Opinion
1:21-cv-01285-CL
05-19-2022
FERNANDO CHIM, JOSE MARTINEZ, MARIA RODRIGUEZ, KALEB GUZMAN, Plaintiffs, v. COLT JAMISON HANSEN, an individual WESTCOAST GROWERS, LLC., TOPSHELF HEMP, LLC., FIRE HEMP, LLC., LOGAN PIERCE BUTLER, an individual, PIERCE FARM LABOR, LLC., Defendants.
AMENDED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
MARK D. CLARKE, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This Findings and Recommendation has been amended to exclude defendants Logan Pierce Butler and Pierce Farm Labor, LLC, who are not subject to the current motion, but who were erroneously included in the Court's original opinion (#38). The substance of the opinion is otherwise unchanged.
Plaintiffs move the Court for terminating sanctions, resulting in the entry of default judgment against the defendants Westcoast Growers, LLC., Topshelf Hemp, LLC, Fire Hemp, LLC., and Colt Jamison Hanson, (collectively, “the Hansen defendants”) for failing to comply with a Court Order and failing to appear and otherwise defend this action. For the reasons below, Plaintiffs' Motion (#30) should be GRANTED.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs allege that they are seasonal agricultural workers who were recruited by an unlicensed contractor to work at the defendants' hemp warehouse, located at 700 Merlin Rd. Bldg. E. Grants Pass, OR 97526. Plaintiffs allege that from approximately November 14,2020, to approximately November 23, 2020, they performed seasonal or temporary agricultural work for defendants in Grants Pass, Oregon.
The starting date varies by Plaintiff, but all of the Plaintiffs allege that they began work between November 14 and November 18.
Plaintiffs claim that defendants did not give them employment disclosures or employment contracts and failed to pay them their final wages. Plaintiffs ultimately claim that they are entitled to recover statutory damages and unpaid wages under the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act (AWPA), Oregon Contractor Registration Act (OCRA), and Oregon wage statutes.
Two companion cases, with different Plaintiffs, different but similar facts, and overlapping defendants, have been recently pending in this Court. In Hernandez Ramirez v. Hansen, No. 1:21-cv-00324 (D. Or. filed Mar. 02, 2021), a case with facts similar to this one, defendants defaulted after choosing to ignore the Summonses with which they were served. In Ordonez Gregorio et al. v. Hansen, No. 1:21-cv-01078 (D. Or. filed Jul. 21, 2021), Defendants retained counsel, appeared, and answered the Complaint, but later failed to respond to written discovery and have now violated two court orders. As in this case, the plaintiffs in Ordonez Gregorio have filed a motion for terminating sanctions. The Court will enter a Findings and Recommendation in that case, contemporaneously with the one here, recommending that a default judgment be entered against the Hansen defendants in both cases.
LEGAL STANDARD
Rule 37(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits sanctions against a party who “fails to obey an order to provide or permit discovery under Rule 26(f), 35, or 37(a).” Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(b)(2)(A). The Court has the discretion to "make such orders ... as are just” in regard to a party's failure to obey a discovery order. Valley Eng'rs v. Elec. Eng'g Co., 158 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 1998). This includes rendering a default judgment against the disobedient party, or treating the failure as contempt of court. Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(b)(2)(A(vi)-(vii). Where it is determined that a party has acted willfully or in bad faith in failing to comply with court orders enforcing the rules of discovery, it is within the discretion of the court to render judgment by default against the party responsible for noncompliance United States v. Hempfling, No. CV F 05-0594 LJOSMS, 2008 WL 703809, at *7 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2008), affd, 385 Fed.Appx. 766 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting U G-K Properties v. Redevelopment Agency of the City of San Jose, 577 F.2d 645, 647 (9th Cir. 1978)). Similarly, a terminating sanction under Rule 37(d) is proper “for a serious or total failure to respond to discovery even without a prior order.” Sigliano v. Mendoza, 642 F.2d 309, 310 (9th Cir. 1981).
