Six (6) Mexican Workers v. Arizona Citrus Growers Bodine Produce Company, Inc. Robert Fletcher, D/B/A Fletcher Farms

904 F.2d 1301 107 A.L.R.Fed. 779, 116 Lab.Cas. P 35,375 SIX (6) MEXICAN WORKERS, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. ARIZONA CITRUS GROWERS; Bodine Produce Company, Inc.; Robert Fletcher, d/b/a Fletcher Farms, Defendants-Appellants. Nos. 89-15269, 89-15622. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted March 15, 1990. Decided May 18, 1990. Thomas N. Crowe, Crowe & Scott, Phoenix, Ariz., for defendants-appellants. Garry B. Bryant, Tucson, Ariz., for plaintiffs-appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. Before SNEED, FARRIS and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges. FARRIS, Circuit Judge: 1 This is an appeal from the district court's judgment finding Arizona Citrus Growers and two of its member growers liable for $1,846,500 in statutory damages for violation of the Farm Labor Contractor Registration Act. A prior appeal on several interlocutory rulings was consolidated with this appeal of the final judgment. FACTS 2 ACG is a nonprofit corporation operated as a cooperative for marketing the fruit produced by its 52 members. Appellants Bodine Produce Company and Fletcher Farms were the two largest members, controlling 60% of the…

This is an appeal from the district court’s judgment finding Arizona Citrus Growers and two of its member growers liable for $1,846,500 in statutory damages for violation of the Farm Labor Contractor Registration Act. A prior appeal on several interlocutory rulings was consolidated with this appeal of the final judgment.

FACTS

ACG is a nonprofit corporation operated as a cooperative for marketing the fruit produced by its 52 members. Appellants Bodine Produce Company and Fletcher Farms were the two largest members, controlling 60% of the total acreage harvested by ACG. A class action suit was filed on April 21, 1977 against these parties for failure to comply with requirements of FLCRA. The class consists of 1349 undocumented Mexican workers who were employed by ACG during the 1976-77 picking season. After a bench trial in 1984, the district court issued a finding that ACG was liable for the following violations of the Act: 1

Defendants Bodine and Fletcher were found liable as follows:

After the trial, the district court issued orders concerning the identification of eligible class members. On March 31,1989, the court issued a judgment for statutory damages against the…

concurring specially:

I concur in the court’s opinion. My purpose in writing a special concurrence is to indicate that the court’s opinion does not endorse a percentage recovery in common fund cases in all instances. Lodestar calculations may be required under circumstances in which a percentage recovery would be either too small or too large in light of the hours devoted to the case. Moreover, trial judges will find it useful, I suggest, to inquire early in the proceedings what mode of recovery of fees the attorneys of the plaintiff class anticipate utilizing. The responses to this inquiry no doubt will facilitate case management by the trial judge as well as the final resolution of the fee calculation issue.

concurring:

I concur in the decision to remand this case for further proceedings. I also concur in most of Judge Farris’ cogent opinion. I cannot, however, agree with what amounts to a direction to the district court to apply cy pres or to escheat any excess funds to the government. Nor can I agree with the further direction that return of the funds to the defendants “is not an available option.” While those dicta may not cause difficulty in future cases, they are unfair to the defendants in this one.

Cy pres is a fine concept in its proper place. Thus, it has commonly been used when a trustor has given funds for a specific charitable purpose, and that purpose has now been accomplished. Courts then undertake the risky task of divining what new purposes the trustor would have intended, and they try to approximate that intent as closely as possible. It is also a fine concept when parties have agreed that cy pres shall be used if money is left over at the end of a class action settlement. The individuals with a right to the funds have then committed themselves to that regime, just as a trustor may be said to have done so.

However, in this case it is proposed that the doctrine be…