Case 3:15-cv EMC Document 92 Filed 12/29/16 Page 1 of 16

Transcription

1 Case :-cv-0-emc Document Filed // Page of 0 MARLIN & SALTZMAN, LLP Stanley D. Saltzman, Esq. (SBN 000 William A. Baird, Esq. (SBN Canwood Street, Suite 0 Agoura Hills, California 0 Telephone: ( -00 Facsimile: ( -0 ssaltzman@marlinsaltzman.com tbaird@marlinsaltzman.com SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP Carolyn Hunt Cottrell, Esq. (SBN Nicole N. Coon, Esq. (SBN 000 Powell Street, Suite 00 Emeryville, California 0 Telephone: ( -00 Facsimile: ( -0 ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com ncoon@schneiderwallace.com UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP, P.C. Walter Haines, Esq. (SBN 0 00 Bolsa Avenue, Suite 0 Huntington Beach, California Telephone: ( - Facsimile: ( -00 Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Settlement California Class and FLSA Class UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 0 EDGAR VICERAL and DAVID KRUEGER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Plaintiffs, MISTRAS GROUP, INC.; and DOES - 0, inclusive, Defendant. CASE NO. :-cv-0-emc (Assigned to Hon. Edward M. Chen CLASS ACTION PLAINTIFFS UNOPPOSED NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CALIFORNIA CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT DATE: February, 0 TIME: :0 p.m. CTRM: Plaintiffs Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of California Class Action Settlement CASE NO. :-cv-0-emc

2 Case :-cv-0-emc Document Filed // Page of TO: ALL PARTIES HEREIN AND TO THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on February, 0, at :0 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the 0 matter can be heard, in Courtroom No. in the above entitled courthouse located at Phillip Burton Federal Building & United States Courthouse, 0 Golden Gate Ave., San Francisco, CA 0, Plaintiffs Edgar Viceral and David Krueger ( Plaintiffs will and hereby do move the Court pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure for an order finally approving the California Class Action Settlement Agreement as fair, adequate, and reasonable. Defendant Mistras Group, Inc. ( Defendant does not oppose this Motion. Said Motion shall be based upon this Notice of Motion, the accompanying Memorandum of Points & Authorities filed herewith, supporting Declarations of Stanley D. Saltzman, Carolyn Hunt Cottrell, and Stephen Gomez (of Simpluris, Inc., the Settlement Agreement and Stipulation entered into by the Parties and previously submitted at Docket No. 0-, and upon such further evidence, both documentary and oral, as may be presented at the hearing of said motion. 0 DATED: December, 0 MARLIN & SALTZMAN, LLP SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP, P.C. By: /s/ William A. Baird Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Settlement California Class and FLSA Class i Plaintiffs Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of California Class Action Settlement CASE NO. :-cv-0-emc

3 Case :-cv-0-emc Document Filed // Page of 0 0 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION... II. THE SETTLEMENT PROCESS HAS BEEN DUTIFULLY ADHERED TO AND SUCCESSFULLY CARRIED OUT.... A. Dissemination of Notice Packets... B. Motion for Attorneys Fees, Costs and Expenses, and Enhancement Awards... C. There Are No Filed Objections to the Settlement and Only Six ( Valid Exclusion Requests Have Been Received... D. Challenges to Employment History/Information Requests... E. Potential Additional Class Members... III. THE SETTLEMENT TERMS... IV. A. Maximum Settlement Amount... B. Net Settlement Amount... C. Payments From the Net Settlement Amount to California Class Members... D. Distribution of Settlement Payments... E. Attorney Fees and Expenses... F. Enhancement Awards for Plaintiffs... G. PAGA Payment... H. Settlement Administration Costs... THE SETTLEMENT MEETS, AND EXCEEDS, THE STANDARDS FOR FINAL APPROVAL... V. CONCLUSION... ii Plaintiffs Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of California Class Action Settlement CASE NO. :-cv-0-emc

4 Case :-cv-0-emc Document Filed // Page of 0 0 CASES TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Boyd v. Bechtel Corp., F. Supp. 0 (N.D. Cal.... Class Plaintiffs v. Seattle, F.d (th Cir.... Eddings v. Health Net, Inc., 0 WL 0 (C.D. Cal Eisen v. Porsche Cars North America, Inc., 0 WL 00 (C.D. Cal H&R Block Stores, Inc. v. Visa U.S.A., Inc., F.d (d Cir Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 0 F.d 0 (th Cir...., Holmes v. Continental Can Co., 0 F.d (th Cir.... In re Am. Bank Note Holographics, Inc., F.Supp.d (S.D.N.Y In re AT & T Mobility Wireless Data Services Sales Tax Litigation, F.Supp.d (N.D.Ill.0... In re Heritage Bond Litig., F. d ( th Cir , In re MRV Communs., Inc. Derivative Litig., 0 WL (C.D. Cal In re Toyota Motor Corp. Unintended Acceleration Mktg., Sales Practices, & Prods. Liab. Litig., 0 U.S. Dist. LEXIS (C.D. Cal Joel A. v. Giuliani, F.d (d Cir Kirkorian v. Borelli, F.Supp. (N.D. Cal.... Lane v. Facebook, Inc., 00 WL 00 (N.D. Cal Linney v. Cellular Alaska P ship, F.d (th Cir.... iii Plaintiffs Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of California Class Action Settlement CASE NO. :-cv-0-emc

5 Case :-cv-0-emc Document Filed // Page of 0 0 Mandujano v. Basic Vegetable Products, Inc. F.d (th Cir.... Morey v. Louis Vuitton N. Am., Inc., 0 WL 0 (S.D. Cal Officers for Justice v. Civil Service Comm. of City and County of San Francisco, F. d (th Cir.... Rodriguez v. West Publishing Corp., F.d (th Cir OTHER AUTHORITIES Newberg. p.... iv Plaintiffs Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of California Class Action Settlement CASE NO. :-cv-0-emc

6 Case :-cv-0-emc Document Filed // Page of 0 0 I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs Edgar Viceral and David Krueger ( Plaintiffs and Defendant Mistras Group, Inc. ( Defendant (collectively, the Parties present this proposed Settlement achieved after an extensive mediation and additional negotiations for Final Approval with respect to the California Class. On October, 0, the Court granted preliminary approval of the Settlement as to the Rule California Class Action, and further granted Final Approval of the Settlement as to the Fair Labor Standards Act ( FLSA Class. (Docket No.. The entirety of the Settlement involves a non-reversionary $,000,000 settlement ( Settlement for the benefit of the California Class and the nationwide FLSA Class. Plaintiffs and the Settlement Classes are pleased to inform the Court that as of this filing date, which is a full week following the expiration of the objection and opt-out deadline, the following Notice data has been compiled by the Settlement Administrator, which has filed the declaration of Stephen Gomez herewith: The Settlement Administrator has mailed, Notice Packets to the California Class Members; Only of these Notice Packets have to date been returned as undeliverable; No objections have been received to any portion of the Settlement, including the Enhancement Awards for the Representative Plaintiffs and the Fee and Expense Award to Class Counsel; The Settlement Administrator has received only valid exclusion requests, and an additional deficient requests have been received, which are being followed up on by the Settlement Administrator. This Settlement requires Defendant to pay $,000,000 to a California Class and a FLSA Class, which together consist of,0 Examiners, Technicians, and Inspectors. Importantly, the entire $,000,000 will be paid out and thus, absolutely no funds will revert to the Defendant. Furthermore, each Class Member in both the California and FLSA Classes will receive his or her share without the need to submit a claim form. Only notice packets came back as undeliverable. The Claims administrator intends to use additional searching methods in order to find good addresses for these nine class members. Plaintiffs Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of California Class Action Settlement CASE NO. :-cv-0-emc

7 Case :-cv-0-emc Document Filed // Page of 0 0 As stated above, the preliminary settlement approval motion sought two differing orders, both of which were granted by the Court. The first order sought and granted was the preliminary approval of the California Rule Class Action Settlement, which in turn would then trigger the mailing of Notice to the California Class Members; and the second order sought and granted was the Final Approval of the FLSA collective action settlement. As of this time, and consistent with the Court s order granting preliminary approval of the California claims, the claims administrator has disseminated the required Notice to the Rule California Class Members. The success of the Notice program is amply set forth herein and in the declaration of Stephen Gomez filed herewith. No later than fourteen ( calendar days following the Effective Date of the Settlement with regard to the California Rule Class Action Settlement, the Settlement Administrator will then be empowered to mail the settlement checks to the California Class Members. Fifteen ( calendar days following the Effective Date of the Settlement, the Administrator will also be empowered to mail the settlement checks to the FLSA collective action members, who will then have the opportunity to elect to either cash the checks containing the appropriate opt-in and release language thereon, or to elect not to do so and thus retain their FLSA rights. This all conforms to the Court s dual approval orders issued in Docket No., and with the Court s Supplemental Order on Preliminary Approval Regarding Notice and Final Approval Hearing Dates and Deadlines. (Docket No., dated October, 0. An objective evaluation of the Settlement confirms that the relief negotiated on behalf of the California Class is fair, adequate, and reasonable. In re Heritage Bond Litig., F. d, - ( th Cir. 00(a class settlement may be approved if it is fair, adequate, and reasonable.. The Parties negotiated the Settlement at arm s length under the guidance of Mr. Mark Rudy, a well-regarded mediator specializing in resolving wage and hour class actions. Mr. Rudy stewarded the Parties through a mediation that lasted over ten (0 hours on one day and then through several additional weeks of negotiations that involved substantial back and forth between the Parties until a settlement was eventually reached. What s more, as set forth in Plaintiffs Preliminary Approval Motion and Plaintiffs Fee Motion, the case was thoroughly investigated and litigated prior to the Parties delving into settlement discussions. (Docket Nos. 0-, Declaration of Stanley Saltzman in Support of Plaintiffs Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action and Collective Action Settlement ( Saltzman Decl. Plaintiffs Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of California Class Action Settlement CASE NO. :-cv-0-emc

8 Case :-cv-0-emc Document Filed // Page of 0 -; and. The response of the California Settlement Class Members supports the Court s finding at Preliminary Approval that the Settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable. No California Class Member has objected to the Settlement after receiving the requisite Notice thereof. Further of the, persons on the class list, of which all but were successfully mailed the notice, only valid exclusion requests to the Settlement have been received, and an additional deficient such requests have been received, which are being followed up on by the Settlement Administrator. (Declaration of Stephen Gomez, Project Manager, Simpluris, Gomez Decl. at. In short, the Settlement meets the criteria for Final Approval as it is well within the range of what would be fair, adequate, and reasonable. Thus, Plaintiffs now respectfully request that the Court take the final step in the approval process by granting the requested Final Approval of the California Class Action Settlement. II. THE SETTLEMENT PROCESS HAS BEEN DUTIFULLY ADHERED TO AND SUCCESSFULLY CARRIED OUT. A. Dissemination of Notice Packets As noted above, Preliminary Approval was granted on October, 0. At that time, the Court 0 appointed Simpluris as the Settlement Administrator. The Settlement Administrator has complied with this Court s orders concerning dissemination of the Notice Packet by regular mail. (Gomez Decl. -. In addition, the Settlement Administrator operated a toll-free telephone number for Class Members to call with inquiries concerning the Settlement and operated a website that contained the Settlement details along with relevant documents. (Gomez Decl.. The Settlement Administrator has provided the Court with a full report of its activities as set forth in the contemporaneously filed declaration of Stephen Gomez. / / / Consistent with the Northern District s Procedural Guidance on Class Action Settlements, counsel have avoided re-stating in full matters previously dealt with in either the previously filed Motion for Approval of Attorneys Fees, Costs and Enhancement Awards, (Docket No. and/or the prior Motion for Preliminary Approval (Docket No. 0. Plaintiffs Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of California Class Action Settlement CASE NO. :-cv-0-emc

