UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION

/

Delma Luz Carranza, Francelia Hemandez,

CIIV- YS AMP

Virginia Perez,

Hermelinda Ramos,

t_.at ~oa Ramos,

Adolfo Perez,

Gloria Roblero, and

David Matias,

individually and on behalf of

all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

VS.

Complaint--Class Action

Mecca Farms, Inc., M. Sanchez & Son, Inc., Maria T. Sanchez, and Rogerio T. Rodrigue;,.

Defendants.

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, DECLARATORY RELIEF, INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, COSTS OF LITIGATION AND ATTORNEY’S FEES

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1. This is an action by eight migrant or seasonal fannworkers on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated to redress and vindicate rights aftbrded them by the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 1801-1872 (1999) ("AWPA"), the

Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201-219 (1998) ("FLSA"), and the Federal Insurance Contributions Act, 26 U.S.C. §§ 3101-3128 (1989) ("FICA").
2. At various points between 1997 and November 2001, inclusive, the Plaintiffs and other class members were employed or jointly employed on a seasonal basis by Mecca Farms, Inc., M. Sanchez & Son, Inc, Maria T. Sanchez, and Rogerio T. Rodriguez planting, cultivating, preparing and harvesting tomatoes and other crops in south Florida on the operations of Mecca Fanm, s, Inc. Throughout the period relevant to this action, the Defendants violated the AWPA’s provisions relating to recordkeeping, wage statements, payment of wages, and transportation. During portions of their tenure with the Defendants, the Plaintiffs were paid less than the federally-mandated minimum wage for their labor in violation of the FLSA. The Defendants also failed to pay or ensure payment ot’Social Security (FICA) taxes on the labor of the Plaintiffs and other class members.
3. The Plaintiffs seek money damages, declaratory relief, injunctive rcliet\ costs of litigation and attorney’, fees to redress these violations of law.
J UR1SDICTION 4. Jurisdiction is conferred upon this Court by 29 U.S.C. § 1854(a), this action arising under the AWPA; by 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), this action arising under the FLSA; by 28 U.S.C. § 133 l, this action arising under the laws of the United States; and by 28 U.S.C. § 1337, this action arising under Acts of Congress regulating commerce. 5. The Court is empowered to grant declaratory relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 22012202.
2

VENUE 6. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b)(1)-(2), (c) because all of the Defendants reside in the district, the cvents or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in the district, and all the Defendant corporations are subject to personal jurisdiction in this district.
PARTIES 7. At all times relevant to this action, the Plaintiffs and the other class members were migrant or seasonal agricultural workers within the meaning of the AWPA, 29 U.S.C. § 1802(8)(A), (10)(A). At all times relevant to this action, each of the Plaintiffs was engaged in the production of goods tbr sale in interstate commerce. 8. Defendant Mecca Farms, Inc. is a closely-held Florida corporation based in Lantana, Florida. Mecca Farms. Inc. is engaged in the production of tomatoes and other commodities in South Florida for sale in interstate commerce. At all times relevant to this action, Mecca Farms, Inc. was an agricultural empioycr ~,l’thc Plaintiffs and other class members within the meaning of the AWPA, 29 U.S.C. § 1802(2), in that it operated a farm and employed the Plaintiffs and other migrant or seasonal agricultural workers. At all times relevant to this action, Mecca Farms, Inc. employed the Plaintiffs and other class members within the meaning of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203(d). 9. Defendant M. Sanchez & Son, Inc. is a closely-held Florida corporation headquartered in Lantana, Florida. At all times relevant to this action, M. Sanchez & Son, Inc. acted as a farm labor contractor within the meaning of the AWPM 29 U.S.C. § 1~02(7), in that, lbr a fee, it recruited, solicited, hired, furnished, or transported agricultural workers for agricultural

employment within the meaning of the AWPA. At all times relevant to this action, M. Sanchez & Son, Inc. employed Plaintiffs and other class members within the meaning of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203(d).
10. Defendant Maria T. Sanchez is an individual residing in Boynton Beach, Florida, and is the President, Vice President, Secretary, and Treasurer of M. Sanchez & Son, Inc. At all times relevant to this action, Maria T. Sanchez acted as a farm labor contractor within the meaning of the AWPA, 29 I~.S.C. § 1802(7), in that, for a fee, she recruited, solicited, hired, furnished, or transported agricultural workers for agricultural employment. At all times relevant to this action, she was an employer or joint employer of ~he Plaintiffs and other class members within the meaning of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203(d).
l l. Defendant Rogerio T. Rodriguez is an individual residing in Palm Beach County, Florida. At all times relevant to this action, Rogerio T. Rodriguez acted as a farm labor contractor within the meaning of the AWPA, 29 [.!.S.C. § 1802(7), in that, for a fee, he recruited, solicited, hired, furnished, or transported agricultural workers for agricultural employment. At all times relevant to this action, he was an employer or joint employer of the Plaintiffs and other class members within the meaning of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203(d).
12. At all times relevant to this aclion, the Defendants employed the Plaintiffs and the other class members within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 1802(5) and 29 U.S.C. § 203(g).
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 13. All claims set forth in Count I are brought by the Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated persons pursuant to Fed. R. Cir. P. 23(b)(3).

14. All claims set forth in Count II and V are brought by the Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated persons pursuant to Fed. R. Cir. P. 23(b)(2).
15. The named Plaintiffs seek to represent a class consisting of all migrant and seasonal agricultural workers furnished to Mecca Fa~nns, Inc. by M. Sanchez & Son, lnc., Maria T. Sanchez, or Rogerio T. Rodriguez from August 1997 through November 2001, inclusive.
16. Only the Defendants know the precise number of individuals in the class. The class is believed to include over 1,000 individuals. The class is comprised of indigent migrant or seasonal workers who are not fluent in the English language and who maintain their residences at various locations throughout the United States, Mexico, and Central America. The relatively small size of the individual claims and the indigence of the class members makes the maintenance of separate actions by each class member economically infeasible. Joinder of all class members is impracticable.
17. ~fherc are questions of thct common to the class. The common questions of t,act include: whether the Defendants made, kept, and preserved payroll records~ provided wage statements, and paid wages when due in accordance with the AWPA; and whether the earnings of the Plaintift~ and other class members were reported to the Social Security Administration.
18. There are questions of law common to the class. The common legal questions include: whether Mecca Farms, Inc. is an employer or joint employer of thc Plaintiffs and class members, and whether the Defendants’ actions violated the AWPA.
19. The claims of the named Plaintiffs are typical of those of the class, and these typical, common claims predominate over any questions affecting only individual class members. The named Plaintiffs have the samc interests as do the other members of the class and will vigorously

prosecute these interests on behalf of the class. 20. Plaintiffs’ counsel have handled numerous class actions in the federal courts,
including class actions under the AWPA. Plaintiffs’ counsel are prepared to advance litigation costs necessary to vigorously litigate the action.
21. With respect to the Plaintiffs’ AWPA claims set forth in Count I, certification is sought under Fed. R. Cir. P. 23(b)(3). A class action under Rule 23(b)(3) is superior to other available methods of adjudicating this controversy, because, inter alia:
a. The common issues of law and fact, as well as the relatively small size of the individual class members’ claims, substantially diminish the interest of members of the class in individually controlling the prosecution of separate actions;
b. Many members of the class are unaware of their rights to prosecute these claims and lack the means or resources to secure legal assistance;
c. [’here has been no liligation already commenced against the Defendants by the class members to dclcnnine the questions presented:
d. It is desirable that the claims be heard in this thrum since the Defendants reside in this District, and the actions giving rise to the claim occuned in this District;
e. A class action can be managed without undue dilticulty because the Defendants have regularly committed the violations complaincd of herein, and are required to maintain detailcd records concerning each class member.
22. With respect to the Plaintiffs’ claims in Counts II and V certification is sought under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2). By failing, inter alia, to report to the Social Security Administration the earnings of the class members, the Defendants have refused to act on grounds that are generally

applicable to the class. Final injunctive relief with respect to the class as a whole is appropriate.
COUNT 1 (Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act)
(Class Claims) (All Defendants)
23. This count sets tbrth class claims under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) by the Plaintiffs and other class members for damages and declaratory, relief to the AWPA violations and its attendant regulations by the Defendants.
24. The Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 22 of the complaint.
25. The Defendants failed to make, keep and maintain records regarding the work of the Plaintiffs and other class members as required by the AWPA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 1821(d)(1), 1831(c)(1), and its attendant regulation, 29 C.F.R.§ 500.80(a). Among other things, the Defendants failed to make, keep and maintain records accurately reflecting the number of piecework units earned, compensable hours worked, and the speciI]c sums withheld from the wages and the purpose of each sum withheld.
26. In violation of the AWPA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 1821(d)(2), 1831(c)(2) and its attendant regulations, 29 C.F.R. § 500.80(d), the Defendants failed to provide the Plaintiftls and the other class members each pay period with a written statement accurately showing the number of piecework units earned, the hours worked, the specific sums withheld and the purpose of each sum withheld.
27. The Defendants failed to compensate the Plaintiffs and the other class members at the

stated piece rate wage for all units of produce harvested and to pay minimum wages due them under the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 206(a)(1). These actions violate the AWPA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 1822(a), 1832(a) and its attendant regulations, 29 C.F.R. § 500.72.
28. The Defendants used or caused to be used vehicles that failed to conform to applicable Federal and State safety standards to transport the Plaintift~ and other class members to and from the Defendants’ job sites in violation of the AWPA, 29 U.S.C, § 1841(b)(l)(A) and its attendant regulations, 29 C.F.R. §§ 500.104, 500.105(b). Among other things, the vehicles did not provide securely fastened seats tbr each passenger.
29. The violations of the AWPA and its attendant regulations as set forth in this count were the natural consequences of the conscious and deliberate actions of the Defendants and were intentional within the meaning of the AWPA, 20 IJ.S.C. § 1854(c)( 1 ).
30. As a result of the DefEndants’ violations of the AWPA and its attendant regulations as sct ti,~rth in this count, lhe Plaintiffs and other class members have suffered damages.
(’OUNI 1I (Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act)
(Class Claims) (All Defendants) 31. This count sets fbrth class claims under Fed. R. Civ. P, 23(b)(2) by the Plaintiffs and other class members tbr damages and declaratory relief to the AWPA violations and its attendant regulations by the Defendants. 32. The Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 30 of the complaint. 33. The Defendants tailed to pay Social Security (FICA) taxes on the Plaintiffs’ labor
8

and that of the other class members, and to ensure the filing of the fomas W-2 and W-3 so as to properly credit the Plaintiffs and other class members’ Social Security earnings records tbr their labor, in violation of the AWPA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 1822(a), 1832(a) and its attendant regulations, 29 C.F.R. § 500.72.
34. The violations of the AWPA and its attendant regulations as set tbrth in this count were the natural consequences of the conscious and deliberate actions of Defendants and were intentional within the meaning of the AWPA, 29 U.S.C. § 1854(c)(1).
35. As a result of the Defendants’ violations of the AWPA and its attendant regulations as set forth in this count, the Plaintiffs and other class members have not been properly credited their Social Security earnings.
COUNT Ill (Migrant and Seasonal Worker Protection Act)
(Individual Claims) (All Defendants)
36. This count sets forth a claim by Plaintiffs Gloria Rablero and David Matias for expanded statutory damages under the AWPA, 29 U.S.C. 1854(e) and its attendant regulations.
37. The Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference lhe allegations set fi~rth in paragraphs 1 though 35 of the complainl.
38. On April 25, 2001, the Defendants caused Plaintiffs Gloria Roblero and David Matias to be transported to Mecca Farms’ job site in a van operated by Isabel Ramirez.
39. While en route to the job site on April 25,200l, the van was involved in a collision, resulting in bodily injuries to Plaintiffs Gloria Roblero and David Matias.
40. In violation of the AWPA, 29 U.S.C. § 1841(b) and its attendant regulalions 29

C.F.R. § 500.105(b)(3), the Defendants caused the transportation of Plaintiffs Gloria Roblero (aka Rosa Gonzalez) and David Matias as described in paragraph 38 without first ensuring that the van conformed to applicable federal and state safety standards. Among other things, the van lacked seats tbr each of the passengers.
41. The safety violation described in paragraph 40 resulted in injuries to Plaintiffs Gloria Roblero and David Matias. The injuries arose out of and in the course of employment as dctcrmined under Florida workers’ compensation law.
42. At the time of the accident, Isabel Ramirez, the vehicle driver, was an unregistered farm labor contractor, in violation of the AWPA, 29 U.S.C. § 1811 (a).
43. The Defendants utilized the services of Isabel Ramirez, an unregistered farm labor contractor, without taking reasonable steps to determine that Ramirez possessed a valid certificate of registration aulhorizing the pertbvmance of the lhnn labor contractor activities which he was requested or permitted to perform, in violation of the AWPA, 29 U.S.C. § 1842.
44. A,~ a result of the AWPA ~i~,]ations by the Defendants as set forth in this count, Plaintiffs Gloria Roblero and David Matias sutt~red bodily injuries and other damages and are entitled to recover expanded statutory damages pursuant to the AWPA, 29 U.S.C. § 1854(e).
COUNT IV (Fair Labor Standards Act)
(All Defendants) 45. This count sets tbrth a claim by the Plaintiffs for damages for the Defendants’ violations of the minimum wage provisions of the FLSA from August 1997 through November 2001, inclusive.

46. The Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs [ through 44 of the complaint.
47. At no time relevant to this action did the Defendants post in a conspicuous place a poster or other written statement advising the Plaintiffs of their right to the minimum wage under the FLSA. Such posting is required by regulations issued under the FLSA, 29 C.F.R. § 516.4.
48. The Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiffs at least $5.15 for each compensable hour they wc, rked during each pay period they were employed or jointly employed by the Defendants, in violation of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 206(a)(1).
49. The violations of the FLSA set tbrth in paragraph 48 resulted, in part, from Defendants’ failure to credit the Plaintiffs with all compensable hours worked.
50. The FLSA violations set forth in paragraph 48 resulted, in part, from the Defendants’ t;ailurc to supplement the Plaintiffs’ piece-rate earnings so as to raise them to the minimum level required by the FLSA.
51. At all times relevant to this action, the Defendanta regularly withheld employee Social Security (F1CA) contributions in accordance with the FICA ti-om Plaintiffs’ wages.
52. The violations of the FLSA described in paragraph 48 resulted, in part, from the Defendants’ failure to deposit with the Internal Revenue Sewice all sums withheld ti-om the Plaintiffs’ wages tbr the purpose of employee Social Security taxes pursuant to the FICA.
53. ~Ilae violations of the FLSA described in paragraph 48 resulted, in part, from the Defendants’ unlawful charges for facilitating the payment of wages.
54. As a result of the FLSA violations described in this count, the Plaintiffs are entitled to recover the amount of unpaid minimum wages due each of them and an equal amount as
3_3_

liquidated damages, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216 (b).
COUNT V (Federal Insurance Contributions Act)
(Class Claims) (Defendants M. Sanchez & Son, Inc. and Mafia T. Sanchez)
55. This count sets forth class claims under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) by the Plaintiffs and the other members of the class for declaratory relief and injunctive relief with respect to violations of the Federal Insurance Contributions Act by DeI~ndants M. Sanchez & Son, Inc. and Maria T. Sanchez from August 1997 through November 2001, inclusive.
56. The Plaimit~ rea[lege and incorporate by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs l through 54.
57, At all times relevant to this action, Defendants M. Sanchez & Son, Inc. and Maria T. Sanchez were the employers of the Plaintiffs and other class members ibr purposes of the FICA, 26 U.S.C. ~ 3121(o).
58. At all times ~-elevant to this action, Dctizndants M. Sanche× & Son, lnc. and Maria T. Sanchez regularly withheld employee Social Security (FICA) contributions in accordance with the F1CA from the wages of the Plaintiffs and other members of the class.
59. Defendants M. Sanchez & Son, Inc. and Maria T. Sanchez failed to deposit with the Internal Revenue Service all of the sums withheld from the wages of the Plaintiffs and class members as described in Paragraph 58 above, along with a matching employer’s share. On information and beliet; Defendants M. Sanchez & Son, Inc. and Maria T. Sanchez converted all or a portion of these monies to their own use. In addition, DetEndants M. Sanchez & Son, Inc. and Maria T. Sanchez l;ailed to file with the Social Security Administration tbrms W-2 and W-3
3_2

with regard to all of the labor performed by the Plaintiffs and other class members, thereby prevcnting the Social Security Administration from properly crediting the individual Social Security earnings records of the workers with the wages.
60. By the actions described in Paragraph 58 and 59, Defendants M. Sanchez & Son, Inc. and Maria T. Sanchez violated the FICA.
61. As a result of the violations of the FICA described in this count, the Plaintiffs and the other members of the class have been denied Social Security benefits to which they are lawfully entitled.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs pray that the Court will enter an order:
(a) Certi~ing the case as a class action in accordance with Fed. R. Cir. P. 23(b)(3) with respeci to the claims set forth in Count I. (b~ Ccrt~tying the case as a class action in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 23[b~(2) with respect to the claims set tbrth in Count 11 and V. (c) Declaring that Defendants Mecca Farms, Inc., M. Sanchez & Son, Inc., Maria T. Sanchez and Rogerio T. Rodriguez have intentionally violated the AWPA, as set forth in Counts I, II, and IIi; (d) Declaring that the Defendants have violated the FLSA, as set forth in Count IV; (e) Declaring that Defi~ndants M. Sanchez & Son, Inc. and Maria T. Sanchez have violated the FICA as set tbrth in Count V; (t) Granting judgment for the Plaintiffs and the other class members and against the
J_3

Defendants, jointly and severally, on the AWPA claims as set forth in Count 1 and awarding the Plaintiffs and each of each of the class members his or her actual damages or statutory damages of $500, whichever is greater, for every AWPA violation and its attendant regulations set forth in the count; (g) Granting judgnnent for the Plaintiffs and the other class members and against the Defendants, jointly and severally, on the AWPA claims as set tbrth in Count II, and enjoining the Defendants from failing to file with the Social Security Administration forms W-2 and W-3 relating to the Plaintiffs and the other class members for the Defendants during the period of the action; (h) Granting judgment tbr Plaintiffs Roblero and Matias and against the Defendants, jointly and severally, on the AWPA claim as set tbrth in Count 111 and awarding each of the Plaintiffs $10,000 in expanded statutory damages; (i) Granting judgment ibr the Plaintiff~ and the other class members against the Defendants. jointly and severally, on the FLSA claims as set ti~rth in Count IV and awarding each of the Plainti ffs his or her unpaid minimum wages and an equal amount as liquidated damages; (j) Granting judgment in favor of the Plaintift~ and the other class members and against Defendants M. Sanchez & Son, Inc. and Maria T. Sanchez on the FICA claims as set tbrth in Count V, and enjoining these Defendants from failing to file with the Social Security Administration fOrThS W-2 and W-3 relating to the labor of the Plaintiffs and the other class members for these Defendants during the period relevant to this action; (k) Awarding the Plaintiffs the costs of the action;
3_4

(1) Awarding the Plaintiffs a reasonable attorney’s fee with respect to the claims under the FLSA and the wage payment provisions of the AWPA; (m) Granting such further relief as this Court deems just and equitable.
Respectfully submitted,
Cathleen D. Caron Florida Bar Number 0468266 Gregory S. Schell Florida Bar Number 287199 Migrant Farmworker Justice Project 508 Lucerne Avenue Lake Worth, FL 33460 Telephone: (561) 582-392! Facsimile: (561) 582-488a Email: Cathleen@floridalcgal.org Email: Greg@floridalcgal.org Attorneys t’or Plainliffs

~ISRe4v4. 12/96)

CIVIL COVER SHEETm m = .- ~.~, ~.~-~ -" [~- ~ :~

(heJS 44 civl cover sheet and the ,nformation contained herein neither replace.no[ ~up~lement the filing .~nd~c~.pleadi~ ~ ~y law. except as provide~ by local rules of couP. This [orm. approved by the Juoicim ~on]erence of the united States ~n ~ep~em~er 1974,
DEFENDANTS IV’RYSKAMP of the Clerk of Cou~ fo~ the purpose o~ ~nitiatng the civil docket sheet (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON THE REVERSE OF THE FORM.)
.(a) PLAINTIFFS

i.uz Carranza, Delma ~ernandez, Francelia ~erez, Virginia Ramos, Carlos

Perez, Adolfo Roblero, Gloria Matias, David

Mecca Farms, .nc. M. Sanchez & Son,lnc. Sanchez, Maria T. -Rodriguem. Ro~erio T.

(EXCEPT IN U.S PLAINTIFF CASES)

(IN U.S, P~INTIFF CASES ONLY)

NOTE: =N LAND CO~DEMNA~~Tk4~CATION OF

TRACT OF { AN tNV

.

508 £~ce~ne ~e. ~ake ~5, ~ ~O,,,:~r .~":,~’.. ,’ ~’-

(d) CIRCLE COUN~ WHERE ACTION AROSE: D~D£. MONROE. ~ROWARD.

. ARTIN. ST. kUCIE. INDIAN RIVER. OKEECHOBEE

II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION ,,~c~ x ~.~o~ ~D~ ~,~Y~ III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES~c~

(For Diversi~ Cases Only)

~NO ONE £OX

PTF DEF

~ ~ U S Government Plaintiff

~ 3 Federal Question (US Government Not a Pa~)

Oitizen of This State

~ ~ ~ ~ incorporated or Princi~ Pla~ of Business In This S~te

PTF D~

D ; U S. Government Defendant

~ 4 ~tver~i~ (Indicate Citizenship ot PaStes
in Item II)

~llzen of Anolher State rJ 2 ~ z
Cltzen or Subject of a ~ ~ ~ ~ Foreign Count~

Incorporated and Princip~ PI~ of Business In Anot~ S~
Foreign Nation

IV. ORIGIN
~ i Original Proceeding

~ 2 Removed from State Court

(PLACE AN "X’" IN ONE BOX ONLY)

~ 3 Remanded from Appellate Court

~ 4 Reinstated or Reopened

Transferred from ~ 5 another district
(specify)

V. NATURE OF SUIT (~L_ACE AN ",Y" fN ONE BOX ONLY)

A CONTRACT

A TORTS .....

IFORFEITURE/PENALTY!

110 Insurance 120 Mal,ne 130 Miller Ac(

PERSONAL INJURY r~ 310 A~rplane
~i 315 Arrp/ane Product

PERSONAL INJURY i 8~ 610 4griCulure

[~ 362 Personal In)ury

~ 620 Other F~o~ & O~u~

[3 ~ Multidistrict Litigation

Appeal to District Judge ~ [] z Magistrate Judgment

I A OTHER STATUTES

A PROPERTY RIGHTS

~___ _A_LA_._BOR~R ___ B SOCIAL SECURITY

A REAL PROPERTY

’ A CIVIL RIGHTS ! PRISONER PETITIONSI "q z~o Lar~c.,

895 ~t~eciom of

230 ~ent Lease & El~ctme,q ~ ~ 443 HOUSIng

HABEAS CORPUS: ~ B ~ 530 Gen~ra~

~ [~ 740 Raflwa~ La0or

FEDERAL TAX SUITS

290 ~B O1he~ ~eal Prope~y

~] 440 Olhe~ CWd Righl~
I

e ~ SS0 Civil RIg~t~

791 E~pt ~et tnc

25 LISC 7609

VI. CAUSE OF ACTION ~C,~-E THE LJ S CIVIL STATLJTE UNDER WHICH "YOU ARE FILING AND WRITE BRIEF STATEMENT OF CAUSE
DO NOT CITE JL}RISDIC~ONAt STATUTES UNLESS D~VERSI~ j

890 Otter ~laluto~ Acl)ons

Violations of the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection

LENGTNO~7~IAL Act 29 U, S.C. s. 1801 and the Fair Labor Standards Act 29 U.S.C.s. 201
wa_ days eshma~ed (f~ bolh s~des to t~ entire ease)

VII. REQUESTED IN COMPLAINT:

CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION ~ UNDER ER C.P 23

DEMAND $

CHECK YES only if demanded in complaim:

JURY DEMAND:

[] YES

~t~o

VIII. RELATED IF ANY

CASE(S) (See None

instructions):

~uSG~

DOO~.Er r,JUME~ER

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORI DA
WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION
Case No. 01-90 l 3-CIV.-RYS KAMP Magistrate Judge Vitunac
Dehna Luz Carranza, Francelia Hemandez, Virginia Perez, Hennelinda Ramos, Carlos Ramos, Adoltb Perez, Gloria Roblero, and David Matias, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
Complaint--Class Action
Mecca Famls, Inc., M. Sanchcz & Son, Inc., Maria T. Sancbez, and Rogcrio T. Rodriguez,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OF 1,AW IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ORDER IMPOSING ON
DEFENDANTS THE COSTS OF SERVICE

The Plaintifl~ have moved the Court fbr an order imposing on the Defendants the costs incurred in effecting personal service upon them.~ This motion is based upon Rule 4(d)(2) of the

ZAs reflected in the accompanying Affidavit from the Plaintiftg’ counsel, Plaintiffs

\/

exclusively seek $250 in reasonable attor hey s fixes. Plaintift~ are not seeking the costs related to

the service effectuated by their paralegal, which took two hours.

Fcdc~ al Rule, ul" Civil Procedure. Rule 4(d) provides a means by which a defendant can avoid bearing the cost of service.
However, if the defendant does not waive service after a plaintiffhas so requested in accordance with Rule 4, the defendant is then responsible lbr the costs incurred in effecting service on him, unless the defendant can show good cause for not complying with the request for waiver of service. Pollock v. Vista Villagc Mobile Home Park. 229 F.3d 1164, 2000 WL 1271062 (10’~ Cir. 2000): Spivey v. Board of Church Extensioa & Home Mission of the Church of God, 160 F.R.D. 660, (~62 (M.D. Fla. 1995) ("lfthe plaintiffproperly complies with all of the requirements of Rule 4(d)(2), then costs are awarded.") These costs include a reasonable attorney’s tee. Rule 4(d)t5): Bozell Group_,_ ~nc. v. Ca.~c_t~ of ~,%merica Association, Inc., 2000 WL 1523282 (S.D.N.Y. 2000). "ln other words, Rulc 4(d) contemplates two ways to aw~id um~eccssary costs of service: Either a defendant waives service or, once served with a summons, the det~endant rein:burses the plaintiff tbr its cxpcl~.~e in effecting service of the summons." Khorozian v. McCullough, 18(~ F.R.D. 325,328 (D.N.J. 1999).
Rule 4(d)(2) expressly provides that a plaintiff may avoid the costs o~" service by mailing a notice to the defendant by t]rst class ~nail, along with a copy of the complaint. Defendants residing in the United States are to be provided with at least 30 days to respond to thc request, and are to be provided with an extra copy of the notice and a prepaid means of complying with the waiver request. Rule 4(d) stresses that defendants have "a duty to avoid unnecessary costs of se~wing the summons."
As stated in the accompanying aft]davit of counsel, the Plaintiffs mailed the requisite notices, along with the complaint and a stamped, self-addressed envelopc to the defendants on

November- 27, 2001. Sec Attidavlt m Suppol-t of Plaintiffs" Motion for Order Imposing on

Defendants the Costs of Service ¶ 2. The Defendants Maria T. Sanchez, Rogcrio Rodriguez, and

M. Sanchez & Son, Inc. Ihiled to sign and return the acknowledgments, thereby tbrcing the

plaintift~; to serve the three defendants. Id. ¶ 4. The Defendants Maria Sanchez and Rogerio

Rodriguez are wife and husband. Maria Sanchez i~ also the president and sole officer of M.

Sauchez & Son, Inc ft._At. ¶ 4 For these reasons, Plaintiffs seek costs jointly and severally from

the Defendants Mafia T. Sanchez, Ro~erio Rodriguez, and M. Sanchez & Son, Inc. Finally, the

Plaintiffs’ counscl has devoted 2.0 hours in preparation of this motion and the accompanying

memorandum and affidavit. 1~. ¶ 5. Rule 4(dR2) mandates the award of costs "[u]nless good cause lbr lht3 t:ailure be shown."

These costs properly include attorney’s tees. Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(d)(5). As the Advisory Committee

Note observes, "[i]n the absence of such a provision, the purpose of the rule would be fi-ustrated

by the cost of enlbrcement, ~hid~ is likely, to be high i11 relation to the small benefit secured by

the plaintiff." See also Ferguson v. Intcrl~ublic Group, Inc., 1998 WL 150661 (S.D.N.Y. 1998).

Costs akin to those sought by the Plaintiffs in this motion have been routinely awarded by courts

under Rule 4(d)(2). Double "S" Truck Line, Inc. v. Frozen Food Ex~, 171 F.R.D. 251,253 (D. Minn. 1997) (costs totaling $1277.51 awar&:d, including $1200 in attorney’s t-’ees); ~uson

v. [ntcrpublic Group, Inc. (awarding costs tbr personal service, copying and $500 in attorney’s

fees); Stapo Industries, Inc. v. M/V Henry l-{udson Bridge, 190 F.R.D. 124, 126 (S.D.N.Y. 1999)

(costs of $653.60 awarded, including expense of personal service, postage and attorney’s lees).

In this case, the Plaintift~ seek a total of $250 under Rule 4(d), as follows:

Attorney’s lees (2.0 hours @ $125)

$ 25(i).00

-3-

Respectful ly submitted,
Florida Bar Number 0468266 Gregory S. Schell Florida Bar Number 287199 Migrant Fannworker Justice Project 508 Lucerne Avcnue Lake Worth, FL 33460 Telephone: (561)582-3921 Facsimile: (561) 582-4884 Email: Cathleen@floridalegal.org Email: Greg@floridalegal.org Attorneys for PI ai nti ffs
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I 1-I E’RFBY CERTIFY that a tmc and accurate copy (~i" ll~e ~bregoing has been timfished by li~x and first class United States mail. postage prepaid. 1o lhe below listed counsel lhis 30th day of January, 2002:
Calhy Stutin Fisher & Phillips, LLP Suite 2300 One Financial Plaza Ft. Lauderdalc, FL 33394-0005
Don R. Boswell Akers & Boswell, P.A. 2875 South Ocean Boulevard, Suite 200 Pahn Beach, FL 33480
~1~-~..--.
-4-

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION Case No. 01-9013-CIV.-RYSKAMP
Magistrate Judge Vitunac Luz-Carranza, et. al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
VS.
Mecca Farms, Inc., et. all., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION
INTRODUCTION This is an action by eight migrant and seasonal agricultural workers who were not fully paid their wages for work performed on Mecca Farms’ fields between August 1997 and November 2001. Mecca Farms Inc. is one of the largest vegetable growers in the southeastern United States. Based in Lantana, Florida, Mecca Farms grows tomatoes and other vegetables in Palm Beach, Martin, and Broward counties. Mecca Farms did not directly employ the workers who harvested its crops; rather it relied on farm labor contractors to furnish it with the needed labor. The eight Plaintiffs worked on Mecca’s operations as members of a crew operated by Maria Sanchez and her husband Rogerio Rodriguez, doing business as M. Sanchez & Son, Inc. The hand harvesting of tomatoes is strenuous and tedious work. In order to harvest the tomatoes, the workers moved between the tomato rows, picking the tomatoes from the plants and

dropping them into a bucket. The workers carried the buckets when full to a truck in the field. Each

truck had two "dumpers" who took the buckets from the workers and emptied or "dumped" the

buckets into the large bins on the back of the truck. The pickers were given one token for each

bucket dumped, which the workers later redeemed for 40 cents. At the end of the week, Sanchez

paid the workers their wages, less deductions for Social Security taxes and certain food purchases.

The farmworkers complain that the Defendants’ practices over four growing seasons violated

the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 1801-1872 (1999)

("AWPA") in a number of ways, including:

¯

Waiting Time

Every day of the harvest, the workers were told to arrive at the Mecca Farms’ fields at

daybreak, usually between 6:00 and 6:30 A.M. The majority of workers traveled to the fields in vans

operated by Sanchez’s drivers. If the tomatoes were wet when they arrived, either with rain or the

morning dew, the workers could not start picking immediately. Tomatoes can only be picked when dry; if harvested while wet they will quickly rot and are of little commercial value. Mecca’s on-site

supervisor evaluated the moisture on the crop each day and only after he determined that the fields

were sufficiently dry did the daily picking begin. On average, the workers waited two hours between

the time they arrived at the field and the time picking started.

At the end of the day, the workers waited in line to individually hand in their accumulated

picking tokens to a supervisor, who counted them. The counting process lasted approximately 30

to 40 minutes. The time spent waiting in the morning for the tomatoes to dry and in the afternoon

for the tokens to be counted was not considered part of the compensable work day. Rather, the

workers were credited only for the time they were actually picking.

2

The morning and afternoon waiting times lengthened the total hours worked each day and as a result, many workers did not earn sufficient piece rate earnings, i.e. pick enough buckets, to reach the mandated minimum wage. The workers contend that they are owed the difference between the amount due them at the minimum wage and the piece-rate earnings.~
Adjusted Bucket Totals Mecca Farms paid Sanchez $27 for each bin of tomatoes harvested by her crews. In order to realize a profit, Sanchez calculated that not more than 32 tokens were to be distributed per bin. (Maria Sanchez dep. at 338-339).2 Sometimes, however, the buckets were not filled to capacity, thereby requiring more than 32 buckets to fill the bin. If an average of more than 32 tokens per bin were handed out, Sanchez systematically lowered the total amount of buckets credited to each worker on the daily field sheets until the 32 bucket per bin ratio was reached. These reductions were applied evenly to all of the workers harvesting that day, regardless of who or what actually caused the over-distdbution.(See attached daily field sheet from 1/4/01 )3 Consequently, the payroll records and the wage statements show the "adjusted total" of buckets picked, rather than the actual number harvested. The workers contend that they should be compensated for each bucket they filled, rather than the lower, "adjusted" total.
’ This differential is sometimes referred to as "build-up pay,"i.e, the amount needed to "build-up" the workers’ piece-rate earnings to equal the minimum wage.
2 Maria Sanchez’s deposition was conducted on June 11, 2002 and continued on June 20, 2002. Defendants’ counsel have yet to conduct the cross examination.
~ The daily field sheet shows that Sanchez reduced the total number of buckets picked by the Isabel Ramirez crew, which included the named Plaintiffs David Matias and Rafael Gonzales. Mr. Matias picked 30 buckets but was paid for 25. Mr. Gonzales picked 40 buckets and was paid for 35.

Social Security Taxes

In addition to hiring the workers, Sanchez paid them their wages and, under her contractors’

agreement with Mecca Farms, was responsible for payment of the Social Security taxes due on the

crews’ earnings. Although Sanchez routinely withheld Social Security taxes from her crews’ wages,

instead of paying the government the taxes, she simply retained them.

¯

Meal Deductions

For the midday meal break, a lunch wagon arrived to offer food to the workers. Many

workers purchased meals on credit. In order to ensure that the lunch wagon operator received the

money owed for these purchases, on payday Sanchez gave the lunch operator the workers’ cash

wages, which Sanchez had already pre-sorted into individual envelopes. Only after the lunch

operator withdrew from the envelopes the amount she considered was due, did the workers receive

their wages. The workers assert that these charges cannot be counted as part of their wages because

they unquestionably included a profit to the lunch wagon operator.

In sum, the workers claim that each of Sanchez’s methods described above resulted in an

underpayment of wages in violation of the AWPA’s wage payment provisions. 29 U.S.C. §§

1822(a), 1832(a). To conceal this underpayment, the payroll records and wage statements provided

to the workers were inaccurate and violated AWPA’s recordkeeping, 29 U.S.C. §§ 1821(d)(1),

1831 (c)(1), and wage statement provisions 29 U. S .C. § § 1821 (d)(2), 1831 (c)(2).

THE PROPOSED CLASS

The Plaintiffs seek class certification under Rule 23(b)(3) with respect to the claims presented

in Count I and under Rule 23(b)(2) with respect to Count II of the Amended Complaint. 4 The proposed class consists of:
all migrant and seasonal agricultural workers furnished to Mecca Farms, Inc. by M. Sanchez & Son, Inc., Maria T. Sanchez, or Rogerio T. Rodriguez from August 1997 through November 2001, inclusive.
ARGUMENT I. A Definable Class Exists Although not specifically mentioned in Rule 23, an essential prerequisite of a class action is that there must be a "class." See In re A.H. Robins Co., 880 F.2d 709, 728 (4th Cir. 1989); White v. National Football League, 822 F. Supp. 1389, 1402 (D. Minn. 1993); C. Wright, A. Miller and M. Kane, 7A Federal Practice and Procedures §1760 (2d ed. 1986). In keeping with the liberal construction of Rule 23, the class does not have to be so ascertainable that every potential member can be identified at the commencement of the action. See Doe v. Charleston Area Med. Ctr., Inc., 529 F.2d 638, 644-45 (4th Cir. 1975); Ashe v. Board of Elections, 124 F.R.D. 45, 47 (E.D.N.Y. 1989). If the outlines of the membership of the class are determinable at the outset of the litigation, a class should be deemed to exist. The class description only need bc sufficiently definite so that it is administratively feasible for the court to determine whether a particular individual is a member. See C. Wright, A. Miller and M. Kane, 7A Federal Practice and Procedures, §1760. The proposed class consists of an easily-distinguishable group of workers which Sanchez and Rodriguez supplied to Mecca Farms to cultivate and harvest vegetables over a period of four
4 In light of the recent ruling in McDonald v. Southern Farm, 291 F.3d 718 (1 l~h Cir. 2002), the Plaintiffs are dropping Count V which asserted class claims under the Federal Insurance Contributions Act.

growing seasons. Since M. Sanchez and Son, Inc. began exclusively contracting ~vith Mecca Farms in 1995, it has maintained weekly payroll records of its employees. From these payroll records, a roster of class members can be constructed with relative ease. See In re Vesta Ins. Group, Inc. Sec. ~, No. 98-AR-1407-S, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22233, at *8 (N.D. Ala. Oct. 25, 1999) (noting that members of the class were ascertainable where their names were "readily available" from the defendant’s transfer agent). Thus, the precisely defined class requirement is met. See Hagwood v. Barne___.__s_s, 109 F.R.D. 568, 576 (E.D.N.C. 1986) (class of migrant workers employed by a farmer during a specific time period certified by the court).
II. The Prerequistes To A Class Action Are Satisfied A. Numerositv and impracticability ofioinder
Rule 23(a)(1) requires that the class be "so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable." Impracticality refers not to the impossibility ofjoinder, but rather to difficulty or inconvenience. See Rodriguez by Rodriguez v. Berrybrook Farms, Inc., 672 F. Supp. 1009, 1013 (W.D. Mich. 1987) (plaintiffs need only demonstrate that it is extremely inconvenient or difficult to join the members of the class); Hivel¥ v. Northlake Foods, Inc., 191 F.R.D. 661,666 (M.D. Fla. 2000) (impracticality does not mean impossibility). Rather, impracticality is dependent upon the circumstances of a particular case. Se__~e Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc., 417 F.2d 1122, 1123 (5th Cir. 1969).
No definite standard exists as to what size class satisfies the requirements of Rule 23(a). See Hively, 191 F.R.D. at 666; Haywood, 109 F.R.D. at 576. However, the modern trend is to adopt as a role of thumb that classes normally should contain more than 21 members. If the class has over 40 members, it almost always satisfies the numerosity requirements of Rule 23(a)(1). See Cox v.
6

American Cast Iron Co., 784 F.2d 1546, 1553 (11th Cir. 1986); Rodriguez by Rodriguez, 673 F. Supp. at 1013. See also C.Wright, A. Miller and M. Kane, 7A Federal Practice and Procedures § 1762 (2d ed.1986) (classes of less than 26 have frequently been found too small to satisfy the numerosity requirement).
The proposed class unquestionably satisfies the numerosity requirements of Rule 23(a)(1). Defendants M. Sanehez & Son, Inc. and Sanchez admit that the class includes over 1,000 individuals. (Answer and Affirmative Defenses of M. Sanchez & Son, Inc. Mafia T. Sanchez, and Rogerio Rodriguez¶ 16). During the height of the harvest season, Sanchez supplied between 80 and 100 workers per day to Mecca. (Sanchez depo. at 101).
B. Common questions of law and fact Rule 23(a)(2) requires that there be "questions of law or fact common to the class." This requirement is expressed in the disjunctive and is satisfied by either a showing of common questions of law or common questions of fact. See Dujanovic v. Mortgage America, Inc., 185 F.R.D. 660, 667 (N.D. Ala. 1999). It is not necessary that all questions of law or fact raised in the litigation be common so long as least one issue is common to all class members. See Fuller, 197 F.R.D. at 700; Hive[y, 191 F.R.D. at 666; Powers v. GEICO, 192 F.R.D. 313,317 (S.D. Fla. 1998) ("The threshold for commonality is not high.") The legal and factual questions common to class include: whether Defendant Mecca Farms, Inc. was an employer or joint employer of the class members; whether the time the workers spent in the morning waiting for the tomatoes to dry is compensable; whether the time the workers spent in the afternoon having their tokens counted is
7

compensable; whether the workers must be paid for the buckets picked for which they were not compensated due to Sanchez’s downward adjustment procedures; and whether the Defendants’ failure to deposit the Social Security taxes due on the class members’ earnings violated the AWPA.
The status of Defendant Mecca Farms, Inc. as an employer under the AWPA is a common issue of law and fact, and a central issue in the case.5 Mecca denies that it employed the Plaintiffs and the other workers furnished by the labor contractors. (Defendant Mecca Farms, Inc.’ s Amended Answer, Defenses, and Affirmative Defenses to Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint ¶ 2). Unless it "employed" the agricultural workers within the meaning of the AWPA, Mecca has no liability whatsoever in this action. The nature of the employment relationship between the class members and Defendant Mecca Farms, Inc. presents a common legal question. See Haywood, 109 F.R.D. at 577 (commonality established where a "central issue" concerned the defendant grower’s status as an employer of the plaintiff farmworkers); See also, Kelly/v. Sabretech, Inc., 195 F.R.D. 48, 53 (S.D. Fla. 1999) (common questions included whether the defendant was an employer within the meaning of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act).
Another common issue is whether the time waiting for the tomatoes to dry in the morning was compensable. Defendant Sanchez admits that the workers were told to report to the tomato fields at daybreak. (Sanchez Dep. at 85). She also admits that the workers could not start picking until a Mecca representative determined that the fields were sufficiently dry. (Id. at 109, 111). If
5 For this reason, this action has been bifurcated so that the Court can first resolve this threshold issue.

