UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI

JACKSON DIVISION

_______________________________________

FEDERICO SALINAS-RODRIGUEZ,

)

JUAN HERNANDEZ-HERNANDEZ,

)

JAVIER ASTELLO-MENDEZ,

)

MARCO ANTONIO SALINAS-,

)

RODRIGUEZ,

)

)

on behalf of themselves and

) Case No. 3:05 CV 440 WHB-AGN

all others similarly situated,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

CLASS ACTION

ALPHA SERVICES, L.L.C.,

)

and ROBERT WADE ZAHARIE

)

)

Defendants.

)

______________________________________ )

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
1. This is an action brought by migrant agricultural workers admitted to the United States to work under the H-2B temporary foreign worker visa program. The Plaintiffs were employed in the forestry operations of the Defendants at various times during the period from April 2002 through the present. The named Plaintiffs seek redress on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated for the Defendants’ violations of their rights under the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 1801-1871 (1999), (“AWPA”) and the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201-219 (1998), (“FLSA”).
2. This action is brought on behalf of a class of over 500 predominantly Mexican
1

and Guatemalan migrant workers who planted trees and performed other forestry-related activities for the Defendants. The named Plaintiffs and other class members are indigent migrant workers whom the Defendants brought to the United States on temporary, H-2B work visas. The named Plaintiffs and other class members left their homes and families and spent considerable money and effort to come to the United States, to perform arduous jobs which the Defendants have certified that American workers were not willing to do. The named Plaintiffs made these sacrifices in an effort to better support their families in Mexico.
3. Almost all of the Plaintiffs and other class members are non-English speakers who had little, if any, understanding of their legal rights while working in the United States as H2B forestry workers - particularly their legal rights to receive a prevailing hourly wage and overtime pay. The Defendants took full advantage of the Plaintiffs’ and other class members’ indigence, inability to speak or understand English, and their lack of understanding of the laws of the United States to grossly underpay the named Plaintiffs and other class members.
4. The Plaintiffs seek restitution of unpaid wages, an award of money damages, declaratory relief, and injunctive relief to make them whole for damages they suffered due to the Defendants’ violations of law, and to ensure that they and other H-2B workers will not be subjected by the Defendants to such illegal conduct in the future.
JURISDICTION 5. Jurisdiction is conferred upon this court by 28 U.S.C. § 1331, this case arising under the laws of the United States, 28 U.S.C. § 1337, this action arising under Acts of Congress regulating commerce, 29 U.S.C. § 1854(a), this action arising under the AWPA, and 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), this action arising under the FLSA.
2

6. The Court is empowered to issue a declaratory judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202.
VENUE 7. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 (b), 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c) and 29 U.S.C. § 1854(a).
PARTIES 8. At all times relevant to this action, the Plaintiffs and the other class members were H-2B temporary foreign workers within the meaning of 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b). 9. At all times relevant to this action, the Plaintiffs and the other class members were migrant agricultural workers within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 1802(8)(A), in that they were employed in agricultural employment of a seasonal nature and were required to be absent overnight from their permanent places of residence. 10. Members of the Plaintiff class performed substantial agricultural work for the Defendants within this District. 11. At all times relevant to this action, the Plaintiffs and the other class members were engaged in agricultural employment for the Defendants within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 1802(3). 12. At all times relevant to this action the Plaintiffs and the other class members were employees of the Defendants within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 203(e)(1). 13. At all times relevant to this action, the Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. §203(g). 14. At all times relevant to this action, the Plaintiffs and the other class members were employed by the Defendants in the production of goods for sale in interstate commerce.
3

15. Defendant Alpha Services, L.L.C. is a Limited Liability Company, organized under the laws of Idaho, which conducts business in this District.
16. At all times relevant to this action Defendant Alpha Services, L.L.C. was an agricultural employer within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 1802(2).
17. At all times relevant to this action, Defendant Alpha Services, L.L.C. employed the Plaintiffs and the other class members within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 1802(5) and 29 U.S.C. § 203(g).
18. Defendant Robert Wade Zaharie is an individual resident of Idaho who conducted significant business in this District. Defendant Robert Wade Zaharie had significant contacts with the state of Mississippi and this District such that jurisdiction and venue are proper in this Court.
19. At all times relevant to this action, Defendant Robert Zaharie 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).
STATEMENT OF FACTS 20. The Defendants operate a tree-planting service, in which they bid on and negotiate contracts to plant trees on land owned by other individuals and companies. To fill the manpower requirements of their contracts, the Defendants sought importation of foreign nationals to perform forestry work on a seasonal or temporary basis, in accordance with the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b). 21. The Plaintiffs and the other members of the class were admitted to the United States to be employed as members of labor crews organized by the Defendants. Each of the
4

Plaintiffs and the other class members was issued a temporary visa, commonly referred to as an “H-2B visa,” as authorized by 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b), its attendant regulations, 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(6), 20 C.F.R. § 655.3, and administrative letters and/or guidance. After being admitted to enter the U.S., the Plaintiffs and the other class members were then employed by the Defendants in the United States.
22. The Plaintiffs and other class members spent considerable sums of money to process their H2B work visas and travel from their home villages to the United States. These costs were incurred by the Plaintiffs for the primary benefit of their Defendant employers.
23. As a condition of obtaining H-2B visas for the Plaintiffs and the other class members, the Defendants certified to the United States Department of Labor that, inter alia, the wages paid the Plaintiffs and other class members would equal or exceed the applicable prevailing wage and that the job would not contravene Federal, State, or local law, including applicable requirements of the H-2B program, as set out in Department of Labor regulations and administrative interpretations.
24. The Defendants did not provide adequate and accurate disclosures of information regarding the work and its details to the Plaintiffs. The information the Defendants and their recruiting agents did provide to the Plaintiffs regarding work hours and manner of compensation was false and misleading.
25. The Defendants did not issue accurate and complete records of their employment to the Plaintiffs and other class members. The records the Defendants kept of the Plaintiffs’ work were inadequate, inaccurate, false and misleading.
26. The Plaintiffs and other class members performed arduous tree planting and
5

associated work for the Defendants. They regularly worked far in excess of 40 hours in a given workweek.
27. The Defendants failed to pay the piece rate promised in the written disclosure provided to the workers and the ETA 750, which sets the minimum contractual terms between the parties.
28. The Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiffs and the other members of the class the minimum wage for all the work they performed.
29. The Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiffs and the other members of the class the proper prevailing wage for all the work they performed.
30. The Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiffs and the other members of the class overtime wages for all compensable time they were employed in excess of forty (40) hours in a given workweek.
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 31. All claims set forth in Count I are brought by the Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated persons pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 32. The named Plaintiffs seek to represent a class consisting of all those individuals admitted as H-2B temporary foreign workers pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b), who were employed by the Defendants in any capacity from April 2002 through the present. 33. The precise number of individuals in the class is known only to the Defendants. The class is believed to include well over 500 individuals. The class is comprised principally of indigent migrant farmworkers who maintain their residences in locations throughout Mexico and
6

Guatemala. The class members are not fluent in the English language. Indeed, some of the class speak indigenous Mayan languages as their primary language, and speak Spanish as a second language, with varying degrees of proficiency. The relatively small size of the individual claims, the geographical dispersion of the class, and the indigency of the class members makes the maintenance of separate actions by each class member economically infeasible. Joinder of all class members is impracticable.
34. There are questions of fact and law common to the class. These common questions include whether the Defendants failed to pay the named Plaintiffs and other class members prevailing and overtime wages promptly when due, as required by law and their employment contracts; whether the Defendants failed to pay the promised piece rate; whether the Defendants, through their agents, knowingly provided the named Plaintiffs and other class members with false and misleading information about the work and its compensation; whether Defendants failed to maintain complete and accurate records regarding the class members’ work; whether the Defendants failed to provide the class members with complete and accurate wage statements; whether the failure of the Defendants to pay the class members the prevailing wage and overtime pay as required by the H-2B temporary foreign labor program violated the AWPA’s wage payment and working arrangement provisions; whether the failure of the Defendants to pay the promised piece rate violated the AWPA’s working arrangement provision; and whether the Defendants’ failure to maintain complete and accurate records regarding the work of the class members, and Defendants’ failure to provide the class members with complete and accurate wage statements, were violations of the AWPA.
35. The claims of the named Plaintiffs are typical of the class, and these typical,
7

common claims predominate over any questions affecting only individual class members. The named Plaintiffs have the same interests as do the other members of the class and will vigorously prosecute these interests on behalf of the class.
36. Counsel for the Plaintiffs have handled numerous AWPA and FLSA actions in the federal courts. They are prepared to advance litigation costs necessary to vigorously litigate this action.
37. A class action under Rule 23(b)(3) is superior to other available methods of adjudicating this controversy because, inter alia:
• 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;
• Many members of the class are unaware of their rights to prosecute these claims and lack the means or resources to secure legal assistance;
• There has been no litigation already commenced against the Defendants by the members of the class to determine the questions presented;
• It is desirable that the claims be heard in this forum since the Defendants have significant contacts with this District; and
• A class action can be managed without undue difficulty since the Defendants have regularly committed the violations complained of herein, and are required to maintain detailed records concerning each member of the class.
8

