Ulloa et al v. Fancy Farms, Inc.

MOTION for summary judgment and Supporting Memorandum of Law

M.D. Fla.May 11, 2017

ALLEN NORTON & BLUE, P.A. SPDN-868764429-2016306 PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION SELSO PALMA ULLOA, at al, Plaintiffs, v. FANCY FARMS, INC., Defendant. Case No. 8:15-cv-02690-SCB-AAS DEFENDANT’S CASE DISPOSITIVE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM OF LAW COMES NOW FANCY FARMS, INC. (the “Defendant” or “Fancy Farms”), by and through its undersigned counsel and pursuant to Rule 56(a), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 3.01(a), Local Rules for the Middle District of Florida, and this Court’s Case Management and Scheduling Order (D.E. 26, ¶ 6), hereby moves for summary judgment as to the affirmative claims filed by Selso Palma Ulloa, et al. (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) in this litigation. For the reasons set forth in this Case Dispositive Motion for Summary Judgment and Supporting Memorandum of Law (“Motion”), the claims of the Plaintiffs do not warrant a trial, as there are no material facts in dispute, and the Plaintiffs’ asserted claims do not establish a violation of federal law. I. Background Information In this litigation, Plaintiffs assert two claims arising from their temporary employment with Fancy Farms as nonimmigrant guestworkers during the 2013-2014 strawberry season (D.E. 14). Plaintiffs assert breach of contract and minimum wage claims in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201 et seq. (“FLSA”). In both their contract and FLSA claims, Plaintiffs assert that All Nations Staffing, LLC (“ANS”) recruited them in Honduras for temporary employment in the United States, requiring each of the Plaintiffs to pay a guarantee Case 8:15-cv-02690-SCB-AAS Document 47 Filed 05/11/17 Page 1 of 24 PageID 771 2 ALLEN NORTON & BLUE, P.A. SPDN-868764429-2016306 PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION to ANS of between $3,000 and $4,500 to ensure that they would not abandon their work in the United States, and that such sums would be returned to them at the end of the harvest season (D.E. 14, ¶¶ 15, 17). Plaintiffs further assert that Fancy Farms was required by federal regulation to contractually forbid ANS from directly or indirectly seeking payments or other compensation from prospective employees (D.E. 14, ¶ 14), and that Fancy Farms failed to do so (D.E. 14, ¶ 16). Plaintiffs further assert that the “guarantees” paid to or on behalf of ANS were expenses incurred primarily for the benefit of Fancy Farms, and that the expenses should have been reimbursed to them during their initial weeks of employment to the extent such guarantee amounts paid to ANS became de facto deductions from each Plaintiff’s earnings for their initial workweeks of employment at Fancy Farms. Notably, five of the Plaintiffs initially sought relief under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorizations Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1589 and 1590 (“TVPRA”) for the recovery of the “guarantees” they claim to have paid by bringing a lawsuit in 2014 against ANS, its principals and owners, Nestor B. Molina (“Molina”) and Patrick Damian Burns (“Burns”), in the Southern District of Florida in Case No. 0:14-cv-61497-KMW (“ANS litigation”). Plaintiffs dismissed their lawsuit in the ANS litigation after failing to effectuate service of a summons and their lawsuit on the named defendants in that case, and the Court issued a final order of dismissal. (ANS litigation, D.E. 4 and 5; dismissal issued August 19, 2014). Fancy Farms denies that it is liable to Plaintiffs for any unauthorized guarantees which they may have paid at the request of ANS or its principals, Molina and/or Burns. As set forth in their affirmative pleadings in this and the ANS litigation, and evidence on the record confirms, the only entities who provided Plaintiffs with false and misleading information about the prospects of work in the United States were ANS, Molina and Burns, and as plead here, ANS alone requested the Case 8:15-cv-02690-SCB-AAS Document 47 Filed 05/11/17 Page 2 of 24 PageID 772 3 ALLEN NORTON & BLUE, P.A. SPDN-868764429-2016306 PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION payment of “guarantees” to bank accounts designated by ANS (D.E. 14, ¶ 17). Plaintiffs assert no facts to suggest that ANS, Molina or Burns were authorized by Fancy Farms to engage in such conduct, nor do Plaintiffs identify any evidence upon which Plaintiffs reasonably could have understood that Molina had the apparent authority to demand “guarantees” as a condition of being placed for obtaining an H-2A visa to work at Fancy Farms. For the reasons more thoroughly discussed below, Fancy Farms is not legally responsible for unauthorized conduct of Nestor Molina or Patrick Burns which may have occurred in Honduras prior to the Plaintiffs’ arrival in Florida for temporary agricultural work. While Fancy Farms did not comply with the regulatory obligation to contractually forbid Molina and Burns from seeking payments or other compensation from prospective workers after agreeing to pay them to engage in H-2A services for the 2013-2014 strawberry season, this omission does not provide Plaintiffs with a viable private cause of action against Fancy Farms for either breach of contract or a violation of the FLSA. This is particularly true when the alleged demands and payments of guarantees were made prior to the creation of any agency relationship between Molina and Fancy Farms. Under the H-2A program, grower liability for pre-employment expenses must be predicated on either actual or apparent authority of Fancy Farms. On this record, no words or conduct exist which, reasonably interpreted, could have caused one or more of the Plaintiffs to believe Fancy Farms consented to have recruitment fees or “guarantees” demanded on its behalf. II. Statement of Undisputed Facts 1. Fancy Farms is a closely-held Florida corporation, with principal offices located at 3838 Fancy Farms Road in Plant City, Florida. Fancy Farms is solely owned by Carl Grooms and Case 8:15-cv-02690-SCB-AAS Document 47 Filed 05/11/17 Page 3 of 24 PageID 773 4 ALLEN NORTON & BLUE, P.A. SPDN-868764429-2016306 PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION his wife, Donnie J. “DeeDee” Grooms. (D.E. 48, 4-7, 121).1 At times relevant to Plaintiffs’ claims, Fancy Farms’ administrative Office Manager has been Denise Alderman, who is DeeDee Grooms’ sister (D.E. 19-1, ¶ 2; D.E. 49, 6-7).2 The administrative office for Fancy Farms is located in the personal residence of Carl and Dee Dee Grooms. (D.E. 49, 8). The lone telephone number for the Fancy Farms office in 2013-2014 was (813) 754-4852, with a lone fax number of (813) 752-7315, and an e-mail of fancydee@aol.com. (D.E. 49, 22-25, 80). Sometime in 2014, Denise Alderman and others family members commenced using new personalized e-mail addresses (e.g., denise@fancyfarms.com). (D.E. 49, 23-24). 