this time benefitted the employer, it was compensable. Se.__.~e Sedano v. Mercado, 124 Lab. Cas. ¶ 35,756 (D.NM. 1992) (waiting for fields to dry primarily benefits employer); Fields v. Luther, 108 Lab. Cas. ¶ 35,072 (D. Md. 1987) (time spent waiting for dew to dry on tomatoes is compensable).
There is a common legal question as to whether the time waiting for the tokens to be counted at the end of each harvest day was compensable. Sanchez admits that the workers waited 30 to 60 minutes to have their tokens counted. (Sanchez Dep. at 147). Again, if this time primarily benefitted the employer, itwas compensable. Sedano v. Mercado, 124 Lab. Cas. ¶ 35,756 (D.N.M. 1992) (time spent waiting for tokens to be counted is compensable).
The underpayment for buckets of tomatoes picked is another issue common to the class. There is no factual dispute that Sanchez paid the workers for fewer buckets than they actually picked in order to establish the sought-after profit margin. (Sanchez Dep. at 338-339). This practice was common to all the workers in her crews. The common legal question is whether the failure to compensate the workers for each bucket filled constitutes a violation of the AWPA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 1822(a), 1832(a), 1821(d)(1), 1831(c)(1),1821(d)(2), 1831(c)(2).
The class also seeks relief for the Defendants’ failure to deposit with the Internal Revenue Service the Social Security taxes withheld from the workers’ wages. There is a common legal question as to whether this failure constitutes a violation of the AWPA. See Saintida v. T’,/re, 783 F.Supp. 1368, 1376 (S.D. Fla. 1992) (failing to deposit Social Security taxes violates AWPA’s wage payment provisions).
Finally, the propriety of the lunch wagon charges is also a question common to all class members. For the workers who purchased food on credit, the lunch wagon operator directly withdrew from the workers’ wages the outstanding charges. (Sanchez Dep. at 136). The system was
9

instituted to ensure that the lunch operator would be paid. (Id. at 137). The common legal question is whether these charges may be properly considered part of the wages paid. See Frenel v. Freezeland Orchard Co., 108 Lab. Cas. ¶ 35,016 (E.D.Va.1987)(meal charges may not be considered part of legally-required wage).
As illustrated above, the Defendants engaged in common practices toward the class members which resulted in multiple common issues of law and fact.
C. Typicality of Plaintiffs’ claims Rule 23(a)(3) requires that "the claims.., of the representative parties [be] typical of the claims.., of the class." The class representative must possess the same interest and suffer the same injury as the class members. Murray v. Auslander, 244 F.3d 807, 811 (11th Cir. 2001). The claims of the class representatives are typical if they may reasonably be expected to be raised by members of the proposed class. See In re Commercial Tissue Prods., 183 F.R.D. 589, 593 (N.D. Fla. 1998). The claims of the representative parties need to be similar enough to those of the class so that they will adequately represent the absent class members. See Powers v. Stuart-James Co., 707 F.Supp. 499, 503 (M.D. Fla. 1989) ("The reasoning behind this requirement is that where all interests are sufficiently parallel, all interests will enjoy vigorous and full presentation."); C. Wright, A. Miller and M. Kane, 7A Federal Practice and Procedures, § 1764.6 The Plaintiffs have suffered the same injuries as the other class members and their claims are
"In many ways, the commonality and typicality requirements of Rule 23(a) overlap, with both focusing on whether a sufficient nexus exists between the legal claims of the named class representatives and those of the class members to warrant certification. Traditionally, commonality refers to the group characteristics of the class as a whole and typicality refers to the individual characteristics of the named plaintiffs in relation to the class. See Prado-Steiman v. Bush, 221 F.3d 1266, 1278-79 (11th Cir. 2000).
l0

typical of those of the other class members. Defendants M. Sanchez & Son, Inc. and Sanchez admit that the class representatives worked with their crews. (Answer and Afftrmative Defenses of M. Sanchez & Son, Inc. Maria T. Sanchez, and Rogerio Rodriguez ¶ 12.). The named Plaintiffs suffered, as well as the rest of the class members, from the Defendants’ failure to treat the morning and afternoon waiting periods as compensable time. Like their fellow crew members, the Plaintiffs did not have their earnings reported to the Social Security Administration. As with the rest of the M. Sanchez & Son crews, the Plaintiffs were not paid for all the buckets they picked because of Sanchez’s system of adjusting downward the recorded number of buckets picked. The Plaintiffs and the other class members were all subjected to the same sort of wage deductions for lunch wagon purchases. In order to prove their individual claims, the class representatives will use the same evidence that will establish these claims for the other class members. For example, if the evidence demonstrates that Mecca "employed" the named Plaintiffs, Mecca will necessarily have "employed" the other class members as well.
D. Adequacy of protection of class interests Rule 23(a)(4) requires that "the representative parties.., fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class." Thus, the class representatives’ interests should not be antagonistic to those of the class members. See Pickett v. Iowa Beef Processors, 209 F.3d 1276, 1280 (11th Cir. 2000) (citing C. Wright, A. Miller and M. Kane 7A Federal Practice and Procedures § 1768). A party’s claim to representative status is defeated only if the conflict between the representative and the class is a fundamental one, going to the specific issues in controversy. See Picket~t, 209 F.3d at 1280 (citing H. Newberg and A. Conte, 1 Newberg on Class Actions §3.25). In this case, the interests of the named plaintiffs are in no way antagonistic to those of the
ll

other class members. All of the class members will benefit from the relief sought by receiving restitution of their unpaid wages and having their earnings reported to the Social Security Administration. The named plaintiffs will not benefit in any way from actions that will prove harmful to the interests of the class meinbers. See Pickett, 209 F.3d at 1280.
Rule 23(a)(4) also requires that the representative parties provide adequate financing and competent counsel in support of the litigation. See Fuller, 197 F.R.D. at 700. The Plaintiffs and their counsel will vigorously and competently prosecute this action on behalf of the class. Counsel for the Plaintiffs have already paid for the transcription of several depositions and for the reproduction of numerous documents produced by the Defendants during the course of discovery. The Plaintiffs’ counsel have litigated numerous actions under the AWPA, including each of the three cases reviewed by the Eleventh Circuit construing the joint employment doctrine under the Act-Charles v. Burton, 169 F.3d 1322 (11th Cir. 1999), Antenor v. D & S Farms 88 F.3d 925 (11’h Cir. 1996), and Aimable v. Long & Scott Farms, 20 F.3d 434 (11 ~h Cir. 1994). Counsel for the Plaintiffs have litigated a number of additional cases under the AWPA, including Caro-Galvan v. Curtis Richardson, Inc., 993 F.2d 1500 (1 lth Cir. 1993), Cochran v. Vann, 963 F.2d 384 (11’u Cir. 1992), Leach v. Johnston, 812 F. Supp. 1198 (M.D. Fla. 1992), Stewart v. Everett, 804 F. Supp. 1198 (M.D. Fla. 1992), Saintida v. Tyre, 783 F. Supp. 1368 (S.D. Fla. 1992), Stewart v. Woods, 730 F. Supp. 1096 (M.D. Fla. 1990), Osias v. Marc, 700 F. Supp. 842 (D. Md. 1988). The Plaintiffs’ counsel have also handled a number of class actions before the federal courts, including Antenor v. D & S Farms, 88 F.3d 925 (11~h Cir. 1996), Frederick County Fruit Growers Ass’n v. Martin, 968 F.2d 1265 (D.C. Cir. 1992); Bertrand v. Jorden, 672 F. Supp. 1417, (M.D. Fla.1986); Fields v. Luther, 108 Lab. Cas. ¶ 35,072 (D. Md. 1987), and Phillips v. Brock, 652 F. Supp. 1372 (D. Md. 1987).
12

III. The Class Action is Maintainable In order to have a class certified, the Plaintiffs must not only satisfy Rule 23(a), but also meet one of the alternative requirements under Rule 23(b). See Pickett v. Iowa Beef Processors, 209 F.3d 1276, 1279 (11t’ Cir. 2000).
A. The requirements of Rule 23(b)(3) are met 1. The common questions of law predominate In order for a matter to be certified under 23(b)(3), it is necessary that "the questions of law or fact common to the members of the class predominate over any questions affecting only individual members." The issues that are subject to generalized proof, and thus applicable to the class as a whole, must predominate over those matters which are subject only to individualized proof. Jackson v. Motel 6 Multipurpose, Inc., 130 F.3d 999, 1005 (11th Cir. 1997). Although efficiency and uniformity of decision are among the objectives underlying Rule 23(b)(3), they do not alone establish predominance. Predominance exists only when resolution of an overarching common issue does not break down into an unmanageable variety of individual legal and factual issues. Id_~. at 1006. The class claims predominate over any question affecting the individual members. In fact, the individual Plaintiffs’ legal claims are subsumed within the class claims. A single adjudication can resolve the issues raised by the class. Whether Defendant Mecca Farms is a joint employer is an overarching issue that affects the whole class. Mecca’s status as an employer does not depend on the Plaintiffs’ individual relationship with Mecca. Rather, the employment relationship is one that is uni form with all the farmworkers. Likewise, individual factors simply have no role in proving the morning and afternoon waiting time issue because Defendants’ policies affected the whole class
13

in an equal manner. The reduction of buckets to ensure Sanchez a profit will not require individual adjudication because the policy was evenly applied and the damages are apparent from Defendant Sanchez’s own records. Also, the failure to deposit the Social Security taxes is not a claim that varies between the individual Plaintiffs, to the contrary, it reflects Defendants’ standard business practice applied to all the class members. Finally, the predominant issue concerning the lunch wagon is not the individual purchases, but the common practice of deducting the meal charges from the wages. In sum, Defendants’ uniform treatment of the class members means that the individual claims can be proven within the class claims and do not require individual analysis.
2. A class action is superior to other methods of adjudication For certification under Rule 23(b)(3), the Court must also find that "a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy." In making this determination, the Court is to focus on the four factors enumerated in Rule 23(b)(3): the interest of class members in individually controlling the prosecution of separate actions, the extent and nature of any litigation concerning the controversy already commenced, the desirability of having the litigation of the claims in the particular forum where it has been filed, and the difficulties likely to be encountered in management of the class action. See Fed. R. Cir. P. 23(b)(3)(A)-(D). Taking into account all four of these factors, a class action is superior to any other method of adjudicating this controversy. With respect to the first factor, it is extremely unlikely that individual class members have any interest in instituting or controlling their own individual actions. Indeed, most of the class members, for various reasons, would probably be unable to bring their own actions. This is especially true given their lack of proficiency in English, their indigent status, and the relatively
14

small amount of individual recovery. This has been found to be the case in several AWPA class action claims brought by migrant workers. See, e._~., Rodriguez v. Carlson, 166 F.R.D. 465,480 (E.D. Wash. 1996); Leyva v. Bulev, 125 F.R.D. 512,518 (E.D. Wash. 1989); Haywood, 109 F.R.D. at 592.
Witl~ regard to the second criterion, no other litigation concerning this controversy has been commenced by members of the class. Maintenance of a class action will not, therefore, disrupt any ongoing litigation or lead to conflicting decisions on the same set of facts.
Third, it is desirable to conduct the litigation in this forum. The Defendants are subject to suit in this district and the employment at issue occurred within this district. The records and other evidence pertaining to the class members" employment with the Defendants are also located in this district.
With respect to the final factor to be considered, although every class action presents administrative difficulties, the benefits of maintaining this action on a class basis far outweigh any administrative burdens. In order to ultimately prevail, the class must be able to prove the fhctual allegations underlaying the legal claims and then the damages. All of the claims can de proven in a manageable, efficient manner. Although there are thousands of potential class members, their individual testimony will not be required. Most allegations will be proven through the Defendants’ own records and testimony. For example, Mecca’s status as an "employer" of the workers will be determined primarily on evidence provided by Mecca’s employees, the labor contractors’ and their supervisors. In the few instances where additional evidence is required, representative testimony will suffice because of the Defendants’ uniform procedures and policies.
15

The waiting time claims can also be proven in manageable parts. Testimony from Mecca’s employees, representative workers, the farm labor contractor, and its supervisors will establish average morning and afternoon waiting times. Once the length of the workday has been determined, the damages can be easily computed by deducting the wages paid from the amount due when the waiting time is treated as compensable.
The downward adjustment of the bucket totals can be easily tracked from the contractor’s own records. As previously noted, Sanchez’s daily field sheets reflect both the number of buckets picked and the reduced amount which was the basis of the workers’ pay. If the farmworkers prevail in establishing the Defendants’ obligation to pay the promised piece-rate of 40 cents for each bucket picked, it will be a simple arithmetic computation to determine the amount of additional pay due each class member for the violation.
Whether the Social Security taxes were paid to the government can also be proven through the contractor’s records. The Defendants’ W-2 forms will show ifFICA taxes were in fact paid. In the absence of W-2 forms, the amount of the unpaid FICA taxes due is evident from the contractor’s payroll records. See Frenel v. Freezeland Orchard Co., 108 Lab. Cas. ¶ 35,016 (E.D.Va.1987) (employer entitled to no wage credit for FICA taxes allegedly paid in absence of W-2 Forms).
The lunch w’agon operator’ s records will quantify the amount of meal charges withheld from the wages. Detailed records were kept by the lunch wagon operator on the credit purchases of each worker. These charges cannot be considered part of the minimum wage paid to the workers unless records were maintained demonstrating that the charges included no profit whatsoever. Leach v. Johnston, 812 F. Supp. 1198, 1213 (M.D.Fla. 1992). Damages for this violation can be calculated by comparing the lunch wagon records to the payroll records.
16

In sum, the class claims can be proven in a manageable fashion without the need for testimony and evidence from the individual class members. As noted, most elements can be proven exclusively through the Defendants’ own records, with the resulting damages determined through simple calculations using data from the contractor’s payroll records.
B. The requirements of Rule 23(b)(2) are also satisfied The Plaintiffs also seek to have their claim in Count II of the Complaint certified as a class action under Rule 23(b)(2). They seek a declaration that the Defendants have violated the AWPA and an injunction barring the Defendants from continuing to violate the AWPA. Rule 23(b)(2) authorizes the maintenance of a class action when "the party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief with respect to the class as a whole." As has already been discussed, the Defendants routinely deducted Social Security taxes from the workers’ wages yet failed to deposit those sums with the appropriate governmental agency. By failing to deposit the taxes for the workers, the Defendants have acted in a manner that is generally applicable to the class. The class members seek to enjoin the Defendants from failing to file with the Social Security Administration Forms W-2 and W-3 for the time covered by the instant lawsuit. Other courts have considered this an appropriate remedy under the AWPA. See Saintida v. Tyre, 783 F. Supp. 1368, 1376 (S.D. Fla. 1992) (failing to deposit Social Security taxes violates AWPA’s wage payment provisions); Sanchez v. Overmever, 845 F. Supp. 1183,1187 (N.D. Ohio 1993) (failing to pay agricultural worker’s FICA taxes violates AWPA’s wage payment provision); Fields v. Luther, 108 Lab. Cas. ¶ 35,072 (D.Md. 1988)(enjoining farm labor contractor to file and remit FICA taxes due).
17

IV. Treatment of Similar Class Actions Under the AWPA On many occasions, courts have certified class actions brought by migrant workers under the AWPA and its predecessor statute, the Farm Labor Contractor Registration Act. See~ e._~., Anterior v. D & S Farms, 88 F.3d 925 (11th Cir. 1996); Six (6) Mexican Workers v. Arizona Citrus Growers, 904 F.2d 1301 (9th Cir. 1990) (class consisting of 1,349 workers); De La Fuente v. Stokely-Van Camp, Inc., 713 F.2d 225 (7th Cir. 1983) (class of approximately 1,500); Alvarez v. Joan of Arc, 658 F.2d 1217 (7th Cir. 1981); Perez-Perez v. Progressive Forestry Servs., Inc., No. 98-1474-KI, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 414 (D. Ore. Jan. 19, 2000); Medrano v. D’Arrigo Brothers Co. of California, 125 F. Supp. 2d 1163 (N.D. Cal. 2000); Rodriguez v. Carlson, 166 F.R.D. 465 (E.D. Wash. 1996); Levva v. Buley, 125 F.R.D. 512 (E.D. Wash. 1989); Hardy v. Ross, 113 Lab. Cases (CCH) ¶ 35,284 (D.S.C. 1989); Fields v. Luther, 108 Lab. Cases (CCH) ¶ 35,072 (D. Md. 1988); Rodriguez by Rodriguez v. Berrybrook Farms, Inc., 672 F. Supp. 1009 (W.D. Mich. 1987); Haywood v. Barnes, 109 F.R.D. 568 (E.D.N.C. 1986); Bertrand v. Jorden, 672 F. Supp. 1417, (M.D. Fla.) (class of 200 migrant workers); Aguirre v. Bustos, 89 F.R.D. 645 (D.N.M. 1981); Juarez v. Quintero, 530 F. Supp. 267 (N.D. Cal. 1981); Cantu v. Owatonna Canning Co., Inc., 90 Lab. Cases (CCH) ¶ 33,965 (D. Minn. 1978).
CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing authority, the Court should grant the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification and permit this matter to proceed as a class action under Rule 23(b)(3) with respect to Count I and under Rule 23(b)(2) with respect to Count II of the Amended Complaint.
18

Respectfully submitted,
Cathleen D. Caron Florida Bar Number 0468266 Gregory S. Schell Florida Bar Number 287199 Migrant Farmworker Justice Project 508 Lucerne Avenue Lake Worth, FL 33460 Telephone: (561) 582-3921 Facsimile: (561) 582-4884 Email: Cathleen@floridalegal.org Email: Greg@floridalegal.org Attorneys for Plaintiffs
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and accurate copy of the foregoing has been furnished by fax and first class United States mail, postage prepaid, to counsel of record Henry Wulf, Esq., Carlton Fields, 222 Lakeview Avenue, Suite 1400, West Palm Beach, FL 33401 and Don R. Boswell, Esq., Akers & Boswell, P.A., 2875 South Ocean Boulevard, Suite 200, Palm Beach, FL 33480onthislstdayofJuly, 2002.//~.~ ~.
Cathleen D. Caron
19

CONTRACTOR FIELD INVOICE

WORKER’S NAME

APPROVED BY.

WAGE PER ~--~J~ 0/C HOUR START FINISH JOB DESCRIPTION

HOURS

-6~ ,00
lq if, fro .~.. s

I,/fij~ ,o,
PLAINTIFF’S EXHIBIT

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 01-9013-Civ. Ryskamp/Vitunac

LUZ-CARRANZA, et al.,

~

Plaintiffs,

v.

Complaint--Class Actio/i ’

MECCA FARMS, INC., et al.,

~... , ~,

Defendants. /

MECCA FARMS, INC., MEMORANDUM OF LAW EN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

Defendant, Mecca Farms, Inc. ("’Mecca Farms"), files this memorandum in opposition to class certification. In this putative class action, eight seasonal agricultural workers allege that the defendants violated the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act ("MSPA’), among other things, during plaintiffs’ employment at Mecca Farms’ Lantana, Florida fields. They seek to certify a class consisting of"all migrant and seasonal agricultural workers furnished to Mecca Farms, Inc. by M. Sanchez & Son, Inc., Maria T. Sanchez, or Rogerio T. Rodriquez from August 1997 through November 2001, inclusive." (Plaintiffs’ Memorandum in Support of Motion for Class Certification at 5). Plaintiffs seek class certification only of their MSPA claims. As shown below, however, no class at all should be certified.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND Mecca Farms. Mecca Farms grows tomatoes and other vegetables. It does not directly employ the workers who harvest its crops. Instead, it contracted with a farm labor contractor to supply the necessary agricultural labor. Plaintiffs acknowledge that putative class members were employed by M. Sanchez & Son, Inc. ("Sanchez"), not directly by Mecca Farms. (Plaintiffs’ Memorandum in Support of Motion for Class Certification at p. 1).

WPB#554521.01

Plaintiffs’ Claims. Plaintiffs allege that the plaintiffs’ employer Sanchez (and Mecca as

a supposed "joint employer") violated MSPA in a number of respects. They first allege that, at

harvesting time, Sanchez failed to compensate field laborers for time spent in the morning

waiting for tomatoes to dry before picking could begin. However, some workers drove their own

cars to work so they could begin working as soon as they arrived rather than ride with a van

driver. (Hernandez Dep. at 108-109; Perez Dep. at 77). Ot ers ~ no eng

" .

For example, one named plaintifftestified that she picked tomatoes only three days during the

class period. (Caranza Dep. at 109). Another testified that sometimes workers were taken off

tomatoes to pick peppers, at which time they could start working immediately upon arrival.

(Hernandez Dep. at 86, 180). Even when there was a waiting period, it varied from day to day. (Mattias Dep. at 5-6).~ Moreover, many workers have no records of the time for which they

claim they should have been paid. (E.g., Perez Dep. at 191; Roblero Dep. at 136-139, 165-66,

170-71, 189-90 ). At least one named plaintiff asserted that she was underpaid only infrequently

(variously testifying that it occurred "on three occasions" and "maybe" more than ten occasions

during the entire class period) - and on several occasions when she complained about the

underpayment, she was reimbursed for the missing time. (ld at 194-197).

Plaintiffs also allege that Sanchez failed to compensate laborers for time at the end of the

day waiting in line for a supervisor to count picking tokens. For some the wait could be "an

hour, an hour and a half." (Hernandez Dep. at 106). For others it was "[m]ore or less about a

half an hour." (ld at 107; Matias Dep. at 19). For still others, the wait was miniscule. Workers

who drove their own cars left right after their tokens were counted. (Hernandez Dep. at 109).

One plaintiff testified that she considered the time that would elapse between stopping work in

the fields and departing in the van to be "short." (Id at 110).

Plaintiffs also allege that Sanchez systematically lowered the total amount of buckets

credited to each worker on daily field sheets. However, the workers did not make or retain any

~ Even among the named plaintiffs, the testimony differed as to when workers would arrive and when they would commence work - times which varied from day to day as well as among the workers. (Compare Matias Dep. at 11 with Hernandez Dep. at 84; Perez Dep. at 77; A. Perez Dep. at 31).

WPB#554521.01

2

independent records reflecting the number of buckets they picked or the number of hours they worked in any given day or any given year. (Perez Dep. at 191; Matias Dep. at 84, 187; Hernandez Dep. at 142, 159-161). Moreover, the workers knew they would not receive credit for picking small tomatoes or peppers. (Perez Dep. at 136; Matias Dep. at 9, 25-26). The workers were told each day what size was acceptable and what was not. (Id at 106-107; Perez Dep. at 136). One plaintiff testified that she knew she wou~0--fi-Fd--fi~ receive ~ tomatoes but picked them anyway. (Hernandez Dep. at 190).2
Plaintiffs also allege that Sanchez improperly allowed a lunch wagon operator to deduct from workers’ pay envelopes amounts owed to the operator for meals purchased on credit. However, many, if not most, workers did not did not buy their lunch, but brought their meals to the fields. (Perez Dep. at 167; Hernandez Dep. at 90). "All of the people, they would take their meals." (Id.) Others paid the operator in cash. (Id at 96; Matias Dep. at 54). Still others who purchased on credit believed the operator deducted the correct amount. (Id. at 33,178-179). Even when workers purchased food on credit and believe the wrong amount was deducted, they have no records to substantiate their claim that the operator improperly deducted money from their pay. (Perez Dep. at 170; Hernandez Dep. at 167-168; Roblero Dep. at 159-60).3
The Plaintiffs. Each of the named plaintiffs is an illegal alien with no right to work or live in the United States.4
Delma Luz Carranza is a citizen of Honduras. (Carranza Dep. at 39, 57). She does not have a passport. (Id at 57). She entered the United States illegally in January 1989 by crossing over the Mexican border at Laredo, Texas. (Id at 9). She had a "false paper" that she showed to

2 Mecca insisted that workers only pick larger tomatoes for commercial reasons. Tomatoes are priced differently
depending on their quality and size, and larger tomatoes are more valuable than smaller ones. (Perez Dep. at 142). f3fpPrloadinutciftfws fausrpthicekreadllecgoenttrhaartyStoanicnhsterzucfatiiolends tgoivpeany, sitocwiaals suencuusraitbylet.ax(leds.daute14o7n).laborers’ earnings. 4 Plaintiffs’ counsel has represented that named plaintiff Hermilinda Ramos is being dropped as a putative class
representative. In addition, named plaintiffs Rafael Gonzalez and Carlos Ramos have moved to Guale~nala and Chicago, respectively, and have not been deposed. However, plaintiffs’ counsel has stipulated that they are illegal aliens with no right to work or reside in the United States. In addition, plaintiffs’ counsel has stipulated that they have the same knowledge (or lack of knowledge) as to the issues in this action and their responsibilities as class representatives as the named plaintiffs who were deposed. (See Correspondence between counsel for plaintiffs and counsel for Mecca Farms, attached hereto as Exhibit 1).

WPB#554521.01

3

employers to be able to work in this country. (ld at 33, 77-78). She either is currently or was at one time under a deportation order from the Immigration and Naturalization Service. (ld at 17). She obtained work at Mecca Farms under false pretenses, using a false identification card and work permit. (ld at 70-71, 77-78).
Ms. Carranza has never read the complaint or even seen it except one occasion when Maria Sanchez showed the first page of it to her. (Id. at 20 . en lr understanding of the nature of the claims, she said she thought the lawsuit was to force her employer to clean the bathrooms, provide toilet paper and make water available for drinking and washing hands. (Id at 193-194). Later, she opined that the basis of the lawsuit is that "they just go ahead and cash the checks without one’s authorization." (ld. at 196). However, she never asked her employer not to cash her check. (Id at 213). With the exception of three days in 1997 in which she worked as a picker, she is not complaining that the hours recorded for her were inaccurate. (Id. at 214-217, 229-230). She believes she was paid accurately for days in which she worked doing planting. (ld at 217). She does believe M. Sanchez & Son improperly deducted money from her paycheck for transportation to and from the fields. (ld at 161-162). She believes this because her pay records show a deduction for FICA. (ld at 168-169). "All of us think about it, the ones that we all work in labor, all of us." (Id at 164). "That’s what the people say." (Id. at 169). She believes her responsibilities in the lawsuit are "to defend all of the workers from the field as well as my rights." (ld at 212). She understands that a class representative is a person in "the same position that I am in right now, to do the same thing, to be able to struggle for all the people, for all the rights of the workers." (Id)
Virginia Perez Abad (called Virginia Perez in the complaint) is a citizen of Mexico. (Perez Dep. at p. 39). She has no passport. (ld) She does not know how to read. (ld. at 9). She came into this country illegally in approximately 1995 (though she can’t remember exactly when it was). (ld. at I0, 25). She has never applied for legal residency in the United States or for consent to work in this country. (ld at 81-82). She used a fraudulent Social Security card to gain employment at Mecca Farms. (Id. at 92, 96-98, 107). When asked whether she used a fake Social Security card for other purposes, she asserted a Fifth Amendment privilege not to answer.

WPB#554521.01

4

(Id. at 107). Since being in this country, she has been charged and convicted of shoplifting in the Rines Supermarket in Indiantown, Florida. (Id at 75).
Ms. Perez worked for Sanchez at Mecca Farms from 1995 through 2000. (Id. at 60). She believes this lawsuit complains that her contractor would not let people go to the bathroom or drink water as "punishment" for poor work and that "if another one would do the job wrong...they would just go ahead and take us out." (Id. at ~adit, i, ed "-- ~11 .... ~;~,,o of the complaint that workers had to wait around in the mornings before being able to commence work, declaring that she could start work right away. (Id at 77). She said her signature on the lawsuit represented only "that I also am included in this program ... that’s what I can tell you." (ld. at 75). She did not remember signing her interrogatories. (ld at 207-208). She does not know what the duties of a class representative are. (Id at 214-215). She gave contradictory or erroneous testimony several times in her deposition. She asserted both that she never lived anywhere else in the United States except Florida and that she lived for a year or two in Virginia. (ld. at 36). She denied having worked for a company in North Carolina for which she produced pay stubs. (Id at 105).
Francelia Hernandez Perez (called Francelia Hernandez in the complaint) is a citizen of Mexico and the daughter of Virginia Perez. (Hernandez Dep. at 46-47, 60). She first entered the United States by crossing the Mexican border in 1997. (ld. at 7-8). She has never spoken to immigration officials; nor did she have permission to come here. (ld. at 10-11). Even now, she has no right to work or live in the United States. (ld. at 11, 54). She has never obtained any form of U.S. legal identification. When asked whether she has obtained identification through illegal means, she asserted a Fifth Amendment privilege not to answer. (Id. at 47, 51-53). She has never applied for residency in the United States or filed a tax return. (Id at 40-41).
Ms. Hernandez cannot read or write Spanish or understand English. (Id at 54). She could not recount any of the allegations contained in the complaint. (ld. at 124). She had no understanding of her own sworn interrogatory answers and does not know why she signed the document. (Id at 57-59). She believes that "they should pay the person more because, because what they pay is very little" but she has no idea what she should have been paid (ld. at 145,

WPB#554521.01

5

147). She has no records of the time she claims to have worked without compensation. Her statements that she arrived to work at seven but did not begin working until twelve or twelve thirty was based solely on her recollection. (Id at 85). Yet like her mother, she had difficulty recalling basic information. For example, she did not remember whether the complaint was translated into Spanish for her. (ld. at 123). Nor could she remember who first worked for Sanchez - her or her mother. (Id at 64). She -~11~ not re~ethe~ ~h~ ~ovidcd immigration/naturalization papers for her children to the Florida Department of Children and Families. (ld at 178). She does not know what a class representative is or the obligations of a class representative. (ld at 127). She does not know what she is asking the Court to do for her in this case. (Id at 127-128).
Gloria Roblero (also known by four other pseudonyms) is a 20 year old citizen of Guatemala. (Roblero Dep. at 6-7, 13, 78-79).5 She entered this country illegally in 1995 or 1996 and, except for a month-long visit to Guatemala in 2001, she has been here continuously since then. (Id at 19, 22-23, 30). She has never applied for permission to stay in the United States. (ld. at 110). She has no identification other than a Guatemalan passport in her real name. (ld at 17). When asked whether she has picture identification in another name, she refused to answer on Fifth Amendment grounds. (Id.)
Ms. Roblero has never attended school and does not read or write Spanish or English. (ld. at 79-81). She believes a class representative is simply responsible to "represent all the people." (ld. at 194). In her deposition, questions were translated into Spanish. Even then, however, she had great difficulty answering basic questions. For example, she did not know who owned the farm at which she worked. (Id. at 98). She doesn’t remember when she started work at Mecca (even though she inexplicably remembers the exact time she arrived and started working on the first day). (Id at 116-117). She could not describe with any specificity the injuries she received in a bus accident. (ld at 87-93). She did not know the year in which she
When asked why she uses different names, she asserted a Fifth Amenchnent privilege and refused to answer. (ld. at8).

WPB#554521.01

6

entered the country. (Id at 19). She could not even coherently describe where she lived and

with whom during her time in the United States. (Id at 33-47, 52-55).

Adolpho Perez is a citizen of Guatemala. (A. Perez Dep. at 14). He entered this country

illegally in 2001. (ld at 7). He has not attempted to apply for legal entry into the United States.

(Id.) He has not obtained any document giving him the right to work or live here. (Id at 8). He

has a North Carolina identification car

-

Mr. Perez worked for Sanchez picking tomatoes at a Mecca farm for a total of 16 days in

2001. ([d at 25, 27). Other than one sheet of paper recording the number of buckets he picked

on one day, he has no records of the number of buckets picked, hours worked or wages paid. (Id.

at 34-35, 41). "I lost them." (Id. at 34). He does not remember how many hours he waited in

the morning before starting work. (Id. at 96). He also does not remember how many times he

did not receive tickets he believes he should have received. (Id at 88). He does not even

remember which month or dates or days of the week he worked at Mecca in 2001. ([d at 42,

44). He does not recall the number of hours he worked. (Id at 47, 82).

He believes he is suing Mecca "to be able to solve the problems and to be able to help all

of the people that have lost money in that company." (Id. at 78). Until his deposition, he did not

know the lawsuit claims an alleged failure to pay Social Security taxes. (Id at 86). He believes

his role as a class representative is "to be able to help, to help all of the other people" and "to

solve the problem or to recuperate the money that all of the people missed out on." (Id. at 79).

DavidMatias is a citizen of Guatemala. (Matias Dep. at 58). He came to the United

States illegally. (Id. at 61). He has never filed an income tax return. (Id at 67). He has no

permanent residence visa or work permit. (ld. at 61). He has no Social Security number or

Florida driver’s license. ([d. at 67). He obtained work at Mecca using false papers. (Id. at 31).

At his February 2002 deposition, he stated he would leave for Guatemala in the spring "to

visit over there to vacation there," and he did not know how long he would stay. (ld at 31, 65)

He also did not know if he would return to the United States. "If the borders are open just the

way they are right now, I would come back; otherwise, no." (Id. at 62). He does not plan to

WPB#554521.01

7

come back to appear in court proceedings if the borders are closed. (Id.) To come back to the U.S. to participate in the case, he would have to come back illegally. (Id. at 63).
Mr. Matias does not understand English and at deposition did not know he was a class representative. (ld. at 36-37, 68). He believes the responsibilities of a class representative are to "be on behalf of all the people." (Id at 37). When asked how he could do this from Guatemala, he responded, "I speak to them by phone." (ld at 6 . e a ml e records, and that without them, he cannot remember what days he worked and did not work. "Yeah, I remember for the last few days, but not from a year ago." (Id. at 104).

The Rule 23 Requirements

ARGUMENT

Class certification is governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. To maintain a

class action, plaintiffs must first demonstrate that: (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable, (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class, (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class,

and (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a); Jack~on v. Motel 6Multipurpose, Inc., 130 F.3d 999, 1005 n.9 (1 lth Cir. 1997).
Since plaintiffs seek class certification under Rule 23(b)(3), the Court must additionally find that questions of law or fact common to the class predominate over questions affecting only individual class members and that a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy. Subsumed within the requirement for finding

superiority is the rule that trial as a class action must be manageable. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3)(D); Andrews v. AT&T Co., 95 F.3d 1014, 1023 (11t~ Cir. 1996) (overturning class certification because the district court "underestimated the management difficulties" in allowing the lawsuits to proceed as class actions).
Pule 23(b)(2) certification is even more demanding than (b)(3) certification. The Eleventh Circuit has ruled that no class can be certified under (b)(2) when plaintiffs predominantly seek money damages. Murray v. Auslander, 244 F.3d 807, 812 (11t~ Cir. 2001).

In addition, (b)(2) provides that the plaintiffs must prove that the defendants must have "acted or

WPB#554t521.01 8

refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby making appropriate final

injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief with respect to the class as a whole." A

natural consequence of this explicit requirement is that a (b)(2) class must be cohesive and

homogeneous to be certifiable. See, e.g., Id at 812; Holmes v. Continental Can Co., 706 F.2d 1144, 1155 (11th Cir. 1983). A (b)(2) class cannot be certified if significant individual issues

merely exist. The presence of disparate factua

"

cation. See, e.g., Murray, 244 F.3d at 812 ((b)(2) class not certifiable when "inherently

individual injuries compels an inquiry into each class member’s individual circumstances");

Barnes v. American 7bbacco Co., Barnes v. American Tobacco Co., 161 F.3d at 142 (3d Cir.

1998) (same).

Class certification is a determination within the sound discretion of the district court.

However, this determination is not boundless. It must be guided by several salient principles.

First, the named plaintiff bears the burden of proving that each and every one of the Rule 23

requirements are satisfied. Heaa~en v. Trust Company Bank, 118 F.3 d 735, 737 (1 l th Cir. 1997).

Indeed, a named plaintiff’s failure to establish any one factor is fatal to a class certification

motion. Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor, 52l U.S. 591,615-18 (1997). The Court must

undertake a "rigorous analysis" to determine whether these requirements are met. General

Telephone Co. v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147, 161 (1982).

Second, it is not sufficient for plaintiffs to simply rely on the allegations of the complaint

to satisfy their burden. The Court should conduct its own independent analysis to determine

whether each Rule 23 element has been met. SeeAndrews v. AT&TCo., 95 F.3d 1014, 1023 (11th Cir. 1996); Morrison v. Booth, 763 F.2d 1366 (1 lth Cir. 1985) (plaintiffs "must prove more

than bare allegations that they satisfy the requirements of Rule 23 for class certification").

Third, this is not the time for determining the merits of the lawsuit. Eisen v. Carlisle &

.lacquelyn, 417 U.S. 156 (1974). This means that the Court is not supposed to prejudge the

defendants’ liability. At the same time, the Court must go beyond the pleadings to make

whatever regal and factual determinations are necessary to determine whether the Rule 23

requirements are met. See Falcon, 457 U.S. at 160 ("it may be necessary for the court to probe

WPB#554521.01

9

behind the pleadings before coming to rest on the certification question"); Coopers" & Lybrand v.

Livesay, 437 U.S. 463,469 (1978) ("[t]he class determination generally involves considerations

that are ’enmeshed in the factual and legal issues comprising the plaintiff’ s cause of action’" and

"It]he more complex determinations.., entail even greater entanglement with the merits") (citations omitted); Rutstein v. Avis Rent-a-Car Systems, Inc., 211 F. 3d 1228, 1234 (11m Cir.

2000) ("Going beyond the pleadings is necessary, as a

ms

defenses, relevant facts, and applicable substantive law in order to make a meaningful

determination of the certification issues.").

With these principles in mind, Mecca Farms turns to the central requirements of Rule 23

that defeat certification here.

H. The Named Plaintiffs Lack Standing to Bring Their Claims for Monetary Remedies.

The threshold question when considering whether an action should be certified as a class action must necessarily be whether the named plaintiffs have standing to sue on their own behalf. Simon v. Eastern Ky. Welfare Rights Org., 426 U.S. 26, 40 n.20 (1976); Murray v. Auslander, 244 F.3d 807 (11~ Cir. 2001). Here, the named plaintiffs are undocumented, illegal aliens. See supra at 3-8. As such, they lack standing to seek the damages remedies demanded in the complaint under MSPA, the statute under which they seek class certification.6
Congress is invested with plenary power to control immigration, admission, and deportation of aliens. Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292, 305-306 (1993); Kleindienst v. A/landel, 408 U.S. 753,769-770 (1972). Indeed, in this particular area "Congress regularly makes rules that would be unacceptable if applied to citizens." Reno, 507 U.S. at 305-306, quotingAqatthew v. Diaz, 426 U.S. 67, 79-80 (1976). In exercise of this broad power, Congress has passed extensive legislation protecting America’s borders and workers from unlawful entrants. Thus, "entering or remaining unlawfully in this country is itselfa crime." INS v. Lopez-A/lendoza, 468 U.S. 1032,

6 Mecca Farms does not take the position that an undocumented alien cannot come within MSPA’s literal definition of"an individual" employed in agricultural work. See 29 U.S.C. § 1802(8)(A). Nor does Mecca Farms argue that illegal aliens can no longer file complaints with the NLRB. Rather, as explained below, Mecca Farms contends that
undocumented aliens cannot avail themselves of the remedy provisions of MSPA.

WPB#554521.01

10

1038 (1984); see also Plyer v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982); 18 U.S.C. § 1325. And, of course,

aliens who enter this country illegally are subject to delgortation. 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a).

In 1986, amidst the backdrop of an unparalleled influx of illegal aliens, Congress enacted

the Immigration Reform and Control Act ("IRCA"), codified in 8 U.$.C. § 1324a, making

employment of unauthorized aliens unlawful. IRCA "forcefully" made combating the

employment of illegal aliens central to "[t]he policy of immSgrat~on aw.

. "

Center for lmmigrants’ Rights, Inc., 502 U.S. 183, 194 & n.8 (1991). It did so by establishing an

extensive "employment verification system," § 1324a(a)(1), designed to deny employment to

aliens who (a) are not lawfully present in the United States or (b) are not lawfully authorized to

work in the United States. § 1324a(h)(3). Thus, if an alien applicant is unable to present the

required documentation, the unauthorized alien cannot be hired. § 1324a(a)(1).

IRCA also makes it a crime for an unauthorized alien to subvert the employer verification

system by tendering fraudulent documents - as the named plaintiffs did in seeking employment

at Mecca. § 1324c(a). It thus prohibits aliens from using or attempting to use "any forged,

counterfeit, altered, or falsely made document" or "any document lawfully issued to or with

respect to a person other than the possessor" for purposes of obtaining employment in the United

States. §§ 1324c(a)(1)-(3). Aliens who use or attempt to use such documents are subject to fines

and criminal prosecution. 18 U.S.C. § 1546(b).

IRCA thus illustrates a uniform, deeply entrenched national policy aimed at dissuading

illegal aliens from entering, or if already here, remaining in this country. Plaintiffs’ efforts to

seek class certification under MSPA must be read with IRCA in mind. See generally, FDA v.

Brown & WillJamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. 120, 133 (2000) ("[t]he meaning of one statute

may be affected by other Acts, particularly where Congress has spoken subsequently and more

specifically to the topic at hand."); Hohn v. U.S., 524 U.S. 236, 249 (1998) (court should not

adopt statutory construction rendering another statutory provision superfluous).

Indeed, three months ago, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision precluding illegal

aliens from recovering back pay for violations of the National Labor Relations Act. Hoffman

Plastic Compounds, Inc. v. NLRB, 122 S. Ct. 1275, 535 U.S. __ (March 27, 2002). Under the

wPB#55452~.01

11

holding of Hoffman, plaintiffs - as undocumented aliens - are precluded from recovering the remedies they seek under MSPA, an analogous statute. In Hoffman, employees began a union organizing campaign at a plastic production plant. The employer terminated their employment in order to subvert the union organization effort, a plain violation of § 8(a)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act ("NLRA"). Id at 1278. The National Labor Relations Board ("NLRB") ordered their reinstatement with back pay. Id. at 1279. As it tu~ out, one ~ Castro, was an illegal alien who admitted to using someone else’s birth certificate in order to fraudulently obtain a driver’s license and social security card, and then later, to obtain employment at the plastic plant, ld Based upon this evidence, the ALJ ruled that an award of backpay or reinstatement would run directly contrary to the Supreme Court’s holding in SureTan, Inc. v. NLRB, 467 U.S. 883 (1984) as well as the enactment ofIRCA. Id. However, on a subsequent hearing, the Board reversed itself with respect to the back pay issue, and an en banc panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals denied the employer’s petition for review, enforcing the Board’s order. Id, citing 237 F.3d 639 (2001).
The Supreme Court reversed the Board’s back pay award, sending a clear signal about the importance of immigration policy in relation to remedial labor statutes such as MSPA. Chief Justice Rehnquist, writing for the majority, noted that Congress, in enacting IRCA, "expressly made it criminally punishable for an alien to obtain employment with false documents." Id. at 1283. He concluded that there was no reason to believe Congress intended to permit a back pay remedy where "an alien-employee would have remained in the United States illegally, and continued to work illegally, all the while successfully evading apprehension by immigration authorities." Id. The Board’s position "discounting the misconduct of illegal alien employees" subverted the purpose ofIRCA. Id at 1284.
Moreover, the Court purposely styled its holding to have sweeping applicability. Chief Justice Rehnquist stated that the issue was not simply one of mere application of precedent to slightly different factual circumstances, or even an extension of an existing legal rule:
[w]hether isolated sentences from Sure-Tan definitively control, or count merely as persuasive dicta in support of petitioner, we think the question presented here

WPB#554521.01

12

better analyzed through a wider lens, focused as it must be in a legal landscape now significantly changed.
Id. at 1282.7 Thus it became clear that the Court’s decision rested on fundamental issues of
national policy and effectuating recent enactments of Congress. As the Court declared:
Under the IRCA regime, it is impossible for an undocumented alien to obtain employment in the United States without some party directly contravening explicit congressional policies. Either the undocumented alie~ identification, which subverts the cornerstone oflRCA’s enforcement mechanism, or the employer knowingly hires the undocumented alien in direct contradiction of its IRCA obligations. The Board asks that we overlook this fact and allow it to award backpay to an illegal alien for years of work not performed, for wages that could not lawfully have been earned, and for a job obtained in the first instance by a criminal fraud. We find, however, that awarding backpay to illegal aliens runs counter to policies underlying IRCA.
ld. at 1283. Simply put: "Awarding backpay in a case like this not only trivializes immigration laws, it also condones and encourages future violations." ld. at 1284.8
Significantly, the Court’s analysis did not proceed from a cramped distinction between
backpay and remedies for uncompensated labor, as plaintiffs attempt to draw here. Unlike earlier lower court decisions,9 the majority in Hoffman did not attempt to draw such a distinction.
The Hoffman decision is sweeping and represents much more than a passing nod towards U.S.

7 The "wider lens" mad sweeping scope of the decision undermines the rationale of decisions like Pate1 v. Quality
Inn South, 846 F.2d 700 (11t~ Cir. 1988), in which some lower courts read IRCA narrowly, as not affecting the
coverage of undocumented aliens under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Court need not address the status of Patel and like decisions, however, since the Fair Labor Standards Act is not in issue for purposes of plaintiffs’ motion. It is worthy of note, however, that the Supreme Court rejected the Patel court’s perspective on IRCA’s legislative history, dismissing the dissent’s invocation of"a single Committee Report from one House of a
politically divided Congress" as a "rather slender reed." Hoffman, 122 S.Ct. at 1283, n.4. The majority preferred to rest its analysis on the plain language of the statnte, observing that IRCA "expressly criminalizes the only employ~nent relationship at issue in this case." Id. at 1285 n.5. 8 The Court was quick to point out that an employer could not violate the NLRA "scot-free." Id at 1285.

Notwithstanding the removal of backpay liability, "traditional remedies," such as the threat of contempt sanctions

for failing to comply with the NLRB’s cease and desist order or for failing to post requisite notices in the plant

would adequately effectuate national labor policy. Id. Such reasoning applies with even greater force to a statute

like MSPA which contains an ~rsenal of remedial provisions--including the threat of imprisonment, injunctive

relief, and civil fines--any one of which would foster MSPA’s goals without undermining IRCA. Moreover,

consistent with the view in Hoffman, MSPA violators would still face individual liability so long as the plaintiffs are

lawfully present (and hence, lawfully employed) in this country. Of course, the issue of whether Mecca Farms is a

joint employer with Sanchez or violated MSPA in the first instance is not germane to the class certification inquiry.

As discussed above, the Court may not 9 Compare Patel v. Quality Inn South,

8pr4e6deFt.e2rdm7in0e0th(1e1mt~eriCtsira.t1t9h8e8c) lwasitshcDeretilfRiceayti7obnrstitlalgeer.ia,

Inc.

v.

N[~,

976

F.2d 1115 (7t~ Cir. 1992).

immigration policy. It is a mandate that the courts to give due regard for Congress’ clear and

unequivocal policy pronouncements with respect to the employment of unlawful aliens. To

allow these individuals who, like the claimant in tloffman, could not legally be employed in this

country to recover under MSPA would undermine 1RCA and its underlying national policy just

as much as an award of back pay would under the NLRA. In both instances, an illegal employee

is attempting to secure a benefit that, as a matter o aw,

"he

employment he or she wrongfully obtained.

In their motion for class certification, plaintiffs cite to a handful of decisions certifying MSPA classes. See Cases cited at pp. 18 of plaintiffs’ Memorandum In Support of Motion for Class Certification. The vast majority of those cases do not discuss whether putative class

members included illegal aliens, making them inapposite here.

