1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00172-JLT-HBK Document 72 Filed 03/08/22 Page 1 of 25
`
`
`
`BRADLEY/GROMBACHER, LLP
`Marcus J. Bradley (SBN 174156)
`Kiley L. Grombacher (SBN 245960)
`Lirit A. King (SBN 252521)
`31365 Oak Crest Drive, Suite 240
`Westlake Village, California 91361
`Telephone: (805) 270-7100
`Facsimile: (805) 270-7589
`mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com
`kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher.com
`lking@bradleygrombacher.com
`
`LAW OFFICES OF SAHAG MAJARIAN II
`Sahag Majarian, (SBN 146621)
`18250 Ventura Boulevard
`Tarzana, California 91356
`Telephone: (818) 609-0807
`Facsimile: (818) 609-0892
`E-Mail: sahagii@aol.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`LUIS M. SALAS RAZO, on his own behalf
`and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`AT&T MOBILITY SERVICES, LLC, a
`Delaware Corporation; and Does 1
`through 100, inclusive,
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 1:20-cv-00172-JLT-HBK
`
`MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT
`OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
`APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION AND
`PAGA ACTION SETTLEMENT
`
`Date:
`Time:
`Courtroom:
`
`March 22, 2022
`9:00 AM
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Hon. Jennifer L.
`Assigned Judge:
`Thurston
`
`
`Assigned Mag. Judge: Hon. Helena M. Barch-
`
`
`Kuchta
`
`Complaint filed:
`Removed:
`
`
`August 27, 2019
`January 31, 2020
`
`
`MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF
`CLASS ACTION AND PAGA ACTION SETTLEMENT
`
`
`
`
`

`

`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00172-JLT-HBK Document 72 Filed 03/08/22 Page 2 of 25
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`I.
`II.
`
`III.
`
`INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
`FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ........................................................ 2
`A.
`Plaintiff’s Claims and Relevant Background. ......................................................... 2
`B.
`Settlement Negotiations. ......................................................................................... 4
`SUMMARY OF SETTLEMENT ....................................................................................... 4
`a.
`The Proposed Class ..................................................................................... 4
`b.
`Settlement Terms ........................................................................................ 4
`CONDITIONAL CERTIFICATION SHOULD BE GRANTED .................................... 10
`A.
`Rule 23(a) Class Requirements are Met................................................................ 10
`THE SETTLEMENT SHOULD BE PRELIMINARILY APPROVED ........................... 14
`A.
`Court Approval Under Rule 23 Should be Granted. ............................................. 14
`B.
`The Settlement Resulted From Arm’s-Length Negotiations. ............................... 15
`C.
`The Benefits Of The Proposed Settlement And Risks Of Continued
`Litigation. .............................................................................................................. 16
`THE COURT SHOULD APPROVE THE PAGA SETTLEMENT................................. 19
`VI.
`VII. NATURE AND METHOD OF NOTICE ......................................................................... 21
`A.
`Data to Administrator and Notice Mailing............................................................ 21
`B.
`The Notice Method Meets the Requirements of Rule 23 ...................................... 21
`VIII. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 22
`
`
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`
`
`- i -
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`

`

`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00172-JLT-HBK Document 72 Filed 03/08/22 Page 3 of 25
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`Advertising Specialty Nat’l Asso. v. Federal Trade Com. (1st Cir. 1956) ..................................... 10
`Allen v. American Multi-Cinema Inc., Case No. RG-11-585502 ................................................... 19
`Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor .................................................................................................... 12
`Armstrong v. Davis ........................................................................................................................ 11
`Atempa v. Pama Inc., Case No. 37-2013-00058208-CU-OE-CTL ................................................ 19
`Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court .................................................................................. 13
`Childers v. Anthony Shenouda Inc., Case No., BC517798 ............................................................ 19
`Chu v. Wells Fargo Investments, LLC, 2011 U.S. Dist .................................................................. 20
`Class Plaintiffs v. City of Seattle(9th Cir. 1992) ............................................................................ 14
`Doninger v. Pac. Nw. Bell, Inc., (9th Cir.1977) ............................................................................ 10
`Early v. Superior Court, (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th .............................................................................. 5
`Ferra v. Loews Hollywood Hotel, LLC .......................................................................................... 18
`Gatreaux v. Pierce (7th Cir. 1982) ................................................................................................ 14
`Grant v. Capital Mgmt. Servs., L.P. ............................................................................................... 13
`Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp. ............................................................................................................... 11
`Kim v. Reins Int’l Cal., Inc ............................................................................................................. 20
