Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_01-cv-00246/USCOURTS-caed-2_01-cv-00246-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

REY CARTAS VELASQUEZ, ISAIAS

GARCIA MATIAS, AUSENCIO DE LA

RODAS, DANIEL FILADELFO PEREZ

ORDONEZ, VICTOR JIMENEZ

HERNANDEZ, ELOY GOMEZ JIMENEZ,

MODESTO GOMEZ JIMENEZ,

BONIFACIO JIMENEZ JIMENEZ,

BARTOLO LOPEZ JIMENEZ,

CATALINO JIMENEZ LOPEZ,

CELESTINO JIMENEZ HERNANDEZ,

NIRMAL CHAND, EDGAR CARASCO DE

LOS SANTOS, DAVID CRUZ

GUTIERREZ and AMABILIO SANTISO

MORALES, individuals, Acting

for Their Own and For the

Interests of the General

Public,

NO. CIV. S 01-0246 MCE DAD

Plaintiffs,

v. FINDINGS OF FACT AND 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

MOHAMMED KHAN, aka MOHAMMED

NAWAZ KHAN, aka MOHAMMAD KHAN

an Individual dba KHAN LABOR

CONTRACTOR; HARBANS BATH;

BALWINDER K. BRAR, RASHPAL S.

PANU, HARBANS K. PANU; and

RAMINDER K. BAINS, 

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

Case 2:01-cv-00246-MCE-DAD Document 174 Filed 07/11/05 Page 1 of 10
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

While Plaintiffs’ complaint also purports to state claims 1

for unfair competition against Bath in violation of California

Business and Professions Code § 17200, et seq., Plaintiffs did

not offer any argument at trial with respect to § 17200. In

addition, Plaintiffs also did not assert, at trial, any

entitlement to injunctive relief as against Defendant Bath. 

Plaintiffs were unable to serve another named defendant, 2

Balwinder Brar, and consequently have dismissed their claims

against Ms. Brar.

2

Plaintiffs, who are migrant and seasonal farm workers, seek

to recover, through the present action, damages for unpaid wages

and substandard housing pursuant to the Migrant and Seasonal

Agricultural Worker Protection Act, 29 U.S.C. § 1800, et seq.

(“AWPA”) and California laws governing payment of wages and

employee housing. The matter came on for court trial on June 1

20, 2005, against Defendant Harbans Bath only, inasmuch as

Plaintiffs had previously settled their claims against Defendants

Rashpal Panu, Raminder Bains and Mohammad Khan. Mark 2

Talamantes, Julia Montgomery and Jennifer Ambacher appeared on

behalf of Plaintiffs. No appearance was made on behalf of

Defendant Bath. After hearing the evidence and arguments, the

Court makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of

Law.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Between January and March of 2000, Plaintiffs Victor

Jimenez Hernandez, Eloy Gomez Jimenez, Modesto Gomez Jimenez,

Bonifacio Jimenez and Celestino Jimenez Hernandez worked for

Defendant Mohammed Khan performing farm labor work in various

fruit orchards located in Sutter and Yuba Counties, including

Case 2:01-cv-00246-MCE-DAD Document 174 Filed 07/11/05 Page 2 of 10
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

orchards located at 2615 Walnut Avenue in Marysville, and 9248

Garden Highway, 39 Sacramento Avenue, 1179 Messick Road, and the

northeast corner of Oak and Bellevue Avenues in Yuba City.

2. Between March and June of 2000, Plaintiff Rey Cartas

Velasquez also worked for Khan at these same orchards. 

3. All six Plaintiffs identified in Findings of Fact Nos. 1

and 2 were migrant workers recruited from Arizona for employment

by Defendant Khan on a seasonal or other temporary basis.

4. Defendant Harbans Bath owned and managed, during all

times relevant to this lawsuit, the Walnut, Sacramento, and

Oak/Bellevue Avenue orchards as described above. In addition,

Defendant Bath also managed the Garden Highway and Messick Road

orchards on behalf of other family members who owned those

properties.

5. Between 1998 and 2000, Defendants Khan and Bath had an

oral argument for the operation of the Garden Highway, Sacramento

Avenue, Oak/Bellevue, and Messick Road orchards pursuant to which

Khan would pay all expenses associated with crop production and

harvest in exchange for a sixty-five percent (65%) share of gross

crop proceeds. Moreover, during all relevant times, Bath also

contracted with Khan to perform work at the Walnut Avenue

orchard.

6. Khan has not been licensed or registered as a farm labor

contractor since 1997.

7. Aside from one initial payment, Plaintiffs were not paid

for the farm labor services they performed. Plaintiffs

complained to Khan about their failure to be paid, without avail.

8. Khan failed to remit required deductions and employer

Case 2:01-cv-00246-MCE-DAD Document 174 Filed 07/11/05 Page 3 of 10
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

contributions for unemployment insurance, disability, social

security, and federal unemployment insurance.

9. Khan failed to provide Plaintiffs with itemized wage

statements.

10. Khan failed to maintain records concerning the payment

of wages to Plaintiffs.