COUNT I (MIGRANT AND SEASONAL AGRICULTURAL WORKER PROTECTION ACT)
(CLASS ACTION) 38. This count sets forth a claim by the Plaintiffs and the other members of the class for declaratory relief and injunctive relief, including the restitution of unpaid wages with respect to the Defendants’ violations of the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act (“AWPA”). 39. The Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 37 above. 40. The certifications described in paragraph 23 above along with the written disclosure provided to the workers constituted part of the working arrangement between the Defendants and the Plaintiffs and other class members within the meaning of the AWPA, 29 U.S.C. § 1822(c), and its attendant regulations, 29 C.F.R. § 500.72. 41. The Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiffs and other members of the class the promised piece rate for the work they performed. 42. The Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiffs and the other members of the class the proper prevailing wage for all the work they performed and failed to pay the Plaintiffs and the other members of the class overtime wages for all compensable time they were employed in excess of forty (40) hours in a given workweek. 43. The violation of the AWPA as set out in paragraph 42 resulted in part from the Defendants’ failure to supplement the piece-rate earnings of the Plaintiffs and the other class members so as to raise their individual pay period wages to a rate equal to or exceeding the
9

prevailing and overtime wage. 44. The violation of the AWPA as set out in paragraph 42 resulted in part from the
Defendants’ failure to reimburse the Plaintiffs and the other members of the class for expenses they incurred which were primarily for the benefit of the Defendants, as well as the Defendants’ unlawful withholdings and deductions from the wages of the Plaintiffs and the other class members.
45. By their actions as described in paragraphs 41, 42, 43, and 44 the Defendants violated without justification their working arrangement with the Plaintiffs and the other members of the class, thereby violating the AWPA, 29 U.S.C. § 1822(c), and its attendant regulations, 29 C.F.R. § 500.72.
46. By their actions as described in paragraphs 41, 42, 43, and 44 the Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiffs and other members of the class their wages owed promptly when due, thereby violating the AWPA, 29 U.S.C. § 1822(a), and its attendant regulations, 29 C.F.R. § 500.81.
47. The Defendants and/or their agents knowingly provided false and misleading information to the Plaintiff workers and other class members, regarding the terms and conditions of their agricultural employment, in violation of the AWPA 29 U.S.C. § 1821(f), and its attendant regulations, 29 C.F.R. § 500.77.
48. The Defendants failed to make, keep, and preserve accurate and complete records regarding the Plaintiffs’ and the other class members’ employment, in violation of the AWPA, 29 U.S.C. § 1821(d)(1), and its attendant regulations, 29 C.F.R. § 500.80(a).
49. The Defendants failed to provide the Plaintiffs and the other class members
10

complete and accurate itemized written statements for each pay period containing the required information, in violation of the AWPA, 29 U.S.C. § 1821(d)(2), and its attendant regulations, 29 C.F.R. § 500.80(d).
50. 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).
51. As a result of the Defendants’ violations of the AWPA and its attendant regulations as set forth in this count, the Plaintiffs and the other members of the class have suffered damages.
COUNT II (FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT)
(COLLECTIVE ACTION) 52. This count sets forth a claim for declaratory relief and damages for the Defendants’ violations of the minimum wage and overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). This count is stated by the Plaintiffs and other current or former H-2B temporary foreign workers employed by the Defendants who are similarly situated. 53. The Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference the allegations set forth above. 54. Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), Plaintiffs Federico Salinas-Rodriguez, Juan Hernandez-Hernandez, Javier Astello-Mendez, and Marco Antonio Salinas-Rodriguez have consented in writing to be party plaintiffs in this FLSA action. Their written consents are attached to the original complaint.
11

55. The Defendants violated 29 U.S.C. § 206(a) by failing to pay each of the Plaintiffs and others similarly situated the applicable minimum wage for every compensable hour of labor they performed.
56. The Defendants violated 29 U.S.C. § 207(a) by failing to pay the Plaintiffs and others similarly situated at an hourly rate equal to one and a half times the regular hourly rate at which they were employed for all compensable time they were employed in excess of forty (40) hours in each workweek.
57. The violations of the FLSA set out in paragraphs 55 and 56 resulted in part from the Defendants’ failure to supplement the piece-rate earnings of the Plaintiffs and others similarly situated so as to raise their individual pay period wages to a rate equal to or exceeding the minimum and overtime wage.
58. The violations of the FLSA set out in paragraphs 55 and 56 resulted, in part, from the Defendants’ failure to reimburse the Plaintiffs and others similarly situated for expenses the workers incurred which were primarily for the benefit of the Defendants.
59. The violations of the FLSA set out in paragraphs 55 and 56 resulted, in part, from the Defendants’ unlawful withholdings and deductions from the wages of the Plaintiffs and others similarly situated.
60. The Defendants’ failures to pay the Plaintiffs and others similarly situated the federally mandated hourly minimum wage and the federally mandated overtime wage rate, for all time they were employed in excess of forty (40) in a workweek, were willful violations of the FLSA within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 255(a).
61. As a consequence of the Defendants’ violations of the FLSA, the Plaintiffs and
12

others similarly situated are entitled to recover their unpaid minimum and overtime wages, plus an additional equal amount in liquidated damages, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs pray that this Court will enter an order: 1. Certifying this case as a class action in accordance with Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure with respect to the claims set forth in Count I; 2. With respect to the claims set forth in Count II, conditionally certifying this case as a collective action. 3. Declaring that the Defendants intentionally violated the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act and its attendant regulations, as set forth in Count I; 4. Declaring that the Defendants willfully violated the minimum wage and overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, as set forth in Count II; 5. Granting judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs and the other class members and against the Defendants on these Plaintiffs’ and other class members’ claims under the AWPA as set forth in Count I and awarding each of the Plaintiffs and the other class members actual or statutory damages for each violation of the AWPA, whichever is greater. 6. Permanently enjoining the Defendants from further violations of the AWPA and its attendant regulations; 7. Granting judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated and against the Defendants on their claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act as set forth in Count II and awarding each of these Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated individuals who opt-in to
13

this action his unpaid minimum and overtime wages and an equal amount in liquidated damages;
8. Awarding the Plaintiffs the costs of this action;
9. Awarding the Plaintiffs a reasonable attorney’s fee with respect to their Fair Labor
Standards Act claims; and
10. Granting such further relief as is just and equitable.
Respectfully submitted this 22nd day of December, 2005
s/Kelley M. Bruner_________ Mary C. Bauer Virginia Bar Number 31388 Pro Hac Vice Kelley M. Bruner Alabama Bar Number 8115-K74B Pro Hac Vice Andrew Turner Virginia Bar Number 48853 Pro Hac Vice Immigrant Justice Project Southern Poverty Law Center 400 Washington Avenue Montgomery, Alabama 36104 334-956-8200 334-956-8481 (fax) mbauer@splcenter.org kbruner@splcenter.org aturner@splcenter.org
Richard T. Conrad III Mississippi Bar Number 10648 Armstrong Allen, PLLC P.O. Box 14028 Jackson, MS 39236-4028 (601) 713-6304 (601) 713-2049 (fax)
14

rconrad@armstrongallen.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs
15

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on December 22, 2005, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of Court using the ECF system, which will automatically send e-mail notification to the following attorneys for the Defendants: J. Larry Stine Elizabeth K. Dorminey Paul Oliver Wimberly, Lawson, Steckel, Nelson & Schneider, P.C. 3400 Peachtree Road, Suite 400 Atlanta, GA 30326 R. Pepper Crutcher, Jr. Balch & Bingham LLP 401 East Capitol Street, Suite 200 Jackson, Mississippi 39201
s/Kelley M. Bruner____ Attorney for Plaintiffs
16

 
 Case 3:05-cv-00440-WHB-JCS Document 106 Filed 09/06/2006 Page 1 of 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI

JACKSON DIVISION

______________________________________

)

FEDERICO SALINAS-RODRIGUEZ, et al. )

)

PLAINTIFFS,

)

)

v.

) Case No. 3:05 CV 440 WHB-AGN

)

ALPHA SERVICES, L.L.C., et al.

)

)

DEFENDANTS.

)

______________________________________ )

CONSENT ORDER

This case came before the Court on September 5, 2006, at a hearing to determine the lawfulness,

reasonableness, adequacy, and fairness of the proposed class settlement in this action.

On June 2, 2006, the Court entered an order granting the parties’ joint motion and

certified the class in this case, preliminarily approved the class action settlement, and

directed that notice be given to the members of the certified class. The notice advised the

class members of the terms of the proposed settlement, of their right to object to it, and of

the time and place of the fairness hearing. The Court is unaware of any person objecting

to the proposed settlement. The Court has also been advised that the parties have agreed

to the entry of this Consent Order.

Based on the foregoing, the Court hereby FINDS that:

A. The terms and provisions of the Court’s order of June 2, 2006 in this case

have been carried out by the parties.

Case 3:05-cv-00440-WHB-JCS Document 106 Filed 09/06/2006 Page 2 of 5
B. The terms of the settlement contemplated herein are found in the Settlement Agreement attached hereto as Exhibit A, and the terms thereof are incorporated herein and made a part hereof.
C. Said settlement is lawful, fair, just, reasonable, and adequate and was reached after good faith, arm’s-length negotiations by experienced and capable class counsel in the absence of fraud or collusion. During the negotiation, the parties considered, among other things: the amount of the settlement; the cost, complexity, and duration of the litigation if pursued through trial; the likelihood of the Plaintiffs prevailing on the merits; the range of possible discovery and certainty of damages; the further disruption to the business activities of the Defendants; the limited assets of the Defendants, and; other matters bearing on the best interests of the parties. Furthermore, there has been no objection by any class member to the settlement contemplated herein.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that: 1. The Court permanently and finally certifies, under Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the following settlement class for this cause as follows:
All those individuals admitted as H-2B temporary foreign workers pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b), who were employed by the Defendants in any capacity from April 14, 2002 through the present. 2. The settlement contemplated in the Settlement Agreement is finally approved, and the parties are directed to continue to perform in compliance with the terms and subject to all conditions thereof; 3. As an essential and integral part of the parties’ settlement, the Court enters the following injunction, to which the Defendants have consented. This injunction is

Case 3:05-cv-00440-WHB-JCS Document 106 Filed 09/06/2006 Page 3 of 5
intended to ensure that Defendants shall fully comply with the requirements of the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act. Accordingly, it is ordered that in the course of any employment or labor contracting activities with any seasonal or migrant agricultural worker, such as their forestry workers, Defendants shall do the following:
a. With respect to each migrant or seasonal agricultural worker, make, keep and preserve for three years data showing for each workweek the following data: the worker’s name, full permanent address (to include the town, municipality, state and country), Social Security number, total hours worked on a daily basis, the piece-rate or hourly rate paid, the number of piece-work units earned, the total pay period earnings, and any withholdings from wages and the purpose for each such withholding;
b. Provide to each migrant or seasonal agricultural worker at each payday a written statement relating to his or her employment during the pay period showing the following information: the employer’s name, address and Internal Revenue Service employer identification number, total hours worked on a daily basis, the piece-rate or hourly rate paid, the number of piece-work units earned, the total pay period earnings, and any withholdings from wages and the purpose for each such withholding;
c. Properly record and compensate all compensable hours worked, specifically including time spent traveling between worksites, time

