Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca9-13-35955/USCOURTS-ca9-13-35955-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Felipe Acevedo Mendoza
Appellee
Farmland Management Services
Appellant
John Hancock Life & Health Insurance, Co.

John Hancock Life Insurance Company

NW Management and Realty Services, Inc.

Abelardo Saucedo
Appellee
Javier Saucedo
Appellee
Sandra Saucedo
Appellee
Texas Municipal Plans Consortium, LLC

Jose Villa Mendoza
Appellee

Document Text:

FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ABELARDO SAUCEDO; FELIPE 

ACEVEDO MENDOZA; JOSE VILLA 

MENDOZA; JAVIER SAUCEDO;

SANDRA SAUCEDO, Individually, and 

on behalf of all other similarly 

situated persons,

Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v.

JOHN HANCOCK LIFE & HEALTH 

INSURANCE, CO.; TEXAS MUNICIPAL 

PLANS CONSORTIUM, LLC,

Defendants,

NW MANAGEMENT AND REALTY 

SERVICES, INC.; JOHN HANCOCK LIFE 

INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendants,

and

FARMLAND MANAGEMENT SERVICES,

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 13-35955

D.C. No.

2:12-cv-00478-

TOR

 Case: 13-35955, 08/05/2015, ID: 9635131, DktEntry: 68, Page 1 of 13
2 SAUCEDO V. FARMLAND MANAGEMENT

ABELARDO SAUCEDO; FELIPE 

ACEVEDO MENDOZA; JOSE VILLA 

MENDOZA; JAVIER SAUCEDO;

SANDRA SAUCEDO, Individually, and 

on behalf of all other similarly 

situated persons,

Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v.

JOHN HANCOCK LIFE INSURANCE 

COMPANY; JOHN HANCOCK LIFE &

HEALTH INSURANCE, CO.; TEXAS 

MUNICIPAL PLANS CONSORTIUM,

LLC,

Defendants-Appellants,

and

FARMLAND MANAGEMENT SERVICES;

NW MANAGEMENT AND REALTY 

SERVICES, INC.,

Defendants.

No. 13-35996

D.C. No.

2:12-cv-00478-

TOR

 Case: 13-35955, 08/05/2015, ID: 9635131, DktEntry: 68, Page 2 of 13
SAUCEDO V. FARMLAND MANAGEMENT 3

ABELARDO SAUCEDO; FELIPE 

ACEVEDO MENDOZA; JOSE VILLA 

MENDOZA; JAVIER SAUCEDO;

SANDRA SAUCEDO, Individually, and 

on behalf of all other similarly 

situated persons,

Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v.

JOHN HANCOCK LIFE INSURANCE 

COMPANY; JOHN HANCOCK LIFE &

HEALTH INSURANCE, CO.; TEXAS 

MUNICIPAL PLANS CONSORTIUM,

LLC; FARMLAND MANAGEMENT 

SERVICES,

Defendants,

and

NW MANAGEMENT AND REALTY 

SERVICES, INC.,

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 13-36022

D.C. No.

2:12-cv-00478-

TOR

ORDER

Filed August 5, 2015

Before: Andrew J. Kleinfeld, Jacqueline H. Nguyen,

and Michelle T. Friedland, Circuit Judges.

 Case: 13-35955, 08/05/2015, ID: 9635131, DktEntry: 68, Page 3 of 13
4 SAUCEDO V. FARMLAND MANAGEMENT

SUMMARY*

Certification of Questions to State Supreme Court

The panel certified to the Washington Supreme Court the 

following questions:

(1) Does the Washington Farm Labor Contractor Act, in 

particular Washington Revised Code § 19.30.010(2), include 

in the definition of a “farm labor contractor” an entity who 

is paid a per-acre fee to manage all aspects of farming—

including hiring and employing agricultural workers as well 

as making all planting and harvesting decisions, subject to 

approval—for a particular plot of land owned by a third 

party?

(2) Does the FLCA, in particular Washington Revised 

Code § 19.30.200, make jointly and severally liable any 

person who uses the services of an unlicensed farm labor 

contractor without either inspecting the license issued by the 

director of the Department of Labor & Industries to the farm 

labor contractor or obtaining a representation from the 

director of the Department of Labor & Industries that the 

contractor is properly licensed, even if that person lacked 

knowledge that the farm labor contractor was unlicensed?

 * This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has 

been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.

 

 Case: 13-35955, 08/05/2015, ID: 9635131, DktEntry: 68, Page 4 of 13
SAUCEDO V. FARMLAND MANAGEMENT 5

ORDER

We certify to the Washington Supreme Court the 

questions set forth in Part III of this order.

