Gonzalez Mondragon v. R.T. Farm Labor, Inc.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 CLAUDIA GONZALEZ MONDRAGON, Case No. 1:22-cv-01259-JLT-BAM et al., 12 CERTIFICATION OF FACTS AND Plaintiffs, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO 13 HOLD DEFAULTED DEFENDANT R T v. FARM LABOR, INC. IN CONTEMPT 14 R T FARM LABOR, INC., et al., ORDER SETTING SHOW CAUSE HEARING 15 AS TO DEFAULTED DEFENDANT R T Defendants. FARM LABOR, INC.’S NONCOMPLIANCE 17 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ EX PARTE APPLICATION TO APPEAR REMOTELY 19 ORDER CONTINUING MID-DISCOVERY STATUS CONFERENCE 20 (Docs. 63, 70) 21 Order to Show 22 Cause Hearing: October 21, 2024 1:30 PM 23 Courtroom 4 (JLT) Mid-Discovery 24 Status Conference: November 7, 2024 9:00 AM 25 Courtroom 8 (BAM)

26 27 28 1 This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs Claudia Gonzalez Mondragon, Gustavo 2 Gusman, and Alan Reyes’ (“Plaintiffs”) Motion to Compel Compliance with Subpoena. (Doc. 3 63.) Plaintiffs’ motion sought to compel defaulted Defendant R T Farm Labor, Inc. to comply 4 with a February 26, 2024 subpoena to produce documents, information, or objects or to permit 5 inspection of premise. (Id.) The deadline for filing of an opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion has 6 passed. See L.R. 251(e). 7 The Court issued an Order to Show Cause as to Defendant R T Farm Labor, Inc’s 8 noncompliance with the subpoena on July 15, 2024, setting a show cause hearing for August 22, 9 2024. (Doc. 68.) Defendant R T Farm Labor, Inc. did not appear at the show cause hearing and 10 has not otherwise opposed Plaintiffs’ motion or responded to the Court’s July 15, 2024 order. 11 (See Doc. 71.) 12 Having carefully considered the briefing, and for all the reasons detailed below, the Court 13 recommends that the District Court ORDER Defendant R T Farm Labor, Inc. to appear at a hearing to show cause why it should not be held into contempt. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 14 636(e)(6)(B)(iii), the undersigned certifies facts to the district court in support of the finding that 15 further contempt proceedings are warranted. 16 I. BACKGROUND 17 Plaintiffs filed this putative wage and hour class action on October 3, 2022, against 18 Defendants R T Farm Labor, Inc.; Ricardo Trevino Jr.; Ricardo Gomez Trevino; Harold 19 Chuhlantseff; and Does 1-50. (Doc. 1.) On April 17, 2023, upon application of the Plaintiffs, 20 default was entered against Defendants Ricardo Gomez Trevino, R T Farm Labor, Inc., Ricardo 21 Trevino Jr. (Doc. 15.) On September 8, 2023, Plaintiffs filed the operative first amended 22 complaint against Defendants R T Farm Labor, Inc.; T&C Vineyards; Ricardo Trevino Jr.; 23 Ricardo Gomez Trevino; Harold Chuhlantseff; and Does 1-50. (Doc. 23.) On February 6, 2024, 24 upon application by Cross Claimant T&C Vineyards, default was entered against Defendants 25 Harold A Chuhlantseff, Ricardo Gomez Trevino, R T Farm Labor, Inc., Ricardo Trevino Jr. 26 (Doc. 47.) On March 13, 2024, upon application of the Plaintiffs, default was entered against 27 Defendant Harold A Chuhlantseff. (Doc. 50.) 28 1 On May 30, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Compel Compliance with Subpoena. (Doc. 2 63.) The Court issued its Order to Show Cause regarding defaulted Defendant R T Farm Labor, 3 Inc.’s noncompliance with Plaintiffs’ subpoena, construing Plaintiffs’ motion as a request for an 4 order to show cause as to why a contempt citation should not issue. (Doc. 68.) In that order, the 5 Court set a show cause hearing for August 22, 2024, and directed Plaintiffs to serve the order to 6 defaulted Defendant R T Farm Labor, Inc. no later than July 26, 2024. (Id.) Plaintiffs served 7 Defendant R T Farm Labor, Inc. with the order on July 19, 2024. (Doc. 69.) On August 21, 8 2024, Plaintiffs filed an ex parte requesting that their counsel be permitted to appear remotely for 9 the August 22, 2024 show cause hearing. (Doc. 70.) 10 On August 22, 2024, the Court held a show cause hearing. (Doc. 71.) Counsel Gonzalo 11 Quezada appeared in person on behalf of Plaintiffs. The Court waited an additional five minutes 12 to begin the hearing, but representatives or counsel for defaulted Defendant R T Farm Labor, Inc. 13 did not appear. The Court proceeded with the hearing, noting that: defaulted Defendant R T Farms, Inc. had produced three documents that were not fully responsive to Plaintiffs’ subpoenas 14 (Doc. 67-2), the subpoena was properly served (Doc. 67), and Plaintiffs had filed a proof of 15 service of the order to show cause (Doc. 69). The Court therefore found that there was adequate 16 notice to defaulted Defendant R T Farm Labor, Inc. Plaintiffs’ counsel informed the Court that 17 he estimated a class size of 400 and that he had not received any further response from defaulted 18 Defendant R T Farm Labor, Inc. despite sending letters and attempting to call the number he had 19 found for defaulted Defendant R T Farm Labor, Inc. Plaintiffs’ counsel also noted that defaulted 20 Defendant R T Farm Labor, Inc. had not filed a notice of bankruptcy with the California 21 Secretary of State, but defaulted Defendant R T Farm Labor, Inc.’s farm labor license had expired 22 in late 2023 or early 2024. 23 II. LEGAL STANDARD 24 A. Defaulted Defendant as Nonparty for Discovery Requests 25 As a preliminary matter, the Ninth Circuit has held that “a defaulted defendant should be 26 treated as a non-party.” Jules Jordan Video, Inc. v. 144942 Canada Inc., 617 F.3d 1146, 1159 27 (9th Cir. 2010) (noting that defaulted defendant was a nonparty for the purposes of discovery 28 1 requests). District Courts have held that for defaulted defendants and nonparties, the “only 2 sanction available when a nonparty does not obey a subpoena is contempt,” and “a motion to 3 compel would not be the right way to seek relief.” Morales-Garcia v. Higuera Farms, Inc., No. 4 CV185118SVWJPRX, 2020 WL 6260016, at *1 (C.D. Cal. June 4, 2020) (examining a motion to 5 compel discovery on defaulted defendant); see also Echostar Satellite L.L.C. v. Viewtech, Inc., 6 No. 1:09-MC-00052-SMS, 2010 WL 653186, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 22, 2010) (“ultimately, it the 7 recipient fails to comply without adequate excuse, the recipient is in contempt of court, and the 8 proponent must file an application for an order to show cause why a contempt citation should not 9 issue. 10 B. Civil Contempt 11 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(g), a court “may hold in contempt a person 12 who, having been served, fails without adequate excuse to obey the subpoena or an order related 13 to it.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(g). “Adequate excuse” is not a defined standard but is instead factually dependent. HI.Q, Inc. v. ZeetoGroup, LLC, No. MC 22-cv-1440-LL-MDD, 2022 WL 17345784, 14 at *5 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 29, 2022) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 Advisory Committee's Note to 1991 15 Amendment and Sanchez v. Albertson's, LLC, No. 2:19-CV-2017-JAD-DJA, 2022 WL 656369, at 16 *8 (D. Nev. Mar. 3, 2022)). “Proper subpoenas issued by attorneys on behalf of the court are 17 treated as orders of the Court. Morgutia-Johnson v. City of Fresno, No. 1:14-CV-00127-LJO- 18 SKO, 2015 WL 1021123, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 9, 2015) (citing United States Sec. & Exh. 19 Comm’n v. Hyatt, 621 F.3d 687, 693 (7th Cir.2010)). Where a party seeks a contempt sanction 20 against a nonparty, that nonparty has the right to be heard in a meaningful fashion. Id. at *2 21 (citing Hyatt, 621 F.3d at 696-97). 22 A contempt charge against a nonparty may be either of a criminal or a civil nature. See 23 Falstaff Brewing Corp. v. Miller Brewing Co., 702 F.2d 770, 778 (9th Cir.1983). “[A] court may 24 impose civil contempt sanctions to (1) compel or coerce obedience to a court order, and/or (2) 25 compensate the contemnor's adversary for injuries resulting from the contemnor's 26 noncompliance.” Ahearn ex rel. N.L.R.B. v. Int'l Longshore & Warehouse Union, Locals 21 & 4, 27 721 F.3d 1122, 1131 (9th Cir. 2013). “The district court has ‘wide latitude in determining 28 1 whether there has been a contemptuous defense of its order.’” Stone v. City & Cnty. of San 2 Francisco, 968 F.2d 850, 856 (9th Cir. 1992), as amended on denial of reh’g (Aug. 25, 1992) 3 (citing Gifford v. Heckler, 741 F.2d 263, 266 (9th Cir.1984)). However, generally “the minimum 4 sanction necessary to obtain compliance is to be imposed.” Whittaker Corp. v. Execuair Corp., 5 953 F.2d 510, 517 (9th Cir. 1992). Moreover, “[a] civil contempt order must be accompanied by 6 a ‘purge’ condition, meaning, it must give the contemnor an opportunity to comply with the order 7 before the payment of the fine or other sanction becomes due.” Martinez v. City of Pittsburg, No. 8 C 11-01017 SBA LB, 2012 WL 699462, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 1, 2012). 