Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01383/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01383-9/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,

Plaintiff,

v.

LEO BALAKIAN, ANTHONY BALAKIAN

AND VINCE BALAKIAN,

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:06-cv-1383 OWW DLB

ORDER AFTER SCHEDULING

CONFERENCE 

I. Date of Scheduling Conference.

January 4, 2008.

II. Appearances Of Counsel.

Howard W. Foster, Esq., and Matthew Galin, Esq., appeared on

behalf of Plaintiffs.

Siff & Lake, LLP, by Monte B. Lake, Esq., Wendel V. Hall,

Esq., and Jan L. Kahn, Esq., appeared on behalf of Defendants. 

III. Summary of Pleadings. 

Plaintiff’s Statement.

1. This is a RICO class action against the Balakians for

employing a mostly illegal immigrant work force at Fruit Patch, a

fruit company which they own and operate. The case is brought by

Case 1:06-cv-01383-OWW -DLB Document 77 Filed 01/09/08 Page 1 of 11
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

Jose Hernandez on behalf of all legal U.S. workers who worked as

hourly or piece rate paid employees at Fruit Patch during the

last four years. Jose Hernandez seeks back pay to compensate him

for the amount his wages were unlawfully depressed by the Illegal

Immigrant Hiring Scheme. Plaintiff filed his Motion for Class

Certification on December 17, 2007.

Defendants’ Statement

2. Defendants Leo, Anthony and Vince Balakian 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.

3. Contrary to the allegations in the Amended Complaint,

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

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

Case 1:06-cv-01383-OWW -DLB Document 77 Filed 01/09/08 Page 2 of 11
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

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. The parties do not presently contemplate amending the

pleadings.

V. Factual Summary.

A. Admitted Facts Which Are Deemed Proven Without Further

Proceedings. 

1. Jose Hernandez was employed by Fruit Patch during

part of the Class period.

2. The Defendants are involved in the operations of

Fruit Patch.

3. Leo, Anthony and Vince Balakian are citizens of

California.

B. Contested Facts.

1. That Defendants engaged in an “Illegal Immigrant

Hiring Scheme.”

2. That Defendants applied hiring criteria that

subverted the laws against hiring illegal immigrants.

3. 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.”

4. That the Illegal Immigrant Hiring Scheme saves

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

if Defendants were not hiring large numbers of illegal

Case 1:06-cv-01383-OWW -DLB Document 77 Filed 01/09/08 Page 3 of 11
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

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

5. That Defendants directed their hiring personnel to

obtain housing for illegal immigrants.

6. That Defendants have underpaid their workers

and/or Defendants have hired illegal immigrants for the purpose

of depressing wages to its hourly workers.

7. That Plaintiff has been injured in his “business

or property” as required by 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c). 

VI. Legal Issues.

A. Uncontested.

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

U.S.C. § 1961 et seq., and jurisdiction is invoked to maintain

the action as a class action pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure 23. 

2. Venue is proper as Defendants are residents of

the District and one or more of the alleged illegal acts occurred

within the Eastern District of California, Fresno Division, more

specifically at Reedley, California. 

B. Contested. 

1. Plaintiff contends this case is properly

maintained as a class action on behalf of all legal hourly paid

workers employed by Fruit Patch, Inc., of Reedley, California. 

2. Whether Plaintiff has properly pled a valid RICO

cause of action.

3. Whether the facts and circumstances alleged in the

Complaint give rise to a valid RICO cause of action.

4. Whether Plaintiff or any putative class members

have standing under Article III of the Constitution and/or 18

Case 1:06-cv-01383-OWW -DLB Document 77 Filed 01/09/08 Page 4 of 11
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

U.S.C. § 1964(c) to bring this action.

5. Whether this case may properly proceed as a class

action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 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

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. Status of Class Certification.

1. Plaintiff’s motion for class certification is presently

set for hearing on February 11, 2008. 

X. Discovery Plan and Cut-Off Date.

1. Phase 2 will commence upon certification, if any, of

this case as a class action. From the date of class

certification, if any, the parties shall have thirty days to

jointly submit a proposed class notice. 

