Case 2:12-cv-00712-BCW Document 2 Filed 07/20/12 Page 1 of 21

Jonathan M. Benson (Bar No. 10908)
LAW OFFICE OF JONNY BENSON PLLC
47 East Fort Union Blvd., Suite #210
Midvale, Utah 84047
Phone: 801-255-8472
Fax: 801-255-8474
jonny@jonnyblaw.com
Co-counsel for Plaintiff
Tadd Dietz (Bar No. 12497)
LAW OFFICE OF TADD DIETZ, PLLC
47 East Fort Union Blvd., Suite #210
Midvale, UT 84047
Phone: 801-505-9243
Fax: 801-505-9968
tadd@dietzlegal.com
Co-counsel for Plaintiff
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION
350 S. Main Street, Rm. 150
Salt Lake City, UT 84101
ZOSIMO ROJAS,
Plaintiff,
vs.

COMPLAINT

R. LARSON SHEEP COMPANY, L.C.,
MOUNTAIN PLAINS AGRICULTURAL
SERVICE, RAY TERRY LARSON, in his
official and individual capacities, and
RANDY J. LARSON, in his official and
individual capacities,
Defendants.

Case No.:
Judge:

Plaintiff Zosimo Rojas (“Plaintiff Rojas”), through his undersigned counsel, hereby
complains against Defendant R. Larson Sheep Company, L.C. (“RLSC”), Mountain Plains

-1-

 Case 2:12-cv-00712-BCW Document 2 Filed 07/20/12 Page 2 of 21

Agricultural Service (“MPAS”), Ray Terry Larson (“Ray Larson”), and Randy J. Larson (“Randy
Larson”) (hereinafter, “Defendants”), as follows:
NATURE OF CASE
1.

Plaintiff Rojas brings this action against Defendants to recover unpaid wages, liquidated

damages, reasonable attorneys’ fees, interests, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act
(“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. Further, Plaintiff Rojas liquidated damages, reasonable
attorneys’ fees, interests, costs, and all other legal and equitable relief as may be appropriate.
2.

Plaintiff Rojas also alleges that the Defendants are liable for breach of contract, quantum

meruit, conversion, unjust enrichment, and promissory estoppel under Utah and/or federal
common law.
JURISDICTION & VENUE
3.

This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to the FLSA, specifically 29 U.S.C.

§§ 207, 216, and 217. This court also has jurisdiction in light of the existence of a controversy
arising under the laws of the United States, 28 U.S.C. §1332, and supplemental jurisdiction to
consider a claim arising under Utah law, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
4.

The statute of limitation under the FLSA for a willful violation is three (3) years. See 29

U.S.C. §255(a).
5.

Defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction in Utah because they reside therein and/or

have their principal place of business in Utah.
6.

Plaintiff Rojas’s state law claims are so closely related to their FLSA claims that they

form part of the same case or controversy.
7.

Defendants conduct business and have agents in the Federal Central District of Utah.
-2-

 Case 2:12-cv-00712-BCW Document 2 Filed 07/20/12 Page 3 of 21

8.

Venue in the Central District of Utah is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and (c)

because all of the Defendants are deemed to reside in this judicial District, and the events and/or
omissions giving rise to Plaintiff Rojas’s claims occurred within this jurisdiction.
PARTIES
Plaintiff
Zosimo Rojas
9.

Plaintiff Rojas is a foreign born national of Peru.

10.

Plaintiff Rojas traveled to the United States on February 22, 2006, on a valid H-2A Non-

Immigrant Visa for employment purposes.
11.

Plaintiff Rojas began working for the Defendants on February 22, 2006.

12.

Plaintiff Rojas currently resides in Utah.

Defendants
13.

Defendants jointly employed Plaintiff Rojas and other similarly situated employees at all

relevant times. Each Defendant has had substantial control over Plaintiff Rojas’s working
conditions and the unlawful policies and practices alleged herein.
R. Larson Sheep Company, L.C.
14.

Defendant RLSC operates a sheep ranch (“RLSC Ranch”) in Ephraim, Sanpete County,

Utah.
15.

RLSC is a registered Utah business entity (#2028459-0160), with its Registered Address

listed as PO Box 336, Ephraim, Utah 84627. RLSC also uses the following addresses for their
business: 4035 Brinker Avenue, Ogden, Utah 84403-2432; and 179 West 100 South, Ephraim,
Utah 84627, as a business address.
-3-

 Case 2:12-cv-00712-BCW Document 2 Filed 07/20/12 Page 4 of 21

16.

Defendant Ray Larson is the Registered Agent for RLSC.

17.

At all relevant times, RLSC maintained control, oversight, and direction over Plaintiff

Rojas, including the ability to hire, fire, supervise, and otherwise control the terms and conditions
of his employment.
18.

At all relevant times, RLSC had power over payroll decisions, including the power to

retain time and/or work records.
19.

At all Relevant times, RLSC had the power to stop any illegal pay practices to which the

Defendants subjected Plaintiff Rojas.
20.

Defendant RLSC is a covered employer within the meaning of the FLSA, and at all

relevant times employed and/or jointly-employed Plaintiff Rojas.
Mountain Plains Agriculture Service
21.

Defendant MPAS is an agent association which assists ranchers in obtaining open range

livestock herder laborers through the H-2A non-immigration visa program.
22.

MPAS is a registered Wyoming business entity (#1988-000248275), with its Principal

Office listed as PO Box 3777, 811 North Glenn Road, Casper, WY 82602, and Oralia G Mercado
listed as the listed Principal Contact. Carolyn L. Paseneaux is listed as the Registered Agent,
with the Registered Address of 5275 Fishing Bridge , 174011 Dell Range Blvd., Cheyenne, WY,
82009.
23.

Defendant Randy Larson is listed as a Director for MPAS, with the listed address of PO

Box 336, Ephraim, Utah 84627.

-4-

 Case 2:12-cv-00712-BCW Document 2 Filed 07/20/12 Page 5 of 21

24.

At all relevant times, MPAS was an H-2A Labor Contractor (“H-2ALC”), as they

recruited, solicited, hired, employed, furnished, housed, and/or transported Plaintiff Rojas, an H2A agricultural worker. See 20 C.F.R. 655.103(b).
25.

At all relevant times, MPAS maintained control, oversight, and direction over Plaintiff

Rojas, including the ability to make hiring and firing decisions, and otherwise control the terms
and conditions of his employment in the United States.
26.

Defendant MPAS is a covered employer within the meaning of the FLSA, and at all

relevant times employed and/or jointly-employed Plaintiff Rojas.
Ray Larson
27.

Defendant Ray Larson is an individual who resides in Ephraim, Sanpete County, State of

Utah.
28.

Upon information and belief, Defendant Ray Larson owned and operated RLSC during

Plaintiff Rojas’s employment.
29.

Again, Defendant Ray Larson is the listed Registered Agent for RLSC.

30.

At all relevant times, Ray Larson maintained control, oversight, and direction over

Plaintiff Rojas, including the ability to hire, fire, supervise, and otherwise control the terms and
conditions of his employment.
31.

At all relevant times, Ray Larson had power over payroll decisions, including the power

to retain time and/or work records.
32.

At all Relevant times, Ray Larson had the power to stop any illegal pay practices to which

Defendants subjected Plaintiff Rojas.

-5-

 Case 2:12-cv-00712-BCW Document 2 Filed 07/20/12 Page 6 of 21

33.

Defendant Ray Larson is a covered employer within the meaning of the FLSA, and at all

relevant times he employed and/or jointly-employed Plaintiff Rojas.
Randy Larson
34.

Defendant Randy Larson is an individual who resides in Ephraim, Sanpete County, State

of Utah.
35.