2. The “strawberry season” at Fancy Farms commences each year with the land and irrigation preparation in August, followed by the planting of strawberry plants in September, followed by the pruning and cutting of runners, harvesting and cleanup of the fields from October through April. Throughout the cultivation of the strawberry crop, Fancy Farms applies crop protection materials, water and fertilizer to enhance the development of the strawberry plants and its yields of fruit. Planting typically takes approximately four (4) weeks to complete. (D.E. 50, 11-12).3 Harvesting typically starts in November or December, and ends in March or April of the following year. (D.E. 48, 17-20, 53). Therefore, the eight-month “strawberry season” at Fancy Farms involves cultural activities occurring in two consecutive calendar years. As an example, the crop planted in 2013, and harvested in late 2013 through early 2014 is referred to herein as “the 2013-2014 strawberry season.” (D.E. 50, 15). 1 “D.E. 48, __” refers to the transcript from the April 17, 2017 deposition of Carl Grooms, followed by the appropriate numerical page designation(s). “D.E. 48-1, Ex. __” refers to exhibits from that deposition, followed by the appropriate numerical designation. 2 “D.E. 49, __” refers to the transcript from the May 2, 2017 deposition of Denise Alderman, followed by the appropriate numerical page designation(s). “D.E. 49, Ex. __” refers to exhibits from that deposition, followed by the appropriate numerical designation. 3 “D.E.50, __” refers to the transcript from the April 18, 2017 deposition of German Bedolla, followed by the appropriate numerical page designation(s). Case 8:15-cv-02690-SCB-AAS Document 47 Filed 05/11/17 Page 4 of 24 PageID 774 5 ALLEN NORTON & BLUE, P.A. SPDN-868764429-2016306 PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION 3. Although operating continuously since 1974 (D.E. 51, ¶ 2),4 Fancy Farms operated its strawberry farms during the 2013-2014 strawberry season on owned and leased properties in eastern Hillsborough County.5 Fancy Farms’ operations included cultivating 70 acres adjacent to its office, 52 additional acres at its English Creek farm property, 10 additional acres at its Hills Field farm property, 15 additional acres at its Drain Field Farm property, and 100 additional acres at its Futch Farm. (D.E. 48, 9-17). 4. Fancy Farms employed five full-time, year round Farm Managers or Field Foremen, who among other responsibilities, helped Carl Grooms manage the disking of the soil and preparation of bedding for the strawberry crop, planting, cultivation, harvesting and clean-up of the strawberry crops, and maintenance of worker housing and farm equipment. These salary paid Farm Managers included Dustin Grooms (Carl’s son), Bob McDowell, Donnie Randall, German Bedolla and Benjamin Dominguez. (D.E. 48, 17-21; D.E. 50, 12; D.E. 49, 18). Farm Managers, Field Foremen and seasonal workers of Fancy Farms are provided with Employee ID Cards, which are used for scanning hours worked, tracking piece-unit earnings, and assigning such employees to a p99articular crew of seasonal workers. (D.E. 49, 17-18). At the end of each season, seasonal employees keep their ID Cards. (D.E. 49, 9-13, 77). 5. Prior to the 2013-2014 season, Fancy Farms obtained necessary field laborers for its strawberry season by hiring domestic agricultural workers from the local area, many of whom had worked seasonally for Fancy Farms for several years. However, Fancy Farms had observed that such seasonal domestic workers had become less reliable in their attendance, and such inconsistent attendance of seasonal labor when work was available had caused operational 4 “D.E. 51, ¶ __” refers to the May 6, 2017 affidavit of Carl Grooms, followed by the appropriate numerical paragraph designation. “D.E. 51, Ex. __” refers to exhibits to this affidavit, followed by the appropriate numerical designation. “D.E. 51-1, Ex. __” refers to exhibits from that deposition, followed by the appropriate numerical designation. 5 Unless otherwise indicated, all factual statements herein refer to the 2013-2014 strawberry season at Fancy Farms. Case 8:15-cv-02690-SCB-AAS Document 47 Filed 05/11/17 Page 5 of 24 PageID 775 6 ALLEN NORTON & BLUE, P.A. SPDN-868764429-2016306 PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION problems, including the loss of a portion of the strawberry yields since there were not always sufficient harvesters available. (D.E. 48, 128-129). In planning for the 2013-2014 season and to hopefully improve on this labor supply, therefore, Fancy Farms made the decision to enter into the H-2A Program and rely principally on temporary foreign agricultural workers for its future seasonal labor needs. (D.E. 48, 129-134). 6. After reading about other growers’ successes in using the H-2A Program, and in order to participate as an employer if nonimmigrant foreign guestworkers (“H-2A workers”), Fancy Farms looked to find an experienced and reputable organization which could help it file the appropriate paperwork to gain permission to employ H-2A workers, to find productive H-2A workers, and to assist such H-2A workers in getting their H-2A visas and traveling to Florida for the 2013-2014 strawberry season. (D.E. 48, 137-140). Carl Grooms initially talked with the Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association (“FFVA”) for such assistance, but Grooms was looking for workers from Guatemala, and FFVA’s travel affiliate did not operate in Guatemala, causing Fancy Farms to look elsewhere for assistance. (D.E. 48, 210-212). 7. On May 28, 2013, Fancy Farms met for the first time with Nestor Molina, a principal with ANS, which Fancy Farms had learned about through Dustin Grooms’ internet research efforts. (D.E. 48, 140; D.E. 51, ¶ 4). In this initial meeting, Molina presented Carl and Dustin Grooms with his business card and a marketing brochure and explained his knowledge and expertise in assisting growers with participation in the H-2A Program. (D.E. 48, 140, 143-154; D.E. 51, Ex. 1). Carl Grooms explained to Molina Fancy Farms’ interest in obtaining H-2A workers from Guatemala, as he had worked several domestic workers who had been from Guatemala in recent seasons, and had found them to be very productive agricultural workers. (D.E. 48, 152). After Molina assured Grooms that he could obtain sufficient workers for Fancy Farms, Case 8:15-cv-02690-SCB-AAS Document 47 Filed 05/11/17 Page 6 of 24 PageID 776 7 ALLEN NORTON & BLUE, P.A. SPDN-868764429-2016306 PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION Grooms sought to obtain Molina’s references from others in the agricultural industry, and agreed to meet with Molina again once the reference checks had been contacted. 