IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
NORTHERN DIVISION CASE NO: 2:10-cv-10-F

Marlen Guadalupe Landeros

)

Covarrubias, Sandivel Villanueva

)

Flores, Rita Dorali Curiel Sandoval

)

and all others similarly situated,

)

)

Plaintiffs

)

)

v.

)

)

Capt. Charlie’s Seafood, Inc., Phillip )

Carawan and Tara Foreman,

)

)

Defendants

)

____________________________________)

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

1. This is an action brought on behalf of Marlen Guadalupe Landeros Covarrubias,

Sandivel Villanueva Flores and Rita Dorali Curiel Sandoval (collectively the “named Plaintiffs”)

on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated employees against their former

employers. The named Plaintiffs and their coworkers worked for Defendants in North Carolina

on temporary migrant guestworker visas. The named Plaintiffs were subjected to numerous

labor violations, including violations of federal and state wage and hour laws; unlawful failure to

reimburse Plaintiffs for expenses associated with the migrant guestworker program; sex

discrimination in job assignment and allocation of hours; and wrongful discharge based on sex

discrimination in violation of the public policy of the state of North Carolina.

2. Defendants are a seafood processing company, its corporate president and its

manager, located in Columbia, Tyrrell County, North Carolina.

Case 2:10-cv-00010-F Document 58 Filed 06/28/11 Page 1 of 23

3. The named Plaintiffs seek to represent several classes of other workers. The named Plaintiffs seek to represent two classes and one subclass consisting of other employees of the Defendants who suffered violations of federal and state wage and hour laws, as defined in ¶¶ 44, 47 and 49. The named Plaintiffs also seek to represent a class consisting of women who were wrongfully discharged by Defendants in violation of North Carolina public policy as a result of sex discrimination, including sex discrimination in job assignment and allocation of hours, as further set forth in ¶ 61.
4. The action is based on Defendants’ violations in 2007, 2008 and 2009 of the Fair Labor Standards Act (hereinafter “FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 201 et seq; the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act (hereinafter “NCWHA”), N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 95-25.6 and 95-25.22; and common law wrongful discharge based on sex discrimination in violation of the public policy of the State of North Carolina as set forth in the North Carolina Equal Employment Practices Act (hereinafter “NCEEPA”), N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-422.2.
5. In addition, the named Plaintiffs filed Charges of Discrimination with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (hereinafter “EEOC”) on December 18, 2009; February 17, 2010; and February 25, 2010. The named Plaintiffs intend to amend this Complaint in the future to include claims of discrimination based on sex in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended (hereinafter “Title VII”), 42 U.S. §§ 2000e et seq., upon exhaustion of administrative remedies. At such time as they may amend this Complaint to include allegations of discrimination in violation of Title VII, the named Plaintiffs further intend to seek to represent a class consisting of women who suffered violations of federal antidiscrimination law based on sex discrimination in job assignment and allocation of hours by Defendants.
2
Case 2:10-cv-00010-F Document 58 Filed 06/28/11 Page 2 of 23

6. Based on Plaintiffs’ claims under 29 U.S.C. § 206 of the Fair Labor Standards Act and N.C.G.S. §§ 95-25.6 and 95-25.22, they seek payment of back wages and an equal amount of liquidated damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) and N.C.G.S. §§ 9525.22(a), (a1), and (d). Based on their claims under North Carolina common law, plaintiffs seek damages and declaratory relief to redress these violations of the law.
JURISDICTION 7. This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1337, and supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. In addition, the Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims under the FLSA pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). 8. This Court is empowered to issue a declaratory judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202. 9. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants and venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).
PARTIES 10. The named Plaintiffs are women who came to North Carolina in 2009 from their permanent place of residence in Mexico to work for Capt. Charlie’s Seafood, Inc. (hereinafter “Capt. Charlie’s”) as seafood processors pursuant to a temporary guestworker visa program authorized under the Immigration and Nationality Act, known as the “H-2B program.” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b). 11. The named Plaintiffs’ first language is Spanish and they speak little or no English. Upon information and belief, members of the proposed Plaintiff classes also speak Spanish as their first language and speak little or no English.
3
Case 2:10-cv-00010-F Document 58 Filed 06/28/11 Page 3 of 23

12. The named Plaintiffs and members of the classes they seek to represent were employees of Defendants within the meaning of the FLSA, the NCWHA, and the NCEEPA during any workweek in which they performed work for Defendants.
13. The named Plaintiffs and the members of the classes they seek to represent were employed by Defendants when they were engaged in the production of goods for interstate commerce or as part of an enterprise of Defendants that was engaged in interstate commerce.
14. At all times relevant to this action, Defendant Capt. Charlie’s was and is a domestic seafood processing corporation organized under the laws of the state of North Carolina and was and is engaged in the production of goods for interstate commerce, or was an enterprise engaged in interstate commerce, with its principal place of business in Columbia, Tyrell County, North Carolina and doing business within the state of North Carolina.
15. The registered agent for service of process upon Capt. Charlie’s is Lloyd C. Smith, Jr., 203 East Dundee Street, Windsor, North Carolina 27983.
16. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendant Capt. Charlie’s was an employer of the named Plaintiffs and was and/or is an employer of the members of the classes they seek to represent within the meaning of the FLSA and the NCWHA.
17. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendant Capt. Charlie’s was an employer of the named Plaintiffs and was and/or is an employer of the members of the classes they seek to represent within the meaning of the NCEEPA.
18. At all times relevant to this action, Defendant Phillip Carawan (hereinafter “Carawan”) was and is the president of Capt. Charlie’s.
4
Case 2:10-cv-00010-F Document 58 Filed 06/28/11 Page 4 of 23

19. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendant Carawan exercised, and/or will exercise, the authority to direct, control, and/or supervise the work of the named Plaintiffs and members of the proposed Plaintiff classes defined in ¶¶ 44, 47, 49 and 61.
20. Upon information and belief, at all times relevant to this action, Defendant Tara Foreman (hereinafter “Foreman”) was and is the manager of Capt. Charlie’s.
21. Upon information and belief, at all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendant Foreman exercised, and/or will exercise, the authority to direct, control and/or supervise the work of Plaintiffs and members of the proposed Plaintiff classes defined in ¶¶ 44, 47, 49 and 61.
22. On information and belief, Defendants regularly employed more than fifteen (15) employees during the relevant time period.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS A. DEFENDANTS’ H-2B VISA APPLICATIONS 23. In order to participate in the H-2B program, Defendants were obliged to apply for and obtain an Alien Employment Certification pursuant to Title 20, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 621 (“clearance order”) from the U.S. Department of Labor and North Carolina Employment Security Commission. (New regulations governing the H-2B program took effect in January 2009. 20 CFR part 655. All clearance orders submitted by Defendants prior to January 2009 were governed by the old regulations.) 24. Defendants were certified by the U. S. Department of Labor to employ forty-nine (49) H-2B workers as seafood processors from October 1, 2008 through May 31, 2009. The named Plaintiffs worked for Defendants pursuant to this seafood processor clearance order, and received extensions of their visas to continue working for Defendants after May 31, 2009.
5
Case 2:10-cv-00010-F Document 58 Filed 06/28/11 Page 5 of 23

25. Defendants were additionally certified by the U.S. Department of Labor to employ H-2B workers from March 1, 2007 through December 31, 2007; April 5, 2007 through December 31, 2007; April 1, 2008 through December 31, 2008; and March 2, 2009 through December 31, 2009. Members of the proposed Plaintiff classes worked for Defendants as H-2B guestworkers pursuant to some or all of the above H-2B clearance orders as well as the October 1, 2008 through May 31, 2009 clearance order.
26. In each clearance order Defendants submitted to the U.S. Department of Labor, they were required to certify and declare under penalty of perjury that:
“. . . the wage paid to the alien when the alien begins work will equal or exceed the prevailing wage which is applicable at the time the alien begins work; and “. . . the job opportunity does not involve unlawful discrimination by race, creed, color, national origin, age, sex, religion, handicap or citizenship.” ETA Form 750, parts 23 and 24 (Applications submitted beginning in 2009 use new ETA Form 9142).
B. COSTS RELATED TO THE H-2B VISA PROGRAM 27. In order to come to the United States to work for Defendants under the H-2B program, the named Plaintiffs and all proposed class members were required to purchase, at their own expense, a “Derecho de Visa,” a visa reciprocity fee paid at the Mexican bank “Banamex.” 28. Prior to November 2007, the cost of the visa reciprocity fee was $45. Beginning in November 2007 and continuing until the present, the visa reciprocity fee has been $100. The named Plaintiffs each paid the $100 reciprocity fee in April 2009. The putative class members each paid $45 and/or $100 depending on the year(s) in which they worked for Defendants pursuant to an H2B visa.
6
Case 2:10-cv-00010-F Document 58 Filed 06/28/11 Page 6 of 23

29. In order to obtain an H-2B visa, the named Plaintiffs and all proposed class members were also required to pay an additional visa fee to the U.S. Consulate. The visa fee paid by the named Plaintiffs and others similarly situated was approximately $100.
30. The named Plaintiffs and others similarly situated were required to pay for their own transportation to the consulate as well as their own hotel costs while they waited for the issuance of their visas in Monterey, Mexico following their interview with the U.S. Consulate.
31. Following the issuance of their H-2B visas, the named Plaintiffs and others similarly situated were required to travel from Mexico to Defendants’ operation in North Carolina by bus, crossing the Mexico-United States border.
32. The named Plaintiffs and others similarly situated were required to pay for the bus from Monterey, Mexico to North Carolina at their own expense. The named Plaintiffs paid approximately $270 for their bus ticket.
33. The named Plaintiffs and others similarly situated were also required to pay a $6.00 fee to U.S. Customs and Border Protection upon crossing the U.S.-Mexico border (“border crossing fee”). This fee was for the issuance of USCIS form I-94, which is required to enter the U.S.
34. The expenses described in ¶¶ 27-33 were an incident of and necessary to Defendants’ employment of the named Plaintiffs and each member of the proposed classes and were incurred primarily for the benefit or convenience of Defendants, within the meaning of 29 C.F.R. §§ 531.32(c) and 778.217.
35. In each year that they received H-2B visas to work for Defendants, the named Plaintiffs and each of the proposed class members incurred costs in excess of $300 for the expenses described in ¶¶ 27-33.
7
Case 2:10-cv-00010-F Document 58 Filed 06/28/11 Page 7 of 23

36. The named Plaintiffs and proposed class members incurred the costs described in ¶¶ 27-33 before the receipt of their first pay checks in each year that they received H-2B visas to work for Defendants.
37. At no time did Defendants reimburse the named Plaintiffs for the costs described in ¶¶ 27-33. Upon information and belief, Defendants did not reimburse members of the proposed classes for the costs described in ¶¶ 27-33 at any time relevant to this lawsuit.
38. As a result of Defendants’ failure to reimburse the named Plaintiffs and proposed class members for the costs referred to in ¶¶ 27-33 during the first workweek, the named Plaintiffs and members of the proposed classes were not paid all of their wages when due at the wage rate(s) that Defendants had agreed to pay them, during the first workweek they were employed.
C. DEFENDANTS’ PAY PRACTICES 39. In order to employ guestworkers through the H-2B program, Defendants were required to pay all H-2B employees at least the “prevailing wage,” which is identified in each clearance order. Old 20 C.F.R. § 656.21(b)(3)(i) (which was in effect at time of Defendants’ 2007, 2008 and 2009 applications); 20 C.F.R. § 655.22(e) (2009). 40. The prevailing wage for the October 1, 2008 through May 31, 2009 clearance order was $7.63 per hour. The prevailing wage for the March 2, 2009 through December 31, 2009 clearance order was $7.38. 41. Defendants compensated the named Plaintiffs and others similarly situated for crabpicking work on a piece-rate basis per pound of meat removed. During some pay periods, Defendants supplemented the named Plaintiffs’ and their similarly situated coworkers’ piece-rate pay with “make-up” to bring the average weekly wage up to the minimum wage required by the
8
Case 2:10-cv-00010-F Document 58 Filed 06/28/11 Page 8 of 23

FLSA ($6.55 per hour from July 24, 2008 through July 23, 2009; $7.25 per hour from July 24, 2009 until the present).
42. As a result of Defendants’ practice of calculating employees’ pay based on the federal minimum wage as described in ¶ 41, the named Plaintiffs and their similarly situated coworkers were paid less than the prevailing wage described in ¶¶ 39-40, during some workweeks.
43. The named Plaintiffs and all members of the FLSA and NCWHA classes defined in ¶¶ 44, 47 and 49 they seek to represent had an express, constructive, or implied agreement that Defendants would pay them wages at the rate required by any applicable federal and/or state law when those wages were due for each hour or part of an hour that the named Plaintiffs and proposed class members performed compensable work under the FLSA and/or the NCWHA for Defendants.
1. Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Collective Action Allegations 44. The named Plaintiffs seek to bring their claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act on behalf of themselves individually, and all other similarly situated employees of Defendants who worked in any pay period falling within the three chronological years immediately preceding the date on which this action was filed and continuing thereafter through the date on which final judgment is entered in this action and who timely file (or have already filed) a written consent to be a party to this action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). (“FLSA class”). They seek unpaid minimum wages and liquidated damages. 45. The named Plaintiffs and the members of the FLSA class are similarly situated. The named Plaintiffs and other FLSA class members came to work for Defendant Capt. Charlie’s as H-2B seafood processors in 2007, 2008, and/or 2009 and continuing thereafter pursuant to visas
9
Case 2:10-cv-00010-F Document 58 Filed 06/28/11 Page 9 of 23

issued under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b). The named Plaintiffs and FLSA class members all worked in Defendants’ facilities processing seafood, which included picking crab meat, shucking oysters, packing crab and packing oysters.
46. The named Plaintiffs and the members of the FLSA class they seek to represent under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) were each paid wages less than those required by 29 U.S.C. § 206(a) during the first workweek that they were employed by one or more Defendants. All Plaintiffs and FLSA class members who traveled from Mexico to work in Defendants’ plant processing seafood were required to pay for travel, visa and border crossing expenses, as described in ¶¶ 2735. These expenses, which were for the benefit of Defendants, reduced the named Plaintiffs’ and FLSA class members’ wages below minimum wage required by the FLSA during the first workweek.
2. North Carolina Wage and Hour Act (NCWHA) Class Action Allegations 47. The named Plaintiffs also seek to represent a class of persons under Rule 23(b)(3), Fed.R.Civ.P., for back wages and liquidated damages under N.C. Gen. Stat. §§95-25.6, 95-25.22, and 95-25.22(a1) (“NCWHA class”). The NCWHA class consists of all non-supervisory workers who were, are and/or shall be jointly or severally employed by Defendants at any time from March 17, 2008 and continuing thereafter through the date on which final judgment is entered in this action, who performed and/or shall perform any work for Defendants pursuant to a labor certification and visa issued to the Defendants and those workers under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b), and who did not receive all of their wages when they were due because of Defendants' failure to reimburse class members for expenses they incurred obtaining their H-2B visas and travelling from their homes in Mexico to North Carolina to work for Defendants.
10
Case 2:10-cv-00010-F Document 58 Filed 06/28/11 Page 10 of 23

