Abelardo Saucedo v. Farmland Management Services, 796 F.3d 1016

Hancock (insurance companies) owned three apple orchards in Yakima County and leased them to Farmland Management Services under Master Leases; Farmland subleased the orchards to NW Management & Realty Services (NWM).
NWM managed the orchards for a per‑acre fee, made planting/harvest/employment decisions, hired and supervised workers, and submitted annual operating plans and budgets that Farmland and Hancock routinely approved; NWM did not obtain a Washington farm labor contractor license.
722 former NWM employees (Plaintiffs) sued under the federal AWPA and Washington’s Farm Labor Contractor Act (FLCA); only the FLCA class claims proceeded.
The district court held (1) NWM was a “farm labor contractor” under Wash. Rev. Code § 19.30.010(2); (2) Hancock and Farmland were jointly and severally liable under § 19.30.200 for using an unlicensed contractor because they failed to inspect the license or seek confirmation from the Department of Labor & Industries; and (3) awarded statutory damages and attorneys’ fees to Plaintiffs.
On appeal, the Ninth Circuit panel declined to resolve the FLCA statutory interpretation issues and certified two questions to the Washington Supreme Court as necessary to dispose of the appeal; further Ninth Circuit proceedings were stayed pending the state court’s answers.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether FLCA § 19.30.010(2) defines a “farm labor contractor” to include an entity paid a per‑acre fee to manage all aspects of farming on third‑party land (including hiring workers and making planting/harvest decisions)	NWM’s per‑acre management, hiring, supervision, and control of farm operations makes it a farm labor contractor required to be licensed	NWM was an agricultural employer operating its own farming business on the leased orchards, not a farm labor contractor covered by the FLCA	Ninth Circuit did not decide on the merits; it certified the question to the Washington Supreme Court for authoritative interpretation
Whether FLCA § 19.30.200 renders jointly and severally liable any person who uses services of an unlicensed farm labor contractor unless they inspect the contractor’s license or obtain director confirmation—even if they lacked knowledge the contractor was unlicensed	Hancock and Farmland had an affirmative duty to verify licensing by inspection or inquiry and are liable despite lack of actual knowledge	§ 19.30.200 requires knowledge (or at least fault); absent knowledge, Hancock and Farmland cannot be held liable	Ninth Circuit conditioned certification of this question on an affirmative answer to the first issue and certified it to the Washington Supreme Court; the Ninth Circuit did not resolve the question itself

Perez-Farias v. Global Horizons, Inc., 668 F.3d 588 (9th Cir. 2011) (discussing Ninth Circuit procedure and practice for certifying questions to state supreme courts)