Rosario-Guerrero et al v. Orange Blossom Harvesting, Inc., No. 2:2009cv00106 - Document 36 (M.D. Fla. 2010)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER granting 27 Motion to certify class and defining class; accepting and adopting 33 Report and Recommendations; overruling 34 Objections; granting 35 Motion to drop Bernardo Flores-Gallegos as a party plaintiff. The Clerk of the Court shall terminate this plaintiff and the parties shall delete his name as a plaintiff in all future filings. He shall remain a member of the certified class. Signed by Judge John E. Steele on 2/23/2010. (RKR)

Download PDF

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION JOSE ROSARIO-GUERRRO, ISMAEL DELGADO-CHAVEZ, OSCAR DELGADOCHAVEZ, ADAN DIAZ-NAVA, ARNULFO GALINDO-MEJIA, BRAULIO GALINDOMEJIA, BERNARDO GALLEGOS-FLORES, AGUSTIN GIL-OLVERA, HONORATO GILOLVERA, ZENAIDO HERNANDEZ-RESENDIZ, MIGUEL JONGUITUD-VELAZAUEZ, FERNANDO JUAREZ-LOPEZ, MACARINO MAGOS-CHAVEZ, MARTINIANO MAGDALENO MEJIA-BARCENA, JUAN RESENDIZ-HERNANDEZ, CARLOS SANTANA-VARGAS, ADAN TINAJERO-RAMOS, ANTERO ZARATE-ALVARADO, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. Case No. 2:09-cv-106-FtM-29DNF ORANGE BLOSSOM HARVESTING, INC. and CARY MERCER, Defendants. ___________________________________ OPINION AND ORDER This matter comes before the Court on a Report and Recommendation (Doc. #33) by Magistrate Judge Douglas N. Frazier recommending that plaintiffs Motion for Declaration of a Class Action (Doc. #27) be granted. Defendants Objections (Doc. #34) were filed on February 16, 2010. Also before the Court is Plaintiffs Unopposed Motion to Drop Bernardo Flores-Gallegos As A Party Plaintiff (Doc. #35), filed on February 17, 2010. reasons set forth below, both motions will be granted. For the I. After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and recommendations, a district judge may accept, reject or modify the magistrate judge s report and recommendation. 636(b)(1); 28 U.S.C. § Williams v. Wainwright, 681 F.2d 732, 732 (11th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1112 (1983). A district judge shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). This requires that the district judge give fresh consideration to those issues to which specific objection has been made by a party. Jeffrey S. v. State Bd. of Educ. of Ga., 896 F.2d 507, 512 (11th Cir. 1990)(quoting H.R. 1609, 94th Cong., § 2 (1976)). The district judge reviews legal conclusions de novo, even in the absence of an objection. See Cooper-Houston v. Southern Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994). II. Defendants raise five objections to the Report and Recommendation, which are resolved as follows: (1) Defendants first objection borders on frivolous. They object that the Facts section of the Report and Recommendation parrots the Amended Complaint, and object to the acceptance of all such statements as facts. The Report and Recommendation begins this section by stating: The facts, as set forth in the Amended -2- Complaint . . . are as follows. In addition, footnote 2 notes that the Court makes no ruling on the merits of these facts. Defendants objection is overruled. (2) The Court agrees with the treatment of the declarations, and therefore overrules the second objection. (3) The Court agrees with and adopts the Report and Recommendation as to class certification as to the state law breach of contract claims. The third objection is therefore overruled. (4) The fourth objection is moot in light of the agreed dismissal of Bernardo Gallegos-Flores as a named plaintiff. (5) The Court rejects defendants fifth objection. The plaintiffs have submitted themselves to the jurisdiction of the court by filing the complaint. Should they not comply with the requirements plaintiff, imposed upon a including appropriate discovery, defendants may seek relief. providing Anticipating such non-compliance, however, is not a basis to deny the motion for class certification. Accordingly, it is now ORDERED: 1. The Defendants Objections (Doc. #34) are OVERRULED, and the Report and Recommendation (Doc. #33) is ACCEPTED AND ADOPTED. 2. The Motion for Declaration of a Class Action (Doc. #27) is GRANTED and the class is defined as follows: All H-2A temporary foreign workers who were employed pursuant to a temporary labor certification issued to -3- Orange Blossom Harvesting, Inc. for work during the 20072008 south-central Florida citrus harvest. 3. The Unopposed Motion to Drop Bernardo Flores-Gallegos As A Party Plaintiff (Doc. #35) is GRANTED, and Bernardo FloresGallegos is dropped as a named plaintiff in this case. The Clerk of the Court shall terminate this plaintiff and the parties shall delete his name as a plaintiff in all future filings. He shall remain a member of the certified class. DONE AND ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this February, 2010. Copies: Counsel of record -4- 23rd day of

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.