9 “The standard for finding a party in civil contempt is well settled: The moving party has 10 the burden of showing by clear and convincing evidence that the contemnors violated a specific 11 and definite order of the court.” F.T.C. v. Affordable Media, 179 F.3d 1228, 1239 (9th Cir. 1999). 12 “The burden then shifts to the contemnors to demonstrate why they were unable to comply.” Id. 13 C. Magistrate Judge Authority Absent consent by the parties, magistrate judges lack authority over civil contempt 14 proceedings except in limited circumstances, none of which are applicable here. See 28 U.S.C. § 15 636(e); Bingman v. Ward, 100 F.3d 653, 656-57 (9th Cir. 1996) (“when we upheld the power of a 16 magistrate judge to impose discovery sanctions, we also opined that § 636(e), ‘which governs the 17 jurisdiction and powers of magistrates, requires a magistrate to refer contempt charges to a district 18 court judge.’”). A magistrate judge may only investigate whether further contempt proceedings 19 are warranted and, if the magistrate judge so finds, certify such facts to a district judge. 28 U.S.C. 20 § 636(e)(6); see also Alcalde v. NAC Real Estate Invs. & Assignments, Inc., 580 F. Supp. 2d 969, 21 971 (C.D. Cal. 2008). Specifically, upon finding an act constituting a civil contempt: 22 the magistrate judge shall forthwith certify the facts to a district 23 judge and may serve or cause to be served, upon any person whose behavior is brought into question under this paragraph, an order 24 requiring such person to appear before a district judge upon a day 25 certain to show cause why that person should not be adjudged in contempt by reason of the facts so certified. The district judge shall 26 thereupon hear the evidence as to the act or conduct complained of and, if it is such as to warrant punishment, punish such person in 27 the same manner and to the same extent as for a contempt committed before a district judge. 28 1 2 28 U.S.C. § 636(e)(6)(B)(iii); see also Grimes v. City & Cnty. Of San Francisco, 951 F.2d 236, 3 240 (9th Cir. 1991) (noting that § 636 “requires a magistrate judge to refer contempt charges to a 4 district court judge.”). “Essentially, the magistrate judge's role is to determine whether the 5 movant has established a prima facie case of contempt – i.e., whether the movant has shown by clear and convincing evidence that the party or nonparty has violated a court order.” Delorme v. 6 Big Think Capital, Inc., No. 2:23-mc-00037-FLA-MAR, 2023 WL 8125766, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 7 18, 2023). 8 III. CERTIFICATION OF FACTS 9 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(e)(6)(B)(iii), the undersigned certifies the following facts to 10 the district judge assigned to this matter: 11 (1) The February 26, 2024 subpoena (Doc. 67-1) complied with the applicable procedural 12 requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45; 13 (2) Plaintiffs’ subpoenas were properly served on defaulted Defendant R T Farm Labor, 14 Inc. through personal service on agent Ricardo Trevino Jr. on February 29, 2024 (See 15 Doc. 14-1 at 2; Doc. 63-2 at 4; Doc. 63-5 at 2; Doc. 67-3 ¶ 2, Doc. 68 at 4-5); 16 (3) On March 18, 2024, defaulted Defendant R T Farm Labor, Inc. replied to Plaintiffs’ 17 subpoena with only three pages of records related to the named Plaintiffs but did not 18 provide documents related to R T Farm Labor, Inc.’s non-exempt employees during 19 the relevant period as requested (Doc. 63-1 ¶ 6, Doc. 67 ¶ 4, Doc. 67-2); 20 (4) On May 17, 2024, Plaintiffs sent a meet and confer letter to defaulted Defendant R T 21 Farm Labor, Inc. stating that the response was deficient, as it only produced three 22 documents related to named Plaintiffs (Doc. 63-3); 23 (5) Defaulted Defendant R T Farm Labor, Inc. did not provide further documents 24 responsive to Plaintiffs’ subpoena, move to quash the subpoena, or otherwise offer any 25 excuse for failing to comply with the subpoena (Doc. 63-1 ¶¶ 6-7; Doc. 67 ¶ 4, Doc 26 70-1 ¶ 2); 27 (6) On May 30, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Compel Compliance regarding 28 1 defaulted Defendant R T Farm Labor, Inc.’s contempt of Plaintiffs’ subpoenas (Docs. 2 63, 67); 3 (7) On July 12, 2024, the undersigned issued an order to show cause directing defaulted 4 Defendant R T Farm Labor, Inc. to appear at an August 22, 2024 