48. The NCWHA violations occurred when Defendants failed to reimburse the named Plaintiffs and members of the NCWHA class for their transportation, visa, and border-crossing expenses during the first week in which they performed labor for Defendants, as described in ¶¶ 27-35. As a result of Defendants’ failure to reimburse the named Plaintiffs and members of the NCWHA class, the named Plaintiffs and members of the NCWHA class were paid less than the prevailing wage in violation of N.C.G.S. § 95-25.6.
49. The NCWHA class includes a subclass that the named Plaintiffs also seek to represent under Rule 23(b)(3), Fed.R.Civ.P, for back wages and liquidated damages under N.C.G.S. §§ 95-25.6 and 95-25.22 (“NCWHA unpaid wage subclass”), consisting of all nonsupervisory employees of Defendants who were employed by Defendants for any pay period beginning on March 17, 2008 and continuing thereafter through the date on which final judgment is entered in this action who did not receive all of their wages when those wages were due under an express, constructive, or implied agreement to pay those wages at those rates for all work performed for the Defendants when Defendants paid members of the NCWHA subclass less than the prevailing wage required by the H-2B visa program during some workweeks. This violation occurred when the Defendants failed to compensate the named Plaintiffs and members of the NCWHA unpaid wage subclass at or above the prevailing wage because they were paid a piece rate which resulted in an average wage less than the promised wage and/or they were paid an hourly wage which was less than the promised wage.
50. Joinder of all class members for the proposed NCWHA class would be impracticable, if not impossible, based in part upon the fact that all of the proposed class members who are former employees of Defendants are migrant workers whose permanent place of residence is in Mexico and who likely do not speak English. Defendants received H-2B
11
Case 2:10-cv-00010-F Document 58 Filed 06/28/11 Page 11 of 23

temporary labor certification from the United States Department of Labor for approximately 150 openings in 2008 and 2009. Upon information and belief, Defendants have requested H-2B certification for work to be performed throughout 2010 as well. Therefore the NCWHA class could include as many as 150 individuals. Upon information and belief, the NCWHA subclass would exceed 20 individuals.
51. The questions of law or fact which are common to the members of the NCWHA class and which predominate over any other questions affecting only individual members of the class under Rules 23(a)(2) and 23(b)(3), Fed.R.Civ.P., are: (a) whether the transportation, visa, and border crossing expenses and fees were primarily for the benefit of the employer and (b) whether the Defendants reduced the named Plaintiffs’ and NCWHA class members’ pay below the promised wage by requiring them to bear the costs identified above and failing to reimburse them for those costs during their first workweek.
52. The question of law or fact which is common to the members of the NCWHA unpaid wage subclass and which predominates over any other questions affecting only individual members of the class under Rules 23(a)(2) and 23(b)(3), Fed.R.Civ.P., is whether the Defendants failed to pay the named Plaintiffs and the members of the NCWHA unpaid wage subclass all the wages they had agreed to pay when those wages were due for each hour or part of an hour that each such worker was employed by the Defendants, in accordance with N.C.G.S. § 95-25.6.
53. The named Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of the NCWHA class of persons under Rules 23(a)(3) and 23(b)(3), Fed.R.Civ.P, in that the named Plaintiffs claim Defendants required the named Plaintiffs and the NCWHA class members to bear costs which were for the benefit of the employer and which brought the named Plaintiffs’ and NCWHA class members’ weekly pay below the promised wage during the first workweek.
12
Case 2:10-cv-00010-F Document 58 Filed 06/28/11 Page 12 of 23

54. The claims of the named Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the NCWHA unpaid wage subclass they seek to represent under Rule 23(a)(3), Fed.R.Civ.P., in that the named Plaintiffs claim Defendants failed to comply with their agreement to pay wages when due to the named Plaintiffs and to the class members at the promised rate for work performed for the Defendants by calculating employees’ pay based on a lower hourly wage than the promised wage and/or failing to ensure that individuals paid on a piece-rate basis earned at least the promised wage.
55. The named Plaintiffs’ interests in the claims are in no way antagonistic or adverse to those of other NCWHA class or NCWHA unpaid wage subclass members.
56. The named Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent the interests of the NCWHA class of persons defined in ¶¶ 47 and 49 above. The undersigned counsel Carol Brooke and Clermont Fraser are experienced litigators who have been named counsel for many class actions involving similar claims to those raised in this action.
D. DISCRIMINATION 57. The named Plaintiffs were part of a group of approximately 20 women who began working for Defendants in May 2009 pursuant to H-2B visas. In employing the named Plaintiffs and others, Defendants were obligated to abide by the public policy of North Carolina, as set forth in the NCEEPA, which states that “[i]t is the public policy of this State to protect and safeguard the right and opportunity of all persons to seek, obtain and hold employment without discrimination or abridgement on account of race, religion, color, national origin, age, sex or handicap by employers which regularly employ 15 or more employees.” N.C.G.S. § 143-422.2.
13
Case 2:10-cv-00010-F Document 58 Filed 06/28/11 Page 13 of 23

58. From the beginning of their employment, the named Plaintiffs and other female employees were treated differently from the male employees in ways that culminated in the dismissal of the named Plaintiffs and some of the other women.
59. Defendants gave the named Plaintiffs and other female employees different work from that given to male employees. Defendants gave the named Plaintiffs and other female employees only crab picking work, which entails removing meat from cooked crabs, cleaning the meat, and placing it in containers. In contrast, Defendants gave male employees a variety of work, including cooking crabs, taking crabs to and from the table, and handling crab traps. The work offered to male employees provided them with more hours and more days per week of work than women, including the named Plaintiffs, were offered. The named Plaintiffs and the other women were capable of performing the work given to the men.
60. As a result of this gender discrimination in job assignments and amount of work, Defendants retained their male employees and terminated only women, including the named Plaintiffs, when they discharged a group of 20 employees in August 2009. Prior to the named Plaintiffs’ wrongful discharge, they had performed their jobs satisfactorily.
1. Rule 23(b)(3) Class Action Allegations 61. The named Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of persons under Rule 23(b)(3), Fed.R.Civ.P., for compensatory damages based on their wrongful discharge in violation of North Carolina public policy as set forth in N.C. Gen. Stat. §§143-422.2 (“NCEEPA class”). The NCEEPA class consists of all non-supervisory women who were, are and/or shall be jointly or severally employed by Defendants at any time during the two chronological years immediately preceding the date on which this action was filed and continuing thereafter through the date on which final judgment is entered in this action, who performed and/or shall perform any work for
14
Case 2:10-cv-00010-F Document 58 Filed 06/28/11 Page 14 of 23

Defendants pursuant to a labor certification and visa issued to the Defendants and those workers under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b), and who were wrongfully discharged in violation of the public policy of North Carolina as set forth in the NCEEPA.
62. The NCEEPA violations occurred when Defendants wrongfully discharged the named Plaintiffs and the NCEEPA class members as a result of Defendants’ discriminatory practice of giving women different jobs and giving them fewer hours than men.
63. Joinder of all class members for each proposed class would be impracticable, if not impossible, based in part upon the fact that all of the proposed class members who are former employees of Defendants are migrant workers whose permanent place of residence is in Mexico and who likely do not speak English. Defendants wrongfully discharged approximately twenty women. Therefore the NCEEPA class could include as many as twenty women.
64. The questions of law or fact which are common to the members of the NCEEPA class and which predominate over any other questions affecting only individual members of the class under Rules 23(a)(2) and 23(b)(3), Fed.R.Civ.P., are: (a) whether Defendants had a practice of giving the named Plaintiffs and the NCEEPA class different jobs and giving them fewer hours than male employees, (b) whether Defendants discharged the named Plaintiffs and the NCEEPA class as a result of this discriminatory practice, and (c) whether Defendants retained the men after discharging the named Plaintiffs and the NCEEPA class.
65. The claims of the named Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the NCEEPA class under Rule 23(a)(3), Fed.R.Civ.P., in that the named Plaintiffs claim that Defendants wrongfully discharged them, while retaining the men, as result of Defendants’ discriminatory practice of giving women different jobs and fewer hours than the men.
15
Case 2:10-cv-00010-F Document 58 Filed 06/28/11 Page 15 of 23

66. The named Plaintiffs’ interests in the claims are in no way antagonistic or adverse to those of other class members.
67. The named Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent the interests of the NCEEPA class of persons defined in ¶ 61 above. The undersigned counsel Lenora Lapidus is an experienced employment discrimination litigator who has been counsel in cases involving employment discrimination and class counsel in cases involving sex discrimination.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Fair Labor Standards Act) 68. Paragraphs 1 through 67 above are realleged and incorporated by reference by the named Plaintiffs and each member of the collective action described in ¶ 44 which the named Plaintiffs seek to represent pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §216(b). 69. Defendants failed to pay the named Plaintiffs and the members of the statutory class at least the required federal minimum wage for each hour or part of an hour that they worked in each workweek, in violation of 29 U.S.C. § 206. This violation resulted from Defendants’ failure to reimburse expenses which were incurred by Plaintiffs and other similarly situated workers primarily for the benefit or convenience of Defendants, prior to Plaintiffs’ and other similarly situated workers’ first week of work, as specified in ¶¶ 27-35. When these expenses are calculated as deductions from Plaintiffs’ and other similarly situated workers’ first week’s pay, as required by law, they cause Plaintiffs’ and other similarly situated workers’ first week’s earnings to be negative, bringing the Plaintiffs’ and other similarly situated workers’ earnings well below minimum wage for that pay period. 70. Defendants knew or showed reckless disregard as to whether their conduct was prohibited by the FLSA and its accompanying regulations.
16
Case 2:10-cv-00010-F Document 58 Filed 06/28/11 Page 16 of 23

71. As a result of Defendants’ actions, the named Plaintiffs and the class of similarly situated persons defined in ¶ 44 have suffered damages in the form of unpaid wages and liquidated damages that may be recovered from Defendants, jointly and severally, under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF (North Carolina Wage and Hour Act) 72. Paragraphs 1 through 71 above are realleged and incorporated by reference by the named Plaintiffs and the class and subclass defined in ¶¶ 47 and 49 above which the named Plaintiffs seek to represent. 73. Defendants failed to reimburse the named Plaintiffs and members of the NCWHA class for their transportation, visa, and border crossing costs during the first workweek, as described in ¶¶ 27-35. When those expenses are calculated as deductions from Plaintiffs’ and NCWHA class members’ first week’s pay, they cause Plaintiffs’ and NCWHA class members’ earnings for that week to be negative, which is well below the prevailing wage which Defendants promised and were required to pay, in violation of N.C.G.S. § 95-25.6. 74. Defendants calculated Plaintiffs’ and NCWHA subclass members’ pay using an hourly wage which was less than the prevailing wage. As a result, Defendants failed to pay the named Plaintiffs and the members of the NCWHA subclass defined in ¶ 49 above at least the promised wage for all compensable work time that the Defendants allowed, suffered, and/or required the named Plaintiffs and the NCWHA subclass members to work for Defendants in each workweek, in violation of N.C.G.S. § 95-25.6. 75. As a result of these actions of the Defendants in violation of their rights under N.C.G.S. §§95-25.6 and 95-25.8, the named Plaintiffs and the NCWHA class and NCWHA subclass they seek to represent have suffered damages in the form of unpaid wages and
17
Case 2:10-cv-00010-F Document 58 Filed 06/28/11 Page 17 of 23

liquidated damages that may be recovered from Defendants, jointly and severally, under N.C.G.S. §§ 95-25.22(a) and 95-25.22(a1).
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Wrongful Discharge Based on Violation of North Carolina Public Policy) 76. Paragraphs 1 through 75 above are realleged and incorporated by reference by the named Plaintiffs and the class defined in ¶ 61 above which the named Plaintiffs seek to represent. 77. The public policy of North Carolina prohibits discrimination in employment on the basis of sex. This public policy is set forth in the NCEEPA, which states that “[i]t is the public policy of this State to protect and safeguard the right and opportunity of all persons to seek, obtain and hold employment without discrimination or abridgement on account of race, religion, color, national origin, age, sex or handicap by employers which regularly employ 15 or more employees.” N.C.G.S. § 143-422.2. 78. Defendants discharged the named Plaintiffs and the NCEEPA class as a result of Defendants’ discriminatory practice of giving women different jobs and fewer hours than men. Defendants thereby violated the public policy of the state of North Carolina when they wrongfully discharged the named Plaintiffs and the NCEEPA class. 79. As a consequence of Defendants’ violation of the public policy of the state, the named Plaintiffs and the NCEEPA class suffered and will continue to suffer loss of wages and other tangible job benefits. Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to receive compensatory damages.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully prays that this Court: 1. Enter an order finding that this Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims;
18
Case 2:10-cv-00010-F Document 58 Filed 06/28/11 Page 18 of 23

2. Certify this action as a collective action under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) with respect to the FLSA class defined in ¶ 44 of this Complaint;
3. Certify this action as a class action under Rule 23(b)(3), Fed.R.Civ.P., for back wages and liquidated damages under N.C.G.S. § 95-25.22 with respect to the NCWHA class defined in ¶ 47 and the NCWHA subclass defined in ¶ 49;
4. Certify this action as a class action under Rule 23(b)(3), Fed. R. Civ. P., for compensatory damages under N.C.G.S. §§143-422.2 with respect to the NCEEPA class defined in ¶ 61;
5. Enter a judgment against Defendants Capt. Charlie’s Seafood, Inc., Phillip Carawan and Tara Foreman, jointly and severally, and in favor of the named Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated employees of Defendants described in ¶ 44 of this Complaint for compensatory damages under the First Claim for Relief in an amount equal to the total of the unpaid minimum wages due to the named Plaintiffs and each of those other similarly situated employees of Defendants under 29 U.S.C. § 206(a)(1), plus an equal amount as liquidated damages under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b);
6. Enter judgment against Defendants Capt. Charlie’s Seafood, Inc., Phillip Carawan and Tara Foreman, jointly and severally, and in favor of the named Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated employees of Defendants described in ¶¶ 47 and 49 of this Complaint for compensatory damages under the Second Claim for Relief in an amount equal to the total of the unpaid promised wages due to the named Plaintiffs and the classes of workers under N.C.G.S. §§ 95-24.22(a), plus an equal additional amount as liquidated damages under N.C.G.S. § 95-25.22(a)(1) plus interest in the manner and at the rate prescribed in N.C.G.S. § 95-25.22(a);
19
Case 2:10-cv-00010-F Document 58 Filed 06/28/11 Page 19 of 23

