IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA FILED 1N CLERKI$ OFFICI:.

ATLANTA DIVISION

U.S.D.C. AthUltl\

HECTOR LUNA, et al.,

MAY 29 2001

Plaintiffs,
v.
DEL MONTE FRESH PRODUCE COMPANY, INC., et al.,

CIVIL ACTION 1:06-CV-2000-JEC

Defendants.

ORDER The Court has received and filed the May 25, 2007 letter from defense counsel, Jacqueline E. Kalk, [146] regarding the above entitled action. The parties have agreed that the Court should make a determination as to whether either defendant employed .any of the various plaintiff classes prior to either party seeking a ruling or otherwise briefing class and/or collective action certification. Plaintiffs have agreed to withdraw their pending motions for class certification, subj ect to the defendants' agreement to toll the statute of limitations as it relates to the FLSA claims. The parties further agree ~hat any motions related to collective and/or class certification shall be filed 45 days after the Court rules on motions regarding the employer issue. Presumably, a granting of defendants'

A072A (Rev.8I82)

anticipated motions for surrrrnary judgement on employer status would precipitate an appeal by plaintiff to the Eleventh Circuit, not a motion for class certification. The parties also agree that once the plaintiffs are able to identify dates for the depositions to take place in Mexico, the parties shall file a stipulation with the Court on these issues and a mutually agreeable deadline for filing the surrrrnary judgment motions on the question of employer status.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties are directed to submit, wi thin THIRTY (30) days from the date of this Order, a revised scheduling order, setting out the time when depositions in Mexico are expected to be concluded and a suggested time for the filing of the surrrrnary judgment motions concerning the status of the defendants as employers. The parties have agreed that plaintiffs' withdrawal of plaintiffs' Motion for Certification of Class Action [73] and plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Certification of a Collective Action and Court-Authorized Notice [84], until the defendant's status as an employer can first be determined, is subject to defendant's agreement to toll the statute of limitations as it relates to the FLSA claims.
Accordingly, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE plaintiffs' Motion tor Certification of Class Action [73] and plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Certi fication of a Collective Action and CourtAuthorized Noti~e [84], with the proviso that this denial is
2
A072A (Rev.8182)

conditioned on defendant's agreement to toll the statute of limitat ions , as agreed to by the parties. Any motion for class certification shall be filed within FORTY-FIVE (45) days after the Court rules on motions concerning the employer issue, unless the Court grants the defendants' motions for summary judgment.
SO ORDERED, this ~~ day of MAY, 2007. J IE E. CARNES UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3
A072A (Rev.8I82)

 
 TN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTfI~fo!

8S

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGI ~SDN~~q~BE

ATLANTA DIVISION

Ac18n ta

HECTOR LUNA, JULIAN GARCIA, FRANCISCO JAVIER LORENZO, SANTOS G . MALDONADO, PATRICIA WOODARD and BARTOLO NUNEZ, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,

MA R 192008
J~q 8 ~ N. HA
1~)epuh' C1erf

Plaintiffs, V.

CIVIL AC T ION N O . 1 : 06-CV-2000-JEC

DEL MONTE FRESH PRODUCE (SOUTHEAST), INC ., and DEL MONTE FRESH PRODUCE N .A ., INC .,

Defendants .

O R D E R

P I N I O N

This case is presently before the Court on defendant Del Monte

Fresh Produce N .A .'s ("DMN A") Motion for Summary Judgment [197],

defendant Del Monte Fresh Produce Southeast's ("DMSE") Motions for

Summary Judgment [198], [200], and [201], plaintiffs' Motion for

Summary Judgment with respect to DMSA [202], plaintiffs' Motion-for

Summary Judgment with respect to DMNE [203], plaintiffs' Motions to

Strike and to Determine the Validity of Defendants' Offers of

Judgment [199] and [216], and Attorney Mary Bauer's unopposed Motion

to Withdraw [229] .

The Court has reviewed the , record and the arguments of the

AO 72A ( Rev; 8182)

parties and, for the reasons set out below, concludes that defendant DMNA' s Motion for Summary Judgment [1971 should be GRANTED ; defendant DMSE's Motions for Summary Judgment [198], [200], and [201] should be DENIED ; plaintiffs' Motion to Strike Defendants' Offers of Judgment [199] should be GRANTED ; plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment with respect to DMSE [202] should be GRANTED ; plaintiffs ' Motion for Summary Judgment with respect to DMNA [203] should be DENIED ; plaintiffs" Motion to Determine the Validity of Defendants' Offers of Judgment [216] should be DENIED as moot ; and Attorney Mary Bauer's :unopposed Motion to Withdraw [229] should be GRANTED .
BACKGROUND Plaintiffs are migrant and seasonal agricultural laborers who worked on defendant DMSE's Helena, Georgia farms at various times during the 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006 harvest seasons . (Second Amended Compl . [106] at 1H 1 .) Plaintiffs were recruited to work on DMSE' s farms by third-party farm labor contractors (. "EEGs")' (Id . at 91 3 .) Plaintiffs Luna, Garcia, and Lorenzo were recruited from Mexico pursuant to the temporary agricultural work visa program I commonly known as the "H-2A program ." (Id . at 9[ 4 .) Plaintiffs Maldonado, Woodard and Nunez were recruited from within the United States . (Id, at 9[ 5 .) Plaintiffs allege that DMSE : (1) failed to pay the promised wage
2
AO 72 A (R ev. 8JS2)

rate for all hours worked on its Helena farms ; . (2) failed to reimburse plaintiffs for costs that they incurred in order to work on the farms ; and (3) violated federal laws governing the wages and working conditions of migrant and seasonal agricultural workers . (Id . at 91 6 .) They filed this lawsuit as a class action on behalf of two distinct classes of workers : . (1) H-2A guest-workers recruited from Mexico ; and (2) non-H-2A migrant and seasonal agricultural .workers recruited from within the United States . . (Second Amended Gompl . X106] at 9[9[ 4-5 .)
All of the plaintiffs assert claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U .S .C . §§ 201-219 ("ELBA") . (Id . at 9[ 7 .) The H2A workers also assert claims for breach of contract . (Id .) The non-H-2A workers assert claims for breach of the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Workers Protection Act, 29 U .S .C . § § 1801-1871 ( ."AWPA") . ( I d .) Plaintiffs assert these claims against DMSE as well as DMSE's parent corporation, DMNA .'
Liability under the AWPA and the FLSA is predicated on the existence of an employer-employee relationship .' . Pate1 v . Wargo, 803
~ DMSE is a wholly-owned subsidiary of DMNA (DMNA's Statement of Material Facts in Supp . of Summ . J . [197] at y[ 5 .)
2 The AWPA and the FLSA use the same definition of the term `employ ." See 2 .9 U .S .C . § 203 ( g) and 29 CT .S .C, § 1802(5) An entity .that employs workers under the FLSA therefore necessarily employs the workers for purposes of the AWPA, and vice versa . Antenor v . D & S Farms, 88 F .3d 925, 929 (11th Cir . 1996) .
3
AO 72A (ReV.81 82)

F .2d 632, 635 (11th Cir . 1986) . Defendants contend that plaintiffs were employed solely by the FLCs who recruited and directly hired plaintiffs . (Answer [112] at IHJ 3-4 ; Answer [113] at 9191 3-4 .) Because the employment issue is potentially dispositive of this case, the parties agreed to a bifurcated discovery schedule, with the first stage of discovery to be focused on the issue of defendants' status as plaintiffs' employer . (Scheduling Order [66] .)
The parties have completed the first phase of discovery, and have filed cross-motions for summary judgment on the employment issue . (Pls .' Mots, for Summ . J . [202] and [203] ; Defs .' Mots . for Summ . J . [197], [198], [200], and [201] .) Plaintiffs have also filed a motion to strike and a motion to determine the validity of defendants' recent offers of judgment to several opt-in plaintiffs . (Pls .' Mod . to Strike [199] and Mot . to Determine Validity of Offers of J . [216] .) All of these motions are presently before the Court .
DISCUSSION I . Summary judgment motions pertaining to DMSE
A . Summary judgment standard Summary judgment is appropriate when the "pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law . "" FED . R . Civ . P . 56 (c) A fact's
4
AO 72A (Rev. 8182)

!, materiality is determined by the controlling substantive law . Anderson v . Liberty Lobby, Inc ., 477 U .S . 242, 248 (1986) . An issue is genuine when the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmovant . (Id, at 249-50 .) . Summary judgment is not properly viewed as a device that the trial court may, in its discretion, implement in lieu of a trial on the merits . Instead, Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure mandates the entry of summary judgment against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of every element essential to that party's case on which that party will bear the burden of proof at tr i al . - Ce l otex Corp . v . Catret t , 477 U .S . 317, 322 ( 1986) . In such a situation, there can be no genuine i ssue as to any material fact, as a complete failure of proof . concerning an essential element of the non-moving party's case necessarily renders all other facts immaterial . (Id . at 322-23 (quoting Fop . R . Civ . P . 56 (c)) . The movant bears the initial responsibility of asserting the basis for his motion . (Id . at 323 .) However, the movant is not requ i red to negate his opponent's claim . The movant may d i scharge h i s burden by merely , 'showing'--that i s, pointing out to the distr i ct court--that there is an absence of ev i dence to support the ' non-moving - party's case ." (Id . at 325 .) After the movant has carried his burden, the non-moving party is then required to "go 5
AO 72A (R ev.8/82)

beyond the pleadings" and present competent evidence designating "`specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial .'" (Id . at 324 .) While the court is to view all evidence and factual inferences in a light most favorable to the non-moving party, Samples v . City of Atlanta, 846 F .2d 1328, 1330 (11th Cir . 1988), "the mere existence of some alleged factual dispute between the parties will not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment ; the requirement is that there be no genuine issue of material fact ." Anderson, 477 U .S . at 247-48 (1986) .
The parties have engaged in extensive discovery, and compiled a voluminous record of evidence, related specifically to the employment issue . They urge the Court to review the facts submitted and determine as a matter of law whether DMSE and/or DMNA .is an employer for purposes of the AWPA and the FLSA . (See DMNA's Mot . for Summ : J . [197] at 2 and Pls .' Mot . for Summ . J . -[202] at 4 .) The . Eleventh Circuit has consistently held that "[a] determination of employment status under the FLSA and the AWPA is a question of law ." Anterior v . D & S Farms, 88 F .3d 925, 929 (11th Cir . 1996) . See also Charles v . Burton , 169 F . 3d 1322 , 1329 (11th Cir . 1999) (holding same) . The underlying facts that are essential to the employment inquiry are not in dispute . Accordingly, summary judgment on this issue is proper .
6
AO 72A ( Rev. 8/82)

B . Employer l i ability under the AWPA and FLSA

It is undisputed that plaintiffs were directly hired and paid by the various FLCs who recruited them to work on DMSE's Helena farms .

(Pls .' Consol . Statement of Material Facts in Supp . of Mot . for. Summ .

J . ("PSMF") [204] at 1 59 .) The F'LCs were ostensibly independent

contractors who functioned as plaintiffs' employers .

(Id .) That

fact does not, however, preclude DMSE's liability as an employer under the AWPA and the FZSA . See Martinez-Mendoza v . Champion Int'l

Corp ., 340 F .3d 1200, 1208-09 (11th Cir . 20 0 3) .

Both the AWPA and the FLSA broadly define "employer" to include

any entity that "suffers or permits" an individual to work . 29

U .S .C . ~ 203(g) and 29 U .S .C . § 1802(5) . The "suffers or permits"

standard gives rise to liability against an entity that, as a matter

of economic reality : (1) jointly employs the workers supplied by the

FLC ; or (2) utilizes- an FLC as an employee, rather than as an

independent contractor . 29 C .F .R . § 500 .20(h)(4)-(5) and 29 C .F .R .

§ 791 .2(a) See also Charles, 169 F .3d at 1334 (holding that growers

and labor contractor jointly employed farmworkers) and Beliz v . W .H .

McLeod & Sons Packing Co ., 765 F .2d 1317, 1328 (5th Cir . 1985)

(recognizing that where a grower employed a labor contractor, he

jnecessarily employed the contractor's employees) . The evidence in

this case suggests that DMSE did both . .

7

AO 72, A (Rev-8182)

C . DMSE " j oint l y employed " plaintiffs . The Eleventh Circuit has identified seven factors that are relevant to the joint employment inquiry, including : (1) the putative employer's power, directly or through the FTC, to direct, control, or supervise the work ; (2) the putative employer's power to hire or fire, modify the employment conditions, or determine the pay rates or methods of pay for the workers ; (3) the degree of permanency and duration of the parties' relationship ; (4) whether the workers perform skilled or unskilled work ; (5) whether the workers perform a task that is an integral part of the putativee employer's overall business ; (6) whether the putative employer owned or controlled the premises where the work occurred ; and (7) whether the putative employer undertook responsibilities ordinarily performed by employers . Charles, 169 F .3d at 1329 . These factors are designed to help the Court determine whether, as a matter of economic ; reality, plaintiffs were dependent on DMSE . Id . See also Antenor, 88 F .3d at 932 ("It is dependence that indicates employee status . Each [facto] must be applied with that ultimate notion in mind .") . The undisputed evidence indicates that they were .
1 . DMSE had substantial power to direct control and supervise the work of FLC workers .
This factor focuses on whetherr the putative employer takes an "overly active role" in overseeing the work performed by FLC workers .
8
AO 72A (R ev.81$2 )

Martinez-Mendoza, 340 F .3d at 1209-10 (quoting Aimable v . Long and

Scott Farms, 20 F .3d 434, 441 (11th Cir . 1994)) . An alleged employer

engages in active oversight when it makes such decisions as : (1) whom

and how many employees to hire ; (2) whom to assign to specific tasks ;

(3) when work should begin or end each day ; (4) when a particular

field will be harvested or planted ; and (5) whether a worker should

be disciplined . Id . at 1210 ; Charles, 169 F .3d at 1329 - 30 . Control

is also exhibited when the employer provides the containers upon

which piece rate earnings are based . Charles, 169 F .3d at 1330 .

DMSE management instructed the FLCs on a daily basis regarding :

how many workers were needed for specific tasks ; how many workers

should work in each field ; which fields to work ; how many workers to

assign or reassign to specific lines or locations in the warehouse ;

which warehouse lines to run and at what speeds ; and thee days on

which specific work would begin . (PSMF [204] at 9[9I 210-11 ., 215-19,

302-03, 213-13, 317-22 .)

DMSE also provided the containers upon

which the workers' piece rate earnings in certain crops were

calculated . (Id . at 9[9[ 444-445 .)

In addition, DMSE directly monitored and supervised the •FLC

workers throughout the workday . (Td . at 9[9I 299, 325, 328-330 .) DMSE

General Manager Mike Kirby routinely walked through the warehouse for

two to three hours each day to observe the progress of the work .

(Id . at 11 33 1 .) DMSE field supervisors similarly monitored the work

9

AO 72A (Rgv,8/82)

being . done in the fields . (Id . at 11 352-358 .) When they observed problems with particular workers, DMSE managers or supervisors either directly confronted the worker or contacted the responsible FLC to address the problem .3 (PSMF [204] at TT 335, 360 .)
DMSE attempts to rebut the above evidence with the testimony of various plaintiffs that they did not experience or observe any direct supervision by DMSE personnel . (See DMSE's Response to Pls .' Mot . for Summ . J . [211] at 49-51 .) This testimony is immaterial . Whether plaintiffs were personally aware of it or not, there is undisputed evidence in the record that DMSE managers frequently monitoredand supervised FLC workers . (See PSMF [204] at 9[9[ 331, 335, 352-350 . ) Moreover, for purposes of this factor, control and supervision "may be either direct or indirect ." 29 C .F .R . § 500 .20 (h) (5) (iv) (A) . See Charles, 169 F .3d at 1330 ("[S]upervision is present whenever orders are communicated directly to the laborer or indirectly through the contractor .") . The fact that DMSE may have generally effected supervision by speaking to the FLCs, rather than directly to the workers, "does not negate [DMSE's] apparent on-the-job control over I the workers ." Hodgson v . Griffin & Brand of McAllen, Inc ., 47 .1 F .2d
3 DMSE also established and enforced uniform work rules that were applicable to FLC workers, and required the FLCs and their employees to attend safety and sanitation trainings . (PSMF [204] at 9[9[ 252-57 .)
10
AO 72A ( Rev. 8/82)

235, 238 (5th Cir . 1973) . 2 . DMSE had the power to hire and fire workers , and to modi fy the conditions of the i r employment .
At the beginning of each season, .DMSE required the FLCs to sign standardized "FLC Agreements" governing the services that the FLCs were to provide to DMSE . (PSMF [204] at SIT 136-150 .) DMSE presented the Agreements to the FLCs fully prepared, with jobs and corresponding pay rates and methods of payment (hourly or piece rate) already specified . (Id . at 9[ 150 .)
DMSE's argument that the compensation rates in the FLC Agreements were only "estimates" of the amount that the FLCs should pay their workers is unpersuasive . (See DMSE's Response to PSMF [212] at 1 150 .) The FLCs were not authorized to pay less than the specified rates and, as a practical matter, could not afford to pay more . (PSMF [204] at 9[ 147, 149 .) Thus, with few exceptions, DMSE dictated the FLC workers' pay rates and method of payment through the standardized FLC Agreements . ( Id . at 9[9[ 136-64 .)
DMSE also retained and regularly exercised the right to approve employees selected to fill supervisory positions and positions 1inv.olving dangerous equipment or machinery . (Id . at 9[ 141 .} To that
4 Decisions of the former Fifth Circuit rendered prior to October 1, 1981, are binding precedent in the . . Eleventh Circuit . Bonner v . City of Prichard, 661 F .2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir . 1981) (en banc) .
11
AO 72A (Aev. 8J82)

end, DMSE managers identified specific FLC workers whom they wanted

to be helpers, drivers, and quality control individuals . (Id . at 91'H

220-225 .) ' DMSE managers also occas i onally identified employees whom

they wanted removed from certain positions . (Id . at TT 228-229 .) On

at least one occasion, a DMSE manager suggested to an FLC that a

particular worker should be fired because she was pregnant . (PSMF

[204] at 1 228 .) The FLC fired the employee based on her

understanding of DMSE's preference .

(Id .)

In several other

instances, DMSE laid off employees and then suggested that these

individuals be hired by an FLC . (Id . at TJ 233-40 .) The FLCs

generally complied with these requests because they viewed DMSE

management as their "bosses ." (Id . at 9191 246-51 .)

3 . The relationship_ between DMSE and the workers was relatively -permanent .

Recognizing the inherently seasonal nature of most agricultural

work, courts have generally foundd a sufficiently permanent

relationship to indicate joint employment where labor contractors and

their workers return to a farm year after year for a particular

season of work, or where labor contractors supply their workers

primarily to one grower during a specific harvest or planting period .

See United States v . Lauritzen, 835 F .2d 1529, 1537 (7th Cir .

1987)("One indication of permanency is the fact that it is not

uncommon for the migrant families to return year after year") and

12

AO 7'2A ( Rev.a 82)

Barrientos v . Taylor , 917 F . Supp . 375 , 384 (E . D .N . C . 1996) ("the relationship is permanent to the extent that the migrants worked only for defendants during the season") .
Rojas Harvesting was DMSE's primary labor contractor, and supplied the majority of workers used in DMSE's Helena operations . (PSMF [204] at 9[ 60 .) Rojas provided laborers to DMS .E from 2000 or 2001 until 2006 . (Id . at 9[ 62 .) From 2003 until the close of DMSE's operations in 2006, approximately 90o of Rojas business each year I derived from work performed for DMSE . (Id . at S 64 .) In 2003, 2004, land 2005, Rojas supplied labor nearly year-round to DMSE . (Id . at 9[ 89 .) This suggests a somewhat permanent and exclusive relationship between Rojas and DMSE .
In addition, several of the plaintiffs testified that they returned to work for DMSE for multiple consecutive onion seasons, and that during those seasons they primarily worked for DMSE . Plaintiff Patricia Woodard worked exclusively for DMSE during each onion harvest season from April 2003 through June or July 2006 . (Id . at 9I 126 .) Plaintiff Bartolo Nunez returned to DMSE's farms for the 2004, 2005, and 2006 onion harvests . (PSMF [204] at 91 127 .) Opt-in plaintiffs George Allen, Sandreka Madison, Rosa Arias, and C .J . Mason l,also . returned to DMSE' s farms for multiple seasons . (-Td . at 9I9[ 130f 135 .)
13
AO 72A (Flev.8/82)

4 . FLC workers performed unsk i lled work . DMSE concedes that plaintiffs generally performed unskilled work . (DMSE's Response to PSMF at 1 373 ; DMSE's Mem, in Supp . of Mot . for Summ . J . [200 at 15 .) This factor thus weighs in favor of a joint employment relationship . Charles, 169 F .3d at 1332 ("The lower the worker's skill level, the lower the value and marketability of his/her services and the greater the likelihood of his/her economic dependence on the person utilizing those services .") .
5 . DMSE owned or leased the prem i ses . where the work occurred .
DMSE also concedes that it owned or leased the land on which the work at issue was performed . (PSMF [204] at 9[9[ 438-39 . ) As the Eleventh Circuit explained in Antenor : "[A] business that owns or controls the worksite will likely be able to prevent labor law violations, even if it delegates hiring and supervisory responsibilities to labor contractors ." AnLenor, 88 F .3d at 937 . Accordingly, this factor weighs in favor of joint employment . Id . See also Charles, 169 F .3d at 1333 .
6 . FLC workers performed tasks that are an integral part of DMSE ' s overall business .
During the relevant. time period, DMSE was engaged in the business of growing and packaging fresh produce in the Helena, Georgia area . (PSMF [204] at SS 5, 21-24 .) Plaintiffs and other FLC workers performed the planting, harvesting, and packing of DMSE's
14
AO 72A (Rev.8/82)

produce . This work clearly was integral to DMSE's operations and overall business . See Charles, 169 F .3d at 1333 ("picking of snap beans was integral to both harvesting and producing of snap beans") .
7 . DMSE undertook at least some responsibilities that are ordinarily performed by em p loyers .
Examples of tasks that are ordinarily performed by employers include : (1) preparing or making payroll records ; (2) preparing or issuing paychecks ; (3) paying FICA taxes ; (4) providing workers' compensation insurance ; (5) providing field sanitation facilities, housing,, or transportation ; and (6) providing tools, equipment, or materials required for the job . Martinez-Mendoza, 340 F .3d at 1214 . The FLCs prepared their own payrolls and issued paychecks without assistance from DMSE . (DMSE's Statement of Undisputed Material Facts in Supp . of Summ . J . ("bMSE` s SMF") [200] at 9[ 129 .) The . FLCs also performed their own tax calculations and , independently made these deduct i ons . (Id . at 9[ 130 .) In addition, the FLCs i ndependently obtained liability and workers' compensation insurance . (Id . at 11 1 137 .)
On the other hand, DMSE maintained labor camps in which it provided free housing to numerous FLC workers between 2003 and 2006 . (PSMF [204] at 9[9[ 461-68 .) DMSE paid for most costs associated with the housing, including major repairs, routine maintenance, and utility bills . (Id . at 9[9[ 472-73 .) DMSE also assisted Rojas in
15
A 0 72A
( Reu61a2)

obtaining housing for workers for whom there was no room at the camps during the 2006 onion harvest season . (Id . at 9[ 469 .) As part of these efforts, DMSE executed a contract addendum with subsidies for outside housing, and suggested to Ms . Rojas where she should look for worker housing . (Id .)
In addition, DMSE provided FLC workers with the majority of the tools, materials, and equipment that were essential to their work . j (Id . at 9191 440-47 .) DMSE provided and serviced all the forklifts, tractors, and other field and warehouse machinery used in the Helena operations . (PSMF [204] . at S 442 .) DMSE also provided the fuel required for the equipment . (Id . at 9[ 443 .)_ DMSE further provided sacks in which field workers placed harvested onions, and all the bins and boxes used to harvest, load, and pack onions and other [produce . (Id . at 9[ S 444-45 .) In the 2006 onion harvest season, DMSE arranged and paid for sanitation facilities on its Helena farms . (Id . at 1E 453 .)
The evidence on this factor thus indicates that DMS E and its FLCs . each performed discrete tasks routinely- performed by an employer . Nevertheless, DMSE's provision of most of the tools, materials, and services criticall to plaintiffs' work suggests that plaintiffs were economically dependent on DMSE . See Charles, 169 F .3d at 1333 n . 15 ("workers who use the services, materials or functions [provided by a putative employer] are in a very tangible
16
AO 72A (R eu8182)
.rrr

way economically dependent on the entity performing these

functions") . 8.

Conclusion

All of the relevant factors weigh in favor of joint employment,

and the evidence in the record overwhelmingly suggests that plaintiffs were at least as economically dependent on DMSE as they were on their FLCs . Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment

as to DMSE [202] is therefore GRANTED , and DMSE's motions for summary

judgment [198], [200], and [201] are DENIED .

D . DMSE utilized Rajas Harvesting as an employee .

In addition to its status as a joint employer of plaintiff, DMSE also effectively employed its primary labor contractor . - This fact offers additional support to grant plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment . Specifically, the evidence in the record further suggests that Letisia Rojas Salazar, DMSE's primary labor contractor,

functioned as . an employee of DMSE as opposed to an independent

contracto actors The DOL has identified six factors that are relevant to determine whether an FLC is a bona fide independent contractor or an

employee . 29 C .F .R . § 5 00 .20(h)(4) . These factors, which overlap

5 In 2001 or 2002, DMSE offered Ms . Rajas a position as DSME's primary labor contractor . (PSMF [204] at 1 63 .) Ms . Rojas subsequently became, and at all relevant times was, the Rojas family member most actively involved in directing and overseeing Rojas Harvesting' s provision of workers to DMSE . (Id . at 9[9[ 63, 69-70-73 .)
17

AO 72A ( Rev. 8182)

substantially with the factors discussed above, include : (1) the

nature and degree of the putative employer's control as to the manner

in which the work is performed ; (2) the putative employee's

opportunity for profit or loss depending on his/her managerial skill ;

(3) the putative employee's investment in equipment or materials

required for the task, or the putative employee's employment of other

workers ; (4) whether the services rendered by the putative employee

I~ require special skill ; (5) the degree of permanency and duration of

the working relationship ; and (6) the extent to which the services

rendered by the putative employee are an integral part of the

putative employer's business .

As discussed, DMSE retained and regularly exercised substantial

control over the work performed by the FLCs . In addition, Rojas had

a relatively permanent and exclusive relationship with DMSE, and the

work performed by Rojas' FvC workers was unquestionably integral to

DMSE's business . The evidence on these factors therefore suggests

that Rojas functioned as an employee of DMSE . The remaining factors

also support an employment relationship .

1.

Rows had a lim i ted opportun i ty for . ., profit or Loss

based on her managerial skill .

Rojas earned a profit on her work for DMSE by means of a

standard surcharge specified in the FLC Agreements . (PSMF [209] at

1 9[9[ 136-149 .) As noted, the FLC Agreements listed various jobs and

18

AO 72A ( Rev. 8/82)

their corresponding rates of pay, including whether payment would be made on an hourly or piece rate basis for specific jobs . ( I d . at 11 142-146 .) The total payment that Rojas received was calculated by applying a 32% surcharge to both hourly and piece rate work . (Id . at 'Ell 144, 147 .) The 32% surcharge was specifically calculated as a percentage necessary to cover the FLG's costs for insurance and employment taxes, as well as to provide some profit to the FLC . (Id . at 1 149 .) As a practical matter, this arrangement provided very little if any opportunity for Rojas to apply her "managerial skill" to increase profit .
Rojas' opportunity for loss was similarly limited, because she did not make any significant investment in work-related equipment or materials . DMSE owned or leased all of the land on .which the work occurred, and supplied all .of the heavy equipment and machinery used in its operations, including tractors, forklifts, fuel, fertilizers and pesticides, irrigation equipment, and the components of the warehouse packing lines . (Id . at TT 438-47 .) DMSE also paid most of the costs associated with maintaining two labor camps primarily used for housing Rojas workers . (PSMF [204] at TT 461-66 .) Rojas only provided plastic buckets, basic hand tools such as onion clippers, and a few vehicles in which workers were transported . (Id . at 1191 440-47, 454 .) Given the limited nature of her investment, Rojas' opportunity for loss was practically nonexistent . See Haywood v .
19
AO 72A ( Rev. 8 182)

Barnes , 109 F . R . D . 568 , 588 (E . D . N . C . 1986) (noting that the labor

contractors' investment in "some light tools and a few scattered

buses and trucks" was minimal in comparison with the grower's

investment in land, housing, storage facilities, equipment, tools,

:and supplies)

2.

The vast majority of Rajas ' workers primarily worked

at _ DMSE's Helena operations .

Although Rojas supplied some workers to farms other than DMSE,

90% of Rojas' business between 2003 and 2006 derived from work

performed at DMSE's Helena operations . (PSMF [204] at T 64 .) In a

succession of letters supporting Rojas' applications for H-2A

workers, DMSE indicated its intent to utilize all of the H-2A workers

requested by Rojas in 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006 . (Id . at 1 278-

281 .) The number of workers that Rojas supplied to other farms, and

the amount of time those workers spent working on other farms, were

insignificant compared to the workers supplied to, and time spent on,

DMSE's Helena farms .

3.

Ms . Rows had l i mited skills and training .

Ms . Rojas was 18 years old when DMSE offered her a position as

its primary labor contractor . (Id . at (1 63 .) Although she was

experienced in farmwork when she accepted the labor contractor

position, Rojas did not have any specialized training in agriculture

or in farm labor contracting . (Id, at T 78 .) In fact, she dropped

20

AO 72A (Rev.8182)

out of school in the ninth grade . (Id . at T 78 .) Ms . Rojas was undoubtedly proficient in performing numerous
duties- for DMSE, including recruiting, hiring, training, and supervising workers . (See DMSE's Response to Pls .' Mot . . for Summ . J . [211] at 40 .) She also showed initiative in communicating with the DOL regarding contracting and housing matters, working with an accounting firm to prepare her payroll, and consulting with an agricultural firm regarding the H-2A recruitment process . (Td .) However, there is no evidence that she brought a particularly specialized set of skills to DMSE . See Beliz, 765 F .2d at 1328 (holding that a contractor who provided "routine supervision of the kind commonly given by foremen" was an employee of the grower) .
4 . Conc l usion All of the relevant factors suggest that Rows functioned as DMSE's employee . Accordingly, DMSE necessarily employed Rojas' workers for purposes of the AWPA and the FLSA . See Beliz, 765 F .2d at 1328 . For this additional reason, DMSE's motions for summary judgment [198], [200], and [201] are DENIED, and plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment with respect to DMSE [202] is GRANTED . II . Summary ' ud ent motions ertainin to DMNA Plaintiffs have named DMSE's parent corporation- DMNA as a defendant in this litigation . DMNA is in the business of marketing
21
AO 72A (Rev.6/82)

and selling produce that it purchases from either its wholly-owned subsidiaries or, from various third parties . (DMNA's Statement of Material Facts in Supp . of Summ . J . ("DMNA's SMF") [197] at 91 3 .) in 1998, DMNA acquired Grimes Farm, an existing agricultural entity in Helena, Georgia . (Id . at 1 4 .) At that time, DMSE was formed and incorporated, with its holdings containing the former Grimes Farm . (Id . ) DMSE then became a wholly-owned subsidiary of DMNA . (Id . at ~I 5 .) DMSE and DMNA subsequently maintained a working relationship by which DMSE sold most of the produce it harvested to DMNA at a 3% markup . (Id . at 9[ 10 .)
As discussed above, liability under the AWPA and the FLSA is premised on an employment relationship . Patel, 803 F .2d at 636 . DMNA cannot be held liable to plaintiffs under the . AWPA and FLSA simply because its wholly-owned subsidiary employed plaintiffs . Id . Plaintiffs must instead prove that DMNA also jointly . employed plaintiffs, or that there is an alternative basis for holding DMNA liable for the actions of its subsidiary . Plaintiffs have not met this burden .
A . DMNA did not jointly employ plaintiffs . Applying the seven-factor economic realities test described above, there is no evidence in the record- to suggest that DMNA jointly employed plaintiffs .
22
AO 72A (Rev.8/82)

ii

1 . DMNA did not control direct or supervise plaintiffs .

DMNA was not at all involved in supervising either the FLCs or

their employees . (DMNA's SMF [197] at T 69 .) Plaintiffs concede

that DMNA personnel did not directly communicate w i th the FLC

workers . (Pls .' Response to DMNA's SMF [ 208] at 9[ 69 .) In addition,

the FLCs testified that they had never commun i cated w ith DMNA or any

j member of i ts management . ( L7MNA' s SMF [197] at 9I 69 .) There is thus I
no evidence that DMNA controlled o r supervised the workers indirectly

via the FLCs . The only evidence on this factor is that a smalll

number of DMNA employees visited DMSE's facilit i es on an infrequent basis for meetings w i th DMSE employees t o discuss sales, production,

account i ng, and other issues . (DMNA's SMF [1. 97] at y[ 13 ; Pls .'

Response to DMNA's SMF [208] at 9[ 13 .) These ac t ivities do not rise

Ito the level of "active oversight" of the work performed by the FLC

workers . See Aimable, 20 F .3d at 440-41 .

2 . DMNA d i d not have or exercise the right to hire ,,__fire , or modify workers ' employment cond i tions .

There is no evidence that DMNA determined or had the power to

determine plaintiffs' pay rates or payment method . While DMNA

officers reviewed the FLC Agreements, they never altered the pay

rates contained within them . (DMNA's SMF [197] at 91 63 .) Instead,

the pay rates and methods of pay were determined and approved by

DMSE's General Manager .

{Id . at 11 60 .) Neither is there any .

23

AO 72A (Rev.8182)

evidence that DMNA was at all involved in the recruitment, hiring or

firing of any of the FLCs or their workers . (Pls .' Response to DMNA's SMF [208] at 11 65 -6 6 .) DMNA's limited involvement in DMSE's operations does not constitute indicia of joint employment under this factor . See Beck v . Boce Group, L . C ., 391 F . Supp . 2d 1183, 1188-90 (S .D . Fla . 2005) (finding that a parent corporation did not exercise

control over the employees of its subsidiary, although .the parent consulted with the subsidiary on employment matters and required distribution of an employee handbook) .

3 . Plaintiffs did not have a permanent relationship with DMNA .

The FLCs entered into contracts with DMSE, not DMNA . {I7MNA's

ISMF [197] at y[ 54 .) There is no evidence that DMNA had any kind of

I relationship with plaintiffs or their FLCs, much less a relationship ofsuch permanency or exclusivity to justify a finding of joint

employment .

See Martinez-Mendoza, 340 F .3d at 1212 (discussing

permanency factor) .

4.

Plaintiffs -pe rformed unsk i lled work .

As noted above, it is undisputed that plaintiffs' jobs were unskilled . This factor thus weighs slightly in favor of joint employment .

S . Plaintiffs' fobs were not integral to DMNA ' s business .

DMNA is in the business of marketing and selling produce that it

24

AO 7a. A . (R ed.a1sz)

purchases from either its wholly-owned subsidiaries or various third

parties . (DMNA's SMF [197] at T 3 .) DMNA can and does purchase produce from a number of growers other than DMSE . ( 1 d .) It is not

dependent on produce purchased from DMSE . (Id . at T 7 .) Plaintiffs'

work is therefore not indispensable or integral to DMNA's overall

business . Compare Anterior, 88 F .3d at 937 (finding that farmworkers ;were "one small but indispensable part" of the growers' overall

production process) .

6 . DICTA did not own or control the premises on which the work occurred .

DMSE leased all of the fields, and owned the warehouse, in which

plaintiffs worked .6 (DMNA's SMF [197] at 9I9[ 6-8 .) There is no

I evidence that DM N A had any interest in these properties .

7.

DMNA did not undertake any responsibilities commonly

performed by employers .

The Court found above that both DMSE and the FLCs performed some

of the tasks that are ordinarily performed by employers, . with the

FLCs assuming responsibility for payroll functions and DMSE providing

housing, equipment, and tools . There is no evidence that DMNA

undertook any of these responsibilities . See Gonzalez-Sanchez* v .

Int'l Paper Co ., 346 F .3d 1017, 1023 (11th Cir . 2003) (holding that

defendant did not jointly employ plaintiffs- where there was no

~ The warehouse was marked with a sign reading "Del Monte Fresh Produce Southeast ." (DMNA's SMF [19.7] at y[y[ 7-8 .)
25

AO 72A (Rev-&82)

evidence that it issued paychecks, withheld taxes, or provided

.insurance, housing, transportation, or tools to plaintiffs) .

B . There i s no other basis for holding DMNA liable .

Plaintiffs essentially concede that they cannot demonstrate a

joint employment relationship under the test articulated above . (See

Pls .' Response to DMNA's Mot . for Summ . J . [208] .) However,

plaintiffs suggest that DMNA should be held liable to plaintiffs

because : (1) DMNA is the parent corporation of DMSE and exercised

"substantial control" over DMSE's operations ; (2) DMNA and DMSE

constitute an integrated enterprise ; and (3) DMSE was DMNA's agent

with respect to plaintiffs

(Id .)

These arguments are not

1persuasive .

The Eleventh Circuit repeatedly has indicated that the seven-

factor joint employment analysis is the proper standard to determine

FLSA and AWPA liability for multiple entities, including two related

1corporate entities .

See Martinez-Mendoza, 340 F .3d at 1207-08 ;

Patel, 803 F .2d at 637 . In fact, the Patel Court specifically

Irejected the approach that plaintiffs recommend, stating : "There is

no case holding that the individual entities which make up, an

enterprise should be jointly and severally liable for another

e.ntity's employeess solely because they are members of the

enterprise ." Patel, 803 F .2d at 6 .35 . See also Lane- v . Capital

Acquisitions and Mgmt . Co ., 2007 WL 676019 at *4 (S .D . Fla

26

AO 72A (Rev 8182)

2007) ("Under the FLSA, courts apply the economic realities test to

determine whether a parent is, in fact, a joint employer for . purposes of the FLSA .") and Kaplun v . Lipton, 2007 WL 707383 at *3 (S . D . Fla . 2007) ("in order for all the corporate Defendants in this action to be

liable for Plaintiff's overtime claim Plaintiff must establish their

liability as her employer through a joint employer analysis") .

Moreover, the evidence does not support plaintiffs' alternative

theories of liability , which all assume that DMNA exercised

"substantial control" over DMSE . The evidence overwhelmingly

suggests that DMSE conducted i ts bus i ness independently from DMNA .

', ( DM N A' s SMF [197] at TT 14-35 .) DMNA' s involvement in DMSE' s da i ly

opera t ions was limited .

(Id . )

More importantly, DMNA had . no

involvement whatsoever with plaintiffs or the FLCs . See Gr eason v . Se . R .R . Assoc . Bureaus, 65 0 F . Supp . 1, 4 (N .D . Ga . 1986)("For the

agency theory, the claimant must show that one entity acted as the other's agent with respect to employment practices . ") (emphasis added) and Llampallas v . Mini-Circuits, Lab, Inc . , 163 F .3d 1236, 1244-45

(11th Cir . 1998) (the integrated enterprise theory concentrates on the

"degree of control an entity has over the adverse employment decision . .on which the [plaintiffs'] suit is based .") Accordingly, DMNA's motion for summary judgment [197] should be GRANTED , and plaintiffs'

motion for partial summary judgment as to DMNA [203] should be f DEN2ED .

27

AO 72A
(Rev, srs2)

III . Plaintiffs ' motions to strike , ordetermine the val i dity of defendants ' offer of j udgment

The named plaintiffs filed this action on behalf of themselves

.and other similarly situated migrant farmworkers . (See Amended

Compl . [55] .) Shortly after plaintiffs filed their amended

complaint, they filed motions for class certification and for

certification as an FLSA collection action . (Pls .' Mot . to Certify Class [73] and Mot . to Certify FLSA Collective Action [84] .)

Subsequently, 47 plaintiffs opted into the lawsuit . (Pls .' Br, in Supp . of Mot . to Strike [199] at 2 .) Defendants have issued Rule 68

offers of judgment to 42 of the opt-in plaintiffs . (Id . at 6 .)

Pla i ntiffs move to str i ke o r inval i date those offers . - (Pls .' Mod . t o Strike offers of J . [199]' ; Pls .' Mot . to Determine. Validity of Offers of J . [216] . )

Pursuant to Rule 68, a defendant may make an offer of judgment

to a plaintiff any . time up to ten days prior to trial . FED . R . Civ . P . 68 . If the plaintiff rejects the offer of judgment, and

ultimately recovers less at trial than the amount specified in the

offer, he must pay the defense costs incurred after the date of the

offer .

Id .

Plaintiffs contend that defendants' offers are

inappropriate in the context of an FLSA collective action . {Pls .' Mot . to Strike [199]1 at 7 .) They seek judicial clarification of the

issue because rejecting the offers may prejudice plaintiffs in the

28

AO 72A

eventual assessment of costs . (Id .)
The Eleventh Circuit has held that FLSA claims may only be
abridged or settled after a court reviews the proposed settlement to
I ensurethat it is fair and reasonable . Lynn's Food Stores, Inc . v . United States, 679 F .2d 1350, 1352 - 53 (11th Cir . 1982) As the Court explained in Lynn's Food :
There are only two ways in which back wage claims arising under the F LSA can be settled or compromised by employees . First, under section 216(c), the Secretary of Labor is authorized to . supervise payment to employees of unpaid wages owed to them . . . The only other route for compromise of FLSA claims is provided in the context of suits brought directly by employees against their employer under section 216(b) to recover back wages for F LSA violations . When employees bring a private action for back wages under the FLSA, and present to the district court a"proposed settlement, the district court may enter a stipulated judgment after scrutinizing the settlement for fairness .
Id . at 1353 .
Defendants have not presented its Rude 68 offers to the Court for approval, with good reason . At this stage in the litigation, there is absolutely no basis for determining whether the offers are
fair and. reasonable . The parties have not conducted any merits discovery or provided even an estimate as to the amount plaintiffs
might be entitled to recover on their FLSA and AWPA claims . See
Yates v . Applied Performance Tech ., Inc ., 205 F .R .D . 497, 503 (S .D . .Ohio 2002)(holding that it would . be inappropriate to compel plaintiffs to accept an offer of judgment where it was unclear how
29
AO 72A (Rev.8/82)

much plaintiffs were owed) and Rubery v . Buth-Na-Bodhaige, Inc ., 994 I F . Supp . 2d 1.78, 181 (W .D .N .Y . 2007) (noting that courts have "traditionally been wary of attempts by defendants to evade FLSA collective actions by making Rule 68 offers of judgment at the earliest possible time") The amount specified in the offers appears to have been randomly selected .
Defendants' settlement offers have not been, and at this stage in the litigation cannot be, reviewed or approved by the Court . The offers are thus invalid under Lynn's Food . Accordingly, the Court GRANTS plaintiffs' motion to strike defendants' Rule 68 offers [199] and DENIES as moot plaintiffs' motion to determine the validity of the offers .[216] . . Pursuant to this ruling, plaintiffs are not subject to the consequences of refusing the offers under Rule 68 .
CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that defendant DMNA's Motion for Summary Judgment [197] should be GRANTED ; defendant DMSE's Motions for Summary Judgment [198], [200], and [201]' should be DENIED ; plaintiffs' Motion to Strike Defendants' Offer of Judgment .[199] should be GRANTED ; plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment with respect to DMSE [202] should be GRANTED ; plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment with respect to DMNA [203] should be DENIED ; plaintiffs' Motion to Determine the Validity of Defendants' Offer of
30
AO 72A (Aev.Bl$2)

Judgment [216] should be DENIED as moot ; and Attorney Mary Bauer ' s unopposed Motion to Withdraw [229] should be GRANTED .
SO ORDERED, this day of March, 2008 .
J~ IE E . CAR S NITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

31

AO 72A

~~

(Rev-8182)

 
 Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 233 Filed 03/26/08 Page 1 of 6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

ATLANTA DIVISION

HECTOR LUNA, JULIAN GARCIA, FRANCISCO JAVIER LORENZO SANTOS G. MALDONADO, BARTOLO NUNEZ, PATRICIA WOODARD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs.
DEL MONTE FRESH PRODUCE (SOUTHEAST), INC., and DEL MONTE FRESH PRODUCE N.A., INC. Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.1:06-cv-02000-JEC ) ) ) ) ) ) )

PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO VACATE ERRONEOUS JUDGMENT AND FOR CLARIFICATION AND CORRECTION OF RECORD Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) and 60(a), Plaintiffs move this Court to vacate an apparently erroneous judgment entered on March 19, 2008 (Rec. Doc. 232) and to seek clarification and correction with respect to this Court's Order filed March 19, 2008 (Rec. Doc. 231), as follows: 1. On March 19, 2008, this Court granted Plaintiffs' Motions for Summary Judgment against Defendant Del Monte Fresh Produce (Southeast), Inc.

I

Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 233 Filed 03/26/08 Page 2 of 6
("DMSE"), holding that Defendant DMSE employed Plaintiffs within the meaning of the FLSA, AWPA, and H-2A regulations. Rec. Doc. 231 (Order at4-17). 2. In the same Order, the Court held that Defendant Del Monte Fresh Produce, N.A. ("DMNA") did not so employ Plaintiffs and that DMNA should not be held liable for employment-based violations under the FLSA and AWPA under an integrated enterprise or agency theory. Rec. Doc. 231 (Order at 2127). 3. Neither the Court's March 19 Order nor the parties' underlying summary judgment motions addressed Plaintiffs' claims against either Defendant pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1842, which prohibits the utilization of unlicensed farm labor contractors and for which employer status, an integrated enterprise, or agency relationships are not prerequisites to liability. 4. Due to the bifurcated discovery Order entered in this Court, the parties have not conducted discovery into the merits ofthe 29 U.S.C. § 1842 claim. See Rec. Doc. 66. 5. The Court's March 19 Order further granted "Attorney Mary Bauer's unopposed Motion to Withdraw" as counsel, citing to Record Document 229.
2

Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 233 Filed 03/26/08 Page 3 of 6
6. Record Document 229, although filed by Ms. Bauer, actually requests that Plaintiffs' counsel Arlen Benjamin-Gomez be withdrawn as counsel.
7. Plaintiffs have conferred with Defendants before filing this Motion and Defendants have indicated that they do not oppose Ms. Bauer's reinstatement as one of Plaintiffs' counsel.
8. Immediately subsequent to the Court's March 19 Order, the Clerk of Court issued a judgment stating, inter alia, that Plaintiffs were employees of DMSE for the purposes of the FLSA, AWPA, and regulations governing the H-2A guestworker program.
9. The Clerk's March 19 judgment further indicated that the action was "dismissed," without specification of which claims had been dismissed. This action has subsequently been listed on CMIECF as "terminated."
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court direct the Clerk to amend and correct the record as follows:
a. Vacate the judgment entered by the Clerk of Court on March 19, 2008 (Rec. Doc. 232);
b. Re-open this case and clarifY on the record that this action is not in fact "terminated" because Plaintiffs' claims against Defendant DMSE still survive in their entirety and because
3

Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 233 Filed 03/26/08 Page 4 of 6
Plaintiffs' claim for violations of29 U.S.C. § 1842 survives
against Defendants DMNA and DMSE; and
c. Reinstate attorney Mary Bauer as Plaintiffs' counseL
For the Court's convenience, a proposed order is submitted with this Motion.
Respectfully Submitted, 1
Is/ Kristi Graunke
Kristi L. Graunke Georgia Bar Number 305653 Arlen Benjamin-Gomez Member ofthe Bar ofNew York State Pro Hac Vice Andrew H. Turner Virginia Bar Number 48853 Pro Hac Vice Mary C. Bauer Georgia Bar Number 142213 Immigrant Justice Project Southern Poverty Law Center 400 Washington Avenue Montgomery, Alabama 36104 Telephone: (334) 956-8200 Facsimile: (334) 956-8481 Email: kgraunke@splcenter.org
aturner@splcenter.org mbauer@splcenter.org
Elizabeth J. Appley Georgia Bar No. 020987
1 Pursuant to L.R. 7.1D, the undersigned certifies that this pleading complies with the font and point selections permitted by L.R. 5.1B. This Motion was prepared using the Times New Roman 14 point typeface.
4

Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 233 Filed 03/26/08 Page 5 of 6
235 Peachtree St. N.E. 2212 North Tower Atlanta, GA 30303 Telephone: (404) 523-3800 Facsimile: (404) 523-0426 Email: eja@appleylaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs
5

Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 233 Filed 03/26/08 Page 6 of 6
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on March 26, 2008, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of Court by using the CM/ECF system which will send a notice of electronic filing to the following:
Jacqueline E. Kalk, Esq. Latesa K. Bailey, Esq. Bradley E. Strawn, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 3348 Peachtree Road N.E., Suite 1100 Atlanta, GA 30326-1008
lsi Kristi L. Graunke
KristiL. Graunke Georgia Bar Number 305653 Andrew H. Turner Virginia Bar Number 48853
Pro Hac Vice
Mary C. Bauer Georgia Bar Number 142213 Immigrant Justice Project Southern Poverty Law Center 400 Washington Avenue Montgomery, Alabama 36104 Telephone: (334) 956-8200 Facsimile: (334) 956-8481 Email: mbauer@splcenter.org
kgraunke@splcenter.org aturner@splcenter.org

Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 233-1 Filed 03/26/08 Page 1 of 8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

ATLANTA DIVISION

ElECTOR LUNA, JULIAN GARCIA, FRANCISCO JAVIER LORENZO SANTOS G. MALDONADO, BARTOLO NUNEZ, PATRICIA WOODARD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
DEL MONTE FRESH PRODUCE (SOUTHEAST), INC., and DEL MONTE FRESH PRODUCE N.A., INC.
Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 1:06-cv-02000-JEC ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

PLAINTIFFS' MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO VACATE ERRONEOUS JUDGMENT AND FOR
CLARIFICATION AND CORRECTION OF THE RECORD Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) and 60(a), Plaintiffs move this Court to vacate the judgment entered by the Clerk in this action on March 19, 2008, and to clarify and correct the record in this case in several respects. Specifically, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court direct the Clerk
1

Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 233-1 Filed 03/26/08 Page 2 of 8
of Court to correct and amend the record in this case as follows: ( 1) vacate the March 19 judgment entered by the Clerk which appears to erroneously dismiss all of Plaintiffs' claims; (2) clarifY on the record that Defendant Del Monte Fresh Produce (Southeast), Inc. (DMSE) remains a defendant in this case as to all claims and that Defendant Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A. (DMNA) remains a defendant in this case with respect to a single claim under 29 U.S.C. § 1842; and (3) reinstate Mary Bauer as counsel.
FACTS On August 14, 2007, Defendants DMNA and DMSE filed several Motions for Summary Judgment seeking determination that they did not "employ" Plaintiffs within the meaning the term as defined by the FLSA and AWPA and could not be held liable for FLSA or AWPA violations under an agency or integrated enterprise theory. See Rec. Doc. 197, 198, 200, and 201. Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment did not, however, seek judgment on a separate and legally distinct issue: whether, for the purposes of29 U.S.C. § 1842, Defendants could be deemed to have "utilized" unlicensed farm labor contractors. See generally Rec. Doc. 197, 197, 198, 200, and 201; see also Rec. Doc. 106 (2d Am. Cmplt ~ 100); Charles v. Burton, 169 F.3d 1322, 1334 (11th Cir. 1999)("Even though [two Defendants] did not 'employ' appellants [under the AWPA], they can be liable under section 1842
2

Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 233-1 Filed 03/26/08 Page 3 of 8
because it speaks only of a person who utilizes the services of an FLC, not an 'employer."')
On March 19, 2008, this Court filed an Order deciding various motions filed by the parties, in which it granted Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment as the employer status of Defendant DMSE and granted Defendant DMNA's Motion for Summary Judgment on the employer status, integrated enterprise, and agency theories of liability. See Rec. Doc. 231 (Order at 2-27). Subsequently, the Clerk of Court entered judgment in favor of Plaintiffs as to the employer status of Defendant DMSE, but also appeared to erroneously dismiss the case in its entirety. Rec. Doc. 232. That same day, this action appeared as "terminated" on pacer.
The Court's March 19 order also granted as unopposed "Attorney Mary Bauer's unopposed Motion to Withdraw," citing Record Document 229. Record Document 229 is in fact styled as a Motion to Withdraw Arlen Benjamin-Gomez as counsel, and was filed by Plaintiffs' counsel Mary Bauer on Ms. Benjamin-Gomez's behalf. See Rec. Doc. 229.
3

Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 233-1 Filed 03/26/08 Page 4 of 8
ARGUMENT I. This Action Is Not Properly Terminated Because All Claims Against
DMSE Survive and One AWPA Claim Against DMNA Is Unaffected by the Court's Decision In its March 19 Order, this Court held that Defendant DMSE "employed" Plaintiffs within the meaning of the AWPA, FLSA, and H-2A regulations, but that Defendant DMNA did not do so. Rec. Doc. 231 (Order at 2-26). The Court further held that Defendant DMNA did not function in an integrated enterprise or agency relationship with Defendant-Employer DMSE. Rec. Doc. 231 (Order at 26-27). Neither parties' cross-motions for summary nor the Court's Order on the parties' motions addressed, however, an AWPA claim asserted by Plaintiffs which does not rely on employer status: Defendants' utilization of unlicensed farm labor contractors in violation of29 U.S.C. § 1842. Section 1842 of the AWPA provides in relevant part No person shall utilize the services of any farm labor contractor to supply any migrant or seasonal agricultural worker unless the person first takes reasonable steps to determine that the farm labor contractor possesses a certificate of registration which is valid and which authorizes the activity for which the contractor is utilized. As the Eleventh Circuit has made clear, violation of this section of the AWPA involves a distinct legal inquiry and does not require a finding of employer status. See Charles, 169 F.3d at 1334 (holding that two defendants who were not
4

Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 233-1 Filed 03/26/08 Page 5 of 8
employers under the AWPA or FLSA could still be held liable for violations of AWPAsection 1842).
Due to the bifurcated discovery order entered into this case, the parties have not had an opportunity to conduct merits discovery on Plaintiffs' claims based on 29 U.S.C. § 1842. See Rec. Doc. 66 (bifurcated discovery order providing that the first stage of discovery would focus on employer status issues). Accordingly, neither Plaintiffs nor Defendants moved for summary judgment on this distinct legal issue, and the Court's March 19 Order does not dispose of this claim against either Defendant. See Rec. Doc. 231; see also Imaging Bus. Machs., LLC v. BancTec, Inc., 459 F.3d 1186, 1191 (11th Cir. 2006) (a court may not sua sponte grant summary judgment on an issue without providing the parties with advance notice and an opportunity to present evidence and arguments).
The Clerk erroneously dismissed and terminated this case on March 19, 2008, apparently doing so with respect to both Defendants. See Rec. Doc. 232. Plaintiffs therefore respectfully request that this Court clarify that DMSE remains a defendant in this case as to all claims and that DMNA remains a defendant in this case as to the single claim asserted against it pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1842.
5

Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 233-1 Filed 03/26/08 Page 6 of 8
II. Attorney Mary Bauer Does Not Seek to Be Removed as Plaintiffs' Counsel
Plaintiffs also move to have attorney Mary Bauer reinstated as Plaintiffs' attorney. As set forth in Plaintiffs' Motion forWithdrawal of Counsel (Rec. Doc. 229), Plaintiffs moved to withdraw Arlen Benjamin-Gomez as counsel after she left the employ of the Southern Poverty Law Center.1 Although Ms. BenjaminGomez is identified as the subject of the Motion for Withdrawal of Counsel, the Motion was apparently docketed inaccurately as a Motion by Mary Bauer to withdraw as counsel. Ms. Bauer remains in the employ of the Southern Poverty Law Center and intends to remain as counsel on the case. Plaintiffs therefore respectfully request that Ms. Bauer be reinstated as Plaintiffs' counsel. See Rec. Doc. 229. Plaintiffs have conferred with Defendants prior to filing this Motion, and Defendants have indicated that they do not oppose the reinstatement of Mary Bauer as counsel in this matter.
1 Plaintiffs have learned from the Clerk's office that the erroneous withdrawal of Mary Bauer occurred when Ms. Bauer attempted to file a Motion to Withdraw on behalf of Ms. Benjamin-Gomez, who has left the employ of Plaintiffs' counsel's firm. Plaintiffs apologize for any error which apparently led to the inadvertent removal ofMs. Bauer.
6

Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 233-1 Filed 03/26/08 Page 7 of 8
CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court grant their Motion to Vacate Erroneous Judgment and for Clarification and Correction of the Record by directing the Clerk to: (1) re-open this action; (2) vacate the dismissal and judgment issued on March 19, 2008 to the extent this judgment appears to dismiss Plaintiffs' 29 U.S.C. § 1842 claims against Defendant DMNA and/or any claims asserted by Plaintiffs against DMSE in this action; (3) clarifY that all of Plaintiffs' claims asserted against Defendant DMSE in this action and Plaintiffs' claims asserted under 29 U.S.C. § 1842 against Defendant DMNA are not dismissed and may proceed to future merits discovery and adjudication; and (4) reinstate Mary Bauer as one of Plaintiffs' counsel.
Respectfully Submitted, 2
Is! Kristi Graunke
Kristi L. Graunke Georgia Bar Number 305653 Arlen Benjamin-Gomez Member ofthe Bar of New York State Pro Hac Vice Andrew H. Turner Virginia Bar Number 48853 Pro Hac Vice 2 Pursuant to L.R. 7.1D, the undersigned certifies that this pleading complies with the font and point selections permitted by L.R. 5.1B. This Motion was prepared using the Times New Roman 14 point typeface.
7

Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 233-1 Filed 03/26/08 Page 8 of 8
Mary C. Bauer Georgia Bar Number 142213 Immigrant Justice Project Southern Poverty Law Center 400 Washington Avenue Montgomery, Alabama36104 Telephone: (334) 956-8200 Facsimile: (334) 956-8481 Email: kgraunke@splcenter.org
aturner@splcenter.org mbauer@splcenter.org Elizabeth J. Appley Georgia Bar No. 020987 235 Peachtree St. N.E. 2212 North Tower Atlanta, GA 30303 Telephone: (404) 523-3800 Facsimile: (404) 523-0426 Email: eja@appleylaw.corn Attorneys for Plaintiffs
8

Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 233-2 Filed 03/26/08 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

ATLANTA DIVISION

HECTOR LUNA, JULIAN GARCIA, FRANCISCO JAVIER LORENZO SANTOS G. MALDONADO, BARTOLO NUNEZ, PATRICIA WOODARD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
DEL MONTE FRESH PRODUCE (SOUTHEAST), INC., and DEL MONTE FRESH PRODUCE N.A., INC.
Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 1:06-cv-02000-JEC ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

PROPOSED ORDER Having reviewed Plaintiffs' Motion to Vacate Erroneous Judgment and for Clarification and Correction ofthe Record and related submissions, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs' Motion and orders as follows: 1. The Clerk of Court is directed to vacate the Judgment entered on March 19, 2008 (Rec. Doc. 232) and re-open this action;
1

Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 233-2 Filed 03/26/08 Page 2 of 2

2. Plaintiffs' claims against Defendant Del Monte Fresh Produce (Southeast), Inc. survive in their entirety and the parties shall be allowed to proceed with merits discovery and adjudication as to these claims, subject to supervision and scheduling by this Court;
3. Plaintiffs' claims against Del Monte Fresh Produce, N.A., Inc. asserted pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1842 survive as un~adjudicated by this Court's March 19, 2008 Order (Rec. Doc. 231) and the parties shall be allowed to proceed with merits discovery and adjudication as to this claim, subject to supervision and scheduling by this Court; and
4. Plaintiffs' counsel Mary C. Bauer is hereby reinstated as one of Plaintiffs' counsel.
SO ORDERED.

Julie E. Carnes, United States District Judge

Date

2

 
 Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 277 Filed 03/03/2009 Page 1 of 32

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRACT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEOZ
ATLANTA DIVISION

1/V C84 6 US~~~C. At~1a Bn~ RS
MA R D 3 2c,09

HECTOR LUNA, JULIAN GARCIA, FRANCISCO JAVIER LORENZO, SANTOS G . MALDONADO, PATRICIA WOODARD and BARTOLO NUNEZ, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,

DapL Y Clcar~

Plaintiffs, v.

CIVIL ACTION NO . 1 :06 -CV-2000-JEC

DEL MONTE FRESH PRODUCE (SOUTHEAST), INC ., and DEL MONTE FRESH PRODUCE N .A ., INC .,

Defendants . O R D E R & O P I N I O N
This case is presently before the Court on plaintiffs' Motion to Alter the Clerk's Judgment and Correct the Record [233], plaintiffs' Renewed Motion to Certify a Class Action [234], plaintiffs' Motion to Vacate Costs Entered Pursuant to the Clerk's Judgment in Favor of defendant DMNA [240], plaintiffs' Motion to Certify a Collective FLSA Action [243], and defendants' Emergency Motion for Protective Order [262] . The Court has reviewed the record and the arguments of the parties and,' for the reasons set out below, concludes that plaintiffs' Motion to Alter the Clerk's Judgment [233] should be GRANTED in part and DENIED in part ; plaintiffs' Renewed Motion to

AO 72A ( Rev. B/82)

Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 277 Filed 03/03/2009 Page 2 of 32
Certify a Class Action [234] should be DENIED ; plaintiffs' Motion tc Vacate Costs [240] should be GRANTED in part and DENIED in part ; plaintiffs ' Motion to Certify a Collective FLSA Action [243] shoulc be GRANTED ; and defendants' Emergency Motion for Protective Ordei [262] should be GRANTED i n part and DENIED in part .
BACKGROUND The Court discussed the factual background of this case ir . detail in its recent summary judgment order . (Order [231] at 2-4 .) Briefly, plaintiffs are migrant and seasonal agricultural laborers who worked on defendant DMSE's Helena, Georgia farms at various time during the 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006 harvest seasons . (Seconc i Amended Compl . [106] at 1 1 .) Plaintiffs allege that DMSE and its parent company DMNA : (1) failed to pay the promised wage rate for all hours worked on its Helena farms ; (2) failed to reimburse plaintiff for costs that they incurred in order to work on the farms ; and (3) violated federal laws governing the wages and working conditions of migrant and seasonal agricultural workers . (Id . at T 6 .) They filec this lawsuit as a class action asserting claims for breach of contract, and for violation of the Fair' Labor Standards Act ("FLSA" ) and the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Workers Protection Act { "AWPA" } . (1d . at 91 7 .) The parties agreed to a bifurcated discovery schedule, with the
2
AO 7 2A (Rev.8/82)

Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 277 Filed 03/03/2009 Page 3 of 32
first stage of discovery to be focused on the potentially dispositive issue of whether DMNA and/or DMSE "employed" plaintiffs for purposes of the FLSA and the AWPA . (Scheduling Order [ 66 ] .) Following the initial discovery period, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgmentt on the employment issue . (Pls .' Mots . for Summ . J . [202] and [203] ; Defs .' Mots . for Summ . J . [197], [198], [200], and [201] .) The Court found that DMSE qualified as plaintiffs' ' "employer," but that DMNA did not . (Order [231] at 30-31 .) Accordingly, t he Cou r t granted summary judgment to DMNA on plaintiffs' FLSA and AWPA claims, but denied summary judgment to DMSE on those claims . (Id .)
Plaintiffs have now filed a motion to alter the judgment entered by the clerk following the summary judgment order, and a related motion to vacate the costs granted to defendant DMNA as a prevailing party . {Pls .' Mot . to Alter J . [233] and Mot . to Vacate Costs [240] .) Plaintiffs have also filed a renewed motion to certify the claims in Counts I and II of their complaint as a class action, as well as a motion to certify the claims in Count III of their complaint as an FLSA collective action . (Pls .' Mot . for Class Certification [234] and Mot . to Certify an FLSA Collective Action [243] .) Defendants have filed a motion for a protective order concerning various statements made by plaintiffs' counsel about the litigation . ( .Defs .' Mot . for Protective Order [262] .) All of these motions are currently before the Court .
3
Ad 72A (Rev.B/92 )

Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 277 Filed 03/03/2009 Page 4 of 32

DISCUSSION

I.

