Valeria Guerrero-Hernandez v. Ozburn-Hessey Logistics, LLC et al, Docket No. 5:16-cv (C.D. Cal. Jun 30, 2016), Court

Transcription

1 Valeria Guerrero-Hernandez v. Ozburn-Hessey Logistics, LLC et al, Docket No. 5:16-cv (C.D. Cal. Jun 30, 2016), Court Multiple Documents Part Description 1 12 pages 2 Declaration Declaration (Setareh) 3 Exhibit Exhibit A 4 Exhibit Exhibit B 5 Exhibit Exhibit C 6 Exhibit Exhibit D 7 Declaration Declaration (Hernandez) 8 Proposed Order Notice of Lodging 9 Exhibit Exhibit 1 Proposed Order 2018 The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Terms of Service // PAGE 1

2 Case 5:16-cv JAK-AFM Document 69 Filed 08/06/18 Page 1 of 12 Page ID #: Shaun Setareh (SBN ) Shaun@setarehlaw.com Thomas Segal (SBN ) Thomas@setarehlaw.com Farrah Grant (SBN ) Farrah@setarehlaw.com SETAREH LAW GROUP 9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Ste. 907 Beverly Hills, California Tel: (310) , Fax: (310) Attorneys for Plaintiff, VALERIA GUERRERO-HERNANDEZ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA VALERIA GUERRERO- HERNANDEZ, on behalf of herself, all others similarly situated, v. Plaintiff, OZBURN-HESSEY LOGISTICS, LLC, a Tennessee limited liability corporation; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 5:16-cv JAK (AFMx) NOTICE OF MOTION AND RENEWED MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT; DECLARATION OF SHAUN SETAREH IN SUPPORT THEREOF Date: November 19, 2018 Time: 8:30am Courtroom: 10B

3 Case 5:16-cv JAK-AFM Document 69 Filed 08/06/18 Page 2 of 12 Page ID #: TO THE COURT, ALL PARTIES, AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on November 19, 2018 at 8:30 a.m., or as soon thereafter as may be heard, in Courtroom 10B of the First Street Courthouse of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, located at 350 W. First Street, Courtroom 10B, Los Angeles, California 90012, Plaintiff VALERIA GUERRERO-HERNANDEZ ( Plaintiff ) will and hereby does move this Court for an order: 1. Conditionally certifying the Settlement Class, defined as: all individuals who worked for Defendants in a non-exempt hourly position in the State of California, including, but not limited to, International Division employees of Geodis USA, Inc. (a wholly owned subsidiary of Geodis Logistics LLC) and persons who worked at Defendants facilities and who were paid through third-party staffing agencies, at any time during the Class Period, and who do not timely submit a Request for Exclusion; 2. Preliminarily approving the Settlement Agreement submitted concurrently herewith; 3. Appointing Plaintiff as the Class Representative for the Settlement Class; 4. Appointing Shaun Setareh of Setareh Law Group as Class Counsel for the Settlement Class; 5. Approving the form and content of the proposed Class Notice submitted concurrently with this Motion; 6. Approving the notice procedures set forth in the Settlement Agreement; 7. Approving Rust Consulting as Claims Administrator; 8. Directing that notice be given to Settlement Class members; and 9. Scheduling a final fairness hearing. This Motion is made on the grounds that: a. The Settlement Class meets all of the requirements for class certification for purposes of settlement pursuant to Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal 2

4 Case 5:16-cv JAK-AFM Document 69 Filed 08/06/18 Page 3 of 12 Page ID #: Rules of Civil Procedure; b. The Settlement is fair, adequate and reasonable as required under Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; c. Plaintiff and her counsel are adequate to represent the Settlement Class as required by Rule 23(a)(4) and (g) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; d. The notice procedures and related forms comport with all relevant due process requirements and the requirements of Rule 23(c)(2)(B) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; and e. Based on the foregoing, notice should be directed to Settlement Class members and a final fairness hearing should be scheduled. This Motion is based on this Notice of Motion and Motion, the Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support thereof, the Declaration of Shaun Setareh in support thereof, all accompanying exhibits, all papers currently on file with this Court and such further evidence and arguments as may be presented at hearing Dated: August 6, 2018 SETAREH LAW GROUP BY: /S/ Shaun Setareh SHAUN SETAREH Attorney for Plaintiff, VALERIA GUERRERO- HERNANDEZ 3

5 Case 5:16-cv JAK-AFM Document 69 Filed 08/06/18 Page 4 of 12 Page ID #: MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES I. Introduction. On July 13, 2018 the Court entered an Order denying the Motion for Preliminary Approval without prejudice. ECF No. 68. The Court found that the proposed settlement class should be certified and that the amount offered in settlement was reasonable. However, the Court identified three deficiencies that were a barrier to preliminary approval. First, the Court found that the amount offered to resolve the representative claim under California s Labor Code Private Attorney General Act was insufficient. Second, the Court ruled that more information needed to be provided regarding the attorney fee request. Third, the Court ruled that more information needed to be provided regarding the justification for the class representative incentive award. ECF No. 86 at The parties have agreed to modify the settlement so that the allocation for the PAGA claim is increased from $50,000 to $373,525. Plaintiff is also submitting with this renewed motion the additional information regarding attorney fees and the class representative incentive award. II. The Court Should Approve the Settlement with the Revised PAGA Allocation. The parties have agreed to modify the settlement so that the allocation for PAGA is $373,525 with 75% of that or $280, going to the Labor Workforce Development Agency and the remainder remaining part of the Settlement Fund. Setareh Decl. Exh. A 18(e) In order for this Memorandum to focus on the issues raised by the Court, the prior Memorandum of Points and Authorities (ECF No. 61) is incorporated by reference. 1

