U.S. District Court Southern District of California (San Diego) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:17−cv−02573−JLS−NLS

STAYED

Gonzalez et al v. CoreCivic, Inc. Assigned to: Judge Janis L. Sammartino Referred to: Magistrate Judge Nita L. Stormes Related Case: 3:17−cv−01112−JLS−NLS Cause: 28:1331dj Fed. Question: Declaratory Judgment
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 12/27/2017 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 790 Labor: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Carlos Gonzalez individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated

represented by Daniel Henry Charest Burns Charest LLP 900 Jackson Street Suite 500 Dallas, TX 75202 469−904−4550 Fax: 469−444−5002 Email: dcharest@burnscharest.com LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Korey Arthur Nelson Burns Charest LLP 365 Canal Street Suite 1170 New Orleans, LA 70130 504−799−2845 Fax: 504−881−1765 Email: knelson@burnscharest.com LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lydia A. Wright Burns Charest LLP 365 Canal Street Suite 1170 New Orleans, LA 70130 504−799−2844 Fax: 504−881−1765 Email: lwright@burnscharest.com LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew Robert Freda Law Office of R. Andrew Free PO Box 90568 Nashville, TN 37209 844−321−3221 x1 Fax: 615−829−8959 Email: matt@immigrantcivilrights.com LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nicole Elizabeth Ramos Paseo Ensenada 1161 Int. B. Seccion Jardines, Playas de Tijuana Tijuana, Baja California, CA 22500

619−786−4866 Fax: 619−202−7752 Email: nicole@alotrolado.org LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert R. Ahdoot Ahdoot and Wolfson APC 10728 Lindbrook Drive Los Angeles, CA 90024 (310) 474−91111 Fax: (310) 474−8585 Email: rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Andrew Free Law Office of R. Andrew Free PO Box 90568 Nashville, TN 37209 844−321−3221 x1 Fax: 615−829−8959 Email: Andrew@ImmigrantCivilRights.com LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tina Wolfson Ahdoot and Wolfson PC 10728 Lindbrook Drive Los Angeles, CA 90024 (310) 474−9111 Fax: (310) 474−8585 Email: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Vanessa Tamara Shakib Ahdoot and Wolfson PC 10728 Lindbrook Drive Los Angeles, CA 90024 310−474−9111 x18 Fax: 310−474−8585 Email: vshakib@ahdootwolfson.com TERMINATED: 08/19/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Warren Tavares Burns Burns Charest LLP 900 Jackson Street Suite 500 Dallas, TX 75202 469.904.4550 Fax: 469.444.5002 Email: wburns@burnscharest.com LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William B. Thompson Burns Charest LLP 900 Jackson Street Suite 500

Plaintiff
Juan Jose Merino−Rodas individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated

Dallas, TX 75202 469−904−4550 Fax: 469−444−5002 Email: wthompson@burnscharest.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Daniel Henry Charest (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Korey Arthur Nelson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lydia A. Wright (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew Robert Freda (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nicole Elizabeth Ramos (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert R. Ahdoot (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Andrew Free (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tina Wolfson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Vanessa Tamara Shakib (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/20/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Warren Tavares Burns (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE

Plaintiff
Maribel Gutierrez−Canchola individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William B. Thompson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Daniel Henry Charest (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Korey Arthur Nelson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lydia A. Wright (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew Robert Freda (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nicole Elizabeth Ramos (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert R. Ahdoot (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Andrew Free (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tina Wolfson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Vanessa Tamara Shakib (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/20/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Warren Tavares Burns (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE

Plaintiff
Gladys Carrera−Duarte individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William B. Thompson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Daniel Henry Charest (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Korey Arthur Nelson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lydia A. Wright (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew Robert Freda (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nicole Elizabeth Ramos (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert R. Ahdoot (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Andrew Free (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tina Wolfson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Vanessa Tamara Shakib (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/20/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Warren Tavares Burns (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE

Plaintiff
Jennye Pagoada−Lopez individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William B. Thompson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Daniel Henry Charest (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Korey Arthur Nelson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lydia A. Wright (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew Robert Freda (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nicole Elizabeth Ramos (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert R. Ahdoot (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Andrew Free (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tina Wolfson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Vanessa Tamara Shakib (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/20/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Warren Tavares Burns (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE

V. Intervenor Plaintiff Sylvester Owino
Intervenor Plaintiff Jonathan Gomez
V. Defendant CoreCivic, Inc.

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William B. Thompson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert L. Teel Law Office of Robert L. Teel 1425 Broadway Mail Code: 20−6690 Seattle, WA 98122 866−833−5529 Fax: 855−609−6911 Email: lawoffice@rlteel.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eileen Regina Ridley Foley and Lardner LLP 555 California Street Suite 1700 San Francisco, CA 94104−1520 (415) 434−4484 Fax: (415) 434−4507 Email: eridley@foley.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nicholas J. Fox Foley & Lardner, LLP 3579 Valley Centre Drive Suite 300 San Diego, CA 92130 (858) 847−6729 Fax: (858) 792−6773 Email: nfox@foley.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert L. Teel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eileen Regina Ridley (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nicholas J. Fox (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ashlee Beth Hesman Struck Love Bojanowski & Acedo, PLC 3100 West Ray Road Suite 300

Chandler, AZ 85226 480−420−1600 Email: ahesman@strucklove.com LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel P Struck Struck Love Bojanowski & Acedo, PLC 3100 West Ray Road Suite 300 Chandler, AZ 85226 (480) 420−1620 Fax: (480) 420−1695 Email: dstruck@strucklove.com LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ethan H Nelson Law Office of Ethan H. Nelson 4 Park Plaza, Suite 1025 Irvine, CA 92614 949−229−0961 Fax: 949−861−7122 Email: ethannelsonesq@gmail.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jacob Brady Lee Struck Love Bojanowski & Acedo, PLC 3100 West Ray Road Suite 300 Chandler, AZ 85226 480−420−1600 Fax: 480−420−1695 Email: JLee@strucklove.com LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nicholas D. Acedo Struck Love Bojanowski & Acedo, PLC 3100 West Ray Road Suite 300 Chandler, AZ 85226 480−420−1600 Email: NAcedo@strucklove.com LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rachel Love Struck Love Bojanowski & Acedo, PLC 3100 West Ray Road Suite 300 Chandler, AZ 85226 (480) 420−1600 Fax: (480) 420−1690 Email: RLove@strucklove.com LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 12/27/2017
12/27/2017 12/28/2017 12/28/2017 12/29/2017 01/02/2018 01/02/2018 01/02/2018 01/03/2018
01/03/2018
01/04/2018 01/05/2018

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT Against CoreCivic, Inc. (Filing fee $ 400 receipt number 0974−10760875) filed by Carlos Gonzalez, Juan Jose Merino−Rodas, Gladys Carrera−Duarte, Jennye Pagoada−Lopez, Maribel Gutierrez−Canchola. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)
The new case number is 3:17−cv−2573−AJB−NLS. Judge Anthony J. Battaglia and Magistrate Judge Nita L. Stormes are assigned to the case. (Thompson, William)(sjm) CA Notified (sjm)(jrd) (Entered: 12/27/2017)
2 Summons Issued. Counsel receiving this notice electronically should print this summons and serve it in accordance with Rule 4, Fed.R.Civ.P and LR 4.1. (sjm)(jrd) (Entered: 12/27/2017)
3 Request to Appear Pro Hac Vice (Filing fee received: $ 206 receipt number 0974−10762465.) (Nelson, Korey)(jrd) (kcm). (Entered: 12/28/2017)
4 Request to Appear Pro Hac Vice (Filing fee received: $ 206 receipt number 0974−10762503.)(Wright, Lydia)(jrd) (kcm). (Entered: 12/28/2017)
5 Request to Appear Pro Hac Vice (Filing fee received: $ 206 receipt number 0974−10765138.) (Burns, Warren)(jrd)(kcm). (Entered: 12/29/2017)
6 NOTICE OF RELATED CASE(S) by Gladys Carrera−Duarte, Carlos Gonzalez, Maribel Gutierrez−Canchola, Juan Jose Merino−Rodas, Jennye Pagoada−Lopez of case(s) 3:17−cv−01112 . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Owino Complaint, # 2 Exhibit B − Gonzalez Complaint)(Thompson, William) (acc). (Entered: 01/02/2018)
9 ORDER Approving the Pro Hac Vice Application of Korey A. Nelson, re 3 Request to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Signed by Judge Anthony J. Battaglia on 12/28/2017.(kcm) (Entered: 01/04/2018)
10 ORDER Approving the Pro Hac Vice Application of Lydia A. Wright, re 4 Request to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Signed by Judge Anthony J. Battaglia on 12/28/2017.(kcm) (Entered: 01/04/2018)
7 NOTICE of Appearance of Robert Ahdoot by Robert R. Ahdoot on behalf of Gladys Carrera−Duarte, Carlos Gonzalez, Maribel Gutierrez−Canchola, Juan Jose Merino−Rodas, Jennye Pagoada−Lopez (Ahdoot, Robert)Attorney Robert R. Ahdoot added to party Gladys Carrera−Duarte(pty:pla), Attorney Robert R. Ahdoot added to party Carlos Gonzalez(pty:pla), Attorney Robert R. Ahdoot added to party Maribel Gutierrez−Canchola(pty:pla), Attorney Robert R. Ahdoot added to party Juan Jose Merino−Rodas(pty:pla), Attorney Robert R. Ahdoot added to party Jennye Pagoada−Lopez(pty:pla) (acc). (Entered: 01/03/2018)
8 NOTICE of Appearance of Vanessa Shakib by Vanessa Tamara Shakib on behalf of Gladys Carrera−Duarte, Carlos Gonzalez, Maribel Gutierrez−Canchola, Juan Jose Merino−Rodas, Jennye Pagoada−Lopez (Shakib, Vanessa)Attorney Vanessa Tamara Shakib added to party Gladys Carrera−Duarte(pty:pla), Attorney Vanessa Tamara Shakib added to party Carlos Gonzalez(pty:pla), Attorney Vanessa Tamara Shakib added to party Maribel Gutierrez−Canchola(pty:pla), Attorney Vanessa Tamara Shakib added to party Juan Jose Merino−Rodas(pty:pla), Attorney Vanessa Tamara Shakib added to party Jennye Pagoada−Lopez(pty:pla) (acc). (Entered: 01/03/2018)
11 ORDER Approving the Pro Hac Vice Application of Warren Tavares Burns, re 5 Request to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Signed by Judge Anthony J. Battaglia on 1/3/2018.(kcm) (Entered: 01/05/2018)
13 ORDER OF TRANSFER PURSUANT TO LOW NUMBER RULE. This case has been reassigned to Judge Janis L. Sammartino and Magistrate Judge Nita L. Stormes for all further proceedings. Judge Anthony J. Battaglia and Magistrate Judge Nita L. Stormes are no longer assigned to this case. Create association to 3:17−cv−01112−JLS−NLS. The new case number is 17cv2573−JLS−NLS. Signed by Judge Anthony J. Battaglia on 1/4/2018. Signed by Judge Janis L. Sammartino on 1/4/2018.(aef) (Entered: 01/08/2018)

01/08/2018 01/09/2018 01/09/2018 01/10/2018 01/12/2018 01/12/2018 01/12/2018 01/12/2018
01/18/2018 01/19/2018 01/22/2018
01/29/2018 01/29/2018 01/29/2018 01/29/2018 02/02/2018

