UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

WEST PALM BEACH

Case No.
Carmelina Martinez, Jorgelia Velasquez, Esther Ramos, and Maria Ester Escobar Torres, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,

)1-909
MAGISTRATE JUDGE
BANDSTRA

Plaintiffs,

Complaint--Class Action

Mecca Farms, Inc., Medrano Harvesting & Packing, Inc., Mafia Medrano, Candido Packing. Inc., Candido Munoz, Inc., Candido Munoz, A-Z Grading & Packing, Inc., and Ruben Munoz

I)efizndants.

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, DECLARATORY RELIEF, LITIGATION COSTS AND ATTORNEY’S FEES
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1. This is an action by tour packinghouse workers on behalf of themselves and their coworkers to redress and ,,’indicate rights afforded them by the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 1801-1872 (1999) ("AWPA"), and the Fair Labor

Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201-210 (1908) ("FLSA") fbr work performed between 1996 and "~OOl ;,~-h~ive. at Mecc,-~ Farm~ Inc.’.~ l,antana. Florida packinehouses.
2. The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and other similarly-situated current and tbrmer packinghouse employees for the Defendants’ violations of the AWPA’s record keeping, wage statement, and wage payment provisions. Plaintiffs also seek to recover the minimum and overtime wages due them under the FLSA.
3. The Plaintiffs seek to address theses violations of law through money damages, declaratory relief, and attorneys’ tees on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated.
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; 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. §§ 2201 and 2202.
VENUE 6. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1301 (b)(1)-(2), (c) because all of the Defendants reside in the district, the ex.cntb or omissions giving risc 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 were migrant agricultural workers within the meaning of the AWPA, 29 U.S.C. § 1802 (8) (A) and 29 C.F.R. § 500.20 (p), in that
2

they were elnptoyed in agricultural employment of a seasonal nature and were required to be ~b~o,~t ,we.m..i_~,.1,bt f,~m thoir respective per~nanent Naces of residence.
8. At all times relevant to this action, each of the Plaintiffs was elnploycd in interstate commerce, as defined by the FLSA.
9. Defendant Mecca Farms, Inc. is a Florida corporation, based in Lantana, Palm Beach County, Florida. Defendant Mecca Farms, Inc. grows vegetables in and around Palm Beach and Martin counties and packs tomatoes and vegetables in kantana, Florida for sale in interstate commerce. At all times relevant to this action, Defendant Mecca Farms, Inc. was an employer or joint employer of the Plaintiffs, within the meaning of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203 (d), and was an agricultural employer of the Plaintiffs and other class members within the meaning of the AWPA, 29 U.S.C. § 1802 (2).
10. Defendant Medrano Harvesting & Packing. Inc. is a Florida corporation based in Lake Worth, Palm Beach County, Florida. Medrano Harvesting & Packing, Inc. served as the corporate entitv through which Defendant Maria Medrano conducted her falnn labor contracting business. At all times relevant to this action, Defendant Mcdrano Harvesting & Packing, Inc. acted as a thrm labor contractor within the meaning of the AWPA, 29 U.S.C. § 1802 (7), in that, tbr a tee, it recruited, solicited, hired, furnished or transported agricultural workers for agricultural employment within the meaning of the AWPA. At various times relevant to this action, Defendant Medrano Harvesting & Packing, Inc. was an employer or joint employer of Plaintiffs Carmelina Martinez, Jorgelia Velasquez and Esther Ramos, within the meaning of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203 (d).
11. Defendant Maria Medrano, is an individual residing in Lake Worth, Florida, and is 3

the director of Medrano Harvesting & Packing, Inc. At all times relevant to this actiom Dcg_-,~..,~t ~4.~r~:~ Medr.-qn~ ~ctect a~ a f;’m~ labor contractor within the meanin~ of the AWPA, 29 U.S.C. § 1802 (7), in that, tbr a fee, she recruited, solicited, hired, furnished or transported agricultural workers for agricultural employment within the meaning of the AWPA. At various times relevant to this action, she was an employer or joint employer of Plaintiffs Carmelina Martinez, Jorgelia Velasquez and Esther Ramos, within the meaning of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203 (d).
12. Defendant Candido Packing, Inc. is a Florida corporation based in Lake Worth, Palm Beach County, Florida. Defendant Candido Packing, Inc. served as one of the corporate entities through which the Defendant Candido Munoz conducted his farm labor contracting business. At all times relevant to this action, Defendant Candido Packing, Inc. acted as a farm labor contractor within the meaning of the AWPA, 29 U.S.C. § 1802 (7), in that, tbr a tee, it recruited, solicited, hired, furnished or transported agricultural workers tier agricultural employment within the meaning of the AWPA. At various times relevant to this action, Defendant Candido Packing, Inc. was an employer or joint employer of Plaintiff Cannelina Martincz, within the meaning of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. ~ 203 (d).
13. Defendant Candido Munoz, Inc. is a Florida corporation based in Lake Worth, Pahn Beach County, Florida. Defendant Candido Munoz, Inc. served as one of the corporate entities through which Det)endant Candido Munoz conducted his farm labor contracting business. At all times relevant to this action, Defendant Candido Munoz, Inc. acted as a farm labor contractor within the meaning of the AWPA, 29 U.S.C. § 1802 (7), in that, for a fee, it recruited, solicited, hired, thrnished or transported agricultural workers for agricultural employment within the
4

meaning of the AWPA. At various times relevant to this action, Detiendant Candido Munoz, Inc. was an employer or joint employer of Plaintiff Cannelina Martinez. within the meaning of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203 (d).
14. Defendant Candido Munoz, is an individual residing in Lake Worth, Florida, and is the director of Candido Packing, Inc. At all times relevant to this action, Defendant Candido Munoz acted as a farm labor contractor within the meaning of the AWPA, 29 U.S.C. § 1802 (7), in that, tbr a lee, he recruited, solicited, hired, furnished or transported ag~-icultural workers tbr agricultural employment within the meaning of the AWPA. At various times relevant to this action, he was an employer or joint employer of Plaintiff Carmelina Martinez, within the meaning of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203 (d).
15. Defendant A-Z Grading & {’acking, Inc. is a Florida corporation based in Lake Worth, Pahn Beach County, Florida. Detimdant A-Z Grading & Packing, Inc. served as the corporate entity tlu’ough which Defendant Ruben Munoz conducted his farm labor contracting business. At all times relevant to this action, Defendant A-Z Grading & Packing, Inc. acted as a thim labor contractor within the meaning of the AWPA, 29 U.S.C. § 1802 (7), in that, for a tee, it recruited, solicited, hired, furnished or transported agricultural workers tbr agricultural employment within the meaning of the AWPA. At various times relevant to this action, Defendant A-Z Grading & Packing, Inc. employed Plaintiff Mmqa Ester Escobar Torres, within the meaning of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203 (d).
16. Defendant Ruben Munoz, is an individual residing in Lake Worth, Florida, and is the director of A-Z Grading & Packing, Inc. At all times relevant to this action, Defendant Ruben Munoz acted as a farm labor contractor within the meaning of the AWPA, 29 U.S.C. § 1802 (7),
5

in that, for a fee, hc recruited, solicited, hired, fi~rnished or transported agricultural workers tbr agric~,~ltural empl~ymegt within the meanine of the AWPA. At various times relevant to this action, he was an employer or joint employer of Plaintiff Maria Esther Escobar Torres, within the meaning of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203 (d).
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 17. All claims set forth in Counts I-IV are brought by the Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated persons pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 (b)(3). 18. The named Plaintiffs in Count I seek to represent a class consisting of all migrant agricultural workers employed or jointly employed by Defendant Mecca Farms, Inc. in its packing houses from October 1996 through November 2001, inclusive ("General Class"). 19. The named Plaintiffs in Count II seek to represent a sub class consisting of all migrant agricultural workers furnished by Defendants Medrano Harvesting & Packing, Inc., or Maria Mcdrano to Dcfendanl Mecca Farms, Inc. for packinghouse labor between October 1996 through November 2()01. inclusive ("Medrano Sub Class"i. 20. The named Plaintiff in Count 111 seeks to represent a sub class consisting of all migrant agricultural workers furnished by Defendants Candido Packing, Inc., Candido Munoz, or Candido Munoz to Defendant Mecca Farms, Inc. for packinghouse labor between October 1996 through November 2001, inclusive ("Candido Munoz Sub Class"). 21. The named Plaintiff in Count IV seeks to represent a sub class consisting of all migrant agricultural workers furnished by Defendants A-Z Grading & Packing, Inc. or Ruben Munoz to Defendant Mecca Fan-ns, Inc. for packinghouse labor between October 1996 through

November 2001, inclusive ("Ruben Munoz Sub Class"). )20nlv the Defendants know the precise number of individuals in each of the class and
sub classes. The General Class is believed to include over 200 individuals. Each sub class is believed to include over 50 individuals. The class and each of the sub classes are comprised of indigent migrant workers who are not fluent in the English language. The relatively small size of the individual claims and the indigence of the class and sub class members make the maintenance of separate actions by each class and sub class member economically infeasible. Joinder of all class and sub class members is impracticable.
23. There are questions of fact common to the crass and subclasses. The common questions of fact include whether the Defendants made, kept, and preserved payroll records, pro\,idcd wage statements and paid wages when due in accordance with the AWPA.
24. There are questions of law common to the class and sub classes. 1-hese common legal questions include whether Defendant Mecca Farms, Inc. is an employer or joint employer of the Plaintiffs and whether the Defendants’ actions violated the AWPA, and whether the class and sub class members are entitled to overtime wages for any time worked in excess of forty hours in a workweek.
25. The clailns of the named Plaintiftg are typical of those of the members of the class and sub classes, and these typical, common claims predominate over any questions affecting only individual class and sub class members. The named Plaintiffs have the same interests as do the other members of the class and sub classes and will vigorously prosecute these interests on behalf of the class and sub classes.
26. The Plaintiffs’ counsel have handled numerous class actions in the federal courts, 7

including class actions under AWPA. The Plaintiffs’ counsel are prepared to advance litigation ,.,,o, ....~.c .... o ,- ~’ ,-,vo,,~l,.. liti,,ate_ the action.
27. A class action under Rule 23 (b)(3) is superior to other available methods of adjudicating this controversy, inter alia:
a. The common issues of law and tact, as well as the relatively small size of the individual class and sub class members’ claims, substantially diminish the interest of members of the class and sub classes in individually controlling the prosecution of separate actions;
b. Many members of the class and sub classes are unaware of their rights to prosecute these claims and lack the means or resources to secure legal assistance;
c. There has been no litigation already commenced against the Defendants by the class and sub class members to determine the questions presented;
d. It is desirable that the claims be heard in this thrum because the Defendants reside in this judicial district: and
e. A class action can be managed without undue difficulty because the Defendants have regularly committed the xiolations complained of herein, and are required by law to maintain detailed records concerning each class and sub class member.
COI JNT I Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act
(General Class) 28. This count sets tbrth a clairn by the Plaintiffs and members of the General Class trbr damages and declaratory relief to the AWPA violations and its attendant regulations by the Defendants.
8

29. The Plaintiffs rcallege and incorporate by referencc the allegations set tbrth in
30. At all times relevant to this action, the Del?ndants tSiled to make, keep and maintain records regarding the work of the Plaintit]~ and other class members as required by the AWPA, 29 U.S.C. ~ 1821 (d)(1), and its attendant regulations, 29 C.F.R. ~ 500.80 (a). Among other things, the Det?ndants failed to make, keep and maintain records accurately reflecting the number o f compensable hours worked.
31. In violation of the AWPA, 29 U.S.C. ~ 1821 (d)(2), and its attendant regulations, 29 C.F.R. ~500.80 (d), the Defendants failed to provide the Plaintiffs and the other class members each pay period with a wftten statement accurately showing the hours worked and other data required to be disclosed under the statute and its implementing regulations.
32. The DcI~ndants failed to pay the Plaintit}~ and the other class members their wages when due in violation of the AWPA, 29 U.S.C. ~ 1822 (a) and its attendant regulations, 29 C.F.R. ~ 500.72. Amo¢~g ~ther things, the Defendants failed to pay the Plaintitl~ and other class members minimum wages due them undcr the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. ~ 206 (a)(1).
33. ]he violations of the AWPA and its attendant regulations as set {b~h in this count were the natural consequences of the conscious and deliberate actions of the Det~ndants and were intentional within the meaning of the AWPA, 29 U.S.C. ~ 1854 (c)(l).
34. As a result of the Defendants’ violations of the AWPA and its attendant regulations as set tB~h in the count, the Plaintiffs and the other class members have suffered damages.