Further proceedings in this court are stayed pending 

receipt of the answers to the certified questions. These cases, 

which were consolidated on appeal, are withdrawn from 

submission until further order of this court or an order 

declining to accept the certified questions. If the 

Washington Supreme Court accepts the certified questions, 

the parties will file a joint report six months after the date of 

acceptance, and every six months thereafter, advising us of 

the status of the proceeding.

I.

Pursuant to Washington Revised Code § 2.60.020, a 

panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth 

Circuit (before which this appeal is pending) certifies to the 

Washington Supreme Court questions of law regarding the 

proper interpretation of the Washington Farm Labor 

Contractor Act (“FLCA”), in particular Washington Revised 

Code § 19.30.010 and § 19.30.200. No published decision 

of either the Washington Supreme Court or the Washington 

appellate courts has interpreted the relevant provisions of 

this statute to date, and the answers to the certified questions 

are “necessary . . . to dispose of” this appeal. Wash. Rev. 

Code § 2.60.020. We respectfully request that the 

Washington Supreme Court answer the certified questions 

presented below. Our phrasing of the issues is not meant to 

restrict the court’s consideration of the case, and “we 

acknowledge that the Washington Supreme Court may, in its 

discretion, reformulate the questions.” Perez-Farias v. 

Glob. Horizons, Inc., 668 F.3d 588, 589 (9th Cir. 2011) 

(alterations omitted). Should the Washington Supreme 

Court decline certification, “we will resolve the issues 

 Case: 13-35955, 08/05/2015, ID: 9635131, DktEntry: 68, Page 5 of 13
6 SAUCEDO V. FARMLAND MANAGEMENT

according to our perception of Washington law.” Id.

(alteration omitted).

II.

John Hancock Life & Health Insurance Co.; John 

Hancock Life Insurance Company; Texas Municipal Plans 

Consortium, LLC; Farmland Management Services; and 

NW Management and Realty Services (Defendants) are 

deemed the petitioners in this request because Defendants 

appeal the district court’s conclusions on these issues. We 

designate Defendants to file the first brief, pursuant to 

Washington Rule of Appellate Procedure 16.16(e)(1). The 

captions of the consolidated cases are:

ABELARDO SAUCEDO; FELIPE ACEVEDO 

MENDOZA; JOSE VILLA MENDOZA; JAVIER 

SAUCEDO; SANDRA SAUCEDO, Individually, 

and on behalf of all other similarly situated 

persons, Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v.

JOHN HANCOCK LIFE & HEALTH INSURANCE,

CO.; TEXAS MUNICIPAL PLANS 

CONSORTIUM, LLC, Defendants,

NW MANAGEMENT AND REALTY SERVICES,

INC.; JOHN HANCOCK LIFE INSURANCE

COMPANY, Defendants,

and

FARMLAND MANAGEMENT SERVICES, 

Defendant-Appellant;

ABELARDO SAUCEDO; FELIPE ACEVEDO 

MENDOZA; JOSE VILLA MENDOZA; JAVIER 

SAUCEDO; SANDRA SAUCEDO, Individually, 

 Case: 13-35955, 08/05/2015, ID: 9635131, DktEntry: 68, Page 6 of 13
SAUCEDO V. FARMLAND MANAGEMENT 7

and on behalf of all other similarly situated 

persons, Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v.

JOHN HANCOCK LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY;

JOHN HANCOCK LIFE & HEALTH INSURANCE,

CO.; TEXAS MUNICIPAL PLANS 

CONSORTIUM, LLC, Defendants-Appellants,

and

FARMLAND MANAGEMENT SERVICES; NW

MANAGEMENT AND REALTY SERVICES, INC.,

DEFENDANTS; and

ABELARDO SAUCEDO; FELIPE ACEVEDO 

MENDOZA; JOSE VILLA MENDOZA; JAVIER 

SAUCEDO; SANDRA SAUCEDO, Individually, 

and on behalf of all other similarly situated 

persons, Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v.

JOHN HANCOCK LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY;

JOHN HANCOCK LIFE & HEALTH INSURANCE,

CO.; TEXAS MUNICIPAL PLANS 

CONSORTIUM, LLC; FARMLAND 

MANAGEMENT SERVICES, Defendants,

and

NW MANAGEMENT AND REALTY SERVICES,

INC., Defendant-Appellant.

The names and addresses of counsel for the parties are as 

follows:

Lori Jordan Isley, Joachim Morrison, and Andrea L. 

Schmitt, Columbia Legal Services, Yakima, WA, for 

Plaintiffs-Appellees.

 Case: 13-35955, 08/05/2015, ID: 9635131, DktEntry: 68, Page 7 of 13
8 SAUCEDO V. FARMLAND MANAGEMENT

Christopher Glenn Emch and John Ray Nelson, Foster 

Pepper PLLC, Spokane, WA; Susan Felice DiCicco Ari M. 

