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 Box Ventura, CA 00- Telephone: (0) - Facsimile: (0) - E-mail: agutierrez@hathawaylawfirm.com Daniel J. Palay, SBN Michael A. Strauss, SBN Brian D. Hefelfinger, SBN 0 STRAUSS & PALAY, PAC N. Fir Street, Suite F Ventura, CA 00 Telephone:(0) -00 Facsimile: (0) -0 E-mail: mike@strausslawyers.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Certified Class UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION JOHN MARTINO, an individual; for himself and those similarly situated; ADONIS AMOROSO, for himself and those similarly situated; and ROES through 0,000 and the proposed class, Plaintiff, CASE NO: :-cv-0-vc CLASS ACTION DECLARATION OF BRIAN D. HEFELFINGER IN SUPPORT OF UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF ATTORNEY'S FEES AND COSTS vs. ECOLAB INC., a Delaware Corporation; and DOES through 00, inclusive, Defendants. Final Approval Hearing: Date: January, 0 Time 0:00 a.m. Crtrm:, th Floor Hon. Vince Chhabria FEES AND COSTS :-cv-0-vc
Case :-cv-0-vc Document - Filed // Page of DECLARATION OF BRIAN D. HEFELFINGER I, Brian D. Hefelfinger, declare as follows:. I am an attorney at law qualified to practice before the state and federal courts in California. I am one of the attorneys of record for Plaintiffs and Class Counsel for the certified class in the aboveentitled action. I have personal knowledge of the facts stated in this declaration and if called upon, I would and could testify competently thereto. I make this declaration in support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of Attorney's Fees and in support of Plaintiffs' Supplemental Memorandum relating to Class Counsel's lodestar.. I have reviewed the concurrently filed Supplemental Declaration of Alejandro P. Gutierrez in support of the Supplemental Memorandum relating to Class Counsel's lodestar information, as well as Mr. Gutierrez's Declaration in support of the Motion for Final Approval of Attorney's Fees and Costs. All of Mr. Gutierrez's explanations as to the effort expended by our two firms are true and correct. To avoid redundancy, I incorporate herein by this reference the factual narrative of the litigation events in this matter. Mr. Gutierrez and I have co-counseled this case for over two years. The stakes were high, and Ecolab's defense of this case was vigorous, requiring substantial effort by myself and my colleagues. This was the case from day one and continued through the date we came to a settlement at the mediation session between the parties.. I became actively involved in this matter as one of the firm's attorneys assisting the Plaintiffs in June 0. I have been actively working on this matter continuously since that time. My efforts on behalf of the class from June 0 are set forth below.. This class action has, from the outset, been challenging and complex. Over two years of firm time and resources have been spent representing the class of workers. Based upon the amount of work necessary to represent the class, responsibilities were divided between two () law firms to perform the tasks required, as set forth in the concurrently filed declarations of Alejandro Gutierrez, Michael Strauss, and Daniel Palay. Together, Class Counsel expended considerable efforts in the prosecution of this action. / / / / / /
Case :-cv-0-vc Document - Filed // Page of 0 0. Ecolab was represented in this litigation by a major law firm, Littler Mendelson PC. Littler Mendelson advertises itself as the largest U.S.-based law firm exclusively devoted to representing management in employment matters with more than 0 U.S. and global offices.. All of the work I performed on the case during the past two and a half years has been done in the manner most efficient and appropriate to the circumstances. I, and other Class Counsel, made every effort to litigate this case efficiently by apportioning tasks to reduce duplication of effort, while communicating regularly about strategy and tactics.. In the course of litigating the case, I have been involved in the investigation of Plaintiffs' claims, written discovery, class certification, opposing Ecolab's motion for certification of appeal, drafting Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of the class action settlement, drafting Plaintiffs' final approval of the class action settlement, defending class member depositions, case management, arguing at hearings, and communicating with Class Members and named Plaintiffs.. I was heavily involved in the preparation of damages modeling calculations in this matter, which required compiling substantial amounts of data pertaining to the class members' employment, and then the application of several mathematical models to the data using Microsoft Excel and other programs, all as part of determining the various components of damages in the case. I have some background in mathematics and engineering which was put to use in this case as part of the damages modeling.. In this matter, I also was involved in settlement discussions and strategy, both within the team of the Class Counsel attorneys and also as part of negotiations with Ecolab's counsel. I attended the mediation in this matter. In relation to the briefing tasks allocated to my firm, I spent many hours researching legal issues regarding the presentation of damages evidence at trial and the exemptions that Ecolab was asserting. 0. I have been an attorney since 00. Since then, I have been involved in litigating multiple class action cases. I joined the Strauss & Palay law firm in 0. Strauss & Palay, APC (previously the Palay Law Firm, and also McTague & Palay) has a strong emphasis in employeerelated litigation on a class-wide basis. / / /
Case :-cv-0-vc Document - Filed // Page of. Strauss & Palay has resolved numerous class action matters. All of these class action cases have involved employee-related wage claims, including those similar to the causes of action as presented in this matter. Examples in which my law firm has represented or currently represents class members include: Alameda County Superior Court case Britto v. Alliance Environmental Group, VG- 0; Kern County Superior Court cases Calvillo v. Diamond Well Service, S-00-CV ; Candete v. Cummings Transportation Service, S-00-CV 0; Carter v. B&L Tongs, LLC, S- 00-CV- SPC; and Gutierrez v. Halliburton Energy Services, Inc., S-00-CV- SPC; Los Angeles County Superior Court case Henson v. Searles Valley Minerals Operations, Inc., BC00; San Francisco Superior Court case Icard v. Ecolab, Inc., CGC-0- (removed as N.D. Case No. -cv-00-pjh); Solano County Superior Court case Kenton v. PGD, FCS 0; and Ventura County Superior Court cases Bautista v. Alliance Environmental Group, -00-00-CU-0E-VTA; Barragan v. Republic Drilling Co., -00-00-CU-OE-VTA; Cortez v. Pool California Energy Services, Inc., CIV ; Gonzalez v. Key Energy Services, Inc., CIV ; Hemosillo v. Kenai Drilling, Ltd., CIV 0; Hiriarte v. Weatherford U.S., L.P., CIV ; Howe v. BTC Laboratories, Inc., CIV ; Roe v. Ecolab, Inc., CIV ; Vasquez v. DCH (Oxnard) Inc., CIV 0; Ladore v. Ecolab, Inc., Case No. :-cv- 0 (FMO); Sean Pagel v. Dairy Farmers of America, Inc., C.D. Cal. Case No. -cv-0-svw-vbk; Zavala v. Resource Staffing, Inc. et al, Kern County Case No. S-00-CV- LHB.. Prior to joining the firm, I was an associate attorney at Nordman Cormany Hair & Compton LLP, a comprehensive civil litigation firm in Ventura County, California. For the last several years, I have spent 0% of my time handling employment cases on behalf of employees-only. I dedicate my practice to representing employees in mostly wage-and-hour and related disputes.. I received an undergraduate degree from California Institute of Technology in 00. I received my law degree from Pepperdine University School of Law in May of 00. I was admitted to the California Bar in December 00. Since my admission to the Bar, I have always practiced civil litigation, including employment litigation. I am admitted to practice before all courts within California, including the District Courts of all four districts. I also am admitted and have appeared before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Case :-cv-0-vc Document - Filed // Page of 0 0. I have represented many plaintiffs in employment law matters, and also have been appointed as Class Counsel in several wage-and-hour class actions. I have been involved in the local community and bar associations, and have been named as a Southern California Rising Star (Employment Litigation Plaintiffs) by Super Lawyers magazine every year since 0.. I have worked closely on this case for about two and a half years, beginning in June 0. Since that time, I have participated in all phases of the litigation, as set forth herein. The Settlement Agreement was the result of hard fought and lengthy negotiations between Plaintiffs and Ecolab.. I have a thorough understanding of the factual and legal issues involved in this case, as well as the relative strengths and weaknesses of Plaintiffs' claims. After careful and extensive review and analysis of the legal and factual issues and the evidence gathered in this case, I believe that the Settlement Agreement is fair, adequate, and reasonable and in the best interests of the Class members.. This matter