Source: http://nm.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180122_0000146.DNM.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 20:52:16+00:00

Document:
WKI OUTSOURCING SOLUTIONS, LLC, JAIME CAMPOS, CERVANTES AGRIBUSINESS, CERVANTES ENTERPRISES, INC., RJF FARMS, INC., RONNIE J. FRANZOY, TIERRA DE DIOS FARMS, LLC, LACK FARMS, INC. and SKYLINE PRODUCE, LLC Defendants.
This matter is before the Court on the Motion for Summary Judgment by Defendant Cervantes Agribusiness [Doc. 1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">185');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">185] the Motion for Summary Judgment by Defendant Cervantes Enterprises, Inc. [Doc. 1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">186');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">186], and Cervantes Defendants&#3');">39; Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Based on Plaintiffs&#3');">39; Alleged Contract and Limited Contract Remedies [Doc. 2');">2');">2');">208]. After careful consideration of the motions, briefs, and relevant law, the Court concludes that all three of the Cervantes Defendants&#3');">39; motions shall be granted.
Only nine of the 1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">14 plaintiffs in this case assert causes of action against the Cervantes Defendants. Those nine are: Esteban Alfaro-Huitron, Eleazar Garcia-Mata, Jose Antonio Garcia-Mata, Juan Guzman, Enrique Rojas-Torres, Lazaro Rojas-Torres, Raul Jasso-Cerda, Trinidad Santoyo-Garcia, and Pedro Tamez.
According to a June 1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">12');">2');">2');">2, 2');">2');">2');">201');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">11');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1 article in the El Paso Times, Jaime Campos founded WKI, a farmworker employment agency designed to help farmers in southern New Mexico with a reported worker shortage that was negatively impacting their harvests. [Doc 2');">2');">2');">206-7, 1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">p. 1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">11');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1] The article explained that WKI was in the process of becoming certified by the U.S. Department of Labor to obtain temporary work visas for Mexican farm laborers who could fill the need described by the farmers interviewed for the article. No representative from either Cervantes Defendant entity was quoted or mentioned in the article.
On November 2');">2');">2');">22');">2');">2');">2, 2');">2');">2');">201');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">11');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1, WKI sent an emergency request to the Department of Labor, seeking to delay or postpone the start date and period of employment for which it had been approved. [Doc. 2');">2');">2');">206-3');">3, pp. 2');">2');">2');">23');">3-2');">2');">2');">24] The request stated that “the agricultural producers that WKI has contracted with to provide farm labor services have informed WKI that due to severe drought conditions at the places of employment, there is no work to be performed at this time.” [Doc. 2');">2');">2');">206-3');">3, p. 2');">2');">2');">23');">3] Plaintiffs allege that the drought conditions had been ongoing and were not a new situation, and that the real reason Mr. Campos withdrew the application was that he realized there were too many qualified U.S. workers so he would not be able to access the guest laborers from Mexico. Plaintiffs claim that Mr. Campos and the farmers, including Dino Cervantes, wanted Mexican laborers because they believed they would work harder for less money, so when it became apparent that Mr. Campos would not be able to provide Mexican workers, he cancelled his application under the pretense of a drought. Mr. Cervantes ultimately relied on another contractor to provide laborers for the Cervantes entities.
All parties agree that Plaintiffs never talked to the Cervantes Defendants directly, but rather communicated only with WKI and Mr. Campos. However, Plaintiffs argue that Cervantes Defendants are still liable for their damages because Mr. Campos, as representative of WKI, was acting as the Cervantes Defendants&#3');">39; agent or co-conspirator. The Cervantes Defendants maintain that they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law on each of Plaintiffs&#3');">39; claims. Additional facts and arguments will be provided as needed in sections that follow.
Summary judgment is warranted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a); see also Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 2');">2');">2');">242');">2');">2');">2, 2');">2');">2');">248-50 (1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1986). A fact is considered material if it “might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law.” Id. An issue is “genuine” if the evidence is such that it might lead a reasonable jury to return a verdict for the nonmoving party. Allen v. Muskogee, 1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">11');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">19 F.3');">3d 83');">37');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">11');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">19 F.3');">3d 83');">37, 83');">39 (1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">10th Cir. 1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1997). In analyzing a motion for summary judgment, a court must view the evidence and all reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the nonmovant. Adler v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">144 F.3');">3d 664');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">144 F.3');">3d 664, 670 (1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">10th Cir. 1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1998) (citing Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 75 U.S. 574');">475 U.S. 574, 587 (1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1986)).
When, as here, “the moving party does not bear the ultimate burden of persuasion at trial, it may satisfy its burden at the summary judgment stage by identifying a lack of evidence for the nonmovant on an essential element of the nonmovant&#3');">39;s claim.” Cassara v. DAC Serv., Inc., 2');">2');">2');">276 F.3');">3d 1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">12');">2');">2');">21');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">10');">2');">2');">2');">276 F.3');">3d 1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">12');">2');">2');">21');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">10, 1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">12');">2');">2');">21');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">12');">2');">2');">2 (1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">10th Cir. 2');">2');">2');">2002');">2');">2');">2). The burden then shifts to the opposing party to come forward with admissible evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact on that element. See Bacchus Indus., Inc. v. Arvin Indus., Inc., 3');">39 F.2');">2');">2');">2d 887');">93');">39 F.2');">2');">2');">2d 887, 891');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1 (1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">10th Cir. 1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1991');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.