It is true that some courts have concluded that the protections of MSPA are to apply to undocumented aliens. See, e.g. In re Reyes, 814 F.2d 168 (5~ Cir. 1987); Escobar v. Baker, 814

F. Supp. 1491 (W.D. Wash. 1993) (relying on Reyes as "persuasive authority"). However, none

of those decisions considered the effects oflRCA in so ruling. Nor did these courts have the

benefit of the Supreme Court’s reasoning in Hoffman. Indeed, in Hoffman, the Court implicitly
approved the reasoning of Judge Jones’s dissent in Reyes:
I also take issue with the majority’s conclusion that the [MSPA] and the Fair Labor Standards Act do not distinguish between citizens and illegal alien employees. Previously, no court has explicitly permitted an undocumented alien to recover the damages and penalties provided for in those statutes. Moreover, the [MSPA] specifically prohibits the employment of undocumented aliens by farmers and farm labor contractors. 29 U.SC. § 1816. The entire thrust of the [MSPA] is to enhance and create minimum standards for the working conditions of American and a very limited class of documented foreign workers employed in domestic agriculture. To the extent the statute’s prohibition on hiring undocumented aliens is intended to discourage illegal migration of farm workers from other countries, that purpose is undercut by allowing those farm workers to sue and recover benefits on a par with legally employed workers.

Reyes, 814 F.2d at 171 (Jones, J., dissenting). In short, the rationale of the Reyes majority and other cases cited by plaintiffs has been
abrogated by the Supreme Court and is no longer valid. Pursuant to IRCA and the Hoff-man

WPB#554521.01

14

decision, plaintiffs, as unlawful aliens, lack standing to bring their MSPA claims. Because the
named plaintiffs lack standing, plaintiffs’ motion for class certification should be denied.
Plaintiffs Cannot Satisfy the Rule 23(a)(3) Typicality and Rule 23(a)(4) Adequacy of Representation Requirements.

The class certification motion also should be denied because plaintiffs cannot satisfy Rule

23(a)(3)’s typicality and Ru

¯

10

" icular

requires that the named plaintiffs fairly and adequately protect the interests of absent class

members. In this context "’ [a]dequacy of representation’ means that the class representative has

common interests with unnamed class members and will vigorously prosecute the interests of the class through qualified counsel." Piazza v. Ebsco Industries, htc., 273 F.3d 1341, 1345 (11t~ Cir.

2001); R. W. Brooks v. Southern Bell Tel. & Telegraph Co., 133 F.R.D. 54, 58 (S.D. Fla. 1990).

"It is axiomatic that a putative representative cannot adequately protect the class if his interests

are antagonistic to or in conflict with the objectives of those he purports to represent." Pickett v.

Iowa Beef Processors, 209 F.3d 1276, 1280 (1 lth Cir. 2000)(citation omitted). "[A] class cannot

be certified when its members have opposing interests or when it consists of members who

benefit from the same acts alleged to be harmful to other members of the class." ld.

Here, the facts of this case demonstrate that none of the proposed class representatives

satisfy Rule 23(a)’s adequacy requirement. This is true for the following four reasons:

A. As IIle~ai,Aliens~ Plaintiffs Lack Standing to Bring MSPA Claims.

A putative class representative must possess standing in order to represent a class. Wooden v. Board of Regents o/University o/Georgia, 247 F.3d 1262, 1287 (1 lth Cir. 2001); Griffin v. Dugger, 823 F.2d 1476, 1482 (1 lth Cir. 1987). As discussed supra at 3-8, each of the named plaintiffs is an undocumented illegal alien who lack standing to bring MSPA claims for monetary damages.

~0 The typicality and adequacy requirements are similar in that they both evaluate the sufficiency of the named
plaintiffs, and thus, are frequently evaluated together, as Mecca Farms does here. See Amchem, 521 U.S. at 626 n.20 (quoting Falcon, 457 U.S. at 157 n. 13); Rink v. Cheminova, lnc., 203 F.R.D. 648,662 n. 12 (M.D. Fla. 2001).

WPB#554521.01

15

B. Plaintiffs’ Immigration Status Makes Them Inadequate Representatives. Even if the Court disagrees with Mecca Farms’ position that the named plaintiffs, as illegal aliens, have standing to bring their MSPA claims, and therefore participate as class members., that does not mean they are adequate to serve as class representatives. To the contrary, plaintiffs’ undocumented status, which makes them subject to deportation at any time, renders them uniquely unsuited to serve as class representatives. The former Fifth Circuit has noted that "the court may take into account outside entanglements that render it likely that the representative may disregard the interests of the other class members." Blum v. Morgan Guarantee Trust Co. o/New York, 539 F.2d 1388, 1390 (5~h Cir. 1976). The named plaintiffs’ inherently unstable position in this country and possible deportation constitutes such an "outside entanglement." In Hagen v. City of Winnemucca, 108 F.R.D. 61 (D. Nev. 1985), the court denied class certification on this precise ground. There, the plaintiff, a citizen of Great Britain and a former Winnemucca prostitute, sought to bring a class action on behalf of all Winnemucca prostitutes against the city and various government officials. She was, however, subject to deportation, and this constituted an "outside entanglement." It "seriously damage[d] plaintiff’s ability to represent adequately the interests of all class members," and therefore caused her to fail both typicality and adequacy requirements. ]d. at 65. In addition, it "would most certainly distract the plaintiff’ s attention from the vigorous prosecution of this lawsuit, which would seriously prejudice the rights of the unnamed parties." It. It further would forcibly remove the named plaintiff from the United States, making her unable to return to participate effectively in the lawsuit. It. The fact that the plaintiff"would not be capable of returning to the country if needed" was ~a serious disability, and prevents this Court from allowing plaintiff to act as a class representative." Id. at

n It is an axiomatic class action principle that the presence of unique defenses destroys a named represen~alive’s

typicality 1o represent unnamed class members. See e.g., Gary Plastic Packaging Corp. v. 3/[errill Lynch, 903 F.2d

176, 180 (2d preoccupied

Cir. 1990) ("there is a with defenses unique

danger to it");

Vth~aatrarebnsevn. tRcelsaesrsvemFeumnbde, rIsncw.,i7ll2s8ufFfe.2rdif7th4e1i,r7r4e7pr(e5stehnCtaitri.v1e9i8s4)

C[t]he

rationale behind this hesitance is a concern that represenlation will suffer if the named plaintiff is preoccupied with a defense which is applicable only to himself’).

WPB#554521.01

16

Here, at least two of the named plaintiffs already have left the country and cannot legally

return to participate in the lawsuit. As in Hagen, this is a serious disability that prevents them

from acting as class representatives.

Here as well, if the remaining named plaintiffs obey the immigration laws and leave the

country, they would be unavailable to return and participate in the litigation. If they disobey the

law and remain in the country, but are discovere y ~ " ’

-

rted the

would be distracted by deportation proceedings, forced to leave the country, unable to return, and

therefore unable to serve as a class representative. (Named plaintiff Carranza already is or was

under a deportation order). Even their ability to recover damages would be in doubt. Cf

Hoffman, 122 S.Ct. at 1284 ("awarding backpay in a case like this not only trivializes the

immigration laws, it also condones and encourages future violations. The Board admits that had

the INS detained Castro, or had Castro obeyed the law and departed to Mexico, Castro would

have lost his right to backpay"). And, of course, the constant threat of discovery and deportation,

particularly when acting as high profile class representatives, undoubtedly would hang over their

heads, distracting their attention from the vigorous prosecution of the lawsuit. All of these things

give rise to the impermissible specter of"clientless litigation."

Moreover, even if the named plaintiffs to manage to stay here until trial, because they are

illegal aliens, their credibility may be fatally undermined. This Court has stated: "In assessing

the adequacy of the named representatives, the court must look to factors such as their honesty,

conscientiousness, and other affirmative personal qualities." Hall v. Burger King Corp., 1992

WL 372354 * 9 (S.D. Fla. 1992). The danger to absent class members is that a fact finder may

question the testimony of class representatives suing for violation of federal labor laws when the

class representative themselves were employed in violation of the federal labor and immigration

laws. For this reason as well, the named plaintiffs are inadequate class representatives.

C. None Of The Plaintiffs Posses Sufficient Level Of Knowledge And Understanding To Be Capable Of Controlling the Litigation.

Plaintiffs are inadequate representatives for still another reason as well. Rule 23(a)

requires that the proposed representatives "posses a sufficient level of knowledge and

WPB#554521.01

17

understanding to be capable of controlling or prosecuting the litigation." Berger v. Compaq Computer Corp., 257 F.3d 475,482-83 (5t~ Cir. 2001); see also Horton v. Goose Creek Independent School Dist., 690 F.2d 470, 484 (5t~ Cir. 1982) ("adequacy requirement mandates an

inquiry into.., the willingness and ability of the representatives to take an active role in and

control the litigation and to protect the interests of the absentees."); In the Matter of American

Commercial Lines, LLC, 2002 WL 1066743 (E.D. La. May 28, 20

enymg " " "

part because "[n]ot one named class representative fostered the impression that he or she has or

had his or her hands on the pulse of the case"); In Re Telectronics Paging Systems, Inc., 168

F.R.D. 203 (S.D. Ohio 1996) ("In order to be a class representative who will vigorously

prosecute a class action, the representative must have more knowledge than a lay person about

the class action"); Greenspan v. Brass&r, 78 F.R.D. 130 (S.D.N.Y. 1978) ("Plaintiffs’ limited

personal knowledge of the facts underlying this suit, as well as their apparently superfluous role

in this litigation to date, indicate their inadequacy as class representatives.").

Here, the named plaintiffs have demonstrated a level of knowledge and understanding

insufficient to confer class representative status on them. They clearly have no more knowledge

than a lay person about the case. As demonstrated by their deposition testimony, the proposed

class representatives do not understand the legal relationships or comprehend the business

transactions described in the amended complaint. See supra at 3-8. As such, they do not "posses

a sufficient level of knowledge and understanding to be capable of controlling or prosecuting the

litigation." Berger, 257 F.3d at 482-483.

While plaintiffs will undoubtedly argue that the standard for adequacy under Rule 23(a)

is a light one, to certify this class would be effectively to hold that the standard is nonexistent.

But as the Berger court recently explained, the applicable case law does not stand for the pro-

position that a class representative who does not understand any of the legal relationships or

comprehend any of the business transactions described in the complaint can be adequate for

purposes of class certification. Berger, 257 F.3d at 482. Here, plaintiffs possess insufficient

familiarity with the most basic issues, making them wholly inadequate representatives under

Rule 23(a)(4).

WPB#554521,O 1

1 8

D. Plaintiffs’ Additional Credibility Problems Precludes a Finding That They Are Adequate Representatives.

Fourth, each of the putative class representatives will have substantial credibility

problems at trial (even setting aside their status as illegal aliens). If the class is certified, the

claims of absent class members would rise or fall on the success or failure of the claims of the

putative class representatives.

" nt to be

lacking where the named plaintiffs have credibility problems. See Kline v. Wolf, 702 F.2d 400,

403 (2d Cir. 1983) (plaintiffwas inadequate due to lack of credibility when testimony on a

critical issue was "subject to sharp attack"); Panzirer v. Wolf, 663 F.2d 365 (2d Cir. 1981)

(plaintiff was inadequate due to lack of credibility where she gave four versions of a

conversation with her broker), vacated on other grounds, 458 U.S. 1105 (1982); Margaret Hall

Foundation, Inc. v. Atlantic FinancialManagement, Inc., 1987 WL 15884 (D. Mass. 1987)

(plaintiffs were inadequate because their credibility was subject to question when they gave

conflicting testimony on important issues); Darvm v. International Harvester Co., 610 F. Supp.

255 (S.D.N.Y. 1985) (plaintiff was inadequate when inconsistent testimony and poor memory

"could create serious problems with respect to plaintiff’ s credibility and could become the focus

of cross examination ... at trial"). Here, the putative class representatives’ repeated inconsistent

testimony and failure to remember even basic facts about their lives and their claims will likely

affect their credibility at trial, thereby possibly compromising claims of absent class members.

This as well makes them inadequate representatives.

IV. Plaintiffs Cannot Satisfy Rule 23(b)(2)’s Cohesiveness Requirement and Rule 23(b)(3)’s Predominance and Manageability Requirements.

Rule 23(b)(3) certification is permissible only when "questions of law or fact common to the members &the class predominate over any questions affecting only individual members." This predominance inquiry is "far more demanding" than Rule 23(a)’s commonality requirement and "tests whether proposed classes are sufficiently cohesive to warrant adjudication by representation." Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 (1997). The Rule 23(b)(2) cohesiveness requirement is even more demanding than the (b)(3) predominance requirement.

WPB#55452].01

19

Clay, 188 F.R.D. at 495 ("A Rule 23(b)(2) class should actually have more cohesiveness than a

Rule 23(b)(3) class"); Hammett v. American Bankers hrs. Co. of Florida, 203 F.R.D. 690 (S.D.

Fla. 2001) (a greater degree of cohesiveness distinguishes (b)(2) classes from (b)(3) classes).

Under (b)(2), the mere presence of individual issues defeats certification. See supra at 3-8.

Here, as noted above, the named plaintiffs lack standing because of their undocumented

alien status. Determining which other a

"

"

standing to bring claims for damages will necessitate individualized inquiries and mini-trials as

to each putative class member’s immigration status. This too precludes class certification.

In addition, determining whether violations were committed and computing wages and

hours for the undocumented workers will require individualized analysis and create substantial

manageability problems. As demonstrated supra at 3-8, many of the workers (1) kept no records

of the hours they worked or the wages they claim they are owed; (2) kept records but destroyed

them; or (3) rely on faulty memories to reconstruct this fundamental data. Moreover, any

determination as to whether the plaintiffs were properly paid minimum wage for the picking

work would require factual determinations specific to each class member. Under the argument

put forth by Plaintiffs, it is possible that two workers worked the same hours in the field and one

could have received more than minimum wage while the other would not since the compensation

for picking work was provided on a piece rate basis (i.e., the faster one worked, the more one

could earn). The lack of reliable data to prove plaintiffs’ claims creates a manageability

nightmare. At a minimum, it destroys any ability plaintiffs may otherwise have to present their

claims on a common basis since Mecca will require, and due process will necessitate, discovery

from and cross-examination of each worker on these issues.

Finally, (b)(2) certification should be denied where, as here, monetary relief is the

predominant relief sought. See Murray, 244 F.3 d at 812.

WPB#554521.01

20

CONCLUSION For all the foregoing reasons, plaintiffs’ motion for class certification should be denied.
Respectfully submitted,
CARLTON FIELDS, P.A. 222 Lakeview Avenue, Suite 1400
each Florida 33401-6149 Telephone: (561) 659-7070 Facsimile: (561) 659-7368 Attorneys for Defendant, Mecca Farms, Inc.
JoselJ~Ianno, Jr./.‘/ Florida Bar N ~udaber 655351 Email: jianno@carltonfields.com
Henry S. Wulf Florida Bar Number 0056049 Email: hwulf@carltonfi elds.com CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
WE HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Defendant’s
Mecca Farms, Inc., Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class
Certification was served via facsimile and U.S. Mail this /t~ q~t day of August, 2002 to Cathleen
D. Caron, Esq., counsel for Plaintiffs, Migrant Farmworkers Justice Project, 508 Lucerne
Avenue, Lake Worth, Florida 33460; and Don R. Boswell, Esq., Counsel for Co-Defendants,
Akers & Boswell, P.A., 2875 South Ocean Boulevard, Suite 200, Palm Beach, Florida 33480.

WPBO554521.01

21

ESP~R~NTE 22~ LAg.~.VI[W AVENUf.. SUII"E {~00 W~.ST PALM B£~CH FLORIDA 33401-U]49

CARLTON FIELDS
ATTOBNEYS AT LAW
MAILING ADDRESS: ~20. BOX 15(]. WEST PALM BEACH. FL 33402-0150
TEl. (Sol) 65g-7070 FAX ($611 (}~g-7368

Julyl 6, 2002

Cathleen Caron, Esq. Migrant Farmworker Justice Project Florida Legal Services, Inc. 508 Lucerne Avenue Lake Worth, Florida 33460

VIA FACSI2M[[LE (582-4884) And U.S. MAlL

Re: Carrcmza v. Mecca Farms, Inc. ; Case No. 01-9013-CIV-Ryskamp

Dear Ms. Caron:

The purpose of this correspondence is to memorialize our understanding of the agreement reached with counsel for the Plaintiffs regarding Defendant’s, Mecca Farms, Inc., Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Respond to Motion for Class Certification (the "Motion for Extension") and the scheduling of depositions in the above-referenced matter.

Due to the fact that Plaintiffs, Rafael Gonzalez and Carlos Ramos (collectively, the "Unavailable Plaintiffs"), are currently located outside the Southern District of Florida, an issue has arisen as to the Unavailable Plaintiffs making themselves available for deposition prior to the date for Defendants to respond to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification. As part of the agreement resolving this issue, Plaintiffs have agreed to produce the named Plaintiffs, other than the Unavailable Plaintiffs and David Matins, for deposition prior to August 6, 2002. In addition, the Plaintiffs will file a response to the Motion for Extension consenting to an extension of the deadline to respond to the Motion for Class Certification through August 16, 2002. Our agreement to proceed forward without the depositions of the Unavailable Plaintiffs at this juncture shall be without prejudice to our right to notice their depositions in the Southern District
of Florida after October 1, 2002 but the Unavailable Plaintiffs would need to be made available prior to the deadline for Defendants to respond to the motion for summary judgment. We understand that you may contest Mecca Farms, Inc.’s right to take Mr. Gonzalez’s and Mr. Ramos’ depositions in Florida, but this agreement shall not be construed as a waiver of any rights that Mecca Farms, Inc. has to depose the Unavailable Plaintiffs in the jurisdiction where they have brought suit. We understand that the issue of where Mr. Gonzalez and Mr. Ramos must make themselves available for deposition may have to be resolved by the Court.

WPB#553260.01 MIAMI

ORLANDO

ST. PETERSBURG TALLAHASSEE

TAMPA

WEST PALM BEACH

Cathleen Caron, Esq. July 16, 2002 Page 2
Due to the unavailability of Mr. Gonzalez and Mr. Ramos to sit for their depositions and the ttccd f, zr Defendants to tnka their depositions on the issue of their adequacy as class representatives, Plaintiffs have agreed to stipulate that Mr. Gonzalez and Mr. P~amus are .... gal aliens with no right to work or reside in the United States. In addition, Plaintiffs will stipulate that Mr. Gonzalez and Mr. Ramos have the same knowledge as to the issues in this action and their responsibilities as class representatives as will be demonstrated by the remaining named Plaintiffs. In return, Mecca Farms, Inc. agrees to drop its objection that the Unavailable Plaintiffs be produced for deposition prior to the deadline to respond to the Motion for Class Certification.
In return for making the Plaintiffs available for deposition before August 6, 2002 and agreeing to the extension of the deadline on the Motion for Class Certification through August 16, 2002, Mecca Farms, Inc. agrees to drop its demand that the Unavailable Plaintiffs be produced for deposition in the Southern District of Florida prior to the time to respond to the Motion for Class Certification, drop any objection that Plaintiffs failed to timely produce the documents listed in their Initial Disclosures and agrees to produce certain employees of Mecca Farms, Inc. for deposition prior to September 1, 2002. Those persons which are to be made available for deposition by Mecca Farms, Inc. are Tommy Mecca, Mark Mecca, Mike Macari, Mark Shaw, Lori Schwab, and Eila Granfors.
Please review this correspondence and provide us your comments thereto at your earliest possible opportunity. Should the terms discussed above not comport with your understanding of the agreement between the Plaintiffs and Mecca Farms, Inc., please contact me immediately.
Very truly yours,
HSW:kn cc: Don R. Boswell, Esq,
Joseph Ianno, Jr., Esq.
WPH#553260,OI

07-16-02 04:53~m From-511 LEGAL SERVICES INC

+5615824884

T-g38 P.002/003 F-207

STEPHEN EMMANUEL PREStDL=N’T

FLORIDA LEGAL SERVIC]~S, INC.
Migrant Farmworker Justice Project
508 LUCERNE AVENUE LAKE WORTH, FLORIDA 3,3460 (561) 552-392.1
(561] 58;Z-4.884 Fax

KENT R. SPUHLER
DIRI~[..TI’OR

. "

ail

July 16, 2002

Henry S. Wulf, Esq Carlton Fields 222 Lakeview Avenue, Suit= 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401-6149
RE: Luz-Carranza v. Mecca Farms. Inc. Case No. 01-9013-C’TV.- RYSKAMY
Dear H~nry:
T write in rcsponse to the letter you sent to me this afternoon regarding the tentative agreement discussed yesterday afternoon, For the most part, we are in agreement with your summmff, yet a few cIarifications are needed.
You agreed to make Tommy Mecca, Mark Mecca, Mike Macario Mark Shaw, Lori Schwab, and Ella Granfors available for depositions by September i, 2002. The Plaintiffs, however, are not limited to deposing only the aforementioned Mecca employees. During the course of discovery, the Plaintiffs may learn ot‘ additional Meceat employees they wish to depose. The Defendant must be willing to cooperate in scheduling more depositions before September 1, 2002, it"
necessary.
In your letter you state that you will need to depose P~mos and G-onzales prior to the Defendant’s response to Plaintiffs" mo~on for sununary j~dgment. The Plaintiffs will agree to have Rarnos available in Chicago and Gonzales available in Guatemala for depositions prior to October 18, 2002, the deadline for Defendant’s response to Plaintiffs’ motion for mmamary judgment "fke Plaintiffs will pay the travel and lodging expenses to Chicago for the opposing counsel and in case of Guatemala, the court reporter and interpreter, If the Defendants fail to complete these depositions (or receive the deposition transcripts timely) by October 18, this will not be used as grounds for seeldng an enlargement ortime to respond to Plaintiffs’ motion for sumnutty judgment.
The Plaintiffs will stipulate that Ramos and Gonzales did not have proper work authorization while employed by M. Sanchez & Son, Inc. and that they have the same knowledge of the issues in this action and responsibilities as class representatives as will be demonstrated by flae

TO PROMOTE THE PROVISION OF CIVIL LEGAL h,S.~ISTANCE TO INCIGENT PERSONS AN EQUAL OPPORTUNI’I"Y EMPLOYER

07-]~-02 04:53p~ Fro~-~ll LEGAL SERVICES INC

+5~15824884

T-938 P.003/003 F-207

rcmaitting named Plaintiffs. The fact that Karnos and Gonzales wiI! not be deposed before August 16 will not be construed aSainst them. In opposing class certification, d~e Defendants may only stmc that PlaimL,~ P, mnoa attd Oormales have yet to be deposed. No reasons may be stated regarding tlmir unavailability,
Air.hough we agree to supporting an extension, we do so based on the agreement above, not for the reasons stated in your motion to extend ~i.tne. There are two possible ways to petitiou the -~ous L; ~Zz~d~v.~..~.g yc,,,,- o~no.~ l motion and filing a joint motion b~ed on the above; or the Plaintiffs’ filing an answer sup~dt~t~ = ,,,or ....., ~ bc compelled to counter the reasons you stated in your motion. In recognition of the time constraint yot~ are under, I look forward to finalizing the agreement with you as soon as possible.
ly,

TO F~ROMCI’I"~ THE PROVISION OF CIVIL LEGAL Ab~JlSTANCE TO INDIGENT PERSONS AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY’ EMPLOYER

STEPHEN EMMANUEL PRESII3ENT

FLORIDA LEGAL SERVICES, INC. Migrant Farmworker Justice Project
508 LUCERNE AVENUE LAKE WORTH, FLORIDA 33460 (561) 582-3921
(561) 582-4884 Fax

KENTR. SPUHLER DIRECTOR

Transmittal by Fax and U.S. Mail
He:’zy S. Wulf, Fsq Carlton Fields 222 Lakeview Avenue, Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401-6149

July 17, 2002

L, uz-Carranza v. Mecca Farms, Inc. Case No. 01-9013-CIV.- RYSKAMP Dear Henry:

It appears that we have reached an agreement as to supporting the Defendants’ extension until August 18 to respond to the Plaintiffs’ Class Certification Motion. Your letter dated July 16 and my clarifying response dated July 16 will serve as the basis of our agreement, except for the few issues we resolved today earlier on the phone which I have outlined below:

The Defendants agree to travel to Guatemala and Chicago to conduct the depositions of Plaintiffs Gonzales and Ramos under the conditions noted in my July 16 correspondence. The Defendants, however, reserve the right to challenge the Plaintiffs’ recoupment of these costs from the Defendants at a later date.

In the Defendants’ opposition to the Plaintiffs’ Class Certification, the Defendants will not state that Plaintiffs Ramos and Gonzales are unavailable for depositions and use that as grounds to challenge their ability to serve as class representatives. Otherwise, the Defendants are at liberty to mention their current residences and use that fact as they will in their opposition.

Defendant Mecca will withdraw its motion to extend time and file a joint motion asking the court to grant an extension to August 16 for the Defendants to file a motion in opposition to the Plaintiffs’ Class Certification.

If I have not understood correctly our final agreement, please call me immediately. Of course, must review the joint motion before you file it with the court. I will be in the office until 8:00 P.M. today. I am glad that we were able to find some common ground on these issues.

L/~Catileen Caron Attorney at Law
cc: Don Boswell, Esq.
TO PROMOTE THE PROVISION OF CIVIL LEGAL ASSISTANCE TO INDIGENT PERSONS AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 01-9013-Civ. RYSKAMP/VITUNAC

LUZ-CARRANZA, et al., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

Class Action Complaint

MECCA FARMS, INC., et al., Defendants.

MECCA FARMS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT THEREOF
Defendant, Mecca Farms, Inc. ("Mecca Farms"), by and through its undersigned counsel, and pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(b), moves for partial summary judgment (the "Motion") on Counts I, II and IV of Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint [D.E. 18]. As set forth below, those claims that accrued prior to November 19, 1999, more than two years before the original filing of this lawsuit, are barred by the applicable statute of limitations, and Mecca Farms is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on them. This motion is not addressed to Count III; nor is it addressed to claims accruing after November 19, 1999.1
In support of this Motion, Mecca Farms submits the Memorandum of Law set forth herein.

~ Count III is brought by three individuals (in their individual capacity, not as class representatives) seeking damages for bodily injuries suffered in a motor vehicle accident on the way to work. (Amended Complaint ¶¶ 38, 39, 41, 44). Count III is a claim for benefits arising out of an accident that occurred within the limitation of actions period. (See Amended Complaint ¶ 41).
WPB#556930.01

Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion I. Introduction and Factual Background.
The original complaint in this action was filed on November 19, 2001. In the latest iteration of the complaint, plaintiffs allege that they are seasonal agricultural workers who, at various times between 1997 and November 2001, were "jointly employed" by Mecca Farms, and farm labor contractors, M. Sanchez & Son, Inc., Maria T. Sanchez and Rogerio T. Rodriguez (collectively referred to as "the Contractors") (Amended Complaint ¶¶ 2, 9-11). They contend that they were employed to assist in cultivating, preparing and harvesting tomatoes and other crops in Lantana, Florida. (Amended Complaint ¶ 2, 8). Plaintiffs allege that in the relevant time period, they were paid less than the federally mandated minimum wage for their labor in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 USC §201, et seq. (the "FLSA") and the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act, 29 USC § 1801, et seq. ("MSPA"). (Amended Complaint ¶¶ 1, 2). Plaintiffs also contend that Mecca Farms and the Contractors failed to pay or to ensure payment of Social Security taxes on behalf of the Plaintiffs so that they could receive credit for their labor. (Amended Complaint ¶ 2).
Counts I and II specifically allege that the defendants violated MSPA in various ways, including failures to maintain wage records and fully compensate plaintiffs. Count IV alleges that defendants violated FLSA by failing to fully compensate plaintiffs or supplement plaintiffs’ piece-rate earnings to raise these earnings to the minimum wage. In Counts I and II, plaintiffs assert that the purported violations of MSPA were the "natural consequences" of the deliberate actions of the defendants and were thus, intentional, as the term is defined under MSPA. Plaintiffs, however, do not allege any willful violations of FLSA in Count IV. Plaintiffs seek monetary damages, declaratory relief, and attorney’s fees for each count, pursuant to FLSA,

MSPA, and Fla. Stat. § 448.08. (Amended Complaint ¶ 3 and Plaintiffs’ Rule 26 Disclosures, attached to this Motion as Exhibit "1").
Counts I, II and IV seek damages for actions that occurred between 1997 and November, 2001. As discussed below, the claims set forth in Counts I, II and IV that accrued prior to two years before the filing of this suit (that is, before November 19, 1999) are barred by the applicable statute of limitations. Accordingly, Mecca Famas requests that this Court grant summary judgment on all claims accruing prior to November 19, 1999. II. Argument.
A. Standard of Review. Summary judgment is proper when "there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and ¯.. the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). Rule 56 requires that summary judgment be entered against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party’s case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial. See Celotex v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). The substantive law governing the action determines whether the element is essential. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A non-moving party having the burden of proof at trial cannot rest upon unsupported allegations but must show by admissible evidence the existence of a genuine factual dispute concerning an issue material to the movant’s plea for judgment. See Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324. The non-moving party meets this burden by offering admissible evidence which could prove his or her claim at trial. See Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249-50. The non-moving party must proffer more than broadly sweeping allegations in order to establish a genuine issue as to material fact; he must come forward with "specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." See

Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986). Plaintiff may not defeat summary judgment with conclusory allegations. See Grigsby v. Reynolds Metals Co., 821 F.2d 590, 595-96 (1 lth Cir. 1987).
B. The Statute of Limitations for Claims Brought Pursuant to The Fair Labor Standards Act is Two Years.
Section 255 of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 255 (a), is the statute of limitations applicable to plaintiffs’ FLSA claims in Count IV. It provides in relevant part:
Any action commenced on or after May 14, 1947, to enforce any cause of action for unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime compensation or liquidated damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act ... may be commenced within two years after the cause of action accrued, and every such action shall be forever barred unless commenced within two gears after the cause of action accrued, except that a cause of action arising out of a willful violation may be commenced within three years after the cause of action accrued. [emphasis supplied]. Clearly, the FLSA statute of limitations is two years unless the exception clause applies. The exception clause does not apply here because plaintiffs have not alleged that Mecca Farms intentionally violated FLSA. Thus, the applicable statute of limitations for Count IV is two years from the accrual of the plaintiffs’ claim. As a consequence, all of the plaintiffs’ claims accruing prior to November 19, 1999, two years before the lawsuit was filed, are barred. In other words, all FLSA claims accruing in 1997, 1998 and for the first eleven months and eighteen days of 1999 are barred. Accordingly, this Court should enter partial summary judgment on all FLSA causes of action that accrued prior to November 19, 1999.
4

C. Plaintiffs’ Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act Claims in Counts I and II arc Also Subject to a Two-Year Statute of Limitations.
1. MSPA Does Not Contain An Express Statute of Limitations; Therefore, the Most Closely Analogous State Limitations Period Applies.
Counts I and II of Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint seek money damages, declaratory
relief and attorney’s fees pursuant to the "wage payment provisions" of MSPA and Fla. Stat. §
448.08, for four violations of MSPA (record keeping, wage statements, wage payment and
transportation). (Amended Complaint ¶ ¶ 25, 26, 27 and 28 and page 27 of Exhibit "1").
MSPA itself does not contain an express statute of limitations. However, the omission of
limitations on actions does not mean that Congress intended to permit agricultural workers an
unlimited amount of time in which to pursue redress. In Del Costello v. International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, 462 U.S. 151,155 (I983), the United States Supreme Court examined
the limitations of actions under the Labor Management Relations Act, which like MSPA,
contains no express statute of limitations. The Supreme Court stated:
As is often the case in federal civil law, there is no federal statute of limitations expressly applicable to this suit. In such situations, we do not ordinarily assume that Congress intended that there be no time limit on actions at all; rather, our task is to ’borrow’ the most suitable statute or other rule of timeliness from some other source. We have generally concluded that Congress intended that the courts apply the most closely analogous statute of limitations under state law.
Id. at I58 [emphasis supplied]. The Court reasoned that the implied absorption of state statutes
of limitations allows courts to work within a framework of familiar legal principles to resolve
matters on which Congress has not spoken, but nonetheless, require judicial determination. Id.
If applying a state statute of limitations does frustrate or interfere with the implementation of
national policies, it is appropriate for a court to apply the statute of limitations of the most
closely analogous statute under applicable state law. Id. at. 161. [emphasis supplied].

The Eleventh Circuit applied the teaching ofDel Costello in Clark v. Coats & Clark, 865 F.2d 1237, 1241 (11~h Cir. 1989). There, the plaintiff alleged interference with his rights in his
pension plan, pursuant to §510 of ERISA, which (like MSPA) does not contain an express statute
of limitations. The court stated:
When Congress has not established a time limitation for a federal cause of action, the settled practice has been to adopt a state time limitation as federal law if it is not inconsistent with federal law or policy to do so. E.g., Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261,266-267 (1985)...When adopting a state statute of limitations, we first determine the essential nature of the claim under federal law and then focus on the period applicable to such a claim under the most analogous state law claim. E.g., McGhee v. Ogburn, 707 F.2d 1312, 1315 (11th Cir. 1983), Braden v. Texas A&M University System, 636 F.2d 90, 92 (5th Cir. Unit A 1981); Franklin v. City of Marks, 439 F.2d 665, 669 (5t~ Cir. 1971).
Id.
It then examined a variety of potentially applicable statutes, including the statute relating
to actions for breach of contract and the statute of limitations for actions related to personal
injuries. Id. at 1242. Because the plaintiff’s factual allegations related to his employment, the
wages owed, and the damages sought by plaintiff, the court concluded that the plaintiff really
sought equitable relief for a statutory violation and money damages for back wages. Id. In this
circumstance, the most analogous state statute of limitations was Georgia Statute OCGA 9-3-22,
which provided that "all actions for the recovery of wages, overtime, or damages and penalties
accruing under laws respecting the payment of wages and overtime shall be brought within two
years after the rig~ht of action has accrued." Georgia Statute, OCGA 9-3-22 [emphasis supplied].
Id. Under that statute, plaintiff’s actions for wages that accrued more than two years prior to plaintiff’s suit were barred and could not be recovered from the defendants. I~.2
2 In 1985, after it split off from the Eleventh Circuit, the Fifth Circuit examined the claims of 492 Mexican nationals suing a Texas growers association under the Farm Labor Contractor Registration Act, "FLCRA," (the predecessor act to the MSPA) and for violation of the grower’s association’s employment agreement with the Mexican nationals. Salazar-Calderon v. Presidio Valley Farmers Association, 765 F.2d 1334, 1337 (5t~ Cir. 1985). The Fifth Circuit
6

This Court Should Apply the Two Year Statute of Limitations
J
Period in Section 95.11(4)(c), Fla. Stat. to Plaintiffs’ MSPA Claims.
As noted above, MSPA, has no express statute of limitations. However, in Barajas v.
Bermudez, 43 F.3d 1251, 1257 (9th Cir. 1994), the Ninth Circuit addressed the question of
whether courts should adopt a uniform state law borrowing source for the limitations of MSPA
actions, concluding that MSPA is simply too broad to require courts to uniformly characterize
MSPA claims for state law borrowing purposes. Id. at 1257. The court’s analysis indicated that
depending on the circumstances alleged, different borrowing sources could be used to limit
actions brought pursuant to MSPA.
The Baraias court stated:
As indicated above, [MSPA] is broad enough to encompass more than one state law cause of action. A claim brought exclusively under the record keeping provisions of the Act would not easily be analogized to any common law cause of action, and in the absence of a precise state statutory analogue, application for the limitations period contained in state law provisions governing "liability created by statute" might well be appropriate if otherwise consistent with the policies animating the federal statute...Not all claims under [MSPA], however, are of this nature. A claim for failure to pay wages as promised brought exclusively under the "Working Arrangements" provisions of [MSPA], for example, might be characterized as contractual in nature...whereas a claim for injuries suffered in an automobile accident brought under the Act’s motor vehicle safety provisions might be characterized as sounding in tort...Indeed, the court’s search for the most appropriate state law cause of action from which to borrow the statute of limitations is a particularly fact-bound inquiry_.
Id. at 1258 [citations omitted, emphasis supplied]. The Ninth Circuit thus ruled that the trial
court must determine the "essence" of the plaintiffs’ claims in order to determine the most
analogous state statute of limitations. Id. This requires a comprehensive analysis of the
divided the plaintiffs’ claims into two categories: contract claims and claims for violation of FLCRA. I~. at 1339. As FLCRA also did not have an express statute of limitations, the Fifth Circuit reviewed the plaintiffs’ allegations, examined Texas statutes of limitations and held that the most analogous Texas statute of limitations was the two"gear statute for actions on debts not evidenced by a contact in writing. Id. at 1351. All claims arising two or more years prior to plaintiffs’ suit were barred. Id.

allegations in plaintiffs’ complaint. Id. In Bara.g.[~., plaintiffs alleged that the defendant made specific promises as to the amount
of pay, the minimum hours and the cost of the transportation that would be supplied. Id. at 1258. While the plaintiffs also alleged that the breach of these promises violated the wage payment provisions of MSPA, the court found that the wage payment provisions were "intertwined" with the breach of contract claims and were not the principal focus or "essence" of the plaintiffs’ case.3 Unlike the plaintiff in Clark, who had alleged wages were due to him, the Baraias plaintiffs had taken great care to allege specific oral promises made by the labor contractors to induce migrant workers to work for them. Further, the plaintiffs concentrated their allegations on the damage caused by the labor contractors’ broken promises, rather than damages arising out of violations of MSPA. On that set of facts, the Ninth Circuit ruled that the MSPA claims in the Baraias case were in essence, claims for breach of oral promises related to employment. Id. Having decided that the facts of the Baraias complaint amounted to MSPA claims for breach of an oral agreement, the Ninth Circuit applied a three-year statute of limitations for actions on an oral contract. Id. at 1260.4
The plaintiffs in the instant case have not alleged breach of oral promises. Indeed, oral promises or contract terms are nowhere alleged in the Amended Complaint. Rather, plaintiffs claim in Counts I and II that they have not been fairly paid for their labor, that their labor has not been appropriately documented, and that defendants have denied plaintiffs social security credit for their labor. Therefore, the analogous Florida statute of limitations is Section 95.1l(4)(c),
~ E.g. the record keeping claim arose because the plaintiffs had nothing to substantiate their claim that oral promises related to employment had been breached. 4 The Ninth Circuit refused to find that the case was a statutorily modified contract claim and refused to apply a oneyear statute of limitation. Id. at 1259. The court reasoned that a one-year statute of limitation might frustrate the national policy behind MSPA. Id. However, the two-year statute of limitation asserted by Mecca Farms, comports

which provides in relevant part: TWO YEARS - ... (c) An action to recover wages or overtime or damages or penalties concerning payment of wages and overtime.
Fla. Stat. § 95.11 (4)(c). "Wages" as contemplated by the statute, encompasses actions for "all remuneration for employment, including commissions and bonuses and the cash value of all remuneration paid in any medium other than cash." Gulf Solar v. Westfall, 447 So.2d 363, 365 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). Because, in essence Counts I and II are actions for the recovery of wages and benefits, Florida’ s two-year statute of limitations governing such actions should apply to bar all causes of action that accrued prior to November 19, 1999.
Indeed, plaintiffs implicitly acknowledge the application of the Florida’s wage payment statute of limitations, by asserting an entitlement to attorneys’ fees under Fla. Star, § 448.08 for its three MPSA claims: "The plaintiff seeks an award of costs and attorney’s fees with regard to the FLSA claims and pursuant to Fla. State. § 448.08 with regard to the claims under the wage payment provisions to the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act." (Exhibit ! page 27). Fla. Star. § 448.08 provides: "Attorney’s Fees for successful litigants in actions for unpaid wages. - The court may award to the prevailing party in an action for unpaid wages costs of the action and a reasonable attorney’s fee." [emphasis supplied]. Plaintiffs’ claims under the wage payment provisions of MPSA therefore must impliedly be claims for wages; otherwise, the section cited by plaintiffs, which provides attorney’s fees for successful litigants in actions for unpaid wages, would not be available to plaintiffs.
The complaint itself also makes clear that the relevant counts of the complaint essentially seek recovery of unpaid wages. In Count I, plaintiffs allege that defendants failed to adequately
with the wage payment provisions of the FLSA, which also has a two-year statute of limitation, and comports with any Florida employee’s right to recover wages within two years.

compensate plaintiffs in the amount of the federally mandated minimum wage. (Amended Complaint ¶ 2). Plaintiffs alternatively allege that defendants failed to supplement plaintiffs’ pay such that it met the minimum wage for the piece-work plaintiffs performed as migrant workers. (Amended Complaint ¶ 27). They further allege that defendants failed to make, keep or maintain records regarding the work of plaintiffs reflecting the piecework units earned, compensable hours worked and the specific sums withheld from plaintiffs’ wages and the purpose of the sum withheld. (Amended Complaint ¶ 25). Plaintiffs further still allege that defendants failed to provide each worker with a pay stub each pay period that accurately reflected piecework units, hours worked, sums withheld and the purpose of sums withheld. (Amended Complaint ¶ 26). Finally, they contend the defendants failed to transport plaintiffs to work in safe vehicles. (Amended Complaint ¶ 28). In addition to fines, plaintiff may also seek actual damages for violations of the MSPA wage payment provisions after completion of discovery. (See Exhibit 1, page 27). These claims principally relate to wages, working conditions and to the documentation the plaintiffs will need in order to prove the amount of their wage claim.
Count II seeks damages and declaratory relief for defendants’ alleged failure to pay social security wages deducted from the plaintiffs’ pay to the Social Security Administration so that the plaintiffs can be credited for their labor. (Amended Complaint ¶ 33). These claims inherently relate to the payment or recovery of wages and demonstrate that the essence of the plaintiffs’ action is recovery of wages. By contending that the defendants failed to pay social security taxes, the plaintiffs effectively allege that they failed to receive their full wages as required by MSPA.
The plaintiffs have, in essence, alleged facts which relate to the recovery of wages. Plaintiffs seek wages that properly reflect plaintiffs labor, that are in conformity with the
10

minimum wage, and that give plaintiffs proper credit with the Social Security Administration.
Nowhere in the Amended Complaint do plaintiffs allege the any type of an employment contract
with Mecca Farms. Indeed, even if plaintiffs alleged that they had a contract with Mecca Farms,
the terms of the contract may be consistent with the wages that were paid to them. As plaintiffs’
claims cannot be construed as an action on an oral contract, the most analogous statute of limitation is not the four-year statute of limitations for actions on oral contracts.5
Moreover, this Court should not allow plaintiffs’ MSPA claims to be governed by
Florida’s four-year statute of limitation relating to actions founded on statutory liability (Fla.
Star. § 95.11(3)(0). This is because the essence of plaintiffs’ claims relate to allegedly improper
payment of wages. Finding that the two-year statute of limitations for recovery of wages
enacted by the Florida Legislature applies to the plaintiffs’ claims, which are intertwined with
wage claims at issue here under MSPA, comports with the legislature’s intent and avoids an
incongruous result that non migrant employees alleging wage related claims would be faced with
a two-year statute while migrant workers would enjoy an expanded time to assert their wage related claims.6
s The statute of limitations on oral contract, Fla. Stat. 95.11 (3) (k) states, "FOUR YEARS - a legal or equitable action on a contract, obligation or liability not founded on a written instrument, including an action for the sale and delivery of good wares, and merchandise, and on store accounts." 6 In Moncevior Hypolite v. Gorday, 1990 WL 80684 (S.D. Fla. 1990), an unpublished decision by Magistrate Judge Johnson, the court refused to grant a motion to dismiss a complaint on the ground that it was barred by the statute of limitations. The plaintiffs in Moncevior Hvpolite alleged recruiting, housing and transportation violations when farm labor contractors induced the plaintiffs to travel from Dade County to Georgia for farm work without first securing Department of Labor Registration and the plaintiffs accepted employment on defendant’s farm due to oral promises which were not fulfilled. Id. at *1. The plaintiffs sued to recover statutory damages under the FLSA and MSPA. Id. at *2 and *11. Magistrate Judge Johnson found that the most analogous state statute of limitations for the plaintiffs’ MSPA claims was Florida’s four-year statute of limitations for actions founded on statutory liability or liability not founded on a written contract. I__d. at 10. This case is neither binding nor authoritative precedent, and is not instructive due to the fact specific nature of the inquiry this Court must make. Additionally, the thrust of the plaintiffs’ case, which included recruiting, housing and transportation violations, did not relate to wages and indeed, under the facts alleged in Moncevior Hypolite, Florida’s wage statute of limitations would not have been the most analogous state statute of limitations - it does not appear that the wage statute of limitations was even argued before the Court. Thus, Moncevior Hvpolite cannot and should not apply in the subjudice.
11

Because the essence of this action is the recovery of wages and benefits and because the Florida wage recovery statute of limitation is the most analogous statute of limitation, plaintiffs’ claims under MSPA are subject to a two-year statute of limitation.
4. Any of Plaintiffs’ Causes of Action In Counts I and II That Accrued More Than Two Years Prior to the Filing of the Original Complaint is Barred.
In their Amended Complaint, plaintiffs seek to recover damages that accrued up to four years and eleven and half months prior to the filing of plaintiffs’ original Complaint. Mecca Farms, in this motion, does not ask this Court to decide whether any particular wage payment period falls within the statute of limitations. Rather, it asks only that the Court declare that the statue of limitations applicable to plaintiffs’ claims in Counts I and II is two years. Because the plaintiffs’ claims relate to the payment of wages, and because Florida has a statute of limitations directly on point that limits actions related to the payment of wages to two years, this Court should enter partial summary judgment for Mecca Farms and against plaintiffs on any cause of action set forth in Counts I and II that accrued more than two years prior to the filing of the original complaint.
Finally, even if plaintiffs’ MSPA claims are not so intertwined such that one statute of limitations applies to all of the MSPA claims; to the extent that plaintiffs seek any wage or benefit through this action, any claim for wages or benefits should be governed by the Florida wage recovery statute of limitations and any cause of action that accrued before November 19, 1999 should be barred.
VI. Conclusion For all the foregoing reasons, Mecca Farms requests that this Court enter partial summary judgment for Mecca Farms and against plaintiffs as to as any cause of action set forth in Counts
12

I, II and IV that accrued more than two years prior to the filing of the original complaint. Respectfully submitted, CARLTON FIELDS, P.A. 222 Lakeview Avenue, Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401-6149 Telephone: (561) 659-7070 Facsimile: (561) 659-7368 Attorneys for Defendant, Mecca Farms, Inc.
Jos/ph Ia~no, Jr. FlOrida Bar Number 655351 Email: jianno@carltonfields.com Henry S. Wulf Florida Bar Number 0056049 Email: hwulf@carltonfields.com
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE WE HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Defenda, nt~ Mecca Farms, Inc., Motion for Partial Summary Judgment was served via U.S. Mail this ___~-~ day of October, 2002 to Cathleen D. Caron, Esq., counsel for Plaintiffs, Migrant Farmworkers Justice Project, 508 Lucerne Avenue, Lake Worth, Florida 33460; and Don R. Boswell, Esq., Counsel for Co-Defendants, Akers & Boswell, P.A., 2875 South Ocean Boulevard, Suite 200, Palm Beach, Florida 33480.
13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION
Case No. 01-9013-CIV.-RYSKAMP Magistrate Judge Vitunac

Delma Luz Carranza, Francelia Hemandez, Virginia Perez, Hermelinda Ramos, Carlos Ramos, Adolfo Perez, Gloria Roblero, David Matias, and Rafael Gonzales individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
VS.
Mecca Farms, ~ M. Sanchez & Son, Inc., Maria T. Sanehez, and Rogerio T. Rodriguez,
Defendants.

