Duane Morris Class Action Review - 2023 - Report - Page 238
CHAPTER 14
Labor Class Actions
I.
Executive Summary
Labor law issues often result in class action litigation, either brought by advocacy
groups or by private plaintiffs asserting violations of labor-related statutes.
This chapter analyzes class action rulings brought under such statutes, including the
Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Workers Protection Act, the Victims of Trafficking and
Violence Protection Act, the Labor Management Relations Act, as well as various
constitutional-based theories and state laws in the labor context.
Two significant judgments and jury verdicts resulted from these class actions that
involved multi-million dollar awards.
II.
Key Rulings In Labor Class Actions
A.
Rulings On Preemptive Motions
Defendants facing labor-related class action often litigate preemptive defense motions
in an effort to avoid costly discovery inherent in such legal action. In 2022, the case of
Moreno, et al. v. Castlerock Farming & Transportation Inc., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
56254 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 28, 2022), is a prime example. The plaintiffs, various farm
laborers who worked for farm labor contractors (FLCs) on certain table grape vineyards,
filed a class action alleging that the defendant violated various California labor laws, the
California Unfair Competition Law, and the federal Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural
Workers Protection Act (MSAWPA). The defendant previously filed a motion to dismiss,
or in the alternative for a stay, arguing that the matter was duplicative of Soto, et al. v.
Castlerock Farming & Transportation, Case No. 09-CV-701, an earlier filed case
alleging analogous theories. The court granted the stay, and subsequent to the lifting of
the stay, the plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint. The defendant filed a renewed
motion to dismiss for lack of standing pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1), and the court granted in
part and denied in part the motion. The defendant argued that the court lacked subjectmatter jurisdiction over the plaintiffs’ claims because after July 2004, the defendant did
not retain FLCs directly and was therefore not their joint employer. The court
determined that taking the allegations in the complaint as true, as required at the motion
to dismiss stage, the plaintiffs sufficiently had alleged that the defendant was a joint
employer. Accordingly, the court ruled that the plaintiffs should be permitted to show
evidence of the joint employer relationship through the aid of discovery. For these
reasons, the court denied the motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The court,
however, granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the class claims regarding washing
trays and purchasing tools without reimbursement, as those claims were dismissed
previously in the related Soto litigation. The Court also ruled that the plaintiffs failed to
exhaust their administrative remedies in a timely manner as to their claim under the
California Private Attorney General Act (PAGA), and thus it dismissed the plaintiffs'
237
© Duane Morris LLP 2023
Duane Morris Class Action Review – 2023
