U.S. Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n v. Zoria Farms, Inc.
| Decision Date | 13 May 2016 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 1:13-cv-01544-DAD-SKO |
| Parties | U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff, v. ZORIA FARMS, INC., and Z FOODS INC., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California |
On March 2, 2016, Plaintiff U.S Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("Plaintiff") filed a motion for default judgment against Defendant Z Foods dba Zoria Farms ("Defendant"). (Doc. 52; see also Doc. 57 (supplemental briefing).) No opposition to Plaintiff's motion was filed. (See Docket.) Following a review of the motion and all supporting documentation, the Court deemed this matter suitable for decision without oral argument pursuant to Local Rule 230(g), and the hearing on the motion set for May 4, 2016, was vacated.
For the reasons set forth below, the Court RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff's motion for default judgment be GRANTED against the Defendant in the amount of $ 4,470,000.
On September 24, 2013, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Zoria Farms, Inc. ("Zoria Farms") and its successor, Z Foods, Inc. ("Z Foods") (collectively, "Defendants") alleging violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended. Zoria Farms was a wholesale processor of dried fruit, maintaining a facility in Madera, California. Plaintiff alleges Defendants' supervisors continually sexual harassed female employees during the course of their employment and subjected employees to retaliation for opposing the harassment.
Plaintiff alleges that in 2007, Martin Ramirez, a supervisor for Zoria Farms, began subjecting Rosa Mendez to sexual harassment including but not limited to "hugging her from behind, grabbing her buttocks, rubbing her arm, following her, telling her that she was pretty and making comments regarding her physical appearance." (Doc. 1, ¶ 20.) Ramirez similarly subjected Rosario Huerta and other female employees to unwelcome verbal comments and conduct of a sexual nature, such as telling them they were pretty, he wanted to have sex with them, and if they slept with him they would get a better post. (Doc. 1, ¶¶ 22-23.)
In April 2008, Eder Cruz Ortiz, Jose Dieguez, and several other employees presented their complaints regarding Ramirez' behavior in a meeting with the Zoria Farms' human resources manager and plant manager. (Doc. 1, ¶ 26.)
In June 2008, Z Foods took over operations and ownership of Zoria Farms' Madera facility. Workers who were previously employed by Zoria Farms were rehired by Z Foods, including John Zoria, the previous owner, and Jill Brooks, plant manager. (Doc. 1, ¶ 27.)
In 2008, Francisco Guerra, who was employed as a fresh fruit supervisor with Zoria Farms since at least 2000 and subsequently with Z Foods in 2008, subjected Rocio Guevara to sexual harassment, including but not limited to placing harassing telephone calls where Guerra asked Guevara to go on dates with him, making numerous comments about Guevara's body, telling Guevara that he was in love with her, offering to promote Guevara if she went out with him, having other female employees proposition Guevara to have a sexual adventure with Guerra at work, invading Guevara's personal space by standing directly behind her as she worked, and leering at Guevara. (Doc. 1, ¶ 29.)
Guerra also subjected other female employees to sexual harassment, including but not limited to identifying which female employees were good at oral sex, discussing sexual positions, commenting about female employees' physical appearances, propositioning female employees with promotions in exchange for sex, threatening other female employees that their continued employment with Defendants would be dependent on their acquiescence to his advances, leering at female employees' buttocks, subjecting female employees to unwanted touching, and enlisting other employees to solicit female employees on his behalf. (Doc. 1, ¶ 31.)
Plaintiff also maintains that employees Eder Cruz Ortiz, Miereye Torres, Rosa Mendez, Jose Dieguez, Rosaria Guerta, Maria Sara Coronado, and Barcilia Alvarez were retaliated against for their opposition to unlawful harassment in that they were not rehired after the sale to Z Foods. (Doc. 1, ¶ 33.) Defendants terminated Arnulfo Guevara after and as a result of his sister Rocio Guevara's opposition to sexual harassment. After Arnulfo Guevara filed a charge of discrimination, Defendants terminated the employment of Carols Garcia (Arnulfo Guevara's brother-in-law) in retaliation for Arnulfo Guevara's charge of discrimination. (Doc. 1, ¶ 34.)