9 Case :-cv-0-emc Document Filed // Page of 0 0 B. Motion for Attorneys Fees, Costs and Expenses, and Enhancement Awards Pursuant to this Court s order granting Preliminary Approval, Class Counsel were ordered to file their motion for a Fee and Expense Award, and for Enhancement Awards for the representative Plaintiffs, by no later than two weeks before the Objection/Exclusion Deadline of December, 0. That motion was timely filed on December, 0. (Docket No.. Additionally, the motion was posted to the Case website maintained by Simpluris, to enable all the Class Members to easily review the same, should they so desire. (Gomez Decl.. C. There Are No Filed Objections to the Settlement and Only Six ( Valid Exclusion Requests Have Been Received The Ninth Circuit and other federal courts have made clear that the number or percentage of class members who object to or opt out of the settlement is a factor of great significance. See Mandujano v. Basic Vegetable Products, Inc. F.d, (th Cir. ; see also In re Am. Bank Note Holographics, Inc., F.Supp.d, (S.D.N.Y. 00 ( It is well settled that the reaction of the class to the settlement is perhaps the most significant factor to be weighed in considering its adequacy.. Here, both the Objection Deadline and the Exclusion Deadline were December, 0. As of the date of this motion, a full one week thereafter, no objections have been filed with the Court. Additionally, only the previously alluded to Exclusion Requests have been received by the Settlement Administrator. An additional deficient exclusions have been received and are being followed up on. Counsel will file a supplemental report with respect to these requests at least one week prior to the final approval hearing date. (Gomez Decl. -. D. Challenges to Employment History/Information Requests As of this date, Simpluris has received two ( disputes of work weeks submitted by Class Members through the California Class Form. After reviewing both disputes, it was determined that both were invalid and that Defendant s records remained correct. (Gomez Decl.. E. Potential Additional Class Members As of this date, Simpluris has been contacted by twenty-four ( individuals who inquired about being part of the California Class. Simpluris forwarded their information to Defense Counsel. As Plaintiffs Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of California Class Action Settlement CASE NO. :-cv-0-emc

10 Case :-cv-0-emc Document Filed // Page 0 of of the date of this declaration, Simpluris has been advised by Defendant s counsel that Defendant has concluded that while many of the twenty four individuals were properly excluded from the class, some of them may have worked as either an examiner or a technician at some point during the class period. This investigation is ongoing as of this date, and therefore this also will be further updated at the time of the submission of the Supplemental Declaration one week prior to the Final Approval Hearing. ( Gomez Decl.. 0 III. THE SETTLEMENT TERMS As described in the motion for Preliminary Approval, the basic Settlement terms are as follows: A. Maximum Settlement Amount The Maximum Settlement Amount ( MSA that Defendant will pay is Six Million Dollars 0 ($,000,000. This sum includes payments made to Class Members, Enhancement Awards to Plaintiffs, Administration Costs, a Fee and Expense Award, Employee Taxes, and a PAGA Payment. No portion of the MSA will revert to Defendant under any circumstance. (Docket No. 0-; Saltzman Decl.. B. Net Settlement Amount The Net Settlement Amount ( NSA is comprised of the funds remaining from the MSA, following deductions of the Court-approved awards for the following items: ( the Administration Costs, ( the Fee and Expense Award (not to exceed $,000,000 and actual costs, which currently total $,.0, respectively, ( the Enhancement Awards to Plaintiffs (not to exceed $,00.00 in total, and ( the PAGA Payment ($0, (Docket No. 0-; Saltzman Decl.. The NSA is estimated to be $,,.. (Gomez Decl.. % of the NSA will be allocated to the California Class Fund and % will be allocated to the FLSA Class Fund. The funds awarded will be distributed to Settlement Class Members on a proportional basis based on the amount of weeks a Class Member worked (Docket No. 0-; Saltzman Decl.. This allocation, including the California Rule /FLSA division, was addressed in full in Plaintiffs Joint Supplemental Brief filed on The Claims Administration costs totaled $,000. (Gomez Decl.. A class action settlement need not benefit all class members equally. Holmes v. Continental Can Co., 0 F.d, (th Cir.; In re AT & T Mobility Wireless Data Services Sales Tax Litigation, F.Supp.d, 0, (N.D.Ill.0. Unequal allocations can be based on legitimate considerations. Holmes, 0 F.d at ; In re AT & T, F.Supp.d at 0. Plaintiffs Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of California Class Action Settlement CASE NO. :-cv-0-emc

11 Case :-cv-0-emc Document Filed // Page of 0 0 August, 0, at pages 0 thereof, (Docket No. and was approved in the Court s Order dated October, 0, Docket No., at pages thereof. C. Payments From the Net Settlement Amount to California Class Members The average estimated payouts for the California Class Members is $,., and the highest estimated payment is $,0.. For those persons receiving both a California payment and an FLSA payment, the average estimated payment is $,., and the highest estimated payment is $,.. (Gomez Decl.. D. Distribution of Settlement Payments The California Class Members are not required under the Settlement to submit claim forms in order to receive compensation. Rather, they will automatically receive their settlement payments after the Effective Date of the Settlement. The only exception would be for the few California Class Members who timely exclude themselves from the Settlement. As mentioned, only such valid exclusion requests have been submitted as of the date of the filing of this motion, which is a full week following the expiration of the objection/exclusion deadline. (Gomez Decl. -. E. Attorney Fees and Expenses As discussed in further detail in Plaintiffs Motion for Attorneys Fees, Costs, and Enhancement Awards, timely filed on December, 0 (Docket No., and subject to Court approval, the Parties allocated thirty three and one-third percent (.% of the MSA as the Fee Award to Plaintiffs Counsel and $,.0 as the Expense Award to reimburse Plaintiffs Counsel for the actual costs they incurred in pursuing this Action. F. Enhancement Awards for Plaintiffs An Enhancement Award of Seven Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($,00.00 is requested for Plaintiff Edgar Viceral, and a payment of One Thousand Dollars ($, is requested for Plaintiff David Krueger, subject to the approval of the Court. These Enhancement Awards are for their roles in initiating this Action and acting as the Class Representatives, for services provided in furtherance of this Action, for the risks undertaken for payment of costs in the event this Action was unsuccessful, for any stigma they may suffer going forward due to the public information available via the internet of their having filed a class action against an employer, and for their agreement to provide a release of claims. Plaintiffs Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of California Class Action Settlement CASE NO. :-cv-0-emc

12 Case :-cv-0-emc Document Filed // Page of 0 0 Counsel is requesting a larger amount for Mr. Viceral as the settlement provides for a full general release of all of his claims, including a full waiver, while Mr. Krueger is requesting a lesser amount and retaining his right to continue his previously filed separate lawsuit for other claims not included in the class action. This is more fully addressed in the separately filed motion for Fees, Costs and Enhancement Awards, at Docket No., including the respective declarations of the two Representative Plaintiffs, filed therewith, at Docket Nos. and 0. G. PAGA Payment The Settlement allocates Twenty Thousand Dollars ($0, to settle the portion of the case brought under the California Labor Code s Private Attorney General Act of 00 ( PAGA. Seventy-Five percent (% of the total PAGA Payment, which amounts to Fifteen Thousand Dollars ($,000.00, will be paid to the California Labor & Workforce Development Agency. The remainder of the PAGA payment, twenty-five percent (% or Five Thousand Dollars ($,000.00, shall be included in the California Class Fund. (Docket No. 0-; Saltzman Decl. 0. This element of the Settlement Agreement was also the subject of full supplemental briefing before the Court, within the previously alluded to Joint Supplemental Brief dated August, 0, Docket No., at pages thereof, and again in the entire Second Joint Supplemental Brief filed on August 0, 0, Docket No., at pages thereof. Following this extensive briefing, the Court granted preliminary approval to the proposed allocation of $0,000.00, in its Order Granting Preliminary Approval, Docket, filed on October, 0, and specifically at pages thereof. Since the Approval Order issued by the Court, Notice has been disseminated to all the California Class Members, plus to the Attorney General s office in California in the context of the CAFA notice mailings, (Exhibit C to the first Joint Supplemental Brief found at Docket -, and no comments or objections to this aspect of the settlement have been received. H. Settlement Administration Costs As discussed in Plaintiffs Preliminary Approval Motion, Plaintiffs sought and received not to exceed bids for the Settlement Administration Costs, which Simpluris then agreed to undertake for the sum of $0,000. (Docket No. 0-; Saltzman Decl.. The actual costs of the settlement administration turned out to be less and thus the Settlement Administrator has agreed to accept $,000 Plaintiffs Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of California Class Action Settlement CASE NO. :-cv-0-emc

13 Case :-cv-0-emc Document Filed // Page of as compensation in full for the services provided. (Gomez Decl.. IV. THE SETTLEMENT MEETS, AND EXCEEDS, THE STANDARDS FOR FINAL APPROVAL Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (e provides that any compromise of a class action must 0 0 receive Court approval. The Court has broad discretion to grant such approval and should do so where the proposed settlement is fair, adequate, reasonable, and not a product of collusion. Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 0 F.d 0, 0 (th Cir. ; Joel A. v. Giuliani, F.d, (d Cir In determining whether a proposed settlement should be approved, the Ninth Circuit has a strong judicial policy that favors settlement, particularly where complex class action litigation is concerned. In re Heritage Bond Litigation, 00 WL 0 (C.D. Cal. 00 (citing Class Plaintiffs v. Seattle, F.d, (th Cir.. There is no single standard for determining whether any given settlement is fair. Ultimately the district court s determination is... an amalgam of delicate balancing, gross approximations and rough justice. Officers for Justice v. Civil Service Comm. of City and County of San Francisco, F. d, (th Cir.. In making its determination, the Court should weigh the benefits that the settlement will realize for the class against the uncertainty of litigation and the possibility that the class members would obtain no relief in the absence of a settlement. See, Linney v. Cellular Alaska P ship, F.d, (th Cir. (...it is the very uncertainty of outcome in litigation and avoidance of wasteful and expensive litigation that induce consensual settlements. Here, Plaintiffs brought this class and collective action to secure important workplace protections for the Examiners, Technicians, and Inspectors employed by the Defendant in California and across the country, and have successfully secured a proposed Settlement that provides substantial benefits for them. The fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of any class action settlement depends on the relative strength of the plaintiffs case; the risk, expense, complexity, and likely duration of further litigation; the risk of maintaining class action status throughout the trial; the amount offered in settlement; the extent of discovery completed and the stage of the proceedings; the experience and views of counsel;... and the reaction of class members to the proposed settlement. Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., supra, at 0. In this case, all standards for approval are met, and the more complete discussion of the fairness of the Plaintiffs Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of California Class Action Settlement CASE NO. :-cv-0-emc

