Jimenez v. Duran

Decision Date20 October 2003
Docket NumberNo. C 01-3068-MWB.,C 01-3068-MWB.
Citation287 F.Supp.2d 979
CourtU.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa
PartiesCesar JIMENEZ, San Juana Jimenez, individually and as next best friends of Lucila Jimenez, and all other similarly situated employees, Plaintiffs, v. Emilio DURAN and Victoria Duran, d/b/a E & V Contract Farms, Defendants.

Pamela J. Walker, Sherinian and Walker, P.C., West Des Moines, Iowa, for Jimenezs.

Michael J. Carroll, Coppola, Sandre, McConville & Carroll, P.C., West Des Moines, Iowa, for Duran Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER REGARDING THE PARTIES' CROSS-MOTIONS FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

BENNETT, Chief Judge.

                TABLE OF CONTENTS
                I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................. 981
                   A. Procedural Background ................................................. 981
                   B. Factual Background .................................................... 982
                II. LEGAL ANALYSIS .......................................................... 983
                   A. Standards For Summary Judgment ........................................ 983
                   B. Arguments Of The Parties .............................................. 983
                   C. The FLSA And The "Agriculture" Exemption .............................. 984
                      1. General principles ................................................. 984
                      2. The "Holly Farms" analysis ......................................... 985
                      3. The "Holly Farms analysis" in this case ............................ 985
                         a. Were the defendants engaged in "primary" agriculture? ........... 985
                         b. Were the plaintiffs engaged in "secondary" agriculture? ......... 988
                             i. Pertinent considerations .................................... 988
                            ii. Work "on a farm" ............................................ 988
                           iii. Connection to farming operations ............................ 989
                           iv. Is the necessary connection present here? .................... 991
                III. CONCLUSION ............................................................. 992
                

Were the plaintiffs exempt from the overtime pay provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq., during their employment with the defendants' business of vaccinating and tending to poultry, because the plaintiffs were "employees employed in agriculture"? The defendants have moved for summary judgment on the portion of the plaintiffs' FLSA claim seeking overtime wages, on the ground that the plaintiffs were exempt agricultural employees. In response, the plaintiffs have cross-moved for partial summary judgment on the same issue, conceding that there are no disputed facts on this issue, and agreeing that the question should, therefore, be decided as a matter of law, albeit in their favor.

I. INTRODUCTION
A. Procedural Background

On August 20, 2001, the original plaintiffs, Cesar Jimenez and San Juana Jimenez, individually and as next best friends of Lucila Jimenez, filed their original Complaint in this matter (docket no. 1) against defendants Emilio Duran and Victoria Duran, doing business as E & V Contract Farms, described collectively herein as the "Duran Defendants." Among the Jimenezs' claims was a claim for overtime wages pursuant to Section 7 of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 207. The Jimenezs filed an Amended Complaint on October 7, 2002 (docket no. 18), which added additional plaintiffs and additional claims against a second set of defendants, the "Ruiz Defendants." On December 30, 2002, the Jimenezs again filed an Amended Complaint (docket no. 28), this time to add certain jurisdictional elements. By order dated February 6, 2003 (docket no. 36), the court granted the Ruiz Defendants' motion to sever the actions against the two groups of defendants. Eventually, on August 4, 2003, the original plaintiffs filed yet another Amended Complaint (docket no. 51) against the Duran Defendants, reflecting the severance of claims ordered by the court. Thus, the claims presently before the court are the following: a claim, in Count I, to recover overtime wages and unauthorized payroll deductions pursuant to the FLSA; a claim, in Count II, to recover unauthorized payroll deductions pursuant to Iowa's Wage Payment Collection Act, IOWA CODE CH. 91A; a state-law claim, in Count III, of termination of employment in violation of public policy; and a state-law claim, in Count IV, of breach of contract.

Presently before the court is the Duran Defendants' August 1, 2003, Motion For Summary Judgment (docket no. 48), which is in fact a motion for partial summary judgment on only that portion of the Jimenezs' FLSA claim seeking to recover overtime wages. In their motion, the Duran Defendants assert that the Jimenezs are exempt from the overtime wage provisions of the FLSA, because they were "employees employed in agriculture." In their response, filed August 21, 2003 (docket no. 52), the Jimenezs ask the court to deny the Duran Defendants' motion, and instead to grant them partial summary judgment on the issue of the Duran Defendants' liability for overtime wages.

The court heard oral arguments on the parties' cross-motions for partial summary judgment on October 16, 2003. At the hearing, the Jimenezs were represented by Pamela J. Walker of Sherinian and Walker, P.C., in West Des Moines, Iowa. The Duran Defendants were represented by Michael J. Carroll of Coppola, Sandre, McConville & Carroll, P.C., in West Des Moines, Iowa.1 The cross-motions for partial summary judgment on the Duran Defendants' liability for overtime wages on the pertinent portion of the Jimenezs' FLSA claim are, therefore, fully submitted.

