Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01486/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01486-1/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ISIDRO CORONA and FRANCISCO 

SAAVEDRA, on behalf of themselves and all 

other similarly situated individuals,

 Plaintiffs, 

 v. 

ATHWAL ALMONDS, INC., et al.,

 Defendants.

1:15-cv-01486 LJO SKO

ORDER DENYING AS MOOT 

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO STRIKE 

PORTIONS OF DEFENDANTS’ 

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES (Doc. 25), 

AND PERMITTING FILING OF 

AMENDED ANSWER

I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT TO PARTIES AND COUNSEL

Judges in the Eastern District of California carry the heaviest caseloads in the nation, and this 

Court is unable to devote inordinate time and resources to individual cases and matters. Given the 

shortage of district judges and staff, this Court addresses only the arguments, evidence, and matters 

necessary to reach the decision in this order. The parties and counsel are encouraged to contact the 

offices of United States Senators Feinstein and Boxer to address this Court’s inability to accommodate 

the parties and this action. The parties are required to reconsider consent to conduct all further 

proceedings before a Magistrate Judge, whose schedules are far more realistic and accommodating to 

parties than that of U.S. District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill, who must prioritize criminal and older civil 

cases.

Civil trials set before Judge O'Neill trail until he becomes available and are subject to suspension 

mid-trial to accommodate criminal matters. Civil trials are no longer reset to a later date if Judge O'Neill 

is unavailable on the original date set for trial. Moreover, this Court's Fresno Division randomly and 

without advance notice reassigns civil actions to U.S. District Judges throughout the nation to serve as 

Case 1:15-cv-01486-LJO-SKO Document 32 Filed 04/04/16 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

2

visiting judges. In the absence of Magistrate Judge consent, this action is subject to reassignment to a 

U.S. District Judge from inside or outside the Eastern District of California.

II. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

Plaintiffs Isidro Corona and Francisco Saavedra (“Plaintiffs”) seek recovery for wages and 

compensation from their former employer, Defendant Athwal Almonds, Inc. (“Athwal”), on the basis 

that Athwal failed to comply with state and federal labor laws. Plaintiffs filed this class action lawsuit on 

September 30, 2015. Class Action Compl. (“Compl.”), Doc. 1. They allege eleven causes of action: (1) 

violation of the Agricultural Workers Protection Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 1801-54, (2) failure to pay California 

minimum wage, (3) failure to pay overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. § 

207, (4) failure to pay overtime under California law, (5) failure to provide meal periods, or (6) rest 

periods, (7) failure to pay wages due at termination, (8) failure to provide itemized wage statements, and 

(9) failure to reimburse employees for business expenditures. Plaintiffs also seek to recover under 

California’ Unfair Competition Law (10) and its Private Attorney General Act (“PAGA”) (11). 

After stipulating to an extension of time, Defendants filed an answer on February 16, 2016. 

Answer to Class Action Compl. (“Answer”), Doc. 17. On March 8, 2016, Plaintiffs moved to strike 

Defendants’ ninth, fifteenth, sixteenth, seventeenth, twenty-fourth, twenty-fifth, and twenty-sixth 

affirmative defenses pursuant to Rule 12(f). Mem. of P. & A. in Supp. of Pls.’ Mot. to Strike (“MTS”), 

Doc. 25. On March 25, 2016, Defendants filed an amended answer. First Am. Answer to Class Action 

Compl. (“FAA”), Doc. 29. No further briefing was filed with respect to this matter and the Court 

vacated the hearing set for the motion on April 1, 2016. Doc. 31. 

III. ANALYSIS

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allow parties to amend their pleadings as a matter of right 

within 21 days of service. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 (a)(1)(A). “In all other cases, a party may amend its 

pleading only with the opposing party's written consent or the court's leave.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 (a)(2). 

Here, Defendants filed their amended answer 38 days after they filed (and electronically served) their 

Case 1:15-cv-01486-LJO-SKO Document 32 Filed 04/04/16 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

3

original answer. Defendants did not provide this Court with evidence that it received Plaintiffs’ consent 

to do so. Nor did they request leave to file an amended answer. Thus, the filing was untimely. After 

reviewing the original and amended answers, however, it appears that the FAA is responsive to 

Plaintiffs’ MTS in that the challenged defenses have been removed. Notably, Plaintiffs do not ask the 

Court to strike the FAA. Thus, in the interest of party and judicial economy the Court will construe 

Defendants’ filing as a request for leave to amend the answer, and grant this request. Since the FAA 

does not include the affirmative defenses that were the subject of Plaintiffs’ MTS, that motion is 

DENIED AS MOOT. 

IV. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the reasons discussed above, the Court DENIES AS MOOT Plaintiffs’ motion to strike, Doc. 

22, because the issues presented in that motion are moot. Construing Defendants’ filing as a request for 

leave to file an amended answer, that motion is GRANTED and the FAA shall be deemed the operative 

answer in this case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 4, 2016 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01486-LJO-SKO Document 32 Filed 04/04/16 Page 3 of 3