11. Unpaid wages owed to Plaintiffs, calculated with

reference to the $5.75 per hour California minimum wage which

applied in the year 2000, total as follows: $1688.40 each to

Bonifacio Jimenez Jimenez, Eloy Gomez Jimenez and Victor Jimenez

Hernandez; $1541.00 to Modesto Gomez Jimenez; $935.30 to

Celestino Jimenez Hernandez and $1384.00 to Rey Cartas Velasquez.

10. During the tenure of Plaintiff Rey Cartas Velasquez’

employment with Khan, Khan arranged for Velasquez to be housed in

a mobile home located at one of the properties managed by

Defendant Bath, the Messick Road orchard managed by Defendant

Bath. That housing was in grossly substandard condition.

 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

A. AWPA Violations. The AWPA was enacted in 1982 to

provide migrant and seasonal agricultural workers with

protections concerning housing, pay and work related conditions. 

While Plaintiffs were hired by Defendant Khan, it is

uncontroverted that Khan had a business arrangement with

Defendant Bath for operation of four of the five orchards either

owned or managed by Bath that entailed a percentage split of

Case 2:01-cv-00246-MCE-DAD Document 174 Filed 07/11/05 Page 4 of 10
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

gross harvest proceeds. Under the terms of that oral agreement

for operation of the orchards, Bath furnished the orchard itself

and Khan provided the labor and materials to grow and harvest the

orchard crops. Because of this business arrangement, both Khan

and Bath are considered joint employers under the provisions of

the AWPA (See 29 C.F.R. § 500.20(h)(5)), and both are jointly and

severally liable for any resulting violations. Id.

With respect to all Plaintiffs enumerated above in Findings

of Fact Nos. 1 and 2, the following AWPA violations have been

established:

1. Failure to pay wages owed when due (29 U.S.C. §

1822(a));

2. Failure to provide each worker with an itemized pay

statement (29 U.S.C. § 1821(d)(2));

3. Failure to make, keep and preserve payroll records for

each worker for each pay period (20 U.S.C. § 1821(d)(1));

4. Violating, without justification, the terms of any

working arrangement with a worker (29 U.S.C. § 1822©)).

In addition, with respect to Plaintiff Rey Cartas Velasquez,

Defendant Bath has also violated 29 U.S.C. § 1823(a), which

requires that anyone owning or controlling a facility used for

housing migrant agricultural workers “shall be responsible for

ensuring that the facility... complies with substantive Federal

and State safety and health standards applicable to that

housing.” Evidence established at trial showed plainly that the

trailer on the Messick Road property in which Plaintiff Velasquez

was housed did not satisfy such requirements. Bath managed that

property and hence had control over the housing conditions

present there.

Case 2:01-cv-00246-MCE-DAD Document 174 Filed 07/11/05 Page 5 of 10
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

29 U.S.C. § 1854(c) provides that Plaintiffs may be awarded

damages, of up to $500.00 per plaintiff per violation, for

intentional violations of the AWPA. It cannot be disputed that

Defendant Khan’s failure to pay Plaintiffs their wages due was

intentional in nature, and as a joint employer Defendant Bath is

responsible for that intentional failure. Moreover, Defendant

Bath’s failure to provide lawful housing to Plaintiff Velasquez

must also be deemed intentional under the circumstances.

Consequently Plaintiffs Victor Jimenez Hernandez, Eloy Gomez

Jimenez, Modesto Gomez Jimenez, Bonifacio Jimenez and Celestino

Jimenez Hernandez are each entitled to statutory damages of

$2000.00 under the AWPA. Plaintiff Rey Cartas Velasquez is

entitled to $2500.00 in such damages.

2. Violations of California Wage and Employee Housing

Requirements. California Labor Code § 1695.7(a)(1) requires a

farm labor contractor to provide a copy of his or her currently

valid state license to a grower before entering into any

agreement for the provision of labor or services for the grower. 

Pursuant to subdivision (c)(2) of the statute, any grower who

enters into a contract in violation of that requirement is liable

for claims stemming from the violation of any state law committed

by the unlicensed farm labor contractor, including violations of

wage and housing requirements. In this case, it is undisputed

that Defendant Khan had not had been licensed or registered as a

farm labor contractor since 1997, which meant that he was

unlicensed at the time he began doing business with Defendant

Bath the following year. Consequently Defendant Bath is liable

Case 2:01-cv-00246-MCE-DAD Document 174 Filed 07/11/05 Page 6 of 10
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

for Khan’s omissions under California law.

Under California Labor Code § 1194, Plaintiffs are entitled

to recover by way of a civil action the unpaid balance of 

minimum wage due. The California minimum wage during the year

2000 was $5.75 per hour. Using those figures, Plaintiffs

presented testimony at trial which supported lost wages for each

Plaintiff as summarized in Findings of Fact No. 11, above. In

addition to those wages, Plaintiffs are also entitled to

liquidated damages in an amount equal to the wages unlawfully

unpaid, along with interest thereon. Cal. Labor Code § 1194.5. 