Upon information and belief, Defendant Randy Larson owned and operated RLSC, and

served as the Director for MPAS during Plaintiff Rojas’s employment.
36.

Again, Defendant Randy Larson is listed as a Director for MPAS, with the listed address

of PO Box 336, Ephraim, Utah 84627.
37.

At all relevant times, Randy Larson maintained control, oversight, and direction over

Plaintiff Rojas, including the ability to ability to hire, fire, supervise, and otherwise control the
terms and conditions of his employment.
38.

At all relevant times, Randy Larson has had power over payroll decisions, including the

power to retain time and/or work records.
39.

At all Relevant times, Randy Larson had the power to stop any illegal pay practices to

which the Defendants subjected Plaintiff Rojas.
40.

Defendant Randy Larson is a covered employer within the meaning of the FLSA, and at

all relevant times, employed and/or jointly-employed Plaintiff Rojas.
GENERAL FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
41.
Mr. Rojas realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 40 as set forth
above.
42.
During all times relevant to this action, Defendants RLSC, Randy Larson, and Ray Larson
operated a sheep ranch principally located in Sanpete County, Utah.
-6-

 Case 2:12-cv-00712-BCW Document 2 Filed 07/20/12 Page 7 of 21

43.

Since at least 2006, Defendants RLSC, Randy Larson, and Ray Larson have used

Defendant MPAS as their agent to procure a supply of H-2A workers from Peru to work on their
ranch.
44.

The H-2A program enables employers to import foreign workers to perform temporary

agriculture work in the United States. 8 U.S.C. § 1188.
45.

Prior to procuring an H-2A visa for its employees, an employer must obtain a labor

certification from the U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”), evidencing that insufficient U.S.
workers are available to perform the jobs, and that the wages and working conditions offered to
the foreign workers will not adversely affect similarly employed workers in the U.S. See
generally Alfred L. Snapp & Sons, Inc. V. Puerto Rico ex rel. Barez, 458 U.S. 592, 594-596
(1982).
46.

Regulations found at 20 C.F.R. § 655.100, et seq. govern the minimum required contents

and terms of job offers made to both U.S. and temporary foreign workers.
47.

In order to obtain an H-2A certification from the DOL, an employer must submit an

application/job offer to the DOL. The regulations prescribe, inter alia, the following minimum
job benefits:
a.

transportation and subsistence expenses to and from the worker’s home;

b.

the prevailing wage, the adverse effect wage rate (AEWR), or the legal federal or

state minimum wage rate, whichever is highest; and
c.
48.

coverage by workers compensation insurance. 20 C.F.R. § 655.122.

Employers of H2-A visa holders must also attest that they will comply with all applicable

federal, state, and local employment-related laws.
-7-

 Case 2:12-cv-00712-BCW Document 2 Filed 07/20/12 Page 8 of 21

49.

Employers who hire H-2A workers to work in range production of livestock, including

sheepherding, pay a wage lower than that of other agricultural work, though such employers are
required to provide food that is free of cost.
50.

In Utah, the minimum monthly wage for those engaged in the range production of

livestock was $750 per month in 2009, while the minimum hourly wage/adverse effect wage rate
for other agricultural workers on H-2A visas was $9.88 per hour in 2010.
51.

In Utah, the minimum monthly wage for those engaged in the range production of

livestock was $750 per month in 2010, while the minimum hourly wage/adverse effect wage rate
for other agricultural workers on H-2A visas was $10.06 per hour in 2010.
52.

In Utah, the minimum monthly wage for those engaged in the range production of

livestock was $750 per month in 2011, while the minimum hourly wage/adverse effect wage rate
for other agricultural workers on H-2A visas was $10.48 per hour in 2011.
53.

The terms of work set forth in an employer’s H-2A job offer are incorporated by

regulation and by operation of law into the contracts under which workers are employed. 29
C.F.R. § 12501.10(d).
54.

Defendants filed an H-2A visa application on behalf of Plaintiff Rojas to allow him to

work as a sheepherder, beginning in February of 2006.
55.