Complaffit--Class Action

PLAINTIFFS’ INITIAL DISCLOSURES PURSUANT TO RULE 26(a)(1)
In accordance with Rule 26(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Plaintiffs hereby make the following initial disclosures:

A. The name and, if known, the address and telephone number of each individual likely to have discoverable information that the Plaintiffs may use to support their claims, unless solely for impeachment, and the subjects of that information:

Carlos Ramos (Plaintiff) Temporary Address: 4826 N. Springfield Chicago, IL 60625 773-267-8749
Permanent Address: Pueblo Nuevo Malacatan, San Marcos, Guatemala 011-502-777-0739

Subjects o fin formation:

M. Sanchez & Son, Inc. farmworker employee between 19982001. Familiar with transportation arrangements, payment procedures, and general working conditions

Marcial Bartolon (witness) Temporary Address: Street address unknown Indiantown, FL 34956 Permanent Address: Tapachula, Tapachula, Chiapas, Mexico 011-52-96252026
Subjects of Information: M. Sanchez & Son, Inc. farmworker employee between 20002001. Familiar with transportation arrangements, payment procedures, and general working conditions

Bulmaro Perez (witness)--.. Temporary Address:
Permanent Address:

Street address unknown Indiantown, FL 34956 Chiquin, Tacana, San Marcos, Guatemala

Subjects oflnfonnation:

M. Sanchez & Son, Inc. farrnworker employee between 20002001. Familiar with transportation arrangements, payment procedures, and general working conditions

Adolfo Perez (plaintiff) Temporary Address: 14906 Indianmound Street Indiantown, FL 34956 Permanent Address: Pueblo Nuevo, Malacatan, San Marcos, Guatemala 011-502-777-0179

Subjects of Information: M. Sanchez & Son, Inc. farmworker employee in 2001.

Familiar with transportation arrangements, payment procedures, and general working conditions

Macario Hernandez (witness) Temporary Address: 14906 Indianmound Street Indiantown, FL 34956 Permanent Address: Nuevo Porvenir, Malacatan, San Marcos, Guatemala 011-502-777-0739

Subjects of Information:

M. Sanchez & Son, Inc. farmworker employee between 20002001. Familiar with transportation arrangements, payment procedures, and general working conditions

Hector Godinez (witness) Temporary Address: 17101 Magnolia Street Indiantown, FL 34956 Permanent Address: Colonia Horizonte, Mazapa de Madero, Chiapas, Mexico 011-52-964-10129

Subjects of Information:

M. Sanchez & Son, Inc. farmworker employee between 19992001. Familiar with transportation arrangements, payment procedures, and general working conditions

Elfego Paz (witness) TEmporary Address: Street address unknown Indiantown, FL 34956 Permanent Address: Plan de Ayala, Pijijiapan, Chiapas, Mexico 011-52-43608

Subjects of Information:

M. Sanchez & Son, Inc. farmworker employee between 20002001. Familiar with transportation arrangements, payment procedures, and general working conditions

Aristeo Mejia (witness) Temporary Address: 14045 169th Drive
Indiantown, FL 34956 Petnnanent Address: Tierra Blanca, Mazapa de Madero, Chiapas, Mexico
011-52-964-10485

Subjects of Information:

M. Sanchez & Son, Inc. farmworker employee between 20002001. Familiar with transportation arrangements, payment procedures, and general working conditions

Elsa Gonzalez (witness) Temporary Address:
Permanent Address:

14045 169t~’ Drive Indiantown, FL 34956 Poblado Cambil, Mazapa de Madero, Chiapas, Mexico

Subjects of Information:

M. Sanchez & Son, Inc. farmworker employee between 19972001. Familiar with transportation arrangements, payment procedures, and general working conditions

Martina Mejia (witness) Temporary Address:
Permanent Address:

14045 169m Drive Indiantown, FL 34956 Poblado Cambil, Mazapa de Madero, Chiapas, Mexico

Subjects of Information:

M. Sanchez & Son, Inc. farmworker employee between 19972001. Familiar with transportation arrangements, payment procedures, and general working conditions

Magnolia Mejia (witness) Temporary Address:
Permanent Address:

14045 169’h Drive
Indiantown, FL 34956 Poblado Cambil, Mazapa de Madero, Chiapas, Mexico

~-gubjects of Information:

M. Sanchez & Son, Inc. farmworker employee between 2000-" 2001. Familiar with transportation arrangements, payment procedures, and general working conditions

Amadeo Mejia (witness) Temporary Address: 14045 169th Drive
Indiantown, FL 34956 Permanent Address: Poblado Cambil, Mazapa de Madero, Chiapas, Mexico

Subjects of Information:

M. Sanchez & Son, Inc. farmworker employee between 19972001. Familiar with transportation arrangements, payment procedures, and general working conditions

Sofia Vicente (witness) Temporary Address: 14506 174~h Court Indiantown, FL 34956 561-597-0150 Permanent Address: Ixchiguan, Ixchiguan, San Marcos, Guatemala 011-502-776-8196

Subjects of Information:

M. Sanchez & Son, Inc. farmworker employee between 19971999. Familiar with transportation arrangements, payment procedures, and general working conditions

Jesus Sanchez (witness) Temporary Address: 1580 Osceola St. Indiantown, FL 34956 Permanent Address: Pantoja, Tejopilco, Mexico, Mexico 011-52-716-11141

Subjects of Information:

M. Sanchez & Son, Inc. farmworker emp_loyee between 20002001. Familiar with transportation arrangements, payment procedures, and general working conditions

Alejandra Ruiz (witness) Temporary Address: 15274 Seminole Rd Indiantown, FL 34956 561-755-0771 Permanent Address: Sinaloa, Sinaloa, Mexico 011-52-787-84023

Suh."_~ts of Information:

M. Sanchez & Son, Inc. farmworker employee between 20002001. Familiar with transportation arrangements, payment procedures, and general working conditions

_Rosa ~ess)

_

Tei~ Address: 15275 Seminole Rd

Indiantown FL 34956 k "--661-755-0771

Permanent Address: Sinaloa, Sinaloa, Mexico 011-52-787-84023

Subjects ofln fomaation:

M. Sanchez & Son, Inc. fannworker employee between 19992001. Familiar with transportation arrangements, payment procedures, and general working conditions

David Herrera (witness) Temporary Address:
Permanent Address:

Street address unknown Indiantown FL 34956 Toyutla, Puebla, Mexico 011-52-964-10329

Subjects oflnformation: M. Sanchez &. Son, Inc. fannworker employee between 2000-

2001. Familiar with transportation arrangements, payment procedures, and general working conditions

Humberto Luna (witness) Temporary Address: 15025 Indianmound St. Indiantown, FL 34956 Permanent Address: Puruandiro, Miehoacan, Mexico 011-52-180-05243

Subjects of Information:

M. Sanchez & Son, Inc. farmworker employee between 19982000. Familiar with transportation arrangements, payment prbcedures, and general working conditions

Adela Saldana de la Cruz (wimess) Temporary Address: 14551 SW Esperanza Street
Indiantown, FL 34956 561-597-2441 Permanent Address: Ecuador 108 Josefa Sosia, Guadalupe, Monterrey, Mexico 011-52-824-02326

Subjects of Information:

M. Sanchez & Son, Inc. farmworker employee between 19992000. Familiar with transportation arrangements, payment procedures, and general working conditions

Francelia Hernandez (Plaintiff) Permanent Address: 14507 Tumaini Box #I8 Indiantown FL 34956 561-829-4215

Subjects of Information:

M. Sanchez & Son, Inc. farmworker employee between 19972001. Familiar with transportation arrangements, payment procedures, and general working conditions

Virginia Perez Abad (Plaintiff) Permanent Address: 14507 Tumaini Box #18
Indiantown, FL 34956 561-829-4215

Subjects of Information:

M. Sanchez & Son, Inc. farmworker employee between 19972000. Familiar with transportation arrangements, payment procedures, and general working conditions

Idolina Perez Gonzalez (witness) Temporary Address: 11500 SW Kanner Hwy Lot 424 Indiantown, FL 34956 561-260-7665 Permanent Address: Pijijiapan, Chiapas, Mexico 011-52-964-43443

Subjects of Information:

M. Sanchez & Son, Inc. farmworker employee between 19972001. Fmniliar with transportation arrangements, payment procedures, and general working conditions

Elvin Guillen Samayoa (witness) Temporary Address: 11500 SW Kanner Hwy Lot 424
Indiantown, FL 34956 Permanent Address: Colina El Portal, Comalapa, Chiapas, Mexico
011-52-963-21312

Subjects of Information:

M. Sanchez & Son, Inc. farrnworker employee between 19981999. Familiar with transportation arrangements, payment procedures, and general working conditions

Eduardo Darinel Guillen Samayoa (witness) Temporary Address: 14128 Fox Rd Indiantown, FL 34956 Permanent Address: Calle Juan, 14325 San Juan, Leon, Guanajuato, Mexico 011-52-963-37321

Subjects of Information:

M. Sanchez & Son, Inc. farmworker employee between 20002001. Familiar with transportation arrangements, payment procedures, and general working conditions

Angel Guillen Samayoa (witness) Temporary Address: 14128 Fox Rd Indiantown FL 34956 Permanent Address: Colonia El Portal, Comalapa, Chiapas, Mexico 011-52-963-21312

Subjects of Information:

M. Sanchez & Son, Inc. fannworker employee between 19982000. Familiar with transportation arrangements, payment procedures, and general working conditions

7

Cresencio Contreras (witness) Temporary Address: 11500 SW Kanner Hwy, #306 Indiantown FL 34956 Permanent Address: 1528 Calle Matamoros Rio Verde, San Luis Potosi, Mexico 011-52-487-70423

Subjects of Information:

M. Sanchez & Son, Inc. farmworker employee between 19982000. Familiar with transportation arrangements, payment procedures, and general working conditions

Vilda Velasquez (witness) Temporary Address:
Permanent Address:

15145 SW Fox Street Indiantown FL 34956 561 597-1700 Chamaque, E1 Tumbador, San Marcos, Guatemala

Subjects of Information:

M. Sanchez & Son, Inc. farmworker employee between 20002001. Familiar with transportation arrangements, payment procedures, and general working conditions

Noelinda Hernandez (witness) Temporary Address: 15841 SW 153rd Street Indiantown FL 34956 Pemaanent Address: Colonia Cascada 96, Siltipec, Chiapas, Mexico
011-52-960-15929

Subjects of Information:

M. Sanchez & Son, Inc. farmworker employee between 20002001. Familiar with transportation arrangements, payment procedures, and general working conditions

Josefa Perez (witness) Temporary Address: P.O. Box 1601 Indiantown FL 34956 Permanent Address: Mayalan, Ixcan Grande, Quiche, Guatemala 011-502-308-0786/2

Subjects o f Information:

M. Sanchez & Son, Inc. fannworker employee between 19992001. Familiar with transportation arrangements, payment procedures, and general working conditions

Italia Martin Perez (witness) Tcmporary Address: P.O. Box 1601

Indiantown FL 34956 Permanent Address: Mayalan, Ixcan Grande, Quiche, Guatemala
011-502-308-0786/2

Subjects of Information:

M. Sanchez & Son, Inc. farmworker employee between 19981999. Familiar with transportation arrangements, payment procedures, and general working conditions

Arturo Velazquez (witness) Temporary Address: Street address unknown Indiantown FL 34956 Permanent Address: Ejido Toquian Grand, Tapachula, Chiapas, Mexico 011-52-962-69078

Subjects of Information:

M. Sanchez & Son, Inc. farmworker employee between 20002001. Familiar with transportation arrangements, payment procedures, and general working conditions

Irma Angel (witness) Temporary Address: Street address unknown lndiantown FL 34956 Permanent Address: Ejido Toquian Grand, Tapachula, Chiapas, Mexico 011-52-962-69078

Subjects of Information:

M. Sanchez & Son, Inc. farmworker employee between 20002001. Familiar with transportation arrangements, payment procedures, and general working conditions

Delma Luz Carranza (Plaintiff) Permanent Address: P.O. Box 556
Indiantown, FL 34956 561-597-6252

Subjects of Information:

M. Sanchez & Son, Inc. farmworker employee between 19972001. Familiar with transportation arrangements, payment procedures, and general working conditions

Oscar Torres (witness) Permanent Address:

P.O. Box 556 Indiantown, FL 34956 561-597-6252

Subjects oflnformation: M. Sanchez & Son, Inc. farmworker employee between 1997-

2001. Familiar with transportation arrangements, payment procedures, and general working conditions

Maria Ester Escobar Torres (plaintiff) Temporary Address: 1750 N. Congress Ave. Lot #12A West Palm Beach FL 33409 561-683-3882 Permanent Address: Rancheria Miaguatlan Pfimera seccion de Tabasco, Miaguatlan, Mexico

Su~ts of Information:

M. Sanchez & Son, Inc. farmworker employee between 1997~
1999. Familiar with transportation arrangements, payment procedures, and general working conditions

Melvin lternandez (witness) Temporary Address: 1750 N. Congress Ave. Lot #21 West Palm Beach FL 33409 561-683-0367 Permanent Address: Cheguate, Chequin, Tacana, San Marcos, Guatemala

Subjects of Information:

M. Sanchez & Son, Inc. farmworker employee between 20002001. Familiar with transportation arrangements, payment procedures, and general working conditions

Oscar I~.~-ndez (witness)

-

_:_...:~: ~ary Address: 1W75e0sNt P. aCl_monBgeraecshs AFLve3.3L4o0t9#21

561-683-0367 -

-

Permanent Addres .s~--Cheguate, Chequin, Tacana, San Marcos, Guatemala

Subjects of Information:

M. Sanchez & Son, Inc. farmworker employee between 20002001. Familiar with transportation arrangements, payment procedures, and general working conditions

Hermelinda Ramos (plaintiff)
Temporary Address: 1750 N. Congress Ave. Lot #4 West Palm Beach, FL 33409
Permanent Address: San Pablo, Taliman, Queretaro, Mexico 011-52-427-34316

Subjects oflnforrnation:

M. Sanchez & Son, Inc. fannworker employee between 19972001. Familiar with transportation arrangements, payment procedures, and general working conditions

10

Gloria Roblero Perez (plaintiff) Temporary Address: 437 E1 Prado Road, Apt. B West Palm Beach, FL 33405 Permanent Address: Tacana, Tacana, San Marcos, Guatemala 011-502-770-3181

Subjects of Information:

M. Sanchez & Son, Inc. farmworker employee between 19972001. Familiar with transportation arrangements, payment procedures, and general working conditions

David Matias (plaintiff) Temporary Address:
Permanent Address:

710 ½ Talapoosa Road West Palm Beach, FL 33405 561-366-8643 Canival, Cuilco, Huehuetenango, Guatemala 011-502-861-2541

Subjects of Information:

M. Sanchez & Son, Inc. farmworker employee between 20002001. Familiar with transportation arrangements, payment procedures, and general working conditions

Alfredo Romero (witness) Temporary Address: 323 Almeria Road, Apt 202
West Palm Beach, FL 33405 Permanent Address: Toninchun~"Fajumulco, San Marcos, Guatemala
011-502.--2030474

Subjects of Information:

M. Sanchez & Son, Inc. farmworker employee between 20002001. Familiar with transportation arrangements, payment procedures, and general working conditions

Alberto Carlos Berduo (witness) Temporary Address: 425 8’h Street West Palm Beach FL 33401 561-804-9654 Permanent Address: Esinal Qua, Cuilco, Huehuetenango, Guatemala 011-502-8040335

Subjects of Information:

M. Sanchez & Son, Inc. farmworker employee between 20002001. Familiar with transportation arrangements, payment procedures, and general working conditions

II

Mario Perez (witness) Temporary Address:
Permanent Address:

425 8th Street West Palm Beach, FL 33401 561-804-9654 Espinal Qua, Cuilco, Huehuetenango Guatemala 011-502-8040335

Subjects of Information:

M. Sanchez & Son, Inc. farmworker employee between 20002001. Familiar with transportation arrangements, payment procedures, and general working conditions

Jose Arbey Santiago Vasquez (witness) Temporary Address: 431 8th Street
West Palm Beach, FL 33401 561-835-8367
Permanent Address: Chenton s/n Chenton, Independencia, Chiapas, Mexico 011-52-963-21921

Subjects oflnformation:

M. Sanchez & Son, Inc. farmworker employee between 20002001. Familiar with transportation arrangements, payment procedures, and general working conditions

Jose Alvaro Santiago Vasquez (witness) Temporary Address: 431 8th Street West Palm Beach, FL 33401 561-835-8367 Permanent Address: Chenton s/n Chenton, lndependencia, Chiapas, Mexico 011-52-963-21921

Subjects of Information:

M. Sanchez & Son, Inc. farmworker employee between 20002001. Familiar with transportation arrangements, payment procedures, and general working conditions

Jose Abenmar Santiago Maidonado (witness) Temporary Address: 431 8t~ Street
West Palm Beach, FL 33401 561-835-8367 Permanent Address: Chenton s/n Chenton, Independencia, Chiapas, Mexico 011-52-963-21921

12

Subjects of Inforrnation:

M. Sanchez & Son, Inc. farmworker employee between 20002001. Familiar with transportation arrangements, payment procedures, and general working conditions

Rafael Gonzales (plaintiff) Temporary Address:
Permanent Address:

4101 S. Olive Avenue
West Palm Beach, FL 33405 Majadas, Tacana, San Marcos, Guatemala

Subjects of Information:

M. Sanchez & Son, Inc. farmworker employee between 20002001. Familiar with transportation arrangements, payment procedures, and general working conditions

Isabel Ramirez (witness) Temporary Address:
Permanent Address:

323 Almeria Road. Apt 204 West Palm Beach, FL 33405 Vuelta Grande, Cuilco, Huehuetenango, Guatemala 011-502-8012618

Subjects of Information:

M. Sanchez & Son, Inc. Farm Labor Contractor between 1997-2001. Familiar with transportation arrangements, payment procedures, and general working conditions

Javier Morales (witness) c/o M. Sanchez & Son, Inc. ~/5-70 S. Federal Hwy., Ste. 7 Lantana, FL 33462 561-582-3394

Subjects of Information:

M. Sanchez & Son, Inc. Farm Labor Contractor. Familiar with transportation arrangements, payment procedures, and general working conditions

Jorge Flores (witness) c/o M. Sanchez & Son, Inc. 7570 S. Federal Hwy., Ste. 7 Lantana, FL 33462 561-582-3394

Subjects of Intbrrnation:

M. Sanchez & Son, Inc. Farm Labor Contractor. Familiar with transportation arrangements, payment procedures, and general working conditions

13

Roy Rodriguez (witness) c/o M. Sanchez & Son, Inc. 7570 S. Federal Hwy., Ste. 7 Lantana, FL 33462 561-582-3394

Subjects of Information:

M. Sanchez & Son, Inc. Farm Labor Contractor. Familiar with transportation arrangements, payment procedures, and general working conditions

Maria Sanehez (witness) c/o M. Sanchez & Son, Inc. 7570 S. Federal Hwy., Ste. 7 Lantana, FL 33462 561-582-3394

Subjects of Information:

M. Sanchez & Son, Inc. President and Farm Labor Contractor. Familiar with transportation arrangements, payment procedures, and general working conditions

Jesus Gonzalez (witness) c/o M. Sanchez & Son, Inc. 7570 S. Federal Hwy., Ste. 7
----Lantana, FL 33462 561-582-3394

Subjects of Information:

M. Sanchez & Son, Inc. Farm Labor Contractor. Familiar with transportation a-rr~agements, payment procedures, and general working conditions

Isaias Gonzalez (witness) c/o M. Sanchez & Son, Inc. 7570 S. Federal Hwy., Ste. 7 Lantana, FL 33462 561-582-3394

Subjects of Information:

M. Sanchez & Son, Inc. Farm Labor Contractor. Familiar with transportation arrangements, payment procedures, and general working conditions

Vitalina Zacarias (witness) c/o M. Sanchez & Son, Inc. 7570 S. Federal H~., Ste. 7

14

Lantana, FL 33462 561-582-3394

Subjects of Information:

M. Sanchez & Son, Inc. Farm Labor Contractor. Familiar with transportation arrangements, payment procedures, and general working conditions

Enrique_Cruz (witness) c/o M. Sanchez & Son, Inc. 75..7_~=S. Federal Hwy., Ste. 7 L~ii)~ai-la, FL 33462 561-582-3394

Subjects of Information:

M. Sanchez & Son, Inc. Farm Labor Contractor. Familiar with transportation arrangements, payment procedures, and
general working conditions

Octavio Velasquez (witness) c/o M. Sanchez & Son, Inc. 7570 S. Federal Hwy., Ste. 7 Lantana, FL 33462 56-~582-3394

Subjects of Information:

M. Sanchez & Son, Inc. Farm Labor Contractor. Familiar with transportation arrangements, payment procedures, and general working conditions

Jaime Ve.lazquez (witness) c/o M. Sanchez &-Ron, Inc. 7570 S. Federal Hwy., Ste. 7 Lantana, FL 33462 561-582-3394

Subjects of Information:

M. Sanchez & Son, Inc. Farm Labor Contractor. Familiar with transportation arrangements, payment procedures, and general working conditions

Macario Viatoro (witness) c/o M. Sanchez & Son, Inc. 7570 S. Federal Hwy., Ste. 7 Lantana, FL 33462 561-582-3394

15

Subjects of Information:

M. Sanchez & Son, Inc. Farm Labor Contractor. Familiar with transportation arrangements, payment procedures, and general working conditions

Rigoberto Velazquez (wimess)
c/o M, Sanchez & Son, Inc. 7570 S. Federal Hwy., Ste. 7 Lantana, FL 33462 561-582-3394

Subjects of Information:

M. Sanchez & Son, Inc. Farm Labor Contractor. Familiar with transportation arrangements, payment procedures, and general working conditions

Rafael Esteban (witness) c/o M. Sanchez & Son, Inc. 7570 S. Federal Hwy., Ste. 7 Lantana, FL 33462 561-582-3394

Subjects of Information:

M. Sanchez & Son, Inc. Farm Labor Contractor. Familiar with transportation arrangements, payment procedures, and
general working conditions

Antonio Trejo (witness) c/o M. Sanchez & Son, Inc. 7570 S. Federal Hwy., Ste. 7--Lantana, FL 33462 561-582-3394

Subjects of Information:

M. Sanchez & Son, Inc. supervisor. Familiar with transportation arrangements, payment procedures, and general working conditions

B. The following is a description by category and location of all documents, data compilations and tangible things in the possession, custody, or control of the Plaintiffs that are relevant to disputed facts alleged with particularity in the pleadings.

Each of these items is in the possession and custody of the undersigned counsel for the Plaintiffs and will be disclosed upon request.

16

1. Documents relating to the Javier Morales Crew

a. Payroll Summaries for the weeks of:

i.

1/I7/01-1/23/01

ii. 1/24/01-1/29/01

iii. 1/30/01-2/06/01

iv. 2/07/01-2/13/01

v. 2/28/01-3/06/01

vi 3/07/01-3/13/01

vii 3/14/01-3/20/01

viii. 3/21/01-3/27/01

ix 3/28/01-4/03/01

x. 4/04/01-4/10/01

xi. 4/18/01-4/24/01

b. Daily Contractor Field Invoices for the weeks listed above.

2. Documents relating to the Jorge Flores Crew a. Payroll Summaries for the weeks of:
i. 1/17/01-1/23/01 ii. 1/24/01-1/29/01 iii. 1/30/01-2/06/01 iv 2/07/01-2/13/01 v, 2/28//01-3/06/01
vi. 3/07/01-3/13/01 vii. 3/14/01-3/20/01 viii. 3/21/01-3/27/01 ix. 3/28/01-4/03/01 x. 4/04/01-4/10/01 b, Daily.Contractor Field Invoices for the weeks listed above

3. Documents relating to the Roy Rodriguez Crew a. Payroll Summaries for the weeks of: i. 1/17/01-1/23/01 ii. 1/24/01 - 1/29/01 iii. 1/30/01-2/06/01 iv. 2/07/01-2/13/01
v. 2/28/01-3/06/01 vi. 3/07/01-3/13/01 vii. 3/14/01-3/20/01 viii. 3/21/01-3/27/01 ix. 3/28/01-4/03/01 x. 4/04/01-4/10/01 xi. 4/11/01-4/17/01 xii. 4/18/01-4/24/01

17

b. Daily Contractor Field Invoices for the weeks listed above
4. Documents relating to the Jesus Gonzalez Crew a. Payroll Summaries for the weeks of: i. 1/17/01-1/23/01 ii. 1/24/01-1/29/01 iii. 1/30/01-2/06/01 iv. 2/07/01-2/13/01 v. 2/28/01-3/06/01 vi. 3/07/0 I-3/I 3/01 vii. 3/14/01-3/20/01 viii. 3/21/01-3/27/01 ix. 3/28/01-4/03/0l x. 4/04/01-4/10/01 xi. 4/11/01-4/17/01 xii. 4/18/01-4/24/01 b. Daily Contractor Field Invoices for the weeks listed above.
5. Documents relating to the Isaias Gonzalez Crew a. Payroll Summaries for the weeks of: i. 1/17/01-1/23/01 ii. I/24/01 - 1/29/01 iii. 1/30/0 I-2/06/01 iv. 2/07/01-2/13/01 v. 2/28/01-3/06/01 vi. 3/07/01-3/13/01 vii. 3/14/01-3/20/01 viii. 3/21/01-3/27/01 ix. 3/28/01-4/02/01 x. 4/04/01-4/10/01 b. Daily Contractor Field Invoices for the weeks listed above.

6. Documents relating to the Vitalina Zacarias Crew a. Payroll Summaries for the weeks of: i. 4/11/01-4/17/01 ii. 4/18/01-4/24/01 b. Daily Contractor Field Invoices for the weeks listed above.

7. Documents relating to the Enrique Cruz Crew

a. Payroll Summaries for the weeks of:

i.

1/17/01-1/23/01

ii. 4/11/01-4/17/01

iii. 4/18/01-4/24/01

18

b. Daily Contractor Field Invoices for the weeks listed above.

8. Documents relating to the Octavio Velasquez Crew a. Payroll Summaries for the weeks of: i. 4/18/01-4/24/01 b. Daily Contractor Field Invoices for the weeks listed above.

9. Documents relating to the Jaime Velazquez Crew a. Payroll Summaries for the weeks of: i. 4/18/01-4/24/01 b. Daily Contractor Field Invoices for the weeks listed above.

10. Documents relating to the Isabel Ramirez Crew a. Payroll Summaries for the weeks of: i. 12/27/00-1/2/01
ii. 1/3/01-1/9/01 iii. 1/10/01-1/16/01 iv 1/17/01-1/23/01 v. 1/30/01-2/06/01 vi. 2/07/01-2/13/01
vii. 2/24/01-2/28/01 viii. 4/11/01-4/17/01 ix. 4/18/01-4/24/01

b. Daily Contractor Field Invoices for the weeks listed above.

11. Documents relating to the Macario Viatoro Crew

a. Payroll Summaries for the weeks of:

- --

i. 1/17/01-1/23/01

ii. 1/24/01-1/29/01

b. Daily Contractor Field Invoices for the weeks listed above.

12. Documents relating to the Rigoberto Velazquez Crew a. Payroll Summaries for the weeks of: i. 1/17/01-1/23/01 ii. 4/18/01-4/24/01 b. Daily Contractor Field Invoices for the weeks listed above.

13. Documents relating to the Rafael Esteban Crew a. Payroll Summaries for the weeks of: i. 4/25-5/1/01 ii. 5/2/01-5/8/01 b. Daily Contractor Field Invoices for the weeks listed above.

19

14. M. Sanchez & Son Inc. weekly wage statements for Bulmaro Perezfor the following weeks: 2/28-3/6/01 3/7-3/13/01 (with attached pay envelope)

15. M. Sanchez & Son Inc. weekly wage statements for Elfego Paz for the following weeks: 1/31-2/6/01 (with attached pay envelope)

16. M. Sanchez & Son Inc. weekly wage statements for Elsa Gonzalez for the following weeks: 4/1 ~.4/17/01

17. M. Sanchez & Son Inc. weekly wage statements for Martina Mejia for the following weeks: 1/31-2/6/0 l 2/14-2/20/01 2/28-3/6/01 4/11-4/17/01

18. M. Sanchez & Son Inc. weekly wage statements for Magnolia Mejia for the following weeks: 4/11-4/17/01

19. M. Sanchez & Son Inc. weekly wage statements for Sofia Lopez Vicente for the following weeks:
10/16-10/22/96 (with attached check stub)

_ 20. M. ~. & Son Inc. weekly wage statements for-Jesus Sanchez for the following weeks:

2/7-2/13/01

-

2/14-2/20/01 -

2/21-2/27/01

3/11-3/20/01

3/21-3/27/01

21. M. Sanchez & Son Inc, weekly wage statements for Alejandra Ruiz for the following weeks: 4/4-4/10/01

22. M. Sanchez & Son Inc. weekly wage statements for Vilda Velasquez for the following weeks: 8/9-8/15/00 4/25-5/1/01 5/2-5/8/01 5/9-5/15/01 5/16-5/22/01 5/16-5/22/01

2O

9/5-9/11/01 9/12-9/18/01 9/19-9/25/01
23. M. Sanchez & Son Inc. weekly wage statements for Noelinda Hemandez for the following weeks:
3/21-3/27/01 3/28-4/3/01 4/18-4/24/01 4/25-5/1/01
24. M. Sanchez & Son Inc. weekly wage statements for Josefa Perez for the following weeks: 4/11-4/17/01 (with attached pay envelope)
25. M. Sanchez & Son Inc. weekly wage statements for Italia Martin Perez for the following weeks: 10/20-10/26/99
26. M. Sanchez & Son Inc. weekly wage statements for Arturo Velazquez for the following weeks: 1/17-1/23/01
27. M. Sanchez & Son Inc. weekly wage statements for Irma Angel for the following weeks: 1/17-1/23/01
28. M. Sanchez & Son Inc. weekly wage statements for Oscar Torreg for the following weeks: 3/28-4/3/01 4/4-4/10/01 5/30-6/5/01
29. M. Sanchez & Son Inc. weekly wage statements for Oscar Hernandez for the following weeks: 3/14-3/20/01 (with attached pay envelope) 3/28-4/3/01 (with attached pay envelope) 4/4-4/10/01
30. M. Sanchez & Son Inc. weekly wage statements for Alberto Carlos Berduo for the following weeks:
5/2-5/8/01 5/16-5/22/01 5/23-5/29/01
31. M. Sanchez & Son Inc. weekly wage statements for Mario Perez for the following weeks:
1/10-1/16/01 4/25-5/1/01 (with attached pay envelope)
21

5/23-5/29/01 5/30-6/5/01
32. M. Sanchez & Son Inc. weekly wage statements for Jose Arbey Santiago Vasquez for the following weeks:
11/22-11/28/00 (2) 11/2%12/5/00 (2) 12/6-12/12/00 12/13-12/19/00 12/20-12/26/00 12/27-1/2/00 1/3-1/9/01 (2) 1/17-1/23/01 1/24-1/29/01 1/31-2/6/01 2/7-2/13/01 2/14-2/20/01 2/21-2/27/01 2/28-3/6/01 3/7-3/13/01 3/14-3/20/01 3/2l -3/27/01 3/28-4/3/01 4/4-4/10/01 4/1 I-4/17/01 4/18-4/24/01 4/25-5/1/01 5/2-5/8/01 ............. 5/9/-5/15/01
33. M. Sanchez & Son Inc. weekly wage statements for Jose Alvaro Santiago Vasquez for the following weeks:
11/22-11/28/00 (with attached pay envelope) 11/29-12/5/00 12/6-12/12/00 (with attached pay envelope) 12/27-1/2/00 1/3-1/9/01 (with attached pay envelope) 1/10-1/16/01 1/17-1/23/01 1/24-1/29/01 2/14-2/20/01 2/21-2/27/01 2/28-3/6/01
22

3/7-3/13/01 3/14-3/20/01 (with attached pay envelope) 3/21-3/27/01 4/4-4/10/01 4/18 -4/24/01 4/25-5/1/01
34. M. Sanchez & Son Inc. weekly wage statements for Jose Abenmar Santiago Maldonado for the following weeks:
3/14-3/20/01 3/28-4/3/01
35. M. Sanchez & Son Inc. weekly wage statements for David Matias for the following weeks: 12/27/00-1/2/01 1/3-1/9/01 1/10-1/16/01 1/17-1/23/01 1/24-1/29/01 1/31-2/6/01 2/7-2/13/01 4/11-4/17/01 4/18-4/24/01
36. M. Sahchez & Son Inc, weekly wage statements for Gloria Roblero for the following weeks: 4/11-4/17/01
~ 8-4/24/01
37. M. Sanchez & Son Inc. weekly wage statements for Alfredo Romero for the following weeks: 12/27/00-1/2/01 I/3-1/9/01 1/10-1/16/01 1/17-1/23/01 4/18-4/24/01 4/25-5/1/01 5/2-5/8/01
38. M. Sanchez & Son Inc. weekly wage statements for Francelia Hemandez for the following weeks:
9/26-10/2/01 10/3-10/9/01 11/t4-11/20/01 (2) 12/26-1/1/02 1/2-1/8/02
23

39. One M. Sanchez & Son Inc. pay envelope for Francelia Hemandez
40. M. Sanchez & Son Inc. weekly wage statements for Delma Luz Carranza for the following weeks:
8/9-8/15/95 8/23-8/29/95 8/30-9/5/95 9/6-9/12/95 9/13-9/19/95 9/20-9/26/95 9/27-10/3/95 10/4-10/10/95 10/11-10/17/95 2/7-2/13/96 10/2210/28/97 I 1/19-11/25/97 11/25-I 2/2/97 12/17-12/22/97 1/7-1/13/98 1/14-1/20/98 2/4-2/10/98 2/11-2/17/98
-3/3/98 ---- 8/16-8/22/98
9/3-9/9/98 9/24-9/3O/98 9/22-9/28/99 9/29-10/5/99 (2) 11/3/-11/9/99 1/5-1/11/00 1/12-1/18/00 1/26-2/1/00 2/2-2/8/00 2/9-2/15/00 2/16-2/22/00 2/23-2/29/00 3/1-3/7/00 3/8-3/14/00 3/15-3/21/00 5/10-5/16/00 5/31-6/6/00 7/26-8/I/00 8/9-8/15/O0
24

8/16-8/22/00 8/23-8/29/00 (with attached pay envelope) 8/30-9/5/00 9/6-9/7 (with attached pay envelope) 9/6-9/12/00 (with attached pay envelope) 9/20/26/00 10/4-10/I 0/00 (with attached pay envelope) 10/11-10/17/00 (with attached pay envelope) 10/18-10/24/00 (with attached pay envelope) 11/1-11/7/00 (with attached pay envelope) 11/8-11/14/00
41. Tomato Harvesting King weekly wage statements for Delma Luz Carranza for the following weeks:
10/26-11/1/94 11/9-11/15/94 12/21 - 12/27/94
42. Form W-2 issued to Delma Luz Carranza in 1998 by M. Sanchez & Son Inc.
43. Social Security Certified Total Earnings Report for 1994-2000 for Delma Luz Carranza.
44. Documents related to Unemployment Compensation petition and July 20, 2001 hearing for Delma Luz Carranza.
45. Weekly Work Chart for Adolfo Perez.
46. M. Sanchez & Son Inc. weekly wage statements for Isabel Ramirez for the following weeks: 12/20/97-1/6/98 1/28-2/3/98 2/4-2/10/98 2/25-3/3/98 3/4-3/10/98 4/1-4/7/98 4/22-4/28/98 9/2-9/8/98
12/15-12/21/99 (with attached transportation payment receipt)
47. Matias v. M. Sanchez & Son, Inc. deposition of Maria Sanchez, September 25, 2001.
48. Roblero v. M..Sanchez & Son, Inc. and Romero v. M. Sanchez & Son, Inc deposition of Maria Sanchez, October 1, 2001.
25

49. Documents from United States Department of Labor investigations of Mecca Farms, Inc. relating to file numbers, 91-410-11075, 91-410-41229, 91-410-41147, 94-410-41635 (and related sub files) ,95-410-50296, and 95-413-50297.
50. FCCI Insurance Group letter in response to Petition for Benefits dated August 3,2001 for David Matias concerning Matias v. M. Sanchez & Son, Inc.
51. FCCI Insurance Group letter in response to Petition for Benefits dated August 3,2001 for Gloria Roblero concerning Roblero v. M. Sanchez & Son, Inc.
52. Florida Department of Labor Farm Labor Registration files for M. Sanchez & Son, Inc.
53. Florida Department of Labor Farm Labor Registration files for Maria Sanchez.
54. Florida Department of Labor Farm Labor Registration files for Rogerio Rodriguez.
In addition, the following documents, data compilations and tangible things are in the possession of the Plaintiffs’ attorney, but are privileged and will be withheld by the Plaintiffs pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(5):
I. Notes and memoranda prepared by the Plaintiffs’ attorney and legal staff reflecting confidential information priSvided by the Plaintiffs to their attorney regarding the matters at issue in this case, including client intake forms, representation agreements and-releases
Privileges asserted: Attorney/e.ILent privilege and/or attorney work product privilege.
2. Notes and memoranda prepared by the Plaintiffs’ attorney and representatives containing their mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories concerning litigation
Privileges asserted: Attorney/client privilege and attorney work product privilege.
3. Correspondence between the Plaintiffs’ attorney and legal representatives and the Plaintiffs regarding this case
Privileges asserted: Attorney/client privilege and/or
26

attorney work product privilege.

C. Computation of damages claimed by the Plaintiffs. All computations for lost wages are based on the Plaintiffs’ recollection of hours worked and their earnings. Unpaid wage computations are based on a 66-hour workweek, consisting of six days of work, with an estimated 11 compensable hours of work per day. The minimum wage is $5.15 per hour. The employer is not credited for deducting Social Security taxes, lunch charges, and check cashing fees. These estimates will be further refined upon receipt of Defendants’ complete payroll records. With the exception of the expanded statutory damage claims as described below, Plaintiffs seek the maximum AWPA statutory damages of $500 per violation for each season in which the violation occurred.

Gloria Roblero Total damages claimed."

34,760.80

Damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act." $17,260.80 Plaintiff estimates that she worked for M. Sanchez & Son, Inc. for 96 weeks over four seasons receiving wages of $250 per week. Average weekly shortage = 339.90 ($5.15 x 66) - 250.00 = 89.90 x 96 (weeks) = 8,630.40 (total FLSA damages) x 2 (liquidated damages) = $17,260.80

Damages under the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act." $17, 500. O0 The plaintiff expects to seek $500 in statutory damages for each violation of the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act by the defendants pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1854(e)( 1 ). The plaintiff contends that the defendants committed four separate violations of the Act (recordkeeping, wage statements, wage payment, and transportation) during four seasons. Sere Amended Complaint ~125, 26, 27, and 28. For the season during which the plaintiff was injured while riding in an empt~yer provided vehicle, the plaintiffseeks the maximum allowable expanded statutory damages of $10,000 in accordance with 29 U.S.C. § 1854(e). Upon completion of discovery, the plaintiff may elect to seek actual damages for violations of the AWPA’s wage payment provisions.

The plaintiff seeks an award of costs and attorney’s fees with regard to the FLSA claims and pursuant to Fla. Stat. §448.08 with regard to the claims under the wage payment provisions of the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act.

David Matias Total damages claimed."

$13,415.20

Damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act: $1,915.20 Plaintiff estimates that he worked for M. Sanchez & Son, Inc. for 24 weeks over one season receiving wages of $300 per week. Average weekly shortage = 339.90 ($5.15 x 66) - 300.00 = 39.90 x 24 (weeks) = 957.60 (total FLSA damages) x 2 (liquidated damages) = $1,915.20

27

Damages under the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act: $11,500. O0 The plaintiff expects to seek $500 in statutory damages for each violation of the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act by the defendants pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1854(c)(1). The plaintiff contends that the defendants committed four separate violations of the Act (recordkeeping, wage statements, wage payment, and transportation) during one season. Se.__~e Amended Complaint ¶¶ 25, 26, 27, and 28. For the season during which the plaintiff was injured while riding in an employer provided vehicle, the plaintiff seeks the maximum allowable expanded statutory damages of $10,000 in accordance with 29 U.S.C. § 1854(e). Upon completion of discovery, the plaintiff may elect to seek actual damages for violations of the AWPA’s wage payment provisions.

The plaintiff seeks an award of costs and attorney’s fees with regard to the FLSA claims and pursuant to Fla. Stat. §448.08 with regard to the claims under the wage payment provisions of the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act.

Rafael Gonzales Total damages claimed:

$13,415.20

Damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act: $1,9.15.260 Plaintiff estimates that he worked for M. Sanchez & Son, Inc. for 24 weeks over one season receiving wages of $300 per week. Average weekly shortage = 339.90 ($5.15 x 66) - 300.00 = 39.90 x 24 (weeks) = 957.60 (total FLSA damages) x 2 (liquidated damages) = $1,915.20.

Damages under the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act: $11,500. 00 The plaintiff expects to seek $500 in statutory damages for each violation of the Migrant and Seasona-al’-Agricultural Worker Protection Act by the defendants pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1854(c)(1 ). The plaintiff contends that the defendants committed four separate violations of the Act (recordkeeping, wage statements, wage payment, and transportation) during one season. See Amended Complaint ¶¶ 25, 26, 27, and 28. For the season during which the plaintiff was injured while riding in an employer provided vehicle, the plaintiffseeks the maximum allowable expanded statutory damages of $10,000 in accordance with 29 U.S.C. § 1854(e). Upon completion of discovery, the plaintiff may elect to seek actual damages for violations of the AWPA’s wage payment provisions.

The plaintiff seeks an award of costs and attorney’s fbes with regard to the FLSA claims and pursuant to Fla. Stat. §448.08 with regard to the claims under the wage payment provisions of the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act.

Francelia Hernandez Total damages claimed.

$33,891.20

Damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act." $25,891.20 Plaintiff estimates that she worked for M. Sanchez & Son, Inc. for 144 weeks over four seasons

28

receiving wages of $250 per week. Average weekly shortage = 339.90 ($5.15 x 66) - 250.00 = 89.90 x 144 (weeks) = 12,945.60 (total FLSA damages) x 2 (liquidated damages) = $25,891.20.

Damages under the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protects’on Act: $8,000.00 The plaintiff expects to seek $500 in statutory damages for each violation of the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act by the Defendants pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1854(e)(1). The plaintiff contends that the defendants committed four separate violations of the Act (recordkeeping, wage statements, wage payment, and transportation) during four seasons. Se.__9.e Amended Complaint ~] 25, 26, 27, and 28. Upon completion of discovery, the plaintiffmay elect to seek actual damages for violations of the AWPA’s wage payment provisions.