2. Identification of putative class members shall take

place 120 days thereafter. 

3. At the end of the five month period, notification to

prospective class members shall be published and served.

4. Defendant shall have 60 days to object to

identification of class members.

Case 1:06-cv-01383-OWW -DLB Document 77 Filed 01/09/08 Page 5 of 11
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

5. From the date notice is served and/or published,

putative class members shall have 45 days to opt out. 

6. The parties are ordered to complete all non-expert

discovery on or before 14 months following the date of class

certification. Discovery shall commence on the Court’s ruling on

the motion to certify the case as a class action. 

7. Plaintiffs are directed to disclose all expert

witnesses, in writing, on or before 30 days after cut-off of fact

discovery. Defendants Rule 26(a) disclosure as to background

statements and expert reports shall be filed on or before 60 days

after the closing of non-expert discovery. Any rebuttal or

supplemental expert disclosures will be made on or before 30 days

following Defendants’ designation. The parties will comply with

the provisions of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)

regarding their expert designations. Local Rule 16-240(a)

notwithstanding, the written designation of experts shall be made

pursuant to F. R. Civ. P. Rule 26(a)(2), (A) and (B) and shall

include all information required thereunder. Failure to

designate experts in compliance with this order may result in the

Court excluding the testimony or other evidence offered through

such experts that are not disclosed pursuant to this order.

8. The overall cutoff of expert discovery will be 30 days

thereafter. 

9. The provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(4) shall 

apply to all discovery relating to experts and their opinions. 

Experts may be fully prepared to be examined on all subjects and

opinions included in the designation. Failure to comply will

result in the imposition of sanctions. 

Case 1:06-cv-01383-OWW -DLB Document 77 Filed 01/09/08 Page 6 of 11
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

7

10. The parties do not anticipate proposed changes in the

limits to discovery under the Rules of Federal Procedure. 

11. The parties will agree as to the form of a protective

order regarding discovery of any confidential and legally

protectable information. 

12. The parties agree that at the instance of either side,

videotaped depositions may be taken. 

X. Pre-Trial Motion Schedule.

1. All Non-Dispositive Pre-Trial Motions, including any

discovery motions, will be filed on or before 15 days following

the overall cut-off of all discovery, and heard on the first

Friday 30 days following the cut-off of all discovery, at 9:00

a.m. before Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck in Courtroom 9. 

2. In scheduling such motions, the Magistrate

Judge may grant applications for an order shortening time

pursuant to Local Rule 142(d). However, if counsel does not

obtain an order shortening time, the notice of motion must comply

with Local Rule 251. 

3. All Dispositive Pre-Trial Motions are to be

filed no later than 30 days following the overall cut-off of

discovery, and will be heard on 30 days thereafter on a Monday,

at 10:00 a.m. before the Honorable Oliver W. Wanger, United

States District Judge, in Courtroom 3, 7th Floor. In scheduling

such motions, counsel shall comply with Local Rule 230. 

XI. Pre-Trial Conference Date.

1. Thirty 30 days following the hearing date for 

dispositive motions, at 11:00 a.m. in Courtroom 3, 7th Floor,

before the Honorable Oliver W. Wanger, United States District

Case 1:06-cv-01383-OWW -DLB Document 77 Filed 01/09/08 Page 7 of 11
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

8

Judge. 

2. The parties are ordered to file a Joint PreTrial Statement pursuant to Local Rule 281(a)(2). 

3. Counsel's attention is directed to Rules 281 

and 282 of the Local Rules of Practice for the Eastern District

of California, as to the obligations of counsel in preparing for

the pre-trial conference. The Court will insist upon strict

compliance with those rules.

XII. Trial Date.

1. Thirty days thereafter, at the hour of 9:00 a.m. in

Courtroom 3, 7th Floor, before the Honorable Oliver W. Wanger,

United States District Judge. 

2. This is a jury trial.

3. Counsels' Estimate Of Trial Time:

a. 15 days.