Selman, and David B. Salmons, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius 

LLP, New York, NY, and Washington, D.C., for 

Defendants-Appellants John Hancock Life Insurance 

Company, John Hancock Life & Health Insurance Co., and 

the Texas Municipal Plans Consortium, LLC.

Leslie R. Weatherhead and Geana Van Dessel, Lee & 

Hayes, PLLC, Spokane, WA, for Defendant-Appellant 

Farmland Management Services.

Brendan V. Monahan and Sarah Lynn Wixson, Stokes 

Lawrence Velikanje Moore & Shore, Yakima, WA, for 

Defendant-Appellant NW Management and Realty Services, 

Inc.

III.

The questions of law to be answered are as follows. The 

second question is necessary to resolve this case only if the 

first question is answered in the affirmative.

(1) Does the FLCA, in particular Washington Revised 

Code § 19.30.010(2), include in the definition of a “farm 

labor contractor” an entity who is paid a per-acre fee to 

manage all aspects of farming—including hiring and 

employing agricultural workers as well as making all 

planting and harvesting decisions, subject to approval—for 

a particular plot of land owned by a third party?

(2) Does the FLCA, in particular Washington Revised 

Code § 19.30.200, make jointly and severally liable any 

person who uses the services of an unlicensed farm labor 

contractor without either inspecting the license issued by the 

director of the Department of Labor & Industries to the farm 

labor contractor or obtaining a representation from the 

director of the Department of Labor & Industries that the 

 Case: 13-35955, 08/05/2015, ID: 9635131, DktEntry: 68, Page 8 of 13
SAUCEDO V. FARMLAND MANAGEMENT 9

contractor is properly licensed, even if that person lacked 

knowledge that the farm labor contractor was unlicensed?

IV.

The statement of facts is as follows:

John Hancock Life & Health Insurance Co. is owned by 

John Hancock Life Insurance Company. At all times 

relevant to this case, the John Hancock insurance companies 

and Texas Municipal Plans Consortium, LLC (together 

referred to as “Hancock”) owned the apple orchards known 

as Alexander I, Alexander II, and Independence in Yakima 

County, Washington.

Hancock leased all three orchards to Farmland 

Management Services (“Farmland”) under two Master 

Lease and Management Agreements, which were identical 

in all material respects. Under the Master Leases, Farmland 

received a “management fee” in exchange for either 

operating and managing the orchards for Hancock or 

subleasing the orchards to a third-party company for 

operation and management. Hancock reimbursed all costs 

incurred by Farmland to operate the orchards and collected 

all profits from the farming operation. Farmland elected to 

sublease the orchards to NW Management and Realty 

Services (“NWM”) under an Orchard Management 

Agreement.1 NWM received a per-acre fee from Farmland. 

Farmland reimbursed NWM for all operating costs and 

collected all profits. These costs and profits were then 

passed along to Hancock under the Master Leases, so 

ultimately Hancock paid for all of NWM’s costs and 

 1 As of July 2013, NWM was no longer in operation.

 

 Case: 13-35955, 08/05/2015, ID: 9635131, DktEntry: 68, Page 9 of 13
10 SAUCEDO V. FARMLAND MANAGEMENT

collected all of the orchards’ profits (minus Farmland’s 

management fee).

The Orchard Management Agreement between 

Farmland and NWM required that NWM “operate and use 

the orchard Properties for the sole purpose of conducting a 

first-class agricultural operation.” The Agreement further 

stated that NWM “will hire, employ, discharge and supervise 

the work of all employees and independent contractors 

performing labor and/or services on the Properties. [NWM] 

shall be the employer of record of all persons employed to 

perform work on the ‘Properties.’” The Agreement left the 

details of managing the orchards substantially to NWM’s 

discretion, including how to best “perform and supervise all 

customary and necessary farming operations including but 

not limited to planting, training, irrigating, weed control, 

thinning, cultivating, fertilizing, pruning, mowing, 

controlling insect and disease, harvesting and other 

necessary and proper procedures.” NWM was required to 

submit to Farmland a yearly Farm Operating Plan, which 

would include NWM’s anticipated budget for the coming 

year. Farmland would send this budget to Hancock for 

approval, and Hancock routinely approved it. Neither 

Farmland nor Hancock exerted any control over NWM’s 

employment decisions, leaving NWM to decide unilaterally 

how many people to hire, whom to hire, and when or 

whether to terminate employment. Nor would NWM’s fee 

be affected by these employment decisions, such as how 

many people it hired.

Hancock and Farmland’s Master Leases required 

Farmland to obtain any necessary licenses, or require any 

third party hired to do so. Farmland represented to 

Hancock’s representative Oliver Williams that it had done 

so. At no point did NWM obtain a farm labor contractor 

 Case: 13-35955, 08/05/2015, ID: 9635131, DktEntry: 68, Page 10 of 13
SAUCEDO V. FARMLAND MANAGEMENT 11

license from the Washington Department of Labor & 

Industries.

