1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CLAUDIA GONZALEZ MONDRAGON, Case No. 1:22-cv-01259 JLT BAM GUSTAVO GUSMAN, and ALAN 12 REYES, on behalf of themselves and those ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND similarly situated, RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING 13 DEFENDANT T&C VINEYARDS WITH Plaintiffs, PREJUDICE 14 v. (Docs. 103, 111) 15 R T FARM LABOR, INC, et al., 16 Defendants. 17 18 Clauda Gonzalez Mondragon, Gustavo Gusman, and Alan Reyes, on behalf of themselves 19 and those similarly situated, seek to hold defendants R T Farm Labor, Inc., T&C Vineyards, 20 Ricardo Trevino Jr., Ricardo Gomez Trevino, and Harold Chuhlantseff liable for violations of 21 California wage and hour laws and the federal Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker 22 Protection Act. (See Doc. 23.) 23 T&C Vineyards moved to dismiss the complaint against it pursuant to Federal Rule of 24 Civil Procedure 41 on the grounds that Plaintiffs have failed to comply with the Court’s orders, 25 including the failure to file required status reports and the failure to file a motion for class 26 certification, and have failed to prosecute this action. (Doc. 103.) The Court referred the matter 27 to the assigned magistrate judge. (Doc. 104.) 28 On August 14, 2025, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 1 || recommending the motion to dismiss be granted and T&C Vineyards be dismissed from this 2 | action with prejudice. (Doc. 111.) The magistrate judge analyzed the following factors: (1) the 3 | public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; 4 | (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on 5 | their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. The magistrate judge determined 6 | that these factors weighed in favor of dismissal and did not find that there were less drastic 7 | alternatives to dismissal. Ud.) 8 The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on parties and notified them that 9 | any objections were due within fourteen days. (/d. at 14.) The Court also informed the parties 10 | that “the failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of the ‘right 11 | to challenge the magistrate’s factual findings’ on appeal.” (/d. at 10, quoting Wilkerson v. 12 | Wheeler,

(9th Cir. 2014).) Plaintiffs filed objections on August 28, 2025. 13 | (Doc. 112.) T&C Vineyards replied to the objections on September 2, 2025. (Doc. 113.) 14 According to

(b)(1)(c), this Court has conducted a de novo review of the 15 | case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Plaintiffs’ objections, the Court finds 16 | that the Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, 17 | the Court ORDERS: 18 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on August 28, 2025 (Doc. 111) are 19 ADOPTED. 20 2. T&C Vineyards’ motion to dismiss, (Doc. 103), is GRANTED. 21 3. T&C Vineyards is DISMISSED from this action with prejudice. 22 4. The action is referred to the magistrate judge for further proceedings consistent 23 with this order. 24 95 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ October 25, 2025 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 27 28