Pla i ntiffs ' Motion to Alter the Clerk ' s Judgment

On March 19, 2008, the clerk entered a judgment following the

Court's summary judgment order . (Judgment [232] .) In their motion

to alter that judgment, plaintiffs request that the Court clarify the

record in several respects . (Pls .' Mot . to Alter J . [233] .) The

Court GRANTS plaintiffs ' request to the extent it seeks reinstatement

of Mary Bauer as counsel . (1d . at 2 . ) Apparently, Ms . Bauer wa

inadvertently withdrawn from the case as a result of a docketing

error that occurred when Ms . Bau e r attempted to f i le a motion ' to ,

withdraw on behalf of former attorney Arlen Benjamin-Gomez .' (Id . at

6 .) Defendant does not object to Ms . Bauer's reinstatement as one of

plain tif fs' counsel .

The Court also GRANTS plaintiffs' request for clarification that

DMSE remains a defendant in this case as to all claims . (Id . at 2 .)

In its summary judgment order, the Court granted summary judgment to DMNA, but denied summary judgment to DMSE . (Order [23 1 ] at 30-31 .) Pursuant to the terms of the order, DMS E should have remained a defendant in the case as to all of plaintiffs' claims . However, the judgment entered on March 19, 2008 purports to dismiss . plaintiffs' claims against both DMSE and DMNA and to terminate the action .

1 Ms . Benjamin-Gomez is no longer employed by the SPLC . Mot . to Vacate [233] at 6 .)
4

(Pls . '

AO 72A (Rev.8/82)

Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 277 Filed 03/03/2009 Page 5 of 32
(Judgment [232] .) To clarify the record, the Court directs the cler to amend the judgment entered on March 19, 2008 to reflect that DMS remains a defendant as to all of plaintiffs' claims .
In addition to the above requests, plaintiffs seek an orde vacating the judgment with respect to DMNA, and clarifying that DMN remains a defendant in the case with respect to a single claim unde 29 U .S .C . § 1842 . (Pls .' Mod . to Vacate [233] at 2 .) Section 1842 is a provision of the AWPA that prohibits a person or entity from "utilizing" the services of an unlicensed FLC . 29 U .S .C . § 1842 . According to plaintiffs, the Court's summary judgment order did no dispose of their § 1842 claim because the Court did not conside whether DMNA "utilized" the FLCs involved in this case, which is distinct question from the "employment" issue that was the focus ofi the Court's analysis . (Id .)
Plaintiffs' argument with respect to § 1842 is belated . In its initial motion, DMNA requested summary judgment on all of plaintiffs' FLSA and AWPA claims as a result of DMNA's lack of any relationship with plaintiffs or the farm labor contractors ("FLCs") who directly hired them . { bMNA' s . Br . in Supp . of Summ . J . ("DMNA's Br .") [1971 at 1, 38 .) In response to DMNA's motion, plaintiffs proposed various theories by which to impose liability on DMNA in .spite of its limited--or non-existent--involvement with plaintiffs or the FLCs, including an integrated enterprise theory and an agency theory .
5
AO 72A (Rev8182)

Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 277 Filed 03/03/2009 Page 6 of 32
(Pls .' Resp . to DMNA's Mat . for Summ . J . [208] at 18-29 .) Plaintiffs ) never suggested that DMNA could be liable under the AWPA because it "utilized" the FLCs . (Id .) It is too late to do so now . See Line, Inc . V . Vi11, of Wellington, 408 F .3d 757, 763 (11th Car . 2005)(noting that parties cannot use a motion for reconsideration tc "relitigate old matters" or "raise argument[s] that could havE been raised prior to the entry of judgment") .
Plaintiffs' argument is also unpersuasive on the merits . ThE Court expressly found in its summary judgment order that "DMNA hadd nc involvement whatsoever with plaintiffs or the FLCs ." (Order [231] at 27 .) This finding precludes plaintiffs' argument that DMNI "utilized" the FLCs for purposes of the AWPA . See Charles v . Burton, 169 F .3d 1322, 1334 (11th Cir . 1999}(upholding the district court's decision to grant summary judgment on plaintiff's § 1842 claim where there was no evidence that defendants were "engaged in, directing, controlling or supervising" the plaintiffs) . Accordingly, the Court DENIES plaintiffs ' motion to vacate the judgment with respect to D MNA . II . Plaintiffs' Motion to Vacate or Review Costs Awarded to DMNA
Following the entry of judgment in favor of DMNA, and pursuant to DMNA's bill of costs, the clerk taxed costs against-plaintiffs in the amount of $6,600 .32 . (DMNA's Bill of Costs [236] ; Entry of Costs [238] .} Plaintiffs contend that DMNA's bill inappropriately includes
6
AO 72A (Rev.8182)

Ii
Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 277 Filed 03/03/2009 Page 7 of 32

costs for materials, primarily depositions, that were jointly used by l
DMNA and DMSE .2 (Pls .' Mot . to Vacate Costs [240] at 2 .) According

to plaintiffs, DMNA is not entitled to recover any costs that would

have been incurred by DMS E if it had litigated the case on itss own .

(Id . at 5-8 .) In addition, plaintiffs cite at least one significant

mathematical error in DMNA's bill of costs, as well as various items

that plaintiffs argue were not "necessarily incurred" for DMNA'sl

defense . (Id . at 8-12 .)

The Court rejects plaintiffs' general argument that DMNA is

precluded from recovering any costs for materials that were jointly

used by DMNA and DMSE . DMNA acknowledges that it shared with DMSE

many of the costs associated w i th developing the summary judgment '

record on the employment issue, including deposition costs . (DMNA's

Resp . to P1.s .' Mot . to Vacate [246] at 4 .) For that reason, DM NA

only seeks to recover 50% of those costs .

(Id .) Having fully

prevailed on the employment defense, there is no basis for precluding

DMNA from recovering its fair portion of the costs necessarily

2 Plaintiffsalso argue that the clerk's assessment of costs is premature as a result of the remaining § 1842 claim . (Pls .' Mot . to Vacate Costs [240] at 1 .) As discussed above, the Court's summary judgment order disposed of all of plaintiffs' claims against DMNA . Pursuant to that order, DMNA is a "prevailing party" entitled to costs under Rule 54(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure . See FED . R . Czv . P . 54 (d) (1) (stating that costs "should be allowed to the prevailing party") and E .E .O . C . v . W&O, Inc ., 213 F .3d 600, 620 (11th Cir . 2000) (noting that prevailing parties are entitled to recover their costs under Rule 54(d)) .
7

AO 72A ( Rev.8/82)
~ ..

Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 277 Filed 03/03/2009 Page 8 of 32

incurred in asserting the defense . See Chapman v . A l Transp ., 229 F .3d 1012, 1038 (11th Cir . 2000)(noting that Rule 54(d) establishes a presumption that costs are to be awarded to a prevailing party) .'
However, several of plaintiffs' specific challenges merit al reduction in the amount of costs awarded to DMNA . DMNA concedes ink its response that it overcharged plaintiffs $20 .00 for an uncashedl witness fee check to Margarita Rojas Cardenas, and that it erroneously requested the full cost of J . Michael Kirby's deposition, instead of the 50% that it intended to request . (DMNA's Resp . tol Pls .' Mot . to Vacate Costs [246] at 8-9 .) Adjusting for these errors, DMNA's bill of costs will be reduced by $220 .00 .
The Court will also deduct the costs associated with the second s deposition of Juan Gonzalez, a former DMSE employee . The second deposition was necessitated by defendants' failure to produce relevant documents created by Gonzalez during the course of his 1,

3 In their reply brief, plaintiffs emphasize that they are low-

wage workers who are represented by not-for-profit counsel . (Pls .'

Reply in Supp . of Mot . to Vacate [250] at 2 .) The Eleventh Circuit

has held that "a non-prevailing party's financial status is a factor

that a district court may, but need not, consider in its award of

costs pursuant to Rule 54(d) ."

Chapman, 229 F .3d at 1039 .

Plaintiffs in this case persisted in asserting FLSA and AWPA claims

against DMNA despite overwhelming evidence that DMSE conducted its

business independently from DMNA, and that DMNA had "no involvement

whatsoever with plaintiffs or the FLCs ." (Order [231] at 27 .) They

did so with full awareness of the risk that they would ultimately be

responsible for DMNA's costs under Rule 54(d) . Under the

circumstances, the Court finds that the total costs awarded to DMNA

are justified in spite of plaintiffs' financial status .

8

AO 72A (Rev.8182)

Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 277 Filed 03/03/2009 Page 9 of 32
employment with DMSE, which were clearly respons i ve t o plaintiffs' previously issued discovery requests . Pls .' Mot . to vacate [240] at 11-12 ; DMNA's Resp . to Pls .' Mot . to Vacate [246] at 9 .) Likewise, the Court will deduct the costs associated with obtain i ng copies of the 2005 depos i tions of Letisia Rojas Salazar and Jose Manuel Cortes Mares, both taken in connection with a separately filed state court case . (Pls .' Mot . to Vacate [240] at 9 .) It was not necessary for DMNA to incur these costs, as plaintiffs provided DMNA with free copies of both deposit i ons in response to documentary discovery requests . (Id .) The deduction for all of these deposition costs totals $ 323 .29 .
Finally, the Court will deduct an additional $512 .32 for costsli assoc i ated with obtaining copies of video depositions . The parties were aware that the Court would decide the motions for summary judgment on the written record . It was thus unnecessary for DMNA to order video copies of these depositions at the summary judgment stage in the litigation . See Morrison v . Reichhold Chem ., Inc ., 97 F .3d 460, 465 (11th Cir . 1996) (holding that a prevailing party seeking reimbursement for a video copy of a deposition must show "why it was necessary to obtain a copy of the video tapes for use in the case") .
Pursuant to the above discussion, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part plaintiffs' Motion to Vacate Costs [240] . Subtracting $1055 .61 of disallowed costs from DMNA's total bill of costs, the
9
AO 72A (Rev.&82)

Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 277 Filed 03/03/2009 Page 10 of 32
Court concludes that DMNA is entitled to $5 , 5 44 . 71 in costs . III . DMSE ' s Motion for a Protect i ve Order
In its motion for a protective order, DMSE claims that plaintiffs' counsel, the Southern Poverty Law Center ("SPCC" ) , hash made misleading and inaccurate statements concerning this litigation in various press releases and on its website . (Def .'s Mot . ford Protective Order [262] .) Specifically, DMSE alleges that the SPLC'sl statements : (1) misleadingly refer to "Del Monte" as the defendant, as opposed to DMSE ; (2) inaccurately suggest that the Court has made a liability finding against D MSE ; and (3) disparagingly accuse DMSE I of "cheating" or "abusing" workers and "stealing" their wages .' (Id . at 4-9 .) DMSE also alleges that the SPCC has mounted a harassing email campaign against Del Monte general counsel Bruce Jordan . (Id . at 2-3 . ) DMSE seeks a protective order requiring the S P LC to refrain I from making misleading statements about the parties or the status ofi the litigation, and to end the email campaign against Bruce Jordan .
(Id . at 2-3 .) With regard to the alleged email campa i gn, DMSE's mot i on is'
apparently based on a mistaken belief that the SPCC website contains
9 Defendant originally contended thatt the SPLC's statements infringed the Del Monte trademark and violated the Rules of Professional Conduct . (Def .'s Br . in Supp . of Protective Order [262] at 18-24 .) Fortunately defendant has abandoned these contentions, which appear to be completely unfounded . (See Joint Stipulation [271] at y[9[ 1-2 .)
10
AO 72A (Rev 8182)

Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 277 Filed 03/03/2009 Page 11 of 32
a link to Jordan's inbox . (Id .) In fact, the SPLC website does notj contain, and has never contained, a link to Jordan's inbox . (Pls .' Opp'n to Def .'s Mot . for Protective Order [267] at 16, Ex . 6 .) I Although Jordan received two emails from SPLC supporters concerning Del Monte's labor practices, those emails were not sent through al link on the SPLC website . (Id .) Nor has the SPLC ever given outs Jordan's email address . (Id . ) Accordingly, defendant's motion isl DENIED to the extent it requests relief from the SPLC's "emaill campaign ."
The Court also DENIES defendant's motion with respect to theJ SPLC's statements thatt refer to "Del Monte" as the defendant in they l it igation , as o pp ose d t o " D M SE ." Rea d in context , none of the statements cited by DMSE are confusing as to the proper party in the case . (Def .'s Br . i n Supp . of Protective Order [262] at 3, 5, 7 - 8 ; '! Pls .' Opp'n to Mot . for Protect i ve order [267] at 3-4 .) Wh e n referr i ng to the part i es i n the case, SPLC representatives only use the short-hand term "Del Monte" after clearly i dent i fying the defendant as Del Monte Produce Southeast or Del Monte Southeast, and after explaining that Del Monte Southeast is a subsidiary of Del Monte . (Id .) The average reader should accurately understand from any of the cited statements that the defendant in the case is DMSE, which is a subsidiary of Del Monte .
However, the Court agrees with defendant that various statements 11
AO 72A (R ev,8/82)

Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 277 Filed 03/03/2009 Page 12 of 32
suggesting that the Court has "h[eld] Del Monte Produce Southeast, Inc ., liable for alleged wage violations" are misleading . Such statements misrepresent the scope of the Court's summary judgment order, which was limited to the employment issue, and did not purport to address questions of ultimate liability . Similarly, statements that DMSE "cheated" workers or "stole" their wages inaccurately present as proven facts what , at this point , remain unprovenj allegations . The Court has not made any findings on liability ati this stage in the litigation . Indeed, the parties have not even completed the liability phase of discovery .
Contrary to plaintiffs' argument, the SPLC's misleading and inaccurate statements concerning the status of the litigation are notl protected by the First Amendment . See Gulf Oil v . Bernard, 4 5 2 U .S . ' 89, 100 (1981) (noting the district court's authority under Rule 23 to enter appropriate orders governing communications between attorneys and potential class members) and Kleiner v . First Nat's Bank of Atlanta, 751 F .2d 1193, 1204 (11th dir . 1985)("untruthful or misleading speech has no claim on First Amendment immunity") . Courts in the Eleventh Circuit and elsewhere have consistently precluded class counsel from making statements that are inaccurate or misleading or that present disputed assertions as unqualifiedly true . See Taylor v . Comp USA, Inc ., 2004 WL 1660939 *3 (N .D . Ga . 2004) (Hunt, J .) (ordering plaintiff to refrain from sending messages that "may
12
AO 72A (Rev,8/82)

Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 277 Filed 03/03/2009 Page 13 of 32
mislead potential plaintiffs as to their eligibility to participate in the action and the extent of [defendant's] potential liability")l and Hampton Hardware, Inc . v . Cotter & Co ., Inc ., 156 F .R .D . 630, 632 (N .D . Tex . 1994) ("[c]ommunications that misrepresent the status or effect of the pending action also have been found to have a potential for confusion and/or to adversely affect the administration of justice") .
Neither are the SPLC's statements immune from court--imposedl restrictions simply because they are not made in solicitations directly aimed at communicating with potential class members . Seed Alaniz v . Sam Kane Beef Processors, Inc ., 2007 WL 4290659 *1 (S .D . 1 Tex . 2007)(granting a TRO where plaintiffs circulated flyers, aired radio announcements and sponsored billboards containing misleadingi and overbroad statements about the litigation) . The Court hash discretion under Rule 23 to enter a protective order restricting communications about the lit i gation that are inaccurate or'I misleading . Gulf Oil, 452 U .S . at 100 . That discretion is not limited' to communications directly aimed at class members via solicitations . Alaniz, 2007 WL 4290659 at *1 . See also Abdallah v . Coca-Cola Co ., 186 F . R . D . 672 , 678 (N . D . Ga . 1999)(Story , J . )(noting the general public and potential class members' widespread access to website postings) .
Based on the above discussion, the Court GRANTS defendant's 13
A O 72A (Rev.8/82)

Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 277 Filed 03/03/2009 Page 14 of 32
motion to the extent it requests a protective order precluding the SPLC from making statements that inaccurately suggest that the Court, has found defendant liable for wage violations . To comply with thisl order, the SPCC should : (1) amend the information on its website ands ensure that any future press releases, articles, or other statementsi clarify that DMSE has not yet been found liable for wage violations ; and (2) ensure that any future statements suggesting that defendant "chewed" plaintiffs or "stole" their wages make clear that these are l simply the SPLC's allegations, which have not yet been proven .' IV . Plaintiffs ' Motion to Certify a Class
Plaint i ffs have fi led a motion for certif i cation of the cla ims ) in Counts I and II of their complaint as a class act i on under Federal ' Rule 23 . (Pls .' Mot . for Cert . [234] .) Plaintiffs Hector Luna, Julian Garcia, and Francisco Lorenzo (the " Count I Plaintiffs") seek to represent a class consisting of :
all those individualswho were admitted to work in the United States as H-2A guest workers who performed field and/or warehouse work on [DMSE's] Helena, Georgia area produce operations at any point from April 1, 2003 through August, 2006 .
5 The Court will not require the SPLC to publish a,retraction . Although DMSE demonstrated that the SPLC's statements had the potential to mislead class members concerning the status of the litigation, it did not present any evidence of actual confusion or harm . Accordingly, the Court finds that DMSE's concerns are adequately addressed by a protective order governing the SPLC's future communications .
14
AO 72A (Aev. &I82 )

Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 277 Filed 03/03/2009 Page 15 of 32

(Pls .' Br . in Supp . of Class Cert . [234] at 2-4 .) The Count

plaintiffs assert breach of contract claims based on the federal H-2AI guest-worker program regulations . (Id . at 3 .) Plaintiffs Santosl

Ma l donado, Pa t ricia Woodard and Bartolo Nunez (the . "Count III
Plaintiffs") seek to represent a distinct class consisting of :
all those individuals recruited from within the United States who performed field and/or warehouse work on [DMSE's] Helena, Georgia-area produce operations at any point from April 1, 2003 through August, 2006 .

(Id . at 5 .) The Count II plaintiffs assert claims for violations of

the AWPA . (Id . at 3 .)

In order for plaintiffs to maintain a class action, the two

proposed classes must satisfy all of the requirements of Federal Rule 23 (a) and at least one of the alternative requirements of Rule 23 (b) .

Pickett v . Iowa Beef Processors, 209 F .3d 1276, -1 279 (11th Cir .

2000) . "The burden of proof to establish the propriety o f class y

certification rests with the advocate of the class ." Valley Drug Co .

v . Geneva Pharm ., Inc ., 350 F .3d 1181, 1187 (11th Cir . 2003)(citing ',

Jones v . Diamond, 519 F .2d 1090, 1099 (5th Cir . 1975)) .

A.

Rule 23 (a)

Pursuant to Rule 23(a), a class may only be certified if :
.(1 ) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable ;
(2) there are questions of law or fact commonn to the class ;

15

AO 72A ( Rev. B /82)

Ii Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 277 Filed 03/03/2009 Page 16 of 32

(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 .

F ED . R . Civ . P . 23 (a) . The four prerequisites of Rule 23(a) are

commonly referred to as numerosity, commonality,, typicality, and

adequacy of representation . Valley Drug, 350 F .3d at 1188 . They are

designed to limit class claims to those "'fairly encompassed by the

named plaintiffs' individual claims .'" Id . (quoting Prado-Steiman v .

Bush, 221 F .3d 1266, 1278 {11tn Cir . 2000)) .

1 . Numerosity

Plaintiffs do not specify the exact size of either proposed

class . (Pls .' Br . in Supp . of Cert . [234]1 at 7 .) However,

Department of Labor clearance orders indicate that DMSE anticipated

hiring approximately 339 H-2A guestworkers during the relevant time

per i od .

(Id . at Ex . 28-32 .) In addition, DMSE's pr i mary F L C '

testif i ed to h i r i ng approximately 70 to 100 non-H-2A workers per year

between 2003 and 2006 . (Id . ) Pla i nt i ffs thus easily satisfy the

numerosity requirement . See Cox v . Am . Cast Iron Pipe Co ., 784 F .2d

1546, 1553 (11th Cir . 1986) ("while there is no fixed numerosity rule,

`generally less than twenty-one is inadequate, more than forty

adequate, with numbers between varying according to other

factors'") (quoting 3B MOORE'S FEDERAL PRACTICE § 23 .05 (1978 ) ) and Tngram

16

AO 7zA (Rev.8/82)
r..rri..i ..rr

Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 277 Filed 03/03/2009 Page 17 of 32
v . The Coca-Cola Co . , 200 F . R . D . 685 , 697 (N . D . Ga . 20d1)(Story , I J .) (stating that 2200 putative class members is "well beyond that which courts accept as satisfying the numerosity requirement") .
2 . Commonality The commonality requirement measures the extent to which all members of a putative class have similar claims . Prado-Steinman, 221 F .3d at 1279 (discussing the requirements of Rule 23(a)) . The threshold for commonality is not high . Cheney v . Cyberguard Corp ., 213 F .R .D . 484, 490 (S .D . Fla . 2003) (citing Forbush v . J .C . Penney Co ., Inc ., 994 F .2d 1101, 1106 (5th Cir . 1993)) . Commonality simply requires that there be at least one issue of law or fact that affects all or a significant number of proposed class members . Id . See also Dujanovic v . MortgageAm ., Inc ., 185 F .R .D . 660, 667 (N .D . Ala . 1999) (emphasizing that the common question of law or fact requirement is expressed in the disjunctive) . Plaintiffs identify a number of factual issues that are common ; to each member of the proposed classes, including : (1) whether nMSE paid workers at the mandatory wage rate for all hours worked ; and (2) whether DMSE maintained complete and accurate pay records . (Pls .' Br . in Supp . of Certification [234] at 10 .) There are also several common questions of law involving the interpretation of-the relevant provisions of - the AWPA and the H-2A contracts . (Id . at 12-13 .) Plaintiffs thus satisfy the commonality requirement of Rule 23 (a) (2) .
17
AO 72A (Rev.8/82)

Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 277 Filed 03/03/2009 Page 18 of 32
3 . Adequacy The adequacy requirement applies to both class representatives and class counsel . Veal v . Crown Auto Dealerships, Inc ., 236 F .R .D . 572, 578 (M . D . Fla . 2006) (citing London v . Wa1-Mart . Stores, .Inc . , 340 F . 3d 1246, 1253 (11th Cir . 2003 ) } . In order to establish adequacy, the named representatives must be in a position to vigorously assert and defend the interests of the class . Lyons v . Georgia-Pa c . Corp . Salaried Employees Ret . Plan, 221 F .3d 1235, 1253 (11th Cir . 2000) . Class counsel likewise must be competent and qualified to prosecute the action . Griffin v . Ca r lin, 75 5 F .2d 1516, 1533 (11th Cir . 1985) ("[t]he adequate representat i on requirement
I involves questions of whether plaintiffs' counsel are qualif i ed, 'I experienced and generally able to conduct the proposed lit i gation") .
The Court is satisfied that class counsel is competent . Plaintiffs are represented by the Southern Poverty Law Center, an organization that has sufficient funds to finance the litigation, and has indicated its willingness to do so . (Pls .' Br . in Supp . of Certification [234} at 18 .) Class attorneys Kristi Graunke and Mary Bauer are experienced in federal class ,action litigation, including cases on behalf of migrant agricultural workers brought under the AWPA and the H-2A guest-worker regulations . (Id . at 17-18 .) They have vigorously represented plaintiffs' interests thus far, successfully completing substantial discovery and obtaining an
18
AO 72A
( Rev. Si82}

Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 277 Filed 03/03/2009 Page 19 of 32
important summary judgment ruling concerning DMSE's status ash plaintiffs' employer . (Order [231 .)
However, the Court is concerned about the adequacy of the named representatives to aid in the prosecution of the claims asserted on behalf of the Count I plaintiffs . Class representatives cannot simply abdicate the conduct of the case to their attorneys . Kirkpatrick v . J .C . Bradford & Co ., 827 F .2d 718, 728 (11th Cir . 1987)(noting that the named plaintiffs' participation cannot be "so minimal that they virtually have abdicated to their attorneys the conduct of the case") . See also Veal, 236 F .R .D . at 578-9 (finding a class representative adequate where he testified that he "has participated and is willing to continue to participate in the litigation of the class claims") . One of the purposes of Rule 23 is to ensure that named representatives "have incentives that align with those of absent class members so as to assure that the absentees' interests will be fairly represented ." Prado-Steiman, 221 F .3d at 1279 . All of the named Count I plaintiffs are ill-positioned to represent the interests of absentee class members .
As an initial matter, plaintiffs Hector Luna and Francisco Lorenzo have both testified to violating their H-2A visas, the terms of which form the basis of their claims against DMSE . An H-2A worker is "only admitted into the United States to work for the designated employer and for the duration of the certified period of employment ."
19
A O 72A ( Rev. B{82)

Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 277 Filed 03/03/2009 Page 20 of 32
Arriaga v . Florida Pac . Farms, LLC, 305 F .3d 1228, 1233 (11th Cir . 2002) . When the employment relationship ends, "the H-2A visa expires, and the worker must leave the united States ." _Td . Luna and Lorenzo both admitted to engaging in unsanctioned work for employees other than DMSE following the expiration of their H-2A visas . (Confidential Luna Dep . at 5-6 ; Confidential Lorenzo Dep . at 138146 .)
Although an unlawful immigration status does not bar a plaintiff from serving as a class representative per se, Luna and Lorenzo's visa violations directly bear on their adequacy as class representatives in this case . To date, Luna and Lorenzo have been unwilling to testify in the United States or on the public record as to their work history, and it is unclear whether either plaintiff will be willing or able to appear in the United States should their appearance be necessary . (Def .'s Opp'n to Pls .' Mot . to Certify [248] at 21 .) In addition, Luna and Lorenzo's unsanctioned work'k potentially impacts the damages claims that they are able to assert on behalf of the class for employment-related expenses .6 (See Order [144] at 14 .) The Court thus finds that Luna and Lorenzo's visa
~ For example, plaintiffs do not seek payment of return transportation costs, which are available to H-2A workers at the end of their contract period . (Pls .' Reply [251] at 10 .) The Court presumes that the named plaintiffs are precluded from asserting those claims as a result of their H-2A visa violations, although such claims might be available to many absent class members .
20
AO 72A (Rev.8/82)

Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 277 Filed 03/03/2009 Page 21 of 32
violations hinder their ability to represent absentee class members, who presumably complied with the terms of their H-2A visas .
The Court also questions the adequacy of the remaining Count Il plaintiff, Julian Garcia . Plaintiff Garcia only worked at DMSE'sl facility for five weeks during 2003 . (Garcia Dep . at 59-60 .) He y does not have an approximate idea of how many hours he or any other employees worked for DMSE, or how much he believes he or any other potential class member is owed for back pay . (Id . at 142-44, 149-1 50 .) It is apparent from his testimony that Garcia lacks sufficient) knowledge to support even his own wage claim against DMS E , much less the claims of absentee class members . (Id .) Thus, like Luna ands Lorenzo, Garcia does not meet the adequacy requirement of Rule 23(a) . I
4 . Typicality Typicality measures whether a sufficient nexus exists between the claims of the named representative and those of the class at I large . Hives v . Widnall, 334 F .3d 1253, 1256 (11th Cir . 2003) . A sufficient nexus is established if the claims or defenses of the class and the class representatives arise from the same event and are based on the same legal theory . Kornberg v . Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc ., 741 F .2d 1332, 1337 (11th Cir . 1984) . See also Cherzey, 213 F .R .D . at 491 (holding same) . Like commonality, typicality does not require identical claims or defenses . Id . Factual differences will not render a representative ' s claim atypical unless the factual
21
AO 72A (Rev.8182)

Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 277 Filed 03/03/2009 Page 22 of 32
position of the representative markedly differs from that of other class members . Id . See also Begley v . Acad . Life Ins . Co ., 200 F .R .D . 489, 496 (N .D . Ga . 2001) (Panell, J .) ("minor factual variations will not render a class representative's claim atypical") .
In this case, the typicality analysis is impacted b y the Court' sl ruling on adequacy . As discussed above, plaintiffs Luna, Lorenzo,j and Garcia do not meet Rule 23(a)'s adequacy requirement . They remaining named plaintiffs--Woodard, Nunez, and Maldonado--assert claims that are typical of the claims in Count II of plaintiffs' complaint for violations of the wage requirements of the AWPA . However, there is no nexus between the AWPA claims asserted in Count II and the H-2A-based claims asserted in Count I of plaintiffs' complaint . The Count II workers were recruited from within they United States, and were never part of the H-2A guest-worker program . Indeed, plaintiffs concede that the Count II plaintiffs lack standing l to pursue the Count I claims . (Pls .' Reply in Supp . of Certification) [251] at 2 .) Accordingly, the Court finds that plaintiffs have only satisfied the requirements of Rule 23(a) with respect to the claims in Count II of their .complaint .
B . Rule 23 (b ) Ordinarily, the Court might give class counsel an opportunity to locate and substitute a suitable representative to pursue the claims asserted in Count I . However, plaintiffs also fail to demonstrate
22
AO 7 2A (R ev. 8/82)

Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 277 Filed 03/03/2009 Page 23 of 32
that this case can be maintained as a class action under any provision of Rule 23(b) . See Allapattah Serv . Inc . v . Exxon Corp ., 333 F .3d 1248, 1260 (11th Cir . 2003)(noting that a classs action may only be maintained if plaintiffs can establish at least one of the alternative requirements of Rule 23(b)) . Plaintiffs argue that certification is appropriate under either Rule 23(b) (2) or Rule 23(b)(3) . (Pls .' Br . in Supp . of Certification [234] at 18 .) The Court finds that plaintiffs have not satisfied either provision .
1 . Rule 23(b)(2) Rule 23(b) (2) permits certification where "the party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the class, so that final i njunct i ve relief or corresp o nding ) declaratory rel i ef i s appropriate respecting the class as a whole ." ', FED . R . Civ . P . 23 (b) (2) . Rule 23 (b) (2) is applicable to actions, such as civil rights suits, in which final injunctive or declaratory relief can settle the legality of a pasty's behavior with respect to the class as a whole . Kleiner v . First Nat'l Bank of Atlanta, 97 F .R .D . 683, 691 (N .D . Ga . 1983)(Evans, J .) . Monetary relief may be obtained in a Rule 23(b) (2) action if it is "incidental to requested injunctive or declaratory relief ." Murray v . Auslander, 244 k' . 3d 807, 812 (11th Cir . 2001) . However, "incidental damages should not . entail complex individualized determinations ." Id . Plaintiffs contend that DMSE has acted on grounds generally
23
AO 72A ( Rev, 8182)

i Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 277 Filed 03/03/2009 Page 24 of 32
applicable to the class by failing to ensure payment of the minimum and overtime wages mandated by the AWPA, and failing to maintain and provide complete and accurate pay records . (Pls .' Br . in Supp . of Certification [234] at 19 .) While that may be so, it is unclear what ) plaintiffs hope to achieve by their request for injunctive relief, as plaintiffs concede that DMSE closed its operations in August, 2006 . 1 (Def .'s Opp'n to Pls .' Mot . for Certification [248] a t 41 .) Because '. DMSE is not a going concern, plaintiffs cannot reasonably claim that it poses any likelihood of future harm to them personally or to the classes they seek to represent . See Church v . City of Huntsville, 30 F .3d 1332, 1337 (11th Cir . 1994)("`a prospective remedy will provide no relief for an injury that is, and likely will remain, entirely in the past'") quoting Am . Postal Workers Union v . Frank, 968 F .2d 1373, 1376 (1st Cir . 1992)) .
Although the complaint does include a request for injunctive relief, it is abundantly clear that plaintiffs primarily seekk monetary relief for DMSE's alleged breach of H-2A employment contracts and AWPA violations . Moreover, the monetary relief that plaintiffs request requires highly individualized and quite likely complex calculations of the compensation that workers received for the hours that they worked . Rule 23 ( b)(2) is therefore inapplicable . Murray, 244 F .3d at 812 .
24
AO 72A (Rev.8182)

Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 277 Filed 03/03/2009 Page 25 of 32
2 . Rule 23(b)(3) Rule 23(b ) (3 ) authorizes a class ac t ion where : the court finds that the questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affect i ng only individual members, and that a class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently ad j udicat i ng , the controversy . FED . R . CIV . P . 23 (b) (3) Rule 23(b)(3) i s "far more demand i ng" than the commonality requirement of Rule 23 (a ) (2 ) . Ru t s t ein v . Avis RentA-Car Sys ., Inc ., 211 F .3d 1228, 1233 (11th Cir . 2000) . In order to qualify as a Rule 23(b) ( 3) class action, the issues that are subject to generalized proof, and thus appl i cable to the class as a whole, must predominate over those issues that are sub j ect only to individualized proof . Id . See also Begley, 200 F .R .D . at 497 (discuss i ng the requirements of Rule 23(b)(3)) . As discussed above, there are sufficient common i ssues of law and fact to meet the commonality requirement of Rule 23 (a),(2) . These issues include : (1) whether DMSE paid the members of both classes at the mandatory wage rate for all work performed ; and (2) whether DMS E maintained complete and accurate pay records regarding the work of both class members . (Pls .' Br . in Supp . of Certification [234] at 20-21 .) However, the resolution of these common, overarching issues will depend onn highly individualized evidence concerning the compensation each class member received for the hours he or she actually worked . Particularly with regard to plaintiffs' claim that
25
AO 72A ( Rev 8182)

Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 277 Filed 03/03/2009 Page 26 of 32
DMSE failed to supplement piece-rate earnings to ensure that workers received the mandatory wage rate, liability will likely depend on an assessment of the productivity of individual workers . Certification under Rule 23(b ) (3) is not appropriate under such circumstances . See Klay v . Humana, Inc . , 382 F .3d 1241, 1255 (11th Cir . 2004) (holding that claims are not suitable for certification under Rule 23(b) . (3) where, after adjudication of the class-wide issues, individual class members must still introduce a great deal of individualized proof to prevail on their claims) and Rutstein, 211 F .3d at 1235-6 ("Serious drawbacks to the maintenance of a class action are presented where initial determinations, such as the issue of liability vel non, turn upon highly individualized facts .") .
It is true that certain questions in this case can be resolved by reference to class-wide evidence . For example, plaintiffs may be able to prove that DMSE had a practice of failing to reimburse H-2A workers for pre-employment related travel and visa costs duringthe first week of work, as required by the Eleventh Circuit in Arriaga v . Florida Pa c . Farms, LLC, 305 F .3d 1228, 1244 (11th Cir . 2002) However, that particular claim is most, appropriately pursued i n an d FLSA collective action . Id . ( "Although immediate reimbursement is not necessary, payment may be required within the first week if the employees' wages, once the costs are subtracted, are below minimum wags .") . As to plaintiffs' other claims, individual issues
26
A O 72A (Rev. 8/82)

Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 277 Filed 03/03/2009 Page 27 of 32

predominate over any common factual and legal issues . Accordingly,

the Court DENIES plaintiffs' motion to certify the claims in Counts I and II of the complaint as a class action .

V.

Plaintiffs ' Motion to Certify an FLSA Collective Act i on

Plaintiffs seek certification of the FLSA claims in Count III ofd their complaint as a collective action under 29 U .S .C . § 215(b) . {Pls .' Br . in Supp . of Mot . for Certification of Collective Action ("Pls .' Br . in Supp . of Collective Action") [243] at 1 .) Section 216(b) allows plaintiffs to . maintain a collective action on their own behalf and on behalf of "other employees [who are] similarly situated ." 29 U .S .C . § 216 ( b) . It further provides that any "similarly situated" employees who des i re to join a collective action ) "must give [their] consent in writing ." Id . Thus, there are two conditions for maintaining a collective action under the FLSA : (1) ', plaintiffs must be "similarly situated" to each other and to any proposed plaintiffs who wish to join the action ; and (2) plaintiffs must "opt in" to the action by filing a consent with the Court . Id . See also Cameron-Grant v . Maxim Healthcare Serv ., Inc ., 347 F .3d 1240, 1247-48 (11th-Cir . 2003) (distinguishing between the opt-in mechanism of FLSA collective actions and the opt-out procedures of Rule 23 ) .
Courts in the Eleventh Circuit generally use a two-stage approach to determine whether to certify a collective action under §

27

AO 72A ( Rev. B l82)

Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 277 Filed 03/03/2009 Page 28 of 32

216(b) . Hipp v . Liberty Nat'1 Life Ins . Co ., 252 F .3d 1208, 1218 (11th Cir . 2001) .' At the "notice stage" prior to d i scovery, the Court decides whether plaintiffs have made a sufficient showing that they are "similarly situated" to warrant notice of the action to potential plaintiffs . Id . (c i ting Mooney v . Aramco Serv . Co . , 54 ' F .3d 1207, 1216 (5th Cir . 1995)) . This decision is usually based only on the pleadings and any affidavits that have been submitted .

Id . Because of the minimal evidence that is available, the Court

applies a lenient standard . Id . If plaintiffs meet their burden, which is not heavy, the Court conditionally certifies the action andd

authorizes notice and an opportunity for proposed plaintiffs to opt-

in . Id . The second stage is typically precipitated by a motion for

decertification by the defendant when discovery is complete and the

case is ready for trial . Anderson v . Cag1e's, Inc ., 488 F . 3d 945, 953 (11th Cir . 2007 ) . As the Court has more information on which to base its decision, the plaintiffs' burden is heavier under a second-

stage analysis .

Id .

Nevertheless, the "similarly situated"

requirement of § 216(b) is more elastic and less stringent than either the requirement for joinder under Rule 20 or the requ i rements .

The plaintiffs in Hipp asserted a collective action under the

Age Discrimination in Employment Act ( " ADEA" )

However, the Hipp

analysis is relevant to this case because the ADEA incorporates the

collective action procedures of § 216(b) . Hipp, 252 F .3d at 1216 .

28

AO 72A (Aev.8182)

Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 277 Filed 03/03/2009 Page 29 of 32
for certifying a class action under Rule 23 ( b) (3) . Hipp, 252 F .3d at 1219 . See also Bradford v . Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc ., 184 F .Supp . 2d 1342, 1345 (N .D . Ga . 2002)(Story, J .)("this similarly situated standard is less stringent than Rule 20(a)'s `same transaction or occurrence' requirement for joinder and than Rule 23(b)(3)'s requirement that a class may only be certified if `common questions predominate"') . Relevant factors include : (1) disparate factual and employment settings of the individual plaintiffs ; (2) the various defenses available to defendants that appear to be individual to each plaintiff ; and (3) fairness and procedural considerations . Anderson, 488 F .3d at 953 (citing Thiessen v . Gen . Elec . Capital Corp ., 267 F .3d 1095, 1103 (10th Cir . 2001)) .
This case does not fit neatly into the two-stage process descr i bed above . A l though the parties have conducted discovery on the employment issue, the record on the "similarly situated" question is not as fully developed as it will be when discovery i s complete , and the case is ready for tr i al . Moreover, as notice of the actionn has not- yet issued, defendants cannot identify all of the opt-in plaintiffs or analyze with specificity whether those plaintiffs are "similarly- situated" to the named plaintiffs or the forty-nine existing opt-ins . Nevertheless, the evidence that the parties have developed thus-far suggests that plaintiffs meet even a second-stage "similarly situated" inquiry .
29
A0 72A

Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 277 Filed 03/03/2009 Page 30 of 32
Plaintiffs' proposed collective action includes : All non-supervisory workers who performed planting, loading, 'harvesting, packing, grading, field and shed sanitation and related agricultural activities on DMSE's farming operations in and around Telfair and Wheeler counties from 2003 to 2006 ; and a fully-contained subclass encompassing : All such workers who incurred pre-employment expenses related to visa-processing, travel other than daily commuting, and any other fees required to be paid in order to work at DMSE's Georgia operations . (Pls .' Br . in Supp . of Collective Action [243] at 5 .) All of the proposed plaintiffs worked at a single operation where the primary activities related to growing and packing produce . (Id . at 14-16 .) Their pay, either hourly or piece-rate, was determined by schedules in generally applicable FLC contracts . (Id . at 10-11 .) There do not appear to be any significant disparities between plaintiffs' factual and employment settings . See Pendlebury v . Starbucks Coffee Co ., 518 F . Supp . 2d 1345, 1362 (S .D . Fla . 2007) (finding differences in scheduling, store inventory, and managerial style insufficient to defeat plaintiffs' motion for certification of a collective action) and Moss v . Crawford & Co ., 201 F .R .D . 398, 409 (W .D . Pa . 2000)("courts generally do not require prospective class members to be identical") . Moreover, one of plaintiffs' main FLSA claims--their claim requesting reimbursement for pre-employment travel and visa costs--is
30
AO 72A (Rev.8/82)

Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 277 Filed 03/03/2009 Page 31 of 32
i
largely susceptible to class-wide proof . Theree are no individual defenses to this claim, which is most appropriately pursued under the FLSA . See Arriaga, 305 F .3d at 1237 ("Workers must be reimbursed during the first workweek for pre-employment expenses which primarily benefit the employer, to the point that wages are at least equivalent to the minimum wage .") .
Finally, fairness and procedural considerations support certification of a collective action in this case . Plaintiffs, most of whom are indigent and many of whom live abroad, are poorly positioned to file individual actions against DMSE . See Pendlebury, 518 F . Supp . 2d at 1363 ("Defendant's suggestion that few Plaintiffs would re-file [if the case were decertified] is the precise reason Congress authorized class action treatment for these types off! cases .") . In addition, plaintiffs' individual claims for damages are too small to justify incurring thee costs of litigation . See! Bradford, 184 F . Supp . 2d at 1351 (noting that plaintiffs can "hardly be expected to pursue these small claims individually") . There is "li.ttle'likelihood that [plaintiffs' FLSA] rights will be vindicatedd in the absence of collective action ." Id .
The Court thus GRANTS plaintiffs' motion to certify the FLSA claims in Count III as a collective action . Pursuant to this order, the Court approves the proposed notice attached as Exhibit 49 to plaintiffs' motion to certify a collective FLSA action and as
31
AO 72A (Rev, 8182)

Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 277 Filed 03/03/2009 Page 32 of 32
Appendix A to this Order, and authorizes plaintiffs to issue thel notice to class members by radio, newspaper advertisements, and mail . e l
CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES ` in part plaintiffs' Motion to Alter the Clerk's Judgment [233], DENIES plaintiffs' Renewed Motion to Certify a Class Action [234], GRANTS i n part and DENIES in part plaintiffs' Motion to Vacate Costs l [240], GRANTS plaintiffs' Motion to Certify a Collective FLSA Actioni [243], and GRANTS in part and DENIES in part defendants' Emergency Motion for Protective Order [262] .
SO ORDERED, this -~>day of March, 2009 .
iE E . CARNES CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

$ DMS E does not assert any valid objections to the form or

substance of the proposed notice, which has been approved by several

district courts in 'similar cases .

See De Luna-Guerrero v . N .

Carolina Growers' Ass n, Inc ., 338 F . Supp . 2d 649, 666-67 (E .D .N .C .

2004) and Gjurovich v . Emmanuel's Marketplace, Inc ., 282 F . Supp . 2d

91, 97-100 (S .D .N .Y . 2003) .

32

AO 72A (Rev.8l6z)

Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 277-2

Filed 03/03/2009 Page 1 of 16
p {µfil. I~ f

Exhibit 49 Proposed Collective Action Notice

Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 277-2 Filed 03/03/2009 Page 2 of 16

I

IMPORTANT NOTICE TO CURRENT OR FORMER EMPLOYEES OF

DEL MONTE FRESH

PRODUCE St3UTHEAS INC.

To: Current or Former Del Monte Fresh Produce (Southeast) Employees

Re: Right to Join Lawsuit to Recover Unpaid Wages

Date :

[Plaintiffs' counsel will insert date of issuance

1. Purpose of Notice

This letter is sent to tell you of a lawsuit by workers against Del Monte Fresh

Produce (Southeast), Inc. ("Del Monte"), seeking payment of wages to workers I
under the Fair Labor S tandards Act .

This is a notice authorized by the United States District Court for the

Northern District of Georgia. The Court has not yet dec ided whether the workers'

claims have merit.

.

2. Description of the Lawsuit This lawsuit asks for payment of the minimum and overtime wages that
Plaintiffs claim they were not paid for all of the work they performed on Del Monte operations in Georgia. This lawsuit asks that migrant workers who traveled

Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 277-2 Filed 03/03/2009 Page 3 of 16

substantial distances from their homes to wordk for Deb Monte be reimbursed for

their expenses related to visa, travel and other costs paid to be able to work at Del

Monte .

Plaintiffs' claim that Del Monte did not paid the lawful hourly wage for all

. the hours that they worked. Plaintiffs claim that their piece-rate earnings were

sometimes so low that they did not earn the legal wage for every hour worked.

Plaintiffs claim that Del Monte did not pay them overtime wages for work in the

packing warehouse, even when they worked more than 40 hours in a week.

The lawsuit has been brought by Hector Luna, Julian Garcia, Francisco

Javier Lorenzo, Santos Maldonado, Sartolo Nunez, and Patricia Woodard, all

former workers at DeI Monte's farming operations in Telfair and Wheeler counties,

Georgia. The lawsuit was brought in federal district court for the Northern District

of Georgia.. Thee name of the lawsuit is: LuM et al. v. De1. Monte Fresh Produce

(Southeast), Inc, et, al., No. 1 . 06-cv-Q2DOO-JEC. The lawyers for the workers who

brought this case are: .

Kristi Graunke

.

Mary Bauer Andrew Turner

Irnr€i~igrant Justice Project

Southern Poverty Law Center

2

L

Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 277-2 Filed 03/03/2009 Page 4 of 16
E
[Plaintiffs' counsel to insert their new Atlanta address] U.S .A. Toll free telephone in the U.S.: 1-800-591-36 56 Toll free telephone from Mexico: 001-800-591-3656 Telephone from Central America : 001-800-591-3656 . Fax fro m the U.S.: 1-334-956-8481 Fax from Mexico: 001-334-956-8481 Fax from Central America : 001-334-956-8481
Del Monte denies that it committed any violations of Fair Labor Standards Act on their Georgia operations . The Court has not yet decided whether Deb Monte has done anything wrong. There is no money available at this time and there is no guarantee that there will be any money .
3. Your Right to Participate in this Lawsuit This notice tells you of your rights under the federal minimum wage law in
the United Stags, which is called the Fair Labor Standards Act . If you performed work in a field or packing warehouse for Del Monte in Georgia at any time between January 2003 and August 2006 and were not a supervisor, it is possible that you have a right to join this lawsuit. You may be eligible to participate in this lawsuit if
3

Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 277-2 Filed 03/03/2009 Page 5 of 16
your experience was similar to that of the named Plaintiffs and you were "similarly situated" to the Plaintiffs
Your options are the following: _ 1) Do Nothing - If you do not act, you may lose some of your rights to payment, as your claims may expire . If you do nothing, you do not lose your right to bring a separate suit against Del Monte. If money is awarded to the workers in this case, you will not receive it if you do not act. 2) Ask to Join this Lawsuit - By joining this lawsuit, you gain the possibility of getting money or benefits that may result from a trial or settlement, but you give up your right to bring a separate lawsuit of your own against Del Monte for the same legal claims brought in this lawsuit .
4. How to Participate in th is lawsuit This notice includes a form titled "Consent to Sue" and a form titled "Contact
Information Form for Workers Who Want to Join the Lawsuit." If you want to join this lawsuit, and be eligible to receive money you might be owed, you must read (or have read to you), fill out, sign and return the Consent to Sue and Contact
4

Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 277-2 Filed 03/03/2009 Page 6 of 16

I

Information farm . You can returnn the forms by mail or by fax . The forms must be mailed or faxed to the Immigrant Justice Project by [insert date five days before deadline decided by the court] .
The forms should be mailed to : Kristi Graunke Immigrant Justice Project Southern Poverty Law Center [Plaintiffs' counsel to insert their new Atlanta address] U.S .A . They can also be faxed to : Fax from the U .S. : [Plaintiffs' counsel to Fax from Mexico and Central America: insert new fax numbers]
5. Retaliation Is Illegal It is a violation of United States law for Del Monte and/or their agents or
contractors to threaten, harm, fire, refuse to hire, or in any manner discriminate against you for taking part in this case . If you believe that you have been threatened, punished, discriminated or retaliated against for discussing or choosing to join in this lawsuit you can call the Immigrant Justice Project at :
Toll free` telephone in the U:S.: . 1-840-59.1-3.656 Toll free telephone from Mexico: 001-800-591-3656
5

Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 277-2 Filed 03/03/2009 Page 7 of 16
Telephone from Central America : 001-800-591-3656
6. Effect of Joining th is Lawsuit If you join this lawsuit, you will be included in the decision made by the
judge, whether that decision i s favorable or unfavorable. You will also share in any money received in the lawsuit (either through a decis ion by the Court or through a settlement) .
By joining this lawsu it, you designate Hector Luna and the other Plaintiffs to make dec isions on yo ur behalf concerning this case . . The decisions and agreements made in this lawsuit will affect your claims .
7. You Do Not Have to Pay the Services of Plaintiffs' Attorneys The attorneys representing the plaintiffs in this case are financed by the
Immigrant Justice Projsct of the Southern Poverty Law Center, a non-profit organization. You will not have to pay for the attorneys from Immigrant Justice Project . The services of the workers' attorneys are free . Youu also do not have to pay any of the costs of bringing this lawsuit .
If you do not wish to be represented by the attorneys from the Immigrant Justice Project, you have the right to find your own attorney to represent you in this
6

Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 277-2 Filed 03/03/2009 Page 8 of 16

case or in any other cases against Deb Monte.

S: For More Information You may call the lawyers for the Plaintiffs at:

Toll free telephone in the U.S.:

1-800-591-3656

Toll free telephone from Mexico: 001-800-591-3656

.

Telephone from Central America : 401-800591-3656 .

If you speak Spanish, a Spanish speaker will be available to talk to you.

THIS NOTICE WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE HONORABLE JULIE E. CARVES, JUDGE FOR THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA. THERE ARE NO GUAR ANTEES . THAT MONEY WILL BE RECOVERED IN THIS CASE . THE C OURT HAS NOT YET DECIDED WHETHER THE CLAIMS MADE IN THE LAWSUIT ARE VALID.

Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 277-2 Filed 03/03/2009 Page 9 of 16
AV.[SO IMPORTANTE PARA 'FRABAJADORES ACTUALES Y PREVIQS DE DEL MONTE FRESH PRODUCE (SOUTHEAST), INC.
Para : Trabajadores actuates o previos de Del Monte Fresh Produce (Southeast), Inc.
Re: Derecho de juntarse en una demanda para recuperar pagos debidos
Fecha : [£ec6a]
1 . Prouasito del Aviso
Esta carts sirve pare informarle sobre una demands por trabajadoxes contra Del Monte Fresh Produce (Southeast), inc. ("De1 Monte") buscando pagos de sueldos para trabajadores bajo la Ley de Normas Laborales Justas.
Es un aviso autorizado par ]a Corte del Distrito de los Estados Unidos para el Distrito del Norte de Georgia. La raze todavia no ha decidido si las quej as dichas de la demanda soyn valxdas.
2. Descripcion de La Demands
Este litigio pide el pago debido del sueldo minimo y el pago de "overtime" u horas extras que los Demandantes reclarnan que no rec ibiervn por todo el trabajo que hicieron pats Del Monte en operaciones que se Ilevaron a cabQ en Georgia . Este litigi.o demands que trabajadores migrantes quienes v iajaron distancias considerables desde sus hoga res Sara trabajar con "Deb Monte" lean reembolsados pot sus gastos relacionados con visas, viaje y otros costos que fueron pagados pats poder venir a trabajar pats Deb Monte .
Los Demandantes demandan que. Del Monte no les pago de acuexdo al su eldo legal par pay todas has horas que trabajaran . Los Demandantes demandan que las ganancias pot pieza a vices eran tan bajo que no ganaron el sueldo legal pot cads hatsa trabaj ada. Los Demandantes demandan qua Del Monte no les page el pago de
8

Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 277-2 Filed 03/03/2009 Page 10 of 16

"overtime" pox el trabajo en las bodegas de empaque, ni hasty cuando trabajaron mas de 40 horas en una semana .

La demanda ha silo traida pox Hector Lung, Julian Garcia, Francisco Javier Lorenzo, Santos Maldonado, Bartolo Nunez, y Patricia Woodard, todos previos
trabajadores de los operaciones de agricultura de Del Monte en los condados de Telfair y Wheeler, Georgia. La demanda ha sido traida en la Corte L7e1 Distrito Federal para el Distrito del Norte de Georgia. El nombre de la demands es : Luna, et.al.v.Del Monte Fresh Produce (Southeast), Inc,et,al., No. 1 :06-cv-020Q0-SEC . Los abogados que reprasentann a Los trabajadores en este caso son:

Kristi Graunke Mary Bauer
Andrew Turner Immigrant Justice Project
Southern Poverty Law Center [Abogados para dema.ndantes insertaran su nueva direceion en Atlanta] U.S .A.

Clamor gratis desde EEUU : Llamax gratis desde Mexico : Llamar desde America Central:

0 1-800-591-3656 001-504-591-3 656 001-800-591 -3656

Fax desde EEC : Fax desde Mexico y America Central

(insertar nu evo nam ero de fax]

Del Mote niega haber cometido violacianes de la Ley de Normal Laborales Justas (FLSA) en sus operaciones en Georgia . La Corte no ha decidido todavfa si Del Monte ha hecho algo incorrecto . No hay dinero disponible en este momento y no hay garantia que habra .

3. Su Dexecho de Participar en Esta Detnanda

Este aviso explica sus derechos bajo la ley de Sueldo Minimo en Los Estados UnidQS, de coal se llama la Ley de Normas Laborales Justas . - Si Ud. Trabaja en los cultivos o empacando en Ins bodegas para Del Monte en Georgia pox

9

Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 277-2 Filed 03/03/2009 Page 11 of 16
cualquiera cantidad de tiempo entre Enero 2003 y Agosto 2006 y no era un supervisor, es posible que Ud . tenga el derecho de juntarse a esta demanda .
Es posible que Ud. este elegible para partieipar en la demanda si su experiencia es parecida a Los Demandantes puestos y Ud. paso el periodo de trabajo en urea inanera parecidaa a Los Demandantes .
bus opciones son :
1) No hacer nada - Si Ud. no actua en este asunto, Ud. puede perder algunos . de sus derechos at pago que se le debe ya qua su quej a vend. Si no hate nada, Ud . no pierde su derecho de poner aura demanda aparte de esta en contra Del Monte . Si el dinero es recupexado para los traba,j adores en esta . demanda, Ud. no to recibira si no Coma acci6n .
2) Participar en la demanda - Si used participa en la demanda, Ud . tends la posibilidad de ganar el dinero debido o los beneficios que resultarian del litigio o un acuerdo, pero Ud. dajaria su derecho de ponei okra demanda aparte de esta en contra de Del Monte si participa en esta demanda para los mismos reclamos .
4. Como Participar en esta Demanda
Este aviso incluye un formulario titulado "Consentimiento Para Action FLSA ." y un formulario titulado "Hdja de Infarmacicin de Contacto Para Trabajadaxes que Quieren unirse a la Demanda" Si Ud. quiere participar en esta demanda y searr eleg ible para recibir el dinero que seria debido, tiene que leer los fonmulari os (o hater que alguien se los lee), Ilenarlos, firmarlos, y env iarlos por fax o correo . Los formularios deben llega:r por fax o cor-reo a la oficina del Proyecto de Justicia Inmigrante [fecha limite].
Los formularios deben estar a :
Kristi Graunke Proyectu de Jushcia Inmigrante Southern Poverty Law Center
10

Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 277-2 Filed 03/03/2009 Page 12 of 16

[Pltfs' counsel to insert the new Atlanta address] U.S .A

0 Los puede enviar por fax a: .
Desde EEUYJ: jinsertar nuevo Desde Mexico o America Central : numero de fax

5. Re resalia es Regal
Es una violaci6n de la ley de Los Estados Unidos que Del Monte y/o sus agentes a contratistas amenacen, hagan dano, lo despidan, nieguen e l, trabajo, o haven afro tipo de d.iscraninacicin contra Ud . por haber participado en el litigio. Si Ud. recibe una amenaza, un castigo, u otra discrimination por discutir el litigio o poi decidir participar en el l itigio, Maine al Proyecto de Justicia Inmigrante :

Llawar gratis desde EEUU:

1-800-591-3656

Llamax gratis desde Mexico: 001-800-591-3656

Llamar desde America Central : 001-800-591-3656

6: Efecto de sir parte de esta d emanda
Si Usted participa con esta demanda, Ud. estara incluido en la decision hecha por el juez si la dec3si6n es favorable o infavorable. Ud. tambi6n campartira en la cantidad de dinero recibido par ganar el i itigiv (a travel de una decision de la torte por medio de un acuerdo) .

Poi partic ipar en el litigio, ' Ud. designara a Hector Luna y a los otros Demandantes a tomar decisiones por usted en relacion a este caso. Las decisiones y arreglos hechos en esta . demanda afectaran sus quejas.

7. Ud . no tendra que pagax_para_los servicios de los abogados de los

11

Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 277-2 Filed 03/03/2009 Page 13 of 16

Demandantes

Los abogados quienes representann los Demandantes en este litigio son fmanciados por el Proyecto de Justicia Inmigrante, una orgaza.izacion sin fines lucrativos que recibe fondos privados, no del gobierno . Ud . no tendra que pagan- poi Los services de los abogados del Proyecty de Justicia Inmigrante . Los servicios de los abogados son gratis . Tampoco tiene que pagan ninguno de los costos de esta demands ..

Si U.d. no quiere ser representado par los abogados deb Proyecto de Justicia Izxn zxgrante, tine el derecho de buscar su propio abogado pans que lo represente en este litigio o en otros litigios contra Del Monte .

8. Para ma's informacio'n

Ud. puede llamas Ices abogados de los Dernandantes al numero :

Llamar gratis desde EEUU : 1-800-591-3656 .

I.lamar gratis desde Mexico:

0 0 1 - 800-5 91 -3656

Liamar d escie America Central : 001-800-591-3656

Si Ud. babla espanol, habri alguiea que habla espanol pans ate nderle.

ESTE AVISO Y SUS CONTET]IDOS HA SIDO AUTORIZADO POR EL J[TE2 HONORABLE JULIE E . CARNES, LA JUEZ PA .RA LA CORTE DE LOS ESTADOS UNIDOS PARA LA REGION DEL DISTRITO DEL NORTE DE GEORGIA . NO HAY GARANTIA QUE EL DINFtO SE VA A RECUPERAR EN ESTE LITIGIO . LA CORTE NO HA ]JECIDIDO SX LOS DEMANDES HECHOS SON VALIDOS .

12

Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 277-2 Filed 03/03/2009 Page 14 of 16
FLSA CONSENT FORM I CQNSENTIMIENTO PARA ACC ION FLSA I hereby give my consent to sue for wages that may be owed to me under the Fair Labor Standards Act . I hereby authorize my attorneys to represent me before any court or agency on these clams .
NAME . SIGNATURE
DATE
Por este media doy mi consentimiento para que se hags demands para pagos que se me deben bajo la. Ley de Normas Laborales Justas . Autorizo clue mis abogados me representen ante cualquier carte o agencia tocante estos reclamas .
NOMBRE FTRMA FECHA

Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 277-2 Filed 03/03/2009 Page 15 of 16
I

Contact information Sheet for Workers Who Want to Join the Suit

Against Del Monte (Southeast) Inc.

.

Your complete name

Your

Address

`

Your telephone number(s) . Please indicate whether the number is a home phone, cellular phone (mobile), or public p hone.

Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 277-2 Filed 03/03/2009 Page 16 of 16
Haja de Informacibn de Trabajadores que Quieren Juntarse con La Demanda Contra la compania Del Monte Fresh Produce (Southeast), Inc.
Su nombre completo_ Su direccivn
Su numero(s) del telefono. Favor de indicar silos numeros son de su casa, de un telefono celular (movil), o de una caseta .

 
 Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 55 Filed 10/11/06 Page 1 of 38

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

ATLANTA DIVISION

)

HECTOR LUNA,

)

JULIAN GARCIA,

)

FRANSCISO JAVIER LORENZO

)

SANTOS G. MALDONADO,

)

and BARTOLO NUNEZ,

)

individually and on behalf of all others

)

similarly situated,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

.)

v.

)

)

DEL MONTE FRESH PRODUCE

)

(SOUTHEAST), INC.,

)

and DEL MONTE ·FRESH PRODUCE N.A.,)

INC.

)

)

Defendants.

)

Case No. 1:06-cv-02000JEC

FffiST AMENDED COMPLAINT- CLASS ACTION NATURE OF THE ACTION
1. This is a civil action brought by five migrant agricultural workers employed by Defendant Del Monte Fresh Produce (Southeast), Inc. and Defendant

Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 55 Filed 10/11/06 Page 2 of 38
Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A., Inc., (collectively "Del Monte" or "Defendants") at their Georgia farms in and around Wheeler and Telfair Counties to plant, harvest, transport and pack melons, greens and onions during the 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006 harvest seasons. The Plaintiffs file this action to secure and vindicate their ·· rights under the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act, 29 U.S.C. § 1801-1871 (1999), (hereinafter "AWPA"), the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201-219 (1998), (hereinafter "FLSA"), and under state and federal contract law. These Representative Plaintiffs assert the foregoing claims on behalf · of themselves and all others similarly situated.
2. The Plaintiffs complain of the Defendants' unlawful employment practices during the 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006 seasons.
3. Acting through their agents, the Defendants recruited the Plaintiffs to work on their Georgia vegetable farms. The Defendants, through their recruiting ____________agents_, ma_d_e_binding.promise_:s_regar_ding_w_ages,_hpur.£_a.nd:wJ).rlQng_conditiQ:Q.S_._ In___·-----reliance upon and in consideration of these binding promises, the Plaintiffs left their horp.es, families and children and spent considerable money and effort to travel to Georgia to work for the Defendants.
4. The Defendants employed two distinct classes of migrant workers. The Defendants employed agricultural "guestworkers" recruited from Mexico
2

Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 55 Filed 10/11/06 Page 3 of 38
pursuant to the temporary agricultural work visa program commonly known as the "H-2A program." 8 U.S.C. §1188(H)(ii)(a). These. guestworkers (hereinafter "H2A workers") had written contracts of employment that included specific representations regarding wages, hours and working conditions. The terms of these employment contracts were primarily dictated by federal regulations. The H-2A worker Plaintiffs assert claims under the FLSA and for breach of contract.
5. The Defendants also employed migrant workers who were not H-2A guestworkers {hereinafter "migrant agricultural workers"). These non-H-2A, migrant agricultural workers were recruited from within the United States. As a matter of law, the Defendants were not permitted to offer less favorable terms of employment to similarly situated domestic workers. 20 C.F.R. § 655.102. Thus, the same terms and conditions ofemployment offered contractually to the H-2A workers were incorporated as the minimum terms of the AWPA "working _________arr_a:ng~m~nf'_pf1h~migranL~gricultL1ral workers.__Th~ migranL<!g:tiQ_tllture~.Lwork_~r__________ _ Plaintiffs assert claims under the AWPA and under the FLSA.
6. .Throughout their employment, the Defendants breached the terms of the Plaintiffs' employment agreements. The Defendants consistently failed to pay the _promised wage rate for all hours worked. The Defendants also failed to reimburse the Plaintiffs for costs they incurred for the benefit of the Defendants to
3

Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 55 Filed 10/11/06 Page 4 of 38

the extent that these costs brought Plaintiffs' first week of wages below the required

hourly rate.

