Case 1:21-cv-00382-NONE-HBK Document 1 Filed 03/11/21 Page 1 of 25
`
`
`
`KINGSLEY & KINGSLEY, APC
`ERIC B. KINGSLEY, Esq., Cal. Bar No. 185123
`eric@kingsleykingsley.com
`KELSEY M. SZAMET, Esq., Cal. Bar No. 260264
`kelsey@kingsleykingsley.com
`LIANE KATZENSTEIN LY., Esq., Cal. Bar No. 259230
`liane@kingsleykingsley.com
`ARI J. STILLER (SBN 294676)
`ari@kingsleykingsley.com
`16133 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1200
`Encino, CA 91436
`Telephone: (818) 990-8300
`Fax: (818) 990-2903
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class
`[Additional Counsel listed on next page]
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`CASE NO.
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR:
`
`
`RAFAEL MARQUEZ AMARO;
`JAVIER BARRERA, on behalf of
`themselves and others similarly
`situated,
`
`1. Violation of Migrant and Seasonal
`Agricultural Worker Protection Act
`2. Violation of Cal. Lab. Code §§ 510,
`1194, and 1199 for Unpaid Wages
`and Overtime
`3. Failure to Compensate for Rest
`Periods under Cal. Lab. Code §
`226.7
`4. Failure to Reimburse Business
`Expenses for Tools and Equipment
`Under Cal. Lab. Code § 2802
`5. Violation of Lab. Code § 226
`6. Waiting Time Penalties Under Cal.
`Lab. Code § 203
`7. Violation of Cal. Business &
`Professions Code § 17200 et seq.
`8. Penalties Pursuant to Cal. Labor
`Code § 2699, et seq. (“PAGA”)
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`BEE SWEET CITRUS, INC.; and
`DOES 1-10, inclusive
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`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
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00382-NONE-HBK Document 1 Filed 03/11/21 Page 2 of 25
`
`
` MARTINEZ AGUILASOCHO & LYNCH, A Prof. Law Corp.
`MARIO MARTINEZ, Esq. (SBN-200721)
`mmartinez@farmworkerlaw.com
`EDGAR L. AGUILASOCHO, Esq. (SBN-285567)
`eaguilasocho@farmworkerlaw.com
`P.O. Box 1998
`Bakersfield, CA 93303
`Telephone: (661) 859-1174, Fax: (661) 840-6154
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class
`
`
`
`2
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`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
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-00382-NONE-HBK Document 1 Filed 03/11/21 Page 3 of 25
`
`Plaintiffs Rafael Marquez Amaro and Javier Barrera (“Plaintiffs”), on behalf
`of themselves and all others similarly situated, and Plaintiff Marquez on behalf of
`the people of the State of California and as an “aggrieved employee” under the
`California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, (“PAGA”), hereby
`demand a trial by jury and allege on information and belief, except for their own acts
`and knowledge, against Defendants BEE SWEET CITRUS, INC., and DOES 1-10
`(“Defendants”) the following:
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`This is a class action by current and former employees of BEE SWEET
`1.
`CITRUS, INC. for recovery of unpaid wages and penalties, failure to provide paid
`rest breaks, failure to keep accurate records, failure to record and pay for travel and
`post-shift work, failure to reimburse expenses, damages under the Migrant and
`Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act (“AWPA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1801 et seq.
`for the foregoing violations, for injunctive and declaratory relief, and for attorneys’
`fees and costs.
`The relevant liability period is four (4) years prior to the filing of this
`2.
`action to the present (“the relevant period”).
`Defendant BEE SWEET CITRUS, INC. is a produce company within
`3.
`the citrus fruits industry specializing in growing citrus commodities such as lemons,
`grapefruit, and oranges, among other citrus commodities, and providing packing and
`shipping services nationwide.
`The cultivation and harvesting take place on land located primarily in
`4.
`or near Fresno County, Madera County, and Tulare County, California.
`The named Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class members are “seasonal
`5.