6 Case 5:16-cv JAK-AFM Document 69 Filed 08/06/18 Page 5 of 12 Page ID #: Plaintiff believes that this allocation is fair for a number of reasons. Depending upon how the PAGA exposure is calculated, this allocation is between 1.5% and 3.4% of the amount that in theory could be awarded in PAGA penalties. Courts have held that PAGA settlements of between 1% to 5% of the exposure are reasonable. It is highly unlikely that the full amount theoretically available under PAGA would be awarded because under California law PAGA penalties must be proportionate to the actual damages and in this case, the potential PAGA penalties are much larger than the actual damages. Finally, where the wage and hour settlement is robust as it is here, a lower PAGA allocation is permissible, because the fact that the employer will be paying unpaid wages serves the underlying purposes of PAGA including deterrence. As noted in the prior supplemental briefing what the maximum theoretical PAGA recovery in this case could be turns on a number of legal issues. For example, it is unclear how many PAGA penalties should be assessed when a defendant improperly rounds time. PAGA penalties are assessed per employee per pay period. Labor Code 2699(f)(2). The case law regarding whether rounding of time is unlawful fits awkwardly with this statutory scheme. This is because proof of unlawful rounding depends upon proof that class members were systematically underpaid over time. As this Court has said: A rounding policy is lawful if it is fair and neutral on its face and it is used in such a manner that it will not result, over a period of time, in failure to compensate the employees properly for all the time that they have actually worked. Shiferaw v. Sunrise Senior Living Management Inc., 2014 WL *8 (C.D. Cal. 2014).6 It is therefore unclear that individual pay periods where rounding results in underpayment can be isolated as improper rounding violations. It could be argued either that there is only one violation per employee, or 2

7 Case 5:16-cv JAK-AFM Document 69 Filed 08/06/18 Page 6 of 12 Page ID #: alternatively that once improper rounding is shown, every pay period constitutes a violation. This unsettled legal issue makes a dramatic difference in the PAGA exposure on the rounding claim resulting in a potential range of tens of thousands to millions of dollars. Similarly, PAGA penalties are $100 for the initial violation and $200 for each subsequent violation. Labor Code 2699(f)(2). There is uncertainty as to when a subsequent violation penalty applies. The California Court of Appeal has said that subsequent violations are those that occur after the defendant employer has been put on notice that it is violating the Labor Code. Amaral v. Cintas Corp., 163 Cal.App.4 th 1157, 1209 (2008). Some courts interpret this as meaning that the $200 subsequent violation penalty applies only when a court or the Labor Commissioner has notified the employer that it is violating the Labor Code. E.g., Willis v. Xerox Bus. Servs., LLC, 2013 WL , *7-8 (E.D. Cal. 2013): Under California law, courts have held that employers are not subject to heightened penalties for subsequent violations until and unless a court or commissioner notified the employer that it is in violation of the Labor Code. Therefore, there are at least four different ways that potential PAGA penalties can be calculated in this case. 1) assuming that the rounding claim only gives rise to 1 PAGA penalty per employee and that the $200 subsequent violation penalty does not apply because OHL has not been notified by a court or by the Labor Commissioner that it is violating the Labor Code; 2) assuming that the rounding claim only gives rise to one PAGA penalty per employee and that the subsequent violation penalty applied after service of the PAGA notice letter; 3) assuming that the rounding violation gives rise to a PAGA penalty in every pay period where the rounding leads to underpayment, and that the subsequent violation penalty does not apply and 4) assuming that the rounding violation gives 3

8 Case 5:16-cv JAK-AFM Document 69 Filed 08/06/18 Page 7 of 12 Page ID #: rise to a PAGA penalty in every pay period where the rounding leads to underpayment and that the subsequent violation penalty. Courts have held that PAGA allocations of between 1% to 5% of the potential penalty amount are appropriate with a lower percentage being appropriate where the PAGA settlement is accompanied by a substantial wage and hour settlement. Saceho v. Landy s Inc., 2016 WL (N.D. Cal. 2016) (1.3% of PAGA exposure); Alexander v. FedEx Package Ground System, 2016 WL (2.1% of PAGA exposure; Kuang Xuan Lin v. Win Woo Trading LLC, 2017 WL *2 (N.D. Cal. 2017) (5% of potential penalty amount appropriate in PAGA only settlement); Ramirez v. Benito Valley Farms, LLC, 2017 WL *5 (N.D. Cal. 2017)(4.5% of potential penalty amount appropriate in PAGA only settlement). Under scenario 1) the PAGA exposure is $60,000 for the rounding claim ($100 penalty multiplied by 6000 employees), $5,377,200 for meal period violations and $5,377,200 for rest period violations meaning that the total PAGA exposure is $10,814,400. The proposed PAGA allocation is 3.4% of this number. 2 Under scenario 2) the PAGA exposure is $60,000 for the rounding claim, $8,864,129 for meal period violations and $8,864,129 for rest period violations meaning that the total PAGA exposure is $17,788,258. The proposed PAGA allocation is 2.09% of this number. Under scenario 3) the PAGA exposure is $4,186,600 on the rounding claim, $5,377,200 for meal period violations and $5,377,200 for rest period violations meaning that the total PAGA exposure is $14,941,000. The proposed allocation is 2.5% of this number. 2 The numbers that the PAGA exposure is based on are set forth in the March 26, 2018 Declaration of Shaun Setareh 3-17 ECF No

9 Case 5:16-cv JAK-AFM Document 69 Filed 08/06/18 Page 8 of 12 Page ID #: Under scenario 4) the PAGA exposure is $6,907,900 for the rounding claim, $8,864,129 for meal period violations and $8,864,129 for rest period violations meaning that the total PAGA exposure is $24,636,158. The proposed allocation is 1.5% of this number. But even the lowest maximum number is not a realistic estimate of what likely would be awarded. The potential maximum PAGA numbers set forth herein assume that a trier of fact will find that every employee incurred at least one meal and rest break violation in every pay period. At a trial the parties would likely present conflicting expert reports based on surveys or other statistical evidence and a jury or this Court as trier of fact would determine what the meal and rest break violation rate was. It is of course well settled that a court has discretion to reduce the PAGA penalties awarded. In Amaral, supra at 1214 the California Court of Appeal suggested that PAGA penalties are subject to a proportionality requirement where they cannot be disproportionate to the actual damages in the case: The penalty award, which totaled less than one-third of plaintiff s $804,783 damage award, was also proportional to Cintas s misconduct. Amaral provided no rule for when an award is disproportionate but affirmed an award which was one third of the actual damages. If this Court did as the Amaral trial court did and reduced the penalties to one third of the actual damages, the PAGA award would be $1,104, ECF No at 26 (damage estimate of $3,313,411.48). The proposed PAGA allocation is 33.8% of that amount. Amaral does not necessarily require a reduction to one third of the actual damages. But it does suggest that at some point a PAGA award is impermissibly disproportionate to the actual damages. Even the low maximum PAGA estimate 5