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals applies a five-factor balancing test to determine whether a sanction entering default is “just”: (1) The public's interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the Court's need to manage its docket; (3) The risk of prejudice to the party seeking sanctions; (4) The public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) The availability of less drastic sanctions. Valley Engineers Inc. v. Elec. Eng'g Co., 158 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir. 1998) (citing Malone v. United States Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128,130 (9th Cir.1987).
DISCUSSION
The Court has federal question jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, as this action is brought under the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act (“AWPA”), 29 USC §§ 1801-1872. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, this Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the claims based on Oregon law, as they are so related to claims within the Court's original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because the events giving rise to the claims occurred in this district and judicial division, and all parties are subject to this Court's personal jurisdiction with respect to this suit.
Plaintiffs' and Defendants' counsel served Interrogatories and Requests for Production on Defendants through their counsel on December 22, 2021, with a deadline to respond of January 24, 2022. Walters Decl. ¶ 2. The Hansen defendants failed to respond to those requests. Walters Decl. ¶ 3. Because the defendants had also failed to respond to written discovery in Ordonez Gregorio, Plaintiffs' counsel attempted to first resolve that dispute by requesting a conference with the Court which was held on January 26, 2022. Walters Decl. ¶ 4. In that case, the Court ordered the defendants to exchange initial disclosures and serve responses to Plaintiffs' interrogatories and request for production no later than February 11, 2022. Walters Decl. ¶ 4. Plaintiffs' counsel emailed the Hansen defendants' counsel on February 10, 2022, to ask if they could expect initial disclosures and written discovery by the date of the Court's deadline, and the Hansen defendants' counsel replied that they would be unable to respond. Walters Decl. ¶ 4.
Plaintiffs' counsel waited until February 14,2021, after the Court's deadline had passed in Ordonez Gregorio, before emailing the Court's clerk to request a conference to resolve discovery disputes in the present case. Walters Decl. ¶ 5. Through the email exchange between . counsel and the Court's clerk, Plaintiffs learned that the relationship between the Hansen defendants' counsel and their clients had broken down and that counsel would likely be seeking leave to withdraw. Walters Decl. ¶ 6. On February 18, 2022, Hansen defendants' counsels' motion to withdraw was filed and it was granted on February 23. (Dkt. #23, #24).
On February 23, 2022, after granting the Hansen defendants' counsels' motion to withdraw, the Court ordered Hansen defendants to file a status report within 30 days, advising the Court whether they intended to proceed with the case. (Dkt. #25). In its order, the Court warned that failure to proceed or otherwise appear and defend the case could result in a default being entered. Id.
To date, the Hansen defendants have not appeared or otherwise responded; they have not proceeded to defend the case in any way.
I. The balancing test factors weigh in favor of entering default judgment against the defendants as terminating sanctions for failure to comply with a Court Order.
All of the factors weigh in favor of granting the motion for terminating sanctions. Default judgment should be entered against the Hansen defendants.
a. The public's interest in expeditious resolution of litigation and the Court's need to manage its docket weigh in favor of terminating sanctions.
Where a court order is violated, the first two factors support sanctions. Adriana Int'l Corp. v. Lewis & Co., 913 F.2d 1406, 1412 (9th Cir. 1990). On February 23, 2022, the Court ordered the Hansen defendants to file a status report within 30 days indicating whether they intend to proceed with defending the case. The Hansen defendants violated a Court order when they failed to respond. Because the Hansen defendants have violated a Court order, the first two factors weigh heavily in favor of granting terminating sanctions against the Hansen defendants.
b. The risk of prejudice to the party seeking sanctions weighs in favor of terminating sanctions.