`agricultural workers” within the meaning of the AWPA, 29 U.S.C. § 1802(10), who
`have worked in Defendants’ fields for Defendants, either directly or through various
`Farm Labor Contractors.
`
`
`3
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`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
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-00382-NONE-HBK Document 1 Filed 03/11/21 Page 4 of 25
`
`On behalf of themselves and the Proposed Class, Plaintiffs complain
`6.
`that Defendants have required their agricultural workers to perform unpaid and/or
`undercompensated work, in violation of federal and state wage and hour laws.
`Plaintiffs also complain that Defendants have committed other violations of
`applicable law, including failing to pay minimum wages, failing to appropriately
`provide or compensate for mandated rest periods, failing to pay its agricultural
`workers the wages due at the agreed-upon wage rate for work performed and/or fruit
`harvested under the workers’ piece rate, failing to pay workers for post-shift work,
`failing to pay for travel time, and failing to reimburse for tools and equipment.
`
`II.
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`The Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ federal claims pursuant to 28
`5.
`U.S.C. §1331 (federal question) and 29 U.S.C. §1854. The Court has supplemental
`jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1367.
`Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1891(d) because
`6.
`the actions at issue took place in this district.
`
`III.
`INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT
`This case is properly assigned to the Fresno Division of this Court
`7.
`because the actions arose in or near Madera, California and Tulare, California and
`Defendants’ headquarters is located in Fresno, California. (See Local Rule 3-
`120(d).)
`
`
`IV.
`PARTIES
`Plaintiffs Rafael Marquez Amaro and Javier Barrera are residents of
`8.
`Fresno County, California. Plaintiffs are or were seasonal agricultural workers,
`within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. §1802(10), and are or were employed by
`Defendants, within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. §1802(3), to work in Defendants’
`
`4
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`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
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-00382-NONE-HBK Document 1 Filed 03/11/21 Page 5 of 25
`
`agricultural fields, that is, on land owned, leased, managed and/or operated,
`harvested or otherwise made productive by Defendants in or near Fresno, Madera
`and Tulare counties in California at various times during the relevant period.
`Plaintiff Rafael Marquez Amaro (“Plaintiff Marquez”) is, has been, or
`9.
`was a non-exempt agricultural employee of Defendants. At all relevant times herein,
`Plaintiff Rafael Marquez Amaro is, has been or was employed by Defendants as a
`harvest worker in Defendants’ fields in or near Fresno, Tulare, and Madera County,
`California.
`10. Plaintiff Javier Barrera (“Plaintiff Barrera”) is, has been, or was a non-
`exempt agricultural employee of Defendants. At all relevant times herein, Plaintiff
`Javier Barrera is, has been or was employed by Defendants as a harvest worker in
`Defendants’ fields in or near Madera County, California.
`11. Defendant BEE SWEET CITRUS, INC. is a California Corporation
`that maintains its executive office in Fowler, California in Fresno County. The
`corporate address is believed to be 416 E South Ave, Fowler, California, 93625.
`12. Defendants employ harvest workers, such as Plaintiffs, and other
`employees to work in Defendants’ agricultural fields in or near Fresno, Madera and
`Tulare counties in California.
`13. BEE SWEET CITRUS, INC. is an “agricultural association” and an
`“agricultural employer” within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. §1802(1)-(2).
`14. Defendants issue or caused to be issued, or employ Farm Labor
`Contractors that issue, during the relevant period issues, payroll checks or payment
`to Plaintiffs and all other persons similarly situated for agricultural work performed
`for BEE SWEET CITRUS, INC. Defendant BEE SWEET CITRUS, INC. employed
`and/or retained, during the relevant time period, Farm Labor Contractors for
`provision of agricultural labor, including but not limited to Soto Farm Labor
`Contractor, Eduardo Soto FLC, FLC-RB, and A.G.R. Contracting, Inc. Pursuant to
`California Law, including but not limited to California Labor Code section 2810.3,
`
`5
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`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
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-00382-NONE-HBK Document 1 Filed 03/11/21 Page 6 of 25
`
`Defendant BEE SWEET CITRUS, INC. is strictly liable for failure to pay all wages
`due to workers hired by BEE SWEET through Farm Labor Contractors.
