Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00028/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00028-5/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

Sara Reyes asserts that “she has been employed directly or jointly by Defendants,” who she 

seeks to hold liable for violations of the Migrant Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act and 

state wage and hour laws. (Doc. 7 at 4; see generally Doc. 7.) Plaintiff seeks to state class claims on 

behalf of those similarly situated, as well as act as a Private Attorney General on behalf of the State of 

California. (See id. at 31.) Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s first amended complaint pursuant 

to Rules 8 and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Doc. 12.) The motion was referred 

to the assigned magistrate judge for the preparation of findings and recommendations. (Doc. 15.) 

As an initial matter, the magistrate judge noted that Defendants requested judicial notice of 

California’s Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order 14-2001 and several complaints filed by 

plaintiffs in other actions. (Doc. 28 at 4-5.) The magistrate judge found the complaints “have no 

SARA REYES, on behalf of herself and those 

similarly situated and the State of California,

 Plaintiff,

v.

FIVE DIAMOND COLD STORAGE, INC.;

GROW SMART LABOR, INC., PEDRO 

ARELLANO-MOYA; and JORGE ESTBAN 

FUENTES,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:24-cv-0028 JLT SAB

ORDER ADOPTING IN FULL THE FINDINGS 

AND RECOMMENDATIONS GRANTING 

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS WITH 

LEAVE TO AMEND

(Docs. 12 and 28)

Case 1:24-cv-00028-JLT-SAB Document 29 Filed 07/01/24 Page 1 of 3
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

bearing on the determination of the instant motion” and recommended judicial notice not be taken of 

these documents. (Id.) However, the magistrate found judicial notice was appropriate for Wage Order 

14-2001 and recommended judicial notice be taken of this document alone. (Id. at 5.)

The magistrate judge found the allegations were insufficient to support Plaintiff’s claims under 

the AWPA and state law. (Doc. 28 at 5-17.) In addition, the magistrate judge found Plaintiff failed to 

allege facts sufficient to support a conclusion that she was jointly employed by all defendants, or that 

the individual defendants may be liable for the claims alleged. (Id. at 17-20.) Finally, the magistrate 

judge found leave to amend should be granted because “Plaintiff has not acted in bad faith or with 

dilatory motive, and it would not prejudice Defendants or be futile to grant [Plaintiff] an opportunity 

to amend the FAC to allege factual allegations.” (Id. at 21.) Thus, the magistrate judge recommended 

Defendants’ motion be granted and Plaintiff be granted leave to amend to cure the deficiencies 

identified in the findings and recommendations. (Id.)

The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on the parties and notified them that any 

objections were due within 14 days. (Doc. 28 at 21-22.) The Court advised the parties the “failure to 

file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal.” (Id. at 20, citing 

Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014).) Neither party filed objections, and the 

time to do so has passed. 

According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case. 

Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations are 

supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS:

1. The Findings and Recommendations dated June 11, 2024 (Doc. 28) are ADOPTED in 

full.

2. Defendants’ requests for judicial notice are GRANTED in part.

3. Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. 12) is GRANTED.

4. Plaintiff’s first amended complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend. 

5. Plaintiff SHALL file any second amended complaint within 21 days of the date of 

service of this order. 

///

Case 1:24-cv-00028-JLT-SAB Document 29 Filed 07/01/24 Page 2 of 3
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

Plaintiff is advised that failure to file a second amended complaint will result in dismissal of this 

action for failure to prosecute and failure to obey the Court’s order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 30, 2024 

Case 1:24-cv-00028-JLT-SAB Document 29 Filed 07/01/24 Page 3 of 3