UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
COLUMBIA DIVISION

JOSE ROSILES-PEREZ, et. al. Plaintiffs,
v. SUPERIOR FORESTRY SERVICE INC., et al.
Defendants.

) ) Case No. 1:06-CV-0006 ) ) Judge William J. Haynes ) Magistrate Judge Juliet Griffin ) ) ) ) ) JURY DEMAND

PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION
Plaintiffs submit this memorandum of law in support of their motion to certify a
class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) and appoint class counsel
pursuant to Rule 23(g). Plaintiffs seek Rule 23 certification of the claims in count I of
their complaint, brought under the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection
Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 1801 -1871 (“AWPA”).1 Plaintiffs seek certification of a class
consisting of:
All non-supervisory workers admitted as H-2B temporary foreign workers pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b) and who were employed by Defendants at any time from January 2000 to the present.2
1 Plaintiffs seek class certification under Rule 23 only with respect to the claims in count I. The claims in count II are brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act, and “certification” is governed by 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), rather than Rule 23. Plaintiffs’ request for certification of those claims is addressed in a separately filed motion and memorandum.
2 AWPA does not have its own statute of limitations. Hence, the class period is determined by application of the most closely analogous state statute of limitations. See Sanchez v. Overmyer, 845 F.Supp. 1178, 1179-80 (N.D. Ohio 1993). The applicable limitations period in this case is the six-year Tennessee statute for "actions on contracts not otherwise provided for." See Reed v. Alamo Rent-a-Car, 4 S.W.3d 677 (1999); Sanchez, supra, at 1179-80 (applying Michigan's sixyear statute of limitations for contract action to farm workers'AWPA claims).
1 Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 44 Filed 03/27/2006 Page 1 of 13

FACTUAL BACKGROUND Plaintiffs and other members of the proposed class are migrant workers who lawfully entered the United States as H-2B temporary workers pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b) to work in Defendants’ forestry labor contract business and who were employed by Defendants at various times since January 2000. Defendants maintain a large guest worker labor force. App. 5 ¶¶7-10 & Exh. A.3 The guest workers are assigned and work together in tree planting and thinning crews. Defendants maintain uniform time-keeping, record-keeping and compensation systems for all of their planting and thinning crews and all H-2B workers. App. 5 ¶10 & Exh. A. Defendants’ AWPA violations are the result of common practices which have affected all H-2B workers, regardless of crew assignment, throughout the six-year AWPA limitations period. App. 7-11; App. 3 (documents Bates stamped Superior-0151 & 0161); App. 15 at 6-7 & Exh. B. In count I of the complaint, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants systematically violated AWPA by, inter alia: (a) failing to pay them and similarly situated H-2B workers their wages owed promptly when due, including their mandated prevailing hourly and federal minimum wages for all hours worked, and federal overtime wages for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek; (b) violating the parties’ working arrangement in numerous respects, including failing to pay Plaintiffs and other H-2B workers all of their wages when due and failing to reimburse all of them for expenses incurred for Defendants’ benefit (see Arriaga v. Florida Pacific Farms, LLC, 305 F.3d 1228 (11th Cir. 2002)); and (c) failing to keep, make and preserve complete records of their and class
3 References to “App.__” are to Plaintiffs’ separate Appendix.
2 Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 44 Filed 03/27/2006 Page 2 of 13

members’ employment, and failing to provide all of them accurate, itemized statements of their earnings. App. 1 ¶¶39-50.
To remedy these violations, Plaintiffs seek to recover, for themselves and others similarly situated, the greater of actual and statutory damages, as provided for under the AWPA, and for appropriate injunctive relief.
The federal district court in New Orleans recently certified a similar class of migrant forestry workers in Recinos-Recinos v. Express Forestry, Inc., 233 F.R.D. 472 (E.D. La. 2006). AWPA actions are often well-suited to class certification, and many have been certified as class actions. See, e.g., Recinos, supra; Martinez v. Mecca Farms, Inc., 213 F.R.D. 601 (S.D. Fla. 2002); Rodriguez v. Carlson, 166 F.R.D. 465 (E.D. Wash. 1996); Leyva v. Buley, 125 F.R.D. 512 (E.D. Wash. 1989); Rodriguez v. Berrybrook Farms, Inc., 672 F. Supp. 1009 (W.D. Mich. 1987) (“Berrybrook Farms”). This case should also proceed as a class action.
In section I of this Memorandum, we set forth the general legal standards governing class certification. In section II, we demonstrate that the proposed class in this case meets the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a). In section III, we demonstrate that the proposed class additionally meets the requirements, and should be certified under, Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3). In section IV, we address the appointment of class counsel under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g). I. General Principles of Law Governing Motions
For Class Certification Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. Class certification is proper when a class meets the criteria of Rule 23(a) and also fits within one of the three subcategories of Rule 23(b). Amchem Products, Inc. v.
3 Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 44 Filed 03/27/2006 Page 3 of 13

Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 621 (1997); Senter v. General Motors Corp., 532 F.2d 511, 522
(6th Cir. 1976).
Rule 23(a) establishes four “class-qualifying criteria,” Amchem, 521 U.S. at 621,
commonly referred to as numerosity, commonality, typicality and adequacy, providing as
follows:
One or more members of a class may sue or be sued as representative parties on behalf of all only if (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable, (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class, (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class, and (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.
All four of these prerequisites to class certification are met in the present case, as
discussed below.
Once the court has determined that criteria of Rule 23(a) have been met, the class
certification analysis turns, next, to the provisions of Rule 23(b), to assure that the
proposed class also satisfies one of the three subsections of Rule 23(b). In this case,
Plaintiffs seek certification under the third subsection, Rule 23(b)(3), which imposes
requirements commonly referred to as “predominance” and “superiority,” providing in
relevant part as follows:
An action may be maintained as a class action if the prerequisites of subdivision (a) are satisfied, and in addition: the court finds that the questions of law or fact common to the members of the class predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and that a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy. The matters pertinent to the findings include: (a) the interest of members of the class in individually controlling the prosecution or defense of separate actions; (b) the extent and nature of any litigation concerning the controversy already commenced by or against members of the class; (c) the desirability or undesirability of concentrating the litigation of the claims in the particular forum; (d) the difficulties likely to be encountered in the management of a class action.
4 Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 44 Filed 03/27/2006 Page 4 of 13

Rule 23(b)(3)’s requirements of “predominance” and “superiority” are both met in this case.
A. Class Certification Does Not Delve Into the Merits. In considering a motion for class certification, the court does not reach the merits. Class certification should be determined on the pleadings and in light of the procedural requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, accepting the substantive allegations of the complaint as true. Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 417 U.S. 156, 178 (1974). Blackie v. Barrack, 524 F.2d 891, 901 n.17 (9th Cir. 1975). The facts alleged in Plaintiffs’ complaint are plainly sufficient to support class certification. In addition, Plaintiffs have submitted a Combined Appendix with declarations and documentary evidence supporting this motion. Under even the most “rigorous analysis” of the Rule 23 requirements, Sprague v. General Motors Corp., 133 F.3d 388, 397 (6th Cir. 1998), class certification is appropriate in this case.
II. The Proposed Class Satisfies the Requirements of Rule 23(a). The four criteria established by Rule 23(a) -- numerosity, commonality,
typicality and adequacy -- are each satisfied here. A. The Class Clearly Meets the Numerosity Requirement. Rule 23(a)(1) is satisfied when “the class is so numerous that joinder of all
members is impracticable.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1). This “impracticability” standard is met when joinder of all members of the class
would be difficult or inconvenient. Whether joinder might be theoretically possible is not the question. “Impracticability” does not mean “impossibility.” Little Caesar Enterprises, Inc. v. Smith, 172 F.R.D. 236, 242 (E.D. Mich. 1997); Jordan v. Global
5 Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 44 Filed 03/27/2006 Page 5 of 13

Natural Resources, Inc., 102 F.R.D. 45, 51 (S.D. Ohio 1984) (“Satisfaction of the numerosity requirement does not require that joinder is impossible, but only that plaintiffs will suffer a strong litigational hardship or inconvenience if joinder is required.”); Berrybrook Farms, 672 F. Supp. at 1013 (“[I]mpracticable” does not mean “impossible”); Hively v. Northlake Foods, Inc., 191 F.R.D. 661, 666 (M.D. Fla. 2000).
Defendants have recruited and employed hundreds of H-2B workers during each year covered by the class period. App. 1 ¶ 22; Declaration of Marni Willenson (App. 5) ¶¶ 7-10 & Exh. A. When class size reaches such substantial proportions, the numerosity and impracticability requirements of Rule 23(a)(1) are “usually satisfied by the numbers alone.” In re Am. Med. Sys., Inc., 75 F.3d 1069, 1079 (6th Cir. 1996). With so many H2B workers employed by defendants, numerosity is not legitimately contestable in this case.4
B. There are Multiple Common Issues of Law and Fact. Rule 23(a)(2) is satisfied when “there are questions of law or fact common to the class.” This requirement of “commonality” is not a demanding one. See generally, Newberg on Class Actions, §3.10 (3d ed. 1992) (noting that the commonality requirement “is easily met in most cases”); Meiresonne v. Marriott Corp., 124 F.R.D. 619 (N.D. Ill. 1989) (“Commonality is not a demanding requirement. It calls only for the existence of at least one issue of fact or law common to all class members.”) The test for commonality “is qualitative rather than quantitative, that is, there need be only a single issue common to all members of the class.” 1 Newberg, supra §
4 Defendants do not deny that they have employed well over 1500 H-2B workers in nonsupervisory positions during the class period as alleged in the Complaint. App. 1 ¶34. Rather curiously, they profess to be “without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny” that statement, App. 2 ¶34, even thought they have employee data that can be used to determine the size and composition of the class, see App. 14 at 2-4.
6 Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 44 Filed 03/27/2006 Page 6 of 13

3.10, at 3-50; Sterling v. Velsicol Chem. Corp., 855 F.2d 1188, 1197 (6th Cir. 1988) (“[T]he mere fact that questions peculiar to each individual member of the class remain after the common questions of the defendant's liability have been resolved does not dictate the conclusion that a class action is impermissible”).
In the present case, the degree of factual and legal commonality is extensive. Common questions of fact in this case include the following:
a. Whether Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiffs and other class members their minimum, prevailing and overtime wages promptly when due;
b. Whether Defendants failed to maintain complete and accurate records regarding the class members’ work; and
c. Whether Defendants failed to provide the class members with complete and accurate wage statements.
Since Defendants have maintained uniform time-keeping, record-keeping and compensation systems for all H-2B workers (see, supra, at 2) their liability will be resolved for all class members based on common evidence. See, e.g., First Aff. of Rosiles-Perez (App. 7) ¶¶ 14, 15, 17; First Aff. of Santiago-Salmoran (App. 8) ¶¶ 14-17, 19-21; First Aff. of Montero-Barradas (App. 10) ¶¶ 13-15; First Aff. of Cervantes-Espejo (App. 11) ¶ 14; First Aff. of Morales-Carrillo (App. 9) ¶¶ 13, 14, 17; First Aff. of AldanaMoreno (App. 13) ¶¶ 13, 14, 16, 18; First Aff. of Hernandez-Hernandez (App. 12) ¶¶ 15, 17.
In addition to these common questions of fact, there are several, significant common questions of law applicable to all class members. These include:
a. Whether Defendants’ failure to pay the class members the prevailing wage and overtime pay as required by the H-2B temporary foreign labor program violated the AWPA’s wage payment provisions. 29 U.S.C. §1822(a); 29 C.F.R. §500.81;
7 Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 44 Filed 03/27/2006 Page 7 of 13

b. Whether Defendants’ failure to pay the class members the prevailing wage and overtime pay as required by the H-2B temporary foreign labor program violated the AWPA’s working arrangement provisions. 29 U.S.C. §1822(c); 29 C.F.R. §500.72;
c. Whether Defendants’ failure to maintain complete and accurate records regarding the work of the class members was a violation of the AWPA. 29 U.S.C. §1821(d)(1); 29 C.F.R. §500.80(a);
d. Whether the Defendants’ failure to provide the class members with complete and accurate wage statements was a violation of the AWPA. 29 U.S.C. §1821(d)(2); 29 C.F.R. § 500.80(d); and
e. Whether Defendants’ violations of the AWPA were “intentional” within the meaning of that statute. 29 U.S.C. §1854(c).
C. The Claims of the Named Plaintiffs Are Typical of the Class as a Whole.
The third class-qualifying criterion set out in Rule 23(a) is “typicality.” Rule
23(a)(3) is satisfied when “claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of
the claims or defenses of the class.” A plaintiff's claim “is typical if it arises from the
same … practice or course of conduct that gives rise to the claims of other class
members, and if his or her claims are based on the same legal theory.” In re Am. Med.
Sys., 75 F.3d at 1082.
To satisfy the requirement of typicality, class members’ claims need not be
identical. It is sufficient if they are substantially similar. Senter, 532 F.2d at 525 (“To be
typical, a representative's claim need not always involve the same facts or law, provided
there is a common element of fact or law.”); Id at 524 (“Factual identity between the
plaintiff's claims and those of the class he seeks to represent is not necessary.”); Binion v.
Metropolitan Pier and Exposition Authority, 163 F.R.D. 517, 525 (N.D.Ill.,1995)
(“Typicality does not require that the claims or defenses of the class representatives be
8 Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 44 Filed 03/27/2006 Page 8 of 13

identical or perfectly coextensive with the claims or defenses of the members; substantial similarity is satisfactory”) (internal quotation omitted).
Plaintiffs complaint alleges, and the documents in the Appendix provide evidence, that all members of the proposed class, comprised of non-supervisory H-2B workers, performed the same or similar jobs, were subjected to the same or similar terms and conditions of employment and have suffered the same AWPA violations, including Defendants’ use of false and misleading recruiting information; Defendants’ failure to keep and provide accurate wage statements and records; and Defendants’ failure both to pay wages due and pay them when due as required by the AWPA. App. 1 ¶¶ 39-50; App. 7 ¶¶ 6-9, 11-19; App. 8 ¶¶ 4-11, 13-17, 19-21; App. 15 at 6-7 & Exh. B. By succeeding in proving their own claims, the named Plaintiffs will establish that defendants also violated the AWPA in the same manner with respect to all other class members. The same facts and legal theories underlie all class members'claims. The typicality requirements of Rule 23(a)(3) have accordingly been satisfied. Cf. Recinos-Recinos, supra (typicality requirement similarly satisfied in AWPA forestry case).
D. Plaintiffs Will Fairly and Adequately Represent the Class. Rule 23(a)(4).
Rule 23(a)(4) is satisfied when “the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.” This adequacy of representation requirement tends to merge with the commonality and typicality requirements of Rule 23(a)(2) and (3). Amchem, 521 U.S. 591, 626 n.20 (1996); In re Am. Med. Sys., 75 F.3d at 1083.
In Senter, the Sixth Circuit articulated two criteria for determining adequacy of representation: “1) The representative must have common interests with unnamed
9 Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 44 Filed 03/27/2006 Page 9 of 13

members of the class, and 2) it must appear that the representatives will vigorously prosecute the interests of the class through qualified counsel.” Senter, 532 F.2d at 525 (citation omitted); In re Am. Med. Sys., 75 F.3d at 1083. Both these criteria are satisfied in this case. The interests of the named Plaintiffs are not antagonistic to those of the class, there are no disabling conflicts among the members of the class, and Plaintiffs’ counsel are experienced and accomplished in class action litigation. Declaration of Mary Bauer (App. 4); Declaration of Marni Willenson (App. 5); Declaration of Joshua Karsh (App. 6).5
III. The Requirements of Rule 23(b)(3) Have Been Met. In addition to satisfying the prerequisites of Rule 23(a), a proposed class must
also fit within one of the three subcategories of Rule 23(b). Plaintiffs move for class certification pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3).
As discussed below, this case easily satisfies both prongs of that subsection: that (1) “questions of law or fact common to members of the class predominate over any questions affecting only individual members” and (2) a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3).
A. Common Questions Predominate. Plaintiffs seek to remedy common legal grievances related to Defendants’ uniform time-keeping and payroll practices which are shared by all non-supervisory H-
5 Since the amendment of Rule 23 in 2003, some courts have addressed adequacy of representation by counsel under Rule 23(g) rather than Rule 23(a)(4). Compare In re Cree, Inc. Secs. Litig., 219 F.R.D. 369, 373 (M.D.N.C. 2003) (addressing adequacy of counsel under Rule 23(g)) with LeBeau v. U.S, 222 F.R.D. 613, 618 (D.S.D. 2004) (continuing to consider adequacy of counsel under Rule 23(a)(4)).
10 Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 44 Filed 03/27/2006 Page 10 of 13

2B workers employed be Defendants and included within the class definition. Shared claims predominate over questions, if any, affecting only individual members of the putative class, and these common questions should be resolved on a classwide basis.
B. A Class Action is Superior to Other Methods of Adjudication. A class action is also clearly superior to any other method, and very likely the only feasible method, of adjudicating the claims presented by Plaintiffs’ complaint. Individual actions, individually controlled by individual Plaintiffs, would burden both the Court and the class. The limited formal education, economic resources and English proficiency of most Plaintiffs, and their residency in Mexico would make individual actions impractical and serve as a deterrent to individual class members’ enforcement of their rights. Rule 23(b)(3)(A). No other litigation concerning the issues raised by Plaintiffs’ complaint has been commenced by or against class members. Rule 23(b)(3)(B). Concentration of the claims in a single forum is desirable, and this forum is appropriate. Rule 23(b)(3)(C). And the benefits of class treatment of the claims in Plaintiffs’ complaint are substantial. Class litigation is no less manageable, Rule 23(b)(3)(D), in this case than in other cases in which the claims of migrant workers have been certified under Rule 23. See generally, Six (6) Mexican Workers v. Arizona Citrus Growers, 904 F.2d 1301 (9th Cir. 1990) (class consisting of 1,349 workers); De La Fuente v. Stokely-Van Camp, Inc., 713 F.2d 225 (7th Cir. 1983); Alvarez v. Joan of Arc, 658 F.2d 1217 (7th Cir. 1981); Recinos, supra; Hernandez v. Kovacevich “5” Farms, 2005 WL 2435906 (E.D. Cal. 2005) (AWPA class of more than 500 field laborers); Martinez v. Mecca Farms, Inc., 213 F.R.D. 601 (S.D. Fla. 2002); Saur v. Snappy Apple Farms, Inc., 203 F.R.D. 281 (W.D. Mich. 2001); Rodriguez v. Carlson, 166 F.R.D. 465
11 Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 44 Filed 03/27/2006 Page 11 of 13

(E.D. Wash. 1996); Leyva v. Buley, 125 F.R.D. 512 (E.D. Wash. 1989); Berrybrook Farms, 672 F. Supp. 1009 (W.D. Mich. 1987); Haywood v. Barnes, 109 F.R.D. 568 (E.D.N.C. 1986).

IV. Plaintiffs’ Counsel Will Fairly and Adequately Represent the Interests of the Class.

“In accordance with amended Rule 23(c)(1)(B) and new Rule 23(g), effective

December 1, 2003, a court certifying a class must appoint class counsel. Fed.R.Civ.P.

23(c)(1)(B), 23(g).” Coleman v. GMAC, 224 F.R.D. 64, 99 (M.D. Tenn. 2004).

As set forth in the attached declarations, Plaintiffs'counsel are skilled litigators

with significant experience both in class actions and migrant worker litigation and have

committed resources sufficient to represent the class. App. 4-6. They will fairly and

adequately represent the interests of the class and should be appointed class counsel.

CONCLUSION

For all the reasons stated above, with respect to the claims set forth in count I of

Plaintiffs’ complaint, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court enter an Order:

a)

Certifying a class consisting of “all non-supervisory workers admitted

as H-2B temporary foreign workers pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §

1101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b) and who were employed by Defendants at any

time from January 2000 to the present”; and

b)

Appointing counsel for the Plaintiffs as counsel for the class.

Respectfully submitted,
s/ Joshua Karsh___________ One of the Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Joshua Karsh Pro Hac Vice Hughes, Socol, Piers, Resnick & Dym
12 Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 44 Filed 03/27/2006 Page 12 of 13

70 W. Madison St., Ste. 4000 Chicago, IL 60602 312 580-0100 312 580-1994 (fax)
Tim A. Freilich Pro Hac Vice Legal Aid Justice Center 1000 Preston Ave., Ste. A Charlottesville, VA 22903
Marni Willenson Pro Hac Vice Willenson Law Group, LLC 4308 N. Ridgeway Ave. Chicago, IL 60618 312 546-4137 312 261-9977 (fax)
Mary C. Bauer Kristi Graunke Pro Hac Vice Immigrant Justice Project Southern Poverty Law Center 400 Washington Ave. Montgomery, AL 36104 334 956-8200 334 956-8481 (fax)
James M. Knoepp Pro Hac Vice Virginia Justice Center for Farm and Immigrant Workers 6066 Leesburg Pike, Ste. 520 Falls Church, VA 22041 703 778-3450 703 778-3454 (fax)
C. David Briley Tennessee PBR 18559 Briley Law Group, PLLC 511 Union St., Ste. 1610 Nashville, TN 37219 615 986-2684 615 986-7869 (fax)
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
13 Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 44 Filed 03/27/2006 Page 13 of 13

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
COLUMBIA DIVISION

ROSILES-PEREZ, et. a!.

)

)

Plaintiffs

)

Case No. 1:06-CV-0006

)

v.

)

Judge William J. Haynes

)

Magistrate Judge Juliet Griffin

SUPERIOR FORESTRY SERVICE

)

INC., et. a!.

)

)

Defendants

)

JURY DEMAND

[~·PROTECTIVE ORDER

On consideration of plaintiffs' emergency motion for a protective order, it is hereby

ordered as follows:

I. Defendants and their employees, agents, including their attorneys, and intermediaries

are hereby and immediately barred from all communications with plaintiffs and putative class

members about this lawsuit, except as permitted through the formal discovery process, until

further Order of this Court.

"Employees" and "agents," as used above and in subsequent provisions of this Order, shall

refer to defendants' current employees and agents, and all persons who have been employees or

agents of defendants and over whom defendants might continue to exercise influence or control,

notwithstanding whether such persons are presently employed or engaged. For purposes of this

Order, the seasonal nature of defendants' operations, and whether and to what extent an

individual is currently engaged in seasonal activities, are not relevant to a determination of

whether such individual is an employee or agent of defendants.

Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 80-3 Filed 05/09/2006 Page 1 of 3
Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 91 Filed 05/23/06 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 944

2. Defendants are hereby and immediately prohibited from directing, permitting, or undertaking, either directly or through any employee, agent, or other intermediary, activities that intimidate, threaten, restrain, coerce, or in any manner discriminate against plaintiffs, putative class members, witnesses, potential witnesses, or their family members, including the threatened or actual reporting of such persons for alleged immigration violations or other efforts to have them arrested, detained, jailed or deported from the United States.
3. Defendants and their agents, including their attorneys, are barred from all inquiry, discovery, or investigation into, or related to, the past or present immigration status, or alleged out-of-status employment, ofplaintiffs, putative class members, witnesses, potential witnesses, or any of their family members.
4. Defendants shall immediately instruct their supervisory employees and all other employees and agents who might have contact with plaintiffs and putative class members of the prohibitions of this Order and the anti-retaliation provisions of the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act, 29 U.S.C. §1801, and the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29
u.s.c. §201.
5. Defendants are ordered to produce Enrique Gonzalez and Jesus Flores for deposition within 14 days. These depositions are allowed for the purpose of investigating and preventing the intimidation and harassment of plaintiffs and putative class members, and shall proceed without prejudice to plaintiffs' opportunity to conduct further discovery depositions of these witnesses later in these proceedings.
6. The Court awards plaintiffs their reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred in the litigation of their emergency motion for a protective order. Plaintiffs shall submit evidence of
2
Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 80-3 Filed 05/09/2006 Page 2 of 3 Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 91 Filed 05/23/06 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 945

atl0r,J,..i~~ their fees and costs to defense counsel within 14 days. -I;Jefpndants sl!all l!a.e 14 da)s
Ifth~~ te reise ebjeetit>tls by GommllBieating thPjr abjections in writing to plaintiffS' counsel.
paftie&-eannot reseP.·e the dispute', the matter shall be submitted to the Court with the statem~
r01p1il:ed by I ocal Rule-9(at(±). If defendants do not tunely object m wntmg to plamtiffs' ..l_
~
)'Vidence effues and eos=~£::~s a~th~~ft~~o[OLL
''"';'l' k.J
Dated:
3 Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 80-3 Filed 05/09/2006 Page 3 of 3 Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 91 Filed 05/23/06 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 946

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
COLUMBIA DIVISION

JOSE ROSILES-PEREZ,

)

JESUS SANTIAGO-SALMORAN

)

and ANDRES ALDANA-MORENO

)

on behalf of themselves and all others

)

similarly situated,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

v.

)

)

SUPERIOR FORESTRY SERVICE, INC., )

SCOTT BARSTOW and

)

WILLIAM IOUP,

)

)

Defendants.

)

NO. 1:06-0006 JUDGE HAYNES

ORDER

Defendant's motion to stay (Docket Entry No. 125) is DENIED. Based upon the Court's

earlier Order and its review of the multiplicity of filings on the motion for a protective order, the

Court AWARDS the Plaintiffs $12,115 in attorney fees and costs based upon the hours expended

and one-half ofthe hourly rates requested to reflect the reasonable hourly rate in this district for the

matters at issue. The Court concludes that the standards for an award of attorney fees under Fed. R.

Civ. P. 26 or 37 are not the same as an award under a prevailing party statute that applies to the

merits of the action. See McHugh v. Olympia Entertainment. Inc., 37 Fed. App. 730, 740 (6th Cir.

2002).

It is so ORDERED.
~
ENTERED this the ..!lJ, day of September, 2006.

~~NH:S,
United States District

Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 155 Filed 09/27/06 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 1433

 
 IN THE UNTIED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
COLUMBIA DIVISION

JOSE ROSILES-PEREZ, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

v.

)

)

SUPERIOR FORESTRY SERVICE, INC.,

)

)

Defendant.

)

NO. 1:06-0006 JUDGE HAYNES

M E M O R A N D U M

Plaintiffs,1 Jose Rosiles-Perez, Jesus Santiago-Salmoran, and Andres Aldana-Moreno, filed

this collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 201 through 219

and the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Workers Protection Act (“AWPA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1801

through 1871 against the Defendants: Superior Fore stry Service, Inc. (“SFSI”) , Scott Burston, a

SFSI official and William Ioup, SFSI’s chief executive officer. In sum, Plaintiffs assert claims that

the Defendants failed to provide and maintain complete information on the terms and conditions of

the Plaintiffs’ work as migrant workers as required by the AWPA and failed to pay Plaintiffs under

the AWPA as well as the minimum wage and overtime wages required by the FLSA.

In earlier proceedings, on May 23, 2006, the Cour t granted the Plaintiffs’ m otion for an

emergency protective order and entered a ProtectiveOrder that bars the Defendants, their employees

and agents from among other things, retaliating against Plaintiffs and putative class members for

their pursuit of this action. (Docket Entry Nos. 90 and 91). The Protective Order expressly required

that upon its entry, the Defendants were to “immediately” inform all of its supervisory employees

and “all other employees” of the contents of the Order, including the anti-retaliation provisions of

1Since the filing of the complaint, other plaintiffs have joined this action. (Docket Entry Nos. 19, 41, 42, 63, 64, 73, 103, 104, 149 and 152).

Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 167-1 Filed 01/31/2007 Page 1 of 9

the AWPA and FLSA. (Docket Entry No. 91 Order at p. 2). Before the Court is the Plaintiffs’ motion for sanctions and a finding of contempt (Docket
Entry No. 106), asserting that during discovery, Plaintiffs learned that the Defendants’ supervisory personnel were not informed of the Court’s protective order for over a month after its entry and that the notice that Defendants providedto its supervisors contains “just cause” provisions that are contrary to the FLSA and the Court’s Order. Plaintiffs contend that this language would allow the Defendants’ supervisors to take adverse or retaliatory a ctions against Plaintiffs and members of the purported class, if the Defendants’supervisors believed that Plaintiffs lacked “just cause” to file this action.
In response, the Defendants contend that theysubstantially complied with the Court’s Order; that Plaintiffs lack clear and convincing evid ence of the Defendants’ noncom pliance; that the Plaintiffs do not present any evidence of contumacious conduct by the Defendants or their agents; and that the “just cause” phrase is in the anti-retaliation provisions of the AWPA that is cited in the Court’s Order.
A. Findings of Fact The controlling document on this motion is the Court’s May 23, 2006 Protective Order that provides, in pertinent part, as follows: 1. Defendants and their employees, agents, including their attorneys, and intermediaries are hereby and immediately barred from all communications with plaintiffs and putative class members about this lawsuit, except as permitted through the formal discovery process, until further Order of this Court.
“Employees” and “agents,” as used above and in subsequent provisions of this Order, shall refer to defendants’ current employees and agents, and all persons who have been employees or agents ofdefendants and over whomdefendants might continue to exercise influence or control, notwithstanding whether such persons are presently employed or engaged. For purposes of this Order, the seasonal nature of
2
Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 167-1 Filed 01/31/2007 Page 2 of 9

defendants’ operations, and whether and to what extent an individuals is current ly engaged in seasonal activities, are not relevant to a determination of whether such individual is an employee or agent of defendants.
2. Defendants are hereby and im mediately prohibited from directing, permitting,
or undertaking, either directlyor through any employee, agent, or other intermediary, activities that intimidate, threaten, restrain, coerce, or in any m anner discriminate against plaintiffs, putative class m embers, witnesses, potential witnesses, or their family members, including the threatened or actual reporting of such persons for alleged immigration violations or other efforts to have themarrested, detained, jailed or deported from the United States.
* * *
4. Defendants shall immediately instruct supervisory employees and all other employees and agents who might have contact with plainti ffs and putative class members of the prohibitions of this Order and the anti-retaliation provisions of the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Workers Protection Act, 29 U.S.C. §1801, and the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §201.
(Docket Entry No. 91 Order at pp. 1, 2). (emphasis added).
On June 16, 2006, during the first discovery deposition, Jesus Flores, a crew leader for the
Defendants, testified that he was unaware of a ny orders or rulings of the Court in t his action.
(Docket Entry No. 106, Flores Deposition, Exhibit B thereto at p. 28). Flores was the crew leader
who was cited as engaging in retaliatory conduct giving rise to Plaintiffs’ motion for a protective
order. (Docket Ent ry No. 80, Attachm ents 3 and 4). Jose and Joan Sanchez Martinez, filed
declarations in this action about Flores’s threats about this action that caused them to leave their
residence. Id.. According to his affidavit, SFSI warned Flores prior to the May 23rd Order not to
talk to Plaintiffs who are members of his crew. (Docket Entry No. 114, Gonzalez Affidavit at p. 2).
On June 16, 2006, Plaintifs’ counsel also deposed Enrique Gonzalez, Defendants’ personnel
manager after Gonzalez’s return fromMexico. Gonzalez worked two days before his deposition and
spoke to the Defendant Ioup, but was not informed of the May 23rd Order. Gonzalez first learned
3
Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 167-1 Filed 01/31/2007 Page 3 of 9

of the Court’s Order more than three weeks after its entry. At the time of his deposition, Gonzalez had not communicated the Court’s Order to his crew leaders nor was Gonzalez aware of any SFSI official who did so.
In a June 23, 2006 letter, Defendants’ counsel informed Plaintiffs’ counsel that: “Immediately after we received the protective order in this amtter, we forwarded the protective order to our client and instructed our client to info rm its em ployees” and that “[i]n response to the protective order, Superior notified its supervisory em ployees ... that they were to have no communication with any plaintiffs....” (Docket Entry No. 106, Exhibit D thereto). According this letter, “in response to the protective order, Superior notified its supervisory em ployees including those crew leaders that it knew were aware of the pending lawsuit and instructed them they were to have no communication with any plaintiffs nor to threaten, harass, intimidate, or in any other way retaliate against anyone who had joinedor might join this action.” Id. This June 23rd letter reported that, “all thirty-five crew leaders” were notified of the Protective Order by telephone.
The record does not reflect the identity of any of the Defendants’ employees or agents who made such telephone calls. The record reflectsonly that Gonzalez, SFSI’s personnel manager made telephone calls to crew leaders, but Gonzalez’s telephone calls were not completed until June 19, 2006. (Docket Entry No. 114, Gonzalez Affidavit at p. 3). During the week of June 19, 2006 SFSI sent written documents to its current and 2006 crew leaders as well as its former crew leaders for the past two years in which SFSI crew leaders would acknowledge their awareness of the contents of the May 23rd Order with theirsignatures. (Defendants’ Exhibit 1). SFSI submitted these signed documents by its crew leaders that are dated between June 17, 2006 and August 15, 2006. Id. One acknowledgment date is May 20, 2006 that is three days before entry of the Order. Id.Thirty-five
4
Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 167-1 Filed 01/31/2007 Page 4 of 9

(35) acknowledgments were signed after June 22, 2006. Id. Five acknowledgments were signed in July, 2006 and three were signed in August, 2006. Id.
Plaintiffs cite that following paragraph in each of these acknowledgm ents that Plaintiffs contends violates the FLSA.
You may not intim idate, threaten, restrain, coerce, blacklist, discharge, or in any manner discriminate against any m igrant or seasonal agricultural worker beca use such worker has, with just cause, filed any complaint or instituted, or caused to be instituted, any proceeding under or related to this chapter, or has testified or is about to testify in any such proceedings, or has served or is about to serve on an industry committee, or because of the exercise, with just cause, by such worker on behalf of others of any right or protection pertaining to wages, or otherwise to employment. Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 6 (em phasis added). Gonzal ez does not take a favorable view of the action. (Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 3, Gonzalez deposition at pp. 57-61).
B. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW “Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2)(C), a district court m ay sanction parties who fail to comply with its orders in a variety of way.” Bass v. Josten, Inc., 71 F.3d 237, 241 (6th Cir. 1995)(citing Bank One of Cleveland, N.A. v. Abb,e916 F.2d 1067, 1073 (6th Cir. 1990)). Rule 37(b)(2) provides in pertinent pa rt: “If a party . . . failed to obey an order to provide or perm it discovery . . . the court in which the action is pending may make such orders in regard to the failure as are just, and among others the following: (C) An order striking out pleadings or parts thereof . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2). “[A]ll orders and judgments of courts must be complied with promptly” and failure to do so can result in a finding of contempt. Maness v. Meyers, 419 U.S. 449, 458 (1975). The Supr eme Court expressly recognized that "courts have inhernet power to enforce compliance with their lawful orders through civil contempt." Shillitani v. United States, 384 U.S. 364, 370 (1966). Contempt
5
Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 167-1 Filed 01/31/2007 Page 5 of 9

actions in a strict legal sense are sugi eneris and are neither civil actions nor prosecutions. Walashek & Associates, Inc. v. Crow, 733 F.2d 51, 53 (7th Cir. 1984) (citing Myers v. United State, s264 U.S. 95 (1924)).
“‘[A]lthough civil contempt may serve incidentally to vindicate the court’s authority, its primary purposes are to compel obedience to a court order and compensate for injuries caused by noncompliance.”’ Redken Laboratories. Inc. V. Levin, 843 F.2d 226, 229 (6th Cir. 1988) (quoting TWM Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Dura Corp., 722 F.2d 1261, 1273 (6th Cir. 1983)). “The contemnor is not simply being punished for past behavior, but ratherencouraged to shape its behavior to comply with the order based on the undesirability of suffering the sanction.” United States v. Tennessee, 925 F. Supp. 1292, 1303 (W.D. Tenn. 1995).
The movant in a contempt proceeding must prove violations of the Court’s Order by clear and convincing evidence. Electrical Workers Pension Trust Fund of Local Union # 58, IBEW v. Gary’s Electric Service Co., 340 F.3d 373, 379 (6th Cir. 2003). Yet“, [o]nce the movant establishes his prima facie case, the burden shifts to the contemnor who may defend by coming forward with evidence showing that he ispresently unable to comply with the court’s order.” Id.(emphasis in the original) In this regard, the Court must consider what, if any, reasonable steps were taken to comply with the Court’s Order. Id.
For a finding of contempt, “‘the facts found must constitute a plain violation of the decree so read.”’ Cohn v. Kramer, 136 F.2d 293, 295-96 (6th Cir. 1943) (quoting Terminal R.R. Ass’n v. United States, 266 U.S. 17, 29 (1924). The o ffending party must have “ violate[d] a definite and specific order of the court requiring him to perform or refrain from performing a particular act or acts with knowledge of the court’sorder.” NLRB. v. Cincinnati Bronze, 829 F.2d 585 591 (6th Cir.
6
Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 167-1 Filed 01/31/2007 Page 6 of 9

1987) (quoting SEC v. First Financial Group of Texas, Inc., 659 F.2d 660, 669 (5th Cir. 1981). Violation of the Court’s Order m ust be premised on the language of the Order.
“‘[U]nbroken lines of authority caution us to readcourt decrees to mean rather precisely what they say.’ and ambiguities must be resolved in favor ofpersons charged with contempt.” Grace v. Center for Auto Safety, 72 F.3d 1236, 1241 (6th Cir. 1996) (qutoing NBA Properties, Inc. v. Gold, 895 F.2d 30, 32 (1st Cir. 1990) ( ellipsis in the original om itted). An order in a contem pt proceeding the order must be “read in light of the issues and the purpose for which the suit was brought.” Cohn, 136 F.2d at 295-96.
As a m atter of fact and law, this Court’s May 23rd Order extended not only to the Defendants, but also to SFSI’s empl oyees and agents. The Order expressly applied to “the Defendants, and their em ployees, agents” and “ all persons who have been em ployees of the defendants and over whom defendants might continue to exercise influence or control.” (Docket Entry No. 91, Order at p. 1). As a matter of law,
A command to the corporation is in effect a command to those who are officially responsible for the conduct of its affairs. Ifthey, apprised of the writ directed to the corporation, prevent compliance or fail to take appropriate action within their power for the performance fo the corporate duty, they, no less than the corporation itself, are guilty of disobedience, and may be punished for contempt. Gary’s Electric, 340 F.3d at 380 (quoting Wilson v. United States, 221 U.S. 361 (1911)). Here, Plaintiffs made a prima facie showing that about month after the entry of the May 23rd Order, key SFSI personnel manager and crew leaders were unaware of the May 23rd Order, or its contents, including the crew leader whose conduct gaverise to the Order. The defendants’ counsel’s letter refers to unidentified SFSI officials who were sent the Order and inform ed “supervising employees of its contents.” (Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 4). Defendants did not offer evidence as to who
7
Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 167-1 Filed 01/31/2007 Page 7 of 9

made those earlier calls to SFSI’s crew leaders.Only Gonzalez, the SFSI’s personnel manager who was out of the county for a tim e, testified that his telephone calls about the May 23rd Order that were concluded on June 19, 2006. Thirty-five (35)acknowledgments were mailed to crew leaders during the week of June 19th and many were signed after June 22, 2006. Five acknowledgments were signed in July, 2006 and three were signed in August, 2006.
The Count first finds that the Order required its contents t o be provided to “all other employees,” including supervisors. (Docket EntryNo. 91 Order at p. 2). This language ensures that the protected employees are aware of the Order ofprotection so that the employees can also police the Defendants’ compliance with the Order. The May 23rd Order was not distributed to all employees, as required by the express terms of the Order.
Second, there is not any evidence of whi ch SDFSI official(s) actually inform ed SFSI supervisors and employees by telephone immediately after entry of the May 23rd Order. In a word, the unidentified SFSI official who assertdly made the telephone calls to crew leaders shortly after entry of the May 23 rd Order, did not submit an affidavit or testify that he or she did so.
Third, the dates of Gonzalez’s telephone calls, the written acknowledgments and the timing of Flores’ deposition lead the Court to find theserious compliance efforts required by the May 23rd Order, were not undertaken until after June 16, 2006. Upon consideration of all the circumstances, the Court finds at best, delayed compliance with the Court’s May 23rd Order. The Order to SFSI was to give notice of its contents to its supervisors and “all other em ployees,” “immediately.” (Docket Entry No. 91 Order at p. 2).
The Plaintiffs’ proof, however, fails to establish any actual retaliatory conduct by any SFSI official. Thus, the Court will reserve the issue of sanctions, until after provisions of the May 23rd
8
Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 167-1 Filed 01/31/2007 Page 8 of 9

Order and the Order accompanying this Memorandum, are distributed to all employees and agents of the Defendants. Defendants shall provide to all of its employees a copy of the Order on this motion that allows any aggrieved employee to file an affidavit describing any retaliatory conduct. The Court will also await the completion of discovery to determine if any retaliation and violation of the May 23rd Order has occurred. At this time, the Court deems a sufficient sanction to be an award of attorney's fees and costs associated with their motion for contempt to the Plaintiffs.
As to the Defendants' "just cause" clause in the crew leaders' acknowledgments, 'just cause" is in the anti-retaliation provision of the AWPA. 29 U.S.C. § 1855(a). Plaintiffs, however, are correct that the FLSA does not contain a comparable provision. Plaintiffs' concern is that the 'just cause" clause may be use to justify retaliatory conduct by the Defendants' crew leaders. Given the view of Gonzalez, Defendants' personnel manager that this action is meritless and Flores's prior conduct, the Court deems Plaintiffs' beliefto have some justification. Upon review ofthe file in this action the Court finds that 'just cause" exists to file and maintain this action.
Given Plaintiffs' claims under the FSLA, the Court concludes that the retaliation provisions of the FSLA should control. The Defendants shall advise their crew leaders that the Court deems this action to be well founded and any retaliatory conduct by SFSI crew leader or agent against a plaintiff or putative class member will be addressed by the Court under the FSLA and the Court's May 23rd Order.
c,;r- An appropriate Order is filed herewith.
ENTERED this the ~ l day ofJanuary, 2007.
9
Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 167 Filed 01/31/2007 Page 9 of 9

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
COLUMBIA DIVISION

JOSE ROSILES-PEREZ,

)

JESUS SANTIAGO-SALMORAN

)

and ANDRES ALDANA-MORENO

)

on behalf of themselves and all others

)

similarly situated,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

V.

)

)

SUPERIOR FORESTRY SERVICE, INC., )

SCOTT BARSTOW and

)

WILLIAM IOUP,

)

)

Defendants.

)

NO. 1:06-0006 JUDGE HAYNES

ORDER

Based upon the Court's review of the record, the parties' submissions and the argument of

counsel at the July 16, 2007 conference, the Court concludes that the members of the alleged class

are sufficiently numerous, approximately, 2,300 persons and that this action presents common

questions of fact and law on the Defendant's policies and practices concerning the payment of

compensation and also the practices concerning pre-employment expenses for employees. Under

the Sixth Circuit precedent, these claims presents substantial and common issues under the Fair

Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). The presence ofcommon questions oflaw and fact is also reflected

in the Defendant's motion for partial summary judgment. (Docket Entry No. 175). The Court

concludes that certification of this action as a collective action is superior and would serve the

interests ofjustice.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that this action is PROVISIONALLY CERTIFIED as a

collective action under FLSA. The Court follows the Order certifYing a collective action under the

FLSA in James Cowan. et a! v. Treetop Enternrises. Inc., No.3:98-cv-0623, M.D. Tenn. Docket

Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 205 Filed 07/17/07 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 2065

Entry No. 64. The parties are given ten (10) days from the date of entry of this Order to submit an Agreed Notice to potential claimants. If the parties are unable to agree on a notice, each counsel shall file a proposed notice with a statement ofsupporting reasons. See Hoffman Laroch v. Sperling, 493 U.S. 165 (1989) (discussing the FSLA requirements). Upon completion of discovery, the Defendant may move to revise this certification. Yates v. Wal-Mart Stores. Inc., 58 F.Supp.2d 1217, 1218-19 (D. Colo. 1999).
The Defendants motion for a partial summary judgment (Docket Entry No. 175) is DENIED without prejudice to renew upon completion ofdiscovery. The Defendants motion for a protective order (Docket Entry No. 191) is DENIED without prejudice to renew after the Defendants' production of electronic information in the Court's Order.
The Court entered its Order on electronic discovery (Docket Entry No. 203) because from its review ofthe record and the material submitted, the Court was persuaded that serious deficiencies exist in the Defendant's current production. The Court notes the lack ofan effective litigation hold to preserve evidence and discoverable information. See Zubulake v. UBS Warbang, 229 F.Supp.2d 422, 432-34 (S.D.N.Y. 2004). The Court's requirement that the Defendant compensate Plaintiffs computer expert for his work arises from the Court's finding of inadequacies and incompleteness of the Defendant's ESI production, as required by its Order of May 2, 2006. The May 2"d Order required the production of all of the Defendants electronic files and databases as requested by the Plaintiff in interrogatory one and/or production requests numbers one trough three have been honored. As the Defendant requested, there will be a claw-back provision for the Defendant's electronic discovery for any confidential materials in the production of their database. The Defendant is granted the right to assert any privilege, subject to filing a privilege log.
2
Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 205 Filed 07/17/07 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 2066

A Status conference is set in this action for Monday, October 22, 2007 at 10:00 a.m. in Columbia, Tennessee. The purpose of that conference will be to ascertain the status of the Plaintiffs expert's review ofthe Defendant's electronic information and to set appropriate deadlines for additional discovery, dispositive motions, the final pretrial conference and trial.
It is so ORDERED.
fU
ENTERED this the __L!__ day of July, 2007.
3 Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 205 Filed 07/17/07 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 2067

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
COLUMBIA DIVISION

ROSILES-PEREZ, et al.

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

SUPERIOR FORESTRY SERVICE, INC., et al. )

)

Defendants.

)

NO. 1:06-0006 JUDGE HAYNES

M E M O R A N D U M

Plaintiffs Jose Rosiles-Perez, Jesus Santiago-Salmoran and Hector Ortiz-Mora

individually1, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed this action under the Migrant

and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act, 29 U.S.C. § 1801 et seq. (“AWPA”) and its

attendant regulation 20 C.F.R. § 500.72, and the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et

seq., (“FLSA”) against Defendants: Superior Forestry Service, Inc. (“SFSI”), Scott Barstow, an

SFSI official and William Ioup, SFSI’s chief executive officer. Plaintiffs are all foreign

nationals mostly from Mexico, although some are from other parts of Central America.

Plaintiffs entered this country under the H-2B temporary foreign worker visa program, for the

purpose of employment with SFSI as agricultural workers. The gravamen of Plaintiffs’

complaint is that through various methods and means, the Defendants took advantage of the

Plaintiffs’ indigence, inability to speak or understand English and ignorance of the laws of the

United States, to underpay Plaintiffs and putative class members in violation of the FLSA and

AWPA.

1 Additional Plaintiffs joined this action since the filing of the complaint. See Docket Entry Nos. 19, 41, 42, 63, 64, 73, 103, 104, 149, 152, 157, 275, 281, 282, 283, 288, 291, 300, 301 and 302.

Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 305-1 Filed 03/28/2008 Page 1 of 35

Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ renewed motion for class certification2 and to appoint counsel (Docket Entry No. 221), contending, in sum: (1) that the purported class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable; (2) that there are questions of law or fact common to the class; (3) that claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class; (4) that the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class; and (5) that class certification is appropriate under Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Members of the putative class would include: “[a]ll non-supervisory workers admitted as H-2B temporary foreign workers pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b) and who were employed by Defendants at any time from January 2000 to the present.” Id. at 1.
In their response (Docket Entry No. 231), Defendants assert that Plaintiffs cannot satisfy the elements of class certification under Rules 23(a) and (b)(3). Defendants further assert that the action will be unmanageable as a class action and that if the Court does certify the class, the statute of limitations on claims should be no more than three (3) years. In addition, Defendants contend that if the court certifies the proposed class, the applicable statute of limitations for this action should be three years.3 Defendants later filed a surreply (Docket Entry No. 298) insisting that: (1) the Court is required to delve into facts underlying Plaintiffs’ claims to determine if class certification is appropriate; (2) class actions under 23(b)(3) particularly require delving into
2 This motion relates only to Plaintiffs’ claims brought under the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act. This Court provisionally certified this action as a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act. (Docket Entry No. 205, Order of July 17, 2007).
3 The Defendants refer to the arguments contained in their motion for a protective order limiting discovery (Docket Entry No. 111). As that motion is pending before the Court, the Court will address it in this Memorandum and rule accordingly.
2
Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 305-1 Filed 03/28/2008 Page 2 of 35

the evidence to determine whether class issues predominate; (3) with regard to the MU and
payment system, Plaintiffs can only create a smokescreen of disingenuous allegations of
procedural misconduct and they lack any support for a finding of commonality; and (4) the class
representatives lack knowledge of their own pay seriously undermines their credibility and
adequacy as class representatives.
On October 22, 2007, the Court held a hearing. Both parties submitted post-hearing
memoranda that are also before the Court. (Docket Entry Nos. 270 and 279). In their post-
hearing memorandum, Plaintiffs assert that:
either Rule 23(b)(2) certification of their claims for final injunctive relief, and Rule 23(b)(3) certification of all claims for money damages; or, alternatively, Rule 23(b)(2) certification of their claims for injunctive relief and monetary relief that is incidental to the final injunction and (b)(3) certification of their claims for monetary damages that are not incidental to the injunction[,]
is appropriate. (Docket Entry No. 270 at 2) (emphasis supplied). Defendants insist that Plaintiffs are attempting to broaden their initial claims to encompass a larger class4 and to
include a request for 23(b)(2) certification in an amended complaint filed nearly two years after the commencement of this action.5
For the reasons stated below, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs’ have met the
4 In their amended complaint, Plaintiffs define the putative class as “all workers admitted as temporary foreign workers pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b) who were employed by the Defendants in their forestry operations at any time from January 2000 through the present.” (Docket Entry No. 296, Amended Complaint at ¶ 34). Yet, Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that supervisory workers were treated in the same way as other members of the putative class. Thus, the Court will decide this motion based on the original class definition, of non-supervisory workers.
5 The Court has granted Plaintiffs’ motion to file an amended complaint in a separate Order. (Docket Entry No. 295).
3
Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 305-1 Filed 03/28/2008 Page 3 of 35

prerequisites for class certification under Rule 23(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Because Plaintiffs seek primarily injunctive and declaratory relief related to SFSI’s recording practices and payment methods, the Court concludes class certification is proper under Rule 23(b)(3). Further, the Court appoints counsel of record for Plaintiffs to represent the interests of the class. Accordingly, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification and appointment of counsel should be granted.
A. ANALYSIS OF THE MOTION 1. SFSI’s Business
SFSI is primarily engaged in reforestation or replanting of trees. (Docket Entry No. 231, Exhibit R thereto, Ioup Declaration at ¶ 2). From November through March (the growing season), SFSI employees plant hundreds of thousands of trees throughout the United States. Id. SFSI hires seasonal workers to meet its employment needs. Id. at ¶ 3. Due to the unavailability of domestic seasonal workers, SFSI hires foreign workers and obtains H2-B visas to allow these individuals to work in the United States. Id.
Obtaining H2-B visas requires that an employer certify to the Department of Labor (“DOL”) that qualified workers are unavailable in the United States. Id. at ¶ 4. To make this certification, employers must advertise available positions to U.S. workers and file disclosure papers with the DOL, including a description of the job to be filled and the rate of pay. Id. at ¶ 5. SFSI’s disclosure included a statement that the worker will be responsible for any expenses associated with the visas and transportation necessary to work for the company. Id. After certifying the unavailability of U.S. workers, SFSI certified that foreign workers’ employment will not adversely affect wages and working conditions of similarly employed U.S. workers, a
4
Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 305-1 Filed 03/28/2008 Page 4 of 35

certification required under the H2-B program. Id. at ¶ 4. SFSI uses a recruiter in Mexico to locate individuals willing to come to the United States
to work. Id. at ¶ 6. The recruiter interviews interested persons in Mexico and creates a list of potential workers based on SFSI’s employment needs. Id. Once created, the list is sent from Mexico to human resource personnel in Arkansas to complete the visa paperwork. Id. When the appropriate paperwork and application materials are in order, H2-B1-129 Petitions are filed with the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) for permission to apply for visas for specific workers. Id. at ¶ 5. After the paperwork is complete and submitted to and accepted by the DOL and USCIS, these documents are forwarded to the Consulate in Monterrey, Mexico, where candidates will be interviewed to determine if they will be granted visas. Id. If approved, the candidates pick up their visas. Id. Those visas are used to bring SFSI approved workers from Mexico to the United States for temporary work. Id.
From 2003-2005, there was a $100 fee for processing the visa application, regardless of whether it was obtained, and the visa itself cost an additional $100. Id. at ¶ 8. According to SFSI, after a worker is selected, but before he/she arrives in the U.S. he/she is given an opportunity to read SFSI’s disclosure statement explaining the terms of employment and notifies the individual in Spanish that he/she must bear transportation and visa expenses. Id. at ¶ 7.
Once visas are obtained, the workers must travel from Mexico to the United States to begin employment. The same human resource personnel who complete the visa paperwork are responsible for arranging and coordinating the transportation of individuals from Monterrey to Arkansas. Id. at ¶ 6. New workers were usually asked to travel to Oaxaca, Mexico to receive disclosures and learn about the job before traveling to Monterrey for their Consulate interview.
5
Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 305-1 Filed 03/28/2008 Page 5 of 35

Id. at ¶ 7. Some returning workers may have gone to Oaxaca as well. Id. SFSI also arranges for transportation to take workers from Oaxaca to Monterrey. Id. at ¶ 9. Each worker pays his/her fare to the bus company for this service. Id. SFSI estimates that for the relevant time period, approximately 60% of its workforce consisted of returning employees. Id. at ¶ 7.
Once a worker obtains his/her H2-B visa, he/she travels from Monterrey to Arkansas via bus. Id. at ¶ 10. SFSI arranges the transportation that is billed at a flat rate per bus. Id. From 2003-2005, the trip cost for an individual worker was approximately $60. Id. If a worker traveled from Oaxaca to Arkansas, through Monterrey, he/she paid $120 in 2003 or $128 in 2004 and 2005. Id. All workers paid the $6 boarder crossing fee. Id.
Upon arrival in the United States, workers are divided into crews of approximately 15-18 individuals, and one crew leader to supervise each crew. (Docket Entry No. 231, Ioup Declaration at ¶ 9). The crew leader is responsible for completing paper work and detailing each crew member’s work activity, such as hours worked and production figures. (Docket Entry No. 226, Exhibit 6 thereto, Deposition of Manuel Morales at pp. 90-103).
2. Class Claims Members of the proposed class include SFSI’s former employees from January 2000 through January 2006 who were brought to work in the United States under the H-2B temporary foreign worker visa program. Nearly all putative class members are non-English speaking foreign nationals with little to no understanding of their legal rights as guest employees in the United States. Plaintiffs assert claims on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated workers who Defendants “took full advantage of”due to “other class members’ indigence, inability to speak or understand English, and their lack of understanding of the laws of the
6
Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 305-1 Filed 03/28/2008 Page 6 of 35

United States to grossly underpay the named Plaintiffs and other class members.” (Docket Entry No. 296, Amended Complaint at ¶ 3). Plaintiffs and putative class members seek to certify the claims in Count I of their AWPA claims asserting that: (1) SFSI maintained inaccurate and insufficient documentation relating to Plaintiffs’ and potential class members’ wage and payroll information in violation of § 1821(d); (2) SFSI provided false and misleading information to workers about their wage and other terms of their employment in violation of §1821(e); (3) SFSI failed to pay all wages when due in violation of § 1822(a); and (4) SFSI breached the parties’ working arrangement in violation of § 1822(c).
B. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Class actions “vindicat[e] the rights of individuals who otherwise ought not consider it worth the candle to embark on litigation in which optimum results might be more than consumed by the cost.” Gulf Oil Co. v. Bernard, 452 U.S. 89, 99 n. 11 (1981) (quoting Deposit Guar. Nat’l Bank v. Roper, 445 U.S. 326, 338 (1980)). A class action concentrates the litigation in one forum and avoids inconsistent adjudications, thereby advancing “the efficiency and economy of litigation which is a principal purpose of the procedure.” Am. Pipe & Constr. Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538, 553 (1974). Any judgment in such an action operates a res judicata against the claims of any other class member. Duncan v. State of Tenn., 84 F.R.D. 21, 27 (M.D. Tenn. 1979). To fulfill the requirements for class certification, Plaintiffs must first show compliance with Rule 23(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that applies to all class actions. Once Plaintiffs have met this requirement, Plaintiffs must show that class certification is proper under one of the subdivisions of Rule 23(b). Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 621 (1997). “In determining the propriety of a class action, the question is not whether the plaintiff
7
Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 305-1 Filed 03/28/2008 Page 7 of 35

or plaintiffs have stated a cause of action or will prevail on the merits, but rather whether the requirements of Rule 23 are met.” Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 417 U.S. 156, 178 (1974) (quoting Miller v. Mackey Int’l, Inc., 452 F.2d 424, 427 (5th Cir.1971)). It is the Plaintiffs’ burden “to show the Court that the requirements of Rule 23 are met.” Duncan v. State of Tenn., 84 F.R.D. 21, 27 (M.D. Tenn. 1979). Mere recitation of the statutory language contained in Rule 23 will not satisfy the requirements of these rules. Sims v. Parke Davis Co., 334 F.Supp. 774 (E.D. Mich. 1971), aff’d 453 F.2d 1259 (6th Cir.1971).
Plaintiffs bear the burden of persuasion that “[a]s a preliminary matter [the plaintiff can] satisfy all four of the prerequisites contained in Rule 23(a) and then demonstrate that the class [they] seek[] to represent falls within one of the subcategories under Rule 23(b).” Steelman v. Strickland, 78 F.R.D. 187, 189 (E.D. Tenn. 1977) (Neese, D.J.) (quoting Senter v. Gen. Motors Corp., 532 F.2d 511, 522 (6th Cir.1976)). This burden is not by a preponderance of the evidence, as that standard applies only to proving the existence of the class at the time of trial. See Paxton v. Union Nat’l Bank, 519 F. Supp. 136, 37, 171 (E.D. Ark. 1981), rev’d in part on other grounds, 688 F.2d 552 (8th Cir.1982). In determining the appropriateness of class certification, a court should accept the complaint’s allegations as true. See Reeb v. Ohio Dep’t of Rehab. & Corr., 81 Fed. Appx. 550, 555 (6th Cir. 2003).
In reaching a determination on class certification, preliminary hearings on the merits are disfavored. Eisen, 417 U.S. at 177-78; Duncan, 84 F.R.D. at 28. The Supreme Court, however, counsels that in determining class action issues, “[s]ometimes the issues are plain enough from the pleadings to determine whether the interests of the absent parties are fairly encompassed within the named plaintiff’s claim, and sometimes it may be necessary for the court to probe
8
Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 305-1 Filed 03/28/2008 Page 8 of 35

behind the pleadings before coming to rest on the certification question.” Gen. Tel. Co. of S.W. v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147, 160 (1982) (emphasis added). A limited factual inquiry into the class allegations, including the deposition of the named plaintiff, is appropriate for actions involving complex claims. See, e.g., Kirkpatrick v. J.C. Bradford, 827 F.2d 718, 723 (11th Cir.1987) (securities action).
Here, the parties submitted discovery responses, affidavits and excerpts of depositions. Given the scope of the proposed class, the Court deems a limited factual analysis necessary, but does not attempt to resolve factual disputes given the Supreme Court’s warning in Eisen. At this point, the Court’s duty is to determine only if there is a sufficient factual showing to support the class sought to be certified.
1. Rule 23(a) Prerequisites Rule 23(a) sets forth four prerequisites that must be met for maintenance of a class action suit. To maintain a class action, Plaintiffs must show that: “(1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable; (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class; (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class; and (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a). The Supreme Court requires that a district court engage in a “rigorous analysis” of whether the Rule 23 prerequisites are met before certifying a class. In re Am. Med. Sys., Inc., 75 F.3d at 1078 (citing General Tel. Co. v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147, 161 (1982)). The district court has broad discretion in deciding to certify a class, but it must apply the Rule 23 framework. Id. (citing Gulf Oil Co., 452 U.S. at 100)).
9
Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 305-1 Filed 03/28/2008 Page 9 of 35

a. Numerosity
To meet the first requirement of class certification under Rule 23(a), Plaintiffs must
demonstrate that the putative class “is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a).
There is no strict numerical test for determining impracticability of joinder. Senter, 532 F.2d at 523 n. 24 (and citations therein). Rather, "[t]he numerosity requirement requires examination of the specific facts of each case and imposes no absolute limitations." General Tel. Co. v. EEOC, 446 U.S. 318, 330, 100 S.Ct. 1698, 1706, 64 L.Ed.2d 319 (1980). When class size reaches substantial proportions, however, the impracticability requirement is usually satisfied by the numbers alone. 1 Herbert B. Newberg & Alba Conte, Newberg on Class Actions, § 3.01, at 3-4 (3d ed. 1992)
In re Am. Med. Sys., Inc., 75 F.3d 1069, 1079 (6th Cir.1996).
Here, Plaintiffs contend that the proposed class is comprised of approximately 3,000 H2B guest workers. (Docket Entry No. 225, Willenson Declaration at ¶ 11)6. That number alone
favors a finding of impracticability of joinder. Although Defendants do not contest this
calculation, they assert that “[s]ince discovery has shown that the Plaintiffs’ class-wide
allegations are not supported by the facts, the actual number of potential class members with
valid claims is likely very small, since employees properly paid would not be members of a class
who would be appropriately included in the proposed class.” (Docket Entry No. 231,
6 Plaintiffs arrived at this number as follows: the original payroll tables produced by defendants...have 2300 records... these tables did not include data after February 18, 2006. Defendants subsequently produced additional data...There are 612 records in an employee data table included in that additional production. The extent of overlap... is not yet known, but ...neither production included data for the 06-07 season, when hundreds more H-2B workers were employed. It seems reasonable..that there are approximately 3000 workers in the potential class. (Docket Entry No. 225, Willenson Declaration at ¶ 11).
10
Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 305-1 Filed 03/28/2008 Page 10 of 35

