleges there are common statutory

23 provisions which have been violated with respect to U.S. resident

24 workers. Under the Blackie Court's analysis, such allegations are

25 sufficient to present common questions of fact and law to support

26 class certification.

27 ///

28 ///

ORDER RE: CLASS CERTIFICATION - 26

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW ECF No. 136 filed 07/28/06 PageID.1327 Page 27 of 29

1

In this case it is alleged that Defendants used similar

2 misrepresentations or practice regarding working conditions with

3 respect to U.S. resident workers. It has been noted that "a fraud

4 perpetrated on numerous persons by the use of similar

5 misrepresentations may be an appealing situation for a class

6 action . . . ." Advisory Comm. on Rule 23, Proposed Amendments to

7 the Rules of Civil Procedure, 39 F.R.D. 69, 103 (1966); See, also, 8 Oppenheimer v. F.J. Young & Co., Inc., 144 F.2d 387 (2nd Cir.

9 1944). Where it is alleged that a business practice or course of

10 conduct operates to create illusions or false expectations, there

11 is a basis for class determination on that liability issue.

12

The assertions in the complaint allege common issues of fact

13 and law for the representative and putative class members of the

14 proposed class and subclasses. The questions of law or fact

15 common to the class members predominate over any questions

16 affecting only individual members. Defendants' argument does not

17 persuade the Court to find otherwise. Accordingly, the

18 undersigned finds that common questions of law or fact predominate

19 over the individual issues presented in the dispute.

20

Next, taking into consideration the criteria set forth in

21 Rule 23(b)(3),2 it is apparent that, absent class certification,

22 it is unlikely that individual plaintiffs will challenge

23 Defendants practices. Absent class members have little incentive

24 to bring actions on their own. Many may not understand English or

25
2(A) the interest of members of the class in individually 26 controlling the prosecution or defense of separate actions; (B)
the extent and nature of any litigation concerning the controversy 27 already commenced by or against members of the class; (C) the
desirability or undesirability of concentrating the litigation of 28 the claims in the particular forum; (D) the difficulties likely to
be encountered in the management of a class action.

ORDER RE: CLASS CERTIFICATION - 27

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW ECF No. 136 filed 07/28/06 PageID.1328 Page 28 of 29

1 the American legal system, and, even if they could find attorneys

2 willing to represent their individual claims, repeatedly

3 litigating the same disputes against the same defendants does not

4 promote judicial economy. Finally, the undersigned agrees that,

5 with regard to managing this particular case as a class action,

6 any potential difficulties likely to be encountered due to the

7 relief requested by Plaintiffs will be effectively managed by

8 bifurcating the trial and holding separate trials on liability and

9 damages. (See, this Court's separate order regarding Plaintiff's

10 motion for bifurcation). Therefore, the undersigned finds that

11 class treatment is a superior form of relief, considering the four

12 criteria listed in Rule 23(b)(3).

13

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that certification of

14 the class in this case is proper under Rule 23(b)(2) and,

15 alternatively and additionally, under Rule 23(b)(3). Accordingly,

16 the undersigned concludes that the prerequisites of Rule 23(a) are

17 satisfied as well as the requirements of Rule 23(b).

18 V. CLASS COUNSEL

19

A court that certifies a class must appoint class counsel.

20 Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(1)(A). In evaluating Plaintiffs' motion,

21 the Court has considered the following factors to the extent they

22 are reflected in the record: "the work counsel has done in

23 identifying or investigating potential claims in the action,"

24 "counsel's experience in handling class actions, other complex

25 litigation, and claims of the type asserted in the action,"

26 "counsel's knowledge of the applicable law," and "the resources

27 counsel will commit to representing the class." Fed. R. Civ. P.

28 23(g)(1)(C). Having considered these factors, the Court is

ORDER RE: CLASS CERTIFICATION - 28

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW ECF No. 136 filed 07/28/06 PageID.1329 Page 29 of 29

1 satisfied that Plaintiffs' counsel of record will fairly and

2 adequately represent the interests of the class. Fed. R. Civ. P.

3 23(g)(1)(B). Accordingly, it is ordered that Plaintiffs' counsel

4 of record shall serve as class counsel in this matter.

5 VI. CONCLUSION

6

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

7

1. Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification (Ct.

8 Rec. 60) is GRANTED.

9

2. The class and subclasses are limited to include only

10 farm workers living in the United States (with the exception of

11 guest workers) who applied, or who may apply in the future, at

12 Global Horizons for agricultural employment in Washington State at

13 Green Acres or Valley Farm. However, the class shall not be

14 limited strictly to those individuals who have matching social

15 security numbers.

16

3. Plaintiffs' counsel of record shall serve as class

17 counsel in this matter.

18

4. The District Court Executive is directed to file this

19 Order and provide a copy to counsel for Plaintiffs and Defendants.

20

IT IS SO ORDERED.

21

DATED this 28th day of July, 2006.

22

23

S/Michael W. Leavitt

MICHAEL W. LEAVITT

24

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

25

26

27

28

ORDER RE: CLASS CERTIFICATION - 29

 
 Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 1381 Filed 04/02/14

1

2

3

The Honorable Robert H. Whaley 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

6 JOSE GUADALUPE PEREZ-FARIAS,

et. al.,
7

CLASS ACTION

8

Plaintiffs,

No. CV-05-3061-RHW

9

vs.

10 GLOBAL HORIZONS, INC., et. al.,

11

Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR COSTS, INCENTIVE AWARDS, AND FOR CY PRES DISTRIBUTION

12
Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Incentive Awards and for Cy Pres
13
Distribution, ECF No. 1365. Oral argument was heard on March 11, 2014 in
14

15 Yakima. The Plaintiffs were represented by Richard Kuhling and Lori Isley, the

16 Grower Defendants were represented by Brendan Monahan.

17

The Court accepts the independent report of Victor Lara setting forth the

18
efforts made by Plaintiffs’ counsel to locate and compensate class members. ECF
19
No. 1366-9. The Grower Defendants concurred with Mr. Lara’s report and that
20
Plaintiffs performed “remarkably well” in their distribution efforts. ECF No. 1347.
21

22 However, despite those efforts the Plaintiffs provided a final accounting which set

23

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR COSTS, INCENTIVE AWARDS, AND FOR CY PRES DISTRIBUTION - Page 1 of 6

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 1381 Filed 04/02/14
1 forth that $ 813,542.58 remains undistributed to silent class members. The Court
2 now turns to the distribution of those remaining funds.
3
Plaintiffs proposed this Court award each class representative a $7,500
4
incentive award for their years of dedication to this case. Incentive awards to class
5
6 representatives are typical and courts have discretion to make such awards. 7 Rodriguez v. W. Publ'g Corp., 563 F.3d 948, 958-59 (9th Cir. 2009). When
8 evaluating a request for an incentive payment, the district court must use “relevant
9 factors includ[ing] the actions the plaintiff has taken to protect the interests of the
10
class, the degree to which the class has benefitted from those actions, ... the amount
11
of time and effort the plaintiff expended in pursuing the litigation ... and
12
13 reasonabl[e] fear[s of] workplace retaliation.” Staton v. Boeing Co., 327 F.3d 938, 14 977 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing cases approving incentive awards between $2,000-
15 $10,000). In light of the nine-year commitment made by each of the representative
16 Plaintiffs to this class action, a $7,500 incentive fee is appropriate for Mr. Perez,
17
Mr. Betancourt, and Mr. Sanchez.
18
The Plaintiffs also requested costs to distribute class funds. The Grower
19
20 Defendants agreed that a maximum of $50,000 of the costs and fees associated 21 with the distribution process could be paid from the judgment proceeds.
22 ECF No. 1347 at 4 ¶ 7.4. The Court accepts the Plaintiffs’ accounting that it cost
23 $25,258.51 to distribute the judgment.
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR COSTS, INCENTIVE AWARDS, AND FOR CY PRES DISTRIBUTION - Page 2 of 6

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 1381 Filed 04/02/14

1

Following the deadline for claims established by the parties, Plaintiffs

2 received one additional claim form from a class member. ECF No. 1379. The

3
Grower Defendants did not object to this payment. The Court approves this

4
payment.
5

6

Before turning to the Plaintiffs’ request for cy pres distribution the Court

7 must review the Grower Defendants’ request for reversion.

8

Reversion of unclaimed funds is inappropriate where deterrence is a goal of

9 the underlying statute. “In light of the deterrence objective of FLCRA and the
10
nature of the violations, we find that reversion of the funds to the defendants is not
11
an available option.” Six (6) Mexican Workers v. Arizona Citrus Growers, 904
12
13 F.2d 1301, 1308 (9th Cir. 1990). The Washington Supreme Court ruled that one of
14 the purposes of FLCA is to deter future violations. Perez-Farias v. Global

15 Horizons, Inc., 175 Wash.2d 518, 530 (2012). Just as the Ninth Circuit found that

16 reversion was inappropriate in Six (6) Mexican Workers it would not be

17
appropriate to return the funds to the Defendants here due to the deterrence
18
objective of FLCA and the statutory violations established for which damages were
19
20 awarded.

21

Finally, the Court turns to the Plaintiffs’ cy pres distribution request. In

22 Dennis v. Kellogg Co., 697 F.3d 858 (9th Cir. 2012), the Ninth Circuit set forth a

23 three-part test for determining the proper recipients of cy pres awards. First, all cy

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR COSTS, INCENTIVE AWARDS, AND FOR CY PRES DISTRIBUTION - Page 3 of 6

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 1381 Filed 04/02/14

1 pres awards must be guided by and consistent with the “objectives of the

2 underlying statute” used to generate the funds. Id. at 865. Second, courts must
3
consider the “interests of silent class members.” Id. And third, courts must not
4
approve cy pres awards to entities that are “too remote from the plaintiff class,” id.
5
6 (citations omitted), meaning that cy pres beneficiaries must be reasonably “tethered
7 to the nature of the lawsuit and the interests of the silent class members.” Id. at

8 867.

9

The Workers proposed four cy pres entities, all of which have lengthy track

10
records providing FLCA outreach services and legal representation to farm
11
workers in eastern Washington. ECF No. 1368, 1369, 1370, 1371. The Growers do
12

13 not dispute that these groups are all appropriate cy pres recipients in this case

14 under the Ninth Circuit’s guidelines.1

15

Each of the proposed entities submitted a declaration in support of the

16 proposed cy pres distribution. Id. The Court has independently reviewed the

17
declarations submitted by each of the four cy pres entities proposed by the
18
Plaintiffs. The Court is satisfied that each of the Plaintiffs’ proposed cy pres
19

20

1 While the Growers proposed worthy charities, they do not meet the Ninth

21 Circuit’s guidelines to receive cy pres awards as they are not “dedicated to

22 protecting [silent class members] from, or redressing injuries caused by, [violations
23
of FLCA].” Id. at 867.

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR COSTS, INCENTIVE AWARDS, AND FOR CY PRES DISTRIBUTION - Page 4 of 6

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 1381 Filed 04/02/14

1 entities are tethered to and aligned with the statutory objectives of FLCA, will

2 work to meet the needs of the silent class members, and serve the geographical

3
area where virtually all silent class members resided – the Yakima Valley.
4
Therefore, the Court agrees that cy pres distribution proposed by the Plaintiffs is
5
6 appropriate.

7

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

8

1. The Court awards $7,500 each to Representative Plaintiffs Perez,

9 Betancourt, and Sanchez as incentive awards.
10
2. The Court awards $25,258.51 to Columbia Legal Services for costs
11
incurred to distribute FLCA funds to class members. Plaintiffs shall first apply
12
13 $20,000 from the FLCA surety bond to cover these costs (see ECF No. 1310) and
14 may cover the balance from the remaining FLCA funds.

15

3. Columbia Legal Services shall pay the class member submitting a late

16 claim form his damages of $4,010.07;

17
4. The Court awards cy pres funds in the following amounts to the
18
following non-profit organizations to serve farm workers consistent with the
19
20 principles of FLCA:

21

a. $495,990.01 to Columbia Legal Services, $95,990 shall be held

22 in reserve through December 31, 2014 to pay any additional class members

23 submitting a valid claim form to Columbia Legal Services by said date, after

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR COSTS, INCENTIVE AWARDS, AND FOR CY PRES DISTRIBUTION - Page 5 of 6

Case 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Document 1381 Filed 04/02/14

1 December 31, 2014, all funds remaining from the $95,990 shall belong to

2 Columbia Legal Services;

3 4 5
6 and,

b. $ 95,261.33 to the Northwest Justice Project; c. $ 95,261.33 to the Laurel Rubin Farmworker Justice Project;

7

d. $ 95,261.33 to Northwest Communities Education Center

8 (NCEC)/Radio KDNA.

9

IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Executive is directed to enter

10
this Order, provide copies to counsel, and close the file.
11
DATED this 2nd day of April, 2014.
12

13

s/Robert H. Whaley ROBERT H. WHALEY

14

Senior United States District Court Judge

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR COSTS, INCENTIVE AWARDS, AND FOR CY PRES DISTRIBUTION - Page 6 of 6

 
 Case: 10-35397, 08/17/2011, ID: 7861329, DktEntry: 65-1, Page 1 of 6

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FILED

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

AUG 17 2011

JOSE GUADALUPE PEREZ-FARIAS; et al.,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,

No. 10-35397

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

D.C. No. 2:05-cv-03061-RHW

v.

MEMORANDUM*

GLOBAL HORIZONS, INC; et al.,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington
Robert H. Whaley, Senior District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted July 12, 2011 Seattle, Washington
Before: CLIFTON and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and KORMAN, Senior District Judge.**
Plaintiffs Jose Guadalupe Perez-Farias, Jose F. Sanchez, and Ricardo
Betancourt (Workers) brought this action, as class representatives, against Global

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The Honorable Edward R. Korman, Senior District Judge for the U.S. District Court for Eastern New York, Brooklyn, sitting by designation.

Case: 10-35397, 08/17/2011, ID: 7861329, DktEntry: 65-1, Page 2 of 6
Horizons, Inc. (Global), Green Acre Farms, Inc., Valley Fruit Orchards, LLC, (collectively Growers) and Platte River Insurance Company on July 12, 2005.
Workers appeal three issues from the district court’s proceedings. They argue that 1) the district court erred in interpreting the Washington’s Farm Labor Contractors Act’s (FLCA), Chapter 19, Wash. Rev. Code et seq., statutory damages provision as discretionary; 2) the district court erred in determining the Workers were not the prevailing party under the FLCA for the purpose of awarding attorneys’ fees; and 3) the district court violated their Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial by coming to a different conclusion than the jury on Global’s liability regarding the Workers’ discrimination claims, which were brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and the Washington Law Against Discrimination, Chapter 49.60 Wash. Rev. Code et seq. ER 452-58.
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we AFFIRM in part and REVERSE and REMAND in PART. 1. Under Washington law, “[w]hen the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous the meaning is derived from the words of the statute itself.” State v. Keller, 19 P.3d 1030, 1035 (Wash. 2001). The reviewing court should:
read the statute in its entirety. Each provision must be viewed in relation to other provisions and harmonized, if at all possible. . . . Statutes must be construed so that all language is given effect with no
2

Case: 10-35397, 08/17/2011, ID: 7861329, DktEntry: 65-1, Page 3 of 6
portion rendered meaningless or superfluous. The court must also avoid constructions that yield unlikely, strange or absurd consequences. Id. at 1035-36 (internal quotation marks, alterations, and citations omitted) (emphasis added). The statute at issue, regarding damages to be awarded for violations of the FLCA states: [I]f the court finds that the respondent has violated this chapter or any rule adopted under this chapter, it may award damages up to and including an amount equal to the amount of actual damages, or statutory damages of five hundred dollars per plaintiff per violation, whichever is greater, or other equitable relief. Wash. Rev. Code § 19.30.170(2). Reading the provision in its entirety and giving effect to all the language of the provision, it is apparent that the Washington Legislature meant to instruct a court that it “may” choose between actual damages and statutory damages of “five hundred dollars per plaintiff per violation, whichever is greater.” Although the term “may” would normally support an interpretation that awarding statutory damages is discretionary, Scannell v. City of Seattle, 648 P.2d 435, 438 (Wash. 1982), any other reading of the provision (than an instruction to choose between the greater of statutory and actual damages) renders the clause “whichever is greater” meaningless. Given that the legislature enacted the FLCA, with a detailed statutory damages clause, it is unlikely that the legislature “used a
3

Case: 10-35397, 08/17/2011, ID: 7861329, DktEntry: 65-1, Page 4 of 6
permissive term simply to tell” the district court that it “may choose not to” award damages. See Wilmot v. Kaiser Aluminum and Chem. Corp., 821 P.2d 18, 22 (Wash. 1991); cf. also Kehoe v. Fidelity Fed. Bank & Trust, 421 F.3d 1209, 121617 (11th Cir. 2005) (construing a statutory damages clause commencing with the word “may” to allow the district court discretion “to award actual damages, but not less than liquidated damages in the amount of $2,500” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Here, the term “may” similarly indicates that the district court may choose between actual damages or “statutory damages of five hundred dollars per plaintiff per violation, whichever is greater.”
The Growers argument that the inclusion of the clause “or other equitable relief” indicates the court had a choice to award less than $500 per plaintiff per violation is unavailing. Washington law is consistent with the general rule that equitable relief is separate from money damages. See Proctor v. Huntington, 238 P.3d 1117, 1121 (Wash. 2010) (discussing equitable relief as injunctive relief); cf. Kobza v. Tripp, 18 P.3d 621, 624 (Wash. App. 2001) (“Because a quiet title action is a claim for equitable relief, damages are ordinarily not allowed.”). Thus, the third clause of the provision “or other equitable relief” would indicate that the district court may have chosen non-monetary relief, such as specific performance or an injunction of the laborers’ contracts for those that had been fired, if such
4

Case: 10-35397, 08/17/2011, ID: 7861329, DktEntry: 65-1, Page 5 of 6
relief had been available. However, monetary damages appear to have been the correct remedy in this case. The the district court erred when it did not award the Workers the full amount of mandatory statutory damages under the FLCA: $1,998,500.
The full amount of statutory damages is not “so severe and oppressive as to be wholly disproportioned [sic] to the offense and obviously unreasonable.” St. Louis, I.M. & S. Ry. Co. v. Williams, 251 U.S. 63, 66 (1919); see also United States v. Citrin, 972 F.2d 1044, 1051 (9th Cir. 1992). The district court is, therefore, reversed on the amount of statutory damages awarded under the FLCA and is directed to enter judgment for the Workers in the amount of $1,998,500.1 2. We remand the issue of attorneys’ fees under the FLCA, Wash. Rev. Code § 19.30.170(1) for further proceedings consistent with this disposition. Under Washington law, “[a] ‘prevailing party’ is any party that receives some judgment in its favor. If neither party completely prevails, the court must decide which, if either, substantially prevailed. This question depends upon the extent of the relief afforded the parties.” Guillen v. Contreras, 238 P.3d 1168, 1171 (Wash. 2010) (internal quotation marks, alteration, and citations omitted). The Workers opted
1 Because it is unnecessary to the determination of the issue of statutory damages, we deny the Workers’ Motion to Take Judicial Notice of the purported legislative history of the FLCA.
5

Case: 10-35397, 08/17/2011, ID: 7861329, DktEntry: 65-1, Page 6 of 6
for statutory damages, which they were awarded. Here, the Workers could only obtain statutory damages or actual damages. Wash. Rev. Code § 19.30.170(2). Therefore, whether actual damages were awarded is irrelevant to the determination of the prevailing party under the FLCA. 3. The Workers waived their right to a jury trial regarding the discrimination claims regarding “any claim for any liability . . . insofar as the [G]rower defendants are concerned.” SER 1A-2. The Workers normally could rely on Global’s assertion of its right to a jury trial. See DePinto v. Provident Sec. Life Ins. Co., 323 F.2d 826, 832 (9th Cir. 1963). However, the Workers (1) consented to a bench trial on all issues prior to Global being relieved from summary judgment against it; (2) failed to clarify their rights prior to trial; and (3) participated in a trial in which the Growers did not participate in jury selection, opening, or closing arguments. The Workers’ actions constitute waiver of their Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial as to “any claim” of the Growers’ liability. See White v. McGinnis, 903 F.2d 699, 703 (9th Cir. 1990). The district court’s Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on the Growers’ liability regarding the discrimination claims are affirmed.
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this disposition. Each party shall bear its own costs on appeal.
6

Case: 10-35397, 08/17/2011, ID: 7861329, DktEntry: 65-2, Page 1 of 9
FILED

Perez-Farias, et al. v. Global Horizons, Inc., et al., No. 10-35397 CLIFTON, Circuit Judge, concurring in part and dissenting in part:

AUG 17 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

I regret that I agree with only part of our decision in this case. I disagree

with the reasoning and conclusion reached in section 1 of the majority’s

memorandum disposition, agree with the result reached in section 2 but for a

different reason, and agree with section 3 of the majority memorandum. I would

affirm most of the judgment of the district court, and would reverse and remand

only as to the district court’s conclusion that Plaintiffs were not a prevailing party

for purposes of an award of attorney fees from the Grower defendants.

1. Damages under Wash. Rev. Code § 19.30.170(2)

I disagree with the majority’s interpretation of the Washington statute at

issue regarding damages to be awarded for violations of the Washington Farm

Labor Contractors Act (FLCA). I would affirm the award entered by the district

court of approximately $235,000 in statutory damages. In contrast, the majority

memorandum concludes, at 5, that “the district court erred when it did not award

the Workers the full amount of mandatory statutory damages under the FLCA:

$1,998,500.”

In a nutshell, I read the statute, as the district court did, to give the trial court

a degree of discretion in determining the appropriate amount of an award of

1

Case: 10-35397, 08/17/2011, ID: 7861329, DktEntry: 65-2, Page 2 of 9
damages, while the majority reads the statute as requiring the trial court to award a fixed amount, specifically the larger of the amount of actual or statutory damages. I do not dispute that the statute could have been written in that way, but it wasn’t. The majority’s interpretation is not supported by the language of the statute, and it is not a logical construction.
I start, as does the majority, with the language of the statute: [I]f the court finds that the respondent has violated this chapter or any rule adopted under this chapter, it may award damages up to and including an amount equal to the amount of actual damages, or statutory damages of five hundred dollars per plaintiff per violation, whichever is greater, or other equitable relief. Wash. Rev. Code § 19.30.170(2). The verb used in the statute is “may.” The majority’s interpretation treats the word “may” as if it meant “must.” But “may” does not mean “must” or “shall.” Washington courts have recognized that “[w]here a provision contains both the word ‘shall’ and ‘may,’ it is presumed that the lawmaker intended to distinguish between them, ‘shall’ being construed as mandatory and ‘may’ as permissive.” Scannell v. City of Seattle, 648 P.2d 435, 438 (Wash. 1982). The FLCA uses the word “shall” in several places, so it is presumed that the use of “may” in the damages clause was meant to indicate that the award of damages is permissive. That appears to be confirmed by the balance of the sentence, which lists various
2

Case: 10-35397, 08/17/2011, ID: 7861329, DktEntry: 65-2, Page 3 of 9
potential remedies, each linked by the conjunction “or.” The majority justifies its disregard of the word “may” by reasoning, at 3, that
“any other reading would render the clause ‘whichever is greater’ meaningless.” But that’s simply not true, as I will illustrate below.
Before getting to that illustration, however, it is helpful to recognize a second misstep by the majority in interpreting the language of the statute – its disregard of the words “up to and including.” The statute provides that the court “may award damages up to and including . . . .” That phrase “up to and including” indicates that the trial court is authorized to determine the appropriate award of damages from a range.
But the majority concludes that the trial court has no discretion and is required to award a fixed sum, the greater of either the proven actual damages or the calculated statutory damages. The concept of “up to and including” has simply disappeared under the majority’s interpretation. That interpretation collides with the requirement, which the majority memorandum explicitly recognizes, at 2-3, to give effect to all language in the statute.
If the words “may,” “or,” and “up to and including” are recognized, then the logical interpretation of the statute, giving due regard to the words “whichever is greater,” is clear. The statute gives the trial court discretion to determine the
3

Case: 10-35397, 08/17/2011, ID: 7861329, DktEntry: 65-2, Page 4 of 9
appropriate amount to award in damages from among a range of amounts, up to and including the greater of (a) the amount of actual damages proven by plaintiff or (b) statutory damages calculated at the rate of $500 per violation per plaintiff.
To illustrate, take a hypothetical example varying somewhat from the actual facts of this case in which it is assumed that Plaintiffs proved actual damages of $1.5 million and that, as was the case here, statutory damages added up to $1,998,500. The statute would thus provide that the court “may award damages up to and including an amount equal to the amount of actual damages [$1.5 million], or statutory damages . . . [$1,998,500], whichever is greater.” As described above, the words “whichever is greater” define the range from which the district court may select an appropriate damages award. In this example, because the calculated statutory damages amount is greater than the amount of actual damages proven, the range available to the district court to extends to a maximum of the “greater” figure, i.e. up to $1,998,500. Returning to the actual facts of this case, in which no actual damages were proven, the language of the statute authorizes the trial court to select an appropriate figure from the same range, up to $1,998,500, because that is still the greater figure. If, instead, actual damages of $3 million were proven, then the trial court could select the appropriate award from a range up to $3 million.
But no matter whether the larger figure is based on actual damages or
4

Case: 10-35397, 08/17/2011, ID: 7861329, DktEntry: 65-2, Page 5 of 9
statutory damages, nothing in the statute requires the trial court to award that maximum figure, and only that maximum figure. Such a requirement can be imposed only by ignoring the actual words of the statute, including “may,” “or,” and “up to and including.”
The majority’s interpretation is not only inconsistent with the language of the statute, it imposes upon the statute an illogical reading, or, to use the language of the Washington authority cited by the majority, at 2-3, a “construction[] that yield[s] unlikely, strange or absurd consequences.” State v. Keller, 19 P.3d 1030, 1035-36 (Wash. 2001) (quoting State v. Contreras,880 P.2d 1000, 1003 (Wash. 1994).
On the facts of this case, the trial court concluded that the appropriate amount of an award to the Workers was $230,000. The trial court offered a lengthy explanation of its reasoning process. That award is properly subject for review, in my view, for abuse of discretion. The majority memorandum does not quarrel with the trial court’s reasoning and does not hold the trial court’s calculation to represent an abuse of discretion, but nonetheless directs an award of nearly $2 million.
It is not at all clear to me why we should conclude that the Washington legislature intended to require such an award more than eight times the actual
5

Case: 10-35397, 08/17/2011, ID: 7861329, DktEntry: 65-2, Page 6 of 9
injury suffered by Plaintiffs. If it wanted to guarantee that statutory damages would be awarded at the rate of $500 per violation per employee, even if actual damages were substantially less, it would have been simple to have written the statute that way. Most obviously, the word “may” would have been replaced with “shall” and the trial court instructed that it “shall” award whichever figure is greater. Or, a plaintiff could simply be given the usual right to elect among available remedies. Or, the statute could have provided that the minimum award would be the amount of statutory damages calculated at the specified rate. But that’s not what the statute says.
There is no good reason to conclude that the statute was intended to produce the majority’s strained interpretation. Our court has already concluded as much in a case involving a federal statute very similar, albeit not identical, to this one. In Alvarez v. Longboy, 697 F.2d 1333 (9th Cir. 1983), we interpreted an analogous federal statute in place at that time, the Farmer Labor Contractor Registration Act. At the time, that statute provided that a court “may award damages up to and including an amount equal to the amount of actual damages, or $500 for each violation, or other equitable relief.” 7 U.S.C. § 2050a(b) (now repealed and replaced by 29 U.S.C. § 1854). In Alvarez, we rejected the argument of plaintiffs that the statute required the trial court to award the full amount of statutory
6

Case: 10-35397, 08/17/2011, ID: 7861329, DktEntry: 65-2, Page 7 of 9
damages:
Plaintiffs' construction would require a rigidity in enforcement of the statute that is not necessary to accomplish Congress's general purpose to encourage effective enforcement, and might well create anomalous results Congress could not have intended, and which might impede effective enforcement of the Act. . . . A rigid reading of section 2050a(b) might compel the imposition of a penalty disproportionate to the offense. See De La Fuente v. Stokely-Van Camp, Inc., 514 F.Supp. 68, 80 & n. 5 (C.D.Ill.1981). Courts faced with this consequence of a finding that the statute had been violated would inevitably interpret the substantive requirements strictly and impose a stringent standard of proof, thus making achievement of the statute's remedial purpose more difficult.
697 F.2d at 1339-40.
I do not contend that we are bound by that precedential opinion to reach
exactly the same conclusion in this case, involving a different statute with
somewhat different wording. But the logic of Judge Browning’s opinion is
persuasive and applies directly to the Washington statute before us in this case. I
would reach the same conclusion in this case that our court reached in Alvarez, that
the trial court had the discretion to award damages in an amount less than the
maximum statutory award of $500 per violation per employee, and affirm the
award of damages entered by the district court.
2. Award of Attorneys’ Fees
The majority remands the issue of attorneys’ fees under the Washington
statute to the district court for further proceedings. Obviously, based on the
7

Case: 10-35397, 08/17/2011, ID: 7861329, DktEntry: 65-2, Page 8 of 9
majority’s conclusion as to the amount of the award under the statute, discussed above, a remand is necessary because the Plaintiffs’ victory is now substantially greater than it was before and they must be deemed to be the “prevailing party.” Even if my view on that subject prevailed and we affirmed the award of damages entered by the district court, however, I would still vacate the district court’s order on the issue of attorneys’ fees and remand that issue to the district court for further consideration.
The district court denied the Plaintiffs’ application for fees from the Grower defendants in substantial part because the court considered the Plaintiffs' decision not to seek or prove actual damages as something as to which the Grower defendants prevailed. That was a strategic decision by Plaintiffs, not a victory for the Growers. Seeking actual damages would not necessarily have made any difference under my interpretation of the statute, because it was apparent that actual damages would not have exceeded statutory damages. It obviously didn’t matter under the majority’s interpretation of the statute, either. Failing to prove actual damages was not something the Plaintiffs lost, so I don’t think it is appropriate to treat it as something the Grower defendants won. Therefore, I would remand to allow the court to revisit the subject.
It may be appropriate for the district court to consider the degree of success,
8

Case: 10-35397, 08/17/2011, ID: 7861329, DktEntry: 65-2, Page 9 of 9
or lack thereof, in considering the amount of attorneys’ fees to be awarded. In some circumstances it might even be appropriate to award no fees to a prevailing party, based on very limited success and other factors. But Plaintiffs’ application for fees should not have been denied on the premise that they did not “prevail” against the Grower defendants. As they obtained an award of damages that was far more than nominal and was not insubstantial, it appears to me that they did. 3. Right to Jury Trial on the Discrimination Claim
I agree with the majority’s reasoning and conclusion as to the discrimination claim against the Growers and join that part of the disposition. 4. Conclusion
In sum, I would affirm the judgment of the district court, except as to its denial of Plaintiffs’ application for attorneys’ fees against the Grower defendants, which I would vacate and remand. I respectfully dissent from that part of the majority disposition that reaches a different conclusion.
9

Case: 10-35397, 08/17/2011, ID: 7861329, DktEntry: 65-3, Page 1 of 5

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Office of the Clerk 95 Seventh Street San Francisco, CA 94103

Information Regarding Judgment and Post-Judgment Proceedings (December 2009)

Judgment • This Court has filed and entered the attached judgment in your case. Fed. R. App. P. 36. Please note the filed date on the attached decision because all of the dates described below run from that date, not from the date you receive this notice.

Mandate (Fed. R. App. P. 41; 9th Cir. R. 41-1 & -2) • The mandate will issue 7 days after the expiration of the time for filing a petition for rehearing or 7 days from the denial of a petition for rehearing, unless the Court directs otherwise. To file a motion to stay the mandate, file it electronically via the appellate ECF system or, if you are a pro se litigant or an attorney with an exemption from using appellate ECF, file one original motion on paper.

Petition for Panel Rehearing (Fed. R. App. P. 40; 9th Cir. R. 40-1) Petition for Rehearing En Banc (Fed. R. App. P. 35; 9th Cir. R. 35-1 to -3)

(1) A. •
•

Purpose (Panel Rehearing): A party should seek panel rehearing only if one or more of the following grounds exist: ► A material point of fact or law was overlooked in the decision; ► A change in the law occurred after the case was submitted which
appears to have been overlooked by the panel; or ► An apparent conflict with another decision of the Court was not
addressed in the opinion. Do not file a petition for panel rehearing merely to reargue the case.

B. Purpose (Rehearing En Banc) • A party should seek en banc rehearing only if one or more of the following
grounds exist:

Post Judgment Form - Rev. 12/2009

1

Case: 10-35397, 08/17/2011, ID: 7861329, DktEntry: 65-3, Page 2 of 5
► Consideration by the full Court is necessary to secure or maintain uniformity of the Court’s decisions; or
► The proceeding involves a question of exceptional importance; or ► The opinion directly conflicts with an existing opinion by another
court of appeals or the Supreme Court and substantially affects a rule of national application in which there is an overriding need for national uniformity.
(2) Deadlines for Filing: • A petition for rehearing may be filed within 14 days after entry of judgment. Fed. R. App. P. 40(a)(1). • If the United States or an agency or officer thereof is a party in a civil case, the time for filing a petition for rehearing is 45 days after entry of judgment. Fed. R. App. P. 40(a)(1). • If the mandate has issued, the petition for rehearing should be accompanied by a motion to recall the mandate. • See Advisory Note to 9th Cir. R. 40-1 (petitions must be received on the due date). • An order to publish a previously unpublished memorandum disposition extends the time to file a petition for rehearing to 14 days after the date of the order of publication or, in all civil cases in which the United States or an agency or officer thereof is a party, 45 days after the date of the order of publication. 9th Cir. R. 40-2.
(3) Statement of Counsel • A petition should contain an introduction stating that, in counsel’s judgment, one or more of the situations described in the “purpose” section above exist. The points to be raised must be stated clearly.
(4) Form & Number of Copies (9th Cir. R. 40-1; Fed. R. App. P. 32(c)(2)) • The petition shall not exceed 15 pages unless it complies with the alternative length limitations of 4,200 words or 390 lines of text. • The petition must be accompanied by a copy of the panel’s decision being challenged. • An answer, when ordered by the Court, shall comply with the same length limitations as the petition. • If a pro se litigant elects to file a form brief pursuant to Circuit Rule 28-1, a petition for panel rehearing or for rehearing en banc need not comply with Fed. R. App. P. 32.

Post Judgment Form - Rev. 12/2009

2

Case: 10-35397, 08/17/2011, ID: 7861329, DktEntry: 65-3, Page 3 of 5
• The petition or answer must be accompanied by a Certificate of Compliance found at Form 11, available on our website at under Forms.
• You may file a petition electronically via the appellate ECF system. No paper copies are required unless the Court orders otherwise. If you are a pro se litigant or an attorney exempted from using the appellate ECF system, file one original petition on paper. No additional paper copies are required unless the Court orders otherwise.
Bill of Costs (Fed. R. App. P. 39, 9th Cir. R. 39-1) • The Bill of Costs must be filed within 14 days after entry of judgment. • See Form 10 for additional information, available on our website at under Forms.
Attorneys Fees • Ninth Circuit Rule 39-1 describes the content and due dates for attorneys fees applications. • All relevant forms are available on our website at under Forms or by telephoning (415) 355-7806.
Petition for a Writ of Certiorari • Please refer to the Rules of the United States Supreme Court at
Counsel Listing in Published Opinions • Please check counsel listing on the attached decision. • If there are any errors in a published opinion, please send a letter in writing within 10 days to: ► West Publishing Company; 610 Opperman Drive; PO Box 64526; St. Paul, MN 55164-0526 (Attn: Kathy Blesener, Senior Editor); ► and electronically file a copy of the letter via the appellate ECF system by using “File Correspondence to Court,” or if you are an attorney exempted from using the appellate ECF system, mail the Court one copy of the letter.

Post Judgment Form - Rev. 12/2009

3

Case: 10-35397, 08/17/2011, ID: 7861329, DktEntry: 65-3, Page 4 of 5 Form 10. Bill of Costs ................................................................................................................................(Rev. 12-1-09)

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

BILL OF COSTS

Note:

If you wish to file a bill of costs, it MUST be submitted on this form and filed, with the clerk, with proof of service, within 14 days of the date of entry of judgment, and in accordance with 9th Circuit Rule 39-1. A late bill of costs must be accompanied by a motion showing good cause. Please refer to FRAP 39, 28 U.S.C. § 1920, and 9th Circuit Rule 39-1 when preparing your bill of costs.

v.

9th Cir. No.

The Clerk is requested to tax the following costs against:

Cost Taxable under FRAP 39, 28 U.S.C. § 1920, 9th Cir. R. 39-1
Excerpt of Record Opening Brief Answering Brief

REQUESTED Each Column Must Be Completed

ALLOWED To Be Completed by the Clerk

No. of Pages per Cost per

Docs.

Doc.

Page*

TOTAL COST

$

$

$

$

$

$

No. of Pages per Cost per

Docs.

Doc.

Page*

TOTAL COST

$

$

$

$

$

$

Reply Brief

$

$

$

$

Other**

$

$

$

$

TOTAL: $

TOTAL: $

* Costs per page may not exceed .10 or actual cost, whichever is less. 9th Circuit Rule 39-1.
** Other: Any other requests must be accompanied by a statement explaining why the item(s) should be taxed pursuant to 9th Circuit Rule 39-1. Additional items without such supporting statements will not be considered.

Attorneys' fees cannot be requested on this form.

Continue to next page.

Case: 10-35397, 08/17/2011, ID: 7861329, DktEntry: 65-3, Page 5 of 5 Form 10. Bill of Costs - Continued

I,

, swear under penalty of perjury that the services for which costs are taxed

were actually and necessarily performed, and that the requested costs were actually expended as listed.

Signature ("s/" plus attorney's name if submitted electronically) Date
Name of Counsel:

Attorney for:

(To Be Completed by the Clerk) Date

Costs are taxed in the amount of $ Clerk of Court By:

, Deputy Clerk

 
 Case: 2:05-cv-3061 As of: 11/05/2016 05:11 PM PDT 1 of 116
CLOSED,JURY,LC02,NC,PROTO
Eastern District of Washington U.S. District Court (Spokane) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:05−cv−03061−RHW

Perez−Farias et al v. Global Horizons Inc. et al Assigned to: Senior Judge Robert H. Whaley Case in other court: 9CCA, 09−35598, 10−35397 Cause: 29:1801 Farmworker Rights
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 07/12/2005 Date Terminated: 04/02/2014 Jury Demand: Both Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Jose Guadalupe Perez−Farias

represented by Lori A Jordan Isley Columbia Legal Services − YAK 6 South Second Street Suite 600 Yakima, WA 98901 509−575−5593 Email: lori.isley@columbialegal.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Richard W Kuhling Paine Hamblen Coffin Brooke & Miller − SPO 717 W Sprague Avenue Suite 1200 Spokane, WA 99201−3503 509−455−6000 Fax: 15098380007 Email: richard.kuhling@painehamblen.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amy Louise Crewdson Amy Crewdson Law Office 114 South "I" Street Suite 510 Aberdeen, WA 98520 360−532−3501 Fax: 360−754−4578 Email: amy.crewdson@columbialegal.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Devra Sigle−Hermosilla Sigle Law PLLC P O Box 1838 Ellensburg, WA 98926 509−962−1454 Fax: 509−962−1452 Email: devra@siglelaw.com TERMINATED: 11/29/2006 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gregory S Johnson Paine Hamblen Coffin Brooke & Miller − SPO 717 W Sprague Avenue Suite 1200 Spokane, WA 99201−3503 509−455−6000 Email: greg.johnson@painehamblen.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:05-cv-3061 As of: 11/05/2016 05:11 PM PDT 2 of 116

Plaintiff Jose F Sanchez
Plaintiff Ricardo Betancourt

Joachim Morrison Columbia Legal Services − WEN 300 Okanogan Avenue Suite 2A Wenatchee, WA 98801−6936 509−662−9681 Fax: 509−662−9684 Email: joe.morrison@columbialegal.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mirta Laura Contreras Columbia Legal Services − YAK 6 South Second Street Suite 600 Yakima, WA 98901 509−575−5593 Email: laura.contreras@columbialegal.org TERMINATED: 01/17/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Lori A Jordan Isley (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Richard W Kuhling (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amy Louise Crewdson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Devra Sigle−Hermosilla (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/29/2006 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gregory S Johnson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joachim Morrison (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mirta Laura Contreras (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/17/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Lori A Jordan Isley (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Richard W Kuhling (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:05-cv-3061 As of: 11/05/2016 05:11 PM PDT 3 of 116

Amy Louise Crewdson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Devra Sigle−Hermosilla (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/29/2006 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gregory S Johnson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joachim Morrison (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mirta Laura Contreras (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/17/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant Global Horizons Inc

represented by Gary Edward Lofland Halverson Northwest Law Group PC 405 East Lincoln Avenue Yakima, WA 98901 509−248−6030 Fax: 509−453−6880 Email: glofland@glofland.net TERMINATED: 01/04/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew S Gibbs 137 North Larchmont Blvd Suite 193 Los Angeles, CA 90004 310−351−0145 Email: gibbsatty@aol.com LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ryan Mark Edgley Edgley Law Office PS 251 Hideaway Road Yakima, WA 98908 509−248−1740 Email: edgleyr@hscis.net LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Chrystal L Bobbitt Global Horizons Inc In−House Litigation Counsel 11111 Santa Monica Blvd Suite 1440 Los Angeles, CA 90025 310−234−8475 Fax: 310−234−0786

Case: 2:05-cv-3061 As of: 11/05/2016 05:11 PM PDT 4 of 116
Email: clblaw@hotmail.com TERMINATED: 11/13/2008 PRO HAC VICE
David M Bowman Davis Wright Tremaine − SEA 1501 Fourth Avenue Suite 2600 Seattle, WA 98101−1688 206−622−3150 Email: davidbowman@dwt.com TERMINATED: 12/08/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gregg Randall Smith Paine Hamblen LLP 717 West Sprague Avenue Suite 1200 Spokane, WA 99201 509−455−6000 Fax: 509−838−0007 Email: gregg.smith@painehamblen.com TERMINATED: 11/02/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Howard W. Foster Johnson & Bell LTD − IL 33 West Monroe Street Suite 2700 Chicago, IL 60603−5404 312−726−1600 Fax: 866−470−5738 TERMINATED: 03/23/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
I Randolph S Shiner I Randolph S Shiner, Esq 12820 Via Nieve Suite 72 San Diego, CA 92130 858−481−9900 Fax: 858−630−3337 TERMINATED: 08/10/2007 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeffrey Cole Loudon Talbott Simpson and Davis P.S. 308 N 2nd Street Yakima, WA 98901 509−575−7501 TERMINATED: 02/12/2007
Lawton Henry Penn Davis Wright Tremaine − SEA 1201 Third Avenue Suite 2200 Seattle, WA 98101−3045 206−622−3150 Fax: 206−757−7700 Email: lawtonpenn@dwt.com TERMINATED: 03/20/2006 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marvin Lee Gray , Jr

Case: 2:05-cv-3061 As of: 11/05/2016 05:11 PM PDT 5 of 116

Davis Wright Tremaine − SEA 1501 Fourth Avenue Suite 2600 Seattle, WA 98101−1688 206−622−3150 Fax: 12066287699 Email: montygray@dwt.com TERMINATED: 02/17/2006 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Green Acre Farms Inc

represented by Gary Edward Lofland (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ryan Mark Edgley (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Brendan Victor Monahan Stokes Lawrence Velikanje Moore & Shore 120 North Naches Avenue Yakima, WA 98901−2757 509−853−3000 Fax: 509−895−0060 Email: bvm@stokeslaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Paul Hamilton Beattie , Jr Law Offices of Paul H Beattie 7920 SE Steller Way Snoqualmie, WA 98065 425−396−0454 Fax: 425−396−0454 Email: hrappgray@aol.com TERMINATED: 11/14/2006 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Valley Fruit Orchards LLC

represented by Gary Edward Lofland (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ryan Mark Edgley (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Brendan Victor Monahan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Paul Hamilton Beattie , Jr (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/14/2006 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Platte River Insurance Company

represented by

Case: 2:05-cv-3061 As of: 11/05/2016 05:11 PM PDT 6 of 116

Gary Edward Lofland (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew S Gibbs (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Chrystal L Bobbitt (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/13/2008 PRO HAC VICE

David M Bowman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/08/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gregg Randall Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/02/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Howard W. Foster (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/23/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

I Randolph S Shiner (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/10/2007 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jeffrey Cole Loudon (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/12/2007

Lawton Henry Penn (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/16/2006 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marvin Lee Gray , Jr (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/16/2006 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Medora A Marisseau Karr Tuttle & Campbell − SEA 701 Fifth Avenue Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98104 206−223−1313 Fax: 206−682−7100 Email: mmarisseau@karrtuttle.com TERMINATED: 08/29/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Mordechai Orian

represented by

Case: 2:05-cv-3061 As of: 11/05/2016 05:11 PM PDT 7 of 116

Gary Edward Lofland (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/04/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew S Gibbs (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Chrystal L Bobbitt (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/13/2008 PRO HAC VICE

Gregg Randall Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/02/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Howard W. Foster (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/23/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

I Randolph S Shiner (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/10/2007 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Jane Doe Orian

represented by Gary Edward Lofland (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew S Gibbs (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Chrystal L Bobbitt (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/13/2008 PRO HAC VICE

Gregg Randall Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/02/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Howard W. Foster (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/23/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

I Randolph S Shiner (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/10/2007 PRO HAC VICE

Case: 2:05-cv-3061 As of: 11/05/2016 05:11 PM PDT 8 of 116

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Jim Morford

represented by Gary Edward Lofland (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Brendan Victor Monahan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Katherine M Morford

represented by Gary Edward Lofland (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Brendan Victor Monahan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant John Verbrugge

represented by Gary Edward Lofland (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Brendan Victor Monahan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Desiree C Verbrugge

represented by Gary Edward Lofland (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Brendan Victor Monahan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 07/12/2005
07/29/2005 07/29/2005 08/02/2005

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES (CLASS ACTION) against Global Horizons Inc., Green Acre Farms Inc, Valley Fruit Orchards, LLC, Platte River Insurance Company ( Filing fee $ 250; Receipt # 061941). Summons issued. Filed by Ricardo Betancourt, Jose Guadalupe Perez−Farias, Jose F Sanchez and all other similarly situated persons. (Attachments: # 1 Complaint Continued, pp. 47−92; # 2 Civil Cover Sheet)(LE, Case Administrator) (Entered: 07/13/2005)
2 NOTICE of Appearance by Ryan M Edgley on behalf of Valley Fruit Orchards, LLC (Edgley, Ryan) (Entered: 07/29/2005)
3 NOTICE of Appearance by Ryan M Edgley on behalf of Green Acre Farms Inc (Edgley, Ryan) (Entered: 07/29/2005)
4 NOTICE of Appearance by Lawton Henry Humphrey on behalf of Global Horizons Inc. (Humphrey, Lawton) (Entered: 08/02/2005)

Case: 2:05-cv-3061 As of: 11/05/2016 05:11 PM PDT 9 of 116

08/02/2005 08/08/2005 08/10/2005 08/10/2005 08/12/2005
08/12/2005
08/15/2005 08/16/2005
08/17/2005 08/19/2005
08/29/2005
08/31/2005
08/31/2005 08/31/2005 09/20/2005 09/30/2005 10/10/2005 10/10/2005

5 NOTICE of Appearance by Marvin Lee Gray, Jr on behalf of Global Horizons Inc. (Gray, Marvin) (Entered: 08/02/2005)
6 ANSWER to Complaint by Green Acre Farms Inc.(Edgley, Ryan) (Entered: 08/08/2005)
7 AMENDED ANSWER to Complaint 1 Complaint,, 6 Answer to Complaint by Green Acre Farms Inc. (Edgley, Ryan) (Entered: 08/10/2005)
8 ANSWER to Complaint by Valley Fruit Orchards, LLC.(Edgley, Ryan) (Entered: 08/10/2005)
9 First MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and Damages by Global Horizons Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Ageed motion to Extend Deadline for Global Horizons Inc to File Its Answer)(Humphrey, Lawton) (Entered: 08/12/2005)
10 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re 9 First MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and Damages: Motion Hearing set for 8/15/2005 at 06:30 PM Spokane for 9 , before Judge Fred Van Sickle (Humphrey, Lawton) (Entered: 08/12/2005)
11 NOTICE of Appearance by Medora A Marisseau on behalf of Platte River Insurance Company (Marisseau, Medora) (Entered: 08/15/2005)
12 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re 1 Complaint, Agreed Motion by Platte River Insurance Company. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Order)(Marisseau, Medora) Modified on 8/17/2005 **INCORRECT IMAGE AS ATTACHMENT**(VR, Case Administrator). (Entered: 08/16/2005)
13 Praecipe filed by Platte River Insurance Company: Re 12 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re 1 Complaint, Agreed Motion Proposed Order. (Marisseau, Medora) (Entered: 08/17/2005)
14 TEXT ORDER: The "Agreed Motion to Extend Deadline for Global Horizons Inc. to File Its Answer" (Ct. Rec. 9) is granted. The "Agreed Motion to Extend Deadline for Platte River Ins. Co. to File Its Answer" (Ct. Rec. 12) is granted.. Signed by Judge Fred Van Sickle. (KJH, Judicial Assistant) (Entered: 08/19/2005)
15 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL AND SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL on behalf of Defendant Global Horizons Inc.. Attorney Medora A. Marisseau is withdrawing. Lawton Henry Humphrey is substituted as counsel for Defendant. Notice of Substitution of Counsel for Defendant Platte River Insurance Co. (Humphrey, Lawton) (Entered: 08/29/2005)
16 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Ricardo Betancourt, Jose Guadalupe Perez−Farias, Jose F Sanchez re Global Horizons Inc., Green Acre Farms Inc, Valley Fruit Orchards, LLC, Platte River Insurance Company. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 08/31/2005)
17 ANSWER to Complaint by Platte River Insurance Company.(Humphrey, Lawton) (Entered: 08/31/2005)
18 ANSWER to Complaint by Global Horizons Inc..(Humphrey, Lawton) (Entered: 08/31/2005)
19 SCHEDULING CONFERENCE NOTICE : Telephonic Scheduling Conference set for 10/20/2005 08:45 AM before Judge Fred Van Sickle. (Attachments: # 1 Consent)(CP, Courtroom Deputy) (Entered: 09/20/2005)
20 NOTICE of Appearance by Joachim Morrison on behalf of all plaintiffs (Morrison, Joachim) (Entered: 09/30/2005)
21 RULE 7.1 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT by Green Acre Farms Inc. (Edgley, Ryan) (Entered: 10/10/2005)
22 RULE 7.1 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT by Valley Fruit Orchards, LLC. (Edgley, Ryan) (Entered: 10/10/2005)

Case: 2:05-cv-3061 As of: 11/05/2016 05:11 PM PDT 10 of 116

10/10/2005 10/10/2005 10/11/2005 10/11/2005 10/13/2005
10/14/2005
10/14/2005 10/20/2005 10/20/2005 10/20/2005 10/20/2005
11/17/2005 11/28/2005 11/28/2005 11/30/2005 11/30/2005 11/30/2005 12/01/2005

23 STATUS REPORT Joint Status Certificate by Global Horizons Inc.. (Humphrey, Lawton) (Entered: 10/10/2005)
24 RULE 7.1 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT by Global Horizons Inc.. (Humphrey, Lawton) (Entered: 10/10/2005)
25 RULE 7.1 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT by Platte River Insurance Company. (Humphrey, Lawton) (Entered: 10/11/2005)
26 AMENDED DOCUMENT by Platte River Insurance Company. Amended Corporate Disclosure. (Humphrey, Lawton) (Entered: 10/11/2005)
27 CONSENT BY ALL PARTIES TO TRIAL AND ORDER OF REFERENCE TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE. Case assigned to Magistrate Judge Michael W. Leavitt for all further proceedings. PLEASE NOTE THAT CASE NUMBER INITIALS ARE CHANGED TO: CV−05−3061−MWL Signed by Judge Robert H. Whaley. (LS, Courtroom Deputy) (Entered: 10/13/2005)
28 NOTICE SETTING COURT'S TELEPHONIC SCHEDULING CONFERENCE: Telephonic Scheduling Conference RESET for 10/20/2005 08:45 AM via Telephonic Argument before Magistrate Judge Michael W. Leavitt. The parties are to dial the court conference line: (509) 372−1234, at the time scheduled.(AG, Courtroom Deputy) (Entered: 10/14/2005)
29 ORDER RESETTING TELEPHONIC SCHEDULING CONFERENCE. Signed by Judge Michael W. Leavitt. (AG, Courtroom Deputy) (Entered: 10/14/2005)
30 Minute Entry for TELEPHONIC proceedings held before Judge Michael W. Leavitt : Telephonic Scheduling Conference held on 10/20/2005. (Reported/Recorded by: Not Reported) (KW, Case Administrator) (Entered: 10/20/2005)
31 NOTICE of Appearance by David M Bowman on behalf of Global Horizons Inc. (Bowman, David) (Entered: 10/20/2005)
32 NOTICE of Appearance by David M Bowman on behalf of Platte River Insurance Company (Bowman, David) (Entered: 10/20/2005)
33 SCHEDULING ORDER: Telephonic Status Conference set for 11/27/2006 02:00 PM in Telephonic Argument before Magistrate Judge Michael W. Leavitt. Telephonic Pretrial Conference set for 12/28/2006 11:00 AM in Telephonic Argument before Magistrate Judge Michael W. Leavitt. Jury Trial set for 1/15/2007 09:00 AM in Yakima before Magistrate Judge Michael W. Leavitt. Signed by Judge Michael W. Leavitt. (KW, Case Administrator) (Entered: 10/20/2005)
34 NOTICE of Appearance and Association of Counsel by Paul Hamilton Beattie on behalf of Green Acre Farms Inc, Valley Fruit Orchards, LLC (Beattie, Paul) (Entered: 11/17/2005)
40 Minute Entry for TELEPHONIC proceedings held before Judge Michael W. Leavitt : Discovery Hearing held on 11/28/2005. (Reported/Recorded by: Not Reported) (KW, Case Administrator) (Entered: 12/05/2005)
41 ORAL MOTION for Protective Order by Ricardo Betancourt, Jose Guadalupe Perez−Farias, Jose F Sanchez. (KW, Case Administrator) (Entered: 12/05/2005)
35 BRIEF ORDER REGARDING SCOPE OF DEPOSITIONS OF NAMED PLAINTIFFS PROPOSED by Ricardo Betancourt, Jose Guadalupe Perez−Farias, Jose F Sanchez. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 11/30/2005)
36 ORDER REGARDING SCOPE OF DEPOSITIONS OF NAME PLAINTIFFS. Signed by Judge Michael W. Leavitt. (RF, Case Administrator) (Entered: 11/30/2005)
37 MEMORANDUM in Support of Motion for a Protective Order Prohibiting Discovery of Plaintiffs' Immigration Status by Ricardo Betancourt, Jose Guadalupe Perez−Farias, Jose F Sanchez. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 11/30/2005)
38 Praecipe filed by Ricardo Betancourt, Jose Guadalupe Perez−Farias, Jose F Sanchez: Re 37 Memorandum Proposed Order Regarding Plaintiffs' Motion for a Protective Order of Plaintiffs' Immigration Status. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 12/01/2005)

Case: 2:05-cv-3061 As of: 11/05/2016 05:11 PM PDT 11 of 116

12/02/2005 12/07/2005 12/08/2005
12/08/2005
12/12/2005 12/14/2005 12/14/2005
12/15/2005 12/15/2005 01/04/2006
01/09/2006 01/09/2006
01/12/2006
01/17/2006 01/30/2006 01/30/2006 02/03/2006

39 ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER OF PLAINTIFFS' IMMIGRATION STATUS. Signed by Judge Michael W. Leavitt. (RF, Case Administrator) (Entered: 12/02/2005)
42 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 41 MOTION for Protective Order filed by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company. (Gray, Marvin) (Entered: 12/07/2005)
43 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL AND SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL on behalf of Defendant Platte River Insurance Company. Attorney David M. Bowman is withdrawing. David M Bowman is substituted as counsel for Defendant. David Bowman is not substituted at this time. (Bowman, David) (Entered: 12/08/2005)
44 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL AND SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL on behalf of Defendant Global Horizons Inc.. Attorney David M. Bowman is withdrawing. David M Bowman is substituted as counsel for Defendant. Marvin Gray and Lawton Humphrey remaining as counsel (Bowman, David) (Entered: 12/08/2005)
45 REPLY MEMORANDUM re 41 MOTION for Protective Order Regarding Immigration Status filed by Ricardo Betancourt, Jose Guadalupe Perez−Farias, Jose F Sanchez. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 12/12/2005)
46 RESPONSE to Motion re 41 MOTION for Protective Order filed by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company. (Gray, Marvin) (Entered: 12/14/2005)
47 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages Plaintiffs' Motion in Support of Order to File and Overlength Brief by Ricardo Betancourt, Jose Guadalupe Perez−Farias, Jose F Sanchez. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Isley, Lori) (Entered: 12/14/2005)
48 RESPONSE to Motion re 47 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages Plaintiffs' Motion in Support of Order to File and Overlength Brief filed by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company. (Gray, Marvin) (Entered: 12/15/2005)
49 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO EXCEED PAGE LIMIT. Ct. Rec. # 47 GRANTED NUNC PRO TUNC. Signed by Judge Michael W. Leavitt. (AG, Courtroom Deputy) (Entered: 12/15/2005)
50 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER PROHIBITING DISCOVERY OF PLAINTIFFS' IMMIGRATION STATUS granting Ct. Rec. # 41 . Signed by Judge Michael W. Leavitt. (AG, Courtroom Deputy) (Entered: 01/04/2006)
51 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney (atty Marvin L. Gray, Jr.) by Global Horizons Inc.. (Gray, Marvin) (Entered: 01/09/2006)
52 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re 51 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney (atty Marvin L. Gray, Jr.): Motion Hearing set for 2/10/2006 at 06:30 PM Without Oral Argument for 51 , before Magistrate Judge Michael W. Leavitt (Gray, Marvin) (Entered: 01/09/2006)
53 RESPONSE to Motion re 51 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney (atty Marvin L. Gray, Jr.) Objection to Withdrawal Motion by Counsel for Defendant Global Horizons, Inc. filed by Ricardo Betancourt, Jose Guadalupe Perez−Farias, Jose F Sanchez. (Kuhling, Richard) (Entered: 01/12/2006)
54 REPLY MEMORANDUM re 51 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney (atty Marvin L. Gray, Jr.) filed by Global Horizons Inc.. (Gray, Marvin) (Entered: 01/17/2006)
55 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages by Ricardo Betancourt, Jose Guadalupe Perez−Farias, Jose F Sanchez. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Isley, Lori) (Entered: 01/30/2006)
56 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO EXCEED PAGE LIMIT granting Ct. Rec. # 55 . Signed by Judge Michael W. Leavitt. (AG, Courtroom Deputy) (Entered: 01/30/2006)
57 MOTION to Amend/Correct 1 Complaint, by Ricardo Betancourt, Jose Guadalupe Perez−Farias, Jose F Sanchez. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order # 2