7. Enter judgment against Defendants Capt. Charlie’s Seafood, Inc., Phillip Carawan and Tara Foreman, jointly and severally, and in favor of the named Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated employees of Defendants described in ¶ 61 of this Complaint for compensatory damages under the Third Claim for Relief under N.C.G.S. §§143422.2;
8. Issue a declaratory judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 57 that Defendants violated the Plaintiffs’ rights under the FLSA, NCWHA and NCEEPA and their implementing rules and regulations.
9. Award Plaintiffs the costs of this action against Defendants Capt. Charlie’s Seafood, Inc., Phillip Carawan and Tara Foreman, jointly and severally;
10. Award Plaintiffs reasonable attorneys’ fees under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), N.C.G.S. § 9525.22(d), and N.C.G.S. § 95-243 against Defendants Capt. Charlie’s Seafood, Inc., Phillip Carawan and Tara Foreman, jointly and severally;
11. Award against Defendants Capt. Charlie’s Seafood, Inc., Phillip Carawan and Tara Foreman, jointly and severally, and in favor of the named Plaintiffs and the classes of workers they seek to represent, prejudgment and post judgment interest as allowed by law; and
12. Grant such other relief as the Court may deem just and proper. This the 28th day of June, 2011.
Respectfully submitted, NORTH CAROLINA JUSTICE CENTER P.O. Box 28068 Raleigh, NC 27611 919-856-2165 919-856-2175 (fax)
20
Case 2:10-cv-00010-F Document 58 Filed 06/28/11 Page 20 of 23

BY: /s/ Clermont L. Fraser Clermont L. Fraser 919-861-0606 clermont@ncjustice.org. Attorney at Law NC Bar # 36761
/s/ Carol L. Brooke Carol L. Brooke 919-856-2144 carol@ncjustice.org Attorney at Law NC Bar # 29126
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF NORTH CAROLINA LEGAL FOUNDATION P.O. Box 28004 Raleigh, NC 27611 919-834-3466 866-511-1344 (fax)
BY: /s/ Katherine Lewis Parker Katherine Lewis Parker 919-834-3466 acluncklp@nc.rr.com Attorney at Law NC Bar # 36263
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION 125 Broad Street New York, NY 10004 212-519-7861 212-549-2580 (fax)
BY: /s/ Lenora M. Lapidus Lenora M. Lapidus 212-549-2668 llapidus@aclu.org Attorney at Law
Attorney pursuant to LR 83.1 and LR 57.1 EDNC
/s/ Ariela M. Migdal Ariela M. Migdal 212-519-7861
21
Case 2:10-cv-00010-F Document 58 Filed 06/28/11 Page 21 of 23

amigdal@aclu.org Attorney at Law Attorney pursuant to LR 83.1 and LR 57.1 EDNC
22
Case 2:10-cv-00010-F Document 58 Filed 06/28/11 Page 22 of 23

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on June 28th, 2011, I electronically filed the Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to:
John Pueschel James Morgan Womble Carlyle Sandrige & Rice, PLLC One West Fourth Street Winston-Salem, NC 27101 Counsel for Defendants
Respectfully submitted, /s/ Clermont L. Fraser Clermont L. Fraser Attorney for Plaintiffs North Carolina Bar # 36761 clermont@ncjustice.org
23
Case 2:10-cv-00010-F Document 58 Filed 06/28/11 Page 23 of 23

 
 Case 2:10-cv-00010-F Document 67-1 Filed 11/16/11 Page 1 of 27

Case 2:10-cv-00010-F Document 67-1 Filed 11/16/11 Page 2 of 27

Case 2:10-cv-00010-F Document 67-1 Filed 11/16/11 Page 3 of 27

Case 2:10-cv-00010-F Document 67-1 Filed 11/16/11 Page 4 of 27

Case 2:10-cv-00010-F Document 67-1 Filed 11/16/11 Page 5 of 27

Case 2:10-cv-00010-F Document 67-1 Filed 11/16/11 Page 6 of 27

Case 2:10-cv-00010-F Document 67-1 Filed 11/16/11 Page 7 of 27

Case 2:10-cv-00010-F Document 67-1 Filed 11/16/11 Page 8 of 27

Case 2:10-cv-00010-F Document 67-1 Filed 11/16/11 Page 9 of 27

Case 2:10-cv-00010-F Document 67-1 Filed 11/16/11 Page 10 of 27

Case 2:10-cv-00010-F Document 67-1 Filed 11/16/11 Page 11 of 27

Case 2:10-cv-00010-F Document 67-1 Filed 11/16/11 Page 12 of 27

Last Name *Acosta Aguinaga Gomez Agulo Villa Agulo Villa Agulo Villa Ahumada Ahumada Cervantes *Albarran *Aldana Alvarez *Altamirano Gonzalez *Andrade Torres *Banuelos Martinez *Barraza Garcia *Barrios Mancera *Barrios Talavera *Bernal Plateado *Bernal Sandoval *Carillo Barrios *Carillo Sanchez *Cisneros Paredes *Corona Ramirez *Corrales Tapia *Cortes Topete Cruz *Curiel Sandoval de Avila Duran *De la O Ruiz De Tovar Esqueda Oliva Felix Gomez Flores *Flores Galindo *Flores Hernandez Flores Topete *Franco Soto *Fuentes Torres *Galmiche Segura *Garcia Calderon *Garcia Marquez Garcia Morgan *Gomez Rodriguez *Gomez Rodriguez *Gonzalez Garcia

EXHIBIT 1
Class Members
First Name Marina V. Juan Carlos Evangelina Maria de la Luz Maria Reyes Maria de la Luz Refugio Francsica V. Catalina Camerina Irma Josefina Martina Claudia Alejandra Aracelia Andrea Martha Francisco Javier Regina Agustin Gloria Dora Alicia Maria Concesa Elia P Rita Dorali Maria del Carmen Sebastiana Maria Socorro Norma Mireya Fabiola Zulema V Maria Carolina Maria Senida Maria Evangel. Noe Salvador Julio Mignella Gladys Jaqueline Rosa Maria Miriam Cristina Norberta Ofelia Victoria

A 0.00
100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
0.00 200.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 200.00 100.00 100.00
0.00 200.00 100.00 200.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
0.00 100.00 100.00
0.00 0.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00

B 48.51

C 48.50

98.93 132.13
80.50 68.36 70.23 123.98 187.50 113.01 86.74 165.25 406.42 204.02 645.12 87.97 57.59 160.78
85.67
121.13

98.92 132.12
80.50 68.35 70.22 123.98 187.50 113.00 86.73 165.24 406.41 204.02 645.11 87.97 57.58 160.77
85.67
121.12

75.08 187.57

75.08 187.57

1,363.35 383.80 232.75 94.26 113.08

1,363.34 383.79 232.75 94.25 113.08

66.69 280.47
68.27

66.69 280.46
68.26

Case 2:10-cv-00010-F Document 67-1 Filed 11/16/11 Page 13 of 27

*Gonzalez Montano Gonzalez Rivera *Gutierez Navarro *Guzman Becerra Guzman Ibarra *Haro de Martinez *Healy Rubio *Hernandez Garcia *Hernandez Hernandez *Herrera Jimenez *Jara Rivera Jimenez Jimenez Castillo *Jimenez Hernandez *Jimenez Ibarra *Juarez Montes *Landeros Covarrubias Leyva Acosta *Lopez Alvarez Lopez Armenta *Lopez Bernal *Lopez Hernandez *Lopez Martinez Lora Gomez *Martinez Bernal Martinez Perez *Matus Gonzalez *Medrano Moreno *Mercado Limon *Mojaro *Montes Morelos *Montes Polanco *Mora Godoy *Mora Ramirez *Morales Alvarado *Morales Moreno *Morelos Martinez *Moreno *Muro Corona *Muro Corona *Nunez Jarra *Ochoa Ruiz Pachco Baez *Perez Rodriguez *Pollorena Valenzuela *Ponce Guitierez *Ramirez Jimenez *Ramos Gonzalez

Monica Adilene Sergio Baudelia Felipe Isabel del Rocio Virginia Hector Rommel Rosario Araceli Soila Maria del Rosario Catalina Angela R Ignacio Sonia Daniela Yeraldin Luz Maria Marlen Guadalupe Laura Elena Arturu Maria Lourdes Maria de Jesus Sabas Yazmin Briceida Francisca Ofelia Beatriz Oscar Maria Concepcion Milan Dicla Evangelina Maria Cristina Juan Carlos S Norma Alicia Maria Enedina Estela Gema Plutarco Cynthia Erika Maria Guadalupe Victoria Martha Monica Consepcion Amalia Rosario Leticia Luz Maria Maria Elodia Livier Fredelminda Guillermina

0.00 100.00 100.00 200.00 200.00 100.00 200.00 100.00 100.00 200.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
0.00 100.00 200.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 200.00
0.00 100.00 100.00 200.00 100.00
0.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00

41.49

41.49

361.65 1,045.84

361.65 1,045.84

153.59 595.26 119.71 129.96
74.31 43.82

153.58 595.25 119.70 129.95
74.31 43.81

122.19 68.17
133.07 86.52

122.19 68.17
133.07 86.51

378.87

378.87

75.94 54.69 74.31

75.93 54.69 74.31

1,921.14 1,921.14

102.58 160.30 176.39 1,277.46 114.72 319.88 146.49 105.55 947.13 180.12
89.77 97.41 65.34 72.67 60.80 13.81

102.58 160.30 176.39 1,277.45 114.72 319.88 146.49 105.54 947.13 180.12
89.76 97.40 65.33 72.67 60.79 13.80

241.20 54.57
262.98 10.68 86.12

241.19 54.56
262.98 10.67 86.12

Case 2:10-cv-00010-F Document 67-1 Filed 11/16/11 Page 14 of 27

*Ramos Gonzalez *Ramos Jimenez *Renteria Salas Rico Hernandez *Rodriguez Ibarra *Rodriguez Javier *Rodriguez Nunez *Rosales Sanchez Ruiz Oregon *Ruiz Renteria *Salazar Covarrubias *Salcedo de la Torre Sanchez Araujo Serrano Villa Silvas Martinez *Simental Frausto *Simental Frausto Soto *Soto Rufino *Soto Rufino T. Tovar *Talavera Marquez *Tamayo Chvez *Tiznado Renteria Valenzuela Valenzuela *Verdin Garcia *Villanueva Flores *Villanueva jimenez *Villanueva Jimenez *Villela Gomez Villela Rivas *Zavala Olmedo
Total

Mercedes Rosaura Maria Cristina Leticia Luz Adriana Edaena Maria Dolores Beatriz Adriana Cecilia Adriana Martha I Bibiana Catalina Rosa Maria Maria Digna Mar. Maria Concepcion Ofelia Maria Antonia Maria Teresa Maria Isidra Erika Yaneth Aricela Luz Maria Griselda Azucena Araceli Candelaria Sandivel Irenea Catalina Odalis Francisco Yolanda Praxedes

0.00 0.00 100.00 100.00 200.00 100.00 200.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 200.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 200.00 100.00 100.00 0.00 100.00 100.00 100.00

81.23 119.94 284.85
134.76 162.09 125.92
22.87
104.80 63.22 77.32

81.22 119.93 284.84
134.76 162.09 125.92
22.87
104.80 63.22 77.31

22.53 65.62
224.13 108.83
131.90 57.16
157.76
226.26 82.82 60.61
135.24 157.62
135.46

22.52 65.62
224.12 108.82
131.90 57.16
157.75
226.26 82.81 60.61
135.24 157.61
135.45

12,500.00 18,618.60 18,618.14

Case 2:10-cv-00010-F Document 67-1 Filed 11/16/11 Page 15 of 27

EXHIBIT 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
NORTHERN DIVISION CASE NO: 2:10-CV-10-F

Marlen Guadalupe Landeros

)

Covarrubias, Sandivel Villanueva

)

Flores, Rita Dorali Curiel Sandoval

)

and all others similarly situated,

)

)

Plaintiffs

)

)

v.

)

)

Capt. Charlie’s Seafood, Inc., Phillip

)

Carawan and Tara Foreman,

)

)

Defendants

)

____________________________________)

CONSENT DECREE Marlen Guadalupe Landeros Covarrubias, Sandivel Villanueva Flores and Rita Dorali Curiel Sandoval (“Plaintiffs”), instituted this action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), 29 U.S.C. § 1800, N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 95-25.8, 95-25.22., and common law wrongful discharge in violation of public policy. The Plaintiffs were certified to represent a class and subclass for violations of the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act under Rule 23, Fed. R. Civ. P., on [DATE], The Plaintiffs’ Complaint alleged that Defendants Capt. Charlie’s Seafood, Inc., Phillip Carawan, and Tara Foreman engaged in certain employment practices which violated the Fair Labor Standards Act, the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act and the North Carolina common law. Defendants have denied, and continue to deny, the allegations.