Defendant’s Opposition to Plaintiff’s Renewed Motion for Class Certification at p. 31). In support of this contention, Defendants point to the depositions of Rosiles-Perez and SantiagoSalmoran that, Defendants allege, contradict information contained in their affidavits. According to Defendants, both men say in their affidavits that they discussed certain employment concerns with many other people from different crews who shared similar experiences, yet in their depositions, were unable to identify these other workers by name.7
The Court concludes that a contradiction does not exist because a deponent cannot recall a person by their proper name. It does not follow that failure to remember specific names renders those named Plaintiffs’ statements “without any real basis in fact” as the Defendants assert. Thus, the Court concludes that the depositions of Plaintiffs Rosiles-Perez and SantiagoSalmoran cannot defeat a finding numerosity. This Court declines to decide credibility issues in the context of a class certification determination.
In Saur v. Snappy Apple, 203 F.R.D. 281 (W.D. Mich. 2001), an AWPA action involving migrant workers, the district court found impracticability of joinder based on the following factors:
(1) the class members are migrants and are likely to be geographically dispersed; (2) the class members are, in large part, not native English speakers and will have difficulty in understanding English and utilizing court systems in the United States of America; (3) the class members are likely to lack financial resources; and (4) the size of an individual statutory claim under the AWPA, $500 per violation, makes it such that individuals are unlikely to seek to vindicate their rights on an individual basis. Id. at 286-87 (citations and footnote omitted). This Court agrees. The same factors favoring
7 The Court points out that the portions of the Rosiles-Perez deposition Defendants cite do not refer to any conversations Rosiles-Perez had with other workers regarding terms and/or conditions of employment.
11
Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 305-1 Filed 03/28/2008 Page 11 of 35

numerosity in Saur are present in this action involving approximately 3,000 individuals. Thus,
the Court concludes that Plaintiffs have satisfied the numerosity requirement of Rule 23(a).
b. Commonality
To satisfy the second requirement of Rule 23(a), Plaintiffs must demonstrate that “there
are questions of law or fact common to the class.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2). “The commonality
requirement is interdependent with the impracticability of joinder requirement, and the ‘tests
together form the underlying conceptual basis supporting class actions.’” In re Am. Med. Sys.,
Inc., 75 F.3d at 1080 (quoting 1 Newberg, supra at § 3.10, at 3-47).
The class-action was designed as “an exception to the usual rule that litigation is conducted by and on behalf of the individual named parties only.” Class relief “is ‘peculiarly appropriate’ when the ‘issues involved are common to the class as a whole’ and when they turn on questions of law applicable in the same manner to each member of the class.”
Id. The commonality test requires only a single issue common to all class members. 1 Newberg
supra at § 3.10. A class meets the commonality requirement even if questions peculiar to
individual class members remain after a determination of defendant’s liability. Sterling v.
Velsicol Chem. Corp., 855 F.2d 1188, 1197 (6th Cir.1988).
The commonality requirement deals with shared questions of law or fact. Although Rule 23(a)(2) speaks of “questions” in the plural, we have said that there need only be one question common to the class. American Med. Sys., 75 F.3d at 1080. It is not every common question that will suffice, however; at a sufficiently abstract level of generalization, almost any set of claims can be said to display commonality. What we are looking for is a common issue the resolution of which will advance the litigation.
Sprague v. General Motors Corp., 133 F.3d 388, 397 (6th Cir. 1998). “[W]here the nature of the
legal claims are such that individuals would have to submit separate proofs to establish liability,
class actions are disapproved due to lack of commonality.” Saur v. Snappy Apple, 203 F.R.D.
12
Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 305-1 Filed 03/28/2008 Page 12 of 35

281, 287 (W.D. Mich. 2001). Once commonality is established, “differences in the amounts of
damages sustained by class members will usually not defeat certification...However, there must
be a workable system for determining damages for class members if claims for monetary
damages are to proceed.” Id. (citations omitted).
Here, Plaintiffs assert that the common claims are:
a. Whether Defendants failed to provide Plaintiffs and other class members complete and accurate written wage statements with all of the required information, in violation of AWPA, 29 U.S.C. § 1821(d)(2);
b. Whether Defendants failed to maintain complete and accurate records of the hours worked, trees planted and wages earned by Plaintiffs and other class members, in violation of AWPA, 29 U.S.C. § 1821(d)(1);
c. Whether the transportation, visas and other expenses incurred by Plaintiffs and other class members in order to work for Defendants were primarily for Defendants’ benefit;
d. Whether the de facto deductions from Plaintiffs’ and other class members’ wages for their transportation, visas and other expenses violated the prevailing wage requirements of the H-2B guest worker program and AWPA’s wage payment and working arrangement provisions, 29 U.S.C. § 1822(a) and (c);
e. Whether Defendants’ uniform wage payment system violated the parties’ working arrangement, and AWPA 29 U.S.C. § 1822(c), by creating an illusion of a production bonus when there was practically none;
f. Whether Defendants’ violations of AWPA were “intentional” within the meaning of the statute, 29 U.S.C. § 1854(c).
(Docket Entry No. 229, Memorandum in Support of Renewed Motion for Class Certification at
p. 12).
Essentially, these claims can be condensed into three categories: (1) the de facto wage
13
Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 305-1 Filed 03/28/2008 Page 13 of 35

reduction; (2) the MU8 payment system; and (3) pay stub violations of failure to itemize deductions and false and misleading information. (Docket Entry No. 274, Transcript of Hearing on 10/22/2007 at 5). According to Plaintiffs, these are class-wide claims based on common evidence, subject to a class-wide defense. Id. The Defendants insist that Plaintiffs cannot meet their burden of establishing commonality. The Court agrees with Plaintiffs.
At this stage in the proceeding, the Court must determine whether commonality exists without making a determination of the merits of Plaintiffs’ claims.9 As an initial matter, Plaintiffs and the proposed class share the common fact of having performed seasonal work for SFSI on H-2B visas, and all members of the proposed class required international travel to begin their employment. Further, there are common questions of law and fact arising from SFSI’s alleged failure to pay the Plaintiffs and putative class members all wages when due, SFSI’s alleged failure to reimburse and/or pay workers’ travel costs, SFSI’s alleged failure to maintain accurate records and wage statements. To the extend any violation exists, the Court can create subclasses.
As to the contention that Defendants did not provide Plaintiffs and putative class members with complete and accurate wage statements, that issue would be resolved with common proof, as all of the wage statements are created with the same computer software. Even
8 “The number designated ‘MU’ [] correlates to the number of properly planted trees in one thousand unit increments that is being credited to the worker that week.” (Docket Entry No. 231, Defendant’s Response at p.13.
9 As the Court has previously informed the parties, subclasses consisting of each crew, or groupings of similarly situated crews may be appropriate in this action. Thus, to the extent that there may be differences amongst the various crews, as Defendants allege, certifying subclasses would remedy those concerns. See Docket Entry No. 274, Trans. of 10/22/2007 at pp. 14, 20.
14
Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 305-1 Filed 03/28/2008 Page 14 of 35

if the numbers vary from wage statement to wage statement, the categories of information contained on a given wage statement would be the same. As to whether the Defendant maintained accurate records of hours worked, trees planted, and wages earned, those numbers were calculated using the same formula. For example, according to Defendants, “trees planted” is determined by “(1) the customer’s designated onsite representative after he inspects the planting; and (2) the terms of the contract governing each tract of land planted in that week.” (Docket Entry No. 231, Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Renewed Motion at p. 13). While this figure may differ from crew to crew or tract to tract, the way in which Defendants arrived at the “trees planted” number remains the same. Defendants also state that arriving at the “piece rate” for “trees planted” is “very complicated” and “specific to each tract of land planted.” Id. at n. 5.
To be sure, the Defendants submitted an explanation of these “very complicated” calculations, and used one crew leader’s tabulations as an example.10 See Docket Entry No. 231, Exhibit HH thereto. The Court finds the methodologies to be the same for all tree planting Plaintiffs; while the actual numbers may differ from crew to crew, the way in which the number was calculated is the same. Thus, this is another incident of commonality among members of the class, requiring common proof. These examples of common issues among the putative class are sufficient to satisfy commonality test that requires a single issue common to all class members. 1 Newberg supra at § 3.10. Thus, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs have met their burden of establishing commonality and need not analyze the other alleged common issues.
10 The Court notes that this example is for the week beginning 02/03/2007. This example differs from the charts offered by Plaintiff for the week beginning 01/21/2006. Compare Docket Entry No. 231, Exhibit HH thereto at p. 11 with Docket Entry No. 214, Exhibit 1 thereto at p. 2.
15
Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 305-1 Filed 03/28/2008 Page 15 of 35

c. Typicality
Rule 23(a)(3) requires that “claims or defenses of the representative parties [be] typical
of the claims or defenses of the class.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(3). In the Sixth Circuit, to satisfy
typicality, the plaintiff “must be a member of the class he claims to represent . . . [or s]tated
another way, the plaintiff must have standing to represent the class.” Reid v. White Motor Corp.,
886 F.2d 1462, 1471 (6th Cir. 1989).
Typicality limits the class claims to those fairly encompassed by the named plaintiffs’
claims. General Tel. Co. v. EEOC, 446 U.S. 318, 330 (1980). See also Senter, 532 F.2d at 525
n. 31 (“[t]o be typical, a representative's claim need not always involve the same facts or law,
provided there is a common element of fact or law”). A necessary consequence of the typicality
requirement is that the representative's interests must align with those of the represented group,
and in pursuing his own claims, the named plaintiff will advance the interests of the class
members. 1 Newberg, supra, § 3.13, at 3-75.
In In re Am. Med. Sys., the Sixth Circuit stated:
Typicality determines whether a sufficient relationship exists between the injury to the named plaintiff and the conduct affecting the class, so that the court may properly attribute a collective nature to the challenged conduct. In other words, when such a relationship is shown, a plaintiff's injury arises from or is directly related to a wrong to a class, and that wrong includes the wrong to the plaintiff. Thus, a plaintiff's claim is typical if it arises from the same event or practice or course of conduct that gives rise to the claims of other class members, and if his or her claims are based on the same legal theory.
75 F.3d at 1082 (quoting 1 Newberg, supra, § 3-13, at 3-76 (footnote omitted)). Further,
[t]he typicality requirement, so explained, tends to merge with the commonality requirement. Falcon, 457 U.S. at 158 n. 13. Nevertheless, it is a separate inquiry and in particular focuses attention on differences between class representative
claims and class claims which would defeat the representative nature of the class
16
Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 305-1 Filed 03/28/2008 Page 16 of 35

action. Fuller v. Fruehauf Trailer Corp., 168 F.R.D. 588, 598 (E.D.Mich.1996). Saur, 203 F.R.D. at 288.
Here, Defendants argue that Plaintiffs have not met their burden of showing that the claims of the class representatives are typical of the class. Specifically, Defendants allege that because the named Plaintiffs “worked different hours, perform[ed] different activities (some for which they were compensated on a piece rate basis and some that were paid hourly), in different localities where there were different prevailing wage rates, under different supervisors, and during different seasons” that their claims cannot fairly represent those of the class. (Docket Entry No. 231, Defendant’s Opposition at pp. 29-30). Defendants note that this action is analogous to Harper v. Lovett’s Buffet, 185 F.R.D. 358, 364 (M.D. Ala. 1999).11 The Court disagrees. Defendants explain that in Harper, “[t]he Court rejected the plaintiffs’ demand to certify a broader class because all of the named plaintiffs had been employed only in a single facility, and during discovery they failed to present evidence that the practices they complained of occurred at any other restaurants.” (Docket Entry No. 231, Defendants’ Opposition at p. 30). To be sure, the Harper plaintiffs submitted 15 affidavits of hourly employees who all worked at the same restaurant. Thus, that court concluded that the class could be provisionally certified only for employees at that restaurant location because plaintiffs did not show that they were “similarly situated” to potential plaintiffs at other restaurant locations.
In the Sixth Circuit, the test for typicality is whether a named plaintiff’s claims “arises from the same event or practice or course of conduct that gives rise to the claims of other class
11 The Court notes Harper involved the FLSA, not the AWPA. In Harper, the “first and dispositive question” was “whether the original Plaintiffs and the potential opt-in plaintiffs are similarly situated” for the purposes of provisional class certification.
17
Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 305-1 Filed 03/28/2008 Page 17 of 35

members, and if his or her claims are based on the same legal theory.” In re Am. Med. Sys., 75 F.3d at 1082 (emphasis added). Here, the named Plaintiffs, Jose Rosiles-Perez, Jesus SantiagoSalmoran and Hector Ortiz Mora, worked for SFSI for a substantial period of time, collectively encompassing the time span of the proposed class. Further, each named Plaintiff worked planting trees and spraying herbicides under several different supervisors and in many different states. In addition, the proof of each named Plaintiff supports the class claims. (Docket Entry No. 231, Exhibit T thereto, Affidavit of Rosiles-Perez at ¶¶ 5,-8, 12-16; Id. at Exhibit U thereto, Affidavit of Santiago-Salmoran at ¶¶ 5-8, 14-16, 18-19; Id. at Exhibit Z thereto, Deposition of Hector Ortiz-Mora at pp. 25; Id. at Exhibit GG thereto, Ortiz-Mora Check History). Each named Plaintiff attests to the fact that other SFSI workers shared similar experiences. See Docket Entry No. 231 at Exhibits T, U, Z.
Rosiles-Perez worked with SFSI each planting season from the 1997-1998 season until the 2004-2005 season, except he did not work the 2000-2001 season. (Docket Entry No. 231, Exhibit T thereto, Affidavit of Rosiles-Perez at ¶ 3). From 2001-2005, Rosiles-Perez worked on a crew that Francisco Carretero supervised and in at least seven states. Id. at ¶ 10. During his time at SFSI, Rosiles-Perez planted pines and sprayed herbicides. Id. at ¶ 3.
Santiago-Salmoran worked for SFSI from the 1999-2000 planting season until the 20032004 season. (Docket Entry No. 231 at Exhibit U thereto, Affidavit of Santiago-Salmoran at ¶ 3). Santiago-Salmoran worked in both planting and herbicide spraying. Id. While employed with SFSI, Santiago-Salmoran worked under crew leaders Pedro Gonzalez, Hipólito Feliciano and Eusebio Ramírez and in seven different states. Id. at ¶ 12.
Ortiz-Mora’s check history shows that he worked with SFSI from the 2000-2001 planting
18
Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 305-1 Filed 03/28/2008 Page 18 of 35

season until the 2004-2005 season. (Docket Entry No. 231 at Exhibit GG thereto, Ortiz-Mora Check History). During his tenure at SFSI, Ortiz-Mora worked in both planting and spraying in at least thirteen states. Id.; Id. at Exhibit Z thereto at p. 25.
The Court concludes that the claims of the named Plaintiffs are typical of those of the class. Thus, Plaintiffs have satisfied a showing of typicality under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(3).
d. Adequacy Rule 23(a) demands that the named representatives “fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4). This prerequisite is essential to due process, because a final judgment in a class action is binding on all class members. Hansberry v. Lee, 311 U.S. 32 (1940); 1 Newberg, § 3.21, at 408. See also Smith v. Babcock, 19 F.3d 257, 264 n. 13 (6th Cir.1994)("[n]o class should be certified where the interests of the members are antagonistic, because the preclusive effect of the verdict may deprive unnamed class members of their right to be heard"). Trollinger v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 4:02-CV-23, 2006 U.S. Dist. Lexis 74114 at *22-23 (E.D. Tenn. Oct. 10, 2006). Inquiry into the adequacy elements requires the Court to consider whether “1) the representative[s] [have] common interests with unnamed members of the class, and 2) it [] appear[s] that the representatives will vigorously prosecute the interests of the class through qualified counsel.” In re Am. Med. Sys, Inc., 75 F.3d at 21 (quoting Senter v. General Motors Corp., 532 F.2d 511, 525 (6th Cir.1976)) (Rule 23(a)(4) tests "the experience and ability of counsel for the plaintiffs and whether there is any antagonism between the interests of the plaintiffs and other members of the class they seek to represent"); Falcon, 457 U.S. at 157 n. 13 ("adequacy of representation requirement . . . also raises concerns about the competency of class counsel and conflicts of interest")). In Falcon, the Supreme Court reiterated its core requirement
19
Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 305-1 Filed 03/28/2008 Page 19 of 35

that “a class representative must be part of the class and possess the same interest and suffer the same injury as the class members.” 457 U.S. at 156 (citations and quotation omitted). Absolute identity of claims among class members, however, is not required, Like v. Carter, 448 F.2d 798, 802 (8th Cir. 1971), particularly as to the amount of damages. Weathers v. Peters Realty Corp., 499 F.2d 1197, 1200-01 (6th Cir. 1974). The adequate representation requirement overlaps with the typicality requirement because in the absence of typical claims, the class representative has no incentives to pursue the claims of the other class members. Id. at 157 n. 13.
Defendants contend that named Plaintiffs are not adequate representatives for the class because their depositions contradict the class claims. Specifically, Defendants assert that while the Rosiles-Perez affidavit alleges improper check stubs and understated hours, in his deposition, Rosiles-Perez admitted that he never questioned SFSI on his stated hours or its methods of calculating hours. The Court finds this argument unpersuasive. Although Rosiles-Perez did not question his supervisor regarding his hours, Rosiles-Perez surmised that SFSI’s methods were questionable because he and his tree planting crew members were credited with different hours worked12, despite the fact that they all arrived at the tract at the same time and worked together, side-by-side all day long. (Docket Entry No. 231, Exhibit X thereto, Rosiles-Perez Deposition at p. 61; Docket Entry No. 231, Exhibit T thereto, Rosiles-Perez Affidavit at ¶ 15). The Court finds
12 The Court notes that an hourly sheet from Francisco Carretero’s crew, which named Plaintiff Rosiles-Perez was a member, had a variance of fifteen hours worked between the individual with the most hours and the individuals with the least hours. This supports RosilesPerez’s claim that even though members of the same crew arrived together, worked together and left together, some members were credited with many more hours than others. (Docket Entry No. 226, Exhibit 2 thereto, Carretero Crew Sheets at p. 6).
20
Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 305-1 Filed 03/28/2008 Page 20 of 35

that the Rosiles-Perez deposition supports the class claims.13
Defendants also insist that Santiago-Salmoran is an inadequate class representative
because he had “no knowledge about how the hours worked was calculated, or how the company
recorded his time.” (Docket Entry No. 231 at p. 34). The Court finds this argument
unpersuasive as well. The Court does not find it necessary that a named Plaintiff know how his
wages were calculated and his hours recorded, rather, it is sufficient that he alleges that the
wages and hours were inaccurately calculated and recorded.
Here, Rosiles-Perez, Santiago-Salmoran and Hector Ortiz-Mora have common interests
with the unnamed member of the class and have shown that they will vigorously prosecute the
interests of the class through qualified counsel. The named Plaintiffs have a common interest
with the putative class in that they are seeking injunctive relief and compensation for alleged
injury SFSI caused when engaging in various employment practices Plaintiffs deem to be
violations of the AWPA. Additionally, the interests of the named Plaintiffs are not antagonistic
13 Defendants insist that Rosiles-Perez is an inappropriate class representative because in his affidavit, Rosiles-Perez affied that SFSI failed to make adequate disclosures concerning the terms and conditions of employment (Docket Entry No. 231, Exhibit T thereto, Rosiles-Perez Affidavit at ¶ 7), yet, in his deposition, Rosiles-Perez testified “that he did not remember whether he was given information or not.” (Docket Entry No. 231 at p. 34). The Court notes that the various pages of the Rosiles-Perez deposition cited to are not included in their excerpted version at Docket Entry No. 231, Exhibit X thereto. Specifically, Defendants’ Exhibit X does not contain pages 23, 24 or 25, upon which Defendants rely in this argument. Further, Defendants argue that Rosiles-Perez’s affidavit states that “Defendants did not provide adequate and accurate disclosures of information regarding the work and its details to the Plaintiffs” (Docket Entry No. 231 at p. 34), but that his deposition admits that he did not know what this paragraph meant. (Docket Entry No. 231, Exhibit X thereto, Rosiles-Perez Deposition at pp. 94-95). The Court also finds this unpersuasive. The deposition indicates that Rosiles-Perez was confused by counsel’s questions, and required a clarification in “plainer language”, but the answer to that question, which would have been on the following page of the deposition was not included in the excerpted version supplied to the Court. Id. at p. 95.
21
Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 305-1 Filed 03/28/2008 Page 21 of 35

to those of the proposed class members.
As noted above, the second Senter criterion requires the Court to determine that
plaintiffs’ counsel will “vigorously prosecute the interests of the class.” In fact, the Sixth Circuit
“explained that it ‘reviews the adequacy of class representation to determine whether class
counsel are qualified, experienced and generally able to conduct the litigation, and to consider
whether the class members have interests that are not antagonistic to one another.’” Beattie v.
CenturyTel, Inc.,511 F.3d 554, 562-63 (6th Cir. 2007) (quoting Stout v. J.D. Byder, 228 F.3d
709, 717 (6th Cir. 2000)). Thus, for adequacy determinations, the emphasis is on the
representation provided by class counsel. Here, Plaintiffs are represented by attorneys from: the Southern Poverty Law Center14; Farmworker Justice15; the Virginia Justice Center for Farm and Immigrant Workers; the Legal Aid Justice Center16; and, the law firms of Hughes, Socol, Piers,
Resnick & Dum, Ltd and Bell, Tennent & Frogge, PLLC. From the prior proceedings in this
action, the Court observes that these attorneys are committed to the vindication of migrant
workers’ rights. These counsel have participated in numerous class action lawsuits for migrant
workers and bring a wealth of experience and knowledge of issues affecting migrant agricultural
14 The Southern Poverty Law Center’s Immigrant Justice Project concentrates on “the unique legal needs of migrant workers, a group particularly vulnerable to workplace abuse.” http://www.splcenter.org/legal/ijp.jsp accessed on January 30, 2008. The Immigrant Justice Project attempts to “litigate cases that can result in systemic, industry-wide change.” Id.
15 “Farmworker Justice is a nonprofit organization that seeks to empower migrant and seasonal farm workers to improve their living and working conditions, immigration status, health, occupational safety, and access to justice.” http://www.fwjustice.org/WhoAreWeDir/WhoAreWe.htm accessed on January 30, 2008.
16 “The Legal Aid Justice Center’s Immigrant Advocacy Program (formerly the Virginia Justice Center for Farm and Immigrant Workers) supports low-wage immigrant workers throughout the Commonwealth in their efforts to find justice and fair treatment in the workplace.” http://www.justice4all.org/our_programs/vjc accessed on January 30, 2008.
22
Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 305-1 Filed 03/28/2008 Page 22 of 35

workers. Thus, the Court concludes these attorneys will vigorously prosecute the interests of the putative class.
The Court concludes that Plaintiffs have met their burden of demonstrating numerosity, commonality, typicality and adequacy. Now, the Court must determine whether Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b) applies to this action, thus making class certification appropriate.
2. Rule 23(b) Once plaintiffs have demonstrated that they meet all of the conjunctive requirements of Rule 23(a), they must show that their action falls into one of the subdivisions of Rule 23(b). In addition to the 23(a) requirements, Plaintiffs must show: (2) the party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the class, so that final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the class as a whole; or (3) the court finds that the questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and that a class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy. The matters pertinent to these findings include:
(A) the class members' interests in individually controlling the prosecution or defense of separate actions; (B) the extent and nature of any litigation concerning the controversy already begun by or against class members; (C) the desirability or undesirability of concentrating the litigation of the claims in the particular forum; and (D) the likely difficulties in managing a class action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2)-(3). Rule 23(b)(2) “is intended to reach situations where a party has taken or refused to take action with respect to a class, and final relief of an injunctive nature or of a corresponding
23
Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 305-1 Filed 03/28/2008 Page 23 of 35

declaratory nature, settling the legality of the behavior with respect to the class as a whole, is
appropriate.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 Advisory Committee’s Note. Rule 23(b)(2) “does not extend to
cases in which the appropriate final relief relates exclusively or predominately to money
damages.” Id.
Here, Plaintiffs seek:
to be certified pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3), [] restitution of unpaid wages, an award of money damages and/or statutory damages, declaratory relief, and injunctive relief to make them whole for damages they suffered, and continue to suffer, due to the Defendants’ violations of law, and to ensure that they and other H-2B (and returning H-2B) workers will not be subjected by the Defendants to such illegal conduct in the future.
(Docket Entry No. 296, Amended Complaint at ¶ 4).
During the October 22, 2007 hearing, the Court inquired whether given their contentions,
certification of the AWPA action should be under Rule 23(b)(2) as opposed to Rule 23(b)(3).
On November 21, 2007, Plaintiffs filed a Post-Hearing Brief on Rule 23(b)(2) class certification
and proposes options for certification:
either, Rule 23(b)(2) certification of their claims for final injunctive relief, and Rule 23(b)(3) certification of all claims for monetary damages; or, alternatively, Rule 23(b)(2) certification of their claims for injunctive relief and monetary relief that is incidental to the final injunction, and (b)(3) certification of their claims for monetary damages that are not incidental to the injunction (for example, their unpaid back wages from off-the-clock work, resulting from Defendants’ unlawful timekeeping policies and/or practices).
(Docket Entry No. 270, Post-Hearing Brief at p. 2) (emphasis supplied).
Defendants insist that Plaintiffs cannot meet the requirements for class certification under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b) because questions of law or fact common to class members do not
predominate over any questions affecting only individual members. Under either of Plaintiffs’
theories, the Court must decide whether Rule 23(b)(2) can be appropriately applied.
24
Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 305-1 Filed 03/28/2008 Page 24 of 35

a. Rule 23(b)(2) In actions where Plaintiffs seek monetary relief as well as injunctive and declaratory relief, Plaintiffs must show that the requested injunctive and declaratory relief predominates over any claims for monetary relief. Reeb v. Ohio Dept. of Rehabilitation and Correction, 435 F.3d 639, 647 (6th Cir.2006) (citing Allison v. Citgo Petroleum Corp., 151 F.3d 402, 411 (5th Cir.1998). “[M]onetary relief predominates in (b)(2) class actions unless it is incidental to requested injunctive or declaratory relief.” Allison v. Citgo Petroleum Corp., 151 F.3d 402, 415 (5th Cir.1998). “In determining whether injunctive relief predominates in a Rule 23(b)(2) class, one critical factor is whether the compensatory relief requested requires individualized damages determination or is susceptible to calculation on a classwide basis. Coleman v. GMAC, 296 F.3d 443, 449 (6th Cir. 2002). Courts have found incidental damages to refer to damages requiring mechanical computation, “‘without the need for individual calculation’... so that a separate damages suit by individual class members would be a waste of resources.” In re Allstate Ins. Co., 400 F.3d 505, 507 (7th Cir. 2005). The Plaintiffs and putative class members assert that certification under 23(b)(2) is permissible because the monetary damages they seek are “in the form of only a) unpaid back wages, calculated through the application of damages formulae that do not involve individualized determinations; and b) statutory damages, applied classwide.” (Docket Entry No. 270, Plaintiffs’ Post-Hearing Brief at 1). Plaintiffs also point out that they “do not seek compensatory or punitive damages that would complicate or prevent joinder.” Id. The Defendants insist that the claims for monetary relief necessarily predominate over the claims for injunctive relief primarily because the computation of such damages is dependent upon the subjective differences among class members.
25
Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 305-1 Filed 03/28/2008 Page 25 of 35

Under Rule 23(b)(2), plaintiffs are entitled to class certification when defendants act or
fail to act in a manner generally applicable to the class, for which final injunctive and/or
declaratory relief is appropriate. Here, Plaintiffs request injunctive relief for the following
alleged AWPA violations:
1) Defendants’ operation of a piece-rate payment system that a) uses self-described “complicated” and “unique” calculations that are never disclosed to their tree planters...; b) induces productivity by conveying false and misleading information about the basis on which the planters’ piece rate wages are being paid; and c) violates the parties’ working arrangement by failing to compensate the planters for every 1000 trees that they individually and correctly plant, as promised in their written work contracts...
2) Defendants’ provision of false and misleading information to their H-2B workers on their written pay statements. Plaintiffs seek equitable relief for these violations, including an injunction mandating the disclosure of information that the AWPA requires to be...disclosed, and eliminating the placement of other information on the workers’ pay statements tending to mislead them about the basis of their wages...
3) Defendants’ systemic, continuing failure to pay the in-bound transportation, visa and related expenses incurred by their H-2B workers in order to work for Defendants in the United States...
(Docket Entry No. 270, Plaintiffs’ Post-Hearing Brief at 2-3). As to the first claim, Plaintiffs
contend that the unpaid wage damages would be incidental to the final injunction and would be
calculated using damages models derived from information in the Defendants’ possession, or
alternatively, through an award of statutory damages divided amongst the class. Id. at 3. As to
the second claim, Plaintiffs’ claim for statutory damages can be divided amongst the class. Id.
As to Plaintiffs’ other incidental monetary relief, the application of a formula common to each
class member can be used to calculate damages. Id. at 4.
In Coleman, the court noted that “class treatment of claims is most appropriate where it is
not economically feasible for individuals to pursue their own claims.” 296 F.3d at 449. This
26
Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 305-1 Filed 03/28/2008 Page 26 of 35

notion
leav[es] open the possibility that, where the individualized damages are likely to be very low, a 23(b)(2) action including such damages may be maintained. Coleman, 296 F.3d at 449; see also Baby Neal for & by Kanter v. Casey, 43 F.3d 48, 64 (3d Cir. 1994) (stating that the Rule 23(b)(2) option was intended specifically to “foster institutional reform by facilitating suits that challenge widespread rights violations of people who are individually unable to vindicate[] their own rights”).
Staley v. Wilson County, No. 3:04-1127, 2006 U.S. Dist. Lexis 58904 at *28 (M.D. Tenn. Aug.
18, 2006) (Trauger, J.). This circuit has upheld certified class actions under 23(b)(2) including
requests for monetary damages on that basis. Id. In Senter v. General Motors Corp., 532 F.2d
511, 525 (6th Cir. 1976), the Sixth Circuit held that “the additional request for back pay does not
preclude certification as a 23 (b)(2) class action.” See also Alexander v. Aero Lodge No. 735,
Int’l Ass’n of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, 565 F.2d 1364, 1372 (6th Cir.
1977) (“A request for back pay does not preclude certification under [23(b)(2)].” (citations
omitted).
To be sure:
While it is true that a claim for back pay implicates some of the same efficiency concerns we have cited today as part of our reasoning for excluding compensatory damages from a Rule 23(b)(2) class, back pay is qualitatively different from compensatory damages...because calculation of back pay generally involves less complicated factual determinations and fewer individualized issues...
More importantly, as an equitable remedy, back pay does not involve the more significant issues of procedural fairness and constitutionality raised by the inclusion of plaintiff’s compensatory damages claim in this class.”
Coleman, 296 F.3d at 449, 450.
The Defendants assert that Plaintiffs’ claims for back pay are not certifiable under
23(b)(2) because they involve individualized calculations. The Court disagrees. The Sixth
27
Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 305-1 Filed 03/28/2008 Page 27 of 35

Circuit permits back pay among the remedies available under 23(b)(2), despite the individual determinations of back pay calculations. Defendants rely on language in Coleman to support their proposition (“the underlying premise of (b)(2) certification... begins to break down when the class seeks to recover back pay or other forms of monetary damages to be allocated based on individual injuries.”). The Defendants, however overlook other relevant portions of that case, such as that quoted supra and the fact that a single origin of information regarding back pay (i.e., a single employer, as is the case here), allows for more efficient damages calculations. In addition, in clarifying the permissibility of back pay in a 23(b)(2) action, the Reeb explained: “...back pay is an equitable remedy that does not implicate the procedural and constitutional issues that a damage award does.” Reeb, 435 F.3d at 650. The Court finds that the issue of back pay is certifiable under 23(b)(2).
Moreover, a finding of liability on any or all Plaintiffs’ claims would qualify them for statutory damages. Thus, an award of statutory damages would originate from a finding of Defendants’ liability to the class as a whole and be divided equally among the class members– no individual calculations are necessary. Consequently, an award of statutory damages would be incidental to the declaratory and injunctive relief Plaintiffs seek and would not defeat 23(b)(2) certification. A finding that visa and travel expenses are primarily for Defendants’ benefit would make the Defendants liable for damages to the entire class without individual calculation. Reimbursement of visa and travel expenses that is within a defined range is therefore, incidental to the declaratory and injunctive relief sought and does not prelude 23(b)(2) certification.
b. Dual Certification
28
Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 305-1 Filed 03/28/2008 Page 28 of 35

To the extent that Plaintiffs seek damages that are not incidental to injunctive and declaratory relief sought, those claims can be certified under Rule 23(b)(3) in some instances. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(c)(4) (“an action may be brought or maintained as a class action with respect to particular issues...”). Defendants insist that it is inappropriate for this Court to certify Plaintiffs class under 23(b)(2) and (3) because the Rule is “written in the disjunctive” and inapposite to Reeb. The Sixth Circuit however, has upheld class certifications under both 23(b)(2) and (3). See Olden v. LaFarge Corp., 383 F.3d 495 (6th Cir. 2004) (upholding certification under both 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3)). In Olden the Sixth Circuit stated:
Disputes over whether [an] action is primarily for injunctive...relief rather than a monetary award neither promote the disposition of the case on the merits nor represent a useful expenditure of energy. Therefore, they should be avoided. If the Rule 23(a) prerequisites have been met and injunctive or declaratory relief has been requested, the action usually should be allowed to proceed. Those aspects of the case not falling within Rule 23(b)(2) should be treated as incidental. Indeed, quite commonly they will fall within Rule 23(b)(1) or Rule 23(b)(3) and may be heard on a class basis under one of those subdivisions. Id. at 510-11 (citing 7A Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller, and Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure, 2d. § 1775) (emphasis supplied). Thus, the Court concludes that dual certification is appropriate.
c. Rule 23(b)(3) To certify a class under Rule 23(b)(3), Plaintiffs must show that “questions of law or fact common to the members of the class predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and that a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3). “To qualify for certification under Rule 23(b)(3), a class must meet two requirements beyond the Rule 23(a) prerequisites: Common questions must predominate over any questions affecting only individual members; and class
29
Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 305-1 Filed 03/28/2008 Page 29 of 35

resolution must be superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the
controversy.” Amchem Products, Inc., 521 U.S. at 615 (internal quotation marks omitted).
Defendants insist that Plaintiffs’ common claims do not predominate over individual concerns.
As to whether common questions predominate, the Plaintiffs define the common issues on
the independent money damages claims as follows:
a) whether “PL Hours” on Defendants’ standard pay documents..., that are used by all tree planting crew leaders to record the work hours of their crew members, were used to record only “planting hours”? b) whether work regularly performed by tree planters before “planting hours” began was compensable? c) whether Defendants had a policy and/or practice of docking the work hours for slower planters, to reduce their wages and evade prevailing and overtime wage obligations? d) whether Defendants had a policy and/or practice of failing to compensate members of their spraying crews for all compensable work time, including time spent traveling to a second or subsequent job site in a single work day?
(Docket Entry No. 270, Plaintiffs’ Post Hearing Brief at pp. 6-7, n.1). Here, as far as
nonincidental money damages are concerned, Plaintiffs’ common claims predominate over
questions affecting only individual members. Specifically, issues a through d quoted above,
relate to SFSI policies and practices that would apply, mainly to the class as a whole.17 As to
Defendants’ contention that individual concerns predominate over common issues, the Court
17 As noted supra, the Court suggested that subclasses could be used, where necessary. Under 23(c)(4):
When appropriate (A) an action may, be brought or maintained as a class action with respect to particular issues, or (B) a class may be divided into subclasses and each subclass treated as a class, and the provisions of this rule shall then be construed and applied accordingly.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(4). Here, a subclass may be appropriate if there exists, any member of the proposed class, that did not plant trees at all, rather only worked in spraying herbicides. The same would be true of employees who worked only as sprayers and not as tree planters. This issue can be resolved through a separate motion.
30
Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 305-1 Filed 03/28/2008 Page 30 of 35

disagrees. As the Olden Court has held, “individual damage determinations might be necessary, but the plaintiffs have raised common allegations which would likely allow the court to determine liability...for the class as a whole.” Olden, 383 F.3d at 508. In Olden, the Court found that despite individual injuries, such as wheezing, nausea, headaches, etc., the thrust of plaintiffs’ complaint was related to the general increased risk of suffering in the future– whether defendant’s action caused some increased health risk. Id. Here, the thrust of the complaint is the treatment of guest workers with SFSI’s forestry operation– whether that treatment systematically violated the AWPA. While damages may differ, damages also illustrate the alleged common violations under the AWPA that protects as a statutorily defined group, foreign workers in the United States.
As to whether a class action is a superior method for the fair and efficient adjudication of this action, the Plaintiffs are vulnerable workers with extremely limited resources rendering separate actions highly unlikely. The putative class members, indigent, foreign nationals whose lack of understanding of the English language and the laws of the United States pose substantial barriers to individual actions. The Court concludes that class certification here is a vastly superior method of adjudication because the common issues will only have to be heard and decided once, thereby promoting judicial efficiency. Separate actions would run the risk of inconsistent judgments. Thus, the Court finds that certification of the claims for nonincidental damages is appropriate under Rule 23(b)(3).
3. Statute of Limitations Defendants assert that should the Court decide to certify this action, that the statute of limitations on claims should be no more than three years. (Docket Entry No. 231, Defendant’s Memorandum in Opposition at p. 38 and Docket Entry No. 111, Motion for Protective Order). In
31
Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 305-1 Filed 03/28/2008 Page 31 of 35

support of this contention, Defendants point to the Court’s previous denial of the Plaintiffs’ motion to certify the class (Docket Entry No. 43) and Plaintiffs’ motion to proceed as a collective action (FLSA claim) (Docket Entry No. 48). The Court’s prior denial of Plaintiffs’ motion to certify class was without prejudice to renew. In addition, the Court provisionally certified the FLSA claim as a collective action (Docket Entry No. 205).
Defendants further assert that because the AWPA is silent as to statute of limitations, that Tennessee state law should fill the gap. Specifically, Defendants claim that Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-3-105 governing torts and property loss should apply here. Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-3-105 applies a three year statute of limitations for “[c]ivil actions based upon the alleged violation of any federal or state statute creating monetary liability for personal services rendered, or liquidated damages or other recovery therefore, when no other time limitation is fixed by the statute creating such a liability.” Defendants also contend that because the AWPA requires an employer to maintain employees’ wage records for three years, that the applicable period of limitations should be only three years.
The Plaintiffs contend that the appropriate limitations period under the AWPA is six years, not three. (Docket Entry No. 127, Plaintiffs’ Response to Defendants’ Motion for Protective Order). Plaintiffs’ acknowledge that the AWPA is silent as to a limitations period, and argue that the Court should “borrow” from Tennessee law governing contract disputes that has a six year limitations period. Plaintiffs’ argue that the six year statute of limitations provided to contract disputes in the state of Tennessee, T.C.A. § 28-3-109(3) should fill the gap given that these claims arise out of an employment agreement. The Court agrees.
Here, the class claims are centered around various contracts; (1) whether the AWPA
32
Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 305-1 Filed 03/28/2008 Page 32 of 35

working arrangement was breached; (2) whether SFSI failed to pay wages when due; and (3) whether SFSI failed to make and provide accurate payroll records. Any liability for this claims arise out of: (1) the alleged breach of the work agreement; (2) the promises SFSI made to the government in order to be granted work permits for foreign workers; and (3) whether the work agreement and corresponding policies violate the AWPA. Moreover, the Plaintiffs point out that it is the essence of the claim that is of import in determining statute of limitations. The Defendants argue that because a statute is involved, T.C.A. § 28-3-105(3) applies.
On the statute of limitations issue, Tennessee law directs the Court to examine the nature of the claim to determine the appropriate statute of limitations. Pera v. Kroger Co., 674 S.W.2d 715, 719 (Tenn.1984) (“It is well settled in this state that the gravamen of an action, rather than its designation as an action for tort or contract, determines the applicable statute of limitations.”). The gravamen of this action, is the Defendants’ breaches of duties to Plaintiffs, arising out of contracts. The AWPA protects foreign workers in the United States. In Tennessee, other federal employment laws are given the six year statute of limitations when the federal law is silent. For example, ERISA, also silent on statute of limitations, allows beneficiaries to sue for violations of the terms of statutorily required contracts using the six year statute of limitations. Moffitt v. Whittle Communications, L.P., 895 F.Supp. 961, 971 (E.D.Tenn.,1995). Finally, this Court finds Escolastico De Leon-Granados v. Eller and Sons Trees, Inc., 452 F.Supp.2d 1282 (N.D.Ga. 2006) instructive. In that action, the court found a six year statute of limitations based in contract applied to plaintiffs’ AWPA claims. Id. at 1284. The district court found six years to be appropriate because plaintiffs sought redress for breaches of their “working arrangement” embodied in the defendant’s “Job Clearance Orders” and in Defendant's disclosure contract,
33
Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 305-1 Filed 03/28/2008 Page 33 of 35

applied to plaintiffs' AWPA claims. Id. at 1284. The district court found six years to be

appropriate because plaintiffs sought redress for breaches of their "working arrangement"

embodied in the defendant's "Job Clearance Orders" and in Defendant's disclosure contract,

which set forth Plaintiffs' terms and conditions of employment, and which Defendant required

each worker to sign before starting work. Id. Particularly insightful here, the district court stated:

...selecting the six-year limitations period over the two-year limitations period comports with "our paramount duty ... to effectuate the federal policies embodied in the AWPA statutory scheme." Barajas v. Bermudez, 43 F.3d 1251, 1260 (9th Cir.l994) (choosing longer of two potentially applicable statutes oflimitations in effort to effectuate policy goals of AWPA); see also Caro-Galvan v. Curtis Richardson. Inc., 993 F.2d 1500, 1505 (11th Cir.l993) ("AWPA is a remedial statute and should be construed broadly to effect its humanitarian purpose."); Sanchez v. Morrison, 667 F.Supp. 536,538 (W.D.Mich.l987) (noting the broad remedial purposes of the AWPA in deciding to apply Michigan's six-year statute of limitations for breach of contract rather than the three-year period for injury to property or person).

Id. Thus, the Court concludes that the appropriate statute of limitations here is six years.

For the reasons stated above, the Court concludes that class certification in this action is

appropriate under both Rule 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3) with the class members' claims governed by

the six years statute of limitations. Accordingly, the Defendants' motion for a protective order

limiting discovery (Docket Entry No. Ill) should be denied.