COUNT II Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act
35. This count sets tbrth a claim by Plaintiffs Cannelina Martinez, Jorgelia Velasquez, and Esther Ramos and the other Medrano Sub Class members tbr damages and declaratory, relief for violations of the AWPA and its attendant regulations by Defendants Medrano Harvesting & Packing, Inc. and Mafia Medrano.
36. The Plaintift~ realIege and incorporate by reference the allegations set lbrth in paragraphs I through 34 of the complaint.
37. Defendants Mcdrano Harvesting & Packing, Inc. and Mafia Medrano failed to pay the Plaintiffs Carmelina Martinez, Jorgelia Velasquez, and Esther Ramos and the other Medrano Sub Class members their xvages when due, in violation of the AWPA, 29 U.S.C. § 1822 (a), and its attendant regulations, 29 C.F.R. § 500.72. Among other things, these Defendants ti~iled to pay these Plaintiffs and the other Medrano Sub Class members overtime wages due them under the FLSA, 29 It.S.C. § 207 (a)(1).
38. The violations of the AV~,’PA and its attendant regulations as set tbrth in this count were the natural consequences of the conscious and deliberate actions of Defendants Medrano Harvesting & Packing, Inc. and Maria Mcdrano and were intentional within the meaning of the AWPA, 29 U.S.C. § 1854 (c)(1).
39. As a result of the violations of the AWPA and its attendant regulations by Defendants Medrano Harvesting & Packing, Inc. and Mafia Medrano as set tbrth in the count, Plaintiffs Cannelina Martinez, Jorgelia Velasquez, and Esther Ramos and the other Medrano Sub Class members have suffered damages.
~0

COUNT III Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act
40. This count sets forth a claim by the PlaintiffCarmelina Martinez and the other Candido Munoz Sub Class members ibr damages and declaratory, relief to violations of the AWPA and its attendant regulations by Defendants Candido Packing, Inc., Candido Munoz, Inc., and Candido Munoz.
41. The Plaintiffrealleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 39 of the complaint.
42. Defendants Candido Packing, Inc., Candido Munoz, Inc., and Candido Munoz tailed to pay Plaintiff Cam~elina Martinez and the other Candido Munoz Sub Class members their wages when due in violation of the AWPA, 29 U.S.C. § 1822 (a), and its attendant regulations, 29 C.FR. § 500.72. Among other things, these Defendants tailed to pay this Plaintiffand the other Candido Munoz Sub Class members overtime wages due them under the FLSA, 29 U,S.C. § 207 (a)( 1 ).
43. The violation of the AWPA and its attendant regulation as set f()rth in this count were the natural consequences of the conscious and deliberate actions of Defendants Candido Packing, Inc., Candido Munoz, Inc., and Candido Munoz and were intentional within the meaning of the AWPA, 29 LI.S.C. § 1854 (c)(1).
44. As a result of the violations of the AWPA and its attendant regulations as set forth in the count by Defendants Candido Packing, Inc., Candido Munoz, Inc., and Candido Munoz, Plaintiff Cannelina Martinez and the other Candido Munoz Sub Class members have suffered damages.

COUNT IV Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act
45. This count sets forth a claim by the Plaintiff Maria Ester Escobar Torres and the other Ruben Munoz Sub Class members for damages and declaratory relief to violations of the AWPA and its attendant regulations by Defendants A-Z Grading & Packing, Inc., and Ruben Munoz.
46. The Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by refercncc the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 44 of the complaint.
47. Defendants A-Z Grading & Packing, Inc., and Ruben Munoz failed to pay Plaintiff Maria Ester Ebcobar Torres and the other Ruben Munoz Sub Class members their wages when due in v~olation of the AWPA, 29 U.S.C. ~ 1822 (a), and its attendant regulations, 29 C.F.R. § 500.72. Among other things, these Defendants t~iled to pay this Plaintiff and the other Ruben Munoz Sub (?lass members overtime wages due them under the FESA, 20 U.S.C. § 207 (a)(1).
48. The violation of the AWPA and its attendant regulation as set tbrth in this count were the natural consequences of the conscious and dcliberate actions of Defendants A-Z Grading & Packing, Inc., and Ruben Munoz and were intentional within the meaning of the AWPA, 29 U.S.C. ~ 1854 (c)(l).
49. As a result of violations of the AWPA and its attendant regulations as set tbrth in this count by Defendants A-Z Grading & Packing, Inc., and Ruben Munoz, the Plaintiff Maria Ester Escobar Torres and the other Ruben Munoz Sub Class members have suffered damages.
3_2

COUNT V Fair Labor Standards Act
(A!! De+’e~d,a,tq~
50. This count sets forth a claim by the Plaintiffs for damages for the Defendants’ violations of the minimum wage provisions of the FESA fi-om October 1996 through Novernber 2001, inclusive.
51. The Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 49 of the complaint.
52. At various times between 1996 and 2001, Plaintiffs Carmelina Martinez, Jorgelia Martinez, and Esther Ramos, and Maria Ester Escobar Tortes were employed or jointly employed by Defendants Mecca Farms Inc., Medrano Harvesting & Packing, Inc., and Maria Medrano to work in the Mecca Farms packinghouse in Lantana, Florida.
53. At various limes between 1996 and 2001. Plaintiff Cannclina Martincz was employed or jointly employed by the Defendants Mecca Farms Inc., Candido Packing, Inc., and Candido Munoz to wurk in the Mecca Farms packinghouse in Lantana, Florida.
54. At various times between 1996 and 2001, PlaintiffMaria Ester Escobar Torres was employed or jointly employed by Defendants Mecca Fanns Inc., A-Z Grading & Packing, Inc., and Ruben Munoz to work in the Mecca Farms packinghouse in Lantana, Florida.
55. The Defendants violated the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 206 (a) by failing to pay the Plaintiffs the applicable minimum wage for every compensable hour of labor they per/brined.
56. 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
3_3

the FLSA. Such posting is required by regulations issued under the FLSA, 29 C.F.R. § 516.4. 57. As a consequence ofth~w~.,,~,,~,,o FL$.5 violatio~l~, the Plaintiffs are entitled to
recover the unpaid minimum wages due them plus an additional equal amount in liquidated damages, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216 (b).
COUNT VI Fair Labor Standards Act (Medrano Harvesting & Packing, Inc., Maria Medrano, Candido Packing, Inc., Candido Munoz, Inc., Candido Munoz, A-Z Grading & Packing, Inc., and Ruben Munoz) ("Contractor Defendants") 58. This count sets Irbrth a claim by the Plaintiffs for damages Ibr violations of the overtime provisions of the FLSA from October 1096 through November 2001, inclusive, by Defendants Medrano tlarvesting & Packing, Inc.. Maria Mcdrano, Candido Packing, Inc., Candido Munoz, Inc.. Candido Munoz, A-Z Grading & Packing, Inc., and Ruben Munoz ("Contractor Defendants"). 59. The Plaintift~,~ ie~dlege and i’~,,c~;rpor~te hv reference the allegations set lbrth in paragraphs 1 through 57 of the complaint. 60. At various times between 1996 and 2001, Plaintiffs Can~aelina Marfinez, Jorgelia Martincz, and Esther Ramos, and Maria Ester Escobar Ion’es were employed by Defendants Medrano Harvesting & Packing, Inc., and Maria Medrano to work in packinghouses, including one operated by Mecca Farms, Inc. in Lantana, Florida. 61. At various times between 1996 and 2001, Plaintiff Carmelina Martinez was employed by ~he Defendants Candido Packing, Inc. and Candido Munoz to work in packinghouses, including one operated by Mecca Farms, Inc. in Lantana, Florida.
]_4

62. At various times between 1996 and 2001, Plaintiff Maria Ester Escobar Ton’es was employed by Det~endants A-L tmadin~ & Pack!::g, !pc "rod Ruben Munoz to work in packinghouses, including one operated by Mecca Farms, Inc. in Lantana, Florida.
63. The Contractor Defendants tailed to pay overtime wages as required by the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 207 (a) throughout the period they employed the Plaintiffs to work in packinghouses, including one operated by Mecca Farms, Inc. in Lantana, Florida.
64. At no time relevant to this action did the Contractor Defendants post in a conspicuous place a poster or other written statement advising the Plaintiffs of their right to overtime wages under the FLSA. Such posting is required by regulations issued under the FLSA, 29 C.F.R. § 516.4.
65. As a consequence of the Contractor Defendants’ FLSA violations, the Plaintiffs arc entitled to recover the unpaid overtime wages due them plus an additional equal amount in liquidated damages, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216 (b).
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WItEREFORE, the Plaintiffs pray that this Court will enter an order: (a) Certifying the 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 Counts I, I1, III, and IV; (b) Declaring that the Defendants have intentionally violated the AWPA, as set tbrth in Count I; (c) Granting judgment for the Plaintiffs and the other General Class members and against

the De[~ndants, jointly and severally, on the AWPA claims as set forth in Count I and awarding each of the workers tus or imr actu~l damages :,,r ~!~)umrv damages of $500, whichever is greater, tbr every violation of the AWPA and its attendant regulations set tbrth in the count; (d) Declaring that Defendants Medrano Harvesting & Packing, Inc. and Maria Medrano have intentionally violated the AWPA, as set tbrth in Count I1; (~) Granting judgn-nent for Plaintift~ Cannelina Martinez, Jorgelia Velasquez, and Ester Ramos and the other Medrano Sub Class members and against Deti~ndants Medrano Harvesting & Packing, Inc. and Maria Medrano, jointly and severally, on the AWPA claims as set forth in Count II and awarding each of the workers his or her actual damages or statutoc~ damages of $500. whichever is greater, l:br every violation of the AWPA and its attendant regulations set lbrth in the count; (f) Declaring that Defendants Candido Packing, Inc., Candido Munoz, Inc., and Candido Munoz have intentionally violated the AWPA, as set fi-,rth in Count Ill; (g) Granting judgment for Plaintiff Carmelina Martinez and the other Candido Munoz Sub Class members and against Defendants Candido Packing, Inc., Candido Munoz, Inc., and Candido Munoz, jointly and severally, on the AWPA claims as set forth in Count III and awarding each of the workers his or her actual damages or statutoW damages of $500, whichever is greater, Ibr every violation of the AWPA and its attendant regulations set tbrth in the count; (h) Declaring that Defendants A-Z Grading & Packing, Inc. and Ruben Munoz have intentionally violated the AWPA, as set tbrth in Counts IV;

(i) Granting judgment tbr Plaintiff Maria Ester Escobar Torres and the other Ruben Munoz Sub Class members and agambt Dcfcndant~ A Z Gradir~g & Packing, Inc. and Ruben Munoz, jointly and severally, on the AWPA claims as set ibrth in Counts IV and awarding each of the workers his or her actual damages or statutory damages of $500, whichever is greater, tbr every violation of the AWPA and its attendant regulations set tbrth in the count; (j) Granting judgment tbr the Plaintifl~ and against the Defendants, jointly and severally, on the FESA claims as set tbrth in Count V and awarding each of the Plaintiffs her unpaid minimum wages and an equal amount as liquidated damages; (k) Declaring that the Defendants have violated the FLSA as set tbrth in Counts V. (1) Granting judgment fi~r the Plaintiffs and against the Contractor Defendants, jointly and se~,erally, on the FLSA claims as set tbrth in Count Vl and awarding each of the Plaintiffs her unpaid o~ertirne wages and an equal amount as liquidated damages; (m) Dccla~-ing that the (_ontractt~r Defendants have violated the FLSA as set ~-brth in Counts VI. (n) Awarding the Plaintiffs the costs of this action; (o) Awarding the Plaintiffs reasonable attorney’s the with respect to the FLSA claims and the claims under the wage payment provisions of the AWPA; (p) Granting such timber relief as this Court deems just and equitable.
Respectfully submitted,
1.7

Florida Bar Number 0468266 Gregory S. Schell Fitnida Bar Number ")RT1 O0 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
3.8

,RS 44ev,

CIVIL COVER Sl"

I t~e JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplefr )y iaw, except as provided by local rules of court Tt3is form. approved by the Judicial Confererl,~,~ ~.,
3f the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet (SEE NSTRUCTIONS ~ T~~

(a) PLAINTIFFS Mart~nez, Carmelina

DEFENDANTS M~~iHed~ano Ra~vesC~ng & £ack&ng

Maria Medrano

A-Z Grading & Packing

Velasquez, Jorgelia

Candido Packing, Inc. Ruben Munoz

Ramos, Esther Esobar Torres, Maria Ester
(b) COUN~ OF RESIDENCE OF F~RS7 USTED PLAINTIFF

Palm Beach

//(EXCEPT IN U.S PLAINTIFF CASES)

Candido Munoz,~n~|~TI~ATE 3UDGE

Candido Munoz
COUN~ OF RESIDENCE OF FIRST LISTED DEB~D~[]~ B~

~qh.

NOTE:

¯ / (IN U.S. PLAIN~I~=_ CASES ONLY)
~N LAND CONDEMNATION C:~I~s. USE THE LOCATION OF TRACT OF LAND fNVOLVED ,(/t ":

(~) ATTORNEYS IFIRM NAME ADDRESS. AND TELEPHONE NUMBER)
Migrant Farmworker Justice Project 508 Lucerne Ave. Lake Worth, FL 3346

A’~rORNEYS UF KNOWN)

(d) CIRCLE COUNTY WHERE ACTION AROSE: bADE, MONROE, BROWARD ~RI~N, ST. LUCIE, iNDIAN RIVER, "OK~EC~OBE

II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION ,F~c~ A~ × ~ o.E BOX

[] ~ U.S. Government Plaintiff

r~l3 Federal Question (U S. Government Not a Party)

III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PAR~IES~N x ,N ONE Box roa

(For Div~rslfy Cases Only) PTF D~F

-~’c C_<) (JLA.N.D- O~~.E

BOX FqR DEFEN~NT)
PTF

Citizen of This State

[] ~ In~ooraled or~nnapal Place

I~usiness In This State

D 2 U S. Government Defendant

[] 4 Diversity
(Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III)

Citizen of Another State
Citizen or Subject of a Foreign Country

[] 2 Incorporated and Principal Place of Business In Another State
[] 3 Foreign Nation

IV. ORIGIN I:~:~ Onginal
Proceeding

~ ~ Removed from State Court

(PLACE AN "X’" IN ONE BOX ONLY)

Transferred from

D 3 Remanded from Appellate Court

~ 4 Reinstated or Reopened

~ s another district (specify)

D ~ Multidistnct Litigation

Appeal to Distri~ Judge fro~
cI z Magis~ate Judgment

V, NATURE OF SUIT (PLACE AN "X" IN ONE BOX ONLY)

A CONTRACT

A TORTS

[] 120 Marine
~ 130 MHlet Act [] 140 Negol~able Insttumenl

PERSONAL INJURY 310 A,rp(ane

PERSONAL INJURY [] 362 Personal Iniury

340 Marine

PERSONAL PROPERTY

’~FORFEITURE/PENALTY~ A BANKRUPTCY i A OTHER STATUTES

~O 620 Olr~er FOOd g Drug B[] 625, Drug RelaleO Seizure
~ B~ 630 Liquor Laws ’ 8El 64e R R & Truck
8~ 660 Occuoaf~ona( &afetv;Neatth

