Procedural Posture

Plaintiff migrant farm workers sought to recover damages from defendant employers for unpaid wagessubstandard housing under the MigrantSeasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act (AWPA), 29 U.S.C.S§ 1800 et seq,state law.

Overview

The workers provided farm labor in various fruit orchards on a seasonal or temporary basisAfter they were not paid for the services performed, the workers filed an action seeking damages under the AWPAIn entering judgment for the workers, the court determined that the employers were subject to liability under the AWPA because they either owned or operated the orchards in questionThe evidence showed that the employers violated 29 U.S.C.S§§ 1822(a), (c), 1821(d)(1), (2)The failure to pay wagesthe act of providing substantial housing was intentional; therefore, the employers were liable under 29 U.S.C.S§ 1854(c)Further, the employers were liable under CalLabCode § 1194 for the unpaid minimum wage, as well as liquidated damages under CalLabCode § 1194.5They were also liable for waiting time penalties under CalLabCode § 203The court noted that the employers were liable for failing to keep itemized records under CalLabCode § 1174.5Finally, one of the employers, as the owner, was liable under CalLabCode § 1695.7(a)(1) for entering into a contract with an unlicensed farm labor contractor.

Outcome

The court entered judgment in favor of the workers civil litigation lawyer.

Procedural Posture

Appellants sought review of a decision from the United States District Court for the Central District of California, which granted summary judgment in favor of appellee insurer in a claim under the uninsured motorist clause of appellants’ policy.

Overview

Appellants were involved in an automobile accident with a driver who was insured by appellee insurerAppellants’ personal injury action against the driver was settled, but because appellants were uninsured, the driver filed a separate claim under the uninsured motorist clause of his policyAppellee’s liability under the uninsured motorist provision was determined by arbitration between appelleethe insuredAppellants brought an action against appellee for “unfair practices” in violation of CalInsCode § 790.03The district court granted appellee summary judgmentOn appeal, the court affirmed summary judgmentThe court held that the arbitration between appelleetheir insured driver to determine liability was not a “judicial determination” as required by law and, therefore, appellant lacked standing to file an action.

Outcome

The court affirmed summary judgment for appellee insurer because the arbitration agreement between appelleetheir policy holder was not a final judicial determination of the policy holder to allow appellants to file an action against appellee under the applicable statutes.