Case 5:15-cv BLF Document 54 Filed 08/10/17 Page 1 of 26

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "Case 5:15-cv BLF Document 54 Filed 08/10/17 Page 1 of 26"

Transcription

1 Case 5:15-cv BLF Document 54 Filed 08/10/17 Page 1 of Reuben D. Nathan, Esq. (SBN ) rnathan@nathanlawpractice.com NATHAN & ASSOCIATES, APC 600 W Broadway, Suite 700 San Diego, CA Tel: (619) Facsimile: (619) L. Timothy Fisher (State Bar No ) ltfisher@bursor.com BURSOR & FISHER, P.A North California Blvd., Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA Telephone: (925) Facsimile: (925) Attorneys for Plaintiffs EHDER SOTO, HENEY SHIHAD and the Proposed Class UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EHDER SOTO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. WILD PLANET FOODS, INC., NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Plaintiff, Defendant. HENEY SHIHAD, an individual on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. Plaintiff, WILD PLANET FOODS, INC. and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Defendants. Case No. 5:15-cv BLF Case No. 1:16-cv BLF PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS FEES, COSTS AND EXPENSES, AND INCENTIVE AWARDS FOR THE CLASS REPRESENTATIVES Date: September 14, 2017 Time: 1:30 p.m. Courtroom: Courtroom 3-5th Floor Honorable Beth Labson Freeman MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS FEES, COSTS AND EXPENSES, AND INCENTIVE AWARDS FOR THE CLASS REPRESENTATIVES CASE NO. 5:15-CV BLF

2 Case 5:15-cv BLF Document 54 Filed 08/10/17 Page 2 of NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT on September 14, 2017 at 1:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard by the above-captioned Court, located at San Jose Courthouse, Courtroom 3-5th Floor, 280 South 1st Street, San Jose, CA 95113, in the courtroom of the Honorable Beth Labson Freeman, Plaintiffs will and hereby do move, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e), for an order awarding attorneys fees, reimbursement of litigation costs and expenses, and payment of incentive fees to Mr. Soto and Mr. Shihad. 1 This motion is made on the grounds that an award of attorneys fees, reimbursement of litigation costs and expenses, and payment of incentive fees is proper, given that the parties have agreed that Class Counsel may make such applications in their Stipulation of Settlement, the work of Class Counsel has conferred substantial benefits to the Class, and that such awards are permitted under the laws of this Circuit. This motion is based on the attached Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the accompanying Declarations of Reuben D. Nathan, L. Timothy Fisher, Ross Cornell, Eric Robin, the pleadings and papers on file herein, and any other written and oral arguments that may be presented to the Court. CIVIL RULE 7-4(a)(3) STATEMENT OF ISSUE TO BE DECIDED Whether the Court should award attorneys fees, reimbursement of litigation costs and expenses and payment of incentive fees to the Class Representatives All capitalized terms herein that are not otherwise defined have the definitions set forth in the Settlement Agreement. See 12/23/16 Stipulation for Class Action Settlement [Dckt. No. 44] MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS FEES, COSTS AND EXPENSES, AND INCENTIVE AWARDS FOR THE CLASS REPRESENTATIVES CASE NO. 5:15-CV BLF i

3 Case 5:15-cv BLF Document 54 Filed 08/10/17 Page 3 of Dated: August 11, 2017 Respectfully submitted, NATHAN & ASSOCIATES, APC By: /s/ Reuben D. Nathan Reuben D. Nathan Reuben D. Nathan, Esq. (SBN ) rnathan@nathanlawpractice.com NATHAN & ASSOCIATES, APC 600 W Broadway, Suite 700 San Diego, CA Tel: (619) Facsimile: (619) Class Counsel 28 MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS FEES, COSTS AND EXPENSES, AND INCENTIVE AWARDS FOR THE CLASS REPRESENTATIVES CASE NO. 5:15-CV BLF ii

4 Case 5:15-cv BLF Document 54 Filed 08/10/17 Page 4 of TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE(S) I. INTRODUCTION... 1 II. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY... 2 III. SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT... 3 IV. A. Payments To Settlement Class Members Breakdown Of Payments To Class Members The Remarkable Results Achieved For Class Members... 3 B. Payment Of Attorneys Fees, Costs, And Incentive Awards... 4 THE CLRA PROVIDES FOR A MANDATORY AWARD OF ATTORNEYS FEES TO THE PREVAILING PARTY... 4 V. CLASS COUNSEL S REQUESTED ATTORNEYS FEES AWARD IS FAIR, REASONABLE, AND ADEQUATE... 5 A. The Percentage Of The Benefit Method The Total Value Of The Settlement Fund Is $1.7 Million All of the Relevant Factors Favor Upward Departure From The Ninth's Circuit 25% Benchmark... 6 a. Class Counsel Achieved Extraordinary Results For The Class... 6 b. Plaintiffs Novel Claims Carried Substantial Litigation Risk... 7 c. Class Counsel Generated Benefits Beyond The Settlement Fund... 8 d. Market Rates As Reflected By Awards In Similar Cases... 8 e. The Contingent Nature Of The Fee And Financial Burden Borne By Class Counsel f. The Quality Of Work By Class Counsel B. The Requested Attorneys Fees Are Reasonable Under A Lodestar Cross-Check C. The Court May Alternatively Grant The Requested Attorneys Fees Under The Lodestar Method Class Counsel Spent A Reasonable Number Of Hours On This Litigation At A Reasonable Hourly Rate All Relevant Factors Support Applying A Multiplier To Class Counsel s Lodestar MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS FEES, COSTS AND EXPENSES, AND INCENTIVE AWARDS FOR THE CLASS REPRESENTATIVES CASE NO. 5:15-CV BLF iii

5 Case 5:15-cv BLF Document 54 Filed 08/10/17 Page 5 of VI. VII. a. Novelty And Complexity Of This Litigation b. Class Counsel Provided Exceptional Representation Prosecuting This Complex Case c. Class Counsel Obtained Excellent Class Benefits d. Class Counsel Faced A Substantial Risk Of Nonpayment CLASS COUNSEL S EXPENSES WERE REASONABLE AND NECESSARILY INCURRED TO ACHIEVE THE BENEFIT OBTAINED ON BEHALF OF THE CLASS THE REQUESTED INCENTIVE AWARDS FOR THE CLASS REPRESENTATIVE AND INTERESTED PARTIES ARE FAIR AND REASONABLE VIII. CONCLUSION MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS FEES, COSTS AND EXPENSES, AND INCENTIVE AWARDS FOR THE CLASS REPRESENTATIVES CASE NO. 5:15-CV BLF iv

6 Case 5:15-cv BLF Document 54 Filed 08/10/17 Page 6 of CASES TABLE OF AUTHORITIES MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS FEES, COSTS AND EXPENSES, AND INCENTIVE AWARDS FOR THE CLASS REPRESENTATIVES CASE NO. 5:15-CV BLF PAGE(S) Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886 (1984) Caudle v. Bristow Optical Co., 224 F.3d 1014 (9th Cir. 2000) Consumer Privacy Cases, 175 Cal. App. 4th 545 (2009)... 6 Cosgrove v. Sullivan, 759 F. Supp. 166 (S.D.N.Y. 1991) Fischel v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc y, 307 F.3d 997 (9th Cir. 2002)... 5 Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 1998)... 5, 6, 12 Harris v. Marhoefer, 24 F.3d 16 (9th Cir. 1994) Hartless v. Clorox Co., 273 F.R.D. 630 (S.D. Cal. 2011)... 5 Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983) In re Activision Sec. Litig., 723 F. Supp (N.D. Cal. 1989)... 9 In re Beverly Hills Fire Litig., 639 F. Supp. 915 (E.D. Ky. 1986) In re Bluetooth Headset Prods. Liab. Litig., 654 F.3d 935 (9th Cir. 2011) In re Boston & Me. Corp. v. Sheehan, Phinney, Bass & Green, 778 F.2d 890 (1st Cir. 1985)... 10, 14 In re Cenco Inc. Sec. Litig., 519 F. Supp. 322 (N.D. Ill. 1981) In re King Res. Co. Sec. Litig., 420 F. Supp. 610 (D. Colo. 1976) In re OmniVision Techs., 559 F. Supp. 2d 1036 (N.D. Cal. 2007) In re Pac. Enters. Sec. Litig., 47 F.3d 373 (9th Cir. 1995)... 5, 9 v

7 Case 5:15-cv BLF Document 54 Filed 08/10/17 Page 7 of In re Warner Commc ns Sec. Litig., 618 F. Supp. 735 (S.D.N.Y. 1985) In re Wash. Pub. Power Supply Sys. Sec. Litig., 19 F.3d 1291 (9th Cir. 1994) Ingalls v. Hallmark Mktg. Corp., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS (C.D. Cal. Oct. 16, 2009) Kerr v. Screen Extras Guild, Inc., 526 F.2d 67 (9th Cir. 1975)... 12, 14 Kim v. Euromotors West/The Auto Gallery, 149 Cal. App. 4th 170 (2007)... 5 Lealao v. Beneficial California, Inc, 82 Cal. App. 4th 19 (2000)... 5 Martin v. AmeriPride Servs., Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS (S.D. Cal. June 9, 2011)... 9 Morales v. City of San Rafael, 96 F.3d 359 (9th Cir. 1996) Morris v. Lifescan, Inc., 54 F. App x 663 (9th Cir. 2003)... 5, 9 Muchnick v. First Fed. Savs. & Loan Assoc. of Phil., 1986 U.S. Dist. LEXIS (E.D. Pa. Sept. 30, 1986) Municipal Auth. of Bloomsburg v. Pennsylvania, 527 F. Supp. 982 (M.D. Pa. 1981) Paul, Johnson, Alston & Hunt v. Graulty, 886 F.2d 268 (9th Cir. 1989)... 6 Perera v. Chiron Corp., Civ. No SW (N.D. Cal. 1999, 2000) Rabin v. Concord Assets Grp., Inc., 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 19, 1991) Rippee v. Boston Mkt. Corp., No. 05-CV-1359 TM (JMA) (Dkt. No. 70, at 7) (S.D. Cal. Oct. 10, 2006) Roberts v. Texaco, Inc., 979 F. Supp. 185 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) Rodriguez v. W. Publ g Corp., 563 F.3d 948 (9th Cir. 2009) Singer v. Becton Dickinson & Co., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS (S.D. Cal. June 1, 2010)... 9 MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS FEES, COSTS AND EXPENSES, AND INCENTIVE AWARDS FOR THE CLASS REPRESENTATIVES CASE NO. 5:15-CV BLF vi

8 Case 5:15-cv BLF Document 54 Filed 08/10/17 Page 8 of State of Florida v. Dunne, 915 F.2d 542 (9th Cir. 1990)... 5 Staton v. Boeing, 327 F.3d 938 (9th Cir. 2003)... 5 Van Vranken v. Atl. Richfield Co., 901 F. Supp. 294 (N.D. Cal. 1995) Vasquez v. Coast Valley Roofing, Inc., 266 F.R.D. 482 (E.D. Cal. 2010)... 9 Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corp., 290 F.3d 1043 (9th Cir. 2002)... 6 Williams v. MGM-Pathe Commc ns Co., 129 F.3d 1026 (9th Cir. 1997)... 6, 9 Young v. Polo Retail, LLC, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS (N.D. Cal. Mar. 28, 2007)... 6 STATUTES Civil Code Civil Code 1780(d)... 4, 5 TREATISES Alba Conte & Herbert B. Newberg, Newberg on Class Actions 14:03 (3d ed. 1992) Manual for Complex Litigation (4th ed. 2008)... 6 William B. Rubenstein, Newberg on Class Actions 12:17 (5th ed. 2014)... 7 REGULATIONS 21 C.F.R MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS FEES, COSTS AND EXPENSES, AND INCENTIVE AWARDS FOR THE CLASS REPRESENTATIVES CASE NO. 5:15-CV BLF vii

9 Case 5:15-cv BLF Document 54 Filed 08/10/17 Page 9 of I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs Ehder Soto and Heney Shihad (the Class Representatives or the Plaintiffs ) and Nathan & Associates, APC, Law Offices of Ross Cornell, APC and Bursor & Fisher, P.A. ( Class Counsel ) respectfully submit this memorandum of law in support of their motion for an award of attorneys fees, reimbursement of litigation costs and expenses, and payment of incentive awards in connection with the classwide settlement of this action. The Settlement Fund comprises $1.7 million in cash. See 12/23/16 Stipulation for Class Action Settlement [Dckt. No. 44] at 7: Class Members may claim $29 in cash subject to pro rata dilution. Id. at 10:3-4. The Class is defined to include: Id. at 7:9-13. All residents of the United States of America who, from November 5, 2011 to May 12, 2017, purchased any can of branded tuna produced by, for, or on behalf of WP, including cans sold under the Wild Planet brand and the Sustainable Seas brand. To date, the response to the settlement has been extremely positive. In addition to the Courtordered notice program, information about the settlement was advertised on and In addition Top Class Actions provided notice of the settlement on their websites and/or facebook pages. Nathan Decl. 7. As of August 3, 2017, there have been 67,017 claims submitted, zero (0) objections, and zero (0) opt-outs. Id. at 9. The instant settlement has obtained this substantial response already, with three weeks still remaining before the August 25, 2017 claim filing deadline. Throughout this process, Class Counsel has achieved significant cost savings for the Class. For example, KCC Class Action Services, LLC, agreed to cap their costs at $350,000.00, which led to their selection and court appointment as claims administrator. See 12/23/16 Stipulation for Class Action Settlement at 9:7-9; 5/12/17 Order Granting Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement [Dckt. No. 52] at 7: This will save the Class in administrative expenses that would have been paid from the Settlement Fund. By striking a hard bargain with KCC, Class Counsel has thus garnered even more value for Class Members than the settlement originally provided. MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS FEES, COSTS AND EXPENSES, 1 AND INCENTIVE AWARDS FOR THE CLASS REPRESENTATIVES CASE NO. 5:15-CV BLF

10 Case 5:15-cv BLF Document 54 Filed 08/10/17 Page 10 of In light of these considerations, Class Counsel requests that the Court approve an award of attorneys fees of 33.33% of the $1,700,000 Settlement Fund, or $566,100. This method of calculating the fee award, based on a percentage of the Settlement Fund, is straightforward, is fair under the circumstances, and is supported by the laws of this Circuit. See Parts V.A.1 V.A.2, below. Cross-checking this percentage fee against the Class Counsel s lodestar validates its reasonableness. As of August 8, 2017, Class Counsel s respective firms had worked hours on this case for a total lodestar fee, at current billing rates, of $200, Nathan Decl , Ex. B; Fisher Decl. 11, 12, Ex. B; Cornell Decl. 5, Ex. B (detailed billing diaries for this case). This represents a blended hourly rate of less than $580.00, which is well within the bounds of reasonable hourly rates in this District. A fee award of 33.33%, or $566, would represent a multiplier of 2.8 over the base lodestar fee, Nathan Decl. 46, which is fair and reasonable and well within the accepted range of mulitpliers approved by courts in the Ninth Circuit. See Parts V.C.2.a V.C.2.d, below (discussing the factors supporting the application of a multiplier to Class Counsel s lodestar). Class Counsel also seeks reimbursement of $7, in out-of-pocket expenses. See Nathan Decl. 48; Fisher Decl , Ex. C; Cornell Decl The expenses were necessary to the prosecution of this case, were carefully and reasonably expended, and should be reimbursed II. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY The Declaration of Reuben D. Nathan, submitted herewith, contains a detailed discussion of the background and procedural history of this case, including (i) Plaintiffs pre-suit investigation and product testing with the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, (ii) the pleadings, (iii) discovery, (iv) ongoing and lengthy settlement discussions for more than 6 months, (v) the parties arm s-length settlement negotiations, and (vi) preliminary approval and dissemination of notice MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS FEES, COSTS AND EXPENSES, 2 AND INCENTIVE AWARDS FOR THE CLASS REPRESENTATIVES CASE NO. 5:15-CV BLF

11 Case 5:15-cv BLF Document 54 Filed 08/10/17 Page 11 of III. SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT CASH FUND $1,700, Total Cash Fund -$350, KCC Administrative Expense -$566, Attorney s Fees at 33.33% -$7, Expense Reimbursement -$10, Class Rep Incentive Award $766, Subtotal / 67,017 Cash Claims Total $11.44 Payout Per Cash Claim A. Payments To Settlement Class Members 1. Breakdown Of Payments To Class Members Through August 3, 2017, Class Members have submitted 67,017 claims for cash remuneration. See Nathan Decl. 37. Assuming that Class Counsel s motion for attorneys fees, reimbursement of costs and expenses and payment of incentive awards is granted in full, and subject to further dilution between now and the end of the claim period, Class Members will be paid $11.44 per claim. Id. 2. The Remarkable Results Achieved For Class Members This is an excellent recovery that will fully compensate most Class Members for 100% of their alleged losses and that, in many cases, will reflect a multiple of Class Members losses. Industry data produced by Wild Planet shows that the average retail price for 5-ounce cans of Wild 25 Planet tuna was approximately $2.56 during the Class Period. 2 Testing with NOAA showed an The blended average retail price for Sustainable Seas Sold White Albacore Tuna in Water and Sustainable Seas Solid Light Tuna in Water was $2.62. Id. The average retail price for Wild Planet Albacore (which constituted 55% of the all Wild Planet tuna sold during the Class Period) was $2.50. The average of these figures comes to $2.56. Nathan Decl. 40. MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS FEES, COSTS AND EXPENSES, 3 AND INCENTIVE AWARDS FOR THE CLASS REPRESENTATIVES CASE NO. 5:15-CV BLF

12 Case 5:15-cv BLF Document 54 Filed 08/10/17 Page 12 of average underfill between 3.2% to 7%, resulting in damages of approximately 8 cents to 18 cents per can. This yields an average of 13 cents per can. Nathan Decl. 40. Accordingly, an $11.44 cash payment would provide full recovery for approximately 88 cans per cash Claimant. Id. By contrast, in the Hendricks v. StarKist, et al., Case No. 13-cv HSG (N.D. Cal.) ( StarKist matter ) each class member recovered $2.11. The StarKist court awarded 33.3% in Attorney s Fees to Bursor & Fisher, LLP; the value of the instant settlement is approximately 5 times the recovery per class member as it was in the StarKist matter. B. Payment Of Attorneys Fees, Costs, And Incentive Awards The Settlement Agreement permits Class Counsel to apply for an award of attorneys fees not to exceed one-third of the total $1.7 million value of the Settlement Fund, plus any award of costs and expenses. Settlement Agreement 1.25 [Dckt. 44]. The Settlement Agreement also permits Class Counsel to apply for Incentive Awards to the Class Representative and/or Interested Parties, not to exceed $5,000 per individual. Id At no point has Class Counsel negotiated its attorneys fees with Wild Planet. Nathan Decl. 58. Nor does the Settlement Agreement have a clear sailing provision. Id. The Settlement Agreement does permit Class Counsel to apply for up to one-third of the Settlement Fund for its attorneys fees, but Wild Planet is free to oppose this request. Id. IV. THE CLRA PROVIDES FOR A MANDATORY AWARD OF ATTORNEYS FEES TO THE PREVAILING PARTY The Class Representatives brought claims against Wild Planet under California s Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Civil Code 1750, et seq. (the CLRA ). For CLRA claims, an award of fees to the prevailing party is mandatory under Civil Code 1780(d), which provides: The court shall award court costs and attorney s fees to a prevailing plaintiff in litigation filed pursuant to this section. As the California Court of Appeal has explained, in construing this provision: The word shall is usually deemed mandatory, unless a mandatory construction would not be consistent with the legislative purpose underlying the statute. (West Shield Investigations and Sec. Consultants v. Superior Court (2000) 82 Cal. App. 4th 935, 949, 98 Cal.Rptr.2d 612.) Our Supreme Court has observed that the availability of costs and attorneys fees to prevailing plaintiffs is integral to making the CLRA an effective piece of consumer MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS FEES, COSTS AND EXPENSES, 4 AND INCENTIVE AWARDS FOR THE CLASS REPRESENTATIVES CASE NO. 5:15-CV BLF

13 Case 5:15-cv BLF Document 54 Filed 08/10/17 Page 13 of legislation, increasing the financial feasibility of bringing suits under the statute. (Broughton v. Cigna Healthplans (1999) 21 Cal. 4th 1066, 1085, 90 Cal. Rptr. 2d 334, 988 P.2d 67.) Thus, a mandatory construction of the word shall in section 1780(d) is consistent with the legislative purpose underlying the statute. Kim v. Euromotors West/The Auto Gallery, 149 Cal. App. 4th 170, 178 (2007). Here, the Class has recovered a Settlement with a total value of $1,700,000. The Class is thus the prevailing party, and a fee award to Class Counsel is mandatory under the CLRA. V. CLASS COUNSEL S REQUESTED ATTORNEYS FEES AWARD IS FAIR AND REASONABLE Under Ninth Circuit standards, a District Court may award attorneys fees under either the percentage-of-the-benefit method or the lodestar method. Fischel v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc y, 307 F.3d 997, 1006 (9th Cir. 2002); Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1029 (9th Cir. 1998). Class Counsel s fee request is fair and reasonable under either of these methods. A. The Percentage Of The Benefit Method Under the common fund doctrine, courts typically award attorneys fees based on a percentage of the total settlement. See State of Florida v. Dunne, 915 F.2d 542, 545 (9th Cir. 1990); see also In re Pac. Enters. Sec. Litig., 47 F.3d 373, (9th Cir. 1995) (affirming attorney s fee award of 33% of the recovery); Morris v. Lifescan, Inc., 54 F. App x 663, 664 (9th Cir. 2003) (affirming attorney s fee award of 33% of the recovery). This approach was affirmed in the StarKist matter. In the instant case, Class Counsel have achieved results that have surpassed the settlement achieved in the StarKist matter by approximately 5 times the value per cash Claimant. 1. The Total Value Of The Settlement Fund Is $1.7 Million To calculate attorneys fees based on the percentage of the benefit, the Court must first determine the value of the Settlement Fund. In doing so, the Court must include the value of the benefits conferred to the Class, including any attorneys fee and cost payments to be made. See, e.g., Staton v. Boeing, 327 F.3d 938, (9th Cir. 2003); Hartless v. Clorox Co., 273 F.R.D. 630, 645 (S.D. Cal. 2011), aff d, 473 F. App x. 716 (9th Cir. 2012). Stated otherwise, California courts include the requested attorneys fees when calculating the total value of the settlement fund. Lealao v. Beneficial California, Inc, 82 Cal. App. 4th 19, 33 (2000). Thus, the sum of the two amounts MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS FEES, COSTS AND EXPENSES, 5 AND INCENTIVE AWARDS FOR THE CLASS REPRESENTATIVES CASE NO. 5:15-CV BLF

14 Case 5:15-cv BLF Document 54 Filed 08/10/17 Page 14 of ordinarily should be treated as a settlement fund for the benefit of the class. Consumer Privacy Cases, 175 Cal. App. 4th 545, 554 (2009) (quoting the Manual for Complex Litigation at 525 (4th ed. 2008). Moreover, the Court must not consider the total monetary amount distributed to the Class; rather, the Court should only consider the amount made available to the Class. As articulated in Young v. Polo Retail, LLC, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS (N.D. Cal. Mar. 28, 2007), Ninth Circuit precedent requires courts to award class counsel fees based on the total benefits being made available rather than the amount actually paid out. Id. at *23 (citing Williams v. MGM-Pathe Commc ns Co., 129 F.3d 1026 (9th Cir. 1997) (ruling that a district court abused its discretion in basing attorney fee award on actual distribution to class instead of amount being made available). The total value of the Settlement Fund is $1.7 million in cash with no product vouchers. 2. All Relevant Factors Favor An Upward Departure From The Ninth Circuit s 25% Benchmark To 33.33% The Ninth Circuit established 25% of the common fund as a starting benchmark. Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d at However, the 25% benchmark would be unreasonably low here. See id. at 148 ( The 25% benchmark rate, although a starting point for analysis, may be inappropriate in some cases. ); see also Paul, Johnson, Alston & Hunt v. Graulty, 886 F.2d 268, (9th Cir. 1989) (explaining that the benchmark should be adjusted upward or downward based on the unique circumstances of the case). The Ninth Circuit has identified five factors that are relevant in determining whether requested attorneys fees in a common fund case are reasonable: (a) the results achieved; (b) the risk of litigation; (c) whether Class Counsel s work generated benefits beyond the Class settlement fund, (d) market rates as reflected by awards made in similar cases; and (e) the contingent nature of the fee and the financial burden carried by the plaintiffs. Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corp., 290 F.3d 1043, (9th Cir. 2002). Each of these factors points to a higher award in this case. Here, a fee of 33.33% is reasonable for the reasons set forth below. a. Class Counsel Achieved Extraordinary Results For The Class The first factor cited by Vizcaino to justify an upward adjustment to the 25% benchmark was that Class Counsel achieved exceptional results for the class. Vizcaino, 290 F.3d at At last MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS FEES, COSTS AND EXPENSES, 6 AND INCENTIVE AWARDS FOR THE CLASS REPRESENTATIVES CASE NO. 5:15-CV BLF

15 Case 5:15-cv BLF Document 54 Filed 08/10/17 Page 15 of count, 67,017 Class Members had filed claims, which will be paid at $11.40 cash. Nathan Decl. 37. These payments represent full recovery for purchases of as many as 88 cans of tuna purchased during the Class Period. Id. 40. At these levels, most Class Members will be fully compensated for their alleged losses, and some will no doubt recover more than the full amount of their actual damages. It is well known that claims rates in consumer class actions are often very low. 3 Here, 67,017 Class Members have chosen to participate in this settlement. Each of them will receive full recovery, or perhaps more, without the uncertainties and delays of continued litigation. While attorneys filing fee applications often lay claim to extraordinary results, here that claim is backed up by hard, objective data. Based on the number of claims filed, and the cash payout per Claimant compared to Class Members actual losses, these are the best results possible for this case. b. Plaintiffs Novel Claims Carried Substantial Litigation Risk The second factor cited by Vizcaino to justify an upward adjustment to the 25% benchmark was that the case was extremely risky for class counsel. Vizcaino, 290 F.3d at That was certainly true here as well. Class Counsel undertook significant financial risk in prosecuting this case. There has been very little history in litigating consumer claims for underfilled tuna cans. The only other case that has been litigated and resolved was the StarKist matter that involved years of litigation and substantial expenditures of fees and costs by class counsel. Nothing inherent in the instant litigation suggested that this case would come to a resolution without a similar fight. This case involved numerous novel issues of fact and law that, but for the diligence of Class Counsel, would have resulted in substantial motion practice, including motions to dismiss and motions for summary adjudication. Fortunately, much of what would have been litigated by way of motion practice was resolved informally between the parties through lengthy and extensive meet and confer efforts. Rather than engage the Court with the issues, Class Counsel spent considerable time researching, briefing the issues, sharing information with opposing counsel, negotiating, arguing and 3 See William B. Rubenstein, Newberg on Class Actions 12:17 (5th ed. 2014) ( A threshold consideration in thinking about the class action claiming process is the fact that most class members will never step forward and file claims for relief in most class actions. Given the small value of most class action claims, it should not be surprising that few class members bother to spend the time filing a claim. ). MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS FEES, COSTS AND EXPENSES, 7 AND INCENTIVE AWARDS FOR THE CLASS REPRESENTATIVES CASE NO. 5:15-CV BLF

16 Case 5:15-cv BLF Document 54 Filed 08/10/17 Page 16 of ultimately resolving underlying legal disputes informally without necessity of court intervention. In short, it was through the relentless diligence of Class Counsel that this matter was able to come to settlement without necessity of the substantial formal motion practice that would have arisen but for Class Counsel s diligence. c. Class Counsel Generated Benefits Beyond The Settlement Fund The third factor cited by Vizcaino to justify an upward adjustment to the 25% benchmark was that counsel s performance generated benefits beyond the cash settlement fund. Vizcaino, 290 F.3d at That is true here as well. Even after reaching agreement with Wild Planet, Class Counsel continued to vigorously advocate to maximize the benefits to the Class. For example, the cost to process more than 67,101 claims and mail each claimant a check and the funds to pay for this will be taken from the Settlement Fund. To minimize these costs, and maximize the settlement benefits to Class Members, Class Counsel implemented a competitive bidding process to select a claims administrator. KCC Class Action Services, LLC, agreed to cap their costs at $350,000.00, which led to their selection and Court appointment as claims administrator. See Nathan Decl. 57. This will save the Class thousands of dollars in administrative expenses that would have been paid from the Settlement Fund. By striking a hard bargain with KCC, Class Counsel has thus garnered even more value for Class Members than the settlement originally provided. Furthermore, because of the diligence of Class Counsel in relentlessly negotiating the instant settlement over six months, the matter was able to be resolved without the accrual of additional fees and costs. Absent the settlement, the Attorneys Fees and expenses reimbursements being requested by Class Counsel are likely to have been substantially higher, representing another significant cost savings to the Class Members. d. Market Rates As Reflected By Awards In Similar Cases The fourth factor cited by Vizcaino to justify an upward adjustment to the 25% benchmark was market rates as reflected by awards in similar cases. Vizcaino, 290 F.3d at 1049 ( Fourth, the court found the 28% rate to be at or below the market rate. ). Given the novelty, complexity, and difficulty of litigating this second-ever private-plaintiff case concerning the under-filling of canned tuna, no lawyer competent to litigate this action would agree to do so for a 25% contingency fee. MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS FEES, COSTS AND EXPENSES, 8 AND INCENTIVE AWARDS FOR THE CLASS REPRESENTATIVES CASE NO. 5:15-CV BLF

17 Case 5:15-cv BLF Document 54 Filed 08/10/17 Page 17 of See Nathan Decl. 59. Indeed, given the need to advance expenses exceeding $7,000 out-of-pocket, and certainly more if the case proceeded through motion practice and class certification, it would be difficult to find any lawyer willing to take this case for such a modest fee. Bursor & Fisher, Nathan & Associates, and Law Offices of Ross Cornell were the only law firms in the United States willing to step forward and commit the resources to bring this case. And for cases where class members are plentiful and easily identified (i.e., anyone in the U.S. that purchased Wild Planet tuna), it is not unusual for numerous firms to file copycat cases and compete for appointment as lead class counsel. But here, with essentially no barrier to entry, no other law firm stepped forward. The absence of any competition for appointment to represent this Class was a function of the perceived difficulty and risk of this case. These facts reflect that even the 33.33% contingent fee requested is probably below market rates for a case of such novelty, complexity, and difficulty. The inadequacy of the 25% benchmark based on market rates is further illustrated by numerous awards ranging from 30% to 40% in similar cases. For example, when awarding 32.8% of the settlement fund for fees and costs, Judge Patel explained: absent extraordinary circumstances that suggest reasons to lower or increase the percentage, the rate should be set at 30%[,] as this will encourage plaintiffs attorneys to move for early settlement, provide predictability for the attorneys and the class members, and reduce the time consumed by counsel and court in dealing with voluminous fee petitions. In re Activision Sec. Litig., 723 F. Supp. 1373, (N.D. Cal. 1989); see also In re Pac. Enters. Sec. Litig., 47 F.3d at (affirming attorney s fee of 33% of the recovery); Williams, 129 F.3d at 1027 (33.33% of total fund awarded); Morris, 54 Fed. App x at 663 (affirming fee award of 33% of the recovery); Vasquez v. Coast Valley Roofing, Inc., 266 F.R.D. 482, 492 (E.D. Cal. 2010) (citing to five recent class actions where federal district courts approved attorney fee awards ranging from 30% to 33%); Martin v. AmeriPride Servs., Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61796, at *23 (S.D. Cal. June 9, 2011) (noting that courts may award attorneys fees in the 30%-40% range in class actions that result in recovery of a common fun[d] under $10 million ); Singer v. Becton Dickinson & Co., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53416, at *22-23 (S.D. Cal. June 1, 2010) (approving attorney fee award of 33.33% of the common fund and holding that award was similar to awards in three other cases where fees ranged from 33.33% to MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS FEES, COSTS AND EXPENSES, 9 AND INCENTIVE AWARDS FOR THE CLASS REPRESENTATIVES CASE NO. 5:15-CV BLF

18 Case 5:15-cv BLF Document 54 Filed 08/10/17 Page 18 of %); Ingalls v. Hallmark Mktg. Corp., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS (C.D. Cal. Oct. 16, 2009) (awarding 33.33% fee on a $5.6 million common fund settlement); Rippee v. Boston Mkt. Corp., No. 05-CV-1359 TM (JMA) (Dkt. No. 70, at 7) (S.D. Cal. Oct. 10, 2006) (awarding a 40% fee on a $3.75 million in a common fund settlement). e. The Contingent Nature Of The Fee And Financial Burden Borne By Class Counsel The fifth factor cited by Vizcaino to justify an upward adjustment to the 25% benchmark was the contingent nature of the fee and the financial burden carried by the plaintiffs. Vizcaino, 290 F.3d at Class Counsel devoted more than 346 hours and $200, in billable time to this matter over the course of 1.5 years of litigation with no payment and no guarantee of payment absent a successful outcome. Class Counsel also advanced more than $7, in out-of-pocket expenses, again with no guarantee of repayment. If the case had advanced beyond class certification, these expenses would have increased many-fold, and Class Counsel would have been required to advance these expenses potentially for several years to litigate this action through judgment and appeals. It is also significant to note that, due to the commitment of time and capital required to litigate this action, Class Counsel had to forego significant other work in late 2016 and early 2017, including work for paying clients billed by the hour on a non-contingent basis, as well as other class action cases. Nathan Decl. 60. f. The Quality Of Work By Class Counsel Though not a factor discussed in Vizcaino, Class Counsel respectfully submits that the high quality of Class Counsel s work on this case is another factor supporting an upward departure from the 25% benchmark. The prosecution of a complex, nationwide class action requires unique skills and abilities. In re OmniVision Techs., 559 F. Supp. 2d 1036, 1047 (N.D. Cal. 2007) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). This case involved matters that required a significant amount of highly skilled work, and Class Counsel s ability to engender a streamlined settlement certainly reflects their unique abilities. The quality of opposing counsel is also important in evaluating the quality of the work done by Class Counsel. See, e.g., In re Warner Commc ns Sec. Litig., 618 F. Supp. 735, 749 (S.D.N.Y. MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS FEES, COSTS AND EXPENSES, 10 AND INCENTIVE AWARDS FOR THE CLASS REPRESENTATIVES CASE NO. 5:15-CV BLF

19 Case 5:15-cv BLF Document 54 Filed 08/10/17 Page 19 of ); In re King Res. Co. Sec. Litig., 420 F. Supp. 610, (D. Colo. 1976). Wild Planet is represented by Shartsis Friese, LLP, a prominent national law firm with extensive experience in class action litigation. Class Counsel s ability to obtain a favorable Settlement in the face of this sophisticated legal adversary reflects its superior work quality. B. The Requested Attorneys Fees Are Reasonable Under A Lodestar Cross-Check Courts in the Ninth Circuit often examine the lodestar calculation as a crosscheck on the percentage fee award to ensure that counsel will not receive a windfall. Vizcaino, 290 F.3d at The cross-check analysis is a two-step process. First, the lodestar is determined by multiplying the number of hours reasonably expended by the reasonable rates requested by the attorneys. See Caudle v. Bristow Optical Co., 224 F.3d 1014, 1028 (9th Cir. 2000). Second, the court determines the multiplier required to match the lodestar to the percentage-of-the-fund request made by counsel, and determines whether the multiplier falls within the accepted range for such a case. Here, the lodestar cross-check confirms the reasonableness of the requested fee. The hours worked, lodestar fee, and expenses of Class Counsel are set forth in the declaration of Mr. Nathan, Mr. Fisher, and Mr. Cornell, submitted herewith. As of August 8, 2017, Class Counsel had worked hours on this case for a total lodestar fee, at current billing rates, of $200, Nathan Decl. 46. This represents a blended hourly rate of less than $580, which is well within the bounds of reasonable hourly rates in this District. A fee award of 33.33%, or $566,100.00, would represent a multiplier of 2.8 over the base lodestar fee. Id. See also Parts V.C.2.a V.C.2.d, below (discussing the factors supporting the application of a multiplier to Class Counsel s lodestar). This multiplier falls well within the accepted range in the Ninth Circuit, and is reasonable. See, e.g., Vizcaino, 290 F.3d at 1051 (approving fee after lodestar crosscheck resulted in a multiplier of 3.65); Craft v. County of San Bernardino, 624 F. Supp. 2d 1113, 1125 (C.D. Cal. 2008) (approving fee award resulting in a multiplier of 5.2, and collecting similar cases). The modest multiplier provided by the lodestar cross-check demonstrates that the percentage fee sought by Class Counsel is fair and reasonable MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS FEES, COSTS AND EXPENSES, 11 AND INCENTIVE AWARDS FOR THE CLASS REPRESENTATIVES CASE NO. 5:15-CV BLF

20 Case 5:15-cv BLF Document 54 Filed 08/10/17 Page 20 of Class Counsel also incurred out-of-pocket expenses totaling $7, Each of these expenses was necessary to the prosecution of this case. See Nathan Decl. 39, 48; Cornell Decl. 6-8; Fisher Decl , Ex. C. C. The Court May Alternatively Grant The Requested Attorneys Fees Under The Lodestar Method Under Ninth Circuit standards, a District Court may award attorneys fees under the lodestar method. Hanlon, 150 F.3d at The lodestar figure is calculated by multiplying the hours spent on the case by reasonable hourly rates for the region and attorney experience. See, e.g., In re Bluetooth Headset Prods. Liab. Litig., 654 F.3d 935, (9th Cir. 2011); Hanlon, 150 F.3d at The resulting lodestar figure may be adjusted upward or downward by use of a multiplier to account for factors including, but not limited to: (i) the quality of the representation; (ii) the benefit obtained for the class; (iii) the complexity and novelty of the issues presented; and (iv) the risk of nonpayment. Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1029; see also Kerr v. Screen Extras Guild, Inc., 526 F.2d 67, 70 (9th Cir. 1975). 4 Courts typically apply a multiplier or enhancement to the lodestar to account for the substantial risk that class counsel undertook by accepting a case where no payment would be received if the lawsuit did not succeed. Vizcaino, 290 F.3d at Class Counsel Spent A Reasonable Number Of Hours On This Litigation At A Reasonable Hourly Rate Class Counsel worked very efficiently. Bursor & Fisher, P.A., Nathan & Associates, APC, and Law Offices of Ross Cornell, APC served as Class Counsel. There was no duplication of effort. Class Counsel have submitted their detailed daily billing records showing what work was done and by whom. These billing records provided by Class Counsel confirm Bursor & Fisher, Nathan & Associates and Law Offices of Ross Cornell s efficient billing. This was a novel case that required 4 Kerr identifies twelve factors for analyzing reasonable attorneys fees: (1) the time and labor required; (2) the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved; (3) the skill requisite to perform the legal service properly; (4) the preclusion of other employment by the attorney due to acceptance of the case; (5) the customary fee; (6) whether the fee is fixed or contingent; (7) time limitations imposed by the client or the circumstances; (8) the amount involved and the results obtained; (9) the experience, reputation, and the ability of the attorneys; (10) the undesirability of the case; (11) the nature and length of the professional relationship with the client; and (12) awards in similar cases. MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS FEES, COSTS AND EXPENSES, 12 AND INCENTIVE AWARDS FOR THE CLASS REPRESENTATIVES CASE NO. 5:15-CV BLF

