UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
September 12, 2008
JOSE A. LOPEZ, JUAN CARLOS APOLINAR, JUAN JOSE ESTRADA SOTA, JUAN JOSE CERVANTES, ISMAEL CUEVAS, REYNAR MENDOZA AND JESUS RODRIGUEZ, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHER SIMILARLY SITUATED INDIVIDUALS, PLAINTIFFS,
LASSEN DAIRY, INC. (DOING BUSINESS AS "MERITAGE DAIRY"), DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gary S. Austin United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFFS TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS
On July 29, 2008, Plaintiffs filed Motion for Leave to Amend their First Amended Complaint (hereinafter "FAC"). Plaintiffs seek to add four additional defendants to the FAC including three California corporations 1) Tule River Farms, Inc., 2) Tule River Ranch, Inc., and 3) Bonanza Farms, and one individual, William Vander Poel, Sr. On August 26, 2008, Defendant Lassen Dairy filed an opposition to the motion. On September 5, 2008, Plaintiffs filed a reply to Defendant's opposition.
One of the objections that Defendant has raised is that Plaintiffs failed to exhaust their administrative remedies pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act (hereinafter, "PAGA"). California Labor Code § 2699.3(2)(A). Specifically, Defendant has argued that Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint on March 19, 2008 to add a PAGA claim against Lassen Dairy, prior to sending written notice to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency as required. (hereinafter, "LWDA"). In response, Plaintiffs indicate that they sent notice to the LWDA and Lassen Dairy on February 1, 2008. On February 28, 2008, LWDA responded with a letter that it did not intend to investigate the allegations contained in the notice.
Defendant also argues that although a notice was sent to LWDA on March 26, 2008 to include the additional Defendants, it failed to reference Tule River Ranch. In reply, Plaintiffs contend that the notice sent previously was sufficient but they have also filed an amended notice on September 2, 2008 which includes Tule River Ranch.
These documents are relevant to the instant motion. Therefore, Plaintiff shall file the notices sent to the LWDA on February 1, 2008, and September 2, 2008, as well as any responses from the LWDA regarding those notices forthwith. If no response has been received from the September 2, 2008 notice to date, Plaintiffs shall file any responses received subsequent to this order when it is received. Alternatively, if no response is received within the time period outlined pursuant to California Labor Code § 2699.3(2)(A), Plaintiffs shall inform the court of this fact. Once the court receives the documents outlined above, it will inform the parties whether a hearing is necessary or whether the court will take the matter under submission.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2008 VersusLaw Inc.