7. All Plaintiffs assert claims under the FLSA. The class claims are

divided into two proposed classes. The first subclass, hereinafter referred to as the

H-2A worker class, asserts claims for breach of contract. Plaintiffs Hector Luna,

Julian Garcia, and Francisco Javier Lorenzo, are the class representatives for the H-

.

.

I

2A worker class. The second subclass, hereinafter referred to as the migrant

agricultural worker class, assert claims for breach of the AWPA. Plaintiffs Santos

G. Maldonado and Bartolo Nufiez are the class representatives for the migrant

agricultural worker class.

8. Plaintiffs seek to recover their unpaid wages, actual, statutory,

liquidated, incidental, consequential, and compensatory damages and pre- and post-

judgment interest. Plaintiffs also seek reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant to 29

___________U.S. C~_§_216(b)_.____________________________________________________________________,___,______

JURISDICTION

9. Jurisdiction is conferred upon this Court by 28 U.S.C. § 1331, this

action arising under the laws of the United States.

10. Jurisdiction is conferred upon this Court by 28 U.S.C. § 1337, this

action arising under Acts of Congress regulating commerce.

4

Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 55 Filed 10/11/06 Page 5 of 38

11. Jurisdiction is conferred upon this Court by 29 U.S.C. § 1854(a), this

action arising under the AWPA.

12. Jurisdiction is conferred upon this Court by 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), this

action arising under the FLSA.

13. Jurisdiction is conferred upon this Court by 28 U.S.C. § 1331, this case

presenting state law claims that implicate significant federal issues. In the

alternative, the Court is requested to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over

Plaintiffs' state law claims. The .state claims involve the same case and controversy

as the federal claims. Supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims is

conferred upon this Court by 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

VENUE

14. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and (c)

and 29 U.S.C. § 1854(a).

-- -

PARTIES
- - - - - - - - - --------- ----- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---- - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - --- ----

15. Representative Plaintiff Hector Luna is a Mexican national employed

by the Defendants in 2003 and 2004. At all times relevant to this action, Plaintiff

Hector Luna was an H-2A guestworker, admitted to the United States to work for

the Defendants under the auspices of the H-2A guestworker program. 8 U.S.C. §

1188; 20 C.P.R. §§ 655.0-655.113.

5

Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 55 Filed 10/11/06 Page 6 of 38
16. Representative Plaintiff Julian Garcia is a Mexican national employed by the Defendants in 2003. At all times relevant to this action, Plaintiff Julian Garcia was an H-2A guestworker, admitted to the United States to work for the Defendants under the auspices of the H-2A program. 8 U.S.C. § 1188; 20 C.F.R. §§ 655.0-655.113 ..
17. Representative PlaintiffFrancisco Javier Lorenzo is a Mexican national employed by the Defendants in 2006. At all times relevant to this action, Plaintiff Francisco Javier Lorenzo was an H-2A guestworker, admitted to the United States to work for the Defendants under the auspices of the H-2A program. 8 U.S.C. § 1188; 20 C.F.R. §§ 655.0-655.113.
18. Representative Plaintiff Santos G. Maldonado is a migrant agricultural worker, recruited from within the United States by the Defendants and employed by the Defendants in 2004. 1_L ________________ __E,~pJe~~gtative PlaintiffJ3art:QlQ_:t{ufie~_i_§~mignmt~gricul_t_tlraL_____________________ _
1
worker, recruited from within the United States by the Defendants and employed by the Defendants in 2004 and 2005.
20. Defendant Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A., Inc., is a Florida corporation that conducts substantial business in Georgia.
6

Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 55 Filed 10/11/06 Page 7 of 38
21. DefendantDel Monte Fresh Produce (Southeast), Inc. is a Delaware corporation that conducts substantial business in Georgia.
22. Upon information and belief, Defendant Del Monte Fresh Produce (Southeast), Inc., is responsible, under the direct supervision and control of Defendant Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A., Inc., for the planting, harvesting and packing of melons, greens and onions at the Defendants' farms in an around the Georgia counties of Wheeler and Telfair.
23. Upon information and belief, Defendant Del Monte Fresh Produce (Southeast), Inc. was created for the purpose of achieving Defendant Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A., Inc.'s objectives with respect to the production, marketing, sale and distribution of its fresh produce, and are under the direct managerial and financial control of Defendant Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A~, Inc. to the extent that it has no or insignificant financial assets of its own. _____________________2_4._____Qpon infonnation_and belli:£,_ D~fendant :Oel_Mom~F_resh_:Produc~ __________ (Southeast), Inc. was created in order to defeat justice, perpetuate fraud, evade contractual or tort responsibility, and/or confuse or avoid judgment creditors.. Defendant Del Monte Fresh Produce (Southeast), Inc. is a mere instrumentality for the transaction of the affairs of Defendant Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A., Inc.
7

Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 55 Filed 10/11/06 Page 8 of 38
25. Defendant Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A., Inc. is fully liable for its own acts and the acts of Defendant Del Monte Fresh Produce (Southeast), Inc. Defendant Del Monte Fresh Produce (Southeast), Inc. is an alter ego of Defendant Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A., Inc. or, alternatively, is in an agency relationship with it. Further, Defendant Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A., Inc. is vicariously liable under the doctrine ofrespondeat superior for the acts and omissions of Defendant Del Monte Fresh Produce (Southeast), Inc.
26. At all times relevant to this action, Defendant Del Monte Fresh Produce (Southeast), Inc. and Defendant Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A., Inc. (collectively "Del Monte" or "Defendants") were agricultural employers within the meaning of29 U.S.C. § 1802(2).
27. At all times relevant to this action, Representative Plaintiffs Santos G. Maldonado and Bartolo Nufiez and all other members of the migrant agricultural _________ work~r~_lass_-were rnigr_a_n_t_agri_cultural W_Qrk_ers_Within th~mearling_Qf_29 U.S_.~_§__________ _ 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.
28. At all times relevant to this action, Representative Plaintiffs Santos G. Maldonado and Bartolo Nufiez and all other members of the migrant agricultural
8

Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 55 Filed 10/11/06 Page 9 of 38
worker class were engaged in agricultural employment for the Defendants within the meaning of29·u.s.c. § 1802(3).
29. At all times relevant to this action, the Defendants employed Representative Plaintiffs Santos G. Maldonado and Bartolo Nunez and all other members ofthe migrant agricultural worker class within the meaning of29 U.S.C. § 1802(5).
30. At all times relevant to this action, the Defendants were employers of · Representative Plaintiffs Hector Luna, Julian Garcia, Francisco Javier Lorenzo, and
all other members of the H-2A worker class within the meaning of20 C.F.R. § 655.100.
31. At all times relevant to this action, the Defendants employed the Plaintiffs and all other members of the proposed FLSA collective action class within the meaningof29 U.S.C. § 203(g).
______________32. ___At .all titueS_rekvant to tbi~_g.ctk>n,_th~J)~fend_(li!ls_w~re emglQyers Qf________________
the Plaintiffs and all other members of the proposed. collective action class within · the meaning of29 U.S.C. § 203(d).
33. At all times relevant to this action,.the Plaintiffs and all other members of the proposed collective action class were employees of the Defendants within the meaning of29 U.S.C. § 203(e)(1).
9

Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 55 Filed 10/11/06 Page 10 of 38
34. At all times relevant to this action, the Defendants employed the Plaintiffs and all other members of the proposed collective action class in the production, packing and harvesting of vegetables for sale in interstate commerce.
STATEMENT OF FACTS 35. During 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006, the Defendants owned and operated a vegetable farm located in and around the Georgia counties of Telfair and Wheeler. The Defendants' vegetable farm produced onions, greens and melons for shipment in interstate commerce. 36. During each season in question, the Defendants utilized the services of farm labor contractors charged with recruiting labor for the operation of the Defendants' Georgia vegetable farms. During each season in question, the Defendants employed both temporary, foreign H-2A agricultural guest workers and migrant agricultural workers recruited from within the United States. During each ___ _______ seCl£on in_guestion,_1h§_Defenilanj:s reli~dJ.ll20n _th_es~Laborers_, r_~cruiteg by_1l!_eir_ ______________ _ farm labor contractors, to operate their Georgia vegetable farms. During each season in question, the Defendants' farm labor contractors reljed exclusively on the work provided by the Defendants to supply their recruits with employment.
10

Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 55 Filed 10/11/06 Page 11 of 38
37. During each season in question, the Defendants' farm labor contractors requested, recruited and imported temporary, foreign H-2A agricultural guest workers through a U.S. Department of Labor "job order."
38. An agricultural employer in the United States may import H-2A workers if the United States Department of Labor (hereinafter "U.S. D.O.L.") certifies that (1) there are not enough U.S. workers to perform the job and (2) the employment ofH-2A workers will not adversely affect the wages and working conditions·ofU.S. workers who are similarly employed. 8 U.S.C. § 1101 (a)(15)(H)(ii)(a); 8 U.S.C. § 1188 (a)(l). These provisions, along with the implementing United States Customs and Immigration Services ("U.S.C.I.S.") and U.S. D.O.L. regulations, are commonly referred to as the "H-2A program."
39. Employers requesting H-2A workers must file a temporary labor certification application with the U.S. D.O.L. Regional Administrator responsible _____________forth_~ an~_Gl}Vher~thejob _i~loc~ed. 2,0 _C_._E_.R._§_655.l_Ql__~)_(l) and 02)_(1)_. This_____________ _ application must include a job offer that complies with the requirements of 20 C.F.R. §§ 655.102and 653.501. 20 C.F.R. § 655.101(b)(l). The job offer, commonly referred to as a "clearance order" or·'job order," is used to recruit both United States and H-2A workers. The aforementioned regulations establish the minimum wages, benefits and working conditions required in an H-2Ajob order in
11

Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 55 Filed 10/11/06 Page 12 of 38
order to avoid adversely affecting similarly employed United States workers. 20 C.P.R. § 655.0 (a)(2); 20 C.P.R. § 655.102. These terms and conditions constitute an employrll.ent contract between the employer and employee, pursuant to 20 C.P.R. § 655.102(b)(l4).
40. As a condition of receiving temporary labor certification for the importation ofH-2A workers, agricultural employers are required to pay the highest of the "adverse effect wage rate," the federal minimum wage, or the state minimum wage. 20 C.P.R.§ 655.102 (b)(9)(i). The adverse effect wage rate ("AEWR")is the average annual wage for agricultural workers during the preceding year, as established by the U.S. D.O.~. and published in the Federal Register. 20 C.P.R.§ 655.107 (a). During 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006, the AEWR minimum hourly wage rates applicable to Georgia employers using H-2A guestworkers were $7.49, $7.88, $8.07 and $8.37 respectively. 68 Fed. Reg. 8929 (Feb. 26, 2003); 69 Fed. Reg.
,_______________l0_0_6_3_(Mar._3_, 2004_);_ 7DFed._R~g.__lDl52_(M_ar~_h_2_,_2_005)_;_21_ Fed_._Reg.__l_36_33______________
(Mar. 16, 2006). These wage rates were in effect throughout the Plaintiffs' employment by the Defendants.
41. Agricultural employers who participate in the H-2A program are required to provide_minimum pay and benefits as specified in the program's regulations. One of these requirements is that "the employer shall comply with the
12

Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 55 Filed 10/11/06 Page 13 of 38
applicable federal, state, and local employment-related laws and regulations," 20 C.F.R. § 655.103(b), which includes the Fair Labor Standards Act and the requirement that workers receive; free and clear of deductions and expenses incurred for the benefit of the employer, at least the applicable minimum and overtime wages for all hours worked, 29 U.S.C. §§ 206(a); 207(a); 29 C.F.R. § 531.35.
42. Agricultural employers who participate in the H-2A program are also required to maintain detailed, complete, and· accurate records of worker pay and working time, in accordance with the requirements of the federal regulations that govern the H-2A program. 20 C.F.R. § 655.102(7)-(8).
43. In addition, an employer using H-2A workers must offer U.S. workers no less than the same benefits, wages and working conditions that it offers to H-2A workers and must not impose any restrictions or qbligations upon U.S. workers not ___ ______ impQs_ed_up_on_H-2A_work_eruQ C._F.R._§_6_5 5~LQ2_.----------------~--------------------------------
44. Where an agricultural employer obtains some of its work force through the H-2A program, the terms of the ')ob order" establish the minimum terms and conditions of employment on that employer's farm for other agricultural workers. The terms and conditions set forth by the "job order" are incorporated as the minimum terms and conditions of the AWPA "working arrangement" governing the
13

Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 55 Filed 10/11/06 Page 14 of 38
employment of similarly situated, non-H2A, migrant agricultural workers recruited to work on the same farm.
45. · Representative Plaintiffs Hector Luna, Francisco Javier Lorenzo, and Julian Garcia were employed by the Defendants in 2003, 2004, and 2006 under the terms ofH-2Ajob orders.
46. Representative Plaintiffs Santos G. Maldonado and Bartolo Nunez were recruited to the Defendants' farm and worked as migrant agricultural workers during 2004 and/or 2005. Their AWPA "working arrangement" incorporated the terms and conditions of employment-set forth in the concurrent H-2A "job orders."
47. Before the receipt of their first paycheck, Plaintiffs and others similarly s.ituated spent considerable sums of money to travel to and prepare for employment at the Defendants' Georgia vegetable farms.
48. These expenditures were primarily for the benefit of the Defendants
________within_the_mea.nings_Qf2Q_G.FR._§_§_531._32_(c)_and 778_.217_._____________________________________
49. The Defendants did not reimburse the Plaintiffs for these expenditures to the extent that these pre-employment costs brought their first week's wages below the applicable minimum wage.
50. When compensating the Plaintiffs on a piece-rate basis, the Defendants failed to supplement the weekly earnings of the Plaintiffs when inadequate piece-
14

Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 55 Filed 10/11/06 Page 15 of 38
rate earnings caused their average hourly wage during a pay period to fall below the applicable AEWR wage rate.
51. When compensating the Plaintiffs on an hourly basis, the Defendants failed to pay the proper AEWR wage rate.
52. Plaintiffs did not receive payment for all hours worked as required by federal law and their employment contract with the Defendants,
53. Defendants did not maintain the detailed, accurate, and complete records required by federal law and their employment contract with Plaintiffs. 20 C.F.R. § 655.102(7).
54. Defendants did not fum~sh Plaintiffs with the detailed, accurate, and complete pay statements required by federal law and the Plaintiffs' employment contracts. 20 C.F.R. § 655.102(8).
55. Defendants utilized farm labor contracting services of individuals
certificates of registration mandated by the AWPA. 29 U.S.C. § 1842. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS:
COUNT I - H-2A CONTRACT VIOLATIONS 56. All claims set forth in Count I are brought by Representative Plaintiffs Hector Luna, Julian Garcia, and Francisco Javier Lorenzo on behalf of themselves
15

Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 55 Filed 10/11/06 Page 16 of 38
and all other similarly situated persons pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
57. Hector Luna, Julian Garcia, and Francisco Javier Lorenzo seek to represent a class consisting of all those individuals admitted as H-2A temporary foreign workers pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1188(H)(ii)(a) who were employed by the Defendants in their Georgia vegetable farming operations from Aprill, 2003 to the present.
58. The precise number of individuals in the class is known only to the Defendants and their farm labor contractors. This class is believed to include over 300 individuals. The class is comprised principally of indigent migrant farmworkers who maintain their residences in locations throughout Mexico. The class members are not fluent in the English language. Therelatively small size of the individual claims, the geographical dispersion of the class, and the indigency of -~---------_the_ class_members_makes__the_maintenance__ofs_ep_arate_acfio_n_s_b_y_eae_h_class memb~t_________ economically infeasible. Joinder of all class members is impracticable.
59. There are questions of fact and law common to the class. These common questions include whether the Defendants were an employer of the Count I, H-2A worker subclass under the meaning of20 C.F.R. § 655.100; whether the Defendants violated the ''job order" contract by failing to reimburse the class
16

Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 55 Filed 10/11/06 Page 17 of 38
members for pre-employment expenses to the extent necessary to assure the receipt of the AEWR or overtime wage rate in the first week of employment; whether the Defendants failed to pay the Count I H-2A worker subclass members at the contractual AEWR or overtime wage rate for all work performed; whether the Defendants failed to maintain complete and accurate records regarding the Count I class me1nbers' work; and whether the Defendants failed to provide the Count I H2A worker class members with complete and accurate wage statements.
60. The claims of Representative Plaintiffs Hector Luna, Julian Garcia, and Francisco Javier Lorenzo are typical of the class, and these typical, common claims predominate over any questions affecting only individual class members. Representative Plaintiffs Hector Luna, Julian Garcia, and Francisco Javier Lorenzo have the same interests as do the other members of the class and will vigorously prosecute these interests on behalf of the class. _________6_l.__C_o_uns_el_fQr_theJ~laiutiffs_h_avehandLed_m:tmerou_s_ac1ion_S_in_the fed~raL____________ _ courts, including class actions and collective actions, concerning the issues involved herein. They are prepared to advance litigation costs necessary to vigorously litigate this action.
62. A class action under Rule 23(b)(3) is superior to other available methods of adjudicating this controversy because, inter alia:
17

Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 55 Filed 10/11/06 Page 18 of 38

a. 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 ofthe class in individually controlling the prosecution of separate actions;
b. Many members of the class are unaware of their rights to prosecute these claims and lack the means or resources to secure legal assistance;
c. It is desirable that the claims be heard in this forum since the relevant agricultural operations and Plaintiffs' work took place in Georgia; and
d. A class action can be managed without undue difficulty because Defendants have regularly committed the violations complained of herein and are required to maintain detailed records
___________________________c_onc~ming_ each_mexnbe_r_Q_f_the class_.__ _ ______________________________
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS: COUNTll-MITGRANTANDSEASONAL AGRICULTURAL WORKER PROTECTION ACT VIOLATIONS 63. All claims set forth in Count II are brought by Representative Plaintiffs Santos G. Maldonado and Bartolo Nunez, individually and on behalf of all other

I.

. 18

I

Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 55 Filed 10/11/06 Page 19 of 38

similarly situated persons, pursuant to Rule 23 (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure.

64. Representative Plaintiffs Santos G. Maldonado and Bartolo Nufiez

seek to represent a class consisting of all those individuals employed by the

Defendants as migrant agricultural workers in their Georgia vegetable farming

operations from April 1, 2003 to the present.

65. The precise number of individuals in the class is known only to the

Defendants and their farm labor contractors. This class is believed to include over

300 individuals. The class is comprised principally of indigent migrant

farmworkers with fluid places of residence. The class members are not fluent in the

English language. The relatively small size of the individual claims, the

geographical dispersion of the class, and the indigency of the class members makes

the maintenance of separate actions by each class member economically infeasible.

.

.

____________]Qinder ofall.elasS.IDembersjS..impra9ticable.______________________________________________

66. There are questions of fact and law common to the class. These

common questions include whether the Defendants were an employer of the Count

II migrant agricultural worker class as defined by the AWPA; whether the terms of

the ']ob order" contract were incorporated into the AWPA "working arrangement"

of the Count II class; whether the Defendants violated the AWPA.by failing to pay

19

Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 55 Filed 10/11/06 Page 20 of 38
the AEWR minimum wage rate to members of the Count II migrant agricultural worker class; whether the Defendants violated the AWPA by failing to reimburse the Count II class members for pre-employment expenses to the extent necessary to assure the receipt of the AEWR minimum wage rate in the first week of ~mployment; whether the Defendants failed to pay the Count II migrant agricultural worker class members their wages promptly when due, as required by the AWPA; whether the Defendants failed to maintain complete and accurate records regarding the Count II migrant agricultural worker class riwmbers' work in violation of the AWPA; whether the Defendants failed to provide the Count II class members with complete and accurate wage statements·as required by the AWPA; and whether the Defendants violated the AWPA by utilizing an unlicensed farm labor contractor to supply their migrant labor force.
67. The claims 9fRepresentative Plaintiffs Santos G. Maldonado and __________B_artolo_Nuiiez_are_rypicaLofth_e_Co_untiLmigr.anLagrkultural work~r__Qlass,_and___·_____________
these typical, common claims predominate uver any questions affecting only individual class members. Representative Plaintiffs Santos G. Maldonado and Bartolo Nufiez have the same interests as do the other members of the class and will vigorously prosecute these interests on behalf of the class.
20

Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 55 Filed 10/11/06 Page 21 of 38

68. Counsel for the Plaintiffs have handled numerous actions in the federal

courts, including class actions and collective actions, concerning the issues involved

herein. They are prepared to advance litigation costs necessary to vigorously

litigate this action.

69. A class action under Rule 23(b)(3) is superior to other available

methods of adjudicating this controversy because, inter alia:

a. 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;

b. Many members of the class are unaware of their rights to

prosecute these claims and lack the means or resources to secure

legal assistance;

__________ ____ ____e~ _ There has been no litigati_Qll9-liY1l_dy_co!Illlle!lQ~g_-'!gainsj:_t_h~ _______________

Defendants by the members of the class to determine the

questions presented;

d. It is desirable that the claims be heard in this forum since the

agricultural operations at issue and Plaintiffs' work took place in

i

Georgia; and

I

I"

21

Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 55 Filed 10/11/06 Page 22 of 38
e. · A class action can be managed without undue difficulty because Defendants have regularly committed the violations complained of herein and are required to maintain detailed records concerning each member of the class. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
COUNT I: BREACH OF EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT (CLASS ACTION- H-2A WORKER CLASS)
70. Representative Plaintiffs Hector Luna, Julian Garcia, and Francisco Javier Lorenzo and the members of the Count I class incorporate by reference the allegations set forth above in the preceding paragraphs.
71. This count sets forth a claim· for damages by Representative Plaintiffs Hector Luna, Julian Garcia, and Francisco Javier Lorenzo and the members of the Count I class against the Defendants for their breach of the "rate of pay" provision ofthe employment contract detailed in 20 C.F.R. § 655.102(b)(9)(ii)(A) and the H2A record-keeping and pay statement provisions detailed in 20 C.F.R. § 655.1 02(b)(7)-(8).
7Z. The Defendants offered and Representative Plaintiffs Hector Luna, Julian Garcia, and Francisco Javier Lorenzo and the members of the proposed Count I class accepted employment on specific terms and conditions.
22

Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 55 Filed 10/11/06 Page 23 of 38
73. .Representative Plaintiffs Hector Luna, Julian Garcia, and Francisco Javier Lorenzo and the members ofth~ proposed Count I class are H-2A guestworkers recruited by the Defendants' farm labor contractors to leave their home villages in Mexico to work a~ the Defendants' Georgia vegetable farms. After receiving a hiring commitment from the Defendants' fann labor contractors, the members of the proposed Count I class were required to process their H-2A work visas and travel to the Defendants' Georgia vegetable farms to begin work.
74. Among the terms that the Defendants offered and Plaintiffs accepted . .was payment of at least the applicable AEWR wage rate for each hour worked up to forty hours in a week, and one-and-a-halftimes the applicable wage rate for hours worked above forty during weeks in which overtime-eligible work was performed. 29 U.S.C. § 207(a); 20 C.F.R. § 655.102(b)(9).
75. The Defendants breached their employment contract with the Plaintiffs
.____________and oth~.rmerohers_of the pro.posed Count I clas_~ by failing_tQ_:mt_yJhem th~p_ro:Qer_.______
AEWR and overtime wage rates for all the work they performed. 76. Among the terms that the Defendants offered and Plaintiffs accepted
was maintenance of detailed, complete, and accurate pay records in compliance with the requirements of20 C.F.R. § 655.102(b)(7).
23

Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 55 Filed 10/11/06 Page 24 of 38
77. Defendants breached their employment contract with the Plaintiffs and other members of the proposed Count I class by failing to maintain the complete, detailed, and accurate pay records required by Plaintiffs' employment contract and by federal regulations.
78. Among the terms that the Defendants offered and Plaintiffs accepted was Defendants' provision of detailed, complete, and accurate pay statements to Plaintiffs in compliance with the requirements of20 C.F.R. § 655.102(b)(8).
79. Defendants breached their employment contract with the Plaintiffs and other members of the proposed Count I class by failing to provide them with the complete, detailed, and accurate records pay statements required by Plaintiffs' employment contract and by federal regulations.
80. The breach of the employment contract as set out in paragraphs 71 and 75 resulted in part from the Defendants' failure to reimburse the Plaintiffs and the ___________other_m~mbers_g_fthe Gount I class for expenses they incurred which were p_rimarily__________ for the benefit of the Defendants to the extent necessary to assure receipt of the applicable AEWR and overtime hourly wage rates in the first week of employment of each member of the proposed Count I class.
81. The breach of the employment contract as set out in paragraphs 71 and 75 resulted in part from the Defendants' faiiure to supplement the piece-rate
24

Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 55 Filed 10/11/06 Page 25 of 38
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 required AEWR and overtime wage rates.
82. The breach of the employment contract as set out in paragraphs 71 and 75 resulted in part from the Defendants' failure to pay the proper AEWR and overtime wage rates for all work compensated on an hourly basis.
83. The breaches of the employment contract as set out in paragraphs 71, 75, 77, and 79 resulted in part from the Defendants' maintenance of incomplete, · false and inaccurate records of the hours worked by Plaintiffs and other class members.
84. The breaches of the employment contract as set out in paragraphs 71, 75, 77, and 79 resulted in part from the Defendants' provision of incomplete, false and inaccurate records of hours worked to Plaintiffs and other class members. ___________________85_.___ A.S_a_dir_ect_c_QJ1S§.Q1l~:Uce of the Defendant§.~jxeach~Qf tb&____________________ employment contract,-the Plaintiffs suffered economic injury.
86. The Defendants are liable to Plaintiffs for the actual, incidental, and consequential damages which arose naturally and according to the usual course of things from the Defendants' breaches, as provided by O.C.G.A. § 13-6-2 and the
25

Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 55 Filed 10/11/06 Page 26 of 38
federal common law of contracts, including unpaid wages, damages arising from the delay, and pre-judgment interest.
COUNT II: MIGRANT & SEASONAL AGRICULTURAL WORKER PROTECTION ACT
(CLASS ACTION- MIGRANT AGRICULTURAL WORKER CLASS) 87. Representative Plaintiffs Santos G. Maldonado and Bartolo Nufiez and
the members of the Count II class incorporate by reference the allegations set forth above in the preceding paragraphs.
88. ·This count sets forth claims for money damages, declaratory relief and injunctive relief by Representative Plaintiffs Santos G. Maldonado and Bartolo Nufiez and the other members of the proposed Count II class against the Defendants for their violations of the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act ("AWPA").
89. The certifications described in paragraphs 38 through 44 above
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.
90. The Defendants violated the AWPA by failing to pay the Plaintiffs and the other members of the Count II migrant agricultural worker class the proper AEWR and overtime wage rates for all the work they performed.
26

Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 55 Filed 10/11/06 Page 27 of 38
91. The violation of the AWPA as set out in paragraph 90 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 required AEWR and overtime wage rates.
92. The violation of the AWPA as set out in paragraph 90 resulted. in part from the Defendants' failure to pay the proper AEWR and overtime wage rates for all work compensated on an hourly basis.
93. The violation of the AWPA as set out in paragraph 90 resulted in part from the Defendants' maintenance of incomplete, false and inaccurate records of the hours worked by Plaintiffs and other class members.
. 94. The violation of the AWPA as set out in paragraph 90 resulted in part from the Defendants' failure to reimburse the Plaintiffs and the other members of the Count II migrant agricultural worker class for expenses they incurred which
27

Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 55 Filed 10/11/06 Page 28 of 38

96. By their actions and omissions described in paragraphs 90 through 94,

the Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiffs and other members of the Count II 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.

97. The Defendants failed to make, keep, and preserve accurate and

complete records regarding the Plaintiffs' and the other Count II class members'

employment, in violation of the AWPA, 29 U.S.C. § 1821(d)(l), and its attendant

I

regulations, 29 C.F.R. § 500.80(a).

I

i

98. The Defendants failed to provide the Plaintiffs and the other Count II

class members complete and accurate itemized written statements for each pay

period containing the required information, in violation of the AWPA, 29 U.S.C. §

1821(d)(2), and its attendant regulations, 29 C.F.R. § 500.80(d).

·99. The Defendants failed to take reasonable steps to confirm that farm

___________jabor contractors utiliz~d by them_j)Ossess~<Lvali9 certificates_of !"~gistril!ipn, ii!____________

violation of29 U.S.C. § 1842.

100. 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)(l).

28

Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 55 Filed 10/11/06 Page 29 of 38
101. 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 damages. ·
COUNT III: FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT (29 U.S.C. § 216(b) COLLECTIVE ACTION) 102. The Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs. 103. This count sets forth a claim for declaratory relief and damages for the Defendants' violations of the minimum wage provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). This count is brought by all Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated farmworkers employed by the Defendants in their Georgia vegetable operations between April21, 2003 and the present. 104. Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), Plaintiffs Hector Luna, Julian Garcia, Francisco Javier Lorenzo, Santos G. Maldonado and Bartolo Nufiez have consented in writing to be party Plantiffs in this FLSA action. Their written consents are attached to this complaint. ·105. The Defendants violated the rights of Plaintiffs by failing to pay each worker at least an average of the applicable minimum wage for every compensable hour of labor performed in a workweek, in violation of29 U.S.C. § 206(a).
29

Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 55 Filed 10/11/06 Page 30 of 38
106. The Defendants violated the rights of Plaintiffs by failing to pay each worker at least an average of one-and-a-halftimes the applicable wage for all hours worked above forty during overtime-eligible workweeks. 29 U.S.C. § 207(a).
107. The violations of the FLSA in this count resulted, in part, from the Defendants' failure to reimburse expenses that were incurred by Plaintiffs primarily for the benefit of the Defendants, prior to the Plaintiffs' first week of work, as described above in paragraphs 47 through 49. When these expenses were deducted from Plaintiffs' first week's pay, they brought the Plaintiffs' earnings below the applicable minimum and overtime wages for that pay period.
108. As a result of the Defendants' violations of the FLSA set forth in this count, each Plaintiff is entitled to recover the amount of his or her unpaid minimum· and overtime wages and an equal amount as liquidated damages, pursuant to 29 · U.S.C. §216(b).
--~109. _Th~J)efe:ml_a])_ts'__violatiollS_§_~t_ out inJhi§.~OUJ}t we_re willful within the meaning of the FLSA.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court enter an order:
30

Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 55 Filed 10/11/06 Page 31 of 38

A. Certifying this case as a class action in accordance with Rule

23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure with respect to the

claims set forth in Count I;

B. Certifying this case as a class action in accordance with Rule

23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure with respect to the

claims set forth in Count II;

C. With respect to the claims set forth in Count III, permitting this

case to proceed as a 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) collective action;

D. Declaring that the Defendants intentionally violated the Migrant

and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act and its attendant

regulations, as set forth in Count II;

E. Declaring that the Defendants willfully violated the minimum

wage provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act as set forth in

Count III;__ _

---

------~----------------------

F. Granting judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs and the other class

members against the Defendants under Count I and awarding each

of the Plaintiffs and other class members their respective actual,

incidental and consequential damages;

31

Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 55 Filed 10/11/06 Page 32 of 38
G. Granting Judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs and the other class members against the Defendants under Count II and awarding each of the Plaintiffs and the other class members actual or statutory damages for each violation of the AWPA, whichever is greater;
H. Permanently enjoining the Defendants from further violations of the AWPA and its attendant regulations;
I. 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 III and awarding each of these Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated individuals who optin to this action his unpaid minimum and overtime wages and an equal amount in liquidated damages;
J. Awarding the Plaintiffs the costs of this action; __________________________K_,_____ Awardi:ng_pJaintiffs_ure- an_d_uost:_.-judgm~v.t_ipjyres_tas allowed
by law; L. Awarding the Plaintiffs reasonable attorneys' fees with respect
to their Fair Labor Standards Act claims; and M. Granting such further relief as is just and equitable.
32

Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 55 Filed 10/11/06 Page 33 of 38
Respectfully submitted this 21st day of September, 2006.
Is/ Kristi L. Graunke._ _ __
Mary C. Bauer Georgia Bar Number 142213 Kristi L. Graunke . Georgia Bar Number 305653 Andrew H. Turner Virginia Bar Number 48853 Pro Hac Vice Motion Pending Kelley M. Bruner Alabama BarNo. 8115-K74B Pro Hac Vice Motion Pending Immigrant Justice Project · Southern Poverty Law Center 400 Washington Avenue Montgomery, Alabama 36104 Telephone: (334) 956-8200 Facsimile: (334) 956-8481 Email: mbauer@splcenter.org .
kgraunke@splcenter.org atmner@splcenter.org kbruner@splcenter.org
Gregory S. Schell Florida Bar Number 287199 Pro hac.vice motie_n,_J2§indj!]g_ __:_________ ___________ Migrant Farmworker Justice Project FLORIDA LEGAL SERVICES, INC. 508 Lucerne Avenue Lake Worth, Florida 33460-3819 Telephone: (561) 582-3921 Facsimile: (561) 582-4884 Email: Greg@Floridalegal.org
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
33

Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 55 Filed 10/11/06 Page 34 of 38

DE : AHORRATEL CORTAZAR (

NO.DE FAX 01411155459?-•'.
\

- - - - - - ·-~ -·- ...... ·~ ..• --- -···--· ....... ··---··· - ..... ·--

... -

--· ..

31 1'1AR. 2006 11: S0AI''1 F':C:'

FLSA CONSENT FOR'-1! CONSE~'"l"liV!IENTO PARA. A.CClON 1-~LSA Thereby give my ~nnsen:r. to sue fo: -w11.ges :hat may be owed to me under the Fair Labor Standards Act. I hereby authorize rc.y attorneys tt:l represent me before any court or agency on
NAME
--~-------.._,....._._
SIGNATURE
=DA-T-E=------·-·- - - - - - - -

?or este medic dey mi consenti.miento pa:ra que se haga detnanda para pagos que se me <.k:bl:w bajo la Ley :Je ~o:m.as Laborales Jusias. Autoriz;o que mis abogados roe representen ante cu?Jquier corte o agt:::ncia toca.n'te es:os r~clamo6.

''··.

Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 55 Filed 10/11/06 Page 35 of 38
,.·
FLSA CONSENT FOR.l\1/ CONSENTIMIENTO PARA ACCION FLSA l
l hereby give my consent to sue for wages that may be owed to me under the Fair Labor Standards Act I hereby authorize my attorneys to represent me before any court or agency on these claims.
NAME SIGNATURE DATE
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Por este medio doy mi consentimiento para que se haga demanda para pagos que se me · deben bajo la Ley de Normas Laborales Justas. Autorizo que mis abogados me representen ante cualquier corte o agencia tocante estos reclamos.

_i______ -

--------------------------------~:--------

FECHA

Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 55 Filed 10/11/06 Page 36 of 38

FLSA CONSENT FORM I CONSENTIMIENTO PARA ACCION FLSA

I hereby give my consent.to sue for wages that may be owed to me under the Fair Labor

I

'

, Standards Act. I hereby authorize my attorneys to represent me before any court or agency on

11

these claims.

. I

NAME

SIGNATURE

DATE

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

Por este medio doy mi consentimiento para que se haga demanda para pagos que se me deben bajo la Ley de No;rmas Laborales Justas. Autorizo que mis abogados me representen ante cualquier corte o agencia tocante estos reclamos.

WD-W\C.;~, 0 s,\0;\f\{';(' Lo~e.nz.o •fr ce.--z.... .

NOMBRE

..

·---·-·· ·- ··-·- ···.--- ·-··· ·- ·--·-- ·-· __,-·-· -- ·- ·---·--·- --..---··- ··--·····-·- ·-----·------ ---------··-- ·-··---··--o-6·;;. -·-tK ;;;· ·t!2-6 ·-·· ·-- ·--· . ·-- ·- -··-·-

----·----·----------------------- ----·------"'FIRNIA .lLz:_

-FE_C_HA~,~~·~----------

Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 55 Filed 10/11/06 Page 37 of 38
,. i
NOTICE OF CONSENT TO SUE
I HEREBY CONSENT to be a party Plaintiff in a lawsuit under the minimum
. wage provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act with respect to labor I performed in the
State(s) of _ _ _ _ _ _during the year(s) _ _ _ __
This _ _ _ day of _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _, 200_. Signature:
Name
NOTICIA DE CONSENTIMIENTO PARA DEMANDAR
YO POR LA PRESENTE DOY CONSENTIMIENTO a ser partido Demandante en una demanda bajo las provisiones del salario minima de la Acta de
Gear-9\a Normas Justas e Iguales con respecto a trabajo que hice en el Estado(s) de
_ ____,__ _ _ _ durante t;:l(~os) afio(s) ____,O..__L(.._·_ _ _ __
! _____Este_-£:!-~~ ~-~k«Ja, 2~=._------------~----------
Nombre

Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 55 Filed 10/11/06 Page 38 of 38

(

,.~ "

I,

i

(

FLSA COI"\SE~T fOiL\1 J CONSENTIMtENTO rARA ACCf.O'!\: FLSA
J h•.:reby give my (:On'>ent to :;ue i:\."lr ·wagc:s that may be owed to me under the Fair :.abor
Standards Act. r h•:reby amh()rize my ar::omeys ·io represem me t;cfore any C\Hltt or agency on
thest: claims.
NA.ME
-----.-"·---#-------~---
SIONAHJRE
........ N ... o - • • - • o ,..........,"' _ _ _ _ _ ,N _ _ , ... _ _ _ _ _ • - -
DATE

b(;Ijo lu. Le) d~ Norm.'IS Labur~les Ju$hts. A\liori:w que mis aboB<h10:> me r'~prescnt.;:n anti.! ccualqukr corte o agenda lo~~a!"tte estos reel amos.

 
 Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 378 Filed 12/28/09 Page 1 of 40

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

ATLANTA DIVISION

____________________________________

)

HECTOR LUNA,

)

JULIAN GARCIA,

)

FRANSCISO JAVIER LORENZO

)

SANTOS G. MALDONADO,

)

PATRICIA WOODARD,

)

and BARTOLO NUÑEZ,

)

individually and on behalf of all others

)

similarly situated,

)

)

and

)

)

ADA LINDA GARCIA-TENORIO,

)

ADOLFO ROBLERO-MORALES,

)

ANGEL MANCILLA,

)

ARISTEO CAMACHO-GRIMALDO, )

BALTAZAR DIAZ-OROZCO,

)

BERNANRDO CEDILLO-DUQUE,

)

CARLOS MARTINEZ-MEDINA,

)

CESAR ARTURO GARCIA-SANCHEZ, )

CIRILO ALVARADO-MAR,

)

ELADIO CORTEZ-SANCHEZ,

)

EMILIO GALARZA-BANDA,

)

ENRIQUE LOPEZ-LOREDO,

)

FELIZARDO GARCIA-MARTINEZ,

)

FORTUNATO ORTEGA-SANTES,

)

FRANCISCO BELTRAN-ROJAS,

)

HUMBERTO CEPADA-ROSAS,

)

HUMBERTO HERNANDEZ-GALVAN, )

IGNACIO IBARRA-RIVERA,

)

J. ISABEL MARTINEZ-ABUNDIZ,

)

JORGE AGUILAR-ESTEBAN,

)

Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 378 Filed 12/28/09 Page 2 of 40

JOSE ANTONIO FABIAN-FLORES,

)

JOSE HERNANDEZ-HERNANDEZ,

)

JOSE JUAN MARTINEZ-GALLEGOS, )

JOSE RICARDO ZUNIGA-MAR,

)

JOSE VICTOR MARTINEZ-MENDEZ, )

JUAN ALBINO JUAREZ-ESTRADA, )

LAZARO NAVA-OSORIO,

)

LEOPOLDO BARRIOS-ORTEGA,

)

LORENA SIERRA-GONZALEZ,

)

MIGUEL MARTINEZ-MARTINEZ,

)

NARCISA MORENO-DIAZ,

)

NARCISO MEDINA-REYES,

)

PABLO MEDINA-REYES,

)

PEDRO BARRIOS-ORTEGA,

)

RAUL ESCOBAR,

)

REYES RAMOS-VASQUEZ,

)

ROBERTO DEL ANGEL-CARRERA, )

ROBERTO MANCILLA-HERNANDEZ, )

SIXTO MANCILLA-RODRIGUEZ,

)

TEODORO DUQUE-ZUNIGA,

)

TOMASA HERNANDEZ-CORONADO, )

URIEL PATINO-CORONA,

)

ADOLFO GOMEZ,

)

C.J. MASON,

)

GEORGE ALLEN,

)

GEORGE WORTHEN,

)

HOPE WILLIAMS,

)

JAMIL WRIGHT,

)

KATHY WILLIAMS,

)

ROSA ARIAS,

)

SANDREKA MADISON, and

)

VEOTA KHAMLUSA

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

2

Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 378 Filed 12/28/09 Page 3 of 40

)

v.

)

)

DEL MONTE FRESH PRODUCE

)

(SOUTHEAST), INC., and

)

DEL MONTE FRESH PRODUCE, N.A., )

INC.

)

)

Defendants.

)

___________________________________ )

Case No. 1:06-cv-02000JEC

THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

NATURE OF THE ACTION
1. This is a civil action brought by fifty-eight migrant and seasonal agricultural workers employed by Defendant Del Monte Fresh Produce (Southeast), Inc. and Defendant Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A., Inc., (collectively “Del Monte” or “Defendants”) at their Georgia farms in and around Wheeler and Telfair Counties to plant, harvest, transport and pack melons, greens and onions during the 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006 harvest seasons. The Plaintiffs file this action to secure and vindicate their rights under the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act, 29 U.S.C. § 1801-1871 (1999), (hereinafter “AWPA”), the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201 – 219 (1998), (hereinafter “FLSA”), and under state and federal contract law. Representative Plaintiffs Hector Luna, Julian
3

Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 378 Filed 12/28/09 Page 4 of 40
Garcia, Francisco Javier Lorenzo, Santos G. Maldonado, Patricia Woodard and Bartolo Nuňez assert their Fair Labor Standards Act claims on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated.
2. The Plaintiffs complain of the Defendants’ unlawful employment practices during the 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006 seasons.
3. Acting through their agents, the Defendants recruited the Plaintiffs to work on their Georgia produce farms. The Defendant, through their recruiting agents, made binding promises regarding wages, hours and working conditions. In reliance upon and in consideration of these binding promises, many Plaintiffs left their homes, families and children and spent considerable money and effort to travel to Georgia to work for the Defendants.
4. The Defendants employed two distinct classes of agricultural workers. The Defendants employed agricultural “guestworkers” recruited from Mexico pursuant to the temporary agricultural work visa program commonly known as the “H-2A program.” 8 U.S.C. §1188(H)(ii)(a). These guestworkers (hereinafter “H2A workers”) had written contracts of employment that included specific representations regarding wages, hours and working conditions. The terms of these employment contracts were primarily dictated by federal regulations. The H-2A worker Plaintiffs assert claims under the FLSA and for breach of contract.
4

Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 378 Filed 12/28/09 Page 5 of 40
5. The Defendants also employed migrant and seasonal workers who were not H-2A guestworkers (hereinafter “migrant and seasonal agricultural workers”). These non-H-2A, migrant and seasonal agricultural workers were recruited from within the United States. As a matter of law, the Defendants were not permitted to offer less favorable terms of employment to similarly situated domestic workers. 20 C.F.R. § 655.102. Thus, the same terms and conditions of employment offered contractually to the H-2A workers were incorporated as the minimum terms of the AWPA “working arrangement” of the migrant and seasonal agricultural workers. The migrant and seasonal agricultural worker Plaintiffs assert claims under the AWPA and under the FLSA.
6. Throughout their employment, the Defendants breached the terms of the Plaintiffs’ employment agreements. The Defendants consistently failed to pay the promised wage rate for all hours worked. The Defendants also failed to reimburse the Plaintiffs for costs they incurred for the benefit of the Defendants to the extent that these costs brought Plaintiffs’ first week of wages below the required hourly rate.
7. The H-2A Worker Plaintiffs identified specifically in ¶¶ 15-59 below assert Count I claims for breach of contract. The Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Plaintiffs identified specifically in ¶¶ 60-72 below assert
5

Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 378 Filed 12/28/09 Page 6 of 40
Count II claims under the AWPA. Representative Plaintiffs Hector Luna, Julian Garcia, Francisco Javier Lorenzo, Santos G. Maldonado, Patricia Woodard, and Bartolo Nuňez assert their Count III claims under the FLSA on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated.
8. Plaintiffs seek to recover their unpaid wages, actual, statutory, liquidated, incidental, consequential, and compensatory damages and pre- and postjudgment interest. Plaintiffs also seek reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).
JURISDICTION 9. Jurisdiction is conferred upon this Court by 28 U.S.C. § 1331, this action arising under the laws of the United States. 10. Jurisdiction is conferred upon this Court by 28 U.S.C. § 1337, this action arising under Acts of Congress regulating commerce. 11. Jurisdiction is conferred upon this Court by 29 U.S.C. § 1854(a), this action arising under the AWPA. 12. Jurisdiction is conferred upon this Court by 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), this action arising under the FLSA. 13. Jurisdiction is conferred upon this Court by 28 U.S.C. § 1331, this case presenting state law claims that implicate significant federal issues. In the
6

Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 378 Filed 12/28/09 Page 7 of 40
alternative, the Court is requested to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims. The state claims involve the same case and controversy as the federal claims. Supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims is conferred upon this Court by 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).
VENUE 14. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and (c) and 29 U.S.C. § 1854(a).
PARTIES
The H-2A Worker Plaintiffs
15. Representative Plaintiff Hector Luna was an H-2A guestworker employed by Defendants from approximately 2003 to 2004. Mr. Luna joined the Fair Labor Standards Act claims in this case as a named Plaintiff on April 20, 2006. [Rec. Doc. 27.]
16. Representative Plaintiff Julian Garcia was an H-2A guestworker employed by Defendants in approximately 2003. Mr. Garcia joined the Fair Labor Standards Act claims in this case as a named Plaintiff on April 20, 2006. [Rec. Doc. 33.]
7

Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 378 Filed 12/28/09 Page 8 of 40
17. Representative Plaintiff Francisco Javier Lorenzo Perez was an H-2A guestworker employed by Defendants in approximately 2006. Mr. Lorenzo joined the Fair Labor Standards Act claims in this case as a named Plaintiff on September 21, 2006. [Rec. Doc. 42.]
18. Ms. Ada Linda Garcia-Tenorio was an H-2A guestworker employed by Defendants in approximately 2006. Ms. Garcia joined the Fair Labor Standards Act claims in this case as an opt-in Plaintiff on August 13, 2007. [Rec. Doc. 1962.]
19. Mr. Adolfo Roblero-Morales was an H-2A guestworker employed by Defendants in approximately 2004. Mr. Roblero-Morales joined the Fair Labor Standards Act claims in this case as an opt-in Plaintiff on March 23, 2007. [Rec. Doc. 123.]
20. Mr. Angel Mancilla was an H-2A guestworker employed by Defendants in approximately 2006. Mr. Mancilla joined the Fair Labor Standards Act claims in this case as an opt-in Plaintiff on July 10, 2007. [Rec. Doc. 151.]
21. Mr. Aristeo Camacho-Grimaldo was an H-2A guestworker employed by Defendants in approximately 2006. Mr.Camacho-Grimaldo joined the Fair Labor Standards Act claims in this case as an opt-in Plaintiff on September 21, 2006. [Rec. Doc. 42.]
8

Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 378 Filed 12/28/09 Page 9 of 40
22. Mr. Baltazar Diaz-Orozco was an H-2A guestworker employed by Defendants in approximately 2006. Mr. Diaz-Orozco joined the Fair Labor Standards Act claims in this case as an opt-in Plaintiff on September 21, 2006. [Rec. Doc. 42.]
23. Mr. Bernardo Cedillo-Duque was an H-2A guestworker employed by Defendants in approximately 2006. Mr. Cedillo-Duque joined the Fair Labor Standards Act claims in this case as an opt-in Plaintiff on July 10, 2007. [Rec. Doc. 151.]
24. Mr. Carlos Martinez-Medina was an H-2A guestworker employed by Defendants in approximately 2006. Mr. Martinez-Medina joined the Fair Labor Standards Act claims in this case as an opt-in Plaintiff on September 21, 2006. [Rec. Doc. 42.]
25. Mr. Cesar Arturo Garcia-Sanchez was an H-2A guestworker employed by Defendants in approximately 2006. Mr. Garcia-Sanchez joined the Fair Labor Standards Act claims in this case as an opt-in Plaintiff on September 21, 2006. [Rec. Doc. 42.]
26. Mr. Cirilo Alvarado-Mar was an H-2A guestworker employed by Defendants in approximately 2006. Mr. Alvarado-Mar joined the Fair Labor
9

Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 378 Filed 12/28/09 Page 10 of 40
Standards Act claims in this case as an opt-in Plaintiff on July 10, 2007. [Rec. Doc. 151.]
27. Mr. Eladio Cortez-Sanchez was an H-2A guestworker employed by Defendants from approximately 2003 to 2004. Mr. Cortez-Sanchez joined the Fair Labor Standards Act claims in this case as an opt-in Plaintiff on June 22, 2006. [Rec. Doc. 27.]
28. Mr. Emilio Galarza-Banda was an H-2A guestworker employed by Defendants in approximately 2006. Mr. Galarza-Banda joined the Fair Labor Standards Act claims in this case as an opt-in Plaintiff on July 10, 2007. [Rec. Doc. 151.]
29. Mr. Enrique Lopez-Loredo was an H-2A guestworker employed by Defendants in approximately 2006. Mr. Lopez-Loredo joined the Fair Labor Standards Act claims in this case as an opt-in Plaintiff on July 10, 2007. [Rec. Doc. 151.]
30. Mr. Felizardo Garcia-Martinez was an H-2A guestworker employed by Defendants in approximately 2006. Mr. Garcia-Martinez joined the Fair Labor Standards Act claims in this case as an opt-in Plaintiff on July 10, 2007. [Rec. Doc. 151.]
10

Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 378 Filed 12/28/09 Page 11 of 40
31. Mr. Fortunato Ortega-Santes was an H-2A guestworker employed by Defendants in approximately 2006. Mr. Ortega-Santes joined the Fair Labor Standards Act claims in this case as an opt-in Plaintiff on July 10, 2007. [Rec. Doc. 151.]
32. Mr. Francisco Beltran-Rojas was an H-2A guestworker employed by Defendants from approximately 2003 to 2004. Mr. Beltran-Rojas joined the Fair Labor Standards Act claims in this case as an opt-in Plaintiff on June 22, 2006. [Rec. Doc. 27.]
33. Mr. Humberto Cepada-Rosas was an H-2A guestworker employed by Defendants in approximately 2006. Mr. Cepada-Rosas joined the Fair Labor Standards Act claims in this case as an opt-in Plaintiff on August 13, 2007. [Rec. Doc. 196-2.]
34. Mr. Humberto Hernandez-Galvan was an H-2A guestworker employed by Defendants in approximately 2006. Mr. Hernandez-Galvan joined the Fair Labor Standards Act claims in this case as an opt-in Plaintiff on July 12, 2007. [Rec. Doc. 152.]
35. Mr. Ignacio Ibarra-Rivera was an H-2A guestworker employed by Defendants in approximately 2006. Mr. Ibarra-Rivera joined the Fair Labor
11

Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 378 Filed 12/28/09 Page 12 of 40
Standards Act claims in this case as an opt-in Plaintiff on July 10, 2007. [Rec. Doc. 151.]
36. Mr. J. Isabel Martinez-Abundiz was an H-2A guestworker employed by Defendants in approximately 2006. Mr. Martinez-Abundiz joined the Fair Labor Standards Act claims in this case as an opt-in Plaintiff on July 10, 2007. [Rec. Doc. 151.]
37. Mr. Jorge Aguilar-Esteban was an H-2A guestworker employed by Defendants in approximately 2004. Mr. Aguilar-Esteban joined the Fair Labor Standards Act claims in this case as an opt-in Plaintiff on March 23, 2007. [Rec. Doc. 123.]
38. Mr. Jose Antonio Fabian-Flores was an H-2A guestworker employed by Defendants in approximately 2006. Mr. Fabian-Flores joined the Fair Labor Standards Act claims in this case as an opt-in Plaintiff on July 10, 2007. [Rec. Doc. 151.]
39. Mr. Jose Hernandez-Hernandez was an H-2A guestworker employed by Defendants in approximately 2006. Mr. Hernandez-Hernandez joined the Fair Labor Standards Act claims in this case as an opt-in Plaintiff on September 11, 2007. [Rec. Doc. 207.]
12

Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 378 Filed 12/28/09 Page 13 of 40
40. Mr. Jose Juan Martinez-Gallegos was an H-2A guestworker employed by Defendants in approximately 2006. Mr. Martinez-Gallegos joined the Fair Labor Standards Act claims in this case as an opt-in Plaintiff on September 21, 2006. [Rec. Doc. 42.]
41. Mr. Jose Ricardo Zuniga-Marz was an H-2A guestworker employed by Defendants in approximately 2006. Mr. Zuniga-Mar joined the Fair Labor Standards Act claims in this case as an opt-in Plaintiff on July 10, 2007. [Rec. Doc. 151.]
42. Mr. Jose Victor Martinez-Mendez was an H-2A guestworker employed by Defendants in approximately 2006. Mr. Martinez-Mendez joined the Fair Labor Standards Act claims in this case as an opt-in Plaintiff on September 21, 2006. [Rec. Doc. 42.]
43. Mr. Juan Albino Juarez-Estrada was an H-2A guestworker employed by Defendants in approximately 2006. Mr. Juarez-Estrada joined the Fair Labor Standards Act claims in this case as an opt-in Plaintiff on September 21, 2006. [Rec. Doc. 42.]
44. Mr. Lazaro Nava-Osorio was an H-2A guestworker employed by Defendants in approximately 2006. Mr. Nava-Osorio joined the Fair Labor
13

Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 378 Filed 12/28/09 Page 14 of 40
Standards Act claims in this case as an opt-in Plaintiff on September 21, 2006. [Rec. Doc. 42.]
45. Mr. Leopoldo Barrios-Ortega was an H-2A guestworker employed by Defendants in approximately 2006. Mr. Barrios-Ortega joined the Fair Labor Standards Act claims in this case as an opt-in Plaintiff on July 10, 2007. [Rec. Doc. 151.]
46. Ms. Lorena Sierra-Gonzalez was an H-2A guestworker employed by Defendants in approximately 2006. Ms. Sierra-Gonzalez joined the Fair Labor Standards Act claims in this case as an opt-in Plaintiff on September 21, 2006. [Rec. Doc. 42.]
47. Mr. Miguel Martinez-Martinez was an H-2A guestworker employed by Defendants in approximately 2006. Mr. Martinez-Martinez joined the Fair Labor Standards Act claims in this case as an opt-in Plaintiff on July 10, 2007. [Rec. Doc. 151.]
48. Ms. Narcisa Moreno-Diaz was an H-2A guestworker employed by Defendants in approximately 2006. Ms. Moreno-Diaz joined the Fair Labor Standards Act claims in this case as an opt-in Plaintiff on July 10, 2007. [Rec. Doc. 151.]
14

Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 378 Filed 12/28/09 Page 15 of 40
49. Mr. Narciso Medina-Reyes was an H-2A guestworker employed by Defendants in approximately 2006. Mr. Narciso Medina-Reyes joined the Fair Labor Standards Act claims in this case as an opt-in Plaintiff on August 13, 2007. [Rec. Doc. 196-2.]
50. Mr. Pablo Medina-Reyes was an H-2A guestworker employed by Defendants in approximately 2006. Mr. Pablo Medina-Reyes joined the Fair Labor Standards Act claims in this case as an opt-in Plaintiff on November 14, 2007. [Rec. Doc. 230.]
51. Mr. Pedro Barrios-Ortega was an H-2A guestworker employed by Defendants in approximately 2006. Mr. Barrios-Ortega joined the Fair Labor Standards Act claims in this case as an opt-in Plaintiff on July 10, 2007. [Rec. Doc. 151.]
52. Mr. Raul Escobar-Gonzalez was an H-2A guestworker employed by Defendants in approximately 2006. Mr. Escobar-Gonzalez joined the Fair Labor Standards Act claims in this case as an opt-in Plaintiff on May 12, 2008. [Rec. Doc. 247.]
53. Mr. Reyes Ramos-Vasquez was an H-2A guestworker employed by Defendants in approximately 2006. Mr. Ramos-Vasquez joined the Fair Labor
15

Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 378 Filed 12/28/09 Page 16 of 40
Standards Act claims in this case as an opt-in Plaintiff on July 12, 2007. [Rec. Doc. 152.]
54. Mr. Roberto Del Angel-Carrera was an H-2A guestworker employed by Defendants in approximately 2006. Mr. Del Angel-Carrera joined the Fair Labor Standards Act claims in this case as an opt-in Plaintiff on September 21, 2006. [Rec. Doc. 42.]
55. Mr. Roberto Mancilla-Hernandez was an H-2A guestworker employed by Defendants in approximately 2006. Mr. Mancilla-Hernandez joined the Fair Labor Standards Act claims in this case as an opt-in Plaintiff on July 10, 2007. [Rec. Doc. 151.]
56. Mr. Sixto Mancilla-Rodriguez was an H-2A guestworker employed by Defendants in approximately 2006. Mr. Mancilla-Rodriguez joined the Fair Labor Standards Act claims in this case as an opt-in Plaintiff on July 10, 2007. [Rec. Doc. 151.]
57. Mr. Teodoro Duque-Zuniga was an H-2A guestworker employed by Defendants in approximately 2006. Mr. Duque-Zuniga joined the Fair Labor Standards Act claims in this case as an opt-in Plaintiff on September 21, 2006. [Rec. Doc. 42.]
16

Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 378 Filed 12/28/09 Page 17 of 40

58. Ms. Tomasa Hernandez-Coronado was an H-2A guestworker employed by Defendants in approximately June 2006. Ms. Hernandez-Coronado joined the Fair Labor Standards Act claims in this case as an opt-in Plaintiff on September 21, 2006. [Rec. Doc. 42.]
59. Mr. Uriel Patino-Corona was an H-2A guestworker employed by Defendants in approximately 2004. Mr. Patino-Corona joined the Fair Labor Standards Act claims in this case as an opt-in Plaintiff on August 4, 2006. [Rec. Doc. 33.]

The Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Plaintiffs

60.

Representative Plaintiff Santos G. Maldonado was employed by

Defendants in approximately2004 as a migrant or seasonal agricultural worker. Mr.

Maldonado joined the Fair Labor Standards Act claims in this case as a named

Plaintiff on April 20, 2006. [Rec. Doc. 33.]

61. Representative Plaintiff Patricia Woodard was employed by intermittently by

Defendants from approximately 2003 to 2006 as a migrant or seasonal agricultural

worker. Ms. Woodard joined the Fair Labor Standards Act claims in this case as a

named Plaintiff on October 24, 2006. [Rec. Doc. 59.]