The plaintiff seeks an award of costs and attorney’s fees with regard to the FLSA claims and pursuant to Fla. Stat. §448.08 with regard to the claims under the wage payment provisions of the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act.

Virginia Perez Total damages claimed."

$25,418.40

Damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act: $19,418.40 Plaintiff estimates that she worked for M. Sanchez & Son, Inc. for 108 weeks over four seasons receiving wages of $250 per week. Average weekly shortage = 339.90 ($ 5.15 x 66) - 250.00 = 89.90 x 108 (weeks) = 9,709.20 (total FLSA damages) x 2 (liquidated damages) = $19,418.40

Damages under the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act: $6,000. O0 The plaintiff expects Io seek $500 in statutory damages for each violation of the Migrant and Seasonal Agriculttaral Worker Protection Act by the Defendants pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1854(c)( 1 ).
The plaintiff contends that the defendants committed four separate violations of the Act (recordkeeping, wage statements, wage payment, and trafis~-brtation) during four seasons. Se__~_e Amended Complaint ~125, 26, 27, and 28. Upon completion of discovery, the plaintiffmay elect to seek actual damages for violations of the AWPA’s wage payment provisions.

The plaintiff seeks an award of costs and attorney’s fees with regard to the FLSA claims and pursuant to Fla. Star. §448.08 with regard to the claims under the wage payment provisions of the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act.

l:lerrnelinda Rzmos Total damages claimed.

$19,507.20

Damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act." $11, 507.20 Plaintiff estimates that she worked for M. Sanchez & Son, Inc. for 64 weeks over four seasons receiving wages of $250 per week. Average weekly shortage = 339.90 ($5.15 x 66) - 250.00 = 89.90 x 64 (weeks) = $5,753.60 (total FLSA damages) x 2 (liquidated damages) = $ l 1,507.20

29

Damages under the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act: $8,000.00 The plaintiff expects to seek $500 in statutory damages for each violation of the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act by the Defendants pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1854(c)(1). The plaintiff contends that the defendants committed four separate violations of the Act (recordkeeping, wage statements, wage payment, and transportation) during four seasons. Se.__~e Amended Complaint ¶¶ 25, 26, 27, and 28. Upon completion of discovery, the plaintiff may elect to seek actual damages for violations of the AWPA’s wage payment provisions.

The plaintiff seeks an award of costs and attorney’s fees with regard to the FLSA claims and pursuant to Fla. Stat. §448.08 with regard to the claims under the wage payment provisions of the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act.

Carlos Ramos Total damages claimed."

$9,830.40

Damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act: $3,830.40
Plaintiff estimates that he worked for M. Sanchez & Son, Inc. for 48 weeks over three seasons receiving wages of $300 per week. Average weekly shortage = 339.90 ($5.15 x 66) - 3 00.00 = 39.90 x 48 (weeks) = $1,915.20 (total FLSA damages) x 2 (liquidated damages) = $3,830.40

Damages under the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act: $6,000. O0 The plaintiff expects to seek $500 in statutory damages for each violation of the Migrant and
Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act by the Defendants pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1854(c)( 1 ). The plaintiff contends that the defendants committed four separate violations of the Act (recordkeeping, wage statements, wage payment, and transportation) during-three seasons. Se___.~e Amended Complaint ~[~ 25, 26, 27, and 2U. Upon completion of discovery, the plaintiffmay elect to seek actual damages for violations of-the AWPA’s wage payment provisions.

The plaintiff seeks an award of costs and attorney’s fees with regard to the FLSA claims and pursuant to Fla. Star. §448.08 with regard to the claims under the wage payment provisions of the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act.

Adolfo Perez Total damages claimed:

$2,839.40

Damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act: $839.40 Plaintiffestimates that he worked for M. Sanchez & Son, Inc. for 3 weeks over one season receiving wages of $200 per week. Average weekly shortage = 339.90 ($5.15 x 66) - 200.00 = 139.90 x 3 (weeks) = $419.70 (total FLSA damages) x 2 (liquidated damages) = $839.40

Damages under the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural g orker Protection Act." $2,000. O0 The plaintiff expects to seek $500 in statutory damages for each violation of the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act by the Defendants pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1854(c)( 1 ).

3O

The plaintiff contends that the defendants committed four separate violations of the Act (reeordkeeping, wage statements, wage payment, and transportation) during one season. Se__.ce Amended Complaint ¶¶ 25, 26, 27, and 28. Upon completion of discovery, the plaintiffmay elect to seek actual damages for violations of the AWPA’s wage payment provisions.

The plaintiff seeks an award of costs and attorney’s fees with regard to the FLSA claims and pursuant to Fla. Stat. §448.08 with regard to the claims under the wage payment provisions of the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act.

Delma Luz Carranza Total damages claimed."

$ 31,014.40

Damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act: $23,014..40. Plaintiff estimates that she worked for M. Sanchez & Son, Inc. for 128 weeks over four seasons receiving wages of $250 per week. Average weekly shortage = 339.90 ($5.15 x 66) - 250.00 = 89.90 x 128 (weeks) = 11,507.20 (total FLSA damages) x 2 (liquidated damages) = $23,014.40.

Damages under the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act." $8,000. O0 The plaintiff expects to seek $500 in statutory damages for each violation of the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act by the Defendants pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1854(c)(I ). The plaintiff contends that the defendants committed four separate violations of the Act
(recordkeeping, wage statements, wage payment, and transportation) during four seasons. Se__.~e Amended Complaint ¶¶ 25, 26, 27, and 28. Upon completion of discovery, the plaintiffmay elect to seek actual damages for violations of the AWPA’s wage payment ~rovisions.

The plaintiff seeks an award of costs and attorney’s fees with regard to-the FLSA claims and pursuant to Fla. Stat. §448.08 with regard to the claims under the wage payment provisions of the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act. o

Respectfully submitted,

Florida Bar Number 0468266 Gregory S. Schell Florida Bar Number 287199 Migrant Farmworker Justice Project 508 Lucerne Avenue Lake Worth, FL 33460
31

Telephone: (561) 582-3921 Facsimile: (561) 582-4884 Email: Cathleen@floridalegal.org Email: Greg@floridalegal.org
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and accurate copy of the foregoing has been furnished by first class United States mail, postage prepaid, to the below-listed counsel of record this 1 st day of March, 2002:
Don R. Boswell Akers & Boswell, P.A. 2875 South Ocean Boulevard, Suite 200 Palm Beach, FL 33480 Cathy Stutin Fisher & Phillips, LLP Suite 2300 One Financial Plaza Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33394-0005
Cathleen D. Caron
32

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION Case No. 01-9013-C IV.-RYSKAMP
Magistrate Judge Vitunac
Luz-Carral~za, et. al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
VS,
Mecca Farms, Inc., et. all., Defendants.
PLAINTIFFS AND DEFENDANT MECCA FARMS, INC.’S JOINT MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT
AND SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM OF LAW
The Plaintiffs and Defendant Mecca Farms, Inc. ("Mecca") have reached agreement on a proposed settlement of this action and hereby jointly move the Court pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for an Order:
1. Certifying a Settlement Class as follows: All migrant and seasonal agricultural workers furnished to Mecca Farms, Inc. by M. Sanchez & Son, Inc., Maria T. Sanchez, or Rogerio T. Rodriguez from August 1997 through November 2001, inclusive.
2. Conditionally approving the proposed settlement as set forth in the Settlement Agreement, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "F."
3. Directing the Plaintiff to provide notice to the class members.
4. Approving the notices to be published in Spanish language publications and on Spanish language radio stations as attached as Exhibits "B-E" (in the English language)

5. Scheduling a hearing on the ] ~day of ~ 200.~ to determine whether the settlement should be finally approved by the Court and judgment entered.
In making this Motion, counsel for the respective settlement parties stipulate and represent to the Court:
1. That the Settlement Agreement was reached through extensive arms-length negotiations between counsel for the Plaintiff and counsel for the Defendant Mecca.
2. That Plaintiffs’ counsel represent that they are experienced in the representation of farmworkers in civil matters and are well qualified to evaluate the fairness of the proposed settlement on behalf of the members of the class.
3. That the Settlement Agreement is fair, reasonable, and adequate as to the members of the class in light of the total class settlement fund being offered to the class members by the Defendant, as compared to the uncertainties of litigation of these claims, and the significant cost, time, and efforts this litigation would entail on behalf of all parties, regardless of the outcome.
4. That the Settlement Agreement represents the proposed compromise of disputed claims and in no way constitutes an admission of liability by Defendant Mecca with respect to any of the material allegations of the Complaint and Amended Complaint. Nor does it constitute an admission by the Plaintiffs that they would not ultimately prevail on the merits should these claims go to trial.
For the reasons stated, we respectfully request that the Settlement Agreement be conditionally approved, the proposed notice be ordered to be published, and the other provisions of this Joint Motion be granted.

MEMORANDUM OF LAW A. Introduction
To conclude the Settlement outline above as it pertains to the Court contained in this action under the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act, Rule 23(e) of Fed.R.Civ.P. requires that there be notice to the Settlement Class, a fairness hearing, and this Court’s approval. Before scheduling a fairness hearing and ordering notice to the Settlement Class, this Court must be presented with a settlement that warrants implementing Rule 23(e) procedures. The purpose of obtaining preliminary approval "is to ascertain whether there is any reason to notify the class members of the proposed settlement and proceed with the fairness hearing." Armstrong v. Bd. of School Directors, 616 F.2d 305, 314 (7th Cir. 1980).
In determining whether to preliminarily approve a class action settlement, the court assesses whether there is "probable cause" to provide notice and hold a fairness hearing. In re Mid-Atlantic Toyota Antitrust Litig., 564 g.Supp. 1379, 1385 (D.Md. 1983). An inquiry into the ultimate fairness of the Settlement is not necessary at this point, since there will be a further hearing at which the fairness of the Settlement will be addressed, after notice to the Settlement Class. Consequently, even if there are aspects of a proposed class action settlement that raise questions, they "should not derail the orderly workings of the settlement process at this point." Id__~. at 1386. Preliminary approval should be denied only if there are apparent grounds to doubt the fairness of the settlement, or other "obvious deficiencies," none of which exist here, as discussed below. Manuel ~br Complex Litig., §30.41 (3d ed. 1993). See also H. Newberg, Newberg on Class Actions, §11.25 at 11-37 (3d ed. 1993) (settlement should be preliminarily approved as long as it is within the range of possible judicial approval).
3

B. The Terms of the Settlement Since the filing of the Complaint and Amended Complaint, the Plaintiffs and Defendant
Mecca have worked to resolve this matter. The Settlement Agreement reflects that the Defendant Mecca has agreed to pay the Plaintiffs and putative Class members, from August 1997 to November 2001, inclusive the sums designated in the Settlement Agreement. These amounts were based upon the amount of wages the Plaintiffs and their counsel believed may have been owed to these farmworkers. In exchange, the Plaintiffs and putative Class members agree to voluntarily waivc, release, and forever discharge Defendant Mecca for the claims alleged in the Amended Complaint. An additional $25,000.00 ("Charity Fund") will be donated to a non-profit social services which assists farmworkers and $200,000.00 will be paid to the Plaintiffs’ counsel as attorneys fees and costs. The agreed upon Charity Fund and Attorney Fee Settlement Amount in this action actually reflect a Joint Settlement Stipulation which encompasses the settlement of a related case, Martinez v. Mecca Farms, Inc. The $200,000.00 Attorney Fee Settlement Amount represents the total sum of the fees in the two cases.
The Settlement, which was reached after extensive arms-length negotiations betwcen counsel with the duty of vigorously representing their clients, clearly meets the standard for preliminary approval. The dollar amount is, in and of itself, sufficient to meet the low threshold requirement for preliminary approval. If the Settlement is approved, an excellent result will have been achieved by the Plaintiffs, one that will provide Class members with a substantial recovery. C. The Settlement Should be Preliminarily Approved as Fair,
Reasonable, and Adequate Judicial approval of class action settlements requires a two-step process. In the first step, the court makes a preliminary decision as to whether the settlement falls "within the range of
4

possible judicial approval." H.Newberg, Newberg on Class Actions, §11.25 at 11-37 (3d ed.
1993). Once the settlement is found to be within the range of possible approval, a final approval
hearing is scheduled and notice is provided to the class, ld..__:. The second step involves final
determination, following a hearing at which pertinent evidence and any objections by Class
members may be considered, whether the settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate from the
standpoint of the class. [d__.~. at §11.41. On the instant Motion, the Court is presented with the
initial matter of preliminarily evaluating the Settlement.
In Warren v. City of Tampa, 693 F.Supp. 1051, 1054 (M.D. Fla. 1988), aff’d, 893 F.2d 347 (11th Cir. 1989), the district court described its review of class action settlements as follows:
The Court initially recognizes the principle that settlements are highly favored in the law. Miller v. Republic Nat’l Life Ins. Co., 559 F.2d 426 (5th Cir. 1977). The Court is required to make a two part determination that: 1) there is no fraud or collusion in reaching settlement, and 2) the settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable. Accord Benett v. Behring Co.rp., 737 F.2d 983 (11’h Cir. 1984). The evaluation of whether a settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court.
Id_.~. at 987. See also Ex Parte First National Bank of Jasper, 1997 Ala. Lexis 475 at *7-8
(Ala. 1997) (Settlement classes "promote the strong policy favoring settlements.").
In making this determination, the trial court is entitled to rely upon the judgment of
experienced counsel for the parties. Behrens v. Wometco, 118 F.R.D. 534,538 (S.D. Fla. 1988), aft’d, 899 F.2d 21 (11’h Cir. 1990). Moreover, there is a strong initial presumption that the
compromise is fair and reasonable. In re Chicken Antitrust Litig., 560 F.Supp. 998 (N.D. Ga.
1980), aff’d, 669 F.2d 228, 238. Accordingly, courts exercise restraint in examining proposed
settlements and recognize that settlements, by definition, are compromises that need not satisfy
every concern of the parties but may fall anywhere within a broad range of upper and lower

limits. In lieu of a more extended inquiry into the claims asserted, courts have concentrated on
the negotiating process by which the settlement was reached. Weinberger v. Kendrick, 698 F.2d 61, 74 (2d Cir. 1982), correctcd on other grounds on reh’g, [1982-1983 Transfer Binder] Fed.Sec.L.Rep. (CCH) ¶90,074 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 818 (1983). The courts insist that a settlement be the result of"arm’s length negotiations" effected by counsel possessing the "experience and ability . . . necessary to effective representation of the class’ interests." Weinberger, 698 F.2d at 74 (citation omitted). Once counsel’s experience is established, courts give such counsel’s "opinion . . . supporting the settlement . . . ’considerable weight."’ In re Saxon Sec. Litig., [1985-1986 Transfer Binder] Fed.Sec.L.Rep. (CCH) ¶92,414 at 92,525 (S.D.N.Y. 1985). This is done because courts recognize that "the parties’ counsel are best able to weigh the relative strengths and weaknesses of their arguments." Id_._~.
As discussed above, the Settlement was reached after extensive arms-length negotiations between counsel. The negotiations included a mediation session with Judge Gerald Wetherington (retired). As in the litigation itself, both sides aggressively presented their positions, and the negotiations required continuous efforts over a number of months to bear fruit. There was nothing collusive about any of the settlement negotiations or the ultimate agreement reached. The Settlement Agreement is fully supported and recommended by counsel for all parties. There are no terms in the Settlement that militate against preliminary approval.
The Settlement will produce substantial benefits for the Class. Each class member will receive $5.00 for every day worked during the time period alleged in the lawsuit. The value is enhanced by the fact that it will be provided to Class members now, without the delay, burden,

and risks of continued litigation. Once this Court approves the Settlement Agreement, this litigation should be concluded, with the exception of the administration and payment of the settlement claims.
D. Conclusion For the reasons set forth above, the Plaintiffs and Defendant Mecca jointly respectfully
request that this Court grant preliminary approval of the Settlement, preliminarily certify a Settlement Class, and direct that Notice and Settlement Agreement be published in the forms submitted with the Stipulation, in anticipation of a final Pairness hearing to be held by the Court, at which time the Court will determine whether the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate, and in the best interests of the putative Class.
Dated this 28th day of February 2003.
Respectfully submitted,
Florida Bar No. 0468266 Gregory S. Schell Florida Bar No. 287199 Lillian Hirales Florida Bar No. 533777 Migrant Farmworker Justice Project 508 Lucerne Avenue Lake Worth, FL 33460 Telephone: (561) 582-3921
7

Facsimile: (561) 582-4884 Email: cathleen@floridalegal.org Email: greg@floridalegal.org Email: lillian@floridalegal.org Attorneys for Plaintiffs
CARLTON FIELDS, P.A. 222 Lakeview Avenue, Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401-6149
Henry S. Wulf, Esq. Florida Bar. No. 0056049 Email: hwulf(a),carltonfields.com Attorneys for Mecca Farms
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and accurate copy of the foregoing has been hand delivered to Don R. Boswell, Esq., Akers & Boswell, P.A., 2875 South Ocean Boulevard, Suite 200, Palm Beach, Florida, 33480, on the 3rd day of~arch, 2~)03.

EXHIBIT B

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION

Case No. 01-9013-CIV.-RYSKAMP Magistrate Judge Vitunac

Luz-Carranza, et. al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

VS,

Mecca Farms, Inc., et. all.,

Defendants.

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF ACTION, CLASS ACTION NOTICE~ PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION,
AND SETTLEMENT HEARING
ATTENTION: ALL PERSONS WHO HAVE WORKED WITH THE FARM LABOR CONTRACTORS ROY RODRIGUEZ, MARIA SANCHEZ, OR M. SANCHEZ & SON, INC. PLANTING, CULTIVATING, OR HARVESTING VEGETABLES BETWEEN AUGUST 1, 1997 AND NOVEMBER 19, 2001.
1. What is this Notice about?
This Notice is an official court notice to let you know about a "class action" lawsuit in which you may be a class member if you have worked in the ag-ricultural operations of Mecca Farms, Inc. with the contractors Roy Rodriguez, Maria Sanchez, or M. Sanchez & Son, Inc. between August 1, 1997 and November 19, 2001. It also describes a proposed settlement of the lawsuit and how you may claim your share of the settlement. If you do not think the settlement is fair, you can object, and this Notice will tell you how to make such an objection. Finally, it also informs you of your rights if you do not want to be a member of the class.
2. What is this "class action" lawsuit?
A "class action lawsuit" is a lawsuit in which a few people represent a large group of

people. They do that in an effort to resolve the similar legal claims of all the members of the group at one time. Here, 8 workers (Delma Luz Carranza, Francelia Hernandez, Virginia Perez, Carlos Ramos, Adolfo Perez, Gloria Roblero, David Matias, and Rafael Gonzalez), have petitioned the court to represent "migrant and seasonal agricultural workers furnished to Mecca Farms, Inc. by M. Sanchez & Son, Inc., Maria T. Sanchez, or Rogerio T. Rodriguez from August 1997 through November 2001, inclusive."
3. What is the lawsuit about?
The 8 workers who filed the lawsuit alleged that Mecca Farms, Inc. with the farm labor contractors Roy Rodriguez, Maria Sanchez, and M. Sanchez & Son, Inc. violated certain provisions of the federal Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act. The lawsuit alleged that Mecca and the contractors failed to pay the workers the minimum wage ($5.15) for all the hours worked by, among other things, failing to pay for all the buckets of produce picked and making unlawful deductions from the workers pay from August 1997 through November 2001. In addition, the suit alleges that Mecca and the contractors failed to maintain accurate payroll records and did not provide the workers with correct information on their wage statements. The Court has not decided whether the workers are correct on these claims. Mecca and the contraclors deny any liability for these claims and any wrongdoing.
4. What is the status of the lawsuit’?
After negotiating, the workers, Mecca Farms, Inc., Roy Rodriguez, Maria Sanchez, and M. Sanchez & Son, Inc. agreed to a proposed settlement of the lawsuit. Your rights could be affected by this settlement so you should read this Notice carefully to decide whether you want to be part of the class and you think the settlement is fair.
5. Class Certified for Purposes of Settlement Only Solely for the purposes of this settlement, Mecca and the contractors have consented to the certification of the class, as defined above. This means that the 8 workers that brought the suit are representing, in the settlement agreement, the interests of thousands of workers who worked on Mecca Farms’ operations with crews headed by Roy Rodriguez, Maria Sanchez, and M. Sanchez & Son, Inc. between August 1997 and November 2001.
6. What are the terms of the proposed settlement?
If the Court approves the settlement that has been proposed, workers who file claims will share in an Unlimited Joint Class Settlement fund. The fund is a joint fund because there is another class action lawsuit being settled against Mecca Farms and the contractors who furnish workers to its packing house operations.
7. What will workers get under the settlement?
All workers who were employed by Roy Rodriguez, Maria Sanchez, or M. Sanchez &

Son, Inc., to work on the agricultural operations of Mecca between August 1997 through November 2001 will be eligible to share in the settlement fund. Each eligible worker will receive $5.00 per day for work in the fields. If there is verifiable proof that the social security (FICA) taxes were paid for every day worked, the claimant will receive 50% less per day than otherwise provided for. The worker will also have provide identification and proof of employment with the Defendants.
8. Who else gets money from the settlement? In addition, Twenty Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00) will be donated to one or more non-profit social service agencies which selwe farmworkers in Martin County or Palm Beach County. Mecca Farms is also paying the Florida Legal Services Migrant Farmworker Justice Project, the lawyers for the workers in this case an additional $200,000.00 to pay the costs and fees they incurred to bring the two cases (for the field workers and the packing house workers). The $200,000.00 is separate from and in addition to what the workers will receive.
9. What are my rights as a member of the "class"? As a member of the class, you have the right to receive money from the settlement. By receiving the money you are also giving up your rights to bring a separate claim against Mecca Farms, Inc., Roy Rodriguez, Maria Sanchez, or M. Sanchez & Son, Inc. for having violated the specific rights which are alleged in the lawsuit during the time period of August 1997 through November 2001.
10. How do I make a claim as a class member?
TO CLAIM YOUR CLASS MONEY YOU MUST:
FILL OUT A CLAIM FORM BEFORE FEBRUARY 1, 2004. TO OBTAIN A CLAIM FORM CALL FLORIDA LEGAL SERVICES FARMWORKER JUSTICE PROJECT AT 1-800-277-7447 OR GO TO ITS OFFICE AT 508 LUCERNE AVENUE, LAKE WORTH, FLORIDA 33460 MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY BETWEEN 8:30 AM AND 5:00 PM.
If you fail to make a claim and you do not "opt-out" as described in paragraph 11, you are giving up your rights to ever bring an action against Mecca Farms, Inc., Roy Rodriguez, Maria Sanchez, or M. Sanchez & Son, Inc. for the claims alleged in the lawsuit.
11. How do I opt-out of this class action? If you do NOT want to participate in the class action, you have the right to be excluded from the class and not receive any money from the settlement. If you choose to be excluded from the class, you will NEVER be able to make any claim for this settlement money; however, you may have the right to bring your own lawsuit against Mecca Farms, Inc., Roy Rodriguez, Maria Sanchez, or M. Sancbez & Son, Inc. within the time period allowed under the law for the claims alleged in the lawsuit. You must opt-out before

July 1, 2003. If you fail to opt-out by July 1, 2003, you are giving up your right to be excluded from the class, which means that you can not bring a separate law suit for the same claims alleged in the current law suit for the time period of August 1997 through November 2001. If you fail to opt-out you will be bound by the settlement agreement and are eligible to file a claim for the settlement money. To be excluded from the class action you must call the Florida Legal Services Farmworker Justice Project at 1-800-2777447 or go to its office at 508 Lucerne Avenue, Lake Worth, Florida 33460 Monday through Friday between 8:30 PM and 5:00 PM to fill out a form stating your desire to be excluded from the class. If you choose to "opt-out" of the class action, you should consult a lawyer as to your rights.

12. What if I think the settlement agreement is unfair?

There will be a hearing before Judge Kenneth Ryskamp at

on

, 2003, at

the United States Courthouse, 701 Clematis Street, West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 to

decide whether the settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate. If you want to object to

the settlement you must file your objection with the Clerk of the Court before ,

2003. If you do write the Clerk, at the United States Courthouse, 701 Clematis Street,

West Palm Beach, Florida 33401, you should include in your letter the name of the case

(Carranza v. Mecca Farms, Inc.) and the case number (01-9013). You must also send a

copy of your objections to Henry Wulf, Esq., Carlton Fields, 222 Lakeview Avenue,

Suite 1400, West Palm Beach, FL 33401, one of the attorneys tbr Mecca. This hearing

will be your only opportunity to object to the terms of the settlement.

You do not have to be present at the hearing to receive your class share of the settlement money. If you fill out the form claiming your share of the settlement, you will receive your class share, provided the settlement is approved.

13. For further information: If you have questions about the settlement, need help understanding this Notice, or wish to obtain a complete copy of the Settlement Agreement you can contact the lawyers for the workers who brought the lawsuit by writing or calling:
Florida Legal Services Migrant Farmworker Justice Project 508 Lucerne Avenue Lake Worth, FL 33460 Telephone: 1-800-277-7447

DO NOT CALL THE COURT OR THE CLERK OF THE COURT

EXHIBIT C
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No.01-9096-Civ. Middlebrooks/Bandstra
Carmelina Martinez, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
VS.
Mecca Farms, Inc., et al.,
Defendants.
SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF ACTION, CLASS ACTION DETERMINATION AND NOTICE, PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION, AND SETTLEMENT HEARING
ATTENTION: ALL PERSONS WHO HAVE WORKED FOR MARIA MEDRANO OR CANDIDO MUNOZ IN PACKING HOUSES IN LANTANA, FLORIDA PACKING VEGETABLES BETWEEN OCTOBER 1, 1996 AND MARCH 1, 2002.
1. What is this Notice about? This Notice is an official court notice to let you know about a "class action" lawsuit in which you may be a class member if you have worked in packing houses in Lantana, Florida for Maria Medrano or Candido Munoz packing vegetables between October 1, 1996 and March 1, 2002. It also describes a proposed settlement of the lawsuit and how you may claim your share of the settlement. If you do not think the settlement is fair, you can object, and this Notice will tell you how to make such an objection. Finally, it also informs you of your rights if yon do not want to be a. member of the class.
2. What is this "class action" lawsuit? A "class action lawsuit" is a lawsuit in which a few people represent a large group of people. They do that in an effort to resolve the similar legal claims of all the members of the group at one time. Here, the court has granted permission to 4 workers (Carmelina Martinez, Maria Ester Escobar

Torres, Maria Jose Alarcon, and Luis Roca), to represent two classes consisting of "all migrant agricultural workers employed or jointly employed by Defendant Mecca Farms, Inc., in Mecca Farms’ tomato packing house from October 1996 through March 2002, inclusive" and "all migrant agricultural workers employed or jointly employed by Defendant Mecca Farms, Inc., in Mecca Farms’ pepper packing house from October 1996 through March 2002, inclusive."
3. What is the lawsuit about?
The 4 workers who filed the lawsuit alleged that Mecca Farms, Inc. with the farm labor contractors Maria Medrano, Medrano Harvesting & Packing, Inc., Candido Munoz, A-Z Grading & Packing, Inc., Candido Packing, Inc., and Candido Munoz, Inc. violated certain provisions of the federal Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act. The lawsuit alleged that Mecca and the contractors failed to pay the workers the minimum wage ($5.15 and hour) for all the hours worked and overtime wages for the hours worked over forty hours in a work week from October 1996 through March 2002. In addition, the suit alleges that Mecca and the contractors failed to maintain accurate payroll records and did not provide the workers with correct information on their wage statements. The Court has not decided whether the workers are correct on these claims. Mecca and the contractors deny any liability for these claims and any wrongdoing.
4. What is the status of the lawsuit?
After negotiating, the workers, Mecca Farms, Inc., Maria Medrano, Medrano Harvesting & Packing, Inc., Candido Munoz, A-Z Grading & Packing, Inc., Candido Packing, Inc., and Candido Munoz, Inc. agreed to a proposed settlement of the lawsuit. Your rights could be affected by this settlement so you should read this Notice carefully to decide whether you want to be part of the class and you think the settlement is fair.
5. What are the terms of the proposed settlement?
If the Court approves the settlement that has been proposed, workers who file claims will share in an Unlimited Joint Class Settlement fund. The fund is a joint fund because there is another class action lawsuit being settled against Mecca Farms for the workers who cultivated and harvested vegetables on Mecca’s operations with the contractors Roy Rodriguez, Maria Sanchez, and M. Sanchez & Son, Inc. between August 1, 1997 and November 19, 2001.
6. What will workers get under the settlement?
All workers who were employed by Maria Medrano, Medrano Harvesting & Packing, Inc., Candido Munoz, A-Z Grading & Packing, Inc., Candido Packing, Inc., or Candido Munoz, Inc. to work in Mecca Farms’ packing houses between August 1997 and March 2002 may be eligible to share in the settlement fund. Each eligible worker will receive $4.00 per day for work in the Tomato Packing House and $3.00 per day for work in the Pepper Packing House. If there is verifiable proof that the social security (FICA) taxes were paid for every day worked, the claimant will receive 50% less per day than otherwise provided for. The worker will also have provide identification and proof of employment with the Defendants.

7. Who else gets money from the settlement?
In addition, Twenty Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00) will be donated to one or more non-profit social service agencies which serve farmworkers in Martin County or Palm Beach County. Mecca Farms is also paying the Florida Legal Services Migrant Farmworker Justice Project, the lawyers for the workers in this case an additional $200,000.00 to pay the costs and fees they incurred to bring the two cases (for the field workers and the packing house workers). The $200,000.00 is separate from and in addition to what the workers will receive.
8. What are my rights as a member of the "class"?
As a member of the class, you are eligible to receive money from the settlement. By receiving the money you are also giving up your rights to bring a separate claim against Mecca Farms, Inc., Maria Medrano, Medrano Harvesting & Packing, Inc., Candido Munoz, A-Z Grading & Packing, Inc., Candido Packing, Inc., or Candido Munoz, Inc. for having violated the specific laws which are alleged in the lawsuit during the time period from October 1996 through March 2002.
9. How do I make a claim as a class member?
TO CLAIM YOUR CLASS MONEY YOU MUST:
FILL OUT A CLAIM FORM BEFORE FEBRUARY 1, 2004. TO OBTAIN A CLAIM FORM CALL FLORIDA LEGAL SERVICES FARMWORKER JUSTICE PROJECT AT 1-800-2777447 OR GO TO ITS OFFICE AT 508 LUCERNE AVENUE, LAKE WORTH, FLORIDA 33460 MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY BETWEEN 8:30 AM AND 5:00 PM.
If you fail to make a claim and you do not "opt-out" as described in paragraph 10, you are giving up your rights to ever bring an action against Mecca Farms, Inc., Maria Medrano, Medrano Harvesting & Packing, Inc., Candido Munoz, A-Z Grading & Packing, Inc., Candido Packing, Inc., or Candido Munoz, Inc. for the claims alleged in the lawsuit which occurred between October 1996 through March 2002.
10. How do I opt-out of this class action? If you do NOT want to participate in the class action, you have the right to be excluded from the class and not receive any money from the settlement. If you choose to be excluded from the class, you will NEVEI~ be able to make any claim for this settlement money; however, you may have the right to bring your own lawsuit against Mecca Farms, Inc., Maria Medrano, Medrano Harvesting & Packing, Inc., Candido Munoz, A-Z Grading & Packing, Inc., Candido Packing, Inc., or Candido Munoz, Inc. within the time period allowed under the law for the claims alleged in the lawsuit. If you decide to opt-out, you must do so before July 1, 2003. If you fail to opt-out by July 1,2003, you are giving up your right to be excluded from the class, which means that you can not bring a separate law suit for the same claims alleged in the current law suit for the time period of October 1996 through March 2002. If you fail to opt-out you will be bound by the settlement agreement and are eligible to file a claim for the settlement money. To be excluded from the class action you must call the Florida Legal Services Farmworker Justice Project at 1-800-277-7447 or go to its office at

508 Lucerne Avenue, Lake Worth, Florida 33460 Monday through Friday between 8:30 PM and 5:00 PM to fill out a fom~ stating your desire to be excluded from the class. If you choose to "optout" of the class action, you should consult a lawyer as to your rights.

11. What if I think the settlement agreement is unfair?

There will be a hearing before Judge Donald Middlebrooks at

on

, 2003, at the

United States Courthouse, 701 Clematis Street, West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 to decide whether

the settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate, lfyou want to object to the settlement you must file

your objection with the Clerk of the Court before

,2003. If you do write the Clerk at the

United States Courthouse, 701 Clematis Street, West Palm Beach, Florida 33401, you should

include in your letter the name of the case (Martinez v. Mecca Farms, lnc,) and the case number (01-

9096). You must also send a copy of your objections to Henry Wulf, Esq., Carlton Fields, 222

Lakeview Avenue, Suite 1400, West Pahn Beach, FL 33401, one of the attorneys for Mecca. This

hearing will be your only opportunity to object to the terms of the settlement.

You do no__!t have to be present at the hearing to receive your class share of the settlement money. If you fill out the form claiming your share of the settlement, you will receive your class share, provided the settlement is approved.

12. For further information: If you have questions about the settlement, need help understanding this Notice, or wish to obtain
a complete copy of the Settlement Agreement you can contact the lawyers for the workers who brought the lawsuit by writing or calling:
Florida Legal Services Migrant Farmworker Justice Project
508 Lucerne Avenue
Lake Worth, FL 33460 Telephone: 1-800-277-7447

DO NOT CALL THE COURT OR THE CLERK OF THE COURT

4

EXHIBIT D
FIELD CLASS RADIO NOTICE - Carranza v. Mecca Farms,
Attention all persons who have worked in the fields with the contractors Roy Rodviguez, Maria Sanchez, or M. Sanchez & Son, Inc.. If you worked cultivating and harvesting vegetables between 1997 and 2001 you may be eligible to claim money in a lawsuit filed against the contractors and the farm.
In the lawsuit, the workers are claiming that they were not paid the minimum wage because, among other things, they were not paid for all the buckets of produce they picked and were subject to unlawful deductions.
If you want to claim money from this case against Roy Rodriguez, Maria Sanchez, and the farm where they worked, call Florida Legal Services at 1-800-277-7447 or go to its office at 508 Lucerne Avenue, Lake Worth, Florida. You should also contact Florida Legal Services at 1-800277-7447 if you want to know more about the settlement or do not want to be part of the case. The call, 1-800-277-7447, is toll free.

EXHIBIT E
PACKING HOUSE CLASS RADIO NOTICE - Martinez v. Mecca Farms, Inc.
Attention all persons who have worked for Maria Medrano and Candido Munoz in packing houses in Lantana, Florida between 1997 and 2002; you may be eligible to claim money in a lawsuit filed against the company. The packing house workers are claiming that they were not paid for all the hours worked or for overtime pay.
If you want to claim money from this case against Maria Medrano and Candido Munoz for packing vegetables at packing houses in Lantana, Florida, call Florida Legal Services at 1-800277-7447 or go to its office at 508 Lucerne Avenue, Lake Worth, Florida. You should also contact Florida Legal Services at 1-800-277-7447 if you want to know more about the settlement or do not want to be pan of the case. The call, 1-800-277-7447, is toll free.

EXHIBIT "F"
STIPULATION OF PROPOSED JOINT SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT IN DELMA LUZ CARRANZA, ET AL. V. MECCA FARMS, INC. ET AL. AND
CARMELINA MARTINEZ~ ET AL. V. MECCA FARMS, INC. ET AL.~
WHEREAS, Delma Luz Carranza, Francelia Hemandez, Virginia Perez, Carlos Ramos, Adolfo Perez, Gloria Roblero, David Matias and Rafael Gonzalez (hereinafter "Field Class Representatives"), on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated, have presented claims in the matter more generally known as Delma Luz CartarLza~ et al. v. Mecca Farms, Inc. et al., United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, Case No. 01-9013-CIV-RYSKAMP (the "Field Case"), against Mecca Farms, Inc. ("Mecca Farms"), and M. Sanchez & Son, Inc., Maria T. Sanehez, and Rogerio T. Rodriguez (collectively, the "Field FLC Defendants"), alleging violations of the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 1801-1872 (1999) ("AWPA"), arising from work performed on property owned or controlled by Mecca Farms during the 1997-98, 1998-99, 1999-2000, 2000-01, and 2001-02 South Florida vegetable harvest seasons.
WI-IEREAS, the Field Class Representatives, on behalf of themselves alone, have presented claims in the Field Case against Mecca Farms and the Field FLC Defendants alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201-219 (1998) ("FLSA"), arising from work performed on property owned or controlled by Mecca Farms during the 1997-98, 1998-99, 1999-2000, 2000-01, and 2001-02 South Florida vegetable harvest seasons.
WHEREAS, Gloria Roblero, David Matias and Rafael Gonzalez (the "Field Accident Plaintiffs"), on behalf of themselves alone, have presented claims in the Field Case against Mecca Farms and the Field FLC Defendants alleging violations under AWPA arising from an accident on April 25, 2001.
WHEREAS, Carmelina Martinez, Jorgelia Velasquez, Maria Ester Escobar Torres, Maria

WPB#562103.3

1

Jose Alarcon, and Luis Roca (hereinat~er the "Packing House Class Representatives"), on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, have presented claims in the matter more generally known as Carmelina Martinez, et al. v. Mecca Farms, Inc. et al., United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, Case No. 01-9096-CIV-MIDDLEBROOKS (the "Packing House Case"), against Mecca Farms and Medrano Harvesting & Packing, Inc., Maria Medrano, Candido Munoz, Inc., A-Z Grading & Packing, Inc., Candido Packing, Inc. and Candido Munoz (collectively, the "Packing House FLC Defendants"), alleging violations of the AWPA arising from work performed at the tomato and pepper packing houses owned by Mecca Farms during the 1996-97, 1997-98, 1998-1999, 1999-2000, 2000-01 and 2001-02 South Florida vegetable harvest seasons.
WHEREAS, the Packing House Class Representatives, on behalf of themselves alone, have presented claims in the Packing House Case against Mecca Farms and the Packing House FLC Defendants alleging violations of the FLSA arising from arising from work performed at the tomato and pepper packing houses owned by Mecca Farms during the 1996-97, 1997-98, 1998-1999, 19992000,2000-01 and 2001-02 South Florida vegetable harvest seasons.
WHEREAS, Mecca Farms, by its Answers and in other pleadings, denies and continues to deny all allegations that: (1) the AWPA or FLSA rights of the Field Class Representatives, the Field Accident Plaintiffs, the Packing House Representatives, the Field Class Members, or the Packing House Class Members were breached by the Field FLC Defendants or the Packing House FLC Defendants, (2) Mecca Farms was an employer or joint employer of the Field Class Representatives, the Field Accident Plaintiffs, the Packing House Representatives, the Field Class Members, or the Packing House Class Members alone or with any other entity or individual, (3) Mecca Farms was responsible or liable for any actions of the Field FLC Defendants or the Packing House FLC Defendants, and (4) that some or all of the claims raised in the Field Case and Packing House Case

WPB#562103.3

2

were filed within the applicable statute of limitations period.
WHEREAS, from December, 2001 to the present, the Field Class Representatives, the Field
Accident Plaintiffs, and the Packing House Representatives, through Class Counsel, have conducted a thorough investigation of the facts relating to the allegations made in the Complaints in the Field
Case and the Packing House Case; engaged in extensive document and written discovery from
Defendants, inspection of publicly available documents from other cases, and the taking or oral depositions; and conducted statistical and damage analyses.
WHEREAS, the Field Class Representatives have sought to certify a class in the Field Case
which, for the purposes of this Agreement only, Mecca Farms is willing to stipulate to those
individuals being certified as a class. The Field Class Representatives have sought to certify a class consisting of:
All migrant and seasonal agricultural workers furnished to Mecca Farms, Inc. by M. Sanchez & Son, Inc., Maria T. Sanchez, or Rogerio T. Rodriguez fiom August 1997 through November 2001, inclusive.
WHEREAS, the Court in the Packing House Case, on or about November 25, 2002, entered
the Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification and certified two classes consisting of:
All migrant agricultural workers employed or jointly employed by Defendants Mecca Farms, Inc. in Mecca Farms’ tomato packing house from October 1996 through March 2002, inclusive.
-andAll migrant agricultural workers employed or jointly employed by Defendants Mecca Farms, Inc. in Mecca Farms’ pepper packing house from October 1996 through March 2002, inclusive.
WHEREAS, the Field Class Representatives, Field Accident Plaintiffs, and Mecca Farms have considered the expense and length of time necessary to prosecute the Field Case (including trial
and potential time-consuming appeals), the uncertainties of the outcome of complex litigation, and

WPB#562103.3

3

the substantial benefit provided by this Agreement to the Field Class Representatives, the Field Class Members and the Field Accident Plaintiffs.
WHEREAS, the Packing House Class Representatives, and Mecca Farms have considered the expense and length of time necessary to prosecute the Packing House Case (including trial and potential time-consuming appeals), the uncertainties of the outcome of complex litigation, and the substantial benefit provided by this Agreement to the Packing House Class Representatives and the Packing House Class Members.
WHEREAS, after extensive negotiations between and among the Parties and counsel, with the help of a skilled mediator, and based upon Class Counsel’s full review of the materials and information compiled in this case, the Field Class Representatives, the Field Accident Plaintiffs, and their counsel have concluded, in light of, among other things, governing law, the facts of this case, and the mediator’ s evaluations and recommendations, that the Agreement provided for herein is fair, reasonable, and adequate and in the best interests of the Field Class Representatives, the Field Accident Plaintiffs and the Field Class Members, especially given the risks and uncertainties of protracted litigation.
WHEREAS, after extensive negotiations between and among the Parties and counsel, with the help of a skilled mediator, and based upon Class Counsel’s full review of the materials and information compiled in this case, the Packing House Field Class Representatives and their counsel have concluded, in light of, among other things, governing law, the facts of this case, and the mediator’s evaluations and recommendations, that the Agreement provided for herein is fair, reasonable, and adequate and in the best interests of the Packing House Class Representatives and the Packing House Class Members, especially given the risks and uncertainties of protracted litigation.

WPB#562103.3

4

WHEREAS, the Court in the Field Case and the Court in the Packing House Case have not ruled on any of the substantive contentions of the parties regarding liability or expressed any opinion thereto.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is stipulated and agreed by and among the Field Class Representatives, the Field Accident Plaintiffs, the Packing House Class Representatives, and Mecca Farms that the Field Case and the Packing House Case shall be settled and compromised, subject to Court approval, upon the terms and conditions set forth in this Stipulation of Proposed Joint Settlement Agreement (the "Agreement").
I. JURISDICTION AND GOVERNING LAW The Parties to this Agreement agree that the Court has jurisdiction over the Parties, including the Field Class Members and the Packing House Class Members, and the subject matter of the Field Case and the Packing House Case, that venue is proper in this district, and that any proceeding with respect to the Agreement or its enforcement must be raised in the same Court. The Parties further agree that the interpretation and enforcement of this Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Florida.
II. NO ADMISSION OF LIABILITY Mecca Farms, vigorously denies liability in the Field Case and the Packing House Case. Mecca Farms has denied and continues to deny any legal liability arising out of any of the claims in the Field Case and the Packing House Case, strongly believes that all of their defenses in those actions are valid, expressly denies having engaged in any wrongful or illegal activity, and expressly denies that any joint employment relationship existed between Mecca Farms and the Field FLC Defendants, the Packing House FLC Defendants, the Field Class Representatives, the Field Accident

WPB#562103.3

5

Plaintiffs, the Field Class Members, the Packing House Class Representatives or the Packing House Class Members. The Court has made no f’mdings that Mecca Farms violated AWPA or FLSA, or of any other federal, state, or local law, regulation, order, or rule regarding employment activities. Mecca Farms believes that it would prevail if the lawsuits were ultimately tried. In recognition, however, of the risk, cost, and inconvenience involved in defending protracted litigation of this sort, Mecca Farms agreed to the terms of the Agreement solely as a matter of business judgment in order to obtain a quick and efficient resolution of this dispute, and to permit Mecca Farms to continue operation of its business unhindered by the further distractions and diversion of personnel that this action would cause.
Mecca Farms, therefore, specifically relies on the provisions in this document that neither this Agreement, the negotiations and discussions relating hereto, nor any act performed or document prepared pursuant to or in furtherance of this Agreement, shall be construed as, deemed to be, or used as an admission or concession of any fault, liability, wrongdoing, or damages, that the claims of the Field Class Representatives, Field Accident Plaintiffs, Field Class Members, Packing House Class Representatives and Packing House Class Members have any validity or that Mecca Farms is a joint employer of or with the Field FLC Defendants, Packing House FLC Defendants, the Field Class Representatives, the Field Accident Plaintiffs, the Field Class Members, the Packing House Class Representatives or the Packing House Class Members. Other than such proceedings as may be necessary to consummate or enforce this Agreement, no evidence of this Agreement or any of the acts released as a consequence of this Agreement shall be offered or admitted or otherwise used for any purpose in this or any other proceeding, provided that this Agreement and the Final Judgment and related Exhibits may be filed and used in any action brought against any of the Released Persons to support a defense, claim, or counterclaim of the Released Persons of res judicata, collateral

WPB#562103.3

6

estoppel, issue preclusion, or the like based on this Agreement.
IlL DEFINITIONS
As used herein, the following terms shall have the following meanings:
A. The term "Agreement" shall refer to this Stipulation of Proposed Joint Settlement Agreement in its entirety, including whereas clauses and headings and including all the Exhibits annexed hereto.
B. The term "Court" shall refer to the respective divisions and judges of the United States District Court, Southern District of Florida which has jurisdiction over the Field Case and the Packing House Case.
C. The term "’Fairness Hearing" shall refer to the hearing to be held by the Court to consider approval of this Agreement pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e).
D. The term "Field Accident Plaintiffs" shall refer to Gloria Roblero, David Matias and Rafael Gonzalez.
E. The term "Field Case" shall refer to the lawsuit more generally known as Delma Luz Carranza, et al. v. Mecca Farms, Inc. et al., United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, Case No. 01-9013-CIV-RYSKAMP.
F. The term the "Field Class Members" shall refer to those persons who are members of the Field Settlement Class.
G. The term "Field Class Representatives" shall refer to Delma Luz Carmnza, Francelia Hemandez, Virginia Perez, Carlos Ramos, Adolfo Perez, Gloria Roblero, David Matias and Rafael Gonzalez.
H. The term "Field FLC Defendants" shall refer to M. Sanchez & Son, Inc., Maria T. Sanchez and Rogerio T. Rodriguez.
I. The term "Field Settlement Class" shall refer to all individuals who fall within the criteria set forth in Section V(E)(I).
J. The term "Legal Services" or "Class Counsel" shall refer to the Florida Legal Services, Inc. Migrant Farmworker Justice Project, the attorneys for the Plaintiffs in both Delma Luz Carranza, et al. v. Mecca Farms, Inc. et al. and C .armelina Martinez, et al. v. Mecca Farms, Inc. et al..
K. The term "Amended Complaints" refer to the Amended Complaints filed in the Field Case and the Packing House Case.
L. The term "Packing House Case" shall refer to the lawsuit more generally known as Carmelina Martinez, et al. v. Mecca Farms, Inc. et al., United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, Case No. 01-9096-CIV-MIDDLEBROOKS.