Case 2:10-cv-00010-F Document 67-1 Filed 11/16/11 Page 16 of 27

In addition, the named Plaintiffs each filed charges with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) alleging that the Defendants discriminated on the basis of sex in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S. §§ 2000e et seq. (hereinafter “Title VII”), which the Defendants have denied and continued to deny. The Plaintiffs indicated in their Complaint their intention to amend their Complaint to include claims of discrimination under Title VII.
Plaintiffs and Defendants hereby consent to the entry by the Court of the following Consent Order, in order to resolve their differences expeditiously, to do justice for all, and to minimize further legal expense. The Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class and Defendants agree that this Consent Order is being entered into for purposes of enforcement under Rule 71 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and to ensure compliance with North Carolina law and federal law.
The terms of this Order shall apply to Defendants, their heirs, representatives, successors, and assigns, and shall be implemented immediately where not otherwise specifically stated.
The Plaintiffs and Defendants (collectively, the "Consenting Parties") have stipulated to jurisdiction of the Court over them and agree that the subject matter of this action is properly before the Court.
The Consenting Parties have advised this Court that they desire to resolve the allegations in the Complaint without the burden, expense, and delay of further litigation. It is understood and agreed that this settlement is the compromise of disputed claims (which Defendants have denied) and is not an admission of liability or wrongdoing by any Defendant.
Case 2:10-cv-00010-F Document 67-1 Filed 11/16/11 Page 17 of 27

It is therefore the finding of this Court, made on the pleadings and the record as a whole, that: (1) the Court has jurisdiction over the Consenting Parties and the subject matter of this action and (2) the purposes and provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act and the common law will be promoted and effectuated by the entry of the Consent Decree.
It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED as follows: 1. Defendants will make all payments to the Plaintiff class, to the named Plaintiffs, and to counsel for Plaintiffs as agreed to in the Settlement Agreement. Defendants will make the payments in the manner specified in the Settlement Agreement, less appropriate withholdings, within the time periods set forth in the Settlement Agreement.
2. Defendants will pay for, and will not seek reimbursement from their H-2B employees for, any visa fees, third-party visa processing fees, Department of Homeland Security fees, border crossing fees, or transportation costs to the United States incurred by employees relocating to the U.S. to work. Defendants shall bear such fees and costs unless and until there is contrary pronouncement by the U.S. Supreme Court or the Fourth Circuit, or an amendment of law or regulation, or a contrary interpretation by the U.S. Department of Labor stating that these expenses are for the benefit of the H-2B employee and may bring their wages below minimum wage. Plaintiffs’ counsel may inspect Defendants’ H-2B application materials and Defendants’ records of paying the costs described herein no more than twice per year. Plaintiffs’ counsel must notify Defendants in writing at least thirty (30) days before they intend to inspect the records.
Case 2:10-cv-00010-F Document 67-1 Filed 11/16/11 Page 18 of 27

3. Defendants will keep complete and accurate records of all time worked by employees and shall include this information on the paystubs provided to employees. When paying hourly wages, Defendants will compensate employees for each hour or part of an hour worked during each pay period in accordance with applicable law.
4. Defendants will maintain all required EEOC postings, including contact information in English and Spanish.
5. Within thirty (30) days of the Court’s approval of this Settlement Agreement, Defendants will inform all current employees that every employee is free to work in any job for which they are qualified, regardless of gender or any other protected category. Defendants will inform all other employees that every employee is free to work in any job for which they are qualified, regardless of gender or any other protected category within a reasonable time after the employee begins work. Defendants will offer on-thejob paid training to employees interested in learning how to do different jobs. During the relevant seasons, this training will include training and opportunities to work in the preparing of crab traps and oyster shucking. Defendants will not classify any job based on gender and will not discriminate on the basis of sex when assigning jobs.
6. Defendants will maintain a list of all employees who ask for on-the-job training or who apply for any new position, including their name, gender, date of request or application, and the whether such training or application for a new position was accepted or denied, and the reasons for any denial. Upon request by Plaintiffs’ counsel, this list will be made available for inspection two (2) times per year so that Plaintiffs’ counsel may monitor the results of Defendants’ implementation of paragraphs 5 through 7. Any concerns about
Case 2:10-cv-00010-F Document 67-1 Filed 11/16/11 Page 19 of 27

the impact of the policy or practices discussed in paragraphs 5 or 6 on the part of Plaintiffs’ counsel should be addressed by the parties pursuant to paragraph 12 of this Decree.
7. Defendants will promulgate a written policy prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sex in the workplace, including a complaint procedure, within sixty (60) days of the Court’s approval of the Settlement Agreement. The complaint procedure will specify both mechanisms for reporting discrimination internally as well as reporting such discrimination to the EEOC, including EEOC contact information. Within ninety (90) days of the Court’s approval of the Settlement Agreement, Defendants will provide a copy of this policy and complaint procedure in English and Spanish to Plaintiffs’ counsel.
8. Within ninety (90) days of the Court’s approval of the Settlement Agreement, Defendants will explain the non-discrimination policy and complaint procedure to all current employees and provide each employee with a copy of the policy and complaint procedure in English and Spanish. Defendants will provide a copy in English and Spanish and explain the non-discrimination policy and complaint procedure to all future employees during each employee’s first work week.
9. Capt. Charlie’s shall require each officer and employee to attend an anti-discrimination training provided by a mutually agreeable outside provider that addresses sex discrimination. Employees will be paid for the time they spend attending the training at their normal hourly wage. The training shall be provided twice a year, once during the crab season and once during the oyster season, for each year that the consent decree is in effect. The first training shall occur between October 1, 2011 and December 31, 2011.
Case 2:10-cv-00010-F Document 67-1 Filed 11/16/11 Page 20 of 27

Defendants shall arrange for the training and shall pay for the cost of the training. In the event any officer or employee is absent or unavailable on the date(s) of training, he or she must be provided training as soon as reasonably practicable thereafter, which training may be conducted by an officer or manager of the Capt. Charlie’s. Within two weeks of each anti-discrimination training, Defendants will report to Plaintiffs’ counsel that the training took place and will provide a list of all employees and officers who attended and those officers and employees who did not attend. 10. During the term of this Decree, Defendants shall report the following information in electronic format to counsel for Plaintiffs in Excel or the equivalent searchable, sortable format for each H-2B worker hired by Capt. Charlie’s and Capt. Neill’s:
• Gender • Years of experience with Capt Charlie’s and/or Capt. Neill’s • Job functions performed • Number of hours worked per week for each job function • Payment per week. This information shall be provided in April and October of each year, with the first report provided by October 31, 2011. This information shall be deemed to be confidential and proprietary business information of Defendants and shall not be published, disclosed or used by Plaintiffs or Plaintiff’s counsel for any purpose other than ensuring compliance with this Decree.
Case 2:10-cv-00010-F Document 67-1 Filed 11/16/11 Page 21 of 27

11. The term of this Decree shall be for three (3) years from its entry by the Court.
12. The Court shall have jurisdiction to monitor the Consent Decree, enter any necessary orders, and over any action to enforce the Consent Decree. However, if any of the parties believe there has been a violation of this Consent Decree, counsel for the parties shall notify each other in writing and thereafter confer in good faith to resolve any perceived violation(s) of its terms before seeking judicial intervention. SO ORDERED:

________________________ Date

_____________________________ United States District Judge

Case 2:10-cv-00010-F Document 67-1 Filed 11/16/11 Page 22 of 27

EXHIBIT 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
NORTHERN DIVISION CASE NO: 2:10-CV-10-F

Marlen Guadalupe Landeros

)

Covarrubias, Sandivel Villanueva

)

Flores, Rita Dorali Curiel Sandoval

)

and all others similarly situated,

)

)

Plaintiffs

)

)

v.

)

)

Capt. Charlie’s Seafood, Inc., Phillip

)

Carawan and Tara Foreman,

)

)

Defendants

)

____________________________________)

GENERAL RELEASE

WHEREAS, ______________________ (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) is a named plaintiff in the above-captioned lawsuit (the “Lawsuit”); and

WHEREAS, the parties to the Lawsuit have agreed to resolve the disputes between them pursuant to the Settlement Agreement and Release approved by the Court;

THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and promises made by the parties in the Settlement Agreement and Release approved by the Court, into which this General Release is incorporated by reference, and for other good and valuable consideration, the adequacy and sufficiency of which are expressly acknowledged, it is agreed as follows:

1. General Release by Plaintiff. Plaintiff, for herself, her heirs, representatives, successors, and assigns, does hereby irrevocably and unconditionally release, acquit, and forever discharge Capt. Charlie’s Seafood, Inc., Phillip Carawan and Tara Foreman, as well as Capt. Charlie’s Seafood Inc.’s past, present, and future parent companies, subsidiaries, affiliates, related companies, officers, directors, employees, agents, attorneys, representatives, successors, and assigns from any and all claims, demands, causes of action, suits, and liabilities from the beginning of time until the date of this Agreement, including but not limited to claims arising from, out of, or otherwise relating to the Lawsuit. This general release includes any and all claims, demands,

Case 2:10-cv-00010-F Document 67-1 Filed 11/16/11 Page 23 of 27

grievances, causes of action, suits, and liabilities of every kind, character, and description whatsoever, both legal and equitable, under federal or state statues or common law, whether known or unknown, including but not limited to claims for compensatory damages, punitive damages, back pay reinstatement, attorneys’ fees, expenses and costs, including but not limited to all claims arising under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. 201, et seq., the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 95-25.1 et seq., Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq., Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., the Family and Medical Leave Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq.; the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), and the North Carolina Retaliatory Employment Discrimination Act, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 95-240 et seq., as well as those claims which were or could have been included in the Lawsuit. Plaintiff agrees that Plaintiff is waiving Plaintiff’s right to any monetary recovery should any governmental agency or entity, including but not specifically limited to, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Department of Labor, pursue any claims on Plaintiff’s behalf in connection with any charge or allegation of discrimination, or any claim or allegation in the Lawsuit. Nothing herein purports to release claims which may arise after the date on which this Agreement is executed or which cannot be released by law.
2. Covenant Not to Sue. Plaintiff hereby covenants and agrees that s/he will not file or permit to be filed on his/her behalf, any action, suit, or administrative proceeding, or take any other action which seeks to pursue or enforce any claim, demand, cause of action, suit, or liability which she has released herein.
3. Severability. If any provision of this General Release as applied to any party or to any circumstance shall be deemed to be illegal, invalid, or unenforceable, such illegality, invalidity, or unenforceability shall not affect the remainder hereof or its validity or enforceability in any jurisdiction.
4. Entire Agreement; Modification. This General Release, along with the Settlement Agreement and Release into which it is incorporated by reference, constitute the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof, and supersedes all prior or contemporaneous agreements, whether written or oral. This General Release may be amended, modified, supplemented, waived, discharged, or terminated only by a written document signed by all parties hereto and approved by the Court.
5. Choice of Law. This Agreement is intended and shall be construed in accordance with the laws of the State of North Carolina, or applicable federal law.
6. Acknowledgment. Plaintiff represents and warrants that she has been given a reasonable period of time to consider this Agreement; that she has read the entire Agreement; that she has been provided with a translation into Spanish by her counsel; that she has consulted her attorney about the meaning and intent of the Agreement; and that she enters into this Agreement of her own free will, without coercion, undue
Case 2:10-cv-00010-F Document 67-1 Filed 11/16/11 Page 24 of 27

influence, threat, or intimidation of any kind, with the intention of being legally bound to its terms. Plaintiff acknowledges and agrees that she has not previously assigned or transferred any claims that she has released by this Agreement.
THE UNDERSIGNED HEREBY STATES THAT SHE HAS CAREFULLY READ THE FOREGOING AGREEMENT, KNOWS THE CONTENTS THEREOF, AND SIGNS THE SAME OF HER OWN FREE ACT.

___________________________ Name

_________________ Date

My mailing address: ______________________________________________

______________________________________________

_____________________________________________

Telephone number: ___________________________

Case 2:10-cv-00010-F Document 67-1 Filed 11/16/11 Page 25 of 27

EXHIBIT 4
Class Member Release
WHEREAS, I, ______________________ have been identified as a potential class member in a lawsuit pending in United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina Northern Division, captioned Marlen Guadlupe Landeros Covarrubias, Sandivel Villanueva Flores, Rita Dorali Curiel Sandoval and all others similarly situated v. Capt. Charlie’s Seafood, Inc., Phillip Carawan and Tara Foreman, Case No. 2:10-CV-10-F (the “Lawsuit”); and
WHEREAS, the parties to the Lawsuit have agreed to resolve the disputes between them pursuant to the Settlement Agreement and Release approved by the Court;
THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and promises made by the parties in the Settlement Agreement and Release approved by the Court, into which this Release is incorporated by reference, and for other good and valuable consideration, the adequacy and sufficiency of which are expressly acknowledged, it is agreed as follows:
1. I, _______________________________, sign and execute the following release for the purpose of fully settling any and all claims for violations of the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act, N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 95-25.6 and 95-25.22 from March 17, 2008 to December 31, 2010 in the Lawsuit.
2. In return for my portion of the payment from Capt. Charlie’s Seafood, Inc, Phillip Carawan and Tara Foreman (“Defendants”) as set forth in Exhibit 1 to the Settlement Agreement and Release approved by the Court in the Lawsuit, I hereby irrevocably and unconditionally release, acquit, and forever discharge Capt. Charlie’s Seafood, Inc., Phillip Carawan and Tara Foreman, as well as Capt. Charlie’s Seafood Inc.’s past, present, and future parent companies, subsidiaries, affiliates, related companies, officers, directors, employees, agents, attorneys, representatives, successors, and assigns from any and all claims, demands, causes of action, suits, and liabilities from any and all liability for any violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. 201 et seq., and/or the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act, N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 95-25.1 et seq., from March 17, 2008 to December 31, 2010. I hereby covenant and agree that I will not file or permit to be filed on my behalf, any action, suit, or administrative proceeding, or take any other action which seeks to pursue or enforce any claim, demand, cause of action, suit, or liability which I have released herein.
3. If any provision of this Release as applied to any party or to any circumstance shall be deemed to be illegal, invalid, or unenforceable, such illegality, invalidity, or unenforceability shall not affect the remainder hereof or its validity or enforceability in any jurisdiction.
4. This Release, along with the Settlement Agreement and Release of the Lawsuit into which it is incorporated by reference, constitute the entire agreement
Case 2:10-cv-00010-F Document 67-1 Filed 11/16/11 Page 26 of 27

between the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof, and supersedes all prior or contemporaneous agreements, whether written or oral. This Release may be amended, modified, supplemented, waived, discharged, or terminated only by a written document signed by all parties hereto and approved by the Court.
5. This Agreement is intended and shall be construed in accordance with the laws of the State of North Carolina, or applicable federal law.
6. I represents and warrant that I have been given a reasonable period of time to consider this Agreement; that I have read the entire Agreement; that I have been provided with a translation into Spanish by counsel for the Plaintiffs in the Lawsuit; and that I enter into this Agreement of my own free will, without coercion, undue influence, threat, or intimidation of any kind, with the intention of being legally bound to its terms. I acknowledge and agree that I have not previously assigned or transferred any claims that I have released by this Agreement.
This the ____ day of ______________________, 201_. ______________________________ Signature ______________________________ Printed Name
Case 2:10-cv-00010-F Document 67-1 Filed 11/16/11 Page 27 of 27

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
NORTHERN DIVISION CASE NO:

Marlen Guadalupe Landeros

)

Covarrubias, Sandivel Villanueva

)

Flores, Rita Dorali Curiel Sandoval

)

and all others similarly situated,

)

)

Plaintiffs

)

)

v.

)

)

Capt. Charlie’s Seafood, Inc., Phillip )

Carawan and Tara Foreman,

)

)

Defendants

)

____________________________________)

COMPLAINT

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

1. This is an action brought on behalf of Marlen Guadalupe Landeros Covarrubias,

Sandivel Villanueva Flores and Rita Dorali Curiel Sandoval (collectively the “named Plaintiffs”)

on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated employees against their former

employers. The named Plaintiffs and their coworkers worked for Defendants in North Carolina

on temporary migrant guestworker visas. The named Plaintiffs were subjected to numerous

labor violations, including violations of federal and state wage and hour laws; unlawful failure to

reimburse Plaintiffs for expenses associated with the migrant guestworker program; sex

discrimination in job assignment and allocation of hours; and wrongful discharge based on sex

discrimination in violation of the public policy of the state of North Carolina.

2. Defendants are a seafood processing company, its corporate president and its

manager, located in Columbia, Tyrrell County, North Carolina.

