Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-01319/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-01319-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
559 Ag Corp.
Cross Defendant
Dominga Espinoza
Plaintiff
Lucero Ag Services, Inc.
Cross Defendant
Ricardo Ulices Lucero-Ambrosio
Cross Defendant
Gustavo Meza
Plaintiff
Azucena Ortiz
Plaintiff
Paragroup Farms, Inc.
Cross Claimant
Artemio Fidel Salazar Luna
Defendant

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

AZUCENA ORTIZ, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

LUCERO AG SERVICES, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:23-cv-01319-JLT-EPG

ORDER PERMITTING SUPPLEMENTAL 

BRIEFING RE: MOTION FOR ORDER TO 

SHOW CAUSE

(ECF No. 29)

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiffs Azucena Ortiz, Gustavo Meza, and Dominga Espinoza filed this putative class 

action on September 5, 2023, mostly alleging violations of California state labor laws. (ECF No. 

1). The complaint names five Defendants: (1) Lucero Ag Services, Inc.; (2) Paragroup Farms, 

Inc.; (3) Ricardo Ulices Lucero-Ambrosio; (4) 559 Ag Corp., and (5) Artemio Fidel Salazar Luna. 

Defendants Lucero Ag Services, Inc., Paragroup Farms, Inc., and Ricardo Ulices LuceroAmbrosio have answered the complaint (ECF Nos. 15, 17). However, Defendants 559 Ag. Corp. 

and Defendant Artemio Fidel Salazar Luna (referred to collectively as Defendants unless 

otherwise noted) failed to respond to the complaint after purportedly being served, and Plaintiffs 

obtained a clerk’s entry of default against them on February 9, 2024, under Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 55(a). (ECF No. 20). 

Plaintiffs filed a motion on April 22, 2024, requesting (1) this Court issue an order for 

Case 1:23-cv-01319-JLT-EPG Document 31 Filed 05/07/24 Page 1 of 5
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

Defendants to show cause why they should not be held in contempt for failing to respond to 

subpoenas; (2) the Court to compel Defendants to produce the documents requested in the 

subpoenas; and (3) the Court to award $1,345.00 in attorney fees and costs for the preparation of 

the motion.

Upon review of the motion, the Court will allow Plaintiffs to file supplemental briefing in 

support of their motion addressing the issues discussed below.

II. ANALYSIS

A. Request for order to show cause and order to compel document production 

According to the complaint, Defendant 559 Ag. Corp. is a California corporation that 

provides employees in the agricultural industry and Defendant Artemio Fidel Salazar Luna is the 

chief executive officer of the company and is also described as “an owner, director, officer, or 

managing agent of Defendant 559 AG Corp.” (ECF No. 1, p. 7). Plaintiffs state that, on March 8, 

2024, they served subpoenas—one on 559 Ag Corp. and one on Artemio Fidel Salazar Luna—

requesting the production of documents concerning (1) payroll; (2) timekeeping; (3) employee 

files; (4) and wage statements. However, Defendants have failed to file any response, including to 

Plaintiffs’ attempts to meet and confer about Defendants’ lack of response to the subpoenas.

Plaintiffs make the following request:

Based on 559 AG CORP, INC. and ARTEMIO FIDEL SALAZAR LUNA’S

contempt of the subpoena and the circumstances outlined here, the Court should 

order 559 AG CORP, INC. and ARTEMIO FIDEL SALAZAR LUNA to show 

cause why they should not be held in contempt for failure to produce documents 

pursuant to the subpoenas. The Court should also order 559 AG CORP, INC. and 

ARTEMIO FIDEL SALAZAR LUNA to produce documents requested . . . .

(ECF No. 29-1, p. 3). 

Before considering contempt proceedings and ordering Defendants to produce the 

requested documents, the Court must establish that Defendants were properly served with the 

subpoenas.

The Court finds the following standards for service of a subpoena applicable here:

Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(b)(1) provides that “[s]erving a subpoena requires delivering a 

copy to the named person[.]” “The majority rule is that Rule 45 requires personal 

service.” RP Golden State Mgmt., LLC v. Ohio Sec. Ins. Co., No. 1:19-cv-00600-

DAD-JLT, 2020 WL 4748324, at *5 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 17, 2020) (collecting cases). 

“However, a growing but still minority trend among courts has been to allow 

Case 1:23-cv-01319-JLT-EPG Document 31 Filed 05/07/24 Page 2 of 5
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

substitute service of a Rule 45 subpoena via alternative methods, such as mail 

delivery pursuant to a court order.” Id. (collecting cases). “Courts are more 

inclined to grant such alternative service where the serving party has provided 

sufficient evidence of its earlier diligence in attempting to effectuate personal 

service.” Fujikura Ltd. v. Finisar Corp., No. 15-mc-80110-HRL (JSC), 2015 WL 

5782351, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 5, 2015). Even where such earlier diligence is 

shown, a court will not grant alternative service unless the method is “reasonably 

calculated to provide timely, fair notice and an opportunity to object or file a 

motion to quash.” Fujikura, 2015 WL 5782351, at *5. See also Chambers v. 