Case 3:05-cv-00440-WHB-JCS Document 106 Filed 09/06/2006 Page 4 of 5
engaged to be waiting at the worksites, and time spent on any compensable preliminary and/or postliminary work; d. Pay each and every migrant or seasonal agricultural worker, at least the proper prevailing wage for all compensable hours worked and at least the proper overtime wage for all compensable hours worked in excess of forty (40) in a given workweek; and e. Apply the decision in Arriaga v. Florida Pacific Farms, L.L.C, 305 F.3d 1228, 1232 (11th Cir. 2002), to their H-2B forestry workers such that each worker is reimbursed by the Defendants in the first work week of each season for reasonable costs incurred by the worker to come to work for Defendants, including incoming transportation expenses, visa processing expenses (including visa reciprocity fees and consular interview fees), application expenses, and border crossing fees – to the extent such expenses reduce the worker’s first week wages below the applicable wage under the Fair Labor Standards Act – during the 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 seasons, unless the U.S. Supreme Court rules that the Arriaga decision is inapplicable to H-2B workers. 4. Upon Defendants’ satisfaction of their financial obligations as set out in paragraphs 3-5 of the Settlement Agreement, this action shall be dismissed with prejudice, and Defendant Alpha Services, L.L.C., its parents, subsidiaries, past and present officers, members, directors, agents, attorneys, subsidiaries, parent corporations, related entities and affiliates, if any, and its respective successors, heirs and assigns, and Defendant Robert Wade Zaharie, his heirs, executors and administrators, shall be

Case 3:05-cv-00440-WHB-JCS Document 106 Filed 09/06/2006 Page 5 of 5
released from all damage and other claims relating to the employment of the Plaintiffs, the Opt-In Plaintiffs, and all other members of the class, their heirs, representatives, agents, attorneys, successors, or assigns, or anyone claiming on their behalf, which have been raised or asserted in this action, or which could have been raised or asserted in this action.
5. The Court expressly retains jurisdiction of this action until December 31, 2007, in order to oversee the consummation of this settlement and enforce the terms of the Settlement Agreement.
DONE AND ORDERED at Jackson, Mississippi this 5th day of September, 2006.
s/William H. Barbour, Jr. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 
 Salinas-Rodriguez v. Alpha Services, L.L.C., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2005)

2005 WL 3557178 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.
United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi, Jackson Division.
Federico SALINAS-RODRIGUEZ, et. al. Plaintiff v.
ALPHA SERVICES, L.L.C. and Robert Wade Zaharie Defendant.
No. Civ.A. 3:05CV44WHBAGN. | Dec. 27, 2005.
Attorneys and Law Firms
Andrew Turner, Kelley M. Bruner, Mary C. Bauer, Immigrant Justice Project/Southern Poverty Law Center, Montgomery, AL, Richard T. Conrad, III, Armstrong Allen, PLLC, Jackson, MS, for Plaintiffs.
Elizabeth K. Dorminey, James Larry Stine, Paul Oliver, Wimberly, Lawson, Steckel & Schneider, PC, Atlanta, GA, R. Pepper Crutcher, Jr., Balch & Bingham, LLP, Jackson, MS, for Defendants.
Opinion
OPINION AND ORDER
BARBOUR, J.
*1 This cause is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Certification of Collective Action, Court-Authorized Notice, and Disclosure of the Names, Addresses and Telephone Numbers of Potential Opt-In Plaintiffs (“Motion for Preliminary Certification”). Having considered the Motion, Response, and all attachments to each, as well as supporting and opposing authority, the Court finds that Plaintiffs’ Motion is well taken and should be granted.
I. Factual Background and Procedural History
This action arises from the employment of migrant forestry workers by Defendants Alpha Services, L.L.C., and Robert Zaharie (collectively referred to as “Defendants” or “Alpha”) under the H-2B temporary foreign worker visa program. Plaintiffs are eleven former migrant employees of Alpha admitted to the United States under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b) (“H-2B workers”). Alpha is an Idaho company that provides a tree planting

service in various locations throughout the United States. Alpha allegedly employed Plaintiffs as well as hundreds of other H-2B workers from 2001 to 2005 to plant trees. On April 14, 2005, Plaintiffs filed this action against Alpha, asserting class action claims for violations of the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Workers’ Protection Act, 29 U.S.C. § 1801 et seq., and the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. (“FLSA”). Pursuant to Section 216(b) of the FLSA, Plaintiffs now move for preliminary certification of their FLSA collective action claim.
Plaintiffs’ allege that they and similarly situated H-2B workers of Alpha were subjected to a common policy and practice of compensation that violated the FLSA in the following ways:
1. Plaintiffs and similarly situated H-2B workers’ wages were not supplemented when their average piece-rate earnings for a particular pay period did not equal or exceed minimum and/or overtime wage requirements;
2. Plaintiffs and similarly situated H-2B workers were not paid for all compensable time worked;
3. Plaintiffs and similarly situated H-2B workers’ wages were subjected to deductions for cost of tools, materials and other incidentals that were necessary for the work performed; and
4. Plaintiffs and similarly situated H-2B workers were not reimbursed for visa processing and travel costs that were incurred primarily for the benefit of Alpha.
Because Plaintiffs and other H-2B workers employed by Alpha during this period had comparable “working arrangements, job duties and job descriptions and payment systems,” Plaintiffs contend that they are “similarly situated” to other H-2B workers of Alpha to justify a collective action under the FLSA. See Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Certification, p. 3.
To establish that they are similarly situated, Plaintiffs submit affidavits stating that they observed other H-2B workers on their fourteen-member crew who had the same duties as they did and were similarly under-compensated. Also, Plaintiffs claim that they spoke with H-2B workers of Alpha who served on different crews and that these workers complained of the same pay practices that are the focus of Plaintiffs’ lawsuit. See Exhibits “6-8” of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Certification. Further, Plaintiffs point to the “Applications for Alien Employment Certification” submitted by Alpha to the Department of Labor as proof that the H-2B workers had
1

Salinas-Rodriguez v. Alpha Services, L.L.C., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2005)

almost identical job descriptions and terms of compensation. See Exhibits “1-4” of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Certification. As further proof that there are similarly situated workers, Plaintiffs submit the “2004-2005 Planting Disclosure” of Alpha which sets forth the terms of employment for all migrant workers who were employed as tree planters.
*2 Plaintiffs seek to represent the following class of former H-2B employees of Alpha:
All non-supervisory workers admitted as H-2b temporary foreign workers pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b), who were employed by the Defendants between April 14, 2002, through present.
See Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Certification, p. 2.
Conversely, Alpha argues that Plaintiffs only make generalized assertions that they are similarly situated. Alpha contends that Plaintiffs provide no evidentiary support that H-2B employees of Alpha were employed under the same terms or suffered the same FLSA violations alleged by Plaintiffs. Moreover, Alpha argues that Plaintiff Federico Salinas-Rodriguez stated in his deposition that the disputed pay practice pertains to the number of trees planted, which is contrary to the claims asserted in the Complaint. See Dep. of Salinas-Rodriguez, p. 32; attached as Exhibit to Defendants’ Response to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Collective Action. Also, because Plaintiffs have refused to answer questions and have asserted their Fifth Amendment right during depositions, Alpha profers that Plaintiffs are unsuitable representatives of the proposed class. Alternatively, Alpha argues that if the Court decides to conditionally certify the class, the class should be limited to the fourteen member crew of which Plaintiffs were members.

action is commonly referred to as an FLSA collective action. Putative plaintiffs in a FLSA collective action, unlike class actions under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, must “opt-in” rather than “opt-out” of the suit. 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).1

1

Section 216(b) provides that “[n]o employee shall be a

party plaintiff to any such action unless he gives his

consent in writing to become such a party and such

consent is filed in the court in which such action is

brought.”

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in Mooney v. Aramaco Services Co., 54 F.3d 1207, 1212 (5th Cir.1995), outline two alternative methods district courts could use in deciding whether an FLSA collective action claim should be certified.2 The first approach described in Mooney calls for a “two-stage” analysis of the similarly situated inquiry. Id. The second approach is identical to the Rule 23 class certification inquiry. Id. at 1213-14. The Mooney court chose not to adopt either method. However, in discussing the “opt-in” aspect of Section 216(b), the Fifth Circuit, prior to Mooney, opined that there is a “fundamental, irreconcilable difference between the class action described by Rule 23 and that provided for by FLSA § 16(b).” LaChapelle v. Owens-Illinois, Inc., 513 F.2d 286, 288 (5th Cir.1975). Accordingly, this Court finds that the two-stage method outlined in Mooney is the more appropriate method and will use this process in deciding whether Plaintiffs are similarly situated to other H-2B employees of Alpha.

2

Although the court in Mooney was faced with an

ADEA claim, Mooney is nonetheless applicable to

preliminary certification of FLSA claims. Because the

ADEA expressly incorporates Section 16(b) of the

FLSA, the law regarding certification under both acts is

interchangeable. Mooney, 54 F.3d at 1212.

In addition to requesting preliminary certification, Plaintiffs also ask that the Court approve the notice to be sent to putative class members, that Alpha be ordered to provide the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of any potential opt-in plaintiffs, and that the opt-in period last for eight months.
II. Analysis
II.A. Preliminary Certification Section 16(b) of the FLSA provides that employees who seek recourse against an employer may bring a suit on behalf of “similarly situated” employees. This type of

*3 The mechanics of the two-stage analysis, as elaborated by the court in Mooney, are as follows:
The first determination is made at the so-called ‘notice stage.’ At the notice stage, the district court makes a decision-usually based only on the pleadings and any affidavits which have been submitted-whether notice of the action should be given to potential class members.
Because the court has minimal evidence, this determination is made using a fairly lenient standard and typically results in ‘conditional certification’ of a representative class. If the district court ‘conditionally certifies’ the class, putative class members are given notice and the opportunity to ‘opt-in.’ The action proceeds as a representative action throughout discovery.
2

Salinas-Rodriguez v. Alpha Services, L.L.C., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2005)

The second determination is typically precipitated by a motion for “decertification” by the defendant usually filed after discovery is largely complete and the matter is ready for trial. At this stage, the court has much more information on which to base its decision, and makes a factual determination on the similarly situated question. If the claimants are similarly situated, the district court allows the representative action to proceed to trial. If the claimants are not similarly situated, the district court decertifies the class, and the opt-in plaintiffs are dismissed without prejudice. The class representatives-i.e. the original plaintiffs-proceed to trial on their individual claims.
Id. at 1213-14 (footnotes omitted). In the notice stage, representative plaintiffs must substantially allege that they and putative class members were similarly situated as to their job requirements and pay provision. Aguilar v. Complete Landsculpture, Inc., No. Civ. A. 3:04CV0766D; 2004 WL 2293842, at *2 (N.D.Tex. Oct.7, 2004). The employment circumstances need not be identical, only similar. Grayson v. K Mart Corp., 79 F.3d 1086, 1096 (11th Cir.1996). To justify conditional certification, there must be “some factual nexus which binds the named plaintiffs and the potential class members together as victims of a particularly alleged policy or practice.” Villataro v. Kim Son Rest., L.P., 286 F.Supp.2d 807, 810 (S.D.Tex.2003) (citations and brackets omitted).
In the case sub judice, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have met the “fairly lenient” standard of the notice stage by substantially alleging that other H-2B workers of Alpha, including those outside Plaintiffs crew, were similar situated to Plaintiffs. The “Applications for Alien Employment Certification” and “Planting Disclosure” reflects that other H-2B forestry workers were employed under the same job description and compensation scheme as Plaintiffs. Moreover, Plaintiffs’ affidavits allege that other H-2B workers were affected by the same policies and practices of which Plaintiffs complain. Although the affidavits are in generalized terms, at this stage in the litigation, Plaintiffs can not be expected to have an elaborate knowledge of the circumstances facing other H-2B workers that were not members of Plaintiffs immediate crew. The Court is mindful that discovery is only in its infant stages. Plaintiffs are not yet privy to the names and contact information of other H-2B workers. Thus, Plaintiffs have not had the opportunity to contact proposed class members to confirm or dispel these alleged similarities. If the Court required more proof at this notice stage, it would be overlooking the purpose behind the two-stage inquiry.
*4 Defendants further argue that the FLSA violations alleged in the Complaint are different than those which Plaintiff Salinas-Rodriguez described in his deposition. However, the court can not deny Plaintiffs’ rights to pursue a collective action simply based on the deposition

of one named Plaintiff, especially when other named Plaintiffs have yet to be deposed. Moreover, Defendants argument that Plaintiffs are not suitable representatives is premature. In making this argument, Defendant relies on case law that pertains to the adequacy requirement of Rule 23 class certification. But, as the Court recognized supra, the Fifth Circuit has explained that Rule 23 class actions are wholly different from FLSA collective actions. Unlike certification under Rule 23, in-depth discovery has generally not been conducted prior to preliminary certification of FLSA collective actions. Until the facts are more fully developed through discovery, the Court is unwilling to find that Plaintiffs are inadequate as representatives. Accordingly, the Court will conditionally certify Plaintiffs FLSA collective action claim.3

3

Of course the conditional certification of Plaintiffs’

FLSA collective action today indicates no ruling as to

Plaintiffs’ proposed class action claim under the

Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection

Act, 29 U.S.C. § 1801, et seq., (“AWPA”). Whether the

AWPA claim will proceed as a class action claim will

be determined according to Rule 23.

Although the action should be preliminarily certified as a collective action, the Court believes the class as proposed by Plaintiffs is too broad. Specifically, the Court takes issue with the period urged by Plaintiffs. FLSA claims generally have a two year statute of limitations. 29 U.S.C. § 255(a). The lone exception to the two year limitations is where there has been a willful violation by an employer, in which case there is a three year statute of limitations. Id. Moreover, the filing of a complaint does not toll the statute of limitation for all claims that are brought under an FLSA collective certification. As Plaintiffs admit, the statute of limitations on an opt-in plaintiff’s claim is not tolled until he or she files a consent form with the Court. 29 U.S.C. § 256(b). Even assuming Defendants committed wilful violations, there are clearly claims in the proposed class that are time barred. Defendants contend that the Court should limit the time period to cover any claims accruing within three years of the issuance of this Order. Defendants suggestion is well taken. The Court therefore conditionally certifies the following class:
All non-supervisory workers admitted as H-2B temporary foreign workers pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b), who were employed by the Defendants between December 27, 2002 through present.4

4

Both Plaintiffs and Defendants submitted proposed

notices to be sent to potential opt-in plaintiffs. In light

of several discrepancies in those proposed notices, the

3

Salinas-Rodriguez v. Alpha Services, L.L.C., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2005)

Court held a telephonic conference with counsel for all parties on December 19, 2005. The Court made several rulings regarding those discrepancies and directed counselors to promptly submit to the Court an agreed notice and consent form that reflects the ruling of the Court. After the agreed-to notice and consent form are submitted, the Court will issue a separate order authorizing the notice and consent form.
III.B. Miscellaneous Request of Plaintiff In addition to conditional certification, Plaintiffs ask that Defendant be ordered to provide Plaintiffs with the names, last-known addresses and telephone numbers of all potential opt-in plaintiffs. Defendants do not dispute that Plaintiffs are entitled to this information; therefore, Defendants are ordered to provide Plaintiffs the requested information on or before Friday, January 13, 2006.
Plaintiffs also ask that they be given eight months to locate and file consent forms for opt-in plaintiffs. Because the vast majority of potential opt-in plaintiffs currently reside in remote locations in Guatemala and Mexico where there are limited means of communication, Plaintiffs contend that this eight-month period is reasonable. The Court finds that an eight-month opt-in period is excessive. However, the Court agrees that the circumstances described by Plaintiffs may very well hamper their efforts to communicate with potential opt-in plaintiffs. Thus, the Court will give Plaintiffs 180 days

from the date of this Opinion and Order to locate and file consent forms for opt-in plaintiffs.
III. Conclusion
*5 Based on the holdings presented above:
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Certification of Collective Action, Court-Authorized Notice, and Disclosure of the Names, Addresses and Telephone Numbers of Potential Opt-In Plaintiffs [docket entry no. 46] is hereby granted. The Court hereby conditionally certifies Plaintiffs FLSA claim.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants provide Plaintiffs the names, last-known addresses and telephone numbers of all potential opt-in plaintiffs, as described in the class conditionally certified by the Court today, on or before Monday, January 13, 2005.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs must file all consents forms of opt-in plaintiffs within 180 days from the date of this Opinion and Order.
SO ORDERED.
	  

4

 
 Case 3:05-cv-00440-WHB-LRA Document 105-2 Filed 09/01/06 Page 1 of 17

Case 3:05-cv-00440-WHB-LRA Document 105-2 Filed 09/01/06 Page 2 of 17

Case 3:05-cv-00440-WHB-LRA Document 105-2 Filed 09/01/06 Page 3 of 17

Case 3:05-cv-00440-WHB-LRA Document 105-2 Filed 09/01/06 Page 4 of 17

Case 3:05-cv-00440-WHB-LRA Document 105-2 Filed 09/01/06 Page 5 of 17

Case 3:05-cv-00440-WHB-LRA Document 105-2 Filed 09/01/06 Page 6 of 17

Case 3:05-cv-00440-WHB-LRA Document 105-2 Filed 09/01/06 Page 7 of 17

Case 3:05-cv-00440-WHB-LRA Document 105-2 Filed 09/01/06 Page 8 of 17

Case 3:05-cv-00440-WHB-LRA Document 105-2 Filed 09/01/06 Page 9 of 17

Case 3:05-cv-00440-WHB-LRA Document 105-2 Filed 09/01/06 Page 10 of 17

Case 3:05-cv-00440-WHB-LRA Document 105-2 Filed 09/01/06 Page 11 of 17

Case 3:05-cv-00440-WHB-LRA Document 105-2 Filed 09/01/06 Page 12 of 17

Case 3:05-cv-00440-WHB-LRA Document 105-2 Filed 09/01/06 Page 13 of 17

Case 3:05-cv-00440-WHB-LRA Document 105-2 Filed 09/01/06 Page 14 of 17

Case 3:05-cv-00440-WHB-LRA Document 105-2 Filed 09/01/06 Page 15 of 17

Case 3:05-cv-00440-WHB-LRA Document 105-2 Filed 09/01/06 Page 16 of 17

Case 3:05-cv-00440-WHB-LRA Document 105-2 Filed 09/01/06 Page 17 of 17

 
 Case: 3:05-cv-00440-WHB-LRA As of: 07/18/2012 01:45 PM CDT 1 of 14
STAY, CLOSED, JURY, LRA
U.S. District Court Southern District of Mississippi (Jackson) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:05−cv−00440−WHB−LRA

Salinas−Rodriquez et al v. Alpha Services, Inc. et al Assigned to: District Judge William H. Barbour, Jr Referred to: Magistrate Judge Linda R. Anderson Case in other court: Western District of Arkansas, Eldorado
Division, 05cv1033 Cause: 29:201 Fair Labor Standards Act
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 07/18/2005 Date Terminated: 05/19/2008 Jury Demand: Both Nature of Suit: 710 Labor: Fair Standards Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Federico Salinas−Rodriquez

represented by Andrew Turner − PHV IMMIGRANT JUSTICE PROJECT/SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER−Montgo 400 Washington Avenue Montgomery, AL 36104 334/956−8200 Fax: 334/956−8481 Email: aturner@splcenter.org LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kelley M. Bruner − PHV IMMIGRANT JUSTICE PROJECT/SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER−Montgo 400 Washington Avenue Montgomery, AL 36104 334/956−8200 Fax: 334/956−8481 Email: kbruner@splcenter.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mary C. Bauer − PHV IMMIGRANT JUSTICE PROJECT/SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER−Montgo 400 Washington Avenue Montgomery, AL 36104 334/956−8200 Fax: 334/956−8481 Email: mary.bauer@splcenter.org LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Richard T. Conrad , III WELLS, MARBLE &HURST, PLLC P. O. Box 131 Jackson, MS 39205−0131 601/605−6900 Fax: 601/605−6901 Email: rconrad@wellsmar.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff

Case: 3:05-cv-00440-WHB-LRA As of: 07/18/2012 01:45 PM CDT 2 of 14

Malaques Astello−Guevara

represented by Andrew Turner − PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kelley M. Bruner − PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mary C. Bauer − PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Richard T. Conrad , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Juan Hernandez−Hernandez

represented by Andrew Turner − PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kelley M. Bruner − PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mary C. Bauer − PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Richard T. Conrad , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Valentin Salinas−Castro

represented by Andrew Turner − PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kelley M. Bruner − PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mary C. Bauer − PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Richard T. Conrad , III

Case: 3:05-cv-00440-WHB-LRA As of: 07/18/2012 01:45 PM CDT 3 of 14

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

Plaintiff Javier Astello−Mendez

represented by Andrew Turner − PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kelley M. Bruner − PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mary C. Bauer − PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Richard T. Conrad , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Marco Antonio Salinas

represented by Andrew Turner − PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kelley M. Bruner − PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mary C. Bauer − PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Richard T. Conrad , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Ramiro Gonzalez−Felipe

represented by Andrew Turner − PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kelley M. Bruner − PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mary C. Bauer − PHV

Case: 3:05-cv-00440-WHB-LRA As of: 07/18/2012 01:45 PM CDT 4 of 14

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Richard T. Conrad , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Jose Isabel Lopez−Sanchez

represented by Andrew Turner − PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kelley M. Bruner − PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mary C. Bauer − PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Richard T. Conrad , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Caimiro Rodriguez−Garcia

represented by Andrew Turner − PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kelley M. Bruner − PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mary C. Bauer − PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Richard T. Conrad , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff J Jesus Lopez−Sanchez

represented by Andrew Turner − PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 3:05-cv-00440-WHB-LRA As of: 07/18/2012 01:45 PM CDT 5 of 14

Kelley M. Bruner − PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mary C. Bauer − PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Richard T. Conrad , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Roberto Salinas−Castro

represented by Andrew Turner − PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kelley M. Bruner − PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mary C. Bauer − PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Richard T. Conrad , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant Alpha Services, Inc.

represented by Elizabeth K. Dorminey − PHV WIMBERLY, LAWSON, STECKEL, WEATHERSBY &SCHNEIDER, PC Lenox Towers, Suite 400 3400 Peachtree Road, N.E. Atlanta, Ga 30326 404/365−0900 Fax: 404/261−3707 Email: bdorminy@bellsouth.net LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James Larry Stine − PHV WIMBERLY, LAWSON, STECKEL, WEATHERSBY &SCHNEIDER, PC Lenox Towers, Suite 400 3400 Peachtree Road, N.E. Atlanta, Ga 30326 404/365−0900 Fax: 404/261−3707

Case: 3:05-cv-00440-WHB-LRA As of: 07/18/2012 01:45 PM CDT 6 of 14

Email: jls@wimlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Paul Oliver − PHV WIMBERLY, LAWSON, STECKEL, WEATHERSBY &SCHNEIDER, PC Lenox Towers, Suite 400 3400 Peachtree Road, N.E. Atlanta, Ga 30326 404/365−0900 Fax: 404/926−2121 Email: po@wimlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

R. Pepper Crutcher , Jr. BALCH &BINGHAM, LLP − Jackson 188 East Capitol Street, Suite 1400 P. O. Box 22587 (39225) Jackson, MS 39201 601/961−9900 Fax: 601/961−4466 Email: pcrutcher@balch.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Robert Wade Zaharie

represented by Elizabeth K. Dorminey − PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James Larry Stine − PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Paul Oliver − PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

R. Pepper Crutcher , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 07/18/2005
07/18/2005

# Docket Text
15 Case transferred in from District of Arkansas, Eldorado Division; Case Number 05−1033. Original file with documents numbered 1 thru 14, certified copy of transfer order and docket sheet received., filed by Alpha Services, Inc., Robert Wade Zaharie. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement # 2 # 3 Supplement # 4 Supplement)(lbt, ) (Entered: 07/19/2005)
16 NOTICE of Appearance by Richard T. Conrad, III on behalf of Javier Astello−Mendez, Marco Antonio Salinas, Ramiro Gonzalez−Felipe, Jose Isabel

Case: 3:05-cv-00440-WHB-LRA As of: 07/18/2012 01:45 PM CDT 7 of 14

07/18/2005 07/18/2005 07/18/2005 07/18/2005 07/18/2005
07/19/2005
07/19/2005 07/19/2005 07/19/2005
07/20/2005 07/20/2005 07/20/2005

Lopez−Sanchez, Caimiro Rodriguez−Garcia, J Jesus Lopez−Sanchez, Roberto Salinas−Castro, Federico Salinas−Rodriquez, Malaques Astello−Guevara, Juan Hernandez−Hernandez, Valentin Salinas−Castro (lbt) (Entered: 07/19/2005)
17 MOTION for Mary Bauer to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Javier Astello−Mendez, Marco Antonio Salinas, Ramiro Gonzalez−Felipe, Jose Isabel Lopez−Sanchez, Caimiro Rodriguez−Garcia, J Jesus Lopez−Sanchez, Roberto Salinas−Castro, Federico Salinas−Rodriquez, Malaques Astello−Guevara, Juan Hernandez−Hernandez, Valentin Salinas−Castro. (lbt) (Entered: 07/19/2005)
18 MOTION for Kelley M. Bruner to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Javier Astello−Mendez, Marco Antonio Salinas, Ramiro Gonzalez−Felipe, Jose Isabel Lopez−Sanchez, Caimiro Rodriguez−Garcia, J Jesus Lopez−Sanchez, Roberto Salinas−Castro, Federico Salinas−Rodriquez, Malaques Astello−Guevara, Juan Hernandez−Hernandez, Valentin Salinas−Castro. (lbt) (Entered: 07/19/2005)
19 MOTION for Andrew Turner to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Javier Astello−Mendez, Marco Antonio Salinas, Ramiro Gonzalez−Felipe, Jose Isabel Lopez−Sanchez, Caimiro Rodriguez−Garcia, J Jesus Lopez−Sanchez, Roberto Salinas−Castro, Federico Salinas−Rodriquez, Malaques Astello−Guevara, Juan Hernandez−Hernandez, Valentin Salinas−Castro. (lbt) (Entered: 07/19/2005)
20 MOTION to File Amended Answer to Document #7 15 Case Transferred In − District Transfer, by Alpha Services, Inc., Robert Wade Zaharie. (lbt, ) (Entered: 07/19/2005)
23 Response/REPLY in Support Document #10 re 15 Case transferred in from District of Arkansas, Eldorado Division; Case Number 05−1033. Original file with documents numbered 1 thru 14, certified copy of transfer order and docket sheet received., filed by Alpha Services, Inc., Robert Wade Zaharie. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement # 2 # 3 Supplement # 4 Supplement)(lbt, ) filed by Javier Astello−Mendez, Marco Antonio Salinas, Ramiro Gonzalez−Felipe, Jose Isabel Lopez−Sanchez, Caimiro Rodriguez−Garcia, J Jesus Lopez−Sanchez, Roberto Salinas−Castro, Federico Salinas−Rodriquez, Malaques Astello−Guevara, Juan Hernandez−Hernandez, Valentin Salinas−Castro. (lbt) (Entered: 07/20/2005)
ORDER granting 17 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice of Mary Bauer, granting 18 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice of Kelley M. Bruner and granting 19 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice of Andrew Turner upon the payment of the appropriate filing fee to the Clerk of the Court and upon completion of registration for electronic filing. Signed by Judge Alfred G. Nicols on July 19, 2005. NO FURTHER WRITTEN ORDER SHALL ISSUE. (wg, ) (Entered: 07/19/2005)
21 ORDER STAYING CASE pending a ruling on the Motion for Class Certification. Signed by Judge Alfred G. Nicols on July 19, 2005. (wg, ) (Entered: 07/19/2005)
22 ATTACHMENTS re 15 Case Transferred In − District Transfer,. (Attachments: # 1 # 2 # 3 # 4)(lbt) (lbt, ). (Entered: 07/20/2005)
24 ATTACHMENT #1Defendants Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Invalidate Defendants' Offer of Jment; #2Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion to Invalidate Defts' Second Offer of Jment; #3Plaintiffs' Motion to Invalidate Dfts' Second Offer of Jment; #4Memorandum of Law in Support of Plts' Motion to Invalidate Defts' Second Offer Jment; and #5Defts' Motion to Strike Plfts' Motion for Certification of Class Action or, in the Alternative, for Additional Time to Respond re 15 Case Transferred In − District Transfer,. (Attachments: # 1 # 2 # 3 # 4)(lbt, ) (Entered: 07/20/2005)
DOCKET ANNOTATION as to Document #22 replaced with Document #24. The pdf documents did not pulled through clearly, re−enter and replaced with document #24. (lbt, ) (Entered: 07/20/2005)
Pro Hac Vice fee paid by Kelley M. Bruner $ 25, receipt number J006971 (Moore, Janet) (Entered: 07/25/2005)
Pro Hac Vice fee paid by Andrew Turner $ 25, receipt number J006972 (Moore, Janet) (Entered: 07/25/2005)

Case: 3:05-cv-00440-WHB-LRA As of: 07/18/2012 01:45 PM CDT 8 of 14

07/20/2005 07/22/2005 07/22/2005 07/22/2005
07/25/2005 07/25/2005
07/28/2005 07/28/2005
07/29/2005
08/04/2005 08/05/2005 08/05/2005 08/05/2005 08/05/2005