8. After meeting with Molina on an additional occasion in early June, 2013 when Molina also introduced Grooms to his business partner, Patrick Burns, and after obtaining positive references about Molina, Grooms met for a third time with Molina. After Grooms verified through industry contacts that the consideration for Molina and Burns’ services totaled an acceptable market rate for such administrative filing and recruiting services, Grooms agreed to use Molina’s services. (D.E. 48, 161, 213 [comparing Molina’s compensation for services to the H-2A service costs charged by FFVA for the 2014-2015 strawberry season]). Grooms understood that from Molina’s asserted expertise with the H-2A Program, Molina would be preparing and making all necessary filings with necessary governmental agencies to allow Fancy farms to employ up to 175 H-2A workers for the 2013-2014 strawberry season. (D.E. 48, 197). Grooms further understood and expected that Molina would provide the described services in his Agreement with Fancy Farms, and that such services would comply with the applicable law and regulations. (D.E. 48, 200-201; 204-205). 9. However, at no time did Fancy Farms authorize Molina or Burns to request recruitment fees of prospective H-2A workers, or that such prospective workers make payments of any kind to Molina, Burns or to ANS. (D.E. 51, ¶ 8). In light of concerns he had heard about recruiters demanding unauthorized recruitment fees, Carl Grooms verbally directed that Molina perform his offered services correctly, specifically warning Molina that “If you mess up on this one group of people for me, you’ll never get another H-2A position in the state of Florida.” (D.E. 48, 201-202). Grooms further balanced his warning to Molina by noting that by doing things Case 8:15-cv-02690-SCB-AAS Document 47 Filed 05/11/17 Page 7 of 24 PageID 777 8 ALLEN NORTON & BLUE, P.A. SPDN-868764429-2016306 PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION correctly, Molina would create “a good stepping stone” for further service opportunities to other area growers the next season. (D.E. 48, 204-206). 10. Following this third meeting with Grooms and Molina, Molina then presented Fancy Farms with a written proposal for services for the 2013-2014 strawberry season. (D.E. 48, 156; D.E. 48-1, Ex. 2). The proposal called generally for Molina and Burns to assist Fancy Farms in the recruitment of 100 H-2A workers for temporary agricultural employment during the 2013- 2014 strawberry season, and to assist such workers in obtaining their visas to come to the United States to work at Fancy Farms. (D.E. 48-1, Ex. 2). Molina’s proposal further called for Fancy Farms to hire Molina and Burns as employees, and consistent with prior discussions between them, to provide Molina and Burns free housing for the time they would be providing the proposal’s specified services. (D.E. 48-1, Ex. 2). 11. Accepting Molina’s proposal (“Agreement”), Fancy Farms commenced paying Molina and Burns weekly as full-time employees of Fancy Farms beginning June 20, 2013. (D.E. 51, ¶ 5; D.E. 49, 52-54; D.E. 49, Ex. 4). However, Fancy Farms did not issue either Molina or Burns employee ID cards. (D.E. 49, 13). Fancy Farms’ written Agreement with Molina did not explicitly prohibit Molina, Burns or ANS, or persons acting on one or more of their behalf, from collecting payments from prospective H-2A workers, because Grooms was not aware of any requirement that this be done. (D.E. 51, ¶ 7; D.E. 48, 201, 208-209). However, Carl Grooms verbally communicated to Molina in June, 2013 that Fancy Farms expected that Molina would provide all described services correctly, including timely providing the H-2A workers copies of the written job offer for their employment at Fancy Farms. (D.E. 48, 205-206; D.E. 51, ¶ 11). Grooms further explained that by doing all services correctly, Molina would allow Grooms to recommend Molina’s H-2A services to other growers in the area. (D.E. 48, 205, 208). Case 8:15-cv-02690-SCB-AAS Document 47 Filed 05/11/17 Page 8 of 24 PageID 778 9 ALLEN NORTON & BLUE, P.A. SPDN-868764429-2016306 PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION 12. Molina prepared an initial Application for Temporary Labor Certification (“ETA 790”) on behalf of Fancy Farms, which Carl Grooms executed on June 25, 2013. (D.E. 51, ¶ 6). The executed ETA-790 contained, inter alia, Fancy Farms’ agreement to abide by the regulations set forth in 20 C.F.R. §§ 655.135 and 653.501. (D.E. 51-1, Ex. 3). 13. Molina submitted the executed ETA-790 for the initial 100 H-2A workers (“Initial Certification Application”) to the State of Florida’s Department of Economic Opportunity, Alien Labor Certification Office in Tallahassee, Florida (“DEO, Foreign Labor Certification”) for its review and approval. The DEO, Foreign Labor Certification approved the executed ETA 790 on July 9, 2013, for the potential employment of 100 H-2A workers at Fancy Farms for the anticipated work period of September 1, 2013 through April 15, 2014, and placed the executed ETA-790 in the Intrastate and Interstate Clearance Systems, per the provisions of the Wagner Peyser Act, 29 U.S.C. §§49 et seq. (“Wagner-Peyser Act”). (D.E. 51-1, Ex. 3). After an insufficient number of qualified domestic workers expressed interest in Fancy Farms’ job offer as outlined in the executed ETA-790, the U.S. Department of Labor certified a labor shortage on July 30, 2013 through issuance of the ETA Form 9142A (D.E. 51-1, Ex. 4). This labor certification authorized the Department of Homeland Security to approve the issuance of 100 H-2A visas to nonimmigrant foreign workers interested in the temporary employment opportunity at Fancy Farms. (D.E. 51-1, Ex. 4). 14. Shortly before the initial 100 H-2A workers were scheduled to have arrived for temporary employment at Fancy Farms, Carl Grooms learned for the first time that Molina was not able to obtain the requested workers from Guatemala, but that he would instead be bringing H-2A workers from Honduras. (D.E. 48, 169). When he had accepted Molina’s proposal, Carl Grooms was not aware that Molina would be traveling to Honduras to assist H-2A workers in Case 8:15-cv-02690-SCB-AAS Document 47 Filed 05/11/17 Page 9 of 24 PageID 779 10 ALLEN NORTON & BLUE, P.A. SPDN-868764429-2016306 PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION obtaining their visas. (D.E. 48, 168), and Fancy Farms did not ever pay for any transportation expenses for Molina or Burns to travel to Honduras. (D.E. 48, 174). All H-2A workers employed by Fancy Farms during the 2013-2014 strawberry season were from Honduras. (D.E. 52, 48).6 The specific hours worked each workweek by the Plaintiffs during the 2013-1014 season are set forth in Defendant’s Verified Summary of Hours Worked. (D.E. 19-1, Attachment 1). 15. After the H-2A workers arrived in October, 2013, Fancy Farms received a spreadsheet from Molina identifying the pre-employment expenses which the workers had incurred in coming to work for Fancy Farms. (D.E. 49, 40-41, 83-84; D.E. 49, Ex. 3, p. 2). Fancy Farms promptly paid the works for such pre-employment expenses. (D.E. 49, Ex. 2). 