PLEASE READ THIS CLASS NOTICE CAREFULLY. YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS ARE AFFECTED BY IT.

Transcription

1 NOTICE OF PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND HEARING DATE FOR COURT APPROVAL Mata et al. v. Manpower, Inc./California Peninsula, Case No. 5:14-cv As a current or former non-exempt associate of Manpower, Inc./California Peninsula, Manpower, Inc., ManpowerGroup, Inc., or ManpowerGroup US Inc. in California, you may be entitled to receive money from a class action settlement. The United States District Court, Northern District of California authorized this Class Notice. This is not a solicitation from a lawyer. YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO RECEIVE MONEY FROM A CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT IF YOU ARE A CURRENT OR FORMER ASSOCIATE WHO WORKED FOR MANPOWER, INC./CALIFORNIA PENINSULA AFTER APRIL 12, 2009 OR FOR MANPOWER INC., MANPOWERGROUP INC., OR MANPOWERGROUP US INC. AFTER FEBRUARY 13, 2009, THROUGH SEPTEMBER 8, A proposed settlement of $2,900,000 (the Total Settlement Amount ) will be used to pay claims to: All current and former non-exempt, hourly associates who worked for Defendant Manpower, Inc./California Peninsula from April 12, 2009 through September 8, 2016 and all current and former non-exempt, hourly associates who worked for Defendants Manpower Inc., ManpowerGroup Inc., and ManpowerGroup US Inc. from February 13, 2009 through September 8, Notwithstanding the foregoing, any person who performed work and/or suffered violations of any law occurring while such person was in the employ of either Manpower US Inc. and/or CPM LTD d/b/a Manpower of San Diego and Manpower Temporary Services shall not be considered a Class Member with respect to such employment. The settlement resolves two lawsuits. The first lawsuit is entitled Mata et al. v. Manpower, Inc./California Peninsula, Case No. 5:14-cv (the Lawsuit ). The second is entitled Padilla v. Willner ( Willner II ), No. 15-cv This settlement resolves whether Manpower, Inc./California Peninsula, Manpower Inc., ManpowerGroup Inc., and ManpowerGroup US Inc. (collectively Manpower ) properly paid associates for all hours worked and other legal consequences that would follow from not doing so, including penalties under the Labor Code for failure to furnish accurate wage statements. This settlement avoids the costs and risks from continuing the Lawsuit, pays money to persons like you, and releases Manpower from alleged liability. The Court has not made a determination of the validity of the claims in the Lawsuit. Manpower denies any and all liability arising from any of the claims and contends that at all relevant times they properly compensated all associates and fully complied with all applicable laws. Class Members will receive a base payment $12.50 in addition to a pro-rata payment based on the number of wage statements received during the Class Period. PLEASE READ THIS CLASS NOTICE CAREFULLY. YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS ARE AFFECTED BY IT. YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS AND OPTIONS IN THIS SETTLEMENT DO NOTHING Receive a payment and give up your legal rights to pursue claims released by the settlement of the Lawsuit. OPT OUT Receive no payment and retain your legal rights to pursue claims that would otherwise be released by the settlement of the Lawsuit. OBJECT If you do not opt out, you may object to the settlement by filling out the objection form and mailing the form to the Settlement Administrator, CPT Group, Inc., as described under Question 13. The court will consider timely objections. CLASS NOTICE - PAGE 1 OF 8

2 ATTEND A HEARING The Court will hold a hearing on May 11, 2017 at 1:30 PM to determine whether the settlement is fair, as discussed in Question 14 below. You may attend the hearing, but you are not required to attend. If you timely fill out and mail the objection form, and if you also want to speak about your objection, you should send a letter to the Settlement Administrator, CPT Group, giving notice of your intention to appear and speak at the hearing. 1. Why did I get this Class Notice? IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT You were sent this Class Notice because you have a right to know about the proposed settlement in the Lawsuit and about all of your options before the Court rules whether to finally approve the settlement. If the Court approves the settlement and after any objections and appeals are resolved, a Settlement Administrator appointed by the Court will make the payments that the settlement allows. This Class Notice explains the Lawsuit, the proposed settlement, your legal rights, and what benefits are available and how to receive them. The Court in charge of this case is the United States District Court, Northern District of California. The persons who sued are called Plaintiffs and the organizations they sued are called Defendants. 