Case: 2:05-cv-3061 As of: 11/05/2016 05:11 PM PDT 12 of 116

02/03/2006 02/03/2006 02/03/2006 02/03/2006 02/03/2006 02/15/2006 02/17/2006
02/24/2006 03/20/2006 03/22/2006 03/22/2006
03/22/2006
03/31/2006 03/31/2006

Proposed Amended Complaint)(Isley, Lori) (Entered: 02/03/2006)
58 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re 57 MOTION to Amend/Correct 1 Complaint,: Motion Hearing set for 3/6/2006 at 06:30 PM Without Oral Argument for 57 , before Magistrate Judge Michael W. Leavitt (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 02/03/2006)
59 DECLARATION by Marvin L. Gray, Jr. in Support re 51 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney (atty Marvin L. Gray, Jr.) filed by Global Horizons Inc.. (Gray, Marvin) (Entered: 02/03/2006)
60 MOTION to Certify Class and Memorandum in Support by Ricardo Betancourt, Jose Guadalupe Perez−Farias, Jose F Sanchez. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 02/03/2006)
61 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion Oral Argument Requested re 60 MOTION to Certify Class and Memorandum in Support: Motion Hearing set for 3/22/2006 at 11:00 AM Yakima Video Conference for 60 , before Magistrate Judge Michael W. Leavitt (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 02/03/2006)
Remark: NOTICE OF HEARING RE Motion Hearing as to Ct. Rec. # 60 MOTION to Certify Class. Motion Hearing SET for 3/22/2006 at 11:00 AM IN YAKIMA BEFORE Magistrate Judge Michael W. Leavitt. NO PDF ATTACHED. (AG, Courtroom Deputy) (Entered: 02/06/2006)
62 RESPONSE to Motion re 57 MOTION to Amend/Correct 1 Complaint, Defendants Global Horizons Inc. and Platte River Insurance Company's Response to Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint filed by Global Horizons Inc.. (Humphrey, Lawton) (Entered: 02/15/2006)
63 ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS ATTORNEY OF RECORD granting Ct. Rec. # 51 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Marvin Lee Gray, Jr terminated. This Order STAYS all pending motions until the current issueregarding Global's retention of new counsel is resolved.Signed by Judge Michael W. Leavitt. (AG, Courtroom Deputy) (Entered: 02/17/2006)
64 PROOF OF SERVICE by Global Horizons Inc. (Attachments: # 1)(Humphrey, Lawton) (Entered: 02/24/2006)
65 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL AND SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL on behalf of Defendant Global Horizons Inc.. Attorney Davis Wright Tremaine is withdrawing. Ryan M Edgley is substituted as counsel for Defendant. (Edgley, Ryan) (Entered: 03/20/2006)
66 ORDER RESETTING DATES FOLLOWING SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL. Signed by Judge Michael W. Leavitt. (AG, Courtroom Deputy) (Entered: 03/23/2006)
67 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion − By Court − Text entry; no PDF document as to Ct. Rec. # 57 MOTION to Amend/Correct 1 Complaint. Motion Hearing RESET for 4/10/2006 at 06:30 PM Without Oral Argument for before Magistrate Judge Michael W. Leavitt. Defendants shall be provided additional time, through April 3, 2006, to respond to Plaintiffs' pending motion to amend. See Ct. Rec. # 66 .(AG, Courtroom Deputy) (Entered: 03/23/2006)
68 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion − By Court − Text entry; no PDF document. Oral Argument Requested as to Ct. Rec. # 60 MOTION to Certify Class. Motion Hearing RESET for 5/8/2006 at 02:00 PM VIA Telephonic Argument for before Magistrate Judge Michael W. Leavitt. Defendants shall be provided additional time, through April 24, 2006, to respond to Plaintiffs' pending motion for class certification. Plaintiffs may file a reply, if any, on or before May 1, 2006. See Ct. Rec. # 66 .(AG, Courtroom Deputy) (Entered: 03/23/2006)
69 MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice CLASS ACTION re Attorney: Howard Foster. Filing fee $ 100. by Global Horizons Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Loudon, Jeffrey) (Entered: 03/31/2006)
70 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re 69 MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice CLASS ACTION re Attorney: Howard Foster. Filing fee $ 100.: (Loudon, Jeffrey) (Entered: 03/31/2006)

Case: 2:05-cv-3061 As of: 11/05/2016 05:11 PM PDT 13 of 116

04/03/2006 04/11/2006 04/11/2006 04/12/2006 04/12/2006 04/13/2006 04/13/2006 04/14/2006 04/17/2006 04/17/2006 04/18/2006
04/24/2006 04/24/2006 04/24/2006

71 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL AND SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL on behalf of Defendant Global Horizons Inc.. Attorney Ryan Edgley is withdrawing. Jeffrey Cole Loudon is substituted as counsel for Defendant. (Loudon, Jeffrey) (Entered: 04/03/2006)
72 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT granting Ct. Rec. # 57 . Plaintiffs are permitted to file their First Amended Complaint asproposed. Signed by Judge Michael W. Leavitt. (AG, Courtroom Deputy) (Entered: 04/11/2006)
73 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR PRO HAC VICE ADMISSION OF COUNSEL granting Ct. Rec. # 69 . Added Attorney Howard W Foster for Global Horizons Inc. Signed by Judge Michael W. Leavitt. (AG, Courtroom Deputy) (Entered: 04/11/2006)
74 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 60 MOTION to Certify Class and Memorandum in Support by Global Horizons Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 # 2)(Foster, Howard) (Entered: 04/12/2006)
75 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re 74 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 60 MOTION to Certify Class and Memorandum in Support: Motion Hearing set for 5/11/2006 at 06:30 PM Yakima for 74 , before Magistrate Judge Michael W. Leavitt (Foster, Howard) (Entered: 04/12/2006)
76 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 74 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 60 MOTION to Certify Class and Memorandum in Support filed by Ricardo Betancourt, Jose Guadalupe Perez−Farias, Jose F Sanchez. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 04/13/2006)
77 First AMENDED COMPLAINT For Declaratory And Injunctive Relief And Damages against Global Horizons Inc., Green Acre Farms Inc, Valley Fruit Orchards, LLC, Platte River Insurance Company. Filed by Ricardo Betancourt, Jose Guadalupe Perez−Farias, Jose F Sanchez.(Isley, Lori) (Entered: 04/13/2006)
78 ORDER granting 74 Defendants' Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification: Defendants' response due 5/8/06; Plaintiffs' reply due 5/15/06; Motion for Class Certification will be heard 5/24/06 at 2:00 p.m. with counsel appearing in person. Signed by Judge Michael W. Leavitt. (KW, Case Administrator) (Entered: 04/14/2006)
79 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to Defendants' Response to Class Certification by Ricardo Betancourt, Jose Guadalupe Perez−Farias, Jose F Sanchez. (Attachments: # 1)(Isley, Lori) (Entered: 04/17/2006)
80 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re 79 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to Defendants' Response to Class Certification: Motion Hearing set for 5/18/2006 at 06:30 PM for 79 , before Magistrate Judge Michael W. Leavitt (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 04/17/2006)
81 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO REPLY TO DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE granting Ct. Rec. # 79 . Plaintiffs may file a reply to Defendants' response on or before May 19, 2006. As previously ordered, the Court shall hear Plaintiffs' motion for class certification on May 24, 2006 at 2:00 p.m. Counsel shall personally appear for the hearing unless otherwise requested and approved by the Court, and all other dates provided in the October 20, 2005 scheduling order Ct. Rec. 33 remain in effect. Signed by Judge Michael W. Leavitt. (AG, Courtroom Deputy) (Entered: 04/18/2006)
82 Second AMENDED COMPLAINT for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and Damages against all defendants. Filed by Ricardo Betancourt, Jose Guadalupe Perez−Farias, Jose F Sanchez.(Kuhling, Richard) (Entered: 04/24/2006)
83 MOTION for Extension of Time to File to Join Additional Parties by Ricardo Betancourt, Jose Guadalupe Perez−Farias, Jose F Sanchez. (Kuhling, Richard) (Entered: 04/24/2006)
84 MEMORANDUM in Support re 83 MOTION for Extension of Time to File to Join Additional Parties filed by all plaintiffs. (Kuhling, Richard) (Entered: 04/24/2006)

Case: 2:05-cv-3061 As of: 11/05/2016 05:11 PM PDT 14 of 116

04/24/2006 04/25/2006 04/25/2006 04/25/2006 05/01/2006 05/01/2006 05/01/2006 05/01/2006 05/01/2006 05/04/2006 05/04/2006 05/04/2006 05/04/2006
05/08/2006
05/09/2006
05/09/2006 05/09/2006

85 DECLARATION by Lori Jordan Isley in Support re 83 MOTION for Extension of Time to File to Join Additional Parties filed by all plaintiffs. (Kuhling, Richard) (Entered: 04/24/2006)
86 OBJECTIONS re 82 Amended Complaint by Global Horizons Inc.. (Foster, Howard) (Entered: 04/25/2006)
87 Praecipe filed by Ricardo Betancourt, Jose Guadalupe Perez−Farias, Jose F Sanchez: Re 83 MOTION for Extension of Time to File to Join Additional Parties Proposed Order Attached. (Attachments: # 1)(Isley, Lori) (Entered: 04/25/2006)
88 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re 83 MOTION for Extension of Time to File to Join Additional Parties: Motion Hearing set for 5/10/2006 at 06:30 PM for 83 , before Magistrate Judge Michael W. Leavitt (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 04/25/2006)
89 MOTION to Compel and for Discovery Sanctions by all plaintiffs. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 05/01/2006)
90 DECLARATION by Lori Jordan Isley in Support re 89 MOTION to Compel and for Discovery Sanctions filed by all plaintiffs. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 05/01/2006)
91 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re 89 MOTION to Compel and for Discovery Sanctions: Motion Hearing set for 6/1/2006 at 06:30 PM Without Oral Argument for 89 , before Magistrate Judge Michael W. Leavitt (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 05/01/2006)
92 Praecipe filed by all plaintiffs: Re 89 MOTION to Compel and for Discovery Sanctions Proposed Order. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 05/01/2006)
93 MEMORANDUM in Support re 89 MOTION to Compel and for Discovery Sanctions filed by all plaintiffs. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 05/01/2006)
94 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages by Global Horizons Inc.. (Foster, Howard) (Entered: 05/04/2006)
95 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re 94 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages: Motion Hearing set for 5/19/2006 at 06:30 PM Yakima for 94 , before Magistrate Judge Michael W. Leavitt (Foster, Howard) (Entered: 05/04/2006)
96 ORDER PERMITTING PLAINTIFFS' SUBMISSION OF A SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT as to Ct. Rec. # 82 . Signed by Judge Michael W. Leavitt. (AG, Courtroom Deputy) (Entered: 05/04/2006)
97 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF DEADLINE TO JOIN ADDITIONAL PARTIES AND ORDER CONTINUING HEARING ON PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION: granting 83 Motion to Extend Deadline to Join Additional Parties; deadline is reset to 6/26/06. Hearing on Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is continued to 7/5/06 at 2:00 p.m. Signed by Judge Michael W. Leavitt. (KW, Case Administrator) (Entered: 05/04/2006)
98 RESPONSE to Motion re 60 MOTION to Certify Class and Memorandum in Support filed by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company. (Foster, Howard) Modified on 5/9/2006 to reflect filing error. This Court record filed in error. Document Amended and refiled by counsel. See Ct. Rec. # 99 (AG, Courtroom Deputy). (Entered: 05/08/2006)
99 AMENDED RESPONSE to Motion re 60 MOTION to Certify Class and Memorandum in Support filed by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company. (Foster, Howard) Modified on 5/9/2006 to add the word "Amended" to document name. (AG, Courtroom Deputy). (Entered: 05/09/2006)
100 ORDER GRANTING DEFEDNANTS' MOTION TO EXCEED PAGE LIMIT granting Ct. Rec. # 94 . Signed by Judge Michael W. Leavitt. (AG, Courtroom Deputy) (Entered: 05/09/2006)
101 Docket Annotation − Re Filing Error. Ct. Rec. #98 RESPONSE to Motion filed in error. Document refiled by counsel. See Ct. Rec. # 99 Amended Response to Motion. (AG, Courtroom Deputy) (Entered: 05/09/2006)

Case: 2:05-cv-3061 As of: 11/05/2016 05:11 PM PDT 15 of 116

05/12/2006 05/12/2006 05/17/2006 05/17/2006 05/17/2006 05/17/2006 05/19/2006 05/24/2006 05/24/2006 05/26/2006
05/26/2006
05/31/2006 05/31/2006 06/05/2006 06/05/2006 06/05/2006
06/14/2006

102 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages by Ricardo Betancourt, Jose Guadalupe Perez−Farias, Jose F Sanchez. (Attachments: # 1)(Contreras, Mirta) (Entered: 05/12/2006)
103 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re 102 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages: Motion Hearing set for 5/19/2006 at 06:30 PM Without Oral Argument for 102 , before Magistrate Judge Michael W. Leavitt (Contreras, Mirta) (Entered: 05/12/2006)
104 MOTION to Vacate Scheduling Order by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company. (Attachments: # 1)(Foster, Howard) (Entered: 05/17/2006)
105 MEMORANDUM in Support re 104 MOTION to Vacate Scheduling Order filed by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company. (Foster, Howard) (Entered: 05/17/2006)
106 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re 104 MOTION to Vacate Scheduling Order: Motion Hearing set for 6/19/2006 at 06:30 PM Without Oral Argument for 104 , before Magistrate Judge Michael W. Leavitt (Foster, Howard) (Entered: 05/17/2006)
107 ORDER Granting Plaintiff's 102 Motion to Exceed Page Limit. Signed by Judge Michael W. Leavitt. (KW, Case Administrator) (Entered: 05/17/2006)
108 REPLY MEMORANDUM re 60 MOTION to Certify Class and Memorandum in Support filed by Ricardo Betancourt, Jose Guadalupe Perez−Farias, Jose F Sanchez. (Contreras, Mirta) (Entered: 05/19/2006)
109 RESPONSE to Motion re 104 MOTION to Vacate Scheduling Order filed by Ricardo Betancourt, Jose Guadalupe Perez−Farias, Jose F Sanchez. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 05/24/2006)
110 DECLARATION by Lori Jordan Isley re 109 Response to Motion by all plaintiffs. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 05/24/2006)
111 ORDER VACATING SCHEDULING ORDER AND ORDER SETTING SCHEDULING CONFERENCE: granting 104 Motion to Vacate re 33 Scheduling Order; new scheduling conference to be held 7/5/06 immediately following 2:00 hearing on plaintiff's motion for class certification. Signed by Judge Michael W. Leavitt. (KW, Case Administrator) (Entered: 05/26/2006)
Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings: Scheduling Conference set for 7/5/2006 02:00 PM immediately following the hearing on plaintiffs' motion for class certification in Yakima before Magistrate Judge Michael W. Leavitt. (KW, Case Administrator) (Entered: 05/30/2006)
112 MOTION to Substitute Attorney by Platte River Insurance Company. (Attachments: # 1)(Foster, Howard) (Entered: 05/31/2006)
113 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re 112 MOTION to Substitute Attorney: Motion Hearing set for 6/16/2006 at 06:30 PM Yakima for 112 , before Magistrate Judge Michael W. Leavitt (Foster, Howard) (Entered: 05/31/2006)
114 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY AND FOR SANCTIONS granting Ct. Rec. # 89 . Signed by Judge Michael W. Leavitt. (AG, Courtroom Deputy) (Entered: 06/05/2006)
115 MOTION to Bifurcate and Memorandum in Support by Ricardo Betancourt, Jose Guadalupe Perez−Farias, Jose F Sanchez. (Attachments: # 1)(Isley, Lori) (Entered: 06/05/2006)
116 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion Oral Argument Requested re 115 MOTION to Bifurcate and Memorandum in Support: Motion Hearing set for 7/5/2006 at 02:00 PM for 115 , before Magistrate Judge Michael W. Leavitt (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 06/05/2006)
117 MOTION to Amend/Correct 82 Amended Complaint For Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and Damages by Ricardo Betancourt, Jose Guadalupe Perez−Farias, Jose F Sanchez. (Attachments: # 1 # 2)(Isley, Lori) (Entered: 06/14/2006)

Case: 2:05-cv-3061 As of: 11/05/2016 05:11 PM PDT 16 of 116

06/14/2006 06/14/2006 06/16/2006
06/21/2006 06/26/2006 06/26/2006 06/26/2006 06/26/2006 07/05/2006
07/05/2006 07/06/2006
07/10/2006 07/10/2006 07/11/2006 07/18/2006 07/19/2006

118 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re 117 MOTION to Amend/Correct 82 Amended Complaint For Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and Damages: Motion Hearing set for 7/17/2006 at 06:30 PM Without Oral Argument for 117 , before Magistrate Judge Michael W. Leavitt (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 06/14/2006)
119 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 115 MOTION to Bifurcate and Memorandum in Support filed by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company. (Foster, Howard) (Entered: 06/14/2006)
120 ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL OF RECORD granting Ct. Rec. # 112 ; added attorney Jeffrey Cole Loudon for Platte River Insurance Company and Howard W Foster for Platte River Insurance Company. Attorney Marvin Lee Gray, Jr and Lawton Henry Humphrey terminated. Signed by Judge Michael W. Leavitt. (AG, Courtroom Deputy) (Entered: 06/16/2006)
121 LR 26.1 / LR 16.1 Attorney Report by Ricardo Betancourt, Jose Guadalupe Perez−Farias, Jose F Sanchez. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 06/21/2006)
122 MOTION for Protective Order by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company. (Foster, Howard) (Entered: 06/26/2006)
123 MEMORANDUM in Support re 122 MOTION for Protective Order filed by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company. (Attachments: # 1)(Foster, Howard) (Entered: 06/26/2006)
124 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re 122 MOTION for Protective Order: Motion Hearing set for 7/26/2006 at 06:30 PM for 122 , before Magistrate Judge Michael W. Leavitt (Attachments: # 1)(Foster, Howard) (Entered: 06/26/2006)
125 REPLY MEMORANDUM re 115 MOTION to Bifurcate and Memorandum in Support filed by all plaintiffs. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 06/26/2006)
126 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Michael W. Leavitt: Motion Hearing held on 7/5/2006 as to Ct. Rec. # 60 − PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION and Ct. Rec. # 115 − PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO BIFURCATE. (Reported/Recorded by: FTR/Y−102) (AG, Courtroom Deputy) (Entered: 07/05/2006)
127 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Michael W. Leavitt: Scheduling Conference held on 7/5/2006. (Reported/Recorded by: FTR/Y−102) (AG, Courtroom Deputy) (Entered: 07/05/2006)
128 AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER: Telephonic Status Conference set for 3/9/2007 02:00 PM via Telephonic Argument before Magistrate Judge Michael W. Leavitt. Telephonic Mandatory Pretrial Conference set for 4/2/2007 11:00 AM via Telephonic Argument before Magistrate Judge Michael W. Leavitt. THREE−WEEK Jury Trial set for 4/23/2007 at 09:00 AM in Yakima before Magistrate Judge Michael W. Leavitt. The parties shall meet with the Judge, in chambers, at 8:30 a.m. on the first day of trial. Signed by Judge Michael W. Leavitt. (AG, Courtroom Deputy) (Entered: 07/06/2006)
129 RESPONSE to Motion re 122 MOTION for Protective Order filed by all plaintiffs. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 07/10/2006)
130 DECLARATION by Lori Jordan Isley re 129 Response to Motion by all plaintiffs. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 07/10/2006)
131 REPLY MEMORANDUM re 122 MOTION for Protective Order filed by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company. (Foster, Howard) (Entered: 07/11/2006)
132 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO FILE THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT granting Ct. Rec. # 117 . Signed by Judge Michael W. Leavitt. (AG, Courtroom Deputy) (Entered: 07/18/2006)
133 Third AMENDED COMPLAINT for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and Damages against all defendants. Filed by Ricardo Betancourt, Jose Guadalupe Perez−Farias, Jose F Sanchez.(Isley, Lori) (Entered: 07/19/2006)

Case: 2:05-cv-3061 As of: 11/05/2016 05:11 PM PDT 17 of 116

07/21/2006 07/25/2006 07/27/2006
07/28/2006 07/28/2006 08/03/2006 08/04/2006 08/04/2006 08/04/2006 08/04/2006 08/07/2006 08/07/2006 08/07/2006 08/11/2006
08/15/2006
08/17/2006 08/17/2006

Summons Issued as to Mordechai Orian and Jane Doe Orian; Jim Morford and Katherine M Morford; and John Verbrugge and Desiree C Verbrugge. (PH, Case Administrator) (Entered: 07/21/2006)
134 NOTICE by Green Acre Farms Inc, Valley Fruit Orchards, LLC of Attorney Paul Beattie's Intent to Withdraw (Beattie, Paul) (Entered: 07/25/2006)
135 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER granting Ct. Rec. # 122 Motion for Protective Order. The noticed deposition of Orian, scheduled to take place in Yakima, Washington, on July 13, 2006, is QUASHED. Signed by Judge Michael W. Leavitt. (AG, Courtroom Deputy) (Entered: 07/27/2006)
136 ORDER RE: CLASS CERTIFICATION granting Ct. Rec. # 60 Motion to Certify Class. Signed by Judge Michael W. Leavitt. (AG, Courtroom Deputy) (Entered: 07/28/2006)
137 ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR BIFURCATION granting Ct. Rec. # 115 Motion to Bifurcate. Signed by Judge Michael W. Leavitt. (AG, Courtroom Deputy) (Entered: 07/28/2006)
138 ANSWER to Complaint with jury demand. by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian.(Foster, Howard) (Entered: 08/03/2006)
139 MOTION for Sanctions by Jane Doe Orian. (Foster, Howard) (Entered: 08/04/2006)
140 MEMORANDUM in Support re 139 MOTION for Sanctions filed by Jane Doe Orian. (Foster, Howard) (Entered: 08/04/2006)
141 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re 139 MOTION for Sanctions: Motion Hearing set for 9/1/2006 at 06:30 PM for 139 , before Magistrate Judge Michael W. Leavitt (Foster, Howard) (Entered: 08/04/2006)
142 MOTION for Sanctions by Jane Doe Orian. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Foster, Howard) (Entered: 08/04/2006)
143 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF SERVICE Executed as to 133 Amended Complaint and Summons Acknowledgement filed by all plaintiffs. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 08/07/2006)
144 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF SERVICE Executed as to 133 Amended Complaint and Summons Acknowledgement filed by all plaintiffs. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 08/07/2006)
145 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF SERVICE Executed as to 133 Amended Complaint and Summons Acknowledgement filed by all plaintiffs. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 08/07/2006)
146 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 139 MOTION for Sanctions Lori Jordan's Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant Yun Ru's Motion for Sanctions filed by all plaintiffs. (Morrison, Joachim) Modified on 8/15/2006 correct name in title: Lori Isley's Memorandum ... (LE, Case Administrator). (Entered: 08/11/2006)
147 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion − By Court − Text entry; no PDF document. Oral Argument Requested as to Ct. Rec. # 139 MOTION for Sanctions. Motion Hearing set for 9/1/2006 at 11:00 AM via Telephonic Argument before Magistrate Judge Michael W. Leavitt. The motion hearing shall be held telephonically, with the parties to dial the court conference line: (509) 573−6934, at the time scheduled. Please note that cell phones are not to be used in making this call.(AG, Courtroom Deputy) (Entered: 08/15/2006)
148 MOTION Leave to Redepose Plaintiffs Perez and Sanchez by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian. (Foster, Howard) (Entered: 08/17/2006)
149 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re 148 MOTION Leave to Redepose Plaintiffs Perez and Sanchez: Motion Hearing set for 9/19/2006 at 06:30 PM for 148 , before Magistrate Judge Michael W. Leavitt (Foster, Howard) (Entered: 08/17/2006)

Case: 2:05-cv-3061 As of: 11/05/2016 05:11 PM PDT 18 of 116

08/17/2006 08/17/2006 08/31/2006 09/01/2006 09/06/2006 09/08/2006 09/08/2006 09/19/2006
09/21/2006 09/21/2006 09/21/2006 09/21/2006 09/21/2006 09/22/2006
09/22/2006 09/28/2006

150 MEMORANDUM in Support re 148 MOTION Leave to Redepose Plaintiffs Perez and Sanchez filed by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian. (Attachments: # 1)(Foster, Howard) (Entered: 08/17/2006)
151 REPLY MEMORANDUM re 139 MOTION for Sanctions filed by Jane Doe Orian. (Foster, Howard) (Entered: 08/17/2006)
152 RESPONSE to Motion re 148 MOTION Leave to Redepose Plaintiffs Perez and Sanchez filed by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1)(Isley, Lori) (Entered: 08/31/2006)
153 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Michael W. Leavitt: CT. REC. # 139 − YUN RU'S RULE 11 MOTION FOR SANCTIONS held on 9/1/2006. (Reported/Recorded by: Not Reported) (AG, Courtroom Deputy) (Entered: 09/01/2006)
154 ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S RULE 11 MOTION FOR SANCTIONS. Ct. Rec. # 139 is denied. Ct. Rec. # 146 is denied. Signed by Judge Michael W. Leavitt. (AG, Courtroom Deputy) (Entered: 09/06/2006)
155 ANSWER to Complaint with jury demand. by Jane Doe Orian.(Foster, Howard) (Entered: 09/08/2006)
156 REPLY MEMORANDUM re 148 MOTION Leave to Redepose Plaintiffs Perez and Sanchez filed by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian. (Foster, Howard) Additional attachment(s) added on 9/8/2006 (RF, Case Administrator). (Entered: 09/08/2006)
157 ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO RE−DEPOSE PLAINTIFFS JOSE F. SANCHEZ AND JOSE GUADALUPE PEREZ−FARIAS. Defendants' motion for leave to redepose Plaintiff Jose F. Sanchez and Plaintiff Jose Guadalupe Perez−Farias (Ct. Rec. 148 ) is DENIED. Signed by Judge Michael W. Leavitt. (AG, Courtroom Deputy) (Entered: 09/19/2006)
158 MOTION to Expedite Hearing by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1)(Contreras, Mirta) (Entered: 09/21/2006)
159 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re 158 MOTION to Expedite Hearing: Motion Hearing set for 9/28/2006 at 06:30 PM Without Oral Argument for 158 , before Magistrate Judge Michael W. Leavitt (Contreras, Mirta) (Entered: 09/21/2006)
160 MOTION to Amend/Correct 128 Scheduling Order,, by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1)(Contreras, Mirta) (Entered: 09/21/2006)
161 DECLARATION by Mirta Laura Contreras in Support re 160 MOTION to Amend/Correct 128 Scheduling Order,, filed by all plaintiffs. (Contreras, Mirta) (Entered: 09/21/2006)
162 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re 160 MOTION to Amend/Correct 128 Scheduling Order,,: Motion Hearing set for 9/28/2006 at 06:30 PM Without Oral Argument for 160 , before Magistrate Judge Michael W. Leavitt (Contreras, Mirta) (Entered: 09/21/2006)
163 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR EXPEDITED HEARING − ORDER SETTING HEARING, WITHOUT ORAL ARGUMENT, ON PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO AMEND THE AMENDEDSCHEDULING ORDER. Plaintiffs' motion for an expedited hearing on theirmotion to amend the amended scheduling order (Ct. Rec. [158−1]) isGRANTED. Plaintiffs motion to amend the amended scheduling orderwill be heard, without oral argument, on September 28, 2006 at6:30 p.m. Signed by Judge Michael W. Leavitt. (AG, Courtroom Deputy) (Entered: 09/22/2006)
Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings: Scheduling Conference for Amended Scheduling Order set for 9/28/2006 06:30 PM Without Oral Argument before Magistrate Judge Michael W. Leavitt. See Ct. Rec. # 163 . (AG, Courtroom Deputy) (Entered: 09/22/2006)
164 TRIAL BRIEF by Green Acre Farms Inc, Valley Fruit Orchards, LLC. (Edgley, Ryan) (Entered: 09/28/2006)

Case: 2:05-cv-3061 As of: 11/05/2016 05:11 PM PDT 19 of 116

09/29/2006
10/16/2006 10/25/2006 10/25/2006
10/26/2006 10/27/2006
11/20/2006 11/20/2006 11/20/2006 11/20/2006 11/20/2006 11/20/2006 11/20/2006
11/21/2006 11/21/2006 11/21/2006
11/21/2006
11/22/2006 11/22/2006

165 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO AMEND THE AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER. Plaintiffs' motion to amend the amended scheduling order(Ct. Rec. 160 ) is GRANTED. Signed by Judge Michael W. Leavitt. (AG, Courtroom Deputy) (Entered: 09/29/2006)
166 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF SERVICE Executed Acknowledgement filed by all plaintiffs. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 10/16/2006)
167 MOTION for Protective Order by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Isley, Lori) (Entered: 10/25/2006)
168 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion Oral Argument Requested re 167 MOTION for Protective Order: Motion Hearing set for 10/26/2006 at 09:00 AM Telephonic Argument for 167 , before Magistrate Judge Michael W. Leavitt (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 10/25/2006)
169 MOTION to Withdraw 167 MOTION for Protective Order by all plaintiffs. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 10/26/2006)
170 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO WITHDRAW MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER Granting 169 Motion to Withdraw Motion for Protective Order. 167 Motion for Protective Order is STRICKEN. Signed by Judge Michael W. Leavitt. (RF, Case Administrator) (Entered: 10/27/2006)
171 MOTION to Expedite by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1)(Contreras, Mirta) (Entered: 11/20/2006)
172 MOTION for Extension of Time to File by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1)(Contreras, Mirta) (Entered: 11/20/2006)
173 MOTION to Compel by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1)(Contreras, Mirta) (Entered: 11/20/2006)
174 MEMORANDUM in Support re 173 MOTION to Compel filed by all plaintiffs. (Contreras, Mirta) (Entered: 11/20/2006)
175 DECLARATION by Mirta Laura Contreras in Support re 173 MOTION to Compel filed by all plaintiffs. (Contreras, Mirta) (Entered: 11/20/2006)
176 DECLARATION by Lori Jordan Isley in Support re 173 MOTION to Compel filed by all plaintiffs. (Contreras, Mirta) (Entered: 11/20/2006)
177 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion Oral Argument Requested re 173 MOTION to Compel, 172 MOTION for Extension of Time to File : Motion Hearing set for 11/28/2006 at 11:00 AM Telephonic Argument for 173 and for 172 , before Magistrate Judge Michael W. Leavitt (Contreras, Mirta) (Entered: 11/20/2006)
178 MOTION for Discovery Motion to Modify January 2006 Protective Order by Global Horizons Inc.. (Foster, Howard) (Entered: 11/21/2006)
179 MEMORANDUM in Support re 178 MOTION for Discovery Motion to Modify January 2006 Protective Order filed by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Foster, Howard) (Entered: 11/21/2006)
180 December 7 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re 178 MOTION for Discovery Motion to Modify January 2006 Protective Order : Motion Hearing set for 12/7/2007 at 06:30 PM Without Oral Argument for 178 , before Magistrate Judge Michael W. Leavitt (Foster, Howard) (Entered: 11/21/2006)
181 RESPONSE to Motion re 171 MOTION to Expedite, 173 MOTION to Compel, 172 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Consolidated Responses filed by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Foster, Howard) (Entered: 11/21/2006)
182 Docket Annotation − Re Filing Error: 180 Notice of Hearing on Motion HEARING SET 12/7/06 at 6:30 p.m. (RF, Case Administrator) (Entered: 11/22/2006)
183 MOTION for Protective Order by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Foster, Howard) (Entered: 11/22/2006)

Case: 2:05-cv-3061 As of: 11/05/2016 05:11 PM PDT 20 of 116

11/22/2006 11/22/2006 11/28/2006
11/28/2006 11/28/2006
11/29/2006 11/29/2006
12/04/2006 12/04/2006 12/05/2006 12/05/2006 12/06/2006 12/08/2006 12/11/2006 12/12/2006
12/18/2006

184 MEMORANDUM in Support re 183 MOTION for Protective Order Mordechai Orian filed by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Foster, Howard) (Entered: 11/22/2006)
185 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re 183 MOTION for Protective Order : Motion Hearing set for 12/28/2006 at 06:30 PM Without Oral Argument for 183 , before Magistrate Judge Michael W. Leavitt (Foster, Howard) (Entered: 11/22/2006)
186 Minute Entry for TELEPHONIC proceedings held before Judge Michael W. Leavitt: Motion Hearings held on 11/28/2006 as to the following: Ct. Rec. # 171 − Plaintiffs' Motion to Expedite; Ct. Rec. # 172 − Plaintiffs' Motion for Extension of Time; and Ct. Rec. # 173 − Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel and Plaintiffs' Motion for Sanctions as to Defendants: Global, Green Acre andValley Fruit. (Reported/Recorded by: Not Reported) (AG, Courtroom Deputy) (Entered: 11/28/2006)
187 STATUS REPORT REGARDING SETTLEMENT AND REFERRAL TO MEDIATION by all plaintiffs. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 11/28/2006)
189 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR EXPEDITED HEARING AND ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR EXTENSION as to Ct. Rec. # 171 and Ct. Rec. # 172 . Signed by Judge Michael W. Leavitt. (AG, Courtroom Deputy) (Entered: 11/29/2006)
188 NOTICE by all plaintiffs Withdrawal of Devra Hermosilla (Hermosilla, Devra) (Entered: 11/29/2006)
190 ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL AND DENYING SANCTIONS granting in part and denying in part as to Ct. Rec. # 173 Motion to Compel. Signed by Judge Michael W. Leavitt. (AG, Courtroom Deputy) (Entered: 11/29/2006)
191 MEMORANDUM of Points and Authorities in Opposition re 183 MOTION for Protective Order to Limit Deposition Discovery of Defendant Mordechai Orian filed by all plaintiffs. (Kuhling, Richard) (Entered: 12/04/2006)
192 DECLARATION by Lori Jordan Isley in Opposition re 183 MOTION for Protective Order to Limit Deposition Discovery of Defendant Mordechai Orian filed by all plaintiffs. (Kuhling, Richard) (Entered: 12/04/2006)
193 RESPONSE to Motion re 178 MOTION for Discovery Motion to Modify January 2006 Protective Order filed by all plaintiffs. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 12/05/2006)
194 DECLARATION by Lori Jordan Isley in Opposition re 178 MOTION for Discovery Motion to Modify January 2006 Protective Order filed by all plaintiffs. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 12/05/2006)
195 MEMORANDUM of Points and Authorities in Support re 173 MOTION to Compel Defendant Global to Produce Violations of Labor Laws in Other States filed by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Morrison, Joachim) (Entered: 12/06/2006)
196 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 173 MOTION to Compel Supplemental Memo in Opposition filed by all defendants. (Foster, Howard) (Entered: 12/08/2006)
197 REPLY MEMORANDUM re 183 MOTION for Protective Order Re Deposition of Orian filed by all defendants. (Foster, Howard) (Entered: 12/11/2006)
198 REPLY MEMORANDUM re 178 MOTION for Discovery Motion to Modify January 2006 Protective Order Reply Memo re Modifying Jan 06 Protective Order filed by Global Horizons Inc., Green Acre Farms Inc, Valley Fruit Orchards, LLC, Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian, Jim Morford, Katherine M Morford, John Verbrugge, Desiree C Verbrugge. (Foster, Howard) (Entered: 12/12/2006)
199 ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY as to Defendant Global Horizons, Inc. Ct. Rec. # 173 is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Signed by Judge Michael W. Leavitt. (AG, Courtroom Deputy) (Entered: 12/18/2006)

Case: 2:05-cv-3061 As of: 11/05/2016 05:11 PM PDT 21 of 116

12/18/2006 12/26/2006 12/26/2006 12/26/2006 12/28/2006 12/29/2006
12/29/2006 01/03/2007 01/03/2007 01/03/2007 01/03/2007
01/03/2007
01/04/2007 01/05/2007 01/05/2007
01/08/2007

200 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO MODIFY THE PROTECTIVE ORDER ENTERED ON JANUARY 4, 2006. Ct. Rec. # 178 is granted. Signed by Judge Michael W. Leavitt. (AG, Courtroom Deputy) (Entered: 12/18/2006)
202 DECLARATION by Lori Jordan Isley in Support re 201 MOTION for Sanctions filed by all plaintiffs. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 12/26/2006)
203 DECLARATION by Joachim Morrison in Support re 201 MOTION for Sanctions filed by all plaintiffs. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 12/26/2006)
204 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion Oral Argument Requested re 201 MOTION for Sanctions : Motion Hearing set for 1/3/2007 at 02:00 PM Telephonic Argument for 201 , before Magistrate Judge Michael W. Leavitt (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 12/26/2006)
205 ORDER denying 183 Defendants' Motion for Protective Order. Signed by Judge Michael W. Leavitt. (KW, Case Administrator) (Entered: 12/28/2006)
206 ORDER VACATING HEARING ON MOTION FOR DISCOVERY SANCTIONS AND SETTING STATUS CONFERENCE. Telephonic Status Conference set for 1/11/2007 02:00 PM in Telephonic Argument before Magistrate Judge Michael W. Leavitt. Signed by Judge Michael W. Leavitt. (KW, Case Administrator) (Entered: 12/29/2006)
207 Minute Entry for TELEPHONIC proceedings held before Judge Michael W. Leavitt : Status Conference held on 12/29/2006. (Reported/Recorded by: Not Reported) (KW, Case Administrator) (Entered: 01/03/2007)
208 MOTION for Reconsideration re 199 Order AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − DOL Letter to Defendant Global Horizons# 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Morrison, Joachim) (Entered: 01/03/2007)
209 MOTION to Expedite Hearing on Motion for Reconsideration (Ct. Rec. 208) by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Morrison, Joachim) (Entered: 01/03/2007)
210 DECLARATION by Joachim Morrison in Support re 209 MOTION to Expedite Hearing on Motion for Reconsideration (Ct. Rec. 208) filed by all plaintiffs. (Morrison, Joachim) (Entered: 01/03/2007)
211 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re 209 MOTION to Expedite Hearing on Motion for Reconsideration (Ct. Rec. 208) : Motion Hearing set for 1/11/2007 at 06:30 PM Without Oral Argument for 209 , before Magistrate Judge Michael W. Leavitt (Morrison, Joachim) (Entered: 01/03/2007)
212 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re 208 MOTION for Reconsideration re 199 Order AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT : Motion Hearing set for 1/11/2007 at 06:30 PM Without Oral Argument for 208 , before Magistrate Judge Michael W. Leavitt (Morrison, Joachim) (Entered: 01/03/2007)
213 RESPONSE to Motion re 208 MOTION for Reconsideration re 199 Order AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT filed by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Foster, Howard) (Entered: 01/04/2007)
Set/Reset Motion Hearing as to 201 MOTION for Sanctions. Motion Hearing set for 1/11/2007 at 02:00 PM via Telephonic Argument before Magistrate Judge Michael W. Leavitt. See Ct. Rec. # 206 . (AG, Courtroom Deputy) (Entered: 01/05/2007)
Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings: See Ct. Rec. # 128 . Telephonic Status Conference previously scheduled and set for 3/9/2007 02:00 PM via Telephonic Argument before Magistrate Judge Michael W. Leavitt inadvertently deleted from CM/ECF on 12/29/06. This entry docketed for correction purposes. (AG, Courtroom Deputy) (Entered: 01/05/2007)
214 ORDER DENYING MOTION TO EXPEDITE AND ORDER SETTING HEARING ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION. Ct. Rec. # 209 is denied. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration (Ct. Rec. 208 ) shall come on for hearing, without oral argument, on February 9, 2007, at 6:30 p.m. Signed by Judge Michael W. Leavitt. (AG, Courtroom Deputy) (Entered: 01/08/2007)

Case: 2:05-cv-3061 As of: 11/05/2016 05:11 PM PDT 22 of 116

01/08/2007 01/08/2007 01/08/2007 01/08/2007 01/09/2007 01/11/2007 01/12/2007
01/12/2007
01/16/2007 01/23/2007 01/31/2007 01/31/2007 01/31/2007

Set/Reset Motion Hearing as to Ct. Rec. # 208 MOTION for Reconsideration. Motion Hearing set for 2/9/2007 at 06:30 PM Without Oral Argument before Magistrate Judge Michael W. Leavitt. See Ct. Rec. # 214 . (AG, Courtroom Deputy) (Entered: 01/08/2007)
215 PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO WITHDRAW MOTION FOR DISCOVERY SANCTIONS by all plaintiffs as to Ct. Rec. 201 . (AG, Courtroom Deputy) (Entered: 01/09/2007)
216 JOINT MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL DATE by all plaintiffs. (Attachment: #(1) Text of Proposed Order: Joint Proposed Scheduling Order)(AG, Courtroom Deputy) (Entered: 01/09/2007)
217 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion. Oral Argument Requested as to Ct. Rec. # 216 JOINT MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL DATE. Motion Hearing set for 1/11/2007 at 02:00 PM via Telephonic Argument before Magistrate Judge Michael W. Leavitt. (AG, Courtroom Deputy) (Entered: 01/09/2007)
218 ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO WITHDRAW AND ORDER STRIKING MOTION FOR DISCOVERY SANCTIONS. Ct. Rec. # 215 is granted. Ct. Rec. # 201 Plaintiff's Motion for Discovery Sanctions against Defendants is STRICKEN from the record. Signed by Judge Michael W. Leavitt. (AG, Courtroom Deputy) (Entered: 01/09/2007)
219 Minute Entry for TELEPHONIC proceedings held before Judge Michael W. Leavitt: Motion Hearing held on 1/11/2007 as to Ct. Rec. # 216 Joint Motion for a New Trial Date. (Reported/Recorded by: Not Reported) (AG, Courtroom Deputy) (Entered: 01/12/2007)
220 ORDER AMENDING SCHEDULING ORDER. Ct. Rec. # 216 Joint Motion for a New Trial Date is granted. A status conference will be held telephonically on July 10, 2007 at 2:00 p.m. by the parties calling the Court conference line: (509) 573−6934. A final telephonic pretrial conference and hearing on motions in limine and evidentiary issues shall be held on August 13, 2007, at 2:00 p.m. The parties shall call the Court's public conference line at (509) 573−6934 at the time scheduled for the conference. The jury trial in this matter shall commence at 9:00 a.m. on August 27, 2007, in Yakima, Washington. The parties estimate a trial length of three (3) weeks. The parties and counsel shall meet with the Judge, in chambers, at 8:30 a.m. on the first day of trial. Signed by Judge Michael W. Leavitt. (AG, Courtroom Deputy) (Entered: 01/12/2007)
Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings: See Ct. Rec. # 220 . THREE−WEEK Jury Trial set for 8/27/2007 09:00 AM in Yakima before Magistrate Judge Michael W. Leavitt. The parties and counsel shall meet with the Judge, in chambers, at 8:30 a.m. on the first day of trial. Telephonic Pretrial Conference set for 8/13/2007 02:00 PM via Telephonic Argument before Magistrate Judge Michael W. Leavitt. The parties shall call the Court's public conference line at (509) 573−6934 at the time scheduled for the conference. Telephonic Status Conference set for 7/10/2007 02:00 PM via Telephonic Argument before Magistrate Judge Michael W. Leavitt. The parties shall call the Court's public conference line at (509) 573−6934 at the time scheduled for the conference. (AG, Courtroom Deputy) (Entered: 01/12/2007)
221 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 208 MOTION for Reconsideration re 199 Order AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT filed by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Foster, Howard) (Entered: 01/16/2007)
222 REPLY MEMORANDUM re 208 MOTION for Reconsideration re 199 Order AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT filed by all plaintiffs. (Morrison, Joachim) (Entered: 01/23/2007)
223 MOTION to Compel by all plaintiffs. (Contreras, Mirta) (Entered: 01/31/2007)
224 MEMORANDUM in Support re 223 MOTION to Compel filed by all plaintiffs. (Contreras, Mirta) (Entered: 01/31/2007)
225 DECLARATION by Mirta Laura Contreras in Support re 223 MOTION to Compel filed by all plaintiffs. (Contreras, Mirta) (Entered: 01/31/2007)

Case: 2:05-cv-3061 As of: 11/05/2016 05:11 PM PDT 23 of 116

01/31/2007 02/02/2007
02/05/2007 02/05/2007 02/05/2007 02/07/2007 02/07/2007 02/07/2007 02/08/2007 02/09/2007 02/12/2007 02/12/2007 02/12/2007
02/13/2007
02/13/2007
02/13/2007

226 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re 223 MOTION to Compel : Motion Hearing set for 2/7/2007 at 06:30 PM Without Oral Argument for 223 , before Magistrate Judge Michael W. Leavitt (Contreras, Mirta) (Entered: 01/31/2007)
227 REPLY MEMORANDUM re 208 MOTION for Reconsideration re 199 Order AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT Supplemental Reply Memorandum filed by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Declaration of Douglas Kophamer# 2 Affidavit Declaration of Joachim Morrison# 3 Exhibit Hudson Deposition Transcript − Exhibit 2)(Morrison, Joachim) (Entered: 02/02/2007)
228 MOTION for Discovery Protective Order re H−2A by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Foster, Howard) (Entered: 02/05/2007)
229 MEMORANDUM in Support re 228 MOTION for Discovery Protective Order re H−2A filed by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Foster, Howard) (Entered: 02/05/2007)
230 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re 228 MOTION for Discovery Protective Order re H−2A : Motion Hearing set for 3/12/2007 at 06:30 PM Yakima for 228 , before Magistrate Judge Michael W. Leavitt (Foster, Howard) (Entered: 02/05/2007)
231 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 228 MOTION for Discovery Protective Order re H−2A and re−setting hearing for oral argument filed by all plaintiffs. (Morrison, Joachim) (Entered: 02/07/2007)
232 RESPONSE to Motion re 228 MOTION for Discovery Protective Order re H−2A Notice Re−Setting Hearing for Oral Argument filed by all plaintiffs. (Morrison, Joachim) (Entered: 02/07/2007)
234 Minute Entry for TELEPHONIC proceedings held before Judge Michael W. Leavitt: Discovery Hearing held on 2/7/2007 as to 30(b)(6) deposition. (Reported/Recorded by: Not Reported) (AG, Courtroom Deputy) (Entered: 02/09/2007)
233 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY AND FOR SANCTIONS granting Ct. Rec. # 223 Motion to Compel. Signed by Judge Michael W. Leavitt. (AG, Courtroom Deputy) (Entered: 02/08/2007)
235 REPLY MEMORANDUM re 228 MOTION for Discovery Protective Order re H−2A filed by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Foster, Howard) (Entered: 02/09/2007)
236 NOTICE of Appearance by Gregg Randall Smith on behalf of Global Horizons Inc. (Smith, Gregg) (Entered: 02/12/2007)
237 MOTION in Limine re: Admissibility of Evidence by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Morrison, Joachim) (Entered: 02/12/2007)
238 Plaintiffs NOTICE of Hearing on Motion Oral Argument Requested re 237 MOTION in Limine re: Admissibility of Evidence : Motion Hearing set for 3/15/2007 at 02:00 PM Spokane Video Conference for 237 , before Magistrate Judge Michael W. Leavitt (Morrison, Joachim) (Entered: 02/12/2007)
239 AMENDED NOTICE of Hearing on Motion Oral Argument Requested re 237 MOTION in Limine re: Admissibility of Evidence : Motion Hearing set for 3/15/2007 at 02:00 PM Telephonic Argument for 237 , before Magistrate Judge Michael W. Leavitt (Morrison, Joachim) (Entered: 02/13/2007)
240 ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION denying Ct. Rec. # 208 Motion for Reconsideration as to Ct. Rec. # 199 Order Regarding Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Discovery. Signed by Judge Michael W. Leavitt. (AG, Courtroom Deputy) (Entered: 02/13/2007)
241 ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER denying Ct. Rec.# 228 Motion for a Protective Order. The hearing date previously set for the resolution of this motion on March 12, 2007 shall be vacated. Signed by Judge Michael W. Leavitt. (AG, Courtroom Deputy) (Entered: 02/13/2007)

Case: 2:05-cv-3061 As of: 11/05/2016 05:11 PM PDT 24 of 116

02/14/2007 02/15/2007 02/22/2007 02/23/2007 02/23/2007 02/23/2007 02/23/2007 02/23/2007 02/23/2007 02/23/2007 02/23/2007 02/25/2007 02/26/2007
02/27/2007
02/28/2007 02/28/2007

242 RESPONSE to Motion re 237 MOTION in Limine re: Admissibility of Evidence filed by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Foster, Howard) (Entered: 02/14/2007)
243 NOTICE of Appearance by Gregory S Johnson on behalf of all plaintiffs (Johnson, Gregory) (Entered: 02/15/2007)
244 REPLY MEMORANDUM re 237 MOTION in Limine re: Admissibility of Evidence filed by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Zhou Answer)(Morrison, Joachim) (Entered: 02/22/2007)
245 MOTION to Compel Re: Requests for Production and Compliane with Subpoena by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1)(Isley, Lori) (Entered: 02/23/2007)
246 MEMORANDUM in Support re 245 MOTION to Compel Re: Requests for Production and Compliane with Subpoena filed by all plaintiffs. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 02/23/2007)
247 DECLARATION by Lori Jordan Isley in Support re 245 MOTION to Compel Re: Requests for Production and Compliane with Subpoena filed by all plaintiffs. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 02/23/2007)
248 DECLARATION by Amy L. Crewdson in Support re 245 MOTION to Compel Re: Requests for Production and Compliane with Subpoena filed by all plaintiffs. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 02/23/2007)
249 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re 245 MOTION to Compel Re: Requests for Production and Compliane with Subpoena : Motion Hearing set for 3/9/2007 at 06:30 PM Without Oral Argument for 245 , before Magistrate Judge Michael W. Leavitt (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 02/23/2007)
250 MOTION to Expedite Hearing on Motion to Compel by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1)(Isley, Lori) (Entered: 02/23/2007)
251 DECLARATION by Lori Jordan Isley in Support re 250 MOTION to Expedite Hearing on Motion to Compel filed by all plaintiffs. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 02/23/2007)
252 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re 250 MOTION to Expedite Hearing on Motion to Compel : Motion Hearing set for 2/26/2007 at 06:30 PM Without Oral Argument for 250 , before Magistrate Judge Michael W. Leavitt (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 02/23/2007)
253 NOTICE of Appearance by Amy Louise Crewdson on behalf of all plaintiffs (Crewdson, Amy) (Entered: 02/25/2007)
254 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR EXPEDITED HEARING/ORDER SETTING HEARING, WITHOUT ORAL ARGUMENT, ON PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL. Plaintiffs' motion for an expedited hearing on their motion to compel (Ct. Rec. 251 ) is GRANTED. Plaintiffs' motion to compel (Ct. Rec. 245 ) will be heard, as noted by Plaintiffs (Ct. Rec. 249 ), on March 9, 2007 at 6:30 p.m. without oral argument. Motion Hearing set for 3/9/2007 06:30 PM Without Oral Argument before Magistrate Judge Michael W. Leavitt. Signed by Judge Michael W. Leavitt. (AG, Courtroom Deputy) (Entered: 02/26/2007)
255 NOTICE OF ELECTRONIC FILING DELIVERY FAILURE. The Clerk's Office has received an undeliverable Notice of Electronic Filing for the following attorney− Ryan M Edgley− at this email address− edgleyr@my180.net− on 2/26/07 ; The Clerk's Office has been informed that this attorney is no longer with Edgley & Beattie. Electronic Noticing is no longer available for this attorney. (LAM, ) (Entered: 02/27/2007)
256 MOTION to Expedite Hearing on Motion for Leave to Depose Bruce Schwartz by all plaintiffs. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 02/28/2007)
257 DECLARATION by Lori Jordan Isley in Support re 256 MOTION to Expedite Hearing on Motion for Leave to Depose Bruce Schwartz filed by all plaintiffs. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 02/28/2007)

Case: 2:05-cv-3061 As of: 11/05/2016 05:11 PM PDT 25 of 116

02/28/2007 02/28/2007 02/28/2007 02/28/2007 03/01/2007
03/08/2007 03/08/2007 03/08/2007 03/08/2007 03/08/2007 03/08/2007 03/08/2007 03/12/2007
03/12/2007 03/12/2007

258 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re 256 MOTION to Expedite Hearing on Motion for Leave to Depose Bruce Schwartz : Motion Hearing set for 2/28/2007 at 06:30 PM Without Oral Argument for 256 , before Magistrate Judge Michael W. Leavitt (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 02/28/2007)
259 MOTION to Take Deposition of Bruce Schwartz by all plaintiffs. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 02/28/2007)
260 DECLARATION by Lori Jordan Isley in Support re 259 MOTION to Take Deposition of Bruce Schwartz filed by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 Part 1# 2 Exhibit 1 Part 2# 3 Exhibit 2)(Isley, Lori) (Entered: 02/28/2007)
261 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re 259 MOTION to Take Deposition of Bruce Schwartz : Motion Hearing set for 3/12/2007 at 06:30 PM Without Oral Argument for 259 , before Magistrate Judge Michael W. Leavitt (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 02/28/2007)
262 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR EXPEDITED HEARING AND ORDER SETTING HEARING, WITHOUT ORAL ARGUMENT, ON PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO DEPOSE WITNESS. Plaintiffs' motion for an expedited hearing on their motion for leave to depose Bruce Schwartz (Ct. Rec. 256 ) is GRANTED. Plaintiffs' motion to depose Bruce Schwartz (Ct. Rec. 259 ) will be heard, as noted by Plaintiffs (Ct. Rec. 261 ), on March 12, 2007 at 6:30 p.m. without oral argument. Defendants shall submit a response, if any, to Plaintiffs' motion to compel on or before the close of business on March 9, 2007. Plaintiffs may file a reply, if any, on March 12, 2007. Signed by Judge Michael W. Leavitt. (AG, Courtroom Deputy) (Entered: 03/01/2007)
263 MOTION to Expedite Hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Discovery from Global Horizons, Inc. and Mordechai Orian by all plaintiffs. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 03/08/2007)
264 DECLARATION by Lori Jordan Isley in Support re 263 MOTION to Expedite Hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Discovery from Global Horizons, Inc. and Mordechai Orian filed by all plaintiffs. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 03/08/2007)
265 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re 263 MOTION to Expedite Hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Discovery from Global Horizons, Inc. and Mordechai Orian : Motion Hearing set for 3/9/2007 at 06:30 PM Without Oral Argument for 263 , before Magistrate Judge Michael W. Leavitt (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 03/08/2007)
266 MOTION to Compel Discovery by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1)(Isley, Lori) (Entered: 03/08/2007)
267 MEMORANDUM in Support re 266 MOTION to Compel Discovery filed by all plaintiffs. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 03/08/2007)
268 DECLARATION by Lori Jordan Isley in Support re 266 MOTION to Compel Discovery filed by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1# 2 Exhibit 2# 3 Exhibit 3# 4 Exhibit 4 & 5# 5 Exhibit 6# 6 Exhibit 7 & 8# 7 Exhibit 9# 8 Exhibit 10 & 11# 9 Exhibit 12)(Isley, Lori) (Entered: 03/08/2007)
269 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re 266 MOTION to Compel Discovery : Motion Hearing set for 3/16/2007 at 06:30 PM Without Oral Argument for 266 , before Magistrate Judge Michael W. Leavitt (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 03/08/2007)
270 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR EXPEDITED HEARING; ORDER SETTING HEARING WITHOUT ORAL ARGUMENT ON PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL; granting pltfs' 263 Motion to Expedite; pltfs' Motion to Compel 266 will be heard, as noted by pltfs, 3/16/07 at 6:30 pm, without oral argument. Signed by Judge Michael W. Leavitt. (LE, Case Administrator) (Entered: 03/12/2007)
271 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney (atty Howard Foster & Gregg Smith) by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Foster, Howard) (Entered: 03/12/2007)
272 DECLARATION by Greg Smith in Support re 271 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney (atty Howard Foster & Gregg Smith) filed by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Foster, Howard)

Case: 2:05-cv-3061 As of: 11/05/2016 05:11 PM PDT 26 of 116

03/12/2007 03/12/2007
03/13/2007 03/13/2007 03/13/2007 03/15/2007 03/15/2007 03/15/2007 03/15/2007 03/16/2007 03/16/2007 03/16/2007 03/16/2007