`Lazarin v. Pro Unlimited, Inc. ....................................................................................................... 13
`Leyva v. Medline Indus. (9th Cir.2013) ......................................................................................... 13
`Magadia v. Wal-Mart Assocs. ........................................................................................................ 20
`Nat’l Rural Telecommunication cooperative v. Directv, Inc.(C.D.Cal. 2004) .............................. 15
`Nordstrom Commissions Cases (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th .............................................................. 20
`Rodriguez v. Hayes,........................................................................................................................ 11
`Rodriguez v. West Publishing Corp. (9th Cir. 2009) ..................................................................... 15
`Samuel Wallack, et al. v. AT&T Mobility Services, LLC (Case No. CVISB2117915) ................. 1, 3
`Smith v. Am. Greetings Corp.,2016 U.S. Dist ................................................................................ 20
`Staton v. Boeing, 327 F.3d 938 (9th Cir. 2003) ............................................................................... 5
`United Steel, Paper & Forestry, Rubber, Mfg. Energy v. Conoco Phillips Co.(9th Cir. 2010) .... 10
`Williams v. Superior Court ............................................................................................................ 20
`Willner v. Manpower Inc., 2015 U.S. Dist ..................................................................................... 20
`Statutes
`Cal. Lab. Code § 2699.................................................................................................................... 19
`Cal. Lab. Code § 2699(e)(2) .......................................................................................................... 18
`Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 ...................................................................................................... 9
`Cal. Civ. Code §1542 ....................................................................................................................... 9
`Cal. Lab. Code § 218.5..................................................................................................................... 5
`Cal. Lab. Code § 2699(l)(2) ........................................................................................................... 19
`Cal. Lab. Code § 2699(i) ................................................................................................................ 20
`Other Authorities
`Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1026 ............................................................................................................... 14
`Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1027 ............................................................................................................... 15
`Heritage Bond Litigation, 2005 WL 1594403 (C.D. Cal. 2005).................................................... 14
`In re Surebeam Corp. Secs. Litig., 2004 WL 5159061 .................................................................. 12
`Manual for Complex Litigation, Fourth, § 22.661 at 438 (2004) .................................................. 14
`Manual of Complex Litigation, Fourth Ed ..................................................................................... 14
`Newberg, 2 Newberg on Class Actions §8.32 ............................................................................... 21
`Officers for Justice, supra, 688 F.2d 615, 625 ............................................................................... 15
`Rules
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3). ................................................................................................................. 12
`
`
`
`- ii -
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`Case 1:20-cv-00172-JLT-HBK Document 72 Filed 03/08/22 Page 4 of 25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Plaintiff Luis M. Salas Razo, by and through his attorneys of record, seeks preliminary
`approval of the class action and PAGA settlement in the above-entitled Action as outlined in the
`Class Action and PAGA Settlement Agreement (“Settlement Agreement,” “Settlement,” or
`“Agreement”) individually, on behalf of all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the State of
`California.1
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`This is a wage and hour class action and representative action initially brought on behalf of
`all non-exempt employees who worked for Defendant AT&T Mobility Services, LLC, (“AT&T)
`in California at any time from August 27, 2015 through the date that judgment is entered. ECF No.
`41, ¶¶ 3–4. While this matter was pending, Defendant settled Samuel Wallack, et al. v. AT&T
`Mobility Services, LLC (Case No. CVISB2117915)—a separate class and representative action
`pending before the Hon. David Cohn of the Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino
`and asserting the same claims as alleged here on behalf of “[a]ll persons who worked for AT&T
`Mobility Services LLC in the State of California, while classified as non-exempt, at any time from
`August 1, 2015 to November 1, 2021.” ECF No. 50. As the Parties agree that the Wallack
`settlement is likely to receive final approval, they turned their attention towards fully, finally, and
`forever settling the claims that will remain in this Action post-Wallack.
`Plaintiff and Defendant have thus agreed to a class-wide, non-reversionary settlement of the
`Action in exchange for a release of claims from all persons who worked for AT&T Mobility
`Services LLC in the State of California, while classified as non-exempt, at any time from November
`2, 2021, to the date the Court grants preliminary approval of this Settlement (“Class Members”).