21 Case 5:15-cv BLF Document 54 Filed 08/10/17 Page 21 of significant involvement by experienced lawyers. Most of the work was performed by each of the principals of the three firms serving as Class Counsel. Wild Planet was represented by very able counsel from one of the largest law firms in the United States. This case was rigorously negotiated right up through the preliminary approval motion, which involved a hotly contested issue concerning the plan of allocation and what the perclaim payout should be. Given the value per Claimant of the settlement, the novelty of the issues involved, the nature of the litigation, and the difficulty of settlement negotiations, the number of hours Class Counsel spent was reasonable. The blended hourly rate for Bursor & Fisher, Nathan & Associates, APC, and Law Offices of Ross Cornell s work of $ is quite reasonable. And the hourly rates for each of the lawyers who staffed the case, which are set forth in the Fisher, Nathan, and Cornell Declarations and any exhibits thereto, are also reasonable and amply supported by the evidentiary material submitted with the Fisher, Nathan, and Cornell Declarations. 2. All Relevant Factors Support Applying A Multiplier To Class Counsel s Lodestar The lodestar analysis is not limited to the initial mathematical calculation of class counsel s base fee. See Morales v. City of San Rafael, 96 F.3d 359, (9th Cir. 1996). Rather, Class Counsel s actual lodestar may be enhanced according to those factors that have not been subsumed within the initial calculation of hours reasonably expended at a reasonable rate. Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 434 n.9 (1983) (citation omitted); see also Morales, 96 F.3d at 364. In a historical review of numerous class action settlements, the Ninth Circuit found that lodestar multipliers normally range from 0.6 to 19.6, with most (83%) falling between 1 and 4, and a bare majority (54%) between 1.5 and 3. See Vizcaino, 290 F.3d at 1051 n.6; see also Alba Conte & Herbert B. Newberg, Newberg on Class Actions 14:03 (3d ed. 1992) (recognizing that multipliers of 1 to 4 are frequently awarded). Yet state and federal courts often approve multipliers of 4 or more. 5 5 See, e.g., In re Cenco Inc. Sec. Litig., 519 F. Supp. 322 (N.D. Ill. 1981) (approving multiplier of 4 in securities class action); Rabin v. Concord Assets Grp., Inc., 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 19, 1991) (approving multiplier of 4.4 in securities class action); Municipal Auth. of Bloomsburg v. Pennsylvania, 527 F. Supp. 982 (M.D. Pa. 1981) (approving multiplier of 4.5); In re MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS FEES, COSTS AND EXPENSES, 13 AND INCENTIVE AWARDS FOR THE CLASS REPRESENTATIVES CASE NO. 5:15-CV BLF

22 Case 5:15-cv BLF Document 54 Filed 08/10/17 Page 22 of In considering the reasonableness of attorneys fees and any requested multiplier, the Ninth Circuit has directed district courts to consider the time and labor required, novelty and complexity of the litigation, skill and experience of counsel, the results obtained, and awards in similar cases. Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, (1984); Kerr, 526 F.2d at 70. All of the factors weigh heavily in favor of the requested fee award in this action. Vizcaino, 290 F.3d at a. Novelty And Complexity Of This Litigation This was one of only two civil cases ever filed asserting claims based on the alleged underfilling of canned tuna pursuant to 21 C.F.R This was the second such case brought by a private party, the other being the StarKist matter litigated by Bursor & Fisher. As in StarKist, Class Counsel was faced with difficult legal and factual issues, which required creativity and sophisticated analysis. This action required substantial original work, and significant risk that Class Counsel s efforts (and its out-of-pocket costs) would go uncompensated since few private parties had ever litigated this type of case before. Settlement negotiations included multiple formal and informal discussions, which were complicated both in terms of the subject matter and damages analyses at issues. In StarKist, the court approved a multiplier of Therefore, a multiplier of 2.8 is well within the parameters used throughout this Circuit. Indeed, in light of the novelty and complexity of this case, the efficiency of Class Counsel, the high value per Claimant of the payout, and concomitant risks to counsel, a substantially higher multiplier would be justified. b. Class Counsel Provided Exceptional Representation Prosecuting This Complex Case Class Counsel respectfully submits that the lawyers at Bursor & Fisher, Nathan & Associates, APC, and Law Offices of Ross Cornell have conducted themselves in this action in a Beverly Hills Fire Litig., 639 F. Supp. 915 (E.D. Ky. 1986) (approving multiplier of up to 5); Roberts v. Texaco, Inc., 979 F. Supp. 185 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) (approving multiplier of 5.5); In re Boston & Me. Corp. v. Sheehan, Phinney, Bass & Green, 778 F.2d 890 (1st Cir. 1985) (approving multiplier of 6); Muchnick v. First Fed. Savs. & Loan Assoc. of Phil., 1986 U.S. Dist. LEXIS (E.D. Pa. Sept. 30, 1986) (approving multiplier of 8.3 in a consumer class action); Cosgrove v. Sullivan, 759 F. Supp. 166 (S.D.N.Y. 1991) (approving multiplier of 8.74); Perera v. Chiron Corp., Civ. No SW (N.D. Cal. 1999, 2000) (approving multiplier of 9.14; cited in California Class Actions and Coordinated Proceedings 15.05). MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS FEES, COSTS AND EXPENSES, 14 AND INCENTIVE AWARDS FOR THE CLASS REPRESENTATIVES CASE NO. 5:15-CV BLF

23 Case 5:15-cv BLF Document 54 Filed 08/10/17 Page 23 of professional, diligent and efficient manner. The lawyers at Bursor & Fisher, Nathan & Associates, APC, and Law Offices of Ross Cornell have extensive experience in the field of class action litigation. Additionally, litigation tasks were allocated to prevent over-lawyering and inefficiency. The bulk of the work was performed by a small number of attorneys fully familiar with the complex factual and legal issues presented by this litigation. This division of labor permitted the work to be done efficiently, resulting in an economy of service and avoiding duplication of effort. c. Class Counsel Obtained Excellent Class Benefits As was pointed out above, the per-claim payout provides full recovery (or more) to most Class Members. This is why we can say, without hyperbole or exaggeration, that these are the best results this case could have achieved given the facts underlying the settlement and factors related to the litigation. d. Class Counsel Faced A Substantial Risk Of Nonpayment A critical factor bearing on fee petitions in Ninth Circuit courts is the level of risk of non-payment faced by Class Counsel at the inception of the litigation. See, e.g., Vizcaino, 290 F.3d at The contingent nature of Class Counsel s fee recovery, coupled with the uncertainty that any recovery would be obtained, are significant. In re Wash. Pub. Power Supply Sys. Sec. Litig., 19 F.3d 1291, 1300 (9th Cir. 1994). In Wash. Pub. Power, the Ninth Circuit recognized that: It is an established practice in the private legal market to reward attorneys for taking the risk of non-payment by paying them a premium over their normal hourly rates for winning contingency cases. [I]f this bonus methodology did not exist, very few lawyers could take on the representation of a class client given the investment of substantial time, effort, and money, especially in light of the risks of recovering nothing. Id. at (citations omitted) (internal quotations marks omitted). Throughout this case, Class Counsel expended substantial time to prosecute a nationwide class action suit with no guarantee of compensation or reimbursement in the hope of prevailing against a sophisticated Defendant represented by high caliber attorneys. Class Counsel obtained a highly favorable result for the Class, knowing that if its efforts were ultimately unsuccessful, it 28 MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS FEES, COSTS AND EXPENSES, 15 AND INCENTIVE AWARDS FOR THE CLASS REPRESENTATIVES CASE NO. 5:15-CV BLF

24 Case 5:15-cv BLF Document 54 Filed 08/10/17 Page 24 of would receive no compensation or reimbursement for its costs. This fact alone supports a finding that Class Counsel is entitled to a multiplier. VI. CLASS COUNSEL S EXPENSES WERE REASONABLE AND NECESSARILY INCURRED TO ACHIEVE THE BENEFIT OBTAINED ON BEHALF OF THE CLASS To date, Class Counsel incurred out-of-pocket costs and expenses in the aggregate amount of $7, in prosecuting this litigation on behalf of the Class. See Nathan Decl. 39, 48; Cornell Decl. 6-8; Fisher Decl , Ex. C. The Ninth Circuit allows recovery of litigation expenses in the context of a class action settlement. See Staton, 327 F.3d at 974. Class Counsel is entitled to reimbursement for standard out-of-pocket expenses that an attorney would ordinarily bill a fee paying client. See, e.g., Harris v. Marhoefer, 24 F.3d 16, 19 (9th Cir. 1994). These expenses include court fees, copying fees, courier charges, legal research charges, telephone/facsimile fees, travel expenses, postage fees, court reporter fees, videographer fees, transcript costs, and other related expenses. Each of these expenses was necessarily and reasonably incurred to bring this case to a successful conclusion, and they reflect market rates for various categories of expenses incurred. VII. THE REQUESTED INCENTIVE AWARDS FOR THE CLASS REPRESENTATIVE AND INTERESTED PARTIES ARE FAIR AND REASONABLE In recognition of their efforts on behalf of the Class, and subject to the approval of the Court, Wild Planet has agreed to pay the Class Representatives up to $5,000 each, as appropriate compensation for their time and effort serving as the class representatives in this litigation. Incentive awards are fairly typical in class action cases. Rodriguez v. W. Publ g Corp., 563 F.3d 948, 958 (9th Cir. 2009). Such awards are intended to compensate class representatives for work done on behalf of the class, to make up for financial or reputational risk undertaken in bringing the action, and, sometimes, to recognize their willingness to act as a private attorney general. Id. at Incentive awards are committed to the sound discretion of the trial court and should be awarded based upon the court s consideration of, inter alia, the amount of time and effort spent on the litigation, the duration of the litigation and the degree of personal gain obtained as a result of the litigation. See Van Vranken v. Atl. Richfield Co., 901 F. Supp. 294, 299 (N.D. Cal. 1995). Incentive awards are appropriate when a class representative will not benefit beyond ordinary class members. MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS FEES, COSTS AND EXPENSES, 16 AND INCENTIVE AWARDS FOR THE CLASS REPRESENTATIVES CASE NO. 5:15-CV BLF

25 Case 5:15-cv BLF Document 54 Filed 08/10/17 Page 25 of For example, where a class representative s claim makes up only a tiny fraction of the common fund, an incentive award is justified. Id., 901 F. Supp. at 299. The requested amount of $5,000 for the Class Representatives, Mr. Soto and Mr. Shihad, is appropriate to compensate them for their efforts in bringing this action for the benefit of the Class Members. Throughout the litigation, Mr. Soto and Mr. Shihad held regular meetings with Class Counsel to receive updates on the progress of the case and to discuss strategy. Nathan Decl. 63. They assisted in Class Counsel s pre-suit investigation by discussing their experiences and providing information on their purchases and use of Wild Planet Tuna, among other matters. Id. Mr. Soto and Mr. Shihad assisted in drafting the Complaint and reviewed the Complaint for accuracy before it was filed. Id. Mr. Soto and Mr. Shihad were intimately involved in the settlement process, and have continued to keep abreast of settlement progress to date. Id. Mr. Soto and Mr. Shihad also took significant time away from work and personal activities to initiate and litigate this action. Id. Mr. Soto and Mr. Shihad were prepared to litigate this case to a verdict if necessary. Id. Their dedication and effort have conferred a significant benefit on tens of thousands of purchasers of Wild Planet Tuna across the United States. Id. VIII. CONCLUSION Class Counsel, the Class Representative, and the Interested Parties worked on this case for more than 1.5 years. That work produced a benefit to Class Members in the form of a $1.7 million Settlement Fund. We now seek to be paid fairly for that work. Class Counsel, the Class Representative, and the Interested Parties therefore respectfully request that the Court approve: $566, in attorneys fees for Class Counsel, representing 33.33% of the Settlement Fund; $7, in reimbursement of Class Counsel s out-of-pocket expenses; and Incentive awards to the Class Representatives of $5,000 each. For the foregoing reasons, these amounts are fair, reasonable, and adequate, and should be approved MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS FEES, COSTS AND EXPENSES, 17 AND INCENTIVE AWARDS FOR THE CLASS REPRESENTATIVES CASE NO. 5:15-CV BLF

26 Case 5:15-cv BLF Document 54 Filed 08/10/17 Page 26 of Dated: August 10, 2017 Respectfully submitted, NATHAN & ASSOCIATES, APC By: /s/ Reuben D. Nathan Reuben D. Nathan Reuben D. Nathan, Esq. (SBN ) rnathan@nathanlawpractice.com NATHAN & ASSOCIATES, APC 600 W Broadway, Suite 700 San Diego, CA Tel: (619) Facsimile: (619) Class Counsel MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS FEES, COSTS AND EXPENSES, 18 AND INCENTIVE AWARDS FOR THE CLASS REPRESENTATIVES CASE NO. 5:15-CV BLF

27 Case 5:15-cv BLF Document 54-1 Filed 08/10/17 Page 1 of Reuben D. Nathan, Esq. (SBN ) rnathan@nathanlawpractice.com NATHAN & ASSOCIATES, APC 600 W Broadway, Suite 700 San Diego, CA Tel: (619) Facsimile: (619) L. Timothy Fisher (State Bar No ) ltfisher@bursor.com BURSOR & FISHER, P.A North California Blvd., Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA Telephone: (925) Facsimile: (925) Attorneys for Plaintiffs EHDER SOTO, HENEY SHIHAD and the Proposed Class UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EHDER SOTO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. WILD PLANET FOODS, INC., NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Plaintiff, Defendant. HENEY SHIHAD, an individual on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. Plaintiff, WILD PLANET FOODS, INC. and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Defendants. Case No. 5:15-cv BLF Case No. 1:16-cv BLF DECLARATION OF REUBEN D. NATHAN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS FEES AND EXPENSES AND FINAL SETTLEMENT APPROVAL Date: September 14, 2017 Time: 1:30 p.m. Courtroom: Courtroom 3-5th Floor Honorable Beth Labson Freeman DECLARATION OF REUBEN D. NATHAN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS FEES AND EXPENSES AND FINAL SETTLEMENT APPROVAL CASE NO. 5:15-CV BLF

28 Case 5:15-cv BLF Document 54-1 Filed 08/10/17 Page 2 of I, Reuben D. Nathan, hereby declare as follows: 1. I am the principal attorney at the law firm of Nathan & Associates, APC ( RN ), I am one of the attorneys representing the Plaintiffs and Class members in this consolidated class action against Wild Planet Foods, Inc., and I am attorney of record for Plaintiffs, Heney Shihad and Ehder Soto. I am submitting this Declaration in support of Plaintiffs Motion for an Award of Attorneys Fees and Reimbursement of Expenses. I am an attorney at law licensed to practice in the State of California, and I am a member of the bar of this Court. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth in this declaration and, if called as a witness, I could and would testify competently thereto. 2. I make this declaration in support of Plaintiff s motion for an award of attorneys fees, costs and expenses, and incentive awards for the Class Representatives, Heney Shihad and Ehder Soto. I. OVERVIEW OF THE LITIGATION A. Pre-Suit Investigation And Product Testing With The U.S. National Oceanic And Atmospheric Administration 3. On December 14, 2015, my firm learned of a complaint that was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Riverside, by the district attorneys of Riverside against Wild Planet Foods, Inc. ( Wild Planet ). See People v. Wild Planet Foods, Inc. et al., No. RIC (Cal. Sup. Ct. May 5, 2013). The District Attorneys complaint alleged that these parties made or caused to be made representations to the public which were untrue and/or misleading, in that certain canned tuna products they manufactured contained misrepresentations of quantity by failing to meet the standard of identity for canned tuna products seasoned or flavored with broth, as defined in Code of Federal Regulations, Title 21, section (a)(6). The complaint contained two causes of action: violation of California s Unfair Competition Law ( UCL ), Business and Professions Code 17500, and violation of California s Unfair Competition Law, Business and Professions Code Filed on May 8, 2013, with the District Attorneys complaint, was a Final Judgment Pursuant to Stipulation. However, the District Attorneys settlement did not provide any monetary relief to the purchasers of these products, nor did it provide a mechanism through which aggrieved purchasers could submit claims. 5. In December 2015, I researched food testing laboratories that could conduct testing of canned tuna products for compliance with the federally mandated standard of fill, pursuant to 21 2 DECLARATION OF REUBEN NATHAN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS FEES AND EXPENSES CASE NO. 5:15-CV BLF

29 Case 5:15-cv BLF Document 54-1 Filed 08/10/17 Page 3 of C.F.R (c). This investigation required numerous phone calls, s and follow-up inquiries, since there are only a handful of laboratories that have the equipment to conduct these types of tests. Many laboratories responded that their equipment was insufficient, and they were unaware of any laboratory that could perform the test. I spoke with Mike Stadler of the Southwest Inspection Branch of the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ( NOAA ), which is part of the U.S. Department of Commerce, who agreed to conduct the testing. 6. In December 2015, I researched the brands and varieties of canned tuna at issue in the District Attorneys action. I conducted online research regarding consumer complaints of inadequate quantities of tuna in these manufacturers products. My research revealed that numerous consumers had complained about the quantity of tuna in Wild Planet products through websites and various forums. 7. In December 2015, co-counsel, Ross Cornell made arrangements with NOAA to test an initial batch of Wild Planet Tuna. This initial test was comprised of a batch of Wild Planet s 5 oz. cans of Albacore Tuna in Water and Skip Jack Light Tuna in Water. Co-counsel, Ross Cornell personally delivered samples to NOAA for testing. 8. On or about December 14, 2015, we received results from NOAA indicating that the initial batch of Wild Planet tuna had failed to meet the federal standard of fill. When measured precisely according to the methods specified by 21 C.F.R (c), the tests revealed that Wild Planet tuna was 3 to 7% below the federally mandated minimum standard. On or about February, 2016, co-counsel Ross Cornell and I made arrangements for NOAA to test an additional 6 batches of Wild Planet Albacore Tuna in Water and Wild Planet Skip Jack Light Tuna in Water. The testing showed an average underfill between 3.2% to 7%. Based thereon, I calculated damages to Class Members of approximately 8 cents to 18 cents per can, with an average 13 cents deprivation per can. 9. During this period, we also interviewed putative class members aggrieved by Wild Planet s under-filling of these products. B. Procedural History 10. On March 25, 2016, Class Representatives Heney Shihad ( Shihad ) filed his Class Action Complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, which alleged that Wild Planet cheated customers by shorting its 5 oz. cans of tuna, under-filling them in violation of federal law. The complaint asserted claims on behalf of Mr. Shihad and a nationwide class of purchasers of Wild Planet Tuna, for breach of express warranty, breach of the implied warranty of 3 DECLARATION OF REUBEN NATHAN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS FEES AND EXPENSES CASE NO. 5:15-CV BLF

30 Case 5:15-cv BLF Document 54-1 Filed 08/10/17 Page 4 of merchantability, breach of the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, unjust enrichment, violation of California s Consumers Legal Remedies Act ( CLRA ), violation of the UCL, violation of the FAL, negligent misrepresentation, and fraud. The case was initially assigned to the Honorable Beth Labson Freeman. 11. Between February 2016 and March 2016, we intended on including several of the other individuals that were interviewed and requested to join the lawsuit as class representatives, but decided to pursue the action only on behalf of Mr. Shihad. 12. On March 20, 2016, I learned about the Ehder Soto ( Soto ) case, Soto v. Wild Planet, et al, Case No.15-cv ( Soto Action ), which was filed on November 5, I immediately began to research the Soto Action and learned that the allegations were against Wild Planet Foods, Inc., but were limited to the Wild Planet s Sustainable Seas brand. From my investigation, I learned that the Sustainable Seas brand only counted for a small fraction of Wild Planet Foods, Inc. s tuna product line. Regardless of the different brands at issue, given the underlying allegations were the same and involved the same defendant, on March 29, 2016, I filed a Notice of Related Cases. 13. On April 9, 2016, I spoke with opposing counsel during a lengthy, but informative call. Opposing counsel, Joseph Mauch of Shartsis Friese, LLP informed me that he would be willing to accept service via FRCP 4(d) waiver. In addition, Joseph Mauch informed me that he had been engaged in conversations with Tim Fisher of Bursor & Fisher, P.A. and advised me to review the docket in the Soto Action. I informed Joseph Mauch that I had spent a significant amount of time researching the case before filing the complaint on behalf of Mr. Shihad, including a review of the Soto Action. Joseph Mauch informed me that he had shared sales data with Tim Fisher and that I should review the documents, but he wanted to confirm that his client, Wild Planet, was agreeable to sharing the information with my firm. 14. On April 13, 2016 to May 25, 2016, Joseph Mauch, Tim Fisher, and I engaged in several conversations regarding the scope of the litigation. Joseph Mauch shared the sales data for the Sustainable Seas brand that he had already provided to Tim Fisher. In addition, I was able to confirm that the Soto Action was limited to Wild Planet s Sustainable Seas brand. In sharing the sales data for Wild Planet s Sustainable Seas, I was also able to confirm that the Sustainable Seas brand only attributed a very small portion of the overall sales for Wild Planet. During this time period, in communications with Joseph Mauch and Tim Fisher, I ensured that Joseph Mauch understood the scope of the underlying investigation, sales data, and the scope of the litigation in 4 DECLARATION OF REUBEN NATHAN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS FEES AND EXPENSES CASE NO. 5:15-CV BLF

31 Case 5:15-cv BLF Document 54-1 Filed 08/10/17 Page 5 of Shihad v. Wild Planet, et al., Case No. 16-cv ( Shihad Action ) was substantially different than the Soto Action. During this period of time, Tim Fisher, Ross Cornell and I agreed to work as co-counsel on the Soto Action and Shihad Action. We executed a Joint Prosecution Agreement and litigated the Soto Action and Shihad Action collectively. 15. On April 14, 2016, Joseph Mauch ed Tim Fisher and me the sales data for all Wild Planet products. My office conducted an extensive review of the sales data and SPINS, which accounted for the sales at retail. Wild Planet does not sell directly to consumers and does not maintain any consumer related lists it maintains a strictly business-to-business relationship with its vendors. 16. On March 30, 2016 through September 2016, Plaintiffs, Soto and Shihad ( Plaintiffs ) entered into four (4) stipulations to extend time for Wild Planet to respond to the operative complaint. Through a series of meet and confer attempts, Plaintiffs, Soto and Shihad filed First Amended Complaints. The purpose of the repeated stipulations to extend the time for Wild Planet to respond were based on the intentional decision by Plaintiffs and Defendant to engage in an informal process that would otherwise serve the same purpose of motion practice. Given Bursor & Fisher, P.A. s unique litigation experience with Hendricks v. StarKist, et al. Case No. 13- cv ( Hendricks Action ), and since much of the landscape had been created and developed in the Hendricks Action, Plaintiffs and Wild Planet agreed that we could attempt to eliminate the hundreds of thousands of additional dollars in litigation expense by engaging in good faith meeting and conferring, including ongoing teleconference and written communications back and forth. Plaintiffs and Defendant also agreed that in the event Plaintiffs and Wild Planet were not able to resolve a particular issue, we would engage a mediator and/or this Court s assistance. C. Discovery 17. On December 2015 through August 2016, the Plaintiffs and Wild Planet engaged in a series multiple ongoing exchanges of informal discovery pursuant to confidentiality and privilege communications set forth in Federal Rules of Civil Procedure section 408. Bursor & Fisher, P.A. s experience in the Hendricks Action allowed Plaintiffs to streamline a discovery plan in order to obtain documents through exchanges with Wild Planet that could have taken years (as it did in the Hendricks Action 2013 to 2015) to obtain through discovery disputes. The intention of the parties was to engage in a mutual ongoing exchange while not to get into a lengthy protracted litigation, 5 DECLARATION OF REUBEN NATHAN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS FEES AND EXPENSES CASE NO. 5:15-CV BLF

32 Case 5:15-cv BLF Document 54-1 Filed 08/10/17 Page 6 of using up the Court s resources when we believed we had an established outline as a result of the Hendricks Action. D. Arm s-length Settlement Negotiations 18. Plaintiffs and Wild Planet engaged in a lengthy 8 month negotiation, which involved a number of disputes regarding the scope of the complaints, the causes of action set forth in the Plaintiffs complaints, the proposed damage model, certification issues, temporary permits, the amount of underfilling, the testing performed by NOAA, and issues related to summary judgment. 19. From April 2016 through August 2016, the parties entered into a series of stipulations staying all other case deadlines and extending the time for Wild Planet to respond while engaged in negotiations. 20. From May 2016 to December 2016 the period between the start of negotiations and executed Settlement Agreement the parties remained in intense negotiations concerning numerous issues, including the terms of the Settlement Agreement. One particularly challenging issue was deciding the plan of allocation for payments to class members. Plaintiffs proposed for class members to be paid, $29 per class member, subject to a possible pro rata dilution. Wild Planet, however, proposed a sliding scale based on the estimated number of cans of Wild Planet Tuna purchased by each class member during the class period. Another challenging issue was the disposition of any unclaimed funds, namely whether they should revert to Wild Planet. Ultimately, the Plaintiffs succeeded in Wild Planet agreeing to a non-revisionary settlement. 21. After several revisions by Plaintiffs and Wild Planet, the Settlement Agreement was fully executed on December 22, as follows. E. The Settlement Terms 22. The key provisions of the Settlement Agreement, executed on December 21, 2016 are 23. Payment Terms: In full settlement of the claims asserted in this lawsuit, Wild Planet agreed to pay $1,700,000 in cash into a common fund. This amount includes payments to claimants for release of their claims, any award of attorneys fees and costs, claims administrator costs, and any incentive awards to Mr. Shihad and Mr. Soto. Claimants were to receive $29.00 from the cash settlement fund, subject to a possible pro rata dilution. 24. Attorneys Fees and Costs: The Settlement Agreement authorizes Class Counsel to petition the Court for an award of attorneys fees in an amount no greater than one third of the total 6 DECLARATION OF REUBEN NATHAN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS FEES AND EXPENSES CASE NO. 5:15-CV BLF

33 Case 5:15-cv BLF Document 54-1 Filed 08/10/17 Page 7 of $1.700, settlement amount, plus reimbursement of costs and expenses. There is no clear sailing agreement. Wild Planet is free to oppose the fee application, should it wish to do so. 25. Incentive Payment: The Settlement Agreement provides that Plaintiff s counsel will petition the Court for approval of payments of no more than $5,000 apiece to Mr. Shihad and Mr. Soto. 26. Releases: The Settlement Agreement provides that all class members other than those who opted-out: [S]hall release and forever discharge, and shall be forever barred from asserting, instituting, or maintaining against any or all of the Released Persons, any and all claims, demands, actions, causes of action, lawsuits, arbitrations, damages, or liabilities whether legal, equitable, or otherwise, arising from the factual allegations and/or legal claims made in the Action, or arising from similar or related allegations, claims, or causes of action, including without limitation any allegations of false, misleading, or deceptive advertising or violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, allegations of under-filling of the WP Products and/or any allegations of damages arising from the purchase of any of the WP Products at any time on or after November 5, 2011 and prior to the time the Class is notified (collectively, the Claims ) Further, the Settlement Agreement provides that settling class members be shall be deemed to have waived and relinquished, to the fullest extent permitted by law, the provisions, rights and benefits of California Civil Code section 1542 (and equivalent, comparable, or analogous provisions of the laws of the United States of America or any state or territory thereof, or of the common law or civil law). 27. Procedure for Claims and Settlement: Class Counsel is required to move for preliminary and final Court approval of the Settlement Agreement. Class notice will inform potential settlement class members of the settlement agreement, the background of the action and settlement, the settlement relief available, that they have a right to object to or exclude themselves from the settlement, the process for submitting a claim, and that the settlement is conditioned on the Court s final approval. The settlement administrator s actual costs and expenses in carrying out its duties are capped at $350, Objections: Any Class Member who has not opted out may file an objection to the Settlement Agreement (or any of its terms). F. Preliminary Approval And Dissemination Of Notice 7 DECLARATION OF REUBEN NATHAN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS FEES AND EXPENSES CASE NO. 5:15-CV BLF

34 Case 5:15-cv BLF Document 54-1 Filed 08/10/17 Page 8 of On February 2, 2017, we filed a Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement. We argued that the settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable, that the Court should provisionally certify the Settlement Class for the purposes of preliminary approval, and that the proposed notice program provides adequate notice and should be approved. 30. On February 15, 2017, Wild Planet filed its Statement of Non-Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement. 31. On May 12, 2017, the Court granted Plaintiff s Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement. In its Order, the Court certified a conditional Settlement Class, found that the proposed settlement was within the range of possible approval, appointed Class Counsel, appointed Plaintiffs Shihad and Soto as the Class Representatives, and approved KCC Class Action Services, LLC ( KCC ) as the claims administrator. 32. Pursuant to the Court s schedule, promulgation of notice will conclude on August 25, The Class Administrator caused the Settlement Notice to appear as a tabloid-size quarter page ad unit in the Classifieds section of the San Francisco Examiner on May 29, June 5, June 12, and June 19, 2017, for a total of four insertions. In addition, the Claims Administrator caused 172 million internet banner impressions targeted to adults 18 years of age and older to appear on a variety of websites from May 26, 2017 through June 25, In total, the internet banner effort delivered 183,667,666 impressions. As of August 3, 2017, the claim administrator designated website for the settlement, wwww.wildplanetsettlement.com received 229,892 visits alone. 33. Between May 12, 2017 and May 26, 2017, my firm worked with defense counsel and KCC, the Court-appointed claims administrator, to finalize the forms of notice for dissemination. This process entailed reviewing and revising drafts of the Long-Form Notice, the Short-Form Notice, and the Postcard Notice. It also entailed reviewing the script and procedures for the interactive voice response ( IVR ) system used in the toll-free telephone number. It also entailed reviewing the settlement website, updating the domain for KCC s servers, and verifying the procedures for submitting claims, objections, and opt-out requests. 34. To date, the response to the settlement has been overwhelmingly positive. In addition to the Court-ordered notice program, information about the settlement was advertised on and In addition, Top Class Actions provided notice of the settlement on their websites and/or facebook pages. These publications have generally explained the basic terms of the deal, and referred consumers to the settlement website at to learn more. 8 DECLARATION OF REUBEN NATHAN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS FEES AND EXPENSES CASE NO. 5:15-CV BLF

35 Case 5:15-cv BLF Document 54-1 Filed 08/10/17 Page 9 of Throughout this process, my office and the offices of co-counsel have been available to respond to inquiries by class members, both by phone and by . In most cases, my firm responds to phone inquiries immediately, and inquiries in less than 24 hours. 36. I have also assigned my firm s retained IT manager to routinely visit the settlement website to ensure that it is functional and responsive. I also request information from KCC every 2-3 weeks on the rates of submitted claims, objections, and opt-outs. 37. As of August 3, 2017, there have been 67,017 claims submitted and zero (0) optouts. This settlement has achieved these results already, with three weeks still remaining before the August 25, 2017 claim filing deadline. Attached as Exhibit C is Eric Robin s declaration, manager of KCC, which identifies the advertising, notice, and claims submitted, also referenced in this declaration. 38. At these rates, assuming that Class Counsel s motion for attorneys fees, reimbursement of costs and expenses, and payment of incentive awards is granted in full, Class Members will be paid $11.44 per claim. 39. The following represents our breakdown of the Settlement Fund and its allocation in connection with the proposed settlement and award of fees, costs, expenses and incentives: CASH FUND $1,700, Total Cash Fund -$350, KCC Administrative Expense -$566, Attorney s Fees at 33.33% -$7, Expense Reimbursement -$10, Class Rep Incentive Award $766, Subtotal / 67,017 Cash Claims Total $11.44 Payout Per Cash Claim 40. This is an excellent recovery that will fully compensate most Class members for 100% of their alleged losses, and for many, more than that. SPINS industry data and confidential data produced by Wild Planet shows that the average retail price for 5-ounce cans of Wild Planet tuna was approximately $2.56 during the Class Period. The blended average retail price for Sustainable Seas Sold White Albacore Tuna in Water and Sustainable Seas Solid Light Tuna in 9 DECLARATION OF REUBEN NATHAN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS FEES AND EXPENSES CASE NO. 5:15-CV BLF

36 Case 5:15-cv BLF Document 54-1 Filed 08/10/17 Page 10 of Water was $2.62. The average retail price for Wild Planet Albacore (which constituted 55% of the all Wild Planet tuna sold during the Class Period) was $2.50. The average of these figures comes to $2.56. Testing with NOAA showed an average underfill between 3.2% to 7%, resulting in damages of approximately 8 cents to 18 cents per can. This yields an average of 13 cents per can. Accordingly, an $11.44 cash payment would provide full recovery for approximately 88 cans per cash Claimant. II. THE BACKGROUND AND EXPERIENCE OF CLASS COUNSEL 41. I obtained my formal undergraduate education in England. I then graduated from Western University College of Law in I began my practice with the firm of Azimy & Nathan, LLP, which grew into a nine-attorney firm with twelve staff members, located in Irvine, California. are below: 42. I have served as class counsel in jurisdictions in the United States. Some examples a. Reid v. Diedrich Coffee, Inc., et al., U.S. District Court, Central District of California, Case No.: SACV AG (MLGx); b. Scerca v. Town & Country, et al., U.S. District Court, Central District of California, Case No.: SACV AG (MLGx); c. Hilliard v. Ameriquest, et al. and Torok v. Ameriquest, et al., U.S. District Court Central District of California, Case No.: SACV JVS (ANx); d. Strich v. Solstice Capital, et al., U.S. District Court Central District of California, Case No.: CV SGL (RNBx); Court, Case No.: JCCP 4531; e. The Parking Concepts Wage & Hour Cases, Los Angeles County Superior f. Robert Griffin et al. v 725 Baker LLC, Orange County County Superior Court, Case No.: CU-OE-CXC; BC438653; No.: BC472215; ; g. Leon v. Allied Exhaust Systems, Los Angeles Superior Court, Case No.: h. De Los Santos v. Lala s Argentine Grill, Los Angeles Superior Court, Case i. Duarte v. Heroes Restaurants, Inc., Orange County Superior Court, Case No.: j. Brihn v. PJ Orange County One, L.P., Orange County Superior Court 10 DECLARATION OF REUBEN NATHAN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS FEES AND EXPENSES CASE NO. 5:15-CV BLF

37 Case 5:15-cv BLF Document 54-1 Filed 08/10/17 Page 11 of Case No.: ; BC506687; k. Lopez v. My World Enterprises, Inc., Los Angeles Superior Court, Case No. 43. A copy of my firm s resume which sets forth a detailed information about my practice and the qualifications of Nathan & Associates, APC is attached as Exhibit A. III. CLASS COUNSEL S LODESTAR AND EXPENSES 44. Attached as Exhibit B are my firm detailed billing diaries for this case. I have personally reviewed all of my firm s time entries, and have used billing judgment to ensure that duplicative or unnecessary time has been excluded and that only time reasonably devoted to the litigation has been included. The time and descriptions displayed in these records were regularly and contemporaneously recorded by me and the other timekeepers of the firm pursuant to firm policy and have been maintained in the computerized records of my firm. 45. As of August 9, 2017, Nathan & Associates, APC expended hours in this case. Nathan & Associates, APC s lodestar fee in Soto/Shihad v. Wild Planet Co., based on current billing rates, is $97, A sum of all the billing for all counsel for the Plaintiffs in this matter comes to a loadstar of $200,563. A fee award of 33.33%, or $566,100.00, would represent a multiplier of 2.8 over the base lodestar fee. 47. In addition to the time enumerated above, I estimate that Class Counsel will incur an additional 15 hours of future work in connection with coordinating with the settlement administrator, monitoring settlement administration, and responding to Class member inquiries. 48. My firm incurred $1, in expenses in connection with advertising the settlement on Top Class Actions. This expense was necessary to prosecute this litigation in order to provide better notice to class members. I have reviewed the expenses records of co-counsel, and it is my opinion that all expenses were carefully and reasonably expended, and they reflect market rates for various categories of expenses incurred. Expense items are billed separately and such charges are not duplicated in my firm s billing rates. 49. Based on my knowledge and experience, the hourly rates charged by my firm are within the range of market rates charged by attorneys of equivalent experience, skill, and expertise. These are the same hourly rates that we actually charge to our regular hourly clients who have 11 DECLARATION OF REUBEN NATHAN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS FEES AND EXPENSES CASE NO. 5:15-CV BLF

38 Case 5:15-cv BLF Document 54-1 Filed 08/10/17 Page 12 of retained us for non-contingent matters, and which are actually paid by those clients. I have personal knowledge of the range of hourly rates typically charged by counsel in our field in California and I have weighted the market rates into account and have aligned my rate with that of the market. 50. Non-contingent market rates charged by attorneys in California are as follows: (1) by the attorneys fee applications of counsel of record; (2) by discussing fees with other attorneys; (3) by obtaining declarations regarding prevailing market rates filed by other attorneys seeking fees; and (4) by reviewing attorneys fee applications and awards in other cases, as well as surveys and articles on attorney s fees in the legal newspapers and treatises. Comparable hourly rates include: i. Williams v. H&R Block Enterprises, Inc., Alameda County Superior Ct. No. RG , ii. iii. Order of Final Approval and Judgment filed November 8, 2012, a wage and hour class action, in which the court found the hourly rates of $785, $775, and $750 reasonable for the more senior class counsel. Pierce v. County of Orange, 905 F. Supp. 2d 1017 (C.D. Cal. 2012), a civil rights class action brought by pre-trial detainees, in which the court approved a lodestar- based, inter alia, on 2011 rates of $850 and $825 per hour. Holloway et. al. v. Best Buy Co., Inc., No PJH (N.D. Cal. 2011) (Order dated November 9, 2011), a class action alleging that Best Buy discriminated against female, African American and Latino employees by denying them promotions and lucrative sales positions, in which the court approved lodestar-based rates of up to $825 per hour. 51. Surveys also justify my firm s hourly rate: a. On February 25, 2011, the Wall Street Journal published an on-line article entitled Top Billers. That article listed the 2010 and/or 2009 hourly rates for more than 125 attorneys, in a variety of practice areas and cases, who charged $1,000 per hour or more. Indeed, the article specifically lists eleven (11) Gibson Dunn & Crutcher attorneys billing at $1,000 per hour or more. b. The Westlaw Court Express Legal Billing Reports for May, August, and December 2009 (attached to Tim Fisher declaration) show that as far back as 2009, attorneys with as little as 19 years of experience were charging $800 per hour or more, and that the rates requested here are well within the range of those reported. Again, current rates for many attorneys are significantly higher. 52. My hourly rate of $ has been supported by other courts issuing an award at the requested rate without a discount. As recent as May 2017, Judge Kim Dunning of the Orange County Superior Court recognized and grant a final approval motion based on my hourly rate of $ Santoli v. Paramount Mortgage, LLC, et al., OCSC Case No DECLARATION OF REUBEN NATHAN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS FEES AND EXPENSES CASE NO. 5:15-CV BLF

39 Case 5:15-cv BLF Document 54-1 Filed 08/10/17 Page 13 of My firm s fee application, in any case, before any court of law, has never been reduced. 54. My firm undertook this representation on a contingent basis recognizing that the risk of non-payment has been high throughout this litigation. I recognized that there were substantial uncertainties in the viability of this case as a class action. A realistic assessment shows that the risks in the resolution of the liability issues, protracted litigation in this action as well as the probable appeals process, are great. 55. If this case had not resolved through settlement, I would have vigorously prosecuted the case through class certification, summary judgment, trial, and appeal. My firm was therefore at great risk for non-payment. 56. My hourly rate is $ I have no associates presently working for my firm. 57. We have also achieved significant savings for the Class through the terms of our agreement with KCC, the Court-appointed claims administrator. The terms of settlement included that Wild Planet agrees to pay $1,700,000 in cash and the settlement administrator s actual costs and expenses in carrying out its duties are capped at $350,000. Together with co-counsel L. Timothy Fisher, I negotiated KCC s fee substantially lower from its initial proposal. 58. I did not negotiate attorneys fees with Wild Planet. The Settlement Agreement does not have a clear sailing provision. The Settlement Agreement does permit my firm to request up to one-third of the settlement fund for our attorneys fees, but Wild Planet is free to oppose this request. 59. There is no lawyer competent to litigate this action would agree to do so for a 25% contingency fee since the novelty, complexity, and difficulty of litigating an under-filling of canned tuna case. While the Hendricks Action laid the groundwork, it only allowed Tim Fisher, Ross Cornell and me to stream line the issues and avoid having to use unnecessarily use the Court s resources. I believe the facts reflect a 33.33% contingent fee requested is the market rate for a case of such novelty, complexity, and difficulty. 60. Due to the commitment of time and capital required to litigate this action, my firm had to forego significant other work in late 2016 and early 2017, including non-contingent fee related work DECLARATION OF REUBEN NATHAN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS FEES AND EXPENSES CASE NO. 5:15-CV BLF

40 Case 5:15-cv BLF Document 54-1 Filed 08/10/17 Page 14 of IV. THE CLASS REPRESENTATIVES ROLE IN THIS LITIGATION 61. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, the Class Representatives and the Interested Parties are permitted to request approval of an incentive award up to $5, each for their service. 62. Awards for class representatives are common in class actions. See, e.g. Dupler v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 705 F. Supp. 2d 231, 245 (E.D.N.Y. 2010) (approving $25,000 and $5,000 awards to two plaintiffs in a settlement involving allegations that the defendant s backdating of membership renewals was a deceptive practice under New York s consumer fraud statute); In re Domestic Air Transp. Antitrust Litig., 148 F.R.D. 297, 348 (N.D. Ga. 1993) ($142,500 awarded from settlement fund of $50 million); In re Dun & Bradstreet Credit Services Customer Litig., 130 F.R.D. 366, (S.D. Ohio 1990) ($215,000 awarded from settlement fund of $18 million); Spicer v. Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc., 844 F. Supp. 1226, (N.D. Ill. 1993) ($30,000 awarded from settlement fund of $10 million); Enterprise Energy Corp. v. Columbia Gas Transmission Corp., 137 F.R.D. 240, (S.D. Ohio 1991) (approving $50,000 incentive awards). In 2016, I obtained class enhancement awards for class representatives in the amount of $10,000.00, Judge Thierry Colaw presiding, of Orange County Civil Complex division, dept. CX105 in the case entitled Taylor v. loandepot.com, llc, et al. Such awards compensate class representatives and others for actual costs in time, money, and the disruption of life incurred in the prosecution of the litigation. They also serve to encourage future plaintiffs to come forward and vindicate the rights of other injured parties. 63. Here, the involvement of the Class Representatives, Mr. Soto and Mr. Shihad, were critical to the prosecution of the case. Throughout the litigation, Mr. Shihad held regular meetings with Class Counsel to receive updates on the progress of the case and to discuss strategy. He assisted in Class Counsel s pre-suit investigation by discussing his experiences and providing information on his purchase and use of Wild Planet Tuna. Mr. Shihad assisted in drafting the Complaint, and he reviewed the Complaint for accuracy before it was filed. Finally, he was intimately involved in the settlement process, and has continued to keep abreast of settlement progress to date. / / / / / / 14 DECLARATION OF REUBEN NATHAN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS FEES AND EXPENSES CASE NO. 5:15-CV BLF

41 Case 5:15-cv BLF Document 54-1 Filed 08/10/17 Page 15 of Mr. Shihad also took significant time away from work and personal activities to initiate and litigate this action. In light of his contributions and efforts, an incentive award of $5,000 to Mr. Shihad for acting as the Class Representatives is appropriate and should be approved. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States, the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on August 10, 2017 at San Diego, California. /s/ Reuben Nathan Reuben D. Nathan DECLARATION OF REUBEN NATHAN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS FEES AND EXPENSES CASE NO. 5:15-CV BLF

42 Case 5:15-cv BLF Document 54-1 Filed 08/10/17 Page 16 of 45 EXHIBIT A

43 Case 5:15-cv BLF Document 54-1 Filed 08/10/17 Page 17 of 45 REUBEN D. NATHAN NATHAN & ASSOCIATES, APC 600 W. Broadway, Suite 700, San Diego, California Tel: (619) Fax: (619) FIRM RESUME Reuben D. Nathan received in formal education in England and obtained his Juris Doctor from Western State in Reuben D. Nathan was admitted to the State Bar of California in He is also a member of the bars of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and the United States District Courts for the Northern, Central, Southern, and Eastern Districts of California. Reuben D. Nathan has an active practice in consumer class actions and complex business litigation. Prior to founding Nathan & Associates, APC in 2012, Reuben Nathan was the senior partner/managing partner of Azimy & Nathan, LLP a 9-person attorney firm located in Irvine, California. Reuben Nathan has actively been involved in numerous representative actions that resulted in multi-million dollar recoveries for both employees and consumers, including, but not limited to: In re Automobile Advertising Cases, J.C.C.P 4149; Reid v. Diedrich Coffee, Inc., Case No.: SACV AG; Scerca v. Town & Country, Case No.: SACV AG;; Griffin v. 725 Baker, LLC, Case No.: ; The Parking Concepts Wage and Hour Cases, Case No.: J.C.C.P 4531; Leon v. Allied Exhaust Systems, Case No.: BC438653; De Los Santos v. Lala s Argentine Grill, Case No.: BC472215; Duarte v. Heroes Restaurants, Inc., Case No.: ; Brihn v. PJ Orange County One, L.P., Case No.: ; Gutierrez v. Umami Burger, et al., Case No. Case No.: BC476329; Torok v. Ameriquest, Case No.: SACV JVS; Strich v. Solstice Capital, Case No.: CV SGL; Taylor v. Loandepot.com, llc, et al., Case No Reuben D. Nathan has consistently been named a Super Lawyer in the area of class action since 2012, and received legal awards such as Class Action Lawyer of the Year, additional related awards, and is a member of several legal organizations.