Case 2:10-cv-00010-F Document 1 Filed 03/17/2010 Page 1 of 21

3. The named Plaintiffs seek to represent several classes of other workers. The named Plaintiffs seek to represent two classes and one subclass consisting of other employees of the Defendants who suffered violations of federal and state wage and hour laws, as defined in ¶¶ 44, 47 and 49. The named Plaintiffs also seek to represent a class consisting of women who were wrongfully discharged by Defendants in violation of North Carolina public policy as a result of sex discrimination, including sex discrimination in job assignment and allocation of hours, as further set forth in ¶ 61.
4. The action is based on Defendants’ violations in 2007, 2008 and 2009 of the Fair Labor Standards Act (hereinafter “FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 201 et seq; the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act (hereinafter “NCWHA”), N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 95-25.6 and 95-25.22; and common law wrongful discharge based on sex discrimination in violation of the public policy of the State of North Carolina as set forth in the North Carolina Equal Employment Practices Act (hereinafter “NCEEPA”), N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-422.2.
5. In addition, the named Plaintiffs filed Charges of Discrimination with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (hereinafter “EEOC”) on December 18, 2009; February 17, 2010; and February 25, 2010. The named Plaintiffs intend to amend this Complaint in the future to include claims of discrimination based on sex in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended (hereinafter “Title VII”), 42 U.S. §§ 2000e et seq., upon exhaustion of administrative remedies. At such time as they may amend this Complaint to include allegations of discrimination in violation of Title VII, the named Plaintiffs further intend to seek to represent a class consisting of women who suffered violations of federal antidiscrimination law based on sex discrimination in job assignment and allocation of hours by Defendants.
2
Case 2:10-cv-00010-F Document 1 Filed 03/17/2010 Page 2 of 21

6. Based on Plaintiffs’ claims under 29 U.S.C. § 206 of the Fair Labor Standards Act and N.C.G.S. §§ 95-25.6 and 95-25.22, they seek payment of back wages and an equal amount of liquidated damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) and N.C.G.S. §§ 9525.22(a), (a1), and (d). Based on their claims under North Carolina common law, plaintiffs seek damages and declaratory relief to redress these violations of the law.
JURISDICTION 7. This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1337, and supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. In addition, the Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims under the FLSA pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). 8. This Court is empowered to issue a declaratory judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202. 9. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants and venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).
PARTIES 10. The named Plaintiffs are women who came to North Carolina in 2009 from their permanent place of residence in Mexico to work for Capt. Charlie’s Seafood, Inc. (hereinafter “Capt. Charlie’s”) as seafood processors pursuant to a temporary guestworker visa program authorized under the Immigration and Nationality Act, known as the “H-2B program.” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b). 11. The named Plaintiffs’ first language is Spanish and they speak little or no English. Upon information and belief, members of the proposed Plaintiff classes also speak Spanish as their first language and speak little or no English.
3
Case 2:10-cv-00010-F Document 1 Filed 03/17/2010 Page 3 of 21

12. The named Plaintiffs and members of the classes they seek to represent were employees of Defendants within the meaning of the FLSA, the NCWHA, and the NCEEPA during any workweek in which they performed work for Defendants.
13. The named Plaintiffs and the members of the classes they seek to represent were employed by Defendants when they were engaged in the production of goods for interstate commerce or as part of an enterprise of Defendants that was engaged in interstate commerce.
14. At all times relevant to this action, Defendant Capt. Charlie’s was and is a domestic seafood processing corporation organized under the laws of the state of North Carolina and was and is engaged in the production of goods for interstate commerce, or was an enterprise engaged in interstate commerce, with its principal place of business in Columbia, Tyrell County, North Carolina and doing business within the state of North Carolina.
15. The registered agent for service of process upon Capt. Charlie’s is Lloyd C. Smith, Jr., 203 East Dundee Street, Windsor, North Carolina 27983.
16. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendant Capt. Charlie’s was an employer of the named Plaintiffs and was and/or is an employer of the members of the classes they seek to represent within the meaning of the FLSA and the NCWHA.
17. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendant Capt. Charlie’s was an employer of the named Plaintiffs and was and/or is an employer of the members of the classes they seek to represent within the meaning of the NCEEPA.
18. At all times relevant to this action, Defendant Phillip Carawan (hereinafter “Carawan”) was and is the president of Capt. Charlie’s.
4
Case 2:10-cv-00010-F Document 1 Filed 03/17/2010 Page 4 of 21

19. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendant Carawan exercised, and/or will exercise, the authority to direct, control, and/or supervise the work of the named Plaintiffs and members of the proposed Plaintiff classes defined in ¶¶ 44, 47, 49 and 61.
20. Upon information and belief, at all times relevant to this action, Defendant Tara Foreman (hereinafter “Foreman”) was and is the manager of Capt. Charlie’s.
21. Upon information and belief, at all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendant Foreman exercised, and/or will exercise, the authority to direct, control and/or supervise the work of Plaintiffs and members of the proposed Plaintiff classes defined in ¶¶ 44, 47, 49 and 61.
22. On information and belief, Defendants regularly employed more than fifteen (15) employees during the relevant time period.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS A. DEFENDANTS’ H-2B VISA APPLICATIONS 23. In order to participate in the H-2B program, Defendants were obliged to apply for and obtain an Alien Employment Certification pursuant to Title 20, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 621 (“clearance order”) from the U.S. Department of Labor and North Carolina Employment Security Commission. (New regulations governing the H-2B program took effect in January 2009. 20 CFR part 655. All clearance orders submitted by Defendants prior to January 2009 were governed by the old regulations.) 24. Defendants were certified by the U. S. Department of Labor to employ forty-nine (49) H-2B workers as seafood processors from October 1, 2008 through May 31, 2009. The named Plaintiffs worked for Defendants pursuant to this seafood processor clearance order, and received extensions of their visas to continue working for Defendants after May 31, 2009.
5
Case 2:10-cv-00010-F Document 1 Filed 03/17/2010 Page 5 of 21

25. Defendants were additionally certified by the U.S. Department of Labor to employ H-2B workers from March 1, 2007 through December 31, 2007; April 5, 2007 through December 31, 2007; April 1, 2008 through December 31, 2008; and March 2, 2009 through December 31, 2009. Members of the proposed Plaintiff classes worked for Defendants as H-2B guestworkers pursuant to some or all of the above H-2B clearance orders as well as the October 1, 2008 through May 31, 2009 clearance order.
26. In each clearance order Defendants submitted to the U.S. Department of Labor, they were required to certify and declare under penalty of perjury that:
“. . . the wage paid to the alien when the alien begins work will equal or exceed the prevailing wage which is applicable at the time the alien begins work; and “. . . the job opportunity does not involve unlawful discrimination by race, creed, color, national origin, age, sex, religion, handicap or citizenship.” ETA Form 750, parts 23 and 24 (Applications submitted beginning in 2009 use new ETA Form 9142).
B. COSTS RELATED TO THE H-2B VISA PROGRAM 27. In order to come to the United States to work for Defendants under the H-2B program, the named Plaintiffs and all proposed class members were required to purchase, at their own expense, a “Derecho de Visa,” a visa reciprocity fee paid at the Mexican bank “Banamex.” 28. Prior to November 2007, the cost of the visa reciprocity fee was $45. Beginning in November 2007 and continuing until the present, the visa reciprocity fee has been $100. The named Plaintiffs each paid the $100 reciprocity fee in April 2009. The putative class members each paid $45 and/or $100 depending on the year(s) in which they worked for Defendants pursuant to an H2B visa.
6
Case 2:10-cv-00010-F Document 1 Filed 03/17/2010 Page 6 of 21

29. In order to obtain an H-2B visa, the named Plaintiffs and all proposed class members were also required to pay an additional visa fee to the U.S. Consulate. The visa fee paid by the named Plaintiffs and others similarly situated was approximately $100.
30. The named Plaintiffs and others similarly situated were required to pay for their own transportation to the consulate as well as their own hotel costs while they waited for the issuance of their visas in Monterey, Mexico following their interview with the U.S. Consulate.
31. Following the issuance of their H-2B visas, the named Plaintiffs and others similarly situated were required to travel from Mexico to Defendants’ operation in North Carolina by bus, crossing the Mexico-United States border.
32. The named Plaintiffs and others similarly situated were required to pay for the bus from Monterey, Mexico to North Carolina at their own expense. The named Plaintiffs paid approximately $270 for their bus ticket.
33. The named Plaintiffs and others similarly situated were also required to pay a $6.00 fee to U.S. Customs and Border Protection upon crossing the U.S.-Mexico border (“border crossing fee”). This fee was for the issuance of USCIS form I-94, which is required to enter the U.S.
34. The expenses described in ¶¶ 27-33 were an incident of and necessary to Defendants’ employment of the named Plaintiffs and each member of the proposed classes and were incurred primarily for the benefit or convenience of Defendants, within the meaning of 29 C.F.R. §§ 531.32(c) and 778.217.
35. In each year that they received H-2B visas to work for Defendants, the named Plaintiffs and each of the proposed class members incurred costs in excess of $300 for the expenses described in ¶¶ 27-33.
7
Case 2:10-cv-00010-F Document 1 Filed 03/17/2010 Page 7 of 21

36. The named Plaintiffs and proposed class members incurred the costs described in ¶¶ 27-33 before the receipt of their first pay checks in each year that they received H-2B visas to work for Defendants.
37. At no time did Defendants reimburse the named Plaintiffs for the costs described in ¶¶ 27-33. Upon information and belief, Defendants did not reimburse members of the proposed classes for the costs described in ¶¶ 27-33 at any time relevant to this lawsuit.
38. As a result of Defendants’ failure to reimburse the named Plaintiffs and proposed class members for the costs referred to in ¶¶ 27-33 during the first workweek, the named Plaintiffs and members of the proposed classes were not paid all of their wages when due at the wage rate(s) that Defendants had agreed to pay them, during the first workweek they were employed.
C. DEFENDANTS’ PAY PRACTICES 39. In order to employ guestworkers through the H-2B program, Defendants were required to pay all H-2B employees at least the “prevailing wage,” which is identified in each clearance order. Old 20 C.F.R. § 656.21(b)(3)(i) (which was in effect at time of Defendants’ 2007, 2008 and 2009 applications); 20 C.F.R. § 655.22(e) (2009). 40. The prevailing wage for the October 1, 2008 through May 31, 2009 clearance order was $7.63 per hour. The prevailing wage for the March 2, 2009 through December 31, 2009 clearance order was $7.38. 41. Defendants compensated the named Plaintiffs and others similarly situated for crabpicking work on a piece-rate basis per pound of meat removed. During some pay periods, Defendants supplemented the named Plaintiffs’ and their similarly situated coworkers’ piece-rate pay with “make-up” to bring the average weekly wage up to the minimum wage required by the
8
Case 2:10-cv-00010-F Document 1 Filed 03/17/2010 Page 8 of 21

FLSA ($6.55 per hour from July 24, 2008 through July 23, 2009; $7.25 per hour from July 24, 2009 until the present).
42. As a result of Defendants’ practice of calculating employees’ pay based on the federal minimum wage as described in ¶ 41, the named Plaintiffs and their similarly situated coworkers were paid less than the prevailing wage described in ¶¶ 39-40, during some workweeks.
43. The named Plaintiffs and all members of the FLSA and NCWHA classes defined in ¶¶ 44, 47 and 49 they seek to represent had an express, constructive, or implied agreement that Defendants would pay them wages at the rate required by any applicable federal and/or state law when those wages were due for each hour or part of an hour that the named Plaintiffs and proposed class members performed compensable work under the FLSA and/or the NCWHA for Defendants.
1. Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Collective Action Allegations 44. The named Plaintiffs seek to bring their claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act on behalf of themselves individually, and all other similarly situated employees of Defendants who worked in any pay period falling within the three chronological years immediately preceding the date on which this action was filed and continuing thereafter through the date on which final judgment is entered in this action and who timely file (or have already filed) a written consent to be a party to this action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). (“FLSA class”). They seek unpaid minimum wages and liquidated damages. 45. The named Plaintiffs and the members of the FLSA class are similarly situated. The named Plaintiffs and other FLSA class members came to work for Defendant Capt. Charlie’s as H-2B seafood processors in 2007, 2008, and/or 2009 and continuing thereafter pursuant to visas
9
Case 2:10-cv-00010-F Document 1 Filed 03/17/2010 Page 9 of 21

issued under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b). The named Plaintiffs and FLSA class members all worked in Defendants’ facilities processing seafood, which included picking crab meat, shucking oysters, packing crab and packing oysters.
46. The named Plaintiffs and the members of the FLSA class they seek to represent under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) were each paid wages less than those required by 29 U.S.C. § 206(a) during the first workweek that they were employed by one or more Defendants. All Plaintiffs and FLSA class members who traveled from Mexico to work in Defendants’ plant processing seafood were required to pay for travel, visa and border crossing expenses, as described in ¶¶ 2735. These expenses, which were for the benefit of Defendants, reduced the named Plaintiffs’ and FLSA class members’ wages below minimum wage required by the FLSA during the first workweek.
2. North Carolina Wage and Hour Act (NCWHA) Class Action Allegations 47. The named Plaintiffs also seek to represent a class of persons under Rule 23(b)(3), Fed.R.Civ.P., for back wages and liquidated damages under N.C. Gen. Stat. §§95-25.6, 95-25.22, and 95-25.22(a1) (“NCWHA class”). The NCWHA class consists of all non-supervisory workers who were, are and/or shall be jointly or severally employed by Defendants at any time from October 1, 2008 through the date on which final judgment is entered in this action, who performed and/or shall perform any work for Defendants pursuant to a labor certification and visa issued to the Defendants and those workers under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b), and who did not receive their wages when they were due. 48. The NCWHA violations occurred when Defendants failed to reimburse the named Plaintiffs and members of the NCWHA class for their transportation, visa, and border-crossing expenses during the first week in which they performed labor for Defendants, as described in ¶¶
10
Case 2:10-cv-00010-F Document 1 Filed 03/17/2010 Page 10 of 21