14 Case :-cv-0-emc Document Filed // Page of 0 0 Settlement presented in the Motion for Preliminary Approval applies equally here, and is respectfully referred to herein. (Docket No. 0. Arms-Length Negotiation - The Ninth Circuit has shown longstanding support of settlements reached through arm s length negotiation by capable opponents. In Rodriguez v. West Publishing Corp., F.d (th Cir. 00, the Ninth Circuit expressly opined that courts should defer to the private consensual decision of the [settling] parties. Id. at (citing Hanlon, at 0. The primary reason for deferring to such settlements is the experience of counsel and the participation of a neutral, both of which factors are present here. The Rodriguez court put a good deal of stock in the product of an arm s-length, non-collusive, negotiated resolution, and have never prescribed a particular formula by which that outcome must be tested. Rodriguez, at (citations omitted. As the Court explained, In reality, parties, counsel, mediators, and district judges naturally arrive at a reasonable range for settlements by considering the likelihood of a plaintiffs or defense verdict, the potential recovery, and the chances of obtaining it, discounted to present value. A presumption of fairness, adequacy, and reasonableness may attach to a class settlement reached in arm s length negotiations between experienced, capable counsel after meaningful discovery. H&R Block Stores, Inc. v. Visa U.S.A., Inc., F.d, (d Cir. 00; see also, Kirkorian v. Borelli, F.Supp., (N.D. Cal. (opinion of experienced counsel is entitled to considerable weight; Boyd v. Bechtel Corp., F. Supp. 0, (N.D. Cal. (recommendations of plaintiffs counsel should be given a presumption of reasonableness. The Settlement Has No Obvious Deficiencies - The proposed Settlement has no obvious deficiencies. The fact that no objections have been filed and so few Exclusions have been requested from Class Members is a testament to how favorably this Settlement has been received by the Class Members. Furthermore, the proposed Settlement is the product of extensive discovery (both formal and informal and the involvement of an extremely experienced Mediator. (Docket No. 0- Saltzman Decl. -. In short, full and complete arm's-length negotiations have occurred. Throughout this litigation, the Parties have vigorously asserted their respective positions. Defendant has been continuously represented by very capable counsel who have taken every opportunity to develop all aspects of their defenses. With the benefit of the significant exploration of the facts and law during the Plaintiffs Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of California Class Action Settlement CASE NO. :-cv-0-emc

15 Case :-cv-0-emc Document Filed // Page of 0 0 pleading stage as well as the prosecution and discovery phase of the case, Class Counsel was able to fully consider the strengths and weaknesses of the case. Accordingly, by the time the Settlement was reached, both Parties were capable of being fully informed in regard to all aspects of the case. (Id.. Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs and Class Counsel submit that the Settlement set forth in the Settlement Agreement is fair, adequate and reasonable, and is in the best interests of Plaintiffs and the Class Members. Defendant has also expended substantial amounts of time, energy and resources in connection with the litigation and the negotiation of the settlement now before the Court, and unless this Settlement is approved, will be required to continue to incur further fees, plus ongoing time, energy and resources. Defendant has, therefore, agreed to settle in the manner and upon the terms set forth in the Settlement Agreement. The Respective Risks of Continued Litigation - Throughout this litigation, Plaintiffs have argued that Defendant should be liable for all claims raised in the Complaint. Defendant, on the other hand, has steadfastly maintained that Class Members did not work off the clock, received all required meal and rest breaks, and that they were properly compensated for all hours worked. In furtherance of its defense, Defendant assembled over 00 declarations from class members to oppose this action. Plaintiffs were cognizant of the significant hurdles they would have had to overcome in order to obtain and maintain class status, not just in terms of the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure but also those applicable to collective actions under the FLSA. Even if Plaintiffs had been successful at certification, successfully proving the merits of the underlying claims was not certain. This Settlement represents a well-crafted compromise of the divergent positions of the Parties that provides substantial benefits for the Class Members. Each side evaluated the strengths and weaknesses of their case and independently came to the conclusion that this Settlement represents a responsible means of addressing Plaintiffs claims and Defendant s defenses. The Complexity, Expense and Likely Duration of the Litigation - Another factor considered by courts at the final approval phase is the complexity, expense and likely duration of the litigation. Morey v. Louis Vuitton N. Am., Inc., 0 WL 0, * (S.D. Cal. 0; In re MRV Communs., Inc. Derivative Litig., 0 WL, * (C.D. Cal. 0. In applying this factor, the Court should weigh the benefits of the settlement against the expense and delay involved in achieving an equivalent or 0 Plaintiffs Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of California Class Action Settlement CASE NO. :-cv-0-emc

16 Case :-cv-0-emc Document Filed // Page of 0 0 even more favorable result at trial. Lane v. Facebook, Inc., 00 WL 00, * (N.D. Cal. 00. Settlement avoids the complexity, delay, risk and expense of continuing with the litigation and will produce a prompt, certain, and substantial recovery for the Plaintiff class. Eddings v. Health Net, Inc., No. CV 0--JST RZX, 0 WL 0, at * (C.D. Cal. 0. Here, litigating the case through to trial would have been expensive, involved substantial risk and equally substantial uncertainty, and would not have been fully resolved for some time. In contrast, the proposed settlement provides significant and certain compensation that is available now as opposed to potentially and hypothetically sometime in the distance future. Additionally, employment cases (including wage and hour cases can be expensive and timeconsuming to prosecute. Given the uncertainty of certification, there was also the added risk that if class and collective action status was not achieved and maintained, that the alternative i.e., individual litigation would tax private and judicial resources over a period of years. As such, the Settlement in this case is consistent with the overriding public interest in settling and quieting litigation that is particularly true in class action suits and thus, provides another reason to approve the Settlement. Eisen v. Porsche Cars North America, Inc., 0 WL 00, at * (C.D. Cal. 0; In re Toyota Motor Corp. Unintended Acceleration Mktg., Sales Practices, & Prods. Liab. Litig., 0 U.S. Dist. LEXIS, *- (C.D. Cal. 0; Newberg. at -. V. CONCLUSION The Parties have negotiated a fair and reasonable Settlement of a case that provides relief that likely would never have been realized but for this class Action. The Parties have reached this Settlement following extensive formal and informal discovery, litigation, ongoing case discussions and arm s length negotiations. Accordingly, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court enter the proposed Final Approval Order and grant the relief requested in this Motion. DATED: December, 0 MARLIN & SALTZMAN, LLP SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP, P.C. By: /s/ William A. Baird Attorneys for Plaintiffs, the California Settlement Class and FLSA Settlement Class Plaintiffs Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of California Class Action Settlement CASE NO. :-cv-0-emc

17 Case :-cv-0-emc Document - Filed // Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 0 0 EDGAR VICERAL and DAVID KRUEGER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Plaintiffs, MISTRAS GROUP, INC.; and DOES - 0, inclusive, Defendant. CASE NO. :-cv-0-emc (Assigned to Hon. Edward M. Chen CLASS ACTION [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CALIFORNIA CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT; MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS FEES, COSTS, AND ENHANCEMENT AWARDS; AND DIRECTING ENTRY OF JUDGMENT DATE: February, 0 TIME: :0 p.m. CTRM: Plaintiffs Unopposed Motions for Final Approval of the California Class Action Settlement and Attorneys Fees, Costs, and Enhancement Awards, filed by Plaintiffs Edgar Viceral and David Krueger ( Plaintiffs in the matter of Viceral and Krueger, et al. v. Mistras Group, Inc., et al., Case No. :- cv-0-emc, came on for hearing regularly in Courtroom of the above captioned court, the Honorable Edward M. Chen presiding, on February, 0 at :0 p.m. Appearing at the hearing was counsel for Littler Mendelson, P.C. for Defendant and counsel for Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky [Proposed] Order Granting Plaintiffs Motion for Final Approval of California Class Action Settlement; Motion for Attorneys Fees, Costs, Enhancement Awards; Directing Entry of Judgment CASE NO. :-cv-0-emc

18 Case :-cv-0-emc Document - Filed // Page of 0 0 Wotkyns LLP, and Marlin & Saltzman, LLP on behalf of Plaintiffs and the Classes. Having reviewed the papers and documents presented, having heard the statements of counsel, having considered the matter, the Court HEREBY ORDERS as follows: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that:. This Order incorporates by reference the definitions in the Settlement Agreement found at Docket No. 0- ( Settlement or Settlement Agreement as though fully set forth herein, and all terms defined therein shall have the same meaning as set forth in the Settlement Agreement.. This Court has jurisdiction over the claims of the California Settlement Class Members asserted in this proceeding, personal jurisdiction over Plaintiffs and Defendant, and subject matter jurisdiction to approve the Settlement.. The Court hereby approves the settlement terms set forth in the Settlement Agreement and finds that the Settlement is, in all respects, fair, adequate and reasonable, and further finds that Plaintiffs have satisfied the standards and applicable requirements for final approval of the California Class Action Settlement under Rule of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.. On October, 0, the Court issued its Order Granting Plaintiffs Motion for Preliminary Approval of a Class and Collective Action Settlement, and granting Final Approval therein to settlement of the Fair Labor Standards Act ( FLSA Settlement Agreement requested therein. At that time, the Court directed the Parties to file an updated proposed order setting forth all relevant dates and deadlines following the Court s Order. (Docket. No.. On October, 0, the Court approved the updated order that set forth all dates and deadlines triggered by the Court s Order on October, 0. (Docket. No... In the Order on October, 0, the Court conditionally certified the California Class for Settlement purposes. The Court hereby grants final certification approval for settlement purposes, to the California Class, as follows: California Class: The California Class is defined as all current and former hourly, non-exempt Technicians, Inspectors, and Examiners employed by Defendant in California at any time between April 0, 0 up through the date of Final Approval. [Proposed] Order Granting Plaintiffs Motion for Final Approval of California Class Action Settlement; Motion for Attorneys Fees, Costs, Enhancement Awards; Directing Entry of Judgment CASE NO. :-cv-0-emc