16. The initial 100 H-2A workers recruited by Molina did not arrive for work at Fancy Farms on September 1, 2013, as Carl Grooms had planned for and expected. Instead, they trickled in through separate groups on various dates after October 1, 2013. (D.E. 48, 180; D.E. 51, ¶ 6). 17. Once the H-2A workers arrived in Plant City for their seasonal employment at Fancy Farms, neither Molina nor Burns helped train the workers as stated in Molina’s proposal for H-2A services. (D.E. 48, 181). Instead, the training and field supervision of the H-2A workers was handled by the Farm Managers and Field Foremen of Fancy Farms. (D.E. 51, ¶ 6). 18. Fancy Farms reimbursed its H-2A workers for pre-employment expenses based upon expenses they incurred as reported initially by Molina, and as confirmed by each worker. (D.E. 48, 173-174, 177). At no time while reimbursing pre-employment expenses did any of the H-2A workers report to Fancy Farms that they had paid recruitment fees of monetary guarantees to or on behalf of Molina, to Burns or to ANS. (D.E. 51, ¶ 8). 6 “D.E. 52, __” refers to the transcript from the April 18, 2017 deposition of Benjamin Dominguez, followed by the appropriate numerical page designation(s). Case 8:15-cv-02690-SCB-AAS Document 47 Filed 05/11/17 Page 10 of 24 PageID 780 11 ALLEN NORTON & BLUE, P.A. SPDN-868764429-2016306 PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION 19. After Molina and Burns helped Fancy Farms with its Initial Certification Application, Fancy Farms sought additional assistance from Molina for an additional labor certification application for the employment of an additional 75 H-2A workers for the strawberry harvest (“Second Certification Application”). Molina did not present a second proposal for these additional services, but he and Carl Grooms agreed that the terms of the initial proposal for 100 H-2A workers would apply to his efforts to obtain the second labor certification application as well. (D.E. 51, ¶ 9). Thus, Fancy Farms continued to pay Molina his $500 weekly salary through January 23, 2014, and paid Burns his weekly salary through November 28, 2013. Burns’ employment with Fancy Farms was discontinued by Carl Grooms on November 28, 2013. By that date, Burns – who did not speak Spanish - did not appear to be providing any further services of value to Fancy Farms, and Fancy Farms did not have any work for Burns to do on the farm properties that would justify his continued employment. (D.E. 51, ¶¶ 12,13; D.E. 48, 160-161). 20. Molina prepared the necessary paperwork for Fancy Farms’ Second Certification Application, including paperwork prepared by Molina which Carl Grooms executed on October 13, 2013 (D.E. 48, 193-194). Grooms later signed the ETA-790 for the Second Certification Application contained, inter alia, Fancy Farms’ agreement to abide by the regulations set forth in 20 C.F.R. §§ 655.135 and 653.501. (D.E. 51-1, Ex. 5). The second 75 H-2A workers also arrived after December 9, 2013, the date stated as the anticipated date of need in the Second Certification Application. (D.E. 51-1, Ex. 5; D.E. 19-1 – showing dates of hire for H-2A workers commencing employment in December , 2013 as well after anticipated December 9, 2013 date of need). 21. Conducting what appeared to be compliant H-2A services to Fancy Farms, Grooms recommended Molina to a fellow strawberry grower – G & D Farms, a farm operation affiliated Case 8:15-cv-02690-SCB-AAS Document 47 Filed 05/11/17 Page 11 of 24 PageID 781 12 ALLEN NORTON & BLUE, P.A. SPDN-868764429-2016306 PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION with Wish Farms – in Plant City in the fall of 2013. (D.E. 48, 208; D.E. 53, ¶ 3).7 G & D Farms subsequently entered into a written agreement with Molina on December 16, 2013 for the H-2A services he would be providing for the 2014 season. The written agreement was written by G & D Farms, and contained a written prohibition against Molina seeking the payment of recruitment fees from its prospective H-2A workers. (D.E. 53, ¶ 4, D.E. 53, Ex.1). Once the H-2A workers arrived for work, G & D Farms also asked each of its H-2A workers to execute a Travel Reimbursement Form, confirming inter alia that each had “not been asked to pay a recruiter fee for placement in the position.” D.E. 53, ¶ 5. Each H-2A worker employed by G & D Farms executed the Travel Reimbursement Form, including Anthony A. Sierra Hernandez, who worked for G & D Farms in January, 2014. (D.E. 53, ¶ 5). 22. Notwithstanding this written prohibition as set forth in the agreement between G & D Farms and Nestor Molina, Anthony A. Sierra Hernandez affirmatively asserted in the ANS litigation that he had to pay a guarantee of between $3,000 and $4,000 as a “guarantee” that he would not abscond from his position with G & D Farms. (Complaint in ANS litigation, ¶¶ 14-15). 23. In early March, 2014, Fancy Farms received a written letter from an attorney purporting to represent some of its H-2A workers. The content of the letter communicated to Fancy Farms for the first time that Plaintiffs allegedly had paid a recruitment fee or “guarantee” of some kind to Molina (e.g., D.E. 17-5 and 17-31, responses to Interrogatory 7), and asserted that Fancy Farms was responsible for reimbursing the payments which had been made. The letter’s content provided Carl Grooms with the initial notice that its H-2A workers may have been required to pay fees to ANS or Molina prior to obtaining their visas in Honduras. (D.E. 48, 182-183; D.E. 7 “D.E. 53, ¶ __” refers to the May 11, 2017 affidavit of Jessica Legg, followed by the appropriate numerical paragraph designation. “D.E. 53, Ex. __” refers to exhibits to this affidavit, followed by the appropriate numerical designation. Case 8:15-cv-02690-SCB-AAS Document 47 Filed 05/11/17 Page 12 of 24 PageID 782 13 ALLEN NORTON & BLUE, P.A. SPDN-868764429-2016306 PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION 51, ¶ 14; D.E. 51-1, Ex. 7). G & D Farms received a similar letter from an attorney representing some of the H-2A workers’ whom Molina had assisted in obtaining visas for strawberry harvesting work at G & D Farms (D.E. 53, ¶ 6; D.E. 53, Ex. 2). 24. After receiving the attorney’s correspondence, Grooms promptly met with the H- 2A workers employed at Fancy Farms and, with the language assistance of German Bedolla – who is fluent in both English and Spanish8 - asked the H-2A workers whether the allegations of having to pay fees to ANS were true. (D.E. 48, 183). After the workers provided inconsistent responses to his inquiries, Carl Grooms also contacted Nestor Molina to ask him about the letter’s allegations. Upon reaching him, Molina denied to Grooms that he had requested any recruitment fees, guarantees or other payments from the H-2A workers whom he had assisted in getting visas in Honduras. (D.E. 48, 184-185). Grooms did not seek to contact Burns in March, 2014, as Burns had ceased his employment several months earlier. When Grooms later observed Molina on the farm property in March, 2014, Grooms ordered him off of the farm property in light of the allegations which had been made against him by some of the H-2A workers. (D.E. 48, 189; D.E. 49, 77-78). Molina complied with Grooms’ direction. (D.E. 48, 188-189). 25. After receipt of the legal correspondence and since most of the H-2A workers were still employed, Fancy Farms promptly communicated to its H-2A workers in writing and in Spanish at the time it distributed the workers’ next weekly paychecks that no person had the authority to request that they pay fees for the opportunity to work at Fancy Farms. (D.E. 51, ¶ 14; D.E. 48, 218; D.E. 48-1, Ex. 8). Some of the Plaintiffs have identified this written communication to be the response of Fancy Farms to their raising concerns through their attorneys about the “guarantees” which they had paid, and such Plaintiffs retained copies of this written 8 D.E. 49, 21. Case 8:15-cv-02690-SCB-AAS Document 47 Filed 05/11/17 Page 13 of 24 PageID 783 14 ALLEN NORTON & BLUE, P.A. SPDN-868764429-2016306 PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION correspondence (D.E. 17-27, Attachment 1; D.E. 48-1, Ex. 8). In English, the written statement given to all of Fancy Farms’ H-2A workers in March, 2014 stated: Notice Regarding Placement Fees No person is authorized on behalf of Fancy Farms to have required that you pay a monetary fee of any amount to any person who may have assisted you in obtaining your visa to come to the United States for temporary work in agriculture. Such placement fees are prohibited by law. The enclosed earnings for your work at Fancy Farms are yours to keep, and no person is authorized on behalf of Fancy Farms to require that you ever provide them any portion of your weekly earnings. If anyone requests that you pay to them any of your earnings from your employment on Fancy Farms, you should simply tell them “No,” and report such inappropriate demands to your Farm Manager. Fancy Farms will promptly turn over any such reports to local law enforcement. (D.E. 51-1, Ex. 8). 25. Fancy Farms’ principals also met with Plaintiffs’ legal counsel, and representatives of law enforcement to discuss the services which Molina and Burns had provided to the farm. (D.E. 48, 186-188). Neither Molina, Burns or ANS has provided any services to Fancy Farms since the 2013-2014 strawberry season. For the 2014-2015 strawberry season, Fancy Farms remained in the H-2A Program, but no longer used any service of Molina, (D.E. 48, 209). Instead, Fancy Farms utilized the services of FFVA and its affiliated organization, Florida East Coast Travel Services, to assist in obtaining H-2A workers for the 2014-2015 season. 26. As part of its Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(ii) Disclosures in this litigation, Plaintiffs have produced copies of what appear to be receipts of the alleged “guarantees” paid to ANS at the direction of Molina and/or Burns.9 Most of the receipts produced by Plaintiffs contain dates of 9 In their Rule 26 Disclosures, Plaintiffs describe such documents as “Miscellaneous documents provided to counsel by Plaintiffs,” which Defendant’s counsel understands to be potential evidence of “guarantee” payments made by some of the Plaintiffs. Since the documents are in Spanish, only the name of the Plaintiff and the date of the alleged receipt are used, when both data points are readily visible from the photocopy that has been produced. Case 8:15-cv-02690-SCB-AAS Document 47 Filed 05/11/17 Page 14 of 24 PageID 784 15 ALLEN NORTON & BLUE, P.A. SPDN-868764429-2016306 PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION when the alleged payments were made. Of those legible receipts produced by Plaintiffs to date which have dates that pertain to an identifiable named Plaintiff, the Plaintiffs’ receipts include the following (copies attached as D.E. 47-1), with a corresponding page designation from Plaintiffs’ Initial Disclosures:10 Plaintiff’s Name Date of Receipt Disclosure Designation Dionicio Mencia Chaver May 24, 2013 P-528 Jose Melvin Vasquez Dominguez May 24, 2013 P-531 Jose Melvin Vasquez Dominguez May 24, 2013 P-535 Jose Melvin Vasquez Dominguez May 22, 2013 P-533 Jose Melvin Vasquez Dominguez May 22, 2013 P-537 Merlyn Raul Rodriguez Amaya May 20, 2013 P-538, P-541 Alex Daniel Ulloa Amaya May 17, 2013 P-529 Jonathan Felipe Amaya Benitez May 13, 2013 P-539 Jose Melvin Vasquez Dominguez April 29, 2013 P-536 Jose Melvin Vasquez Dominguez April 29, 2013 P-532 Alex Daniel Ulloa Amaya February 2, 2014 P-52511 III. Fancy Farms is entitled to Summary Judgment as to Plaintiffs’ Claims for Reimbursement of Alleged “Guarantees” paid to ANS a. The dates of Plaintiffs’ receipts reflect that requests for and payments made to or for the benefit of ANS preceded Molina and Burns’ employment relationship with Fancy Farms Under the FLSA, pre-employment expenses which are primarily incurred by H-2A workers for the benefit of their H-2A employer are considered to be de facto deductions from wages for the employee’s initial workweek of employment. Arriaga v. Florida Pacific Farms, LLC, 305 F.3d, 1228, 1241-1246 (11th Cir. 2002). Such expenses must be reimbursed therefore, to the extent that such de facto deductions would cause the employee to earn less than the federal minimum wage rate for hours worked their initial workweek of employment. 10 Photocopies which are not legible, which are duplicative, and those which do not identify the name of the Plaintiff producing the receipt are enclosed, but are not listed here. Plaintiffs’ Disclosure P-541 appears to be signed by Plaintiff Merlyn Raul Rodriguez Amaya, as he has a distinctive signature (see, D.E. 17-39). 