hearing to show 5 cause why contempt sanctions should not issue, and noting that defaulted Defendant R 6 T Farm Labor, Inc. could file a written response explaining why it should not be held 7 in contempt for failure to comply with Plaintiffs’ subpoena and that Plaintiffs or 8 defaulted Defendant R T Farm Labor, Inc. could file a notice if defaulted Defendant R 9 T Farm Labor, Inc. complied with Plaintiffs’ subpoena (Doc. 68); 10 (8) On July 19, 2024, Plaintiffs served a copy of the July 12, 2024 order on defaulted 11 Defendant R T Farm Labor, Inc. (Doc. 69-2); 12 (9) Defaulted Defendant R T Farm Labor, Inc. did not respond in writing to the July 12, 13 2024 order to show cause; (10) No notice was filed that defaulted Defendant R T Farm Labor, Inc. had complied 14 with Plaintiffs’ subpoena and Plaintiffs’ counsel noted in an August 21, 2024 ex parte 15 application that he had not been contacted by defaulted Defendant R T Farm Labor, 16 Inc. or its counsel (Doc 70-1 ¶ 2); 17 (11) Defaulted Defendant R T Farm Labor, Inc. or its representative did not appear at the 18 August 22, 2024 show cause hearing (Doc. 71); 19 (12) Defaulted Defendant R T Farm Labor, Inc. did not otherwise respond to Plaintiffs’ 20 subpoena, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel or the undersigned’s Order to Show Cause 21 why contempt sanctions should not issue (See Doc. 63-1 ¶¶ 6-7; Doc. 67 ¶ 4, Doc 70-1 22 ¶ 2); and 23 (13) Defaulted Defendant R T Farm Labor, Inc. has made no attempt to explain its 24 nonappearances and noncompliance with court orders. 25 Based on these facts, the undersigned recommends that defaulted Defendant R T Farm 26 Labor, Inc. be held in civil contempt. Defaulted Defendant R T Farm Labor, Inc. has failed to 27 comply with clear and definite court orders—both the February 26, 2024 subpoena and the 28 1 Court's July 12, 2024 Show Cause Order. Morgutia-Johnson, 2015 WL 1021123, at *2. 2 Defaulted Defendant R T Farm Labor, Inc. also did not appear at the August 22, 2024 show cause 3 hearing as ordered by the undersigned. (Docs. 68, 71.) Defaulted Defendant R T Farm Labor, 4 Inc. did not object to the subpoena or otherwise seek relief from compliance with the Court’s 5 orders. Nor did defaulted Defendant R T Farm Labor, Inc. file an opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion 6 to Compel. Plaintiffs have therefore shown by clear and convincing evidence that defaulted 7 Defendant R T Farm Labor, Inc. violated specific orders of the Court. Accordingly, the 8 undersigned recommends that the District Court order defaulted Defendant R T Farm Labor, Inc. 9 to appear before it to show cause why it should not be adjudged in contempt. Delorme, 2023 WL 10 8125766, at *3. 11 IV. SANCTIONS TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE AND OPPORTUNITY TO PURGE 12 The Court must consider the appropriate sanction to compel defaulted Defendant R T 13 Farm Labor, Inc. to comply with the February 26, 2024 subpoena if it continues its noncompliance. The undersigned recommends defaulted Defendant R T Farm Labor, Inc. be 14 given twenty-one (21) days from the date of service of these Certification of Facts and Findings 15 of Recommendation to fully comply with the February 26, 2024 subpoena and the Court’s July 16 12, 2024 Order to Show Cause, or to show why compliance is impossible. See United States v. 17 Rylander, 460 U.S. 752, 757 (1983) (“In a civil contempt proceeding such as this, of course, a 18 [contemnor] may assert a present inability to comply with the order in question… While the court 19 is bound by the enforcement order, it will not be blind to evidence that compliance is now 20 factually impossible. Where compliance is impossible, neither the moving party nor the court has 21 any reason to proceed with the civil contempt action. It is settled, however, that in raising this 22 defense, the [contemnor] has a burden of production.”). 23 Should defaulted Defendant R T Farm Labor, Inc. fail to purge itself of contempt prior to 24 the expiration of this twenty-one (21) day period, the undersigned recommends the District Court 25 impose a $50 a day fine on defaulted Defendant R T Farm Labor, Inc., payable to the Clerk of 26 Court for the Eastern District of California until it complies with the subpoena. See Garcia on 27 behalf of California v. M.G. Luna, Inc., No. 1:20-cv-00190-KES-HBK, 2024 WL 3637483, at *2 28 1 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 2, 2024) (imposing $200 per day fine on defaulted defendants until they fully 2 complied with subpoenas); Whittaker, 953 F.2d at 517 (“the minimum sanction necessary to 3 obtain compliance is to be imposed”). The undersigned further recommends that Plaintiffs be 4 directed to file a status report every fourteen (14) days after the fine is imposed informing the 5 Court of whether defaulted Defendant R T Farm Labor, Inc. has complied with Plaintiffs’ 6 subpoena and whether an extension of the daily fine is necessary. 