B. Factual Background

Whether or not a party is entitled to summary judgment ordinarily turns on whether or not there are genuine issues of material fact for trial. See, e.g., Quick v. Donaldson Co., 90 F.3d 1372, 1376-77 (8th Cir.1996). However, in this case, the parties agree that there is no dispute as to the facts pertinent to the overtime wages portion of the Jimenezs' FLSA claim. Therefore, the factual background provided here is undisputed.

The parties agree that, at all times material to the present dispute, defendants Emilio Duran and Victoria Duran conducted business in the State of Iowa as E & V Contract Farms. The Jimenezs are former employees of Emilio and Victoria Duran. The parties agree that the Duran Defendants employed the Jimenezs within the meaning of Section 3(d) of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203(d). The parties also agree that the Duran Defendants have not compensated the Jimenezs for overtime work at rates not less than one and one-half times their regular rate of pay as provided in Section 7(a) of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 207(a), and 29 C.F.R. § 778.225.

The Duran Defendants' business consisted of vaccinating poultry and provision of other services for poultry producers. The Duran Defendants did not own the chickens that they vaccinated, but instead contracted with the poultry owners to provide on-site vaccination services. E & V Contract Farms entered into verbal contracts with poultry businesses not only to inoculate chickens for various diseases, but also to debeak chickens; to move chickens from the pullet site, where chicks are raised from birth to 17 weeks old, to the layer barn, where the chickens lay eggs; and to crate chickens at the layer site before the chickens are taken to market by other contractors, who loaded and transported the poultry. All of the contracts provided for payment to Emilio Duran and Victoria Duran on a per chicken basis.

Employees of E & V Contract Farms, as a group, are involved in the entire process of raising the chickens from the age of one day old until two and one-half years old. Thus, they decrate one-day-old chicks and place them in the pullet house; then, when the chicks are 5 to 8 days old, they debeak the chickens; they perform inoculations when the chickens are seven weeks old; they move the chickens to the layer facility when the chickens are eighteen weeks old; and they crate the chickens before the chickens are transported for processing when the chickens are approximately two and one-half years old. All of the business activities of E & V Contract Farms are performed on-site at the chicken houses.

E & V Contract Farms employees do not load or unload trucks that carry the chicks to the chicken houses when the chicks are one day old, nor do they load or unload trucks when the chickens are sent for processing at age two and one-half years. Finally, E & V Contract Farms employees are not involved in trucking of the chicks to the facilities or in trucking the poultry for processing.

II. LEGAL ANALYSIS
A. Standards For Summary Judgment

Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that either the claimant or the defending party may move for summary judgment in its favor on all or any part of a claim. See FED. R. CIV. P. 56(a) & (b). "The judgment sought shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c). A case such as this, involving only questions of law, "is particularly appropriate for summary judgment." TeamBank, N.A. v. McClure, 279 F.3d 614, 617 (8th Cir.2002) (citing Adams v. Boy Scouts of America-Chickasaw Council, 271 F.3d 769, 775 (8th Cir.2001)); Bank of Am. Nat'l Trust & Sav. Ass'n v. Shirley, 96 F.3d 1108, 1111 (8th Cir.1996) ("Where the unresolved issues are primarily legal rather than factual, summary judgment is particularly appropriate."); Aucutt v. Six Flags Over Mid-America, Inc., 85 F.3d 1311, 1315 (8th Cir.1996) (same).

B. Arguments Of The Parties

In support of their motion for partial summary judgment on that part of the Jimenezs' FLSA claim seeking overtime wages, the Duran Defendants argue that...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Tijerina-Salazar v. Venegas
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Texas
    • 3 d5 Junho d5 2022
    ......Paddling this ocean, therefore, is best. relegated to the factfinder at trial. (Docs. 152-2 ¶ 5;. 153-19 ¶ 5); see also Jimenez v. Duran , 287. F.Supp.2d 979, 989 (N.D. Iowa 2003) (finding the. “farm” quality to not be disputed); Bills v. Cactus Fam. ......
  • Bills v. Cactus Family Farms, LLC
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa
    • 6 d1 Julho d1 2020
    ...P. 56(c)(3). A matter "involving only questions of law [ ] ‘is particularly appropriate for summary judgment.’ " Jimenez v. Duran , 287 F. Supp. 2d 979, 983 (N.D. Iowa 2003) (quoting TeamBank, N.A. v. McClure , 279 F.3d 614, 617 (8th Cir. 2002) ). Questions of statutory interpretation are p......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT