Document 1 Case 5:09-cv-00155-D Filed 04/09/2009 Page 1 of 22 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN DIVISION GUMERCINDO MATIAS-LOPEZ RUBELI CASTILLO-TOMAS, and HERMINIO PEREZ-TOMAS Plaintiffs, COMPLAINT ) v. RAMON FORESTRY SERVICES, LLC., BALDEMAR RAMON, and VONITA RAMON Defendant. I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1. Plaintiff forestry workers came to the United States from Guatemala under the H-2B temporary worker visa program. Plaintiffs left their homes and families and spent considerable money and effort to Defendants’ earn to the U.S. to perform grueling Plaintiffs made these sacrifices labor in believing they would enough in wages to make the endeavor fruitful. 2. fees and only forestry operation. come Plaintiffs, relying paid on Defendant for temporary visas and failed to pay Plaintiffs the Employers’ airplane false promises, paid tickets. Defendant promised hourly wage, they paid recruitment Employers wages far below the federal minimum wage, failed to pay overtime wages, housed Plaintiffs in substandard imprisoned housing, confiscated Plaintiffs’ identification Plaintiffs in their Maine garage, denied Plaintiffs then not documents, access to woefully falsely food, stopped Document 1 Case 5:09-cv-00155-D providing employment long Filed 04/09/2009 before the contract Page 2 of 22 and failed to pay return period ended, transportation. 3. Defendant money that Employers ultimately offset conditioned all earnings employment on Plaintiffs spending Plaintiffs received from Defendant due to exorbitant recruitment fees and of Employers Defendants’ failure to pay requirements, Plaintiffs for all hours worked, and their failure to a sum provide Plaintiffs with the promised work throughout the contract period. 4. Plaintiffs bring this action for damages against Defendants Ramon Forestry Services, Llc. and Baldemar Ramon, (“Defendant Employers”) and Vonita Ramon, and seek redress for Defendants’ violations of their Agricultural Carolina rights under the Worker Protection Act, 29 U.S.C. §§1801, et. Wage and Seasonal q.(“AWPA”), the North and Hour Act, N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 95-25.6, the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §§201 et. seq., infliction of emotional distress restitution of se Migrant unpaid wages, injunctive relief to redress an and claims for false arising under Maine award of money Defendants’ imprisonment and intentional law. Plaintiffs seek common damages, declaratory relief and wrongdoings. II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 5. The Court has U.S.C. jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331 (Federal Question); 28 §1333 (Interstate Commerce); 29 U.S.C. §1854(a) (AWPA); 29 U.S.C. §216(b) (FLSA); and 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (Supplemental Jurisdiction). The Court is empowered to make a declaratory judgment pursuant appropriate under 28 U.S.C. §1391(b) to 28 U.S.C. and 29 U.S.C. 2 §2201 and §2202. Venue is §1854(a). Document 1 Case 5:09-cv-00155-D Filed 04/09/2009 Page 3 of 22 III. PARTIES 6. Plaintiffs Gumercindo Matias-Lopez (“Matias-Lopez”), (“Castillo Tomas”), and Herminio Guatemala and migrant agricultural At all times relevant to this the production the meaning of Perez-Tomas of 29 U.S.C. §203(d), and meaning of N.C. Wage and Hour Act, 7. Defendant Ramon Liability Corporation were was were registered citizens of of 29 U.S.C. § 1802(8) commerce or employed by Defendants employees N.C.Gen.Stat. in within of Defendants within the §95-25.2(4). Llc. (Ramon Forestry Services, which meaning are engaged in interstate were for interstate commerce, goods (“Perez-Tomas”) workers within the action, Plaintiffs Rubeli Castillo-Tomas Forestry) is a Maine Limited with the State of North Carolina as doing business in North Carolina in 2008. At all times relevant to this action Defendant Ramon Forestry within the employer and 29 U.S.C. interstate agricultural employer was an meaning §203(d), engaged commerce within the Plaintiffs. Defendant Ramon North Carolina and has Forestry of N.C. maintains a within the Wage registered commerce of 29 U.S.C. or in §203(b), and a contacts an §95-25.2(5) producing goods joint employer has conducted substantial business Forestry significant of 29 U.S.C. § 1802(2), and Hour Act, N.C. Gen. Stat. in interstate meaning meaning activity for of within with North Carolina. Defendant Ramon office in Wake County pursuant to a certificate of authority from the North Carolina Secretary of State. 8. Defendant Baldemar Ramon relevant to this action, Forestry and operations as such of Ramon was principal (“Ramon”) is owner, resident of Maine and, at all times organizer actively manages, supervises, Forestry. a and operating officer of Ramon and directs the business affairs and At all times relevant to this action Defendant Ramon 3 Document 1 Case 5:09-cv-00155-D was an agricultural employer within the U.S.C. meaning of N.C. §203(d), engaged commerce within the within the Wage Filed 04/09/2009 meaning of 29 U.S.C. §1802(2); and Hour Act, N.C. Gen .Stat. in interstate commerce or of 29 U.S.C. meaning this complaint, significant contacts V. Ramon owned Maine garage where Plaintiffs were for interstate of Plaintiffs. County. resident of Maine and, at all times farm labor contractor was a employer within North Carolina, had for Defendant employee Defendant V. Ramon conducted substantial business North Carolina and had to a an joint employer activity 9. Defendant Vonita Ramon (“V. Ramon”) is Forestry. a 4 of 22 §95-25.2(5) and 29 producing goods and did business in Wake significant contacts with North Carolina, Ramon in 203(b); and Defendant Ramon conducted substantial business relevant to this action, V. Ramon Page activity within with North Carolina. At all times relevant controlled, jointly with Defendant Ramon, the or falsely imprisoned. IV. STATEMENT OF FACTS A. Background 10. Defendant negotiate contracts to To fill the labor foreign Employers operate plant trees requirements nationals to accordance with the and clear a forest restoration service. or thin brush of their contracts, Defendant perform forestry work on a Immigration and Nationality Act, 11. Plaintiffs were nationals specifically operation. Plaintiffs and were on land owned issued a to seasonal 8 U.S.C. or on and other entities. to import temporary basis, in §1101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b). along work for the Defendant with other foreign Employers’ forestry temporary visa, commonly referred 4 by bid Employers sought admitted to the United States exclusively They to as an “H-2B Document 1 Case 5:09-cv-00155-D visa”, as C.F.R. §214.2(h)(6), authorized 12. 8 U.S.C. by 20 C.F.R. Filed 04/09/2009 §1101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b), its attendant regulations, Defendant and submitted to the U.S. application sought between November 1, 2007 and 14. The application May 31, hundred Employers Department of Labor foreign workers to work in throughout Employers was were job of Labor Department or exceed the would not contravene federal, state H2B program, interpretations. Among other liable for the reasonable costs of return dismissed at any time forestry North Carolina and South certified to the United States wage and that the and administrative alien working including Wake County. law, including applicable requirements of the regulations an Attached as Exhibit A. (“USDOL”) that the wages paid to Plaintiffs and other workers would equal applicable prevailing their agent through 2008. listed several counties Carolina where Plaintiffs would be 15. Defendant over one and Employers, by employment certification application (“application”). 13. The 8 §655.3 and administrative letters and/or guidance. During mid-2007, AgWorks, Inc., prepared 5 of 22 Page as or local set out in USDOL requirements, transportation if an Defendant employee prior to the end of the period of authorized admission. 8 C.F.R. §214.2(h)(6)(vi)(E). 16. Defendant Employers information contained in the 17. Upon approval Plaintiffs which set forth a certified under penalty of perjury that all the application was true and correct. of the application, Defendant Employers applied period of employment ending May 31, 5 2008. for visas for Case 5:09-cv-00155-D 18. The planting. The application area of set Document 1 Filed 04/09/2009 forth the rate employment was regular of pay limited to various 6 of 22 Page $9.25 per hour for as specified tree counties in North Carolina and South Carolina. 19. The USDOL certified the Contract”) on or about B. as as Exhibit A, Defendant Ramon September 12, 2007, allowing obtain temporary work visas known workers of their submitted application “H2B visas” for over one (“Carolina Forestry hundred to foreign choosing. DEFENDANTS RECRUIT PLAINTIFFS IN GUATEMALA 20. Defendant Employers recruited Plaintiffs where they resided in Guatemala for employment in the Carolinas, using an agent and employee, Misael Tomas, (“Misael”). 21. With Defendant Misael held himself out 22. Defendant money from acting with their authorization, agent of Defendant Employers. Employers knew and relied orally promised on Misael to recruit labor and collect Plaintiffs five months of work plus additional months obtaining a visa extension. 24. Defendant terms as an and potential workers. 23 Misael upon Employers’ knowledge, Employers did not provide Plaintiffs with written disclosures and conditions of employment at the time of recruitment § 1821(a). The information Defendants provided orally work in the U.S. was 25. Plaintiffs false and were to as required the Plaintiffs of the 29 U.S.C. regarding their misleading. led to believe that initial expenses and then get ahead. 6 they could earn enough money to recoup Document 1 Case 5:09-cv-00155-D 26. Defendant considered for the Filed 04/09/2009 Plaintiffs to pay Employers' agent required forestry jobs in the Carolinas, to Page 7 of 22 significant fees to be obtain the necessary visa and then to travel to the United States to the job. 27. These fees were incident of and necessary to Defendant an of Plaintiffs. The fees employment primarily were Employers' for the benefit of Defendant Employers. 28. At for the visas, no time did Defendant transportation or recruitment fees paid to their agents. 29. Defendant property as a reimburse Plaintiffs for their expenses Employers Employers required job applicants condition of being hired. Plaintiffs other workers, signed the deeds to their over control. Plaintiff Castillo-Tomas, having no relinquish to and Matias-Lopez family's the deeds to their Perez-Lopez, among land under Misael' s direction and deed to offer, required was to pay Misael a higher recruitment fee instead. 30. to Following Plaintiffs' payment their land, Defendant of recruitment fees and Employers arranged for Plaintiffs to obtain H-2B 31. Plaintiffs incuned additional expenses meet with Defendant Employers' agents, consular interview in Guatemala 32. Plaintiffs their ability to were traveling the deeds visas. submit the visa application, and attend the City. dependent process Plaintiffs became over within Guatemala in order to on Defendant for their visas and hence Employers work in the United States. Because of Defendant promised provision handing heavily indebted and reliant of work in the United States further extension. 7 through on at Employers' recruitment Defendant Employers' least May 31, 2008, and Document 1 Case 5:09-cv-00155-D 33 Defendant workers C. 8 of 22 Page the benefit of Misael’s transactions with Employers accepted including Plaintiffs. EMPLOYMENT IN NORTH CAROLINA 34. Defendant to Filed 04/09/2009 provide Employers reforestation and contracted with businesses in North and South Carolina precommercial thinning operations, including Carolina Division of Forest Resources for work to be completed the North in various counties including Wake County. 35. Plaintiffs traveled from Guatemala to North Carolina to Defendant Employers in January, 36. Defendant Ramon Defendant Ramon 37. Shortly of false, fictitious or 2008. was after Plaintiffs’ 38. Defendant 39. On physically present and managed operations arrival, Defendant Employers ordered them for Employers knowingly or obtained Plaintiffs’ passports through the fraudulent information. numbers to be issued in the names of several Employers applied employees including Security Administration office in Rockingham, 40. Defendant to immigration documents, including their I-94 card. about March 14, 2008, Defendant around Richmond work for Forestry in North Carolina during Plaintiffs’ employment. surrender their passports and use begin for social security Plaintiffs at the Social North Carolina. Employers initially arranged for Plaintiffs to reside in housing in or County, North Carolina, (“Trailer Housing”). Defendant Employers controlled the Trailer Housing at all relevant times. 8 Document 1 Case 5:09-cv-00155-D 41. Defendant Labor, (“NCDOL”) prior was failed to Employers to occupancy Filed 04/09/2009 notify Page the North Carolina and further failed to ensure 9 of 22 Department the Trailer of Housing inspected and approved by the NCDOL. 42. Defendant terms failed to post, in Employers and conditions of occupancy during a conspicuous place, a statement of the the time Plaintiffs’ resided at the Trailer Housing. 43. Defendant housing site, a Employers later moved the Plaintiffs and other workers to a second motel, (“Motel Housing”). Defendant Employers controlled the Motel Housing at all times relevant to this Complaint. 44. safety The Motel standards for 500.130(a) and N.C. a. Housing migrant workers in violation of 29 U.S.C. 1823(a); 29 C.F.R. Gen. Stat. 95-222 et. seq. in No food with did not meet substantive Federal and State health and preparation that, among other facilities existed. There things; was no kitchen facility operable stove, table or sink; b. No food storage facilities existed; c. Occupancy were room per exceeded living in a single room; further failed to ensure 46. Defendant terms Employers the Motel Employers failed to limits. Approximately eight men and d. An insufficient number of beds 45. Defendant legal were notify provided; the NCDOL prior to occupancy and Housing was inspected and approved by the NCDOL. failed to post, in a conspicuous place, a statement of the and conditions of occupancy. 47. Since Defendant Employers failed to provide Housing, Plaintiffs were unable to prepare cooked food. 9 kitchen facilities in the Motel Case 5:09-cv-00 1 55-D 48. their During Plaintiffs and their Document 1 49. Plaintiffs had with Defendant employment co-employees an were express, 50. Defendant prevailing wage, 51. or were Page 10 of 22 in North Employers Carolina, engaged in tree planting and forestry. constructive, Defendants would pay wages at the rate law when those wages Filed 04/09/2009 or required by implied agreement any applicable that Employer federal and/or state due. Employers did not pay Plaintiffs the promised hourly rate, the the minimum wage for their hours of work. Although Plaintiffs worked a substantial number of hours in of excess forty (40) hours per week, they did not receive overtime compensation 52. Defendant Employers did not obtain from Plaintiffs written and authorization for wage deductions from Plaintiffs’ Gen. Stat. weekly wages as signed required by N.C. §95-25.8(2). 53. Defendant 54. Defendant Employers failed to Employers Plaintiffs and other workers as provide accurate wage statements to Plaintiffs. failed to make, keep and preserve payroll records for required under 29 U.S.C. §1831(c). 55. Defendants made deductions for taxes which Defendants then failed to report to the appropriate Defendant authorities. Plaintiffs’ paystubs do not state a social Employers used or caused to be used vehicles for workers, including Plaintiffs, which violated federal safety standards D. number. Employers did not report earnings to the relevant authorities. 56. Defendant U.S.C.S. security set transporting forth at 29 §1841. DEFENDANT EMPLOYERS IMPRISON PLAINTIFFS IN A MAINE GARAGE 10 Case 5:09-cv-00 1 55-D 57. In Document 1 Filed 04/09/2009 Page 11 of 22 Defendants ceased to offer any further work authorized early April, 2008, under Exhibit A. 58. Defendant Employers recruited Plaintiffs for work in Maine. Defendant Employers told Plaintiffs that there would be work for them in Maine. 59. Plaintiffs relied with Defendant Employment of work constituted Employment as required (“Maine Employment”) and a went separate and distinct transaction from at with written disclosure of the the time of recruitment for the Maine 29 U.S.C. §1821(a). Defendants provided false and misleading regarding the Maine Employment. Employers failed to provide any work to Plaintiffs in Maine. Defendant Ramon and V. provide Plaintiffs employment oral information to Plaintiffs 62. Defendant did not Employers and conditions of 63. promise Employment. 61. Defendant terms their Employers to Maine. 60. The Maine the Carolina on Ramon, Employers transported near Plaintiffs to the property of Defendants Maine, where they housed Plaintiffs in the Ramons’ garage (“Ramons’ Garage”) for several days. 64. Plaintiffs had never been to Maine before and found themselves in a rural, running water isolated and unfamiliar location; 65. Ramons’ (toilet, sink, or Garage had a garret area shower), heating equipment Plaintiffs to stay in the garret, where 66. Placed without access to with or no beds or mattresses, kitchen facilities. Defendants required they slept on the bare floor. food or thirst. 11 water, Plaintiffs suffered from hunger and Case 5:09-cv-00 1 55-D Document 1 67. Several other Guatemalan Defendants Filed 04/09/2009 men lived in Ramons’ Garage at 12 of 22 that time. provided these other men with work each day. 68. Defendants denied Plaintiffs’ request to be taken to were Page reduced to a food vendor. Plaintiffs for food and drink from the other Guatemalan workers who begging lived in Defendants’ garage and were allowed to purchase food while they were out working. 69. Defendants ordered Plaintiffs not to leave the reasonably control believed over a. b. could not leave the they Plaintiffs in that, among other Defendants where Defendants had unusual grounds things: possessed Plaintiffs’ passports Plaintiffs had and Plaintiffs grounds and immigration papers;.1 been to Maine before and found themselves in never a rural, isolated and unfamiliar location; c. Plaintiffs had no Employers and, return to d. transportation except that provided by Defendant without identification documents, Plaintiffs could not Guatemala; Defendant Employers had the exclusive right to employ Plaintiffs in the United States; e. Defendant Employers had possession of the deeds to Plaintiffs’ Matias- Lopez and Perez-Tomas’ property; f. Defendant Employers possessed g. Plaintiffs were in a state of Plaintiffs’ social hunger security cards2; due to Defendant and Employers’ prolonged mistreatment and abuse of them. 1 The North Carolina General Assembly enacted the anti-human trafficking act subsequent to the events of this Complaint. The definition of coercion for purposes of human trafficking includes the confiscation and retention of a passport or other immigration document. See N.C. Gen. Stat. §14-43-10(a)(1)(c) (2008). 