~ ~ 410

E~ 423 WflhOrawal 28 USC 157

~ ~ 430 I B~ 450 Comme{ce/ICC R~le~fetc

PROPERTY RIGHTS~ ~:] 4T0460

tq 820 Co~yng~l~

~

,~~884300TPraatdeenml ark

A LABOR

SOCIAL SECURITY

861 :~,~ 1395ff

A REAL PROPERTY

A CIVIL RIGHTS

PRISONER PETITIONS

863 )!Wr
864 S~D ~Ile ~V~ 865 R~

~ 895 Free0orn oi

B~ 220 Fn,erJo~u~e ~ 230 Re<t Lease & Eieclmer~l
E] 240 Torts to Land ~q 245 Tort P~oduc! Liabiflfy
~1 2g0 AH O;her Real Property

442 443 Hnusmg,
444 Wettare 440 O~he~ C~vt~

HABEAS CORPUS: B~ 530 General a[] 535 Oeatr, PenallV B~] 5,40 Mandamus & Olhel B~ 550 CIvil R~gnls
B~ 555 Prison Cond~l~on

F FEDERAL TAX SUITS

[] 870 Taxes ~LI S Plaintiff
I Or Defendant}
A[] 871 IRS - fhhdPmly
26 USC 7609

[] 890 Diner ~atulo~y ACtionS

Vl. CAUSE OF ACTION ~CITE THE U S CiVIt STATUTE UNDER WHICH YOU ARE FILING AND WRITE BRIEF STATEMENT OF CAUSE Violations of the_Mi:)~N~Q_T CgITrE aJIJnRIStDiCaT~nONdA.L bSTAeTaUTsESoUnNLaESiS I~AIVEgR.rSITiYc) ultural Worker Protection Act 29 USC

s. 1801 and the Fair Labor Standards Act 29 USe s. 201.
LENGTH OF TRIAL
via___days eslirnated (fo[ both s~des [o try enli~e case)

VII. REQUESTED IN COMPLAINT:

~

CHECK IF THIS UNDER F.R.C.P

IS 23

A

CLASS

ACTION

DEMAND $

CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint: JURY DEMAND: [] YES

VIII. RELATED CASE(S) (See instructions):

IF ANY None

JLJ~GE

DATE
12 / 20 / 01
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY

~RE OF~P, rqEY OF RECORD
L~ ~’~A~
.

DOCKET t’4UM~E~

£ECEIP r ,.

AMOUNT ......

__ ____ MAG. JUDGE

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No.01-9096-Civ. Middlebrooks/Bandstra

Carmelina Martinez, Jorgelia Velasquez, Esther Ramos, Maria Ester Escobar Torres, Maria Jose Alarcon, and Luis Roca, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
VS.
Mecca Farms, Inc., Medrano Harvesting & Packing, Inc., Mafia Medrano, Candido Munoz, Inc., A-Z Grading & Packing, Inc., Candido Packing, Inc., and Candido Munoz,
Defendants.

"11
Complaint--Class Action

AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, DECLARATORY RELIEF, LITIGATION COSTS AND ATTORNEY’S FEES
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1. This is an action by six packing house workers on behalf of themselves and their coworkers to redress and vindicate rights afforded them by the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 1801-1872 (1999) ("AWPA"), and the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201-219 (1998) ("FLSA") for work performed between 1996 and

2002, inclusive, at Mecca Farms, Inc.’s Lantana, Florida packing houses.
2. Defendant Mecca Farms operates two packing houses in Lantana, Florida. One of these facilities packs tomatoes and the other one packs peppers and other vegetables. Defendant Candido Munoz furnished workers to both Mecca Farms packing houses between 1996 and 2002 as an individual and through corporations including Defendants Candido Munoz, Inc., A-Z Grading & Packing, Inc., and Candido Packing, Inc. Defendant Mafia Medrano furnished workers to the Mecca Farms tomato packing house between 1996 and 2002 as an individual and through corporations including Defendant Medrano Harvesting & Packing, Inc.
3. The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and other similarly-situated packing house employees for the Defendants’ violations of the AWPA’s record keeping, wage statement, and wage payment provisions. The Plaintiffs also seek to recover the minimum and overtime wages due them under the FLSA.
4. The Plaintiffs seek to address these violations of law through money damages, declaratory relief, and attorney’s fees on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated.
JURISDICTION 5. 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; and by 28 U.S.C. § 1337, this action arising under Acts of Congress regulating commerce. 6. The Court is empowered to grant declaratory relief 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)(1)-(2), (c) because all of the Defendants reside in the district, the events 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 8. At all times relevant to this action, the Plaintiffs were migrant agricultural workers within the meaning of the AWPA, 29 U.S.C. § 1802 (8) (A) and 29 C.F.R. § 500.20 (p), in that they were employed in agricultural employment of a seasonal nature and were required to be absent overnight from their respective permanent places of residence. 9. At all times relevant to this action, each of the Plaintiffs was employed in interstate commerce, as defined by the FLSA. 10. Defendant Mecca Farms, Inc. is a Florida corporation based in Lantana, Palm Beach County, Florida. Defendant Mecca Farms, Inc. grows tomatoes, peppers, and other vegetables in and around Palm Beach, Martin, and Broward counties and packs these commodities from its own operations and from the operations of others for sale in interstate commerce. 11. At all times relevant to this action, Defendant Mecca Farms, Inc. was an employer or joint employer of the Plaintiffs, within the meaning of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203 (d), and was an agricultural employer of the Plaintiffs and the other class members within the meaning of the AWPA, 29 U.S.C. § 1802 (2). 12. Defendant Maria Medrano, is an individual residing in Lake Worth, Florida, and is the director of Medrano Harvesting & Packing, Inc. At all times relevant to this action,
3

Defendant Maria Medrano acted as a farm labor contractor within the meaning of the AWPA, 29 U.S.C. § 1802 (7), in that, for a fee, she recruited, solicited, hired, furnished or transported agricultural workers for agricultural employment within the meaning of the AWPA. Among other things, Defendant Maria Medrano furnished migrant workers to Mecca Farms for work in Mecca Farms’ tomato packing house.
13. At various times relevant to this action, Mafia Medrano was an employer or joint employer of Plaintiffs Carmelina Martinez, Jorgelia Velasquez, Esther Ramos, Mafia Ester Escobar Torres, and Maria Jose Alarcon within the meaning of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203 (d).
14. Defendant Medrano Harvesting & Packing, Inc. is a Florida corporation based in Lake Worth, Palm Beach County, Florida. Medrano Harvesting & Packing, Inc. served as one of the corporate entities through which Defendant Maria Medrano conducted her farm labor contracting business. At various times relevant to this action, Defendant Medrano Harvesting & Packing, Inc. acted as a farm labor contractor within the meaning of the AWPA, 29 U.S.C. § 1802 (7), in that, for a fee, it recruited, solicited, hired, furnished or transported agricultural workers for agricultural employment within the meaning of the AWPA. Among other things, Defendant Medrano Harvesting & Packing, Inc. furnished migrant workers to Mecca Farms for work in Mecca Farms’ tomato packing house.
15. At various times relevant to this action, Defendant Medrano Harvesting & Packing, Inc. was an employer or joint employer of Plaintiffs Carmelina Martinez, Jorgelia Velasquez, Esther Ramos, Maria Ester Escobar Torres, and Maria Jose Alarcon within the meaning of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203 (d).
16. Defendant Candido Munoz, is an individual residing in Lake Worth, Florida, and is 4

the director of Candido Munoz, Inc. and Candido Packing, Inc.. At all times relevant to this action, Defendant Candido Munoz acted as a farm labor contractor within the meaning of the AWPA, 29 U.S.C. § 1802 (7), in that, for a fee, he recruited, solicited, hired, furnished or transported agricultural workers for agricultural employment within the meaning of the AWPA. Among other things, Defendant Candido Munoz furnished migrant workers to Mecca Farms for work in Mecca Farms’ tomato and pepper packing houses.
17. At various times relevant to this action, Defendant Candido Munoz was an employer or joint employer of Plaintiff Carmelina Martinez, Mafia Ester Escobar Torres, Maria Jose Alarcon, and Luis Roca within the meaning of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203 (d).
18. Defendant Candido Munoz, Inc. is a Florida corporation based in Lake Worth, Palm Beach County, Florida. Defendant Candido Munoz, Inc. served as one of the corporate entities through which Defendant Candido Munoz conducted his farm labor contracting business. At all times relevant to this action, Defendant Candido Munoz, Inc. acted as a farm labor contractor within the meaning of the AWPA, 29 U.S.C. § 1802 (7), in that, for a fee, it recruited, solicited, hired, furnished or transported agricultural workers for agricultural employment within the meaning of the AWPA. Among other things, Defendant Candido Munoz, Inc. furnished migrant workers to Mecca Farms for work in Mecca Farms’ tomato and pepper packing houses.
19. At various times relevant to this action, Defendant Candido Munoz, Inc. was an employer or joint employer of Plaintiff Carmelina Martinez, Maria Ester Escobar Torres, Mafia Jose Alarcon within the meaning of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203 (d).
20. Defendant A-Z Grading & Packing, Inc. is a Florida corporation based in Lake Worth, Palm Beach County, Florida. Defendant A-Z Grading & Packing, Inc. served as the
5

corporate entity through which Defendant Candido Munoz conducted his farm labor contracting business with Defendant Mecca Farms, Inc. At all times relevant to this action, Defendant A-Z Grading & Packing, Inc. acted as a farm labor contractor within the meaning of the AWPA, 29 U.S.C. § 1802 (7), in that, for a fee, it recruited, solicited, hired, furnished or transported agricultural workers for agricultural employment within the meaning of the AWPA. Among other things, Defendant A-Z Grading & Packing, Inc. furnished migrant workers to Mecca Farms for work in Mecca Farms’ tomato and pepper packing houses.
21. At various times relevant to this action, Defendant A-Z Grading & Packing, Inc. employed Plaintiffs Carmelina Martinez, Mafia Ester Escobar Torres, and Mafia Jose Alarcon within the meaning of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203 (d).
22. Defendant Candido Packing, Inc. is a Florida corporation based in Lake Worth, Palm Beach County, Florida. Defendant Candido Packing, Inc. served as one of the corporate entities through which the Defendant Candido Munoz conducted his farm labor contracting business. At all times relevant to this action, Defendant Candido Packing, Inc. acted as a farm labor contractor within the meaning of the AWPA, 29 U.S.C. § 1802 (7), in that, for a fee, it recruited, solicited, hired, furnished or transported agricultural workers for agricultural employment within the meaning of the AWPA. Among other things, Defendant Candido Packing, Inc. furnished migrant workers to Mecca Farms for work in Mecca Farms’ tomato and pepper packing houses.
23. At various times relevant to this action, Defendant Candido Packing, Inc. was an employer or joint employer of Plaintiffs Carmelina Martinez, Mafia Jose Alarcon, and Luis Roca within the meaning of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203 (d).

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 24. All claims set forth in Counts I and II are brought by the Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated persons pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 (b)(3). 25. The first class (the "Tomato Class") consists 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. 26. The second class (the "Pepper Class") consists of all 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. 27. Only the Defendants know the precise number of individuals in each class. Each class is believed to include over 1,000 individuals. The classes are comprised almost exclusively of indigent migrant workers who are not fluent in the English language. The relatively small size of the individual claims and the indigence of the class members make the maintenance of separate actions by each class member economically infeasible. Joinder of all class members is impracticable. 28. There are questions of law and fact common to the Tomato Class. The common legal and factual questions include: whether Defendant Mecca Farms, Inc. was an employer or joint employer of the members of the class; whether the Defendants’ failure to deposit with an appropriate governmental agency the sums regularly deducted from the class members’ wages for purposes of employee social security contributions violated the AWPA; whether the Defendants violated the AWPA by failing to pay the class members overtime wages for any time worked in excess of forty hours in a workweek;
7

whether the Defendants violated the AWPA by paying the class members according to the time recorded as the "belt time" instead of the time recorded on the class members’ individual time cards;
whether the Defendants violated the AWPA by failing to pay the class members for time while engaged to wait before punching in to the company time clock at the beginning of the workday;
whether the Defendants violated the AWPA by failing to compensate the class members for the time they were engaged to wait during periods of inactivity of the packing line.
29. There are questions of law and fact common to the Pepper Class. The common legal
and factual questions include:
whether Defendant Mecca Farms, Inc. was an employer or joint employer of the members of the class; whether the failure of Defendants Mecca Farms, Inc., Candido Munoz, Inc., A-Z Grading & Packing, Inc., Candido Packing, Inc., and Candido Munoz (the "Pepper Defendants") to deposit with an appropriate governmental agency the sums regularly deducted from the class members’ wages for purposes of employee social security contributions violated the AWPA;
whether the Pepper Defendants violated the AWPA by failing to pay overtime wages for any time worked in excess of forty hours in a workweek.
30. The claims of the named Plaintiffs are typical of those of the class members, and
these typical, common claims predominate over any questions affecting only individual class
members. The named Plaintiffs have the same interests as do the other class members and will
vigorously prosecute these interests on behalf of the classes.
31. The Plaintiffs’ counsel have handled numerous class actions in the federal courts,
including class actions under AWPA. The Plaintiffs’ counsel are prepared to advance litigation
costs necessary to vigorously litigate the action.
8

