290 F.R.D. 671
E.D. Wash.2013Background
- Plaintiffs move for class certification of farm workers employed by NW Management in Alexander I, Alexander II, and Independence orchards (2009–2011).
- Class claims: (a) failure to obtain a farm labor contractor license; (b) failure to provide written disclosures; (c) misrepresentations about compensation; (d) intimidation by a supervisor with a firearm.
- NW Management was undisputedly unlicensed as a farm labor contractor during 2009–2011; Farmland and John Hancock contracted with NW Management during those years.
- Plaintiffs seek statutory damages under the FLCA and AWPA for these violations, and argued Farmland and John Hancock are jointly and severally liable.
- The court grants class certification for the first two claims only (license and disclosures) and denies certification for misrepresentations and intimidation; the court also resolves related Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(3) issues.
- The court notes a related partial summary judgment motion on whether NW Management qualifies as a “farm labor contractor” remains pending.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rule 23(a) prerequisites met? | Plaintiffs contend numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy are satisfied for the two certified claims. | Defendants challenge commonality and typicality for certain claims and argue potential conflicts. | Rule 23(a) prerequisites satisfied for license and disclosures claims; not satisfied for misrepresentation and intimidation claims. |
| Do common questions predominate under Rule 23(b)(3)? | Common issues controlling liability predominate for license and disclosures. | Predominance fails for misrepresentation and intimidation due to individualized facts. | Predominance satisfied for license and disclosures; not satisfied for misrepresentation and intimidation. |
| Is class adjudication superior under Rule 23(b)(3)? | A class is superior because individual claims are small and costly to pursue separately. | Individual pursuits would be inefficient; but questions exist for non-certified claims. | Class treatment superior for the certified claims. |
| Adequacy of representation under Rule 23(a)(4)? | Named representatives and counsel will vigorously prosecute the class claims. | Possible conflicts or lack of claimant sophistication could undermine adequacy. | Named representatives and Columbia Legal Services counsel found adequate; certain declarations struck but adequacy remains. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gen. Tel. Co. v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147 (1982) (rigorous analysis required for class certification)
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011) (overarching commonality and class-wide resolution considerations)
- Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 1998) (common core of salient facts with disparate remedies permissible)
- Amgen Inc. v. Conn. Ret. Plans & Trust Funds, 660 F.3d 1170 (9th Cir. 2011) (commonality requires a common contention capable of class-wide resolution)
- Perez-Farias v. Global Horizons, Inc., 175 Wash.2d 518 (2012) (standing to seek statutory damages under FLCA; injury not required for each class member)
- Mazza v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., 666 F.3d 581 (9th Cir. 2012) (predominance and CJ considerations in class actions)