has required the firm, and myself, to spend significant amounts of time on this litigation that could have been spent on other matters. At various times during the litigation of this class action, this lawsuit has consumed my time, along with the time of various attorneys over the years. Such time could otherwise have been spent on other fee-generating work.. During this matter, Strauss & Palay used timekeeping software called "Harvest." It has been our general practice to record our legal tasks in tenth of an hour increments, contemporaneously as the work is done, in both Harvest and in prior timekeeping systems.. My current hourly rate is at least $0.00 per hour in complex litigation matters like the instant case. My hourly rate is supported my own (and the firm's) extensive and specialized experience in class wage and hour cases and recognized expertise. It is also supported by rate determinations in federal court matters within California. See Monaghan v. Telecom Italia Sparkle of North America, Inc., No. CV -0 ABC (PLAx) (C.D. Cal. July 0, 0), Dkt. No. (two years ago, court awarded me my fees in an employment action at the rate of $0 per hour). 0. In providing this declaration to the Court, I have attempted to review all of the work I performed in this case including all emails, pleadings, discovery, correspondence, my own billing entries, physical and electronic files in the matter, and the billing records of my co-counsel. During
Case :-cv-0-vc Document - Filed // Page of 0 0 the past two years, I fielded many, many phone calls from class members to answer questions in the case. While in aggregate, these phone calls amount to many hours of time spent, I often did not record conversations that were de minimis (i.e., updating class members as to the case status, or answering simple questions). However, the hours I have recorded in the matter and listed for my services in Exhibit A attached to the Strauss Declaration are true and accurate, and based upon my review of the available records.. All of the time I put in the case (as organized by category in Exhibit A to Strauss Decl.) was reasonable and necessary given the highly contested nature of the case. In this case, every effort to reduce attorney's fees by assigning work to the lowest billing timekeepers where feasible. For example, work was assigned to associates when available.. Remuneration for the time my firm has spent on this case has always been completely contingent on the outcome of this action. Our firm has not been paid for any of the time spent on the action over the past several years.. I and my co-counsel spent considerably more time on this case than is reflected in the time compilations and billings. For example, co-counsel and I frequently discussed aspects of the case or strategy matters, but did not always record each and every discussion, phone call or text about the case. Thousands of e-mails were sent or responded to in this matter, all as part of keeping class members and co-counsel informed as to the key aspects of the case. Further, I and the other Class Counsel attorneys often reduced the actual time recorded in the exercise of billing judgment (e.g., if a research task took longer than it "should have").. I expect that the firm will spend more time on this case in the future. The current fee application only includes time through December, 0, and does not include all time spent preparing for and filing this application and preparing for and attending the final approval hearing. These activities will likely include communicating with class members who contact us regarding the court's approval of the settlement.. Even after this settlement is finally approved, we are likely to continue work on this case without compensation by communicating with class members about Ecolab's compliance with the terms of the Settlement, disbursement questions, and other matters.
Case :-cv-0-vc Document - Filed // Page of. In litigating this matter, class counsel Strauss & Palay APC expended significant costs. These expenditures are listed in Exhibit B to the Strauss Declaration. All of the costs incurred by the firm were necessary and reasonable to prosecuting this matter effectively and efficiently on behalf of the class. The Settlement Agreement in this matter provides that the firm shall be reimbursed for these costs, and therefore we respectfully ask the Court to order such reimbursement pursuant to the settlement terms. 0 I declare under penalty of perjury and under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this th day of December, 0, at Ventura, California /s/ Brian D. Hefelfinger 0