777 Fed.Appx. 866 (9th Cir. 2019), 18-15398, Castillo v. Western Range Association
|Citation:||777 Fed.Appx. 866|
|Party Name:||Abel CANTARO CASTILLO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WESTERN RANGE ASSOCIATION, Defendant-Appellee.|
|Attorney:||Joshua D. Buck, Leah Lin Jones, Mark Russell Thierman, Attorney, Thierman Buck, LLP, Reno, NV, Brian C. Corman, Attorney, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Washington, DC, Alexander Hood, Attorney, Towards Justice, Denver, CO, Christine E. Webber, Partner, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Wa...|
|Judge Panel:||Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, IKUTA, Circuit Judge, and MOLLOY, District Judge. IKUTA, Circuit Judge, dissenting|
|Case Date:||June 19, 2019|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit|
Argued and Submitted May 13, 2019 San Francisco, California.
Governing the citation to unpublished opinions please refer to federal rules of appellate procedure rule 32.1. See also U.S.Ct. of App. 9th Cir. Rule 36-3.
Joshua D. Buck, Leah Lin Jones, Mark Russell Thierman, Attorney, Thierman Buck, LLP, Reno, NV, Brian C. Corman, Attorney, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Washington, DC, Alexander Hood, Attorney, Towards Justice, Denver, CO, Christine E. Webber, Partner, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff-Appellant
Colton T. Loretz, Esquire, Attorney, Ellen Jean Winograd, Esquire, Woodburn and Wedge, Reno, NV, for Defendant-Appellee
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada, Robert Clive Jones, District Judge, Presiding, D.C. No. 3:16-cv-00237-RCJ-VPC
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, IKUTA, Circuit Judge, and MOLLOY,[*] District Judge.
Appellant Abel Cantáro Castillo, a nonimmigrant guestworker shepherd employed by Appellee Western Range Association (WRA) through the H-2A visa program, appeals the dismissal of his claims for lack of federal question jurisdiction, and for failure to satisfy the jurisdictional requirements of the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). Because the parties are familiar with the facts and the procedural history, we need not recount those here. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we reverse.1
"[W]e review de novo the district courts ultimate legal conclusion that the underlying factual allegations are insufficient to establish CAFA jurisdiction[.]" Watkins v. Vital Pharms., Inc., 720 F.3d 1179, 1181 (9th Cir. 2013). "[W]e review for clear error any factual determinations necessary to establish jurisdiction." Id. The district courts application of state law, here application of the appropriate statute of limitations, is reviewed de novo. In re Hawaii Fed. Asbestos Cases, 871 F.2d 891, 893 (9th Cir. 1989).
The district court erred in applying a two-year statute of limitations to Cantáros breach of contract claims. Nevada law provides that the applicable statute of limitations is six years on breach of contract actions "founded upon an instrument in writing." Nev. Rev. Stat. § 11.190(1)(b). We have previously noted the applicability of Nevadas six-year statute of limitations to H-2A farmworkers claims for failure to pay wages owed under employment contracts. Rivera v. Peri & Sons Farms, Inc., 735 F.3d 892, 901 n.6 (9th Cir. 2013). The district court erred by instead applying the "gravamen of the action" test to determine that the two-year minimum wage claim statute of...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP