Barajas

Opinion by Judge D.W. NELSON; Dissent by Judge BEEZER.

Plaintiffs, seasonal agricultural workers, appeal the district court’s dismissal of their complaint, which alleges violations of the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act, 29 U.S.C. § 1801 et seq. (“AWPA” or “the Act”). The district court borrowed Arizona’s one-year statute of limitations for liabilities created by statute and held that plaintiffs’ action was untimely. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we reverse.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

This action was brought in federal district court on February 18,1992 by seasonal agricultural workers who had been employed by Taplett North Orchards during the autumn of 1989. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and in-junctive relief and damages under the AWPA, the Fair Labor Standards Act, and general contract principles. This appeal concerns only plaintiffs’ claims under the AWPA.

The AWPA is the successor statute to the Federal Farm Labor Contractor Registration Act, 7 U.S.C. §§ 2041-2053 (“FLCRA”) (enacted in 1974). The FLCRA was “the first major federal effort to improve the lot of agricultural laborers who ‘have long been among the most…

dissenting:

Because the result in this ease is controlled by Rivera v. Anaya, 726 F.2d 564 (9th Cir.1984), I would affirm the district court’s decision to borrow Arizona’s one-year statute of limitations for liabilities created by statute and hold that appellants’ action was untimely. See A.R.S. § 12-541(3).

Appellants in this case -have advanced three principal reasons why they believe we should disregard the clear dictates of Rivera . None has merit.

Appellants first contend that Rivera addressed a claim under the predecessor statute to the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act (“AWPA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1801 et seq. Although they are correct that Rivera was based on AWPA’s predecessor statute, the Federal Farm Labor Contractor Registration Act, 7 U.S.C. §§ 2041-2058 (“FLORA”), the two statutes are not significantly different. In Rivera , we acknowledged that “the subject matter of this Act is now covered by the [AWPA].” Rivera, 726 F.2d at 567 n. 1. Any differences between the statutes result from shortcomings of the FLORA recognized by Congress relating to a definitional structure that placed the duties and responsibilities only on farm labor contractors,…