10 Case 5:16-cv JAK-AFM Document 69 Filed 08/06/18 Page 9 of 12 Page ID #: of $10.8 million would surely exceed that threshold as it is more than three times the actual damages. As such the proposed new PAGA allocation is a significant percentage of any PAGA award that could realistically be awarded. Further, as one district court has suggested PAGA awards that are accompanied by damage awards to the class should be judged according to a sliding scale. Viceral v. Mistras Group, 2016 WL *9 (N.D. Cal. 2016): Applying O Connor s sliding scale approach, settlement of the PAGA claim may be substantially reduced below its standalone settlement value without sacrificing its statutory purposes because the non PAGA settlement is relatively substantial. That is because an award of damages for wage and hour violations to the class serves the underlying purposes of the PAGA statute. O Connor v. Uber Technologies, Inc., 201 F.Supp.3d 1110, 1135 (N.D. Cal. 2016): By providing fair compensation to the class members as employees and substantial monetary relief, a settlement not only vindicates the rights of class members as employees, but may have a deterrent effect upon the defendant employer and other employers, an objective of PAGA. Therefore, the more robust the class relief is, the less substantial the PAGA relief needs to be. Here, the class relief is robust. The total settlement amount is $2.9 million. Taking out the new PAGA allocation that is $2,536,475. The potential exposure for damages is $3,313, Therefore, the gross class recovery (separate and apart from the PAGA allocation) is 76% of the potential damages that the class could have recovered. Under the sliding scale approach, even a very modest PAGA allocation would be permissible given the robust class relief. III. Support for the Requested Attorney Fees. In the Supplemental Declaration of Shaun Setareh, additional detail regarding the qualifications of the attorneys who worked on this matter is provided. 6

11 Case 5:16-cv JAK-AFM Document 69 Filed 08/06/18 Page 10 of 12 Page ID #: Setareh Decl. 4, The attorneys who worked on this matter have significant class action litigation experience. Id. The hourly rates are consistent with (and in fact less than) the hourly rates in the adjusted Laffey Matrix. Setareh Decl As the California Court of Appeal has explained: the Laffey Matrix is an official source of attorney rates based in the District of Columbia area, which can be adjusted... by using the Locality Pay Tables. Syers Properties III, Inc. v. Rankin, 226 Cal.App.4 th 691, 697 (2014). Courts in this district have recognized the appropriateness of using the Laffey Matrix to support billing rates. Jordan v. NCI Group, Inc., 2018 WL *5 (C.D. Cal. 2018); Shelby v. Two Jinns, Inc., 2017 WL *11 (C.D Cal. 2017); American Rena International Corp. v. Sis-Joyce International Co. Ltd., 2015 WL *41 (C.D. Cal. 2015). Further, as set forth in the Declaration of Shaun Setareh courts have repeatedly approved the hourly rates at issue. Setareh Decl Further, the hourly rates are within the range of rates approved by courts in Northern and Southern California for complex class actions, including wage-andhour actions. See, e.g., Wang v. Chinese Daily News, Inc., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS at 8 9 (C.D. Cal. filed Oct. 3, 2008) (in a wage-and-hour action, approving 2008 rates of up to $800 per hour), vacated on other grounds, 132 S. Ct. 74 (2011); Rutti, 2012 WL at 11 (in a wage-and-hour action, approving 2012 rates of up to $750 per hour); Pierce v. County of Orange, 905 F. Supp. 2d 1017, 1036 & n.16 (C.D. Cal. 2012) (approving 2012 rates of up to $850 per hour); In re HP Laser Printer Litig., 2011 WL at 5 6 (C.D. Cal. filed Aug. 31, 2011) (approving rates of up to $800 per hour); Perfect 10 v. Giganews Inc., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS (C.D. Cal. 2015) (approving 2015 rates of $750 for an 18 year attorney, $640 for a 12 year attorney, and $640 for a 7 year attorney, and $505 for a 3 year attorney); Stuart v. RadioShack Corp., No. C , 2010 U.S. Dist. 7

12 Case 5:16-cv JAK-AFM Document 69 Filed 08/06/18 Page 11 of 12 Page ID #: LEXIS 92067, at *16 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2010) (finding rates ranging between $600 and $1,000 reasonable); In re Apple Inc. Secs. Litig., No. 5:06-CV-05208, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52685, at *16 (N.D. Cal. May 17, 2011) (approving hourly rate of $836); In re TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litig., 2013 WL , at *9 (approving hourly rates up to $1000); In re Conseco Life Ins. Co. Life Trend Ins. Mktg. & Sales Practice Litig., No. C SI, 2014 WL , at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 16, 2014) (approving hourly rates up to $850); Kearney v. American Honda Motor Am U.S. Dist. LEXIS *24 (approving hourly rates of $650-$800 for senior attorneys in consumer class action); Holloway v. Best Buy Co., C PJH (MEJ) (N.D. Cal.) (approving 2011 partner rates of $825 to $700 an hour). The work done is also reasonable. Consistent with this Court s Standing Order, two charts summarizing the work done are attached to the Declaration of Shaun Setareh. Setareh Decl. Exhs. B and C. (Counsel is also providing editable electronic copies to the Court.) Plaintiff s counsel did substantial work on the case including legal research and analysis of the underlying claims, drafting pleadings, propounding and responding to written discovery, reviewing documents, drafting and coordinating the distribution of a Bel-Aire West notice to the class, interviewing putative class members, working up a class certification motion, working up a mediation brief, working with an expert on a damages analysis, drafting a motion for preliminary approval, and drafting supplemental briefing. Further Class Counsel will likely incur at least another 50 hours through final approval. Seterah Decl. 25. IV. The Requested Incentive Award is Also Reasonable. The Settlement provides for an incentive award of $7500 to the named plaintiff. The Ninth Circuit has established $5000 as a reasonable benchmark 8