`The Settlement Agreement provides for a non-reversionary settlement in the amount of
`$575,000.00 (“Gross Settlement Amount”), inclusive of all payments to the Class Members and
`Aggrieved Employees, the California Labor and Work Force Development Agency (“LWDA”),
`Class Counsel, the Settlement Administrator and the Named Plaintiff. Assuming no modifications
`
`1 The Settlement Agreement is attached to as Exhibit 1 to the declaration of Kiley L. Grombacher that is filed
`and served concurrently herewith. This Motion incorporates by reference the definitions in the Settlement
`Agreement. To the extent the terms are defined in the Settlement Agreement, all defined terms contained
`herein shall have the same meaning as set forth in the Settlement Agreement.
`
`- 1 -
`MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF
`CLASS ACTION AND PAGA ACTION SETTLEMENT
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`Case 1:20-cv-00172-JLT-HBK Document 72 Filed 03/08/22 Page 5 of 25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`are made, the class members will receive, on average, a net settlement payment of $85. The Parties
`have reached the proposed settlement after considerable investigation, extensive formal and
`informal discovery, and an in-depth investigation and analysis into the facts and legal issues raised
`in this Action. At all times, the Parties’ negotiations were adversarial, non-collusive, and at arm’s
`length.
`The Settlement is strongly supported by experienced counsel who carefully considered the
`strength of asserted claims, AT&T’s defenses thereto, as well as the expense, complexity, and risks
`associated with continued litigation. The proposed Settlement is an “opt-out” and non-reversionary
`settlement, such that Class Members are not required to file a claim form and no portion of the
`Settlement will revert to AT&T. Moreover, all aggrieved employees will receive a PAGA payment
`regardless of whether they chose to opt out of the class settlement. The Settlement is reflective of
`the strengths and vulnerabilities of Plaintiff’s case, the risks of class certification, as well as the
`risks of proceeding on the merits of the claims. When taking these risks into account, the proposed
`Settlement is in the best interests of the Class and the State of California. Therefore, Plaintiff
`respectfully requests that the Court grant preliminary approval of the Settlement, approve the
`Class Notice, appoint Atticus Administration, LLC, as the Settlement Administrator, appoint
`Plaintiff as the Class Representative, appoint Plaintiff’s counsel as Class Counsel, and schedule a
`Final Approval Hearing.
`FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
`II.
`Plaintiff’s Claims and Relevant Background.
`A.
`Plaintiff is a former non-exempt employee of AT&T Mobility Services. He alleges that
`AT&T (a) failed to pay him and the Class for all hours worked, including minimum and overtime
`wages; (b) omitted certain types of remuneration from its regular rate of pay calculations; (c) failed
`to provide meal and rest periods; (d) failed to pay him and the Class a penalty equivalent to one
`hour of their regular rate of compensation whenever that worker missed a meal or rest period; (e)
`issued unlawful wage statements; (f) failed to timely pay wages; and (g) committed unfair business
`practices.
`On May 29, 2019, Razo submitted a written notice of his intent to file a civil action to
`- 2 -
`
`MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF
`CLASS ACTION AND PAGA ACTION SETTLEMENT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`Case 1:20-cv-00172-JLT-HBK Document 72 Filed 03/08/22 Page 6 of 25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`enforce his rights, and the rights of other allegedly aggrieved current and former non-exempt
`employees who performed work for Defendant in California, under PAGA to the LWDA and
`Defendant. The LWDA did not respond.
`On August 27, 2019, Razo filed a complaint against Defendant in the Superior Court for the
`State of California, County of Madera, on behalf of himself individually, all others similarly
`situated, and the State of California. ECF No. 1-4. Defendant filed a demurrer on October 25,
`2019. ECF No. 1-5. Razo filed his First Amended Complaint on January 9, 2020, mooting the
`demurrer. ECF No. 1-9. Defendant removed this Action to the United States District Court for the
`Eastern District of California on January 31, 2020. ECF No. 1.
`After meeting-and-conferring regarding a potential motion to dismiss, the Parties stipulated
`to Razo filing a Second Amended Complaint on March 6, 2020, which he did on July 30, 2020.
`ECF Nos. 7, 9. On August 13, 2020, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended
`Complaint, which Razo opposed. ECF Nos. 10–13, 15. This Court denied Defendant’s motion on
`October 14, 2021, though granted Razo leave to file an amended complaint “to address the issue of
`a prayer for damages in connection with his wage statement claim.” ECF No. 38, 10:6–8. Razo
`filed the operative Third Amended Complaint on October 14, 2021. ECF No. 41.
`While this matter was pending, Defendant settled Samuel Wallack, et al. v. AT&T Mobility
`Services, LLC (Case No. CVISB2117915)—a separate class and representative action pending
`before the Hon. David Cohn of the Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino and
`asserting the same claims as alleged here. ECF No. 50. Razo wished to intervene in Wallack; and
`thus sought—and, on October 27, 2021, received—the appointment of his attorneys at
`Bradley/Grombacher LLP as interim class counsel. ECF No. 45. Nevertheless, the Wallack Court
`refused to allow Razo to intervene. ECF No. 49. And, on November 1, 2021, it preliminarily
`approved the Wallack Settlement, which covers “[a]ll persons who worked for AT&T Mobility
`Services LLC in the State of California, while classified as non-exempt, at any time from August
`1, 2015 to November 1, 2021.” ECF No. 50, 3:1–4. Once the Wallack Court grants final approval,
`the only remaining claims in this matter will be those Razo has asserted on behalf of those who
`worked for Defendant in a non-exempt role in California from November 2, 2021, onwards.
`
`- 3 -
`MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF
`CLASS ACTION AND PAGA ACTION SETTLEMENT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`Case 1:20-cv-00172-JLT-HBK Document 72 Filed 03/08/22 Page 7 of 25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Settlement Negotiations.
`B.
`The Parties agree that the Wallack settlement is likely to receive final approval. No
`objections were filed by the January 31, 2022 deadline. Therefore, the Parties have turned their
`attention towards fully, finally, and forever settling the claims that will remain in this Action post-
`Wallack. Defendant provided Class Counsel with several policies and documents—as well as other
`pieces of data—relevant to Razo’s claims. The Parties then engaged in substantial, arms-length
`settlement negotiations from December 24, 2021 until January 31, 2022. During these negotiations,
`Defendant shared key data points for those non-exempt employees who have worked at AT&T
`since November 2, 2021. After considerable negotiations, the Parties reached an agreement in
`principle to settle the case, the terms of which were negotiated over the following weeks and
`finalized in Agreement the Parties now ask the Court to preliminarily approve. See Declaration of
`Kiley L. Grombacher, Exhibit 1 (“Settlement Agreement”).
`SUMMARY OF SETTLEMENT
`III.
`The principle terms of the Agreement are as follows:
`The Proposed Class
`a.
`All persons who worked for AT&T Mobility Services LLC in the State of California, while
`classified as non-exempt, at any time from November 2, 2021, to the date the Court grants
`preliminary approval of this Settlement. Settlement Agreement, ¶ 2.
`Settlement Terms
`b.
`Under the Agreement, Defendant will pay $575,000 (“Gross Settlement Amount” or
`“GSA”) to fully and finally settle this matter. In no event will Defendant be required to pay more
`than the Gross Settlement Amount, except for the employer’s share of payroll taxes, which
`Defendant will pay separately from and in addition to the Gross Settlement Amount. No portion
`of the GSA will revert to Defendant for any reason. The following deductions from the GSA will
`be made, subject to the Court’s approval:
`Class Representative’s General Release Payment
`i.
`Subject to Court approval, Plaintiff shall receive a Service Enhancement not to exceed
`$10,000 in consideration for a general release of all claims against Defendant. The payment shall
`
`- 4 -
`
`MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF
`CLASS ACTION AND PAGA ACTION SETTLEMENT
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`Case 1:20-cv-00172-JLT-HBK Document 72 Filed 03/08/22 Page 8 of 25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`be made from the GSA. If the amount awarded is less than the amount requested, the difference
`shall become part of the Net Settlement Amount (“NSA”). The payment is in consideration for a
`general release of Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant. See Settlement Agreement, ¶¶ 24, 29.
`Moreover, as representative for the absent Class Members, Plaintiff risked a potential
`judgment taken against him for attorneys’ fees and costs if this matter had not been successfully
`concluded. Case law holds that a losing party is liable for the prevailing party’s costs. See Early
`v. Superior Court, (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 1420, 1433. And in some wage and hour actions, such
`as this case, pursuant to California Labor Code § 218.5, the prevailing party can be liable for
`attorneys’ fees as well. Plaintiff would therefore have had a cost bill entered against him leaving
`him ultimately liable for potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars in the unexpected possibility
`that Class Counsel did not meet their obligation to cover those costs. Unfortunately, there have
`been judgments like this entered against class representatives.2 The risk of payment of Defendant’s
`costs, alone, is a sufficient basis for an award of the requested service award. Few individuals are
`willing to take this risk, and Plaintiff championed a cause on behalf of others with potentially huge
`monetary risks.
`Courts have regularly and routinely granted approval of settlements containing such
`enhancements. See, e.g., Staton v. Boeing, 327 F.3d 938, 977 (9th Cir. 2003). The typical
`enhancement award in wage and hour cases ranges from $5,000 to $75,000, although some awards
`may be higher. Additionally, the modern-day work force is mobile, with employees holding several
`jobs over the span of their career. It is also true that prospective employers in this computer, high-
`tech age “Google” and/or do extensive background checks and have access to court databases to
`see if applicants have ever filed a lawsuit or have ever been sued. Here, Plaintiff’s conduct will not
`be lost on a prospective employer who has to choose between an applicant who has never sued an
`employer and one who has done so. The requested award far from compensates Plaintiff for
`
`2 See, e.g. Koehl v. Verio, Inc., 142 Cal.App.4th 1313, 1328 (2006) (a wage and hour class action
`where Defendant prevailed at trial, the named Plaintiffs were held liable, jointly and severally for
`the Defendant’s attorneys’ fees); Whiteway v. Fedex Kinkos Office & Print Services, Inc., No. 05-
`2320, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95398 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 17, 2007) (a wage and hour misclassification
`case lost on summary judgment, after the case was certified, the named Plaintiff was assessed costs
`in the sum of $56,788.).
`
`
`- 5 -
`MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF
`CLASS ACTION AND PAGA ACTION SETTLEMENT
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`Case 1:20-cv-00172-JLT-HBK Document 72 Filed 03/08/22 Page 9 of 25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`opportunities he may lose in the future because of the exercise of a Constitutional right to Petition
`the Courts for redress of a grievance.
`Attorneys’ Fees and Costs
`ii.
`Subject to Court approval, Plaintiff’s Counsel shall request an award of attorneys’ fees in
`an amount of $191,666.67 (one third of the GSA). See Settlement Agreement, ¶ 23. This includes
`work remaining in documenting the settlement, securing Court approval, ensuring the settlement is
`fairly administered, and obtaining dismissal of the action. Also, subject to Court approval,
`Plaintiff’s Counsel shall request a reimbursement from the GSA for actual litigation costs in an
`amount not to exceed $10,000.00. See Settlement Agreement, ¶ 23.
`Class Counsel will submit their fee motion, supporting their request for one third of the
`GSA 28 days before the Final Approval hearing. Settlement Agreement, ¶ 38(a).
`Payment to the LWDA and PAGA Releasees
`iii.
`Subject to Court approval, the Agreement allots $10,000.00 to PAGA penalties. Seventy-
`five percent (75% or $7,500.00) of the PAGA Payment shall be paid to the Labor and Workforce
`Development Agency (“LWDA”) and twenty-five percent (25% or $2,500.00) of the PAGA
`Payment will be distributed to the Aggrieved Employees on a pro rata basis based on the number
`of workweeks that they worked from November 2, 2021, to the date of Final Approval. See
`Settlement Agreement, ¶ 26(b).
`Settlement Administration Expenses
`iv.
`After obtaining competing bids from multiple administrators, the Parties have agreed to the
`appointment of Atticus Administration, LLC (“Atticus”) as the settlement administrator. Atticus
`is an experienced class administration company that has acted as claims administrator in numerous
`wage and hour cases. The Agreement allots an amount not to exceed $30,000.00 to administer the
`Settlement. See Settlement Agreement, ¶ 25. Atticus’s bid was less expensive than others and is
`currently quoted at $22,954, but will not to exceed $30,000.00.
`The Administration Costs will be paid from the GSA. If Atticus’s actual costs or the amount
`awarded is less than the amount allotted in the Agreement, the difference shall become part of the
`NSA and distributable to Participating Class Members. These costs are reasonable, as Atticus will
`
`- 6 -
`
`MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF
`CLASS ACTION AND PAGA ACTION SETTLEMENT
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`Case 1:20-cv-00172-JLT-HBK Document 72 Filed 03/08/22 Page 10 of 25
`
`mail notice packets to the class, maintain a website which has information about the Settlement and
`links to the settlement documents, and keep track of objections and requests for exclusion from the
`Settlement. Should preliminary and final approval be granted by the Court, Atticus will work with
`the Parties to facilitate the funding of the GSA, disbursement of all Court-approved payments, and
`disbursement of the NSA to Participating Class Members.
`Settlement Payments to Class Members
`v.