Plaintiffs, a class of 722 former NWM employees who 

worked for NWM in 2009, 2010, or 2011, sued Defendants 

in 2012 in the Eastern District of Washington for violations 

of the federal Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker 

Protection Act, 29 U.S.C. § 1801, et seq., and the FLCA, 

Wash. Rev. Code § 19.30.010, et seq. The district court 

certified the Plaintiffs’ class as to the FLCA claims, and all 

other claims were settled and dismissed. The FLCA claims 

allege that NWM violated the FLCA by failing to maintain 

a farm labor contractor’s license and failing to make certain 

disclosures to Plaintiffs that farm labor contractors are 

required make. Plaintiffs allege that Farmland and Hancock 

are jointly and severally liable with NWM for the FLCA 

violations under Washington Revised Code § 19.30.200 

because they used the services of an unlicensed farm labor 

contractor without either inspecting NWM’s license or 

asking the director of the Department of Labor & Industries 

whether NWM was licensed.

Hancock and Farmland separately moved to dismiss the 

FLCA claims against them, arguing that Washington 

Revised Code § 19.30.200 applies only to those who 

“knowingly” use the services of an unlicensed farm labor 

contractor and that they did not know that NWM was 

unlicensed. The district court denied both motions, holding 

that the FLCA imposed an affirmative duty on Hancock and 

Farmland to verify that NWM was properly licensed by 

either inspecting NWM’s license or making an inquiry with 

the director of the Department of Labor & Industries.

All Defendants then moved for summary judgment on 

the ground that NWM was not a “farm labor contractor” as 

defined in Washington Revised Code § 19.30.010(2) 

because it was an “agricultural employer” that employed 

 Case: 13-35955, 08/05/2015, ID: 9635131, DktEntry: 68, Page 11 of 13
12 SAUCEDO V. FARMLAND MANAGEMENT

agricultural workers only to work NWM’s farms. The 

district court denied the motion, holding that although NWM 

was an “agricultural employer,” “agricultural employers” 

and “farm labor contractors” are not mutually exclusive, and 

that agricultural employers “who are paid to farm another’s 

land”—such as NWM—are required to obtain licenses under 

the FLCA.

Plaintiffs then moved for summary judgment, asking the 

court to hold as a matter of law that NWM was a farm labor 

contractor under the FLCA, that NWM violated the FLCA 

by failing to obtain a farm labor contractor’s license and by 

failing to provide Plaintiffs with required disclosures, and 

that Hancock and Farmland are jointly and severally liable 

for NWM’s FLCA violations. The district court granted 

Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, finding that 

NWM was a farm labor contractor because it engaged in 

employing agricultural workers “for a fee,” that NWM 

therefore was required to comply with the FLCA but did not, 

and that Hancock and Farmland were jointly and severally 

liable for NWM’s violations because they did not take the 

affirmative steps listed in Washington Revised Code 

§ 19.30.200 to determine whether NWM was licensed. The 

district court awarded Plaintiffs damages of $500 per class 

member per violation per year worked, regardless of the 

class member’s immigration status, for a total of $1,004,000. 

The district court further held that Plaintiffs were entitled to 

attorney fees under the FLCA, which permits a court to 

“award to the prevailing party, in addition to costs and 

disbursements, reasonable attorney fees at trial and appeal.” 

Wash. Rev. Code § 19.30.170(1). Defendants timely 

appealed the district court’s entry of judgment and damage 

award.

 Case: 13-35955, 08/05/2015, ID: 9635131, DktEntry: 68, Page 12 of 13
SAUCEDO V. FARMLAND MANAGEMENT 13

V.

Because of the complexity of these state law issues and 

because of their significant policy implications, we believe 

that the Washington Supreme Court, which has not yet 

interpreted the relevant provisions of the FLCA, “is better

qualified to answer the certified questions in the first 

instance.” See Perez-Farias, 668 F.3d at 593 (alteration 

omitted). Additionally, the Washington Supreme Court’s 

authoritative answers are “necessary . . . in order to dispose 

of [this] proceeding.” Wash. Rev. Code § 2.60.020.

VI.

The Clerk of the Court is hereby directed to immediately 

transmit to the Washington Supreme Court, under official 

seal of the Ninth Circuit, a copy of this order and request for 

certification and all relevant briefs and excerpts of record 

pursuant to Washington Revised Code § 2.60.010 and 

§ 2.60.030.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

___________________________________

Chief Judge Sidney R. Thomas

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

 Case: 13-35955, 08/05/2015, ID: 9635131, DktEntry: 68, Page 13 of 13