Bernardino Francisco and Mauricio Garcia v. Jose Luis Valencia; Noe Duarte Guiterrez; Orion Natural Farms, LLC, a domestic limited liability company; and Kyla Hope Strong

• Court: District Court, D. Oregon
• Decided: January 30, 2026
• Docket: 1:24-cv-00332
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

MEDFORD DIVISION

BERNARDINO FRANCISCO Case No. 1:24-cv-00332-CL and MAURICIO GARCIA ORDER Plaintiffs,

v.

JOSE LUIS VALENCIA; NOE DUARTE GUITERREZ; ORION NATURAL FARMS, LLC, a domestic limited liability company; and KYLA HOPE STRONG,

Defendants. __________________________________

MCSHANE, Judge: Magistrate Judge Mark D. Clarke issued a Findings and Recommendation, ECF No. 65, and the matter is now before this Court on Defendants’ objections, ECF No. 69. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). As Defendants object to Magistrate Judge Clarke’s Findings and Recommendation “in its entirety,” this Court reviews the report de novo. Defs.’ Objs. 1; United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (clarifying that a district judge “must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.”). “In providing for a de novo determination . . . Congress intended to permit whatever reliance a district judge, in the exercise of sound judicial discretion, chose to place on a magistrate’s proposed findings and recommendations.” United States v. Ramos, 65 F.4th 427, 433 (9th Cir. 2023) (citation omitted). This Court finds no errors and concludes the Findings and Recommendation is correct. The Court need not “provide individualized analysis of each objection” because Defendants do not raise new claims in their objections.1 Ramos, 65 F.4th at 434–35. The Court

nonetheless addresses Defendants’ argument that Magistrate Judge Clarke’s recommendation will encourage “the felonious manufacture of marijuana under state and federal laws.” Defs.’ Objs. 27. To find for Defendants on this point risks injurious and unjust outcomes for employees Congress intended to protect by enacting the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). The statute is meant to promote “the health, efficiency, and general well-being of workers . . . .” 29 U.S.C. § 202(a). “Denying FLSA protection to workers in the marijuana industry would consequently encourage employers to engage in illegal markets where they are subject to fewer requirements.” Kenney v. Helix TCS, Inc., 939 F.3d 1106, 1111 (10th Cir. 2019). Magistrate Judge Clarke’s Findings and Recommendation, ECF No. 65, is adopted in

full. Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 38, is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 30th day of January 2025. ____s/Michael J. McShane___________ Michael J. McShane United States District Judge

1 Defendants object to the Findings and Recommendation because it failed to find that Plaintiffs knew their work on the farm was illegal. Defs.’ Objs. 5–6. To the extent that the report omitted that specific finding, it is immaterial. Further, Defendants “object to the . . . inference that Defendants did not address all of Plaintiffs’ claims within their motion for summary judgment.” Id. 6. Magistrate Judge Clarke inferred no such thing; the Findings and Recommendation clarified that the analysis in Plaintiffs’ response brief applies to all Plaintiffs’ claims, not just those arising out of the FLSA. F & R 10. Defendants’ remaining objections are slight reformulations of their arguments raised in the Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 38.