2 N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-43-10 (2008) also includes government identification documents, such as social security cards, as items that, when destroyed, concealed, removed, confiscated or possessed by another fall within the definition of coercion for purposes of human trafficking. 12 Case 5:09-cv-00 1 55-D 70. Defendant relevant to this Employers owned or controlled Ramons’ 13 of 22 Page Garage at all times did not meet substantive Federal and State health and Garage migrant workers in violation of 29 U.S.C. §1823(a); 72. Defendants also failed to keep and conditions of occupancy at Ramons’ 73. Filed 04/09/2009 Complaint. 71. Ramons’ standards for Document 1 a 29 C.F.R. conspicuously placed safety §500.130(a). of the terms statement Garage in violation of 29 U.S.C. §1821(c). Defendants demanded that Plaintiffs pay them money before allow Plaintiffs to leave Defendant Ramons’ property. Plaintiffs felt they would they had no choice but to pay Defendants. 74. After Plaintiffs Plaintiffs’ passports and paid Defendants the demanded money, Defendants returned immigration documents and Massachusetts for return to Guatemala by air 75. Defendant Employers on the transported Plaintiffs to Boston, following day, April 16, failed to pay the costs of return 2008. transportation for Plaintiffs. 76. Defendant termination of Employers employment. failed to return Plaintiffs’ deeds to them upon Plaintiffs incurred additional costs in getting their deeds back. 77. Defendant Employers discharged Plaintiffs prior to May 31, 78. Plaintiffs lost Defendant nutrition Employers significant body weight during due to the combined hard labor and their inability 2008. employment to obtain with adequate given unpaid wages and housing that lacked cooking and food storage facilities 79. Defendant Employers Plaintiffs until intervention by failed to give Plaintiffs’ social security Plaintiffs’ counsel, at which time Defendant 13 cards to Employers’ Case 5:09-cv-00 1 55-D provided only Document 1 Filed 04/09/2009 Plaintiff Castillo-Tomas with his card. Defendant relinquish the other Plaintiffs’ social Page 14 of 22 Employers did not security cards. V. CLAIMS FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF (FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT) Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference 9[9[1 through 79. 80. This claim arises under the Fair Labor Standards against Defendant Employers and sets forth a claim for Act, 29 U.S.C. §201 declaratory relief and et seq. damages including liquidated damages. 81. Plaintiffs have consented in written consents are attached to this writing to be plaintiffs in this FLSA Complaint as Attachments 1, 82. Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs at least the 83. Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs at least rate for any workweek in which one 2 and 3. required each hour worked in each workweek, in violation of 29 U.S.C. action. Their minimum wage for §206(a). and one-half times their regular plaintiffs worked in plaintiffs’ wages free and clear. Defendants took excess of forty (40) hours in violation of 29 U.S.C. §207(a)(1). 84. Defendants failed to pay unlawful withholdings and deductions from Plaintiffs’ 85. As unpaid a wages. result of Defendants’ actions, Plaintiffs suffered minimum wages, unpaid overtime wages recovered from Defendants, jointly and (NORTH Plaintiffs and damages liquidated damages severally, under 29 U.S.C. §216(b). SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF CAROLINA WAGE AND HOUR ACT) reallege and incorporate by reference 9[9[1 through 85. 14 in the form of that may be Case 5:09-cv-00 1 55-D 86. Plaintiffs Gen. Stat. §95-25 Document 1 bring this claim under the North Carolina 87. In violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. Plaintiffs all wages when due for the work employee to Page 15 of 22 Wage and Hour Act, N.C. against Defendant Employers Ramon Forestry and Ramon. et. seq. 88. Defendant Filed 04/09/2009 Employers §95-25.6, Defendant Employers failed they performed failed to obtain a to pay for Defendant Employers. written authorization from the take deductions, yet took deductions from Plaintiffs wages in violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. 89. As §95-25.8. a result of Defendant Employers’ actions, plaintiffs suffered damages. THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF (MIGRANT AND SEASONAL AGRICULTURAL WORKER PROTECTION ACT) Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference ¶¶1 through 90. 91. This claim arises under the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act, (AWPA) 29 U.S.C. §1801 et 92. Defendant based on se q. against all Defendants Employers. Employers intentionally violated the AWPA rights of Plaintiffs the Carolina Employment by, among other violations: a. in failing to disclose to the plaintiffs at the time of Plaintiffs’ writing in a language common to the plaintiffs, required to be disclosed by 29 U.S.C. §1821(a) b. failing to post, statement in a recruitment all of the information and 29 C.F.R. §500.73(a); conspicuous place at the housing facilities, of the terms and conditions of occupancy of the required by 29 U.S.C. 1821(b) and 29 15 C.F.R. §500.75(c); a housing as Case 5:09-cv-00 1 55-D Document 1 Filed 04/09/2009 Page 16 of 22 requiring Plaintiffs to sign over collateral in order to obtain c. employment with the Defendants, outright, was an Plaintiffs’ d. agreement that purported and preserve §1821(d)(1) and 29 C.F.R. to f. §1821(d)(2) and 29 C.F.R. failing to pay the wages U.S.C. for each pay h. period, 29 an accurate required to be provided by 29 §500.80(d); owed to workers when due, in violation of 29 without justification, the terms of the between the Defendant U.S.C. modify the § 1822(a) and 29 C.F.R. §500.81; violating, g. or payroll records as required by itemized wage statement of the information U.S.C. waive pay money §500.80(a); failing to provide to each worker, e. alternative, rights under AWPA, in violation of 29 U.S.C. § 1856. failing to make, keep U.S.C. or, in the working arrangement Employers and the plaintiffs in contravention of 29 §1822(c) and 29 C.F.R.§500.72; providing false or misleading information to Plaintiffs concerning the terms, conditions of 29 U.S.C. or employment in contravention existence of agricultural §1821(f) and 29 C.F.R.§500.77; i. using or causing to be used vehicles for transporting workers that did not comply with federal safety standards set forth in 29 C.F.R. 500.100 et seq. 93. As a result of Defendant Employers’ actions, Plaintiffs suffered FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (MIGRANT AND SEASONAL AGRICULTURAL WORKER PROTECTION ACT) 16 damages. Case 5:09-cv-00 1 55-D Plaintiffs Document 1 Page 17 of 22 reallege and incorporate by reference ¶¶1 through 93. 94. This claim arises under the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act, (AWPA) 29 U.S.C. §1801 et 95. Defendant Employers Ramon AWPA Filed 04/09/2009 se q. against Defendant Employers. Forestry and Ramon intentionally violated the rights of Plaintiffs based on the Maine Employment by, a. in failing to disclose to the plaintiffs at the time of Plaintiffs’ writing in a language common to the plaintiffs, required to be disclosed by 29 U.S.C. §1821(a) b. failing to post, statement in a d. Employers and the housing as §500.75(c); working arrangement plaintiffs in contravention of 29 or existence of agricultural employment in contravention §1821(f) and 29 C.F.R.§500.77; and failing to pay the wages owed to workers U.S.C. a C.F.R. a providing false or misleading information to Plaintiffs concerning the of 29 U.S.C. 96. As §500.73(a); §1822(c) and 29 C.F.R.§500.72; terms, conditions e. and 29 C.F.R. without justification, the terms of the between the Defendant U.S.C. all of the information of the terms and conditions of occupancy of the violating, recruitment conspicuous place at the housing facilities, required by 29 U.S.C. 1821(b) and 29 c. among other violations: when due, in violation of 29 § 1822(a) and 29 C.F.R. §500.81; result of Defendants’ actions, Plaintiffs suffered damages. FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (MIGRANT AND SEASONAL AGRICULTURAL WORKER PROTECTION ACT) 17 Case 5:09-cv-00 1 55-D Plaintiffs Filed 04/09/2009 Page 18 of 22 reallege and incorporate by reference y[y[1 through 96. 97. Defendant violated the Document 1 Employers Ramon Forestry, Ramon and V. Ramon intentionally rights of the plaintiffs by, a. among other violations: housing Plaintiffs in facilities which did not comply with applicable Federal and State safety and health standards in violation of 29 U.S.C. §1823(a) and 29 C.F.R. §500.130(a); and b. housing Plaintiffs in facilities which had not been certified by either a state or local health authority or another appropriate agency as meeting applicable safety and health standards in violation of 29 U.S.C. §1823(b) and 29 C.F.R. 98. As a §500.135(a). result of Defendants’ actions, Plaintiffs suffered damages. SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (FALSE IMPRISONMENT) Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference y[y[1 through 98. 99. This claim arises under Maine common law of false imprisonment and is brought against all Defendants; 100. Defendants’ action Plaintiffs when Defendants Plaintiffs not to leave the 101. Plaintiffs or actions directly resulted in the confinement of transported Plaintiffs to their Maine property and ordered grounds; reasonably believed they could not leave Defendants’ property; 102. Defendants acted to confine Plaintiffs within boundaries fixed by Defendants, specifically the grounds around Ramon’s Garage; 103. Plaintiffs were conscious of the confinement 18 or harmed by it where; Case 5:09-cv-00 1 55-D a. Document 1 Plaintiffs suffered other than to Page 19 of 22 hunger caused by limited access to food and drink beg from the other men living in Defendants’ b. Plaintiffs found themselves Spartan of conditions; c. Filed 04/09/2009 garage; living in a garage garret with the most and Defendants forced Plaintiffs to give them money before they were allowed to leave. 104. Plaintiffs asked Defendants Defendants refused their request, repeatedly to be taken to purchase food causing Plaintiffs to suffer hunger. 105. Defendants extorted additional money from Plaintiffs before from the false a result of Defendants’ action, Plaintiffs suffered SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL reallege and incorporate by reference ¶¶1 through 107. This claim arises under the Maine emotional distress and is 108. Defendants were certain releasing them imprisonment. 106. As Plaintiffs and or common damages. DISTRESS) 106. law of intentional infliction of brought against all Defendants. intentionally or recklessly inflicted severe substantially certain that such distress would result 109. Defendants’ conduct which or from their conduct. intentionally inflicted emotional distress included, but is not limited to, denying Plaintiffs the means arrival to their Maine property, emotional distress to obtain food and drink upon causing Plaintiffs acute hunger, subjecting Plaintiffs to the shame and humiliation of begging for food, causing mental anguish through the false imprisonment of Plaintiffs at the Maine property, requiring that Plaintiffs reside in their 19 Case 5:09-cv-00 1 55-D Document 1 garage, the confiscation and Filed 04/09/2009 Page 20 of 22 withholding of identification documents, the failure to return the deeds to Plaintiffs’ property upon their return to Guatemala, and the failure to and remedy workplace violations of federal 110. Defendants conduct was so and state laws. extreme bounds of decency and must be regarded identify and outrageous as to exceed all possible atrocious, utterly intolerable in a civilized as community. 111. The actions of Defendants caused Plaintiffs emotional distress not limited to anger, including but hunger, weight loss, mental anguish, shame, humiliation, embarassment, disappointment, worry, helplessness and powerlessess. This distress was caused by Defendants’ intentional acts. 112. The emotional distress suffered reasonable person could be As a an amount to so severe that no expected to endure it. result, Plaintiffs determined in by Plaintiffs was are entitled to compensatory and punitive damages to be be determined at trial. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury on all issues so triable. PRAYER FOR RELIEF Plaintiffs respectfully pray that this Court enter an order: a. accepting jurisdiction of this cause; b. granting a jury trial on all issues c. declaring that the Defendant Employers intentionally violated the AWPA; 20 so triable; Case 5:09-cv-00 1 55-D d. Document 1 Filed 04/09/2009 Page 21 of 22 declaring that Defendant Employers intentionally violated Plaintiffs’ rights under the NCWHA wage payment and withholding of wage provisions; e. declaring that Defendant Employers intentionally violated Plaintiffs’ rights under the FLSA minimum wage and overtime provisions; f. declaring that Defendants falsely imprisoned Plaintiffs; g. declaring that Defendants intentionally inflicted emotional distress on Plaintiffs; h. awarding Plaintiffs an equal amount in actual damages or statutory damages of up to $500 per Plaintiff per violation of the AWPA to be recovered jointly and i. severally from Defendant Employers; awarding Plaintiffs the total unpaid wages and unauthorized wage deductions due under the NCWHA plus an equal amount in liquidated damages; j. awarding Plaintiffs the total unpaid wages and overtime wages due under the FLSA k. awarding Plaintiffs compensatory and punitive damages stemming their false l. plus an equal amount in liquidated damages; from imprisonment; awarding Plaintiffs compensatory damages stemming from Defendants’ breach of contract; m. awarding Plaintiffs compensatory and punitive damages stemming Defendants’ intentional infliction of emotional distress; n. award the Plaintiffs’ costs; and, 21 from Case 5:09-cv-00 1 55-D o. Document 1 awarding such other relief as this Filed 04/09/2009 Page 22 of 22 Court may deem just and proper. Respectfully submitted this the 8th day of April, 2009, /s/ Lori J. Elmer Lori J. Elmer, Attorney for Plaintiffs North Carolina Bar # 24227 Legal Aid of North Carolina Farmworker Unit P.O. Box 26626 Raleigh, North Carolina 27611 #(919) 856-2180 LoriE@legalaidnc.org 22 OJS 44 1 of 2 Case5:09-cv-00155-DDocument1-2Filed04/09/2009Page CIVILCOVERSHEET (Rev.12/07) The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service ofpleadings or otherpapers as required by law, except as provided This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON THE REVERSE OF THE FORM.) by local rules of court. I. (a) I PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS (b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff County of Residence ofFirst Listed Defendant (EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF NOTE: CASES ONLY) IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF THE LAND INVOLVED. II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION ’ 1 III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL (For Diversity Cases Only) (Place an“X” in One Box Only) ’ 3 Federal U.S. Government Plaintiff Attorneys (If Known) I (c) Attorney’s (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) Question Citizen of This State (U.S. Government Not a Party) PTF DEF ’ 1 ’ 1 PARTIES(Place an “X” in One Box for Plaintiff and One Box for Defendant) PTF Incorporated or Principal Place DEF ’ 4 ’ 4 ’ 5 ’ 5 ’ 6 ’ 6 of Business In This State ’ 2 U.S. Government Defendant ’ 4 Citizen of Another State Diversity ’ 2 ’ 2 Incorporated and Principal Place ofBusinessInAnotherState (IndicateCitizenshipofPartiesinItemIII)Citizen or Subject of a ’ 3 ’ 3 Foreign Nation Foreign Country IVNATURE OF SUIT ~ (Placean“X”inOneBoxOnly) CONTRACT TORTS ’ 110 Insurance PERSONAL INJURY ’ 310 Airplane ’ 315 Airplane Product ’ 120 Marine ’ 130 Miller Act ’ 140 Negotiable Instrument ’ 150 Recovery of Overpayment ’ &EnforcementofJudgment ’ 151 Medicare Act ’ 152 Recovery of Defaulted Student Loans ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ~ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ of Veteran’s Benefits 160 Stockholders’ Suits 190 Other Contract 195 Contract Product Liability 196 Franchise REAL PROPERTY 210 Land Condemnation 220 Foreclosure 230 Rent Lease & Ejectment 240 Torts to Land 245 Tort Product Liability 290 All Other Real Property Original Proceeding - - Assault, Libel & ’ Slander 330 Federal Employers’ Injury Med. Malpractice 365 Personal Injury Product Liability 368 Asbestos Personal Injury Product ’ Liability 320 Liability ’ ’ 340 Marine 345 Marine Product ’ ’ 380 Other Personal ’ 350 Motor Vehicle 355 Motor Vehicle ’ 385 ’ Product Liability 360 Other Personal PERSONAL PROPERTY ’ 370 Other Fraud ’ 371 Truth in Lending Liability ’ 610 ’ Property Damage Property Damage Product Liability ’ 730 ’ ’ ’ ’ Accommodations 444 Welfare 445 Amer. w/Disabilities ’ 446 Amer. w/Disabilities ’ Other 440 Other Civil ’ ’ Labor/Mgmt.Reporting & Disclosure Act 441 510 Motions to Vacate Sentence Habeas - - 530 General 535 Death Penalty 540 Mandamus & Other 550 Civil Rights 555 Prison Condition ’ ’ ’ Rights (Place an “X” in One Box Only) ’ 2 Removed from ’ 3 State Court Cite the U.S. Remanded from Appellate Court ’ 740 Railway Labor Act ’ 790 Other Labor Litigation ’ 791 Empl. Ret. Inc. OTHERSTATUTES ’ 400 State ’ ’ ’ 410 Antitrust 430 Banks and Banking 450 Commerce PROPERTY RIGHTS ’ 820 Copyrights ’ 830 Patent ’ 840 Trademark ’ ’ 460 Deportation 470 Racketeer Influenced and ’ Corrupt Organizations SOCIAL SECURITY ’ 861 HIA (1395ff) ’ 862 Black Lung (923) ’ 863 DIWC/DIWW(405(g)) ’ 864 SSID Title XVI ’ 865 RSI (405(g)) ’ ’ 875 Customer Challenge ’ ’ 12 USC 3410 890 Other Statutory Actions 891 Agricultural Acts FEDERAL TAX SUITS ’ 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff ’ 892 Economic Stabilization Act ’ 893 Environmental Matters 894 Energy Allocation Act ’ ’ or Exchange ’ Defendant) ’ ’ IMMIGRATION ’ 462 Naturalization Application ’ 463 Habeas Corpus Alien Detainee ’ 465 Other Immigration Actions 895 Freedom of Information Act 900Appeal of Fee Determination Under Equal Access to Justice - ’ 4 Reinstated or ’ Reopened 5 Reapportionment 480 Consumer Credit 490 Cable/Sat TV 810 Selective Service 850 Securities/Commodities/ ’ 871 IRS—Third Party 26 USC 7609 Security Act Corpus: BANKRUPTCY ’ 422 Appeal28 USC 158 ’ 423 Withdrawal 28 USC 157 Safety/Health ’ 690 Other LABOR ’ 710 Fair Labor Standards Act ’ 720 Labor/Mgmt. Relations PRISONER PETITIONS Voting 442 Employment 443 Housing/ ’ Agriculture ’ 620 Other Food & Drug ’ 625 Drug Related Seizure of Propert y 21 USC 881 ’ 630 Liquor Laws ’ 640 R.R. & Truck ’ 650 Airline Regs. ’ 660 Occupational Injury CIVIL RIGHTS Employment ’ 1 362 Personal Liability (Excl. Veterans) 153 Recovery of Overpayment V. ORIGIN FORFEITURE/PENALTY PERSONAL INJURY ’ 950 Constitutionality of State Statutes Transferred from another district ’ 6 Multidistrict ’ 7 Litigation (specify) Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity): Appeal