12 Request to Appear Pro Hac Vice ( Filing fee received: $ 206 receipt number 0974−10786299.) (Application to be reviewed by Clerk.) (Charest, Daniel) (kcm). (Entered: 01/08/2018)
14 Request to Appear Pro Hac Vice ( Filing fee received: $ 206 receipt number 0974−10792780.) (Application to be reviewed by Clerk.) (Freda, Matthew) (kcm). (Entered: 01/09/2018)
15 Request to Appear Pro Hac Vice ( Filing fee received: $ 206 receipt number 0974−10793042.) (Application to be reviewed by Clerk.) (Ramos, Nicole) (kcm). (Entered: 01/09/2018)
16 Request to Appear Pro Hac Vice ( Filing fee received: $ 206 receipt number 0974−10795513.) (Application to be reviewed by Clerk.) (Free, Robert) (kcm). (Entered: 01/10/2018)
17 ORDER Approving the Pro Hac Vice Application of Daniel Henry Charest, re 12 Request to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Signed by Judge Janis L. Sammartino on 1/11/2018.(kcm) (Entered: 01/12/2018)
18 ORDER Approving the Pro Hac Vice Application of Matthew R. Freda, re 14 Request to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Signed by Judge Janis L. Sammartino on 1/11/2018.(kcm) (Entered: 01/12/2018)
19 ORDER Approving the Pro Hac Vice Application of Nicole Elizabeth Ramos, re 15 Request to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Signed by Judge Janis L. Sammartino on 1/11/2018.(kcm) (Entered: 01/12/2018)
20 NOTICE of Appearance of Tina Wolfson by Tina Wolfson on behalf of Gladys Carrera−Duarte, Carlos Gonzalez, Maribel Gutierrez−Canchola, Juan Jose Merino−Rodas, Jennye Pagoada−Lopez (Wolfson, Tina)Attorney Tina Wolfson added to party Gladys Carrera−Duarte(pty:pla), Attorney Tina Wolfson added to party Carlos Gonzalez(pty:pla), Attorney Tina Wolfson added to party Maribel Gutierrez−Canchola(pty:pla), Attorney Tina Wolfson added to party Juan Jose Merino−Rodas(pty:pla), Attorney Tina Wolfson added to party Jennye Pagoada−Lopez(pty:pla) (mpl). (Entered: 01/12/2018)
21 ORDER Approving the Pro Hac Vice Application of Robert Andrew Free (Re: Doc. No. 16 Request to Appear Pro Hac Vice). Signed by Judge Janis L. Sammartino on 1/17/2018.(jrd) (Entered: 01/18/2018)
22 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by Carlos Gonzalez, Juan Jose Merino−Rodas, Gladys Carrera−Duarte, Jennye Pagoada−Lopez, Maribel Gutierrez−Canchola, as to CoreCivic, Inc. (Thompson, William) (mpl). (Entered: 01/19/2018)
23 MOTION to Consolidate Cases and Appoint Interim Lead Class Counsel by Gladys Carrera−Duarte, Carlos Gonzalez, Maribel Gutierrez−Canchola, Juan Jose Merino−Rodas, Jennye Pagoada−Lopez. (Attachments: # 1 Memo of Points and Authorities, # 2 Exhibit A − Declaration of K. Nelson, # 3 Exhibit B − Declaration of R. A. Free)(Thompson, William) (mpl). (Entered: 01/22/2018)
24 Request to Appear Pro Hac Vice ( Filing fee received: $ 206 receipt number 0974−10856494.) (Struck, Daniel) (kcm). (Entered: 01/29/2018)
25 Request to Appear Pro Hac Vice ( Filing fee received: $ 206 receipt number 0974−10856552.) (Love, Rachel) (kcm). (Entered: 01/29/2018)
26 Request to Appear Pro Hac Vice ( Filing fee received: $ 206 receipt number 0974−10856592.) (Acedo, Nicholas) (kcm). (Entered: 01/29/2018)
27 Request to Appear Pro Hac Vice ( Filing fee received: $ 206 receipt number 0974−10856610.) (Fletcher, Ashlee) (kcm). (Entered: 01/29/2018)
28 ORDER Approving the Pro Hac Vice Application of Daniel P. Struck, re 24 Request to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Signed by Judge Janis L. Sammartino on 2/1/2018.(kcm) (Entered: 02/02/2018)

02/02/2018 02/02/2018 02/02/2018 02/23/2018
02/23/2018 02/27/2018 02/27/2018 03/06/2018
03/08/2018
03/08/2018 03/08/2018 03/14/2018 03/15/2018
03/16/2018 03/16/2018 04/04/2018

29 ORDER Approving the Pro Hac Vice Application of Rachel Love, re 25 Request to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Signed by Judge Janis L. Sammartino on 2/1/2018.(kcm) (Entered: 02/02/2018)
30 ORDER Approving the Pro Hac Vice Application of Nicholas D. Acedo, re 26 Request to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Signed by Judge Janis L. Sammartino on 2/1/2018.(kcm) (Entered: 02/02/2018)
31 ORDER Approving the Pro Hac Vice Application of Ashlee B. Hesman, re 27 Request to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Signed by Judge Janis L. Sammartino on 2/1/2018.(kcm) (Entered: 02/02/2018)
32 MOTION to Intervene for Limited Purpose of Opposing Consolidation by Sylvester Owino, Jonathan Gomez. (Attachments: # 1 Memo of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion for Limited Intervention, # 2 Proof of Service)(Teel, Robert)Attorney Robert L. Teel added to party Sylvester Owino(pty:intv), Attorney Robert L. Teel added to party Jonathan Gomez(pty:intv)(mpl). (Entered: 02/23/2018)
33 Ex Parte MOTION to Shorten Time to Hear Unopposed Motion for Limited Intervention by Jonathan Gomez, Sylvester Owino. (Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service)(Teel, Robert) (mpl). (Entered: 02/23/2018)
34 NOTICE of Association of Counsel by Jonathan Gomez, Sylvester Owino (Ridley, Eileen)Attorney Eileen Regina Ridley added to party Jonathan Gomez(pty:intv), Attorney Eileen Regina Ridley added to party Sylvester Owino(pty:intv)(mpl). (Entered: 02/27/2018)
35 NOTICE of Association of Counsel by Jonathan Gomez, Sylvester Owino (Fox, Nicholas)Attorney Nicholas J. Fox added to party Jonathan Gomez(pty:intv), Attorney Nicholas J. Fox added to party Sylvester Owino(pty:intv) (mpl). (Entered: 02/27/2018)
36 ORDER: (1) Granting 32 Motion for Limited Intervention; (2) Denying as moot 33 Ex Parte Motion to Shorten Time; (3) Vacating Hearing; and (4) Setting Briefing Schedule. The Owino Plaintiffs shall an Opposition on or before 3/8/2018. The remaining parties shall file a Reply, if any, on or before 3/15/2018. Signed by Judge Janis L. Sammartino on 3/6/2018. (mpl) (Entered: 03/06/2018)
37 RESPONSE in Opposition re 23 MOTION to Consolidate Cases and Appoint Interim Lead Class Counsel filed by Jonathan Gomez, Sylvester Owino. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Robert Teel ISO Response, # 2 Supplemental Adequacy Declaration of Robert Teel ISO Response, # 3 Declaration of Eileen Ridley ISO Intervenors Response, # 4 Declaration of J. Mark Waxman ISO Intervenors Response)(Fox, Nicholas) (mpl). (Entered: 03/08/2018)
38 RESPONSE in Opposition re 23 MOTION to Consolidate Cases and Appoint Interim Lead Class Counsel filed by CoreCivic, Inc.. (Acedo, Nicholas) (mpl). (Entered: 03/08/2018)
39 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by CoreCivic, Inc. re 38 Response in Opposition to Motion to Consolidate (Acedo, Nicholas) (mpl). (Entered: 03/08/2018)
40 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re 1 Complaint, − Unopposed by CoreCivic, Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service)(Acedo, Nicholas) (mpl). (Entered: 03/14/2018)
41 REPLY to Response to Motion re 23 MOTION to Consolidate Cases and Appoint Interim Lead Class Counsel filed by Gladys Carrera−Duarte, Carlos Gonzalez, Maribel Gutierrez−Canchola, Juan Jose Merino−Rodas, Jennye Pagoada−Lopez. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Affidavit of Korey A. Nelson)(Nelson, Korey) (mpl). (Entered: 03/15/2018)
42 ORDER Vacating Hearing re 23 MOTION to Consolidate Cases. Signed by Judge Janis L. Sammartino on 3/16/2018.(mpl) (Entered: 03/16/2018)
43 ORDER Granting 40 Motion to Extend Deadline to Respond to Complaint. Signed by Judge Janis L. Sammartino on 3/16/2018. (mpl) (Entered: 03/16/2018)
44 ORDER:(1) Denying 23 Motion to Consolidate; and (2) Staying Case. Signed by Judge Janis L. Sammartino on 4/4/2018. (mpl) (Entered: 04/04/2018)

06/05/2018 06/07/2018 08/16/2018 08/20/2018

45 Request to Appear Pro Hac Vice ( Filing fee received: $ 206 receipt number 0974−11293114.) (Application to be reviewed by Clerk.) (Lee, Jacob) (dsn) (Entered: 06/05/2018)
46 ORDER Approving the Pro Hac Vice Application of Jacob B. Lee, re 45 Request to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Signed by Judge Janis L. Sammartino on 06/06/2018.(ajs) (Entered: 06/07/2018)
47 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney Vanessa Shakib by Gladys Carrera−Duarte, Carlos Gonzalez, Maribel Gutierrez−Canchola, Juan Jose Merino−Rodas, Jennye Pagoada−Lopez. (Ahdoot, Robert) (mpl). (Entered: 08/16/2018)
48 ORDER Granting 47 Motion to Withdraw.Attorney Vanessa Tamara Shakib terminated. Signed by Judge Janis L. Sammartino on 8/20/2018. (mpl) (Entered: 08/20/2018)

 
 Case 3:17-cv-02573-AJB-NLS Document 1 Filed 12/27/17 PageID.1 Page 1 of 25

1 Will Thompson (Cal. Bar No. 289012)

wthompson@burnscharest.com 2 Warren Burns (pro hac vice to be filed)

3

wburns@burnscharest.com Daniel H. Charest (pro hac vice to be filed)

4 dcharest@burnscharest.com BURNS CHAREST LLP

5 900 Jackson St., Suite 500

Dallas, Texas 75202 6 Telephone: (469) 904-4550

7 Facsimile: (469) 444-5002

8 Korey A. Nelson (pro hac vice to be filed) knelson@burnscharest.com

9 Lydia A. Wright (pro hac vice to be filed) lwright@burnscharest.com

10 BURNS CHAREST LLP

365 Canal Street, Suite 1170 11 New Orleans, LA 70130

12

Telephone: (504) 799-2845 Facsimile: (504) 881-1765

13 R. Andrew Free (pro hac vice to be filed)

14 andrew@immigrantcivilrights.com

Matthew Freda (pro hac vice to be filed) 15 matt@immigrantcivilrights.com

16

LAW OFFICE OF R. ANDREW FREE P.O. Box 90568

17 Nashville, TN 37209 Telephone: (844) 321-3221

18 Facsimile: (615) 829-8959

19 Nicole Ramos (pro hac vice to be filed)

nicole@alotrolado.org 20 AL OTRO LADO

21

511 E. San Ysidro Blvd., # 333 San Ysidro, CA 92173

22 Telephone: (619) 786-4866

23 Robert R. Ahdoot (Cal. Bar No. 172098)

rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com 24 AHDOOT & WOLFSON, APC

25

8424 Santa Monica Blvd., Ste. 575 West Hollywood, CA 90069

26 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 Facsimile: (310) 474-8585

27 Attorneys for Plaintiffs.
28

1

Case 3:17-cv-02573-AJB-NLS Document 1 Filed 12/27/17 PageID.2 Page 2 of 25

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 2

3 CARLOS GONZALEZ,

4 JUAN JOSE MERINO-RODAS, MARIBEL GUTIERREZ-CANCHOLA,
5 GLADYS CARRERA-DUARTE, and

'17CV2573 AJB NLS
Civil Action No. __________________

JENNYE PAGOADA-LOPEZ, 6 individually and on behalf of all others similarly

7 situated,

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND

8 v.