17

Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 378 Filed 12/28/09 Page 18 of 40
62. Representative Plaintiff Bartolo Nuñez was employed intermittently by Defendants from approximately 2004through 2006 as a migrant or seasonal agricultural worker. Mr. Nuñez joined the Fair Labor Standards Act claims in this case as a named Plaintiff on April 20, 2006. [Rec. Doc. 33.] 63. Mr. Adolfo Gomez was employed by Defendants intermittently from approximately 2003 to 2006 as a migrant or seasonal agricultural worker. Mr. Gomez joined the Fair Labor Standards Act claims in this case as an opt-in Plaintiff on September 29, 2006. [Rec. Doc. 53.] 64. Mr. C.J. Mason was employed by Defendants intermittently from approximately 2004 to 2006 as a migrant or seasonal agricultural worker. Mr. Mason joined the Fair Labor Standards Act claims in this case as an opt-in Plaintiff on October 24, 2006. [Rec. Doc. 59.] 65. Mr. George Allen was employed by Defendants in approximately 2005 as a migrant or seasonal agricultural worker. Mr. Allen joined the Fair Labor Standards Act claims in this case as an opt-in Plaintiff on October 12, 2006. [Rec. Doc. 58.] 66. Mr. George Worthen was employed by Defendants in approximately 2004 as a migrant or seasonal agricultural worker. Mr. Worthen joined the Fair Labor Standards Act claims in this case as an opt-in Plaintiff on May 15, 2007. [Rec. Doc. 142.]
18

Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 378 Filed 12/28/09 Page 19 of 40
67. Ms. Hope Williams was employed by Defendants in approximately 2004 as a migrant or seasonal agricultural worker. Ms. Williams joined the Fair Labor Standards Act claims in this case as an opt-in Plaintiff on November 13, 2006. [Rec. Doc. 70.] 68. Jamil Wright was employed by Defendants during times relevant to this action as a migrant or seasonal agricultural worker. Mr. Wright joined the Fair Labor Standards Act claims in this case as an opt-in Plaintiff on May 4, 2009. [Rec. Doc. 289.] 69. Ms. Kathy Williams was employed by Defendants during times relevant to this action as a migrant or seasonal agricultural worker. Ms. Williams joined the Fair Labor Standards Act claims in this case as an opt-in Plaintiff on May 4, 2009. [Rec. Doc. 289.] 70. Ms. Rosa Arias was employed intermittently by Defendants from approximately 2004 to 2006 as a migrant or seasonal agricultural worker. Ms. Arias joined the Fair Labor Standards Act claims in this case as an opt-in Plaintiff on February 2, 2007. [Rec. Doc. 114.] 71. Ms. Sandreka Madison was employed by Defendants in approximately 2005 as a migrant or seasonal agricultural worker. Ms. Madison joined the Fair Labor
19

Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 378 Filed 12/28/09 Page 20 of 40
Standards Act claims in this case as an opt-in Plaintiff on January 11, 2007. [Rec. Doc. 109.] 72. Ms. Veota Khamlusa was employed by Defendants in approximately 2006 as a migrant or seasonal agricultural worker. Ms. Khamlusa joined the Fair Labor Standards Act claims in this case as an opt-in Plaintiff on September 29, 2006. [Rec. Doc. 53.]
Defendant
73. Defendant Del Monte Fresh Produce (Southeast), Inc. is a Delaware corporation that conducts substantial business in Georgia.
74. Defendant Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A., Inc., is a Florida corporation that conducts substantial business in Georgia.1
75. Upon information and belief, Defendant Del Monte Fresh Produce (Southeast), Inc., is responsible, under the direct supervision and control Del Monte
1 Plaintiffs acknowledge and respect the authority of this Court’s decision dismissing all claims against Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A., Inc. (“DMNA”). Rec. Doc. 231; Rec. Doc. 277. Plaintiffs have appealed that decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit [Rec. Doc. 285] and reassert their claims against DMNA here solely to avoid confusion regarding the statute of limitations, in the event their claims should be litigated on remand.
20

Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 378 Filed 12/28/09 Page 21 of 40
Fresh Produce N.A., Inc., for the planting, harvesting and packing of melons, greens and onions at the Defendants’ farms in an around the Georgia counties of Wheeler and Telfair.
76. Upon information and belief, Defendant Del Monte Fresh Produce (Southeast), Inc. was created for the purpose of achieving Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A., Inc.’s objectives with respect to the production, marketing, sale and distribution of its fresh produce, and are under the direct managerial and financial control of Defendant Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A., Inc. to the extent that it has no or insignificant financial assets of its own.
77. Upon information and belief, Defendant Del Monte Fresh Produce (Southeast), Inc. was created in order to defeat justice, perpetuate fraud, evade contractual or tort responsibility, and/or confuse or avoid judgment creditors. Defendant Del Monte Fresh Produce (Southeast), Inc. is a mere instrumentality for the transaction of the affairs of Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A., Inc.
78. Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A., Inc. is fully liable for its own acts and the acts of Defendant Del Monte Fresh Produce (Southeast), Inc. Defendant Del Monte Fresh Produce (Southeast), Inc. is an alter ego of Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A., Inc. or, alternatively, is in an integrated enterprise or an agency relationship with it. Further, Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A., Inc. is vicariously liable under the
21

Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 378 Filed 12/28/09 Page 22 of 40
doctrine of respondeat superior for the acts and omissions of Defendant Del Monte Fresh Produce (Southeast), Inc.
79. At all times relevant to this action, Defendant Del Monte Fresh Produce (Southeast), Inc. and Defendant Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A., Inc. (collectively “Del Monte” or “Defendants”) are agricultural employers within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 1802(2).
80. At all times relevant to this action, the migrant and seasonal agricultural worker plaintiffs were either: (1) 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 or other temporary nature and were required to be absent overnight from their permanent places of residence; or (2) seasonal agricultural workers within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 1802(10)(A), in that they were employed in agricultural employment of a seasonal or other temporary nature and were not required to be absent overnight from their permanent place or residence.
81. At all times relevant to this action, the migrant and seasonal agricultural worker plaintiffs were engaged in agricultural employment for the Defendants within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 1802(3).
22

Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 378 Filed 12/28/09 Page 23 of 40
82. At all times relevant to this action, the Defendants employed the migrant and seasonal agricultural worker plaintiffs within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 1802(5).
83. At all times relevant to this action, the Defendants were employers of the H-2A worker plaintiffs within the meaning of 20 C.F.R. § 655.100.
84. At all times relevant to this action, the Defendants employed the Plaintiffs and all other members of the FLSA collective action class within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 203(g).
85. At all times relevant to this action, the Defendants were employers of the Plaintiffs and all other members of the proposed collective action class within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 203(d).
86. At all times relevant to this action, the Plaintiffs and all other members of the proposed collective action class were employees of the Defendants within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 203(e)(1).
87. At all times relevant to this action, the Defendants employed the Plaintiffs and all other members of the proposed collective action class in the production, packing and harvesting of produce for sale in interstate commerce.
23

Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 378 Filed 12/28/09 Page 24 of 40
STATEMENT OF FACTS 88. During 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006, the Defendants controlled and operated a produce farm located in and around the Georgia counties of Telfair and Wheeler. The Defendants’ farm produced onions, greens and melons for shipment in interstate commerce. 89. During each season in question, the Defendants utilized the services of farm labor contractors charged with recruiting labor for the operation of the Defendants’ Georgia produce farms. During each season in question, the Defendants employed both temporary, foreign H-2A agricultural guest workers and migrant and seasonal agricultural workers recruited from within the United States. During each season in question, the Defendants relied upon these laborers, recruited by their farm labor contractors, to operate their Georgia produce farms. During each season in question, the Defendants’ farm labor contractors relied exclusively on the work provided by the Defendants to supply their recruits with employment. 90. During each season in question, the Defendants’ farm labor contractors requested, recruited and imported temporary, foreign H-2A agricultural guest workers through a U.S. Department of Labor “job order.” 91. An agricultural employer in the United States may import H-2A workers if the United States Department of Labor (hereinafter “U.S. D.O.L.”)
24

Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 378 Filed 12/28/09 Page 25 of 40
certifies that (1) there are not enough U.S. workers to perform the job and (2) the employment of H-2A workers will not adversely affect the wages and working conditions of U.S. workers who are similarly employed. 8 U.S.C. § 1101 (a)(15)(H)(ii)(a); 8 U.S.C. § 1188 (a)(1). These provisions, along with the implementing United States Customs and Immigration Services (“U.S.C.I.S.”) and U.S. D.O.L. regulations, are commonly referred to as the “H-2A program.”
92. Employers requesting H-2A workers must file a temporary labor certification application with the U.S. D.O.L. Regional Administrator responsible for the area where the job is located. 20 C.F.R. § 655.101 (a)(1) and (b)(1). This application must include a job offer that complies with the requirements of 20 C.F.R. §§ 655.102 and 653.501. 20 C.F.R. § 655.101(b)(1). The job offer, commonly referred to as a “clearance order” or “job order,” is used to recruit both United States and H-2A workers. The aforementioned regulations establish the minimum wages, benefits and working conditions required in an H-2A job order in order to avoid adversely affecting similarly employed United States workers. 20 C.F.R. § 655.0 (a)(2); 20 C.F.R. § 655.102. These terms and conditions constitute an employment contract between the employer and employee, pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 655.102(b)(14).
25

Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 378 Filed 12/28/09 Page 26 of 40
93. As a condition of receiving temporary labor certification for the importation of H-2A workers, agricultural employers are required to pay the highest of the “adverse effect wage rate,” the federal minimum wage, or the state minimum wage. 20 C.F.R. § 655.102 (b)(9)(i). The adverse effect wage rate (“AEWR”) is the average annual wage for agricultural workers during the preceding year, as established by the U.S. D.O.L. and published in the Federal Register. 20 C.F.R. § 655.107 (a). During 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006, the AEWR minimum hourly wage rates applicable to Georgia employers using H-2A guestworkers were $7.49, $7.88, $8.07 and $8.37 respectively. 68 Fed. Reg. 8929 (Feb. 26, 2003); 69 Fed. Reg. 10063 (Mar. 3, 2004); 70 Fed. Reg. 10152 (March 2, 2005); 71 Fed. Reg. 13633 (Mar. 16, 2006). These wage rates were in effect throughout the Plaintiffs’ employment by the Defendants.
94. Agricultural employers who participate in the H-2A program are required to provide minimum pay and benefits as specified in the program’s regulations. One of these requirements is that “the employer shall comply with the applicable federal, state, and local employment-related laws and regulations,” 20 C.F.R. § 655.103(b), which includes the Fair Labor Standards Act and the requirement that workers receive, free and clear of deductions and expenses incurred for the benefit of the employer, at least the applicable minimum and
26

Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 378 Filed 12/28/09 Page 27 of 40
overtime wages for all hours worked. 29 U.S.C. §§ 206(a); 207(a); 29 C.F.R. § 531.35.
95. Agricultural employers who participate in the H-2A program are also required to maintain detailed, complete, and accurate records of worker pay and working time, in accordance with the requirements of the federal regulations that govern the H-2A program. 20 C.F.R. § 655.102(7)-(8).
96. In addition, an employer using H-2A workers must offer U.S. workers no less than the same benefits, wages and working conditions that it offers to H-2A workers and must not impose any restrictions or obligations upon U.S. workers not imposed upon H-2A workers. 20 C.F.R. § 655.102.
97. Where an agricultural employer obtains some of its work force through the H-2A program, the terms of the “job order” establish the minimum terms and conditions of employment on that employer’s farm for other agricultural workers. The terms and conditions set forth by the “job order” are incorporated as the minimum terms and conditions of the AWPA “working arrangement” governing the employment of similarly situated, non-H2A, migrant and seasonal agricultural workers recruited to work on the same farm.
98. The H-2A worker Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants during 2003, 2004, 2005 and/or 2006 under the terms of H-2A job orders.
27

Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 378 Filed 12/28/09 Page 28 of 40
99. The migrant and seasonal agricultural worker Plaintiffs were recruited to the Defendants’ farm and were employed as as migrant or seasonal agricultural workers by Defendants during the 2003, 2004, 2005, and/or 2006 seasons. Their AWPA “working arrangement” incorporated the terms and conditions of employment set forth in the concurrent H-2A “job orders.”
100. Before the receipt of their first paycheck, many Plaintiffs and others similarly situated spent considerable sums of money to travel to and prepare for employment at the Defendants’ Georgia produce farms.
101. These expenditures were primarily for the benefit of the Defendants within the meanings of 20 C.F.R. §§ 531.32(c) and 778.217.
102. The Defendants did not reimburse the Plaintiffs for these expenditures to the extent that these pre-employment costs brought their first week’s wages below the applicable minimum wage.
103. When compensating the Plaintiffs on a piece-rate basis, the Defendants failed to supplement the weekly earnings of the Plaintiffs when inadequate piecerate earnings caused their average hourly wage during a pay period to fall below the applicable AEWR wage rate.
104. When compensating the Plaintiffs on an hourly basis, the Defendants failed to pay the proper AEWR wage rate.
28

Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 378 Filed 12/28/09 Page 29 of 40
105. Plaintiffs did not receive payment for all hours worked as required by federal law and their employment contract with the Defendants.
106. Defendants did not maintain the detailed, accurate, and complete records required by federal law and their employment contract with Plaintiffs. 20 C.F.R. § 655.102(7).
107. Defendants did not furnish Plaintiffs with the detailed, accurate, and complete pay statements required by federal law and the Plaintiffs’ employment contracts. 20 C.F.R. § 655.102(8).
108. Defendants utilized farm labor contracting services of individuals without taking reasonable steps to determine that these individuals possessed valid certificates of registration mandated by the AWPA. 29 U.S.C. § 1842.
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
COUNT I - H-2A CONTRACT VIOLATIONS 109. All claims set forth in Count I are brought by the H-2A Worker Plaintiffs, identified specifically in supra ¶¶ 15-59. 110. The H-2A Worker Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations set forth above in the preceding paragraphs.
29

Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 378 Filed 12/28/09 Page 30 of 40
111. This count sets forth a claim for damages against the Defendants for their breach of the “rate of pay” provision of the employment contract detailed in 20 C.F.R. § 655.102(b)(9)(ii)(A) and the H-2A record-keeping and pay statement provisions detailed in 20 C.F.R. § 655.102(b)(7)-(8).
112. The Defendants offered and the H-2A worker Plaintiffs accepted employment on specific terms and conditions.
113. The H-2A Worker Plaintiffs are H-2A guestworkers recruited by the Defendants’ farm labor contractors to leave their home villages in Mexico to work at the Defendants’ Georgia produce farms. After receiving a hiring commitment from the Defendants’ farm labor contractors, the H-2A Worker Plaintiffs were required to process their H-2A work visas and travel to the Defendants’ Georgia produce farms to begin work.
114. Among the terms that the Defendants offered and Plaintiffs accepted was payment of at least the applicable AEWR wage rate for each hour worked up to forty hours in a week, and one-and-a-half times the applicable wage rate for hours worked above forty during weeks in which overtime-eligible work was performed. 29 U.S.C. § 207(a); 20 C.F.R. § 655.102(b)(9).
30

Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 378 Filed 12/28/09 Page 31 of 40
115. The Defendants breached their employment contract with the Plaintiffs by failing to pay them the proper AEWR and overtime wage rates for all the work they performed.
116. Among the terms that the Defendants offered and Plaintiffs accepted was maintenance of detailed, complete, and accurate pay records in compliance with the requirements of 20 C.F.R. § 655.102(b)(7).
117. Defendants breached their employment contract with the Plaintiffs by failing to maintain the complete, detailed, and accurate pay records required by Plaintiffs’ employment contract and by federal regulations.
118. Among the terms that the Defendants offered and Plaintiffs accepted was Defendants’ provision of detailed, complete, and accurate pay statements to Plaintiffs in compliance with the requirements of 20 C.F.R. § 655.102(b)(8).
119. Defendants breached their employment contract with the Plaintiffs by failing to provide them with the complete, detailed, and accurate records pay statements required by Plaintiffs’ employment contract and by federal regulations.
120. The breach of the employment contract as set out in paragraphs 111 and 115 resulted in part from the Defendants’ failure to reimburse the Plaintiffs for expenses they incurred which were primarily for the benefit of the Defendants to
31

Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 378 Filed 12/28/09 Page 32 of 40
the extent necessary to assure receipt of the applicable AEWR and overtime hourly wage rates in each Plaintiff’s first week of employment.
121. The breach of the employment contract as set out in paragraphs 111 and 115 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 required AEWR and overtime wage rates.
122. The breach of the employment contract as set out in paragraphs 111 and 115 resulted in part from the Defendants’ failure to pay the proper AEWR and overtime wage rates for all work compensated on an hourly basis.
123. The breaches of the employment contract as set out in paragraphs 111, 115, 117, and 119 resulted in part from the Defendants’ maintenance of incomplete, false and inaccurate records of the hours worked by Plaintiffs.
124. The breaches of the employment contract as set out in paragraphs 111, 115, 117 and 119 resulted in part from the Defendants’ provision of incomplete, false and inaccurate records of hours worked to Plaintiffs.
125. As a direct consequence of the Defendants’ breaches of the employment contract, the Plaintiffs suffered economic injury.
32

Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 378 Filed 12/28/09 Page 33 of 40
126. The Defendants are liable to Plaintiffs for the actual, incidental, and consequential damages which arose naturally and according to the usual course of things from the Defendants’ breaches, as provided by O.C.G.A. § 13-6-2 and the federal common law of contracts, including unpaid wages, damages arising from the delay, and pre-judgment interest.
COUNT II – MIGRANT AND SEASONAL AGRICULTURAL WORKER PROTECTION ACT 127. All claims set forth in Count II are brought by the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Plaintiffs identified specifically in supra ¶¶ 60-72. 128. The Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations set forth above in the preceding paragraphs. 129. This count sets forth claims for money damages, declaratory relief and injunctive relief against the Defendants for violations of the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act (“AWPA”). 130. The certifications described in paragraphs 91 through 97 above constituted a working arrangement between the Defendants and the Plaintiffs within the meaning of the AWPA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 1822(c), 1832(c), and its attendant regulations, 29 C.F.R. § 500.72.
33

Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 378 Filed 12/28/09 Page 34 of 40
131. The Defendants violated the AWPA by failing to pay the Plaintiffs the proper AEWR and overtime wage rates for all the work they performed.
132. The violation of the AWPA as set out in paragraph 131 resulted in part from the Defendants’ failure to supplement the Plaintiffs’ piece-rate earnings so as to raise their individual pay period wages to a rate equal to or exceeding the required AEWR and overtime wage rates.
133. The violation of the AWPA as set out in paragraph 131 resulted in part from the Defendants’ failure to pay the proper AEWR and overtime wage rates for all work compensated on an hourly basis.
134. The violation of the AWPA as set out in paragraph 131 resulted in part from the Defendants’ maintenance of incomplete, false and inaccurate records of the hours Plaintiffs worked.
135. The violation of the AWPA as set out in paragraph 131 resulted in part from the Defendants’ failure to reimburse the Plaintiffs for expenses they incurred which were primarily for the benefit of the Defendants.
136. By their actions and omissions described in paragraphs 131 through 135, the Defendants violated without justification their working arrangement with the Plaintiffs and the other members of the Count II class, thereby violating the
34

Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 378 Filed 12/28/09 Page 35 of 40
AWPA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 1822(c), 1832(c), and its attendant regulations, 29 C.F.R. § 500.72.
137. By their actions and omissions described in paragraphs 131 through 135, the Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiffs their wages owed promptly when due, thereby violating the AWPA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 1822(a), 1832(a), and its attendant regulations, 29 C.F.R. § 500.81.
138. The Defendants failed to make, keep, and preserve accurate and complete records regarding the Plaintiffs’ employment, in violation of the AWPA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 1821(d)(1), 1832(c)(1) and its attendant regulations, 29 C.F.R. § 500.80(a).
139. The Defendants failed to provide the Plaintiffs complete and accurate itemized written statements for each pay period containing the required information, in violation of the AWPA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 1821(d)(2), 1831(c)(2), and its attendant regulations, 29 C.F.R. § 500.80(d).
140. The Defendants failed to take reasonable steps to confirm that farm labor contractors they utilized possessed valid certificates of registration, in violation of 29 U.S.C. § 1842.
141. 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
35

Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 378 Filed 12/28/09 Page 36 of 40
of the Defendants and were intentional within the meaning of the AWPA, 29 U.S.C. § 1854(c)(1).
142. As a result of the Defendants’ violations of the AWPA and its attendant regulations as set forth in this count, the Plaintiffs have suffered damages.
COUNT III: FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT (29 U.S.C. § 216(b) COLLECTIVE ACTION) 143. The Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs. 144. This count sets forth a claim for declaratory relief and damages for the Defendants’ violations of the minimum wage provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). 145. This count is brought by Representative Plaintiffs Hector Luna, Julian Garcia, Francisco Javier Lorenzo, Santos G. Maldonado, Patricia Woodard, and Bartolo Nuñez on behalf of themselves and all nonsupervisory workers who performed planting, loading, harvesting, packing, grading, field and shed sanitation and related agricultural activities on Defendants’ farming operations in and around Telfair and Wheeler countines from 2003 to 2006. 146. Representative Plaintiffs Hector Luna, Julian Garcia, Francisco Javier Lorenzo and Santos G. Maldonado also assert their claims on behalf of themselves
36

Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 378 Filed 12/28/09 Page 37 of 40
and a fully-contained subclass encompassing all such workers who incurred preemployment expenses related to visa-processing, travel other than daily commuting, and any other fees required to be paid in order to work at Defendants’ Georgia operations.
147. Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), Plaintiffs have consented in writing to be party Plaintiffs in this FLSA action. Their written consents are attached to this complaint.
148. The Defendants violated the Plaintiffs’ rights by failing to pay each worker at least an average of the applicable minimum wage for every compensable hour of labor performed in a workweek, in violation of 29 U.S.C. § 206(a).
149. The Defendants violated the Plaintiffs’ rights by failing to pay each worker at least an average of one-and-a-half times the applicable wage for all hours worked above forty during overtime-eligible workweeks. 29 U.S.C. § 207(a).
150. The violations of the FLSA in this count resulted, in part, from the Defendants’ failure to reimburse expenses that were incurred by Plaintiffs primarily for the benefit of the Defendants, prior to the Plaintiffs’ first week of work, as described above in paragraphs 100 through 102. When these expenses were deducted from Plaintiffs’ first week’s pay, they brought the Plaintiffs’ earnings below the applicable FLSA minimum and overtime wages for that pay period.
37

Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 378 Filed 12/28/09 Page 38 of 40
151. As a result of the Defendants’ violations of the FLSA set forth in this count, each Plaintiff is entitled to recover the amount of his or her unpaid minimum and overtime wages and an equal amount as liquidated damages, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §216(b).
152. The Defendants’ violations set out in this count were willful within the meaning of the FLSA.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court enter an order:
A. With respect to the claims set forth in Count III, permitting this case to proceed as a 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) collective action;
B. Declaring that the Defendants intentionally violated the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act and its attendant regulations, as set forth in Count II;
C. Declaring that the Defendants willfully violated the minimum wage provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act as set forth in Count III;
D. Granting judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs and against the Defendants under Count I and awarding each of the Plaintiffs and
38

Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 378 Filed 12/28/09 Page 39 of 40

other class members their respective actual, incidental and

consequential damages;

E. Granting judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs and against the

Defendants under Count II and awarding each of the Plaintiffs

actual or statutory damages for each violation of the AWPA,

whichever is greater;

F. Permanently enjoining the Defendants from further violations of

the AWPA and its attendant regulations;

G.

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 III 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;

H.

Awarding the Plaintiffs the costs of this action;

I.Awarding Plaintiffs pre- and post-judgment interest as allowed by law;

J.Awarding the Plaintiffs reasonable attorneys’ fees with respect to their

Fair Labor Standards Act claims; and

K. Granting such further relief as is just and equitable.

39

Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 378 Filed 12/28/09 Page 40 of 40
Respectfully submitted this 7th day of May, 2009.
_/s/ Andrew H. Turner__________ Andrew H. Turner Pro Hac Vice Mary C. Bauer Georgia Bar Number 142213 Kristi L. Graunke Georgia Bar Number 305653 Immigrant Justice Project Southern Poverty Law Center 233 Peachtree Street, Suite 2150 Atlanta, GA 30303 Telephone: (404) 521-6700 Facsimile: (404) 221-5835 Email: mary.bauer@splcenter.org
kristi.graunke@splcenter.org andrew.turner@splcenter.org
Elizabeth J. Appley, Georgia Bar No. 020987 235 Peachtree St. N.E., 2212 North Tower Atlanta, GA 30303 Telephone: (404) 523-3800 Facsimile: (404) 523-0426 Email: eja@appleylaw.com
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
40

 
 Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 390 Filed 04/15/10 Page 1 of 4
r

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION
HECTOR LUNA, JULIAN GARCIA, FRANCISCO JAVIER LORENZO, SANTOS MALDONADO, PATRICIA WOODARD and BARTOLO NUNEZ individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs, v.

CASE NO. 1:06-cv-2000-jec

DEL MONTE FRESH PRODUCE (SOUTHEAST), INC.,

Defendant.

ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, GRANTING JOINDER, AND DISMISSING CLAIMS WITH PREJUDICE
Upon consideration of Plaintiffs' and Defendant's (collectively "the Parties") Joint Motion for Approval of FLSA Collective Action Settlement, Joinder of Certain Opt-in Plaintiffs, and Dismissal with Prejudice, it 1s ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the Parties' motion ts GRANTED:

Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 390 Filed 04/15/10 Page 2 of 4
i.
A. The Court finds that it has jurisdiction over the claims asserted in the litigation and over the Parties to the litigation.
B. The Court has reviewed the Settlement Agreement executed by counsel for Plaintiffs and representatives of Del Monte Fresh Produce (Southeast), Inc. ("DMSE") and Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A., Inc. ("DMNA"). The Settlement Agreement appears to be adequate, fair and reasonable. Accordingly, the Court hereby APPROVES the Settlement Agreement on the terms provided therein.
C. The Court grants the Parties' Motion to join Maricela Andraca, Jerry Wilcox, and Mamie Williams as parties to the Count II, Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act ("AWPA") claims for the sole purpose of the Parties' Settlement Agreement.
D. Plaintiffs' counsel Southern Poverty Law Center shall be authorized to act on behalf of Plaintiffs with respect to this litigation and this Settlement Agreement.
E. The Court has reviewed the total Settlement Amount to be paid to Plaintiffs as indicated in the Settlement Agreement and hereby APPROVES the payment of such amount as provided and subject to the terms and conditions set forth in the Settlement Agreement.
2

Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 390 Filed 04/15/10 Page 3 of 4
F. The Court has reviewed the allocation of the Settlement Amount to be paid to Plaintiffs in this case as set forth in Exhibit A to the Settlement Agreement and hereby APPROVES the payment of such respective amounts as provided and subject to the terms and conditions set forth in the Settlement Agreement, including its Exhibit A.
G. The Court has reviewed Plaintiffs' counsel Southern Poverty Law Center's application for an award of attorneys' fees and costs and hereby APPROVES such application in the amount provided in the Settlement Agreement.
E. The Court has reviewed the allocation of incentive payments to 12 Plaintiffs as indicated in Exhibit A to the Settlement Agreement in recognition for their efforts on behalf of the collective class, and APPROVES the incentive payments.
F. Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs' counsel including any agent of the Southern Poverty Law Center, and DMSE and their counsel shall be bound by the terms and conditions of the Settlement Agreement, this APPROVAL ORDER, the final judgment in this litigation, and the releases set forth in the Settlement Agreement.
G. Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs' counsel including any agent of the Southern
3

Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 390 Filed 04/15/10 Page 4 of 4

Poverty Law Center, and DMSE and their counsel shall be bound by the terms

and conditions of confidentiality and non-disclosure provisions as set forth in

Paragraph 5 of the Settlement Agreement and shall comply with them.

H. This litigation and all of Plaintiffs' claims asserted therein are

dismissed on the merits and with prejudice.

I. The Court retains jurisdiction to enforce the Settlement

Agreement.
l~ SO ORDERED, this ___;__::iday of

' 2010.

E.C

S

ITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

4

 
 Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 392 Filed 05/04/10 Page 1 of 1

STATES DISTRICT COURT 
 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA 


HECTOR LUNA, et ai., Plaintiffs,
VS.
DEL MONTE FRESH PRODUCE (SOUTHEAST), INC., et ai. Defendants.

)

)

) Case No.1 :06-cv-02000-JEC

)

)

) )

""1'7.'S'.DN,JC~l';I::'!,_,"~!.RS '.

)

MAY O.j 2010

STIPULATION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

IT IS HI<~REBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between the plaintiff

and defendants that this action be, and it hereby is, dismissed with prejudice. Except as set forth

in the parties' settlement agreement filed with the Court, each side shall bear its own costs,

di

d

5' fees associated with the prosecution and/or defense of this action.

4_~dL-

Dallie

acqueline E. alk

Kristi 1. Graunke

Bradley E. Strawn

Mary C. Bauer

Kelly Reese

Andrew H. Turner

Littler, Mendelson P.C.

Immigrant Justice Project

3344Peachtree Rd. NE

Southern Poverty Law Center

Suite 1500

233 Peachtree St, NE, Ste. 2150

Atlanta, GA 30326

Atlanta, GA 30303

JulitE'. Carnes

.

Unitoo States District Judge

7

Date

 
 i
Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 144 Filed 05/18/07 Page 1 of 23

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION

FILED i~~!

HECTOR LUNA, JULIAN GARCIA, FRANCISCO JAVIER LORENZO, E SA N TOS G . MALDONADO, PATRICIA WOODARD and BARTOLO NUNEZ, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,

-

,

Plaintiffs ,
v.
DEL MONTE FRESH PRODUCE (SOUTHEAST), INC ., and DEL MONTE FRESH PRODUCE N .A ., INC .,

CIVIL ACTION NO . 1 :06-CV-2000-J' EC

Defendants . O R D E R & O P 2 N I O N
This case is presently before the Court an defendants' . Motion to Disqualify Putative Class Representatives [61], plaintiffs' . Motion for Protective Order [62], defendants' Motion to Compel Damages Information [78], defendants' Motion to Strike [87], defendants' Motion to Compel Documents and Records from Third-Parties [89], defendants' Motion to Disqualify Plaintiff Lorenzo [90], plaintiffs' Motion ~ for Protective Order Deferring Deposit ons of NonRepresentative Class Members [92], plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Sur-Reply [111], plaintiff's Motion to Compe Responses to Requests for Production [118], and plaintiff's Mo ion to Compel

AO 72A (Aev.8182)

Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 144 Filed 05/18/07 Page 2 of 23
Interrogatory Responses [119] . The Court has reviewed the record and the ar ents of the l
parties and, for the reasons set out below, concludes that defendants' Motion to Disqualify Putative Class Repre entatives [61] should be DENIED , plaintiffs' Motion for Protective 0 der [62] should be GRANTED , defendants' Motion to Compel Damages Information [78] should be DENIED , defendants' Motion to Strike [87] should be DENIED , defendants' Motion to Compel Documents and Records from Third Parties [89] should be GRANTED , defendants' Motion to Disqualify Plaintiff Lorenzo [90] should be DENIED , plaintiffs' Motion for Protective Order Deferring Depositions of Non-Party Class Members [92] should be DENIED , plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Sur--Rep y [111) should be GRANTED, plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Production [118] should be DENIED as withdrawn , and plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Interrogatory Responses [119] should) be GRANTED .
BACKGROUND Plaintiffs are migrant and seasonal agricultural laborers who worked on defendants' Georgia farms at various times during the 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006 harvest seasons . (Second Amended aompl . [106] at 91 1 .) Plaintiffs were recruited to work on defendants' farms by third-party farm labor contractors . (Id . at 9[ 3 .) Plaintiffs Luna, Garcia, and Lorenzo were recruited from Mexico putsuant to the
2
AO 72A (Rev,8182)

Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 144 Filed 05/18/07 Page 3 of 23

I temporary agricultural work visa program commonly kn wn as the "H-2A program ." (Id . at 9I 4 .) Plaint i ffs Maldonado, Wo dard and Nunez were recruited from w i th i n the Un i ted States . (Id . at 9[ 5 .)
Plaint i ffs allege that defendants : 1) fail l'e, d to pay the promised wage rate for all hours worked on their Ge l rgia farms ; 2) failed to re i mburse pla i ntiffs for costs that they in erred i n order

to work on defendants' farms ; and 3) violated federal laws governing the wages and work i ng condit i ons of migrant and season aI l agricultural workers . (Id . at qI 6 .) They f i led th i s lawsuit as a lass action on

behalf of two dist i nct classes of workers : 1) H-2 guest-workers

recru i ted from Mexico ; and 2) non-H-2A migrant I and seasonal

agr i cul tu ral workers recruited from within the united States .

(Second Amended Compl . [106] at 5 9[ 4-5 .) All pla~ntif f s assert

claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U .S .

§§ 201-2 1 9

("FLSA")

(Id . at 9[ 7 .) The H-2A workers also ass rt claims for

breach of contract . (Id .) The non-H-2A workers ass o rt claims for breach of the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Work rs Protection

Act, 29 U .S .C . §§ 1801-1871 („AWPA") . (Id .)

The parties agreed to a b i furcated d i scovery sche ule, with the

first stage of d i scovery to be focused on the issue o defendants'

status a s pla i ntiffs' employer .' (Scheduling Order [6 0 ] .) Although

'Defendants contend that plaintiffs were employed solely by the farm labor contractors who recruited plaintiffs . (Answ r [112] at 9[9I

3

I

A O 72A (Fiev.8/82 )

Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 144 Filed 05/18/07 Page 4 of 23

~' -

the parties have exchanged substantial information concerning the I employment issue, the first stage of discovery has been stalled by i numerous discovery disputes that the parties have !, been unable to resolve by agreement .2 The main dispute involves the proper location

for the depositions of class representatives who are Mexican nationals and whose immigration status makes travel to the United States d i fficult . (See Defs .' Mot . to Disqualify [61] ~ and Pls .' Mot . for Protective Order [62} .) The part i es have both ~i filed motions related to th i s issue, along with numerous other motions related to additional discovery disputes . All of these mot i ons are currently

before the Court .

DISCUSSION

,

I . Depos i t i ons of Mexican Class Representatives

The parties' main dispute concerns the location of the depositions of plaintiffs Hector Luna, Julian Garcia, and Bartolo

Nunez . (See Defs .' Mot . to Disqualify [fit] and Pls .' Mot . for

Protective Order [51] .)3 Defendants noticed all three of these

3-4 ; Answer [1131 at 9[9[ 3-4 .)
2 The parties requested and received an extension of the first stage of discovery, which is now scheduled to end on May 22, 2007 . (Joint Mot . to Extend Bifurcated Discovery Period [7 ] and Amended Scheduling Order [80j .)
3 Defendants have filed a motion to strike plaintiffs' reply brief in support of plaintiffs' motion for protectivelorder because it exceeds the page limitations . (Defs .' Mot . to Strike [87] .) The
4

AO 72A (Rev.&82)

Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 144 Filed 05/18/07 Page 5 of 23
depositions for Atlanta . (Pls .' Mot . for Protective Order [62] at Ex . 1 .) Upon receipt of the deposition notices, plaintiffs informed defendants that Luna, Garcia, and Bartolo reside in Mexico, and have limited ability to travel to the United States . (Id . at Ex . 2 .) They suggested that defendants conduct the depositions in Mexico, or by alternative means such as telephone or video-conference . (Id .) Defendants responded that they were willing to take the depositions in another city in the United States, but unwilling to travel to Mexico or use alternative means to obtain plaintiffs' testimony . (Id . at Exs . 3 and 7 .)
Ordinarily, a defendant is entitled to depose a plaintiff in the forum where the plaintiff has chosen to sue . See McGinley v . Baxratta, 2006 WL 2346301 *1 (E .D . Pa . 2006)("Normally, a plaintiff will be required to make himself or herself available for examination in the district in which the suit was brought because the plaintiff selected the forum .") and Grey v . Cont'l Mktg . Assoc ., Inc ., 3 1 5 F . Supp . 826, 832 (N .D . Ga . 1970) ("plaintiffs, however, who selected the forum may therefore be called upon to present themselves at that place for the taking of their depositions") . However, Rule 26
Court DENIES defendants' motion {87] and GRANTS plaintiffs' request to exceed the page limitations . Defendants also move to strike the declaration of Bartolo Nunez, which was attached to plaintiffs' reply . The Court has not considered the Nunez declaration in ruling on plaintiffs' motion . Accordingly, the Court DENIES defendants' motion to strike the declaration as moot .
5
A O 72A ( Aev.8182)

Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 144 Filed 05/18/07 Page 6 of 23
authorizes the Court to order that a plaintiff's deposition be taken in a different location, or by alternative means, if justice so requires . See FED . R . Czv . P . 26(c)(2) Thus, if a plaintiff demonstrates hardship or burden that outweighs any prejudice to the defendant, the general rule requiring a plaintiff to appear for deposition in the forum "may yield to the exigencies of the particular case ." Abdullah v . Sheridan Square Press, Inc ., 154 F .R .D . 59 1 , 592 (S .D .N .Y . 1994) (ordering defendants to depose plaintiff in London, where plaintiff lived, as opposed to New York, where the action was filed) . See also DePetro v . Exxon Inc ., 118 F .R .D . 523, 525 (M .D . Ala . 1988)(requiring defendant to obtain oral discovery from non-resident plaintiff by either telephone or written interrogatories) . Plaintiffs Luna, Garcia, and Nunez are migrant farm workers of extremely limited means . (Pls .' Mot . for Protective Order [62] at Exs . 6 and 8 .) When their H-2A visas expired, Luna, Garcia and Nunez returned to their homes in Mexico . (Id . at 1-2, Ex . 6 .) It is not only prohibitively expensive for these workers to travel to the United States for depositions, it is also potentially impossible due to their immigration status . . (Id . at Exs . 4 and . 5 .) Because plaintiffs are poor, it is unlikely that they will be granted a tourist visa or other temporary permission to enter the United States . (Id .)' Moreover, if plaintiffs apply for a visa and are denied, they may be barred from re-applying for a significant period
6
AO 7 zP, (R eY. ars2 )

Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 144 Filed 05/18/07 Page 7 of 23
of time, which could affect their ability to appear at trial . . (Id .) Plaintiffs plan to seek humanitarian parole for purposes of participating in the trial . (Pls .' Mot, for Protective Order [62] at 10 .) However, humanitarian visas, which are issued sparingly, are not generally granted for purposes of providing deposition testimony . (Id . at Ex . 4 .) Plaintiffs understandably want to save this option for trial . (Id . at 10 .)
As opposed to the difficulty plaintiffs will have traveling to the United States, it is relatively simple for defendants to travel to Mexico to conduct the depositions . Business visitors from the United States do not even need a visa to travel to Mexico, as long as they do not intend to stay longer than 30 days . (Id . at 18 (citing travel regulations found on the U .S . State Department website) .) In addition, plaintiffs have offered to pay any differential costs associated with conducting the depositions in Mexico, including the cost of airfare and accommodations in Mexico for two attorneys and a court reporter . (Id . at Ex . 2 .)
Defendants do not offer any countervailing considerations that mitigate in favor of requiring plaintiffs to appear in Atlanta or the United States for depositions . (See generally, Defs .' Response to Pls .' Mph . for Protective Order [68] .) Apparently, defendants simply prefer to conduct the depositions in the United States, and believe they are entitled to do so because of the general rule that a
7
AO 72A (Rev.8/82)

Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 144 Filed 05/18/07 Page 8 of 23
plaintiff is required to appear for deposition in the forum . (Id .) Under the special circumstances of this case, defendants' preference for conducting depositions in the forum is substantially outweighedd by the difficulty and expense plaintiffs would incur in order to appear for the depositions . Accordingly, the Court GRANTS plaintiffs' motion for protective order [62] and DENIES defendants' motion to disqualify [61] .
After conferring with plaintiffs, defendants may notice the depositions of Luna, Garcia, and Bartolo at a mutually agreeable city in Mexico . Plaintiffs should bear the differential cost of conducting the depositions in Mexico, including airfare and lodging for two attorneys and a court reporter, but not including any attorneys' fees . In the alternative, defendants may : 1) depose plaintiffs by telephone or video-conference pursuant to Rule 30 (b) (7) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or 2) depose plaintiffs by written questions pursuant to Rule 31 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure .'
4' The third option offered--to depose plaintiffs in Atlanta within 10 days of trial, when plaintiffs intend to be here to prepare for trial--is not practical as trials of civil cases are not always firmly set and can shift from calendar to calendar . The Court will allow defendants to pursue this third option, however, with the above caveat .
AO 72A (Rev,8182)

Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 144 Filed 05/18/07 Page 9 of 23
II . Defendants ' Motion to Compel Damages Information' Defendants have filed a motion to compel plaintiffs to provide
more detailed damages information . (Defs .' Mot . to Compel Damages Information [78] .) SpecificalIy, defendants seek a numeric computation of claimed damages as required by Rule 26(a)(1)(C) and requested by defendants in written discovery . (Defs .' Br . in Supp . of Mot . to Compel [79j at 2 . ) See FED . R . Civ . P . 26 (a) (1) (C) (requiring parties to disclose a "computation of any category of damages") .
Plaintiffs ' initial disclosures , which contained a proposed formula for calculating damages but not an actual computation of damages, did not fully comply with Rule 26 (a) (1) (C) . (Defs .' Br . [79] at Ex . B .) What defendants neglect to explain in their motion to compel, however, is that plaintiffs agreed to supplement their initial disclosures with the required calculation as soon as plaintiffs received full access to defendants' payroll records . (Pls .' Response to Defs .' Mot . to Compel [96] at Ex . 2 .) Apparently plaintiffs agreed to allow defendants to produce the payroll records several weeks late, resulting in a corresponding delay in plaintiffs'
5 Plaintiffs have filed a motion to submit a sur-reply in ,connection with defendants' motion to compel . (Pls .' Mot . to File Sur-Reply [111] .) Defendants have not responded to plaintiffs' motion . Accordingly, plaintiffs' motion to file a sur-reply [111] is GRANTED as unopposed . The Court will consider the sur-reply in deciding defendants' motion to compel .
9
AO 72A (R ev.s/82)

Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 144 Filed 05/18/07 Page 10 of 23
ability to provide a precise computation of damages . (Pls .' Response to Defs .' Mot . to compel [96] at Ex . 2 .) Plaintiffs have now supplemented their initial disclosures to provide damages calculations for plaintiffs Lorenzo, Maldonado, Luna, Garcia-Lejia, and Nunez-Garcia . (Id . at Ex . 5 .) As defendants have received they information that is the subject of their motion, defendants' motioni to compel [78] is DENIED as to these plaintiffs .
In their reply, defendants contend that plaintiffs still have not provided damages calculations for plaintiff Woodard . (Defs .' Reply [108] at 2 .) Plaintiff Woodard was not added as a class representative until the Court granted plaintiffs' Second Motion to Amend on January 8, 2007 . Her initial disclosures were therefore due on February 7, 2007 . FED . R . Czv . P . 26(a) ( 1 ) . Defendants' motion to compel, filed on November 29, 2006, was premature as to Woodard, and is DENIED . The Court presumes that by this time plaintiffs have submitted initial disclosures, including precise damages calculations, for Woodard .
Defendants also complain that they have not received precise calculations concerning opt-in FLSA plaintiffs or putative glass members . (Defs .' Reply [ 1 08] at 2 .) The Court has not certified a class finder Rule 23, or certified this litigation as a collective action under the FLSA . The named representative plaintiffs are therefore the only "parties" subject to the mandatory disclosure
10
AO 72A ( Rev. 8182 )

Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 144 Filed 05/18/07 Page 11 of 23

requirements of Rule 26 {a} (1) .

See FED . R . Civ . P . 26 (a) (1)

Moreover, defendants' discovery requests were directed only to named

representative plaintiffs . (See D e fs .' Br . [79] at 7-8 and Ex . C .)

Defendants cannot compel the product i on of i nformation they have not

even bothered to ask plaintiffs to produce voluntarily . Accord i ngly,

defendants' mot i on to compel more deta i led damages information .

concerning unnamed opt-in or Rule 23 plaintiffs is DENIED .

III . Defendants' Motion to Compel Records and Documents from Third-

Parties

I

Defendants also have filed a motion to compel records and j

documents from third-party farm labor contractors Margarita Rojas

Cardenas and Letisia Rojas Salazar . (Defs .' Mot . to Compel [89] .}

Plaintiffs identified Cardenas and Salazar in their initial,

disclosures as individuals with relevant information . (Id . at 2 .)

Defendants subsequently issued subpoenas to Cardenas and Sa l azar

pursuant to Rule 45 . ( Id . at Exs . A a n d B .) The s ubp oe nas d i r e c t ed

Cardenas and Salazar to produce documents and records concerning i

individuals recruited to work on defendants' Georgia farms . (Id .)

Defendants personally served Salazar with the subpoena at her

place of residence in McRae, Georgia on October 4, 2006 . (Id . at Ex .

A .) On the same date, defendants personally served Cardenas with the

subpoena at her place of residence in Lyons, Georgia . (Defs .' Mot .

to Compel [89J at Ex . B .) In addition to the subpoenas, the process

11

AO 72A (A ev.8182)

Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 144 Filed 05/18/07 Page 12 of 23
server provided Salazar and Cardenas with correspondence from defendants' counsel explaining how to respond to the subpoenas and offering to pay any shipping costs associated with the production . (Id . at Exs . A and B .) Neither Salazar nor Cardenas responded to the subpoenas .
Out of an abundance of caution, and to ensure that Salazar and Cardenas had actually received the subpoenas, defendants personally served Salazar and Cardenas with the subpoenas a second time on October 19, 2006 . (Id . at Exs . C and D .) The process server again provided Salazar and Cardenas with additional correspondence from defendants' counsel explaining how to respond, clarifying the response date, and providing a Federal Express account number to cover shipping expenses . (Id . ) Again, neither Salazar nor Cardenas responded to the subpoenas .
Salazar and Cardenas likely possess documents that will assist in determining defendants' status as plaintiffs' employer . Defendants complied with all of the requirements of Rule 45 in attempting to obtain these documents . Salazar and Cardenas have neither produced any documents, nor filed any objections to, the subpoenas . Instead, they have simply ignored the subpoenas . Under the circumstances, defendants' motion to compel production of the requested documents should be GRANTED pursuant to Rule 45 (c) (2) (B) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure . See FED . R . Civ . P .
12
AO 72A (Rev .Bl82)

Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 144 Filed 05/18/07 Page 13 of 23
45(c)(2)(B) (permitting the party requesting documents to move for an order to compel production) . IV . Defendants ' Moti on to Disqual i fy Class Representative Lorenzo
Finally, defendants have filed a motion to disqualify plaintiff Lorenzo as a result of his refusal to answer deposition questions concerning his activities following his employment on defendants' farms . (Defs .' Mot . to Disqualify [9Q] .) Defendants deposed Lorenzo on November 20, 2006 . (Td . at Ex . A .~ During the deposition, Lorenzo invoked the Fifth Amendment and refused to answer questions concerning : 1) his employment after June, 2006, when he left defendants' Georgia farms ; 2) his anticipated future work and residence ; and 3) his plans to either return to Mexico or have his H2A visa extended . (Id .) Defendants argue that Lorenzo's refusal to provide this discovery, and the fact that he is likely subject to deportation, render him an inadequate class representative under Rule 23(a) . ( Id . at 7 .)
Defendants' argument is premature . Pursuant to defendants' request, the Court has postponed consideration of plaintiffs' motion for class certification under Rule 23 and collective action certification under the FLSA . (See Defs .' Motions for Enlargement of Time [,93] and [82] ; Order [105],) When the Court rules on plaintiffs' motion, it will consider all of the requirements of Rule 23(a), including : 1) numerosity ; 2) commonality ; 3) typicality ; and
13
,o 72A lev.81$2)

Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 144 Filed 05/18/07 Page 14 of 23

4) whether the representative parties, including Lorenzo, will fairly

and adequately protect the interests of the class . See FED . R . Czv . P . 23(a) and London v . Wal-Mart Stores, Inc ., 340 F .3d 1246, 1253 (11th Cir . 2003) (discussing the requirements of Rule 23(a)) . The piecemeal analysis that defendants propose is not efficacious or fair to plaintiffs . Accordingly, defendants' motion to disqualify Lorenzo

is DENIED at this time .

The Court notes, however, that at least some of the information Lorenzo refused to provide is discoverable and may be highly relevant to the defense of plaintiffs' claims . As part of their claim, for

example, plaintiffs seek to recover expenses they incurred "for the benefit of defendants ." (Second Amended Compl . [106j at 9[ 6 .) These

expenses include the costs of visa processing and travel to the

United States .

(Id . at I[ 48 .) If Lorenzo worked for another

employer while in the United States on the H-2A visa that he acquired in order to work for defendants, then at least some of the expenses

he incurred in obtaining the visa and traveling to the United States did not inure to defendants' benefit and may not be recoverable in

this lawsuit . As plaintiffs themselves have repeatedly stressed, the Federal

Rules contemplate liberal and permissive discovery of relevant information . See FED . R . Czv . P . 26(b) . Evidence does not have to be

admissible at trial to be relevant under Rule 26 ; it simply has to be

14

AO 72A (Rev.8/82)

Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 144 Filed 05/18/07 Page 15 of 23

"reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible

evidence ." Id . Under the permissive standard of Rule 26, Lorenzo's

work history and activities after he left defendants' farms in June,

2006 are legitimate areas of inquiry despite the danger that

Lorenzo's answers might reveal damaging information concerning his

immigration status . See Galaviz-Zamora v . Brady Farms, Inc ., 230 F .R .D . 499, 502-503 (W .D . Mich . 2005) ("While Defendants are not

entitled to discover information regarding Plaintiffs' immigration

status, Defendants are entitled to discover information regarding

Plaintiffs' work history as such is clearly relevant to the issues

raised by Plaintiffs' claims") .

If Lorenzo is unwilling to provide information concerning his

work history and whereabouts following June, 2006, even under the

protection of the recent stipulated protective order, it is not

likely that he will be able to adequately represent the class . The

Court will consider this issue when it rules on plaintiffs' motion

for class certification .

V.

Plaintiffs ' Mot i on for Protect i ve Order to Defer Depos i tions of

Non-Representative Class Members

Plaintiffs have filed a motion for protective order to defer the

depositions and other individual i zed discovery of FLSA opt--in ' plaintiffs Adolfo Gomez and Aristeo Camacho-Grimaldo . (Pls .' Mat . for Protective Order [92] .} Defendants noticed these depositions

15

AO 72A (Rev.8182)

Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 144 Filed 05/18/07 Page 16 of 23

after Gamez and Camacho - Grimaldo submitted declarations in support of

plaintiffs' motion for class certification . (Id . at 4 .) Plaintiffs

do not object to defendants conducting some form of discovery with a

sample of non-representative class members at a later stage in the

proceedings . (Id . at 4-5 .) But plaintiffs contend that, as "absent

members" of the FLSA opt--in class, Gomez and Camacho-Grimaldo are

not subject to discovery at this stage of the litigation . (Id .)

Plaintiffs argue, further, that deposing Gomez and Camacho-Grimaldo

would be "duplicative, unnecessary, and burdensome ." (Id, at 4 .)

It is generally improper, under Rule 23, to permits

individualized discovery directed towards absent or passive class

members . See Cox v . Am . Cast Iron Pipe Co . ., 784 F .2d 1546, 1556

(11th Cir . ?986) . Individualized discovery is thought to thwart they

efficiencies of a class action and place "undue burdens on the absent

class members ." Collins v . Int'l Dairy Queen, 190 F .R .D . 629, 631

(M .D . Ga . 1999)

See also In re Carbon Dioxide Indus . Antitrust

Litig ., 155 F .R .D . 209, 212 (M .D . Fla . 1993)("Absent a showing of 'I

. particularized need, the Court will not permit general discovery

from passive class members .") and McCarthy v . Pa i ne Webber Group,

Inc ., 164 F .R .D . 309, 313 (D . Conn . 1995) ("Discovery of absent class

members, while not forbidden, is rarely permitted due to the facts

that absent class members are not `parties' to the action, and that

to permit extensive discovery would defeat the purpose of class

16

AO 72A ( Rev. 8/82)

Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 144 Filed 05/18/07 Page 17 of 23
actions which is to prevent massive joinder of small claims .") . It is particularly inappropriate to dismiss an absent class member's claim for non-compliance with a discovery order . Cox, 784 F .2d at 1557 . As the Eleventh Circuit explained in Cox, that procedure "amounts to no more than an affirmative opt-in device" that is contrary to Rule 23 . Id .
Plaintiffs Gomez and Camacho-Grimaldo, however, are not absent members of a Rule 23 class action, but opt-in plaintiffs under § 216(b) of the FLSA . (Pls .' Mot . for Protective Order [92] at 9[ 4 .) Having opted into the litigation, Gomez and Camacho-Grimaldo are not "passive" in the same sense as absent Rule 23 class members . See Gonzales v . Hair Club for Men, Ltd ., Inc ., 2007 WL 1079291 (M . D . Fla . 2007)[I]n contrast to Rule 23 class actions, the existence of a collective action under . § 216(b) does depend on the active participation of other plaintiffs .'") (quoting Cameron-Grant v . Maxim Health ca re Serv . , Inc . , 347 F .3d 1240, 1249 (11th Cir . 2003)) . In addition, Gomez and Camacho-Grimaldo have done more than simply opt into the FLSA action : they both filed declarations in support of plaintiffs' motion for class certification . (Pls .' Reply in Supp . of Mot . to Compel [110] at 3 .) Gomez and Camacho-Grimaldo have thus chosen .to take an active role in the litigation .
Under the circumstances, the Court finds that some limited discovery of Gomez and Camacho-Grimaldo is appropriate . Defendants
17
AO 72A

Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 144 Filed 05/18/07 Page 18 of 23

propose depositions of Gomez and Camacho-Grimaldo "solely for purposes of responding to [p]laintiffs' class certification motion"-a reasonable request . (Defs .' Response to Pls .' Mot . for Protective order [103] at 2 .) Accordingly, plaintiffs' motion for a protective order deferring the depositions of Gomez and Camacho-Grimaldo is

DENIED . However, to lessen the burden on Gomez and Camacho-Grimaldo,

the Court will require these depositions to be taken at the place of Gomez and Camacho - Grimaldo's residence, or at a location chosen by plaintiffs' counsel . Apparently, Camacho-Grimaldo has returned to Mexico . (Pls .' Mot . for Protective Order [92] at 15 .) Thus, if defendants wish to depose Camacho-Grimaldo, they will have to travel

to Mexico . Plaintiffs have expressed some concern that if the Court permits'
the depositions of Gomez and Cramacho-Grimaldo, defendants will begin

to unilaterally notice other opt-in plaintiffs and non-representative

class members .

(Id .) Apparently, defendants' standard practice

throughout discovery has been to unilaterally notice depositions

without consulting plaintiffs' counsel . (Id, at Ex . 5 .) The Court agrees with plaintiffs that common professional courtesy requires at

least an effort on the part of defendants to determine mutually agreeable dates and locations before noticing depositions . (Id .) If defendants will consult with plaintiffs instead of unilaterally

noticing depositions, many of the disputes that have arisen thus far

18

AO (Re

7,.&2Aez

)

Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 144 Filed 05/18/07 Page 19 of 23
can be avoided in the future . The Court notes, further, that it will not be inclined to grant)
any requests from defendants to depose additional opt-in plaintiffs)) or absent Rule 23 class members at this stage in the litigation . Defendants' request to depose Gomez and Camacho-Grimaldo is'~ reasonable because it is limited in scope and warranted by Gomez and) Camacho-Grimaldo's active participation in the case . It is nott
i likely that defendants will be able to justify the depositions of other opt-in plaintiffs or absent class members . VI . Plaintiffs ' Motion to Compel Interrogatory Responses
Plaintiffs have also filed a motion to compel responses to interrogatories requesting : 1) the facts upon which defendants rely in denying certain paragraphs of the Complaint ; and 2) the facts upon which defendants rely in asserting several affirmative defenses . (Pls .' Mot . to Compel [119] .) Defendants object on the basis that the i nterrogatories seek attorney work product information and/or legall conclusions . (Defs .' Response to Pls .' Mot . to Compel [124] .) Defendants argue, further, that plaintiffs' requests are an improper use of "contention interrogatories ." (Id . at 2 .)
Plaintiffs' interrogatories are overly broad to the extent they request, "all" facts in support of defendants' assertions . As plaintiffs clarify in their reply brief, however, they are only seeking a general description of the factual basis of defendants'
19
AO 72A (Rev.8/82)

Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 144 Filed 05/18/07 Page 20 of 23
affirmative defenses and denials . (Pls .' Mot . to Compel [119] .and Pls .' Reply in Supp . of Mot . to Compel [132 .) So limited, plaintiffs' interrogatories are proper . See Grynberg v . Total S .A ., 2006 WL 1186836 *7 (D . Cola . 2006) ("It is proper to inquire about the material facts supporting specific factual matters raised in the pleadings .") and Hiskett v . Wal-Mart Stores, Inc ., 180 . F . R . D . 403, 405 (D . Kan . 1998)("Interrogatories may properly ask for the `principal or material' facts which support an allegation or 'defense") .
Contrary to defendants' argument, the interrogatories at issue are not protected by the work product doctrine . See Dunkin' Donuts Inc . v . Mary's Donuts, Inc ., 206 F .R .D . 518, 521 (S . D . Fla . 2002) ("Defendants seek only the facts supporting plaintiffs' claim .
. , which is not privileged from discovery as work product") and FED . R . Crv . P . 33(c) ("An interrogatory otherwise proper is not
i necessarily objectionable merely because an answer to the j interrogatory involves an opinion or contention thatt relates to fact or the application of law to fact") . Neither are they premature . The parties have engaged in extensive discovery focused solely on defendants' status as plaintiffs' employer, which is the subject of the interrogatories . By this point in time, defendants should be able to at least provide a brief description of the factual basis underlying their denials and affirmative defenses related to the
20
AO 72A ( Rev, 8182)

Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 144 Filed 05/18/07 Page 21 of 23
employment issue . Accordingly, the Court GRANTS plaintiffs' motion to compel [119] _ . Defendants should provide a more detailed response ] to pla i ntiffs' interrogatories as soon as possible, but no later than 'I May 31 , 2007 . VII . Plaintiffs ' Mot i on to Compel Documents and the Parties ' Joint '
Mot i on for a Protective Order Finally, plaintiffs have filed a motion to compel more detailed responses to several document requests concern i ng : 1) defendants' organizational structure, operations, and earnings ; 2) defendants' relationship with each other and with various farm labor contractors ; and 3) contact information for defendants' employees . (Pls . ' Mot . to C ompel [118] .) Defendants produced som e resp o nsiv e d o cumen ts , b u t withheld certain documents on grounds of confident i ality . (Defs .' Response to Pls .' Mot . to Compel [ 1 25] . ) The par t ies were recent l y able to agree to a stipulated protective order that addresses defendants' confidentiality concerns . (Joint Mot . for Stipulated Protective Order [129] at Ex . 1 .) They have filed a j o i nt mot i on ask i ng the Court to sign and enter the protective order, wh i ch this I C o ur t previously entered . In the joint motion, plaintiffs indicated that the stipulated protective order would allow them to withdraw their motion to compel documents . Accordingly, plaintiffs' motion to compel [118] is DENIED as withdrawn .
21
AO 72A ( Rev.8 182)

Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 144 Filed 05/18/07 Page 22 of 23
CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that defendants' Motion to Disqualify Putative Class Representatives [61] should be DENIED , plaintiffs' Motion for Protective Order [62] should be GRANTED , defendants' Motion to Compel Damages Information [78] should be DENIED , defendants' Motion to Strike [87] should be DENIED , defendants' Motion to Compel Documents and Records from Third Parties [89] should be GRANTED , defendants' Motion to Disqualify Plaintiff Lorenzo [90] should be DENIED , plaintiffs' Motion for Protective Order Deferring Depositions of Non-Party Class Members [92j should be DENIED , plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Sur - Reply [111] should be GRANTED , plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Production [118] should be DENIED as w i thdrawn , and plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Interrogatory Responses [119] should be GRANTED . The Court previously temporarily granted defendants' motion for an extension of time to respond to plaintiffs' motions for class and collective action certification . (Order [105) .) Defendants I requested the extension, in part, to give the Court an opportunity to resolve numerous outstanding discovery disputes . (See Mot . for Extension [82] at 2 .) Having ruled on those disputes, defendants' response is now ripe . The Court directs the parties to advise the Court whether they wish to proceed first on the class motion or on
22
AO 72A (Rev,&82)

Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 144 Filed 05/18/07 Page 23 of 23

the summary judgment motions . They shall so advise the Court by May 25 , 2007 . If the former, the Court will direct a prompt response by defendants to the class certification motion .

SO ORDERED, this day of May, 2007 .

!l

~_ .

J, ilfl-E E . CARNES ~i]NITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

23
AO 72 A (Rev.8 182)

 
 Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 380 Filed 01/06/10 Page 1 ofA8LED IN CLERK'S OFFICE
U.S.D.C. Atlanta
United States Court of Appeals JAN - () 2010 For the Eleventh Circuit

No. 09-12464
District Court Docket No. 06-02000-CV -JEC-1
HECTOR LUNA, JULIAN GARCIA, BARTOLO NUNEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, FRANSCISO JAVIER LORENZO, SANTOS G. MALDONADO, PATRICIA WOODARD, JORGE AGUILAR-ESTEBAN, GEORGE ALLEN, CIRILO ALVARADO-MAR, ROSA ARIAS, LEOPOLDO BARRIOS-ORTEGA, PEDRO BARRIOS-ORTEGA, FRANCISCO BELTRAN-ROJAS, ARISTEO CAMACHO-GRIMALDO, BERNARDO CEDILLO-DUQUE, HUMBERTO CEPEDA-ROSA, ELADIO CORTEZ-SANCHEZ, ROBERTO DEL ANGEL-CARRERA, BALTAZAR DIAZ-OROZCO, TEODORO DUQUE-ZUNIGA, RAUL ESCOBAR-GONZALEZ, JOSE FABIAN-FLORES, EMILIO GALARZA-BANDA, CESAR ARTURO GARCIA-SANCHEZ, ADA LINDA GARCIA-TENORIO, FELIZARDO GARCIA-MARTINEZ, ADOLFO GOMEZ, TOMASA HERNANDEZ-CORONADO, JOSE HERNANDEZ-HERNANDEZ, HUMBERTO HERNANDEZ-GALVAN, IGNACIO IBARRA-RIVERA, JUAN ALBINO JUAREZ-ESTRADA, VEOTA KHAMLUSA, ENRIQUE LOPEZ-LOREDO, SANDREKA MADISON,

FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
Dec 3, 2009
THOMAS K. KAHN CLERK

Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 380 Filed 01/06/10 Page 2 of 8
ANGEL MANCILLA-RODRIGUEZ, ROBERTO MANCILLA-HERNANDEZ, SIXTO MANCILLA-RODRIGUEZ, JOSE JUAN MARTINEZ-GALLEGOS, JOSE VICTOR MARTINEZ-MENDEZ, CARLOS MARTINEZ-MEDINA, MIGUEL MARTINEZ-MARTINEZ, J. ISABEL MARTINEZ ABUNDIZ, C.J.MASON, PABLO MEDINA-REYES, NARCISO MEDINA-REYES, NARCISA MORENO-DIAZ, LAZARO NAVA-OSORIO, FORTUNATO ORTEGA-SANTES, URIEL PATINO-CORONA, REYES RAMOS-VASQUEZ, ADOLFO ROBLERO-MORELES, LORENA ARACELI SIERRA GONZALEZ, HOPE WILLIAMS, KATHY WILLIAMS, GEORGE WORTHEN, JAMIL WRIGHT, JOSE RICARDO ZUNIGA-MAR,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
versus
DEL MONTE FRESH PRODUCE (SOUTHEAST), INC., DEL MONTE FRESH PRODUCE N.A., INC.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
JUDGMENT
It is hereby ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the attached opinion included herein by reference, is entered as the judgment of this Court.
Entered: December 3, 2009 For the Court: Thomas K. Kahn, Clerk
By: Clark, Djuanna

Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 380 Filed 01/06/10 Page 3 of 8

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
r---------------~
llLI::D

U.S. COURT OF APPE:AL.S

No. 09-12464 Non-Argument Calendar

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT DECEI'v!BER .3. 2009
TH0\11\S K. KAHN

C'LERK

D.C. Docket No. 06-02000-CV-JEC-1

HECTOR LUNA, JULIAN GARCIA, BARTOLO NUNEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, et al.,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

versus

DEL MONTE FRESH PRODUCE (SOUTHEAST), INC., DEL MONTE FRESH PRODUCE N.A., INC.,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
(December 3, 2009) Before WILSON, PRYOR and COX, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:

Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 380 Filed 01/06/10 Page 4 of 8
Plaintiffs are migrant and seasonal workers who worked on farms run by defendant Del Monte Fresh Produce (Southeast), Inc. ("Del Monte SE") near Helena, Georgia, during the 2003-2006 harvest seasons. Plaintiffs allege that Del Monte SE and its parent corporation, Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A., lnc. 1 (collectively with Del Monte SE, "Defendants") failed to pay them properly, pursuant to agreement and federal laws. They filed this putative class action asserting claims for breach of contract (Count 1), violation of the Migrant and Seasonable Agricultural Workers Protection Act (AWPA) (Count II), and violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) (Count III). Plaintiffs sought certification of two mutually exclusive classes: a class of workers who had H-2A visas, to be represented by Plaintiffs Hector Luna, Julian Garcia, and Francisco Javier Lorenzo ("the Count I class"); and a class of workers who came from within the United States and did not have H-2A visas, to be represented by Santos Maldonado, Patricia Woodard, and Bartolo Nunez ("the Count II class"). All Plaintiffs also sought certification of a collective action to pursue their Count III FLSA claims. The district court denied class certification of both the Count
1The district court dismissed Plaintiffs' claims against Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A., Inc., prior to considering Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, on the grounds that the parent corporation did not employ Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs challenge that dismissal in a separate appeal.
Plaintiffs moved to certify classes to maintain their claims against both Del Monte SE and the parent corporation. The district court denied the motion. We consider the propriety of class certification for the claims originally asserted against the parent corporation as well as those asserted against Del Monte SE. See Martinez-Mendoza v. Champion Int'l Corp., 340 F.3d 1200, 1216 (lith Cir. 2003).
2

Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 380 Filed 01/06/10 Page 5 of 8
I and Count II classes but granted certification of the Count III FLSA collective action. In this appeal, Plaintiffs challenge the denial of class certification pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3).2
"A district court's decision whether or not to certify a class under Rule 23 of the FRCP is reviewed for abuse of discretion. As long as the district court's reasoning stays within the parameters of Rule 23's requirements for certification of a class, the district court decision will not be disturbed." Hines v. Widnall, 334 F.3d 1253, 1255 (11th Cir. 2003) (citations omitted).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 allows certification of a class action 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 ofthe 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). To maintain a class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3), the requirements of Rule 23(a) must be met and the district court must "find[] 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
2Plaintiffs sought class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) also. But, they do not challenge on this appeal the district court's denial of class certification pursuant to that rule.
3

Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 380 Filed 01/06/10 Page 6 of 8
supenor to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy." Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3).
In this case, the district court denied class certification on Count I because it found that the requirement of Rule 23(a)(4) was not met. The court found that the proposed Count I class representatives were inadequate to protect the interests of the Count I class members because Luna and Lorenzo had violated their H-2A visas in ways that impacted their ability to seek damages on behalf of the Count I class for employment-related expenses and that Luna and Lorenzo may not be willing or able to appear in the United States to prosecute the action. The court also found proposed Count I class representative Garcia inadequate because he lacked sufficient knowledge to support the wage claims of absentee Count I class members.
With respect to Counts I and II, the district court found that the requirements of Rule 23(b)(3) were not met because common questions of law or fact did not predominate over questions affecting only individual members. The district court found that there were common issues to be resolved, including whether Del Monte SE paid Plaintiffs the mandatory wage rate for all work they performed and whether Del Monte SE maintained complete and accurate pay records of the Plaintiffs' work. But, the district court also found that resolution of the issues in the case would require individualized proof of the compensation received by each worker and the hours he
4

Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 380 Filed 01/06/10 Page 7 of 8
or she worked. The court found that it would be necessary to assess each worker's productivity to resolve his or her claim that Defendants failed to supplement piecerate earnings to meet the mandatory wage rate.
We cannot say that the district court abused its discretion in finding that the requirements of Rule 23(b)(3) were not met. The district court did not err in finding that liability would hinge upon evaluation of proof as to each individual's earnings and time worked. The court considered that both common and individual questions exist in this case and made the decision that, given the proof required to support Plaintiffs' claims, common questions did not predominate. "Where, after adjudication of the classwide issues, plaintiffs must still introduce a great deal of individualized proof or argue a number of individualized legal points to establish most or all of the elements of their individual claims, such claims are not suitable for class certification under Rule 23(b)(3)." Klay v. Humana, Inc., 382 F.3d 1241, 1255 (11th Cir. 2004) (citation omitted).
Here, the district court recognized that both common and individual issues existed within the case and, weighing those issues, decided against certification. We may have weighed the issues differently. But, "[e]ven if we would have certified a class, that does not mean the district court abused its discretion in declining to do so." Cooper v. Southern Co., 390 F.3d 695, 711 (11th Cir. 2004) (citations omitted).
5

Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 380 Filed 01/06/10 Page 8 of 8
We need not consider whether the district court properly determined that the proposed representatives of the Count I class were inadequate. Because the district court acted within its discretion in finding that the requirements ofRule 23 (b)(3) were not met, the court did not err in denying class certification under that rule, regardless of the adequacy of the Count I class representatives.
AFFIRMED.
6

 
 Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 323 Filed 06/12/09 Page 1 of 2

FILED IN CHAMBERS U .S .D .C . Atlanta

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA JUN ~ . ~ 2009

ATLANTA DIVISION

J*MEN . Hd1TTEN , lark ,

$y : C Deputy lark

HECTOR LUNA, JULIAN GARCIA, FRANCISCO JAVIER LORENZO, SANTOS G . MALDONADO, PATRICIA WOODARD and BARTOLO NUNEZ, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs, v.