Whirlpool Corp., No. SA CV 11-1733-FMO (JCGx), 2016 WL 9451361, at *2 

(C.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2016).

Bryson v. W. Coast Life Ins. Co., No. 1:23-CV-00193-JLT-SKO, 2024 WL 689541, at *2 (E.D. 

Cal. Feb. 20, 2024). 

Here, Plaintiffs attached the proofs of service for each subpoena. (ECF No. 29-5, p. 3; 

ECF No. 29-6, p. 3). Notably, the proofs of service for 559 Ag Corp. and on Artemio Fidel 

Salazar Luna are nearly identical. Both were served by the same process server on March 8, 2024, 

and the box for personal service is not checked. Rather, for 559 Ag Corp., the process server 

checked a box stating: “I served the subpoena to Dulce Luna, who is designated by law to accept 

service of process on behalf of 559 AG CORP on 3/8/2024.” (ECF No. 29-5, p. 3). Likewise, for 

Artemio Fidel Salazar Lun, the process server checked a box stating: “I served the subpoena to 

Dulce Luna, who is designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of ARTEMIO 

FIDEL SALAZAR LUNA on 3/8/2024.”

In order to evaluate service, the Court requires information on Dulce Luna, including 

whether the person is legally authorized to accept service or otherwise “designated by law to 

accept service of process . . . .” 

Additionally, the proof of service does not state how Dulca Luna was served, other than to 

indicate it was not personal service. 

Accordingly, Plaintiffs shall file a response explaining how service was proper, including

the identity of Dulce Luna and how the documents were served on Luna, as well as any argument 

or legal authority that such service was proper. 

B. Request for attorney fees

Plaintiffs’ motion additionally requests $1,345.00 in attorney fees for the time spent 

drafting and filing their motion. As grounds, Plaintiffs cite Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

Case 1:23-cv-01319-JLT-EPG Document 31 Filed 05/07/24 Page 3 of 5
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

45(d)(1), which provides as follows:

A party or attorney responsible for issuing and serving a subpoena must take 

reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue burden or expense on a person subject to 

the subpoena. The court for the district where compliance is required must enforce 

this duty and impose an appropriate sanction--which may include lost earnings and 

reasonable attorney’s fees--on a party or attorney who fails to comply.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(1). 

This Rule appears inapplicable here. It refers to avoiding undue burden on the person 

subject to a subpoena—not for the person serving the subpoena. Here, Plaintiffs have not been 

subpoenaed; rather, they are issuing the subpoenas. 

Moreover, the Court finds it noteworthy that “[t]he only authority in the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure for the imposition of sanctions against a nonparty for failure to comply with a 

subpoena duces tecum is Rule 45[].” Pennwalt Corp. v. Durand-Wayland, Inc., 708 F.2d 492, 494 

(9th Cir. 1983) (citing former iteration of contempt rule at Rule 45(f)). Rule 45(g) provides as 

follows: “The court for the district where compliance is required--and also, after a motion is 

transferred, the issuing court--may hold in contempt a person who, having been served, fails 

without adequate excuse to obey the subpoena or an order related to it.”) Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(g). 

However, the Ninth Circuit has noted that this Rule “does not independently provide for the 

award of attorneys’ fees as a sanction.” Beverly v. Interior Elec. Inc. Nevada, No. 21-55645, 2023 

WL 355692, at *2 (9th Cir. Jan. 23, 2023).

Additionally, Plaintiffs’ motion does not include support for why the fees requested are 

reasonable.

Accordingly, the Court requests supplemental authority, if any, regarding Plaintiffs’

requests for attorney fees to enforce the subpoena.

III. ORDER

For the reasons discussed above, IT IS ORDERED as follows:

1. By no later than May 28, 2024, Plaintiffs are permitted to file a supplemental brief 

providing additional support for their motion and addressing the issues identified in this 

order. (ECF No. 29). Alternatively, if after reviewing this order Plaintiffs conclude that 

they need to take further steps before seeking their requested relief, they may file a notice 

by no later than May 28, 2024, withdrawing their motion or withdrawing any requested 

Case 1:23-cv-01319-JLT-EPG Document 31 Filed 05/07/24 Page 4 of 5
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

relief in the motion.

2. If Plaintiffs decline to file a supplemental brief by May 28, 2024, the Court will address 

the motion on the current briefing. (ECF No. 29).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 7, 2024 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:23-cv-01319-JLT-EPG Document 31 Filed 05/07/24 Page 5 of 5