The H-2A visa application was submitted, filed, and/or processed by Defendant MPAS,

which acted as a joint employer of the sheepherders, including Plaintiff Rojas.
56.

As a joint employer, MPAS had the authority to hire or fire Plaintiff Rojas, control and

modify the conditions of Plaintiff Rojas’s employment, and act as an agent of all other
Defendants at all times hereto. See 29 C.F.R. § 500.20(h)(5)(iv).
-8-

 Case 2:12-cv-00712-BCW Document 2 Filed 07/20/12 Page 9 of 21

57.

Plaintiff Rojas’s H-2A visa application was approved, and it indicated that he would

perform the job of sheepherder.
58.

The H-2A application also listed the following terms of employment: wage of

$750/month, free housing, transportation and board, bi-weekly pay periods, and worker
compensation insurance.
59.

The Defendants submitted various H-2A visa applications on behalf of Plaintiff Rojas

from 2006 to 2011, and each was approved by the DOL.
60.

Pursuant to the approved H-2A visa applications, the Defendants contracted with Plaintiff

Rojas to work at the RLSC ranch from on or around February 22, 2006 to December 15, 2008,
February 16, 2009 until April 6, 2010, and December 5, 2010 until March 1, 2011.
61.

Plaintiff Rojas traveled from Peru to the United States in February 2006 and began to

work immediately upon arrival.
62.

During the time that Plaintiff Rojas was employed at the ranch, he worked seven days per

week, and typically worked from before sunrise until after sunset. Accordingly, Plaintiff Rojas
worked between 8 and 17 hours per day, depending on the time of the year.
63.

At various times during his employment, Plaintiff Rojas worked all night. For example,

during the time of lambing, he worked from 4 p.m. until 8 or 9 a.m. the following morning.
64.

During all periods of work, Plaintiff Rojas was given only a single day off, when he was

taken to the hospital with kidney stones. Even then, Defendants refused to give him time off
until he had complained of the pain for 3 days.

-9-

 Case 2:12-cv-00712-BCW Document 2 Filed 07/20/12 Page 10 of 21

65.

In addition to requiring Plaintiff Rojas to work long hours without adequate rest, the

Defendants RLSC, Ray Larson, and Randy Larson engaged in a continued pattern of abusive and
intimidating behavior towards Plaintiff Rojas throughout his employment.
66.

For example, Defendants repeatedly referred to Plaintiff Rojas as a “son of a b*tch,”

“motherf*cker.”
67.

Defendants RLSC, Ray Larson, and Randy Larson brought food to Plaintiff Rojas only

every 15 days, and the food provided was grossly inadequate to maintain minimal health, both in
terms of quantity and quality.
68.

Defendants provided primarily canned food to Plaintiff Rojas (mixed vegetables, tuna

fish, tomatoes, raman noodles, chile, Shasta soda (on occasion), milk, bologna, potatoes, onion.
69.

Plaintiff Rojas was forced to ration his food supply and to beg for food from other

workers whose supplies were equally low. Plaintiff Rojas’s requests for additional food were
sometimes ignored by Defendants RLSC, Ray Larson, and Randy Larson.
70.

When Defendants RLSC, Ray Larson, and Randy Larson acquiesced and provided some

additional food, they berated Plaintiff Rojas for not rationing his food sufficiently, and told him
he ate like an elephant.
71.

Defendants RLSC, Ray Larson, and Randy Larson controlled Plaintiffs Rojas’s work

schedule and breaks and often would only allow him 15 or 20 minutes to eat one meal a day
during work, regardless of the length of the day.
72.

The housing provided to Plaintiff Rojas did not meet the minimum standards required by

the DOL. Plaintiff Rojas lived in a small trailer that had no heat initially, and no fan.

-10-

 Case 2:12-cv-00712-BCW Document 2 Filed 07/20/12 Page 11 of 21

73.