11 Notably, this apparent receipt is dated February 2, 2014, which is well after his other apparent receipt for 61,309 lempiras (P-529). Case 8:15-cv-02690-SCB-AAS Document 47 Filed 05/11/17 Page 15 of 24 PageID 785 16 ALLEN NORTON & BLUE, P.A. SPDN-868764429-2016306 PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION In Arriaga, H-2A workers sought reimbursement of certain pre-employment expenses, alleging that certain expenses borne by the workers prior to commencing their employment should be reimbursed by their employer as a matter of law, to the extent such costs and expenses resulted in the worker making less than the federal minimum wage for hours worked during their respective initial workweeks of employment in the United States. Arriaga held that the pre-employment expenses that required reimbursement under the FLSA included the H-2A workers’ visa and border crossing fees, which the workers necessarily incurred to work temporarily in the United States for the employer whose name appears on his H-2A visa. Arriaga v. Florida Pacific Farms, LLC, 305 F.3d. 1228, 1232, at n. 2. However, Arriaga also involved the claim of H-2A workers who sought to hold their employer responsible for reimbursing recruitment fees allegedly paid by the H-2A workers to various recruiters, under circumstances in which such fees were unauthorized and contrary to the directions given by the growers and their agents. In rejecting such asserted liability, the court in Arriaga held that under the FLSA, the growers were not liable for the unauthorized recruitment fees, since under principles of agency law, there was no evidence of words or conduct of the growers which reasonably could have caused the H-2A workers to believe the growers consented to have the recruitment fees demanded on their behalf. Arriaga, 305 F.3d at 1244-1245; see id., at 1245, n.4 (“Nothing in the FLSA seeks to displace the principles of agency law.”). For similar reasons, H-2A workers’ claims for reimbursement of recruiting fees have also been rejected in numerous other cases decided since Arriaga. See, e.g., Ramos-Barrientos v. Bland, 661 F.3d 587, 600-601 (11th Cir. 2011)(grower not liable for recruiter fees paid by prospective H-2A workers, where grower never expressly permitted collection of fees nor acquiesced in collection of fees); Ojeda-Sanchez v. Bland Farms, LLC, 2010 WL 3282984, 11-12 Case 8:15-cv-02690-SCB-AAS Document 47 Filed 05/11/17 Page 16 of 24 PageID 786 17 ALLEN NORTON & BLUE, P.A. SPDN-868764429-2016306 PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION S.D.Ga.2010)(recruiter’s collection of fees from prospective H-2A workers exceeded the scope of authority provided by grower). Arriaga’s holding with respect to unauthorized recruitment fees applies to resolve Plaintiffs’ asserted FLSA and contract claims here. The undisputed facts reflect that Molina and Carl Grooms first met on May 28, 2013. This initial meeting and subsequent face-to-face meetings through Molina’s June 20, 2013 hire date involved communications to determine whether Molina would provide services to assist Fancy Farms with H-2A labor certification during the 2013-2014 strawberry season. While H-2A regulations in effect in 2013 required fixed-site growers to prohibit third parties from seeking payments from prospective workers (20 C.F.R. 655.135(k)), and while Fancy Farms did not explicitly prohibit this in its written agreement with Molina, for multiple reasons this omission creates no obligation of Fancy Farms under the FLSA or asserted breach of contract to reimburse any guarantees which may have been paid to Molina or ANS. As an initial reason and according to Plaintiffs’ receipts, the record evidence reflects that most (if not all) of the guarantee payments had already been requested and paid before Molina and Grooms ever even met. Specifically, Plaintiffs’ receipts, produced as part of its Rule 26(c) Disclosures in this litigation, are attached (D.E. 47-1). Although the receipts are in Spanish, what can be read without the need for an interpreter are the dates of the various receipts, ranging from April 29, 2013 to May 24, 2013.12 Thus, the very evidence produced by Plaintiffs in this litigation to support their asserted payments of “guarantees” to ANS chronologically precede the first meeting that ever took place between Carl Grooms and Nestor Molina. 12 In addition to the lone receipt from 2014 described above, Plaintiffs have produced two apparent receipts (P-542, P-543, dated October 10, 2013 and September 9, 2013, respectively), with dates after June 20, 2013, which is the date Molina and Burns commenced their employment with Fancy Farms. (D.E. 47-1). However, these apparent receipts do not sufficiently identify the named Plaintiff or Plaintiffs who may have produced the receipts. Case 8:15-cv-02690-SCB-AAS Document 47 Filed 05/11/17 Page 17 of 24 PageID 787 18 ALLEN NORTON & BLUE, P.A. SPDN-868764429-2016306 PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION Under such facts and assuming, arguendo, that the Plaintiffs herein were required to pay “guarantees” to ASN as they assert in their Amended Complaint (D.E. 14, ¶ 17), Molina could not have been acting as an agent for Fancy Farms in requesting the payment of “guarantees” from the Plaintiffs, as Molina was not an agent of Fancy Farms when the alleged demands were made and the apparent payments were provided. Therefore, whatever Molina (and any others acting in concert with him) may have told each of the Plaintiffs about their prospects for employment in the United States and alleged earnings they might make, such communications made prior to mid- June, 2013 could not have been related to employment at Fancy Farms for the 2013-2014 strawberry season. Therefore, there is no evidence on the evidentiary record that supports an FLSA claim that Fancy Farms is liable for “guarantees” paid by the Plaintiffs to Molina or for the benefit of ANS under a theory of apparent authority, when the chronology reveals that demands and payments occurred prior to the creation of an agency relationship between Molina and Fancy Farms. Under these facts, and assuming arguendo that demands and payments for “guarantees” were made by Molina or ANS in Honduras, Arriaga’s holding as applied here rejects FLSA liability to Fancy Farms, and provides that Plaintiffs’ sole remedy is against ANS, Molina and/or Burns, as the plaintiffs initially sought to establish through the filing of the Complaint in the ANS litigation. b. Molina had no actual or apparent authority from Fancy Farms to demand “guarantees” from prospective H-2A workers Even had the demands and payments not preceded the creation of an agency relationship between Molina and Fancy Farms, there is no evidence on this record which, reasonably interpreted, could have caused Plaintiffs to believe that Fancy Farms consented to have recruitment fees or “guarantees” demanded by Molina or Burns on its behalf. Here, the only evidence is that Case 8:15-cv-02690-SCB-AAS Document 47 Filed 05/11/17 Page 18 of 24 PageID 788 19 ALLEN NORTON & BLUE, P.A. SPDN-868764429-2016306 PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION Carl Grooms verbally warned Nestor Molina to perform all of his H-2A services correctly, including not seeking recruitment fees from prospective H-2A workers and providing copies of the ETA-790 to prospective workers (D.E. 48, 205-206; D.E. 51, ¶ 11). Here, Plaintiffs Marvin Alexander Buezo Caballero, Renso Renerie Castillo Blanco, Alejandro Cruz Ponce, Dionicio Mencia Chaver and Selso Palma Ulloa asserted in their initial pleading in the ANS litigation that in recruiting the H-2A workers in that case, “[ANS, Molina and Burns] provided [them] with false and misleading information about the work. Among other things, [ANS, Molina and Burns] promised [them] that they each would earn $900.00 per week and that they would qualify