13 Case 5:16-cv JAK-AFM Document 69 Filed 08/06/18 Page 12 of 12 Page ID #: award for representative plaintiffs. Chavez v. PVH Corp., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS *27 (N.D. Cal. 2015); Gaudin v. Saxon Mortg. Servs., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS *28( many courts in the Ninth Circuit have also held that a $5000 incentive award is presumptively reasonable. ) Here, the requested incentive award is slightly higher than the presumptively reasonable $5000 benchmark. As set forth in the chart attached as Exhibit D to the Declaration of Shaun Setareh and the in the Supplemental Declaration of Valeria Guerrero-Hernandez Plaintiff spent substantial time on this case. Additionally, Plaintiff incurred reputational risk suing her employer. Supplemental Guerrero-Hernandez Decl A Google search for Plaintiff s name reveals that of the first 10 results 5 are about this lawsuit. Under the circumstance of this case, the $7500 award is reasonable. V. Conclusion. For the reasons set forth herein, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court grant this Renewed Motion and direct notice to go to the class Dated: August 6, 2018 BY: Respectfully submitted, SETAREH LAW GROUP /S/ Shaun Setareh SHAUN SETAREH Attorney for Plaintiff, VALERIA GUERRERO- HERNANDEZ

14 Case 5:16-cv JAK-AFM Document 69-1 Filed 08/06/18 Page 1 of 6 Page ID #: Shaun Setareh (SBN ) shaun@setarehlaw.com Thomas Segal (SBN ) thomas@setarehlaw.com SETAREH LAW GROUP 9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 907 Beverly Hills, California Telephone: (310) Facsimile: (310) Attorneys for Plaintiff VALERIA GUERRERO-HERNANDEZ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA VALERIA GUERRERO- HERNANDEZ, on behalf of herself, all others similarly situated, v. Plaintiff, OZBURN-HESSEY LOGISTICS, LLC, a Tennessee limited liability corporation; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants. Case No. 5:16-cv JAK (AFMx) DECLARATION OF SHAUN SETAREH IN SUPPORT OF RENEWED MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT Date: November 19, 2018 Time: 8:30am Courtroom: 10B Guerrero-Hernandez v. Ozburn-Hessey Logistics 1 Declaration of Shaun Setareh ISO Renewed Motion for Preliminary Approval

15 Case 5:16-cv JAK-AFM Document 69-1 Filed 08/06/18 Page 2 of 6 Page ID #: DECLARATION OF SHAUN SETAREH I, Shaun Setareh, declare as follows: 1. I am an attorney in good standing duly admitted to practice before the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California and am an attorney of record for Plaintiff Valeria Guerrero-Hernandez ( Plaintiff or Class Representative ) in this action against Ozburn-Hessey Logistics, LLC ( OHL or Defendant ). 2. Except for those matters stated on information and belief, which I am informed and believe are true and correct, I have personal knowledge of all matters set forth herein. If called as a witness, I could and would competently testify thereto under oath. Revised Settlement Agreement 3. The parties have agreed to revise the Settlement Agreement in this case to increase the allocation for representative claims under California s Labor Code Private Attorney General Act from $50,000 to $373,525. A true and correct copy of the revised Settlement Agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit A. Attorney Fees 4. I received my undergraduate degree at UCLA in 1996 and my law degree from Loyola Law School in Since being admitted to the State Bar of California in 1999, I have actively practiced civil litigation for the entirety of that time period. 5. In addition to myself, the attorneys who worked on this matter are Thomas Segal a 2002 graduate of the University of California Hastings College of the Law who has more than 10 years of experience as a class action litigator, William Pao a 2002 graduate of Loyola Law School who prior to joining Setareh Law Group had extensive experience as an attorney counseling employers on compliance with wage and hour laws, Farrah Grant a 2013 graduate of UCLA Law School who has worked as a plaintiff s employment litigator since becoming an attorney, and Guerrero-Hernandez v. Ozburn-Hessey Logistics 2 Declaration of Shaun Setareh ISO Renewed Motion for Preliminary Approval

16 Case 5:16-cv JAK-AFM Document 69-1 Filed 08/06/18 Page 3 of 6 Page ID #: Stacey Shim a 2015 graduate of Loyola Law School. 6. My billing rate is $750 an hour. Mr. Segal s billing rate is $625 an hour. Mr. Pao s billing rate is $450 an hour. Ms. Grant s billing rate is $425 an hour. While Ms. Shim is no longer with Setareh Law Group her billing rate was $300 an hour. 7. I have been practicing law since I have been involved as lead or colead counsel in multiple wage and hour cases. I have argued before the California Court of Appeal and the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on multiple occasions. My billing rate of $750 an hour has been approved by courts including in 2018 in Garza v. Brinderson Constructors L.P., Northern District of California Case No. 5:15-cv EJD and Fronda v. Staffmark Holdings, Inc., Northern District of California Case No. 3:15-cv MEJ. 8. I am the owner and managing attorney of Setareh Law Group. All strategic decisions regarding the selection of clients to represent and the major strategic decisions fall to me to make or approve. 9. Mr. Segal graduated from the University of California Hastings College of the Law in He has been practicing almost exclusively plaintiff s side class actions and complex litigation since He has argued before the California Court of Appeal and the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. He has drafted many appellate briefs, class certification motions and summary judgment oppositions. He has been part of the trial team including crossexamining witnesses and arguing evidentiary issues in two class action trials including Kirk v. First American Title Company, Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC which resulted in a multimillion dollar judgment in favor of the putative class. Mr. Segal s billing rate of $625 an hour has been approved in 2018 in Garza v. Brinderson Constructors L.P., Northern District of California Case No. 5:15-cv EJD and Fronda v. Staffmark Holdings, Inc., Northern District of California Case No. 3:15-cv MEJ. In 2015 courts approved an Guerrero-Hernandez v. Ozburn-Hessey Logistics 3 Declaration of Shaun Setareh ISO Renewed Motion for Preliminary Approval

17 Case 5:16-cv JAK-AFM Document 69-1 Filed 08/06/18 Page 4 of 6 Page ID #: hourly rate of $600 an hour for Mr. Segal s services in Casey v. Orange County s Credit Union, Orange County Superior Court Case No and Cole v. Asurion Corp. et al, Central District of California Case No. CV Ms. Grant graduated from UCLA Law School in Since her graduation from law school, Ms. Grant has practiced plaintiff s side employment litigation. Ms. Grant has over four years of experience litigating wage and hour class actions. Ms. Grant s billing rate of $425 an hour has been approved in 2018 in Garza v. Brinderson Constructors L.P., Northern District of California Case No. 5:15-cv EJD,Christenson v. Facility Services of America, Inc., Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC and Calhoun v. Digital Intelligence Systems, LLC, Central District of California Case No. 2:14-cv Stacey Shim was admitted to practice law in California in Ms. Shim worked as a law clerk at Setareh Law Group for approximately one year before her admission. She possessed the equivalent of almost four years of experience with wage and hour class action litigation at the time of her resignation in early Ms. Shim s billing rate of $300 an hour has been approved in 2018 including in Christenson v. Facility Services of America, Inc., Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC and Fronda v. Staffmark Holdings, Inc. Northern District of California Case No. 3:15-cv MEJ William Pao was admitted to California in 2002 and is a graduate of Loyola Law School. For most of Mr. Pao s legal career he worked as an employment counseling attorney advising employers on compliance with California s wage and hour laws. Since 2016 Mr. Pao has worked as a class action litigator for Setareh Law Group. Mr. Pao s billing rate of $450 an hour has been approved in Garza v. Brinderson Constructors L.P., Northern District of California Case No. 5:15-cv EJD. 13. The hourly rates for the attorneys assigned to this case are supported by the Laffey Matrix. The Laffey Matrix states that an attorney with 11 to 19 Guerrero-Hernandez v. Ozburn-Hessey Logistics 4 Declaration of Shaun Setareh ISO Renewed Motion for Preliminary Approval

18 Case 5:16-cv JAK-AFM Document 69-1 Filed 08/06/18 Page 5 of 6 Page ID #: years experience can reasonably charge $742 per hour. However, that rate is derived from the Washington D.C. area and requires a cost of living correction for Los Angeles. Using federal statistics for average attorney salaries, attorney pay is 3.9% higher in Los Angeles and a 3.9% adjustment is appropriate. This suggests a rate of $770 would be appropriate for Mr. Setareh and Mr. Segal. Mr. Setareh s rate is slightly lower than this, Mr. Segal s rate is considerably lower. 14. For a 2013 graduate such as Ms. Grant, the Laffey Matrix indicates that an hourly rate of $455 is appropriate. Ms. Grant s hourly rate is less than this. 15. For a 2015 graduate such as Ms. Shim, the Laffey Matrix indicates that an hourly rate of $371 is appropriate. Ms. Shim s hourly rate is less than this. 16. For a 2002 graduate such as Mr. Pao the Laffey Matrix indicates that an hourly rate of $742 is appropriate. However, Mr. Pao s hourly rate is $450 based on the fact that Mr. Pao has only been practicing class action litigation since The lodestar in this matter as of March 26, 2018 (i.e. work done before the Court issued its Order Denying Preliminary Approval) is $328, as set forth in the below chart based on Setareh Law Group s time records: Attorney Year Hourly Rate Time Lodestar Admitted Shaun Setareh 1999 $ hours $113, Thomas Segal 2002 $ hours $115, Farrah Grant 2013 $ hours $81, William M $ hours $15, Pao Stacey Shim 2015 $ hours $ The work done by the attorneys working on this case includes drafting pleadings, propounding written discovery, reviewing documents produced by OHL, interviewing putative class members, working up and beginning the drafting Guerrero-Hernandez v. Ozburn-Hessey Logistics 5 Declaration of Shaun Setareh ISO Renewed Motion for Preliminary Approval

19 Case 5:16-cv JAK-AFM Document 69-1 Filed 08/06/18 Page 6 of 6 Page ID #: of drafting a motion for class certification, working up and drafting a mediation brief, working with an expert to analyze the data produced by OHL, and drafting a motion for preliminary approval. 23. A chart summarizing the work done by each of the above attorneys is attached hereto as Exhibit B. 24. A chart summarizing the work done by task is attached hereto as Exhibit C. 25. Between now and any final approval hearing in this case, I estimate based on experience that the Setareh Law Group will incur at least another $50,000 in attorney time including working with the settlement administrator, responding to inquiries from class members, drafting the final approval and attorney fee motions, and preparing for and attending the. Class Representative Enhancement Award 26. A chart summarizing the work done by class representative Valeria Guerrero-Hernandez is attached hereto as Exhibit D. I declare under the penalty of perjury of the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. Executed on August 6, 2018 at Beverly Hills, California. By: /S/ Shaun Setareh Shaun Setareh Declarant Guerrero-Hernandez v. Ozburn-Hessey Logistics 6 Declaration of Shaun Setareh ISO Renewed Motion for Preliminary Approval