to District Judge from Magistrate Judgment VI. CAUSE OF ACTION Brief description of cause: VII. REQUESTED IN ’ CHECK IF THIS IS VIII. RELATED IF ANY A CLASS ACTION CHECK YES DEMAND $ UNDER F.R.C.P. 23 COMPLAINT: CASE(S) (See instructions): only if demanded in complaint: JURY DEMAND: JUDGE DOCKET NUMBER SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD DATE FOR OFFICE USE ONLY RECEIPT # AMOUNT APPLYING IFP JUDGE MAG. JUDGE ’ Yes ’ No ~ JS 44 Reverse Document 1-2 Case 5:09-cv-00155-D (Rev. 12/07) Filed 04/09/2009 Page 2 of 2 INSTRUCTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET FORM JS 44 Authority For Civil Cover Sheet The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filings and service of pleading or other papers as required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk ofCourt for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. Consequently, a civil cover sheet is submitted to the Clerk of Court for each civil complaint filed. The attorney filing a case should complete the form as follows: I. (a) Plaintiffs-Defendants. Enter names (last, first, middle initial) ofplaintiff and defendant. If the plaintiff or defendant is a government agency, use only the full name or standard abbreviations. If the plaintiff or defendant is an official within a government agency, identify first the agency and then the official, giving both name and title. (b) County of Residence. For each civil case filed, except U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county where the first listed plaintiffresides at the time of filing. In U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county in which the first listed defendant resides at the time of filing. (NOTE: In land condemnation cases, the county of residence of the “defendant” is the location of the tract of land involved.) (c) Attorneys. Enter the firm name, address, telephone number, “(see attachment)”. and attorney of record. If there are several attorneys, list them on an attachment, noting in this section II. Jurisdiction. The basis ofjurisdiction is set forth under Rule 8(a), of the boxes. If there is more than one basis of jurisdiction, precedence is United States plaintiff. (1) Jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C. United States defendant. F.R.C.P., which requires that jurisdictions be shown in pleadings. Place an given in the 1345 and 1348. Suits (2) When the plaintiff is suing the United States, by agencies and officers of the United its officers “X” in one order shown below. or agencies, place an States are included here. “X” in this box. Federal question. (3) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1331, where jurisdiction arises under the Constitution of the United States, an amendment to the Constitution, an act of Congress or a treaty of the United States. In cases where the U.S. is a party, the U.S. plaintiff or defendant code takes precedence, and box 1 or 2 should be marked. Diversity of citizenship. (4) This refers to suits under 28 U. S.C. 1332, where parties are citizens of different states. When Box 4 is checked, the citizenship of the different parties must be checked. (See Section III below; federal question actions take precedence over diversity cases.) III. Residence (citizenship) of Principal Parties. This section ofthe JS 44 is to be completed if diversity of citizenship for each principal party. was indicated above. Mark this section Nature of Suit. Place an “X” in the appropriate box. If the nature of suit cannot be determined, be sure the cause of action, in Section VI below, is sufficient deputy clerk or the statistical clerks in the Administrative Office to determine the nature of suit. If the cause fits more than one nature of suit, select IV. to enable the the most definitive. V. Origin. Place an “X” in Original Proceedings. (1) one of the Cases which seven originate boxes. in the United States district courts. Removed from State Court. (2) Proceedings initiated in state courts may be removed to the district courts under Title 28 U.S.C., Section 1441. When the petition for removal is granted, check this box. Remanded from Reinstated or Appellate Court. (3) Reopened. (4) Check this box for Check this box for Transferred from Another District. litigation transfers. cases cases remanded to the district court for further action. Use the date of remand reinstated or reopened in the (5) For cases transferred under district court. Use the Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a). VI. Cause of Action. unless diversity. Jury an “X” in this box if you are (in thousands of dollars) appropriate box to indicate whether or not a being from a Attorney Signature. Date and filing date. or multidistrict Section 1407. When this box magistrate judge’s decision. Do not cite jurisdictional statutes jury sign the civil cover sheet. filing a class action under Rule 23, F.R.Cv.P. demanded or indicate other demand such as a preliminary injunction. is being demanded. Related Cases. This section of the JS 44 is used to reference related and the corresponding judge names for such cases. VIII. Date and appeal filing date. U.S. Civil Statute: 47 USC 553 Brief Description: Unauthorized reception of cable service Example: Demand. In this space enter the dollar amount Demand. Check the an the authority of Title 28 U.S.C. Report the civil statute directly related to the cause of action and give a brief description of the cause. Requested in Complaint. Class Action. Place VII. Check this box for as the Do not use this for within district transfers Multidistrict Litigation. (6) Check this box when a multidistrict case is transferred into the district under is checked, do not check (5) above. Appeal to District Judge from Magistrate Judgment. (7) reopening date as pending cases if any. If there are related pending cases, insert the docket numbers Case 5:09-cv-00155-D 85/68/2008 FARMWORKER 99,356?3,27 13:e4 Filed 04/09/2009 Document 1-3 fklr.3-4 0. ze e. .andar 25 r.J. 3 .C. party 4:It aSSert 7 y r Stan Act. tn 1 of 3 to 5 7.i7E ccvzrt to Page cer 3,:rit 321i (.., the rinirromt wale -h —t) to , 1 a vg...lit ths recraired h the to 'air labor bev-i-c&d:iik_criaciencudoe IGNATURE DATE RITY yo, NUMBER GA VItttltiA41 a ANA S. por la presents lo estipula U.S.C. 29 216(b) para demandar con el objeto de hacer veer mis decechos al saki° minim() como lo exige el Acta de Normas Laborales Justi.s. =toy de acnerlo en ser parte, como 1.8 64• P:c; IngYV •••^•-a.1 .1.1:e - •01-, ligunt air% q.t.: De.o. 03.0f Pecha No. de AiturLI SOCIAi Attachment 1 ) Case 5:09-cv-00155-D Document 1-3 Filed 04/Q9/2009 Page 2 of 3 01/68 cONSENT TO SUE to be 1, __SUPLAi ravtAti 15imas. a party under 29 :!.S.0 assert iv right tb 521600 , Ine tO the minimum wage requiree. hereby consent lawsuit by tha to Fair labor Standaras F -;) oS, or oop • SI-_,..wkr 2 Kr. UT' - S C; C: Al, 5 LT TY 41' - 7-= 41741.1.4...T.— CONSENTIMEENTO A114 DEMANDAR • ; _ _ _ , (A1' LAL - , 44 Aubc cactiuoTomac Firma 9-, 0 0, AYteivf--t=evr.-14,-0-1Femnts Fear _ No, de;g1ezuro 5 Attachment 2 — - - Case 5:09-cv-00155-D Document 1-3 e‘-gs/T1,1'frt -1\10A-071/4, 5 vt a right to hereby 5216(b party under 25 U.S.0 assert my Page 3 of 3 INITES , tc Filed 04/09/2009 to the the minimum wage reqt.iire 7.ewsuit consent to bj the Fair la'zor Stn./ eiwAsk -2) _ krnte U. - SIGNATRE --_., 144410 08.04-, 2 00 y TE ›C • SOCIAL SECURITY Nrmra .:(10N61*X.flIftX:1102.1.i:MittiNIAM)t.%,,F1 vytt'vif ?ettt AVN4-s r 0 yo, por la presente de acuemo ser parte, como lo estipula U.S.C. 29 estoy con el demander 216(b) pare objeto de hater valer mis derechos al salrio COMO lo exige el Acta de Normas Laboralcs JustaS. 11-e/r-m,-Iwore.lecg .roro‘if Firma (>51. dr, 2008 Feclia No. de Segurn Social Attachment 3 Case 5:09-cv-00 1 55-D Document 1-4 Filed 04/09/2009 Page 1 of 1 Index of Exhibits and Attachments Attachments 1. 2. 3. Consent to Sue Form Consent to Sue Form Consent to Sue Form – – – Plaintiff Matias-Lopez Plaintiff Rubeli Castillo-Tomas Plaintiff Gumercindo Perez-Tomas Exhibits A. U.S. Department of Labor ETA Form Certification; 750A Application for Alien Employment Case 5:09-cv-00155-D Document 1-5 Filed 04/09/2009 Page 1 of 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA Case No. Matias-Lopez, et al 3 Plaintiff(s), VS Ramon Forestry Services, et al Defendant(s). DISCLOSURE OF CORPORATE AFFILIATIONS AND OTHER ENTITIES WITH A DIRECT FINANCIAL INTEREST IN LITIGATION Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 7.1 and Local Civil Rule 7.3, or Fed.R.Crim.P. 12.4 and Local Criminal Rule 12.3, Rubeli Castillo-Tomas who is Plaintiff (name of party) (plain?ff/defendan?other: - . makes the following disclosure: 1. Is party a publicly held corporation or other publicly held entity? YES NO 2. Does party have any parent corporations? YES NO If yes, identify all parent corporation, including grandparent and great-grandparent corporations: 3. Is 10% or more of the stock of a party owned by a publicly held corporation or other publicly held entity? YES NO If yes, identify all such owners: Case 5:09-cv-00155-D Document 1-5 Filed 04/09/2009 Page 2 of 2 4. Is there any other publicly held corporation or other publicly held entity that has a direct ?nancial interest in the outcome of the litigation (Local Civil Rule 7.3 or Local Criminal Rule 12.3)? YES NO If yes, identify entity and nature of interest: 5. Is party a trade association? YES NO If yes, identify all members of the association, their parent corporations, and any publicly held companies that own 10% or more of a member?s stock: 6. If case arises out of a bankruptcy proceeding, identify any trustee and the members of any creditors?s committee: Signature: Date: Case 5:09-cv-00155-D Document 1-6 Filed 04/09/2009 Page 1 of 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA Case No. Matias-Lopez, et al Plaintiff(s), vs Ramon Forestry Services, et al Defendant(s). DISCLOSURE OF CORPORATE AFFILIATIONS AND OTHER ENTITIES WITH A DIRECT FINANCIAL INTEREST IN LITIGATION Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 7.1 and Local Civil Rule 7.3, or Fed.R.Crim.P. 12.4 and Local Criminal Rule 12.3, Gumercindo Matias-Lopez who is Plaintiff (name of party) (plaintiff/defendant/other: . . . makes the following disclosure: 1. Is party a publicly held corporation or other publicly held entity? YES NO 2. Does party have any parent corporations? No If yes, identify all parent corporation, including grandparent and great-grandparent corporations: 3. Is 10% or more of the stock of a party owned by a publicly held corporation or other publicly held entity? YES 0 No If yes, identify all such owners: Case 5:09-cv-00155-D Document 1-6 Filed 04/09/2009 Page 2 of 2 4. Is there any other publicly held corporation or other publicly held entity that has a direct ?nancial interest in the outcome of the litigation (Local Civil Rule 7.3 or Local Criminal Rule 12.3)? YES If yes, identify entity and nature of interest: 5. Is party a trade association? YES NO If yes, identify all members of the association, their parent corporations, and any publicly held companies that own 10% or more of a member?s stock: 6. If case arises out of a bankruptcy proceeding, identify any trustee and the members of any creditors?s committee: Signature: gig Date: I 1 Case 5:09-cv-00155-D Document 1-7 Filed 04/09/2009 Page1 of 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA Case o. Matias-Lopez, et al Plaintiff(s), vs Ramon Forestry Services, et al Defendant(s). DISCLOSURE OF CORPORATE AFFILIATIONS AND OTHER ENTITIES WITH A DIRECT FINANCIAL INTEREST IN LITIGATION Pursuant to ed.R.Civ.P. 7.1 and Local Civil Rule 7.3, or ed.R.Crim.P. 12.4 and Local Criminal Rule 12.3, Herminio Perez-Tomas who is Plaintiff (name of party) (plaintiff/defendant/other: makes the following disclosure: 1. Is party a publicly held corporation or other publicly held entity? YES 0 NO 2. Does party have any parent corporations? YES 0 NO Q) If yes, identify all parent corporation, including grandparent and great-grandparent corporations: 3. Is 10% or more of the stock of a party owned by a publicly held corporation or other publicly held entity? YES 0 NO If yes, identify all such owners: Case 5:09-cv-00155-D Document 1-7 Filed 04/09/2009 Page 2 of 2 4. Is there any other publicly held corporation or other publicly held entity that has a direct ?nancial interest in the outcome of the litigation (Local Civil Rule 7.3 or Local Criminal Rule 12.3)? YES NO If yes, identify entity and nature of interest: 5. Is party a trade association? YESO NO If yes, identify all members of the association, their parent corporations, and any publicly held companies that own 10% or more of a member?s stock: 6. If case arises out of a bankruptcy proceeding, identify any trustee and the members of any creditors?s committee: Signature: Date: 03 16/04