Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-01319/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-01319-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 891
Nature of Suit: Agricultural Acts
Cause of Action: 29:1801 Farmworker Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AZUCENA ORTIZ, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

LUCERO AG SERVICES, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:23-cv-01319-JLT-EPG

ORDER FOR DEFENDANTS TO APPEAR 

BEFORE THE ASSIGNED DISTRICT JUDGE

TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THEY SHOULD 

NOT BE ADJUDGED IN CONTEMPT

CERTIFICATION OF FACTS REGARDING 

CONTEMPT 

FINDING AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO 

AWARD ATTORNEY FEES AND PROVIDE 

DEFENDANTS OPPORTUNITY TO PURGE 

CONTEMPT

(ECF Nos. 29, 33, 46)

OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN 14 

DAYS

I. INTRODUCTION

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ motion (as twice supplemented) asking the 

Court to order Defendants 559 Ag. Corp. and Defendant Artemio Fidel Salazar Luna (referred to 

collectively as Defendants unless otherwise noted) to show cause why they should not be held in 

contempt of court for failing to comply with subpoenas Plaintiffs issued to them. (ECF Nos. 29, 

33, 46). Plaintiffs’ motion also asks the Court to award them $1,345 in attorney fees for the time 

spent drafting the motion. 

Case 1:23-cv-01319-JLT-EPG Document 48 Filed 09/12/24 Page 1 of 9
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

For the reasons given below the Court will order Defendants to appear before the 

assigned district judge to show cause why they should not be adjudged in civil contempt, certify 

the facts constituting a civil contempt, and recommend that Plaintiffs’ motion be granted, in part. 

Specifically, the Court will recommend that (1) Plaintiffs be awarded $500 in attorney 

fees; and (2) Defendants be ordered to produce the documents required by the subpoenas as a 

“purge” condition. 

II. BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs Azucena Ortiz, Gustavo Meza, and Dominga Espinoza filed this putative class 

action on September 5, 2023, mostly alleging violations of California state labor laws. (ECF No. 

1). They amended their complaint on August 14, 2024. (ECF No. 45). Plaintiffs sue five named

Defendants: (1) Lucero Ag Services, Inc.; (2) Paragroup Farms, Inc.; (3) Ricardo Ulices LuceroAmbrosio; (4) 559 Ag Corp., and (5) Artemio Fidel Salazar Luna. 

Defendants Lucero Ag Services, Inc., Paragroup Farms, Inc., and Ricardo Ulices LuceroAmbrosio have appeared through counsel. (ECF Nos. 15, 17, 47). However, Defendants 559 Ag. 

Corp. and Defendant Artemio Fidel Salazar Luna (i.e., the Defendants at issue here) failed to 

respond to the complaint after purportedly being served, and Plaintiffs obtained a clerk’s entry of 

default against them on February 9, 2024, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a). (ECF No. 

20).

Plaintiffs filed their instant motion on April 22, 2024. (ECF No. 29). On May 7, 2024, the 

Court issued an order permitting Plaintiffs to supplement their motion to address two issues: (1) 

service on Defendants; and (2) support for the attorney fees request. (ECF No. 31). On May 28, 

2024, Plaintiffs filed their supplemental brief. (ECF No. 33). 

On June 17, 2024, the Court issued an order for Defendants to show cause why they 

should not be held in contempt for failing to comply with the subpoenas, setting a hearing for July 

31, 2024, at 10 a.m. (ECF No. 38). At the hearing, Plaintiffs’ counsel appeared but neither 

Defendant appeared. (ECF No. 41). Following the hearing, the Court permitted Plaintiffs to file 

another supplement addressing the contempt sanctions they requested as well as any “purge 

condition.” (ECF No. 42). Plaintiffs filed their second supplement on August 14, 2024. (ECF No. 

46). Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion is ripe for consideration. 

