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 GUSTAVO GUSMAN, and ALAN REYES, ) 12 on behalf of themselves and others similarly ) AMENDED ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS situated, ) AND 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 respond to the order or appear at the 25 show cause hearing. (Doc. 71; Doc. 72 at 7.) After the hearing, the magistrate judge certified facts for 26 the Court and issued Findings and Recommendations, recommending R T Farm Labor be held in 27 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. Plaintiff SHALL personally serve a copy of this order upon R T Farm Labor, Inc. and 21 file proof of service with the Court. 22 5. R T Farm Labor, Inc. SHALL pay monetary sanctions of $50 per day, beginning the 23 date after service of this order, for each day the company remains in contempt, payable 24 to the Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California. 25 /// 26

27 1 The magistrate judge ordered Plaintiffs “to personally serve a copy of the[] Certifications of Facts and Findings and Recommendations upon defaulted Defendant R T Farm Labor, Inc. … and to file proof of service 28 with the Court.” (Doc. 72 at 9.) 1 6. R T Farm Labor Inc. may purge the contempt by: 2 a. Responding to the subpoena and 3 b. Paying the monetary sanction ordered. 4 7. Plaintiffs SHALL file a status report every 14 days, informing the Court of whether 5 R T Farm Labor Inc. has complied with the subpoena and whether an extension of the 6 daily fine is necessary. 7 Dated: _ February 3, 2025 ( Li pA LU. wan 10 TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28