`15. Plaintiffs provided notice to BEE SWEET of the violations giving rise
`to liability under section 2810.3 in a letter dated October 29, 2020. A true and correct
`copy of their 2810.3 notice letter is attached hereto as Exhibit “A.” A true and correct
`copy of the return receipts evidencing Bee Sweet’s receipt of this letter is attached
`hereto as Exhibit “B.”
`16. Defendants are, and during the relevant period have been, engaged in
`the business of cultivating, harvesting, packing and shipping citrus commodities as
`described above.
`17. Defendants sell and ship their agricultural produce to various parts of
`California and other states of the United States, and throughout the world.
`18. With respect to the events at issue in this case, Defendants acted as
`agents for each other and as employer of Plaintiffs and all other persons similarly
`situated.
`19. Defendants are jointly liable for the wage violations alleged herein,
`pursuant to California law.
`20. Plaintiffs are ignorant of the true name, capacity, relationship and
`extent of participation in the conduct alleged herein of the Defendants sued as DOES
`1 through 10, but are informed and believed that said Defendants are legally
`responsible for the wrongful conduct alleged herein and therefore sues these
`Defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiffs will amend this complaint to allege
`their true names and capacities when ascertained.
`21. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that each Defendant acted as the
`agent of the other Defendants, and/or carried out a joint scheme, business plan or
`policy, and/or the acts of each Defendant is legally attributable to the other
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`V.
`6
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-00382-NONE-HBK Document 1 Filed 03/11/21 Page 7 of 25
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`22. During the relevant period, Defendants have employed, as that term is
`used in 29 U.S.C. § 1802(3), thousands of seasonal agricultural workers in pre-
`harvest and harvesting operations.
`23. At all relevant times, the Proposed Class members, including Plaintiffs,
`are current and former employees of Defendants, and during the relevant period,
`were non-exempt employees within the meaning of California Labor Code §500, et
`seq. and the rules and regulations of the California Labor Code and the Industrial
`Welfare Commission (“IWC”) California Wage Orders, working in the cultivation
`and harvest of fruit on land owned, leased, managed and/or operated, harvested or
`otherwise made productive by Defendants in or near Fresno, Madera and Tulare
`counties in California.
`24. During the relevant period, Plaintiffs and members of the Proposed
`Class have engaged in agricultural employment, as that term is used in 29 U.S.C. §
`1802(3), on agricultural land owned, leased, managed and/or operated, harvested or
`otherwise made productive by Defendants.
`25. During the relevant period, Plaintiffs and members of the Proposed
`Class have entered into working arrangements with Defendants. These arrangements
`are formed and entered into each season, at least once (in many cases, more than
`once), at or near the time Plaintiffs and members of the Proposed Class are hired by
`Defendants.
`26. Under the working arrangements, which are also oral employment
`contracts, Defendants offer Plaintiffs and members of the Proposed Class jobs in
`Defendants’ agricultural operations, and Plaintiffs and members of the Proposed
`Class accept the job offers.
`27. The contracts described above are and were “working arrangements”
`as that term is used in the AWPA, 29 U.S.C. § 1832(c), and/or agreements.
`28. By words, conduct, practice, agreement, or custom and usage, including
`7
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-00382-NONE-HBK Document 1 Filed 03/11/21 Page 8 of 25
`
`but not limited to posting IWC Wage Order 14 at the place of employment,
`Defendants communicated to Plaintiffs and members of the Proposed Class that
`Defendants would abide by the terms contained therein.
`29. Such posting of IWC Wage Order 14 was and is a “working
`arrangement” as that term is used in the AWPA and/or an agreement.
`30. This working arrangement requires and required Defendants to pay
`Plaintiffs and members of the Proposed Class their agreed-upon wages for all hours
`worked, to pay workers for required rest periods and to abide in all respects by IWC
`Wage Order 14, which formed part of the working arrangement and/or agreement.