Case 1:23-cv-01319-JLT-EPG Document 48 Filed 09/12/24 Page 2 of 9
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

III. LEGAL STANDARDS

A. Contempt

“Proper subpoenas issued by attorneys on behalf of the court are treated as orders of the 

Court.” Moore v. Chase, Inc., No. 1:14-CV-01178-SKO, 2015 WL 5732805, at *2 (E.D. Cal. 

Sept. 29, 2015). And under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(g) this Court “may hold in 

contempt a person who, having been served, fails without adequate excuse to obey the subpoena 

or an order related to it.”

1 Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(g). However, before a court may hold a person in 

contempt, they have “the right to be heard in a meaningful fashion.” Morgutia-Johnson v. City of 

Fresno, No. 1:14-CV-00127-LJO, 2015 WL 1021123, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 9, 2015). 

There are two types of contempt charges:

A contempt charge against a nonparty may be either of a criminal or a civil nature. 

See Falstaff Brewing Corp. v. Miller Brewing Co., 702 F.2d 770, 778 (9th 

Cir.1983). Criminal contempt is deemed punitive as it is designed to punish the 

affront to the court. See Gompers v. Bucks, 221 U.S. 418, 441 (1911). It may 

include fines payable to the court and it also may include jail time.

Civil contempt, on the other hand, is meant to compel obedience with a court 

order, or to compensate the contemnor’s adversary for the injuries resulting from 

the non-compliance. Falstaff Brewing Corp., 702 F.2d at 778. The district court 

has wide latitude in deciding whether there has been contemptuous defiance of one 

of its orders. Stone v. City of San Francisco, 968 F.2d 850, 856 (9th Cir.1992). A 

civil contempt order must include a “purge” condition which provides the 

contemnor with an opportunity to comply with the order before payment of the 

fine or other sanction becomes due. De Parcq v. U.S. District Court for the S. Dist. 

of Iowa, 235 F.2d 692, 699 (9th Cir.1956) (“[C]ivil contempt is conditional in 

nature and can be terminated if the contemnor purges himself of the contempt.”). 

In imposing civil contempt sanctions, the court must impose the most minimal 

sanction necessary to coerce the contemnor to comply with the order. Whittaker 

Corp. v. Execuair Corp., 953 F.2d 510, 517 (9th Cir.1992). Where the objective of 

the contempt order is to ensure the contemnor’s compliance, the court must 

“consider the character and magnitude of the harm threatened by continued 

contumacy, and the probabl[e] effectiveness of any suggested sanction in bringing 

about the desired result.” Bademyan v. Receivable Mgmt. Servs. Corp., No. CV–

08–00519, 2009 WL 605789, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 9, 2009).

Moore v. Chase, Inc., No. 1:14-CV-01178-SKO, 2015 WL 5732805, at *2-3 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 29, 

1 As noted above, 559 Ag. Corp. and Defendant Artemio Fidel Salazar Luna have defaulted in this case. 

For purposes of a discovery-related motion, while the Ninth Circuit has noted that “[t]he rules do not 

indicate into which category a defaulted defendant falls” it has reasoned “that a defaulted defendant should 

be treated as a non-party.” Jules Jordan Video, Inc. v. 144942 Canada Inc., 617 F.3d 1146, 1159 (9th Cir. 

2010).

Case 1:23-cv-01319-JLT-EPG Document 48 Filed 09/12/24 Page 3 of 9
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

2015).

To establish civil contempt, “[t]he moving party has the burden of showing by clear and 

convincing evidence that the contemnors violated a specific and definite order of the court. The 

burden then shifts to the contemnors to demonstrate why they were unable to comply.” Stone, 968 

F.2d at 856 n. 9 (internal citations omitted). 