(Entered: 03/12/2007)
273 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re 271 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney (atty Howard Foster & Gregg Smith) : Motion Hearing set for 3/13/2007 at 10:00 AM Telephonic Argument for 271 , before Magistrate Judge Michael W. Leavitt (Foster, Howard) (Entered: 03/12/2007)
274 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY AND FOR SANCTIONS; granting pltfs' 245 Motion to Compel; dft Global Horizons Inc shall produce all documents as outlined in this order; dft's objections to producing James S. Holt for deposition are deemed without merit as a result of dft's failure to timely respond to the motion; dft Global Horizons Inc shall pay to pltfs the amount of $400.00 for pltfs' expenses incurred in bringing the instant motion. Signed by Judge Michael W. Leavitt. (LE, Case Administrator) (Entered: 03/12/2007)
275 Minute Entry for TELEPHONIC proceedings held before Judge Michael W. Leavitt : Motion Hearing held on 3/13/2007 re 271 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney (atty Howard Foster & Gregg Smith) filed by Platte River Insurance Company, Jane Doe Orian, Mordechai Orian, Global Horizons Inc. (Reported/Recorded by: Not Reported) (KW, Case Administrator) (Entered: 03/13/2007)
276 ORDER DENYING MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS ATTORNEYS OF RECORD denying Ct. Rec. # 271 without prejudice. The Court will revisit this issue once substituted counsel has appeared. Signed by Judge Michael W. Leavitt. (AG, Courtroom Deputy) (Entered: 03/13/2007)
277 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO DEPOSE WITNESS granting Ct. Rec. # 259 . The Court HEREBY ORDERS that Plaintiffs' motion for leave to depose Bruce Schwartz a second time (Ct. Rec. 259 ) is GRANTED. Signed by Judge Michael W. Leavitt. (AG, Courtroom Deputy) (Entered: 03/13/2007)
278 DECLARATION by Lori Jordan Isley in Support re 266 MOTION to Compel Discovery filed by all plaintiffs. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 03/15/2007)
279 Minute Entry for TELEPHONIC proceedings held before Judge Michael W. Leavitt : Motion Hearing held on 3/15/2007 re 237 MOTION in Limine re: Admissibility of Evidence filed by Jose F Sanchez, Ricardo Betancourt, Jose Guadalupe Perez−Farias. (Reported/Recorded by: Not Reported) (KW, Case Administrator) (Entered: 03/15/2007)
281 NOTICE AND MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice re Attorney: I. Randolph S. Shiner. Filing fee $100, receipt number SPO004013. by Global Horizons Inc. (AG, Courtroom Deputy) (Entered: 03/16/2007)
282 DECLARATION of I. Randolph S. Shiner in Support of Ct. Rec. # 281 MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice re Attorney: I. Randolph S. Shiner. (Filing fee of $100 paid − receipt number SPO004013) filed by Global Horizons Inc. (AG, Courtroom Deputy) (Entered: 03/16/2007)
280 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION IN LIMINE. The Court DENIES, without prejudice, Plaintiffs' motion in limine to rule on the admissibility of the tape recording (Ct. Rec. 237 ). Signed by Judge Michael W. Leavitt. (AG, Courtroom Deputy) (Entered: 03/16/2007)
283 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion − By Court − Text entry; no PDF document as to Ct. Rec. # 281 MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice re Attorney: I. Randolph S. Shiner. Motion Hearing set for 3/16/2007 at 06:30 PM Without Oral Argument for before Magistrate Judge Michael W. Leavitt.(AG, Courtroom Deputy) (Entered: 03/16/2007)
284 MOTION to Expedite Hearing on Motion to Continue Trial Date, etc. by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Shiner, I. Randolph) (Entered: 03/16/2007)
285 DECLARATION by I Randolph S. Shiner in Support re 284 MOTION to Expedite Hearing on Motion to Continue Trial Date, etc. filed by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Shiner, I. Randolph) (Entered: 03/16/2007)

Case: 2:05-cv-3061 As of: 11/05/2016 05:11 PM PDT 27 of 116

03/19/2007
03/19/2007 03/19/2007 03/19/2007
03/19/2007 03/20/2007 03/20/2007 03/20/2007 03/20/2007 03/20/2007 03/20/2007 03/20/2007 03/20/2007 03/20/2007

286 NOTICE OF HEARING RE: MOTION to Continue Trial Date, Discovery Dates and for Stay of Discovery by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Shiner, I. Randolph) Modified on 3/19/2007 (RF, Case Administrator). INCORRECT EVENT USED. SHOULD HAVE BEEN DOCKETED AS NOTICE OF HEARING INSTEAD OF MOTION (Entered: 03/19/2007)
287 MOTION to Continue Trial Date, Discovery Dates and Stay of Discovery by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Shiner, I. Randolph) (Entered: 03/19/2007)
288 MEMORANDUM of Points and Authorities in Support re 287 MOTION to Continue Trial Date, Discovery Dates and Stay of Discovery filed by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Shiner, I. Randolph) (Entered: 03/19/2007)
289 DECLARATION by I Randolph S. Shiner in Support re 287 MOTION to Continue Trial Date, Discovery Dates and Stay of Discovery filed by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhs A−D to Shiner Declaration)(Shiner, I. Randolph) (Entered: 03/19/2007)
Set/Reset Motion Hearing as to 287 MOTION to Continue Trial Date, Discovery Dates and Stay of Discovery. Motion Hearing set for 3/26/2007 at 02:00 PM Yakima for 287 , before Magistrate Judge Michael W. Leavitt (RF, Case Administrator) (Entered: 03/19/2007)
290 ORDER GRANTING DEFEDANT'S MOTION FOR PRO HAC VICE ADMISSION OF COUNSEL (granting 281 Motion for Limited Admission−Attorney I. Randolph S. Shiner). Signed by Judge Michael W. Leavitt. (PH, Case Administrator) (Entered: 03/20/2007)
291 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR EXPEDITED HEARING; ORDER SETTING HEARING WITH ORAL ARGUMENT ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE (granting 284 Motion to Expedite). Signed by Judge Michael W. Leavitt. (PH, Case Administrator) (Entered: 03/20/2007)
Set/Reset Motion Hearing as to 287 MOTION to Continue Trial Date, Discovery Dates and Stay of Discovery. Motion Hearing set for 3/26/2007 at 02:00 PM Telephonic Argument for 287 , before Magistrate Judge Michael W. Leavitt (per order 291 ). (PH, Case Administrator) (Entered: 03/20/2007)
292 MOTION to Expedite Hearing by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Foster, Howard) (Entered: 03/20/2007)
293 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re 292 MOTION to Expedite Hearing : Motion Hearing set for 3/21/2007 at 06:30 PM Without Oral Argument for 292 , before Magistrate Judge Michael W. Leavitt (Foster, Howard) (Entered: 03/20/2007)
294 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney (atty Howard Foster) by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Foster, Howard) (Entered: 03/20/2007)
295 MEMORANDUM in Support re 294 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney (atty Howard Foster) filed by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Foster, Howard) (Entered: 03/20/2007)
296 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re 294 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney (atty Howard Foster) : Motion Hearing set for 3/23/2007 at 06:30 PM Without Oral Argument for 294 , before Magistrate Judge Michael W. Leavitt (Foster, Howard) (Entered: 03/20/2007)
297 DECLARATION by I Randolph S. Shiner in Support re 287 MOTION to Continue Trial Date, Discovery Dates and Stay of Discovery filed by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibits A−D to Supplemental Declaration of I Randolph S. Shiner in Support of Motion for Continuance, etc.)(Shiner, I. Randolph) (Entered: 03/20/2007)

Case: 2:05-cv-3061 As of: 11/05/2016 05:11 PM PDT 28 of 116

03/20/2007 03/20/2007 03/20/2007 03/20/2007 03/20/2007 03/20/2007 03/21/2007
03/21/2007 03/21/2007 03/21/2007 03/21/2007 03/21/2007 03/21/2007 03/21/2007 03/21/2007

298 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY AND FOR SANCTIONS. Plaintiffs' motion to compel discovery responses from Defendant Global Horizons, Inc., and for sanctions (Ct. Rec. 266 ) is GRANTED. Signed by Judge Michael W. Leavitt. (AG, Courtroom Deputy) (Entered: 03/20/2007)
299 MOTION to Expedite Hearing on Motion for Contempt and for Sanctions by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1)(Contreras, Mirta) (Entered: 03/20/2007)
300 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re 299 MOTION to Expedite Hearing on Motion for Contempt and for Sanctions : Motion Hearing set for 3/20/2007 at 06:30 PM Without Oral Argument for 299 , before Magistrate Judge Michael W. Leavitt (Contreras, Mirta) (Entered: 03/20/2007)
301 MOTION for Sanctions and Contempt by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1)(Contreras, Mirta) (Entered: 03/20/2007)
302 DECLARATION by Amy L. Crewdson in Support re 301 MOTION for Sanctions and Contempt filed by all plaintiffs. (Contreras, Mirta) (Entered: 03/20/2007)
303 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion Oral Argument Requested re 301 MOTION for Sanctions and Contempt : Motion Hearing set for 3/26/2007 at 02:00 PM Telephonic Argument for 301 , before Magistrate Judge Michael W. Leavitt (Contreras, Mirta) (Entered: 03/20/2007)
304 MOTION to Substitute Attorney I Randolph S. Shiner in place and in stead of Attorney Howard Foster as Pro Hac Vice Counsel for and by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Shiner, I. Randolph) THIS DOCUMENT FILED IN ERROR − IT IS A DUPLICATE OF CT. REC. 305. Modified on 3/21/2007 (KW, Case Administrator). (Entered: 03/21/2007)
305 MOTION to Expedite Hearing on Motion to Substitute Counsel by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Shiner, I. Randolph) (Entered: 03/21/2007)
306 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re 305 MOTION to Expedite Hearing on Motion to Substitute Counsel : Motion Hearing set for 3/21/2007 at 06:30 PM Yakima for 305 , before Magistrate Judge Michael W. Leavitt (Shiner, I. Randolph) (Entered: 03/21/2007)
307 MOTION to Substitute Attorney I Randolph S. Shiner In Place and In Stead of Howard Foster by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Shiner, I. Randolph) (Entered: 03/21/2007)
308 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re 307 MOTION to Substitute Attorney I Randolph S. Shiner In Place and In Stead of Howard Foster : Motion Hearing set for 3/21/2007 at 06:30 PM Yakima for 307 , before Magistrate Judge Michael W. Leavitt (Shiner, I. Randolph) (Entered: 03/21/2007)
309 Docket Annotation − Re Filing Error: 304 MOTION WAS FILED IN ERROR − IT IS A DUPLICATE OF CT. REC. 305 (KW, Case Administrator) (Entered: 03/21/2007)
310 MEMORANDUM of Points and Authorities in Opposition re 299 MOTION to Expedite Hearing on Motion for Contempt and for Sanctions filed by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Shiner, I. Randolph) (Entered: 03/21/2007)
311 ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR EXPEDITED HEARING; ORDER SETTING HEARING ON MR. FOSTER'S MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL granting 292 Motion to Expedite Hearing. Signed by Judge Michael W. Leavitt. (PH, Case Administrator) (Entered: 03/21/2007)
312 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR EXPEDITED HEARING; ORDER SETTING HEARING WITH ORAL ARGUMENT, ON PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR CONTEMPT AND SANCTIONS granting 299 Motion to Expedite Hearing. Signed by Judge Michael W. Leavitt. (PH, Case Administrator) (Entered: 03/21/2007)

Case: 2:05-cv-3061 As of: 11/05/2016 05:11 PM PDT 29 of 116

03/21/2007
03/21/2007 03/21/2007 03/21/2007 03/23/2007 03/23/2007 03/23/2007
03/23/2007
03/23/2007
03/23/2007 03/23/2007 03/26/2007 03/26/2007 03/26/2007

Set/Reset Motion Hearing as to 301 MOTION for Sanctions and Contempt. Motion Hearing set for 3/26/2007 at 02:00 PM Telephonic Argument for 301 , before Magistrate Judge Michael W. Leavitt. The parties shall call the Courts public conference line at (509) 573−6934 at the time of thescheduled hearing. (PH, Case Administrator) (Entered: 03/21/2007)
313 ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR EXPEDITED HEARING; ORDER SETTING HEARING ON MOTION FOR SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL granting 305 Motion to Expedite. Signed by Judge Michael W. Leavitt. (PH, Case Administrator) (Entered: 03/21/2007)
314 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 287 MOTION to Continue Trial Date, Discovery Dates and Stay of Discovery filed by all plaintiffs. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 03/21/2007)
315 DECLARATION by Lori Jordan Isley in Opposition re 287 MOTION to Continue Trial Date, Discovery Dates and Stay of Discovery filed by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − D)(Isley, Lori) (Entered: 03/21/2007)
316 MOTION for Sanctions Against Plaintiffs And Their Counsel of Record by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Shiner, I. Randolph) (Entered: 03/23/2007)
317 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion Oral Argument Requested re 316 MOTION for Sanctions Against Plaintiffs And Their Counsel of Record : Motion Hearing set for 4/24/2007 at 11:00 AM Yakima for 316 , before Magistrate Judge Michael W. Leavitt (Shiner, I. Randolph) (Entered: 03/23/2007)
318 MEMORANDUM of Points and Authorities in Support re 316 MOTION for Sanctions Against Plaintiffs And Their Counsel of Record filed by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Case cited in Memorandum not available per local rules)(Shiner, I. Randolph) (Entered: 03/23/2007)
319 DECLARATION by I Randolph S. Shiner in Support re 316 MOTION for Sanctions Against Plaintiffs And Their Counsel of Record filed by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibits to Declaration of I Randolph S. Shiner in Support of Motion for Sanctions Against Plaintiffs and Their Counsel)(Shiner, I. Randolph) (Entered: 03/23/2007)
320 ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL OF RECORD; ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS PRO HAC VICE COUNSEL granting 294 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Howard W. Foster terminated; granting 307 Motion to Substitute Attorney. Attorney Howard W. Foster terminated. Signed by Judge Michael W. Leavitt. (PH, Case Administrator) (Entered: 03/23/2007)
321 MEMORANDUM of Points and Authorities in Opposition re 301 MOTION for Sanctions and Contempt filed by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Shiner, I. Randolph) (Entered: 03/23/2007)
322 DECLARATION by I Randolph S. Shiner in Opposition re 301 MOTION for Sanctions and Contempt filed by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit to Declaration of I Randolph S. Shiner)(Shiner, I. Randolph) (Entered: 03/23/2007)
323 Praecipe filed by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian: Re 316 MOTION for Sanctions Against Plaintiffs And Their Counsel of Record Gregg R. Smith and. (Shiner, I. Randolph) (Entered: 03/26/2007)
324 Praecipe filed by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian: Re 321 Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Motion Gregg R. Smith and. (Shiner, I. Randolph) (Entered: 03/26/2007)
325 NOTICE by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian re 316 MOTION for Sanctions Against Plaintiffs And Their Counsel of Record WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION (Shiner, I. Randolph) (Entered:

Case: 2:05-cv-3061 As of: 11/05/2016 05:11 PM PDT 30 of 116

03/26/2007 03/26/2007 03/26/2007 03/27/2007 03/27/2007
03/27/2007 03/27/2007
03/28/2007 03/28/2007 03/28/2007 03/28/2007 03/28/2007

03/26/2007)
326 MOTION to Withdraw 316 MOTION for Sanctions Against Plaintiffs And Their Counsel of Record by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Shiner, I. Randolph) (Entered: 03/26/2007)
327 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re 326 MOTION to Withdraw 316 MOTION for Sanctions Against Plaintiffs And Their Counsel of Record : Motion Hearing set for 3/29/2007 at 06:30 PM Yakima for 326 , before Magistrate Judge Michael W. Leavitt (Shiner, I. Randolph) (Entered: 03/26/2007)
331 Minute Entry for TELEPHONIC proceedings held before Judge Michael W. Leavitt: Motion Hearing held on 3/26/2007 as to Ct. Rec. # 287 − Defendant's Motion for Continuance of Trial Date, Discovery Date and Stay of Discovery and as to Ct. Rec. # 301 − Plaintiffs Motion for Contempt and for Sanctions. (Reported/Recorded by: Not Reported) (AG, Courtroom Deputy) (Entered: 03/27/2007)
328 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR A CONTINUANCE Ct. Rec. # 287 Motion to Continue; and ORDER AMENDING SCHEDULING ORDER. Signed by Judge Michael W. Leavitt. (PH, Case Administrator) (Entered: 03/27/2007)
Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings: See Ct. Rec. # 328 . THREE WEEK Jury Trial set for 9/10/2007 09:00 AM in Yakima before Magistrate Judge Michael W. Leavitt. The parties and counsel shall meet with the Judge, in chambers, at 8:30 a.m. on the first day of trial. A Final Telephonic Pretrial Conference set for 8/27/2007 02:00 PM via Telephonic Argument before Magistrate Judge Michael W. Leavitt. The parties shall call the Courts public conference line at (509) 573−6934 at the time scheduled for the conference. Telephonic Status Conference set for 8/6/2007 02:00 PM via Telephonic Argument before Magistrate Judge Michael W. Leavitt. The parties shall call the Courts public conference line at (509) 573−6934 at the time scheduled for the conference. (PH, Case Administrator) (Entered: 03/27/2007)
329 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR CONTEMPT Ct. Rec. # 301 DENIES, without PREJUDICE Motion for Sanctions. Signed by Judge Michael W. Leavitt. (PH, Case Administrator) (Entered: 03/27/2007)
330 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO WITHDRAW THEIR MOTION FOR SANCTIONS Ct. Rec. # 326 Motion to Withdraw their Motion for Sanction; and striking Ct. Rec. # 316 Motion for Sanctions. The date and time set for the hearing on Defendants motion for sanctions Ct. Rec. # 316 , previously set for April 24, 2007 at 11:00 a.m., is VACATED. Signed by Judge Michael W. Leavitt. (PH, Case Administrator) (Entered: 03/27/2007)
332 MOTION to Expedite Hearing on Motion for Relief Under F.R.Civ. Pro 60(b)(1) and (6) and Motion for Sanctions [28USC1927, et al] by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Shiner, I. Randolph) (Entered: 03/28/2007)
333 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re 332 MOTION to Expedite Hearing on Motion for Relief Under F.R.Civ. Pro 60(b)(1) and (6) and Motion for Sanctions [28USC1927, et al] : Motion Hearing set for 3/29/2007 at 02:00 PM Yakima for 332 , before Magistrate Judge Michael W. Leavitt (Shiner, I. Randolph) (Entered: 03/28/2007)
334 DECLARATION by I Randolph S. Shiner in Support re 332 MOTION to Expedite Hearing on Motion for Relief Under F.R.Civ. Pro 60(b)(1) and (6) and Motion for Sanctions [28USC1927, et al] filed by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Shiner, I. Randolph) (Entered: 03/28/2007)
335 MOTION to Expedite Hearing on Motion to Allow Excess Pages in Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion for Relief from Default Order [Rule 60(b)(1) and (6) and Motion for Sanctions [28USC1927, etc.] by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Shiner, I. Randolph) (Entered: 03/28/2007)
336 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re 335 MOTION to Expedite Hearing on Motion to Allow Excess Pages in Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion for Relief from Default Order [Rule 60(b)(1) and (6) and Motion for Sanctions

Case: 2:05-cv-3061 As of: 11/05/2016 05:11 PM PDT 31 of 116

03/28/2007
03/28/2007 03/28/2007
03/28/2007 03/28/2007 03/28/2007 03/28/2007 03/28/2007 03/29/2007

[28USC1927, etc.] MOTION to Expedite Hearing on Motion to Allow Excess Pages in Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion for Relief from Default Order [Rule 60(b)(1) and (6) and Motion for Sanctions [28USC1927, etc.] : Motion Hearing set for 3/29/2007 at 02:00 PM Yakima for 335 , before Magistrate Judge Michael W. Leavitt (Shiner, I. Randolph) Modified on 3/29/2007 (RF, Case Administrator). INCORRECT EVENT USED. MOTION TO BE FILED. (Entered: 03/28/2007)
337 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re 335 MOTION to Expedite Hearing on Motion to Allow Excess Pages in Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion for Relief from Default Order [Rule 60(b)(1) and (6) and Motion for Sanctions [28USC1927, etc.] MOTION to Expedite Hearing on Motion to Allow Excess Pages in Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion for Relief from Default Order [Rule 60(b)(1) and (6) and Motion for Sanctions [28USC1927, etc.] : Motion Hearing set for 3/29/2007 at 02:00 PM Yakima for 335 , before Magistrate Judge Michael W. Leavitt (Shiner, I. Randolph) Modified on 3/29/2007 (RF, Case Administrator). INCORRECT EVENT USED. PDF DOES NOT MATCH EVENT. (Entered: 03/28/2007)
338 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages in Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion for Relief from Default [F.R.Civ.Pro. 60(b)(1) and (6) and Motion for Sanctions [28 USC 1927, etc.] by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Shiner, I. Randolph) (Entered: 03/28/2007)
339 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re 338 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages in Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion for Relief from Default [F.R.Civ.Pro. 60(b)(1) and (6) and Motion for Sanctions [28 USC 1927, etc.] MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages in Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion for Relief from Default [F.R.Civ.Pro. 60(b)(1) and (6) and Motion for Sanctions [28 USC 1927, etc.] : Motion Hearing set for 3/29/2007 at 02:00 PM Yakima for 338 , before Magistrate Judge Michael W. Leavitt (Shiner, I. Randolph) Modified on 3/29/2007 (RF, Case Administrator). INCORRECT EVENT USED. WRONG PDF ATTACHED TO EVENT. (Entered: 03/28/2007)
340 MOTION to Set Aside Default Under F.R.Civ.Pro 60(b)(1) and (6) and Motion for Sanctions under 28 USC 1927, etc. by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Shiner, I. Randolph) (Entered: 03/28/2007)
341 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re 340 MOTION to Set Aside Default Under F.R.Civ.Pro 60(b)(1) and (6) and Motion for Sanctions under 28 USC 1927, etc. : Motion Hearing set for 3/29/2007 at 02:00 PM for 340 , before Magistrate Judge Michael W. Leavitt (Shiner, I. Randolph) (Entered: 03/28/2007)
342 MEMORANDUM of Points and Authorities in Support re 340 MOTION to Set Aside Default Under F.R.Civ.Pro 60(b)(1) and (6) and Motion for Sanctions under 28 USC 1927, etc. filed by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Attachments: # 1 Case Law not available to Court# 2 Case Law not available to Court)(Shiner, I. Randolph) (Entered: 03/28/2007)
343 DECLARATION by I Randolph S. Shiner in Support re 340 MOTION to Set Aside Default Under F.R.Civ.Pro 60(b)(1) and (6) and Motion for Sanctions under 28 USC 1927, etc. filed by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A to Declaration of I Randolph S. Shiner# 2 Exhibit B to Declaration of I Randolph S. Shiner in Support of Motion for Relief from Default [F.R.Civ.Pro.60 (b)(1) and (6) and Motion for Sanctions [28 USC 1927, etc])(Shiner, I. Randolph) (Entered: 03/28/2007)
344 DECLARATION by Mordechai Orian in Support re 340 MOTION to Set Aside Default Under F.R.Civ.Pro 60(b)(1) and (6) and Motion for Sanctions under 28 USC 1927, etc. filed by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Shiner, I. Randolph) (Entered: 03/28/2007)
Set/Reset Motion Hearing due to: HEARINGS W/O ORAL ARGUMENT SET FOR INCORRECT TIME. ALL HEARINGS W/O ORAL ARGUMENT MUST BE SET FOR 6:30 p.m. As to Motion Hearings set for 3/29/2007 at 06:30 PM Without Oral

Case: 2:05-cv-3061 As of: 11/05/2016 05:11 PM PDT 32 of 116

03/29/2007 03/29/2007 03/29/2007 03/29/2007 03/30/2007
03/30/2007 03/30/2007 04/02/2007 04/02/2007 04/02/2007 04/02/2007 04/02/2007
04/04/2007
04/04/2007

Argument for 335 and for 332 and for 340 and for 338 filed by Randolph Shiner, before Magistrate Judge Michael W. Leavitt. (PH, Case Administrator) (Entered: 03/29/2007)
345 DECLARATION by I Randolph S. Shiner in Support re 340 MOTION to Set Aside Default Under F.R.Civ.Pro 60(b)(1) and (6) and Motion for Sanctions under 28 USC 1927, etc. filed by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Shiner, I. Randolph) (Entered: 03/29/2007)
346 DECLARATION by Gregory S. Johnson in Opposition re 340 MOTION to Set Aside Default Under F.R.Civ.Pro 60(b)(1) and (6) and Motion for Sanctions under 28 USC 1927, etc. filed by all plaintiffs. (Johnson, Gregory) (Entered: 03/29/2007)
347 MEMORANDUM of Points and Authorities in Opposition re 340 MOTION to Set Aside Default Under F.R.Civ.Pro 60(b)(1) and (6) and Motion for Sanctions under 28 USC 1927, etc. filed by all plaintiffs. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 03/29/2007)
348 DECLARATION by Lori Jordan Isley in Opposition re 340 MOTION to Set Aside Default Under F.R.Civ.Pro 60(b)(1) and (6) and Motion for Sanctions under 28 USC 1927, etc. filed by all plaintiffs. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 03/29/2007)
349 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR EXPEDITED HEARING AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO EXCEED PAGE LIMIT granting 335 Motion to Expedite; and granting 338 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. Signed by Judge Michael W. Leavitt. (PH, Case Administrator) (Entered: 03/30/2007)
350 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR EXPEDITED HEARING granting Ct. Rec. # 332 Motion to Expedite. Signed by Judge Michael W. Leavitt. (PH, Case Administrator) (Entered: 03/30/2007)
351 ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM ORDER denying Ct. Rec. # 340 . Signed by Judge Michael W. Leavitt. (PH, Case Administrator) (Entered: 03/30/2007)
352 MOTION to Expedite Hearing on Motion for Reconsideration of Order Denying Rule 60(b) Relief and Denial Of Sanctions by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Shiner, I. Randolph) (Entered: 04/02/2007)
353 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re 352 MOTION to Expedite Hearing on Motion for Reconsideration of Order Denying Rule 60(b) Relief and Denial Of Sanctions : Motion Hearing set for 4/6/2007 at 06:30 PM Yakima for 352 , before Magistrate Judge Michael W. Leavitt (Shiner, I. Randolph) (Entered: 04/02/2007)
354 MOTION for Reconsideration re 351 Order on Motion to Set Aside Default by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Shiner, I. Randolph) (Entered: 04/02/2007)
355 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re 354 MOTION for Reconsideration re 351 Order on Motion to Set Aside Default : Motion Hearing set for 4/6/2007 at 06:30 PM Yakima for 354 , before Magistrate Judge Michael W. Leavitt (Shiner, I. Randolph) (Entered: 04/02/2007)
356 DECLARATION by I Randolph S. Shiner in Support re 354 MOTION for Reconsideration re 351 Order on Motion to Set Aside Default Under Rule 60(b) and for Sanctions Under 28 USC 1927 filed by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Shiner, I. Randolph) (Entered: 04/02/2007)
357 STRIKEN PER COURT ORDER # 362 . MOTION to Expedite Hearing on Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages in Support of Motion for Reconsideration of Order Denying Motion for Relief from Default Order and for Sanctions by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Shiner, I. Randolph) Modified on 4/6/2007 (PH, Case Administrator). (Entered: 04/04/2007)
358 STRIKEN PER COURT ORDER # 362 . NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re 357 MOTION to Expedite Hearing on Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages in Support

Case: 2:05-cv-3061 As of: 11/05/2016 05:11 PM PDT 33 of 116

04/04/2007
04/04/2007
04/04/2007 04/05/2007
04/05/2007 04/06/2007 04/06/2007 04/06/2007 04/06/2007 04/06/2007 04/06/2007 04/06/2007 04/06/2007

of Motion for Reconsideration of Order Denying Motion for Relief from Default Order and for Sanctions : Motion Hearing set for 4/6/2007 at 06:30 PM Yakima for 357 , before Magistrate Judge Michael W. Leavitt (Shiner, I. Randolph) Modified on 4/6/2007 (PH, Case Administrator). (Entered: 04/04/2007)
359 STRIKEN PER COURT ORDER # 362 . MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion for Reconsideration of Order Denying Motion for Relief from Default Orders and for Sanctions [F.R.Civ.Pro.60(b)(1) and (6) and 28 U.S.C.1927] by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Shiner, I. Randolph) Modified on 4/6/2007 (PH, Case Administrator). (Entered: 04/04/2007)
360 STRIKEN PER COURT ORDER # 362 . NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re 359 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion for Reconsideration of Order Denying Motion for Relief from Default Orders and for Sanctions [F.R.Civ.Pro.60(b)(1) and (6) and 28 U.S.C.1927] MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion for Reconsideration of Order Denying Motion for Relief from Default Orders and for Sanctions [F.R.Civ.Pro.60(b)(1) and (6) and 28 U.S.C.1927] : Motion Hearing set for 4/6/2007 at 06:30 PM Yakima for 359 , before Magistrate Judge Michael W. Leavitt (Shiner, I. Randolph) Modified on 4/6/2007 (PH, Case Administrator). (Entered: 04/04/2007)
361 STRIKEN PER COURT ORDER # 362 . MEMORANDUM of Points and Authorities in Support re 354 MOTION for Reconsideration re 351 Order on Motion to Set Aside Default filed by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Shiner, I. Randolph) Modified on 4/6/2007 (PH, Case Administrator). (Entered: 04/04/2007)
362 ORDER STRIKING DEFENDANTS' PLEADINGS: striking Ct. Rec. # 357 Motion to Expedite; striking Ct. Rec. # 358 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion; striking Ct. Rec. # 359 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages; striking Ct. Rec. # 360 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion; and striking Ct. Rec. # 361 MEMORANDUM of Points and Authorities in Support re 354 MOTION for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Michael W. Leavitt. (PH, Case Administrator) (Entered: 04/05/2007)
363 ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND MOTION TO EXPEDITE granting Ct. Rec. # 352 Motion to Expedite; and denying Ct. Rec. # 354 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Michael W. Leavitt. (PH, Case Administrator) (Entered: 04/05/2007)
364 MOTION to Expedite Motion to File an Overlength Brief by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1)(Isley, Lori) (Entered: 04/06/2007)
365 EX PARTE MOTION by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Isley, Lori) (Entered: 04/06/2007)
366 DECLARATION by Lori Jordan Isley in Support re 365 EX PARTE MOTION, 364 MOTION to Expedite Motion to File an Overlength Brief filed by all plaintiffs. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 04/06/2007)
367 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re 364 MOTION to Expedite Motion to File an Overlength Brief : Motion Hearing set for 4/6/2007 at 06:30 PM Without Oral Argument for 364 , before Magistrate Judge Michael W. Leavitt (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 04/06/2007)
368 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re 365 EX PARTE MOTION : Motion Hearing set for 4/6/2007 at 06:30 PM Without Oral Argument for 365 , before Magistrate Judge Michael W. Leavitt (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 04/06/2007)
369 MOTION for Protective Order by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Isley, Lori) (Entered: 04/06/2007)
370 MEMORANDUM in Support re 369 MOTION for Protective Order filed by all plaintiffs. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 04/06/2007)
371 DECLARATION by Lori Jordan Isley in Support re 369 MOTION for Protective Order filed by all plaintiffs. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 04/06/2007)

Case: 2:05-cv-3061 As of: 11/05/2016 05:11 PM PDT 34 of 116

04/06/2007
04/09/2007
04/11/2007 04/11/2007 04/11/2007 04/11/2007 04/11/2007 04/11/2007 04/11/2007 04/12/2007 04/12/2007
04/12/2007
04/13/2007 04/13/2007 04/13/2007 04/13/2007 04/13/2007 04/13/2007 04/13/2007

372 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion Oral Argument Requested re 369 MOTION for Protective Order : Motion Hearing set for 5/7/2007 at 02:00 PM Telephonic Argument for 369 , before Magistrate Judge Michael W. Leavitt (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 04/06/2007)
373 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO EXPEDITE AND ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO EXCEED PAGE LIMIT: granting Ct. Rec. # 364 and # 365 . Signed by Judge Michael W. Leavitt. (PH, Case Administrator) (Entered: 04/09/2007)
374 NOTICE by all plaintiffs NOTICE OF UNAVAILABILITY (Crewdson, Amy) (Entered: 04/11/2007)
375 MOTION to Expedite by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Isley, Lori) (Entered: 04/11/2007)
376 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re 375 MOTION to Expedite : Motion Hearing set for 4/12/2007 at 06:30 PM Without Oral Argument for 375 , before Magistrate Judge Michael W. Leavitt (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 04/11/2007)
377 MOTION for Sanctions by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Isley, Lori) (Entered: 04/11/2007)
378 DECLARATION by Lori Jordan Isley in Support re 377 MOTION for Sanctions filed by all plaintiffs. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 04/11/2007)
379 DECLARATION by Lori Jordan Isley in Support re 375 MOTION to Expedite filed by all plaintiffs. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 04/11/2007)
380 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re 377 MOTION for Sanctions : Motion Hearing set for 4/13/2007 at 06:30 PM Without Oral Argument for 377 , before Magistrate Judge Michael W. Leavitt (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 04/11/2007)
381 Praecipe filed by all plaintiffs: Re 375 MOTION to Expedite to Correct Hearing Date. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 04/12/2007)
382 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR EXPEDITED HEARING granting Ct. Rec. # 375 Motion to Expedite. This matter shall come on for hearing, by telephone, on April 17, 2007 at 2:00 p.m. The parties shall call the Courtspublic conference line at (509) 573−6934 at the time of thescheduled hearing. Signed by Judge Michael W. Leavitt. (PH, Case Administrator) (Entered: 04/12/2007)
Set/Reset Motion Hearing as to Ct. Rec. # 377 MOTION for Sanctions. Motion Hearing set for 4/17/2007 at 02:00 PM via Telephonic Argument before Magistrate Judge Michael W. Leavitt. The parties shall call the Courts public conference line at (509) 573−6934 at the time of the scheduled hearing. (PH, Case Administrator) (Entered: 04/12/2007)
383 DECLARATION by Joachim Morrison in Support re 377 MOTION for Sanctions filed by all plaintiffs. (Morrison, Joachim) (Entered: 04/13/2007)
384 MOTION to Expedite by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Contreras, Mirta) (Entered: 04/13/2007)
385 DECLARATION by Mirta Laura Contreras in Support re 384 MOTION to Expedite filed by all plaintiffs. (Contreras, Mirta) (Entered: 04/13/2007)
386 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re 384 MOTION to Expedite : Motion Hearing set for 4/13/2007 at 06:30 PM Without Oral Argument for 384 , before Magistrate Judge Michael W. Leavitt (Contreras, Mirta) (Entered: 04/13/2007)
387 MOTION to Compel by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Contreras, Mirta) (Entered: 04/13/2007)
388 MEMORANDUM in Support re 387 MOTION to Compel filed by all plaintiffs. (Contreras, Mirta) (Entered: 04/13/2007)
389 DECLARATION by Lori Jordan Isley in Support re 387 MOTION to Compel filed by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − D# 2 Exhibit E − G)(Contreras, Mirta) (Entered: 04/13/2007)

Case: 2:05-cv-3061 As of: 11/05/2016 05:11 PM PDT 35 of 116

04/13/2007 04/13/2007 04/16/2007 04/16/2007 04/16/2007 04/16/2007 04/16/2007 04/16/2007 04/16/2007 04/16/2007 04/16/2007 04/17/2007 04/17/2007
04/17/2007
04/19/2007

390 DECLARATION by Mirta Laura Contreras in Support re 387 MOTION to Compel filed by all plaintiffs. (Contreras, Mirta) (Entered: 04/13/2007)
391 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re 387 MOTION to Compel : Motion Hearing set for 4/27/2007 at 06:30 PM Without Oral Argument for 387 , before Magistrate Judge Michael W. Leavitt (Contreras, Mirta) (Entered: 04/13/2007)
392 MOTION to Expedite Hearing on Motion to Submit Excess Length Paper by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Shiner, I. Randolph) (Entered: 04/16/2007)
393 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion Oral Argument Requested re 392 MOTION to Expedite Hearing on Motion to Submit Excess Length Paper : Motion Hearing set for 7/17/2007 at 02:00 PM Yakima for 392 , before Magistrate Judge Michael W. Leavitt (Shiner, I. Randolph) (Entered: 04/16/2007)
394 MEMORANDUM of Points and Authorities in Support re 392 MOTION to Expedite Hearing on Motion to Submit Excess Length Paper in Opposition to Motion for Contempt, etc. filed by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Shiner, I. Randolph) (Entered: 04/16/2007)
395 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages in Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion for Contempt and for Sanctions by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Shiner, I. Randolph) (Entered: 04/16/2007)
396 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion Oral Argument Requested re 395 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages in Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion for Contempt and for Sanctions : Motion Hearing set for 4/17/2007 at 02:00 PM Yakima for 395 , before Magistrate Judge Michael W. Leavitt (Shiner, I. Randolph) (Entered: 04/16/2007)
397 MEMORANDUM of Points and Authorities in Support re 395 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages in Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion for Contempt and for Sanctions filed by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Shiner, I. Randolph) (Entered: 04/16/2007)
398 MEMORANDUM of Points and Authorities in Opposition re 377 MOTION for Sanctions filed by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Shiner, I. Randolph) (Entered: 04/16/2007)
399 DECLARATION by I Randolph S. Shiner in Opposition re 377 MOTION for Sanctions filed by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−I)(Shiner, I. Randolph) (Entered: 04/16/2007)
400 DECLARATION by Mordechai Orian in Opposition re 377 MOTION for Sanctions filed by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Shiner, I. Randolph) (Entered: 04/16/2007)
401 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR EXPEDITED HEARING granting Ct. Rec. # 384 Motion to Expedite. Signed by Judge Michael W. Leavitt. (PH, Case Administrator) (Entered: 04/17/2007)
402 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO EXPEDITE AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO EXCEED PAGE LIMIT granting Ct. Rec. # 392 Motion to Expedite; and granting Ct. Rec. # 395 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. Signed by Judge Michael W. Leavitt. (PH, Case Administrator) (Entered: 04/17/2007)
403 Minute Entry for TELEPHONIC proceedings held before Judge Michael W. Leavitt: Motion Hearing Re Ct. Rec. # 377 − Plaintiffs' Motion for Sanctions held on 4/17/2007. Modified on 6/21/2010 (AG, Courtroom Deputy). Per Docket Annotation Ct. Rec. # 1258 , this entry CORRECTED TO REFLECT TELEPHONIC CIVIL MOTION HEARING − NOT REPORTED. (Entered: 04/18/2007)
404 ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR CONTEMPT AND FOR SANCTIONS granting in part and denying in part Ct. Rec. # 377 Motion for Sanctions. Signed by Judge Michael W. Leavitt. (PH, Case Administrator) (Entered: 04/19/2007)

Case: 2:05-cv-3061 As of: 11/05/2016 05:11 PM PDT 36 of 116

04/19/2007 04/19/2007
04/19/2007 04/19/2007 04/19/2007
04/19/2007 04/20/2007
04/20/2007 04/20/2007 04/25/2007 04/25/2007 04/25/2007 04/25/2007 04/27/2007 04/30/2007 04/30/2007 04/30/2007
04/30/2007

405 MOTION to Expedite Hearing on Motion to Withdraw by Local Counsel by Global Horizons Inc.. (Smith, Gregg) (Entered: 04/19/2007)
406 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re 405 MOTION to Expedite Hearing on Motion to Withdraw by Local Counsel : Motion Hearing set for 4/27/2007 at 06:30 PM Without Oral Argument for 405 , before Magistrate Judge Michael W. Leavitt (Smith, Gregg) (Entered: 04/19/2007)
407 DECLARATION by Gregg R. Smith in Support re 405 MOTION to Expedite Hearing on Motion to Withdraw by Local Counsel filed by Global Horizons Inc.. (Smith, Gregg) (Entered: 04/19/2007)
408 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney (atty Gregg R. Smith) by Global Horizons Inc.. (Smith, Gregg) (Entered: 04/19/2007)
409 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re 408 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney (atty Gregg R. Smith), 405 MOTION to Expedite Hearing on Motion to Withdraw by Local Counsel : Motion Hearing set for 4/27/2007 at 06:30 PM Without Oral Argument for 405 and for 408 , before Magistrate Judge Michael W. Leavitt (Smith, Gregg) (Entered: 04/19/2007)
410 DECLARATION by Gregg R. Smith in Support re 408 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney (atty Gregg R. Smith) filed by Global Horizons Inc.. (Smith, Gregg) (Entered: 04/19/2007)
411 Additional Attachments to Main Document re 408 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney (atty Gregg R. Smith) by Global Horizons Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Order Granting Motion to Withdraw as Local Counsel)(Smith, Gregg) (Entered: 04/20/2007)
412 Additional Attachments to Main Document re 405 MOTION to Expedite Hearing on Motion to Withdraw by Local Counsel (Text of Proposed Order) by Global Horizons Inc.. (Smith, Gregg) (Entered: 04/20/2007)
413 SUPPLEMENT re 390 Declaration in Support of Motion by all plaintiffs. (Contreras, Mirta) (Entered: 04/20/2007)
414 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 408 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney (atty Gregg R. Smith) filed by all plaintiffs. (Morrison, Joachim) (Entered: 04/25/2007)
415 MOTION Withdraw Motion re 387 MOTION to Compel by all plaintiffs. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 04/25/2007)
416 DECLARATION by Lori Jordan Isley in Support re 415 MOTION Withdraw Motion re 387 MOTION to Compel filed by all plaintiffs. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 04/25/2007)
417 Praecipe filed by all plaintiffs: Re 416 Declaration in Support of Motion, 415 MOTION Withdraw Motion re 387 MOTION to Compel. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 04/25/2007)
418 ORDER granting ct. rec. # 415 Motion to withdraw motion to compel discovery; and denying as moot ct. rec. # 387 Motion to Compel. Signed by Judge Michael W. Leavitt. (PH, Case Administrator) (Entered: 04/27/2007)
419 MOTION to Expedite Hearing on Motion for Additional Sanctions by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Isley, Lori) (Entered: 04/30/2007)
420 DECLARATION by Lori Jordan Isley in Support re 419 MOTION to Expedite Hearing on Motion for Additional Sanctions filed by all plaintiffs. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 04/30/2007)
421 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re 419 MOTION to Expedite Hearing on Motion for Additional Sanctions : Motion Hearing set for 4/30/2007 at 06:30 PM Without Oral Argument for 419 , before Magistrate Judge Michael W. Leavitt (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 04/30/2007)
422 DECLARATION by Richard W. Kuhling in Support re 419 MOTION to Expedite Hearing on Motion for Additional Sanctions re Failure to Produce E−Mail Documents filed by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exh 1: Procedure re Discovery of GHI/Orian E−mails)(Kuhling, Richard) (Entered: 04/30/2007)

Case: 2:05-cv-3061 As of: 11/05/2016 05:11 PM PDT 37 of 116

04/30/2007 04/30/2007 04/30/2007 04/30/2007 04/30/2007 04/30/2007 04/30/2007 04/30/2007 04/30/2007
04/30/2007
04/30/2007 04/30/2007
04/30/2007
04/30/2007
05/01/2007

423 MOTION for Sanctions by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Isley, Lori) (Entered: 04/30/2007)
424 DECLARATION by Lori Jordan Isley in Support re 423 MOTION for Sanctions filed by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − 10# 2 Exhibit 11 − 18)(Isley, Lori) (Entered: 04/30/2007)
425 DECLARATION by Mirta Laura Contreras in Support re 423 MOTION for Sanctions filed by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Isley, Lori) (Entered: 04/30/2007)
426 DECLARATION by Joachim Morrison in Support re 423 MOTION for Sanctions filed by all plaintiffs. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 04/30/2007)
427 DECLARATION by Norma Linda Banda in Support re 423 MOTION for Sanctions filed by all plaintiffs. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 04/30/2007)
428 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re 423 MOTION for Sanctions : Motion Hearing set for 5/11/2007 at 06:30 PM Without Oral Argument for 423 , before Magistrate Judge Michael W. Leavitt (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 04/30/2007)
429 DECLARATION by Gregory S. Johnson in Support re 423 MOTION for Sanctions filed by all plaintiffs. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 04/30/2007)
430 MOTION to Expedite Motion to Continue Discovery Cutoff and filing of Expert Witness Report and Allow Filing of Expert Witness Designation nunc pro tunc April 20, 2007 by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Shiner, I. Randolph) (Entered: 04/30/2007)
431 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re 430 MOTION to Continue Discovery Cutoff and filing of Expert Witness Report and Allow Filing of Expert Witness Designation nunc pro tunc April 20, 2007 : Motion Hearing set for 5/1/2007 at 06:30 PM Yakima for 430 , before Magistrate Judge Michael W. Leavitt (Shiner, I. Randolph) (Entered: 04/30/2007)
432 MEMORANDUM of Points and Authorities in Support re 430 MOTION to Continue Discovery Cutoff and filing of Expert Witness Report and Allow Filing of Expert Witness Designation nunc pro tunc April 20, 2007 filed by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Shiner, I. Randolph) (Entered: 04/30/2007)
433 MOTION to Continue Hearing on Motion to Continue Discovery Cutoff and Filing of Expert Witness Report and to Allow Filing of Expert Witness Designation Nunc Pro Tunc April 20, 2007 by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Shiner, I. Randolph) (Entered: 04/30/2007)
434 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re 433 MOTION to Expedite Hearing on Motion to Continue Discovery Cutoff and Filing of Expert Witness Report and to Allow Filing of Expert Witness Designation Nunc Pro Tunc April 20, 2007 : Motion Hearing set for 5/1/2007 at 06:30 PM Yakima for 433 , before Magistrate Judge Michael W. Leavitt (Shiner, I. Randolph) (Entered: 04/30/2007)
435 MEMORANDUM of Points and Authorities in Support re 433 MOTION to Expedite Hearing on Motion to Continue Discovery Cutoff and Filing of Expert Witness Report and to Allow Filing of Expert Witness Designation Nunc Pro Tunc April 20, 2007 filed by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Shiner, I. Randolph) (Entered: 04/30/2007)
436 DECLARATION by I Randolph S. Shiner in Support re 430 MOTION to Continue Discovery Cutoff and filing of Expert Witness Report and Allow Filing of Expert Witness Designation nunc pro tunc April 20, 2007 filed by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Shiner, I. Randolph) (Entered: 04/30/2007)
437 Docket Annotation − Re Filing Error: Ct. Rec. # 423 PLAINTIFFS MOTION AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ADDITIONAL SANCTIONS not signed by filers. Praecipe needs to be filed to include signatures. (PH, Case Administrator) (Entered: 05/01/2007)

Case: 2:05-cv-3061 As of: 11/05/2016 05:11 PM PDT 38 of 116

05/01/2007 05/01/2007
05/03/2007 05/07/2007
05/07/2007
05/07/2007
05/10/2007 05/10/2007 05/10/2007 05/10/2007 05/10/2007 05/11/2007 05/11/2007 05/11/2007 05/11/2007 05/14/2007 05/14/2007 05/14/2007

438 Praecipe filed by all plaintiffs: Re 423 MOTION for Sanctions. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 05/01/2007)
439 ORDER DENYING MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS ATTORNEY OF RECORD (granting Ct. Rec. # 405 Motion to Expedite; and denying Ct. Rec. # 408 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney). Signed by Judge Michael W. Leavitt. (PH, Case Administrator) (Entered: 05/01/2007)
440 ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR EXPEDITED HEARING (granting ct. rec. # 430 Motion to Expedite). Signed by Judge Michael W. Leavitt. (PH, Case Administrator) (Entered: 05/03/2007)
441 Minute Entry for TELEPHONIC proceedings held before Judge Michael W. Leavitt: Motion Hearing held on 5/7/2007 re 369 MOTION for Protective Order filed by Jose F Sanchez, Ricardo Betancourt, Jose Guadalupe Perez−Farias. (Reported/Recorded by: FTR/Y−102) (LMM, Courtroom Deputy) (Entered: 05/07/2007)
442 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR EXPEDITED HEARING (granting Ct. Rec. # 419 Motion to Expedite). Plaintiffs motion for additional sanctions (Ct. Rec. 423 ) will be heard on May 15, 2007 at 6:30 p.m. without oral argument. Signed by Judge Michael W. Leavitt. (PH, Case Administrator) (Entered: 05/07/2007)
Set/Reset Motion Hearing as to Ct. Rec. # 423 MOTION for Sanctions. Motion Hearing set for 5/15/2007 at 06:30 PM Without Oral Argument for Ct. Rec. # 423 , before Magistrate Judge Michael W. Leavitt. (PH, Case Administrator) (Entered: 05/07/2007)
443 ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER (granting Ct. Rec. # 369 Motion for Protective Order). Signed by Judge Michael W. Leavitt. (PH, Case Administrator) (Entered: 05/10/2007)
444 ORDER REGARDING DR. HOLT DOCUMENT. Signed by Judge Michael W. Leavitt. (PH, Case Administrator) (Entered: 05/10/2007)
445 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 433 MOTION to Continue filed by all plaintiffs. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 05/10/2007)
446 DECLARATION by Lori Jordan Isley in Opposition re 433 MOTION to Continue filed by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1−10# 2 Exhibit 11−20)(Isley, Lori) (Entered: 05/10/2007)
447 DECLARATION by Rachael Pashkowski in Opposition re 433 MOTION to Continue filed by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Isley, Lori) (Entered: 05/10/2007)
448 MOTION to Compel by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Isley, Lori) (Entered: 05/11/2007)
449 DECLARATION by Lori Jordan Isley in Support re 448 MOTION to Compel filed by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − C)(Isley, Lori) (Entered: 05/11/2007)
450 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re 448 MOTION to Compel : Motion Hearing set for 6/11/2007 at 06:30 PM Without Oral Argument for 448 , before Magistrate Judge Michael W. Leavitt (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 05/11/2007)
451 SUPPLEMENT re 433 MOTION to Continue Discovery Deadline and Date for Filing Expert Disclosures and Reports by all plaintiffs. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 05/11/2007)
452 DECLARATION by I Randolph S. Shiner in Opposition re 423 MOTION for Sanctions filed by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Shiner, I. Randolph) (Entered: 05/14/2007)
453 MEMORANDUM of Points and Authorities in Opposition re 423 MOTION for Sanctions filed by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Shiner, I. Randolph) (Entered: 05/14/2007)
454 DECLARATION by Joachim Morrison in Support re 423 MOTION for Sanctions Supplemental Declaration filed by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit C# 4 Exhibit D)(Morrison, Joachim) (Entered: 05/14/2007)

Case: 2:05-cv-3061 As of: 11/05/2016 05:11 PM PDT 39 of 116

05/14/2007 05/14/2007 05/14/2007 05/18/2007
05/25/2007 05/25/2007 05/25/2007
05/25/2007 05/25/2007 05/25/2007 05/25/2007 05/25/2007 05/25/2007

455 DECLARATION by Richard W. Kuhling in Support re 423 MOTION for Sanctions and in Reply to Declaration of I Randolph S. Shiner in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Contempt filed by all plaintiffs. (Kuhling, Richard) (Entered: 05/14/2007)
456 DECLARATION by Gregory S. Johnson in Support re 423 MOTION for Sanctions Supplemental Declaration filed by all plaintiffs. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 05/14/2007)
457 DECLARATION by I Randolph S. Shiner in Opposition re 423 MOTION for Sanctions Supplemental filed by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Shiner, I. Randolph) (Entered: 05/14/2007)
458 ORDER (granting in part and denying in part Ct. Rec. # 423 Motion for Sanctions). Sanctions are imposed against Defendants for the continued refusal to comply with the Court's order regarding discovery in the amount of $12,500.00, calculated at $500.00 per day for each calendar day since April 23, 2007 to the date of this order. A check payable to the United States District Court, Eastern District of Washington, from Defendants, in the amount of $12,500.00 is due no later than June 1, 2007. Defendants' continued failure to comply with this Court's order shall result in continued monetary sanctions, in the amount of $500.00 a day, for each calender day, until there is full compliance, and may result in other sanctions, if necessary, as determined by the Court. Defendants are ordered to pay the above sanctions and to produce all documents as previously ordered by the Court. Defendants are forewarned that continued noncompliance with this Court's orders may result in case dispositive sanctions.. (cc: Court's Financial Adminisstrator.) Signed by Judge Michael W. Leavitt. (PH, Case Administrator) (Entered: 05/18/2007)
459 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment that Defendants Green Acre and Valley Fruit Are Liable for Plaintiffs' AWPA and FLCA Claims by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Morrison, Joachim) (Entered: 05/25/2007)
460 MEMORANDUM in Support re 459 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment that Defendants Green Acre and Valley Fruit Are Liable for Plaintiffs' AWPA and FLCA Claims filed by all plaintiffs. (Morrison, Joachim) (Entered: 05/25/2007)
461 STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS re 459 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment that Defendants Green Acre and Valley Fruit Are Liable for Plaintiffs' AWPA and FLCA Claims filed by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Table of Exhibits# 2 Exhibit 1# 3 Exhibit 2# 4 Exhibit 3# 5 Exhibit 4# 6 Exhibit 5# 7 Exhibit 6# 8 Exhibit 7# 9 Exhibit 8# 10 Exhibit 9# 11 Exhibit 10# 12 Exhibit 11# 13 Exhibit 12)(Morrison, Joachim) (Entered: 05/25/2007)
462 Additional Attachments to Main Document re 461 Statement of Facts, by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 13# 2 Exhibit 14# 3 Exhibit 15# 4 Exhibit 16# 5 Exhibit 17# 6 Exhibit 18# 7 Exhibit 19# 8 Exhibit 20# 9 Exhibit 21# 10 Exhibit 22)(Morrison, Joachim) (Entered: 05/25/2007)
463 DECLARATION by Joachim Morrison in Support re 459 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment that Defendants Green Acre and Valley Fruit Are Liable for Plaintiffs' AWPA and FLCA Claims filed by all plaintiffs. (Morrison, Joachim) (Entered: 05/25/2007)
464 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion Oral Argument Requested re 459 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment that Defendants Green Acre and Valley Fruit Are Liable for Plaintiffs' AWPA and FLCA Claims : Motion Hearing set for 6/28/2007 at 02:00 PM Yakima for 459 , before Magistrate Judge Michael W. Leavitt (Morrison, Joachim) (Entered: 05/25/2007)
465 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment that Defendants Violated the AWPA, FLCA and Washington Wage Payment Laws by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Isley, Lori) (Entered: 05/25/2007)
466 MEMORANDUM in Support re 465 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment that Defendants Violated the AWPA, FLCA and Washington Wage Payment Laws filed by all plaintiffs. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 05/25/2007)
467 STATEMENT OF Material FACTS re 465 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment that Defendants Violated the AWPA, FLCA and Washington Wage Payment Laws

Case: 2:05-cv-3061 As of: 11/05/2016 05:11 PM PDT 40 of 116

05/25/2007
05/25/2007
05/25/2007 05/25/2007
05/29/2007 05/29/2007 05/29/2007 05/29/2007 05/30/2007 05/31/2007 05/31/2007 05/31/2007 05/31/2007

filed by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − E# 2 Exhibit F − H# 3 Exhibit I − K# 4 Exhibit L − O# 5 Exhibit P − W# 6 Exhibit X − EE)(Isley, Lori) (Entered: 05/25/2007)
468 Additional Attachments to Main Document re 467 Statement of Facts, by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit FF − GG# 2 Exhibit HH# 3 Exhibit II − MM# 4 Exhibit NN Part 1# 5 Exhibit NN Part 2)(Isley, Lori) SEE REDACTED VERSIONS OF EXHIBITS NN & OO FILED WITH ERRATA CT. REC. # 476 . SEE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS ADDED TO EXHIBITS NN & OO PER PRAECIPE CT. REC. 497 Modified on 6/22/2007 (PH, Case Administrator). (Entered: 05/25/2007)
469 Additional Attachments to Main Document re 467 Statement of Facts, by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit OO Part 1# 2 Exhibit OO Part 2# 3 Exhibit PP − XX)(Isley, Lori) SEE REDACTED VERSIONS OF EXHIBITS NN & OO FILED WITH ERRATA CT. REC. # 476 . SEE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS ADDED TO EXHIBITS NN & OO PER PRAECIPE CT. REC. 497 Modified on 6/22/2007 (PH, Case Administrator). (Entered: 05/25/2007)
470 DECLARATION by Lori Jordan Isley in Support re 465 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment that Defendants Violated the AWPA, FLCA and Washington Wage Payment Laws filed by all plaintiffs. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 05/25/2007)
471 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion Oral Argument Requested re 465 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment that Defendants Violated the AWPA, FLCA and Washington Wage Payment Laws : Motion Hearing set for 6/28/2007 at 02:00 PM Yakima for 465 , before Magistrate Judge Michael W. Leavitt (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 05/25/2007)
472 LR 26.1 / LR 16.1 Attorney Report Pursuant to Court Order of May 18, 2007 by all plaintiffs. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 05/29/2007)
473 DECLARATION by Lori Jordan Isley in Support re 423 MOTION for Sanctions and Court Order for Discovery Statement filed by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − G)(Isley, Lori) (Entered: 05/29/2007)
474 DECLARATION by Jim Fulton in Support re 423 MOTION for Sanctions and Court Order for Discovery Statement filed by all plaintiffs. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 05/29/2007)
475 Errata filed by all plaintiffs: Re 473 Declaration in Support of Motion, 423 MOTION for Sanctions, 472 LR 26.1 / LR 16.1 Attorney Report Correcting Exhibit Reference in Paragraphs 13 and 14. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 05/29/2007)
476 Errata filed by all plaintiffs: Re 468 Additional Attachments to Main Document, 469 Additional Attachments to Main Document Redacted Versions of Exhibit NN and OO. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit NN Part 1# 2 Exhibit NN Part 2# 3 Exhibit OO Part 1# 4 Exhibit OO Part 2)(Isley, Lori) (Entered: 05/30/2007)
477 DUPLICATE FILING: SEE COURT RECORD # 478 MOTION to Expedite Hearing on Motion to Reset Hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment by Global Horizons Inc., Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Shiner, I. Randolph) Modified on 6/1/2007 (PH, Case Administrator). (Entered: 05/31/2007)
478 MOTION to Expedite Hearing on Motion to Reset Hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Shiner, I. Randolph) (Entered: 05/31/2007)
479 DECLARATION by I Randolph S. Shiner in Support re 478 MOTION to Expedite Hearing on Motion to Reset Hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Shiner, I. Randolph) (Entered: 05/31/2007)
480 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re 478 MOTION to Expedite Hearing on Motion to Reset Hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment : Motion Hearing set for 6/5/2007 at 06:30 PM Yakima for 478 , before Magistrate Judge Michael W. Leavitt (Shiner, I. Randolph) (Entered: 05/31/2007)

Case: 2:05-cv-3061 As of: 11/05/2016 05:11 PM PDT 41 of 116

05/31/2007 05/31/2007 05/31/2007 05/31/2007 05/31/2007 05/31/2007 05/31/2007 06/01/2007 06/01/2007 06/01/2007
06/01/2007
06/01/2007 06/07/2007 06/08/2007

481 MEMORANDUM of Points and Authorities in Support re 478 MOTION to Expedite Hearing on Motion to Reset Hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Shiner, I. Randolph) (Entered: 05/31/2007)
482 MOTION to Continue /Reset Hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Shiner, I. Randolph) (Entered: 05/31/2007)
483 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re 482 MOTION to Continue /Reset Hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment : Motion Hearing set for 6/5/2007 at 06:30 PM Yakima for 482 , before Magistrate Judge Michael W. Leavitt (Shiner, I. Randolph) (Entered: 05/31/2007)
484 DECLARATION by I Randolph S. Shiner in Support re 482 MOTION to Continue /Reset Hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Shiner, I. Randolph) (Entered: 05/31/2007)
485 MEMORANDUM of Points and Authorities in Support re 482 MOTION to Continue /Reset Hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Shiner, I. Randolph) (Entered: 05/31/2007)
486 STATEMENT re 458 Order on Motion for Sanctions,,,, Defendants Statement re Outstanding Discovery by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Shiner, I. Randolph) (Entered: 05/31/2007)
487 DECLARATION by I Randolph S. Shiner re 486 Statement by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Shiner, I. Randolph) (Entered: 05/31/2007)
488 DECLARATION by I Randolph S. Shiner and Statement Re MEDIATION re 328 Order on Motion to Continue by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Shiner, I. Randolph) (Entered: 06/01/2007)
489 Docket Annotation − Re Filing Error: Ct. Rec. # 477 MOTION to Expedite Hearing on Motion to Reset Hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment appears to duplicate Ct. Rec. # 478 . Ct. Rec. # 477 Motion will be terminated. (PH, Case Administrator) (Entered: 06/01/2007)
490 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR EXPEDITED HEARING; ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR RESETTING OF THE HEARING DATE (granting ct. rec. # 478 Motion to Expedite and granting ct. rec. # 482 Motion to Continue). Plaintiffs' motions for partial summary judgment (Ct. Recs. # 459 , # 465 ) shall be RESET for hearing in Yakima, Washington on July 24, 2007 at 2:00 p.m. Signed by Judge Michael W. Leavitt. (PH, Case Administrator) (Entered: 06/01/2007)
Set/Reset Motion Hearing as to ct. rec. # 465 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment that Defendants Violated the AWPA, FLCA and Washington Wage Payment Laws AND ct. rec. # 459 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment that Defendants Green Acre and Valley Fruit Are Liable for Plaintiffs' AWPA and FLCA Claims. Motion Hearing set for 7/24/2007 at 02:00 PM in Yakima for ct. rec. # 465 and for ct. rec. # 459 , before Magistrate Judge Michael W. Leavitt (PH, Case Administrator) (Entered: 06/01/2007)
491 DECLARATION by Mordechai Orian re 458 Order on Motion for Sanctions,,,, by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Shiner, I. Randolph) (Entered: 06/01/2007)
492 ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR A CONTINUANCE (denying Ct. Rec. # 433 Motion to Continue). Signed by Judge Michael W. Leavitt. (PH, Case Administrator) (Entered: 06/07/2007)
493 DECLARATION by Gregory S. Johnson in Support re 423 MOTION for Sanctions (Second Supplemental) filed by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit

Case: 2:05-cv-3061 As of: 11/05/2016 05:11 PM PDT 42 of 116

06/08/2007 06/11/2007 06/11/2007 06/20/2007 06/22/2007 06/22/2007
06/22/2007
06/25/2007
06/27/2007 06/29/2007 06/29/2007 07/06/2007

B# 3 Exhibit C)(Johnson, Gregory) (Entered: 06/08/2007)
494 DECLARATION by Lori Jordan Isley in Support re 423 MOTION for Sanctions filed by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibits A−H)(Isley, Lori) (Entered: 06/08/2007)
495 DECLARATION by Gregory S. Johnson in Support re 423 MOTION for Sanctions (Amended Supplemental) filed by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 (deposition pages))(Johnson, Gregory) (Entered: 06/11/2007)
496 DECLARATION by I Randolph S. Shiner in Opposition re 448 MOTION to Compel filed by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Shiner, I. Randolph) (Entered: 06/11/2007)
497 Praecipe filed by all plaintiffs: Re 467 Statement of Facts, 468 Additional Attachments to Main Document, 469 Additional Attachments to Main Document, 476 Errata,. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Isley, Lori) (Entered: 06/20/2007)
498 MOTION Rule 39(a) Motion and Memorandum to Strike Jury Demand on Plaintiffs AWPA and FLCA Summary Judgment Claims and Request for Determination of Statutory Damages by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Morrison, Joachim) (Entered: 06/22/2007)
499 DECLARATION by Rachael Pashkowski in Support re 498 MOTION Rule 39(a) Motion and Memorandum to Strike Jury Demand on Plaintiffs AWPA and FLCA Summary Judgment Claims and Request for Determination of Statutory Damages filed by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1# 2 Exhibit 2# 3 Exhibit 3 − Part 1# 4 Exhibit 3 − Part 2# 5 Exhibit 3 − Part 3# 6 Exhibit 3 − Part 4)(Morrison, Joachim) (Entered: 06/22/2007)
500 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion Oral Argument Requested re 498 MOTION Rule 39(a) Motion and Memorandum to Strike Jury Demand on Plaintiffs AWPA and FLCA Summary Judgment Claims and Request for Determination of Statutory Damages : Motion Hearing set for 7/24/2007 at 02:00 PM Yakima for 498 , before Magistrate Judge Michael W. Leavitt (Morrison, Joachim) (Entered: 06/22/2007)
501 NOTICE BY CLERK: On June 17, 2007, Magistrate Judge Leavitt died. The captioned matter currently is assigned to Judge Leavitt and must be reassigned. Parties are requested to inform the Clerk's Office of their intent to Consent to Proceed Before a United States Magistrate Judge as soon as possible. This applies even if you have previously submitted a consent/non−consent form. Please complete the attached form and return it to: James R. Larsen, District Court Executive, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Washington, P.O. Box 1493, Spokane, WA 99210−1493. Please note that this document is confidential and must be submitted to the Clerk's Office in paper format. Please do not electronically file this document. (RF, Case Administrator) (Entered: 06/25/2007)
502 ORDER OF REASSIGNMENT. Case reassigned to Judge Alan A. McDonald for all further proceedings. Judge Michael W. Leavitt no longer assigned to case. Signed by Judge Fred Van Sickle. (KW, Case Administrator) (Entered: 06/28/2007)
503 Witness and Exhibit List by all plaintiffs. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 06/29/2007)
504 DECLARATION by Rachael Pashkowski of Service of Deposition Testimony Pursuant to LR 32.1 by all plaintiffs. (Morrison, Joachim) (Entered: 06/29/2007)
Notice of RESETTING of VARIOUS MATTERS. [Ct. Rec.459] MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment that Defendants Green Acre and Valley Fruit Are Liable for Plaintiffs' AWPA and FLCA Claims, [Ct. Rec. 465] MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment that Defendants Violated the AWPA, FLCA and Washington Wage Payment Laws, and [Ct. Rec. 498] MOTION Rule 39(a) Motion and Memorandum to Strike Jury Demand on Plaintiffs AWPA and FLCA Summary Judgment Claims and Request for Determination of Statutory Damages are RESET for hearing before Senior Judge Alan A. McDonald on 7/24/2007 at 02:00 PM in Yakima. The TELEPHONIC PRETRIAL CONFERENCE is RESET for hearing before Senior Judge Alan A. McDonald on 8/27/2007 at 02:00 PM in Yakima. The TELEPHONIC STATUS CONFERENCE is RESET for hearing before Senior Judge Alan A. McDonald on 8/6/2007 at 02:00 PM in Yakima. The JURY TRIAL is RESET before

Case: 2:05-cv-3061 As of: 11/05/2016 05:11 PM PDT 43 of 116

07/10/2007 07/10/2007
07/11/2007
07/11/2007 07/17/2007 07/17/2007 07/17/2007 07/17/2007 07/19/2007 07/19/2007 07/19/2007 07/19/2007

Senior Judge Alan A. McDonald on 9/10/2007 at 09:00 AM in Yakima. (FC, Judicial Assistant) (Entered: 07/06/2007)
505 REPLY MEMORANDUM re 498 MOTION Rule 39(a) Motion and Memorandum to Strike Jury Demand on Plaintiffs AWPA and FLCA Summary Judgment Claims and Request for Determination of Statutory Damages filed by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Amended Proposed Order)(Morrison, Joachim) (Entered: 07/10/2007)
506 DECLARATION by Rachael Pashkowski in Support re 498 MOTION Rule 39(a) Motion and Memorandum to Strike Jury Demand on Plaintiffs AWPA and FLCA Summary Judgment Claims and Request for Determination of Statutory Damages Identifying Additional Class Members filed by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Amended Green Acre Subclass# 2 Exhibit 2 − Amended Valley Fruit Subclass# 3 Exhibit 3 − Amended Denied Work Subclass)(Morrison, Joachim) (Entered: 07/10/2007)
507 ORDER: granting 459 Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; granting in part and denying in part 465 Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; granting 498 Plaintiffs' Motion to strike Defendants' jury demand with respect to Plaintiffs' AWPA and FLCA summary judgment claims. The hearing date of 7/24/07 on Plaintiffs' motions is VACATED. JUDGMENT is ordered in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendants in the amount of $1,857,000. Defendants Global Horizons and Orian shall pay to the Court the monetary sanctions previously imposed of $12,500, and additional amount of $27,000; a check payable to the Court for $39,500 is due immediately. Monetary sanctions in the amount of $500 a day shall continue until Defendants provide full payment to the Court. Should Defendants fail to make payment, Defendant Mordechai Orian shall appear before the Court on 7/24/07 at 2:00 p.m. in Yakima, WA, to face the charge of criminal contempt. Signed by Judge Alan A. McDonald. (KW, Case Administrator) (Entered: 07/11/2007)
508 JUDGMENT in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendants in the total amount of $1,857,000.00 pursuant to Order 507 . (KW, Case Administrator) Modified on 8/10/2007 −− Judgment VACATED per 597 Order filed 8/10/07. (LE, Case Administrator). (Entered: 07/11/2007)
509 MOTION for Entry of Default as to Global Defendants by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Isley, Lori) Modified on 8/10/2007 −− this is actually entitled MOTION FOR CASE DISPOSITIVE SANCTIONS.(LE, Case Administrator). (Entered: 07/17/2007)
510 MEMORANDUM in Support re 509 MOTION for Entry of Default as to Global Defendants filed by all plaintiffs. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 07/17/2007)
511 DECLARATION by Lori Jordan Isley in Support re 509 MOTION for Entry of Default as to Global Defendants filed by all plaintiffs. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 07/17/2007)
512 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re 509 MOTION for Entry of Default as to Global Defendants : Motion Hearing set for 8/17/2007 at 06:30 PM Without Oral Argument for 509 , before Senior Judge Alan A. McDonald (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 07/17/2007)
513 MOTION to Expedite Hearing on Motion to Continue Contempt Hearing by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Shiner, I. Randolph) (Entered: 07/19/2007)
514 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re 513 MOTION to Expedite Hearing on Motion to Continue Contempt Hearing : Motion Hearing set for 7/20/2007 at 06:30 PM Yakima for 513 , before Senior Judge Alan A. McDonald (Shiner, I. Randolph) (Entered: 07/19/2007)
515 DECLARATION by I Randolph S. Shiner in Support re 513 MOTION to Expedite Hearing on Motion to Continue Contempt Hearing filed by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Shiner, I. Randolph) (Entered: 07/19/2007)
516 MEMORANDUM of Points and Authorities in Support re 513 MOTION to Expedite Hearing on Motion to Continue Contempt Hearing filed by Global Horizons Inc.,

Case: 2:05-cv-3061 As of: 11/05/2016 05:11 PM PDT 44 of 116

07/19/2007 07/19/2007 07/19/2007 07/20/2007
07/20/2007 07/20/2007 07/20/2007 07/20/2007 07/20/2007 07/20/2007 07/20/2007 07/20/2007
07/23/2007 07/24/2007

Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Shiner, I. Randolph) (Entered: 07/19/2007)
517 MOTION to Continue Contempt Hearing and Memorandum of Points and Authorities by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Shiner, I. Randolph) (Entered: 07/19/2007)
518 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re 517 MOTION to Continue Contempt Hearing and Memorandum of Points and Authorities : Motion Hearing set for 7/20/2007 at 06:30 PM Yakima for 517 , before Senior Judge Alan A. McDonald (Shiner, I. Randolph) (Entered: 07/19/2007)
519 DECLARATION by I Randolph S. Shiner in Support re 517 MOTION to Continue Contempt Hearing and Memorandum of Points and Authorities filed by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Shiner, I. Randolph) (Entered: 07/19/2007)
520 ORDER granting 513 Defendants' Motion for Expedited Hearing and ORDER denying 517 Defendants' Motion for Resetting Defendant Mordechai Orian's Appearance Date. Defendant Mordechai Orian shall appear before the Court on 7/24/07 at 2:00 p.m. to face the charge of criminal contempt. The 8/6/07 telephonic status conference is vacated, and the final pretrial conference shall be held with counsel appearing in person and meeting with the judge in chambers at 2:00 p.m. on 8/27/07 in Yakima, WA. Signed by Judge Alan A. McDonald. (KW, Case Administrator) (Entered: 07/20/2007)
Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings per Order 520 : Contempt Hearing set for 7/24/2007 02:00 PM in Yakima before Senior Judge Alan A. McDonald. Pretrial Conference set for 8/27/2007 02:00 PM in Yakima before Senior Judge Alan A. McDonald. (KW, Case Administrator) (Entered: 07/20/2007)
521 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages & Motion to Expedite by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Contreras, Mirta) (Entered: 07/20/2007)
522 DECLARATION by Lori Jordan Isley in Support re 521 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages & Motion to Expedite filed by all plaintiffs. (Contreras, Mirta) (Entered: 07/20/2007)
523 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re 521 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages & Motion to Expedite : Motion Hearing set for 7/27/2007 at 06:30 PM Yakima for 521 , before Senior Judge Alan A. McDonald (Contreras, Mirta) (Entered: 07/20/2007)
524 MOTION for Reconsideration by Green Acre Farms Inc, Valley Fruit Orchards, LLC. (Edgley, Ryan) (Entered: 07/20/2007)
525 MEMORANDUM in Support re 524 MOTION for Reconsideration filed by Green Acre Farms Inc, Valley Fruit Orchards, LLC. (Edgley, Ryan) (Entered: 07/20/2007)
526 DECLARATION by Ryan M. Edgley in Support re 524 MOTION for Reconsideration filed by Green Acre Farms Inc, Valley Fruit Orchards, LLC. (Edgley, Ryan) (Entered: 07/20/2007)
527 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re 524 MOTION for Reconsideration : Motion Hearing set for 7/30/2007 at 06:30 PM Without Oral Argument for 524 , before Senior Judge Alan A. McDonald (Edgley, Ryan) Modified on 7/27/2007 −− Replaced by 547 Praecipe which should have been filed as an Amended Note for Hearing. (LE, Case Administrator). Modified on 7/27/2007 −− Amended Notice of Hearing filed at Ct. Rec. 557 . (LE, Case Administrator). (Entered: 07/20/2007)
Remark: Per law clerk, the contempt hearing set for 7/24/07 has been stricken. This is a text−only entry−−no PDF attached. (KW, Case Administrator) (Entered: 07/23/2007)
528 ORDER REASSIGNING CASE AND ORDER RESETTING CRIMINAL CONTEMPT HEARING. Case reassigned to Chief Judge Robert H. Whaley for all further proceedings. Judge Alan A. McDonald no longer assigned to case. The criminal contempt hearing is RESET before Judge Whaley on Wednesday, 8/1/07 at 3:00 p.m. in Yakima, WA. The final pretrial conference is RESET to 8/28/07 at 10:00

Case: 2:05-cv-3061 As of: 11/05/2016 05:11 PM PDT 45 of 116

07/24/2007 07/25/2007 07/25/2007 07/25/2007 07/25/2007 07/25/2007 07/26/2007 07/26/2007 07/26/2007 07/26/2007 07/26/2007 07/26/2007 07/26/2007 07/26/2007 07/26/2007

a.m. in Yakima, WA, before Judge Whaley. Signed by Judge Lonny R. Suko. (KW, Case Administrator) (Entered: 07/24/2007)
Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings per Order 528 : Criminal Contempt Hearing RESET for 8/1/2007 03:00 PM in Yakima before Chief Judge Robert H. Whaley. Final Pretrial Conference RESET for 8/28/2007 10:00 AM in Yakima before Chief Judge Robert H. Whaley. (KW, Case Administrator) (Entered: 07/24/2007)
529 MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice re Attorney: Chrystal L. Bobbitt. Filing fee $ 100, receipt number 365667. by Global Horizons Inc.. (Smith, Gregg) (Entered: 07/25/2007)
530 DECLARATION by Chrystal L. Bobbitt in Support re 529 MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice re Attorney: Chrystal L. Bobbitt. Filing fee $ 100, receipt number 365667. filed by Global Horizons Inc.. (Smith, Gregg) (Entered: 07/25/2007)
531 MOTION to Expedite Hearing on Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Global Horizons Inc.. (Smith, Gregg) (Entered: 07/25/2007)
532 DECLARATION by Chrystal L. Bobbitt in Support re 531 MOTION to Expedite Hearing on Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice filed by Global Horizons Inc.. (Smith, Gregg) (Entered: 07/25/2007)
533 DECLARATION by Ryan M. Edgley in Support re 524 MOTION for Reconsideration filed by Green Acre Farms Inc, Valley Fruit Orchards, LLC. (Edgley, Ryan) Modified on 7/27/2007 −− Praecipe filed at 534 with the document sequentially numbered. (LE, Case Administrator). (Entered: 07/25/2007)
534 Praecipe filed by Green Acre Farms Inc, Valley Fruit Orchards, LLC: Re 533 Declaration in Support of Motion. (Edgley, Ryan) Modified on 7/27/2007 −− this praecipe sequentially numbers the document. (LE, Case Administrator). (Entered: 07/26/2007)
535 MOTION to Set Aside Default or in the Alternative Motion for Reconsideration by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Shiner, I. Randolph) (Entered: 07/26/2007)
536 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion Oral Argument Requested re 535 MOTION to Set Aside Default or in the Alternative Motion for Reconsideration : Motion Hearing set for 8/27/2007 at 02:00 PM Spokane for 535 , before Chief Judge Robert H. Whaley (Shiner, I. Randolph) (Entered: 07/26/2007)
537 DECLARATION by I Randolph S. Shiner in Support re 535 MOTION to Set Aside Default or in the Alternative Motion for Reconsideration filed by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Shiner, I. Randolph) (Entered: 07/26/2007)
539 MEMORANDUM of Points and Authorities in Support re 535 MOTION to Set Aside Default or in the Alternative Motion for Reconsideration filed by Green Acre Farms Inc, Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Shiner, I. Randolph) (Entered: 07/26/2007)
540 MOTION to Strike Use of Settlement Agreement in Support of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Shiner, I. Randolph) (Entered: 07/26/2007)
541 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion Oral Argument Requested re 540 MOTION to Strike Use of Settlement Agreement in Support of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment : Motion Hearing set for 8/27/2007 at 02:00 PM Spokane for 540 , before Chief Judge Robert H. Whaley (Shiner, I. Randolph) (Entered: 07/26/2007)
542 MEMORANDUM in Support re 540 MOTION to Strike Use of Settlement Agreement in Support of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Shiner, I. Randolph) (Entered: 07/26/2007)
543 MOTION to Strike Deposition of Ebony Williams by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Shiner, I. Randolph) (Entered: 07/26/2007)

Case: 2:05-cv-3061 As of: 11/05/2016 05:11 PM PDT 46 of 116

07/26/2007 07/26/2007 07/26/2007 07/26/2007
07/26/2007
07/26/2007 07/26/2007 07/27/2007 07/27/2007 07/27/2007 07/27/2007 07/27/2007

544 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion Oral Argument Requested re 543 MOTION to Strike Deposition of Ebony Williams : Motion Hearing set for 8/27/2007 at 02:00 PM Spokane for 543 , before Chief Judge Robert H. Whaley (Shiner, I. Randolph) (Entered: 07/26/2007)
545 DECLARATION by I Randolph S. Shiner in Support re 543 MOTION to Strike Deposition of Ebony Williams filed by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Shiner, I. Randolph) (Entered: 07/26/2007)
546 MEMORANDUM of Points and Authorities in Support re 543 MOTION to Strike Deposition of Ebony Williams filed by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Shiner, I. Randolph) (Entered: 07/26/2007)
547 Praecipe filed by Green Acre Farms Inc, Valley Fruit Orchards, LLC: Re 527 Notice of Hearing on Motion. (Edgley, Ryan) Modified on 7/27/2007 −− This is an Amended Notice of Hearing re−setting hearing on Motion for Reconsideration from 7/30/07 to 8/20/07; attorney to refile as Amended Note for Hearing using correct event. (LE, Case Administrator). Modified on 7/27/2007 −− See 557 Amended Notice of Hearing. (LE, Case Administrator). (Entered: 07/26/2007)
548 Praecipe filed by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian: Re 537 Declaration in Support of Motion, 536 Notice of Hearing on Motion, 539 Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion, 535 MOTION to Set Aside Default or in the Alternative Motion for Reconsideration, 538 Declaration in Support of Motion, Regarding Attempts to File Motion for Reconsideration, etc, on July 25, 2007. (Shiner, I. Randolph) (Entered: 07/26/2007)
549 Praecipe filed by Green Acre Farms Inc, Valley Fruit Orchards, LLC: Re 524 MOTION for Reconsideration, 525 Memorandum in Support of Motion. (Edgley, Ryan) Modified on 7/27/2007 −− This is the Certificate of Service for documents 524 , 525 and 527 and should not have been filed as a praecipe. This is also a duplicate of Ct. Rec. 550 . (LE, Case Administrator). (Entered: 07/26/2007)
550 Praecipe filed by Green Acre Farms Inc, Valley Fruit Orchards, LLC: Re 527 Notice of Hearing on Motion. (Edgley, Ryan) Modified on 7/27/2007 − This is a Certificate of Service for documents 524 , 525 and 527 and is a duplicate of Ct. Rec. 549 . (LE, Case Administrator). (Entered: 07/26/2007)
551 Docket Annotation − Re Filing Error: 538 Declaration in Support of Motion: Personal Identifiers in the attachment to 538 Declaration of I Randolph S. Shinerr. Document has been sealed by the Clerk's office. Attorney to file redacted document as praecipe. (LE, Case Administrator) (Entered: 07/27/2007)
552 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages and to Expedite Hearing Regading Plaintiffs Response To Defendants Motion for Reconsideration by all plaintiffs. (Morrison, Joachim) Modified on 7/30/2007 −− Proposed Order found at Ct.Rec. 555 Additional Attachments to Main Document. (LE, Case Administrator). (Entered: 07/27/2007)
553 DECLARATION by Joachim Morrison in Support re 552 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages and to Expedite Hearing Regading Plaintiffs Response To Defendants Motion for Reconsideration filed by all plaintiffs. (Morrison, Joachim) (Entered: 07/27/2007)
554 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re 552 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages and to Expedite Hearing Regading Plaintiffs Response To Defendants Motion for Reconsideration : Motion Hearing set for 7/27/2007 at 06:30 PM Without Oral Argument for 552 , before Chief Judge Robert H. Whaley (Morrison, Joachim) (Entered: 07/27/2007)
555 Additional Attachments to Main Document re 552 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages and to Expedite Hearing Regading Plaintiffs Response To Defendants Motion for Reconsideration Proposed Order by all plaintiffs. (Morrison, Joachim) Modified on 7/30/2007 −− This is the Proposed Order for Ct. Rec. 552 .(LE, Case Administrator). (Entered: 07/27/2007)

Case: 2:05-cv-3061 As of: 11/05/2016 05:11 PM PDT 47 of 116

07/27/2007
07/27/2007 07/27/2007
07/27/2007 07/27/2007 07/30/2007
07/30/2007 07/31/2007 07/31/2007 07/31/2007
07/31/2007 07/31/2007 07/31/2007 07/31/2007

556 Praecipe filed by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian: Re 535 MOTION to Set Aside Default or in the Alternative Motion for Reconsideration. (Shiner, I. Randolph) Modified on 7/30/2007 −− This praecipe replaces Ct. Rec. 538 Declaration of I. Randolph S. Shiner and not the 535 Motion as referenced. (LE, Case Administrator). (Entered: 07/27/2007)
557 Amended NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re 524 MOTION for Reconsideration : Motion Hearing set for 8/20/2007 at 06:30 PM Without Oral Argument for 524 , before Chief Judge Robert H. Whaley (Edgley, Ryan) (Entered: 07/27/2007)
558 ORDER granting 529 Motion for Limited Admission. Added Attorney Chrystal L Bobbitt for Global Horizons Inc., Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian and Platte River Insurance Company; Gregg R. Smith is local counsel; granting 531 Motion to Expedite. Signed by Judge Robert H. Whaley. (LE, Case Administrator) (Entered: 07/27/2007)
559 RESPONSE to Motion re 543 MOTION to Strike Deposition of Ebony Williams filed by all plaintiffs. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 07/27/2007)
560 DECLARATION by Lori Jordan Isley in Opposition re 543 MOTION to Strike Deposition of Ebony Williams filed by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit # 2 Exhibit)(Isley, Lori) (Entered: 07/27/2007)
561 MEMORANDUM of Points and Authorities in Opposition re 524 MOTION for Reconsideration filed by Defendants Green Acre and Valley Fruit filed by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Davis Westlaw Opinion# 2 Ramirez Deposition Transcript# 3 Williams Deposition Transcript# 4 Flowers Deposition Transcript# 5 Perez Deposition Transcript# 6 Sanchez Deposition Transcript)(Morrison, Joachim) (Entered: 07/30/2007)
562 MEMORANDUM of Points and Authorities in Opposition re 540 MOTION to Strike Use of Settlement Agreement in Support of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, 535 MOTION to Set Aside Default or in the Alternative Motion for Reconsideration by Global Horizons filed by all plaintiffs. (Morrison, Joachim) (Entered: 07/30/2007)
563 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 509 MOTION for Entry of Default as to Global Defendants filed by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Bobbitt, Chrystal) (Entered: 07/31/2007)
564 AFFIDAVIT by Randolph Shiner in Opposition re 509 MOTION for Entry of Default as to Global Defendants filed by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1−5)(Bobbitt, Chrystal) (Entered: 07/31/2007)
565 AFFIDAVIT by Mordechai Orian in Opposition re 509 MOTION for Entry of Default as to Global Defendants filed by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Bobbitt, Chrystal) Modified on 7/31/2007−−NO SIGNATURE OF DECLARANT, ATTORNEY TO FILE PRAECIPE (SAP, Case Administrator). Modified on 8/1/2007−−SEE AMENDED DECLARATION 570 (SAP, Case Administrator). (Entered: 07/31/2007)
566 MEMORANDUM in Support re 509 MOTION for Entry of Default as to Global Defendants filed by all plaintiffs. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 07/31/2007)
567 DECLARATION by Lori Jordan Isley in Support re 509 MOTION for Entry of Default as to Global Defendants filed by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−H)(Isley, Lori) (Entered: 07/31/2007)
568 MEMORANDUM of Points and Authorities in Opposition re 509 MOTION for Entry of Default as to Global Defendants AMENDED filed by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Bobbitt, Chrystal) (Entered: 07/31/2007)
569 DECLARATION by CHRYSTAL L. BOBBITT in Opposition re 509 MOTION for Entry of Default as to Global Defendants filed by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Bobbitt, Chrystal) Modified on 8/1/2007−−ATTORNEY TO FILE PRAECIPE WITH S/SIGNATURE (SAP, Case Administrator). Modified on 8/3/2007−−SEE PRAECIPE 578 (SAP, Case

Case: 2:05-cv-3061 As of: 11/05/2016 05:11 PM PDT 48 of 116

07/31/2007 07/31/2007 08/01/2007 08/01/2007 08/01/2007 08/01/2007 08/02/2007 08/02/2007 08/03/2007 08/03/2007
08/03/2007 08/03/2007 08/03/2007 08/03/2007
08/03/2007

Administrator). (Entered: 07/31/2007)
570 AFFIDAVIT by MORDECHAI ORIAN in Opposition re 509 MOTION for Entry of Default as to Global Defendants AMENDED filed by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Bobbitt, Chrystal) (Entered: 07/31/2007)
571 DECLARATION by MORDECHAI ORIAN IN OPPOSITION TO CRIMINAL CONTEMP by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Bobbitt, Chrystal) (Entered: 07/31/2007)
572 MOTION in Limine To Bar Defendant Global's ACT Database by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Flowers Deposition Transcript# 2 Ramirez Deposition Transcript# 3 Williams Deposition 'Transcript)(Morrison, Joachim) (Entered: 08/01/2007)
573 AFFIDAVIT by Griselda Vega in Support re 572 MOTION in Limine To Bar Defendant Global's ACT Database filed by all plaintiffs. (Morrison, Joachim) Modified on 8/2/2007−−SEE PRAECIPE 575 FOR CORRECTED SIGNATURE (SAP, Case Administrator). (Entered: 08/01/2007)
574 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion Oral Argument Requested re 572 MOTION in Limine To Bar Defendant Global's ACT Database : Motion Hearing set for 8/28/2007 at 10:00 AM Yakima for 572 , before Chief Judge Robert H. Whaley (Morrison, Joachim) (Entered: 08/01/2007)
577 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Robert H. Whaley : Contempt Hearing held on 8/1/2007. (Reported/Recorded by: Debra Clark) (MF, Courtroom Deputy) (Entered: 08/02/2007)
575 Praecipe filed by all plaintiffs: Re 573 Affidavit in Support of Motion Signature Page of Declaration of Griselda Vega. (Morrison, Joachim) (Entered: 08/02/2007)
576 Praecipe filed by all plaintiffs: Re 572 MOTION in Limine To Bar Defendant Global's ACT Database Plaintiffs' Proposed Order. (Morrison, Joachim) (Entered: 08/02/2007)
578 Praecipe filed by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian: Re 569 Declaration in Opposition to Motion, Correction of Signature. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit)(Bobbitt, Chrystal) (Entered: 08/03/2007)
579 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion − By Court − Text entry; no PDF document. Oral Argument Requested re 535 MOTION to Set Aside Default or in the Alternative Motion for Reconsideration, 543 MOTION to Strike Deposition of Ebony Williams, 540 MOTION to Strike Use of Settlement Agreement in Support of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment : Motion Hearing set for 8/27/2007 is RESET to Tuesday, 8/28/2007 at 10:00 AM Yakima for 535 and for 543 and for 540 , before Chief Judge Robert H. Whaley (MF, Courtroom Deputy) (Entered: 08/03/2007)
580 REPLY MEMORANDUM re 509 MOTION for Entry of Default as to Global Defendants Supplemental filed by all plaintiffs. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 08/03/2007)
581 DECLARATION by Lori Jordan Isley in Support re 509 MOTION for Entry of Default as to Global Defendants Supplemental filed by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − D)(Isley, Lori) (Entered: 08/03/2007)
582 Praecipe filed by all plaintiffs: Amended Declaration of Griselda Vega. (Morrison, Joachim) Modified on 8/6/2007 −−This is not a praecipe, it is an Amended Declaration of Griselda (original declaration found at 573 . (LE, Case Administrator). (Entered: 08/03/2007)
583 REPLY MEMORANDUM re 543 MOTION to Strike Deposition of Ebony Williams filed by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Bobbitt, Chrystal) Modified on 8/6/2007 −− Attachment numbered incorrectly as pgs 11−36 and should have been 12−37. (LE, Case Administrator). (Entered: 08/03/2007)
584 DECLARATION by Mordechai Orian in Support re 543 MOTION to Strike Deposition of Ebony Williams filed by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Bobbitt, Chrystal) (Entered:

Case: 2:05-cv-3061 As of: 11/05/2016 05:11 PM PDT 49 of 116

08/03/2007 08/06/2007 08/06/2007 08/07/2007 08/07/2007
08/07/2007
08/08/2007 08/08/2007 08/08/2007 08/08/2007 08/08/2007 08/08/2007 08/10/2007
08/10/2007

08/03/2007)
585 DECLARATION by Kimberley Vandlen in Support re 543 MOTION to Strike Deposition of Ebony Williams filed by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Bobbitt, Chrystal) (Entered: 08/03/2007)
586 Docket Annotation − Re Filing Error: 582 Praecipe. 582 is not a Praecipe −− it is an Amended Declaration of Griselda Vega. (LE, Case Administrator) (Entered: 08/06/2007)
587 REPLY MEMORANDUM re 540 MOTION to Strike Use of Settlement Agreement in Support of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Bobbitt, Chrystal) (Entered: 08/06/2007)
588 REPLY MEMORANDUM re 524 MOTION for Reconsideration filed by Green Acre Farms Inc, Valley Fruit Orchards, LLC. (Edgley, Ryan) (Entered: 08/07/2007)
589 REPLY MEMORANDUM re 535 MOTION to Set Aside Default or in the Alternative Motion for Reconsideration And Supporting Declaration of Chrystal Bobbitt filed by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit)(Bobbitt, Chrystal) (Entered: 08/07/2007)
590 MEMORANDUM of Points and Authorities in Opposition re 509 MOTION for Entry of Default as to Global Defendants Supplemental Opposition filed by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Declaration of Randolph Shiner)(Bobbitt, Chrystal) (Entered: 08/07/2007)
591 NOTICE of Hearing − Text entry; no PDF document. − By Court: Jury Trial set for 9/10/2007 at 09:00 AM in Yakima before Chief Judge Robert H. Whaley. (MF, Courtroom Deputy) (Entered: 08/08/2007)
592 MOTION to Expedite Hearing on Motion to Withdraw as Pro Hac Vice Attorney by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Shiner, I. Randolph) (Entered: 08/08/2007)
593 DECLARATION by I Randolph S. Shiner in Support re 592 MOTION to Expedite Hearing on Motion to Withdraw as Pro Hac Vice Attorney filed by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Shiner, I. Randolph) (Entered: 08/08/2007)
594 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re 592 MOTION to Expedite Hearing on Motion to Withdraw as Pro Hac Vice Attorney : Motion Hearing set for 8/10/2007 at 06:30 PM Spokane for 592 , before Chief Judge Robert H. Whaley (Shiner, I. Randolph) (Entered: 08/08/2007)
595 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney (atty I Randolph S. Shiner) by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Shiner, I. Randolph) (Entered: 08/08/2007)
596 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re 595 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney (atty I Randolph S. Shiner) : Motion Hearing set for 8/10/2007 at 06:30 PM Spokane for 595 , before Chief Judge Robert H. Whaley (Shiner, I. Randolph) (Entered: 08/08/2007)
597 ORDER; denying as moot pltfs' 448 Motion to Compel; granting pltfs' 509 Motion for Case Dispositive Sanctions; granting pltfs' 521 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages; granting dfts Green Acre Farms & Valley Fruit Orchards' 524 Motion for Reconsideration re 508 Clerk's Judgment ; denying Global dfts' 535 Motion for Reconsideration and Alternatively Relief From Default Orders, re 508 Clerk's Judgment ; granting pltfs' 552 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages; the Judgment 508 entered on 7/11/07 is VACATED. Signed by Judge Robert H. Whaley. (LE, Case Administrator) (Entered: 08/10/2007)
598 ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO WITHDRAW; granting dfts' 592 Motion to Expedite; granting dfts' 595 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney I. Randolph S

Case: 2:05-cv-3061 As of: 11/05/2016 05:11 PM PDT 50 of 116

08/10/2007 08/10/2007 08/10/2007 08/10/2007 08/10/2007 08/10/2007 08/10/2007 08/10/2007 08/10/2007 08/10/2007 08/13/2007
08/13/2007

Shiner terminated. Signed by Judge Robert H. Whaley. (LE, Case Administrator) (Entered: 08/10/2007)
599 Proposed Pretrial Order by Plaintiffs and Green Acre and Valley Fruit Defendants by Ricardo Betancourt, Green Acre Farms Inc, Valley Fruit Orchards, LLC, Jose Guadalupe Perez−Farias, Jim Morford, Katherine M Morford, John Verbrugge, Desiree C Verbrugge, Jose F Sanchez. (Morrison, Joachim) (Entered: 08/10/2007)
600 MOTION to Continue TRIAL AND PRE TRIAL CONFERENCE by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Bobbitt, Chrystal) Modified on 8/13/2007 −− Amended Motion to Continue filed at 602 . (LE, Case Administrator). (Entered: 08/10/2007)
601 MOTION to Expedite MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND PRE TRIAL CONFERENCE by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Bobbitt, Chrystal) (Entered: 08/10/2007)
602 MOTION to Continue TRIAL AND PRE TRIAL CONFERENCE by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Bobbitt, Chrystal) Modified on 8/13/2007 −−This should have been filed as an AMENDED MOTION TO CONTINUE re 600 Motion to Continue. (LE, Case Administrator). (Entered: 08/10/2007)
603 MOTION to Expedite NOTICE OF MOTION TO EXPEDITE by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Bobbitt, Chrystal) Modified on 8/13/2007 −− This is a Notice of Hearing and was misfiled as a Motion; attorney to refile this document as a Notice of Hearing. (LE, Case Administrator). (Entered: 08/10/2007)
604 MOTION to Continue Proposed Order on Motion to Continue by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Bobbitt, Chrystal) Modified on 8/13/2007 −− This is not a Motion but the Text Of PROPOSED ORDER. (LE, Case Administrator). (Entered: 08/10/2007)
605 MOTION to Expedite Proposed Order onMotion to Expedite by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Bobbitt, Chrystal) Modified on 8/13/2007 −− This is not a Motion but the Text of PROPOSED ORDER. (LE, Case Administrator). (Entered: 08/10/2007)
606 DECLARATION by Chrystal Bobbitt in Support re 600 MOTION to Continue TRIAL AND PRE TRIAL CONFERENCE filed by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Bobbitt, Chrystal) (Entered: 08/10/2007)
607 DECLARATION by Mordechai Orian in Support re 600 MOTION to Continue TRIAL AND PRE TRIAL CONFERENCE filed by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Bobbitt, Chrystal) (Entered: 08/10/2007)
608 Proposed Pretrial Order of Defendants by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Bobbitt, Chrystal) (Entered: 08/10/2007)
609 Docket Annotation − Re Filing Error: 602 MOTION to Continue TRIAL AND PRE TRIAL CONFERENCE: This should have been filed as an Amended Motion to Continue; 605 MOTION to Expedite Proposed Order on Motion to Expedite: This is not a Motion but the text of Proposed Order; 604 MOTION to Continue Proposed Order on Motion to Continue: This is not a Motion but the text of Proposed Order; 603 MOTION to Expedite NOTICE OF MOTION TO EXPEDITE: This is not a Motion but a Notice of Hearing and the filing attorney is directed to refile using the correct event. (LE, Case Administrator) (Entered: 08/13/2007)
610 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re 602 MOTION to Continue TRIAL AND PRE TRIAL CONFERENCE : Motion Hearing set for 8/17/2007 at 06:30 PM Without Oral Argument for 602 , before Chief Judge Robert H. Whaley (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Bobbitt, Chrystal) Modified on 8/14/2007 −− Date/time of hearing in text does not match what was docketed; attorney to refile Notice of Hearing as praecipe to correct. (LE, Case Administrator). Modified on 8/14/2007 −− Praecipe

Case: 2:05-cv-3061 As of: 11/05/2016 05:11 PM PDT 51 of 116

08/13/2007
08/13/2007 08/13/2007 08/13/2007 08/13/2007 08/13/2007 08/13/2007
08/13/2007 08/13/2007 08/14/2007 08/14/2007 08/14/2007

filed at 624 . (LE, Case Administrator). Modified on 8/15/2007 −− Corrected Praecipe filed at 626 . (LE, Case Administrator). (Entered: 08/13/2007)
611 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re 601 MOTION to Expedite MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND PRE TRIAL CONFERENCE : Motion Hearing set for 8/17/2007 at 06:30 PM Without Oral Argument for 601 , before Chief Judge Robert H. Whaley (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order on Motion to Expedite)(Bobbitt, Chrystal) Modified on 8/14/2007 −− Date/time of hearing in text does not match what was docketed; attorney to refile Notice of Hearing as praecipe to correct. (LE, Case Administrator). Modified on 8/14/2007 −− Praecipe filed at 623 . (LE, Case Administrator). Modified on 8/16/2007 −− Corrected Praecipe filed at 628 . (LE, Case Administrator). (Entered: 08/13/2007)
612 ORDER ADDRESSING EX PARTE COMMUNICATION. Signed by Judge John L. Weinberg. (LE, Case Administrator) (Entered: 08/13/2007)
613 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 572 MOTION in Limine To Bar Defendant Global's ACT Database filed by Green Acre Farms Inc, Valley Fruit Orchards, LLC. (Edgley, Ryan) (Entered: 08/13/2007)
614 MOTION in Limine and Memorandum to Bar Evidence of Immigration Status by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Isley, Lori) (Entered: 08/13/2007)
615 DECLARATION by Lori Jordan Isley in Support re 614 MOTION in Limine and Memorandum to Bar Evidence of Immigration Status filed by all plaintiffs. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 08/13/2007)
616 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion Oral Argument Requested re 614 MOTION in Limine and Memorandum to Bar Evidence of Immigration Status : Motion Hearing set for 8/28/2007 at 10:00 AM Yakima for 614 , before Chief Judge Robert H. Whaley (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 08/13/2007)
617 MEMORANDUM of Points and Authorities in Opposition re 572 MOTION in Limine To Bar Defendant Global's ACT Database filed by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 2# 2 Exhibit 1)(Bobbitt, Chrystal) Modified on 8/14/2007 −− The Memorandum was omitted from the filing; the attorney will refile the Memorandum w/exhibits. (LE, Case Administrator). Modified on 8/14/2007 −− Memorandum was filed at 620 without exhibits. Amended Memorandum filed at 622 with additional exhibits attached. (LE, Case Administrator). (Entered: 08/13/2007)
618 DECLARATION by LEOPOLDO BENEDICTO IV in Opposition re 572 MOTION in Limine To Bar Defendant Global's ACT Database filed by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Bobbitt, Chrystal) (Entered: 08/13/2007)
619 DECLARATION by MORDECHAI ORIAN in Opposition re 572 MOTION in Limine To Bar Defendant Global's ACT Database filed by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Bobbitt, Chrystal) (Entered: 08/13/2007)
620 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 572 MOTION in Limine To Bar Defendant Global's ACT Database re−file pursuant to Clerk's Instructions filed by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Bobbitt, Chrystal) Modified on 8/14/2007 −− Filed to correct docket entry 617 , but did not include attachments. (LE, Case Administrator). (Entered: 08/14/2007)
621 Praecipe filed by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian: Re 620 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion,. (Bobbitt, Chrystal) (Entered: 08/14/2007)
622 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 572 MOTION in Limine To Bar Defendant Global's ACT Database AMENDED filed by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 3 and 4)(Bobbitt, Chrystal) Modified on 8/14/2007 −− Attachments were misnumbered (25−37) and should have been numbered 11−24. ((LE, Case

Case: 2:05-cv-3061 As of: 11/05/2016 05:11 PM PDT 52 of 116

08/14/2007 08/14/2007
08/14/2007
08/14/2007 08/14/2007
08/15/2007 08/15/2007 08/15/2007 08/15/2007 08/15/2007 08/15/2007 08/15/2007

Administrator). Modified on 8/15/2007 −− See 625 Praecipe for Amended Memorandum with all attachments. (LE, Case Administrator). (Entered: 08/14/2007)
623 Praecipe filed by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian: Re 611 Notice of Hearing on Motion, EXPEDITE. (Bobbitt, Chrystal) Modified on 8/14/2007 −− did not have corrected document attached. (LE, Case Administrator). (Entered: 08/14/2007)
624 Praecipe filed by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian: Re 611 Notice of Hearing on Motion, TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATES AND ASSOCIATED PRE−TRIAL DATES. (Bobbitt, Chrystal) Modified on 8/14/2007 −− This is a Praecipe for 610 , NOT for 611 as docketed, but did not have corrected document attached. (LE, Case Administrator). (Entered: 08/14/2007)
625 Praecipe filed by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian: Re 622 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion, AMENDED OPPOSITION− ALL DOCS RELATED. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1# 2 Exhibit 2# 3 Exhibit 3−4# 4 Affidavit DEC. LEOPOLDO BENEDICTO,IV# 5 Affidavit DEC. MORDECHAI ORIAN)(Bobbitt, Chrystal) Modified on 8/15/2007 −− This document is in opposition to 572 Motion in Limine. (LE, Case Administrator). (Entered: 08/14/2007)
626 Praecipe filed by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian: Re 610 Notice of Hearing on Motion,,. (Attachments: # 1 NOTICE OF MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATES AND PRETRIAL DATES# 2 MOTION TOCONTINUE TRIAL DATE AND ASSOCIATED PRETRIAL DATES)(Bobbitt, Chrystal) (Entered: 08/14/2007)
627 Praecipe filed by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian: Re 611 Notice of Hearing on Motion,, EXPEDITE. (Attachments: # 1 NOTICE OF MOTION TO EXPEDITE THE HEARING OF THE MOTION TO CONTINUE THE TRIAL DATE AND ASSOCIATED PRETRIAL DATES# 2 MOTION TO EXPEDITE THE HEARING OF THE MOTION TO CONTINUE THE TRIAL DATE AND ASSOCIATED PRETRIAL DATES)(Bobbitt, Chrystal) Modified on 8/15/2007 −− This Praecipe did not correct the problem as the Notice still has the wrong time listed. (LE, Case Administrator). (Entered: 08/14/2007)
628 Praecipe filed by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian: Re 611 Notice of Hearing on Motion,, to correct time of hearing. (Bobbitt, Chrystal) (Entered: 08/15/2007)
629 Proposed Jury Instructions submitted by Green Acre Farms Inc, Valley Fruit Orchards, LLC, Jim Morford, John Verbrugge. (Edgley, Ryan) (Entered: 08/15/2007)
630 TRIAL BRIEF by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A & B)(Isley, Lori) (Entered: 08/15/2007)
631 MOTION for Sanctions Pursuant to Ct. Rec. 597 by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Isley, Lori) Modified on 8/17/2007 −− Proposed Order can be found at 646 . (LE, Case Administrator). (Entered: 08/15/2007)
632 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion Oral Argument Requested re 631 MOTION for Sanctions Pursuant to Ct. Rec. 597 : Motion Hearing set for 8/28/2007 at 10:00 AM Yakima for 631 , before Chief Judge Robert H. Whaley (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 08/15/2007)
633 Proposed Jury Instructions Joint Proposed submitted by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Jury Instructions)(Isley, Lori) Modified on 8/16/2007 −− This is not a Proposed Order −− These are proposed jury instructions. (LE, Case Administrator). (Entered: 08/15/2007)
634 Proposed Jury Instructions Plaintiffs' Proposed submitted by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Jury Instructions)(Isley, Lori) Modified on 8/16/2007 −− This is not a Proposed Order −− These are proposed jury instructions. (LE, Case Administrator). (Entered: 08/15/2007)

Case: 2:05-cv-3061 As of: 11/05/2016 05:11 PM PDT 53 of 116

08/15/2007 08/15/2007 08/15/2007
08/15/2007 08/15/2007
08/16/2007
08/16/2007 08/16/2007 08/16/2007 08/16/2007
08/16/2007 08/16/2007

635 Proposed Voir Dire by all plaintiffs. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 08/15/2007)
636 Proposed Voir Dire Proposed Voir Dire by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Bobbitt, Chrystal) (Entered: 08/15/2007)
637 Proposed Jury Instructions Proposed Jury Instructions submitted by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Bobbitt, Chrystal) Modified on 8/16/2007 −− Attorney will refile this document to include a caption and jury instructions. (LE, Case Administrator). Modified on 8/16/2007 −− Proposed Jury Instructions refiled at 645 . (LE, Case Administrator). (Entered: 08/15/2007)
638 OBJECTIONS re 634 Proposed Jury Instructions Defendant's Objections to Plaintiff's Proposed Jury Instructions by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Bobbitt, Chrystal) (Entered: 08/15/2007)
639 MOTION in Limine TO EXCLUDE DEPOSITION OF EBONY WILLIAMS by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Bobbitt, Chrystal) Modified on 8/17/2007 −− This is actually the Memorandum in Support of Motion in Limine; This has been refiled with the correct caption as a Praecipe at 640 ; the attorney is directed to file the Motion in Limine. (LE, Case Administrator). Modified on 8/17/2007 −− Motion in Limine filed at 648 . (LE, Case Administrator). (Entered: 08/15/2007)
640 Praecipe filed by Global Horizons Inc., Jose Guadalupe Perez−Farias, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian: Re 639 MOTION in Limine TO EXCLUDE DEPOSITION OF EBONY WILLIAMS Correcting Caption and attaching Exhibit. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Bobbitt, Chrystal) Modified on 8/17/2007 −− This is the Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion in Limine to Exclude the Use of the Deposition of Ebony Williams at Trial and replaces Ct. Rec. 639 which was mistakenly captioned and filed as a Motion in Limine. (LE, Case Administrator). Modified on 8/17/2007 −− the Motion in Limine was filed at Ct.Rec. 648 . (LE, Case Administrator). (Entered: 08/16/2007)
641 DECLARATION by MORDECHAI ORIAN in Support re 639 MOTION in Limine TO EXCLUDE DEPOSITION OF EBONY WILLIAMS filed by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Bobbitt, Chrystal) (Entered: 08/16/2007)
642 DECLARATION by RANDOLPH SHINER in Support re 639 MOTION in Limine TO EXCLUDE DEPOSITION OF EBONY WILLIAMS filed by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Bobbitt, Chrystal) (Entered: 08/16/2007)
643 DECLARATION by KIMBERLY VANDLEN in Opposition re 639 MOTION in Limine TO EXCLUDE DEPOSITION OF EBONY WILLIAMS filed by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Bobbitt, Chrystal) (Entered: 08/16/2007)
644 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion Oral Argument Requested re 639 MOTION in Limine TO EXCLUDE DEPOSITION OF EBONY WILLIAMS : Motion Hearing set for 8/28/2007 at 02:00 PM Yakima for 639 , before Chief Judge Robert H. Whaley (Bobbitt, Chrystal) Modified on 8/17/2007 −− Ct. Rec. 639 was actually the PDF for the Memorandum in Support which was refiled as a Praecipe at 640 . This Notice sets the Motion in Limine which was filed at Ct. Rec. 648 . (LE, Case Administrator). (Entered: 08/16/2007)
645 Proposed Jury Instructions Defendant's proposed jury intructions submitted by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Bobbitt, Chrystal) Modified on 8/16/2007 −− Filed to correct the entry at 637 . (LE, Case Administrator). (Entered: 08/16/2007)
646 Praecipe filed by all plaintiffs: Re 631 MOTION for Sanctions Pursuant to Ct. Rec. 597 Text of Proposed Order. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order # 2 Exhibit A)(Isley, Lori) Modified on 8/17/2007 −− This is a dupclicate of the Motion for Sanctions filed at 631 with the exception that this entry contains the Proposed Order which was omitted from the first filing. (LE, Case Administrator). (Entered:

Case: 2:05-cv-3061 As of: 11/05/2016 05:11 PM PDT 54 of 116

08/16/2007 08/17/2007
08/17/2007 08/17/2007 08/17/2007 08/17/2007 08/17/2007 08/17/2007 08/20/2007
08/20/2007 08/23/2007 08/23/2007 08/23/2007 08/23/2007 08/24/2007

08/16/2007)
647 RESPONSE to Motion re 602 MOTION to Continue TRIAL AND PRE TRIAL CONFERENCE, 600 MOTION to Continue TRIAL AND PRE TRIAL CONFERENCE filed by all plaintiffs. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 08/16/2007)
648 MOTION in Limine Defendant Global's Motion in Limini to exclude the deposition of Ebony Williams by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Bobbitt, Chrystal) Modified on 8/17/2007 −− This motion was originally filed at Ct. Rec. 639 but the pdf attached was the Memorandum in Support which was refiled as a Praecipe at 640 . (LE, Case Administrator). (Entered: 08/17/2007)
649 ORDER DENYING GLOBAL DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO CONTINUE THE TRIAL DATE AND ASSOCIATED PRETRIAL DATES. Denying 602 Motion to Continue. Signed by Judge Robert H. Whaley. (RF, Case Administrator) (Entered: 08/17/2007)
650 MOTION to Expedite Hearing re Plaintiffs' Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law Re: Joint Employment and Agency by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Isley, Lori) (Entered: 08/17/2007)
651 DECLARATION by Lori Jordan Isley in Support re 650 MOTION to Expedite Hearing re Plaintiffs' Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law Re: Joint Employment and Agency filed by all plaintiffs. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 08/17/2007)
652 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re 650 MOTION to Expedite Hearing re Plaintiffs' Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law Re: Joint Employment and Agency : Motion Hearing set for 8/20/2007 at 06:30 PM Without Oral Argument for 650 , before Chief Judge Robert H. Whaley (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 08/17/2007)
653 MOTION for Judgment as a Matter of Law Re: Joint Employment and Agency by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Isley, Lori) (Entered: 08/17/2007)
654 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion Oral Argument Requested re 653 MOTION for Judgment as a Matter of Law Re: Joint Employment and Agency : Motion Hearing set for 8/28/2007 at 10:00 AM Yakima for 653 , before Chief Judge Robert H. Whaley (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 08/17/2007)
655 REPLY MEMORANDUM re 572 MOTION in Limine To Bar Defendant Global's ACT Database filed by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit C# 4 Exhibit D# 5 Exhibit E# 6 Exhibit F)(Morrison, Joachim) Modified on 8/21/2007 −− The exhibits were numbered incorrectly and there is no page 47. Exhibit E ends at pg. 46 and Exhibit F begins at pg 48. (LE, Case Administrator). (Entered: 08/20/2007)
656 DECLARATION by Griselda Vega in Support re 572 MOTION in Limine To Bar Defendant Global's ACT Database filed by all plaintiffs. (Morrison, Joachim) (Entered: 08/20/2007)
657 SUPPLEMENT re 630 Trial Brief Objecting to Grower Defendants' Jury Instructions by all plaintiffs. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 08/23/2007)
658 DECLARATION by Lori Jordan Isley re 657 Supplement by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Isley, Lori) (Entered: 08/23/2007)
659 RESPONSE to Motion re 648 MOTION in Limine Defendant Global's Motion in Limini to exclude the deposition of Ebony Williams filed by all plaintiffs. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 08/23/2007)
660 DECLARATION by Lori Jordan Isley in Opposition re 648 MOTION in Limine Defendant Global's Motion in Limini to exclude the deposition of Ebony Williams filed by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − D)(Isley, Lori) (Entered: 08/23/2007)
661 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Isley, Lori) (Entered: 08/24/2007)

Case: 2:05-cv-3061 As of: 11/05/2016 05:11 PM PDT 55 of 116

08/24/2007 08/24/2007 08/24/2007 08/24/2007 08/24/2007 08/24/2007 08/25/2007 08/25/2007
08/25/2007 08/25/2007 08/25/2007 08/25/2007
08/25/2007

