Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-01259/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-01259-2/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CLAUDIA GONZALEZ MONDRAGON, 

et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

R T FARM LABOR, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:22-cv-01259-JLT-BAM

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO 

DEFAULTED DEFENDANT R T FARM 

LABOR, INC.’S NONCOMPLIANCE WITH 

SUBPOENA

 (Doc. 63)

 Order to Show 

 Cause Hearing: August 22, 2024 

 10:00 AM

 Courtroom 8 (BAM)

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs Claudia Gonzalez Mondragon, Gustavo 

Gusman, and Alan Reyes’ (“Plaintiffs”) Motion to Compel Compliance with Subpoena. (Doc. 

63.) Through this motion, Plaintiffs seek to compel defaulted Defendant R T Farm Labor, Inc. to 

comply with a subpoena to produce documents, information, or objects or to permit inspection of 

premise. (Id.) The deadline for filing of an opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion has passed. See L.R. 

251(e).

The hearing on the motion set for June 21, 2024 was VACATED and this matter was 

deemed submitted on the papers. (Doc. 64.) On June 20, 2024, the Court issued a minute order 

Case 1:22-cv-01259-JLT-BAM Document 68 Filed 07/15/24 Page 1 of 7
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

requiring Plaintiffs to file supplemental briefing to address whether Defendant R T Farm Labor, 

Inc. was properly served with Plaintiffs’ subpoena and whether Defendant R T Farm Labor, Inc. 

had adequately complied with Plaintiffs’ subpoena. (Doc. 65.) Plaintiffs filed supplemental 

briefing on July 8, 2024, in which they submit a declaration from Plaintiffs’ counsel, proof of 

service for Plaintiffs’ subpoena, Defendant R T Farm Labor, Inc.’s response to Plaintiffs’ 

subpoena, and the declaration of Plaintiffs’ process server. (Doc. 67, 67-1, 67-2, 67-3.)

Having carefully considered the briefing, and for all the reasons detailed below, Plaintiffs’ 

Motion to Compel Compliance with Subpoena (Doc. 63) is construed as a request for an order to 

show cause why Defendant R T Farm Labor, Inc. should not be held in civil contempt for failure 

to comply with Plaintiffs’ subpoena. The Court finds that defaulted Defendant R T Farm Labor, 

Inc. violated a specific and definite order of the Court. Plaintiffs’ request is therefore GRANTED 

and Defendant R T Farm Labor, Inc. is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE as to why it should not 

be held in contempt for failure to comply with Plaintiffs’ subpoena.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs filed this putative wage and hour class action on October 3, 2022, against 

Defendants R T Farm Labor, Inc.; Ricardo Trevino Jr.; Ricardo Gomez Trevino; Harold 

Chuhlantseff; and Does 1-50. (Doc. 1.) On April 17, 2023, upon application of the Plaintiffs, 

default was entered against Defendants Ricardo Gomez Trevino, R T Farm Labor, Inc., Ricardo 

Trevino Jr. (Doc. 15.) On September 8, 2023, Plaintiffs filed the operative first amended 

complaint against Defendants R T Farm Labor, Inc.; T&C Vineyards; Ricardo Trevino Jr.; 

Ricardo Gomez Trevino; Harold Chuhlantseff; and Does 1-50. (Doc. 23.) On February 6, 2024, 

upon application by Cross Claimant T&C Vineyards, default was entered against Defendants 

Harold A Chuhlantseff, Ricardo Gomez Trevino, R T Farm Labor, Inc., Ricardo Trevino Jr. 

(Doc. 47.) On March 13, 2024, upon application of the Plaintiffs, default was entered against 

Defendant Harold A Chuhlantseff. (Doc. 50.) On May 30, 2024, Plaintiffs filed the instant 

Motion to Compel Compliance with Subpoena. (Doc. 63.)

II. LEGAL STANDARD

The Ninth Circuit has held that “a defaulted defendant should be treated as a non-party.” 

Case 1:22-cv-01259-JLT-BAM Document 68 Filed 07/15/24 Page 2 of 7
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

Jules Jordan Video, Inc. v. 144942 Canada Inc., 617 F.3d 1146, 1159 (9th Cir. 2010) (noting that 

defaulted defendant was a nonparty for the purposes of discovery requests). District Courts have 

held that for defaulted defendants and nonparties, the “only sanction available when a nonparty 

does not obey a subpoena is contempt,” and “a motion to compel would not be the right way to 

seek relief.” Morales-Garcia v. Higuera Farms, Inc., No. CV185118SVWJPRX, 2020 WL 

6260016, at *1 (C.D. Cal. June 4, 2020) (examining a motion to compel discovery on defaulted 

defendant); see also Echostar Satellite L.L.C. v. Viewtech, Inc., No. 1:09-MC-00052-SMS, 2010 

WL 653186, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 22, 2010) (“ultimately, it the recipient fails to comply without 

adequate excuse, the recipient is in contempt of court, and the proponent must file an application 

for an order to show cause why a contempt citation should not issue. Plaintiffs have not applied 

for an order to show cause. Instead, it has brought a motion to compel, pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. 37, 

which provides for enforcement of discovery requests, not subpoenas.”); Garcia on behalf of 

California v. Westland Farms, LLC, No. 1:20-cv-00190-KES-HBK, 2024 WL 1660248, at *1 

(E.D. Cal. Apr. 17, 2024) (noting in order on motion for order to show cause that “Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure 45 subpoenas are used to obtain documents or testimony from non-parties... 

[and] the Ninth Circuit has held a defaulted party should be treated as non-party.”). However, 

courts may construe motions to compel as applications for an order to show cause regarding 

contempt. Morgutia-Johnson v. City of Fresno, No. 1:14-CV-00127-LJO-SKO, 2015 WL 

1021123, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 9, 2015) (ex parte application for an order to compel nonparty’s 

deposition was instead “construed as a request for a court order to show cause re contempt” for 

nonparty’s failure to appear at deposition).

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(g), a 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.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(g). “Proper subpoenas issued by attorneys on behalf of the court are 

treated as orders of the Court. Morgutia-Johnson, 2015 WL 1021123, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 9, 

2015) (citing United States Sec. & Exh. Comm’n v. Hyatt, 621 F.3d 687, 693 (7th Cir.2010)). 

Where a party seeks a contempt sanction against a nonparty, that nonparty has the right to be 

heard in a meaningful fashion. Id. at 2 (citing Hyatt, 621 F.3d at 696-97).

Case 1:22-cv-01259-JLT-BAM Document 68 Filed 07/15/24 Page 3 of 7
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

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). “[A] court may 

impose civil contempt sanctions to (1) compel or coerce obedience to a court order, and/or (2) 

compensate the contemnor's adversary for injuries resulting from the contemnor's 

noncompliance.” Ahearn ex rel. N.L.R.B. v. Int'l Longshore & Warehouse Union, Locals 21 & 4, 

721 F.3d 1122, 1131 (9th Cir. 2013). “The district court has ‘wide latitude in determining 

whether there has been a contemptuous defense of its order.’” Stone v. City & Cnty. of San 

Francisco, 968 F.2d 850, 856 (9th Cir. 1992), as amended on denial of reh’g (Aug. 25, 1992) 

(citing Gifford v. Heckler, 741 F.2d 263, 266 (9th Cir.1984)). However, generally “the minimum 

sanction necessary to obtain compliance is to be imposed.” Whittaker Corp. v. Execuair Corp., 

953 F.2d 510, 517 (9th Cir. 1992).

“The standard for finding a party in civil contempt is well settled: The moving party has 

the burden of showing by clear and convincing evidence that the contemnors violated a specific 

and definite order of the court.” F.T.C. v. Affordable Media, 179 F.3d 1228, 1239 (9th Cir. 1999). 

“The burden then shifts to the contemnors to demonstrate why they were unable to comply.” Id.

III. SERVICE OF PROCESS

As a preliminary matter, service of the subpoena on defaulted Defendant R T Farm Labor, 

Inc. was proper. Plaintiffs allege that Defendant R T Farm Labor, Inc. is a California corporation. 

(Doc. 23 ¶ 16.) Service may be completed on a corporation, partnership, or association by 

“delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint to an officer, a managing or general 

agent, or any other agent authorized by appointment or by law to receive service of process...” 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(h)(1)(B). 

Plaintiffs’ subpoena was served upon defaulted Defendant Ricardo Trevino Jr. - who 

Plaintiffs contend is the “the Chief Executive Officer for Defendant R T, and was in charge of 

making major corporate decisions and managing the operations of the corporation during the 

relevant time period... [and] is an owner, director, officer, or managing agent of Defendant R T.” 

(Doc. 23 ¶ 19.) Plaintiffs’ process server declared that he personally served the subpoenas upon 

Ricardo Trevino Jr. on behalf of Defendant R T Farm Labor, Inc. on February 29, 2024. (Doc. 

Case 1:22-cv-01259-JLT-BAM Document 68 Filed 07/15/24 Page 4 of 7
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

67-3 ¶¶ 3-5.) Plaintiffs’ process server stated that he understood Mr. Trevino Jr. to be the 

designated agent of service of process for Defendant R T Farm Labor, Inc., and provided him 

with a $15.00 check as compensation for producing the records. (Id. ¶¶ 4-5.) Service upon 

Defendant Trevino Jr. on behalf of Defendant R T Farm Labor, Inc. was completed at the same 

address Plaintiffs used for service of the complaint and subsequent filings for Defendant R T 

Farm Labor. (See Doc. 14-1 at 2; Doc. 63-2 at 4; Doc. 63-5 at 2; Doc. 67-3 ¶ 2.) Furthermore, 

Defendant Trevino Jr. additionally signed the Affidavit of the Custodian of Records on behalf of 

Defendant R T Farm Labor, Inc. in partially responding to Plaintiffs’ discovery request. (Doc. 

67-2 at 2.) The Court therefore finds that service upon defaulted Defendant R T Farm Labor, Inc. 

was proper.

IV. DISCUSSION

Plaintiffs move for an order compelling defaulted Defendant R T Farm Labor, Inc. to 

produce documents pursuant to Plaintiffs’ subpoena. (Doc. 63.) Plaintiffs contend that: the 

subpoenas were adequately served on defaulted Defendant R T Farm Labor, Inc.; no objections 

have been timely asserted in response to the subpoenas and are therefore waived; and the 

requested documents are within the scope of discovery. (Id.) 

However, a motion to compel is not the appropriate mechanism for enforcement of 

Plaintiffs’ subpoena on defaulted Defendant R T Farm Labor, Inc. As a defaulted defendant, R T 

Farm Labor, Inc. is considered a nonparty for discovery purposes. Jules, 617 F.3d at 1159. 

Therefore, the appropriate method for seeking enforcement of Plaintiffs’ subpoena is an 

application for an order to show cause as to why a contempt citation should not issue. See 

Echostar, 2010 WL 653186, at *1; Garcia, 2024 WL 1660248, at *1. The Court will construe 

Plaintiffs’ motion to compel as a request for an order to show cause as to why a contempt citation 

should not issue. See Morgutia-Johnson, 2015 WL 1021123, at *2.