Pro Hac Vice fee paid by Mary Bauer $ 25, receipt number J006970 (Moore, Janet) (Entered: 07/25/2005)
25 MOTION for Discovery Scheduling Conference Related to Plaintiffs' Motion for Certification of Class Action and For Additional Time to Respond to Motion for Class Certification by Alpha Services, Inc., Robert Wade Zaharie. (Crutcher, R.) (Entered: 07/22/2005)
26 MEMORANDUM in Support re 25 MOTION for Discovery Scheduling Conference Related to Plaintiffs' Motion for Certification of Class Action and For Additional Time to Respond to Motion for Class Certification filed by Alpha Services, Inc., Robert Wade Zaharie. (Crutcher, R.) (Entered: 07/22/2005)
27 RESPONSE in Opposition re 25 MOTION for Discovery Scheduling Conference Related to Plaintiffs' Motion for Certification of Class Action and For Additional Time to Respond to Motion for Class Certification related to 22 Defendants' Motion to Strike Plaintiffs' Motion for Certification of Class Action filed by Javier Astello−Mendez, Marco Antonio Salinas, Ramiro Gonzalez−Felipe, Jose Isabel Lopez−Sanchez, Caimiro Rodriguez−Garcia, J Jesus Lopez−Sanchez, Roberto Salinas−Castro, Federico Salinas−Rodriquez, Malaques Astello−Guevara, Juan Hernandez−Hernandez, Valentin Salinas−Castro. (Conrad, Richard) (Entered: 07/22/2005)
DOCKET ANNOTATION as to #27. Document/event related to the wrong motions − attorney to refile. (Huey, Gordon) (Entered: 07/25/2005)
28 RESPONSE in Opposition re 24 Attachment,, 5, Defendants' Motion to Strike Plaintiffs' Motion for Certification of Class Action, or in the Alternative, for Additional Time to Respond filed by Javier Astello−Mendez, Marco Antonio Salinas, Ramiro Gonzalez−Felipe, Jose Isabel Lopez−Sanchez, Caimiro Rodriguez−Garcia, J Jesus Lopez−Sanchez, Roberto Salinas−Castro, Federico Salinas−Rodriquez, Malaques Astello−Guevara, Juan Hernandez−Hernandez, Valentin Salinas−Castro. (Conrad, Richard) (Entered: 07/25/2005)
29 NOTICE of Service of Disclosure by Alpha Services, Inc., Robert Wade Zaharie.(Crutcher, R.) (Entered: 07/28/2005)
30 NOTICE of Service of Disclosure by Javier Astello−Mendez, Marco Antonio Salinas, Ramiro Gonzalez−Felipe, Jose Isabel Lopez−Sanchez, Caimiro Rodriguez−Garcia, J Jesus Lopez−Sanchez, Roberto Salinas−Castro, Federico Salinas−Rodriquez, Malaques Astello−Guevara, Juan Hernandez−Hernandez, Valentin Salinas−Castro.(Conrad, Richard) (Entered: 07/28/2005)
31 NOTICE of Service of Interrogatories by Javier Astello−Mendez, Marco Antonio Salinas, Ramiro Gonzalez−Felipe, Jose Isabel Lopez−Sanchez, Caimiro Rodriguez−Garcia, J Jesus Lopez−Sanchez, Roberto Salinas−Castro, Federico Salinas−Rodriquez, Malaques Astello−Guevara, Juan Hernandez−Hernandez, Valentin Salinas−Castro.(Conrad, Richard) (Entered: 07/29/2005)
32 RESPONSE to Motion re 20 MOTION to Amend/Correct 15 Case Transferred In − District Transfer, filed by Federico Salinas−Rodriquez. (Bruner − PHV, Kelley) (Entered: 08/04/2005)
33 MOTION for Elizabeth K. Dorminey to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Alpha Services, Inc., Robert Wade Zaharie. (Crutcher, R.) (Entered: 08/05/2005)
34 MOTION for Paul Oliver to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Alpha Services, Inc., Robert Wade Zaharie. (Crutcher, R.) (Entered: 08/05/2005)
35 MOTION for James Larry Stine to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Alpha Services, Inc., Robert Wade Zaharie. (Crutcher, R.) (Entered: 08/05/2005)
TEXT ONLY ORDER granting 33 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice of Elizabeth K. Dorminey, granting 34 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice of Paul Oliver, and granting 35 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice of James Larry Stinc upon the payment of the appropriate filing fee to the Clerk of the Court and completion of registration for electronic filing. Signed by Judge Alfred G. Nicols on August 5, 2005. NO FURTHER WRITTEN ORDER SHALL ISSUE. (wg, ) (Entered:

Case: 3:05-cv-00440-WHB-LRA As of: 07/18/2012 01:45 PM CDT 9 of 14

08/05/2005 08/05/2005
08/08/2005
08/10/2005 08/11/2005
08/17/2005 08/19/2005 08/22/2005 08/22/2005 08/22/2005 08/22/2005 09/09/2005 09/09/2005 09/12/2005 09/12/2005 09/14/2005
09/19/2005

08/05/2005)
36 MOTION for Leave to File Response to Plaintiffs' Motion to Invalidate Defendants' Second Offer of Judgment Out of Time by Alpha Services, Inc., Robert Wade Zaharie. (Crutcher, R.) (Entered: 08/05/2005)
37 MEMORANDUM in Support re 36 MOTION for Leave to File Response to Plaintiffs' Motion to Invalidate Defendants' Second Offer of Judgment Out of Time filed by Alpha Services, Inc., Robert Wade Zaharie. (Crutcher, R.) (Entered: 08/05/2005)
38 RESPONSE to Motion re 25 MOTION for Discovery Scheduling Conference Related to Plaintiffs' Motion for Certification of Class Action and For Additional Time to Respond to Motion for Class Certification filed by Federico Salinas−Rodriquez. (Bruner − PHV, Kelley) (Entered: 08/08/2005)
39 ORDER granting [#20] Defendants' Motion to File Amended Answer. Signed by Judge Alfred G. Nicols on August 10, 2005. ACF (Entered: 08/10/2005)
TEXT ORDER withdrawing Order [#39] granting Defendants' Motion to File Amended Answer filed 8/10/05. Motion to be reconsidered as it was erroneously granted as confessed. TEXT ORDER ONLY, NO WRITTEN ORDER TO FOLLOW. Plaintiff may file reply to response by August 15, 2005. Entered by Judge Alfred G. Nicols on August 11, 2005. ACF (Entered: 08/11/2005)
40 ORDER granting Defendants' Motion to File Amended Answer [#20] and granting Defendants' request for a jury trial. Signed by Judge Alfred G. Nicols on August 17, 2005. ACF (Entered: 08/17/2005)
41 AMENDED ANSWER to Complaint by Alpha Services, Inc., Robert Wade Zaharie. (Crutcher, R.) (Entered: 08/19/2005)
42 RESPONSE in Opposition re 36 MOTION for Leave to File Response to Plaintiffs' Motion to Invalidate Defendants' Second Offer of Judgment Out of Time filed by Federico Salinas−Rodriquez. (Bruner − PHV, Kelley) (Entered: 08/22/2005)
Pro Hac Vice fee paid by James Larry Stine $ 25, receipt number 07520 (THR, ) (Entered: 08/24/2005)
Pro Hac Vice fee paid by Paul Oliver $ 25, receipt number 07519 (THR, ) (Entered: 08/24/2005)
Pro Hac Vice fee paid by Elizabeth K. Dorminey $ 25, receipt number 07518 (THR, ) (Entered: 08/24/2005)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge William H. Barbour Jr.: Status Conference held on 9/9/2005 − Scheduling Order entered. (Nelson, Ann) (Entered: 09/09/2005)
45 AGREED SCHEDULING ORDER re Status Conference. Signed by Judge William H. Barbour Jr. on 9/9/05. (Moore, Janet) (Entered: 09/12/2005)
43 MOTION to Invalidate defendants' Third Offer of Judgment by Malaques Astello−Guevara, et al. (THR, ) (Entered: 09/12/2005)
44 RESPONSE in Support re 43 MOTION to Invalidate defendants' Third Offer of Judgment filed by Malaques Astello−Guevara, et al. (THR, ) (Entered: 09/12/2005)
46 MOTION for Collective Action by Federico Salinas−Rodriquez. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum of Law# 2 Exhibit Exhibit 1 to Motion# 3 Exhibit Exhibit 1 to Memorandum# 4 Exhibit Exhibit 2 to Memorandum# 5 Exhibit Exhibit 3A to Memorandum# 6 Exhibit Exhibit 3B to Memorandum# 7 Exhibit Exhibit 4 to Memorandum# 8 Exhibit Exhibit 5 to Memorandum# 9 Exhibit Exhibit 6 to Memorandum# 10 Exhibit Exhibit 7 to Memorandum# 11 Exhibit Exhibit 8 to Memorandum# 12 Exhibit Exhibit 9 to Memorandum)(Bauer − PHV, Mary) (Entered: 09/14/2005)
47 ORDER granting 36 Motion for Leave to File Response to Plaintiffs' Motion to Invalidate Defendants' Second Offer of Judgment, denying as moot 25 Motion for

Case: 3:05-cv-00440-WHB-LRA As of: 07/18/2012 01:45 PM CDT 10 of 14

09/20/2005 09/29/2005 10/05/2005 10/20/2005 10/25/2005 10/27/2005 10/27/2005 10/27/2005 10/27/2005 11/02/2005 11/02/2005 11/04/2005 11/14/2005 11/23/2005
11/23/2005 12/05/2005

