Sanchez v. Sarbanand Farms, LLC, 2:20-cv-01428-MCE-JDP

• Court: United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Eastern District of California
• Writing for the Court: MORRISON C. ENGLAND, SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
• Parties: EDGAR MONTES SANCHEZ, ARTURO RAMIREZ ALVAREZ, FILIBERTO LOPEZ HERRERA, and DANIEL VARELAS HERRERA, as individuals and on behalf of all other similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs, v. SARBANAND FARMS, LLC, MUNGER BROS., LLC., CROWNE COLD STORAGE, LLC, ROBERT HAWK, CLIFF WOOLLEY, CSI VISA PROCESSING, SC, and DOES 1 through 10, Defendants.
• Docket Number: 2:20-cv-01428-MCE-JDP
• Decision Date: 30 September 2021

EDGAR MONTES SANCHEZ, ARTURO RAMIREZ ALVAREZ, FILIBERTO LOPEZ HERRERA, and DANIEL VARELAS HERRERA, as individuals and on behalf of all other similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs,
v.
SARBANAND FARMS, LLC, MUNGER BROS., LLC., CROWNE COLD STORAGE, LLC, ROBERT HAWK, CLIFF WOOLLEY, CSI VISA PROCESSING, SC, and DOES 1 through 10, Defendants.

No. 2:20-cv-01428-MCE-JDP

United States District Court, E.D. California

September 30, 2021

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

Plaintiffs, who are seasonal farmworkers from Mexico, brought the present action against agricultural entities they worked for in the United States on grounds that their recruitment and employment as blueberry harvesters violated both California statutory and common law. Defendants include Munger Bros, LLC (“Munger”) and two other entities allegedly owned and/or managed by Munger, Sarbanand Farms, LLC and Crowne Cold Storage, LLC. In addition, Plaintiffs include CSI Visa Processing, SC (“CSI”), a farm labor contractor that supplies Mexican workers to agricultural employers

1

in the United States, as an additional defendant. Finally, Plaintiffs name Cliff Woolley and Robert Hawk, both of whom serve in managerial positions for the Munger-related Defendants, on an individual basis.^[1]

Plaintiffs' lawsuit was originally instituted in San Joaquin County Superior Court on June 11, 2020. On July 15, 2020, after Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) on or about July 10, 2020, also in state court, Defendants (except for CSI) removed the case to this Court on two grounds. First, Defendants claim that federal jurisdiction is conferred by the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d) (“CAFA”). Second, Defendants also argue that federal question jurisdiction is present in any event because Plaintiffs' claims for breach of farmworker H-2A visa requirements necessarily implicate issues of federal law sufficient to provide jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Presently before the Court is Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand (ECF No. 6), made on grounds that neither of Defendants' jurisdictional arguments have merit. As set forth below, Plaintiffs' Motion is GRANTED.^[2]

BACKGROUND^[3]

According to the operative FAC, Munger is the “number one producer of fresh blueberries in the world” and cultivates more than 3, 000 acres of blueberries in California, Washington, Oregon, British Columbia and Mexico. Since at least 2006, Munger has used the H-2A agricultural visa program to utilize foreign labor to harvest blueberries. H-2A visas strictly limit the terms and conditions of employment within the

2

United States and preclude workers hired pursuant to such visas from leaving their authorized jobsite. Plaintiffs aver that Defendants were well aware of these restrictions and that Munger and its affiliated entities used CSI to recruit workers under the program in Mexico and to make the arrangements necessary to bring them to the United States.

In March 2017, Munger applied to the Department of Labor for authorization to import 387 Mexican H-2A workers to harvest and pack blueberries in California between May 15, 2017 and June 30, 2017. Additionally, at the same time and for the same period of employment, Defendant Crowne Cold Storage, which was managed by Munger, made a similar application for 171 agricultural workers, resulting in a total of 558 workers between the two entities. Finally, after concluding work in California, Defendant Sarbanand Farms, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Munger, applied for permission, also under the H-2A program, to have all 558 workers come to Washington and process blueberries there between July 10, 2017 and October 25, 2017.

Under the terms of the H-2A job orders, Defendants were required to guarantee the California minimum wage of $12.57 per hour along with applicable employment and wage-and-hour laws. Defendants were further obligated to obtain the necessary visas for the migrant workers, and provide them with inbound and return travel, along with subsistence costs incurred enroute, between the United States and Mexico. Moreover, Defendants had to furnish adequate housing for the workers while employed in this country.