662 DECLARATION by Jose Cuevas in Support re 661 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order filed by all plaintiffs. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 08/24/2007)
663 DECLARATION by Lori Jordan Isley in Support re 661 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order filed by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − B)(Isley, Lori) (Entered: 08/24/2007)
664 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re 661 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order : Motion Hearing set for 8/28/2007 at 10:00 AM Without Oral Argument for 661 , before Chief Judge Robert H. Whaley (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 08/24/2007)
665 MOTION for Reconsideration Dispositive Sanctions by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Bobbitt, Chrystal) Modified on 8/27/2007 −− This is not a Motion but a Memorandum; Praecipe filed at 680 to correct. (LE, Case Administrator). (Entered: 08/24/2007)
666 MOTION for Reconsideration August 10, 2007 Order by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Bobbitt, Chrystal) Modified on 8/27/2007 −− This is not a Motion but a Memorandum; Praecipe filed at 679 to correct. (LE, Case Administrator). (Entered: 08/24/2007)
667 REPLY MEMORANDUM re 614 MOTION in Limine and Memorandum to Bar Evidence of Immigration Status filed by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Bobbitt, Chrystal) (Entered: 08/24/2007)
668 DECLARATION by Greg Ryan in Support re 639 MOTION in Limine TO EXCLUDE DEPOSITION OF EBONY WILLIAMS Supplemental filed by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Bobbitt, Chrystal) (Entered: 08/25/2007)
669 DECLARATION by CHRYSTAL BOBBITT in Support re 666 MOTION for Reconsideration August 10, 2007 Order filed by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Bobbitt, Chrystal) Modified on 8/27/2007 −− Declaration not signed; attorney to file Praecipe to correct. (LE, Case Administrator). Modified on 8/27/2007 − Praecipe filed at 685 but was also unsigned. (LE, Case Administrator). Modified on 8/28/2007 −− Signed Declaration can be found at 689 Praecipe. (LE, Case Administrator). (Entered: 08/25/2007)
670 DECLARATION by MORDECHAI ORIAN in Support re 666 MOTION for Reconsideration August 10, 2007 Order filed by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Bobbitt, Chrystal) (Entered: 08/25/2007)
671 MOTION to Set Aside Judgment Relief from Orders of August 10, 2007 by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Attachments: # 1 Motion − This attachment is not a motion but the Certificate of Service.)(Bobbitt, Chrystal) Modified on 8/27/2007 to reflect the correct identification of the attachment, (LE, Case Administrator). (Entered: 08/25/2007)
672 Request for Relief NOTICE of Hearing on Motion Oral Argument Requested re 666 MOTION for Reconsideration August 10, 2007 Order : Motion Hearing set for 8/28/2007 at 10:00 AM Yakima for 666 , before Chief Judge Robert H. Whaley (Bobbitt, Chrystal) (Entered: 08/25/2007)
673 MOTION to Expedite and Notice of Motion to Expedite by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Attachments: # 1 Notice and Motion to Expedite − This attachment is not the Notice & Motion to Expedite but is the text of the Proposed Order.)(Bobbitt, Chrystal) Modified on 8/27/2007 to correctly identify the attachment. (LE, Case Administrator). (Entered: 08/25/2007)
674 MOTION for Reconsideration of Dispositive Sanctions; Assessment of Sanctions; and to Strike Plaintiff's Exhibits by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Attachments: # 1)(Bobbitt, Chrystal) (Entered: 08/25/2007)

Case: 2:05-cv-3061 As of: 11/05/2016 05:11 PM PDT 56 of 116

08/26/2007 08/26/2007 08/26/2007 08/26/2007 08/26/2007 08/26/2007 08/27/2007 08/27/2007 08/27/2007 08/27/2007
08/27/2007
08/27/2007

675 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion Oral Argument Requested re 674 MOTION for Reconsideration of Dispositive Sanctions; Assessment of Sanctions; and to Strike Plaintiff's Exhibits : Motion Hearing set for 8/28/2007 at 10:00 AM Yakima for 674 , before Chief Judge Robert H. Whaley (Bobbitt, Chrystal) (Entered: 08/26/2007)
676 MOTION to Expedite Hearing On Motion to Reconsider Dispositive Sanctions by Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Attachments: # 1 Notice and Motion to Expedite −− This attachment is not a Notice and Motion but a Proposed Order.)(Bobbitt, Chrystal) Modified on 8/27/2007 to correctly identify the attachment. (LE, Case Administrator). (Entered: 08/26/2007)
677 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion Oral Argument Requested re 676 MOTION to Expedite Hearing On Motion to Reconsider Dispositive Sanctions : Motion Hearing set for 9/28/2007 at 10:00 AM Yakima for 676 , before Chief Judge Robert H. Whaley (Bobbitt, Chrystal) (Entered: 08/26/2007)
678 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion Oral Argument Requested re 673 MOTION to Expedite and Notice of Motion to Expedite : Motion Hearing set for 9/28/2007 at 10:00 AM Yakima for 673 , before Chief Judge Robert H. Whaley (Bobbitt, Chrystal) (Entered: 08/26/2007)
679 Praecipe filed by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian: Re 666 MOTION for Reconsideration August 10, 2007 Order Memorandum of Points and Authoritis, (incorrectly filed as Motion) and to Correct Footer. (Bobbitt, Chrystal) (Entered: 08/26/2007)
680 Praecipe filed by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian: Re 665 MOTION for Reconsideration Dispositive Sanctions Correcting Filing to identify as Memorandum of Points and Authories (not motion) and to Correct Footer and Spacing. (Bobbitt, Chrystal) (Entered: 08/26/2007)
681 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion Oral Argument Requested re 673 MOTION to Expedite and Notice of Motion to Expedite : Motion Hearing set for 8/28/2007 at 10:00 AM Yakima for 673 , before Chief Judge Robert H. Whaley (Bobbitt, Chrystal) (Entered: 08/27/2007)
682 RESPONSE to Motion re 665 MOTION for Reconsideration Dispositive Sanctions, 671 MOTION to Set Aside Judgment Relief from Orders of August 10, 2007, 674 MOTION for Reconsideration of Dispositive Sanctions; Assessment of Sanctions; and to Strike Plaintiff's Exhibits, 666 MOTION for Reconsideration August 10, 2007 Order filed by all plaintiffs. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 08/27/2007)
683 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion Oral Argument Requested re 676 MOTION to Expedite Hearing On Motion to Reconsider Dispositive Sanctions : Motion Hearing set for 8/28/2007 at 10:00 AM Without Oral Argument for 676 , before Chief Judge Robert H. Whaley (Bobbitt, Chrystal) (Entered: 08/27/2007)
684 DECLARATION by Lori Jordan Isley in Opposition re 665 MOTION for Reconsideration Dispositive Sanctions, 671 MOTION to Set Aside Judgment Relief from Orders of August 10, 2007, 674 MOTION for Reconsideration of Dispositive Sanctions; Assessment of Sanctions; and to Strike Plaintiff's Exhibits, 666 MOTION for Reconsideration August 10, 2007 Order filed by all plaintiffs. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 08/27/2007)
685 Praecipe filed by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian: Re 665 MOTION for Reconsideration Dispositive Sanctions, 669 Declaration in Support of Motion, SIGNING DECLARATION. (Bobbitt, Chrystal) Modified on 8/27/2007 −− Declaration not signed. (LE, Case Administrator). Modified on 8/28/2007 −− Signed Declaration can be found at 689 Praecipe. (LE, Case Administrator). (Entered: 08/27/2007)
686 Praecipe filed by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian: Re 671 MOTION to Set Aside Judgment Relief from Orders of August 10, 2007 ADDING OMITTED CITATION FOR QUOTATION ON PAGE 9 OF MOTION. (Attachments: # 1 DECLARATION OF CHRYSTAL BOBBITT (Declaration not signed); # 2 DECLARATION OF MORDECHAI ORIAN)(Bobbitt, Chrystal) Modified on 8/28/2007 −− Signed Declaration of C.Bobbitt can be found at 689 Praecipe. (LE, Case Administrator). (Entered:

Case: 2:05-cv-3061 As of: 11/05/2016 05:11 PM PDT 57 of 116

08/27/2007 08/27/2007 08/27/2007 08/27/2007 08/27/2007 08/28/2007
08/30/2007 08/30/2007 08/30/2007 08/30/2007 08/30/2007 08/31/2007

08/27/2007)
687 REPLY MEMORANDUM re 614 MOTION in Limine and Memorandum to Bar Evidence of Immigration Status filed by all plaintiffs. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 08/27/2007)
688 DECLARATION by Lori Jordan Isley in Support re 614 MOTION in Limine and Memorandum to Bar Evidence of Immigration Status filed by all plaintiffs. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 08/27/2007)
689 Praecipe filed by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian: Re 686 Praecipe, TO CORRECT SIGNATURE. (Bobbitt, Chrystal) (Entered: 08/27/2007)
690 MEMORANDUM of Points and Authorities in Opposition re 661 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order filed by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Bobbitt, Chrystal) (Entered: 08/27/2007)
691 DECLARATION by John Helewa in Opposition re 661 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order filed by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Bobbitt, Chrystal) (Entered: 08/27/2007)
697 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Robert H. Whaley : Motion Hearing held on 8/28/2007 re 653 MOTION for Judgment as a Matter of Law Re: Joint Employment and Agency filed by Jose F Sanchez, Ricardo Betancourt, Jose Guadalupe Perez−Farias, 665 MOTION for Reconsideration Dispositive Sanctions filed by Platte River Insurance Company, Jane Doe Orian, Mordechai Orian, Global Horizons Inc., 671 MOTION to Set Aside Judgment Relief from Orders of August 10, 2007 filed by Platte River Insurance Company, Jane Doe Orian, Mordechai Orian, Global Horizons Inc., 676 MOTION to Expedite Hearing On Motion to Reconsider Dispositive Sanctions filed by Platte River Insurance Company, Jane Doe Orian, Mordechai Orian, 674 MOTION for Reconsideration of Dispositive Sanctions; Assessment of Sanctions; and to Strike Plaintiff's Exhibits filed by Platte River Insurance Company, Jane Doe Orian, Mordechai Orian, Global Horizons Inc., 648 MOTION in Limine Defendant Global's Motion in Limini to exclude the deposition of Ebony Williams filed by Platte River Insurance Company, Jane Doe Orian, Mordechai Orian, Global Horizons Inc., 661 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order filed by Jose F Sanchez, Ricardo Betancourt, Jose Guadalupe Perez−Farias, 673 MOTION to Expedite and Notice of Motion to Expedite filed by Platte River Insurance Company, Jane Doe Orian, Mordechai Orian, Global Horizons Inc., 614 MOTION in Limine and Memorandum to Bar Evidence of Immigration Status filed by Jose F Sanchez, Ricardo Betancourt, Jose Guadalupe Perez−Farias, 650 MOTION to Expedite Hearing re Plaintiffs' Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law Re: Joint Employment and Agency filed by Jose F Sanchez, Ricardo Betancourt, Jose Guadalupe Perez−Farias, Final Pretrial Conference held on 8/28/2007. (Reported/Recorded by: Lynette Walters) (MF, Courtroom Deputy) (Entered: 09/02/2007)
692 MOTION to Expedite Motion to Request Interpreters by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Contreras, Mirta) (Entered: 08/30/2007)
693 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re 692 MOTION to Expedite Motion to Request Interpreters : Motion Hearing set for 8/31/2007 at 06:30 PM Without Oral Argument for 692 , before Chief Judge Robert H. Whaley (Contreras, Mirta) (Entered: 08/30/2007)
694 MOTION Appoint Interpreters by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1)(Contreras, Mirta) (Entered: 08/30/2007)
695 DECLARATION by Mirta Laura Contreras in Support re 694 MOTION Appoint Interpreters filed by all plaintiffs. (Contreras, Mirta) (Entered: 08/30/2007)
696 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re 694 MOTION Appoint Interpreters : Motion Hearing set for 8/31/2007 at 06:30 PM Without Oral Argument for 694 , before Chief Judge Robert H. Whaley (Contreras, Mirta) (Entered: 08/30/2007)
698 Minute Entry for TELEPHONIC proceedings held before Judge Robert H. Whaley : Scheduling Conference held on 8/31/2007. (Reported/Recorded by: Mark Snover)

Case: 2:05-cv-3061 As of: 11/05/2016 05:11 PM PDT 58 of 116

09/04/2007 09/07/2007
09/10/2007 09/10/2007 09/10/2007 09/10/2007 09/11/2007 09/11/2007 09/12/2007 09/13/2007 09/14/2007 09/17/2007

(MF, Courtroom Deputy) (Entered: 09/02/2007)
699 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION REQUESTING APPOINTMENT OF INTERPRETERS ON A COST−REIMBURSABLE BASIS. Granting 694 Motion Requesting Appointment of Interpreters on a Cost Reimbursable Basis. Signed by Judge Robert H. Whaley. (RF, Case Administrator) (Entered: 09/04/2007)
700 PRETRIAL ORDER; granting Global dfts' 540 Motion to Strike ; denying Global dfts' 543 Motion to Strike ; denying, with leave to renew, pltfs' 572 Motion in Limine; denying as moot Global dfts' 601 Motion to Expedite; denying, with leave to renew, pltfs' 614 Motion in Limine; denying pltfs' 631 Motion for Sanctions; denying Global dfts' 648 Motion in Limine; denying pltfs' 650 Motion to Expedite; denying pltfs' 653 Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law; denying pltfs' 661 Motion for TRO; denying Global dfts' 671 Motion to Set Aside Judgment; granting Global dfts' 673 Motion to Expedite; granting in part Gobal dfts' 674 Motion for Reconsideration of Dispositive Sanctions, Request for Assessment of Amount of Sanctions Attributable to Global and Request to Strike Pltfs' Exhibits for Failure to Serve; dft Mordechai Orian is released from his personal obligation to pay all monetary sanctions previously imposed by the Court, but dft Global Horizons remains responsible for the sanctions previously imposed by the Court; granting Global dfts' 676 Motion to Expedite; granting pltfs' 692 Motion to Expedite. Signed by Judge Robert H. Whaley. (LE, Case Administrator) (Entered: 09/10/2007)
701 MOTION for Judgment as a Matter of Law by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Bobbitt, Chrystal) (Entered: 09/10/2007)
702 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion Oral Argument Requested re 701 MOTION for Judgment as a Matter of Law : Motion Hearing set for 9/11/2007 at 08:30 AM Yakima for 701 , before Chief Judge Robert H. Whaley (Bobbitt, Chrystal) (Entered: 09/10/2007)
703 MOTION to Expedite by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Bobbitt, Chrystal) (Entered: 09/10/2007)
704 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion Oral Argument Requested re 703 MOTION to Expedite : Motion Hearing set for 9/11/2007 at 08:30 AM Yakima for 703 , before Chief Judge Robert H. Whaley (Bobbitt, Chrystal) Modified on 9/11/2007 −− Notice did not include a date or time of hearing in the text; attorney to refile as praecipe. (LE, Case Administrator). (Entered: 09/10/2007)
705 MEMORANDUM of Points and Authorities in Support re 701 MOTION for Judgment as a Matter of Law filed by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Bobbitt, Chrystal) (Entered: 09/11/2007)
706 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Robert H. Whaley : Jury Trial − Day One held on 9/11/2007. (Reported/Recorded by: Lynette Walters) (MF, Courtroom Deputy) (Entered: 09/11/2007)
707 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Robert H. Whaley : Jury Trial − Day Two held on 9/12/2007. (Reported/Recorded by: Lynette Walters) (MF, Courtroom Deputy) (Entered: 09/14/2007)
708 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Robert H. Whaley : Jury Trial − Day Three held on 9/13/2007. (Reported/Recorded by: Lynette Walters) (MF, Courtroom Deputy) (Entered: 09/14/2007)
710 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Robert H. Whaley : Jury Trial − Day Four held on 9/14/2007. (Reported/Recorded by: Lynette Walters) (MF, Courtroom Deputy) (Entered: 09/17/2007)
711 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Robert H. Whaley : Jury Trial − Day Five held on 9/17/2007. (Reported/Recorded by: Lynette Walters) (MF, Courtroom Deputy) (Entered: 09/17/2007)

Case: 2:05-cv-3061 As of: 11/05/2016 05:11 PM PDT 59 of 116

09/18/2007 09/19/2007
09/19/2007
09/19/2007
09/19/2007 09/19/2007 09/20/2007 09/20/2007 09/20/2007 09/20/2007 09/20/2007 09/20/2007

712 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Robert H. Whaley : Jury Trial − Day Six held on 9/18/2007. (Reported/Recorded by: Lynette Walters) (MF, Courtroom Deputy) (Entered: 09/19/2007)
713 MOTION for Reconsideration re 700 Order on Motion to Strike,,,,,,,,,,,, Order on Motion in Limine,,,,,, Order on Motion to Expedite,,,,,,,,,,,, Order on Motion for Sanctions,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Order on Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law,,,,,, Order on Motion for TRO,,,,,, Order on Motion to Set Aside Judgment,,,,,,,,,,,, Order on Motion for Reconsideration,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, by all plaintiffs. (Isley, Lori) Modified on 9/20/2007 − Praecipe filed at 715 containing attachments to this document. (LE, Case Administrator). (Entered: 09/19/2007)
714 DECLARATION by Lori Jordan Isley in Support re 713 MOTION for Reconsideration re 700 Order on Motion to Strike,,,,,,,,,,,, Order on Motion in Limine,,,,,, Order on Motion to Expedite,,,,,,,,,,,, Order on Motion for Sanctions,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Order on Moti MOTION for Reconsideration re 700 Order on Motion to Strike,,,,,,,,,,,, Order on Motion in Limine,,,,,, Order on Motion to Expedite,,,,,,,,,,,, Order on Motion for Sanctions,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Order on Moti filed by all plaintiffs. (Isley, Lori) Modified on 9/20/2007 −− Praecipe filed at 715 containing attachments to this document. (LE, Case Administrator). (Entered: 09/19/2007)
715 Praecipe filed by all plaintiffs: Re 713 MOTION for Reconsideration re 700 Order on Motion to Strike,,,,,,,,,,,, Order on Motion in Limine,,,,,, Order on Motion to Expedite,,,,,,,,,,,, Order on Motion for Sanctions,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Order on Moti MOTION for Reconsideration re 700 Order on Motion to Strike,,,,,,,,,,,, Order on Motion in Limine,,,,,, Order on Motion to Expedite,,,,,,,,,,,, Order on Motion for Sanctions,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Order on Moti, 714 Declaration in Support of Motion,, Including Attachments to Declaration. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit C# 4 Exhibit D# 5 Exhibit E)(Isley, Lori) (Entered: 09/19/2007)
716 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 701 MOTION for Judgment as a Matter of Law filed by all plaintiffs. (Crewdson, Amy) Modified on 9/20/2007 −− Document not filed by the signing attorneys; needs to be refiled as a praecipe by the signing attorney. (LE, Case Administrator). Modified on 9/21/2007 −− Praecipe filed at 719 . (LE, Case Administrator). (Entered: 09/19/2007)
718 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Robert H. Whaley : Jury Trial − Day Seven held on 9/19/2007. (Reported/Recorded by: Lynette Walters) (MF, Courtroom Deputy) (Entered: 09/20/2007)
717 Proposed Jury Instructions Supplemental Instruction Effort and Location of Recruitment submitted by all plaintiffs. (Isley, Lori) Modified on 9/21/2007 −− This is Pltfs' Memorandum in Support of Jury Instruction. (LE, Case Administrator). (Entered: 09/20/2007)
719 Praecipe filed by all plaintiffs: Re 701 MOTION for Judgment as a Matter of Law. (Isley, Lori) Modified on 9/21/2007 −− This praecipe corrects Docket Entry 716 . (LE, Case Administrator). (Entered: 09/20/2007)
720 Proposed Jury Instructions Supplemental submitted by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement − Jury Inst. 27; # 2 Supplement − Jury Inst. 28)(Isley, Lori) Modified on 9/21/2007 to identify the attachments. (LE, Case Administrator). Modified on 9/21/2007 −− Praecipe for Jury Inst. 27 filed at 722 . (LE, Case Administrator). (Entered: 09/20/2007)
721 Proposed Jury Instructions Supplement submitted by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement − Jury Inst. 26)(Isley, Lori) Modified on 9/21/2007 to identify attachment. (LE, Case Administrator). (Entered: 09/20/2007)
722 Praecipe filed by all plaintiffs: Re 720 Proposed Jury Instructions No. 27. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement − Jury Inst. 27)(Isley, Lori) Modified on 9/21/2007 to identify attachment. (LE, Case Administrator). (Entered: 09/20/2007)
723 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Robert H. Whaley : Jury Trial − Day Eight held on 9/20/2007. (Reported/Recorded by: Lynette Walters) (MF, Courtroom Deputy) (Entered: 09/21/2007)

Case: 2:05-cv-3061 As of: 11/05/2016 05:11 PM PDT 60 of 116

09/21/2007
09/21/2007 09/24/2007 09/24/2007
09/24/2007 09/25/2007
09/25/2007 09/25/2007 09/26/2007
09/26/2007
09/26/2007 09/26/2007 09/26/2007 09/26/2007 09/27/2007
09/27/2007 09/27/2007 09/27/2007 09/27/2007 10/05/2007
10/05/2007 10/05/2007

724 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Robert H. Whaley : Jury Trial − Day Nine held on 9/21/2007. (Reported/Recorded by: Lynette Walters) (MF, Courtroom Deputy) (Entered: 09/24/2007)
731 Court's Jury Instructions. (LE, Case Administrator) (Entered: 10/02/2007)
725 ORDER; re Jury Meals. Signed by Judge Robert H. Whaley. (LE, Case Administrator) (Entered: 09/24/2007)
726 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Robert H. Whaley : Jury Trial − Day Ten held on 9/24/2007. Jury deliberating. (Reported/Recorded by: Lynette Walters) (MF, Courtroom Deputy) Additional attachment(s) added on 9/25/2007 (MF, Courtroom Deputy). (Entered: 09/25/2007)
732 Jury Note and Court's response. (LE, Case Administrator) (Entered: 10/02/2007)
728 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Robert H. Whaley : Jury Trial − Day Eleven held on 9/25/2007. Jury continues deliberations. (Reported/Recorded by: Lynette Walters) (MF, Courtroom Deputy) (Entered: 09/28/2007)
734 Jury Note. Jury Question No. 1(LE, Case Administrator) (Entered: 10/02/2007)
736 Reply by Court to Jury Question 1. Related document: 734 Jury Note.(LE, Case Administrator) (Entered: 10/02/2007)
727 REPLY MEMORANDUM re 701 MOTION for Judgment as a Matter of Law filed by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Bobbitt, Chrystal) (Entered: 09/26/2007)
729 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Robert H. Whaley : Jury Trial − Day Twelve held on 9/26/2007. Jury continues deliberations. (Reported/Recorded by: Debra Clark and Lynette Walters) (MF, Courtroom Deputy) (Entered: 09/28/2007)
737 Jury Note. Jury Question No. 2(LE, Case Administrator) (Entered: 10/02/2007)
739 Reply by Court to Jury Question 2. Related document: 737 Jury Note.(LE, Case Administrator) (Entered: 10/02/2007)
740 Jury Note. Jury Question No. 3.(LE, Case Administrator) (Entered: 10/02/2007)
742 Reply by Court to Jury Question No. 3. Related document: 740 Jury Note.(LE, Case Administrator) (Entered: 10/02/2007)
730 Minute Entry for VIDEO CONFERENCE proceedings held before Judge Robert H. Whaley : Jury Trial − Day Thirteen completed on 9/27/2007. Jury returns with a verdict. Court will file verdict. (Reported/Recorded by: Debra Clark) (Attachments: # 1 # 2) (MF, Courtroom Deputy) (Entered: 09/28/2007)
743 NOTE TO JURY by Court.(LE, Case Administrator) (Entered: 10/02/2007)
744 NOTE TO JURY by Court.(LE, Case Administrator) (Entered: 10/02/2007)
745 Jury Note. Jury Question No. 4. Jury has reached a decision.(LE, Case Administrator) (Entered: 10/02/2007)
747 JURY VERDICT in favor of Plaintiffs against Defendants. (LE, Case Administrator) (Entered: 10/02/2007)
749 ORDER DIRECTING PARTIES TO CONFER AND FILE STATUS CERTIFICATE; parties shall file joint status certificate by 10/15/07; Telephonic Status Conference set for 10/19/2007 09:00 AM in Spokane before Chief Judge Robert H. Whaley with the parties to call the Court conference line at 509−458−6380 at the designated time. Signed by Judge Robert H. Whaley. (LE, Case Administrator) (Entered: 10/05/2007)
750 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney (atty Gregg R. Smith) by Global Horizons Inc.. (Smith, Gregg) (Entered: 10/05/2007)
751 MOTION to Expedite Hearing on Motion to Withdraw by Global Horizons Inc.. (Smith, Gregg) (Entered: 10/05/2007)

Case: 2:05-cv-3061 As of: 11/05/2016 05:11 PM PDT 61 of 116

10/05/2007 10/05/2007 10/05/2007
10/09/2007
10/10/2007 10/15/2007 10/15/2007 10/17/2007 10/19/2007 10/19/2007
10/19/2007 10/19/2007 10/23/2007 10/23/2007 10/26/2007
10/26/2007
10/29/2007

752 DECLARATION by Gregg R. Smith in Support re 750 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney (atty Gregg R. Smith) filed by Global Horizons Inc.. (Smith, Gregg) (Entered: 10/05/2007)
753 DECLARATION by Gregg R. Smith in Support re 751 MOTION to Expedite Hearing on Motion to Withdraw filed by Global Horizons Inc.. (Smith, Gregg) (Entered: 10/05/2007)
754 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re 750 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney (atty Gregg R. Smith), 751 MOTION to Expedite Hearing on Motion to Withdraw : Motion Hearing set for 10/12/2007 at 06:30 PM Yakima for 751 and for 750 , before Chief Judge Robert H. Whaley (Smith, Gregg) (Entered: 10/05/2007)
755 SCHEDULING CONFERENCE NOTICE − Text entry; no PDF document.: TIME CHANGE ONLY. Telephonic Status Conference set for 10/19/2007 at 08:30 AM in Telephonic Argument before Chief Judge Robert H. Whaley. The parties shall call the Court conference line at (509) 458−6380 at the time scheduled.(MF, Courtroom Deputy) (Entered: 10/09/2007)
756 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 750 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney (atty Gregg R. Smith) filed by all plaintiffs. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 10/10/2007)
757 STATUS REPORT DEFENDANTS' OBJECTIONS by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Bobbitt, Chrystal) (Entered: 10/15/2007)
758 STATUS REPORT Joint Status Certificate by all plaintiffs. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 10/15/2007)
760 Docket Annotation − Re Filing Error: 759 EX PARTE MOTION DOCUMENT FILED IN ERROR. DISREGARD DOCKET ENTRY (RF, Case Administrator) (Entered: 10/17/2007)
761 MOTION and Memorandum in Support of Award of FLCA Statutory Damages by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Isley, Lori) (Entered: 10/19/2007)
762 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion Oral Argument Requested re 761 MOTION and Memorandum in Support of Award of FLCA Statutory Damages : Motion Hearing set for 11/27/2007 at 02:00 PM Yakima for 761 , before Chief Judge Robert H. Whaley (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 10/19/2007)
764 Motion to Seal by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Bobbitt, Chrystal) (Entered: 10/19/2007)
765 Minute Entry for TELEPHONIC proceedings held before Judge Robert H. Whaley : Scheduling Conference held on 10/19/2007. (Reported/Recorded by: Mark Snover) (MF, Courtroom Deputy) (Entered: 10/22/2007)
766 ORDER GRANTING THE GLOBAL DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL; granting 764 Motion to Seal. Signed by Judge Robert H. Whaley. (LE, Case Administrator) (Entered: 10/23/2007)
767 JUDGMENT in favor of Ricardo Betancourt, Jose Sanchez & Jose G. Perez−Farias against Global Horizons Inc., Mordechai Orian. Signed by Judge Robert H. Whaley. (LE, Case Administrator) (Entered: 10/23/2007)
768 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Request waiver cost bill & fees by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Isley, Lori) Modified on 10/29/2007 −− This also includes a MOTION TO EXPEDITE. (LE, Case Administrator). (Entered: 10/26/2007)
769 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re 768 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Request waiver cost bill & fees : Motion Hearing set for 10/30/2007 at 06:30 PM Yakima for 768 , before Chief Judge Robert H. Whaley (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 10/26/2007)
770 Docket Annotation − Re Filing Error: 768 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Request waiver cost bill & fees. This document also contains a Motion to Expedite.

Case: 2:05-cv-3061 As of: 11/05/2016 05:11 PM PDT 62 of 116

10/29/2007
10/31/2007 10/31/2007 10/31/2007 10/31/2007
10/31/2007
11/01/2007 11/02/2007 11/02/2007 11/02/2007 11/02/2007

(LE, Case Administrator) (Entered: 10/29/2007)
771 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion − By Court − Text entry; no PDF document. Oral Argument Requested re 751 MOTION to Expedite Hearing on Motion to Withdraw, 750 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney (atty Gregg R. Smith) :At the hearing on October 19, 2007, the COURT set the Motion Hearing for Thursday, 11/1/2007 at 01:00 PM Telephonic Argument for 751 and for 750 , before Chief Judge Robert H. Whaley. The parties shall call the Court Conference Line at (509) 458−6380 to participate in the hearing.(MF, Courtroom Deputy) (Entered: 10/29/2007)
772 MOTION to Continue TIME TO FILE MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF POST TRIAL MOTIONS by Global Horizons Inc., Mordechai Orian. (Attachments: # 1)(Bobbitt, Chrystal) (Entered: 10/31/2007)
773 MOTION to Expedite HEARING ON MOTION TO CONTINUE TIME FOR FILING MEMO IN SUPPORT OF POST TRIAL MOTIONS by Global Horizons Inc., Mordechai Orian. (Attachments: # 1)(Bobbitt, Chrystal) (Entered: 10/31/2007)
774 MEMORANDUM in Support re 772 MOTION to Continue TIME TO FILE MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF POST TRIAL MOTIONS filed by Global Horizons Inc., Mordechai Orian. (Attachments: # 1)(Bobbitt, Chrystal) (Entered: 10/31/2007)
775 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re 772 MOTION to Continue TIME TO FILE MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF POST TRIAL MOTIONS : Motion Hearing set for 11/1/2007 at 06:30 PM Without Oral Argument for 772 , before Chief Judge Robert H. Whaley (Bobbitt, Chrystal) Modified on 11/2/2007 −− Date of hearing was not included in the text of the document; attorney to file Praecipe to correct. (LE, Case Administrator). Modified on 11/2/2007 −− Praecipe filed at 779 . (LE, Case Administrator). (Entered: 10/31/2007)
776 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re 773 MOTION to Expedite HEARING ON MOTION TO CONTINUE TIME FOR FILING MEMO IN SUPPORT OF POST TRIAL MOTIONS : Motion Hearing set for 11/1/2007 at 06:30 PM for 773 , before Chief Judge Robert H. Whaley (Bobbitt, Chrystal) Modified on 11/2/2007 −− Date of hearing was not included in the text of the document; attorney to file Praecipe to correct. (LE, Case Administrator). Modified on 11/2/2007 −− Praecipe filed at 780 . (LE, Case Administrator). (Entered: 10/31/2007)
777 Minute Entry for TELEPHONIC proceedings held before Judge Robert H. Whaley : Motion Hearing held on 11/1/2007 re 750 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney (atty Gregg R. Smith) filed by Global Horizons Inc., 751 MOTION to Expedite Hearing on Motion to Withdraw filed by Global Horizons Inc.. (Reported/Recorded by: Debra Clark) (MF, Courtroom Deputy) (Entered: 11/02/2007)
778 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION AND MEMORANDUM TO WAIVE TIME TO FILE MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COST BILL; granting pltfs' 768 Motion for Extension of Time to File. Signed by Judge Robert H. Whaley. (LE, Case Administrator) (Entered: 11/02/2007)
779 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re 772 MOTION to Continue TIME TO FILE MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF POST TRIAL MOTIONS : Motion Hearing set for 11/5/2007 at 06:30 PM Without Oral Argument for 772 , before Chief Judge Robert H. Whaley (Bobbitt, Chrystal) (Entered: 11/02/2007)
780 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re 773 MOTION to Expedite HEARING ON MOTION TO CONTINUE TIME FOR FILING MEMO IN SUPPORT OF POST TRIAL MOTIONS : Motion Hearing set for 11/5/2007 at 06:30 PM Without Oral Argument for 773 , before Chief Judge Robert H. Whaley (Bobbitt, Chrystal) (Entered: 11/02/2007)
781 ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS LOCAL COUNSEL; granting Gregg Smith's 750 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Gregg Randall Smith terminated; granting Gregg Smith's 751 Motion to Expedite; The Global Defendants request 45 days within which to hire local counsel pursuant to LR 83.2(c). The Court will permit pro hac vice counsel to file pleadings in this matter during that 45 days. After the expiration of 45 days, however, pro hac vice counsel will not be

Case: 2:05-cv-3061 As of: 11/05/2016 05:11 PM PDT 63 of 116

11/02/2007 11/02/2007 11/03/2007
11/05/2007 11/05/2007 11/05/2007 11/05/2007 11/05/2007 11/05/2007 11/06/2007 11/06/2007
11/06/2007 11/06/2007

permitted to practice before this Court, including file pleadings, without participation by counsel admitted to this Court as contemplated by the Local Rules. Signed by Judge Robert H. Whaley. (LE, Case Administrator) (Entered: 11/02/2007)
782 Proposed Findings of Fact by all plaintiffs. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 11/02/2007)
783 DECLARATION by Lori Jordan Isley re 782 Proposed Findings of Fact by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A & B)(Isley, Lori) (Entered: 11/02/2007)
784 MEMORANDUM of Points and Authorities in Opposition re 761 MOTION and Memorandum in Support of Award of FLCA Statutory Damages filed by Global Horizons Inc., Mordechai Orian. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Bobbitt, Chrystal) Modified on 11/5/2007 to identify attachment and did not number entire document; attorney to file praecipe. (LE, Case Administrator). Modified on 11/6/2007 −− Praecipe filed at 785 . (LE, Case Administrator). (Entered: 11/03/2007)
785 Praecipe filed by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian: Re 784 Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Motion, To correct page numbering. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Bobbitt, Chrystal) (Entered: 11/05/2007)
786 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Bobbitt, Chrystal) (Entered: 11/05/2007)
787 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re 786 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages : Motion Hearing set for 11/6/2007 at 06:30 PM Without Oral Argument for 786 , before Chief Judge Robert H. Whaley (Bobbitt, Chrystal) (Entered: 11/05/2007)
788 MOTION to Expedite by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Bobbitt, Chrystal) (Entered: 11/05/2007)
789 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re 788 MOTION to Expedite : Motion Hearing set for 11/6/2007 at 06:30 PM Without Oral Argument for 788 , before Chief Judge Robert H. Whaley (Bobbitt, Chrystal) (Entered: 11/05/2007)
790 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 772 MOTION to Continue TIME TO FILE MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF POST TRIAL MOTIONS filed by all plaintiffs. (Crewdson, Amy) (Entered: 11/05/2007)
791 MOTION for Judgment as a Matter of Law by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Bobbitt, Chrystal) (Entered: 11/06/2007)
792 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion Oral Argument Requested re 791 MOTION for Judgment as a Matter of Law : Motion Hearing set for 12/7/2007 at 02:00 PM Yakima for 791 , before Chief Judge Robert H. Whaley (Bobbitt, Chrystal) Modified on 11/7/2007 −− The date and time of hearing was not obtained from the Courtroom Deputy and is, therefore, invalid; filing attorney to obtain a date and time from the Courtroom Deputy for oral argument and then refile the Notice of Hearing with the correct information. (LE, Case Administrator). (Entered: 11/06/2007)
793 MEMORANDUM re 791 MOTION for Judgment as a Matter of Law, 792 Notice of Hearing on Motion by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Bobbitt, Chrystal) (Entered: 11/06/2007)
794 MOTION for Judgment as a Matter of Law by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Bobbitt, Chrystal) Modified on 11/7/2007 −− This is actually two Motions: DEFENDANTS GLOBAL HORIZONS, INC AND MORDECHAI ORIAN'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR A NEW TRIAL BECAUSE NO OPT−OUT NOTICE WAS SENT TO ABSENT CLASS MEMBERS. (LE, Case Administrator). (Entered: 11/06/2007)

Case: 2:05-cv-3061 As of: 11/05/2016 05:11 PM PDT 64 of 116

11/06/2007
11/06/2007 11/06/2007
11/06/2007
11/06/2007
11/07/2007 11/08/2007 11/08/2007 11/08/2007 11/08/2007 11/08/2007

795 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion Oral Argument Requested re 794 MOTION for Judgment as a Matter of Law : Motion Hearing set for 12/7/2007 at 02:00 PM Yakima for 794 , before Chief Judge Robert H. Whaley (Bobbitt, Chrystal) Modified on 11/7/2007 −− The date and time of hearing was not obtained from the Courtroom Deputy and is, therefore, invalid; filing attorney to obtain a date and time from the Courtroom Deputy for oral argument and then refile the Notice of Hearing with the correct information. (LE, Case Administrator). (Entered: 11/06/2007)
796 MEMORANDUM re 795 Notice of Hearing on Motion, 794 MOTION for Judgment as a Matter of Law by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Bobbitt, Chrystal) (Entered: 11/06/2007)
797 MOTION for Judgment as a Matter of Law by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Bobbitt, Chrystal) Modified on 11/7/2007 −− This is actually two Motions: DEFENDANTS GLOBAL HORIZONS, INC AND MORDECHAI ORIAN'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR A NEW TRIAL. (LE, Case Administrator). (Entered: 11/06/2007)
798 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion Oral Argument Requested re 797 MOTION for Judgment as a Matter of Law : Motion Hearing set for 12/7/2007 at 02:00 PM Yakima for 797 , before Chief Judge Robert H. Whaley (Bobbitt, Chrystal) Modified on 11/7/2007 −− The date and time of hearing was not obtained from the Courtroom Deputy and is, therefore, invalid; filing attorney to obtain a date and time from the Courtroom Deputy for oral argument and then refile the Notice of Hearing with the correct information. (LE, Case Administrator). (Entered: 11/06/2007)
799 MEMORANDUM re 798 Notice of Hearing on Motion, 797 MOTION for Judgment as a Matter of Law by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Bobbitt, Chrystal) Modified on 11/7/2007 −− Document not numbered in its entirety, attorney to file praecipe to correct. (LE, Case Administrator). Modified on 11/8/2007 −− Praecipe filed at 801 . (LE, Case Administrator). Modified on 3/27/2008 −− Construed by the Court as a Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law. (LE, Case Administrator). (Entered: 11/06/2007)
800 Docket Annotation − Re Filing Error: 795 Notice of Hearing on Motion, 798 Notice of Hearing on Motion, 792 Notice of Hearing on Motion. The date and time for oral argument was not obtained from the Courtroom Deputy and is, therefore, invalid. The filing attorney will refile the Notices once a valid date and time is obtained from the Courtroom Deputy. (LE, Case Administrator) (Entered: 11/07/2007)
801 Praecipe filed by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian: Re 799 Memorandum,. (Bobbitt, Chrystal) Modified on 11/8/2007 −− filed to correct numbering. (LE, Case Administrator). (Entered: 11/08/2007)
802 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion Oral Argument Requested re 797 MOTION for Judgment as a Matter of Law : (Bobbitt, Chrystal) Modified on 11/8/2007 −− NOTICE DOCKETED INCORRECTLY; ATTORNEY TO REFILE.(LE, Case Administrator). Modified on 11/8/2007 −− Notice refiled at 803 .(LE, Case Administrator). (Entered: 11/08/2007)
803 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion Oral Argument Requested re 797 MOTION for Judgment as a Matter of Law : Motion Hearing set for 12/11/2007 at 10:30 AM Yakima for 797 , before Chief Judge Robert H. Whaley (Bobbitt, Chrystal) (Entered: 11/08/2007)
804 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion Oral Argument Requested re 794 MOTION for Judgment as a Matter of Law : Motion Hearing set for 12/11/2007 at 10:30 AM Yakima for 794 , before Chief Judge Robert H. Whaley (Bobbitt, Chrystal) (Entered: 11/08/2007)
805 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion Oral Argument Requested re 791 MOTION for Judgment as a Matter of Law : Motion Hearing set for 12/11/2007 at 10:30 AM Yakima for 791 , before Chief Judge Robert H. Whaley (Bobbitt, Chrystal) (Entered: 11/08/2007)

Case: 2:05-cv-3061 As of: 11/05/2016 05:11 PM PDT 65 of 116

11/09/2007 11/13/2007
11/15/2007 11/16/2007
11/19/2007 11/19/2007 11/19/2007 11/19/2007 11/19/2007 11/20/2007 11/20/2007 11/27/2007 11/28/2007

806 REPLY MEMORANDUM re 761 MOTION and Memorandum in Support of Award of FLCA Statutory Damages filed by all plaintiffs. (Morrison, Joachim) (Entered: 11/09/2007)
807 ORDER GRANTING THE GLOBAL DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO CONTINUE TIME FOR FILING A MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF ITS POST−TRIAL MOTIONS; granting 772 Motion to Continue; granting 773 Motion to Expedite; Within 25 days from receipt of trial transcripts, Global dfts shall be permitted to amend their Memorandum of Points and Authorities or file add'l Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support of their post−trial motions. Signed by Judge Robert H. Whaley. (LE, Case Administrator) (Entered: 11/13/2007)
808 RESPONSE to Motion re 761 MOTION and Memorandum in Support of Award of FLCA Statutory Damages Supplemental Brief in Response to Plaintiffs' Reply Brief filed by Global Horizons Inc., Mordechai Orian. (Bobbitt, Chrystal) (Entered: 11/15/2007)
809 ORDER DIRECTING THE GROWER DEFENDANTS TO FILE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS; SETTING STATUS CONFERENCE; AND STRIKING HEARING ON PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR AWARD OF PLCA STATUTORY DAMAGES. Hearing re 761 MOTION and Memorandum in Support of Award of FLCA Statutory Damages filed by Jose F Sanchez, Ricardo Betancourt, Jose Guadalupe Perez−Farias is STRICKEN. The hearing will be re−noted after the Court rules on Defendants' post−trial motions. Telephonic Status Conference set for 11/27/2007 at 2:00 PM with Telephonic Argument before Chief Judge Robert H. Whaley. Signed by Judge Robert H. Whaley. (RF, Case Administrator) (Entered: 11/16/2007)
810 MOTION to Expedite Motion to File Over Length Brief by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Morrison, Joachim) (Entered: 11/19/2007)
811 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re 810 MOTION to Expedite Motion to File Over Length Brief : Motion Hearing set for 11/19/2007 at 06:30 PM Without Oral Argument for 810 , before Chief Judge Robert H. Whaley (Morrison, Joachim) (Entered: 11/19/2007)
812 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages re Plaintiffs' Response Memorandum to Global Defendants' Post−Trial Motions by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Morrison, Joachim) (Entered: 11/19/2007)
813 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re 812 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages re Plaintiffs' Response Memorandum to Global Defendants' Post−Trial Motions : Motion Hearing set for 11/19/2007 at 06:30 PM Without Oral Argument for 812 , before Chief Judge Robert H. Whaley (Morrison, Joachim) (Entered: 11/19/2007)
814 RESPONSE to Motion re 791 MOTION for Judgment as a Matter of Law, 794 MOTION for Judgment as a Matter of Law, 797 MOTION for Judgment as a Matter of Law filed by all plaintiffs. (Morrison, Joachim) (Entered: 11/19/2007)
815 Praecipe filed by all plaintiffs: Re 810 MOTION to Expedite Motion to File Over Length Brief Correcting Case Number on Motion and Proposed Order. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Morrison, Joachim) (Entered: 11/20/2007)
816 Praecipe filed by all plaintiffs: Re 812 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages re Plaintiffs' Response Memorandum to Global Defendants' Post−Trial Motions Correcting Case Number on Motion. (Morrison, Joachim) (Entered: 11/20/2007)
817 Minute Entry for TELEPHONIC proceedings held before Judge Robert H. Whaley : Scheduling Conference held on 11/27/2007. (Reported/Recorded by: Debra Clark) (MF, Courtroom Deputy) (Entered: 11/28/2007)
818 REPLY MEMORANDUM re 791 MOTION for Judgment as a Matter of Law, 794 MOTION for Judgment as a Matter of Law, 797 MOTION for Judgment as a Matter of Law As to Plaintiffs Single Opposition to Defendants Four Post Trial Motions Filed filed by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Plaintiffs Trial Exhibit 12)(Bobbitt, Chrystal) (Entered: 11/28/2007)

Case: 2:05-cv-3061 As of: 11/05/2016 05:11 PM PDT 66 of 116

11/29/2007
11/29/2007
11/30/2007 11/30/2007 11/30/2007 12/04/2007 12/04/2007 12/05/2007 12/05/2007 12/05/2007 12/05/2007 12/05/2007 12/05/2007 12/06/2007

819 ORDER SETTING FINAL ARGUMENTS ON GROWER'S LIABILITY; SETTING HEARING ON POST−TRIAL MOTIONS; AND DIRECTING SERVICE; the following motions are set for hearing on 12/17/07 at 1:00 PM, Yakima, WA: 791 MOTION for Judgment as a Matter of Law filed by Platte River Insurance Company, Jane Doe Orian, Mordechai Orian, Global Horizons Inc., 794 MOTION for Judgment as a Matter of Law filed by Platte River Insurance Company, Jane Doe Orian, Mordechai Orian, Global Horizons Inc., 797 MOTION for Judgment as a Matter of Law filed by Platte River Insurance Company, Jane Doe Orian, Mordechai Orian, Global Horizons Inc.; Closing Arguments on the issue of the Grower Dfts' liability will be heard on 12/17/2007 01:00 PM in Yakima before Chief Judge Robert H. Whaley. Signed by Judge Robert H. Whaley. (LE, Case Administrator) Modified on 11/29/2007 −− USM to serve copy of this Order and a copy of the 809 Order filed 11/16/07 on Green Acre Farms, Inc and Valley Fruit Orchards, LLC which were hand delivered to the USM. (LE, Case Administrator). (Entered: 11/29/2007)
Set/Reset Motion Hearing as to 791 MOTION for Judgment as a Matter of Law, 797 MOTION for Judgment as a Matter of Law, 794 MOTION for Judgment as a Matter of Law. Motion Hearing set for 12/17/2007 at 01:00 PM Yakima for 791 and for 797 and for 794 , before Chief Judge Robert H. Whaley per 819 Order filed 11/29/07. (LE, Case Administrator) (Entered: 11/29/2007)
820 MOTION to Strike 808 Response to Motion by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Isley, Lori) (Entered: 11/30/2007)
821 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re 820 MOTION to Strike 808 Response to Motion : Motion Hearing set for 1/2/2008 at 06:30 PM Without Oral Argument for 820 , before Chief Judge Robert H. Whaley (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 11/30/2007)
822 NOTICE of Association of Counsel by Brendan Victor Monahan on behalf of Valley Fruit Orchards, LLC (Monahan, Brendan) (Entered: 11/30/2007)
823 NOTICE of Association of Counsel by Brendan Victor Monahan on behalf of Green Acre Farms Inc, Jim Morford, Katherine M Morford, John Verbrugge, Desiree C Verbrugge (Monahan, Brendan) (Entered: 12/04/2007)
824 NOTICE of Appearance by Gary Edward Lofland on behalf of Global Horizons Inc. (Lofland, Gary) (Entered: 12/04/2007)
825 MOTION to Continue Hearing of Pending Post Trial Motions by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Attachments: # 1)(Bobbitt, Chrystal) (Entered: 12/05/2007)
826 DECLARATION by Chrystal Bobbitt in Support re 825 MOTION to Continue Hearing of Pending Post Trial Motions filed by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Attachments: # 1)(Bobbitt, Chrystal) (Entered: 12/05/2007)
827 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re 825 MOTION to Continue Hearing of Pending Post Trial Motions : Motion Hearing set for 12/6/2007 at 06:30 PM Without Oral Argument for 825 , before Chief Judge Robert H. Whaley (Bobbitt, Chrystal) (Entered: 12/05/2007)
828 MOTION to Expedite Hearing of Motion to Continue Hearing of Pending Post Trial Motions by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Attachments: # 1)(Bobbitt, Chrystal) (Entered: 12/05/2007)
829 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re 828 MOTION to Expedite Hearing of Motion to Continue Hearing of Pending Post Trial Motions : Motion Hearing set for 12/6/2007 at 06:30 PM Without Oral Argument for 828 , before Chief Judge Robert H. Whaley (Bobbitt, Chrystal) (Entered: 12/05/2007)
830 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 820 MOTION to Strike 808 Response to Motion filed by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Attachments: # 1)(Bobbitt, Chrystal) (Entered: 12/05/2007)
831 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 825 MOTION to Continue Hearing of Pending Post Trial Motions filed by all plaintiffs. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 12/06/2007)

Case: 2:05-cv-3061 As of: 11/05/2016 05:11 PM PDT 67 of 116

12/06/2007 12/07/2007 12/07/2007 12/07/2007 12/07/2007
12/07/2007 12/07/2007
12/07/2007
12/10/2007

832 DECLARATION by Amy L. Crewdson in Opposition re 825 MOTION to Continue Hearing of Pending Post Trial Motions filed by all plaintiffs. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 12/06/2007)
833 ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO CONTINUE THE HEARING ON PENDING POST TRIAL MOTIONS; denying 825 Motion to Continue; granting 828 Motion to Expedite. Signed by Judge Robert H. Whaley. (LE, Case Administrator) (Entered: 12/07/2007)
834 MOTION to Expedite Motion for Leave to File Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Post−Trial Brief by Green Acre Farms Inc, Valley Fruit Orchards, LLC, Jim Morford, Katherine M Morford, John Verbrugge, Desiree C Verbrugge. (Monahan, Brendan) Modified on 12/10/2007 −− Proposed Order for this motion can be found at 835 . (LE, Case Administrator). (Entered: 12/07/2007)
835 MOTION to Expedite Notice of Motion to Shorten Time by Green Acre Farms Inc, Valley Fruit Orchards, LLC, Jim Morford, Katherine M Morford, John Verbrugge, Desiree C Verbrugge. (Attachments: # 1)(Monahan, Brendan) Modified on 12/10/2007 −− This is not a motion, it is a Notice of Hearing; attorney to refile using correct event and the Clerk's office will remove this entry from the motions calendar. (LE, Case Administrator). Modified on 12/10/2007 −−corrected Notice of Hearing filed at 840 . (LE, Case Administrator). (Entered: 12/07/2007)
836 MOTION to Expedite Defendants' Notice of Motion for Leave to File Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Post−Trial Brief by Green Acre Farms Inc, Valley Fruit Orchards, LLC, Jim Morford, Katherine M Morford, John Verbrugge, Desiree C Verbrugge. (Monahan, Brendan) Modified on 12/10/2007 −− This is not a Motion to Expedite, it is titled a Notice of Motion and does not contain a date/time of hearing; attorney to refile using correct event and including date/time of hearing, and Clerk's office will remove this motion from the motion calendar.(LE, Case Administrator). Modified on 12/11/2007 −− corrected Notice of Hearing filed at 844 . (LE, Case Administrator). (Entered: 12/07/2007)
837 MOTION to Expedite Defendants' Motion for Leave to File Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Post−Trial Brief by Green Acre Farms Inc, Valley Fruit Orchards, LLC, Jim Morford, Katherine M Morford, John Verbrugge, Desiree C Verbrugge. (Attachments: # 1)(Monahan, Brendan) Modified on 12/10/2007 −− This is not a Motion to Expedite; attorney to refile using correct event and the Clerk's office will remove this from the motion calendar. (LE, Case Administrator). Modified on 12/10/2007 −− Corrected Motion filed at 841 . (LE, Case Administrator). (Entered: 12/07/2007)
838 MEMORANDUM in Support re 834 MOTION to Expedite Motion for Leave to File Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Post−Trial Brief, 835 MOTION to Expedite Notice of Motion to Shorten Time, 837 MOTION to Expedite Defendants' Motion for Leave to File Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Post−Trial Brief, 836 MOTION to Expedite Defendants' Notice of Motion for Leave to File Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Post−Trial Brief filed by Green Acre Farms Inc, Valley Fruit Orchards, LLC, Jim Morford, Katherine M Morford, John Verbrugge, Desiree C Verbrugge. (Monahan, Brendan) Modified on 12/10/2007 −− Refiled at 843 . (LE, Case Administrator). (Entered: 12/07/2007)
839 DECLARATION by Ryan M. Edgely in Support re 837 MOTION to Expedite Defendants' Motion for Leave to File Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Post−Trial Brief, 836 MOTION to Expedite Defendants' Notice of Motion for Leave to File Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Post−Trial Brief filed by Green Acre Farms Inc, Valley Fruit Orchards, LLC, Jim Morford, Katherine M Morford, John Verbrugge, Desiree C Verbrugge. (Monahan, Brendan) Modified on 12/10/2007 −− Declaration not signed; attorney to re−file as praecipe to correct. (LE, Case Administrator). Modified on 12/10/2007 −− Praecipe filed at 845 . (LE, Case Administrator). (Entered: 12/07/2007)
840 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re 834 MOTION to Expedite Motion for Leave to File Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Post−Trial Brief : Motion Hearing set for 12/10/2007 at 06:30 PM Without Oral Argument for 834 , before Chief Judge Robert H. Whaley (Monahan, Brendan) Modified on 12/11/2007 −− This replaces 835 which was incorrectly docketed as a motion. (LE, Case Administrator).

