Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01383/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01383-10/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Anthony Balakian
Defendant
Leo Balakian
Defendant
Vince Balakian
Defendant
Jose Hernandez
Petitioner

Document Text:

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSE HERNANDEZ, individually )

and on behalf of all others )

similarly situated, )

)

)

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

vs. )

)

)

LEO BALAKIAN, et al., )

)

)

Defendant. )

)

)

No. CV-F-06-1383 OWW/DLB

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND

THE COMPLAINT AND VACATE THE

SCHEDULE (Doc. 80) 

This class action was commenced on October 15, 2006. 

Pursuant to the First Amended Complaint (FAC) filed on April 2,

2007, Plaintiff Jose Hernandez, as class representative, has sued 

defendants Leo Balakian, Anthony Balakian, and Vince Balakian,

owners of Fruit Patch, Inc. The FAC alleges that the Balakians

“have depressed [Plaintiff Hernandez’s] wages as an agricultural

worker at Fruit Patch, Inc. by knowingly employing vast numbers

of illegal immigrants there for the express purpose of depressing

the market for unskilled labor”; that “[t]his is referred to as

Case 1:06-cv-01383-OWW -DLB Document 87 Filed 03/19/08 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

2

‘the Illegal Immigrant Hiring Scheme’ or ‘the Scheme’”; and that

the Illegal Immigrant Hiring Scheme violates the Racketeer

Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). The First

Amended Complaint is brought on behalf of Hernandez “and all

other persons legally authorized to be employed in the U.S. who

have been employed by Fruit Patch, Inc. in the last four years

... as hourly or piece rate unskilled laborers.” 

On December 17, 2007, Plaintiff filed a motion for class

certification, seeking to be the sole class representative for

several thousand legal workers at Fruit Patch, Inc. This motion

was set to be heard on February 11, 2008. Defendants opposed

this motion, primarily on the ground that Jose Hernandez will not

be an adequate representative of the class, in part because Mr.

Hernandez recently has been arrested on multiple felony charges. 

Defendants also asserted that Mr. Hernandez cannot be an adequate

class representative because he was involved in an automobile

accident in 2005 in which he suffered an injury affecting his

memory which persists to the present.

In lieu of a reply brief, Plaintiff, on January 31, 2008,

filed a motion to amend for leave to amend the complaint and

vacate the case schedule.

The motion for class certification was denied from the bench

on February 11, 2008. Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for

leave to amend and vacate the schedule.

Plaintiff’s motion to amend seeks leave to file a Second

Amended Complaint within 60 days substituting a new class

Case 1:06-cv-01383-OWW -DLB Document 87 Filed 03/19/08 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

3

representative and to vacate the existing schedule. Counsel for

Plaintiff asserts that Mr. Hernandez did not tell him of his

arrest and charge until after the motion for class certification

was filed. Counsel for Plaintiff “freely admits that his arrest

and felony complaint make him an inadequate class

representative.” 

Plaintiff cites National Federation of the Blind v. Target

Corp., 2007 U.S. 2846462 (N.D.Cal.2007). In a discussion of the

typicality requirement of Rule 23(a)(3), Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, the District Court stated:

[T]he court is not convinced that Sexton has

demonstrated an injury with the requisite

nexus to the Target stores for the nationwide

class. However, the court is satisfied that

some of the putative class members would

present the same type of legal and remedial

theory as the unnamed class members. As long

as the proposed class satisfies the

requirements of Rule 23, the court may

certify the class conditioned upon the

substitution of another named plaintiff. See

Kremens v. Bartley, 431 U.S. 119, 135 ...

(1977)(where named plaintiffs’ claims were

determined to be moot, ordering substitution

of class representatives); Gibson v. Local

40, 543 F.2d 1259, 1263 (9 Cir.1976)(‘In th

any event, failure of proof as to the named

plaintiffs would not bar maintenance of the

class action or entry of judgment awarding

relief to the members of the class.’). Thus,

the court will grant plaintiffs’ leave to

substitute another class representative for

the nationwide class.

2007 WL 2846462 at *14. Plaintiff also cites Rice v. Lender

Services Direct, Inc., 2007 WL 2287873 (D.Ariz.2007)(motion to

amend to name new class representatives granted because of

serious illness of class representative’s husband). 