32. A class action under Rule 23 (b)(3) is superior to other available methods of adjudicating this controversy, 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 class members in individually controlling the prosecution of separate actions;
b. Many members of the classes are unaware of their fights to prosecute these claims and lack the means or resources to secure legal assistance;
c. There has been no litigation already commenced against the Defendants by the class members to determine the questions presented;
d. It is desirable that the claims be heard in this forum because the Defendants reside in this judicial district; and
e. A class action can be managed without undue difficulty because the Defendants have regularly committed the violations complained of herein, and are required by law to maintain detailed records concerning each class member.
COUNT I Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act
(Tomato Class) 33. This count sets forth a claim by Plaintiffs Carmelina Martinez, Jorgelia Velasquez, Esther Ramos, Mafia Ester Escobar Torres, and Mafia Jose Alarcon (the "Tomato Plaintiffs") and the other members of the Tomato Class for damages and declaratory relief for the Defendants’ violations of the AWPA and its attendant regulations. 34. The Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations set forth in
9

paragraphs 1 through 33 of the complaint. 35. The Defendants failed to pay the Tomato Plaintiffs and the other Tomato Class
members their wages when due in violation of the AWPA, 29 U.S.C. § 1822 (a) and its attendant regulations, 29 C.F.R. § 500.72.
36. The violations in paragraph 35 resulted, in part, from the Defendants’ failure to deposit with an appropriate governmental agency the sums regularly deducted from the Tomato Class members’ wages for the purposes of employee social security contributions.
37. The violations in paragraph 35 resulted, in part, from the Defendants’ practice of paying the Tomato Class members according to the time recorded as the "belt time" instead of the time recorded on the Tomato Class members’ individual time cards.
38. The violations in paragraph 35 resulted, in part, from the Defendants’ failure to pay the Tomato class members for time spent while they were engaged to wait before punching in to the company time clock.
39. The violations in paragraph 35 resulted, in part, from the Defendants’ failure to compensate the Tomato Class members for the time they were engaged to wait during periods of inactivity of the tomato line.
40. The violations in paragraph 35 resulted, in part, from the Defendants’ failure to pay the Tomato Class members overtime wages for any time worked in excess of forty hours in a workweek.
41. At all times relevant to this action, the Defendants failed to make, keep and maintain records regarding the work of the Tomato Plaintiffs and the other Tomato Class members as required by the AWPA, 29 U.S.C. § 1821 (d)(1), and its attendant regulations, 29 C.F.R. §
tO

500.80 (a). Among other things, the Defendants failed to make, keep and maintain records accurately reflecting the number of compensable hours worked and the specific sums withheld and the purpose of each sum withheld.
42. In violation of the AWPA, 29 U.S.C. § 1821 (d)(2), and its attendant regulations, 29 C.F.R. §500.80 (d), the Defendants failed to provide the Tomato Plaintiffs and the other Tomato class members each pay period with a written statement accurately showing, among other things, the number of hours worked and the specific sums withheld and the purpose of each sum withheld.
43. 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).
44. As a result of the Defendants’ violations of the AWPA and its attendant regulations as set forth in the count, the Tomato Plaintiffs and the other Tomato Class members have suffered damages.
COUNT II Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act
(Pepper Class)
45. This count sets forth a claim by Plaintiffs Maria Jose Alarcon and Luis Roca (the "Pepper Plaintiffs") and the other members of the Pepper Class for damages and declaratory relief to the AWPA violations and its attendant regulations by Defendants Mecca Farms, Inc., Candido Munoz, Inc., A-Z Grading & Packing, Inc., Candido Packing, Inc., and Candido Munoz ("Pepper Defendants").

46. The Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 45 of the complaint.
47. The Pepper Defendants failed to pay the Pepper Plaintiffs and the other Pepper Class members their wages when due in violation of the AWPA, 29 U.S.C. § 1822 (a) and its attendant regulations, 29 C.F.R. § 500.72.
48. The violations in paragraph 47 resulted, in part, from the Pepper Defendants’ failure to deposit with an appropriate governmental agency the sums regularly deducted from the Pepper class members’ wages for the purposes of employee social security contributions.
49. The violations in paragraph 47 resulted, in part, from the Pepper Defendants’ failure to pay the Pepper Class members overtime wages for any time worked in excess of forty hours in a workweek.
50. At all times relevant to this action, the Pepper Defendants failed to make, keep and maintain records regarding the work of the Pepper Plaintiffs and the other Pepper Class members as required by the AWPA, 29 U.S.C. § 1821 (d)(1), and its attendant regulations, 29 C.F.R. § 500.80 (a). Among other things, the Pepper Defendants failed to make, keep and maintain records accurately reflecting the specific sums withheld and the purpose of each sum withheld.
51. In violation of the AWPA, 29 U.S.C. § 1821 (d)(2), and its attendant regulations, 29 C.F.R. §500.80 (d), the Pepper Defendants failed to provide the Pepper Plaintiffs and the other Pepper Class members each pay period with a written statement accurately showing, among other things, the specific sums withheld and the purpose of each sum withheld.
52. 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 Pepper Defendants
~_2

and were intentional within the meaning of the AWPA, 29 U.S.C. § 1854 (c)(1). 53. As a result of the Pepper Defendants’ violations of the AWPA and its attendant
regulations as set forth in the count, the Pepper Plaintiffs and the other Pepper class members have suffered damages.
COUNT III Fair Labor Standards Act Defendants Mecca Farms, Inc., Medrano Harvesting & Packing, Inc., Mafia Medrano, Candido Munoz, Inc., A-Z Grading & Packing, Inc., Candido Packing, Inc., and Candido Munoz. ("Tomato Defendants")
54. This count sets forth a claim by the Tomato Plaintiffs for damages for violations of the minimum wage and overtime provisions of the FLSA by the Defendants for work performed in Mecca Farms’ tomato packing house from October 1996 through March 2002, inclusive.
55. The Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs l through 54 of the complaint.
56. The Defendants violated the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 206 (a) by failing to pay the Tomato Plaintiffs the applicable minimum wage for every compensable hour of labor they performed in Mecca Farms’ tomato packing house.
57. The violations in paragraph 56 resulted, in part, from the Defendants’ failure to deposit with an appropriate governmental agency the sums regularly deducted from the Tomato Plaintiffs’ wages for the purposes of employee social security contributions.
58. The violations in paragraph 56 resulted, in part, from the Defendants’ practice of paying the Tomato Plaintiffs according to the time recorded as the "belt time" instead of the time

recorded on the class members’ individual time cards. 59. The violations in paragraph 56 resulted, in part, fi’om the Defendants’ failure to pay
the Tomato Plaintiffs for time spent while they were engaged to wait before punching in to the company time clock.
60. The violations in paragraph 56 resulted, in part, from the Tomato Defendants’ failure to compensate the Tomato Class members for the time they were engaged to wait during periods of inactivity of the tomato line.
61. The Defendants failed to pay overtime wages as required by the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 207 (a) throughout the period they employed the Tomato Plaintiffs to work in the tomato packing house operated by Mecca Farms, Inc. in Lantana, Florida.
62. At no time relevant to this action did the Defendants post in a conspicuous place at the Mecca Farms’ tomato packing house a poster or other written statement advising the Tomato Plaintiffs of their right to minimum and overtime wages under the FLSA. Such posting is required by regulations issued under the FLSA, 29 C.F.R. § 516.4.
63. As a consequence of the Defendants’ FLSA violations, the Tomato Plaintiffs are entitled to recover the unpaid minimum and overtime wages due them plus an additional equal amount in liquidated damages, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216 (b).

COUNT IV Fair Labor Standards Act Defendants Mecca Farms, Inc., Candido Munoz, Inc., A-Z Grading & Packing, Inc., Candido Packing, Inc., and Candido Munoz. ("Pepper Defendants")
64. This count sets forth a claim by the Pepper Plaintiffs for damages for violations of the FLSA minimum wage and overtime provisions by the Pepper Defendants for work performed at the Mecca Farms’ pepper packing house from October 1996 through March 2002, inclusive.
65. The Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 64 of the complaint.
66. The Pepper Defendants violated the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 206 (a) by failing to pay the Pepper Plaintiffs the applicable minimum wage for every compensable hour of labor they performed. Among other things, the Pepper Defendants failed to deposit with an appropriate governmental agency the sums regularly deducted from the Pepper Plaintiffs’ wages for the purposes of employee social security contributions.
67. The Pepper Defendants failed to pay overtime wages as required by the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 207 (a) throughout the period they employed the Pepper Plaintiffs to work in the pepper packing house operated by Mecca Farms, Inc. in Lantana, Florida.
68. At no time relevant to this action did the Pepper Defendants post in a conspicuous place at the Mecca Farms’ pepper packing house a poster or other written statement advising the Pepper Plaintiffs of their right to the minimum and overtime wages under the FLSA. Such posting is required by regulations issued under the FLSA, 29 C.F.R. § 516.4.
69. As a consequence of the Pepper Defendants’ FLSA violations, the Pepper Plaintiffs

are entitled to recover the unpaid minimum and overtime wages due them 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:
(a) Certifying the case as a class action in accordance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) with respect to the claims set forth in Counts I and II; (b) Declaring that the Defendants have intentionally violated the AWPA, as set forth in Count I, relating to Mecca Farms’ tomato packing house; (c) Granting judgment for the Tomato Plaintiffs and the other Tomato Class members and against the Defendants, jointly and severally, on the AWPA claims as set forth in Count I and awarding each of these workers his or her actual damages or statutory damages of $500, whichever is greater, for every violation of the AWPA and its attendant regulations set forth in the count; (d) Declaring that the Pepper Defendants have intentionally violated the AWPA, as set forth in Count II, relating to Mecca Farms’ pepper packing house; (e) Granting judgment for the Pepper Plaintiffs and the other Pepper Class members and against the Pepper Defendants, jointly and severally, on the AWPA claims as set forth in Count II and awarding each of the workers his or her actual damages or statutory damages of $500, whichever is greater, for every violation of the AWPA and its attendant regulations set forth in the count; (f) Granting judgment for the Tomato Plaintiffs and against the Defendants, jointly and

severally, on the FLSA claims as set forth in Count III, relating to work performed in
Mecca Farms’ tomato packing house, and awarding each of these Plaintiffs her unpaid
minimum and overtime wages and an equal amount as liquidated damages;
(g) Declaring that the Defendants have violated the FLSA as set forth in Count III.
(h) Granting judgment for the Pepper Plaintiffs and against the Pepper Defendants, jointly
and severally, on the FLSA claims as set forth in Count IV, relating to Mecca Farms’
pepper packing house, and awarding each of these Plaintiffs her or his unpaid minimum
and overtime wages and an equal amount as liquidated damages;
(i) Declaring that the Pepper Defendants have violated the FLSA as set forth in Count IV;
(j) Awarding the Plaintiffs the costs of this action;
(k) Awarding the Plaintiffs a reasonable attorney’s fee with respect to the FLSA claims
and the claims under the wage payment provisions of the AWPA;
(1) Granting such further relief as this Court deems just and equitable.
~c~lly~.mitted,
~’~athleen D.~onFlorida 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
~_7

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 20t~ day of May, 2002:
Don R. Boswell Akers & Boswell, P.A. 2875 South Ocean Boulevard, Suite 200 Palm Beach, FL 33480
Joseph Ianno Henry Wulf Carlton Fields 222 Lakeview Avenue Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401

 
 Case 9:01-cv-09096-DMM Document 69 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/26/2003 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUR1 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 01-9096-CIV-MIDDLEBROOKS-BANDSTRA

CARMELINA MARTINEZ JORGELIA VELASQUEZ ESTHER RAMOS, MARIA ESTER ESCOBAR TORRES,
MARIEJOSEALARCON,~d
LUIS ROCA, Individually ~d on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
vs.

~ ORj)ER

Granted

\/"

DONALD M. MIDDLEBROOKS

UNITED STAh~t'ICT HJ ~--:·-:

Date:

Z.~~

_H ___ _

MECCA FARMS, INC., MEDRANO HARVESTING & PACKING, INC., MARIA MEDRANO, CANDIDO PACKING, INC. CANDIDO MUNOZ, INC. CANDIDO MUNOZ, ~d A-Z GRADING & PACKING, INC.,
Defendants.
------------------------------------~/

FEB 2~2003
CLARENCE MADDOX ClERK U.S. DIST. CT. $.D. OF FlA. • W.P.8.

DEFENDANT'S, MECCA FARMS, INC., MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFFS TO RESPOND TO THE FIRST SET OF INTERROGTORIES TO PLAINTIFFS

Defendant, Mecca Farms, Inc. ("Mecca"), by ~d through its undersigned counsel and pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 ~d 33, requests the entry of an order compelling Plaintiffs to respond to Defend~t's, Mecca Farms, Inc., First Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiffs (the "Interrogatories") and states as follows:
1. On August 22, 2002, Mecca served the Interrogatories on Plaintiffs. Copies of Defendant's, Mecca Farms, Inc., Notice of Serving First Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiffs and

WPB#557160.01

Case 9:01-cv-09096-DMM

Document 69

Entered on FLSD Docket 02/26/2003 Page 2 of 3
Carmelina, .inez, eta!. vs. Mecca Farms, Inc. Case No. 01-9096-CIV-MIDDLEBROOKS-BANDSTRA
Defendant's, Mecca Farms, Inc., Motion to Compel Plaintiffs to Respond to the First Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiffs
Page 2

Defendant's, Mecca Farms, Inc., First Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiffs are attached hereto, respectively, as Exhibits "A" an~ "B." As a consequence, Plaintiffs were required to respond to the Interrogatories by September 26, 2002.
2. Subsequently, Mecca received Plaintiffs' General Objections to Defendant Mecca Farms, Inc.'s Interrogatories to Plaintiffs ("Plaintiffs' General Objections") dated September 24, 2002. A copy of Plaintiffs' General Objections is attached hereto as Exhibit "C." In Plaintiffs' General Objections, Plaintiffs objected solely as to paragraph 3 of the Interrogatories on the grounds that "it improperly requests documents protected by the attorney work product privilege." Plaintiffs go on to state that the documents, which Mecca sought the identity of in paragraph 3 of the Interrogatories, "have been or are in the process of being produced." Such an objection is not well taken due to the fact that Mecca is only seeking the identity of documents that Plaintiffs anticipate introducing into evidence at any trial or in support of any motion. Accordingly, Mecca is only requesting that certain documents be identified, not that documents protected by the attorney/client privilege or work product privilege be produced. If Plaintiffs anticipate utilizing a document at trial or in support of a motion, Mecca is entitled to know of the existence of the document so that it can be located or requested through discovery.
3. It was also stated in Plaintiffs' General Objections that the "responses are being prepared and will be forthcoming." After receiving Plaintiffs' General Objections, counsel for Mecca contacted counsel for the Plaintiffs and inquired as to when the replies to the Interrogatories would be forthcoming. When counsel for the Plaintiffs could not provide a definite time period, counsel for Mecca recommended that the Plaintiffs seek an extension from the Court.