20 Case 5:16-cv JAK-AFM Document 69-2 Filed 08/06/18 Page 1 of 40 Page ID #:782

21 Case 5:16-cv JAK-AFM Document 69-2 Filed 08/06/18 Page 2 of 40 Page ID #:783

22 Case 5:16-cv JAK-AFM Document 69-2 Filed 08/06/18 Page 3 of 40 Page ID #:784

23 Case 5:16-cv JAK-AFM Document 69-2 Filed 08/06/18 Page 4 of 40 Page ID #:785

24 Case 5:16-cv JAK-AFM Document 69-2 Filed 08/06/18 Page 5 of 40 Page ID #:786

25 Case 5:16-cv JAK-AFM Document 69-2 Filed 08/06/18 Page 6 of 40 Page ID #:787

26 Case 5:16-cv JAK-AFM Document 69-2 Filed 08/06/18 Page 7 of 40 Page ID #:788

27 Case 5:16-cv JAK-AFM Document 69-2 Filed 08/06/18 Page 8 of 40 Page ID #:789

28 Case 5:16-cv JAK-AFM Document 69-2 Filed 08/06/18 Page 9 of 40 Page ID #:790

29 Case 5:16-cv JAK-AFM Document 69-2 Filed 08/06/18 Page 10 of 40 Page ID #:791

30 Case 5:16-cv JAK-AFM Document 69-2 Filed 08/06/18 Page 11 of 40 Page ID #:792

31 Case 5:16-cv JAK-AFM Document 69-2 Filed 08/06/18 Page 12 of 40 Page ID #:793

32 Case 5:16-cv JAK-AFM Document 69-2 Filed 08/06/18 Page 13 of 40 Page ID #:794

33 Case 5:16-cv JAK-AFM Document 69-2 Filed 08/06/18 Page 14 of 40 Page ID #:795

34 Case 5:16-cv JAK-AFM Document 69-2 Filed 08/06/18 Page 15 of 40 Page ID #:796

35 Case 5:16-cv JAK-AFM Document 69-2 Filed 08/06/18 Page 16 of 40 Page ID #:797

36 Case 5:16-cv JAK-AFM Document 69-2 Filed 08/06/18 Page 17 of 40 Page ID #:798

37 Case 5:16-cv JAK-AFM Document 69-2 Filed 08/06/18 Page 18 of 40 Page ID #:799

38 Case 5:16-cv JAK-AFM Document 69-2 Filed 08/06/18 Page 19 of 40 Page ID #:800

39 Case 5:16-cv JAK-AFM Document 69-2 Filed 08/06/18 Page 20 of 40 Page ID #:801

40 Case 5:16-cv JAK-AFM Document 69-2 Filed 08/06/18 Page 21 of 40 Page ID #:802

41 Case 5:16-cv JAK-AFM Document 69-2 Filed 08/06/18 Page 22 of 40 Page ID #:803

42 Case 5:16-cv JAK-AFM Document 69-2 Filed 08/06/18 Page 23 of 40 Page ID #:804

43 Case 5:16-cv JAK-AFM Document 69-2 Filed 08/06/18 Page 24 of 40 Page ID #:805

44 Case 5:16-cv JAK-AFM Document 69-2 Filed 08/06/18 Page 25 of 40 Page ID #:806

45 Case 5:16-cv JAK-AFM Document 69-2 Filed 08/06/18 Page 26 of 40 Page ID #:807

46 Case 5:16-cv JAK-AFM Document 69-2 Filed 08/06/18 Page 27 of 40 Page ID #:808

47 Case 5:16-cv JAK-AFM Document 69-2 Filed 08/06/18 Page 28 of 40 Page ID #:809

48 Case 5:16-cv JAK-AFM Document 69-2 Filed 08/06/18 Page 29 of 40 Page ID #:810

49 Case 5:16-cv JAK-AFM Document 69-2 Filed 08/06/18 Page 30 of 40 Page ID #:811

50 Case 5:16-cv JAK-AFM Document 69-2 Filed 08/06/18 Page 31 of 40 Page ID #:812

51 Case 5:16-cv JAK-AFM Document 69-2 Filed 08/06/18 Page 32 of 40 Page ID #:813

52 Case 5:16-cv JAK-AFM Document 69-2 Filed 08/06/18 Page 33 of 40 Page ID #:814

53 Case 5:16-cv JAK-AFM Document 69-2 Filed 08/06/18 Page 34 of 40 Page ID #:815

54 Case 5:16-cv JAK-AFM Document 69-2 Filed 08/06/18 Page 35 of 40 Page ID #:816

55 Case 5:16-cv JAK-AFM Document 69-2 Filed 08/06/18 Page 36 of 40 Page ID #:817

56 Case 5:16-cv JAK-AFM Document 69-2 Filed 08/06/18 Page 37 of 40 Page ID #:818

57 Case 5:16-cv JAK-AFM Document 69-2 Filed 08/06/18 Page 38 of 40 Page ID #:819

58 Case 5:16-cv JAK-AFM Document 69-2 Filed 08/06/18 Page 39 of 40 Page ID #:820

59 Case 5:16-cv JAK-AFM Document 69-2 Filed 08/06/18 Page 40 of 40 Page ID #:821

60 Case 5:16-cv JAK-AFM Document 69-3 Filed 08/06/18 Page 1 of 4 Page ID #:822

61 Case 5:16-cv JAK-AFM Document 69-3 Filed 08/06/18 Page 2 of 4 Page ID #:823

62 Case 5:16-cv JAK-AFM Document 69-3 Filed 08/06/18 Page 3 of 4 Page ID #:824

63 Case 5:16-cv JAK-AFM Document 69-3 Filed 08/06/18 Page 4 of 4 Page ID #:825

64 Case 5:16-cv JAK-AFM Document 69-4 Filed 08/06/18 Page 1 of 6 Page ID #:826

65 Case 5:16-cv JAK-AFM Document 69-4 Filed 08/06/18 Page 2 of 6 Page ID #:827

66 Case 5:16-cv JAK-AFM Document 69-4 Filed 08/06/18 Page 3 of 6 Page ID #:828

67 Case 5:16-cv JAK-AFM Document 69-4 Filed 08/06/18 Page 4 of 6 Page ID #:829

68 Case 5:16-cv JAK-AFM Document 69-4 Filed 08/06/18 Page 5 of 6 Page ID #:830

69 Case 5:16-cv JAK-AFM Document 69-4 Filed 08/06/18 Page 6 of 6 Page ID #:831

70 Case 5:16-cv JAK-AFM Document 69-5 Filed 08/06/18 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:832

71 Case 5:16-cv JAK-AFM Document 69-5 Filed 08/06/18 Page 2 of 2 Page ID #:833

72 DocuSign Envelope ID: B3F7A3B0-E A-99D0-00E1ABBE489D Case 5:16-cv JAK-AFM Document 69-6 Filed 08/06/18 Page 1 of 4 Page ID #: Shaun Setareh (SBN ) shaun@setarehlaw.com Thomas Segal (SBN ) thomas@setarehlaw.com SETAREH LAW GROUP 9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 907 Beverly Hills, California Telephone: (310) Facsimile: (310) Attorneys for Plaintiff VALERIA GUERRERO-HERNANDEZ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA VALERIA GUERRERO- HERNANDEZ, on behalf of herself, all others similarly situated, v. Plaintiff, OZBURN-HESSEY LOGISTICS, LLC, a Tennessee limited liability corporation; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants. Case No. 5:16-cv JAK (AFMx) DECLARATION OF VALERIA GUERRERO-HERNANDEZ IN SUPPORT OF SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF RE PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT Date: February 26, 2018 Time: 8:30am Courtroom: 10B Guerrero-Hernandez v. Ozburn-Hessey Logistics 1 Declaration of Valeria Guerrero-Hernandez ISO Motion for Preliminary Approval