`31. Plaintiffs and members of the Proposed Class were not and have not
`been compensated by Defendants for all time worked for Defendants and Plaintiffs
`were not compensated according to law.
`32. By words, conduct, practice, agreement, or custom and usage, it is
`understood by the parties that, consistent with federal and state law, Defendants will
`pay Plaintiffs and members of the Proposed Class for all work performed on the
`basis of an agreed-upon piece rate for certain work (“individual piece rate”).
`Specifically, Plaintiffs and members of the Proposed Class work on piece rate
`picking mandarins, grapefruit, and lemons, among other citrus commodities.
`33. Plaintiffs and the members of the Proposed Class were not properly
`compensated for all hours worked because Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs and
`the Proposed Class for each and every hour worked. Plaintiffs and the Proposed
`Class routinely worked “off the clock” and performed compensable activities before
`and after each working shift for which no pay was provided. Specifically, before the
`start of each shift, Plaintiffs and the members of the Proposed Class moved ladders
`from their trucks, collected the previous workday’s fallen fruit from the ground and,
`at various times, were scheduled to report to work at a specific time and do in fact
`report to work, but frequently are told by Defendants to wait approximately up to
`four (4) hours before they can begin harvesting. In the middle of their shifts,
`
`8
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`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
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-00382-NONE-HBK Document 1 Filed 03/11/21 Page 9 of 25
`
`Defendants required Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class members to travel between
`fields to perform work tasks and were not compensated for this travel time. At the
`end of each working shift, Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class were required to return
`the ladders back to their trucks despite them already being off the clock. As such,
`Defendants failed to record the travel time and waiting time, including work
`performed off-the-clock, and failed to compensate Plaintiff and the Proposed Class
`for all hours worked.
`34. Defendants’ failure to pay all appropriate compensation was knowing
`and willful.
`35. Pursuant to California law, Plaintiffs and members of the Proposed
`Class are entitled to a paid ten (10) minute rest break for every four (4) hours worked
`or major fraction thereof. Plaintiffs and members of the Proposed Class consistently
`and regularly worked shifts exceeding 3½ hours without being provided and/or paid
`for rest periods.
`36. By words, conduct, practice, agreement, or custom and usage, including
`but not limited to the posting of IWC Wage Order 14 at the place of employment,
`Defendants communicated that they would provide to Plaintiffs and members of the
`Proposed Class all necessary tools and equipment. More specifically, IWC Wage
`Order 14 states: “When tools or equipment are required by the employer or are
`necessary to the performance of a job, such tools and equipment shall be provided
`and maintained by the employer . . . .”
`37. During the relevant period, Plaintiffs and members of the Proposed
`Class were required to provide their own tools that are necessary to the performance
`of the work required of them by Defendants. These tools include scissors, blade
`sharpeners, sacks, protective gloves and other items similarly indispensable to
`adequate job performance and fulfillment of the work for which they were/had been
`employed. Plaintiffs and members of the Proposed Class were required to purchase
`these tools necessary for work and Defendants have not reimbursed them for those
`
`9
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`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
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-00382-NONE-HBK Document 1 Filed 03/11/21 Page 10 of 25
`
`expenditures. By failing to provide the tools necessary for adequate performance of
`the job and/or by failing to reimburse non-exempt agricultural employees’ tool
`expenses, Defendants violated IWC Wage Order 14, Section 9, California Labor
`Code § 2802 and 29 U.S.C. § 1832(c), and burdened Plaintiffs and members of the
`Proposed Class with the costs of tools.
`38. As mentioned above, during the relevant period, Defendants required
`Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class to travel between fields to perform work tasks.
`Because Defendants did not provide buses or other transportation to workers so that
`they could travel from field to field in the middle of their shifts, Plaintiffs and the
`Proposed Class used their own vehicles to travel from field to field. Defendants did
`not reimburse Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class for their vehicle use for travel
`between Defendants’ fields during the course of a work shift, in violation of
`California law.
`39. Defendants have failed to issue accurate itemized wage statements that
`comply with Cal. Lab. Code § 226(a)(1)-(9). Defendants’ failure to issue accurate
`wage statements was knowing and intentional as required by Cal. Lab. Code §
`226(e).