for “blue cards” or “green cards” authorizing them to live and work permanently in the United States.” (ANS litigation, D.E. 1, ¶ 13). Such representations - if made as alleged - clearly had no relationship to the actual written job offer at Fancy Farms. At Fancy Farms, the Initial Labor Certification was certified on July 30, 2013, described the job offer as being for a minimum of 35 hours per week, at the guaranteed rate of at least $9.97/hour (or $348.95 per week). (D.E. 48-1, Ex. 3). The Second Labor Certification confirmed a similar job offer. (D.E. 48-1, Ex. 5). Had Molina performed the services expected by Grooms (D.E. 51, ¶ 11), copies of the ETA-790 would have been provided to Plaintiffs and would have confirmed the offer of far different employment terms than those alleged in the ANS litigation. Earning a guaranteed hourly rate of $9.97 per hour, the prospective workers would have realized that they would have had to work more than ninety (90) hours a week to earn $900.00 per week! c. Fancy Farms took no action to ratify Molina and Burns’ unauthorized demand for “guarantees” Once it first learned of the asserted “guarantees” which Plaintiffs claimed to have paid to ANS at the direction of Molina, Carl Grooms interviewed workers with the assistance of German Case 8:15-cv-02690-SCB-AAS Document 47 Filed 05/11/17 Page 19 of 24 PageID 789 20 ALLEN NORTON & BLUE, P.A. SPDN-868764429-2016306 PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION Bedolla, verbally told Plaintiffs that he had no knowledge that any of them had made such payments (D.E. 17-1, Response to Interrogatory 8), and issued a written statement to all of the Plaintiffs that clarified that no person had the authority to request that they make any payment of any kind to obtain work at Fancy Farms. (D.E. 51, Ex. 8). Under these undisputed facts, Fancy Farms engaged in no conduct or made any statements that would reasonably indicate to Plaintiffs that they condoned such payment requests, or otherwise ratified the unauthorized conduct which Molina allegedly had engaged in. d. Regulatory revisions since Arriaga do not trump principles of agency law as to the alleged “guarantees” paid to ANS by the Plaintiffs In Arriaga, the 11th Circuit stated: As to the general applicability of common-law principles to federal statutes, the Supreme Court has held that “in order to abrogate a common-law principle, the statute must speak directly to the question addressed by the common law.” United States v. Bestfoods, 524 U.S. 51, 63, 118 S.Ct. 1876, 141 L.Ed.2d 43 (1998)(citation omitted). Nothing in the FLSA seeks to displace the principles of agency law. Arriaga, 305 F.3d 1228, 1245 at n. 24. Since Arriaga was decided, the FLSA has not been amended so as to displace principles of agency law. Therefore, to the extent that Plaintiffs seek to rely on revised H-2A regulations issued by the United States Department of Labor (“DOL”) to impose FLSA liability to Fancy Farms for the Plaintiffs’ alleged unauthorized payments of “guarantees,” the Plaintiffs invite this Court to err as a matter of law. Here, the DOL’s H-2A regulations cannot be interpreted to impose employer liability under the FLSA for the reimbursement of unauthorized recruitment fees or “guarantees” beyond the liability imposed on employers by the FLSA itself. Garcia-Celestino v. Ruiz Harvesting, Inc., 843 F.3d 1276, 1289 (11th Cir. 2016)(holding that certain DOL’s regulatory definitions are entitled to no Chevron deference since the agency’s interpretation of the statute is Case 8:15-cv-02690-SCB-AAS Document 47 Filed 05/11/17 Page 20 of 24 PageID 790 21 ALLEN NORTON & BLUE, P.A. SPDN-868764429-2016306 PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION inconsistent with Congress’s intent). Since the FLSA does not seek to displace principles of agency law, liability under the FLSA for reimbursements of recruitment fees and “guarantees” must be predicated upon the application of agency principles to the facts presented, not from a novel strict liability standard advocated by Plaintiffs which flows from an inexperienced grower’s first time participation and use of the H-2A program. The DOL itself rejects such a strict liability standard, as its preamble comments to the 2010 H-2A regulations make clear that the regulatory obligation to prohibit third parties from seeking recruitment fees from prospective H-2A workers “do not require farmers to pay all costs that employees may claim that they paid to recruiters abroad.” 75 Fed.Reg. 6926 (February 12, 2010). Instead, current H-2A regulations merely support the premise that an employer’s failure to abide by the requirements of 20 C.F.R. § 655.135(k) constitutes a “violation” for which the employer can be penalized by the DOL, consistent with the provisions of 29 C.F.R. § 501.19(b). 20 C.F.R. § 655.182(d)(viii). However, Fancy Farms’ failure to provide a written prohibition against requesting recruitment fees from prospective H-2A workers does not make it liable for Molina’s unauthorized acts and misrepresentations. e. Plaintiffs’ breach of contract claims also fail to Impose Liability to Fancy Farms Under principles of contract law, Plaintiffs fare no better in their claims for reimbursements of alleged recruitment fees or “guarantees” paid to Molina or ANS in Honduras. Here, the H-2A workers’ contract claims turn on the interpretation of terms dictated by federal statutes and regulations. Avila-Gonzalez v. Barajas, No. 2:04cv567-FTM-33DNF, 2006 WL 643297, at *1 (M.D.Fla. Mar. 2, 2006), citing Mitchell v. Osceola Farms Co., No. 0580825CIVCOHN, 2005 WL 3591983, at *2 (S.D.Fla. Dec. 29, 2005). Principles of agency equally determine Fancy Case 8:15-cv-02690-SCB-AAS Document 47 Filed 05/11/17 Page 21 of 24 PageID 791 22 ALLEN NORTON & BLUE, P.A. SPDN-868764429-2016306 PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION Farms’ asserted liability to Plaintiffs for alleged breach of contract, when the liability is indisputably predicated upon the unauthorized conduct of its employees. Fancy Farms hired Molina on or about June 20, 2013 to perform H-2A services, and through the verbal communication of Carl Grooms, to perform such services correctly and in compliance with applicable laws and regulations. By the time Molina had been hired by Fancy Farms and although not known by Grooms, virtually all of Molina’s demands had been made and payments of “guarantees” had been made already by those Plaintiffs with receipts of such payments. (D.E. 47-1). Such demands and payments were unknown to Fancy Farms, and once notified that such demands and payments may have been made, Fancy Farms unequivocally repudiated the assertion that its H-2A workers had to make payments of any kind to anyone to obtain employment for the 2013-2014 strawberry season. Under such facts, Fancy Farms’ written failure to forbid Molina from seeking fees from prospective H-2A workers as part of its written agreement for H-2A services had no impact on those Plaintiffs who had already paid such placement fees or “guarantees.” As noted above, Carl Grooms communicated to Molina that he expected him to perform the H-2A services correctly, and in full compliance with applicable rules and regulations. In short, Fancy Farms was removed from and wholly ignorant of Molina’s unauthorized acts in Honduras which form the predicate for Plaintiffs’ contract claims herein. It is undisputed that Fancy Farms had no knowledge of Molina’s alleged conduct in Honduras when it hired he and Burns as employees, and there is no evidence to support its approval of Molina’s unauthorized acts once it first learned of such acts in March, 2014. Thus, Fancy Farms is not liable under breach of contract for Molina’s unauthorized acts of allegedly demanding payments or “guarantees.” United Parcel Service, Inc. v. Buchwald Jewelers, 476 So.2d 772, 773 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)(to infer Case 8:15-cv-02690-SCB-AAS Document 47 Filed 05/11/17 Page 22 of 24 PageID 792 23 ALLEN NORTON & BLUE, P.A. SPDN-868764429-2016306 PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION principal ratified unauthorized act of his agent, evidence must demonstrate that the principal was fully informed and that it approved of the act). Furthermore, even if one or more of the Plaintiffs had not yet paid the requested “guarantee” demanded by Molina prior to June 20, 2013, the evidence reflects that had Fancy Farms incorporated such a written prohibition into the agreement with Molina, it would not have made any difference. As demonstrated by his services agreement with G & D Farms, Molina explicitly was prohibited from requesting placement fees from prospective H-2A workers, yet this written prohibition did not impact Molina’s interactions with Anthony A. Sierra Hernandez, who alleged in the ANS litigation that he was compelled by Molina to pay a guarantee before obtaining his visa to work at G & D Farms. IV. Summary For the reasons noted above, Fancy Farms respectfully submits that it is not liable under the FLSA or contract law for the unauthorized acts of Nestor Molina and Patrick Burns, to the extent that they may have demanded and obtained “guarantees” from prospective H-2A workers employed by Fancy farms for the 2013-2014 strawberry season. Under principles of agency law, Neither Molina nor Burns were authorized to demand or collect such fees or “guarantees” from the Plaintiffs, and there is not a shred of evidence on this record to support a claim that Fancy Farms engaged in any conduct or communications which reasonably could have caused the H-2A workers to believe that it consented to have the recruitment fees demanded on its behalf. Accordingly, Fancy Farms are entitled to judgment on Plaintiffs’ FLSA and contract claims as a matter of law. Case 8:15-cv-02690-SCB-AAS Document 47 Filed 05/11/17 Page 23 of 24 PageID 793 24 ALLEN NORTON & BLUE, P.A. SPDN-868764429-2016306 PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION Dated this 11th day of May, 2017. Respectfully submitted, s/ David J. Stefany DAVID J. STEFANY Florida Bar No. 438995 MATTHEW D. STEFANY Florida Bar No. 98790 Counsel for Defendant ALLEN NORTON & BLUE, P.A. Hyde Park Plaza – Suite 225 324 South Hyde Park Avenue Tampa, Florida 33606-4127 (813) 251-1210 | (813) 253-2006 – Fax E-mail: dstefany@anblaw.com mstefany@anblaw.com CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 11th day of May, 2017, I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing by electronic mail to Gladys Andrea Ortega, Esquire, [andrea.ortega@frls.org], and Sara Mangan, Esquire, [sara.mangan@frls.org], Florida Rural Legal Services, Inc., 3210 Cleveland Avenue, Suite 101, Fort Myers, Florida 33902. s/ David J. Stefany ATTORNEY Case 8:15-cv-02690-SCB-AAS Document 47 Filed 05/11/17 Page 24 of 24 PageID 794 P-523 Case 8:15-cv-02690-SCB-AAS Document 47-1 Filed 05/11/17 Page 1 of 26 PageID 795 P-524 Case 8:15-cv-02690-SCB-AAS Document 47-1 Filed 05/11/17 Page 2 of 26 PageID 796 P-525 Case 8:15-cv-02690-SCB-AAS Document 47-1 Filed 05/11/17 Page 3 of 26 PageID 797 n 3 3 {D o (D il fD f. o- o: I I+-- F") ls L i el sisuie',,: :posito para la cuente dealiog'o 2l-249-0001i+': a nomllre de JAIftIE ALIIERTO j\,tEStF,t ,ri,rNTr)S. de fecha l3 cte lvlayo del aflo 2013 p_or un r:alerr de L.61,??*,00 (l.mprolrantc r,]O.i{ '}]]g2OI3,DEPOSiIANtC:JONATHANFELTPEAMAYA' y para los fines clue al interesado 0onvenga. se extiencle la prcsente c.onstalloia en la ciudil'l rje Cracias Lenrpim a tos veinte ,v si6te clias delmes rle Marzc del aiio dt>s firil c''atorce" RITA MENJ{VAR @*.'q s *n"ottto*o *F, *ont \cl ?n'***9 Coniador P-539 Case 8:15-cv-02690-SCB-AAS Document 47-1 Filed 05/11/17 Page 17 of 26 PageID 811 Page 1 of I 0l ' r 3n:lnrtllll lilogll-! rtm 'gtfi l^lfflt ii/o5teols ffiuu ffiii ffi16 re:$i:56 Cfr180 : t0s0 qilfts 0ffifs flr. 0$t00$5lpss *ff stu.am, frc illttns mfiln Ifits llortts.o s[it[s: ttt !0.f t0?At LF 40,ltl5;^s llt,& a k* P-540 Case 8:15-cv-02690-SCB-AAS Document 47-1 Filed 05/11/17 Page 18 of 26 PageID 812 r - . _ , ' . . ! . r t - r . 1 T H . r . , t i l _ r , , a Hp,r . r ;1 r -1114 1:1[1Fl '1 F '1 FFir:tl.1 : urutn ffHs glll t.IgRFrn *ttrilrffif ) e$/a$r0rs ffitrIf,: ffilFIfi $RffiIfrS Lfirfr:4t Ciln0 : tm fifim gfiHl gff,, stn0tr5r255 flnTf, uE"Lflf,, ilns tHTItEt ss[It0 tps 110,26"00 fif,tEt: LS t0.00 $r* $it rt0,2G,00 tllc" f,gF"JTg$ffns qtaf,, {trfru,ltf,;jt*s P-541 Case 8:15-cv-02690-SCB-AAS Document 47-1 Filed 05/11/17 Page 19 of 26 PageID 813 a,) r_,+ '_,. _-l h) h i :!:' ' ' -- ' [ { L_ ' + ; 5 > ; t fJ {} , t) c{ f r l i : i u i ;s ,2 s t r i i K tsE rg' r E : ; q t J 6i+ .1 r- '-' ii vr. ; ( : } i _ - l , " : ' I : i a r J ;E;Fa f f i i l i# E VJ < - z b 5* - : t , €R ; : ; - . r ' ^ . . r { i i Z i t ; - < a ; i c ' ; { ; R t ? s r - i 6 I . i l .i : t : i o " - l I : : a ts " jsF f ,x F ; J : r . . . r ! i L !> h: @] TD -..! I ' rfi ar1 CF t^t) (,i-'! '\j N i! (J) ++^ v;{ 7 o P-542 Case 8:15-cv-02690-SCB-AAS Document 47-1 Filed 05/11/17 Page 20 of 26 PageID 814 ,: 0r t?to RET.JTELLER/ltg o(iio ffir'*; ,^g* **tl i l t Viru trbfevzr\ P-543 Case 8:15-cv-02690-SCB-AAS Document 47-1 Filed 05/11/17 Page 21 of 26 PageID 815 THE FOLLOWING PAGES ARE CLEAN COPIES OF BATES NOS. P-523-P-525 AND P-534 PROVIDED TO DEFENDANT BY PLAINTIFFS ON 05/11/17. CORRELATING NUMBER ADDED BY DEFENDANT. Case 8:15-cv-02690-SCB-AAS Document 47-1 Filed 05/11/17 Page 22 of 26 PageID 816 PLAINTIFF - 000525 Case 8:15-cv-02690-SCB-AAS Document 47-1 Filed 05/11/17 Page 23 of 26 PageID 817 PLAINTIFF - 000524 Case 8:15-cv-02690-SCB-AAS Document 47-1 Filed 05/11/17 Page 24 of 26 PageID 818 PLAINTIFF - 000523 Case 8:15-cv-02690-SCB-AAS Document 47-1 Filed 05/11/17 Page 25 of 26 PageID 819 PLAINTIFFS - 000534 Case 8:15-cv-02690-SCB-AAS Document 47-1 Filed 05/11/17 Page 26 of 26 PageID 820