c:Jt:;:; ENTERED the

of March, 2008.

~~~/

WILLIAM J.

JR.

United States District Judge

34 Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 305 Filed 03/28/2008 Page 34 of 34

35 Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 305-1 Filed 03/28/2008 Page 35 of 35

 
 IN THE UNTIED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION

ROSILES-PEREZ, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

SUPERIOR FORESTRY SERVICE,

)

INC., et al.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

NO. I :06-0006 JUDGE HAYNES

ORDER

Before the Court is the Defendant's motion for a determination of expert fees (Docket

Entry No. 242), contending that the expert's fee submission contains time entries for unrelated

activities such as conferences with Plaintiffs' counsel and attendance at the court hearing.

The Court allocated to Defendants the cost of producing their electronically stored

information ("ESI") as producing party. Zubulake v. UBS Warburg, 216 F.R.D. 280 (S.D.N.Y),

and upon the Court's finding of"inadequacies and serious questions about the adequacy and

completeness of the Defendants' ESI [production]." (Docket Entry No. 211, July 16, 2007

Hearing Transcript at p. 51). The appointment of this expert was to remedy Defendants'

ineffective litigation hold, their failures to identifY their sources of ESI, and their failure to

produce information, including entire data systems covered by the Court's production order.

As to the expert, the Court's order "requir[ed] Defendant[s] to compensate Mr. Saperstein

in connection with this ESI" production. Id. The Court finds that the expert's fee statement is

reasonable. From mid-April through the end of July, the expert spent 85 hours on fact discovery

assessing the status of Defendants' preservation, identification and production of ESI; traveling

Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 344 Filed 07/25/08 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 4694

to Arkansas for two days of meetings to inspect Defendants' information system; implementing a

litigation hold and developing ESI discovery plan. The Court deems conference with Plaintiffs'

counsel to be necessary and the expert attendance at a conference on the Defendants'

"emergency" motion to cut of ESI discovery and their proposed ESI order as appropriate and

necessary given the conference's impact on his work.

For the period ending July 21, 2007, the Defendants shall compensate the expert eleven

thousand four hundred seventy dollars ($11,470) and his costs for a total of twelve thousand four

hundred thirty dollars twenty cents ($12,430.20), excluding the amount listed for Plaintiffs

counsel.

~{~of It is so ORDERED.
ENTERED this the

July, 2008.

Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 344 Filed 07/25/08 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 4695

 
 IN THE UNTIED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
COLUMBIA DIVISION

ROSILES-PEREZ, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

SUPERIOR FORESTRY SERVICE, INC., )

et al.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

NO. 1:06-0006 JUDGE HAYNES

M E M O R A N D U M

Plaintiffs filed this action individually and on behalf of temporary foreign

guestworkers with H-2B visas against the Defendant Superior Forestry Service, Inc.,

(“SFSI”) an agriculture employer in the forestry business and the individual Defendants,

Scott Barston and William Ioup, SFSI’s managers. Plaintiffs’ claims are that the

Defendants violated the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Workers Protection Act, 29

U.S.C. § 1801 et seq., (“AWPA”) and the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et.

(“FLSA”). In earlier proceedings, the Court conditionally certified this action as a

collective action under § 16(b) of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) on Plaintiffs’ FLSA

claims, and AWPA claims. (Docket Entry Nos. 203 and 306).

Before the Court is the Plaintiffs’ second motion for contempt (Docket Entry No.

318) for the Defendants’ additional violations of the Court’s May 23, 2006 Protective

Order (Docket Entry No. 91) that bars communications about this action by Defendants

and their agents with Plaintiffs and potential class members. The Court earlier held the

Defendants in contempt for their violations of the May 23rd Order for failing to instruct

1 Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 349-1 Filed 09/05/08 Page 1 of 17 PageID #: 4722

their supervisory and other employees immediately on the provisions of that Order to the detriment of class members. (Docket Entry Nos. 167 and 168).
In this second motion, Plaintiffs submitted evidence that earlier this year, Pedro Flores, a SFSI crew leader and the brother of another crew leader whose conduct led to the issuance of the May 23rd protective order, made statements to two putative class members discouraging them from joining this action. (Docket Entry Nos. 320 and 321). Plaintiffs also contend that Defendants again violated the Court’s directive at the October 22, 2007 hearing (Docket Entry No. 318) that the Defendants immediately instruct their supervisors on the provisions of the May 23rd Order.
In response, Defendants argue the Pedro Flores was permitted to talk to the two Plaintiffs about this action because the two cited employees were not employed until after January 2006 and are therefore allegedly not protected by the May 23rd Order. The Defendants also challenged the admissibility of Plaintiffs’ proof and contend that they substantially complied with the May 23rd Order.
For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds that the Defendants’ agents again violated the May 23rd Order by communicating with putative class members on the merits of this litigation and discouraging putative class members from joining this action with misleading statements. The Court finds that the appropriate remedy is to extend the opt-in period for putative class members and to allow Plaintiffs’ counsel to confer with putative class members to provide a balanced view of this action and the rights of the members of the putative class.
The First Contempt Proceedings
2 Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 349-1 Filed 09/05/08 Page 2 of 17 PageID #: 4723

On May 9, 2006, Plaintiffs filed an emergency motion for a protective order to prohibit communications by Defendants with Plaintiffs and potential class members about this action and to prohibit retaliation and coercion against the 32 named plaintiffs and potential plaintiffs. Plaintiffs’ submitted two affidavits of opt-in-Plaintiffs that Jesus Flores, a SFSI crew leader, engaged in acts of coercion and retaliation against them.
In a prior opinion, the Court found that Jesus Flores (a crew leader) testified that he was “unaware of any orders or rulings of the Court in this action.” (Docket Entry No. 167, Memorandum at p. 3). Eugene Gonzalez, the Defendant’s personnel manager testified that he “first learned of the Court’s Order more than three weeks after its entry,” and that he “had not communicated the Court’s Order to his crew leaders nor [he] aware of any SFSI official who did.” Id. at pp. 3-4. Gonzalez also admitted to talking to potential plaintiffs about his opinions of the lawsuit, before the protective order was entered. Gonzalez further admitted that he made statements consistent with those attributed to him by the Plaintiffs’ witness that SFSI was not breaking any law and that Plaintiffs’ lawyers were trying to “solicit” and “misguide” workers and that the lawyers would keep more money from this action than the workers would receive.
On May 23, 2006, the Court entered its protective order banning communications by Defendants and their agents with Plaintiffs and potential class members about this action:
Defendants and their employees and agents, including their attorneys, and intermediaries are hereby and immediately barred from all communications with plaintiffs and putative class members about this lawsuit, except as permitted through the formal discovery process, until further order of this Court. (Docket Entry No. 91, May 23 Order at ¶ 1). The Court further ordered:
3 Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 349-1 Filed 09/05/08 Page 3 of 17 PageID #: 4724

Defendant shall immediately instruct their supervisory employees and all other employees and agents who might have contact with plaintiffs and putative class members of the prohibitions of this Order and the antiretaliation provisions of the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Workers Protection Act. 29 U.S.C. §201. Id. at ¶ 14. In August, 2006, the Court held an evidentiary hearing and on January 31, 2007 held Defendants in contempt for their failure to instruct employees immediately on the provisions of the May 23rd Order, 2007. (Docket Entry No. 168, Order). The Court found that the “just cause” language contained in the document that Defendants belatedly circulated to their supervisors, effectively circumscribed applicable statutory prohibitions on retaliations by purporting to allow retaliation in response to workers complaints that in the Defendants’ supervisor’s opinion, had no merit. See Plaintiffs Exhibit 4 at ¶ 7. SFSI’s ranking personnel manager believed that the claims in this action lacked merit. (Docket Entry No. 167 at p. 5). The Court again ordered Defendants to distribute notice of the May 23rd Protective Order and the Order finding contempt to all SFSI employees. The Court directed the Defendants to “advise their crew leaders that the Court deems this action to be well founded and that any retaliatory conduct by [a] SFSI crew leader or agent against a plaintiff or putative class member will be addressed by the Court under the FLSA and the Court’s May 23rd Order.” Id. at p. 9. The Court awarded Plaintiffs their attorney fees and costs on that motion, but reserved additional sanctions. Id. at pp. 16-17.
Defendants’ Compliance with the May 23rd Order On February 2, 2007, Defendants filed Ioup’s affidavit that Defendants had sent copies of the May 23, 2006 protective order and Contempt Order to current crew leaders
4 Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 349-1 Filed 09/05/08 Page 4 of 17 PageID #: 4725

and to those former crew leaders who had received the June 2006 memorandum with the “just cause” language. (Docket Entry No. 170). The Defendants provided copies of these Orders for each crew leader to distribute to their crews, id. ¶ 9; and sent each crew leader a “written memorandum which outlined the specifics of the last full paragraph of page 9 of the Court’s Memorandum” of January 31, 2007.” Id. at ¶ 10. The latter page instructed the Defendants to advise their crew leaders that the Court deems the action well-founded and will enforce the anti-retaliation provisions of the FLSA and the May 23rd Order. Ioup, however, did not provide copies of the documents that were actually circulated to crew leaders.
In opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification in September 2007, Defendants filed 17 declarations that were executed by putative class member in March and April 2006 (before the May 23rd Order) (Docket Entry Nos. 231-2 to 231-18). Because the Court deferred the Plaintiffs’ motion to certify, these 17 statements were not disclosed for nineteen months. Shortly after the statements were taken, Defendants withheld these statements, contending that any limitation on their contact with putative class members was unwarranted, because there was no evidence that they had engaged in potentially coercive communications with any class member. (Docket Entry No. 86 at pp. 3-4).
When the statements were disclosed, Plaintiffs filed a motion to strike and for sanctions, arguing that the statements had been concealed in violation of the discovery rules and asking the Court to investigate the circumstances under which these affidavits were taken. (Docket Entry No. 234). According to defense counsel, these statements
5 Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 349-1 Filed 09/05/08 Page 5 of 17 PageID #: 4726

were taken in meetings between defense counsel and unrepresented putative class members. (Docket Entry No. 250-1).
At the October 22, 2997 hearing on Plaintiff’s sanction motion, Defendants contended these ex parte meetings were appropriate, but these workers were not told that they were potential plaintiffs in this action. In its May 23rd Order the Court instructed the Defendants from the bench:
[I]f anybody talks to a class member without an Order of the Court, there is going to be an ultimate sanction imposed. Does everybody understand that? And you’d better tell your supervisors. I’ve already issued one Order where that was ignored. But this one better be communicated, and I mean today. (Docket Entry No. 318, Exhibit A, October 22, 2007 Transcript at p. 58). In May 2008, Plaintiffs filed two declarations of opt-in-Plaintiffs describing the statements of Pedro Flores, SFSI’s crew leader, to them about this action. Flores discouraged these Plaintiffs from joining this action, telling them that workers who joined the lawsuit were run out of the company and “kicked in the butts.” Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 1, Hernandez Declaration and Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 2, Martinez Declaration. Flores told these workers that they would lose, and if they joined, they could be countersued by the company. Id. Flores’ statements were made after the October 22nd Order, and near the end of the FLSA opt-in period. At the hearing, Plaintiffs and Martinez testified that Flores made such statements. (May 23, 2008 Transcript at pp. 59-61). In his declaration, Flores denied these statements and described his written instructions from SFSI about the May 23rd Order and contempt orders. Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 5. Haley Tester a SFSI controller, cited her awareness of these Orders. Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 4. Flores also testified that he never “spoke with” Hernandez-Espina
6 Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 349-1 Filed 09/05/08 Page 6 of 17 PageID #: 4727

“about the lawsuit,” May 23, 2008 Transcript at p. 24, but responded to the following question: Q: Did you tell Oscar Hernandez-Espina to call the office if he had questions about the lawsuit? A: That’s right.” Id. at pp. 24, 30. Flores admitted that he told Oscar Hernandez-Espina and unspecified crew members to “go talk to the bosses” about this action. Id. at pp. 30-33. Flores explained that his “discussion” was after overhearing statements of Ancelmo-Martinez.
The Court deems Plaintiffs’ witnesses credible, including Hernandez-Espina’s testimony that he lacked any knowledge of the Court’s protective order prior to his contact with Plaintiffs’ counsel. May 23, 2008 Transcript at p. 62. Espina called Plaintiffs’ counsel for information about this action and his right to join as a Plaintiff. Espina did not report Flores’s statement because at the time, he did not know the statements violated the Court’s Order. Id. Thus, Espina lacked any reason to question Flores’s statement.
Defendants contend that, even if Flores violated the March 23rd Order, contempt should not be imposed because they adequately conveyed the Court’s orders to their crew leaders. In February 2007, SFSI sent the order with a two-paragraph “transmittal memorandum” that was written only in English. Id. Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 2, 4 and 5.
The lawsuit against “Superior Forestry under the Fair Labor Standards Act and [t]he Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Workers Protection Act has been deemed “well-founded” by the Court, and any retaliatory conduct by any Superior Forestry crew leader or agent against any H-2B worker will be addressed by the court and by Superior Forestry. Any such retaliation will not be tolerated. Additionally, any communication with employees of Superior Forestry regarding any lawsuit related to Superior Forestry is strictly prohibited.
7 Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 349-1 Filed 09/05/08 Page 7 of 17 PageID #: 4728

Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 4, Plaintiffs Exhibit 5 (emphasis added). The message to crew leaders was to include specific reference to the FLSA and the May 23rd Order. (Docket Entry No. 167 at p. 9).
In March 2007, after the Court’s second order requiring distribution of the protective order and contempt order in Spanish as well as directing workers who believed that they had suffered retaliation to contact Plaintiffs’ attorneys, Defendants sent out the required documents, together with a virtually identical “transmittal memorandum,” that again was written only in English. (Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 4 at ¶ 9 and Exhibit 3 attached thereto; and Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 5 at ¶ 6, Exhibit 3 attached thereto). Each crew member was to acknowledge receipt of the Order and the top of this acknowledgment is: “We the undersigned have each received a copy of the ‘Order totaling four pages.” This document was written only in English, Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 4, and Exhibit 2 attached thereto, but most of the Defendants’ employees do not understand or read English. Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 6 at p. 22. Flores testified that he did not remember receiving any verbal instructions about the Court’s orders nor did Tester describe any. Id. at pp. 37-56.
The January 31st Order did not require Defendants to circulate anything in Spanish, but given the fact that the Defendants knew their crew leaders cannot read English, good faith would require a Spanish version be provided to ensure their understanding and compliance. Tester admitted that Defendants had adequate time to translate their two-paragraph cover memorandum into Spanish, but did not do so. May 23, 2008 Transcript at pp. 54-55. This omission explains the crew leaders’ lack of understanding of the Court’s Orders.
Noncompliance with the October 22nd Direct
8 Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 349-1 Filed 09/05/08 Page 8 of 17 PageID #: 4729

The Court’s directive at the October 22nd hearing Order, required Defendants again to inform immediately their supervisors not to communicate with class members about this action. According to Tester, this memorandum was distributed in November, December, and January, when crew leaders returned from Mexico for the next tree planting season. Tester, who has had responsibility to communicate the Court’s order to SFSI supervisors testified that she was unaware of the October 22nd directive. May 23, 2008 Transcript at p. 40. Flores received this document in December 2007, when he returned from Mexico for the 2008 tree planting season. May 23, 2008 Transcript at pp. 8-9, 48-49. Flores testified that he did not receive a telephone call or any other communication from the Defendant about the Court Order, although he can be reached by telephone in Mexico. Id. at p. 11. The Defendants’ only action in response to the October 22nd directive to distribute the Order “immediately,” was silence.
Defendants insist that their supervisors were in Mexico at the time of the October 22nd Order. Yet, the May 23rd Order explicitly provides that “the seasonal nature of Defendants’ operations, and whether and to what extent an individual is currently engaged in seasonal activities, are not relevant to a determination of whether such individual is an employee or agent of Defendants.” (Docket Entry No. 91, Order at ¶ 1). At the original contempt hearing, Ioup testified about efforts to deliver the SFSI memorandum to crew leaders who had already returned to Mexico. Plaintiffs Exhibit 6 at p. 29. In his affidavit on compliance, Ioup testified that Defendants had sent that order to crew leaders who were already back in Mexico and who had received the June 2006 memorandum describing the May 23rd Order.1 The Court therefore concludes that
1 Tester also testified that the orders were provided to “six crews from another company that perform work for [SFSI].” Docket Entry No. 170 ¶ 5. By contrast, Defendants did not communicate the October 22 Order to any of the crew leaders whom Tester described as “on loan” to Defendants at the time. (May 23,
9 Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 349-1 Filed 09/05/08 Page 9 of 17 PageID #: 4730

Defendants clearly knew that their obligations included sending notices to Mexico, but the Defendants declined to do so.
B. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW “All orders and judgments of courts must be complied with promptly” as failure to do so can result in a finding of contempt. Maness v. Meyers, 419 U.S. 449, 458 (1975). The Court can “enforce compliance with their lawful orders,” Shillitani v. United States, 384, 370 (1966). “A litigant may be held in civil contempt if his adversary shows by clear and convincing evidence that ‘he volate[d] a definite and specific order of the court requiring him to perform or refrain from performing a particular act or acts with knowledge of the court’s orders.’” Glover v. Johnson, 138 F.3d 229 (6th Cir. 1998) (quoting NLRB v Cincinnati Bronze, Inc., 829 F.2d 585, 590 (1987). Any ambiguities in the order must be resolved in favor of the alleged contemnor. Grace v. Center for Auto Safety, 72 F.3d 1236, 1241 (6th Cir. 1996). The order must be “read in light of the issues and the purpose for which the suit was bought,” Cohn v. Kramer, 136 F.2d 293, 295-96 (6th Cir. 1943) (quoting Terminal R.R. Ass’n v. United Sates, 266 U.S. 17, 29 (1924), and evidence of noncompliance “must constitute a plain violation of the decree so read.” Id. If the movant in a contempt proceeding establishes a prima facie violation, the burden shifts to the respondent, who may defend with a showing of impossibility. Gover, 934 F.2d at 708 n.2. “[G]ood faith” is not a defense to civil contempt. Peppers v. Barry, 873 F.2d 967, 969 (6th Cir. 1989); Glover, 934 F.2d at 708 n.2. “[T]he test is not whether Defendants made a good faith effort at compliance, but whether ‘the Defendants took all
2008 Transcript at pp. 53-54.
10 Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 349-1 Filed 09/05/08 Page 10 of 17 PageID #: 4731

reasonable steps within their power to comply with the court’s order.’” Gover, 934 F.2d at708 (quoting Peppers, 873 F.2d at 969) (emphasis added).
As a matter of fact and law, the May 23rd Order clearly “extended not only to the Defendants, but also to SFSI’s employees and agents.” (Docket Entry No. 91 Order, at p.1). By its express terms, the Order included “the Defendants, and their employees, agents” and “all persons who have been employees of the defendants and over whom defendants might continue to exercise influence or control.” Id. As a matter of law,
A command to the corporation is in effect a command to those who are officially responsible for the conduct of its affairs. If they, apprised of the writ directed to the corporation, prevent compliance or fail to take appropriate action within their power for the performance of the corporate duty, they, no less than the corporation itself, are guilty of disobedience, and may be punished for contempt. Electric Workers Pension Trust Fund of Local Union # 58 , IBEW v. Gary’s Electric Service Co., 340 F.3d 373, 380 (6th Cir. 2003) (quoting Wilson v. United States, 221 U.S. 361 (1911)). As applied here, the Court finds that the Plaintiffs presented clear and convincing evidence that Pedro Flores made threatening and coercive statements to potential plaintiffs about this action, in violation of May 23rd protective order. (Docket Entry No. 91, Order at pp. 1-2). In his declaration and at the evidentiary hearing, Flores stated that he knew that he should not discuss this action with any of the workers on his crew. (Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 5 at ¶ 3 and May 23, 2008 Transcript at p. 20). Although HernandezEspina and Ancelmo-Martinez are not members of the Rule 23 class as they were not employed prior to January 2006, these two Plaintiffs, who have subsequently opted-in, were at the time of Flores’s statements, putative class members. The May 23rd Order
11 Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 349-1 Filed 09/05/08 Page 11 of 17 PageID #: 4732

also prohibits communications with all “plaintiffs and putative class members: about the lawsuit.2 Id. at p. 2
As to Defendants’ “substantial compliance” argument, in a civil contempt proceeding, “substantial compliance” is not a defense. Maness, 419 U.S. at 458. The Defendants are asserting in essence, a “good faith” defense. Glover, 934 F.2d at 708 n.2. To be sure, Peppers, requires proof that “the defendants took all reasonable steps within their power to comply with the court’s order,” 873 F.2d at 969, but the Defendants’ efforts to inform their supervisors of the protective order, and the Court’s additional warnings, were at best half-hearted. The record reflects that Defendants twice circulated a memorandum in a language that its employees and agents cannot read. Flores could not recall a single verbal instruction about the protective order. May 23, 2008 Transcript at p. 12. In a workforce of employees and agents with limited literacy in English, circulation of a memorandum in English is designed to ensure noncompliance. The Defendants were earlier held in contempt of the May 23rd Order. As to the October 22nd directive, Defendants waited as least a month to inform its employees, despite the Order’s express requirement that Defendants do so “immediately.” For compliance, the Defendants referred to a memorandum that they distributed, but did not offer into evidence. By failing to act reasonably, the Court concludes that the Defendants exposed class members to the likelihood of ongoing coercive communications from their agents, during the FLSA opt-in-period.
2 The Court notes that, throughout the course of this limitation, the parties and the Court have used the terms “class” and “class members,” unless specifically limited to refer to both the AWPA class and the FLSA class, and to members of each. In addition to the May 23rd Order, this usage is reflected in numerous pleadings and other orders, including the previous contempt opinion, that required the Defendants to advise their crew leaders that the Court would address retaliatory conduct directed against any “plaintiff or putative class member,” and would do so “under the FLSA and the Court’s May 23rd Order.” See Oetinger v. First Residential Mortgage Network, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41281 (W.D. Ky. May 23, 2008).
12 Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 349-1 Filed 09/05/08 Page 12 of 17 PageID #: 4733

As to the appropriate remedy, contempt sanctions should be fashioned “to compel obedience to a court order and compensate for injuries caused by noncompliance.” Redken Laboratories, Inc. v. Levin, 843 F.2d 226, 229 (6th Cir. 1988) (quoting TWM Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Dura Corp, 722 “F.2d 1261, 1273 (6th Cir. 1983)). “The contemnor is not being punished for past behavior, but rather encouraged to shape its behavior to comply with the order based on the undesirability of suffering the sanction.” United States v. Tennessee, 925 F.Supp. 1292, 1303 (W.D. Tenn. 1995).
Here, the most compelling need is to address injuries to the class and its putative members for the Defendants’ violations of the Court’s Orders. Given the Defendants’ history on this issue, the Court finds a strong inference that their clear failure to comply with the October 22nd directive was to threaten workers with adverse job and other consequences if they joined this action. Putative class members are migrant guestworkers with temporary work status and limited education. These workers speak little English and know little about our legal system. If those workers are fired, they cannot lawfully seek work elsewhere or stay in the country and would have to return to poor economic conditions in Mexico. Plaintiffs’ Exhibit Nos. 1 and 4.
In a FLSA collective action, the statute of limitations continues to run for each Plaintiff until her or she files written consent to join the action. 29 U.S.C. § 256(b); Baden-Winterwood v. Life Time Fitness, 484 F.Supp.2d 822, 826 (S.D. Ohio 2007). Yet, this statute “establishes only a procedural limitations period.” Ott v. Midland Ross, 523 F.2d 1367, 1370 (6th Cir. 1975), that is subject to equitable tolling, waiver and estoppel. Id. accord E.E.O.C v. Kentucky State Police Dep’t., 80 F.3d 1086, 1095 (6th Cir. 1996) (the doctrine of equitable tolling is read into every federal statute). The
13 Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 349-1 Filed 09/05/08 Page 13 of 17 PageID #: 4734

equitable tolling doctrine “permits courts to extend the statute of limitations on a case-bycases basis to prevent inequity.” Baden-Winterwood, 484 F.Supp.2d at 826 (citing Truitt v. Country of Wayne, 148 F.3d 644, 648 (6th Cir. 1998)).
The Sixth Circuit lists five factors to consider on equitable tolling: (1) whether the plaintiffs lack actual notice of their rights and obligations; (2) whether they lacked constructive notice; (3) the diligence with which they pursued their rights; (4) whether the defendant would be prejudiced if the statute were tolled; and (5) the reasonableness of the plaintiffs remaining ignorant of their rights. Kentucky State Police, 80 F.3d at 1094 ; Baden-Winterwood, 484 F.Supp.2d at 826-27 (equitably tolling FLSA statute of limitations). This list is neither exclusive nor mandatory. Dixon v. Gonzalez, 481 F.3d 324, 331 (6th Cir. 2007); see Hasken, 234 F.Supp.2d at 692 (list not “comprehensive”). Equitable tolling has been found where three of the five factors were not satisfied. See Dixon, 481 F.3d at 331.
Here, the Court finds compelling circumstances for equitable tolling of the FLSA statute of limitations. Espina and Martinez, who were first employed in the 2007-2008 season, were not even included in the notice of mailing. (Docket Entry No. 323). As found earlier, given the limited education of members of the Plaintiffs’ class, absent direct contact, there were not realistic means for these migrant guestworkers to become informed of their legal rights in the United States.
As to constructive notice, the Court adopts the analysis in Baden-Winterwood, 484 F.Supp.2d at 828 that it is unreasonable to charge impoverished foreign workers who do not speak or read English with notice of this country’s employment laws. Id. (“If the
14 Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 349-1 Filed 09/05/08 Page 14 of 17 PageID #: 4735

mere existence of a law suffices to impact constructive notice, an inquiry into the notice factors would be meaningless.”)
As to the other factors, the Court finds the absence of prejudice to Defendants. “[T]he purpose of the statute of limitations is to prevent surprises ‘through the revival of claims that have been allowed to slumber until evidence has been lost, memories have faded, and witnesses have disappeared.’” American Pipe & Construction v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538, 561 (1974) (Blackmun, J., concurring) (quoting Order of Railroad Telegraphers v. Railway Express Agency, 321 U.S. 342, 348-49 (1944)). Defendants have had notice since this action was filed the Plaintiffs were pursuing a collective action. Thus, the tolling of the limitations period would not cause any cognizable prejudice to Defendants. See Baden-Winterwoods, 484 F.Supp.2d at 828-829.
The Court concludes that equitable tolling is the effective remedy for the Defendants’ repeated contempt of the Court’s orders that were intended to protect class members. As potential FLSA plaintiffs, these migrant workers likely did not have notice of their rights under the FLSA. Plaintiffs have submitted declarations that a large number, if not a majority of FLSA class members, are unlikely to have received actual notice of their legal rights and opportunity to join this lawsuit, notwithstanding the October 2007 notice to their last-known addresses in Mexico. (Docket Entry Nos. 323324, Plaintiffs Exhibit 1 and Plaintiffs Exhibit 3).
This appropriate remedy reopens the deadline for class members to file their affirmative consents to join in this action. Equitable tolling is the logical remedy to Defendants’ failure to respond effectively and to prevent potentially coercive communications by their agents with potential FLSA plaintiffs. See also Vana v.
15 Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 349-1 Filed 09/05/08 Page 15 of 17 PageID #: 4736

Mallinckrodt Medical, Inc., 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 35488 (6th Cir. Nov. 89, 1995) (the principle “that no man may take advantage of his own wrong” has “frequently been employed to bar reliance on statutes of limitations”) (quoting Glus v. Brooklyn Eastern District Terminal, 359 U.S. 231 (1959)). The Court tolls the limitation period to allow for another six months from the date of entry of the Order accompanying this Memorandum for putative class members to opt-in.
For corrective notice, Plaintiffs also request an opportunity for their counsel to conduct meetings with class members who are current or returning employees. The declarations filed by Plaintiffs evince the Defendants’ prejudice toward this vulnerable population of workers and the necessity for the direct contact between counsel and putative class members to remedy the damage of the Defendants’ repeated noncompliance and derisive statements about this action. (Docket Entry No. 324, Plaintiffs Exhibit1, Plaintiffs Exhibit 3). The circumstances here also demonstrate the ineffectiveness of written notice. The Court concludes that Plaintiffs’ counsel meetings with putative class members and television and radio announcements in Mexico is necessary to ensure adequate notice and to correct the coercive effects of the prohibited statements by Defendants and their agents about this action
The Court accepts the judgment and experience of Plaintiffs’ class counsel on the best notice to this class of migrant workers. Thus, the Court approves of the usage of radio and television notices at the Defendants’ expense in the areas in which the Defendants’ employees are hired or work. See e.g., Marroquin v. Canales, 236 F.R.D.E 257, 262 (D. Md. 2006). The defendants shall cooperate with class counsel in arranging and conducting meetings with each of Defendants’ agricultural crews, on defendants’
16 Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 349-1 Filed 09/05/08 Page 16 of 17 PageID #: 4737

properly during the workday. See Hernandez v. Kovacevich “5" Farms, Civ. F-04-5515

OW DLB (E.D. Calif., Docket Entry No. 324-2. The costs of notice are imposed upon

the Defendants as the parties at fault. See e.g., Veliz v. Cintas Corp, 2004 U.S. Dist.

LEXIS 24871 at *3 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 12, 2004); Belt v. Emcare, 299 F.Supp.2d 664, 669-

70 (E.D. Tex. 2003). Defendants are jointly and severally for the costs of these notices as

well as the time and expenses of class counsel in arranging and conducting the meetings

with current and returning employees. The Court also awards Plaintiffs attorneys’ fees

and costs incurred in connection with this motion for contempt.

Within twenty (20) days from the date of entry of this Order, the Plaintiffs’

counsel shall provide the Defendants with the broadcast notices, an estimate of the costs

of the notices and a statement of Plaintiffs’ attorney fees and costs associated with

arranging and conducting the class member meetings as well as pursuing this motion.

An appropriate Order is filed herewith.

ENTERED this the

day of September, 2008.

WILLIAM J. HAYNES, JR. United States District Judge

17 Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 349-1 Filed 09/05/08 Page 17 of 17 PageID #: 4738

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

COLUMBIA DIVISION

JOSE ROSILES-PEREZ, JESUS SANTIAGO-SALMORAN, and HECTOR ORTIZ-MORA on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
SUPERIOR FORESTRY SERVICE, INC., SCOTT BARSTOW, WILLIAM IOUP, ENRIQUE GONZALEZ, HECTOR SANTILLAN, and MANUEL MORALES-MARTINEZ
Defendants.

) ) ) Case No. 1:06-CV-0006 ) ) Judge William J. Haynes ) Magistrate Judge Juliet Griffin ) ) Second Amended Complaint -) Class Action ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1. This is an action brought by migrant agricultural workers admitted to the United States to work under the H-2B temporary foreign worker visa program. The Plaintiffs were employed in the forestry operations of the Defendants at various times during the period from January 2000 through the present. The named Plaintiffs seek redress on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated for the Defendants’ violations of their rights under the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 1801-1871 (1999) (“AWPA”) and the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201-219 (1998) (“FLSA”). 2. This action is brought on behalf of a class of at least 2000 indigent migrant workers, predominantly from Mexico, who were brought by the Defendants to the United States

Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 385 Filed 12/09/08 Page 1 of 20 PageID #: 5196

on temporary H-2B work visas (including “returning” H-2B visas, known as H-2R). The named Plaintiffs and other class members have planted pine trees, sprayed herbicides, and performed other forestry-related activities for the Defendants. The named Plaintiffs and class members left their homes and families and spent considerable money and effort to come to the United States, to perform arduous jobs that the Defendants certified that American workers were (and are) not willing to do. The named Plaintiffs and class members have made these sacrifices in an effort to better support their families in Mexico.
3. Almost all of the Plaintiffs and other class members are non-English speakers who have little, if any, understanding of their legal rights while working in the United States as forestry workers in the H-2B program - particularly their legal rights to receive a prevailing hourly wage and overtime pay. The Defendants took full advantage of the Plaintiffs’ and other class members’ indigence, inability to speak or understand English, and their lack of understanding of the laws of the United States to grossly underpay the named Plaintiffs and other class members.
4. The named Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and members of a class they seek to be certified pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3), seek restitution of unpaid wages, an award of money damages and/or statutory damages, declaratory relief, and injunctive relief to make them whole for damages they suffered, and continue to suffer, due to the Defendants’ violations of law, and to ensure that they and other H-2B (and returning H-2B) workers will not be subjected by the Defendants to such illegal conduct in the future.
2
Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 385 Filed 12/09/08 Page 2 of 20 PageID #: 5197

JURISDICTION 5. Jurisdiction is conferred upon this court by 28 U.S.C. § 1331, this case arising under the laws of the United States, 28 U.S.C. § 1337, this action arising under Acts of Congress regulating commerce, 29 U.S.C. § 1854(a), this action arising under the AWPA, and 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), this action arising under the FLSA. 6. The Court is empowered to issue a declaratory judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202.
VENUE 7. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 1391 (b); 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c) and 29 U.S.C. § 1854(a).
PARTIES 8. At all times relevant to this action, the Plaintiffs and the other class members were temporary foreign workers within the meaning of 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b), working under H-2B or returning H-2B (H-2R) visas. 9. At all times relevant to this action, the Plaintiffs and the other class members were migrant agricultural workers within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 1802(8)(A), in that they were employed in agricultural employment of a seasonal nature and were required to be absent overnight from their permanent places of residence. 10. Members of the Plaintiff class performed substantial agricultural work for the Defendants within this District.
3
Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 385 Filed 12/09/08 Page 3 of 20 PageID #: 5198

11. At all times relevant to this action, the Plaintiffs and the other class members were engaged in agricultural employment for the Defendants within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 1802(3).
12. At all times relevant to this action the Plaintiffs and the other class members were employees of the Defendants within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 203(e)(1).
13. At all times relevant to this action, the Plaintiffs and the other class members were employed by the Defendants within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. §203(g).
14. At all times relevant to this action, the Plaintiffs and the other class members were employed by the Defendants in the production of goods for sale in interstate commerce.
15. Defendant Superior Forestry Service, Inc. is a for profit corporation, organized under the laws of Arkansas, which conducts business in this District.
16. At all times relevant to this action Defendant Superior Forestry Service, Inc. was an agricultural employer within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 1802(2).
17. At all times relevant to this action, Defendant Superior Forestry Service, Inc. employed the Plaintiffs and the other class members within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 1802(5) and 29 U.S.C. § 203(g).
18. Defendant William Ioup is an individual resident of Arkansas who conducted significant business in this District.
19. At all times relevant to this action, Defendant William Ioup employed the Plaintiffs and the other class members within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 1802(5) and 29 U.S.C. § 203(g).
4
Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 385 Filed 12/09/08 Page 4 of 20 PageID #: 5199

20. Defendant Scott Barstow is an individual resident of Arkansas who conducted significant business in this District.
21. At all times relevant to this action, Defendant Scott Barstow employed the Plaintiffs and the other class members within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 1802(5) and 29 U.S.C. § 203(g).
22. Defendant Enrique Gonzalez is an individual resident of Arkansas who conducted significant business in this District.
23. At all times relevant to this action, Defendant Enrique Gonzalez employed the Plaintiffs and the other class members within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 1802(5) and 29 U.S.C. § 203(g).
24. Defendant Hector Santillan is an individual resident of Arkansas who conducted significant business in this District.
25. At all times relevant to this action, Defendant Hector Santillan employed the Plaintiffs and the other class members within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 1802(5) and 29 U.S.C. § 203(g).
26. Defendant Manuel Morales-Martinez is an individual resident of Tlaxiaco, Oaxaca, Mexico who conducted significant business in this District.
27. At all times relevant to this action, Defendant Manuel Morales-Martinez employed the Plaintiffs and the other class members within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 1802(5) and 29 U.S.C. § 203(g).
5
Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 385 Filed 12/09/08 Page 5 of 20 PageID #: 5200

STATEMENT OF FACTS 28. The Defendants operate a tree-planting service, in which they bid on and negotiate contracts to plant trees and perform other related tasks on land owned by other individuals and companies. To fill the manpower requirements of their contracts, the Defendants sought and continue to seek the importation of foreign nationals to perform forestry work on a seasonal or temporary basis, in accordance with the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b). 29. The Plaintiffs and other class members were admitted to the United States to be employed as members of labor crews organized by the Defendants. Each of the Plaintiffs and the other class members was issued a temporary visa, commonly referred to as an “H-2B” visa, as authorized by 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b), its attendant regulations, 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(6), 20 C.F.R. § 655.3, and administrative letters and/or guidance. (Returning workers who possessed an H-2B visa in any one of the three preceding fiscal years may have been issued visas known as “returning H-2B” or “H-2R” visas.) After being admitted to enter the U.S., the Plaintiffs and other class members were then employed by the Defendants in the United States pursuant to the H-2B visa program. 30. The Plaintiffs and other class members spent considerable sums of money to process their H-2B (and returning H-2B) work visas and travel from their home villages to the United States. These costs were incurred by the Plaintiffs for the primary benefit of their Defendant employers. 31. As a condition of obtaining H-2B and returning H-2B visas for the Plaintiffs and other class members, the Defendants certified to the United States Department of Labor that,
6
Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 385 Filed 12/09/08 Page 6 of 20 PageID #: 5201

inter alia, the wages paid to the Plaintiffs and other class members would equal or exceed the applicable prevailing wage and that the job would not contravene Federal, State, or local law, including applicable requirements of the H-2B program, as set out in Department of Labor regulations and administrative interpretations.
32. The Defendants did not provide adequate and accurate disclosures of information regarding the work and its details to the Plaintiffs.
33. The Defendants did not issue accurate and complete records of their employment to the Plaintiffs and other class members. The records that the Defendants kept and disclosed to Plaintiffs and other class members of their work were inadequate, inaccurate, false and misleading.
34. The Plaintiffs and other class members performed arduous tree planting and associated work for the Defendants. They regularly worked far in excess of 40 hours in a given work week.
35. The Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiffs and other class members the minimum wage for all the work they performed.
36. The Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiffs and other members of the class the proper prevailing wage for all the work they performed.
37. The Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiffs and other class members overtime wages for all compensable time they were employed in excess of forty (40) hours in a given workweek.
38. The Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiffs and other class members the production wages that were promised to them in the Defendants’ applications for the certification
7
Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 385 Filed 12/09/08 Page 7 of 20 PageID #: 5202

of foreign labor, and in written disclosures routinely provided to them, and otherwise violated the parties’ working arrangement promising payment of the higher of the prevailing wage and a piece rate for every actual tree correctly planted by each individual tree planter.
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 39. The claims set forth in Count I are brought by the Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated persons pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 40. The named Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of non-supervisory workers admitted as temporary foreign workers pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b). The class is defined as all non-supervisory workers admitted as temporary foreign workers pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b) who were employed by the Defendants in their forestry operations at any time from January 2000 through the present. Plaintiffs seek certification of this class pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2), to secure injunctive and other equitable relief, and monetary and/or statutory damages incidental to the equitable remedies, and Rule 23(b)(3), to recover further monetary relief. 41. The precise number of individuals in the class is known only to the Defendants; however, payroll and personnel data sets produced by the Defendants since the filing of the original Complaint reflect a class size of at least 2000 individuals. The class is comprised of indigent migrant farmworkers who maintain their residences predominantly in locations in the rural southern and other, scattered regions of Mexico, and in Guatemala. The relatively small size of the individual claims, the geographical dispersion of the class, and the indigency of the class
8
Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 385 Filed 12/09/08 Page 8 of 20 PageID #: 5203

members makes the maintenance of separate actions by each class member economically infeasible. Joinder of all class members is impracticable.
42. There are questions of fact and law common to the class. These common questions include but are not limited to: (a) whether the Defendants failed to pay the named Plaintiffs and class members their statutory minimum, prevailing and overtime wages, and their promised piece rate wages in violation of their employment contracts and AWPA’s wage payment and working arrangement provisions; (b) whether the named Plaintiffs and class members are entitled to the restitution of their unpaid wages, statutory damages and/or declaratory and injunctive relief for these violations; (c) whether the Defendants’ recordkeeping and payroll systems used for the calculation of the named Plaintiffs’ and class members’ piece rate wages are false, deceptive and misleading and violate the AWPA’s information sharing and working arrangement provisions, and should be enjoined; (d) whether the Defendants failed to maintain complete and accurate records of the named Plaintiffs’ and class members’ work hours and hourly and piece rate wages, in violation of the AWPA; (e) whether the Defendants failed to provide to the named Plaintiffs and class members complete and accurate statements of their work hours, hourly and piece rate wages and other information that the AWPA requires to be completely and accurately disclosed;
9
Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 385 Filed 12/09/08 Page 9 of 20 PageID #: 5204

(f) whether the Defendants made false and misleading statements to the named Plaintiffs and class members about their work hours and hourly and piece rate wages, in violation of the AWPA; (g) whether the named Plaintiffs’ and class members’ payments for their visas, transportation and related expenses that they incurred in order to work for the Defendants as temporary foreign workers were primarily for the benefit of the Defendant employers; (h) whether the AWPA prohibits de facto wage deductions that reduce the wages paid to temporary foreign workers below the prevailing wage; (i) whether Defendants can use cash loans offered to the named Plaintiffs and class members after their arrival in the United States to meet their minimum and prevailing wage obligations in the first payroll period, even though the Defendants treated the payments as encumbrances on future wages and deducted them from subsequent pay checks; (j) whether the Defendants’ violations of the AWPA were intentional. 43. The claims of the named Plaintiffs are typical of the class, and these typical, common claims predominate over any questions affecting only individual class members. The named Plaintiffs, who worked as H-2B workers in the defendant’s forestry operations during the relevant time period, have the same interests as other class members and will vigorously prosecute these interests on behalf of the class. 44. Counsel for the Plaintiffs have handled numerous AWPA and FLSA actions in the federal courts. They are prepared to, and have already, advanced litigation costs necessary to vigorously litigate this action.
10
Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 385 Filed 12/09/08 Page 10 of 20 PageID #: 5205

45. Plaintiffs’ claims in Count I meet the requirements for class certification under Rule 23(b)(2), because as described in the original and this First Amended Complaint, the Defendants have acted and refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby making final injunctive relief and corresponding declaratory relief with respect to the class as a whole. Plaintiffs seek equitable relief that includes but is not limited to: (a) a declaration that the Defendants’ piece-rate payment system violates the parties’ working arrangement, a final injunction prohibiting its operation, and an award of statutory and/or other monetary relief incidental to the injunction; (b) a final injunction prohibiting false and misleading statements to the Defendants’ tree planters about the calculation and amount of their piece rate wages, ordering the Defendants to provide complete and truthful written wage statements, and an award of statutory damages incidental to the injunction; (c) a declaration that the Defendants are the primary beneficiaries of their temporary foreign workers’ visas, transportation and related costs and that the Defendants must take into account de facto wage deductions resulting from the workers’ payment of these costs in calculating the required prevailing and minimum wages during the first payroll period; (d) a final injunction requiring the Defendants to reimburse their temporary foreign workers for the costs of their visas, transportation and related expenses to the extent that the de facto deductions resulting from their payment of these costs cut into the required prevailing and minimum wages during the first payroll period; (e) the restitution of unpaid back wages resulting from the de facto wage deductions, calculated using a common formula applicable to each individual member of the class;
11
Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 385 Filed 12/09/08 Page 11 of 20 PageID #: 5206

(f) a declaration that cash loans offered to the named Plaintiffs and class members

that encumber future wages cannot be used to satisfy minimum or prevailing wage

obligations in the first payroll period.

46. Plaintiffs’ claims in Count I meet the requirements for class certification pursuant

to Rule 23(b)(3) because, as is evident from the facts described in the original and this First

Amended Complaint, and from issues raised and briefed by the parties in various pleadings

already on file, the numerous common issues of fact and law predominate over any questions

affecting only individual class members, and a class action is superior to other available methods

of adjudicating this controversy, in that, inter alia:

•

The named Plaintiffs and other class members are indigent, migrant workers,

unaware of their legal rights in the United States, and except through the

appointment and representation of class counsel, lack the means or resources to

seek legal redress;

•

The common issues of law and fact, as well as the relatively small size of the

individual class members’ claims, substantially diminish the interest of members

of the class in individually controlling the prosecution of separate actions;

•

There has been no litigation already commenced against the Defendants by the

members of the class to determine the questions presented;

•

It is desirable that the claims be heard in this forum, since Defendants have

significant contacts with this District and are subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S.

District Court; the laws being invoked are the statutory and common laws of the

12 Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 385 Filed 12/09/08 Page 12 of 20 PageID #: 5207

United States, which are best interpreted by a federal Court of the United States

(and not by a court in Mexico or Guatemala);

•

A class action can be managed without undue difficulty since the Defendants have

regularly committed and continue to commit the violations complained of herein,

and are required to maintain detailed records concerning the wages and working

hours of each member of the class. The claims alleged arise from the Defendants’

common payroll, wage payment and recordkeeping systems applicable to each

member of the class regardless of crew assignment;

•

The claims of the named Plaintiffs and class members are based on common legal

theories, and Plaintiffs will use common evidence to establish liability and

damages;

•

Defendants have asserted multiple, classwide defenses to Plaintiffs’ claims, and

the defenses will be determined as to the class as a whole.

47. Through their claims asserted as a class action pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3),

Plaintiffs seek the restitution of unpaid wages and/or statutory damages that are not incidental to

a final injunction.

48. Pursuant to Rule 23(c)(2)(A-B), Plaintiffs request that notice be sent to the class

of all claims in Count I, whether certified under subsection (b)(2) or (b)(3) of Rule 23.

13 Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 385 Filed 12/09/08 Page 13 of 20 PageID #: 5208

COUNT I MIGRANT AND SEASONAL AGRICULTURAL WORKER PROTECTION ACT
(CLASS ACTION) 49. This count sets forth a claim by the Plaintiffs and the other members of the class for declaratory relief and injunctive relief and the restitution of unpaid wages and/or statutory damages with respect to the Defendants’ violations of the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act (“AWPA”). 50. The Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 48 above. 51. The certifications described in paragraph 31 above constituted a working arrangement between the Defendants and the Plaintiffs and other class members within the meaning of the AWPA, 29 U.S.C. § 1822(c), and its attendant regulations, 29 C.F.R. § 500.72. 52. The Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiffs and the other members of the class the proper prevailing wage for all the work they performed, and failed to pay the Plaintiffs and the other members of the class overtime wages for all compensable time they were employed in excess of forty (40) hours in a given workweek. 53. The violations of the AWPA as set out in paragraph 52 resulted in part from the Defendants’ failure to supplement the piece-rate earnings of the Plaintiffs and the other class members so as to raise their individual pay period wages to a rate equal to or exceeding the prevailing and overtime wage. 54. The violations of the AWPA as set out in paragraph 52 resulted in part from the Defendants’ failure to reimburse the Plaintiffs and the other members of the class for expenses
14
Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 385 Filed 12/09/08 Page 14 of 20 PageID #: 5209

they incurred which were primarily for the benefit of the Defendants, as well as the Defendants’ unlawful withholdings and deductions from the wages of the Plaintiffs and the other class members.
55. The Defendants knowingly provided false and misleading information to the Plaintiffs and other members of the class, regarding the terms and conditions of their employment, in violation of AWPA 29 U.S.C. §1821(f); 29 C.F.R. §500.77. These violations resulted in part from the Defendants’ intentional and knowing operation of a piece-rate computation and payment system that denied the Plaintiffs and other class members compensation for every 1000 trees that they individually and correctly planted, as promised in the parties’ working arrangement.
56. By their actions as described in paragraphs 52-55, the Defendants violated without justification their working arrangement with the Plaintiffs and the other members of the class, thereby violating the AWPA, 29 U.S.C. § 1822(c), and its attendant regulations, 29 C.F.R. § 500.72.
57. By their actions as described in paragraphs , the Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiffs and other members of the class their wages owed promptly when due, thereby violating the AWPA, 29 U.S.C. § 1822(a), and its attendant regulations, 29 C.F.R. § 500.81.
58. The Defendants failed to make, keep, and preserve accurate and complete records regarding the Plaintiffs’ and the other class members’ employment, in violation of the AWPA, 29 U.S.C. § 1821(d)(1), and its attendant regulations, 29 C.F.R. § 500.80(a).
59. The Defendants failed to provide to the Plaintiffs and the other class members complete and accurate itemized written statements for each pay period containing the required
15
Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 385 Filed 12/09/08 Page 15 of 20 PageID #: 5210

information, in violation of the AWPA, 29 U.S.C. § 1821(d)(2), and its attendant regulations, 29 C.F.R. § 500.80(d).
60. The Defendants knowingly made false and misleading statements to the Plaintiffs and other class members about their wages, piece rates, and other terms and conditions of employment, in violation of the AWPA, 29 U.S.C. § 1821(f) and its attendant regulations, 29 C.F.R. § 500.77.
61. The violations of the AWPA and its attendant regulations as set forth in this count were the natural consequences of the conscious and deliberate actions of the Defendants and were intentional within the meaning of the AWPA, 29 U.S.C. § 1854(c)(1).
62. As a result of the Defendants’ violations of the AWPA and its attendant regulations as set forth in this count, the Plaintiffs and the other members of the class have suffered, and continue to suffer, damages.
COUNT II FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT
(COLLECTIVE ACTION) 63. This count sets forth a claim for declaratory relief and damages for the Defendants’ violations of the minimum wage and overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). This count is stated by the Plaintiffs and other current or former H-2B (and returning H-2B) temporary foreign workers employed by the Defendants who are similarly situated. 64. The Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference the allegations set forth above.
16
Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 385 Filed 12/09/08 Page 16 of 20 PageID #: 5211

65. Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), the named Plaintiffs have consented in writing to be party plaintiffs in this FLSA action. The written consents of the original named Plaintiffs were attached to the original Complaint, and numerous additional consents of similarly situated Plaintiffs were subsequently filed.
66. The Defendants violated 29 U.S.C. § 206(a) by failing to pay each of the Plaintiffs and others similarly situated the applicable minimum wage for every compensable hour of labor they performed.
67. The Defendants violated 29 U.S.C. § 207(a) by failing to pay the Plaintiffs and others similarly situated at an hourly rate equal to one and a half times the regular hourly rate at which they were employed for all compensable time they were employed in excess of forty (40) hours in each workweek.
68. The violations of the FLSA set out in paragraphs 66 and 67 resulted in part from the Defendants’ failure to supplement the piece-rate earnings of the Plaintiffs and others similarly situated so as to raise their individual pay period wages to a rate equal to or exceeding the minimum and overtime wage.
69. The violations of the FLSA set out in paragraphs 66 and 67 resulted, in part, from the Defendants’ failure to reimburse the Plaintiffs and others similarly situated for expenses the workers incurred which were primarily for the benefit of the Defendants.
70. The violations of the FLSA set out in paragraphs 66 and 67 resulted, in part, from the Defendants’ unlawful withholdings and deductions from the wages of the Plaintiffs and others similarly situated.
17
Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 385 Filed 12/09/08 Page 17 of 20 PageID #: 5212

71. The Defendants’ failures to pay the Plaintiffs and others similarly situated the federally mandated hourly minimum wage and the federally mandated overtime wage rate, for all time they were employed in excess of forty (40) in a workweek, were willful violations of the FLSA within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 255(a).
72. As a consequence of the Defendants’ violations of the FLSA, the Plaintiffs and others similarly situated are entitled to recover their unpaid minimum and overtime wages, plus an additional equal amount in liquidated damages, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs pray that this Court will enter an order: 1. Certifying this case as a class action in accordance with Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure with respect to the claims set forth in Count I; 2. With respect to the claims set forth in Count II, conditionally certifying this case as a collective action. 3. Declaring that the Defendants intentionally violated the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act and its attendant regulations, as set forth in Count I; 4. Declaring that the Defendants willfully violated the minimum wage and overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, as set forth in Count II; 5. Granting judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs and the other class members and against the Defendants on these Plaintiffs’ and other class members’ claims under the AWPA as set forth in Count I and awarding each of the Plaintiffs and the other class members actual or statutory damages for each violation of the AWPA, whichever is greater;
18
Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 385 Filed 12/09/08 Page 18 of 20 PageID #: 5213

6. Permanently enjoining the Defendants from further violations of the AWPA and its attendant regulations;
7. Granting judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated and against the Defendants on their claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act as set forth in Count II and awarding each of these Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated individuals who opt-in to this action his unpaid minimum and overtime wages and an equal amount in liquidated damages;
8. Awarding the Plaintiffs the costs of this action; 9. Awarding the Plaintiffs a reasonable attorney’s fee pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b); and 10. Granting such further relief as is just and equitable.
Respectfully submitted,

Mary C. Bauer James M. Knoepp Pro Hac Vice Immigrant Justice Project Southern Poverty Law Center 233 Peachtree Street, Ste. 2150 Atlanta, GA 30303 Telephone: 404 521-6700 Fax: 404 221-5857
Andrew Turner Pro Hac Vice

/s Marni Willenson One of the Attorneys for Plaintiffs Pro Hac Vice Farmworker Justice 4064 North Lincoln Ave., #359 Chicago, IL 60618 Telephone: 312-546-4137 Fax: 312-261-9977
19

Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 385 Filed 12/09/08 Page 19 of 20 PageID #: 5214

Immigrant Justice Project Southern Poverty Law Center 400 Washington Ave. Montgomery, AL 36104 Telephone: 334 956-8200 Fax: 334 956-8481
Tim A. Freilich Pro Hac Vice Legal Aid Justice Center 1000 Preston Ave., Ste. A Charlottesville, VA 22903 Telephone: 434 977-0553 Fax: 434 977-0558
Joshua Karsh Pro Hac Vice Hughes, Socol, Piers, Resnick & Dym, Ltd. 70 West Madison Street, Suite 4000 Chicago, Illinois 60602 Telephone: 312 580-0100 Fax: 312 580-1994
Richard L. Tennent Tenn. Bar No. 16931 Bank of America Plaza 414 Union Street, Suite 904 Nashville, TN 37219 Telephone: 615 244-1110 Fax: 615 244-1114
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
20
Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 385 Filed 12/09/08 Page 20 of 20 PageID #: 5215

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
COLUMBIA DNISION

ROSILES-PEREZ, et. al. Plaintiffs
v. SUPERIOR FORESTRY SERVICE INC., et. al.
Defendants

)

)

)

Case No. 1:06-CV-0006

)

)

Judge William J. Haynes

)

Magistrate Judge Juliet Griffin

)

)

)

)

JURY DEMAND

ORDER

This matter coming to be heard on Plaintiffs' second motion to continue contempt

proceedings and for other relief, the Court hereby ORDERS:
(1) Plaintiffs' motion is granted. A hearing will be held on~?:a2oo} at
~p .m., at which time Defendants are ordered to Show Cause why they shouk not be

held in contempt of the September 5, 2008 contempt order and the May 23, 2008 protecti,·e

order. The Court orders individual Defendants Manuel Morales, Enrique Gonzalez, and aJty

Spanish-speaking SFSI manager who communicated with Mr. Morales on November 12, W08 to

be in attendance.

(2) Prior to the hearing, Defendants' shall produce to Plaintiffs records of all c :dls

sent and received from any cellular telephone used by Manuel Morales, Hector Santillan, :!.nrique

Gonzalez, and any other Spanish-speaking SFSI manager, as well as records for all phone

numbers associated with the SFSI offices in Tilly and Russelville, Arkansas, for the month of

November, 2008;

~'7

rU~~...L~-:

,>i2.09, (3) By no later than Decem:aer

Defendants shall pay the fees and costs

Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 387-1 Filed 12/09/2008 Page 1 of:~ Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 430 Filed 02/27/09 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 5664

billed to them on September 25, 2008, in the amount of $46,311.66, that were incurred in pursuing Plaintiffs' successful contempt petition, as set forth in Court's September 5, 200 ~order.
(4) Within ten days of receiving a bill from Plaintiffs, Defendants are ordered 10 pay them their reasonable attorney's fees and costs incurred in pursuing this second reopening of the contempt proceedings.
It is so ORDERED.
~y of~ ENTERED on this
~ W' dILL,IdAMOJ .H A S
United States Di trict Judge
Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 387-1 Filed 12/09/2008 Page 2 of 2 Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 430 Filed 02/27/09 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 5665

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
COLUMBIA DIVISION

ROSLIES-PEREZ, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

SUPERIOR FORESTRY SERVICE, INC., )

et al.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

NO. 1:06-00006 JUDGE HAYNES

M E M O R A N D U M

Plaintiffs, temporary foreign guestworkers with H-2B visas, filed this action as a

collective action against the Defendants: Superior Forestry Services, Inc. and several of its

owners and managers seeking injunctive relief and back wages under the Fair Labor Standards

Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. (“FLSA”) and the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker

Protection Act, 29 U.S.C. §1801 et seq. (“AWPA”). The Court certified this action as a

collective action under the FLSA (Docket Entry No. 205) and under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) on

Plaintiffs’ AWPA claims. (Docket Entry No. 303).

As pertinent here, in prior rulings, the Court twice held the Defendants in contempt for

their repeated violations of the May 23, 2006 Protective Order (Docket Entry No. 91) in this

action. (Docket Entry Nos. 168 and 350). In its September 5, 2008 ruling, the Court first found

that one of Defendants' supervisors had violated the May 23rd protective order by

communicating with putative class members on the merits of this litigation and that Defendants

had failed to take necessary action to prevent such violations. (Docket Entry Nos. 167 and 168).

The Court also found that Defendants had violated a subsequent Court directive that the

Defendants’ agents instruct their crew leaders again about the May 23rd protective order. Given

Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 492-1 Filed 07/28/2009 Page 1 of 22

the history of Defendants' derisive statements about this action and their clear noncompliance, the Court found a “strong inference that their clear failure to comply . . . was to threaten workers with adverse job and other consequences if they joined this action.” (Docket Entry No. 349, at p. 13). As a remedy, the Court ordered an extension of the opt-in period for putative class members to file their consents to join the FLSA claims and tolled the statute of limitations on those claims for that purpose. The Court also ordered Defendants to pay for a broadcast notice of class counsel’s meeting with potential class members in Mexico, as well as fees and costs associated with class counsel's arranging and conducting meetings with putative class members. This meeting was to provide putative class members a balanced view of this action and to inform potential class members of their rights under the FLSA and AWPA. The Court also ordered Defendants to pay Plaintiffs’ fees and costs incurred in litigating the contempt petition.
Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ third motion for contempt (Docket Entry No. 387) for Defendants’ additional violations of the Court’s May 23rd protective order and their interference with the remedies imposed in the Court’s prior contempt orders. (Docket Entry Nos. 349 and 350). Plaintiffs’ third contempt motion arises out of an incident at the Mexico meeting involving Manuel Morales, Defendants’ recruiter and supervisor in Mexico. Morales is also named Defendant in this action. In sum, Plaintiffs contend that on November 12, 2008, while Plaintiffs’ counsel were in Tlaxiaco, Mexico to meet with class members and potential class members, as ordered by the Court, Morales came to the meeting location and monitored Plaintiffs’ counsel’s meetings over several hours. Plaintiffs submitted evidence that Morales intentionally went to the designated meeting location after hearing one of the radio announcements of the meeting’s time and place. After Plaintiffs’ counsel approached Morales to tell him that his presence was
2
Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 492-1 Filed 07/28/2009 Page 2 of 22

unwelcomed and that he could face a contempt petition for violation of the Court’s Order, Morales refused to leave. According to Plaintiffs, Morales fielded a telephone call from a potential class member and talked to him about this action. Plaintiffs contend that Morales’s behavior, and Morales’s supervisor’s failure to take any steps to prevent his conduct at that meeting, violate the May 23rd protective order and undermined the Court’s remedy to cure Defendants’ contempt. Plaintiffs further contend that Defendants’ prior collective conduct warrants a partial default judgment on the merits.
In response, Defendants assert that Plaintiffs’ third motion is based upon speculation and unreasonable inferences from ambiguous facts. Defendants insist that they were unaware of the specific time and place of the meeting of Plaintiffs’ counsel with putative class members.
For the reasons set forth below, the Court again finds Morales and Hector Santillan, his supervisor and the Defendants’ manager, engaged in contumacious conduct in violation of the May 23rd protective order by Morales’s intimidating presence at Plaintiffs’ counsel’s meeting that Santillan failed to prevent. In the Court’s view, the appropriate sanction is to preclude the Defendants from offering proof on the amount of Plaintiffs’ damages because the Defendants’ continuing contumacious conduct has been designed to lower their financial exposure, if the Defendants were held liable on the merits of Plaintiffs’ claims.
A. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Defendants’ Prior Contumacious Acts Paragraph 1 of the May 23rd Order barred communications by Defendants, their employees, agents and intermediaries with the Plaintiffs and putative class members about this lawsuit. (Docket Entry No. 91 at ¶ 1). This Order was based upon proof that an SFSI crew
3
Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 492-1 Filed 07/28/2009 Page 3 of 22

leader had engaged in acts of coercion and retaliation against opt-in-Plaintiffs. Given the Plaintiffs’ and putative class members’ limited education, economic resources and language limitations, the Order also barred acts of future intimidation or coercion. The Order provided that: “Defendants are hereby and immediately prohibited from directing, permitting, or undertaking, either directly or through any employee, agent, or other intermediary, activities that intimidate, threaten, restrain, coerce, or in any manner discriminate against plaintiffs, putative class members, witnesses, potential witnesses, or their family members . . . .” Id. at ¶ 2. The Defendants first violated the order by failing to instruct employees immediately on its provisions. (Docket Entry No. 91, 114 and Docket Entry No. 168).
On September 5, 2008, the Court held Defendants in contempt again after another crew leader discussed this action with potential class members in violation of the May 23rd protective order. The Court also found that Defendants had violated the Court's clear October 22, 2007 directive issued from the bench, requiring the Defendants to instruct their supervisors immediately that they were not to speak to class members about this action. That directive placed Defendants on notice that future violations of the protective order would involve a harsher sanction. (Docket Entry No. 318, Exhibit A, October 22, 2007 Transcript at 58). In its September 5th ruling, the Court found that the Defendants’ prior efforts to inform their supervisors of the protective order “were at best half-hearted.” (Docket Entry No. 349, Memorandum at p. 12). As a defense, Defendants relied upon a memorandum that was in English. The Court found that memorandum in English was inadequate “[i]n a workforce of employees and agents with limited literacy in English,” and that “circulation of a memorandum in English is designed to ensure noncompliance.” Id. The Court also found a “strong inference”
4
Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 492-1 Filed 07/28/2009 Page 4 of 22

that the Defendants’ clear failure to comply with the October 22, 2007 directive would allow workers “to be threatened with adverse job and other consequences if they joined this action.” Id. at p. 13.
To remedy this repeated contempt, the Court tolled the FLSA statute of limitations, kept the opt-in period open, awarded attorney's fees and costs, and ordered corrective notice. Id. at pp. 13-17. For corrective notice, the Court found that direct contact between Plaintiffs’ counsel and putative class members was necessary “to remedy the damage of Defendants’ repeated noncompliance and derisive statements about this action.” Id. at p. 16. The Court ordered class counsel to arrange and conduct the meetings, and ordered Defendants to cooperate. Id. at pp. 16-17. Fees and costs were awarded for the litigation of the contempt motion and for arranging and conducting the class member meetings.
To plan for the corrective notice, Plaintiffs took discovery to determine where class members and potential class members would be in Mexico or the United States in the fall of 2008. After determining that the majority of potential class members were likely to be in Tlaxiaco, Mexico, the order was modified by agreement to provide that Plaintiffs’ counsel would travel to Mexico to conduct the meetings with class members. (Docket Entry Nos. 371-372).
The November 12, 2008 Incident On November 8, 2008, Tim Freilich, one of Plaintiffs' lawyers and Viridiana Guido, a paralegal traveled to Tlaxiaco, Mexico to conduct the meetings ordered by the Court. Approximately 500 class members and potential FLSA opt-in Plaintiffs maintain their permanent residences in and around Tlaxiaco. Before the meetings, Plaintiff’s counsel caused publication of the broadcast notice ordered by the Court. The announcements were run primarily on the
5
Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 492-1 Filed 07/28/2009 Page 5 of 22

radio and publicized the date, time and location of the meeting with Plaintiffs’ counsel. (Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 5, at p. 24-25). Plaintiffs provided Defendants with the text of the radio announcement in October, 2008. Freilich planned to conduct a large meeting on November 12, 2008 at 10:00 a.m. in the main plaza in Tlaxiaco, Mexico.
Manuel Morales heard the meeting announcement on the radio in Mexico a day or two before the November 12th meeting. Morales, who has been named a defendant since December 9, 2008, has worked for SFSI for more than fifteen years and has been a crew foreman or supervisor since 1997. (Plaintiffs' Exhibit 7 at p. 24). Since 2002 or 2003, Morales has worked as SFSI's recruiter in Mexico, running an office out of his home. (Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 7, Morales Deposition, at p. 40). Morales was working as SFSI's recruiter on November 12, 2008. Among his job duties, Morales registers prospective SFSI employees, provides them with a copy of the general work contract, shows them a video, provides them with a pamphlet about working for SFSI, completes their visa applications, and notifies them of when they need to travel to Monterrey, Mexico for their visa appointment. Plaintiffs' Exhibit 10A.
Morales has a computer for his SFSI data files and maintains the lists of the workers who are hired and sends them to Hector Santillan, his supervisor and SFSI’s personnel director. Morales testified: “These are my lists. This is the way that I list my people. It’s a way that I know how many people I have.” (Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 7, Morales Deposition at pp. 67-68). Since at least 2003, essentially all SFSI workers have been recruited and/or processed only by Morales. Id. at pp. 75-76. Each year, Morales completed visa applications for approximately six hundred or seven hundred prospective SFSI employees. Approximately 90% of those persons come to Morales’s home in Tlaxiaco to process their paperwork. For employment with SFSI,
6
Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 492-1 Filed 07/28/2009 Page 6 of 22

recruits must surrender their passports to Morales and deposit funds for their visas into his personal bank account that has never been audited by SFSI management. For his work in Mexico, SFSI pays Morales a salary, his electric bill, telephone, and internet access. SFSI paid these expenses at the time of November 12, 2008 meeting of Plaintiffs’ counsel and class members in Tlaxiaco.
According to Morales, after he heard the announcement of the actual meeting and its date, he contacted Santillan, his supervisor, and SFSI’s personnel director to inform him of the November 12th meeting date and the site, the Tlaxiaco plaza. Morales did so by either a telephone call or by voice mail message. See Plaintiffs' Exhibit 15 (stipulations regarding telephone records)). Santillan admitted that he did nothing to prevent Morales from attending the meeting nor did Santillan remind him of the Court’s Protective Order.
A few minutes after 10:00 a.m. on November 12, 2008, Jesus Santiago-Salmoran, a named Plaintiff, noticed that Morales was walking around the plaza, the site of the Plaintiffs’ meeting. Morales seated himself at the highest point of the plaza overlooking Plaintiffs’ counsel's meeting and was directly facing Plaintiffs' counsel who was meeting under the plaza’s clock tower. Santiago-Salmoran notified Freilich and Guido of Morales’s presence. Freilich then shot a photograph of Morales seated, with arms crossed, under an arcade on the perimeter of the plaza, looking directly down at the meeting location. Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 1. The photograph was taken approximately ten minutes before 11:00 a.m.
Ten or fifteen minutes after taking this photograph, Freilich approached the location where Morales had been seated and found him talking on his cell telephone behind one of the columns of the arcade. Morales had his back to Freilich and did not see him approach.
7
Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 492-1 Filed 07/28/2009 Page 7 of 22

According to Freilich, when he was within a few feet, he overheard Morales state: “Don't worry, they haven't even seen me.” (March 20, 2009 Transcript, at pp 18-19). Defendants’ telephone records reflect that about the time Freilich approached, Morales was speaking on his cellular telephone with Santillan, his supervisor, SFSI’s personnel director who was in Arkansas. Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 15 at p. 2 and March 20, 2009 Transcript at pp. 44-45. Morales then turned, and Freilich approached him and said, “I saw you, Manuel.” At that point, Morales became flustered and immediately hung up the phone. Id. at p. 19.
Freilich identified himself to Morales as counsel for Plaintiffs, and gave Morales his business card. Freilich told Morales that his presence in the plaza during his meetings with workers was improper and asked Morales to leave the plaza. Id. at pp. 19-20. Morales refused, stating, “This is my town, this is my plaza, and no one can tell me I'm not allowed to be here.” Id. at pp. 20, 22.
While Freilich was standing with Morales under the arcade, Morales received a telephone call. Id. at pp. 22-23. During this call, Freilich overheard Morales respond that the subject of the conversation had nothing to do with him and that he did not care if the person attended the meeting or not. Morales did not tell the caller that he was prohibited from speaking to him about the lawsuit or mention any court order. Freilich contends and the Court agrees from the nature of Morales’s statement and conduct, that under the circumstances, the caller was likely a putative class member. The conversation lasted several minutes. Id. at p. 22. At that point, GuzmanLopez approached Freilich, and the two of them returned to the center of the plaza to meet. Of the 500 potential class members, only four or five met with Plaintiffs’ counsel that day.
Although Morales insists that he was only in the vicinity of the plaza for 30-35 minutes
8
Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 492-1 Filed 07/28/2009 Page 8 of 22

on November 12th, the Court finds that Morales actually remained for several hours, well into the afternoon. Santiago-Salmoran testified that he saw Morales in the plaza during the entire time of Plaintiffs’ counsel’s meeting, periodically getting up from his seated position under the arcade to walk around and then returned to his seat. See also Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 7, Morales Deposition at pp. 20-21. Another photograph that Freilich took at approximately 1:00 p.m. appears to show Morales standing under the same arcade. During this time period, Morales’s telephone records reflect that his conversation with Santillan lasted for more than 40 minutes. Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 15 (telephone record stipulations showing call beginning at 12:09 p.m. on November 12, 2008)). Finally, three of Plaintiffs' witnesses testified that toward the end of their meeting, long after Morales purportedly left, Morales approached them by the clock tower and told Freilich, Guido and Santiago-Salmoran that he would not attend the meeting scheduled in the plaza for the next day.
Although Santiago-Salmoran and Guzman-Lopez were not intimidated by Morales, Freilich expressed concerns for his personal safety. The Court finds that in light of the Court’s prior Orders and the history of this action, Morales lacked any legitimate reason to be present in the area of the Plaintiffs’ counsel’s meeting. The Plaintiffs’ counsel meeting with putative class members was ordered by the Court. Absent any legitimate justification for Morales’s presence, the Court deems Morales’s behavior to be a clear effort to intimidate and threaten potential class members and witnesses who may have been interested in speaking to Plaintiffs’ counsel in Tlaxiaco on November 12th. Santiago-Salmoran and Guzman-Lopez, who worked for SFSI for many years and know class members, opined that with Morales’s presence, other workers would be intimidated and discouraged from meeting with Plaintiffs’ counsel. Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 5 at pp.
9
Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 492-1 Filed 07/28/2009 Page 9 of 22

20-22). Guido and Freilich, who have extensive experiences meeting with farmworker clients and traveling in Latin America, were concerned about the integrity of their meeting and for their personal safety. (March 20, 2009 Transcript at pp. 19, 36, 50).
The Court also finds that Morales obstructed this meeting that the Court set to correct the prior “coercive effects” of Defendants’ previous agents’ contumacious behavior. With Santillan’s consent, Morales remained at the meeting area despite his disruptive presence. Morales’s continued presence, in effect, conveyed a message that SFSI management was monitoring any worker who met with Plaintiffs’ counsel. Santillan, Defendants’ personnel director, had actual notice of the Court ordered meetings, and Morales’s presence of the actual meeting time and place, but Santillan did not take any measures to prevent Morales' unacceptable presence at that meeting. Santillan’s testimony and his telephone records reflect that Morales was never informed to stay away from Plaintiffs' counsel's meetings until 3:41 p.m. on November 12, 2008, hours after Morales’s initial interference. (March 20, 2009 Transcript at pp. 128-29 ("Q. Did you tell Mr. Morales [to go away from their [Tlaxiaco]? A. Yes. Q. When? A. In the last conversation I had with him on the 12th). Santillan’s telephone record and the parties’ stipulations establish Santillan's last conversation with Morales on November 12, 2008 occurred at 3:41 p.m. Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 15. Santillan did not inform Morales’s or other supervisors in Mexico to stay away from these class member meetings.1 Such steps were taken
1("Q. On November 11th, the day before the meeting, when Mr. Morales communicated with you [Hector Santillan] that he had heard a radio spot and that there was going to be a meeting with Legal Aid, did you contact him to tell him to stay away from that meeting? A. No. Q. And did you contact him to remind him of the protective order. A. No.” (March 20, 2009 Transcript at pp. 131-32; Plaintiffs.' Exhibit No. 15 (telephone record stipulations showing calls on November 11, 2008 between Mr. Morales and Mr. Santillan)).
10
Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 492-1 Filed 07/28/2009 Page 10 of 22

only after Plaintiffs' lawyers in the United States contacted defense counsel to report Morales's behavior. (Docket Entry No. 388-4, Willenson Declaration). Then with few hours on November 13 and 14, Santillan reached at least 15 of his crew leaders in Mexico. Clearly, the Defendants had the capacity to instruct Morales and others after the Court’s Order setting the meeting and before the meeting, not to interfere with any meeting of Plaintiffs’ counsel and putative class members.
Enrique Gonzalez, SFSI’s personnel manager and Santillan’s supervisor, testified that he also was aware of the September 5, 2008 order requiring the Plaintiffs’ lawyers to meet with class members in Mexico. (March 20, 2009 Transcript at p. 82). Yet, despite SPSI’s history of its crew supervisors and others under his supervision violating this Court’s orders not to contact class members, Gonzalez also did not take any remedial steps to prevent a recurrence. Morales testified that none of SFSI’s personnel informed him of the Court's contempt order nor that the Plaintiffs' lawyers were to meet with class members in Mexico.
3. Court’s Orders on Attorney Fees In the September 5, 2008 Order, the Court ordered the Defendants to pay three separate sets of fees and costs to Plaintiffs’ counsel incurred in litigating their contempt motions. (Docket Entry No. 349). On September 25, 2008, Plaintiffs' counsel provided Defendants with a letter detailing the fees and costs incurred (Plaintiffs' Exhibit 11 (letter of Mami Willenson 9/25/08)). After applying a 15% discount to the fees, so as to avoid a fee dispute, Plaintiffs’ counsel submitted a bill of $46,311.66. Id. Defendants did not respond to this letter nor pay Plaintiffs’ fees and costs. The Defendants did not seek a stay of that Order nor did the Court issue any stay. On December 9, 2008, in their Show Cause motion on Morales’s conduct, Plaintiff again
11
Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 492-1 Filed 07/28/2009 Page 11 of 22

sought an order commanding Defendants to pay the $46,3 11.66 by a date certain. Even after Plaintiffs raised the issue in their show cause motion, Defendants’ nonpayment continued. On February 27, 2009, the Court entered the Show Cause order, repeating its order that Defendants pay the Plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees and costs incurred litigating the second contempt motion. The Court ordered payment of the $46,311.66 by March 9, 2009. (Docket Entry No. 430). Defendants did not comply with the Order.
On March 5, 2009, Defendants moved to stay the order, and requested permission to deposit the funds with the Court, so that the Court might adjudicate Defendants’ objections to the fees. (Docket Entry Nos. 436 and 437). The motion to stay was not granted. Despite their possession of Plaintiffs’ billing records for these costs and fees for more than five months, Defendants first requested that the Court consider their objections to the hourly rates and time incurred. Id. Given the passage of time, the Court overruled these objections and found any objections to Plaintiffs’ reduced fee to be waived.
In a letter to Plaintiffs’ counsel dated March 6, 2009, Defendants finally enclosed a check for attorney fees and costs, but told the Plaintiffs’ counsel that “[s]ince Judge Haynes has not yet responded to this motion, we respectfully request that you place these funds in your trust account and not disburse same until a ruling is issued.”) (Defendants' Exhibit 5, Bissinger letter 3/6/09)). In a separate Order, the Court denied the Defendants’ motion objecting to fees that the Court earlier found to be reasonable. (Docket Entry No. 464).
The Court also ordered the Defendants to pay these costs associated with radio and television publicity for the meetings of Plaintiffs’ counsel and putative class members, as well as to pay for "the time and expenses of class counsel in arranging and conducting these meetings."
12
Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 492-1 Filed 07/28/2009 Page 12 of 22

(Docket Entry No. 349 at 17.) On February 20, 2009, Plaintiffs’ counsel provided Defendants with a letter setting forth the fees and costs that had been incurred in “arranging and conducting these meetings”’ in Mexico. (Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 13 (letter of Mami Willenson 2/20/09)). The Defendants neither paid these fees and costs nor filed any timely objections to them. The Defendants have been required to pay these fees and costs since September 5,2008. Despite receiving a detailed billing on February 20, 2009, the Defendants did not pay these fees and costs before the March 20, 2009 hearing. On April 7, 2009, Defendants filed a motion to deposit the funds with the Court and again requested the Court decide the reasonableness of Plaintiffs’ hourly rates and the time incurred. (Docket Entry Nos. 453 & 454). The Court denied that motion. (Docket Entry No. 481).
B. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW "The inherent powers of federal courts are those which 'are necessary to the exercise of all others.' The most prominent of these is the contempt sanction, 'which a judge must have and exercise in protecting the due and orderly administration of justice and in maintaining the authority and dignity of the court . . . ." Roadway Express, Inc. v. Piper, 447 U.S. 752, 764 (1980) (internal citations omitted); Shillitani v. United States, 384 U.S. 364,370 (1966) (“There can be no question that courts have inherent power to enforce compliance with their lawful orders through civil contempt.”). “While the contempt power should not be used lightly, it is ‘a necessary and integral part of the independence of the judiciary, and is absolutely essential to the performance of the duties imposed.’” Southern Elec. Health Fund v. Bedrock Serv., No. 3:020309, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43999, at *21 (M.D. Tenn. Nov. 18,2005) (quoting Gomvers v. Bucks Stove &Range Co., 221 U.S. 418 (1911)).
13
Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 492-1 Filed 07/28/2009 Page 13 of 22

“[A]ll orders and judgments of courts must be complied with promptly,” Maness v. Meyers, 419 U.S. 449,458 (1975), and failure to comply can result in contempt findings. Southern Elec., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43999, at *21 (“Contempt proceedings are used ‘to enforce the message that court orders and judgments are to be complied with in a prompt manner.’”) (quoting Gomvers, 221 U.S. at 450)).
“In a civil contempt proceeding, the petitioner must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the respondent violated the court's prior order.” Glover v. Johnson, 934 F.2d 703,704-707 (6th Cir. 1991) (citing NLRB v. Cincinnati Bronze. Inc., 829 F.2d 585,590 (6th Cir. 1987)). See also Electrical Workers Pension Trust Fund of Local Union # 58, IBEW v. Gary’s Electric Sew. Co., 340 F.3d 373,379 (6th Cir. 2003) (“IBEW”). Any ambiguities in the order must be resolved in favor of the alleged contemnor. Grace v. Center for Auto Safety, 72 F.3d 1236, 1241 (6th Cir. 1996). The order must be “read in light of the issues and the purpose for which the suit was brought,” Cohn v. Kramer, 136 F.2d 293,295-96 (6th Cir. 1943) (quoting Terminal R.R. Ass'n v. United States, 266 U.S. 17,29 (1924)), and evidence of noncompliance “must constitute a plain violation of the decree so read.” Id.
Good faith is not a defense to civil contempt. Peppers v. Barry, 873 F.2d 967, 969 (6th Cir. 1989). Upon proof of a violation, the respondent may defend with a showing of impossibility. IBEW, 340 F.3d at 379; Glover, 93 4 F.2d at 708 n.2. The test is whether "'the [respondents] took all reasonable steps within their power to comply with the court's order." Id. at 708 (quoting Peppers, 873 F.2d at 969). “Substantial compliance” is not a defense to a contempt motion. Maness, 419 U.S. at 458. Under Peppers, “the defendants [must take] all reasonable steps within their power to comply with the court’s order,” 873 F.2d at 969. Here,
14
Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 492-1 Filed 07/28/2009 Page 14 of 22

the Defendants’ efforts to inform their supervisors of the protective order, and the Court’s additional warnings, were again non-existent or at best half-hearted. The record reflects that Defendants earlier circulated a memorandum in a language that most of its employees and agents cannot read.
By express terms, the May 23, 2006 Order “extended not only to the Defendants, but also to SFSI's employees and agents.” (Docket Entry No. 167 at 7; Docket Entry No. 91 at 1). The language of Paragraph 1 of the May 23, 2006 Order is clear and unequivocal in this regard. (Docket Entry No. 91 at 1.) Further, as a matter of law,
a command to the corporation is in effect a command to those who are officially responsible for the conduct of its affairs. If they, apprised of the writ directed to the corporation, prevent compliance or fail to take appropriate action within their power for the performance of the corporate duty, they, no less than the corporation itself, are guilty of disobedience, and may be punished for contempt.
IBEW , 340 F.3d at 380 (quoting Wilson v. United States, 221 U.S. 361 (1911)). The November 12th Violations of the Protective Order
After previously discussing the November 12th meeting with Santillan, his supervisor prior to the actual meeting, Morales clearly was present at the time and place of the meeting with class counsel in Tlaxiaco, Oaxaca with the consent of his supervisor. Morales placed himself in a position where he could monitor who met with class counsel and what occurred. Class members and counsel at the meeting saw Morales there. A photograph that was taken approximately halfway through the designated meeting time, shows Morales with arms crossed, looking down at the meeting space from a location adjacent to the plaza's main entrance. The Court finds that Morales’s lingering and other behavior thereafter, was highly likely to deter any class members, potential class members, or witnesses with an interest in continued employment
15
Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 492-1 Filed 07/28/2009 Page 15 of 22

at Superior Forestry from meeting with Plaintiffs' counsel. The Court adopts the opinion of Plaintiffs Santiago-Salmoran and Guzman-Lopez on the effects of Morales’s presence overlooking these meetings. Morales is a named Defendant and is Superior Forestry’s key recruiter and manager in Mexico. Given Morales’s power to determine which workers are placed on Defendants' hiring list, the economic vulnerability of the members of the Plaintiffs’ class, the seasonal nature of their employment and limitations of their work visas, the Court finds that Morales’s presence in the plaza was intimidating to putative class members.
The Court concludes that Morales's presence at the meeting site lacked a legitimate business reason2 and given the Defendants’ managers’ supervisors’ and agents prior contumacious acts, the Court finds that Morales’s presence was to interfere with the Court’s Order. Santillan’s admission that Morales informed him of the publicized meetings with "Legal Aid" and Santillan's cell telephone record clearly establish Santillan’s knowledge of Morales’s presence at the meeting site on November 12th and Santillan’s failure to order Morales to leave until hours later. Moreover, Gonzalez, Superior Forestry's highest-ranking personnel manager, admitted that his knowledge of the Court’s Order that the Court ordered Plaintiffs' counsel to meet with class members in Mexico. Yet, Gonzalez did not inform his subordinates of the Order and did not take any steps to prevent Morales’s interference with the Court-ordered meetings.
The Court concludes that the Defendants violated the clear and unequivocal command of ¶ 2 of the May 23, 2006 Order: “Defendants are hereby and immediately prohibited from directing, permitting, or undertaking, either directly or through any employee, agent or
2In his testimony, Morales described his presence at the plaza as the need to conduct his bank business that would take ten or fifteen minutes.
16
Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 492-1 Filed 07/28/2009 Page 16 of 22

intermediary, activities that intimidate, threaten, restrain, coerce, or in any manner discriminate against plaintiffs, putative class members, witnesses, potential witnesses, or their family members[.]” (Docket Entry. No. 91 ¶ 2). This command prohibits any explicit or implicit threat directed at Plaintiffs, putative class members, or witnesses, or potential witnesses-all of whom may have been present, or may have intended to be present, at the meetings ordered by the Court.
Applying these standards, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have established by clear and convincing evidence that Morales and Santillan, acting as Defendants’ supervisors and agents, violated the May 23, 2006 Protective Order and undermined the September 5, 2008 Contempt Order. The Court further finds that Defendants’ manager, particularly Gonzalez, failed to take appropriate remedial action to prevent these violations and to ensure compliance with the Orders of this Court.
In a FLSA collective action, the statute of limitations continues to run for each Plaintiff until her or she files written consent to join the action. 29 U.S.C. § 256(b); Baden-Winterwood v. Life Time Fitness, 484 F.Supp.2d 822, 826 (S.D. Ohio 2007). Yet, this statute “establishes only a procedural limitations period.” Ott v. Midland Ross, 523 F.2d 1367, 1370 (6th Cir. 1975), that is subject to equitable tolling, waiver and estoppel. Id. accord E.E.O.C v. Kentucky State Police Dep’t., 80 F.3d 1086, 1095 (6th Cir. 1996) (the doctrine of equitable tolling is read into every federal statute). The equitable tolling doctrine “permits courts to extend the statute of limitations on a case-by-cases basis to prevent inequity.” Baden-Winterwood, 484 F.Supp.2d at 826 (citing Truitt v. Country of Wayne, 148 F.3d 644, 648 (6th Cir. 1998)).
The Sixth Circuit lists five factors to consider on equitable tolling: (1) whether the
17
Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 492-1 Filed 07/28/2009 Page 17 of 22

plaintiffs lack actual notice of their rights and obligations; (2) whether they lacked constructive notice; (3) the diligence with which they pursued their rights; (4) whether the defendant would be prejudiced if the statute were tolled; and (5) the reasonableness of the plaintiffs remaining ignorant of their rights. Kentucky State Police, 80 F.3d at 1094 ; Baden-Winterwood, 484 F.Supp.2d at 826-27 (equitably tolling FLSA statute of limitations). This list is neither exclusive nor mandatory. Dixon v. Gonzalez, 481 F.3d 324, 331 (6th Cir. 2007); see Hasken, 234 F.Supp.2d at 692 (list not “comprehensive”). Equitable tolling has been found where three of the five factors were not satisfied. See Dixon, 481 F.3d at 331. The Court considers all five factors and again finds a sufficient showing to toll the limitations period for putative class members claims under the FLSA and the AWPA.
Nonpayment of Fees and Costs Awarded Defendants also violated the September 5, 2008 Order by their continued failure to pay promptly the attorney's fees and costs approved and ordered the Court. (Docket Entry No. 349 at p. 17; Docket Entry No. 350 at p. 1). Defendants did not respond to Class counsel's September 25, 2008, correspondence setting forth Plaintiffs' fees and costs incurred in the contempt proceedings. This letter set forth each attorney's hourly rate at the local market rates and was accompanied by detailed time records. Defendants had ample opportunity to raise objections to the fees and costs incurred but failed to do so. For nearly six months, Defendants ignored the Court’s orders to pay the fees and costs, and then paid them only after the Court's Show Cause order mandated their payment again. Defendants were also ordered to pay the costs of the broadcast notice and the time and expenses of class counsel in arranging and conducting the meetings in Mexico. (Docket Entry No. 349 at 17; Docket Entry No. 350-1). On February 20,
18
Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 492-1 Filed 07/28/2009 Page 18 of 22

2009, class counsel sent correspondence and billing records reflecting the fees and costs incurred. Yet, Defendants delayed payment of the fees and costs incurred implementing the Court’s remedial order until after March 2009 show cause hearing.
Sanctions for Contempt Sanctions for civil contempt are imposed “to compel obedience to a court order and compensate for injuries caused by noncompliance.” Redken Laboratories. Inc. v. Levin, 843 F.2d 226, 229 (6th Cir. 1988) (quoting TWM Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Dura Corn., 722 F.2d 1261, 1273 (6th Cir. 1983)). “The contemnor is not simply being punished for past behavior, but rather encouraged to shape its behavior to comply with the order based on the undesirability of suffering the sanction.” United States v. Tennessee, 925 F. Supp. 1292,1303 (W.D. Tenn. 1995). Selection of an appropriate sanction requires a “common sense consideration of competing concerns: avoidance of punitive sanctions and selection of a sanction to ‘coerce the contemnor to comply.’” MGE UPS Sys. v. Titan Specialized Servs., Inc., No. 3:04-0231, 2006 (M.D. Tenn. Dec. 6, 2006) (quoting United States v. Tennessee, 925 F. Supp. at 1303); Oantam Comms. Com. v. Star Broadcasting, Inc., 473 F.Supp.2d 1249 (S.D. Fla. 2007) (court must “balance the interest in sufficiently punishing and deterring the abusive conduct with the interest of allowing a full trial on the merits.”). In appropriate circumstances, courts can employ the “ultimate” sanctions of dismissal and default. NHL v. Metropolitan Hockey Club, Inc., 427 U.S. 639 (1976) (default under Rule 37); Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626 (1962) (dismissal). The harshest sanctions should be employed sparingly, after lesser sanctions have been considered and rejected, but the most severe sanction must be available as a penalty and deterrent. NHL, 427 U.S. at 643. See also
19
Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 492-1 Filed 07/28/2009 Page 19 of 22

Regional Refuse, 842 F.2d at 155 (ultimate sanction may be appropriate, even if lesser sanctions “might be workable”). Ultimately, the type and severity of sanctions imposed is within the sound discretion of the Court. NHL, 427 U.S. at 642; Regional Refuse, 842 F.2d at 154; Pepoers, 873 F.2d at 968. In selecting an appropriate sanction, the Court considers the specific violation involved and the Defendants’ prior conduct in this litigation. Regional Refuse, 842 F.2d at 150.
The Court’s two prior orders imposed sanctions for noncompliance with the May 23, 2006 Order, including equitable tolling of the FLSA statute of limitations, an additional period for the acceptance of FLSA consent forms, corrective notice, and an award of substantial attorney's fees and costs. Despite the Court's specific findings on the inadequacy of previous efforts to ensure compliance with the May 23, 2006 Order, (Docket Entry No. 349, at p. 12), Defendants' response to the September 2008 Order was continued inaction without steps to avert further harm. The Defendants did not communicate to SFSI’s managers that SFSI had been held in contempt and issue more effective instructions to ensure compliance with the protective order. The Defendants did not instruct their managers and supervisors in Mexico to stay away from the Court-ordered meetings with class members nor has SFSI disciplined any of its agents for their derisive statements about this action nor for violating the Court’s Orders to protect class members from harm and to ensure the integrity of this class and collective action.
The Sixth Circuit has clearly enunciated the factors that a district court should consider in determining whether to impose the sanction of default or dismissal: whether to the failure to comply was based on inability (on the one had) or willfulness, bad faith, or fault (on the other); whether the adversary parity has been prejudiced; whether the sanctioned party was on notice
20
Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 492-1 Filed 07/28/2009 Page 20 of 22

that noncompliance could lead to an ultimate sanction; and whether lesser sanctions are appropriate. See Bank One v. Lowell, 916 F.2d 1067, 1079 (6th Cir. 1990) (applying Regional Refuse factors to default); Regional Refuse, 842 F.2d at 154-155.
Considering the entire record, this Court concludes that the appropriate sanction for the Defendants’ additional violations of the May 23rd Order and interference with the Court’s remedy, is to bar the Defendants from submitting any proof to contest the Plaintiffs’ proof of damages. In the Court’s view, the Defendants’ conduct was intended to limit the number of FSLA and AWPA plaintiffs and thereby to limit their financial exposure in this litigation. Absent default judgment on the merits of Plaintiffs’ claims, the Court cannot discern any other effective sanction to protect the integrity of the class and collective action and the judicial process.
The Court again orders Defendants to circulate to all current nonsupervisory H-2B employees the Court-approved FLSA notice and opt-in form, in Spanish and English, using the payroll distribution system described by Haley Tester at the earlier hearing with another opt-in-period of 120 days from the issuance of this notice. The Court-approved notice shall be appended to a letter from class counsel setting forth in plain language the class claims, the right of potential FLSA class members to participate in the recovery and in the ongoing FLSA claims, the deadline for the submission of opt-in forms, and contact information for counsel. Each letter shall be accompanied by a postage-paid envelope for the return of opt-in forms to class counsel, for subsequent filing with the Court. As the parties at fault, Defendants are responsible for the costs of notice. See also Veliz v. Cintas Corn., No. C 03-1 180 SBA, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24871 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 12,2004); m,2 99 F. Supp. 2d 664 (E.D. Tex.
21
Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 492-1 Filed 07/28/2009 Page 21 of 22

2003); Bullock v. Automobile Club, No. SA CV 01 -731-GLT(ANx), 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7692 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 28,2002); Oldsmobile, Inc. v. GMC, No. 99 Civ. 4567 (AGS), 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13893 (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 7, 2001); In re Federal Skywalk Cases, No. 81-0945-A-CVW-S, 1982 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10116 (W.D. Mo. Nov. 16, 1982). The Court orders Defendants to pay the costs of the attorney fees on this third motion and the costs of this additional notice.
Defendants contend that any misconduct did not involve the merits of the case (Docket Entry No. 458-1 at pp. 26-27) so as to preclude a default judgment on the merits, citing Phoceene Sous-Marine, S.A. v. Phosmarine, Inc., 682 F.2d 802 (9th Cir. 1982). With the chosen sanction, this issue is moot. In any event, the ability of class members to file claims, to offer testimony, and to cooperate with class counsel directly impacts the merits of this action. Potential class members cannot pursue claims under the FLSA unless they affirmatively file consent-to-sue forms. See 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). The Court has found that the Defendants have prevented such participation by threats of retaliation, persistent misstatements, and their recent interference with the Court ordered process. The purpose of civil contempt sanctions are, unequivocally, to coerce future compliance and to repair the harm that has been inflicted on the innocent parties and on the judicial process. See NHL, 427 U.S. at 643; Redken Labs, 843 F.2d at 299; see also Roadway Express, 447 U.S. at 764-65 (court must exercise contempt power “to protect the orderly administration of justice and to preserve the dignity of the tribunal”).
For the above stated reasons, the Plaintiffs’ third motion for contempt should be granted. Defendants are specifically warned that any further contumacious behavior will result in the ultimate sanction of default in this case.