Case: 2:05-cv-3061 As of: 11/05/2016 05:11 PM PDT 68 of 116

12/10/2007
12/10/2007 12/10/2007 12/10/2007 12/10/2007 12/10/2007
12/10/2007
12/10/2007 12/10/2007 12/11/2007
12/11/2007 12/11/2007

(Entered: 12/10/2007)
841 MOTION for Leave to File Findings of FAct, Conclusions of Law and Post−Trial Brief by Green Acre Farms Inc, Valley Fruit Orchards, LLC, Jim Morford, Katherine M Morford, John Verbrugge, Desiree C Verbrugge. (Attachments: # 1)(Monahan, Brendan) Modified on 12/10/2007 −− This replaces Ct. Rec. 837 which was incorrectly filed using the wrong event. (LE, Case Administrator). (Entered: 12/10/2007)
842 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 841 MOTION for Leave to File Findings of FAct, Conclusions of Law and Post−Trial Brief filed by all plaintiffs. (Kuhling, Richard) (Entered: 12/10/2007)
843 MEMORANDUM in Support re 841 MOTION for Leave to File Findings of FAct, Conclusions of Law and Post−Trial Brief filed by Green Acre Farms Inc, Valley Fruit Orchards, LLC, Jim Morford, Katherine M Morford, John Verbrugge, Desiree C Verbrugge. (Monahan, Brendan) (Entered: 12/10/2007)
844 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re 841 MOTION for Leave to File Findings of FAct, Conclusions of Law and Post−Trial Brief : Motion Hearing set for 12/10/2007 at 06:30 PM Without Oral Argument for 841 , before Chief Judge Robert H. Whaley (Monahan, Brendan) Modified on 12/11/2007 −− replaces 836 . (LE, Case Administrator). (Entered: 12/10/2007)
845 Praecipe filed by Green Acre Farms Inc, Valley Fruit Orchards, LLC, Jim Morford, Katherine M Morford, John Verbrugge, Desiree C Verbrugge: Re 839 Declaration in Support of Motion,, Signed Declaration. (Monahan, Brendan) (Entered: 12/10/2007)
846 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion − By Court − Text entry; no PDF document. Oral Argument Requested re 841 MOTION for Leave to File Findings of FAct, Conclusions of Law and Post−Trial Brief : Motion Hearing Re: Grower Defendants is set with oral argument by the Court. The hearing shall be heard on Tuesday, 12/11/2007 at 02:15 PM Telephonic Argument for 841 , before Chief Judge Robert H. Whaley. The parties shall call the Court conference line at (509) 458−6380 to participate in the hearing. (MF, Courtroom Deputy) (Entered: 12/10/2007)
847 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion − By Court − Text entry; no PDF document. Oral Argument Requested re 841 MOTION for Leave to File Findings of FAct, Conclusions of Law and Post−Trial Brief : TIME CHANGE ONLY FROM FIRST NOTICE FILED BY THE COURT. Motion Hearing set for 12/11/2007 at 12:45 PM Telephonic Argument for 841 , before Chief Judge Robert H. Whaley. The parties shall call the Court conference line at (509) 458−6380 to participate in the hearing.(MF, Courtroom Deputy) (Entered: 12/10/2007)
848 USM PROCESS RECEIPT AND RETURN of 819 Order, and 809 Order on Green Acre Farms, Inc. − served on 11/30/07. (LE, Case Administrator) Modified on 12/11/2007 −−wrong pdf attached (now sealed) − Additional attachment of correct PDF added on 12/11/2007. (LE, Case Administrator). (Entered: 12/11/2007)
849 USM PROCESS RECEIPT AND RETURN of 819 Order, and 809 Order on Valley Fruit Orchards, LLC − served on 11/29/07. (LE, Case Administrator) (Entered: 12/11/2007)
850 Proposed Findings of Fact by Green Acre Farms Inc, Valley Fruit Orchards, LLC, Jim Morford, Katherine M Morford, John Verbrugge, Desiree C Verbrugge. (Monahan, Brendan) Modified on 12/12/2007 −− Not signed by the attorney; signature page to be refiled as a praecipe. (LE, Case Administrator). Modified on 12/13/2007 −− Praecipe filed at 852 but was incorrect; attorney advised to refile. (LE, Case Administrator). Modified on 12/14/2007 −− Correct Praecipe filed at 854 . (LE, Case Administrator). (Entered: 12/11/2007)
851 TRIAL BRIEF POST TRIAL BRIEF by Green Acre Farms Inc, Valley Fruit Orchards, LLC, Jim Morford, John Verbrugge, Desiree C Verbrugge. (Edgley, Ryan) (Entered: 12/11/2007)
853 Minute Entry for TELEPHONIC proceedings held before Judge Robert H. Whaley : Motion Hearing held on 12/11/2007 re 841 MOTION for Leave to File Findings of FAct, Conclusions of Law and Post−Trial Brief filed by Valley Fruit Orchards, LLC,

Case: 2:05-cv-3061 As of: 11/05/2016 05:11 PM PDT 69 of 116

12/12/2007
12/13/2007 12/14/2007 12/17/2007
12/24/2007 01/14/2008 01/18/2008 01/18/2008 01/23/2008 01/30/2008 03/27/2008

John Verbrugge, Green Acre Farms Inc, Jim Morford, Desiree C Verbrugge, Katherine M Morford, 834 MOTION to Expedite Motion for Leave to File Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Post−Trial Brief filed by Valley Fruit Orchards, LLC, John Verbrugge, Green Acre Farms Inc, Jim Morford, Desiree C Verbrugge, Katherine M Morford, 837 MOTION to Expedite Defendants' Motion for Leave to File Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Post−Trial Brief filed by Valley Fruit Orchards, LLC, John Verbrugge, Green Acre Farms Inc, Jim Morford, Desiree C Verbrugge, Katherine M Morford. (Reported/Recorded by: Lynette Walters) (MF, Courtroom Deputy) (Entered: 12/12/2007)
852 Praecipe filed by Green Acre Farms Inc, Valley Fruit Orchards, LLC, Jim Morford, Katherine M Morford, John Verbrugge, Desiree C Verbrugge: Re 850 Proposed Findings of Fact, to provide signed signature page. (Monahan, Brendan) Modified on 12/13/2007 −−Incorrect signatures; attorney needs to refile.(LE, Case Administrator). Modified on 12/14/2007 −− Replaces Praecipe at 852 providing signatures for 850 . (LE, Case Administrator). (Entered: 12/12/2007)
854 Praecipe filed by Green Acre Farms Inc, Valley Fruit Orchards, LLC, Jim Morford, Katherine M Morford, John Verbrugge, Desiree C Verbrugge: Re 850 Proposed Findings of Fact, signatures provided. (Monahan, Brendan) (Entered: 12/13/2007)
855 TRIAL BRIEF Response to Defendants Post−Trial Brief by all plaintiffs. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 12/14/2007)
856 Minute Entry for VIDEO CONFERENCE proceedings held before Judge Robert H. Whaley : Motion Hearing held on 12/17/2007 re 701 MOTION for Judgment as a Matter of Law filed by Platte River Insurance Company, Jane Doe Orian, Mordechai Orian, Global Horizons Inc., 791 MOTION for Judgment as a Matter of Law filed by Platte River Insurance Company, Jane Doe Orian, Mordechai Orian, Global Horizons Inc., 794 MOTION for Judgment as a Matter of Law filed by Platte River Insurance Company, Jane Doe Orian, Mordechai Orian, Global Horizons Inc., 797 MOTION for Judgment as a Matter of Law filed by Platte River Insurance Company, Jane Doe Orian, Mordechai Orian, Global Horizons Inc.. (Reported/Recorded by: Lynette Walters) (MF, Courtroom Deputy) (Entered: 12/18/2007)
857 Ryan EdgleyResponding To Order To Show Cause Report Ryan EdgleyResponding To Order To Show Cause. (Edgley, Ryan) (Entered: 12/24/2007)
858 MEMORANDUM re 856 Motion Hearing,, On Class Notice by all plaintiffs. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 01/14/2008)
859 MOTION to Amend/Correct 767 Judgment − By Court Memorandum Included by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Isley, Lori) (Entered: 01/18/2008)
860 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re 859 MOTION to Amend/Correct 767 Judgment − By Court Memorandum Included : Motion Hearing set for 2/19/2008 at 06:30 PM Without Oral Argument for 859 , before Chief Judge Robert H. Whaley (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 01/18/2008)
861 REPLY MEMORANDUM re 859 MOTION to Amend/Correct 767 Judgment − By Court Memorandum Included filed by Green Acre Farms Inc, Valley Fruit Orchards, LLC, Jim Morford, Katherine M Morford, John Verbrugge, Desiree C Verbrugge. (Edgley, Ryan) (Entered: 01/23/2008)
862 REPLY re 858 Memorandum, 856 Motion Hearing,, 861 Reply Memorandum on Class Notice by all plaintiffs. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 01/30/2008)
863 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ON PLAINTIFFS' CLAIMS AGAINST GROWER DEFENDANTS; ORDER ADDRESSING GGLOBAL'S POST−TRIAL MOTIONS; denying dfts' 701 MOTION for Judgment as a Matter of Law; denying dfts' 794 MOTION for Judgment as a Matter of Law; granting in part and denying in part dfts' 797 MOTION for Judgment as a Matter of Law; denying dfts' 799 MOTION for Judgment as a Matter of Law; denying pltfs' 820 MOTION to Strike Global Dfts' 808 Response to Motion filed by Jose F Sanchez, Ricardo Betancourt, Jose Guadalupe Perez−Farias; granting pltfs' 859 MOTION to Amend/Correct 767 Judgment; Pltfs' claims of racial discrimination under 42 USC

Case: 2:05-cv-3061 As of: 11/05/2016 05:11 PM PDT 70 of 116

04/08/2008 04/08/2008 04/08/2008 04/09/2008 04/09/2008 04/09/2008 04/10/2008 04/21/2008 04/21/2008
04/21/2008 04/22/2008

1981 and the Washington Law Against Discrimination asserted against the Grower Dfts are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; Two weeks from date of this Order, the 767 Judgment entered on 10/23/07 will be amended as outlined in this Order; any objections to the wording of the amended judgment must be filed within 10 days of this Order, otherwise the Court will amend the Judgment as set forth in this Order. Signed by Chief Judge Robert H. Whaley. (LE, Case Administrator) (Entered: 03/27/2008)
864 MOTION to Expedite Hearing and to File an Over−length Memo by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Contreras, Mirta) (Entered: 04/08/2008)
865 DECLARATION by Lori Jordan Isley in Support re 864 MOTION to Expedite Hearing and to File an Over−length Memo filed by all plaintiffs. (Contreras, Mirta) (Entered: 04/08/2008)
866 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re 864 MOTION to Expedite Hearing and to File an Over−length Memo : Motion Hearing set for 4/9/2008 06:30 PM in Without Oral Argument before Chief Judge Robert H. Whaley. (Contreras, Mirta) (Entered: 04/08/2008)
867 RESPONSE re 863 Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law,,,,, Terminate Motions,,,, Clarification of Denied Work Subclass by all plaintiffs. (Isley, Lori) Modified on 4/10/2008 −− The wrong event was used to file this document; advised by atty's office it is an objection.(LE, Case Administrator). Modified on 5/23/2008 −− Treated as a motion by the court. (LE, Case Administrator). (Entered: 04/09/2008)
868 MOTION to Alter Judgment and Memorandum in Support for Relief Under Rule 59(e) by all plaintiffs. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 04/09/2008)
869 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re 868 MOTION to Alter Judgment and Memorandum in Support for Relief Under Rule 59(e) : Motion Hearing set for 5/12/2008 06:30 PM in Without Oral Argument before Chief Judge Robert H. Whaley. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 04/09/2008)
870 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO EXPEDITE HEARING AND TO FILE AN OVER−LENGTH MEMORANDUM; granting pltfs' 864 Motion to Expedite and to file over−length memorandum; pltfs permitted to file an over−length brief of not more than 15 pages. Signed by Chief Judge Robert H. Whaley. (LE, Case Administrator) (Entered: 04/10/2008)
871 ORDER OF REFERRAL TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE HUTTON; the issue of Dft Global Horizons Inc's failure to obey the orders of this Court to pay the assessed monetary sanctions is referred to Magistrate Judge James P. Hutton. Signed by Chief Judge Robert H. Whaley. (LE, Case Administrator) (LE, Case Administrator). (Entered: 04/21/2008)
872 RESPONSE to Motion re 867 Response to Plaintiffs' Request for Clarification of Denied Work Subclass Definition for Amended Judgment filed by Green Acre Farms Inc, Valley Fruit Orchards, LLC, Jim Morford, Katherine M Morford, John Verbrugge, Desiree C Verbrugge. (Monahan, Brendan) Modified on 4/22/2008 correction to link to correct document(VR, Case Administrator). Modified on 4/23/2008 −− wrong event used as this is a response/reply to a response. (LE, Case Administrator). (Entered: 04/21/2008)
873 RESPONSE to Motion re 868 MOTION to Alter Judgment and Memorandum in Support for Relief Under Rule 59(e) filed by Green Acre Farms Inc, Valley Fruit Orchards, LLC, Jim Morford, Katherine M Morford, John Verbrugge, Desiree C Verbrugge. (Monahan, Brendan) (Entered: 04/21/2008)
874 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT ORDER; Global Horizons Inc is directed to pay the monetary sanctions previously ordered. A check payable to the United States District Court, Eastern District of Washington, from Global Horizons Inc, in the amount of $45,500.00, is due no later than 5/30/08; Should Global Horizons fail to make timely payment, Global Horizons, through its attorney, shall appear and show cause why it has failed to obey the Court's orders and why the monetary sanctions should not be reduced to a judgment. Show Cause Hearing set for 6/3/2008 10:00 AM in Yakima before Magistrate Judge

Case: 2:05-cv-3061 As of: 11/05/2016 05:11 PM PDT 71 of 116

04/23/2008 04/23/2008 04/28/2008 04/28/2008 04/28/2008 04/28/2008
04/28/2008 04/28/2008 05/23/2008
05/23/2008 05/23/2008 05/27/2008

James P. Hutton. Signed by Magistrate Judge James P. Hutton. (LE, Case Administrator) (Entered: 04/22/2008)
875 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 868 MOTION to Alter Judgment and Memorandum in Support for Relief Under Rule 59(e) filed by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian. (Bobbitt, Chrystal) (Entered: 04/23/2008)
876 RESPONSE re 867 Response, to Plaintiff's Request for Clarification by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian. (Bobbitt, Chrystal) (Entered: 04/23/2008)
877 MOTION to Expedite Hearing and to file an Over−Length Reply Memorandum by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Isley, Lori) (Entered: 04/28/2008)
878 DECLARATION by Lori Jordan Isley in Support re 877 MOTION to Expedite Hearing and to file an Over−Length Reply Memorandum filed by all plaintiffs. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 04/28/2008)
879 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re 877 MOTION to Expedite Hearing and to file an Over−Length Reply Memorandum : Motion Hearing set for 4/28/2008 06:30 PM in Without Oral Argument before Chief Judge Robert H. Whaley. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 04/28/2008)
880 REPLY MEMORANDUM re 877 MOTION to Expedite Hearing and to file an Over−Length Reply Memorandum, 868 MOTION to Alter Judgment and Memorandum in Support for Relief Under Rule 59(e) filed by all plaintiffs. (Isley, Lori) Modified on 4/29/2008 −− Linked to wrong docket entry, as this is entitled "Plaintiffs' Reply Memorandum in Support of Relief Under Rule 59(e)" which motion is filed at 868 . (LE, Case Administrator). (Entered: 04/28/2008)
881 REPLY MEMORANDUM re 868 MOTION to Alter Judgment and Memorandum in Support for Relief Under Rule 59(e) filed by all plaintiffs. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 04/28/2008)
882 REPLY re 863 Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law,,,,, Terminate Motions,,,, 876 Response, 867 Response, 872 Response to Motion, by all plaintiffs. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 04/28/2008)
883 ORDER ADDRESSING PENDING MOTIONS: Telephonic Status Conference set for 7/23/08 at 9:30 AM, Telephonic Argument before Chief Judge Robert H. Whaley, with the parties to call the Court's conference line at 509−458−6380; denying pltfs' 713 Motion for Reconsideration ; denying 759 Ex Parte Motion (for docket management purposes only); granting dft's 786 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages; granting dft's 788 Motion to Expedite; denying dft's 791 Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law (for docket management purposes only); granting dft's 810 Motion to Expedite; granting pltfs' 812 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages; granting pltfs' 834 Motion to Expedite; granting dft's 837 Motion to Expedite; granting dft's 841 Motion for Leave to File; granting in part pltfs' 867 Motion to Clarify, and the Court amends the 767 Judgment entered on 10/23/07; denying pltfs' 868 Motion to Alter Judgment; granting pltfs' 877 Motion to Expedite. Signed by Chief Judge Robert H. Whaley. (LE, Case Administrator) (Entered: 05/23/2008)
Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings: Telephonic Status Conference set for 7/23/2008 09:30 AM in Telephonic Argument before Chief Judge Robert H. Whaley, with the parties calling the Court's conference line at 509−458−6380 at the designated time. See 883 Order Addressing Pending Motions filed 5/23/08. (LE, Case Administrator) (Entered: 05/23/2008)
884 AMENDED JUDGMENT re 767 Judgment − By Court in favor of Ricardo Betancourt, Jose Sanchez & Jose G. Perez−Farias against Global Horizons Inc and Mordechai Orian. See 883 Order Addressing Pending Motions. Signed by Chief Judge Robert H. Whaley. (LE, Case Administrator) (Entered: 05/23/2008)
885 MOTION for Leave to Appear Telephonically by Global Horizons Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Bobbitt, Chrystal) Modified on 5/28/2008 −− This is actually 3 motions: (1) Motion to Appear Telephonically; (2)

Case: 2:05-cv-3061 As of: 11/05/2016 05:11 PM PDT 72 of 116

05/27/2008
05/27/2008 05/27/2008 05/28/2008
06/03/2008 06/03/2008 06/03/2008 06/04/2008
06/04/2008 06/04/2008 06/04/2008 06/05/2008

Alternative Motion to Continue Hearing; (3) Motion for Permission to File Under Seal. (LE, Case Administrator). (Entered: 05/27/2008)
886 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re 885 MOTION for Leave to Appear Telephonically : Motion Hearing set for 5/28/2008 06:30 PM in Telephonic Argument before Chief Judge Robert H. Whaley. (Bobbitt, Chrystal) Modified on 5/28/2008 −− Caption shows hearing for 3/28/08; attorney to refile as praecipe to correct. (LE, Case Administrator). Modified on 5/29/2008 −− as the court has ruled on the underlying motion, the attorney no longer needs to refile this Notice as a praecipe.(LE, Case Administrator). (Entered: 05/27/2008)
887 MOTION to Expedite by Global Horizons Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Bobbitt, Chrystal) (Entered: 05/27/2008)
888 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re 887 MOTION to Expedite : Motion Hearing set for 5/28/2008 06:30 PM before Chief Judge Robert H. Whaley. (Bobbitt, Chrystal) (Entered: 05/27/2008)
889 ORDER DENYING GLOBAL HORIZONS INC'S MOTION TO APPEAR TELEPHONICALLY AT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO CONTINUE THE JUNE 3, 2008, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE; AND FOR PERMISSION TO FILE UNDER SEAL; denying Global's 885 Motion for Leave to Appear telephonically, or in the alternative, to continue the 6/3/08 Order to Show Cause, and for permission to file documents under seal; granting Global's 887 Motion to Expedite; Global, by and through its counsel, shall either make payment on 5/30/08, as previously ordered, or appear on 6/3/08 at 10:00 a.m., Yakima, WA and show cause why it has failed to obey the Court's orders to pay monetary sanctions. Signed by Magistrate Judge James P. Hutton. (LE, Case Administrator) (Entered: 05/28/2008)
890 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge James P. Hutton: Show Cause Hearing held on 6/3/2008. (Reported/Recorded by: FTR/Y−102) (AG, Courtroom Deputy) (Entered: 06/03/2008)
891 ORDER DENYING PERMISSION TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL; denying 885 Motion for Permission to File Under Seal; Global's "Declaration of Mordechai Orian in Response to the Order to Show Cause for Failrue to Comply with the Court Order" and attachments shall not be filed under seal. Signed by Magistrate Judge James P. Hutton. (LE, Case Administrator) (Entered: 06/03/2008)
892 DECLARATION OF MORDECHAI ORIAN IN RESPONSE TO THE ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT ORDER re 874 Order to Show Cause, by Global Horizons Inc.. (LE, Case Administrator) (Entered: 06/03/2008)
893 ORDER DIRECTING MORDECHAI ORIAN TO APPEAR AND SHOW CAUSE WHY GLOBAL HAS FAILED TO OBEY THE COURT'S ORDERS; Show Cause Hearing set for 6/17/2008 10:00 AM in Yakima before Magistrate Judge James P. Hutton. Counsel for other parties may attend but are not invited to ask questions of Mr. Orian. Global Horizon and/or Mr. Orian shall produce to Magistrate Judge Hutton for in camera review, not less than 24 hours prior to the time of the supplemental show cause, those items listed in this order. Signed by Magistrate Judge James P. Hutton. (LE, Case Administrator) (Entered: 06/04/2008)
894 MOTION to Expedite Hearing, MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages by all plaintiffs. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 06/04/2008)
895 DECLARATION by Lori Jordan Isley in Support re 894 MOTION to Expedite Hearing MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages filed by all plaintiffs. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 06/04/2008)
896 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re 894 MOTION to Expedite Hearing MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages : Motion Hearing set for 6/5/2008 06:30 PM in Without Oral Argument before Chief Judge Robert H. Whaley. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 06/04/2008)
897 MEMORANDUM re 883 Order on Motion for Reconsideration,,,,, Order on Ex Parte Motion,,,,, Order on Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages,,,,, Order on Motion to Expedite,,,,, Order on Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Case: 2:05-cv-3061 As of: 11/05/2016 05:11 PM PDT 73 of 116

06/05/2008 06/05/2008 06/16/2008
06/20/2008
06/25/2008 06/25/2008 06/25/2008 06/25/2008 06/26/2008 06/26/2008 06/30/2008
07/07/2008
07/09/2008

Order on Motion to Clarify,,,,, Order on Motion to Alter Judgment,,,,,,,,, Plaintiffs' Phase II Damages by all plaintiffs. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 06/05/2008)
898 DECLARATION of Lori Jordan Isley re 897 Memorandum, by all plaintiffs. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 06/05/2008)
899 DECLARATION of Arasele F. Bueno re 897 Memorandum, by all plaintiffs. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 06/05/2008)
900 ORDER DIRECTING MORDECHAI ORIAN TO APPEAR AND SHOW CAUSE WHY GLOBAL HAS FAILED TO OBEY THE COURT'S ORDERS; Show Cause Response due by 6/30/2008 for Global Horizon and/or Mr. Orian to produce documents for the Court's in camera review. Show Cause Hearing set for 7/2/2008 01:30 PM in Yakima before Magistrate Judge James P. Hutton. Signed by Magistrate Judge James P. Hutton. (LE, Case Administrator) (Entered: 06/16/2008)
901 RESPONSE re 883 Order on Motion for Reconsideration,,,,, Order on Ex Parte Motion,,,,, Order on Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages,,,,, Order on Motion to Expedite,,,,, Order on Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Order on Motion to Clarify,,,,, Order on Motion to Alter Judgment,,,,,,,,, Grower Defendants' Proposed Procedures for Determination of Statutory Damages and Administration of Claims by Green Acre Farms Inc, Valley Fruit Orchards, LLC, Jim Morford, Katherine M Morford, John Verbrugge, Desiree C Verbrugge. (Monahan, Brendan) (Entered: 06/20/2008)
902 REPLY re 883 Order on Motion for Reconsideration,,,,, Order on Ex Parte Motion,,,,, Order on Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages,,,,, Order on Motion to Expedite,,,,, Order on Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Order on Motion to Clarify,,,,, Order on Motion to Alter Judgment,,,,,,,,, 901 Response,, by all plaintiffs. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 06/25/2008)
903 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney (atty Gary Lofland) by all defendants. (Lofland, Gary) Modified on 6/26/2008 −− Wrong PDF attached. Attorney to refile. (LE, Case Administrator). Modified on 6/26/2008 −− Praecipe filed at 906 . (LE, Case Administrator). (Additional attachment(s) added on 6/26/2008: # 1 Correct PDF) (LE, Case Administrator). (Entered: 06/25/2008)
904 AFFIDAVIT by Gary Lofland in Support re 903 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney (atty Gary Lofland) filed by all defendants. (Lofland, Gary) (Entered: 06/25/2008)
905 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re 903 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney (atty Gary Lofland) : Motion Hearing set for 7/2/2008 06:30 PM in Without Oral Argument before Chief Judge Robert H. Whaley. (Lofland, Gary) (Entered: 06/25/2008)
906 Praecipe filed by all defendants: Re 903 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney (atty Gary Lofland) To Provide Correct PDF Image. (Lofland, Gary) (Entered: 06/26/2008)
907 RESPONSE to Motion re 903 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney (atty Gary Lofland) MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney (atty Gary Lofland) filed by all plaintiffs. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 06/26/2008)
908 ORDER REGARDING SHOW CAUSE HEARING; Given the sensitive and confidential nature of the information provided by Global, the supplemental show cause hearing shall be closed to all parties other than those associated with Global; an electronic record of the proceedings shall be made, and the record shall be immediately sealed pending further order of the Court. Signed by Chief Judge Robert H. Whaley. (LE, Case Administrator) (Entered: 06/30/2008)
910 RESPONSE re 883 Order on Motion for Reconsideration,,,,, Order on Ex Parte Motion,,,,, Order on Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages,,,,, Order on Motion to Expedite,,,,, Order on Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Order on Motion to Clarify,,,,, Order on Motion to Alter Judgment,,,,,,,,, Proposed Course of Action for Damages Phase by all plaintiffs. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 07/07/2008)
911 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 903 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney (atty Gary Lofland) MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney (atty Gary Lofland) filed by Global

Case: 2:05-cv-3061 As of: 11/05/2016 05:11 PM PDT 74 of 116

07/09/2008 07/21/2008
07/22/2008
07/23/2008 07/25/2008 07/25/2008 08/06/2008
08/06/2008 08/07/2008 08/07/2008 08/07/2008 08/07/2008 08/08/2008 08/13/2008 08/13/2008 08/13/2008

Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Chrystal Bobbitt, # 2 Exhibit)(Bobbitt, Chrystal) (Entered: 07/09/2008)
912 AFFIDAVIT by Gary Lofland in Support re 903 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney (atty Gary Lofland) MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney (atty Gary Lofland) filed by all defendants. (Lofland, Gary) (Entered: 07/09/2008)
913 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 900 ORDER DIRECTING MORDECHAI ORIAN TO APPEAR AND SHOW CAUSE WHY GLOBAL HAS FAILED TO OBEY THE COURT'S ORDERS. Signed by Magistrate Judge James P. Hutton. (LE, Case Administrator). Objections to R&R due by 8/6/2008. Signed by Magistrate Judge James P. Hutton. (LE, Case Administrator) (Entered: 07/21/2008)
914 ERRATA TO REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 913 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS; the Court did receivee add'l schedules referred to in Global's 2005 federal income tax rturn; the receipt of these add'l schedules does not change this judicial officer's ultimate recommendations as reported on 7/21/08. Signed by Magistrate Judge James P. Hutton. (LE, Case Administrator) (Entered: 07/22/2008)
915 Minute Entry for TELEPHONIC proceedings held before Chief Judge Robert H. Whaley: Status Conference held on 7/23/2008. (Reported/Recorded by: Debra Clark) (MF, Courtroom Deputy) (Entered: 07/23/2008)
916 ORDER SETTING HEARING AND BRIEFING SCHEDULE; Status Conference set for 9/2/2008 02:30 PM in Yakima before Chief Judge Robert H. Whaley. Signed by Chief Judge Robert H. Whaley. (LE, Case Administrator) (Entered: 07/25/2008)
917 ORDER REFERRING MOTION TO WITHDRAW TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE HUTTON re 903 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney (atty Gary Lofland). Signed by Chief Judge Robert H. Whaley. (LE, Case Administrator) (Entered: 07/25/2008)
918 ORDER DENYING MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS LOCAL ATTORNEY OF RECORD; denying without prejudice local counsel Lofland's 903 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney; the court will revisit the issue when substitute counsel appears. Signed by Magistrate Judge James P. Hutton. (LE, Case Administrator) (Entered: 08/06/2008)
919 −SEALED− Motion to Seal by Global Horizons Inc., Mordechai Orian. (Bobbitt, Chrystal) (Entered: 08/06/2008)
921 Praecipe filed by all parties: Re 919 −SEALED− Motion to Seal. (Bobbitt, Chrystal) Modified on 8/8/2008 −− re Certificate of Service. (LE, Case Administrator). (Entered: 08/07/2008)
922 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages and Expedite by all plaintiffs. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 08/07/2008)
923 DECLARATION by Lori Isley in Support re 922 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages and Expedite filed by all plaintiffs. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 08/07/2008)
924 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re 922 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages and Expedite : Motion Hearing set for 8/7/2008 06:30 PM in Without Oral Argument before Chief Judge Robert H. Whaley. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 08/07/2008)
925 MEMORANDUM re 916 Order, Set Deadlines/Hearings Notice of Class & Opt Out by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Class Notice)(Isley, Lori) (Entered: 08/08/2008)
926 MOTION for Reconsideration re 918 Order on Motion to Withdraw as Attorney, by all defendants. (Lofland, Gary) (Entered: 08/13/2008)
927 MEMORANDUM in Support re 926 MOTION for Reconsideration re 918 Order on Motion to Withdraw as Attorney, filed by all defendants. (Lofland, Gary) (Entered: 08/13/2008)
928 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re 926 MOTION for Reconsideration re 918 Order on Motion to Withdraw as Attorney, : Motion Hearing set for 8/27/2008 06:30 PM before Magistrate Judge James P. Hutton. (Lofland, Gary) (Entered: 08/13/2008)

Case: 2:05-cv-3061 As of: 11/05/2016 05:11 PM PDT 75 of 116

08/22/2008 08/25/2008 08/28/2008 08/29/2008 08/29/2008 08/29/2008 08/29/2008 08/29/2008 09/02/2008 09/02/2008 09/03/2008 09/03/2008 09/03/2008 09/05/2008
09/11/2008

929 RESPONSE re 925 Memorandum Grower Defendants' Response to Plaintiffs' Proposed Class Notice by Valley Fruit Orchards, LLC, John Verbrugge, Desiree C Verbrugge. (Monahan, Brendan) (Entered: 08/22/2008)
930 MEMORANDUM re 925 Memorandum Response by Global Horizons Inc., Mordechai Orian. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Bobbitt, Chrystal) Modified on 8/26/2008 −− incorrect numbering; associated counsel didn't sign; attorney to correct and file praecipe. (LE, Case Administrator). (Entered: 08/25/2008)
931 ORDER ADDRESSING IMMIGRATION STATUS. Signed by Chief Judge Robert H. Whaley. (LE, Case Administrator) (Entered: 08/28/2008)
932 MOTION to Amend/Correct by all defendants. (Lofland, Gary) Modified on 9/2/2008 −− This is not a Motion, this is a Praecipe for signature of local counsel which was omitted from 930 Memorandum. Clerk's office will remove 932 from the motion calendar. (LE, Case Administrator). (Entered: 08/29/2008)
933 SUPPLEMENT Sworn Statment by all defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Lofland, Gary) Modified on 9/2/2008 −− incorrectly numbered. (LE, Case Administrator). (Entered: 08/29/2008)
934 Praecipe filed by Global Horizons Inc., Mordechai Orian: Re 930 Memorandum correcting page numbering. Signature of local page filed separately b. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Bobbitt, Chrystal) Modified on 9/2/2008 −− Local counsel signed & filed at 932 . (LE, Case Administrator). (Entered: 08/29/2008)
935 REPLY re 929 Response from Grower Defendents to Plts' Proposed Class Notice by plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Class Action & Opportunity to Opt Out)(Isley, Lori) Modified on 8/29/2008 corrected to indicate filer as plaintiffs only(VR, Case Administrator). (Entered: 08/29/2008)
936 Docket Annotation − Re Filing Error:correct to indicate filer as plaintiffs only 935 Reply, (VR, Case Administrator) (Entered: 08/29/2008)
937 Docket Annotation − Re Filing Error: 932 MOTION to Amend/Correct. This is not a Motion, this is a Praecipe for signature of local counsel which was omitted from 930 Memorandum. Clerk's office will remove 932 from the motion calendar. (LE, Case Administrator) (Entered: 09/02/2008)
940 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Chief Judge Robert H. Whaley: Status Conference held on 9/2/2008. (Reported/Recorded by: Lynette Walters) (MF, Courtroom Deputy) (Entered: 09/03/2008)
938 ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER DENYING MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS LOCAL COUNSEL; denying, without prejudice, 926 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Magistrate Judge James P. Hutton. (LE, Case Administrator) (Entered: 09/03/2008)
939 NOTICE by all plaintiffs Agreed Proposed Class Notices − Plaintiffs & Grower Defendants (Attachments: # 1 Notice to Denied Work Subclass, # 2 Notice to Green Acre & Valley Fruit Subclasses, # 3 Media Notice)(Isley, Lori) (Entered: 09/03/2008)
941 Minute Entry for TELEPHONIC proceedings held before Chief Judge Robert H. Whaley: Status Conference held on 9/3/2008. (Reported/Recorded by: Debra Clark) (MF, Courtroom Deputy) (Entered: 09/04/2008)
942 ORDER ADOPTING PLAINTIFFS' AND GROWER DEFENDANTS' AGREED PROPOSED NOTICES TO CLASS; the Court approves the Agreed Proposed Notices to the Class; the Court directs Pltfs' counsel to send out the Agreed Proposed Notices in the manner proposed by pltfs in Ct. Rec. 925 , and publish the Agreed Media Notices in the manner proposed by pltfs in Ct. Rec. 925 . Signed by Chief Judge Robert H. Whaley. (LE, Case Administrator) Modified on 9/19/2008 (RF, Case Administrator). (Entered: 09/05/2008)
943 NOTICE by all plaintiffs re 939 Notice (Other), 942 Order, Translated Class Notices (Attachments: # 1 Spanish − Denied Work Notice, # 2 Spanish − Green Acre & Valley Fruit Notice, # 3 Spanish − Media Class Notice)(Isley, Lori) (Entered: 09/11/2008)

Case: 2:05-cv-3061 As of: 11/05/2016 05:11 PM PDT 76 of 116

09/11/2008
09/18/2008 09/19/2008

944 DECLARATION of Yolanda B. Lopez re 943 Notice (Other) by all plaintiffs. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 09/11/2008)
945 NOTICE by Jose Valdovinos. (RF, Case Administrator) (Entered: 09/19/2008)
946 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Excerpts of Proceedings Testimony of Santiago Gonzalez, Rodrigo Coronel, and Maria Fuentes, Jury Trial − Day 1. Proceedings held on 9/11/07 in Yakima, WA before Judge Robert H. Whaley. Page Numbers: 1−60

Parties have seven (7) business days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days.

Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER.

Information regarding the policy can be found on the court website at www.waed.uscourts.gov.

To purchase a copy of the transcript contact Court Reporter/Transcriber Lynette Walters by telephone at 509−573−6613.

09/19/2008

Redaction Request due 10/10/2008. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 10/20/2008. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 12/18/2008. (SAP, Case Administrator) (Entered: 09/19/2008)
947 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Excerpts of Proceedings Ebony Williams Deposition, Testimony of Wisit Kampilo, Dennis Steen Deposition, Testimony of Ricardo Betancourt, Ignacio Ramos and Lali Menchaca, Jury Trial − Day 2. Proceedings held on 9/12/07 in Yakima, WA before Judge Robert H. Whaley. Page Numbers: 1−221

Parties have seven (7) business days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days.

Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER.

Information regarding the policy can be found on the court website at www.waed.uscourts.gov.

To purchase a copy of the transcript contact Court Reporter/Transcriber Lynette Walters by telephone at 509−573−6613.

09/19/2008

Redaction Request due 10/10/2008. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 10/20/2008. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 12/18/2008. (SAP, Case Administrator) (Entered: 09/19/2008)
948 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Excerpts of Proceedings Testimony of Lali Menchaca and Jose Cuevas, Jury Trial − Day 3. Proceedings held on 9/13/07 in Yakima, WA before Judge Robert H. Whaley. Page Numbers: 1−229

Parties have seven (7) business days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days.

Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER.

Case: 2:05-cv-3061 As of: 11/05/2016 05:11 PM PDT 77 of 116

09/19/2008 09/19/2008 09/19/2008

Information regarding the policy can be found on the court website at www.waed.uscourts.gov.
To purchase a copy of the transcript contact Court Reporter/Transcriber Lynette Walters by telephone at 509−573−6613.
Redaction Request due 10/10/2008. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 10/20/2008. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 12/18/2008. (SAP, Case Administrator) (Entered: 09/19/2008)
949 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Excerpts of Proceedings Testimony of Alberto Garcia, Jose Cuevas, Jose Sanchez, Pablo Meza, Jury Trial − Day 4. Proceedings held on 9/14/07 in Yakima, WA before Judge Robert H. Whaley. Page Numbers: 1−137
Parties have seven (7) business days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days.
Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER.
Information regarding the policy can be found on the court website at www.waed.uscourts.gov.
To purchase a copy of the transcript contact Court Reporter/Transcriber Lynette Walters by telephone at 509−573−6613.
Redaction Request due 10/10/2008. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 10/20/2008. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 12/18/2008. (SAP, Case Administrator) (Entered: 09/19/2008)
950 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Excerpts of Proceedings Testimony of Rafael Zepeda Reyna, Ralph Schotzko and J. W. Perez Farias, Jury Trial − Day 5. Proceedings held on 9/17/07 in Yakima, WA before Judge Robert H. Whaley. Page Numbers: 1−262
Parties have seven (7) business days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days.
Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER.
Information regarding the policy can be found on the court website at www.waed.uscourts.gov.
To purchase a copy of the transcript contact Court Reporter/Transcriber Lynette Walters by telephone at 509−573−6613.
Redaction Request due 10/10/2008. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 10/20/2008. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 12/18/2008. (SAP, Case Administrator) (Entered: 09/19/2008)
951 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Excerpts of Proceedings Testimony of Mordechai Orian, Jury Trial − Day 6. Proceedings held on 9/18/07 in Yakima, WA before Judge Robert H. Whaley. Page Numbers: 1−232
Parties have seven (7) business days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90

Case: 2:05-cv-3061 As of: 11/05/2016 05:11 PM PDT 78 of 116

09/19/2008 09/19/2008

calendar days.
Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER.
Information regarding the policy can be found on the court website at www.waed.uscourts.gov.
To purchase a copy of the transcript contact Court Reporter/Transcriber Lynette Walters by telephone at 509−573−6613.
Redaction Request due 10/10/2008. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 10/20/2008. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 12/18/2008. (SAP, Case Administrator) (Entered: 09/19/2008)
952 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Excerpts of Proceedings Testimony of James Holt, Pranee Tubchumpol, Jim Morford and Gerardo Valadares, Jury Trial − Day 7. Proceedings held on 9/19/07 in Yakima, WA before Judge Robert H. Whaley. Page Numbers: 1−276
Parties have seven (7) business days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days.
Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER.
Information regarding the policy can be found on the court website at www.waed.uscourts.gov.
To purchase a copy of the transcript contact Court Reporter/Transcriber Lynette Walters by telephone at 509−573−6613.
Redaction Request due 10/10/2008. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 10/20/2008. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 12/18/2008. (SAP, Case Administrator) (Entered: 09/19/2008)
953 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Excerpts of Proceedings Testimony of John Verbrugge, Stan Beuchler and Martin Rios, Jury Trial − Day 8. Proceedings held on 9/20/07 in Yakima, WA before Judge Robert H. Whaley. Page Numbers: 1−124
Parties have seven (7) business days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days.
Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER.
Information regarding the policy can be found on the court website at www.waed.uscourts.gov.
To purchase a copy of the transcript contact Court Reporter/Transcriber Lynette Walters by telephone at 509−573−6613.
Redaction Request due 10/10/2008. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 10/20/2008. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 12/18/2008. (SAP, Case Administrator) (Entered: 09/19/2008)

Case: 2:05-cv-3061 As of: 11/05/2016 05:11 PM PDT 79 of 116

09/19/2008 954 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Excerpts of Proceedings, Jury Trial − Day 9. Proceedings held on 9/21/07 in Yakima, WA before Judge Robert H. Whaley. Page Numbers: 1−10

Parties have seven (7) business days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days.

Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER.

Information regarding the policy can be found on the court website at www.waed.uscourts.gov.

To purchase a copy of the transcript contact Court Reporter/Transcriber Lynette Walters by telephone at 509−573−6613.

09/22/2008 09/22/2008 10/03/2008 10/03/2008 10/03/2008 10/03/2008 10/03/2008 10/03/2008 10/03/2008
10/06/2008 10/06/2008 10/15/2008

Redaction Request due 10/10/2008. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 10/20/2008. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 12/18/2008. (SAP, Case Administrator) (Entered: 09/19/2008)
955 ORDER ADMITTING VIDEO DEPOSITIONS FROM TRIAL. Signed by Chief Judge Robert H. Whaley. (LE, Case Administrator) (Entered: 09/22/2008)
956 NOTICE: PETICION PARA NO PARTICIPAR POR DANOS Y PERJUICIOS CLASISTAS signed by Daniel Sanchez by all plaintiffs. (LE, Case Administrator) (Entered: 09/23/2008)
957 MOTION to Expedite Motion to Approve Class Contact by all plaintiffs. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 10/03/2008)
958 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re 957 MOTION to Expedite Motion to Approve Class Contact : Motion Hearing set for 10/17/2008 06:30 PM in Without Oral Argument before Chief Judge Robert H. Whaley. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 10/03/2008)
959 MOTION to Withdraw Request to Opt Out, MOTION Approve Contact with Class by all plaintiffs. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 10/03/2008)
960 DECLARATION by Lori Jordan Isley in Support re 959 MOTION to Withdraw Request to Opt Out MOTION Approve Contact with Class filed by all plaintiffs. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 10/03/2008)
961 DECLARATION by Arasele Bueno in Support re 959 MOTION to Withdraw Request to Opt Out MOTION Approve Contact with Class filed by all plaintiffs. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 10/03/2008)
962 DECLARATION by Jose Valdovinos Mendoza in Support re 959 MOTION to Withdraw Request to Opt Out MOTION Approve Contact with Class filed by all plaintiffs. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 10/03/2008)
963 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re 959 MOTION to Withdraw Request to Opt Out MOTION Approve Contact with Class : Motion Hearing set for 10/17/2008 06:30 PM in Without Oral Argument before Chief Judge Robert H. Whaley. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 10/03/2008)
964 NOTICE: PETICION PARA NO PARTICIPAR POR DANOS Y PERJUICIOS CLASISTAS by Edin n Guirao (LE, Case Administrator) (Entered: 10/06/2008)
965 NOTICE: REQUEST TO OPT OUT OF CLASS DAMAGES by Mario Magallanes Ortiz (LE, Case Administrator) (Entered: 10/06/2008)
966 RESPONSE to Motion re 959 MOTION to Withdraw Request to Opt Out MOTION Approve Contact with Class filed by Green Acre Farms Inc, Valley Fruit Orchards, LLC, Jim Morford, Katherine M Morford, John Verbrugge, Desiree C Verbrugge. (Edgley, Ryan) (Entered: 10/15/2008)

Case: 2:05-cv-3061 As of: 11/05/2016 05:11 PM PDT 80 of 116

10/16/2008 10/17/2008 10/22/2008
10/22/2008 10/27/2008 10/27/2008 10/30/2008
11/03/2008 11/03/2008 11/03/2008
11/03/2008
11/03/2008 11/04/2008 11/05/2008 11/05/2008

967 REPLY MEMORANDUM re 959 MOTION to Withdraw Request to Opt Out MOTION Approve Contact with Class filed by all plaintiffs. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 10/16/2008)
968 NOTICE − REQUEST TO OPT OUT OF CLASS DAMAGES by all plaintiffs (LE, Case Administrator) (Entered: 10/17/2008)
969 ORDER ADDRESSING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO WITHDRAW REQUEST TO OPT OUT AND TO APPROVE CONTRACT WITH CLASS MEMBERS SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE − granting 957 Motion to Expedite; and granting 959 Motion to Withdraw. Signed by Chief Judge Robert H. Whaley. (CS, Case Administrator) (Entered: 10/22/2008)
Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings: Bench Trial set for 2/3/2009 at 09:00 AM in Yakima before Chief Judge Robert H. Whaley per Order filed 10/22/08. (CS, Case Administrator) (Entered: 10/22/2008)
970 NOTICE − REQUEST TO OPT OUT OF CLASS DAMAGES by Tomas Martinez Burgos and PETICION PARA NO PARTICIPAR POR DANOS Y PERJUICIOS CLASISTAS by Thomas Martinez Burgos. (LE, Case Administrator) (Entered: 10/27/2008)
971 NOTICE −− PETICION PARA NO PARTICIPAR POR DANOS Y PERJUICIOS CLASISTAS by Isidro Romero (LE, Case Administrator) (Entered: 10/27/2008)
972 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL AND SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL on behalf of Defendants Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. Attorney Chrystal L. Bobbitt is withdrawing. Chrystal L Bobbitt is substituted as counsel for Defendants. Defendants shall continued to be represented by a member of its in house litigation staff who will be assigned at an appropriate time based on case load. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Chrystal Bobbitt)(Bobbitt, Chrystal) (Entered: 10/30/2008)
973 RESPONSE re 972 Attorney Withdrawal & Substitution,, Plaintiffs' Opposition by all plaintiffs. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 11/03/2008)
974 MOTION to Withdraw Requests to Opt Out and Memorandum in Support by all plaintiffs. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 11/03/2008)
975 DECLARATION by Tomas Martinez Burgos in Support re 974 MOTION to Withdraw Requests to Opt Out and Memorandum in Support filed by all plaintiffs. (Isley, Lori) Modified on 11/4/2008 −− no proof of service attached or filed. (LE, Case Administrator). Modified on 11/4/2008 −− Proof of Service filed at 978 . (LE, Case Administrator). (Entered: 11/03/2008)
976 DECLARATION by Isidro T. Romero in Support re 974 MOTION to Withdraw Requests to Opt Out and Memorandum in Support filed by all plaintiffs. (Isley, Lori) Modified on 11/4/2008 −− no proof of service attached or filed. (LE, Case Administrator). Modified on 11/4/2008 −− Proof of Service filed at 978 . (LE, Case Administrator). (Entered: 11/03/2008)
977 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re 974 MOTION to Withdraw Requests to Opt Out and Memorandum in Support : Motion Hearing set for 12/5/2008 06:30 PM in Without Oral Argument before Chief Judge Robert H. Whaley. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 11/03/2008)
978 PROOF OF SERVICE by all plaintiffs re 975 Declaration in Support of Motion, 976 Declaration in Support of Motion. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 11/04/2008)
979 MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice re Attorney: Matthew S. Gibbs. Filing fee $ 100, receipt number 09800000000000575807. by all defendants. (Lofland, Gary) (Entered: 11/05/2008)
980 DECLARATION by Matthew S. Gibbs in Support re 979 MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice re Attorney: Matthew S. Gibbs. Filing fee $ 100, receipt number 09800000000000575807. filed by all defendants. (Lofland, Gary) Modified on 11/7/2008 −− Praecipe filed at 982 which provides a complete paragraph 3 of the declaration. (LE, Case Administrator). (Entered: 11/05/2008)

Case: 2:05-cv-3061 As of: 11/05/2016 05:11 PM PDT 81 of 116

11/05/2008 11/06/2008 11/10/2008 11/10/2008 11/10/2008 11/12/2008 11/13/2008
11/13/2008
11/14/2008
11/14/2008 11/14/2008 11/14/2008 11/17/2008 11/25/2008 11/25/2008

981 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re 979 MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice re Attorney: Matthew S. Gibbs. Filing fee $ 100, receipt number 09800000000000575807. : Motion Hearing set for 11/10/2008 06:30 PM before Chief Judge Robert H. Whaley. (Lofland, Gary) (Entered: 11/05/2008)
982 Praecipe filed by all defendants: Provide Phone Number. (Lofland, Gary) Modified on 11/12/2008 −− this relates to 980 Declaration of Matthew S. Gibbs. (LE, Case Administrator). (Entered: 11/06/2008)
983 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages and Expedite and Memo in Support by all plaintiffs. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 11/10/2008)
984 DECLARATION by Lori Jordan Isley in Support re 983 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages and Expedite and Memo in Support filed by all plaintiffs. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 11/10/2008)
985 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re 983 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages and Expedite and Memo in Support : Motion Hearing set for 11/13/2008 06:30 PM in Without Oral Argument before Chief Judge Robert H. Whaley. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 11/10/2008)
986 NOTICE: ACCION CLASISTA − PETICION PARA NO PARTICIPAR POR DANOS Y PERJUICIOS CLASISTAS by Joaquin Horta. (LE, Case Administrator) (Entered: 11/12/2008)
987 ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO FILE AN OVER−LENGTH MEMORANDUM; granting pltfs' 894 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages; granting pltfs' 922 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages; granting pltfs' 983 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. Signed by Chief Judge Robert H. Whaley. (LE, Case Administrator) (Entered: 11/13/2008)
988 ORDER OF ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE; granting dfts' 979 Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Added Attorney Matthew S Gibbs for Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian and Jane Doe Orian; Gary E. Lofland remains local counsel for said defendants. Signed by Chief Judge Robert H. Whaley. (LE, Case Administrator) (Entered: 11/13/2008)
989 MEMORANDUM Phase II Class Membership, Injunctive Relief & Damages by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C Part 1, # 4 Exhibit C Part 2, # 5 Exhibit C Part 3, # 6 Exhibit C Part 4, # 7 Exhibit C Part 5, # 8 Exhibit D, # 9 Exhibit E, # 10 Exhibit F, # 11 Exhibit G, # 12 Exhibit H Part 1, # 13 Exhibit H Part 2, # 14 Exhibit I, # 15 Exhibit J, # 16 Exhibit L, # 17 Exhibit M, # 18 Exhibit N, # 19 Exhibit O, # 20 Exhibit P, # 21 Exhibit Q Part 1, # 22 Exhibit Q Part 2, # 23 Exhibit S, # 24 Exhibit T, # 25 Exhibit R, # 26 Exhibit K)(Isley, Lori) Modified on 11/17/2008 −− Exhibits K & R are out of Order. (LE, Case Administrator). Modified on 12/30/2008 −− Exhibits A,C,D,H,P,Q & T will be refiled as a praecipe. (LE, Case Administrator). Modified on 1/6/2009 −− Praecipe filed at 1011 and corrected to include omitted pages at Praecipe 1012 . (LE, Case Administrator). (Entered: 11/14/2008)
990 DECLARATION of Lori Jordan Isley re 989 Memorandum,, by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3 Part 1, # 4 Exhibit 3 Part 2)(Isley, Lori) (Entered: 11/14/2008)
991 DECLARATION of Michael A. Katell re 989 Memorandum,, by all plaintiffs. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 11/14/2008)
992 DECLARATION of Arasele Bueno re 989 Memorandum,, by all plaintiffs. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 11/14/2008)
993 NOTICE−− PETICION PARA NO PARTICIPAR POR DANOS Y PERJUICIOS CLASISTAS by Ruben Humildad. (CS, Case Administrator) (Entered: 11/18/2008)
994 MOTION to Withdraw Request to Opt Out of Class Damages by all plaintiffs. (Contreras, Mirta) (Entered: 11/25/2008)
995 MEMORANDUM in Support re 994 MOTION to Withdraw Request to Opt Out of Class Damages filed by all plaintiffs. (Contreras, Mirta) (Entered: 11/25/2008)

Case: 2:05-cv-3061 As of: 11/05/2016 05:11 PM PDT 82 of 116

11/25/2008 996 DECLARATION by Edin Norberto Guirao in Support re 994 MOTION to Withdraw Request to Opt Out of Class Damages filed by all plaintiffs. (Contreras, Mirta) (Entered: 11/25/2008)

11/25/2008

997 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re 994 MOTION to Withdraw Request to Opt Out of Class Damages : Motion Hearing set for 12/29/2008 06:30 PM in Without Oral Argument before Chief Judge Robert H. Whaley. (Contreras, Mirta) (Entered: 11/25/2008)

12/11/2008 998 NOTICE of Hearing − Text entry;no PDF document. − By Court: Bench Trial set for 2/3/2009 is RESET to Monday, 2/9/2009 at 09:00 AM in Yakima before Chief Judge Robert H. Whaley. (MF, Courtroom Deputy) (Entered: 12/11/2008)

12/15/2008 999 Emergency MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages Filed by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Declaration)(Gibbs, Matthew) (Entered: 12/15/2008)

12/15/2008 1000 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re 999 Emergency MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages Filed : Motion Hearing set for 12/18/2008 06:30 PM in Without Oral Argument before Chief Judge Robert H. Whaley. (Gibbs, Matthew) (Entered: 12/15/2008)

12/15/2008 1001 MEMORANDUM re 989 Memorandum,, Filed in Response by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit C)(Gibbs, Matthew) (Entered: 12/15/2008)

12/15/2008

1002

TRIAL BRIEF Re: Statutory Damages and Injunctive Relief by Green Acre Farms Inc, Valley Fruit Orchards, LLC, Jim Morford, Katherine M Morford, John Verbrugge, Desiree C Verbrugge. (Edgley, Ryan) Modified on 12/18/2008 −− Praecipe filed at 1004 to include Certificate of Service. (LE, Case Administrator). (Entered: 12/16/2008)

12/16/2008

1003

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTIONS TO WITHDRAW REQUESTS TO OPT OUT OF CLASS DAMAGES; granting 974 Motion to Withdraw − withdrawing 971 Notice (Other) and 970 Notice (Other) ; granting 994 Motion to Withdraw − withdrawing 964 Notice (Other). Signed by Chief Judge Robert H. Whaley. (LE, Case Administrator) (Entered: 12/16/2008)

12/17/2008 1004 Praecipe filed by Green Acre Farms Inc, Valley Fruit Orchards, LLC, Jim Morford, Katherine M Morford, John Verbrugge, Desiree C Verbrugge: Re 1002 Trial Brief. (Edgley, Ryan) Modified on 12/18/2008 −− Filed to provide Certificate of Service for 102 . (LE, Case Administrator). (Entered: 12/17/2008)

12/29/2008 1005 MOTION to Expedite, MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages by all plaintiffs. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 12/29/2008)

12/29/2008 1006 MEMORANDUM in Support re 1005 MOTION to Expedite MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages filed by all plaintiffs. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 12/29/2008)

12/29/2008

1007

Praecipe filed by all plaintiffs: Re 1006 Memorandum in Support of Motion, 1005 MOTION to Expedite MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages to Correct Hearing Date. (Isley, Lori) Modified on 12/30/2008 −− Hearing date requested in document is for Friday, January 5, 2009 − but that date is a Monday. Attorney to file praecipe to correct. (LE, Case Administrator). Modified on 1/6/2009 −− Notice of Hearing refiled at 1008 . (LE, Case Administrator). (Entered: 12/29/2008)

12/29/2008 1008 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re 1005 MOTION to Expedite MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages : Motion Hearing set for 1/5/2009 06:30 PM in Without Oral Argument before Chief Judge Robert H. Whaley. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 12/29/2008)

12/30/2008

1009

Docket Annotation − Re Filing Error: 989 Memorandum Exhibits. Exhibits A, C, D, H, P, Q and T contained problems and will be refiled as a Praecipe by the attorney. The filing attorney will try to maintain the same numbering as found in the original filings and will provide a summary in the praecipe of what the problem was. (LE, Case Administrator) (Entered: 12/30/2008)

12/30/2008 1010 Praecipe filed by all plaintiffs: Re 1006 Memorandum in Support of Motion, 1005 MOTION to Expedite MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages Second Correction of Hearing Date. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 12/30/2008)

Case: 2:05-cv-3061 As of: 11/05/2016 05:11 PM PDT 83 of 116

12/30/2008 1011 Praecipe filed by all plaintiffs: Re 989 Memorandum,,, Corrections to Class Membership and Damages Exhibits. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 12/30/2008)

12/30/2008 1012 Praecipe filed by all plaintiffs: Re 989 Memorandum,,, 1011 Praecipe Re−filed to Include Omitted Page. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 12/30/2008)

01/05/2009 1013 REPLY re 1004 Praecipe, 1001 Memorandum, Class Membership, Injunctive Relief & Damages by all plaintiffs. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 01/05/2009)

01/16/2009 1014 PROOF OF SERVICE by all plaintiffs Class Notice & Publication. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of Publication, # 2 Affidavit of Publication, # 3 Affidavit of Publication)(Isley, Lori) Modified on 1/20/2009 −− Document not consecutively numbered. (LE, Case Administrator). (Entered: 01/16/2009)

01/16/2009 1015 DECLARATION of Arasele Bueno re 1014 Proof of Service by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Class Notices, # 2 Exhibit B − Mailing List, # 3 Exhibit C − Newspaper Publication, # 4 Exhibit D − Radio Announcement)(Isley, Lori) (Entered: 01/16/2009)

01/22/2009

1016

NOTICE of Hearing − Text entry;no PDF document. − By Court: Telephonic Status Conference set for Monday, 1/26/2009 at 10:00 AM in Telephonic Argument before Chief Judge Robert H. Whaley. The parties shall call the Court conference line at (509) 458−6380 to participate in the hearing. The hearing is being set at the request of counsel.(MF, Courtroom Deputy) (Entered: 01/22/2009)

01/23/2009 1017 MOTION to Withdraw Request to Opt Out of Class Damages for Ruben Humildad by all plaintiffs. (Contreras, Mirta) (Entered: 01/23/2009)

01/23/2009 1018 MEMORANDUM in Support re 1017 MOTION to Withdraw Request to Opt Out of Class Damages for Ruben Humildad filed by all plaintiffs. (Contreras, Mirta) (Entered: 01/23/2009)

01/23/2009 1019 DECLARATION by Ruben Humildad in Support re 1017 MOTION to Withdraw Request to Opt Out of Class Damages for Ruben Humildad filed by all plaintiffs. (Contreras, Mirta) (Entered: 01/23/2009)

01/23/2009 1020 DECLARATION by Yolanda B. Lopez in Support re 1017 MOTION to Withdraw Request to Opt Out of Class Damages for Ruben Humildad filed by all plaintiffs. (Contreras, Mirta) (Entered: 01/23/2009)

01/23/2009 1021 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re 1017 MOTION to Withdraw Request to Opt Out of Class Damages for Ruben Humildad : Motion Hearing set for 2/6/2009 06:30 PM in Without Oral Argument before Chief Judge Robert H. Whaley. (Contreras, Mirta) (Entered: 01/23/2009)

01/23/2009 1022 MOTION to Expedite Hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion to Withdraw Opt Out of Class Damages for Ruben Humildad by all plaintiffs. (Contreras, Mirta) (Entered: 01/23/2009)

01/23/2009 1023 MEMORANDUM in Support re 1022 MOTION to Expedite Hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion to Withdraw Opt Out of Class Damages for Ruben Humildad filed by all plaintiffs. (Contreras, Mirta) (Entered: 01/23/2009)

01/23/2009 1024 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re 1022 MOTION to Expedite Hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion to Withdraw Opt Out of Class Damages for Ruben Humildad : Motion Hearing set for 2/6/2009 06:30 PM in Without Oral Argument before Chief Judge Robert H. Whaley. (Contreras, Mirta) (Entered: 01/23/2009)

01/26/2009 1025 MOTION to Expedite Pre−Trial Motion by all plaintiffs. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 01/26/2009)

01/26/2009 1026 MEMORANDUM in Support re 1025 MOTION to Expedite Pre−Trial Motion filed by all plaintiffs. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 01/26/2009)

01/26/2009 1027 DECLARATION by Lori Jordan Isley in Support re 1025 MOTION to Expedite Pre−Trial Motion filed by all plaintiffs. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 01/26/2009)

01/26/2009 1028 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re 1025 MOTION to Expedite Pre−Trial Motion : Motion Hearing set for 2/6/2009 06:30 PM in Without Oral Argument before Chief Judge Robert H. Whaley. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 01/26/2009)

Case: 2:05-cv-3061 As of: 11/05/2016 05:11 PM PDT 84 of 116

01/26/2009 1029 MOTION Admit Evidence, MOTION to Quash Subpoenas by all plaintiffs. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 01/26/2009)

01/26/2009 1030 MEMORANDUM in Support re 1029 MOTION Admit Evidence MOTION to Quash Subpoenas filed by all plaintiffs. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 01/26/2009)

01/26/2009 1031 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion Oral Argument Requested re 1029 MOTION Admit Evidence MOTION to Quash Subpoenas : Motion Hearing set for 2/9/2009 09:00 AM in Yakima before Chief Judge Robert H. Whaley. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 01/26/2009)

01/26/2009 1032 Minute Entry for TELEPHONIC proceedings held before Chief Judge Robert H. Whaley: Scheduling Conference held on 1/26/2009. (Reported/Recorded by: Debra Clark) (MF, Courtroom Deputy) (Entered: 01/27/2009)

01/30/2009 1033 First MOTION in Limine filed by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Gibbs, Matthew) (Entered: 01/30/2009)

01/30/2009

1034

DECLARATION by Matthew S. Gibbs in Support re 1033 First MOTION in Limine filed filed by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Rios Trial Testimony, # 2 Exhibit H2A Application Portions)(Gibbs, Matthew) Modified on 2/2/2009 −− Document not numbered in its entirety. (LE, Case Administrator). (Entered: 01/30/2009)

01/30/2009

1035

MOTION to Expedite Motion in Limine filed by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Gibbs, Matthew) Modified on 2/5/2009 −− Proposed Order has wrong case number; attorney to file praecipe to correct. (LE, Case Administrator). Modified on 2/12/2009 −− Corrected Praecipe filed at 1047 . (LE, Case Administrator). (Entered: 01/30/2009)

01/30/2009 1036 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re 1033 First MOTION in Limine filed : Motion Hearing set for 2/9/2009 09:00 AM in Without Oral Argument before Chief Judge Robert H. Whaley. (Gibbs, Matthew) (Entered: 01/30/2009)

01/30/2009 1037 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re 1035 MOTION to Expedite Motion in Limine filed : Motion Hearing set for 2/6/2009 06:30 PM in Without Oral Argument before Chief Judge Robert H. Whaley. (Gibbs, Matthew) (Entered: 01/30/2009)

