Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01247/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01247-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 29:206 Collect Unpaid Wages

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SABAS ARRENDONDO, et al., CASE NO. CV F 09-1247 LJO DLB

Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ 

APPLICATION FOR A TEMPORARY

vs. RESTRAINING ORDER

DELANO FARMS COMPANY, 

et al.,

Defendants.

 /

On August 8, 2010, plaintiffs filed an Application pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 65 requesting a

Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”) against defendant Delano Farms Company to restrain potential

retaliation and threats to witnesses and putative class members by defendant. The Application also seeks

an order directing Defendant Delano Farms Companyto show causewhya preliminaryinjunction should

not be granted. The Application is supported by declarations of (1) Jessica Arciniega and Thomas P.

Lynch, attorneys representing plaintiffs, (2) Aida Sotelo, paralegal who investigated the threats, and (3)

declarations of three persons who are witnesses/potential class members and who heard the threats by

a supervior of Delano Farms. 

OVERVIEW

This is a potential class action filed on July 17, 2009 alleging federal and state law wage and hour

violations, in concluding claims pursuant to the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection

Act, 29 U.S.C. §1801 et seq. The proposed class consists of all agricultural employees who are or have

been employed, and who have worked one or more shifts as non-exempt hourly and/or piece rate

workers for the Defendant Delano Farms. The parties are currently engaged in heated contested

discovery involving class certification.

Plaintiffs have brought this application on the grounds that the supervisors of the employer

1

Case 1:09-cv-01247-MJS Document 57 Filed 08/10/10 Page 1 of 3
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

defendant have threatened employees and putative class members with termination and/or not being

rehired for further seasonal work if the employee participates in this litigation. For instance, one

particular employee was identified as a witness in the litigation, was deposed by defendant, then was

allegedly threatened by her supervisor, Manual Guzman, two days later when she was on the job. Other

witnesses present testimony of a supervisor stating that a person found to be participating in this lawsuit

would be taken out of the work crew and not recalled as a worker for any future job. (See Doc. 56 and

supporting declarations.)

As a result of the foregoing, plaintiffs, putative class members, and potential witnesses allege

they are fearful of retaliation based on their belief that Defendant Delano Farms, through actions of

supervisors and agents, will retaliate or continue to retaliate against them for pursuing their claims and

participating in this lawsuit against Defendant Delano Farms.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The same standards generallyapplyto temporary restraining orders and preliminaryinjunctions. 

Northeast Ohio Coalition for Homeless & Serv. Employees Int’l Union, Local 1199 v. Blackwell, 467

F.3d 999, 1009 (6th Cir. 2009). A “preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy.”

Munaf v. Geren, 552 U.S. 674, 128 S. Ct. 2207, 2219 (2008). As such, the Court may only grant such

relief “upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief.” Winter v. Nat’l Res. Def.

Council, Inc., 129 S.Ct. 365, 375 (2008). To prevail, the moving party must show : (1) a likelihood of

success on the merits; (2) a likelihood that the moving party will suffer irreparable harm absent a

preliminary injunction; (3) that the balance of equities tips in the moving party’s favor; and (4) than an

injunction is in the public interest. Id. at 374. In considering the four factors, the Court “must balance

the competing claims of injury and must consider the effect on each party of the granting or withholding

of the requested relief.” Winter, 129 S.Ct. at 376 (quoting Amoco Co. v. Vill. of Gambell, Alaska, 480

U.S. 531 542 (1987)); Indep. Living Ctr. of S. Cal., Inc. v. Maxwell-Jolly, 572 F.3d 644, 651 (9th Cir.

2009).

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that at this point in the litigation, pending the holding

of a preliminary injunction hearing, the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the underlying wage and hour

claims, that the balance of the equities tip in favor of the plaintiffs, and that a temporary restraining order

2

Case 1:09-cv-01247-MJS Document 57 Filed 08/10/10 Page 2 of 3
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

is in the public interest. Moreover, it is likely there will be irreparable injury to the plaintiffs, putative

class members, and potential witnesses involved in Arrendondo v. Delano Farms Company if Defendant

Delano Farms Company, and supervisors are permitted to continue their alleged party and witness

intimidation and related conduct in that: (a)the plaintiff’s prosecution of their case is likely to be chilled;

(b) the plaintiff’s investigation of their claims, and identification of class members, now pending against

Delano Farms are likely to be chilled; (c) current Delano Farms employees are likely to be deterred from

exercising their rights; and (d) the plaintiffs, putative class members and potential witnesses are likely

to suffer damage.

The Court finds at this juncture, a narrowly tailored TRO is appropriate to protect the interests

described above. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the application for a TemporaryRestraining Order,

as stated in the separately issued TRO.

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(c), a plaintiff must post a bond with the Court as a security

prerequisite to the granting of injunctive relief. A bond must be posted “in such sum as the court deems

proper.” Id. Accordingly, plaintiffs must file a $1,000 bond with this Court for the TRO to become

effective.

ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, this Court:

1. GRANTS plaintiffs’ Application for a temporary restraining order;

2. ORDERS plaintiffs to file a bond with the clerk of this Court in the amount of $1,000. 

The temporary restraining order outlined in the order entitled “Temporary Restraining

Order” shall not be effective until plaintiffs have filed a bond in the above-specified

amount with this Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 10, 2010 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3

Case 1:09-cv-01247-MJS Document 57 Filed 08/10/10 Page 3 of 3