`40. During the relevant period, Plaintiffs and members of the Proposed
`Class have quit their employment during or between the various tree fruit seasons,
`or have been laid off or discharged, either permanently or for the duration of the
`season, at the end of or during each season.
`41. Defendants have failed to pay Plaintiffs and members of the Proposed
`Class all wages owed to them at the time they quit or are laid off or discharged.
`42. The alleged conduct constitutes unlawful and unfair business practices
`under Cal. Business and Professions Code §17200, et seq.
`43. During the relevant period, Defendants violated the AWPA by [1]
`violating the “working arrangements” it had with the Proposed Class members per
`29 U.S.C. §1832(c) regarding rest periods, [2] for failing to pay all wages owed as
`
`10
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`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
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-00382-NONE-HBK Document 1 Filed 03/11/21 Page 11 of 25
`
`required by 29 U.S.C. §1832(a), and [3] for failing to accurately record the number
`of hours worked, the total pay period earnings, and the net pay as required by 29
`U.S.C. §1831(c)(1)(C), (D), and (F), and (c)(2).
`44. As a result, Plaintiffs are entitled to damages pursuant to the AWPA’s
`private right of action provision, 29 U.S.C. §1854, for these violations.
`45. For at least one (1) year prior to the date of the letter sent to the Labor
`Workforce Development Agency (“LWDA”) and Defendant giving notice of the
`claims pursuant to PAGA and continuing to the present, Defendant has violated
`several Labor Code provisions, as detailed below, giving rise to a claim pursuant to
`PAGA. Plaintiff Marquez, on behalf of himself and all aggrieved employees
`presently or formerly employed by Defendant during the liability period as defined
`in his PAGA notice letter (see Exhibit “C”), brings this representative action
`pursuant to Labor Code §2699, et seq. seeking penalties for Defendant’s violation
`of Labor Code sections §§ 201, 202, 203, 226(a), 226.7, 510, 512, 1194, 1199, and
`2802.
`
`
`VI.
`CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
`46. Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and all others
`similarly situated as a Class Action pursuant to F.R.C.P. 23(a) and 23(b)(3).
`Plaintiffs seek to represent a Proposed Class defined as follows:
`
`
`All persons who performed labor for BEE SWEET
`CITRUS, INC., in the state of California, and who have
`worked one or more shifts as a harvest worker since four
`(4) years prior to the filing of this action to the present.
`(the “Proposed Class”)
`47. Plaintiffs reserve the right to amend or modify the Class description
`with greater specificity or further division into subclasses or limitation to particular
`issues.
`
`
`
`11
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`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
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-00382-NONE-HBK Document 1 Filed 03/11/21 Page 12 of 25
`
` Numerosity
`48. The potential number of Proposed Class members is so numerous that
`joinder of all members of the Proposed Class is impracticable. While the precise
`number of Proposed Class members is not yet determined, Plaintiffs are informed
`and believe that Defendants, during the relevant period, employed over 500-1,000
`agricultural workers that meet the Class definition.
`49. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants’ employment records would provide
`information as to the number and location of all members of the Proposed Class.
`Joinder of all members of the Proposed Class is not practicable.
` Commonality
`50. There are questions of law and fact common to the Proposed Class that
`predominate over any questions affecting only individual members of the Proposed
`Class. These common questions of law and fact include, without limitation:
`(a) Whether Defendants violated the AWPA, 29 U.S.C. §1801 et seq., by
`failing to pay Members of the Proposed Class all wages due at rates agreed upon
`through contract or working arrangement for all work performed, including hours
`worked, piece rate wages earned, and for rest periods;
`(b) Whether Defendants paid all wages, at rates agreed upon through
`contract or working arrangement, due for all hours worked, including wages for all
`work performed on a piece rate, pursuant to Cal. Lab. Code §§510, 1194 and 1199;
`(c) Whether Defendants failed to record and pay for time spent by
`agricultural employees waiting before harvest work could commence, travel time
`between fields, or after harvest work finished;
`(d) Whether Defendants failed to provide paid rest periods (and/or failed
`to pay rest period penalties) pursuant to IWC Wage Order 14-2001 and Cal. Lab.