4. Counsels' attention is directed to Local Rules

of Practice for the Eastern District of California, Rule 285. 

5. This Scheduling Order, Second Phase, shall be amended

upon the Court’s ruling on the Class Certification Motion to

specify specific dates for all future actions in this case. In

the event that the Court declines to certify a class action, a

Further Scheduling Conference shall be held within 20 days

following the date of the Court’s ruling denying class

certification. 

XIII. Settlement Conference.

1. A Settlement Conference shall be scheduled at or about

the time discovery is completed. This date will also be provided

by this Court following ruling on the class certification motion. 

Case 1:06-cv-01383-OWW -DLB Document 77 Filed 01/09/08 Page 8 of 11
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

9

2. Unless otherwise permitted in advance by the

Court, the attorneys who will try the case shall appear at the

Settlement Conference with the parties and the person or persons

having full authority to negotiate and settle the case on any

terms at the conference. 

3. Permission for a party [not attorney] to attend

by telephone may be granted upon request, by letter, with a copy

to the other parties, if the party [not attorney] lives and works

outside the Eastern District of California, and attendance in

person would constitute a hardship. If telephone attendance is

allowed, the party must be immediately available throughout the

conference until excused regardless of time zone differences. 

Any other special arrangements desired in cases where settlement

authority rests with a governing body, shall also be proposed in

advance by letter copied to all other parties. 

4. Confidential Settlement Conference Statement. 

At least five (5) days prior to the Settlement Conference the

parties shall submit, directly to the Magistrate Judge's

chambers, a confidential settlement conference statement. The

statement should not be filed with the Clerk of the Court nor

served on any other party. Each statement shall be clearly

marked "confidential" with the date and time of the Settlement

Conference indicated prominently thereon. Counsel are urged to

request the return of their statements if settlement is not

achieved and if such a request is not made the Court will dispose

of the statement.

5. The Confidential Settlement Conference

Statement shall include the following: 

Case 1:06-cv-01383-OWW -DLB Document 77 Filed 01/09/08 Page 9 of 11
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

10

a. A brief statement of the facts of the 

case.

b. A brief statement of the claims and 

defenses, i.e., statutory or other grounds upon which the claims

are founded; a forthright evaluation of the parties' likelihood

of prevailing on the claims and defenses; and a description of

the major issues in dispute.

c. A summary of the proceedings to date.

d. An estimate of the cost and time to be

expended for further discovery, pre-trial and trial.

e. The relief sought.

f. The parties' position on settlement,

including present demands and offers and a history of past

settlement discussions, offers and demands. 

XIV. Request For Bifurcation, Appointment Of Special Master, 

Or Other Techniques To Shorten Trial. 

1. No bifurcation of trial or pretrial is proposed. 

XV. Related Matters Pending.

1. There are no related matters.

XVI. Compliance With Federal Procedure.

1. The Court requires compliance with the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of Practice for the

Eastern District of California. To aid the court in the

efficient administration of this case, all counsel are directed

to familiarize themselves with the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure and the Local Rules of Practice of the Eastern District

of California, and keep abreast of any amendments thereto.

XVII. Effect Of This Order.

Case 1:06-cv-01383-OWW -DLB Document 77 Filed 01/09/08 Page 10 of 11
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

11

1. The foregoing order represents the best

estimate of the court and counsel as to the agenda most suitable

to bring this case to resolution. The trial date reserved is

specifically reserved for this case. If the parties determine at

any time that the schedule outlined in this order cannot be met,

counsel are ordered to notify the court immediately of that fact

so that adjustments may be made, either by stipulation or by

subsequent scheduling conference. 

2. Stipulations extending the deadlines contained

herein will not be considered unless they are accompanied by

affidavits or declarations, and where appropriate attached

exhibits, which establish good cause for granting the relief

requested. 

3. Failure to comply with this order may result in

the imposition of sanctions. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 8, 2008 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01383-OWW -DLB Document 77 Filed 01/09/08 Page 11 of 11