WPB#562103.3

7

M. The term "Packing House Class Members" shall refer to those persons who are members of the Packing House Settlement Class, as certified by the Court in Carmelina Martinez, et al. v. Mecca Farms, Inc. et al.
N. The term "Packing House Class Representatives" shall refer to Carmelina Martinez, Jorgelia Velasquez, Maria Ester Escobar Tortes, Maria Jose Alarcon, and Luis Roca.
O. The term "Packing House FLC Defendants" shall refer to Medrano Harvesting & Packing, Inc., Maria Medrano, Candido Munoz, Inc., A-Z Grading & Packing, Inc., Candido Packing, Inc. and Candido Munoz.
P. The term "Packing House Settlement Class" shall refer to all individuals who fall within the criteria set forth in Section V(E)(2).
Q. The term "Parties" shall refer to the Field Class Representatives, the Field Accident Plaintiffs, the Packing House Class Representatives, and Mecca Farms collectively.
R. The term "’Preliminary Approval Date" is the date on which the Court enters its order granting its preliminary approval of the settlement and authorizes notice of the proposed settlement to be sent to Field Settlement Class or Packing House Settlement Class.
S. The term "Released Persons" means Mecca Farms and related entities and persons who by this Agreement will be released fi’om any liability, as set forth in Section IV, below.
T. The term "’Settlement Effective Date" shall refer to the date on which the Agreement shall be considered final, which is the first business day on which the Final Judgment and Order entered pursuant to this Agreement has been entered and is in effect and can no longer be withdrawn, rescinded, vacated, reversed, or modified on appeal.
IV. SCOPE OF SETTLEMENT AND RELEASE OF CLAIMS
The negotiation and entry of this Agreement have been undertaken by the Parties for the
purpose of effectuating a full, f’mal, and complete resolution of all AWPA and FLSA claims alleged
by the Field Class Representatives, the Field Accident Plaintiffs, the Field Class Members, the
Packing House Representatives, and the Packing House Class Members in the Amended Complaints
for the time period specified in said Amended Complaints. The Field Class Representatives, the
Field Accident Plaintiffs, the Field Class Members, the Packing House Representatives, and the
Packing House Class Members hereby release Mecca Farms from any and all such claims alleged in
the Amended Complaints for the time period specified in said Amended Complaints.

WPB#562103.3

8

On the Settlement Effective Date, the Field Class Representatives, the Field Accident Plaintiffs, the Field Class Members, the Packing House Representatives, and the Packing House Class Members, both individually and as a class, for themselves, their attorneys, spouses, children, executors, representatives, heirs, successors, and assigns, or any other persons who could claim through them, in consideration of the relief set forth herein, the sufficiency of which is expressly acknowledged, shall be deemed to have, and by operation of the Final Judgment and Order, shall have fully and finally released and forever discharged Mecca Farms, its parents, affiliated or subsidiary companies, and its insurers, as well as each of its respective present, former or future officers, directors, shareholders, agents, employees, representatives, consultants, attorneys, successors and assigns and its respective pension, profit-sharing, savings and other employee benefit plans of any nature, and those plans’ fiduciaries, representatives, trustees and administrators (the "Released Persons") from all such claims alleged in the Amended Complaints.
The Field Class Representatives, the Field Accident Plaintiffs, the Field Class Members, the Packing House Representatives, and the Packing House Class Members specifically confu’m by their execution of this Agreement that they have fully and irrevocably dismissed their individual claims for compensatory and statutory damages as alleged in the Amended Complaints with prejudice.
This Agreement also resolves, and the Field Class Representatives, the Field Accident Plaintiffs, the Field Class Members, the Packing House Representatives, and the Packing House Class Members hereby release the Released Persons fi’om any and all claims by the Field Class Representatives, the Field Accident Plaintiffs, the Field Class Members, the Packing House Representatives, and the Packing House Class Members for costs and attorneys’ fees, including but not limited to expert witness fees, and including claims for costs, attorneys’ fees, and expert witness fees incurred in connection with the negotiation, execution, implementation, and administration of

WPB#562103.3

9

this Agreement and/or any settlement fund and administration and distribution of the Settlement Amount, except as described in section VII. This Agreement also resolves, and the Field Class Representatives, the Field Accident Plaintiffs, the Field Class Members, the Packing House Representatives, and the Packing House Class Members hereby release the Released Persons from, any and all claims by the Field Class Representatives, the Field Accident Plaintiffs, the Field Class Members, the Packing House Representatives, and the Packing House Class Members for any tax liability that may arise from the amounts paid to them under this Agreement.

V. MONETARY RELIEF, DISTRIBUTION, AND NOTICE A. Settlement Amount
1. Unlimited Joint Settlement Amount. In consideration of the releases, promises, and representations made by the Field Class Representatives, the Field Accident Plaintiffs, the Field Class Members, the Packing House Representatives, and the Packing House Class Members and Legal Services in this Agreement, Mecca Farms agrees to pay, in accordance with the other provisions of this Agreement, all eligible claims of the Field Settlement Class Members and the Packing House Settlement Class Members with no overall cap as to the total monetary sum (the "Unlimited Joint Settlement Amount"). 2. Charity Fund. Additionally, Mecca Farms agrees to pay Legal Services Twenty Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00) ("Charity Fund") to donate to one or more non-profit social service agencies which serve farmworkers in Martin County or Palm Beach County. The selection of the non-profit social service agencies and the total monetary sum of each contribution shall be within the sole discretion of Class Counsel. The Charity Fund shall be paid in full to Legal Services within thirty (30) days of the end of the Claims Period.

WPB#562103.3

10

B. Class Monetary Distribution
1. Eligibility for Distribution from the Unlimited Joint Settlement Fund in Field Case Eligibility for payments from the Unlimited Joint Settlement Fund in the Field Case shall be
in accordance with the following. To be a member of the Field Settlement Class and thereby qualify
for a distribution from the Joint Settlement Fund, an individual must:
(i) be migrant or seasonal agricultural worker furnished to Mecca Farms by M. Sanchez & Son, Inc., Maria T. Sanchez, or Rogerio T. Rodriguez from August 1997 through November 2001, inclusive; and
(ii) who did not opt out of the class. 2. Eligibility for Distribution from the Unlimited Joint Settlement Fund in the
Packing House Case Eligibility for payments from the Unlimited Joint Settlement Fund in the Packing House Case
shall be in accordance with the following. To be a member of the Packing House Settlement Class
and thereby quality for a distribution from the Unlimited Joint Settlement Fund, an individual must:
(i) be a migrant agricultural worker employed in Mecca Farms’ tomato packing house from August 1997 through March 2002, inclusive; or
(ii) be a migrant agricultural worker employed in Mecca Farms pepper packing house from August 1997 through March 2002, inclusive; and
(iii) who did not opt out of the class. C. Distribution of the Unlimited Joint SetOement Fund, Claim Period, and Payment
Schedule 1. Class Representatives
The Field Class Representatives, Field Accident Plaintiffs, and Packing House Class
Representatives will receive a total sum of Fifty Five Thousand Dollars ($55,000.00) which shall be
paid in full upon the Settlement Effective Date. Legal Services is solely responsible for determining
the quantity of money each Field Class Representative, Field Accident Plainti~.’, and Packing House
Class Representative will receive from the total sum and its distribution thereof. Mecca Farms agrees

wv~s~to3.3

11

to pay the Fifty Five Thousand Dollars ($55,000.00) through delivery of readily available funds (i.e., cash, wire transfer, cashiers check, certified check, trust account check, etc.) to Legal Services. This shall constitute a full and complete satisfaction of the claims of the Field Class Representatives and the Parking House Class Representatives and they shall not share in any further proceeds from the Unlimited Joint Class Settlement Fund.
2. Class Members The Unlimited Joint Settlement Fund will be distributed to the remaining members of the Field Class and the Packing House Class (i.e., not including the Field Class Representatives, Field Accident Victims, and Packing House Class Representatives) in the following amounts: a) Field Class members: $5.00 for every day worked; b) Tomato Packing House Class members: $4.00 for every day worked; and c) Pepper Packing House Class members: $3.00 for every day worked. If there is verifiable proof that the social security (FICA) taxes were paid, the claimant will receive 50% less per day, for each day the Social Security taxes were paid, than otherwise provided for in this paragraph. 3. The Claims Period The period for Field Class and Packing House Class members to make class claims shall end on February 1,2004. If either the Master List has not been completed (see Section IV(C)(4)) or the Preliminary Approval Date has not occurred by May 1,2003, the Claim Period shall be extended by an additional day for each additional day beyond May 1, 2003 that is needed to complete both the Master List and obtain Preliminary Approval.

4. Master List

w~56~to3.3

12

Class Counsel, through contracting with a third party acceptable to the Parties, will prepare a list (the "Master List") from available records which will specify all the individuals in the Field Class and Packing House Class, specify the Social Security number of the individual if one was supplied to the employer, the number of days those individuals worked, the employer(s) the individuals worked for, and the total monies owed under the formula set out in Section V(C)(2). Mecca Farms will advance the necessary funds to Class Counsel, which will be credited against the Class Counsel Attorney Fee payment, to fund the preparation of the Master List. Mecca Farms also agrees to facilitate the preparation of the Master List by providing Class Counsel with all pertinent records, either in paper or electronic form. The Master List shall be prepared and paid for by May 1, 2003. The contents of the Master List shall remain confidential between Mecca Farms and Class Counsel and shall not be disclosed to third parties or any class members without the written consent of Mecca Farms and Class Counsel.
5. Claiming Opportunities Class Counsel shall provide potential claimants regular opportunities, not less than once a week, to file a claim ("Claiming Opportunities"). Class Counsel shall provide Mecca Farms with advance notice of at least one week as to the precise time and location of a Claiming Opportunity. If a Mecca representative chooses not to attend a Claiming Opportunity, Class Counsel may conduct the session without a Mecca representative. Claiming Opportunities shall not be held on Wednesdays or Fridays, but may be held on any other day of the week, or in any location. It is the intention of the parties to facilitate Claiming Opportunities for class members and therefore these Claiming Opportunities shall be scheduled at times and locations accessible to and convenient for the class members. Because a substantial portion of the Field Class Members reside in Indiantown, the parties agree to conduct no fewer than five (5) Claiming Opportunities at a site in Indiantown

WP8#562103.3

13

convenient and accessible to Field Class Members; 6. Claim Verification Procedure Each member of the Field Class and Packing House Class who seeks disbursement of funds
from the Unlimited Joint Settlement Fund shall appear in person if present in the State of Florida at one of the Claiming Opportunities and fill out an application (the "Application"). Ifa member of the Field Class and Packing House Class is residing outside the State of Florida, they will be permitted to submit the Application by mail but must otherwise comply with the Claim Verification Procedure set forth herein. The Application shall require the individual to state:
a) The name supplied to the Field FLC Defendants or the Packing House FLC Defendants at the time of the individuals’ employment;
b) the Social Security number provided at the time of the employment (if any); c) the name of the FLC or other person the individual believes he or she was employed with; d) the approximate time flame the individual believes he or she was employed by the Field FLC Defendants or the Packing House FLC Defendants; e) the individual’s current address, and; f) if the individual appears at a Claiming Opportunity, the individual’s signature which evidences that the information is being provided pursuant to the requirements of Section 92.525, Florida Statutes, or the equivalent Federal statute; if the individual is not present at a Claiming Opportunity but completes the Application in the United States, the Application shall be notarized; if the individual is residing outside the United State, the Application shall be notarized or verified by a government official including officers of the judicial sysytem. Class Counsel may assist an individual in filling out the Application, however, such

WPB#562103.3

14

and/or the Packing House FLC Defendants and which included the Social Security number in the Application ("Social Security Applicants") shall be paid within 35 days of the Application having been provided to Mecca Farms; and
c) Individuals who submitted a proper Application and did not provide the Field FLC Defendants or the Packing House FLC Defendants with a Social Security number and did not provide a wage statement with the Application ("Remaining Applicants") shall be paid within 50 days of the Application having been provided to Mecca Farms. Field Class Members and Packing House Class Members which supplied the Field FLC Defendants and/or the Packing House FLC Defendants with a Social Security number during the term of their employment and are unable to provide the same Social Security number as part of the Application are not eligible for disbursements from the Unlimited Joint Settlement Fund.
Class Counsel shall submit to Mecca Farms, on a weekly basis, all of the applications submitted by Wage Statement Applicants and Social Security Applicants which have been properly prepared. Class Counsel shall submit to Mecca Farms, within twenty (20) days of the end of the Claims Period, all of the applications submitted by the Remaining Applicants which have been properly prepared. Within 30 days of its receipt of an Application prior to the end of the Claims Period and within 45 days of its receipt of an Application after the Claims Period has expired, Mecca Farms may review the Application and object to its validity. If Mecca Farms objects, it shall set forth its basis in writing. For any Application submitted by a claimiant outside the United States, Mecca Farms shall always have the opportunity to show that the Application is fraudlent. If Mecca Farms is able to show by a propenderence of the evidence that such a claim is fraudulent after it has been paid, Mecca Farms will be entitled to a credit agsint the Attorney Fee Settlement Amount in the amount of the claim. If the Parties are unable to resolve the objection of Mecca Farms, it shall be

WPB#562103.3

16

9. Notice to the Settlement Class Promptly following the Preliminary Approval Date, Class Counsel shall provide the notice of proposed class settlement approved by the Court in the Field Case and the Packing House Case. Due to the lack of addresses for the class members, the Parties have agreed that Class Counsel will provide notice in the following manner: Publish the Field Class Notice (attached as Exhibit B) and the Packing House Class Notice (attached as Exhibit C) in the Spanish language in Spanish language newspapers in Palm Beach or Martin Counties; Publish an abbreviated Field Class Notice ("Field Class Radio Notice" attached as Exhibit D) and Packing House Class Notice ("Packing House Radio Notice" attached as Exhibit E) in the Spanish language via Spanish language radio programs which broadcast in Palm Beach or Martin counties; Publish handouts containing the language in the Radio Notices as described in the preceding paragraph, and post these notices in locations frequented by farmworkers in Palm Beach and Martin counties, such as churches, social service agencies, and retail establishments; and No notices will be published outside the State of Florida and Class Counsel shall not otherwise solicit class memebers outside the State of Florida including the posting of handouts but Class Counsel may send an Application to class members outside the State of Florida if those class members contact Class Counsel and request an Application. 10. Objections Class Members who wish to present an objection to the proposed settlement must either do so in writing or attend the Fairness Hearing. If the objecting individual chooses to submit a written objection in lieu of attending the Fairness Hearing, the individual must write to the Clerk of

weB#56_9 ~03.3

1 9

the Court at least ten (10) days before the Fairness Hearing. If the objecting individual attends the fairness hearing without having submitted a written objection, then parties agree that Mecca Farms has the right to seek a continuance of the Fairness Hearing in order to respond to the objecting individual’s concerns. In the event that sixty (60) or more of the combined total of the Field Class Members and the Packing House Class Members elect to opt out Oom participation in the monetary portion of this settlement, Mecca Farms may, at its option, void this Agreement at least seven (7) days prior to the date set for the Final Approval hearing. In the event that Mecca Farms elects to void this Agreement, it shall have no obligations to pay monetary relief, attorneys’ fees, expenses or implement any injunctive relief under this Agreement.

VI. CERTIFICATION OF FIELD CLASS FOR PURPOSES OF SETTLEMENT For the purposes of this Agreement, the Parties hereby stipulate to the certification in the
Field Case of a class consisting of: All migrant and seasonal agricultural workers furnished to Mecca Farms, Inc. by M. Sanchez & Son, Inc., Maria T. Sanchez, or Rogerio T. Rodriguez from August 1997 through November 2001, inclusive.
Class Counsel is responsible for providing the required notice to the above-referenced class and otherwise complying with the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Federal law. In the event that the Agreement is not approved by the Court or, for whatever reason, the Settlement Effective Date does not occur, the stipulation made in this section shall become null and void unless the Parties agree otherwise in writing, and all negotiations and proceedings relating thereto shall be without prejudice to the rights of the Parties, and they shall proceed thereatier in all respects as if the stipulation in this section had not been made and the related orders not entered, preserving in that event all of their respective claims and defenses in the action, and otherwise restoring all of the Parties to their respective positions immediately prior to this Agreement being

WPB#562103.3

20

executed, and neither the stipulation of this section nor any of the motions, notices, orders, or other documents relating to it may be admissible in further proceedings.
VII. ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND EXPENSES Mecca Farms has agreed to pay Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($200,000.00) (the "Attorney Fee Settlement Amount") in full settlement of the attorneys’ fees and costs incurred by the Field Class Representatives, the Field Accident Plaintiffs, the Field Class, the Packing House Class Representatives, the Packing House Class and Class Counsel in the Field Case and the Packing House Case. Mecca Farms shall pay the Attorney Fee Settlement Amount through delivery of readily available funds (i.e., cash, wire transfer, cashiers check, certified check, trust account check, etc.) to Legal Counsel within thirty (30) days of the last day of the Claim Period. The amount of attorneys’ fees and costs received by Legal Services pursuant to this section fully satisfies any obligation Mecca Farms may have to pay attorneys’ fees and costs, including but not limited to expert witness fees, to or on behalf of the Field Class Representatives, the Field Accident Plaintiffs, the Field Class Members, the Packing House Representatives, and the Packing House Class Members for any and all work, including but not limited to work to be performed and costs and expenses to be incurred by Class Counsel to implement and administer this Settlement Agreement.
VIII. NON-MONETARY RELIEF In addition to the Settlement Amount and the Attorney Fee Settlement Amount, and as part of the consideration for the Field Class Representatives, the Field Accident Plaintiffs, the Packing House Class Representatives, and Class Counsel executing this Agreement, Mecca Farms hereby agrees to take the following respective actions:

WPB#562103.3

21

A. Field and Packing House Cases I. Disclosures. Mecca Farms will include as part of its standard contract form for contracting for services fi’om FLCs (the "Form Contract") a requirement that the FLC provide its employees a written disclosure, in English and Spanish, of the matters required under :29 U.S.C. § 1821(a) at the beginning of each vegetable harvest season or at the time a specific employee is first employed by the FLC. In addition, the written disclosure shall also include: a) The following definition of"Waiting Time": "You have the right to be credited for all the hours you work during the work day. "’" Workday’...[is] the period of between the commencement and completion on the same workday of an employee’s principal activity or activities. It includes all the time within that period whether or not the employee engages in work throughout all of that period...If an employee is required to report to the actual place of performance of his principal activity at a certain specific time, his ’workday’ commences at the time he reports there for work in accordance with the employer’s requirement, even though work through a cause beyond the employee’s control, he is not able to commence performance of his productive activities until a later time. In such a situation the time spent waiting for work should be part of the workday.’"’ 29 C.F.R. § 790.7(b). b) The following def’mition of "Build-Up Pay": "You are entitled to be paid the minimum wage of $5.15 an hour even if being paid piecerate. If you do not earn enough tokens to earn the minimum wage for all the hours you have worked during a specific pay period, your employer MUST pay you the difference. If, for example, you work one day of the pay period and you pick 100 buckets of tomatoes for $.40 a bucket and arrive to the fields at 7:00 AM and leave at 5:00PM, the minimum wage is $51.50. If you earned only $40 worth of tokens, your employer must

WPB#562103.3

22

pay you $11.50 so that you will have earned the minimum wage." c) Name and phone number of a Mecca Farm’s employee (fluent in the Spanish
language) that the FLC employees can contact if they believe that the FLC is violating the requirements of Federal labor laws, the FLC is violating the requirements of the contract between Mecca Farms and the FLC, or the FLC is otherwise engaging in improper or illegal activities, or any other matters related to work on lands owned or operated by Mecca Farms.
d) The following information about the Florida Legal Services Migrant Farmworker Justice Project: "If you have questions about your employment rights as a farmworker call the Florida Legal Services Migrant Farmworker Justice Project at 1-800-277-7447. The call and the legal services are free."
e) The following information about the fight to receive payment in the form of a check: "You shall not be paid in cash. You will receive your payment in the form of a check accompanied with a wage statement on a weekly basis."
The following information about receiving tokens for every bucket picked: "’For every bucket that is dumped into the truck, you shall receive a token."
g) The following information about daily token tallies: "Every day that you work earning piecerate, you shall receive from your employer a written summary of the total amount ofpiecerate earnings for that day."
h) A signature line for the new employee’s signature. Mecca Farms will require that the FLCs provide it with a copy of the aforementioned disclosure atter it has been executed by the employee and that the FLCs develop a system to properly verify that each of their employees has been provided and has executed the required disclosure. The FLCs’ shall provide to Mecca Farms, on a weekly basis, the signed disclosures obtained during that

WPB#562103.3

23

week. Mecca Farms shall review the information provided to it by the FLCs, and other information reasonably available to Mecca Farms, to determine if the FLCs are obtaining all required disclosures. The parties agree to work cooperatively to provide an accurate translation of the above disclosure requirements in the Spanish language.
2. Daily token totals. Mecca Farms will include as part of the Form Contract a requirement that, to the extent piece rate work is performed on a particular work day, the FLCs are to provide their employees with a written receipt at the end of each work day which discloses the type and amount of piece rate work performed on that particular day. In addition, the FLCs will be required to maintain records as to the number of hours their employees work when doing piece rate work and ensure that their employees receive compensation at least equal to the minimum wage they would be entitled to on an hourly basis. 3. Payment by Check. Mecca Farms will include as part of the Form Contract a requirement that the FLCs pay their workers via check which will be accompanied by a wage statement containing the information required by the 29 U.S.C. § 1821 (d)(l). The Form Contract will also provide that the data contained on the wage statements or duplicates of the wage statements are to be provided to Mecca Farms. In addition, the wage statements shall contain the following information: "For work performed on land owned or controlled by Mecca Farms. This wage statement shall be accompanied by a check. You should NOT receive your wages in cash."

In addition, the Form Contract will require the FLCs to disclose to Mecca Farms the information necessary for Mecca Farms to independently calculate the amounts that the FLCs are to

WPB#562103.3

24

withhold for FICA, the amounts that the FLCs have to pay for unemployment insurance, vehicle insurance, and workers compensation, and any other amounts which the FLCs may properly and legally withhold ~om their employees on the FLC employees who are paid on an hourly or pieeerate basis. Following the FLCs payment of the items referenced above, the FLC shall provide proof of such payment to Mecca Farms and otherwise cooperate in verifying that payment has been made.
5. Mecca "compliance officer." Mecca shall employ a person or persons, fluent in both English and Spanish, who will receive inquires from FLC employees’ with questions related to their work on property owned or controlled by Mecca Farms. This "compliance officer" shall take measures to try to assist the FLC employees with their inquiries by either providing direct assistance or contacting the appropriate persons on their behalf. B. Additional Field Case Non-Monetary Relief 1. Transportation. Mecca Farms will, at the beginning of each vegetable harvest season and throughout the season when reasonably necessary, require any Farm Labor Contractor ("FLC"), which has contracted with Mecca Farms, to disclose to Mecca Farms any vehicles that the FLC intends to utilize to transport migrant or seasonal agricultural workers to property owned or controlled by Mecca Farms. Mecca Farms will verify that the vehicle(s) have the safety equipment required by law, are being driven by a properly licensed individual, are properly insured, and comply with state and federal laws regulating the transportation of migrant farmworkers. Mecca Farms will implement and monitor a decal system or other arrangement reasonably intended to discover whether FLCs are using vehicles other than those disclosed to transport their workers. Mecca Farms will require, as part of its Form Contract, a requirement that the FLCs utilize only vehicles that have been verified by

WPB#562103.3

25

Mecca Farms to Iransport their employees and that all other vehicles utilized to transport employees are prohibited. In the event that FLCs are found to be utilizing unverified vehicles, Mecca Farms reserves the right to terminate such FLC’s contract with Mecca Farms if the FLC fails to correct the situation or has multiple violations within a single season.
C. Additional Packing House Case Non-Monetary Relief 1. Waiting Time. The compensable workday at the packing houses shall begin from the hour that the packing house workers are told to report to work at a Mecca packing house. As has been the practice during the time period covered by the lawsuit, the morning reporting time is usually communicated by the time posted on the board next to the time clock. The packing house workers shall also be paid for periods of inactivity during the workday such as breakdown periods in accordance with federal law. Mecca Farms, with the approval of the Field Class Representatives, the Packing House Class Representatives, and Class Counsel, is taking the actions required by Section VIII to prevent the violation of federal, state, or local laws on property owned or controlled by it and not for the purpose of exerting control over the FLCs or the employees of the FLCs.

IX. JUDGMENT TO BE ENTERED APPROVING THE SETTLEMENT If the Court enters its Order Tentatively Approving Settlement in the form of attached Exhibit A, or any other form thereof agreeable to the parties, and if after the hearing the Court approves the settlement embodied in this Stipulation and the Exhibits hereto without modification then a f’mal order shall be entered in this action: Approving the settlement contemplated in this Stipulation as lawful, fair, just, reasonable, and adequate, after considering, among other things, that the settlement was reached at arms length after good faith, arms’ length negotiations by experienced and capable class counsel and in the absence of

w~,~u562~03.3

26

collusion; the amount of the settlement; the likelihood of the claimants’ success in obtaining all relief
prayed for; the cost, complexity, and duration of the litigation if pursued through trial; the further disruption of the business activities of Mecca Farms; and any other matters bearing on the best
interests of the parties and directing its consummation and that all parties perform in accordance with
the terms of this Stipulation and attached Exhibits. Permanently and finally certifying, under Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of’Civil Procedure, the
following settlement class for the Field Case in this cause as follows:
All migrant and seasonal agricultural workers furnished to Mecca Farms, Inc. by M. Sanchez & Son, Inc., Mafia T. Sanchez, or Rogedo T. Roddguez from August 1997 through November 2001, inclusive. Permanently and f’mally certifying, under Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
the following settlement classes for the Packing House Case in this cause as follows: All agricultural workers employed or jointly employed by Defendants Mecca Farms, Inc. in Mecca Farms’ tomato packing house fi’om August 1997 through March 2002, inclusive. -andAll agricultural workers employed or jointly employed by Defendants Mecca Farms, Inc. in Mecca Farms’ pepper packing house from August 1997 through March 2002, inclusive.
Providing that members of the class who have duly and timely requested exclusion fi’om the class may thereafter pursue only their own individual remedies, if any, and not any class actions based on
the claims in the Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaints.
Dismissing this action with prejudice, except that the court retains jurisdiction to reopen the action to enforce the terms of the settlement specifically, upon cause shown that the settlement has
not been complied with, and that a party wishes to enforce the terms of the settlement specifically.
X. ENFORCEMENT OF THE AGREEMENT

WPB#562103.3

27

Only the Field Class Representatives, Packing House Class Representatives, Field Class Members or Packing House Class Members through Class Counsel, or Mecca Farms may seek to enforce this Agreement. The Courts with jurisdiction over the Field Case and the Packing House Case, respectively, alone shall have plenary authority to resolve all disputes arising under the Agreement. The Field Class Representatives, Field Accident Plaintiffs, Field Class Members, Packing House Class Representatives, Packing House Class Members, Class Counsel, and Mecca Farms agree to submit any action with respect to the Agreement or its enforcement to the jurisdiction of the United States District Court Southern District of Florida, and hereby waive any challenge to jurisdiction or venue over any such action or proceeding in the Southern District.
At the request of Class Counsel or Mecca Farms, Class Counsel and Mecca Farms shall confer, as necessary, and an earnest effort shall be made by the Parties to resolve promptly any differences or any disputes regarding the interpretation, implementation, or enforcement of the Agreement. If any issue is not resolved informally, Class Counsel or Mecca Farms may seek relief from the Court. Prior to seeking relief from the Court, the Parties agree to submit the issue to mediation before Judge Gerald Wetherington (Retired) or such other mediator as is agreed to between the Parties. Seven (7) days following the mediator issuing written f’mdings that the positions of the Parties are irreconcilable or that the issue cannot be otherwise resolved through mediation, the Parties may seek relief from the Court in the Field Case or the Packing House Case.

XI. EFFECT OF FAILURE TO CONSUMMATE SETTLEMENT If the settlement contemplated hereby is not consummated because of Mecca Farms’ default in its payment obligations under Section V or Section VII above or default in its obligations under Section VIII above and said default remains uncured for a period of thirty (30) days, then Class Counsel shall upon motion with notice to counsel for the defaulting party or parties, be entitled to

~,8~562103.3

28

entry ofjudgrnent and attorneys fees and costs for seeking the execution of the judgment against the defaulting party or parties for the total of all sums remaining unpaid by that party or parties under Section V and Section VII above, and the Plaintiffs may seek to execute on the judgment.
In the event that the Agreement is not approved by the Court or, for whatever reason, the Settlement Effective Date does not occur, this Agreement shall become null and void unless the Parties agree otherwise in writing, and all negotiations and proceedings relating thereto shall be without prejudice to the rights of the Parties, and they shall proceed thereafter in all respects as if this Agreement had not been executed and the related orders not entered, preserving in that event all of their respective claims and defenses in the action, and otherwise restoring all of the Parties to their respective positions immediately prior to its execution, and neither this Agreement nor any of the motions, notices, orders, or other documents relating to it may be admissible in further proceedings.

XII. FURTHER LITIGATION BY FLORIDA LEGAL SERVICES~ INC. The parties to this stipulation recognize that Rule 4-5.6(b) of the Rules regulating the Florida Bar does not permit settlement agreements that restrict an attorney’s capacity to practice law. Legal Services by its undersigned attorney, hereby states that it has no knowledge of other persons who may have claims against the Mecca Farms arising from the matters resolved herein. Legal Services will not seek out or solicit any persons other than the claimants and class members referred to in this Agreement regarding claims arising out of the acts or omissions complained of in this action. Legal Services hereby states that it does not intend to file any further litigation or administrative complaints arising from the 1996-97, 1997-98, 1998-99, 1999-2000, 2000-01 and 2001-02 South Florida vegetable seasons relating to matters that are the subject of the two actions. Except as provided for by Section IV above, this provision shall in no way prevent Legal Services from providing legal representation to the Plaintiffs or other farmworkers with regard to claims arising from this period or

w~B#562~03.3

29

subsequent seasons or in claims arising from legal bases and factual circumstances other than those raised in this action, including, but not limited to claims brought under the Florida Workers’ Compensation Law, Fla. Stat. § 440.01 et seq. and/or the Florida Unemployment Compensation Law, Fla. Stat. §§ 443,011 et seq.
XIII. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS A. Construction of Agreement Each Party has been given an opportunity to participate in the drafting and preparation of this Agreement. Hence, any rule that the Agreement should be construed against its dratter shall not apply here. B. Entire Agreement The Parties represent and warrant that no promise or inducement has been offered or made except as set forth herein and that they are entering into and executing this Agreement without reliance on any statement or representation not set forth within this Agreement. The consideration stated herein is the sole consideration for this Agreement. This Agreement reflects the entire agreement between the Parties and supersedes all prior or contemporaneous agreements, discussions, or representations, oral or written, with respect to the subject matter hereof. C. Cooperation The Parties agree to cooperate to seek approval of and implement the terms of this Agreement. The Parties agree to cooperate in seeking the Court’s approval of the Agreement at the Fairness Hearing. D. Modification This Agreement may not be modified or supplemented orally. E. No Waiver

WPB#562103.3

30

The waiver by any Party of any breach of the Agreement shall not be deemed or construed as a waiver of any other breach, whether prior, subsequent, or contemporaneous, of the Agreement.
F. Successors and Assigns This Agreement shall be binding upon, and shall inure to the benefit of, the successors, assigns, devisees, executors, administrators, heirs, and legal representatives of the Parties and the Released Persons; provided, however, that no assignment by any Party shall operate to relieve such Party of its obligations hereunder. G. Commitment to Defend Agreement The Field Class Representatives, the Field Accident Plaintiffs, Field Class Members, Packing House Class Representatives, Packing House Class Members, Class Counsel, and Mecca Farms shall defend this Agreement from any legal challenge whether by appeal, collateral attack, or objection. H. Calculation of Time In computing any period of time prescribed or allowed by this Agreement, unless otherwise stated, such computation or calculation shall be made consistent with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 6(a) and (e). L Notices All notices and other communications required under this Agreement to be provided to the Parties shall be in writing and delivered either personally, by facsimile, or by depositing the same, postage prepaid, in the United States mail, addressed to the Party hereto to whom the same is directed at the following addresses: To the Plaintiffs and Class Members:
Migrant Farmworker Justice Project 508 Lucerne Avenue Lake Worth, FL 33460 Attn: Cathleen Caron, Esq.

WPB#562103.3

3 1

Fax No. 561-582-4884
To Mecca Farms:
Mecca Farms, Inc. P.O. Box 541779 Lake Worth, Florida 33454-1779 Attn: Gary Smigiel, Esq. Fax No.561-968-3601 With a copy to: Henry S. Wulf, Esq. Carlton Fields, P.A. 222 Lakeview Avenue, Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33410 Fax No. 561-659-7368
The Parties may from time to time change their address for the purposes of this Section by
providing written notice, return receipt requested, of such change to the other Parties.
J. Counterparts This Agreement may be executed in multiple actual or telecopied counterparts, each of which
when so executed shall constitute an original. The executed signature pages from each actual or
telecopied counterpart may be joined together and attached to one such original, which shall
constitute one and the same insmunent.
IC Knowing And Voluntary Agreement In entering into this Agreement individually and on behalf of the Field Settlement Class and
the Packing House Settlement Class, the Field Class Representatives, the Field Accident Plaintiffs,
and the Packing House Class Representatives represent that they and the Field Settlement Class and
the Packing House Settlement Class have been and are adequately represented in this matter by Class
Counsel, they have consulted such legal counsel before entering this Agreement and have been
advised as to the meaning of the terms of the Agreement and understand the terms of the Agreement,
and they are executing this Agreement freely and voluntarily and without coercion or threats of any

kind. The Field Class Representatives, the Field Accident Plaintiffs, and the Packing House Class Representatives represent that they have obtained the consent of Class Counsel to all the terms of this Agreement, including but not limited to the terms relating to payment of attorneys’ fees and costs, which shall be manifested by the signature of Class Counsel indicated below, and that they have authorized Class Counsel to execute this Agreement on behalf of the Field Class Representatives, the Field Accident Plaintiffs, the Packing House Class Representatives, the Field Settlement Class, and the Packing House Settlement Class. Class Counsel likewise represent that they are authorized to execute this Agreement on behalf of the Field Class Representatives, the Field Accident Plaintiffs, the Packing House Class Representatives, the Field Settlement Class, and the Packing House Settlement Class and thereby bind the Field Class Representatives, the Field Accident Plaintiffs, the Packing House Class Representatives, the Field Class Members, and the Packing House Class Members to this Agreement.
L. Miscellaneous. The Field Class Representatives, the Field Accident Plaintiff.s, and the Packing House Class Representatives and Mecca Farms shall not, directly or indirectly, in any way exercise, and they, and all of them, do hereby waive, any and all rights they, or any of them have or may have to appeal from any order of court entered pursuant to and in accordance with this Stipulation. Neither this Agreement nor any documents executed or prepared, acts done or orders entered pursuant to this Agreement shall be construed as an admission by Mecca Farms, of the validity of any claims asserted in this action or of the Mecca Farms’ liability herein or of any wrongdoing or of any act or omission by them, nor construed as an admission of any fault or omission in any statement or document, nor offered or received in evidence in any civil, criminal, or administrative action or proceeding against any party other than such proceedings as may be necessary to consummate or

wvB#562~0~.3

33

enforce this Agreement and attached Exhibits, and other than to the extent necessary to prove the terms of this Agreement and the attached Exhibits in any other action or proceedings.
Class Counsel and counsel for Mecca Farms agree that they will not solicit or advise potential class members to request exclusion from the class and will not represent or arrange representation for, any potential class member in requesting exclusion from the potential class and/or filing a separate action.
The Field Class Representatives and the Packing House Class Representatives will make good faith efforts to give notice to as many class members as possible and will make a good faith effort to foster the maximum res judieata effect of this settlement. To this end, Mecca Farms will provide Class Counsel any information in its possession which is needed to identify the members of the class, obtain their most recent known addresses and to compute the amounts due each class member under this agreement.
The Field Class Representatives, the Field Accident Plaintiffs, and the Packing House Class Representatives and their counsel will cooperate with the Mecca Farms in resisting a collateral attack on the judgment contemplated in this Agreement.
This Agreement is and shall be binding upon the predecessors and successors of Mecca Farms and shall inure to the benefit of the Mecca Farms’ predecessors, successors, subsidiaries, shareholders, affiliates, representatives, assigns, agents, officers, directors, attorneys, contractors general and limited partners, and employees, and in the case of the individual members of the settlement class, their heirs, successors, assigns, executors and administrators.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties by their counsel have signed this Stipulation of Proposed Settlement Agreement.

WPB#562103.3

34

CARRANZA VIRGINIA PEREZ
DAVID MATIAS

~FRANCL~IA HERNANDEZ
~:..~’~,~,,’:v,,~ ~.,..,~- ~-GLORIA ROBLERO RAFAEL GONZALEZ

JORG’P_,L IA -VELA SQUEZ
~._ :.,," ~,,’--~<r~.~ ~.,....,~- %
MARIA .lOSE ALARCON

WPB#562103.3

35

MECCA FARMS, INC. By:
Its: . ~-~., ~-._
CARLTON FIELDS, P.A. 222 Lakeview Avenue, Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401-6149
Joseph Ianfi"o, Jr./ Florida Car No. 655~I Email: jianno@carltonfields.com Henry S. Wulf, Esq. Florida Bar. No. 0056049 Email: hwulf@carltonfields.com Attorneys for Mecca Farms

Florida Bar No. 0468266 Gregory S. Schell Florida Bar No. 287199 Lillian Himles Florida Bar No. 533777 Migrant Farmworker Justice Project 508 Lucerne Avenue Lake Worth, FL 33460 Telephone: (561) 582-3921 Facsimile: (561) 582-4884 Email: cathleen@floridalegal.org Email: greg@floridalegal.org Email: lillian@floridalegal.o..rg
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

WPB#562103.3

36

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION
Case No. 01-9013-CIV.-RYSKAMP Magistrate Judge Vitunac
Luz-Carranza, et. al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
VS.
Mecca Farms, Inc., et. all.,
Defendants. /
PLAINTIFFS AND DEFENDANTS MARIA T. SANCHEZ AND M. SANCHEZ & SON, INC. JOINT MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT AND SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM OF LAW
The Plaintiffs and Defendants Maria T. Sanchez and M. Sanchez & Son, Inc. (hereafter "Sanchez" and "M. Sanchez" respectively) have reached agreement on a proposed settlement of
this action and hereby jointly move the Court pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure for an Order:
1. Certifying a Settlement Class as follows: All migrant and seasonal agricultural
workers furnished to Mecca Farms, Inc. by M. Sanchez & Son, Inc., Maria T. Sanchez, or
Rogerio T. Rodriguez from August 1997 through November 2001, inclusive.
2. Conditionally approving the proposed settlementas set forth in the Settlement
Agreement, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "F."
3. Directing the Plaintiff’to provide notice to the class members. 4. Approving the notices to be published in Spanishlanguage publications and on I , j

Spanish language radio stations as attached as Exhibits "B-E" (in the English language) 5. Holding a Fairness Hearing on April 1, 2003 at 9:00 AM, jointly with the Fairness
Hearing on the Plaintiffs’ settlement agreement with Defendant Mecca in the same matter, to determine whether the settlement should be finally approved by the Court and judgment entered.
In making this Motion, counsel for the respective settlement parties stipulate and represent to the Court:
1. That the Settlement Agreement was reached through extensive arms-length negotiations between counsel for the Plaintiff and counsel for Sanchez and M. Sanchez.
2. That Plaintiffs’ counsel represent that they are experienced in the representation of farmworkers in civil matters and are well qualified to evaluate the fairness of the proposed settlement on behalf of the members of the class.
3. That the Settlement Agreement is fair, reasonable, and adequate as to the members of the class in light of the corrective actions promised by the Defendants, as compared to the uncertainties of litigation of these claims, and the significant cost, time, and efforts this litigation would entail on behalf of all parties, regardless of the outcome.
4. That the Settlement Agreement represents the proposed compromise of disputed claims and in no way constitutes an admission of liability by Sanchez or M. Sanchez with respect to any of the material allegations of the Complaint and Amended Complaint. Nor does it constitute an admission by the Plaintiffs that they would not ultimately prevail on the merits should these claims go to trial.
For the reasons stated, we respectfi~lly request that the Settlement Agreement be conditionally approved, the proposed notice be ordered to be published, and the other provisions

of this Joint Motion be granted.
MEMORANDUM OF LAW A. Introduction
To conclude the Settlement outline above as it pertains to the Court contained in this action under the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act, Rule 23(e) of Fed.R.Civ.P. requires that there be notice to the Settlement Class, a fairness hearing, and this Court’s approval. Before scheduling a fairness hearing and ordering notice to the Settlement Class, this Court must be presented with a settlement that warrants implementing Rule 23(e) procedures. The purpose of obtaining preliminary approval "’is to ascertain whether there is any reason to notify the class members of the proposed settlement and proceed with the fairness hearing." Armstrong v. Bd. of School Directors, 616 l:.2d 305,314 (7~ Cir. 1980).
In determining whether to preliminarily approve a class action settlement, the court assesses whether there is "probable cause" to provide notice and hold a fairness hearing. In re Mid-Atlantic Toyota Antitrust Litig., 564 F.Supp. 1379, 1385 (D.Md. 1983). An inquiry into the ultimate fairness of the Settlement is not necessary at this point, since there will be a further hearing at which the fairness of the Settlement will be addressed, at~er notice to the Settlement Class. Consequently, even if there are aspects of a proposed class action settlement that raise questions, they "should not derail the orderly workings of the settlement process at this point.’" Id._~. at 1386. Preliminary approval should be denied only if there are apparent grounds to doubt the fairness of the settlement, or other "obvious deficiencies," none of which exist here, as discussed below. Manuel for Complex Litig., §30.41 (3d ed. 1993). See also H. Newberg,

Newberg on Class Actions, §l 1.25 at 11-37 (3d ed. 1993) (settlement should be preliminarily approved as long as it is within the range of possible judicial approval). B. The Terms of the Settlement
Since the filing of the Complaint and Amended Complaint, the Plaintiffs and Sanchez and M. Sanchez have worked to resolve this matter. The Settlement Agreement reflects that Sanchez and M. Sanchez ag-cee to: file W-2 forms or amended W-2 forms with the government for the class representatives and class members who were employed by them between August 1997 and November 2001, inclusive and who request such filing; provide to counsel for the Plaintiffs any and all records in their possession, custody or control relating to their work for or services they have provided to Mecca between 1997 through 2001, inclusive; and assign to the Plaintiffs any and all sums held in trust or otherwise due and owing to them by Mecca Farms, Inc. ("Mecca") for services provided prior to June 1, 2002. In exchange, the Plaintiffs and putative Class members agree to voluntarily waive, release, and forever discharge Sanchez and M. Sanchez for the claims alleged in the Amended Complaint.
The Settlement, which was reached after extensive arms-length negotiations between counsel with the duty of vigorously representing their clients, clearly meets the standard for preliminary approval. The dollar amount is, in and of itself; sufficient to meet the low threshold requirement for preliminary approval.
C. The Settlement Should be Preliminarily Approved as Fair, Reasonable, and Adequate Judicial approval of class action settlements requires a two-step process. In the first step,
the court makes a preliminary decision as to whether the settlement falls "within the range of

possible judicial approval." H.Newberg, Newberg on Class Actions, §11.25 at ll-37 (3d ed.
1993). Once the settlement is found to be within the range of possible approval, a final approval
hearing is scheduled and notice is provided to the class, ld_._~. The second step involves final
determination, following a hearing at which pertinent evidence and any objections by Class
members may be considered, whether the settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate from the
standpoint of the class. Id___~. at §l 1.41. On the instant Motion, the Court is presented with the
initial matter of preliminarily evaluating the Settlement.
In Warren v. City of Tampa, 693 F.Supp. 1051, 1054 (M.D. Fla. 1988), aff’d, 893 F.2d 347 (11th Cir. 1989), the district court described its review of class action settlements as follows:
The Court initially recognizes the principle that settlements are highly favored in the law. Miller v. Republic Nat’l Life Ins. Co., 559 F.2d 426 (5th Cir. 1977). The Court is required to make a two part determination that: 1) there is no fraud or collusion in reaching settlement, and 2) the settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable. Accord Benett v. Behring Corp., 737 F.2d 983 (11’h Cir. 1984). The evaluation of whether a settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court.
Id___~. at 987. See also Ex Parte First National Bank of Jasper, 1997 Ala. Lexis 475 at *7-8
(Ala. 1997) (Settlement classes "promote the strong policy favoring settlements.").
In making this determination, the trial court is entitled to rely upon the judgment of
experienced counsel for the parties. Behrens v..Wo.metco~ 118 F.R.D. 534,538 (S.D. Fla. 1988), aff’d, 899 F.2d 21 (11’~ Cir. 1990). Moreover, there is a strong initial presumption that the
compromise is fair and reasonable. In re Chicken Antitrust Litig., 560 F.Supp. 998 (N.D. Ga.
1980), all’d, 669 F.2d 228, 238. Accordingly, courts exercise restraint in examining proposed
settlements and recognize that settlements, by definition, are compromises that need not satisfy
every concern of the parties but may fall anywhere within a broad range of upper and lower

limits. In lieu of a more extended inquiry into the claims asserted, courts have concentrated on
the negotiating process by which the settlement was reached. Weinberger v. Kendrick, 698 F.2d 61, 74 (2d Cir. 1982), corrected on other grounds on reh’g, [1982-1983 Transfer Binder] Fed.Sec.L.Rep. (CCH) ¶90,074 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 818 (1983). The courts insist that a settlement be the result of "ann’s length negotiations" effected by counsel possessing the "experience and ability . . . necessary to effective representation of the class’ interests." Weinberger, 698 F.2d at 74 (citation omitted). Once counsel’s experience is established, courts give such counsel’s "opinion . . . supporting the settlement . . . ’considerable weight."’ In re Saxon Sec. Litig., [1985-1986 Transfer Binder] Fed.Sec.L.Rep. (CCH) ¶92,414 at 92,525 (S.D.N.Y. 1985). This is done because courts recognize that "the parties’ counsel are best able to weigh the relative strengths and weaknesses of their arguments." Id_._~.
As discussed above, the Settlement was reached after extensive arms-length negotiations between counsel. As in the litigation itself, both sides aggressively presented their positions, and the negotiations required continuous efforts over a number of months to bear fruit. There was nothing collusive about any of the settlement negotiations or the ultimate agreement reached. The Settlement Agreement is fully supported and recommended by counsel for all parties. There are no terms in the Settlement that militate against preliminary approval.
The value of the settlement is enhanced by the fact that it will be provided to Class members now, without the delay, burden, and risks of continued litigation. Once this Court approves the Settlement Agreement, this litigation should be concluded, with the exception of the filing of the necessary W-2 lbrms for the specified Class members.