In contravention of these requirements, Plaintiffs claim that the workers were not properly reimbursed for travel and visa costs they incurred, and were not paid for overtime incurred, for transportation to and from their jobsites, for waiting time, and for meal and rest breaks as required by law. In addition, despite being brought to the United States to work some five months in both California and Washington, some of the workers allege they were sent back to Mexico once the California blueberry crop was harvested.

3

Citing these alleged shortcomings, and as already indicated above, this lawsuit was filed in state court on June 11, 2020, on behalf of four of the H-2A workers imported by the Munger-related entities. Plaintiffs assert twelve causes of action under California law, both on their own behalf and for others similarly situated. Class action allegations are made, not only for all those workers brought by Munger and its affiliates from Mexico in 2017, but also for two subclasses consisting of those workers sent back to Mexico after the California season (the “California subclass, ” which Plaintiffs estimate at up to about 35 individuals), and for those workers denied mandatory rest periods (Plaintiffs do not quantify the number, stating only that over 10 persons are involved in the so-called “Rest Period subclass”).

After Plaintiffs filed a FAC, also in state court, Defendants removed the action here on grounds that federal jurisdiction is conferred by CAFA, and upon the argument that because the federal H-2A visa program is implicated by Plaintiffs' lawsuit, the case raises a federal question in any event.

Plaintiffs now move to remand these proceedings to state court, arguing that Defendants have not demonstrated, as they must in order to qualify for federal class action treatment under the provisions of CAFA, that the amount in controversy exceeds the sum of $5, 000, 000.00. Plaintiffs also allege that federal question jurisdiction is not conferred simply because the federal H-2A visa program happens to be implicated, and accordingly urge this Court to remand the matter back to San Joaquin County where it originated.

STANDARD

When a case “of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction” is initially brought in state court, the defendant may remove it to federal court “embracing the place where such action is pending.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). There are two bases for federal subject matter jurisdiction: (1) federal question jurisdiction under

4

28 U.S.C. § 1331, and (2) diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. A district court has federal question jurisdiction in “all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” Id. § 1331. A district court has diversity jurisdiction “where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75, 000, . . . and is between citizens of different states, or citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state . . . .” Id. § 1332(a)(1)-(2).

A defendant may remove any civil action from state court to federal district court if the district court has original jurisdiction over the matter. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). “The party invoking the removal statute bears the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction.” Ethridge v. Harbor House Rest., 861 F.2d 1389, 1393 (9th Cir. 1988) (citing Williams v. Caterpillar Tractor Co., 786 F.2d 928, 940 (9th Cir. 1986)). Courts “strictly construe the removal statute against removal jurisdiction.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992) (internal citations omitted). “[I]f there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance, ” the motion for remand must be granted. Id. Therefore, “[i]f at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded” to state court. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).

The district court determines whether removal is proper by first determining whether a federal question exists on the face of the plaintiff's well-pleaded complaint. Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). If a complaint alleges only state-law claims and lacks a federal question on its face, then the federal court must grant the motion to remand. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c); Caterpillar, 482 U.S. at 392. Nonetheless, there are rare exceptions when a well-pleaded state-law cause of action will be deemed to arise under federal law and support removal. They are “(1) where federal law completely preempts state law, (2) where the claim is necessarily federal in character, or (3) where the right to relief depends on the resolution of a substantial, disputed federal question.” ARCO Envtl. Remediation L.L.C. v. Dep't of Health & Envtl. Quality, 213 F.3d 1108, 1114 (9th Cir. 2000) (internal citations omitted).

5

ANALYSIS

A. Jurisdiction Under CAFA

Plaintiffs first take issue with Defendants' claim that their lawsuit was properly removable because federal jurisdiction is conferred by CAFA. Under CAFA, federal district courts have jurisdiction to adjudicate class actions provided that certain conditions are met, including 1) that the proposed class has more than 100 members; 2) that the parties are minimally diverse; and 3) that the amount in controversy in the aggregate exceeds the sum or value of $5, 000, 000.00. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2); see also Ibarra v. Manheim Invs., Inc., 775 F.3d 1193, 1195 (9th Cir. 2015).

For purposes of satisfying the amount in controversy requirement, a defendant asserting CAFA jurisdiction must include in the notice of removal “a plausible allegation that the amount in controversy requirement exceeds the jurisdictional...