CIVIL ACTION NO . 1 :06-CV-2000-JEC

DEL MONTE FRESH PRODUCE (SOUTHEAST), INC .,

Defendants .

O R D E R

This case is presently before the Court on plaintiffs' Emergency

Motion for Entry of Final Judgment [313] . Plaintiffs seek the entry

of final judgment, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54 (b) ,

as to the dismissal of their claims against Del Monte Fresh Produce,

N .A . ("DMNA")

(Id . ) Plaintiffs further request that the Court's

decision on this motion be expedited, so that the Eleventh Circuit

may review the Court's decision as to the claims against DMNA in

conjunction with its upcoming review o f the Court's denial of class

certification . ( Id .) The Circuit Court accepted review of the class

certification decision on May 14, 2009, but has not yet set a date

AO 72A

(Flew. 8l82)

..

E

Case 1:06-cv-02000-JEC Document 323 Filed 06/12/09 Page 2 of 2
for argument . (Id . at 2 .) Defendant does not oppose plaintiffs' motion . (Def .'s. Resp .
[320J .) Moreover, final judgment against DMNA is appropriate under ~ Rule 54 (b) . FED . R . Czv . P . 54 (b) . The Court's previous summary i
judgment order disposed of all of plaintiffs' claims against DMNA, and eliminated DMNA as a party to this action . The parties agree, and the Court expressly finds, that there is no just reason for delay in entering final judgment as to the claims against DMNA . Accordingly, plaintiffs' Emergency Motion for Entry of Final sudgment .. [313] as to the claims against DMNA is GRANTED .
The Clerk entered judgment on the claims against' DMNA on March 3, 2009 . (Judgment [278] .) The Court now clarifies that the judgment [278] is a final judgment pursuant to . Rule 54(b) of the . Federal Rules of Civil Procedure .
SO ORDERED, this /Z day of June, 2009 .r % 1 ~ rc L~
J IE E . CARNES CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2
AO 77A (Rev-8/82)

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHER" DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
MIAMI DlVISIOI'i. Case No. _ _ _ _ _ _ _i_t_}_,_ __

)

HECTOR LUNA,

)

JULIAN GARCIA,

)

SANTOS MALDONADO,

)

and BARTOLO NlJNEZ,

)

individually and on behalf of all others

)

similarly situated,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

DEL MONTE FRESH PRODUCE

)

(SOUTHEAST), INC.,

)

and DEL MONTE FRESH PRODUCE N.A., INC. )

)

Defendants.

)

CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT - CLASS ACTION

NATURE OF THE ACTION

1. This is a civil action brought by four migrant agricultural workers

employed by Defendant Del Monte Fresh Produce (Southeast), Inc. and Defendant Del

\1onte Fresh Produce N.A.. Inc., (collectively "Del Monte" or ··Defendants'') at their

Georgia farms in and around Wheeler and Telfair Counties to plant, harvest, transport

and pack melons. greens and onions during the 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006 harvest

seasons. The

action to secure and v !llUl~aIC

the

Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act, 29 U.S.c. § 1801-1871 (1999), (hereinafter "AWPA"), the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 USc. § 201 - 2 I9 (1998), (hereinafter "FLSA"), and under state and federal contract law. These Representative Plaintiffs assert the foregoing claims on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated.
2. The Plaintiffs complain of the Defendants' unlawful employment practices during the 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006 seasons.
3. Acting through their agents, the Defendants recruited the Plaintiffs to work on their Georgia vegetable farms. The Defendants, through their recruiting agents, made binding promises regarding wages, hours and working conditions. In reliance upon and in consideration of these binding promises, the Plaintiffs left their homes, families and children and spent considerable money and effort to travel to Georgia to work for the Defendants.
4. The Defendants employed two distinct classes of migrant workers. The Defendants employed agricultural "guestworkers" recruited from Mexico pursuant to the temporary agricultural work visa program commonly known as the "H-2A program." 8 U.S.c. §I 188(H)(ii)(a). These guestworkcrs (hereinafter "H-2A workers") had written contracts of employment that included specific representations regarding wages, hours and working conditions. The terms ofthese employment contracts were primarily dictated by federal regulations. The H-2A worker Plaintiffs assert claims under the FLSA and tor breach of contract.
5. The Defendants also employed migrant workers who were not H-2A ooo-H2;\. HHlS"""
2

agricultural workers were recruited from within the United States. As a matter oflaw, the Defendants were not permitted to oner less favorable terms of employment to similarly situated domestic workers. 20 C.F.R. § 655.102. Thus, the same terms and conditions of employment offered contractually to the H-2A workers were incorporated as the minimum terms of the AWPA "working arrangement" of the migrant agricultural workers. The migrant agricultural worker Plaintiffs assert claims under the AWPA and under the FLSA.
6. Throughout their emplo),ment, the Defendants breached the terms of the Plaintiffs' emplojIDent agreements. The Defendants consistently failed to pay the promised wage rate for all hours worked. The Defendants also failed to reimburse the PlaintitIs tor costs they incurred for the benefit of the Defendants to the extent that these costs brought Plaintiffs' tirst week of wages below the required hourly rate.
7. All Plaintiffs assert claims under the FLSA. The class claims are divided into two proposed classes. The first subclass, hereinafter referred to as the H-2A worker class, asserts claims for breach of contract. Plaintiffs Hector Luna and Julian Garcia are the class representatives for the H-2A worker class. The second subclass, hereinafter referred to as the migrant agricultural worker class, assert claims for breach of the AWPA. PlaintifIs Santos Maldonado and Bartolo Nunez are the class representatives for the migrant agricultural worker class.
8. Plaintiffs seek to recover their unpaid wages, actual, statutory, liquidated, incidental, consequential, and compensatory damages and pre- and post-judgment interest. Plaintiffs also seek reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant to 29 U.s.c. § 216(b).
3

JURISDICTION 9. Jurisdiction is confcrrcd upon this Court by 28 U.S.C. § 1331, this action arising under the laws of the United States. 10. Jurisdiction is conterred upon this Court by 28 U.S.C. § 1337, this action arising under Acts of Congress regulating commerce. I I. Jurisdiction is conferred upon this Court by 29 U.S.C. § J854(a), this action arising under the A WPA. 12. Jurisdiction is conferred upon this Court by 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), this action arising under the FLSA. 13. Jurisdiction is conferred upon this Court by 28 U.S.C. § 1331, this case presenting state law claims that implicate significant federal issues. In the alternative, the Court is requested to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' state law claims. The state claims involve the same case and controversy as the federal claims. Supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims is conferred upon this Court by 28 U.S.c. § 1367(a).
VENUE 14. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and (e) and 29 U.S.C. § 1854(a).
PARTIES 15. Representative Plaintiff Hector Luna is a Mexican national employed by the Defendants in 2003 and 2004. At all times relevant to this action, Plaintiff Hector Luna was an H-2A guestworker, admitted to the United States to work for the Defendants
4

under the auspices of the H-2A gucstworker program. 8 U.S.C. § 1188; 20 C.F.R. §§ 655.0-655.113.
16. Representative PlaintifT Julian Garcia is a Mexican national employed by the Defendants in 2003. At all times relevant to this action, Plaintiff Julian Garcia was an H-2A guestworker, admitted to the United States to work for the Defendants under the auspices of the H-2A program. 8 U.S.c. § 1188; 20 C.F.R. §§ 655.0 - 655.113.
17. Representative Plaintiff Santos Maldonado is a migrant agricultural worker, recruited from within the United States by the Defendants and employed by the Defendants in 2004.
18. Representative PlaintitTBartolo Nunez is a migrant agricultural worker, recruited from within the United States by the Defendants and employed by the Defendants in 2004 and 2005.
19. Defendant Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A., Inc., is a Florida corporation that maintains a principal place of business at 241 Sevilla Avenue, Coral Gables, Florida.
20. Defendant Del Monte Fresh Produce (Southeast), Inc. is a Delaware corporation that maintains a principal place of business at 24 I Sevilla Avenue, Coral Gables, Florida.
21. Upon information and belief, Defendant Del Monte Fresh Produce (Southeast), Inc., is responsible, under the direct supervision and control of Defendant Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A., Inc" tor the planting, harvesting and packing of melons, greens and onions at the Defendants' farms in an around the Georgia counties of Wheeler and Telfair.
5

22. Upon infonnation and beliet: Defendant Del Monte Fresh Produce (Southeast), Inc. was created for the purpose of achieving Defendant Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A., Inc.'s objectives with respect to the production, marketing, sale and distribution of its tresh produce, and are under the direct managerial and financial control of Dcfendant Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A., Inc. to the extent that it has no or insignificant financial assets of its own.
23. Upon infonnation and belief, Defendant Del Monte Fresh Produce (Southeast), Inc. was created in order to defeat justice, perpetuate fraud, evade contractual or tort responsibility, and/or confuse or avoid judgment creditors. Defendant Del Monte Fresh Produce (Southeast), Inc. is a mere instrumentality for the transaction of the affairs of Defendant Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A., Inc.
24. Defendant Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A., Inc. is fully liable for its own acts and the acts of Defendant Del Monte Fresh Produce (Southeast), Inc. Defendant Del Monte Fresh Produce (Southeast), Inc. is an alter ego of Defendant Del Monte Fresh Produce N .A., Inc. or, alternatively, is in an agency relationship with it. Further, Defendant Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A., Inc. is vicariously liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior for the acts and omissions of Defendant Del Monte Fresh Produce (Southeast), Inc.
25. At all times relevant to this action, Defendant Del Monte Fresh Produce (Southeast), Inc. and Defendant Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A., Inc. (collectively "Del :Vfonte" or "Defendants") were agricultural employers within the meaning of29 U.s.C. § 1802(2).
6

26. At all times relevant to this action, Representative Plaintiffs Santos Maldonado and Bartolo Nunez and all other members of the migrant agricultural worker class were migrant agricultural workers within the meaning of29 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 pennanent plaees of residence.
27. At all times relevant to this action, Representative PlaintifTs Santos Maldonado and Bartolo Nunez and all other members of the migrant agricultural worker class were engaged in agricultural employment for the Defendants within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 1802(3).
28. At all times relevant to this action, the Defendants employed Representative Plaintiffs Santos Maldonado and Bartolo Nunez and all other members of the migrant agricultural worker class within the meaning of29 U.S.C. § 1802(5).
29. At all times relevant to this action, the Defendants were employers of Representative Plaintiffs Hector Luna and Julian Garcia and all other members of the H2A worker class within the meaning of20 C.F.R. § 655.100.
30. At all times relevant to this action, the Defendants employed the Plaintiffs and all other members of the proposed FLSA collective action class within the meaning of29 U.S.c. § 203(g).
31. At all times relevant to this action, the Defendants were employers of the Plaintifls and all other members of the proposed collective action class within the meaning of29 USC. § 203(d).
7

At all times relevant to this action, the Plaintiffs and all other members of the proposed collective action class were employees of the Defendants within the meaning of29 U.S.C. § 203(e)(l).
33. At all times relevant to this action, the Defendants employed the Plaintiffs and all other members of the proposed collective action class in the production, packing and harvesting of vegetables for sale in interstate commerce.
STATEMENT OF FACTS 34. During 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006, the Defendants owned and operated a vegetable farm located in and around the Georgia counties of Telfair and Wheeler. The Defendants' vegetable farm produced onions, greens and melons for shipment in interstate commerce. 35. During each season in question, the Defendants utilized the services of farm labor contractors charged with recruiting labor for the operation of the Defendants' Georgia vegetable farms. During eaeh season in question, the Defendants employed both temporary, foreign H-2A agricultural guest workers and migrant agricultural workers recruited from within the United States. During each season in question, the Defendants relied exclusively upon these laborers, recruited by their farm labor contractors, to operate their Georgia vegetable farms. During each season in question, the Defendants' farm labor contractors relied exclusively on the work provided by the Defendants to supply their recruits with employment. 36. During each season in question, the Defendants' farm labor contractors requested, recruited and imported temporary, foreign H-2A agricultural guest workers throu~,h a U.S. Department of Labor "job order."
8

37. An agricultural employer in the United States may import H-2A workers if

the United States Department of Labor (hereinafter "U.S. D.O.L") certifies that (l) there

are not enough U.S. workers to perform the job and (2) the employment of H-2A workers

will not adversely affect the wages and working conditions of U.S. workers who are

similarly employed. 8 U.S.C § 1101 (a)(I5)(H)(ii)(a); 8 U.S.C § 1188 (a)(I). These

provisions, along with the implementing United States Customs and Immigration

Services ("U.S.Cr.S.") and U.S. D.O.L regulations, are commonly referred to as the "H-

2A program."

38. Employers requesting H-2A workers must file a temporary labor

certification application with the U.S. D.O.L Regional Administrator responsible for the

area where the job is located. 20 CF.R. § 655.101 (a)(l) and (b)(l). This application

must include ajob offer that complies "....ith the requirements of20 CF.R. §§ 655.102 and

653.501. 20 CF.R. § 655.1 01 (b)(l). The job offer, commonly referred to as a "clearance

order" or "job order," is used to recruit both United States and H-2A workers. The

aforementioned regulations establish the minimum wages, benefits and working

conditions required in an H-2A job order in order to avoid adversely affecting similarly

employed United States workers. 20 CF.R. § 655.0 (a)(2); 20 C.F.R. § 655.102. These

terms and conditions constitute an employment contract between the employer and

employee, pursuant to 20 CF.R. § 655.102(b)(l4).

39. As a condition of receiving temporary labor certification for the

importation ofH-2A workers, agricultural employers are required to pay the highest of

the "adverse effect wage rate." the federal minimum wage. or the state minimum wage.

20 C.F § 655.102 (b)(9)(i). The a(hlerl;eeffect

rate ("AEWR") is average

9

annual wage tor agricultural workers during the preceding year, as established by the U.S. D.O.L. and published in the Federal Register. 20 C.F.R. § 655.107 (a). During 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006, the AEWR minimum hourly wage rates applicable to Georgia employers using H-2A guestworkers were $7.49, $7.88, $8.07 and $8.37 respectively. 68 Fed. Reg. 8929 (Feb. 26, 2003); 69 Fed. Reg. 10063 (Mar. 3, 2004); 70 Fed. Reg. 10152 (March 2, 2005); 71 Fed. Reg. 13633 (Mar. 16,2006). These wage rates were in etlect throughout the Plaintiffs' employment by the Detendants.
40. Agricultural employers who participate in the H-2A program are required to provide minimum pay and benefits as specified in the program's regulations. One of these requirements is that "the employer shall comply with the applicable federal, state, and local employment-related laws and regulations," 20 C.F.R. § 655.103(b), which includes the Fair Labor Standards Act and the requirement that workers receive, free and clear of deductions and expenses incurred for the benefit of the employer, at least the applicable minimum wage for all hours worked. 29 U.S.C. § 206(a).
41. In addition, an employer using H-2A workers must offer U.S. workers no less than the same benefits, wages and working conditions that it ofTers to H-2A workers and must not impose any restrictions or obligations upon U.S. workers not imposed upon H-2A workers. 20 C.F.R. § 655.102.
42. Where an agricultural employer obtains some of its work force through the H-2A program, the terms of the "job order" establish the minimum terms and conditions of employment on that employer's farm tor other agricultural workers. The terms and conditions set torth by the 'job order" are incorporated as the minimum terms and
10

conditions of the AWPA "working arrangement" governing the employment of similarly situated, non-H2A, migrant agricultural workers recruited to work on the same farm.
43. Representative PlaintifTs Hector Luna and Julian Garcia were employed by the Defendants in 2003 andJor 2004 under the terms of H-2A job orders.
44. Representative PlaintifTs Santos Maldonado and Bartolo Nunez were recruited to the Defendants' farm and worked as migrant agricultural workers during 2004 andJor 2005. Their AWPA "working arrangement" incorporated the terms and conditions of employment set forth in the concurrent H-2A "job orders."
45. Before the receipt of their first paycheck, Plaintiffs and others similarly situated spent considerable sums of money to travel to and become eligible for employment at the Defendants' Georgia vegetable farms.
46. These expenditures were primarily for the benefit of the Defendants within the meanings of20 C.F.R. §§ 531.32(c) and 778.217.
47. The Defendants did not reimburse the Plaintiffs for these expenditures to the extent that these pre-employment costs brought their tirst week's wages below the applicable minimum wage.
48. When compensating the Plaintiffs on a piece-rate basis, the Defendants failed to supplement the weekly earnings ofthe PlaintitTs when inadequate piece-rate earnings caused their average hourly wage during a pay period to fall below the applicable AEWR wage rate.
49. When compensating the Plaintit1s on an hourly basis, the Defendants failed to pay the proper AEWR wage rate.
II

50. Plaintiffs did not receive payment for all hours worked as required by

federal law and their employment contract with the Defendants.

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS: COUNT I - H-2A CONTRACT VIOLATIONS

51. All claims set forth in Count I are brought by Representative Plaintiffs

Hector Luna and Julian Garcia on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated

persons pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

52. Hector Luna and Julian Garcia seek to represent a class consisting of all

those individuals admitted as H-2A temporary foreign workers pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §

1I88(H)(ii)(a) who were employed by the Defendants in their Georgia vegetable farming

operations from April 1, 2003 to the present.

53. The precise number of individuals in the class is known only to the

Defendants and their farm labor contractors. This class is believed to include over 300

individuals. The class is comprised principally of indigent migrant farmworkers who

maintain their residences in locations throughout Mexico. The class members are not

Huent in the English language. The relatively small size of the individual claims, the

geographical dispersion of the class. and the indigency of the class members makes the

maintenance of separate actions by each class member economically infeasible. Joinder

of all class members is impracticable.

54. There are questions of fact and law common to the class. These common

questions include whether the Ddendants were an employer of the Count I, H-2A worker

subclass under the meaning of20 C.F.R. § 655.100; whether the Defendants violated the

"job order" contract by failing to reimburse the class members for pre-employment

c:qJenses to the extent necessary to assure

of

\vage rate in the

12

week of employment; whether the Defendants failed to pay the Count I H-2A worker subclass members at the contractual AEWR wage rate for all work perfonned; whether the Defendants failed to maintain complete and accurate records regarding the Count I class members' work; and whether the Defendants failed to provide the Count! H-2A worker class members with complete and accurate wage statements.
55. The claims of Representative Plaintiffs Hector Luna and Julian Garcia are typical of the class, and these typical, common claims predominate over any questions affecting only individual class members. Representative Plaintiffs Hector Luna and Julian Garcia have the same interests as do the other members of the class and will vigorously prosecute these interests on behalf of the class.
56. Counsel for the Plaintiffs have handled numerous actions in the federal courts, including class actions and collective actions, concerning the issues involved herein. They are prepared to advance litigation costs necessary to vigorously litigate this action.
57. A class action under Rule 23(b)(3) is superior to other available methods of adjudicating this controversy because, inter alia:
a. The common issues oflaw 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;
b. Mal'1Y members of the class are unaware of their rights to prosecute these claims and lack the means or resources to secure legal assistance:
13

c. There has been no class action litigation already commenced against the Defendants to determine the questions presented. Six (6) individual workers have presented similar claims in VerdugoLopez, et. al. v. Del Jlonte Fresh Produce (Southeast), Inc., et. al. a companion case also pending in this jurisdiction. These workers have asserted their claims separately because their case includes unique allegations atypical to the proposed class;
d. It is desirable that the claims be heard in this forum since the Defendants maintains their primary business office in this District; and
e. A class action can be managed without undue difficulty since the Defendants have regularly committed the violations complained of herein and are required to maintain detailed records concerning each member of the class. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS: COUNT II - MIGRANT AND SEASONAL
AGRICULTURAL WORKER PROTECTION ACT VIOLATIONS 58. All claims set forth in Count II are brought by Representative Plaintiffs Santos Maldonado and Bartolo Nunez, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated persons, pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 59. Representative Plaintiffs Santos Maldonado and Bartolo Nunez seek to represent a class consisting of all those individuals employed by the Defendants as migrant agricultural workers in their Georgia vegetable farming operations from April I. 2003 to
14

60. The precise number of individuals in the class is known only to the

Defendants and their farm labor contractors. This class is believed to include over 300

individuals. The class is comprised principally of indigent migrant farmworkers with

t1uid places of residence. The class members are not t1uent in the English language. The

relatively small size of the individual claims, the geographical dispersion of the class, and

the indigency of the class members makes the maintenance of separate actions by each

class member economically infeasible. Joinder of all class members is impracticable.

61. There are questions of tact and law common to the class. These common

questions include whether the Defendants were an employer of the Count II migrant

agricultural worker class as defined by the AWPA; whether the terms ofthe 'job order"

contract were incorporated into the AWPA "working arrangement" of the Count II class;

whether the Defendants violated the AWPA by failing to pay the AEWR minimum wage

rate to members of the Count II migrant agricultural worker class; whether the

Defendants violated the AWPA by failing to reimburse the Count II class members for

pre-employment expenses to the extent necessary to assure the receipt of the AEWR

minimum wage rate in the first week of employment; whether the Defendants failed to

pay the Count II migrant agricultural worker class members their wages promptly when

due, as required by the AWPA; whether the Defendants failed to maintain complete and

accurate records regarding the Count II migrant agricultural worker class members' work

in violation of the AWPA; and whether the Defendants failed to provide the Count II

class members with complete and accurate wage statements as required by the AWPA.

62. The claims of Representative Plaintiffs Santos Maldonado and Bartolo

are

the Count !l migrant "!4il~lmU'l<U worker class. and these

common claims predominate over any questions affecting only individual class members. Representative PlaintitTs Santos Maldonado and Bartolo Nunez have the same interests as do the other members of the class and will vigorously prosecute these interests on behalf of the class.
63. Counsel for the PlaintitTs have handled numerous actions in the federal courts, including class actions and collective actions, concerning the issues involved herein. They are prepared to advance litigation costs necessary to vigorously litigate this action.
64. A class action under Rule 23(b)(3) is superior to other available methods of adjudicating this controversy because, inter alia:
a. 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;
b. Many members of the class are unaware of their rights to prosecute these claims and lack the means or resources to secure legal assistance;
c. There has been no Iitigation already commenced against the Defendants by the members of the class to determine the questions presented;
d. It is desirable that the claims be heard in this forum since the Defendants maintains their primary business office in this District; and
16

e. A class action can be managed without undue ditticulty since the

Defendants has regularly committed the violations complained of

herein and is required to maintain detailed records concerning each

member of the class.

CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

COUNT I: BREACH OF EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT (CLASS ACTION - H-2A WORKER CLASS)

65. Representative Plaintiffs Hector Luna and Julian Garcia and the members

of the Count I class incorporate by reference the allegations set forth above in the

preceding paragraphs.

66. This count sets forth a claim for damages by Representative PlaintifIs

Hector Luna and Julian Garcia and the members of the Count I class against the

Defendants for their breach of the "rate of pay" provision of the employment contract as

detailed in 20 C.F.R. § 655.102(b)(9)(ii)(A).

67. The Defendants offered and Representative Plaintiffs Hector Luna and

Julian Garcia and the members of the proposed Count I class accepted employment on

specifiC terms and conditions.

68. Among the terms that the Defendants offered and Plaintiffs accepted was

payment of at least the applicable AEWR wage rate for each hour worked.

69. Representative Plaintiffs Hector Luna and Julian Garcia and the members

of the proposed Count I class are H-2A guestworkers recruited by the Defendants' farm

labor contractors to leave their home villages in Mexico to work at the Defendants'

Georgia vegetable farms. After receiving a hiring commitment from the Defendants'

farmlaborcO!ltr2~t()rs.

proposed Count! class were required to

17

process their H-2A work visas and travel to the Defendants' Georgia vegetable farms to begin work.
70. The Defendants violated their employment contract with the Plaintitfs and other members of the proposed Count I class by failing to pay them the proper AEWR wage rate for all the work they performed.
71. The violation ofthe employment contract as set out in paragraphs 44-50 and 70 resulted in part from the Defendants' failure to reimburse the Plaintitfs and the other members of the Count I class for expenses they incurred which were primarily for the benefit of the Defendants to the extent necessary to assure receipt of the AEWR hourly wage rate in the tirst week of employment of each member of the proposed Count I class.
72. The violation of the employment contract as set out in paragraph 70 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 required AEWR wage rate.
73. The violation ofthe employment contract as set out in paragraph 70 resulted in part from the Defendants' failure to pay the proper AEWR wage rate for all work compensated on an hourly ba~is.
74. The violation of the employment contract as set out in paragraphs 70 and 72 resulted in part from the Defendants' maintenance of incomplete, false and inaccurate records of the hours worked by Plaintiffs and other class members.
75. As a direct consequence of the Defendants' breach of the employment contract. the Plaintiffs suffered ec,)ll(lmic
18

76. The Defendants are liable to Plaintiffs for the actual, incidental. and consequential damages which arose naturally and according to the usual course of things from the Defendants' breach, as provided by O.e.G.A. § 13-6-2 and the federal common law of contracts, including unpaid wages, damages arising from the delay, and prejudgment interest.
COUNT II: MIGRANT & SEASONAL AGRICULTURAL WORKER PROTECTION ACT
(CLASS ACTION - MIGRANT AGRICULTURAL WORKER CLASS) 77. Representative Plaintiffs Santos Maldonado and Bartolo Nunez and the members of the Count II class incorporate by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-50 and 58-64 above. 78. This count sets forth claims for money damages, declaratory relief and injunctive relief by Representative Plaintiffs Santos Maldonado and Bartolo Nunez and the other members of the proposed Count II class against the Defendants for their violations of the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act ("AWPA"). 79. The certifications described in paragraphs 36-42 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 e.F.R. § 500.72. 80. The Defendants violated the AWPA by failing to pay the PlaintitTs and the other members of the Count II migrant agricultural worker class the proper AEWR wage rate for all the work they performed. 81. The violation of the A,WPA as set out in paragraph 80 resulted in part from Defendants' failure to supplement the piece-rate pm"nll"" of the PlaintitTs
19

the other class members so as to raise their individual pay period wages to a rate equal to or exceeding the required AEWR wage rate.
82. The violation of the AWPA as set out in paragraph 80 resulted in part from the Defendants' failure to pay the proper AEWR wage rate for all work compensated on an hourly basis.
83. The violation of the AWPA as set out in paragraphs 80 and 81 resulted in part from the Defendants' maintenance of incomplete, false and inaccurate records of the hours worked by Plaintiffs and other class members.
84. The violation of the AWPA as set out in paragraphs 44-47 and 80 resulted in part from the Defendants' failure to reimburse the Plaintiffs and the other members of the Count II migrant agricultural worker class tor expenses they incurred which were primarily for the benefit of the Defendants.
85. By their actions and omissions described in paragraphs 80-84, the Defendants violated without justification their working arrangement with the Plaintiffs and the other members of the Count II class, thereby violating the AWPA, 29 U.S.C. § 1822(c), and its attendant regulations, 29 C.F.R. § 500.72.
86. By their actions and omissions described in paragraphs 80-84, the Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiffs and other members of the Count II class their wages owed promptly when due, thereby violating the A WPA, 29 U.S.c. § 1822(a), and its attendant regulations, 29 C.F.R. § 500.8!.
87. The Defendants failed to make, keep, and preserve accurate and complete records regarding the PlaintitTs' and the other Count II class members' employment, in
20

violation of the AWPA, 29 U.S.c. § 1821(d)( I), and its attendant regulations, 29 C.F.R. § SOO.80(a).
88. The Defendants failed to provide the Plaintiffs and the other Count II class members complete and accurate itemized written statements for each pay period containing the required information, in violation of the AWPA, 29 U.S.C. § 182 I (d)(2), and its attendant regulations, 29 C.F.R. § SOO.80(d).
89. 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 offhe AWPA, 29 U.S.c. § 1854(c)(1).
90. As a result of the Defendants' violations of the AWPA and its attendant regulations as set forth in this eount, the Plaintiffs and the other members of the class have suffered damages.

COUNT III: FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT (29 U.S.C. § 216(b) COLLECTIVE ACTION)

91. The Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations sct forth in the

preceding paragraphs.

92. This count sets forth a claim t'Or declaratory relief and damages fur the

Defendants' violations of the minimum wage provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act

("FLSA·'). This count is brought by all Plaintills on behalf of themselves and other

similarly situated farmworkers employed by the Defendants in their Georgia vegetable

Op{:ralloD'S b"tw'cen April 21, 2003

present.

21

93. Pursuant to 29 U.S.c. § 216(b), Plaintiffs Hector Luna, Julian Garcia, Santos Maldonado and Bartolo Nunez have consented in writing to be party Plantiffs in this FLSA action. Their vvritten consents are attached to this complaint.
94. The Defendants violated the rights of Plaintiffs by failing to pay each worker at least an average of the federal minimum wage ($5.15) for every compensable hour of labor performed in a workweek, in violation of29 U.S.C. § 206(a).
95. The violations of the FLSA in this count resulted, in part, from the Defendants' failure to reimburse expenses that were incurred by Plaintiffs primarily for the benefit of the Defendants, prior to the Plaintiffs' first week of work, as described above in paragraphs 45-47 and 69-71. When these expenses were deducted from Plaintiffs' first week's pay, they brought the Plaintiffs' earnings below the federal minimum wage for that pay period.
96. As a result of the Defendants' violations of the FLSA set forth in this count, each PlaintifT is entitled to recover the amount of his or her unpaid minimum wages and an equal amount as liquidated damages, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §216(b).
97. The Defendants' violations set out in this count were willful within the meaning of the FLSA.
PR.4..YER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, PlaintitTs respectfully request that this Court enter an order:
A. Certifying this case as a class action in accordance with Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules ofCivii Procedure with respect to the claims set forth in Count I;

B. CertifYing this case as a class action in accordance with Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure with respect to the claims set forth in Count II;
C. With respect to the claims set forth in Count III, permitting this case to proceed as a 29 U.S.c. § 216(b) collective action;
D. Declaring that the Defendants intentionally violated the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act and its attendant regulations, as set forth in Count II;
E. Declaring that the Defendants willfully violated the minimum wage provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act as set forth in Count III;
F. Granting judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs and the other class members against the Defendants under Count [ and awarding each of the Plaintiffs and other class members their respective actual, incidental and consequential damages;
G. Granting Judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs and the other class members against the Defendants under Count II and awarding each of the Plaintiffs and the other class members actual or statutory damages for each violation of the AWPA, whichever is greater;
H. Permanently enjoining the Defendants from tUrther violations of the AWPA and its attendant regulations;
!. Grantingjudgment 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 and awarding each of
23

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; J. Awarding the PlaintifTs the costs of this action; K. Awarding Plaintiffs pre- and post-judgment interest as allowed by law; L. Awarding the PlaintifTs reasonable attorneys' fees with respect to their Fair Labor Standards Act claims; and M. Granting such further relief as is just and equitable

Respectfully submitted this 20th day of April, 2006.

Gregory . chell

/

/

Florida Bar Number 287199

Migrant Farmworker Justice Project

FLORIDA LEGAL SERVICES, INC.

508 Lucerne Avenue

Lake Worth, Florida 33460-3819

Telephone: (561) 582-3921

Facsimile: (561) 582-4884

Email:

Greg@Floridalegal.org

Mary C. Bauer

Virginia Bar Number 31388

PraHac Vice

Kelley M. Bruner

Alabama Bar Number 81 15-K74B

PraHac Vice

Andrew H. Turner

Virginia Bar Number 48853

PraHac Vice

Immigrant Justice Project

Southern Poverty Law Center

400 Washington Avenue

Montgomery, Alabama 36104

Telephone: (334) 956-8200

Facsimile: (334) 956-8481

Email:

mbauer(([splcenter.org

kbnmer(ii'splcenter.org

atumcfJI;splcentey<org

Attorneys lor PlaintifTs

25

DE : AHORRATEL CORTAZAR

NO. DE FAX 01411155459>;"

FLSA COl"SENT FOR'1 j CONSENTIMIENTO r ARA ACCION It'LSA
T hereby give my C0:lsent to sue fo: ~"a.ges :hat may be owed to me under the Fair Labor STandards Act, I hereby authorize my attomeys to represem me before any court or agency on
-----------
NAt'vfE

Por este media doy mi consentireiento para que se haga -reman-ra para pagos que so:: me ueb,,"

",,::mas bajo 1a Ley :le

Laborales Jusra5. Autorlzo que mis abogados me representen ante

Cll?Jquier corte 0 agencia tocatte es~os reclamc3.

FECHJ( 7

FLSA CONSENT FORl'Vl/ CONSENTIJ\lIENTO PARA ACCION FLSA I herehy give my consent to sue for wages that may he owed to me under the Fair Labor Standards Act. I hereby authorize my attorneys to represent me before any court or agency on these claims.
NAME SIGNATURE DATE
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Por este medio doy mi consentimiento para que se haga demanda para pagos que se me deben bajo la Ley de Normas Laborales Justas. Autorizo que mis abogados me representen ante cualquier corte 0 agencia tocante estos reclamos.
,)v..\ i o...(\, Gc....c- '- i 0... Lc. ij a..
NOMBRE
'I.;taiIQ:n C;r-.....:;;u, '<'~~£C4
10S /FIRMA 5/9 FECHA

NOTICE OF CONSENT TO SUE I HEREBY CONSENT to be a party Plaintiff in a lawsuit under the minimum wage provisions ofthe Fair Labor Standards Act with respect to labor I performed in the State(s) of _ _ _ _ _ _'''li'",5 the year(s) _ _ _ __ This _ _ _ day _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _,200_0 Signature: Name
NOTICIA DE CONSENTIMIENTO PARA DEMANDAR YO POR LA PRESENTE DOY CONSENTIMIENTO a serpartido
Demandante en una demanda bajo las provisiones del salario minimo de la Acta de
Normas Justas e Iguales con respecto a trabajo que hice en el Estado(s) de Gear-gin _ _~____ durante el(los) afio(s) --'O"'--yL-_ _ _ __
Este
Nombre

FLSA COl'iSEXf fOR\! j CONSENTIMtENTO PAR.\ AeOo, FLSA
\l/agcs rh::n Inay be ow~d to me u!1der the Fair ~A3hor
r Standards Act. h,:'teby l:!u!h(Jriz~ my attOlneys tv represent rHe f)(~for~ any C~)urt or agent) on
tb:st: d~ms.
N~,lE
SlON."fURl:
bajo la Le) dd Norm.is Ldbvr~ks JU$ti.i.s. Amorizo que lUis JDOg2C;O$ me r:~i'Jrescnkn ante
fECH/..

 
 2009 WL 4801357 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.
This decision was reviewed by West editorial staff and not assigned editorial enhancements.
United States District Court, N.D. Georgia,
Atlanta Division.
Hector LUNA, Julian Garcia, Francisco Javier Lorenzo, Santos G. Maldonado, Patricia Woodard and Bartolo Nunez, Individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
DEL MONTE FRESH PRODUCE (SOUTHEAST), INC., and Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A., Inc., Defendants.
Civil Action No. 1:06-CV-2000-JEC. | Dec. 10, 2009.
Attorneys and Law Firms
Andrew H. Turner, Kristi L. Graunke, Montgomery, AL, Arlen S. Benjamin-Gomez, Elizabeth Joan Appley, Elizabeth J. Appley, Attorney at Law, Mary C. Bauer, Daniel Werner, Atlanta, GA, for Plaintiffs.
Courtney Blair Wilson, Littler Mendelson, Miami, Miami, FL, Jacqueline Elise Kalk, Littler Mendelson, Minneapolis, MN, Kelly D. Reese, Littler Mendelson, P.C., Mobile, AL, Bradley E. Strawn, Latesa K. Bailey, Littler Mendelson, P.C., Atlanta, GA, for Defendants.
Opinion
ORDER & OPINION
JULIE E. CARNES, District Judge.
*1 This case is presently before the Court on plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File their Third Amended Complaint [294], plaintiffs’ Motion for Joinder [295], plaintiffs’ Motion to Intervene [302], plaintiffs’ Motion for Protective Order [319], defendants’ Motion to Stay Discovery [368], the parties’ Joint Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery [369], and plaintiffs’ Motion for a Scheduling Conference [374].

The Court has reviewed the record and the arguments of the parties and, for the reasons set out below, concludes that plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File their Third Amended Complaint [294] should be GRANTED, plaintiffs’ Motion for Joinder [295] should be GRANTED, plaintiffs’ Motion to Intervene [302] should be DENIED as moot, plaintiffs’ Motion for Protective Order [319] should be DENIED, defendants’ Motion to Stay Discovery [368] should be DENIED as moot, the parties’ Joint Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery [369] should be GRANTED, and plaintiffs’ Motion for a Scheduling Conference [374] should be DENIED.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs are six migrant and seasonal agricultural laborers who worked on defendant Del Monte Fresh Produce Southeast’s (“DMSE’s”) Georgia farms at various times during the 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006 harvest seasons. (Second Amended Compl. [106] at ¶ 1.) They were recruited to work on defendants’ farms by third-party farm labor contractors. (Id. at ¶ 3.) Plaintiffs Luna, Garcia, and Lorenzo were recruited from Mexico pursuant to the temporary agricultural work visa program commonly known as the “H-2A program.” (Id. at ¶ 4.) Plaintiffs Maldonado, Woodard and Nunez were recruited from within the United States. (Id. at ¶ 5.)
Plaintiffs allege that, during their employment with DMSE, defendant violated federal laws governing the wages and working conditions of migrant and seasonal agricultural workers. (Id. at ¶ 6.) They filed this lawsuit as a class action on behalf of two, distinct classes of workers: (1) H-2A guest-workers recruited from Mexico; and (2) non-H-2A migrant and seasonal agricultural workers recruited from within the United States. (Second Amended Compl. [106] at ¶¶ 4-5.) In Count I of the Complaint, the H-2A workers assert claims for breach of contract. (Id.) In Count II, the non-H-2A workers assert claims for violation of the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Workers Protection Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 18011871 (“AWPA”). (Id.) In Count III, all of the plaintiffs assert claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201-219 (“FLSA”). (Id. at ¶ 7.)
The case was bifurcated to permit an initial determination on the potentially dispositive question of defendants’ status as plaintiffs’ employer. (Scheduling Order [66].) Following the initial discovery period, the parties filed motions for summary judgment on the employment
1

question. (Order [231].) In its order ruling on those motions, the Court held that defendant DMSE qualified as plaintiffs’ employer, but that defendant Del Monte Fresh Produce, N.A. (“DMNA”) did not. (Id.) The Court thus granted summary judgment to DMNA on all of plaintiffs’ claims, leaving DMSE as the sole defendant in the suit. (Id.)
*2 Plaintiffs subsequently filed a motion for certification of the claims asserted in Counts I and II of their Complaint as a class action under Rule 23, and for certification of the claims asserted in Count III as a collective action under the FLSA. (Order [277].) The Court granted plaintiffs’ motion as to the claims in Count III, and certified an FLSA collective action. (Id. at 31.) However, the Court denied plaintiffs’ motion to certify a class action to litigate the claims asserted in Counts I and II. (Id. at 27.) As to those claims, the Court found that plaintiffs had not met the requirement of Rule 23(b)(3) to show that common factual and legal issues predominate over individual issues. (Id.) Plaintiffs appealed the Rule 23 class certification issue to the Eleventh Circuit, which recently affirmed the Court’s decision. (Order of USCA [305].)
While the appeal was pending, the parties attempted to proceed with merits discovery in this Court. However, as has happened so frequently in this case, discovery has been stalled by disputes that the parties have chosen to resolve through motions, instead of by agreement. The primary dispute that has arisen concerns the proper scope of discovery directed toward the 52 plaintiffs who opted in to the FLSA collective action. Plaintiffs contend that it would be unduly burdensome and expensive to subject all of the opt-ins to discovery. (Pls.’ Mot. for Protective Order [319] at 6.) They have filed a motion for a protective order to limit discovery to a small sample of the opt-in plaintiffs, which motion is presently before the Court. (Id.)
Plaintiffs have also filed a motion for permissive joinder and a motion to amend their complaint to add the 52 optins as individual plaintiffs on Counts I and II of the complaint. (Pls.’ Mot. to Amend [294] and for Permissive Joinder [295].) Plaintiffs contend that, in light of the Court’s denial of class certification on Counts I and II, joinder of these formerly absent class members is warranted. (Id. at 17.) The opt-in plaintiffs have filed a related motion to intervene as individual plaintiffs on Counts I and II. (Pls.’ Mot. to Intervene [302].) All of these notions are presently before the Court.
Finally, in an effort to address the scheduling issues created by the above disputes and the Eleventh Circuit appeal, the parties have filed a joint motion to extend the

discovery period. (Joint Mot. for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery [369].) The joint ir.otion proposes that the discovery deadline be extended to 120 days from the Court’s decision on the pending motions and the Eleventh Circuit’s decision on plaintiffs’ appeal. (Id. at 3.) The motion adjusts the deadlines for expert disclosures and dispositive’ motions accordingly. (Id.). The parties’ joint motion, as well as defendants’ related motion to stay discovery, are presently before the Court.
DISCUSSION
I. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend and for Permissive Joinder *3 In their motion to amend, Plaintiffs seek leave to file their Third Amended Complaint in this case. (Pls.’ Mot. to Amend [294].) The Amended Complaint reflects the Court’s denial of plaintiffs’ motion for Rule 23 certification on Counts I and II. (Id. at 3.) It also adds the 52 FLSA opt-in plaintiffs as individual plaintiffs on Counts I and II. (Id.) The opt-in plaintiffs are formerly absent members of the putative classes the Court declined to certify. (Id.)
Federal Rule 15(a) provides that leave to amend shall be “freely give[n] ... when justice so requires.” FED. R. CIV. P. 15(a). Courts therefore generally grant leave unless there is a substantial reason to deny it. Garfield v. NDC Health Corp., 466 F.3d 1255, 1270 (11th Cir.2006) (“ ‘In the absence of any apparent or declared reason ... the leave sought should, as the rules require, be freely given.’ ”) (quoting Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182, 83 S.Ct. 227, 9 L.Ed.2d 222 (1962)). Denial of a motion to amend is an abuse of discretion in the absence of some factor to justify the decision, such as “undue delay, undue prejudice to defendants, [or] futility.” Carruthers v. BSA Adver., Inc., 357 F.3d 1213, 1217-18 (11th Cir.2004).
There is no reason to deny leave in this case. Amendment of plaintiffs’ complaint to reflect the Court’s ruling on class certification obviously does not prejudice defendant. Neither does the joinder of the FLSA opt-ins as individual plaintiffs on Counts I and II. The opt-in plaintiffs are already participating in the case as FLSA claimants. Defendant has been aware of their identity, and their potential claims under Counts I and II, for months. As merits discovery is unfortunately still in the initial stages, defendant has sufficient time to prepare its defense to those claims. Indeed, defendant has already served all of the opt-ins with several broad discovery requests that have some bearing on the claims. (See Pls.’ Mot. for
2

Protective Order [319] at 5-6.)
Moreover, plaintiffs easily meet the requirements for permissive joinder under Federal Rule 20. Rule 20 provides for permissive joinder of parties to an action where: (1) the parties assert a claim “arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences” as the plaintiffs; and (2) there is some “question of law or fact common” to the parties seeking joinder and the plaintiffs in the action. FED. R. CIV. P. 20(a). See also Hubbard v. Haley, 262 F.3d 1194, 1197 (11th Cir.2001) (discussing the requirements for permissive joinder under Rule 20).
The claims in Counts I and II arise from a common payment system dictated by uniform H-2A employment contracts and Farm Labor Contractor (“FLC”) agreements. See Moore v. Comfed Savings Bank, 908 F.2d 834, 837-839 (11th Cir.1990) (holding that a series of distinct contracts giving rise to similar, serial complaints qualifies as a single “series of transactions” proper for permissive joinder under Rule 20). In addition, and as noted in the Court’s class certification order, there are several common questions of law and fact. (Order [277] at 17, 30.) The Court did not find that the common questions predominated, as required for class certification by Rule 23(b)(3). However, “Rule 20 contemplates a much lower threshold for allowing plaintiffs’ claims to proceed to trial together than is required by Rule 23 for class certification.” Fisher v. Ciba Specialty Chems. Corp., 245 F.R.D. 539, 542 (S.D.Ala.2007).
*4 Contrary to defendant’s argument, plaintiffs’ motion for joinder is not untimely. Defendant points out that plaintiffs filed their motion over two years after they initiated this lawsuit. (Def.’s Resp. to Pls.’ Mot. for Joinder [307] at. 7-8.) However, plaintiffs expeditiously sought joinder shortly after the Court denied their motion for class certification. See Crown, Cork & Seal Co., Inc. v. Parker, 462 U.S. 345, 354, 103 S.Ct. 2392, 76 L.Ed.2d 628 (1983) (stating that, upon denial of class certification, “class members may choose to file their own suits or to intervene as plaintiffs in the pending action”) and Armstrong v. Martin Marietta Corp., 138 F.3d 1374, 1391 (11th Cir.1998) (noting that, when a motion for class certification is denied, absent class members are required to file their own suit or join the action as individual plaintiffs in order to preserve their claims).
Nor will joinder cause undue delay in this case. The optins are already participating in the case as FLSA claimants. Their joinder on Counts I and II will not significantly complicate discovery. As noted, defendant has already served the opt-ins with extensive discovery requests. Moreover, defendant’s suggestion that plaintiffs

will file “serial joinder motions” as additional FLSA plaintiffs opt in to the case appears to be unwarranted. (See Def.’s Resp. [307] at 11-12.) The notice and opt-in period concluded on August 7, 2009. (Id. at 3.) Plaintiffs have not updated their motions to request joinder of any additional opt-ins, nor would the Court be receptive to such a motion at this time.
The goal of joinder under Rule 20 is to promote trial convenience and expedite the resolution of disputes, thereby eliminating unnecessary lawsuits. Swan v. Ray, 293 F.3c 1252, 1253 (11th Cir.2002). That goal will be served by granting plaintiffs’ motion for joinder in this case. Indeed, no legitimate interest would be served by requiring the opt-in plaintiffs, who are already participating in this lawsuit as FLSA claimants, to file 52 additional lawsuits to pursue the breach of contract and AWPA claims asserted in Counts I and II. Accordingly, plaintiffs’ motion to amend and their motion for permissive joinder are GRANTED.
II. Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Protective Order Plaintiffs have filed a motion for protective order to limit the discovery directed towards the FLSA opt-in plaintiffs. (Pls.’ Mot. for Protective Order [319].) However, plaintiffs concede that any opt-ins who are joined as full parties to the action are appropriately subject to reasonable individual discovery. (Pls.’ Reply in Supp. of Joinder [318] at 11.) As a result of the Court’s decision on plaintiffs’ motion for joinder, plaintiffs’ motion for a protective order is thus DENIED.
The Court urges the parties, as they move forward with discovery, to make a serious attempt to resolve any disputes that may arise over the definition of “reasonable” individual discovery. Plaintiffs have in the past resisted defendant’s discovery efforts based on their indigency and the fact that plaintiffs are dispersed throughout Mexico. While the Court acknowledges the difficulty of conducting discovery under these conditions, plaintiffs’ residency and financial status do not justify denying defendant the full range of discovery to which it is entitled under Rule 26. Particularly, now that the opt-ins have been joined as full parties to the action, the Court will not be inclined to grant any future motions to shield them from discovery, unless plaintiffs can articulate specific objections to particular discovery requests, and can show that those requests are improper under Rule 26.
III. The Parties’ Joint Motion for an Extension of Discovery
3

*5 In their joint motion, the parties propose that the discovery deadline be extended to 120 days from the date of this Court’s ruling on the pending motions and the Eleventh Circuit’s decision on plaintiffs’ appeal. The Court GRANTS this motion. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the Court’s class certification ruling on December 3, 2009. Accordingly, the Court extends discovery to 120 days from the date of this Order. Plaintiffs should disclose experts 60 days before the close of discovery. Defendant should disclose experts 45 days before the close of discovery. Dispositive motions and any decertification motions must be filed within 30 days after the close of discovery.
Plaintiffs recently filed a motion for a scheduling conference. (Mot. for Scheduling Conference [374].) The Court presumes that this Order will resolve all of the issues raised in that motion.
CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave’ to File their Third Amended Complaint [294], GRANTS plaintiffs’ Motion for Joinder [295], DENIES as moot plaintiffs’ Motion to Intervene [302], DENIES plaintiffs’ Motion for Protective Order [319], DENIES as moot defendants’ Motion to Stay Discovery [368], GRANTS the parties’ Joint Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery [369], and DENIES plaintiffs’ Motion for a Scheduling Conference [374].
Discovery will conclude on Friday, April 9, 2010. Plaintiffs should disclose their experts by Monday, February 8, 2010. Defendant should disclose its experts by Tuesday, February 23, 2010. Dispositive motions and any motions for decertification are due on Monday, May 10, 2010.
SO ORDERED.
	  

4

 
 Case: 1:06-cv-2000 As of: 08/13/2017 12:07 PM EDT 1 of 53
4months,CLASS,CLOSED,PROTO,REOPEN
U.S. District Court Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:06−cv−02000−JEC

Luna et al v. Del Monte Fresh Produce (Southeast), Inc. et al Assigned to: Judge Julie E. Carnes Case in other court: USCA − 11th Circuit., 09−11711−HH
USCA − 11th Circuit., 09−12464−HH
USCA − 11th Circuit., 09−13334−HH
USDC SD/FL, Miami, 06−CV−21015 Cause: 29:216(b) Labor − Minimum wage or overtime compensation
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 08/24/2006 Date Terminated: 04/15/2010 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 710 Labor: Fair Standards Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Hector Luna

represented by Andrew H. Turner Southern Poverty Law Center−AL 400 Washington Avenue Montgomery, AL 36104 334−956−8326 Email: andrew.turner@splcenter.org LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Arlen S. Benjamin−Gomez Southern Poverty Law Center−Atl Suite 2150 233 Peachtree Street, NE Atlanta, GA 30303 334−956−8200 Email: abenjamingomez@splcenter.org (Inactive) LEAD ATTORNEY

Elizabeth Joan Appley Elizabeth J. Appley, Attorney at Law 230 Peachtree Street NW Suite 1950 Atlanta, GA 30303 404−523−3800 Email: eja@appleylaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gregory Scott Schell Florida Legal Services 508 Lucerne Avenue Lake Worth, FL 33460 561−582−3921 Email: greg@floridalegal.org TERMINATED: 11/01/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY

Kelley Bruner Southern Poverty Law Center−Atl Suite 2150 233 Peachtree Street, NE Atlanta, GA 30303 334−956−8200 Email: kbruner@splcenter.org TERMINATED: 09/25/2006

Case: 1:06-cv-2000 As of: 08/13/2017 12:07 PM EDT 2 of 53

LEAD ATTORNEY

Mary C. Bauer Southern Poverty Law Center−AL 400 Washington Avenue Montgomery, AL 36104 334−956−8200 Email: mbauer@splcenter.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Morris S. Dees Southern Poverty Law Center 400 Washington Avenue Montgomery, AL 36104 334−956−8200 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Werner Southern Poverty Law Center − Atl Suite 340 150 E. Ponce de Leon Ave., NE Decatur, GA 30037 404−521−6700 Fax: 404−221−5857 Email: daniel.werner@splcenter.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James Melvin Knoepp Southern Poverty Law Center − Atl Suite 340 150 E. Ponce de Leon Ave., NE Decatur, GA 30037 404−521−6700 Fax: 404−221−5857 Email: jim.knoepp@splcenter.org

Kristi L. Graunke Southern Poverty Law Center − Atl Suite 340 150 E. Ponce de Leon Ave., NE Decatur, GA 30037 404−521−6700 Fax: 404−221−5857 Email: kgraunke@splcenter.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Julian Garcia

represented by Andrew H. Turner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Arlen S. Benjamin−Gomez (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Elizabeth Joan Appley (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:06-cv-2000 As of: 08/13/2017 12:07 PM EDT 3 of 53

Plaintiff
Santos Maldonado TERMINATED: 01/08/2007

Gregory Scott Schell (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/01/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY
Kelley Bruner (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/25/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY
Mary C. Bauer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Morris S. Dees (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Werner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James Melvin Knoepp (See above for address)
Kristi L. Graunke (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Andrew H. Turner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Arlen S. Benjamin−Gomez (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Elizabeth Joan Appley (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gregory Scott Schell (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/01/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY
Kelley Bruner (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/25/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY
Mary C. Bauer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:06-cv-2000 As of: 08/13/2017 12:07 PM EDT 4 of 53

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

Plaintiff
Bartolo Nunez individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated

represented by Andrew H. Turner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Arlen S. Benjamin−Gomez (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Elizabeth Joan Appley (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gregory Scott Schell (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/01/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY

Kelley Bruner (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/25/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY

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

Morris S. Dees (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Werner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James Melvin Knoepp (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

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

Plaintiff Fransciso Javier Lorenzo

represented by Andrew H. Turner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Arlen S. Benjamin−Gomez (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 1:06-cv-2000 As of: 08/13/2017 12:07 PM EDT 5 of 53

Elizabeth Joan Appley (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

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

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

Morris S. Dees (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Werner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James Melvin Knoepp (See above for address)

Plaintiff Santos G. Maldonado

represented by Andrew H. Turner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Arlen S. Benjamin−Gomez (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Elizabeth Joan Appley (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kelley Bruner (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/25/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY

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

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

Morris S. Dees (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:06-cv-2000 As of: 08/13/2017 12:07 PM EDT 6 of 53

Plaintiff Patricia Woodard
Plaintiff Cesar Arturo Garcia−Sanchez

Daniel Werner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James Melvin Knoepp (See above for address)
represented by Andrew H. Turner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Arlen S. Benjamin−Gomez (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Elizabeth Joan Appley (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kelley Bruner (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/25/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY
Kristi L. Graunke (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mary C. Bauer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Morris S. Dees (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Werner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James Melvin Knoepp (See above for address)
represented by Andrew H. Turner (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE
Daniel Werner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James Melvin Knoepp (See above for address)

Case: 1:06-cv-2000 As of: 08/13/2017 12:07 PM EDT 7 of 53

Plaintiff Ignacio Ibarra−Rivera
Plaintiff Reyes Ramos−Vasquez

represented by Morris S. Dees (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrew H. Turner (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE
Daniel Werner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James Melvin Knoepp (See above for address)
represented by Morris S. Dees (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrew H. Turner (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE
Daniel Werner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James Melvin Knoepp (See above for address)

V. Intervenor Plaintiff Adolfo Roblero−Morales
Intervenor Plaintiff Ada Linda Garcia−Tenorio
Intervenor Plaintiff Angel Mancilla

represented by Andrew H. Turner (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE
Daniel Werner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James Melvin Knoepp (See above for address)
represented by Andrew H. Turner (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE
James Melvin Knoepp (See above for address)
represented by Andrew H. Turner (See above for address)

Case: 1:06-cv-2000 As of: 08/13/2017 12:07 PM EDT 8 of 53

PRO HAC VICE

Daniel Werner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James Melvin Knoepp (See above for address)

Intervenor Plaintiff Aristeo Camacho−Grimaldo

represented by Andrew H. Turner (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE

Daniel Werner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James Melvin Knoepp (See above for address)

Intervenor Plaintiff Baltazar Diaz−Orozco

represented by Andrew H. Turner (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE

Daniel Werner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James Melvin Knoepp (See above for address)

Intervenor Plaintiff Bernardo Cedillo−Duque

represented by Andrew H. Turner (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE

Daniel Werner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James Melvin Knoepp (See above for address)

Intervenor Plaintiff Carlos Martinez−Medina

represented by Andrew H. Turner (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE

Daniel Werner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James Melvin Knoepp (See above for address)

Intervenor Plaintiff Cirilo Alvarado−Mar

represented by Andrew H. Turner (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE

Case: 1:06-cv-2000 As of: 08/13/2017 12:07 PM EDT 9 of 53

Daniel Werner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James Melvin Knoepp (See above for address)

Intervenor Plaintiff Eladio Cortez−Sanchez

represented by Andrew H. Turner (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE

Daniel Werner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James Melvin Knoepp (See above for address)

Intervenor Plaintiff Emilio Galarza−Banda

represented by Andrew H. Turner (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE

Daniel Werner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James Melvin Knoepp (See above for address)

Intervenor Plaintiff Felizardo Garcia−Martinez

represented by Andrew H. Turner (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE

Daniel Werner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James Melvin Knoepp (See above for address)

Intervenor Plaintiff Enrique Lopez−Loredo

represented by Andrew H. Turner (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE

Daniel Werner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James Melvin Knoepp (See above for address)

Intervenor Plaintiff Fortunato Ortega−Santes

represented by Andrew H. Turner (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE

Daniel Werner (See above for address)

Case: 1:06-cv-2000 As of: 08/13/2017 12:07 PM EDT 10 of 53

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James Melvin Knoepp (See above for address)

Intervenor Plaintiff Francisco Beltran−Rojas

represented by Andrew H. Turner (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE

Daniel Werner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James Melvin Knoepp (See above for address)

Intervenor Plaintiff Humberto Cepeda−Rosas

represented by Andrew H. Turner (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE

Daniel Werner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James Melvin Knoepp (See above for address)

Intervenor Plaintiff Humberto Hernandez−Galvan

represented by Andrew H. Turner (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE

Daniel Werner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James Melvin Knoepp (See above for address)

Intervenor Plaintiff J. Isabel Martinez−Abundiz

represented by Andrew H. Turner (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE

Daniel Werner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James Melvin Knoepp (See above for address)

Intervenor Plaintiff Jorge Aguilar−Esteban

represented by Andrew H. Turner (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE

Daniel Werner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:06-cv-2000 As of: 08/13/2017 12:07 PM EDT 11 of 53

James Melvin Knoepp (See above for address)

Intervenor Plaintiff Jose Antonio Fabian−Flores

represented by Andrew H. Turner (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE

Daniel Werner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James Melvin Knoepp (See above for address)

Intervenor Plaintiff Jose Hernandez−Hernandez

represented by Andrew H. Turner (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE

Daniel Werner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James Melvin Knoepp (See above for address)

Intervenor Plaintiff Jose Juan Martinez−Gallegos

represented by Andrew H. Turner (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE

Daniel Werner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James Melvin Knoepp (See above for address)

Intervenor Plaintiff Jose Ricardo Zuniga−Mar

represented by Andrew H. Turner (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE

Daniel Werner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James Melvin Knoepp (See above for address)

Intervenor Plaintiff Jose Victor Martinez

represented by Andrew H. Turner (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE

Daniel Werner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James Melvin Knoepp (See above for address)

Case: 1:06-cv-2000 As of: 08/13/2017 12:07 PM EDT 12 of 53

Intervenor Plaintiff Juan Albino Juarez−Estrada
Intervenor Plaintiff Lazaro Nava−Osorio
Intervenor Plaintiff Leopoldo Barrios−Ortega
Intervenor Plaintiff Lorena Sierra−Gonzalez
Intervenor Plaintiff Miguel Martinez−Martinez
Intervenor Plaintiff

represented by Andrew H. Turner (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE
Daniel Werner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James Melvin Knoepp (See above for address)
represented by Andrew H. Turner (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE
Daniel Werner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James Melvin Knoepp (See above for address)
represented by Andrew H. Turner (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE
Daniel Werner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James Melvin Knoepp (See above for address)
represented by Andrew H. Turner (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE
Daniel Werner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James Melvin Knoepp (See above for address)
represented by Andrew H. Turner (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE
Daniel Werner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James Melvin Knoepp (See above for address)

Case: 1:06-cv-2000 As of: 08/13/2017 12:07 PM EDT 13 of 53

Narcisa Moreno−Diaz

represented by Andrew H. Turner (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE

Daniel Werner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James Melvin Knoepp (See above for address)

Intervenor Plaintiff Narciso Medina−Reyes

represented by Andrew H. Turner (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE

Daniel Werner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James Melvin Knoepp (See above for address)

Intervenor Plaintiff Pablo Medina−Reyes

represented by Andrew H. Turner (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE

Daniel Werner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James Melvin Knoepp (See above for address)

Intervenor Plaintiff Pedro Barrios−Ortega

represented by Andrew H. Turner (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE

Daniel Werner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James Melvin Knoepp (See above for address)

Intervenor Plaintiff Raul Escobar−Gonzalez

represented by Andrew H. Turner (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE

Daniel Werner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James Melvin Knoepp (See above for address)

Intervenor Plaintiff Roberto Del Angel−Carrera

represented by Andrew H. Turner (See above for address)

Case: 1:06-cv-2000 As of: 08/13/2017 12:07 PM EDT 14 of 53

PRO HAC VICE

Daniel Werner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James Melvin Knoepp (See above for address)

Intervenor Plaintiff Roberto Mancilla−Hernandez

represented by Andrew H. Turner (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE

Daniel Werner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James Melvin Knoepp (See above for address)

Intervenor Plaintiff Sixto Mancilla−Rodriguez

represented by Andrew H. Turner (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE

Daniel Werner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James Melvin Knoepp (See above for address)

Intervenor Plaintiff Teodoro Duque−Zuniga

represented by Andrew H. Turner (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE

Daniel Werner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James Melvin Knoepp (See above for address)