44 Case 5:15-cv BLF Document 54-1 Filed 08/10/17 Page 18 of 45 EXHIBIT B

45 Case 5:15-cv BLF Document 54-1 Filed 08/10/17 Page 19 of 45 Nathan Associates, APC - Wild Planet Foods, Inc. Billing Diaries Through 8/8/17 DATE MATTER TKPR DESCRIPTION HOURS RATE AMOUNT 11/30/15 Wild Planet Foods, Inc. RN Meeting with Client in Orange County (drive from SD to OC) 6.8 $ $4, /2/15 Wild Planet Foods, Inc. RN Meeting with co-counsel Ross Cornell in Orange County re: discuss case 5.8 $ $3, /2/15 Wild Planet Foods, Inc. RN Research and Investigate Wild Planet brand from stores located in Orange County and LA 10.6 $ $7, /3/15 Wild Planet Foods, Inc. RN Research and Investigate stores located in San Diego 3.1 $ $2, /4/15 Wild Planet Foods, Inc. RN Teleconference wih co-counsel, Ross Cornell discuss strategy 1.1 $ $ /4/15 Wild Planet Foods, Inc. RN Prepare retainer agreement for Client, Heney Shihad 0.9 $ $ /5/15 Wild Planet Foods, Inc. RN Review Hendricks v. Starkist docket and filed documents 2.8 $ $1, /7/15 Wild Planet Foods, Inc. RN Review Hendricks v. Starkist docket and documents 3.6 $ $2, /9/15 Wild Planet Foods, Inc. RN Review People of State of CA v Wild Planet, et al. and research 2.9 $ $1, /11/15 Wild Planet Foods, Inc. RN Review State of CA v. Wild Planet, et al. 0.5 $ $ /8/16 Wild Planet Foods, Inc. RN Meeting with Client, Heney Shihad and co-counsel, Ross Cornell in Orange County 6.3 $ $4, /10/16 Wild Planet Foods, Inc. RN Create outline and summary of Hendricks v. Starkist, et al. 3.3 $ $2, /18/16 Wild Planet Foods, Inc. RN Review the details of the NOAA testing and speak with Mike Stadler of NOAA 2.2 $ $1, /19/16 Wild Planet Foods, Inc. RN Call with co-counsel, Ross Cornell to discuss first round of testing by NOAA 0.3 $ $ /24/16 Wild Planet Foods, Inc. RN Review testing for second round of testing from NOAA 1.1 $ $ /24/16 Wild Planet Foods, Inc. RN Discussion with Mike Stadler of NOAA 0.4 $ $ /25/16 Wild Planet Foods, Inc. RN Call with co-counsel, Ross Cornell to discuss second round of testing by NOAA 0.5 $ $ /5/16 Wild Planet Foods, Inc. RN Begin preparing complaint for Shihad v. Wild Planet, et al. 2.8 $ $1, /12/16 Wild Planet Foods, Inc. RN Continue drafting complaint for Shihad v. Wild Planet, et al. 3.4 $ $2, /19/16 Wild Planet Foods, Inc. RN Finalize complaint for Shihad v. Wild Planet, al. 2.6 $ $1, /20/16 Wild Planet Foods, Inc. RN Interview potential new class reps (3) 1.8 $ $1, /21/16 Wild Planet Foods, Inc. RN Review complaint in Soto v. Wild Planet, et al. 2.1 $ $1, /22/16 Wild Planet Foods, Inc. RN Compare Sustainable Seas products in Soto vs. Wild Planet brand in Shihad 0.8 $ $ /24/16 Wild Planet Foods, Inc. RN Review CLRA letter Shihad v. Wild Planet, et al. 1.1 $ $ /25/16 Wild Planet Foods, Inc. RN Sign complaint with co-cousel Ross Cornell edits 0.1 $ $ /28/16 Wild Planet Foods, Inc. RN Prepare Notice of Related Cases 2.1 $ $, Mar Wild Planet Foods, Inc. RN Interview new potential class reps (1) 0.7 $ $ /29/16 Wild Planet Foods, Inc. RN to Opposing counsel and co-counsel - Introduction 0.5 $ $ /30/16 Wild Planet Foods, Inc. RN from opposing counsel re: stipulation to extend 0.1 $ $67.50

46 Case 5:15-cv BLF Document 54-1 Filed 08/10/17 Page 20 of 45 Nathan Associates, APC - Wild Planet Foods, Inc. Billing Diaries Through 8/8/17 4/8/16 Wild Planet Foods, Inc. RN with counsel from Soto case - different cases based on tuna 0.2 $ $ /9/16 Wild Planet Foods, Inc. RN from opposing counsel re: stip to extend Scheduling Conference 0.2 $ $ /11/16 Wild Planet Foods, Inc. RN Call with Soto counsel re: Soto case and related cases 0.3 $ $ /14/16 Wild Planet Foods, Inc. RN from Soto counsel re: sales data for Sustainable Seas and review data 1.9 $ $1, /13/16 Wild Planet Foods, Inc. RN with Soto counsel and opposing counsel 0.2 $ $ /14/16 Wild Planet Foods, Inc. RN Call with co-counsel, Ross Cornell to discuss litigation strategy 1.8 $ $1, /22/16 Wild Planet Foods, Inc. RN to opposing counsel re: request for sales data 0.2 $ $ /22/16 Wild Planet Foods, Inc. RN from opposing counsel re: sales data 0.1 $ $ /22/16 Wild Planet Foods, Inc. RN Call with Soto counsel 0.2 $ $ /23/16 Wild Planet Foods, Inc. RN to opposing counsel re: sales data 0.1 $ $ /24/16 Wild Planet Foods, Inc. RN from opposing counsel re: sales data 0.1 $ $ /26/16 Wild Planet Foods, Inc. RN from opposing counsel re: sales data 0.1 $ $ /9/16 Wild Planet Foods, Inc. RN opposing counsel re: Excel sales data from Wild Planet 2.5 $ $1, /11/16 Wild Planet Foods, Inc. RN Meet with co-counsel, Ross Cornell in Orange County to discuss Litigation Strategy 5.5 $ $3, /12/16 Wild Planet Foods, Inc. RN Discussion with opposing counsel re: sales data 0.5 $ $ /13/16 Wild Planet Foods, Inc. RN Call with Soto counsel re: Joint posecurtion agreement 0.1 $ $ /17/16 Wild Planet Foods, Inc. RN Review and execute Joint Prosecution Agreement 0.4 $ $ /17/16 Wild Planet Foods, Inc. RN Correspondence from Soto counsel re: consolidation 0.3 $ $ /18/16 Wild Planet Foods, Inc. RN Exchange with opposing counsel and review second stip to cont. scheduling conf. 0.2 $ $135 5/19/16 Wild Planet Foods, Inc. RN Review Joint Prosecution Agreement with Bursor Fisher 1.1 $ $ /20/16 Wild Planet Foods, Inc. RN Call with Soto counsel re: settlement 0.4 $ $ /1/16 Wild Planet Foods, Inc. RN Call to opposing counsel re: settlement 0.9 $ $ /2/16 Wild Planet Foods, Inc. RN Exchange with Fisher re: settlement 0.1 $ $ /6/16 Wild Planet Foods, Inc. RN Exchange with Fisher re: settlement 0.1 $ $ /8/16 Wild Planet Foods, Inc. RN Call with opposing counsel re: settlement 0.7 $ $ /13/16 Wild Planet Foods, Inc. RN with opposing counsel re: settlement 0.1 $ $ /14/16 Wild Planet Foods, Inc. RN with opposing counsel re: settlement 0.1 $ $ /15/16 Wild Planet Foods, Inc. RN Emai with opposing counsel re: settlement 0.1 $ $ /20/16 Wild Planet Foods, Inc. RN Call to opposing counsel re: settlement 0.5 $ $ /21/16 Wild Planet Foods, Inc. RN Reviewed sales data for Sustainable Seas and Wild Planet 1.1 $ $742.50

47 Case 5:15-cv BLF Document 54-1 Filed 08/10/17 Page 21 of 45 Nathan Associates, APC - Wild Planet Foods, Inc. Billing Diaries Through 8/8/17 6/24/16 Wild Planet Foods, Inc. RN from opposing counsel re: motion to dismiss, class cert. contest, damage model 0.8 $ $ /25/16 Wild Planet Foods, Inc. RN Research damage model 2.1 $ $1, /26/16 Wild Planet Foods, Inc. RN Research re: motion to dismiss arguments and attack on class 3.1 $ $2, /27/16 Wild Planet Foods, Inc. RN Draft response to Opposing counsel 1.1 $ $ /1/16 Wild Planet Foods, Inc. RN opposing counsel re: settlement communication 0.1 $ $ /5/16 Wild Planet Foods, Inc. RN Call with co-counsel, Ross Cornell and Tim Fisher 0.2 $ $ /5/16 Wild Planet Foods, Inc. RN from RN to opposing counsel re: settlement communication 0.1 $ $ /8/16 Wild Planet Foods, Inc. RN from opposing counsel re: stipulation to extend 0.2 $ $ /10/16 Wild Planet Foods, Inc. RN from opposing counsel re: settlement communication 0.1 $ $ /11/16 Wild Planet Foods, Inc. RN Call with opposing counsel re: summary judgment related issues 0.7 $ $ /12/16 Wild Planet Foods, Inc. RN from opposing counsel re: settlement communication 0.1 $ $ /18/16 Wild Planet Foods, Inc. RN from opposing counsel re: settlement communication 0.1 $ $ /19/16 Wild Planet Foods, Inc. RN from RN to opposing counsel re: settlement communication 0.1 $ $ /5/16 Wild Planet Foods, Inc. RN from opposing counsel re: settlement communication 0.1 $ $ /16/16 Wild Planet Foods, Inc. RN to RN to opposing counsel re: settlement communication 0.1 $ $ /17/16 Wild Planet Foods, Inc. RN from opposing counsel re: stipulation to extend 0.2 $ $ /30/16 Wild Planet Foods, Inc. RN from RN to opposing counsel re: settlement communication 0.1 $ $ /9/16 Wild Planet Foods, Inc. RN to opposing counsel re: settlement communication 0.1 $ $ /13/16 Wild Planet Foods, Inc. RN to co-counsel Tim Fisher re: settlement communication 0.1 $ $ /15/16 Wild Planet Foods, Inc. RN Call to opposing counsel re: settlement 0.5 $ $ /16/16 Wild Planet Foods, Inc. RN from RN to opposing counsel re: settlement communication 0.4 $ $ /20/16 Wild Planet Foods, Inc. RN with co-counsel Tim Fisher and Ross Cornell re: settlement 0.2 $ $ /21/16 Wild Planet Foods, Inc. RN Discuss Starkist settlement in relation to Wild Planet case with co-counsel Ross Cornell 1.2 $ $ /28/16 Wild Planet Foods, Inc. RN with co-counsel Tim Fisher re: quick pay provision 0.2 $ $ /29/16 Wild Planet Foods, Inc. RN with opposing counsel re: terms of settlement 0.1 $ $ /4/16 Wild Planet Foods, Inc. RN Call with opposing counsel re: settlement 0.7 $ $ /13/16 Wild Planet Foods, Inc. RN Call with co-counsel Fisher and Cornell re: Notice and Admin 0.4 $ $ /14/16 Wild Planet Foods, Inc. RN Call with co-counsel re: notice plan 0.3 $ $ /15/16 Wild Planet Foods, Inc. RN Draft stipulated settlement 5.2 $ $3, /16/16 Wild Planet Foods, Inc. RN Draft stipulated settlement 2.6 $ $1,755.00

48 Case 5:15-cv BLF Document 54-1 Filed 08/10/17 Page 22 of 45 Nathan Associates, APC - Wild Planet Foods, Inc. Billing Diaries Through 8/8/17 10/22/16 Wild Planet Foods, Inc. RN Call with co-counsel re: notice 0.2 $ $ /25/16 Wild Planet Foods, Inc. RN Finalize stipulated settlement 2.7 $ $1, /3/16 Wild Planet Foods, Inc. RN with co-counsel, Cornell and Fisher and Nathan re: settlement 0.1 $ $ /5/15 Wild Planet Foods, Inc. RN Review co-counsel, Fisher edits to stip for settlement 2 $ $1, /8/16 Wild Planet Foods, Inc. RN with co-counsel, Cornell and Fisher re: settlement stip 0.2 $ $ /10/16 Wild Planet Foods, Inc. RN with co-counsel, Cornell and Fisher re: settlement stip 0.2 $ $ /8/16 Wild Planet Foods, Inc. RN with co-counsel, Cornell and Fisher re: settlement stip 0.1 $ $ /9/16 Wild Planet Foods, Inc. RN Call with co-counsel, Cornell and Fisher re: settlement stip 0.8 $ $ /12/16 Wild Planet Foods, Inc. RN Call with co-counsel, Ross Cornell to discuss preliminary approval motion 1.4 $ $ /20/16 Wild Planet Foods, Inc. RN Call with co-counsel Ross Cornell and Tim Fisher 0.2 $ $ /22/16 Wild Planet Foods, Inc. RN Review settlement agreement with Client 1.8 $ $1, /11/16 Wild Planet Foods, Inc. RN Review Draft of Preliminary Approval 4.2 $ $2, /16/17 Wild Planet Foods, Inc. RN Call with co-counsel, Ross Cornell update on settlement 0.4 $ $ /7/17 Wild Planet Foods, Inc. RN Call with co-counsel, Ross Cornell update on settlement 0.3 $ $ /15/17 Wild Planet Foods, Inc. RN Inquiry by AG and discussion w/fisher&cornell 0.2 $ $ /20/17 Wild Planet Foods, Inc. RN with co-counsel, Fisher and Cornell AG 0.1 $ $ /13/17 Wild Planet Foods, Inc. RN Review co-counsel, Fisher addeundum to settlement and short form notice 0.5 $ $ /16-8/5 Wild Planet Foods, Inc. RN Worked with KKC on website, notices, reviewed the results, and Eric Robin dec. 6.2 $ $4, /4/17 Wild Planet Foods, Inc. RN Review and Edits to Final Appvoal motion 2.4 $ $1, /14/17 Wild Planet Foods, Inc. RN Final Approval Hearing (projected time) 7.5 $ $5, TOTAL $97,807.50

49 Case 5:15-cv BLF Document 54-1 Filed 08/10/17 Page 23 of 45 EXHIBIT C

50 Case 5:15-cv BLF Document 54-1 Filed 08/10/17 Page 24 of EHDER SOTO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. WILD PLANET FOODS, INC., UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Plaintiff, Defendant. HENEY SHIHAD, an individual on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. Plaintiff, WILD PLANET FOODS, INC. and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, I, Eric Robin, declare: Defendant. Case No. 5:15-cv BLF Case No. 1:16-cv BLF CLASS ACTION DECLARATION OF ERIC ROBIN RE: NOTICE PROCEDURES 1. I am a Senior Project Manager at Kurtzman Carson Consultants LLC ("KCC ). I am over 21 years of age and am not a party to this action. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth herein and, if called as a witness, could and would testify competently thereto. 2. KCC was retained by the parties to serve as the Claims Administrator to, among other 1 DECLARATION OF ERIC ROBIN RE: NOTICE PROCEDURES

51 Case 5:15-cv BLF Document 54-1 Filed 08/10/17 Page 25 of tasks, to publish the Summary Notice; receive and process Claim Forms, respond to Class Member inquiries; to establish and maintain a settlement website and perform other duties as specified in the Stipulation of Settlement (the Stipulation ) preliminarily approved by this Court on May 11, CAFA Notification. In compliance with the Class Action Fairness Act ( CAFA ), 28 U.S.C. Section 1715, KCC compiled a CD-ROM containing the following documents: Class Action Complaint (Soto, 5:15-cv-05082, N.D.Ca.), First Amended Class Action Complaint (Soto), Class Action Complaint (Shihad, 1:16-cv-01478, N.D.Ca.), [Proposed] Order Granting Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement (filed in Soto and Shihad, jointly), Notice of Motion and Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement (filed in Soto and Shihad, jointly), Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion for Preliminary Approval (filed in Soto and Shihad, jointly), Declaration of L. Timothy Fisher in Support of Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement (filed in Soto and Shihad, jointly),declaration of Daniel Rosenthal re Settlement Notice Plan (filed in Soto and Shihad, jointly),text version of Clerk s Notice Resetting Case Management Conference [Dkt. 20], Long Form Notice, Short Form Notice, Internet Banner Advertisements, and Stipulation for Class Action Settlement, which accompanied a cover letter (collectively, the CAFA Notice Packet ). A copy of the cover letter is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 4. On February 10, 2017, KCC caused sixty-five (65) CAFA Notice Packets to be mailed via Priority Mail from the U.S. Post Office in Memphis, Tennessee to the parties listed on Exhibit B, i.e., the U.S. Attorney General, the Attorneys General of each of the 50 States and the District of Columbia, the Attorneys General of the 5 recognized voting U.S. Territories, the Attorneys General of 3 non-voting U.S. Territories, as well as parties of interest to this Action. 5. As of the date of this declaration, KCC has received no response to the CAFA Notice Packet from any of the recipients identified in paragraph 4 above 6. Publication of Summary Notice. KCC caused the Summary Notice to appear as a tabloid-size quarter page ad unit in the Classifieds section of the San Francisco Examiner on May 29, June 5, June 12, and June 19, 2017, for a total of four insertions. Copies of the Summary Notice as published in each issue are attached as Exhibit C. In addition, KCC caused 172 million internet banner impressions targeted to adults 18 years of age and older to appear on a variety of websites from May 26, 2 DECLARATION OF ERIC ROBIN RE: NOTICE PROCEDURES

52 Case 5:15-cv BLF Document 54-1 Filed 08/10/17 Page 26 of through June 25, In total, the internet banner effort delivered 183,667,666 impressions, a bonus of 11,667,666 more impressions than purchased at no additional cost. Screenshots of the internet banners as they appeared on various websites is attached as Exhibit D. 7. Toll-Free Telephone Number. On or before May 24, 2017, KCC established a toll-free telephone number ( ) dedicated to answering telephone inquiries from Class Members. As of August 3, 2017, KCC has received a total of 95 calls. 8. Website. On or before May 24, 2017, KCC also established a website ( dedicated to this settlement to provide additional information to the Class Members and to answer frequently asked questions. Visitors of the website can download a Notice, and Claim Form. Visitors can also submit claims online. As of August 3, 2017, the website has received 229,892 visits. 9. Requests for Exclusion. The deadline for Class Members to request to be excluded from the class is a postmarked deadline of August 25, As of the date of this declaration, KCC has received no requests for exclusion. 10. Objections to the Settlement. The deadline for Class Members to object to the Settlement is a postmarked deadline of August 25, As of the date of this declaration, KCC has received no objections to the settlement. 11. Claim Forms. The deadline for Class Members to file a claim is a postmarked deadline of August 25, As of the date of this declaration, KCC has received 73,029 claim forms. This count includes potentially duplicative claims. I declare under penalty of perjury pursuant to the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. Executed on this 9 th day of August 2017 at San Rafael, California. Eric Robin 3 DECLARATION OF ERIC ROBIN RE: NOTICE PROCEDURES

53 Case 5:15-cv BLF Document 54-1 Filed 08/10/17 Page 27 of 45 Exhibit A

54 Case 5:15-cv BLF Document 54-1 Filed 08/10/17 Page 28 of 45 VIA PRIORITY MAIL «First» «Last» «Company» «Address_1» «Address_2» «City», «State» «Zip» February 10, 2017 Re: Notice of Proposed Class Action Settlement Pursuant to 28 U.S.C Dear Dana Boente: KCC Class Action Services, LLC has been retained as the independent third-party Administrator in the putative class action lawsuits entitled Soto v. Wild Planet Foods, Inc., Case No. 5:15-cv BLF (the Soto Action ), and Shihad v. Wild Planet Foods, Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv BLF (the Shihad Action ). The Soto Action and the Shihad Action are referred to collectively as the Actions. Ehder Soto and Heney Shihad are referred to collectively as the Class Representatives. Shartsis Friese LLP represent defendant Wild Planet Foods, Inc. ( WP or the Defendant ) in this matter. The Class Representatives allege in the Actions, among other claims, violations of California s Consumers Legal, Remedies Act ( CLRA ), violations of California s Unfair Competition Law ( UCL ), violations of California s False Advertising Law ( FAL ), and violations of 21 C.F.R (c) (the press weight regulation ). The lawsuit is pending before the Honorable Beth Labson Freeman in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. This letter is to advise you that the plaintiff filed a Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement in connection with this lawsuit on February 2, Case Name: Case Number: Soto v. Wild Planet Foods, Inc. (the Soto Action ) Shihad v. Wild Planet Foods, Inc. (the Shihad Action ) Referred to collectively as the Actions Case No. 5:15-cv BLF Case No. 1:16-cv BLF Jurisdiction: United States District Court, Northern District of California Date Settlement: Filed with Court: February 2, 2017

55 Case 5:15-cv BLF Document 54-1 Filed 08/10/17 Page 29 of 45 «First» «Last» February 10, 2017 Page 2 As the Motion explains, WP denies any wrongdoing or liability whatsoever, but has decided to settle this action solely in order to eliminate the burden, expense, and uncertainties of further litigation. In compliance with 28 U.S.C. 1715(b), the following documents referenced below are included on the CD that is enclosed with this letter: U.S.C. 1715(b)(1) Complaint and Related Materials: Copies of the Class Action Complaint (Soto), Class Action Complaint (Shihad) and First Amended Class Action Complaint (Soto), are included on the enclosed CD Rom U.S.C. 1715(b)(2) Notice of Any Scheduled Judicial Hearing: The Shihad Action has a scheduled hearing on March 3, 207 at 11:00AM. Plaintiffs filed a [Proposed] Order Granting Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement requesting that the Honorable Beth Labson Freeman preliminarily approve the settlement. The [Proposed] Order Granting Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement, Notice of Motion and Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement, Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion for Preliminary Approval, Declaration of L. Timothy Fisher in Support of Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement, Declaration of Daniel Rosenthal Re Settlement Notice Plan, and Upcoming Hearing (Shihad) are included on the enclosed CD Rom U.S.C. 1715(b)(3) Notification to Class Members: Copies of the Long Form Notice and Short Form Notice to be provided to the class are included on the enclosed CD Rom as well as Internet Banner Advertisements U.S.C. 1715(b)(4) Class Action Settlement Agreement: A copy of the Stipulation for Class Action Settlement is included on the enclosed CD Rom U.S.C. 1715(b)(5) Any Settlement or Other Agreement: As of February 10, 2017, no other settlement or agreement has been entered into by the parties to this Action U.S.C. 1715(b)(6) Final Judgment: No Final Judgment has been reached as of February 10, 2017 nor have any Notices of Dismissal been granted at this time U.S.C. 1715(b)(7)(A)-(B) Names of Class Members/Estimate of Class Members: While WP is in the process of gathering information on this issue, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1715(b)(7)(A), at this time a complete list of names of class members as well as each State of residence is not available. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1715(b)(7)(B), it is estimated that there are approximately 3,000,000 individuals in the class U.S.C. 1715(b)(8) Judicial Opinions Related to the Settlement: As of February 10, 2017, the proposed Settlement is still pending preliminary and final approval by the Court, and accordingly there has been no written judicial opinion related to the settlement.

56 Case 5:15-cv BLF Document 54-1 Filed 08/10/17 Page 30 of 45 «First» «Last» February 10, 2017 Page 3 If for any reason you believe the enclosed information does not fully comply with 28 U.S.C. 1715, or have any other questions or concerns, please contact L. Timothy Fisher at Bursor Fisher, P.A., who is counsel for Ehder Soto and the Settlement Class, at (925) or ltfisher@bursor.com or Ross Cornell at the Law Offices of Ross Cornell, APC, who is counsel for Heney Shihad and the Settlement Class, at (562) or ross.law@me.com. Thank you. Sincerely, Enclosure CD Rom /s/ Ross Murray Vice President

57 Case 5:15-cv BLF Document 54-1 Filed 08/10/17 Page 31 of 45 Exhibit B

58 Case 5:15-cv BLF Document 54-1 Filed 08/10/17 Page 32 of 45 Last First Company Address 1 Address 2 City State Zip Richards Craig W. Office of the Alaska Attorney General P.O. Box Juneau AK Strange Luther Office of the Alabama Attorney General 501 Washington Avenue PO Box Montgomery AL Rutledge Leslie Arkansas Attorney General Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock AR Brnovich Mark Office of the Arizona Attorney General 1275 W. Washington Street Phoenix AZ CAFA Coordinator Office of the Attorney General Consumer Law Section 455 Golden Gate Ave., Suite San Francisco CA Coffman Cynthia Office of the Colorado Attorney General Ralph L. Carr Colorado Judicial Center 1300 Broadway, 10th Floor Denver CO Jepsen George State of Connecticut Attorney General's Office 55 Elm Street Hartford CT Racine Karl A. District of Columbia Attorney General 441 4th Street, NW, Suite 1100S Washington DC Boente Dana Acting Attorney General of the United States United States Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington DC Denn Matt Delaware Attorney General Carvel State Office Building 820 N. French Street Wilmington DE Bondi Pam Office of the Attorney General of Florida The Capitol, PL-01 Tallahassee FL Olens Sam Office of the Georgia Attorney General 40 Capitol Square, SW Atlanta GA Chin Douglas S. Office of the Hawaii Attorney General 425 Queen Street Honolulu HI Miller Tom Iowa Attorney General Hoover State Office Building 1305 E. Walnut Street Des Moines IA Wasden Lawrence State of Idaho Attorney General's Office Statehouse 700 W Jefferson St Boise ID Madigan Lisa Illinois Attorney General James R. Thompson Center 100 W. Randolph Street Chicago IL Zoeller Greg Indiana Attorney General's Office Indiana Government Center South 302 West Washington Street, 5th Floor Indianapolis IN Schmidt Derek Kansas Attorney General 120 S.W. 10th Ave., 2nd Floor Topeka KS Conway Jack Office of the Kentucky Attorney General 700 Capitol Ave Capitol Building, Suite 118 Frankfort KY Caldwell James D. Office of the Louisiana Attorney General P.O. Box Baton Rouge LA Healey Maura Office of the Attorney General of Massachusetts 1 Ashburton Place Boston MA Frosh Brian Office of the Maryland Attorney General 200 St. Paul Place Baltimore MD Mills Janet Office of the Maine Attorney General State House Station 6 Augusta ME Schuette Bill Office of the Michigan Attorney General P.O. Box W. Ottawa Street Lansing MI Lori Swanson Attorney General Attention: CAFA Coordinator 1400 Bremer Tower 445 Minnesota Street St. Paul MN Koster Chris Missouri Attorney General's Office Supreme Court Building 207 W. High Street Jefferson City MO Hood Jim Mississippi Attorney General's Office Department of Justice P.O. Box 220 Jackson MS Fox Tim Office of the Montana Attorney General Justice Bldg. 215 N. Sanders Street Helena MT Cooper Roy Office of the North Carolina Attorney General Department of Justice P.O. Box 629 Raleigh NC Stenehjem Wayne North Dakota Office of the Attorney General State Capitol 600 E. Boulevard Avenue Bismarck ND Peterson Doug Office of the Nebraska Attorney General State Capitol P.O. Box Lincoln NE Foster Joseph A. New Hampshire Attorney General State House Annex 33 Capitol Street Concord NH Hoffman John Jay Office of the New Jersey Attorney General Richard J. Hughes Justice Complex 25 Market Street, P.O. Box 080 Trenton NJ Balderas Hector Office of the New Mexico Attorney General P.O. Drawer 1508 Santa Fe NM Laxalt Adam Paul Nevada Attorney General Old Supreme Ct. Bldg. 100 North Carson Street Carson City NV Schneiderman Eric Office of the New York Attorney General Department of Law The Capitol, 2nd Floor Albany NY DeWine Mike Ohio Attorney General State Office Tower 30 E. Broad Street Columbus OH Pruitt Scott Oklahoma Office of the Attorney General 313 NE 21st Street Oklahoma City OK Rosenblum Ellen F. Office of the Oregon Attorney General Justice Building 1162 Court Street, NE Salem OR Kane Kathleen Pennsylvania Office of the Attorney General 1600 Strawberry Square Harrisburg PA Kilmartin Peter Rhode Island Office of the Attorney General 150 South Main Street Providence RI Wilson Alan South Carolina Attorney General Rembert C. Dennis Office Bldg. P.O. Box Columbia SC Jackley Marty J. South Dakota Office of the Attorney General 1302 East Highway 14, Suite 1 Pierre SD Slatery, III Herbert H. Tennessee Attorney General and Reporter 425 5th Avenue North Nashville TN Paxton Ken Attorney General of Texas Capitol Station P.O. Box Austin TX Reyes Sean Utah Office of the Attorney General State Capitol, Room N State St Salt Lake City UT Herring Mark Office of the Virginia Attorney General 900 East Main Street Richmond VA Sorrell William H. Office of the Attorney General of Vermont 109 State Street Montpelier VT Ferguson Bob Washington State Office of the Attorney General 1125 Washington St SE P.O. Box Olympia WA Schimel Brad Office of the Wisconsin Attorney General Dept of Justice, State Capitol, RM 114 East P.O. Box 7857 Madison WI Morrisey Patrick West Virginia Attorney General State Capitol 1900 Kanawha Blvd E Charleston WV Michael Peter K. Office of the Wyoming Attorney General State Capitol Bldg. 200 W 24th St Cheyenne WY Ale Talauega Eleasalo V. American Samoa Attorney General Exec. Ofc. Bldg, Utulei Territory of American Samoa Pago Pago AS Barrett-Anderson Elizabeth Attorney General Office 590 S. Marine Corps Drive ITC Bldg, Suite 706 Tamuning Guam Manibusan Edward Northern Mariana Islands Attorney General Administration Building PO Box Saipan MP Miranda-Rodriguez Cesar R. Puerto Rico Attorney General P.O. Box San Juan San Juan PR Walker Claude E. Department of Justice Virgin Islands Attorney General Kronprindsens Gade, GERS Bldg, 2nd Floor St. Thomas VI Skilling April Dawn Office of the Secretary Department of Justice for the Federated States of Micronesia P.O. Box PS 105 Palikir, Pohnpei FM Office of the Attorney General P.O. Box 1365 Koror PW Office of the Attorney General P.O. Box 890 Majuro MH Murray Ross KCC Class Action Services LLC 3301 Kerner Blvd. San Rafael CA Munzinger Richard F. Shartsis Friese LLP One Maritime Plaza 18th Floor San Francisco CA Mauch Joseph Vincent Shartsis Friese LLP One Maritime Plaza 18th Floor San Francisco CA Cornell, Esq. Ross Law Offices of Ross Cornell, APC 111 W. Ocean Blvd Suite 400 Long Beach CA Fisher L. Timothy Bursor & Fisher, P.A North California Blvd. Suite 940 Walnut Creek CA 94596

59 Case 5:15-cv BLF Document 54-1 Filed 08/10/17 Page 33 of 45 Exhibit C

60 Case 5:15-cv BLF Document 54-1 Filed 08/10/17 Page 34 of 45 LEGAL NOTICE If You Purchased Wild Planet Or Sustainable Seas Tuna, You May Benefit From A Proposed Class Action Settlement Soto v. Wild Planet Foods, Inc., Case No. 15-CV BLF Shihad v. Wild Planet Foods, Inc., Case No. 16-CV BLF WHAT IS THIS NOTICE ABOUT? Two similar lawsuits are pending in the United States District Court, Northern District of California (the Action ) that may affect your rights. The Action claims that Wild Planet Foods, Inc. ( Wild Planet ) under-filled its canned tuna in violation of state and federal law. Wild Planet denies this claim. The Court has not ruled in favor of Plaintiffs or Wild Planet. Instead, the parties agreed to a Proposed Settlement to avoid the expense and risks of continuing the lawsuits. AM I A MEMBER OF THE CLASS? The class is defined as all residents of the United States of America who purchased one or more cans of tuna sold under the Wild Planet or Sustainable Seas brand names from November 5, 2011 through May 11, WHAT DOES THE SETTLEMENT PROVIDE? Subject to Court approval, the parties have agreed to a Settlement under which Wild Planet will pay $1.7 million in cash. You may submit a claim for a cash payment of $29. The claim amount may be subject to pro rata dilution if the total amount of claims exceeds the available settlement funds or the cost of notice and claims administration exceeds $350,000. WHAT ARE MY RIGHTS? You have a choice of whether to stay in the Class or not, and you must decide this now. If you stay in the Class, you will be legally bound by all orders and judgments of the Court, and you won t be able to sue, or continue to sue, Wild Planet as part of any other lawsuit involving the same claims that are in these lawsuits. This is true even if you do nothing by not submitting a claim. 1. You Can Accept the Settlement. Class Members who wish to receive Settlement Benefits must submit claims by August 25, You can get a Claim Form on the internet at Read the instructions carefully, fill out the form, and submit it online on or before August 25, Alternatively, you may also submit a Claim Form by mailing it to the following address: Soto v. Wild Planet Foods, Inc. Settlement Administrator, PO Box 43034, Providence, RI It must be postmarked no later than August 25, If you fail to submit a timely Claim Form and do not exclude yourself from the Settlement, then you will be bound by the Settlement but will not receive any Settlement Benefits. 2. You Can Object to the Settlement. If you believe the Settlement is unsatisfactory, you may file a written objection with the Clerk of the Court for the Northern District of California and send copies to the following Counsel representing the Class and Wild Planet: Plaintiffs Counsel - L. Timothy Fisher, Bursor & Fisher, P.A., 1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940, Walnut Creek, CA 94596; and Wild Planet s Counsel - Joseph V. Mauch, Shartsis Friese LLP, One Maritime Plaza, 18th Floor, San Francisco, CA You Can Opt Out of the Settlement. If you exclude yourself from the Class which is sometimes called opting out of the Class you won t get any Settlement Benefits from the Proposed Settlement. You will also be responsible for any attorney s fees and costs you incur if you choose to pursue your own lawsuit. Such notice shall include your name, current address, signature, and a statement that you want to be excluded from Soto v. Wild Planet Foods, Inc., Case No. 15-CV BLF, no later than August 25, Send the written notice to Soto v. Wild Planet Foods, Inc. Settlement Administrator, PO Box 43034, Providence, RI THE FAIRNESS HEARING. On September 14, 2017, at 1:30 p.m., the Court will hold a hearing in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California to determine: (1) whether the Proposed Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate and should receive final approval; and (2) whether the application for Plaintiffs attorneys fees of up to one-third of the total $1.7 million settlement fund, plus reimbursement of out-of-pocket expenses, should be granted. Objections to the Proposed Settlement by Class Members will be considered by the Court, but only if such objections are filed in writing with the Court and sent to Plaintiffs and Wild Planet s counsel by August 25, 2017 as explained above. Class Members who support the Proposed Settlement do not need to appear at the hearing or take any other action to indicate their approval. You may hire your own lawyer to appear in Court for you if you wish; however, if you do, you will be responsible for paying that lawyer on your behalf. HOW CAN I GET MORE INFORMATION? If you have questions or want a detailed notice or other documents about these lawsuits and your rights, visit You may also contact Class Counsel by at info@bursor.com, or by writing to: Soto v. Wild Planet Foods, Inc. Settlement Administrator, PO Box 43034, Providence, RI By order of the United States District Court for the Northern District.