8 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT: 9 1. Defaulted Defendant R T Farm Labor, Inc. SHALL appear in-person before District 10 Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on October 21, 2024 at 1:30 PM in Courtroom 4 (JLT), 11 United States District Court, 2500 Tulare Street, Fresno, CA to SHOW CAUSE 12 why it should not be held in contempt for failure to comply with Plaintiffs’ subpoena; 13 2. Counsel for Plaintiffs are DIRECTED to appear in-person for the October 21, 2024 Show Cause Hearing unless otherwise excused; 14 3. Plaintiffs are DIRECTED to personally serve a copy of these Certifications of Facts 15 and Findings and Recommendations upon defaulted Defendant R T Farm Labor, Inc. 16 no later than September 6, 2024, and to file proof of service with the Court; 17 4. Pursuant to the “purge” condition outlined above in Section IV, defaulted Defendant R 18 T Farm Labor, Inc. SHALL HAVE twenty-one (21) days from the date of service of 19 these Certifications of Facts and Findings and Recommendations upon defaulted 20 Defendant R T Farm Labor, Inc. to fully comply with Plaintiffs’ February 26, 2024 21 subpoena or show by clear and convincing evidence why compliance is impossible; 22 5. Plaintiffs are DIRECTED to immediately file a notice with the Court if defaulted 23 Defendant R T Farm Labor, Inc. complies with Plaintiffs’ February 26, 2024 24 subpoena; 25 6. Plaintiffs’ ex parte application to appear remotely at the August 22, 2024 (Doc. 70) is 26 DENIED as moot; and 27 7. The Mid-Discovery Status Conference set for September 3, 2024, is CONTINUED 28 1 to November 7, 2024, at 9:00 AM in Courtroom 8 (BAM) before Magistrate 2 Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe. The parties shall file a status report one week prior to 3 the conference. The parties shall appear at the conference remotely either via Zoom 4 video conference or Zoom telephone number. The parties will be provided with the 5 Zoom ID and password by the Courtroom Deputy prior to the conference. The Zoom 6 ID number and password are confidential and are not to be shared. Appropriate court 7 attire required. 8 It is further RECOMMENDED THAT: 9 1. The District Court grant Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel (Doc. 63) as construed as a 10 request for an order to show cause as to why a contempt citation should not issue (See 11 Doc. 68); 12 2. If defaulted Defendant R T Farm Labor, Inc. fails to avail itself of the “purge” 13 condition prior to the expiration of the twenty-one (21) day period, the District Court impose a fine on defaulted Defendant R T Farm Labor, Inc. of $50 per day payable to 14 the Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California until defaulted Defendant R T 15 Farm Labor, Inc. complies with Plaintiffs’ February 26, 2024 subpoena; and 16 3. Plaintiffs be directed to file a status report every fourteen (14) days after the fine is 17 imposed informing the Court of whether defaulted Defendant R T Farm Labor, Inc. 18 has complied with Plaintiffs’ subpoena and whether an extension of the daily fine is 19 necessary. 20 /// 21 /// 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 //// 28 1 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 2 Judge assigned to the case, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen (14) days after 3 being served with these findings and recommendations, the parties may file written objections 4 with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings 5 and Recommendations.” The parties are advised that the failure to file objections within the 6 specified time may result in the waiver of the “right to challenge the magistrate’s factual 7 findings” on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. 8 Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 9

11 Dated: August 27, 2024 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ 12 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28