Plaintiffs,

DAMAGES

9 CORECIVIC, INC.,
10

CLASS ACTION

Defendant. 11

12

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

13 1. This action arises from systematic and unlawful wage theft, unjust enrichment, and
14
forced labor at California’s Otay Mesa Detention Center (the “Otay Mesa Facility” or the “Facility”). 15

16

2. The Otay Mesa Facility is a civil immigration detention facility owned and operated

17 for profit by Defendant CoreCivic, Inc. (“CoreCivic”).

18

3. CoreCivic is a multibillion-dollar corporation that owns and operates detention

19 facilities across the United States. CoreCivic has made hundreds of millions of dollars in profits from

20 its contract to run the Otay Mesa Facility.

21

4. Although it is contractually required to provide for all essential detention services at

22 the Facility, CoreCivic uses the free and nearly-free labor of detainees to perform these services to
23
maximize profits. 24

25

5. CoreCivic pays detainees $1 or $1.50 per day – or nothing at all – to maintain and

26 operate the Facility.

27

28 2

Case 3:17-cv-02573-AJB-NLS Document 1 Filed 12/27/17 PageID.3 Page 3 of 25

1

6. This labor is not voluntary in any meaningful sense. CoreCivic maintains a corporate

2 policy and uniform practice at the Otay Mesa Facility of withholding necessary protection, care, and

3 services from its detainees to ensure a ready supply of available labor needed to operate the Facility.
4 7. As a result, detainees are forced to submit to CoreCivic’s unlawful detainee labor
5 scheme to buy the basic necessities – including food, water, warm clothing, medicine, and hygiene
6
7 products – that CoreCivic unlawfully refuses to provide for them.

8

8. CoreCivic maintains a corporate policy and uniform practice at the Otay Mesa Facility

9 of threatening detainees who refuse to work with solitary confinement, cutting off communication

10 and visitation with family, reporting their actions to the United States Immigration and Customs

11 Enforcement (“ICE”), or referring them for criminal prosecution. Together with CoreCivic’s
12 systemic under-provision for detainee needs, these abusive practices and threats of abuse ensure that 13
detainees will continue working for subminimum wages, or for nothing at all. 14
9. CoreCivic’s scheme significantly reduces its labor costs and expenses, and 15 16 exponentially increases its already vast profits, by unlawfully forcing and coercing detainees to
17 perform labor at subminimum wages or for free. These policies and practices violate California

18 minimum wage law, the California Unfair Competition Law, and federal and state Trafficking Victims

19 Protection Acts, which prohibit forced labor.

20

10. Plaintiffs Carlos Gonzalez, Juan Jose Merino-Rodas, Maribel Gutierrez-Canchola,

21 Gladys Carrera-Duarte, and Jennye Pagoada-Lopez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
22 situated, brings this class action lawsuit to stop the economic exploitation of detainees at the Otay
23 Mesa Facility, to recover unpaid wages, and to remedy the unjust enrichment resulting from
24
25 CoreCivic’s unlawful failure to pay its detainee workforce legal wages.

26

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

27

11. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because this

28 action arises under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1589 et seq. 3

Case 3:17-cv-02573-AJB-NLS Document 1 Filed 12/27/17 PageID.4 Page 4 of 25

1

12. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act

2 of 2005, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d), because at least one class member is of diverse citizenship from one

3 defendant; there are more than 100 class members; the aggregate amount in controversy exceeds
4 $5,000,000; and minimal diversity exists.
5 13. Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because the events or
6
7 omissions giving rise to the claims occurred in this District.

8

14. This Court has personal jurisdiction over CoreCivic because the corporation regularly

9 conducts business in California, and has sufficient minimum contacts with California.

10

15. Plaintiffs request that this Court exercise supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to

11 28 U.S.C. § 1367 over their state law claims arising under the California Minimum Wage Act, the

12 California Unfair Competition Law, and California common law.

13
14 A.
15

Plaintiffs

PARTIES

16

16. Plaintiff Carlos Gonzalez is an adult resident of Bakersfield, California. He is a citizen

17 of El Salvador and is seeking asylum in the United States. From May 2017 through November 2017,

18 he was detained at the Otay Mesa Facility. During those months, Mr. Gonzalez was employed by

19 CoreCivic as a kitchen worker, janitor, and administrative clerk. He was paid only $1 or $1.50 per day
20 for his labor – or nothing at all – regardless of how many hours he worked.
21 17. Plaintiff Juan Jose Merino-Rodas is an adult resident of Bakersfield, California. He is
22 a citizen of El Salvador and is seeking asylum in the United States. From May 2017 through
23 November 2017, he was detained at the Otay Mesa Facility. During those months, Mr. Merino Rodas
24 25 was employed by CoreCivic as a kitchen worker and janitor. He was paid only $1 or $1.50 per day for
26 his labor – or nothing at all – regardless of how many hours he worked.

27

28 4

Case 3:17-cv-02573-AJB-NLS Document 1 Filed 12/27/17 PageID.5 Page 5 of 25

1

18. Plaintiff Maribel Gutierrez-Canchola is a current detainee at the Otay Mesa Facility.

2 She is a citizen of Mexico and is seeking asylum in the United States. She has been detained at the

3 Facility since on or around June 17, 2017. Ms. Gutierrez-Canchola is currently employed by

4 CoreCivic as a janitor. She is paid only $1.50 per day for her labor – or nothing at all – regardless of
5
how many hours she works. 6

7

19. Plaintiff Gladys Carrera-Duarte is a current detainee at the Otay Mesa Facility. She is

8 a citizen of Guatemala and is seeking asylum in the United States. She has been detained at the

9 Facility since on or around June 30, 2017. Ms. Carrera-Duarte is currently employed by CoreCivic as

10 a janitor. She is paid only $1.50 per day for her labor – or nothing at all – regardless of how many

11 hours she works.

12

20. Plaintiff Jennye Pagoada-Lopez is a current detainee at the Otay Mesa Facility. She is

13 a citizen of Honduras and is seeking asylum in the United States. Ms. Pagoada-Lopez has been
14
detained at the Facility since on or around July 23, 2017. She is employed by CoreCivic as a janitor. 15

16 She is paid only $1.50 per day for her labor – or nothing at all – regardless of how many hours she

17 worked.

18 B. Defendant

19

21. Defendant CoreCivic, formerly the Corrections Corporation of America, is a for-

20 profit corporation providing correctional and detention services. CoreCivic is a Maryland

21 corporation, with its principal office located at 10 Burton Hills Boulevard, Nashville, Tennessee,

22 37215.
23
24

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

25 A. Immigration detention is civil—not criminal.

26

22. Each year, hundreds of thousands of individuals are detained in geographically

27 isolated immigration detention facilities while awaiting immigration or citizenship status

28 5

Case 3:17-cv-02573-AJB-NLS Document 1 Filed 12/27/17 PageID.6 Page 6 of 25

1 determinations. These detainees include U.S. citizens, lawful permanent residents (green card

2 holders) with longstanding family and community ties, survivors of torture, asylum seekers, victims

3 of human trafficking, children, and pregnant women.
4 23. Some detainees were brought to the United States as children. And thousands
5 ultimately have their United States citizenship or legal residency affirmed by an immigration court or
6
7 federal judge.

8

24. Immigration violations are civil violations, and immigration detention is civil in

9 nature.1 Many detainees have no criminal history at all.

10

25. Notwithstanding immigration detention’s civil nature and purpose, detainees are

11 subjected to prison-like conditions at the Otay Mesa Facility. According to Dora Schriro, former
12 head of ICE’s Office of Detention Policy and Planning, most detainees are held – systematically and
13 unnecessarily – under circumstances inappropriate for immigration detention’s noncriminal
14 purposes.2 Detainees are frequently subjected to punitive and long-term solitary confinement,
15 16 inadequate medical care, sexual and physical assault, lack of access to counsel, and other
17 harsh conditions of confinement, all without a conviction.

18

26. Many detainees accede to deportation simply to obtain release from these intolerable

19 conditions, even when they have valid claims to remain in the United States, including claims for

20 asylum or other discretionary relief.
21 B. The privatization of immigration detention and CoreCivic’s economic windfall.
22 27. Immigration detention expanded roughly eightfold over the past two decades, from a
23 capacity of 5,532 detention beds in 19943 to a current capacity of over 41,000.4
24

25

26

1 See Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U.S. 698, 728–30 (1893) (observing that deportation proceedings have “all the elements of a civil case” and are “in no proper sense a trial or sentence for a crime or offense”).

27

2 Dora Schriro, U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., “Immigration Detention Overview and Recommendations,” at 10, 15 (2009).

3 Sharita Gruberg, “How For-Profit Companies are Driving Immigration Detention Policies, Center for American
28 Progress” (Dec. 18, 2015), available at

6

Case 3:17-cv-02573-AJB-NLS Document 1 Filed 12/27/17 PageID.7 Page 7 of 25

1

28. During the same period, CoreCivic and other private prison corporations have spent

2 tens of millions of dollars on lobbying efforts.5

3

29. As immigration detention has expanded, private prison corporations, particularly

4 CoreCivic, have gained an increasing share of the contracts for new detention beds.6
5 30. Contracts with ICE accounted for 28% of CoreCivic’s total revenues in 2016 ($511.8
6
million), up from up from 24% in 2015.7 CoreCivic officials expect these lucrative ICE contracts to 7

8 account for a significant percentage of the corporation’s ongoing revenues.8

9

31. CoreCivic’s 2016 revenues were approximately $1.85 billion, and its stock is publicly

10 traded on the New York Stock Exchange.9

11

32. CoreCivic’s economic windfall, and the profitability of its immigration detention

12 enterprise, arise from its policy of systemically withholding necessary case from detainees to ensure a
13 readily available, captive labor force that cleans, maintains, and operates its facilities for sub-minimal
14 wages under threat of solitary confinement and abuse of legal process. Without this nearly free
15
16 detainee labor, CoreCivic’s windfall from immigrant detention would be substantially decreased.

17 C. CoreCivic withholds necessary care from detainees at the Otay Mesa Facility.

18

33. Since 2005, CoreCivic has contracted with ICE to operate the Otay Mesa Facility,

19 which is a 1,482-bed immigration detention facility in San Diego, California.