61 Case 5:15-cv BLF Document 54-1 Filed 08/10/17 Page 35 of 45 PUBLIC NOTICES SAN MATEO COUNTY: SAN FRANCISCO: SAN FRANCISCO EXAMINER DALY CITY INDEPENDENT SAN MATEO WEEKLY REDWOOD CITY TRIBUNE ENQUIRER-BULLETIN FOSTER CITY PROGRESS MILLBRAE - SAN BRUNO SUN BOUTIQUE & VILLAGER LEGAL NOTICE I You Purc ased Wild Planet Or Sustaina le Seas Tuna You Ma Bene t From A Proposed Class Action Settlement Soto v. Wild Planet Foods, Inc., Case No. 15-CV BLF Shihad v. Wild Planet Foods, Inc., Case No. 16-CV BLF WHAT IS THIS NOTICE ABOUT? Two similar lawsuits are pending in the United States District Court, Northern District of California, (the Action ) that may affect your rights. The Action claims that Wild Planet Foods, Inc. ( Wild Planet ) under- lled its canned tuna in violation of state and federal law. Wild Planet denies this claim. The Court has not ruled in favor of Plaintiffs or Wild Planet. Instead, the parties agreed to a Proposed Settlement to avoid the expense and risks of continuing the lawsuits. AM I A MEMBER OF THE CLASS? The class is de ned as all residents of the United States of America who purchased one or more cans of tuna sold under the Wild Planet or Sustainable Seas brand names from November 5, 2011 through May 11, WHAT DOES THE SETTLEMENT PROVIDE? Subject to Court approval, the parties have agreed to a Settlement under which Wild Planet will pay $1.7 million in cash. You may submit a claim for a cash payment of $29. The claim amount may be subject to pro rata dilution if the total amount of claims exceeds the available settlement funds or the cost of notice and claims administration exceeds $350,000. WHAT ARE MY RIGHTS? You have a choice of whether to stay in the Class or not, and you must decide this now. If you stay in the Class, you will be legally bound by all orders and judgments of the Court, and you won t be able to sue, or continue to sue, Wild Planet as part of any other lawsuit involving the same claims that are in these lawsuits. This is true even if you do nothing by not submitting a claim. 1. You Can Accept the Settlement. Class Members who wish to receive Settlement Bene ts must submit claims by August 25, You can get a Claim Form on the Internet at Read the instructions carefully, ll out the form, and submit it online on or before August 25, Alternatively, you may also submit a Claim Form by mailing it to the following address: Soto v. Wild Planet Foods, Inc. Settlement Administrator, PO Box 43034, Providence, RI It must be postmarked no later than August 25, If you fail to submit a timely Claim Form and do not exclude yourself from the Settlement, then you will be bound by the Settlement but will not receive any Settlement Bene ts. 2. You Can Object to the Settlement. If you believe the Settlement is unsatisfactory, you may le a written objection with the Clerk of the Court for the Northern District of California and send copies to the following Counsel representing the Class and Wild Planet: Plaintiffs Counsel - L. Timothy Fisher, Bursor & Fisher, P.A., 1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940, Walnut Creek, CA 94596; and Wild Planet s Counsel - Joseph V. Mauch, Shartsis Friese LLP, One Maritime Plaza, 18th Floor, San Francisco, CA You Can Opt Out of the Settlement. If you exclude yourself from the Class which is sometimes called opting-out of the Class you won t get any Settlement Bene ts from the Proposed Settlement. You will also be responsible for any attorney s fees and costs you incur if you choose to pursue your own lawsuit. Such notice shall include your name, current address, signature, and a statement that you want to be excluded from Soto v. Wild Planet Foods, Inc., Case No. 15-CV BLF, no later than August 25, Send the written notice to Soto v. Wild Planet Foods, Inc. Settlement Administrator, PO Box 43034, Providence, RI THE FAIRNESS HEARING. On September 14, 2017, at 1:30 p.m., the Court will hold a hearing in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California to determine: (1) whether the Proposed Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate and should receive nal approval; and (2) whether the application for Plaintiffs attorneys fees of up to one-third of the total $1.7 million settlement fund, plus reimbursement of out-of-pocket expenses, should be granted. Objections to the Proposed Settlement by Class Members will be considered by the Court, but only if such objections are led in writing with the Court and sent to Plaintiffs and Wild Planet s counsel by August 25, 2017 as explained above. Class Members do not need to appear at the hearing. You may hire your own lawyer to appear in Court for you if you wish; however, if you do, you will be responsible for paying that lawyer on your behalf. HOW CAN I GET MORE INFORMATION? If you have questions or want a detailed notice or other documents about these lawsuits and your rights, visit You may also contact Class Counsel by at info@bursor.com, or by writing to: Bursor & Fisher, P.A., 1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940, Walnut Creek, California By order of the United States District Court for the Northern District. GOVERNMENT PROPOSED REVISIONS FOR 2016 PORT OF SAN FRANCISCO GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS CODE The Port Commission plans to authorize and approve the adoption of revisions to the 2016 Port of San Francisco Green Building Standards Code. The Port has posted drafts for review/comment at www. sfport.com and at the Building Permit Desk at Pier 1 open from 8:30-11:30 A.M. Monday through Friday. The deadline for comments is 5:00 PM, June 26, All comments to the draft revisions for the 2016 Port of San Francisco Green Building Code should be addressed in writing to: Neil Friedman, Chief Building Inspector neil.friedman@sfport. com Port of San Francisco, Engineering Division-Building Permit Group Pier 1, The Embarcadero San Francisco, CA CITATION SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO UNITED FAMILY COURT Case Number: JD In the Matter of: A.M.G., A Minor To: ELLIOT RODRIGUEZ, Alleged Father; and any other persons(s) claiming to be the Parent(s) of said minor. You are hereby notified that the San Francisco Juvenile Dependency Court has ordered a hearing pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code Section , to determine whether your parental rights should be terminated and your child(ren) be freed from your custody and control for the purpose of having him adopted. BY ORDER OF THIS COURT, you are hereby cited and required to appear before this Court on the day of July 18, 2017 at 8:45 a.m., at the Juvenile Dependency Court, 400 McAllister Street, Room 406, San Francisco, California, then and there to show cause, if any you have, why said minor(s) should not be declared free from the custody and control of his parent(s). This proceeding is for the purpose of developing a permanent plan for the child(ren), which could include adoption. If you appear on the abovementioned date in the abovementioned courtroom, the Judge will advise you of the nature of the proceedings, the procedures, and possible consequences of the entitled action. The parent(s) of the minor(s) have the right to have an attorney present and, if the parent(s) cannot afford an attorney, the Court will appoint an attorney for the parent(s). Dated: May 5, 2017 CAT VALDEZ, Legal Assistant for Petitioner, Department of Human Services (415) By: KELLY DAVIES, Deputy Clerk FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAMES FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME STATEMENT File No The following person(s) is (are) doing business as: PremiumShotz PhotoBooth Co, 225 James Court, South San Francisco CA 94080, County of San Mateo Jovan C. Samonte, 225 James Court, South San Francisco CA This business is conducted by an individual The registrant(s) commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on N/A I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. (A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime.) S/ Jovan C. Samonte This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Mateo County on May 8, 2017 Mark Church, County Clerk Diana Siron, Deputy Clerk Original 5/22, 5/29, 6/5, 6/12/17 NPEN # EXAMINER - BOUTIQUE & VILLAGER FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME STATEMENT File No The following person(s) is (are) doing business as: Boutique Coffee, 327 E. 4th Avenue, San Mateo, CA 94401, County of San Mateo Boutique Coffee, 327 E. 4th Avenue, San Mateo, CA 94401; California This business is conducted by a Corporation The registrant(s) commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on N/A I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. (A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime.) S/ Spiros Kabitsis, Treasurer This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Mateo County on April 26, 2017 Mark Church, County Clerk DIANA SIRON, Deputy Clerk Original 5/8, 5/15, 5/22, 5/29/17 NPEN # EXAMINER - BOUTIQUE & VILLAGER FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME STATEMENT File No The following person(s) is (are) doing business as: PALO ALTO INSIGHT, 555 Bryant St. #816, Palo Alto, CA 94301, County of San Mateo Backyard Fox, LLC 555 Bryant St. #816, Palo Alto, CA 94301; California This business is conducted by a Limited Liability Company The registrant(s) commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on 03/01/2017 I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. (A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime.) S/ Tomoe I Hasegawa, CEO This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Mateo County on April 26, 2017 Mark Church, County Clerk Diana Siron, Deputy Clerk Original 5/8, 5/15, 5/22, 5/29/17 NPEN # EXAMINER - BOUTIQUE & VILLAGER FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME STATEMENT File No The following person(s) is (are) doing business as: STAYING CONNECTED, 211 Wisteria Dr., E Palo Alto, CA 94303, County of San Mateo Mailing Address: 2085 E. Bayshore Rd #50694, E. Palo Alto, CA Darryl Stubblefield, 211 Wisteria Dr., East Palo Alto, CA 94303; California This business is conducted by an individual The registrant(s) commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on N/A I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. (A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime.) S/ Darryl Stubblefield, CEO This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Mateo County on April 25, 2017 Mark Church, County Clerk Sheila Arkoncel, Deputy Clerk Original 5/8, 5/15, 5/22, 5/29/17 NPEN # EXAMINER - BOUTIQUE & VILLAGER FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME STATEMENT File No The following person(s) is (are) doing business as: LIL COUTURE, 1271 Laurel St, San Carlos, CA 94070, County of San Mateo Brondon Le, 1370 Mills St #A, Menlo Park, CA This business is conducted by an individual The registrant(s) commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on 05/01/2017 I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. (A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime.) S/ Brondon Le This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Mateo County on May 1, 2017 Mark Church, County Clerk Diana Siron, Deputy Clerk Original 5/8, 5/15, 5/22, 5/29/17 NPEN # EXAMINER - BOUTIQUE & VILLAGER FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME STATEMENT File No. A Fictitious Business Name(s): Hilu Bakery, 627 Lyon St S.F. Ca 94117, County of S.F. Registered Owner(s): Essa Sadon, 627 Lyon St, S.F. CA The business is conducted by: An Individual The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on 04/26/17 I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. (A registrant who declares as true any material matter pursuant to Section of the Business and Professions code that the registrant knows to be false is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not to exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000).) S/ Essa Sadon This statement was filed with the San Francisco County Clerk on April 26, 2017 NOTICE-In accordance with Subdivision (a) of Section 17920, a Fictitious Name Statement generally expires at the end of five years from the date on which it was filed in the office of the County Clerk, except, as provided in Subdivision (b) of Section 17920, where it expires 40 days after any change in the facts set forth in the statement pursuant to Section other than a change in the residence address of a registered owner. A new Fictitious Business Name Statement must be filed before the expiration. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a Fictitious Business Name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (See Section et seq., Business and Professions Code). 5/8, 5/15, 5/22, 5/29/17 CNS # SAN FRANCISCO EXAMINER FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME STATEMENT File No The following person(s) is (are) doing business as: CALIFORNIA HOME MEDICAL EQUIPMENT, 289 Foster City Blvd., Suite A, Foster City, CA County of SAN MATEO CHME, INC., 289 Foster City Blvd., Suite A, Foster City, CA This business is conducted by a Corporation The registrant(s) commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on January 24, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. (A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime.) CHME, INC. S/ BERNARD ZIMMER, PRESIDENT This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Mateo County on 04/24/2017. Mark Church, County Clerk DIANA SIRON, Deputy Renewal Filing 5/8, 5/15, 5/22, 5/29/17 NPEN # EXAMINER - BOUTIQUE & VILLAGER FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME STATEMENT File No. A Fictitious Business Name(s): Metal and Match, 555 Golden Gate Ave, SF, CA 94102, County of SF Registered Owner(s): Tradingpost Modern LLC (CA) th Ave, SF, CA The business is conducted by: A Limited Liability Company The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on 4/26/17 I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. (A registrant who declares as true any material matter pursuant to Section of the Business and Professions code that the registrant knows to be false is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not to exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000).) S/ Ted Wilson, Owner Tradingpost Modern LLC This statement was filed with the San Francisco County Clerk on April 27, 2017 NOTICE-In accordance with Subdivision (a) of Section 17920, a Fictitious Name Statement generally expires at the end of five years from the date on which it was filed in the office of the County Clerk, except, as provided in Subdivision (b) of Section 17920, where it expires 40 days after any change in the facts set forth in the statement pursuant to Section other than a change in the residence address of a registered owner. A new Fictitious Business Name Statement must be filed before the expiration. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a Fictitious Business Name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (See Section et seq., Business and Professions Code). 5/8, 5/15, 5/22, 5/29/17 CNS # SAN FRANCISCO EXAMINER FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME STATEMENT File No The following person(s) is (are) doing business as: Paymon Real Estate Group, 501 Seaport Ct., #202, Redwood City, CA County of SAN MATEO Mailing Address: 501 Seaport Ct., #202, Redwood City, CA Daryani, Inc., 3154 Oak Knoll Drive, Redwood City, CA This business is conducted by a Corporation The registrant(s) commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. (A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime.) Daryani, Inc. S/ Paymon Ghafouri, CEO This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Mateo County on 05/16/2017. Mark Church, County Clerk Glenn S. Changtin, Deputy Original Filing 5/22, 5/29, 6/5, 6/12/17 NPEN # EXAMINER - BOUTIQUE & VILLAGER GOVERNMENT NOTICE OF CANCELLATION OF HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the public hearing scheduled before the Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco on June 1, 2017 at 7:00 P.M. in the Municipal Services Building, 33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco, California, for the following item has been cancelled. ^1. Accessory Dwelling Units Zoning Text Amendments to modify regulations related to Accessory Dwelling Units, citywide, in accordance with South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter ( Amendments to Zoning Ordinance and Map ). If you have any questions regarding this matter, contact the Planning Division, 315 Maple Avenue (650) Sailesh Mehra Secretary to the Planning Commission City of South San Francisco 5/29/17 NPEN # EXAMINER - SO. SAN FRANCISCO INVITATION FOR BID: DESCRIPTION: Operation Vehicles Fleet Sealed bids will be received by the San Francisco Unified School District, Purchasing Department, Phone: (415) Forms are available at: 135 Van Ness Avenue, Room 123 San Francisco, CA Bids due prior to 2:00 P.M., Monday, June 5 th, 2017, at which time said bids would be opened at the above address. Rights reserved to reject any and all proposals. 5/22, 5/29/17 CNS # SAN FRANCISCO EXAMINER PUBLIC AUCTION/SALES NOTICE OF LIEN SALE IN ACCORDANCE WITH PROVISIONS OF CIVIL CODE OF THE CALIFORNIA BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE, THESE BEING UNPAID CHARGES FOR RENTAL OF STORAGE UNITS AT SECURITY PUBLIC STORAGE, 99 HYDE COURT, DALY CITY, CA 94015, PHONE , NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE PERSONAL PROPERTY STORED WILL BE SOLD JUNE 7, 2017 AT 1:30 PM PURCHASES MUST BE MADE WITH CASH ONLY. SALE SUBJECT TO CANCELLATION IN THE EVENT OF SETTLEMENT BETWEEN OWNER AND OBLIGATED PARTY. STORED BY OR FOR THE FOLLOWING PERSONS: D-319 MARIA LIZEL R. BAYSA B-207 DAVID W. BLESSUM F-205 JOANNE C. GIRON F-209 MARK ANTHONY LANDRY M-203 MORGAN W. MAGILL 05/22/2017 AND 05/29/2017 NPEN- EXAMINER - DALY CITY INDEPENDENT 5/22, 5/29/17 NPEN # EXAMINER - DALY CITY INDEPENDENT 14 SAN FRANCISCO EXAMINER SFEXAMINER.COM MONDAY, MAY 29, 2017 AZ

62 Case 5:15-cv BLF Document 54-1 Filed 08/10/17 Page 36 of 45 PUBLIC NOTICES SAN MATEO COUNTY: SAN FRANCISCO: SAN FRANCISCO EXAMINER DALY CITY INDEPENDENT SAN MATEO WEEKLY REDWOOD CITY TRIBUNE ENQUIRER-BULLETIN FOSTER CITY PROGRESS MILLBRAE - SAN BRUNO SUN BOUTIQUE & VILLAGER LEGAL NOTICE I You Purc ased Wild Planet Or Sustaina le Seas Tuna You Ma Bene t From A Proposed Class Action Settlement Soto v. Wild Planet Foods, Inc., Case No. 15-CV BLF Shihad v. Wild Planet Foods, Inc., Case No. 16-CV BLF WHAT IS THIS NOTICE ABOUT? Two similar lawsuits are pending in the United States District Court, Northern District of California, (the Action ) that may affect your rights. The Action claims that Wild Planet Foods, Inc. ( Wild Planet ) under- lled its canned tuna in violation of state and federal law. Wild Planet denies this claim. The Court has not ruled in favor of Plaintiffs or Wild Planet. Instead, the parties agreed to a Proposed Settlement to avoid the expense and risks of continuing the lawsuits. AM I A MEMBER OF THE CLASS? The class is de ned as all residents of the United States of America who purchased one or more cans of tuna sold under the Wild Planet or Sustainable Seas brand names from November 5, 2011 through May 11, WHAT DOES THE SETTLEMENT PROVIDE? Subject to Court approval, the parties have agreed to a Settlement under which Wild Planet will pay $1.7 million in cash. You may submit a claim for a cash payment of $29. The claim amount may be subject to pro rata dilution if the total amount of claims exceeds the available settlement funds or the cost of notice and claims administration exceeds $350,000. WHAT ARE MY RIGHTS? You have a choice of whether to stay in the Class or not, and you must decide this now. If you stay in the Class, you will be legally bound by all orders and judgments of the Court, and you won t be able to sue, or continue to sue, Wild Planet as part of any other lawsuit involving the same claims that are in these lawsuits. This is true even if you do nothing by not submitting a claim. 1. You Can Accept the Settlement. Class Members who wish to receive Settlement Bene ts must submit claims by August 25, You can get a Claim Form on the Internet at Read the instructions carefully, ll out the form, and submit it online on or before August 25, Alternatively, you may also submit a Claim Form by mailing it to the following address: Soto v. Wild Planet Foods, Inc. Settlement Administrator, PO Box 43034, Providence, RI It must be postmarked no later than August 25, If you fail to submit a timely Claim Form and do not exclude yourself from the Settlement, then you will be bound by the Settlement but will not receive any Settlement Bene ts. 2. You Can Object to the Settlement. If you believe the Settlement is unsatisfactory, you may le a written objection with the Clerk of the Court for the Northern District of California and send copies to the following Counsel representing the Class and Wild Planet: Plaintiffs Counsel - L. Timothy Fisher, Bursor & Fisher, P.A., 1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940, Walnut Creek, CA 94596; and Wild Planet s Counsel - Joseph V. Mauch, Shartsis Friese LLP, One Maritime Plaza, 18th Floor, San Francisco, CA You Can Opt Out of the Settlement. If you exclude yourself from the Class which is sometimes called opting-out of the Class you won t get any Settlement Bene ts from the Proposed Settlement. You will also be responsible for any attorney s fees and costs you incur if you choose to pursue your own lawsuit. Such notice shall include your name, current address, signature, and a statement that you want to be excluded from Soto v. Wild Planet Foods, Inc., Case No. 15-CV BLF, no later than August 25, Send the written notice to Soto v. Wild Planet Foods, Inc. Settlement Administrator, PO Box 43034, Providence, RI THE FAIRNESS HEARING. On September 14, 2017, at 1:30 p.m., the Court will hold a hearing in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California to determine: (1) whether the Proposed Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate and should receive nal approval; and (2) whether the application for Plaintiffs attorneys fees of up to one-third of the total $1.7 million settlement fund, plus reimbursement of out-of-pocket expenses, should be granted. Objections to the Proposed Settlement by Class Members will be considered by the Court, but only if such objections are led in writing with the Court and sent to Plaintiffs and Wild Planet s counsel by August 25, 2017 as explained above. Class Members do not need to appear at the hearing. You may hire your own lawyer to appear in Court for you if you wish; however, if you do, you will be responsible for paying that lawyer on your behalf. HOW CAN I GET MORE INFORMATION? If you have questions or want a detailed notice or other documents about these lawsuits and your rights, visit You may also contact Class Counsel by at info@bursor.com, or by writing to: Bursor & Fisher, P.A., 1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940, Walnut Creek, California By order of the United States District Court for the Northern District. GOVERNMENT SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING COMMISSION NOTICE OF HEARINGS Notice is hereby given to the general public that applications involving the properties/and or issues described below have been filed with the Planning Department for review as set forth in the City Planning Code. The Planning Commission will hold a PUBLIC HEARING on these items and on other matters on Thursday, June 15, 2017 beginning at 12:00 p.m. (noon) or later, in City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place (formerly Polk Street), Room 400. Case NO PCA- 04: INCLUSIONARY AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROGRAM ORDINANCE - The Planning Commission will hold a hearing on an ordinance amending the Inclusionary Affordable Housing Program. The Planning Commission considered two ordinances on April 27, 2017 [Board File No Inclusionary Affordable Housing Fee and Requirements and Board File No Inclusionary Affordable Housing Fee and Dwelling Unit Mix Requirements]. Since the Commission hearing, the Board of Supervisors made material modifications which are being referred back to the Commission pursuant to Planning Code Section 302(d). The revised Ordinance [Board File No v4 Inclusionary Affordable Housing Fee and Dwelling Unit Mix Requirements] would amend the Planning Code to revise the amount of the Inclusionary Affordable Housing Fee and the On-Site and Off-Site Affordable Housing Alternatives and other Inclusionary Housing requirements; to require minimum dwelling unit mix in all residential districts; to establish dwelling unit minimum sizes; to establish a prohibition on studio units with prices set at 100% AMI or above; to replace or pay a fee for any affordable units that may be lost due to demolition or conversion; and affirming the Planning Department s determination under the California Environmental Quality Act; making findings of public necessity, convenience, and welfare under Planning Code, Section 302; and making findings of consistency with the General Plan, and the eight priority policies of Planning Code, Section Preliminary Recommendation: Approve a modified ordinance and make findings of consistency For further information, call Jacob Bintliff at (415) or at jacob. bintliff@sfgov.org and ask about Case PCA-04. Persons who are unable to attend the scheduled Planning Commission hearing may submit written comments regarding these cases to the individuals listed for each case above at the Planning Department, 1650 Mission Street, 4th Floor, San Francisco, CA Comments received by 9:30 a.m. on the day of the hearing will be made a part of the official record and will be brought to the attention of the Planning Commission. Pursuant to Government Code 65009, if you challenge, in court, the approval of a conditional use, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. Scott Sanchez Zoning Administrator Planning Department 1650 Mission Street, 4th Floor San Francisco, CA /05/2017 PROPOSED REVISIONS FOR 2016 PORT OF SAN FRANCISCO GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS CODE The Port Commission plans to authorize and approve the adoption of revisions to the 2016 Port of San Francisco Green Building Standards Code. The Port has posted drafts for review/comment at www. sfport.com and at the Building Permit Desk at Pier 1 open from 8:30-11:30 A.M. Monday through Friday. The deadline for comments is 5:00 PM, June 26, All comments to the draft revisions for the 2016 Port of San Francisco Green Building Code should be addressed in writing to: Neil Friedman, Chief Building Inspector neil.friedman@sfport. com Port of San Francisco, Engineering Division-Building Permit Group Pier 1, The Embarcadero San Francisco, CA BULK SALES NOTICE TO CREDITORS OF BULK SALE (SECS. 6104, 6105 U.C.C.) Notice is hereby given to the Creditors of: Foster City Valero LLC, Seller(s), whose business address(es) is: 501 Foster City Blvd., Foster City, CA 94404, that a bulk transfer is about to be made to: Gawfco Enterprises, Incorporated, Buyer(s), whose business(es) address is: 501 Foster City Blvd., Foster City, CA The property to be transferred is located at: 501 Foster City Blvd., Foster City, CA Said property is described in general as: All stock in trade, fixtures, equipment, goodwill and other property of that Gas and Service Station business known as FOSTER CITY VALERO, and located at: 501 Foster City Blvd., Foster City, CA The bulk sale is intended to be consummated at the office of: FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE COMPANY, 405 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA The bulk transfer will be consummated on or after the 21st day of June, This bulk transfer is subject to Section of the California Commercial Code. If Section applies, claims may be filed at FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE COMPANY, Escrow Division, Escrow No. FSMO LC, 405 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA Phone: (415) , Fax: (415) This bulk transfer does NOT include a liquor license transfer. All claims must be received at this address by the 20th day of June, So far as known to the Buyer(s), all business names and addresses used by the Seller(s) for the three (3) years last past, if different from the above, are: NONE. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this document on the date(s) set forth below. By: Fidelity National Title Company as Escrow Agent for the herein Buyer May 30, 2017 Tyler Miller, Escrow Assistant 6/5/17 SPEN # EXAMINER - FOSTER CITY PROGRESS FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAMES FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME STATEMENT File No The following person(s) is (are) doing business as: PremiumShotz PhotoBooth Co, 225 James Court, South San Francisco CA 94080, County of San Mateo Jovan C. Samonte, 225 James Court, South San Francisco CA This business is conducted by an individual The registrant(s) commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on N/A I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. (A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime.) S/ Jovan C. Samonte This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Mateo County on May 8, 2017 Mark Church, County Clerk Diana Siron, Deputy Clerk Original 5/22, 5/29, 6/5, 6/12/17 NPEN # EXAMINER - BOUTIQUE & VILLAGER FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME STATEMENT File No The following person(s) is (are) doing business as: Paymon Real Estate Group, 501 Seaport Ct., #202, Redwood City, CA County of SAN MATEO Mailing Address: 501 Seaport Ct., #202, Redwood City, CA Daryani, Inc., 3154 Oak Knoll Drive, Redwood City, CA This business is conducted by a Corporation The registrant(s) commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. (A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime.) Daryani, Inc. S/ Paymon Ghafouri, CEO This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Mateo County on 05/16/2017. Mark Church, County Clerk Glenn S. Changtin, Deputy Original Filing 5/22, 5/29, 6/5, 6/12/17 NPEN # EXAMINER - BOUTIQUE & VILLAGER GOVERNMENT NOTICE OF HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco, California, will hold public hearings on the June 15, 2017at 7:00 P.M.in the Municipal Services Building, 33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco, California, on items including the following applications, at which time and place, any and all persons interested may appear and be heard thereon. If you challenge in court the action taken by the Planning Commission regarding the items described below, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. 1. Di Hai/applicant 370 Catherine Drive LLC/ owner 370 Catherine Drive P : MUP Minor Use Permit to operate a new day care center and to construct a 4-foot high fence at 370 Catherine Drive in the Community Commercial (CC) Zoning District in accordance with Title 20 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code (SSFMC) and determination that the project is categorically exempt from CEQA per Class 1, Section Manuel Torres/applicant Corazon Murphy/owner 511 Linden Avenue P : UP & DR Use Permit and Design Review to add two new multiple-family dwelling units to an existing mixeduse structure at 511 Linden Avenue in the Downtown Residential Core (DRC) Zoning District in accordance with Title 20 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code and determination that the project is categorically exempt from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Class 3, Section Oyster Point Ventures / SSF/applicant Oyster Pt Ventures, LLC/ owner 379 Oyster Point Blvd P : PM Tentative Parcel Map application to reparcelize the Oyster Point Redevelopment Project property (APNs , , , , , , , , and ) to allow separate parcels for each of the separate development phases, in accordance with SSFMC Chapter and Title 19 Subdivisions. If you have any questions regarding this matter, contact the Planning Division, 315 Maple Avenue, (650) Sailesh Mehra Secretary to the Planning Commission City of South San Francisco 6/5/17 NPEN # EXAMINER - SO. SAN FRANCISCO NOTICE OF PUBLIC BUDGET HEARINGS CITY OF SAN MATEO PROPOSED BUDGET The City of San Mateo will hold public hearings for the Budget. The hearings will be held on Monday, June 5, and Monday, June 19, 2017 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 330 West 20th Avenue, San Mateo. Copies of the proposed budget are available for inspection in the City Clerk s Office, 330 West 20th Avenue, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and at the public library. The proposed budget may also be accessed via the City website, org. If any person challenges the City Council actions in court, that person may be limited to raising only those issues the person or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in the written correspondence delivered to the City Clerk at or prior to the public hearing. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, those with disabilities requiring special accommodations to participate in this meeting may contact the City Clerk s Office at (650) or polds@cityofsanmateo.org. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. /s/ PATRICE M. OLDS, CITY CLERK 5/22, 6/1, 6/5/17 SPEN # EXAMINER - SAN MATEO TRUSTEE SALES T.S. No.: TSG Order No.: CA-VOI A.P.N.: NOTICE OF TRUSTEE S SALE YOU ARE IN DEFAULT UNDER A DEED OF TRUST DATED 11/05/2004. UNLESS YOU TAKE ACTION TO PROTECT YOUR PROPERTY, IT MAY BE SOLD AT A PUBLIC SALE. IF YOU NEED AN EXPLANATION OF THE NATURE OF THE PROCEEDING AGAINST YOU, YOU SHOULD CONTACT A LAWYER. NBS Default Services, LLC, as the duly appointed Trustee, under and pursuant to the power of sale contained in that certain Deed of Trust Recorded 11/16/2004 as Document No.: , of Official Records in the office of the Recorder of San Mateo County, California, executed by: DOMINGO ALBERTO AND ANA SILVIA ALBERTO, HUSBAND AND WIFE, as Trustor, WILL SELL AT PUBLIC AUCTION TO THE HIGHEST BIDDER FOR CASH (payable in full at time of sale by cash, a cashier s check drawn by a state or national bank, a check drawn by a state or federal credit union, or a check drawn by a state or federal savings and loan association, savings association, or savings bank specified in section 5102 of the Financial Code and authorized to do business in this state). All right, title and interest conveyed to and now held by it under said Deed of Trust in the property situated in said County and state, and as more fully described in the above referenced Deed of Trust. Sale Date & Time: 06/19/2017 at 12:30 PM Sale Location: At the Marshall Street entrance to the Hall of Justice at 400 County Center, Redwood City, CA. The street address and other common designation, if any, of the real property described above is purported to be: 48 AVALON DRIVE, DALY CITY, CA The undersigned Trustee disclaims any liability for any incorrectness of the street address and other common designation, if any, shown herein. Said sale will be made in an AS IS condition, but without covenant or warranty, expressed or implied, regarding title, possession, or encumbrances, to pay the remaining principal sum of the note(s) secured by said Deed of Trust, with interest thereon, as provided in said note(s), advances, if any, under the terms of the Deed of Trust, estimated fees, charges and expenses of the Trustee and of the trusts created by said Deed of Trust, to-wit: $531, (Estimated) as of 06/11/2017. Accrued interest and additional advances, if any, will increase this figure prior to sale. It is possible that at the time of sale the opening bid may be less than the total indebtedness due. NOTICE TO POTENTIAL BIDDERS: If you are considering bidding on this property lien, you should understand that there are risks involved in bidding at a trustee auction. You will be bidding on a lien, not on the property itself. Placing the highest bid at a trustee auction does not automatically entitle you to free and clear ownership of the property. You should also be aware that the lien being auctioned off may be a junior lien. If you are the highest bidder at the auction, you are or may be responsible for paying off all liens senior to the lien being auctioned off, before you can receive clear title to the property. You are encouraged to investigate the existence, priority, and size of outstanding liens that may exist on this property by contacting the county recorder s office or a title insurance company, either of which may charge you a fee for this information. If you consult either of these resources, you should be aware that the same lender may hold more than one mortgage or deed of trust on the property. NOTICE TO PROPERTY OWNER: The sale date shown on this notice of sale may be postponed one or more times by the mortgagee, beneficiary, trustee, or a court, pursuant to Section 2924g of the California Civil Code. The law requires that information about trustee sale postponements be made available to you and to the public, as a courtesy to those not present at the sale. If you wish to learn whether your sale date has been postponed, and, if applicable, the rescheduled time and date for the sale of this property, you may call, for information regarding the trustee s sale or visit this Internet Web site, www. 14 SAN FRANCISCO EXAMINER SFEXAMINER.COM MONDAY, JUNE 5, 2017 AZ

63 Case 5:15-cv BLF Document 54-1 Filed 08/10/17 Page 37 of 45 SAN MATEO COUNTY: SAN FRANCISCO: SAN FRANCISCO EXAMINER DALY CITY INDEPENDENT SAN MATEO WEEKLY REDWOOD CITY TRIBUNE ENQUIRER-BULLETIN FOSTER CITY PROGRESS MILLBRAE - SAN BRUNO SUN BOUTIQUE & VILLAGER NOTICE TO CREDITORS OF BULK SALE (U.C.C. 6104, 6105) ESCROW #: PC NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN to creditors of the within named seller that a bulk sale is about to be made of the assets described below. The names and business address of the Seller(s) is/are: Medha Enterprises LLC 1259 El Camino Real, Menlo Park, CA The location in California of the Chief Executive Office of the seller is: same as above As listed by the seller, all other business names and addresses used by the seller within three years before the date such list was sent or delivered to the buyer are: None The names and business address of the Buyer(s) is/are: Vinayak LLC 1259 El Camino Real, Menlo Park, CA The assets to be sold are described in general as: All stock in trade, furniture, fixtures, equipment and other property And are located at: 1259 El Camino Real, Menlo Park, CA The business name used by the Seller(s) at those locations is: Post N More The anticipated date of the bulk sale is: June 28, 2017 At the office of Old Republic Title 1000 Burnett Avenue, Suite 400, Concord, CA The bulk sale ISsubject to California Uniform Commercial Code Section If so subject, the name and address of the person with whom claims may be filed is as follows: Old Republic Title 1000 Burnett Avenue, Suite 400, Concord, CA or E-Fax to or Fax The last day for filing claims shall be June 27, 2017 which is the business day before the sale date specified herein. Dated: 5/30/2017 Buyer(s): Vinayak LLC /S/ By: Rohan Nayak, Managing Member /S/ By: Chetna Nayak, Managing Member FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME STATEMENT File No The following person(s) is (are) doing business as: Surgical Partners of California, 203 Redwood Shores Parkway, Suite 800, Redwood City, CA 94065, County of San Mateo Verity BASM Holdco, LLC, 203 Redwood Shores Parkway, Suite 800, Redwood City, CA 94065; Delaware This business is conducted by a Limited Liability Company The registrant(s) commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on N/A I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. (A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime.) S/ Andrel Soran, President of Verity Holdings, LLC, Managing Member This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Mateo County on May 18, 2017 Mark Church, County Clerk Diana Siron, Deputy Clerk Original FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME STATEMENT File No The following person(s) is (are) doing business as: HMB Lavender, San Mateo Rd., Half Moon Bay, CA 94019, County of San Mateo Cyndi Herbert, 167 S. San Antonio Rd., Suite 1, Los Altos, CA This business is conducted by an Individual The registrant(s) commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on 05/01/2016 I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. (A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime.) S/ Cyndi Herbert This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Mateo County on May 24, 2017 Mark Church, County Clerk Anshu Nand, Deputy Clerk Original FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME STATEMENT File No The following person(s) is (are) doing business as: 1. VILLAGE SQUARE VETERINARY HOSPITAL, 884 Portola Rd., Suite A15, Portola Valley, CA WOODSIDE VETERINARY CLINIC, 1725 Woodside Rd., Suite F, Redwood City, CA 94061; San Mateo County Wilbak Corporation, 832 Morrell Ave, Burlingame, CA 94010; California This business is conducted by a Corporation The registrant(s) commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on 2/27/07 / 4/1/17 I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. (A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime.) S/ William H. St. Lawrence, CEO This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Mateo County on June 6, 2017 Mark Church, County Clerk Besz De La Vega, Deputy Clerk Original FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME STATEMENT File No The following person(s) is (are) doing business as: SKYWOOD PARTNERS, 570 El Camino Real #150423, Redwood City, CA 94063, County of San Mateo Shelley N. Smith, 108 Skylonda Dr., Redwood City, CA This business is conducted by an individual The registrant(s) commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on 4/1/2017 I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. (A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime.) S/ Shelley N. Smith This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Mateo County on May 25, 2017 Mark Church, County Clerk Anshu Nand, Deputy Clerk Original FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME STATEMENT File No The following person(s) is (are) doing business as: True North Executive Recruitment, 847 Corriente Point Dr., Redwood City, CA 94065, County of San Mateo Shirley Tafoya, 847 Corriente Point Dr., Redwood City, CA 94065, Harry Versen, 847 Corriente Point Dr., Redwood City, CA 94065, This business is conducted by Married Couple The registrant(s) commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on N/A I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. (A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime.) S/ Shirley Tafoya This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Mateo County on May 17, 2017 Mark Church, County Clerk Diana Siron, Deputy Clerk Original FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME STATEMENT File No. A Fictitious Business Name(s): Eat Pray Love Bark, 1690 Broadway Street, Apt. 308, San Francisco, CA 94109, County of San Francisco Registered Owner(s): Serena Yang, 1690 Broadway Street, Apt. 308, San Francisco, CA The business is conducted by: an Individual The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on 3/15/17 I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. (A registrant who declares as true any material matter pursuant to Section of the Business and Professions code that the registrant knows to be false is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not to exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000).) S/ Serena Yang This statement was filed with the San Francisco County Clerk on May 26, 2017 NOTICE-In accordance with Subdivision (a) of Section 17920, a Fictitious Name Statement generally expires at the end of five years from the date on which it was filed in the office of the County Clerk, except, as provided in Subdivision (b) of Section 17920, where it expires 40 days after any change in the facts set forth in the statement pursuant to Section other than a change in the residence address of a registered owner. A new Fictitious Business Name Statement must be filed before the expiration. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a Fictitious Business Name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (See Section et seq., Business and Professions Code). FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME STATEMENT File No The following person(s) is (are) doing business as: VitaFit, 187 Longview Drive, Daly City, CA 94015, County of San Mateo Mayra Hall, 187 Longview Drive, Daly City, CA This business is conducted by an individual The registrant(s) commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on 01/01/2017 I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. (A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime.) S/ Mayra Hall, Owner This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Mateo County on May 30, 2017 Mark Church, County Clerk DIANA SIRON, Deputy Clerk Original FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME STATEMENT File No The following person(s) is (are) doing business as: PremiumShotz PhotoBooth Co, 225 James Court, South San Francisco CA 94080, County of San Mateo Jovan C. Samonte, 225 James Court, South San Francisco CA This business is conducted by an individual The registrant(s) commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on N/A I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. (A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime.) S/ Jovan C. Samonte This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Mateo County on May 8, 2017 Mark Church, County Clerk Diana Siron, Deputy Clerk Original FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME STATEMENT File No The following person(s) is (are) doing business as: Paymon Real Estate Group, 501 Seaport Ct., #202, Redwood City, CA County of SAN MATEO Mailing Address: 501 Seaport Ct., #202, Redwood City, CA Daryani, Inc., 3154 Oak Knoll Drive, Redwood City, CA This business is conducted by a Corporation The registrant(s) commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. (A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime.) Daryani, Inc. S/ Paymon Ghafouri, CEO This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Mateo County on 05/16/2017. Mark Church, County Clerk Glenn S. Changtin, Deputy Original Filing NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF BEN YOUNG LEE AKA BEN-YOUNG CASE NO. PES To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both, of: Ben Young Lee aka Ben- Young A Petition for Probate has been filed by Rick Lee and Phil Lee in the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco. The Petition for Probate requests that Rick Lee, Phil Lee, and Shawna Lee be appointed as personal representative to administer the estate of the decedent. The Petition requests the decedent s will and codicils, if any, be admitted to probate. The will and any codicils are available for examination in the file kept by the court. The Petition requests authority to administer the estate under the Independent Administration of Estates Act. (This authority will allow the personal representative to take many actions without obtaining court approval. Before taking certain very important actions, however, the personal representative will be required to give notice to interested persons unless they have waived notice or consented to the proposed action.) The independent administration authority will be granted unless an interested person files an objection to the petition and shows good cause why the court should not grant the authority. A hearing on the petition will be held in this court on June 26, 2017 at 9:00 a.m. in Dept. 204 located at 400 McAllister Street, San Francisco, CA If you object to the granting of the petition, you should appear at the hearing and state your objections or file written objections with the court before the hearing. Your appearance may be in person or by your attorney. If you are a creditor or a contingent creditor of the decedent, you must file your claim with the court and mail a copy to the personal representative appointed by the court within the later of either (1) four months from the date of first issuance of letters to a general personal representative, as defined in section 58(b) of the California Probate Code, or (2) 60 days from the date of mailing or personal delivery to you of a notice under section 9052 of the California Probate Code. Other California statutes and legal authority may affect your rights as a creditor. You may want to consult with an attorney knowledgeable in California law. You may examine the file kept by the court. If you are a person interested in the estate, you may file with the court a Request for Special Notice (form DE-154) of the filing of an inventory and appraisal of estate assets or of any petition or account as provided in Probate Code section A Request for Special Notice form is available from the court clerk. Attorney for Petitioner: Justin Hedemark, Esq. 601 Van Ness Ave., Ste. 2056, San Francisco, CA 12 SAN FRANCISCO EXAMINER SFEXAMINER.COM MONDAY, JUNE 12, 2017 AZ