B. Certification Process

Absent exceptions not applicable here, where a party seeks civil contempt, the Court is 

required to follow the procedure of 28 U.S.C. § 636(e)(6):

[T]he magistrate judge shall forthwith certify the facts to a district judge and may 

serve or cause to be served, upon any person whose behavior is brought into 

question under this paragraph, an order requiring such person to appear before a 

district judge upon a day certain to show cause why that person should not be 

adjudged in contempt by reason of the facts so certified. The district judge shall 

thereupon hear the evidence as to the act or conduct complained of and, if it is 

such as to warrant punishment, punish such person in the same manner and to the 

same extent as for a contempt committed before a district judge.

28 U.S.C. § 636(e)(6); see Grimes v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 951 F.2d 236, 240 (9th Cir. 

1991) (noting that “28 U.S.C. § 636, which governs the jurisdiction and powers of magistrates, 

requires a magistrate to refer contempt charges to a district court judge”). 

“In certifying the facts under Section 636(e), the magistrate judges’s role is to determine 

whether the moving party can assert sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case of 

contempt.” Michelson v. Found. Fin., Inc., No. 13MC1204-CAB, 2014 WL 7366793, at *1 (S.D. 

Cal. Dec. 23, 2014); Kirschner v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., No. 20-CV-01712-LAB-JLB, 

2021 WL 2633592, at *2 (S.D. Cal. June 25, 2021) (noting that magistrate judges are to provide 

“a specific certification of all facts supporting any recommendation that a particular individual be 

held in contempt”). 

Accordingly, the Court will certify the pertinent facts regarding contempt and make a 

recommendation based on those facts and the pertinent law.

IV. CERTIFICATION OF FACTS

As required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(e)(6), the Court certifies the facts supporting a finding of 

contempt:

1. Plaintiffs issued subpoenas to Defendants to produce documents. (ECF Nos. 29-5, 

Case 1:23-cv-01319-JLT-EPG Document 48 Filed 09/12/24 Page 4 of 9
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5

29-6).

2. Defendants were properly served the subpoenas on March 8, 2024. (ECF No. 33-2, 

pp. 2-3; ECF No. 38, pp. 2-4). 

3. Defendants failed to respond in any manner to the subpoenas. (ECF No. 29-2, pp. 

2-3). 

4. Plaintiffs moved for an order requiring Defendants to show cause why they should 

not be held in contempt for failing to comply with the subpoenas, which motion 

they have twice supplemented. (ECF Nos. 29, 33, 46). 

5. On June 17, 2024, the Court ordered Defendants to appear before the undersigned 

on July 31, 2024, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 10, 6th Floor, United States District 

Court, 2500 Tulare Street, Fresno, California, 93721, to show cause why they 

should not be held in contempt for their failure to comply with the subpoenas 

issued by Plaintiffs. (ECF No. 38). 

6. The Court directed Plaintiffs to serve its June 17, 2024 order. (ECF No. 38).

7. Plaintiffs filed a certificate showing that they served the Court’s June 17, 2024 

order on Defendants by mailing it to them on June 27, 2024. (ECF No. 39). 

8. Defendants did not appear at the July 31, 2024 show cause hearing, nor have they 

otherwise responded to Plaintiffs’ motion. (ECF No. 41). 

V. CONTEMPT

Based on these facts, Plaintiffs have met their burden for a finding of civil contempt. 

Specifically, Plaintiffs have established by clear and convincing evidence that Defendants have 

failed to comply with specific and definite orders: (1) Plaintiffs’ subpoenas, see Moore, 2015 WL 

5732805, at *2 (noting that proper subpoenas issued by attorneys are treated as court orders); and 

(2) the Court’s June 17, 2024 order requiring Defendants to appear before the Court on July 31, 

2024 to show cause why they should not be held in contempt for failing to comply with the 

subpoenas. Importantly, Defendants have in no way responded to or objected to the subpoenas or 

Plaintiffs’ motion.

As specified below, the Court will order Defendants to appear before the assigned district 

judge to show cause why they should not be adjudged in contempt and recommend that (1) 

Case 1:23-cv-01319-JLT-EPG Document 48 Filed 09/12/24 Page 5 of 9
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

6

Plaintiffs be awarded $500 in attorney fees; (2) Defendants be ordered to produce the documents 

required by the subpoenas as a “purge” condition.