`Code §226.7;
`(e) Whether Defendants violated the AWPA, Labor Code §221 and/or
`Labor Code §223 by failing to pay members of the Proposed Class for rest periods
`
`12
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`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
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-00382-NONE-HBK Document 1 Filed 03/11/21 Page 13 of 25
`
`when they worked shifts lasting 3 1/2 hours or longer;
`(f) Whether Defendants owe premium pay to members of the Proposed
`Class under Labor Code §226.7;
`(g) Whether Defendants violated Labor Code Cal. Lab. Cde §2802 by
`failing to reimburse members of the Proposed Class for the costs of their purchases
`of tools that were required and necessary for the adequate performance of assigned
`work or jobs in Defendant’s agricultural operations; and/or whether Defendant’s
`violated 29 U.S.C. §1832(c) by failing to provide tools needed to perform work;
`(h) Whether Defendants violated Cal. Lab. Code §226, IWC Wage Order
`14, and/or 29 U.S.C. § 1831(c) by failing to keep accurate information or failing to
`provide accurate wage statements of all hours worked and wages earned;
`(i) Whether Defendants violated Cal. Lab. Code §§201-203 by failing to
`pay compensation due and owing at the time that any Proposed Class member’s
`employment with Defendants ended, whether at the end of a season or permanently;
`(j) Whether Defendants violated §17200 et seq. of the Business &
`Professions Code by engaging in the acts previously alleged; and
`(k) Whether members of the Proposed Class are entitled to equitable relief
`pursuant to Cal. Business and Professions Code § 17200, et seq.
` Typicality
`51. The claims of the named Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the
`Proposed Class.
`52. Plaintiffs are members of the Proposed Class. Plaintiffs were formerly
`employed by Defendants and were subjected to the same unlawful practices as other
`members of the Proposed Class. Plaintiffs and other members of the Class suffered
`the same injuries and seek the same relief.
` Adequacy of Representation
`53. Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests
`of all Proposed Class members.
`
`
`13
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`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
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-00382-NONE-HBK Document 1 Filed 03/11/21 Page 14 of 25
`
`54. Counsel for Plaintiffs are competent and experienced in litigating large
`employment class actions.
`Predominance and Superiority of Class Action
`
`55. A class action is superior to other available means for the fair and
`efficient adjudication of this controversy. Individual joinder of all Proposed Class
`members is not practicable, and questions of law and fact common to the proposed
`class predominate over any questions affecting only individual members of the
`proposed class.
`56. Class action treatment will allow those similarly situated persons to
`litigate their claims in the manner that is most efficient and economical for the parties
`and the judicial system. Plaintiffs are unaware of any difficulties that are likely to be
`encountered in the management of this action that would preclude its maintenance
`as a class action.
`57. Class action treatment will allow a large number of similarly situated
`agricultural employees to prosecute their common claims in a single forum,
`simultaneously, efficiently, and without the unnecessary duplication of effort and
`expense that numerous individual actions would require. Further, the monetary
`amounts due to many individual class members are likely to be relatively small, and
`the burden and expense of individual litigation would make it difficult or impossible
`for individual members of the Class to seek and obtain relief. A class action will
`serve an important public interest by permitting employees harmed by Defendants’
`unlawful practices to effectively pursue recovery of the sums owed to them.
`VII.
`FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
`Violation of the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act
`(“AWPA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1801-1872
`58. Plaintiffs incorporate each and every allegation set forth in all of the
`foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
`
`14
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`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
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-00382-NONE-HBK Document 1 Filed 03/11/21 Page 15 of 25
`
`59.