73 DocuSign Envelope ID: B3F7A3B0-E A-99D0-00E1ABBE489D Case 5:16-cv JAK-AFM Document 69-6 Filed 08/06/18 Page 2 of 4 Page ID #: DECLARATION OF VALERIA GUERRERO-HERNANDEZ I, Valeria Guerrero-Hernandez, declare as follows: 1. Except as otherwise indicated, I have personal knowledge of all matters set forth herein and, if called upon as a witness, could and would competently testify thereto. 2. I am the named plaintiff and class representative in this action against Defendant Ozburn-Hessey Logistics LLC. ( Defendant ). 3. I understand that, as class representative, I have certain duties and responsibilities to the class, and I believe that I have fairly represented the interests of all class members during the entire course of this case. 4. I worked for Defendant in an hourly position in the State of California during the relevant Class Period. 5. After my attorneys provided me with information regarding class actions, how they work, and what my duties would be as the class representative, I agreed to serve as the class representative in this case so that I could seek to recover penalties on behalf of myself and other employees like me. 6. I have considered the interests of the Settlement Class just as I would consider my own interests, have put the interests of the Settlement Class before my own interests by retaining experienced counsel and carefully considering the impact that the Settlement in this case would have on them, and I understand that the Settlement in this case is subject to this Court s approval to ensure that it is in the best interest of the class as a whole. 7. I have spent a lot of time in connection with this case to date, close to thirty (30) hours. Such time prevented me from spending time with my family, working, or engaging in other personal pursuits. The activities I have spent this time on include, but are not limited to: (i) retaining experienced counsel, (ii) Guerrero-Hernandez v. Ozburn-Hessey Logistics 2 Declaration of Valeria Guerrero-Hernandez ISO Motion for Preliminary Approval

74 DocuSign Envelope ID: B3F7A3B0-E A-99D0-00E1ABBE489D Case 5:16-cv JAK-AFM Document 69-6 Filed 08/06/18 Page 3 of 4 Page ID #: providing them with extensive information about my work history with Defendant and Defendant s policies and practices; (iii) gathering documents as instructed by my attorneys, (iv) responding to written discovery responses; (v) assisting my counsel in preparing for settlement negotiations, (vi) attending the full-day mediation in this case, (vii) time spent being actively involved in the settlement process to ensure a fair result for the Settlement Class as a whole, and (viii) time spent carefully reviewing the Settlement, and other case-related documents on my own and with my counsel to make sure that the Settlement and other work my attorneys performed are in the best interests of the Settlement Class Members. 8. I understand that my attorneys are submitting an application to this Court for an Incentive Award to compensate me for my unique contributions to the success of this action in the amount of $7,500. I believe this amount is fair and reasonable compensation for my efforts in this case and the risks I have taken in pursuing a fair recovery for the Settlement Class. The payment to me of the enhancement award of $7,500 is also not equal to the harm to my current or future career prospects that this case may cause me. There is now a public record -- this publicly filed lawsuit -- that I served as a class representative in a class action case against a former employer. This may especially hurt my chances of getting a job with prospective employers. 9. I have gone on job interviews since the filing of this case. I have not received job offers for all the positions I interviewed for, potentially in part because of my service as the named Plaintiff in this lawsuit against my previous employer. I have suffered stress and anxiety due to the fact that my career opportunities are impacted by this lawsuit being in the public record. 10. Before I filed this case, my attorneys also advised me of the possibility that, if the case was lost, I could have been ordered to pay Defendant s Guerrero-Hernandez v. Ozburn-Hessey Logistics 3 Declaration of Valeria Guerrero-Hernandez ISO Motion for Preliminary Approval

75 DocuSign Envelope ID: B3F7A3B0-E A-99D0-00E1ABBE489D Case 5:16-cv JAK-AFM Document 69-6 Filed 08/06/18 Page 4 of 4 Page ID #: costs, which easily could have totaled tens of thousands of dollars by the end. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of California and the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on August 2, 2018 at Los Angeles, California. By: Valeria Hernandez-Guerrero Declarant Guerrero-Hernandez v. Ozburn-Hessey Logistics 4 Declaration of Valeria Guerrero-Hernandez ISO Motion for Preliminary Approval