WPB#557160.01

Case 9:01-cv-09096-DMM

Document 69

Entered on FLSD Docket 02/26/2003 Page 3 of 3
Carmelina ,.. ~rlinez, eta/. vs. Mecca Farms, Inc. Case No. 01-9096-CIV-MIDDLEBROOKS-BANDSTRA
Defendant's, Mecca Farms, Inc., Motion to Compel Plaintiffs to Respond to the First Set oflnterrogatories to Plaintiffs
Page 3

4. To date, Plaintiffs have completely failed to respond to the Interrogatories other than stating a blanket gener~tl objection which does not apply to the Interrogatories. Furthermore, Plaintiffs have not sought an extension of time from the Court in which to respond to the Interrogatories. Accordingly, the Court should enter an order immediately compelling Plaintiffs to respond to the Interrogatories and award Mecca its reasonable expenses incurred in bringing this Motion, including its attorneys' fees.
WHEREFORE, Defendant, Mecca Farms, Inc., respectfully requests this Court enter an order compelling Plaintiffs to respond to Defendant, Mecca Farms, Inc.'s Interrogatories to Plaintiffs, award Mecca Farms, Inc. its reasonable expenses incurred in bringing this Motion, and granting such other and further relief as is just and proper.

Respectfully submitted,
CARLTON FIELDS, P.A. 222 Lakeview Avenue, Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401-6149 Telephone:(561) 659-7070 Facsimile: (561) 659-7368 Attorneys for MECCA FARMS, INC.

Henry S. Wulf, Esq. Florida Bar Number 0056049 e-mail: hwulj@carltonfields. com

WPB#557160.01

 
 Case 9:01-cv-09096-DMM Document 80 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/08/2003 Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION
Case No. 01-9096-CIV-MIDDLEBROOKS Magistrate Judge Bandstra

)

CARMELINA MARTINEZ, et. al.,

)

individually and on behalf of

)

aH others similarly situated,

'\
}

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

vs.

)

)

MECCA FARMS, INC., et. al.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

FILED by #?CJ·, D. C. ·~ y
APR 0 8 2003
CLARENCE MADDOX CLERK U.S. DIST. CT. S.D. OF FlA. • W.P.B.

FINAL ORDER
This case came before the Court on April 1, 2003 at a hearing to determine the lawfulness, reasonableness, adequacy and fairness of the proposed class settlement in this action.
On March 11, 2003, the Court entered an order directing that notice be given to members of the certified class in this case, said notice advising the class members of the terms of the proposed settlement, of their right to object to it and of the time and place of this hearing. (Docket Entry 76). The Court has heard and considered the presentations of counsel regarding the publication of this notice. The Court is unaware of any persons objecting to this proposed settlement. The Court has also been advised that the parties have agreed to the entry of this Order.

Case 9:01-cv-09096-DMM Document 80 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/08/2003 Page 2 of 4
Based on the foregoing, the Court hereby FINDS that:
A. The terms and provisions of this Court's order of March 11, 2003 in this case have been carried out by the parties.
B. The terms of the settlement contemplated herein are found in the Stipulation of Proposed Joint Settlement Agreement and exhibits thereto previously filed with the Court, and the terms thereof are incorporated herein and made a part hereof.
C. Said settlemt:nt is iawful, fair, just, reasonable and adequate after considering among other things that the settlement was reached after good faith, arms-length negotiations by experienced and capable counsel for the class and in the absence of collusion; the amount of the settlement; the likelihood of the Plaintiffs' success in obtaining the relief prayed for; the cost, complexity and duration of litigation if pursued; the disruption of business of Defendants and other matters bearing on the best interest of the parties, including the absence of objection by any class member or potential class member to the settlement contemplated by the Stipulation.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that:
l. The settlement contemplated in the Stipulation of Proposed Joint 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;
2. The Defendants, their past and present officers, shareholders, directors, agents, attorneys, subsidiaries, parent corporations, related entities and affiliates, if any, and their respective successors, heirs and assigns, whomever, are released from all damage and other
2

Case 9:01-cv-09096-DMM Document 80 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/08/2003 Page 3 of 4
claims of the Plaintiffs, and all members of the classes certified by the Court's order of November 25, 2002 (Docket Entry 66), their heirs, representatives, agents, attorneys, successors, or assigns, or anyone claiming on their behalf, which have been raised or asserted in this action; and,
4. This action is hereby dismissed with prejudice, except to reserve jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the settlement.

E DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in West Palm Beach, Florida, this
fl';r:! 2003.

day of

copies furnished to: counsel of record
Cathleen Caron, Esq. Lillian Hirales, Esq. Gregory S. Schell, Esq. Attorneys for Plaintiff Migrant Farrnworker Justice Project 508 Lucerne Avenue Lake Worth, FL 33460 Fax No: 561-582-4884
Joseph Ianno, Jr. HenryS. Wulf, Esq. Carlton Fields, P.a. 222 Lakeview Avenue, Suite 1400

United States District Judge 3

Case 9:01-cv-09096-DMM Document 80 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/08/2003 Page 4 of 4 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
4

 
 Case 9:01-cv-09096-DMM Document 74 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/10/2003 Page 1 of 27
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION Case No.O 1-9096-Civ. Middlebrooks/Bandstra
Carmelina Martinez, et. al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
Mecca Farms, Inc., et. al.,
Defendants. _______________________________!
PLAINTIFFS AND DEFENDANTS MEDRANO HARVESTING & PACKING, INC., MARIA MEDRANO, CANDIDO MUNOZ, INC., A-Z GRADING & PACKING, INC.,
CANDIDO PACKING, INC. AND CANDIDO MUNOZ'S JOINT MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT
AND SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM OF LAW
The Plaintiffs and Defendants Medrano Harvesting & Packing, Inc., Maria Medrano,
Candido Munoz, Inc., A-Z Grading & Packing, Inc., Candido Packing, Inc. and Candido Munoz
(hereinafter "FLC Packing House Defendants") 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. Permanently certifying the following two Settlement Classes:
The "Tomato Class" 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; and
the "Pepper Class" consisting of:
all migrant agricultural workers employed or jointly employed by Defendants Mecca Farms, Inc., in Mecca Farms' pepper packing house from October 1996

Case 9:01-cv-09096-DMM Document 74 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/10/2003 Page 2 of 27
through March 2002, inclusive.
2. Conditionally approvmg the proposed settlement as set forth m the Settlement Agreement, a copy ofwhich is attached hereto as Exhibit "F."
3. Directing the Plaintiffs 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). 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 FLC Packing House Defendants. 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, except as stated in the Settlement Agreement, by the FLC Packing House Defendants with respect to any of the material allegations of the Complaint and Amended Complaint. Nor does it constitute an admission by
2

Case 9:01-cv-09096-DMM Document 74 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/10/2003 Page 3 of 27

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

(7

1 h

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, 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

3

Case 9:01-cv-09096-DMM Document 74 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/10/2003 Page 4 of 27
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, §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). B. The Terms of the Settlement
Since the filing of the Complaint and Amended Complaint, the Plaintiffs and the FLC Packing House Defendants have worked to resolve this matter. The Settlement Agreement reflects that the FLC Packing House Defendants 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 October 1996 and March 2002, 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 1996 through 2002, 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 March 1, 2002. In exchange, the Plaintiffs and putative Class members agree to voluntarily waive, release, and forever discharge the FLC Packing House Defendants 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.
4

Case 9:01-cv-09096-DMM Document 74 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/10/2003 Page 5 of 27
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 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. Id. 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. ld. 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), affd, 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 Com., 737 F.2d 983 (11th 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), affd, 899 F.2d 21 (11th 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.
5

Case 9:01-cv-09096-DMM Document 74 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/10/2003 Page 6 of 27
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), 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 "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. 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
6

Case 9:01-cv-09096-DMM Document 74 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/10/2003 Page 7 of 27

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 forms for the specified Class members.

D. Conclusion

For the reasons set forth above, the Plaintiffs and the FLC Packing House Defendants

respectfully request that this Court grant preliminary approval of the Settlement, permanently

certify the Settlement Classes, and direct that Notice and Joint Settlement Agreement be

published in the forms submitted with the Stipulation.

1th Dated this

day of March, 2003.

Respectfully submitted,

Cathleen D. Caron 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
7

Case 9:01-cv-09096-DMM Document 74 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/10/2003 Page 8 of 27
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 Medrano Harvesting & Packing, Inc., Maria Medrano, Candido Munoz, Inc., A-Z Grading & Packing, Inc., Candido Packing, Inc. and Candido Munoz
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and accurate copy of the foregoing has been delivered via facsimile and 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 7fl- day of March, 2003.
~:::...n""""'"-........,_..=-------
8

Case 9:01-cv-09096-DMM Document 74 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/10/2003 Page 9 of 27
EXHIBIT "A"
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No.Ol-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.
_______________________________!
ORDER ON MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT BETWEEN PLAINTIFFS AND DEFENDANTS MEDRANO HARVESTING & PACKING, INC., MARIA MEDRANO, CANDIDO MUNOZ, INC., A-Z GRADING &
PACKING, INC., CANDIDO PACKING, INC. AND CANDIDO MUNOZ This cause having come before this Court on the joint motion of Plaintiffs and Defendants Medrano Harvesting & Packing, Inc., Maria Medrano, Candido Munoz, Inc., A-Z Grading & Packing, Inc., Candido Packing, Inc. and Candido Munoz (hereinafter "FLC Packing House Defendants") 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; the FLC Packing
House Defendants deny all liability, except as stated in the Settlement Agreement, and

Case 9:01-cv-09096-DMM Document 74 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/10/2003 Page 10 of 27
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 Joint 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 two classes are permanently certified as follows: (a) The "Tomato Class" 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; and
(b) the "Pepper Class" consisting of: all 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.
3. The class will be notified ofthe Proposed Settlement as follows:
2

Case 9:01-cv-09096-DMM Document 74 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/10/2003 Page 11 of 27

(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.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in West Palm Beach, Florida, this _ _ _ day of -------------------- 2003.

copies furnished to: counsel of record
Cathleen Caron, Esq. Lillian Hirales, Esq. Gregory S. Schell, Esq. Attorneys for Plaintiff Migrant Farmworker Justice Project 508 Lucerne Avenue Lake Worth, FL 33460 Facsimile: (561 )-582-4884

DONALD M. MIDDLEBROOKS United States District Judge
3

Case 9:01-cv-09096-DMM Document 74 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/10/2003 Page 12 of 27
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
4

Case 9:01-cv-09096-DMM Document 74 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/10/2003 Page 13 of 27

EXHIBITB

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

1

Case 9:01-cv-09096-DMM Document 74 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/10/2003 Page 14 of 27
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 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, 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 &
2

Case 9:01-cv-09096-DMM Document 74 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/10/2003 Page 15 of 27
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 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. 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 ofthis 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
3

Case 9:01-cv-09096-DMM Document 74 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/10/2003 Page 16 of 27

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 8:30PM and 5:00PM 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 ifl 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 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

4

Case 9:01-cv-09096-DMM Document 74 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/10/2003 Page 17 of 27
EXHIBITC
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No.Ol-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. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -I
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 ifyou have worked in packing houses in Lantana, Florida for Maria Medrano or Candido Munoz packing vegetables between October I, 1996 and March 1, 2002. It also describes a proposed settlement ofthe 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 ofpeople. 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
1

Case 9:01-cv-09096-DMM Document 74 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/10/2003 Page 18 of 27
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.
2

Case 9:01-cv-09096-DMM Document 74 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/10/2003 Page 19 of 27
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 CALLFLORIDALEGALSERVICESFARMWORKERJUSTICEPROJECTAT1-800-2777447 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 ofthis 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 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. Ifyou 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
3

Case 9:01-cv-09096-DMM Document 74 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/10/2003 Page 20 of 27

508 Lucerne Avenue, Lake Worth, Florida 33460 Monday through Friday between 8:30PM and 5:00PM 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 3340 I 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 ofthe case (Martinez v. Mecca Farms, Inc.) and the case number (0 1-

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 3340 I, 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.

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

Case 9:01-cv-09096-DMM Document 74 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/10/2003 Page 21 of 27
EXHIBITD
FIELD CLASS RADIO NOTICE- Carranza v. Mecca Fanns, Inc
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 fann.
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.

Case 9:01-cv-09096-DMM Document 74 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/10/2003 Page 22 of 27
EXHIBITE
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 part ofthe case. The call, 1-800-277-7447, is toll free.

Case 9:01-cv-09096-DMM Document 74 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/10/2003 Page 23 of 27
EXHIBIT "F" SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WITH PLAINTIFFS AND
DEFENDANTS MEDRANO HARVESTING & PACKING, INC., MARIA MEDRANO, CANDIDO MUNOZ, INC.,
A-Z GRADING& PACKING, INC., CANDIDO PACKING, INC. AND CANDIDO MUNOZ
WHEREAS Carmelina Martinez, Maria Jose Alarcon, Luis Roca, and Maria Ester Escobar Torres (hereafter "the Plaintiffs") have filed this action against, among others, Defendants Medrano Harvesting & Packing, Inc., Maria Medrano, Candido Munoz, Inc., A-Z Grading & Packing, Inc., Candido Packing, Inc. and Candido Munoz (hereinafter "FLC Packing House Defendants"), alleging violations of the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act, 29 U.S.C. §§1801, et ~-,and the minimum wage provisions ofthe Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §206(a), during the period between 1996 through 2002, inclusive, and
WHEREAS, the Plaintiffs and the FLC Packing House Defendants desire to amicably and completely resolve the disputes between them without additional delay, expense and litigation, and
WHEREAS, the Plaintiffs and the FLC Packing House Defendants 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 the FLC Packing House Defendants as follows:
I. Consideration for Settlement. The FLC Packing House Defendants agree to the following conditions and terms as settlement of this matter:
A. Assignment ofsums held by Mecca Farms, Inc. The FLC Packing House Defendants 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 March
-1-

Case 9:01-cv-09096-DMM Document 74 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/10/2003 Page 24 of 27
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. The FLC Packing House Defendants 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 1996 through 2002, 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 the FLC Packing House Defendants. C. Social Security Taxes. The FLC Packing House Defendants 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 October 1996 and March 2002, 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 the FLC Packing House Defendants who shall then file the W-2s and remit evidence of such to Plaintiffs' counsel. D. Overtime. The Packing House FLC Defendants stipulate that they are not entitled to the so-called "agricultural exemption" to the Fair Labor Standard's Act overtime provisions, as set forth in 29 U.S.C. § 213(b)(l2) with respect to their employees past and present who have worked at the Mecca Farms packing houses.
-2-

Case 9:01-cv-09096-DMM Document 74 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/10/2003 Page 25 of 27
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 the Packing House FLC Defendants in this action. This dismissal is based on the information gathered in the course ofthis litigation regarding the Packing House FLC Defendants' status under the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act and the Fair Labor 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 ofthis 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
-3-

Case 9:01-cv-09096-DMM Document 74 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/10/2003 Page 26 of 27

to dismiss with prejudice this action against the Packing House FLC Defendants. 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.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties by their counsel have signed this Settlement
Agreement.
Dated this ?_1-_L day of March 2003

~'~-
Maria Medrano Individually and as Director of Medrano Harvesting & Packing, Inc.
4~~
{' ~a~~do M oz
Individually and as Director of Candido Munoz, Inc., Candido Packing, Inc.

Cathleen D. Caron Florida Bar No. 0468266 Gregory S. Schell Florida Bar No. 287199 Lillian Hira1es 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

Ruben Munoz as rector of A-Z Grading & Packing, Inc.

Don R. Boswell, Esq. Akers & Boswell, P.A.
-4-

Case 9:01-cv-09096-DMM Document 74 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/10/2003 Page 27 of 27 2875 South Ocean Boulevard, Suite 200 Palm Beach, FL 33480 Facsimile: 561-547-3955 Attorney for Medrano Harvesting & Packing, Inc., Maria Medrano, Candido Munoz, Inc., A-Z Grading & Packing, Inc., Candido Packing, Inc. and Candido Munoz
-5-

 
 Martinez v. Mecca Farms, Inc., 213 F.R.D. 601 (2002)
213 F.R.D. 601 United States District Court,
S.D. Florida.
Carmelina MARTINEZ, Jorgelia Valasquez, Esther Ramos, and Maria Ester Escobar Torres, Maria Jose Alarcon, and Luis A. Roca,individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
MECCA FARMS, INC., Medrano Harvesting & Packing, Inc., Maria Medrano, Candido Munuz, Inc., Candido Munuz, and A–Z Grading & Packing,
Inc., Defendants.
No. 01–9096–CIV. | Nov. 25, 2002.
Attorneys and Law Firms
*603 Cathleen Caron, Gregory Scott Schell, Florida Legal Services, Migrant Farmworker Justice Project, Lake Worth, FL, for plaintiffs.
Henry S. Wulf, Joseph Ianno, Jr., Carlton Fields, LLP, West Palm Beach, FL, for Mecca Farms, Inc.
Don R. Boswell, Akers & Boswell P.A., Palm Beach, FL, for Medrano Harvesting & Packing, Inc., Maria Medrano, Candido Packing, Inc., Candido Munoz, Inc., Candido Munoz, and A–Z Grading & Packing, Inc.
Opinion
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION
MIDDLEBROOKS, District Judge.
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification (DE # 34), filed on May 20, 2002. The Court has been fully briefed and is otherwise aware of the premises. After reviewing the record and the parties’ submissions, it is the Court’s determination that the Plaintiff’s motion should be GRANTED.
Background
This is an action by six agricultural workers who claim that the defendants violated the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act (“MPSA” or “AWPA”) during plaintiffs’ employment at defendant Mecca Farms’ Lantana, Florida packing houses. They

seek to certify two classes under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(3): (1) a “tomato class” comprised of migrant workers employed at Mecca Farms, Inc.’s (Mecca) tomato packing house from October, 1996 through March, 2002, and (2) a “pepper class” comprised of migrant workers employed at Mecca Farms’ chili pepper packing house during the same time period.
The packing house workers (who grade and pack the vegetables) were paid on an hourly basis for their work. Each worker was issued a time card, which was punched just before the worker went to his or her station on the “line” and punched when the worker left the “line” for meal breaks, for mechanical breakdowns, or at the end of the work day. Each week, Mecca would provide a contractor service report for defendants Maria Medrano and Candido Muniz, the labor contractors who recruited and hired most of the workers in the packaging houses. Plaintiffs claim that at the pepper house, the time registered on the time clock automatically totaled the hours worked on a daily basis, but that at the tomato house Mecca computed an employee’s time worked based on an estimate of the “belt time,” or the time the “line” for grading the produce was operational.
Plaintiffs assert that none of the workers in either packing house were paid overtime wages, despite working over 40 hours during a number of pay periods. They claim that they are entitled to such pay. In addition, they complain that the employee Social Security taxes that were deducted from their wages were never paid to the government, but were simply retained by the labor contractors. This led to the payroll records being inaccurate. Finally, they challenge several timekeeping practices. They believe they should be paid for the elapsed work time shown on their time cards, rather than by the “belt time.” In addition, the tomato house workers seek compensation for the time they sat idle at the packing house, waiting for authorization to “punch in” to the time clock, and for the periods they were forced to remain at the packing hose awaiting mechanical repairs.
*604 Discussion
According to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, one or more members of a class may sue or be sued as representative parties on behalf of all only if:
(1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable, (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class, (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are
1

Martinez v. Mecca Farms, Inc., 213 F.R.D. 601 (2002)
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); Jackson v. Motel 6 Multipurpose, Inc., 130 F.3d 999, 1005 n. 9 (11th Cir.1997). Before proceeding to a discussion of the four class action prerequisites individually with regard to the facts of this case, the court must first address a standing challenge the Defendant has raised.
[1] Defendant argues that as per Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v. NLRB, 535 U.S. 137, 122 S.Ct. 1275, 152 L.Ed.2d 271 (2002), plaintiffs, as undocumented aliens, are precluded from recovering the remedies they seek under the MPSA. In Hoffman, a group of employees began a union organizing campaign at a plastic production plant. The plant employer, recognizing these employees as union organizers, terminated their employment in order to subvert the union organizing effort, in violation of § 8(a)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”). The National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) ordered their reinstatement with back pay. The Supreme Court reversed the Board’s back pay award, finding that the Board’s position “discounting the misconduct of illegal alien employees” subverted the purpose of the Immigration Reform and Control Act (“IRCA”). Defendant presents the case to suggest a mandate that courts “give due regard for Congress’ clear and unequivocal policy pronouncements with respect to the employment of unlawful aliens.” (Defendant’s Response at 13).
Defendant’s reading of Hoffman with regard to this case is flawed for a number of reasons. Defendant suggests that Hoffman removed undocumented aliens’ right to charges with the NLRB, and therefore, undocumented farmworkers similarly had no standing to sue under the MPSA. However, the Hoffman court dealt with the remedies available to the undocumented, and not his right to file a charge with the NLRB. In fact, the right of undocumented aliens to bring suit under the NLRA was upheld in Sure–Tan Inc. v. NLRB, 467 U.S. 883, 104 S.Ct. 2803, 81 L.Ed.2d 732 (1984), where the Supreme Court stated “[s]ince undocumented aliens are not among the few groups of workers expressly exempted by Congress [in the NLRA] they plainly come within the broad statutory definition of ‘employee.’ ” Sure–Tan, Inc., 467 U.S. at 892, 104 S.Ct. 2803. Hoffman preserves Sure–Tan in part by stating that “[o]ur first holding in Sure–Tan is not at issue here.” Hoffman, 122 S.Ct. at 1284 n. 4.
More importantly, in its analysis of Hoffman, Defendant fails to make an important distinction between post-termination “back pay” and other forms of remuneration. Back pay seeks to make an employee whole by awarding wages that would have been earned

but for an unlawful firing. Hoffman treats this as wages 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 unlawful fraud.” Id. at 1283. The Plaintiffs in this case do not seek post-termination back pay; they seek remedies for work already performed.

Courts have distinguished back pay from remedies for uncompensated labor. The Eleventh Circuit has stated that an undocumented plaintiff was “entitled to the full range of available remedies under the FLSA without regard to his immigration status because he was not attempting to recover back pay but for work already performed.” Patel v. Quality Inn South, 846 F.2d 700, 705–06 (11th Cir.1988). The Seventh Circuit reached also called attention to the distinction in Del Rey Tortilleria, Inc. v. NLRB, 976 F.2d 1115, 1122 n. 7 (7th Cir.1992). In fact, courts addressing this issue of whether defendants should be allowed to discover plaintiff-workers’ immigration status in cases seeking unpaid wages brought under the FLSA have found such information to be *605 undiscoverable. See In re Reyes, 814 F.2d 168 (5th Cir.1987).

As such, the Circuit Courts to have addressed the issue have found that a distinction exists between back pay and uncompensated labor.1 In this case, as it is clear that the Plaintiffs are bringing suit to challenge the compensation for work already performed, Defendant’s standing challenge fails.

1

Two recent District Court decisions have similarly

drawn the distinction. See Liu v. Donna Daran Int’l,

Inc., 207 F.Supp.2d 191 (S.D.N.Y.2002); Flores v.

Albertsons, Inc., No. CV0100515AHM (SHX), 2002

WL 1163623 (C.D.Cal. Apr.9, 2002).

1. Numerosity and impracticability of joinder
[2] [3] Rule 23(a)(1) requires that the class be “so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.” No definite standard exists as to what size class satisfies the requirements of Rule 23(a). See Hively v. Northlake Foods, Inc., 191 F.R.D. 661, 666 (M.D.Fla.2000). Generally, a class should have no fewer than 21 members, and will generally satisfy the numerosity requirement if it has more than 40. See, e.g. Cox v. American Cast Iron Pipe Co., 784 F.2d 1546, 1553 (11th Cir.1986). The court may make commonsense assumptions in order to find support for numerosity. Evans v. United States Pipe and Foundry Co., 696 F.2d 925 (11th Cir.1983).
[4] Based on the information presented, the proposed classes satisfy the numerosity requirement of Rule
2

Martinez v. Mecca Farms, Inc., 213 F.R.D. 601 (2002)
23(a)(1). Medrano supplied 59 or 60 workers daily to the tomato house. (Medrano Dep. at 21). Though the daily numbers seemed to vary (Munoz Dep. at 10–12), Munoz supplied approximately 1,000 employees each season to both packing houses. The Defendants do not challenge this information.
2. Common questions of law and fact
[5] Rule 23(a)(2) requires that there be “questions of law or fact common to the class.” Not all questions of law or fact need be common to all plaintiffs. Powers v. Government Employees Ins. Co., 192 F.R.D. 313, 317 (S.D.Fla.1998).
[6] The clearest common question of fact in this matter is whether Defendant Mecca Farms, Inc. was the Plaintiffs’ employer. In its Answer, Defenses, and Affirmative Defenses, Mecca denied that it employed the Plaintiffs and the other workers furnished by the labor contractors. If Mecca did not “employ” the packing house workers within the meaning of the AWPA, Mecca has no liability in this action. See Haywood v. Barnes, 109 F.R.D. 568, 576 (E.D.N.C.1986)(commonality established where a “central issue” concerned the defendant grower’s status as an employer of the plaintiffs); Kelly v. SabreTech, Inc., 195 F.R.D. 48, 53 (S.D.Fla.1999)(common questions included whether defendant was an employer within the meaning of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act).
Both classes seek relief for the Defendants’ failure to deposit Social Security taxes with the Internal Revenue Service. There is a common legal question as to whether this constituted a violation of the AWPA. See, e.g. Saintida v. Tyre, 783 F.Supp. 1368 (S.D.Fla.1992)(holding that failure to deposit Social Security taxes violates AWPA’s wage payment provisions).
Both classes seek to recover overtime wages. Whether the Defendants are exempt from the overtime requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1999), is a legal issue common to all of the workers.
Finally, the tomato house plaintiffs assert several allegations which contain questions relevant to their class specifically. First, the tomato plaintiffs assert that Mecca Farms’ practice of compensating them in accordance with “belt time” violates the AWPA. Second, the tomato plaintiffs seek to be compensated for the time they spent waiting to “punch in” to the time clock at the beginning of the work day. Whether this time is compensable under the AWPA is a question of law common to all tomato house workers.

As Plaintiffs have demonstrated (once again with no contrary argument by the Defendants)2, common legal and factual questions *606 exists with regard to all of the Plaintiffs.

2

Defendants only address the issue of commonality in

passing, in the context of a discussion of Rule 23(b)(3).

That rule states that class certification is permissible

only when “questions of law or fact common to the

members of the class predominate over any questions

affecting only individual members.” Defendants argue

that because the named plaintiffs lack standing,

determining which other members of the putative class

would require “individualized inquiries and mini-trials”

as to each individual’s immigration status, thus

destroying the cohesion of the class. (Defendants’

Response at 20). As discussed above in the context of

Hoffman, Sure–Tan, and Patel, the immigration status

of the members of the class will not defeat certification

in this case. As such, the Plaintiffs’ motion survives

Rule 23(b)(3).

3. Typicality
[7] [8] Rule 23(a)(3) requires that “the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses 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); Prado–Steiman ex rel. Prado v. Bush, 221 F.3d 1266, 1279 (11th Cir.2000). 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 the representatives can represent the class adequately. See Powers v. Stuart–James Co., 707 F.Supp. 499, 503 (M.D.Fla.1989).
Neither party gives any indication that various members of the putative class have differences sufficient to defeat the typicality requirement. Once again, there is no indication that any member of the class has been treating differently, or has interests that are significantly different from any other class member. If evidence demonstrates that Mecca employed the named Plaintiffs, the same evidence will necessarily demonstrate the other workers on the packing house line were similarly employed. Any claims relevant to the representatives will also be relevant to the class as a whole.
3

Martinez v. Mecca Farms, Inc., 213 F.R.D. 601 (2002)
4. Adequacy of Representation
[9] Rule 23(a)(4) requires that “the representative parties...fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.” 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).
[10] Mecca challenges both typicality and adequacy of representation because of the immigration status of the class representatives. Mecca suggests that because the named Plaintiffs could be subject to deportation or could be distracted by the possibility of deportation. As a result, Mecca argues, the representatives will not be able to adequately represent the interests of the class. Such an argument fails. 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 Guaranty Trust Co. of New York, 539 F.2d 1388, 1390 (5th Cir.1976). Mecca argues that the immigration status of the Plaintiffs is one such outside entanglement. In support, Defendant relies on Hagen v. City of Winnemucca, 108 F.R.D. 61 (D.Nev.1985), in which the plaintiff, a citizen of Great Britain and a former City of Winnemucca prostitute, sought to bring a class action on behalf of all Winnemucca prostitutes. The court found the plaintiff’s possible deportation a possible entanglement. However, the court did not suggest that a deportable alien was inherently unfit to be a class representative. The court denied certification because the plaintiff’s deportation could have been used against her as a defense, a defense not available to the other class members. Id. at 65. In sum, the fact that the plaintiff had interests that clearly differed from other class members defeated certification.
Such is not the case here. Undocumented individuals have been allowed to represent classes of deportable aliens. See McNary v. Haitian Refugee Center, Inc., 498 U.S. 479, 111 S.Ct. 888, 112 L.Ed.2d 1005 (1991); Jean v. Nelson 727 F.2d 957 (11th Cir.1984)(class action brought by Haitian aliens alleging illegal INS detention).

In addition, Mecca argues that the Plaintiffs are inadequate because they have *607 worked in violation of federal labor laws and therefore are not credible. The court at this time is not willing to engage in a premature inquiry of the credibility of potential witnesses.
[11] Finally, Defendants assert that the putative class representatives because they do not possess a sufficient level of knowledge and understanding to be able to control or prosecute the litigation pursuant to Rule 23(a). However, as held in Surowitz v. The Hilton Hotels Corp., 383 U.S. 363, 86 S.Ct. 845, 15 L.Ed.2d 807 (1966), the Supreme Court found the plaintiff in a shareholder class action suit to be an adequate class representative despite her “positive disavowal of any relevant knowledge or information other than the fact of her stock ownership.” Surowitz, 383 U.S. at 372, 86 S.Ct. 845. Although the representative must have more knowledge than a lay person about the case In re Telectronics Pacing Systems, Inc., 168 F.R.D. 203 (S.D.Ohio 1996), the Court is persuaded that the individuals’ understanding of the basic nature of their claims survives the Surowitz standard. Plaintiffs have sufficiently established that they can adequately represent the class.
Conclusion
Upon review of the record, it is the Court’s opinion that the Plaintiffs have established the prerequisites for class certification pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a). Accordingly, it is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification (DE # 34) is hereby GRANTED.
Parallel Citations
148 Lab.Cas. P 34,726
	  

4

 
 CM/ECF - Live Database - flsd - Docket Report

https://ecf.flsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?108065749716453-L_92...

U.S. District Court Southern District of Florida (West Palm Beach) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 9:01-cv-09096-DMM

CLOSED

Martinez, et al v. Mecca Farms, Inc, et al Assigned to: Judge Donald M. Middlebrooks Demand: $0 Cause: 29:1801 Farmworker Rights Plaintiff Carmelina Martinez individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff Jorgelia Velasquez individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,

Date Filed: 12/20/2001 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
Gregory Scott Schell Florida Legal Services Inc. 508 Lucerne Avenue Lake Worth, FL 33460 561-582-3921 Fax: 582-4884 Email: Greg@Floridalegal.Org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
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
Gregory Scott Schell (See above for address)

1 of 12

8/20/2007 2:22 PM

CM/ECF - Live Database - flsd - Docket Report
Plaintiff Esther Ramos individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff Maria Ester Escobar Torres individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff Maria Jose Alarcon
2 of 12

https://ecf.flsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?108065749716453-L_92...
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
Gregory Scott Schell (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
Gregory Scott Schell (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 Gregory Scott Schell (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lillian Magdaleno Hirales (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
8/20/2007 2:22 PM

CM/ECF - Live Database - flsd - Docket Report
Plaintiff Luis A. Roca V. Defendant Mecca Farms, Inc
3 of 12

https://ecf.flsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?108065749716453-L_92...
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Gregory Scott Schell (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 Cathy Mattson Stutin Fisher & Phillips 450 E Las Olas Boulevard Suite 800 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 954-525-4800 Fax: 525-8739 TERMINATED: 12/09/2002 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
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
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 &
8/20/2007 2:22 PM

CM/ECF - Live Database - flsd - Docket Report
Defendant Medrano Harvesting & Packing, Inc Defendant Maria Medrano Defendant Candido Packing, Inc Defendant Candido Munoz, Inc Defendant Candido Munoz
4 of 12

https://ecf.flsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?108065749716453-L_92...
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
represented by Don R. Boswell (See above for address) 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) 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) LEAD ATTORNEY
8/20/2007 2:22 PM

CM/ECF - Live Database - flsd - Docket Report

https://ecf.flsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?108065749716453-L_92...

Defendant A-Z Grading & Packing, Inc
Defendant Ruben Munoz TERMINATED: 05/24/2002

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: 05/24/2002 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 12/20/2001
12/20/2001 12/20/2001 12/20/2001 12/20/2001 12/20/2001 12/20/2001 12/20/2001 12/20/2001 01/04/2002

#

Docket Text

1 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES DECLARATORY RELIEF, LITIGATION COSTS AND ATTORNEY'S FEES filed; FILING FEE $150.00 RECEIPT # 715541 ; A-7; Magistrate Judge Ted E. Bandstra (at, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/20/2001)
2 SUMMONS() issued for Mecca Farms, Inc (at, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/20/2001)
3 SUMMONS() issued for Medrano Harvesting (at, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/20/2001)
4 SUMMONS() issued for Maria Medrano (at, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/20/2001)
5 SUMMONS() issued for Candido Packing, Inc (at, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/20/2001)
6 SUMMONS() issued for Candido Munoz, Inc (at, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/20/2001)
7 SUMMONS() issued for Candido Munoz (at, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/20/2001)
8 SUMMONS() issued for A-Z Grading & Packin (at, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/20/2001)
9 SUMMONS() issued for Ruben Munoz (at, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/20/2001)
10 ORDER OF REFERENCE to United States Magistrate Judge Ted E. Bandstra for the conducting of a Scheduling Conference, pursuant to Local Rule 16.1.B for the purpose of setting pre-trial deadline dates, a trial date and for determining possible consent to the jurisdiction of the Magistrate Judge for trial (Signed by Judge Donald M. Middlebrooks on 01/04/02) [EOD Date: 1/7/02] (at, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/07/2002)

5 of 12

8/20/2007 2:22 PM

CM/ECF - Live Database - flsd - Docket Report

https://ecf.flsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?108065749716453-L_92...

01/18/2002 02/28/2002 03/04/2002 03/04/2002 03/05/2002
03/11/2002 03/20/2002 03/20/2002 03/25/2002
03/28/2002 04/08/2002
04/09/2002 04/24/2002 05/02/2002

11 ORDER and Notice of Scheduling Conference scheduling conference for 10:00 3/5/02 before Judge Paul C. Huck ( Signed by Magistrate Ted E. Bandstra on 01/17/02) [EOD Date: 1/22/02] (nt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/22/2002)
12 MOTION by Carmelina Martinez, Jorgelia Velasquez, Esther Ramos, Maria Ester Escobar Torres to extend time to hold Scheduling Conference (wc, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/01/2002)
13 Answer and affirmative defenses by Mecca Farms, Inc (Attorney Cathy Mattson Stutin), (wc, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/05/2002)
14 MOTION by Carmelina Martinez, Jorgelia Velasquez, Esther Ramos, Maria Ester Escobar Torres to extend time to hold Scheduling Conference (wc, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/05/2002)
15 ORDER granting [14-1] motion to extend time to hold Scheduling Conference, granting [12-1] motion to extend time to hold Scheduling Conference reset scheduling conference for 10:00 5/2/02 before Magistrate Ted E. Bandstra ( Signed by Magistrate Ted E. Bandstra on 3/5/02) [EOD Date: 3/6/02] (wc, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/06/2002)
16 MOTION by Carmelina Martinez, Jorgelia Velasquez, Esther Ramos, Maria Ester Escobar Torres to extend time to file motion for declaration of class action (cj, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/13/2002)
17 Answer and affirmative defenses by Medrano Harvesting, Maria Medrano (cj, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/21/2002)
18 Answer and affirmative defenses by Candido Packing, Inc, Candido Munoz, Inc, Candido Munoz, A-Z Grading & Packin (cj, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/21/2002)
19 ORDER GRANTING IN PART MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME:ORDER granting in part, denying in part [16-1] motion to extend time to file motion for declaration of class action, until 5/20/02(Signed by Judge Donald M. Middlebrooks on 3/25/02) [EOD Date: 3/26/02] (Former Deputy Clerk) Modified on 10/30/2002 (Entered: 03/26/2002)
20 Waiver of service executed by Mecca Farms, Inc (Attorney )1/5/02 Answer due by 3/6/02 for Mecca Farms, Inc (cj, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/29/2002)
21 Scheduling Report of Scheduling Meeting by Carmelina Martinez, Jorgelia Velasquez, Esther Ramos, Maria Ester Escobar Torres, Mecca Farms, Inc, Medrano Harvesting, Maria Medrano, Candido Packing, Inc, Candido Munoz, Inc, Candido Munoz, A-Z Grading & Packin, Ruben Munoz (gz, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/09/2002)
22 Answer and affirmative defenses by Candido Packing, Inc, Candido Munoz, Inc, Candido Munoz, A-Z Grading & Packin (cj, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/10/2002)
23 Initial Disclosures Witness list by Mecca Farms, Inc (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/25/2002)
Scheduling conference held before Magistrate Ted E. Bandstra (sk, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/06/2002)

6 of 12

8/20/2007 2:22 PM

CM/ECF - Live Database - flsd - Docket Report

https://ecf.flsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?108065749716453-L_92...

05/03/2002 05/08/2002 05/08/2002
05/20/2002
05/20/2002 05/20/2002
05/20/2002 05/20/2002 05/20/2002 05/20/2002 05/20/2002 05/20/2002 05/21/2002 05/21/2002

24 Minutes of telephonic scheduling conference held before Magistrate Ted E. Bandstra on 5/2/02; (sk, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/06/2002)
25 ORDER referring case to mediation. 15 days to appoint mediator. See Order for additional details. ( Signed by Magistrate Ted E. Bandstra on 5/7/02) [EOD Date: 5/9/02] (ct, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/09/2002)
26 SCHEDULING ORDER setting Deadline for filing of all pretrial motions by 6/1/03 Jury trial set for 9:00 8/10/03 Joint Pretrial Stipulation due on or before 7/1/03 Discovery cutoff 5/1/03 ; See Order for additional details. ( Signed by Magistrate Ted E. Bandstra on 5/7/02) [EOD Date: 5/9/02] CCAP (ct, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/09/2002)
27 AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, DECLARATORY RELIEF, litgation costs and attorney fees, by Carmelina Martinez, Jorgelia Velasquez, Esther Ramos, Maria Ester Escobar Torres , (Answer due 5/30/02 for Mecca Farms, Inc, for Medrano Harvesting, for Maria Medrano, for Candido Munoz, Inc, for A-Z Grading & Packin, for Candido Packing, Inc, for Candido Munoz) amending [1-1] complaint (Former Deputy Clerk) Modified on 10/30/2002 (Entered: 05/20/2002)
28 MOTION by Carmelina Martinez, Jorgelia Velasquez, Esther Ramos, Maria Ester Escobar Torres to add parties plaintiff , drop defendant , and for leave to file amended complaint (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/20/2002)
29 MEMORANDUM by Carmelina Martinez, Jorgelia Velasquez, Esther Ramos, Maria Ester Escobar Torres in support of [28-1] motion to add parties plaintiff, [28-2] motion drop defendant, [28-3] motion for leave to file amended complaint (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/20/2002)
31 DEPOSITION of Maria Medrano (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/21/2002)
32 DEPOSITION of Raquel Tuttle (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/21/2002)
33 DEPOSITION of Candido Munoz (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/21/2002)
34 MOTION by Carmelina Martinez, Jorgelia Velasquez, Esther Ramos, Maria Ester Escobar Torres to certify class action (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/21/2002)
35 MEMORANDUM by Carmelina Martinez, Jorgelia Velasquez, Esther Ramos, Maria Ester Escobar Torres in support of [34-1] motion to certify class action (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/21/2002)
37 DEPOSITION of Kristine Mecca (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/21/2002)
30 NOTICE of filing of deposition transcripts of Maria Medrano, Raquel Tuttle, Candido Munoz, Kristine Mecca (Excerpt), by Carmelina Martinez, Jorgelia Velasquez, Esther Ramos (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/21/2002)
36 STIPULATION of dismissal of defendant Ruben Munoz,by Carmelina Martinez, Jorgelia Velasquez, Esther Ramos, Maria Ester Escobar Torres, Ruben Munoz (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/21/2002)

7 of 12

8/20/2007 2:22 PM

CM/ECF - Live Database - flsd - Docket Report

https://ecf.flsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?108065749716453-L_92...

05/24/2002 05/28/2002 05/28/2002 05/28/2002 05/30/2002
05/30/2002
06/03/2002 06/04/2002
06/04/2002 06/11/2002 06/12/2002 06/14/2002

40 ORDER granting [36-1] dismiss/dismissal stipulation dismissing defendant Ruben Munoz from case ( Signed by Judge Donald M. Middlebrooks on 5/24/02) [EOD Date: 5/29/02] (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/29/2002)
38 MOTION by Mecca Farms, Inc for Gary G. Smigiel to appear pro hac vice (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/28/2002)
Filing Fee Paid; FILING FEE $ 75.00 RECEIPT # 716387 (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/28/2002)
39 STIPULATION by Mecca Farms, Inc In Re: Substitution of counsel of Carlton Fields, PA as attorney for Mecca Farms Inc. (Former Deputy Clerk) Modified on 10/30/2002 (Entered: 05/28/2002)
41 ORDER GRANTING STIPULATION FOR SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL: ORDER granting [39-1] stipulation for substitution of counsel. Carlton Fields is hereby substituted as counsel of record for Mecca Farms, Inc. (Signed by Judge Donald M. Middlebrooks on 5/30/02) [EOD Date: 5/31/02] (Former Deputy Clerk) Modified on 10/30/2002 (Entered: 05/31/2002)
42 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MECCA FARMS, INC., VERIFIED MOTION TO ADMIT GARY G. SMIGIEL, PRO HAC VICE: ORDER granting [38-1] motion for Gary G. Smigiel to appear pro hac vice ( Signed by Judge Donald M. Middlebrooks on 5/30/02) [EOD Date: 5/31/02] (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/31/2002)
43 MOTION by Mecca Farms, Inc to extend time to respond to plaintiffs' motion for class certification (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 06/04/2002)
44 ORDER GRANTING AGREED MOTION TO EXTEND DEADLINES TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION:ORDER granting [43-1] motion to extend time to respond to plaintiffs' motion for class certification Response to motion reset to 6/28/02 for [34-1] motion to certify class action , Reply to Response to Motion reset to 7/12/02 for [34-1] motion to certify class action (Signed by Judge Donald M. Middlebrooks on 6/4/02) [EOD Date: 6/5/02] (Former Deputy Clerk) Modified on 10/30/2002 (Entered: 06/05/2002)
45 NOTICE of Hearing: set calendar call for 1:15 8/6/03 before Judge Donald M. Middlebrooks (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 06/05/2002)
46 NOTICE of no opposition to plaintiffs' motion to add parties plaintiff, drop defendant, and, for leave to file amended complaint, by Mecca Farms, Inc (Former Deputy Clerk) Modified on 10/30/2002 (Entered: 06/12/2002)
60 REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW,by Carmelina Martinez, Jorgelia Velasquez, Esther Ramos, Maria Ester Escobar Torres to response to [34-1] motion to certify class action (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 07/15/2002)
47 ORDER granting [28-1] motion to add parties plaintiff, granting [28-2] motion drop defendant, granting [28-3] motion for leave to file amended complaint ( Signed by Judge Donald M. Middlebrooks on 6/14/02) [EOD Date: 6/17/02] (cj, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 06/17/2002)

8 of 12

8/20/2007 2:22 PM

CM/ECF - Live Database - flsd - Docket Report

https://ecf.flsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?108065749716453-L_92...

06/26/2002 06/28/2002
07/01/2002 07/01/2002 07/01/2002 07/01/2002 07/01/2002
07/11/2002 07/11/2002 07/11/2002
07/11/2002
07/11/2002 08/12/2002 10/01/2002

48 MOTION by Mecca Farms, Inc to extend time to respond to motion for class certification (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 06/27/2002)
49 RESPONSE by Carmelina Martinez, Jorgelia Velasquez, Esther Ramos, Maria Ester Escobar Torres, Maria Jose Alarcon, Luis A. Roca in opposition to [48-1] motion to extend time to respond to motion for class certification (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 06/28/2002)
50 REQUEST by Mecca Farms, Inc for oral argument on [34-1] motion to certify class action (at, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 07/02/2002)
51 MEMORANDUM OF LAW by Mecca Farms, Inc in opposition to [34-1] motion to certify class action (at, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 07/02/2002)
52 ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES by Mecca Farms, Inc to Amended Complaint (at, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 07/02/2002)
53 APPENDIX to: [51-1] opposition memorandum by Mecca Farms, Inc (at, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 07/02/2002)
54 MOTION by Medrano Harvesting, Maria Medrano, Candido Packing, Inc, Candido Munoz, Inc, Candido Munoz, A-Z Grading & Packin to join defendants' mecca farms for extension of time to respond to motion for class certification (at, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 07/02/2002)
55 RESPONSE by Medrano Harvesting, Maria Medrano, Candido Packing, Inc, Candido Munoz, Inc, Candido Munoz, A-Z Grading & Packin to [34-1] motion to certify class action (at, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 07/11/2002)
56 ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES by Maria Medrano, Medrano Harvesting to amended complaint (at, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 07/11/2002)
57 ORDER ON MOTION FOR EXTENSION denying [54-1] motion to join defendants' Mecca Farms for extension of time to respond to motion for class certification (Signed by Judge Donald M. Middlebrooks on 7/9/02) [EOD Date: 7/12/02] (at, Deputy Clerk) Modified on 10/30/2002 (Entered: 07/12/2002)
58 ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR EXTENSION granting [48-1] motion to extend time to respond to motion for class certification The response (DE #51) filed by Mecca Farms, Inc is deemed as timely filed. (Signed by Judge Donald M. Middlebrooks on 7/9/02) [EOD Date: 7/12/02] (at, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 07/12/2002)
59 REPLY by Mecca Farms, Inc to response to [48-1] motion to extend time to respond to motion for class certification (at, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 07/12/2002)
61 NOTICE of Unavailability by Mecca Farms, Inc, Medrano Harvesting, Maria Medrano, Candido Packing, Inc, Candido Munoz, Inc, Candido Munoz for dates of: 9/9/02 through 9/23/02 (at, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/12/2002)
62 ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES by Candido Packing, Inc, Candido Munoz, Inc, Candido Munoz, A-Z Grading & Packin to amended complaint (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/02/2002)

9 of 12

8/20/2007 2:22 PM

CM/ECF - Live Database - flsd - Docket Report

https://ecf.flsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?108065749716453-L_92...

10/10/2002 10/28/2002 11/05/2002 11/25/2002 11/27/2002 01/24/2003 02/25/2003 03/04/2003
03/04/2003 03/05/2003
03/05/2003
03/10/2003

63 MOTION by Mecca Farms, Inc to compel plaintiffs to respond to the first set of interrogatories to plaintiffs (Former Deputy Clerk) Modified on 10/30/2002 (Entered: 10/15/2002)
64 OPPOSITION by Maria Jose Alarcon, Luis A. Roca, Carmelina Martinez, Jorgelia Velasquez, Esther Ramos, Maria Ester Escobar Torres to [63-1] motion to compel plaintiffs to respond to the first set of interrogatories to plaintiffs (at, Deputy Clerk) Modified on 10/30/2002 (Entered: 10/28/2002)
65 REPLY by Mecca Farms, Inc to response in opposition to [63-1] motion to compel plaintiffs to respond to the first set of interrogatories to plaintiffs (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/05/2002)
66 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION: ORDER granting [34-1] motion to certify class action ( Signed by Judge Donald M. Middlebrooks on 11/25/02) [EOD Date: 11/25/02] (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/25/2002)
67 ORDER denying [50-1] motion for oral argument on [34-1] motion to certify class action ( Signed by Judge Donald M. Middlebrooks on 11/27/02) [EOD Date: 11/27/02] (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/27/2002)
68 NOTICE of Failure of the parties to Consummate Settlement by Mecca Farms, Inc (at, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/27/2003)
69 ORDER granting [63-1] motion to compel plaintiffs to respond to the first set of interrogatories to plaintiffs ( Signed by Judge Donald M. Middlebrooks on 2/25/03) [EOD Date: 2/26/03] (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/26/2003)
70 JOINT MOTION by Carmelina Martinez, Jorgelia Velasquez, Esther Ramos, Maria Ester Escobar Torres, Mecca Farms, Inc, Medrano Harvesting, Maria Medrano, Candido Packing, Inc, Candido Munoz, Inc, Candido Munoz, A-Z Grading & Packin, Maria Jose Alarcon, Luis A. Roca to transfer case to Judge Kenneth Ryskamp who has jurisidiction over a related case 01-9013-Civ (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/05/2003)
71 JOINT MOTION AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW,by Carmelina Martinez, Jorgelia Velasquez, Esther Ramos, Maria Ester Escobar Torres, Mecca Farms, Inc for approval settlement (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/05/2003)
72 ORDER DENYING JOINT MOTION TO TRANSFER CASE:ORDER denying without prejudice [70-1] joint motion to transfer case to Judge Kenneth Ryskamp who has jurisidiction over a related case 01-9013-Civ ( Signed by Judge Donald M. Middlebrooks on 3/5/03) [EOD Date: 3/6/03] (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/06/2003)
73 ORDER ON MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT BETWEEN PLAINTIFFS AND DEFENDANT MECCA FARMS, INC: ORDER affirming [71-1] joint motion for approval settlement (Signed by Judge Donald M. Middlebrooks on 3/5/03) [EOD Date: 3/6/03] (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/06/2003)
74 JOINT MOTION with memorandum of law in support, by Carmelina Martinez, Jorgelia Velasquez, Esther Ramos, Maria Ester Escobar Torres, Medrano

10 of 12

8/20/2007 2:22 PM

CM/ECF - Live Database - flsd - Docket Report

https://ecf.flsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?108065749716453-L_92...

03/10/2003
03/11/2003
03/11/2003 03/12/2003 04/01/2003 04/01/2003 04/08/2003 04/15/2003 04/15/2003

Harvesting, Maria Medrano, Candido Packing, Inc, Candido Munoz, Inc, Candido Munoz, A-Z Grading & Packin for preliminary approval of settlement (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/10/2003)
75 JOINT MOTION and supporting memorandum of law, by Carmelina Martinez, Jorgelia Velasquez, Esther Ramos, Maria Ester Escobar Torres, Mecca Farms, Inc, Medrano Harvesting, Maria Medrano, Candido Packing, Inc, Candido Munoz, Inc, Candido Munoz, A-Z Grading & Packin, Maria Jose Alarcon, Luis A. Roca for scheduling of Fairness Hearing (Former Deputy Clerk) Modified on 03/12/2003 (Entered: 03/10/2003)
76 ORDER ON MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT BETWEEN PLAINTIFFS AND DEFENDANTS MEDRANO HARVESTING & PACKING, INC., MARIA MEDRANO, CANDIDO MUNOZ, INC. A-Z GRADING & PACKING INC., CANDIDO PACKING, INC. AND CANDIDO MUNOZ: ORDER approving [74-1] joint motion for preliminary approval of settlement (Signed by Judge Donald M. Middlebrooks on 3/11/03) [EOD Date: 3/11/03] (Former Deputy Clerk) Modified on 03/12/2003 (Entered: 03/11/2003)
77 ORDER TO SET FAIRNESS HEARING: ORDER granting [75-1] joint motion for scheduling of Fairness Hearing set evidentiary hearingon the fairness of the proposed settlements for 11:00 before Judge Donald M. Middlebrooks (Signed by Judge Donald M. Middlebrooks on 3/11/03) [EOD Date: 3/12/03] (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/12/2003)
78 RE-NOTICE of Hearing: reset Fairness hearing for 11:00 4/1/03 before Judge Donald M. Middlebrooks (Former Deputy Clerk) Modified on 03/12/2003 (Entered: 03/12/2003)
79 Minutes of Fairness hearing on settlement held before Judge Donald M. Middlebrooks on 4/1/03; Court Reporter Name or Tape #: Roger Watford (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/01/2003)
Motion hearing re: [75-1] joint motion for scheduling of Fairness Hearing held (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/01/2003)
80 FINAL ORDER: This action is hereby dismissd with prjudice, except to reserve jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the settlement (Signed by Judge Donald M. Middlebrooks on 4/8/03) [EOD Date: 4/8/03] (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/08/2003)
81 ORDER CLOSING CASE: This case was dismissed on 4/8/03. Finao order, the Clerk of Court shall close this case( Signed by Judge Donald M. Middlebrooks on 4/15/03) [EOD Date: 4/16/03] (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/16/2003)
CASE CLOSED. Case and Motions no longer referred to Magistrate. (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/16/2003)

11 of 12

PACER Service Center
Transaction Receipt

8/20/2007 2:22 PM

CM/ECF - Live Database - flsd - Docket Report

https://ecf.flsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?108065749716453-L_92...

08/20/2007 15:22:32

PACER Login:

hs0328

Client Code: clearinghouse

Description:

Docket Report

Search Criteria:

9:01-cv-09096-DMM

Billable Pages: 7

Cost:

0.56

12 of 12

8/20/2007 2:22 PM