An appropriate Order is filed herewith. ENTERED this the _____ July, 2009.

Case 1:06-cv-00006

Document 492-1 22

William J. Haynes, Jr.
United States District Judge Filed 07/28/2009 Page 22 of 22

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
COLUMBIA DIVISION

JOSE ROSILES-PEREZ, JESUS

)

SANTIAGO-SALMORAN, and HECTOR )

ORTIZ-MORA, on behalf of themselves )

and all others similarly situated,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

SUPERIOR FORESTRY SERVICE, INC., )

WILLIAM IOUP, SCOTT BARSTOW, )

ENRIQUE GONZALEZ,

)

HECTOR SANTILLAN, and

)

MANUEL MORALES-MARTINEZ,

)

)

Defendants.

)

Case No. 1:06-CV-0006 Judge William J. Haynes, Jr.

STIPULATION OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

This Stipulation of Class Action Settlement Agreement ("Settlement") is entered into by

and between Defendants Superior Forestry Service, Inc., Scott Barstow, William Ioup, Enrique

Gonzalez, Hector Santillan, and Manuel Morales-Martinez (collectively, "the Defendants") and

Plaintiffs Jose Rosiles-Perez, Jesus Santiago-Salmoran, and Hector Ortiz-Mora (collectively, the

"Named Plaintiffs"), both individually and on behalf of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA")

opt-in Plaintiffs, and a class of over 2,200 individuals certified by the Court on Mm-ch 28, 2008

with respect to claims brought nnder the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection

Act ("AWPA"). Also signatories and parties to this Settlement are Michael Foley, John Foley,

Mm-k Harnage, and Jerry Arter, each of whom, along with Scott Barstow, William Ioup, Enrique

Gonzalez, Hector Santillan, and Manuel Morales-Martinez (collectively, "the Nine Personal

Guarantors"), have agreed to personally guarantee the payment obligations of the Defendants as

outlined in this Settlement.

The Parties, each having received the benefit, advice, and representation oflegal connsel
I

I Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 515-1 Filed 02/10/10 Page 1 of 64 PageID #: 6341

of their own choice, and in exchange for good, sufficient and valuable consideration received and acknowledged and as more particularly described herein, do hereby execute and enter into this Settlement in order to resolve all of the disputes, claims and causes of action that were asserted in this action or that arise from the facts alleged in the Second Amended Complaint, as described herein and subject to the recitals, terms and conditions set forth below.
RECITALS 1. Defendant Superior Forestry Service, Inc. is a forestry labor contractor that bids on and negotiates contracts to plant trees and perform related tasks, including chemical spraying, on land owned by other individuals and companies. Defendants William Ioup, Scott Barstow, Enrique Gonzalez and Hector Santillan were owners and/or managers of Superior Forestry Service during all or part of the certified Class period. Defendant Manuel Morales-Martinez worked as Superior Forestry Service’s recruiter and as a crew leader during all or part of the certified Class period. For purposes of this Settlement, Defendants stipulate that they operated as joint employers of the Named Plaintiffs, the FLSA opt-in Plaintiffs, and the AWPA Class. 2. To fill the manpower requirements of their contracts, the Defendants sought the importation of foreign nationals to perform forestry work on a seasonal or temporary basis pursuant to H-2B work visas, in accordance with the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b). The named Plaintiffs, FLSA opt-in Plaintiffs, and AWPA Class members were employed by the Defendants within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 203(g) as seasonal farm laborers within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 1802(3). Two of the three Named Plaintiffs, and another plaintiff whose subsequent withdrawal as a class representative was approved by the Court, see infra, filed the original complaint on January 25, 2006, on their own behalf and on behalf of a proposed class of more than 2,200 similarly-situated forestry laborers.
2
Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 515-1 Filed 02/10/10 Page 2 of 64 PageID #: 6342

Plaintiffs filed and have pursued this action to recover unreimbursed expenses associated with obtaining H-2B visas, unpaid wages, statutory penalties, and injunctive relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 201-219, and the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 1801-1854 (“AWPA”). The action has been pursued and certified as both a FLSA collective action, and a Rule 23 class action for pursuit of the AWPA claims.
3. In the complaint, Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants violated the FLSA and the AWPA by taking de facto wage deductions for Plaintiffs’ pre-employment visa, transportation and related expenses; failing to record and pay Plaintiffs for all hours worked, in violation of the their AWPA working arrangements; failing to pay their legally mandated-minimum and overtime wages; failing to compensate them for all of their earned piece rates; and failing to make, keep, and preserve accurate and complete records of their employment.
4. On February 12, 2008, Plaintiffs amended their complaint to remove one of the original class representatives and substitute Named Plaintiff Hector Ortiz-Mora, and again on December 9, 2008, to add individual Defendants Enrique Gonzalez, Hector Santillan, and Manuel Morales-Martinez.
5. In their Answers to Plaintiffs’ pleadings, including their Answer to the Second Amended Complaint, Defendants denied, and continue to deny, any and all allegations of wrongdoing and statutory violations made in the lawsuit.
6. On March 27, 2006, Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify the case as a class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for pursuit of their AWPA claims. On March 28, 2006, Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify the case as a collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) for pursuit of their FLSA claims. On June 22, 2006, the Court entered
3
Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 515-1 Filed 02/10/10 Page 3 of 64 PageID #: 6343

separate orders denying the class and collective action motions without prejudice, to be renewed after further discovery.
7. Later, on July 17, 2007, the Court provisionally certified the case as a collective action under the FLSA. The FLSA Class consists of all non-supervisory H-2B workers for Defendants employed anytime during or after January 25, 2003. After provisional certification, the Parties filed an agreed FLSA notice and consent form, which counsel for Plaintiffs then mailed to potential FLSA opt-in Plaintiffs. Before and after the first round of notice, and subsequent attempts to notify potential FLSA opt-in Plaintiffs, 181 opt-in Plaintiffs joined the lawsuit to assert their FLSA claims. However, of those 181 opt-in Plaintiffs, class counsel has determined that 22 individuals have no FLSA claims falling within the potential 3-year statute of limitations. As such, only 162 individuals, a number which includes the three named Plaintiffs, have valid FLSA claims covered by this agreement. See Exhibit B (named Plaintiffs and FLSA opt-in Plaintiffs Number of Eligible Seasons for FLSA Settlement).
8. On August 17, 2007, based on formal discovery of Defendants’ payroll records and their own investigation, Plaintiffs renewed their motion for class certification.
9. On March 28, 2008, the Court certified a Class of “[a]ll non-supervisory workers admitted as H-2B temporary foreign workers pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b) and who were employed by Defendants at any time from January 2000 to the present [January 2006].” Class Counsel later mailed court-approved Class Notice to 2,275 persons shown by Defendants’ payroll records to have been employed by Defendants as non-supervisory H-2B forestry workers during the Class period. The Notice informed class members of the lawsuit and provided them an opportunity to exclude themselves by completing a Class Exclusion Form enclosed with the Notice and filing it with the Court on or before October 8, 2009.
4
Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 515-1 Filed 02/10/10 Page 4 of 64 PageID #: 6344

10. By the expiration of the Class Notice period, eleven (11) of the 2,275 persons to whom notice was mailed had filed the Class Exclusion Form provided with the Class Notice. After filing their exclusion forms, two Class Members, Aroldo Adalberto Villatoro and Maynor Fernando Villatoro Lopez, contacted Class Counsel and indicated that they had filed their forms by mistake and that they did not desire to exclude themselves from the Class. Because of these mistakenly filed forms and the fact that both FLSA opt-in forms and Rule 23 Class opt-out forms were mailed to Class Members, Class Counsel is investigating whether the other nine (9) individuals who opted out of the class may have done so due to confusion and/or mistake. Class Counsel will exercise their reasonable judgment in determining whether the exclusions are valid and whether those individuals should not be bound by this Settlement and should not share in the settlement proceeds.
11. During the nearly four-year pendency of the lawsuit, the Parties engaged in extensive merits discovery, including depositions of the Named Plaintiffs, three FLSA opt-in Plaintiffs, individual Defendants William Ioup, Enrique Gonzalez, Hector Santillan, and Manuel Morales-Martinez, and several of Defendants’ crew foremen; comprehensive discovery of Defendants’ payroll, accounting, and other electronic databases; and extensive document discovery. Defendants also filed a motion for partial summary judgment, which was denied without prejudice, for renewal after discovery closed.
12. Moreover, during the course of discovery, and beginning on January 31, 2007, the Court entered three separate orders holding Defendants in contempt of the protective order that barred communications by Defendants or their agents with potential or actual Rule 23 Class Members and FLSA opt-in Plaintiffs. The Court entered progressively severe sanctions, including equitable tolling of the FLSA statute of limitations and two additional rounds of FLSA
5
Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 515-1 Filed 02/10/10 Page 5 of 64 PageID #: 6345

notice and extensions of the Opt-in period, culminating in its July 27, 2009 Order “bar[ring] Defendants from submitting any proof to contest the Plaintiffs’ proof of damages.” (Doc 492.)
13. In August 2009, the parties participated in two full days of private mediation with an experienced neutral. No agreement was reached to settle the merits, but Defendants did agree to submit to extensive asset discovery to allow Plaintiffs to make a reasonable determination of the Defendants’ financial resources available to fund a settlement or to satisfy a judgment.
14. On December 7, 2009, after the asset discovery was completed, the parties resumed mediation. After their independent consideration of the mediator’s proposal, the parties reached agreement on the terms of this Class Action Settlement.
15. The Named Plaintiffs and Class Counsel believe that the Settlement reached with Defendants on December 7, 2009 is fair, adequate, reasonable, and in the best interests of the Class and the FLSA opt-in Plaintiffs.
16. By entering into this Settlement to resolve this dispute, Defendants admit no liability for the violations alleged or any other wrongdoing.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing recitals and prefatory phrases, and of the covenants and promises set forth in this Settlement and in exchange for other good, valuable, and sufficient consideration more specifically set forth in this Settlement and hereby acknowledged, the Named Plaintiffs—on behalf of themselves, the FLSA opt-in Plaintiffs, and the Class—and the Defendants agree as follows: I. TERMS OF SETTLEMENT A. Settlement Fund.
Defendants will make three separate installment payments to the Settlement Fund for the purpose of paying claims of the named Plaintiffs, FLSA opt-in Plaintiffs, AWPA Class
6
Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 515-1 Filed 02/10/10 Page 6 of 64 PageID #: 6346

Members, and the individual payments, as outlined in greater detail below. All amounts paid by
Defendants toward the Settlement Fund will be disbursed pursuant to this Settlement, and none
of it will revert to the Defendants under any circumstances. Defendants shall make the three
installment payments directly to the Settlement Fund Account as follows:
(1) $733,333.33 within 15 days after the Judgment entered by the Court pursuant to this Settlement becomes Final, as defined in section I.N. (the “First Settlement Fund Installment”);
(2) $792,000.00 one calendar year after the First Installment, which consists of $733,333.33, plus $58,666.67 in simple interest at a 4% annual interest rate on those settlement funds not paid by Defendants in the First Installment (the “Second Settlement Fund Installment”);
(3) $762,666.67 one calendar year after the Second Installment, which consists of $733,333.34, plus $29,333.33 in simple interest at a 4% annual interest rate on those settlement funds not paid by Defendants in the First and Second Installments (“the Final Settlement Fund Installment”).
B. Costs and Attorneys’ Fees.
Subject to the approval of the Court, Defendants will pay Class Counsel costs and
attorneys’ fees associated with the prosecution of this action in three separate installment
payments. Class Counsel will not seek costs and attorneys’ fees in excess of the amounts listed
below, and Defendants will not oppose Plaintiffs’ request for costs and fees in the amounts listed
below. If the Court approves costs and fees for Class Counsel in an amount less than the
amounts listed below, any difference (i.e. the remaining balance) will be required to be paid by
the Defendants directly to the Settlement Fund. Under no circumstances will the amounts to be
paid below revert to the Defendants. Defendants shall make the three installment payments to
the Southern Poverty Law Center for disbursal among Class Counsel, in the following amounts
and according to the following schedule:
(1) $183,333.33 within 15 days after the Judgment entered by the Court pursuant to this Settlement becomes Final, as defined in section I.N. (the
7
Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 515-1 Filed 02/10/10 Page 7 of 64 PageID #: 6347

“First Costs and Fees Installment”);
(2) $198,000.00 one calendar year after the First Costs and Fees Installment, which consists of $183,333.33, plus $14,666.67 in simple interest at a 4% annual interest rate on those costs and fees not paid by Defendants in the First Costs and Fees Installment (the “Second Costs and Fees Installment”);
(3) $190,666.67 one calendar year after the Second Costs and Fees Installment, which consists of $183,333.34, plus $7,333.33 in simple interest at a 4% annual interest rate on those settlement funds not paid by Defendants in the First and Second Costs and Fees Installments.
C. Settlement Administration Costs.
Defendants will pay Class Counsel $150,000 to be used at the discretion of Class Counsel
to pay costs associated with the administration of the Settlement Fund, including, but not limited
to, costs associated with sending notices and/or otherwise notifying class members of this
Settlement, all costs and fees associated with 1-800 calls from Class Members placed to Class
Counsel regarding this Settlement, all costs and fees associated with locating class members to
assist them in filing claims, all costs and fees associated with contacting and/or locating FLSA
opt-in Plaintiffs and class members (including costs related to any agents hired by Class
Counsel) to provide them their Settlement installment payments, as well as any expenses to be
paid to the Settlement Administrator. Defendants shall pay this $150,000 in Settlement
Administration Costs to Class Counsel at the Southern Poverty Law Center in three equal
installments according to the following schedule:
(1) $50,000 within 15 days after the Judgment entered by the Court pursuant to this Settlement becomes Final, as defined in section I.N. (the “First Settlement Administration Costs Payment”);
(2) $50,000 one calendar year after the First Settlement Administration Costs Payment (the “SecondSettlement Administration Costs Payment”);
(3) $50,000 one calendar year after the Second Settlement Administration Costs Payment (the “Final Settlement Administration Costs Payment”).
8
Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 515-1 Filed 02/10/10 Page 8 of 64 PageID #: 6348

Any portion of each $50,000 Settlement Administration Costs Payment not used before the next installment payment becomes due, or any portion of the Final Settlement Administration Costs Payment not used within 18 months after it is paid to Class Counsel, shall revert back to the Defendants. Class Counsel shall provide Defendants with an accounting of the expenses billed toward each $50,000 Settlement Administration Costs Payment within one year after the first and second payments are made to Class Counsel, and within 18 months after the final payment is made to Class Counsel. D. Security for Payment of Settlement Funds, Costs and Attorneys’ Fees, and
Settlement Administration Costs. The Nine Personal Guarantors agree to personally guarantee the payments set forth above in sections I.A., I.B., and I.C. In the event that Defendants fail to make any of the payments as set forth above in sections I.A., I.B., and/or I.C., Plaintiffs shall provide Defendants and the Nine Personal Guarantors with written notice of their noncompliance with the Settlement payment provisions and provide them 10 business days from the date of the written notice to cure the defect. Defendants and the Nine Personal Guarantors agree that any written notice to be provided pursuant to this section will be sent via email and U.S. mail to Harold Pinkley, Esq. at Miller & Martin, PLLC in Nashville, Tennessee, and/or to any other person or entity they designate in writing to Class Counsel to receive such notices. In the event that the payment default is not cured within 10 business days of the date of the written notice, all amounts due under this Settlement shall immediately become due and payable, including full interest payments contemplated under this Settlement. Plaintiffs may immediately move the Court for entry of judgment against any or all of the Defendants and any or all of the Nine Personal
9
Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 515-1 Filed 02/10/10 Page 9 of 64 PageID #: 6349

Guarantors, jointly and severally, for any unpaid amounts due under this Settlement, as well as any costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees associated with their efforts to cure the default and/or to move for entry of judgment, and any subsequent proceedings necessary to enforce and collect the judgment. The filing of a bankruptcy petition by any or all of the Defendants, or any or all of the Nine Personal Guarantors, will not relieve the nonfiling Defendants or the non-filing Nine Personal Guarantors from the payment obligations as outlined in sections I.A., I.B., and I.C., and shall not prevent Plaintiffs from seeking the entry of judgment against any or all of the non-filing Defendants and/or any or all of the non-filing Nine Personal Guarantors, assuming non-filing Defendants or Guarantors do not cure the default as provided above. E. Appointment of Settlement Administrator.
The Parties will ask the Court to appoint Settlement Services, Inc., a qualified administrator, to serve as the Settlement Administrator, which, as a condition of appointment, will agree to be bound by this Settlement with respect to the performance of its duties. The Settlement Administrator will open and administer an interest-bearing account or accounts (“Settlement Fund Account(s)”) approved by Class Counsel with a unique Tax Payer Identification Number. The monetary payments described above in section I.A. will be made into this Settlement Fund Account(s). The Settlement Fund Account(s) will constitute a qualified settlement fund within the meaning of Treasury Regulations §§ 1.468B-1, et seq., and it will be created, managed, and disbursed by the Settlement Administrator under the supervision and at the direction of Class Counsel. Defendants shall hereby be deemed to have made an election under Section 468B of the Revenue Code to have the Settlement Fund treated as a “qualified settlement fund.”
10
Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 515-1 Filed 02/10/10 Page 10 of 64 PageID #: 6350

Defendants shall timely furnish a statement to the Settlement Administrator that complies with Treasury Regulation § 1.468B-3(e) and shall attach a copy of the statement to its federal income tax return that is filed for the taxable years in which Defendants make the required payments to the Settlement Fund. Defendants will have no responsibilities or liabilities with respect to the Settlement Fund Account(s), its administration, or distribution therefrom.
In addition to the above, the Settlement Administrator’s duties shall include responsibility for all tax reporting, tax withholding, and tax withholding payments to appropriate governmental agencies associated with payments from the Settlement Fund to the named Plaintiffs, the FLSA opt-in Plaintiffs, and the Class Members. In association with these duties, the Settlement Administrator will calculate the employers’ share of taxes (FICA, FUTA, SUTA) due on any payments designated as wages made to the named Plaintiffs and FLSA opt-in Plaintiffs. The Settlement Administrator shall inform the Defendants of the amount of the employer’s share of taxes in writing, and the Defendant will pay such amount into the Qualified Settlement Fund within ten (10) business days of the date of the notification by the Settlement Administrator. Defendants' obligation to pay the employer's share of taxes is in addition to the amounts Defendants have agreed to pay pursuant to the preceding sections.
The Settlement Administrator will provide Class Counsel an invoice for their services on a monthly basis. The Settlement Administrator shall provide a copy of its invoices to Defense Counsel, who shall have the opportunity to discuss any charge with Class Counsel before the invoice is paid.
11
Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 515-1 Filed 02/10/10 Page 11 of 64 PageID #: 6351

F. Notice to Class Members of Class Action Settlement. Within 10 days of preliminary approval by the Court of this Settlement and the Notice
and Claim Form, Class Counsel will mail the attached Notice of Class Action Settlement and Claim Form (attached hereto as Exhibit A) in Spanish to each of the Class Members. The Notice of Class Action Settlement describes this litigation, the settlement terms, how to file a Claim, the procedure for a class member to object to the proposed settlement and/or attend the fairness hearing scheduled by the Court, and the procedure to opt-out of this class action settlement. Class Counsel will file a Notice with the Court upon completion of the mailing.
Within 10 days of receiving the populated claim forms from Class Counsel, Superior Forestry Service, Inc. will provide a copy of the Notice and Claim Form to each of its current H2B employees who is a member of the class or is an FLSA opt-in plaintiff (whether those employees are directly employed by Superior Forestry Service, Inc. or leased to Superior Forestry Service, Inc. by another entity or individual) in conjunction with its normal distribution of payroll. Defendants will file a Notice with the Court upon completion of this distribution, including the total number of current H-2B employees who were provided Notices and Claim Forms. G. Notice Pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act
Within 10 days of the Parties’ filing this Settlement Agreement with the Court, Defendants will, pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”), mail the notice and documents required by CAFA to the Attorney General of the United States and the appropriate state official in the state of Arkansas. The Parties believe that no other state entities other than those in Arkansas need to be notified of this Settlement pursuant to CAFA, as the Class Members are all H-2B workers who maintain their permanent residences in Mexico. Defendants
12
Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 515-1 Filed 02/10/10 Page 12 of 64 PageID #: 6352

shall file a Notice with the Court upon completion of the required CAFA mailings. H. Claims Process.
The Notice of Class Action Settlement to be mailed upon preliminary approval by the Court will include a Claim Form.
Notice and Claims Process. The Claim Form will explain that the deadline for submitting claims for payment from the First Settlement Fund Installment will be 150 days from the date the Forms are mailed. A new notice and claims period, providing Class Members with an additional 90 days to submit claims, will be initiated at least 120 days before the Second Settlement Fund Installment and Final Settlement Fund Installment payments are due. Any Class Members who submit valid claims at any time before the close of the Final Claims Period shall be considered “Claiming Class Members” and entitled to receive, by the time of the Final Distribution, their full proportionate share of the Settlement Funds. Based on responses from the first claims process, Class Counsel shall determine the best method of providing the subsequent notice described above that will occur before the Second and Final Settlement Fund Installment payments are made, with the understanding that such notice may not necessarily include mailing of notice and claim forms. The Final Claim Period shall close 30 days before the Final Settlement Fund Installment Payment becomes due and payable. Submission and Validation of Claims. Class Counsel, and any Settlement Administrator or other third-party engaged for this purpose, shall be solely responsible for determining the appropriate methods for the submission of claims and for reviewing and adjudging their validity. The large majority of Class Members live in rural areas of Mexico where incoming and outgoing mail service is slow and unreliable
13
Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 515-1 Filed 02/10/10 Page 13 of 64 PageID #: 6353

and the availability of fax and photocopying services may be limited or expensive. As such, Class Counsel shall be empowered to determine, in their reasonable judgment, (a) that confirmation of identity by telephone (e.g., through the provision of personal information sufficient to verify identity), electronic mail or other means of written or oral communication is sufficient to validate a claim and/or (b) that a claim may be validated based on a writing other than the approved Claim Form.
Individuals who have already filed FLSA consent to sue forms with the Court will not be required to submit any additional Claim Forms, their FLSA consent to sue forms being sufficient to establish a Claim for both their FLSA payment, if eligible, and their AWPA Class payment, if eligible, and will automatically be considered “Claiming Class Members” by virtue of their prior submission of a FLSA consent to sue form.
The two Class Members who contacted Class Counsel to inform them that they had mistakenly excluded themselves from this case, Aroldo Adalberto Villatoro and Maynor Fernando Villatoro Lopez, as well as any of the other nine (9) individuals who previously filed exclusion forms who Class Counsels’ investigation shows filed their forms in error, will be provided Notice and an opportunity to submit claims that, if submitted to Class Counsel in a timely manner, would override their earlier exclusion form and allow them to become Claiming Class Members.
Where a class member is deceased, upon receipt of proper identification and documentation of the payee’s interest, payment will be made to the class member’s estate or, in the event there is no estate, to the class member’s next of kin in the following priority: (1) spouse; (2) children; (3) parents; (4) siblings; and (5) other relatives.
14
Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 515-1 Filed 02/10/10 Page 14 of 64 PageID #: 6354

I. Distribution of Payments from the Settlement Fund.
(1) Total Proportionate Shares.
Each FLSA Opt-in Plaintiff and Class Member’s proportionate total share of the Settlement Fund to be distributed from the First, Second, and Final Settlement Fund Installment Payments, will be calculated as follows:
(a) Each named Plaintiff and FLSA opt-in Plaintiff whose name appears on Exhibit B will receive a total of $1,000 for each season in which they worked at least one week within three years of the filing of their FLSA consent to sue form, taking into account the tolling provisions entered previously by this Court. This payment reflects $500.00 of unpaid wages and $500.00 of FLSA liquidated damages per season. The total amount of the unpaid wages and liquidated damages to be paid to the named Plaintiffs and FLSA opt-in Plaintiffs is based on data currently available to class counsel, and is reflected in Exhibit B, for a current total of $359,000 (“the FLSA Fund”). Class Counsel understands that there is a small likelihood this figure may increase based on any successful challenges to the number of seasons individual named Plaintiffs or FLSA opt-in Plaintiffs claim to have worked within the three year statute of limitations period applicable to their FLSA claims. Any additional amounts required to be paid to the named Plaintiffs or FLSA opt-in Plaintiffs due to a successful challenge will be paid from the Settlement Fund that would otherwise be allocated to the AWPA Fund.
(b) Each Claiming Class Member will receive a proportionate share of the AWPA Fund that will consist of at least $1,780,500.00. The AWPA Fund shall consist of the total Settlement Fund, minus the FLSA Fund, minus the individual payments, plus any undistributed FLSA Funds, interest paid by the Defendants, and interest earned by the Settlement Fund Account. Claiming Class Members’ proportionate shares will be based upon the number of seasons the Claiming Class Member worked during the Class Period as a proportion of all seasons worked by all Claiming Class Members during the Class Period. For purposes of this Settlement, the “Class Period” is defined as anyone who first worked for the Defendants between December 1, 1999 and January 25, 2006, and includes all seasons for those individuals up to and including the 2008-2009 season.
(c) A named Plaintiff, FLSA opt-in Plaintiff, or Claiming Class Member who disagrees with the number of seasons eligible for payment as determined by Class Counsel must submit additional documentation to Class Counsel in the form of a visa, check stub, or other work
15
Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 515-1 Filed 02/10/10 Page 15 of 64 PageID #: 6355

records that would show that Class Counsel’s determination of the number of seasons eligible for payment is incorrect. Class Counsel shall analyze any and all information available to them, as well as documents submitted by the named Plaintiff, FLSA opt-in Plaintiff, or Claiming Class Member, and make any necessary corrections to the number of seasons eligible for payment. The decision of Class Counsel with respect to any challenges to the number of seasons eligible for payment shall be final. For purposes of this Settlement, a “season” is defined by the visa period applicable to the Defendants’ H-2B workers, which was from approximately November of a given year until approximately September of the following year. An individual who obtained multiple visas to work at any time between approximately November of one year and approximately September of the following year is deemed to have worked only one season during that time period, even though that person may have entered and left the United States on multiple occasions and worked in tree planting, chemical spraying, Lake States planting, and right of way maintenance during that time.
(2) The First Distribution.
(a) Calculation of Shares.
As soon as practicable and not more than 30 days after the close of the First Claims Period, Class Counsel will calculate payments from the First Settlement Fund Installment Payment, as follows:
(i) $179,500.00 of the First Settlement Fund Installment Payment will be assigned to the First Distribution FLSA Fund. Each named Plaintiff and FLSA opt-in Plaintiff will be paid $500.00 in gross wages, less applicable taxes, for each season in which they worked at least one week within three years of the date on which their FLSA consent form was filed with the Court, taking into account the tolling provisions entered previously by this Court. The Settlement Administrator will be responsible for the withholding and payment of the FLSA opt-in Plaintiffs’ share of taxes, and will provide the Defendants an accounting of the Defendants’/Employers’ share of taxes, which the Defendants will pay to the appropriate taxing authorities. Defendants will provide Class Counsel and the Settlement Administrator proof that such tax payments were made within 60 days of receiving the accounting from the Settlement Administrator.
(ii) In consideration for their commitment to the pursuit of the claims in this action on behalf of themselves and the Class, $60,500 of the First Settlement Installment payment will be paid to the following
16
Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 515-1 Filed 02/10/10 Page 16 of 64 PageID #: 6356

individuals in the following amounts, reflecting the extent of their individual participation in the prosecution of this action:

Jose Rosiles Perez Hector Ortiz Mora Jesus Santiago Salmoran Vicente Escobar Lopez Carmelo Marcelino Sanchez Jorge Ancelmo Martinez Oscar Hernandez Espina Lazaro Montero Barradas Juan Hernandez Hernandez Andres Aldana Moreno Joan Michel Sanchez Martinez Martin Cervantes Espejo Vito Morales Ojeda Maurilio Morales Carrillo Jose Ramon Sanchez Martinez Luis Hernandez Espina

$7,500.00 $7,500.00 $7,500.00 $4,000.00 $4,000.00 $4,000.00 $4,000.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00.

(iii) $493,333.33 of the First Settlement Fund Installment payment (the total First Settlement Fund Installment payment minus the First Distribution FLSA Fund minus the individual payments) will be assigned to the First Distribution AWPA Fund. Each Claiming Class Member (including named Plaintiffs and FLSA opt-in Plaintiffs) will receive a proportionate share of the First Distribution AWPA Fund based on the number of seasons worked within the Class Period in proportion to the total number of seasons worked by the Claiming Class Members during the Class Period, up to a maximum of $334.55 per season worked (which constitutes the minimum amount per season per Class Member, without interest, if all Class Members file valid claims).

(b) Distribution of Settlement Fund Shares.

Class Counsel will provide the Settlement Administrator the list of named Plaintiffs, FLSA opt-in Plaintiffs, and Class Members entitled to receive payment from the First Settlement Fund Installment payment and the amounts they are to receive, as well as instructions on how the money will be disbursed and provided to the named Plaintiffs, FLSA opt-in Plaintiffs, and Class Members, most of whom reside in Mexico and are, therefore, unable to cash checks issued from a United States bank. The Settlement Administrator will make disbursal of funds from the Settlement Fund Account as directed by Class Counsel. Class Counsel will work with third parties to facilitate the coordination and delivery of the Settlement Funds to the named Plaintiffs, FLSA opt-in Plaintiffs, and Class Members,
17

Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 515-1 Filed 02/10/10 Page 17 of 64 PageID #: 6357

primarily through notifying them that funds are available for their retrieval at a designated bank in Mexico, or at a Western Union location. Any First Distribution Funds not collected by the named Plaintiffs, FLSA opt-in Plaintiffs, and/or the Class Members within 120 days of Class Counsel or their agents’ first attempts to contact the individual named Plaintiff, FLSA opt-in Plaintiff, and/or Class Member to advise them of the availability of their Settlement Share shall revert back to the Settlement Fund Account for inclusion in the funds available for the Second Distribution.
(3) The Second Distribution.
(a) Calculation of Shares.
As soon as practicable and not more than 30 days after the close of the Second Claims Period, Class Counsel will calculate payments from the Second Settlement Fund Installment Payment, as follows:
(i) $179,500.00 of the Second Settlement Fund Installment payment will be assigned to the Second Distribution FLSA Fund. Each named Plaintiff and FLSA opt-in Plaintiff will be paid $500.00 in FLSA liquidated damages for each season in which they worked at least one week within three years of the date on which their FLSA consent form was filed with the Court, taking into account the tolling provisions entered previously by this Court. In addition to the above, and in conjunction with payments to be made from the Second Distribution FLSA Fund, Class Counsel will make a second attempt to pay any named Plaintiff or FLSA opt-in Plaintiff Funds remaining to be distributed from the First Distribution FLSA Fund that were not collected within 120 days of their availability.
(iii) $553,833.33, plus any funds from the First Distribution to Class Members that were not collected by Class Members as outlined in section I.I.(2)(b) above will be assigned to the Second Distribution AWPA Fund. Each Claiming Class Member (including named Plaintiffs and FLSA opt-in Plaintiffs) will receive a proportionate share of the Second Distribution AWPA Fund based on the number of seasons worked within the Class Period in proportion to the total number of seasons worked by the Claiming Class Members during the Class Period, less any gross amounts already received from the First Distribution AWPA Fund, up to a maximum of $334.55 per season worked (which constitutes the minimum amount per season per Class Member, without interest, if all Class Members file valid claims). The maximum figure to be paid per Claiming Class Member per season during the Second Distribution includes any amounts already received during
18
Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 515-1 Filed 02/10/10 Page 18 of 64 PageID #: 6358

the First Distribution.
(b) Distribution of Settlement Fund Shares.
Class Counsel will provide the Settlement Administrator the list of named Plaintiffs, FLSA opt-in Plaintiffs, and Class Members entitled to receive payment from the Second Settlement Fund Installment payment and the amounts they are to receive, as well as instructions on how the money will be disbursed and provided to the named Plaintiffs, FLSA opt-in Plaintiffs, and Class Members, most of whom reside in Mexico and are, therefore, unable to cash checks issued from a United States bank. The Settlement Administrator will make disbursal of funds from the Settlement Fund Account as directed by Class Counsel. Class Counsel will work with third parties to facilitate the coordination and delivery of the Settlement Funds to the named Plaintiffs, FLSA opt-in Plaintiffs, and Class Members, primarily through notifying them that funds are available for their retrieval at a designated bank in Mexico, or at a Western Union location. Any Second Distribution Funds not collected by the named Plaintiffs, FLSA opt-in Plaintiffs, and/or the Class Members within 120 days of Class Counsel or their agents’ first attempts to contact the individual named Plaintiff, FLSA opt-in Plaintiff, and/or Class Member to advise them of the availability of their Settlement Share shall revert back to the Settlement Fund Account for inclusion in the funds available for the Final Distribution.
(4) The Final Distribution.
(a) Calculation of Shares.
As soon as practicable and not more than 30 days after the close of the Final Claims Period, Class Counsel will calculate final payments from the Settlement Fund Account. The funds available for distribution as the Final Payment (“Final Settlement Funds”) will consist of the following:
(1) $733,333.64, which is the principal of the Final Settlement Fund Installment Payment;
(2) Any funds from the Second Distribution to named Plaintiffs, FLSA opt-in Plaintiffs, and Class Members that were not collected by the named Plaintiffs, FLSA opt-in Plaintiffs, or Class Members as outlined in section I.I.(3)(b) above;
(3) $88,000.00, which is the interest paid by Defendants on the Second and Final Settlement Fund Installment Payments; and
(4) Any earnings of the Settlement Fund Account.
19
Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 515-1 Filed 02/10/10 Page 19 of 64 PageID #: 6359

Each Claiming Class Member (including named Plaintiffs and FLSA optin Plaintiffs) will receive a proportionate share of the Final Settlement Funds based on the number of seasons worked within the Class Period in proportion to the total number of seasons worked by the Claiming Class Members during the Class Period, less any gross amounts already received from the First or Second Distributions of the AWPA Fund.
(b) Distribution of Final Settlement Fund Shares.
Class Counsel will provide the Settlement Administrator the list of Class Members entitled to receive payment from the Final Settlement Fund and the amounts they are to receive, as well as instructions on how the money will be disbursed and provided to the Class Members, most of whom reside in Mexico and are, therefore, unable to cash checks issued from a United States bank. The Settlement Administrator will make disbursal of funds from the Settlement Fund Account as directed by Class Counsel. Class Counsel will work with third parties to facilitate the coordination and delivery of the Settlement Funds to the Class Members, primarily through notifying them that funds are available for their retrieval at a designated bank in Mexico, or at a Western Union location. Any Final Distribution Funds not collected by the Class Members within 120 days of Class Counsel or their agents’ first attempts to contact the individual Class Member to advise them of the availability of their Settlement Share shall revert back to the Settlement Fund Account and be considered “Residual Funds.”
(c) Residual Funds.
Monies, if any, remaining in the Settlement Fund Account as a result of the accrual of interest on the Fund after the Final Settlement Shares were calculated and/or the funds that were not collected by the Class Members as outlined in section I.I.(4)(b) above, will be used first to pay any claims submitted after the deadline described above in section I.H. but before December 31, 2012 (“Late Claims”). Late Claims will be paid only after the final distribution and will not be paid if no monies remain in the Fund after the final distribution.
(d) If monies remain in the Settlement Fund Account after full satisfaction of all Late Claims, then they will be applied to pay costs incurred by Class Counsel in administering the Settlement, to the extent they exceed the funds provided for in sections I.B.(1)-(3).
(e) If monies still remain after the payment of all such costs, they shall be distributed to the North Carolina Justice Center – Immigrants Legal Assistance Project, a 501(c)(3), tax exempt organization that provides, among other things, free legal services to H-2B forestry workers.
20
Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 515-1 Filed 02/10/10 Page 20 of 64 PageID #: 6360

J. Reports to the Court. Within 30 days after each claim period ends, Class Counsel will file a report with the
Court detailing the allocation among the Claiming Class Members of the First, Second, and Final Installment Payments, explaining how the allocations were made, and describing the payment distribution process. After each distribution, Class Counsel will file a distribution report with the Court indicating that the payments were made and disclosing any difficulties with distribution. K. Nature of Settlement Funds.
The Parties to this Settlement acknowledge that the class members paid, on average, at least $450 per season in costs and fees associated with obtaining an H-2B visa and traveling to the United States to work for Defendants. The parties agree that payments to class members filing claims as part of this Settlement up to and including $450 per work season are for the purpose of reimbursing those class members for the expenses they incurred to obtain their H-2B visas and travel to the United States to work for the Defendants. Based on this understanding, no Social Security or other taxes will be withheld or paid by either Defendants or the Settlement Administrator with respect to payments to class members up to and including $450 per work season. Any payments made to class members in excess of $450 per work season based on a reallocation of the Settlement Fund shares as a result of non-claiming class members, shall be considered payments to satisfy claims under the record keeping and wage statement provisions of the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act, and that these payments do not represent payment of back wages. Based on this understanding, no Social Security or other taxes will be withheld or paid by Defendants or the Settlement Administrator on payments in excess of $450 per class member per season, although the parties and the Settlement Administrator acknowledge that payments in excess of $450 per class member per season constitute income
21
Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 515-1 Filed 02/10/10 Page 21 of 64 PageID #: 6361

that must be reported to the appropriate taxing authorities (and the class members), which will be done by the Settlement Administrator.
Payments to class members during the Final Distribution will include distribution of each claiming class member’s proportionate share of the interest income paid by the Defendants to the Settlement Fund Account(s), as well as each class member’s proportionate share of the interest income generated by the Settlement Fund Account(s) itself. The Settlement Administrator will report this income to the appropriate taxing authorities and the class members. L. Retaliation Prohibited.
Defendants agree that neither they nor any of their agents (including their foremen) will retaliate, directly or indirectly, in any manner, against any person because of his or her participation in the prosecution of this action or participation in the Claims Process, including but not limited to the Named Plaintiffs and the FLSA opt-in Plaintiffs, the Named Plaintiffs’ and FLSA opt-in Plaintiffs’ family members, declarants and/or witnesses who provided testimony in support of the lawsuit, or any other person who has cooperated or participated in the prosecution of this action. Defendants further agree that neither they nor any of their agents (including their foremen) will discourage, directly or indirectly, in any manner, any Class Member from filing a Claim. M. Injunctive and other Non-Monetary Relief.
1. Defendants will abide by the requirements of the AWPA and FLSA with respect to the reimbursement of de facto wage deductions for pre-employment visa, transportation, border crossing, and related costs.
2. Defendants will abide by the requirements of the AWPA and FLSA with respect to what constitutes compensable time, including with respect to:
22
Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 515-1 Filed 02/10/10 Page 22 of 64 PageID #: 6362

(a) All time spent actively engaged in work activities during a given day; (b) Time spent loading and unloading tree seedlings; (c) Time spent traveling to the work location after the loading of tree
seedlings at the beginning of the work day and/or time spent traveling from the work location to unload tree seedlings at the end of the work day; (d) Time spent traveling during the work day from field/work location to another field/work location; and (e) Time spent traveling during normal work day hours to relocate a work crew from one location to another location where the site of lodging for the workers will change from one night to the next.
3. Defendants will ensure that their record-keeping practices are consistent with the
AWPA and FLSA, including the maintenance of records that reflect compensable time for
activities identified above in section I.M.(2).
4. Defendants will ensure that all workers engaged in tree planting are paid for all
trees they correctly plant in accordance with the disclosed working arrangement.
N. Effective Date.
This Settlement shall become effective after the Court approves this Agreement and
enters a Judgment that becomes Final. “Final” means the last of the following dates, as
applicable:
(1) The last date on which a notice of appeal from the Judgment may be filed, and none is filed.
(2) If a timely appeal from the Judgment is filed, the last of the following dates:
(a) The last date by which a petition for review by the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit or the United States Supreme Court’s decision affirming the Judgment may be filed, and none is filed;
(b) The last date by which a petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court of a decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirming the judgment may be filed, and none is filed;
(c) If a petition for review by the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, or a petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court, seeking review of the Judgment or of the United States Court of
23
Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 515-1 Filed 02/10/10 Page 23 of 64 PageID #: 6363

Appeals for the Sixth Circuit’s decision on an appeal from the Judgment is timely filed, the date on which the highest reviewing court issues its mandate denying the petition (where the immediately lower court affirmed the Judgment) or affirming the Judgment. O. Mutual Releases. (1) Named Plaintiffs and FLSA opt-in Plaintiffs. On the Settlement Effective Date, the Named Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of the FLSA opt-in Plaintiffs, their attorneys, agents, successors, affiliates, heirs and assigns, fully, finally and forever release, discharge and hold harmless Defendants and their partners, directors, officers, employees, attorneys, agents, insurers and anyone acting or authorized to act on their behalf from any and all claims and demands that were asserted in this case or arise from the facts alleged in Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint related to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendants understand that some FLSA opt-in Plaintiffs who, because of when they first began working for the Defendants, are not members of the Rule 23 AWPA Class. As such, Defendants also understand that those individuals are not bound by the release below that applies to the named Plaintiffs and Rule 23 AWPA Class members. (2) Named Plaintiffs and Rule 23 AWPA Class Members. On the Settlement Effective Date, the Named Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of the Rule 23 AWPA Class, their attorneys, agents, successors, affiliates, heirs and assigns, fully, finally and forever release, discharge and hold harmless Defendants and their partners, directors, officers, employees, attorneys, agents, insurers and anyone acting or authorized to act on their behalf from any and all claims and demands that were asserted or could have been asserted in this case or arise from the facts alleged in Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint. (3) Defendants. The Defendants, and their attorneys, agents, successors, affiliates, heirs, and assigns,
24
Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 515-1 Filed 02/10/10 Page 24 of 64 PageID #: 6364

fully, finally and forever release, discharge and hold harmless the Named Plaintiffs, the FLSA opt-in Plaintiffs, and the Rule 23 AWPA Class, their attorneys, agents, and anyone acting or authorized to act on their behalf from any and all claims, demands, and causes of action for all matters that arise from or are related to the claims and defenses alleged in this case. P. Total Amounts Owed.
The amounts listed in paragraph I. A., B., and C. above constitute the entire consideration any of the Defendants or Nine Personal Guarantors, together or separately, shall ever be required to pay as a result of this Settlement. II. PRELIMINARY COURT APPROVAL AND NOTICE OF CLASS ACTION
SETTLEMENT In conjunction with filing this Settlement with the Court, the Parties will also submit a proposed Notice of Class Action Settlement and Claim Form, attached as Exhibit A, that describes the Class, the terms of Settlement, who is eligible to claim monetary benefits under the Settlement and how to file a Claim, estimates of the monetary benefits the Settlement will provide for Claiming Class Members, the Class Members’ right to file objections to the settlement or to opt out of the Settlement, the date for a fairness hearing, and a deadline and instructions for submitting objections, and a toll-free number that may be used to direct questions to Class Counsel. The Parties will jointly move the Court for preliminary approval of the Settlement, the Notice of Class Action Settlement, and the Claim Form. The Parties will also submit a joint proposed Preliminary Approval Order. III. FINAL COURT APPROVAL All Parties agree to take such actions as are reasonably necessary to obtain the Court's Final Approval of this Settlement, including filing memoranda in opposition to any objections to this Settlement or its terms and defending this Settlement from any challenges at any Fairness
25
Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 515-1 Filed 02/10/10 Page 25 of 64 PageID #: 6365

Hearing. Should the Court not grant Final Approval of this Settlement or its terms then this Settlement shall immediately be null and void unless the parties agree otherwise in writing. IV. FINAL JUDGMENT
As soon as practicable after the close of the hearing on the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of this Settlement and its terms, Class Counsel and Defendants shall request and shall take such actions as are reasonably necessary to have the Court grant a Final Judgment in the lawsuit by entering a final order which provides that the Court approves this Settlement and its terms as fair, reasonable and adequate, provides for the implementation of all of the Settlement’s terms and provisions, approves the individual payments outlined in section I.I.(2)(a)(ii), awards costs and attorneys’ fees as outlined in section I.B., finds that the notice given to the class satisfied the requirements of due process and Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, dismisses the claims of the Named Plaintiffs, opt-in Plaintiffs, and the Class with prejudice, and retains jurisdiction to enforce the provisions of this Settlement. Should the Court not enter a Final Judgment that contains these terms then this Settlement shall immediately be null and void unless the parties agree otherwise in writing. V. ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS
1. The Parties to this Settlement shall not, directly or indirectly, in any way exercise, and they, and all of them, do hereby waive any and all rights they, or any of them, have or may have to appeal from any order of Court entered pursuant to and in accordance with this Settlement. This waiver of appeal does not include any waiver of the right to oppose any appeal, appellate proceedings, or post-judgment proceedings. This paragraph does not preclude Plaintiffs or Class Counsel from appealing any refusal by the District Court to award the full individual payments outlined in section I.I.(2)(a)(ii), and/or the full costs and attorneys’ fees
26
Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 515-1 Filed 02/10/10 Page 26 of 64 PageID #: 6366

outlined in section I.B. 2. The Defendants and the Nine Personal Guarantors maintain the right to void this
Settlement in their sole discretion in the event that ten percent (10%) or more of the AWPA class members opt of the Settlement in accordance with their rights.
3. The Parties to this Settlement, including their employees, agents, and attorneys, agree that they will not solicit or advise class members to request exclusion from the class and will not represent, or arrange representation for, any potential class member in requesting exclusion from the class and/or filing a separate action.
4. This Settlement, including the Recitals and Exhibits, constitutes the entire agreement between the Parties hereto, and supersedes any prior agreements or understandings between the Parties with respect to settlement.
5. Neither this Settlement nor any action taken to carry out this Settlement is, may be construed as, or gives rise to any presumption or inference of, or may be used as an admission or concession by or against Defendants of any fault, wrongdoing or liability whatsoever. Defendants deny all of the allegations.
6. The Parties agree to ask the Court to retain jurisdiction of this matter to enforce the terms of this Settlement.
7. The Parties represent and warrant to each other that they have the full power and authority to enter into this Settlement, and that they have not assigned, pledged, encumbered or in any manner transferred or conveyed any portion of the claims or causes of action covered by this Settlement.
8. The Parties represent and warrant to each other that they understand this Settlement in its entirety and that they have been represented by and consulted with their
27
Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 515-1 Filed 02/10/10 Page 27 of 64 PageID #: 6367

respective counsel in connection with the negotiating, drafting and execution of this Settlement.
9. This Settlement may be modified or amended only by a writing signed by all
Parties or their successors-in-interest.
10. The Settlement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the Parties, and
as applicable, their respective personal representatives, agents, executors, heirs, administrators,
successors, assigns, officers, directors, shareholders, subsidiaries, parents or affiliated
partnerships, corporations or divisions and employees.
11. This Settlement shall be interpreted according to Tennessee law, and federal law
where applicable.
12. This Settlement may be executed in one or more counterparts which, once fully
executed, shall constitute one original and binding Settlement. A photocopy or facsimile copy of
any signature on this Settlement shall be considered as valid as an original signature.
13. All notices, demands, or other communications given under this Settlement, with
the exception of documents filed via the Court’s CM/ECF system, will be in writing and
addressed as follows:
To the Plaintiffs, the FLSA opt-in Plaintiffs, and the Class:
James Knoepp Andrew Turner Southern Poverty Law Center 233 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 2150 Atlanta, GA 303017 jim.knoepp@splcenter.org andrew.turner@splcenter.org
and
Marni Willenson Willenson Law, LLC 542 S. Dearborn Street, Suite 610 Chicago, IL 60605
28
Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 515-1 Filed 02/10/10 Page 28 of 64 PageID #: 6368

marni@willensonlaw.com and Tim Freilich Legal Aid Justice Center 1000 Preston Avenue, Suite A Charlottesville, VA 22903 tim@justice4all.org To Defendants and the Nine Personal Guarantors: Harold Pinkley Kara Shea Miller & Martin PLLC 1200 One Nashville Place 150 Fourth Avenue, North Nashville, TN 37219 hpinkley@millermartin.com kshea@millermartin.com and Fredrick J. Bissinger Wimberly Lawson Seale Wright & Daves, PLLC 200 Fourth Avenue North, Suite 900 Nashville, TN 37219 fbissinger@wimberlylawson.com The Parties may from time to time change their address for purposes of this section by providing written notice of such change to the other Parties.
29
Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 515-1 Filed 02/10/10 Page 29 of 64 PageID #: 6369

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have signed this Settlement on the date written across from their signatures. Attorneys for the Named Plaintiffs, the FLSA opt-in Plaintiffs, and the Class:
Date

Tim Freilich

Date

Legal Aid Justice Center

Mami Willenson Willenson Law, LLC
Attorneys for Defendants:
T. Harold Pinkley Miller & Martin, PLLC

Date Date

Fredrick J. Bissinger

Date

Wimberly, Lawson, Seale, Wright & Davies, PLLC

AnaL. Escobar Escobar & Parks, PLLC

Date
30

Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 515-1 Filed 02/10/10 Page 30 of 64 PageID #: 6370

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have signed this Settlement on the date written across from their signatures. Attorneys for the Named Plaintiffs, the FLSA opt-in Plaintiffs, and the Class:

James Knoepp Southern Poverty Law Center
Tim Freilich Legal Aid Justice Center

Date
0 /o /,0
~

Mruui Willenson Willenson Law, LLC
Attorneys for Defendants:
T. Harold Pinkley Miller & Mattin, PLLC

Date Date

Fredrick J. Bissinger Wimberly, Lawson, Seale, Wright & Davies, PLLC

Date

Ana L. Escobru· Escobar & Parks, PLLC

Date 30

Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 515-1 Filed 02/10/10 Page 31 of 64 PageID #: 6371

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have signed this Settlement on the date wriucn across from their signatures. Allomeys for the Named Plaintiffs, the FLSA opt-in Plaintiffs, and the Class:

James Knoepp

Date

Southern Poverty Law Center

Tim Freilich

Date

Legal Aid Justice Center

~w.•.u...•. •

Mami Willenson

Date

Willenson Law, LLC • .,.J f,.,.'IKWIJ(,, J,f;c.c.

'"' ¥1 ~ c.,...ucJJ

Allorneys for Defendants:

T. Harold Pinkley

Date

Miller & Martin, PLLC

Fredrick J. Bissinger

Date

Wimberly, Lawson, Seale, Wright & Davies, PLLC

Ana L. Escobar Escobar & Parks, PLLC

Date 30

Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 515-1 Filed 02/10/10 Page 32 of 64 PageID #: 6372

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have signed this Settlement on the date written across from their signatures. Attorneys for the Named Plaintiffs, the FLSA opt-in Plaintiffs, and the Class:

James Knoepp

Date

Southern Poverty Law Center

Tim Freilich

Date

Legal Aid Justice Center

Marni Willenson

Date

Willenson Law, LLC

8~~.i!; Bt?~ ~VYIP
Wimberly, Lawson, Seale, Wright & Davies, PLLC

/0 .2--o~ I
Date

Ana L. Escobar Escobar & Parks, PLLC

_..:.t_:_.VC_. _t_o~, )-.4 'o
Date
30

Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 515-1 Filed 02/10/10 Page 33 of 64 PageID #: 6373

02/08/2010 04:15 012787389328 I
'

SUPER MART

PAG. 01 Feb 8 2010 03:36p 01

Named$~ on behalf themsel"es, the FLSA opt-in Plaintiffs, and the Class:

:c-:. ~

ln..s S>- •

..1

,s_-fi

Jt~ Ro.1Ue.s- ~ .z

I
' '
Jesus SantiagJ almoran

I
..._,___ ~-·
Hoctor Ortir.- Jra

I

For the Defe' uv;:

'L /rtn l?Ao
Pate Pate Date

-·- '-.-.--
Superior Fo • ·y Service, c. By: WjH\a~ up. Preside

~----
Date

··--·William lou; , ·ndivtdua.11

Pate

-..
Scott Barst

-----
Date

-------- ·----
Enrique G. alet

D~te

I
I

-----·-
Hector SaJ ·lao

Dat.c

31
Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 515-1 Filed 02/10/10 Page 34 of 64 PageID #: 6374
i

DE C!C COMPUTER

NO.DE FAX 019535520062

06 FEB. 2010 01:14PM P1

Named Plaintiffs. on b~'half of themselves, the FLSA opt-in Plaintiff.~. and the Class:

- -..... ·~····- "-··--·--··-·"·
Jose Rosiles-Pere:;,

Date
-o-c.. ;·-·o· -J- '.·."-·l-_- of{)
Date
. Ob-:_t>_Z.- f;:O__!IO
Date

For the Defendants:
----··---·· ......·-··-
Superior Forestry Servim:, Inc. By: William loup, President
William Ioup, Individually

Date
=----·--·-
Date

Scott Barstow

Date

Enritjue Gonzalez

Date

Hector Santillan

Date

Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 515-1 Filed 02/10/10 Page 35 of 64 PageID #: 6375

Named Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves, the FLSA opt-in Plaintiffs, and the Class:

Jose Rosiles-Perez
Jesus Santiago-Salmoran
Hector Ortiz-Mora
For the Defendants:
Superior Forestry Se 1 , c. By: William Ioup, esident
~~
William Ioup, Indiv·

Date Date Date
~ "'lil 1/o

Scott Barstow
r- -\\-\e&. --. 0''--l- \ : \\ q .._ - c.__
Hector Santillan

Date
/') _., I/) S) l;ro!o
~
Date
31

Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 515-1 Filed 02/10/10 Page 36 of 64 PageID #: 6376

Manuel Morales-Martinez

Date

Date

c:<;/&;;o
Date

32
Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 515-1 Filed 02/10/10 Page 37 of 64 PageID #: 6377

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
COLUMBIA DIVISION

JOSE ROSILES-PEREZ, JESUS )

SANTIAGO-SALMORAN, and )

HECTOR ORTIZ-MORA, on behalf )

of themselves and all others

)

similarly situated,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

SUPERlOR FORESTRY SERVICE, INC., )

WILLIAM IOUP,

)

SCOTT BARSTOW,

)

ENRIQUE GONZALEZ,

)

HECTOR SANTILLAN, and

)

MANUEL MORALES-MARTINEZ, )

)

Defendants.

)

Case No. 1:06-CV-0006 Judge William J. Haynes, Jr.

NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION AND SETTLEMENT HEARING

• Your legal rights are affected whether you act or don't act. Read this notice carefully.

QUESTIONS? CALL 001-800-XXX-XXXX TOLL FREE FROM MEXICO
OR 1-800-XXX-XXXX TOLL FREE FROM THE UNITED STATES lfJai!!!!!!!
-1-
Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 515-1 Filed 02/10/10 Page 38 of 64 PageID #: 6378

YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS AND OPTIONS IN THIS SETTLEMENT:

SUBMIT A CLAIM

The only way to get a payment if you have not already filed a “consent to sue” form with the Court.

Get no payment. This is the only option that allows you to EXCLUDE YOURSELF ever be part of any other lawsuit against the Defendants
about the legal claims in this case.

OBJECT

Write to the Court about why you don't like the settlement.

GO TO A HEARING Ask to speak in Court about the fairness of the settlement.

DO NOTHING

Get no payment. Give up rights.

• These rights and options—and the deadlines to exercise them—are explained in this notice.
• The Court in charge of this case still has to decide whether to approve the Settlement. Payments will only be made if the Court approves the Settlement and after any appeals are resolved. Please be patient.

QUESTIONS? CALL 001-800-XXX-XXXX TOLL FREE FROM MEXICO OR 1-800-XXX-XXXX TOLL FREE FROM THE UNITED STATES −2−
Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 515-1 Filed 02/10/10 Page 39 of 64 PageID #: 6379

1. What is this Notice about?
This Notice is an official court notice to let you know about a proposed Settlement in this "class action" lawsuit and how you may claim a share of the Settlement. You are considered a class member in this case if you were employed as an H-2B worker at Superior Forestry Service, Inc. at any time between December 1, 1999 and January 25, 2006. If you do not think the settlement is fair, you can object, and this Notice will tell you how to make such an objection. This notice also informs you of your rights if you do not want to be a member of the class.
2. What is this "class action" lawsuit?
A "class action” lawsuit is a lawsuit in which a few people, called the Class Representatives, sue on behalf of people who have similar claims. All these people are a Class or Class Members. One Court resolves the issues for all Class Members, except those who exclude themselves from the Class. Here, Jose Rosiles-Perez, Jesus Santiago-Salmoran, and Hector Ortiz-Mora were appointed by the Court to represent the Class. United States District Court Judge William J. Haynes, Jr. is in charge of this class action.
3. What is the lawsuit about?
The individuals who filed the lawsuit claimed that Superior Forestry and the other Defendants violated the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act with respect to their employment of H-2B workers. The lawsuit claims that Superior Forestry failed to reimburse the H2B workers during their first week of work for the costs of the H-2B visas and the travel from their homes to the United States. In addition, the lawsuit claims that Superior Forestry did not always pay workers for all time spent working, and that Superior Forestry did not keep an accurate count of the total number of trees that were planted correctly by each worker. The Court has not decided whether the H2B workers who brought this lawsuit are correct on these claims. Superior Forestry and the other Defendants deny they did anything wrong.
QUESTIONS? CALL 001-800-XXX-XXXX TOLL FREE FROM MEXICO OR 1-800-XXX-XXXX TOLL FREE FROM THE UNITED STATES −3−
Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 515-1 Filed 02/10/10 Page 40 of 64 PageID #: 6380

4. What is the status of the lawsuit?
After several years of court proceedings and three days of mediation in August and December, 2009, the Class Representatives who filed this lawsuit and Superior Forestry and the other Defendants agreed to a proposed Settlement. The Class Representatives and the attorneys think the Settlement is fair and is best for everyone who had claims in this lawsuit. Your rights could be affected by this Settlement so you should read this Notice carefully to decide whether you want to be part of the Class and you think the Settlement is fair.
5. How do I know if I am part of the proposed Settlement?
If you worked as an H-2B worker (and were not a crew supervisor) for Superior Forestry at any time between December 1, 1999 and January 25, 2006, you are a member of the “Class.” All years of employment through the 2008-2009 forestry season are covered by this lawsuit and the proposed Settlement, as long as you were employed at Superior Forestry at any time between December 1, 1999 and January 25, 2006. If the first day you ever worked for Superior Forestry was after January 25, 2006, you are not covered by this lawsuit and proposed Settlement unless you previously filed a form with the Court called a “consent to sue.”
6. What if I am not sure if I am part of the proposed Settlement?
If you are not sure whether you are part of the proposed Settlement, you can call the attorneys for the Plaintiffs and the class members at 001-800-xxx-xxxx if you are calling from Mexico. If you are calling from the United States, you can call 1-800xxx-xxxx. These are free telephone calls.
7. What are the terms of the proposed Settlement?
The proposed Settlement agreement between the workers who brought the lawsuit and Superior Forestry and the other Defendants sets forth in detail the terms and conditions of the Settlement. This and the following paragraphs contain a brief
QUESTIONS? CALL 001-800-XXX-XXXX TOLL FREE FROM MEXICO OR 1-800-XXX-XXXX TOLL FREE FROM THE UNITED STATES
−4−
Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 515-1 Filed 02/10/10 Page 41 of 64 PageID #: 6381

summary of the proposed Settlement. In total, Superior Forestry and the Defendants are paying the workers $2.2 million dollars, plus an additional $88,000 in interest, as part of the proposed Settlement. If the Court approves the Settlement that has been proposed, each H-2B worker who files a valid and timely claim will receive a minimum of $334.55 for each season they worked for Superior Forestry between the 1999-2000 season and the 2008-2009 season. The amount of the payment per season to each H-2B worker will depend on the number of people who file claims, but the minimum amount will be $334.55. Also, each H-2B worker who previously filed a valid “consent to sue” form with the Court will receive an additional $1,000.00 for each season they worked for Superior Forestry within three years of the date their consent form was filed. Another important part of the Settlement to know is that this money is being paid in three payments over more than two years, so not all the money will be paid to class members immediately.
8. Who else gets money from the Settlement?
The three Class Representatives will each receive an additional $7,500.00 under the Settlement agreement in consideration for their commitment in bringing this lawsuit on behalf of the class, for a total $22,500.00. Thirteen additional individuals who provided testimony and other important participation in the lawsuit will receive payments between $2,000.00 and $4,000.00 each, for a total of $38,000.00. The lawyers who represented the Plaintiffs and the class members are eligible to apply to the Court for an award of $550,000.00, which is approximately $130,000.00, plus interest, to cover the expenses they had in bringing this case, plus approximately $420,000.00, plus interest, in attorneys’ fees for time spent working on this case. The money for costs and attorneys’ fees will be paid separately from the $2.2 million that is being paid to the class members.
9. What are my rights as a member of the “Class”?
As a member of the Class, you have the right to receive money from the Settlement. As a member of the Class, you are also giving up your rights to bring a separate claim against Superior Forestry and the other Defendants for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act or the Migrant and Seasonal Worker Protection Act for any work you may have performed between December 1, 1999 and the last day you
QUESTIONS? CALL 001-800-XXX-XXXX TOLL FREE FROM MEXICO OR 1-800-XXX-XXXX TOLL FREE FROM THE UNITED STATES
−5−
Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 515-1 Filed 02/10/10 Page 42 of 64 PageID #: 6382

worked during the 2008-2009 forestry season.
10. How do I make a claim as a class member?
TO CLAIM YOUR MONEY YOU MUST FILE A CLAIM.
A Claim Form is included with this Notice. The Claim Form already has your name on it, and the number of seasons between the 1999-2000 season and the 20082009 season in which you are eligible for payment. If you want to file a claim to receive your money, you should fill out the Claim Form and return it by mail to the attorneys for the class at the Southern Poverty Law Center (Immigrant Justice Project). You can also fax the form to 404-221-5857. If your Claim is received before July 12, 2010, you will be eligible to receive the first payment to be made to the Class, which should be sometime close to the end of the summer of 2010. If your Claim is received after July 12, 2010, you will not receive payment until the second payment, which will be sometime during the summer of 2011.
IF YOU DO NOT FILE A CLAIM BEFORE FRIDAY, JULY 13, 2012, YOU WILL NOT BE ELIGIBLE TO RECEIVE PAYMENT PURSUANT TO THIS SETTLEMENT. If you do not make a Claim and you do not exclude yourself from the case as described in paragraph 15, you are giving up your rights to receive money. You are also giving up your rights to ever bringing a lawsuit against Superior Forestry and the other Defendants for the claims and time periods alleged in this lawsuit.
11. What if I already filed a “consent to sue” form with the Court?
If you are one of the 184 people who already filed a consent to sue form to be a Plaintiff in this case, you do not need to fill out and send back a Claim Form in order to receive your payment. However, you should make sure that the Southern Poverty Law Center (Immigrant Justice Project) has your current contact information. If you are not sure whether you already filed a consent to sue form in this case, or if you need to update your contact information, please send in the Claim Form or call the Southern Poverty Law Center (Immigrant Justice Project) at 001-800-xxx-xxxx from Mexico, or 1-800-xxx-xxxx from the United States.
QUESTIONS? CALL 001-800-XXX-XXXX TOLL FREE FROM MEXICO OR 1-800-XXX-XXXX TOLL FREE FROM THE UNITED STATES
−6−
Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 515-1 Filed 02/10/10 Page 43 of 64 PageID #: 6383

12. What if I disagree with the number of eligible seasons for payment?
If you disagree with the number of eligible seasons on your Claim Form, you must still send in your Claim Form in order to receive any payment. But, you should also send the attorneys at the Southern Poverty Law Center (Immigrant Justice Project) any additional information you have that shows what years you worked for Superior Forestry, such as a copy of your visas, paycheck stubs, or other receipts. You may also call the Southern Poverty Law Center (Immigrant Justice Project) at 001-800-xxx-xxxx from Mexico, or 1-800-xxx-xxxx from the United States to receive further information.
13. When and how will I receive my payment?
The Defendants are paying the money owed under the Settlement in three payments. Therefore, the Class will also likely receive their money in three different payments. The First Payment should occur sometime around the end of the Summer in 2010. You will be contacted by telephone as to how and where you can claim your payment. In most cases, you will go to a Bansefi bank location and present your identification and a code given to you by the attorneys for the Class in order to claim your payment. For this reason, IT IS VERY IMPORTANT THAT THE ATTORNEYS HAVE YOUR CURRENT CONTACT INFORMATION. FAILURE TO PICK UP YOUR MONEY WITHIN 120 DAYS AFTER THE ATTORNEYS OR THEIR AGENTS ATTEMPT TO CONTACT YOU MAY MEAN THAT YOU WILL LOSE YOUR RIGHT TO THE MONEY.
All people who file a Claim will be eligible for a FINAL PAYMENT, which should occur sometime around the end of the Summer in 2012. PLEASE MAKE SURE THAT THE ATTORNEYS HAVE YOUR CURRENT CONTACT INFORMATION BEFORE THE SUMMER OF 2012 OR YOU MAY NOT RECEIVE YOUR FINAL PAYMENT.
14. Will my participation in this Settlement affect my ability to work in the United States in the future?
No. Superior Forestry and the other Defendants are prohibited from taking any
QUESTIONS? CALL 001-800-XXX-XXXX TOLL FREE FROM MEXICO OR 1-800-XXX-XXXX TOLL FREE FROM THE UNITED STATES
−7−
Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 515-1 Filed 02/10/10 Page 44 of 64 PageID #: 6384

actions against anyone because of their participation in this case or their participation in this Settlement. Your filing a Claim to receive your part of the Settlement money will have no effect on your ability to obtain a visa to work in the United States in the future.
15. How do I opt-out of this “class action”?
If you do NOT want to participate in the class action, you have the right to be excluded from the Class and not receive any money from the Settlement. If you choose to be excluded from the class, you will NEVER be able to make any claim for this Settlement money; however, you may have the right to bring your own lawsuit against Superior Forestry and the other Defendants within the time period allowed under the law for the claims alleged in the lawsuit. You must opt-out before May 1, 2010. If you fail to opt-out by May 1, 2010, you are giving up your right to be excluded from the class, which means that you can not bring a separate lawsuit against Superior Forestry and the other Defendants for the same claims alleged in the current lawsuit with respect to the time period from December 1, 1999 through the last day your worked during the 2008-2009 forestry season. If you do not opt-out you will be bound by the Settlement agreement and are eligible to file a claim for the settlement money. To be excluded from the class action you must send a letter to the Court stating specifically that you want to opt-out of this case. You should send this letter to the Clerk of the Court at the United States Courthouse, 815 Garden Street, Columbia, TN 38401. You should include in your letter the name of the case (Rosiles-Perez v. Superior Forestry Service, Inc.) and the case number (1:06-CV-0006). If you choose to “opt-out” of the class action, you should consult a lawyer as to your rights.
16. What if I think the Settlement is unfair?
There will be an in-person hearing before federal district judge William J. Haynes, Jr. at 2:30 P.M. on March 26, 2010, at the United States Courthouse, 815 Garden Street, Columbia, TN 38401 to decide whether the settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate. If you want to object to the settlement you must file your objection with the Clerk of the Court before March 26, 2010. If you do want to object, write the Clerk of the Court at the United States Courthouse, 815 Garden Street,
QUESTIONS? CALL 001-800-XXX-XXXX TOLL FREE FROM MEXICO OR 1-800-XXX-XXXX TOLL FREE FROM THE UNITED STATES
−8−
Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 515-1 Filed 02/10/10 Page 45 of 64 PageID #: 6385

Columbia, TN 38401. You should include in your letter the name of the case (Rosiles-Perez v. Superior Forestry Service, Inc.) and the case number (1:06-CV0006). This hearing will be your only opportunity to object to the terms of the Settlement.
You do not have to be present at the hearing to receive your share of the settlement money. If you file a claim to get your share of the Settlement, you will receive your class share, provided the Settlement is approved by the Judge.
17. What happens if I do nothing at all?
If you do nothing, you will get no money from this Settlement. But, unless you exclude yourself, you won’t be able to start a lawsuit, continue with a lawsuit, or be part of any other lawsuit against Superior Forestry and the other Defendants about the issues and time period covered by this case ever again.
18. What if I want further information?
If you have questions about the settlement, need help understanding this Notice, or want a complete copy of the Settlement Agreement you can contact the lawyers for the workers who brought the lawsuit by writing or calling:
Southern Poverty Law Center 233 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 2150 Atlanta, GA 30303 Telephone from United States: 1-800-xxx-xxxx Telephone from Mexico: 001-800-xxx-xxxx
DO NOT CALL THE COURT OR THE CLERK OF THE COURT
QUESTIONS? CALL 001-800-XXX-XXXX TOLL FREE FROM MEXICO OR 1-800-XXX-XXXX TOLL FREE FROM THE UNITED STATES −9−
Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 515-1 Filed 02/10/10 Page 46 of 64 PageID #: 6386

SUPERIOR FORESTRY SETTLEMENT CLAIM FORM

Your Name:

SETTLEMENT PAYMENT INFORMATION [populated from spreadsheet]

[empcode]

Number of Seasons Eligible for Class Payment: Minimum amount you will receive from Class Payment: Did you file a “consent to sue” form: Number of Seasons Eligible for “consent to sue” Payment: Additional amount for filing “consent to sue”: Individual Payment (if any): Total minimum payment you will receive:

[populated from spreadsheet] [populated from spreadsheet] [populated from spreadsheet] [populated from spreadsheet] [populated from spreadsheet] [populated from spreadsheet] [populated from spreadsheet]

If you do not agree with the number of seasons identified above, you MUST provide the attorneys for the Class additional documents (visas, paycheck stubs, receipts) to show additional years you worked for Superior Forestry.

INFORMATION ON HOW TO CONTACT YOU

Date of Birth:

______________________________________________________________

Address:

______________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________

Primary telephone number:

___________________________________________________

Alternative telephone number(s): ___________________________________________________

Do you have an email address? If so, what is it: _______________________________________

Relative to be contacted if you are not in Mexico: _____________________________________

Relative’s telephone number: ___________________________________________________

REMEMBER, we will be calling you by telephone to provide you information on how to collect your money. Please contact us if you change your telephone number(s). You may call our office at 001-800-xxx-xxxx from Mexico, or 1-800-xxx-xxxx from the United States.

I hereby state that I wish to receive my share of the settlement proceeds in the case of Rosiles-Perez, et al. v. Superior Forestry Service, Inc., et al.

_________________ Date

_________________________ Signature

OVER

Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 515-1 Filed 02/10/10 Page 47 of 64 PageID #: 6387

WHERE DO I SEND MY FORM? You should mail your completed form to the following address:
Superior Forestry Settlement Southern Poverty Law Center 233 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 2150 Atlanta, GA 30303 Or You can Fax your completed form to the attorneys at the Southern Poverty Law Center (Immigrant Justice Project) at: 404-221-5857
WHAT ARE THE DEADLINES FOR SENDING IN MY FORM? REMEMBER, your form must be received by the attorneys at the Southern Poverty Law Center (Immigrant Justice Project) before July 12, 2010 if you want to receive your money as part of the first payment that will be made sometime close to the end of the Summer of 2010. If your form is received after July 12, 2010, you will not receive any payment until the end of the Summer of 2011. If you do not exclude yourself from this case, then you must file a Claim in order to receive your payment. If you do not file a Claim by Friday, July 13, 2012, you will have given up your right to receive any money from this Settlement.
HOW CAN I GET MORE INFORMATION? You can get more information by calling the attorneys at the Southern Poverty Law Center (Immigrant Justice Project):
001-800-xxx-xxxx if calling from Mexico 1-800-xxx-xxxx if calling from the United States.
Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 515-1 Filed 02/10/10 Page 48 of 64 PageID #: 6388

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
COLUMBIA DIVISION

JOSE ROSILES-PEREZ, JESUS )

SANTIAGO-SALMORAN, and )

HECTOR ORTIZ-MORA, on behalf )

of themselves and all others

)

similarly situated,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

SUPERIOR FORESTRY SERVICE, INC., )

WILLIAM IOUP,

)

SCOTT BARSTOW,

)

ENRIQUE GONZALEZ,

)

HECTOR SANTILLAN, and

)

MANUEL MORALES-MARTINEZ, )

)

Defendants.

)

Caso No. 1:06-CV-0006 Juez William J. Haynes, Jr.

NOTICIA DEL ACUERDO PROPUESTO DE ACCIÓN DE CLASE Y AUDIENCIA DEL ACUERDO
• Sus derechos legales son afectados ya sea que tome acción o no la tome. Lea esta Noticia cuidadosamente.
YOUR

¿PREGUNTAS? LLAME GRATIS AL 001-800-XXX-XXXX DE MÉXICO O AL 1-800-XXX-XXXX DE LOS ESTADOS UNIDOS −1−
Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 515-1 Filed 02/10/10 Page 49 of 64 PageID #: 6389

Sus Derechos Legales y Opciones en este Acuerdo:

La única manera de recibir pago si usted no ha

LLENAR UN RECLAMO llenado ya una forma “Consentimiento para

Demandar” con la Corte.

No recibe pago. Esta es la única opción que le

EXCLUIRSE

permite ser parte de otra demanda en contra de los Acusados relacionada a las quejas legales en este

caso.

OPONERSE

Escribir a la Corte haciéndole saber porque a usted no le gusta el Acuerdo.

IR A LA AUDIENCIA

Pedir hablar en la Corte acerca de la Justicia del Acuerdo.

NO HACER NADA

No recibir pago. Renunciar a sus derechos.

• Estos derechos y opciones—y el plazo para tomar una decisión—se explican en esta noticia.
• La Corte encargada de este caso todavía tiene que decidir si aprueba o no el Acuerdo. Los pagos se harán sólo si la Corte aprueba el Acuerdo y después de resolver cualquier apelación. Le pedimos que por favor sea paciente.

¿PREGUNTAS? LLAME GRATIS AL 001-800-XXX-XXXX DE MÉXICO O AL 1-800-XXX-XXXX DE LOS ESTADOS UNIDOS −2−
Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 515-1 Filed 02/10/10 Page 50 of 64 PageID #: 6390

1. ¿De que se trata esta Noticia?
Esta Noticia es una noticia oficial de la Corte para informarle del Acuerdo propuesto en esta demanda de “acción de clase” y cómo pudiera usted reclamar una parte de este Acuerdo. Usted está considerado cómo un miembro de la clase en este caso si usted fue empleado como un trabajador H-2B en Superior Forestry Service, Inc. en cualquier fecha entre el 1 de diciembre de 1999 y el 25 de enero de 2006. Si usted no cree que este Acuerdo es justo, usted puede oponerse, y esta noticia le dirá como puede usted hacer tal objeción. Esta noticia también le informa de sus derechos si usted no desea ser miembro de esta clase.
2. ¿Que es lo que significa una demanda de “acción de clase”?
Una demanda de “acción de clase” es una demanda en la cual un grupo de pocas personas llamadas Representantes de la Clase, demandan a nombre de personas quienes tienen quejas/reclamos similares. Todas estas personas son una Clase o Miembros de la Clase. Una Corte resuelve los asuntos para todos los Miembros de la Clase, excepto aquellos quienes se excluyen (voluntariamente) de la Clase. Aquí, José Rosiles-Pérez, Jesús SantiagoSalmoran, y Héctor Ortiz-Mora fueron nombrados por la Corte a representar a la Clase. El Juez William J. Haynes, Jr. de la Corte de Distrito de los Estados Unidos esta encargado de esta acción de clase.
3. ¿De que se trata esta demanda?
Los individuos quienes presentaron la demanda reclaman que Superior Forestry y los otros Acusados violaron las Leyes Federales de Reglas Justas de Trabajo y las Leyes de Protección al Trabajador Agrícola con respecto a su empleo como trabajadores H-2B. La demanda reclama que Superior Forestry falló a reembolsar a los trabajadores H-2B durante su primera semana de trabajo por los costos de visas de H-2B y el viaje de sus hogares a los Estados Unidos. Además, la demanda reclama que Superior Forestry no siempre pagó a sus trabajadores por todo el tiempo que pasaron trabajando, y que Superior Forestry no tenía un registro exacto del número de la cantidad de árboles plantados correctamente por cada trabajador. La Corte no ha
¿PREGUNTAS? LLAME GRATIS AL 001-800-XXX-XXXX DE MÉXICO O AL 1-800-XXX-XXXX DE LOS ESTADOS UNIDOS −3−
Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 515-1 Filed 02/10/10 Page 51 of 64 PageID #: 6391

decidido si los trabajadores H-2B que presentaron esta demanda están en lo correcto con estos reclamos. Superior Forestry y los otros Acusados niegan haber hecho algo incorrecto.
4. ¿Cuál es el estado de la demanda?
Después de varios años de procesos con la corte y tres días de mediación en Agosto y Diciembre del 2009, los Representantes de la Clase quienes presentaron esta demanda y Superior Forestry y los otros Acusados acordaron un propuesto Acuerdo. Los Representantes de la Clase y los abogados piensan que el Acuerdo es justo y lo mejor para todos quienes tenían reclamos en esta demanda. Sus derechos pueden ser afectados por este Acuerdo así que debe de leer esta Noticia cuidadosamente para que decida si usted quiere ser parte de la Clase y usted piensa que el Acuerdo es justo.
5. ¿Como puedo saber si soy parte del Acuerdo propuesto?
Si usted trabajó como un trabajador H-2B (y no era un supervisor) para Superior Forestry en cualquier fecha entre el 1 de diciembre de 1999 y el 25 de enero de 2006, automáticamente usted es un miembro de la “Clase.” Todos los años de empleo hasta las estaciones del 2008-2009 están cubiertas por esta demanda y el Acuerdo propuesto, mientras que usted haya sido empleado por Superior Forestry en cualquier fecha entre el 1 de diciembre y el 25 de enero de 2006. Si el primer día que usted trabajó para Superior Forestry en toda su vida fue después del 25 de enero de 2006, usted no esta cubierto por esta demanda y el Acuerdo propuesto a menos que usted haya presentado una forma a la Corte llamada “Consentimiento para Acción FLSA”
6. ¿Que pasa si no estoy seguro si soy parte del Acuerdo propuesto?
Si usted no esta seguro si es parte del Acuerdo propuesto, usted puede llamar a los abogados de los Demandantes y a los miembros de la clase al 011-800xxx-xxxx si usted está hablando desde México. Si habla de los Estados Unidos, puede marcar el 1-800-xxx-xxxx. Estos números son gratuitos.
¿PREGUNTAS? LLAME GRATIS AL 001-800-XXX-XXXX DE MÉXICO O AL 1-800-XXX-XXXX DE LOS ESTADOS UNIDOS −4−
Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 515-1 Filed 02/10/10 Page 52 of 64 PageID #: 6392

7. ¿Cuales son los términos del propuesto Acuerdo?
El Acuerdo propuesto entre los trabajadores quienes presentaron la demanda y Superior Forestry y los otros Acusados describe en detalle los términos y condiciones de este Acuerdo. Este y los siguientes párrafos contienen un breve resumen del propuesto Acuerdo. En total, Superior Forestry y los Acusados están pagándoles a los trabajadores $2.2 millón de dólares, más $88,000 adicionales en intereses, como parte del propuesto Acuerdo. Si la Corte aprueba este Acuerdo que ha sido propuesto, cada trabajador H-2B que presente un reclamo válido y a tiempo recibirá un mínimo de $334.55 por cada temporada que haya trabajado para Superior Forestry entre las estaciones de 1999-2000 y estaciones de 2008-2009. La cantidad de pago por estación para cada trabajador H-2B dependerá en la cantidad de personas que presenten sus reclamos, pero la mínima cantidad será de $334.55. También, cada trabajador H-2B quien anteriormente presentó una forma de “Consentimiento para Acción FLSA” válida con la Corte recibirá una cantidad adicional de $1,000.00 por cada temporada que trabajó para superior Forestry dentro de tres años de la fecha que este consentimiento fue presentado. Otra parte importante de saber acerca de este Acuerdo es que este dinero sería pagado en tres pagos dentro de los dos próximos años, así que no todo el dinero se pagaría a todos los miembros de la clase de inmediato.
8. ¿Quien mas recibe dinero del Acuerdo?
Los tres Representantes de la Clase recibirán cada uno $7,500.00 adicionales bajo el arreglo del Acuerdo en consideración por su determinación al presentar esta demanda en nombre de la clase, por un total de $22,500.00. Trece individuos adicionales quienes proveyeron testimonios y otra importante participación en la demanda recibirán pagos entre $2,000.00 y $4,000.00 cada uno, por un total de $38,000.00. Los abogados quienes representaron a los Demandantes y a los miembros de la clase son elegibles a aplicar a la Corte a que se les otorguen $550,000.00, lo cuál es aproximadamente $130,000.00, más interés, para cubrir los gastos que ellos tuvieron en este caso, más aproximadamente $420,000.00, más interés, en cargos de abogados por el tiempo que pasaron trabajando en este caso. El dinero por los gastos y costos de abogados será pagado por separado de los $2.2 millones que se están pagando a los miembros de la clase.
¿PREGUNTAS? LLAME GRATIS AL 001-800-XXX-XXXX DE MÉXICO O AL 1-800-XXX-XXXX DE LOS ESTADOS UNIDOS −5−
Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 515-1 Filed 02/10/10 Page 53 of 64 PageID #: 6393

9. ¿Cuales son mis derechos como miembro de la “Clase”?
Como miembro de la Clase, usted tiene el derecho de recibir dinero de este Acuerdo. Como miembro de la Clase, usted también está renunciando a sus derechos de presentar un reclamo por separado en contra de Superior Forestry y los otros Acusados por violación a las Leyes Justas de Trabajo o a las Leyes de Protección al Trabajador Agrícola por cualquier trabajo que haya desempeñado entre el 1 de diciembre de 1999 y el último día que usted trabajo durante la temporada forestal de 2008-2009.
10. ¿Como puedo presentar un reclamo como miembro de la clase?
PARA RECLAMAR SU DINERO USTED DEBE REMITIR UN FORMULARIO DE RECLAMO
Un Formulario de Reclamo está incluido con este Aviso. El Formulario de Reclamo ya tiene su nombre y el número de temporadas entre la temporada de 1999-2000 a la temporada de 2008-2009 de las cuales usted es elegible para pago. Si usted quiere remitir este formulario para recibir su dinero, usted necesita llenar el Formulario de Reclamo y mandarlo a los abogados de la clase al Southern Poverty Law Center (Proyecto de Justicia Inmigrante). Usted también puede mandar su formulario por fax al número: 404-221-5857. Si recibimos su formulario antes del 12 de Julio del 2010, usted será elegible para recibir el primer pago que se le hará a la Clase, el cual será distribuido cerca del final del verano del 2010. Si su formulario es recibido después del 12 de Julio del 2010, usted recibirá pago hasta el segundo pago a la clase, el cual será durante el verano del 2011.
SI USTED NO REMITE UN FORMULARIO DE RELAMO ANTES DEL VIERNES, 13 DE JULIO, 2012, USTED NO SERÁ ELEGIBLE PARA RECIBIR PAGO EN CONFORMIDAD A ESTE ACUERDO. Si usted no remite un formulario de relamo y usted no se excluye del caso como es detallado en el párrafo 15, usted cederá sus derechos para recibir dinero. Usted también cederá sus derechos de alguna vez demandar a Superior Forestry y a los otros Acusados por los reclamos y por el periodo de tiempo alegado en esta demanda.
¿PREGUNTAS? LLAME GRATIS AL 001-800-XXX-XXXX DE MÉXICO O AL 1-800-XXX-XXXX DE LOS ESTADOS UNIDOS −6−
Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 515-1 Filed 02/10/10 Page 54 of 64 PageID #: 6394

11. ¿Que tal si ya he firmado un Consentimiento para Demandar con la Corte?
Si usted es una de las 184 personas que ya firmaron un Consentimiento para Demandar para ser un demandante en este caso, usted no necesita llenar y regresar un Formulario de Reclamo para recibir su pago. Sin embargo, usted debe asegurarse de que el Southern Poverty Law Center (Proyecto de Justicia Inmigrante) tiene su información de contacto actualizada. Si usted no está seguro si ha firmado un consentimiento para demandar, o si necesita actualizar su información de contacto, por favor mándenos su Formulario para Reclamar, o llame al Southern Poverty Law Center (Proyecto de Justicia Inmigrante) al: 001-800-xxx-xxxx de México, or 1-800-xxx-xxxx de los Estados Unidos.
12. ¿Que tal si no estoy de acuerdo con el número de temporadas?
Si usted no está de acuerdo con el número de temporadas elegibles en su Formulario de Reclamo, usted debe todavía mandarnos su Formulario para recibir cualquier pago. Pero, también necesita mandar a los abogados del Southern Poverty Law Center (Proyecto de Justicia Inmigrante) cualquier información adicional que demuestre los años que trabajó para Superior Forestry, como una copia de sus visas, talones de cheque, u otros recibos. Usted también puede llamar al Southern Poverty Law Center (Proyecto de Justicia Inmigrante) al 001-800-xxx-xxxx de México, o 1-800-xxx-xxxx de los Estados Unidos para recibir información adicional.
13. ¿Cuando y cómo recibiré mi pago?
Los Demandados pagaran el dinero que deben bajo el acuerdo en tres pagos. Por lo tanto, la Clase probablemente también recibirá su dinero en tres pagos distintos. El Primer Pago deberá ocurrir alrededor del fin del verano del 2010. Usted será contactado por teléfono acerca de cómo y cuando podrá reclamar su pago. En la mayoría de los casos, usted irá a un banco Bansefi y presentará su identificación y un código que le darán los abogados de la Clase para reclamar su pago. Por esta razón, ES MUY IMPORTANTE QUE LOS ABOGADOS TENGAN SU INFOMACIÓN DE CONTACTO ACTUALIZADA. SI USTED NO COBRA SU DINERO
¿PREGUNTAS? LLAME GRATIS AL 001-800-XXX-XXXX DE MÉXICO O AL 1-800-XXX-XXXX DE LOS ESTADOS UNIDOS −7−
Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 515-1 Filed 02/10/10 Page 55 of 64 PageID #: 6395

DENTRO DE 120 DÍAS DE LA FECHA EN LA QUE LOS ABOGADOS O SUS AGENTES INTENTEN COMUNICARSE CON USTED PUEDE SIGNIFICAR QUE USTED PERDERÁ SU DERECHO AL DINERO.
Toda la gente que presente un Reclamo será elegible para un PAGO FINAL, el cuál deberá ocurrir alrededor del final del verano del 2012. POR FAVOR ASEGURESE DE QUE LOS ABOGADOS TENGAN SU INFORMACIÓN DE CONTACTO ACTUALIZADA ANTES DEL VERANO DE 2012 O PODRÍA SER QUE NO RECIBA SU PAGO FINAL.
14. ¿Mi participación en este Acuerdo afectará mi habilidad a trabajar en los Estados Unidos en el futuro?
No. Superior Forestry y los otros Acusados tienen prohibido tomar acciones en contra de cualquier persona por su participación en este caso o su participación en este acuerdo. El que usted llene un Reclamo para recibir su parte del dinero del Acuerdo no tendrá efecto en su habilidad de obtener una visa para trabajar en los Estados Unidos en el futuro.
15. ¿Como me retiro de esta “acción de clase?”
Si usted NO quiere participar en esta acción de clase, usted tiene el derecho de ser excluido de la Clase y no recibir dinero del Acuerdo. Si usted decide ser excluido de la Clase usted NUNCA podrá hacer ningún reclamo para este dinero del Acuerdo, sin embargo, usted podría tener el derecho de presentar su propia demanda contra Superior Forestry y los otros Demandados entre el periodo del tiempo permitido bajo la ley por los reclamos que alegamos en esta demanda. Usted debe de retirarse antes del 1 de Mayo del 2010. Si usted no se retira antes del 1 de mayo del 2010, usted está cediendo su derecho de ser excluido del caso, lo cuál significa que no puede traer una demanda separada contra Superior Forestry y los otros Acusados por los mismos reclamos alegados en la presente demanda con respeto al periodo de tiempo del 1 de diciembre de 1999 hasta el último día que trabajó durante la temporada forestal del 2008-2009. Si no se retira del caso, estará ligado al caso por el Acuerdo y será elegible para remitir un Formulario de Reclamo para el dinero del acuerdo. Para ser excluido de la
¿PREGUNTAS? LLAME GRATIS AL 001-800-XXX-XXXX DE MÉXICO O AL 1-800-XXX-XXXX DE LOS ESTADOS UNIDOS −8−
Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 515-1 Filed 02/10/10 Page 56 of 64 PageID #: 6396

acción de clase, usted tiene que mandar una carta a la Corte diciendo específicamente que usted se quiere retirar del caso. Usted tiene que mandar esta carta a: Clerk of the Court, United States Courthouse, 815 Garden Street, Columbia, TN 38401. Usted debe incluir en su carta el nombre del caso (Rosiles-Pérez v. Superior Forestry Service, Inc.) y el número del caso (1:06-CV-0006). Si usted decide retirarse de la acción de clase, debería de consultar a un abogado acerca de sus derechos.
16. ¿Que tal si pienso que el Acuerdo no es Justo?
Va a ver una audiencia en persona ante el juez federal del distrito William J. Haynes, Jr. a las 2:30 P.M. el 26 de marzo del 2010, en la Corte de los Estados Unidos, 815 Garden Street, Columbia, TN 38401 para decidir si el acuerdo es justo, razonable, y adecuado. Si usted quiere oponerse al Acuerdo, necesita remitir su objeción a con el administrador(a) de la Corte antes del 26 de marzo del 2010. Si quiere oponerse, escríbale a: Clerk of the Court at the United States Courthouse, 815 Garden Street, Columbia, TN 38401. En su carta debe de incluir el nombre del caso (Rosiles-Pérez v. Superior Forestry Service, Inc.) y el número del caso (1:06-CV-0006). Esta audiencia será su única oportunidad para oponerse a los términos del Acuerdo.
Usted no tiene que estar presente en la audiencia para recibir la parte que le corresponde del dinero del Acuerdo. Si usted remite su formulario de reclamo para conseguir su parte del Acuerdo, usted recibirá su parte del dinero para la clase, si es que el Juez aprueba el Acuerdo.
17. ¿Que pasa si no hago nada?
Si usted no hace nada, usted no recibirá dinero de este Acuerdo. Pero, a menos que se excluya a si mismo, usted no podrá empezar una demanda, continuar con una demanda, o ser parte de cualquier otra demanda contra Superior Forestry ni contra los otros Acusados acerca de los asuntos y periodo de tiempo cubierto por este caso nunca jamás.
¿PREGUNTAS? LLAME GRATIS AL 001-800-XXX-XXXX DE MÉXICO O AL 1-800-XXX-XXXX DE LOS ESTADOS UNIDOS −9−
Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 515-1 Filed 02/10/10 Page 57 of 64 PageID #: 6397

18. ¿Que tal si necesito mas información? Si usted tiene preguntas del acuerdo, necesita ayuda para entender este Aviso, o si quiere una copia completa del Acuerdo, se puede comunicar con los abogados de los trabajadores quienes presentaron la demanda escribiendo o llamando a:
Southern Poverty Law Center 233 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 2150 Atlanta, GA 30303 Teléfono desde los Estados Unidos: 1-800-xxx-xxxx Teléfono desde México: 001-800-xxx-xxxx NO LLAME A LA CORTE O AL ADMINISTRADOR(A) DE LA CORTE.
¿PREGUNTAS? LLAME GRATIS AL 001-800-XXX-XXXX DE MÉXICO O AL 1-800-XXX-XXXX DE LOS ESTADOS UNIDOS −10−
Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 515-1 Filed 02/10/10 Page 58 of 64 PageID #: 6398

FORMULARIO DE RECLAMO DEL ACUERDO CON SUPERIOR FORESTRY

Su Nombre:

INFORMACIÓN DE PAGO DEL ACUERDO [populated from spreadsheet]

[empcode]

Número de temporadas elegibles para pago de la clase:

[populated from spreadsheet]

Pago mínimo que recibirá del pago de la clase:

[populated from spreadsheet]

Usted lleno un “Consentimiento para Demandar”?:

[populated from spreadsheet]

Número de temporadas elegibles para pago de “Consentimiento”: [populated from spreadsheet]

Cantidad adicional por llenar el “Consentimiento para Demandar”: [populated from spreadsheet]

Pago individual (si hay alguno):

[populated from spreadsheet]

Total del pago mínimo que recibirá:

[populated from spreadsheet]

Si usted no está de acuerdo con el número de temporadas identificadas arriba, usted DEBE proveer documentación adicional (visas, talones de cheques, recibos) a los abogados de la Clase para demostrar años adicionales que usted trabajo para Superior Forestry.
INFORMACIÓN PARA CONTACTARLO
Fecha de Nacimiento: ________________________________________________________

Dirección:

______________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________

Número de teléfono Primario: ___________________________________________________

Números de teléfono adicionales: ___________________________________________________

¿Tiene correo electrónico? ¿Cuál es?:________________________________________________

Familiar para contactar si Ud. no se encuentra en México: ______________________________

Número de teléfono del familiar: ____________________________________________________

RECUERDE, le vamos a llamar por teléfono para proveerle información de como coleccionar su dinero. Por favor comuníquese con nosotros si cambia su(s) número(s) de teléfono. Puede llamar a nuestra oficina al: 001-800-xxx-xxxx de México o al 1-800-xxx-xxxx de los Estados Unidos.

Por este medio, yo declaro que quiero recibir mi parte de los recaudos del acuerdo en el caso de Rosiles-Pérez, et al. v. Superior Forestry Service, Inc., et al.

_________________ Fecha

_________________________ Siguiente Firma

Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 515-1 Filed 02/10/10 Page 59 of 64 PageID #: 6399

¿A DONDE MANDO MI FORMULARIO? Usted debe enviar su formulario completado a la siguiente dirección:
Superior Forestry Settlement Southern Poverty Law Center 233 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 2150 Atlanta, GA 30303 O Usted puede mandar su formulario completado vía Fax a los abogados del Southern Poverty Law Center (Proyecto de Justicia Inmigrante) a: Número de Fax: 001-404-221-5857
¿CUALES SON LAS FECHAS LÍMITES PARA MANDAR MI FORMULARIO? RECUERDE, su formulario debe ser recibido por los abogados del Southern Poverty Law Center (Proyecto de Justicia Inmigrante) antes del 12 de Julio del 2010 si quiere recibir su dinero como parte del primer pago que se efectuará cerca del final del verano del 2010. Si su formulario es recibido después del 12 de Julio del 2010, usted recibirá pago hasta el final del verano del 2011. Si usted no se excluye de este caso, entonces usted debe llenar un formulario de reclamo para recibir su pago. Si usted no llena un Reclamo en o antes del viernes, el 13 de Julio del 2012, usted habrá cedido su derecho de recibir cualquier dinero de este Acuerdo.
¿CÓMO PUEDO RECIBIR MÁS INFORMACIÓN? Usted puede recibir mas información llamando a los abogados del Southern Poverty Law Center (Proyecto de Justicia Inmigrante):
001-800-xxx-xxxx si llama de México 1-800-xxx-xxxx si llama de los Estados Unidos.
Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 515-1 Filed 02/10/10 Page 60 of 64 PageID #: 6400

EXHIBIT
8 Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 515-1 Filed 02/10/10 Page 61 of 64 PageID #: 6401

EXHIBIT B: Named Plaintiffs' and FLSA opt-in Plaintiffs' Number of Eligible Seasons for FLSA Settlement

Empnum NameFirst NameMiddle

NamePaternal NameMaternal # of FLSA Seasons FLSA Payment

BAUPED9 Pedro

Pablo

Bautista

Ruiz

1

$1,000.00

SAAJOS9 Jose

Daniel

Saavedra

Juarez

1

$1,000.00

LUNRAY9

1

$1,000.00

APAFEL9 Felix

Eliceo

Aparicio

Miguel

1

$1,000.00

ANTELO9 Eloy

Armando

Antonio

Antonio

1

$1,000.00

CARASU9 Asuncion

Carreño

Soriano

1

$1,000.00

CARCRE9 Crescencio

Carreno

Soriano

1

$1,000.00

CORTOM9 Tomas

Fortino

Cortez

1

$1,000.00

GARCON7 Constantino

Garcia

Martinez

1

$1,000.00

HERGAB8 Marino

Gabriel

Hernandez

1

$1,000.00

JUACRE9 Crescenciano Miguel

Juarez

Reyes

1

$1,000.00

LAUJUA9 Juan

Laureano

Guzman

1

$1,000.00

LOPLUC9 Lucio

Manuel

Lopez

Gallegos

1

$1,000.00

LUNCAR9 Carlos

German

Luna

Cruz

1

$1,000.00

MARFRE9 Fredy

Martinez

Ambrocio

1

$1,000.00

MARPAS9 Pastor

Martinez

Garcia

1

$1,000.00

MELLUI9 Luis

Antonio

Melgarejo

Garcia

1

$1,000.00

MENCEL9 Celestino

Pedro

Mendez

Robles

1

$1,000.00

MENJOA8 Joaquin

Michel

Mendez

Martinez

1

$1,000.00

ORTALE9 Alejandro

Ortega

Perez

1

$1,000.00

PERFRO9 Froylan

Perez

Ruiz

1

$1,000.00

PEROLE9 Olegario

Humberto

Perez

Perez

1

$1,000.00

QUIERI9 Ericson

Javier

Quiroz

Leon

1

$1,000.00

ROBCAT9 Catarino

Robles

Fernandez

1

$1,000.00

RODSER9 Sergio

Marciano

Rodriguez

Carlos

1

$1,000.00

SANRIC6 Ricardo

Sandoval

Mendoza

1

$1,000.00

SERSAN9 Santiago

Sernas

Sanchez

1

$1,000.00

SILFRA8 Francisco

Silva

Ramos

1

$1,000.00

ZARJUL9 Julio

Cesar

Zarate

Quiroz

1

$1,000.00

CASJOR8 Jorge

Alberto

Castellanos Sanchez

1

$1,000.00

GAREPI9 Epifanio

Garcia

Nolasco

1

$1,000.00

MORGEN9 Genaro

Eucario

Morales

Leon

1

$1,000.00

DIAVAL9

1

$1,000.00

GARABA9 Abad

Ignacio

Garcia

Hernandez

1

$1,000.00

HERTRI9 Trinidad

Hernandez Olivera

1

$1,000.00

LARALE9 Alejandro

Lara

Vega

1

$1,000.00

LOPZOC9

1

$1,000.00

ALEANT9 Antonio

Alejos

Mantilla

1

$1,000.00

ESPFRE9 Fredi

Espinoza

Ramirez

1

$1,000.00

LEOJOS9 Jose

Leon

De Paz

1

$1,000.00

ORDMIG9 Miguel

Angel

Ordaz

Cabral

1

$1,000.00

SUAFRA9 Francisco

Suarez

Eugenio

1

$1,000.00

GONFRA8 Francisco

Gonzalez

Ramirez

2

$2,000.00

RAMJUA9 Juan

Ramirez

Rodriguez

2

$2,000.00

CARFID9 Fidel

Carreño

Soriano

2

$2,000.00

GUZJES9 Jesus

Guzman

Ramos

2

$2,000.00

HUEJUA9 Juan

Jose

Huerta

Jimenez

2

$2,000.00

HUEJUA8 Juan

Alejandro

Huerta

Vargas

2

$2,000.00

PABJAV8 Javet

Pablo

Pablo

2

$2,000.00

SANDAV9 David

Santiago

Hernandez

2

$2,000.00

Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 515-1 Filed 02/10/10 Page 62 of 64 PageID #: 6402

EXHIBIT B: Named Plaintiffs' and FLSA opt-in Plaintiffs' Number of Eligible Seasons for FLSA Settlement

Empnum NameFirst NameMiddle

NamePaternal NameMaternal # of FLSA Seasons FLSA Payment

RAMGUS9 Gustavo

Ramirez

Sanchez

2

$2,000.00

HERJOS7 Jose

Hernandez Espina

2

$2,000.00

MAYALE9 Alejandro

May

Cuxim

2

$2,000.00

ALTPOR9 Porfirio

Altamirano Robles

2

$2,000.00

CARFRA8 Francisco

Carreno

Soriano

2

$2,000.00

CASRAU9 Raul

Castellanos Martinez

2

$2,000.00

JARDAN9 Daniel

Jarquin

Cruz

2

$2,000.00

MENRAM9 Ramiro

Abraham

Mendoza

Soriano

2

$2,000.00

SILGUM9 Gumesindo

Silva

Perez

2

$2,000.00

ZARJOE9 Joel

Zarate

Garcia

2

$2,000.00

CARJUS9 Justino

Vicente

Carreno

Soriano

2

$2,000.00

JIMCAR8 Carmelo

Jimenez

Lopez

2

$2,000.00

PACAND9 Andres

Pachuca

Aparicio

3

$3,000.00

VENMAR9 Mario

Ventura

Vidal

3

$3,000.00

DIAEFR9 Efren

Diaz

Martinez

3

$3,000.00

VENMAU9 Mauricio

Ventura

Vidal

3

$3,000.00

LAGJOS9 Jose

De Jesus

Lagunes

Montero

3

$3,000.00

APAWIL9 Wiliam

Lorenzo

Aparicio

Aparicio

3

$3,000.00

PERDOM9 Domingo

Bernardo

Perez

Luis

3

$3,000.00

ALERAF9 Rafael

Alejos

Mantilla

3

$3,000.00

CARRAY7 Raymundo

Carreno

Soriano

3

$3,000.00

QUIELE9 Eleazar

Quiroz

Leon

3

$3,000.00

DIAFER9 Fernando

Diaz

Fernandez

3

$3,000.00

PABCAR9 Carlos

Eduardo

Pablo

Bernabe

3

$3,000.00

PEREFR9 Efrain

Perez

Ruiz

3

$3,000.00

DIAJOS5 Jose

Adrian

Diaz

Rios

3

$3,000.00

SANNOR9 Norberto

Santos

Garcia

3

$3,000.00

ESPJOS9 Jose

Gerardo

Espinosa

Ramirez

3

$3,000.00

DIAMAR9 Margarito

Diaz

Martinez

4

$4,000.00

SILNOE9 Noe

Armando

Silva

Ruiz

4

$4,000.00

CASARS9 Arselio

Castellanos Zarate

4

$4,000.00

JIMNER9 Nereo

Jimenez

Garcia

4

$4,000.00

LAGJOS8 Jose

Isidro

Lagunes

Montero

4

$4,000.00

HERADO9 Adonai

Hernandez Pablo

4

$4,000.00

CARNOE9 Noe

Carlos

Poblete

4

$4,000.00

LOPABE9 Abel

Pablo

Lopez

4

$4,000.00

CARERA9 Erasto

Carreno

Soriano

4

$4,000.00

CARPED9 Pedro

Carreño

Soriano

4

$4,000.00

HERCEL9 Celestino

Hernandez Vasquez

4

$4,000.00

PERALF9 Alfredo

Perez

Zacapa

4

$4,000.00

SANHUG9 Hugo

Santiago

Hernandez

4

$4,000.00

APAAUR9 Aurelio

Anastacio

Aparicio

Aparicio

4

$4,000.00

LOPFEL7 Felipe

Lopez

Alcantara

4

$4,000.00

MORNOR9 Norberto

Moreno

Carlos

4

$4,000.00

GONJUA7 Juan

Gonzalez

Rios

4

$4,000.00

SANVIC7 Victor

Santiago

Hernandez

5

$5,000.00

RAMGER9 Geronimo Donato

Ramirez

Luis

5

$5,000.00

LOPTOM9 Tomas

Lopez

Lopez

5

$5,000.00

CASFER9 Fermin

Castellanos Poblete

5

$5,000.00

CRUJOE9 Joel

Cruz

Cruz

5

$5,000.00

Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 515-1 Filed 02/10/10 Page 63 of 64 PageID #: 6403

EXHIBIT B: Named Plaintiffs' and FLSA opt-in Plaintiffs' Number of Eligible Seasons for FLSA Settlement

Empnum NameFirst NameMiddle

NamePaternal NameMaternal # of FLSA Seasons FLSA Payment

MARJUS9 Justino

Martinez

Velasquez

5

$5,000.00

RAMGON9 Gonzalo

Ramirez

Lopez

5

$5,000.00

VENCON9 Constantino

Venegas

Diaz

5

$5,000.00

DIARUF9 Rufino

Diaz

Martinez

6

$6,000.00

VENLAZ9 Lazaro

Venegas

Diaz

6

$6,000.00

LOPBEN7 Benito

Felipe

Lopez

6

$6,000.00

ZAROSC9 Oscar

Zarate

Barranco

6

$6,000.00

JUACLE9 Clemencio

Juarez

Lopez

6

$6,000.00

SANROB8 Roberto

Sanchez

Cuevas

6

$6,000.00

GARADR8 Adrian

Garcia

Gonzalez

6

$6,000.00

CASDAN9 Daniel

Castellanos Martinez

7

$7,000.00

TAPALI9 Ali

Tapia

Vasquez

7

$7,000.00

Totals:

359 $359,000.00

Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 515-1 Filed 02/10/10 Page 64 of 64 PageID #: 6404

 
 IN THE UNTIED STATES DISTRICT COURT FORTH~ MIDDL:¢ DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
COLUMBIA DIVISION

ROSILES-PEREZ, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

SUPERIOR FORESTRY SERVICE, INC.t )

et al.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

NO. 1:06-0006 JUDGE HAYNES

iORDER

For the reasons stated il) open court!, the parties' joint motion for final approval of the
i
class action settlement agreemt';nt, (Docket Entry number 522), is GRANTED and the Court

approves the amounts to be paid to the Plaintiffs, members of the class and the amounts of their

attorneys' fees and costs. This *ction is AQMINISTRATIVELY CLOSED and may be

reopened upon motion of any pf:rrty at the appropriate times under the structured settlement and

for entry of final judgment agre;ement.

.,.-- It is so ORDERED.
ENTERED this the j: ~ day of :March, 2010.

:

!