27-35. As a result of Defendants’ failure to reimburse the named Plaintiffs and members of the NCWHA class, the named Plaintiffs and members of the NCWHA class were paid less than the prevailing wage in violation of N.C.G.S. § 95-25.6.
49. The NCWHA class includes a subclass that the named Plaintiffs also seek to represent under Rule 23(b)(3), Fed.R.Civ.P, for back wages and liquidated damages under N.C.G.S. §§ 95-25.6 and 95-25.22 (“NCWHA unpaid wage subclass”), consisting of all nonsupervisory employees of Defendants who were employed by Defendants for any pay period beginning on October 1, 2008 and continuing thereafter through the date on which final judgment is entered in this action who did not receive all of their wages when those wages were due under an express, constructive, or implied agreement to pay those wages at those rates for all work performed for the Defendants. This violation occurred when the Defendants failed to compensate the named Plaintiffs and members of the NCWHA unpaid wage subclass at or above the prevailing wage because they were paid a piece rate which resulted in an average wage less than the promised wage and/or they were paid an hourly wage which was less than the promised wage.
50. Joinder of all class members for the proposed NCWHA class would be impracticable, if not impossible, based in part upon the fact that all of the proposed class members who are former employees of Defendants are migrant workers whose permanent place of residence is in Mexico and who likely do not speak English. Defendants received H-2B temporary labor certification from the United States Department of Labor for approximately 150 openings in 2008 and 2009. Upon information and belief, Defendants have requested H-2B certification for work to be performed throughout 2010 as well. Therefore the NCWHA class
11
Case 2:10-cv-00010-F Document 1 Filed 03/17/2010 Page 11 of 21

could include as many as 150 individuals. Upon information and belief, the NCWHA subclass would exceed 20 individuals.
51. The questions of law or fact which are common to the members of the NCWHA class and which predominate over any other questions affecting only individual members of the class under Rules 23(a)(2) and 23(b)(3), Fed.R.Civ.P., are: (a) whether the transportation, visa, and border crossing expenses and fees were primarily for the benefit of the employer and (b) whether the Defendants reduced the named Plaintiffs’ and NCWHA class members’ pay below the promised wage by requiring them to bear the costs identified above and failing to reimburse them for those costs during their first workweek.
52. The question of law or fact which is common to the members of the NCWHA unpaid wage subclass and which predominates over any other questions affecting only individual members of the class under Rules 23(a)(2) and 23(b)(3), Fed.R.Civ.P., is whether the Defendants failed to pay the named Plaintiffs and the members of the NCWHA unpaid wage subclass all the wages they had agreed to pay when those wages were due for each hour or part of an hour that each such worker was employed by the Defendants, in accordance with N.C.G.S. § 95-25.6.
53. The named Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of the NCWHA class of persons under Rules 23(a)(3) and 23(b)(3), Fed.R.Civ.P, in that the named Plaintiffs claim Defendants required the named Plaintiffs and the NCWHA class members to bear costs which were for the benefit of the employer and which brought the named Plaintiffs’ and NCWHA class members’ weekly pay below the promised wage during the first workweek.
54. The claims of the named Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the NCWHA unpaid wage subclass they seek to represent under Rule 23(a)(3), Fed.R.Civ.P., in that the named Plaintiffs claim Defendants failed to comply with their agreement to pay wages when due to the
12
Case 2:10-cv-00010-F Document 1 Filed 03/17/2010 Page 12 of 21

named Plaintiffs and to the class members at the promised rate for work performed for the Defendants by calculating employees’ pay based on a lower hourly wage than the promised wage and/or failing to ensure that individuals paid on a piece-rate basis earned at least the promised wage.
55. The named Plaintiffs’ interests in the claims are in no way antagonistic or adverse to those of other NCWHA class or NCWHA unpaid wage subclass members.
56. The named Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent the interests of the NCWHA class of persons defined in ¶¶ 47 and 49 above. The undersigned counsel Carol Brooke and Clermont Fraser are experienced litigators who have been named counsel for many class actions involving similar claims to those raised in this action.
D. DISCRIMINATION 57. The named Plaintiffs were part of a group of approximately 20 women who began working for Defendants in May 2009 pursuant to H-2B visas. In employing the named Plaintiffs and others, Defendants were obligated to abide by the public policy of North Carolina, as set forth in the NCEEPA, which states that “[i]t is the public policy of this State to protect and safeguard the right and opportunity of all persons to seek, obtain and hold employment without discrimination or abridgement on account of race, religion, color, national origin, age, sex or handicap by employers which regularly employ 15 or more employees.” N.C.G.S. § 143-422.2. 58. From the beginning of their employment, the named Plaintiffs and other female employees were treated differently from the male employees in ways that culminated in the dismissal of the named Plaintiffs and some of the other women. 59. Defendants gave the named Plaintiffs and other female employees different work from that given to male employees. Defendants gave the named Plaintiffs and other female
13
Case 2:10-cv-00010-F Document 1 Filed 03/17/2010 Page 13 of 21

employees only crab picking work, which entails removing meat from cooked crabs, cleaning the meat, and placing it in containers. In contrast, Defendants gave male employees a variety of work, including cooking crabs, taking crabs to and from the table, and handling crab traps. The work offered to male employees provided them with more hours and more days per week of work than women, including the named Plaintiffs, were offered. The named Plaintiffs and the other women were capable of performing the work given to the men.
60. As a result of this gender discrimination in job assignments and amount of work, Defendants retained their male employees and terminated only women, including the named Plaintiffs, when they discharged a group of 20 employees in August 2009. Prior to the named Plaintiffs’ wrongful discharge, they had performed their jobs satisfactorily.
1. Rule 23(b)(3) Class Action Allegations 61. The named Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of persons under Rule 23(b)(3), Fed.R.Civ.P., for compensatory damages based on their wrongful discharge in violation of North Carolina public policy as set forth in N.C. Gen. Stat. §§143-422.2 (“NCEEPA class”). The NCEEPA class consists of all non-supervisory women who were, are and/or shall be jointly or severally employed by Defendants at any time during the two chronological years immediately preceding the date on which this action was filed and continuing thereafter through the date on which final judgment is entered in this action, who performed and/or shall perform any work for Defendants pursuant to a labor certification and visa issued to the Defendants and those workers under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b), and who were wrongfully discharged in violation of the public policy of North Carolina as set forth in the NCEEPA.
14
Case 2:10-cv-00010-F Document 1 Filed 03/17/2010 Page 14 of 21

62. The NCEEPA violations occurred when Defendants wrongfully discharged the named Plaintiffs and the NCEEPA class members as a result of Defendants’ discriminatory practice of giving women different jobs and giving them fewer hours than men.
63. Joinder of all class members for each proposed class would be impracticable, if not impossible, based in part upon the fact that all of the proposed class members who are former employees of Defendants are migrant workers whose permanent place of residence is in Mexico and who likely do not speak English. Defendants wrongfully discharged approximately twenty women. Therefore the NCEEPA class could include as many as twenty women.
64. The questions of law or fact which are common to the members of the NCEEPA class and which predominate over any other questions affecting only individual members of the class under Rules 23(a)(2) and 23(b)(3), Fed.R.Civ.P., are: (a) whether Defendants had a practice of giving the named Plaintiffs and the NCEEPA class different jobs and giving them fewer hours than male employees, (b) whether Defendants discharged the named Plaintiffs and the NCEEPA class as a result of this discriminatory practice, and (c) whether Defendants retained the men after discharging the named Plaintiffs and the NCEEPA class.
65. The claims of the named Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the NCEEPA class under Rule 23(a)(3), Fed.R.Civ.P., in that the named Plaintiffs claim that Defendants wrongfully discharged them, while retaining the men, as result of Defendants’ discriminatory practice of giving women different jobs and fewer hours than the men.
66. The named Plaintiffs’ interests in the claims are in no way antagonistic or adverse to those of other class members.
67. The named Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent the interests of the NCEEPA class of persons defined in ¶ 61 above. The undersigned counsel Lenora Lapidus is an
15
Case 2:10-cv-00010-F Document 1 Filed 03/17/2010 Page 15 of 21

experienced employment discrimination litigator who has been counsel in cases involving employment discrimination and class counsel in cases involving sex discrimination.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Fair Labor Standards Act) 68. Paragraphs 1 through 67 above are realleged and incorporated by reference by the named Plaintiffs and each member of the collective action described in ¶ 44 which the named Plaintiffs seek to represent pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §216(b). 69. Defendants failed to pay the named Plaintiffs and the members of the statutory class at least the required federal minimum wage for each hour or part of an hour that they worked in each workweek, in violation of 29 U.S.C. § 206. This violation resulted from Defendants’ failure to reimburse expenses which were incurred by Plaintiffs and other similarly situated workers primarily for the benefit or convenience of Defendants, prior to Plaintiffs’ and other similarly situated workers’ first week of work, as specified in ¶¶ 27-35. When these expenses are calculated as deductions from Plaintiffs’ and other similarly situated workers’ first week’s pay, as required by law, they cause Plaintiffs’ and other similarly situated workers’ first week’s earnings to be negative, bringing the Plaintiffs’ and other similarly situated workers’ earnings well below minimum wage for that pay period. 70. Defendants knew or showed reckless disregard as to whether their conduct was prohibited by the FLSA and its accompanying regulations. 71. As a result of Defendants’ actions, the named Plaintiffs and the class of similarly situated persons defined in ¶ 44 have suffered damages in the form of unpaid wages and liquidated damages that may be recovered from Defendants, jointly and severally, under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).
16
Case 2:10-cv-00010-F Document 1 Filed 03/17/2010 Page 16 of 21

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF (North Carolina Wage and Hour Act) 72. Paragraphs 1 through 71 above are realleged and incorporated by reference by the named Plaintiffs and the class and subclass defined in ¶¶ 47 and 49 above which the named Plaintiffs seek to represent. 73. Defendants failed to reimburse the named Plaintiffs and members of the NCWHA class for their transportation, visa, and border crossing costs during the first workweek, as described in ¶¶ 27-35. When those expenses are calculated as deductions from Plaintiffs’ and NCWHA class members’ first week’s pay, they cause Plaintiffs’ and NCWHA class members’ earnings for that week to be negative, which is well below the prevailing wage which Defendants promised and were required to pay, in violation of N.C.G.S. § 95-25.6. 74. Defendants calculated Plaintiffs’ and NCWHA subclass members’ pay using an hourly wage which was less than the prevailing wage. As a result, Defendants failed to pay the named Plaintiffs and the members of the NCWHA subclass defined in ¶ 49 above at least the promised wage for all compensable work time that the Defendants allowed, suffered, and/or required the named Plaintiffs and the NCWHA subclass members to work for Defendants in each workweek, in violation of N.C.G.S. § 95-25.6. 75. As a result of these actions of the Defendants in violation of their rights under N.C.G.S. §§95-25.6 and 95-25.8, the named Plaintiffs and the NCWHA class and NCWHA subclass they seek to represent have suffered damages in the form of unpaid wages and liquidated damages that may be recovered from Defendants, jointly and severally, under N.C.G.S. §§ 95-25.22(a) and 95-25.22(a1).
17
Case 2:10-cv-00010-F Document 1 Filed 03/17/2010 Page 17 of 21

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Wrongful Discharge Based on Violation of North Carolina Public Policy) 76. Paragraphs 1 through 75 above are realleged and incorporated by reference by the named Plaintiffs and the class defined in ¶ 61 above which the named Plaintiffs seek to represent. 77. The public policy of North Carolina prohibits discrimination in employment on the basis of sex. This public policy is set forth in the NCEEPA, which states that “[i]t is the public policy of this State to protect and safeguard the right and opportunity of all persons to seek, obtain and hold employment without discrimination or abridgement on account of race, religion, color, national origin, age, sex or handicap by employers which regularly employ 15 or more employees.” N.C.G.S. § 143-422.2. 78. Defendants discharged the named Plaintiffs and the NCEEPA class as a result of Defendants’ discriminatory practice of giving women different jobs and fewer hours than men. Defendants thereby violated the public policy of the state of North Carolina when they wrongfully discharged the named Plaintiffs and the NCEEPA class. 79. As a consequence of Defendants’ violation of the public policy of the state, the named Plaintiffs and the NCEEPA class suffered and will continue to suffer loss of wages and other tangible job benefits. Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to receive compensatory damages.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully prays that this Court: 1. Enter an order finding that this Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims; 2. Certify this action as a collective action under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) with respect to the
FLSA class defined in ¶ 44 of this Complaint;
18
Case 2:10-cv-00010-F Document 1 Filed 03/17/2010 Page 18 of 21

3. Certify this action as a class action under Rule 23(b)(3), Fed.R.Civ.P., for back wages and liquidated damages under N.C.G.S. § 95-25.22 with respect to the NCWHA class defined in ¶ 47 and the NCWHA subclass defined in ¶ 49;
4. Certify this action as a class action under Rule 23(b)(3), Fed. R. Civ. P., for compensatory damages under N.C.G.S. §§143-422.2 with respect to the NCEEPA class defined in ¶ 61;
5. Enter a judgment against Defendants Capt. Charlie’s Seafood, Inc., Phillip Carawan and Tara Foreman, jointly and severally, and in favor of the named Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated employees of Defendants described in ¶ 44 of this Complaint for compensatory damages under the First Claim for Relief in an amount equal to the total of the unpaid minimum wages due to the named Plaintiffs and each of those other similarly situated employees of Defendants under 29 U.S.C. § 206(a)(1), plus an equal amount as liquidated damages under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b);
6. Enter judgment against Defendants Capt. Charlie’s Seafood, Inc., Phillip Carawan and Tara Foreman, jointly and severally, and in favor of the named Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated employees of Defendants described in ¶¶ 47 and 49 of this Complaint for compensatory damages under the Second Claim for Relief in an amount equal to the total of the unpaid promised wages due to the named Plaintiffs and the classes of workers under N.C.G.S. §§ 95-24.22(a), plus an equal additional amount as liquidated damages under N.C.G.S. § 95-25.22(a)(1) plus interest in the manner and at the rate prescribed in N.C.G.S. § 95-25.22(a);
7. Enter judgment against Defendants Capt. Charlie’s Seafood, Inc., Phillip Carawan and Tara Foreman, jointly and severally, and in favor of the named Plaintiffs and all
19
Case 2:10-cv-00010-F Document 1 Filed 03/17/2010 Page 19 of 21

other similarly situated employees of Defendants described in ¶ 61 of this Complaint for compensatory damages under the Third Claim for Relief under N.C.G.S. §§143422.2; 8. Issue a declaratory judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 57 that Defendants violated the Plaintiffs’ rights under the FLSA, NCWHA and NCEEPA and their implementing rules and regulations. 9. Award Plaintiffs the costs of this action against Defendants Capt. Charlie’s Seafood, Inc., Phillip Carawan and Tara Foreman, jointly and severally; 10. Award Plaintiffs reasonable attorneys’ fees under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), N.C.G.S. § 9525.22(d), and N.C.G.S. § 95-243 against Defendants Capt. Charlie’s Seafood, Inc., Phillip Carawan and Tara Foreman, jointly and severally; 11. Award against Defendants Capt. Charlie’s Seafood, Inc., Phillip Carawan and Tara Foreman, jointly and severally, and in favor of the named Plaintiffs and the classes of workers they seek to represent, prejudgment and post judgment interest as allowed by law; and 12. Grant such other relief as the Court may deem just and proper. This the 17th day of March, 2010
Respectfully submitted, NORTH CAROLINA JUSTICE CENTER P.O. Box 28068 Raleigh, NC 27611 919-856-2165 919-856-2175 (fax) BY: /s/ Clermont L. Fraser
Clermont L. Fraser 919-861-0606 clermont@ncjustice.org.
20
Case 2:10-cv-00010-F Document 1 Filed 03/17/2010 Page 20 of 21