Case 1:06-cv-01383-OWW -DLB Document 87 Filed 03/19/08 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

Defendants’ opposition to the motion for leave to amend was 1

filed on February 8, 2008, just before the hearing on the motion

for class certification. Parts of the opposition argue against

certification of the class, arguments now mooted by the oral order

denying the class certification motion. 

4

Defendants argue that the issue is whether “Plaintiff’s

counsel should be given time to scour the Fresno-area for someone

willing to serve as class representative for Plaintiff’s

counsel’s copy-cat lawsuit.” Defendants cite Bodner v. Oreck 1

Direct, LLC, 2007 WL 12223777 (N.D.Cal.2007):

In light of plaintiff’s undeniable and

overwhelming ignorance regarding the nature

of this action, the facts alleged, and the

theories of relief against defendant, the

court cannot conclude that he has met the

threshold typicality or adequacy requirement

of Rule 23(a). It is clear from the record

that plaintiff’s counsel, and not plaintiff,

is the driving force behind this action. 

Such a ‘cart before the horse’ approach to

litigation is not the proper mechanism for

the vindication of legal rights. See Meachum

v. Outdoor World Corp., 171 Misc.2d 354, 654

N.Y.S.2d 240, 369 (1996)(‘Solicitation of

clients for the commencement or continuation

of a class action is improper, sufficient to

warrant denial of class certification.’)

Furthermore, the Westrup Klick firm has had

trouble regarding its choice of plaintiffs in

the past. See Apple Computer, Inc. v.

Superior Court, 126 Cal.App.4th 1253 ...

(2005)(disqualifying the Westrup Klick firm

from a class action case where it was

established that, ‘from 2003 to 2005, Westrup

Klick and [another firm] had jointly filed 10

class actions under [California’s Unfair

Competition Law] in which an attorney from

Westrup Klick or a relative of one of the

attorneys was the named plaintiff’). The

latest filing is just one more example of

plaintiff’s counsel’s improper approach to

consumer litigation.

That plaintiff’s counsel constructed this

Case 1:06-cv-01383-OWW -DLB Document 87 Filed 03/19/08 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

5

lawsuit before it had a plaintiff cannot be

denied. This fact is borne out not only by

plaintiff’s own admissions, but by

plaintiff’s counsel’s previous abortive

attempt to bring a seemingly identical

lawsuit in another district. Indeed, counsel

himself admitted at the hearing that he or

his firm had the research performed on the

product at issue and had a theory about the

product’s deficiencies. Then, armed with hat

information they went in search of a

plaintiff, never mind the lack of a fitting

plaintiff or the lack of ethical scruples. 

The instant action is nothing more than

Westrup Klick bringing its show to the

Northern District and continuing its practice

of selecting stand-in plaintiffs, even ones

who are inappropriate. To grant class

certification in such circumstances would be

to place this court’s imprimatur on

litigation practices which it finds abhorrent

and inconsistent with the standards of

federal class action suits.

In short, the conduct in this action does not

look good, does not sound good, and does not

smell good. In fact, it reeks. The court

will not participate in this scheme by

certifying a class.

Plaintiff replies that Bodner is not controlling because it

involved denial of class certification, not the substitution of

the class representative. Plaintiff contends that the arrest of

the named plaintiff who is unable to post bond precludes him for

properly pursuing this action. It is asserted that denial of the

motion for leave to amend will effectively end this action and

that nothing in the record supports that outcome.

Rule 15(a), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, requires that

leave to amend should be freely granted when justice so requires.

Although it is arguable that Jose Hernandez would not have been

an adequate representative notwithstanding his arrest, that issue

Case 1:06-cv-01383-OWW -DLB Document 87 Filed 03/19/08 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

6

is no longer before the Court. The concern expressed in Bodner

is one that can be addressed if and when a motion for class

certification is filed, assuming a new class representative can

be located. 

Plaintiff has already had 30 days to locate a new class

representative. Plaintiff shall have an additional thirty (30) 

days or until April 17, 2008 to amend to substitute a suitable

class representative. The motion for leave to amend is GRANTED

on that condition. If the amendment is made, a scheduling

conference shall be held on May 2, 2008 at 8:15 a.m. If no

amendment is made, the action shall be dismissed without

prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 18, 2008 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

668554 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01383-OWW -DLB Document 87 Filed 03/19/08 Page 6 of 6