Secrecy Shrouds Dismissal of Migrants’ Lawsuit

A lawsuit that would have pitted 42 migrant farm workers against their former boss was dismissed Monday morning, moments before the 2-year-old case was to go to trial at the Vista courthouse.

Most of the farm workers involved will continue to pursue their claims for several million dollars in unpaid back wages from the Ukegawa Bros. Inc., through the state labor commissioner and the Agricultural Labor Relations Board. But many allegations of physical abuse purportedly perpetrated on the workers by the Ukegawas will be dropped outright as a result of Monday’s action.

Attorneys in the case would not discuss the reasons for the dismissal, citing a gag order imposed by Superior Court Judge David Moon.

Explaining the dismissal of the case, Moon said that having all the defendants testify would be expensive in terms of court time, attorneys’ fees and lost wages to those who took the time off to come to court. Even if the growers were ordered to pay damages, he said, the actual collection could occur only after drawn-out appeals.

“All of that is a lengthy process,” Moon said. “The attorneys, with the consent of their clients, have decided it would be best not to proceed with their courses of action. . . . But that is not to say they’ve agreed there is no substance to the charges.”

The judge dismissed 18 allegations that the Ukegawa brothers or their sons committed violent acts against the workers--the lawsuit detailed many reported incidents of shootings, beatings and death threats, occurring as far back as 1980.

Oscar Ruiz de Chavez, attorney for the plaintiffs, said in earlier court filings that his clients were afraid to report the abuse at the time it occurred and only came forward in 1987 because they felt safer under the umbrella of the new amnesty law, which afforded many of them legal working status. Some of the plaintiffs have lasting scars from pellet-gun wounds, according to Ruiz de Chavez, but attorneys for the Ukegawas have said there is no documented evidence that any of the violent acts actually occurred.

Though some of the workers filed criminal complaints with both the Carlsbad and San Diego police departments, those cases were never pursued because of lack of evidence and the amount of time that had passed.

The allegations of violence may have been equally difficult, if not legally impossible, to prove through a civil trial because the statute of limitations for such cases is only one year, according to one legal authority not affiliated with the case.

Until recently, brothers Joe and Hiroshi Ukegawa and their sons had one of the largest tomato businesses in California. With farms in Del Mar, Olivenhain, Carlsbad and Oceanside, the Ukegawas have employed thousands of laborers over more than two decades--most of them undocumented migrants from Mexico.

Moon suggested that the remaining wage disputes would be more properly resolved by the state labor commissioner and the ALRB. Even if Moon found that the workers were entitled to back wages, they would not be entitled to collect that money twice, both from the Superior Court case and from the state proceedings, he explained.

Moon also said the actual collection of damages in a civil case could pose a “problem”--raising the possibility that the Ukegawas would not be able to pay, regardless of the judgment in the lawsuit.

Nick Sauer, attorney for the Ukegawas, said in an interview last month that the once-powerful growers, who had four North County farms and were one of the largest tomato producers in the state, had fallen upon hard times. Sauer said the family business was beset by financial problems related to the litigation and a general downturn in the economy, and was “struggling” to survive.

Tim Foote, ALRB regional director, agreed with Sauer and said it was his understanding that the Ukegawas are in “quite a bit of debt.”

A lawsuit filed in Superior Court June 29 shows further evidence of financial hardship. The suit, filed by Lindsey David Kenly, stated that the Ukegawas’ 109-acre farm in Oceanside was being foreclosed on because the growers had defaulted on three trust deeds totaling more than $1.9 million.

Many Were Surprised

Kenly said he agreed to purchase the property and allow the Ukegawas to continue farming it for at least a year--but the Ukegawas never signed the escrow documents. In the lawsuit, Kenly claimed that the Ukegawas took advantage of him in order to halt the foreclosure, but never actually intended to turn over the land.

Monday’s decision to drop the suit apparently came as a surprise to many of the farm workers who gathered at the Vista courthouse, expecting a chance to testify. The 2 dozen who showed up for the morning hearing dwindled by half after the suit’s dismissal was announced. Each of the remaining men was individually polled by the judge, through an interpreter, as to whether he understood and agreed to the dismissal.

One worker, Felipe de Jesus, told the judge, “I have many doubts about this situation. I don’t understand the reason to finish with all this.” Attorney Jan Culbertson, who was representing the workers along with Ruiz de Chavez, responded, “The reason . . . is to finish with the two labor cases, where you will have more advantages than in this case.”

Some of the same workers involved in the civil lawsuit are awaiting the results of a case pending before the ALRB. Four years ago, the labor relations board ordered the Ukegawas to reinstate, with back pay, 41 workers who were fired because of unionizing activities in 1975 and 1976. ALRB attorney Stephanie Bullock said Monday that the Ukegawa Bros. firm never rehired the men.

Pushing for Awards

The ALRB is now pushing for $1.5 million in back pay for the fired workers, plus $1.5 million in interest, Bullock said. Bullock said she will argue, in a brief to be filed with an administrative law judge by Aug. 20, that the workers are entitled to pay up to the present date. The Ukegawa family has countered that the pay should be awarded for only a couple of years, contending that none of the fired men would still be working for them today, given the market conditions and other factors.

ALRB administrative law judge Thomas Sobel will decide the amount to be paid in September, after reviewing the briefs filed by both sides, Bullock said. Expected appeals of Sobel’s decision could delay the actual disbursement of the money several more years, she said.

Another case, involving overtime pay earned in 1987, is being pursued by the state labor commissioner as the result of claims filed by many of the same workers involved in the civil lawsuit. The case, which resulted from a lengthy investigation by the state Department of Industrial Relations, will go to trial in Superior Court in February.