Intervenor Plaintiff Tomasa Hernandez−Coronado

represented by Andrew H. Turner (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE

Daniel Werner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James Melvin Knoepp (See above for address)

Intervenor Plaintiff Uriel Patino−Corona

represented by Andrew H. Turner (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE

Case: 1:06-cv-2000 As of: 08/13/2017 12:07 PM EDT 15 of 53

Daniel Werner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James Melvin Knoepp (See above for address)

Intervenor Plaintiff Adolfo Gomez

represented by Andrew H. Turner (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE

Daniel Werner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James Melvin Knoepp (See above for address)

Intervenor Plaintiff C.J. Mason

represented by Andrew H. Turner (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE

Daniel Werner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James Melvin Knoepp (See above for address)

Intervenor Plaintiff George Allen

represented by Andrew H. Turner (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE

Daniel Werner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James Melvin Knoepp (See above for address)

Intervenor Plaintiff George Worthen

represented by Andrew H. Turner (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE

Daniel Werner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James Melvin Knoepp (See above for address)

Intervenor Plaintiff Hope Williams

represented by Andrew H. Turner (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE

Daniel Werner (See above for address)

Case: 1:06-cv-2000 As of: 08/13/2017 12:07 PM EDT 16 of 53

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James Melvin Knoepp (See above for address)

Intervenor Plaintiff Jamil Wright

represented by Andrew H. Turner (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE

Daniel Werner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James Melvin Knoepp (See above for address)

Intervenor Plaintiff Kathy Williams

represented by Andrew H. Turner (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE

Daniel Werner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James Melvin Knoepp (See above for address)

Intervenor Plaintiff Rosa Arias

represented by Andrew H. Turner (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE

Daniel Werner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James Melvin Knoepp (See above for address)

Intervenor Plaintiff Sandreka Madison

represented by Andrew H. Turner (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE

Daniel Werner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James Melvin Knoepp (See above for address)

Intervenor Plaintiff Veota Khamlusa

represented by Andrew H. Turner (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Werner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:06-cv-2000 As of: 08/13/2017 12:07 PM EDT 17 of 53

Intervenor Plaintiff Jose Fabian−Flores
Intervenor Plaintiff Angel Mancilla−Rodriguez
Intervenor Plaintiff Jose Victor Martinez−Mendez

James Melvin Knoepp (See above for address)
represented by Andrew H. Turner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kristi L. Graunke (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mary C. Bauer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Werner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James Melvin Knoepp (See above for address)
represented by Andrew H. Turner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kristi L. Graunke (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mary C. Bauer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Werner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James Melvin Knoepp (See above for address)
represented by Andrew H. Turner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kristi L. Graunke (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:06-cv-2000 As of: 08/13/2017 12:07 PM EDT 18 of 53

Intervenor Plaintiff Lorena Araceli Sierra Gonzalez

Mary C. Bauer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Werner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James Melvin Knoepp (See above for address)
represented by Andrew H. Turner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kristi L. Graunke (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mary C. Bauer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Werner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James Melvin Knoepp (See above for address)

V.
Defendant
Del Monte Fresh Produce (Southeast), Inc.

represented by Bradley E. Strawn Littler Mendelson PC − ATL Suite 1500 3344 Peachtree Road, N.E. Atlanta, GA 30326−4803 404−233−0330 Fax: 404−233−2361 Email: bstrawn@littler.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Courtney Blair Wilson Littler Mendelson, Miami 2 South Biscayne Boulevard Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33131 305−400−7500 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jacqueline Elise Kalk Littler Mendelson−MN Suite 1300, IDS Center

Case: 1:06-cv-2000 As of: 08/13/2017 12:07 PM EDT 19 of 53

80 South 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402−2136 612−313−7645 Email: jkalk@littler.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kelly D. Reese Littler Mendelson, P.C. −AL Suite 901 63 South Royal Street Mobile, AL 36602−3245 251−432−4540 Fax: 251−432−0427 Email: kreese@littler.com LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Latesa K. Bailey Littler Mendelson PC − ATL Suite 1500 3344 Peachtree Road, N.E. Atlanta, GA 30326−4803 404−233−0330 Fax: 404−233−2361 Email: lbailey@littler.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A., Inc.

represented by Bradley E. Strawn (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Courtney Blair Wilson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jacqueline Elise Kalk (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Latesa K. Bailey (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 08/24/2006
08/24/2006 08/24/2006

# Docket Text
1 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT filed by Hector Luna, Julian Garcia, Santos Maldonado, Bartolo Nunez. (Filed 4/20/2006 in USDC SD/FL)(adg) Please visit our website at http://www.gand.uscourts.gov to obtain Pretrial Instructions. (Entered: 08/28/2006)
20 ANSWER to Complaint by Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A., Inc. (Filed 6/15/2006 in USDC SD/FL)(adg) Please visit our website at http://www.gand.uscourts.gov to obtain Pretrial Instructions. (Entered: 08/28/2006)
21 ANSWER to Complaint by Del Monte Fresh Produce (Southeast), Inc.(Filed 6/15/2006 in USDC SD/FL)(adg) Please visit our website at

Case: 1:06-cv-2000 As of: 08/13/2017 12:07 PM EDT 20 of 53

08/24/2006
08/24/2006 08/24/2006
08/28/2006 08/30/2006
08/31/2006 08/31/2006 08/31/2006 09/19/2006 09/21/2006 09/21/2006
09/21/2006
09/25/2006
09/25/2006
09/25/2006 09/25/2006 09/25/2006 09/25/2006 09/25/2006
09/25/2006

http://www.gand.uscourts.gov to obtain Pretrial Instructions. (Entered: 08/28/2006)
31 ORDER by Judge Donald L. Graham of USDC Southern District of Florida, Miami Division TRANSFERRING action to USDC Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division. (Filed 7/3/2006 in USDC SD/FL) (adg) (Entered: 08/28/2006)
35 Certified Copy of Docket Sheet from USDC SD/FL, Miami Division (06−CV−21015)(adg) (Entered: 08/28/2006)
36 Case transferred in from District of Southern District of Florida; Case Number 06−CV−21015. Original file with documents numbered 1−34, certified copy of transfer order and docket sheet received. (adg) (Entered: 08/28/2006)
Mailed copy of 36 Case Transferred In − District Transfer Notice to counsel that are not registered for CM/ECF. (adg) (Entered: 08/28/2006)
37 ORDER RECUSING Judge G. Ernest Tidwell and REASSIGNING CASE. Case reassigned to Judge Julie E. Carnes for all further proceedings. Signed by Judge G. Ernest Tidwell on 8/30/06. (jlm) (Entered: 08/31/2006)
38 NOTICE to parties re 37 Order Reassigning Case to Judge Julie E. Carnes. (jlm) (Entered: 08/31/2006)
39 Letter from Clerk of Court to Gregory Scott Schell re: Local Rule 83.1 requirement. (adg) (Entered: 09/01/2006)
40 Letter from Clerk of Court to Courtney Blair Wilson re: Local Rule 83.1 requirement (adg) (Entered: 09/01/2006)
41 NOTICE of Appearance by Kristi L. Graunke on behalf of all plaintiffs (Graunke, Kristi) (Entered: 09/19/2006)
42 NOTICE Of Filing FLSA Consent to Sue Forms by Hector Luna Various Opt−In Plaintiffs (Graunke, Kristi) (Entered: 09/21/2006)
43 Unopposed MOTION to Amend 1 Complaint and Incorporated Memorandum of Law by Hector Luna. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit First Amended Complaint# 2 Exhibit Proposed Order)(Graunke, Kristi) (Entered: 09/21/2006)
44 NOTICE of Filing Joint Statement Regarding Class Communications by Hector Luna. (Graunke, Kristi) Modified on 9/22/2006 to correct docket text (ddm). (Entered: 09/21/2006)
45 Notice of Substitution of Attorney Jacqueline E. Kalk for Courtney Wilson by Del Monte Fresh Produce (Southeast), Inc.. (Kalk, Jacqueline) Modified on 9/26/2006 to correct attorney e−filing (ddm). (Entered: 09/25/2006)
46 Notice of Substitution of Attorney Jacqueline E. Kalk for Courtney Wilson by Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A., Inc.. (Kalk, Jacqueline) Modified on 9/26/2006 to correct attorney e−filing (ddm). (Entered: 09/25/2006)
47 Certification of Consent to Substitution of Counsel. Kristi L. Graunke replacing attorney Kelley Bruner. (Graunke, Kristi) (Entered: 09/25/2006)
48 Certification of Consent to Substitution of Counsel. Kristi L. Graunke replacing attorney Kelley Bruner. (Graunke, Kristi) (Entered: 09/25/2006)
49 Certification of Consent to Substitution of Counsel. Kristi L. Graunke replacing attorney Kelley Bruner. (Graunke, Kristi) (Entered: 09/25/2006)
50 Certification of Consent to Substitution of Counsel. Kristi L. Graunke replacing attorney Kelley Bruner. (Graunke, Kristi) (Entered: 09/25/2006)
51 Joint Certificate of Interested Persons by Del Monte Fresh Produce (Southeast), Inc., Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A., Inc., Hector Luna, Julian Garcia, Santos Maldonado, Bartolo Nunez. (Bailey, Latesa) (Entered: 09/25/2006)
52 Joint PRELIMINARY REPORT AND DISCOVERY SCHEDULE filed by Hector Luna. (Graunke, Kristi) (Entered: 09/25/2006)

Case: 1:06-cv-2000 As of: 08/13/2017 12:07 PM EDT 21 of 53

09/29/2006 10/10/2006 10/11/2006 10/11/2006 10/12/2006 10/12/2006 10/21/2006 10/24/2006 10/25/2006 10/26/2006
10/30/2006 11/01/2006
11/05/2006 11/06/2006 11/07/2006 11/07/2006

53 NOTICE Of Filing FLSA Consents to Sue of Veota Khamlusa and Adolfo Gomez filed by Hector Luna. (Graunke, Kristi) Modified on 10/2/2006 to correct docket text (ddm). (Entered: 09/29/2006)
Submission of 43 Unopposed MOTION to Amend 1 Complaint and Incorporated Memorandum of Law, submitted to District Judge Julie E. Carnes. (ddm) (Entered: 10/10/2006)
54 ORDER granting Plaintiffs' 43 Unopposed Motion to Amend Complaint. The First Amended Complaint attached as Exhibit 1 to the Motion shall be filed and docketed. Signed by Judge Julie E. Carnes on 10/6/06. (mas) (Entered: 10/11/2006)
55 First AMENDED COMPLAINT against Del Monte Fresh Produce (Southeast), Inc., Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A., Inc., filed by Fransciso Javier Lorenzo, Hector Luna, Julian Garcia, Santos G. Maldonado, Bartolo Nunez.(mas) Please visit our website at http://www.gand.uscourts.gov to obtain Pretrial Instructions. (Entered: 10/11/2006)
56 ANSWER to Amended Complaint by Del Monte Fresh Produce (Southeast), Inc..(Bailey, Latesa) Please visit our website at http://www.gand.uscourts.gov to obtain Pretrial Instructions. (Entered: 10/12/2006)
57 ANSWER to Amended Complaint by Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A., Inc..(Bailey, Latesa) Please visit our website at http://www.gand.uscourts.gov to obtain Pretrial Instructions. (Entered: 10/12/2006)
58 NOTICE by Hector Luna Filing of Consent to Sue (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Consent to Sue Form)(Graunke, Kristi) (Entered: 10/21/2006)
59 NOTICE by Hector Luna Filing of Consents to Sue (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit FLSA Consent to Sue Forms)(Graunke, Kristi) (Entered: 10/24/2006)
60 Second MOTION to Amend Complaint with Brief In Support by Hector Luna. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Second Amended Complaint# 2 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order Granting Second Motion to Amend Complaint)(Graunke, Kristi) (Entered: 10/25/2006)
61 MOTION to Disqualify Putative Class Representatives with Brief In Support by Del Monte Fresh Produce (Southeast), Inc., Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A., Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Brief In Support of Motion to Disqualify Putative Class Representatives# 2 Exhibit A# 3 Exhibit B# 4 Exhibit C# 5 Exhibit D)(Kalk, Jacqueline) Modified on 10/27/2006 to remove duplicative language (ddm). (Entered: 10/26/2006)
62 MOTION for Protective Order with Brief In Support by Hector Luna. (Attachments: # 1 Brief in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for a Protective Order# 2 Exhibit 1# 3 Exhibit 2# 4 Exhibit 3# 5 Exhibit 4# 6 Exhibit 5# 7 Exhibit 6# 8 Exhibit 7# 9 Exhibit 8# 10 Exhibit 9# 11 Exhibit 10)(Graunke, Kristi) (Entered: 10/30/2006)
63 ORDER directing the Clerk to STRIKE the name of Gregory Scott Schell as counsel for Plaintiffs, as he failed to comply with the 39 August 31, 2006 directive. The Court notes that Mary C. Bauer, Kelley Bruner, Kristi L. Graunke and Andrew H. Turner continue to represent the Plaintiffs. Signed by Judge Julie E. Carnes on 11/1/06. (ddm) (Entered: 11/02/2006)
64 RESPONSE in Opposition re 61 MOTION to Disqualify Putative Class Representatives filed by Hector Luna. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1# 2 Exhibit 2# 3 Exhibit 3# 4 Exhibit 4# 5 Exhibit 5# 6 Exhibit 6)(Graunke, Kristi) (Entered: 11/05/2006)
67 APPLICATION for Admission of Andrew H. Turner Pro Hac Vice by Fransciso Javier Lorenzo, Hector Luna, Julian Garcia, Santos Maldonado, Bartolo Nunez.Filing Fee received $150, Receipt #557870. (Attachments: # 1 proposed order) (forwarded to Court for approval)(mas) (Entered: 11/09/2006)
65 ORDER APPROVING re 52 Preliminary Report and Discovery Schedule filed by Hector Luna. Signed by Judge Julie E. Carnes on 10/30/06. (kb) (Entered: 11/07/2006)
66 SCHEDULING ORDER: Discovery ends on WEDNESDAY, 2/21/2007. Summary Judgment Motions due by TUESDAY, 3/13/2007. Proposed Consolidated Pretrial

Case: 1:06-cv-2000 As of: 08/13/2017 12:07 PM EDT 22 of 53

11/10/2006 11/13/2006 11/13/2006 11/15/2006 11/16/2006 11/20/2006 11/22/2006
11/27/2006 11/27/2006 11/27/2006 11/29/2006 11/29/2006 11/29/2006
11/30/2006 11/30/2006

Order due by FRIDAY, 3/23/2007. Signed by Judge Julie E. Carnes on 11/6/06. (Attachments: # 1 CIVIL TRIAL INSTRUCTIONS)(kb) (Entered: 11/07/2006)
68 RESPONSE in Opposition re 62 MOTION for Protective Order filed by Del Monte Fresh Produce (Southeast), Inc., Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A., Inc.. (Kalk, Jacqueline) Modified on 11/13/2006 to remove duplicative language (ddm). (Entered: 11/10/2006)
69 REPLY BRIEF re 61 MOTION to Disqualify Putative Class Representatives filed by Del Monte Fresh Produce (Southeast), Inc., Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A., Inc.. (Kalk, Jacqueline) (Entered: 11/13/2006)
70 NOTICE Of Filing FLSA Consent to Sue Form by Hector Luna Hope Williams (Graunke, Kristi) (Entered: 11/13/2006)
71 ORDER granting 67 Application for Admission Pro Hac Vice of Andrew H. Turner. Signed by Judge Julie E. Carnes on 11/15/06. (kb) (Entered: 11/15/2006)
72 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time Bifurcated Discovery Period re: 66 Scheduling Order, by Del Monte Fresh Produce (Southeast), Inc., Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A., Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Proposed Amended Scheduling Order)(Kalk, Jacqueline) (Entered: 11/16/2006)
74 APPLICATION for Admission of Kelly D. Reese Pro Hac Vice filed by Del Monte Fresh Produce (Southeast), Inc. Filing Fee received $150.00, Receipt #558386. (ddm) (Entered: 11/27/2006)
73 MOTION to Certify Class with Brief In Support by Hector Luna. (Attachments: # 1 Brief Memo of Law Supporting Pl Motion for Certification of Class Action# 2 Exhibit Pl Ex 1# 3 Exhibit Pl. Ex. 2# 4 Exhibit Pl Ex 3# 5 Exhibit Pl Ex 4# 6 Exhibit Pl Ex 5# 7 Exhibit Pl Ex 6# 8 Exhibit Pl Ex 7# 9 Exhibit Pl Ex 8# 10 Exhibit Pl Ex 9# 11 Exhibit Pl Ex 10# 12 Exhibit Pl Ex 11# 13 Exhibit Pl Ex 12# 14 Exhibit Pl Ex 13# 15 Exhibit Pl Ex 14# 16 Exhibit Pl Ex 15# 17 Exhibit Pl Ex 16# 18 Exhibit Pl Ex 17# 19 Exhibit Pl Ex 18# 20 Exhibit Pl Ex 19)(Graunke, Kristi) (Entered: 11/22/2006)
Submission of 60 Second MOTION to Amend Complaint, 61 MOTION to Disqualify Putative Class Representatives, 62 MOTION for Protective Order, submitted to District Judge Julie E. Carnes. (ddm) (Entered: 11/27/2006)
75 REPLY BRIEF re 62 MOTION for Protective Order filed by Hector Luna. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 11# 2 Exhibit 12# 3 Exhibit 13)(Graunke, Kristi) (Entered: 11/27/2006)
76 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages by Hector Luna. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Graunke, Kristi) (Entered: 11/27/2006)
77 ORDER granting 74 Application for Admission Pro Hac Vice filed by Kelly D. Reese. Signed by Judge Julie E. Carnes on 11/27/06. (ddm) (Entered: 11/29/2006)
78 MOTION to Compel Plaintiffs' Compliance with Rule 26(A)(1)'s Initial Disclosure Requirements and to Compel Supplementation of Discovery Responses with Brief In Support by Del Monte Fresh Produce (Southeast), Inc., Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A., Inc.. (Kalk, Jacqueline) (Entered: 11/29/2006)
79 RESPONSE in Support re 78 MOTION to Compel Plaintiffs' Compliance with Rule 26(A)(1)'s Initial Disclosure Requirements and to Compel Supplementation of Discovery Responses filed by Del Monte Fresh Produce (Southeast), Inc., Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A., Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit C# 4 Exhibit D# 5 Exhibit E# 6 Exhibit F)(Kalk, Jacqueline) (Entered: 11/29/2006)
80 AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER: Discovery ends on 5/22/2007. Motions due by 6/11/2007. Proposed Pretrial Order due by 6/21/2007. The Court notes that this is the FINAL EXTENSION. Signed by Judge Julie E. Carnes on 11/28/06. (ddm) (Entered: 11/30/2006)
81 NOTICE by Del Monte Fresh Produce (Southeast), Inc., Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A., Inc. LR 5.1B Certification (Kalk, Jacqueline) (Entered: 11/30/2006)

Case: 1:06-cv-2000 As of: 08/13/2017 12:07 PM EDT 23 of 53

12/01/2006
12/06/2006 12/06/2006 12/07/2006
12/07/2006 12/07/2006 12/07/2006 12/13/2006 12/13/2006
12/13/2006 12/13/2006 12/13/2006 12/15/2006 12/15/2006

82 MOTION for Extension of Time Respond to Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification re: 73 MOTION to Certify Class with Brief In Support by Del Monte Fresh Produce (Southeast), Inc., Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A., Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Brief Memorandum in Support of Motion for Enlargement of Time# 2 Exhibit A, B & C to Memorandum in Support of Motion for Enlargement of Time)(Kalk, Jacqueline) (Entered: 12/01/2006)
Submission of 72 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time Bifurcated Discovery Period re: 66 Scheduling Order, submitted to District Judge Julie E. Carnes. (FILE IN CHAMBERS) (ddm) (Entered: 12/06/2006)
83 NOTICE of Appearance by Kristi L. Graunke on behalf of all plaintiffs (Graunke, Kristi) (Entered: 12/06/2006)
84 MOTION to Certify Class FLSA Collective Action with Brief In Support by Hector Luna. (Attachments: # 1 Brief Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Certification of a Collective Action# 2 Exhibit 1# 3 Exhibit 2# 4 Exhibit 3# 5 Exhibit 4# 6 Exhibit 5# 7 Exhibit 6# 8 Exhibit 7# 9 Exhibit 8# 10 Exhibit 9# 11 Exhibit 10# 12 Exhibit 11# 13 Exhibit 12# 14 Exhibit 13# 15 Exhibit 14# 16 Exhibit 15# 17 Exhibit 16# 18 Exhibit 17# 19 Exhibit 18# 20 Exhibit 19)(Graunke, Kristi) (Entered: 12/07/2006)
85 RESPONSE in Opposition re 76 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages filed by Del Monte Fresh Produce (Southeast), Inc., Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A., Inc.. (Bailey, Latesa) (Entered: 12/07/2006)
86 NOTICE Of Filing Supplemental Affidavit by Julian Garcia re 75 Reply Brief, 62 MOTION for Protective Order (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Second Declaration of Julian Garcia)(Graunke, Kristi) (Entered: 12/07/2006)
87 MOTION to Strike Bartolo Nunez's Declaration found as Exhibit #13 of the 75 Reply Brief by Del Monte Fresh Produce (Southeast), Inc., Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A., Inc. (ddm) (Entered: 12/08/2006)
88 NOTICE of Appearance by Elizabeth Joan Appley on behalf of all plaintiffs (Appley, Elizabeth) (Entered: 12/13/2006)
89 MOTION to Compel This Court For Entry Of An Order Compelling Third−Parties Letisia Rojas Salazar and Margarita Rojas Cardenas To Respond to The Rule 45 Subpoena Previously Served Upon Each Of Them with Brief In Support by Del Monte Fresh Produce (Southeast), Inc., Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A., Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Brief In Support of Defendants' Motion to Compel# 2 Exhibit A# 3 Exhibit B# 4 Exhibit C# 5 Exhibit D)(Kalk, Jacqueline) (Entered: 12/13/2006)
90 MOTION for Order to Disqualify Putative Class Representative Francisco Javier Lorenzo by Del Monte Fresh Produce (Southeast), Inc., Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A., Inc.. (Kalk, Jacqueline) (Entered: 12/13/2006)
91 RESPONSE in Support re 90 MOTION for Order to Disqualify Putative Class Representative Francisco Javier Lorenzo filed by Del Monte Fresh Produce (Southeast), Inc., Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A., Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Kalk, Jacqueline) (Entered: 12/13/2006)
92 MOTION for Protective Order Deferring Depositions of Non−Representative Class Members with Brief In Support by Hector Luna. (Attachments: # 1 Brief Memorandum of Law# 2 Exhibit 1# 3 Exhibit 2# 4 Exhibit 3# 5 Exhibit 4# 6 Exhibit 5# 7 Exhibit 6# 8 Exhibit 7)(Graunke, Kristi) (Entered: 12/13/2006)
Submission of 73 MOTION to Certify Class, 76 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages, submitted to District Judge Julie E. Carnes. (FILE IN CHAMBERS) (ddm) (Entered: 12/15/2006)
93 MOTION for Extension of Time to Respond to 84 MOTION to Certify Class FLSA Collective Action by Del Monte Fresh Produce (Southeast), Inc., Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A., Inc.. (Kalk, Jacqueline) Modified on 12/19/2006 to remove duplicative language (ddm). (Entered: 12/15/2006)

Case: 1:06-cv-2000 As of: 08/13/2017 12:07 PM EDT 24 of 53

12/15/2006 12/15/2006 12/15/2006 12/16/2006 12/19/2006 12/21/2006
12/22/2006 12/23/2006 01/02/2007 01/04/2007
01/05/2007 01/08/2007

94 RESPONSE in Support re 93 MOTION for Extension of Time to Respond to 84 MOTION to Certify Class FLSA Collective Action filed by Del Monte Fresh Produce (Southeast), Inc., Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A., Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Kalk, Jacqueline) Modified on 12/19/2006 to remove duplicative language (ddm). (Entered: 12/15/2006)
95 RESPONSE in Opposition re 82 MOTION for Extension of Time Respond to Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification re: 73 MOTION to Certify Class filed by Hector Luna. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1# 2 Exhibit 2# 3 Exhibit 3# 4 Exhibit 4# 5 Exhibit 5)(Graunke, Kristi) (Entered: 12/15/2006)
97 ORDER granting 76 Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. Signed by Judge Julie E. Carnes on 12/13/06. (ddm) (Entered: 12/18/2006)
96 RESPONSE in Opposition re 78 MOTION to Compel Plaintiffs' Compliance with Rule 26(A)(1)'s Initial Disclosure Requirements and to Compel Supplementation of Discovery Responses filed by Hector Luna. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Pl. Ex. 1# 2 Exhibit Pl. Ex. 2# 3 Exhibit Pl. Ex. 3# 4 Exhibit Pl. Ex. 4# 5 Exhibit Pl. Ex. 5)(Graunke, Kristi) (Entered: 12/16/2006)
98 RESPONSE in Opposition re 87 MOTION to Strike 75 Reply Brief filed by Hector Luna. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Graunke, Kristi) (Entered: 12/19/2006)
99 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time File Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Protective Order Deferring Depositions of Non−Representative Class Members and for Memorandum in Reply to Plaintiffs' Response in Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Compel Compliance with Initial Disclosures Requirements and Supplementation of Discovery Responses re: 92 MOTION for Protective Order Deferring Depositions of Non−Representative Class Members, 78 MOTION to Compel Plaintiffs' Compliance with Rule 26(A)(1)'s Initial Disclosure Requirements and to Compel Supplementation of Discovery Responses by Del Monte Fresh Produce (Southeast), Inc., Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A., Inc.. (Kalk, Jacqueline) (Entered: 12/21/2006)
100 RESPONSE in Opposition re 90 MOTION for Order to Disqualify Putative Class Representative Francisco Javier Lorenzo filed by Hector Luna. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1# 2 Exhibit 2# 3 Exhibit 3# 4 Exhibit 4# 5 Exhibit 5)(Graunke, Kristi) (Entered: 12/22/2006)
101 RESPONSE in Opposition re 93 MOTION for Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Certification of Collective Action re: 84 MOTION to Certify Class FLSA Collective Action filed by Hector Luna. (Graunke, Kristi) (Entered: 12/23/2006)
102 RESPONSE in Support re 82 MOTION for Extension of Time Respond to Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification re: 73 MOTION to Certify Class filed by Del Monte Fresh Produce (Southeast), Inc., Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A., Inc.. (Kalk, Jacqueline) (Entered: 01/02/2007)
Submission of 78 MOTION to Compel Plaintiffs' Compliance with Rule 26(A)(1)'s Initial Disclosure Requirements and to Compel Supplementation of Discovery Responses, 82 MOTION for Extension of Time Respond to Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification re: 73 MOTION to Certify Class, 84 MOTION to Certify Class FLSA Collective Action, 87 MOTION to Strike 75 Reply Brief, 89 MOTION to Compel This Court For Entry Of An Order Compelling Third−Parties Letisia Rojas Salazar and Margarita Rojas Cardenas To Respond to The Rule 45 Subpoena Previously Served Upon Each Of Them, 90 MOTION for Order to Disqualify Putative Class Representative Francisco Javier Lorenzo, submitted to District Judge Julie E. Carnes. (FILE IN CHAMBERS) (ddm) (Entered: 01/04/2007)
103 RESPONSE re 92 MOTION for Protective Order Deferring Depositions of Non−Representative Class Members filed by Del Monte Fresh Produce (Southeast), Inc., Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A., Inc.. (Kalk, Jacqueline) Modified on 1/8/2007 to remove duplicative language (ddm). (Entered: 01/05/2007)
104 RESPONSE re 101 Response in Opposition to Motion, filed by Del Monte Fresh Produce (Southeast), Inc., Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A., Inc.. (Kalk, Jacqueline)

Case: 1:06-cv-2000 As of: 08/13/2017 12:07 PM EDT 25 of 53

01/08/2007
01/08/2007 01/09/2007 01/10/2007 01/11/2007 01/12/2007 01/13/2007 01/18/2007
01/22/2007 01/22/2007 02/02/2007 02/07/2007

Modified on 1/10/2007 to remove duplicative language (ddm). (Entered: 01/08/2007)
105 ORDER GRANTING 99 Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time for Defendants to File a Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiffs' 92 Motion for Protective Order Deferring Deposition of Non−Representative Class Members through Friday, January 5, 2007 and an extension through Wednesday, January 10, 2007, to file a Memorandum in Reply to Plaintiffs' Response in Opposition to Defendants' 78 Motion to Compel Compliance with Initial Disclosures Requirements. The Court also TEMPORARILY GRANTS 93 Defendants' Motion for Enlargement of Time to Respond to Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Certification of Collective Action and 82 Defendants' Motion for Enlargement of Time to Respond to Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification. Plaintiffs' 60 Second Motion for Leave of Court to File First Amended Complaint is GRANTED as unopposed. Signed by Judge Julie E. Carnes on 1/8/07. (ddm) (Entered: 01/09/2007)
106 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT against Del Monte Fresh Produce (Southeast), Inc., Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A., Inc., filed by Hector Luna, Julian Garcia, Fransciso Javier Lorenzo, Santos G. Maldonado, Patricia Woodard, Bartolo Nunez.(ddm) Please visit our website at http://www.gand.uscourts.gov to obtain Pretrial Instructions. (Entered: 01/09/2007)
107 RESPONSE in Support re 90 MOTION for Order to Disqualify Putative Class Representative Francisco Javier Lorenzo Defendants' Reply Memorandum in Further Support of Their Motion to Disqualify Putative Class Representative Francisco Javier Lorenzo filed by Del Monte Fresh Produce (Southeast), Inc., Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A., Inc.. (Kalk, Jacqueline) (Entered: 01/09/2007)
108 REPLY BRIEF re 78 MOTION to Compel Plaintiffs' Compliance with Rule 26(A)(1)'s Initial Disclosure Requirements and to Compel Supplementation of Discovery Responses filed by Del Monte Fresh Produce (Southeast), Inc., Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A., Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Kalk, Jacqueline) (Entered: 01/10/2007)
109 NOTICE Of Filing Consent to Sue by Hector Luna Sandreka Madison (Graunke, Kristi) (Entered: 01/11/2007)
Submission of 92 MOTION for Protective Order Deferring Depositions of Non−Representative Class Members, submitted to District Judge Julie E. Carnes. (FILE IN CHAMBERS)(ddm) (Entered: 01/12/2007)
110 REPLY BRIEF re 92 MOTION for Protective Order Deferring Depositions of Non−Representative Class Members filed by Hector Luna. (Graunke, Kristi) (Entered: 01/13/2007)
111 MOTION for Leave to File Memorandum of Law in Surreply to Rec. Doc. 108 Defendants' Reply Memorandum in Further Support of Motion to Compel Plaintiffs' Compliance With Rule 26(a)(1)'s Initial Disclosure Requirements And Compel Supplementation of Discovery Responses with Brief In Support by Hector Luna, Julian Garcia, Francisco Havier Lorenzo, Santos G. Maldonado, Bartolo Nunez, Patricia Woodward. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order # 2 Brief Memorandum of Law in Surreply to Rec. Doc. 108# 3 Exhibit Ex 1# 4 Exhibit Ex. 2)(Graunke, Kristi) Modified on 1/19/2007 to include all filers (hfm). (Entered: 01/18/2007)
112 ANSWER to Second Amended Complaint by Del Monte Fresh Produce (Southeast), Inc..(Strawn, Bradley) Please visit our website at http://www.gand.uscourts.gov to obtain Pretrial Instructions. Modified on 1/24/2007 to remove duplicative language (ddm). (Entered: 01/22/2007)
113 ANSWER to Second Amended Complaint by Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A., Inc..(Strawn, Bradley) Please visit our website at http://www.gand.uscourts.gov to obtain Pretrial Instructions. Modified on 1/24/2007 to remove duplicative language (ddm). (Entered: 01/22/2007)
114 NOTICE Of Filing FLSA Consent to Sue by Hector Luna Rosa Arias (Graunke, Kristi) (Entered: 02/02/2007)
115 APPLICATION for Admission of Arlen S. Benjamin−Gomez Pro Hac Vice filed by by Fransciso Javier Lorenzo, Santos G. Maldonado, Patricia Woodard, Hector Luna,

Case: 1:06-cv-2000 As of: 08/13/2017 12:07 PM EDT 26 of 53

02/15/2007
02/26/2007 02/28/2007 03/05/2007 03/09/2007
03/09/2007 03/12/2007 03/14/2007 03/14/2007 03/23/2007 03/26/2007 03/26/2007 03/30/2007
04/02/2007 04/02/2007

Julian Garcia, Bartolo Nunez. Filing Fee received $150.00, Receipt #561312. (ddm) (Entered: 02/13/2007)
Submission of 111 MOTION for Leave to File Memorandum of Law in Surreply to Rec. Doc. 108 Defendants' Reply Memorandum in Further Support of Motion to Compel Plaintiffs' Compliance With Rule 26(a)(1)'s Initial Disclosure Requirements And Compel Supplementation of Discovery Responses, submitted to District Judge Julie E. Carnes. (FILE IN CHAMBERS) (ddm) (Entered: 02/15/2007)
Remark: "Motion For Matthew G. Laflin to Appear Pro Hac Vice" received in Clerk's Office 2/22/07. The motion does not currently meet pro hac vice application requirements and is being returned to the petitioner today. (jeh) (Entered: 02/26/2007)
116 ORDER granting 115 Application for Admission Pro Hac Vice of Arlen S. Benjamin−Gomez. Signed by Judge Julie E. Carnes on 02/27/07. (kb) (Entered: 02/28/2007)
117 MOTION for Leave to File Pro Hac Vice Application of Matthew G. Laflinby Del Monte Fresh Produce (Southeast), Inc., Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A., Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(ddm) (Entered: 03/07/2007)
118 First MOTION to Compel Production of Documents with Brief In Support by Hector Luna. (Attachments: # 1 Brief Memorandum of Law# 2 Exhibit 1# 3 Exhibit 2# 4 Exhibit 3# 5 Exhibit 4# 6 Exhibit 5# 7 Exhibit 6# 8 Exhibit 7# 9 Exhibit 8# 10 Exhibit 9# 11 Exhibit 10# 12 Exhibit 11# 13 Exhibit 12# 14 Exhibit 13# 15 Exhibit 14# 16 Exhibit 15)(Graunke, Kristi) (Entered: 03/09/2007)
119 First MOTION to Compel Responses to Interrogatories with Brief In Support by Hector Luna. (Attachments: # 1 Brief Memorandum of Law# 2 Exhibit 1# 3 Exhibit 2# 4 Exhibit 3# 5 Exhibit 4# 6 Exhibit 5# 7 Exhibit 6# 8 Exhibit 7)(Graunke, Kristi) (Entered: 03/09/2007)
122 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to Kelly D. Reese regarding 116 Order on Application for Admission PHV for Arlen S. Benjamin−Gomez returned via USPS stating "Return to Sender". (Entered: 03/14/2007)
120 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Discovery by Del Monte Fresh Produce (Southeast), Inc., Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A., Inc..(Kalk, Jacqueline) (Entered: 03/14/2007)
121 ORDER denying 117 Attorney Matthew G. Laflin's Motion for Leave to File Application to Appear Pro Hac Vice, as he does not meet the current residency requirements, set out by Local Rule 83.1(B). Signed by Judge Julie E. Carnes on 3/14/07. (ddm) (Entered: 03/14/2007)
123 NOTICE Of Filing FLSA Consents to Sue by Hector Luna Roblero−Morales and Aguilar−Esteban (Graunke, Kristi) (Entered: 03/23/2007)
124 RESPONSE in Opposition re 119 First MOTION to Compel Responses to Interrogatories filed by Del Monte Fresh Produce (Southeast), Inc., Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A., Inc.. (Kalk, Jacqueline) (Entered: 03/26/2007)
125 RESPONSE in Opposition re 118 First MOTION to Compel Production of Documents filed by Del Monte Fresh Produce (Southeast), Inc., Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A., Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Plaintiff's Privilege Log# 2 Exhibit B − Stipulated Protective Order)(Strawn, Bradley) (Entered: 03/26/2007)
126 MOTION for Protective Order Prohibiting Plaintiffs From Further Exceeding The Number Of Depositions Permitted Under The Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure with Brief In Support by Del Monte Fresh Produce (Southeast), Inc., Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A., Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Brief # 2 Exhibit A# 3 Exhibit B# 4 Exhibit C)(Kalk, Jacqueline) (Entered: 03/30/2007)
127 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Objections to Notice of Deposition Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) by Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A., Inc..(Kalk, Jacqueline) (Entered: 04/02/2007)
128 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Objections to Notice of Deposition Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedures 30(b)(6) by Del Monte Fresh Produce (Southeast), Inc..(Kalk, Jacqueline) (Entered: 04/02/2007)

Case: 1:06-cv-2000 As of: 08/13/2017 12:07 PM EDT 27 of 53

04/03/2007 04/04/2007
04/04/2007
04/06/2007 04/13/2007 04/27/2007 04/30/2007 04/30/2007 05/02/2007 05/03/2007 05/03/2007
05/10/2007 05/10/2007 05/15/2007 05/15/2007 05/18/2007

129 Joint MOTION for Protective Order by Del Monte Fresh Produce (Southeast), Inc., Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A., Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Stipulated Protective Order)(Kalk, Jacqueline) (Entered: 04/03/2007)
130 RESPONSE in Opposition re 126 MOTION for Protective Order Prohibiting Plaintiffs From Further Exceeding The Number Of Depositions Permitted Under The Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure filed by Fransciso Javier Lorenzo, Santos G. Maldonado, Patricia Woodard, Hector Luna, Julian Garcia, Santos Maldonado, Bartolo Nunez. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit # 2 Exhibit # 3 Exhibit)(Graunke, Kristi) (Entered: 04/04/2007)
131 ORDER DENYING 126 Defendants' Motion for Protective Order Prohibiting Plaintiffs from Further Exceeding the Number of Depositions Permitted Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures. The Court will permit 50 depositions, per side, over the course of BOTH stages of discovery. If the parties wish to exceed that number during the second stage of discovery, they must show good cause and obtain advance approval. Signed by Judge Julie E. Carnes on 4/4/07. (ddm) (Entered: 04/04/2007)
132 REPLY BRIEF re 119 First MOTION to Compel Responses to Interrogatories filed by Hector Luna. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 8# 2 Exhibit 9)(Graunke, Kristi) (Entered: 04/06/2007)
133 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Discovery by Del Monte Fresh Produce (Southeast), Inc., Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A., Inc..(Kalk, Jacqueline) (Entered: 04/13/2007)
Submission of 119 First MOTION to Compel Responses to Interrogatories, 118 First MOTION to Compel Production of Documents, submitted to District Judge Julie E. Carnes. (FILE IN CHAMBERS) (ddm) (Entered: 04/27/2007)
134 Withdrawal of Motion 118 First MOTION to Compel Production of Documents filed by Hector Luna filed by Hector Luna. (Graunke, Kristi) (Entered: 04/30/2007)
135 ORDER granting 129 Joint Motion for Protective Order. Signed by Judge Julie E. Carnes on 4/27/07. (ddm) (Entered: 04/30/2007)
136 Joint MOTION For Deposition Outside Discovery Period by Del Monte Fresh Produce (Southeast), Inc., Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A., Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Order)(Strawn, Bradley) (Entered: 05/02/2007)
137 MOTION for Extension of Time file and/or respond to summary judgment [Motion to Continue Summary Judgment Deadline] by Del Monte Fresh Produce (Southeast), Inc., Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A., Inc.. (Kalk, Jacqueline) (Entered: 05/03/2007)
138 RESPONSE in Support re 137 MOTION for Extension of Time file and/or respond to summary judgment [Motion to Continue Summary Judgment Deadline] [Memorandum in Support of Motion to Continue Summary Judgment Deadline] filed by Del Monte Fresh Produce (Southeast), Inc., Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A., Inc.. (Kalk, Jacqueline) (Entered: 05/03/2007)
139 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time File Motion for Summary Judgment with Brief In Support by Hector Luna. (Attachments: # 1 Brief Memorandum in Support# 2 Exhibit 1# 3 Exhibit 2# 4 Exhibit 3)(Graunke, Kristi) (Entered: 05/10/2007)
140 RESPONSE in Opposition re 137 MOTION for Extension of Time file and/or respond to summary judgment [Motion to Continue Summary Judgment Deadline] filed by Hector Luna. (Graunke, Kristi) (Entered: 05/10/2007)
141 ORDER denying as moot 137 Motion for Extension of Time ; granting 139 Motion for Extension of Time through MONDAY, 6/25/07 for summary judgment deadlines. Signed by Judge Julie E. Carnes on 05/15/07. (kb) (Entered: 05/15/2007)
142 NOTICE Of Filing FLSA Consent to Sue by Hector Luna George Worthen (Graunke, Kristi) (Entered: 05/15/2007)
143 ORDER granting 136 Joint Motion for Deposition Outside Discovery Period. It is hereby ordered that the parties are permitted to proceed with the deposition of Mario Cardenas on May 31, 2007, or earlier is scheduling allows. Signed by Judge Julie E. Carnes on 5/18/07. (ddm) (Entered: 05/21/2007)

Case: 1:06-cv-2000 As of: 08/13/2017 12:07 PM EDT 28 of 53

05/18/2007
05/22/2007 05/29/2007 05/29/2007
05/30/2007 06/08/2007 06/10/2007 07/10/2007 07/12/2007 07/19/2007 07/20/2007 07/30/2007

144 ORDER and OPINION DENYING Defendants' 61 Motion to Disqualify Putative Class Representatives; GRANTING Plaintiffs' 62 Motion for Protective Order; DENYING Defendants' 78 Motion to Compel Damages Information; DENYING Defendants' 87 Motion to Strike ; GRANTING Defendants' 89 Motion to Compel Documents and Records from Third Parties; DENYING Defendants' 90 Motion to Disqualify Plaintiff Francisco Javier Lorenzo; DENYING Plaintiffs' 92 Motion for Protective Order Deferring Depositions of Non−Party Class Members; GRANTING Plaintiffs' 111 Motion for Leave to File Sur−reply; DENYING as withdrawn Plaintiffs; 118 Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Productions; GRANTING Plaintiffs' 119 Motion to Compel Interrogatory Responses. The Court directs the parties to advise the Court whether they wish to proceed first on the class motion or on the summary judgment motions. They shall so advise the Court by May 25, 2007. If the former, the Court will direct a prompt response by defendants to the class certification motion. Signed by Judge Julie E. Carnes on 5/18/07. (ddm) (Entered: 05/21/2007)
145 Second MOTION to Compel Production of Documents with Brief In Support by Hector Luna. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1# 2 Exhibit 1# 3 Exhibit 2# 4 Exhibit 3# 5 Exhibit 4# 6 Exhibit 5# 7 Exhibit 6# 8 Exhibit 7# 9 Exhibit 8)(Graunke, Kristi) (Entered: 05/22/2007)
146 Letter dated 5/25/07 from defense counsel Jacqueline E. Kalk. (kb) (Entered: 05/29/2007)
147 ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE 73 Plaintiffs' Motion for Certification of Class Action and 84 Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Certification of a Collective Action and Court−Authorized Notice, with the proviso that this denial is conditioned on Defendant's agreement to toll the statute of limitations, as agreed to by the parties. Any motion for class certification shall be filed within FORTY−FIVE (45) days after the Court rules on motions concerning the employer issue, unless they Court grants the Defendants' motions for summary judgment. The Court furthers orders that the parties are directed to submit within THIRTY (30) days from the date of this Order, a revised scheduling order, setting out the time when depositions in Mexico are expected to be concluded and a suggested time for the filing of the summary judgment motions concerning the status of the Defendants as employers. Signed by Judge Julie E. Carnes on 5/29/07. (faxed by CRD) (ddm) (Entered: 05/30/2007)
148 ORDER granting 136 Joint MOTION For Deposition Outside Discovery Period. It is hereby ordered that the parties are permitted to proceed with the deposition of Mario Cardenas on May 31, 2007, or earlier is scheduling allows. Signed by Judge Julie E. Carnes on 5/29/07. (ddm) (Entered: 05/30/2007)
149 STIPULATION of the Parties Regarding Scheduling and Related Issues by Del Monte Fresh Produce (Southeast), Inc., Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A., Inc.. (Kalk, Jacqueline) (Entered: 06/08/2007)
150 Withdrawal of Motion 145 Second MOTION to Compel Production of Documents filed by Hector Luna filed by Hector Luna. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1# 2 Exhibit 2# 3 Exhibit 3)(Graunke, Kristi) (Entered: 06/10/2007)
151 NOTICE Of Filing FLSA Consents to Sue by Hector Luna Multiple Clients (Graunke, Kristi) (Entered: 07/10/2007)
152 NOTICE Of Filing FLSA Consents to Sue by Hector Luna Ramos−Vazquez and Hernandez−Galvan (Graunke, Kristi) (Entered: 07/12/2007)
153 ORDER approving 149 Stipulation of the Parties Regarding Scheduling and Related Issues. See Stipulation for Specifics. Signed by Judge Julie E. Carnes on 7/19/07. (ddm) (Entered: 07/19/2007)
154 Joint MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages by Del Monte Fresh Produce (Southeast), Inc., Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A., Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Granting Joint Motion for Expansion of Local Rule 7.1.D's Page Limitations for Briefs Related to Motions for Summary Judgment on the Employer Issue)(Strawn, Bradley) Modified on 7/23/2007 to remove duplicative language (ddm). (Entered: 07/20/2007)
155 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time Respond to Rule 68 Offers of Judgment by Hector Luna. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Granting Parties' Stipulation

Case: 1:06-cv-2000 As of: 08/13/2017 12:07 PM EDT 29 of 53

08/02/2007 08/03/2007 08/03/2007 08/03/2007 08/03/2007
08/03/2007
08/03/2007 08/03/2007 08/03/2007 08/03/2007 08/03/2007 08/03/2007 08/03/2007 08/03/2007

to Extension of Time to Respond to Rule 68 Offers of Judgment)(Graunke, Kristi) (Entered: 07/30/2007)
156 Joint MOTION to Amend Dates Related to Motions for Summary Judgment on Employer Status Issues by Del Monte Fresh Produce (Southeast), Inc., Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A., Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Strawn, Bradley) (Entered: 08/02/2007)
157 NOTICE of Manual Filing original depositions by Fransciso Javier Lorenzo, Santos G. Maldonado, Patricia Woodard, Hector Luna, Julian Garcia, Bartolo Nunez (dr) (Entered: 08/06/2007)
158 DEPOSITION of Chris Burch taken on 2/20/07 by Fransciso Javier Lorenzo, Santos G. Maldonado, Patricia Woodard, Hector Luna, Julian Garcia, Bartolo Nunez.(dr) (Entered: 08/06/2007)
159 DEPOSITION of Barbara Susan Ashley taken on 3/6/07 by Fransciso Javier Lorenzo, Santos G. Maldonado, Patricia Woodard, Hector Luna, Julian Garcia, Bartolo Nunez.(dr) (Entered: 08/06/2007)
160 ORDER granting 154 Joint Motion for Expansion of Page Limitations for Briefs Related to Motions for Summary Judgment on the Employer Issue. Plaintiffs, collectively, are granted up to one hundred (100) total pages of briefing in support of their Rule 56 Motion(s) for Summary Judgment related to the employer issue. Similarly, Defendants, collectively, are granted up to one hundred (100) total pages of briefing in support of their Rule 56 Motions for Summary Judgment related to the employer issue. Further, Plaintiffs, collectively, and Defendants, collectively, are each granted up to one hundred (100) total pages to respond to Motions for Summary Judgment on the employer issue and up to fifty (50) total pages for each side for any reply briefs. Signed by Judge Julie E. Carnes on 8/3/07. (ddm) (Entered: 08/06/2007)
161 ORDER granting 155 Joint Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Rule 68 Offers of Judgment. It is hereby ordered that Plaintiffs in this case will be allowed 30 days in which to tender a valid response to any current or futureoffers of judgment issued pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68. Signed by Judge Julie E. Carnes on 8/3/07. (ddm) (Entered: 08/06/2007)
162 DEPOSITION of Ada Mathis taken on 4/5/07 by Fransciso Javier Lorenzo, Santos G. Maldonado, Patricia Woodard, Hector Luna, Julian Garcia, Bartolo Nunez.(dr) (Entered: 08/06/2007)
163 DEPOSITION of Jose Camacho Chavez taken on 2/27/07 by Fransciso Javier Lorenzo, Santos G. Maldonado, Patricia Woodard, Hector Luna, Julian Garcia, Bartolo Nunez.(dr) (Entered: 08/06/2007)
164 DEPOSITION of Gina Ashley taken on 3/5/07 by Fransciso Javier Lorenzo, Santos G. Maldonado, Patricia Woodard, Hector Luna, Julian Garcia, Bartolo Nunez.(dr) (Entered: 08/06/2007)
165 DEPOSITION of Donald Silver taken on 2/21/07 by Fransciso Javier Lorenzo, Santos G. Maldonado, Patricia Woodard, Hector Luna, Julian Garcia, Bartolo Nunez.(dr) (Entered: 08/06/2007)
166 DEPOSITION of Vernon Wilcox taken on 2/21/07 by Fransciso Javier Lorenzo, Santos G. Maldonado, Patricia Woodard, Hector Luna, Julian Garcia, Bartolo Nunez.(dr) (Entered: 08/06/2007)
167 DEPOSITION of Maria Perez taken on 2/28/07 by Fransciso Javier Lorenzo, Santos G. Maldonado, Patricia Woodard, Hector Luna, Julian Garcia, Bartolo Nunez.(dr) (Entered: 08/06/2007)
168 DEPOSITION of Michael Hively taken on 4/5/07 by Fransciso Javier Lorenzo, Santos G. Maldonado, Patricia Woodard, Hector Luna, Julian Garcia, Bartolo Nunez.(dr) (Entered: 08/06/2007)
169 DEPOSITION of Patricio Arias−Rosales taken on 4/4/07 by Fransciso Javier Lorenzo, Santos G. Maldonado, Patricia Woodard, Hector Luna, Julian Garcia, Bartolo Nunez.(dr) (Entered: 08/06/2007)

Case: 1:06-cv-2000 As of: 08/13/2017 12:07 PM EDT 30 of 53

08/03/2007 08/03/2007 08/03/2007 08/03/2007 08/03/2007 08/03/2007 08/03/2007 08/03/2007 08/03/2007 08/03/2007 08/03/2007 08/03/2007 08/03/2007 08/03/2007 08/03/2007 08/03/2007 08/06/2007

170 DEPOSITION Volume I of Joseph Michael Kirby taken on 5/16/07 by Fransciso Javier Lorenzo, Santos G. Maldonado, Patricia Woodard, Hector Luna, Julian Garcia, Bartolo Nunez.(dr) (Entered: 08/06/2007)
171 DEPOSITION Volume II of Joseph Michael Kirby taken on 5/16/07 by Fransciso Javier Lorenzo, Santos G. Maldonado, Patricia Woodard, Hector Luna, Julian Garcia, Bartolo Nunez.(dr) (Entered: 08/06/2007)
172 DEPOSITION of Paulette Kalusni Morris taken on 4/25/07 by Fransciso Javier Lorenzo, Santos G. Maldonado, Patricia Woodard, Hector Luna, Julian Garcia, Bartolo Nunez.(dr) (Entered: 08/06/2007)
173 DEPOSITION of Paulette Kalusni Morris taken on 4/25/07 by Fransciso Javier Lorenzo, Santos G. Maldonado, Patricia Woodard, Hector Luna, Julian Garcia, Bartolo Nunez.(dr) (Entered: 08/06/2007)
174 DEPOSITION of Paulette Kalusni Morris taken on 4/25/07 by Fransciso Javier Lorenzo, Santos G. Maldonado, Patricia Woodard, Hector Luna, Julian Garcia, Bartolo Nunez.(dr) (Entered: 08/06/2007)
175 DEPOSITION of Morris Timothy Turner taken on 2/20/07 by Fransciso Javier Lorenzo, Santos G. Maldonado, Patricia Woodard, Hector Luna, Julian Garcia, Bartolo Nunez.(dr) (Entered: 08/06/2007)
176 DEPOSITION of Margarita Cardenas taken on 2/6/07 by Fransciso Javier Lorenzo, Santos G. Maldonado, Patricia Woodard, Hector Luna, Julian Garcia, Bartolo Nunez.(dr) (Entered: 08/06/2007)
177 DEPOSITION of Juan Gonzalez taken on 5/24/07 by Fransciso Javier Lorenzo, Santos G. Maldonado, Patricia Woodard, Hector Luna, Julian Garcia, Bartolo Nunez.(dr) (Entered: 08/06/2007)
178 DEPOSITION of Juan Gonzalez, Jr. taken on 2/27/07 by Fransciso Javier Lorenzo, Santos G. Maldonado, Patricia Woodard, Hector Luna, Julian Garcia, Bartolo Nunez.(dr) (Entered: 08/06/2007)
179 DEPOSITION of Ibsen Granda taken on 2/16/07 by Fransciso Javier Lorenzo, Santos G. Maldonado, Patricia Woodard, Hector Luna, Julian Garcia, Bartolo Nunez.(dr) (Entered: 08/06/2007)
180 DEPOSITION of Gustavo Novoa taken on 2/15/07 by Fransciso Javier Lorenzo, Santos G. Maldonado, Patricia Woodard, Hector Luna, Julian Garcia, Bartolo Nunez.(dr) (Entered: 08/06/2007)
181 DEPOSITION of Delia Rojas taken on 5/7/07 by Fransciso Javier Lorenzo, Santos G. Maldonado, Patricia Woodard, Hector Luna, Julian Garcia, Bartolo Nunez.(dr) (Entered: 08/06/2007)
182 DEPOSITION Volume I of Letisia Rojas Salazar taken on 2/5/07 by Fransciso Javier Lorenzo, Santos G. Maldonado, Patricia Woodard, Hector Luna, Julian Garcia, Bartolo Nunez.(dr) (Entered: 08/06/2007)
183 DEPOSITION Volume II of Letisia Rojas Salazar taken on 2/6/07 by Fransciso Javier Lorenzo, Santos G. Maldonado, Patricia Woodard, Hector Luna, Julian Garcia, Bartolo Nunez.(dr) (Entered: 08/06/2007)
184 DEPOSITION of Ezequiel Rojas Frias taken on 2/7/07 by Fransciso Javier Lorenzo, Santos G. Maldonado, Patricia Woodard, Hector Luna, Julian Garcia, Bartolo Nunez.(dr) (Entered: 08/06/2007)
194 DEPOSITION of Mario Cardenas taken on 5/31/07 by Fransciso Javier Lorenzo, Santos G. Maldonado, Patricia Woodard, Hector Luna, Julian Garcia, Bartolo Nunez.(dr) (Entered: 08/08/2007)
195 NOTICE Of Filing all original depositions which are referenced in plaintiffs' anticipated motions for summary judgment by Fransciso Javier Lorenzo, Santos G. Maldonado, Patricia Woodard, Hector Luna, Julian Garcia, Bartolo Nunez (Attachments: # 1 Letter) (ryc) (Entered: 08/09/2007)

Case: 1:06-cv-2000 As of: 08/13/2017 12:07 PM EDT 31 of 53

08/07/2007
08/07/2007 08/07/2007 08/07/2007 08/07/2007 08/07/2007 08/07/2007 08/07/2007 08/07/2007 08/13/2007 08/14/2007

185 ORDER granting 156 Motion to Amend Dates Related to Motions for Summary Judgment on Employer Status Issues. It is hereby ordered that the date by which all Rule 56 Motions for Summary Judgment related to employer status issues shall be filed is August 23, 2007. Further, the requirements of Local Rule 7.1.B. are amended to provide the parties 30 days after service to respond to motions for summary judgment. The requirements of Local Rule 7.1.C also are amended to provide the parties 20 days after service to reply to response briefs. Signed by Judge Julie E. Carnes on 8/7/07. (ddm) (Entered: 08/07/2007)
186 NOTICE Of Filing Original Discovery by Fransciso Javier Lorenzo, Santos G. Maldonado, Patricia Woodard, Hector Luna, Julian Garcia, Bartolo Nunez. (ddm) (Entered: 08/08/2007)
187 Non−Confidential DEPOSITION of HECTOR LUNA ARRIAGA taken on June 19, 2007 filed by Fransciso Javier Lorenzo, Santos G. Maldonado, Patricia Woodard, Hector Luna, Julian Garcia, Bartolo Nunez.(ddm) (Entered: 08/08/2007)
188 Non−Confidential DEPOSITION of JULIAN GARCIA LEIJA taken on June 18, 2007 filed by Fransciso Javier Lorenzo, Santos G. Maldonado, Patricia Woodard, Hector Luna, Julian Garcia, Bartolo Nunez.(ddm) (Entered: 08/08/2007)
189 Non−Confidential DEPOSITION of BARTOLO NUNEZ GARCIA taken on June 20, 2007 filed by Fransciso Javier Lorenzo, Santos G. Maldonado, Patricia Woodard, Hector Luna, Julian Garcia, Bartolo Nunez.(ddm) (Entered: 08/08/2007)
190 CONFIDENTIAL DEPOSITION of BARTOLO NUNEZ GARCIA taken on June 20, 2007 filed by Fransciso Javier Lorenzo, Santos G. Maldonado, Patricia Woodard, Hector Luna, Julian Garcia, Bartolo Nunez. (FILED UNDER SEAL)(ddm) Additional attachment(s) added on 8/8/2007 (ddm). (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/17/2011: # 1 DEPOSITION) (kdw). (Entered: 08/08/2007)
191 VOLUME II of the CONFIDENTIAL DEPOSITION of FRANCISCO JAVIER LORENZO PEREZ taken on June 20, 2007 filed by Fransciso Javier Lorenzo, Santos G. Maldonado, Patricia Woodard, Hector Luna, Julian Garcia, Bartolo Nunez. (FILED UNDER SEAL)(ddm) Additional attachment(s) added on 8/8/2007 (ddm). (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/17/2011: # 1 DEPOSITION) (kdw). (Entered: 08/08/2007)
192 CONFIDENTIAL DEPOSITION of JULIAN GARCIA LEIJA taken on June 18, 2007 filed by Fransciso Javier Lorenzo, Santos G. Maldonado, Patricia Woodard, Hector Luna, Julian Garcia, Bartolo Nunez. (FILED UNDER SEAL)(ddm) Additional attachment(s) added on 8/8/2007 (ddm). (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/17/2011: # 1 DEPOSITION) (kdw). (Entered: 08/08/2007)
193 CONFIDENTIAL DEPOSITION of HECTOR LUNA ARRIAGA taken on June 19, 2007 filed by Fransciso Javier Lorenzo, Santos G. Maldonado, Patricia Woodard, Hector Luna, Julian Garcia, Bartolo Nunez. (FILED UNDER SEAL)(ddm) Additional attachment(s) added on 8/8/2007 (ddm). (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/17/2011: # 1 DEPOSITION) (kdw). (Entered: 08/08/2007)
196 NOTICE by Hector Luna Filing FLSA Consents to Sue (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Notices of Consents to Sue)(Graunke, Kristi) (Entered: 08/13/2007)
197 MOTION for Summary Judgment with Brief In Support by Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A., Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Brief Memorandum in Support# 2 Statement of Material Facts # 3 Exhibit Index to Exhibits−Statement of Facts# 4 Exhibit A# 5 Exhibit B# 6 Exhibit C# 7 Exhibit D# 8 Exhibit E# 9 Exhibit F# 10 Exhibit G# 11 Exhibit H# 12 Exhibit Part 1# 13 Exhibit I−Part 2# 14 Exhibit I−Part 3# 15 Exhibit I−Part 4# 16 Exhibit I−Part 5# 17 Exhibit I−Part 6# 18 Exhibit I−Part 7# 19 Exhibit I−Part 8# 20 Exhibit I−Part 9# 21 Exhibit I−Part 10# 22 Exhibit I−Part 11# 23 Exhibit I−Part 12# 24 Exhibit I−Part 13# 25 Exhibit J# 26 Exhibit K# 27 Exhibit L# 28 Exhibit M# 29 Exhibit N# 30 Exhibit O# 31 Exhibit P# 32 Exhibit Q# 33 Exhibit R# 34 Exhibit S# 35 Exhibit T# 36 Exhibit U# 37 Exhibit V# 38 Exhibit W# 39 Exhibit X# 40 Exhibit Y# 41 Exhibit Z# 42 Exhibit AA# 43 Exhibit BB# 44 Exhibit CC# 45 Exhibit DD# 46 Exhibit EE)(Strawn, Bradley) −−Please refer to http://www.gand.uscourts.gov to obtain the Notice to Respond to Summary Judgment Motion form contained on the Court's website.−− (Entered: 08/14/2007)