19 Case :-cv-0-emc Document - Filed // Page of 0 0. As to the California Class, the Court hereby finds that: ( the settlement amount is fair and reasonable to the California Class Members when balanced against the probable outcome of further litigation relating to class certification, liability and damages issues, and potential appeals; ( significant informal discovery, investigation, research, and litigation have been conducted such that counsel for the Parties at this time are able to reasonably evaluate their respective positions; ( settlement at this time will avoid substantial costs, delay, and risks that would be presented by the further prosecution of the litigation; and ( the proposed Settlement has been reached as the result of intensive, serious, and noncollusive negotiations between the Parties. Accordingly, the Court finds that the Stipulation of Settlement was entered into in good faith.. Notice given to the California Class Members was reasonably calculated under the circumstances to apprise the Class of the pendency of this class action, of all material elements of the proposed Settlement, and of their opportunity to exclude themselves from, object to, or comment on the Settlement and to appear at the Final Approval Hearing. The notice was reasonable and the best notice practicable under the circumstances. A reasonable opportunity has been afforded to the members of the Class to participate in this hearing. Accordingly, this Court hereby finds that notice program described in the Settlement Agreement and completed by the Settlement Administrator complied fully with the requirements of due process, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and all other applicable laws.. All California Settlement Class Members (i.e. those who have not exercised their right to opt out of the Settlement are bound by this Final Approval Order and Judgment and by the Settlement embodied therein, including the releases provided for in the Settlement and this Final Approval Order and Judgment. As of the Effective Date of Settlement, by operation of the entry of this Final Approval Order and Judgment, each member of the Settlement Class, including Plaintiffs, shall be deemed to have fully released, waived, relinquished and discharged, to the fullest extent permitted by law, all Released Claims that he or she may have against the Releasees.. California Class Member Release: "California Class Released Claims" means all claims, demands, rights, liabilities and causes of action that were or could have been asserted in the [Proposed] Order Granting Plaintiffs Motion for Final Approval of California Class Action Settlement; Motion for Attorneys Fees, Costs, Enhancement Awards; Directing Entry of Judgment CASE NO. :-cv-0-emc

20 Case :-cv-0-emc Document - Filed // Page of 0 0 lawsuit (whether in tort, contract, or otherwise for violation of the California Labor Code, the California Business & Professions Code, the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 00, the applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders or any similar state or federal law, including but not limited to those based in any part on the FLSA, whether for unpaid wages, economic damages, noneconomic damages, liquidated damages, punitive damages, restitution, penalties, other monies, or other relief arising out of, relating to, or in connection with any facts and/or claims pled in the class action complaints, filed by Edgar Viceral and/or David Krueger, and/or in the Consolidated First Amended Class Action Complaint filed by Plaintiffs in the Lawsuit, which are or could be the basis of claims that Defendant failed to provide all wages and overtime wages due, failed to pay the minimum wage, failed to provide timely or accurate final paychecks, failed to timely pay compensation, engaged in recordkeeping violations, failed to provide accurate itemized wage statements, failed to provide meal breaks, failed to authorize and permit rest breaks, and/or engaged in unfair business practices based on the foregoing violations, at any times during the California Class Period. 0. Neither this Settlement nor this Final Approval Order and Judgment is an admission of liability, fault, or wrongdoing by Defendant, or any of the Releasees, nor a finding of the validity of any claims in the Action or any violation of law. Neither this Final Approval Order and Judgment, the Settlement, nor any document referred to herein, nor any action taken to carry out the Settlement is, may be construed as, or may be used as, an admission or concession by or against Defendant, or any of the Releasees, of any fault, wrongdoing, or liability whatsoever. Neither this Final Approval Order and Judgment, any term or provision of the Settlement, nor any of the negotiations or proceedings connected with it, shall be offered or received in evidence in any pending or future civil, criminal or administrative action or proceeding, other than such proceedings that may be necessary to consummate or enforce the Settlement; however, Defendant or any Releasee may use the Settlement and/or any related document, in any action that may be brought against them in order to support a defense or counterclaim based on principles of res judicata, collateral estoppel, release, good faith settlement, judgment bar or reduction, accord and satisfaction, or any other theory of claim preclusion or issue preclusion or similar defense or counterclaim. [Proposed] Order Granting Plaintiffs Motion for Final Approval of California Class Action Settlement; Motion for Attorneys Fees, Costs, Enhancement Awards; Directing Entry of Judgment CASE NO. :-cv-0-emc

21 Case :-cv-0-emc Document - Filed // Page of 0 0. The Court hereby finds the Individual Settlement Payments provided for under the Settlement to be fair and reasonable in light of all the circumstances. The Court, therefore, orders the calculations and the payments to be made and administered in accordance with the terms of the Settlement.. The request for settlement administration costs in the amount of $ is hereby granted and shall be paid to the Settlement Administrator, Simpluris, pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement.. The Settlement allocates Twenty Thousand Dollars ($0, to settle the portion of the case brought under the California Labor Code s Private Attorney General Act of 00 ( PAGA. Seventy-Five percent (% of the total PAGA Payment, Fifteen Thousand Dollars ($, will be paid to the California Labor & Workforce Development Agency. The remainder of the PAGA payment, twenty-five percent (% or Five Thousand Dollars ($,000.00, shall be included in the California Class Fund. The Court hereby approves the above allocation and apportionment.. The Court further finally approves Class Counsel s request for attorneys fees of onethird of the Maximum Settlement Amount, or $,000,000. This amount is justified under the common fund doctrine, the range of awards ordered in this District and Circuit, the excellent results obtained, substantial risk borne by Class Counsel in litigating this matter, the high degree of skill and quality of work performed, financial burden imposed by the contingency basis of Class Counsel representation of Plaintiff and the Class Members, and additional work required of them to bring this Settlement to conclusion. The Court finds the fees award further supported by the lodestar crosscheck, whereby it finds that Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky Wotkyns LLP, Marlin & Saltzman, LLP, and United Employees Law Group s hourly rates are reasonable, the estimated hours expended are reasonable. The Court finally approves Class Counsel s request for actual costs in the amount of $,.0.. Aside from the costs awarded herein or in said order on Fees, Costs and Enhancement Awards, no other costs, fees or other relief shall be awarded, either against Defendant or related persons or entities, as defined in the Settlement Agreement, or from the award to the Settlement Classes. / / / [Proposed] Order Granting Plaintiffs Motion for Final Approval of California Class Action Settlement; Motion for Attorneys Fees, Costs, Enhancement Awards; Directing Entry of Judgment CASE NO. :-cv-0-emc

22 Case :-cv-0-emc Document - Filed // Page of 0 0. The Court hereby reaffirms its appointment of Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky Wotkyns LLP, Marlin & Saltzman, LLP, and United Employees Law Group, as Counsel for the California Class, and Plaintiffs Edgar Viceral and David Krueger, as Class Representatives for the California Class.. The Court further orders that the timeline set forth for the administration of the settlement at Docket No. shall be followed.. Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, and this Court s prior Order Granting Final Approval of the FLSA Settlement (Docket No., the instant action is hereby dismissed, with prejudice, subject to Paragraph and 0 below.. Without affecting the finality of this Final Approval Order and Judgment, the Court reserves continuing and exclusive jurisdiction over the parties to the Settlement, including Defendant and Settlement Class Members, to administer, supervise, construe and enforce the Settlement in accordance with its terms for the mutual benefit of the parties. 0. Judgment is entered in accordance with the findings in this Order, and the Order of Final Approval as to the FLSA Settlement. This Judgment is the Final Judgment in the suit as to all Settlement Class Members who have ( not excluded himself/herself from the Settlement or ( in the case of FLSA Class Members, those who have elected not to opt into the settlement by cashing their settlement check. The Court finds that there is no just reason for delay and expressly directs the Clerk of the Court to enter Judgment immediately. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: Hon. Edward M. Chen United States District Judge [Proposed] Order Granting Plaintiffs Motion for Final Approval of California Class Action Settlement; Motion for Attorneys Fees, Costs, Enhancement Awards; Directing Entry of Judgment CASE NO. :-cv-0-emc

23 Case :-cv-0-emc Document - Filed // Page of 0 0 EDGAR VICERAL and DAVID KRUEGER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Plaintiffs, MISTRAS GROUP, INC.; and DOES -0, inclusive, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Defendants. CASE NO. :-CV-0-EMC (Hon. Edward M. Chen CLASS ACTION [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT - - [Proposed] Judgment CASE NO. :-cv-0-emc

24 Case :-cv-0-emc Document - Filed // Page of 0 0 On this day of February, 0, it is HEREBY ADJUDGED AND DECREED PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AS FOLLOWS: ( On February, 0, this Court entered the Order Granting Final Approval of California Class Action Settlement and Motion for Attorneys Fees, Costs, and Enhancement Awards (the Final Approval Order. ( For the reasons stated in the above-referenced Final Approval Order, judgment is entered accordingly in this case, and the case is hereby dismissed with prejudice. ( The Clerk shall file this Final Judgment on the docket of this case. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: Hon. Edward M. Chen United States District Judge - - [Proposed] Judgment CASE NO. :-cv-0-emc

25 Case :-cv-0-emc Document Filed // Page of 0 0 MARLIN & SALTZMAN, LLP Stanley D. Saltzman, Esq. (SBN 000 William A. Baird, Esq. (SBN Canwood Street, Suite 0 Agoura Hills, California 0 Telephone: ( -00 Facsimile: ( -0 ssaltzman@marlinsaltzman.com tbaird@marlinsaltzman.com SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP Carolyn Hunt Cottrell, Esq. (SBN Nicole N. Coon, Esq. (SBN 000 Powell Street, Suite 00 Emeryville, California 0 Telephone: ( -00 Facsimile: ( -0 ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com ncoon@schneiderwallace.com UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP, P.C. Walter Haines, Esq. (SBN 0 00 Bolsa Avenue, Suite 0 Huntington Beach, California Telephone: ( - Facsimile: ( -00 Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Settlement California Class and FLSA Class EDGAR VICERAL and DAVID KRUEGER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Plaintiffs, MISTRAS GROUP, INC.; and DOES -0, inclusive, Defendant. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CASE NO. :-cv-0-emc (Assigned to Hon. Edward M. Chen CLASS ACTION DECLARATION OF STAN SALTZMAN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CALIFORNIA CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT DATE: February, 0 TIME: :0 p.m. CTRM: Declaration of Stan Saltzman ISO Plaintiffs Motion for Final Approval Case No. :-Cv-0-EMC

26 Case :-cv-0-emc Document Filed // Page of 0 0 I, Stan Saltzman, Esq., declare as follows: I am an attorney at law licensed to practice in the State of California and in this United States District Court. I am a founding Partner of Marlin & Saltzman, LLP attorneys of record for Plaintiffs. I make this declaration in support of Plaintiffs Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of California Class Action Settlement ( Motion. I testify to the foregoing facts of my own personal knowledge and, if called as a witness, could and would testify competently thereto under oath. THE SETTLEMENT IS FAIR, ADEQUATE, AND REASONABLE. In support of Plaintiffs Motion, Plaintiffs cite my declaration filed in support of Plaintiffs Motion for Preliminary Approval. (Docket No. 0-. This declaration, along with the Declaration of Co-Counsel Carolyn Hunt Cottrell filed in connection with this Motion, extensively lays out the terms of the Settlement, the events leading up to it, and the events that occurred in this action thereafter. Further, the declaration I filed in support of Plaintiffs Fee Motion lays out additional information including my firm s extensive experience and history related to class action litigation. (Docket No.. Rather than repeat those facts here, I incorporate them by reference.. For the many reasons set forth at preliminary approval, the settlement was felt by class counsel to represent a fair and equitable result for the case, bearing in mind both the risks and benefits of potential further litigation. Indeed, the final Settlement is the product of extensive negotiations between the Parties conducted at arms-length and is free from collusion. The Parties on both sides are represented by experienced class action attorneys with specialized knowledge of both class action and employment law. In order to reach the final Settlement, the Parties debated, discussed, and resolved many difficult legal and factual issues. Moreover, during the process the Parties were both required to make reasonable compromises in light of the facts, issues, and risks presented in this Action. In particular, in reaching the Settlement, Class Counsel considered the uncertainty and risks of further litigation, and the difficulties inherent in such litigation. Class Counsel also considered the burdens of proof necessary to achieve certification of the case, and then to establish liability against Defendant and to defeat its defenses. All of these factors indicated that the best interests of the Class Members would be served by a settlement of this Action in the manner and upon the terms set forth in the Settlement Agreement. Declaration of Stan Saltzman ISO Plaintiffs Motion for Final Approval Case No. :-Cv-0-EMC