02/03/2009

1038

MOTION to Produce Complete Trial Testimony of Plaintiffs' Witnesses by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Gibbs, Matthew) Modified on 2/4/2009 −− Didn't have associate counsel sign; footnote too small of type. (LE, Case Administrator). Modified on 2/5/2009 −− Praecipe filed at 1046 . (LE, Case Administrator). (Entered: 02/03/2009)

02/03/2009

1039

DECLARATION by Matthew S. Gibbs in Support re 1038 MOTION to Produce Complete Trial Testimony of Plaintiffs' Witnesses filed by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Gibbs, Matthew) Modified on 2/4/2009 −− footnote too small of type.(LE, Case Administrator). Modified on 2/5/2009 −− Praecipe filed at 1045 . (LE, Case Administrator). (Entered: 02/03/2009)

02/03/2009

1040

MOTION to Expedite Defendants Motion to Produce Trial Testimony by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Gibbs, Matthew) Modified on 2/4/2009 −− Didn't have associate counsel sign; footnote too small of type; wrong case number on proposed order. (LE, Case Administrator). Modified on 2/5/2009 −− Praecipe filed at 1047 . (LE, Case Administrator). (Entered: 02/03/2009)

02/03/2009

1041

NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re 1038 MOTION to Produce Complete Trial Testimony of Plaintiffs' Witnesses : Motion Hearing set for 2/9/2009 09:00 AM in Yakima before Chief Judge Robert H. Whaley. (Gibbs, Matthew) Modified on 2/4/2009 −− Didn't have associate counsel sign; footnote too small of type; hearings without oral argument are to be set at 6:30 pm & location is Without Oral Argument; attorney to refile to correct. (LE, Case Administrator). Modified on 2/5/2009 −− Corrected Notice filed at 1049 . (LE, Case Administrator). Modified

Case: 2:05-cv-3061 As of: 11/05/2016 05:11 PM PDT 85 of 116

on 2/6/2009 −− Corrected Praecipe filed at 1051 . (LE, Case Administrator). (Entered: 02/03/2009)

02/03/2009

1042

NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re 1040 MOTION to Expedite Defendants Motion to Produce Trial Testimony : Motion Hearing set for 2/6/2009 06:30 PM in Without Oral Argument before Chief Judge Robert H. Whaley. (Gibbs, Matthew) Modified on 2/4/2009 −− Didn't have associate counsel sign; footnote too small of type. (LE, Case Administrator). Modified on 2/5/2009 −− Notice re−filed at 1048 . (LE, Case Administrator). Modified on 2/5/2009 −− Corrected Notice re−filed at 1050 . (LE, Case Administrator). (Entered: 02/03/2009)

02/04/2009 1043 RESPONSE to Motion re 1033 First MOTION in Limine filed, 1038 MOTION to Produce Complete Trial Testimony of Plaintiffs' Witnesses filed by all plaintiffs. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 02/04/2009)

02/04/2009 1044 DECLARATION of Isley in Support of Plaintiffs' Response Memo to Global Defendants' Motions in Limine re 1043 Response to Motion by all plaintiffs. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 02/04/2009)

02/04/2009 1045 Praecipe filed by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian: Re 1039 Declaration in Support of Motion, corrected and approved by local counsel. (Gibbs, Matthew) (Entered: 02/04/2009)

02/04/2009 1046 Praecipe filed by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian: Re 1038 MOTION to Produce Complete Trial Testimony of Plaintiffs' Witnesses corrected and approved by local counsel. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Gibbs, Matthew) (Entered: 02/04/2009)

02/04/2009 1047 Praecipe filed by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian: Re 1040 MOTION to Expedite Defendants Motion to Produce Trial Testimony corrected and approved by local counsel. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Gibbs, Matthew) (Entered: 02/04/2009)

02/04/2009

1048

Second NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re 1040 MOTION to Expedite Defendants Motion to Produce Trial Testimony : Motion Hearing set for 2/6/2009 06:30 PM in Without Oral Argument before Chief Judge Robert H. Whaley. (Gibbs, Matthew) Modified on 2/5/2009 −−Associate counsel didn't sign document. (LE, Case Administrator). Modified on 2/5/2009 −− Corrected Notice filed at 1050 . (LE, Case Administrator). (Entered: 02/04/2009)

02/04/2009

1049

Second NOTICE of Hearing on Motion Oral Argument Requested re 1038 MOTION to Produce Complete Trial Testimony of Plaintiffs' Witnesses : Motion Hearing set for 2/9/2009 09:00 PM in Yakima before Chief Judge Robert H. Whaley. (Gibbs, Matthew) Modified on 2/5/2009 −− The text of the Notice says hearing is without oral argument; attorney to file praecipe to correct. (LE, Case Administrator). Modified on 2/6/2009 −− Praecipe filed at 1051 . (LE, Case Administrator). (Entered: 02/04/2009)

02/04/2009 1050 Second Amended NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re 1040 MOTION to Expedite Defendants Motion to Produce Trial Testimony : Motion Hearing set for 2/6/2009 06:30 PM in Without Oral Argument before Chief Judge Robert H. Whaley. (Gibbs, Matthew) (Entered: 02/04/2009)

02/05/2009 1051 Praecipe filed by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian: Re 1049 Notice of Hearing on Motion, as corrected. (Gibbs, Matthew) (Entered: 02/05/2009)

02/05/2009 1052 Praecipe filed by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian: Re 1047 Praecipe, 1040 MOTION to Expedite Defendants Motion to Produce Trial Testimony corrected. (Gibbs, Matthew) (Entered: 02/05/2009)

02/05/2009

1053

ORDER CONTINUING BENCH TRIAL AND MOTIONS HEARING; the Bench Trial set for 2/9/09 is STRICKEN; Telephonic Scheduling Conference set for 2/9/2009 01:00 PM in Telephonic Argument before Chief Judge Robert H. Whaley with the parties to call the Court conference line at 509−458−6380. Signed by Chief Judge Robert H. Whaley. (LE, Case Administrator) (Entered: 02/05/2009)

Case: 2:05-cv-3061 As of: 11/05/2016 05:11 PM PDT 86 of 116

02/05/2009 1054 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 1029 MOTION Admit Evidence MOTION to Quash Subpoenas filed by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Gibbs, Matthew) (Entered: 02/05/2009)

02/05/2009

1055

DECLARATION by Matthew S. Gibbs in Opposition re 1029 MOTION Admit Evidence MOTION to Quash Subpoenas filed by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Highlighted Version of PL Ex A, # 2 Exhibit Global List by Name − Redacted, # 3 Exhibit Global List by Soc Sec − Redacted, # 4 Exhibit Global List by Birth Date − Redacted, # 5 Exhibit Global ACT Database, # 6 Exhibit Yakima Worksource Records)(Gibbs, Matthew) (Entered: 02/05/2009)

02/05/2009 1056 Sealed Document. (Gibbs, Matthew) (Entered: 02/05/2009)

02/05/2009 1057 Sealed Document. (Gibbs, Matthew) (Entered: 02/05/2009)

02/05/2009 1058 Sealed Document. (Gibbs, Matthew) (Entered: 02/05/2009)

02/05/2009 1059 REPLY MEMORANDUM re 1038 MOTION to Produce Complete Trial Testimony of Plaintiffs' Witnesses filed by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Gibbs, Matthew) (Entered: 02/05/2009)

02/05/2009 1060 DECLARATION by Matthew S. Gibbs in Support re 1038 MOTION to Produce Complete Trial Testimony of Plaintiffs' Witnesses in Support of Reply filed by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Gibbs, Matthew) (Entered: 02/05/2009)

02/06/2009 1061 PROOF OF SERVICE by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian re 1056 Sealed Document, 1057 Sealed Document, 1058 Sealed Document. (Gibbs, Matthew) (Entered: 02/06/2009)

02/06/2009

1062

Praecipe filed by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian: Re 1055 Declaration in Opposition to Motion,, with page numbering. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Highlighted Version of Pl Ex A, # 2 Exhibit Global List by Name (Redacted), # 3 Exhibit Global List by Soc Sec − Redacted, # 4 Exhibit Global List by Birth Date − Redacted, # 5 Exhibit Global ACT Database, # 6 Exhibit Yakima Worksource Records)(Gibbs, Matthew) Sealed Exhibit 2 due to personal identifiers. Attorney called and told to redact and refile this document.Modified on 2/9/2009 (CS, Case Administrator). Modified on 2/10/2009 −− Praecipe filed at 1063 . (LE, Case Administrator). (Entered: 02/06/2009)

02/09/2009 1063 Praecipe filed by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian: Re 1062 Praecipe,, (Redacted Exhibit 2). (Gibbs, Matthew) (Entered: 02/09/2009)

02/09/2009 1064 Minute Entry for TELEPHONIC proceedings held before Chief Judge Robert H. Whaley: Scheduling Conference held on 2/9/2009. (Reported/Recorded by: Lynette Walters) (MF, Courtroom Deputy) (Entered: 02/09/2009)

02/11/2009 1065 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO WITHDRAW REQUEST TO OPT OUT OF CLASS DAMAGES; granting 1017 Motion to Withdraw ; granting 1022 Motion to Expedite. Signed by Chief Judge Robert H. Whaley. (LE, Case Administrator) (Entered: 02/11/2009)

02/19/2009 1066 MOTION to Expedite, MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages by all plaintiffs. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 02/19/2009)

02/19/2009 1067 MEMORANDUM in Support re 1066 MOTION to Expedite MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages filed by all plaintiffs. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 02/19/2009)

02/19/2009 1068 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re 1066 MOTION to Expedite MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages : Motion Hearing set for 2/20/2009 06:30 PM in Without Oral Argument before Chief Judge Robert H. Whaley. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 02/19/2009)

02/20/2009 1069 ORDER SETTING HEARING ON PENDING MOTIONS AND BENCH TRIAL ON DAMAGES; granting 999 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages; granting 1005 Motion to Expedite; granting 1005 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages; granting 1025 Motion to Expedite; denying 1033 Motion in Limine; granting 1035 Motion to

Case: 2:05-cv-3061 As of: 11/05/2016 05:11 PM PDT 87 of 116

Expedite; denying 1038 Motion to Produce; granting 1040 Motion to Expedite; Hrg on pltf's Motion to Admit Evidence; Motion to Quash Subpoenas 1029 is set for March 3, 2009 at 9:00 AM, in Yakima, WA; Bench Trial will commence after the hearing on pltf's motion. Signed by Chief Judge Robert H. Whaley. (LE, Case Administrator) (Entered: 02/20/2009)

02/20/2009

Set/Reset Motion Hearing as to 1029 MOTION Admit Evidence MOTION to Quash Subpoenas; Motion Hearing set for 3/3/2009 09:00 AM in Yakima before Chief Judge Robert H. Whaley. Bench Trial set for 3/3/2009, following the hearing on pltfs' motion, in Yakima before Chief Judge Robert H. Whaley. See Order 1069 filed 2/20/09. (LE, Case Administrator) (Entered: 02/20/2009)

02/20/2009

1070

REPLY MEMORANDUM re 1029 MOTION Admit Evidence MOTION to Quash Subpoenas filed by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Amended, # 2 Exhibit U, # 3 Exhibit V, # 4 Exhibit W, # 5 Exhibit X, # 6 Exhibit Y)(Isley, Lori) Modified on 2/23/2009 −− Exhibit W sealed by Clerk's Office due to personal identifier; attorney to refile Exhibit W as a praecipe and to also provide a better image of page 77 within Exhibit W. (LE, Case Administrator). Modified on 2/23/2009 −− Page 77 cannot be corrected as that is the way the filer received it. (LE, Case Administrator). Modified on 2/24/2009 −− Praecipe filed at 1075 . (LE, Case Administrator). (Entered: 02/20/2009)

02/20/2009 1071 Sealed Document. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 02/20/2009)

02/20/2009 1072 DECLARATION by Lori Jordan Isley in Support re 1029 MOTION Admit Evidence MOTION to Quash Subpoenas filed by all plaintiffs. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 02/20/2009)

02/23/2009 1073 Docket Annotation − Re Filing Error: 1070 Reply Memorandum. Exhibit W sealed by Clerk's Office due to personal identifier; attorney to refile Exhibit W as a praecipe and to also provide a better image of page 77 within Exhibit W. (LE, Case Administrator) (Entered: 02/23/2009)

02/23/2009 1074 Docket Annotation − Re Filing Error: 1070 Reply Memorandum. A better page 77 of Exhibit W to 1070 Reply Memorandum is unavailable as that is the way it was received by the filing attorney. (LE, Case Administrator) (Entered: 02/23/2009)

02/23/2009 1075 Praecipe filed by all plaintiffs: Re 1070 Reply Memorandum,, Personal Identifier Redacted from Page 79. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 02/23/2009)

02/23/2009 1076 PROOF OF SERVICE by all plaintiffs re 1071 Sealed Document Exhibit Z. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 02/23/2009)

02/25/2009 1077 OBJECTIONS re 1070 Reply Memorandum,, by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Evidence Chart, # 2 Exhibit Plaintiffs' Motion to Exclude ACT Database)(Gibbs, Matthew) (Entered: 02/25/2009)

03/03/2009 1078 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Chief Judge Robert H. Whaley: Bench Trial − Day One held on 3/3/2009, Motion Hearing held on 3/3/2009. (Reported/Recorded by: Stephanie Smithson) (MF, Courtroom Deputy) (Entered: 03/03/2009)

03/04/2009 1079 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Chief Judge Robert H. Whaley: Bench Trial − Day Two completed on 3/4/2009. (Reported/Recorded by: Lynette Walters) (MF, Courtroom Deputy) (Entered: 03/04/2009)

03/05/2009 1080 Errata filed by all plaintiffs: Correcting Citation at Oral Argument. (Morrison, Joachim) (Entered: 03/05/2009)

04/09/2009

1081

SUPPLEMENT Request for Judicial Notice of June 3, 2005 Letter from Washington Department of Labor and Industries Introduced During Damages Phase Without Objection by Plaintiffs by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Ex 1 − June 3, 2005 Letter for Washington Dept. L&I)(Gibbs, Matthew) (Entered: 04/09/2009)

04/13/2009 1082 RESPONSE re 1081 Supplement, Objection by all plaintiffs. (Isley, Lori) Modified on 4/14/2009 −− wrong event used − should have been filed as an objection. (LE, Case Administrator). (Entered: 04/13/2009)

Case: 2:05-cv-3061 As of: 11/05/2016 05:11 PM PDT 88 of 116

04/15/2009

1083

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Granting 761 MOTION in Support of Award of FLCA Statutory Damages; Granting 1029 MOTION to Admit Evidence, MOTION to Quash Subpoenas; Granting 1066 MOTION to Expedite, MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages. Within 10 days from the date of this Order, Plaintiffs are directed to submit a proposed plan regarding the claims process to the Court. Telephonic Hearing is set for 5/21/2009 09:30 AM in Telephonic Argument before Chief Judge Robert H. Whaley. Signed by Chief Judge Robert H. Whaley. (SAP, Case Administrator) (Entered: 04/15/2009)

04/27/2009 1084 MEMORANDUM re 1083 Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law, Set Deadlines/Hearings, Terminate Motions,,,,,, Proposed Plan re Claims Process by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Notice & Claim Forms, # 2 Exhibit B − Notices for Publication)(Isley, Lori) (Entered: 04/27/2009)

04/29/2009 1085 MOTION to Amend/Correct 1083 Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law, Set Deadlines/Hearings, Terminate Motions,,,,,, by Green Acre Farms Inc, Valley Fruit Orchards, LLC. (Edgley, Ryan) (Entered: 04/29/2009)

04/29/2009 1086 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re 1085 MOTION to Amend/Correct 1083 Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law, Set Deadlines/Hearings, Terminate Motions,,,,,, : Motion Hearing set for 6/1/2009 06:30 PM in Without Oral Argument before Chief Judge Robert H. Whaley. (Edgley, Ryan) (Entered: 04/29/2009)

05/08/2009

1087

RESPONSE to Motion re 1085 MOTION to Amend/Correct 1083 Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law, Set Deadlines/Hearings, Terminate Motions,,,,,, filed by all plaintiffs. (Isley, Lori) Modified on 5/11/2009 −− Signing attorney and filing attorney do not match; attorney to file praecipe to correct. (LE, Case Administrator). Modified on 5/11/2009 −− Praecipe filed at 1088 . (LE, Case Administrator). (Entered: 05/08/2009)

05/11/2009 1088 Praecipe filed by all plaintiffs: Re 1087 Response to Motion, to correct signature. (Morrison, Joachim) (Entered: 05/11/2009)

05/11/2009 1089 RESPONSE re 1084 Memorandum, filed in Opposition by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit I−9 Form)(Gibbs, Matthew) (Entered: 05/11/2009)

05/11/2009 1090 RESPONSE re 1084 Memorandum, Proposed Claims Process by Green Acre Farms Inc, Valley Fruit Orchards, LLC, Jim Morford, Katherine M Morford, John Verbrugge, Desiree C Verbrugge. (Edgley, Ryan) (Entered: 05/11/2009)

05/11/2009 1091 MOTION to Amend/Correct 1083 Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law, Set Deadlines/Hearings, Terminate Motions,,,,,, filed by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Gibbs, Matthew) (Entered: 05/11/2009)

05/11/2009

1092

DECLARATION by Matthew S. Gibbs in Support re 1091 MOTION to Amend/Correct 1083 Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law, Set Deadlines/Hearings, Terminate Motions,,,,,, filed MOTION to Amend/Correct 1083 Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law, Set Deadlines/Hearings, Terminate Motions,,,,,, filed filed by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Form I−9)(Gibbs, Matthew) (Entered: 05/11/2009)

05/11/2009

1093

NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re 1091 MOTION to Amend/Correct 1083 Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law, Set Deadlines/Hearings, Terminate Motions,,,,,, filed MOTION to Amend/Correct 1083 Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law, Set Deadlines/Hearings, Terminate Motions,,,,,, filed : Motion Hearing set for 6/12/2009 06:30 PM in Without Oral Argument before Chief Judge Robert H. Whaley. (Gibbs, Matthew) (Entered: 05/11/2009)

05/18/2009 1094 REPLY re 1089 Response, 1090 Response Proposed Claims Process by all plaintiffs. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 05/18/2009)

05/19/2009 1095 MOTION to Expedite, MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages by all plaintiffs. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 05/19/2009)

Case: 2:05-cv-3061 As of: 11/05/2016 05:11 PM PDT 89 of 116

05/19/2009 1096 MEMORANDUM re 1095 MOTION to Expedite MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages by all plaintiffs. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 05/19/2009)

05/19/2009 1097 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re 1095 MOTION to Expedite MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages : Motion Hearing set for 5/19/2009 06:30 PM in Without Oral Argument before Chief Judge Robert H. Whaley. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 05/19/2009)

05/20/2009 1098 MOTION for Attorney Fees by all plaintiffs. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 05/20/2009)

05/20/2009 1099 MEMORANDUM in Support re 1098 MOTION for Attorney Fees filed by all plaintiffs. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 05/20/2009)

05/20/2009 1100 DECLARATION by Richard W. Kuhling in Support re 1098 MOTION for Attorney Fees filed by all plaintiffs. (Kuhling, Richard) (Entered: 05/20/2009)

05/20/2009 1101 DECLARATION by Lori Jordan Isley in Support re 1098 MOTION for Attorney Fees filed by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Isley, Lori) (Entered: 05/20/2009)

05/20/2009 1102 DECLARATION by Eugene I. Annis in Support re 1098 MOTION for Attorney Fees filed by all plaintiffs. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 05/20/2009)

05/20/2009 1103 DECLARATION by Mirta Laura Contreras in Support re 1098 MOTION for Attorney Fees filed by all plaintiffs. (Contreras, Mirta) (Entered: 05/20/2009)

05/20/2009 1104 DECLARATION by Claire Cordon in Support re 1098 MOTION for Attorney Fees filed by all plaintiffs. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 05/20/2009)

05/20/2009 1105 DECLARATION by Amy L. Crewdson in Support re 1098 MOTION for Attorney Fees filed by all plaintiffs. (Crewdson, Amy) (Entered: 05/20/2009)

05/20/2009 1106 DECLARATION by Joachim Morrison in Support re 1098 MOTION for Attorney Fees filed by all plaintiffs. (Morrison, Joachim) (Entered: 05/20/2009)

05/20/2009 1107 DECLARATION by Griselda Vega in Support re 1098 MOTION for Attorney Fees filed by all plaintiffs. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 05/20/2009)

05/20/2009 1108 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re 1098 MOTION for Attorney Fees : Motion Hearing set for 6/19/2009 06:30 PM in Without Oral Argument before Chief Judge Robert H. Whaley. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 05/20/2009)

05/21/2009

1109

RESPONSE to Motion re 1091 MOTION to Amend/Correct 1083 Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law, Set Deadlines/Hearings, Terminate Motions,,,,,, filed MOTION to Amend/Correct 1083 Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law, Set Deadlines/Hearings, Terminate Motions,,,,,, filed filed by all plaintiffs. (Morrison, Joachim) (Entered: 05/21/2009)

05/21/2009 1110 Minute Entry for TELEPHONIC proceedings held before Chief Judge Robert H. Whaley: Status Conference held on 5/21/2009. (Reported/Recorded by: Debra Clark) (MF, Courtroom Deputy) (Entered: 05/22/2009)

05/22/2009 1111 MOTION to Expedite, MOTION To Approve Proposed Notice to Class re Motion for Attorney's Fees by all plaintiffs. (Isley, Lori) Modified on 5/26/2009 −− Proposed Order filed as a Praecipe at Ct. Rec. 114 . (LE, Case Administrator). (Entered: 05/22/2009)

05/22/2009 1112 MEMORANDUM in Support re 1111 MOTION to Expedite MOTION To Approve Proposed Notice to Class re Motion for Attorney's Fees filed by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Isley, Lori) (Entered: 05/22/2009)

05/22/2009 1113 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re 1111 MOTION to Expedite MOTION To Approve Proposed Notice to Class re Motion for Attorney's Fees : Motion Hearing set for 5/29/2009 06:30 PM in Without Oral Argument before Chief Judge Robert H. Whaley. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 05/22/2009)

05/22/2009 1114 Praecipe filed by all plaintiffs: Re 1111 MOTION to Expedite MOTION To Approve Proposed Notice to Class re Motion for Attorney's Fees. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Isley, Lori) (Entered: 05/22/2009)

Case: 2:05-cv-3061 As of: 11/05/2016 05:11 PM PDT 90 of 116

05/29/2009

1115

MOTION to Expedite Hearing, MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 1098 MOTION for Attorney Fees by Green Acre Farms Inc, Valley Fruit Orchards, LLC, Jim Morford, Katherine M Morford, John Verbrugge, Desiree C Verbrugge. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Monahan, Brendan) (Entered: 05/29/2009)

05/29/2009

1116

MEMORANDUM in Support re 1115 MOTION to Expedite Hearing MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 1098 MOTION for Attorney Fees MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 1098 MOTION for Attorney Fees filed by Green Acre Farms Inc, Valley Fruit Orchards, LLC, Jim Morford, Katherine M Morford, John Verbrugge, Desiree C Verbrugge. (Monahan, Brendan) (Entered: 05/29/2009)

05/29/2009

1117

NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re 1115 MOTION to Expedite Hearing MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 1098 MOTION for Attorney Fees MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 1098 MOTION for Attorney Fees : Motion Hearing set for 6/1/2009 06:30 PM in Without Oral Argument before Chief Judge Robert H. Whaley. (Monahan, Brendan) (Entered: 05/29/2009)

05/29/2009

1118

NOTICE (JOINDER) by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian re 1115 MOTION to Expedite Hearing MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 1098 MOTION for Attorney Fees MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 1098 MOTION for Attorney Fees, 1116 Memorandum in Support of Motion, 1117 Notice of Hearing on Motion, Noticing Joinder in Grower Defendants Motions (Gibbs, Matthew) Modified on 6/1/2009 −− Wrong event used.(LE, Case Administror). Modified on 6/1/2009 −− Praecipe filed at 1119 to include the date of filing the Motion. (LE, Case Administrator). (Entered: 05/29/2009)

05/29/2009 1119 Praecipe filed by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian: Re 1118 Notice (Other), Notice (Other). (Gibbs, Matthew) Modified on 6/1/2009 −− Filed to include the date of filing the Motion. (LE, Case Administrator). (Entered: 05/29/2009)

05/29/2009 1120 RESPONSE to Motion re 1111 MOTION to Expedite MOTION To Approve Proposed Notice to Class re Motion for Attorney's Fees filed by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Gibbs, Matthew) (Entered: 05/29/2009)

06/01/2009 1121 RESPONSE to Motion re 1111 MOTION to Expedite MOTION To Approve Proposed Notice to Class re Motion for Attorney's Fees filed by Green Acre Farms Inc, Valley Fruit Orchards, LLC, Jim Morford, Katherine M Morford, John Verbrugge, Desiree C Verbrugge. (Monahan, Brendan) (Entered: 06/01/2009)

06/01/2009 1122 RESPONSE to Motion re 1115 MOTION to Expedite Hearing MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 1098 MOTION for Attorney Fees MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 1098 MOTION for Attorney Fees filed by all plaintiffs. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 06/01/2009)

06/01/2009

1123

REPLY MEMORANDUM re 1115 MOTION to Expedite Hearing MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 1098 MOTION for Attorney Fees MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 1098 MOTION for Attorney Fees filed by Green Acre Farms Inc, Valley Fruit Orchards, LLC, Jim Morford, Katherine M Morford, John Verbrugge, Desiree C Verbrugge. (Monahan, Brendan) (Entered: 06/01/2009)

06/01/2009

1124

REPLY MEMORANDUM re 1115 MOTION to Expedite Hearing MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 1098 MOTION for Attorney Fees MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 1098 MOTION for Attorney Fees filed by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Gibbs, Matthew) (Entered: 06/01/2009)

06/15/2009 1125 DECLARATION by Lori Jordan Isley in Support re 1098 MOTION for Attorney Fees Supplemental filed by all plaintiffs. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 06/15/2009)

06/15/2009 1126 DECLARATION by Daniel G. Ford in Support re 1098 MOTION for Attorney Fees filed by all plaintiffs. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 06/15/2009)

Case: 2:05-cv-3061 As of: 11/05/2016 05:11 PM PDT 91 of 116

06/15/2009

1127

ORDER ADDRESSING PENDING MOTIONS; denying Grower dfts' 1085 Motion to Amend/Correct Court's Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law; denying Global dfts' 1091 Motion to Amend Court's 4/15/09 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law; granting pltfs' 1095 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages; granting pltfs' 1111 Motion to Approve Proposed Notice to Class of Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs; granting Grower dfts' 1115 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply; DCE is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this order and to Amend the Judgment entered on 5/23/08, Ct. Rec. 884 per this order. Signed by Chief Judge Robert H. Whaley. (LE, Case Administrator) (Entered: 06/15/2009)

06/15/2009 1128 AMENDED JUDGMENT re 884 Judgment Amended − By Court, in favor of Plaintiffs against Defendants. Signed by Chief Judge Robert H. Whaley. (LE, Case Administrator) (Entered: 06/15/2009)

06/15/2009 1129 JUDGMENT in favor of Plaintiffs against Global Horizons Inc., Green Acre Farms Inc, Valley Fruit Orchards, LLC. Signed by Chief Judge Robert H. Whaley. (LE, Case Administrator) (Entered: 06/15/2009)

06/18/2009 1130 MOTION to Expedite Plaintiffs' Motion to Extend Appeals Deadline by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Morrison, Joachim) (Entered: 06/18/2009)

06/18/2009 1131 MEMORANDUM in Support re 1130 MOTION to Expedite Plaintiffs' Motion to Extend Appeals Deadline filed by all plaintiffs. (Morrison, Joachim) (Entered: 06/18/2009)

06/18/2009 1132 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re 1130 MOTION to Expedite Plaintiffs' Motion to Extend Appeals Deadline : Motion Hearing set for 6/19/2009 06:30 PM in Without Oral Argument before Chief Judge Robert H. Whaley. (Morrison, Joachim) (Entered: 06/18/2009)

06/18/2009 1133 MOTION TO EXTEND APPEAL DEADLINE DUE TO PLAINTIFFS RULE 54 MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Morrison, Joachim) (Entered: 06/18/2009)

06/18/2009 1134 MEMORANDUM in Support re 1133 MOTION TO EXTEND APPEAL DEADLINE DUE TO PLAINTIFFS RULE 54 MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES filed by all plaintiffs. (Morrison, Joachim) (Entered: 06/18/2009)

06/18/2009 1135 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re 1133 MOTION TO EXTEND APPEAL DEADLINE DUE TO PLAINTIFFS RULE 54 MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES : Motion Hearing set for 6/19/2009 06:30 PM in Without Oral Argument before Chief Judge Robert H. Whaley. (Morrison, Joachim) (Entered: 06/18/2009)

06/18/2009 1136 PROPOSED BILL OF COSTS by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G)(Isley, Lori) (Entered: 06/18/2009)

06/18/2009 1137 DECLARATION of Lori Jordan Isley in Support re 1136 Proposed Bill of Costs by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Isley, Lori) (Entered: 06/18/2009)

06/18/2009 1138 NOTICE by all plaintiffs re 1136 Proposed Bill of Costs (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 06/18/2009)

06/19/2009

1139

LODGED NOTICE OF APPEAL from District Court decision as to 1129 Judgment − By Court, 1128 Judgment Amended − By Court by Global Horizons Inc., Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. Filing fee $ 455, receipt number SPO009139. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Docketing Statement, Judgments & Representation Statement)(Gibbs, Matthew) (Entered: 06/19/2009)

06/19/2009 1140 NOTICE by all plaintiffs Class Notice of Motion for Attorney's Fees and Costs (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 06/19/2009)

06/19/2009 1141 DECLARATION of Lori Jordan Isley re 1140 Notice (Other) by all plaintiffs. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 06/19/2009)

06/19/2009 1142 NOTICE OF APPEAL from District Court decision as to 1129 Judgment − By Court, 1128 Judgment Amended − By Court by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Attachments: # 1 CAD & Representation Statement)(LE, Case Administrator) Modified on 6/24/2009 −− 9CCA

Case: 2:05-cv-3061 As of: 11/05/2016 05:11 PM PDT 92 of 116

Case Number: 09−35598. (LE, Case Administrator). (Entered: 06/19/2009)

06/19/2009 1143 9CCA Payment Notification form re 1142 Notice of Appeal,. Received $455, receipt number SPO009139. Copy of docket entries forwarded to 9CCA. (LE, Case Administrator) (Entered: 06/19/2009)

06/19/2009 1144 Letter from Appeal Deputy Clerk to Matthew Gibbs dated June 19, 2009. ORIGINAL LETTER AND ENCLOSURES WILL BE MAILED TO ADDRESSEE ONLY. (LE, Case Administrator) (Entered: 06/19/2009)

06/19/2009

1145

MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 1133 MOTION TO EXTEND APPEAL DEADLINE DUE TO PLAINTIFFS RULE 54 MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES filed by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Email from Plaintiffs' counsel)(Gibbs, Matthew) (Entered: 06/19/2009)

06/24/2009 1146 9CCA Appeal Case Number 09−35598 for 1142 Notice of Appeal filed 6/19/09. (LE, Case Administrator) (Entered: 06/24/2009)

06/24/2009 1147 9CCA Time Schedule as to 1142 Notice of Appeal, filed by Platte River Insurance Company, Jane Doe Orian, Mordechai Orian, Global Horizons Inc.. Designation Due: 7/20/09. Transcript Due: 8/18/09. Opening Brief Due: 10/5/09. Appellees Brief Due: 11/3/09. 9CCA: 09−35598. (LE, Case Administrator) (Entered: 06/24/2009)

06/25/2009 1148 RESPONSE to Motion re 1133 MOTION TO EXTEND APPEAL DEADLINE DUE TO PLAINTIFFS RULE 54 MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES filed by Green Acre Farms Inc, Valley Fruit Orchards, LLC, Jim Morford, Katherine M Morford, John Verbrugge, Desiree C Verbrugge. (Monahan, Brendan) (Entered: 06/25/2009)

06/25/2009 1149 MOTION to Amend/Correct 1129 Judgment − By Court, 1128 Judgment Amended − By Court by Plaintiffs and Grower Defendants by all plaintiffs. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 06/25/2009)

06/25/2009 1150 MEMORANDUM in Support re 1149 MOTION to Amend/Correct 1129 Judgment − By Court, 1128 Judgment Amended − By Court by Plaintiffs and Grower Defendants filed by all plaintiffs. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 06/25/2009)

06/25/2009 1151 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re 1149 MOTION to Amend/Correct 1129 Judgment − By Court, 1128 Judgment Amended − By Court by Plaintiffs and Grower Defendants : Motion Hearing set for 7/30/2009 06:30 PM in Without Oral Argument before Chief Judge Robert H. Whaley. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 06/25/2009)

06/30/2009 1152 OBJECTIONS re 1136 Proposed Bill of Costs by Green Acre Farms Inc, Valley Fruit Orchards, LLC, Jim Morford, Katherine M Morford, John Verbrugge, Desiree C Verbrugge. (Edgley, Ryan) Modified on 7/6/2009 −− Certificate of Service filed as a praecipe at 1153 . (LE, Case Administrator). (Entered: 06/30/2009)

07/02/2009 1153 Praecipe filed by Green Acre Farms Inc, Valley Fruit Orchards, LLC, Jim Morford, Katherine M Morford, John Verbrugge, Desiree C Verbrugge: Re 1152 Objections. (Edgley, Ryan) (Entered: 07/02/2009)

07/02/2009 1154 REPLY re 1152 Objections by all plaintiffs. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 07/02/2009)

07/02/2009 1155 DECLARATION of Lori Jordan Isley re 1154 Reply by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2)(Isley, Lori) (Entered: 07/02/2009)

07/02/2009 1156 NOTICE of Unavailablity of Counsel by all plaintiffs (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 07/02/2009)

07/07/2009 1157 MOTION to Expedite Motion to Further Extend Time to Respond to Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorney Fees by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Order for Motion to Expedite)(Gibbs, Matthew) (Entered: 07/07/2009)

07/07/2009 1158 Second MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 1098 MOTION for Attorney Fees by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order re Mtn to Extend)(Gibbs, Matthew) (Entered: 07/07/2009)

Case: 2:05-cv-3061 As of: 11/05/2016 05:11 PM PDT 93 of 116

07/07/2009 1159 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re 1157 MOTION to Expedite Motion to Further Extend Time to Respond to Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorney Fees : Motion Hearing set for 7/8/2009 06:30 PM in Without Oral Argument before Chief Judge Robert H. Whaley. (Gibbs, Matthew) (Entered: 07/07/2009)

07/07/2009

1160

NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re 1158 Second MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 1098 MOTION for Attorney FeesSecond MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 1098 MOTION for Attorney Fees : Motion Hearing set for 7/9/2009 06:30 PM in Without Oral Argument before Chief Judge Robert H. Whaley. (Gibbs, Matthew) (Entered: 07/07/2009)

07/08/2009 1161 ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO EXTEND; MOTION TO AMEND − granting 1130 Motion to Expedite; granting 1133 Motion ; and granting 1149 Motion to Amend/Correct. Signed by Chief Judge Robert H. Whaley. (CS, Case Administrator) (Entered: 07/08/2009)

07/08/2009 1162 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 1158 Second MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 1098 MOTION for Attorney FeesSecond MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 1098 MOTION for Attorney Fees filed by all plaintiffs. (Morrison, Joachim) (Entered: 07/08/2009)

07/09/2009 1163 NOTICE of Unavailablity of Counsel by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian (Gibbs, Matthew) (Entered: 07/09/2009)

07/14/2009 1164 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages filed by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Re:Expedite and Excess Pages)(Gibbs, Matthew) (Entered: 07/14/2009)

07/14/2009 1165 DECLARATION by Matthew S. Gibbs in Support re 1164 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages filed filed by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Gibbs, Matthew) (Entered: 07/14/2009)

07/14/2009 1166 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re 1164 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages filed : Motion Hearing set for 7/15/2009 06:30 PM in Without Oral Argument before Senior Judge Robert H. Whaley. (Gibbs, Matthew) (Entered: 07/14/2009)

07/14/2009 1167 Praecipe filed by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian: Re 1164 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages filed and Motion to Expedite. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Re: Expedite and File Excess Pages)(Gibbs, Matthew) (Entered: 07/14/2009)

07/15/2009

1168

ORDER GRANTING THE GLOBAL DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO FURTHER EXTEND THE TIME TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES; granting 1158 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply; granting 1164 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages; Global Dfts' response ddl is 8/10/09. Signed by Senior Judge Robert H. Whaley. (LE, Case Administrator) (Entered: 07/15/2009)

07/15/2009 1169 RESPONSE to Motion re 1098 MOTION for Attorney Fees filed by Green Acre Farms Inc, Valley Fruit Orchards, LLC, Jim Morford, John Verbrugge, Desiree C Verbrugge. (Edgley, Ryan) (Entered: 07/15/2009)

07/15/2009 1170 DECLARATION by Philip Talmadge in Opposition re 1098 MOTION for Attorney Fees filed by Green Acre Farms Inc, Valley Fruit Orchards, LLC, Jim Morford, John Verbrugge, Desiree C Verbrugge. (Edgley, Ryan) (Entered: 07/15/2009)

07/15/2009 1171 DECLARATION by J. Jay Carroll in Opposition re 1098 MOTION for Attorney Fees filed by Green Acre Farms Inc, Valley Fruit Orchards, LLC, Jim Morford, John Verbrugge, Desiree C Verbrugge. (Edgley, Ryan) (Entered: 07/15/2009)

07/16/2009

1172

MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 1169 Response to Motion, 1098 MOTION for Attorney Fees, MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages, MOTION Consolidate Reply re 1169 Response to Motion, 1098 MOTION for Attorney Fees by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Morrison, Joachim) (Entered: 07/16/2009)

Case: 2:05-cv-3061 As of: 11/05/2016 05:11 PM PDT 94 of 116

07/16/2009

1173

MEMORANDUM in Support re 1172 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 1169 Response to Motion, 1098 MOTION for Attorney Fees MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages MOTION Consolidate Reply re 1169 Response to Motion, 1098 MOTION for Attorney Fees MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 1169 Response to Motion, 1098 MOTION for Attorney Fees MOTION Consolidate Reply re 1169 Response to Motion, 1098 MOTION for Attorney Fees filed by all plaintiffs. (Morrison, Joachim) (Entered: 07/16/2009)

07/16/2009

1174

DECLARATION by Joachim Morrison in Support re 1172 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 1169 Response to Motion, 1098 MOTION for Attorney Fees MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages MOTION Consolidate Reply re 1169 Response to Motion, 1098 MOTION for Attorney Fees MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 1169 Response to Motion, 1098 MOTION for Attorney Fees MOTION Consolidate Reply re 1169 Response to Motion, 1098 MOTION for Attorney Fees filed by all plaintiffs. (Morrison, Joachim) (Entered: 07/16/2009)

07/16/2009 1175 MOTION to Expedite Hearing on Motion to Consolidate Briefing, Extend Time and to Exceed the Page Limit for Attorney Fees Reply Brief by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Morrison, Joachim) (Entered: 07/16/2009)

07/16/2009 1176 MEMORANDUM in Support re 1175 MOTION to Expedite Hearing on Motion to Consolidate Briefing, Extend Time and to Exceed the Page Limit for Attorney Fees Reply Brief filed by all plaintiffs. (Morrison, Joachim) (Entered: 07/16/2009)

07/16/2009

1177

NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re 1175 MOTION to Expedite Hearing on Motion to Consolidate Briefing, Extend Time and to Exceed the Page Limit for Attorney Fees Reply Brief : Motion Hearing set for 7/17/2009 at 06:30 PM in Without Oral Argument before Senior Judge Robert H. Whaley. (Morrison, Joachim) (Entered: 07/16/2009)

07/16/2009

1178

NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re 1172 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 1169 Response to Motion, 1098 MOTION for Attorney Fees MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages MOTION Consolidate Reply re 1169 Response to Motion, 1098 MOTION for Attorney Fees MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 1169 Response to Motion, 1098 MOTION for Attorney Fees MOTION Consolidate Reply re 1169 Response to Motion, 1098 MOTION for Attorney Fees : Motion Hearing set for 7/17/2009 06:30 PM in Without Oral Argument before Senior Judge Robert H. Whaley. (Morrison, Joachim) (Entered: 07/16/2009)

07/16/2009

1179

DECLARATION by Ryan M. Edgley in Opposition re 1098 MOTION for Attorney Fees filed by Green Acre Farms Inc, Valley Fruit Orchards, LLC, Jim Morford, Katherine M Morford, John Verbrugge, Desiree C Verbrugge. (Edgley, Ryan) Modified on 7/17/2009 −− Attachments contain transcripts 4/pages per page; attorney to file praecipe so that transcripts are 1 page per page. (LE, Case Administrator). Modified on 7/20/2009 −− Praecipe filed at 1180 . (LE, Case Administrator). (Entered: 07/16/2009)

07/17/2009

1180

Praecipe filed by Green Acre Farms Inc, Valley Fruit Orchards, LLC, Jim Morford, John Verbrugge, Desiree C Verbrugge: Re 1179 Declaration in Opposition to Motion,. (Edgley, Ryan) Modified on 7/20/2009 −− Filed to provide Transcript exhibit as one page per page instead of 4 pages per page. (LE, Case Administrator). (Entered: 07/17/2009)

07/20/2009

1181

DECLARATION by Richard W. Kuhling in Support re 1172 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 1169 Response to Motion, 1098 MOTION for Attorney Fees MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages MOTION Consolidate Reply re 1169 Response to Motion, 1098 MOTION for Attorney Fees MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 1169 Response to Motion, 1098 MOTION for Attorney Fees MOTION Consolidate Reply re 1169 Response to Motion, 1098 MOTION for Attorney Fees filed by all plaintiffs. (Kuhling, Richard) (Entered: 07/20/2009)

07/20/2009 1182 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 1172 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 1169 Response to Motion, 1098 MOTION for Attorney Fees

Case: 2:05-cv-3061 As of: 11/05/2016 05:11 PM PDT 95 of 116

MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages MOTION Consolidate Reply re 1169 Response to Motion, 1098 MOTION for Attorney Fees MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 1169 Response to Motion, 1098 MOTION for Attorney Fees MOTION Consolidate Reply re 1169 Response to Motion, 1098 MOTION for Attorney Fees filed by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Gibbs, Matthew) (Entered: 07/20/2009)

07/24/2009

1183

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE BRIEFING, EXTEND TIME, AND TO EXCEED THE PAGE LIMIT FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES REPLY BRIEF; granting in part pltfs' 1172 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply; granting 1172 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages −− limited to 30 pages; granting 1172 Motion to Consolidate; granting 1175 Motion to Expedite; pltfs to file reply by 9/11/09. Signed by Senior Judge Robert H. Whaley. (LE, Case Administrator) (Entered: 07/24/2009)

07/30/2009

1184

STIPULATION re 1129 Judgment − By Court, 1128 Judgment Amended − By Court Plaintiffs and Grower Defendants Joint Submission to Amend Judgments by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Proposed Amendments to Ct Rec 1129, # 2 Exhibit B − Proposed Amendments to Ct Rec 1128)(Morrison, Joachim) (Entered: 07/30/2009)

08/03/2009 1185 ORDER DIRECTING AMENDED JUDGMENTS BE ENTERED. Signed by Senior Judge Robert H. Whaley. (LE, Case Administrator) (Entered: 08/04/2009)

08/03/2009 1186 AMENDED JUDGMENT in favor of Jose F Sanchez, Jose Guadalupe Perez−Farias, Ricardo Betancourt against Global Horizons Inc., Green Acre Farms Inc, Valley Fruit Orchards, LLC, Mordechai Orian. Signed by Senior Judge Robert H. Whaley. (LE, Case Administrator) (Entered: 08/04/2009)

08/03/2009 1187 SECOND AMENDED JUDGMENT in favor of Jose F Sanchez, Jose Guadalupe Perez−Farias, Ricardo Betancourt against Global Horizons Inc., Green Acre Farms Inc, Valley Fruit Orchards, LLC, Mordechai Orian. Signed by Senior Judge Robert H. Whaley. (LE, Case Administrator) (Entered: 08/04/2009)

08/10/2009 1188 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 1098 MOTION for Attorney Fees filed by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Gibbs, Matthew) (Entered: 08/10/2009)

08/10/2009

1189

DECLARATION by Matthew S. Gibbs in Opposition re 1098 MOTION for Attorney Fees filed by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit WA Attorney Bills, # 2 Exhibit Chart of Discovery Work for Reduction, # 3 Exhibit Chart of MSJ Work for Reduction, # 4 Exhibit Chart of Work re Jane Doe Orian for Reduction, # 5 Exhibit Chart of Work re Unsuccessful Claims for Reduction, # 6 Exhibit Chart of Clerical Work for Reduction, # 7 Exhibit Chart of Travel Charges for Reduction, # 8 Exhibit Chart of Vague Entries for Reduction, # 9 Exhibit Chart of Non Global Entries for Reduction, # 10 Exhibit Chart of Unnecessary Entries for Reduction, # 11 Exhibit Chart of Excess Hours Entries for Reduction, # 12 Exhibit Talmadge Declaration, # 13 Exhibit Carroll Declaration)(Gibbs, Matthew) Modified on 8/11/2009 −− Exhibit 1, pgs 8−13, are blank; attorney to file praecipe to correct. (LE, Case Administrator). Modified on 8/13/2009 −− Exhibit 1 was filed as a Praecipe at Ct. Rec. 1191 . (LE, Case Administrator). (Entered: 08/10/2009)

08/11/2009 1190 Docket Annotation − Re Filing Error: 1189 Declaration in Opposition to Motion. Exhibit 1, pages 8−13, are blank. Attorney to file praecipe to correct. (LE, Case Administrator) (Entered: 08/11/2009)

08/11/2009 1191 Praecipe filed by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian: Re 1189 Declaration in Opposition to Motion,,,,. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Corrected Bates Attorney Bills/Bar Info)(Gibbs, Matthew) (Entered: 08/11/2009)

08/14/2009 1192 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Attorney Fees Motion by Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Granting Mtn to Extend)(Gibbs, Matthew) (Entered: 08/14/2009)

Case: 2:05-cv-3061 As of: 11/05/2016 05:11 PM PDT 96 of 116

08/14/2009 1193 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re 1192 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Attorney Fees Motion : Motion Hearing set for 8/17/2009 06:30 PM in Without Oral Argument before Senior Judge Robert H. Whaley. (Gibbs, Matthew) (Entered: 08/14/2009)

08/14/2009 1194 MOTION to Expedite Motion to Extend Time to File Attorney Fees Motion by Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Granting Mtn to Expedite)(Gibbs, Matthew) (Entered: 08/14/2009)

08/14/2009 1195 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re 1194 MOTION to Expedite Motion to Extend Time to File Attorney Fees Motion : Motion Hearing set for 8/14/2009 06:30 PM in Without Oral Argument before Senior Judge Robert H. Whaley. (Gibbs, Matthew) (Entered: 08/14/2009)

08/25/2009 1196 RESPONSE to Motion re 1192 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Attorney Fees Motion filed by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Contreras, Mirta) (Entered: 08/25/2009)

09/11/2009 1197 REPLY MEMORANDUM re 1098 MOTION for Attorney Fees filed by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A (Revised), # 2 Exhibit B (Revised), # 3 Exhibit D, # 4 Exhibit E, # 5 Exhibit F, # 6 Exhibit G, # 7 Exhibit H)(Morrison, Joachim) (Entered: 09/11/2009)

09/11/2009 1198 DECLARATION of Rebecca Smith re 1197 Reply Memorandum by all plaintiffs. (Morrison, Joachim) (Entered: 09/11/2009)

09/11/2009 1199 DECLARATION of Eugene I. Annis re 1197 Reply Memorandum by all plaintiffs. (Morrison, Joachim) Modified on 9/14/2009 −− Exhibits not attached; attorney to file praecipe. (LE, Case Administrator). Modified on 9/14/2009 −− Praecipe filed at 1206 . (LE, Case Administrator). (Entered: 09/11/2009)

09/11/2009

1200

DECLARATION of Arasele Bueno re 1197 Reply Memorandum by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2)(Morrison, Joachim) Modified on 9/14/2009 −− Exhibit 1 contains a transcript w/4pages of transcript per page − attorney to file praecipe to correct. (LE, Case Administrator). Modified on 9/15/2009 −− Praecipe filed at 1207 . (LE, Case Administrator). (Entered: 09/11/2009)

09/11/2009 1201 DECLARATION of Mirta Laura Contreras re 1197 Reply Memorandum by all plaintiffs. (Morrison, Joachim) (Entered: 09/11/2009)

09/11/2009 1202 DECLARATION of Joachim Morrison re 1197 Reply Memorandum by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Morrison, Joachim) (Entered: 09/11/2009)

09/11/2009 1203 DECLARATION of Brian Huber re 1197 Reply Memorandum by all plaintiffs. (Morrison, Joachim) (Entered: 09/11/2009)

09/11/2009 1204 DECLARATION by Amy L. Crewdson in Support re 1098 MOTION for Attorney Fees re 1197 Reply Memorandum filed by all plaintiffs. (Crewdson, Amy) (Entered: 09/11/2009)

09/11/2009 1205 DECLARATION by Amy L. Crewdson in Support re 1098 MOTION for Attorney Fees re 1197 Reply Memorandum filed by all plaintiffs. (Crewdson, Amy) (Entered: 09/11/2009)

09/14/2009

1206

Praecipe filed by all plaintiffs: Re 1199 Declaration to provide exhibits. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B − Section 1, # 3 Exhibit B − Section 2, # 4 Exhibit B − Section 3)(Morrison, Joachim) Modified on 9/15/2009 −− Exhibit A contains a transcript w/4pages of transcript per page − attorney to file praecipe to correct. (LE, Case Administrator). Modified on 9/16/2009 −− Praecipe filed at Ct. Rec. 1208 . (LE, Case Administrator). (Entered: 09/14/2009)

09/14/2009 1207 Praecipe filed by all plaintiffs: Re 1200 Declaration, to show full page transcripts. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2)(Morrison, Joachim) (Entered: 09/14/2009)

09/15/2009 1208 Praecipe filed by all plaintiffs: Re 1206 Praecipe, to show full page transcripts. (Morrison, Joachim) Modified on 9/16/2009 −− Replaces Exhibit A of Ct. Rec. 1206 . (LE, Case Administrator). (Entered: 09/15/2009)

Case: 2:05-cv-3061 As of: 11/05/2016 05:11 PM PDT 97 of 116

09/21/2009 1209 MOTION to Continue the Hearing for Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorney Fees from October 6, 2009 to October 13, 2009 by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Gibbs, Matthew) (Entered: 09/21/2009)

09/21/2009 1210 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re 1209 MOTION to Continue the Hearing for Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorney Fees from October 6, 2009 to October 13, 2009 : Motion Hearing set for 9/22/2009 06:30 PM in Without Oral Argument before Senior Judge Robert H. Whaley. (Gibbs, Matthew) (Entered: 09/21/2009)

09/21/2009

1211

MOTION to Expedite 1209 Defendants' Motion to Continue the Hearing for Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorney Fees from October 6, 2009 to October 13, 2009 by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order Expediting Motion to Continue)(Gibbs, Matthew) (Entered: 09/21/2009)

09/21/2009

1212

NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re 1211 MOTION to Expedite 1209 Defendants' Motion to Continue the Hearing for Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorney Fees from October 6, 2009 to October 13, 2009 MOTION to Expedite 1209 Defendants' Motion to Continue the Hearing for Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorney Fees from October 6, 2009 to October 13, 2009 : Motion Hearing set for 9/21/2009 06:30 PM in Without Oral Argument before Senior Judge Robert H. Whaley. (Gibbs, Matthew) (Entered: 09/21/2009)

09/22/2009 1213 RESPONSE to Motion re 1209 MOTION to Continue the Hearing for Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorney Fees from October 6, 2009 to October 13, 2009 filed by all plaintiffs. (Morrison, Joachim) (Entered: 09/22/2009)

09/29/2009

1214

RESPONSE to Motion re 1209 MOTION to Continue the Hearing for Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorney Fees from October 6, 2009 to October 13, 2009 Grower Defendants' Submission Regarding Hearing on Attorney Fee Motion filed by Green Acre Farms Inc, Valley Fruit Orchards, LLC, Jim Morford, Katherine M Morford, John Verbrugge, Desiree C Verbrugge. (Monahan, Brendan) (Entered: 09/29/2009)

09/30/2009

1215

RESPONSE to Motion re 1209 MOTION to Continue the Hearing for Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorney Fees from October 6, 2009 to October 13, 2009 Grower Defendants' Clarification of Ct. Doc. 1214 filed by Green Acre Farms Inc, Valley Fruit Orchards, LLC, Jim Morford, Katherine M Morford, John Verbrugge, Desiree C Verbrugge. (Monahan, Brendan) (Entered: 09/30/2009)

09/30/2009

1216

MOTION to Strike 1199 Declaration, 1203 Declaration, 1208 Praecipe, 1202 Declaration, 1198 Declaration, 1201 Declaration, 1206 Praecipe, 1197 Reply Memorandum, 1205 Declaration in Support of Motion, 1207 Praecipe, 1200 Declaration, Either Entirely or in Part by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Granting Motion to Strike)(Gibbs, Matthew) (Entered: 09/30/2009)

09/30/2009

1217

NOTICE of Hearing on Motion Oral Argument Requested re 1216 MOTION to Strike 1199 Declaration, 1203 Declaration, 1208 Praecipe, 1202 Declaration, 1198 Declaration, 1201 Declaration, 1206 Praecipe, 1197 Reply Memorandum, 1205 Declaration in Support of Motion, 1207 Praecipe, 1200 Declaratio MOTION to Strike 1199 Declaration, 1203 Declaration, 1208 Praecipe, 1202 Declaration, 1198 Declaration, 1201 Declaration, 1206 Praecipe, 1197 Reply Memorandum, 1205 Declaration in Support of Motion, 1207 Praecipe, 1200 Declaratio : Motion Hearing set for 11/17/2009 01:30 PM in Yakima before Senior Judge Robert H. Whaley. (Gibbs, Matthew) (Entered: 09/30/2009)

10/02/2009

1218

ORDER SETTING HEARING ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STRIKE; granting dfts' 1157 Motion to Expedite; granting dfts' 1192 Motion for Extension of Time to File; granting dfts' 1194 Motion to Expedite; granting dfts' 1209 Motion to Continue; granting dfts' 1211 Motion to Expedite; hearing on dfts' 1216 Motion 6o Strike is RESET for 10/27/09 at 10:00 a.m. in Yakima, WA; pltfs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs is set for 11/17/09 at 1:30 pm in Yakima, WA. Signed by Senior Judge Robert H. Whaley. (LE, Case Administrator) (Entered: 10/02/2009)

10/02/2009

Set/Reset Motion Hearing as to dfts' 1216 MOTION to Strike set for 10/27/2009 10:00 AM in Yakima before Senior Judge Robert H. Whaley; pltfs' 1098 MOTION for Attorney Fees set for 11/17/2009 01:30 PM in Yakima before Senior Judge Robert

Case: 2:05-cv-3061 As of: 11/05/2016 05:11 PM PDT 98 of 116

H. Whaley. SEE 1218 Order filed 10/2/09 (LE, Case Administrator) (Entered: 10/02/2009)

10/02/2009 1219 MOTION to Expedite Hearing on Grower Defendants' Objections and Request to Strike Improper Evidence and Argument by Green Acre Farms Inc, Valley Fruit Orchards, LLC, Jim Morford, Katherine M Morford, John Verbrugge, Desiree C Verbrugge. (Monahan, Brendan) (Entered: 10/02/2009)

10/02/2009 1220 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re 1219 MOTION to Expedite Hearing on Grower Defendants' Objections and Request to Strike Improper Evidence and Argument : Motion Hearing set for 10/5/2009 06:30 PM in Without Oral Argument before Senior Judge Robert H. Whaley. (Monahan, Brendan) (Entered: 10/02/2009)

10/02/2009

1221

MOTION to Strike 1199 Declaration, 1198 Declaration, 1206 Praecipe, 1197 Reply Memorandum, 1207 Praecipe, 1200 Declaration, Grower Defendants' Objections and Request to Strike Improper Evidence and Argument by Green Acre Farms Inc, Valley Fruit Orchards, LLC, Jim Morford, Katherine M Morford, John Verbrugge, Desiree C Verbrugge. (Monahan, Brendan) (Entered: 10/02/2009)

10/02/2009

1222

NOTICE of Hearing on Motion Oral Argument Requested re 1221 MOTION to Strike 1199 Declaration, 1198 Declaration, 1206 Praecipe, 1197 Reply Memorandum, 1207 Praecipe, 1200 Declaration, Grower Defendants' Objections and Request to Strike Improper Evidence and Argument MOTION to Strike 1199 Declaration, 1198 Declaration, 1206 Praecipe, 1197 Reply Memorandum, 1207 Praecipe, 1200 Declaration, Grower Defendants' Objections and Request to Strike Improper Evidence and Argument : Motion Hearing set for 10/27/2009 10:00 AM in Yakima before Senior Judge Robert H. Whaley. (Monahan, Brendan) (Entered: 10/02/2009)

10/13/2009

1223

RESPONSE to Motion re 1221 MOTION to Strike 1199 Declaration, 1198 Declaration, 1206 Praecipe, 1197 Reply Memorandum, 1207 Praecipe, 1200 Declaration, Grower Defendants' Objections and Request to Strike Improper Evidence and Argument MOTION to Strike 1199 Declaration, 1198 Declaration, 1206 Praecipe, 1197 Reply Memorandum, 1207 Praecipe, 1200 Declaration, Grower Defendants' Objections and Request to Strike Improper Evidence and Argument, 1216 MOTION to Strike 1199 Declaration, 1203 Declaration, 1208 Praecipe, 1202 Declaration, 1198 Declaration, 1201 Declaration, 1206 Praecipe, 1197 Reply Memorandum, 1205 Declaration in Support of Motion, 1207 Praecipe, 1200 Declaratio MOTION to Strike 1199 Declaration, 1203 Declaration, 1208 Praecipe, 1202 Declaration, 1198 Declaration, 1201 Declaration, 1206 Praecipe, 1197 Reply Memorandum, 1205 Declaration in Support of Motion, 1207 Praecipe, 1200 Declaratio filed by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Isley, Lori) (Entered: 10/13/2009)

10/13/2009 1224 DECLARATION of Joachim Morrison re 1223 Response to Motion,,,, by all plaintiffs. (Morrison, Joachim) (Entered: 10/13/2009)

10/14/2009 1225 DECLARATION of Matthew S. Gibbs in Response to Inaccuracies re 1224 Declaration by Global Horizons Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Mordechai Orian, Jane Doe Orian. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Gibbs email to Morrison, # 2 Exhibit Edgley email to Morrison)(Gibbs, Matthew) (Entered: 10/14/2009)

10/20/2009

1226

REPLY MEMORANDUM re 1221 MOTION to Strike 1199 Declaration, 1198 Declaration, 1206 Praecipe, 1197 Reply Memorandum, 1207 Praecipe, 1200 Declaration, Grower Defendants' Objections and Request to Strike Improper Evidence and Argument MOTION to Strike 1199 Declaration, 1198 Declaration, 1206 Praecipe, 1197 Reply Memorandum, 1207 Praecipe, 1200 Declaration, Grower Defendants' Objections and Request to Strike Improper Evidence and Argument filed by Green Acre Farms Inc, Valley Fruit Orchards, LLC, Jim Morford, Katherine M Morford, John Verbrugge, Desiree C Verbrugge. (Edgley, Ryan) (Entered: 10/20/2009)

10/27/2009 1227 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Senior Judge Robert H. Whaley: Motion Hearing held on 10/27/2009. (Reported/Recorded by: LYNETTE WALTERS) (MF, Courtroom Deputy) (Entered: 10/27/2009)

11/06/2009 1228 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion − By Court − Text entry;no PDF document. Oral Argument Requested re 1098 MOTION for Attorney Fees : Motion Hearing set for

Case: 2:05-cv-3061 As of: 11/05/2016 05:11 PM PDT 99 of 116

11/17/2009 is RESET to 11/16/2009 at 08:00 AM in Yakima before Senior Judge Robert H. Whaley. (MF, Courtroom Deputy) (Entered: 11/06/2009)

11/12/2009 1229 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STRIKE, IN PART; granting in part Global Dfts' 1216 Motion to Strike ; granting Grower Dfts' 1219 Motion to Expedite; granting in part Grower Dfts' 1221 Motion to Strike. Signed by Senior Judge Robert H. Whaley. (LE, Case Administrator) (Entered: 11/12/2009)

11/16/2009 1230 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Senior Judge Robert H. Whaley: Motion Hearing held on 11/16/2009. (Reported/Recorded by: Stephanie Smithson) (MF, Courtroom Deputy) (Entered: 11/16/2009)

01/19/2010

1231

NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF COUNSEL by Gary Edward Lofland on behalf of Defendant Global Horizons Inc. (Lofland, Gary) Modified on 1/19/2010 −− Attorney to refile this document as a Motion to Withdraw.(LE, Case Administrator). Modified on 1/21/2010 −− Notified that this withdrawal pertains only to the 9CCA case, not the USDC case. (LE, Case Administrator). (Entered: 01/19/2010)

01/26/2010 1232 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Pretrial Conference/Motion Hearing. Proceedings held on 08/28/07 in Yakima, Washington before Judge Whaley. Page Numbers: 1−66.

Parties have seven (7) business days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days.

Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER.

Information regarding the policy can be found on the court website at www.waed.uscourts.gov.

To purchase a copy of the transcript contact Court Reporter/Transcriber Lynette Walters by telephone at 509−573−6613

. Redaction Request due 2/16/2010. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 2/26/2010. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 4/26/2010. (PL, Case Administrator) (Entered: 01/26/2010)

02/09/2010

1233

TRANSCRIPT INCORRECT AND IS NO LONGER AVAILABLE; CORRECTED TRANSCRIPT FILED AT CT. REC. 1238 . NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Bench Trial Proceedings − Day One. Proceedings held on March 3, 2009 in Yakima, WA before Judge Robert H. Whaley. Volume Number: 1, Page Numbers: 1−97

Parties have seven (7) business days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days.

Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER.

Information regarding the policy can be found on the court website at www.waed.uscourts.gov/cmecf/index.html.

To purchase a copy of the transcript contact Court Reporter/Transcriber Stephanie Smithson by telephone at 509−376−7262.

Redaction Request due 3/2/2010. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 3/12/2010. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/10/2010. (LE, Case Administrator) Modified on 2/12/2010 to include Volume number. (LE, Case Administrator). Modified on 2/19/2010 re incorrect transcript. (LE, Case Administrator). (Entered:

Case: 2:05-cv-3061 As of: 11/05/2016 05:11 PM PDT 100 of 116
02/09/2010)
02/12/2010 1234 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Bench Trial. Proceedings held on March 4, 2009 in Yakima, WA before Judge Robert H. Whaley. Volume Number: 2, Page Numbers: 98−214
Parties have seven (7) business days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days.
Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER.
Information regarding the policy can be found on the court website at www.waed.uscourts.gov/cmecf/index.html.
To purchase a copy of the transcript contact Court Reporter/Transcriber Lynette Walters by telephone at 509−573−6613.
Redaction Request due 3/5/2010. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 3/15/2010. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/13/2010. (LE, Case Administrator) (Entered: 02/12/2010)
02/16/2010 1235 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Trial − Day 1. Proceedings held on September 11, 2007 in Yakima, WA before Judge Robert H. Whaley. Volume Number: 1 of 3. Page Numbers: 1−24
Parties have seven (7) business days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days.
Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER.
Information regarding the policy can be found on the court website at www.waed.uscourts.gov/cmecf/index.html.
To purchase a copy of the transcript contact Court Reporter/Transcriber Lynette Walters by telephone at 509−573−6613.
Redaction Request due 3/9/2010. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 3/19/2010. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/17/2010. (LE, Case Administrator) (Entered: 02/16/2010)
02/16/2010 1236 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Trial − Day 9. Proceedings held on September 21, 2007 in Yakima, WA before Judge Robert H. Whaley. Volume Number: 2 of 3. Page Numbers: 1−26
Parties have seven (7) business days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days.
Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER.
Information regarding the policy can be found on the court website at www.waed.uscourts.gov/cmecf/index.html.

Case: 2:05-cv-3061 As of: 11/05/2016 05:11 PM PDT 101 of 116

To purchase a copy of the transcript contact Court Reporter/Transcriber Lynette Walters by telephone at 509−573−6613.

Redaction Request due 3/9/2010. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 3/19/2010. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/17/2010. (LE, Case Administrator) (Entered: 02/16/2010)
02/16/2010 1237 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Closing Arguments. Proceedings held on December 17, 2007 in Video Conference before Judge Robert H. Whaley. Volume Number: 3 of 3. Page Numbers: 1−42

Parties have seven (7) business days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days.

Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER.

Information regarding the policy can be found on the court website at www.waed.uscourts.gov/cmecf/index.html.

To purchase a copy of the transcript contact Court Reporter/Transcriber Lynette Walters by telephone at 509−573−6613.

Redaction Request due 3/9/2010. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 3/19/2010. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/17/2010. (LE, Case Administrator) (Entered: 02/16/2010)

02/19/2010 1238 TRANSCRIPT Ct. Rec. 1233 CORRECTED at page 5: at line 10, "testify" was changed to "testified" and at line 11, "illegal" was changed to "legal.". Bench Trial Proceedings − Day One. Proceedings held on March 3, 2009 in Yakima, WA before Judge Robert H Whaley. (LE, Case Administrator) (Entered: 02/19/2010)

03/24/2010

1239

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES; granting plaintiffs' 1098 Motion for Attorney Fees; DCE directed to enter judgment in favor of pltfs and against Global Horizons Inc and Mordechai Orian in the amount of $1,452,831.00 for reasonable attorneys' fees; Global Horizons Inc and Mordechai Orian are ordered to pay to the Court $1,424.58 for costs of the interpretation fees that were provided at trial on a cost−reimbursable basis. DCE directed to assess the final cost bill against Global Horizons Inc and Mordechai Orian only and not against the other named defendants. Signed by Senior Judge Robert H. Whaley. (LE, Case Administrator) (Entered: 03/24/2010)

03/24/2010 1240 JUDGMENT in favor of Jose Guadalupe Perez−Farias, Jose F Sanchez, Ricardo Betancourt against Global Horizons Inc., Mordechai Orian. Signed by Senior Judge Robert H. Whaley. (LE, Case Administrator) (Entered: 03/24/2010)

03/25/2010 1241 ORDER AMENDING CT. REC. 1239; re 1239 Order on Motion for Attorney Fees. Correction to page 6, lines 20 and 21. Signed by Senior Judge Robert H. Whaley. (LE, Case Administrator) (Entered: 03/25/2010)

04/05/2010

1242

9CCA AMENDED NOTICE OF APPEAL from District Court decision as to 1241 Order, 1129 Judgment − By Court, 1240 Judgment − By Court, 1239 Order on Motion for Attorney Fees,, 1128 Judgment Amended − By Court by Global Horizons Inc., Jane Doe Orian, Mordechai Orian, Platte River Insurance Company. 9CCA: 09−35598. (Gibbs, Matthew) (Entered: 04/05/2010)

04/07/2010 1243 Costs Taxed in amount of $39,315.30 against Global Horizons, Inc., and Mordechai Orian. (CS, Case Administrator) (Entered: 04/07/2010)

04/14/2010 1244 MOTION Retax Costs re 1243 Costs Taxed by All Plaintiffs. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 04/14/2010)

04/14/2010 1245 MEMORANDUM in Support re 1244 MOTION Retax Costs re 1243 Costs Taxed filed by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment 1)(Isley, Lori) (Entered:

Case: 2:05-cv-3061 As of: 11/05/2016 05:11 PM PDT 102 of 116

04/14/2010)

04/14/2010 1246 DECLARATION by Lori Jordan Isley in Support re 1244 MOTION Retax Costs re 1243 Costs Taxed filed by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Isley, Lori) (Entered: 04/14/2010)

04/14/2010 1247 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re 1244 MOTION Retax Costs re 1243 Costs Taxed : Motion Hearing set for 5/14/2010 06:30 PM in Without Oral Argument before Senior Judge Robert H. Whaley. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 04/14/2010)

04/23/2010

1248

NOTICE OF CROSS APPEAL from District Court decision as to 863 Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law, Terminate Motions,,,,,,,, 1187 Judgment − By Court, 1127 Order on Motion to Amend/Correct,, Order on Motion to Expedite, Order on Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages,, Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief,, Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 1083 Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law, Set Deadlines/Hearings, Terminate Motions,,,,,, 597 Order on Motion to Compel, Order on Motion for Sanctions, Order on Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages, Order on Motion for Reconsideration, Order on Motion to Set Aside Default,,,,,,,,,,,,, 1240 Judgment − By Court, 1239 Order on Motion for Attorney Fees,, 1186 Judgment − By Court, by All Plaintiffs. Filing fee $ 455, receipt number 0980−861143. (Isley, Lori) Modified on 4/27/2010 −− 9CCA Case Number for Cross Appeal is 10−35397. (LE, Case Administrator). (Entered: 04/23/2010)

04/23/2010 1249 9CCA Payment Notification form regarding 1248 Notice of Cross Appeal. Received $455, receipt number 0980−861143. (CS, Case Administrator) (Entered: 04/23/2010)

04/23/2010 1250 Letter from Appeal Deputy Clerk to Lori A. Jordan Isley dated April 23, 2010. (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Cross Appeal, # 2 Docket Sheet)(CS, Case Administrator) (Entered: 04/23/2010)

04/27/2010

1251

9CCA Appeal Case Number: 09−35598, 10−35397 for 1142 Notice of Appeal, filed by Platte River Insurance Company, Jane Doe Orian, Mordechai Orian, Global Horizons Inc., 1248 Notice of Cross Appeal,,, filed by Jose F Sanchez, Ricardo Betancourt, Jose Guadalupe Perez−Farias. Mediation Questionnaire Due: 5/4/10. This Order VACATES all brief due dates previously set and parties shall meet the following cross appeal Time Schedule. cc: Court Reporter: Debra Clark, Lynette Walters, Mark Snover, and Stephanie Smithson. (LE, Case Administrator) (Entered: 04/27/2010)

04/28/2010

1252

TRANSCRIPT DESIGNATION of Record on Appeal by Global Horizons Inc., Jane Doe Orian, Mordechai Orian, Platte River Insurance Company re 1142 Notice of Appeal, 1146 Appeal Case Number. Date Appeal Filed: 6−19−09. Court Reporter:Debra Clark, Lynette Walters, Mark Snover, Ronelle Corbey, Stephanie Smithson, ER/FTR Clerk. 9CCA: 09−35598. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Prior Notice to Pl Counsel)(Gibbs, Matthew) Modified on 4/29/2010 −− Wrong form used; attorney to re−file. (LE, Case Administrator), Modified on 4/30/2010 −− Amended Designation filed at 1254 . (LE, Case Administrator) (Entered: 04/28/2010)

04/28/2010

1253

Docket Annotation − Re Filing Error: 1252 Transcript Designation of Record on Appeal. Attorney did not use the Transcript Designation Form as instructed and did not identify the Court Reporter for each transcript. The attorney is advised to refile the Transcript Designation using the correct form and identifying the court reporter for each request. (LE, Case Administrator) (Entered: 04/28/2010)

04/29/2010

1254

AMENDED TRANSCRIPT DESIGNATION of Record on Appeal by Global Horizons Inc., Jane Doe Orian, Mordechai Orian, Platte River Insurance Company re 1142 Notice of Appeal,. Date Appeal Filed: 6−19−09 & 4/5/10. Court Reporter:Debra Clark, Lynette Walters, Stephanie Smithson, ER/FTR Clerk. 9CCA: 09−35598. (Gibbs, Matthew) Modified on 5/20/2010 −− Amended Transcript Designation filed 5/18/10 at 1255 which indicates that Mordechai Orian is proceeding pro se on the appeal. (LE, Case Administrator). (Entered: 04/29/2010)

05/18/2010 1255 AMENDED TRANSCRIPT DESIGNATION of Record on Appeal by Mordechai Orian re 1142 Notice of Appeal,. Date Appeal Filed: 6/19/09 (Am 4/15/10). Court Reporter:Debra Clark, Lynette Walters, Stephanie Smithson, ER/FTR Clerk. 9CCA: 09−35598. (Gibbs, Matthew) (Entered: 05/18/2010)

Case: 2:05-cv-3061 As of: 11/05/2016 05:11 PM PDT 103 of 116

05/26/2010 1256 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Motion Hearing. Proceedings held on August 1, 2007 in Yakima, Washington, before Judge Robert H. Whaley. Page Numbers: 1 − 13

Parties have seven (7) business days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days.

Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER.

Information regarding the policy can be found on the court website at www.waed.uscourts.gov/cmecf/index.html.

To purchase a copy of the transcript contact Court Reporter/Transcriber Debra Clark by telephone at 509−458−3433

. Redaction Request due 6/16/2010. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 6/28/2010. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 8/24/2010. (CS, Case Administrator) (Entered: 05/26/2010)
05/26/2010 1257 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Jury Trial. Proceedings held on September 27, 2007 in Yakima, Washington, before Judge Robert H. Whaley. Page Numbers: 1 − 19

Parties have seven (7) business days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days.

Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER.

Information regarding the policy can be found on the court website at www.waed.uscourts.gov/cmecf/index.html.

To purchase a copy of the transcript contact Court Reporter/Transcriber Debra Clark by telephone at 509−458−3433

. Redaction Request due 6/16/2010. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 6/28/2010. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 8/24/2010. (CS, Case Administrator) (Entered: 05/26/2010)

06/21/2010

1258

Docket Annotation − Re Filing Error as to Ct. Rec. # 403 Minute Entry for TELEPHONIC proceedings held before Judge Michael W. Leavitt: Motion Hearing Re Ct. Rec. # 377 − Plaintiffs' Motion for Sanctions held on 4/17/2007. CORRECTED TO REFLECT TELEPHONIC CIVIL MOTION HEARING − NOT REPORTED. (AG, Courtroom Deputy) (Entered: 04/18/2007) (AG, Courtroom Deputy) (Entered: 06/21/2010)

06/22/2010 1259 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Motion Hearing. Proceedings held on November 16, 2009 in Yakima, WA before Judge Robert H. Whaley. Page Numbers: 1−54

Parties have seven (7) business days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days.

Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER.

Case: 2:05-cv-3061 As of: 11/05/2016 05:11 PM PDT 104 of 116
Information regarding the policy can be found on the court website at www.waed.uscourts.gov/cmecf/index.html.
To purchase a copy of the transcript contact Court Reporter/Transcriber Stephanie Smithson by telephone at 509−376−7262.
Redaction Request due 7/13/2010. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 7/23/2010. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 9/20/2010. (LE, Case Administrator) (Entered: 06/22/2010)
06/25/2010 1261 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Trial − Day 3 . Proceedings held on September 13, 2007 in Yakima, WA before Judge Robert H. Whaley. Page Numbers: 1−230
Parties have seven (7) business days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days.
Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER.
Information regarding the policy can be found on the court website at www.waed.uscourts.gov/cmecf/index.html.
To purchase a copy of the transcript contact Court Reporter/Transcriber Lynette Walters by telephone at 509−573−6613.
Redaction Request due 7/16/2010. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 7/26/2010. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 9/23/2010. (LE, Case Administrator) Modified on 6/28/2010 −− THIS IS A DUPLICATE OF CT. REC. 1260 . Docketed twice by mistake. (LE, Case Administrator). (Entered: 06/25/2010)
06/25/2010 1262 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Motion Hearing. Proceedings held on May 7, 2007 in Yakima, WA before Judge Robert H. Whaley. Page Numbers: 1−19
Parties have seven (7) business days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days.
Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER.
Information regarding the policy can be found on the court website at www.waed.uscourts.gov/cmecf/index.html.
To purchase a copy of the transcript contact Court Reporter/Transcriber Stephanie Smithson by telephone at 509−376−7262.
Redaction Request due 7/16/2010. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 7/26/2010. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 9/23/2010. (LE, Case Administrator) (Entered: 06/25/2010)
06/25/2010 1263 SEALED DOCUMENT. (LE, Case Administrator) (Entered: 06/25/2010)
06/25/2010 1264 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Trial − Day 1. Proceedings held on September 11, 2007 in Yakima, WA before Judge Robert H. Whaley. Page Numbers: 1−88
Parties have seven (7) business days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be

Case: 2:05-cv-3061 As of: 11/05/2016 05:11 PM PDT 105 of 116
made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days.
Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER.
Information regarding the policy can be found on the court website at www.waed.uscourts.gov/cmecf/index.html.
To purchase a copy of the transcript contact Court Reporter/Transcriber Lynette Walters by telephone at 509−573−6613.
Redaction Request due 7/16/2010. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 7/26/2010. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 9/23/2010. (LE, Case Administrator) (Entered: 06/28/2010)
06/25/2010 1266 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Trial − Day 4. Proceedings held on September 14, 2007 in Yakima, WA before Judge Robert H. Whaley. Page Numbers: 1−25
Parties have seven (7) business days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days.
Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER.
Information regarding the policy can be found on the court website at www.waed.uscourts.gov/cmecf/index.html.
To purchase a copy of the transcript contact Court Reporter/Transcriber Lynette Walters by telephone at 509−573−6613.
Redaction Request due 7/16/2010. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 7/26/2010. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 9/23/2010. (LE, Case Administrator) (Entered: 06/28/2010)
06/25/2010 1267 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Trial − Day 5. Proceedings held on September 17, 2007 in Yakima, WA before Judge Robert H. Whaley. Page Numbers: 1−13
Parties have seven (7) business days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days.
Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER.
Information regarding the policy can be found on the court website at www.waed.uscourts.gov/cmecf/index.html.
To purchase a copy of the transcript contact Court Reporter/Transcriber Lynette Walters by telephone at 509−573−6613.
Redaction Request due 7/19/2010. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 7/29/2010. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 9/27/2010. (LE, Case Administrator) (Entered: 06/28/2010)
06/25/2010 1268 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Trial − Day 6. Proceedings held on September 18, 2007 in Yakima, WA before Judge Robert H. Whaley. Page

Case: 2:05-cv-3061 As of: 11/05/2016 05:11 PM PDT 106 of 116
Numbers: 1−25
Parties have seven (7) business days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days.
Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER.
Information regarding the policy can be found on the court website at www.waed.uscourts.gov/cmecf/index.html.
To purchase a copy of the transcript contact Court Reporter/Transcriber Lynette Walters by telephone at 509−573−6613.
Redaction Request due 7/16/2010. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 7/26/2010. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 9/23/2010. (LE, Case Administrator) (Entered: 06/28/2010)
06/25/2010 1269 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Trial − Day 7. Proceedings held on September 19, 2007 in Yakima, WA before Judge Robert H. Whaley. Page Numbers: 1−20
Parties have seven (7) business days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days.
Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER.
Information regarding the policy can be found on the court website at www.waed.uscourts.gov/cmecf/index.html.
To purchase a copy of the transcript contact Court Reporter/Transcriber Lynette Walters by telephone at 509−573−6613.
Redaction Request due 7/16/2010. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 7/26/2010. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 9/23/2010. (LE, Case Administrator) (Entered: 06/28/2010)
06/25/2010 1270 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Trial − Day 8. Proceedings held on September 20, 2007 in Yakima, WA before Judge Robert H. Whaley. Page Numbers: 1−76
Parties have seven (7) business days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days.
Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER.
Information regarding the policy can be found on the court website at www.waed.uscourts.gov/cmecf/index.html.
To purchase a copy of the transcript contact Court Reporter/Transcriber Lynette Walters by telephone at 509−573−6613.
Redaction Request due 7/16/2010. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 7/26/2010. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 9/23/2010. (LE, Case Administrator)

Case: 2:05-cv-3061 As of: 11/05/2016 05:11 PM PDT 107 of 116
(Entered: 06/28/2010)
06/25/2010 1271 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Trial − Day 9. Proceedings held on September 21, 2007 in Yakima, WA before Judge Robert H. Whaley. Page Numbers: 1−146
Parties have seven (7) business days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days.
Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER.
Information regarding the policy can be found on the court website at www.waed.uscourts.gov/cmecf/index.html.
To purchase a copy of the transcript contact Court Reporter/Transcriber Lynette Walters by telephone at 509−573−6613.
Redaction Request due 7/16/2010. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 7/26/2010. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 9/23/2010. (LE, Case Administrator) (Entered: 06/28/2010)
06/25/2010 1272 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Trial − Day 12. Proceedings held on September 26, 2007 in Yakima, WA before Judge Robert H. Whaley. Page Numbers: 1−13
Parties have seven (7) business days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days.
Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER.
Information regarding the policy can be found on the court website at www.waed.uscourts.gov/cmecf/index.html.
To purchase a copy of the transcript contact Court Reporter/Transcriber Lynette Walters by telephone at 509−573−6613.
Redaction Request due 7/16/2010. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 7/26/2010. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 9/23/2010. (LE, Case Administrator) (Entered: 06/28/2010)
06/25/2010 1273 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Motion Hearing. Proceedings held on December 11, 2007 in Telephonic Hearing before Judge Robert H. Whaley. Page Numbers: 1−19
Parties have seven (7) business days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days.
Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER.
Information regarding the policy can be found on the court website at www.waed.uscourts.gov/cmecf/index.html.

Case: 2:05-cv-3061 As of: 11/05/2016 05:11 PM PDT 108 of 116
To purchase a copy of the transcript contact Court Reporter/Transcriber Lynette Walters by telephone at 509−573−6613.
Redaction Request due 7/16/2010. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 7/26/2010. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 9/23/2010. (LE, Case Administrator) (Entered: 06/28/2010)
06/25/2010 1274 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Motion Hearing. Proceedings held on December 17, 2007 in Video Conference before Judge Robert H. Whaley. Page Numbers: 1−58
Parties have seven (7) business days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days.
Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER.
Information regarding the policy can be found on the court website at www.waed.uscourts.gov/cmecf/index.html.
To purchase a copy of the transcript contact Court Reporter/Transcriber Lynette Walters by telephone at 509−573−6613.
Redaction Request due 7/16/2010. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 7/26/2010. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 9/23/2010. (LE, Case Administrator) (Entered: 06/28/2010)
06/25/2010 1275 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Motion Hearing. Proceedings held on October 27, 2009 in Telephonic Hearing before Judge Robert H. Whaley. Page Numbers: 1−37
Parties have seven (7) business days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days.
Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER.
Information regarding the policy can be found on the court website at www.waed.uscourts.gov/cmecf/index.html.
To purchase a copy of the transcript contact Court Reporter/Transcriber Lynette Walters by telephone at 509−573−6613.
Redaction Request due 7/16/2010. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 7/26/2010. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 9/23/2010. (LE, Case Administrator) (Entered: 06/28/2010)
06/28/2010 1265 Docket Annotation − Re Filing Error: 1261 Transcript,,,, 1260 Transcript,,,,. This transcript was mistakenly docketed twice. (LE, Case Administrator) (Entered: 06/28/2010)
07/07/2010 1276 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of AMENDED: Trial − Day 2. Proceedings held on September 12, 2007 in Yakima, WA before Judge Robert H. Whaley. Page Numbers: 1−222
Parties have seven (7) business days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days.

Case: 2:05-cv-3061 As of: 11/05/2016 05:11 PM PDT 109 of 116

Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER.

Information regarding the policy can be found on the court website at www.waed.uscourts.gov/cmecf/index.html.

To purchase a copy of the transcript contact Court Reporter/Transcriber Lynette Walters by telephone at 509−573−6613.

Redaction Request due 7/28/2010. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 8/9/2010. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 10/5/2010. (LE, Case Administrator) (Entered: 07/07/2010)
07/09/2010 1277 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Status Conference. Proceedings held on September 2, 2008 in Yakima, WA before Judge Robert H. Whaley. Page Numbers: 1−68

Parties have seven (7) business days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days.

Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER.

Information regarding the policy can be found on the court website at www.waed.uscourts.gov/cmecf/index.html.

To purchase a copy of the transcript contact Court Reporter/Transcriber Lynette Walters by telephone at 509−573−6613.

Redaction Request due 7/30/2010. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 8/9/2010. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 10/7/2010. (LE, Case Administrator) (Entered: 07/09/2010)

07/14/2010

1278

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO RETAX COSTS, IN PART; granting in part pltfs' 1244 Motion to Retax Costs; the Clerk is directed to assess additional costs in the amount of $13,808.25 ($24,225 x.57) against dfts Global Horizon and Mordechai Orian. Signed by Senior Judge Robert H. Whaley. (LE, Case Administrator) (Entered: 07/14/2010)

07/19/2010 1279 Costs Taxed in the additional amount of $13,808.25 against Global Horizons, Inc. and Mordechai Orian, pursuant to 1278 Order filed 7/14/10. (LE, Case Administrator) (Entered: 07/19/2010)

07/30/2010 1280 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Telephonic Status Conference. Proceedings held on 9/3/08 in Spokane, WA before Judge Robert H. Whaley. Page Numbers: 1−42

Parties have seven (7) business days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days.

Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER.

Information regarding the policy can be found on the court website at www.waed.uscourts.gov/cmecf/index.html.

To purchase a copy of the transcript contact Court Reporter/Transcriber Debra Kinney Clark by telephone at 509−458−3433

Case: 2:05-cv-3061 As of: 11/05/2016 05:11 PM PDT 110 of 116

. Redaction Request due 8/20/2010. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 8/30/2010. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 10/28/2010. (SAP, Case Administrator) (Entered: 07/30/2010)

08/03/2010 1282 Docket Annotation − Re Filing Error: 1281 Transcript. This transcript is a duplicate of 1280 Transcript and was docketed in error. (LE, Case Administrator) (Entered: 08/03/2010)

08/23/2010 1283 NOTICE of Change of Address by Brendan Victor Monahan (Monahan, Brendan) (Entered: 08/23/2010)

09/21/2010 1284 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney (atty Gary E. Lofland) by Global Horizons Inc.. (Lofland, Gary) (Entered: 09/21/2010)

09/21/2010 1285 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re 1284 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney (atty Gary E. Lofland) : Motion Hearing set for 9/28/2010 06:30 PM in Without Oral Argument before Senior Judge Robert H. Whaley. (Lofland, Gary) (Entered: 09/21/2010)

09/21/2010 1286 STATEMENT re 1284 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney (atty Gary E. Lofland) by Global Horizons Inc.. (Lofland, Gary) (Entered: 09/21/2010)

11/03/2010

1287

COPY OF 9CCA ORDER as to 1142 Notice of Appeal, filed by Platte River Insurance Company, Jane Doe Orian, Mordechai Orian, Global Horizons Inc. 9CCA: 09−35598. Denying Motionto Intervene filed by Robin Hood International Human Rights Legal Defense Fund; Motion to Appoint sua sponte Dr. Borja or Dr. Ramey as an expert is denied. No further filings will be accepted by Robin Hood Intern'l Human Rights Legal Defense Fund; briefing schedule previously established shall remain in effect. (LE, Case Administrator) (Entered: 11/03/2010)

12/17/2010

1288

MANDATE & ORDER from 9CCA as to 1142 Notice of Appeal, filed by Platte River Insurance Company, Jane Doe Orian, Mordechai Orian, Global Horizons Inc.. Appeal 09−35598 is Dismissed for lack of prosecution. Re 1248 Notice of Appeal, filed by plaintiffs, Appeal 10−35397 has an Amended Briefing Schedule: Opening Brief due 2/2/11; Answering Brief due 3/5/11. 9CCA: 09−35598; 10−35397. (LE, Case Administrator) Modified on 12/17/2010 to add link to Notice of Appeal. (LE, Case Administrator). (Entered: 12/17/2010)

01/04/2011

1289

ORDER STRIKING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS; GRANTING MOTION TO WITHDRAW; striking as moot 913 Report and Recommendations ; striking as moot 914 Report and Recommendations ; granting 919 Motion to Seal; granting 1284 Motion by Gary Lofland to Withdraw as Local Counsel for Global Horizons and Mordechai Orion. Attorney Gary Edward Lofland terminated. Signed by Senior Judge Robert H. Whaley. (LE, Case Administrator) (Entered: 01/04/2011)

07/27/2011 1290 ORDER DIRECTING JUDGMENT TO BE AMENDED; District Court Executive directed to amend Judgment entered on 8/3/09 (Ct.Rec. 1187 ). Signed by Senior Judge Robert H. Whaley. (LE, Case Administrator) (Entered: 07/28/2011)

07/27/2011

1291

AMENDED SECOND AMENDED JUDGMENT re 1187 Judgment − By Court, in favor of Ricardo Betancourt, Jose Sanchez and Jose G Perez−Farias against Global Horizons, Inc., Mordechai Orian, Green Acre Farms, Inc., and Valley Fruit Orchards, LLC (SEE 1290 Order filed 7/27/11). Signed by Senior Judge Robert H. Whaley. (LE, Case Administrator) (Entered: 07/28/2011)

08/17/2011 1292 9CCA Slip Opinion: Decision of the District Court is Affirmed in Part, Reversed in part, and Remanded for further proceedings. 9CCA Case No. 10−35397. (Attachments: # 1 Concurring in part/Dissenting in part Opinion)(LE, Case Administrator) (Entered: 08/17/2011)

09/22/2011 1293 COPY OF 9CCA ORDER as to 1248 Notice of Cross Appeal filed by Jose F Sanchez, Ricardo Betancourt, Jose Guadalupe Perez−Farias 9CCA: 10−35397. The Industry Amici's amicus brief is deemed filed.(LE, Case Administrator) Modified on 9/22/2011 (LE, Case Administrator). (Entered: 09/22/2011)

10/25/2011 1294 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE − Show Cause Response due by 11/4/2011. Signed by Senior Judge Robert H. Whaley. (CS, Case Administrator) (Entered: 10/25/2011)

Case: 2:05-cv-3061 As of: 11/05/2016 05:11 PM PDT 111 of 116

11/08/2011 1295 ORDER OF DISBURSEMENT − The District Court Executive is directed to disburse $3,293.22 to Plaintiffs' attorneys in Perez−Farias, et al., at Columbia Legal Services. Signed by Senior Judge Robert H. Whaley. (CS, Case Administrator) (Entered: 11/08/2011)

12/05/2011 1296 COPY OF 9CCA ORDER as to 1248 Notice of Cross Appeal filed by Jose F. Sanchez, Ricardo Betancourt, and Jose Guadalupe Perez−Farias, 9CCA: 10−35397. (CS, Case Administrator) (Entered: 12/05/2011)

12/05/2011 1297 COPY OF 9CCA ORDER as to 1248 Notice of Cross Appeal filed by Jose F. Sanchez, Ricardo Betancourt, and Jose Guadalupe Perez−Farias, 9CCA: 10−35397. (CS, Case Administrator) (Entered: 12/05/2011)

12/09/2011 1298 MOTION for Relief Pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 60 & 62.1 and LR 67.1 by All Plaintiffs. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 12/09/2011)

12/09/2011 1299 MEMORANDUM in Support re 1298 MOTION for Relief Pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 60 & 62.1 and LR 67.1 filed by All Plaintiffs. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 12/09/2011)

12/09/2011 1300 DECLARATION by Lori Jordan Isley in Support re 1298 MOTION for Relief Pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 60 & 62.1 and LR 67.1 filed by All Plaintiffs. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 12/09/2011)

12/09/2011 1301 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re 1298 MOTION for Relief Pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 60 & 62.1 and LR 67.1 : Motion Hearing set for 1/9/2012 06:30 PM in Without Oral Argument before Senior Judge Robert H. Whaley. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 12/09/2011)

12/21/2011 1302 RESPONSE to Motion re 1298 MOTION for Relief Pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 60 & 62.1 and LR 67.1 filed by Green Acre Farms Inc, Jim Morford, Katherine M Morford, Valley Fruit Orchards, LLC, Desiree C Verbrugge, John Verbrugge. (Monahan, Brendan) (Entered: 12/21/2011)

12/23/2011 1303 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 1298 MOTION for Relief Pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 60 & 62.1 and LR 67.1 filed by Platte River Insurance Company. (Monroe, Celeste) (Entered: 12/23/2011)

12/23/2011 1304 DECLARATION by Celeste Mountain Monroe in Opposition re 1298 MOTION for Relief Pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 60 & 62.1 and LR 67.1 filed by Platte River Insurance Company. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit pgs. 6−12, # 2 Exhibit pgs. 13−29, # 3 Exhibit pgs. 30−47, # 4 Exhibit pgs. 48−61)(Monroe, Celeste) (Entered: 12/23/2011)

12/28/2011 1305 REPLY MEMORANDUM re 1298 MOTION for Relief Pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 60 & 62.1 and LR 67.1 filed by All Plaintiffs. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 12/28/2011)

12/28/2011 1306 DECLARATION by Lori Jordan Isley in Support re 1298 MOTION for Relief Pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 60 & 62.1 and LR 67.1 filed by All Plaintiffs. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 12/28/2011)

01/17/2012

1307

NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF COUNSEL by Lori A Jordan Isley on behalf of Plaintiffs Ricardo Betancourt, Jose Guadalupe Perez−Farias, Jose F Sanchez (Isley, Lori) Asked that this document be refiled using Mirta Laura Contreras login in and password. Modified on 1/18/2012 (CS, Case Administrator). (Entered: 01/17/2012)

01/18/2012 1308 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR RELIEF PURSUANT TO FED.R.CIV.P.60 AND 62.1 AND LR 67.1 − granting 1298 Motion. Signed by Senior Judge Robert H. Whaley. (CS, Case Administrator) (Entered: 01/18/2012)

01/18/2012 1309 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF COUNSEL by Mirta Laura Contreras on behalf of Plaintiffs Ricardo Betancourt, Jose Guadalupe Perez−Farias, Jose F Sanchez (Contreras, Mirta) (Entered: 01/18/2012)

03/09/2012 1310 STIPULATION Regarding Tender of Surety Bond by All Plaintiffs. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 03/09/2012)

03/26/2012 1311 ORDER GRANTING STIPULATION; DIRECTING DISBURSEMENT OF FUNDS signed by Senior Judge Robert H. Whaley. (CS, Case Administrator) (Entered: 03/26/2012)

Case: 2:05-cv-3061 As of: 11/05/2016 05:11 PM PDT 112 of 116

12/05/2012 1312 9CCA Slip Opinion: Decision of the District Court is Affirmed in part, Reversed in part, and Remanded to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this disposition. 9CCA Case No. 10−35397. (CS, Case Administrator) (Entered: 12/05/2012)

12/28/2012 1313 MANDATE from 9CCA as to 1248 Notice of Cross Appeal filed by Jose F. Sanchez, Ricardo Betancourt, and Jose Guadalupe Perez−Farias. Decision of the District Court is AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED to the district. 9CCA: 10−35397. (CS, Case Administrator) (Entered: 12/28/2012)

12/28/2012 1314 COPY OF 9CCA ORDER as to 1248 Notice of Cross Appeal filed by Jose F. Sanchez, Ricardo Betancourt, and Jose Guadalupe Perez−Farias. 9CCA: 10−35397. The mandate issued on December 28, 2012, is recalled as issued in error. (CS, Case Administrator) (Entered: 12/28/2012)

01/23/2013 1315 COPY OF 9CCA ORDER as to 1248 Notice of Cross Appeal filed by Jose F. Sanchez, Ricardo Betancourt, and Jose Guadalupe Perez−Farias, 9CCA: 10−35397. (CS, Case Administrator) (Entered: 01/23/2013)

01/23/2013 1316 COPY OF 9CCA ORDER as to 1248 Notice of Cross Appeal filed by Jose F. Sanchez, Ricardo Betancourt, and Jose Guadalupe Perez−Farias, 9CCA: 10−35397. (CS, Case Administrator) (Entered: 01/23/2013)

02/15/2013 1317 MANDATE from 9CCA as to 1248 Notice of Cross Appeal filed by Jose F. Sanchez, Ricardo Betancourt, and Jose Guadalupe Perez−Farias. 9CCA: 10−35397. (CS, Case Administrator) (Entered: 02/15/2013)

02/26/2013 1318 ORDER DIRECTING THE PARTIES TO FILE A JOINT REPORT signed by Senior Judge Robert H. Whaley. (CS, Case Administrator) (Entered: 02/26/2013)

03/11/2013 1319 Joint Report re 1318 Order by All Plaintiffs. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 03/11/2013)

03/19/2013 1320 ORDER DIRECTING PARTIES TO PRESENT PROPOSED JUDGMENT; SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE signed by Senior Judge Robert H. Whaley. (CS, Case Administrator) (Entered: 03/19/2013)

03/25/2013 1321 DECLARATION of Lori Jordan Isley re 1320 Order by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Atttachment A)(Isley, Lori) (Entered: 03/25/2013)

03/25/2013 1322 JOINDER by Green Acre Farms Inc, Jim Morford, Katherine M Morford, Valley Fruit Orchards, LLC, Desiree C Verbrugge, John Verbrugge. (Monahan, Brendan) (Entered: 03/25/2013)

03/27/2013

1323

MOTION to Expedite ( Motion Hearing set for 3/28/2013 at 06:30 PM in Without Oral Argument before Senior Judge Robert H. Whaley.), MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages For Attorney Fee and Cy Pres Memorandum ( Motion Hearing set for 3/28/2012 at 06:30 PM in Without Oral Argument before Senior Judge Robert H. Whaley.) by All Plaintiffs. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 03/27/2013)

03/27/2013 1324 DECLARATION by Lori Jordan Isley in Support re 1323 MOTION to Expedite MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages For Attorney Fee and Cy Pres Memorandum filed by All Plaintiffs. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 03/27/2013)

03/27/2013 1325 ORDER DIRECTING DISTRICT COURT EXECUTIVE TO FILE AMENDED JUDGMENT − regarding 1186 Judgment − By Court. Signed by Senior Judge Robert H. Whaley. (CS, Case Administrator) (Entered: 03/27/2013)

03/27/2013 1326 AMENDED JUDGMENT regarding Ct. Rec. 1186, per Order 1325 . (CS, Case Administrator) (CS, Case Administrator). (Entered: 03/27/2013)

03/28/2013 1327 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO EXPEDITE AND TO EXCEED PAGE LIMIT − granting 1323 Motion to Expedite; and granting 1323 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. Signed by Senior Judge Robert H. Whaley. (CS, Case Administrator) (Entered: 03/28/2013)

03/29/2013 1328 MOTION AND MEMORANDUM FOR ATTORNEY FEES re 1320 Order for Attorneys Fees by All Plaintiffs. (Isley, Lori) Modified on 5/17/2013 (MF, Courtroom Deputy). (Entered: 03/29/2013)

Case: 2:05-cv-3061 As of: 11/05/2016 05:11 PM PDT 113 of 116

04/10/2013

1329

MOTION to Expedite and to Exceed Page Limits for Grower Defendants' Post−Trial Motions by Green Acre Farms Inc, Jim Morford, Katherine M Morford, Valley Fruit Orchards, LLC, Desiree C Verbrugge, John Verbrugge. Motion Hearing set for 4/17/2013 at 06:30 PM in Without Oral Argument before Senior Judge Robert H. Whaley. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Monahan, Brendan) (Entered: 04/10/2013)

04/10/2013

1330

DECLARATION by Brendan V. Monahan in Support re 1329 MOTION to Expedite and to Exceed Page Limits for Grower Defendants' Post−Trial Motions filed by Green Acre Farms Inc, Jim Morford, Katherine M Morford, Valley Fruit Orchards, LLC, Desiree C Verbrugge, John Verbrugge. (Monahan, Brendan) (Entered: 04/10/2013)

04/10/2013

1331

MOTION for Reconsideration Grower Defendants' Post Judgment Motion for Reconsideration by Green Acre Farms Inc, Jim Morford, Katherine M Morford, Valley Fruit Orchards, LLC, Desiree C Verbrugge, John Verbrugge. Motion Hearing set for 6/4/2013 at 01:00 PM in Yakima before Senior Judge Robert H. Whaley. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Text of Proposed Order)(Monahan, Brendan) (Entered: 04/10/2013)

04/18/2013 1332 MOTION to Expedite , MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for Response Memorandum to Grower Defendants' Post Judgment Motion by All Plaintiffs. Motion Hearing set for 4/23/2013 at 06:30 PM in Without Oral Argument before Senior Judge Robert H. Whaley. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 04/18/2013)

04/18/2013 1333 DECLARATION by Lori Jordan Isley in Support re 1332 MOTION to Expedite MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for Response Memorandum to Grower Defendants' Post Judgment Motion filed by All Plaintiffs. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 04/18/2013)

04/22/2013 1334 MOTION by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit, # 2 Text of Proposed Order, # 3 Text of Proposed Order, # 4 Text of Proposed Order)(Morrison, Joachim) Unsealed document per Order 1363 . Modified on 8/27/2013 (CS, Case Administrator). (Entered: 04/22/2013)

04/24/2013 1335 ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO EXCEED PAGE LIMIT granting 1329 Motion to Expedite; granting 1332 Motion to Expedite; granting 1332 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages Signed by Senior Judge Robert H. Whaley. (VR, Courtroom Deputy) (Entered: 04/24/2013)

04/24/2013 1336 RESPONSE to Motion re 1331 MOTION for Reconsideration Grower Defendants' Post Judgment Motion for Reconsideration filed by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Isley, Lori) (Entered: 04/24/2013)

04/26/2013 1337 ORDER signed by Senior Judge Robert H. Whaley. (CS, Case Administrator) Unsealed document per Order 1363 . Modified on 8/27/2013 (CS, Case Administrator). (Entered: 04/26/2013)

04/26/2013

1338

MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for Grower Defendants' Response to Plaintiffs' Memorandum in Support of Motion for Attorneys' Fees by Green Acre Farms Inc, Jim Morford, Katherine M Morford, Valley Fruit Orchards, LLC, Desiree C Verbrugge, John Verbrugge. Motion Hearing set for 5/28/2013 at 06:30 PM in Without Oral Argument before Senior Judge Robert H. Whaley. (Monahan, Brendan) (Entered: 04/26/2013)

04/26/2013

1339

MOTION to Expedite Hearing on Motion to Exceed Page Limits for Grower Defendants' Response to Plaintiffs' Memorandum in Support of Motion for Attorneys' Fees by Green Acre Farms Inc, Jim Morford, Katherine M Morford, Valley Fruit Orchards, LLC, Desiree C Verbrugge, John Verbrugge. Motion Hearing set for 4/26/2013 at 06:30 PM in Without Oral Argument before Senior Judge Robert H. Whaley. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order [proposed] Order)(Monahan, Brendan) (Entered: 04/26/2013)

04/26/2013

1340

DECLARATION by Brendan V. Monahan in Support re 1339 MOTION to Expedite Hearing on Motion to Exceed Page Limits for Grower Defendants' Response to Plaintiffs' Memorandum in Support of Motion for Attorneys' Fees, 1338 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for Grower Defendants' Response to Plaintiffs' Memorandum in Support of Motion for Attorneys' Fees filed by Green Acre Farms

Case: 2:05-cv-3061 As of: 11/05/2016 05:11 PM PDT 114 of 116

Inc, Jim Morford, Katherine M Morford, Valley Fruit Orchards, LLC, Desiree C Verbrugge, John Verbrugge. (Monahan, Brendan) (Entered: 04/26/2013)

04/29/2013 1341 MEMORANDUM in Response to 1328 Memorandum re Motion for Attorney Fees by Valley Fruit Orchards, LLC and Green Acre Farms Inc. (Monahan, Brendan) Modified on 4/30/2013 to add filer (CV, Case Administrator). (Entered: 04/29/2013)

04/30/2013 1342 ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO EXCEED PAGE LIMITS; granting 1338 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages; granting 1339 Motion to Expedite. Signed by Senior Judge Robert H. Whaley. (CV, Case Administrator) (Entered: 04/30/2013)

05/01/2013 1343 REPLY MEMORANDUM re 1331 MOTION for Reconsideration Grower Defendants' Post Judgment Motion for Reconsideration filed by Green Acre Farms Inc, Valley Fruit Orchards, LLC. (Monahan, Brendan) (Entered: 05/01/2013)

05/03/2013 1344 Document by All Plaintiffs. (Morrison, Joachim) Unsealed document per Order 1363 . Modified on 8/27/2013 (CS, Case Administrator). (Entered: 05/03/2013)

05/06/2013 1345 REPLY re 1328 Memorandum by All Plaintiffs. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 05/06/2013)

05/13/2013 1346 ORDER signed by Senior Judge Robert H. Whaley. (CS, Case Administrator) Unsealed document per Order 1363 . Modified on 8/27/2013 (CS, Case Administrator). (Entered: 05/13/2013)

05/17/2013

Set/Reset Motion Hearing as to 1328 MOTION for Attorney Fees. Motion Hearing set for 6/4/2013 at 01:00 PM in Yakima before Senior Judge Robert H. Whaley. (MF, Courtroom Deputy) (Entered: 05/17/2013)

05/20/2013 1347 STIPULATION Regarding Payment of Attorneys' Fees and FLCA Judgment and Administration of Judgment Proceeds by All Plaintiffs. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 05/20/2013)

05/22/2013 1348 ORDER DENYING GROWER DEFENDANTS' POST JUDGMENT MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION − denying 1331 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Senior Judge Robert H. Whaley. (CS, Case Administrator) (Entered: 05/22/2013)

05/31/2013 1349 ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES signed by Senior Judge Robert H. Whaley. (CS, Case Administrator) (Entered: 05/31/2013)

06/04/2013 1350 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Senior Judge Robert H. Whaley: Motion Hearing held on 6/4/2013. (Reported/Recorded by: Lynette F. Walters) (MF, Courtroom Deputy) (Entered: 06/04/2013)

06/28/2013 1351 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS FEES − granting 1328 Motion for Attorney Fees. Signed by Senior Judge Robert H. Whaley. (CS, Case Administrator) (Entered: 06/28/2013)

06/28/2013

1352

JUDGMENT in favor of Jose F. Sanchez, Jose Guadalupe Perez−Farias, Ricardo Betancourt; against Global Horizons, Inc., Green Acre Farms, Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, Valley Fruit Orchards, LLC, Desiree C. Verbrugge, Jane Doe Orian, Jim Morford, John Verbrugge, Katherine M. Morford, and Mordechai Orian. (CS, Case Administrator) (Entered: 06/28/2013)

07/15/2013 1353 MOTION for Attorney Fees for Post−Appellate Work by All Plaintiffs. Motion Hearing set for 8/14/2013 at 06:30 PM in Without Oral Argument before Senior Judge Robert H. Whaley. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 07/15/2013)

07/15/2013 1354 AFFIDAVIT by Lori Jordan Isley in Support re 1353 MOTION for Attorney Fees for Post−Appellate Work filed by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Isley, Lori) (Entered: 07/15/2013)

07/15/2013 1355 DECLARATION by Joachim Morrison in Support re 1353 MOTION for Attorney Fees for Post−Appellate Work filed by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Morrison, Joachim) (Entered: 07/15/2013)

07/15/2013 1356 DECLARATION by Richard W. Kuhling in Support re 1353 MOTION for Attorney Fees for Post−Appellate Work filed by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exh. A − Paine Hamblen Billing dated 7/15/13)(Kuhling, Richard) (Entered: 07/15/2013)

Case: 2:05-cv-3061 As of: 11/05/2016 05:11 PM PDT 115 of 116

07/29/2013 1357 RESPONSE to Motion re 1353 MOTION for Attorney Fees for Post−Appellate Work filed by Green Acre Farms Inc, Jim Morford, Katherine M Morford, Valley Fruit Orchards, LLC, Desiree C Verbrugge, John Verbrugge. (Monahan, Brendan) (Entered: 07/29/2013)

07/29/2013

1358

DECLARATION by Brendan V. Monahan in Opposition re 1353 MOTION for Attorney Fees for Post−Appellate Work filed by Green Acre Farms Inc, Jim Morford, Katherine M Morford, Valley Fruit Orchards, LLC, Desiree C Verbrugge, John Verbrugge. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, pgs. 6−9, # 2 Exhibit 2, pgs. 10−12, # 3 Exhibit 3, pgs. 13−15, # 4 Exhibit 4, pgs. 16−17, # 5 Exhibit 5, pgs. 18−21)(Monahan, Brendan) (Entered: 07/29/2013)

08/05/2013 1359 REPLY MEMORANDUM re 1353 MOTION for Attorney Fees for Post−Appellate Work filed by All Plaintiffs. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 08/05/2013)

08/05/2013 1360 DECLARATION by Joachim Morrison in Support re 1353 MOTION for Attorney Fees for Post−Appellate Work filed by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Morrison, Joachim) (Entered: 08/05/2013)

08/05/2013 1361 DECLARATION by Lori Jordan Isley in Support re 1353 MOTION for Attorney Fees for Post−Appellate Work filed by All Plaintiffs. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 08/05/2013)

08/05/2013 1362 DECLARATION by Richard W. Kuhling in Support re 1353 MOTION for Attorney Fees for Post−Appellate Work in Rebuttal to Growers' Opposition to Counsel's Motion for Attorney Fees filed by All Plaintiffs. (Kuhling, Richard) (Entered: 08/05/2013)

08/27/2013 1363 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES FOR POST−APPELLATE WORK − granting 1353 Motion for Attorney Fees. Signed by Senior Judge Robert H. Whaley. (CS, Case Administrator) (Entered: 08/27/2013)

11/04/2013

1364

SATISFACTION OF JUDGMENTS AS TO JUDGMENT DEBTORS GREEN ACRE FARM, INC. AND VALLEY FRUIT ORCHARDS, LLC entered in favor of Jose Guadalupe Perez−Farias, et al against Green Acre Farms Inc, Valley Fruit Orchards, LLC and Global Horizons Inc. by Plaintiffs. (RG, Case Administrator) (Entered: 11/04/2013)

01/06/2014 1365 MOTION Report on Distribution of Class Funds & For Incentive Payments & Cy Pres Distribution by All Plaintiffs. Motion Hearing set for 2/4/2014 at 01:00 PM in Yakima before Senior Judge Robert H. Whaley. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 01/06/2014)

01/06/2014

1366

DECLARATION by Lori Jordan Isley in Support re 1365 MOTION Report on Distribution of Class Funds & For Incentive Payments & Cy Pres Distribution filed by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I)(Isley, Lori) (Entered: 01/06/2014)

01/06/2014 1367 DECLARATION by Griselda Vega Munoz in Support re 1365 MOTION Report on Distribution of Class Funds & For Incentive Payments & Cy Pres Distribution filed by All Plaintiffs. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 01/06/2014)

01/06/2014 1368 DECLARATION by Michele Besso in Support re 1365 MOTION Report on Distribution of Class Funds & For Incentive Payments & Cy Pres Distribution filed by All Plaintiffs. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 01/06/2014)

01/06/2014 1369 DECLARATION by Jorge Madrazo−Cuellar in Support re 1365 MOTION Report on Distribution of Class Funds & For Incentive Payments & Cy Pres Distribution filed by All Plaintiffs. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 01/06/2014)

01/06/2014 1370 DECLARATION by Emma Zavala−Suarez in Support re 1365 MOTION Report on Distribution of Class Funds & For Incentive Payments & Cy Pres Distribution filed by All Plaintiffs. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 01/06/2014)

01/06/2014 1371 DECLARATION by Aurora Martin in Support re 1365 MOTION Report on Distribution of Class Funds & For Incentive Payments & Cy Pres Distribution filed by All Plaintiffs. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 01/06/2014)

Case: 2:05-cv-3061 As of: 11/05/2016 05:11 PM PDT 116 of 116

01/06/2014 1372 DECLARATION by Emily Gonzalez in Support re 1365 MOTION Report on Distribution of Class Funds & For Incentive Payments & Cy Pres Distribution filed by All Plaintiffs. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 01/06/2014)

01/15/2014

1373

ORDER CONTINUING HEARING ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR INCENTIVE PAYMENTS AND CY PRES DISTRIBUTION; Resetting Hearing on 1365 MOTION for Incentive Payments & Cy Pres Distribution for 3/11/2014 at 01:00 PM in Yakima before Senior Judge Robert H. Whaley. Signed by Senior Judge Robert H. Whaley. (CV, Case Administrator) (Entered: 01/15/2014)

01/27/2014

1374

RESPONSE to Motion re 1365 MOTION Report on Distribution of Class Funds & For Incentive Payments & Cy Pres Distribution Grower Defendants' Response to Plaintiffs' Proposed Disposition of Unclaimed Settlement Proceeds filed by Green Acre Farms Inc, Jim Morford, Katherine M Morford, Valley Fruit Orchards, LLC, Desiree C Verbrugge, John Verbrugge. (Monahan, Brendan) (Entered: 01/27/2014)

01/27/2014

1375

DECLARATION by Jennifer Witherbee in Opposition re 1365 MOTION Report on Distribution of Class Funds & For Incentive Payments & Cy Pres Distribution filed by Green Acre Farms Inc, Jim Morford, Katherine M Morford, Valley Fruit Orchards, LLC, Desiree C Verbrugge, John Verbrugge. (Monahan, Brendan) (Entered: 01/27/2014)

01/27/2014

1376

DECLARATION by Tim McGree in Opposition re 1365 MOTION Report on Distribution of Class Funds & For Incentive Payments & Cy Pres Distribution filed by Green Acre Farms Inc, Jim Morford, Katherine M Morford, Valley Fruit Orchards, LLC, Desiree C Verbrugge, John Verbrugge. (Monahan, Brendan) (Entered: 01/27/2014)

01/27/2014

1377

DECLARATION by Brendan V. Monahan in Opposition re 1365 MOTION Report on Distribution of Class Funds & For Incentive Payments & Cy Pres Distribution filed by Green Acre Farms Inc, Jim Morford, Katherine M Morford, Valley Fruit Orchards, LLC, Desiree C Verbrugge, John Verbrugge. (Monahan, Brendan) (Entered: 01/27/2014)

02/06/2014 1378 REPLY MEMORANDUM re 1365 MOTION Report on Distribution of Class Funds & For Incentive Payments & Cy Pres Distribution filed by All Plaintiffs. (Isley, Lori) (Entered: 02/06/2014)

02/06/2014 1379 DECLARATION by Lori Jordan Isley in Support re 1365 MOTION Report on Distribution of Class Funds & For Incentive Payments & Cy Pres Distribution filed by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Isley, Lori) (Entered: 02/06/2014)

03/11/2014 1380 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Senior Judge Robert H. Whaley: Motion Hearing held on 3/11/2014. (Reported/Recorded by: Lynette F. Walters) (MF, Courtroom Deputy) (Entered: 03/12/2014)

04/02/2014

1381

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR COSTS, INCENTIVE AWARDS, AND FOR CY PRES DISTRIBUTION; granting 1365 MOTION/Report on Distribution of Class Funds & For Incentive Payments & Cy Pres Distribution. Case Closed. Signed by Senior Judge Robert H. Whaley. (CV, Case Administrator) (Entered: 04/02/2014)

05/15/2014 1382 COPY OF 9CCA ORDER as to 1248 Notice of Cross Appeal filed by Jose F. Sanchez, Ricardo Betancourt, and Jose Guadalupe Perez−Farias. 9CCA: 10−35397. (CC, Case Administrator) (Entered: 05/15/2014)