Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00288/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00288-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Fair Labor Standards

---

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

 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CATALINA ROBLES, et al,

Plaintiffs,

v.

SUNVIEW VINEYARDS OF

CALIFORNIA, INC.,

Defendant.

____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CIV-F-06-0288 AWI SMS

ORDER RE: SUPPLEMENTAL

BRIEFING

After reviewing the moving papers, the court has determined that additional briefing is

necessary. 

Issue 1

Can Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act (“AWPA”) claims ever be

based on violation of state law, such as a state minimum wage law? If so, what is the distinction

between those state laws that can be the basis of an AWPA claim and those that can not? Which

of Plaintiffs’ state law causes of action can be the basis of an AWPA claim and which can not? 

How should the court draw the line between those claims that are recoverable under AWPA and

those which Plaintiffs must rely on state law for recovery? Please address these issues with

special reference to “wages” and “working arrangements.” The court requests both detailed case

law and legislative history as this is a central issue in this suit. 

Case 1:06-cv-00288-AWI -SMS Document 26 Filed 08/01/06 Page 1 of 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

2

Issue 2

Industrial Wage Commission Order No. 14-2001 states, “Every employer shall authorize

and permit all employees after a work period of not more than five (5) hours to take a meal

period of not less than 30 minutes, except that when a work period of not more than six (6) hours

will complete the day’s work the meal period may be waived by mutual consent of employer and

employee.” What does this sentence mean? How is the first half to be read in conjunction with

the second half? If the parties are unable to find definitive case law interpreting this meal period

regulation in contrast with the equivalent language in other Industrial Wage Commission Orders,

the court invites the parties to examine: (1) interpretations of this regulation by the Department of

Labor Standards Enforcement; (2) the history behind the drafting of this regulation and the

drafting of the equivalent language in other Industrial Wage Commission Orders, with special

reference to the statements of reason/basis under Cal. Lab. Code §1177(b); and (3) legislative

history and case law on Cal. Labor Code §554 that may shed light on what was intended by the

exception for agriculture with respect to meal periods. 

What weight should the court give to opinions of the Department of Labor Standards

Enforcement in light of Tidewater Marine Western, Inc. v. Bradshaw, 14 Cal. 4th 557, 572-73

(Cal. 1996), Morillion v. Royal Packing Co., 22 Cal. 4th 575, 584 (Cal. 2000), and subsequent

cases?

The parties are directed to file a supplemental brief addressing the issues outlined above

by 4 PM, August 28, 2006. If they wish, parties may file supplemental responses to the other

party’s supplemental brief by 4 PM, September 11, 2006. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 28, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00288-AWI -SMS Document 26 Filed 08/01/06 Page 2 of 2