Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00707/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00707-14/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
El Rancho Farms
Defendant
Garza Contracting, Inc.
Neutral
Angelica Rosales
Plaintiff
Margarita Rosales
Plaintiff

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARGARITA ROSALES and

ANGELICA ROSALES, on behalf of

themselves and all others similarly

situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.

EL RANCHO FARMS and DOES 1 to 20,

Defendant.

____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CIV-F-09-0707 AWI JLT

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

I. History

Defendant El Rancho Farms (“El Rancho”) is a commercial table grape grower based in

Kern County. El Rancho does not directly employ workers; instead, El Rancho works with

various farm labor contractors (“FLCs”), who provide workers. Plaintiffs Margarita Rosales and

Angelica Rosales (“Plaintiffs”) worked in El Rancho’s facilities through 2005 and 2004

respectively. Plaintiffs were directly employed by a FLC known as Garza Contracting Inc.

(“Garza”). Garza is not a defendant in this case. 

This case is connected to one brought in 2004 in state court. That case was initially

brought by third party workers as a potential class action against third party FLCs and other table

grape growers. On September 12, 2005, Angelica Rosales and El Rancho were added as plaintiff

and defendant. The case was removed to federal court in 2005 under federal question

jurisdiction. Meanwhile, a parallel potential class action case against El Rancho and the other

1

Case 1:09-cv-00707-AWI-JLT Document 112 Filed 03/25/13 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

table grape growers was filed in federal court on November 9, 2005. After various motions, the

two cases were consolidated and severed. The end result was that in each case, the defendant

was one table grape grower and the plaintiffs are current or former workers seeking to represent a

class action. 

The operative complaint in this case alleges violations of the federal Migrant and

Seasonal Agricultural Workers Protection Act; failure to pay wages; failure to pay reporting time

wages; failure to provide rest and meal periods; failure to pay wages of terminated or resigned

employees; knowing and intentional failure to comply with itemized employee wage statement

provisions; penalties under Cal. Labor Code § 2699, et seq; breach of contract; and violation of

the unfair competition law. Doc. 1. Generally, Plaintiffs allege El Rancho has failed to comply

with a variety of California labor laws, chiefly failing to pay minimum wage, forcing employees

off the clock, forcing employees to purchase their own tools, failing to provide adequate meal

and rest periods, failing to provide adequate wage statements, and failing to keep adequate time

records. 

Plaintiffs made a first motion for class certification which El Rancho opposed. In the

motion, Plaintiffs sought to certify four classes comprising of all El Rancho workers regardless

of which FLC they worked for: an unpaid rest break class, untimely rest and meal break class, off

the clock work class, and purchasing tools class. Magistrate Judge Thurston issued a findings

and recommendation (“F&R”) to deny Plaintiffs’ motion. Doc. 52. After review of the filed

objections, the F&R was adopted in full. Doc. 56. Plaintiffs made a motion for reconsideration

based on new evidence and a motion to certify the issue of class certification for interlocutory

appeal. Docs. 60 and 66. Plaintiffs sought to certify three narrowed classes (an untimely rest and

meal break class, off the clock work class, and purchasing tools class) encompassing only those

workers jointly employed by Garza at El Rancho facilities. El Rancho opposed both motions

and filed a motion for summary judgment against the named Plaintiffs. Docs. 81 and 82. The

motion for reconsideration was granted in part and denied in part while all other motions were

denied; Plaintiffs were granted leave to file a second motion for class certification limited the

issue of untimely meal periods. Doc. 95. Plaintiffs made the appropriate motion. Doc. 96. Judge

2

Case 1:09-cv-00707-AWI-JLT Document 112 Filed 03/25/13 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

Thurston issued an F&R to grant the motion. Doc. 106. El Rancho has filed objections; Plaintiffs

seek to have the F&R adopted in full. Docs 107 and 108.

II. Legal Standards

“A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report

or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made. A judge of the

court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made

by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1). 

III. Discussion

Judge Thurston concluded that the Fed. Rule Civ. Proc 23(a) and Fed. Rule Civ. Proc.