Scheduling Conference re Discovery. Signed by Judge William H. Barbour Jr. on 09/19/05. (Hill, Margie) (Entered: 09/19/2005)
48 NOTICE of Re−Filing by Federico Salinas−Rodriquez (Attachments: # 1 Motion to Invalidate Defendants' Offer of Judgment# 2 Memo in Support of Motion to Invalidate Defendants' Offer of Judgment# 3 Exhibit 1 to Memo in Support)(Bruner − PHV, Kelley) (Entered: 09/20/2005)
49 Corporate Disclosure Statement by Alpha Services, Inc..(Crutcher, R.) (Entered: 09/29/2005)
50 NOTICE of Filing Consents to Sue by Federico Salinas−Rodriquez (Attachments: # 1 FLSA Consent to Sue Form# 2 FLSA Consent to Sue Form)(Bruner − PHV, Kelley) (Entered: 10/05/2005)
51 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Federico Salinas−Rodriguez; Roberto Salinas−Castro; Valentin Salinas−Castro by Alpha Services, Inc., Robert Wade Zaharie.(Stine − PHV, James) (Entered: 10/20/2005)
52 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Certification of Collective Action by Alpha Services, Inc., Robert Wade Zaharie. (Stine − PHV, James) (Entered: 10/25/2005)
53 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to Plainitff's Motion for Preliminary Certification of Collective Action by Alpha Services, Inc., Robert Wade Zaharie. (Stine − PHV, James) (Entered: 10/27/2005)
54 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Federico Salinas−Rodriguez; Roberto Salinas−Castro; Valentin Salinas−Castro by Alpha Services, Inc., Robert Wade Zaharie.(Stine − PHV, James) (Entered: 10/27/2005)
55 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Juan Hernandez−Hernandez; Casimiro Garcia−Rodriguez; Marco Antonio Salinas−Rodriguez; Jose Jesus Lopez Sanchez; Ramiro Gonzalez−Felipe by Alpha Services, Inc., Robert Wade Zaharie.(Stine − PHV, James) (Entered: 10/27/2005)
56 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Javier Astello−Mendez; Malaquias Astello−Guevara; Jose Isabel Lopez−Sanchez by Alpha Services, Inc., Robert Wade Zaharie.(Stine − PHV, James) (Entered: 10/27/2005)
57 NOTICE to Take Deposition (Amended) of Federico Salinas−Rodriguez by Alpha Services, Inc., Robert Wade Zaharie.(Stine − PHV, James) (Entered: 11/02/2005)
58 NOTICE to Take Deposition (Amended) of Juan Hernandez−Hernandez; Marco Antonio Salinas−Rodriguea by Alpha Services, Inc., Robert Wade Zaharie.(Stine − PHV, James) (Entered: 11/02/2005)
59 NOTICE to Take Deposition (2nd Amended) of Federico Salinas−Rodriguez by Alpha Services, Inc., Robert Wade Zaharie.(Stine − PHV, James) (Entered: 11/04/2005)
60 RESPONSE in Opposition re 53 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to Plainitff's Motion for Preliminary Certification of Collective Action filed by Federico Salinas−Rodriquez. (Bruner − PHV, Kelley) (Entered: 11/14/2005)
61 ORDER denying without prejudice Plaintiffs' 43 Motion to Invalidate Defendants' Third Offer of Judgment, granting Defendants' 52 &53 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Certification of Collective Action to 12/5/05; further, Plaintiffs' Motion to Invalidate Defendants' First and Second Offer of Judgment #48, and #24 is denied without prejudice . Signed by Judge William H. Barbour Jr. on 11/23/05. (Nelson, Ann) (Entered: 11/23/2005)
62 NOTICE of Service of Interrogatories and Requests for Production by Federico Salinas−Rodriquez (Bruner − PHV, Kelley) (Entered: 11/23/2005)
63 Response in Opposition re 46 MOTION for Collective Action by Federico Salinas−Rodriquez. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum of Law# 2 Exhibit Exhibit 1

Case: 3:05-cv-00440-WHB-LRA As of: 07/18/2012 01:45 PM CDT 11 of 14

12/15/2005 12/15/2005 12/16/2005 12/16/2005 12/16/2005 12/21/2005 12/21/2005 12/21/2005 12/22/2005 12/27/2005
12/29/2005 12/29/2005
01/10/2006 01/13/2006 01/13/2006

to Motion# 3 Exhibit Exhibit 1 to Memorandum# 4 Exhibit Exhibit 2 to Memorandum# 5 Exhibit Exhibit 3A to Memorandum# 6 Exhibit Exhibit 3B to Memorandum# 7 Exhibit Exhibit 4 to Memorandum# 8 Exhibit Exhibit 5 to Memorandum# 9 Exhibit Exhibit 6 to Memorandum# 10 Exhibit Exhibit 7 to Memorandum# 11 Exhibit Exhibit 8 to Memorandum# 12 Exhibit Exhibit 9 to Memorandum)(Bauer − PHV, Mary) filed by Alpha Services, Inc., Robert Wade Zaharie. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit # 2 Errata # 3 Exhibit # 4 Exhibit # 5 Exhibit # 6 Exhibit)(Stine − PHV, James) (Entered: 12/05/2005)
64 REPLY to Response to Motion re 46 MOTION for Collective Action filed by Federico Salinas−Rodriquez. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 10# 2 Exhibit 11# 3 Exhibit 12# 4 Exhibit 13)(Bruner − PHV, Kelley) (Entered: 12/15/2005)
65 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages by Federico Salinas−Rodriquez. (Bruner − PHV, Kelley) (Entered: 12/15/2005)
TEXT ORDER granting 65 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. Plaintiffs are granted four additional pages. NO WRITTEN ORDER SHALL ISSUE. Signed by Judge William H. Barbour Jr. on 12/16/05. (Hill, Margie) (Entered: 12/16/2005)
66 MOTION for Protective Order by Federico Salinas−Rodriquez. (Bruner − PHV, Kelley) (Entered: 12/16/2005)
67 MEMORANDUM in Support re 66 MOTION for Protective Order filed by Federico Salinas−Rodriquez. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1# 2 Exhibit 2# 3 Exhibit 3# 4 Exhibit 4)(Bruner − PHV, Kelley) (Entered: 12/16/2005)
68 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery by Federico Salinas−Rodriquez. (Bruner − PHV, Kelley) (Entered: 12/21/2005)
69 ORDER granting parties' joint 68 Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery. Discovery extended until 1/31/06. Signed by Judge Alfred G. Nicols on 12/21/05. ACF (Entered: 12/21/2005)
Set Deadlines/Hearings: Class certification discovery due by 1/31/2006. Motion for Class Certification due by 2/28/2006; Defendants' response due by 3/20/06; Plaintiffs' reply due by 4/10/06. ACF (Entered: 12/21/2005)
70 MOTION for Leave to File First Amended Complaint by Federico Salinas−Rodriquez. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Bruner − PHV, Kelley) (Entered: 12/22/2005)
71 OPINION and ORDER granting 46 Motion for Preliminary Certification of Collective Action and other relief. Defendants are to provide names, etc. for all potential opt−in plaintiffs by January 13, 2005, and Plaintiffs must file all consent forms of opt−in plaintiffs within 180 days of this Opinion and Order. Signed by Judge William H. Barbour Jr. on 12/27/05. (Hill, Margie) (Entered: 12/27/2005)
72 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to Plaintiffs' Motion for Protective Order by Alpha Services, Inc., Robert Wade Zaharie. (Stine − PHV, James) (Entered: 12/29/2005)
TEXT ORDER ONLY granting 72 Defendants' Motion for Extension of Time to File Response; Defendant to respond to Plaintiffs' Motion for Protective Order on or before January 17, 2006. NO WRITTEN ORDER TO FOLLOW. Entered by Judge Alfred G. Nicols on 12/29/05. ACF (Entered: 12/29/2005)
73 ORDER authorizing Notice and Consent to Sue Form. Signed by Judge William H. Barbour Jr. on 01−10−06. (Attachments: # 1 Court Authorized Notice)(Turner, Tom) (Entered: 01/10/2006)
TEXT ORDER ONLY granting 70 Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint. NO WRITTEN ORDER TO FOLLOW. Entered by Judge Alfred G. Nicols on 1/13/05. ACF (Entered: 01/13/2006)
74 AMENDED COMPLAINT against all defendants, filed by Federico Salinas−Rodriquez.(Bruner − PHV, Kelley) (Entered: 01/13/2006)

Case: 3:05-cv-00440-WHB-LRA As of: 07/18/2012 01:45 PM CDT 12 of 14

01/17/2006
01/19/2006 01/19/2006 01/19/2006 01/19/2006 01/19/2006 01/19/2006 01/19/2006 01/23/2006 01/24/2006
01/25/2006
02/02/2006 02/03/2006 02/07/2006 02/21/2006 03/10/2006 03/13/2006 03/27/2006

75 Response in Opposition re 66 MOTION for Protective Order by Federico Salinas−Rodriquez. (Bruner − PHV, Kelley) filed by Alpha Services, Inc., Robert Wade Zaharie. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit W. Zaharie Affidavit# 2 Affidavit L. Caudill Affidavit)(Stine − PHV, James) (Entered: 01/17/2006)
76 NOTICE of Deposition of Domingo Altamirano by Federico Salinas−Rodriquez (Bruner − PHV, Kelley) (Entered: 01/19/2006)
77 NOTICE of Deposition of Alpha Services LLC by Federico Salinas−Rodriquez (Bruner − PHV, Kelley) (Entered: 01/19/2006)
78 NOTICE of Deposition of Juan Carlos Martinez by Federico Salinas−Rodriquez (Bruner − PHV, Kelley) (Entered: 01/19/2006)
79 NOTICE of Deposition of Pedro Cervantes by Federico Salinas−Rodriquez (Bruner − PHV, Kelley) (Entered: 01/19/2006)
80 NOTICE of Deposition of Isaias Morente by Federico Salinas−Rodriquez (Bruner − PHV, Kelley) (Entered: 01/19/2006)
81 NOTICE of Deposition of Blas Rodriguez by Federico Salinas−Rodriquez (Bruner − PHV, Kelley) (Entered: 01/19/2006)
82 NOTICE of Deposition of Javier Cervantes by Federico Salinas−Rodriquez (Bruner − PHV, Kelley) (Entered: 01/19/2006)
83 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 66 MOTION for Protective Order by Federico Salinas−Rodriquez. (Bruner − PHV, Kelley) (Entered: 01/23/2006)
TEXT ORDER ONLY granting Plaintiffs' 83 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re 66 MOTION for Protective Order. Replies due by 2/3/2006. NO WRITTEN ORDER TO FOLLOW. Signed by Judge Alfred G. Nicols on 1/24/06. ACF (Entered: 01/24/2006)
84 MOTION for Contempt by Federico Salinas−Rodriquez. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Pl. Exhibit 1# 2 Exhibit Pl. Exhibit 2# 3 Exhibit Pl. Exhibit 3# 4 Exhibit Pl. Exhibit 4# 5 Exhibit Pl. Exhibit 5# 6 Exhibit Pl. Exhibit 6# 7 Exhibit Pl. Exhibit 7# 8 Exhibit Pl. Exhibit 8# 9 Exhibit Pl. Exhibit 9# 10 Exhibit Pl. Exhibit 10# 11 Exhibit Pl. Exhibit 11# 12 Exhibit Pl. Exhibit 12# 13 Exhibit Pl. Exhibit 13)(Bruner − PHV, Kelley) (Entered: 01/25/2006)
85 Joint MOTION to Stay /Extend all Deadlines Pending Court Approval of Proposed Settlement Agreement by Federico Salinas−Rodriquez. (Bruner − PHV, Kelley) (Entered: 02/02/2006)
86 ORDER granting Joint 85 Motion to Extend all Deadlines pending Court Approval of Proposed Settlement Agreement. Signed by Judge William H. Barbour Jr. on 2/3/06. (Nelson, Ann) (Entered: 02/03/2006)
87 NOTICE of Filing Consents to Sue by Federico Salinas−Rodriquez (Attachments: # 1 Consent to Sue for Jose Luis Macias# 2 Consent to Sue for Humberto Vasquez)(Bruner − PHV, Kelley) (Entered: 02/07/2006)
Judge James C. Sumner added. Judge Alfred G. Nicols no longer assigned to case, pursuant to Administrative Order signed by Chief Judge Wingate on January 30, 2006. (Moore, Janet) (Entered: 02/23/2006)
88 NOTICE of Filing Consents to Sue by Federico Salinas−Rodriquez (Attachments: # 1 Alvaro Rubein Vasquez Perez# 2 Alvaro Vasquez Perez# 3 Alverto Vasquez Perez)(Bruner − PHV, Kelley) (Entered: 03/10/2006)
89 NOTICE of Filing Consent to Sue by Federico Salinas−Rodriquez (Attachments: # 1 Secundino Vasquez Perez)(Bruner − PHV, Kelley) (Entered: 03/13/2006)
90 NOTICE of Filing Consent to Sue by Federico Salinas−Rodriquez (Attachments: # 1 Consent to Sue − Jesus Nunez Vasquez)(Bruner − PHV, Kelley) (Entered: 03/27/2006)