He was not provided with plumbing or running water, and he had to use the unfiltered

ranch water and outhouse.
74.

Electricity was provided by a single extension cord which powered a single lightbulb.

75.

Eventually, in the Fall of 2008, he was moved to a larger trailer, which had capacity for

running water and a shower, both of which did not work. The trailer had a small plug-in heater
for the winter, but no fan for the summer.
76.

If Plaintiff Rojas or other workers were sick or injured or asked to see the doctor,

Defendants called them “women,” and refused to allow them time off.
77.

The Defendants generally refused to provide medical treatment for sheepherders who

were sick or injured.
78.

In the fall of 2006, Plaintiff Rojas sustained a rib injury while crossing an old fence. The

fence broke and he crashed to the ground, breaking his rib. Defendants RLSC, Randy Larson
required Plaintiff Rojas to keep working and did not take him to a doctor or provide any first aid.
79.

No first aid kits were made available to Plaintiff Rojas, and he had no access to medicine

or medical treatment.
80.

Defendants RLSC, Ray Larson, and Randy Larson were verbally abusive to Plaintiff

Rojas and other workers, constantly calling them degrading/discriminatory names, like “f*cking
Peruvians,” “tontos” (stupid), and “mecos” (wild or uncivilized Indian).
81.

On one occasion, Defendant Ray Larson became upset, retrieved his rifle, and shot and

killed 5 of his dogs. He then angrily exclaimed to the ranch workers, “Who’s next.”
82.

Plaintiff Rojas and the other workers felt personally intimidated and threatened.

-11-

 Case 2:12-cv-00712-BCW Document 2 Filed 07/20/12 Page 12 of 21

83.

In short, Defendants treated plaintiff Rojas similarly to the very animals he was hired to

care for.
84.

As a result of the above pattern of abusive and outrageous behavior by Defendants RLSC,

Ray Larson, and Randy Larson, Plaintiff Rojas suffered physical illness, pain, and mental
anguish.
85.

Plaintiff Rojas lived in fear for his health and safety and reasonably concluded that he

could no longer endure working under such conditions.
86.

Plaintiff Rojas left the Defendants’ employ because of the mistreatment they subjected

him to, and because they would not pay him what he was legally entitled.
87.

During the time he worked for Defendants RLSC, Ray Larson, and Randy Larson, they

directed Plaintiff Rojas to spend more than half of his time engaged in activities such as
maintaining ranch vehicles, irrigating and harvesting alfalfa, repairing fences, building corrals
and pens, cleaning the surrounding areas of the ranch, and performing other various non-range
production tasks at the headquarters ranch.
88.

Contrary to the H2-A contract under which Plaintiff Rojas was hired, the majority of the

work he was required to perform was not range-production of livestock.
89.

Pursuant to DOL’s H-2A regulations, the majority of the work Plaintiff Rojas performed

was H-2A agricultural work, for which he was required to be paid the minimum hourly wage or
adverse effect wage rate for the given year, plus overtime.
90.

During his employment Plaintiff Rojas engaged in the production of goods for commerce

and was entitled to the protection of the FLSA.

-12-

 Case 2:12-cv-00712-BCW Document 2 Filed 07/20/12 Page 13 of 21

91.

At all ties relevant herein, the Defendants were an enterprise engaged in commerce,

subjecting them to the requirements of the FLSA.
92.

Defendants did not pay Plaintiff Rojas the minimum hourly wage or adverse effect wage

rate for each hour he worked, nor did they pay him the FLSA minimum wage for each work
week.
93.

Plaintiff Rojas incurred various costs related to the application for his H-2A visa.

94.

These out-of-pocket costs were for the benefit of the Defendants, and operated as de facto

wage deductions from his first week’s pay that further reduced his pay below the legal minimum
wage.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(Violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq., against all Defendants)
95.

Plaintiff Rojas realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 94 as set

forth above.
96.