27 Case :-cv-0-emc Document Filed // Page of 0. The average payout for a California class member is $,., and the highest estimated payment is $,0.. For the FLSA Collective Action Members, the average estimated payment is $0. and the highest estimated payment is $.. For those persons receiving both a California payment and an FLSA payment, the average estimated payment is $,., and the highest estimated payment is $,.. As evidenced by lack of any objections to the settlement, and the extremely low exclusion request rate (only valid exclusions to date, the class members believe that these payouts are real, tangible, and apparently appreciated. I declare under penalty of perjury, pursuant to the laws of the United States and of the State of California that the forgoing is true and correct and to the best of my personal knowledge. This declaration is executed on December, 0, at Agoura Hills, California. 0 s/ Stanley D. Saltzman Stanley D. Saltzman Declaration of Stan Saltzman ISO Plaintiffs Motion for Final Approval Case No. :-Cv-0-EMC

28 Case :-cv-0-emc Document Filed // Page of 0 0 Stanley D. Saltzman, Esq. (SBN 000 William A. Baird, Esq. (SBN MARLIN & SALTZMAN, LLP Canwood Street, Suite 0 Agoura Hills, California 0 Telephone: ( -00 Facsimile: ( -0 ssaltzman@marlinsaltzman.com tbaird@marlinsaltzman.com Carolyn Hunt Cottrell (SBN Nicole N. Coon (SBN SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP 000 Powell Street, Suite 00 Emeryville, California 0 Telephone: ( -00 Facsimile: ( -0 ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com ncoon@schneiderwallace.com Walter Haines, Esq. (SBN 0 UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP, P.C. 00 Bolsa Ave., Suite 0 Huntington Beach, California Telephone: ( - Facsimile: ( -00 Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Settlement California Class and FLSA Class EDGAR VICERAL and DAVID KRUEGER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Plaintiffs, MISTRAS GROUP, INC.; and DOES -0, inclusive, Defendant. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CASE NO. :-cv-0-emc (Assigned to Hon. Edward M. Chen CLASS ACTION DECLARATION OF CAROLYN HUNT COTTRELL IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF CALIFORNIA CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT DATE: February, 0 TIME: :0 p.m. CTRM: DECLARATION OF CAROLYN HUNT COTTRELL IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF CALIFORNIA CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT CASE NO. :-cv-0-emc

29 Case :-cv-0-emc Document Filed // Page of 0 0 DECLARATION OF CAROLYN HUNT COTTRELL I, Carolyn Hunt Cottrell, declare:. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth in this Declaration and, if called upon as a witness, I could and would testify competently as to these facts.. This Declaration is submitted in support of Plaintiffs Unopposed Motion for Approval of California Class Action Settlement. QUALIFICATIONS, EXPERIENCE, AND EXPERTISE. I am an attorney duly licensed to practice law in the State of California (No.. I am a member in good standing of the State Bar of California. I am admitted to the United States District Courts for the Northern, Eastern, Central, and Southern Districts of California. I am a member of the Bar of the United States Supreme Court.. I am a partner at Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky Wotkyns LLP ( SWCKW. SWCKW specializes in class action litigation in state and federal court.. SWCKW is regarded as one of the leading private plaintiff s firms in wage and hour class actions and employment class actions.. SWCKW has acted or is acting as class counsel in numerous cases. A partial list of cases which have been certified and/or settled as class actions includes: Guilbaud, et al. v. Sprint Nextel Corp. et al., (Case No. :-cv-0-vc (Northern District of California (final approval of class and collective action settlement for failure to compensate for all hours worked, including overtime, under federal and California law, failure to provide meal and rest breaks, failure to reimburse for necessary business uniforms, failure to pay full wages upon termination to, and failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements; Holmes, et al v. Xpress Global Systems, Inc., (Case No (Sacramento Superior Court (final approval of class action settlement for failure to provide meal and rest breaks and failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements; Jeter-Polk, et al. v. Casual Male Store, LLC, et al., (Case No. :-CV-00 (Central District of California (final approval of class action settlement for failure to provide meal and rest periods, failure to compensate for all hours worked, failure to pay overtime wages, unpaid wages and waiting time penalties, and failure to provide itemized wage statements; Meza, et al. v. S.S. Skikos, Inc., et al., (Case No. -cv-0-teh (Northern District of California (final approval of class and DECLARATION OF CAROLYN HUNT COTTRELL IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF CALIFORNIA CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT CASE NO. :-cv-0-emc

30 Case :-cv-0-emc Document Filed // Page of 0 0 collective action settlement for failure to compensate for all hours worked, including overtime, under federal and California law, failure to provide meal and rest breaks, failure to reimburse for necessary business uniforms, failure to pay full wages upon termination to, and failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements; Molina, et al. v. Railworks Track Systems, Inc., (Case No. BCV--0 (Kern County Superior Court (final approval of class action settlement for failure to provide meal and rest breaks, unpaid wages, unpaid overtime, off-the-clocker work, failure to pay full wages upon termination to, and failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements; Allen, et al. v. County of Monterey, et al., (Case No. :-cv-0 (Northern District of California (settlement between FLSA Plaintiffs and Defendant to provide relief to affected employees; Barrera v. Radix Cable Holdings, Inc., et al., (Case No. CIV 000 (Marin County Superior Court (final approval of class action settlement for failure to provide meal and rest breaks to, off-the-clock work by, failure to provide overtime compensation to, failure to reimburse business expenditures to, failure to pay full wages upon termination to, and failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements to retention specialists working for cable companies; Glass Dimensions, Inc., et al. v. State Street Corp. et al., (Case No. :0-cv-0 (District of Massachusetts (final approval of class action settlement for claims of breach of fiduciary duty and self-dealing in violation of ERISA; Friend, et al. v. The Hertz Corporation, (Case No. :0-0 (Northern District of California (settlement of claims that rental car company misclassified non-exempt employees, failed to pay wages, failed to pay premium pay, and failed to provide meal periods and rest periods; Hollands v. Lincare, Inc., et al., (Case No. CGC-0-0 (San Francisco County Superior Court (final approval of class action settlement for overtime pay, off-the-clock work, unreimbursed expenses, and other wage and hour claims on behalf of a class of center managers; Jantz, et al. v. Colvin, (Case No X (In the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Baltimore Field Office (final approval of class action settlement for the denial of promotions based on targeted disabilities; Shemaria v. County of Marin, (Case No. CV 0 (Marin County Superior Court (final approval of class action settlement on behalf of a class of individuals with mobility disabilities denied access to various facilities owned, operated, and/or maintained by the County of Marin; Perez, et al. v. First American Title Ins. Co., (Case No. :0-cv-0 (District of Arizona (final approval of class DECLARATION OF CAROLYN HUNT COTTRELL IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF CALIFORNIA CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT CASE NO. :-cv-0-emc

31 Case :-cv-0-emc Document Filed // Page of 0 0 action settlement in action challenging unfair discrimination by title insurance company; Perez v. Rue, Inc., et al., (Case No. CISCV (Santa Cruz County Superior Court (final approval of class action settlement for failure to provide meal and rest breaks to, and for off-the-clock work performed by, a class of retail employees; Sosa, et al. v. Dreyer s Grand Ice Cream, Inc., et al., (Case No. RG 0 (Alameda County Superior Court (final approval of class action settlement for failure to provide meal and rest breaks to, and for off-the-clock work performed by, a class of ice cream manufacturing employees; Villalpando v. Exel Direct Inc., et al. (Case Nos. :-cv-0 and :-cv-00 (Northern District of California (certified class action on behalf of delivery drivers allegedly misclassified as independent contractors; Choul, et al. v. Nebraska Beef, Ltd. (Case Nos. :0-cv-0, :0-cv- (District of Nebraska (final approval of class action settlement for off-the-clock work by, and failure to provide overtime compensation to, productionline employees of meat-packing plant; Morales v. Farmland Foods, Inc. (Case No. :0-cv-0 (District of Nebraska (FLSA certification for off-the-clock work by, and failure to provide overtime compensation to, production-line employees of meat-packing plant; Barlow, et al. v. PRN Ambulance Inc. (Case No. BC (Los Angeles County Superior Court (final approval of class action settlement for failure to provide meal and rest breaks to and for off-the-clock work by certified emergency medical technicians; Espinosa, et al. v. National Beef, et al. (Case No. ECU0 (Imperial Superior Court (final approval of class action settlement for off-the-clock work by, and failure to provide overtime compensation to, production-line employees of meatpacking plant; Wolfe, et al. v. California Check Cashing Stores, LLC, et al. (Case Nos. CGC-0- and CGC-0- (San Francisco Superior Court (final approval of class action settlement for failure to provide meal and rest breaks to, and for off-the-clock work by, employees at check cashing stores; Carlson v. eharmony (Case No. BC (Los Angeles County Superior Court (final approval of class action settlement on behalf of gays and lesbians who were denied use of eharmony; Salcido v. Cargill (Case Nos. :0-CV-0-LJO-GSA,:0-CV- 000-LJO-GSA (Eastern District of California (final approval of class action settlement for offthe-clock work by production-line employees of meat-packing plant; Elkin v. Six Flags (Case No. BC (Los Angeles County Superior Court (final approval of class action settlement for missed meal and rest periods on behalf of hourly workers at Six Flags amusement parks; Jimenez DECLARATION OF CAROLYN HUNT COTTRELL IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF CALIFORNIA CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT CASE NO. :-cv-0-emc

32 Case :-cv-0-emc Document Filed // Page of 0 0 v. Perot Systems Corp. (Case No. RG0 (Alameda County Superior Court (final approval of class action settlement for misclassification of hospital clerical workers; Chau v. CVS RX Services, Inc. (Case No. BC (Los Angeles County Superior Court (final approval of class action settlement for failure to pay overtime to CVS pharmacists; Reed v. CALSTAR (Case No. RG00 (Alameda County Superior Court (certified class action on behalf of flight nurses; National Federation of the Blind v. Target (Case No. C 0-00 MHP (N.D. Cal. (certified class action on behalf of all legally blind individuals in the United States who have tried to access Target.com; Bates v. United Parcel Service, Inc. (00 WL 0 (N.D. Cal. (certified national class action on behalf of deaf employees of UPS; Satchell v. FedEx Express, Inc. (Case No. 0-0 SI (N.D. Cal. (certified regional class action alleging widespread discrimination within FedEx; Siddiqi v. Regents of the University of California (Case No. C--00 SI (N.D. Cal. (certified class action in favor of deaf plaintiffs alleging disability access violations at the University of California; Lopez v. San Francisco Unified School District (Case No. C--00 SI (N.D. Cal. (certified class action in favor of plaintiffs in class action against school district for widespread disability access violations; Campos v. San Francisco State University (Case No. C- -0 MCC (N.D. Cal. (certified class action in favor of disabled plaintiffs for widespread disability access violations; Singleton v. Regents of the University of California (Case No. 0- (Alameda County Superior Court (class settlement for women alleging gender discrimination at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory; McMaster v. BCI Coca-Cola Bottling Co. (Case No. RG0 (Alameda County Superior Court (final approval of class action settlement for drive-time required of Coca-Cola account managers; Portugal v. Macy s West, Inc. (Case No. BC (Los Angeles County Superior Court (California statewide wage and hour misclassification class action resulting in a class-wide $. million settlement; Taormina v. Siebel Systems, Inc. (Case No. RG00 (Alameda County Superior Court (final approval of class action settlement for misclassification of Siebel s inside sales employees; Joseph v. The Limited, Inc. (Case No. CGC-0- (San Francisco County Superior Court (final approval of class action settlement for failure to provide meal and rest periods to employees of The Limited stores; Rios v. Siemens Corp. (Case No. C0-0 PJH (N.D. Cal. (final approval of class action settlement for failure to pay accrued vacation pay upon end of employment; DeSoto v. DECLARATION OF CAROLYN HUNT COTTRELL IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF CALIFORNIA CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT CASE NO. :-cv-0-emc

33 Case :-cv-0-emc Document Filed // Page of 0 0 Sears, Roebuck & Co. (Case No. RG00 (Alameda County Superior Court and Lenahan v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. (Case No. -0-CV-0000 (SRC (TJB (final approval of class action settlement for failure to pay Sears drivers for all hours worked; among many others.. I have been a member of this firm since. Nearly my entire legal career has been devoted to advocating for the rights of individuals who have been subjected to illegal pay policies, discrimination, harassment and retaliation and representing employees in wage and hour and discrimination class actions. I have litigated hundreds of wage and hour, employment discrimination and civil-rights actions, and I manage many of the firm s current cases in these areas. I am a member of the State Bar of California, and have had memberships with Public Justice, the National Employment Lawyers Association, the California Employment Lawyers Association and the Consumer Attorneys of California. I served on the Board of Directors for the San Francisco Trial Lawyers Association and co-chaired its Women s Caucus. I was named one of the Top Women Litigators for 00 by the Daily Journal. In 0, I was nominated for Woman Trial Lawyer of the Year by the Consumer Attorneys of California. I earned my Bachelor s degree from the University of California, and I am a graduate of the University of the Pacific, McGeorge School of Law. CLASS COUNSEL. Plaintiffs Counsel in this case is comprised of SWCKW, Marlin & Saltzman, LLP ( MS, and United Employees Law Group, P.C. ( United. The firms are highly-regarded members of the wage and hour and employment class and collective action bar, with extensive experience in this highly-specialized type of litigation.. Declarations and supporting exhibits outlining Plaintiffs Counsel s extensive work on this matter, as well as fees and costs, have been submitted in support of Plaintiffs Unopposed Motion for Attorneys Fees, Costs, and Enhancement Awards, filed on December, 0 as ECF Dkt. Nos. -0, as well as our billing records that were submitted under seal on December, 0 as ECF Dkt. No.. I refer the Court to these additional documents, including supporting declarations, for a detailed overview of Class Counsel s work on the matter as well as our fees and costs. DECLARATION OF CAROLYN HUNT COTTRELL IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF CALIFORNIA CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT CASE NO. :-cv-0-emc

34 Case :-cv-0-emc Document Filed // Page of 0 0 INTRODUCTION 0. The Parties are resolving numerous wage and hour claims that likely would not have been prosecuted as individual actions, and in so doing are providing a substantial benefit to the members of the California Class and the FLSA Class (collectively, the Classes. Specifically, the Parties have resolved the claims of approximately,0 of Mistras s employees for a total settlement payment of $,000, The Settlement represents a favorable result and is fair, reasonable, and adequate in all respects. FACTUAL BACKGROUND. Mistras provides standard and innovative non-destructive testing, inspection, and engineering services. Mistras employs Examiners, Technicians, and Inspectors to carry out a wide variety of inspection, maintenance, and repair services in the field setting. They work out of Mistras s local offices (also referred to as labs typically on the worksite of Mistras customers. Examiners, Technicians, and Inspectors are non-exempt, hourly positions. Travel is extensive, and time away from home can span several weeks at a time. Often, Examiners, Technicians, and Inspectors schedules are grueling, with no days off.. In particular, Plaintiffs allege that Mistras requires employees to work off-the-clock (including before and after their scheduled shifts and during meal and rest breaks, all without proper compensation including payment of straight time, overtime compensation, and premium pay. It is Plaintiffs position that employees are compensated only for the time they are scheduled to work by Mistras not for their actual hours worked. With respect to Class Members working in California, Mistras commits additional wage and hour violations under California law. By requiring employees to work during their meal and rest breaks, Mistras fails to authorize, permit, and/or make available meal and rest periods to which they are entitled by law. It further fails to pay premium pay for these missed breaks. Plaintiffs also allege that Mistras also improperly purports to adopt and implement alternative workweek schedules ( AWS to avoid properly compensating California Class Members under California wage laws. In addition, Plaintiffs allege that Mistras engages in illegal practices by failing to provide accurate, itemized wage statements and failing to pay all wages owed at the end of employment. DECLARATION OF CAROLYN HUNT COTTRELL IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF CALIFORNIA CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT CASE NO. :-cv-0-emc

35 Case :-cv-0-emc Document Filed // Page of 0 0. For additional factual details, see the preliminary approval motion filed on July, 0 as ECF Dkt. No. 0. PROCEDURAL HISTORY. Plaintiffs allege nine causes of action under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, U.S.C. 0, et seq. ( FLSA, the California Labor Code, applicable Industrial Welfare Commission ( IWC Wage Order, Business and Professions Code 00, et seq. ( UCL, and the California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 00 ( PAGA. In their first cause of action, Plaintiffs allege, on behalf of an FLSA collective (the FLSA Class, that Defendant violated the FLSA by knowingly failing to maintain records of all hours worked, knowingly failing to compensate employees for all hours worked, including overtime and training hours. Plaintiffs remaining eight causes of action arise under California law: ( failure to compensate for all hours worked, including but not limited to attending pre-work meetings, completing required training programs, traveling to and from Mistras s offices to worksites, and engaging in other off-the-clock work; ( failure to pay overtime wages; ( failure to authorize, permit, and/or make available meal periods; ( failure to authorize, permit, and/or make available rest periods; ( failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements; ( failure to timely pay all earned wages at the end of employment; ( violation of the UCL for unlawful, unfair, and/or fraudulent business acts or practices; and ( penalties pursuant to, et seq. of the California Private Attorney General Act ( PAGA.. The Parties engaged in an investigation and discovery. Class Counsel conducted numerous in-depth interviews of Class Members to validate the merits of the case. Plaintiffs prepared and served extensive written discovery. The Parties conducted numerous meet and confer sessions regarding the discovery. These efforts resulted in the production of additional documents and supplemental interrogatory responses. Specifically, Defendant produced thousands of pages of documents including: class lists, a list of Mistras offices, numerous handbooks and policies, payroll and timekeeping data, training records, alternative workweek documentation, and the documents for the Named Plaintiffs. Numerous depositions also took place. Plaintiffs deposed Defendant pursuant to FRCP 0(b(, including taking the depositions of Julie Marini (Mistras Group Vice President of Human Resources and Dennis Bertolotti (Mistras President of Group Services/Interim DECLARATION OF CAROLYN HUNT COTTRELL IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF CALIFORNIA CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT CASE NO. :-cv-0-emc

36 Case :-cv-0-emc Document Filed // Page of 0 0 CEO. Plaintiff Krueger was also deposed on March 0, 0. Class Counsel have also made a thorough study of the legal principles applicable to the claims asserted against Defendants.. Plaintiffs Counsel based their damages analysis and settlement negotiations on the formal informal discovery described above. The approximate net amount being disbursed to Class Members is $,,... The settlement amount is fair, reasonable, and adequate. The Settlement amount takes into account the substantial risks inherent in any class and collective action wage-and-hour case, the status of the litigation, and the specific defenses asserted by Defendant. Settlement awards will be distributed to Settlement Class Members on a proportional basis based on the amount of weeks each Class Member worked.. The Parties mediated this dispute on April, 0 before Mark Rudy, a respected and experienced wage and hour mediator. The Parties engaged in arm s-length negotiations. After over 0 hours of extensive negotiations, the mediation concluded without a settlement, but with clear progress having been made. Thereafter, through Mr. Rudy s ongoing efforts, the Parties continued to discuss possible resolution of the Action. After over a month of such discussions, the Parties eventually agreed to broad settlement terms. The Parties then began to work through the drafting of a Settlement Agreement, which was finally executed by the Parties shortly before this motion was filed.. On May, 0, Class Counsel submitted a Joint Notice of Settlement, and Stipulation and [Proposed] Order to Vacate All Pending Deadlines. The Court set a briefing schedule on May, 0. The Court subsequently modified the briefing schedule upon subsequent stipulations. 0. Class Counsel drafted and prepared appropriate moving papers and filed them on July, 0. Thereafter, on August, 0, the Court issued an order, requesting supplemental briefing on Plaintiffs preliminary approval motion. The Court requested that the Parties address ten topics: ( attorneys fees, including submitted ex parte and under seal their billing records with a detailed description; ( expected recovery per Class Member; ( full verdict value of the case; ( distribution of the settlement fund; ( risks of litigation; ( FLSA affirmative opt-in; ( notice to FLSA Class Members; ( response to objections from Class Members; ( CAFA notice; and (0 DECLARATION OF CAROLYN HUNT COTTRELL IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF CALIFORNIA CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT CASE NO. :-cv-0-emc

37 Case :-cv-0-emc Document Filed // Page 0 of 0 0 Class notice for California Class. Class Counsel drafted a supplemental brief, revised Class notices and accompanying documents, and corresponding declarations as well as briefing and documentation supporting their fee request. These materials were filed with the Court on August, 0. On August, 0, the Court issued an order requesting further supplemental briefing regarding the PAGA recovery in this action. Plaintiffs drafted and filed a supplemental brief on August 0, 0. On October, 0, the Court issued an order granting Plaintiffs motion.. With respect to settlement administration, Simpluris is responsible for distributing the Notice, calculating individual settlement payments, calculating all applicable payroll taxes, withholdings and deductions, preparing and issuing all disbursements to be paid to Class Members, the Class Representative, Class Counsel, the Labor and Workforce Development Agency ( LWDA, any applicable local, state, and federal tax authorities, and handling inquiries and/or disputes from Class Members.. Simpluris is also responsible for the timely preparation and filing of all tax returns, and making the timely and accurate payment of any and all necessary taxes and withholdings. Simpluris also established a mailing address and toll-free telephone number to direct inquiries regarding the Notices and determination of individual settlement payments as well as a website.. Following the Court s preliminary approval order, Simpluris received Class Member data from Defendant. Based on the records produced by Defendant to the Administrator, the total number of Class Members is,0. Not all California Class Members are FLSA Class Members: are only California Class Members,, are both California and FLSA Class Members., are only FLSA Class Members.. The Final Approval Hearing for the Court to approve the Settlement is currently scheduled for February, 0. With this Motion, Plaintiffs ask the Court to grant final approval of this Settlement as to the California Class. Following an order by the Court on this Motion, the Parties Note that these are the most recent totals provided by Simpluris. DECLARATION OF CAROLYN HUNT COTTRELL IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF CALIFORNIA CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT CASE NO. :-cv-0-emc

