Diaz v. Kay-Dix Ranch, KAY-DIX

• Court: California Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: FRIEDMAN; PIERCE, P.J., and REGAN
• Citation: 88 Cal.Rptr. 443,9 Cal.App.3d 588
• Parties: Alberto DIAZ and Epitacio Rios, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v.RANCH et al., Defendants and Respondents. Civ. 12547.
• Decision Date: 14 July 1970
• Docket Number: KAY-DIX

Page 443

88 Cal.Rptr. 443 9 Cal.App.3d 588 Alberto DIAZ and Epitacio Rios, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs and Appellants,
v.
KAY-DIX RANCH et al., Defendants and Respondents. Civ. 12547. Court of Appeal, Third District, California. July 14, 1970.
Hearing denied Sept. 10, 1970.

Page 444

[9 Cal.App.3d 590] Abascal, Kerry & Haberfeld, by Sheldon L. Green, Marysville, David M. Blicker, Sacramento, for plaintiffs-appellants.

Joe C. Ortega, Los Angeles, and Marion G. Obledo, San Antonio, Tex., Mexican-American Legal Defense & Education Fund, amicus curiae.

Rodegerdts, Means & Northup, Woodland, Downey, Brand, Seymour & Roher, by Jack Downey, Sacramento, for Heidrick Farms, Inc.

McDaniel & McDaniel, by Leon Gordon, Los Angeles, for James Mills Orchards Co.

Glade & Seaman, by J. Richard Glade, Sacramento, for Kay-Dix Ranch.

FRIEDMAN, Associate Justice.

Plaintiffs bring this class action on behalf of themselves and other migratory workers customarily employed on farms and ranches in the Sacramento valley. They sue the owner-operators of three separate ranches. In essence the amended complaint alleges that defendants, as a common practice, knowingly employ Mexican nationals who have entered the United States in violation of the federal immigration laws; that these illegal entrants ¹ accept work under inferior conditions and unlawfully compete with domestic farmworkers for the available supply of agricultural employment; that plaintiffs and their class are largely dependent upon seasonal earnings; that defendants' unlawful practice of hiring illegal entrants denies plaintiffs and their class work opportunities which would otherwise be available, increases the rate of unemployment and depresses the earnings of Northern California farmworkers; that the hiring of illegal entrants cost Northern California farmworkers approximately $2,700,000 in lost wages in 1969 and costs the public increased annual welfare expenditures of not less than $1,400,000 for the support of domestic farmworkers and their families. Plaintiffs seek an injunction prohibiting defendants from knowingly employing illegal entrants.

The trial court sustained defendants' demurrer without leave to amend, concluding that the complaint failed to state a claim for relief and that the court lacked jurisdiction of the subject matter. Plaintiffs appeal from the judgment of dismissal.

Defendants' demurrers admitted the truth of the complaint's material[9 Cal.App.3d 591] allegations of fact; plaintiffs' ability to prove these allegations is of no concern to the reviewing court; plaintiffs need only plead facts showing entitlement to some relief. (Alcorn v. Anbro Engineering, Inc. (1970) 2 Cal.3d 493, 496, 86 Cal.Rptr. 83, 468 P.2d 216.) Thus, the allegation that defendants knowingly hire illegal Mexican entrants is admitted for the purpose of this appeal. At oral argument plaintiffs conceded that a prohibitory injunction, restraining agricultural employers from knowingly hiring illegal entrants, would have little, if any, practical value; that, if the judgment is reversed, plaintiffs would seek an injunction with at least minimal mandatory features, requiring defendants to make some reasonable inquiry into the citizenship or immigration status of employment applicants as a preliminary to hiring.

Plaintiffs justify their claim to equitable relief on the theory that defendants' actions constitute a species of unlawful or unfair business practice within the unfair competition provisions of section 3369 of the California Civil Code. ² An alternate

Page 445

rationale stems from the doctrine that the right to pursue a lawful occupation is protected in some degree against arbitrary action by private persons or organizations, including labor unions and employers. (James v. Marinship Corp. (1944) 25 Cal.2d 721, 731--734, 155 P.2d 329; Bautista v. Jones (1944) 25 Cal.2d 746, 749, 155 P.2d 343.) The extent of protection is described in Willis v. Santa Ana Community Hosp. Assn. (1962) 58 Cal.2d 806, 810, 26 Cal.Rptr. 640, 642, 376 P.2d 568, 570: 'There is an established principle at common law that an action will lie where the right to pursue a lawful business, calling, trade, or occupation is intentionally interfered with either by unlawful means or by means otherwise lawful when there is a lack of sufficient justification. (Citations.) Whether there is justification is determined not by applying precise standards but by balancing, in the light of all the circumstances, the respective importance to society and the parties of protecting the activities [9 Cal.App.3d 592] interfered with on the one hand and permitting the interference on the other. (Citations.)' ³

