Santiago et al v. Farm West Labor Contracting Co. et al

1 – ORDER
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
EUGENE DIVISION
MAXIMINO SANTIAGO, JULIANA Case No. 6:21-cv-01282-MC
VALENCIA, PAULINO CANDIDO,
and MANUEL NIEVEZ, individuals, ORDER
Plaintiffs,
v.
FARM WEST LABOR CONTRACTING CO.,
an Oregon domestic business corporation,
RAINBOW ORCHARDS VIII, LLC, an
Oregon limited liability company,
WILLAMETTE VALLEY AG SERVICES,
LLC, an Oregon limited liability company, and
SETTON PISTACHIO OF TERRA BELLA,
INC., a foreign business corporation,
Defendants.
_____________________________
MCSHANE, Judge:
Plaintiffs Maximino Santiago, Juliana Valencia, Paulino Candido, and Manuel Nievez
(collectively, “Plaintiffs”) bring this action against Farm West Labor Contracting Co., Rainbow
Orchards VIII, LLC, and Willamette Valley Ag Services, LLC. 3d Am. Compl., ECF No. 134.
Plaintiffs bring claims under the Migrant and Seasonal Worker Protection Act (“AWPA”) and
various state laws. Id. ¶¶ 1–4. Because Farm West and Willamette Valley Ag are in default, at the
trial set to begin on December 8, 2025, Plaintiffs are proceeding only against Rainbow Orchards.
Case 6:21-cv-01282-MC Document 156 Filed 11/18/25 Page 1 of 4

2 – ORDER
ECF No. 150 at 2. The Third Amended Complaint added a claim for piercing the corporate veil
against Setton Pistachio of Terra Bella, Inc. Id. ¶¶ 184–87.
At a status conference on November 12, 2025, counsel for Setton Pistachio moved to
continue the trial. ECF No. 153; Status Conf. Tr. 14:25–16:16. The Court denied the request at the
status conference and explains its decision here.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs began this action on August 30, 2021. Compl., ECF No. 1. On August 9, 2022,
Plaintiffs filed an unopposed Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint seeking to add Willamette
Valley Ag Services, LLC (“Willamette Valley Ag”) as a defendant. ECF No. 19; 1st Am. Compl.,
ECF No. 21. The Court stayed the pretrial deadlines on October 26, 2022, following Plaintiffs’
unopposed motion. ECF No. 30. Thereafter, Willamette Valley Ag moved to dismiss Plaintiffs’
claims against it. See ECF No. 36, 43, 47. Plaintiffs also moved to further amend its pleadings.
ECF No. 41; 2d Am. Compl., ECF No. 42. The Court denied Willamette Valley Ag’s motion and
granted Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend, making the Second Amended Complaint the
Operative Complaint. ECF No. 55.
Upon lifting the stay on August 29, 2023, the Court set a new discovery deadline of
February 29, 2024. ECF No. 62. Following multiple extensions, discovery closed on May 30, 2024.
ECF No. 72, 73, 74, 76. Later, Plaintiffs was granted leave to file a motion for partial summary
judgment after the deadline for dispositive motions had passed. ECF No. 83. Plaintiffs moved for
partial summary judgment against Willamette Valley Ag and Rainbow on the same day. ECF
No. 88. Rainbow moved for partial summary judgment on December 20, 2024. ECF No. 92.
Following an extended briefing schedule, on May 9, 2025, the Court denied Rainbow’s motion
and granted Plaintiffs’ motion, holding Rainbow and Willamette Valley Ag were jointly and
Case 6:21-cv-01282-MC Document 156 Filed 11/18/25 Page 2 of 4

3 – ORDER
severally liable for Willamette Valley Ag’s violations of the Oregon Contractor Registration Act.
ECF No. 112. Thereafter, on June 11, 2025, the Court entered a Trial Management Order setting
trial to begin on December 8, 2025, and pretrial conference on December 1, 2025. ECF No. 117.
On September 3, 2025, Plaintiff moved to amend the Operative Complaint, which the Court
granted. ECF No. 133. The Third Amended Complaint added Setton Pistachio as an additional
defendant for a single claim asserting the doctrine of “piercing the corporate veil,” alleging that
Setton Pistachio controlled Rainbow Orchards. 3d Am. Compl. ¶¶ 184–87. Although the Third
Amended Complaint was allowed, the Court clarified that the equitable claims against Setton
Pistachio would not be heard in conjunction with the December 8, 2025, trial against Rainbow
Orchards. If Rainbow Orchards is held liable at trial in December, issues regarding Setton
Pistachio’s liability would be heard at a date agreeable to the parties in 2026.
The Court held a status conference on November 12, 2025, at which time Setton Pistachio
requested that the Court continue the trial set to begin on December 8, 2025 . ECF No. 152, 153.
DISCUSSION
Given the extreme age of the case, now ongoing for over four years, Setton Pistachio’s
request to continue the upcoming trial is inappropriate. In addition, though Setton Pistachio refers
to need to prepare to defend the claims at issue at trial (Status Conf. Tr. 15:1–10), the claims are
based on simple facts concerning Rainbow Orchard’s alleged failure to provide potable drinking
water for workers as required by law. Rainbow Orchards is prepared to, and more than capable of,
defending these relatively simple factual claims. Lastly, Setton Pistachio’s potential liability rests
on an equitable remedy (piercing the corporate veil), and the Court will give Setton Pistachio wide
latitude to present any equitable defenses and arguments regarding equitable relief that Rainbow
Orchards does not adequately defend. See ECF No. 133.
Case 6:21-cv-01282-MC Document 156 Filed 11/18/25 Page 3 of 4

4 – ORDER
CONCLUSION
As the Court decided at the status conference, and for the reasons set forth above, Setton
Pistachio’s request to continue the trial scheduled for December 8, 2025, is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 18th day of November, 2025.
/s/ Michael McShane
Michael McShane
United States District Judge
Case 6:21-cv-01282-MC Document 156 Filed 11/18/25 Page 4 of 4