~~~
United States District Judge

Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 524 Filed 03/26/10 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 6483

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
COLUMBIA DIVISION

JOSE ROSILES-PEREZ, JESUS

)

SANTIAGO-SALMORAN, and HECTOR )

ORTIZ-MORA, on behalf of themselves )

and all others similarly situated,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

SUPERIOR FORESTRY SERVICE, INC., )

WILLIAM IOUP~ SCOTT BARSTOW, )

ENRIQUE GONZALEZ,

)

HECTOR SANTILLAN, and

)

MANUEL MORALES-MARTINEZ,

)

)

Defendants.

)

Case No. 1:06-CV-0006 Judge William J. Haynes, Jr.

I FINAL JUDGMENT ORDER This matter is before the Court on the Parties' Joint Motion for Entry of

Final Judgment. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. The Court previously granted preliminary approval to the·class action

settlement in this'case on February llt\ 2010. (Doc. 517.) The Courtiheld a final

fairness hearing with respect to the class action settlement on March 2()t\ 2010,

and entered an Otder granting final approval to the settlement. (Doc. 524.)

2. For purposes of the claims brought under the Migrant and Seasonal

Agricultural Worker Protection Act, which were previously certified by this Court

1
Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 526-2 Filed 07/06/10 Page 1 of 4 PageiD #: 6494 Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 528 Filed 07/07/10 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 6499

for class action tr¢atment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ~3 (Doc. 305), the settlement covers the following class of individuals:
All IliOn-supervisory workers admitted as H-2B temporary foreign workers pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(l5)(H)(ii)(b) and who were employed by Defendants at any time from December 1, 1999 to January 25, 2006. For individuals who were employed at some point by the Defendants on an H-2B visa between December 1, 1999 and January 25, 2006, this class definition includes all seasons in which they worked through the 2008-2009 season. 3. All df the class members identified above were provided notice by mail of the pendency of this class action and an opportunity to exclude themselves, and were again provided notice by mail of the class action settlement and an opportunity to ex¢lude themselves and/or file objections to the settlement. The Court finds that the notice given to the class satisfied the requirements of due process and Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 4. There remain eight (8) individuals who filed exclusion forms with the Court prior to the' settlement, and who have not withdrawn those exclusion forms. As such, the folloWing eight (8) individuals, and only these eight (8) individuals, are excluded fro~ the class covered by the settlement and this final judgment Order, other exclusion forms having been filed erroneously and withdrawn: Aaron Gonzalez Chavez, Pedro Justino Gonzaga Espinoza, Ignacio Jesus Sanchez
2
Case 1:06-cv-OOQ06 Document 526-2 Filed 07/06/10 Page 2 of 4 PageiD #: 6495
Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 528 Filed 07/07/10 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 6500

Gonzalez, Felipe Avila Rodriguez, Roberto Hernandez Morales, J. Jesus Manzano Gutierrez, Sergio Martinez De La Cruz, and David Reyes Paulino.
i
5. As stated by the Court during the fairness hearing in this matter and in the Court's March 26, 2010 Order (Doc. 524), the Court approves the settlement and its terms as fair, reasonable, and adequate, and approves the amounts to be paid to the Plaintiffs and the class members, as well as the costs and attorneys' fees to be paid to Class Counsel pursuant to the settlement.
6. Settlement Services, Inc., of Tallahassee, Florida, is appointed to act as the Settlement Administrator, pursuant to the terms of the settlement, and will work under the direction of Class Counsel.
7. By means of this Order, this Court hereby enters final judgment in this action, as defined; by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58(a)(l).
8. Without affecting the finality of this final judgment in any way, the Court retains jurisdiction of all matters relating to the interpretation, administration, irnplementation, effectuation, and enforcement of this Order and the settlement.
9. The parties are hereby ordered to implement and comply with the terms of the settlement, including the Injunctive and other Non-Monetary Relief provisions of Section I.M.
3
Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 526-2 Filed 07/06/10 Page 3 of 4 PageiD #: 6496
Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 528 Filed 07/07/10 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 6501

;
10. This 'action is dismissed with prejudice, subject to the terms of the settlement agreement.
Dated: July --.1:!.~ _, 2010
William J. Haynes, Jr. United States District Judge
4
Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 526-2 Filed 07/06/10 Page 4 of 4 PageiD #: 6497 Case 1:06-cv-00006 Document 528 Filed 07/07/10 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 6502

 
 CASE−CLOSED, GRIFFIN, PROTECTIVE−ORDER
U.S. District Court Middle District of Tennessee (Columbia) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:06−cv−00006

Rosiles−Perez et al v. Superior Forestry Service, Inc. et al Assigned to: District Judge William J. Haynes, Jr Cause: 29:201 Fair Labor Standards Act
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 01/25/2006 Date Terminated: 03/26/2010 Jury Demand: Defendant Nature of Suit: 710 Labor: Fair Standards Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Jose Rosiles−Perez

represented by Alex R. Gulotta Legal Aid Justice Center 1000 Preston Avenue Suite A Charlottesville, VA 22903 (434) 977−0553 Fax: (434) 977−0558 Email: alex@justice4all.org LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Andrew H. Turner Buescher, Goldhammer &Kelman, P.C. 1563 Gaylord Street Denver, CO 80206 (303) 333−7751 Fax: (303) 333−7758 Email: aturner@laborlawdenver.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bruce Goldstein Farmworker Justice 1126 16th Street, NW Suite 270 Washington, DC 20036 (202) 293−5420 Fax: (202) 293−5427 Email: bgoldstein@nclr.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Erin Trodden Legal Aid Justice Center 1000 Preston Avenue Suite A Charlottesville, VA 22903 (434) 977−0553 Fax: (434) 977−0558 Email: erin@justice4all.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:06-cv-00006

James M. Knoepp Southern Poverty Law Center Immigrant Justice Project 233 Peachtree Street, NE Suite 2150 Atlanta, GA 30303 (404) 521−6700
As of: 07/09/2012 02:18 PM CDT 1 of 65

Case: 1:06-cv-00006

Fax: (404) 221−5857 Email: jim.knoepp@splcenter.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joshua Karsh Hughes, Socol, Piers, Resnick &Dym, Ltd. 70 W Madison Street Suite 4000 Chicago, IL 60602 (312) 580−0100 Fax: (312) 580−1994 Email: jkarsh@hsplegal.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kristi L. Graunke Southern Poverty Law Center Immigrant Justice Project 400 Washington Avenue Montgomery, AL 36104 (334) 956−8200 Fax: (334) 956−8481 Email: kgraunke@splcenter.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marni Willenson Farmworker Justice 1126 16th Street, NW Suite 270 Washington, DC 20036 (312) 546−4137 Fax: (312) 261−9977 Email: marni.willenson@gmail.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mary C. Bauer Southern Poverty Law Center Immigrant Justice Project 400 Washington Avenue Montgomery, AL 36104 (334) 956−8200 Fax: (334) 956−8481 Email: mbauer@splcenter.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Richard L. Tennent Bell, Tennent &Frogge, PLLC Bank of America Plaza 414 Union Street Suite 904 Nashville, TN 37219 (615) 244−1110 Fax: (615) 244−1114 Email: richard@btflaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
T. Harold Pinkley Miller &Martin PLLC 150 Fourth Avenue, N 1200 One Nashville Place
As of: 07/09/2012 02:18 PM CDT 2 of 65

Plaintiff Jesus Santiago−Salmoran
Case: 1:06-cv-00006

Nashville, TN 37219−2433 (615) 744−8548 Fax: (615) 256−8197 Email: harold.pinkley@butlersnow.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tim A. Freilich Legal Aid Justice Center 1000 Preston Avenue Suite A Charlottesville, VA 22903 (434) 977−0553 x 111 Fax: (434) 977−0558 Email: tim@justice4all.org LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Virginia Elizabeth Ruiz Farmworker Justice 1126 16th Street, NW Suite 270 Washington, DC 20036 (202) 293−5420 Fax: (202) 293−5427 Email: vruiz@farmworkerjustice.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer J. Rosenbaum New Orleans Workers' Center for Racial Justice 217 N Prieur Street New Orleans, LA 70112 (504) 309−5165 Email: jjrosenbaum@nowcrj.org TERMINATED: 07/11/2008
Matthew J. Piers Hughes, Socol, Piers, Resnick &Dym, Ltd. 70 W Madison Street Suite 4000 Chicago, IL 60602 (312) 580−0100 Fax: (312) 580−1994 Email: mpiers@hsplegal.com PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alex R. Gulotta (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrew H. Turner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bruce Goldstein (See above for address)
As of: 07/09/2012 02:18 PM CDT 3 of 65

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Erin Trodden (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James M. Knoepp (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joshua Karsh (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kristi L. Graunke (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marni Willenson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mary C. Bauer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Richard L. Tennent (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
T. Harold Pinkley (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tim A. Freilich (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Virginia Elizabeth Ruiz (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer J. Rosenbaum (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/11/2008
Matthew J. Piers (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Plaintiff
Case: 1:06-cv-00006 As of: 07/09/2012 02:18 PM CDT 4 of 65

Andres Aldana−Moreno on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated

represented by Alex R. Gulotta (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Andrew H. Turner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bruce Goldstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Erin Trodden (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James M. Knoepp (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joshua Karsh (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kristi L. Graunke (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marni Willenson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mary C. Bauer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Richard L. Tennent (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

T. Harold Pinkley (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Tim A. Freilich (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:06-cv-00006

Virginia Elizabeth Ruiz (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
As of: 07/09/2012 02:18 PM CDT 5 of 65

Plaintiff Rolando Hernandez−Palestino
Case: 1:06-cv-00006

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer J. Rosenbaum (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/11/2008
Matthew J. Piers (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alex R. Gulotta (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrew H. Turner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bruce Goldstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Erin Trodden (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James M. Knoepp (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joshua Karsh (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kristi L. Graunke (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marni Willenson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mary C. Bauer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Richard L. Tennent (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
T. Harold Pinkley
As of: 07/09/2012 02:18 PM CDT 6 of 65

Plaintiff Jose Ramon Sanchez Martinez
Case: 1:06-cv-00006

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tim A. Freilich (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Virginia Elizabeth Ruiz (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer J. Rosenbaum (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/11/2008
Matthew J. Piers (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alex R. Gulotta (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrew H. Turner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bruce Goldstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Erin Trodden (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James M. Knoepp (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joshua Karsh (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kristi L. Graunke (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marni Willenson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
As of: 07/09/2012 02:18 PM CDT 7 of 65

Plaintiff Joan Michel Sanchez

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mary C. Bauer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Richard L. Tennent (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
T. Harold Pinkley (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tim A. Freilich (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Virginia Elizabeth Ruiz (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer J. Rosenbaum (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/11/2008
Matthew J. Piers (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alex R. Gulotta (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrew H. Turner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bruce Goldstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Erin Trodden (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James M. Knoepp (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:06-cv-00006 As of: 07/09/2012 02:18 PM CDT 8 of 65

Plaintiff Juan Sanchez Sanchez
Case: 1:06-cv-00006

Joshua Karsh (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kristi L. Graunke (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marni Willenson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mary C. Bauer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Richard L. Tennent (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
T. Harold Pinkley (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tim A. Freilich (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Virginia Elizabeth Ruiz (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer J. Rosenbaum (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/11/2008
Matthew J. Piers (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alex R. Gulotta (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrew H. Turner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bruce Goldstein (See above for address)
As of: 07/09/2012 02:18 PM CDT 9 of 65

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Erin Trodden (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James M. Knoepp (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joshua Karsh (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kristi L. Graunke (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marni Willenson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mary C. Bauer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Richard L. Tennent (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
T. Harold Pinkley (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tim A. Freilich (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Virginia Elizabeth Ruiz (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer J. Rosenbaum (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/11/2008
Matthew J. Piers (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Plaintiff
Case: 1:06-cv-00006 As of: 07/09/2012 02:18 PM CDT 10 of 65

Ernesto Martinez Case: 1:06-cv-00006

represented by Alex R. Gulotta (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrew H. Turner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bruce Goldstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Erin Trodden (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James M. Knoepp (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joshua Karsh (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kristi L. Graunke (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marni Willenson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mary C. Bauer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Richard L. Tennent (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
T. Harold Pinkley (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tim A. Freilich (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Virginia Elizabeth Ruiz (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY As of: 07/09/2012 02:18 PM CDT 11 of 65

Plaintiff Aaron Lopez−Marin
Plaintiff Apolonio Lopez−Andres
Case: 1:06-cv-00006

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer J. Rosenbaum (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/11/2008
Matthew J. Piers (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alex R. Gulotta (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrew H. Turner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bruce Goldstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Erin Trodden (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kristi L. Graunke (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marni Willenson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Richard L. Tennent (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
T. Harold Pinkley (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Virginia Elizabeth Ruiz (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alex R. Gulotta (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
As of: 07/09/2012 02:18 PM CDT 12 of 65

Plaintiff Ernesto Cruz−Ramirez
Case: 1:06-cv-00006

Andrew H. Turner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bruce Goldstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Erin Trodden (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kristi L. Graunke (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marni Willenson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Richard L. Tennent (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
T. Harold Pinkley (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Virginia Elizabeth Ruiz (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alex R. Gulotta (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrew H. Turner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bruce Goldstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Erin Trodden (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kristi L. Graunke
As of: 07/09/2012 02:18 PM CDT 13 of 65