Case: 3:05-cv-00440-WHB-LRA As of: 07/18/2012 01:45 PM CDT 13 of 14

04/28/2006 05/01/2006 05/09/2006 05/15/2006 05/31/2006
06/01/2006 06/05/2006
06/05/2006 06/05/2006
06/21/2006
06/27/2006 06/30/2006 06/30/2006 07/05/2006 07/10/2006 07/13/2006 07/25/2006 09/01/2006

91 NOTICE of Filing Consent to Sue by Federico Salinas−Rodriquez (Attachments: # 1)(Bruner − PHV, Kelley) (Entered: 04/28/2006)
92 NOTICE of Filing Consent to Sue by Federico Salinas−Rodriquez (Attachments: # 1)(Bruner − PHV, Kelley) (Entered: 05/01/2006)
93 NOTICE of Filing Consent to Sue by Federico Salinas−Rodriquez (Attachments: # 1)(Bruner − PHV, Kelley) (Entered: 05/09/2006)
94 MOTION for Settlement Agreement to be Enforced by Federico Salinas−Rodriquez. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B)(Bruner − PHV, Kelley) (Entered: 05/15/2006)
95 Joint MOTION to Certify Class , Approve Class Settlement Agreement, Give Notice to Class and Schedule Fairness Hearing by Federico Salinas−Rodriquez. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Settlement Agreement# 2 Exhibit Notice to Class)(Bruner − PHV, Kelley) (Entered: 05/31/2006)
96 MOTION to Withdraw 94 MOTION for Settlement Agreement to be Enforced by Federico Salinas−Rodriquez. (Bruner − PHV, Kelley) (Entered: 06/01/2006)
97 AGREED ORDER GRANTING 95 Joint Motion for Certification of Class, Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement, Notice to Class and Scheduling Fairness Hearing Motion to Certify Class. Signed by Judge William H. Barbour Jr. on 06−02−06. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A) (Lewis, Nijah) (Entered: 06/05/2006)
TEXT ONLY ORDER GRANTING 96 Motion to Withdraw. NO FURTHER WRITTEN ORDER SHALL ISSUE. Signed by Judge William H. Barbour Jr. on 06−05−06. (Lewis, Nijah) (Entered: 06/05/2006)
TEXT ONLY ORDER DENYING as MOOT 66 Motion for Protective Order, DENYING as MOOT 84 Motion for Contempt. NO FURTHER WRITTEN ORDER SHALL ISSUE. Signed by Judge William H. Barbour Jr. on 06−05−06. (Lewis, Nijah) (Entered: 06/05/2006)
98 NOTICE of Filing Consents to Sue by Federico Salinas−Rodriquez (Attachments: # 1 Consent to Sue − Alex Onofre Cotto# 2 Consent to Sue − Nestor Emilio Moreno Moran# 3 Consent to Sue − Pedro Morante Cotto# 4 Consent to Sue − Jairon Alvarez Morante# 5 Consent to Sue − Lino Javier Muniz Macias)(Bruner − PHV, Kelley) Modified on 6/22/2006 (Moore, Janet). (Entered: 06/21/2006)
99 NOTICE of Filing Consents to Sue by Federico Salinas−Rodriquez (Attachments: # 1 Arturo Sanchez Espinosa# 2 Cornelio Lucas Medina# 3 J Adalberto Alvarez Estrada)(Bruner − PHV, Kelley) (Entered: 06/27/2006)
100 NOTICE of Filing Consent to Sue by Federico Salinas−Rodriquez (Attachments: # 1 Consent to Sue − Feliciano Banda)(Bruner − PHV, Kelley) (Entered: 06/30/2006)
101 NOTICE of Filing Consent to Sue by Federico Salinas−Rodriquez (Attachments: # 1)(Bruner − PHV, Kelley) (Entered: 06/30/2006)
102 NOTICE of Filing Consents to Sue by Federico Salinas−Rodriquez (Attachments: # 1 Consent to Sue − Enrique Medina Franco# 2 Consent to Sue − Rodolfo Vasquez Arias)(Bruner − PHV, Kelley) (Entered: 07/05/2006)
103 NOTICE of Filing Consent to Sue by Federico Salinas−Rodriquez (Attachments: # 1)(Bruner − PHV, Kelley) (Entered: 07/10/2006)
104 NOTICE of Filing Consents to Sue by Federico Salinas−Rodriquez (Attachments: # 1 Consent to Sue − Juan Ortega Fragoso# 2 Consent to Sue − Blas Mata Padilla)(Bruner − PHV, Kelley) (Entered: 07/13/2006)
Set/Reset Hearings: Fairness Hearing set for 9/5/2006 09:00 AM before District Judge William H. Barbour Jr.. (Nelson, Ann) (Entered: 07/25/2006)
105 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT re 95 Joint MOTION to Certify Class , Approve Class Settlement Agreement, Give Notice to Class and Schedule Fairness Hearing filed by Federico Salinas−Rodriquez. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1# 2 Exhibit 2)(Bruner − PHV, Kelley) (Entered: 09/01/2006)

Case: 3:05-cv-00440-WHB-LRA As of: 07/18/2012 01:45 PM CDT 14 of 14

09/05/2006 09/06/2006
09/26/2006 10/10/2006 10/10/2006
10/11/2006 10/24/2006 10/25/2006 12/08/2006 01/18/2007
05/19/2008

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge William H. Barbour Jr.: Fairness Hearing held on 9/5/2006 (Court Reporter Gina Morris.) (Lewis, Nijah) (Entered: 09/13/2006)
106 CONSENT ORDER. The Court expressly retains jurisdiction of this action until December 31, 2007, in order to oversee the consummation of this settlement and enforce the terms of the Settlement Agreement. Signed by Judge William H. Barbour Jr. on 09−05−06. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A−Settlement Agreement)(Lewis, Nijah) (Entered: 09/06/2006)
107 MOTION for Settlement Agreement to be Enforced by Federico Salinas−Rodriquez. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1# 2 Exhibit 2)(Bruner − PHV, Kelley) (Entered: 09/26/2006)
108 MOTION to Take Deposition by Alpha Services, Inc., Robert Wade Zaharie. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit correspondence# 2 Exhibit proposed order)(Stine − PHV, James) (Entered: 10/10/2006)
109 RESPONSE to Motion re 107 MOTION for Settlement Agreement to be Enforced filed by Alpha Services, Inc., Robert Wade Zaharie. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Mediated Settlement Agreement# 2 Errata Aug 18 Corres. to Stine from Bruner# 3 Exhibit 7/19, 8/31, 9/14 Correspondence# 4 Exhibit Consent to Sue Forms# 5 Exhibit Consent to Sue − Estrada# 6 Exhibit 9/28 Corresp to Stine from Bruner)(Stine − PHV, James) (Entered: 10/10/2006)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge William H. Barbour Jr.: Telephone Conference held on 10/11/2006. (Lewis, Nijah) (Entered: 10/12/2006)
110 MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION re 108 MOTION to Take Deposition filed by Federico Salinas−Rodriquez. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1# 2 Exhibit 2# 3 Exhibit 3# 4 Exhibit 4# 5 Exhibit 5)(Bruner − PHV, Kelley) (Entered: 10/24/2006)
111 OPINION AND ORDER denying 107 Plaintiff's Motion to Enforce Settlement. Signed by Judge William H. Barbour Jr. on 10−25−06. (Lewis, Nijah) (Entered: 10/25/2006)
112 ORDER REASSIGNING CASE. Case reassigned to Judge Linda R. Anderson for all further proceedings. Judge James C. Sumner no longer assigned to case. Signed by Judge Henry T. Wingate on 12/8/06. (Moore, Janet) (Entered: 12/11/2006)
113 ORDER. Defendants' Motion for Telephonic Depositions to Determine Payments Owed Under Settlement Agreement [Docket No. 108] is hereby granted in part and denied in part. Defendants shall be permitted to take limited depositions of Alvaro Vasquez Perez, Alverto Vasquez Perez, and Cecundino Vasquez Perez for the purpose of determining whether these individuals consented to become opt−in plaintiffs in this case. Defendants will not be permitted to depose any other opt−in plaintiff in this case.Signed by Judge William H. Barbour Jr. on 01−18−07. (Lewis, Nijah) (Entered: 01/18/2007)
114 ORDER DISMISSING CASE with prejudice. Signed by District Judge William H. Barbour, Jr on 5/19/08 (JKM) (Entered: 05/20/2008)