D. Conclusion For the reasons set forth above, the Plaintiffs and Sanchez and M. Sanchez respectfully
request that this Court grant preliminary approval of the Settlement, preliminarily certify a settlement class, and direct that Notice and Settlement Agreement be published in the forms submitted with the Settlement Agreement in anticipation of a final fairness hearing to be held by the Court, at which time the Court will determine whether the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate, and in the best interests of the putative Class.
Dated this ~day of March, 2003.
Respectfully submitted,
Florida Bar No. 0468266 Gregory S. Schell Florida Bar No. 287199 Lillian Hirales Florida Bar No. 533777 Migrant Farmworker Justice Project 508 Lucerne Avenue Lake Worth, FL 33460 Telephone: (561) 582-3921 Facsimile: (561 ) 582-4884 Email: cathleen@floridalegal.org Email: greg@floridalegal.org Email: lillian@floridalegal.org Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Don R. Boswell, Esq. Akers & Boswell, P.A. 2875 South Ocean Boulevard, Suite 200 Palm Beach, FL 33480 Facsimile: 561-547-3955 Attorney for Maria T. Sanchez and M. Sanchez & Son, Inc. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and accurate copy of the foregoing has been delivered via U.S. mail, postage pre-paid, to Henry Wulf, Esq., Carlton Fields, 222 Lakeview Avenue, Suite 1400, West Palm Beach, FL 33401-6149, on the t/,.Te’-day of March, 2003.
e Caron ~
8

EXHIBIT "A"
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION
Case No. 01-9013-CIV.-RYSKAMP Magistrate Judge Vitunac
Luz-Carranza, et. al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
VS.
Mecca Farms, Inc., et. al., Defendants.
ORDER ON MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT BETWEEN PLAINTIFFS AND DEFENDANTS MARIA T. SANCHEZ AND M.
SANCHEZ & SON~ INC. This cause having come before this Court on the joint motion of Plaintiffs and
Defendants Maria T. Sanchez and M. Sanchez & Son, Inc. (hereafter "Sanchez" and "M. Sanchez" respectively) for the entry of an order relating to the settlement of this action between said parties; the Plaintiffs maintaining that individually and as class representatives that they
would ultimately prevail on all issues in this action, but deeming the proposed settlement set forth in the Settlement Agreement filed with the motion as Exhibit "F" to be in the best interest of themselves and the class and consenting to the entry of the following order; Sanchez and M.
Sanchez deny all liability and maintaining that it would ultimately prevail on all issues in this action, but deeming said settlement to be in their best interest and consenting to the entry of this
order; and the Court being fully advised in the premises and approving the procedures set forth

herein;
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: The Settlement Agreement executed by the aforementioned parties is hereby tentatively approved, based on this Court’s finding that there has been a showing that the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and sufficient to warrant submitting it to the class, and that the Settlement was reached by extensive arms-length negotiations between counsel for the aforementioned parties. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that: 1. The parties shall take all actions required by the Settlement and those relating to the consummation of said Settlement. 2. The class is hereby certified for purposes of the Settlement only, as follows: All migrant and seasonal agricultural workers furnished to Mecca Farms, Inc. by M. Sanchez & Son, Inc., Maria T. Sanchez, or Rogerio T. Rodriguez from August 1997 through November 200 I, inclusive. 3. The class will be notified of the Proposed Settlement as follows: (a) The forms of class notice which are attached as Exhibits "B-E" are approved by
the Court. Plaintiffs’ counsel will publish the notices as set forth in the Settlement Agreement. (b) Plaintiffs’ counsel is authorized to respond to inquiries from Class members concerning the Proposed Settlement. (c) The Court finds that the notices provided constitute the best notice to the Class practicable under the circumstances, comports with due process, and is due and

sufficient notice for all purposes to all persons entitled to such notice. 4. The settlement notice will give all Class members the choice of opting out of the class or remaining in the class. The settlement notice will also explain the manner in which the Class members may make a claim and the consequences of neither opting out nor making a claim.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that:

1. A hearing shall be held on April 1, 2003 at 9:00 A.M., jointly with the Fairness

Hearing on the Plaintiffs’ settlement agreement with Defendant Mecca in the same matter, to

determine the lawfulness, reasonableness, adequacy, and fairness of the proposed settlement, and

whether judgment should be entered as provided in the Settlement Agreement.

2. Any member of the Class who objects to the approval of the Proposed Settlement or to

the judgment to be entered thereon, may appear at the aforesaid hearing and show cause why the Proposed Settlement should not be approved as lair, reasonable, and adequate, and why judgment

should not be entered thereon in accordance to the procedures described in the Settlement

Agreement. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in West Palm Beach, Florida, this 2003.

day of

copies furnished to: counsel of record

KENNETH L. RYSKAMP United States District Judge

Cathleen Caron, Esq. LiIlian Hirales, Esq. Gregory S. Sehell, Esq. Attorneys for Plaintiff Migrant Farmworker Justice Project 508 Lucerne Avenue Lake Worth, FL 33460 Facsimile: (561)-582-4884
Joseph Ianno, Jr. Henry S. Wulf, Esq. Carlton Fields, P.a. 222 Lakeview Avenue, Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401-6149 Facsimile: (561) 659-7368
Don R. Boswell Akers & Boswell, P.A. 2875 South Ocean Boulevard, Suite 200 Palm Beach, FL 33480 Facsimile: 561-547-3955

EXHIBIT B

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION

Case No. 01-9013-CIV.-RYSKAMP Magistrate Judge Vitunac

Luz-Carranza, et. al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

VS.
Mecca Farms, Inc., et. al.,

Defendants.

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF ACTION, CLASS ACTION NOTICE, PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION,
AND SETTLEMENT HEARING
ATTENTION: ALL PERSONS WHO HAVE WORKED WITH THE FARM LABOR CONTRACTORS ROY RODRIGUEZ, MARIA SANCHEZ, OR M. SANCHEZ & SON, INC. PLANTING, CULTIVATING, OR HARVESTING VEGETABLES BETWEEN AUGUST 1, 1997 AND NOVEMBER 19, 2001.
1. What is this Notice about?
This Notice is an official court notice to let you know about a "class action" lawsuit in which you may be a class member if you have worked in the agricultural operations of Mecca Farms, Inc. with the contractors Roy Rodriguez, Maria Sanchez, or M. Sanchez & Son, Inc. between August 1, 1997 and November 19, 2001. It also describes a proposed settlement of the lawsuit and how you may claim your share of the settlement. If you do not think the settlement is fair, you can object, and this Notice will tell you how to make such an objection. Finally, it also informs you of your rights if you do not want to be a member of the class.
2. What is this "class action" lawsuit?
A "class action lawsuit" is a lawsuit in which a few people represent a large group of

people. They do that in an effort to resolve the similar legal clafins of all the members of the group at one time. Here, 8 workers (Delma Luz Carranza, Francelia Hernandez, Virginia Perez, Carlos Ramos, Adolfo Perez, Gloria Roblero, David Matias, and Rafacl Gonzalez), have petitioned the court to represent "migrant and seasonal agricultural workers furnished to Mecca Farms, Inc. by M. Sanchez & Son, Inc., Maria T. Sanchez, or Rogerio T. Rodriguez from August 1997 through November 2001, inclusive."
3. What is the lawsuit about?
The 8 workers who filed the lawsuit alleged that Mecca Farms, Inc. with the farm labor contractors Roy Rodriguez, Maria Sanchez, and M. Sanchez & Son, Inc. violated certain provisions of the federal Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act. The lawsuit alleged that Mecca and the contractors failed to pay the workers the minimum wage ($5.15) for all the hours worked by, among other things, failing to pay for all the buckets of produce picked and making unlawful deductions from the workers pay from August 1997 through November 2001. In addition, the suit alleges that Mecca and the contractors failed to maintain accurate payroll records and did not provide the workers with correct information on their wage statements. The Court has not decided whether the workers are correct on these claims. Mecca and the contractors deny any liability for these claims and any wrongdoing.
4. What is the status of the lawsuit?
After negotiating, the workers, Mecca Farms, Inc., Roy Rodriguez, Mafia Sanchez, and M. Sanchez & Son, Inc. agreed to a proposed settlement of the lawsuit. Your rights could be affected by this settlement so you should read this Notice carefully to decide whether you want to be part of the class and you think the settlement is fair.
5. Class Certified for Purposes of Settlement Only Solely for the purposes of this settlement, Mecca and the contractors have consented to the certification of the class, as defined above. This means that the 8 workers that brought the suit are representing, in the settlement agreement, the interests of thousands of workers who worked on Mecca Farms’ operations with crews headed by Roy Rodriguez, Maria Sanchez, and M. Sanchez & Son, Inc. between August 1997 and November 2001.
6. What are the terms of the proposed settlement?
If the Court approves the settlement that has been proposed, workers who file claims will share in an Unlimited Joint Class Settlement fund. The fund is a joint fund because there is another class action lawsuit being settled against Mecca Farms and the contractors who furnish workers to its packing house operations.
7. What will workers get under the settlement?
All workers who were employed by Roy Rodriguez, Maria Sanchez, or M. Sanchez &

Son, Inc., to work on the agricultural operations of Mecca between August 1997 through November 2001 will be eligible to share in the settlement fund. Each eligible worker will receive $5.00 per day for work in the fields. If there is verifiable proof that the social security (FICA) taxes were paid for every day worked, the claimant will receive 50% less per day than otherwise provided for. The worker will also have provide identification and proof of employment with the Defendants.
8. Who else ~ets money from the settlement? In addition, Twenty Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00) will be donated to one or more non-profit social service agencies which serve farmworkers in Martin County or Palm Beach County. Mecca Farms is also paying the Florida Legal Services Migrant Farmworker Justice Project, the lawyers for the workers in this case an additional $200,000.00 to pay the costs and fees they incurred to bring the two cases (for the field workers and the packing house workers). The $200,000.00 is separate from and in addition to what the workers will receive.
9. What are my rights as a member of the "class"? As a member of the class, you have the right to receive money from the settlement. By receiving the money you are also giving up your rights to bring a separate claim against Mecca Farms, Inc., Roy Rodriguez, Maria Sanchez, or M. Sancbez & Son, Inc. for having violated the specific rigbts which are alleged in the lawsuit during the time period of August 1997 through November 2001.
10. How do I make a claim as a class member?
TO CLAIM YOUR CLASS MONEY YOU MUST:
FILL OUT A CLAIM FORM BEFORE FEBRUARY 1, 2004. TO OBTAIN A CLAIM FORM CALL FLORIDA LEGAL SERVICES FARMWORKER JUSTICE PROJECT AT 1-800-277-7447 OR GO TO ITS OFFICE AT 508 LUCERNE AVENUE, LAKE WORTH, FLORIDA 33460 MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY BETWEEN 8:30 AM AND 5:00 PM.
If you fail to make a claim and you do not "opt-out" as described in paragraph 1 l, you are giving up your rights to ever bring an action against Mecca Farms, Inc., Roy Rodriguez, Maria Sanchez, or M. Sanchez & Son, Inc. for the claims alleged in the lawsuit.
11. How do I opt-out of this class action? If you do NOT want to participate in the class action, you have the right to be excluded from the class and not receive any money from the settlement. If you choose to be excluded from the class, you will NEVER be able to make any claim for this settlement money; however, you may have the right to bring your own lawsuit against Mecca Farms, Inc., Roy Rodriguez, Maria Sanchez, or M. Sanchez & Son, Inc. within the time period allowed under the law for the claims alleged in the lawsuit. You must opt-out before

July 1, 2003. If you fail to opt-out by July 1, 2003, you are giving up your right to be excluded from the class, which means that you can not bring a separate law suit for the same claims alleged in the current law suit for the time period of August 1997 through November 2001. If you fail to opt-out you will be bound by the settlement agreement and are eligible to file a claim for the settlement money. To be excluded from the class action you must call the Florida Legal Services Fannworker Justice Project at 1-800-2777447 or go to its office at 508 Lucerne Avenue, Lake Worth, Florida 33460 Monday through Friday between 8:30 PM and 5:00 PM to fill out a form stating your desire to be excluded from the class. If you choose to "opt-out" of the class action, you should consult a lawyer as to your rights.

12. What if I think the settlement agreement is unfair?

There will be a hearing before Judge Kenneth Ryskamp at

on

, 2003, at

the United States Courthouse, 701 Clematis Street, West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 to

decide whether the settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate, if you want to object to

the settlement you must file your objection with the Clerk of the Court before

,

2003. If you do write the Clerk, at the United States Courthouse, 701 Clematis Street,

West Palm Beach, Florida 3340 l, you should include in your letter the name of the case

(Carranza v. Mecca Farms, Inc.) and the case number (01-9013). You must also send a

copy of your objections to Henry Wulf, Esq., Carlton Fields, 222 Lakeview Avenue,

Suite 1400, West Palm Beach, FL 33401, one of the attorneys for Mecca. This hearing

will be your only opportunity to object to the terms of the settlement.

You do not have to be present at the hearing to receive your class share of the settlement money. If you fill out the form claiming your share of the settlement, you will receive your class share, provided the settlement is approved.
13. For further information: If you have questions about the settlement, need help understanding this Notice, or wish to obtain a complete copy of the Settlement Agreement you can contact the lawyers for the workers who brought the lawsuit by writing or calling:
Florida Legal Services Migrant Farmworker Justice Project 508 Lucerne Avenue Lake Worth, FL 33460 Telephone: 1-800-277-7447

DO NOT CALL THE COURT OR THE CLERK OF THE COURT

EXHIBIT C
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No.01-9096-Civ. Middlebrooks/Bandstra
Carmelina Martinez, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
VS.
Mecca Farms, Inc., et al.,
Defendants.
SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF ACTION, CLASS ACTION DETERMINATION AND NOTICE, PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION~ AND SETTLEMENT HEARING
ATTENTION: ALL PERSONS WHO HAVE WORKED FOR MARIA MEDRANO OR CANDIDO MUNOZ IN PACKING HOUSES IN LANTANA, FLORIDA PACKING VEGETABLES BETWEEN OCTOBER 1, 1996 AND MARCH 1, 2002.
1. What is this Notice about? This Notice is an official court notice to let you know about a "class action" lawsuit in which you may be a class member if you have worked in packing houses in Lantana, Florida for Maria Medrano or Candido Munoz packing vegetables between October 1, 1996 and March 1, 2002. It also describes a proposed settlement of the lawsuit and how you may claim your share of the settlement. If you do not think the settlement is fair, you can object, and this Notice will tell you how to make such an objection. Finally, it also informs you of your rights if you do not want to be a member of the class.
2. What is this "class action" lawsuit? A "class action lawsuit" is a lawsuit in which a few people represent a large group of people. They do that in an effort to resolve the similar legal claims of all the members of the group at one time. Here, the court has granted permission to 4 workers (Carmelina Martinez, Maria Ester Escobar

Torres, Maria Jose Alarcon, and Luis Roca), to represent two classes consisting of"all migrant agricultural workers employed or jointly employed by Defendant Mecca Farms, Inc., in Mecca Farms’ tomato packing house frolll October 1996 through March 2002, inclusive" and "all migrant agricultural workers employed or jointly employed by Defendant Mecca Farms, Inc., in Mecca Farms’ pepper packing house from October 1996 through March 2002, inclusive."
3. What is the lawsuit about?
The 4 workers who filed the lawsuit alleged that Mecca Farms, Inc. with the farm labor contractors Maria Medrano, Medrano Harvesting & Packing, Inc., Candido Munoz, A-Z Grading & Packing, Inc., Candido Packing, Inc., and Candido Munoz, inc. violated certain provisions of the federal Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act. The lawsuit alleged that Mecca and the contractors failed to pay the workers the minimum wage ($5.15 and hour) for all the hours worked and overtime wages for the hours worked over forty hours in a work week from October 1996 through March 2002. In addition, the suit alleges that Mecca and the contractors failed to maintain accurate payroll records and did not provide the workers with correct information on their wage statements. The Court has not decided whether the workers are correct on these claims. Mecca and the contractors deny any liability for these claims and any wrongdoing.
4. What is the status of the lawsuit?
After negotiating, the workers, Mecca Farms, Inc., Maria Medrano, Medrano Harvesting & Packing, Inc., Candido Munoz, A-Z Grading & Packing, Inc., Candido Packing, Inc., and Candido Munoz, Inc. agreed to a proposed settlement of the lawsuit. Your rights could be affected by this settlement so you should read this Notice carefully to decide whether you want to be part of the class and you think the settlement is fair.
5. What are the terms of the proposed settlement?
If the Court approves the settlement that has been proposed, workers who file claims will share in an Unlimited Joint Class Settlement fund. The ti~nd is a joint fund because there is another class action lawsuit being settled against Mecca Farms for the workers who cultivated and harvested vegetables on Mecca’s operations with the contractors Roy Rodriguez, Maria Sanchez, and M. Sanchez & Son, Inc. between August 1, 1997 and November 19, 2001.
6. What will workers get under the settlement?
All workers who were employed by Maria Medrano, Medrano Harvesting & Packing, Inc., Candido Munoz, A-Z Grading & Packing, Inc., Candido Packing, Inc., or Candido Munoz, Inc. to work in Mecca Farms’ packing houses between August 1997 and March 2002 may be eligible to share in the settlement fund. Each eligible worker will receive $4.00 per day for work in the Tomato Packing House and $3.00 per day for work in the Pepper Packing House. If there is verifiable proof that the social security (FICA) taxes were paid for every day worked, the claimant will receive 50% less per day than otherwise provided for. The worker will also have provide identification and proof of employment with the Defendants.

7. Who else gets money from the settlement?
In addition, Twenty Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00) will be donated to one or more non-profit social service agencies which serve farmworkers in Martin County or Palm Beach County. Mecca Farms is also paying the Florida Legal Services Migrant Farmworker Justice Project, the lawyers for the workers in this case an additional $200,000.00 to pay the costs and fees they incurred to bring the two cases (for the field workers and the packing house workers). The $200,000.00 is separate from and in addition to what the workers will receive.
8. What are my rights as a member of the "class"?
As a member of the class, you are eligible to receive money from the settlement. By receiving the money you are also giving up your rights to bring a separate claim against Mecca Farms, Inc., Maria Medrano, Medrano Harvesting & Packing, Inc., Candido Munoz, A-Z Grading & Packing, Inc., Candido Packing, Inc., or Candido Munoz, Inc. for having violated the specific laws which are alleged in the lawsuit during the time period from October 1996 through March 2002.
9. How do I make a claim as a class member?
TO CLAIM YOUR CLASS MONEY YOU MUST:
FILL OUT A CLAIM FORM BEFORE FEBRUARY 1, 2004. TO OBTAIN A CLAIM FORM CALL FLORIDA LEGAL SERVICES FARMWORKER JUSTICE PROJECT AT 1-800-2777447 OR GO TO ITS OFFICE AT 508 LUCERNE AVENUE, LAKE WORTH, FLORIDA 33460 MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY BETWEEN 8:30 AM AND 5:00 PM.
If you fail to make a claim and you do not "opt-out" as described in paragraph 10, you are giving up your rights to ever bring an action against Mecca Farms, Inc., Maria Medrano, Medrano Harvesting & Packing, Inc., Candido Munoz, A-Z Grading & Packing, Inc., Candido Packing, Inc., or Candido Munoz, Inc. for the claims alleged in the lawsuit which occurred between October 1996 through March 2002.
l 0. How do I opt-out of this class action? If you do NOT want to participate in the class action, you have the right to be excluded from the class and not receive any money from the settlement. If you choose to be excluded from the class, you will NEVER be able to make any claim for this settlement money; however, you may have the right to bring your own lawsuit against Mecca Farms, Inc., Maria Medrano, Medrano Harvesting & Packing, Inc., Candido Munoz, A-Z Grading & Packing, Inc., Candido Packing, Inc., or Candido Munoz, Inc. within the time period allowed under the law for the claims alleged in the lawsuit. If you decide to opt-out, you must do so before July 1, 2003. If you fail to opt-out by July l, 2003, you are giving up your right to be excluded from the class, which means that you can not bring a separate law suit for the same claims alleged in the current law suit for the time period of October 1996 through March 2002. If you fail to opt-out you will be bound by the settlement agreement and are eligible to file a claim for the settlement money. To be excluded from the class action you must call the Florida Legal Services Farmworker Justice Project at 1-800-277-7447 or go to its office at

508 Lucerne Avenue, Lake Worth, Florida 33460 Monday through Friday between 8:30 PM and 5:00 PM to fill out a form stating your desire to be excluded from the class. If you choose to "optout" of the class action, you should consult a lawyer as to your rights.

11. What if I think the settlement agreement is unfair?

There will be a hearing before Judge Donald Middlebrooks at

on

,2003, at the

United States Courthouse, 701 Clematis Street, West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 to decide whether

the settle~nent is fair, reasonable and adequate. If you want to object to the settlement you must file

your objection with the Clerk of the Court before ,2003. If you do write the Clerk at the

United States Courthouse, 701 Clematis Street, West Palm Beach, Florida 33401, you should

include in your letter the name of the case (Martinez v. Mecca Farms, Inc.) and the case number (01-

9096). You must also send a copy of your objections to Henry Wulf, Esq., Carlton Fields, 222

Lakeview Avenue, Suite 1400, West Palm Beach, FL 33401, one of the attorneys for Mecca. This

heating will be your only opportunity to object to the terms of the settlement.

You do no.__!t have to be present at the hearing to receive your class share of the settlement money. If you fill out the form claiming your share of the settlement, you will receive your class share, provided the settlement is approved.

12. For further information: If you have questions about the settlement, need help understanding this Notice, or wish to obtain
a complete copy of the Settlement Agreement you can contact the lawyers for the workers who brought the lawsuit by writing or calling:
Florida Legal Services Migrant Farmworker Justice Project
508 Lucerne Avenue Lake Worth, FL 33460 Telephone: 1-800-277-7447

DO NOT CALL THE COURT OR THE CLERK OF THE COURT

EXHIBIT D
FIELD CLASS RADIO NOTICE - Carranza v. Mecca Farms, lnc
Attention all persons who have worked in the fields with the contractors Roy Rodriguez, Maria Sanchez, or M. Sanchez & Son, Inc.. If you worked cultivating and harvesting vegetables between 1997 and 2001 you may be eligible to claim money in a lawsuit filed against the contractors and the farm.
In the lawsuit, the workers are claiming that they were not paid the minimum wage because, among other things, they were not paid for all the buckets of produce they picked and were subject to unlawful deductions.
If you want to claim money from this case against Roy Rodriguez, Maria Sanchez, and the farm where they worked, call Florida Legal Services at 1-800-277-7447 or go to its office at 508 Lucerne Avenue, Lake Worth, Florida. You should also contact Florida Legal Services at 1-800277-7447 if you want to know more about the settlement or do not want to be part of the case. The call, 1-800-277-7447, is toll free.

EXHIBIT E
PACKING HOUSE CLASS RADIO NOTICE - Martinez v. Mec.ca Farms, Inc.
Attention all persons who have worked for Maria Medrano and Candido Munoz in packing houses in Lantana, Florida between 1997 and 2002; you may be eligible to claim money in a lawsuit filed against the company. The packing house workers are claiming that they were not paid for all the hours worked or for overtime pay.
If you want to claim money from this case against Mafia Medrano and Candido Munoz for packing vegetables at packing houses in Lantana, Florida, call Florida Legal Services at 1-800277-7447 or go to its office at 508 Lucerne Avenue, Lake Worth, Florida. You should also contact Florida Legal Services at 1-800-277-7447 if you want to kalow more about the settlement or do not want to be part of the case. The call, 1-800-277-7447, is toll free.

EXHIBIT "F" SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WITH PLAINTIFFS AND
DEFENDANTS M. SANCHEZ & SON~ INC. AND MARIA T. SANCHEZ
WHEREAS Delma Luz-Carranza, Francelia Hernandez, Virginia Perez, Carlos Ramos, Adolfo Perez, Gloria Roblero, David Matias, and Rafael Gonzalez (hereafter "the Plaintiffs") have filed this action against, among others, Defendants Maria T. Sanchez and M. Sanchez & Son, Inc. (hereafter "Sanchez" and "M. Sanchez" respectively), alleging violations of the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 1801, et se__,q.., and the minimum wage provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §206(a), during the period between 1997 through 2001, inclusive, and
WHEREAS, the Plaintiffs and Sanchez and M. Sanchez desire to amicably and completely resolve the disputes between them without additional delay, expense and litigation, and
WHEREAS, the Plaintiffs and Sanchez and M. Sanchez are satisfied that the terms and conditions of this Settlement Agreement set forth hereafter are fair, reasonable and adequate,
NOW, THEREFORE, it is stipulated and agreed by and between the Plaintiffs and Sanchez and M. Sanchez as follows:
1. Consideration for Settlement. Sanchez and M. Sanchez agree to the following conditions and terms as settlement of this matter:
A. Assignment of sums held by Mecca Farms, Inc. Sanchez and M. Sanchez agree to assign to the Plaintiffs any and all sums held in trust or otherwise due and owing to them by Mecca Farms, Inc, ("Mecca") for services provided prior to
-1-

June 1,2002. These sums shall be used to pay damages to the Plaintiffs and the members of the putative class, in amounts in accordance with the settlement terms in the Joint Settlement Agreement with Mecca. B. Provision of records, Sanchez and M. Sanchez agree to provide to counsel for the Plaintiffs any and all records in their possession, custody or control relating to his work for or services they have provided to Mecca between 1997 through 2001, inclusive. These documents shall be made available upon request by counsel for the Plaintiffs and are provided for use in establishing the claims of the Plaintiffs and the members of the class in this litigation. Upon conclusion of the Claims Period, as defined in the Joint Settlement Agreement with Mecca, these records shall be returned to Sanchez and M. Sanchez. C. Social Security Taxes. Sanchez and M. Sanchez agree to file W-2 forms or amended W-2 forms with the government for the class representatives and class members who were employed by them between August 1997 and November 2001, inclusive and who request such filing. Plaintiffs’ counsel will identify the individuals who require the W-2 forms or amended W-2 forms to be filed and provide the appropriate information to Sanchez and M. Sanchez who shall then file the W-2s and remit evidence of such to Plaintiffs’ counsel. 2. Waiver and Release. In consideration of the performance of the obligations set out in Paragraph 1 of this Settlement Agreement, the Plaintiffs hereby agree to dismiss with prejudice all claims presently pending against Sanchez and M. Sanchez in this action. This dismissal is based on the information gathered in the course of this litigation regarding Sanchez and M.
-2-

Sanchez’s status under the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act and the Fair I,abor Standards Act, their assets, their culpability under the AWPA and the FLSA and the culpability, assets and liability of the other Defendants in this action.
3. Costs and Attorney’s Fees. The parties to this Settlement Agreement shall bear their own costs and attorney’s fees.
4. Enforcement of Agreement. The parties to this Settlement Agreement agree to take all steps necessary to fully consummate all provisions of this Settlement Agreement. Should any party fail to materially comply with the provisions of this Settlement Agreement, that party shall be responsible for the costs incurred in enforcement of this Settlement Agreement, including a reasonable attorney’s fee. Prior to undertaking any such enforcement action pursuant to this paragraph, the party seeking enforcement shall provide at least 20 days written notice to counsel for the opposing party, so as to permit the party to cure any breach.
5. Authorization. Counsel for the Plaintiffs represents that they are authorized, as their counsel and agent for purposes of this matter, to enter into this Settlement Agreement on behalf of the Plaintiffs.
6. Approval of Settlement. After the combined Fairness Hearing on this settlement and the Joint Settlement Agreement with Mecca, currently scheduled for April 1,2003, Plaintiffs shall move to dismiss with prejudice this action against Sanchez and M. Sanchez. If the Court does not approve this settlement, it shall be considered null and void, and the parties shall be returned to the positions they held in this matter prior to this agreement.
-3-

1N WITNESS WttEREOF, the parties by their counsel have signed this Settlement
Agreement. _.~
Dated this ~ay of March 2003

C~athleen D. Caron

Indiv dually and as

Florida Bar No. 0468266

Presic ent of

Gregory S. Schell

M. Sanchez & Son, Inc

Florida Bar No. 287199

Lillian Hirales

Florida Bar No. 533777

~/~ ~,~~~____~ D/~’~. Bos,~ell, Esq.

Migrant Farmworker Justice Project 508 Lucerne Avenue ~’Lake Worth, FL 33460

Akers & Boswell, P.A.

Telephone: (561) 582-3921

2875 South Ocean Boulevard, Suite 200 Facsimile: (561) 582-4884

Palm Beach, FL 33480

Email: cathleen@floridalegal.org

Facsimile: 561-547-3955

Email: greg@floridalegal.org

Attorney for Maria T. Sanchez

Email: lillian@floridalegal.org

and M. Sanchez & Son, Inc.

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

-4-

 
 CM/ECF - Live Database - flsd - Docket Report

Page 1 of 15

U.S. District Court Southern District of Florida (West Palm Beach) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 9:01-cv-09013-KLR

CLOSED

Carranza, et al v. Mecca Farms, Inc., et al Assigned to: Judge Kenneth L. Ryskamp Demand: $0 Cause: 29:1801 Farmworker Rights Plaintiff Delma Luz Carranza
Plaintiff Francelia Hernandez
Plaintiff Virginia Perez

Date Filed: 11/19/2001 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 790 Labor: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question
represented by Cathleen Demerise Caron Florida Legal Services Inc. 508 Lucerne Avenue Lake Worth, FL 33460 561-582-3921 Fax: 582-4884 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lillian Magdaleno Hirales Florida Legal Services Inc. 508 Lucerne Avenue Lake Worth, FL 33460 561-582-3921 Fax: 582-4884 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Cathleen Demerise Caron (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lillian Magdaleno Hirales (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Cathleen Demerise Caron (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lillian Magdaleno Hirales

https://ecf.flsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?127586465669482-L_923_0-1

11/12/2007

CM/ECF - Live Database - flsd - Docket Report

Page 2 of 15

Plaintiff Hermelinda Ramos Plaintiff Carlos Ramos
Plaintiff Adolfo Perez
Plaintiff Gloria Roblero
Plaintiff David Matias

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Lillian Magdaleno Hirales (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Cathleen Demerise Caron (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lillian Magdaleno Hirales (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Cathleen Demerise Caron (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lillian Magdaleno Hirales (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Cathleen Demerise Caron (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lillian Magdaleno Hirales (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Cathleen Demerise Caron (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lillian Magdaleno Hirales

https://ecf.flsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?127586465669482-L_923_0-1

11/12/2007

CM/ECF - Live Database - flsd - Docket Report

Page 3 of 15

V. Defendant Mecca Farms, Inc.

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Cathy Mattson Stutin Fisher & Phillips 450 E Las Olas Boulevard Suite 800 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 954-525-4800 Fax: 525-8739 TERMINATED: 05/29/2002 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gary G. Smigiel Mecca Farms, Inc. PO Box 541779 Lake Worth, FL 33454-1779 561-968-3605 Fax: 968-3601 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Henry S. Wulf Carlton Fields Ward Emmanuel Smith & Cutler 222 Lakeview Avenue Suite 1400 PO Box 150 West Palm Beach, FL 33402-0150 561-659-7070 Email: hwulf@carltonfields.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joseph Ianno, Jr. Carlton Fields, P.A. 222 Lakeview Avenue Suite 1400 PO Box 150 West Palm Beach, FL 33402-0150 561-659-7070 Fax: 561-659-7368 Email: jianno@carltonfields.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Steven Adam Siegel

https://ecf.flsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?127586465669482-L_923_0-1

11/12/2007

CM/ECF - Live Database - flsd - Docket Report

Page 4 of 15

Defendant M. Sanchez & Son,Inc
Defendant Maria T. Sanchez
Defendant Rogerio T. Rodriguez TERMINATED: 03/17/2003

Fisher & Phillips 450 E Las Olas Boulevard Suite 800 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 954-525-4800 Fax: 525-8739 TERMINATED: 05/29/2002 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Don R. Boswell Akers & Boswell 1601 Belvedere Road Suite 106-E West Palm Beach, FL 33406 561-547-5300 Fax: 561-828-9212 Email: dboswell@akers-boswell.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Don R. Boswell (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Don R. Boswell (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/17/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 11/19/2001 11/19/2001 11/28/2001
01/24/2002

#

Docket Text

1 COMPLAINT filed; FILING FEE $150.00 RECEIPT # 715382 ; A-7; Magistrate Judge Vitunac (kw, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/20/2001)

2 SUMMONS(ES) issued for Mecca Farms, Inc., M. Sanchez & Son,Inc, Maria T. Sanchez, Rogerio T. Rodriguez (kw, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/20/2001)

3 ORDER OF PRETRIAL PROCEDURES ( Signed by Judge Kenneth L. Ryskamp on 11/28/01) [EOD Date: 11/29/01] (kw, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/29/2001)

4 NOTICE of Unavailability by Mecca Farms, Inc. for dates of: 3/4/02-3/7/02 (kw, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/29/2002)

https://ecf.flsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?127586465669482-L_923_0-1

11/12/2007

CM/ECF - Live Database - flsd - Docket Report

Page 5 of 15

01/28/2002 01/28/2002 01/29/2002 01/29/2002 01/29/2002 01/31/2002
01/31/2002
01/31/2002
02/13/2002
02/13/2002
02/19/2002
02/19/2002 02/19/2002 02/19/2002

5 Answer and affirmative defenses by Mecca Farms, Inc. (Attorney Cathy Mattson Stutin), (kw, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/30/2002)
6 Answer and affirmative defenses by M. Sanchez & Son,Inc, Maria T. Sanchez, Rogerio T. Rodriguez (Attorney Don R. Boswell), (kw, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/30/2002)
7 AFFIDAVIT of service of Rogerio Rodriguez (kw, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/31/2002)
8 AFFIDAVIT of service of M. Sanchez & Son, Inc. (kw, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/31/2002)
9 AFFIDAVIT of Maria Sanchez (kw, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/31/2002)
10 MOTION by Delma Luz Carranza, Francelia Hernandez, Virginia Perez, Hermelinda Ramos, Carlos Ramos, Adolfo Perez, Gloria Roblero, David Matias for order imposing on defendants the Costs of service (kw, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/01/2002)
11 MEMORANDUM by Delma Luz Carranza, Francelia Hernandez, Virginia Perez, Hermelinda Ramos, Carlos Ramos, Adolfo Perez, Gloria Roblero, David Matias in support of [10-1] motion for order imposing on defendants the Costs of service (kw, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/01/2002)
12 AFFIDAVIT of Cathleen Caron in support of Delma Luz Carranza, Francelia Hernandez, Virginia Perez, Hermelinda Ramos, Carlos Ramos, Adolfo Perez, Gloria Roblero, David Matias Re: [10-1] motion for order imposing on defendants the Costs of service (kw, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/01/2002)
13 MOTION by Delma Luz Carranza, Francelia Hernandez, Virginia Perez, Hermelinda Ramos, Carlos Ramos, Adolfo Perez, Gloria Roblero, David Matias to extend time to file motion for declaration of class action (kw, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/15/2002)
14 ORDER granting [13-1] motion to extend time to file motion for declaration of class action set motion filing deadline for 7/1/02 ( Signed by Judge Kenneth L. Ryskamp on 2/13/02) [EOD Date: 2/15/02] (kw, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/15/2002)
15 NOTICE of withdrawal of plaintiffs' motion for order imposing on defendants' the costs of service by Delma Luz Carranza, Francelia Hernandez, Virginia Perez, Hermelinda Ramos, Carlos Ramos, Adolfo Perez, Gloria Roblero, David Matias (kw, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/19/2002)
WITHDRAWAL of [10-1] motion for order imposing on defendants the Costs of service (kw, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/19/2002)
16 MOTION by Delma Luz Carranza, Francelia Hernandez, Virginia Perez, Hermelinda Ramos, Carlos Ramos, Adolfo Perez, Gloria Roblero, David Matias for leave to file amended complaint (kw, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/19/2002)
17 MEMORANDUM by Delma Luz Carranza, Francelia Hernandez, Virginia Perez, Hermelinda Ramos, Carlos Ramos, Adolfo Perez, Gloria Roblero, David

https://ecf.flsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?127586465669482-L_923_0-1

11/12/2007

CM/ECF - Live Database - flsd - Docket Report

Page 6 of 15

02/19/2002
02/28/2002 03/08/2002 03/13/2002 03/13/2002 03/13/2002 03/13/2002 03/27/2002 04/03/2002 04/03/2002 04/12/2002 04/17/2002

Matias in support of [16-1] motion for leave to file amended complaint (kw, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/19/2002)
18 AMENDED COMPLAINT by Delma Luz Carranza, Francelia Hernandez, Virginia Perez, Hermelinda Ramos, Carlos Ramos, Adolfo Perez, Gloria Roblero, David Matias , (Answer due 3/1/02 for Rogerio T. Rodriguez, for Maria T. Sanchez, for M. Sanchez & Son,Inc, for Mecca Farms, Inc. ) amending [1-1] complaint (kw, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/19/2002)
19 Answer and affirmative defenses by M. Sanchez & Son,Inc, Maria T. Sanchez, Rogerio T. Rodriguez (kw, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/01/2002)
20 Scheduling Report of Scheduling Meeting by Mecca Farms, Inc., M. Sanchez & Son,Inc, Maria T. Sanchez, Rogerio T. Rodriguez (kw, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/08/2002)
21 ORDER referring case to mediation. 15 days to appoint mediator ( Signed by Judge Kenneth L. Ryskamp on 3/13/02) [EOD Date: 3/14/02] (kw, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/14/2002)
22 SCHEDULING ORDER setting Discovery cutoff 9/1/02 ; Deadline for filing of all motions by 10/1/02 Memos of law due on or before 10/1/02; see file for other set deadlines ( Signed by Judge Kenneth L. Ryskamp on 3/13/02) [EOD Date: 3/14/02] CCAP (kw, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/14/2002)
23 NOTICE of Hearing: set Jury trial for 1/13/03 before Judge Kenneth L. Ryskamp , and set pretrial stipulation due for 1/2/03 , and set calendar call for 1/8/03 1:15 before Judge Kenneth L. Ryskamp (kw, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/14/2002)
24 ORDER granting [16-1] motion for leave to file amended complaint ( Signed by Judge Kenneth L. Ryskamp on 3/13/02) [EOD Date: 3/14/02] (kw, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/14/2002)
25 AMENDED ANSWER by Mecca Farms, Inc. (Attorney Steven Adam Siegel) to amended complaint (at, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/29/2002)
26 ORDR FOR STATUS CONFERENCE:ORDER set status conference for 9:00 4/12/02 before Judge Kenneth L. Ryskamp ( Signed by Judge Kenneth L. Ryskamp on 4/3/02) [EOD Date: 4/3/02] (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/03/2002)
27 JOINT MOTION by Delma Luz Carranza, Francelia Hernandez, Virginia Perez, Hermelinda Ramos, Carlos Ramos, Adolfo Perez, Gloria Roblero, David Matias, Mecca Farms, Inc., M. Sanchez & Son,Inc, Maria T. Sanchez, Rogerio T. Rodriguez for status conference (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/03/2002)
28 Minutes of Status Conference held on 4/12/02 before Judge Kenneth L. Ryskamp as to Mecca Farms, Inc., M. Sanchez & Son,Inc, Maria T. Sanchez, Rogerio T. Rodriguez ; Court Reporter Name or Tape #: Stephen Franklin (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/15/2002)
29 AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER amending [22-1] Scheduling order. This case is assigned to the standard track. This is a bench trial. Trial, Calendar Call

https://ecf.flsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?127586465669482-L_923_0-1