64 Case 5:15-cv BLF Document 54-1 Filed 08/10/17 Page 38 of 45 PUBLIC NOTICES SAN MATEO COUNTY: SAN FRANCISCO: SAN FRANCISCO EXAMINER DALY CITY INDEPENDENT SAN MATEO WEEKLY REDWOOD CITY TRIBUNE ENQUIRER-BULLETIN FOSTER CITY PROGRESS MILLBRAE - SAN BRUNO SUN BOUTIQUE & VILLAGER LEGAL NOTICE I You Purc ased Wild Planet Or Sustaina le Seas Tuna You Ma Bene t From A Proposed Class Action Settlement Soto v. Wild Planet Foods, Inc., Case No. 15-CV BLF Shihad v. Wild Planet Foods, Inc., Case No. 16-CV BLF WHAT IS THIS NOTICE ABOUT? Two similar lawsuits are pending in the United States District Court, Northern District of California, (the Action ) that may affect your rights. The Action claims that Wild Planet Foods, Inc. ( Wild Planet ) under- lled its canned tuna in violation of state and federal law. Wild Planet denies this claim. The Court has not ruled in favor of Plaintiffs or Wild Planet. Instead, the parties agreed to a Proposed Settlement to avoid the expense and risks of continuing the lawsuits. AM I A MEMBER OF THE CLASS? The class is de ned as all residents of the United States of America who purchased one or more cans of tuna sold under the Wild Planet or Sustainable Seas brand names from November 5, 2011 through May 11, WHAT DOES THE SETTLEMENT PROVIDE? Subject to Court approval, the parties have agreed to a Settlement under which Wild Planet will pay $1.7 million in cash. You may submit a claim for a cash payment of $29. The claim amount may be subject to pro rata dilution if the total amount of claims exceeds the available settlement funds or the cost of notice and claims administration exceeds $350,000. WHAT ARE MY RIGHTS? You have a choice of whether to stay in the Class or not, and you must decide this now. If you stay in the Class, you will be legally bound by all orders and judgments of the Court, and you won t be able to sue, or continue to sue, Wild Planet as part of any other lawsuit involving the same claims that are in these lawsuits. This is true even if you do nothing by not submitting a claim. 1. You Can Accept the Settlement. Class Members who wish to receive Settlement Bene ts must submit claims by August 25, You can get a Claim Form on the Internet at Read the instructions carefully, ll out the form, and submit it online on or before August 25, Alternatively, you may also submit a Claim Form by mailing it to the following address: Soto v. Wild Planet Foods, Inc. Settlement Administrator, PO Box 43034, Providence, RI It must be postmarked no later than August 25, If you fail to submit a timely Claim Form and do not exclude yourself from the Settlement, then you will be bound by the Settlement but will not receive any Settlement Bene ts. 2. You Can Object to the Settlement. If you believe the Settlement is unsatisfactory, you may le a written objection with the Clerk of the Court for the Northern District of California and send copies to the following Counsel representing the Class and Wild Planet: Plaintiffs Counsel - L. Timothy Fisher, Bursor & Fisher, P.A., 1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940, Walnut Creek, CA 94596; and Wild Planet s Counsel - Joseph V. Mauch, Shartsis Friese LLP, One Maritime Plaza, 18th Floor, San Francisco, CA You Can Opt Out of the Settlement. If you exclude yourself from the Class which is sometimes called opting-out of the Class you won t get any Settlement Bene ts from the Proposed Settlement. You will also be responsible for any attorney s fees and costs you incur if you choose to pursue your own lawsuit. Such notice shall include your name, current address, signature, and a statement that you want to be excluded from Soto v. Wild Planet Foods, Inc., Case No. 15-CV BLF, no later than August 25, Send the written notice to Soto v. Wild Planet Foods, Inc. Settlement Administrator, PO Box 43034, Providence, RI THE FAIRNESS HEARING. On September 14, 2017, at 1:30 p.m., the Court will hold a hearing in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California to determine: (1) whether the Proposed Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate and should receive nal approval; and (2) whether the application for Plaintiffs attorneys fees of up to one-third of the total $1.7 million settlement fund, plus reimbursement of out-of-pocket expenses, should be granted. Objections to the Proposed Settlement by Class Members will be considered by the Court, but only if such objections are led in writing with the Court and sent to Plaintiffs and Wild Planet s counsel by August 25, 2017 as explained above. Class Members do not need to appear at the hearing. You may hire your own lawyer to appear in Court for you if you wish; however, if you do, you will be responsible for paying that lawyer on your behalf. HOW CAN I GET MORE INFORMATION? If you have questions or want a detailed notice or other documents about these lawsuits and your rights, visit You may also contact Class Counsel by at info@bursor.com, or by writing to: Bursor & Fisher, P.A., 1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940, Walnut Creek, California By order of the United States District Court for the Northern District. CIVIL ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR CHANGE OF NAME Case No. 17CIV02402 Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo Petition of: Raquel Gueroul De La Quintana for Change of Name TO ALL INTERESTED PERSONS: Petitioner Raquel Gueroul De La Quintana filed a petition with this court for a decree changing names as follows: Raquel Gueroul De La Quintana to Rachel no middle name Querouil The Court orders that all persons interested in this matter appear before this court at the hearing indicated below to show cause, if any, why the petition for change of name should not be granted. Any person objecting to the name changes described above must file a written objection that includes the reasons for the objection at least two court days before the matter is scheduled to be heard and must appear at the hearing to show cause why the petition should not be granted. If no written objection is timely filed, the court may grant the petition without a hearing. Notice of Hearing: Date: 7/19/17, Time: 9:00 am, Dept.: PJ The address of the court is 400 County Center, Redwood City, CA A copy of this Order to Show Cause shall be published at least once each week for four successive weeks prior to the date set for hearing on the petition in the following newspaper of general circulation, printed in this county: The Examiner Date: June 6, 2017 Susan Irene Etezadi Judge of the Superior Court 6/19, 6/26, 7/3, 7/10/17 NPEN # EXAMINER - BOUTIQUE & VILLAGER FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAMES FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME STATEMENT File No. A Fictitious Business Name(s): PZ Comic Book Corner, 3606 Bassett Ct. South San Francisco, CA 94080, County of San Mateo Registered Owner(s): Bernadette P. Ramos, 3606 Bassett Ct., South San Francisco, CA The business is conducted by: An Individual The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on 5/9/17 I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. (A registrant who declares as true any material matter pursuant to Section of the Business and Professions code that the registrant knows to be false is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not to exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000).) S/ Bernadette Ramos This statement was filed with the San Francisco County Clerk on June 9, 2017 NOTICE-In accordance with Subdivision (a) of Section 17920, a Fictitious Name Statement generally expires at the end of five years from the date on which it was filed in the office of the County Clerk, except, as provided in Subdivision (b) of Section 17920, where it expires 40 days after any change in the facts set forth in the statement pursuant to Section other than a change in the residence address of a registered owner. A new Fictitious Business Name Statement must be filed before the expiration. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a Fictitious Business Name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (See Section et seq., Business and Professions Code). 6/19, 6/26, 7/3, 7/10/17 CNS # SAN FRANCISCO EXAMINER FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME STATEMENT File No The following person(s) is (are) doing business as: Surgical Partners of California, 203 Redwood Shores Parkway, Suite 800, Redwood City, CA 94065, County of San Mateo Verity BASM Holdco, LLC, 203 Redwood Shores Parkway, Suite 800, Redwood City, CA 94065; Delaware This business is conducted by a Limited Liability Company The registrant(s) commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on N/A I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. (A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime.) S/ Andrel Soran, President of Verity Holdings, LLC, Managing Member This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Mateo County on May 18, 2017 Mark Church, County Clerk Diana Siron, Deputy Clerk Original 6/12, 6/19, 6/26, 7/3/17 NPEN # EXAMINER - BOUTIQUE & VILLAGER FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME STATEMENT File No The following person(s) is (are) doing business as: HMB Lavender, San Mateo Rd., Half Moon Bay, CA 94019, County of San Mateo Cyndi Herbert, 167 S. San Antonio Rd., Suite 1, Los Altos, CA This business is conducted by an Individual The registrant(s) commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on 05/01/2016 I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. (A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime.) S/ Cyndi Herbert This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Mateo County on May 24, 2017 Mark Church, County Clerk Anshu Nand, Deputy Clerk Original 6/12, 6/19, 6/26, 7/3/17 NPEN # EXAMINER - BOUTIQUE & VILLAGER FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME STATEMENT File No The following person(s) is (are) doing business as: 1. VILLAGE SQUARE VETERINARY HOSPITAL, 884 Portola Rd., Suite A15, Portola Valley, CA WOODSIDE VETERINARY CLINIC, 1725 Woodside Rd., Suite F, Redwood City, CA 94061; San Mateo County Wilbak Corporation, 832 Morrell Ave, Burlingame, CA 94010; California This business is conducted by a Corporation The registrant(s) commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on 2/27/07 / 4/1/17 I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. (A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime.) S/ William H. St. Lawrence, CEO This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Mateo County on June 6, 2017 Mark Church, County Clerk Besz De La Vega, Deputy Clerk Original 6/12, 6/19, 6/26, 7/3/17 NPEN # EXAMINER - BOUTIQUE & VILLAGER FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME STATEMENT File No The following person(s) is (are) doing business as: SKYWOOD PARTNERS, 570 El Camino Real #150423, Redwood City, CA 94063, County of San Mateo Shelley N. Smith, 108 Skylonda Dr., Redwood City, CA This business is conducted by an individual The registrant(s) commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on 4/1/2017 I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. (A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime.) S/ Shelley N. Smith This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Mateo County on May 25, 2017 Mark Church, County Clerk Anshu Nand, Deputy Clerk Original 6/12, 6/19, 6/26, 7/3/17 NPEN # EXAMINER - BOUTIQUE & VILLAGER FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME STATEMENT File No The following person(s) is (are) doing business as: True North Executive Recruitment, 847 Corriente Point Dr., Redwood City, CA 94065, County of San Mateo Shirley Tafoya, 847 Corriente Point Dr., Redwood City, CA 94065, Harry Versen, 847 Corriente Point Dr., Redwood City, CA 94065, This business is conducted by Married Couple The registrant(s) commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on N/A I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. (A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime.) S/ Shirley Tafoya This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Mateo County on May 17, 2017 Mark Church, County Clerk Diana Siron, Deputy Clerk Original 6/12, 6/19, 6/26, 7/3/17 NPEN # EXAMINER - BOUTIQUE & VILLAGER FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME STATEMENT File No. A Fictitious Business Name(s): Eat Pray Love Bark, 1690 Broadway Street, Apt. 308, San Francisco, CA 94109, County of San Francisco Registered Owner(s): Serena Yang, 1690 Broadway Street, Apt. 308, San Francisco, CA The business is conducted by: an Individual The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on 3/15/17 I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. (A registrant who declares as true any material matter pursuant to Section of the Business and Professions code that the registrant knows to be false is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not to exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000).) S/ Serena Yang This statement was filed with the San Francisco County Clerk on May 26, 2017 NOTICE-In accordance with Subdivision (a) of Section 17920, a Fictitious Name Statement generally expires at the end of five years from the date on which it was filed in the office of the County Clerk, except, as provided in Subdivision (b) of Section 17920, where it expires 40 days after any change in the facts set forth in the statement pursuant to Section other than a change in the residence address of a registered owner. A new Fictitious Business Name Statement must be filed before the expiration. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a Fictitious Business Name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (See Section et seq., Business and Professions Code). 6/12, 6/19, 6/26, 7/3/17 CNS # SAN FRANCISCO EXAMINER FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME STATEMENT File No The following person(s) is (are) doing business as: VitaFit, 187 Longview Drive, Daly City, CA 94015, County of San Mateo Mayra Hall, 187 Longview Drive, Daly City, CA This business is conducted by an individual The registrant(s) commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on 01/01/2017 I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. (A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime.) S/ Mayra Hall, Owner This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Mateo County on May 30, 2017 Mark Church, County Clerk DIANA SIRON, Deputy Clerk Original 6/12, 6/19, 6/26, 7/3/17 NPEN # EXAMINER - BOUTIQUE & VILLAGER FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME STATEMENT File No The following person(s) is (are) doing business as: Hearing Aid Center Inside CVS/ pharmacy #25534, 1981 E; Camino Real (CVS9811), Woonsocket, RI 02895, County of San Mateo Mailing address: One CVS Drive, Woonsocket, RI CVS AOC Services, L.L.C. One CVS Drive, Woonsocket, RI 02895; DE This business is conducted by a Limited Liability Company The registrant(s) commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on N/A I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. (A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime.) S/ Melanie K. Luker/Secretary This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Mateo County on June 15, 2017 Mark Church, County Clerk BESZ DE LA VEGA, Deputy Clerk Original 6/19, 6/26, 7/3, 7/10/17 NPEN # EXAMINER - BOUTIQUE & VILLAGER PROBATE NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF LILIA D. LEHANE CASE NO. 17PRO00580 To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both, of: Lilia D. Lehane A Petition for Probate has been filed by Rosemarie Carino in the Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo. The Petition for Probate requests that Rosemarie Carino be appointed as personal representative to administer the estate of the decedent. The Petition requests the decedent s will and codicils, if any, be admitted to probate. The will and any codicils are available for examination in the file kept by the court. The Petition requests authority to administer the estate under the Independent Administration of Estates Act. (This authority will allow the personal representative to take many actions without obtaining court approval. Before taking certain very important actions, however, the personal representative will be required to give notice to interested persons unless they have waived notice or consented to the proposed action.) The independent administration authority will be granted unless an interested person files an objection to the petition and shows good cause why the court should not grant the authority. A hearing on the petition will be held in this court on July 11, 2017 at 9:00 a.m. in Dept. Probate located at 400 County Center, Redwood City, CA If you object to the granting of the petition, you should appear at the hearing and state your objections or file written objections with the court before the hearing. Your appearance may be in person or by your attorney. If you are a creditor or a contingent creditor of the decedent, you must file your claim with the court and mail a copy to the personal representative appointed by the court within the later of either (1) four months from the date of first issuance of letters to a general personal representative, as defined in section 58(b) of the California Probate Code, or (2) 60 days from the date of mailing or personal delivery to you of a notice under section 9052 of the California Probate Code. Other California statutes and legal authority may affect your rights as a creditor. You may want to consult with an attorney knowledgeable in California law. You may examine the file kept by the court. If you are a person interested in the estate, you may file with the court a Request for Special Notice (form DE-154) of the filing of an inventory and appraisal of estate assets or of any petition or account as 14 SAN FRANCISCO EXAMINER SFEXAMINER.COM MONDAY, JUNE 19, 2017 AZ

65 Case 5:15-cv BLF Document 54-1 Filed 08/10/17 Page 39 of 45 Exhibit D

66 Wild Planet Foods, Inc. Tuna Settlement : 300x250 Site : Usatoday.com Case 5:15-cv BLF Document 54-1 Filed 08/10/17 Page 40 of 45

67 Wild Planet Foods, Inc. Tuna Settlement : 300x600 Site : Msn.com Case 5:15-cv BLF Document 54-1 Filed 08/10/17 Page 41 of 45

68 Wild Planet Foods, Inc. Tuna Settlement : 728x90 Site : Cnn.com Case 5:15-cv BLF Document 54-1 Filed 08/10/17 Page 42 of 45

69 Wild Planet Foods, Inc. Tuna Settlement : 300x250 Site : Aol.com Case 5:15-cv BLF Document 54-1 Filed 08/10/17 Page 43 of 45

70 Wild Planet Foods, Inc. Tuna Settlement : 300x600 Site : Time.com Case 5:15-cv BLF Document 54-1 Filed 08/10/17 Page 44 of 45

71 Wild Planet Foods, Inc. Tuna Settlement : 728x90 Site : Abcnews.go.com Case 5:15-cv BLF Document 54-1 Filed 08/10/17 Page 45 of 45

72 Case 5:15-cv BLF Document 54-2 Filed 08/10/17 Page 1 of BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. L. Timothy Fisher (State Bar No ) 1990 North California Boulevard, Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA Telephone: (925) Facsimile: (925) ltfisher@bursor.com BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. Scott A. Bursor (State Bar No ) 888 Seventh Avenue New York, NY Telephone: (212) Facsimile: (212) scott@bursor.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA EHDER SOTO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. WILD PLANET FOODS, INC., Plaintiff, Defendant. HENEY SHIHAD, an individual on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. Plaintiff, WILD PLANET FOODS, INC. and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Defendants. Case No. 5:15-cv BLF Case No. 1:16-cv BLF DECLARATION OF L. TIMOTHY FISHER IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEYS FEES, COSTS, EXPENSES AND INCENTIVE AWARDS Date: September 14, 2017 Time: 1:30 p.m. Courtroom: Courtroom 3-5th Floor Honorable Beth Labson Freeman DECLARATION OF L. TIMOTHY FISHER CASE NO. 5:15-CV BLF AND CASE NO. 1:16-CV BLF

73 Case 5:15-cv BLF Document 54-2 Filed 08/10/17 Page 2 of I, L. Timothy Fisher, declare as follows: 1. I am an attorney at law licensed to practice in the State of California. I am a member of the bar of this Court, and I am a partner at Bursor & Fisher, P.A., counsel for Plaintiffs in this action. I make this declaration in support of Plaintiffs Motion for Award of Attorneys Fees, Costs, Expenses and Incentive Awards. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth in this declaration, and, if called as a witness, could and would competently testify thereto under oath. I. CLASS COUNSEL S INVESTIGATION AND EXPERIENCE 2. My firm was Class Counsel in Hendricks v. StarKist Co., No. 13-cv HSG (N.D. Cal.) (the StarKist Action ), which concerned similar allegations that certain varieties of StarKist-brand canned tuna were underfilled when measured precisely according to the methods specified by 21 C.F.R (c). In the StarKist Action, the parties agreed to a settlement valued at $12 million and received over 2.4 million claims, the largest number of submitted claims from class members in the history of class actions. The settlement in the StarKist Action was the first of its kind. In fact, my firm is the only law firm that has ever successfully litigated claims involving the underfilling of canned tuna to resolution. 3. Since entering into the StarKist settlement, my firm has brought this action and two other additional cases concerning the alleged underfilling of canned tuna: Soto v. Safeway, Inc., 15- cv emc (N.D. Cal.) (the Safeway Action ) and Magier v. Trader Joe s Co., et al, 16-cv (S.D.N.Y.) (the Trader Joe s Action ). 4. In this case, Plaintiffs engaged in informal factual discovery over a period of several months with Defendant Wild Planet ( WP ), including exchanging detailed data and analytics regarding WP s pressed weight testing, as well as nationwide wholesale and retail sales data regarding WP tuna products sold under the Wild Planet and Sustainable Seas brands. Plaintiffs also commissioned the services of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ( NOAA ) for a series of pressed weight tests over a period of several months, which included consultations with experts from NOAA regarding the test data and its reliability. Because Plaintiffs had the benefit of Class Counsel s experience in the StarKist Action, the Trader Joe s Action and the Safeway Action, Plaintiffs were able to substantially streamline the informal fact DECLARATION OF L. TIMOTHY FISHER CASE NO. 5:15-CV BLF AND CASE NO. 1:16-CV BLF 1

74 Case 5:15-cv BLF Document 54-2 Filed 08/10/17 Page 3 of gathering process, which, in light of WP s cooperation and voluntary production of necessary documentation and the test data obtained from NOAA, resulted in an efficient resolution without protracted litigation. 4 5 II. THE BACKGROUND AND EXPERIENCE OF CLASS COUNSEL 5. In this section of my declaration, I seek to describe my background and experience as well as the successful history of my firm. I received my Juris Doctor from Boalt Hall at the University of California at Berkeley in While in law school, I was an active member of the Moot Court Board and participated in moot court competitions throughout the United States. In 1994, I received an award for Best Oral Argument in the first year moot court competition. Prior to founding Bursor & Fisher, P.A., I was an associate with Bramson, Plutzik, Mahler & Birkhaeuser, LLP, in Walnut Creek, California for 13 years. I also taught appellate advocacy at John F. Kennedy University School of Law in 2003 and More recently, I contributed jury instructions, a verdict form, and comments to the consumer protection chapter of Justice Elizabeth A. Baron s California Civil Jury Instruction Companion Handbook (West 2010). In 2014, I was appointed to a four-year term as a member of the Standing Committee on Professional Conduct for the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. 6. In 2011, my partner Scott A. Bursor and I established our firm. Mr. Bursor graduated from the University of Texas Law School in 1996, where he was Articles Editor of the Texas Law Review, and a member of the Board of Advocates and Order of the Coif. Mr. Bursor began his practice as a litigation associate in New York City with Cravath, Swaine & Moore ( ) and Chadbourne & Parke LLP (2001), where he represented large telecommunications, pharmaceutical, and technology companies in commercial litigation and class actions. 7. Class actions are rarely brought to trial. However, Mr. Bursor and I have served as trial counsel for class action plaintiffs in five jury trials and have won all five, with recoveries ranging from $21 million to $299 million DECLARATION OF L. TIMOTHY FISHER 2 CASE NO. 5:15-CV BLF AND CASE NO. 1:16-CV BLF

75 Case 5:15-cv BLF Document 54-2 Filed 08/10/17 Page 4 of i. In 2007, Mr. Bursor and I served as lead trial counsel in Thomas v. Global Vision Products (Alameda County Superior Court), representing a class of approximately 150,000 California consumers who had purchased the Avacor hair regrowth system, asserting claims for violations of California s consumer protection statutes. After a four-week trial the jury returned a $37 million verdict for the class. The trial judge increased the award to $40 million. ii. iii. iv. In 2008, Mr. Bursor and I served as lead trial counsel in Ayyad v. Sprint Spectrum L.P. (Alameda County Superior Court), representing a class of 2 million California consumers who were charged an early termination fee under a Sprint cellphone contract, asserting claims that such fees were unlawful liquidated damages under Civil Code 1671(d), as well as other statutory and common law claims. After a fiveweek trial, the jury returned a verdict in June 2008, and the Court issued a Statement of Decision in December 2008 awarding the class more than $299 million in cash and debt cancellation. The class prevailed on six of six counts asserted in the complaint and was awarded 100% of the relief sought. In 2008, Mr. Bursor and I served as lead trial counsel in White v. Verizon Wireless (Alameda County Superior Court), representing a class of 1.4 million California consumers who were charged an early termination fee under a Verizon cellphone contract, asserting claims that such fees were unlawful liquidated damages under Civil Code 1671(d), as well as other statutory and common law claims. After we presented the class s case-in-chief, rested, then cross-examined Verizon s principal trial witness, Verizon agreed to settle the case for a $21 million cash payment and an injunction restricting Verizon s ability to impose early termination fees in future subscriber agreements. In 2009, Mr. Bursor and I served as lead trial counsel in a second trial in Thomas v. Global Vision Products, in which the class asserted claims against a minority shareholder in the company. After another four-week trial the jury returned a verdict awarding more than $50 million to the class. The legal trade publication VerdictSearch reported this was the second largest jury verdict in California in v. In 2013, Mr. Bursor served as lead trial counsel in a second trial in Ayyad v. Sprint Spectrum L.P. (Alameda County Superior Court). After we had prevailed on the class claims challenging Sprint s termination fees in 2008, Sprint asserted DECLARATION OF L. TIMOTHY FISHER 3 CASE NO. 5:15-CV BLF AND CASE NO. 1:16-CV BLF

76 Case 5:15-cv BLF Document 54-2 Filed 08/10/17 Page 5 of a $1.06 billion cross-claim against the class for breach of contract. See Garrett v. Coast & Southern Federal Sav. & Loan Ass n, 9 Cal. 3d 731, (1973) (holding that invalidation of a liquidated damages provision does not permit the breaching party to escape[] unscathed, because he remains liable for the actual damages resulting from his default ). After a four-week trial, the jury returned a verdict awarding only 2% of Sprint s claimed damages. This verdict secured the Class s net cash recovery of at least $55 million after a setoff for Sprint s actual damages. 8. In addition to these five trial victories, I have been counsel to class action plaintiffs in dozens of cases in jurisdictions throughout the United States. Since December 2010, attorneys from my firm have won appointment as Class Counsel or Interim Class Counsel in: i. O Brien v. LG Electronics USA, Inc. (D.N.J. Dec. 16, 2010), to represent a certified nationwide class of purchasers of LG French-door refrigerators, ii. Ramundo v. Michaels Stores, Inc. (N.D. Ill. June 8, 2011), to represent a certified nationwide class of consumers who made in-store purchases at Michaels Stores using a debit or credit card and had their private financial information stolen as a result, iii. In re Haier Freezer Consumer Litig. (N.D. Cal. Aug. 17, 2011), to represent a certified class of purchasers of mislabeled freezers from Haier America Trading, LLC, iv. Loreto v. Coast Cutlery Co. (D.N.J. Sep. 8, 2011), to represent a certified nationwide class of purchasers of knives or tools made by Coast Cutlery, v. Rodriguez v. CitiMortgage, Inc. (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 14, 2011), to represent a certified nationwide class of military personnel against CitiMortgage for illegal foreclosures, vi. Avram v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. (D.N.J. Jan. 3, 2012), to represent a proposed nationwide class of purchasers of mislabeled refrigerators from Samsung Electronics America, Inc. and Lowe s Companies, Inc., vii. Rossi v. The Procter & Gamble Co. (D.N.J. Jan. 31, 2012), to represent a certified nationwide class of purchasers of Crest Sensitivity Treatment & Protection toothpaste, 28 DECLARATION OF L. TIMOTHY FISHER 4 CASE NO. 5:15-CV BLF AND CASE NO. 1:16-CV BLF

77 Case 5:15-cv BLF Document 54-2 Filed 08/10/17 Page 6 of viii. ix. Dzielak v. Whirlpool Corp. et al. (D.N.J. Feb. 21, 2012), to represent a proposed nationwide class of purchasers of mislabeled Maytag Centennial washing machines from Whirlpool Corp., Sears, and other retailers, In re Sensa Weight Loss Litig. (N.D. Cal. Mar. 2, 2012), to represent a certified nationwide class of purchasers of Sensa weight loss products, x. In re Sinus Buster Products Consumer Litig. (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 17, 2012), to represent a certified nationwide class of purchasers of Sinus Buster products, xi. Scott v. JPMorgan Chase & Co. (S.D.N.Y. May 30, 2013), to represent a proposed nationwide class of Chase customers who were allegedly unilaterally enrolled into Chase s Overdraft Protection service and charged unauthorized fees, xii. Podobedov v. Living Essentials, LLC (C.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2013), to represent a proposed nationwide class of purchasers of 5-Hour Energy products, xiii. xiv. xv. xvi. xvii. xviii. Ebin v. Kangadis Food Inc. (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 25, 2014), to represent a certified nationwide class of purchasers of Capatriti 100% Pure Olive Oil, Ebin v. Kangadis Family Management LLC, et al. (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 18, 2014), to represent a certified nationwide class of purchasers of Capatriti 100% Pure Olive Oil, In re Scotts EZ Seed Litig. (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 26, 2015), to represent a certified class of purchasers of Scotts Turf Builder EZ Seed in New York and California, Hendricks v. StarKist Co. (N.D. Cal. July 23, 2015), to represent a certified nationwide class of purchasers of StarKist tuna products, In re NVIDIA GTX 970 Graphics Card Litig. (N.D. Cal. May 8, 2015), to represent a proposed nationwide class of purchasers of NVIDIA GTX 970 graphics cards, Melgar v. Zicam LLC, et al. (E.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2016), to represent a certified ten-jurisdiction class of purchasers of Zicam Pre-Cold products, xix. In re Trader Joe s Tuna Litigation (C.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2016), to represent a nationwide class of purchasers of Trader Joe s tuna products, and DECLARATION OF L. TIMOTHY FISHER 5 CASE NO. 5:15-CV BLF AND CASE NO. 1:16-CV BLF

78 Case 5:15-cv BLF Document 54-2 Filed 08/10/17 Page 7 of xx. In re Welspun Litigation (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 26, 2017), to represent a proposed nationwide class of purchasers of Welspun Egyptian cotton bedding products. 9. A copy of my firm s resume, which includes more detailed information about our practice and the qualifications of the other Bursor & Fisher lawyers who worked on this case, is attached as Exhibit A. III. CLASS COUNSEL S LODESTAR AND EXPENSES 10. In this section of my declaration, I seek to describe my firm s lodestar and expenses in connection with this action. Attached as Exhibit B are my firm s detailed billing diaries in this matter. I have personally reviewed all of my firm s time entries, and have used billing judgment to ensure that duplicative or unnecessary time has been excluded and that only time reasonably devoted to the litigation has been included. The time and descriptions displayed in my firm s billing records were regularly and contemporaneously recorded by me and the other timekeepers of the firm pursuant to firm policy and have been maintained in the computerized records of my firm. We have redacted only entries reflecting privileged communications. 11. As of August 1, 2017, Bursor & Fisher expended hours in this case. Bursor & Fisher s lodestar fee in this matter, based on current billing rates, is $59, Based on our lodestar, the blended hourly rate that my firm billed to this matter is $ per hour for hours of work. This blended rate resulted from my practice of assigning appropriate work to less senior lawyers who bill at lower hourly rates to minimize fees for the Class, wherever possible. Approximately 45.13% of the hours (53.3 hours) were billed by associates. Additionally, another 12.44% of the hours (14.3 hours) were billed by support staff. 13. Included as the cover page to my firm s time records submitted as part of Exhibit B is a chart setting forth the hourly rates charged for each lawyer and paralegal at my firm. Based on my knowledge and experience, the hourly rates charged by my firm are within the range of market rates charged by attorneys of equivalent experience, skill, and expertise. These are the same hourly rates that we actually charge to our regular hourly clients who have retained us for non-contingent matters, and which are actually paid by those clients. As a matter of firm policy, we do not DECLARATION OF L. TIMOTHY FISHER 6 CASE NO. 5:15-CV BLF AND CASE NO. 1:16-CV BLF

79 Case 5:15-cv BLF Document 54-2 Filed 08/10/17 Page 8 of discount our regular hourly rates for non-contingent hourly work, which comprises approximately 20% of our revenue. 14. Class Counsel have endeavored to avoid duplicative billing and believe that their hourly rates are reasonable and consistent with other lawyers hourly rates that have been approved in California, this District and elsewhere. 15. Attached as Exhibit C is an itemized listing of each out-of-pocket expense my firm incurred in this matter. These expenses are reflected in the records of Bursor & Fisher and were necessary to prosecute this litigation. All expenses were carefully and reasonably expended, and they reflect market rates for various categories of expenses incurred. Expense items are billed separately and such charges are not duplicated in my firm s billing rates. 16. To date, Bursor & Fisher has expended $1, in out-of-pocket expenses in connection with the prosecution of this action. 17. I have personal knowledge of the range of hourly rates typically charged by counsel in our field in New York, California, and throughout the United States, both on a current basis and in the past. In determining my firm s hourly rates from year to year, my partners and I have consciously taken market rates into account and have aligned our rates with the market. 18. Through my practice, I have become familiar with the non-contingent market rates charged by attorneys in New York, California, and elsewhere (my firm s offices are in New York City and Walnut Creek, California). This familiarity has been obtained in several ways: (1) by litigating attorneys fee applications; (2) by discussing fees with other attorneys; (3) by obtaining declarations regarding prevailing market rates filed by other class action attorneys seeking fees; (4) by reviewing attorneys fee applications and awards in other cases, as well as surveys and articles on attorney s fees in the legal newspapers and treatises; and (5) by actively participating in the noncontingent fee marketplace. The information I have gathered shows that my firm s rates are in line with the non-contingent market rates charged by attorneys of reasonably comparable experience, skill, and reputation for reasonably comparable class action work. In fact, these rates are the same DECLARATION OF L. TIMOTHY FISHER 7 CASE NO. 5:15-CV BLF AND CASE NO. 1:16-CV BLF

80 Case 5:15-cv BLF Document 54-2 Filed 08/10/17 Page 9 of rates that my firm charges for non-contingent fee practice. Comparable hourly rates have been found reasonable by various courts for reasonably comparable services, including: i. In re Amgen Sec. Litig., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS , *27 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 25, 2016) (approving a billing rate ranging from $750 to $985 per hour for partners, $500 to $800 per hour for of counsels /senior counsel, and $300 to $725 per hour for other attorneys. The Court has reviewed the attorneys hourly rates and hours worked, and found them reasonable, given the duration of this litigation and the favorable settlement for the class. ) (emphasis in original). ii. iii. iv. In re Toyota Motor Corp. Unintended Acceleration Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litig., No. 10-ml NS (FMOx), Dkt. No (C.D. Cal. June 24, 2013) (finding that [c]lass counsel s experience, reputation, and skill, as well as the complexity of the case justified their rates that ranged from $150 to $950). Negrete v. Allianz Life Ins. Co. of N. Am., 2015 WL , *13 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 2015) (finding Class Counsel s hourly rates ranging from $335 to $905 (See Docket No at 2) reasonable for complex class action litigation in Los Angeles. ). Rodriguez v. Cty. of L.A., 96 F.Supp.3d 1012, 1023 (C.D. Cal. 2014) (approving rates from $500 to $975). v. In re TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litigation, No. M SI, MDL, No (N.D. Cal. 2013) (an antitrust class action, in which the court found blended hourly rates of $1000, $950, $861, $825, $820, and $750 per hour reasonable for the lead class counsel). vi. vii. Kearney v. Hyundai Motor America, 2013 WL , at *8 (C.D. Cal. June 28, 2013) (approving hourly rates of $650 to $800 for class counsel in a consumer class action). Chambers v. Whirlpool Corp., 214 F. Supp. 3d 877 (C.D. Cal. 2016) (approving hourly rates between $485 and $750 in consumer class action) viii. Vinh Nguyen v. Radient Pharm. Corp., 2014 WL , at *11 (C.D. Cal. May 6, 2014) (approving rates up to $750 per hour for partners, $550 per hour for associates, and $225 per hour for paralegals). 28 DECLARATION OF L. TIMOTHY FISHER 8 CASE NO. 5:15-CV BLF AND CASE NO. 1:16-CV BLF

81 Case 5:15-cv BLF Document 54-2 Filed 08/10/17 Page 10 of ix. POM Wonderful, LLC v. Purely Juice, Inc., 2008 WL , at *4 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 22, 2008) (finding rates of $475 to $750 for partners and $275 to $425 for associates reasonable in a consumer class action). x. Counts v. Meriwether, 2016 WL , *3-4 (C.D. Cal. 2016) (finding hourly rates of $701.25, $552.50, and $ per hour reasonable and consistent with the prevailing rates in the Central District. ). xi. Dennis v. Kellogg Co., No. 09-CV-1786-L (WMc), 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS , at *22-24 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 2013) (noting that class counsel s hourly rates, ranging from $145 for law clerks, to $950 for named partners, were reasonable). xii. Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., et al. v. California Department of Transportation, et al., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS (N.D. Cal. 2010) (adopted by Order Accepting Report and Recommendation filed February 2, 2011) (a class action in which the court found reasonable 2010 hourly rates of up to $835 per hour). 19. The reasonableness of my firm s hourly rates is also supported by several surveys of legal rates, including the following: i. In an article entitled On Sale: The $1,150-Per Hour Lawyer, written by Jennifer Smith and published in the Wall Street Journal on April 9, 2013, the author describes the rapidly growing number of lawyers billing at $1,150 or more revealed in public filings and major surveys. The article also notes that in the first quarter of 2013, the 50 top-grossing law firms billed their partners at an average rate between $879 and $882 per hour. A true and correct copy of this article is attached hereto as Exhibit D. ii. In an article published April 16, 2012, the Am Law Daily described the 2012 Real Rate Report, an analysis of $7.6 billion in legal bills paid by corporations over a five-year period ending in December A true and correct copy of that article is attached hereto as Exhibit E. That article confirms that the rates charged by experienced and wellqualified attorneys have continued to rise over this five-year period, particularly in large urban areas like Los Angeles, New York, and the San Francisco Bay Area. It also shows, for example that the top quartile of lawyers bill at an average of just under $900 per hour. DECLARATION OF L. TIMOTHY FISHER 9 CASE NO. 5:15-CV BLF AND CASE NO. 1:16-CV BLF

