Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00705/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00705-27/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 29:1801 Farmworker Rights

---

1

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

On June 28, 2013, Defendant Sunview Vineyards of California, Inc. filed “Objections to June 

17, 2013 Ruling of Magistrate Judge Regarding Proposed Class Notice,” and requested a stay of 

deadlines relating to the Class Notice pending ruling from the Court. (Doc. 226). 

Defendants object to the order to distribute the Class Notice to all field workers who worked 

“during the 2001 harvest.” Id. at 2. Defendant contends the Magistrate Judge’s ruling is clearly 

erroneous and contrary to law, because individuals whose claims are barred by an applicable statute of 

limitations would receive the Class Notice. Id. Accordingly, Defendant argues the Court should set 

aside the ruling. Because Defendant’s “objections” seek reconsideration of the order entered by the 

Magistrate Judge, Plaintiff will be granted an opportunity to respond. Plaintiff SHALL file any 

response thereto on or before July 11, 2013. 

In the order for which Defendant seeks reconsideration, the Magistrate Judge ordered 

Defendant to produce contact information of potential class members no later than July 25, 2013. At 

SANTIAGO ROJAS, et al.,

 Plaintiffs,

v.

MARKO ZANINOVICH, INC. and SUNVIEW 

VINEYARDS OF CALFORNIA, INC.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:09-cv-00705 - AWI - JLT

ORDER CONSTRUING DEFENDANT’S 

OBJECTIONS TO THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S 

ORDER (DOC. 226) AS A REQUEST FOR 

RECONSIDERATION PURSUANT TO LOCAL 

RULE 303

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S REQUEST 

FOR A STAY

Case 1:09-cv-00705-AWI-JLT Document 227 Filed 07/03/13 Page 1 of 2
2

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

this time, it is unnecessary and premature to stay the deadlines related to the Class Notice. Therefore, 

Defendant’s request to stay the proceedings is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 3, 2013 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE DEAC_Signature-END:

0m8i788

Case 1:09-cv-00705-AWI-JLT Document 227 Filed 07/03/13 Page 2 of 2