MARIA PENA V. TAYLOR FARMS PACIFIC, INC., No. 15-15965 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 03 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MARIA DEL CARMEN PENA; CONSUELO HERNANDEZ; LETICIA SUAREZ; ROSEMARY DAIL; WENDELL T. MORRIS, ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiffs-Appellees, ) ) v. ) ) TAYLOR FARMS PACIFIC, INC., ) DBA Taylor Farms, ) ) Defendant-Appellant, ) ) and ) ) ABEL MENDOZA, INC.; ) MANPOWER, INC.; QUALITY ) FARM LABOR, INC.; SLINGSHOT ) CONNECTIONS LLC, ) ) Defendants. ) ) MARIA DEL CARMEN PENA; ) CONSUELO HERNANDEZ; ) LETICIA SUAREZ; ROSEMARY ) DAIL; WENDELL T. MORRIS, ) * No. 15-15965 D.C. No. 2:13-cv-01282-KJM-AC MEMORANDUM* No. 15-15966 D.C. No. 2:13-cv-01282-KJM-AC This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ) Plaintiffs-Appellees, ) ) v. ) ) ABEL MENDOZA, INC., ) ) Defendant-Appellant, ) ) and ) ) TAYLOR FARMS PACIFIC, INC., ) DBA Taylor Farms; MANPOWER, ) INC.; QUALITY FARM LABOR, ) INC.; SLINGSHOT ) CONNECTIONS LLC, ) ) Defendants. ) ) Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Kimberly J. Mueller, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted April 19, 2017 San Francisco, California Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and FERNANDEZ and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges. Taylor Farms Pacific, Inc. (“TFP”) and Abel Mendoza, Inc. (“AMI”) appeal the district court’s order1 which granted class certification to a class comprised of 1 Pena v. Taylor Farms Pac., Inc., 305 F.R.D. 197 (E.D. Cal. 2015) (hereafter Taylor Farms I). 2 current and former employees who allegedly did not receive the meal breaks required by California law while working at TFP’s produce and food processing facilities in Tracy, California.2 The representative members of the certified classes are Maria Del Carmen Pena, Consuelo Hernandez, and Wendell T. Morris.3 We affirm. For the reasons set forth in its order,4 we affirm the district court’s grant of “[c]ertification of the mixed hourly worker subclass . . . as to meal break claims,” and its “[c]ertification of the waiting time subclass . . . [to the extent it] is derivative of the mixed hourly workers subclass.”5 We express no opinion about the district court’s determinations regarding the other subclasses.6 AFFIRMED. 2 Class certification was sought on a number of other grounds, but the issues before us involve only a meal break subclass certification and a derivative waitingtime subclass certification. 3 Morris is a representative member of the meal break subclass only. 4 See Taylor Farms I, 305 F.R.D. 197. 5 See id. at 224. 6 See id. at 207–11, 223–24. 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.