Consequently, the following liquidated damages shall be awarded: 

$1913.13 each to Bonifacio Jimenez Jimenez, Eloy Gomez Jimenez

and Victor Jimenez Hernandez ($1688.40 in unpaid wages and

$224.73 in interest); $1815.86 to Modesto Gomez Jimenez ($1541.00

in unpaid wages and $274.86 in interest); $1094.27 to Celestino

Jimenez Hernandez ($935.30 in unpaid wages and $158.97 in

interest) and $1568.21 to Rey Cartas Velasquez ($1384.00 in

unpaid wages and $184.21 in interest).

California Labor Code § 1174.5 further provides that any

person who willfully fails to keep itemized wage records shall be

subject to a civil penalty of $500.00. Defendant Khan’s failure

to keep such records exposes Defendant Bath to liability as

discussed above and entitles all six Plaintiffs to that statutory

penalty from Bath.

Plaintiffs are also entitled to waiting time penalties under

California law as a result of Defendant Khan’s failure to pay

Plaintiffs on a timely basis. Pursuant to California Labor Code

§ 203, an employer owes an amount, in addition to unpaid wages,

Case 2:01-cv-00246-MCE-DAD Document 174 Filed 07/11/05 Page 7 of 10
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

equal to the employee’s daily wages for each day, up to 30, that

said wages remain unpaid. Defendant Bath is also liable for

those penalties pursuant to Labor Code § 1695.7(c)(2). 

Plaintiffs produced evidence at trial, through the testimony of

Gleida Ortega, as to the calculation of those penalties. 

Accordingly, additional penalties under Labor Code § 203 are

awarded to each Plaintiff enumerated within Findings of Fact Nos.

1 and 2 in the amount of $1380.00.

While Plaintiffs also sought to recover additional damages

under Labor Code § 226 for failure to provide pay stubs, and

attempted to establish their entitlement to such damages through

the testimony of Ms. Ortega, no adequate explanation was provided

as to the basis for those claimed damages. In the absence of

such explanation, Plaintiffs’ request for damages under Labor

Code § 226 is denied.

Finally, Plaintiff Rey Cartas Velasquez seeks damages

against Defendant Bath for violations of the California Employee

Housing Act, Health and Safety Code §§ 17000, et seq. (“EHA”). 

Although the Ninth Cause of Action, for EHA violations as a

result of the Messick Avenue accommodations, is on its face

asserted only against Mohammad Khan and former defendant

Balwinder Brar (the owner of record for the property and Mr.

Bath’s daughter), California Labor Code § 1695.7(c)(2), as

aforestated, provides that a grower who enters into a contract

with an unlicensed farm labor contractor shall be subject to a

civil action for all claims alleging, inter alia, state housing

violations. It is undisputed in this case that Defendant Bath

entered into the agreement with Mr. Khan for management of the

Case 2:01-cv-00246-MCE-DAD Document 174 Filed 07/11/05 Page 8 of 10
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

Under Health and Safety Code § 17001, employee housing must 3

comply with state building standards, which the Messick Road

mobile home clearly did not.

9

Messick Road orchard and hence is subject to liability, as stated

above, not only for wage but also for housing violations as a

result of Khan’s conduct. 

Plaintiff Rey Cartas Velasquez testified that Defendant Khan

indeed arranged for the Messick Road housing. California Health

and Safety Code § 17061(a) provides that any person who either

violates, or causes another person to violate, the EHA is subject

to a civil penalty up to $10,000.00 is such violation is

determined to be willful. Here, as indicated above, the Court

finds that the Messick Road mobile home, where Khan arranged for

Mr. Velasquez to be housed, was in a grossly substandard

condition. That housing was in plain contravention of EHA’s

provisions, and the Court finds Mr. Khan’s conduct in arranging 3

for that housing to be willful. Defendant Bath is accordingly

liable for a penalty in the amount of $10,000.00 as a result of

the accommodations to which Rey Cartas Velasquez was subjected. 

In sum, this Court finds in favor of Plaintiffs Victor

Jimenez Hernandez, Eloy Gomez Jimenez, Modesto Gomez Jimenez,

Bonifacio Jimenez, Celestino Jimenez Hernandez, and Rey Cartas

Velasquez as follows, and judgment shall be entered in favor of

each Plaintiff and against Defendant Harbans Bath as follows: 

Victor Jimenez Hernandez: $7,481.53

Eloy Gomez Jimenez: $7,481.53

Modesto Gomez Jimenez: $7,236.86

Bonifacio Jimenez: $7,481.53

Case 2:01-cv-00246-MCE-DAD Document 174 Filed 07/11/05 Page 9 of 10
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

10

Celestino Jimenez Hernandez: $5,909.57

Rey Cartas Velasquez: $17,332.21

TOTAL: $52,923.23

Any request for attorney’s fees by Plaintiffs, as the

prevailing parties herein, shall be made pursuant to Local Rule

54-293.

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 11, 2005

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:01-cv-00246-MCE-DAD Document 174 Filed 07/11/05 Page 10 of 10