2. What is the Lawsuit about? Claudia Padilla and Lesli Guido, the Representative Plaintiffs, in the Lawsuit alleged multiple violations of the California Labor Code, the California Business and Professions Code, and the California Private Attorneys General Act, including causes of action for: (1) failure to pay reporting time pay; (2) failure and refusal to pay agreed wages; (3) failure to pay wages due and payable after demand has been made; (4) failure to pay minimum wages; (5) knowing and intentional failure to comply with itemized employee wage statement provisions; (6) failure to pay wages timely; and (7) failure to pay all wages upon termination. 3. Why is there a settlement? The parties disagree on the probable outcome of the case with respect to liability, damages, and how much money could be recovered if the Representative Plaintiffs won at trial. Manpower believes that the Representative Plaintiffs would not prevail if this case went to trial. The Court has not decided in favor of the Representative Plaintiffs or Manpower. There has been no trial in this case. Instead, both sides recognize the risks, expenses, and disruption that are associated with continued litigation and they have therefore chosen to resolve their differences by entering into a settlement. By doing so, the parties can avoid the cost of a trial, yet Class Members are still entitled to receive payments. The parties entered into this settlement after arms-length negotiations while using the services of an experienced and neutral mediator. The Representative Plaintiffs and Class Counsel believe that the proposed settlement is fair and reasonable and is in the best interest of the Class Members. 4. What is a class action settlement? The Court must approve the terms of the proposed settlement as fair and reasonable. Once approved, the settlement will affect all Class Members except those who have properly opted out. This Class Notice explains your legal rights, the terms of the settlement, what you must do to participate, and the amount of money you may receive. Please read this entire Class Notice carefully. 5. What should I do? You can do nothing, and if you are entitled to a payment, you will be paid. Be mindful, however, that if this Class Notice reaches you and the address where you now live is different, you need to contact the Settlement Administrator and provide updated information so that any future correspondence or the settlement check itself reaches you and is not returned as an address unknown. CLASS NOTICE - PAGE 2 OF 8

3 6. How much will my payment be? After all fees, costs, and offsets are taken as set forth under paragraph 24 of the parties Joint Stipulation of Class Settlement (which is available for review at the Settlement Administrator s website the remainder will be used to pay Class Members a base payment $12.50 in addition to a pro-rata payment based on the number of wage statements received during the Class Period. If you do not dispute your wage statement calculation and do not opt out of the settlement, you will be bound by the settlement and receive a settlement payment. In other words, you do not need to take any action to receive a settlement payment. 7. When would I get my payment? The Court will hold a hearing on May 11, 2017 at 1:30 PM to decide whether to approve the proposed settlement. If the Court approves the settlement and anyone objects, there may be appeals. It is always uncertain when these objections and appeals can be resolved, and resolving them can take time. To check on the progress of the settlement, call the Settlement Administrator at , or contact Class Counsel (see below for Class Counsel s contact information.). Please be patient. 8. What am I releasing? Upon final approval by the Court of the settlement, and except as to such rights or claims as may be created by the settlement, Plaintiffs and Class Members who have not effectively opted-out of the settlement as described below fully release and discharge Manpower, Inc./California Peninsula, Manpower Inc., ManpowerGroup Inc., and ManpowerGroup US Inc. and any parent, subsidiary, affiliate, predecessor or successor, and all agents, employees, officers, directors, insurers, and attorneys thereof (sometimes hereinafter referred to as Releasees ) from any and all claims, debts, liabilities, demands, obligations, guarantees, costs, expenses, attorney fees, penalties, damages, action