Plaintiff Samuel Vasquez−Hernandez
Case: 1:06-cv-00006

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marni Willenson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Richard L. Tennent (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
T. Harold Pinkley (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Virginia Elizabeth Ruiz (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alex R. Gulotta (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrew H. Turner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bruce Goldstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Erin Trodden (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kristi L. Graunke (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marni Willenson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Richard L. Tennent (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
T. Harold Pinkley (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
As of: 07/09/2012 02:18 PM CDT 14 of 65

Plaintiff Rufino Vasquez−Ordaz
Plaintiff Andres Lopez−Lopez
Case: 1:06-cv-00006

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Virginia Elizabeth Ruiz (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alex R. Gulotta (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrew H. Turner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bruce Goldstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Erin Trodden (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kristi L. Graunke (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Richard L. Tennent (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
T. Harold Pinkley (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Virginia Elizabeth Ruiz (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marni Willenson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alex R. Gulotta (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrew H. Turner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED As of: 07/09/2012 02:18 PM CDT 15 of 65

Plaintiff Juan Lopez−Cruz
Case: 1:06-cv-00006

Bruce Goldstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Erin Trodden (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kristi L. Graunke (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marni Willenson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Richard L. Tennent (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
T. Harold Pinkley (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Virginia Elizabeth Ruiz (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alex R. Gulotta (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrew H. Turner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bruce Goldstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Erin Trodden (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kristi L. Graunke (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marni Willenson
As of: 07/09/2012 02:18 PM CDT 16 of 65

Plaintiff Morio Ventura Vidul
Case: 1:06-cv-00006

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Richard L. Tennent (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
T. Harold Pinkley (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Virginia Elizabeth Ruiz (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alex R. Gulotta (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrew H. Turner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bruce Goldstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Erin Trodden (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James M. Knoepp (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joshua Karsh (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kristi L. Graunke (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marni Willenson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mary C. Bauer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
As of: 07/09/2012 02:18 PM CDT 17 of 65

Plaintiff Pedro Pablo Bautista Ruiz

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Richard L. Tennent (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
T. Harold Pinkley (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tim A. Freilich (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Virginia Elizabeth Ruiz (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer J. Rosenbaum (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/11/2008
represented by Alex R. Gulotta (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrew H. Turner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bruce Goldstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Erin Trodden (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James M. Knoepp (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joshua Karsh (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kristi L. Graunke (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:06-cv-00006 As of: 07/09/2012 02:18 PM CDT 18 of 65

Marni Willenson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mary C. Bauer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Richard L. Tennent (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
T. Harold Pinkley (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tim A. Freilich (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Virginia Elizabeth Ruiz (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer J. Rosenbaum (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/11/2008
Matthew J. Piers (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant Superior Forestry Service, Inc.
Case: 1:06-cv-00006

represented by J. Roy Weathersby Wimberly, Lawson, Steckel, Weathersby &Schneider, P.C. Lenox Towers 3400 Peachtree Road, NE Suite 400 Atlanta, GA 30326 (404) 365−0900 Fax: (404) 261−3707 TERMINATED: 07/10/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY
John C Everett Everett, Wales &Mitchell P O Box 8370 Fayetteville, AR 72703 (479) 443−0292 Email: john@everettfirm.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
As of: 07/09/2012 02:18 PM CDT 19 of 65

Case: 1:06-cv-00006

John J. Griffin , Jr. Kay, Griffin, Enkema &Brothers Washington Square II 222 Second Avenue, N Suite 340−M Nashville, TN 37201 (615) 742−4800 Email: jg@kgeb−law.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kara E. Shea Butler, Snow, O'Mara, Stevens &Cannada (Nashville) 1200 One Nashville Place 150 Fourth Avenue North Nashville, TN 37219−2433 (615) 503−9112 Fax: (615) 503−9101 Email: kara.shea@butlersnow.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael J. Sloan Wimberly, Lawson, Steckel, Weathersby &Schneider, P.C. Lenox Towers 3400 Peachtree Road, NE Suite 400 Atlanta, GA 30326 (404) 365−0900 Email: sloan@wimlaw.com TERMINATED: 07/10/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY
T. Harold Pinkley (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrew King Williams &Anderson PLC 111 Center Street 22nd Floor Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 372−0800 Fax: (501) 372−6453 Email: aking@williamsanderson.com TERMINATED: 04/23/2009
Danette Joslyn−Gaul Wimberly, Lawson, Steckel, Weathersby &Schneider, P.C. Lenox Towers 3400 Peachtree Road, NE Suite 400 Atlanta, GA 30326 (404) 365−0900 Fax: (404) 261−3707 Email: djg@wimlaw.com TERMINATED: 12/18/2008
Elizabeth K. Dorminey Wimberly, Lawson, Steckel, Weathersby &Schneider, P.C.
As of: 07/09/2012 02:18 PM CDT 20 of 65

Lenox Towers 3400 Peachtree Road, NE Suite 400 Atlanta, GA 30326 (404) 365−0900 Email: bdorminy@bellsouth.net TERMINATED: 12/18/2008
Fredrick J. Bissinger Wimberly, Lawson, Wright, Daves &Jones, PLLC 200 4th Avenue North Suite 900 Nashville, TN 37219 (615) 727−1000 Fax: (615) 727−1001 Email: fbissinger@wimberlylawson.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
J. Larry Stine Wimberly, Lawson, Steckel, Weathersby &Schneider, P.C. Lenox Towers 3400 Peachtree Road, NE Suite 400 Atlanta, GA 30326 (404) 365−0900 Fax: (404) 261−3707 Email: jls@wimlaw.com TERMINATED: 12/18/2008
James M. Knoepp (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Janet L. Pulliam Williams &Anderson PLC 111 Center Street 22nd Floor Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 372−0800 Fax: (501) 372−6453 Email: jpulliam@williamsanderson.com TERMINATED: 04/23/2009
Kelly M. DeGostin Williams &Anderson PLC 111 Center Street 22nd Floor Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 372−0800 Fax: (501) 372−6453 Email: kdegostin@williamsanderson.com TERMINATED: 04/23/2009
Marie−Bernarde Miller Williams &Anderson PLC 111 Center Street 22nd Floor Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 372−0800 Fax: (501) 372−6453 Email: mmiller@williamsanderrson.com TERMINATED: 04/23/2009
Case: 1:06-cv-00006 As of: 07/09/2012 02:18 PM CDT 21 of 65

Defendant Scott Barstow
Defendant William Ioup
Case: 1:06-cv-00006

Paul Oliver Wimberly, Lawson, Steckel, Weathersby &Schneider, P.C. Lenox Towers 3400 Peachtree Road, NE Suite 400 Atlanta, GA 30326 (404) 365−0900 Fax: (404) 261−3707 Email: po@wimlaw.com TERMINATED: 12/18/2008
represented by Kara E. Shea (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
T. Harold Pinkley (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrew King (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/23/2009
Fredrick J. Bissinger (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
J. Larry Stine (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/18/2008
Janet L. Pulliam (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/23/2009
Kelly M. DeGostin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/23/2009
Marie−Bernarde Miller (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/23/2009
represented by J. Roy Weathersby (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/10/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY
Kara E. Shea (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael J. Sloan (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/10/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY
T. Harold Pinkley As of: 07/09/2012 02:18 PM CDT 22 of 65

Defendant Enrique Gonzalez
Defendant Hector Santillan
Case: 1:06-cv-00006

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrew King (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/23/2009
Danette Joslyn−Gaul (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/18/2008
Elizabeth K. Dorminey (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/18/2008
Fredrick J. Bissinger (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
J. Larry Stine (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/18/2008
Janet L. Pulliam (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/23/2009
Kelly M. DeGostin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/23/2009
Marie−Bernarde Miller (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/23/2009
Paul Oliver (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/18/2008
represented by Kara E. Shea (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Fredrick J. Bissinger (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
J. Larry Stine (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/18/2008
T. Harold Pinkley (See above for address)
represented by Kara E. Shea (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Fredrick J. Bissinger (See above for address) As of: 07/09/2012 02:18 PM CDT 23 of 65

Defendant Manuel Morales−Martinez
Interested Party Thomas F. Kovach

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
T. Harold Pinkley (See above for address)
represented by Ana L. Escobar Escobar &Parks, PLLC Bank of America Plaza 414 Union Street Suite 905 Nashville, TN 37219 (615) 259−2300 Fax: (615) 620−6438 Email: escobarlawgroup@hotmail.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Fredrick J. Bissinger (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
T. Harold Pinkley (See above for address)

Date Filed

# Docket Text

01/25/2006

1 COMPLAINT against Superior Forestry Service, Inc., Scott Barstow, William Ioup (Filing fee paid $250, Receipt number 108477), filed by Jesus Santiago−Salmoran, Andres Aldana−Moreno, Jose Rosiles−Perez. (Attachment: #(1) Consent forms)(rm) (Entered: 01/30/2006)

01/25/2006

Summons issued as to Superior Forestry Service, Inc., Scott Barstow, William Ioup. (rm) (Entered: 01/30/2006)

01/25/2006

2 MOTION for attorney Kristi Graunke to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Jesus Santiago−Salmoran, Andres Aldana−Moreno, Jose Rosiles−Perez. $75.00 fee paid. Responses due by 2/13/2006 (rm) (Entered: 01/30/2006)

01/25/2006

3 CERTIFICATE of Good Standing issued from USDC/SDGA as to attorney Kristi Lee Graunke filed by Jesus Santiago−Salmoran, Andres Aldana−Moreno, Jose Rosiles−Perez. (rm) (Entered: 01/30/2006)

01/25/2006

4 MOTION for attorney James M. Knoepp to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Jesus Santiago−Salmoran, Andres Aldana−Moreno, Jose Rosiles−Perez. $75.00 fee paid. Responses due by 2/13/2006 (rm) (Entered: 01/30/2006)

01/25/2006

5 CERTIFICATE of Good Standing issued from USDC/EDVA as to attorney James M. Knoepp filed by Jesus Santiago−Salmoran, Andres Aldana−Moreno, Jose Rosiles−Perez. (rm) (Entered: 01/30/2006)

01/25/2006

6 MOTION for attorney Tim Freilich to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Jesus Santiago−Salmoran, Andres Aldana−Moreno, Jose Rosiles−Perez. $75.00 fee paid. Responses due by 2/13/2006 (rm) (Entered: 01/30/2006)

01/25/2006

7 CERTIFICATE of Good Standing issued by USDC/WDVA as to attorney Timothy A. Freilich filed by Jesus Santiago−Salmoran, Andres Aldana−Moreno, Jose Rosiles−Perez. (rm) (Entered: 01/30/2006)

01/25/2006

8 MOTION for attorney Mary Bauer to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Jesus Santiago−Salmoran, Andres Aldana−Moreno, Jose Rosiles−Perez. $75.00 fee paid. Responses due by 2/13/2006 (rm) (Entered: 01/30/2006)

Case: 1:06-cv-00006 As of: 07/09/2012 02:18 PM CDT 24 of 65

01/25/2006 01/25/2006
01/25/2006 01/25/2006 01/25/2006 01/25/2006 01/25/2006
01/25/2006 01/25/2006 01/25/2006 01/26/2006 01/31/2006 01/31/2006 01/31/2006 01/31/2006 01/31/2006 01/31/2006 02/21/2006

9 CERTIFICATE of Good Standing issued by USDC/WDVA as to attorney Mary Catherine Bauer filed by Jesus Santiago−Salmoran, Andres Aldana−Moreno, Jose Rosiles−Perez. (rm) (Entered: 01/30/2006)
10 MOTION for attorneys Marni Willenson, Matthew J. Piers and Joshua Karsh to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Jesus Santiago−Salmoran, Andres Aldana−Moreno, Jose Rosiles−Perez. $225.00 fee paid. Responses due by 2/13/2006 (rm) (Entered: 01/30/2006)
11 CERTIFICATE of Good Standing issued by USDC/NDIL as to attorney Marni J. Willenson filed by Jesus Santiago−Salmoran, Andres Aldana−Moreno, Jose Rosiles−Perez. Attached as Exhibit A to motion. (rm) (Entered: 01/30/2006)
12 DECLARATION of Marni Willenson filed by Jesus Santiago−Salmoran, Andres Aldana−Moreno, Jose Rosiles−Perez. Attached as Exhibit A to motion. (rm) (Entered: 01/30/2006)
13 CERTIFICATE of Good Standing issued by USDC/NDIL as to attorney Matthew J. Piers filed by Jesus Santiago−Salmoran, Andres Aldana−Moreno, Jose Rosiles−Perez. Attached as Exhibit B to motion. (rm) (Entered: 01/30/2006)
14 DECLARATION of Matthew J. Piers filed by Jesus Santiago−Salmoran, Andres Aldana−Moreno, Jose Rosiles−Perez. Attached as Exhibit B to motion. (rm) (Entered: 01/30/2006)
15 CERTIFICATE of Good Standing issued by USDC/NDIL as to attorney Joshua Karsh filed by Jesus Santiago−Salmoran, Andres Aldana−Moreno, Jose Rosiles−Perez. Attached as Exhibit C to motion. (rm) Modified on 1/30/2006 (rm). (Entered: 01/30/2006)
16 DECLARATION of Joshua Karsh filed by Jesus Santiago−Salmoran, Andres Aldana−Moreno, Jose Rosiles−Perez. Attached as Exhibit C to motion. (rm) (Entered: 01/30/2006)
17 NOTICE of Initial Case Management Conference set for Monday, 3/20/2006 at 2:00 PM in Courtroom A859 before District Judge William J. Haynes. (rm) (Entered: 01/30/2006)
18 RECEIPT #100 108478 in the amount of $525.00 posted by pltfs Jesus Santiago−Salmoran, Andres Aldana−Moreno, Jose Rosiles−Perez re Motions to Appear Pro Hac Vice 4 , 6 , 8 and 10 . (km, ) (Entered: 01/30/2006)
19 NOTICE of Filing Consents−to−Sue by Jesus Santiago−Salmoran, Andres Aldana−Moreno, Jose Rosiles−Perez (Attachment: (1) Consent forms)(rm) (Entered: 01/30/2006)
20 ORDER granting 2 Motion for Kristi Graunke to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Signed by Judge William J. Haynes on 1/31/06. (km, ) (Entered: 01/31/2006)
21 ORDER granting 4 Motion for James M. Knoepp to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Signed by Judge William J. Haynes on 1/31/06. (km, ) (Entered: 01/31/2006)
22 ORDER granting 6 Motion for Tim Freilich to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Signed by Judge William J. Haynes on 1/31/06. (km, ) (Entered: 01/31/2006)
23 ORDER granting 8 Motion for Mary Bauer to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Signed by Judge William J. Haynes on 1/31/06. (km, ) (Entered: 01/31/2006)
24 ORDER granting 10 Motion for Marni Willenson, Matthew J. Piers and Joshua Karsh to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Signed by Judge William J. Haynes on 1/31/06. (km, ) (Entered: 01/31/2006)
25 ORDER: Initial Conference set for 3/20/06 is reset for 3/10/2006 10:00 AM in Columbia before District Judge William J. Haynes. Signed by Judge William J. Haynes on 1/31/06. (km, ) (Entered: 01/31/2006)
26 SUMMONS returned executed by Jose Rosiles−Perez. Superior Forestry Service, Inc. served on 2/14/2006, answer due 3/6/2006. (Graunke, Kristi) (Entered: 02/21/2006)

Case: 1:06-cv-00006 As of: 07/09/2012 02:18 PM CDT 25 of 65

02/21/2006 02/23/2006 03/08/2006 03/09/2006 03/17/2006 03/20/2006 03/20/2006 03/20/2006
03/20/2006 03/20/2006 03/20/2006 03/20/2006 03/20/2006 03/21/2006 03/22/2006 03/24/2006 03/27/2006 03/27/2006 03/27/2006

27 SUMMONS returned executed by Jose Rosiles−Perez. William Ioup served on 2/14/2006, answer due 3/6/2006. (Graunke, Kristi) (Entered: 02/21/2006)
28 ORDER: Case Management Conference is reset for 3/31/2006 at 02:00 PM in Columbia before District Judge William J. Haynes. Signed by Judge William J. Haynes on 2/23/06. (km, ) (Entered: 02/23/2006)
29 ANSWER to Complaint with Jury Demand by Superior Forestry Service, Inc., William Ioup.(Bissinger, Fredrick) (Entered: 03/08/2006)
30 ANSWER to Complaint with Jury Demand by Superior Forestry Service, Inc., William Ioup.(hv) (Entered: 03/10/2006)
31 NOTICE by Superior Forestry Service, Inc., Scott Barstow, William Ioup of Service of Rule 26(a)(1) Initial Disclosures (Bissinger, Fredrick) (Entered: 03/17/2006)
32 MOTION for attorney J. Larry Stine to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Superior Forestry Service, Inc., William Ioup. Responses due by 4/6/2006 (Attachments: # 1 proposed order)(km, ) (PHV fee paid) (km, ). (Entered: 03/21/2006)
33 CERTIFICATE OF GOOD STANDING from USDC, ND/GA for James Larry Stine filed by Superior Forestry Service, Inc., William Ioup re: Motion [32}. (km, ) (Entered: 03/21/2006)
34 MOTION for attorney Paul Oliver to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Superior Forestry Service, Inc., William Ioup. Responses due by 4/6/2006 (Attachments: # 1 certificate from State Bar# 2 proposed order)(km, ) (PHV fee paid) (km, ). (Entered: 03/21/2006)
35 MOTION for attorney Elizabeth K. Dorminey to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Superior Forestry Service, Inc., William Ioup. Responses due by 4/6/2006 (Attachments: # 1 proposed order)(km, ) (PHV fee paid) (km, ). (Entered: 03/21/2006)
36 CERTIFICATE OF GOOD STANDING from USDC, ND/GA for Elizabeth K. Dorminey filed by Superior Forestry Service, Inc., William Ioup. (km, ) (Entered: 03/21/2006)
37 NOTICE of Hearing: Initial Case Management Conference reset for 4/11/2006 at 01:00 PM in Columbia before District Judge William J. Haynes. (dt) (Entered: 03/21/2006)
38 MOTION for attorney Danette Joslyn−Gaul to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Superior Forestry Service, Inc., William Ioup. Responses due by 4/6/2006 (Attachments: # 1 proposed order)(km, ) (PHV fee paid)(km, ). (Entered: 03/21/2006)
39 CERTIFICATE OF GOOD STANDING from USDC, ND/GA for Jacqueline Danette Joslyn−Gaul filed by Superior Forestry Service, Inc., William Ioup. (km, ) (Entered: 03/21/2006)
40 RECEIPT #100 109248 in the amount of $300.00 posted by Superior Forestry Service, Inc. and William Ioup re: Motions to Appear Pro Hac Vice, 32 , 34 , 38 and 38 . (km, ) (Entered: 03/22/2006)
41 NOTICE by Jose Rosiles−Perez filing of FLSA consent to sue (Graunke, Kristi) (Entered: 03/22/2006)
42 NOTICE by Jose Rosiles−Perez filing of consents to sue (Graunke, Kristi) (Entered: 03/24/2006)
43 MOTION to Certify Class by Jose Rosiles−Perez. Responses due by 4/13/2006 (Karsh, Joshua) (Entered: 03/27/2006)
44 MEMORANDUM in Support of 43 MOTION to Certify Class filed by Jose Rosiles−Perez. (Karsh, Joshua) (Entered: 03/27/2006)
45 Proposed Pretrial Order Certifying Class by Jose Rosiles−Perez. (Karsh, Joshua) (Entered: 03/27/2006)

Case: 1:06-cv-00006 As of: 07/09/2012 02:18 PM CDT 26 of 65

03/27/2006 03/27/2006
03/28/2006 03/28/2006
03/28/2006 03/29/2006 03/29/2006 03/29/2006 03/29/2006 03/29/2006
03/29/2006 03/30/2006

46 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Jose Rosiles−Perez re 44 Memorandum in Support, 43 MOTION to Certify Class (Karsh, Joshua) (Entered: 03/27/2006)
47 APPENDIX filed by Jesus Santiago−Salmoran, Andres Aldana−Moreno, Jose Rosiles−Perez re 44 Memorandum in Support, 43 Motion to Certify Class. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Combined Appendix Part 2# 2 Appendix Combined Appendix Part 3# 3 Appendix Combined Appendix Part 4# 4 Appendix Combined Appendix Part 5# 5 Appendix Combined Appendix Part 6)(Willenson, Marni) (Entered: 03/27/2006)
NOTE TO FILERS: Re: Document Nos. 43−47; In the future, the proposed order should be filed as an attachment to the Motion and Declarations, if original should be filed as separate entries. (km, ) Modified text on 3/28/2006 (km, ). (Entered: 03/28/2006)
48 MOTION to Proceed as a Collective Action and for Expedited Court−Supervised Notice re 47 Appendix, by Jesus Santiago−Salmoran, Andres Aldana−Moreno, Jose Rosiles−Perez. Responses due by 4/14/2006 (Attachments: # 1 Exh. A −− Proposed FLSA Notice and Consent Forms# 2 Proposed Order)(Willenson, Marni) (Entered: 03/28/2006)
49 MEMORANDUM in Support of 48 MOTION to Proceed as a Collective Action and for Expedited Court−Supervised Notice re 47 Appendix, filed by Jesus Santiago−Salmoran, Andres Aldana−Moreno, Jose Rosiles−Perez. (Willenson, Marni) Modified text on 3/29/2006 (km, ). (Entered: 03/28/2006)
50 MOTION for attorney Danette Joslyn−Gaul to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Superior Forestry Service, Inc.. Responses due by 4/17/2006 (Bissinger, Fredrick) (Entered: 03/29/2006)
51 MOTION for attorney Elizabeth K. Dorminey to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Superior Forestry Service, Inc.. Responses due by 4/17/2006 (Bissinger, Fredrick) (Entered: 03/29/2006)
52 MOTION for attorney J. Larry Stine to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Superior Forestry Service, Inc.. Responses due by 4/17/2006 (Bissinger, Fredrick) (Entered: 03/29/2006)
53 MOTION for attorney Paul Oliver to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Superior Forestry Service, Inc.. Responses due by 4/17/2006 (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Good Standing)(Bissinger, Fredrick) (Entered: 03/29/2006)
54 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Martin Cervantes−Espejo, Juan Hernandez−Hernandez, Jose Isidro Lagunes−Montero, Jose De Jesus Lagunes−Montero, Antonio Martinez−Bringas, Lazaro Montero−Barradas, Maurilio Morales−Carrillo, Vito Morales−Ojeda and Hector Ortiz−Mora AND Request for the production of documents by Superior Forestry Service, Inc., William Ioup.(Bissinger, Fredrick) Modified text on 3/30/2006 (km, ). (Entered: 03/29/2006)
55 (DOCKETED IN ERROR−Discovery) RESPONSE to Discovery Request by Superior Forestry Service, Inc., William Ioup.(Bissinger, Fredrick) Modified on 3/30/2006 (km, ). (Entered: 03/29/2006)
NOTE TO FILER: Re: Document Nos. 50−54; In the future, a proposed order should be filed as an attachment not included with the motion. Certificates of Good Standing signed by a Clerk of a U.S. District Court must be filed for Attorneys Danette Joslyn−Gaul, Elizabeth K. Dorminey and J. Larry Stine and should be filed as separate entries using the event Certificate found under the category Other Documents. Re: Document No. 55; This is a scanned document. Scanning should be used ONLY for documents that do not exist in electronic format on your computer. (see section 8 − "Signatures" of our Administrative Practices and Procedures for Electronic Case Filing). Do not file discovery documents except in support of or in opposition to a motion or by order of the Court. See Discovery Documents in the Civil Menu for Attorney Users and Local rule 9(c)(1). (km, ) (Entered: 03/30/2006)

Case: 1:06-cv-00006 As of: 07/09/2012 02:18 PM CDT 27 of 65

03/30/2006

56 AMENDED DOCUMENT by Superior Forestry Service, Inc., William Ioup. Amendment to 54 Notice to Take Deposition,. (Bissinger, Fredrick) (Entered: 03/30/2006)

03/30/2006

57 ORDER granting 32 Motion for J. Larry Stine to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Signed by Judge William J. Haynes on 3/30/06. (km, ) (Entered: 03/31/2006)

03/30/2006

58 ORDER granting 34 Motion for Paul Oliver to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Signed by Judge William J. Haynes on 3/30/06. (km, ) (Entered: 03/31/2006)

03/30/2006

59 ORDER granting 35 Motion for Elizabeth K. Dorminey to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Signed by Judge William J. Haynes on 3/30/06. (km, ) (Entered: 03/31/2006)

03/30/2006

60 ORDER granting 38 Motion for Danette Joslyn−Gaul to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Signed by Judge William J. Haynes on 3/30/06. (km, ) (Entered: 03/31/2006)

03/31/2006

61 ORDER: Case Management Conference set for 3/31/06 is reset to 4/11/2006 at 01:00 PM in Columbia before District Judge William J. Haynes. Signed by Judge William J. Haynes on 3/30/06. (km, ) (Entered: 03/31/2006)

03/31/2006

62 SUMMONS returned executed by Jose Rosiles−Perez. Scott Barstow served on 3/24/2006, answer due 4/13/2006. (Graunke, Kristi) (Entered: 03/31/2006)

03/31/2006

63 NOTICE of Filing by Jose Rosiles−Perez FLSA Consents to Sue (Graunke, Kristi) (Entered: 03/31/2006)

04/06/2006

64 NOTICE of Filing by Jose Rosiles−Perez FLSA Consent to Sue (Graunke, Kristi) (Entered: 04/06/2006)

04/06/2006

65 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 44 Memorandum in Support, 49 Memorandum in Support,, 43 MOTION to Certify Class, 48 MOTION to Proceed as a Collective Action and for Expedited Court−Supervised Notice re 47 Appendix, by Superior Forestry Service, Inc., William Ioup. Responses due by 4/24/2006 (Bissinger, Fredrick) (Entered: 04/06/2006)

04/06/2006

66 MEMORANDUM in Support of 65 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 44 Memorandum in Support, 49 Memorandum in Support,, 43 MOTION to Certify Class, 48 MOTION to Proceed as a Collective Action and for Expedited Court−Supervised Notice re 47 Appendix, filed by Superior Forestry Service, Inc., William Ioup. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Orders granting extension)(Bissinger, Fredrick) (Entered: 04/06/2006)

04/06/2006

67 PROPOSED CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER filed by all parties. (Karsh, Joshua) (Entered: 04/06/2006)

04/06/2006

68 NOTICE by Jose Rosiles−Perez re 67 Proposed Case Management Order (Karsh, Joshua) (Entered: 04/06/2006)

04/07/2006

69 ORDER granting 65 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. The length of the extension will be decided at the ICMC . Signed by Judge William J. Haynes on 4/7/06. (km, ) (Entered: 04/07/2006)

04/11/2006

70 ANSWER to Complaint with Jury Demand by Scott Barstow.(Bissinger, Fredrick) (Entered: 04/11/2006)

04/12/2006

71 TRANSCRIPT prepared by OCR Peggy Turner for Proceedings held on 4/11/06 before Judge Haynes.(This document is NOT available on−line. Contact the court reporter at 615−726−4893 to purchase a copy) (gi, ) (Entered: 04/13/2006)

04/14/2006

72 TRANSCRIPT prepared by OCR Peggy Turner for Proceedings held on 4/11/06 before Judge Haynes.(This document is NOT available on−line. Contact the court reporter at 615−726−4893 to purchase a copy) (km, ) (Entered: 04/14/2006)

04/18/2006

73 NOTICE of Filing by Jose Rosiles−Perez FLSA Consent to Sue (Graunke, Kristi) (Entered: 04/18/2006)

04/19/2006

NOTE TO FILER: Re: Document No. 73; In the future, Scanning should be used ONLY for documents that do not exist in electronic format on your computer. Examples of documents that may be scanned are police reports, executed contracts, or documents that contain signatures other than that of the filing user (see section 8

Case: 1:06-cv-00006 As of: 07/09/2012 02:18 PM CDT 28 of 65

04/27/2006 04/27/2006 04/28/2006 04/28/2006
05/02/2006
05/02/2006 05/02/2006 05/08/2006 05/09/2006 05/09/2006 05/09/2006

− "Signatures" of our Administrative Practices and Procedures for Electronic Case Filing). This document does not need to be Re−filed unless otherwise directed by the Court. (km, ) (Entered: 04/19/2006)
74 PROPOSED CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR ENTRY OF AN ORDER FOR THE APRIL 11, 2006 INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE filed by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A through D)(Karsh, Joshua) (Entered: 04/27/2006)
MOTION for entry of an order for the 4/11/06 ICMC by pltfs. Responses due by 5/15/2006. (Duplicate entry of Docket Entry #74 for internal tracking purposes) (km, ) (Entered: 05/02/2006)
NOTE TO FILER: Re: Document No. 74; In the future, if the document is a Motion it should be filed using the category Motion. (km, ) (Entered: 04/28/2006)
75 RESPONSE filed by Superior Forestry Service, Inc., Scott Barstow, William Ioup re 74 Proposed Case Management Order filed by Jose Rosiles−Perez,, Jesus Santiago−Salmoran,, Andres Aldana−Moreno,, Rolando Hernandez−Palestino,, Jose Ramon Sanchez Martinez,, Joan Michel Sanchez,, Juan Sanchez Sanchez,, Ernesto Martinez,, Aaron Lopez−Marin,, Apolonio Lopez−Andres,, Ernesto Cruz−Ramirez,, Samuel Vasquez−Hernandez,, Rufino Vasquez−Ordaz,, Andres Lopez−Lopez,, Juan Lopez−Cruz, in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Entry of an Order for the April 11, 2006 Case Management Conference. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Proposed Case Management Order# 2 Exhibit B − Initial Case Management Conference Transcript)(Bissinger, Fredrick) (Entered: 04/28/2006)
76 REPLY filed by Jesus Santiago−Salmoran, Rolando Hernandez−Palestino, Jose Ramon Sanchez Martinez, Joan Michel Sanchez, Juan Sanchez Sanchez, Ernesto Martinez, Andres Aldana−Moreno, Aaron Lopez−Marin, Apolonio Lopez−Andres, Ernesto Cruz−Ramirez, Samuel Vasquez−Hernandez, Rufino Vasquez−Ordaz, Jose Rosiles−Perez, Andres Lopez−Lopez, Juan Lopez−Cruz re 74 Proposed Case Management Order filed by Jose Rosiles−Perez,, Jesus Santiago−Salmoran,, Andres Aldana−Moreno,, Rolando Hernandez−Palestino,, Jose Ramon Sanchez Martinez,, Joan Michel Sanchez,, Juan Sanchez Sanchez,, Ernesto Martinez,, Aaron Lopez−Marin,, Apolonio Lopez−Andres,, Ernesto Cruz−Ramirez,, Samuel Vasquez−Hernandez,, Rufino Vasquez−Ordaz,, Andres Lopez−Lopez,, Juan Lopez−Cruz,. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Karsh, Joshua) (Entered: 05/02/2006)
77 CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER NO. 1: Case management conference held 4/11/06 . Signed by Judge William J. Haynes on 5/2/06. (km, ) (Entered: 05/02/2006)
78 ORDER: Motion for entry of an order for the 4/11/06 ICMC is granted as modified in the companion Order. Signed by Judge William J. Haynes on 5/2/06. (km, ) (Entered: 05/02/2006)
79 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Jose Rosiles−Perez, Jesus Santiago−Salmoran and Hector Ortiz−Mora by Superior Forestry Service, Inc., Scott Barstow, William Ioup.(Bissinger, Fredrick) (Entered: 05/08/2006)
80 Emergency MOTION for Protective Order by Jesus Santiago−Salmoran, Jose Ramon Sanchez Martinez, Joan Michel Sanchez, Andres Aldana−Moreno, Jose Rosiles−Perez. Responses due by 5/26/2006 (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Proposed Order Re E. Gonzalez# 2 Proposed Order Proposed Protective Order# 3 Exhibit A Decl of J. Ramon Sanchez M.# 4 Exhibit B Decl of J. Michel Sanchez M.)(Willenson, Marni) (Entered: 05/09/2006)
81 DECLARATION of Marni Willenson in Support of Pls' Emergency Motion for a Protective Order filed by Jesus Santiago−Salmoran, Jose Ramon Sanchez Martinez, Joan Michel Sanchez, Andres Aldana−Moreno, Jose Rosiles−Perez re: 80 . (Willenson, Marni) (Entered: 05/09/2006)
82 MEMORANDUM in Support of 80 Emergency MOTION for Protective Order filed by Jesus Santiago−Salmoran, Jose Ramon Sanchez Martinez, Joan Michel Sanchez, Andres Aldana−Moreno, Jose Rosiles−Perez. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit LEXIS and Westlaw Decisions)(Willenson, Marni) (Entered: 05/09/2006)

Case: 1:06-cv-00006 As of: 07/09/2012 02:18 PM CDT 29 of 65

05/10/2006

NOTE TO FILER: Re: Document Nos. 80−81; In the future a declaration, if original, should be filed as a separate docket entry. Also a certificate of service needs to filed re: Docket Entry Nos. 80 &81. (km, ) (Entered: 05/10/2006)

05/10/2006

83 NOTICE of Filing by Jesus Santiago−Salmoran, Jose Ramon Sanchez Martinez, Joan Michel Sanchez, Andres Aldana−Moreno, Jose Rosiles−Perez re 81 Declaration, 80 Emergency MOTION for Protective Order Certificates of Service for Docket Nos. 80 &81 (Willenson, Marni) (Entered: 05/10/2006)

05/12/2006

84 MOTION to Clarify re 80 Emergency MOTION for Protective Order by Superior Forestry Service, Inc., Scott Barstow, William Ioup. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order to Respond to Plaintiffs' Emergency Motion for Protective Order)(Bissinger, Fredrick) (Entered: 05/12/2006)

05/15/2006

85 ORDER: Defts' response to Pltfs' Emergency Motion for Protective Order shall be filed no later than 5/17/06 . Signed by Judge William J. Haynes on 5/15/06. (km, ) (Entered: 05/15/2006)

05/17/2006

86 RESPONSE in Opposition re 80 Emergency MOTION for Protective Order filed by Superior Forestry Service, Inc., Scott Barstow, William Ioup. (Attachments: # 1 Case Recinos−Recinos v. Express Forestry# 2 USDC v. Albertson's Inc.# 3 USDC v. Delaware Solid Waste Authority# 4 Alvarado v. RWFarms# 5 Declaration of Enrique Gonzalez# 6 Declaration of Jesus Flores# 7 2d Declaration of Enrique Gonzalez# 8 Declaration of J. Larry Stine)(Stine, J.) (Entered: 05/17/2006)

05/17/2006

87 (DOCKETED IN ERROR− See Docket Entry No. 86) RESPONSE in Opposition re 80 Emergency MOTION for Protective Order filed by Superior Forestry Service, Inc., Scott Barstow, William Ioup. (Attachments: # 1 Recinos−Recinos v. Express Forestry# 2 Babbitt v. Albertson's Inc.# 3 Jennifer v. Delaware Solid Waste Authority# 4 Alvarado v. RWFarms# 5 Declaration of Enrique Gonzalez# 6 Declaration of Jesus Florez# 7 2d Declaration of Enrique Gonzalez# 8 Declaration of J. Larry Stine)(Stine, J.) (Entered: 05/17/2006)

05/18/2006

NOTE TO FILER: Re: Document No. 86; In the future, declarations if original should be filed as a separate docket entry and must contain an original signature. Also, exhibits should be filed as an attachment not included with the declaration. (km, ) (Entered: 05/18/2006)

05/23/2006

88 REPLY filed by Jesus Santiago−Salmoran, Rolando Hernandez−Palestino, Jose Ramon Sanchez Martinez, Joan Michel Sanchez, Juan Sanchez Sanchez, Ernesto Martinez, Andres Aldana−Moreno, Aaron Lopez−Marin, Apolonio Lopez−Andres, Ernesto Cruz−Ramirez, Samuel Vasquez−Hernandez, Rufino Vasquez−Ordaz, Jose Rosiles−Perez, Andres Lopez−Lopez, Juan Lopez−Cruz re 80 Motion for Protective Order, filed by Jose Rosiles−Perez,, Jesus Santiago−Salmoran,, Andres Aldana−Moreno,, Jose Ramon Sanchez Martinez,, Joan Michel Sanchez,. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B)(Karsh, Joshua) (Entered: 05/23/2006)

05/23/2006

89 DECLARATION of Second Declaration of Marni Willenson in Support of Plaintiffs' Emergency Motion For A Protective Order filed by Jesus Santiago−Salmoran, Rolando Hernandez−Palestino, Jose Ramon Sanchez Martinez, Joan Michel Sanchez, Juan Sanchez Sanchez, Ernesto Martinez, Andres Aldana−Moreno, Aaron Lopez−Marin, Apolonio Lopez−Andres, Ernesto Cruz−Ramirez, Samuel Vasquez−Hernandez, Rufino Vasquez−Ordaz, Jose Rosiles−Perez, Andres Lopez−Lopez, Juan Lopez−Cruz re: 88 . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Karsh, Joshua) (Entered: 05/23/2006)

05/23/2006

90 ORDER granting 80 Motion for Protective Order re Agent Enrique Gonzalez. Signed by Judge William J. Haynes on 5/23/06. (hv) (Entered: 05/24/2006)

05/23/2006

91 PROTECTIVE ORDER signed by Judge William J. Haynes on 5/23/06. (hv) (Entered: 05/24/2006)

05/24/2006

NOTE TO FILER: Re: Document No. 88; Scanning should be used ONLY for documents that do not exist in electronic format on your computer. Examples of documents that may be scanned are police reports, executed contracts, or documents that contain signatures other than that of the filing user (see section 8 − "Signatures" of our Administrative Practices and Procedures for Electronic Case Filing). This document does not need to be Re−filed unless otherwise directed by

Case: 1:06-cv-00006 As of: 07/09/2012 02:18 PM CDT 30 of 65

the Court. (km, ) (Entered: 05/24/2006)

06/02/2006

92 MOTION for Reconsideration , or in the Alernative, Clarification, and Oral Argument by Superior Forestry Service, Inc., Scott Barstow, William Ioup. Responses due by 6/19/2006 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit H2A/B Visa Processing Info.)(Stine, J.) (Entered: 06/02/2006)

06/02/2006

93 NOTICE of Filing by Superior Forestry Service, Inc., Scott Barstow, William Ioup of Motion for Reconsideration which contains the Memorandum in Support (Bissinger, Fredrick) (Entered: 06/02/2006)

06/07/2006

94 MOTION for attorney Andrew H. Turner to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Jesus Santiago−Salmoran, Rolando Hernandez−Palestino, Jose Ramon Sanchez Martinez, Joan Michel Sanchez, Juan Sanchez Sanchez, Ernesto Martinez, Andres Aldana−Moreno, Aaron Lopez−Marin, Apolonio Lopez−Andres, Ernesto Cruz−Ramirez, Samuel Vasquez−Hernandez, Rufino Vasquez−Ordaz, Jose Rosiles−Perez, Andres Lopez−Lopez, Juan Lopez−Cruz. Responses due by 6/26/2006 (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Karsh, Joshua) (PHV fee paid on 6/13/2006 (km, ). (Entered: 06/07/2006)

06/07/2006

95 CERTIFICATE OF GOOD STANDING filed by Jesus Santiago−Salmoran, Rolando Hernandez−Palestino, Jose Ramon Sanchez Martinez, Joan Michel Sanchez, Juan Sanchez Sanchez, Ernesto Martinez, Andres Aldana−Moreno, Aaron Lopez−Marin, Apolonio Lopez−Andres, Ernesto Cruz−Ramirez, Samuel Vasquez−Hernandez, Rufino Vasquez−Ordaz, Jose Rosiles−Perez, Andres Lopez−Lopez, Juan Lopez−Cruz. (Karsh, Joshua) (Entered: 06/07/2006)

06/08/2006

NOTE TO FILER: Re: Document No. 94; Scanning should be used ONLY for documents that do not exist in electronic format on your computer. Examples of documents that may be scanned are police reports, executed contracts, or documents that contain signatures other than that of the filing user (see section 8 − "Signatures" of our Administrative Practices and Procedures for Electronic Case Filing). This document does not need to be Re−filed unless otherwise directed by the Court. Also, there is a fee of $75.00 per attorney for pro hac vice motions, which will need to be mailed or brought to the Clerk?s Office. (km, ) (Entered: 06/08/2006)

06/13/2006

96 RECEIPT #100 110334 in the amount of $75.00 posted for Andrew H. Turner by pltfs re 94 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice,. (km, ) (Entered: 06/13/2006)

06/14/2006

97 RESPONSE in Opposition re 92 MOTION for Reconsideration , or in the Alernative, Clarification, and Oral Argument filed by Jesus Santiago−Salmoran, Rolando Hernandez−Palestino, Jose Ramon Sanchez Martinez, Joan Michel Sanchez, Juan Sanchez Sanchez, Ernesto Martinez, Andres Aldana−Moreno, Aaron Lopez−Marin, Apolonio Lopez−Andres, Ernesto Cruz−Ramirez, Samuel Vasquez−Hernandez, Rufino Vasquez−Ordaz, Jose Rosiles−Perez, Andres Lopez−Lopez, Juan Lopez−Cruz. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (Proposed) Revised Protective Order)(Karsh, Joshua) (Entered: 06/14/2006)

06/20/2006

98 MOTION to Strike Plaintiffs' Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration, or, Alternatively, Motion to Permit Reply Brief and Memorandum of Law in Support Thereof by Superior Forestry Service, Inc.. Responses due by 7/7/2006 (Stine, J.) (Entered: 06/20/2006)

06/21/2006

NOTE TO FILER: Re: Document No. 98; In the future, when filing a multiple relief Motion, click on Motions, while holding down the Ctrl key, scroll down and highlight Strike &Leave; release Ctrl key; click next.. (km, ) (Entered: 06/21/2006)

06/21/2006

99 ORDER: 98 Motion to Strike is denied. The request to file a reply brief is granted. The reply shall be filed within 7 days from the date of entry of this Order . Signed by Judge William J. Haynes on 6/21/06. (km, ) (Entered: 06/21/2006)

06/22/2006

100 ORDER granting 94 Motion for Andrew H. Turner to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Signed by Judge William J. Haynes on 6/21/06. (km, ) (Entered: 06/22/2006)

06/22/2006

101 ORDER: 48 Motion to proceed as a collective action and for expedited court−supervised notice is denied without prejudice to renew after completion of discovery. Counsel may renew by incorporating by reference any prior submission.

Case: 1:06-cv-00006 As of: 07/09/2012 02:18 PM CDT 31 of 65

Signed by Judge William J. Haynes on 6/21/06. (km, ) (Entered: 06/22/2006)

06/22/2006

102 ORDER: 43 Motion to Certify Class is denied without prejudice to renew upon completion of discovery. Counsel may renew by incorporating by reference any prior submission. Signed by Judge William J. Haynes on 6/21/06. (km, ) (Entered: 06/22/2006)

06/22/2006

103 NOTICE of Filing by Jose Rosiles−Perez FLSA Consent to Sue Forms (Graunke, Kristi) (Entered: 06/22/2006)

06/22/2006

104 NOTICE of Filing by Jose Rosiles−Perez Certificate of Service (Graunke, Kristi) (Entered: 06/22/2006)

06/23/2006

NOTE TO FILER: Re: Document No. 104; In the future, when filing a certificate of service use the event Certificate of Service found under the category Service of Process. (km, ) (Entered: 06/23/2006)

06/23/2006

Docket Annotation: Notification by email sent to pro hac vice attorney Andrew Turner regarding mandatory registration for a CM/ECF account (km, ) (Entered: 06/23/2006)

06/27/2006

105 MOTION to Clarify re 102 Order on Motion to Certify Class AND/OR Reconsideration of the Court's June 22, 2006 Order on Motion to Certify a Class AND also for Clarification That The Limitations Period Continues to be Tolled for FLSA Claims by Jesus Santiago−Salmoran, Rolando Hernandez−Palestino, Jose Ramon Sanchez Martinez, Joan Michel Sanchez, Juan Sanchez Sanchez, Ernesto Martinez, Andres Aldana−Moreno, Aaron Lopez−Marin, Apolonio Lopez−Andres, Ernesto Cruz−Ramirez, Samuel Vasquez−Hernandez, Rufino Vasquez−Ordaz, Jose Rosiles−Perez, Andres Lopez−Lopez, Juan Lopez−Cruz. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B)(Karsh, Joshua) Modified text on 6/28/2006 (km, ). (Entered: 06/27/2006)

06/27/2006

106 MOTION for a Rule to Show Cause Why Defendants Should Not be Held in Contempt of Court AND Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 by Jesus Santiago−Salmoran, Rolando Hernandez−Palestino, Jose Ramon Sanchez Martinez, Joan Michel Sanchez, Juan Sanchez Sanchez, Ernesto Martinez, Andres Aldana−Moreno, Aaron Lopez−Marin, Apolonio Lopez−Andres, Ernesto Cruz−Ramirez, Samuel Vasquez−Hernandez, Rufino Vasquez−Ordaz, Jose Rosiles−Perez, Andres Lopez−Lopez, Juan Lopez−Cruz. Responses due by 7/14/2006 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit C# 4 Exhibit D)(Karsh, Joshua) Modified text on 6/28/2006 (km, ). (Entered: 06/27/2006)

06/28/2006

NOTE TO FILER: Re: Document Nos. 105 &106; In the future, when filing a multiple relief Motion, click on Motions, while holding down the Ctrl key, scroll down and highlight Clarify &Reconsideration; release Ctrl key; click next. Also, it is mandatory that all exhibits/attachments to documents be described in detail; The system allows the filing user to perform this very important function. (km, ) (Entered: 06/28/2006)

06/28/2006

107 REPLY to Response to Motion re 92 MOTION for Reconsideration , or in the Alernative, Clarification, and Oral Argument filed by Superior Forestry Service, Inc., Scott Barstow, William Ioup. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Affidavit of Hector Santillan Cruz)(Stine, J.) (Entered: 06/28/2006)

06/29/2006

NOTE TO FILER: Re: Document No. 107; In the future if the affidavit is an original it should be filed as a separate entry using the event Affidavit found under the category Other Documents with the exhibits filed as attachments. (km, ) (Entered: 06/29/2006)

06/30/2006

108 NOTICE of Change of Address by Marni Willenson (Willenson, Marni) (Entered: 06/30/2006)

07/10/2006

109 MOTION for leave to respond to 105 MOTION to Clarify re 102 Order on Motion to Certify Class Plaintiffs' Motion for Clarification and/or Reconsideration of the Court's June 22, 2006 Order on Motion to Certify a Class and Also for Clarification That The Limitations Period filed by Superior Forestry Service, Inc., Scott Barstow, William Ioup. (Stine, J.) (w/proposed order attached) Modified text on 7/11/2006 (km, ). (Entered: 07/10/2006)

Case: 1:06-cv-00006 As of: 07/09/2012 02:18 PM CDT 32 of 65

07/10/2006

110 RESPONSE to Motion for clarification and/or reconsideration 105 filed by Superior Forestry Service, Inc., Scott Barstow, William Ioup. (Stine, J.) Modified text and link on 7/11/2006 (km, ). (Entered: 07/10/2006)

07/10/2006

111 MOTION for Protective Order Limiting Discovery to the Appropriate Statue of Limitations AND REQUEST for Oral Argument by Superior Forestry Service, Inc., Scott Barstow, William Ioup. Responses due by 7/27/2006 (Stine, J.) (Entered: 07/10/2006)

07/10/2006

112 MEMORANDUM in Support of 111 MOTION for Protective Order Limiting Discovery to the Appropriate Statue of Limitations and Request for Oral Argument filed by Superior Forestry Service, Inc., Scott Barstow, William Ioup. (Stine, J.) (Entered: 07/10/2006)

07/10/2006

MOTION for Leave to respond to 105 by Superior Forestry Service, Inc., Scott Barstow, William Ioup. Responses due by 7/27/2006. (Docketed for tracking purposes only−See D/E #109)) (km, ) (Entered: 07/11/2006)

07/10/2006

113 AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF filed by Thomas F. Kovach. (km, ) (Entered: 07/11/2006)

07/11/2006

NOTE TO FILER: Re: Document Nos. 109−111; A Motion for leave should be filed using the event Leave found under the category Motions. A proposed order should be filed as an attachment not included with the pleading. See *General Proposed Order under Other Documents. The response should be filed as an attachment to the Motion until the Court rules on the Motion for leave. If filing a Response without a motion for leave it should be filed using the event Response found under the category Responses and Replies. When filing a multiple relief Motion, click on Motions, while holding down the Ctrl key, scroll down and highlight Protective Order &Hearing; release Ctrl key; click next. These documents do not need to be refiled unless otherwise directed by the Court. (km, ) (Entered: 07/11/2006)

07/12/2006

114 RESPONSE to Motion re 106 MOTION for Contempt Plaintiffs' Petition For a Rule to Show Cause Why Defendants Should Not be Held in Contempt of Court and Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 filed by Superior Forestry Service, Inc., Scott Barstow, William Ioup. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Affidvit of Enrique Gonzales# 2 Exhibit Notice of Lawsuit)(Stine, J.) (Entered: 07/12/2006)

07/12/2006

115 AFFIDAVIT of Enrique Gonzales by Superior Forestry Service, Inc., Scott Barstow, William Ioup. (Stine, J.) (Entered: 07/12/2006)

07/17/2006

116 ORDER: Based upon the parties conflicting evidentiary submissions, this petition re 106 is set for evidentiary hearing in Columbia. Parties are to submit an agreed order for the date and time. Signed by Judge William J. Haynes on 7/17/06. (km, ) (Entered: 07/17/2006)

07/17/2006

117 ORDER: Motion for Reconsideration, or in the alternative, clarification, and oral argument is granted in part to clarify that the Court's Order never precluded any communication required by law. The defts' argument to that effect strains the reasonable interpretation of that Order. The motion is otherwise denied . Signed by Judge William J. Haynes on 7/17/06. (km, ) (Entered: 07/17/2006)

07/18/2006

118 NOTICE of Filing by Jose Rosiles−Perez FLSA Consent to Sue Forms (Graunke, Kristi) (Entered: 07/18/2006)

07/19/2006

119 REPLY to Response to Motion re 105 MOTION to Clarify re 102 Order on Motion to Certify Class Plaintiffs' Motion for Clarification and/or Reconsideration of the Court's June 22, 2006 Order on Motion to Certify a Class and Also for Clarification That The Limitations Period Continues to be Tolled for FLSA Claims filed by Jesus Santiago−Salmoran, Andres Aldana−Moreno, Jose Rosiles−Perez. (Willenson, Marni) (Entered: 07/19/2006)

07/19/2006

120 MOTION for Leave to File Instanter Reply in Support of Motion for Clarification and/or Reconsideration re 119 Reply to Response to Motion, by Jesus Santiago−Salmoran, Andres Aldana−Moreno, Jose Rosiles−Perez. Responses due by 8/7/2006 (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Granting Motion)(Willenson, Marni) (Entered: 07/19/2006)

Case: 1:06-cv-00006 As of: 07/09/2012 02:18 PM CDT 33 of 65

07/19/2006 07/21/2006 07/21/2006 07/21/2006 07/21/2006 07/27/2006
07/27/2006
07/27/2006
07/28/2006 07/31/2006
08/03/2006 08/03/2006 08/03/2006 08/03/2006

NOTE TO FILER: Re: Document Nos. 119 &120; In the future, the reply should be filed as an attachment to the Motion for leave to file until the Court rules on the Motion for leave. This document does not need to be refiled unless otherwise directed by the Court. (km, ) (Entered: 07/19/2006)
121 ORDER granting 120 Motion for Leave to file instanter their reply in support of their motion for clarification and/or reconsideration . Signed by Judge William J. Haynes on 7/21/06. (km, ) (Entered: 07/21/2006)
122 (DOCKETED IN ERROR− Atty to Refile) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Superior Forestry Service, Inc., Scott Barstow, William Ioup for Defendants' Response to Plaintiffs' First Request for the Production of Documents (Stine, J.) Modified on 7/21/2006 (km, ). (Entered: 07/21/2006)
123 (DOCKETED IN ERROR− Atty to Refile) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Superior Forestry Service, Inc., Scott Barstow, William Ioup Certificate of Service for the Defendants? Response to Plaintiffs? First Request for the Production of Documents (Stine, J.) Modified on 7/21/2006 (km, ). (Entered: 07/21/2006)
124 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Superior Forestry Service, Inc., Scott Barstow, William Ioup for Defendants' Responses to Pl aintiffs' Second Reqeust for the Production of Documents (Stine, J.) (Entered: 07/21/2006)
125 MOTION to Stay Portion of Protective Order Pertaining to Award of Attorneys' Fees and Objections to Attorneys Fees Requested by Superior Forestry Service, Inc., Scott Barstow. Responses due by 8/14/2006 (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Stay Portion of Protective Order# 2 Proposed Order Establishing Amount of Reasonable Atty Fees)(Stine, J.) (Entered: 07/27/2006)
126 MEMORANDUM in Support of 125 MOTION to Stay Portion of Protective Order Pertaining to Award of Attorneys' Fees and Objections to Attorneys Fees Requested filed by Superior Forestry Service, Inc., Scott Barstow, William Ioup. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit time records of work performed by opp. counsel)(Stine, J.) (Entered: 07/27/2006)
127 RESPONSE to Motion re 111 MOTION for Protective Order Limiting Discovery to the Appropriate Statue of Limitations and Request for Oral Argument filed by Jose Rosiles−Perez. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A −− Disclosure Agreements# 2 Exhibit B −− Job Clearance Orders# 3 Exhibit C −− Defs' Resp to Pls' 2d RFP# 4 Exhibit D −− Westlaw Cases)(Willenson, Marni) (Entered: 07/27/2006)
128 Proposed Order setting pltfs' motion for contempt for evidentiary hearing on 8/16/06 in Columbia. (Karsh, Joshua) Modified text on 7/31/2006 (km, ). (Entered: 07/28/2006)
NOTE TO FILER: Re: Document No. 128; Proposed Orders should be included as an attachment to a Motion or other request for relief. If the Court orders that counsel submit a proposed order, it should be submitted as an attachment to a Notice of Filing. See *General Proposed Order under Other Documents. (km, ) (Entered: 07/31/2006)
129 AGREED ORDER Setting Evidentiary Hearing on 106 MOTION for Contempt. Evidentiary Hearing set for 8/18/2006 02:00 PM in Columbia before District Judge William J. Haynes. Signed by Judge William J. Haynes on 8/3/06. (km, ) (Entered: 08/03/2006)
130 ORDER: The Motion for leave to respond 109 is granted, the response was considered . Signed by Judge William J. Haynes on 8/1/06. (km, ) (Entered: 08/03/2006)
131 ORDER: This 105 Motion for clarification is granted. Upon completion of discovery, the briefing schedule resumes and the prior motion for certification can be renewed. The tolling order remains in effect . Signed by Judge William J. Haynes on 8/1/06. (km, ) Modified text on 8/3/2006 (km, ). (Entered: 08/03/2006)
132 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Joan Michel Sanchez−Martinez by Superior Forestry Service, Inc., Scott Barstow, William Ioup. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A. Request for Production of Documents (to bring to deposition))(Bissinger, Fredrick)

Case: 1:06-cv-00006 As of: 07/09/2012 02:18 PM CDT 34 of 65

(Entered: 08/03/2006)

08/03/2006

133 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Superior Forestry Service, Inc., Scott Barstow, William Ioup of Defendants' Amended Initial Disclosures (Bissinger, Fredrick) (Entered: 08/03/2006)

08/14/2006

134 RESPONSE to Motion re 125 MOTION to Stay Portion of Protective Order Pertaining to Award of Attorneys' Fees and Objections to Attorneys Fees Requested filed by Jesus Santiago−Salmoran, Andres Aldana−Moreno, Jose Rosiles−Perez. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Denying Defendants' Motion to Stay)(Willenson, Marni) (Entered: 08/14/2006)

08/14/2006 08/14/2006 08/14/2006 08/15/2006

135 DECLARATION of Marni Willenson in Support of Court−Ordered Attorney's Fees filed by Jesus Santiago−Salmoran, Andres Aldana−Moreno, Jose Rosiles−Perez re: 134 . (Willenson, Marni) (Entered: 08/14/2006)
136 DECLARATION of Mary C. Bauer filed by Jesus Santiago−Salmoran, Andres Aldana−Moreno, Jose Rosiles−Perez re: 134 . (Turner, Andrew) (Entered: 08/14/2006)
137 DECLARATION of Joshua Karsh filed by Jesus Santiago−Salmoran, Andres Aldana−Moreno, Jose Rosiles−Perez re: 134 . (Karsh, Joshua) (Entered: 08/14/2006)
NOTE TO FILER: Re: Document Nos. 135−137; A declaration must include an original signature. These declarations should be refiled. (km, ) (Entered: 08/15/2006)

08/15/2006

138 DECLARATION of Joshua Karsh in Support of Court−Ordered Attorney's Fees filed by Jesus Santiago−Salmoran, Andres Aldana−Moreno, Jose Rosiles−Perez re: 134 . (Karsh, Joshua) (Entered: 08/15/2006)

08/15/2006

139 MOTION to Continue Evidentiary Hearing Pending Medical Appointment by Superior Forestry Service, Inc., Scott Barstow, William Ioup. Responses due by 9/1/2006 (Stine, J.) (Entered: 08/15/2006)

08/18/2006 08/21/2006 08/21/2006
08/22/2006

140 MOTION for Leave to Appear Telephonically for Hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion for Contempt by Jesus Santiago−Salmoran, Andres Aldana−Moreno, Jose Rosiles−Perez. Responses due by 9/5/2006 (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Proposed Order Granting Motion)(Willenson, Marni) (Entered: 08/18/2006)
141 BRIEF filed by Superior Forestry Service, Inc., Scott Barstow, William Ioup re 106 Motion for Contempt,,. (Bissinger, Fredrick) (Entered: 08/21/2006)
142 MOTION for Leave to File Instanter Response to Defendants' Post−Hearing Submission Re"Just Cause" by Jesus Santiago−Salmoran, Andres Aldana−Moreno, Jose Rosiles−Perez. Responses due by 9/7/2006 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A: Plaintiffs' Response to Defendants' Post−Hearing Submission Re "Just Cause"# 2 Exhibit Exhibit B: Proposed Order)(Karsh, Joshua) (Entered: 08/21/2006)
143 ORDER denying as moot 139 Motion to Continue evidentiary hearing. Signed by Judge William J. Haynes on 8/21/06. (km, ) (Entered: 08/22/2006)

08/22/2006

144 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge William J. Haynes : Evidentiary Hearing held on 8/18/2006. (Court Reporter Peggy Turner.) (km, ) (Entered: 08/22/2006)

08/22/2006

145 ORDER denying 140 Motion for Leave to Appear telephonically . Signed by Judge William J. Haynes on 8/20/06. (km, ) (Entered: 08/22/2006)

08/23/2006 08/24/2006 08/24/2006

146 WITNESS/EXHIBIT LIST prepared by Deputy Clerk. re: 144 Evidentiary Hearing.(km, ) (Entered: 08/23/2006)
147 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Jose Isidro Lagunes−Montero by Superior Forestry Service, Inc., Scott Barstow, William Ioup.(Stine, J.) (Entered: 08/24/2006)
148 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Nicente Escobar−Lopez and Carmelo Marcelino−Sanchez by Superior Forestry Service, Inc., Scott Barstow, William Ioup.(Stine, J.) (Entered: 08/24/2006)

Case: 1:06-cv-00006 As of: 07/09/2012 02:18 PM CDT 35 of 65

08/24/2006

149 NOTICE of Filing by Jesus Santiago−Salmoran, Andres Aldana−Moreno, Jose Rosiles−Perez FLSA Consent−to−Sue Form of Esteban Sanchez−Lopez (Turner, Andrew) (Entered: 08/24/2006)

08/28/2006

150 ORDER granting 142 Pltfs' Motion for Leave to File Instanter Response to Defts' Post−Hearing Submission Re "Just Cause." Signed by Judge William J. Haynes on 8/28/06. (jb) (Entered: 08/28/2006)

08/28/2006

151 RESPONSE filed by Pltfs to 141 Defts' Post−Hearing Submission RE "Just Cause." (jb) (Entered: 08/28/2006)

09/08/2006

152 NOTICE of Filing by Jesus Santiago−Salmoran, Andres Aldana−Moreno, Jose Rosiles−Perez FLSA Consent to Sue Form of Juan Jose Huerta−Jimenez (Turner, Andrew) (Entered: 09/08/2006)

09/12/2006

153 Emergency MOTION to Deposit Funds For Disputed Attorney Fees Into Registry of Court by Superior Forestry Service, Inc., Scott Barstow, William Ioup. Responses due by 9/29/2006 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A.Willenson Letter# 2 Exhibit B.Order Authorizing Deposit)(Stine, J.) (Entered: 09/12/2006)

09/12/2006

154 RESPONSE to Motion re 153 Emergency MOTION to Deposit Funds For Disputed Attorney Fees Into Registry of Court filed by Jesus Santiago−Salmoran, Andres Aldana−Moreno, Jose Rosiles−Perez. (Willenson, Marni) (Entered: 09/12/2006)

09/27/2006

155 ORDER: 125 Motion to Stay is denied. Court awards the pltfs $12,115 in atty fees and costs . Signed by Judge William J. Haynes on 9/26/06. (km, ) (Entered: 09/27/2006)

09/27/2006

156 ORDER denying as moot 153 Emergency Motion to Deposit Funds . Signed by Judge William J. Haynes on 9/26/06. (km, ) (Entered: 09/27/2006)

10/03/2006

157 NOTICE of Filing by Jesus Santiago−Salmoran, Andres Aldana−Moreno, Jose Rosiles−Perez FLSA Consent to Sue Form of Juan Alejandro Huerta−Vargas (Turner, Andrew) (Entered: 10/03/2006)

10/23/2006

158 MOTION for Leave to Leave to File Supplemental Authority In Support of Plaintiffs Response to Defendants' Motion for Protective Order Limiting Discovery to the Appropriate Statute of Limitations and Request for Oral Argument by Jose Rosiles−Perez. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Pl. Ex. 1 Supplemental Authority# 2 Exhibit Pl. Ex. A De Leon−Granados v. Eller &Sons Trees, Inc.)(Turner, Andrew) (Entered: 10/23/2006)

10/26/2006

159 ORDER granting 158 Motion for Leave to file supplemental authority . Signed by Judge William J. Haynes on 10/25/06. (km, ) (Entered: 10/26/2006)

10/26/2006

160 SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY in support of pltfs' response to deft's 111 Motion for Protective Order filed by Jose Rosiles−Perez. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Pl. Ex. A DeLeon−Granados v. Eller &Sons Trees, Inc.)(km, ) (Entered: 10/26/2006)

11/07/2006

161 NOTICE of Change of Address by Marni Willenson (Willenson, Marni) (xc: Ann F. on 11/8/2006) (km, ). (Entered: 11/07/2006)

11/21/2006

162 NOTICE of Change of Address by James M. Knoepp (Knoepp, James) (Entered: 11/21/2006)

11/29/2006

163 Joint MOTION for Protective Order Governing Certain Electronic Data by Jesus Santiago−Salmoran, Andres Aldana−Moreno, Jose Rosiles−Perez. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Protective Order)(Willenson, Marni) (Entered: 11/29/2006)

11/30/2006

164 ORDER granting 163 Agreed Motion for limited Protective Order . Signed by Judge William J. Haynes on 11/30/06. (km, ) (Entered: 12/01/2006)

11/30/2006

165 PROTECTIVE ORDER governing certain electronic data. Signed by Judge William J. Haynes on 11/30/06. (km, ) (Entered: 12/01/2006)

01/29/2007

166 ORDER: Upon review of this file, this 109 Motion for Leave to respond is denied as moot. See DE No. 131 . Signed by Judge William J. Haynes on 1/26/07. (km, ) (Entered: 01/29/2007)

Case: 1:06-cv-00006 As of: 07/09/2012 02:18 PM CDT 36 of 65

01/31/2007 01/31/2007
02/05/2007 02/05/2007 02/08/2007
02/08/2007
02/08/2007
02/09/2007
02/19/2007 02/19/2007

167 MEMORANDUM . Signed by Judge William J. Haynes on 1/31/07. (Attachments: # 1 text searchable document)(km, ) (Entered: 01/31/2007)
168 ORDER: In accordance with the Memorandum filed herewith, the pltfs' Motion for sanctions and a finding of contempt 106 is granted. Defts are again ordered to provide a copy of this Court's 5/23/06 Order (Docket Entry No. 91) to all its employees instanter. Any employee who has reason to believe that he or she has been retaliated against in any fashion may file an affidavit disclosing that conduct with the Clerk of this Court. Defts shall immediately provide a copy of this Order to all of its employees. Defts shall file affidavits of compliance with this Order within 3 days from the date of entry of this Order. Pltfs are awarded their reasonable attys' fees and costs related to this motion. All other issues of relief are reserved . Signed by Judge William J. Haynes on 1/31/07. (Attachments: # 1 text searchable document) (km, ) (Entered: 01/31/2007)
169 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Superior Forestry Service, Inc., Scott Barstow, William Ioup Defendants' Affidavit of Compliance with Order Dated January 31, 2007 (Stine, J.) (Entered: 02/05/2007)
170 AFFIDAVIT Defendants'Affidavit of Compliance with Order Dated January 31, 2007 by Superior Forestry Service, Inc., Scott Barstow, William Ioup. (Stine, J.) (Entered: 02/05/2007)
171 MOTION for an Order Relating to Persons Protected by the Court's January 31, 2007 Contempt Order re 168 Order on Motion for Contempt,,, by Jesus Santiago−Salmoran, Rolando Hernandez−Palestino, Jose Ramon Sanchez Martinez, Joan Michel Sanchez, Juan Sanchez Sanchez, Ernesto Martinez, Andres Aldana−Moreno, Aaron Lopez−Marin, Apolonio Lopez−Andres, Ernesto Cruz−Ramirez, Samuel Vasquez−Hernandez, Rufino Vasquez−Ordaz, Jose Rosiles−Perez, Andres Lopez−Lopez, Juan Lopez−Cruz. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Proposed Order Granting Motion)(Willenson, Marni) (Entered: 02/08/2007)
172 MEMORANDUM in Support of 171 MOTION for an Order Relating to Persons Protected by the Court's January 31, 2007 Contempt Order re 168 Order on Motion for Contempt,,, filed by Jesus Santiago−Salmoran, Rolando Hernandez−Palestino, Jose Ramon Sanchez Martinez, Joan Michel Sanchez, Juan Sanchez Sanchez, Ernesto Martinez, Andres Aldana−Moreno, Aaron Lopez−Marin, Apolonio Lopez−Andres, Ernesto Cruz−Ramirez, Samuel Vasquez−Hernandez, Rufino Vasquez−Ordaz, Jose Rosiles−Perez, Andres Lopez−Lopez, Juan Lopez−Cruz. (Willenson, Marni) (Entered: 02/08/2007)
173 DECLARATION of Marni Willenson filed by Jesus Santiago−Salmoran, Rolando Hernandez−Palestino, Jose Ramon Sanchez Martinez, Joan Michel Sanchez, Juan Sanchez Sanchez, Ernesto Martinez, Andres Aldana−Moreno, Aaron Lopez−Marin, Apolonio Lopez−Andres, Ernesto Cruz−Ramirez, Samuel Vasquez−Hernandez, Rufino Vasquez−Ordaz, Jose Rosiles−Perez, Andres Lopez−Lopez, Juan Lopez−Cruz re: 172 Memorandum in Support,,, 171 MOTION for an Order Relating to Persons Protected by the Court's January 31, 2007 Contempt Order re 168 Order on Motion for Contempt,,,. (Willenson, Marni) (Entered: 02/08/2007)
174 ORDER granting 171 Pltfs' Motion for an additional notice to persons protected by the Court's protective order and contempt order. Any employee who has reason to believe that he or she has been retaliated against in any fashion may file an affidavit disclosing that conduct with the Clerk of Court or may contact Pltfs' counsel, Mary C. Bauer, Immigrant Justice Project, Southern Poverty Law Center. Defts shall provide copies of this Order, translated into Spanish, to their employees, to accompany the Spanish−language translations of the Court's protective order and contempt order. Signed by Judge William J. Haynes on 2/9/07. (jb) (Entered: 02/09/2007)
175 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by Superior Forestry Service, Inc., Scott Barstow, William Ioup. (Stine, J.) (Entered: 02/19/2007)
176 MEMORANDUM in Support of 175 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Superior Forestry Service, Inc., Scott Barstow, William Ioup.

