Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01383/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01383-4/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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSE HERNANDEZ, individually and

on behalf of all others

similarly situated,,

Plaintiff,

v.

LEO BALAKIAN, ANTHONY BALAKIAN

AND VINCE BALAKIAN,

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:06-cv-1383 OWW DLB

FIRST SCHEDULING CONFERENCE

ORDER 

Class Certification

Discovery Cut-Off: 8/13/07

Plaintiff Must File Its

Motion for Class

Certification By: 8/13/07

Hearing on Motion for Class

Certification: 9/24/07

11:00 Ctrm. 3

I. Date of Scheduling Conference.

April 13, 2007.

II. Appearances Of Counsel.

Johnson & Bell, Ltd., by Howard W. Foster, Esq., and Wagner

& Jones by Daniel Kopfman, Esq., appeared on behalf of Plaintiff.

McGuiness, Norris & Williams, LLP, by Monte B. Lake, Esq.,

and Kahn, Soares & Conway, LLP by Jan L. Kahn, Esq., appeared on

behalf of Defendants. 

III. Summary of Pleadings. 

A. Defendants’ Summary

1. Defendants Leo, Anthony and Vince Balakian

Case 1:06-cv-01383-OWW -DLB Document 49 Filed 04/17/07 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

vehemently deny Plaintiff’s RICO claim and the factual

allegations upon which the claim is purportedly based. The

Balakians and Fruit Patch, Inc., did not engage in an “illegal

immigrant hiring scheme.” To the contrary, it is the policy and

practice of Fruit Patch, Inc., to comply fully with all

applicable federal and state laws with respect to hiring and

employment, including all provisions of the Immigration and

Nationality Act (“INA”). As part of its INA compliance, Fruit

Patch, Inc., ensures that all of its hourly employees timely

complete I-9 forms. Further, it is the practice of Fruit Patch,

Inc., to examine the information set forth in the I-9 forms as

well as the eligibility documents presented by employees in

connection with their hiring. Fruit Patch, Inc., does not

knowingly hire illegal immigrants nor does it hire individuals

who cannot properly document their eligibility status. Fruit

Patch, Inc., is an equal opportunity employer and does not

discriminate on the basis of national origin or citizenship

status.

2. Contrary to the allegations in the Complaint,

Fruit Patch, Inc., paid its workers hourly wages that complied

with all applicable laws. Fruit Patch, Inc., and the Balakians

did not purposefully hire illegal aliens so as to pay a lower

wage. Further, Fruit Patch, Inc., and the Balakians do not

“direct their hiring personnel to obtain housing” for illegal

immigrants. Finally, the Balakians did not engage in any

conspiracy.

IV. Orders Re Amendments To Pleadings.

1. Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on April 2, 2007. 

Case 1:06-cv-01383-OWW -DLB Document 49 Filed 04/17/07 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

Defendants will file a response to that Amended Complaint in

compliance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

V. Factual Summary.

A. Admitted Facts Which Are Deemed Proven Without Further

Proceedings. 

1. Jose Hernandez was an individual resident of the

Eastern District of California at the times alleged in this

Complaint and was employed by Defendants’ business known as Fruit

Patch, Inc.

2. Defendants Leo, Anthony, and Vince Balakian are

owners of the corporation Fruit Patch, Inc.

3. Fruit Patch, Inc., is a California corporation in

good standing under the laws of the State of California at all

times alleged.

4. The employer is covered by the wage and hour laws

of the United States. 

B. Contested Facts.

1. Defendants deny the remaining “factual”

allegations of the Complaint, including without limitation, the

allegations:

a. That Defendants engaged in an “illegal

Immigrant Hiring Scheme;”

b. That Defendants applied hiring criteria that

subverted the laws against hiring illegal immigrants;

c. That Defendants “effectively turned a blind

eye to factors which any reasonable employer would know indicate

job applicants are unauthorized for employment in the U.S.;”

d. That the illegal Immigrant Hiring Scheme

Case 1:06-cv-01383-OWW -DLB Document 49 Filed 04/17/07 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

saves Fruit Patch, Inc., “millions of dollars in labor costs” and

that if Defendants were not hiring large numbers of illegal

immigrants, “their business would have to pay” higher wages;

e. That Defendants directed their hiring

personnel to obtain housing for illegal immigrants; and

f. That Defendants have underpaid their workers

and/or Defendants have hired illegal immigrants for the purpose

of depressing wages to its hourly workers.

VI. Legal Issues.

A. Uncontested.

1. Jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 18 

U.S.C. § 1961 et seq. 

2. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391.

B. Contested. 

1. Whether Plaintiff has properly pled a valid RICO

cause of action. 

2. Whether the facts and circumstances alleged in the

Amended Complaint give rise to a valid RICO claim.

3. Whether Plaintiff has standing to bring this

action.

4. Whether this case is appropriately brought as a

class action under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23.

VII. Consent to Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction.

1. The parties have not consented to transfer the 

case to the Magistrate Judge for all purposes, including trial.

VIII. Corporate Identification Statement.

1. Any nongovernmental corporate party to any action in

this court shall file a statement identifying all its parent

Case 1:06-cv-01383-OWW -DLB Document 49 Filed 04/17/07 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

corporations and listing any entity that owns 10% or more of the

party's equity securities. A party shall file the statement with

its initial pleading filed in this court and shall supplement the

statement within a reasonable time of any change in the

information. 

IX. Scheduling of Case.

1. The parties shall have through and including August 13,

2007, to complete discovery on class issues and for Plaintiff to

file its motion for class certification. The hearing on the

motion is set for September 24, 2007, at 11:00 a.m. in Courtroom

3, Seventh Floor. The Court has reserved time for extended oral

argument. 

2. Plaintiff has undertaken to make its initial

disclosures on or before April 20, 2007. Defendants shall make

their initial disclosures on or before May 11, 2007. 

3. The parties agree that resolution of the class

certification issues will so materially impact on the nature and

scope of the lawsuit, that it is prudent to defer the

promulgation of the final schedule for the case management of

this action to a time following the decision on the motion for

class certification.

4. Once the class certification motion has been decided,

the Court will schedule a further scheduling conference and the

parties shall submit a proposed schedule for the balance of the

case. 

5. Plaintiff has demanded a jury trial. Defendants have

not demanded a jury trial. At this time, the Defendants estimate

the trial will take 5 days. Plaintiffs are unable to estimate

Case 1:06-cv-01383-OWW -DLB Document 49 Filed 04/17/07 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

the time of trial pending outcome of the class certification

motion. The parties agree that any cut-off for amendments to add

parties and/or claims, shall be deferred pending resolution of

the class certification issues. 

6. There are no related cases. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 13, 2007 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01383-OWW -DLB Document 49 Filed 04/17/07 Page 6 of 6