Lorenzo-Zamorano v. Overlook Harvesting Company, LLC
2:10-cv-00657
M.D. Fla.Aug 9, 2011Background
- Migrant farmworkers sued Overlook Harvesting and Bentley Brothers for FLSA, employment contract, and Florida minimum wage claims.
- Plaintiffs seek class certification limited to breach of contract and Florida minimum wage claims, covering 2007-2008 and 2008-2009 harvests.
- Defendants employed H-2A workers under temporary labor certifications; workers were Mexico nationals admitted on H-2A visas.
- Plaintiffs allege underpayment, failure to reimburse pre-employment expenses, failure to pay for watching training videos, and improper recordkeeping.
- Court addresses prior Rivera-Gonzalez case and whether this action may be certifiable as a class, distinct from that proceeding.
- Ruling: Court recommends granting class certification for Counts II and III, defining the class as all H-2A workers employed under Overlook’s certifications during the two harvest seasons.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether named plaintiffs have standing to pursue class claims. | Plaintiffs have standing to pursue breach and minimum wage claims. | Not explicitly challenging standing; focus on class certification. | Named plaintiffs have standing to pursue breach and minimum wage claims. |
| Rule 23(a) requirements (numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy) met. | Common policy and same conduct affecting all class members. | Crews, locations, and records vary; claims may be individualized. | Yes; Rule 23(a) elements satisfied. |
| Whether Rule 23(b)(3) predominance and superiority support class certification. | Common questions predominate; class action superior for small, dispersed claims. | Individualized wage determinations would overwhelm; not suitable for class. | Predominance and superiority satisfied; class action appropriate. |
| Whether procedural arguments (Rivera-Gonzalez, venue notices) justify denial of class certification. | No procedural bar to maintaining class action in Fort Myers. | Arguments about prior Tampa case and excusable neglect; procedural grounds exist. | Procedural grounds not persuasive to deny certification. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sacred Heart Health Systems, Inc. v. Humana Military Healthcare, 601 F.3d 1159 (11th Cir. 2010) (recognizes standards for class certification analysis)
- Busby v. JRHBW Realty, Inc., 513 F.3d 1314 (11th Cir. 2008) (articulates Rule 23(a) requirements and adequacy concepts)
- Valley Drug Co. v. Geneva Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 350 F.3d 1181 (11th Cir. 2003) (guides predominance and class certification considerations)
- Luna v. Del Monte Fresh Produce (Southeast), Inc., 354 F. App’x 422 (11th Cir. 2009) (discusses predominance and individualized proof issues)
- Cooper v. Southern Co., 390 F.3d 695 (11th Cir. 2004) (illustrates commonality vs. individual questions)
- Babineau v. Federal Express Corp., 576 F.3d 1183 (11th Cir. 2009) (upholds denial of class certification where predominance lacking)