At all times relevant hereto, Plaintiff Rojas is entitled to the rights, protections and

benefits under the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201, et seq.
97.

At all times relevant hereto, Defendants were considered to be employers as defined

under 29 U.S.C. § 203(d).
98.

At all times relevant hereto, Defendants were considered to be joint-employers, as defined

by 20 C.F.R. § 655.103(b), and 29 C.F.R. § 791.2.
99.

While employed by the Defendants, Plaintiff Rojas did not spend more than 50% of his

time each year on the range, carrying out range production duties. See 29 C.F.R. §§ 780.323 780.327.

-13-

 Case 2:12-cv-00712-BCW Document 2 Filed 07/20/12 Page 14 of 21

100.

As such, Plaintiff Rojas was a non-exempt H-2A worker, and he was entitled to earn a

federal hourly wage.
101.

Accordingly, “If the worker is paid by the hour, the employer must pay the worker at least

the AEWR, the prevailing hourly wage rate, the prevailing piece rate, the agreed-upon collective
bargaining rate, or the Federal or State minimum wage rate, in effect at the time work is
performed, whichever is highest, for every hour.” See 29 C.F.R. § 655.122(k).
102.

Plaintiff Rojas was entitled to earn the applicable federal hourly wage for each and every

hour he worked for the Defendants.
103.

The Defendants’ failure to pay compensation for work at at least the federal minimum

wage of $7.25 to Plaintiff Rojas was a violation of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §206.
104.

Plaintiff Rojas is entitled to unpaid minimum wage compensation beginning three years

prior to the filing of this Complaint because the Defendants acted knowingly, intentionally, and
willfully and/or showed reckless disregard as to whether their conduct was prohibited by the
FLSA. See 29 U.S.C. § 255.
105.

Upon information and belief, Defendants have also failed to make, keep and preserve

records with respect to Plaintiff Rojas’s employment sufficient to determine the wages, hours and
other conditions and practices in employment in violation of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq.,
including 29 U.S.C. §§ 211(c) and 215(a).
106.

As a result of the aforementioned willful violation of the FLSA’s minimum wage pay

provisions, the Defendants are liable pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) for unpaid minimum wage
compensation, together with an additional amount as liquidated damages, interest (both pre- and

-14-

 Case 2:12-cv-00712-BCW Document 2 Filed 07/20/12 Page 15 of 21

post-judgment), reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs associated with this action, and any other
and further relief this Court deems appropriate.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
(Breach of Contract, Against All Defendants)
107.

Plaintiff Rojas realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 106 as set

forth above.
108.

The Defendants expressly made an offer, orally, and in writing, to pay Plaintiff Rojas a

monthly wage of $750.00 to work as a sheepherder.
109.

The Defendants breached their employment contract with Plaintiff Rojas by failing to

comply with the terms and conditions of the contract, for which Plaintiff Rojas is entitled to
relief pursuant to the common law of contracts.
110.

While employed by the Defendants, Plaintiff Rojas did not spend more than 50% of his

time, each year, on the range carrying out range production duties. See 29 C.F.R. §§ 780.323 780.327.
111.

Plaintiff Rojas was a non-exempt H-2A worker he was entitled to earn a federal hourly

wage.
112.

Accordingly, “If the worker is paid by the hour, the employer must pay the worker at least

the AEWR, the prevailing hourly wage rate, the prevailing piece rate, the agreed-upon collective
bargaining rate, or the Federal or State minimum wage rate, in effect at the time work is
performed, whichever is highest, for every hour.” See 29 C.F.R. § 655.122(k).
113.

Plaintiff Rojas was entitled to earn the applicable AEWR for each and every hour he was

engaged in non-range production work for the Defendants.

-15-

 Case 2:12-cv-00712-BCW Document 2 Filed 07/20/12 Page 16 of 21

114.

Plaintiff Rojas was entitled to earn the applicable federal minimum wage for each and

every hour he was engaged in range production work for the Defendants.
115.

The Defendant’s failure to pay Plaintiff Rojas the applicable AEWR for all of his non-

range production work was a violation of H-2A regulations. See 29 C.F.R. § 655.122(k).
116.

The Defendant’s failure to pay compensation for work at the federal minimum wage of

$7.25 to Plaintiff Rojas was in violation of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §206.
117.

Accordingly, Plaintiff Rojas was entitled to earn wages exceeding the $750 monthly wage

stated in the contract.
118.

Plaintiff Rojas is entitled to unpaid minimum wage compensation beginning three years

prior to the filing of this Complaint because the Defendants acted knowingly, intentionally, and
willfully and/or showed reckless disregard as to whether their conduct was prohibited by the
FLSA. See 29 U.S.C. § 255.
119.

Plaintiff Rojas is entitled to the full amount of the unpaid wages, at the applicable AEWR

rate and/or the applicable federal minimum wage rate, six years prior to the filing of this
Complaint, as well as interest (both pre- and post-judgment), reasonable attorneys’ fees, and
costs associated with this action, and any other and further relief this Court deems appropriate.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
(Quantum Meruit, Against All Defendants)
120.

Plaintiff Rojas realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 119 as set

forth above.
121.

Plaintiff Rojas performed valuable services for the Defendants.

-16-

 Case 2:12-cv-00712-BCW Document 2 Filed 07/20/12 Page 17 of 21

122.

The Defendants had knowledge of the uncompensated work performed by Plaintiff Rojas

and knowingly permitted, encouraged, and/or required that such work be performed.
123.

Plaintiff Rojas performed this work with the expectation of receiving compensation

and/or for fear of being disciplined or discharged for refusing to work as requested.
124.

The Defendants benefitted significantly by accepting the benefits of the labor of Plaintiff

Rojas, yet they continued to withhold the legally mandated compensation for his labor.
125.

It would be inequitable for the Defendants to retain the benefits and profits obtained from

the work performed by Plaintiff Rojas without paying him adequate compensation for his work.
126.

Plaintiff Rojas is entitled to an award for the full value of the uncompensated work he

performed at the applicable prevailing wage, federal minimum wage, and/or AEWR, beginning
four years prior to the filing of this Complaint, as well as interest (both pre- and post-judgment),
reasonable attorneys’ fees, and costs associated with this action, and any other and further relief
this Court deems appropriate.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Conversion, Against All Defendants)
127.

Plaintiff Rojas realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 126 as set

forth above.
128.

Plaintiff Rojas has the legal right of possession over the wage compensation that the

Defendants have unlawfully withheld from him in violation of the H-2A regulations, FLSA, 29
U.S.C. § 201, et seq., and common law.
129.

Defendants deliberate and intentional conversion of the legally mandated wages to

Plaintiff Rojas constitute a wrongful taking of money that Plaintiff Rojas is legally entitled to.

-17-

 Case 2:12-cv-00712-BCW Document 2 Filed 07/20/12 Page 18 of 21

130.

Defendants unlawful actions have permanently deprived Plaintiff Rojas of the use and

benefits of his legally entitled wage compensation, and has caused Plaintiff Rojas to suffer
economic damages.
131.

Defendants have refused to pay Plaintiff Rojas the full amount of the legally mandated

wages that belong to him.
132.

Defendants’ should be required to disgorge the amount of money they unlawfully

withheld from Plaintiff Rojas.
133.

Accordingly, Plaintiff Rojas is entitled to an award for the full value of the

uncompensated work he performed at the applicable prevailing wage, federal minimum wage,
and/or AEWR, beginning three years prior to the filing of this Complaint, as well as interest
(both pre- and post-judgment), reasonable attorneys’ fees, and costs associated with this action,
and any other and further relief this Court deems appropriate.
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Unjust Enrichment)
134.

Plaintiff Rojas realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 135 as set

forth above.
135.

Defendants have been unjustly enriched by deliberately and intentionally withholding the

legally mandated wages that belong to Plaintiff Rojas.
136.