20

34. The Otay Mesa Facility is notorious for its poor treatment of detainees.

21

22 https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/reports/2015/12/18/127769/how-for-profit-companies-are-

driving-immigration-detention-policies/.

23 4 Jenny Jarvie, “This industry stands to benefit from Trump’s crackdown on the border,” Los Angeles Times (Feb. 14,

2017) available at http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-immigrant-detention-20170214-story.html.

24 5 Michael Cohen, “How for-profit prisons have become the biggest lobby no one is talking about,” Washington Post
(Apr. 28, 2015), available at https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/04/28/how-for-profit-prisons-

25 have-become-the-biggest-lobby-no-one-is-talking-about/?utm_term=.25de04ae71f9
6 Bethany Carson & Eleana Diaz, “Payoff: How Congress Ensures Private Prison Profit with an Immigrant Detention

26

Quota, Grassroots Leadership,” (Apr. 2015) at 4, Chart 1-AA, available at https://grassrootsleadership.org/sites/default/files/reports/quota_report_final_digital.pdf

27

7 CoreCivic. Inc., 201610-K form at 10, 36, available at https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1070985/000119312517053982/d310578d10k.htm

8 Id. at 56.
28 9 Id. at 54.

7

Case 3:17-cv-02573-AJB-NLS Document 1 Filed 12/27/17 PageID.8 Page 8 of 25

1

35. CoreCivic maintains a corporate policy and uniform practice of withholding sufficient

2 protection, food, water, medicine, clothing, and hygiene products from the detainees at the Otay
3 Mesa Facility. As a result, detainees are forced to either purchase these daily necessities from the 4
Facility’s commissary, or go without. 5
36. By maintaining these harsh conditions and purposely withholding basic necessities 6 7 from detainees, CoreCivic ensures an available labor pool of detainees will work for only $1 or $1.50
8 per day, thus allowing it to continue operating the Otay Mesa Facility at an enormous profit.

9 D. CoreCivic uses detainees to clean, maintain, and operate the Otay Mesa Facility.

10

37. Through its so-called Voluntary Work Program (the “Work Program”), CoreCivic

11 hires detainees to perform work that directly contributes to institutional operations, at a rate of $1 or
12 $1.50 per day. 13
38. Despite its name, the Work Program is not “voluntary” in any meaningful sense. 14
Instead, as noted above, CoreCivic maintains a corporate policy and uniform practice at the Otay 15 16 Mesa Facility of withholding necessary care and protection from detainees. As a result, detainees are
17 forced to submit to CoreCivic’s detainee labor scheme in order to buy necessities – including food,

18 water, medicine, clothing, and hygiene products – that CoreCivic refuses to provide for them.

19

39. Further, CoreCivic maintains a corporate policy and uniform practice at the Facility

20 of threatening to place those who refuse to work into solitary confinement. These conditions,

21 policies, and practices ensure that detainees continue working for subminimum wages.
22 40. In the Work Program, detainees are required to work according to an assigned work
23 schedule and to participate in work-related training. At all times, CoreCivic controls detainees’ wages,
24
25 hours, and working conditions.

26

41. CoreCivic provides all necessary personal protection equipment and work uniforms.

27

42. CoreCivic records the hours detainees work and periodically credits wages to their

28 accounts. 8

Case 3:17-cv-02573-AJB-NLS Document 1 Filed 12/27/17 PageID.9 Page 9 of 25

1

43. The detainee workers are “employees,” and CoreCivic is an “employer” under

2 California’s minimum wage laws.

3

44. CoreCivic informs all detainees entering the Otay Mesa Facility that the following

4 work assignments may be available through the Work Program:
5
a. Intake 6

7

b. Kitchen Worker

8

c. Recreation

9

d. Library

10

e. Barber

11

f. Laundry

12

g. Living area clean-up/janitorial

13 h. Evening workers (facility janitorial)
14
i. Maintenance 15

16

45. In the course of their labor and employment by CoreCivic, detainees employed in the

17 Work Program performed a wide range of work, including but not limited to:

18

a. Scrubbing bathrooms, showers, toilets, and windows;

19

b. Cleaning and maintaining CoreCivic’s on-site medical facility;

20

c. Cleaning patient rooms and medical staff offices;

21

d. Sweeping, mopping, stripping, and waxing floors throughout the facility;

22 e. Washing detainee laundry;
23
f. Preparing, cooking, and serving detainee meals; 24

25

g. Washing dishes;

26

h. Cleaning the kitchen and cafeteria before and after detainee meals;

27

i. Performing clerical work for CoreCivic;

28

j. Running and managing the law library;

9

Case 3:17-cv-02573-AJB-NLS Document 1 Filed 12/27/17 PageID.10 Page 10 of 25

1

k. Providing barber services to detainees;

2

l. Cleaning intake areas and solitary confinement units; and

3

m. Cleaning and maintaining recreational areas.

4 46. The Work Program allows CoreCivic to avoid recruiting from the traditional labor
5
market, complying with the terms of its union contracts, and paying all costs associated with 6

7 potential, current, and former employment relationships, thereby reducing operational costs and

8 increasing its own profits.

9

47. CoreCivic does not pay and has not paid detainees the state minimum wage –

10 currently, $10.50 per hour – for the hours they worked at the Otay Mesa Facility.

11

48. CoreCivic’s contract with ICE requires CoreCivic to comply with all federal, state,

12 and local laws.
13 49. No clause in CoreCivic’s contract with ICE or any rule or standard incorporated by
14 reference into the contract requires CoreCivic to maximize its profits by paying detainees sub-
15
16 minimum wages.

17

50. CoreCivic’s pay policies violate California’s minimum wage laws.

18

PLAINTIFFS’ EMPLOYMENT AT THE OTAY MESA FACILITY

19 A. Plaintiff Carlos Gonzalez

20

51. Mr. Gonzalez is citizen of El Salvador and an asylum seeker in the United States. He

21 lives with his family in Bakersfield, California.
22 52. Mr. Gonzalez was detained at the Otay Mesa Facility from approximately May 7, 2017
23 to approximately November 30, 2017. He was detained along with his stepson, Plaintiff Juan Jose
24
25 Merino-Rodas.

26

53. Mr. Gonzalez has performed work for CoreCivic at the Otay Mesa Facility and was

27 not paid the state minimum wage for the work he has performed.

28 10

Case 3:17-cv-02573-AJB-NLS Document 1 Filed 12/27/17 PageID.11 Page 11 of 25

1

54. As a kitchen worker, Mr. Gonzalez prepared, cooked, and served meals, washed

2 dishes, and cleaned the kitchen area. He worked six-hour shifts, starting at 3:00 am, up to seven days

3 per week. He used cleaning supplies and equipment provided by CoreCivic.

4 55. When he was hired to work in the kitchen, Mr. Gonzalez was forced to sign a waiver
5
of his workers’ compensation rights. 6

7

56. As a janitor, Mr. Gonzalez cleaned and maintained the intake area of the Facility. He

8 worked three-hour shifts, up to seven days per week. He used cleaning supplies and equipment

9 provided by CoreCivic.

10

57. Mr. Gonzalez also worked for three weeks cleaning and maintaining the office of the

11 Facility manager. He worked three-hour shifts, up to seven days per week. He used cleaning supplies

12 and equipment provided by CoreCivic.
13 58. Mr. Gonzalez worked in the Facility manager’s office because he was promised
14 payment of $1 per day, plus soda and candy bars, in exchange for his labor. However, he never
15
16 received any payment, soda, or candy bars – or anything else – for his work.

17

59. In return for this labor in the kitchen, intake area, and the manager’s office, Mr.

18 Gonzalez was paid $1 to $1.50 per day – or nothing at all – regardless of the number of hours he

19 worked. CoreCivic credited these wages to Mr. Gonzalez’s commissary account periodically.

20

60. Mr. Gonzalez spent his wages on food and vitamins from the Otay Mesa Facility

21 commissary, among other necessities.
22 61. Officers at the Otay Mesa Facility threatened to put Mr. Gonzalez in disciplinary
23 segregation, i.e., solitary confinement, revoke his family visitation and commissary access rights, and
24
25 withhold mail delivery if he stopped working or encouraged other detainees to stop working.

26

62. If given a meaningful choice, Mr. Gonzalez would not have worked for less than

27 minimum wage.

28 11

Case 3:17-cv-02573-AJB-NLS Document 1 Filed 12/27/17 PageID.12 Page 12 of 25

1

63. CoreCivic falsely led Mr. Gonzalez to believe the corporation could not pay him

2 more than $1.50 per day, despite the fact that it does so as a matter of course at several of its other

3 immigration detention facilities.

4 64. CoreCivic falsely led Mr. Gonzalez to believe that it could require him to work in the
5
Facility Manager’s officer for no pay at all. 6

7

65. CoreCivic falsely led Mr. Gonzalez to believe he had to waive his protections under

8 California’s Worker’s Compensation laws while working as an employee at the facility.

9

66. CoreCivic retained the value of Mr. Gonzalez’s labor by realizing this value as

10 corporate profits, rather than using it to provide for safer, more humane living conditions for

11 detainees at the Otay Mesa Facility.

12 B. Plaintiff Juan Jose Merino-Rodas

13 67. Mr. Merino-Rodas is citizen of El Salvador and an asylum seeker in the United States.
14
He lives with his family in Bakersfield, California. 15

16

68. Mr. Merino-Rodas was detained at the Otay Mesa Facility from May 2017 through

17 November 2017.

18

69. Mr. Merino-Rodas has performed work for CoreCivic at the Otay Mesa Facility and

19 was not paid the state minimum wage for the work he has performed.

20

70. As a kitchen worker, Mr. Merino-Rodas washed dishes, prepared and cooked meals,

21 and cleaned the kitchen area. He worked six-hour shifts, up to seven days per week. He used cleaning
22 supplies and equipment provided by CoreCivic.
23 71. While employed by CoreCivic as a kitchen worker, Mr. Merino-Rodas suffered an
24
25 extremely painful burn to his arm that required medical treatment. CoreCivic denied Mr. Merino-

26 Rodas access to California’s Worker’s Compensation protections and required him to return to work

27 just one day later—before he fully recovered.

28 12

Case 3:17-cv-02573-AJB-NLS Document 1 Filed 12/27/17 PageID.13 Page 13 of 25

1

72. Detainee laborers at the Otay Mesa Facility have, like Mr. Merino-Rodas, suffered on-

2 the-job injuries for which they received inadequate treatment and compensation.

3

73. Mr. Merino-Rodas was also employed to clean and maintain the intake area of the

4 Facility. In this role, he worked three-hour shifts, seven days per week. He used cleaning supplies and
5
equipment provided by CoreCivic. 6

7

74. In return for this labor, Mr. Merino-Rodas was paid $1.50 per day, regardless of the

8 number of hours he worked. CoreCivic credited these wages to his commissary account periodically.

9

75. Mr. Merino-Rodas spent his wages on food and medicine from the Otay Mesa

10 Facility commissary, among other necessities.

11

76. Officers at the Otay Mesa Facility threatened to put Mr. Merino-Rodas in disciplinary

12 segregation, i.e., solitary confinement, if he stopped working or encouraged other detainees to stop

13 working.
14
77. 15

If given a meaningful choice, Mr. Merino-Rodas would not have worked for less than

16 the minimum wage.

17

78. CoreCivic falsely led Mr. Merino-Rodas to believe the corporation could not pay him

18 more than $1.50 per day, despite the fact that it does so as a matter of course at several of its other

19 immigration detention facilities.

20

79. CoreCivic falsely led Mr. Merino-Rodas to believe he had to waive his protections

21 under California’s Worker’s Compensation laws while working as an employee at the facility.
22 80. CoreCivic retained the value of Mr. Merino-Rodas’ labor by realizing this value as
23 corporate profits, rather than using it to provide for safer, more humane living conditions for
24
25 detainees at the Otay Mesa Facility.

26 C. Plaintiff Maribel Gutierrez-Canchola

27

81. Ms. Gutierrez-Canchola is a citizen of Mexico and an asylum seeker in the United

28 States. 13

Case 3:17-cv-02573-AJB-NLS Document 1 Filed 12/27/17 PageID.14 Page 14 of 25

1

82. Ms. Gutierrez-Canchola is currently detained at the Otay Mesa Facility. She has been

2 detained there since approximately June 17, 2017.

3

83. Ms. Gutierrez-Canchola performs work for CoreCivic at the Otay Mesa Facility, and

4 is not paid the state minimum wage for the work she performs.
5
84. As a janitor, Ms. Gutierrez-Canchola cleans and maintains bathrooms, showers, 6

7 kitchens, lobbies, stairwells, offices, and other areas through the Facility. She works up to six hours

8 per day, five days a week. She uses cleaning supplies and equipment provided by CoreCivic.

9

85. In return for this labor, Ms. Gutierrez-Canchola is paid $1.50 per day, regardless of

10 the number of hours she works. CoreCivic credits these wages to Ms. Gutierrez-Canchola’s

11 commissary account periodically.

12

86. Ms. Gutierrez-Canchola spends her wages on food, medicine, clothing, soap, and

13 shampoo from the Otay Mesa Facility commissary, among other necessities.
14
87. If given a meaningful choice, Ms. Gutierrez-Canchola would not work for less than 15

16 the minimum wage.

17

88. CoreCivic falsely led Ms. Gutierrez-Canchola to believe the corporation cannot pay

18 her more than $1.50 per day, despite the fact that it does so as a matter of course at several of its

19 other immigration detention facilities.

20

89. CoreCivic has retained and currently retains the value of Ms. Gutierrez-Canchola’s

21 labor by realizing this value as corporate profits, rather than using it to provide for safer, more

22 humane living conditions for detainees at the Otay Mesa Facility.
23
D. Plaintiff Gladys Carrera-Duarte 24

25

90. Ms. Carrera-Duarte is a citizen of Guatemala and an asylum seeker in the United

26 States.

27

91. Ms. Carrera-Duarte is currently detained at the Otay Mesa Facility. She has been

28 detained there since approximately June 30, 2017. 14

Case 3:17-cv-02573-AJB-NLS Document 1 Filed 12/27/17 PageID.15 Page 15 of 25

1

92. Ms. Carrera-Duarte performs work for CoreCivic at the Otay Mesa Facility, and is not

2 paid the state minimum wage for the work she performs.

3

93. As a janitor, Ms. Carrera-Duarte cleans and maintains bathrooms, showers, kitchens,

4 lobbies, stairwells, offices, and other areas through the Facility. She works up to six hours per day,
5
five days a week. She uses cleaning supplies and equipment provided by CoreCivic. 6

7

94. In return for this labor, Ms. Carrera-Duarte is paid $1.50 per day, regardless of the

8 number of hours she works. CoreCivic credits these wages to her commissary account periodically.

9

95. Ms. Carrera-Duarte spends her wages on food, medicine, clothing, soap, and

10 shampoo from the Otay Mesa Facility commissary, among other necessities.

11

96. If given a meaningful choice, Ms. Carrera-Duarte would not work for $1.50 per day.

12

97. CoreCivic falsely led Ms. Carrera-Duarte to believe the corporation cannot pay her

13 more than $1.50 per day, despite the fact that it does so as a matter of course at several of its other
14
immigration detention facilities. 15

16

98. CoreCivic has retained and currently retains the value of Ms. Carrera-Duarte’s labor

17 by realizing this value as corporate profits, rather than using it to provide for safer, more humane

18 living conditions for detainees at the Otay Mesa Facility.

19 E. Plaintiff Jennye Pagoada-Lopez

20

99. Ms. Pagoada-Lopez is a citizen of Honduras and an asylum seeker in the United

21 States.

22 100. Ms. Pagoada-Lopez is currently detained at the Otay Mesa Facility. She has been
23
detained there since approximately June 24, 2017. 24

25

101. Ms. Pagoada-Lopez performs work for CoreCivic at the Otay Mesa Facility, and is

26 not paid the state minimum wage for the work she performs.

27

102. Ms. Pagoada-Lopez was employed for approximately six weeks as a janitor. She

28 cleaned and maintained bathrooms, showers, kitchens, lobbies, stairwells, offices, and other areas 15

Case 3:17-cv-02573-AJB-NLS Document 1 Filed 12/27/17 PageID.16 Page 16 of 25

1 through the Facility. She worked up to six hours per day, five days a week. She used cleaning

2 supplies and equipment provided by CoreCivic.

3

103. In return for this labor, Ms. Pagoada-Lopez was paid $1.50 per day, regardless of the

4 number of hours she worked. CoreCivic credited these wages to her commissary account
5
periodically. 6

7

104. Currently, Ms. Pagoada-Lopez cleans and maintains communal areas in her pod. She

8 works for up to two hours each day.

9

105. In return for this labor, Ms. Pagoada-Lopez is paid nothing at all. Occasionally,

10 CoreCivic has given Ms. Pagoada-Lopez extra rations of toilet paper and shampoo in exchange for

11 her labor.

12

106. Ms. Pagoada-Lopez spends her wages on food, medicine, clothing, soap, and

13 shampoo from the Otay Mesa Facility commissary, among other necessities. She has lost
14
approximately 30 pounds in detention at the Otay Mesa Facility. 15

16

107. If given a meaningful choice, Ms. Pagoada-Lopez would not work for $1.50 per day

17 or for free.

18

108. CoreCivic falsely led Ms. Pagoada-Lopez to believe the corporation cannot pay her

19 more than $1.50 per day, despite the fact that it does so as a matter of course at several of its other

20 immigration detention facilities.

21

109. CoreCivic has retained and currently retains the value of Ms. Pagoada-Lopez’s labor

22 by realizing this value as corporate profits, rather than using it to provide for safer, more humane
23
living conditions for detainees at the Otay Mesa Facility. 24

25

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

26

110. Plaintiffs bring this lawsuit as a class action on behalf of themselves, and all others

27 similarly situated as members of the proposed class, under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and

28 16

Case 3:17-cv-02573-AJB-NLS Document 1 Filed 12/27/17 PageID.17 Page 17 of 25

1 (b)(2). This action satisfies the numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy, predominance, and

2 superiority requirements of those provisions.

3 A. 4 5 6 7

Class Definitions
111. Plaintiffs seek to certify the following classes:
a. The Work Program Class: All civil immigration detainees who performed work for CoreCivic at the Otay Mesa Detention Center in the Work Program within the past ten years.

8

b. The Unlawful Inducement Class: All civil immigration detainees held at the

Otay Mesa Facility within the past ten years who performed work for no

9

compensation outside of their pods.

10

c. The Injured Worker Class: All civil immigration detainees held at the Otay

Mesa Facility within the past ten years who were injured while performing work

11

through CoreCivic’s Work Program and denied access to California’s Worker’s

12

Compensation benefits.

13

d. The Unpaid Cleaner Class: All civil immigration detainees held at the Otay

Mesa Facility who performed labor within their pods within the past ten years

14

under threat of solitary confinement, and/or in exchange for basic necessities.

15

112. Excluded from the definition are the Sylvester Owino, Jonathan Gomez, defendants,

16 their officers, directors, management, employees, subsidiaries, and affiliates, and all federal

17 governmental entities. Plaintiffs reserve the right to revise the Class Definitions based upon
18 information learned through discovery.
19
B. Class Certification Requirements under Rule 23 20

21

113. Numerosity: Each class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.

22 Plaintiffs do not know the exact size of the class since that information is within the control of

23 CoreCivic. However, upon information and belief, Plaintiffs allege that the number of class members

24 is numbered in the thousands. Membership in the class is readily ascertainable from CoreCivic’s 25 detention and employment records. 26

27

28 17

Case 3:17-cv-02573-AJB-NLS Document 1 Filed 12/27/17 PageID.18 Page 18 of 25

1

114. Commonality and Predominance: There are numerous questions of law or fact

2 common to the Class, and those issues predominate over any question affecting only individual class

3 members. The common legal and factual issues include the following:

4 a. Whether Plaintiffs and Class Members were entitled to the protections of the
5
California Minimum Wage Act; 6

7

b. Whether Plaintiffs and Class Members performed compensable work;

8

c. Whether Plaintiffs and Class Members were paid $1 or $1.50 per day for their

9

labor;

10

d. Whether CoreCivic engaged in conduct that violated California law – including

11

the California Minimum Wage Act, the California Unfair Competition Law, and

12

the California Trafficking Victims Protection Act;

13 e. Whether CoreCivic engaged in conduct that violated the federal Trafficking
14
Victims Protection Act; 15

16

f. Whether Plaintiffs and Class Members are entitled to equitable relief, including

17

injunctive and declaratory relief; and

18

g. Whether Plaintiffs and the Class Members are entitled to damages and other

19

monetary relief and, if so, in what amount.

20

115. Typicality: The claims asserted by Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the Class, in

21 that the representative Plaintiffs, like all Class Members, were paid subminimum wages while

22 employed by CoreCivic at the Otay Mesa Facility. Each member of the proposed Class has been
23
similarly injured financially by CoreCivic’s misconduct. 24

25

116. Adequacy: Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Class.

26 Plaintiffs have retained attorneys experienced in class and complex litigation, including wage and

27 hour class action litigation. Plaintiffs intend to vigorously prosecute this litigation. Neither Plaintiffs

28 nor their counsel have interests that conflict with the interests of the other class members. 18

Case 3:17-cv-02573-AJB-NLS Document 1 Filed 12/27/17 PageID.19 Page 19 of 25

1

117. Superiority: Plaintiffs and Class Members have all suffered and will continue to

2 suffer harm and damages as a result of CoreCivic’s wrongful conduct. A class action is superior to
3 other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy. Treatment as a class 4
action will permit a large number of similarly situated persons to adjudicate their common claims in a 5
single forum simultaneously, efficiently, and without the duplication of effort and expense that 6 7 numerous individual actions would engender. Class treatment will also permit the adjudication of
8 claims by many members of the proposed class who could not individually afford to litigate a claim

9 such as is asserted in this complaint. This class action likely presents no difficulties in management

10 that would preclude maintenance as a class action.

11

118. This action satisfies the requirements of Rule 23(b)(2) because CoreCivic has acted

12 and refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the Class, thereby making appropriate final

13 injunctive and/or corresponding declaratory relief with respect to each Class Member.
14
CAUSES OF ACTION 15

16

COUNT I CALIFORNIA MINIMUM WAGE LAW

17

Cal. Labor Code §§ 1194, 1197, 1197.1

18

119. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference herein all allegations above.

19

120. The California Legislature set the following minimum wages for 2011-2017:10

20

January 1, 2017

$10.50 for employers with 26 employees or more

21

January 1, 2014

$9.00

22

January 1, 2008

$8.00

23

24

25

121. The minimum wage is an obligation of the employer and cannot be waived by any

26 agreement.

27

122. Detainees at the Otay Mesa Facility do not forfeit their rights to wage protections.

28 10 See http://www.dir.ca.gov/iwc/MinimumWageHistory.htm/; https://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/faq_minimumwage.htm 19

Case 3:17-cv-02573-AJB-NLS Document 1 Filed 12/27/17 PageID.20 Page 20 of 25

1

123. Employees protected by California’s minimum wage laws must be paid at least the set

2 hourly minimum wage.

3

124. Detainees at the Otay Mesa Facility who participate in the Work Program qualify as

4 employees of CoreCivic under California law.
5
125. CoreCivic qualifies as an employer under California law. 6

7

126. Labor in the immigration detention context is not intended as a punitive measure.

8

127. CoreCivic does not compensate detainees the state minimum wage for the work they

9 performed at the Otay Mesa Facility. Instead, CoreCivic pays detainees $1 or $1.50 per day – or

10 nothing at all – for work they perform at its facility.

11

128. Plaintiffs seek to recover, on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly

12 situated, unpaid minimum wages and costs of this suit.

13 129. This Count applies to the Work Program Class, the Unlawful Inducement Class, the
14 Injured Worker Class, and the Unpaid Cleaner Class.
15

16

COUNT II UNJUST ENRICHMENT

17

California Common Law

18

130. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference herein all allegations above.

19

131. CoreCivic materially and significantly reduced its labor costs and expenses, and

20 increased its profits, because Plaintiffs and Class Members perform undercompensated labor.

21

132. Plaintiffs and Class Members conferred non-gratuitous benefits upon CoreCivic by

22 performing work for $1 or $1.50 per day, or for nothing at all, for which CoreCivic would otherwise
23 have had to pay at least the applicable minimum wage or more, thereby significantly and materially
24

25 increasing CoreCivic’s profits, unjustly enriching CoreCivic at the expense of and detriment to

26 Plaintiffs and Class Members.

27

133. CoreCivic’s retention of any benefit collected directly and indirectly from this

28 uncompensated labor violated principles of justice, equity, and good conscience. 20

Case 3:17-cv-02573-AJB-NLS Document 1 Filed 12/27/17 PageID.21 Page 21 of 25

1

134. As a direct and proximate result of CoreCivic’s forced labor practices, Plaintiffs and

2 Class Members have suffered concrete harm and injury, including physical and emotional injury,
3 monetary loss, and the unlawful violation of their rights. 4
135. Plaintiffs and Class Members are entitled to recover from CoreCivic all amounts that 5
CoreCivic has wrongfully and improperly obtained, and CoreCivic should be required to disgorge to 6 7 Plaintiffs and Class Members the benefits it has unjustly obtained. Plaintiffs and Class Members are
8 also entitled to recover exemplary damages. C.R.S. § 13- 21-102.

9

136. This Count applies to the Work Program Class, the Unlawful Inducement Class, the

10 Injured Worker Class, and the Unpaid Cleaner Class.

11

COUNT III

12

CALIFORNIA UNFAIR COMPETITION LAW Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq.

13 137. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference herein all allegations above.
14 138. California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”) prohibits unfair competition, defined
15
16 as “any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice and unfair, deceptive, untrue or

17 misleading advertising and any act prohibited by [California’s False Advertising Law].” Cal. Bus. &

18 Prof. Code § 17200.

19

139. CoreCivic willfully violated, and continues to violate, the “unlawful” prong of the

20 UCL by violating California labor law.

21

140. The acts, omissions, and practices of CoreCivic constitute unfair and unlawful

22 business acts and practices under the UCL in that CoreCivic’s conduct offends public policy against
23
forced labor, and seeks to profit by violating Plaintiffs’ rights under state and federal law. 24

25

141. As a direct and proximate result of CoreCivic’s unlawful and unfair business practices,

26 Plaintiffs and Class Members have suffered economic injury.

27

142. This Count applies to the Work Program Class, the Unlawful Inducement Class, the

28 Injured Worker Class, and the Unpaid Cleaner Class. 21

Case 3:17-cv-02573-AJB-NLS Document 1 Filed 12/27/17 PageID.22 Page 22 of 25

1

COUNT IV

CALIFORNIA TRAFFICKING VICTIMS PROTECTION ACT

2

Cal. Civ. Code § 52.5

3

143. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference herein all allegations above.

4 144. Pursuant to the California Trafficking Victims Protection Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 52.5,
5
“a victim of human trafficking, as defined in Section 236.1 of the Penal Code, may bring a civil action 6

7 for actual damages, compensatory damages, punitive damages, injunctive relief, any combination of

8 those, or any other appropriate relief.”

9

145. Human trafficking is defined as the deprivation or violation of the personal liberty of

10 another “with the intent to obtain forced labor or services.” Cal. Penal Code § 236.1.

11

146. Forced labor or services is defined as “labor or services that are performed or

12 provided by a person and are obtained or maintained through force, fraud, duress, or coercion, or

13 equivalent conduct that would reasonably overbear the will of the person.” Cal. Penal Code
14
§ 236.1(h)(5). 15

16

147. CoreCivic materially and significantly reduced its labor costs and expenses, and

17 increased its profits, by unlawfully forcing and coercing Plaintiffs and Class Members to perform

18 uncompensated labor. In order to drive profits, CoreCivic acted with the intent to obtain forced

19 labor or services from its detainees.

20

148. As alleged herein, CoreCivic did not and does not provide detainees at the Otay Mesa

21 Facility with sufficient provisions and necessities for daily life. In order to purchase these necessary

22 items, including food, medicine, hygiene products, and clothing, Plaintiffs and Class Members were
23
and are forced or coerced to perform labor and services for CoreCivic for $1 or $1.50 per day. 24

25

149. Plaintiffs and Class Members are entitled to recover from CoreCivic all amounts that

26 CoreCivic has wrongfully and improperly obtained, and CoreCivic should be required to disgorge to

27 Plaintiffs and Class Members the benefits it has unjustly obtained. Plaintiffs and Class Members are

28 also entitled to recover exemplary damages. C.R.S. § 13- 21-102. 22

Case 3:17-cv-02573-AJB-NLS Document 1 Filed 12/27/17 PageID.23 Page 23 of 25

1

150. This Count applies to the Work Program Class and the Unpaid Cleaner Class.

2

COUNT V

3

ATTEMPTED FORCED LABOR 18 U.S.C. §§ 1589(a) & 1594(a)

4 151. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference herein all allegations above.
5
152. Plaintiffs and Class Members are victims of attempted forced labor as defined by 6

7 18 U.S.C. § 1589(a).

8

153. CoreCivic violates 18 U.S.C. § 1589(a)(2) by knowingly maintaining a corporate policy

9 and uniform practice at the Otay Mesa Facility aimed at obtaining nearly free detainee labor and

10 services by:

11

a. Withholding daily necessities from Plaintiffs and Class Members, thereby forcing

12

them to work for subminimum wages in order to buy those daily necessities for themselves and avoid serious harm, including, but not limited to, malnutrition,

13

unsanitary living quarters, extreme isolation, and unhygienic conditions of

confinement; and

14

b. Threatening Plaintiffs and Class Members with physical restraint, serious harm,

15

and abuse of law or legal process if they refuse to provide their labor, organize a

16

work stoppage, or participate in a work stoppage.

17

154. CoreCivic further violated 18 U.S.C. § 1589 by maintaining a corporate policy and

18 uniform practice at the Otay Mesa Facility of threatening Plaintiffs and Class Members with serious

19 harm, including solitary confinement, referral to an ICE officer, or criminal prosecution if they

20 refused to work.

21

155. CoreCivic attempted to perpetrate the offense of forced labor against Plaintiffs and

22 Class Members.
23
156. CoreCivic knowingly benefitted financially from participation in a venture CoreCivic 24

25 knew or should have known engaged in unlawful coercion of labor in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1589.

26

157. Plaintiffs and Class Members have suffered damages in an amount to be determined

27 at trial.

28 23

Case 3:17-cv-02573-AJB-NLS Document 1 Filed 12/27/17 PageID.24 Page 24 of 25

1

158. Plaintiffs and Class Members are entitled to recover compensatory and punitive

2 damages.

3

159. Plaintiffs and Class Members are entitled to recover mandatory restitution in the full

4 amount of their losses.
5
160. Plaintiffs and Class Members are entitled to recover their reasonable attorney’s fees. 6

7

161. This Count applies to the Work Program Class and the Unpaid Cleaner Class.

8

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

9

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of the Class, requests that the Court:

10

a. Certify this action as a class action, with classes as defined above;

11

b. Find that Plaintiffs are proper representatives of the Classes, and appoint the undersigned

12

as Class Counsel;

13

c. Order CoreCivic to pay for notifying Class Members of the pendency of this suit;

14

d. Order disgorgement of CoreCivic’s unjustly-acquired revenue, profits, and other benefits

resulting from its unlawful conduct;

15

16

e. Award declaratory and other equitable relief as is necessary to protect the interests of Plaintiffs and Class Members;

17 f. Award injunctive relief as is necessary to protect the interests of Plaintiffs and Class

18

Members, including enjoining CoreCivic from continuing to conduct business through

the unlawful and unfair practices alleged herein;

19

g. Award Plaintiffs and Class Members monetary damages for lost wages in an amount to

20

be determined at trial;

21

h. Award Plaintiffs and Class members their reasonable litigation expenses and attorney’s

22

fees; and

23

i. Award any further relief that the Court deems just and equitable.

24 25 Dated: December 27, 2017

Respectfully Submitted,

26 /s/ Will Thompson

27

Korey A. Nelson*

Lydia A. Wright*

28

BURNS CHAREST LLP

24

Case 3:17-cv-02573-AJB-NLS Document 1 Filed 12/27/17 PageID.25 Page 25 of 25

1

365 Canal Street, Suite 1170

New Orleans, LA 70130

2

Telephone: (504) 799-2845

3

Facsimile: (504) 881-1765 knelson@burnscharest.com

4

lwright@burnscharest.com

5

Warren T. Burns*

Daniel H. Charest*

6

Will Thompson (Cal. Bar No. 289012)

7

BURNS CHAREST LLP 900 Jackson St., Suite 500

8

Dallas, Texas 75202

Telephone: (469) 904-4550

9

Facsimile: (469) 444-5002

wburns@burnscharest.com

10

dcharest@burnscharest.com

wthompson@burnscharest.com 11

12

R. Andrew Free* andrew@immigrantcivilrights.com

13

Matthew Freda*

Matt@immigrantcivilrights.com

14

LAW OFFICE OF R. ANDREW FREE

P.O. Box 90568

15

Nashville, TN 37209

16

Telephone: (844) 321-3221 Facsimile: (615) 829-8959

17 Nicole Ramos*

18

nicole@alotrolado.org

AL OTRO LADO

19

511 E. San Ysidro Blvd., # 333

San Ysidro, CA 92173

20

Telephone: (619) 786-4866

21

Robert R. Ahdoot (Cal. Bar No. 172098)

22

rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com

AHDOOT & WOLFSON, APC

23

8424 Santa Monica Blvd., Ste. 575

West Hollywood, CA 90069

24

Telephone: (310) 474-9111

25

Facsimile: (310) 474-8585

26

*Application for admission pro hac vice

forthcoming.

27 Attorneys for Plaintiffs.
28

25

 
 Case 3:17-cv-02573-JLS-NLS Document 44 Filed 04/04/18 PageID.366 Page 1 of 10

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 CARLOS GONZALEZ, JUAN JOSE

12

MERINO-RODAS, MARIBEL GUTIERREZ-DUARTE, and JENNYE

13 PAGOADA-LOPEZ, individually and on

14 behalf of all others similarly situated,

15 v.
16

Plaintiffs,

17 CORECIVIC, INC.,

Defendant. 18

Case No.: 17-CV-2573 JLS (NLS)
ORDER: (1) DENYING MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE; AND (2) STAYING CASE
(ECF No. 23)

19

20

Presently before the Court is Plaintiffs Carlos Gonzalez, Juan Jose Merino-Rodas,

21 Maribel Gutierrez-Canchola, Gladys Carrera-Duarte, and Jennye Pagoada-Lopez’s

22 (“Gonzalez Plaintiffs”) Motion to Consolidate, (“MTN,” ECF No. 23). The Court

23 permitted the plaintiffs (“Owino Plaintiffs”) in a related matter, Owino v. CoreCivic, 17-

24 CV-1112, to intervene for the limited purpose of filing an opposition to this Motion, (ECF

25 No. 36). Accordingly, Owino Plaintiffs filed a Response in Opposition, (“Owino Opp’n,”

26 ECF No. 37), as did Defendant CoreCivic, Inc., (“Def. Opp’n,” ECF No. 38), to the

27 Gonzalez Plaintiffs’ Motion. The Gonzalez Plaintiffs filed a Reply in Support of, (“Reply,”

28 ECF No. 41), their Motion. The Court vacated the hearing and took the matter under

1 17-CV-2573 JLS (NLS)

Case 3:17-cv-02573-JLS-NLS Document 44 Filed 04/04/18 PageID.367 Page 2 of 10

1 submission without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1(d)(1). (ECF No. 42.)

2 Having considered the Parties’ arguments and the law, the Court rules as follows.

3

BACKGROUND

4

This case involves two related class actions. On May 31, 2017, Owino Plaintiffs

5 filed a putative class action against Defendant in this Court. (“Owino Compl.,” ECF No.

6 1, Case No. 17-CV-1112.) The Owino Plaintiffs are former civil immigration detainees

7 and allege they were paid $1 a day for labor while they were interred at Defendant’s Otay

8 Mesa Detention Facility. (Id. ¶ 10.) They also allege that other detainees were forced to

9 work for no pay. (Id. ¶ 13.) Owino Plaintiffs seek to certify a class of “all civil immigration

10 detainees who performed Forced Labor uncompensated work for CoreCivic at any

11 Detention Facility owned or operated by it between November 2, 2004 to the applicable

12 opt-out date, inclusive.” (Id. ¶ 30.)

13

On December 27, 2017, Gonzalez Plaintiffs filed a second putative class action

14 lawsuit against Defendant in the Southern District. (“Gonzalez Compl.,” ECF No. 1.) The

15 case was transferred from Judge Anthony J. Battaglia’s calendar to this Court pursuant to

16 Civil Local Rule 40.1. The Gonzalez Plaintiffs, like Owino Plaintiffs, are former civil

17 immigration detainees housed at Defendant’s Otay Mesa facility. They allege that they

18 received $1 or $1.50 a day for their labor at the detention facility. The Gonzales Plaintiffs

19 seek to certify classes, including “[a]ll civil immigration detainees who performed work

20 for CoreCivic at the Otay Mesa Detention Center in the Work Program within the past ten

21 years.” (Id. ¶ 111.) Gonzalez Plaintiffs now seek to consolidate the two class actions.

22

LEGAL STANDARD

23

Consolidation of actions is appropriate “[i]f actions before the court involve a

24 common question of law or fact.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a)(2). A district court has broad

25 discretion in determining whether to consolidate actions pending in the same district. See

26 Investors Research Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court for Cent. Dist. Of Cal., 877 F.2d 777, 777 (9th

27 Cir. 1989) (citing 9 Charles A. Wright et al., Federal Practice and Procedure § 2383

28 (1971); and A/S J. Ludwig Mowinckles Rederi v. Tidewater Const. Co., 559 F.2d 928 (4th

2 17-CV-2573 JLS (NLS)

Case 3:17-cv-02573-JLS-NLS Document 44 Filed 04/04/18 PageID.368 Page 3 of 10

1 Cir. 1977)). “In determining whether to consolidate cases, a court should also weigh any

2 time and effort saved by consolidation against any ‘inconvenience, delay, or expense that

3 [consolidation] would cause.’” Fialkov v. Celladon Corp., No. 15CV1458 AJB (DHB),

4 2015 WL 11658717, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 9, 2015) (alteration in original) (citing Huene v.

5 United States, 743 F.2d 703, 704 (9th Cir. 1984)).

6

ANALYSIS

7

All parties across both actions agree that the Owino and Gonzalez actions involve

8 related facts and claims. The parties diverge, however, on what steps the Court should take

9 to manage its docket and proceed forward with this case and the Owino case. Gonzalez

10 Plaintiffs argue that their action involves common questions of law and fact such that

11 consolidation of their action with the Owino action would be appropriate. (See MTN 4.)1

12 Both Owino Plaintiffs and Defendant argue that the Court should exercise its discretion to

13 dismiss, rather than consolidate, the Gonzalez action because the Gonzalez action is

14 duplicative of the Owino action. (Def Opp’n 11; Owino Opp’n 7.) In response, Gonzalez

15 Plaintiffs argue that dismissal of their action would be inappropriate because the two

16 actions are not duplicative. (Reply 6.) The Court proceeds as follows. First, the Court

17 determines whether the Gonzalez action is duplicative of the Owino action. Second, the

18 Court determines which procedural action best serves the interests of judicial economy and

19 preserves the rights of all parties going forward.

20 I. Whether the Gonzalez Action is Duplicative

21

As a threshold matter, the Court clarifies which rules or standards it applies in the

22 analysis here. There are three similar rules the Court could apply to the issue before the

23 Court. The Gonzalez Plaintiffs urge the Court apply Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42,

24 which permits the Court to consolidate actions involving “common question of law or

25 fact.” The Owino Plaintiffs would have the Court adopt a “first-to-file” rule, which applies

26 when two similar actions are filed in different federal courts. Defendant submits the rule

27

28 1 Pin citations refer to the page numbers electronically stamped on the EM/CMF filings.

3 17-CV-2573 JLS (NLS)

Case 3:17-cv-02573-JLS-NLS Document 44 Filed 04/04/18 PageID.369 Page 4 of 10

1 against claim splitting applies, which courts invoke when a plaintiff files two actions

2 against the same defendant based on the same facts. District courts in this circuit have

3 analyzed duplicative class actions under both the first-to-file rule, see Weinstein v. Metlife,

4 Inc., No. C 06-4444 SI, 2006 WL 3201045, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 6, 2006), and the claim-

5 splitting rule, see Chowning v. Kohl’s Dep’t Stores, Inc., No. CV 15-8673 RGK (SPx),

6 2016 WL 7655752, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 2, 2016). The Court applies the claim-splitting

7 rule because the first-to-file rule applies to cases between different districts. See Moore v.

8 Roadway Express, Inc., No. CV 09-1588, 2009 WL 10670954, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 7,

9 2009).

10

“District courts retain broad discretion to control their dockets and ‘[i]n the exercise

11 of that power they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate, default or

12 dismissal.’” Adams v. Cal. Dep’t of Health Servs., 487 F.3d 684, 688 (9th Cir. 2007)

13 (alteration in original) (quoting Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of L.A., 782 F.2d 829, 831

14 (9th Cir. 1986) (per curiam); and citing Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 629–30 (1962)),

15 abrogated in part by Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 904 (2008). “Plaintiffs generally

16 have ‘no right to maintain two separate actions involving the same subject matter at the

17 same time in the same court and against the same defendant.’” Id. (quoting Walton v. Eaton

18 Corp., 563 F.2d 66, 70 (3d Cir. 1977) (en banc)).

19

To determine whether a suit is duplicative, courts apply the test for claim preclusion.

20 See The Haytian Republic, 154 U.S. 118, 124 (1894). This is a two-part standard. Thus, a

21 court must first determine whether the causes of action and relief sought in the two suits

22 are identical. Adams, 487 F.3d at 689. Then a court determines whether the parties, or

23 their privies, are the same. Id.

24

A. Same Causes of Action

25

To determine whether two causes of action are similar, courts apply a transactional

26 test. Id. “Whether two events are part of the same transaction or series depends on whether

27 they are related to the same set of facts and whether they could conveniently be tried

28 together.” Id. (quoting W. Sys., Inc. v. Ulloa, 958 F.2d 864, 871 (9th Cir. 1992); and citing

4 17-CV-2573 JLS (NLS)

Case 3:17-cv-02573-JLS-NLS Document 44 Filed 04/04/18 PageID.370 Page 5 of 10

1 Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 24(1) (1982)). Courts examine four criteria:

2

(1) whether rights or interests established in the prior judgment

3

would be destroyed or impaired by prosecution of the second action; (2) whether substantially the same evidence is presented

4

in the two actions; (3) whether the two suits involve infringement

5

of the same right; and (4) whether the two suits arise out of the same transactional nucleus of facts.

6

7 Id. (quoting Costantini v. Trans World Airlines, 681 F.2d 1199, 1201–02 (9th Cir. 1982)).

8 “The last of these criteria is the most important.” Constantini, 681 F.2d at 1202.

9

Gonzalez Plaintiffs argue that while the two actions involve substantially similar

10 questions of fact and law such that consolidation is appropriate the claims are not identical.

11 (Reply 7.) According to Gonzalez Plaintiffs, their Complaint brings five causes of action

12 compared to the twelve “scattershot” causes of action brought by Owino Plaintiffs. (Id.)

13 Gonzalez Plaintiffs also point to at least two factual differences: they allege that some

14 members of the putative class were paid more than $1 a day and they allege that Defendant

15 obtains labor through unlawful means. (Id.)

16

Both Owino Plaintiffs and Defendant explain, in detail, the commonality between

17 the two suits. For example, both the Gonzalez and Owino Plaintiffs allege that Defendant

18 pays civil detainees who voluntarily participate in work programs less than the minimum

19 wage, (Def. Opp’n 7 (comparing Gonzalez Compl. ¶¶ 40–47, 127, 132 with Owino Compl.

20 ¶¶ 11, 13–15, 73, 123)), and that Defendant coerces or forces detainees to work under threat

21 of solitary confinement or loss of privileges, (id. (comparing Gonzalez Compl. ¶¶ 8, 32,

22 38–39, 147–48, 153–54 with Owino Compl. ¶¶ 13, 16, 42, 47, 57–59)). Both Owino

23 Plaintiffs and Defendant point to Gonzalez Plaintiffs’ own Motion to Consolidate where

24 Gonzalez Plaintiffs argue “both Actions seek to stop the economic exploitation and abuse

25 of detainees at the Otay Mesa Facility, to recover unpaid wages, and to remedy unjust

26 enrichment resulting from CoreCivic’s unlawful failure to pay its detainee workforce legal

27 wages.” (Id. (quoting MTN 5); see Owino Opp’n 10–11.) Finally, both cases bring causes

28 of action sounding in violation of the same laws and both cases ask for similar relief. (Def.