82 Case 5:15-cv BLF Document 54-2 Filed 08/10/17 Page 11 of iii. iv. Similarly, on February 25, 2011, the Wall Street Journal published an on-line article entitled Top Billers. A true and correct copy of that article is attached hereto as Exhibit F. That article listed the 2010 and/or 2009 hourly rates for more than 125 attorneys, in a variety of practice areas and cases, who charged $1,000 per hour or more. Indeed, the article specifically lists eleven (11) Gibson Dunn & Crutcher attorneys billing at $1,000 per hour or more. On February 22, 2011, the ALM s Daily Report listed the hourly rates of numerous San Francisco attorneys. A true and correct copy of that article is attached hereto as Exhibit G. Even though rates have increased significantly since that time, my firm s rates are well within the range of rates shown in this survey. v. The Westlaw Court Express Legal Billing Reports for May, August, and December 2009 (attached hereto as Exhibit H) show that as far back as 2009, attorneys with as little as 19 years of experience were charging $800 per hour or more, and that the rates requested here are well within the range of those reported. Again, current rates are significantly higher. vi. vii. viii. The National Law Journal s December 2010, nationwide sampling of law firm billing rates (attached hereto as Exhibit I) lists 32 firms whose highest rate was $800 per hour or more, eleven firms whose highest rate was $900 per hour or more, and three firms whose highest rate was $1,000 per hour or more. On December 16, 2009, The American Lawyer published an online article entitled Bankruptcy Rates Top $1,000 in That article is attached hereto as Exhibit J. In addition to reporting that several attorneys had charged rates of $1,000 or more in bankruptcy filings in Delaware and the Southern District of New York, the article also listed 18 firms that charged median partner rates of from $625 to $980 per hour. According to the National Law Journal s 2014 Law Firm Billing Survey, law firms with their largest office in New York have average partner and associate billing rates of $882 and $520, respectively. Karen Sloan, $1,000 Per Hour Isn t Rare Anymore; Nominal Billing Levels Rise, But Discounts Ease Blow, National Law Journal, Jan. 13, The survey also shows that it is common for legal fees for partners in New York firms to exceed $1,000 an hour. Id. A true and correct copy of this survey is attached hereto as Exhibit K. DECLARATION OF L. TIMOTHY FISHER 10 CASE NO. 5:15-CV BLF AND CASE NO. 1:16-CV BLF

83 Case 5:15-cv BLF Document 54-2 Filed 08/10/17 Page 12 of ix. According to the National Law Journal s annual survey of law firm billing rates in 2014, Defendants Counsel Norton Rose Fulbright average billing rate for partners is $775, with a high of $900. Defense Counsel Norton Rose s average associate rate is $400 with a high of $515. These rates are available at ng-rates-across-the-country (last visited August 8, 2017). 20. No court has ever cut my firm s fee application by a single dollar on the ground that our hourly rates were not reasonable. In fact, the rates charged by my firm have been deemed reasonable in connection with the approval of my firm s fee applications in at least seven recent matters: i. Correa v. Sensa Products LLC, Case No. BC476808, California Superior Court, Los Angeles County (Nov. 9, 2012 Judgment, Final Order, and Decree Granting Final Approval To Class Action Settlement); ii. Rossi v. The Procter & Gamble Co., Case No , D.N.J. (Oct. 3, 2013 Final Approval Order And Judgment); iii. Cox v. Clarus Marketing Group, LLC., 291 F.R.D. 473, 483 (S.D. Cal. 2013) (the Court approved the 2013 hourly rates of class counsel, including Bursor & Fisher s 2013 partner rates of $850-$680, associate rates of $400-$375, and paralegal rates of $180 (as set forth in Dkt. No in Case No. 3:11- cv h-rbb), stating that hourly rates charged by the attorneys appear reasonable in light of the experience of counsel and complexities of this case. ); iv. In re Pacific Bell Late Fee Litigation, Case No. MSC , California Superior Court, Los Angeles County (Oct. 22, 2013 Order Awarding Attorneys Fees, Costs And Expenses And Authorizing Payment Of Incentive Award To The Class Representative); v. In re Haier Freezer Consumer Litig., Case No. C EJD, N.D. Cal. (Oct. 25, 2013 Final Judgment And Order Granting Plaintiffs Motion For Final Approval Of Class Action Settlement And For Award Of Attorneys Fees, Costs And Incentive Awards); vi. In Rodriguez v. CitiMortgage, Inc., Case No. 11-cv-4718, S.D.N.Y. (Oct. 6, 2015), the court concluded during the fairness hearing that Bursor & Fisher s rates for two of its DECLARATION OF L. TIMOTHY FISHER 11 CASE NO. 5:15-CV BLF AND CASE NO. 1:16-CV BLF

84 Case 5:15-cv BLF Document 54-2 Filed 08/10/17 Page 13 of vii. partners, Joseph Marchese and Scott Bursor, were reasonable : The hourly rates among plaintiffs counsel and their staff range between $950 per hour to $165 per hour with the average partner billing rate at $748. The hourly rates that the partners who performed most of the partner-level work on the matter, those being Joseph Marchese, Scott Bursor, Gary Lynch, and Antonio Vozzolo are $680, $850, $650, and $775 an hour respectively. The total blended rate for all legal work performed was $609 per hour. I conclude that the hourly rates are reasonable. 10/6/15 Tr. at 14:24-15:14 (emphasis added); and In Hendricks v. StarKist Co., 2016 WL (N.D. Cal. Sept. 29, 2016), the court concluded in its Order Granting Final Approval of Settlement that Bursor & Fisher s rates were reasonable : The Court has reviewed class counsel s time records and billing reports, and finds that the number of hours devoted to this case was reasonable. The Court further finds that the billing rates used by class counsel to calculate the lodestar are reasonable and in line with prevailing rates in this District for personnel of comparable experience, skill, and reputation. (internal citations omitted; emphasis added). 21. My firm undertook this representation on a wholly contingent basis recognizing that the risk of non-payment has been high throughout this litigation. There were substantial uncertainties about the outcome of this case. IV. CLASS REPRESENTATIVES ROLE IN THIS LITIGATION 22. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, Plaintiffs Ehder Soto and Henry Shihad are permitted to request an incentive award up to $5,000 each for their service in this case. 23. Service awards for class representatives are common in class actions. See, e.g., Dunleavy v. Nadler (In re Mego Fin. Corp. Sec. Litig.), 213 F.3d 454, 463 (9th Cir. 2000) DECLARATION OF L. TIMOTHY FISHER 12 CASE NO. 5:15-CV BLF AND CASE NO. 1:16-CV BLF

85 Case 5:15-cv BLF Document 54-2 Filed 08/10/17 Page 14 of (approving a $5,000 incentive award for each class representative); In re Nucoa Real Margarine Litig., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS , at * (C.D. Cal. June 12, 2012) (approving a $8,000 incentive award); Weeks v. Kellogg Co., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS , at *143 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 23, 2011) (concluding that an incentive award of $5,000 for each class representative is just and reasonable under the circumstances.) (internal quotations omitted); see also In re Vitamin C Antitrust Litig., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS , at *35 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 22, 2012) ( Courts often grant incentive awards to representative plaintiffs. ); Dupler v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 705 F. Supp. 2d 231, 245 (E.D.N.Y. 2010) (approving $25,000 and $5,000 awards to two plaintiffs in a settlement involving allegations that the defendant s backdating of membership renewals was a deceptive practice under New York s consumer fraud statute); In re Domestic Air Transp. Antitrust Litig., 148 F.R.D. 297, 348 (N.D. Ga. 1993) ($142,500 awarded from settlement fund of $50 million); In re Dun & Bradstreet Credit Services Customer Litig., 130 F.R.D. 366, (S.D. Ohio 1990) ($215,000 awarded from settlement fund of $18 million); Spicer v. Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc., 844 F. Supp. 1226, (N.D. Ill. 1993) ($30,000 awarded from settlement fund of $10 million); Enterprise Energy Corp. v. Columbia Gas Transmission Corp., 137 F.R.D. 240, (S.D. Ohio 1991) (approving $50,000 incentive awards). Such awards compensate class representatives and others for actual costs in time, money, and the disruption of life incurred in the prosecution of the litigation. They also serve to encourage future plaintiffs to come forward and vindicate the rights of other injured parties. 24. Here, the involvement of the Class Representatives was critical to the prosecution of the case. Specifically, Plaintiff Ehder Soto held regular meetings with Class Counsel to receive updates on the progress of the case and to discuss litigation strategy. He assisted in Class Counsel s pre-suit investigation by discussing his experiences and providing information regarding his purchase and use of Sustainable Seas-brand canned tuna. Plaintiff Soto also assisted in drafting the Complaint, and he reviewed the Complaint for accuracy before it was filed. Plaintiff Soto also searched for relevant documents as part of this process. Finally, Plaintiff Soto was intimately involved in the settlement process, and he has continued to keep apprised of settlement progress to date. DECLARATION OF L. TIMOTHY FISHER 13 CASE NO. 5:15-CV BLF AND CASE NO. 1:16-CV BLF

86 Case 5:15-cv BLF Document 54-2 Filed 08/10/17 Page 15 of Plaintiff Soto also took time away from personal activities to initiate and litigate this action. He was prepared to litigate this case to a verdict if necessary. His dedication and efforts have conferred a significant benefit on similarly situated class members across the United States. 26. In my judgment, the active participation of Plaintiff Soto has greatly enhanced this case s settlement value. Having Plaintiff Soto standing by to represent the class strengthened Class Counsel s hand in settlement negotiations, and enabled Class Counsel to persuade WP to contribute more money as part of the settlement. In light of his contributions and efforts, I believe that the Court should approve the incentive award requested for Plaintiff Soto. I declare under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California and the United States that the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed at Walnut Creek, California this 10th day of August, /s/ L. Timothy Fisher L. Timothy Fisher DECLARATION OF L. TIMOTHY FISHER 14 CASE NO. 5:15-CV BLF AND CASE NO. 1:16-CV BLF

87 Case 5:15-cv BLF Document 54-2 Filed 08/10/17 Page 16 of 104 EXHIBIT A

88 Case 5:15-cv BLF Document 54-2 Filed 08/10/17 Page 17 of SEVENTH AVENUE NEW YORK, NY NORTH CALIFORNIA BLVD. WALNUT CREEK, CA FIRM RESUME With offices in New York and California, BURSOR & FISHER lawyers have represented both plaintiffs and defendants in state and federal courts throughout the country. The lawyers at our firm have an active civil trial practice, having won multi-million dollar verdicts or recoveries in five of five civil jury trials since Our most recent trial victory came in August 2013 in Ayyad v. Sprint Spectrum L.P., in which Mr. Bursor served as lead trial counsel and won a jury verdict defeating Sprint s $1.06 billion counterclaim and securing the class s recovery of more than $275 million in cash and debt relief. In Thomas v. Global Vision Products, Inc. (II), we obtained a $50 million jury verdict in favor of a certified class of 150,000 purchasers of the Avacor Hair Regrowth System. The legal trade publication VerdictSearch reported that this was the second largest jury verdict in California in 2009, and the largest in any class action. The lawyers at our firm have an active class action practice and have won numerous appointments as class counsel to represent millions of class members, including customers of Verizon Wireless, AT&T Wireless, Cingular Wireless, Sprint, T-Mobile, General Electric, Haier America, and Michaels Stores as well as purchasers of Avacor, Xenadrine, and Sensa products. Since 2014, our lawyers have certified five consumer classes pursuant to contested class certification motions (see Ebin, Forcellati, In re EZ Seed Litig., Dei Rossi, Melgar infra). Since December 2010, Bursor & Fisher lawyers have been court-appointed Class Counsel or Interim Class Counsel in: i. O Brien v. LG Electronics USA, Inc. (D.N.J. Dec. 16, 2010) to represent a certified nationwide class of purchasers of LG French-door refrigerators, ii. Ramundo v. Michaels Stores, Inc. (N.D. Ill. June 8, 2011) to represent a certified nationwide class of consumers who made in-store purchases at Michaels Stores using a debit or credit card and had their private financial information stolen as a result, iii. In re Haier Freezer Consumer Litig. (N.D. Cal. Aug. 17, 2011) to represent a certified class of purchasers of mislabeled freezers from Haier America Trading, LLC, iv. Loreto v. Coast Cutlery Co. (D.N.J. Sep. 8, 2011) to represent a certified nationwide class of purchasers of knives or tools made by Coast Cutlery, v. Rodriguez v. CitiMortgage, Inc. (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 14, 2011) to represent a certified nationwide class of military personnel against CitiMortgage for illegal foreclosures,

89 Case 5:15-cv BLF Document 54-2 Filed 08/10/17 Page 18 of 104 PAGE 2 vi. Avram v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., et al. (D.N.J. Jan. 3, 2012), to represent a proposed nationwide class of purchasers of mislabeled refrigerators from Samsung Electronics America, Inc. and Lowe s Companies, Inc., vii. Rossi v. The Procter & Gamble Co. (D.N.J. Jan. 31, 2012), to represent a certified nationwide class of purchasers of Crest Sensitivity Treatment & Protection toothpaste, viii. Dzielak v. Whirlpool Corp. et al. (D.N.J. Feb. 21, 2012), to represent a proposed nationwide class of purchasers of mislabeled Maytag Centennial washing machines from Whirlpool Corp., Sears, and other retailers, ix. In re Sensa Weight Loss Litig. (N.D. Cal. Mar. 2, 2012), to represent a certified nationwide class of purchasers of Sensa weight loss products, x. In re Sinus Buster Products Consumer Litig. (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 17, 2012) to represent a certified nationwide class of purchasers of Sinus Buster products, xi. Scott v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., et al. (S.D.N.Y. May 30, 2013) to represent a proposed nationwide class of Chase customers who were allegedly unilaterally enrolled into Chase s Overdraft Protection service and charged unauthorized fees, xii. Podobedov v. Living Essentials, LLC (C.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2013) to represent a proposed nationwide class of purchasers of 5-hour Energy products, xiii. Ebin v. Kangadis Food Inc. (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 25, 2014) to represent a certified nationwide class of purchasers of Capatriti 100% Pure Olive Oil, xiv. Forcellati v. Hyland s, Inc. (C.D. Cal. Apr. 9, 2014) to represent a certified nationwide class of purchasers of children s homeopathic cold and flu remedies, xv. Ebin v. Kangadis Family Management LLC, et al. (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 18, 2014) to represent a certified nationwide class of purchasers of Capatriti 100% Pure Olive Oil, xvi. In re Scotts EZ Seed Litig. (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 26, 2015), to represent a certified class of purchasers of Scotts Turf Builder EZ Seed, xvii. Dei Rossi v. Whirlpool Corp., et al. (E.D. Cal. Apr. 28, 2015), to represent a certified class of purchasers of mislabeled KitchenAid refrigerators from Whirlpool Corp., Best Buy, and other retailers, xviii. Hendricks v. StarKist Co. (N.D. Cal. July 23, 2015) to represent a certified nationwide class of purchasers of StarKist tuna products, xix. In re NVIDIA GTX 970 Graphics Card Litig. (N.D. Cal. May 8, 2015), to represent a proposed nationwide class of purchasers of NVIDIA GTX 970 graphics cards, and xx. Melgar v. Zicam LLC, et al. (E.D. Cal. March 30, 2016) to represent a certified ten-jurisdiction class of purchasers of Zicam Pre-Cold products. xxi. In re Trader Joe s Tuna Litigation (C.D. Cal. December 21, 2016), to represent a nationwide class of purchasers of Trader Joe s tuna products. xxii. In re Welspun Litigation (S.D.N.Y. January 26, 2017), to represent a proposed nationwide class of purchasers of Welspun Egyptian cotton bedding products.

90 Case 5:15-cv BLF Document 54-2 Filed 08/10/17 Page 19 of 104 PAGE 3 xxiii. Hart v. BHH, LLC (S.D.N.Y. July 7, 2017) to represent a nationwide class of purchasers of Bell & Howell ultrasonic pest repellers. SCOTT A. BURSOR Mr. Bursor has an active civil trial practice, having won multi-million verdicts or recoveries in five of five civil jury trials since Mr. Bursor s most recent victory came in August 2013 in Ayyad v. Sprint Spectrum L.P., in which he served as lead trial counsel and won a jury verdict defeating Sprint s $1.06 billion counterclaim and securing the class s recovery of more than $275 million in cash and debt relief. In Thomas v. Global Vision Products, Inc. (2009), the jury returned a $50 million verdict in favor of the plaintiff and class represented by Mr. Bursor. The legal trade publication VerdictSearch reported that this was the second largest jury verdict in California in Class actions are rarely tried to verdict. Other than Mr. Bursor and his partner Mr. Fisher, we know of no lawyer that has tried more than one class action to a jury. Mr. Bursor s perfect record of five wins in five class action jury trials, with recoveries ranging from $21 million to $299 million, is unmatched by any other lawyer. Each of these victories was hard-fought against top trial lawyers from the biggest law firms in the United States. Mr. Bursor graduated from the University of Texas Law School in He served as Articles Editor of the Texas Law Review, and was a member of the Board of Advocates and Order of the Coif. Prior to starting his own practice, Mr. Bursor was a litigation associate with Cravath, Swaine & Moore ( ) and Chadbourne & Parke LLP (2001), where he represented large telecommunications, pharmaceutical, and technology companies in commercial litigation. Mr. Bursor is a member of the state bars of New York, Florida, and California, as well as the bars of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, United States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, United States District Courts for the Northern, Central, Southern and Eastern Districts of California, the United States District Courts for the Southern and Middle Districts of Florida, and the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. Representative Cases Mr. Bursor was appointed lead or co-lead class counsel to the largest, 2nd largest, and 3rd largest classes ever certified. Mr. Bursor has represented classes including more than 160 million class members, roughly 1 of every 2 Americans. Listed below are recent cases that are representative of Mr. Bursor s practice: Mr. Bursor negotiated and obtained court-approval for two landmark settlements in Nguyen v. Verizon Wireless and Zill v. Sprint Spectrum (the largest and 2nd largest classes ever

91 Case 5:15-cv BLF Document 54-2 Filed 08/10/17 Page 20 of 104 PAGE 4 certified). These settlements required Verizon and Sprint to open their wireless networks to third-party devices and applications. These settlements are believed to be the most significant legal development affecting the telecommunications industry since 1968, when the FCC s Carterfone decision similarly opened up AT&T s wireline telephone network. Mr. Bursor was the lead trial lawyer in Ayyad v. Sprint Spectrum, L.P. representing a class of approximately 2 million California consumers who were charged an early termination fee under a Sprint cellphone contract, asserting claims that such fees were unlawful liquidated damages under the California Civil Code, as well as other statutory and common law claims. After a five-week combined bench-and-jury trial, the jury returned a verdict in June 2008 and the Court issued a Statement of Decision in December 2008 awarding the plaintiffs $299 million in cash and debt cancellation. Mr. Bursor served as lead trial counsel for this class again in 2013 during a month-long jury trial in which Sprint asserted a $1.06 billion counterclaim against the class. Mr. Bursor secured a verdict awarding Sprint only $18.4 million, the exact amount calculated by the class s damages expert. This award was less than 2% of the damages Sprint sought, less than 6% of the amount of the illegal termination fees Sprint charged to class members, and ensured that the class would recover in excess of $275 million. Mr. Bursor was the lead trial lawyer in White v. Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless representing a class of approximately 1.4 million California consumers who were charged an early termination fee under a Verizon cellphone contract, asserting claims that such fees were unlawful liquidated damages under the California Civil Code, as well as other statutory and common law claims. In July 2008, after Mr. Bursor presented plaintiffs case-in-chief, rested, then cross-examined Verizon s principal trial witness, Verizon agreed to settle the case for a $21 million cash payment and an injunction restricting Verizon s ability to impose early termination fees in future subscriber agreements. Mr. Bursor was the lead trial lawyer in Thomas v. Global Visions Products Inc. Mr. Bursor represented a class of approximately 150,000 California consumers who had purchased the Avacor hair regrowth system. In January 2008, after a four-week combined bench-and-jury trial. Mr. Bursor obtained a $37 million verdict for the class, which the Court later increased to $40 million. Mr. Bursor was appointed class counsel and was elected chair of the Official Creditors Committee in In re Nutraquest Inc., a Chapter 11 bankruptcy case before Chief Judge Garrett E. Brown, Jr. (D.N.J.) involving 390 ephedra-related personal injury and/or wrongful death claims, two consumer class actions, four enforcement actions by governmental agencies, and multiple adversary proceedings related to the Chapter 11 case. Working closely with counsel for all parties and with two mediators, Judge Nicholas Politan (Ret.) and Judge Marina Corodemus (Ret.), the committee chaired by Mr. Bursor was able to settle or otherwise resolve every claim and reach a fully consensual Chapter 11 plan of reorganization, which Chief Judge Brown approved in late This settlement included a $12.8 million recovery to a nationwide class of consumers who alleged they were defrauded in connection with the purchase of Xenadrine dietary supplement products. Mr. Bursor was the lead trial lawyer in In re: Pacific Bell Late Fee Litigation. After filing the first class action challenging Pac Bell's late fees in April 2010, winning a contested

92 Case 5:15-cv BLF Document 54-2 Filed 08/10/17 Page 21 of 104 PAGE 5 motion to certify a statewide California class in January 2012, and defeating Pac Bell's motion for summary judgment in February 2013, Mr. Bursor obtained final approval of the $38 million class settlement. The settlement, which Mr. Bursor negotiated the night before opening statements were scheduled to commence, provides for a $20 million cash payment to provide refunds to California customers who paid late fees on their Pac Bell wireline telephone accounts, and includes an injunction that will reduce late fee charges by $18.6 million over 28 months. L. TIMOTHY FISHER L. Timothy Fisher has an active practice in consumer class actions and complex business litigation and has also successfully handled a large number of civil appeals. Mr. Fisher has been actively involved in numerous cases that resulted in multi-million dollar recoveries for consumers and investors. Mr. Fisher has handled cases involving a wide range of issues including nutritional labeling, health care, telecommunications, corporate governance, unfair business practices and consumer fraud. With his partner Scott A. Bursor, Mr. Fisher has tried four class action jury trials, all of which produced successful results. In Thomas v. Global Vision Products, Mr. Fisher obtained a jury award of $50,024,611 the largest class action award in California in 2009 and the second-largest jury award of any kind. Mr. Fisher also has significant experience in multidistrict litigation proceedings. Currently, he serves as co-lead counsel in In re 5-Hour Energy Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, MDL No and is a member of the executive committee in In re 100% Grated Parmesan Cheese Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, MDL No Mr. Fisher was admitted to the State Bar of California in He is also a member of the bars of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and the United States District Courts for the Northern, Central, Southern and Eastern Districts of California. Mr. Fisher taught appellate advocacy at John F. Kennedy University School of Law in 2003 and In 2010, he contributed jury instructions, a verdict form and comments to the consumer protection chapter of Justice Elizabeth A. Baron s California Civil Jury Instruction Companion Handbook (West 2010). In January 2014, Chief Judge Claudia Wilken of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California appointed Mr. Fisher to a four-year term as a member of the Court s Standing Committee on Professional Conduct. Mr. Fisher received his Juris Doctorate from Boalt Hall at the University of California at Berkeley in While in law school, he was an active member of the Moot Court Board and participated in moot court competitions throughout the United States. In 1994, Mr. Fisher received an award for Best Oral Argument in the first year moot court competition. In 1992, Mr. Fisher graduated with highest honors from the University of California at Berkeley and received a degree in political science. Prior to graduation, he authored an honors thesis for Professor Bruce Cain entitled The Role of Minorities on the Los Angeles City Council. He is also a member of Phi Beta Kappa.

93 Case 5:15-cv BLF Document 54-2 Filed 08/10/17 Page 22 of 104 PAGE 6 Representative Cases Thomas v. Global Vision Products, Inc. (Alameda County Superior Court). Mr. Fisher litigated claims against Global Vision Products, Inc. and other individuals in connection with the sale and marketing of a purported hair loss remedy known as Avacor. The case lasted more than seven years and involved two trials. The first trial resulted in a verdict for plaintiff and the class in the amount of $40,000,000. The second trial resulted in a jury verdict of $50,024,611, which led to a $30 million settlement for the class. In re Cellphone Termination Fee Cases - Handset Locking Actions (Alameda County Superior Court). Mr. Fisher actively worked on five coordinated cases challenging the secret locking of cell phone handsets by major wireless carriers to prevent consumers from activating them on competitive carriers systems. Settlements have been approved in all five cases on terms that require the cell phone carriers to disclose their handset locks to consumers and to provide unlocking codes nationwide on reasonable terms and conditions. The settlements fundamentally changed the landscape for cell phone consumers regarding the locking and unlocking of cell phone handsets. In re Cellphone Termination Fee Cases - Early Termination Fee Cases (Alameda County Superior Court and Federal Communications Commission). In separate cases that are a part of the same coordinated litigation as the Handset Locking Actions, Mr. Fisher actively worked on claims challenging the validity under California law of early termination fees imposed by national cell phone carriers. In one of those cases, against Verizon Wireless, a nationwide settlement was reached after three weeks of trial in the amount of $21 million. In a second case, which was tried to verdict, the Court held after trial that the $73 million of flat early termination fees that Sprint had collected from California consumers over an eight-year period were void and unenforceable. Selected Published Decisions In re 5-hour Energy Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, 2017 WL (C.D. Cal. January 24, 2017) (denying motion for summary judgment in case alleging that 5-hour Energy made false and misleading statements regarding its energy drinks). Strumlauf v. Starbucks Corp., 2016 WL (N.D. Cal. June 17, 2016) (denying motion to dismiss case alleging underfilling of Starbucks lattes). Melgar v. Zicam LLC, 2016 WL (E.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2016) (certifying 10-jurisdiction class of purchasers of cold remedies, denying motion for summary judgment, and denying motions to exclude plaintiff s expert witnesses). Salazar v. Honest Tea, Inc., 2015 WL (E.D. Cal. Nov ) (denying motion for summary judgment). Dei Rossi v. Whirlpool Corp., 2015 WL (E.D. Cal. Apr. 27, 2015) (certifying California class of purchasers of refrigerators that were mislabeled as Energy Star qualified). Bayol v. Zipcar, Inc., 78 F.Supp.3d 1252 (N.D. Cal. 2015) (denying motion to dismiss claims alleging unlawful late fees under California Civil Code 1671).

94 Case 5:15-cv BLF Document 54-2 Filed 08/10/17 Page 23 of 104 PAGE 7 Forcellati v. Hyland s, Inc., 2015 WL (C.D. Cal. Jan. 12, 2015) (denying motion for summary judgment in case alleging false advertising of homeopathic cold and flu remedies for children). Bayol v. Zipcar, Inc., 2014 WL (N.D. Cal. Sept. 25, 2014) (denying motion to transfer venue pursuant to a forum selection clause). Forcellati v. Hyland s Inc., 2014 WL (C.D. Cal. Apr. 9, 2014) (certifying nationwide class of purchasers of homeopathic cold and flu remedies for children). Hendricks v. StarKist Co., 30 F.Supp.3d 917 (N.D. Cal. 2014) (denying motion to dismiss in case alleging underfilling of 5-ounce cans of tuna). Dei Rossi v. Whirlpool Corp., 2013 WL (E.D. Cal. October 25, 2013) (denying motion to dismiss in case alleging that certain KitchenAid refrigerators were misrepresented as Energy Star qualified). Forcellati v. Hyland s Inc., 876 F.Supp.2d 1155 (C.D. Cal. 2012) (denying motion to dismiss complaint alleging false advertising regarding homeopathic cold and flu remedies for children). Podobedov v. Living Essentials, LLC, 2012 WL (C.D. Cal. March 22, 2012) (denying motion to dismiss in case alleging false and misleading advertising by 5-hour Energy). Clerkin v. MyLife.com, 2011 WL (N.D. Cal. August 29, 2011) (denying defendants motion to dismiss in case alleging false and misleading advertising by a social networking company). In re Cellphone Termination Fee Cases, 186 Cal.App.4th 1380 (2010) (affirming order approving $21 million class action settlement). Gatton v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 152 Cal.App.4th 571 (2007) (affirming order denying motion to compel arbitration). Selected Class Settlements In Re NVIDIA GTX 970 Graphics Chip Litigation (Northern District of California) - $4.5 million class action settlement of claims alleging that a computer graphics card was sold with false and misleading representations concerning its specifications and performance. Hendricks v. StarKist Co. (Northern District of California) $12 million class action settlement of claims alleging that 5-ounce cans of tuna were underfilled. In re Zakskorn v. American Honda Motor Co. Honda (Eastern District of California) nationwide settlement providing for brake pad replacement and reimbursement of out-of-pocket expenses in case alleging defective brake pads on Honda Civic vehicles manufactured between 2006 and Correa v. Sensa Products, LLC (Los Angeles Superior Court) - $9 million settlement on behalf of purchasers of the Sensa weight loss product. In re Pacific Bell Late Fee Litigation (Contra Costa County Superior Court) - $38.6 million settlement on behalf of Pac Bell customers who paid an allegedly unlawful late payment charge. In re Haier Freezer Consumer Litigation (Northern District of California) - $4 million settlement, which provided for cash payments of between $50 and $ to class members who purchased the Haier HNCM070E chest freezer.

95 Case 5:15-cv BLF Document 54-2 Filed 08/10/17 Page 24 of 104 PAGE 8 Thomas v. Global Vision Products, Inc. (Alameda County Superior Court) - $30 million settlement on behalf of a class of purchasers of a hair loss remedy. Guyette v. Viacom, Inc. (Alameda County Superior Court) - $13 million settlement for a class of cable television subscribers who alleged that the defendant had improperly failed to share certain tax refunds with its subscribers. JOSEPH I. MARCHESE Joseph I. Marchese is a Partner with Bursor & Fisher, P.A. Joe focuses his practice on consumer class actions, employment law disputes, and commercial litigation. He has represented corporate and individual clients in a wide array of civil litigation, and has substantial trial and appellate experience. In 2015, Joe was defense trial counsel for a law firm and several of its partners in a sexual harassment case brought by a former associate of that firm. The plaintiff s complaint sought $22 million in compensatory and punitive damages. After a 3-week trial in federal court in New York, the jury returned a verdict of not liable for the federal and state law claims. During the trial, the judge also granted defendants motion for judgment as a matter of law on the plaintiff s claims for retaliation and defamation. The jury found liability solely under New York City s human rights law, awarding only $140,000 in damages. Joe also has significant experience in multidistrict litigation proceedings. Currently he serves on the Plaintiffs Executive Committee in In Re: Blue Buffalo Company, Ltd. Marketing And Sales Practices Litigation, MDL No Joe is admitted to the State Bar of New York and is a member of the bars of the United States District Courts for the Southern District of New York, the Eastern District of New York, and the Eastern District of Michigan, as well as the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Joe graduated from Boston University School of Law in 2002 where he was a member of The Public Interest Law Journal. In 1998, Joe graduated with honors from Bucknell University. Selected Published Decisions: Boelter v. Hearst Communications, Inc., --- F. Supp. 3d ---, 2016 WL (S.D.N.Y. June 17, 2016), denying publisher s motion to dismiss its subscriber s allegations of state privacy law violations in putative class action. In re Scotts EZ Seed Litigation, 304 F.R.D. 397 (S.D.N.Y. 2015), granting class certification of false advertising and other claims brought by New York and California purchasers of grass seed product. Marchuk v. Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, et al., 100 F. Supp. 3d 302 (S.D.N.Y. 2015), granting individual and law firm defendants motion for judgment as a matter of law on plaintiff s claims for retaliation and defamation, as well as for all claims against law firm partners, Nadeem and Lubna Faruqi.

96 Case 5:15-cv BLF Document 54-2 Filed 08/10/17 Page 25 of 104 PAGE 9 Ebin v. Kangadis Food Inc., 297 F.R.D. 561 (S.D.N.Y. 2014), granting nationwide class certification of false advertising and other claims brought by purchasers of purported 100% Pure Olive Oil product. Ebin v. Kangadis Food Inc., 2014 WL (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 25, 2014), denying distributor s motion for summary judgment against nationwide class of purchasers of purported 100% Pure Olive Oil product. In re Michaels Stores Pin Pad Litigation, 830 F. Supp. 2d 518 (N.D. Ill. 2011), denying retailer s motion to dismiss its customers state law consumer protection and privacy claims in data breach putative class action. Selected Class Settlements: In Re: Blue Buffalo Marketing And Sales Practices Litigation, Case No. 14-MD-2562-RWS (E.D. Mo. 2016) final approval granted for $32 million class settlement to resolve claims of pet owners for alleged false advertising of pet foods. Rodriguez v. Citimortgage, Inc., Case No. 11-cv-4718-PGG (S.D.N.Y. 2015) final approval granted for $38 million class settlement to resolve claims of military servicemembers for alleged foreclosure violations of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, where each class member was entitled to $116,785 plus lost equity in the foreclosed property and interest thereon. O Brien v. LG Electronics USA, Inc., et al., Case No. 10-cv-3733-DMC (D.N.J. 2011) final approval granted for $23 million class settlement to resolve claims of Energy Star refrigerator purchasers for alleged false advertising of the appliances Energy Star qualification. JOSHUA D. ARISOHN Joshua D. Arisohn is a Partner with Bursor & Fisher, P.A. Josh has litigated precedentsetting cases in the areas of consumer class actions and terrorism. He participated in the first ever trial to take place under the Anti-Terrorism Act, a statute that affords U.S. citizens the right to assert federal claims for injuries arising out of acts of international terrorism. Josh s practice continues to focus on terrorism-related matters as well as class actions. Josh is admitted to the State Bar of New York and is a member of the bars of the United States District Courts for the Southern District of New York and the Eastern District of New York. Josh previously practiced at Dewey & LeBoeuf LLP and DLA Piper LLP. He graduated from Columbia University School of Law in 2006, where he was a Harlan Fiske Stone Scholar, and received his B.A. from Cornell University in Josh has been honored as a 2015 and 2016 Super Lawyer Rising Star.

97 Case 5:15-cv BLF Document 54-2 Filed 08/10/17 Page 26 of 104 PAGE 10 Selected Published Decisions: Perez v. Monster Inc., 149 F. Supp. 3d 1176 (N.D. Cal. 2016), denying defendants motion to dismiss claims that manufacturer and retailer of HDMI cables fraudulently represented the need for high bandwidths. Morris v. SolarCity Corp., 2016 WL (N.D. Cal. Apr. 4, 2016), denying defendant s motion to dismiss claims that solar company illegally called consumers using an artificial or prerecorded voice and an automatic telephone dialing system. Boelter v. Hearst Commc'ns, Inc., 192 F. Supp. 3d 427 (S.D.N.Y. 2016), denying defendant s motion to dismiss and finding that the Michigan Video Rental Privacy Act does not violate the First Amendment. Edwards v. Oportun, Inc., 193 F. Supp. 3d 1096 (N.D. Cal. 2016), denying defendant s motion dismiss and rejecting its argument that providing a class representative with a cashier s check for his individual damages mooted his individual and class claims. JOEL D. SMITH Joel D. Smith is a partner with Bursor & Fisher, P.A. Joel s practice focuses on consumer class actions and complex litigation. He has substantial experience in trial and appellate courts across the nation. Prior to joining Bursor & Fisher, Joel was a litigator at Crowell & Moring, where he represented Fortune 500 companies, privately-held businesses, and public entities in commercial litigation and nationwide class actions. While at Crowell & Moring, Joel litigated some of the firm s most high-profile matters, including several class actions alleging deceptive sales practices with respect to Apple iphones and ipads, and a class action seeking to hold U.S. energy companies accountable for global warming. Joel received both his undergraduate and law degrees from the University of California at Berkeley. While at Berkeley School of Law, he was a member of the California Law Review, received several academic honors, externed for the California Attorney General s office and published an article on climate change policy and litigation. Joel is admitted to the State Bar of California, as well as the United States Courts of Appeals for the Second, Third and Ninth Circuits, and the Northern, Central, Southern and Eastern Districts of California. Selected Published Decisions: In re 5-Hour ENERGY Marketing & Sales Practices Litig., 2017 WL (C.D. Cal. Jan. 24, 2017), denying motion for partial summary judgment in putative class action against the makers of 5-Hour ENERGY products.

98 Case 5:15-cv BLF Document 54-2 Filed 08/10/17 Page 27 of 104 PAGE 11 Mbazomo v. Etourandtravel, Inc., 2016 WL (E.D. Cal. Dec. 8, 2016), denying motion to dismiss in putative class action alleging unlawful calls under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Brenner v. Procter & Gamble, Co., 2016 WL (C.D. Cal. Oct. 20, 2016), denying motion to dismiss in putative class action alleging false and misleading labeling on Pampers baby wipes. SARAH N. WESTCOT Sarah N. Westcot is an Associate with Bursor & Fisher, P.A. Ms. Westcot focuses her practice on complex business litigation and consumer class actions. Prior to joining Bursor & Fisher, Ms. Westcot litigated civil actions as an attorney with Bay Area Legal Aid in San Jose, CA. Ms. Westcot served as trial counsel with Mr. Bursor in Ayyad v. Sprint Spectrum L.P., and helped to win a jury verdict defeating Sprint s $1.06 billion counterclaim and securing the class s recovery of more than $275 million in cash and debt relief. Ms. Westcot is admitted to the State Bar of California and is a member of the bars of the United States District Courts for the Northern, Central, Southern, and Eastern Districts of California. Ms. Westcot received her Juris Doctor from the University of Notre Dame Law School in During her third year of law school, Ms. Westcot worked as a law clerk with the local public defender s office representing juvenile clients in criminal hearings. She graduated with honors from the University of Florida in NEAL J. DECKANT Neal J. Deckant is an Associate with Bursor & Fisher, P.A. Neal focuses his practice on complex business litigation, consumer class actions, and employment law disputes. Prior to joining Bursor & Fisher, Neal counseled low-income homeowners facing foreclosure in East Boston. In 2015, Neal was defense trial counsel for a law firm and several of its partners in a sexual harassment case brought by a former associate of that firm. The plaintiff s complaint sought $22 million in compensatory and punitive damages. After a 3-week trial in federal court in New York, the jury returned a verdict of not liable for the federal and state law claims. During the trial, the judge also granted defendants motion for judgment as a matter of law on the plaintiff s claims for retaliation and defamation. The jury found liability solely under New York City s human rights law, awarding only $140,000 in damages. Neal is admitted to the State Bar of New York and is a member of the bars of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, and the bars of the United States Courts of Appeals for the Second and Ninth Circuits.

99 Case 5:15-cv BLF Document 54-2 Filed 08/10/17 Page 28 of 104 PAGE 12 Neal received his Juris Doctor from Boston University School of Law in 2011, graduating cum laude with two Dean s Awards. During law school, Neal served as a Senior Articles Editor for the Review of Banking and Financial Law, where he authored two published articles about securitization reforms, both of which were cited by the New York Court of Appeals, the highest court in the state. Neal was also awarded Best Oral Argument in his moot court section, and he served as a Research Assistant for his Securities Regulation professor. Neal has also been honored as a 2014 and 2015 Super Lawyers Rising Star. In 2007, Neal graduated with Honors from Brown University with a dual major in East Asian Studies and Philosophy. Selected Published Decisions: Duran v. Obesity Research Institute, LLC, 204 Cal. Rptr. 3d 896 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016), reversing and remanding final approval of a class action settlement on appeal, regarding allegedly mislabeled dietary supplements, in connection with a meritorious objection. Marchuk v. Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, et al., 100 F. Supp. 3d 302 (S.D.N.Y. 2015), granting individual and law firm defendants motion for judgment as a matter of law on plaintiff s claims for retaliation and defamation, as well as for all claims against law firm partners, Nadeem and Lubna Faruqi. Ebin v. Kangadis Food Inc., 297 F.R.D. 561 (S.D.N.Y. 2014), granting nationwide class certification of false advertising and other claims brought by purchasers of purported 100% Pure Olive Oil product. Ebin v. Kangadis Food Inc., 2014 WL (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 25, 2014), denying distributor s motion for summary judgment against nationwide class of purchasers of purported 100% Pure Olive Oil product. Selected Class Settlements: In Re NVIDIA GTX 970 Graphics Chip Litigation, Case No. 15-cv PJH (N.D. Cal. Dec. 7, 2016) final approval granted for $4.5 million class action settlement to resolve claims that a computer graphics card was allegedly sold with false and misleading representations concerning its specifications and performance. Hendricks v. StarKist Co., 2016 WL (N.D. Cal. Sept. 29, 2016) final approval granted for $12 million class action settlement to resolve claims that 5-ounce cans of tuna were allegedly underfilled. In re: Kangadis Food Inc., Case No (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. Dec. 17, 2014) class action claims resolved for $2 million as part of a Chapter 11 plan of reorganization, after a corporate defendant filed for bankruptcy, following claims that its olive oil was allegedly sold with false and misleading representations.