`
`
`29 U.S.C. § 1854 provides:
`
`Any person aggrieved by a violation of this chapter or any
`regulation under this chapter by a farm labor contractor,
`agricultural employer, agricultural association, or other
`person may file suit in any district court of the United
`States having jurisdiction of the parties, without respect to
`the amount in controversy and without regard to the
`citizenship of the parties and without regard to exhaustion
`of any alternative administrative remedies provided
`herein.1
`
`
`
`60. The AWPA is applicable to this action. Defendants intentionally
`violated the AWPA by:
`(a)
`failing to pay wages when due to Plaintiffs and Proposed Class
`members, as required by 29 U.S.C. §1832(a);
`(b)
`violating the terms of the working arrangements made with
`Plaintiffs and Proposed Class members in regards to rest periods, in
`violation of 29 U.S.C. §1832(c); and
`(c)
`failing to accurately record the number of hours worked, the total
`pay period earnings, and the net pay as required by 29 U.S.C.
`§1831(c)(1)(C), (D), and (F).
`61. Accordingly, Plaintiffs are entitled to damages pursuant to 29 U.S.C.
`§1854(c)(1)-(2):
`
`
`(1) If the court finds that the respondent has intentionally violated any
`provision of this chapter or any regulation under this chapter, it may
`award damages up to and including an amount equal to the amount of
`actual damages, or statutory damages of up to $500 per Plaintiff per
`violation, or other equitable relief, except that (A) multiple infractions
`of a single provision of this chapter or of regulations under this chapter
`shall constitute only one violation for purposes of determining the
`amount of statutory damages due a Plaintiff; and (B) if such complaint
`
`1 See also 29 U.S.C. § 1871: “This chapter is intended to supplement State law, and compliance
`with this chapter shall not excuse any person from compliance with appropriate State law and
`regulation.”
`
`
`
`15
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`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
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-00382-NONE-HBK Document 1 Filed 03/11/21 Page 16 of 25
`
`is certified as a class action, the court shall award no more than the
`lesser of up to $500 per Plaintiff per violation, or up to $500,000 or
`other equitable relief.
`
`(2) In determining the amount of damages to be awarded under
`paragraph (1), the court is authorized to consider whether an attempt
`was made to resolve the issues in dispute before the resort to litigation.
`VIII.
`SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
`Violation of Wage Order 14-2001 and Cal. Lab. Code §§ 510, 1194, and 1199
`for Unpaid Wages and Overtime
`62. Plaintiffs incorporate each and every allegation set forth in all of the
`foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
`
`63. Wage Order 14-2001 and Cal. Lab. Code §§ 510, 860, 1194, and 1199
`require that an employee be paid all wages owed, including the applicable overtime
`hourly rates, for all hours worked.
`64. Moreover, pursuant to Cal. Lab. Code §§ 510(a), 860, and Wage Order
`14-2001(3)(A)(3) overtime hours must be compensated at: (a) One and one-half
`(1.5) times the employee’s regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of
`certain hours (depending on recent amendments) up to and including 12 hours in any
`workday, and for the first eight (8) hours worked on the seventh (7th) consecutive
`day of work in a workweek; and (b) Double the employee’s regular rate of pay for
`all hours worked in excess of 12 hours in any workday and for all hours worked in
`excess of eight (8) hours on the seventh (7th) consecutive day of work in a
`workweek.
`65. Plaintiffs and the members of the Proposed Class were not properly
`compensated for all hours worked because Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs and
`the Proposed Class for each and every hour worked. Plaintiffs and the Proposed
`Class routinely worked “off the clock” and performed compensable activities before,
`during, and after each working shift for which no pay was provided.
`
`
`16
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`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
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-00382-NONE-HBK Document 1 Filed 03/11/21 Page 17 of 25
`
`66. Specifically, before the start of each shift, Plaintiffs and the members
`of the Proposed Class moved ladders from their trucks, collected the previous
`workday’s fallen fruit from the ground and, at various times, were scheduled to
`report to work at a specific time and do in fact report to work, but frequently are told
`by Defendants to wait approximately up to four (4) hours before they can begin
`harvesting. In the middle of their shifts, Defendants required Plaintiffs and the
`Proposed Class members to travel between fields to perform work tasks and were
`not compensated for this travel time. At the end of each working shift, Plaintiffs and
`th