Rosa Mendez, Rocio Guevara, Rosario Huerta, Mireye Torres, Eder Cruz Ortiz, Jose Dieguez, Maria Sara Coronado, Barcilia Carina Barajas Alvarez, Arnulfo Guevara, and Carlos Garcia (collectively and individually "Charging Parties") filed charges of discrimination with the EEOC alleging Defendants violated Title VII. On July 29, 2011, the EEOC issued Letters of Determination finding that Charging Parties Rosa Mendez, Rocio Guevara, Rosario Huerta, Maria Sara Coronado, Mireye Torres, and other similarly situated individuals were subjected to unlawful employment discrimination based on their sex (female) in violation of Title VII. (Doc. 1, ¶ 15.) On that same day, the EEOC also issued Letters of Determination finding Charging Parties Eder Cruz Ortiz, Jose Dieguez, Barcilia Carina Barajas Alvarez, Mireye Torres, Rosa Mendez, Rosario Huerta, Maria Sara Coronado, and other similarly situated individuals were subjected to retaliation for their opposition to unlawful employment practices in violation of Title VII. (Doc. 1, ¶ 16.) Finally, the EEOC issued further Letters of Determination finding that Charging Parties Arnulfo Guevara, Carlos Garcia, and other similarly situated individuals were subjected to retaliation for their association with individuals opposing unlawful employment practices in violation of Title VII. (Doc. 1, ¶ 17.)
After the complaint was filed, Defendants were served (Docs. 8, 9), but only Zoria Farms filed an answer (Doc. 12). Z Foods did not respond to the complaint. A scheduling conference was held on March 13, 2014, and a schedule was issued opening discovery on March 18, 2014. (Doc. 16.) On April 30, 2015, Plaintiff and Zoria Farms settled the claims against Zoria Farms, and a consent decree was issued on June 23, 2015. (Doc. 36.)
On March 2, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion for default judgment against Z Foods, seeking judgment in the amount of $1,470,000, which includes an offset for the settlement amount received from Zoria Farms. No opposition was filed by Z Foods.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b) permits a court-ordered default judgment following the entry of default by the clerk of the court under Rule 55(a). It is within the sole discretion of the court as to whether default judgment should be entered. See Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1092 (9th Cir. 1980).
Prior to assessing the merits of a motion for default judgment, a court must confirm that it has subject matter jurisdiction over the case and personal jurisdiction over the parties as well as the adequacy of service on the defendant. In re Tuli, 127 F.3d 707, 712 (9th Cir. 1999). If these preconditions are satisfied, the court then turns to consider the seven discretionary factors set out by the Ninth Circuit in Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir. 1986). The Eitel factors include (1) the possibility of prejudice to the plaintiff, (2) the merits of the plaintiff's substantive claim, (3) the sufficiency of the complaint, (4) the sum of money at stake in the action (5) the possibility of a dispute concerning material facts, (6) whether the default was due to excusable neglect, and (7) the strong policy underlying the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure favoring decisions on the merits. See id. Once a party's default is entered, the well-pleaded allegations of the complaint relating to a defendant's liability are taken as true. See Televideo Sys., Inc. v. Heidenthal, 826 F.2d 915, 917 (9th Cir. 1992). An entry of default, however, does not overcome the absence of essential facts within the pleadings and those legally insufficient to prove a claim. See Cripps v. Life Ins. Co. of N. Am., 980 F.2d 1261, 1267 (9th Cir. 1992).
A plaintiff is required to prove all damages sought in the complaint. See Televideo Sys., Inc. v. Heidenthal, 826 F.2d 915, 917-18 (9th Cir. 1992). In addition, any relief sought may not be different in kind from, or exceed in amount, what is demanded in the complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(c). The court, however, has discretion to consider competent evidence and other papers submitted with a motion for default judgment to determine damages. See Televideo Sys., Inc. v. Heidenthal, 826 F.2d at 917.
The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this case because Plaintiff raises claims under federal law -- i.e., Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(h)(1)(A) governs service on corporate entities, such as Defendant, and requires that service on a corporate entity be made either in the manner prescribed by Rule 4(e)(1) for serving an individual personally or by "following state law for serving a summons in an action brought in courts of general jurisdiction in the state where the district court is located or where service is made [.]" Alternatively, Rule 4(h)(1)(B) permits service of a corporate entity by personally "delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint to an officer, a managing or general agent, or any other agent authorized by appointment or by law to receive service of process and -- if the agent is one authorized by statute and the statute so requires -- by also mailing a copy of each to the defendant[.]"
Under Delaware law:
. . . service of legal process upon any corporation of this State shall...
To continue reading
Request your trial