11/12/2007

CM/ECF - Live Database - flsd - Docket Report

Page 7 of 15

04/17/2002
05/28/2002 05/28/2002 05/28/2002 05/29/2002
05/29/2002 07/01/2002 07/01/2002 07/01/2002 07/01/2002 07/01/2002
07/11/2002 07/12/2002
07/18/2002

and the Pretrial Stipulation due date will be set by separate notice. ( Signed by Judge Kenneth L. Ryskamp on 4/17/02) [EOD Date: 4/18/02] (at, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/18/2002)
30 RENOTICE OF TRIAL This case is reset for non-jury trial for 2/10/03 before Judge Kenneth L. Ryskamp , set Pretrial Stipulation due for 1/29/03 , set Calendar Call for 1:15 p.m. on 2/5/03 before Judge Kenneth L. Ryskamp (at, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/18/2002)
31 VERIFIED MOTION by Mecca Farms, Inc. for Gary G. Smigiel to appear pro hac vice (at, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/29/2002)
Filing Fee Paid; FILING FEE $ 75.00 RECEIPT #716386 for Gary G. Smigiel to appear PHV (at, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/29/2002)
32 STIPULATION by Mecca Farms, Inc. to substitute Joseph Ianno as Attorney (at, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/29/2002)
33 ORDER GRANTING STIPULATION FOR SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL granting [32-1] motion to substitute Joseph Ianno as Attorney (Added: Joseph Ianno Jr.) (Signed by Judge Kenneth L. Ryskamp on 5/29/02) [EOD Date: 5/29/02] (at, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/29/2002)
34 ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR PRO HAC VICE denying [31-1] motion for Gary G. Smigiel to appear pro hac vice (Signed by Judge Kenneth L. Ryskamp on 5/29/02) [EOD Date: 5/30/02] (at, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/30/2002)
35 NOTICE of Filing of Deposition Transcript by Delma Luz Carranza, Francelia Hernandez, Virginia Perez, Hermelinda Ramos, Carlos Ramos, Adolfo Perez, Gloria Roblero, David Matias (at, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 07/02/2002)
36 DEPOSITION of Maria T. Sanchez (at, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 07/02/2002)
37 CONTINUED DEPOSITION of Maria T. Sanchez (at, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 07/02/2002)
38 MOTION by Delma Luz Carranza, Francelia Hernandez, Virginia Perez, Hermelinda Ramos, Carlos Ramos, Adolfo Perez, Gloria Roblero, David Matias to certify class action (at, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 07/02/2002)
39 MEMORANDUM OF LAW by Delma Luz Carranza, Francelia Hernandez, Virginia Perez, Hermelinda Ramos, Carlos Ramos, Adolfo Perez, Gloria Roblero, David Matias in support of [38-1] motion to certify class action (at, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 07/02/2002)
40 MOTION by Mecca Farms, Inc. to extend time to respond to motion for class certification (at, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 07/12/2002)
41 NOTICE of Intention To File Opposition To Defendant Mecca Farms Motion To Extend Time To File Opposition To Plaintiffs' Motion For Class Certification by Delma Luz Carranza, Francelia Hernandez, Virginia Perez, Hermelinda Ramos, Carlos Ramos, Adolfo Perez, Gloria Roblero, David Matias (at, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 07/15/2002)
42 MOTION by M. Sanchez & Son,Inc, Maria T. Sanchez, Rogerio T. Rodriguez to

https://ecf.flsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?127586465669482-L_923_0-1

11/12/2007

CM/ECF - Live Database - flsd - Docket Report

Page 8 of 15

07/18/2002
07/19/2002
08/12/2002 08/16/2002 08/16/2002 08/16/2002 08/16/2002 08/16/2002 08/16/2002 08/16/2002 08/19/2002 08/23/2002 09/03/2002

extend time to respond to plaintiff's motion for class certification (at, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 07/19/2002)
43 JOINT MOTION by Delma Luz Carranza, Francelia Hernandez, Virginia Perez, Hermelinda Ramos, Carlos Ramos, Adolfo Perez, Gloria Roblero, David Matias, Mecca Farms, Inc., M. Sanchez & Son,Inc, Maria T. Sanchez, Rogerio T. Rodriguez to extend time to serve a response to plaintiffs' motion for class certification (at, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 07/19/2002)
44 ORDER ON DEFENDANTS SANCHEZ, RODRIGUEZ AND SANCHEZ & SON, INC'S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION granting [42-1] motion to extend time to respond to plaintiff's motion for class certification Response to motion reset to 8/16/02 for [38-1] motion to certify class action (Signed by Judge Kenneth L. Ryskamp on 7/18/02) [EOD Date: 7/22/02] (at, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 07/22/2002)
45 NOTICE of Unavailability by Mecca Farms, Inc., M. Sanchez & Son,Inc, Maria T. Sanchez, Rogerio T. Rodriguez for dates of: 9/9/02 through 9/23/02 (at, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/12/2002)
46 NOTICE of Filing Transcript of Deposition of Adolfo Perez by Mecca Farms, Inc. (at, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/19/2002)
47 NOTICE of Filing Transcript of Deposition of David Matias by Mecca Farms, Inc. (at, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/19/2002)
48 NOTICE of Filing Transcript of Deposition of Virginia Perez Abad by Mecca Farms, Inc. (at, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/19/2002)
49 NOTICE of Filing Transcript of Deposition of Francelia Hernandez by Mecca Farms, Inc. (at, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/19/2002)
50 NOTICE of Filing Transcript of Deposition of Glorida Roblero by Mecca Farms, Inc. (at, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/19/2002)
51 NOTICE of Filing Transcript of Deposition of Delma Luz Carranza by Mecca Farms, Inc. (at, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/19/2002)
52 MEMORANDUM OF LAW by Mecca Farms, Inc. in opposition to [38-1] motion to certify class action (at, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/19/2002)
53 RESPONSE by Maria T. Sanchez, M. Sanchez & Son,Inc, Rogerio T. Rodriguez to [38-1] motion to certify class action (at, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/20/2002)
54 MOTION by Mecca Farms, Inc. for leave to file First Amended Answer and Affirmative Defenses to amended complaint (at, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/26/2002)
55 AGREED ORDER GRANTING MECCA FARMS, INC'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO AMENDED COMPLAINT granting [54-1] motion for leave to file First Amended Answer and Affirmative Defenses to amended complaint. First Amended Answer and Affirmative Defenses to Plaintiffs' Amended

https://ecf.flsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?127586465669482-L_923_0-1

11/12/2007

CM/ECF - Live Database - flsd - Docket Report

Page 9 of 15

09/03/2002 09/13/2002 09/16/2002 09/16/2002 09/23/2002 10/04/2002 10/09/2002 10/09/2002 10/09/2002
10/09/2002 10/09/2002 10/09/2002

Complaint, attached to the motion as exhibit "A" shall be deemed filed as of the date of this Order. (Signed by Judge Kenneth L. Ryskamp on 9/3/02) [EOD Date: 9/4/02] (at, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/04/2002)
56 REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW by Delma Luz Carranza, Francelia Hernandez, Virginia Perez, Hermelinda Ramos, Carlos Ramos, Adolfo Perez, Gloria Roblero, David Matias to response to [38-1] motion to certify class action (at, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/04/2002)
57 Witness List For Trial by Mecca Farms, Inc. (at, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/16/2002)
58 MOTION by Delma Luz Carranza, Francelia Hernandez, Virginia Perez, Hermelinda Ramos, Carlos Ramos, Adolfo Perez, Gloria Roblero, David Matias to extend time to file dispositive motions (at, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/17/2002)
59 Witness List for Evidentiary Hearing In Employer Status Phase by Delma Luz Carranza, Francelia Hernandez, Virginia Perez, Hermelinda Ramos, Carlos Ramos, Adolfo Perez, Gloria Roblero, David Matias (at, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/17/2002)
60 ORDER granting [58-1] motion to extend time to file dispositive motions (Signed by Judge Kenneth L. Ryskamp on 9/20/02) [EOD Date: 9/24/02] (at, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/24/2002)
61 MOTION with memorandum in support by Mecca Farms, Inc. for summary judgment (kw, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/07/2002)
62 MOTION by Delma Luz Carranza, Francelia Hernandez, Virginia Perez, Hermelinda Ramos, Carlos Ramos, Adolfo Perez, Gloria Roblero, David Matias for partial summary judgment (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/10/2002)
63 MEMORANDUM by Delma Luz Carranza, Francelia Hernandez, Virginia Perez, Hermelinda Ramos, Carlos Ramos, Adolfo Perez, Gloria Roblero, David Matias in support of [62-1] motion for partial summary judgment (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/10/2002)
64 NOTICE of filing of deposition transcripts of Jorge Gustavo Castiool, 8/2/02, Jorge Flores, 8/5/02, Eila Granfors 8/12/02, Michael D Marcari 8/14/02, Mark Shaaw 8/14/02, Thoam Mecca 8/21/02, Lori Schwab 8/29/02, Gary Smigiel 8/29/02, Rafael Gonzalez-Vasquez 9/22/02, by Delma Luz Carranza, Francelia Hernandez, Virginia Perez, Hermelinda Ramos, Carlos Ramos, Adolfo Perez, Gloria Roblero, David Matias (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/10/2002)
65 Statement of Undisputed facts by Delma Luz Carranza, Francelia Hernandez, Virginia Perez, Hermelinda Ramos, Carlos Ramos, Adolfo Perez, Gloria Roblero, David Matias (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/10/2002)
66 DEPOSITION of Eila Granfors (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/10/2002)
67 DEPOSITION of Michael D. Macari (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/10/2002)

https://ecf.flsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?127586465669482-L_923_0-1

11/12/2007

CM/ECF - Live Database - flsd - Docket Report

Page 10 of 15

10/09/2002 10/09/2002 10/09/2002 10/09/2002 10/09/2002 10/09/2002 10/09/2002 10/10/2002 10/15/2002
10/16/2002
10/16/2002
10/18/2002
10/22/2002
10/24/2002 10/25/2002
10/25/2002

68 DEPOSITION of Jorge Flores (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/10/2002)
69 DEPOSITION of Jose Gustavo Castillo (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/10/2002)
70 DEPOSITION of Mark Shaw (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/10/2002)
71 DEPOSITION of Lori Schwab (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/10/2002)
72 DEPOSITION of Thoams Mecca (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/10/2002)
73 DEPOSITION of Gary Smigiel (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/10/2002)
74 DEPOSITION of Rafael Gonzale Vasquez (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/10/2002)
75 MOTION by Mecca Farms, Inc. to compel plaintiffs to respond to the first set of interrogatories to plaintiff (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/15/2002)
76 OPPOSITION by Delma Luz Carranza, Francelia Hernandez, Virginia Perez, Hermelinda Ramos, Carlos Ramos, Adolfo Perez, Gloria Roblero, David Matias to [61-1] motion for summary judgment (at, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/16/2002)
77 OPPOSITION by Delma Luz Carranza, Francelia Hernandez, Virginia Perez, Hermelinda Ramos, Carlos Ramos, Adolfo Perez, Gloria Roblero, David Matias to [75-1] motion to compel plaintiffs to respond to the first set of interrogatories to plaintiff (at, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/17/2002)
78 MOTION with memorandum in support by Mecca Farms, Inc. to strike witnesses not identified by plaintiffs prior to close of discovery , or in the alternative to continue trial , and to extend discovery period (at, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/17/2002)
79 OPPOSITION by Delma Luz Carranza, Francelia Hernandez, Virginia Perez, Hermelinda Ramos, Carlos Ramos, Adolfo Perez, Gloria Roblero, David Matias to [78-1] motion to strike witnesses not identified by plaintiffs prior to close of discovery, [78-2] motion to continue trial, [78-3] motion to extend discovery period (at, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/21/2002)
80 MOTION by Mecca Farms, Inc. to extend time to respond to plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment and plaintiffs' statement of undisputed facts (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/22/2002)
81 REPLY by Mecca Farms, Inc. to response to [61-1] motion for summary judgment (at, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/24/2002)
82 REPLY by Mecca Farms, Inc. to response to [78-1] motion to strike witnesses not identified by plaintiffs prior to close of discovery (at, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/28/2002)
83 REPLY by Mecca Farms, Inc. to response to [75-1] motion to compel plaintiffs to respond to the first set of interrogatories to plaintiff (at, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/28/2002)

https://ecf.flsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?127586465669482-L_923_0-1

11/12/2007

CM/ECF - Live Database - flsd - Docket Report

Page 11 of 15

10/28/2002
10/28/2002
11/05/2002
11/05/2002 11/07/2002
11/07/2002 11/07/2002 11/08/2002 11/08/2002 11/08/2002 11/12/2002 11/12/2002 11/12/2002 11/12/2002

84 NOTICE OF HEARING Motion hearing before Judge Kenneth L. Ryskamp set for 8:30 AM on 11/13/02 for [62-1] motion for partial summary judgment, set for 8:30 AM on 11/13/02 for [61-1] motion for summary judgment (at, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/28/2002)
85 OPPOSITION by Delma Luz Carranza, Francelia Hernandez, Virginia Perez, Hermelinda Ramos, Carlos Ramos, Adolfo Perez, Gloria Roblero, David Matias to [80-1] motion to extend time to respond to plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment and plaintiffs' statement of undisputed facts (at, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/29/2002)
86 ORDER PARTIALLY GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME granting in part, [80-1] motion to extend time to respond to plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment and plaintiffs' statement of undisputed facts Response to motion reset to 11/7/02 for [62-1] for partial summary judgment (Signed by Judge Kenneth L. Ryskamp on 11/5/02) [EOD Date: 11/5/02] (at, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/05/2002)
87 REPLY by Mecca Farms, Inc. to response to [80-1] motion to extend time to respond to plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment and plaintiffs' statement of undisputed facts (at, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/06/2002)
88 RENOTICE OF HEARING Motion hearing before Judge Kenneth L. Ryskamp set for 10:30 AM on 11/13/02 for [62-1] motion for partial summary judgment, set for 10:30 AM on 11/13/02 for motion for summary judgment (Signed by Judge Kenneth L. Ryskamp on 11/07/02) [EOD Date: 11/7/02] (at, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/07/2002)
89 RESPONSE by Mecca Farms, Inc. to [62-1] motion for partial summary judgment (at, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/08/2002)
90 RESPONSE by Mecca Farms, Inc. to [65-1] Statement of Undisputed Facts (at, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/08/2002)
91 NOTICE of FILING DISCOVERY by Mecca Farms, Inc. (at, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/12/2002)
92 NOTICE of Filing Deposition Transcript of Maria T. Sanchez by Mecca Farms, Inc. (at, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/12/2002)
93 NOTICE of Filing Deposition Transcript of Rogerio Rodriguez by Mecca Farms, Inc. (at, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/12/2002)
94 NOTICE of Filing Affidavit of Thomas Mecca by Mecca Farms, Inc. (at, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/13/2002)
95 AFFIDAVIT OF THOMAS MECCA by Mecca Farms, Inc. (at, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/13/2002)
96 NOTICE of Filing Affidavit of Michael Macari by Mecca Farms, Inc. (at, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/13/2002)
97 AFFIDAVIT OF MICHAEL MACARI by Mecca Farms, Inc. (at, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/13/2002)

https://ecf.flsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?127586465669482-L_923_0-1

11/12/2007

CM/ECF - Live Database - flsd - Docket Report

Page 12 of 15

11/18/2002 11/18/2002 11/18/2002 11/21/2002 11/29/2002 12/04/2002 12/04/2002 12/20/2002 12/23/2002
12/23/2002 12/31/2002
01/24/2003

98 Minutes of Summary Judgment held before Judge Kenneth L. Ryskamp on 11/18/02; Court Reporter Name or Tape #: Sharon Sugden (at, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/18/2002)
Motion hearing re: [62-1] motion for partial summary judgment Motion hearing held, [61-1] motion for summary judgment Motion hearing held (at, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/18/2002)
99 REPLY by Mecca Farms, Inc. to response to [62-1] motion for partial summary judgment (at, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/19/2002)
100 AMENDED NOTICE of Mediation Hearing on 12/10/02 at 10:00 AM (location only) (at, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/22/2002)
101 NOTICE OF FILING SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY by Delma Luz Carranza, Francelia Hernandez, Virginia Perez, Hermelinda Ramos, Carlos Ramos, Adolfo Perez, Gloria Roblero, David Matias re: [38-1] motion to certify class action (at, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/02/2002)
102 MOTION by Delma Luz Carranza, Francelia Hernandez, Virginia Perez, Hermelinda Ramos, Carlos Ramos, Adolfo Perez, Gloria Roblero, David Matias to modify [22-1] Scheduling order (at, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/04/2002)
103 MEMORANDUM OF LAW by Delma Luz Carranza, Francelia Hernandez, Virginia Perez, Hermelinda Ramos, Carlos Ramos, Adolfo Perez, Gloria Roblero, David Matias in support of [102-1] motion to modify [22-1] Scheduling order (at, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/04/2002)
104 MOTION by Mecca Farms, Inc. to extend time to respond to plaintiff's motion to modify scheduling order (at, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/23/2002)
105 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME granting [104-1] motion to extend time to respond to plaintiff's motion to modify scheduling order. In light of the fact that this cause is scheduled to go to trial before 2/10/03, the parties SHALL SUBMIT the parties's settlement agreement to this Court on or before 01/24/03 (Signed by Judge Kenneth L. Ryskamp on 12/23/02) [EOD Date: 12/23/02] (at, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/23/2002)
106 NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT BETWEEN TWO OF THE PARTIES filed by Mecca Farms, Inc., Delma Luz Carranza, Francelia Hernandez, Virginia Perez, Hermelinda Ramos, Carlos Ramos, Adolfo Perez, Gloria Roblero, David Matias (at, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/26/2002)
107 OMNIBUS ORDER denying [61-1] motion for summary judgment, denying [62-1] motion for partial summary judgment is DENIED AS MOOT, denying [75-1] motion to compel plaintiffs to respond to the first set of interrogatories to plaintiff is DENIED as MOOT, denying [78-1] motion to strike witnesses not identified by plaintiffs prior to of discovery DENIED as MOOT, denying [78-2] motion to continue trial, denying [78-3] motion to extend discovery period DENIED as MOOT, denying [27-1] joint motion for status conference DENIED as MOOT. (Signed by Judge Kenneth L. Ryskamp on 12/31/02) [EOD Date: 12/31/02] (at, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/31/2002)
108 NOTICE of Failure of the Parties To Consummate Settlement by Mecca Farms,

https://ecf.flsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?127586465669482-L_923_0-1

11/12/2007

CM/ECF - Live Database - flsd - Docket Report

Page 13 of 15

01/27/2003
01/29/2003
01/29/2003 01/29/2003
01/31/2003 01/31/2003 02/03/2003 02/04/2003
02/19/2003 02/21/2003
02/24/2003 02/24/2003 02/25/2003 02/25/2003

Inc. (at, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/27/2003)
109 NOTICE of Failure of the parties to consummate settlement by Delma Luz Carranza, Francelia Hernandez, Virginia Perez, Hermelinda Ramos, Carlos Ramos, Adolfo Perez, Gloria Roblero, David Matias (at, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/28/2003)
110 PRETRIAL STIPULATION by Delma Luz Carranza, Francelia Hernandez, Virginia Perez, Hermelinda Ramos, Carlos Ramos, Adolfo Perez, Gloria Roblero, David Matias, M. Sanchez & Son,Inc, Maria T. Sanchez, Rogerio T. Rodriguez (at, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/30/2003)
111 MOTION by Mecca Farms, Inc. to extend time to file pretrial stipulation (at, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/30/2003)
112 NOTICE of attorney appearance for Delma Luz Carranza, Francelia Hernandez, Virginia Perez, Hermelinda Ramos, Carlos Ramos, Adolfo Perez, Gloria Roblero, David Matias by Lillian Magdaleno Hirales (at, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/30/2003)
113 RESPONSE by Mecca Farms, Inc. to [102-1] motion to modify [22-1] Scheduling order (at, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/03/2003)
114 OBJECTIONS by Mecca Farms, Inc. TO PLAINTIFFS' TRIAL EXHIBITS (at, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/03/2003)
115 PRETRIAL STIPULATION by Mecca Farms, Inc. (at, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/04/2003)
116 OMNIBUS ORDER denying [102-1] motion to modify [22-1] Scheduling order, granting [111-1] motion to extend time to file pretrial stipulation. Defendant shall file its pretrial stipulation on or before 2/5/03. (Signed by Judge Kenneth L. Ryskamp 2/3/03) [EOD Date: 2/5/03] (at, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/05/2003)
117 DESIGNATION OF DEPOSITION PASSAGES of by Delma Luz Carranza, Francelia Hernandez, Virginia Perez, Hermelinda Ramos, Carlos Ramos, Adolfo Perez, Gloria Roblero, David Matias (at, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/20/2003)
118 AMENDMENT by Delma Luz Carranza, Francelia Hernandez, Virginia Perez, Hermelinda Ramos, Carlos Ramos, Adolfo Perez, Gloria Roblero, David Matias, Mecca Farms, Inc., M. Sanchez & Son,Inc, Maria T. Sanchez, Rogerio T. Rodriguez to: [115-1] Pretrial stipulation, [110-1] Pretrial stipulation (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/21/2003)
119 NOTICE of Filing Transcript of Deposition of Carlos Rodrigo Ramos by Mecca Farms, Inc. (at, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/25/2003)
120 DEPOSITION of Carlos Rodrigo Ramos (at, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/25/2003)
121 MOTION by Delma Luz Carranza, Francelia Hernandez, Virginia Perez, Hermelinda Ramos, Carlos Ramos, Adolfo Perez, Gloria Roblero, David Matias in limine (at, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/25/2003)
122 MEMORANDUM by Delma Luz Carranza, Francelia Hernandez, Virginia

https://ecf.flsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?127586465669482-L_923_0-1

11/12/2007

CM/ECF - Live Database - flsd - Docket Report

Page 14 of 15

02/27/2003 02/27/2003 03/03/2003 03/03/2003
03/03/2003 03/05/2003 03/14/2003 03/14/2003 03/17/2003

Perez, Hermelinda Ramos, Carlos Ramos, Adolfo Perez, Gloria Roblero, David Matias in support of [121-1] motion in limine (at, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/25/2003)
123 MOTION with memorandum in support by Delma Luz Carranza, Francelia Hernandez, Virginia Perez, Hermelinda Ramos, Carlos Ramos, Adolfo Perez, Gloria Roblero, David Matias to quash defendant Mecca Farms subpoena (at, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/27/2003)
124 AFFIDAVIT OF VIRGINIA PEREZ-ABAD by Delma Luz Carranza, Francelia Hernandez, Virginia Perez, Hermelinda Ramos, Carlos Ramos, Adolfo Perez, Gloria Roblero, David Matias Re: [123-1] motion to quash defendant Mecca Farms subpoena (at, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/27/2003)
125 JOINT MOTION with memorandum in support by Delma Luz Carranza, Francelia Hernandez, Virginia Perez, Hermelinda Ramos, Carlos Ramos, Adolfo Perez, Gloria Roblero, David Matias, Mecca Farms, Inc., M. Sanchez & Son,Inc, Maria T. Sanchez, Rogerio T. Rodriguez for preliminaray approval of settlement (at, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/03/2003)
126 ORDER ON MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT BETWEEN PLAINTIFFS AND DEFENDANT MECCA FARMS, INC granting [125-1] motion for preliminaray approval of settlement A hearing shall be held on 4/1/03 at 9:00 a.m. to determine the lawfulness, reasonableness, adequacy, and fairness of the Proposed Settlement, and whether judgment should be entered as provided in the Settlement Agreement. (Signed by Judge Kenneth L. Ryskamp on 3/3/03) [EOD Date: 3/3/03] (at, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/03/2003)
127 Minutes of Settlement of Case held before Judge Kenneth L. Ryskamp on 3/3/03; fairness hearing set oral motion to transfer and consolidate judge Middlebrooks case granted. Parties to submit motion to transfer to Judge Middlebrooks. Court Reporter Name or Tape #: Roger Watford (at, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/03/2003)
128 ORDER DENYING AS MOOT MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION denying [38-1] motion to certify class action (Signed by Judge Kenneth L. Ryskamp on 3/5/03) [EOD Date: 3/6/03] (at, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/06/2003)
129 STIPULATION of Dismissal with Prejudice by Rogerio T. Rodriguez, Delma Luz Carranza (at, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/14/2003)
130 JOINT MOTION AND SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM OF LAW by Delma Luz Carranza, Francelia Hernandez, Virginia Perez, Hermelinda Ramos, Carlos Ramos, Adolfo Perez, Gloria Roblero, David Matias, M. Sanchez & Son,Inc, Maria T. Sanchez for preliminary approval settlement (at, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/14/2003)
131 ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE granting [129-1] dismiss/dismissal stipulation. Plaintiffs' causes of action against Defendant Rodriguez shall be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Each party shall bear its own fees and costs. (Signed by Judge Kenneth L. Ryskamp on 3/17/03) [EOD

https://ecf.flsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?127586465669482-L_923_0-1

11/12/2007

CM/ECF - Live Database - flsd - Docket Report

Page 15 of 15

03/17/2003
04/01/2003 04/01/2003 04/07/2003 04/08/2003

Date: 3/18/03] (at, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/18/2003)
132 ORDER ON MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT BETWEEN PLAINTIFFS AND DEFENDANTS MARIA T. SANCHEZ AND M. SANCHEZ & SON, INC granting [130-1] joint motion for preliminary approval settlement set settlement hearing for 9:00 a.m. on 4/1/03 before Judge Kenneth L. Ryskamp (Signed by Judge Kenneth L. Ryskamp on 3/17/03) [EOD Date: 3/18/03] (at, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/18/2003)
133 Minutes of Fairness Hearing held before Judge Kenneth L. Ryskamp on 4/1/03; Court Reporter Name or Tape #: Stephen Franklin (at, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/01/2003)
Settlement conference held before Judge Kenneth L. Ryskamp (at, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/01/2003)
134 FINAL ORDER: This action is hereby dismissed with prejudice, except to reserve jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the settlement (Signed by Judge Kenneth L. Ryskamp on 4/7/03) [EOD Date: 4/8/03] (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/08/2003)
CASE CLOSED. Case and Motions no longer referred to Magistrate. (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/08/2003)

PACER Service Center
Transaction Receipt

11/12/2007 17:38:30

PACER Login: hs0328

Client Code: ddalton

Description: Docket Report Search Criteria: 9:01-cv-09013-KLR

Billable Pages: 9

Cost:

0.72

https://ecf.flsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?127586465669482-L_923_0-1

11/12/2007

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION
Case No. 01-9013-CIV.-RYSKAMP Magistrate Judge Vitunac

Delma Luz Carranza, Francelia Hernandez, Virginia Perez, Hermelinda Ramos, Carlos Ramos, Adolfo Perez, Gloria Roblero, David Matias, and Ral:ael Gonzales individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintift~,
Mecca Farms. Inc., M. Sanchez & Son. Inc., Maria I-. Sanchez, and Rogerio ]. Rodfiguez,
Defendants.

Complaint--Class Action

AMENDED C.OMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, DECLARATORY RELIEF, INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, COSTS OF LITIGATION AND ATTORNEY’S FEES

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1. This is an action by cight migrant or seasonal famaworkers on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated to redress and vindicate rights afforded them by the Migrant and

Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 1801-1872 (1999) ("AWPA"), the

Fair Labor Standard~ ~,ct~. "~o_. U.S.C.

.~.~ 201-219 (199S~ t kLbA’:), and the Federal Insurance

Contributions Act, 26 U.S.C. §§ 3101-3128 (1989) ("FICA").

2. At various points between 1997 and November 2001, inclusive, the Plaintiffs and

other class members were employed or jointly employed on a seasonal basis by Mecca Farms,

Inc., M. Sanchez & Son, lnc, Mafia T. Sanchez, and Rogerio T. Rodriguez planting, cultivating,

preparing and harvesting tomatoes and other crops in south Florida on the operations of Mecca

Farms, Inc. Throughout the period relevant to this action, the Defendants violated the AWPA’s

provisions relating to recordkeeping, wage statements, payment of wages, and transportation.

During portions ot" their tenure with the Defendants. the Plaintiffs were paid less than the

federally-mandated mininmm wage tbr their labor in violation of the FLSA. The Defendants

also tailed to pay or ensure payment of Social Security (FICA) laxes on the labor of the Plaintiffs

and other class members. 3. The Plaintif~-~ seek money damages, declaratory reiiet; injuncti,~e relief, costs of
litigation and attorney’s fees to redress these violations of law. JURISDICTION
4. Jurisdiction is conferred upon this Court by 29 U.S.C. § 1854(a), this action arising under the AWPA; by 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), this action arising under the FLSA; by 28 U.S.C. § 1331, this action arising under the laws of the United States; and by 28 U.S.C. § 1337, this action arising under Acts of Congress regulating commerce.
5. The Court is empowered to grant declaratory relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 22012202.

VENUE 6. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b)(1)-(2), (c) because all
of the Defendants reside in the district, the events or omissions giving rise to the clairn occurred
in the district, and all the Defendant corporations are subject to personal jurisdiction in this district.
PARTIES 7. At all times relevant to this action, the Plaintifl~ and the other class members were migrant or seasonal agricultural workers within the meaning of the AWPA, 29 U.S.C. § 1802(8)(A), (10)(A). At all times relevant to this action, each of the Plaintiffs was engaged in the production of goods l~:)t sale in interstate commerce. 8. Deti~ndant Mecca Farms, Inc. is a closely-held Florida corporation based in Lantana, Florida. Mecca Farms, Inc. is engaged in the production of tomatoes and other commodities in South Florida for sale iu interstate commerce. At al! times relevant Io this action, Mecca Farms, Inc. was an agricultural employer of the Plaintiffs and other class memberb within the meaning of the AWPA, 29 U.S.C. § 1802(2), in thal it operated a lama and employed the Plaintitt~ and other migrant or seasonal agricultural workers. At all times relevant to this action, Mecca Farms, Inc. employed the Plaintiff’s and other class members within the meaning of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §
203(d).
9. Defendant M. Sanchez & Son, Inc. is a closely-held Florida corporation headquartered in Lantana, Florida. At all times relevant to this action, M. Sanchez & Son, Inc. acted as a farm labor contractor within the meaning of the AWPA, 29 U.S.C. § 1802(7), in that, tbr a fee, it

recruited, solicited, hired, furnished, or transported agricultural workers for agricultural employment within the meanin~ ~f.*.he AWPA. At all timc~ l~ievant to this action, M. Sanchez & Son, Inc. employed Plaintiffs and other class members within the meaning of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203(d).
10. Defendant Maria T. Sanchez is an individual residing in Boynton Beach, Florida, and is the President, Vice President, Secretary, and Treasurer ofM. Sanchez & Son, Inc. At all times relevant to this action, Mafia T. Sanchez acted as a farm labor contractor within the meaning of the AWPA, 29 U.S.C. § 1802(7), in that, tbr a li~e, she recruited, solicited, hired, furnished, or transported agricultural workers for agricultural employment. At all times relevant to this action, she was an employer or joint employer of the Plaintiffls and other class members within the meaning of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203(d).
11. Defendant Rogerio T. Rodriguez is an individual residing in Palm Beach County, Florida. At all times relevant to this action, Rogerio T. Rodriguez acted as a farm labor contractor within the meaning of the AWPA, 29 !~!.S.C. ~ 1802(7). i~ that, lbr a tee, he recruited, solicited, hired, furnished, or transp~rted agricultural workers lbr agricultural employment. At all ~imes relevant to this action, he was an employer or joint employer of the Plaintiffs and other class members within the meaning of the ~’LSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203(d).
12. At all times relevant to this action, the Defendants employed the Plaintiffs and the other class members within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 1802(5) and 29 U.S.C. § 203(g).

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 13. All claims set tbrth in C’o,,mt I arc brougl,{ b.~ the Plaiutil’ls on behal/of themselves and all other similarly situated persons pursuant to Fed. R. Cir. P. 23(b)(3). 14. All claims set fbrth in Count If and V are brought by the Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated persons pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2). 15. The named Plaintiffs seek to represent a class consisting of all migrant and seasonal agricultural workers furnished to Mecca Farms, Inc. by M. Sanchez & Son, Inc., Maria T. Sanchez, or Rogerio T. Rodriguez from August 1997 through November 2001, inclusive. 16. Only the Defendants know the precise number of individuals in the class. The class is believed to include over 1,000 individuals. The class is comprised of indigent migrant or seasvnal workers who are not fluent in the English language and who maintain their residences at various locations throughout the United States, Mexico, and Central America. The relatively small size of the individual claims and the indigence of the class members makes the maintenance of separate actions bv each cla,~ member economically ir~feasible. Joindcr of all class members is impracticable. 17. There are questions of tact common to the class. The common questmns of fact include: whether the Defendants made, kept, and preserved payroll records, provided wage statements, and paid wages when due in accordmace with the AWPA; and whether the earnings of the Plaintiffs and other class members were reported to the Social Security Administration. 18. There are questions of law common to the class. The common legal questions include: whether Mecca Farms, Inc. is an employer or joint employer of the Plaintiffs and class members, and whether the Defendants’ actions violated the AWPA.

19. The claims of the named Plaintiffs are typical of those of the class, and these typical, common claims predomi~ale over .’,In)" questions affecting unly md~vlduai class members. The named Plaintift~ have the same interests as do the other members of the class and will vigorously prosecute these interests on behalf of the class.
20. Plaintiffs’ counsel have handled numerous class actions in the federal courts, including class actions under the AWPA. Plaintiffs’ counsel are prepared to advance litigation costs necessary to vigorously litigate the action.
21. With respect to the Plaintiffs’ AWPA claims set forth in Count I, certification is sought under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3). A class action under Rule 23(b)(3) is superior to other available methods of adjudicating this controversy~ because, inter alia:
a. The common issues of la~v and tact, as well as the relativcly ~ma!l size of the individual class members" claims, substantially diminish the interest of members of the class in individually controlling the prosecution of separate actions;
b. Manv members of the class are u.n.awarc of their right,,, tt, prosecute these claims and lack the means or resources to secure legal assistance;
c. There has been no litigation already commenccd against the Defendants by the class members to determine the questions presented;
d. It is desirable that the claims be heard in this lbrum since the Defendants reside in this District, and the actions giving rise to the claim occurred in this District;
e. A class action can be managed without undue difficulty because the Defendants have regularly committed the violations complained of herein, and are required to maintain detailed records concerning each class member.

22. With respect to the Plaintiffs’ claims in Counts II and V certification is sought under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b}(25. Rv f,~iling, inter ali___~a, to ’,,~pui-t to the Social becunty Administration the earnings of the class members, the Defendants have refused to act on grounds that are generally applicable to the class. Final injunctive relief with respect to the class as a whole is appropriate.
COUNT I (Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act)
(Class Claims) (All Defendants)
23. This count sets forth class claims under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) by the Plaintiffs and other class members for damages and declaratory relief to the AWPA violations and its attendant regulations by the Defendants.
24. The Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs I through 22 of the complaint.
25. The Defendants failed to make keep and maintain rcc,~rd., regarding the work of the Plaintiffs and other class members as required by the AWPA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 1821(d)(1), 1831(c)(I), and its attendant regulation, 29 C.F.R.§ 500.80(a). A~nong other things, the Defendants failed to make, keep and maintain records accurately reflecting the number of piecework units earned, compensable hours worked, and the specific sums withheld from the wages and the purpose &each sum withheld.
26. In violation of the AWPA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 1821(d)(2), 1831(c)(2) and its attendant regulations, 29 C.F.R. § 500.80(d), the Defendants failed to provide the Plaintiffs and the other class ~nembers each pay period with a written statement accurately showing the number of

piecework units earned, the hours worked, the specific sums withheld and the purpose of each sum withheld.
27. The Defendants failed to compensate the Plaintiffs and the other class members at the stated piece rate wage for all units of produce harvested and to pay minimum wages due them under the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 206(a)(1). These actions violate the AWPA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 1822(a), 1832(a) and its attendant regulations, 29 C.F.R. § 500.72.
28. The Defendants used or caused to be used vehicles that tailed to conform to applicable Federal and State safety standards to transport the Plaintiffs and other class members to and from the Defendants’ job sites in violation of the AWPA, 29 U.S.C. § 1841(b)(l)(A) and its attendant regulations, 29 C.F.R. §§ 500.104, 500,105(b). Among other things, the vehicles did not providc securely ~iastcned scats Ibr each passenger.
29. The violations of the AWPA and its attendant regulations as set forth in this count were the natural consequences of the conscious and deliberate actions of the Defendants and were intentional within the meaning of the AWPA, 29 U.S.C. § 1854(c)(1 ).
30. As a result of the Defendants’ violalions of the AWPA and its attendam regulations as set tbrth in this count, the Plaintiffs and other class members have suffered damages.
COUNT II (Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act)
(Class Claims) (All Defendants) 31. This count sets forth class claims under Fed. R. Cir. P. 23(b)(2) by the Plaintiffs and other class members for damages and declaratory relief to the AWPA violations and its attendant regulations by the Defendants.

32. The Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs I through 3f} ~fthe complaint.
33. The Defendants failed to pay Social Security (FICA) taxes on the Plaintift~’ labor and that of the other class members, and to ensure the filing of the fomas W-2 and W-3 so as to properly credit the Plaintiffs and other class members’ Social Security earnings records tbr their labor, in violation of the AWPA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 1822(a), 1832(a) and its attendant regulations, 29 C.F.R. § 500.72.
34. The violations of the AWPA and its attendant regulations as set forth in this count were the natural consequences of the conscious and deliberate actions of Defendants and were intentional within the meaning of the AWPA, 29 U.S.C. § 1854(c)( 1 ).
35. As a result of the Defendants’ violations of the AWPA and its attendant regulations as set forth in this count, the Plaintiffs and other class members have not been properly credited their Social Security earnings.
COUNT III {Migrant and Seasonal Worker Protection Act)
(Individual Claims) (All Defendants)
36. This count sets forth a claim by Plaintiffs Gloria Roblero, David Matias and Rafael Gonzales for expanded statutow damages undcr the AWPA, 29 U.S.C. 1854{e} and its attendant regulations.
37. The Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations set tbrth in paragraphs 1 though 35 of the complaint.
38. On April 25, 2001, the Defendants caused Plaintiffs Gloria Roblero, David Matias

and Ralhcl Gonzales to be transported to Mecca Farms’ job site in a van operated by Isabel Ramirez.
39. While en route to the job site on April 25, 2001, the van was involved in a collision, resulting in bodily injuries to Plaintiffs Gloria Roblero, David Matias, and Rafael Gonzales.
40. In violation of the AWPA, 29 U.S.C. § 1841(b) and its attendant regulations 29 C.F.R. § 500.105(b)(3), the Defendants caused the transportation of Plaintift~ Gloria Roblero, David Matias, and Rathel Gonzales as described in paragraph 38 without t]rst ensuring that the van confomaed to applicable federal and state safety standards. Among other things, the van lacked seats for each of the passengers.
41. The safety violation described in paragraph 40 resulted in injt~ries to Plaintiffs Gloria Roblero, David Matias, and Rafael Gonzales. The injuries arose out of and in the course of employment as determined under Florida workers’ compensation law.
42. At the time of the accident. Isabel Ramirez, the vehicle driver, was an unregistered farm labor contractor, in violation ~fthe AWPA, 29 U.S.C. § 181i (a).
43. rhe Defendants utilized the services of Isabel Ramirez. an unregistered farm labor contractor, without taking reasonable steps to determine that Ramirez possessed a valid cerlificate of registration authorizing the pertbnnance of the farm labor contractor activities which he was requested or permitted to perfor~n, in violation of the AWPA, 29 U.S.C. § 1842.
44. As a result of the AWPA violations by the Defendants as set forth in this count, Plaintiffs Gloria Roblero, David Matias, and Rafael Gonzales suffered bodily injuries and other damages and are entitled to recover expanded statutory damages pursuant to the AWPA, 29 U.S.C. § 1854(e).
l0

COL,~T IV (Fair Labor Standards Act)
(All Defendants) 45. This count sets forth a claim by the Plaintiffs for damages Ibr the Defendants’ vio|ations of the minimum wage provisions of the FLSA from August ! 997 through November 2001, inclusive. 46. The Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 44 of the complaint. 47. At no time relevant to this action did the Defendants post in a conspicuous place a poster or other written statement advising the Plaintiffs of their right to the minimum wage under the FLSA. Such posting is required by regulations issued under the FLSA. 29 C.F.R § 516.4. 48. The Defendants tailed to pay the Plainliffs at least $5.15 tbr each compensable hour they worked during each pay period they were employed or jointly employed by the Defendants, in violation of the FLSA, 29 I.I.S.C. § 2116(a)(1). 49. The violations of the FLSA set forlh in paragraph 48 resulted, in part, ti-om Defendants’ failure to credit the Plaintiffs with all compensable hours worked. 50. The FLSA violations set ti~rth in paragraph 48 resulted, in part, from the Defendants’ thilure to supplement the Plaintiffs’ piece-rate earnings so as to raise them to the minimum level required by the FLSA. 51. At all times relevant to this action, the Defendants regularly withheld employee Social Security (FICA) contributions in accordance with the FICA from Plaintiffs’ wages. 52. The violations of the FLSA described in paragraph 48 resulted, in part, from the

Defendants’ failure to deposit with the Internal Revenue Service all sums withheld from the Plaintiffs’ waee~ . for the ~,., .~t’’v’<e--- of cmplcL~ ,~,~ So~,iaI Security taxes pursuant to the FICA.
53. The violations of the FLSA described in paragraph 48 resulted, in part, from the Det~ndants’ unlawful charges tbr facilitating the payment of wages.
54. As a result of the FLSA violations described in this count, the Plaintiffs are entitled to recover the amount of unpaid minimum wages due each of them and an equal amount as liquidated damages, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216 (b).
COUNT V (Federal Insurance Contributions Act)
(Class Claims) (Defendants M. Sanchez & Son, Inc. and Maria T. Sanchez)
55. This count sets fi~rth class claims under Fed. R. Cir. P. 23(b)(2) by the Plaintiffs and the other members of the class for declaratory relief and injunctive relief with respect to violations of the Fedcral Insurance Contributions Act by Defendants M. Sanchez & Son, Inc. and Maria T. Sanchez from August 1907 through November 2001, inclusive.
56. The Plaintiffs reallege and incorporatc by refcrence the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 54.
57. At all times relevant to this action, Defendants M. Sanchez & Son, Inc. and Maria T. Sanchez were the employers of the Plaintiffs and other class members for purposes of the FICA, 26 U.S.C. § 3121(o).
58. At all times relevant to Ibis action, Defendants M. Sanchez & Son, Inc. and Maria T. Sanchez regularly withheld employee Social Security (FICA) contributions in accordance with the FICA from the wages of the Plaintiffs and other members of the class.
12

59. Defendants M. Sanchez & Son, Inc. and Maria T. Sanchez tailed to deposit with the Internal Revenue ~ervice :~1t of the ~um~ ~itlih,,ld flora the wages ot the Plaintiffs and class members as described in Paragraph 58 above, along with a matching employer’s share. On intbrmation and belief, Defendants M. Sanchez & Son, Inc. and Maria T. Sanchez converted all or a portion of these monies to their own use. In addition, Defendants M. Sanchez & Son, Inc. and Maria T. Sanchez failed to file with the Social Security Administration forms W-2 and W-3 with regard to all of the labor perfbrmed by the Plaintiffs and other class members, thereby preventing the Social Security Administration from properly crediting the individual Social Security earnings records of the workers with the wages.
60. By the actions described in Paragraph 58 and 59, Defendants M. Sanchez & Son, Inc. and Maria ’F. Sanchez violated the FICA.
61. As a result of the violations of the FICA described in this count, lhe Plaintiffs and the other members of the class have been denied Social Security benefits to which they arc lawfully entitled.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs pray that the Court will enter an order:
(a) Certi~ing the case as a class action in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) with respect ~o the claims set tbrth in Count I. (b) Certifying the case as a class action in accordance with Fed. R. Cir. P. 23(b)(2) with respect to the claims set tbrth in Count II mad V. (c) Declaring that Defendants Mecca Farms, Inc., M. Sanchez & Son, Inc., Maria T.
13

Sanchcz and Rogerio T. Rodriguez have intentionally violated the AWPA, as set forth in Counts I. ll_ and (d) Declaring that the Defendants have violated the FLSA, as set forth in Count IV; (e) Declaring that Defendants M. Sanchez & Son, Inc. and Maria T. Sanchez have violated the FICA as set forth in Count V; (t) Granting judgment for the Plaintiffs and the other class members and against the Defendants, jointly and severally, on the AWPA claims as set tbrth in Count I and awarding the Plaintiffs and each of each of the class members his or her actual damages or statutory damages of $500, whichever is greater, for every, AWPA violation and its attendant regulations set forth in the count; (g) Granting judgment tbr the Plaintiffs and the other class members and against the Defendants. jointly and severally, on the AWPA claims as set forth in Count lI, and enjoining the Defkndants from failing to tile with the Social Security Administration /brms W-2 and W-3 relating t,.; the Plaintiffs and the oti~er class members tbr the Defendants during the period of the action; (h) Granting judgment tbr Plaintiffs Roblero, Matias, and Gonzales and against the Defendants, jointly and severally, on the AWPA claim as set tbrth in Count lII and awarding each of the Plaintiffs $10,000 in expanded statutory damages; (i) Granting judgment fbr the Plaintiffs and the other class members against the Defendants, jointly and severally, on the FLSA claims as set forth in Count IV and awarding each of the Plaintiffs his or her unpaid minimum wages and an equal amount as liquidated damages;
14

(j) Granting judgment m favor of the Plaintiffs and the other class mcmbers and against Defendants M. Ranche7 & qon, Inc. and Maria T. Sanchez on the I~i(.:A claims as set tbrth in Count V, and enjoining these Defendants from failing to file with the Social Security Administration *bnns W-2 and W-3 relating to the labor of the Plaintiffs and the other class members tbr thcse Defendants during the period relevant to this action; (k) Awarding the Plaintiffs the costs of the action; (1) Awarding the Plaintiffs a reasonable attorney’s tee with respect to the claims under the FLSA and the wage payment provisions of the AWPA; (m) Granting such furthcr relief as this Court deems just and equitable.
Respectfully submitted,
Cathleen D. Caron Florida Bar Number 0468266 Gregory S. Schell Florida Bar Number 287199 Migrant Farmworker Justice Project 508 Lucerne Avenue Lake Worth, FL 33460 Telcphone: (561) 582-3921 Facsimile: (561) 582-4884 Email: Cathleen@floridalegal.org Email: Greg@floridalegal.org Attorneys for Plaintiffs
15