Gilberto Rivera, Nicholas Alberto, Luis Navarro, Jose Garcia, Hector Garcia, Pablo Galindo, Socorro Mendivil, Rogelio Casares v. Joe Anaya

Good Law
726 F.2d 564·100 Lab. Cas. (CCH) 34,508·1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 25228
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitFebruary 23, 198483-5966California2,505 words

Opinion

Opinion

Reinhardt, J.

Appellants, migrant farm workers formerly employed by appellee Joe Anaya, allege that Anaya violated the Federal Farm Labor Contractor Registration Act, the California Farm Labor Contractor Registration Act and the Federal Insurance Contributions. Act, 7 U.S.C. §§ 2041-2053 (1982) (current version at 29 U.S.C. §§ 1801-1872 (1983)); Cal.Lab.Code §§ 1682-1699 (West 1982); 26 U.S.C. § 3101 et seq. (1983). The district court granted partial summary judgment in favor of Anaya on both the federal and state claims holding that: (1) Anaya’s failure to raise the statute of limitations as a defense in response to the first pleading did not serve to waive his right to raise it later absent prejudice to plaintiffs; and (2) the statute of limitations imposed by California Code of Civil Procedure § 340(1), bars plaintiffs’ claims under 7 U.S.C. § 2041 (1982) and Cal.Lab.Code § 1697 (West 1982). Plaintiffs challenge both rulings on appeal. We affirm the district court on the first issue and reverse on the second.

I.

Appellants are farm workers who were employed by appellee Joe Anaya in October 1979 to harvest cantalopes in the Imperial Valley. On February 4, 1981, appellants filed a complaint…

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.