100 Case 5:15-cv BLF Document 54-2 Filed 08/10/17 Page 29 of 104 PAGE 13 Selected Publications: Neal Deckant, X. Reforms of Collateralized Debt Obligations: Enforcement, Accounting and Regulatory Proposals, 29 Rev. Banking & Fin. L. 79 (2009) (cited in Quadrant Structured Products Co., Ltd. v. Vertin, 16 N.E.3d 1165, 1169 n.8 (N.Y. 2014)). Neal Deckant, Criticisms of Collateralized Debt Obligations in the Wake of the Goldman Sachs Scandal, 30 Rev. Banking & Fin. L. 407 (2010) (cited in Quadrant Structured Products Co., Ltd. v. Vertin, 16 N.E.3d 1165, 1169 n.8 (N.Y. 2014); Lyon Village Venetia, LLC v. CSE Mortgage LLC, 2016 WL , at *1 n.1 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Feb. 4, 2016); Ivan Ascher, Portfolio Society: On the Capitalist Mode of Prediction, at 141, 153, 175 (Zone Books / The MIT Press 2016)). YITZCHAK KOPEL Yitzchak Kopel is an Associate with Bursor & Fisher, P.A. Yitz focuses his practice on consumer class actions, employment law disputes, and complex business litigation. He has represented corporate and individual clients before federal and state courts, as well as in arbitration proceedings. In 2015, Yitz was plaintiffs counsel in a certified class action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in a false advertising action against an olive oil manufacturer. After the Defendant s motion for summary judgment was denied, the parties entered into a multi-million dollar class settlement. Yitz also provides pro bono representation for refugees in deportation proceedings. Yitz is admitted to the State Bars of New York and New Jersey, the bar of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, and the bars of the United States District Courts for the Southern District of New York, Eastern District of New York, Eastern District of Missouri, and District of New Jersey. Yitz received his Juris Doctorate from Brooklyn Law School in 2012, graduating cum laude with two Dean s Awards. During law school, Yitz served as an Articles Editor for the Brooklyn Law Review and worked as a Law Clerk at Shearman & Sterling. In 2009, Yitz graduated cum laude from Queens College with a B.A. in Accounting. Selected Published Decisions: Ward v. TheLadders.com, Inc., 3 F. Supp. 3d 151 (S.D.N.Y. 2014), denying online job board s motion to dismiss its subscribers allegations of consumer protection law violations in putative class action. Brady v. Basic Research, L.L.C., 101 F. Supp. 3d 217 (E.D.N.Y. 2015), denying diet pill manufacturers motion to dismiss its purchasers allegations for breach of express warranty in putative class action.

101 Case 5:15-cv BLF Document 54-2 Filed 08/10/17 Page 30 of 104 PAGE 14 In re Scotts EZ Seed Litigation, 304 F.R.D. 397 (S.D.N.Y. 2015), granting class certification of false advertising and other claims brought by New York and California purchasers of grass seed product. Marchuk v. Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, et al., 100 F. Supp. 3d 302 (S.D.N.Y. 2015), granting individual and law firm defendants motion for judgment as a matter of law on plaintiff s claims for retaliation and defamation, as well as for all claims against law firm partners, Nadeem and Lubna Faruqi. Ebin v. Kangadis Food Inc., 297 F.R.D. 561 (S.D.N.Y. 2014), granting nationwide class certification of false advertising and other claims brought by purchasers of purported 100% Pure Olive Oil product. Ebin v. Kangadis Food Inc., 2014 WL (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 25, 2014), denying distributor s motion for summary judgment against nationwide class of purchasers of purported 100% Pure Olive Oil product. FREDERICK J. KLORCZYK III Frederick J. Klorczyk III is an Associate with Bursor & Fisher, P.A. Fred focuses his practice on complex business litigation, consumer class actions, and employment law disputes. In 2014, Fred served on the litigation team in Ebin v. Kangadis Food Inc. At class certification, Judge Rakoff adopted Fred s choice of law fraud analysis and research directly into his published decision certifying a nationwide fraud class. Fred was also an instrumental member of the litigation team led that challenged this defendant s Chapter 11 filing as a sham. After contesting plan confirmation in the bankruptcy court, the class action claims were resolved for $2 million as part of a Chapter 11 plan of reorganization. Fred is admitted to the State Bars of New York and New Jersey, the bars of the United States District Courts for the Southern District of New York, Eastern District of New York, and District of New Jersey, and the bar of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Fred received his Juris Doctor from Brooklyn Law School in 2013, graduating magna cum laude with two CALI Awards for the highest grade in his classes on criminal law and conflict of laws. During law school, Fred served as an Associate Managing Editor for the Brooklyn Journal of Corporate, Financial and Commercial Law and as an intern to the Honorable Alison J. Nathan of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and the Honorable Janet Bond Arterton of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. In 2010, Fred graduated from the University of Connecticut with a B.S. in Finance. Selected Published Decisions: Porter v. NBTY, Inc., 2016 WL (N.D. Ill. Nov. 28, 2016), denying supplement manufacturer s motion to dismiss consumers allegations of false advertising relating to whey protein content.

102 Case 5:15-cv BLF Document 54-2 Filed 08/10/17 Page 31 of 104 PAGE 15 Weisblum v. Prophase Labs, Inc., 88 F. Supp. 3d. 282 (S.D.N.Y. 2015), denying supplement manufacturer s motion to dismiss consumers allegations of false advertising relating to a homeopathic cold product. In re Scotts EZ Seed Litigation, 304 F.R.D. 397 (S.D.N.Y. 2015), granting class certification of false advertising and other claims brought by New York and California purchasers of grass seed product. Marchuk v. Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, et al., 100 F. Supp. 3d 302 (S.D.N.Y. 2015), granting individual and law firm defendants motion for judgment as a matter of law on plaintiff s claims for retaliation and defamation, as well as for all claims against law firm partners, Nadeem and Lubna Faruqi. Ebin v. Kangadis Food Inc., Case No (2d Cir. Apr. 15, 2015), denying olive oil manufacturer s Rule 23(f) appeal following grant of nationwide class certification. Ebin v. Kangadis Food Inc., 297 F.R.D. 561 (S.D.N.Y. 2014), granting nationwide class certification of false advertising and other claims brought by purchasers of purported 100% Pure Olive Oil product. Ebin v. Kangadis Food Inc., 2014 WL (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 25, 2014), denying distributor s motion for summary judgment against nationwide class of purchasers of purported 100% Pure Olive Oil product. Selected Class Settlements: In Re: Blue Buffalo Marketing And Sales Practices Litigation, Case No. 14-MD-2562-RWS (E.D. Mo. 2016), granting final approval of $32 million class settlement to resolve claims of pet owners for alleged false advertising of pet foods. In re: Kangadis Food Inc., Case No (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. Dec. 17, 2014), resolving class action claims for $2 million as part of a Chapter 11 plan of reorganization, after a corporate defendant filed for bankruptcy following the certification of nationwide claims alleging that its olive oil was sold with false and misleading representations. YEREMEY O. KRIVOSHEY Yeremey O. Krivoshey is an Associate with Bursor & Fisher, P.A. Yeremey focuses his practice on class actions involving false advertising, fraud, illegal fees in consumer contracts, invasion of privacy, and unlawful debt collection practices. He has represented clients in a wide array of civil litigation, including appeals before the Ninth Circuit. Yeremey is admitted to the State Bar of California. He is also a member of the bars of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and the United States District Courts for the Northern, Central, Southern, and Eastern Districts of California.

103 Case 5:15-cv BLF Document 54-2 Filed 08/10/17 Page 32 of 104 PAGE 16 Yeremey graduated from New York University School of Law in 2013, where he was a Samuel A. Herzog Scholar. Prior to Bursor & Fisher, P.A., Yeremey worked as a Law Clerk at Vladeck, Waldman, Elias & Engelhard, P.C, focusing on employment discrimination and wage and hour disputes. In law school, he has also interned at the American Civil Liberties Union and the United States Department of Justice. In 2010, Yeremey graduated cum laude from Vanderbilt University. Selected Published Decisions: Bayol v. Zipcar, Inc., 2014 WL (N.D. Cal. Sept. 25, 2014), denying enforcement of forum selection clause based on public policy grounds. Bayol v. Zipcar, Inc., 78 F. Supp. 3d 1252 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 2015), denying car-rental company s motion to dismiss its subscriber s allegations of unlawful late fees. Brown v. Comcast Corp., Case No. 5:16-cv-264-AB-SP (C.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2016), denying internet service provider s motion to compel arbitration of claims alleged under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Brown v. Comcast Corp., Case No. 5:16-cv-264-AB-SP (C.D. Cal. Oct. 20, 2016), denying internet service provider s motion to stay litigation pending appeal of denial of motion to compel arbitration. Horanzy v. Vemma Nutrition Co., Case No. 15-cv-298-PHX-JJT (D. Ariz. Apr. 16, 2016), denying multi-level marketer s and its chief scientific officer s motion to dismiss their customer s fraud claims. Salazar v. Honest Tea, Inc., 2015 WL (E.D. Cal. Nov ), denying manufacturer s motion for summary judgment as to customer s false advertising claims. Selected Class Settlements: Retta v. Millennium Prods., Inc., Case No. 15-cv-1801-PSG-AJW (C.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2017) granting preliminary approval for $8.25 million settlement to resolve claims of bottled tea purchasers for alleged false advertising. PHILIP L. FRAIETTA Philip L. Fraietta is an Associate with Bursor & Fisher, P.A. Phil focuses his practice on complex business litigation, consumer class actions, and employment law disputes. In 2015, Phil was a member of a defense trial team for a law firm and several of its partners in a sexual harassment case brought by a former associate of that firm. The plaintiff s complaint sought $22 million in compensatory and punitive damages. After a 3-week trial in federal court in New York, the jury returned a verdict of not liable for the federal and state law claims. During the trial, the judge also granted defendants motion for judgment as a matter of

104 Case 5:15-cv BLF Document 54-2 Filed 08/10/17 Page 33 of 104 PAGE 17 law on the plaintiff s claims for retaliation and defamation. The jury found liability solely under New York City s human rights law, awarding only $140,000 in damages. Phil is admitted to the State Bars of New York and New Jersey, the bars of the United States District Courts for the Southern District of New York, Eastern District of New York, the District of New Jersey, the Eastern District of Michigan and the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Phil was a Summer Associate with Bursor & Fisher prior to joining the firm. Phil received his Juris Doctor from Fordham University School of Law in 2014, graduating cum laude. During law school, Phil served as an Articles & Notes Editor for the Fordham Law Review, and published two articles. In addition, Phil received the Addison M. Metcalf Labor Law Prize for the highest grade in his graduating class in the Labor Law course, and received the highest grade in his Anti-Discrimination Law & Policy course. In 2011, Phil graduated cum laude from Fordham University with a B.A. in Economics. Selected Published Decisions: Edwards v. Hearst Communications, Inc., --- F. Supp. 3d ---, 2016 WL (S.D.N.Y. June 17, 2016), denying publisher s motion to dismiss its subscriber s allegations of state privacy law violations in putative class action. Porter v. NBTY, Inc., 2016 WL (N.D. Ill. Nov. 28, 2016), denying supplement manufacturer s motion to dismiss consumers allegations of false advertising relating to whey protein content. Boelter v. Advance Magazine Publishers Inc., -- F. Supp. 3d --, 2016 WL (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 28, 2016), denying publisher s motion to dismiss its subscriber s allegations of state privacy law violations in putative class action. THOMAS A. REYDA Thomas Reyda is an Associate with Bursor & Fisher, P.A. Thomas focuses his practice on complex business litigation and consumer class actions. Thomas is admitted to the State Bar of California and is a member of the bar of the United States District Courts for the Northern California. Thomas received his Juris Doctorate from Berkeley Law School in During law school Mr. Reyda worked as a Law Clerk at Kershaw Cutter & Ratinoff, LLP. In 2012, Mr. Reyda graduated from the Colorado College with a B.A. in International Political Economy.

105 Case 5:15-cv BLF Document 54-2 Filed 08/10/17 Page 34 of 104 EXHIBIT B

106 Case 5:15-cv BLF Document 54-2 Filed 08/10/17 Page 35 of 104 Sustainable Seas Lodestar Thru 8/1/2017 ATTY HOURS RATE TOTAL LTF 50.1 $ $35, NJD 31.3 $ $13, JAL 22 $ $8, DLS 10.3 $ $1, JLH 4.4 $ $ $59, Expenses: $1, Total: $61,130.39

107 Case 5:15-cv BLF Document 54-2 Filed 08/10/17 Page 36 of 104 Bursor and Fisher, P.A. - Sustainable Seas Billing Diaries Through 8/1/2017 DATE MATTER TKPR DESCRIPTION HOURS RATE AMOUNT Sustainable Seas JAL Sustainable Seas Tuna PSI 0.8 $ $ Sustainable Seas JAL Followed up with potential client re. purchase 0.1 $ $ Sustainable Seas JAL PSI - Discussion with potential client in CD Cal 0.2 $ $ Sustainable Seas JAL Followed up with ND Cal Purchaser via phone 0.2 $ $ Sustainable Seas JAL Lunch with client (1.5); discussed retention with NJD (.5), PLF (.1), and FJK (.1); prepared retainer and sent to client, followed up with voicemessage (.7) 2.9 $ $1, Sustainable Seas JAL Set up call with client re. puchase details (.3); call re. same (.5) 0.8 $ $ Sustainable Seas JAL Drafted, sent, and obtained venue declaration 0.2 $ $ Sustainable Seas JAL Reviewed StarKist CLRA demand letter as template (.2); started drafting demand letter (.5) 0.7 $ $ Sustainable Seas LTF Reviewed demand letter and discussed it with Julia Luster and Neal Deckant. 0.1 $ $ Sustainable Seas NJD Drafted noticed letter and complaint 3.3 $ $1, Sustainable Seas JAL Sent CLRA letter to NJD for review and discussed same via with LTF and NJD(.2) 0.2 $ $ Sustainable Seas JAL Discussed CLRA letter with LTF and NJD and facillitated mailing with DLS 0.2 $ $ Sustainable Seas DLS Prepared CLRA letter for certified return receipt and mailed 0.8 $ $ Sustainable Seas NJD More revisions and finalizing the complaint 1.5 $ $ Sustainable Seas LTF Reviewed final complaint and discussed it with Debbie Schroeder prior to filing. 0.2 $ $ Sustainable Seas NJD Reviewed and filed complaint 0.3 $ $ Sustainable Seas JAL Finalized and filed complaint 2.5 $ $ Sustainable Seas DLS Prepared civil cover sheet and summons 0.9 $ $ Sustainable Seas DLS Finalized and filed complaint and initiating docs 0.9 $ $ Sustainable Seas NJD Discussion of case calendar, and review of initial orders. 0.4 $ $ Sustainable Seas DLS Prepared and filed declination of magistrate 0.6 $ $ Sustainable Seas NJD Calendering dates with JL. Discussed how the scheduling order modifies them. 0.4 $ $ Sustainable Seas DLS Served complaint 0.5 $ $ Sustainable Seas JAL Checked delivery of CLRA letter and calendared dates accordingly 0.2 $ $ Sustainable Seas LTF Discussed service of complaint with Julia Luster and exchanged voic messages with defendant's counsel. 0.1 $ $ Sustainable Seas JAL Discussed service of complaint with LTF and sat in on call to defense counsel 0.2 $ $ Sustainable Seas LTF Call with defendant's counsel and discussed same with Julia Luster and Neal Deckant. 0.2 $ $ Page 1 of 9

108 Case 5:15-cv BLF Document 54-2 Filed 08/10/17 Page 37 of 104 Bursor and Fisher, P.A. - Sustainable Seas Billing Diaries Through 8/1/ Sustainable Seas NJD Discussed call from defense counsel with LTF, JL 0.2 $ $ Sustainable Seas JAL Discussed LTF's call with Defendants' counsel 0.1 $ $ Sustainable Seas JAL Drafted to defense counsel for LTF 0.1 $ $ Sustainable Seas JAL Calendared updated deadlines followed assignment to district court judge 0.5 $ $ Sustainable Seas DLS Reviewed federal rules re 26(f) and calendared dates 1.0 $ $ Sustainable Seas LTF Reviewed stiplation regarding extension of time and discussed it with Julia Luster. 0.1 $ $ Sustainable Seas JAL Reviewed stip to extend time and discussed with LTF 0.1 $ $ Sustainable Seas JAL Exchanged with client re case status 0.1 $ $ Sustainable Seas DLS Filed proof of service of summons 0.3 $ $ Sustainable Seas JAL Drove to SC and back for brunch with plaintiff 4 $ $1, Sustainable Seas LTF Reviewed stipulation and exchanged s with opposing counsel. 0.1 $ $ Sustainable Seas JAL Spoke with client re. status of case 1.0 $ $ Sustainable Seas LTF exchange with opposing counsel regarding conference call. 0.1 $ $ Sustainable Seas LTF Call with defendant's counsel regarding settlement and discussed same with Julia Luster and Neal Deckant (.5); reviewed and approved stipulation extending deadline for defendant to respond to complaint (.1). 0.6 $ $ Sustainable Seas JAL Call with defendant's counsel regarding settlement and discussed same with LTF and NJD (.5); reviewed and approved stipulation extending deadline for defendant to respond to complaint (.1). 0.6 $ $ Sustainable Seas LTF Sent to defendant's counsel regarding settlement. 0.1 $ $ Sustainable Seas LTF Drafted term sheet, discussed it with Julia Luster and sent it to Neal Deckant (.3); reviewed from defendant's counsel (.1). 0.4 $ $ Sustainable Seas LTF Discussed term sheet with Neal Deckant and Julia Luster and sent it to defendant's counsel. 0.4 $ $ Sustainable Seas NJD Reviewed settlement term sheet and discussed with LTF 0.5 $ $ Sustainable Seas JAL Discussed term sheet with NJD and LTF. 0.4 $ $ Sustainable Seas LTF exchange with defendant's counsel regarding term sheet and sales data. 0.1 $ $ Sustainable Seas JAL Set up call with defense counsel to discuss settlement 0.3 $ $ Sustainable Seas LTF Reviewed sales records and discussed settlement with Julia Luster and Neal Deckant. 0.7 $ $ Sustainable Seas NJD Status call with LTF 0.2 $ $ Sustainable Seas JAL Reviewed sales records and discussed settlement with LTF and Neal Deckant. 1.0 $ $ Page 2 of 9

109 Case 5:15-cv BLF Document 54-2 Filed 08/10/17 Page 38 of 104 Bursor and Fisher, P.A. - Sustainable Seas Billing Diaries Through 8/1/ Sustainable Seas LTF Call with defendant's counsel and discussed settlement issues with Julia Luster. 0.4 $ $ Sustainable Seas JAL Call with defendant's counsel and discussed settlement issues with LTF 0.4 $ $ Sustainable Seas LTF Reviewed and approved stipulation regarding deadline to respond to the complaint. 0.2 $ $ Sustainable Seas JAL Picked up additional tuna cans from Safeway 1.0 $ $ Sustainable Seas LTF Discussed settlement with Neal Deckant and Julia Luster. 0.3 $ $ Sustainable Seas NJD Discussed settlement with LTF and JL 0.2 $ $ Sustainable Seas LTF Drafted and sent to opposing counsel regarding settlement. 0.3 $ $ Sustainable Seas JAL Reviewed LTF draft and to defense counsel 0.3 $ $ Sustainable Seas JAL Reviewed settlement and responded 0.5 $ $ Sustainable Seas LTF Discussed settlement with Julia Luster. 0.2 $ $ Sustainable Seas LTF Drafted response to settlement and circulated it to Neal Deckant and Julia Luster and then sent it to defendant's counsel. 0.3 $ $ Sustainable Seas JAL Drafted and sent ADR certification to Soto 0.3 $ $ Sustainable Seas JAL Got ADR certificate from client 0.1 $ $ Sustainable Seas DLS Filed ADR certification 0.3 $ $ Sustainable Seas LTF exchange with defendant's counsel regarding stiplation and settlement and reviewed and approved stipulation. 0.2 $ $ Sustainable Seas NJD Checking on deadlines, arranging 26(f) conference 0.8 $ $ Sustainable Seas LTF exchange with defendant's counsel regarding settlement and scheduling a call (.1); call with defendant's counsel regarding settlement (.3); call with Neal Deckant regarding settlement (.1). 0.5 $ $ Sustainable Seas NJD Discussion of settlement with LTF 0.2 $ $ Sustainable Seas LTF Discussed settlement demand with Neal Deckant, drafted latest demand and sent it to Mr. Deckant, Julia Luster and defendant's counsel. 0.4 $ $ Sustainable Seas NJD Settlement talk with LTF. Reviewed draft $ $ Sustainable Seas JAL Reviewed settlement 0.1 $ $ Sustainable Seas JAL Updated calendar with dates for case subsequent to pushing out deadlines 0.6 $ $ Sustainable Seas LTF exchange with defendant's counsel regarding settlement. 0.3 $ $ Sustainable Seas LTF exchange with Neal Deckant, Julia Luster and defendant's counsel regarding settlement and copycat case. 0.2 $ $ Sustainable Seas NJD Reviewing copycat complaint. Discussed impact on our settlement negotaitons with JL, LTF 0.2 $ $ Sustainable Seas JAL Reviewed motion to relate case 0.2 $ $75.00 Page 3 of 9

110 Case 5:15-cv BLF Document 54-2 Filed 08/10/17 Page 39 of 104 Bursor and Fisher, P.A. - Sustainable Seas Billing Diaries Through 8/1/ Sustainable Seas LTF Call with defendant's counsel and discussed same with Julia Luster (.3); exchange with copycat counsel (.1). 0.4 $ $ Sustainable Seas JAL Call with defendant's counsel and discussed same with LTF (.3); reviewed exchange with copycat counsel (.1). 0.4 $ $ Sustainable Seas LTF exchange with Reuben Nathan regarding Shihad case. 0.2 $ $ Sustainable Seas LTF Reviewed and approved stipulation on response date. 0.2 $ $ Sustainable Seas LTF Call with Reuben Nathan regarding case status and settlement discussions to date and discussed same with Julia Luster. 0.3 $ $ Sustainable Seas JAL Discussed LTF's call with Reuben Nathan regarding case status and settlement discussions to date 0.2 $ $ Sustainable Seas LTF Call with Forrest Hainline regarding case status and sent Shihad complaint to Mr. Hainline. 0.3 $ $ Sustainable Seas LTF exchange with Joe Mauch and Reuben Nathan regarding sales data. 0.2 $ $ Sustainable Seas LTF Sent to Reuben Nathan regarding sales information. 0.3 $ $ Sustainable Seas LTF Call with Reuben Nathan regarding case status. 0.2 $ $ Sustainable Seas JAL Call with plaintiff re. case status, next steps given I am leaving the firm 0.5 $ $ Sustainable Seas LTF Call with Reuben Nathan about case strategy and joint prosecution agreement. 0.1 $ $ Sustainable Seas LTF exchange with Neal Deckant regarding 26(f) conference. 0.1 $ $ Sustainable Seas LTF Call with Neal Deckant regarding joint prosecution agreement and reviewed and revised joint prosecution agreement and sent it back to Reuben Nathan. 0.6 $ $ Sustainable Seas NJD Correspondance with Reuben Nathan re consolidating cases, stipulating to an extension 0.3 $ $ Sustainable Seas NJD Preparing ADR form, setting up 26(f) conference 0.4 $ $ Sustainable Seas LTF exchange with Neal Deckant regarding stipulation extending deadline to respond to complaint (.1); finalized JPA and exchanged s with Reuben Nathan regarding JPA and StarKist notice information (.4). 0.5 $ $ Sustainable Seas NJD Reviewing stipulation extending Rule 12 and CMC dates. Sent to LTF. 0.4 $ $ Sustainable Seas NJD Calendaring new Rule 12 and CMC dates 0.2 $ $ Sustainable Seas LTF Discussed settlement options with Reuben Nathan. 0.4 $ $ Sustainable Seas LTF exchange with Reuben Nathan regarding settlement. 0.1 $ $ Sustainable Seas LTF exchange with Reuben Nathan regarding settlement. 0.1 $ $ Sustainable Seas LTF Exchanged voic messages with Forrest Hainline. 0.1 $ $ Sustainable Seas LTF exchange with Reuben Nathan and Ross Cornell regarding settlement. 0.1 $ $70.00 Page 4 of 9

111 Case 5:15-cv BLF Document 54-2 Filed 08/10/17 Page 40 of 104 Bursor and Fisher, P.A. - Sustainable Seas Billing Diaries Through 8/1/ Sustainable Seas LTF Call with Reuben Nathan and Ross Cornell regarding settlement. 0.2 $ $ Sustainable Seas LTF exchange with Reuben Nathan regarding current status of settlement negotiations. 0.1 $ $ Sustainable Seas LTF Reviewed and approved stipulation extending deadline to respond to complaint. 0.1 $ $ Sustainable Seas LTF exchange with defendant's counsel regarding scheduling stipulation. 0.1 $ $ Sustainable Seas LTF Reviewed settlement proposal and forwarded it to Ross Cornell and Neal Deckant. 0.1 $ $ Sustainable Seas LTF Call with co-counsel regarding settlement and discussed same with Neal Deckant. 0.3 $ $ Sustainable Seas LTF exchange with Reuben Nathan regarding settlement. 0.1 $ $ Sustainable Seas LTF Call with Ross Cornell regarding amending Soto complaint, amended complaint, circulated it to co-counsel, discussed amended complaint with defendant's counsel and arranged for fling of amended complaint (1.2); exchange with Neal Deckant regarding amended complaint (.1). 1.3 $ $ Sustainable Seas LTF exchange with Reuben Nathan and Ross Cornell regarding settlement and exchanged s with Neal Deckant regarding same. 0.2 $ $ Sustainable Seas NJD Researched latest MS Word copy of the SK settlement agreement, sent to LTF with exhibits, amendments, etc. 0.4 $ $ Sustainable Seas LTF exchange Neal Deckant and Annick Persinger regarding approval of settlement agrement. 0.2 $ $ Sustainable Seas NJD Discussed quick pay with AP. Sent to LTF 0.1 $ $ Sustainable Seas LTF exchange with Reuben Nathan regarding quick pay provision and claims administrator estimate (.2); exchange with Patrick Ivie regarding scheduling of call to discuss claims administration estimate (.1). 0.3 $ $ Sustainable Seas LTF Reviewed and approved scheduling stipulation. 0.1 $ $ Sustainable Seas LTF Discussed notice program with Patrick Ivie. 0.2 $ $ Sustainable Seas LTF exchange with Patrick Ivie regarding notice estimate and sent notice estimate to Reuben Nathan and Ross Cornell. 0.3 $ $ Sustainable Seas LTF Reviewed revised claims administration proposal and circulated it to co-counsel 0.2 $ $ Sustainable Seas LTF exchange with Reuben Nathan and Ross Cornell regarding claims administration and conference call to discuss. 0.2 $ $ Sustainable Seas LTF Call with co-counsel regarding notice plan and reviewed notice proposal prior to call. 0.4 $ $ Page 5 of 9

112 Case 5:15-cv BLF Document 54-2 Filed 08/10/17 Page 41 of 104 Bursor and Fisher, P.A. - Sustainable Seas Billing Diaries Through 8/1/ Sustainable Seas LTF Sustainable Seas LTF Sustainable Seas NJD Reviewed draft of settlement agreement and exchanged s with Reuben Nathan regarding same. 0.8 $ $ Reviewed and redlined settlement agreement and discussed same with Neal Deckant and sent redlined agreement to Reuben Nathan and Ross Cornell. 0.9 $ $ Review and comment on draft long-form settlement agreement. Sent my redlines to LTF. 2.0 $ $ Sustainable Seas LTF Discussed call (x2) with Neal Deckant and sent to co-counsel. 0.3 $ $ Sustainable Seas NJD Prepping for call with LTF. 0.3 $ $ Sustainable Seas LTF Reviewed revised settlement agreement and exchanged s with Ross Cornell regarding same. 0.3 $ $ Sustainable Seas NJD Update with Plaintiff Soto. 0.2 $ $ Sustainable Seas LTF Reviewed settlement agreement and exchanged s with Reuben Nathan and Neal Deckant regarding same and discussed revised agreement with Mr. Deckant. 0.8 $ $ Sustainable Seas NJD Review of settlement agreement. Sent my redlines and comments to LTF. 1.2 $ $ Sustainable Seas LTF Discussed settlement agreement with Reuben Nathan and Ross Cornell and redlined settlement agreement and circulated it to cocounsel. 0.8 $ $ Sustainable Seas LTF Reviewed revised settlement agreement and exchanged s with Neal Deckant regarding same. 0.6 $ $ Sustainable Seas LTF Discussed settlement agreement with Neal Deckant and exchanged s with Reuben Nathan regarding same. 0.3 $ $ Sustainable Seas NJD Second round of review and comment on settlement agreement 0.5 $ $ Sustainable Seas LTF exchange with Reuben Nathan regarding settlement agreement. 0.1 $ $ Sustainable Seas LTF Call with Reuben Nathan and Ross Cornell regarding settlement. 0.2 $ $ Sustainable Seas LTF Reviewed and executed settlement agreement and arranged for it to be sent to client. 0.4 $ $ Sustainable Seas LTF Circulated client signature page and exchanged s with Neal Deckant regarding same. 0.2 $ $ Sustainable Seas NJD Review and discuss settlement agreement with client. Got his signature. 2.6 $ $1, Sustainable Seas LTF Reviewed draft preliminary approval motion and began preparing to write my declaration and notices. 1.2 $ $ Page 6 of 9

113 Case 5:15-cv BLF Document 54-2 Filed 08/10/17 Page 42 of 104 Bursor and Fisher, P.A. - Sustainable Seas Billing Diaries Through 8/1/ Sustainable Seas LTF Worked on declaration in support of motion for preliminary approval, motion for preliminary approval and class notices and discussed same with Neal Deckant and Reuben Nathan by and exchanged s messages with Patrick Ivie (3.5); drafted preliminary approval order and reviewed Mr. Deckant's edits to my declaration (.7). 4.2 $ $2, Sustainable Seas NJD Review and redline of Fisher Declaration, brief, preliminary approval order, and notices 5.1 $ $2, Sustainable Seas DLS Fixed formatting of LTF declaration 0.8 $ $ Sustainable Seas LTF Worked on preliminary approval brief, declaration, notices and preliminary approval order and circulated them to co-counsel and reviewed Neal Deckant's edits to same (1.8); call with Patrick Ivie regarding notice and claims administration (.2); call with Reuben Nathan regarding preliminary approval and claims administration issue (.2); exchange with Ross Cornell and Reuben Nathan regarding supporting declarations (.2). 2.4 $ $1, Sustainable Seas NJD Review of draft preliminary approval papers 0.3 $ $ Reviewed and updated Fisher declaration and reviewed preliminary Sustainable Seas LTF approval brief and circulated revised declaration to co-counsel. 0.4 $ $ Sustainable Seas LTF Reviewed revised declaration and other counsels' firm resumes. 0.2 $ $ Sustainable Seas LTF Began gathering documents for preliminary approval motion and exchanged s with co-counsel and began work on preparing firm resume and discussed same with Thomas Reyda. 0.7 $ $ Sustainable Seas DLS ed clerk re reservation of hearing date 0.2 $ $ Sustainable Seas LTF exchange with co-counsel and opposing counsel regarding hearing date for preliminary approval motion and discussed same with Debbie Schroeder (.2); exchange with co-counsel and Neal Deckant regarding preliminary approval motion (.2); exchange with Patrick Ivie regarding KCC declaraiton (.1). 0.5 $ $ Sustainable Seas LTF Reviewed KCC declaration and exchanged s with co-counsel regarding same and discussed filing of motion for preliminary approval with Debbie Schroeder and Neal Deckant. 0.6 $ $ Sustainable Seas NJD Review and redline of preliminary approval brief and KCC media plan. 1.6 $ $ Sustainable Seas DLS Followed up with clerk re hearing date 0.2 $ $ Sustainable Seas LTF exchange with co-counsel and KCC regarding claims administrator declaration and discussed filing of motion for preliminary approval with Debbie Schroeder. 0.4 $ $ Page 7 of 9

114 Case 5:15-cv BLF Document 54-2 Filed 08/10/17 Page 43 of 104 Bursor and Fisher, P.A. - Sustainable Seas Billing Diaries Through 8/1/ Sustainable Seas LTF Sustainable Seas LTF Sustainable Seas LTF Sustainable Seas NJD Sustainable Seas NJD Sustainable Seas LTF exchange with KCC regarding CLRA notice and forwarded KCC's to co-counsel. 0.1 $ $ exchange with co-counsel and KCC regarding notice declaration and banner ads. 0.7 $ $ Discussed preliminary approval motion with Neal Deckant and exchanged s with KCC regarding notice declaration. 0.3 $ $ Coordinating with KCC re declaration. Discussed with LTF. Reviewed and circulated my comments. 1.4 $ $ Finalized preliminary approval motion, and sent to DS and LTF for final review and filing. 3.7 $ $1, Assisted with filing motion for preliminary approval and exchanged s with defendant's counsel regarding filing. 0.8 $ $ Sustainable Seas DLS Assisted with editing, formatting and filing motion for preliminary approval of settlement; ed proposed order to Judge 2.9 $ $ Sustainable Seas JLH proofread motion 1.0 $ $ Sustainable Seas JLH chamber copies 0.7 $ $ Sustainable Seas LTF exchange with Patrick Ivie regarding CAFA notice. 0.1 $ $ Sustainable Seas LTF Reviewed s regarding CAFA notice. 0.1 $ $ Sustainable Seas NJD Discussion with Reuben re publication of notice 0.1 $ $ Sustainable Seas NJD Reviewed and responded to re CAFA notice questions 0.2 $ $ Sustainable Seas LTF Reviewed ADR notice and left message for ADR program regarding same. 0.2 $ $ Sustainable Seas LTF Call with ADR department and exchanged s with opposing counsel regarding stipulation to continue CMC. 0.2 $ $ Sustainable Seas LTF Reviewed stipulation continuing CMC and s regarding same. 0.2 $ $ Sustainable Seas LTF Reviewed from California AG and exchanged s with Neal Deckant regarding same. 0.3 $ $ Sustainable Seas NJD Corresponding with LTF regarding the sent by the Ags 0.4 $ $ Sustainable Seas LTF Call with co-counsel regarding AG inquiry and reviewed s regarding same. 0.2 $ $ Sustainable Seas LTF Reviewed from co-counsel regarding injunctive relief and calendared call with defendant's counsel for Friday. 0.2 $ $ Sustainable Seas LTF Call with defendant's counsel and exchanged s with Sheldon Jaffe from AG's office. 0.4 $ $ Sustainable Seas LTF exchange with co-counsel regarding injunctive relief issue. 0.1 $ $ Sustainable Seas LTF Drafted to Cal AG regarding injunction in DA's case. 0.2 $ $ Sustainable Seas LTF Discussed status of AG inquiry with Neal Deckant. 0.1 $ $ Sustainable Seas LTF exchange with co-counsel regarding AG inquiry. 0.1 $ $70.00 Page 8 of 9

115 Case 5:15-cv BLF Document 54-2 Filed 08/10/17 Page 44 of 104 Bursor and Fisher, P.A. - Sustainable Seas Billing Diaries Through 8/1/ Sustainable Seas LTF Call with co-counsel regarding preliminary approval hearing and discussed hearing books with Debbie Schroeder and Jared Hazlett. 0.4 $ $ Sustainable Seas JLH Created TOC for LTF Hearing Preliminary Approval 1.0 $ $ Sustainable Seas LTF Began preparing for preliminary approval hearing. 0.5 $ $ Sustainable Seas JLH Created Book LTF 1.7 $ $ Sustainable Seas LTF Prepared for preliminary approval hearing and exchanged s with Reuben Nathan and Rick Munzinger. 4.3 $ $3, Sustainable Seas LTF Traveled to San Jose for preliminary approval hearing, attended hearing and returned to Walnut Creek following hearing (4.5); drafted addendum to settlement agreement and revised short form notice and exchanged s with co-counsel regarding same and discussed addendum with Debbie Schroeder (1.7). 6.2 $ $4, Sustainable Seas NJD Review of LTF's summarizing preliminary approval hearing. Then reviewed and redlined amendments to the settlement agreement, and edits to the short-form notice. 1.3 $ $ Sustainable Seas DLS Prepared draft addendum for LTF 0.9 $ $ Sustainable Seas LTF Reviewed preliminary approval order and circulated settlement addendum and revised short form notice to defendant's counsel. 0.4 $ $ Sustainable Seas LTF Reviewed s from claims administrator and exchanged s with Reuben Nathan regarding same. 0.2 $ $ Sustainable Seas LTF Reviewed s about notice plan and exchanged messages with Reuben Nathan regarding same. 0.2 $ $ Sustainable Seas LTF Tested settlement website and reviewed s regarding notice. 0.2 $ $ Sustainable Seas LTF Reviewed request for claim form and forwarded it to KCC. 0.1 $ $ Sustainable Seas LTF Discussed claims with Reuben Nathan and exchanged s with Yeremey Krivoshey regarding same. 0.3 $ $ Sustainable Seas LTF exchange with Yeremey Krivoshey regarding settlement website, checked website and ed KCC and Reuben Nathan regarding same. 0.7 $ $ Sustainable Seas LTF Dealt with settlement website issue and discussed it with Yeremey Krivoshey and exchanged s with KCC and Reuben Nathan regarding same (.3); exchange with Reuben Nathan and Rebecca Richter regarding settlement website (.2). 0.5 $ $ Sustainable Seas LTF Discussed fee declaration with Neal Deckant and Debbie Schroeder (.2); exchange and telephone call with Reuben Nathan regarding same (.2). 0.4 $ $ Sustainable Seas NJD Discussed upcoming fee declaration with LTF 0.2 $ $85.00 Page 9 of 9

116 Case 5:15-cv BLF Document 54-2 Filed 08/10/17 Page 45 of 104 EXHIBIT C

117 Case 5:15-cv BLF Document 54-2 Filed 08/10/17 Page 46 of 104 Bursor & Fisher, P.A. - Sustainable Seas Itemized Expenses $ Filing & Court Reporter Fees $1, Third Party Litigation Support Services $39.75 Duplication, Postages, & Supplies $90.78 Transportation & Lodging $ Catering & Meals $1, Total Expenses Filing & Court Report Fees DATE MATTER AMOUNT DESCRIPTION Sustainable Seas $ US District Court (complaint filing) $ Total Filing & Court Reporter Fees Third Party Litigation Support Services DATE MATTER AMOUNT DESCRIPTION Sustainable Seas $ First Legal - Service of Complaint Sustainable Seas $ Top Class Actions $1, Total Third Party Litigation Support Services Duplication, Postage, & Supplies DATE MATTER AMOUNT DESCRIPTION Sustainable Seas $16.37 Golden State Overnight Sustainable Seas $23.38 Golden State Overnight $39.75 Total Duplication, Postage, & Supplies Transportation & Lodging DATE MATTER AMOUNT DESCRIPTION Sustainable Seas $46.59 Uber Sustainable Seas $44.19 NYC Taxi $90.78 Total Transportation & Lodging Expenses Catering & Meals DATE MATTER AMOUNT DESCRIPTION Sustainable Seas $ Café Cruz $ Total Catering & Meals 1 of 1