or causes of action contingent or accrued for, which arise out of the allegations and claims asserted in the operative complaint in the Action ( Released Claims ). Released Claims shall expressly exclude claims for unemployment compensation, disability, workers compensation, discrimination, retaliation, other claims unrelated to the claims set forth in the Lawsuit. The time period covered by this release is April 12, 2009 through September 8, 2016 for Defendant Manpower Inc./California Peninsula and February 13, 2009 through September 8, 2016 for Defendants Manpower Inc., ManpowerGroup Inc., and ManpowerGroup US Inc. Notwithstanding the foregoing, nothing in the settlement releases any claim by any person based upon work performed and/or violations of any law occurring while such person was in the employ of either Manpower US Inc. and/or CPM LTD d/b/a Manpower of San Diego and Manpower Temporary Services, neither of which shall be considered a Releasee under this Joint Stipulation. Class Members will release all known and unknown claims against Manpower pursuant to California Civil Code section 1542 that have been alleged or could have been alleged arising out of the facts, circumstances, causes of action, and primary rights alleged in the Lawsuit. The class claims will be dismissed with prejudice following final approval of settlement by the Court. 9. How does this settlement affect other Manpower-related class action lawsuits that may apply to me? There are other class action lawsuits pending against Manpower entities and those who participate in this settlement may also be putative class members in the other lawsuits. The effects of this settlement on claims in other lawsuits are discussed below. THE EXPLANATIONS SET FORTH BELOW EXPRESS THE VIEWPOINT OF BOTH PLAINTIFFS COUNSEL AND DEFENDANTS COUNSEL, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE DISCUSSIONS OF THE SANCHEZ AND ZEMUDIO CASES. BECAUSE DEFENDANTS ARE NOT PARTIES TO THE SANCHEZ AND ZEMUDIO CASES, THEY EXPRESS NO OPINION WITH REGARD TO THE ACCURACY OF THE SANCHEZ AND ZEMUDIO DISCUSSIONS, WHICH EXPRESS THE OPINION OF PLAINTIFFS COUNSEL ALONE. RAMIREZ I (RAMIREZ V. MANPOWER, INC., MONTEREY COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, CASE NO. M121885) AND RAMIREZ II (RAMIREZ V. MANPOWER, INC./CALIFORNIA PENINSULA, MONTEREY COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, CASE NO. M122728) CLASS NOTICE - PAGE 3 OF 8

4 Ramirez I and Ramirez II were class action lawsuits alleging the same claims as the claims asserted in this action: Mata, et al v. Manpower, Inc./California Peninsula, et al., United States District Court, Northern District of California, Case No. 5:14-cv LHK ( Action ). Ramirez I was filed against Manpower Inc. and Ramirez II was filed about eight weeks later against Manpower Inc./California Peninsula ( MICP ) after it was discovered that MICP had been incorporated separately from Manpower Inc. The cases were ultimately removed to federal court and consolidated into a single case: Ramirez v. Manpower, Inc., United State District Court, Northern District of California Case, No. 5:13-cv EJD. Patricia Ramirez, the class representative in the consolidated Ramirez cases, filed for bankruptcy protection and received a discharge while the cases were pending. Because she neglected to comply with bankruptcy rules requiring her to disclose these lawsuits in her bankruptcy proceeding she lost the ability to continue with the consolidated Ramirez cases. The cases were therefore terminated by the court. Upon learning that Ms. Ramirez had completed a bankruptcy proceeding without disclosing her interest in the consolidated Ramirez cases, her attorneys prepared for the eventual termination of the Ramirez cases by filing this Action, which asserts the same claims as those alleged in the consolidated Ramirez cases. Those who are class members under the Mata settlement also would have been class members in the consolidated Ramirez cases. The Ramirez cases and this Action do not have a negative effect on one another. The importance of the Ramirez cases is that they allow some of the claims in this Action to incorporate the time periods covered by the Ramirez cases. Because of the similarities between the claims asserted in this Action and those asserted in the Ramirez cases, the Mata Plaintiffs were allowed to calculate the time periods for which claims could be included in the lawsuit by counting backward from the date the Ramirez cases were filed, thereby allowing the Mata Plaintiffs to include approximately 15 more months in their claim periods than would have normally been allowed. Bottom Line Effect of this Settlement on the