`After all deductions have been made, it is estimated that $325,833.33 (“Net Settlement
`Amount” or “NSA”) will be available for disbursement to Participating Class Members (all
`Class Members who do not submit a valid and timely request to exclude themselves from this
`Settlement). The money available for payout to these individuals comes out of the NSA, which is
`what remains of the GSA after subtracting all Court approved attorneys’ fees and costs, the
`Class Representative General Release Payments, Administration Costs, and the PAGA Payment.
`Each Class Member who does not timely opt-out of the Settlement will receive a pro rata share
`(their “Class Member Payment”) of the NSA based on the number of weeks that he or she worked
`in each position covered by the Settlement from November 2, 2022, to the date of Preliminary
`Approval. See Settlement Agreement, ¶ 26.
`Half of the Class Member Payment constitutes wages for the purposes of IRS reporting, and
`will be reported to the IRS pursuant to form W-2, while the other half constitutes payments for non-
`wage penalties, damages, and interest and will reported to the IRS pursuant to form 1099. The
`Aggrieved Employee Payment constitutes payments for non-wage penalties, damages, and interest
`and will reported to the IRS pursuant to form 1099. The Settlement Administrator (and not
`Defendant) will remit all federal and state taxes owed by Defendant and will issue W2s and 1099s
`on all funds distributed. See Settlement Agreement, ¶ 27.
`Funding and Distribution of Settlement Funds
`vi.
`Subject to the Court’s final approval and provided that there are no objections or appeals to
`the Court’s Final Approval Order and Judgment, within 14 days after the Effective Final Settlement
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF
`CLASS ACTION AND PAGA ACTION SETTLEMENT
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`Case 1:20-cv-00172-JLT-HBK Document 72 Filed 03/08/22 Page 11 of 25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`Date3 Defendant will transfer the Gross Settlement Amount, plus all employer-side payroll taxes
`due on wage payments made from the Net Settlement Amount to Class Members and the Settlement
`Administrator’s fees, to the Settlement Administrator via wire transfer. See Settlement Agreement,
`¶ 40(c). Within 7 days after the Defendant funds the Settlement, the Settlement Administrator shall
`distribute checks to all Participating Settlement Employees. See Settlement Agreement, ¶ 40(d).
`vii. Uncashed Checks
`Pursuant to the Agreement, a Class Member must cash his or her Class Settlement Share
`check, and any remaining Aggrieved Employees his or her Aggrieved Employee Payment check,
`within 90 calendar days after it is mailed to him or her. If a check is returned to the Settlement
`Administrator, the Settlement Administrator will make all reasonable efforts to re-mail it to the
`Class Member or Aggrieved Employee at his or her correct address. If any check is not cashed
`within 90 days after its mailing to the Class Member or Aggrieved Employee, the Settlement
`Administrator will distribute the unclaimed funds represented by the uncashed check to the
`California State Controller’s Office, Unclaimed Property Division in the name of the Class
`Member, where the Class Member or Aggrieved Employee can later claim their funds. See
`Settlement Agreement, ¶ 41.
`viii. Released Claims
`In exchange for Defendant’s promise to make the payments provided for in the Agreement,
`upon the Court’s final approval of this Settlement, Participating Class Members will fully release
`and discharge Defendant and the Released Parties of any and all known and unknown claims as
`alleged in, and that could have been alleged based on the facts of, the operative Third Amended
`
`3 “Effective Date” means the date on which this Settlement is deemed final. If no objection is filed to
`the Settlement from a Class Member, or if an objection to the Settlement is filed by a Class Member who lacks
`standing to object, then the Settlement is final on the date the Court grants final approval of the Settlement. In
`the event a Class Member with standing to object to the Settlement files a timely objection to the Settlement
`that is overruled by the Court, then the Settlement is final once the time for the filing of any appeal from the
`Court’s judgment approving this Settlement expires, assuming no timely appeal is filed by that objecting Class
`Member. In the event a Class Member with standing to object to the Settlement files a timely objection to the
`Settlement that is overruled by the Court, and that Class Member files a timely appeal from the judgment
`approving the Settlement, then the Settlement is final on the date the appeal is dismissed or withdrawn; or is
`final after final affirmation of the judgment on appeal if the appeal is not dismissed or withdrawn. See
`Settlement Agreement, ¶ 5.
`
`
`- 8 -
`MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF
`CLASS ACTION AND PAGA ACTION SETTLEMENT
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`Case 1:20-cv-00172-JLT-HBK Document 72 Filed 03/08/22 Page 12 of 25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Complaint. This includes, but is not limited to, statutory, constitutional, contractual or common
`law claims for wages