76 Case 5:16-cv JAK-AFM Document 69-7 Filed 08/06/18 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #: Shaun Setareh (SBN ) Shaun@setarehlaw.com Thomas Segal (SBN ) Thomas@setarehlaw.com Farrah Grant (SBN ) Farrah@setarehlaw.com SETAREH LAW GROUP 9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Ste. 907 Beverly Hills, California Tel: (310) , Fax: (310) Attorneys for Plaintiff, VALERIA GUERRERO-HERNANDEZ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA VALERIA GUERRERO- HERNANDEZ, on behalf of herself, all others similarly situated, v. Plaintiff, OZBURN-HESSEY LOGISTICS, LLC, a Tennessee limited liability corporation; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 5:16-cv JAK (AFMx) NOTICE OF LODGING OF [PROPOSED] ORDER RE PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT Date: November 19, 2018 Time: 8:30am Courtroom: 10B

77 Case 5:16-cv JAK-AFM Document 69-7 Filed 08/06/18 Page 2 of 2 Page ID #: TO THE COURT, ALL PARTIES, AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Plaintiff is lodging the Proposed Order re Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement Dated: August 6, 2018 SETAREH LAW GROUP BY: /S/ Shaun Setareh SHAUN SETAREH Attorney for Plaintiff, VALERIA GUERRERO- HERNANDEZ 2

78 Case 5:16-cv JAK-AFM Document 69-8 Filed 08/06/18 Page 1 of 4 Page ID #: VALERIA GUERRERO- HERNANDEZ, on behalf of herself, all others similarly situated, v. Plaintiff, OZBURN-HESSEY LOGISTICS, LLC, a Tennessee limited liability corporation; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Case No. 5:16-cv JAK (AFMx) [PROPOSED] ORDER PRELIMINARILY APPROVING CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT PURSUANT TO THE TERMS OF JOINT STIPULATION RE: CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT Complaint Filed: April 22, 2016 Removal Filed: June 3, 2016 Trial Date: None District Judge: Hon. John A. Kronstadt Courtroom 10B, 1st St. Magistrate Judge: Hon. Alexander F. MacKinnon Courtroom 930, Spring St Case No. 5:16-cv JAK (AFMx) [PROPOSED] ORDER PRELIMINARILY APPROVING CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

79 Case 5:16-cv JAK-AFM Document 69-8 Filed 08/06/18 Page 2 of 4 Page ID #: This matter came on for hearing on November 19, 2018 upon the Renewed Motion for Preliminary Approval of the proposed settlement of this action on the terms set forth in the Joint Stipulation re: Class Action Settlement (the Settlement or Stipulation ). Having considered the Settlement, all papers and proceedings held herein, and having reviewed the entire record in this action, Case No. 5:16-cv JAK (AFMx), entitled Valeria Guerrero-Hernandez v. Ozburn-Hessey Logistics, LLC (the Action ), and good cause appearing, the Court finds that: WHEREAS, plaintiff Valeria Guerrero-Hernandez has alleged claims against defendant Geodis Logistics LLC, formerly known as Ozburn-Hessey Logistics, LLC ( Defendant ) on behalf of herself and on behalf of others similarly situated, comprising all individuals who worked for Defendant in a non-exempt hourly position in the State of California, including, but not limited to, International Division employees of Geodis USA, Inc. (a wholly owned subsidiary of Geodis Logistics LLC) and persons who worked at Defendant s facilities and who were paid through third-party staffing agencies, at any time during the period from April 22, 2012 to the date of this Order; and WHEREAS, Plaintiff asserts claims against Defendant for (1) failure to provide meal periods; (2) failure to provide rest periods; (3) failure to pay hourly wages; (4) failure to provide accurate written wage statements; (5) failure to timely pay all final wages; (6) unfair competition ; and (7) civil penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act based on these alleged violations; and WHEREAS, Defendant expressly denies the allegations of wrongdoing and violations of law alleged in this Action, and further denies any liability whatsoever to Plaintiff or to the Class Members; and WHEREAS, without admitting any liability, claim, or defense, Plaintiff and Defendant (collectively, the Parties ) determined that it was mutually advantageous to settle this Action and to avoid the costs, delay, uncertainty, and business disruption of ongoing litigation; and 1 Case No. 5:16-cv JAK (AFMx) [PROPOSED] ORDER PRELIMINARILY APPROVING CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

80 Case 5:16-cv JAK-AFM Document 69-8 Filed 08/06/18 Page 3 of 4 Page ID #: WHEREAS, the Parties agreed to resolve the Action and entered into the Stipulation on or about December 26, 2017 which was amended on or about August 6, 2018, which provides for a complete dismissal, with prejudice, of the claims asserted in the Action against Defendant on the terms and conditions set forth in the Stipulation, subject to the approval of this Court; NOW, therefore, the Court grants preliminary approval of the Settlement, and IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED THAT: 1. To the extent defined in the Joint Stipulation re: Class Action Settlement, and incorporated herein by reference, the terms in this Order shall have the meanings set forth therein. 2. The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this Action, Defendant, and the Class. 3. The Class is defined as follows: All individuals who work or who have worked for Defendant in a non-exempt hourly position in the State of California, including, but not limited to, International Division employees of Geodis USA, Inc. (a wholly owned subsidiary of Geodis Logistics LLC) and persons who worked at Defendant s facilities and who were paid through third-party staffing agencies, at any time during the Class Period, and who do not timely opt out of participation in the Action. 4. The Court has determined that the intended notice to be given to the Class fully and accurately informs all persons in the Class of all material elements of the proposed Settlement, constitutes the best notice practicable under the circumstances, and constitutes valid, due, and sufficient notice to all Class Members. 5. The Court hereby grants preliminary approval of the Settlement and Stipulation as fair, reasonable, and adequate in all respects to the Class Members and Orders the parties to consummate the Settlement in accordance with the terms of the Stipulation. 6. The plan of distribution as set forth in the Stipulation providing for the 2 Case No. 5:16-cv JAK (AFMx) [PROPOSED] ORDER PRELIMINARILY APPROVING CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT