Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00420/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00420-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 05:704 Labor Litigation

---

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

BEATRIZ ALDAPA, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

FOWLER PACKING COMPANY INC., et 

al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:15-cv-00420-GEB-SAB

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 

(ECF Nos. 35, 38, 39)

Currently before the Court is Defendants’ motion for reconsideration. For the reasons 

stated herein, Defendants’ motion for reconsideration is denied.

I.

BACKGROUND

The complaint in this action was filed on March 17, 2015. (ECF No. 2.) Plaintiffs raise 

claims on behalf of a proposed class of Defendants’ non-exempt agricultural employees who 

allegedly performed uncompensated work in Defendant’s fields in or near Fresno County within 

the past four years, excluding irrigators, tractor drivers, and swampers. 

Plaintiffs are seasonal agricultural workers involved in the cultivation and harvest of fruit 

grown by Defendants. Plaintiffs allege that they have not been fully compensated by Defendants 

for all time worked. Plaintiffs allege that their pay is calculated under one of three methods: 1) 

Case 1:15-cv-00420-ADA-SAB Document 41 Filed 01/07/16 Page 1 of 6
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

hourly wages, 2) piece rate for certain work, and 3) a crew piece rate determined by total 

production by a crew, to be divided evenly among individual members of the crew. Plaintiffs 

contend that they were not paid for off-the-clock work while organizing materials and equipment 

for work and were not paid while attending training sessions. Plaintiffs further contend that they 

did not receive required rest breaks.

Plaintiffs allege that Defendants added “ghost workers” to crew lists, which resulted in a 

reduction in pay for jobs paid by the crew piece rate. Plaintiffs contend that supervisors added 

fictitious names to crew lists, resulting in actual crew members receiving less pay when the piece 

rate was divided among members of the crew, including fictitious members.

Plaintiffs also allege that they were required to provide their own tools necessary for 

working, and Defendants did not reimburse Plaintiffs for those tools.

Plaintiffs filed a motion to compel on October 6, 2015, and Defendants filed a motion for 

a protective order on October 7, 2015. (ECF Nos. 28, 29.) A hearing on the motions took place 

on October 28, 2015. (ECF Nos. 34, 37.) On October 29, 2015, an order issued granting in part 

Plaintiffs’ motion to compel and denying Defendants’ motion for a protective order. (ECF No. 

33.) Defendants filed a motion for reconsideration of the order on November 20, 2015. (ECF 

No. 35.) Plaintiffs filed an opposition on December 16, 2015, and Defendants filed a reply on 

December 23, 2015. (ECF Nos. 38, 39.)

II.

LEGAL STANDARD

Pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[o]n motion and just 

terms, the court may relieve a party . . .from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the 

following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly 

discovered evidence . . . (3) fraud . . .; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been 

satisfied, released or discharged; . . . or (6) any other reason that justifies relief.” Fed. R. Civ. 

Proc. 60(b). Where none of these factors is present the motion is properly denied. Fuller v. 

M.G. Jewelry, 950 F.2d 1437, 1442 (9th Cir. 1991). 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) allows the Court to relieve a party from an order 

Case 1:15-cv-00420-ADA-SAB Document 41 Filed 01/07/16 Page 2 of 6
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

3

for any reason that justifies relief. Rule 60(b)(6) “is to be used sparingly as an equitable remedy 

to prevent manifest injustice and is to be utilized only where extraordinary circumstances . . .” 

exist. Harvest v. Castro, 531 F.3d 737, 749 (9th Cir. 2008) (internal quotations marks and 

citation omitted). The moving party “must demonstrate both injury and circumstances beyond 

his control . . . .” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Further, Local Rule 230(j) 

requires, in relevant part, that Plaintiff show “what new or different facts or circumstances are 

claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other 

grounds exist for the motion,” and “why the facts or circumstances were not shown at the time of 

the prior motion.” 

III.

DISCUSSION

Defendants seek reconsideration of the order granting in part Plaintiffs’ motion to compel 

and denying Defendants’ motion for a protective order based upon a flyer which was 

subsequently distributed by United Farm Workers (“UFW”). (ECF No. 35-2 at 5.1) The flyer 

states, “THANKS TO THE UNITED FARM WORKERS, WE HAVE A NEW LAW THAT 

PROTECTS FAIR PAY FOR ALL PIECE RATE FARM WORKERS[.]” (Id.) Defendants 

contend that since Plaintiff’s counsel, Mr. Martinez, is general counsel for the UFW, this flyer 

shows that he made misrepresentations to the Court in the prior motion. Defendants seek 

reconsideration of the order and request that Mr. Martinez’ conflict of interest be required to 

addressed in the Belair-West notice that will be mailed to the putative class members. 

Plaintiffs contend that Defendants are misrepresenting what Mr. Martinez “carefully said 

in his sworn statement.” (ECF No. 38 at 9.) Plaintiffs state that Mr. Martinez did not make any 

misrepresentation to the Court. Plaintiffs argue that there is no legal or factual support for this 

frivolous motion and seek sanctions against Defendants.

“A motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual 

circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed 

 

1 All references to pagination of specific documents pertain to those as indicated on the upper right corners via the 

CM/ECF electronic court docketing system.

Case 1:15-cv-00420-ADA-SAB Document 41 Filed 01/07/16 Page 3 of 6
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

4

clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law,” and it “may not be used to 

raise arguments or present evidence for the first time when they could reasonably have been 

raised earlier in the litigation.” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 

F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotations marks and citations omitted) (emphasis in 

original).

Defendants present to the Court, the flyer which is being distributed by the UFW taking 

credit in some manner for the passage of AB 1513. Assembly Bill 1513 was signed by Governor 

Brown on October 10, 2015. The bill, as relevant here, provides that employers are required to 

compensate piece rate employees for rest and recovery periods. 2015 California Assembly Bill 

No. 1513, California 2015-2016 Regular Session, 2015 California Assembly Bill No. 1513, 

California 2015-2016 Regular Session. The bill establishes an affirmative defense to any suit to 

recover wages, damages, or penalties prior to December 31, 2015 if the employer complies with 

the law prior to December 15, 2016. Id. 

Defendants contend that the safe harbor provision of the bill was drafted to specifically 

exclude them due to the efforts of the UFW. Given Mr. Martinez’ position of power within the 

UFW and the flyer in which the UFW takes credit for the new law, Defendants request the Court 

to reconsider the position that nothing indicates that Mr. Martinez would share the identities of 

the class members with the UFW. Additionally, Defendants contend that these new facts require 

the parties to disclose Mr. Martinez’ attempt to represent the putative class members while 

simultaneously representing the UFW which is attempting to unionize the same employees.

Plaintiff argues that Defendants have not presented any new facts, but are merely arguing 

the facts that Defendants presented in the original motion. Defendants state that this Court has 

“flatly declared that any lobbying the UFW may have done concerning California wage and hour 

liability statutes does not suggest that Plaintiffs or their attorneys would violate the terms of the 

protective order.” (ECF No. 38 at 7-8.) 

The Court finds that the flyer is new evidence. Defendants contend that this flyer was 

discovered after the Court issued the October 29, 2015 order. As this motion is based on new 

evidence, the Court rejects Plaintiffs’ argument that the motion is frivolous. Since Defendants 

Case 1:15-cv-00420-ADA-SAB Document 41 Filed 01/07/16 Page 4 of 6
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

5

bring this motion on the grounds of new evidence, the Court does not find it to have been 

brought in bad faith, and Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions shall be denied. 

While Plaintiff may have “carefully” crafted his declaration, it is undisputed that the 

UFW is in some manner now taking credit for the passage of AB 1513. However, the Court 

finds that this flyer does not provide “evidence” that would indicate defense counsel would 

violate the protective order. For that reason, the Court denies the request to reconsider the prior 

order.

The October 29, 2015 did not address the additional argument raised here, that the BelairWest notice should contain mention of a conflict of interest by Plaintiffs’ counsel due to his 

representation of the UFW, support of AB 1513, and the UFW’s attempts to unionize 

Defendants’ workers. In the moving papers for the instant motion, Plaintiffs state in a footnote 

that the Court should deny the suggestion that the discovery notice should advise the class 

members of any conflict because it would be an unwarranted reversal of the October 29 order. 

However, as the Plaintiffs had agreed in the prior motions’ joint statement to mail a Belair-West

notice, the order only addressed Defendants’ request for an opt-in procedure in conjunction with 

the notice. (ECF No. 31 at 48-49.) The issue of a potential conflict of interest on Mr. Martinez’ 

part and whether that should be addressed in the Belair-West notice was not raised in the joint 

statement for the prior discovery dispute or at the hearing. 

In the previous motion, the discovery requested involved identification of all employees. 

The Court was addressing whether Plaintiffs should receive payroll information for all class 

members and respond to interrogatories requesting Defendants to identify all employees to which 

Defendants had sent a letter regarding unpaid wages and crew piece rate issues and identify each 

class member. As relevant to this motion for reconsideration, the only issue previously 

addressed was whether counsel would violate the protective order by sharing information with 

the UFW. To the extent that Plaintiffs appear to argue that the Court found no conflict of interest 

was present due to Mr. Martinez representation of the UFW, the Court disagrees. The only 

finding made by the Court was that none of factors raised by Defendants “suggest that Plaintiffs 

or their attorneys would violate the terms of the protective order.” (ECF No. 33 at 5:1-4.)

Case 1:15-cv-00420-ADA-SAB Document 41 Filed 01/07/16 Page 5 of 6
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

6

Here, the issue is whether counsel’s position as general counsel for the UFW and 

involvement as such would create a conflict of interest for which the putative class members 

should receive notice. While there was some discussion regarding the Belair-West notice at the 

hearing on the motion, (Transcript of Proceedings 32-38, ECF No. 37), defense counsel 

specifically stated “I’m giving you a preview of coming attractions[,]” (id. at 38:8-9). The Court 

finds that whether there was a conflict of interest due to counsel’s representation of the UFW or 

if the Belair-West notice should advise the class members of such was not addressed in the prior 

motion. Since the conflict of interest issue and whether it should be addressed in the Belair-West

notice was not raised in the prior motion, these issues are not a proper subject for this motion for 

reconsideration. Accordingly, Defendants request for the Belair-West notice to include a conflict 

notice due to Mr. Martinez representation of the UFW is denied without prejudice. 

IV.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendants’ motion for reconsideration of the October 29, 2015 order is 

DENIED; and

2. Plaintiffs’ motion for sanctions is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 7, 2016 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00420-ADA-SAB Document 41 Filed 01/07/16 Page 6 of 6