Medrano

Medrano v. D'Arrigo Bros. Co. of California

Good Law
125 F. Supp. 2d 1163·2000 WL 1873883·6 Wage & Hour Cas.2d (BNA) 1718·2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18501
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaDecember 19, 2000C-00-20826 JFCalifornia3,989 words

Opinion

Opinion

Fogel, J.

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS

[Docket No. 12]

Defendant D’Arrigo Brothers Company of California (“D’Arrigo”) moves for dismissal of the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. Alternatively, D’Arrigo asks the Court to apply a two year limitations period to Plaintiffs’ first four causes of action. The Court has read the moving and responding papers and has considered the oral arguments of counsel. For the reasons set forth below, the motion is denied.

I. BACKGROUND

This case was filed as a class action by current and former employees of D’Arrigo. Plaintiffs are agricultural workers, and D’Arrigo is an agricultural employer engaged in the business of planting, harvesting, grading, packaging, packing, and processing vegetables. Plaintiffs allege that from 1996 to the present, D’Arrigo has not accurately recorded or compensated them for all hours worked. These allegations stem from D’Arrigo’s policy and practice of mandating that its employees perform certain “work activities” without compensation. In particular, Plaintiffs are required to report to a designated departure point (“Spreckles Parking Lot”) where they must board buses operated…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.