Plaintiffs have shown that Defendant R T Farm Labor, Inc. violated a specific and definite 

order of the court. Plaintiffs’ subpoena, which is considered an order of the Court, requested 

production of documents relating to current and former employees regarding: (1) Timekeeping 

Records; (2) Payroll Records; (3) Itemized Wage Statements; (4) Documents relating to Piece 

Case 1:22-cv-01259-JLT-BAM Document 68 Filed 07/15/24 Page 5 of 7
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

Rate Policies and Compensation; (5) Documents relating to Compensation of Nonproductive 

Time; (6) Documents relating to Compensation for Rest and Recovery Periods; (7) Meal Period 

Records; (8) Rest Period Records; (9) Documents relating to medical health benefits and 

deduction; and (10) Documents relating to tax deductions. (Doc. 63-1 ¶ 5, Doc. 63-2.) Plaintiffs’ 

fifteen Requests for Production of Documents to Defendant R T Farm Labor, Inc. request “All 

DOCUMENTS that REFER OR RELATE TO current or former EMPLOYEES, including 

Plaintiffs, EMPLOYED BY YOU...” (Doc. 63-2 at 13-14.) Plaintiffs’ counsel clarifies that 

Defendant R T Farm Labor, Inc. then produced only three documents related to the named 

Plaintiffs but did not provide documents related to Defendant R T Farm Labor, Inc.’s non-exempt 

employees during the relevant period as requested. (Doc. 63-1 ¶ 6, Doc. 67 ¶ 4.) Plaintiffs’ 

counsel then attempted to meet and confer with Defendant R T Farm Labor, Inc. to ensure 

compliance with Plaintiffs’ subpoena, sending a meet and confer letter on May 17, 2024, to which 

Defendant R T Farm Labor, Inc. did not respond. (Doc. 63-1 ¶ 7; Doc. 63-3.) As Plaintiffs have 

met their burden to show that Defendants failed to completely respond to a specific and definite 

order of the Court, Defendant R T Farm Labor, Inc. shall be ordered to show cause as to why a 

contempt citation should not be issued. See Garcia, 2024 WL 1660248, at *2; MorgutiaJohnson, 2015 WL 1021123, at *3 (“As Defendants have established that Ms. Cole violated a 

specific and definite order of the court by failing to appear for her deposition on March 3, 2015, 

pursuant to a duly issued subpoena, Defendants' application for an order to show cause is 

GRANTED”).

V. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

The Court construes Plaintiffs’ motion to compel as a request for an order to show cause 

as to why a contempt citation should not issue and finds that Plaintiffs have met their burden to 

show that Defendant R T Farm Labor, Inc. violated a specific and definite order of the court.

Accordingly:

1. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Compliance with Subpoena (Doc. 63) is construed as 

a request for an order to show cause as to why a contempt citation should not issue 

as to Defendant R T Farm Labor, Inc.;

Case 1:22-cv-01259-JLT-BAM Document 68 Filed 07/15/24 Page 6 of 7
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

2. Plaintiffs’ request for an order to show cause why a contempt citation should not 

issue as to Defendant R T Farm Labor, Inc. is GRANTED;

3. Defendant R T Farm Labor, Inc. is ORDERED to appear before the 

undersigned on August 22, 2024 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 8 (BAM), United 

States District Court, 2500 Tulare Street, Fresno, CA to SHOW CAUSE why it 

should not be held in contempt for failure to comply with Plaintiffs’ subpoena. In 

addition to its appearance, Defendant R T Farm Labor, Inc. may also file a written 

response by August 16, 2024 why it should not be held in contempt for failure to 

comply with Plaintiffs’ subpoena. If Plaintiffs and Defendant R T Farm Labor, 

Inc. inform the Court that Defendant R T Farm Labor, Inc. has complied with 

Plaintiffs’ subpoena, the Order to Show Cause will be discharged, and the hearing 

will be vacated;

4. Failure to comply with this Order to Show Cause may subject Defendant R T Farm 

Labor, Inc. to contempt sanctions, including monetary sanctions; and

5. Plaintiffs are DIRECTED to effect service of this Order on Defendant R T Farm 

Labor, Inc. and the other Defendants in this action no later than July 26, 2024, and 

to file proof of service of this order no later than July 30, 2024.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 12, 2024 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:22-cv-01259-JLT-BAM Document 68 Filed 07/15/24 Page 7 of 7