Case: 1:06-cv-00006 As of: 07/09/2012 02:18 PM CDT 37 of 65

(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A− Bill Ioup Affidavit# 2 Exhibit B− General Disclosure# 3 Exhibit C−Employment Guidance Letter)(Stine, J.) (Entered: 02/19/2007)

02/19/2007

177 STATEMENT of facts Material Facts as to Which There is no Genuine Issue for Trial. (Stine, J.) (Entered: 02/19/2007)

03/08/2007

178 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply by Jesus Santiago−Salmoran, Rolando Hernandez−Palestino, Jose Ramon Sanchez Martinez, Joan Michel Sanchez, Juan Sanchez Sanchez, Ernesto Martinez, Andres Aldana−Moreno, Aaron Lopez−Marin, Apolonio Lopez−Andres, Ernesto Cruz−Ramirez, Samuel Vasquez−Hernandez, Rufino Vasquez−Ordaz, Jose Rosiles−Perez, Andres Lopez−Lopez, Juan Lopez−Cruz. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Granting Motion)(Willenson, Marni) (Entered: 03/08/2007)

03/08/2007

179 DECLARATION of Marni Willenson in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion to Extend the Response Deadline on Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Jesus Santiago−Salmoran, Rolando Hernandez−Palestino, Jose Ramon Sanchez Martinez, Joan Michel Sanchez, Juan Sanchez Sanchez, Ernesto Martinez, Andres Aldana−Moreno, Aaron Lopez−Marin, Apolonio Lopez−Andres, Ernesto Cruz−Ramirez, Samuel Vasquez−Hernandez, Rufino Vasquez−Ordaz, Jose Rosiles−Perez, Andres Lopez−Lopez, Juan Lopez−Cruz re: 178 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. (Willenson, Marni) (Entered: 03/08/2007)

03/08/2007

180 CERTIFICATE of Service filed by Jesus Santiago−Salmoran, Rolando Hernandez−Palestino, Jose Ramon Sanchez Martinez, Joan Michel Sanchez, Juan Sanchez Sanchez, Ernesto Martinez, Andres Aldana−Moreno, Aaron Lopez−Marin, Apolonio Lopez−Andres, Ernesto Cruz−Ramirez, Samuel Vasquez−Hernandez, Rufino Vasquez−Ordaz, Jose Rosiles−Perez, Andres Lopez−Lopez, Juan Lopez−Cruz. (Willenson, Marni) (Entered: 03/08/2007)

03/09/2007

181 ORDER granting 178 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response to 175 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment. Response due by 3/19/07. Signed by Judge William J. Haynes on 3/9/07. (dt) (Entered: 03/09/2007)

03/19/2007

182 RESPONSE in Opposition re 175 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Jesus Santiago−Salmoran, Rolando Hernandez−Palestino, Jose Ramon Sanchez Martinez, Joan Michel Sanchez, Juan Sanchez Sanchez, Ernesto Martinez, Andres Aldana−Moreno, Aaron Lopez−Marin, Apolonio Lopez−Andres, Ernesto Cruz−Ramirez, Samuel Vasquez−Hernandez, Rufino Vasquez−Ordaz, Jose Rosiles−Perez, Andres Lopez−Lopez, Juan Lopez−Cruz. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Denying Motion)(Willenson, Marni) (Entered: 03/19/2007)

03/19/2007

183 DECLARATION of Marni Willenson in Suppport of Rule 56(F) Response to Defs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Jesus Santiago−Salmoran, Rolando Hernandez−Palestino, Jose Ramon Sanchez Martinez, Joan Michel Sanchez, Juan Sanchez Sanchez, Ernesto Martinez, Andres Aldana−Moreno, Aaron Lopez−Marin, Apolonio Lopez−Andres, Ernesto Cruz−Ramirez, Samuel Vasquez−Hernandez, Rufino Vasquez−Ordaz, Jose Rosiles−Perez, Andres Lopez−Lopez, Juan Lopez−Cruz re: 182 Response in Opposition to Motion,. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A −− Defs' Table of Files and Databases)(Willenson, Marni) (Entered: 03/19/2007)

04/05/2007

184 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply Response To Plaintiffs' 56(F) Response To Defendants' Motion For Partial Summary Judgment by Superior Forestry Service, Inc., Scott Barstow, William Ioup. (Stine, J.) (Entered: 04/05/2007)

04/09/2007

185 ORDER granting 184 Motion for Extension of Time until 4/12/07 to File Response/Reply re 175 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge William J. Haynes on 4/9/07. (km, ) (Entered: 04/09/2007)

04/12/2007

186 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery for an Agreed Order on Discovery Related to Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment by Superior Forestry Service, Inc., Scott Barstow, William Ioup. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Stine, J.) (Entered: 04/12/2007)

Case: 1:06-cv-00006 As of: 07/09/2012 02:18 PM CDT 38 of 65

04/13/2007 06/01/2007
06/04/2007 06/25/2007 06/26/2007
06/27/2007 07/10/2007
07/11/2007

187 ORDER granting 186 Motion for an entry of an order regulating discovery related to defts' motion for partial summary judgment. Parties will have 45 days from the entry of this Order to complete discovery. Pltfs will have 30 days after the completion of discovery on their claims, or 75 days from the entry of this Order, to file their response to defts' mtn for partial summary judgment and/or their cross−motion for summary judgment. Signed by Judge William J. Haynes on 4/13/07. (km, ) (Entered: 04/13/2007)
188 Joint MOTION to Amend/Correct 187 Order on Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery, Relating to Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment by Jesus Santiago−Salmoran, Rolando Hernandez−Palestino, Jose Ramon Sanchez Martinez, Joan Michel Sanchez, Juan Sanchez Sanchez, Ernesto Martinez, Andres Aldana−Moreno, Aaron Lopez−Marin, Apolonio Lopez−Andres, Ernesto Cruz−Ramirez, Samuel Vasquez−Hernandez, Rufino Vasquez−Ordaz, Jose Rosiles−Perez, Andres Lopez−Lopez, Juan Lopez−Cruz. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Amending Order of April 13, 2007)(Willenson, Marni) (Entered: 06/01/2007)
189 ORDER granting 188 Joint MOTION to Amend 187 Order on Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery, Relating to Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Parties shall have until 6/29/07 to complete discovery. Signed by Judge William J. Haynes Jr. on 6/4/07. (km, ) (Entered: 06/04/2007)
190 Emergency MOTION Emergency Motion for Revised Scheduling Order and Protective Order and Request for Expedited Hearing, MOTION for Hearing, MOTION for Protective Order by Superior Forestry Service, Inc., Scott Barstow, William Ioup. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Proposed Case Management Order No. 2)(Stine, J.) (Entered: 06/25/2007)
191 MOTION Entry of an Order Setting Schedule on Docket No 190 re 190 Emergency MOTION Emergency Motion for Revised Scheduling Order and Protective Order and Request for Expedited Hearing MOTION for Hearing MOTION for Hearing MOTION for Protective Order MOTION for Protective Order by Jesus Santiago−Salmoran, Rolando Hernandez−Palestino, Jose Ramon Sanchez Martinez, Joan Michel Sanchez, Juan Sanchez Sanchez, Ernesto Martinez, Andres Aldana−Moreno, Aaron Lopez−Marin, Apolonio Lopez−Andres, Ernesto Cruz−Ramirez, Samuel Vasquez−Hernandez, Rufino Vasquez−Ordaz, Jose Rosiles−Perez, Andres Lopez−Lopez, Juan Lopez−Cruz. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Setting Schedule on Docket No 190)(Willenson, Marni) (Entered: 06/26/2007)
192 ORDER Setting Hearing on 190 Emergency Motion for Revised Scheduling Order for 7/16/2007 03:30 PM in Columbia before District Judge William J. Haynes Jr..Briefing on defts' motion for partial summary judgment is stayed pending resolution of discovery disputes and entry of further orders. Signed by Judge William J. Haynes Jr. on 6/26/07. (km, ) (Entered: 06/27/2007)
193 RESPONSE in Opposition re 190 Emergency MOTION Emergency Motion for Revised Scheduling Order and Protective Order and Request for Expedited Hearing MOTION for Hearing MOTION for Hearing MOTION for Protective Order MOTION for Protective Order filed by Jesus Santiago−Salmoran, Rolando Hernandez−Palestino, Jose Ramon Sanchez Martinez, Joan Michel Sanchez, Juan Sanchez Sanchez, Ernesto Martinez, Andres Aldana−Moreno, Aaron Lopez−Marin, Apolonio Lopez−Andres, Ernesto Cruz−Ramirez, Samuel Vasquez−Hernandez, Rufino Vasquez−Ordaz, Jose Rosiles−Perez, Andres Lopez−Lopez, Juan Lopez−Cruz. (Willenson, Marni) (Entered: 07/10/2007)
194 MOTION for Leave to to File Instanter Corrected Response Memorandum, Table of Exhibits, and Other Supporting Materials re 193 Response in Opposition to Motion,, by Jesus Santiago−Salmoran, Rolando Hernandez−Palestino, Jose Ramon Sanchez Martinez, Joan Michel Sanchez, Juan Sanchez Sanchez, Ernesto Martinez, Andres Aldana−Moreno, Aaron Lopez−Marin, Apolonio Lopez−Andres, Ernesto Cruz−Ramirez, Samuel Vasquez−Hernandez, Rufino Vasquez−Ordaz, Jose Rosiles−Perez, Andres Lopez−Lopez, Juan Lopez−Cruz. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Granting Motion)(Willenson, Marni) (Entered: 07/11/2007)

Case: 1:06-cv-00006 As of: 07/09/2012 02:18 PM CDT 39 of 65

07/11/2007
07/11/2007 07/11/2007
07/12/2007 07/13/2007 07/16/2007 07/17/2007 07/17/2007 07/17/2007 07/17/2007

195 RESPONSE in Opposition re 190 Emergency MOTION Emergency Motion for Revised Scheduling Order and Protective Order and Request for Expedited Hearing MOTION for Hearing MOTION for Hearing MOTION for Protective Order MOTION for Protective Order (Corrected, with Attachments) filed by Jesus Santiago−Salmoran, Rolando Hernandez−Palestino, Jose Ramon Sanchez Martinez, Joan Michel Sanchez, Juan Sanchez Sanchez, Ernesto Martinez, Andres Aldana−Moreno, Aaron Lopez−Marin, Apolonio Lopez−Andres, Ernesto Cruz−Ramirez, Samuel Vasquez−Hernandez, Rufino Vasquez−Ordaz, Jose Rosiles−Perez, Andres Lopez−Lopez, Juan Lopez−Cruz. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix A − Chronology# 2 Appendix B − Table of Exhibits Part 1# 3 Appendix B − Table of Exhibits Part 2# 4 Appendix B − Table of Exhibits Part 3# 5 Appendix B − Table of Exhibits Part 4# 6 Appendix B − Table of Exhibits Part 5# 7 Appendix B − Table of Exhibits Part 6# 8 Proposed Order Regulating the Discovery of Electronically Stored Information No. 1)(Willenson, Marni) (Entered: 07/11/2007)
196 DECLARATION of Jerry Saperstein filed by Jesus Santiago−Salmoran, Rolando Hernandez−Palestino, Jose Ramon Sanchez Martinez, Joan Michel Sanchez, Juan Sanchez Sanchez, Ernesto Martinez, Andres Aldana−Moreno, Aaron Lopez−Marin, Apolonio Lopez−Andres, Ernesto Cruz−Ramirez, Samuel Vasquez−Hernandez, Rufino Vasquez−Ordaz, Jose Rosiles−Perez, Andres Lopez−Lopez, Juan Lopez−Cruz re: 195 Response in Opposition to Motion,,,,. (Willenson, Marni) (Entered: 07/11/2007)
197 DECLARATION of Marni Willenson filed by Jesus Santiago−Salmoran, Rolando Hernandez−Palestino, Jose Ramon Sanchez Martinez, Joan Michel Sanchez, Juan Sanchez Sanchez, Ernesto Martinez, Andres Aldana−Moreno, Aaron Lopez−Marin, Apolonio Lopez−Andres, Ernesto Cruz−Ramirez, Samuel Vasquez−Hernandez, Rufino Vasquez−Ordaz, Jose Rosiles−Perez, Andres Lopez−Lopez, Juan Lopez−Cruz re: 195 Response in Opposition to Motion,,,,. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−B# 2 Exhibit C part 1# 3 Exhibit C part 2)(Willenson, Marni) (Entered: 07/11/2007)
Note to Filer re DE #194−197: The Response should have been filed as an attachment to the Motion for Leave to File, not as a separate entry. Each exhibit should be filed as a separate attachment to the main document and the mandatory description field used. The mandatory description field should be used to accurately describe the contents of your attachments (labeling as Exhibit A, B, C or Exhibit 1, 2,3 is not sufficient). These documents do not need to be re−filed unless otherwise directed by the Court. (km, ) (Entered: 07/12/2007)
198 ORDER granting 194 Motion for Leave to file instanter their corrected response memorandum . Signed by Judge William J. Haynes Jr. on 7/13/07. (km, ) (Entered: 07/16/2007)
199 DECLARATION of Tim Hayes filed by Superior Forestry Service, Inc., Scott Barstow, William Ioup. (Stine, J.) (Entered: 07/16/2007)
200 ORDER: The 175 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is denied without prejudice to renew by motion incorporating by reference its prior submissions. Signed by Judge William J. Haynes Jr. on 7/16/07. (km, ) (Entered: 07/17/2007)
201 ORDER: The Motion for a protective order 190 is denied without prejudice to renew. The Motion for a revised scheduling order 190 will be decided at the 10/22/07 conference that is set at 10:00 am in Columbia. The Motion for an expedited hearing 190 was granted. Signed by Judge William J. Haynes Jr. on 7/16/07. (km, ) (Entered: 07/17/2007)
202 ORDER granting 194 MOTION for Leave to to File Instanter. Signed by Judge William J. Haynes Jr. on 7/16/07. (km, ) (Entered: 07/17/2007)
203 ORDER REGULATING THE DISCOVERY OF ELECTRONICALLY STORED INFORMATION NO. 1: A discovery conference is set for 10/22/07 at 10:00 a.m in Columbia. Signed by Judge William J. Haynes Jr. on 7/17/07. (km, ) ***Last two sentences of paragraph number 2 of this Order are stricken and replaced with the sentences in Order #304*** (km). (Entered: 07/17/2007)

Case: 1:06-cv-00006 As of: 07/09/2012 02:18 PM CDT 40 of 65

07/17/2007

204 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge William J. Haynes Jr.: Hearing held on 7/16/2007. (Court Reporter Peggy Turner.) (km, ) (Entered: 07/17/2007)

07/17/2007

205 ORDER: This action is PROVISIONALLY CERTIFIED as a collective action under FLSA. Defts 175 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment is denied without prejudice to renew upon completion of discovery. Defts MOTION for Protective Order 191 is denied without prejudice to renew after the defts' production of electronic information in the Court's Order. Status Conference set for 10/22/2007 10:00 AM in Columbia before District Judge William J. Haynes Jr. Signed by Judge William J. Haynes Jr. on 7/17/07. (km, ) (Entered: 07/18/2007)

07/18/2007

206 TRANSCRIPT prepared by OCR Peggy Turner for Proceedings held on 7/16/07 before Judge Haynes.(This document is NOT available on−line. Contact the court reporter at 615−726−4893 to purchase a copy) (km, ) (Entered: 07/18/2007)

07/27/2007

207 Joint MOTION for Approval of FLSA Collective Action Notice by Jesus Santiago−Salmoran, Rolando Hernandez−Palestino, Jose Ramon Sanchez Martinez, Joan Michel Sanchez, Juan Sanchez Sanchez, Ernesto Martinez, Andres Aldana−Moreno, Aaron Lopez−Marin, Apolonio Lopez−Andres, Ernesto Cruz−Ramirez, Samuel Vasquez−Hernandez, Rufino Vasquez−Ordaz, Jose Rosiles−Perez, Andres Lopez−Lopez, Juan Lopez−Cruz. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Agreed FLSA Collective Action Notice# 2 Proposed Order Proposed Order Approving Collective Action Notice)(Willenson, Marni) (Entered: 07/27/2007)

07/27/2007

208 MOTION to Amend/Correct Motion to Modify Court Order by Superior Forestry Service, Inc.. (Stine, J.) (Entered: 07/27/2007)

07/30/2007

Note to Filer re DE #208: Pursuant to Administrativc Order No. 167, Section 5.08, proposed orders should be included as an attachment to an electronically filed motion or other request for relief. This document does not need to be re−filed unless otherwise directed by the Court (km, ) (Entered: 07/30/2007)

07/30/2007

209 ORDER granting 207 Agreed Motion for approval of FLSA Collective Action Notice . Signed by Judge William J. Haynes Jr. on 7/27/07. (km, ) (Entered: 07/30/2007)

07/30/2007

210 ORDER APPROVING FLSA COLLECTIVE ACTION NOTICE: Upon review of the parties' agreed collective action notice and motion for approval, the Court approves the FLSA notice for delivery to potential claimants, in English and Spanish . Signed by Judge William J. Haynes Jr. on 7/27/07. (km, ) (Entered: 07/30/2007)

08/01/2007

211 MOTION unopposed for a scheduling order on plaintiffs' renewed motion for class certification by Jesus Santiago−Salmoran, Rolando Hernandez−Palestino, Jose Ramon Sanchez Martinez, Joan Michel Sanchez, Juan Sanchez Sanchez, Ernesto Martinez, Andres Aldana−Moreno, Aaron Lopez−Marin, Apolonio Lopez−Andres, Ernesto Cruz−Ramirez, Samuel Vasquez−Hernandez, Rufino Vasquez−Ordaz, Jose Rosiles−Perez, Andres Lopez−Lopez, Juan Lopez−Cruz. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exh A −− 07−16−07 Hearing Tr.# 2 Proposed Order Proposed order granting motion)(Willenson, Marni) (Entered: 08/01/2007)

08/01/2007

212 DECLARATION of Marni Willenson of August 1, 2007 filed by Jesus Santiago−Salmoran, Rolando Hernandez−Palestino, Jose Ramon Sanchez Martinez, Joan Michel Sanchez, Juan Sanchez Sanchez, Ernesto Martinez, Andres Aldana−Moreno, Aaron Lopez−Marin, Apolonio Lopez−Andres, Ernesto Cruz−Ramirez, Samuel Vasquez−Hernandez, Rufino Vasquez−Ordaz, Jose Rosiles−Perez, Andres Lopez−Lopez, Juan Lopez−Cruz re: 211 MOTION unopposed for a scheduling order on plaintiffs' renewed motion for class certification. (Willenson, Marni) (Entered: 08/01/2007)

08/17/2007

213 MOTION for Leave to leave to file class certification papers by Jesus Santiago−Salmoran, Rolando Hernandez−Palestino, Jose Ramon Sanchez Martinez, Joan Michel Sanchez, Juan Sanchez Sanchez, Ernesto Martinez, Andres Aldana−Moreno, Aaron Lopez−Marin, Apolonio Lopez−Andres, Ernesto Cruz−Ramirez, Samuel Vasquez−Hernandez, Rufino Vasquez−Ordaz, Jose Rosiles−Perez, Andres Lopez−Lopez, Juan Lopez−Cruz. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order granting leave to file# 2 Exhibit Pls' Renewed Motion for Class Certification)(Willenson, Marni) (Entered: 08/17/2007)

Case: 1:06-cv-00006 As of: 07/09/2012 02:18 PM CDT 41 of 65

08/17/2007
08/17/2007 08/17/2007 08/17/2007 08/17/2007 08/18/2007
08/20/2007
08/21/2007 08/21/2007 08/21/2007 08/21/2007 08/21/2007 08/21/2007
09/13/2007
09/14/2007 09/19/2007 09/19/2007

214 (DISREGARD− See DE #219) Additional Attachments to Main Document re: 213 MOTION for Leave to leave to file class certification papers. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 −− Rigoberto Sanchez Crew# 2 Exhibit 2 −− Carretero Crew# 3 Exhibit 3 −− weekly crew sheets# 4 Exhibit 4 −− payroll database development# 5 Exhibit 5 −− treeplanting notebook 99/00# 6 Exhibit 6 −− Manuel Morales Deposition excerpts)(Willenson, Marni) Modified on 8/20/2007 (km, ). (Entered: 08/17/2007)
215 Additional Attachments to Main Document re: 213 MOTION for Leave to leave to file class certification papers. (Willenson, Marni) (Entered: 08/17/2007)
216 Additional Attachments to Main Document re: 213 MOTION for Leave to leave to file class certification papers. (Willenson, Marni) (Entered: 08/17/2007)
217 Additional Attachments to Main Document re: 213 MOTION for Leave to leave to file class certification papers. (Willenson, Marni) (Entered: 08/17/2007)
218 Additional Attachments to Main Document re: 213 MOTION for Leave to leave to file class certification papers. (Willenson, Marni) (Entered: 08/17/2007)
219 Additional Attachments to Main Document re: 213 MOTION for Leave to leave to file class certification papers. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Pls' Memorandum of Law in Support of Class Certification# 2 Appendix of Exhibits −− Table of Contents &Abstract# 3 Exhibit 1 −− R. Sanchez Crew# 4 Exhibit 2 −− Carretero crew# 5 Exhibit 3 −− weekly crew sheets# 6 Exhibit 4 −− payroll database development# 7 Exhibit 5 −− treeplanting notebook 99/00# 8 Exhibit 6 −− Deposition of Manuel Morales, exceprts)(Willenson, Marni) (Entered: 08/18/2007)
220 ORDER granting 213 Motion for Leave to file Renewed Motion for Class Certification. Pltfs' papers are accepted, and the deadline for Defts' response is 9/17/07 . Signed by Judge William J. Haynes Jr. on 8/20/07. (km, ) (Entered: 08/20/2007)
221 RENEWED MOTION for Class Certification by Pltfs. (km, ) (Entered: 08/21/2007)
222 DECLARATION of Mary Bauer filed by Pltfs re: 221 MOTION for Class Certification. (km, ) (Entered: 08/21/2007)
223 DECLARATION of Maurilio Morales−Carrillo filed by Pltfs re: 221 MOTION for Class Certification. (km, ) (Entered: 08/21/2007)
224 DECLARATION of Vito Ojeda−Morales filed by Pltfs re: 221 MOTION for Class Certification. (km, ) (Entered: 08/21/2007)
225 DECLARATION of Marni Willenson filed by Pltfs re: 221 MOTION for Class Certification. (km, ) (Entered: 08/21/2007)
226 MEMORANDUM in Support of 221 MOTION for Class Certification filed by Pltfs. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Exhibits # 2 Exhibit R. Sanchez Crew # 3 Exhibit Carretero Crew # 4 Exhibit Weekly Crew Sheets # 5 Exhibit payroll database development # 6 Exhibit treeplanting notebook 99/00 # 7 Exhibit Deposition of Manuel Morales)(km, ) (Entered: 08/21/2007)
227 UNOPPOSED MOTION For Additional Two Days To Respond To Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion For Class Certification by Superior Forestry Service, Inc., Scott Barstow, William Ioup. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum In Support of Unopposed Motion# 2 Proposed Order)(Stine, J.) Modified text on 9/14/2007 (km, ). (Entered: 09/13/2007)
Note to Filer re DE #227: Memorandum or Brief in Support should be filed as a separate entry, not as an attachment. This document does not need to be re−filed unless otherwise directed by the Court. (km, ) (Entered: 09/14/2007)
228 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages, Memorandum in Support and Proposed Order by Superior Forestry Service, Inc., Scott Barstow, William Ioup. (Stine, J.) (Modified text on 9/20/07 (km, ). (Entered: 09/19/2007)
229 MOTION to Strike Paragraghs 10 and 12 of Delcaration of Marni Willenson Submitted in Support of Plaintiff's Renewed Motion for Class Certification by

Case: 1:06-cv-00006 As of: 07/09/2012 02:18 PM CDT 42 of 65

09/19/2007 09/19/2007
09/20/2007 09/20/2007 09/21/2007 10/05/2007 10/05/2007

Superior Forestry Service, Inc., Scott Barstow, William Ioup. (Stine, J.) (Entered: 09/19/2007)
230 MEMORANDUM in Support of 229 MOTION to Strike Paragraghs 10 and 12 of Delcaration of Marni Willenson Submitted in Support of Plaintiff's Renewed Motion for Class Certification filed by Superior Forestry Service, Inc., Scott Barstow, William Ioup. (Stine, J.) (Entered: 09/19/2007)
231 RESPONSE in Opposition re 221 MOTION to Certify Class filed by Superior Forestry Service, Inc., Scott Barstow, William Ioup. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit List# 2 Exhibit A−Declaration of Sixto Matio Avendano# 3 Exhibit B−Declaration of Adelaido Bautista# 4 Exhibit C− Delcaration of Ali Tapia Vasquez# 5 Exhibit D− Declaration of Efrain Fernandez# 6 Exhibit E−Declaration of Marco Fabian Mateo# 7 Exhibit F−Declaration of Jorge Perez Paredes# 8 Exhibit Ex. G_Dec. of Candido Lopez Lucas# 9 Exhibit Ex. H_Dec. of Daniel Jiminez Cruz# 10 Exhibit Ex. I_Declaration of Isaac Baltazar Manuel# 11 Exhibit Ex. J_ Dec. of Gregorio Hernandez Santiago# 12 Exhibit Ex. K_Dec. of Timoteo Lopez Garcia# 13 Exhibit L# 14 Exhibit Exhibit M−Declaration# 15 Exhibit Exhibit N−Declaration# 16 Exhibit Exhibit O− Declaration# 17 Exhibit Exhibit P_Declaration# 18 Exhibit Exhibit Q− Declaration# 19 Exhibit Exhibit R− Declaration# 20 Exhibit Exhibit S−Depo Excerpts# 21 Exhibit Exhibit T− Affidavit# 22 Exhibit Exhibit U− Affidavit# 23 Exhibit Exhibit V− Affidavit# 24 Exhibit Exhibit W−Affdiavit# 25 (SEE DE #315 for Substituted Exhibit X #) (26) Exhibit Exhibit Y−Depo trans# 27 Exhibit Exhibit Z−Depo trans# 28 Exhibit Exhibit AA−Depo trans# 29 Exhibit Exhibit BB − Depo trans# 30 Exhibit Exhibit CC− Depo trans# 31 Exhibit Exhibit DD− Sample English# 32 Exhibit Exhibit EE−Superior Notebook# 33 Exhibit Exhibit FF− Transcript of hearing# 34 Exhibit Exhibit GG−Check History# 35 Exhibit Exhibit HH− Calculations# 36 Exhibit Exhibit II − wage and hour# 37 Exhibit Exhibit JJ−Wage and hour# 38 Exhibit Exhibit KK − wage and hour# 39 Exhibit Exhibit LL−wage and hour# 40 Exhibit Exhibit MM− wage and hour# 41 Exhibit Exhibit NN−wage and hour# 42 Exhibit Exhibit OO − wage and hour# 43 Exhibit Exhibit PP − wage and hour# 44 Exhibit Exhibit QQ− wage and hour# 45 Exhibit Exhibit RR − wage and hour# 46 Exhibit Exhibit SS−employment training)(Stine, J.) Modified text on 4/15/2008 (km). (Entered: 09/19/2007)
Note to Filer: Re DE #228 A Memorandum in Support should be filed as a separate entry, not as an attachment. Proposed orders should be included as an attachment to an electronically filed motion or other request for relief. Re DE #231: The Response should have been filed as an attachment to the Motion for Leave, not as a separate entry, since permission to file was being requested. Affidavits/declarations (if original) should be filed as separate events, not as attachments to other pleadings. The exhibits included with the Declarations should have been filed as attachments, not as part of the declarations. These documents do not need to be re−filed unless otherwise directed by the Court. (km, ) (Entered: 09/20/2007)
232 ORDER granting 227 Motion for Extension of Time until 9/19/07 to File Response/Reply re 221 MOTION to Certify Class . Signed by Judge William J. Haynes Jr. on 9/19/07. (km, ) (Entered: 09/20/2007)
233 TRANSCRIPT prepared by OCR Peggy Turner for Proceedings held on 8/18/06 before Judge Haynes.(This document is NOT available on−line. Contact the court reporter at 615−726−4893 to purchase a copy) (km, ) (Entered: 09/24/2007)
234 Emergency MOTION to Strike , for Sanctions, and for Other Relief from Abuse of Process by Jesus Santiago−Salmoran, Rolando Hernandez−Palestino, Jose Ramon Sanchez Martinez, Joan Michel Sanchez, Juan Sanchez Sanchez, Ernesto Martinez, Andres Aldana−Moreno, Aaron Lopez−Marin, Apolonio Lopez−Andres, Ernesto Cruz−Ramirez, Samuel Vasquez−Hernandez, Rufino Vasquez−Ordaz, Jose Rosiles−Perez, Andres Lopez−Lopez, Juan Lopez−Cruz. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 −− Deposition of Enrique Gonzalez# 2 Exhibit 2 −− Deposition of Rigoberto Sanchez# 3 Exhibit 3 −− Deposition of Lazaro Guzman# 4 Proposed Order Striking Pleadings, Etc.)(Willenson, Marni) (Entered: 10/05/2007)
235 MEMORANDUM in Support of 234 Emergency MOTION to Strike , for Sanctions, and for Other Relief from Abuse of Process filed by Jesus

Case: 1:06-cv-00006 As of: 07/09/2012 02:18 PM CDT 43 of 65

10/05/2007
10/05/2007
10/09/2007 10/09/2007 10/09/2007 10/10/2007 10/11/2007
10/12/2007 10/12/2007

Santiago−Salmoran, Rolando Hernandez−Palestino, Jose Ramon Sanchez Martinez, Joan Michel Sanchez, Juan Sanchez Sanchez, Ernesto Martinez, Andres Aldana−Moreno, Aaron Lopez−Marin, Apolonio Lopez−Andres, Ernesto Cruz−Ramirez, Samuel Vasquez−Hernandez, Rufino Vasquez−Ordaz, Jose Rosiles−Perez, Andres Lopez−Lopez, Juan Lopez−Cruz. (Willenson, Marni) (Entered: 10/05/2007)
236 DECLARATION of Marni Willenson in Support of Pls' Motion to Strike, for Sanctions, and for Other Relief from Abuse of Process filed by Jesus Santiago−Salmoran, Rolando Hernandez−Palestino, Jose Ramon Sanchez Martinez, Joan Michel Sanchez, Juan Sanchez Sanchez, Ernesto Martinez, Andres Aldana−Moreno, Aaron Lopez−Marin, Apolonio Lopez−Andres, Ernesto Cruz−Ramirez, Samuel Vasquez−Hernandez, Rufino Vasquez−Ordaz, Jose Rosiles−Perez, Andres Lopez−Lopez, Juan Lopez−Cruz re: 234 Emergency MOTION to Strike , for Sanctions, and for Other Relief from Abuse of Process. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A −− Pls' Requests for Production)(Willenson, Marni) (Entered: 10/05/2007)
237 DECLARATION of Rebecca H. Watson filed by Jesus Santiago−Salmoran, Rolando Hernandez−Palestino, Jose Ramon Sanchez Martinez, Joan Michel Sanchez, Juan Sanchez Sanchez, Ernesto Martinez, Andres Aldana−Moreno, Aaron Lopez−Marin, Apolonio Lopez−Andres, Ernesto Cruz−Ramirez, Samuel Vasquez−Hernandez, Rufino Vasquez−Ordaz, Jose Rosiles−Perez, Andres Lopez−Lopez, Juan Lopez−Cruz re: 234 Emergency MOTION to Strike , for Sanctions, and for Other Relief from Abuse of Process. (Willenson, Marni) (Entered: 10/05/2007)
238 ORDER Setting Hearing on 234 Emergency MOTION to Strike , for Sanctions, and for Other Relief from Abuse of Process : Motion Hearing set for 10/22/2007 10:00 AM in Columbia before District Judge William J. Haynes Jr. Signed by Judge William J. Haynes Jr. on 10/9/07. (km) (Entered: 10/09/2007)
239 Additional Attachments to Main Document re: 235 Memorandum in Support,. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit B − Eller &Sons Trees Slip Op)(Willenson, Marni) (Entered: 10/09/2007)
240 CERTIFICATE of service on DN239 filed by Jesus Santiago−Salmoran, Rolando Hernandez−Palestino, Jose Ramon Sanchez Martinez, Joan Michel Sanchez, Juan Sanchez Sanchez, Ernesto Martinez, Andres Aldana−Moreno, Aaron Lopez−Marin, Apolonio Lopez−Andres, Ernesto Cruz−Ramirez, Samuel Vasquez−Hernandez, Rufino Vasquez−Ordaz, Jose Rosiles−Perez, Andres Lopez−Lopez, Juan Lopez−Cruz. (Willenson, Marni) (Entered: 10/09/2007)
Note to Filer re DE 234: The motion filed is for multiple reliefs. This is filed by holding down the control key, scrolling down and highlighting the appropriate reliefs. See Chapter 5(i) of the User Manual for instructions. This document does not need to be re−filed unless otherwise directed by the Court.(km) (Entered: 10/10/2007)
241 MOTION for attorney Virginia Ruiz to Appear Pro Hac Vice for Plaintiffs by Jesus Santiago−Salmoran, Rolando Hernandez−Palestino, Jose Ramon Sanchez Martinez, Joan Michel Sanchez, Juan Sanchez Sanchez, Ernesto Martinez, Andres Aldana−Moreno, Aaron Lopez−Marin, Apolonio Lopez−Andres, Ernesto Cruz−Ramirez, Samuel Vasquez−Hernandez, Rufino Vasquez−Ordaz, Jose Rosiles−Perez, Andres Lopez−Lopez, Juan Lopez−Cruz. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Certificate of Good Standing# 2 Proposed Order Granting Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice)(Willenson, Marni) (PHV fee paid) (km). (Entered: 10/11/2007)
Note to Filer re DE 241: A Certificate of Good Standing should be filed as a separate entry using the relief found under "Other Documents". This document does not need to be re−filed unless otherwise directed by the Court. (km) (Entered: 10/12/2007)
242 MOTION for Determination of Expert Fees to be Pain Pusuant to this Court's Order by Superior Forestry Service, Inc., Scott Barstow, William Ioup. (Stine, J.) (Entered: 10/12/2007)

Case: 1:06-cv-00006 As of: 07/09/2012 02:18 PM CDT 44 of 65

10/12/2007

243 MEMORANDUM in Support of 242 MOTION for Determination of Expert Fees to be Pain Pusuant to this Court's Order filed by Superior Forestry Service, Inc., Scott Barstow, William Ioup. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Proposed Order# 2 Exhibit Exhibit List# 3 Exhibit 1 − Letter to Stine dated Aug. 21 2007# 4 Exhibit 2−Letter to Marni from Stine dated Aug. 30, 2007# 5 Exhibit 3 −Letter from Willenson to Stine dated Oct. 10, 2007)(Stine, J.) (Entered: 10/12/2007)

10/16/2007

244 NOTICE by Jose Rosiles−Perez Plaintiffs' Certificate of Mailing Notice of FLSA Collective Action Lawsuit and Consent−to−Sue Form (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Plaintiffs' Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit Plaintiffs' Exhibit B)(Turner, Andrew) (Entered: 10/16/2007)

10/17/2007

Note to Filer re DE #244: This document has been scanned. Scanning should be used only for documents that are not created on your computer. The mandatory description field should be used to accurately describe the contents of your attachment (labeling as Exhibit A,B C or Exhibit 1,2,3 is not sufficient). This document does not need to be re−filed unless otherwise directed by the Court. (km) (Entered: 10/17/2007)

10/18/2007

245 Letter from Plaintiffs: Request for Instructions Re FLSA Collective Action Notice. (Willenson, Marni) (Entered: 10/18/2007)

10/18/2007

246 MOTION to Strike Portions of 235 Memorandum in support of pltfs' emergency motion to strike, for sanctions, and for other relief from abuse of process, or in the alternative, MOTION for leave to permit a surreply to pltfs renewed motion for class certification by Superior Forestry Service, Inc., William Ioup. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Granting Motion to Strike# 2 Proposed Order Granting Motion For Leave to Permit A Surreply# 3 Defendants' Surreply# 4 Jose Rosiles Perez Deposition Excerpt# 5 Department of Labor Letter)(Joslyn−Gaul, Danette) Modified text and added link on 10/24/2007 (km). (Entered: 10/18/2007)

10/18/2007

247 MEMORANDUM in Support of 246 MOTION to Strike Portions of Memorandum filed by Superior Forestry Service, Inc., William Ioup. (Joslyn−Gaul, Danette) (Entered: 10/18/2007)

10/18/2007

248 MOTION for Leave to Exceed Page Limitation by Superior Forestry Service, Inc., William Ioup. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Joslyn−Gaul, Danette) (Entered: 10/18/2007)

10/18/2007

249 MEMORANDUM in Support of 248 MOTION for Leave to Exceed Page Limitation filed by Superior Forestry Service, Inc., William Ioup. (Joslyn−Gaul, Danette) (Entered: 10/18/2007)

10/18/2007

250 RESPONSE in Opposition re 234 Emergency MOTION to Strike , for Sanctions, and for Other Relief from Abuse of Process filed by Superior Forestry Service, Inc., William Ioup. (Attachments: # 1 DJG Affidavit and Attachments# 2 Westlaw Citations# 3 ABA Opinion# 4 Deposition Excerpts# 5 Defendants' Response to Plaintiffs' Second Request for Production# 6 Plaintiffs' Initial Disclosures# 7 Defendants' Initial Disclosures# 8 Tenn. Sup. Ct. Rule 8, RPC 4.3)(Joslyn−Gaul, Danette) (Entered: 10/18/2007)

10/18/2007

251 MOTION for Leave to File Instanter Two Substituted Exhibits to Docket No. 231 by Superior Forestry Service, Inc., William Ioup. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Timoteo Lopez Garcia# 2 Declaration of Victorico Hernandez Morales# 3 Proposed Order Granting Instanter Motion)(Joslyn−Gaul, Danette) Modified to add linkage on 10/24/2007 (km). (Entered: 10/18/2007)

10/19/2007

252 RESPONSE in Opposition re 242 MOTION for Determination of Expert Fees to be Pain Pusuant to this Court's Order filed by Jesus Santiago−Salmoran, Rolando Hernandez−Palestino, Jose Ramon Sanchez Martinez, Joan Michel Sanchez, Juan Sanchez Sanchez, Ernesto Martinez, Andres Aldana−Moreno, Aaron Lopez−Marin, Apolonio Lopez−Andres, Ernesto Cruz−Ramirez, Samuel Vasquez−Hernandez, Rufino Vasquez−Ordaz, Jose Rosiles−Perez, Andres Lopez−Lopez, Juan Lopez−Cruz. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Denying Motion)(Willenson, Marni) (Entered: 10/19/2007)

10/19/2007

253 DECLARATION of Marni Willenson in Opposition to Defs' Motion for a "Determination of Expert Fees" filed by Jesus Santiago−Salmoran, Rolando

Case: 1:06-cv-00006 As of: 07/09/2012 02:18 PM CDT 45 of 65

10/19/2007 10/19/2007 10/19/2007 10/24/2007
10/24/2007 10/24/2007 10/25/2007
10/25/2007
10/25/2007

Hernandez−Palestino, Jose Ramon Sanchez Martinez, Joan Michel Sanchez, Juan Sanchez Sanchez, Ernesto Martinez, Andres Aldana−Moreno, Aaron Lopez−Marin, Apolonio Lopez−Andres, Ernesto Cruz−Ramirez, Samuel Vasquez−Hernandez, Rufino Vasquez−Ordaz, Jose Rosiles−Perez, Andres Lopez−Lopez, Juan Lopez−Cruz re: 252 Response in Opposition to Motion,,. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A −− Sapestein Fees &Costs# 2 Exhibit B −− Correspondence of Counsel)(Willenson, Marni) (Entered: 10/19/2007)
254 RECEIPT #100 116898 in the amount of $75.00 posted for Virginia Ruiz by Ernesto Cruz−Ramirez re 241 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice. (km) (Entered: 10/19/2007)
255 (DISREGARD− duplicate of DE #241) MOTION for attorney Virginia Ruiz to Appear Pro Hac Vice by the pltfs. (Attachment: (1) Proposed Order Granting Pro Hac Vice) (PHV Fee Paid) (jb) Modified on 10/22/07 (jb). Modified text on 10/24/2007 (km). (Entered: 10/22/2007)
256 CERTIFICATE OF GOOD STANDING of Attorney Virginia Elizabeth Ruiz from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California in support of 241 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice iled by the pltfs. (jb) Modified text and linkage on 10/24/2007 (km). (Entered: 10/22/2007)
257 MOTION for Leave to to File Post−Hearing Brief and Conforming Amended Complaint by Jesus Santiago−Salmoran, Rolando Hernandez−Palestino, Jose Ramon Sanchez Martinez, Joan Michel Sanchez, Juan Sanchez Sanchez, Ernesto Martinez, Andres Aldana−Moreno, Aaron Lopez−Marin, Apolonio Lopez−Andres, Ernesto Cruz−Ramirez, Samuel Vasquez−Hernandez, Rufino Vasquez−Ordaz, Jose Rosiles−Perez, Andres Lopez−Lopez, Juan Lopez−Cruz. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Granting Pls Leave to File)(Willenson, Marni) (Entered: 10/24/2007)
258 MEMORANDUM in Support of 257 MOTION for Leave to to File Post−Hearing Brief and Conforming Amended Complaint filed by Jesus Santiago−Salmoran, Rolando Hernandez−Palestino, Jose Ramon Sanchez Martinez, Joan Michel Sanchez, Juan Sanchez Sanchez, Ernesto Martinez, Andres Aldana−Moreno, Aaron Lopez−Marin, Apolonio Lopez−Andres, Ernesto Cruz−Ramirez, Samuel Vasquez−Hernandez, Rufino Vasquez−Ordaz, Jose Rosiles−Perez, Andres Lopez−Lopez, Juan Lopez−Cruz. (Willenson, Marni) (Entered: 10/24/2007)
Note to Filer re DE #246 and 250: The motion 246 filed is for multiple reliefs. This is filed by holding down the control key, scrolling down and highlighting the appropriate reliefs. See Chapter 5(i) of the User Manual for instructions. The Response 250 should have been filed as an attachment to the Motion for Leave to File, not as a separate entry. These documents do not need to be re−filed unless otherwise directed by the Court. (km) (Entered: 10/24/2007)
259 MOTION for attorney Bruce Goldstein to Appear Pro Hac Vice on Behalf of Plaintiffs by Jesus Santiago−Salmoran, Rolando Hernandez−Palestino, Jose Ramon Sanchez Martinez, Joan Michel Sanchez, Juan Sanchez Sanchez, Ernesto Martinez, Andres Aldana−Moreno, Aaron Lopez−Marin, Apolonio Lopez−Andres, Ernesto Cruz−Ramirez, Samuel Vasquez−Hernandez, Rufino Vasquez−Ordaz, Jose Rosiles−Perez, Andres Lopez−Lopez, Juan Lopez−Cruz. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Granting Leave to Appear PHV)(Willenson, Marni) (PHV fee paid) (km). (Entered: 10/25/2007)
260 CERTIFICATE OF GOOD STANDING of Attorney Bruce Nevin Goldstein from the United States District Court of District of Columbia filed by Jesus Santiago−Salmoran, Rolando Hernandez−Palestino, Jose Ramon Sanchez Martinez, Joan Michel Sanchez, Juan Sanchez Sanchez, Ernesto Martinez, Andres Aldana−Moreno, Aaron Lopez−Marin, Apolonio Lopez−Andres, Ernesto Cruz−Ramirez, Samuel Vasquez−Hernandez, Rufino Vasquez−Ordaz, Jose Rosiles−Perez, Andres Lopez−Lopez, Juan Lopez−Cruz. (Willenson, Marni) (Entered: 10/25/2007)
261 ORDER granting 241 Motion for Virginia Ruiz to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Signed by Judge William J. Haynes Jr. on 10/23/07. (km) (Entered: 10/25/2007)

Case: 1:06-cv-00006 As of: 07/09/2012 02:18 PM CDT 46 of 65

10/25/2007

262 RESPONSE to Motion re 257 MOTION for Leave to to File Post−Hearing Brief and Conforming Amended Complaint filed by Superior Forestry Service, Inc., Scott Barstow, William Ioup. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Order)(Stine, J.) (Entered: 10/25/2007)

10/25/2007

263 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge William J. Haynes Jr.: Motions Hearing held on 10/22/2007. The Court will take under advisement the Pltf's motion to strike as well as the Pltf's motion to certify class. (Court Reporter Peggy Turner.) (km) (Entered: 10/26/2007)

10/29/2007

264 ORDER granting 259 Motion for Bruce Goldstein to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Signed by Judge William J. Haynes Jr. on 10/27/07. (km) (Entered: 10/29/2007)

10/29/2007

Docket Annotation: Notification by email sent to pro hac vice attorney Bruce Goldstein regarding mandatory registration for a CM/ECF account. (km) (Entered: 10/29/2007)

10/29/2007

265 RECEIPT #100 116996 in the amount of $75.00 posted by pltfs for Bruce Goldstein re 259 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice. (km) (Entered: 10/30/2007)

11/08/2007

266 MOTION for Leave to File Instanter Conforming First Amended Complaint by Jesus Santiago−Salmoran, Rolando Hernandez−Palestino, Jose Ramon Sanchez Martinez, Joan Michel Sanchez, Juan Sanchez Sanchez, Ernesto Martinez, Andres Aldana−Moreno, Aaron Lopez−Marin, Apolonio Lopez−Andres, Ernesto Cruz−Ramirez, Samuel Vasquez−Hernandez, Rufino Vasquez−Ordaz, Jose Rosiles−Perez, Andres Lopez−Lopez, Juan Lopez−Cruz. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A −− First Amended Complaint (proposed)# 2 Proposed Order Granting Leave to File Instanter)(Willenson, Marni) (Entered: 11/08/2007)

11/08/2007

267 MEMORANDUM in Support of 266 MOTION for Leave to File Instanter Conforming First Amended Complaint filed by Jesus Santiago−Salmoran, Rolando Hernandez−Palestino, Jose Ramon Sanchez Martinez, Joan Michel Sanchez, Juan Sanchez Sanchez, Ernesto Martinez, Andres Aldana−Moreno, Aaron Lopez−Marin, Apolonio Lopez−Andres, Ernesto Cruz−Ramirez, Samuel Vasquez−Hernandez, Rufino Vasquez−Ordaz, Jose Rosiles−Perez, Andres Lopez−Lopez, Juan Lopez−Cruz. (Willenson, Marni) (Entered: 11/08/2007)

11/21/2007

268 First MOTION to Substitute Attorney C. David Briley by Jose Rosiles−Perez. (Briley, Clifton) (Entered: 11/21/2007)

11/21/2007

269 MOTION for Leave to File Post−Hearing Brief on Rule 23(b)(2) Class Certification by Jesus Santiago−Salmoran, Rolando Hernandez−Palestino, Jose Ramon Sanchez Martinez, Joan Michel Sanchez, Juan Sanchez Sanchez, Ernesto Martinez, Andres Aldana−Moreno, Aaron Lopez−Marin, Apolonio Lopez−Andres, Ernesto Cruz−Ramirez, Samuel Vasquez−Hernandez, Rufino Vasquez−Ordaz, Jose Rosiles−Perez, Andres Lopez−Lopez, Juan Lopez−Cruz. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Granting Plaintiffs Leave to File)(Willenson, Marni) (Entered: 11/21/2007)

11/21/2007

270 BRIEF filed by Jesus Santiago−Salmoran, Rolando Hernandez−Palestino, Jose Ramon Sanchez Martinez, Joan Michel Sanchez, Juan Sanchez Sanchez, Ernesto Martinez, Andres Aldana−Moreno, Aaron Lopez−Marin, Apolonio Lopez−Andres, Ernesto Cruz−Ramirez, Samuel Vasquez−Hernandez, Rufino Vasquez−Ordaz, Jose Rosiles−Perez, Andres Lopez−Lopez, Juan Lopez−Cruz re 269 Motion for Leave,,. (Willenson, Marni) (Entered: 11/21/2007)

11/26/2007

Note to Filer re DE #269 &#270: The Brief should have been filed as an attachment to the Motion for Leave to File, not as a separate entry, since permission to file is requested. It is not necessary to re−file these documents. (gi) (Entered: 11/26/2007)

11/26/2007

271 ORDER granting 269 Motion for Leave to File Post−Hearing Brief on Rule 23(b)(2) Class Certification. Signed by Judge William J. Haynes Jr. on 11/26/07. (cc: deft Kovach by reg. &cert. mail) (dt) Modified Text on 11/26/2007 (dt). (Entered: 11/26/2007)

11/26/2007

272 ORDER granting 268 Motion to Substitute Attorney. Added attorney Richard L. Tennent for Plaintiffs. Attorney Clifton David Briley terminated. Signed by Judge

Case: 1:06-cv-00006 As of: 07/09/2012 02:18 PM CDT 47 of 65

11/28/2007 11/30/2007 11/30/2007 11/30/2007 12/11/2007
12/12/2007 12/12/2007 12/12/2007 12/17/2007 12/19/2007
12/28/2007
01/09/2008 01/09/2008 01/09/2008 01/15/2008 01/15/2008 01/22/2008 01/31/2008

William J. Haynes Jr. on 11/26/07. (cc: deft Kovach by reg. &cert. mail)(dt) Modified Text on 11/26/2007 (dt). (Entered: 11/26/2007)
273 RESPONSE in Opposition re 266 MOTION for Leave to File Instanter Conforming First Amended Complaint filed by Superior Forestry Service, Inc., Scott Barstow, William Ioup. (Stine, J.) (Entered: 11/28/2007)
274 TRANSCRIPT prepared by OCR Peggy Turner for Proceedings held on 10/22/07 before Judge Haynes.(This document is NOT available on−line. Contact the court reporter at 615−726−4893 to purchase a copy) (km) (Entered: 11/30/2007)
275 NOTICE of Filing by Jose Rosiles−Perez (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Consents to Sue)(Turner, Andrew) (Entered: 11/30/2007)
276 Docket Annotation: Green Card returned this date as to DE No. 271 &272, sent to Thomas Kovach, signed by A. Gondolfo on 11/27/07. (km) (Entered: 12/03/2007)
277 MOTION for Leave to to File Post−Hearing Memorandum of Law on Rule 23(b)(2) Class Certification by Superior Forestry Service, Inc., Scott Barstow, William Ioup. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support# 2 Exhibit A− page 63 of Rosiles_Perez depo. transc.)(Stine, J.) (Entered: 12/11/2007)
278 ORDER granting 277 Motion for Leave to file post−hearing memorandum of law on Rule 23(b)(2) class certification. Signed by Judge William J. Haynes Jr. on 12/12/07. (km) (Entered: 12/12/2007)
279 POST−HEARING MEMORANDUM ON RULE 23(b)(2) Class Certification by Superior Forestry Service, Inc., William Ioup re 270 (km) (Entered: 12/12/2007)
280 Additional Attachments to Main Document (Exhibit A) re: 279 . (km) (Entered: 12/12/2007)
281 NOTICE of Filing by Jose Rosiles−Perez (Attachments: # 1 Appendix FLSA Consent to Sue Forms)(Turner, Andrew) (Entered: 12/17/2007)
282 NOTICE of Filing by Jose Rosiles−Perez Consent Forms to Join FLSA Collective Action (Attachments: # 1 Consent to Sue by Jose Jimenez−Lorenzana# 2 Consent to Sue by Jose Francisco Soto−Soto# 3 Consent to Sue by Jose Palomeque−Martinez)(Turner, Andrew) (Entered: 12/19/2007)
283 NOTICE of Filing by Jose Rosiles−Perez FLSA Consent to Sue Forms (Attachments: # 1 Consent to Sue Form of Martin Guillermo Lopez−Moreno# 2 Consent to Sue Form of Alonso Stivalet−Cortes)(Turner, Andrew) (Entered: 12/28/2007)
284 MOTION for attorney Michael J. Sloan to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Superior Forestry Service, Inc., William Ioup. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(km) (PHV fee paid) (km). (Entered: 01/10/2008)
285 CERTIFICATE OF GOOD STANDING of Attorney Michael J. Sloan from the United States District Court for the Northern District of GA filed by Superior Forestry Service, Inc., William Ioup. (km) (Entered: 01/10/2008)
286 RECEIPT #34675−875 in the amount of $75.00 posted by Superior Forestry Service, Inc., William Ioup re 284 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice. (km) (Entered: 01/10/2008)
287 ORDER granting 284 Motion for Michael Sloan to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Signed by Judge William J. Haynes Jr. on 1/11/08. (km) (Entered: 01/15/2008)
Docket Annotation: Notification by email sent to pro hac vice attorney Michael J. Sloan regarding mandatory registration for a CM/ECF account. (km) (Entered: 01/15/2008)
288 NOTICE of Filing by Jose Rosiles−Perez (Attachments: # 1 Appendix FLSA Consent to Sue Forms)(Turner, Andrew) (Entered: 01/22/2008)
289 MOTION to Seal by Superior Forestry Service, Inc., Scott Barstow, William Ioup. (Stine, J.) (Entered: 01/31/2008)

Case: 1:06-cv-00006 As of: 07/09/2012 02:18 PM CDT 48 of 65

01/31/2008

290 Sealed Document filed by Superior Forestry Service, Inc., Scott Barstow, William Ioup. (Stine, J.) (Entered: 01/31/2008)

02/01/2008

291 NOTICE of Filing by Jose Rosiles−Perez (Attachments: # 1 Appendix FLSA Consent to Sue Forms)(Turner, Andrew) (Entered: 02/01/2008)

02/07/2008

292 ORDER: 289 Motion to file Under Seal is granted. Signed by Judge William J. Haynes Jr. on 2/7/08. (km) (Entered: 02/08/2008)

02/12/2008

293 ORDER granting 248 Motion for Leave to file defts' response to pltfs' emergency motion to strike, for sanctions, and for other relief. Signed by Judge William J. Haynes Jr. on 2/12/08. (km) (Entered: 02/12/2008)

02/12/2008

294 ORDER granting 257 Motion for Leave to file a post−hearing brief on b(2) and b(3) class certification and conforming amended complaint on or before 11/2/07. Signed by Judge William J. Haynes Jr. on 2/12/08. (km) (Entered: 02/12/2008)

02/12/2008

295 ORDER granting 266 Motion for Leave to file instanter their first amended complaint. Signed by Judge William J. Haynes Jr. on 2/12/08. (km) (Entered: 02/12/2008)

02/12/2008

296 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT against Superior Forestry Service, Inc., Scott Barstow, William Ioup, filed by Pltfs.(km) (Entered: 02/12/2008)

02/13/2008

297 ORDER: The Motion to Strike 246 is denied. The Motion to file a surreply 246 is granted. Signed by Judge William J. Haynes Jr. on 2/13/08. (km) (Entered: 02/14/2008)

02/14/2008

298 SURREPLY to Pltfs' 221 Renewed Motion for Class Certification filed by Superior Forestry Service, Inc., William Ioup. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1− Jose Rosiles Perez Deposition Excerpt# 2 Exhibit 2 − Dept of Labor Letter)(km) (Entered: 02/14/2008)

02/26/2008

299 Defendants' ANSWER to Amended Complaint by Superior Forestry Service, Inc., Scott Barstow, William Ioup.(Stine, J.) (Entered: 02/26/2008)

03/03/2008

300 NOTICE of Filing by Jose Rosiles−Perez (Attachments: # 1 Appendix FLSA Consents to Sue)(Turner, Andrew) (Entered: 03/03/2008)

03/04/2008

Note to Filer re DE# 300 : This document is a scanned document; scanning should only be used for documents not created on your computer. This document does not need to be re−filed unless otherwise directed by the Court. (ab) (Entered: 03/04/2008)

03/20/2008

301 NOTICE of Filing by Jose Rosiles−Perez (Attachments: # 1 Appendix FLSA Consents to Sue)(Turner, Andrew) (Entered: 03/20/2008)

03/21/2008

Note to Filer re DE 301: This document has been scanned. Scanning should be used only for documents that are not created on your computer. This document does not need to be re−filed unless otherwise directed by the Court. (km) (Entered: 03/21/2008)

03/26/2008

302 NOTICE of Filing by Jose Rosiles−Perez (Attachments: # 1 Appendix FLSA Consents to Sue)(Turner, Andrew) (Entered: 03/26/2008)

03/28/2008

303 ORDER: 208 Unopposed Motion to Modify Court Order 203 is granted. Signed by Judge William J. Haynes Jr. on 3/28/08. (km) (Entered: 03/28/2008)

03/28/2008

304 ORDER: The last two sentences of paragraph number 2 of the Order entered 7/17/07 (Doc. 203 ) will be stricken and replaced with the sentences as outlined in this order. Signed by Judge William J. Haynes Jr. on 3/28/08. (km) (Entered: 03/28/2008)

03/28/2008

305 MEMORANDUM. Signed by Judge William J. Haynes Jr. on 3/28/08. (km) # 1 text searchable document (km). (Entered: 03/28/2008)

03/28/2008

306 ORDER: In accordance with the Memorandum filed herewith, Pltf's renewed motion for class certification and to appoint counsel 221 is granted. Counsel of record for the pltfs are appointed to represent the class. Pltfs are directed to provide "the best notice practicable" for class members, pursuant to FRCP 23(c)(2). Defts'