The party seeking sanctions suffers prejudice if the other party's actions impair their ability to go to trial. Adriana Int'l Corp., 913 F.2d at 1412. Failure to produce documents as ordered is considered sufficient prejudice. Id. Litigants who are willful in halting the discovery process cause impermissible prejudice to their opponents and deprive other litigants of an opportunity to use the court as a serious dispute-settlement mechanism. Hempfling, 2008 WL 703809, at *18. A defendant acts willfully when their conduct is not shown to be outside of their control. Id. at *19.
Here, it appears as though the Hansen defendants' violation of the Court's order was a deliberate decision. Between this case and Ordonez Gregorio, the Hansen defendants were given many notices and had ample time to appear and engage with the discovery process and defend the litigation. The Court finally issued the order giving the Hansen defendants 30 days to file a status report; to date, they have not responded. They have given no reason or excuse for their previous or present conduct. Moreover, they have failed to show that their conduct was outside of their control. Therefore, the Court finds that the Hansen defendants have willfully halted the discovery process, causing impermissible prejudice to Plaintiffs. This factor weighs in favor of granting terminating sanctions, and a default judgment, against the Hansen defendants.
c. The public policy favoring a decision on the merits of the case weighs in favor of terminating sanctions and default judgment.
Courts often weigh the fourth factor in favor of not striking a pleading or a default. Johnson v. Monterey & Rancho Plaza, No. 18-CV-05718-BLF, 2020 WL 4368194, at *2 (N.D. Cal. July 30, 2020). However, “a case that is stalled or unreasonably delayed by a party's failure to comply with deadlines and discovery obligations cannot move forward toward resolution on the merits.” Id. (quoting In re. Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Prod. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1228 (9th Cir. 2006).
Here, the Hansen defendants have consistently missed important dates and deadlines, failed to respond to discovery requests or engage in litigation, and failed to follow a Court order. They have essentially abandoned their defense of this case and made proceeding on the merits impossible. As such, the fourth factor also favors granting terminating sanctions.
d. The availability of less drastic sanctions weighs in favor of granting default.
The fifth factor involves consideration of three subparts: “whether the court (1) explicitly discussed the alternative of lesser sanctions and explained why it would be inappropriate; (2) implemented lesser sanctions before ordering the case dismissed; and (3) warned the offending party of the possibility of dismissal.” Computer Task Group, Inc. v. Brotby, 364 F.3d 1112, 1116-17 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing Anheuser-Busch v. Nat. Beverage Distribs., 69 F.3d 337, 348 (9th Cir. 1995)). Warning that failure to obey a court order will result in dismissal can itself meet the “consideration of alternatives” requirement. In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Prod. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d at 1229.
Here, the Court's order (#25) warned the Hansen defendants that failure to proceed or otherwise appear and defend the case could result in a default being entered. Accordingly, the “consideration of alternatives” requirement has been met, and this factor weighs in favor of terminating sanctions and default judgment.
RECOMMENDATION
For the reasons above, the Court recommends that Plaintiffs' motion for terminating sanctions (#30) be GRANTED. Default Judgment should be entered in favor of Plaintiffs against the Hansen defendants.
Plaintiffs' Complaint requests relief in the form of statutory damages, and compensatory damages for unpaid wages, plus statutory penalty wages, and liquidated damages for unpaid overtime wages, as well as prejudgment interest, and Plaintiffs' costs and attorney fees. No hearing has yet been held, nor any affidavit or declaration submitted regarding an accounting of Plaintiffs' damages. Plaintiffs should submit the evidence they wish the Court to consider regarding damages, filed as affidavits or declarations and exhibits, within the next 30 days. The Court will review and recommend appropriate relief to the District Court. '
This order will serve as Notice to Defendants that such an accounting will take place and further non-appearance could result in the full request for damages being awarded to Plaintiffs.
SCHEDULING
This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 4(a)(1) should not be filed until entry of the district court's judgment or appealable order. The Report and Recommendation will be referred to a district judge. Objections to this Report and Recommendation, if any, are due fourteen (14) days from today's date. If objections are filed, any response to the objections is due fourteen (14) days from the date of the objections. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 72, 6