38 Case :-cv-0-emc Document Filed // Page of 0 0 and the Settlement Administrator will execute the final steps of the settlement process, including sending individual checks to all participating Class Members for their Settlement award. THE SETTLEMENT. The Parties have resolved this matter in a Joint Stipulation of Settlement and Release ( Stipulation of Settlement or Settlement (previously filed as Exhibit to ECF Dkt. No Defendant has agreed to pay a total of $,000,00.00, the Maximum Settlement Amount, to settle all aspects of this case. The Net Settlement Proceeds, the amount that will be available to pay settlement awards to the Classes, is defined as the Maximum Settlement Amount less the Fee and Expense Award (Plaintiffs seek a fee award not to exceed /% of the Maximum Settlement Amount, and an expense award for total costs, currently which total $,.0, the Service Payment (up to $,00.00 for Plaintiff Viceral and $, to Plaintiff Krueger, the PAGA Payment to the LWDA based on the $0, allocated for the PAGA claims ($,000.00, and Administration Costs (which are not to exceed $0,000.00, but currently total $, At this time, the approximate Net Settlement Proceeds are estimated to be $,,... The California Class is defined to mean all current and former hourly, non-exempt Technicians, Inspectors, and Examiners employed by Defendant in California at any time between April 0, 0 up through the date of Final Approval.. The FLSA Class is defined as all current and former hourly, non-exempt Technicians, Inspectors, and Examiners who were employed by Defendant in the United States at any time between April 0, 0 through the date of Final Approval.. % of the Net Settlement Proceeds will be allocated to the California Class Fund and % will be allocated to the FLSA Class Fund, recognizing that the FLSA action alleged only one cause of action for off-the-clock overtime. By contrast, even though the California Class was smaller than the FLSA Class, it not only alleged a failure to pay off-the-clock overtime, but also alleged causes of Plaintiffs provided the LWDA with notice of the Settlement as well as a copy of the Settlement Agreement. The LWDA has provided no response. Note that this is the most recent total in light of Simpluris s updated costs for administration. 0 DECLARATION OF CAROLYN HUNT COTTRELL IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF CALIFORNIA CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT CASE NO. :-cv-0-emc

39 Case :-cv-0-emc Document Filed // Page of 0 0 action under the California Labor Code for failure to pay minimum wages, failure to provide and pay for missed meal breaks, failure to provide and pay for missed rest breaks, failure to provide proper wage statements, waiting time penalties for failing to pay all wages due at the termination of employment, violation of Business and Professions Code 00, et seq., and asserted claims under PAGA. Moreover, data analysis, as well as interviews with Class Members, indicated that the amount of damage hours per week to be claimed were higher for the California Class Members as compared to those who worked outside of California. The Parties further factored in the difficultly in proving the FLSA claims both from a merits and certification standpoint and the unique defenses asserted to that cause action by Defendant. With these factors in mind, and based on Class Counsels belief that the California Class Members damages were potentially twice the value of the FLSA Class Members, the two-to-one allocation was arrived at as a reasonable reflection of the value of the claims. 0. California Class Members who do not opt out of the Settlement will be eligible to receive their share of the Net Settlement Proceeds allocated to the California Class. To recover a share of the Net Settlement Proceeds allocated to the FLSA Class, a potential California FLSA Class Member must opt in by timely cashing his or her settlement award.. Settlement awards will be distributed to Settlement Class Members on a proportional basis based on the amount of weeks each Class Member worked. Pursuant to this formula, a California Class Member will receive approximately $,.00 for each year worked (estimated $.00 per week multiplied by work weeks per year for each year worked. Thus, a California Class Member that was employed the entire class period of. years stands to recover $,.00. An FLSA Class Member will receive approximately $.00 for each year worked (estimated $.0 per week multiplied by work weeks per year and if employed for the entire class period of. years stands to receive $,.00. The average individual settlement payment for California Class Members is estimated to be $,., and the highest is estimated to be $,0.. The average individual settlement payment for FLSA Class Members is estimated to be $0., and the highest is estimated to be $.. For those Class Members receiving both a California payment and a DECLARATION OF CAROLYN HUNT COTTRELL IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF CALIFORNIA CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT CASE NO. :-cv-0-emc

40 Case :-cv-0-emc Document Filed // Page of 0 0 FLSA payment, the average estimated payment is $,., and the highest estimated payment is $,... For tax purposes, one-third (/ of each Individual Settlement Payment shall be treated as settlement for wage claims, which will be subject to required tax withholdings, and reported on an IRS W, one-third (/ shall be treated as settlement for penalties, and one-third (/ shall be treated as interest, which will be paid without withholding any amount, and reported on a Form 0.. Each Class Member will be notified of the number of weeks Defendants records show that he or she worked and their estimated recovery assuming full participation. Should a Class Member dispute Defendants records, that Class Member may submit evidence to the Settlement Administrator establishing the dates he or she contends to have worked for Defendants. The Settlement Administrator shall notify the Parties of any disputes, and shall finally resolve any disputes. In this process, Defendants records will be presumed determinative.. The Stipulation of Settlement contains four releases: California Released Claims, FLSA Released Claims, and the released claims of the Named Plaintiffs. Specifically, Mr. Viceral will execute a full release of all claims, while Mr. Krueger will retain his right to continue with a separate individual action ongoing against the Defendant, for claims not included in this class action. In all of the releases, the Released Parties are Defendant Mistras Group, Inc., its past or present successors and predecessors in interest, subsidiaries, affiliates, parents, officers, directors, shareholders, employees, agents, principals, heirs, representatives, accountants, auditors, consultants, insurers and reinsurers, and their respective successors and predecessors in interest, Note that these are the most recent totals provided by Simpluris. Mr. Krueger settled his individual claims for violation of California Labor Code 0, wrongful discharge, and related claims in the separate case of Krueger v. Mistras Group, Inc., Case No. :- cv-00-jlt (ED Cal. Oct., 0. The parties to that action filed a Notice of Settlement on September, 0 and a Stipulation of Dismissal on October, 0. Thereafter, the Court closed the case on October, 0. DECLARATION OF CAROLYN HUNT COTTRELL IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF CALIFORNIA CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT CASE NO. :-cv-0-emc

41 Case :-cv-0-emc Document Filed // Page of 0 0 subsidiaries, affiliates, parents and attorneys. The releases impacting the Classes and Named Plaintiffs are appropriately tailored to the claims in this case.. The Parties have agreed to use Simpluris as the Settlement Administrator. Simpluris has estimated that its costs will be approximately $, These costs are reasonable given the estimated value of the average individual claims, as they are appropriate to ensure that Class Members have a full opportunity to learn about the Settlement and to obtain their share of the Settlement, if they desire to do so. FINAL APPROVAL OF THE SETTLEMENT. In its October, 0 Order, the Court already preliminarily approved the Settlement with respect to the California Class and finally approved it as to the FLSA Class. Accordingly, the only step that remains is final approval of the Settlement as to the California Class. Consistent with the precedent of this Circuit and this Court s own decisions, the Settlement should be finally approved.. The Court should find that the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate, and finally approve it as to the California Class.. Pursuant to the Court s October, 0 Order granting preliminary approval, Simpluris sent the Court-approved Notice to the California Class in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement.. The Settlement Administrator followed all of the procedures set forth in the Court-approved notice plan. Reasonable steps have been taken to ensure that all California Class Members receive the Notice. Ultimately, of the, notices distributed to California Class Members, only of these Notice Packets have to date been returned as undeliverable. In addition, no objections have been received to any portion of the Settlement, including the Enhancement Awards for the Representative Plaintiffs and the Fee and Expense Award to Class Counsel. Accordingly, the notice process satisfies the best practicable notice standard. The objection/exclusion deadline was December, 0. DECLARATION OF CAROLYN HUNT COTTRELL IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF CALIFORNIA CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT CASE NO. :-cv-0-emc

42 Case :-cv-0-emc Document Filed // Page of A review of the Settlement Agreement reveals the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of its terms. The Net Settlement Amount of $,,., derived from a Gross Settlement Amount of $,000,000.00, will result in fair and just relief to Class Members.. The total number of Class Members is,0. Not all California Class Members are FLSA Class Members: are only California Class Members,, are both California and FLSA Class Members., are only FLSA Class Members.. As of the date of this filing, the average individual settlement payment for California Class Members is estimated to be $,., and the highest is estimated to be $,0.. The average individual settlement payment for FLSA Class Members is estimated to be $0., and the highest is estimated to be $.. For those Class Members receiving both a California payment and a FLSA payment, the average estimated payment is $,., and the highest estimated payment is $,... These results are well within the reasonable standard when considering the difficulty and risks presented by pursuing further litigation.. First, litigating this action would not only delay recovery, but also would be expensive, timeconsuming and involve substantial risk. If this case were to go to trial as a class and collective action, Class Counsel estimate that fees and costs would well exceed $,000, Litigating the class and collective action claims would require substantial additional preparation and discovery. It would require depositions of experts, the presentation of percipient and expert witnesses at trial, as well as the consideration, preparation, and presentation of voluminous documentary evidence and the preparation and analysis of expert reports. There is also the delay and duration of further litigation. The litigation was filed in April 0. The matter has been pending for nearly one and a half years. Certification and dispositive motions have yet to be filed. The Court s previous Case Management and Pretrial Order for Jury Trial (ECF Dkt. No. scheduled nearly a year between class certification and trial. In light of the current posture of the case, Class Counsel would still need to prepare and file a class certification motion. Thus, the litigation would likely remain pending for nearly another year and a half, and potentially longer taking into consideration unforeseen delays and scheduling issues. DECLARATION OF CAROLYN HUNT COTTRELL IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF CALIFORNIA CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT CASE NO. :-cv-0-emc

