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

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: January 7, 2025
• Docket: 1:22-cv-01259
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 CLAUDIA GONZALEZ MONDRAGON, ) Case No.: 1:22-cv-01259 JLT BAM GUSTAVO GUSMAN, and ALAN REYES, ) 12 on behalf of themselves and others similarly ) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND situated, ) RECOMMENDATIONS, FINDING 13 ) DEFENDANT R T LABOR, INC. IN CONTEMPT Plaintiffs, ) 14 ) (Docs. 63, 72) v. ) 15 ) R T FARM LABOR INC., et al., ) 16 ) Defendants. ) 17 )

18 Plaintiffs seek to hold the defendants, including defaulted defendant R T Farm Labor, Inc., 19 liable for violations of California wage and hour laws and the federal Migrant and Seasonal 20 Agricultural Worker Protection Act. (See Doc. 23.) After R T Farm Labor failed to respond to the 21 amended complaint, the Clerk entered default. (Doc. 47.) Plaintiff then served a subpoena upon R T 22 Farm Labor pursuant to Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and moved to compel 23 compliance. (Doc. 63 at 2.) The magistrate judge ordered R T Farm Labor to show cause why 24 contempt sanctions should not issue, and R T Farm Labor failed to either respond to the order or appear 25 at the show cause hearing. (Doc. 71; Doc. 72 at 7.) After the hearing, the magistrate judge certified 26 facts for the Court and issued Findings and Recommendations, recommending R T Farm Labor be held 27 in contempt. (Doc. 72.) 28 The Court held a contempt hearing on January 6, 2025. (Doc. 77.) Plaintiffs filed proof of 1 service, indicating Plaintiff served R T Farm Labor’s agent for service with the Certification of Facts 2 and Findings and Recommendations on October 23, 20241 (Doc. 81), and the Notice of Order to Show 3 Cause Hearing on November 1, 2024 (Doc 82). Although served with the Findings and 4 Recommendations and informed any objections must be filed in writing within 14 days (see Doc. 72 at 5 11), R T Farm Labor did not file any objections. Similarly, R T Farm Labor did not avail itself of the 6 purge conditions identified by the magistrate judge. (See id. at 9-10.) The Court held the contempt 7 hearing as scheduled on January 6, 2025, and R T Farm Labor again failed to appear. 8 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case. 9 Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Certification of Facts Supporting 10 Contempt Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. A person 11 who has been served but fails to comply with a Rule 45 subpoena or an order related to the subpoena 12 “without adequate excuse” may be held in contempt. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(g); see also Chicago Truck 13 Drivers v. Bhd. Lab. Leasing, 207 F.3d 500, 507 (8th Cir. 2000). Because R T Farm Labor fails to 14 offer any excuse for the failure to comply, it is clearly in contempt. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 15 1. The Certification of Facts and Findings and Recommendations to Hold Defaulted 16 Defendant R T Farm Labor, Inc. in Contempt (Doc. 72) are ADOPTED in full. 17 2. Plaintiff’s motion to compel, construed as request for order to show cause why a 18 contempt citation should not issue is (Doc. 63) GRANTED. 19 3. R T Farm Labor, Inc. is HELD in contempt of the Court. 20 4. R T Farm Labor, Inc. SHALL pay monetary sanctions of $50 per day beginning 21 January 7, 2025, for each day the company remains in contempt, payable to the Clerk 22 of Court for the Eastern District of California. 23 5. R T Farm Labor Inc. may purge the contempt by: 24 a. Responding to the subpoena and 25 b. Paying the monetary sanction ordered. 26 27 1 The magistrate judge ordered Plaintiffs “to personally serve a copy of the[] Certifications of Facts and 28 Findings and Recommendations upon defaulted Defendant R T Farm Labor, Inc. … and to file proof of service with the Court.” (Doc. 72 at 9.) 1 6. Plaintiffs SHALL file a status report every 14 days, informing the Court of whether 2 R T Farm Labor Inc. has complied with the subpoena and whether an extension of the 3 daily fine is necessary. 4 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ January 7, 2025 Charis [Tourn 7 TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28