Attorney at Law NC Bar # 36761
/s/ Carol L. Brooke Carol L. Brooke 919-856-2144 carol@ncjustice.org Attorney at Law NC Bar # 29126
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF NORTH CAROLINA LEGAL FOUNDATION P.O. Box 28004 Raleigh, NC 27611 919-834-3466 866-511-1344 (fax)
BY: /s/ Katherine Lewis Parker Katherine Lewis Parker 919-834-3466 acluncklp@nc.rr.com Attorney at Law NC Bar # 36263
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION 125 Broad Street New York, NY 10004 212-519-7861 212-549-2580 (fax)
BY: /s/ Lenora M. Lapidus Lenora M. Lapidus 212-549-2668 llapidus@aclu.org Attorney at Law
Attorney pursuant to LR 83.1 and LR 57.1 EDNC
/s/ Ariela M. Migdal Ariela M. Migdal 212-519-7861 amigdal@aclu.org Attorney at Law Attorney pursuant to LR 83.1 and LR 57.1 EDNC
21
Case 2:10-cv-00010-F Document 1 Filed 03/17/2010 Page 21 of 21

 
 Case: 2:10-cv-10 As of: 01/28/2016 04:21 PM EST 1 of 9
CLOSED,Jury Trial,MEDIATION,USMJ Gates
U.S. District Court EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA (Northern Division)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:10−cv−00010−F

Landeros Covarrubias et al v. Capt. Charlie's Seafood, Inc. et al Assigned to: Senior Judge James C. Fox Cause: 15:2(a) Fair Labor Standards Act
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 03/17/2010 Date Terminated: 11/21/2011 Jury Demand: Defendant Nature of Suit: 710 Labor: Fair Standards Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Marlen Landeros Landeros Covarrubias

represented by Clermont Fraser Ripley North Carolina Justice Center 224 S. Dawson St. Raleigh, NC 27601 919−856−2570 Fax: 919−856−2175 Email: clermont@ncjustice.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ariela M. Migdal American Civil Liberties Union Foundation Women's Rights Project 125 Broad St., 18th Floor New York, NY 10004 212−519−7661 Fax: 212−549−2580 Email: amigdal@aclu.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lenora M. Lapidus American Civil Liberties Union Foundation Women's Rights Project 125 Broad St., 18th Floor New York, NY 10004 212−549−2666 Fax: 212−549−2580 Email: llapidus@aclu.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Risha K. Foulkes American Civil Liberties Union Foundation Women's Rights Project 125 Broad St., 18th Floor New York, NY 10004 212−284−7325 Fax: 212−549−2580 Email: rfoulkes@aclu.org TERMINATED: 10/27/2010

Plaintiff Sandivel Villanueva Flores

represented by Clermont Fraser Ripley (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ariela M. Migdal (See above for address)

Case: 2:10-cv-10 As of: 01/28/2016 04:21 PM EST 2 of 9

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lenora M. Lapidus (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Risha K. Foulkes (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/27/2010

Plaintiff Rita Dorali Curiel Sandoval

represented by Clermont Fraser Ripley (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ariela M. Migdal (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lenora M. Lapidus (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Risha K. Foulkes (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/27/2010

V. Defendant Capt. Charlie's Seafood, Inc.
Defendant Phillip Carawan
Defendant Tara Foreman

represented by John E. Pueschel Womble Carlyle Sandridge &Rice, PLLC One West Fourth Street Winston−Salem, NC 27101 336−721−3726 Fax: 336−726−6013 Email: jpueschel@wcsr.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James R. Morgan , Jr. Womble Carlyle Sandridge &Rice, PLLC One West Fourth St. Winston−Salem, NC 27101 336−721−3600 Fax: 336−733−8394 Email: jmorgan@wcsr.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by John E. Pueschel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James R. Morgan , Jr. (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by

Case: 2:10-cv-10 As of: 01/28/2016 04:21 PM EST 3 of 9
John E. Pueschel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James R. Morgan , Jr. (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 03/17/2010
03/17/2010 03/17/2010 03/17/2010 03/18/2010 03/18/2010 03/18/2010 03/22/2010
04/05/2010
04/05/2010 04/06/2010 04/07/2010
04/07/2010 04/26/2010
04/26/2010

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against all defendants ( Filing fee $ 350 receipt number RAL012126.), filed by Marlen Landeros Landeros Covarrubias, Sandivel Villanueva Flores, Rita Dorali Curiel Sandoval. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Civil cover sheet, # 2 Appendix Summons for Def. Capt. Charlie's Seafood, Inc., # 3 Appendix Summons for Def. Carawan, # 4 Appendix Summons for Def. Foreman) (Fraser, Clermont) (Entered: 03/17/2010)
2 FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE STATEMENT by Marlen Landeros Landeros Covarrubias (Fraser, Clermont) (Entered: 03/17/2010)
3 FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE STATEMENT by Sandivel Villanueva Flores (Fraser, Clermont) (Entered: 03/17/2010)
4 FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE STATEMENT by Rita Dorali Curiel Sandoval (Fraser, Clermont) (Entered: 03/17/2010)
5 Summons Issued as to Capt. Charlie's Seafood, Inc. (Grady, B.) (Entered: 03/18/2010)
6 Summons Issued as to Phillip Carawan. (Grady, B.) (Entered: 03/18/2010)
7 Summons Issued as to Tara Foreman. (Grady, B.) (Entered: 03/18/2010)
Case Selected for Mediation − A printable list of certified mediators for the Eastern District of North Carolina is available on the court's Website, http://www.nced.uscourts.gov/applications/mediators.asp. Please serve this list on all parties. (Beasley, B.) (Entered: 03/22/2010)
8 PROPOSED ORDER FOR MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re 1 Complaint, or Otherwise Plead by Capt. Charlie's Seafood, Inc.. (Pueschel, John) Modified on 4/7/2010 to correct the docket text (Edwards, S.). (Entered: 04/05/2010)
9 First MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re 1 Complaint, or Otherwise Plead by Capt. Charlie's Seafood, Inc.. (Pueschel, John) (Entered: 04/05/2010)
10 Proposed Order re 9 First MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re 1 Complaint, or Otherwise Plead to and including 5/4/10 filed by Capt. Charlie's Seafood, Inc.. (Pueschel, John) (Entered: 04/06/2010)
NOTICE OF CORRECTION re: 8 Motion for Extension of Time to File Answer. Counsel inadvertantly docketed this pleading as a motion. It is actually the 'proposed order' to a motion. Case manager will terminate it as a motion and change the docket text to reflect that it is a proposed order. (Edwards, S.) (Entered: 04/07/2010)
11 ORDER granting 9 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer Capt. Charlie's Seafood, Inc. answer due 5/4/2010. Signed by Susan Edwards, Deputy on 4/7/2010. Copies served. (Edwards, S.) (Entered: 04/07/2010)
12 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Marlen Landeros Landeros Covarrubias, Sandivel Villanueva Flores, Rita Dorali Curiel Sandoval. Capt. Charlie's Seafood, Inc. served on 3/23/2010, answer due 5/4/2010. (Fraser, Clermont) (Entered: 04/26/2010)
13 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Marlen Landeros Landeros Covarrubias, Sandivel Villanueva Flores, Rita Dorali Curiel Sandoval. Phillip Carawan served

Case: 2:10-cv-10 As of: 01/28/2016 04:21 PM EST 4 of 9

04/26/2010 04/27/2010
04/27/2010 05/04/2010 05/04/2010 05/05/2010
05/19/2010 05/19/2010 05/19/2010 05/19/2010 05/19/2010 06/10/2010 06/24/2010 06/25/2010 06/25/2010 06/29/2010
07/01/2010

on 4/7/2010, answer due 4/28/2010. (Fraser, Clermont) (Entered: 04/26/2010)
14 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Marlen Landeros Landeros Covarrubias, Sandivel Villanueva Flores, Rita Dorali Curiel Sandoval. Tara Foreman served on 4/7/2010, answer due 4/28/2010. (Fraser, Clermont) (Entered: 04/26/2010)
15 First MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re 1 Complaint, up to and including May 19, 2010 by Phillip Carawan, Tara Foreman. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order for Extension of Time by Defendants Phillip Carawan and Tara Foreman) (Pueschel, John) (Entered: 04/27/2010)
16 ORDER granting 15 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer Phillip Carawan answer due 5/19/2010; Tara Foreman answer due 5/19/2010. Signed by Judge Unassigned on 4/27/2010. Copies served. (Edwards, S.) (Entered: 04/27/2010)
17 ANSWER to 1 Complaint with Jury Demand by Capt. Charlie's Seafood, Inc. (Pueschel, John) (Entered: 05/04/2010)
18 FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE STATEMENT by Capt. Charlie's Seafood, Inc. There are no corporate parents for this defendant. (Pueschel, John) Modified on 5/5/2010 (Edwards, S.). (Entered: 05/04/2010)
NOTICE OF CORRECTION re: 18 Financial Disclosure Statement. After being advised by counsel for defendant Capt. Charlie's Seafood, there are no corporate parents for this defendant and an error was made in the docket text upon e−filing the statement. The case manager has made the necessary correction to the text for counsel. No need to refile anything. (Edwards, S.) (Entered: 05/05/2010)
19 ANSWER to 1 Complaint, with Jury Demand by Phillip Carawan. (Pueschel, John) (Entered: 05/19/2010)
20 ANSWER to 1 Complaint, with Jury Demand by Tara Foreman. (Pueschel, John) (Entered: 05/19/2010)
21 FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE STATEMENT by Phillip Carawan. (Pueschel, John) (Entered: 05/19/2010)
22 FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE STATEMENT by Tara Foreman. (Pueschel, John) (Entered: 05/19/2010)
23 ORDER FOR DISCOVERY PLAN sent to all parties. Signed by Dennis Iavarone, Clerk of Court on 5/19/2010. Copies served. (Edwards, S.) (Entered: 05/19/2010)
24 NOTICE of Appearance for non−district by Ariela M. Migdal on behalf of Rita Dorali Curiel Sandoval, Sandivel Villanueva Flores, Marlen Landeros Landeros Covarrubias (Migdal, Ariela) (Entered: 06/10/2010)
25 Rule 26(f) Report (joint) by Rita Dorali Curiel Sandoval, Sandivel Villanueva Flores, Marlen Landeros Landeros Covarrubias. (Fraser, Clermont) (Entered: 06/24/2010)
Referred the parties proposed discovery plan at 25 to USMJ Gates for an order on scheduling. (Edwards, S.) (Entered: 06/25/2010)
26 NOTICE of Appearance for non−district by Risha K. Foulkes on behalf of Rita Dorali Curiel Sandoval, Sandivel Villanueva Flores, Marlen Landeros Landeros Covarrubias (Foulkes, Risha) (Entered: 06/25/2010)
27 SCHEDULING ORDER: Discovery due by 4/15/2011. Motions due by 6/15/2011. Jury Trial set for this court's 10/3/2011 SESSION at 10:00 AM in Wilmington, NC − Courtroom 1 before Judge James C. Fox. Signed by USMJ James E. Gates on 6/28/2010. (Attachments: # 1 Consent to USMJ Form) (Edwards, S.) (Entered: 06/29/2010)
Pursuant to Local ADR Rule 101.1c(a), counsel is reminded that the parties must file a statement identifying an agreed upon mediator within twenty one (21) days of the entry of the Scheduling Order. If a statement is not timely filed, the Clerk of Court will appoint a mediator from the list of court certified mediators. (Beasley, B.) (Entered: 07/01/2010)

Case: 2:10-cv-10 As of: 01/28/2016 04:21 PM EST 5 of 9

07/02/2010 07/02/2010 07/14/2010 08/04/2010 08/06/2010
08/06/2010
08/25/2010 08/26/2010 08/27/2010 09/23/2010 09/24/2010 09/24/2010 09/27/2010

28 NOTICE of Appearance for non−district by Lenora M. Lapidus on behalf of Rita Dorali Curiel Sandoval, Sandivel Villanueva Flores, Marlen Landeros Landeros Covarrubias (Lapidus, Lenora) (Entered: 07/02/2010)
29 SELECTION OF Jonathan R. Harkavy as mediator. (Fraser, Clermont) (Entered: 07/02/2010)
30 ORDER Appointing Mediator Jonathan R. Harkavy. Signed by Clerk of Court on 7/14/2010. (Beasley, B.) (Entered: 07/14/2010)
31 NOTICE of Appearance by James R. Morgan, Jr on behalf of Capt. Charlie's Seafood, Inc., Phillip Carawan, Tara Foreman (Morgan, James) (Entered: 08/04/2010)
32 MOTION for Conditional Certification of a Collective Action, For Disclosure of Contact Information for Potention Opt−In Plaintiffs, and to Distribute Court−Approved Notice Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 216(B) by Rita Dorali Curiel Sandoval, Sandivel Villanueva Flores, Marlen Landeros Landeros Covarrubias. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Appendix No. 1, Proposed Notice, # 3 Appendix No. 2, Proposed Consent Form) (Fraser, Clermont). (Entered: 08/06/2010)
33 Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional Certification of a Collective Action, For Disclosure of Contact Information For Potention Opt−In Plaintiffs, and to Distribute Court−Approved Notice Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 216(B) filed by Rita Dorali Curiel Sandoval, Sandivel Villanueva Flores, Marlen Landeros Landeros Covarrubias. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, Clearance Order, # 2 Exhibit B, Landeros Covarrubias Declaration, # 3 Exhibit C, Flores Declaration, # 4 Exhibit D, Curiel Sandoval Declaration, # 5 Appendix Jimenez Orozco v. Baker Roofing, # 6 Appendix Williams Seafood Order, # 7 Appendix Frog Island Seafood Order, # 8 Appendix Sea Safari Order, # 9 Appendix Sharer v. Tandberg, # 10 Appendix Williams Seafood Order 2) (Fraser, Clermont). (Entered: 08/06/2010)
34 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 32 MOTION to Certify Class Conditional Certification of Collective Action by Capt. Charlie's Seafood, Inc., Phillip Carawan, Tara Foreman. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Pueschel, John) (Entered: 08/25/2010)
Motion Submitted to Senior Judge Fox: 34 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 32 MOTION to Certify Class Conditional Certification of Collective Action (Edwards, S.) (Entered: 08/26/2010)
35 ORDER granting 34 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response to 32 MOTION for Conditional Certification of Collective Action. Responses due by 9/25/2010. Signed by Senior Judge James C. Fox on 8/27/2010. (Foell, S.) (Entered: 08/27/2010)
36 Second MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 32 MOTION to Certify Class Conditional Certification of Collective Action by Capt. Charlie's Seafood, Inc., Phillip Carawan, Tara Foreman. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Pueschel, John) (Entered: 09/23/2010)
Motion Submitted to Judge Fox: 36 Second MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 32 MOTION to Certify Class Conditional Certification of Collective Action Second MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 32 MOTION to Certify Class Conditional Certification of Collective Action (Foell, S.). (Entered: 09/24/2010)
37 ORDER granting 36 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response to 32 MOTION to Certify Class Conditional Certification of Collective Action. Responses due by 10/25/2010. Signed by Senior Judge James C. Fox on 9/24/2010. (Foell, S.) (Entered: 09/24/2010)
38 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by Rita Dorali Curiel Sandoval, Sandivel Villanueva Flores, Marlen Landeros Landeros Covarrubias. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Foulkes, Risha). (Entered: 09/27/2010)