Plaintiff Rojas conferred substantial benefits upon the Defendants when he provided

work for them.
137.

Defendants knew of and appreciated the substantial benefits that Plaintiff Rojas conferred

upon them.

-18-

 Case 2:12-cv-00712-BCW Document 2 Filed 07/20/12 Page 19 of 21

138.

Defendants accepted Plaintiff Rojas’s work services and have been unjustly enriched.

139.

Plaintiff Rojas is entitled to recover the value of the benefit he conferred on Defendants,

in an amount at least equal to an award for the full value of the uncompensated work he
performed at the applicable prevailing wage, federal minimum wage, and/or AEWR, beginning
four years prior to the filing of this Complaint.
140.

Plaintiff Rojas is also entitled to recover interest, (both pre- and post-judgment),

reasonable attorneys fees, costs associated with this action, and any other and further relief this
Court deems appropriate.
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Promissory Estoppel, Against All Defendants)
141.

The Defendants made promises to Plaintiff Rojas to comply with the federal law and

regulations that govern H-2A workers including but not limited to: FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201, et
seq.; Sections 101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(a), 214, and 218 of the INA, 8 USC §§ 1101, 1184, and 1188; 20
C.F.R. §§ 655 Subpart B; and 29 C.F.R. Part 501, et al.
142.

The Defendants should have reasonably expected that their promises would induce action

and/or forbearance by Plaintiff Rojas.
143.

Plaintiff Rojas was induced to act and/or refrained from acting based on the promises

made by the Defendants.
144.

The Defendants broke their promise to Plaintiff Rojas, and as a result Plaintiff Rojas

suffered injuries.
145.

Injustice can only be avoided by the enforcement of defendants’ promises to comply with

the federal law and regulations that govern H-2A workers as alluded to above.

-19-

 Case 2:12-cv-00712-BCW Document 2 Filed 07/20/12 Page 20 of 21

146.

Plaintiff Rojas is entitled to an award for the full value of the uncompensated work he

performed at the applicable prevailing wage, federal minimum wage, and/or AEWR that was
legally promised to him by the Defendants, beginning four years prior to the filing of this
Complaint, as well as interest (both pre- and post-judgment), reasonable attorneys’ fees, and
costs associated with this action, and any other and further relief this Court deems appropriate.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Rojas requests that this Court grant the following relief:
1.

An award of unpaid minimum wage compensation for each and every hour
Plaintiff Rojas engaged in range production work, plus an equal amount of
liquidated damages pursuant to the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 206 and 216, in an
amount to be proved at trial, up to $56,512.73;1

2.

An award of unpaid contractual wages at the minimum wage rate or the AEWR
(for violations of the FLSA, breach of contract, quantum meruit, conversion, and
unjust enrichment) for each and every hour Plaintiff Rojas engaged in non-range
production work, up to $39,125.98;

3.

An award of pre- and post-judgment interest;

4.

An award of costs incurred in bringing this litigation, including but not limited to
reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs;

5.

For any and all other relief that this Court deems just and equitable.

1

The hours Plaintiff Rojas engaged in range production work and non-range production
work, and the corresponding wage rates (minimum wage for range production work and the
contractual AEWR rate for range production work) will be determined at trial.
-20-

 Case 2:12-cv-00712-BCW Document 2 Filed 07/20/12 Page 21 of 21

DATED this 20th day of July 2012.

LAW OFFICE OF JONNY BENSON PLLC

/s/Jonathan M. Benson
Attorney for Plaintiff

DATED this 20th day of June 2012.
LAW OFFICE OF TADD DIETZ, PLLC

/s/Tadd Dietz
Attorney for Plaintiff

C:\Users\JonnyBenson\Documents\SugarSync Shared Folders\Tadd Dietz\LOJB on Tadd's PC\Clients\Rojas, Zosimo\Pleadings\Rojas Complaint.wpd

-21-