Claims in the Ramirez I case: This settlement will have no negative effect on claims in Ramirez I. WILLNER I (WILLNER V. MANPOWER INC., UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, NORTHERN DISTRICT, CASE NO. 11-CV-2846-JST) AND WILLNER II (PADILLA V. WILLNER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, NORTHERN DISTRICT, CASE NO. 15-CV-4866-JST) Willner I was a class action against Manpower Inc. alleging, among other things, that the itemized wage statements Manpower Inc. provided to temporary workers did not identify the complete name and address of the employer and failed to list the beginning date of the pay period. Willner I also claimed that Manpower, Inc. was subject to penalties because it failed to deliver paychecks within the time required by law. Ruling on pretrial motions, the court agreed with the plaintiff in Willner I with regard to the wage statement claims, but disagreed with her regarding the timeliness of paychecks. The case ultimately settled. The settlement agreement that resolved Willner I gave rise to two disputes in this Action. The first dispute arose from the Mata Plaintiffs argument that the claims period in this Action should be enlarged to include the claims period at issue in Willner I, in the same way that the Mata claims periods were enlarged to include the periods covered by the Ramirez cases. The Court rejected the Mata Plaintiffs argument on this point. The second dispute arose from Defendants argument that the Willner I settlement agreement barred the Mata Plaintiffs claim for waiting time penalties under Labor Code section 203. The Court disagreed with Defendants argument. Consequently, Mata and Willner I had no positive or negative effect on each other. While the Mata Plaintiffs and Defendants were litigating the two disputes arising from the Willner I settlement agreement, the Mata Plaintiffs filed a special lawsuit claiming that the Willner I settlement agreement should be voided or modified to ensure that it would not negatively affect the claims in this Action. This lawsuit also asked the court to rule that the Willner I settlement class must include those class members in this Action who suffered the same types of errors in their wage statements as those which were the subject of the Willner I lawsuit. This special lawsuit challenging the Willner I settlement agreement is referred to as Willner II. The court ruled in Willner II that the plaintiffs were not entitled to void or modify the Willner I settlement and could not add any of the class members in this Action to the Willner I settlement. The Mata Plaintiffs filed an appeal challenging this ruling. The settlement in this Action has no effect on Willner I, as the Willner I settlement is final and will remain undisturbed under the terms of the Mata settlement. The Mata settlement will have a negative effect on Willner II, as it specifies that the appeal currently pending will be dismissed. By dismissing Willner II, the proposed agreement eliminates any possibility of the settlement in Willner I being reopened. CLASS NOTICE - PAGE 4 OF 8

5 Bottom Line Effect of this Settlement on the Claims in the Willner I case: This settlement will have no negative effect on claims in the Willner I case. In fact, this settlement will ensure that nothing about the Mata case will negatively impact the claims in Willner I. Bottom Line Effect of this Settlement on the Claims in the Willner II case: This settlement will negatively impact the claims in the Willner II case. It dismisses the appeal in Willner II, making the dismissal in Willner II permanent and irreversible. STIMPSON (STIMPSON V. MANPOWER US INC., UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, CASE NO. 3:15-CV GPC-JMA) Stimpson is currently pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. Though Manpower U.S. Inc. was originally a defendant in Stimpson, it has been dismissed and is no longer a party to the case. The only defendant in Stimpson is CPM LTD (d/b/a Manpower, Manpower of San Diego and Manpower Temporary Services), a Manpower franchisee. Stimpson alleges claims similar to those involved in this Action and covers much of the same time periods. But Stimpson and this Action have no effect on each other. The settlement class in this Action specifically excludes workers employed by Defendants franchisees and the language of the settlement agreement specifically excludes any application to Manpower franchisees. Since the only defendant being sued in Stimpson is a franchisee of Defendants, the Mata settlement will have no effect on claims being pursued in Stimpson. Bottom Line Effect of this Settlement on the Claims in the Stimpson case: This settlement will have no effect on the claims pending in Stimpson. SANCHEZ (SANCHEZ V. KEURIG GREEN MOUNTAIN, INC., UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, CASE NO. 5:15-CV EJD) Sanchez is a class action lawsuit alleging that employees of Keurig Green Mountain, Inc. ( Keurig ) were not paid for time associated with mandatory pre-employment orientations and pre-employment performance tests. No Manpower entity has been named as a defendant in Sanchez. But, temporary service employees supplied by Manpower are excluded from Sanchez s proposed class. There is a motion currently pending that would eliminate Manpower CP employees from the class in the Sanchez case. The settlement in Mata will have no negative impact on the claims asserted in Sanchez because Mata class members are not members of the Sanchez class and because Keurig is not being released under the terms of the Mata settlement. Therefore, the Mata settlement will not reduce Keurig s liability to the class members in Sanchez. Bottom Line Effect of this Settlement on the Claims in the Sanchez case: This settlement will have no negative effect on the claims pending in Sanchez. RICO (RICO V. MANPOWER, INC./CALIFORNIA PENINSULA, MONTEREY SUPERIOR COURT, CASE NO. M129042) Rico is a class action lawsuit alleging that Manpower employees assigned to work at Dole Food Company, Inc. s Camphora Road facility in Soledad, California were not paid for time spent donning and doffing required clothing and personal protective equipment before clocking in for their shifts and after clocking out from their shifts. The putative class members in Rico were members of the class in an earlier lawsuit entitled Zemudio v. Dole Food Company, Inc., Monterey County Superior Court, Case No. M ( Zemudio ). In Zemudio, meal period, rest period, and donning and doffing unpaid wage claims arising at Dole s Camphora Road facility in Soledad, California, were alleged against Dole. Zemudio also sought an award of waiting time penalties under Labor Code section 203. Rico was filed because it was believed that the separate time-keeping system used by Manpower employees resulted in a greater loss of wage to Manpower employees than was suffered by those directly employed by Dole, who used a different time system. Rico is intended to recover the difference for Manpower employees. The impact of the settlement in this Action is described in paragraph 40 below, which states in relevant part: The Parties acknowledge and agree that the settlement shall be effective as a full and final accord and satisfaction and settlement of, and as a bar to, each and every claim that has been alleged or could have been alleged against Defendants arising out of the facts, circumstances, causes of action, and primary rights alleged in the Action. But, the Parties acknowledge and agree that the donning and doffing claim in [Rico] [is] not being released as part of this settlement. However, the Parties further acknowledge and agree that they are not carving out any penalties derivative of the claims resolved in the Action. CLASS NOTICE - PAGE 5 OF 8

6 As Mata settles waiting time, wage statement and PAGA penalty claims, which are sought in Rico, those penalties cannot be recovered in Rico. With respect to such penalties, Plaintiffs counsel notes that the Rico class members already received one payment for such penalties as part of the Zemudio settlement and that amount was approved by the court as fair for the violations occurring at Dole s Camphora Road facility. The payment that will be made in Mata for waiting time, wage statement and PAGA penalties will be the second payment to Rico class members for such penalties. Bottom Line Effect of this Settlement on the Claims in the Rico case: This settlement will negatively affect the claims pending in Rico. While Rico class members may still recover unpaid wages, they may not recover penalties in the Rico case because those penalties are being settled in this case. MARTINEZ (MARTINEZ V. HARMONY FOODS (SANTA CRUZ SUPERIOR COURT, CASE NO. CV177053) Martinez is a class action lawsuit seeking penalties from Harmony Foods and Manpower for meal and rest period violations. Since no meal and rest period claims were alleged in the Mata lawsuit, the Mata settlement has no negative impact on those claims pending on Martinez. The impact of the settlement in this Action is described in paragraph 40 below, which states in relevant part: The Parties acknowledge and agree that the settlement shall be effective as a full and final accord and satisfaction and settlement of, and as a bar to, each and every claim that has been alleged or could have been alleged against Defendants arising out