Under the H-2A Regulations, shepherds are entitled to the wages and certain working conditions outlined in the H-2A Regulations, which became part of a contract between Plaintiffs and their employers. Defendants had a contractual obligation to pay Plaintiffs the Nevada minimum wage, and breached their contracts, violating state law when they failed to do so.
In April of 2017, the Court granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss with leave for Plaintiffs to file a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) remedying any defects identified by the Court. Plaintiffs filed their SAC, May 15, 2017. Defendant again filed a motion to dismiss, which the Court granted in its entirety. Plaintiff is appealing the Court’s decision to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Defendant again filed a motion to dismiss, which the Court granted in its entirety. Plaintiff’s appealed the Court’s decision to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and oral argument was heard on May 13, 2019. On June 20, 2019, the Ninth Circuit reversed the dismissal, concluding that the lower court had jurisdiction under CAFA. The case will now go back to the Nevada District Court for further litigation. You can view the argument here.
Upon remand to the Nevada District Court, the Court had three motions to consider: (1) Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, (2) Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, and (3) Plaintiff’s Motion to Certify the Class. The Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, denied Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification, but did not rule on Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Instead, the Court opined that there was ambiguity in Nevada law and certified the question of whether sheepherders must be paid for 24 hours a day when they are always performing job duties. The Parties disagreed as to the question certified; however, after full briefing and oral argument, Plaintiff, Mr. Castillo, passed away, and the case was dismissed before any additional rulings.
