Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Azucena Ortiz and Dominga Espinoza, blueberry harvesters, sued in the Eastern District of California in September 2023 under the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act and California law. Their first amended complaint names farm labor contractors Lucero Ag Services and 559 Ag, two individuals, and the grower Paragroup Farms. It alleges unpaid rest periods and other wages, minimum wage and final wage violations, unfair competition, and civil penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act. Defaults have been entered against the contractor defendants, leaving Paragroup as the only party opposing certification.
Plaintiffs moved under Rule 23(b)(3) to certify a global class of non-exempt piece-rate blueberry pickers employed by 559 Ag or Lucero Ag at Paragroup locations since September 5, 2019. They also proposed five subclasses (unpaid rest periods, unpaid nonproductive time, minimum wage, final wages, and unfair competition), most beginning September 5, 2020. They relied on time records, invoices, crew sheets, and worker and supervisor declarations. Paragroup argued that no uniform policy is attributable to it, that individual issues predominate, that plaintiffs are atypical and inadequate, and that their expert is unreliable. It also contends it is not a client employer and that plaintiffs lack standing. The motion was heard on September 11, 2026.
The Court’s Holding
The magistrate judge recommends that the district judge grant certification. On numerosity, the court agreed with Paragroup that the 4,733 figure drawn from contractor checks is inflated because it includes work at other locations. It nonetheless found that time records given to Paragroup identify 174 piece-rate workers there, enough to make joinder impracticable, and invoices showing crews of 41 to 151 and declarant estimates of at least 100 workers pointed the same way. Paragroup and the contractors did not keep payroll records required by Labor Code section 1695.55. The court therefore asked whether plaintiffs offered some evidence of uncompensated work, as Mt. Clemens and Tyson Foods contemplate, and concluded they did.
On commonality, typicality, and predominance, the court found that declarations, crew sheets, and invoices showed a regular practice of paying workers only for buckets picked, with no separate pay for rest breaks or nonproductive time and no minimum wage guarantee. Paragroup offered no contrary evidence and did not show that differences in foremen, hours, or locations mattered, particularly because the classes cover only work at Paragroup locations. The court found plaintiffs adequate: they have no conflicts, have litigated for over three years, and need not have worked the whole class period. Counsel's adequacy was unchallenged. Because Paragroup made no superiority argument, the court found a class action superior and recommended certifying all six classes and overruling Paragroup's objections.
Key Takeaways
- This is a magistrate judge's recommendation, not a certification order; the district judge must decide whether to adopt it, and objections are due within 30 days of service.
- The court accepted 174 identified workers as enough for numerosity while agreeing that the larger 4,733 figure overstated the class.
- Missing statutory payroll records did not bar certification, but plaintiffs still had to produce some evidence of uncompensated work.
- The recommendation addresses certification only; Paragroup's client-employer and standing arguments were not resolved, and individual damages remain to be determined.
Why It Matters
If adopted, the recommendation would let piece-rate farmworkers litigate rest-break, nonproductive-time, minimum wage, and final wage claims together against a grower, using declarations and contractor documents where required payroll records were never kept. It shows a court declining to let a grower's own record-keeping lapses block certification when plaintiffs offer evidence tied to the grower's worksites.
Because the document is only a recommendation, it has no binding effect until the district judge acts. It does not decide merits liability, Paragroup's status as a client employer, or damages, and the district judge could modify the class definitions.