The claim of wrongful interference with livelihood would proceed upon the hypothesis that defendants' deliberate activities--conceded for the purpose of this appeal--are tortious, because they violate the policy of the federal Immigration and Nationality Act, depriving plaintiffs and other farmworkers of the act's intended shield against job competition by alien workers; hence,

Page 446

that plaintiffs have redress through a civil remedy. ⁴

In determining the availability of injunctive relief, the court must consider the interests of third persons and of the general public. (Loma Portal Civic Club v. American Airlines, Inc. (1964) 61 Cal.2d 582, 588, 39 Cal.Rptr. 708, 394 P.2d 548.) Consideration of redress against a tortious[9 Cal.App.3d 593] interference with livelihood requires a similar balancing of competing social and individual interests. (Willis v. Santa Ana Community Hosp. Assn., supra.) Thus, whatever the legal theory underlying the injunction, the court must compare the effects of granting and withholding it and, in that connection, consider the comparative availability and advisability of other forms of amelioration.

Circumstances within the ambit of judicial notice provide a background for equity's evaluation of plaintiffs' suit for equitable relief. Congress possesses the exclusive power to regulate immigration. The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 as amended (8 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq.) establishes comprehensive controls over the admission of foreign workers as immigrants. As pointed out in Purdy & Fitzpatrick v. State of California (1969) 71 A.C. 587, 596, 79 Cal.Rptr. 77, 456 P.2d 645, these controls reflect a congressional intent to protect the American labor market from an influx of foreign labor. (See also Karnuth v. United States (1929) 279 U.S. 231, 243--244, 49 S.Ct. 274, 73 L.Ed. 677.) Plaintiffs and the class on whose behalf they sue--the citizens and lawfully admitted aliens who constitute the California supply of farm labor--are at least the theoretical beneficiaries of this congressional policy.

Since World War II many thousands of Mexican nationals have been drawn to the farm labor markets of the southwestern United States. Some have been lawful participants, others, present in violation of the immigration law, illegal participants. Until 1964 the Braceros represented one kind of lawful participant. Public Law 78, enacted by Congress in 1951 (65 Stat. 119 (7 U.S.C. § 1461 et seq.)) permitted the importation of these contract farm laborers whenever the Secretary of Labor determined that sufficient domestic workers were not available. Dissatisfaction with the Bracero program led Congress to permit its expiration in 1964. (Public Law 88--203 (77 Stat. 363); see 14 Stan.L.Rev. 120 (1961).)

The 'green card commuters' represent another group with a measure of legal sanction. These are Mexican nationals admitted to the United States under immigration visas. Theoretically they are 'domiciled' in the United States. Since resident aliens may lawfully leave the United States for temporary visits, the commuters actually live on the Mexican side of the border and cross into the United States daily or seasonally for work. At the time of his original entry the commuter, like other immigrants, receives an alien registration receipt card or 'green card.' The commuters' legal status and their impact on domestic farm labor forces are discussed in some detail in 21 Stan.L.Rev. 1750 (1969). ⁵

[9 Cal.App.3d 594] The illegal entrant or wetback represents a considerable force in the farm labor market. These job seekers cross the border illegally or, having been admitted as temporary visitors, overstay their admission.

Page 447

Because a large number of domestic farm laborers are of Mexican ancestry, the illegal entrants are able to blend into the local labor force. Although the border patrol of the federal Immigration and Naturalization Service apprehends large numbers, the magnitude of the illegal traffic cannot be accurately measured because so many enter and leave without apprehension. As early as 1951 a presidential commission labeled the illegal traffic 'virtually an invasion.' (Report of the President's Commission on Migratory Labor (1951) p. 69.) More recently, the Senate Subcommittee on Migratory Labor declared: 'Wetback magnitudes are virtually impossible to measure accurately. They must be found and deported in order to be counted in the Immigration Service totals. Undoubtedly, there are many entering and exiting across borders who are never apprehended and counted.' (Loc.cit., fn. 5, p. 63; see also Wetbacks--A Life of Fear, Times-Post Service (San Francisco--Chronicle--Examiner, July 5, 1970, p. 4 of Chronicle Sunday Punch).)

According to the annual reports of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, its officers located 89,751 deportable Mexican Nationals in the fiscal year 1966; 108,327 in fiscal 1967; 151,705 in 1968; 201,636 in 1969. Of the deportable Mexican nationals apprehended in 1969, 53,684 were found employed in American agriculture. The 1969 report declares: 'Throughout the year, there was a mounting influx of aliens illegally seeking employment, however brief, menial, or poorly paid. In order to escape...