of the facts, circumstances, causes of action, and primary rights alleged in the Action. But, the Parties acknowledge and agree that the meal and rest period claims in Martinez are not being released as part of this settlement. However, the Parties further acknowledge and agree that they are not carving out any penalties derivative of the claims resolved in the Action. As Mata settles waiting time, wage statement, and PAGA penalty claims, which are sought in Martinez, those penalties cannot be recovered in Martinez. Bottom Line Effect of this Settlement on the Claims in the Martinez case: This settlement will negatively affect the claims pending in Martinez. While Martinez class members may still recover unpaid wages, they may not recover penalties because those penalties are being settled in this case. RELEVANT CLASS PERIODS The class periods in this Action are as follows: April 12, 2009 through September 8, 2016 for associates of Manpower, Inc./California Peninsula, and from February 13, 2009 through September 8, 2016 for associates of Manpower Inc., ManpowerGroup Inc., and ManpowerGroup US Inc. The class periods in this Action are based on the filing date of Ramirez I and Ramirez II, and thus the class periods on this Action and the Ramirez cases are coextensive. The class period for Willner I was March 17, 2010 through January 20, As noted above, the Willner I court approved final settlement in that action on June 22, Willner II was filed on October 22, 2015 against Manpower Inc. and Vera Willner. The court granted the defendants separate motions to dismiss on March 7, The Willner II plaintiffs appealed the March 7, 2016 order, and the appeal is currently pending. However, as discussed above, Willner II would be resolved as part of this settlement. Martinez was filed on May 31, 2013, and the class period for that action is May 31, 2009 through judgment. Rico was filed on August 27, 2014, and the class period for that action is March August 27, 2010 through judgment. Sanchez was filed on July 14, 2015, and the class period for that action is July 14, 2011 through judgment. Stimpson was filed on March 12, 2015, and the class period for that action is March 12, 2011 through judgment. The class periods in this Action are inclusive of all the above-discussed case s class periods, with the exception of Zemudio (December 26, 2008 through May 31, 2014). However, Zemudio was resolved on March 6, 2016, when the Zemudio court approved settlement of all wage and hour claims involving the class members. That settlement is final and no appeal is pending. As such, there are no outstanding class periods. CLASS NOTICE - PAGE 6 OF 8

7 10. How can I opt out of this settlement? You can opt out of this settlement and retain your rights. To do so, you must prepare and submit in writing your signed and dated statement that you want to be excluded from the settlement. You will have 45 days from the date of mailing of this Class Notice to do so. Your written statement must be mailed to the Settlement Administrator, CPT Group, Inc., Aston, Irvine, California and be postmarked no later than April 13, 2017, or it will not be considered and you will be bound by the settlement. 11. Do I have a lawyer in this case? The Court has appointed B. James Fitzpatrick and Charles Swanston and FITZPATRICK, SPINI & SWANSTON, 555 S. Main Street, Salinas, California 93901, telephone (831) , and Patrick D. Toole and WANGER JONES HELSLEY PC, 265 E. River Park Circle, Suite 310, Fresno, California 93720, telephone (559) , to represent you and other Class Members in the Lawsuit. These lawyers are called Class Counsel. They will be compensated from the Total Settlement Amount as discussed in this Class Notice. If you want to be represented by your own lawyer, you may hire one at your own expense. 12. How will the lawyers be paid? Class Counsel will ask the Court to award them fees up to 25% of the Total Settlement Amount. Class Counsel will also ask the Court to award them costs incurred in connection with the Lawsuit. The Court may choose to award less than the amount requested by Class Counsel. 13. How do I tell the Court that I do not like the settlement? You can ask the Court to deny approval of the proposed settlement by mailing an objection to the Class Administrator. If the Court denies approval of the proposed settlement, no settlement payments will be sent out pursuant to this Settlement Agreement, and the lawsuit will continue until it is resolved either through settlement, trial, or a judgment issued by the Court. If that is what you want to happen, you must object. Any objection must (a) clearly identify the case name and number (Mata et al. v. Manpower, Inc./California Peninsula, Case No. 5:14-cv-03787), (b) be submitted to the Court by mailing them to the CPT Group Inc., located at Aston Street, Irvine, CA 92606, and (c) must be postmarked on or before April 13, Please use the Objection Form attached to this Proposed Notice if you wish to file an objection. To exclude yourself from the settlement, you must opt out of the settlement and follow the directions described above in Question 10. Please note that you cannot both object to the settlement and exclude yourself. You may also appear at the Final Approval hearing, either in person or through your own attorney. If you appear through your own attorney, you are responsible for paying that attorney. You are not required to appear at the Final Approval Hearing. 14. When and where will the Court decide whether to approve the settlement? The Court will hold a fairness hearing May 11, 2017 at 1:30 PM at the United States District Court, Northern District of California, Courtroom 8, located at 280 S 1st St, San Jose, California At this hearing, the Court will consider whether the settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate. The Court will consider all timely written objections. The Court will listen to people who have asked to speak at the hearing. The Court may also decide how much to pay to Class Counsel. At or after the hearing, the Court will decide whether to approve the settlement. We do not know how long this decision will take. 15. Do I have to come to the hearing? No. Class Counsel will answer any questions that the Court may have. But, you are welcome to come at your own expense. If you sent an objection, you do not have to come to Court to talk about it. As long as you mailed your written objection on time, the Court will consider it. You may also pay your own lawyer to attend, but it is not required. CLASS NOTICE - PAGE 7 OF 8

8 16. May I speak at the hearing? You may ask the Court for permission to speak at the fairness hearing. To do so, you must send a letter stating that it is your Notice of Intention to Appear in the settlement. Be sure to include your name, address, and telephone number. Your Notice of Intention to Appear must be postmarked no later than April 13, 2017, and be sent to the Settlement Administrator, CPT Group, Inc., located at Aston Street, Irvine, CA What happens if I do nothing at all? You will participate in the settlement. You will be bound by the release as set forth herein. The Class Members shall have 180 calendar days to cash their settlement checks. Checks allocated to Class Members who cannot be located during the notice process shall be cancelled by the Claims Administrator and promptly place the funds in a Reserve Fund to be used to pay amounts allocated to Class Members who cannot be located within the time provided, but who are later located up to six months after the Effective Date, and who are otherwise qualified for such payment. All payments made from the Reserve Fund shall be made as soon as practicable after the Class Members are located. Any funds remaining in the Reserve Fund after six months and any remaining funds from uncashed checks shall be distributed to the California Department of Industrial Relations. GETTING MORE INFORMATION This Class Notice summarizes the proposed settlement. All questions and comments regarding this settlement should be directed to Class Counsel and the Settlement Administrator. The Settlement Administrator has setup a website which has links to this Class Notice and other documents related to the proposed settlement, including the Joint Stipulation of Class Settlement. The website is: You may call or contact Class Counsel or the Settlement Administrator if you would like more information about the case. You may call or write the Settlement Administrator, CPT Group, Inc., located at Aston, Irvine, California You may call or write to Class Counsel, Fitzpatrick, Spini & Swanston, located at 555 S. Main Street, Salinas, California You may call or write to Class Counsel, Wanger Jones Helsley PC, located at 265 E. River Park Cir., Suite 310, Fresno, California To review any additional case documents not available on the Settlement Administrator s website, you may also access the Court's Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) system at or by visiting the office of the Clerk of the Court for the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, located at 280 S 1st St, San Jose, California 95113, between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Court holidays. PLEASE DO NOT TELEPHONE THE COURT OR THE COURT CLERK'S OFFICE TO INQUIRE ABOUT THIS SETTLEMENT OR THE CLAIM PROCESS. CLASS NOTICE - PAGE 8 OF 8