A. Attorney Fees Request

The only sanction that Plaintiffs ask for is an award of $1,345 in attorney fees. This is 

based on Attorney Caroline Hill’s 2.5 hours drafting the motion at a requested hourly rate of 

$538. (ECF No. 29-2, p. 3). 

A court may award attorney fees as a contempt sanction under its inherent powers; 

however, “bad-faith conduct or willful disobedience of a court’s orders” is generally required to 

award such fees. Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 47 (1991). Because Defendants have 

disobeyed court orders and have improperly disrupted the litigation in this case by not complying 

with the subpoenas, the Court concludes that attorney fees are warranted. See Primus Auto. Fin. 

Servs., Inc. v. Batarse, 115 F.3d 644, 649 (9th Cir. 1997) (noting that bad-faith conduct includes 

delaying or disrupting litigation). However, the Court will recommend that the amount of attorney 

fees requested be reduced. 

Plaintiffs rely on the lodestar method for determining reasonable attorney fees, which 

requires a reasonable number of hours expended on the motion to be multiplied by the reasonable 

hourly rate in the relevant community. (ECF No. 33, p. 6; ECF No. 46, pp. 4-5); see Hensley v. 

Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433 (1983) (discussing the lodestar method). The Court concludes that 

the 2.5 hours expended on the motion is reasonable.

However, Plaintiffs’ requested $538 hourly rate is not reasonable for the relevant 

community. (ECF Nos. 31, 38). “Generally, when determining a reasonable hourly rate, the 

relevant community is the forum in which the district court sits.” Camacho v. Bridgeport Fin., 

Inc., 523 F.3d 973, 979 (9th Cir. 2008). Here, that is the Fresno Division of the Eastern District of 

California. Beard v. Cnty. of Stanislaus, No. 1:21-CV-00841-ADA-SAB, 2023 WL 199200, at 

*12 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 17, 2023) (“The lodestar amount is to be determined based upon the 

prevailing market rate in the relevant community, which in this matter is the Fresno Division of 

the Eastern District of California.”) (internal citation omitted).

To justify Attorney Hill’s requested $538 hourly rate as a fourth-year associate, Plaintiffs 

Case 1:23-cv-01319-JLT-EPG Document 48 Filed 09/12/24 Page 6 of 9
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

7

rely almost exclusively on state court cases.2(ECF No. 33, p. 8; ECF No. 46, pp. 4-5). 

Plaintiffs cite one case in this district to establish that the request rate is reasonable, “Cabardo et 

al v. Patacsil, 2:12-cv-01705-TLN-KJN (E.D. Cal. 2022),” but they provide no docket number 

for the Court to locate the relevant order, nor do they specify what amount the court in that case 

approved. (ECF No. 46, p. 4). However, the Court believes that it has located the relevant order: 

Cabardo v. Patacsil, No. 2:12-CV-01705-TLN-KJN, 2022 WL 956951, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 

2022). But rather than help Plaintiffs’ position, that case undermines it. 

Carbardo approved rates of $248.01 for a junior associate, $305.35 for a mid-level 

associate, and $489.02 for a senior associate. Id. Based on Hill’s four years as an associate, she 

would likely be considered a mid-level associate. 

Likewise, courts in the Fresno Division have found a lesser award appropriate based on 

Attorney Hill’s experience. 

In the Fresno Division of the Eastern District of California, across a variety of 

types of litigation generally, attorneys with experience of twenty or more years of 

experience are awarded $325.00 to $400.00 per hour, attorneys with ten to twenty 

years of experience are awarded $250.00 to $350.00 per hour, attorneys with five 

to ten years of experience are awarded $225.00 to $300.00 per hour, and less than 

$200.00 per hour for attorneys with less than five years of experience.

Beard v. Cnty. of Stanislaus, No. 1:21-CV-00841-ADA-SAB, 2023 WL 199200, at *13 (E.D. 