23(b)(3) factors are satisfied for the class defined as “All employees of Garza Contracting, Inc.

who worked at El Rancho Farms facilities from 11/9/2001, through 12/31/2008 and who were

provided a 12:00 noon meal break on shifts starting before 7:00 a.m.” El Rancho makes two

objections to the F&R. First, El Rancho argues the proposed class should not cover the time

period between April 20, 2006 and December 31, 2008 as the evidence shows a lack of

commonality and predominance of individual questions over common ones. Doc. 107, El Rancho

Objection, 2:12-14. Second, El Rancho argues the piece-rate workers were not subject to the

same meal period schedule as hourly workers, again showing a lack of commonality and

predominance of individual questions over common ones for piece-rate workers. Doc. 107, El

Rancho Objection, 2:19-24. Those two limited issues are examined de novo.

A. Time Frame

Under the former work schedule, El Rancho workers would start their shifts around 6:00

AM and not stop for a meal until 12:00 PM, noon. At an unspecified date, El Rancho changed

its work schedule to have a meal break at 9:00 AM instead. Judge Thurston found that this

change took place at the end of 2008. Doc. 106, F&R, 9:5-22. Thus, the F&R defined the class

as including workers through December 31, 2008. 

3

Case 1:09-cv-00707-AWI-JLT Document 112 Filed 03/25/13 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

First, El Rancho asserts that the change took place in 2006. In her F&R, Judge Thurston

referenced the depositions of John Kovacevich and Lynn Kirkorian, El Rancho’s persons most

knowledgeable on the working schedules, who stated the change took place “late 2008, early

2009” (Doc. 107, Part 1, Kovacevich Deposition, 22:18) or “I believe at 2007” (Doc. 35, Part 3,

Kirkorian Deposition, 15:18). In this motion, El Rancho points out that in other parts of the

deposition, Kovacevich says the change happened earlier: “It could have been slightly before

[July 7, 2008]” and “Q. So it’s your understanding that the new policy went into effect probably

in 2008. Is that correct? A. Or possibly as early as 2006, if [certain records reviewed were] in fact

an El Rancho crew.” Doc. 107, Part 1, Kovacevich Deposition, 40:22-23 and 44:16-20. In total,

Kovacevich’s statements shows confusion. Overall, neither individual gives the impression that

he/she knew precisely when the change took place. 

El Rancho asserts that the time records support their contention that the change happened

in 2006. There is only one record from 2006 and 9 records from 2007 (mostly between

November 2-9, 2007). Eight show a meal at 9:00 AM or 10:00 AM with one showing a meal at

12:00 and one showing no meal period at all. Doc. 35, Part 10, at 35-42; Doc. 100, Part 4, at 5-6. 

However, there are approximately 135 time records from throughout 2008. The vast majority

show either a 12:00 PM meal, an insufficiently long meal period, or incomplete documentation.

See Doc. 35, Part 12, at 2-30; Doc. 35, Part 13, at 2-30; Doc. 96, Part 3, at 2-81; Doc. 100, Part

5, at 2-64. Of these time records, only 20 affirmatively show an appropriate 9:00, 9:30, or 10:00

AM meal. Doc. 35, Part 12, at 8,12, and 21; Doc. 35, Part 13, at 21; Doc. 100, Part 5, at 18, 25,

27, 46-47, 52-59, and 63-64. To demonstrate commonality, courts “determine if plaintiffs have

offered ‘significant proof’ that there was a common policy or practice concerning an issue central

to the plaintiffs’ claims ‘that could affect the class as a whole.’” Dominic Corea LP v. ILD

Telechommunications, Inc., 2013 WL 821193, *3 (C.D. Cal. 2013), quoting Ellis v. Costco

Wholesale Corp., 657 F.3d 970, 983 (9th Cir. 2011). In this case, there is significant proof to

show that the change in work schedule did not take place until the end of 2008. 