Case: 1:06-cv-00006 As of: 07/09/2012 02:18 PM CDT 49 of 65

03/28/2008 04/01/2008 04/04/2008 04/04/2008 04/05/2008 04/07/2008 04/09/2008 04/10/2008 04/11/2008 04/11/2008 04/16/2008 04/28/2008 04/28/2008 04/28/2008 04/28/2008 04/28/2008 04/28/2008 04/28/2008

motion for protective order limited discovery 111 is denied. Pltfs' unopposed motion for scheduling order on their renewed motion for class certification 211 is denied as moot. Signed by Judge William J. Haynes Jr. on 3/28/08. (km) # 1 text searchable document) (km). (Entered: 03/28/2008)
307 NOTICE of Filing by Jose Rosiles−Perez (Attachments: # 1 Appendix FLSA Consents to Sue)(Turner, Andrew) (Entered: 03/28/2008)
308 NOTICE of Filing by Jose Rosiles−Perez (Attachments: # 1 Appendix FLSA Consents to Sue)(Turner, Andrew) (Entered: 04/01/2008)
309 NOTICE of Filing by Jose Rosiles−Perez (Attachments: # 1 Appendix FLSA Consents to Sue)(Turner, Andrew) (Entered: 04/04/2008)
310 NOTICE of Filing by Jose Rosiles−Perez FLSA Consent to Sue (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Turner, Andrew) (Entered: 04/04/2008)
311 NOTICE of Filing by Jose Rosiles−Perez FLSA Consent−to−Sue Forms (Attachments: # 1 FLSA Consent Form, # 2 FLSA Consent Form, # 3 FLSA Consent Form)(Turner, Andrew) (Entered: 04/05/2008)
312 NOTICE of Filing by Jose Rosiles−Perez FLSA Consent to Sue (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit FLSA Consent to Sue for Mauricio Ventura−Vidal)(Turner, Andrew) (Entered: 04/07/2008)
313 NOTICE of Filing by Jose Rosiles−Perez FLSA Conset to Sue (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit FLSA Consent to Sue)(Turner, Andrew) (Entered: 04/09/2008)
314 NOTICE of Filing by Jose Rosiles−Perez FLSA Consent to Sue (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit FLSA Consent to Sue for Celerino Rodriguez−Martinez)(Turner, Andrew) (Entered: 04/10/2008)
315 NOTICE of Filing by Superior Forestry Service, Inc., Scott Barstow, William Ioup of Substituted Exhibit (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Stine, J.) (Entered: 04/11/2008)
316 NOTICE of Filing by Jose Rosiles−Perez FLSA Consent to Sue (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit FLSA Consent to Sue for Efrain Perez−Ruiz)(Turner, Andrew) (Entered: 04/11/2008)
317 RESPONSE filed by Jose Rosiles−Perez re 315 Notice filed by William Ioup, Superior Forestry Service, Inc., Scott Barstow. (Willenson, Marni) (Entered: 04/16/2008)
318 MOTION for Contempt to Reopen Contempt Proceedings and for Other Relief by Jose Rosiles−Perez. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A −− 10/22/2007 Hearing Tr., # 2 Proposed Order Granting Relief)(Willenson, Marni) (Entered: 04/28/2008)
319 MEMORANDUM in Support of 318 MOTION for Contempt to Reopen Contempt Proceedings and for Other Relief filed by Jose Rosiles−Perez. (Willenson, Marni) (Entered: 04/28/2008)
320 DECLARATION of Oscar Hernandez−Espina filed by Jose Rosiles−Perez re: 318 MOTION for Contempt to Reopen Contempt Proceedings and for Other Relief, 319 Memorandum in Support. (Willenson, Marni) (Entered: 04/28/2008)
321 DECLARATION of Jorge Ancelmo−Martinez filed by Jose Rosiles−Perez re: 318 MOTION for Contempt to Reopen Contempt Proceedings and for Other Relief, 319 Memorandum in Support. (Willenson, Marni) (Entered: 04/28/2008)
322 DECLARATION of Luis Hernandez−Espina filed by Jose Rosiles−Perez re: 318 MOTION for Contempt to Reopen Contempt Proceedings and for Other Relief, 319 Memorandum in Support. (Willenson, Marni) (Entered: 04/28/2008)
323 DECLARATION of Rebecca Watson filed by Jose Rosiles−Perez re: 318 MOTION for Contempt to Reopen Contempt Proceedings and for Other Relief, 319 Memorandum in Support. (Willenson, Marni) (Entered: 04/28/2008)
324 DECLARATION of Marni Willenson filed by Jose Rosiles−Perez re: 318 MOTION for Contempt to Reopen Contempt Proceedings and for Other Relief,

Case: 1:06-cv-00006 As of: 07/09/2012 02:18 PM CDT 50 of 65

04/30/2008 05/15/2008
05/15/2008 05/27/2008
05/30/2008 06/03/2008 06/13/2008 06/13/2008 07/02/2008 07/09/2008 07/10/2008 07/10/2008 07/11/2008 07/14/2008 07/21/2008

319 Memorandum in Support. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A −− Kovacevich "5" Farms TRO)(Willenson, Marni) (Entered: 04/28/2008)
325 ORDER granting 318 Motion to Reopen Contempt Proceedings. Hearing is set for 5/23/2008 at 02:00 PM in Columbia before District Judge William J. Haynes Jr. Signed by District Judge William J. Haynes, Jr on 4/30/08. (gi) (Entered: 05/01/2008)
326 RESPONSE to Motion re 318 MOTION for Contempt to Reopen Contempt Proceedings and for Other Relief filed by Superior Forestry Service, Inc., Scott Barstow, William Ioup. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Translator's Affidavit, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit A−Declaration of Pedro Flores Reyes, # 3 Exhibit Ex. B − Declaration of Hayley Tester)(Stine, J.) (Entered: 05/15/2008)
327 NOTICE of Filing by Superior Forestry Service, Inc., Scott Barstow, William Ioup (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A− Pedro Flores Reyes Declaration)(Stine, J.) Modified text on 5/16/2008 (km). (Entered: 05/15/2008)
328 Transcript filed for dates of 5/23/08 before Judge Haynes. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Peggy Turner, Telephone number: 615−726−4893, E−Mail Address: peggy_turner@tnmd.uscourts.gov. 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. Intent to Request Transcript Redaction due 6/5/2008. Redaction Request due 6/16/2008. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 6/24/2008. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 8/22/2008. (km) (Entered: 05/27/2008)
329 Joint MOTION Request for Scheduling Order by Jose Rosiles−Perez. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Setting Filing Deadline)(Willenson, Marni) (Entered: 05/30/2008)
330 ORDER: Parties are ordered to file their post−hearing findings of fact and conclusions of law on pltfs' continued motion for contempt on or before 6/13/08. Signed by District Judge William J. Haynes, Jr on 6/3/08. (km) (Entered: 06/03/2008)
331 PROPOSED Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Order re to Pltfs' Motion to Reopen Contempt proceedings and for other relief 318 by Superior Forestry Service, Inc., Scott Barstow, William Ioup re 319 Memorandum in Support, 325 Order (Stine, J.) Modified text on 6/16/2008 (km). (Entered: 06/13/2008)
332 Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion for Contempt by Jose Rosiles−Perez. (Willenson, Marni) (Entered: 06/13/2008)
333 MOTION to Withdraw Counsel by Jose Rosiles−Perez. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Turner, Andrew) (Entered: 07/02/2008)
334 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by Superior Forestry Service, Inc., Scott Barstow, William Ioup. (Stine, J.) (Entered: 07/09/2008)
335 NOTICE of change of address and office affiliation for counsel of record by Jose Rosiles−Perez (Knoepp, James) Modified text on 7/10/2008 (km). (Entered: 07/10/2008)
336 ORDER granting 334 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Michael J. Sloan and J. Roy Weathersby terminated. Signed by District Judge William J. Haynes, Jr on 7/10/08. (km) (Entered: 07/10/2008)
337 ORDER granting 333 MOTION to Withdraw Counsel Jennifer J. Rosenbaum filed by Jose Rosiles−Perez. Attorney Jennifer J. Rosenbaum terminated. Signed by District Judge William J. Haynes, Jr on 7/11/08. (km) (Entered: 07/11/2008)
338 NOTICE of Appearance by J. Larry Stine on behalf of Superior Forestry Service, Inc., Scott Barstow, William Ioup (Stine, J.) (Entered: 07/14/2008)
339 MOTION for Discovery Case Management Order by Superior Forestry Service, Inc., Scott Barstow, William Ioup. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support of Motion, # 2 Proposed Order)(Stine, J.) (Entered: 07/21/2008)

Case: 1:06-cv-00006 As of: 07/09/2012 02:18 PM CDT 51 of 65

07/21/2008 07/24/2008 07/24/2008 07/25/2008 07/25/2008
07/29/2008 07/29/2008 08/01/2008 08/07/2008 09/05/2008 09/05/2008
09/10/2008
09/11/2008 09/12/2008 09/19/2008 09/19/2008
09/19/2008

340 MOTION for Settlement Conference by Superior Forestry Service, Inc., Scott Barstow, William Ioup. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support of Motion, # 2 Proposed Order)(Stine, J.) (Entered: 07/21/2008)
341 ORDER granting 339 Motion for Case Management Order. Parties' counsel are given 10 days to submit an agreed order on their respective proposed order. Signed by District Judge William J. Haynes, Jr on 7/21/08. (gi) (Entered: 07/24/2008)
342 ORDER granting 228 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. Signed by District Judge William J. Haynes, Jr on 07/24/08. (ab) (Entered: 07/24/2008)
343 RESPONSE to Motion re 340 MOTION for Settlement Conference filed by Jose Rosiles−Perez. (Willenson, Marni) (Entered: 07/25/2008)
344 ORDER: For the period ending 7/21/08, the deft shall compensate the expert $11,470 and his costs for a total of $12,430.20, excluding the amoung listed for pltf's counsel. Signed by District Judge William J. Haynes, Jr on 7/25/08. (km) (Entered: 07/28/2008)
345 ORDER granting 229 Motion to Strike and these challenged statements are not relied upon by the Court. Signed by District Judge William J. Haynes, Jr on 7/24/08. (af) (Entered: 07/29/2008)
346 ORDER denying 251 Motion for Leave to File Instanter. Signed by District Judge William J. Haynes, Jr on 7/24/08. (af) (Entered: 07/29/2008)
347 ORDER: 234 Emergency Motion to Strike, for Sanctions, and for other relief from abuse of process is granted. Signed by District Judge William J. Haynes, Jr on 8/1/08. (km) (Entered: 08/01/2008)
348 PROPOSED CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER filed by all parties. (Knoepp, James) (Entered: 08/07/2008)
349 MEMORANDUM. Signed by District Judge William J. Haynes, Jr on 9/5/08. (Attachments: # 1 text searchable document)(km) (Entered: 09/08/2008)
350 ORDER: In accordance with the Memorandum, the Pltf's Motion for contempt 318 is granted. The Deft are ORDERED to provide broadcast television and radio to give notice to the putative class members of their right to opt−in this action as a Pltf. Signed by District Judge William J. Haynes, Jr on 9/5/08. (Attachments: # 1 text searchable document)(km) (Entered: 09/08/2008)
351 ORDER: 340 MOTION for Settlement Conference is granted subject to the deadline set by the Court for additional opt−in plaintiffs. This action is referred to Judge Bryant to be set by him. Signed by District Judge William J. Haynes, Jr on 9/9/08. (km) (Entered: 09/10/2008)
352 ORDER: Telephone Conference set for 10/3/2008 10:30 AM before Magistrate Judge John S. Bryant. Signed by Magistrate Judge John S. Bryant on 9/11/08. (km) (Entered: 09/11/2008)
353 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Superior Forestry Service, Inc., Scott Barstow, William Ioup Defendants' Responses to Rule 30(B)(5) and (6) Deposition Notice (Stine, J.) (Entered: 09/12/2008)
354 MOTION for Reconsideration re 350 Order, and Motion to Stay by Superior Forestry Service, Inc., Scott Barstow, William Ioup. (Stine, J.) (Entered: 09/19/2008)
355 MEMORANDUM in Support of 354 MOTION for Reconsideration re 350 Order, and Motion to Stay, 350 Order, filed by Superior Forestry Service, Inc., Scott Barstow, William Ioup. (Attachments: # 1 Hernandez v. Kovacevich)(Stine, J.) (Entered: 09/19/2008)
356 MOTION to Stay re 350 Order, Request for Discretionary Appeal by Superior Forestry Service, Inc., Scott Barstow, William Ioup. (Stine, J.) (Entered: 09/19/2008)

Case: 1:06-cv-00006 As of: 07/09/2012 02:18 PM CDT 52 of 65

09/24/2008
09/24/2008
09/24/2008
09/25/2008 09/26/2008 09/29/2008
09/29/2008
09/29/2008 10/03/2008 10/03/2008 10/03/2008 10/06/2008 10/07/2008 10/08/2008 10/16/2008 10/28/2008 10/29/2008

357 MOTION for Leave to File Instanter a Substitute Brief re 355 Memorandum in Support by Superior Forestry Service, Inc., Scott Barstow, William Ioup. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion)(Stine, J.) (Entered: 09/24/2008)
358 MOTION for Leave to File Instanter A Substitute Brief re 356 MOTION to Stay and Request for Discretionary Appeal 350 by Superior Forestry Service, Inc., Scott Barstow, William Ioup. (Attachments: # 1 Request for Discretionary Appeal)(Stine, J.) Modified text on 9/25/2008 (km). (Entered: 09/24/2008)
359 UNOPPOSED MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 354 MOTION for Reconsideration and to Stay and Motion for a Discretionary Appeal by Jose Rosiles−Perez. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Granting Extension of Time)(Willenson, Marni) Modified text on 9/25/2008 (km). (Entered: 09/24/2008)
360 STATUS REPORT On Contempt Order Remedies by Jose Rosiles−Perez. (Willenson, Marni) (Entered: 09/25/2008)
361 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Superior Forestry Service, Inc., Scott Barstow, William Ioup Defendants' First Amended Responses to Rule 30(B)(5) and (6) Deposition Notice (Stine, J.) (Entered: 09/26/2008)
362 ORDER: 359 Motion for Extension of Time until 10/10/08 to File Response/Reply re 354 MOTION for Reconsideration re 350 Order, and Motion to Stay is granted. Signed by District Judge William J. Haynes, Jr on 9/29/08. (km) (Entered: 09/29/2008)
363 ORDER: 357 Motion for Leave to file instanter a substitute brief for Docket No. 355, their Memorandum of law in support of Defts' Motion for Reconsiderationand and Motion to stay is granted. Signed by District Judge William J. Haynes, Jr on 9/29/08. (km) (Entered: 09/29/2008)
364 MEMORANDUM in Support of 354 MOTION for Reconsideration re 350 Order, and Motion to Stay filed by Superior Forestry Service, Inc. (km) (Entered: 09/29/2008)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Bryant: Telephone Conference held on 10/3/2008. Order to enter setting date for settlement conference. (tm) (Entered: 10/03/2008)
365 ORDER: Settlement Conference set for 12/2/2008 09:30 AM before Magistrate Judge John S. Bryant. Signed by Magistrate Judge John S. Bryant on 10/3/08. (km) (Entered: 10/03/2008)
366 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 350 Order, by Superior Forestry Service, Inc., Scott Barstow, William Ioup. (Stine, J.) Modified text on 10/6/2008 (km). (Entered: 10/03/2008)
367 RESPONSE in Opposition re 356 MOTION to Stay re 350 Order, Request for Discretionary Appeal filed by Jose Rosiles−Perez. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A −− Defs' Mandamus Petition)(Willenson, Marni) (Entered: 10/06/2008)
368 Letter from 6CCA dated 10/6/08 to Mr. J. Larry Stine re the petition for writ of mandamus or prohibition and case no. 08−6187. (Attachments: # 1 Petition)(km) (Entered: 10/07/2008)
369 RESPONSE to Motion re 354 MOTION for Reconsideration re 350 Order, and Motion to Stay filed by Jose Rosiles−Perez. (Willenson, Marni) (Entered: 10/08/2008)
370 STATUS REPORT Pls' Second Report on Contempt Order Remedies by Jose Rosiles−Perez. (Willenson, Marni) (Entered: 10/16/2008)
371 MOTION Approve Substitute Corrective Notice in Mexico re 349 Memorandum &Opinion, 350 Order, by Jose Rosiles−Perez. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Approving Substitute Corrective Notice)(Willenson, Marni) (Entered: 10/28/2008)
372 ORDER: Upon consideration of Pltfs' 371 Motion for approval of substitute corrective notice in Mexico, the motion is granted. Class counsel shall execute

Case: 1:06-cv-00006 As of: 07/09/2012 02:18 PM CDT 53 of 65

10/29/2008 10/30/2008 10/30/2008 11/24/2008 12/01/2008
12/04/2008 12/04/2008 12/04/2008
12/05/2008 12/08/2008 12/08/2008 12/08/2008

corrective broadcast notice and meetings with class members and potential class members in Mexico. Signed by District Judge William J. Haynes, Jr on 10/28/08. (km) (Entered: 10/29/2008)
373 ORDER: In light of the Defts' mandamus petition, this 354 Motion for Reconsideration and Motion to Stay are denied without prejudice to renew after the ruling on the mandamus petition. Signed by District Judge William J. Haynes, Jr on 10/29/08. (km) (Entered: 10/29/2008)
374 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Superior Forestry Service, Inc., Scott Barstow, William Ioup Defendants' Response to Plaintiffs' Third Set of Interrogatories (Stine, J.) (Entered: 10/30/2008)
375 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Superior Forestry Service, Inc., Scott Barstow, William Ioup Defendants' Response to Plaintiffs' Third Request for Production of Documents and ESI (Stine, J.) (Entered: 10/30/2008)
376 NOTICE OF SERVICE OF RULE 45 SUBPOENA issued to ATTWirelesss by Jose Rosiles−Perez (Attachments: # 1 Rule 45 Subpoena ATTWireless)(Willenson, Marni) Modified text on 11/25/2008 (km). (Entered: 11/24/2008)
377 ORDER: A telephone conference was held on November 26, 2008. From discussions with counsel during this telephone conference, the undersigned Magistrate Judge found that there is little likelihood that a settlement could be reached if this settlement conference were held on December 2 and 3, 2008. Therefore, the undersigned Magistrate Judge GRANTS the defendants oral motion for a postponement of the settlement conference. Counsel shall confer and shall attempt to agree on a suitable datefor rescheduling this settlement conference. On or before Monday, December 22, 2008, counsel shall advise the Court whether they have been able to reach an agreement on when this settlement conference should be rescheduled. Signed by Magistrate Judge John S. Bryant on 12/1/08. (km) (Entered: 12/01/2008)
378 NOTICE of Filing by Jose Rosiles−Perez (Attachments: # 1 FLSA Consent to Sue Forms)(Turner, Andrew) (Entered: 12/04/2008)
379 MOTION for Leave to leave to file Second Amended Complaint, MOTION to Amend/Correct Complaint by Jose Rosiles−Perez. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Second Amended Complaint, # 2 Proposed Order Granting Motion)(Willenson, Marni) (Entered: 12/04/2008)
380 MEMORANDUM in Support of 379 MOTION for Leave to leave to file Second Amended Complaint MOTION to Amend/Correct Complaint filed by Jose Rosiles−Perez. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A −− Gonzalez Deposition 5−10−2007, # 2 Exhibit B − Ioup Deposition, # 3 Exhibit C − Gonzalez Deposition 6−16−2006, # 4 Exhibit D − Hearing Tr 5−23−2008, # 5 Exhibit E − Santillan Deposition, # 6 Exhibit F − Morales−Martinez Deposition, # 7 Exhibit G − Eller &Sons Trees Slip Op.)(Willenson, Marni) (Entered: 12/04/2008)
381 MOTION for attorney Janet L. Pulliam, Marie−Bernarde Miller, Kelly M. DeGostin and Andrew King to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Superior Forestry Service, Inc., Scott Barstow, William Ioup. (PHV FEE PAID) (with attached certificates of good standing)(km) Modified text on 12/8/2008 (km). Modified on 12/8/2008 (km). (Entered: 12/08/2008)
382 NOTICE of Plaintiffs' Objection re 381 MOTION for attorney Janet L. Pulliam, Marie−Bernarde Miller, Kelly M. DeGostin and Andrew King to Appear Pro Hac Vice (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit One)(Knoepp, James) Modified text on 12/9/2008 (km). (Entered: 12/08/2008)
383 RECEIPT #34675−5205 in the amount of $300.00 posted for Pulliam, Miller, DeGostin and King by Superior Forestry Service, Inc., Scott Barstow, William Ioup re 381 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice,. (km) (Entered: 12/08/2008)
384 ORDER granting 379 Motion for Leave to file second amended complaint. Signed by District Judge William J. Haynes, Jr on 12/5/08. (km) (Entered: 12/09/2008)

Case: 1:06-cv-00006 As of: 07/09/2012 02:18 PM CDT 54 of 65

12/09/2008 12/09/2008 12/09/2008 12/09/2008 12/10/2008
12/10/2008 12/10/2008 12/11/2008 12/11/2008 12/12/2008 12/12/2008 12/15/2008 12/18/2008

385 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT against Enrique Gonzalez, Hector Santillan, Manuel Morales−Martinez, Superior Forestry Service, Inc., Scott Barstow, William Ioup, filed by Pltfs Jose Rosiles−Perez, jesus Santiago−Salmoran and Hector Ortiz−Mora on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, (km) (Entered: 12/09/2008)
386 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by Enrique Gonzalez, Superior Forestry Service, Inc., Scott Barstow, William Ioup. (Stine, J.) (Entered: 12/09/2008)
387 Second MOTION to Reopen Contempt Proceedings and for Other Relief by Jose Rosiles−Perez. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Willenson, Marni) Modified text on 12/10/2008 (km). (Entered: 12/09/2008)
388 MEMORANDUM in Support of 387 Motion to Reopen Contempt Proceedings and for Other Relief filed by Jose Rosiles−Perez. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D)(Willenson, Marni) Modified text on 12/10/2008 (km). (Entered: 12/09/2008)
Note to Filer re DE #386 &388: Pursuant to Administrative Order No. 167, Section 5.08, proposed orders should be included as an attachment to an electronically filed motion or other request for relief. Signed affidavits/declarations should be filed as separate events, not as attachments to other pleadings. Each exhibit should be filed as a separate attachment to the main document and the mandatory description field used. The mandatory description field should be used to accurately describe the contents of your attachment (labeling as Exhibit A,B C or Exhibit 1,2,3 is not sufficient). These documents do not need to be re−filed unless otherwise directed by the Court. (km) (Entered: 12/10/2008)
389 ORDER of USCA as to 08−6187, 366 Notice of Appeal filed by William Ioup, Superior Forestry Service, Inc., Scott Barstow that the Motion to voluntarily dismiss the appeal is granted and the appeal is dismissed (Attachments: # 1 Cover Letter)(km) (Entered: 12/10/2008)
390 ORDER of USCA as to 08−6336, 366 Notice of Appeal filed by William Ioup, Superior Forestry Service, Inc., Scott Barstow that the motion to voluntarily dismiss the appeal is granted and the appeal is dismissed (Attachments: # 1 Cover Letter)(km) (Entered: 12/10/2008)
391 RESPONSE filed by Superior Forestry Service, Inc., Scott Barstow, William Ioup re 382 Notice filed by Jose Rosiles−Perez of Objection. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Everett Letter)(Bissinger, Fredrick) Modified text on 12/11/2008 (km). (Entered: 12/11/2008)
392 CONTINUED NOTICE of Objection to Defendants' Motion to Admit Counsel PHV by Jose Rosiles−Perez re 381 MOTION for attorney Janet L. Pulliam, Marie−Bernarde Miller, Kelly M. DeGostin and Andrew King to Appear Pro Hac Vice (Willenson, Marni) Modified text on 12/12/2008 (km). (Entered: 12/11/2008)
393 MOTION for Case Management Conference and MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to Second Amended Complaint by Enrique Gonzalez, Hector Santillan, Manuel Morales−Martinez, Superior Forestry Service, Inc., Scott Barstow, William Ioup. (Bissinger, Fredrick) Modified text on 12/15/2008 (km). (Entered: 12/12/2008)
394 ORDER: 358 Motion for Leave to file instanter a substitute brief for Docket No. 356 , their defts' request for discretionary appeal and for a stay is granted. Signed by District Judge William J. Haynes, Jr on 12/12/08. (km) (Entered: 12/15/2008)
Note to Filer re DE #393: The motion filed is for multiple reliefs. This is filed by scrolling down the list of events found under motions and highlighting the appropriate reliefs. See Chapter 5(I) of the User Manual for instructions. This document does not need to be re−filed unless otherwise directed by the Court. (km) (Entered: 12/15/2008)
395 ORDER granting 386 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Paul Oliver; J. Larry Stine; Elizabeth K. Dorminey and Danette Joslyn−Gaul terminated. Signed by District Judge William J. Haynes, Jr on 12/18/08. (km) (Entered: 12/19/2008)

Case: 1:06-cv-00006 As of: 07/09/2012 02:18 PM CDT 55 of 65

12/22/2008

396 RESPONSE filed by Superior Forestry Service, Inc., Scott Barstow, William Ioup re 377 Order. (Bissinger, Fredrick) Modified text on 12/29/2008 (km). (Entered: 12/22/2008)

12/22/2008

397 RESPONSE in Opposition re 381 MOTION for attorney Janet L. Pulliam, Marie−Bernarde Miller, Kelly M. DeGostin and Andrew King to Appear Pro Hac Vice filed by Jose Rosiles−Perez. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Pl Ex 2, # 2 Exhibit Pl Ex 3, # 3 Exhibit Pl Ex 4, # 4 Exhibit Pl Ex 5, # 5 Exhibit Pl Ex 6, # 6 Exhibit Pl Ex 7)(Turner, Andrew) (Entered: 12/22/2008)

12/22/2008

398 MOTION for Leave to File Document Under Seal by Jose Rosiles−Perez. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Turner, Andrew) (Entered: 12/22/2008)

12/22/2008

399 NOTICE of Plaintiffs' Position With Regard to Settlement Conference by Jose Rosiles−Perez re 377 Order, 396 Response (Turner, Andrew) Modified text on 12/29/2008 (km). (Entered: 12/22/2008)

12/23/2008

400 RESPONSE to Motion re 387 Second MOTION for Contempt to Reopen Contempt Proceedings and for Other Relief filed by Superior Forestry Service, Inc., Scott Barstow, William Ioup. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Affidavit of Hector Santillan)(Bissinger, Fredrick) (Entered: 12/23/2008)

12/23/2008

401 ANSWER to 385 Amended Complaint, by Superior Forestry Service, Inc., Scott Barstow, William Ioup.(Bissinger, Fredrick) (Entered: 12/23/2008)

12/29/2008

Note to Filer re DE #397 &400: The mandatory description field should be used to accurately describe the contents of your attachment (labeling as Exhibit A,B C or Exhibit 1,2,3 is not sufficient). Signed affidavits/declarations should be filed as separate events, not as attachments to other pleadings. All documents should be filed so that they may be read without the necessity of rotation. These documents do not need to be re−filed unless otherwise directed by the Court. (km) (Entered: 12/29/2008)

12/30/2008

402 ORDER granting 398 Motion for Leave to File Document Under Seal. Signed by District Judge William J. Haynes, Jr on 12/29/08. (km) (Entered: 12/30/2008)

12/30/2008

403 Sealed Document Pl Ex 1 to Doc. 397 filed by Jose Rosiles−Perez. (Turner, Andrew) Modified text on 12/30/2008 (km). (Entered: 12/30/2008)

12/31/2008

404 MOTION for Leave to to File Reply Brief re 381 MOTION for attorney Janet L. Pulliam, Marie−Bernarde Miller, Kelly M. DeGostin and Andrew King to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Superior Forestry Service, Inc., Scott Barstow, William Ioup. (Bissinger, Fredrick) (Entered: 12/31/2008)

01/05/2009

405 ORDER: Given the parties dispute regarding the qualification of counsel, the parties agree that scheduling a settlement conference at this time would be inappropriate and almost certainly unproductive. Accordingly, the Clerk is hereby directed to return this file to the District Judge. Signed by Magistrate Judge John S. Bryant on 01/05/09. (ab) (Entered: 01/05/2009)

01/06/2009

406 NOTICE of Filing by Jose Rosiles−Perez FLSA Consent to Sue Form of Agustin Diaz−Jimenez (Turner, Andrew) (Entered: 01/06/2009)

01/08/2009

407 ORDER: 356 Request for discretionary appeal and for a stay is denied. Signed by District Judge William J. Haynes, Jr on 1/5/09. (km) (Entered: 01/08/2009)

01/08/2009

408 ORDER: Defts' Request for Discretionary Appeal and for a Stay [158−1] is denied for the reasons stated in a companion order. Signed by District Judge William J. Haynes, Jr on 1/5/09. (km) (Entered: 01/08/2009)

01/08/2009

409 ORDER granting 404 Motion for Leave to file reply brief. Signed by District Judge William J. Haynes, Jr on 1/6/09. (km) (Entered: 01/08/2009)

01/09/2009

410 REPLY to Response to Motion re 381 MOTION for attorney Janet L. Pulliam, Marie−Bernarde Miller, Kelly M. DeGostin and Andrew King to Appear Pro Hac Vice filed by Superior Forestry Service, Inc., Scott Barstow, William Ioup. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 3 − Letter from Martin Bowen to Lucian Pera, # 2 Exhibit 4 − Letter from Martin Bowen to Andrew Turner, # 3 Exhibit 5 − Letter from Andrew Turner to Martin Bowen, # 4 Exhibit 6 − Civil Docket Sheet USDC

Case: 1:06-cv-00006 As of: 07/09/2012 02:18 PM CDT 56 of 65

01/09/2009 01/09/2009 01/09/2009 02/03/2009 02/04/2009 02/04/2009
02/05/2009
02/06/2009 02/06/2009
02/10/2009 02/10/2009 02/13/2009
02/16/2009 02/16/2009

West District of AR Docket No. 1:05−CV−01033−HFB, # 5 Exhibit 8 − ABA Formal Op. 07−445, # 6 Exhibit 9 − Civil Docket Sheet USDC So. District of MS, Docket No. 3:05−CV−0040−WHB−LRA)(Bissinger, Fredrick) (Entered: 01/09/2009)
411 AFFIDAVIT re 410 Reply to Response to Motion,, of Martin Bowen (Exhibit 1) by Superior Forestry Service, Inc., Scott Barstow, William Ioup. (Bissinger, Fredrick) (Entered: 01/09/2009)
412 AFFIDAVIT re 410 Reply to Response to Motion,, of Janet L. Pulliam (Exhibit 2) by Superior Forestry Service, Inc., Scott Barstow, William Ioup. (Bissinger, Fredrick) (Entered: 01/09/2009)
413 AFFIDAVIT re 410 Reply to Response to Motion,, of Terry L. Matthews (Exhibit 7) by Superior Forestry Service, Inc., Scott Barstow, William Ioup. (Bissinger, Fredrick) (Entered: 01/09/2009)
414 ORDER: Hearing set for 2/24/2009 10:00 AM before District Judge William J. Haynes Jr. Signed by District Judge William J. Haynes, Jr on 2/2/09. (km) (Entered: 02/03/2009)
415 ORDER: 393 Motion for a conference is denied as moot. The motion for an extension is granted. Signed by District Judge William J. Haynes, Jr on 2/2/09. (km) (Entered: 02/04/2009)
416 ORDER: 381 MOTION for attorney Janet L. Pulliam, Marie−Bernarde Miller, Kelly M. DeGostin and Andrew King to Appear Pro Hac Vice will be heard at the conference set for 2/24/2009 10:00 AM before District Judge William J. Haynes Jr. Signed by District Judge William J. Haynes, Jr on 2/2/09. (km) (Entered: 02/04/2009)
417 MOTION for attorney John C. Everett to Appear Pro Hac Vice (PHV FEE PAID) by Superior Forestry Service, Inc., Scott Barstow, William Ioup. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − USDC Eastern District of Arkansas Good Standing Certificate, # 2 Exhibit B − Supreme Court of Arkansas Good Standing Certificate)(Bissinger, Fredrick) Modified on 2/23/2009 (km). (Entered: 02/05/2009)
Bar status for attorney John C. Everett, AR verified as active this date. (km) (Entered: 02/06/2009)
Note to Filer re DE #417: A Certificate of Good Standing should be filed as a separate entry using the relief found under "Other Documents". This document does not need to be re−filed unless otherwise directed by the Court. (km) (Entered: 02/06/2009)
418 Summons issued as to Enrique Gonzalez, Hector Santillan, Manuel Morales−Martinez. (km) (Entered: 02/10/2009)
419 NOTICE of Appearance by John J. Griffin, Jr on behalf of Superior Forestry Service, Inc. (Griffin, John) (Entered: 02/10/2009)
420 MOTION Approval of Notice of Class Action Lawsuit by Jose Rosiles−Perez. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit Pl Ex A − Notice of Class Action Lawsuit, # 3 Exhibit Pl Ex B − Proposed Exclusion Form)(Turner, Andrew) (Entered: 02/13/2009)
421 NOTICE by Superior Forestry Service, Inc., Scott Barstow, William Ioup re 420 MOTION Approval of Notice of Class Action Lawsuit of Intent to File Response (Bissinger, Fredrick) (Entered: 02/16/2009)
422 Emergency MOTION for Protective Order Permitting Attorneys Eyes Only Access to Sealed Documents and for Privilege Log by Superior Forestry Service, Inc., Scott Barstow, William Ioup. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Consent Protective Order (proposed), # 2 Exhibit B − Email correspondence between Turner and Everett, # 3 Exhibit C − Proposed Protective Order)(Bissinger, Fredrick) (Entered: 02/16/2009)

Case: 1:06-cv-00006 As of: 07/09/2012 02:18 PM CDT 57 of 65

02/16/2009 02/21/2009 02/23/2009 02/24/2009
02/26/2009 02/26/2009
02/27/2009 02/27/2009
03/02/2009 03/02/2009 03/02/2009
03/03/2009 03/03/2009 03/05/2009 03/05/2009 03/05/2009 03/05/2009 03/06/2009

423 BRIEF filed by Superior Forestry Service, Inc., Scott Barstow, William Ioup re 422 Motion for Protective Order,. (Bissinger, Fredrick) (Entered: 02/16/2009)
424 RESPONSE in Opposition re 422 Emergency MOTION for Protective Order Permitting Attorneys Eyes Only Access to Sealed Documents and for Privilege Log filed by Jose Rosiles−Perez. (Turner, Andrew) (Entered: 02/21/2009)
425 RECEIPT #34675−6245 in the amount of $75.00 posted for John Everett by Superior Forestry Service, Inc. re 417 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice. (km) (Entered: 02/23/2009)
426 Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge William J. Haynes, Jr: Motion Hearing held on 2/24/2009 re 381 MOTION for attorney Janet L. Pulliam, Marie−Bernarde Miller, Kelly M. DeGostin and Andrew King to Appear Pro Hac Vice filed by William Ioup, Superior Forestry Service, Inc., Scott Barstow. (Court Reporter Peggy Turner.) (km) (Entered: 02/25/2009)
427 NOTICE of Filing by Jose Rosiles−Perez FLSA Consent to Sue (Turner, Andrew) (Entered: 02/26/2009)
428 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 420 MOTION Approval of Notice of Class Action Lawsuit by Superior Forestry Service, Inc., Scott Barstow, William Ioup. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Exhibit 1 − Proposed Order Granting Motion for Extension of Time)(Bissinger, Fredrick) (Entered: 02/26/2009)
429 ORDER: 422 Motion for Protective Order is denied as moot. Signed by District Judge William J. Haynes, Jr on 2/25/09. (km) (Entered: 02/27/2009)
430 ORDER: 387 Second MOTION to continue contempt proceedings and for Other Relief is granted. A Hearing will be held on 3/20/2009 10:00 AM before District Judge William J. Haynes Jr. Signed by District Judge William J. Haynes, Jr on 2/25/09. (km) (Entered: 02/27/2009)
431 SEALED TRANSCRIPT of proceedings held before Judge Haynes on 2/24/09. Court Reporter: Peggy Turner. (km) (Entered: 03/02/2009)
432 SEALED TRANSCRIPT of proceedings held before Judge Haynes on 2/24/09. (Court Reporter: Peggy Turner). (km) (Entered: 03/02/2009)
433 ORDER: 428 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 420 MOTION for Approval of Class Action Notice is granted. Defts will have until 3/6/09 to file their response. Signed by District Judge William J. Haynes, Jr on 2/27/09. (km) (Entered: 03/02/2009)
434 NOTICE of Appearance by T. Harold Pinkley on behalf of Superior Forestry Service, Inc., Scott Barstow, William Ioup (Pinkley, T.) (Entered: 03/03/2009)
435 NOTICE of Appearance by Kara E. Shea on behalf of Superior Forestry Service, Inc., Scott Barstow, William Ioup (Shea, Kara) (Entered: 03/03/2009)
436 MOTION to Deposit Funds by Superior Forestry Service, Inc., Scott Barstow, William Ioup. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Documents reflecting billing entries)(Shea, Kara) (Entered: 03/05/2009)
437 MEMORANDUM in Support of 436 MOTION to Deposit Funds filed by Superior Forestry Service, Inc., Scott Barstow, William Ioup. (Shea, Kara) (Entered: 03/05/2009)
438 MOTION to Continue Hearing by Superior Forestry Service, Inc., Scott Barstow, William Ioup. (Shea, Kara) (Entered: 03/05/2009)
439 DECLARATION of Kara E. Shea filed by Superior Forestry Service, Inc., Scott Barstow, William Ioup re: 438 MOTION to Continue Hearing. (Shea, Kara) (Entered: 03/05/2009)
440 NOTICE of Appearance by Ana L. Escobar on behalf of Manuel Morales−Martinez (Escobar, Ana) (Entered: 03/06/2009)

Case: 1:06-cv-00006 As of: 07/09/2012 02:18 PM CDT 58 of 65

03/06/2009

441 RESPONSE to Motion re 420 MOTION Approval of Notice of Class Action Lawsuit filed by Superior Forestry Service, Inc., Scott Barstow, William Ioup. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Notice of Class Action Lawsuit, # 2 Exhibit B − Exclusion Form, # 3 Exhibit C − Certificate of Accurate Translation)(Bissinger, Fredrick) (Entered: 03/06/2009)

03/09/2009

442 ORDER: 438 Motion to Continue Hearing is denied. Signed by District Judge William J. Haynes, Jr on 3/6/09. (km) (Entered: 03/10/2009)

03/10/2009

443 MOTION for attorney Erin Trodden to Appear Pro Hac Vice (PHV FEE PAID) on Behalf of Plaintiffs by Jose Rosiles−Perez. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Admitting Counsel Pro Hac Vice)(Willenson, Marni) Modified on 3/16/2009 (km). (Entered: 03/10/2009)

03/10/2009

444 CERTIFICATE OF GOOD STANDING of Attorney Erin Trodden from the United States District Court for the Western of Virginia filed by Jose Rosiles−Perez. (Willenson, Marni) (Entered: 03/10/2009)

03/11/2009

Bar status for attorney Erin Trodden, VA verified as active this date. (km) (Entered: 03/11/2009)

03/11/2009

445 ANSWER to 385 Amended Complaint, by Enrique Gonzalez, Hector Santillan.(Shea, Kara) (Entered: 03/11/2009)

03/16/2009

446 RECEIPT #34675−6610 in the amount of $75.00 posted for Erin Trodden by Rolando Hernandez−Palestino, Andres Aldana−Moreno, Ernesto Cruz−Ramirez re 443 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice. (km) (Entered: 03/16/2009)

03/16/2009

447 ORDER granting 443 Motion for Erin Trodden to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Signed by District Judge William J. Haynes, Jr on 3/13/09. (km) (Entered: 03/16/2009)

03/16/2009

Docket Annotation: Notification by email sent to pro hac vice attorney Erin Trodden regarding mandatory registration for a CM/ECF account. (km) (Entered: 03/16/2009)

03/20/2009

451 Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge William J. Haynes, Jr: Motion for Comtempt Hearing held on 3/20/2009. Exhibit and witness list attached (Court Reporter Peggy Turner.) (km) (Entered: 04/01/2009)

03/23/2009

448 Transcript filed for dates of 3/20/09 before Judge Haynes. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Peggy Turner, Telephone number: 615−726−4893, E−Mail Address: peggy_turner@tnmd.uscourts.gov. 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. Intent to Request Transcript Redaction due 4/1/2009. Redaction Request due 4/10/2009. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 4/20/2009. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/18/2009. (km) (Entered: 03/23/2009)

03/25/2009

449 NOTICE of Filing by Jose Rosiles−Perez FLSA Consent to Sue Forms (Turner, Andrew) (Entered: 03/25/2009)

04/01/2009

450 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Proposed Post−Hearing Findings (Two−Day Extension) by Jose Rosiles−Perez. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Text of Proposed Order)(Willenson, Marni) (Entered: 04/01/2009)

04/03/2009

452 MOTION to Amend/Correct 451 Motion Hearing by Morio Ventura Vidul, Pedro Pablo Bautista Ruiz, Jesus Santiago−Salmoran, Enrique Gonzalez, Hector Santillan, Manuel Morales−Martinez, Rolando Hernandez−Palestino, Jose Ramon Sanchez Martinez, Joan Michel Sanchez, Juan Sanchez Sanchez, Ernesto Martinez, Andres Aldana−Moreno, Aaron Lopez−Marin, Apolonio Lopez−Andres, Ernesto Cruz−Ramirez, Samuel Vasquez−Hernandez, Rufino Vasquez−Ordaz, Superior Forestry Service, Inc., Jose Rosiles−Perez, Andres Lopez−Lopez, Scott Barstow, William Ioup, Juan Lopez−Cruz. (Attachments: # 1 Amended Exhibit and Witness List, # 2 Proposed Order)(Pinkley, T.) Modified text on 4/13/2009 (km). (Entered: 04/03/2009)

04/07/2009

453 Supplemental MOTION to Deposit Funds and Objections to Plaintiffs' Attorneys' Fees by Enrique Gonzalez, Hector Santillan, Superior Forestry Service, Inc., Scott Barstow, William Ioup. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Objections to Attorneys'

Case: 1:06-cv-00006 As of: 07/09/2012 02:18 PM CDT 59 of 65

04/07/2009 04/07/2009 04/07/2009 04/07/2009 04/07/2009
04/07/2009 04/08/2009 04/09/2009
04/10/2009 04/10/2009 04/21/2009 04/21/2009
04/23/2009 04/23/2009 04/23/2009

Fees)(Bissinger, Fredrick) (Entered: 04/07/2009)
454 MEMORANDUM in Support of 453 Supplemental MOTION to Deposit Funds and Objections to Plaintiffs' Attorneys' Fees filed by Enrique Gonzalez, Hector Santillan, Superior Forestry Service, Inc., Scott Barstow, William Ioup. (Bissinger, Fredrick) (Entered: 04/07/2009)
455 ORDER: 450 Agreed Motion for Two−Day Extension of Time to File Proposed Post−Hearing Findings is granted. Signed by District Judge William J. Haynes, Jr on 4/6/09. (km) (Entered: 04/07/2009)
456 ORDER: 452 Agreed Motion to Amend/Correct Docket Entry No. 451 is granted. Signed by District Judge William J. Haynes, Jr on 4/6/09. (km) (Entered: 04/07/2009)
457 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Service of Process by Jose Rosiles−Perez. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum of Law, # 2 Exhibit Pl Ex 1 − Affidavit of Service, # 3 Exhibit Pl Ex 2 − E−Mail Correspondence)(Turner, Andrew) (Entered: 04/07/2009)
458 NOTICE of Filing by Enrique Gonzalez, Hector Santillan, Superior Forestry Service, Inc., Scott Barstow, William Ioup (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Related to Plaintiffs' Second Motion to Reopen Contempt Proceedings and for Other Relief)(Shea, Kara) (Entered: 04/07/2009)
459 Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on Plaintiffs' Third Motion for Contempt by Jose Rosiles−Perez. (Willenson, Marni) (Entered: 04/07/2009)
Note to Filer re DE #457: Memorandum or Brief in Support should be filed as a separate entry, not as an attachment. This document does not need to be re−filed unless otherwise directed by the Court. (km) (Entered: 04/08/2009)
460 NOTICE of Filing by Enrique Gonzalez, Hector Santillan, Superior Forestry Service, Inc., Scott Barstow, William Ioup re 453 Supplemental MOTION to Deposit Funds and Objections to Plaintiffs' Attorneys' Fees (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 2 − Supplemental Exhibit, Emails)(Bissinger, Fredrick) (Entered: 04/09/2009)
461 RESPONSE filed by Enrique Gonzalez, Hector Santillan, Superior Forestry Service, Inc., Scott Barstow, William Ioup re 459 Proposed Findings of Fact filed by Jose Rosiles−Perez. (Shea, Kara) Modified text on 4/13/2009 (km). (Entered: 04/10/2009)
462 PLAINTIFFS' Response to Certain of Defendants' Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on Pltfs' Third Contempt Motion by Jose Rosiles−Perez. (Willenson, Marni) Modified text on 4/13/2009 (km). (Entered: 04/10/2009)
463 MOTION for an ECF account by Thomas F. Kovach. (km) (Entered: 04/21/2009)
464 ORDER: This 436 Motion for permission to deposit funds with Court and for Stay of portion of Court's Order Dated 2/27/09 is denied. The Court found the amount of attorney fees reasonable. The Defendants have not complied with the February 27th Order. Signed by District Judge William J. Haynes, Jr on 4/20/09. (km) Modified text on 4/22/2009 (km). (Entered: 04/22/2009)
465 RESPONSE in Opposition re 453 Supplemental MOTION to Deposit Funds and Objections to Plaintiffs' Attorneys' Fees filed by Jose Rosiles−Perez. (Willenson, Marni) (Entered: 04/23/2009)
466 DECLARATION of Marni Willenson in Response to Defs' Supplemental Motion to Deposit Funds filed by Jose Rosiles−Perez re: 465 Response in Opposition to Motion. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A −− Willenson CV)(Willenson, Marni) (Entered: 04/23/2009)
467 DECLARATION of Charles P. Yezbak III filed by Jose Rosiles−Perez re: 465 Response in Opposition to Motion. (Willenson, Marni) (Entered: 04/23/2009)

Case: 1:06-cv-00006 As of: 07/09/2012 02:18 PM CDT 60 of 65

04/23/2009 04/23/2009 04/23/2009 04/23/2009 04/23/2009 04/23/2009 04/23/2009 04/23/2009 04/23/2009
04/23/2009 04/23/2009
04/24/2009 06/11/2009 06/11/2009 06/12/2009 06/12/2009 06/12/2009 06/15/2009

468 DECLARATION of M. Reid Estes, Jr. filed by Jose Rosiles−Perez re: 465 Response in Opposition to Motion. (Willenson, Marni) (Entered: 04/23/2009)
469 DECLARATION of Bruce Goldstein filed by Jose Rosiles−Perez re: 465 Response in Opposition to Motion. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A −− Goldstein CV)(Goldstein, Bruce) (Entered: 04/23/2009)
470 DECLARATION of Tim Freilich filed by Jose Rosiles−Perez re: 465 Response in Opposition to Motion. (Freilich, Tim) (Entered: 04/23/2009)
471 AFFIDAVIT re 465 Response in Opposition to Motion by Jose Rosiles−Perez. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit #1 (Knoepp CV))(Knoepp, James) (Entered: 04/23/2009)
472 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Jose Rosiles−Perez re 465 Response in Opposition to Motion, 469 Declaration Proof of Service of Goldstein Declaration (Goldstein, Bruce) (Entered: 04/23/2009)
473 AFFIDAVIT of Viridiana Guido filed by Jose Rosiles−Perez re: 465 Response in Opposition to Motion. (Knoepp, James) Modified text on 4/23/2009 (km). (Entered: 04/23/2009)
474 DECLARATION of Erin Trodden filed by Jose Rosiles−Perez re: 465 Response in Opposition to Motion. (Trodden, Erin) (Entered: 04/23/2009)
475 AFFIDAVIT re 465 Response in Opposition to Motion Affidavit of Andrew H. Turner by Jose Rosiles−Perez. (Turner, Andrew) (Entered: 04/23/2009)
Note to Filer re DE #475: The filer's name should be typed in the space where the signature would otherwise appear preceded by the symbol "s/" or inserted by facsimile signature. This document needs to be re−filed. (km) (Entered: 04/23/2009)
476 AFFIDAVIT re 465 Response in Opposition to Motion Affidavit of Andrew H. Turner by Jose Rosiles−Perez. (Turner, Andrew) (Entered: 04/23/2009)
477 DECLARATION of Amended Declaration of Marni Willenson in Response to Defs' Supplemental Motion to Deposit Funds filed by Jose Rosiles−Perez re: 466 Declaration, 465 Response in Opposition to Motion. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Willenson CV)(Willenson, Marni) (Entered: 04/23/2009)
478 ORDER denying 463 Motion for an ECF Account. Signed by District Judge William J. Haynes, Jr on 04/24/09. (ab) (Entered: 04/24/2009)
479 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by Jose Rosiles−Perez. Manuel Morales−Martinez waiver sent on 4/22/2009. (Turner, Andrew) (Entered: 06/11/2009)
480 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re: Defendant Manuel Morales−Martinez by Jose Rosiles−Perez. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Ex 1)(Turner, Andrew) (Entered: 06/11/2009)
481 ORDER: 453 Motion to Deposit Funds is denied for the reasons and authorities cited in Pltfs' response and the Court's earlier orders. Signed by District Judge William J. Haynes, Jr on 6/10/09. (km) (Entered: 06/12/2009)
482 ORDER: 457 Motion for Extension of Time to achieve service of process is granted. Signed by District Judge William J. Haynes, Jr on 6/10/09. (km) (Entered: 06/12/2009)
483 ORDER granting 480 Motion for Extension of Time until 7/9/09 for deft Manuel Morales−Martinex to file his Answer. Signed by District Judge William J. Haynes, Jr on 6/12/09. (km) (Entered: 06/12/2009)
484 ORDER granting 420 Motion for approval of class action notice. The notice of class action lawsuit and exclusion forms submitted are approved for distribution. Pltfs shall promptly distribute notice by the best means practicable. Signed by District Judge William J. Haynes, Jr on 6/15/09. (km) (Entered: 06/15/2009)

Case: 1:06-cv-00006 As of: 07/09/2012 02:18 PM CDT 61 of 65

07/01/2009

485 NOTICE by Jose Rosiles−Perez of mailing Rule 23 class notice (Knoepp, James) (Entered: 07/01/2009)

07/06/2009

486 ANSWER to 385 Amended Complaint, by Manuel Morales−Martinez.(Escobar, Ana) (Entered: 07/06/2009)

07/15/2009

487 NOTICE by Morio Ventura Vidul, Pedro Pablo Bautista Ruiz, Jesus Santiago−Salmoran, Enrique Gonzalez, Hector Santillan, Rolando Hernandez−Palestino, Jose Ramon Sanchez Martinez, Joan Michel Sanchez, Juan Sanchez Sanchez, Ernesto Martinez, Andres Aldana−Moreno, Aaron Lopez−Marin, Apolonio Lopez−Andres, Ernesto Cruz−Ramirez, Samuel Vasquez−Hernandez, Rufino Vasquez−Ordaz, Superior Forestry Service, Inc., Jose Rosiles−Perez, Andres Lopez−Lopez, Scott Barstow, William Ioup, Juan Lopez−Cruz of Mediation (Pinkley, T.) (Entered: 07/15/2009)

07/16/2009

488 ORDER: 417 Motion for John C. Everett to Appear Pro Hac Vice is granted for a special appearance. Signed by District Judge William J. Haynes, Jr on 7/15/09. (km) (Entered: 07/16/2009)

07/16/2009

489 ORDER denying 381 Motion for to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Signed by District Judge William J. Haynes, Jr on 7/16/09. (km) (Entered: 07/17/2009)

07/24/2009

490 NOTICE of Filing Exclusion Form by Maynor F Villator Lopez by Jose Rosiles−Perez (km) Modified text on 10/8/2009 (km). (Entered: 07/27/2009)

07/24/2009

491 NOTICE of Filing Exclusion Form by Aroldo Adalberto Villatoro by Jose Rosiles−Perez (km) Modified text on 10/8/2009 (km). (Entered: 07/27/2009)

07/28/2009

492 MEMORANDUM. Signed by District Judge William J. Haynes, Jr on 7/28/09. (Attachments: # 1 text searchable document)(km) (Entered: 07/28/2009)

07/28/2009

493 ORDER: In accordance with the Memorandum, the Pltfs' third motion for contempt 387 and for Defts' additional violations of the Court's May 23rd protective order and their interference with the remedies imposed in the Court's prior contempt orders (Docket Entry Nos. 349 and 350) is granted. Signed by District Judge William J. Haynes, Jr on 7/28/09. (Attachments: # 1 text searchable document)(km) (Entered: 07/28/2009)

07/31/2009

494 NOTICE of Filing Exclusion Form by Roberto Hernandez Morales by Jose Rosiles−Perez (Attachments: # 1 envelope)(km) Modified text on 10/8/2009 (km). (Entered: 07/31/2009)

08/24/2009

495 NOTICE of Filing Exclusion Form by Felipe Avila Rodriguez by Jose Rosiles−Perez (Attachments: # 1 envelope)(km) Modified text on 10/8/2009 (km). (Entered: 08/25/2009)

08/27/2009

496 STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER by Morio Ventura Vidul, Pedro Pablo Bautista Ruiz, Jesus Santiago−Salmoran, Enrique Gonzalez, Hector Santillan, Manuel Morales−Martinez, Rolando Hernandez−Palestino, Jose Ramon Sanchez Martinez, Joan Michel Sanchez, Juan Sanchez Sanchez, Ernesto Martinez, Andres Aldana−Moreno, Aaron Lopez−Marin, Apolonio Lopez−Andres, Ernesto Cruz−Ramirez, Samuel Vasquez−Hernandez, Rufino Vasquez−Ordaz, Superior Forestry Service, Inc., Jose Rosiles−Perez, Andres Lopez−Lopez, Scott Barstow, William Ioup, Juan Lopez−Cruz, Thomas F. Kovach. (Pinkley, T.) Modified text on 8/28/2009 (km). (Entered: 08/27/2009)

08/28/2009

497 STIPULATION AND ORDER. Signed by District Judge William J. Haynes, Jr on 8/28/09. (km) (Entered: 08/31/2009)

08/31/2009

498 NOTICE of Filing Exclusion Form by David Armando Reyes Altamirano by Jose Rosiles−Perez (Attachments: # 1 envelope)(km) Modified text on 10/8/2009 (km). (Entered: 09/01/2009)

09/14/2009

499 NOTICE of Filing Exclusion Form by Aaron Gonzalez Chavez by Jose Rosiles−Perez (Attachments: # 1 envelope)(km) Modified text on 10/8/2009 (km). (Entered: 09/14/2009)

09/24/2009

500 NOTICE of Filing Exclusion Form by Martinez de la Cruz Sergio by Jose Rosiles−Perez (Attachments: # 1 envelope)(km) Modified text on 10/8/2009 (km).

Case: 1:06-cv-00006 As of: 07/09/2012 02:18 PM CDT 62 of 65

(Entered: 09/24/2009)

09/30/2009

501 NOTICE of Change of Address by Marni Willenson (Willenson, Marni) (Entered: 09/30/2009)

09/30/2009

502 NOTICE of Filing Exclusion Form by Pedro Justino Gonzaga Espinoza by Jose Ramon Sanchez Martinez (Attachments: # 1 envelope)(km) Modified text on 10/8/2009 (km). (Entered: 10/01/2009)

09/30/2009 10/07/2009 10/08/2009 10/08/2009

503 NOTICE of Filing Exclusion Form by J Jesus Manzano Gutierrez by Jose Rosiles−Perez (Attachments: # 1 envelope)(km) Modified text on 10/8/2009 (km). (Entered: 10/01/2009)
504 NOTICE of Filing Exclusion Form by Ignacio Jesus Sanchez Gonzalez by Jose Rosiles−Perez (Attachments: # 1 envelope)(km) Modified text on 10/8/2009 (km). (Entered: 10/07/2009)
Docket Annotation: The Clerk's Office has modified the text of Docket Entry Nos. 490,491,494,495,498,499,500,502,503 and 504. (km) (Entered: 10/08/2009)
505 MOTION for attorney(s) Alex Gulotta to Appear Pro Hac Vice (paid $75 PHV fee; receipt number 06500000000000758724) by Jose Rosiles−Perez. (Freilich, Tim) (Entered: 10/08/2009)

10/08/2009

506 CERTIFICATE OF GOOD STANDING of Attorney Alex Gulotta from the United States District Court for the Western of Virginia filed by Jose Rosiles−Perez. (Freilich, Tim) (Entered: 10/08/2009)

10/09/2009

Bar status for attorney Alex Gulotta, VA verified as active this date. (km) (Entered: 10/09/2009)

10/09/2009 10/13/2009 10/22/2009 10/26/2009

507 ORDER granting 505 Motion for Alex Gulotta to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Signed by District Judge William J. Haynes, Jr on 10/9/09. (km) (Entered: 10/09/2009)
508 NOTICE of Filing Exclusion Form (unsigned) by Mario Arias Martinez by Jose Rosiles−Perez (km) (Entered: 10/14/2009)
509 NOTICE of Filing by Jose Rosiles−Perez Consents to Join FLSA Collective Action (Attachments: # 1 FLSA Consent Forms)(Knoepp, James) (Entered: 10/22/2009)
510 STIPULATION and Proposed Order by Morio Ventura Vidul, Pedro Pablo Bautista Ruiz, Jesus Santiago−Salmoran, Enrique Gonzalez, Hector Santillan, Manuel Morales−Martinez, Rolando Hernandez−Palestino, Jose Ramon Sanchez Martinez, Joan Michel Sanchez, Juan Sanchez Sanchez, Ernesto Martinez, Andres Aldana−Moreno, Aaron Lopez−Marin, Apolonio Lopez−Andres, Ernesto Cruz−Ramirez, Samuel Vasquez−Hernandez, Rufino Vasquez−Ordaz, Superior Forestry Service, Inc., Jose Rosiles−Perez, Andres Lopez−Lopez, Scott Barstow, William Ioup, Juan Lopez−Cruz, Thomas F. Kovach. (Shea, Kara) Modified text on 10/28/2009 (km). (Entered: 10/26/2009)

10/29/2009

511 STIPULATION AND ORDER: The Court hereby orders that the parties' Stipulation and Order as entered by the Court on 8/28/09, Docket No. 497, shall be hereby extended for 30 days following entry of this Order. Signed by District Judge William J. Haynes, Jr on 10/27/09. (km) (Entered: 10/29/2009)

01/14/2010

512 ORDER: Fairness Hearing set for 3/26/2010 02:30 PM in Columbia before District Judge William J. Haynes Jr. Signed by District Judge William J. Haynes, Jr on 1/14/10. (km) (Entered: 01/15/2010)

01/22/2010 01/25/2010 02/10/2010

513 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Settlement Agreement and a Motion to Approve Notice to the Class by Jose Rosiles−Perez. (Knoepp, James) (Entered: 01/22/2010)
514 ORDER: 513 Joint Motion for Extension of Time to Comply with Court Order is granted. Signed by District Judge William J. Haynes, Jr on 1/25/10. (km) (Entered: 01/25/2010)
515 Joint MOTION for Settlement Preliminary Approval of Proposed Class Action Settlement Agreement and Notice to Class Members by Jose Rosiles−Perez.

Case: 1:06-cv-00006 As of: 07/09/2012 02:18 PM CDT 63 of 65

(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 (Proposed Class Action Settlement, Proposed Notice and Claim Form), # 2 Proposed Order)(Knoepp, James) (Entered: 02/10/2010)

02/10/2010

516 MEMORANDUM in Support of 515 Joint MOTION for Settlement Preliminary Approval of Proposed Class Action Settlement Agreement and Notice to Class Members filed by Jose Rosiles−Perez. (Knoepp, James) (Entered: 02/10/2010)

02/11/2010

517 ORDER: 515 Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Proposed Class Action Settlement and Notice to the class is granted. A hearing on the fairness and reasonableness of the Settlement and whether final approval shall be given to it will be held before this Court on 3/26/10 at 2:30 p.m. Within 10 days of the entry of this Order, Defts are directed to file any notices with governmental agencies as required by the Class Action Fairness Act, and to provide Notice to the Court upon completion. Any class member who desires to exclude himself from the action must file a request for exclusion with the Clerk by 5/1/10. Any class member who wishes to object to the Settlement must submit an objection to the Clerk of the Court by 3/26/10. The parties may file memoranda in support of the Settlement prior to the fairness hearing. Any submission must be filed no later than 3/22/10. Signed by District Judge William J. Haynes, Jr on 2/11/10. (km) (Entered: 02/11/2010)

02/19/2010

518 (DISREGARD − See DE #519) NOTICE by Enrique Gonzalez, Hector Santillan, Manuel Morales−Martinez, Superior Forestry Service, Inc., Scott Barstow, William Ioup of Compliance with Class Action Fairness Act (Shea, Kara) Modified on 2/22/2010 (km). (Entered: 02/19/2010)

02/19/2010

519 NOTICE by Enrique Gonzalez, Hector Santillan, Manuel Morales−Martinez, Superior Forestry Service, Inc., Scott Barstow, William Ioup of Compliance with Class Action Fairness Act (Shea, Kara) (Entered: 02/19/2010)

02/22/2010

520 NOTICE by Jose Rosiles−Perez of Completion of Mailing of Notices of Proposed Class Action Settlement and Claim Forms (Knoepp, James) (Entered: 02/22/2010)

02/25/2010

521 NOTICE by Superior Forestry Service, Inc. of Completion of Mailing (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A −− Declaration of Hayley Tester)(Shea, Kara) (Entered: 02/25/2010)

03/22/2010

522 Joint MOTION for Settlement for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement by Superior Forestry Service, Inc., Jose Rosiles−Perez. (Knoepp, James) (Entered: 03/22/2010)

03/22/2010

523 MEMORANDUM in Support of 522 Joint MOTION for Settlement for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement filed by Superior Forestry Service, Inc., Jose Rosiles−Perez. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of James Knoepp, # 2 Declaration of Tim Freilich, # 3 Declaration of Marni Willenson, # 4 Declaration of Josh Karsh)(Knoepp, James) (Entered: 03/22/2010)

03/26/2010

524 ORDER: For the reasons stated in open court, the parties joint motion for final approval of the class action settlement agreement 522 is GRANTED and the Court approves the amounts to be paid to the Plaintiffs, members of the class and the amounts of their attorneys' fees and costs. This action is ADMINISTRATIVE CLOSED and may be reopened upon motion of any party at the appropriate time under the structured settlement and for entry of final judgment agreement. Signed by District Judge William J. Haynes, Jr on 3/26/10. (dt) (Entered: 03/26/2010)

03/26/2010

525 Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge William J. Haynes, Jr: Settlement Conference held on 3/26/2010. (Court Reporter Peggy Turner.) (ab) (Entered: 03/29/2010)

07/06/2010

526 Joint MOTION Entry of Final Judgment by Jose Rosiles−Perez. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Proposed Order)(Knoepp, James) (Entered: 07/06/2010)

07/07/2010

527 ORDER: The 526 Joint Motion for Entry of Final Judgment is GRANTED to reopen this action to enter the final judgment. Signed by District Judge William J. Haynes, Jr. on 7/7/10. (rd) (Entered: 07/07/2010)

07/07/2010

528 FINAL JUDGMENT ORDER: This action is dismissed with prejudice, subject to the terms of the settlement agreement. Signed by District Judge William J. Haynes,

Case: 1:06-cv-00006 As of: 07/09/2012 02:18 PM CDT 64 of 65

07/07/2010

Jr. on 7/7/10. (rd) (Entered: 07/07/2010) 529 ENTRY OF JUDGMENT re: 528 Order. (rd) (Entered: 07/07/2010)

Case: 1:06-cv-00006 As of: 07/09/2012 02:18 PM CDT 65 of 65