Cal. Jan. 17, 2023) (collecting cases).

Based on this authority, the Court will recommend that Plaintiffs be awarded the full 2.5 

hours of legal work requested, which the Court believes was reasonably expending on the motion, 

but at a reduced rate of $200 per hour, for a total of $500 in attorney fees.

B. Purge Condition

As noted above, a civil contempt order must include a purge condition to provide 

Defendants the opportunity to comply with the order before the contempt sanction becomes due. 

2 Plaintiffs also briefly cite the Laffey Matrix in support of the attorney fee request, stating that it “adjusts 

the nation-wide Legal Services Component of the Consumer Price Index by the Bureau of Labor Statistics 

of the United States Department of Labor, essentially adjusting each year for inflation and market factors.” 

(ECF No. 46, p. 5). However, “[t]he Eastern District has repeatedly declined to adopt the Laffey matrix, as 

it only surveys prevailing rates in the Washington, D.C. legal community and does not directly correlate to 

hourly rates for attorneys and paralegals in other parts of the country.” Cabardo v. Patacsil, No. 2:12-CV01705-TLN-KJN, 2022 WL 956951, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2022) (collecting cases). Rather than rely 

on the Laffey Matrix, the Court will review whether the rate requested is reasonable for the Fresno 

Division.

Case 1:23-cv-01319-JLT-EPG Document 48 Filed 09/12/24 Page 7 of 9
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

8

“Plaintiffs ask this Court to recommend the District Court order Defendants to comply with the 

subpoenas before they are sanctioned, so that Plaintiffs may obtain the requested documents, 

which are critical to proving Plaintiffs’ claims.” (ECF No. 46, p. 4). The Court concludes that this 

is an appropriate request, as it will serve as an incentive to Defendants to provide Plaintiffs with 

what they have sought all along—the requested documents—in order to purge themselves of their 

contempt.

VI. CONCLUSION, ORDER, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

For the reasons discussed above, IT IS ORDERED as follows:

1. Plaintiffs’ motion for a show cause order (ECF Nos. 29, 33, 46) is granted, in part, as 

specified below. 

a. Defendants 559 Ag. Corp.3and Defendant Artemio Fidel Salazar Luna are ordered 

to appear before District Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on October 28, 2024, at 1:30 

p.m. in Courtroom 4, United States District Court, 2500 Tulare Street, Fresno, 

California, 93721 to show cause why they should not be held in contempt, and 

why the Court should not impose sanctions (including reasonable attorney fees),

for their failure to comply with the subpoenas issued by Plaintiffs and failure to 

comply with the Court’s prior order to appear at the July 31, 2024 hearing.

b. Plaintiff are directed to serve this order, certification of facts, and findings and 

recommendations on Defendants by no later than September 26, 2024, and to file 

proof of service of this order by no later than October 3, 2024.

Further, IT IS RECOMMENDED as follows:

1. Plaintiffs’ motion for a show cause order (ECF Nos. 29, 33, 46) be granted, in part, as 

specified below. 

a. If the District Judge adjudges Defendants to be in contempt of court following the 

show cause hearing, the District Judge include a purge condition in the contempt 

order, permitting Defendants to purge themselves of contempt by providing the 

documents requested in Plaintiffs’ subpoenas within a timeframe set by the District 

Judge.

3 Defendant 559 Ag. Corp shall appear through an appropriate representative of the company.

Case 1:23-cv-01319-JLT-EPG Document 48 Filed 09/12/24 Page 8 of 9
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

9

b. If the District Judge determines that attorney fees should issue as an appropriate 

sanction, the District Judge award a total of $500 for the time spent on Plaintiffs’

motion.

These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States district judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen

(14) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, a litigant with standing

may file written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to 

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections within the 

specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 

838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 12, 2024 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:23-cv-01319-JLT-EPG Document 48 Filed 09/12/24 Page 9 of 9