Case: 2:10-cv-10 As of: 01/28/2016 04:21 PM EST 6 of 9

09/28/2010
10/25/2010 10/26/2010 10/27/2010 10/27/2010 11/24/2010
11/24/2010 11/29/2010 01/10/2011
01/10/2011 01/12/2011 01/13/2011 02/07/2011
02/08/2011

NOTICE TO COUNSEL re: 38 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Local Rule Counsel's signature block is not complete pursuant to Section J of the CM/ECF Policy and Procedure Manual which may be obtained on the court's website at www.nced.uscourts.gov. All future documents must comply with this rule. No need to refile anything at this time. (Edwards, S.) (Entered: 09/28/2010)
39 Third MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 32 MOTION to Certify Class Conditional Certification of Collective Action by Capt. Charlie's Seafood, Inc., Phillip Carawan, Tara Foreman. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Pueschel, John) (Entered: 10/25/2010)
Motions Submitted to Senior Judge Fox: 38 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney, 39 Third MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 32 MOTION to Certify Class Conditional Certification of Collective Action (Edwards, S.) (Entered: 10/27/2010)
40 ORDER granting 38 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Risha K. Foulkes terminated. Signed by Senior Judge James C. Fox on 10/27/2010. Copies served. (Edwards, S.) (Entered: 10/27/2010)
41 ORDER granting 39 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re 32 MOTION to Certify Class Conditional Certification of Collective Action. Responses due by 11/24/2010. Signed by Senior Judge James C. Fox on 10/27/2010. Copies served. (Edwards, S.) (Entered: 10/27/2010)
42 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Defendants' Response to Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional Certification by Capt. Charlie's Seafood, Inc., Phillip Carawan, Rita Dorali Curiel Sandoval, Sandivel Villanueva Flores, Tara Foreman, Marlen Landeros Landeros Covarrubias. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Pueschel, John) (Entered: 11/24/2010)
Motions Submitted to Judge Fox: 42 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Defendants' Response to Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional Certification (Foell, S.) (Entered: 11/24/2010)
43 ORDER granting 42 Motion for Extension of Time to File a Response. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants shall have up to and including January 8, 2011, to respond to Plaintiffs' Motion. Signed by Senior Judge James C. Fox on 11/29/2010. Copies served. (Edwards, S.) (Entered: 11/29/2010)
44 FOURTH MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 32 MOTION to Certify Class Conditional Certification of Collective Action by Capt. Charlie's Seafood, Inc., Phillip Carawan, Tara Foreman. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Pueschel, John) Modified on 1/10/2011 to include the Fourth Motion (Edwards, S.). (Entered: 01/10/2011)
Motion Submitted Senior Judge Fox: 44 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 32 MOTION to Certify Class Conditional Certification of Collective Action (Edwards, S.) (Entered: 01/10/2011)
Received verbal consent by opposing counsel to the motion at 44 . Will advise chambers. (Edwards, S.) (Entered: 01/12/2011)
45 ORDER granting 44 Fourth Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. Response now due by 2/7/2011. Signed by Senior Judge James C. Fox on 1/13/2011. Copies served. (Edwards, S.) (Entered: 01/13/2011)
46 FIFTH MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 32 MOTION to Certify Class Conditional Certification of Collective Action by Capt. Charlie's Seafood, Inc., Phillip Carawan, Rita Dorali Curiel Sandoval, Sandivel Villanueva Flores, Tara Foreman, Marlen Landeros Landeros Covarrubias. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Pueschel, John) Modified on 2/8/2011 to include that this is the fifth request (Edwards, S.). (Entered: 02/07/2011)
Motion Submitted to Senior Judge Fox: 46 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 32 MOTION to Certify Class Conditional Certification of Collective Action. (Edwards, S.) (Entered: 02/08/2011)

Case: 2:10-cv-10 As of: 01/28/2016 04:21 PM EST 7 of 9

02/08/2011 03/09/2011 03/09/2011 03/10/2011 03/15/2011 06/13/2011 06/13/2011 06/13/2011
06/13/2011 06/13/2011
06/14/2011 06/21/2011 06/27/2011
06/28/2011 06/28/2011

47 ORDER granting 46 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re 32 MOTION to Certify Class Conditional Certification of Collective Action. Response due by 3/9/2011. Signed by Senior Judge James C. Fox on 2/8/2011. Copies served. (Edwards, S.) (Entered: 02/08/2011)
48 Joint MOTION to hold in abeyance the deadline established by the Court's February 7, 2011 Order by Rita Dorali Curiel Sandoval, Sandivel Villanueva Flores, Marlen Landeros Landeros Covarrubias. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed order) (Fraser, Clermont) (Entered: 03/09/2011)
Motion Submitted to Senior Judge Fox: 48 Joint MOTION to hold in abeyance the deadline established by the Court's February 7, 2011 Order. (Edwards, S.) (Entered: 03/09/2011)
49 ORDER denying 48 Motion Hold in Abeyance the deadline of 3/9/2011. Counsel should read the order in its entirety for critical deadlines and instructions. Signed by Senior Judge James C. Fox on 3/10/2011. Copies served. (Edwards, S.) (Entered: 03/10/2011)
Submitted a copy of the parties Report of Mediator at 50 to Senior Judge Fox for his review. (Edwards, S.) (Entered: 03/15/2011)
51 First MOTION to Amend/Correct Complaint by Rita Dorali Curiel Sandoval, Sandivel Villanueva Flores, Marlen Landeros Landeros Covarrubias. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 First Amended Complaint) (Fraser, Clermont) (Entered: 06/13/2011)
52 Joint MOTION to Certify Class by Rita Dorali Curiel Sandoval, Sandivel Villanueva Flores, Marlen Landeros Landeros Covarrubias. (Fraser, Clermont) (Entered: 06/13/2011)
53 Memorandum in Support re 52 Joint MOTION to Certify Class filed by Rita Dorali Curiel Sandoval, Sandivel Villanueva Flores, Marlen Landeros Landeros Covarrubias. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit No 1, Hernandez−Garcia Order, # 2 Exhibit No 2, Decl. of C. Fraser, # 3 Exhibit No. 3 Decl. of C. Brooke, # 4 Exhibit No. 4 Decl. of A. Migdal, # 5 Exhibit No. 5 Decl. of L. Lapidus, # 6 Appendix Gaxiola v. Williams Seafood) (Fraser, Clermont) (Entered: 06/13/2011)
54 Joint MOTION for Settlement Approval by Rita Dorali Curiel Sandoval, Sandivel Villanueva Flores, Marlen Landeros Landeros Covarrubias. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit No 1, Settlement Agreement) (Fraser, Clermont) (Entered: 06/13/2011)
55 Memorandum in Support re 54 Joint MOTION for Settlement Approval filed by Rita Dorali Curiel Sandoval, Sandivel Villanueva Flores, Marlen Landeros Landeros Covarrubias. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit No 1, Decl of C. Fraser, # 2 Appendix Deloach v. Phillip Morris, # 3 Appendix Gaxiola v. Williams Seafood) (Fraser, Clermont) (Entered: 06/13/2011)
Motions Submitted to Senior Judge James C. Fox: 52 Joint MOTION to Certify Class, 51 First MOTION to Amend/Correct Complaint, 54 Joint MOTION for Settlement Approval. (Edwards, S.) (Entered: 06/14/2011)
Motion Submitted to Senior Judge James C. Fox: 32 MOTION to Certify Class Conditional Certification of Collective Action. (Edwards, S.) (Entered: 06/21/2011)
56 NOTICE of Filing Corrected Documents by Rita Dorali Curiel Sandoval, Sandivel Villanueva Flores, Marlen Landeros Landeros Covarrubias re 51 First MOTION to Amend/Correct Complaint, 54 Joint MOTION for Settlement Approval (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Replaces Ex. 1 to Doc. 51, # 2 Appendix Replaces Ex. 1 to Doc. 54) (Fraser, Clermont) (Entered: 06/27/2011)
57 ORDER granting 51 Motion to Amend Complaint. It is therefore ordered that the plaintiffs may file an amended complaint in this matter. Signed by Senior Judge James C. Fox on 6/28/2011. (Foell, S.) (Entered: 06/28/2011)
58 AMENDED COMPLAINT against All Defendants, filed by Marlen Landeros Landeros Covarrubias, Rita Dorali Curiel Sandoval, Sandivel Villanueva Flores. (Fraser, Clermont) (Entered: 06/28/2011)

Case: 2:10-cv-10 As of: 01/28/2016 04:21 PM EST 8 of 9

07/01/2011
07/01/2011 07/06/2011 07/06/2011 07/06/2011
07/08/2011
07/08/2011 07/08/2011 11/16/2011
11/16/2011
11/18/2011 11/18/2011 11/18/2011
11/18/2011 11/21/2011
11/21/2011 12/21/2011

59 Joint MOTION Approval of Class Notice by Rita Dorali Curiel Sandoval, Sandivel Villanueva Flores, Marlen Landeros Landeros Covarrubias. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Proposed Class Notice, # 2 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order) (Fraser, Clermont) (Entered: 07/01/2011)
Motion Submitted to Judge Fox: 59 Joint MOTION to Approve Class Action. (Foell, S.) (Entered: 07/01/2011)
60 ORDER granting 54 Motion for Settlement. Counsel is reminded to read the order in its entirety for critical deadlines and instructions. Signed by Senior Judge James C. Fox on 7/5/2011. (Edwards, S.) (Entered: 07/06/2011)
61 ORDER granting 52 Motion to Certify Class. Counsel is reminded to read the order in its entirety for critical deadlines and instructions. Signed by Senior Judge James C. Fox on 7/5/2011. (Edwards, S.) (Entered: 07/06/2011)
62 ORDER Approving Content of Notice of Class and Subclass Members and Method of Distribution of Class Notice. Counsel is reminded to read the order in its entirety for critical deadlines and instructions. Signed by Senior Judge James C. Fox on 7/5/2011. (Edwards, S.) (Entered: 07/06/2011)
63 ORDER granting 59 Motion Approval of Class Notice. Counsel is reminded to read the order in its entirety for critical deadlines and instructions. Signed by Senior Judge James C. Fox on 7/8/2011. (Edwards, S.) (Edwards, S.). (Entered: 07/08/2011)
64 NOTICE of Hearing: Fairness Hearing set before Senior Judge James C. Fox on 11/21/2011 at 10:00 a.m. in Wilmington, NC. (Edwards, S.) (Entered: 07/08/2011)
65 AMENDED NOTICE of Hearing: Settlement Class Fairness Hearing set before Senior Judge James C. Fox on 11/21/2011 at 10:00 a.m. in Wilmington, NC. (Edwards, S.) (Entered: 07/08/2011)
66 JOINT MOTION for Final Settlement by Capt. Charlie's Seafood, Inc., Phillip Carawan, Rita Dorali Curiel Sandoval, Sandivel Villanueva Flores, Tara Foreman, Marlen Landeros Landeros Covarrubias. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Edwards, S.) (Entered: 11/18/2011)
67 Memorandum in Support re 66 MOTION for Final Settlement filed by Capt. Charlie's Seafood, Inc., Phillip Carawan, Rita Dorali Curiel Sandoval, Sandivel Villanueva Flores, Tara Foreman, Marlen Landeros Landeros Covarrubias. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Settlement Agreement and Release, # 2 Exhibit 2 − Declaration of Clermont Fraser, # 3 Exhibit 3 − Letters from Individuals in regards to the lawsuit) (Edwards, S.) (Entered: 11/18/2011)
Motion Submitted to Senior Judge James C. Fox: 66 MOTION for Final Settlement. (Edwards, S.) (Entered: 11/18/2011)
MOTION REFERRED to Dennis P. Iavarone, Clerk of Court: 66 MOTION for Final Settlement. (Edwards, S.) (Entered: 11/18/2011)
COUNSEL DISREGARD THE ENTRY made in this matter on this date in regards to Motion at 66 being referred to Dennis P. Iavarone as it was inadvertantly entered in this case. The motion at 66 was correctly submitted to Senior Judge James C. Fox. (Edwards, S.) (Entered: 11/18/2011)
Motion No Longer Referred to Dennis P. Iavarone, Clerk: 66 MOTION for Settlement. (Edwards, S.) (Entered: 11/18/2011)
68 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Senior Judge James C. Fox in Wilmington: Settlement Class Fairness Hearing held on 11/21/2011. Counsel present for plaintiffs and defendants. The court approves the settlement between the parties. (Court Reporter − Stacy Schwinn) (Foell, S.) (Entered: 11/21/2011)
69 ORDER granting 66 Final Approval of Class Action Settlement. Signed by Senior Judge James C. Fox on 11/21/2011. (Foell, S.) (Entered: 11/21/2011)
70 NOTICE by Rita Dorali Curiel Sandoval, Sandivel Villanueva Flores, Marlen Landeros Landeros Covarrubias filing Consent Decree (Attachments: # 1 Appendix

Case: 2:10-cv-10 As of: 01/28/2016 04:21 PM EST 9 of 9

12/22/2011 12/22/2011 01/04/2012 01/05/2012 11/06/2013
11/06/2013 11/07/2013

Consent Decree) (Fraser, Clermont) (Entered: 12/21/2011)
Submitted the Notice of Filing proposed Consent Decree at 70 to Senior Judge James C. Fox for his review and consideration. (Edwards, S.) (Entered: 12/22/2011)
71 Consent Decree. Counsel is reminded to read the Decree in its entirety for critical information and deadlines. Signed by Senior Judge James C. Fox on 12/22/2011. (Edwards, S.) (Entered: 12/22/2011)
72 NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by Rita Dorali Curiel Sandoval, Sandivel Villanueva Flores, Marlen Landeros Landeros Covarrubias (Fraser, Clermont) (Entered: 01/04/2012)
Submitted a copy of the Notice of Voluntary Dismissal at 72 to Senior Judge James C. Fox. (Edwards, S.) (Entered: 01/05/2012)
73 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to Make Cy Pres Award by Rita Dorali Curiel Sandoval, Sandivel Villanueva Flores, Marlen Landeros Landeros Covarrubias. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Ripley, Clermont) (Entered: 11/06/2013)
Motion Submitted to Senior Judge James C. Fox: 73 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to Make Cy Pres Award. (Edwards, S.) (Entered: 11/06/2013)
74 ORDER granting 73 Motion for Extension of Time. Class Counsel shall have up to and including May 21, 2014 to locate and distribute settlement payments to class members as outlined in the Settlement Agreement at 69 . Signed by Senior Judge James C. Fox on 11/7/2013. (Edwards, S.) (Entered: 11/07/2013)