Case: 1:06-cv-2000 As of: 08/13/2017 12:07 PM EDT 32 of 53

08/15/2007 08/21/2007 08/23/2007 08/23/2007 08/23/2007

198 MOTION for Summary Judgment with Brief In Support by Del Monte Fresh Produce (Southeast), Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Brief Memorandum in Support# 2 Statement of Material Facts # 3 Exhibit Index# 4 Exhibit A# 5 Exhibit B# 6 Exhibit C# 7 Exhibit D# 8 Exhibit E# 9 Exhibit F# 10 Exhibit G# 11 Exhibit H# 12 Exhibit I# 13 Exhibit J# 14 Exhibit K# 15 Exhibit L# 16 Exhibit M# 17 Exhibit N# 18 Exhibit O−1# 19 Exhibit O−2# 20 Exhibit P# 21 Exhibit Q# 22 Exhibit R# 23 Exhibit S# 24 Exhibit T# 25 Exhibit U)(Strawn, Bradley) −−Please refer to http://www.gand.uscourts.gov to obtain the Notice to Respond to Summary Judgment Motion form contained on the Court's website.−− (Entered: 08/15/2007)
199 MOTION to Strike Defs. Rule 68 Offers of Judgment with Brief In Support by Fransciso Javier Lorenzo, Santos G. Maldonado, Patricia Woodard, Hector Luna, Julian Garcia, Santos Maldonado, Bartolo Nunez. (Attachments: # 1 Brief Pl's Memo of Law in Supp of Mot to Strike Defs. Rule 68 Offers of Judgment# 2 Exhibit Pl's Ex. 1 (Defs. July 19, 2007 Rule 68 Offers)# 3 Exhibit Pl's Ex. 2 (Defs. Aug 2, 2007 Amended Rule 68 Offers)# 4 Exhibit Pl's Ex. 3 (Lorenzo Dep)# 5 Exhibit Pl's Exhibit 4 (Maldonado Dep)# 6 Exhibit Pl's Exhibit 5 (Woodard Dep)# 7 Exhibit Pl's Exhibit 6 (Allen Dep)# 8 Exhibit Pl's Exhibit 7 (Gomez Dep)# 9 Exhibit Pl's Exhibit 8 (Luna Dep))(Benjamin−Gomez, Arlen) (Entered: 08/21/2007)
200 MOTION for Summary Judgment Regarding Field Workers Provided by Rojas Harvesting with Brief In Support by Del Monte Fresh Produce (Southeast), Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Brief In Support# 2 Statement of Material Facts # 3 Exhibit Index to Statement of Facts# 4 Exhibit A# 5 Exhibit B# 6 Exhibit C# 7 Exhibit D# 8 Exhibit E# 9 Exhibit F# 10 Exhibit G# 11 Exhibit H# 12 Exhibit I−Part 1# 13 Exhibit I−Part 2# 14 Exhibit J# 15 Exhibit K# 16 Exhibit L# 17 Exhibit M# 18 Exhibit N# 19 Exhibit O# 20 Exhibit P# 21 Exhibit Q# 22 Exhibit R# 23 Exhibit S# 24 Exhibit T# 25 Exhibit U# 26 Exhibit V−Part 1# 27 Exhibit V−Part 2# 28 Exhibit W−Part 1# 29 Exhibit W−Part 2# 30 Exhibit X# 31 Exhibit Y# 32 Exhibit Z# 33 Exhibit AA# 34 Exhibit BB# 35 Exhibit CC# 36 Exhibit DD)(Kalk, Jacqueline) −−Please refer to http://www.gand.uscourts.gov to obtain the Notice to Respond to Summary Judgment Motion form contained on the Court's website.−− (Entered: 08/23/2007)
201 MOTION for Summary Judgment Regarding Warehouse Workers Provided by Rojas Harvesting with Brief In Support by Del Monte Fresh Produce (Southeast), Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Brief in Support# 2 Statement of Material Facts # 3 Exhibit Index to Statement of Facts# 4 Exhibit A# 5 Exhibit B# 6 Exhibit C# 7 Exhibit D# 8 Exhibit E# 9 Exhibit F# 10 Exhibit G−Part 1# 11 Exhibit G−Part 2# 12 Exhibit H# 13 Exhibit I−Part 1# 14 Exhibit I−Part 2# 15 Exhibit I−Part 3# 16 Exhibit J# 17 Exhibit K# 18 Exhibit L# 19 Exhibit M# 20 Exhibit N−Part 1# 21 Exhibit N−Part 2# 22 Exhibit O# 23 Exhibit P# 24 Exhibit Q# 25 Exhibit R# 26 Exhibit S# 27 Exhibit T# 28 Exhibit U# 29 Errata V# 30 Exhibit W# 31 Exhibit X# 32 Exhibit Y−Part 1# 33 Exhibit Y−Part 2# 34 Exhibit Z# 35 Exhibit AA# 36 Exhibit BB# 37 Exhibit CC)(Kalk, Jacqueline) −−Please refer to http://www.gand.uscourts.gov to obtain the Notice to Respond to Summary Judgment Motion form contained on the Court's website.−− (Entered: 08/23/2007)
202 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment Against defendant Del Monte Fresh Produce (Southeast, Inc.) with Brief In Support by Hector Luna. (Attachments: # 1 Brief Memorandum in Support# 2 Statement of Material Facts Material Facts# 3 Statement of Material Facts Continuation of Facts# 4 Appendix Consolidated Index of Exhibits in Support of Summary Judgment Motions# 5 Exhibit 1# 6 Exhibit 2# 7 Exhibit 3A# 8 Exhibit 3B# 9 Exhibit 4# 10 Exhibit 5# 11 Exhibit 6A# 12 Exhibit 6B# 13 Exhibit 7A# 14 Exhibit 7B# 15 Exhibit 7C# 16 Exhibit 8A# 17 Exhibit 8B# 18 Exhibit 9# 19 Exhibit 10# 20 Exhibit 11# 21 Exhibit 12# 22 Exhibit 13# 23 Exhibit 14# 24 Exhibit 15# 25 Exhibit 16# 26 Exhibit 17# 27 Exhibit 18A# 28 Exhibit 18B# 29 Exhibit 19# 30 Exhibit 20# 31 Exhibit 21# 32 Exhibit 22# 33 Exhibit 23# 34 Exhibit 24# 35 Exhibit 25# 36 Exhibit 26# 37 Exhibit 27# 38 Exhibit 28# 39 Exhibit 29# 40 Exhibit 30# 41 Exhibit 31# 42 Exhibit 32# 43 Exhibit 33# 44 Exhibit 34# 45 Exhibit 35# 46 Exhibit 36# 47 Exhibit 37# 48 Exhibit 38# 49 Exhibit 39# 50 Exhibit 40# 51 Exhibit 41# 52 Exhibit 42# 53 Exhibit 43# 54 Exhibit 44# 55 Exhibit 45# 56 Exhibit 46# 57 Exhibit 47# 58 Exhibit 48# 59 Exhibit 49# 60 Exhibit 50# 61 Exhibit 51# 62 Exhibit 52# 63 Exhibit 53# 64 Exhibit 54# 65 Exhibit 55# 66 Exhibit 56# 67 Exhibit 57# 68 Exhibit 58# 69 Exhibit 59# 70 Exhibit 60# 71 Exhibit 61# 72 Exhibit 62# 73 Exhibit 63# 74 Exhibit 64# 75 Exhibit 65# 76 Exhibit 66# 77 Exhibit 67# 78 Exhibit 68# 79 Exhibit 69# 80 Exhibit 70# 81 Exhibit 71# 82 Exhibit 72# 83 Exhibit 73# 84 Exhibit

Case: 1:06-cv-2000 As of: 08/13/2017 12:07 PM EDT 33 of 53

08/23/2007 08/30/2007 09/07/2007 09/07/2007
09/11/2007 09/13/2007

74# 85 Exhibit 75# 86 Exhibit 76# 87 Exhibit 77# 88 Exhibit 78# 89 Exhibit 79# 90 Exhibit 80# 91 Exhibit 81# 92 Exhibit 82# 93 Exhibit 83# 94 Exhibit 84# 95 Exhibit 85# 96 Exhibit 86# 97 Exhibit 87)(Graunke, Kristi) −−Please refer to http://www.gand.uscourts.gov to obtain the Notice to Respond to Summary Judgment Motion form contained on the Court's website.−− Modified on 8/24/2007 to correct docket text to accurately reflect e−filed pleading (ryc). (Entered: 08/23/2007)
203 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment against defendant Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A., Inc. with Brief In Support by Hector Luna. (Attachments: # 1 Brief Plaintiff's Memo in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment)(Graunke, Kristi) −−Please refer to http://www.gand.uscourts.gov to obtain the Notice to Respond to Summary Judgment Motion form contained on the Court's website.−− Modified on 8/24/2007 to correct docket text to accurately reflect e−filed pleading (ryc). (Entered: 08/23/2007)
204 NOTICE Of Filing Corrected Statement of Facts by Hector Luna re 202 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 203 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Attachments: # 1 Statement of Material Facts Corrected Consolidated Statement of Material Facts# 2 Statement of Material Facts Corrected Consolidated Statement of Material Facts Continued# 3 Exhibit Supplement to Exhibit 22# 4 Exhibit Supplement to Exhibit 34)(Graunke, Kristi) (Entered: 08/30/2007)
205 RESPONSE in Opposition re 199 MOTION to Strike Defs. Rule 68 Offers of Judgment filed by Del Monte Fresh Produce (Southeast), Inc., Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A., Inc.. (Reese, Kelly) (Entered: 09/07/2007)
206 RESPONSE in Opposition re 198 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Hector Luna. (Attachments: # 1 Statement of Material Facts Response to Defendant's Material Facts# 2 Statement of Material Facts Plaintiffs' Supplemental Statement of Material Facts# 3 Exhibit Supplemental Exhibit 1# 4 Exhibit Supplemental Exhibit 2# 5 Exhibit Supplemental Exhibit 3# 6 Exhibit Supplemental Exhibit 4# 7 Exhibit Supplemental Exhibit 5# 8 Exhibit Supplemental Exhibit 6# 9 Exhibit Supplemental Exhibit 8# 10 Exhibit Supplemental Exhibit 9# 11 Exhibit Supplemental Exhibit 11# 12 Exhibit Supplemental Exhibit 12# 13 Exhibit Supplemental Exhibit 15# 14 Exhibit Supplemental Exhibit 16# 15 Exhibit Supplemental Exhibit 17# 16 Exhibit Supplemental Exhibit 18# 17 Exhibit Supplemental Exhibit 18# 18 Exhibit Supplemental Exhibit 20# 19 Exhibit Supplemental Exhibit 21# 20 Exhibit Supplemental Exhibit 23# 21 Exhibit Supplemental Exhibit 24# 22 Exhibit Supplemental Exhibit 25# 23 Exhibit Supplemental Exhibit 26# 24 Exhibit 27# 25 Exhibit Supplemental Exhibit 28# 26 Exhibit Supplemental Exhibit 30# 27 Exhibit Supplemental Exhibit 31# 28 Exhibit Supplemental Exhibit 32# 29 Exhibit 35# 30 Exhibit 88# 31 Exhibit 89# 32 Exhibit 90# 33 Exhibit 91# 34 Exhibit 92# 35 Exhibit 93# 36 Exhibit 94# 37 Exhibit 95# 38 Exhibit 96# 39 Exhibit 97# 40 Exhibit 98# 41 Exhibit Supplemental Exhibit 22# 42 Appendix)(Graunke, Kristi) (Entered: 09/08/2007)
207 NOTICE Of Filing Notice of Filing Consent to Sue by Hector Luna (Graunke, Kristi) (Entered: 09/11/2007)
208 RESPONSE in Opposition re 197 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Hector Luna. (Attachments: # 1 Statement of Material Facts Plaintiffs' Material Facts in Response# 2 Statement of Material Facts Plaintiffs' Supplemental Facts# 3 Appendix Index of Exhibits# 4 Exhibit Supp. Ex. 1# 5 Exhibit Supp. Ex. 2# 6 Exhibit Supp. Ex. 3# 7 Exhibit Supp. Ex. 4# 8 Exhibit Supp. Ex. 5# 9 Exhibit Supp. Ex. 6# 10 Exhibit Supp. Ex. 7# 11 Exhibit Supp. Ex. 8# 12 Exhibit Supp. Ex. 9# 13 Exhibit Supp. Ex. 10# 14 Exhibit Supp. Ex. 11# 15 Exhibit Supp. Ex. 12# 16 Exhibit Supp. Ex. 13# 17 Exhibit Supp. Ex. 14# 18 Exhibit Supp. Ex. 15# 19 Exhibit Supp. Ex. 16# 20 Exhibit Supp. Ex. 17# 21 Exhibit Supp. Ex. 18# 22 Exhibit Supp. Ex. 19# 23 Exhibit Supp. Ex. 20# 24 Exhibit Supp. Ex. 21# 25 Exhibit Supp. Ex. 22# 26 Exhibit Supp. Ex. 23# 27 Exhibit Supp. Ex. 24# 28 Exhibit Supp. Ex. 25# 29 Exhibit Supp. Ex. 26# 30 Exhibit Supp. Ex. 27# 31 Exhibit Supp. Ex. 28# 32 Exhibit Supp. Ex. 30# 33 Exhibit Supp. Ex. 31# 34 Exhibit Supp. Ex. 32# 35 Exhibit Supp. Ex. 35# 36 Exhibit Pl. Ex. 88# 37 Exhibit Pl. Ex. 89# 38 Exhibit Pl. Ex. 90# 39 Exhibit Pl. Ex. 91# 40 Exhibit Pl. Ex. 92# 41 Exhibit Pl. Ex. 93# 42 Exhibit Pl. Ex. 94# 43 Exhibit Pl. Ex. 95# 44 Exhibit Pl. Ex. 96# 45 Exhibit Pl. Ex 97# 46 Errata Pl. Ex. 98# 47 Exhibit Pl. Ex. 99# 48 Exhibit Pl. Ex. 100# 49 Exhibit Pl. Ex. 101# 50 Exhibit Pl. Ex. 102)(Graunke, Kristi) (Entered: 09/14/2007)

Case: 1:06-cv-2000 As of: 08/13/2017 12:07 PM EDT 34 of 53

09/21/2007 09/24/2007 09/24/2007 09/24/2007
09/25/2007
09/26/2007 09/26/2007 10/01/2007 10/01/2007 10/02/2007

209 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time File Reply in Support of Motion to Strike re: 199 MOTION to Strike Defs. Rule 68 Offers of Judgment, 205 Response in Opposition to Motion by Hector Luna. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Graunke, Kristi) (Entered: 09/21/2007)
210 RESPONSE in Opposition re 203 MOTION for Summary Judgment partial filed by Del Monte Fresh Produce (Southeast), Inc., Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A., Inc.. (Kalk, Jacqueline) (Entered: 09/24/2007)
211 RESPONSE in Opposition re 202 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Del Monte Fresh Produce (Southeast), Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Statement of Facts# 2 Exhibit Index to Supplemental Statement of Facts# 3 Exhibit A# 4 Exhibit B−Part 1# 5 Exhibit B−Part 2# 6 Exhibit B−Part 3# 7 Exhibit B−Part 4# 8 Exhibit C# 9 Exhibit D)(Kalk, Jacqueline) (Entered: 09/24/2007)
212 Response to Statement of Material Facts re 202 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 203 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Del Monte Fresh Produce (Southeast), Inc., Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A., Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Index# 2 Exhibit 1# 3 Exhibit 2# 4 Exhibit 3# 5 Exhibit 4# 6 Exhibit 5# 7 Exhibit 6# 8 Exhibit 7# 9 Errata 8# 10 Exhibit 9# 11 Exhibit 10# 12 Exhibit 11# 13 Exhibit 12# 14 Exhibit 13# 15 Exhibit 14# 16 Exhibit 15# 17 Exhibit 16# 18 Exhibit 17# 19 Exhibit 18# 20 Exhibit 19# 21 Exhibit 20# 22 Exhibit 21# 23 Exhibit 22# 24 Exhibit 23# 25 Exhibit 24# 26 Exhibit 25# 27 Exhibit 26# 28 Exhibit 27−Part 1# 29 Exhibit 27−Part 2# 30 Exhibit 27−Part 3# 31 Exhibit 27−Part 4# 32 Exhibit 28# 33 Exhibit 29# 34 Exhibit 30# 35 Exhibit 31# 36 Exhibit 32# 37 Exhibit 33# 38 Exhibit 34)(Kalk, Jacqueline) (Entered: 09/24/2007)
213 RESPONSE in Opposition re 200 MOTION for Summary Judgment Regarding Field Workers Provided by Rojas Harvesting, 201 MOTION for Summary Judgment Regarding Warehouse Workers Provided by Rojas Harvesting filed by Hector Luna. (Attachments: # 1 Statement of Material Facts Statement of Material Facts# 2 Statement of Material Facts Statement of Material Facts# 3 Statement of Material Facts Supplemental Facts# 4 Appendix Index# 5 Exhibit 1# 6 Exhibit 2# 7 Exhibit 3# 8 Exhibit 4# 9 Exhibit 5# 10 Exhibit 6# 11 Exhibit 7# 12 Exhibit 8# 13 Exhibit 9# 14 Exhibit 10# 15 Exhibit 11# 16 Exhibit 12# 17 Exhibit 13# 18 Exhibit 14# 19 Errata 15# 20 Exhibit 16# 21 Exhibit 17# 22 Exhibit 18# 23 Exhibit 19# 24 Exhibit 20# 25 Exhibit 21# 26 Exhibit 22# 27 Exhibit 23# 28 Exhibit 24# 29 Exhibit 25# 30 Exhibit 26# 31 Exhibit 27# 32 Exhibit 28# 33 Exhibit 30# 34 Exhibit 31# 35 Exhibit 32# 36 Exhibit 34# 37 Exhibit 35# 38 Exhibit 88# 39 Exhibit 89# 40 Exhibit 90# 41 Exhibit 91# 42 Exhibit 92# 43 Exhibit 93# 44 Exhibit 94# 45 Exhibit 95# 46 Exhibit 96# 47 Exhibit 97# 48 Exhibit 98# 49 Exhibit 99# 50 Exhibit 100# 51 Exhibit 101# 52 Exhibit 102# 53 Exhibit 103# 54 Exhibit 104# 55 Exhibit 105# 56 Exhibit 106# 57 Exhibit 107)(Graunke, Kristi) (Entered: 09/25/2007)
214 REPLY BRIEF re 201 MOTION for Summary Judgment Regarding Warehouse Workers Provided by Rojas Harvesting, 200 MOTION for Summary Judgment Regarding Field Workers Provided by Rojas Harvesting IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION filed by Del Monte Fresh Produce (Southeast), Inc., Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A., Inc.. (Kalk, Jacqueline) (Entered: 09/26/2007)
215 RESPONSE re 204 Notice of Filing, to plaintiff's supplemental facts regarding its motion for summary judgment filed by Del Monte Fresh Produce (Southeast), Inc., Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A., Inc. (Kalk, Jacqueline) Modified on 9/27/2007 to correct all caps in docket text (ryc). (Entered: 09/26/2007)
216 MOTION for Determination of the Validity of Defendants' Rule 68 Offers of Judgment to Felizardo Garcia Martinez, Juan Ricardo Zuniga Mar and Juan Albino Juarez Estrada by Hector Luna. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1# 2 Exhibit 2# 3 Exhibit 3)(Graunke, Kristi) Modified on 12/11/2007 to accurately reflect title of motion. (dfb) (Entered: 10/01/2007)
217 RESPONSE in Support re 199 MOTION to Strike Defs. Rule 68 Offers of Judgment filed by Hector Luna. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 9)(Graunke, Kristi) (Entered: 10/01/2007)
218 REPLY BRIEF re 197 MOTION for Summary Judgment In Further Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Del Monte Fresh Produce (Southeast), Inc., Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A., Inc.. (Kalk, Jacqueline) (Entered: 10/02/2007)

Case: 1:06-cv-2000 As of: 08/13/2017 12:07 PM EDT 35 of 53

10/02/2007 10/12/2007 10/15/2007 10/15/2007 10/15/2007
10/15/2007 10/15/2007 10/17/2007 10/17/2007 10/19/2007 10/23/2007 11/09/2007
11/14/2007

219 RESPONSE in Support re 197 MOTION for Summary Judgment to Plaintiffs' Supplemental Facts in Response to Defendant Del Monte Fresh Produce, N.A., Inc.'s Statement of Material Facts in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Del Monte Fresh Produce (Southeast), Inc., Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A., Inc.. (Kalk, Jacqueline) (Entered: 10/02/2007)
220 RESPONSE re 216 MOTION To Determine Validity of Rule 68 Offers 199 MOTION to Strike Defs. Rule 68 Offers of Judgment filed by Del Monte Fresh Produce (Southeast), Inc., Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A., Inc.. (Kalk, Jacqueline) (Entered: 10/12/2007)
221 REPLY BRIEF re 198 MOTION for Summary Judgment in Further Support of its Motion Against Claims Brought by Rojas Harvesting's Warehouse Workers filed by Del Monte Fresh Produce (Southeast), Inc., Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A., Inc.. (Kalk, Jacqueline) (Entered: 10/15/2007)
222 REPLY BRIEF re 197 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 198 MOTION for Summary Judgment in Further Support of its Motion against Claims Brought by Field Workers filed by Del Monte Fresh Produce (Southeast), Inc., Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A., Inc.. (Kalk, Jacqueline) (Entered: 10/15/2007)
223 Response to Statement of Material Facts re 201 MOTION for Summary Judgment Regarding Warehouse Workers Provided by Rojas Harvesting, 200 MOTION for Summary Judgment Regarding Field Workers Provided by Rojas Harvesting : Response to Plaintiffs' Consolidated Statement of Supplemental Facts in Support of Their Opposition to Defendant Del Monte Fresh Produce (Southeast), Inc.'s Motions for Summary Judgment Regarding Field and Warehouse Workers Provided by Rojas Harvesting filed by Del Monte Fresh Produce (Southeast), Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Index# 2 Exhibit A# 3 Exhibit B# 4 Exhibit C# 5 Exhibit D# 6 Exhibit E# 7 Exhibit F# 8 Exhibit G)(Kalk, Jacqueline) (Entered: 10/15/2007)
224 REPLY BRIEF re 197 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 198 MOTION for Summary Judgment in Further Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment re Field Workers filed by Del Monte Fresh Produce (Southeast), Inc., Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A., Inc.. (Kalk, Jacqueline) (Entered: 10/15/2007)
225 REPLY BRIEF re 197 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 198 MOTION for Summary Judgment in Further Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment re Warehouse Workers filed by Del Monte Fresh Produce (Southeast), Inc., Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A., Inc.. (Kalk, Jacqueline) (Entered: 10/15/2007)
226 REPLY BRIEF re 202 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Hector Luna. (Attachments: # 1 Statement of Material Facts Response to Defendant's Supplemental Material Facts)(Graunke, Kristi) (Entered: 10/17/2007)
227 REPLY BRIEF re 203 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Hector Luna. (Graunke, Kristi) (Entered: 10/17/2007)
228 ORDER GRANTING Plaintiffs' 209 Motion for Extension of Time to October 1, 2007 to File their Reply Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs' 199 MOTION to Strike Defendants' Rule 68 Offers of Judgment. Signed by Judge Julie E. Carnes on 10/18/07. (dfb) (Entered: 10/19/2007)
229 MOTION to Withdraw Mary C. Bauer as Attorneyby Fransciso Javier Lorenzo, Santos G. Maldonado, Patricia Woodard, Hector Luna, Julian Garcia, Santos Maldonado, Bartolo Nunez. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Bauer, Mary) Modified on 10/24/2007 to name attachment (ryc). (Entered: 10/23/2007)
Submission of 202 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 199 MOTION to Strike Defs. Rule 68 Offers of Judgment, 198 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 200 MOTION for Summary Judgment Regarding Field Workers Provided by Rojas Harvesting, 203 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 201 MOTION for Summary Judgment Regarding Warehouse Workers Provided by Rojas Harvesting, 197 MOTION for Summary Judgment; submitted to District Judge Julie E. Carnes. (ryc) (Entered: 11/09/2007)
230 NOTICE Of Filing Consent to Sue by Hector Luna (Graunke, Kristi) (Entered: 11/14/2007)

Case: 1:06-cv-2000 As of: 08/13/2017 12:07 PM EDT 36 of 53

12/11/2007 03/19/2008
03/19/2008
03/19/2008 03/26/2008 04/10/2008
04/14/2008 04/15/2008 04/16/2008 04/17/2008 04/21/2008

Submission of 216 MOTION for Determination of the Validity of Defendants' Rule 68 Offers of Judgment to Felizardo Garcia Martinez, Juan Ricardo Zuniga Mar and Juan Albino Juarez Estrada, 229 MOTION to Withdraw Mary C. Bauer as Attorney, submitted to District Judge Julie E. Carnes. (NOTE: File in Chambers) (dfb) (Entered: 12/11/2007)
231 ORDER and OPINION granting 197 defendant DMNA's Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 198 defendant DMSE's Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 200 defendant DMSE's Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 201 defendant DMSE's Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 199 plaintiffs' Motion to Strike Defendants' Offer of Judgment; granting 202 plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment with respect to DMSE; denying 203 plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment with respect to DMNA; denying as moot 216 plaintiffs' Motion to Determine the Validity of Defendants' Offer of Judgment; granting 229 Unopposed Motion to Withdraw Attorney Mary Bauer as Attorney. Attorney Mary C. Bauer terminated. Signed by Judge Julie E. Carnes on 03/18/08. (fap) Modified on 3/19/2008 to correct docket text (fap). (Entered: 03/19/2008)
232 CLERK'S JUDGMENT entered in favor of plaintiffs with respect to Del Monte Fresh Produce (Southeast), Inc., under the Fair Labor Standards Act, Agricultural Worker Protection act, and the regulations governing the H−2A guestworker program with respect to work performed by Plaintiffs on Defendants' Helena operations between 2003 and 2006 and in favor of defendant Del Monte Fresh Produce N. A., Inc. for costs of this action. (fap)−−Please refer to http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov to obtain an appeals jurisdiction checklist−− (Entered: 03/19/2008)
Civil Case Terminated. (fap) (Entered: 03/19/2008)
233 MOTION to Alter 232 Clerk's Judgment,, and for Clarification and Correction of the Record with Brief In Support by Hector Luna. (Attachments: # 1 Brief, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Graunke, Kristi) (Entered: 03/26/2008)
234 Renewed MOTION to Certify Class with Brief In Support by Hector Luna, Julian Garcia, Bartolo Nunez, Fransciso Javier Lorenzo, Santos G. Maldonado, Patricia Woodard. (Attachments: # 1 Brief, # 2 Appendix, # 3 Exhibit 1, # 4 Exhibit 2, # 5 Exhibit 3, # 6 Exhibit 4, # 7 Exhibit 5, # 8 Exhibit 6, # 9 Exhibit 7, # 10 Exhibit 8, # 11 Exhibit 9, # 12 Exhibit 10, # 13 Exhibit 11, # 14 Exhibit 12, # 15 Exhibit 13, # 16 Exhibit 14, # 17 Exhibit 15, # 18 Exhibit 16, # 19 Exhibit 17, # 20 Exhibit 18, # 21 Exhibit 19, # 22 Exhibit 20, # 23 Exhibit 21, # 24 Exhibit 22, # 25 Exhibit 23, # 26 Exhibit 24, # 27 Exhibit 25, # 28 Exhibit 26, # 29 Exhibit 27, # 30 Exhibit 28, # 31 Exhibit 29, # 32 Exhibit 30, # 33 Exhibit 31, # 34 Exhibit 32, # 35 Exhibit 33, # 36 Exhibit 34, # 37 Exhibit 35, # 38 Exhibit 36, # 39 Exhibit 37, # 40 Exhibit 38, # 41 Exhibit 39, # 42 Exhibit 40, # 43 Exhibit 41, # 44 Exhibit 42, # 45 Exhibit 43, # 46 Exhibit 44, # 47 Exhibit 45, # 48 Exhibit 46, # 49 Exhibit 47, # 50 Exhibit 48, # 51 Exhibit 49, # 52 Exhibit 50, # 53 Exhibit 51)(Graunke, Kristi) Modified on 4/11/2008 to accurately reflect e−filed pleading (fap). (Entered: 04/10/2008)
235 RESPONSE in Opposition re 233 MOTION to Alter 232 Clerk's Judgment,, and for Clarification and Correction of the Record filed by Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A., Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D, # 6 Exhibit E, # 7 Exhibit F)(Kalk, Jacqueline) (Entered: 04/14/2008)
236 BILL OF COSTS by Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A., Inc.. (Strawn, Bradley) (Entered: 04/15/2008)
237 STIPULATION re 234 MOTION to Certify Class of the Parties Allowing Defendant Del Monte Fresh Produce (Southeast) an Extension to Respond to Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion for Certification of Class Action by Del Monte Fresh Produce (Southeast), Inc.. (Bailey, Latesa) (Entered: 04/16/2008)
238 Costs Taxed in the amount of $ 6,600.32 against Plaintiffs (fap) Modified on 3/4/2009 to notate Re−taxing of cost (COST RE−TAXED PER 277 ORDER)(fap). (Entered: 04/17/2008)
239 ORDER GRANTING 237 Stipulation. The Defendants have up to and including May 12, 2008, to file their opposition to 234 Renewed MOTION to Certify Class. Signed by Judge Julie E. Carnes on 04/21/08. (fap) (Entered: 04/22/2008)

Case: 1:06-cv-2000 As of: 08/13/2017 12:07 PM EDT 37 of 53

04/22/2008 04/30/2008 04/30/2008 04/30/2008
05/05/2008 05/06/2008 05/06/2008 05/06/2008 05/12/2008 05/12/2008
05/12/2008 05/14/2008

240 MOTION to Vacate 238 Costs Taxed or For Review of Costs with Brief In Support by Hector Luna. (Attachments: # 1 Brief)(Graunke, Kristi) (Entered: 04/23/2008)
241 Joint MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages For Briefs Related To Rule 23 Class Certification and Rule 216 Collective Action by Fransciso Javier Lorenzo, Del Monte Fresh Produce (Southeast), Inc., Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A., Inc., Santos G. Maldonado, Patricia Woodard, Hector Luna, Julian Garcia, Bartolo Nunez. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1−Proposed Order)(Kalk, Jacqueline) (Entered: 04/30/2008)
242 REPLY BRIEF re 233 MOTION to Alter 232 Clerk's Judgment,, and for Clarification and Correction of the Record filed by Hector Luna. (Graunke, Kristi) (Entered: 04/30/2008)
243 MOTION to Certify Class FLSA Collective Action with Brief In Support by Hector Luna. (Attachments: # 1 Brief, # 2 Appendix, # 3 Exhibit 1, # 4 Exhibit 2, # 5 Exhibit 3, # 6 Exhibit 4, # 7 Exhibit 5, # 8 Exhibit 6, # 9 Exhibit 7, # 10 Exhibit 8, # 11 Exhibit 9, # 12 Exhibit 10, # 13 Exhibit 11, # 14 Exhibit 12, # 15 Exhibit 13, # 16 Exhibit 14, # 17 Exhibit 15, # 18 Exhibit 16, # 19 Exhibit 17, # 20 Exhibit 18, # 21 Exhibit 19, # 22 Exhibit 20, # 23 Exhibit 21, # 24 Exhibit 22, # 25 Exhibit 23, # 26 Exhibit 24, # 27 Exhibit 25, # 28 Exhibit 26, # 29 Exhibit 27, # 30 Exhibit 28, # 31 Errata 29, # 32 Exhibit 30, # 33 Exhibit 31, # 34 Exhibit 32, # 35 Exhibit 33, # 36 Exhibit 34, # 37 Exhibit 35, # 38 Exhibit 36, # 39 Exhibit 37, # 40 Exhibit 38, # 41 Exhibit 39, # 42 Exhibit 40, # 43 Exhibit 41, # 44 Exhibit 42, # 45 Exhibit 43, # 46 Exhibit 44, # 47 Exhibit 45, # 48 Exhibit 46, # 49 Exhibit 47, # 50 Exhibit 48, # 51 Exhibit 49, # 52 Exhibit 50, # 53 Exhibit 51, # 54 Exhibit 52, # 55 Exhibit 53)(Graunke, Kristi) Modified on 5/1/2008 to correct docket text (fap). (Entered: 04/30/2008)
Submission of 233 MOTION to Alter 232 Clerk's Judgment, and for Clarification and Correction of the Record, submitted to District Judge Julie E. Carnes. (fap) (Entered: 05/05/2008)
244 RESPONSE in Opposition re 240 MOTION to Vacate 238 Costs Taxed or For Review of Costs filed by Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A., Inc.. (Kalk, Jacqueline) (Entered: 05/06/2008)
245 STIPULATION re 243 MOTION to Certify Class FLSA Collective Action Allowing the Parties an Extension of Time to Respond and Reply to Plaintiffs' Motion for Certification of a Rule 216(b) Collective Action by Fransciso Javier Lorenzo, Del Monte Fresh Produce (Southeast), Inc., Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A., Inc., Santos G. Maldonado, Patricia Woodard, Hector Luna, Julian Garcia, Bartolo Nunez. (Bailey, Latesa) (Entered: 05/06/2008)
246 Amended RESPONSE re 240 MOTION to Vacate 238 Costs Taxed or For Review of Costs (Amended Response) filed by Del Monte Fresh Produce (Southeast), Inc., Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A., Inc.. (Kalk, Jacqueline) Modified on 5/7/2008 to accurately reflect e−filed pleading (fap). (Entered: 05/06/2008)
247 NOTICE Of Filing by Hector Luna (Graunke, Kristi) (Entered: 05/12/2008)
248 −−−Main Document Filed Under Seal−−−RESPONSE in Opposition re 234 Renewed MOTION to Certify Class filed by Del Monte Fresh Produce (Southeast), Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Index to Exhibits, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D, # 6 Exhibit E, # 7 Exhibit F, # 8 Exhibit G, # 9 Exhibit H, # 10 Exhibit I, # 11 Exhibit J, # 12 Exhibit K, # 13 Exhibit L, # 14 Exhibit M, # 15 Exhibit N)(fap) (Additional attachment(s) added on 5/13/2008: # 16 (Sealed) Exhibit F − Confidential Excerpts from Deposition of Hector Luna dated 06/1907, # 17 (Sealed) Exhibit I − Confidential Excerpts from Deposition of Francisco Lorenzo dated 11/20/06, # 18 (Sealed) Exhibit K − Confidential Excerpts from Deposition of Bartolo Nunez Garcia dated 06/20/07) (fap). Modified on 5/13/2008 (fap). (Verified by ekb) Modified on 5/13/2008 (fap). (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/17/2011: # 19 Exhibits) (kdw). (Entered: 05/13/2008)
249 NOTICE Of Manual Filing re 248 Response in Opposition to Motion by Del Monte Fresh Produce (Southeast), Inc. (fap) (Entered: 05/13/2008)
250 REPLY BRIEF re 240 MOTION to Vacate 238 Costs Taxed or For Review of Costs filed by Hector Luna. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit

Case: 1:06-cv-2000 As of: 08/13/2017 12:07 PM EDT 38 of 53

05/20/2008 05/27/2008
05/27/2008 05/30/2008
06/02/2008
06/02/2008 06/04/2008 06/04/2008 06/06/2008 06/16/2008

3)(Graunke, Kristi) (Entered: 05/14/2008)
Submission of 240 MOTION to Vacate 238 Costs Taxed or For Review of Costs, 241 Joint MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages For Briefs Related To Rule 23 Class Certification and Rule 216 Collective Action, submitted to District Judge Julie E. Carnes. (FILE IN CHAMBERS) (fap) (Entered: 05/20/2008)
251 (MAIN DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL) Plaintiffs' REPLY MEMORANDUM in support of 234 Renewed MOTION to Certify Class filed by Fransciso Javier Lorenzo, Santos G. Maldonado, Patricia Woodard, Hector Luna, Julian Garcia, Bartolo Nunez. (fap) (Additional attachment(s) added on 5/29/2008: # 1 Cofindential Exhibit −2, # 2 Confidential Exhibit − 4, # 3 Confidential Exhibit − 6, # 4 Exhibit 8, # 5 Exhibit 10, # 6 Confidential Exhibit − 12, # 7 Exhibit 18, # 8 Exhibit 19, # 9 Exhibit 20, # 10 Exhibit 21, # 11 Exhibit 24, # 12 Exhibit 25, # 13 Exhibit 27, # 14 Confidential Exhibit − 52, # 15 Exhibit 53, # 16 Exhibit 54, # 17 Exhibit 55, # 18 Exhibit 56, # 19 Exhibit 57, # 20 Exhibit 58, # 21 Exhibit 59, # 22 Exhibit 60, # 23 Exhibit 61, # 24 Exhibit 62, # 25 Exhibit 63, # 26 Exhibit 64, # 27 Exhibit 65) (fap). Modified on 5/29/2008 (fap). (verified by ekb) (Entered: 05/29/2008)
252 NOTICE Of Manual Filing re 251 Plaintiff's Reply Memorandum in support of 234 Renewed MOTION to Certify Class by Fransciso Javier Lorenzo, Santos G. Maldonado, Patricia Woodard, Hector Luna, Julian Garcia, Bartolo Nunez (fap) (Entered: 05/29/2008)
253 RESPONSE in Opposition re 243 MOTION to Certify Class FLSA Collective Action filed by Del Monte Fresh Produce (Southeast), Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Index, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D, # 6 Exhibit E, # 7 Exhibit F, # 8 Exhibit G, # 9 Exhibit H, # 10 Exhibit I, # 11 Exhibit J − Part 1, # 12 Exhibit J − Part 2, # 13 Exhibit J − Part 3, # 14 Exhibit K, # 15 Exhibit L, # 16 Exhibit M, # 17 Exhibit N, # 18 Exhibit O, # 19 Exhibit P, # 20 Exhibit Q, # 21 Exhibit R, # 22 Exhibit S, # 23 Exhibit T, # 24 Exhibit U, # 25 Exhibit V, # 26 Exhibit W, # 27 Exhibit X, # 28 Exhibit Y, # 29 Exhibit Z, # 30 Exhibit AA)(Kalk, Jacqueline) (Entered: 05/30/2008)
254 ORDER GRANTING 241 Joint Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. It is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs, collectively, are granted up to sixty−five (65) total pages of briefing (including reply brief) in support of their Rule 23 Motion for Class Certification. Del Monte Fresh Produce is granted up to fifty (50) pages of briefing in opposition to Plaintiffs' Rule 23 Motion for Certification. Plaintiffs, collectively, are granted up to forty−five (45) total pages of briefing (including their reply brief) in support of their Rule 216 Motion for Collective Action. Del Monte Fresh Produce (Southeast), Inc., is granted up to thirty (30) total pages of briefing in opposition to Plaintiffs' Rule 216 Motion for Collective Action. Signed by Judge Julie E. Carnes on 05/30/08. (fap) (Entered: 06/03/2008)
255 ORDER approving 245 Stipulation. Due to the voluminous record and scheduling conflicts, the Parties have agreed to allow Defendants through May 30, 2008, to file their opposition to Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion for Certification of a Rule 216(b) Collective Action. The parties have also agreed to allow Plaintiffs thirty (30) days from the date Defendants file their response in which to file their reply. Signed by Judge Julie E. Carnes on 05/30/08. (fap) (Entered: 06/03/2008)
256 STIPULATION Of The Parties Allowing Additional Briefing By The Parties Related To Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion For Certification Of Class Action by Del Monte Fresh Produce (Southeast), Inc., Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A., Inc., Julian Garcia, Fransciso Javier Lorenzo,Hector Luna, Santos G. Maldonano, Bartolo Nunez, Patricia Woodard. (Strawn, Bradley) Modified on 6/4/2008 to add filer (fap). (Entered: 06/04/2008)
257 NOTICE of Change of Address for Kristi L. Graunke, counsel for Hector Luna (Graunke, Kristi) (Entered: 06/04/2008)
Submission of 234 MOTION to Certify Class, submitted to District Judge Julie E. Carnes. (FILE IN CHAMBERS) (fap) (Entered: 06/06/2008)
258 SUR−RESPONSE in Opposition re 234 Renewed MOTION to Certify Class (Sur−Response) filed by Del Monte Fresh Produce (Southeast), Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Index, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D, # 6 Exhibit

Case: 1:06-cv-2000 As of: 08/13/2017 12:07 PM EDT 39 of 53

06/17/2008 06/27/2008
06/30/2008 07/11/2008
07/14/2008 07/15/2008 07/15/2008 07/15/2008 07/28/2008 07/28/2008 08/12/2008 08/13/2008

E, # 7 Exhibit F, # 8 Exhibit G)(Kalk, Jacqueline) Modified on 6/18/2008 to correct docket text (fap). (Entered: 06/16/2008)
259 ORDER APPROVING 256 Stipulation of the Parties Allowing Additional Briefing. Defendant may file a sur−response by June 16, 2008 to 234 Renewed Motion to Certify Class, and thereafter Plaintiffs may file a sur−reply to 234 Renewed Motion to Certify Class by June 30, 2008. Signed by Judge Julie E. Carnes on 06/16/08. (fap) (Entered: 06/18/2008)
260 REPLY BRIEF re 243 MOTION to Certify Class FLSA Collective Action filed by Hector Luna. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Index of Exhibits, # 2 Exhibit Supplemental Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit Supplemental Exhibit 10, # 4 Supplement Supplemental Exhibit 19, # 5 Exhibit Supplemental Exhibit 20, # 6 Exhibit Supplemental Exhibit 21, # 7 Exhibit Supplemental Exhibit 22, # 8 Exhibit Supplemental Exhibit 23, # 9 Exhibit Supplemental Exhibit 24, # 10 Exhibit 54, # 11 Exhibit 55, # 12 Exhibit 56, # 13 Exhibit 57)(Graunke, Kristi) (Entered: 06/27/2008)
261 SUR−REPLY in Support re 234 MOTION to Certify Class Sur−Reply to Defendants' Sur−Response, filed by Hector Luna, Julian Garcia, Bartolo Nunez, Francisco Javier Lorenzo, Santos G. Maldonado, Patricia Woodard. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 66, # 2 Errata 67, # 3 Exhibit 68)(Graunke, Kristi) Modified on 7/1/2008 to correct docket text to accurately reflect e−filed pleading (alc). (Entered: 06/30/2008)
262 Emergency MOTION for Protective Order Seeking An Order to Cease and Desist with Brief In Support by Del Monte Fresh Produce (Southeast), Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Brief, # 3 Exhibit Index to Memorandum in Support of Its Emergency Motion for Protective Order Seeking an Order to Cease and Desist, # 4 Exhibit A, # 5 Exhibit B, # 6 Exhibit C, # 7 Exhibit D, # 8 Exhibit E, # 9 Exhibit F, # 10 Exhibit G, # 11 Exhibit H, # 12 Exhibit I, # 13 Exhibit J)(Kalk, Jacqueline) Modified on 7/14/2008 to correct docket text (fap). (Entered: 07/11/2008)
263 RESPONSE in Opposition re 262 Emergency MOTION for Protective Order Seeking An Order to Cease and Desist Requesting Usual, Non−Emergency Briefing Schedule filed by Hector Luna. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Graunke, Kristi) (Entered: 07/14/2008)
Submission of 243 MOTION to Certify Class FLSA Collective Action, 234 Renewed MOTION to Certify Class, submitted to District Judge Julie E. Carnes. (FILE IN CHAMBERS) (fap) (Entered: 07/15/2008)
264 RESPONSE in support of 262 Emergency Motion for Protective Order filed by Del Monte Fresh Produce (Southeast), Inc., Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A., Inc.. (Kalk, Jacqueline) Modified on 7/15/2008 to accurately reflect e−filed pleading (fap). (Entered: 07/15/2008)
265 REPLY re 264 Response (Non−Motion) filed by Hector Luna. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3)(Graunke, Kristi) Modified on 7/16/2008 to accurately reflect e−filed pleading (fap). (Entered: 07/15/2008)
266 RESPONSE in Opposition re 262 Emergency MOTION for Protective Order Seeking An Order to Cease and Desist filed by Hector Luna. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8)(Graunke, Kristi) (Entered: 07/28/2008)
267 Amended RESPONSE in Opposition re 262 Emergency MOTION for Protective Order Seeking An Order to Cease and Desist Amended to Correct Citation Error filed by Hector Luna. (Graunke, Kristi) Modified on 7/29/2008 to accurately reflect e−filed pleading (fap). (Entered: 07/28/2008)
268 STIPULATION for Extension of Time re 267 Response in Opposition to 262 Emergency for Protective Order by Del Monte Fresh Produce (Southeast), Inc.. (Bailey, Latesa) Modified on 8/13/2008 to correct docket text (fap). (Entered: 08/12/2008)
269 ORDER Approving 268 Stipulation for Extension of Time re 267 response in Opposition to 262 Emergency Motion for Protective Order. The parties have agreed to allow Del Monte Fresh Produce (Southeast), Inc. a three−day (3) extension to file its reply through August 18, 2008. Signed by Judge Julie E. Carnes on 08/13/08. (fap)

Case: 1:06-cv-2000 As of: 08/13/2017 12:07 PM EDT 40 of 53

08/18/2008
08/29/2008 09/04/2008 09/08/2008 09/10/2008
09/16/2008 10/08/2008 11/10/2008 03/03/2009

(Entered: 08/14/2008)
270 REPLY Memorandum in further support re 262 Emergency MOTION for Protective Order Seeking An Order to Cease and Desist filed by Del Monte Fresh Produce (Southeast), Inc., Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A., Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit B, # 2 Exhibit C, # 3 Affidavit Declaration of Jacqueline Kalk, # 4 Exhibit 1, # 5 Exhibit 2)(Kalk, Jacqueline) Modified on 8/18/2008 to accurately reflect e−filed pleading (fap). (Entered: 08/18/2008)
Submission of 262 Emergency MOTION for Protective Order Seeking An Order to Cease and Desist, submitted to District Judge Julie E. Carnes. (FILE IN CHAMBERS) (fap) (Entered: 08/29/2008)
271 STIPULATION re 270 Reply to Response to Motion, 262 Emergency MOTION for Protective Order Seeking An Order to Cease and Desist by Hector Luna. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Graunke, Kristi) (Entered: 09/04/2008)
272 NOTICE Of Filing by Del Monte Fresh Produce (Southeast), Inc. an Amended Declaration of Jacqueline Kalk (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit)(Kalk, Jacqueline) (Entered: 09/08/2008)
273 ORDER Approving 271 Stipulation. It is Ordered that Plaintiffs be permitted to file a Sur−Reply of no longer than ten (10 Pages in response to Del Monte Fresh Produce Southeast, Inc.'s Reply briefing to 262 Emergency MOTION for Protective Order. Plaintiffs shall file such Sur−reply no later than ten (10) days after the date on which the parties filed their Stipulation with the Court. Signed by Judge Julie E. Carnes on 09/10/08. (fap) (Entered: 09/11/2008)
274 SUR−REPLY BRIEF re 262 Emergency MOTION for Protective Order Seeking An Order to Cease and Desist Surreply in Further Opposition to Defendant's Motion filed by Hector Luna. (Graunke, Kristi) Modified on 9/16/2008 to correct docket text (fap). (Entered: 09/16/2008)
275 NOTICE by Del Monte Fresh Produce (Southeast), Inc. of Supplemental Authority in Support of Its 262 Emergency Motion for Protective Order Seeking an Order to Cease and Desist (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Kalk, Jacqueline) Modified on 10/8/2008 to correct docket text (fap). (Entered: 10/08/2008)
276 NOTICE of Change of Address for Bradley E. Strawn, counsel for Del Monte Fresh Produce (Southeast), Inc. (Strawn, Bradley) (Entered: 11/10/2008)
277 ORDER that GRANTS in part and DENIES in part plaintiffs' Motion to Alter the Clerk's Judgment 233 . The Court GRANTS plaintiff's request to the extent it seeks reinstatement of Mary Bauer as counsel. The Court also GRANTS plaintiffs' request for clarification that DMSE remains a defendant in this case as to all claims. To clarify the record, the Court directs the clerk to amend the judgment entered on March 19, 2008 to reflect that DMSE remains a defendant as to all of plaintiffs' claims. Accordingly, the Court DENIES plaintiff's motion to vacate the judgment with respect to DMNA. The Court DENIES plaintiffs' Renewed Motion to Certify a Class Action 234 in Counts I and II of the Complaint as a class action. The Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part plaintiffs' Motion to Vacate Costs 240 . Subtracting $1055.61 of disallowed costs from DMNA's total bill of costs, the Court concludes that DMNA is entitled to $5,544.71 IN COST. The Court GRANTS plaintiffs' Motion to Certify a Collective FLSA Action 243 on claims in Count III as a collective action. Pursuant to this order, the Court approves the proposed notice attached as Exhibit 49 to the plaintiffs' motion to certify a collective FLSA action and as Appendix A to this Order, and authorizes plaintiffs to issue the notice to class members by radio, newspaper advertisements, and mail. The Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part defendants' Emergency Motion for Protective Order 262 . Defendant's motion is DENIED to the extent it requests relief from the SPLC's email campaign. The Court also DENIES defendant's motion with respect to the SPLC's statements that refer to Del Monte as the defendant in the litigation, as opposed to DMSE. The Court GRANTS defendant's motion to the extent it requests a protective order precluding the SPLC from making statements that inaccurately suggest that the Court has found defendant liable for wage violations. To comply with this order, SPLC should: (1) amend the information on its website and ensure that any future press releases, articles, or other statements clarify that DMSE has not yet been found liable for wage violations; and (2) ensure that any

Case: 1:06-cv-2000 As of: 08/13/2017 12:07 PM EDT 41 of 53

03/03/2009 03/03/2009 03/19/2009
03/20/2009
03/20/2009

future statements suggesting that defendant cheated plaintiffs or stole their wages make clear that these are simply the SPLC's allegations, which have not yet been proven. Signed by Judge Julie E. Carnes on 03/03/09. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix A) (fap) (Entered: 03/04/2009)
278 CLERK'S AMENDED JUDGMENT entered in favor of plaintiffs with respect to Del Monte Fresh Produce (Southeast), Inc., under the Fair Labor Standards Act, Agricultural Worker Protection act, and the regulations governing the H−2A guestworker program with respect to work performed by Plaintiffs on Defendants' Helena operations between 2003 and 2006 and in favor of defendant Del Monte Fresh Produce N. A., Inc. for costs of this action. Del Monte Fresh Produce (Southeast), Inc. remains a defendant in this case to all claims. (fap)−−Please refer to http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov to obtain an appeals jurisdiction checklist−− (Entered: 03/04/2009)
279 Costs Re−Taxed in the amount of $ 5,544.71 for Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A., Inc. against Plaintiffs. (fap) (Entered: 03/04/2009)
280 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE filed by Del Monte Fresh Produce (Southeast), Inc. Defendant's First Requests for Admissions to Eladio Cortez−Sanchez, Francisco Rojas, Uriel, Patino−Corona, Aristeo Camacho−Grimaldo, Baltazar Diaz−Orozco, Carlos Martinez−Medina, Cesar Arturo Garcia−Sanchez, Jose Juan Martinez−Gallegos, Jose Victor Martinez−Mendez, Juan Albikno Juarez−Estrada, Loren Araceli Sierra−Gonzalez, Lazaro Nava−Osorio, Robert del Angel−Carrera, Teodoro Duque−Zuniga, Tomasa Hernandez−Coronado, Veota Khamlusa, Adolfo Gomez, George Allen, C.J. Mason, Hope Williams, Sandreka Madison, Rose Arias, Adolfo Roblero−Morales, Jorge Aguilar−Esteban, George Worthen, J. Isabel Martinez Abundiz, Emilio Galarza Banda, Narcisa Moreno Diaz, Bernardo Cedillo Duque, Jose Antonio Fabian Flores, Robert Mancilla Hernandez, Enrique Lopez Loredo, Cirilo Alvardo Mar, Jose Ricardo Zuniga Mar, Garcia Felizardo Martinez, Miguel Martinez Martinez, Leopoldo Barrios Ortega, Pedro Barrios Ortega, Ignacio Ibarra Ribera, Angel Mancilla Rodriguez, Sixto Mancilla Rodriguez, Fortunato Ortega Santos, Humberto Hernandez Galvan, Reyes Ramos Vazquez, Narciso Medina Reyes, Humberto Cepeda Rosas, Ada Linda Garcia Tenorio, Jose Hernandez−Hernandez, Pablo Medina−Reyes, Raul Escobar−Gonzalez (Kalk, Jacqueline) (Entered: 03/19/2009)
281 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE filed by Del Monte Fresh Produce (Southeast), Inc. Del Monte Fresh Produce (Southeast), Inc.'s First Interrogatories to Eladio Cortez−Sanchez, Francisco Rojas, Uriel Patino−Corona, Aristeo Camacho−Grimaldo, Baltazar Diaz−Orozco, Carlos Martinez−Medina, Cesar Arturo Garcia−Sanchez, Jose Juan Martinez−Gallegos, Jose Victor Martinez−Mendez, Juan Albikno Juarez−Estrada, Loren Araceli Sierra−Gonzalez, Lazaro Nava−Osorio, Robert del Angel−Carrera, Teodoro Duque−Zuniga, Tomasa Hernandez−Coronado, Veota Khamlusa, Adolfo Gomez, George Allen, C.J. Mason, Hope Williams, Sandreka Madison, Rose Arias, Adolfo Roblero−Morales, Jorge Aguilar−Esteban, George Worthen, J. Isabel Martinez Abundiz, Emilio Galarza Banda, Narcisa Moreno Diaz, Bernardo Cedillo Duque, Jose Antonio Fabian Flores, Robert Mancilla Hernandez, Enrique Lopez Loredo, Cirilo Alvardo Mar, Jose Ricardo Zuniga Mar, Garcia Felizardo Martinez, Miguel Martinez Martinez, Leopoldo Barrios Ortega, Pedro Barrios Ortega, Ignacio Ibarra Ribera, Angel Mancilla Rodriguez, Sixto Mancilla Rodriguez, Fortunato Ortega Santos, Humberto Hernandez Galvan, Reyes Ramos Vazquez, Narciso Medina Reyes, Humberto Cepeda Rosas, Ada Linda Garcia Tenorio, Jose Hernandez−Hernandez, Pablo Medina−Reyes, Raul Escobar−Gonzalez (Kalk, Jacqueline) (Entered: 03/20/2009)
282 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE filed by Del Monte Fresh Produce (Southeast), Inc. Del Monte Fresh Produce (Southeast), Inc.'s First Request for Production of Documents to Eladio Cortez−Sanchez, Francisco Rojas, Uriel Patino−Corona, Aristeo Camacho−Grimaldo, Baltazar Diaz−Orozco, Carlos Martinez−Medina, Cesar Arturo Garcia−Sanchez, Jose Juan Martinez−Gallegos, Jose Victor Martinez−Mendez, Juan Albikno Juarez−Estrada, Loren Araceli Sierra−Gonzalez, Lazaro Nava−Osorio, Robert del Angel−Carrera, Teodoro Duque−Zuniga, Tomasa Hernandez−Coronado, Veota Khamlusa, Adolfo Gomez, George Allen, C.J. Mason, Hope Williams, Sandreka Madison, Rose Arias, Adolfo Roblero−Morales, Jorge Aguilar−Esteban, George Worthen, J. Isabel Martinez Abundiz, Emilio Galarza Banda, Narcisa Moreno Diaz,

Case: 1:06-cv-2000 As of: 08/13/2017 12:07 PM EDT 42 of 53

03/25/2009 03/25/2009 04/02/2009
04/06/2009 04/10/2009 04/10/2009 04/17/2009
05/04/2009 05/06/2009
05/07/2009 05/07/2009 05/07/2009 05/07/2009

Bernardo Cedillo Duque, Jose Antonio Fabian Flores, Robert Mancilla Hernandez, Enrique Lopez Loredo, Cirilo Alvardo Mar, Jose Ricardo Zuniga Mar, Garcia Felizardo Martinez, Miguel Martinez Martinez, Leopoldo Barrios Ortega, Pedro Barrios Ortega, Ignacio Ibarra Ribera, Angel Mancilla Rodriguez, Sixto Mancilla Rodriguez, Fortunato Ortega Santos, Humberto Hernandez Galvan, Reyes Ramos Vazquez, Narciso Medina Reyes, Humberto Cepeda Rosas, Ada Linda Garcia Tenorio, Jose Hernandez−Hernandez, Pablo Medina−Reyes, Raul Escobar−Gonzalez (Kalk, Jacqueline) (Entered: 03/20/2009)
283 STIPULATION Regarding Duration of Notice and Opt−in Period, Discovery Stay, and Scheduling by Hector Luna. (Turner, Andrew) (Entered: 03/25/2009)
284 Appeal notice from USCA GRANTING Motion for Extension of Time, to and including April 7, 2009, for filing Response to Motion for Permission to Appeal. Case appealed to USCA − 11th Circuit. USCA Case No. 09−90009−H. (kac) (Entered: 03/30/2009)
285 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 278 Clerk's Judgment and 277 Order on Motion to Alter Judgment, Order on Motion to Certify Class, Order on Motion to Vacate, Order on Motion for Protective Order by Fransciso Javier Lorenzo, Santos G. Maldonado, Patricia Woodard, Hector Luna, Julian Garcia, Santos Maldonado, Bartolo Nunez. Filing fee $455.00; Receipt Number GAN100010938. Transcript Order Form due on 4/16/2009 (Attachments: # 1 USCA Appeal fees)(kac) (Entered: 04/06/2009)
286 Transmission of Certified Copy of Notice of Appeal, Amended Judgment, Order and Docket Sheet to US Court of Appeals re: 285 Notice of Appeal. (kac) (Entered: 04/06/2009)
287 TRANSCRIPT ORDER FORM re: 285 Notice of Appeal. Certificate of Readiness due on 4/24/2009. (No hearing.)(kac) (Entered: 04/13/2009)
288 USCA Acknowledgment of 285 Notice of Appeal filed by Bartolo Nunez, Santos Maldonado, Patricia Woodard, Fransciso Javier Lorenzo, Santos G. Maldonado, Julian Garcia, Hector Luna. Case Appealed to USCA − 11th Circuit. USCA Case Number 09−11711−HH. (kac) (Entered: 04/13/2009)
291 FORTHWITH LETTER from USCA re: 285 Notice of Appeal filed by Bartolo Nunez, Santos Maldonado, Patricia Woodard, Fransciso Javier Lorenzo, Santos G. Maldonado, Julian Garcia, Hector Luna. Case Appealed to USCA − 11th Circuit. USCA Case Number 09−11711−HH. Appeal Record due by 5/1/2009. (kac) (Entered: 05/07/2009)
289 NOTICE Of Filing Consents to Sue by Hector Luna (Graunke, Kristi) (Entered: 05/04/2009)
292 SECOND FORTHWITH LETTER from USCA re: 285 Notice of Appeal filed by Bartolo Nunez, Santos Maldonado, Patricia Woodard, Fransciso Javier Lorenzo, Santos G. Maldonado, Julian Garcia, Hector Luna. Case Appealed to USCA − 11th Circuit. Case Number 09−11711−HH. Appeal Record due by 5/20/2009. (kac) (Entered: 05/07/2009)
CERTIFICATE OF READINESS of Record on Appeal re: 285 Notice of Appeal filed by Bartolo Nunez, Santos Maldonado, Patricia Woodard, Fransciso Javier Lorenzo, Santos G. Maldonado, Julian Garcia, Hector Luna. Case Appealed to USCA − 11th Circuit. USCA Case Number 09−11711−HH. (kac) (Entered: 05/07/2009)
290 Certified copy of CERTIFICATE OF READINESS of Record on Appeal transmitted to USCA re: 285 Notice of Appeal. Case Appealed to USCA − 11th Circuit. USCA Case Number 09−11711−HH. (kac) (Entered: 05/07/2009)
293 Certified and Transmitted Record on Appeal to US Court of Appeals re: 285 Notice of Appeal. Case Appealed to USCA − 11th Circuit. USCA Case Number 09−11711−HH. (kac) (Entered: 05/07/2009)
294 MOTION for Leave of Court to File Third Amended Complaint by Hector Luna. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Plaintiffs Third Amended Complaint)(Turner, Andrew) Modified on 5/11/2009 to correct docket text to accurately reflect e−filed pleading (gar). (Entered: 05/07/2009)

Case: 1:06-cv-2000 As of: 08/13/2017 12:07 PM EDT 43 of 53

05/07/2009 05/08/2009 05/08/2009 05/08/2009 05/08/2009 05/08/2009 05/08/2009 05/13/2009 05/13/2009 05/14/2009 05/15/2009
05/15/2009 05/22/2009 05/22/2009

295 MOTION for Joinder with Brief In Support by Hector Luna, Julian Garcia, Francisco Javier Lorenzo, Santos Maldonado, Patricia Woodard and Bartolo Nunez. (Attachments: # 1 Brief)(Turner, Andrew) Modified on 5/11/2009 to include all filers (gar). (Entered: 05/07/2009)
296 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Defendant's First Requests for Admission to Kathy Williams by Del Monte Fresh Produce (Southeast), Inc..(Bailey, Latesa) (Entered: 05/08/2009)
297 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Defendant's First Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff Kathy Williams by Del Monte Fresh Produce (Southeast), Inc..(Bailey, Latesa) (Entered: 05/08/2009)
298 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Defendant's First Request for Production of Documents to Plaintiff Kathy Williams by Del Monte Fresh Produce (Southeast), Inc..(Bailey, Latesa) (Entered: 05/08/2009)
299 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Defendant's First Requests For Admissions To Jamil Wright by Del Monte Fresh Produce (Southeast), Inc..(Bailey, Latesa) (Entered: 05/08/2009)
300 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Defendant's First Set Of Interrogatories To Plaintiff Jamil Wright by Del Monte Fresh Produce (Southeast), Inc..(Bailey, Latesa) (Entered: 05/08/2009)
301 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Defendant's First Requests For Production Of Documents To Plaintiff Jamil Wright by Del Monte Fresh Produce (Southeast), Inc..(Bailey, Latesa) (Entered: 05/08/2009)
303 USCA Acknowledgment of COR re: 285 Notice of Appeal filed by Bartolo Nunez, Santos Maldonado, Patricia Woodard, Fransciso Javier Lorenzo, Santos G. Maldonado, Julian Garcia, Hector Luna. Case Appealed to USCA − 11th Circuit. USCA Case Number 09−11711−HH. (kac) (Entered: 05/15/2009)
304 NOTICE of Docketing Record on Appeal from USCA re: 285 Notice of Appeal filed by Bartolo Nunez, Santos Maldonado, Patricia Woodard, Fransciso Javier Lorenzo, Santos G. Maldonado, Julian Garcia, Hector Luna. Case Appealed to USCA − 11th Circuit. USCA Case Number 09−11711−HH. (kac) (Entered: 05/15/2009)
302 MOTION to Intervene with Brief In Support. (Attachments: # 1 Brief)(Turner, Andrew) (Entered: 05/14/2009)
305 ORDER of USCA − 11th Circuit GRANTING the petition for permission to appeal pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.23(F). USCA Case No. 09−90009−H. (kac) (Additional attachment(s) added on 5/22/2009: # 1 Appeal Notice) (kac). (Additional attachment(s) added on 7/1/2009: # 2 Petition for Permission to Appeal, # 3 Exhibit A, # 4 Exhibits B, C and D − Part 1, # 5 Exhibits B, C and D − Part II, # 6 Exhibits B, C and D − Part III, # 7 Exhibits B, C and D − Part IV, # 8 Exhibits B, C and D − Part V, # 9 Exhibits B, C and D − Part VI) (kac). (Entered: 05/22/2009)
306 ORDER of USCA − 11th Circuit GRANTING Respondent's motion for leave to file exhibits under seal. USCA Case No. 09−90009−H. (kac) (Entered: 05/22/2009)
307 RESPONSE in Opposition re 295 MOTION for Joinder, 294 MOTION for Leave of Court to File Third Amended Complaint filed by Del Monte Fresh Produce (Southeast), Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Reese, Kelly) (Entered: 05/22/2009)
308 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 278 Amended Clerk's Judgment and 277 Order on Motion to Alter Judgment, Order on Motion to Certify Class, Order on Motion to Vacate, Order on Motion for Protective Order by Fransciso Javier Lorenzo, Santos G. Maldonado, Patricia Woodard, Hector Luna, Julian Garcia, Adolfo Roblero−Morales, Ada Linda Garcia−Tenorio, Aristeo Camacho−Grimaldo, Baltazar Diaz−Orozco, Bernardo Cedillo−Duque, Carlos Martinez−Medina, Cesar Arturo Garcia−Sanchez, Cirilo Alvarado−Mar, Eladio Cortez−Sanchez, Felizardo Garcia−Martinez, Enrique Lopez−Loredo, Fortunato Ortega−Santes, Francisco Beltran−Rojas, Humberto Cepeda−Rosas, Humberto Hernandez−Galvan, Ignacio Ibarra−Rivera, J. Isabel Martinez−Abundiz, Jorge Aguilar−Esteban, Jose Hernandez−Hernandez, Jose Juan

Case: 1:06-cv-2000 As of: 08/13/2017 12:07 PM EDT 44 of 53

05/27/2009 06/01/2009 06/01/2009 06/01/2009 06/01/2009 06/01/2009 06/01/2009
06/01/2009 06/03/2009

