Perez-Farias

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT AUG 17 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

JOSE GUADALUPE PEREZ-FARIAS; et No. 10-35397 al., D.C. No. 2:05-cv-03061-RHW Plaintiffs - Appellants,

v. MEMORANDUM*

GLOBAL HORIZONS, INC; et al.,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington Robert H. Whaley, Senior District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted July 12, 2011 Seattle, Washington

Before: CLIFTON and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and KORMAN, Senior District Judge.**

Plaintiffs Jose Guadalupe Perez-Farias, Jose F. Sanchez, and Ricardo

Betancourt (Workers) brought this action, as class representatives, against Global

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The Honorable Edward R. Korman, Senior District Judge for the U.S. District Court for Eastern New York, Brooklyn, sitting by designation. Horizons, Inc. (Global), Green Acre Farms, Inc., Valley Fruit Orchards,…

MEMORANDUM **

Plaintiffs Jose Guadalupe Perez-Farias, Jose F. Sanchez, and Ricardo Betancourt (Workers) brought this action, as class representatives, against Global Horizons, Inc. (Global), Green Acre Farms, Inc., Valley Fruit Orchards, LLC, (collectively Growers) and Platte River Insurance Company on July 12, 2005.

Workers appeal three issues from the district court’s proceedings. They argue that 1) the district court erred in interpret *845 ing the Washington’s Farm Labor Contractors Act’s (FLCA), Chapter 19, Wash. Rev.Code et seq., statutory damages provision as discretionary; 2) the district court erred in determining the Workers were not the prevailing party under the FLCA for the purpose of awarding attorneys’ fees; and 8) the district court violated their Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial by coming to a different conclusion than the jury on Global’s liability regarding the Workers’ discrimination claims, which were brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and the Washington Law Against Discrimination, Chapter 49.60 Wash. Rev. Code et seq. ER 452-58.

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we AFFIRM in part and REVERSE and REMAND in PART.

1. Under Washington…

concurring in part and dissenting in part:

I regret that I agree with only part of our decision in this case. I disagree with the reasoning and conclusion reached in section 1 of the majority’s memorandum disposition, agree with the result reached in section 2 but for a different reason, and agree with section 3 of the majority memorandum. I would affirm most of the judgment of the district court, and would reverse and remand only as to the district court’s conclusion that Plaintiffs were not a prevailing party for purposes of an award of attorney fees from the Grower defendants.

1. Damages under Wash. Rev.Code § 19.30.170(2)

I disagree with the majority’s interpretation of the Washington statute at issue regarding damages to be awarded for violations of the Washington Farm Labor Contractors Act (FLCA). I would affirm the award entered by the district court of approximately $235,000 in statutory damages. In contrast, the majority memorandum concludes, at 846, that “the district court erred when it did not award the Workers the full amount of mandatory statutory damages under the FLCA: $1,998,500.”

In a nutshell, I read the statute, as the district court did, to give the trial…