5 17-CV-2573 JLS (NLS)

Case 3:17-cv-02573-JLS-NLS Document 44 Filed 04/04/18 PageID.371 Page 6 of 10

1 Opp’n 9–10.)

2

The Court agrees with Owino Plaintiffs and Defendant. Both cases arise from the

3 same transactional nucleus of fact. Both cases argue that Defendant is not following

4 California minimum wage laws and both cases argue that Defendant coerces its detainees

5 to participate in a work program at its Otay Mesa detention facility. Both cases bring

6 similar causes of action and request similar relief. Indeed, the entire bases for Gonzalez

7 Plaintiffs’ Motion of Consolidation are the common questions of law and fact. The test is

8 not, as Gonzalez Plaintiffs suggest, whether the two cases are exactly identical. The test is

9 transactional. Here, it is clearly met—the facts are duplicative.

10

B. Same Parties

11

At this point, the Court’s analysis must diverge from Adams. The Adams court asked

12 whether a party in an earlier-filed action could be said to have “virtually represented” a

13 party in a later-filed action. 487 F.3d at 691. The Supreme Court has since made clear that

14 “virtual representation” is not consonant with the claim preclusion test. See Taylor, 553

15 U.S. at 901. Gonzalez Plaintiffs direct the Court to the Supreme Court’s decision in Smith

16 v. Bayer Corp., 564 U.S. 299 (2011), which concerned the preclusive effect of an earlier-

17 filed class action on a later filed class action. The Supreme Court explained that for claim

18 preclusion to apply the later filed suit must have presented the same issues as the prior case

19 and the later filed plaintiff must have been a party to the earlier-filed suit or else fall within

20 one of a few discrete exceptions to the general rule against binding nonparties. See id. at

21 307–08. The Supreme Court held that “[n]either a proposed class action nor a rejected

22 class action may bind nonparties.” Id. at 315.

23

Here, the Owino Plaintiffs have not been certified as a class under Federal Rule of

24 Civil Procedure 23. Instead, Owino is a proposed class action. The Court agrees with

25 Gonzalez Plaintiffs that the Owino action cannot bind nonparties, like Gonzalez Plaintiffs.

26 See Bayer, 553 U.S. at 315. Because the Owino action does not have preclusive effect

27 against the Gonzalez Plaintiffs, the claim-splitting rule must also fail. See Chowning, 2016

28 WL 7655752, at *3 (applying Bayer to find earlier-filed class action that was rejected in

6 17-CV-2573 JLS (NLS)

Case 3:17-cv-02573-JLS-NLS Document 44 Filed 04/04/18 PageID.372 Page 7 of 10

1 part was not binding on later-filed class action and declining to dismiss later-filed action).

2 The Court finds that dismissing the Gonzalez action is not appropriate at this time, given

3 the early stage of the Owino action and that its class has not been certified.

4 II. Consolidation vs. Stay

5

While the claim-splitting rule is not appropriate at this time, such a finding does not

6 resolve the issue before the Court: how to proceed with two nearly identical putative class

7 actions. The district court in Moreno v. Castlerock Farming & Transport, No. CIV-F-12-

8 0556 AWI JLT, 2013 WL 1326496 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 29, 2013), encountered a similar issue.

9 There, two putative class actions were pending before the same court; neither class action

10 had been certified. Id. at *1. The district court reasoned that the scope of the putative class

11 in the earlier-filed action would depend greatly on an order granting or denying class

12 certification. Id. at *2. Further, the later-filed class would depend on the scope of the

13 earlier-filed class. The court stated:

14

If the class in [the earlier-filed action] is certified as narrow, then

15

the [later-filed] Plaintiffs can move forward to represent all other workers at [the defendant’s] facilities. Indeed, all pre-class

16

certification discovery received by [earlier-filed plaintiff] could

17

be directly given to the [later-filed] Plaintiffs to save time and effort in that circumstance. If the class certified in [the earlier-

18

filed action] is wide, then [the later-filed action] would probably

19

be considered duplicative and subject to dismissal. If class certification is denied for some other reason not having to do

20

with [the earlier-filed plaintiff’s] status, then [the later-filed

21

action] may or may not be able to proceed depending upon the specific circumstance.

22

23 Id. (citing Bayer, 564 U.S. at 314).

24

The Moreno court’s reasoning and conclusion are persuasive. Here, the Owino

25 Plaintiffs seek to certify sub-classes potentially broader in scope than the Gonzalez

26 Plaintiffs. For example, both lawsuits endeavor to certify a civil detainee sub-class who

27 performed work for less than California’s minimum wage. The Gonzalez Plaintiffs’

28 putative minimum wage sub-class is limited to all detainees who performed work for

7 17-CV-2573 JLS (NLS)

Case 3:17-cv-02573-JLS-NLS Document 44 Filed 04/04/18 PageID.373 Page 8 of 10

1 Defendant at the Otay Mesa Detention Center within the past ten years. (Gonzalez Compl.

2 ¶ 111a.) The Owino Plaintiffs’ putative minimum wage sub-class covers all detainees at

3 any facility located in California owned or operated by Defendant between November 2,

4 2004 and the applicable opt-out date. (Owino Compl. ¶ 30.) The remaining sub-classes

5 follow similar limitations: the Gonzalez Plaintiffs limit the classes to only the Otay Mesa

6 facility for the past ten years; the Owino Plaintiffs limit the classes to any Defendant-owned

7 facility in California since 2004. (Compare Gonzalez Compl. ¶ 111 with Owino Compl.

8 ¶ 30.)

9

Thus, the Owino Plaintiffs could potentially certify a broad class that subsumes the

10 Gonzalez Plaintiffs’ class. Or, the Owino Plaintiffs could certify a narrower class that does

11 not include the putative Gonzalez class. At the pre-certification stage, the Court cannot

12 determine the size or composition of a class in either case. Like Moreno, a stay appears to

13 be the equitable solution. See also Clardy v. Pinnacle Foods Grp., LLC, No. 16-cv-4385-

14 JST, 2017 WL 57310 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 5, 2017) (staying later-filed class action).

15

The other course of action is to consolidate the cases. Certainly, the Gonzalez

16 Plaintiffs strongly advocate for this outcome. Yet, both Owino Plaintiffs and Defendant

17 object to consolidation. Gonzalez Plaintiffs warns that “it would be an abuse of discretion

18 to appoint an attorney as class counsel solely because he may have won the race to the

19 courthouse.” (Reply 6 (quoting Northstar Fin. Advisors Inc. v. Schwab Invs., 779 F.3d

20 1036, 1048 (9th Cir. 2015)).) Indeed, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g) lays out

21 objective standards to determine appointment of lead class counsel. Appointment of

22 interim class counsel, however, is not the issue presently before the Court. The issue here

23 is whether to consolidate or whether to stay—not appointment of interim class counsel.

24

Courts have the power to stay proceedings sua sponte. Ali v Trump, 241 F. Supp.

25 3d 1147, 1152 (W.D. Wash. 2017); Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp. v. Karma, No. 14-00137

26 ACK-KSC, 2016 WL 922780, at *8–9 (D. Haw. Mar. 9, 2016). The issues involved in the

27 pending proceedings need not be “controlling of the action before the court” for the court

28 to issue a stay. Leyva v. Certified Grocers of Cal., Ltd., 593 F.2d 857, 864 (9th Cir. 1979).

8 17-CV-2573 JLS (NLS)

Case 3:17-cv-02573-JLS-NLS Document 44 Filed 04/04/18 PageID.374 Page 9 of 10

1 Indeed, for a court to issue a stay, the parties in the two cases need not be the same and the

2 issues need not be identical. See Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936).

3

In determining whether to grant a motion to stay, “the competing interests [that] will

4 be affected by the granting or refusal to grant a stay must be weighed.” Lockyer v. Mirant

5 Corp., 398 F.3d 1098, 1110 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268

6 (9th Cir. 1962)). Those interests include: (1) “the possible damage which may result from

7 the granting of a stay,” (2) “the hardship or inequity which a party may suffer in being

8 required to go forward,” and (3) “the orderly course of justice measured in terms of the

9 simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, and questions of law which could be expected

10 to result from a stay.” Id.

11

Here, the Court again finds the Moreno court’s reasoning persuasive as to the first

12 and second factors. If the class in Owino is certified as narrow then the Gonzalez Plaintiffs

13 can move forward to represent all other detainees at Defendant’s facilities. All pre-class

14 certification discovery received by Owino Plaintiffs could, in theory, be given to Gonzalez

15 Plaintiffs to save time and effort. If the class certified in Owino is wide, then Gonzalez

16 would probably be considered duplicative and subject to dismissal. If class certification is

17 denied for a reason beyond Owino Plaintiffs’ status then Gonzalez Plaintiffs may or may

18 not be able to proceed. See Moreno, 2013 WL 1326496, at *2. The Court recognizes there

19 is some possibility of damage to the Gonzalez Plaintiffs—if the Owino Plaintiffs certify a

20 narrow class or their claim is dismissed then the Gonzalez Plaintiffs suffer from the delay

21 in litigating. However, the potential damage to the Gonzalez Plaintiffs is mitigated, in part,

22 because the Court will only stay their proceedings until resolution of the Owino Plaintiffs’

23 class certification.2 As to the second factor, the Court finds the hardship on all parties to

24 be significant if parallel litigation is allowed to proceed on the same issues and the same

25 Defendant. On the other hand, the hardship on the Gonzalez Plaintiffs’ is measured in the

26

27 2 This assumes that the Owino Plaintiffs reach the class certification stage. If Defendant prevails on its 28 motion to dismiss or some other unforeseen event occurs then the Gonzalez Plaintiffs may request
appropriate relief from the stay.

9 17-CV-2573 JLS (NLS)

Case 3:17-cv-02573-JLS-NLS Document 44 Filed 04/04/18 PageID.375 Page 10 of 10

1 potential delay in resolving their rights. As to the third factor, all parties agree that the

2 Court should simplify the issues by eliminating the parallel proceedings, either by

3 consolidation or by stay or dismissal. In sum, the Court finds that the Gonzalez Plaintiffs’

4 interest is outweighed by the potential claim-splitting concerns as well as judicial economy.

5

The Court is under no illusion as to the stakes of this Motion. Gonzalez Plaintiffs

6 filed a nearly identical cause of action as the Owino Plaintiffs, seek to consolidate the cases,

7 and wrest control of interim class counsel from the Owino Plaintiffs. Owino Plaintiffs and

8 Defendant seek to dismiss the later-filed action as duplicative to send a strong message

9 against copy-cat filings. The truth lies somewhere in between. Thus, the Court exercises

10 its discretion to chart a course between the two positions. The Court will stay this case

11 pending the outcome of Owino Plaintiffs’ future class certification. At such a time, the

12 Gonzalez Plaintiffs may request appropriate relief from the stay.

13

CONCLUSION

14

For the reasons stated above, the Court DENIES Gonzalez Plaintiffs’ Motion to

15 Consolidate, (ECF No. 23). On its own motion, the Court STAYS the present case until it

16 rules on class certification (or other dispositive motions, such as a motion to dismiss with

17 prejudice) in Owino.

18

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19 Dated: April 4, 2018 20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

10 17-CV-2573 JLS (NLS)