Martinez−Gallegos, Jose Ricardo Zuniga−Mar, Juan Albino Juarez−Estrada, Lazaro Nava−Osorio, Leopoldo Barrios−Ortega, Miguel Martinez−Martinez, Narcisa Moreno−Diaz, Narciso Medina−Reyes, Pablo Medina−Reyes, Pedro Barrios−Ortega, Raul Escobar−Gonzalez, Reyes Ramos−Vasquez, Roberto Del Angel−Carrera, Roberto Mancilla−Hernandez, Sixto Mancilla−Rodriguez, Teodoro Duque−Zuniga, Tomasa Hernandez−Coronado, Uriel Patino−Corona, Adolfo Gomez, C.J. Mason, George Allen, George Worthen, Hope Williams, Jamil Wright, Kathy Williams, Rosa Arias, Sandreka Madison, Veota Khamlusa, Jose Fabian−Flores, Angel Mancilla−Rodriguez, Jose Victor Martinez−Mendez, Lorena Araceli Sierra Gonzalez, Bartolo Nunez. Filing fee $ 455.00, receipt number GAN100012643. Transcript Order Form due on 6/8/2009 (Attachments: # 1 USCA Appeal fees)(kac) (Entered: 05/27/2009)
309 Transmission of Certified Copy of Notice of Appeal, Amended Judgment, Order and Docket Sheet to US Court of Appeals re: 308 Notice of Appeal. (kac) (Entered: 05/27/2009)
310 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE filed by Hector Luna Plaintiffs' First Merits−Related Requests for Production (Graunke, Kristi) (Entered: 06/01/2009)
311 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE filed by Hector Luna Plaintiffs' First Merits−Related Interrogatories (Graunke, Kristi) (Entered: 06/01/2009)
312 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 302 MOTION to Intervene filed by Del Monte Fresh Produce (Southeast), Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Strawn, Bradley) Modified on 6/3/2009 to accurately reflect e−filed pleading (fap). (Entered: 06/01/2009)
313 Emergency MOTION for Entry of Judgment under Rule 54(b) with Brief In Support by Hector Luna. (Attachments: # 1 Brief, # 2 Text of Proposed Order, # 3 Exhibit Pl Ex 1, # 4 Exhibit Pl Ex 2, # 5 Exhibit Pl Ex 3)(Turner, Andrew) (Entered: 06/01/2009)
314 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE filed by Hector Luna Plaintiffs' First Merits−Related Requests for Admission (Graunke, Kristi) (Entered: 06/01/2009)
315 USCA Acknowledgment of 308 Notice of Appeal filed by Reyes Ramos−Vasquez, Fortunato Ortega−Santes, Jose Victor Martinez−Mendez, Jose Juan Martinez−Gallegos, Sandreka Madison, Jose Fabian−Flores, Jose Ricardo Zuniga−Mar, Angel Mancilla−Rodriguez, Humberto Hernandez−Galvan, Adolfo Roblero−Morales, Narciso Medina−Reyes, Hope Williams, Ada Linda Garcia−Tenorio, Patricia Woodard, Hector Luna, Julian Garcia, Jamil Wright, Juan Albino Juarez−Estrada, Pedro Barrios−Ortega, Teodoro Duque−Zuniga, Felizardo Garcia−Martinez, Santos G. Maldonado, Roberto Del Angel−Carrera, Ignacio Ibarra−Rivera, Rosa Arias, Bartolo Nunez, Aristeo Camacho−Grimaldo, Roberto Mancilla−Hernandez, Lazaro Nava−Osorio, Uriel Patino−Corona, Baltazar Diaz−Orozco, Bernardo Cedillo−Duque, Kathy Williams, Eladio Cortez−Sanchez, Fransciso Javier Lorenzo, Veota Khamlusa, Lorena Araceli Sierra Gonzalez, George Allen, Francisco Beltran−Rojas, Pablo Medina−Reyes, George Worthen, Jose Hernandez−Hernandez, Narcisa Moreno−Diaz, Carlos Martinez−Medina, Sixto Mancilla−Rodriguez, Enrique Lopez−Loredo, Jorge Aguilar−Esteban, Humberto Cepeda−Rosas, J. Isabel Martinez−Abundiz, Raul Escobar−Gonzalez, C.J. Mason, Miguel Martinez−Martinez, Tomasa Hernandez−Coronado, Adolfo Gomez, Leopoldo Barrios−Ortega, Cirilo Alvarado−Mar, Cesar Arturo Garcia−Sanchez. Case Appealed to USCA − 11th Circuit. USCA Case Number 09−12464−H. (kac) (Entered: 06/02/2009)
316 Certified copy of ORDER of USCA GRANTING Appellant's Motion for Voluntary Dismissal re: 285 Notice of Appeal filed by Bartolo Nunez, Santos Maldonado, Patricia Woodard, Fransciso Javier Lorenzo, Santos G. Maldonado, Julian Garcia, Hector Luna. Case Appealed to USCA − 11th Circuit. USCA Case Number 09−11711−HH. (kac) (Entered: 06/02/2009)
317 TRANSCRIPT ORDER FORM (No Hrgs) re: 308 Notice of Appeal. Case Appealed to USCA−11th Circuit. Case Number 09−12464−H. Certificate of Readiness due on 6/17/2009. (pjm) (Entered: 06/04/2009)

Case: 1:06-cv-2000 As of: 08/13/2017 12:07 PM EDT 45 of 53

06/04/2009 06/06/2009 06/10/2009 06/11/2009 06/12/2009 06/12/2009
06/15/2009 06/15/2009 06/15/2009
06/16/2009

318 REPLY BRIEF re 295 MOTION for Joinder filed by Fransciso Javier Lorenzo, Santos G. Maldonado, Patricia Woodard, Hector Luna, Julian Garcia, Bartolo Nunez. (Turner, Andrew) (Entered: 06/04/2009)
319 MOTION for Protective Order Limiting Discovery From Opt−in Plaintiffs with Brief In Support by Hector Luna. (Attachments: # 1 Brief, # 2 Exhibit Pl Ex 1, # 3 Exhibit Pl Ex 2, # 4 Exhibit Pl Ex 3, # 5 Exhibit Pl Ex 4, # 6 Exhibit Pl Ex 5)(Turner, Andrew) (Entered: 06/06/2009)
320 RESPONSE re 313 Emergency MOTION for Entry of Judgment under Rule 54(b) filed by Del Monte Fresh Produce (Southeast), Inc., Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A., Inc.. (Strawn, Bradley) (Entered: 06/10/2009)
322 Appeal Record Returned re: 285 Notice of Appeal. Case Appealed to USCA − 11th Circuit. USCA Case Number 09−11711−HH. (kac) (Entered: 06/12/2009)
321 REPLY BRIEF re 302 MOTION to Intervene Movants' Reply in Support of Motion to Intervene filed by Hector Luna. (Graunke, Kristi) (Entered: 06/12/2009)
323 ORDER GRANTING 313 Emergency Motion for Entry of Judgment under Rule 54(b) as to the dismissal of their claims against Del Monte Fresh Produce, N.A. The parties agree, and the Court expressly finds, that there is no just reason for delay in entering final judgment as to the claims against DMNA. Accordingly, plaintiffs' Emergency Motion for Entry of Final Judgment 313 as to the claims against DMNA is GRANTED. The Clerk entered judgment on the claims against DMNA on March 3, 2009. (Judgment 278 .) The Court now clarifies that the judgment 278 is a final judgment pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Signed by Judge Julie E. Carnes on 06/12/09. (fap) (Entered: 06/12/2009)
Submission of 295 MOTION for Joinder, 294 MOTION for Leave of Court to File Third Amended Complaint, submitted to District Judge Julie E. Carnes. (fap) (Entered: 06/15/2009)
Submission of 302 MOTION to Intervene, submitted to District Judge Julie E. Carnes. (FILE IN CHAMBERS) (fap) (Entered: 06/15/2009)
324 Forwarded certified copy of Order GRANTING Plaintiffs−Appellants Emergency Motion for Entry of Judgment under Rule (b) and docket sheets to USCA re: 308 Notice of Appeal filed by Reyes Ramos−Vasquez, Fortunato Ortega−Santes, Jose Victor Martinez−Mendez, Jose Juan Martinez−Gallegos, Sandreka Madison, Jose Fabian−Flores, Jose Ricardo Zuniga−Mar, Angel Mancilla−Rodriguez, Humberto Hernandez−Galvan, Adolfo Roblero−Morales, Narciso Medina−Reyes, Hope Williams, Ada Linda Garcia−Tenorio, Patricia Woodard, Hector Luna, Julian Garcia, Jamil Wright, Juan Albino Juarez−Estrada, Pedro Barrios−Ortega, Teodoro Duque−Zuniga, Felizardo Garcia−Martinez, Santos G. Maldonado, Roberto Del Angel−Carrera, Ignacio Ibarra−Rivera, Rosa Arias, Bartolo Nunez, Aristeo Camacho−Grimaldo, Roberto Mancilla−Hernandez, Lazaro Nava−Osorio, Uriel Patino−Corona, Baltazar Diaz−Orozco, Bernardo Cedillo−Duque, Kathy Williams, Eladio Cortez−Sanchez, Fransciso Javier Lorenzo, Veota Khamlusa, Lorena Araceli Sierra Gonzalez, George Allen, Francisco Beltran−Rojas, Pablo Medina−Reyes, George Worthen, Jose Hernandez−Hernandez, Narcisa Moreno−Diaz, Carlos Martinez−Medina, Sixto Mancilla−Rodriguez, Enrique Lopez−Loredo, Jorge Aguilar−Esteban, Humberto Cepeda−Rosas, J. Isabel Martinez−Abundiz, Raul Escobar−Gonzalez, C.J. Mason, Miguel Martinez−Martinez, Tomasa Hernandez−Coronado, Adolfo Gomez, Leopoldo Barrios−Ortega, Cirilo Alvarado−Mar, Cesar Arturo Garcia−Sanchez. Case Appealed to USCA − 11th Circuit. USCA Case Number 09−12464−H. (kac) (Entered: 06/15/2009)
CERTIFICATE OF READINESS of Record on Appeal re: 308 Notice of Appeal filed by Reyes Ramos−Vasquez, Fortunato Ortega−Santes, Jose Victor Martinez−Mendez, Jose Juan Martinez−Gallegos, Sandreka Madison, Jose Fabian−Flores, Jose Ricardo Zuniga−Mar, Angel Mancilla−Rodriguez, Humberto Hernandez−Galvan, Adolfo Roblero−Morales, Narciso Medina−Reyes, Hope Williams, Ada Linda Garcia−Tenorio, Patricia Woodard, Hector Luna, Julian Garcia, Jamil Wright, Juan Albino Juarez−Estrada, Pedro Barrios−Ortega, Teodoro Duque−Zuniga, Felizardo Garcia−Martinez, Santos G. Maldonado, Roberto Del Angel−Carrera, Ignacio Ibarra−Rivera, Rosa Arias, Bartolo Nunez, Aristeo Camacho−Grimaldo, Roberto

Case: 1:06-cv-2000 As of: 08/13/2017 12:07 PM EDT 46 of 53

06/16/2009 06/16/2009 06/19/2009
06/19/2009
06/22/2009

Mancilla−Hernandez, Lazaro Nava−Osorio, Uriel Patino−Corona, Baltazar Diaz−Orozco, Bernardo Cedillo−Duque, Kathy Williams, Eladio Cortez−Sanchez, Fransciso Javier Lorenzo, Veota Khamlusa, Lorena Araceli Sierra Gonzalez, George Allen, Francisco Beltran−Rojas, Pablo Medina−Reyes, George Worthen, Jose Hernandez−Hernandez, Narcisa Moreno−Diaz, Carlos Martinez−Medina, Sixto Mancilla−Rodriguez, Enrique Lopez−Loredo, Jorge Aguilar−Esteban, Humberto Cepeda−Rosas, J. Isabel Martinez−Abundiz, Raul Escobar−Gonzalez, C.J. Mason, Miguel Martinez−Martinez, Tomasa Hernandez−Coronado, Adolfo Gomez, Leopoldo Barrios−Ortega, Cirilo Alvarado−Mar, Cesar Arturo Garcia−Sanchez. Case Appealed to USCA − 11th Circuit. USCA Case Number 09−12464−HH. (kac) (Entered: 06/16/2009)
325 Certified copy of CERTIFICATE OF READINESS of Record on Appeal transmitted to USCA re: 308 Notice of Appeal. Case Appealed to USCA − 11th Circuit. USCA Case Number 09−12464−HH. (kac) (Entered: 06/16/2009)
326 NOTICE Of Filing Consents to Sue by Hector Luna (Graunke, Kristi) (Entered: 06/16/2009)
327 USCA Acknowledgment of Order GRANTING Plaintiff−Appellants Emergency Motion for Entry of JUdgment under RUle 54(b) and docket sheets re: 308 Notice of Appeal filed by Reyes Ramos−Vasquez, Fortunato Ortega−Santes, Jose Victor Martinez−Mendez, Jose Juan Martinez−Gallegos, Sandreka Madison, Jose Fabian−Flores, Jose Ricardo Zuniga−Mar, Angel Mancilla−Rodriguez, Humberto Hernandez−Galvan, Adolfo Roblero−Morales, Narciso Medina−Reyes, Hope Williams, Ada Linda Garcia−Tenorio, Patricia Woodard, Hector Luna, Julian Garcia, Jamil Wright, Juan Albino Juarez−Estrada, Pedro Barrios−Ortega, Teodoro Duque−Zuniga, Felizardo Garcia−Martinez, Santos G. Maldonado, Roberto Del Angel−Carrera, Ignacio Ibarra−Rivera, Rosa Arias, Bartolo Nunez, Aristeo Camacho−Grimaldo, Roberto Mancilla−Hernandez, Lazaro Nava−Osorio, Uriel Patino−Corona, Baltazar Diaz−Orozco, Bernardo Cedillo−Duque, Kathy Williams, Eladio Cortez−Sanchez, Fransciso Javier Lorenzo, Veota Khamlusa, Lorena Araceli Sierra Gonzalez, George Allen, Francisco Beltran−Rojas, Pablo Medina−Reyes, George Worthen, Jose Hernandez−Hernandez, Narcisa Moreno−Diaz, Carlos Martinez−Medina, Sixto Mancilla−Rodriguez, Enrique Lopez−Loredo, Jorge Aguilar−Esteban, Humberto Cepeda−Rosas, J. Isabel Martinez−Abundiz, Raul Escobar−Gonzalez, C.J. Mason, Miguel Martinez−Martinez, Tomasa Hernandez−Coronado, Adolfo Gomez, Leopoldo Barrios−Ortega, Cirilo Alvarado−Mar, Cesar Arturo Garcia−Sanchez. Case Appealed to USCA − 11th Circuit. USCA Case Number 09−12464−HH. (kac) (Entered: 06/22/2009)
328 USCA Acknowledgment of COR re: 308 Notice of Appeal filed by Reyes Ramos−Vasquez, Fortunato Ortega−Santes, Jose Victor Martinez−Mendez, Jose Juan Martinez−Gallegos, Sandreka Madison, Jose Fabian−Flores, Jose Ricardo Zuniga−Mar, Angel Mancilla−Rodriguez, Humberto Hernandez−Galvan, Adolfo Roblero−Morales, Narciso Medina−Reyes, Hope Williams, Ada Linda Garcia−Tenorio, Patricia Woodard, Hector Luna, Julian Garcia, Jamil Wright, Juan Albino Juarez−Estrada, Pedro Barrios−Ortega, Teodoro Duque−Zuniga, Felizardo Garcia−Martinez, Santos G. Maldonado, Roberto Del Angel−Carrera, Ignacio Ibarra−Rivera, Rosa Arias, Bartolo Nunez, Aristeo Camacho−Grimaldo, Roberto Mancilla−Hernandez, Lazaro Nava−Osorio, Uriel Patino−Corona, Baltazar Diaz−Orozco, Bernardo Cedillo−Duque, Kathy Williams, Eladio Cortez−Sanchez, Fransciso Javier Lorenzo, Veota Khamlusa, Lorena Araceli Sierra Gonzalez, George Allen, Francisco Beltran−Rojas, Pablo Medina−Reyes, George Worthen, Jose Hernandez−Hernandez, Narcisa Moreno−Diaz, Carlos Martinez−Medina, Sixto Mancilla−Rodriguez, Enrique Lopez−Loredo, Jorge Aguilar−Esteban, Humberto Cepeda−Rosas, J. Isabel Martinez−Abundiz, Raul Escobar−Gonzalez, C.J. Mason, Miguel Martinez−Martinez, Tomasa Hernandez−Coronado, Adolfo Gomez, Leopoldo Barrios−Ortega, Cirilo Alvarado−Mar, Cesar Arturo Garcia−Sanchez. Case Appealed to USCA − 11th Circuit. USCA Case Number 09−12464−HH. (kac) (Entered: 06/22/2009)
329 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Opposition re 319 MOTION for Protective Order Limiting Discovery From Opt−in Plaintiffs filed by Del Monte Fresh Produce (Southeast), Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, Part 1, # 4 Exhibit C, Part 2, # 5 Exhibit C, Part 3, # 6 Exhibit C, Part 4)(Reese, Kelly) Modified

Case: 1:06-cv-2000 As of: 08/13/2017 12:07 PM EDT 47 of 53

06/26/2009 06/26/2009 06/26/2009 06/26/2009 06/26/2009 06/26/2009 06/26/2009 06/26/2009 06/26/2009 06/26/2009 06/26/2009
06/26/2009
06/29/2009
07/01/2009 07/01/2009 07/01/2009

on 6/23/2009 to accurately reflect e−filed pleading (fap). (Entered: 06/22/2009)
330 NOTICE Of Filing Original Deposition Transcripts by Del Monte Fresh Produce (Southeast), Inc. (Strawn, Bradley) (Entered: 06/26/2009)
331 DEPOSITION of FRANCISCO JAVIER LORENZO PEREZ taken on 11/20/06 by Del Monte Fresh Produce (Southeast), Inc..(fap) (Entered: 06/29/2009)
332 DEPOSITION of SANTOS MALDONADO taken on 12/04/06 by Del Monte Fresh Produce (Southeast), Inc..(fap) (Entered: 06/29/2009)
333 DEPOSITION of PATRICIA WOODARD taken on 12/189/06 by Del Monte Fresh Produce (Southeast), Inc..(fap) (Entered: 06/29/2009)
334 DEPOSITION of ROSA ARIAS taken on 03/05/07 by Del Monte Fresh Produce (Southeast), Inc..(fap) (Entered: 06/29/2009)
335 DEPOSITION of GEORGE ALLEN, JR. taken on 06/06/07 by Del Monte Fresh Produce (Southeast), Inc..(fap) (Entered: 06/29/2009)
336 DEPOSITION of SANDREKA MADISON taken on 04/23/07 by Del Monte Fresh Produce (Southeast), Inc..(fap) (Entered: 06/29/2009)
337 DEPOSITION of D. J. MASON taken on 04/23/07 by Del Monte Fresh Produce (Southeast), Inc..(fap) (Entered: 06/29/2009)
338 DEPOSITION of ARISTEO CAMACHO−GRIMALDO taken on 05/14/07 by Del Monte Fresh Produce (Southeast), Inc..(fap) (Entered: 06/29/2009)
339 DEPOSITION of ADOLFO GOMEZ taken on 06/07/07 by Del Monte Fresh Produce (Southeast), Inc..(fap) (Entered: 06/29/2009)
340 (FILED UNDER SEAL) Confidential Portion of DEPOSITION of GEORGE ALLEN, JR. taken on 06/06/07 by Del Monte Fresh Produce (Southeast), Inc..(fap) (fap). Modified on 6/29/2009 (fap). (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/17/2011: # 1 DEPOSITION) (kdw). (Entered: 06/29/2009)
341 (FILED UNDER SEAL) Confidential Testimony of DEPOSITION of ADOLFO GOMEZ taken on 06/07/07 by Del Monte Fresh Produce (Southeast), Inc..(fap) (fap). Modified on 6/29/2009 (fap). (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/17/2011: # 1 DEPOSITION) (kdw). (Entered: 06/29/2009)
342 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 323 Order on Motion for Entry of Judgment under Rule 54(b), Order on Motion for Entry of Judgment under Rule 54(b), Order on Motion for Entry of Judgment under Rule 54(b), 278 Clerk's Judgment, 279 Costs Re−Taxed, 277 Order on Motion to Alter Judgment, Order on Motion to Certify Class, Order on Motion to Vacate, Order on Motion for Protective Order, 232 Clerk's Judgment and 231 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment, Order on Motion to Strike, Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, Order on Motion to Withdraw as Attorney by Fransciso Javier Lorenzo, Santos G. Maldonado, Patricia Woodard, Hector Luna, Julian Garcia, Cesar Arturo Garcia−Sanchez, Ignacio Ibarra−Rivera, Reyes Ramos−Vasquez, Bartolo Nunez. Filing fee $455.00; Receipt Number GAN100013795. Transcript Order Form due on 7/14/2009. (Attachments: # 1 Appeal Fees)(kac) Modified on 7/1/2009 to include document relationship (kac). (Entered: 07/01/2009)
343 NOTICE OF REQUIREMENT TO FILE ELECTRONICALLY pursuant to Standing Order 04−01 as to Kristi L. Graunke re: 342 Notice of Appeal. (kac) (Entered: 07/01/2009)
344 Transmission of Certified Copy of Notice of Appeal, Judgment, Amended Judgment, Orders and Docket Sheet to US Court of Appeals re: 342 Notice of Appeal. (kac) (Entered: 07/01/2009)
345 MOTION for Protective Order with Brief In Support by Del Monte Fresh Produce (Southeast), Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Brief Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion, # 2 Exhibit A, part 1, # 3 Exhibit A, part 2, # 4 Exhibit A, part 3, # 5 Exhibit A, part 4, # 6 Exhibit B, # 7 Exhibit C)(Reese, Kelly) (Entered: 07/01/2009)

Case: 1:06-cv-2000 As of: 08/13/2017 12:07 PM EDT 48 of 53

07/06/2009 07/07/2009 07/07/2009 07/10/2009
07/13/2009 07/16/2009 07/16/2009 07/16/2009 07/21/2009 07/23/2009 07/27/2009 07/31/2009
07/31/2009 07/31/2009 08/03/2009
08/03/2009

346 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time File Reply Brief re: 319 MOTION for Protective Order Limiting Discovery From Opt−in Plaintiffs by Hector Luna. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Turner, Andrew) (Entered: 07/06/2009)
347 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE filed by Hector Luna Responses to Defendant's First Interrogatories to Adolfo Gomez, Sandreka Madison, C.J. Mason, George Allen and Rosa Arias (Turner, Andrew) (Entered: 07/07/2009)
348 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE filed by Hector Luna Responses to Defendant's First Requests for Admission to Adolfo Gomez, Sandreka Madison, C.J. Mason, George Allen, Rosa Arias and Aristeo Camacho−Grimaldo (Turner, Andrew) (Entered: 07/07/2009)
349 USCA Acknowledgment of 342 Notice of Appeal filed by Reyes Ramos−Vasquez, Ignacio Ibarra−Rivera, Bartolo Nunez, Patricia Woodard, Fransciso Javier Lorenzo, Cesar Arturo Garcia−Sanchez, Santos G. Maldonado, Julian Garcia and Hector Luna. Case Appealed to USCA−11th Circuit. Case Number 09−13334−HH. (pjm) (Entered: 07/13/2009)
350 TRANSCRIPT ORDER FORM re: 342 Notice of Appeal. Case Appealed to USCA − 11th Circuit. USCA Case Number 09−13334−HH. Certificate of Readiness due on 07/27/2009. (No hearing)(kac) (Entered: 07/15/2009)
351 Withdrawal of Motion 345 MOTION for Protective Order filed by Del Monte Fresh Produce (Southeast), Inc. filed by Del Monte Fresh Produce (Southeast), Inc.. (Strawn, Bradley) (Entered: 07/16/2009)
352 STIPULATION Regarding Discovery Issues by Del Monte Fresh Produce (Southeast), Inc.. (Strawn, Bradley) (Entered: 07/16/2009)
353 REPLY BRIEF re 319 MOTION for Protective Order Limiting Discovery From Opt−in Plaintiffs filed by Hector Luna. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit PL Ex 1 − E−mail Corresp, # 2 Exhibit PL Ex 2 − St Dept Advisory, # 3 Exhibit Pl Ex 3 − Receipt, # 4 Exhibit Pl Ex 4 − Receipt)(Turner, Andrew) (Entered: 07/16/2009)
Submission of 319 MOTION for Protective Order Limiting Discovery From Opt−in Plaintiffs, submitted to District Judge Julie E. Carnes. (FILE IN CHAMBERS) (fap) (Entered: 07/21/2009)
354 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Notice of Service of Discovery Materials by Del Monte Fresh Produce (Southeast), Inc..(Strawn, Bradley) (Entered: 07/23/2009)
Submission of 346 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time File Reply Brief re: 319 MOTION for Protective Order Limiting Discovery From Opt−in Plaintiffs, submitted to District Judge Julie E. Carnes. (FILE IN CHAMBERS) (fap) (Entered: 07/27/2009)
CERTIFICATE OF READINESS of Record on Appeal re: 342 Notice of Appeal filed by Reyes Ramos−Vasquez, Ignacio Ibarra−Rivera, Bartolo Nunez, Patricia Woodard, Fransciso Javier Lorenzo, Cesar Arturo Garcia−Sanchez, Santos G. Maldonado, Julian Garcia, Hector Luna. Case Appealed to USCA − 11th Circuit. USCA Case Number 09−13334−HH. (kac) (Entered: 07/31/2009)
355 Certified copy of CERTIFICATE OF READINESS of Record on Appeal transmitted to USCA re: 342 Notice of Appeal. Case Appealed to USCA − 11th Circuit. USCA Case Number 09−13334−HH. (kac) (Entered: 07/31/2009)
356 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Discovery Materials by Del Monte Fresh Produce (Southeast), Inc..(Strawn, Bradley) (Entered: 07/31/2009)
357 −−−DOCUMENT FILING ERROR−−− ORDER granting 346 Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to respond to file a reply brief to 319 MOTION for Protective Order. The Court GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion. Plaintiffs may file a reply brief in support of their Motion for Protective Order limiting Discovery from Opt−In Plaintiffs on or before Thursday, July 16, 2009.. Signed by Judge Julie E. Carnes on 07/31/09. (fap) Modified on 8/3/2009 Wrong PDF Attached (fap). (Entered: 08/03/2009)
Notification of Docket Correction re 357 Order on Motion for Extension of Time. Wrong PDF attached to Document. (fap) (Entered: 08/03/2009)

Case: 1:06-cv-2000 As of: 08/13/2017 12:07 PM EDT 49 of 53

08/03/2009 08/03/2009 08/03/2009
08/06/2009 08/12/2009 08/14/2009
09/03/2009

358 ORDER granting 346 Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to respond to file a reply brief to 319 MOTION for Protective Order. The Court GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion. Plaintiffs may file a reply brief in support of their Motion for Protective Order limiting Discovery from Opt−In Plaintiffs on or before Thursday, July 16, 2009. Signed by Judge Julie E. Carnes on 07/31/09. (fap) (Entered: 08/03/2009)
359 ORDER Approving 352 Stipulation Regarding Discovery Issues. Signed by Judge Julie E. Carnes on 07/31/09. (fap) (Entered: 08/03/2009)
361 FORTHWITH LETTER from USCA re: 308 Notice of Appeal filed by Reyes Ramos−Vasquez, Fortunato Ortega−Santes, Jose Victor Martinez−Mendez, Jose Juan Martinez−Gallegos, Sandreka Madison, Jose Fabian−Flores, Jose Ricardo Zuniga−Mar, Angel Mancilla−Rodriguez, Humberto Hernandez−Galvan, Adolfo Roblero−Morales, Narciso Medina−Reyes, Hope Williams, Ada Linda Garcia−Tenorio, Patricia Woodard, Hector Luna, Julian Garcia, Jamil Wright, Juan Albino Juarez−Estrada, Pedro Barrios−Ortega, Teodoro Duque−Zuniga, Felizardo Garcia−Martinez, Santos G. Maldonado, Roberto Del Angel−Carrera, Ignacio Ibarra−Rivera, Rosa Arias, Bartolo Nunez, Aristeo Camacho−Grimaldo, Roberto Mancilla−Hernandez, Lazaro Nava−Osorio, Uriel Patino−Corona, Baltazar Diaz−Orozco, Bernardo Cedillo−Duque, Kathy Williams, Eladio Cortez−Sanchez, Fransciso Javier Lorenzo, Veota Khamlusa, Lorena Araceli Sierra Gonzalez, George Allen, Francisco Beltran−Rojas, Pablo Medina−Reyes, George Worthen, Jose Hernandez−Hernandez, Narcisa Moreno−Diaz, Carlos Martinez−Medina, Sixto Mancilla−Rodriguez, Enrique Lopez−Loredo, Jorge Aguilar−Esteban, Humberto Cepeda−Rosas, J. Isabel Martinez−Abundiz, Raul Escobar−Gonzalez, C.J. Mason, Miguel Martinez−Martinez, Tomasa Hernandez−Coronado, Adolfo Gomez, Leopoldo Barrios−Ortega, Cirilo Alvarado−Mar, Cesar Arturo Garcia−Sanchez. Case Appealed to USCA − 11th Circuit. USCA Case Number 09−12464−HH. Appeal Record due by 8/17/2009. (kac) (Entered: 08/12/2009)
360 NOTICE Of Filing Consents to Sue by Hector Luna (Graunke, Kristi) (Entered: 08/06/2009)
362 Certified and Transmitted Record on Appeal to US Court of Appeals re: 308 Notice of Appeal. Case Appealed to USCA − 11th Circuit. USCA Case Number 09−12464−HH. (kac) (Entered: 08/12/2009)
363 NOTICE of Docketing Record on Appeal from USCA re: 308 Notice of Appeal filed by Reyes Ramos−Vasquez, Fortunato Ortega−Santes, Jose Victor Martinez−Mendez, Jose Juan Martinez−Gallegos, Sandreka Madison, Jose Fabian−Flores, Jose Ricardo Zuniga−Mar, Angel Mancilla−Rodriguez, Humberto Hernandez−Galvan, Adolfo Roblero−Morales, Narciso Medina−Reyes, Hope Williams, Ada Linda Garcia−Tenorio, Patricia Woodard, Hector Luna, Julian Garcia, Jamil Wright, Juan Albino Juarez−Estrada, Pedro Barrios−Ortega, Teodoro Duque−Zuniga, Felizardo Garcia−Martinez, Santos G. Maldonado, Roberto Del Angel−Carrera, Ignacio Ibarra−Rivera, Rosa Arias, Bartolo Nunez, Aristeo Camacho−Grimaldo, Roberto Mancilla−Hernandez, Lazaro Nava−Osorio, Uriel Patino−Corona, Baltazar Diaz−Orozco, Bernardo Cedillo−Duque, Kathy Williams, Eladio Cortez−Sanchez, Fransciso Javier Lorenzo, Veota Khamlusa, Lorena Araceli Sierra Gonzalez, George Allen, Francisco Beltran−Rojas, Pablo Medina−Reyes, George Worthen, Jose Hernandez−Hernandez, Narcisa Moreno−Diaz, Carlos Martinez−Medina, Sixto Mancilla−Rodriguez, Enrique Lopez−Loredo, Jorge Aguilar−Esteban, Humberto Cepeda−Rosas, J. Isabel Martinez−Abundiz, Raul Escobar−Gonzalez, C.J. Mason, Miguel Martinez−Martinez, Tomasa Hernandez−Coronado, Adolfo Gomez, Leopoldo Barrios−Ortega, Cirilo Alvarado−Mar, Cesar Arturo Garcia−Sanchez. Case Appealed to USCA − 11th Circuit. USCA Case Number 09−12464−HH. (kac) (Entered: 08/18/2009)
364 NOTICE of Appearance by Daniel Werner on behalf of Fransciso Javier Lorenzo, Santos G. Maldonado, Patricia Woodard, Hector Luna, Julian Garcia, Adolfo Roblero−Morales, Angel Mancilla, Aristeo Camacho−Grimaldo, Baltazar Diaz−Orozco, Bernardo Cedillo−Duque, Carlos Martinez−Medina, Cesar Arturo Garcia−Sanchez, Cirilo Alvarado−Mar, Eladio Cortez−Sanchez, Emilio Galarza−Banda, Felizardo Garcia−Martinez, Enrique Lopez−Loredo, Fortunato Ortega−Santes, Francisco Beltran−Rojas, Humberto Cepeda−Rosas, Humberto Hernandez−Galvan, Ignacio Ibarra−Rivera, J. Isabel Martinez−Abundiz, Jorge

Case: 1:06-cv-2000 As of: 08/13/2017 12:07 PM EDT 50 of 53

10/14/2009
10/16/2009 10/16/2009 10/21/2009
11/04/2009 11/16/2009 11/16/2009 11/25/2009 11/25/2009 11/25/2009 12/02/2009 12/04/2009 12/10/2009

Aguilar−Esteban, Jose Antonio Fabian−Flores, Jose Hernandez−Hernandez, Jose Juan Martinez−Gallegos, Jose Ricardo Zuniga−Mar, Jose Victor Martinez, Juan Albino Juarez−Estrada, Lazaro Nava−Osorio, Leopoldo Barrios−Ortega, Lorena Sierra−Gonzalez, Miguel Martinez−Martinez, Narcisa Moreno−Diaz, Narciso Medina−Reyes, Pablo Medina−Reyes, Pedro Barrios−Ortega, Raul Escobar−Gonzalez, Reyes Ramos−Vasquez, Roberto Del Angel−Carrera, Roberto Mancilla−Hernandez, Sixto Mancilla−Rodriguez, Teodoro Duque−Zuniga, Tomasa Hernandez−Coronado, Uriel Patino−Corona, Adolfo Gomez, C.J. Mason, George Allen, George Worthen, Hope Williams, Jamil Wright, Kathy Williams, Rosa Arias, Sandreka Madison, Veota Khamlusa, Jose Fabian−Flores, Angel Mancilla−Rodriguez, Jose Victor Martinez−Mendez, Lorena Araceli Sierra Gonzalez, Bartolo Nunez (Werner, Daniel) (Entered: 09/03/2009)
365 FORTHWITH LETTER from USCA re: 342 Notice of Appeal filed by Reyes Ramos−Vasquez, Ignacio Ibarra−Rivera, Bartolo Nunez, Patricia Woodard, Fransciso Javier Lorenzo, Cesar Arturo Garcia−Sanchez, Santos G. Maldonado, Julian Garcia, Hector Luna. Case Appealed to USCA − 11th Circuit. USCA Case Number 09−13334−HH. Appeal Record due by 10/28/2009. (kac) (Entered: 10/16/2009)
366 Certified and Transmitted Record on Appeal to US Court of Appeals re: 342 Notice of Appeal. Case Appealed to USCA − 11th Circuit. USCA Case Number 09−13334−HH. (kac) (Additional attachment(s) added on 10/16/2009: # 1 ROA Trans Ltr) (kac). (Entered: 10/16/2009)
Notification of Docket Correction 366 Appeal Record Sent to USCA. Corrected Record on Appeal transmittal letter to the USCA − 11th Circuit to accurately reflect case record. (kac) (Entered: 10/16/2009)
367 NOTICE of Docketing Record on Appeal from USCA re: 342 Notice of Appeal filed by Reyes Ramos−Vasquez, Ignacio Ibarra−Rivera, Bartolo Nunez, Patricia Woodard, Fransciso Javier Lorenzo, Cesar Arturo Garcia−Sanchez, Santos G. Maldonado, Julian Garcia, Hector Luna. Case Appealed to USCA − 11th Circuit. USCA Case Number 09−13334−HH. (kac) (Entered: 10/22/2009)
368 MOTION to Stay Discovery with Brief In Support by Del Monte Fresh Produce (Southeast), Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Brief, # 2 Exhibit A)(Strawn, Bradley) (Entered: 11/04/2009)
369 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery by Hector Luna. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Graunke, Kristi) (Entered: 11/16/2009)
370 RESPONSE in Opposition re 368 MOTION to Stay Discovery filed by Hector Luna. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Pl. Ex 1, # 2 Exhibit Pl. Ex. 2)(Graunke, Kristi) (Entered: 11/16/2009)
371 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File a Reply in Support of its Motion to Stay Discovery re: 368 MOTION to Stay Discovery by Del Monte Fresh Produce (Southeast), Inc.. (Strawn, Bradley) (Entered: 11/25/2009)
372 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Plaintiffs' Second Merits−Related Interrogatories by Hector Luna.(Graunke, Kristi) (Entered: 11/25/2009)
373 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Plaintiffs' Second Merits−Related Requests for Production by Hector Luna.(Graunke, Kristi) (Entered: 11/25/2009)
374 MOTION for Scheduling Conference with Brief In Support by Hector Luna. (Attachments: # 1 Brief)(Graunke, Kristi) Modified on 12/4/2009 to accurately reflect e−filed pleading (fap). (Entered: 12/02/2009)
375 ORDER granting 371 Motion for Extension of Time to file reply re 368 MOTION to Stay Discovery. Del Monte Fresh Produce (Southeast), Inc. has up to and through December 15, 2009 in which to file its Reply in Support of its Motion to Stay Discovery. Signed by Judge Julie E. Carnes on 12/03/09. (fap) (Entered: 12/07/2009)
376 ORDER and OPINION GRANTING plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File their Third Amended Complaint 294 , GRANTING plaintiffs' Motion for Joinder 295 , DENYING as moot plaintiffs' Motion to Intervene 302 , DENYING plaintiffs' Motion for Protective Order 319 , DENYING as moot defendants' Motion to Stay Discovery

Case: 1:06-cv-2000 As of: 08/13/2017 12:07 PM EDT 51 of 53

12/23/2009 12/28/2009
01/05/2010 01/06/2010
01/07/2010

368 , GRANTING the parties' Joint Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery 369 , and DENYING plaintiffs' Motion for a Scheduling Conference 374 . Discovery will conclude on Friday, April 9, 2010. Plaintiffs should disclose their experts by Monday, February 8, 2010. Defendant should disclose its experts by Tuesday, February 23, 2010. Dispositive motions and any motions for decertification are due on Monday, May 10, 2010. Signed by Judge Julie E. Carnes on 12/10/09. (fap) (Entered: 12/11/2009)
377 STIPULATION Regarding Expert Witness Disclosures by Del Monte Fresh Produce (Southeast), Inc.. (Strawn, Bradley) (Entered: 12/23/2009)
378 THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT against Del Monte Fresh Produce (Southeast), Inc., Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A., Inc., filed by Fransciso Javier Lorenzo, Santos G. Maldonado, Patricia Woodard, Hector Luna, Julian Garcia, Adolfo Roblero−Morales, Ada Linda Garcia−Tenorio, Angel Mancilla, Aristeo Camacho−Grimaldo, Baltazar Diaz−Orozco, Bernardo Cedillo−Duque, Carlos Martinez−Medina, Cesar Arturo Garcia−Sanchez, Cirilo Alvarado−Mar, Eladio Cortez−Sanchez, Emilio Galarza−Banda, Felizardo Garcia−Martinez, Enrique Lopez−Loredo, Fortunato Ortega−Santes, Francisco Beltran−Rojas, Humberto Cepeda−Rosas, Humberto Hernandez−Galvan, Ignacio Ibarra−Rivera, J. Isabel Martinez−Abundiz, Jorge Aguilar−Esteban, Jose Antonio Fabian−Flores, Jose Hernandez−Hernandez, Jose Juan Martinez−Gallegos, Jose Ricardo Zuniga−Mar, Jose Victor Martinez, Juan Albino Juarez−Estrada, Lazaro Nava−Osorio, Leopoldo Barrios−Ortega, Lorena Sierra−Gonzalez, Miguel Martinez−Martinez, Narcisa Moreno−Diaz, Narciso Medina−Reyes, Pablo Medina−Reyes, Pedro Barrios−Ortega, Raul Escobar−Gonzalez, Reyes Ramos−Vasquez, Roberto Del Angel−Carrera, Roberto Mancilla−Hernandez, Sixto Mancilla−Rodriguez, Teodoro Duque−Zuniga, Tomasa Hernandez−Coronado, Uriel Patino−Corona, Adolfo Gomez, C.J. Mason, George Allen, George Worthen, Hope Williams, Jamil Wright, Kathy Williams, Rosa Arias, Sandreka Madison, Veota Khamlusa, Jose Fabian−Flores, Angel Mancilla−Rodriguez, Jose Victor Martinez−Mendez, Lorena Araceli Sierra Gonzalez, Bartolo Nunez.(fap) Please visit our website at http://www.gand.uscourts.gov to obtain Pretrial Instructions. (Entered: 12/28/2009)
379 ORDER Approving 377 Stipulation Regarding Expert Witness Disclosures. Accordingly, the parties agree and stipulate to the following modification to this Court's December 10, 2009, Order concerning expert witness disclosures: a. Plaintiffs agree to disclose their expert witnesses by March 8, 2010; and b. Defendant agrees to disclose its expert witness by March 23, 2010. Signed by Judge Julie E. Carnes on 01/05/10. (fap) (Entered: 01/06/2010)
380 Certified copy of JUDGMENT of USCA AFFIRMING the decision of the District Court re: 308 Notice of Appeal filed by Reyes Ramos−Vasquez, Fortunato Ortega−Santes, Jose Victor Martinez−Mendez, Jose Juan Martinez−Gallegos, Sandreka Madison, Jose Fabian−Flores, Jose Ricardo Zuniga−Mar, Angel Mancilla−Rodriguez, Humberto Hernandez−Galvan, Adolfo Roblero−Morales, Narciso Medina−Reyes, Hope Williams, Ada Linda Garcia−Tenorio, Patricia Woodard, Hector Luna, Julian Garcia, Jamil Wright, Juan Albino Juarez−Estrada, Pedro Barrios−Ortega, Teodoro Duque−Zuniga, Felizardo Garcia−Martinez, Santos G. Maldonado, Roberto Del Angel−Carrera, Ignacio Ibarra−Rivera, Rosa Arias, Bartolo Nunez, Aristeo Camacho−Grimaldo, Roberto Mancilla−Hernandez, Lazaro Nava−Osorio, Uriel Patino−Corona, Baltazar Diaz−Orozco, Bernardo Cedillo−Duque, Kathy Williams, Eladio Cortez−Sanchez, Fransciso Javier Lorenzo, Veota Khamlusa, Lorena Araceli Sierra Gonzalez, George Allen, Francisco Beltran−Rojas, Pablo Medina−Reyes, George Worthen, Jose Hernandez−Hernandez, Narcisa Moreno−Diaz, Carlos Martinez−Medina, Sixto Mancilla−Rodriguez, Enrique Lopez−Loredo, Jorge Aguilar−Esteban, Humberto Cepeda−Rosas, J. Isabel Martinez−Abundiz, Raul Escobar−Gonzalez, C.J. Mason, Miguel Martinez−Martinez, Tomasa Hernandez−Coronado, Adolfo Gomez, Leopoldo Barrios−Ortega, Cirilo Alvarado−Mar, Cesar Arturo Garcia−Sanchez. Case Appealed to USCA − 11th Circuit. USCA Case Number 09−12464. (kac) (Entered: 01/07/2010)
381 ANSWER to 378 Third Amended Complaint by Del Monte Fresh Produce (Southeast), Inc..(Strawn, Bradley) Please visit our website at http://www.gand.uscourts.gov to obtain Pretrial Instructions. Modified on 1/7/2010 to accurately reflect e−filed pleading (fap). (Entered: 01/07/2010)

Case: 1:06-cv-2000 As of: 08/13/2017 12:07 PM EDT 52 of 53

01/20/2010
02/04/2010 02/09/2010 02/12/2010 02/15/2010 02/23/2010 04/12/2010 04/14/2010

382 NOTICE of Appearance by James Melvin Knoepp on behalf of Fransciso Javier Lorenzo, Santos G. Maldonado, Patricia Woodard, Hector Luna, Julian Garcia, Adolfo Roblero−Morales, Ada Linda Garcia−Tenorio, Angel Mancilla, Aristeo Camacho−Grimaldo, Baltazar Diaz−Orozco, Bernardo Cedillo−Duque, Carlos Martinez−Medina, Cesar Arturo Garcia−Sanchez, Cirilo Alvarado−Mar, Eladio Cortez−Sanchez, Emilio Galarza−Banda, Felizardo Garcia−Martinez, Enrique Lopez−Loredo, Fortunato Ortega−Santes, Francisco Beltran−Rojas, Humberto Cepeda−Rosas, Humberto Hernandez−Galvan, Ignacio Ibarra−Rivera, J. Isabel Martinez−Abundiz, Jorge Aguilar−Esteban, Jose Antonio Fabian−Flores, Jose Hernandez−Hernandez, Jose Juan Martinez−Gallegos, Jose Ricardo Zuniga−Mar, Jose Victor Martinez, Juan Albino Juarez−Estrada, Lazaro Nava−Osorio, Leopoldo Barrios−Ortega, Lorena Sierra−Gonzalez, Miguel Martinez−Martinez, Narcisa Moreno−Diaz, Narciso Medina−Reyes, Pablo Medina−Reyes, Pedro Barrios−Ortega, Raul Escobar−Gonzalez, Reyes Ramos−Vasquez, Roberto Del Angel−Carrera, Roberto Mancilla−Hernandez, Sixto Mancilla−Rodriguez, Teodoro Duque−Zuniga, Tomasa Hernandez−Coronado, Uriel Patino−Corona, Adolfo Gomez, C.J. Mason, George Allen, George Worthen, Hope Williams, Jamil Wright, Kathy Williams, Rosa Arias, Sandreka Madison, Veota Khamlusa, Jose Fabian−Flores, Angel Mancilla−Rodriguez, Jose Victor Martinez−Mendez, Lorena Araceli Sierra Gonzalez, Bartolo Nunez (Knoepp, James) (Entered: 01/20/2010)
383 APPLICATION for Admission of Morris S. Dees, Jr. Pro Hac Vice (Application fee $ 150, receipt number 113E0000000002553292)by Hector Luna. (Graunke, Kristi) (Entered: 02/04/2010)
APPROVAL by Clerks Office re: 383 APPLICATION for Admission of Morris S. Dees, Jr. Pro Hac Vice (Application fee $ 150, receipt number 113E0000000002553292). Attorney Morris S. Dees added appearing on behalf of Fransciso Javier Lorenzo, Santos G. Maldonado, Patricia Woodard, Hector Luna, Julian Garcia, Ignacio Ibarra−Rivera, Reyes Ramos−Vasquez, Bartolo Nunez (cdg) (Entered: 02/09/2010)
385 ORDER granting 383 Application for Admission Pro Hac Vice for Morris S. Dees, Jr. on behalf of Hector Luna, et. al. Signed by Judge Julie E. Carnes on 02/12/10. (fap) (Entered: 02/16/2010)
384 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery by Hector Luna. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Graunke, Kristi) (Entered: 02/15/2010)
386 ORDER granting 384 Joint Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery. Pursuant to the parties' request, the discovery and motions deadline are adjusted as follows: Discovery will close on JUNE 9, 2010. Plaintiffs should disclose their experts on or before MAY 8, 2010. Defendant should disclose its experts on or before MAY 23, 2010. Dispositive motions and motions for decertification are due on or before JULY 9, 2010. The Court cautions the parties that NO OTHER EXTENSION WILL BE GRANTED. Signed by Judge Julie E. Carnes on 02/23/10. (fap) (Entered: 02/23/2010)
387 Joint MOTION for Leave to File Motion for Approval of FLSA Collective Action Settlement, Joinder of Certain Opt−In Plaintiffs, and Dismissal with Prejudice, Supporting Memorandum, and Proposed Settlement Agreement Under Seal with Brief In Support by Del Monte Fresh Produce (Southeast), Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Brief, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Strawn, Bradley) (Entered: 04/12/2010)
388 (FILED UNDER SEAL) Joint MOTION for Approval of FLSA Collective Action Settlement with Brief In Support by Fransciso Javier Lorenzo, Del Monte Fresh Produce (Southeast), Inc., Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A., Inc., Santos G. Maldonado, Patricia Woodard, Hector Luna, Julian Garcia, Santos Maldonado, Adolfo Roblero−Morales, Ada Linda Garcia−Tenorio, Angel Mancilla, Aristeo Camacho−Grimaldo, Baltazar Diaz−Orozco, Bernardo Cedillo−Duque, Carlos Martinez−Medina, Cesar Arturo Garcia−Sanchez, Cirilo Alvarado−Mar, Eladio Cortez−Sanchez, Emilio Galarza−Banda, Felizardo Garcia−Martinez, Enrique Lopez−Loredo, Fortunato Ortega−Santes, Francisco Beltran−Rojas, Humberto Cepeda−Rosas, Humberto Hernandez−Galvan, Ignacio Ibarra−Rivera, J. Isabel Martinez−Abundiz, Jorge Aguilar−Esteban, Jose Antonio Fabian−Flores, Jose Hernandez−Hernandez, Jose Juan Martinez−Gallegos, Jose Ricardo Zuniga−Mar, Jose Victor Martinez, Juan Albino Juarez−Estrada, Lazaro Nava−Osorio, Leopoldo

Case: 1:06-cv-2000 As of: 08/13/2017 12:07 PM EDT 53 of 53

04/15/2010 04/15/2010 04/15/2010 05/03/2010
05/04/2010 05/21/2010 05/21/2010

Barrios−Ortega, Lorena Sierra−Gonzalez, Miguel Martinez−Martinez, Narcisa Moreno−Diaz, Narciso Medina−Reyes, Pablo Medina−Reyes, Pedro Barrios−Ortega, Raul Escobar−Gonzalez, Reyes Ramos−Vasquez, Roberto Del Angel−Carrera, Roberto Mancilla−Hernandez, Sixto Mancilla−Rodriguez, Teodoro Duque−Zuniga, Tomasa Hernandez−Coronado, Uriel Patino−Corona, Adolfo Gomez, C.J. Mason, George Allen, George Worthen, Hope Williams, Jamil Wright, Kathy Williams, Rosa Arias, Sandreka Madison, Veota Khamlusa, Jose Fabian−Flores, Angel Mancilla−Rodriguez, Jose Victor Martinez−Mendez, Lorena Araceli Sierra Gonzalez, Bartolo Nunez. (fap) (Additional attachment(s) added on 4/14/2010: # 1 Memoranudm in Support of Joint Motion, # 2 Exhibit 1 to Memorandum, # 3 Exhibit 2 to Memorandum, # 4 Exhibit 3 to Memorandum, # 5 Text of Proposed Order) (fap). Modified on 4/14/2010 (fap). (Entered: 04/14/2010)
389 ORDER granting 387 Motion for Leave to File Settlement Agreements and Related Documents Under Seal. Signed by Judge Julie E. Carnes on 04/14/10. (fap) (Entered: 04/15/2010)
390 ORDER Approving Settlement Agreement, Granting Joinder, and Dismissing Claims With Prejudice. (See Order for Specifics) The Court retains jurisdiction to enforce the Settlement Agreement. Signed by Judge Julie E. Carnes on 04/15/10. (fap) (Entered: 04/15/2010)
Civil Case Terminated. (fap) (Entered: 04/15/2010)
391 STIPULATION of Dismissal With Prejudice (and Order) by Fransciso Javier Lorenzo, Del Monte Fresh Produce (Southeast), Inc., Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A., Inc., Santos G. Maldonado, Patricia Woodard, Hector Luna, Julian Garcia, Santos Maldonado, Adolfo Roblero−Morales, Ada Linda Garcia−Tenorio, Angel Mancilla, Aristeo Camacho−Grimaldo, Baltazar Diaz−Orozco, Bernardo Cedillo−Duque, Carlos Martinez−Medina, Cesar Arturo Garcia−Sanchez, Cirilo Alvarado−Mar, Eladio Cortez−Sanchez, Emilio Galarza−Banda, Felizardo Garcia−Martinez, Enrique Lopez−Loredo, Fortunato Ortega−Santes, Francisco Beltran−Rojas, Humberto Cepeda−Rosas, Humberto Hernandez−Galvan, Ignacio Ibarra−Rivera, J. Isabel Martinez−Abundiz, Jorge Aguilar−Esteban, Jose Antonio Fabian−Flores, Jose Hernandez−Hernandez, Jose Juan Martinez−Gallegos, Jose Ricardo Zuniga−Mar, Jose Victor Martinez, Juan Albino Juarez−Estrada, Lazaro Nava−Osorio, Leopoldo Barrios−Ortega, Lorena Sierra−Gonzalez, Miguel Martinez−Martinez, Narcisa Moreno−Diaz, Narciso Medina−Reyes, Pablo Medina−Reyes, Pedro Barrios−Ortega, Raul Escobar−Gonzalez, Reyes Ramos−Vasquez, Roberto Del Angel−Carrera, Roberto Mancilla−Hernandez, Sixto Mancilla−Rodriguez, Teodoro Duque−Zuniga, Tomasa Hernandez−Coronado, Uriel Patino−Corona, Adolfo Gomez, C.J. Mason, George Allen, George Worthen, Hope Williams, Jamil Wright, Kathy Williams, Rosa Arias, Sandreka Madison, Veota Khamlusa, Jose Fabian−Flores, Angel Mancilla−Rodriguez, Jose Victor Martinez−Mendez, Lorena Araceli Sierra Gonzalez, Bartolo Nunez. (Werner, Daniel) (Entered: 05/03/2010)
392 STIPULATION AND ORDER of Dismissal With Prejudice. Except as set forth in the parties' settlement agreement filed with the Court, each side shall bear its own costs, disbursements and attorneys' fees associated with the prosecution and/or defense of this action. Signed by Judge Julie E. Carnes on 05/04/10. (fap) (Entered: 05/05/2010)
393 Certified copy of ORDER of USCA GRANTING the parties' Joint Motion to Dismiss 342 Notice of Appeal filed by Reyes Ramos−Vasquez, Ignacio Ibarra−Rivera, Bartolo Nunez, Patricia Woodard, Fransciso Javier Lorenzo, Cesar Arturo Garcia−Sanchez, Santos G. Maldonado, Julian Garcia, Hector Luna. Case Appealed to USCA − 11th Circuit. USCA Case Number 09−13334−HH. (kac) (Entered: 05/26/2010)
Appeal Record Returned re: 342 Notice of Appeal. Case Appealed to USCA − 11th Circuit. USCA Case Number 09−13334−HH. (2 Vols. of Pldgs and 11 Depositions−2 FILED UNDER SEAL) (kac) (Entered: 05/26/2010)

 
 Case: 1:06-cv-21015 As of: 06/16/2013 09:48 PM EDT 1 of 5
U.S. District Court Southern District of Florida (Miami) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:06−cv−21015−DLG

CLOSED

Luna, et al v. Del Monte Fresh Prod, et al Assigned to: Judge Donald L. Graham Demand: $0 Cause: 29:0201 Fair Labor Standards Act Plaintiff Hector Luna
Plaintiff Julian Garcia

Date Filed: 04/20/2006 Date Terminated: 07/03/2006 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 710 Labor: Fair Standards Jurisdiction: Federal Question
represented by Andrew H. Turner Southern Poverty Law Center 400 Washington Avenue Montgomery, AL 36104 334−956−8326 Fax: 956−8481 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gregory Scott Schell Florida Legal Services Inc. 508 Lucerne Avenue Lake Worth, FL 33460 561−582−3921 Fax: 582−4884 Email: Greg@Floridalegal.Org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kelley M. Bruner Southern Poverty Law Center 400 Washington Avenue Montgomery, AL 36104 334−956−8200 Fax: 956−8481 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mary C. Bauer Southern Poverty Law Center 400 Washington Avenue Montgomery, AL 36104 334−958−8200 Fax: 956−8481 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Andrew H. Turner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gregory Scott Schell (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kelley M. Bruner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 1:06-cv-21015 As of: 06/16/2013 09:48 PM EDT 2 of 5

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

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

Plaintiff Santos Maldonaldo

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

Gregory Scott Schell (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kelley M. Bruner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

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

Plaintiff
Bartolo Nunez individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated

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

Gregory Scott Schell (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kelley M. Bruner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Defendant
Del Monte Fresh Produce Company (Southeast), Inc.

represented by Bradley E. Strawn Littler Mendelson 3348 Peachtree Road NE Suite 1100 Atlanta, GA 30326−1008 404−760−3936 Fax: 233−2361 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Courtney Blair Wilson Littler Mendelson Wells Fargo Center 333 SE 2 Avenue, Suite 2700 Miami, FL 33131−1804

Case: 1:06-cv-21015 As of: 06/16/2013 09:48 PM EDT 3 of 5

305−400−7500 Fax: 603−2552 Email: CWilson@littler.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jacqueline E. Kalk Littler Mendelson 3348 Peachtree Road NE Suite 1100 Atlanta, GA 30326−1008 404−760−3960 Fax: 759−2377 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Latesa K. Bailey Littler Mendelson 3348 Peachtree Road NE Suite 1100 Atlanta, GA 30326−1008 404−760−3942 Fax: 233−2361 Email: lbailey@littler.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A., Inc.

represented by Bradley E. Strawn (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Courtney Blair Wilson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jacqueline E. Kalk (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Latesa K. Bailey (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 04/20/2006 04/20/2006 04/20/2006 04/21/2006 04/21/2006

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT filed; FILING FEE $350.00 RECEIPT # 939070 ; Magistrate Judge John J. O' Sullivan (sk, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/24/2006)
3 MOTION by All Plaintiffs (Attorney ) for Andrew Turner to appear pro hac vice (sk, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/24/2006)
5 MOTION by All Plaintiffs (Attorney ) for Mary Baurer to appear pro hac vice (sk, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/24/2006)
2 SUMMONS(ES) issued for Del Monte Fresh Prod, Del Monte Produce NA (sk, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/24/2006)
4 MOTION by All Plaintiffs (Attorney ) for Kelley Bruner to appear pro hac vice (sk, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/24/2006)

Case: 1:06-cv-21015 As of: 06/16/2013 09:48 PM EDT 4 of 5

04/26/2006 04/26/2006 04/26/2006 05/30/2006 05/31/2006 05/31/2006 06/02/2006 06/02/2006 06/02/2006 06/02/2006 06/02/2006 06/02/2006 06/06/2006 06/06/2006 06/06/2006 06/06/2006 06/12/2006 06/15/2006 06/15/2006 06/16/2006

6 ORDER granting [4−1] motion for Kelley Bruner to appear pro hac vice ( Signed by Judge Donald L. Graham on 4/24/06) [EOD Date: 4/27/06] (dg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/27/2006)
7 ORDER granting [5−1] motion for Mary Baurer to appear pro hac vice ( Signed by Judge Donald L. Graham on 4/24/06) [EOD Date: 4/27/06] (dg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/27/2006)
8 ORDER granting [3−1] motion for Andrew Turner to appear pro hac vice ( Signed by Judge Donald L. Graham on 4/24/06) [EOD Date: 4/27/06] (dg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/27/2006)
9 MOTION by Del Monte Fresh Prod, Del Monte Produce NA to extend time serve its reponse to complaint (dj, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/31/2006)
10 RETURN OF SERVICE executed for Del Monte Produce NA on 5/11/06 Answer due on 5/31/06 for Del Monte Produce NA (sk, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 06/01/2006)
11 RETURN OF SERVICE executed for Del Monte Fresh Prod on 5/16/06 Answer due on 6/5/06 for Del Monte Fresh Prod (sk, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 06/01/2006)
12 MOTION by Del Monte Fresh Prod, Del Monte Produce NA for Jacqueline E. Kalk to appear pro hac vice (hd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 06/05/2006)
Filing Fee Paid; FILING FEE $75.00 RECEIPT #941231 (hd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 06/05/2006)
13 MOTION by Del Monte Fresh Prod, Del Monte Produce NA for Bradley E. Strawn to appear pro hac vice (hd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 06/05/2006)
Filing Fee Paid; FILING FEE $75.00 RECEIPT #941232 (hd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 06/05/2006)
14 MOTION by Del Monte Fresh Prod, Del Monte Produce NA for Latesa K. Bailey to appear pro hac vice (hd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 06/05/2006)
Filing Fee Paid; FILING FEE $75.00 RECEIPT #941233 (hd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 06/05/2006)
15 ORDER granting [12−1] motion for Jacqueline E. Kalk to appear pro hac vice ( Signed by Judge Donald L. Graham on 06/05/06) [EOD Date: 6/7/06] (sk, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 06/07/2006)
16 ORDER granting [14−1] motion for Latesa K. Bailey to appear pro hac vice ( Signed by Judge Donald L. Graham on 06/05/06) [EOD Date: 6/7/06] (sk, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 06/07/2006)
17 ORDER granting [13−1] motion for Bradley E. Strawn to appear pro hac vice ( Signed by Judge Donald L. Graham on 06/05/06) [EOD Date: 6/7/06] (sk, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 06/07/2006)
18 ORDER granting [9−1] motion to extend time serve its reponse to complaint ( Signed by Judge Donald L. Graham on 06/05/06) [EOD Date: 6/7/06] (sk, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 06/07/2006)
19 NOTICE OF COURT PRACTICE IN FLSA CASES ( Signed by Judge Donald L. Graham on 06/12/06) [EOD Date: 6/13/06] (sk, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 06/13/2006)
20 Answer and affirmative defenses by Del Monte Produce NA (kw, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 06/16/2006)
21 Answer and affirmative defenses by Del Monte Fresh Prod (kw, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 06/16/2006)
22 MOTION by Del Monte Fresh Prod, Del Monte Produce NA (Attorney ) to change venue , and to stay proceedings (sk, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 06/19/2006)

Case: 1:06-cv-21015 As of: 06/16/2013 09:48 PM EDT 5 of 5

06/16/2006 06/16/2006 06/19/2006
06/20/2006
06/22/2006 06/28/2006 06/29/2006 06/29/2006 07/03/2006
07/03/2006 07/03/2006 08/04/2006 08/22/2006 08/28/2006

24 Certification of interested persons and disclosure statement by Del Monte Fresh Prod (lh, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 06/21/2006)
25 Certification of interested persons and disclosure statement by Del Monte Produce NA (lh, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 06/21/2006)
23 NOTICE/ ORDER SETTING TELEPHONIC STATUS CONFERENCE Status conference set for 2:00 8/2/06 before Judge Donald L. Graham ( Signed by Judge Donald L. Graham on 06/19/06) [EOD Date: 6/20/06] CCAP (sk, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 06/20/2006)
26 ORDER Response to motion within 10 days of the date of this order for [22−1] motion to change venue, [22−2] motion to stay proceedings ( Signed by Judge Donald L. Graham on 6/20/06) [EOD Date: 6/21/06] (tb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 06/21/2006)
27 NOTICE of filing consents to sue by Hector Luna (cj, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 06/26/2006)
28 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL by Del Monte Fresh Prod, Del Monte Produce NA of [22−1] motion to change venue (cj, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 06/29/2006)
29 JOINT MOTION by All Plaintiffs, Del Monte Fresh Prod, Del Monte Produce NA to change venue, Northern District of Georgia (cj, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 06/30/2006)
30 MOTION by All Plaintiffs (Attorney ) for waiver of response, or in the alternative to extend time to respond to the Court's notice of court practice in FLSA Cases (cj, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 06/30/2006)
31 ORDER denying [30−1] motion for waiver of response, or in the alternative to extend time to respond to the Court's notice of court practice in FLSA Cases, granting [29−1] joint motion to change venue, Northern District of Georgia, denying [22−2] motion to stay proceedings ( Signed by Judge Donald L. Graham on 6/30/06) [EOD Date: 7/6/06] (lk, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 07/06/2006)
CASE CLOSED. Case and Motions no longer referred to Magistrate. (lk, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 07/06/2006)
32 ORDER denying [22−1] motion to change venue, denying [22−2] motion to stay proceedings ( Signed by Judge Donald L. Graham on 6/30/06) [EOD Date: 7/6/06] (lk, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 07/06/2006)
33 NOTICE of Filing consent to sue by Hector Luna, Julian Garcia, Santos Maldonaldo, Bartolo Nunez (rb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/07/2006)
34 TRANSMITTAL letter with: certififed copy or transfer order and docket sheet Sent to: Northern District of Georgia (dg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/22/2006)
35 ACKNOWLEDGMENT of receipt of: Transfer of case by: USDC N. Dist of GA ; Date: 8/24/06 ; Other Court Case # 1:06−CV−2000 (sk, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/31/2006)