Second, El Rancho asserts that there was no company-wide policy on work schedules

which would make individual questions predominate over common questions for the more recent

4

Case 1:09-cv-00707-AWI-JLT Document 112 Filed 03/25/13 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

workers. This assertion is undermined by the deposition of Kovacevich which consistently

referred to the work schedules as “policy” that applied to all workers: 

Q. So what would the schedule look like for workers under this new policy?

A. If we were not working a six-hour day, which happens on occasion, it would normally

be at 9:00 they would have a 30-minute break. And then at 12:00 they would take

a 20-minute break.... 

Q. And this applied to all crews?

A. Yes.... 

Q. And that policy was either approved by you or Bill Dye?

A. Yes. 

Q. And that should have been in place throughout the rest of the time up to today?

A. Yes.

Doc. 107, Part 1, Kovacevich Deposition, 22:19-23:3 and 44:21-45:1. Kovacevich’s statement

shows that the workers were generally subject to the same meal schedule. This is borne out by

the actual time sheets that have been submitted. As previously stated, when a common policy

can be established, some individual variation will not defeat class certification. Cf. Delagarza v.

Tesoro Ref. & Mktg. Co., 2011 U.S. Dist LEXIS 101127, *19-22 (N.D. Cal. 2011) (“that some

workers can leave the premises with permission does not negate Plaintiffs’ assertion that there is

a general default policy against leaving the premises”).

B. Piece Rate Workers

El Rancho argues that “unlike workers paid by the hour, piece rate workers did not take

meal or rest periods together. Instead, piece rate workers were given the discretion to take their

meal periods whenever they chose to do so.” Doc. 107, El Rancho Objections, 10:16-18. There

is only limited evidence as to the time records of purely piece rate workers. However, that

evidence contradicts El Rancho’s assertion. Plaintiffs provide 39 time records they assert reflect

purely piece rate work; these records reflect a 30 minute meal period at 12:00 PM. Doc. 109, Part

2, Exhibit 2. Examination of the other time records filed in the docket of this case also show that

piece rate workers took unified breaks. See Doc. 35, Part 11, at 24-25; Doc. 35, Part 12, at 13 and

17; Doc. 100, Part 5, at 33. These time records affirmatively show meal periods. If piece rate

workers did not take these breaks together, there should be no entries under those categories. 

The time records suggest that piece rate workers did in fact work in unison, with a coordinated

5

Case 1:09-cv-00707-AWI-JLT Document 112 Filed 03/25/13 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

meal schedule. 

In addition to the time records, Kovacevich’s deposition provides evidence that piece rate

workers took breaks as a group at set times:

Q. Lunch is always at 12:00?

A. Or in the last two years he might call the lunch at 9:00 and then call the breaks in the

afternoon. 

Q. Does the non-harvest crews follow the new schedule as well or the old schedule? 

A. New schedule. 

Q. So everybody is following that schedule?

A. Yes. 

Q. Okay. And that is - you mentioned girdling first, and then did you distinguish girdling

from the other ones?

A. I distinguished girdling because it’s a very short four to five-hour job.

Doc. 100, Part 2, 48:3-15. Kovacevich stated that girdling work does not follow the schedule

that applies to all other work because it is a job of short duration. Plaintiffs point out that

girdling is piece rate work. Doc. 109, Part 1, Kovacevich Deposition, 46:14-16. Kovacevich

does not distinguish girdling because it is piece rate work. Given this exchange, the strong

implication is that piece rate work follows the same break schedule as hourly wage work. 

IV. Order

The Findings and Recommendations, filed August 29, 2012 (Doc. 106), is ADOPTED in

full:

1. The Class is defined as “All employees of Garza Contracting, Inc. who worked at El

Rancho Farms facilities from 11/9/2001 through 12/31/2008 and who were provided a 12:00

noon meal break on shifts starting before 7:00 a.m.”

2. Plaintiffs Angelica Rosales and Margarita Rosales (aka Lorena Corza) are appointed as

Class Representatives.

3. The Law Firm of Mallison & Martinez is appointed as Class Counsel.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 22, 2013 

0m8i78 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

6

Case 1:09-cv-00707-AWI-JLT Document 112 Filed 03/25/13 Page 6 of 6