43 Case :-cv-0-emc Document Filed // Page of 0 0. The risks of maintaining class action status in this case as well as demonstrating Defendant s ultimate liability at trial are also significant. Recovery of the damages and penalties would require complete success and certification of all of Plaintiffs claims, a questionable feat in light of recent developments in wage and hour and class and collective action law as well as the legal and factual grounds that Mistras has asserted to defend this action. Specifically, Mistras has asserted numerous complete liability defenses against Plaintiffs claims, many of which were supported by the declarations gathered by Defendant. See generally Defendant s Answer to Consolidated First Amended Complaint (ECF Dkt. No.. For example, Mistras raised several defenses to Plaintiffs off-the-clock claims, including that ( Class Members did not perform work off-the-clock; ( any off-the-clock work was de minimis; ( Mistras properly paid Class Members for compensable training time; ( Mistras properly provided Class Members with legally compliant meal and rest breaks ; ( Mistras paid Class Members for all hours worked, including overtime; and ( Mistras properly implemented alternative workweek schedules in California, avoiding any overtime liability. Mistras also intended to raise several defenses against class certification, including ( that individualized determinations regarding the type and amount of off-the-clock work, if any, completed by Class Members would overwhelm common issues; ( that individualized determinations regarding the amount of wages owing, if any, would overwhelm common issues; and ( whether Class Members actually took meal and rest breaks would overwhelm any common issues. If Mistras succeeded on any of these or other defenses to class certification, Mistras would likely further argue that its success would necessarily impact Plaintiffs derivative claims. In the end, Plaintiffs would then be left with only their individual claims and the Class and Collective would potentially recover nothing.. Thus, the risks of litigation are significant. This is particularly true since Defendant has represented to Class Counsel that the declarations it has collected support its defenses. In particular, defense counsel has explained that the California Class Members and FLSA Class Members generally and overwhelmingly stated in individualized and non-cookie-cutter declarations that they: recorded all hours worked; were paid their standard and/or overtime rates for all hours recorded as worked; never worked unrecorded hours; were never instructed to work off-the-clock ; recorded all mandatory online training; were paid for all such training; were paid overtime for all overtime DECLARATION OF CAROLYN HUNT COTTRELL IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF CALIFORNIA CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT CASE NO. :-cv-0-emc

44 Case :-cv-0-emc Document Filed // Page of 0 0 recorded; that to the extent they attended voluntary trainings, they did so outside of their regularly scheduled work hours, they did not perform any other work duties during such training, that voluntary training involved topics related to new skills for a job other than their current job; and that they attended such trainings of their own accord and not at the behest of any supervisor; were not required to commute to work in any specific manner or vehicle; were allowed but not required to carpool; and did not perform work before or during commute to/from worksites. In addition, California Class Members also stated that they: were aware of Mistras s meal and rest break policy; were able to take meal periods according to the policy; were never prevented from taking breaks; were able to take breaks throughout a workday as desired; never reported missing a meal period or rest break; and regularly and personally reviewed their wage statements and found them correct.. Defendant further argues that an arbitration agreement distributed to employees in California removes from the lawsuit approximately one half of the California Class and the corresponding members of the FLSA Class, irrespective of other defenses related to certification or liability. This further demonstrates the reasonableness of the total settlement value and the risks of further litigation.. In an effort to further ensure fairness for the employees, the Parties have agreed to allocate the settlement proceeds amongst Class Members to track each of the substantive violations and some of the penalty claims, including the limitations period for each claims. The allocation was made based on Class Counsel s assessment of the risk of continued litigation and risk on certification and merits. The Parties further agreed on distribution formulas specifically tailored to each claim, and each claims limitations period, to further ensure that employees are compensated accordingly and in the most equitable manner. Specifically, % of the NSA will be allocated to the California Class Fund and % will be allocated to the FLSA Class Fund.. The Parties engaged in an extensive informal exchange of information to enable both sides to assess the claims and potential defenses in this action. Through this informal cooperation, the Parties were able to accurately assess the legal and factual issues that would arise if the case proceeds to trial. In addition, in reaching this settlement, Class Counsel relied on their substantial litigation experience in similar wage and hour class and collective actions. Class Counsel s liability DECLARATION OF CAROLYN HUNT COTTRELL IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF CALIFORNIA CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT CASE NO. :-cv-0-emc

45 Case :-cv-0-emc Document Filed // Page of 0 0 and damages evaluation was premised on a careful and extensive analysis of the effects of Defendants compensation policies and practices on Class Members pay. Ultimately, in mediation before Mr. Rudy, an experienced mediator, the Parties used this information to fairly resolve the litigation. 0. Plaintiffs contend the common questions raised in this action predominate over any individualized questions concerning the Class Members. Plaintiffs believe that the California Class and FLSA Class are entirely cohesive because resolution of Plaintiffs claims all hinge on the uniform policies and practices of Defendant, rather than any treatment the Class Members experienced on an individual level. As a result, Plaintiffs contend that the resolution of these alleged class and collective claims will be resolved through the use of common forms of proof, such as Defendants uniform policies, and will not require inquiries specific to individual Class Members. While Class Counsel is confident that Plaintiffs would succeed on liability, continued litigation would be costly, time-consuming, and not certain in outcome.. Defendant has legal and factual grounds available to defend this action. In fact, Defendant has continually taken the position that this case is not suitable for class treatment and that it fully complied with its obligations regarding payment of wages as well as the provision of meal and rest breaks, among the other wage and hour issues alleged in this action.. Defendants asserted numerous defenses against Plaintiff s claims, as addressed above.. Class Counsel considered the substantial risks posed by these arguments in negotiating the Settlement. Moreover, Class Counsel considered the risk that class certification would not be granted and the risk that Plaintiff s claims would be defeated on the merits. For all of these reasons, the Settlement is fair and reasonable.. The monetary value of the Settlement represents a fair compromise given the litigation risks and uncertainties posed by continued litigation. Recovery of the damages and penalties previously referenced would also require complete success and certification of all of Plaintiffs claims, a questionable feat in light of recent developments in wage and hour and class and collective action law as well as the legal and factual grounds that Defendant has asserted to defend this action. In DECLARATION OF CAROLYN HUNT COTTRELL IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF CALIFORNIA CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT CASE NO. :-cv-0-emc

46 Case :-cv-0-emc Document Filed // Page of 0 0 contrast, resolving this case by means of an early settlement will yield a prompt, certain, and very substantial recovery for the Class Members. Such a result will benefit the Parties and the court system.. Here, the Settlement was a product of non-collusive, arm s length negotiations. The Parties participated in a full-day mediation as well as subsequent settlement negotiation before Mr. Rudy, who is a skilled mediator with many years of experience mediating employment matters, including many wage and hour disputes. This Settlement is also supported by Plaintiffs Counsel, who have extensive experience litigating these types of class and collective wage and hour claims and have been qualified as counsel in numerous class actions.. Class Counsel are experienced and respected class action litigators. Based on Class Counsel s knowledge and expertise in this area of law, Class Counsel believes this Settlement will provide a substantial benefit to the Class Members.. To date, no Class Member has submitted a written objection to the Settlement despite being informed of the Settlement. The lack of any written objections underscores the reasonableness of the Settlement. In addition, the Class Representatives support the terms of the Settlement. This shows widespread support for the Settlement among Class Members, and gives rise to a presumption of fairness. PLAINTIFFS ENHANCEMENT AWARDS. Plaintiffs request Enhancement Awards in the amount of $,00.00 to Named Plaintiff Edgar Viceral and $, to Named Plaintiff David Krueger for the critical roles they played in this case and the time, effort, and risks undertaken in helping secure the result obtained on behalf of the Classes. In agreeing to serve as the representatives of the Classes in this case, Plaintiffs formally agreed to accept the responsibilities of representing the interests of all members of the California Class and the FLSA Class. Defendant does not oppose payment of $,00.00 to Named Plaintiff Viceral and $, to Named Plaintiff Krueger as a reasonable Enhancement Awards. Moreover, the Enhancement Awards are fair when compared to the payments approved in similar cases. DECLARATION OF CAROLYN HUNT COTTRELL IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF CALIFORNIA CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT CASE NO. :-cv-0-emc

47 Case :-cv-0-emc Document Filed // Page 0 of 0 0. Declarations and supporting exhibits outlining Plaintiffs extensive work on this matter have been submitted in support Plaintiff s Unopposed Motion for Attorneys Fees, Costs, and Enhancement Awards filed on December, 0 (ECF Dkt. Nos. -0. I refer the Court to these additional declarations for a detailed overview of Plaintiffs work on the matter. REASONABLE ATTOREYS FEES AND COSTS 0. In Plaintiffs fee motion, Class Counsel request up to one-third ( /% of the Gross Settlement Amount, for a total of $,000,000.00, plus reimbursement of actual costs in the amount of $,.0. In this case, given the results achieved, the effort expended litigating the case, and the difficulties attendant to litigating this case, the fees and cost award is warranted. There was no guarantee of compensation or reimbursement. Rather, counsel undertook all the risks of this litigation on a completely contingent fee basis. These risks were front and center. Defendant s vigorous and skillful defense further confronted Class Counsel with the prospect of recovering nothing or close to nothing for their commitment to and investment in the case. Nevertheless, Plaintiffs and Class Counsel committed themselves to developing and pressing Plaintiffs legal claims to enforce the employees rights and maximize the Class recovery. The challenges that Class Counsel had to confront and the risks they had to fully absorb on behalf of the Class Members here are precisely the reasons for multipliers in contingency fee cases.. Declarations and supporting exhibits outlining Plaintiffs Counsel s extensive work on this matter as well as fees and costs have been submitted in support of Plaintiff s Unopposed Motion for Attorneys Fees, Costs, and Enhancement Awards, filed on December, 0 as ECF Dkt. Nos. -0, as well as our billing records that were submitted under seal on December, 0 as ECF Dkt. No.. I refer the Court to these additional documents, including supporting declarations, for a detailed overview of Class Counsel s work on the matter as well as our fees and costs. // // // // DECLARATION OF CAROLYN HUNT COTTRELL IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF CALIFORNIA CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT CASE NO. :-cv-0-emc

48 Case :-cv-0-emc Document Filed // Page of 0 0 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct and is based upon my own personal knowledge. Executed in Emeryville, California on December, 0. /s/ Carolyn Hunt Cottrell CAROLYN HUNT COTTRELL 0 DECLARATION OF CAROLYN HUNT COTTRELL IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF CALIFORNIA CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT CASE NO. :-cv-0-emc

49 Case :-cv-0-emc Document Filed // Page of

50 Case :-cv-0-emc Document Filed // Page of

51 Case :-cv-0-emc Document Filed // Page of

52 Case :-cv-0-emc Document Filed // Page of

53 Case :-cv-0-emc Document Filed // Page of

54 Case :-cv-0-emc Document Filed // Page of

55 Case :-cv-0-emc Document Filed // Page of

56 Case :-cv-0-emc Document Filed // Page of

57 Case :-cv-0-emc Document Filed // Page of

58 Case :-cv-0-emc Document Filed // Page 0 of

59 Case :-cv-0-emc Document Filed // Page of

60 Case :-cv-0-emc Document Filed // Page of

61 Case :-cv-0-emc Document Filed // Page of

62 Case :-cv-0-emc Document Filed // Page of

63 Case :-cv-0-emc Document Filed // Page of

64 Case :-cv-0-emc Document Filed // Page of

65 Case :-cv-0-emc Document Filed // Page of

66 Case :-cv-0-emc Document Filed // Page of

67 Case :-cv-0-emc Document Filed // Page of