118 Case 4:15-cv PJH 5:15-cv BLF Document Filed 08/10/17 10/25/16 Page of EXHIBIT D

119 Case 4:15-cv PJH 5:15-cv BLF Document Filed 08/10/17 10/25/16 Page of

120 Case 4:15-cv PJH 5:15-cv BLF Document Filed 08/10/17 10/25/16 Page of

121 Case 4:15-cv PJH 5:15-cv BLF Document Filed 08/10/17 10/25/16 Page of

122 Case 4:15-cv PJH 5:15-cv BLF Document Filed 08/10/17 10/25/16 Page of

123 Case 4:15-cv PJH 5:15-cv BLF Document Filed 08/10/17 10/25/16 Page of EXHIBIT E

124 Case 4:15-cv PJH 5:15-cv BLF Document Filed 08/10/17 10/25/16 Page of

125 Case 4:15-cv PJH 5:15-cv BLF Document Filed 08/10/17 10/25/16 Page of

126 Case 4:15-cv PJH 5:15-cv BLF Document Filed 08/10/17 10/25/16 Page of

127 Case 4:15-cv PJH 5:15-cv BLF Document Filed 08/10/17 10/25/16 Page of

128 Case 4:15-cv PJH 5:15-cv BLF Document Filed 08/10/17 10/25/16 Page of EXHIBIT F

129 Case 4:15-cv PJH 5:15-cv BLF Document Filed 08/10/17 10/25/16 Page of

130 Case 4:15-cv PJH 5:15-cv BLF Document Filed 08/10/17 10/25/16 Page of

131 Case 4:15-cv PJH 5:15-cv BLF Document Filed 08/10/17 10/25/16 Page of

132 Case 4:15-cv PJH 5:15-cv BLF Document Filed 08/10/17 10/25/16 Page of

133 Case 4:15-cv PJH 5:15-cv BLF Document Filed 08/10/17 10/25/16 Page of

134 Case 4:15-cv PJH 5:15-cv BLF Document Filed 08/10/17 10/25/16 Page of

135 Case 4:15-cv PJH 5:15-cv BLF Document Filed 08/10/17 10/25/16 Page of

136 Case 4:15-cv PJH 5:15-cv BLF Document Filed 08/10/17 10/25/16 Page of EXHIBIT G

137 Case 4:15-cv PJH 5:15-cv BLF Document Filed 08/10/17 10/25/16 Page of

138 Case 4:15-cv PJH 5:15-cv BLF Document Filed 08/10/17 10/25/16 Page of

139 Case 4:15-cv PJH 5:15-cv BLF Document Filed 08/10/17 10/25/16 Page of

140 Case 4:15-cv PJH 5:15-cv BLF Document Filed 08/10/17 10/25/16 Page of

141 Case 4:15-cv PJH 5:15-cv BLF Document Filed 08/10/17 10/25/16 Page of EXHIBIT H

142 Case 4:15-cv PJH 5:15-cv BLF Document Filed 08/10/17 10/25/16 Page of

143 Case 4:15-cv PJH 5:15-cv BLF Document Filed 08/10/17 10/25/16 Page of

144 Case 4:15-cv PJH 5:15-cv BLF Document Filed 08/10/17 10/25/16 Page of

145 Case 4:15-cv PJH 5:15-cv BLF Document Filed 08/10/17 10/25/16 Page of

146 Case 4:15-cv PJH 5:15-cv BLF Document Filed 08/10/17 10/25/16 Page of

147 Case 4:15-cv PJH 5:15-cv BLF Document Filed 08/10/17 10/25/16 Page of

148 Case 4:15-cv PJH 5:15-cv BLF Document Filed 08/10/17 10/25/16 Page of

149 Case 4:15-cv PJH 5:15-cv BLF Document Filed 08/10/17 10/25/16 Page of

150 Case 4:15-cv PJH 5:15-cv BLF Document Filed 08/10/17 10/25/16 Page of

151 Case 4:15-cv PJH 5:15-cv BLF Document Filed 08/10/17 10/25/16 Page of EXHIBIT I

152 Case 4:15-cv PJH 5:15-cv BLF Document Filed 08/10/17 10/25/16 Page of

153 Case 4:15-cv PJH 5:15-cv BLF Document Filed 08/10/17 10/25/16 Page of

154 Case 4:15-cv PJH 5:15-cv BLF Document Filed 08/10/17 10/25/16 Page of

155 Case 4:15-cv PJH 5:15-cv BLF Document Filed 08/10/17 10/25/16 Page of

156 Case 4:15-cv PJH 5:15-cv BLF Document Filed 08/10/17 10/25/16 Page of

157 Case 4:15-cv PJH 5:15-cv BLF Document Filed 08/10/17 10/25/16 Page of

158 Case 4:15-cv PJH 5:15-cv BLF Document Filed 08/10/17 10/25/16 Page of

159 Case 4:15-cv PJH 5:15-cv BLF Document Filed 08/10/17 10/25/16 Page of

160 Case 4:15-cv PJH 5:15-cv BLF Document Filed 08/10/17 10/25/16 Page of

161 Case 4:15-cv PJH 5:15-cv BLF Document Filed 08/10/17 10/25/16 Page of

162 Case 4:15-cv PJH 5:15-cv BLF Document Filed 08/10/17 10/25/16 Page of

163 Case 4:15-cv PJH 5:15-cv BLF Document Filed 08/10/17 10/25/16 Page of

164 Case 4:15-cv PJH 5:15-cv BLF Document Filed 08/10/17 10/25/16 Page of

165 Case 4:15-cv PJH 5:15-cv BLF Document Filed 08/10/17 10/25/16 Page of

166 Case 4:15-cv PJH 5:15-cv BLF Document Filed 08/10/17 10/25/16 Page of EXHIBIT J

167 Case 4:15-cv PJH 5:15-cv BLF Document Filed 08/10/17 10/25/16 Page of

BEFORE THE AMERICAN ARBITRATION ASSOCIATION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

BEFORE THE AMERICAN ARBITRATION ASSOCIATION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) BEFORE THE AMERICAN ARBITRATION ASSOCIATION KAREN DAVIS-HUDSON and SARAH DIAZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, vs. 23ANDME, INC., Claimants, Respondent. CASE NO. 74-20-1400-0032

More information

Case 4:10-cv YGR Document Filed 03/06/18 Page 1 of 5

Case 4:10-cv YGR Document Filed 03/06/18 Page 1 of 5 Case :0-cv-0-YGR Document - Filed 0/0/ Page of 0 0 In re SONY PS OTHER OS LITIGATION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Case No. :0-CV-0-YGR [PROPOSED] ORDER AWARDING ATTORNEYS

More information

Case 3:07-cv JST Document 5169 Filed 06/08/17 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case 3:07-cv JST Document 5169 Filed 06/08/17 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Case :0-cv-0-JST Document Filed 0/0/ Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 0 IN RE: CATHODE RAY TUBE (CRT) ANTITRUST LITIGATION This Order Relates To: ALL DIRECT PURCHASER

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Case :-cv-0-pa-as Document - Filed 0// Page of Page ID #: 0 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA JACQUELINE F. IBARRA, an individual on behalf of herself and all other similarly

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Case 8:13-cv-01748-JVS-JPR Document 45 Filed 03/16/15 Page 1 of 14 Page ID #:541 Present: The Honorable James V. Selna Nancy K. Boehme Not Present Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Tape No. Attorneys

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 1 1 1 Staton Mike Arias, SBN 1 mike@asstlawyers.com Mikael H. Stahle, SBN mikael@asstlawyers.com ARIAS, SANGUINETTI, STAHLE & TORRIJOS, LLP 01 Center Drive West, Suite 0 Los Angeles, California 00-0 Tel:

More information

Case 3:15-md CRB Document 3231 Filed 05/17/17 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case 3:15-md CRB Document 3231 Filed 05/17/17 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Case :-md-0-crb Document Filed 0// Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 0 0 IN RE: VOLKSWAGEN CLEAN DIESEL MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION

More information

Case 3:15-cv RBL Document 23 Filed 05/19/15 Page 1 of 17

Case 3:15-cv RBL Document 23 Filed 05/19/15 Page 1 of 17 Case :-cv-00-rbl Document Filed 0// Page of THE HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA ANNIE McCULLUMN, NANCY RAMEY and TAMI ROMERO, on behalf

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Case :-cv-000-jls-rnb Document 0 Filed 0/0/ Page of Page ID #:0 0 0 TIMOTHY R. PEEL, ET AL., vs. Plaintiffs, BROOKSAMERICA MORTGAGE CORP., ET AL., Defendants. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Case :-cv-0-rgk-sp Document Filed 0/0/ Page of Page ID #: 0 C. Benjamin Nutley () nutley@zenlaw.com 0 E. Colorado Blvd., th Floor Pasadena, California 0 Telephone: () 0-00 Facsimile: () 0-0 John W. Davis

More information

Case 3:11-md JM-JMA Document 87 Filed 12/17/12 PageID.1739 Page 1 of 6

Case 3:11-md JM-JMA Document 87 Filed 12/17/12 PageID.1739 Page 1 of 6 Case :-md-0-jm-jma Document Filed // PageID. Page of Joseph Darrell Palmer (SBN Email: darrell.palmer@palmerlegalteam.com Law Offices of Darrell Palmer PC 0 North Highway 0, Ste A Solana Beach, California

More information

Case 3:16-cv WHO Document Filed 06/30/17 Page 1 of 7

Case 3:16-cv WHO Document Filed 06/30/17 Page 1 of 7 Case :-cv-00-who Document - Filed 0/0/ Page of 0 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 0 JAMES KNAPP, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,

More information

Case 3:14-cv HSG Document 61 Filed 08/01/16 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case 3:14-cv HSG Document 61 Filed 08/01/16 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Case :-cv-0-hsg Document Filed 0/0/ Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA VICTOR GUTTMANN, Plaintiff, v. OLE MEXICAN FOODS, INC., Defendant. Case No. -cv-0-hsg ORDER GRANTING

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Case :-cv-00-jls-jpr Document Filed 0// Page of 0 Page ID #: 0 0 KENNETH J. LEE, MARK G. THOMPSON, and DAVID C. ACREE, individually, on behalf of others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA GREENWOOD DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA GREENWOOD DIVISION 8:13-cv-03424-JMC Date Filed 04/23/15 Entry Number 52 Page 1 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA GREENWOOD DIVISION In re: Building Materials Corporation of America

More information

Case 3:15-cv RBL Document 216 Filed 07/12/18 Page 1 of 19

Case 3:15-cv RBL Document 216 Filed 07/12/18 Page 1 of 19 Case :-cv-00-rbl Document Filed 0// Page of HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 0 JOHN LENNARTSON, RITA ANDREWS, CASSIE ASLESON, SUSAN SHAY

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION DOCKET NO. 3:08-cv MOC-DSC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION DOCKET NO. 3:08-cv MOC-DSC UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION DOCKET NO. 3:08-cv-00540-MOC-DSC LUANNA SCOTT, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) Vs. ) ORDER ) FAMILY DOLLAR STORES, INC., )

More information

Case3:13-cv JCS Document34 Filed09/26/14 Page1 of 14

Case3:13-cv JCS Document34 Filed09/26/14 Page1 of 14 Case:-cv-0-JCS Document Filed0// Page of 0 0 Alexander I. Dychter (SBN ) alex@dychterlaw.com Dychter Law Offices, APC 00 Second Ave., Suite San Diego, California 0 Telephone:..0 Facsimile:.0. Norman B.

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 Douglas J. Campion (SBN 1 E-mail: doug@djcampion.com THE LAW OFFICE OF DOUGLAS J. CAMPION, APC 0 Via Del Campo, Suite 0 San Diego, CA 1 Telephone: ( -01 James O. Latturner (Pro Hac Vice

More information

Case 2:07-cv PD Document 296 Filed 09/19/14 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA O R D E R

Case 2:07-cv PD Document 296 Filed 09/19/14 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA O R D E R Case 2:07-cv-04296-PD Document 296 Filed 09/19/14 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA MOORE, et al., : Plaintiffs, : : v. : Civ. No. 07-4296 : GMAC

More information

Case: , 04/17/2019, ID: , DktEntry: 37-1, Page 1 of 7 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Case: , 04/17/2019, ID: , DktEntry: 37-1, Page 1 of 7 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Case: 18-15054, 04/17/2019, ID: 11266832, DktEntry: 37-1, Page 1 of 7 (1 of 11) NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FILED APR 17 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 1 1 1 1 SHERRIE WHITE, v. Plaintiff, GMRI, INC. dba OLIVE GARDEN #1; and DOES 1 through, Defendant. CIV-S-0-0 DFL CMK MEMORANDUM

More information

Case 5:15-cv BLF Document 1 Filed 11/05/15 Page 1 of 18

Case 5:15-cv BLF Document 1 Filed 11/05/15 Page 1 of 18 Case :-cv-00-blf Document Filed /0/ Page of BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. L. Timothy Fisher (State Bar No. ) Julia A. Luster (State Bar No. 0) North California Boulevard, Suite 0 Walnut Creek, CA Telephone: ()

More information

Case 3:15-cv JSC Document Filed 03/15/18 Page 1 of 8. ase 3:08-cv SI Document Filed 03/27/17 Page 10 of 96

Case 3:15-cv JSC Document Filed 03/15/18 Page 1 of 8. ase 3:08-cv SI Document Filed 03/27/17 Page 10 of 96 Case 3:15-cv-0-JSC Document 79-12 Filed 03/15/ Page 1 of 8 ase 3:08-cv-051-SI Document 570-3 Filed 03//17 Page 10 of 96 1 832 (10) [hereinafter "Empirical Study"]. In the Ninth Circuit, courts use % as

More information

Baker & Hostetler, L.L.P. ("B&H" or "Applicant"), files its First and Final Application

Baker & Hostetler, L.L.P. (B&H or Applicant), files its First and Final Application UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ) In re: ) Case No. 01-16034 (AJG) ) ENRON CORP., et al., ) Jointly Administered ) TRUSTEES ) Chapter 11 ) FIRST AND FINAL APPLICATION FOR ALLOWANCE

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Case :-cv-0-odw-ajw Document 0 Filed 0// Page of Page ID #: 0 BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. L. Timothy Fisher (State Bar No. ) 0 North California Boulevard, Suite 0 Walnut Creek, CA Telephone: () 00- Facsimile:

More information

Case 3:15-cv WHO Document Filed 11/17/17 Page 1 of 24

Case 3:15-cv WHO Document Filed 11/17/17 Page 1 of 24 Case :-cv-0-who Document 0- Filed // Page of Graham S.P. Hollis, Esq. (SBN 0) ghollis@grahamhollis.com Vilmarie Cordero, Esq. (SBN 0) vcordero@grahamhollis.com Fifth Avenue, Suite 00 San Diego, California

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Richardson v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. et al Doc. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 0 JAMES RICHARDSON, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated,

More information

Case 2:14-cv KOB Document 44 Filed 03/28/17 Page 1 of 8

Case 2:14-cv KOB Document 44 Filed 03/28/17 Page 1 of 8 Case 2:14-cv-01028-KOB Document 44 Filed 03/28/17 Page 1 of 8 FILED 2017 Mar-28 AM 11:34 U.S. DISTRICT COURT N.D. OF ALABAMA IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. Plaintiff,

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. Plaintiff, Case :-cv-0-pcl Document Filed 0// PageID. Page of 0 0 NAOMI TAPIA, individually and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT

More information

Case 5:08-cv PD Document 185 Filed 02/07/13 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Case 5:08-cv PD Document 185 Filed 02/07/13 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA Case 5:08-cv-00479-PD Document 185 Filed 02/07/13 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA KYLE J. LIGUORI and : TAMMY L. HOFFMAN, individually : and on

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SOUTHERN DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SOUTHERN DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case :-cv-0-cjc-jcg Document Filed 0// Page of Page ID #: 0 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SOUTHERN DIVISION 0 BEHROUZ A. RANEKOUHI, FERESHTE RANEKOUHI, and GOLI RANEKOUHI,

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 NEIL TORCZYNER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. STAPLES, INC., UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Plaintiff, Defendant. Case

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA I. INTRODUCTION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA I. INTRODUCTION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 0 EDGAR VICERAL, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MISTRAS GROUP, INC., Defendant. Case No. -cv-0-emc ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS MOTIONS FOR FINAL APPROVAL

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY Case 2:06-cv-02163-JLL-MF Document 183 Filed 05/01/15 Page 1 of 13 PageID: 3678 Case 2:06-cv-02163-JLL-MF Document 158-5 Fed 01123/15 Page 1 of 13 Page(D: 3357 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF

More information

Case3:13-cv JST Document51 Filed10/22/14 Page1 of 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case3:13-cv JST Document51 Filed10/22/14 Page1 of 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Case:-cv-0-JST Document Filed// Page of 0 BOBBIE PACHECO DYER, et al., v. Plaintiffs, WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Defendant. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Case No. -cv-0-jst

More information

Case 1:08-cv RDB Document 83 Filed 10/20/2009 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

Case 1:08-cv RDB Document 83 Filed 10/20/2009 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND Case 1:08-cv-01281-RDB Document 83 Filed 10/20/2009 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND * JOHN DOE No. 1, et al., * Plaintiffs * v. Civil Action No.: RDB-08-1281

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. ----oo0oo----

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. ----oo0oo---- 0 0 SHERIE WHITE, Plaintiff, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ----oo0oo---- NO. CIV. S 0-0 MCE KJM v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER SAVE MART SUPERMARKETS dba FOOD MAXX; WRI GOLDEN STATE,

More information

Case 6:13-cv MC Document 129 Filed 06/17/14 Page 1 of 12 Page ID#: 1425

Case 6:13-cv MC Document 129 Filed 06/17/14 Page 1 of 12 Page ID#: 1425 Case 6:13-cv-01834-MC Document 129 Filed 06/17/14 Page 1 of 12 Page ID#: 1425 Lake James H. Perriguey, OSB No. 983213 lake@law-works.com LAW WORKS LLC 1906 SW Madison Street Portland, OR 97205-1718 Telephone:

More information

Case 3:11-cv JST Document 496 Filed 08/23/18 Page 1 of 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case 3:11-cv JST Document 496 Filed 08/23/18 Page 1 of 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Case :-cv-000-jst Document Filed 0// Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA MICHAEL RODMAN, Plaintiff, v. SAFEWAY INC., Defendant. Case No. -cv-000-jst ORDER APPROVING JUDGMENT

More information

United States District Court

United States District Court Case:0-cv-0-EMC Document Filed// Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ALICIA HARRIS, No. C-0- EMC v. Plaintiff, VECTOR MARKETING CORPORATION, Defendant. / ORDER DENYING

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES GENERAL

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES GENERAL Case 2:15-cv-06457-MWF-JEM Document 254 Filed 10/03/17 Page 1 of 13 Page ID #:10244 Present: The Honorable MICHAEL W. FITZGERALD, U.S. District Judge Deputy Clerk: Rita Sanchez Attorneys Present for Plaintiff:

More information

Case 0:10-cv MGC Document 913 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/23/2012 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case 0:10-cv MGC Document 913 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/23/2012 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case 0:10-cv-60786-MGC Document 913 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/23/2012 Page 1 of 5 COQUINA INVESTMENTS, v. Plaintiff, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 10-60786-Civ-Cooke/Bandstra

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA e 2:11-cv-00929-GAF -SS Document 117 Filed 12/21/12 Page 1 of 19 Page ID #:2380 1 2 3 LINKS: 107, 109 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 IN RE MANNKIND CORP. 12 SECURITIES LITIGATION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

More information

Case 4:11-cv Document 198 Filed in TXSD on 05/31/13 Page 1 of 6

Case 4:11-cv Document 198 Filed in TXSD on 05/31/13 Page 1 of 6 Case 4:11-cv-02703 Document 198 Filed in TXSD on 05/31/13 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION Jornaleros de Las Palmas, Plaintiff, Civil

More information

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. No Consolidated with , , , , ,

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. No Consolidated with , , , , , Case: 18-16317, 11/05/2018, ID: 11071499, DktEntry: 32, Page 1 of 24 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT No. 18-16315 Consolidated with 18-16213, 18-16223, 18-16236, 18-16284, 18-16285,

More information

Case3:13-cv JST Document73 Filed05/01/15 Page1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case3:13-cv JST Document73 Filed05/01/15 Page1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Case:-cv-0-JST Document Filed0/0/ Page of 0 0 ALETA LILLY, et al., v. Plaintiffs, JAMBA JUICE COMPANY, et al., Defendants. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Case No. -cv-0-jst

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WESTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WESTERN DIVISION Case :-cv-00-sjo-mrw Document Filed 0// Page of Page ID #: 0 0 LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP ADAM C. MCCALL South Figueroa Street, st Floor Los Angeles, California 00 Tel: --0 amccall@zlk.com Attorneys for Lead

More information

Attorneys for Lead Plaintiffs Oklahoma Firefighters Pension & Retirement Fund and Oklahoma Law Enforcement Retirement System

Attorneys for Lead Plaintiffs Oklahoma Firefighters Pension & Retirement Fund and Oklahoma Law Enforcement Retirement System Case :-cv-00-dmg-sh Document Filed 0/0/ Page of Page ID #: 0 WESTERMAN LAW CORP. Jeff S. Westerman (SBN Century Park East, nd Floor Los Angeles, Ca. 00 Telephone: (0-0 Fax: (0-0 jwesterman@jswlegal.com

More information

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON IN AND FOR KING COUNTY

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON IN AND FOR KING COUNTY THE HONORABLE JOHN P. ERLICK Notice of Hearing: February. 0 at :00 am IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON IN AND FOR KING COUNTY 0 JEFFREY MAIN and TODD PHELPS, on behalf of themselves and

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, WESTERN DIVISION. Case No. 2:14-cv CBM-E

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, WESTERN DIVISION. Case No. 2:14-cv CBM-E MICHAEL J. ANGLEY, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, WESTERN DIVISION v. UTI WORLDWIDE INC., et al., Plaintiff, Defendants.

More information

SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIVIL DIVISION. FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) Civil Action No CA ORDER

SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIVIL DIVISION. FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) Civil Action No CA ORDER SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIVIL DIVISION FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) Civil Action No. 2005 CA 007011 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ) Judge Lynn Leibovitz ) Calendar 11

More information

Case 4:13-md YGR Document 2322 Filed 05/16/18 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case 4:13-md YGR Document 2322 Filed 05/16/18 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Case :-md-00-ygr Document Filed 0// Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 0 0 IN RE: LITHIUM ION BATTERIES ANTITRUST LITIGATION This Document Relates to: ALL DIRECT PURCHASER

More information

Case 2:15-cv JCC Document 190 Filed 10/11/18 Page 1 of 23 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

Case 2:15-cv JCC Document 190 Filed 10/11/18 Page 1 of 23 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON Case :-cv-00-jcc Document 0 Filed 0// Page of THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR 0 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON BALAPUWADUGE MENDIS, MICHAEL FEOLA, ANDREA ARBAUGH, and EDWARD

More information

Case 3:11-cv JAH-WMC Document 38 Filed 10/12/12 Page 1 of 5

Case 3:11-cv JAH-WMC Document 38 Filed 10/12/12 Page 1 of 5 Case :-cv-000-jah-wmc Document Filed 0// Page of 0 0 ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP JOHN J. STOIA, JR. ( RACHEL L. JENSEN ( THOMAS R. MERRICK ( PHONG L. TRAN (0 West Broadway, Suite 00 San Diego, CA

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION. v. Case No: 8:14-cv-2541-T-30MAP ORDER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION. v. Case No: 8:14-cv-2541-T-30MAP ORDER Finley v. Crosstown Law, LLC Doc. 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION DESIREE FINLEY, Plaintiff, v. Case No: 8:14-cv-2541-T-30MAP CROSSTOWN LAW, LLC, Defendant. ORDER

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case :-cv-0-vc Document 0- Filed 0// Page of 0 0 Joshua B. Swigart, Esq. (SBN josh@westcoastlitigation.com David J. McGlothlin, Esq. (SBN david@westcoastlitigation.com Hyde & Swigart Camino Del Rio South,

More information

Case 9:15-cv JIC Document 75 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/07/2016 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case 9:15-cv JIC Document 75 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/07/2016 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case 9:15-cv-81783-JIC Document 75 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/07/2016 Page 1 of 8 DAVID M. LEVINE, not individually, but solely in his capacity as Receiver for ECAREER HOLDINGS, INC. and ECAREER, INC.,

More information

Case 1:15-cv MGC Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/01/2016 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case 1:15-cv MGC Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/01/2016 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case 1:15-cv-20702-MGC Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/01/2016 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE No. 15-20702-Civ-COOKE/TORRES KELSEY O BRIEN and KATHLEEN

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION. v. Civil Action No. 3:08-CV-2254-N ORDER

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION. v. Civil Action No. 3:08-CV-2254-N ORDER Case 3:08-cv-02254-N Document 142 Filed 12/01/11 Page 1 of 7 PageID 4199 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION COURIER SOLUTIONS, INC., Plaintiff, v. Civil Action

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WESTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WESTERN DIVISION Case :0-cv-0-CBM-E Document 0 Filed 0// Page of Page ID #: 0 BROWER PIVEN A Professional Corporation DAVID A.P. BROWER (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) Park Avenue South rd Floor New York, New York 00 Telephone:

More information

Case 3:13-cv DPJ-FKB Document 518 Filed 09/29/15 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI NORTHERN DIVISION

Case 3:13-cv DPJ-FKB Document 518 Filed 09/29/15 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI NORTHERN DIVISION Case 3:13-cv-01081-DPJ-FKB Document 518 Filed 09/29/15 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI NORTHERN DIVISION THOMAS E. PEREZ, Secretary of the United States Department

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Case 8:15-cv-01592-AG-DFM Document 289 Filed 12/03/18 Page 1 of 8 Page ID #:5927 Present: The Honorable ANDREW J. GUILFORD Lisa Bredahl Not Present Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Tape No. Attorneys

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. Defendant.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. Defendant. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. L. Timothy Fisher (State Bar No. ) Julia A. Luster (State Bar No. 01) 10 North California Boulevard, Suite 0 Walnut Creek, CA Telephone: () 00- Facsimile: () 0-00 E-Mail: ltfisher@bursor.com

More information

Case 1:09-cv CAP Document 94 Filed 09/12/12 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION

Case 1:09-cv CAP Document 94 Filed 09/12/12 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION Case 1:09-cv-02880-CAP Document 94 Filed 09/12/12 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION GEORGIA ADVOCACY OFFICE, INC., Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION v. NO. 1:09-CV-2880-CAP

More information

Case3:13-cv HSG Document194 Filed07/23/15 Page1 of 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case3:13-cv HSG Document194 Filed07/23/15 Page1 of 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Case:-cv-00-HSG Document Filed0// Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA PATRICK HENDRICKS, Plaintiff, v. STARKIST CO, Defendant. Case No. -cv-00-hsg ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA Case 1:16-cv-00486-NCT-JEP Document 36 Filed 04/17/18 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA DAVID LINNINS, KIM WOLFINGTON, and CAROL BLACKSTOCK, on behalf of

More information

Case 1:14-cv MGC Document 155 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/11/2016 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case 1:14-cv MGC Document 155 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/11/2016 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case 1:14-cv-23120-MGC Document 155 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/11/2016 Page 1 of 10 ANAMARIA CHIMENO-BUZZI, vs. Plaintiff, HOLLISTER CO. and ABERCROMBIE & FITCH CO. Defendants. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

More information

Case 8:05-cv DOC-MLG Document 1096 Filed 10/30/17 Page 1 of 34 Page ID #:23115

Case 8:05-cv DOC-MLG Document 1096 Filed 10/30/17 Page 1 of 34 Page ID #:23115 Case :0-cv-000-DOC-MLG Document 0 Filed 0/0/ Page of Page ID #: 0 0 Michael A. Caddell (SBN ) mac@caddellchapman.com Cynthia B. Chapman (SBN ) cbc@caddellchapman.com Amy E. Tabor (SBN 0) aet@caddellchapman.com

More information

Case 1:12-cv DJC Document 308 Filed 11/08/17 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

Case 1:12-cv DJC Document 308 Filed 11/08/17 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS Case 1:12-cv-11280-DJC Document 308 Filed 11/08/17 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS KAREN L. BACCHI, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 12-11280-DJC MASSACHUSETTS MUTUAL

More information

Case 3:14-cv MMC Document 110 Filed 02/09/16 Page 1 of 19

Case 3:14-cv MMC Document 110 Filed 02/09/16 Page 1 of 19 Case 3:14-cv-03238-MMC Document 110 Filed 02/09/16 Page 1 of 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ERIC B. KINGSLEY, Bar No. 185123 eric@kingsleykingsley.com LIANE KATZENSTEIN LY, Bar No. 259230 liane@kingsleykingsley.com

More information

Case 3:09-cv JGH Document 146 Filed 11/01/13 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: 2843 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY AT LOUISVILLE

Case 3:09-cv JGH Document 146 Filed 11/01/13 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: 2843 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY AT LOUISVILLE Case 3:09-cv-00440-JGH Document 146 Filed 11/01/13 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: 2843 DANA BOWERS, et al. PLAINTIFFS V. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY AT LOUISVILLE CIVIL ACTION NO.

More information

Case 4:07-cv CW Document 69 Filed 03/18/2008 Page 1 of 6

Case 4:07-cv CW Document 69 Filed 03/18/2008 Page 1 of 6 Case :0-cv-000-CW Document Filed 0//00 Page of 0 0 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, OAKLAND DIVISION GUITA BAHRAMIPOUR, AUSTIN HEBERGER, JR., and JANELLA HAIRSTON, individually,

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN RE COREL CORPORATION : INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION : : : NO. 00-CV-1257 : : : Anita B. Brody, J. October 28, 2003 MEMORANDUM

More information

Case 3:14-cv VC Document Filed 12/16/16 Page 1 of 7

Case 3:14-cv VC Document Filed 12/16/16 Page 1 of 7 Case :-cv-0-vc Document - Filed // Page of Alejandro P. Gutierrez, SBN 0 HATHAWAY, PERRETT, WEBSTER, POWERS, CHRISMAN & GUTIERREZ A Professional Corporation 00 Hathaway Building 0 Telegraph Road Post Office

More information

Case 3:14-cv ST Document 146 Filed 01/05/16 Page 1 of 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION

Case 3:14-cv ST Document 146 Filed 01/05/16 Page 1 of 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION Case 3:14-cv-00645-ST Document 146 Filed 01/05/16 Page 1 of 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION KELLY OTT and BENJAMIN GESLER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly

More information

Case 1:13-cv LGS Document 1140 Filed 11/08/18 Page 1 of 11 : :

Case 1:13-cv LGS Document 1140 Filed 11/08/18 Page 1 of 11 : : Case 1:13-cv-07789-LGS Document 1140 Filed 11/08/18 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -------------------------------------------------------------X : IN RE FOREIGN

More information

Prepared by: Karen Norlander, Esq. Special Counsel Girvin & Ferlazzo, P.C. New York State Bar Association CLE Special Education Update, Albany NY

Prepared by: Karen Norlander, Esq. Special Counsel Girvin & Ferlazzo, P.C. New York State Bar Association CLE Special Education Update, Albany NY Prepared by: Karen Norlander, Esq. Special Counsel Girvin & Ferlazzo, P.C. New York State Bar Association CLE Special Education Update, Albany NY November 22, 2013 HISTORY The purpose of the Civil Rights

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK JOHN GAUQUIE, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff, v. ALBANY MOLECULAR RESEARCH, INC., WILLIAM MARTH,

More information

Case 4:08-cv RP-CFB Document Filed 12/08/15 Page 1 of 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA CENTRAL DIVISION

Case 4:08-cv RP-CFB Document Filed 12/08/15 Page 1 of 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA CENTRAL DIVISION Case 4:08-cv-00507-RP-CFB Document 263-1 Filed 12/08/15 Page 1 of 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA CENTRAL DIVISION GREGORY YOUNG, et al., Case No. 4:08-cv-00507-RP-CFB

More information

Case 6:10-cv HO Document 31 Filed 12/21/10 Page 1 of 10 Page ID#: 537

Case 6:10-cv HO Document 31 Filed 12/21/10 Page 1 of 10 Page ID#: 537 Case 6:10-cv-06134-HO Document 31 Filed 12/21/10 Page 1 of 10 Page ID#: 537 Michael J. Esler, OSB No. 710560 esler@eslerstephens.com John W. Stephens, OSB No. 773583 stephens@eslerstephens.com ESLER STEPHENS

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY Case 2:06-cv-02163-JLL-MF Document 155 Filed 01/23/15 Page 1 of 3 PageID: 3019 Stephen L. Dreyfuss, Esq. Matthew E. Moloshok, Esq. HELLRING LINDEMAN GOLDSTEIN & SIEGAL LLP One Gateway Center Newark, New

More information

Case 5:14-cv BLF Document 163 Filed 01/25/16 Page 1 of 8 SAN JOSE DIVISION

Case 5:14-cv BLF Document 163 Filed 01/25/16 Page 1 of 8 SAN JOSE DIVISION Case :-cv-0-blf Document Filed 0// Page of 0 KEKER & VAN NEST LLP ROBERT A. VAN NEST - # 0 BRIAN L. FERRALL - # 0 DAVID SILBERT - # MICHAEL S. KWUN - # ASHOK RAMANI - # 0000 Battery Street San Francisco,

More information

Case 5:15-md LHK Document 946 Filed 01/26/18 Page 1 of 9

Case 5:15-md LHK Document 946 Filed 01/26/18 Page 1 of 9 Case :-md-0-lhk Document Filed 0// Page of 0 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION IN RE ANTHEM, INC. DATA BREACH LITIGATION Case No. :-MD-0-LHK [PROPOSED] ORDER

More information

Case 3:13-cv HSG Document 131 Filed 01/11/16 Page 1 of 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case 3:13-cv HSG Document 131 Filed 01/11/16 Page 1 of 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Case :-cv-0-hsg Document Filed 0// Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ARVILLE WINANS, Plaintiff, v. EMERITUS CORPORATION, Defendant. Case No. -cv-0-hsg ORDER GRANTING

More information

: : : : : : : : : : : : 16cv2268. Defendant and Counterclaim/Cross-Claim Plaintiff U.S. Bank National

: : : : : : : : : : : : 16cv2268. Defendant and Counterclaim/Cross-Claim Plaintiff U.S. Bank National Synergy Aerospace Corp v. U.S. Bank National Association et al Doc. 65 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK SYNERGY AEROSPACE CORP., -against- Plaintiff, LLFC CORPORATION and U.S.

More information

Case 1:05-md JG-JO Document 2669 Filed 05/28/13 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 54790

Case 1:05-md JG-JO Document 2669 Filed 05/28/13 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 54790 Case 1:05-md-01720-JG-JO Document 2669 Filed 05/28/13 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 54790 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK IN RE PAYMENT CARD INTERCHANGE FEE AND MERCHANT DISCOUNT

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Case :-cv-0-sjo-sk Document Filed 0/0/ Page of Page ID #: 0 0 David M. Birka-White (State Bar No. ) dbw@birka-white.com Mindy M. Wong (State Bar No. 0) mwong@birka-white.com BIRKA-WHITE LAW OFFICES Court

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge John L. Kane. Master Docket No. 09-md JLK-KMT (MDL Docket No, 2063)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge John L. Kane. Master Docket No. 09-md JLK-KMT (MDL Docket No, 2063) Case 1:09-md-02063-JLK-KMT Document 527 Filed 07/31/14 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge John L. Kane Master Docket No. 09-md-02063-JLK-KMT

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Case :0-cv-0-LAB-KSC Document Filed 0// Page of 0 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, CASE NO. 0CV-LAB (CAB) vs. Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING IN PART MOTION

More information

Case 1:07-cv PAB-KLM Document 223 Filed 09/18/14 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 14

Case 1:07-cv PAB-KLM Document 223 Filed 09/18/14 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 14 Case 1:07-cv-02351-PAB-KLM Document 223 Filed 09/18/14 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge Philip A. Brimmer Civil Action No. 07-cv-02351-PAB-KLM

More information

Case4:08-cv CW Document465 Filed05/30/13 Page1 of 14

Case4:08-cv CW Document465 Filed05/30/13 Page1 of 14 Case:0-cv-00-CW Document Filed0/0/ Page of 0 GEOFFREY PECOVER and ANDREW OWENS, on behalf of themselves and a class of person similarly situated, v. ELECTRONIC ARTS INC., a Delaware Corporation, UNITED

More information

Case MDL No Document 255 Filed 09/04/12 Page 1 of 7 BEFORE THE UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

Case MDL No Document 255 Filed 09/04/12 Page 1 of 7 BEFORE THE UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION Case MDL No. 2388 Document 255 Filed 09/04/12 Page 1 of 7 BEFORE THE UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION IN RE: MORTGAGE LENDER FORCE- PLACED INSURANCE LITIGATION MDL No. 2388 FEDERAL

More information

Case Document 3609 Filed in TXSB on 09/14/15 Page 1 of 17

Case Document 3609 Filed in TXSB on 09/14/15 Page 1 of 17 Case 12-36187 Document 3609 Filed in TXSB on 09/14/15 Page 1 of 17 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION IN RE: ATP OIL & GAS CORPORATION CASE NO. 12-36187

More information

Case 3:11-md MMA-MDD Document 434 Filed 12/02/16 Page 1 of 32 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case 3:11-md MMA-MDD Document 434 Filed 12/02/16 Page 1 of 32 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Case :-md-0-mma-mdd Document Filed /0/ Page of 0 IN RE: MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC. TELEPHONE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT LITIGATION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA MDL No.

More information

Case 4:17-cv HSG Document 85 Filed 08/22/18 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case 4:17-cv HSG Document 85 Filed 08/22/18 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Case :-cv-00-hsg Document Filed 0// Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA VANA FOWLER, Plaintiff, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Defendant. Case No. -cv-00-hsg ORDER GRANTING

More information

Case 3:14-cv MMH-MCR Document 33 Filed 02/16/15 Page 1 of 13 PageID 171

Case 3:14-cv MMH-MCR Document 33 Filed 02/16/15 Page 1 of 13 PageID 171 Case 3:14-cv-00873-MMH-MCR Document 33 Filed 02/16/15 Page 1 of 13 PageID 171 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION DANIEL RUDDELL, on his own behalf and on behalf

More information

Case 3:13-cv HSG Document 357 Filed 04/05/16 Page 1 of 8

Case 3:13-cv HSG Document 357 Filed 04/05/16 Page 1 of 8 Case :-cv-00-hsg Document Filed 0/0/ Page of 0 Robert B. Hawk (Bar No. 0) Stacy R. Hovan (Bar No. ) 0 Campbell Avenue, Suite 00 Menlo Park, CA 0 Telephone: (0) -000 Facsimile: (0) - robert.hawk@hoganlovells.com

More information

Case 5:09-cv JW Document 214 Filed 02/09/12 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

Case 5:09-cv JW Document 214 Filed 02/09/12 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION Case :0-cv-00-JW Document Filed 0/0/ Page of 0 GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP ADAM J. GUTRIDE (State Bar No. ) SETH A. SAFIER (State Bar No. ) Douglass Street San Francisco, California Telephone: () - Facsimile: ()

More information

Opposing Post-Judgment Fee. Discrimination Cases*

Opposing Post-Judgment Fee. Discrimination Cases* Opposing Post-Judgment Fee Petitions in Civil Rights and Discrimination Cases* Robert D. Meyers David Fuqua Todd M. Raskin * Submitted by the authors on behalf of the FDCC Civil Rights and Public Entity

More information