Mtn for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement - CPT Group

Loading...
Case 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Document 59 Filed 12/14/15 Page 1 of 26 Page ID #:1070

1 Raymond P. Boucher, State Bar No. 115364 [email protected] 2 Shehnaz M. Bhujwala, State Bar No. 223484 [email protected] 3 Brandon K. Brouillette, State Bar No. 273156 [email protected] 4 BOUCHER LLP 21600 Oxnard Street, Suite 600 5 Woodland Hills, California 91367-4903 Tel: (818) 340-5400 6 Fax: (818) 340-5401

21600 Oxnard Street, Suite 600 Woodland Hills, California 91367-4903

7 Sahag Majarian, II, State Bar No. 146621 [email protected] 8 LAW OFFICES OF SAHAG MAJARIAN II 18250 Ventura Boulevard 9 Tarzana, California 91356 Tel: (818) 609-0807 10 Fax: (818) 609-0892 11 Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Class 12 13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

14

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, WESTERN DIVISION

15 BERTA MARTIN DEL CAMPO, Individually and On Behalf of All 16 Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff,

17 18

v.

19 HOMETOWN BUFFET, INC., a Minnesota Corporation; OCB 20 RESTAURANT COMPANY, LLC, a Minnesota Limited Liability Company; 21 OVATION BRANDS, INC.; and DOES 1-50, Inclusive, 22 Defendants. 23

Case No. 2:14-cv-04378 (RGK) SHx CLASS ACTION PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF Date: January 11, 2016 Time: 9:00 A.M. Crtrm.: 850 (Roybal)

24

Assigned to the Hon. R. Gary Klausner and to Magistrate Stephen J. Hillman for Discovery Matters

25

Trial Date:

June 14, 2016

26 27 28 Case No. 2:14-cv-04378 (RGK) SHx PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

Case 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Document 59 Filed 12/14/15 Page 2 of 26 Page ID #:1071

1

TO THE HONORABLE COURT, ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL

2 OF RECORD IN THIS CASE: 3

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT, on January 11, 2016, at 9:00 A.M., in

4 Courtroom 850 of the United States District Court for the Central District of 5 California, Western Division, located at the Edward R. Roybal Federal Building and 6 United States Courthouse, 255 East Temple Street, Los Angeles, California 90012, 7 Plaintiff Berta Martin Del Campo (“Plaintiff”) will move for entry of an order 8 granting final approval of the proposed class action settlement reached by the parties 9 herein. Good cause exists for granting the Motion because the proposed settlement

21600 Oxnard Street, Suite 600 Woodland Hills, California 91367-4903

10 is fair, reasonable, and adequate. Plaintiff specifically requests the following orders: 11

1.

Granting final approval of the proposed class action settlement, as set

12 forth in the Joint Stipulation Re: Class Action Settlement and Release 13 (“Stipulation”), a true and correct copy of which is attached to the Declaration of 14 Raymond P. Boucher as Exhibit 1, pursuant to Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of 15 Civil Procedure; 16

2.

Granting final certification of the following class for settlement

17 purposes pursuant to Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. All current and former non-exempt, non-managerial employees employed by defendants Hometown Buffet, Inc. and OCB Restaurant Company, LLC in California at any time between July 19, 2012 and March 31, 2015 (“Class”);

18 19 20 21

3.

Appointing Plaintiff as Class Representative for settlement purposes;

22

4.

Appointing the law firms of Boucher, LLP, and Law Offices of Sahag

23 Majarian II as Class Counsel for settlement purposes; 24

5.

Entering final judgment in the form of the proposed final approval

25 order filed herewith. 26

The Motion is based on this Notice of Motion, the Memorandum of Points

27 and Authorities, the Declarations of Plaintiff, Raymond P. Boucher, Sahag Majarian 28 II, and Tim Cunningham of CPT Group, Inc. and exhibits thereto, and such oral and Case No. 2:14-cv-04378 (RGK) SHx 1 PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

Case 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Document 59 Filed 12/14/15 Page 3 of 26 Page ID #:1072

1 documentary evidence as may be presented at the hearing on the Motion or 2 otherwise ordered by the Court, as well as all other pleadings and papers filed with 3 the Court to date. 4

This Motion is unopposed by Defendants Hometown Buffet, Inc. and OCB

5 Restaurant Company (“Defendants”). Plaintiff’s counsel substantially complied with 6 Central District of California Local Rule 7-3 by communicating with counsel for 7 Defendants regarding the filing of the instant Motion and its contents on numerous 8 occasions prior to its filing, including on December 7, 2015, and providing the 9 Motion for review prior to filing.

21600 Oxnard Street, Suite 600 Woodland Hills, California 91367-4903

10 11 DATED: December 14, 2015 12

Respectfully submitted, BOUCHER LLP

13 14 15 16

By:

/s/ Raymond P. Boucher RAYMOND P. BOUCHER SHEHNAZ M. BHUJWALA BRANDON K. BROUILLETTE

17 18 19 20

LAW OFFICES OF SAHAG MAJARIAN II SAHAG MAJARIAN II Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Class

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case No. 2:14-cv-04378 (RGK) SHx 2 PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

Case 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Document 59 Filed 12/14/15 Page 4 of 26 Page ID #:1073

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1

Page

21600 Oxnard Street, Suite 600 Woodland Hills, California 91367-4903

2 3 I. 

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 1 

4 II. 

BACKGROUND ............................................................................................... 2 

5 III. 

THE SETTLEMENT ........................................................................................ 4 

6

A. 

Definition of the Proposed Class ............................................................ 4 

7

B. 

Settlement Terms .................................................................................... 4 

8

C. 

Release .................................................................................................... 7 

9

D. 

Class Notice, Claim Form, Opt-Out and Objection Rights .................... 7 

10

E. 

Class Response to Proposed Settlement ................................................. 9 

11 IV. 

THE COURT SHOULD GRANT FINAL APPROVAL OF THE SETTLEMENT. ................................................................................................ 9 

12

A. 

The Strength of Plaintiff’s Case ............................................................ 11 

B. 

The Risks, Expense, Complexity, and Duration of Further Litigation ............................................................................................... 14 

15

C. 

The Risk of Maintaining Class Action Status Throughout Trial .......... 15 

16

D. 

The Amount Offered in Settlement....................................................... 16 

17

E. 

Sufficient Discovery and Investigation Was Completed to Warrant Settlement. .............................................................................. 17 

F. 

Plaintiff’s Counsel is Experienced and Endorses This Settlement. ...... 18 

G. 

Presence of a Governmental Participant ............................................... 18 

H. 

Reaction of the Class to the Proposed Settlement ................................ 18 

13 14

18 19 20 21 22

V. 

THE PROVISIONAL CERTIFICATION OF THE CLASS FOR SETTLEMENT PURPOSES SHOULD BE MADE FINAL. ........................ 19 

23 VI. 

THE PROPOSED NOTICE TO CLASS MEMBERS IS ADEQUATE. ....... 20 

24 VII.  CONCLUSION ............................................................................................... 20  25 26 27 28 Case No. 2:14-cv-04378 (RGK) SHx i PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

Case 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Document 59 Filed 12/14/15 Page 5 of 26 Page ID #:1074

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

1

Page

2 3 4 5 6 7

CASES  Alonzo v. Maximus, Inc., 832 F.Supp.2d 1122 (C.D. Cal. 2011) .............................. 13 Churchill Vill., LLC v. Gen. Elec., 361 F.3d 566 (9th Cir. 2004) ....................... 11, 19 Dunk v. Ford Motor Company, 48 Cal.App.4th 1794 (1996) ..................................... 9 Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 417 U.S. 156 (1974) ................................................. 20

8

Fisher Bros. V. Cambridge-Lee Industries, Inc., 630 F.Supp. 482 (E.D. Pa. 1985) ................................................................................................................ 18 9

21600 Oxnard Street, Suite 600 Woodland Hills, California 91367-4903

10 Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 1998) .............................. 9, 10, 20 11 In re Heritage Bond Litig., 546 F.3d 667(9th Cir. 2009) ............................................ 9 12 In re Portal Software, Inc. Securities Litig., Case No. C-03-5138 VRW, 2007 WL 4171201 at *3 (N.D. Cal. November 26, 2007) ....................................... 15 13 In re Synocor ERISA Litig., 516 F.3d 1095 (9th Cir. 2008) ...................................... 10 14 In re Tableware Antitrust Litig., 484 F. Supp. 2d 1078 (N.D. Cal. 2007) ................ 16 15 Lazarin v. Pro Unlimited, Inc., Case No. C11-03609 HRL, 2013 WL 3541217 at *2 (N.D. Cal. July 11, 2013) ....................................................................... 18 16 17 Mendoza v. United States, 623 F.2d 1338 (9th Cir. 1980) .................................. 10, 20 18 Officers for Justice v. Civil Service Com., 688 F.2d 615 (9th Cir. 1982) ................... 9 19 Rodriguez v. West Publ’g Corp., 563 F.3d 948 (9th Cir. 2009) ................................ 17 20 Torrisi v. Tucson Elec. Power Co., 8 F.3d 1370 (9th Cir. 1993) .............................. 15 21 Vasquez v. Coast Valley Roofing, Inc., 670 F. Supp. 2d 1114 (E.D. Cal. 2009) ...... 16 22 Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (U.S. 2011)................................... 16 23 Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Visa U.S.A., 396 F.3d 96 (2nd Cir. 2005) .......................... 19 24 Washington v. Joe’s Crab Shack, 271 F.R.D. 629 (N.D. Cal. 2010) ........................ 12 25 26 STATUTES  27 28 U.S.C. § 1715........................................................................................................ 18 28 28 U.S.C. 1332(d) ........................................................................................................ 2 Case No. 2:14-cv-04378 (RGK) SHx ii PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

Case 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Document 59 Filed 12/14/15 Page 6 of 26 Page ID #:1075

1 California Labor Code section 2802 .......................................................................... 13 2 Labor Code section 226 ............................................................................................. 14 3 4 RULES  5 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, Rule 23............................................................ 16, 19 6 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 30(b)(6)......................................................... 2 7 8 TREATISES  9 Manual for Complex Litigation § 21.632 (4th ed. 2004) .......................................... 10

21600 Oxnard Street, Suite 600 Woodland Hills, California 91367-4903

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case No. 2:14-cv-04378 (RGK) SHx iii PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

Case 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Document 59 Filed 12/14/15 Page 7 of 26 Page ID #:1076

1

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

2 I.

INTRODUCTION

3

The Court should grant final approval of the proposed settlement of this

4 California wage and hour class action reached between Plaintiff Berta Martin Del 5 Campo (“Plaintiff”) and defendants Hometown Buffet, Inc. and OCB Restaurant 6 Company, LLC (“Defendants”) because it is fair, reasonable, and adequate. See 7 Exhibit 1 to Declaration of Raymond P. Boucher: Joint Stipulation Re: Class Action 8 Settlement and Release (“Stipulation”). Defendants do not oppose this Motion. 9

The proposed settlement resolves the claims alleged against Defendants in the

21600 Oxnard Street, Suite 600 Woodland Hills, California 91367-4903

10 First Amended Complaint (Dkt. 58), as well as claims that could have been alleged 11 based on the same set of facts, on behalf of all current and former non-exempt, non12 managerial employees employed Defendants in California at any time between July 13 19, 2012 and March 31, 2015 (“Class”) who have not sought exclusion. In exchange 14 for the release of claims, Defendants agree to pay a maximum of $2,000,000, 15 exclusive of Defendants’ payroll taxes. Following deductions for a proposed service 16 award, settlement administration costs, payment to the California Workforce 17 Development Agency (“LWDA”) for civil penalties under Private Attorney General 18 Act (“PAGA”), and reasonable attorney’s fees and costs awards to Class Counsel, 19 Class members who file claims will receive significant monetary payments. 20

The proposed settlement provides a substantial monetary benefit to the

21 estimated 2,583 Class members who submitted claims to date, with an average 22 settlement payout estimated to be $175.90 within a range that extends up to $386.21 23 based on the number of compensable workweeks. See Declaration of Tim 24 Cunningham, CPT Group, Inc. at ¶ 20. No Class member has objected to the 25 proposed settlement, and only 95 persons opted-out to date out of 12,291 members. 26 Id. The settlement is also fair and reasonable in light of the contested claims, the 27 risks of litigation, and the Defendants’ distressed financial condition as confirmed 28 through discovery following mediation. The proposed settlement results from Case No. 2:14-cv-04378 (RGK) SHx 1 PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

Case 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Document 59 Filed 12/14/15 Page 8 of 26 Page ID #:1077

1 aggressive, efficient litigation by Plaintiff and her co-counsel to obtain the best 2 possible result for Class members. It arises from mediated, arms-length negotiations 3 following investigation and discovery. As the Court indicated in its ruling granting 4 preliminary approval and conditionally certifying the Class, the proposed settlement 5 is “fair and reasonable on its face” and the “Class meets the requirements of Rule 6 23(a) and (b)” for settlement purposes (Dkt. 53.) The estimated 21.01% participation 7 rate is a fair and reasonable result for this large Class, with claimants taking 8 approximately $454,352.41 of the settlement monies to date. Cunningham Decl. at ¶

21600 Oxnard Street, Suite 600 Woodland Hills, California 91367-4903

9 20. According, final approval of the proposed settlement is appropriate. 10 II.

BACKGROUND

11

On March 11, 2014, Plaintiff filed a class action complaint against

12 Defendants in the Los Angeles Superior Court. Boucher Decl. ¶ 4. Plaintiff served 13 Defendant with the Summons and Complaint on May 9, 2014. Id. On June 6, 2014, 14 Defendants Hometown Buffet, Inc. and OCB Restaurant Company, LLC, removed 15 this case to the United States District Court for the Central District of California 16 based on federal jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 17 (“CAFA”), 28 U.S.C. 1332(d), and the case was assigned to Judge R. Gary 18 Klausner. Id. ¶ 5. On June 13, 2014, Defendants Hometown Buffet, Inc. and OCB 19 Restaurant Company, LLC answered the complaint (Dkt. 9) and, on July 8, 2014, 20 the parties stipulated to dismiss Defendant Ovation Brands, Inc. (Dkt. 17). Id. ¶ 6. 21 On July 7, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion for remand. Id. ¶ 7. Prior to the Court’s 22 ruling on the motion, Plaintiff served written discovery on Defendants and noticed a 23 deposition of Defendants’ Person(s) Most Qualified to Testify pursuant to Federal 24 Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 30(b)(6), which the parties agreed to continue in 25 light of the pending motion to remand. Id. ¶ 8. On August 6, 2014, the Court 26 remanded the case to state court. Id. ¶ 9. 27

Following the lifting of a stay imposed by the state court, the parties

28 commenced investigation of the claims and defenses alleged and agreed to an early Case No. 2:14-cv-04378 (RGK) SHx 2 PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

Case 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Document 59 Filed 12/14/15 Page 9 of 26 Page ID #:1078

1 mediation. Id. ¶ 10. In preparation for mediation, the parties exchanged information 2 and documents relating to the claims and defenses alleged, including the 3 Defendants’ employee handbook and a sampling of the time punch cards and payroll 4 records for eight of Defendants’ restaurant locations in California. Id. In total, 5 Defendants produced and Plaintiff reviewed over 13,000 pages of documents. Id. 6

On March 10, 2015, the parties participated in private mediation before

7 experienced employment class action mediator Mark Rudy. Id. ¶ 11 Although the 8 parties were unable to reach a settlement at the mediation, counsel for the parties 9 continued their settlement efforts with the continued assistance of Mr. Rudy, and

21600 Oxnard Street, Suite 600 Woodland Hills, California 91367-4903

10 reached agreement on material terms of the settlement on March 16, 2015. Id. 11

As part of the proposed settlement, the parties agreed to certain confirmatory

12 discovery, including discovery relating to Defendants’ financial condition. Id. ¶¶ 12, 13 24 and Exhibit 2. On May 14, 2015, a consultant retained by Plaintiff’s counsel 14 reviewed Defendants’ financials for purposes of validating statements made by 15 Defendants at mediation regarding their financial distress. Id. The parties agreed that 16 the discovery sufficiently established to Plaintiff’s counsel’s satisfaction that, in 17 light of Defendants’ distressed financial condition and taking into account all 18 relevant factors, present and potential, the proposed settlement was fair, adequate, 19 reasonable and beneficial to members of the proposed settlement class. Id. 20

On June 1, 2015, Defendants removed the action to federal court a second

21 time based on a discovery response by Plaintiff, which affirmed facts demonstrating 22 that the amount in controversy exceeded the requisite $5 million for CAFA 23 jurisdiction. Id. at ¶ 13. Upon removal, the case was assigned to this Court. Id. 24

After completion of confirmatory discovery and additional negotiations, the

25 parties entered into the Stipulation, which was fully executed and submitted to the 26 Court together with the Amended Joint Report on July 31, 2015. Id. at ¶ 15. 27

After Defendants’ second removal to federal court, Plaintiff conducted

28 written discovery to authenticate documents and obtain certain additional Case No. 2:14-cv-04378 (RGK) SHx 3 PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

Case 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Document 59 Filed 12/14/15 Page 10 of 26 Page ID #:1079

1 information necessary for class certification and timely filed the motion on August 2 31, 2015 (Dkt. 44) while Plaintiff’s preliminary approval motion (Dkt. 40) remained 3 under submission by the Court (Dkt. 43). Boucher Decl. ¶ 14. On September 14, 4 2015, the parties participated in a Scheduling Conference where pre-trial and trial5 related deadlines and dates were set. (Dkt. 51-52.) On September 15, 2015, the 6 Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary approval and conditional 7 certification (Dkt. 53), and the next day, set the final approval hearing for January 8 11, 2016, at 9:00 a.m. (Dkt. 54). On September 22, 2015, the Court granted the 9 parties’ stipulated request for leave to file a First Amended Complaint with a claim

21600 Oxnard Street, Suite 600 Woodland Hills, California 91367-4903

10 for PAGA (Dkt. 57), which Plaintiff filed on September 24, 2015 (Dkt. 58). 11 III.

THE SETTLEMENT

12

A.

13

The provisionally certified class consists of “all current and former non-

Definition of the Proposed Class

14 exempt, non-managerial employees employed by Hometown Buffet, Inc. and/or 15 OCB Restaurant Company, LLC (“Defendants”) in California at any time between 16 July 19, 2012 and March 31, 2015.1 Stip. at ¶ 1.9; see also September 15, 2015 17 Preliminary Approval Order (Dkt. 53). 18

B.

Settlement Terms

19

Under the proposed settlement, the claims of all Settlement Class Members

20 are to be released in exchange for Defendants’ payment up to Two Million Dollars 21 ($2,000,000), exclusive of Defendants’ corporate payroll tax obligations, into the 22 Maximum Settlement Fund (“MSF”). Stip. at ¶ 1.24. The MSF shall be deposited 23 into a Settlement Fund Account used to pay all Individual Settlement Payments to 24 25 26 27 28

1

The proposed Class Period is limited to July 19, 2012 per an order dated July 18, 2012 in Defendants’ voluntary Chapter 11 proceeding in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, Case No. 12-10237 (MFW), confirming the Second Amended Joint Plan for Reorganization, which discharged the Defendants from all debts arising on or before July 18, 2012 (effective date). The Class Period ends on March 31, 2015 per agreement. Stip. at ¶ 1.10. Case No. 2:14-cv-04378 (RGK) SHx 4 PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

Case 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Document 59 Filed 12/14/15 Page 11 of 26 Page ID #:1080

1 Settlement Class Members who submitted timely, valid Claim Forms, the proposed 2 Class Representative Settlement Award, Settlement Administration Costs, PAGA 3 payments to Settlement Class Members and to the LWDA, Settlement Class 4 Members’ share of employee payroll taxes on the portion of the Individual 5 Settlement Payments that constitutes wages, and Class Counsel’s proposed Fees and 6 Costs Awards. Id. at ¶¶ 1.22, 1.23, 1.24, 1.25, 1.38, 1.41, 3.13, 3.14, 3.15, 3.16, 7 3.17, 3.19. The MSF shall be allocated as follows: 8

Individual Settlement Payments. These payments will be made from the Net

9 Settlement Fund (“NSF”), which is the MSF less the proposed awards for Class

21600 Oxnard Street, Suite 600 Woodland Hills, California 91367-4903

10 Counsel Fees and Costs, the proposed Class Representative Service Award, the 11 proposed Settlement Administrator Costs, and the PAGA payment to the LWDA. 12 Stip. at ¶ 1.25. Individual Settlement Payments shall be distributed to Class 13 members who did not request exclusion (“Settlement Class Members”) and who 14 submit timely valid Claim Forms. Id. at ¶ 3.14. Each Settlement Class Member who 15 submitted a timely, valid Claim Form shall receive his/her respective share of the 16 NSF based on his/her Compensable Workweeks (the number of weeks worked by 17 Class members during the Class Period) less any legally mandated deductions for 18 employee-side payroll taxes or other required withholdings. Id. at ¶¶ 1.13, 3.14.1. 19 The Individual Settlement Payment will be calculated by first deriving a Payment 20 Ratio (total Compensable Workweeks of each Class member divided by the total 21 Compensable Workweeks for all Class members), then multiplying that Payment 22 Ratio to the NSF, then reducing that amount by taxes and other required 23 withholdings. Id. Individual Settlement Payments shall be allocated as follows: 24 thirty-three and a third percent (33.3%) as wages subject to all applicable tax 25 withholdings, thirty-three and a third percent (33.3% as interest), and thirty-three 26 and a third percent (33.3%) as penalties. Id. at ¶ 3.14. If an Individual Settlement 27 Payment check remains uncashed after 90 days from issuance, the amount 28 represented by the check will revert to Defendants. Id. 5

Case No. 2:14-cv-04378 (RGK) SHx PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

Case 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Document 59 Filed 12/14/15 Page 12 of 26 Page ID #:1081

1

Class Representative Service Award. Subject to Court approval, in exchange

2 for the release of the Released Claims, including a waiver of California Civil Code 3 section 1542, and for her time and effort in prosecuting this matter on behalf of the 4 proposed Cass, Plaintiff shall be paid a Class Representative Service Award not to 5 exceed Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000). Stip. at ¶ 3.15. Plaintiff’s request for a 6 $5,000 service award is addressed in the accompanying Motion for Attorneys’ Fees, 7 Costs and Service Award and is supported by Plaintiff’s declaration. 8

Class Counsel Fees and Costs Awards. Subject to Court approval, Class

9 Counsel shall be entitled to receive reasonable attorneys’ fees in an amount not to

21600 Oxnard Street, Suite 600 Woodland Hills, California 91367-4903

10 exceed twenty-five percent (25%) of the MSF, which amounts to Five Hundred 11 Thousand Dollars ($500,000), and reasonable costs associated with Class Counsel’s 12 prosecution of the case not to exceed Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00). 13 Stip. at ¶ 3.16. Plaintiff has submitted a detailed summary of fees and costs in the 14 accompanying Motion for Attorneys’ Fees, Costs, and Service Awards, as well as 15 the supporting declarations of Class Counsel, in support of their request for 16 attorneys’ fees in the amount of $500,000 and costs in the amount of $16,226.16. 17

Settlement Administration Costs. The Settlement Administrator shall be paid

18 from the MSF for Settlement Administration Costs, which are estimated not to 19 exceed Fifty-Six Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($56,500.00). Stip. at ¶¶ 1.38, 20 3.19. The request for payment of $56,500 to the Settlement Administrator, CPT 21 Group, Inc., is detailed in the accompanying Motion for Attorneys’ Fees, Costs, and 22 Service Award, and is supported by the declaration of Tim Cunningham of CPT 23 Group, Inc. 24

Payment to the LWDA. Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00) from the MSF

25 shall be allocated to penalties under PAGA, of which Seven Thousand Five 26 Hundred Dollars ($7,500.00) shall be paid by the Settlement Administrator directly 27 to the LWDA for enforcement of labor laws and education of employers. The 28 remaining Two Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($2,500.00) shall be part of the Case No. 2:14-cv-04378 (RGK) SHx 6 PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

Case 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Document 59 Filed 12/14/15 Page 13 of 26 Page ID #:1082

1 NSF and shall be distributed to Settlement Class Members who submit timely, valid 2 Claim Forms as part of their Individual Settlement Payments. Stip. at ¶ 3.17. 3

Employer’s Share of Payroll Taxes. The Defendants shall be responsible for

4 any employer-related taxes in addition to the MSF, provided that any unclaimed 5 funds shall first be used to satisfy any employer-related taxes before reverting to 6 Defendants. Stip. at ¶ 3.14.1. 7

C.

Release

8

Upon final approval, the Settlement Class Members, including Plaintiff, will

9 release the Released Parties (Defendants and their past, present and/or future, direct

21600 Oxnard Street, Suite 600 Woodland Hills, California 91367-4903

10 and/or indirect, parent companies, subsidiaries, affiliates, divisions, officers, 11 directors, managers, members, heirs, employees, agents, representatives, attorneys, 12 insurers, partners, investors, shareholders, predecessors, successors, and/or assigns) 13 from the Released Claims, which is narrowly defined to include those claims 14 asserted in the proposed First Amended Complaint against the Released Parties, or 15 that could have been asserted against the Released Parties based upon the facts 16 alleged in the First Amended Class Action Complaint to be filed in the Action, by 17 Plaintiff or any Settlement Class Member from July 19, 2012 to March 31, 2015. 18 Stip. at ¶¶ 1.17, 1.33, 1.34, and 3.2. Upon final approval, Plaintiff and Settlement 19 Class Members shall have expressly waived and relinquished the provisions, rights 20 and benefits of California Civil Code section 1542 or any other similar federal or 21 state law with respect to the Released Claims only. Id. 22

D.

Class Notice, Claim Form, Opt-Out and Objection Rights

23

The Court approved the Notice plan in its September 15, 2015 Order (Dkt.

24 53), which required sufficient notice that would fully apprise Class members of key 25 terms of the Settlement. The Notice contained information about the claims in the 26 litigation and the terms of the settlement, explained the rights and release of claims 27 under the settlement, the right to object to the settlement, the right to opt-out of the 28 settlement, explained the calculation of settlement payments, included estimated Case No. 2:14-cv-04378 (RGK) SHx 7 PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

Case 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Document 59 Filed 12/14/15 Page 14 of 26 Page ID #:1083

1 individual settlement payment amounts, informed the Class of the deadline for filing 2 a claim, requesting exclusion or objecting to the proposed settlement, and informed 3 them of the date, time, and location of the January 11, 2016 final approval hearing. 4 See Cunningham Decl., ¶ 5 and Exhibit A thereto. 5

On September 24, 2015, the Settlement Administrator received data files from

6 Defendants for 12,291 Class members, detailing names, contact information and 7 employment dates as well as the number of compensable workweeks for each 8 member. Cunningham Decl., ¶ 6. A National Change of Address search was 9 performed on October 7, 2015 to update the list with contact information for any

21600 Oxnard Street, Suite 600 Woodland Hills, California 91367-4903

10 individuals who moved in the past four years and notified the U.S. Postal Service of 11 changes of address. Id. ¶ 7. On October 14, 2015, the Notice, Claim Form and 12 Request for Exclusion Forms in Spanish and English together with Business Reply 13 Mail envelopes (“Notice Packet”), were mailed out to all Class members by First 14 Class mail. Id. ¶¶ 2, 8. On November 13, 2015, reminder postcards were mailed out 15 to 10,715 Class members who had not responded. Id. ¶ 9. On December 9, 2015, a 16 Notice Packet was mailed out to one subsequently identified Class member. Id. ¶ 9. 17 Skip traces were performed on all 1,723 Notice Packets returned to the Settlement 18 Administrator to locate better addresses and, as a result of such efforts together with 19 forwarding addresses, 1,106 Notice packets were re-sent. Id. ¶¶ 11-12. A total of 20 1,056 Notice Packets remain undeliverable to date despite these efforts. Id. A total 21 of 11,235 Class members were successfully sent Notice Packets. 22

Notice of final judgment will be posted to the settlement website created and

23 maintained by the Settlement Administrator, where other information and 24 documents relating to the settlement are posted for Class members to review and 25 access: www.cptgroup.com/DelCampoVHometownBuffetSettlement. Id. ¶ 2. A toll 26 free hotline is also being maintained for Class members to call the Settlement 27 Administrator with questions about the settlement. Id. ¶ 3. 28 Case No. 2:14-cv-04378 (RGK) SHx 8 PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

Case 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Document 59 Filed 12/14/15 Page 15 of 26 Page ID #:1084

1

E.

Class Response to Proposed Settlement

2

The Settlement Administrator has not received any written objections to the

3 settlement as of December 11, 2015, the date of Mr. Cunningham’s declaration. 4 Cunningham Decl., ¶ 13. A total of 2,583 claims and 95 request for exclusion have 5 been received, some of which were deemed deficient and requests to cure were sent 6 out. Id. ¶¶ 14-20. Assuming all deficient claims are cured and accepted, 7 approximately 21.01% of Class members will participate in the proposed settlement 8 with an average settlement payout estimated to be $175.90 within a range that 9 extends up to $386.21 based on the number of compensable workweeks, if given

21600 Oxnard Street, Suite 600 Woodland Hills, California 91367-4903

10 final approval by the Court. Id. ¶ 20. The estimated claimed amount from the 11 settlement is $454,352.41, which represents a substantial 32.31% of the NSF. 12 IV. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

THE COURT SHOULD GRANT FINAL APPROVAL OF THE SETTLEMENT. Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires court approval of

any settlement of claims on behalf of a certified class. Before a court approves a settlement, it must conclude that the settlement is “fundamentally fair, adequate and reasonable.” In re Heritage Bond Litig., 546 F.3d 667, 674-75 (9th Cir. 2009); see also Dunk v. Ford Motor Company, 48 Cal.App.4th 1794, 1801 (1996), quoting Officers for Justice v. Civil Service Com., 688 F.2d 615, 625 (9th Cir. 1982). The approval of a proposed class action settlement “is committed to the sound discretion of the trial judge.” Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1026 (9th Cir. 1998). However, in exercising this discretion, the trial court must give “proper deference to the private consensual decision of the parties” as “the court’s intrusion upon what is otherwise a private consensual agreement negotiated between the parties to a lawsuit must be limited to the extent necessary to reach a reasoned judgment that the agreement is not the product of fraud or overreaching by, or collusion between, the negotiating parties, and the settlement, taken as a whole, is fair, reasonable and adequate to all concerned.” Id. at 1027. Generally, the district Case No. 2:14-cv-04378 (RGK) SHx 9 PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

Case 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Document 59 Filed 12/14/15 Page 16 of 26 Page ID #:1085

1 court’s review of a class action settlement is “extremely limited.” Id. at 1026. The 2 court considers the settlement as a whole, rather than its components, and lacks 3 authority to “delete, modify or substitute certain provision.” Id., quoting Officers for 4 Justice, 688 F.2d at 630. 5

In the Ninth Circuit, “there is a strong judicial policy that favors settlements,

6 particularly where complex class action litigation is concerned.” In re Synocor 7 ERISA Litig., 516 F.3d 1095, 1101 (9th Cir. 2008). “This policy is also evident in 8 the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of the United States 9 District Court, Central District of California, which encourages facilitating the

21600 Oxnard Street, Suite 600 Woodland Hills, California 91367-4903

10 settlement of cases.” Id., citing various Local Rules of the United States District 11 Court, Central District of California relating to settlement. 12

The process for approval of a class action settlement consists of three steps.

13 First, the court “must make a preliminary determination on the fairness, 14 reasonableness, and adequacy of the settlement terms and must direct the 15 preparation of notice of the certification, proposed settlement, and date of the final 16 fairness hearing.” See Manual for Complex Litigation § 21.632 (4th ed. 2004). Next, 17 the class is given notice of the litigation and the final hearing so as to advise them of 18 the settlement and the ability to object or opt out of the settlement. Id. § 21.633. 19 Last, the final fairness hearing allows individuals to be heard in support of, and in 20 opposition to, the proposed settlement and requires the court’s final determination 21 whether the proposed settlement is “fair, reasonable, and adequate.” Id. § 21.634. 22

The first two steps are complete. On September 15, 2015, this Court granted

23 Plaintiff’s motion for conditional class certification after determining for settlement 24 purposes that the settlement class met the requirements of Rule 23(a) and (b), and 25 granted Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary approval on the basis that the proposed 26 settlement appeared to be fair and reasonable on its face. (Dkt. 53.) The Settlement 27 Administrator provided notice as required. Cunningham Decl., ¶¶ 1-12. Thus, this 28 Court must now make a final determination of the fairness, reasonableness, and Case No. 2:14-cv-04378 (RGK) SHx 10 PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

Case 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Document 59 Filed 12/14/15 Page 17 of 26 Page ID #:1086

1 adequacy of the settlement by balancing several factors, including: (1) the strength 2 of the plaintiffs’ case; (2) the risk, expense, complexity, and likely duration of 3 further litigation; (3) the risk of maintaining class action status throughout the trial; 4 (4) the amount offered in settlement; (5) the extent of discovery completed and the 5 stage of the proceedings; (6) the experience and views of counsel; (7) the presence 6 of a governmental participant; and (8) the reaction of the class members to the 7 proposed settlement. Churchill Vill., LLC v. Gen. Elec., 361 F.3d 566, 575 (9th Cir. 8 2004). Plaintiffs submit that a review of those factors should result in final approval 9 herein being granted. Indeed, the Court has evaluated these factors and granted

21600 Oxnard Street, Suite 600 Woodland Hills, California 91367-4903

10 preliminary approval based on the same. (Dkt. 53.) 11

A.

The Strength of Plaintiff’s Case

12

Although Plaintiff maintains the merit of her claims against Defendants, she

13 also recognizes the significant defenses to certification and liability of these claims. 14 Defendants reserved their right to file a motion pursuant to Rule 23(d) of the Federal 15 Rules of Civil Procedure to obtain an order that a class cannot be certified, as well 16 as a motion for summary judgment on some or all of Plaintiff’s claims. (Dkt. 12 at 17 p. 4.) Defendants contended they properly and timely paid all non-exempt 18 employees, including Plaintiff, for all regular and overtime hours worked. (Dkt. 36 19 at p. 3.) They also contended that their employees, including Plaintiff, were 20 provided with all legally-mandated meal and rest breaks in accordance with the 21 California Labor Code. (Id.) Defendants also contended that they properly and 22 timely reimbursed employees, including Plaintiff, for business-related expenses. 23 (Id.) Moreover, Defendants’ contended that the alleged misconduct did not injure or 24 otherwise damage employees, including Plaintiff. (Id.) Defendants further 25 contended that Plaintiff’s definition of the proposed class is over-reaching, and that 26 the case is not suitable for class certification because individualized inquiries would 27 predominate, precluding class certification. (Id.) Plaintiff considered these defenses 28 to assess the strength of Plaintiff’s claims. 11

Case No. 2:14-cv-04378 (RGK) SHx PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

Case 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Document 59 Filed 12/14/15 Page 18 of 26 Page ID #:1087

1

As set forth in the Declaration of Raymond P. Boucher, Plaintiff felt one of

2 her strongest claims is the rest break claim against Defendants for alleged failure to 3 provide rest breaks every four hours worked or major fraction thereof since 4 Defendants’ policy was to provide rest breaks every four hours (not accounting for 5 major fractions thereof). Boucher Decl., ¶ 27. Even then, Plaintiff felt she had a 50% 6 chance of prevailing on class certification relating to this pay policy. Id. Defendants 7 would likely argue that Plaintiff faces a significant hurdle in certifying the rest 8 period claim because rest periods need not be recorded. See, e.g., Washington v. 9 Joe’s Crab Shack, 271 F.R.D. 629, 641-42 (N.D. Cal. 2010) (denying certification

21600 Oxnard Street, Suite 600 Woodland Hills, California 91367-4903

10 of rest period claim because lack of time records with respect to rest periods meant 11 that individualized questions would predominate). The rest break claim also 12 presented potentially difficult issues of proof regarding liability and damages, such 13 that Plaintiff believed she had a 25% chance of prevailing on those issues. 14

Plaintiff’s meal break claim based on Defendants’ alleged failure to provide a

15 meal period for shifts longer than five hours worked posed greater challenges to 16 certification because there was a dispute in the language of Defendants’ policies 17 and, for shifts of 5.01 to 6 hours, Defendants claimed the meal breaks were 18 waivable, that employees had waived such breaks, and that they had proof of such 19 waivers. Boucher Decl., ¶ 27. Plaintiff believed she only had a 20% chance of 20 prevailing on class certification due to individualized issues. The claim also 21 presented the most difficult issues of proof regarding liability and damages, as 22 Defendants maintained records of compliant meal breaks and meal period waivers, 23 such that Plaintiff anticipated a 10% chance of prevailing on such issues. Id. 24

Plaintiff alleged a direct a direct Labor Code section 203 claim based on

25 Defendants’ failure to timely pay all wages owed upon discharge or termination, and 26 a derivative Labor Code section 203 claim based on Defendants’ failure to pay 27 wages owed as a result of the aforementioned meal break and rest break claims. 28 However, Plaintiff thought she had a 50% chance of prevailing at class certification Case No. 2:14-cv-04378 (RGK) SHx 12 PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

Case 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Document 59 Filed 12/14/15 Page 19 of 26 Page ID #:1088

1 based on the fact that this was a derivative claim of the prior pay policy arguments. 2 Boucher Decl., ¶ 27. Plaintiff thought she had a 20% chance of prevailing on 3 liability as Plaintiff would have to show a “willful” violation, which could be very 4 difficult as the underlying claims are based on case law that has been constantly 5 evolving and therefore a finding of willfulness is a difficult burden. Id. This is also a 6 penalty and the court has discretion to award this penalty, which creates further risk. 7 See, e.g., Alonzo v. Maximus, Inc., 832 F.Supp.2d 1122, 1134 (C.D. Cal. 2011) 8 (derivative wait time penalty claim dismissed because the defendant’s presentation 9 of a good faith defense, based in law or fact, negated a finding of willfulness.).

21600 Oxnard Street, Suite 600 Woodland Hills, California 91367-4903

10

Plaintiff’s claim for wage statement penalties under Labor Code section 226

11 alleged that Defendants do not identify the total hours worked by the employee as 12 required under Section 226(a)(2), and also allege derivative claims that the wage 13 statements do not accurately identify (1) gross wages earned, (2) all deductions, 14 and/or (3) net wages earned. Boucher Decl., ¶ 27. Plaintiff felt she had had a 50% 15 chance of prevailing at class certification based on the fact that the independent 16 claim is a common issue for all class members, though the derivative claims may 17 raise ascertainability issues. Id. Plaintiff thought she had a 10% chance of prevailing 18 on the liability for two reasons. First, recent court opinions have determined that 19 there is no violation of Section 226 where the paystub fails to show total hours, 20 which negatively impacts the direct violation claim. Id. Second, Plaintiff would have 21 to show a “willful” violation which, like the waiting time claim, could be very 22 difficult as the underlying claims are based on case law that has been constantly 23 evolving and therefore a finding of willfulness is difficult burden and is also a 24 discretionary penalty. Id. 25

Plaintiff also alleged a business expense reimbursement claim for Defendants’

26 alleged failure to reimburse non-exempt employees for business expenses such as 27 mileage when required to make trips using personal vehicles to pick up supplies or 28 products in violation of California Labor Code section 2802 and Wage Order 5. Case No. 2:14-cv-04378 (RGK) SHx 13 PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

Case 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Document 59 Filed 12/14/15 Page 20 of 26 Page ID #:1089

1 However, Plaintiff recognized this may not be a common issues across all plaintiffs 2 and felt she had only a 20% chance of prevailing on certification, and 20% on 3 liability based on challenges to demonstrating business expenses incurred but not 4 reimbursed. Boucher Decl., ¶ 27. 5

Although Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint to allege a cause of

6 action under PAGA as part of the settlement, Plaintiff believes the chance of 7 prevailing on the Labor Code section 2699 claim is minimal. Boucher Decl., ¶ 27. 8 The penalties available under PAGA are discretionary and, based on the facts of this 9 case, Plaintiff does not believe that the Court would impose any additional penalty

21600 Oxnard Street, Suite 600 Woodland Hills, California 91367-4903

10 other than that prescribed by Labor Code section 226. 11

The settlement is, thus, a compromise. Plaintiff took into account the

12 Defendants’ contentions regarding the risks that the class would not be certified on a 13 contested motion, the risks Defendants contend exist regarding liability and proof of 14 damages, and other defenses asserted by them. Boucher Decl., ¶ 26. Additionally, 15 Plaintiff also considered the time delay and financial repercussions of a trial and 16 appeal by Defendants. Id. Despite Defendants’ defenses, Plaintiff has secured a 17 substantial monetary recovery for Class members, which supports final approval. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

B.

The Risks, Expense, Complexity, and Duration of Further Litigation

As set forth above, the risks in a wage and hour class action cases are significant and often complex. Although Plaintiff had filed her motion for class certification, the motion is not fully briefed and has not been heard, in light of the parties’ settlement and efforts to obtain approval of the settlement. This case is not certified on a contested motion and Defendants contest every aspect of this case. Thus, Plaintiff considered the possibility that that if a settlement were reached after additional years of litigation, including possible appeals, the great expenses and attorneys’ fees of litigation would reduce the amount of funds available to Plaintiff and Class Members for settlement. Boucher Decl., ¶ 26. Additionally, the proposed Case No. 2:14-cv-04378 (RGK) SHx 14 PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

Case 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Document 59 Filed 12/14/15 Page 21 of 26 Page ID #:1090

1 settlement accounts for Defendants’ financial condition, which appears to be 2 deteriorating, and the possibility of another voluntary bankruptcy proceeding and 3 the impact of such proceeding on the claims of Plaintiff and other Class Members. 4 Id., ¶¶ 12, 26; see also Torrisi v. Tucson Elec. Power Co., 8 F.3d 1370, 1376 (9th 5 Cir. 1993) (a defendant’s precarious financial condition was a “predominant factor” 6 in approving fairness of settlement). 7

The expense of further litigation is also significant. Although the parties

8 engaged in a significant amount of formal and informal discovery and class-wide 9 data analysis, the parties had not yet commenced deposition discovery at the time of

21600 Oxnard Street, Suite 600 Woodland Hills, California 91367-4903

10 mediation. Boucher Decl., ¶ 14. Upon notice of the deposition of Defendants’ 11 person(s) most qualified to testify under Rule 30(b)(6), counsel for Defendants 12 advised that the witnesses were located in South Carolina and thus travel expenses 13 would be required to complete the depositions. Plaintiff would also be required to 14 testify at deposition regarding her claims, thus requiring further expense. 15 Additionally, although Plaintiff has filed her motion for class certification, the 16 briefing is not yet complete and hearing has not taken place. Moreover, trial 17 preparation remained for the parties as well as the prospect of appeals in the wake of 18 a disputed class certification ruling for Plaintiff and/or adverse summary 19 adjudication ruling. As a result, the parties stood to incur considerable additional 20 attorneys’ fees and costs through trial and possibly beyond to appeals. Therefore, 21 this settlement avoids the risk of non-recovery and the additional, accompanying 22 expense associated with wage and hour class action litigation. See, e.g., In re Portal 23 Software, Inc. Securities Litig., Case No. C-03-5138 VRW, 2007 WL 4171201 at *3 24 (N.D. Cal. November 26, 2007) (noting that the “inherent risks of proceeding to 25 summary judgment, trial and appeal also support the settlement”). Therefore, this 26 factor supports final approval. 27

C.

The Risk of Maintaining Class Action Status Throughout Trial

28

As noted above, Plaintiff filed her motion for class certification but did not Case No. 2:14-cv-04378 (RGK) SHx 15 PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

Case 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Document 59 Filed 12/14/15 Page 22 of 26 Page ID #:1091

1 complete briefing on the same as further briefing and hearing was deferred to allow 2 the parties to focus on obtaining court approval of the proposed settlement. Plaintiff 3 contends she has a reasonable chance of certifying at least some claims in this case. 4 However, Defendants have indicated an intent to file motions for summary 5 judgment and a motion under Rule 23(d) that a class cannot not be certified, which 6 presents a substantial risk that class action status might not be maintained through 7 trial absent settlement. This factor also supports final approval. 8

D.

The Amount Offered in Settlement

9

The Court must consider whether the settlement falls within the range of

21600 Oxnard Street, Suite 600 Woodland Hills, California 91367-4903

10 possible approval. “To evaluate the range of possible approval criterion, which 11 focuses on substantive fairness and adequacy, courts primarily consider plaintiffs’ 12 expected recovery balanced against the value of the settlement offer.” Vasquez v. 13 Coast Valley Roofing, Inc., 670 F.Supp.2d 1114, 1125 (E.D. Cal. 2009), citing In re 14 Tableware Antitrust Litig., 484 F.Supp.2d 1078, 1080 (N.D. Cal. 2007). 15

Plaintiff’s counsel have calculated the maximum damages to the Class

16 members, exclusive of interest, to be approximately $3,965,273 should the case 17 proceed to trial. Boucher Decl., ¶¶ 27-28. Defendants contests liability, as well as 18 the propriety of certification, and are prepared to vigorously oppose certification and 19 to defend against Plaintiff’s claims if the action is not settled. Given the maximum 20 potential damages and substantial risks in this case, including Defendants’ current 21 financial condition, the $2,000,000 maximum settlement sum represents a 50.4% 22 recovery of the settlement value and is within the range of possible approval. Id. 23

The significant risk that this Court may deny class certification is obviated by

24 the settlement, particularly in light of certification standards under Federal Rule of 25 Civil Procedure, Rule 23, as articulated by the Supreme Court in Wal-Mart Stores, 26 Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (U.S. 2011). Even if Plaintiff were to obtain 27 certification and prevail on the merits, a legitimate controversy exists as to each 28 cause of action and Plaintiff recognizes that proving the amount of damages due to Case No. 2:14-cv-04378 (RGK) SHx 16 PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

Case 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Document 59 Filed 12/14/15 Page 23 of 26 Page ID #:1092

1 each individual Class Member would be an expensive and time-consuming process. 2 Boucher Decl., ¶ 26. Continued litigation would inevitably delay payment to the 3 Class; the elimination of delay and further expense weighs in favor of approval. Id.; 4 see also Rodriguez v. West Publ’g Corp., 563 F.3d 948, 966 (9th Cir. 2009). 5 6 7 8 9

21600 Oxnard Street, Suite 600 Woodland Hills, California 91367-4903

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

E.

Sufficient Discovery and Investigation Was Completed to Warrant Settlement.

The stage of the proceedings and the amount of discovery completed is an important factor which the Courts consider in determining the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of a settlement. Plaintiff’s counsel conducted meaningful discovery. The litigation reached a stage where the parties certainly have a clear view of the strengths and weaknesses of their cases. Plaintiff conducted significant investigation and discovery prior to the private mediation session that started on March 10, 2015, when the parties participated in private, all-day mediation before experienced employment class action mediator Mark Rudy. Boucher Decl., ¶¶ 11, 23-26. Plaintiff’s counsel conducted an investigation into the claims alleged, interviewing Plaintiff regarding the facts alleged in the complaint and conducting legal research regarding application of the applicable California Labor Code sections. Id., ¶ 23. Additionally, Plaintiff’s counsel participated in numerous conferences and meet and confer meetings with Defendants’ counsel, prepared and served formal and informal written discovery requests, and conducted a detailed evaluation of time records and payroll data provided by Defendants, which involved manual review by Plaintiff’s counsel in addition to working closely with a highly-respected statistical expert regarding a statistical analysis of the time records. Id. at ¶¶ 8, 10, 12, 14, 23-24. Following mediation, Plaintiff conducted discovery to confirm representations made by Defendants regarding their current financial distress, by working closely with a financial analyst to review Defendants’ financials. Id. at ¶¶ 12, 23-24 and Exhibit 2. Based on the information and record developed through extensive investigation and discovery, Plaintiff’s counsel was Case No. 2:14-cv-04378 (RGK) SHx 17 PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

Case 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Document 59 Filed 12/14/15 Page 24 of 26 Page ID #:1093

1 able to act intelligently and effectively in negotiating the settlement. Id. at ¶ 23. 2

F.

Plaintiff’s Counsel is Experienced and Endorses This Settlement.

3

Experienced counsel, operating at arm’s length, have weighed all of the

4 foregoing factors and endorse the proposed settlement. As the courts have 5 explained, the view of the attorneys actively conducting the litigation, is “entitled to 6 significant weight.” Fisher Bros. v. Cambridge-Lee Industries, Inc., 630 F.Supp. 7 482, 488 (E.D. Pa. 1985). Plaintiff’s counsel has experience not only in class actions 8 but specifically in wage and hour class actions. Boucher Decl., ¶¶ 30-38; Majarian 9 Decl., ¶12-15. Plaintiff’s counsel are experienced and qualified to evaluate the class

21600 Oxnard Street, Suite 600 Woodland Hills, California 91367-4903

10 claims and viability of the defenses. Id. The recovery for each Class member is 11 substantial, given the risks inherent in litigation and the defenses asserted. The 12 proposed settlement is fair, adequate and reasonable and in the best interests of the 13 Class. See Boucher Decl., ¶¶ 29, 37-39 and Majarian Decl., ¶¶ 16-17. 14

G.

Presence of a Governmental Participant

15

There is no direct governmental participant in this case. However, as noted

16 above, the LWDA will receive a payment of $7,500 should the Court grant final 17 approval. This payment comports with PAGA payments in other class action 18 settlements. See, e.g., Lazarin v. Pro Unlimited, Inc., Case No. C11-03609 HRL, 19 2013 WL 3541217 at *2 (N.D. Cal. July 11, 2013) (approving payment of $7,500 to 20 the LWDA from $1.25 million common fund settlement). Additionally, under the 21 proposed settlement, Defendants were required to provide notice of the proposed 22 settlement required pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1715, on 23 the appropriate state and federal officials but, to date, no governmental entity has 24 intervened or objected to the proposed settlement. 25

H.

Reaction of the Class to the Proposed Settlement

26

The deadline to object or opt out expires as of the date of filing of this

27 Motion, December 14, 2015. As of December 11, 2015, the date of the Settlement 28 Administrator’s declaration, no Class member objected to the settlement to date. Case No. 2:14-cv-04378 (RGK) SHx 18 PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

Case 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Document 59 Filed 12/14/15 Page 25 of 26 Page ID #:1094

1 Cunningham Decl., ¶ 13. This militates in favor of final approval of the proposed 2 settlement. “If only a small number of objections are received, that fact can be 3 viewed as indicative of the adequacy of the settlement.” Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. 4 Visa U.S.A., 396 F.3d 96, 118 (2nd Cir. 2005); see also Churchill Vill., supra, 361 5 F.3d at 577 (district court did not abuse discretion in approving settlement with 500 6 opt-outs and 45 objections out of approximately 90,00 notified class members.) 7 Here, there are no objections and only 95 requests for exclusion out of the 12,291 8 class members. By contrast, a total of 2,583 claims have been received. Assuming 9 all deficient claims are cured and accepted, approximately 21.01% of Class

21600 Oxnard Street, Suite 600 Woodland Hills, California 91367-4903

10 members will participate in the proposed settlement with an average settlement 11 payout estimated to be $175.90 within a range that extends up to $386.21 based on 12 the number of compensable workweeks, if given final approval by the Court. 13 Overall, this is a positive reaction from Class members to the settlement, which 14 supports a finding of fairness and reasonableness. Plaintiff will file a supplemental 15 declaration of the Settlement Administrator to provide updated claims, exclusions, 16 and opt-out information prior to the hearing on this motion. 17 V.

THE PROVISIONAL CERTIFICATION OF THE CLASS FOR SETTLEMENT PURPOSES SHOULD BE MADE FINAL.

18 19

Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court enter an order making final its

20 certification of the proposed Class for settlement purposes. When presented with a 21 proposed settlement, the Court must ascertain whether the proposed settlement 22 satisfied the requirements of Rule 23. Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1019, 1022. In the 23 Court’s September 15, 2015 Order, the Court determined that “for the purposes of 24 settlement, the proposed Class meets the requirements of Rule 23(a) and (b),” and 25 granted Plaintiff’s motion for conditional class certification (Dkt. 53). The 26 circumstances considered by the Court at that time remain the same. Accordingly, 27 for the reasons set forth in the Court’s September 15, 2015 Order, final certification 28 of the proposed class should be ordered for settlement purposes under Rule 23(e). Case No. 2:14-cv-04378 (RGK) SHx 19 PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

Case 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Document 59 Filed 12/14/15 Page 26 of 26 Page ID #:1095

1 VI.

THE PROPOSED NOTICE TO CLASS MEMBERS IS ADEQUATE.

2

Adequate notice is critical to court approval of a class settlement under Rule

3 23(e). Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1025. The threshold requirement concerning the 4 sufficiency of class notice is whether the means to distribute the notice is reasonably 5 calculated to apprise the class of the pendency of the action, of the proposed 6 settlement, and of the class members’ rights to opt out or object. Eisen v. Carlisle & 7 Jacquelin, 417 U.S. 156, 173-74 (1974). Here, the Court-approved notice by First 8 Class mail using addresses maintained by Defendants, with change of address 9 searches, skip traces, and re-mailings implemented, appears to be the best notice

21600 Oxnard Street, Suite 600 Woodland Hills, California 91367-4903

10 practicable. Notice was delivered to 11,235 Class members, a 91% success rate. 11

Notice is satisfactory if it “generally describes the terms of the settlement in

12 sufficient detail to alert those with adverse viewpoints to investigate and to come 13 forward and be heard.” Churchill Vill., 361 F.3d at 575. The response rate supports a 14 finding that those who responded understood the terms of proposed settlement 15 submitting claim forms or requests for exclusion for whatever reason, and a finding 16 that the majority of those who responded to the Notice agreed to participate therein. 17 Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1025-1026. 18 VII. CONCLUSION 19

The settlement provides substantial benefit to the Class members and is fair,

20 reasonable, and adequate. Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court grant this 21 motion and enter the requested orders. 22 DATED: December 14, 2015 23 24 25 26 27

BOUCHER LLP By: /s/ Raymond P. Boucher RAYMOND P. BOUCHER SHEHNAZ M. BHUJWALA BRANDON K. BROUILLETTE LAW OFFICES OF SAHAG MAJARIAN II SAHAG MAJARIAN II

28 Case No. 2:14-cv-04378 (RGK) SHx 20 PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

Case 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Document 59-1 Filed 12/14/15 Page 1 of 27 Page ID #:1096

1 Raymond P. Boucher, State Bar No. 115364 [email protected] 2 Shehnaz M. Bhujwala, State Bar No. 223484 [email protected] 3 Brandon K. Brouillette, State Bar No. 273156 [email protected] 4 BOUCHER LLP 21600 Oxnard Street, Suite 600 5 Woodland Hills, California 91367-4903 Tel: (818) 340-5400 6 Fax: (818) 340-5401

21600 Oxnard Street, Suite 600 Woodland Hills, California 91367-4903

7 Sahag Majarian, II, State Bar No. 146621 [email protected] 8 LAW OFFICES OF SAHAG MAJARIAN II 18250 Ventura Boulevard 9 Tarzana, California 91356 Tel: (818) 609-0807 10 Fax: (818) 609-0892 11 Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Class 12 13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

14

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, WESTERN DIVISION

15 BERTA MARTIN DEL CAMPO, Individually and On Behalf of All 16 Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff,

17 18

v.

19 HOMETOWN BUFFET, INC., a Minnesota Corporation; OCB 20 RESTAURANT COMPANY, LLC, a Minnesota Limited Liability Company; 21 OVATION BRANDS, INC.; and DOES 1-50, Inclusive, 22 Defendants. 23 24

Case No. 2:14-cv-04378 (RGK) SHx CLASS ACTION DECLARATION OF RAYMOND P. BOUCHER IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND ATTORNEYS’ FEES, COSTS, AND SERVICE AWARD Date: January 11, 2016 Time: 9:00 A.M. Crtrm.: 850 (Roybal) Assigned to the Hon. R. Gary Klausner and to Magistrate Stephen J. Hillman for Discovery Matters

25 26

Trial Date:

June 14, 2016

27 28 Case No. 2:14-cv-04378 (RGK) SHx DECLARATION OF RAYMOND P. BOUCHER IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND ATTORNEYS’ FEES, COSTS, AND SERVICE AWARD

Case 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Document 59-1 Filed 12/14/15 Page 2 of 27 Page ID #:1097

DECLARATION OF RAYMOND P. BOUCHER

1 2

I, Raymond P. Boucher, declare as follows:

3

1.

I am an attorney duly admitted to practice before this Court. I am the

4 name partner of Boucher, LLP and shareholder of Law Offices of Raymond 5 Boucher, APC, co-counsel of record for Plaintiff Berta Martin Del Campo and the 6 Class together with Law Offices of Sahag Majarian II, in this case. 7

2.

Additionally, I was a non-equity partner of the law firms of Khorrami

8 Boucher Sumner Sanguinetti, LLP, and Khorrami Boucher, LLP (“Khorrami”). 9 During that time, members of the Khorrami firm worked on this case.

21600 Oxnard Street, Suite 600 Woodland Hills, California 91367-4903

10

3.

I submit this declaration in support of the Plaintiff’s Motions for Order

11 Granting Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and Attorneys’ Fees, Costs and 12 Class Representative Service Award. I have personal knowledge of the facts set 13 forth herein, except as to those stated on information and belief and, as to those, I 14 am informed and believe them to be true. If called as a witness, I could and would 15 competently testify to the matters stated herein. BACKGROUND

16 17

4.

On or about March 11, 2014, Plaintiff, by and through her counsel of

18 record, filed a wage and hour class action complaint against Defendants Hometown 19 Buffet, Inc., OCB Restaurant Company, LLC, and Ovation Brands, Inc. in the 20 Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, entitled “Berta 21 Martin Del Campo, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 22 Hometown Buffet, Inc., et al.,” Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC490392. 23 Defendants’ agent for service of process was served with the Class Action 24 Complaint, together with accompanying Summons and other initiating pleadings on 25 May 9, 2014. 26

5.

On June 6, 2014, Defendants Hometown Buffet, Inc. and OCB

27 Restaurant Company, LLC, removed this case to the United States District Court for 28 the Central District of California based on federal jurisdiction under the Class Case No. 2:14-cv-04378 (RGK) SHx 1 DECLARATION OF RAYMOND P. BOUCHER IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND ATTORNEYS’ FEES, COSTS, AND SERVICE AWARD

Case 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Document 59-1 Filed 12/14/15 Page 3 of 27 Page ID #:1098

1 Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”), 28 U.S.C. 1332(d), and the case was assigned to the 2 Honorable Judge R. Gary Klausner. 3

6.

On June 13, 2014, Defendants Hometown Buffet, Inc. and OCB

4 Restaurant Company, LLC answered the complaint (Dkt.. 9) and, on July 8, 2014, 5 the parties stipulated to dismiss Defendant Ovation Brands, Inc. without prejudice. 6 (Dkt.. 17). 7

7.

On July 7, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion for remand, arguing that the

8 Defendants did not demonstrate that the amount in controversy exceeded $5 million, 9 as required under CAFA. (Dkt.. 14).

21600 Oxnard Street, Suite 600 Woodland Hills, California 91367-4903

10

8.

Prior to the Court’s ruling on the motion, the parties exchanged Initial

11 Disclosures and Plaintiff prepared and served written discovery on Defendants and 12 noticed the deposition of Defendant Hometown Buffet, Inc.’s Person(s) Most 13 Qualified to Testify pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 30(b)(6), 14 which the parties’ counsel agreed to continue in light of the pending motion to 15 remand the case to California state court. 16

9.

On August 6, 2014, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion and remanded

17 the case to the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles. (Dkt.. 24.) 18

10.

Following the lifting of a stay of proceedings imposed by the California

19 Superior Court, the parties commenced investigation of the claims and defenses 20 alleged in the case and agreed to an early mediation of the case. In preparation for 21 mediation, the parties exchanged information and documents relating to the claims 22 and defenses in the case, including the Defendants’ employee handbook and a 23 sampling of the time punch cards and payroll records for eight of Defendants’ 24 restaurant locations in California (specifically, Gardena, Loma Linda, Mira Mesa, 25 San Leandro, Temple City, Hawthorne, Hayward, and Westchester). In total, 26 Defendants produced and Plaintiff reviewed over 13,000 pages of documents. 27

11.

On March 10, 2015, the parties participated in private mediation before

28 experienced employment class action mediator Mark Rudy. Although the parties Case No. 2:14-cv-04378 (RGK) SHx 2 DECLARATION OF RAYMOND P. BOUCHER IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND ATTORNEYS’ FEES, COSTS, AND SERVICE AWARD

Case 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Document 59-1 Filed 12/14/15 Page 4 of 27 Page ID #:1099

1 were unable to reach a settlement at the mediation, counsel for the parties continued 2 their settlement efforts with the continued assistance of Mr. Rudy, and reached 3 agreement on the material terms of a proposed settlement on March 16, 2015. The 4 settlement negotiations were at arm’s length and, although conducted in a 5 professional manner, were adversarial. The parties went into the mediation willing 6 to explore the potential for early settlement of the dispute, but each side was 7 committed and prepared to litigate their respective position through trial, and appeal 8 as needed, if a settlement had not been reached. 9

12.

As part of the proposed settlement, the parties agreed to certain

21600 Oxnard Street, Suite 600 Woodland Hills, California 91367-4903

10 confirmatory discovery, including discovery relating to Defendants’ financial 11 condition. On May 14, 2025, a consultant retained by Plaintiff’s counsel, Christine 12 Carroll of Stout Risius Ross, Inc., reviewed Defendants’ financials for purposes of 13 validating statements made by Defendants at mediation regarding their financial 14 distress. Specifically, the Defendants represented financial distress after emerging 15 from a Chapter 11 bankruptcy that concluded in 2012 due, in part, to certain long 16 term lease obligations that are above market rates, tightening by suppliers of credit 17 terms, significant increases in the cost of beef, and a decline in “buffet” style dining 18 among a younger population. Defendants have indicated the possibility of another 19 voluntary bankruptcy proceeding in the future. The parties agree that the discovery 20 sufficiently established to Plaintiff’s counsel’s satisfaction that, in light of 21 Defendants’ distressed financial condition and taking into account all relevant 22 factors, present and potential, the proposed settlement was fair, adequate, reasonable 23 and beneficial to members of the proposed settlement class. 24

13.

On June 1, 2015, Defendants removed the action to federal court a

25 second time based on Plaintiff’s discovery response, which affirmed that the amount 26 in controversy exceeded the requisite $5 million for CAFA jurisdiction. Upon 27 removal, the case was assigned to the United States District Court for the Central 28 Case No. 2:14-cv-04378 (RGK) SHx 3 DECLARATION OF RAYMOND P. BOUCHER IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND ATTORNEYS’ FEES, COSTS, AND SERVICE AWARD

Case 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Document 59-1 Filed 12/14/15 Page 5 of 27 Page ID #:1100

1 District of California and again assigned to the Honorable Judge R. Gary Klausner. 2 (Dkt.. 27.) 3

14.

Following the second removal of this case to federal court, Plaintiff

4 served an Amended Rule 30(b)(6) Notice of Deposition setting the depositions of 5 Defendants, and served Requests for Admission on August 3, 2015 to authenticate 6 documents and obtain certain additional information necessary for class 7 certification. Plaintiff timely filed the motion on August 31, 2015 (Dkt. 44), while 8 Plaintiff’s preliminary approval motion (Dkt. 40) remained under submission by the 9 Court (Dkt. 43). The motion has not been fully briefed or heard pending court

21600 Oxnard Street, Suite 600 Woodland Hills, California 91367-4903

10 approval of this settlement. 11

15.

After completion of confirmatory discovery and additional

12 negotiations, the parties entered into the Joint Stipulation Re: Class Action 13 Settlement, which was fully executed and submitted to the Court together with the 14 Amended Joint Report on July 31, 2015. SETTLEMENT DOCUMENTS

15 16

16.

My office, together with Plaintiff’s co-counsel, Sahag Majarian, II of

17 Law Offices of Sahag Majarian II, and Defendants’ counsel, Allison Eckstrom of 18 Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., finalized the terms of the 19 following documents: (1) Stipulation and Settlement of Class Action Claims 20 (“Stipulation”), a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit 1; (2) 21 Notice of Class Action Settlement (“Notice”), a true and correct copy of which is 22 attached as Exhibit A to the Settlement Agreement, Claim Form, a true and correct 23 copy of which is attached as Exhibit B to the Notice, and Request for Exclusion 24 Form, a true and correct copy of which is attached as Exhibit C to the Notice 25 (collectively, “Notice Packet”). The final version of the Notice Packet in English 26 and Spanish is attached as an exhibit to the Declaration of Tim Cunningham for 27 CPT Group, Inc., Settlement Administrator, filed concurrently herewith. 28 Case No. 2:14-cv-04378 (RGK) SHx 4 DECLARATION OF RAYMOND P. BOUCHER IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND ATTORNEYS’ FEES, COSTS, AND SERVICE AWARD

Case 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Document 59-1 Filed 12/14/15 Page 6 of 27 Page ID #:1101

1

17.

Additionally, the parties stipulated as part of the proposed settlement to

2 the filing of proposed First Amended Complaint, which conforms the complaint to 3 federal law and adds a claim for Defendants’ violation of California’s Private 4 Attorney General Act (“PAGA”) pursuant to the parties’ proposed settlement. The 5 First Amended Complaint was filed on September 24, 2015. (Dkt. 58.) NUMEROSITY

6 7

18.

Based on the discovery conducted prior to preliminary approval, the

8 proposed settlement and Classes involved approximately 11,136 putative Class 9 Members. This figure increased to 12,291 Class members when Defendants

21600 Oxnard Street, Suite 600 Woodland Hills, California 91367-4903

10 gathered data for the Settlement Administrator to provide notice to Class members. 11 This number satisfies the numerosity requirements pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 12 Procedure, Rule 23. 13

COMMON QUESTIONS OF LAW AND FACT PREDOMINATE

14

19.

There are common questions of law and fact as to the Classes which

15 predominate over questions affecting only individual Class Members including, 16 without limitation, to: 17

a.

Whether Defendants engaged in a practice and policy of failing

18 to provide Plaintiff and Class Members with legally-compliant ten (10) minute rest 19 periods for every four (4) hours worked or major fraction thereof; 20

b.

Whether Defendants engaged in a practice and policy of failing

21 to provide Plaintiff and Class members with legally-compliant thirty (30) minute 22 meal periods within five (5) hours of commencing work; 23

c.

Whether Defendants required Plaintiff and Class members to

24 drive personal vehicles to deliver and retrieve merchandise and/or business supplies 25 without reimbursing Plaintiff and Class Members for mileage; 26

d.

Whether Defendants failed to pay all wages due to Plaintiff and

27 Class members within the required time upon their discharge or resignation from 28 employment, including premium pay for missed meal and rest breaks; Case No. 2:14-cv-04378 (RGK) SHx 5 DECLARATION OF RAYMOND P. BOUCHER IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND ATTORNEYS’ FEES, COSTS, AND SERVICE AWARD

Case 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Document 59-1 Filed 12/14/15 Page 7 of 27 Page ID #:1102

1

e.

Whether Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff and Class

2 members with accurate, itemized wage statements in compliance with Labor Code 3 section 226; 4

f.

Whether Defendants’ conduct was willful or reckless;

5

g.

Whether Defendants engaged in unfair business practices in

6 violation of Business & Professions Code sections 17200 et seq.; 7

h.

Whether the members of the Class are entitled to penalties

8 pursuant to Labor Code sections 2698 et seq.; and 9

i.

The appropriate amount of damages, restitution, and/or monetary

21600 Oxnard Street, Suite 600 Woodland Hills, California 91367-4903

10 penalties resulting from Defendants’ violations of California law. 11

20.

Defendants, while not admitting that there are common questions of

12 law and fact sufficient to justify class litigation, acknowledge the risk that such 13 common questions might be found, and agree that there are sufficient common 14 questions to support creation of the Settlement Class. 15

THE CLASS REPRESENTATIVE IS TYPICAL AND ADEQUATE

16

21.

The claims of Plaintiff and proposed Class Representative, Berta

17 Martin Del Campo, are typical of the Class Members. Plaintiff is an adequate Class 18 Representative because she will adequately and fairly represent the Class and will 19 not place her interests above any Class Member’s interest. Her and her counsel’s 20 interests do not conflict with, and are not antagonistic to, those of the other members 21 of the Class. 22

22.

The Plaintiff is a former non-exempt, non-managerial employee of

23 Defendants in California during the proposed Class Period. She worked as a baker at 24 the Defendants’ Hawthorne, California restaurant from approximately July 22, 2011 25 to the date of termination of her employment by Defendants on September 20, 2013. 26 Plaintiff worked under the same policies and procedures and suffered the same 27 violations as all other putative Class Members. Her claims are identical to, and 28 based on, the very same legal theories as each Class Member and arise from the Case No. 2:14-cv-04378 (RGK) SHx 6 DECLARATION OF RAYMOND P. BOUCHER IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND ATTORNEYS’ FEES, COSTS, AND SERVICE AWARD

Case 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Document 59-1 Filed 12/14/15 Page 8 of 27 Page ID #:1103

1 same events, practices and conduct of Defendants. As with all putative Class 2 Members, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants engaged in various illegal wage-and3 hour practices: (i) alleged failure to provide meal and rest breaks in violation of 4 California Labor Code sections 226.7, 516, and 558, (ii) alleged failure to reimburse 5 employees for necessary business expenditures in violation of California Labor 6 sections 2802 and 2804, (iii) alleged violations of California Labor Code sections 7 201-203 including, but not limited to, failure to pay final wages timely, or pay 8 penalties for untimely final wages; (iv) alleged violations of California Labor Code 9 section 226(a) for failure to provide accurate wage statements; (v) alleged violation

21600 Oxnard Street, Suite 600 Woodland Hills, California 91367-4903

10 of California Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq. based on 11 underlying violations of the California Labor Code identified herein at (i) through 12 (iv), and (vi) alleged violations of California Labor Code section 2698 et seq. based 13 on derivative violations of the Labor Code including, but not limited to, Labor Code 14 sections 201, 202, 203, 204, 226, 226.7, 512, 2802, and 2804. FAIR & REASONABLE SETTLEMENT

15 16

23.

This case was settled through arm’s length negotiation. The settlement

17 for each participating Class Member is fair, reasonable, and adequate given the 18 inherent risk, cost, and length of litigation. The estimated range of amounts 19 recoverable for each Class Member, as set forth in the Memorandum of Points and 20 Authorities and supporting Declaration of Tim Cunningham, CPT Group, Inc., is 21 fair and reasonable based in a review of all objective evidence. The settlement that 22 has been reached, subject to this Court's approval, is the product of tremendous 23 effort, and a great deal of expense by the parties and their counsel. 24

24.

The settlement was reached after Plaintiff and her co-counsel

25 conducted significant investigation of the facts and law during the prosecution of 26 this case. Plaintiff’s co-counsel conducted substantial investigation of the Class 27 Members’ claims, including reviewing over thirteen thousand pages of documents 28 produced by Defendants, retaining a statistical expert to analyze time-keeping and Case No. 2:14-cv-04378 (RGK) SHx 7 DECLARATION OF RAYMOND P. BOUCHER IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND ATTORNEYS’ FEES, COSTS, AND SERVICE AWARD

Case 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Document 59-1 Filed 12/14/15 Page 9 of 27 Page ID #:1104

1 payroll data related to Class Members’ claims, and seeking further confirmatory 2 discovery between March 31, 2015 and May 14, 2015 to confirm the Defendants’ 3 representations made in connection with the settlement agreement regarding their 4 current financial condition. The confirmatory discovery involved requests and 5 review of Defendants’ financial documents and information by Plaintiff’s consultant 6 Christina E. Carroll, Managing Director of Stout Risius Ross, Inc., a global financial 7 advisory firm that provides, among other things, valuation and financial opinions 8 and dispute advisory and forensic services, in order for Plaintiff to complete 9 financial analyses to assess and confirm representations made regarding the

21600 Oxnard Street, Suite 600 Woodland Hills, California 91367-4903

10 deteriorating financial condition of Defendants, as set forth in Ms. Carroll’s 11 declaration, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit “2.” 12 Plaintiff’s co-counsel also investigated the applicable law regarding Plaintiff’s 13 claims, the defenses thereto, and the damages and other relief and remedies claimed 14 by Plaintiff. Based thereon, Plaintiff’s co-counsel were able to intelligently evaluate 15 the strength and value of the Class Members’ claims. 16

25.

Following the initial removal and remand of this case, the parties

17 agreed to an early private mediation. The all-day mediation took place on March 10, 18 2015, before experienced and well-respected employment class action mediator 19 Mark Rudy. Although the parties were unable to reach a settlement at the mediation, 20 counsel for the parties continued their settlement efforts with the continued 21 assistance of Mr. Rudy, reached agreement on the material terms of a proposed 22 settlement on March 16, 2015, and thereafter conducted the afore-described 23 confirmatory discovery and continued to negotiate the specific terms as part of the 24 long-form agreement attached hereto as Exhibit 1. 25

26.

The settlement amount is, of course, a compromise figure. Plaintiff

26 took into account the risks that the class would be certified and, if so, possibly 27 decertified, risks related to proof of Plaintiff’s claims, and the strengths and 28 weaknesses of Defendants’ other defenses. It also took into account the possibility Case No. 2:14-cv-04378 (RGK) SHx 8 DECLARATION OF RAYMOND P. BOUCHER IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND ATTORNEYS’ FEES, COSTS, AND SERVICE AWARD

Case 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Document 59-1 Filed 12/14/15 Page 10 of 27 Page ID #:1105

1 that if a settlement were reached after additional years of litigation, the great 2 expenses and attorneys’ fees of litigation would reduce the amount of funds 3 available to Plaintiff and Class Members for settlement. It took into account 4 Defendants’ current financial condition, which appeared to be deteriorating, and the 5 possibility of another voluntary bankruptcy proceeding and the impact of such 6 proceeding on the claims of Plaintiff and other Class members. Furthermore, 7 Plaintiff also took into consideration the time delay and financial repercussions of 8 trial and the possibility of an appeal by Defendants. CLAIMS ANALYSIS

9

21600 Oxnard Street, Suite 600 Woodland Hills, California 91367-4903

10

27.

I am providing evidence to enable the Court to ensure that the recovery

11 represents a reasonable compromise by providing an understanding of the amount 12 that is in controversy and the realistic range of outcomes of the litigation through 13 submission of data that will enable the court to make an independent assessment of 14 the adequacy of the settlement terms. Plaintiff’s exposure analysis is as follows: 15 16

a.

Rest Break Claim

Plaintiff alleges a rest break claim based on, as a matter of established

17 company policy, Defendants’ failure to always authorize and permit rest periods for 18 every four hours worked or major fraction thereof. Pursuant to Section 11(b) of the 19 IWC Wage Orders, Defendant are liable for one additional hour of pay at the 20 employee’s regular rate of pay for each workday in which there was a meal break 21 violation. With an estimated average rate of pay of $9.19 per hour, the exposure on 22 this claim was approximately $10,189,917. 23

Here, the full exposure amount has to be discounted for risks of prevailing on

24 class certification and at trial on the merits regarding liability and damages. Plaintiff 25 thought she had a 50% chance of prevailing at class certification based on the fact 26 that this is a pay policy in that Defendant’s policy was to provide a rest break every 27 four hours. However, the claim presented potentially difficult issues of proof 28 regarding liability and damages and therefore Plaintiff thought she had a 25% Case No. 2:14-cv-04378 (RGK) SHx 9 DECLARATION OF RAYMOND P. BOUCHER IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND ATTORNEYS’ FEES, COSTS, AND SERVICE AWARD

Case 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Document 59-1 Filed 12/14/15 Page 11 of 27 Page ID #:1106

1 chance of prevailing on the liability/damages. As such, Plaintiff felt that the real 2 exposure for this claim was approximately $1,273,740, based on these risks. 3 4

b.

Meal Break Claim

Plaintiff alleges a meal break claim based on Defendants’ failure to provide a

5 meal period for shifts longer than five hours worked. More specifically, Defendants 6 failed to provide meal breaks within the first five hours of their shifts, or were not 7 provided meal breaks at all for shifts greater than six hours. Pursuant Section 12(b) 8 of the IWC Wage Orders, Defendants are liable for one additional hour of pay at the 9 employee’s regular rate of pay for each workday in which there was a meal break

21600 Oxnard Street, Suite 600 Woodland Hills, California 91367-4903

10 violation. Accordingly, the exposure on this claim was approximately $3,016,084. 11

However, this full exposure amount has to be discounted for risks of

12 prevailing on class certification and at trial on the merits regarding liability and 13 damages. Plaintiff thought she had a 20% chance of prevailing at class certification 14 based on the fact that this could be a pay policy issue as there was a dispute in the 15 language of the policy. Additionally, for shifts of 5.01 to 6 hours, Defendants 16 claimed that meal breaks were waivable and that their employees had waived such 17 breaks. This claim presented the most difficult issues of proof regarding liability and 18 damages as Defendants had records of compliant meal breaks and waivers, and 19 therefore Plaintiff thought she had a 10% chance of prevailing on the 20 liability/damages. As such, Plaintiff felt that the real exposure for this claim was 21 approximately $60,322 based on these risks. 22 23

c.

Labor Code § 203 Claim (Waiting Time Penalties)

Plaintiff alleges a direct Labor Code section 203 claim based on Defendants’

24 failure to timely pay all wages owed upon discharge or termination, and a derivative 25 Labor Code section 203 claim based on Defendants’ failure to pay wages owed as a 26 result of the aforementioned meal break and rest break claims. The exposure on this 27 claim was approximately $19,228,421. 28

However, this full exposure amount has to be discounted for risks of Case No. 2:14-cv-04378 (RGK) SHx 10 DECLARATION OF RAYMOND P. BOUCHER IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND ATTORNEYS’ FEES, COSTS, AND SERVICE AWARD

Case 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Document 59-1 Filed 12/14/15 Page 12 of 27 Page ID #:1107

1 prevailing on class certification and at trial on the merits regarding liability and 2 damages. Plaintiff thought she had a 50% chance of prevailing at class certification 3 based on the fact that this was a derivative claim of the prior pay policy arguments. 4 Plaintiff thought she had a 20% chance of prevailing on liability as Plaintiff would 5 have to show a “willful” violation, which could be very difficult as the underlying 6 claims are based on case law that has been constantly evolving and therefore a 7 finding of willfulness is difficult burden. This is also a penalty, not a wage violation, 8 and the court has discretion to award this penalty, which creates further risk, 9 especially against a hospital entity. As such, Plaintiff felt that the real exposure for

21600 Oxnard Street, Suite 600 Woodland Hills, California 91367-4903

10 this claim was approximately $1,922,842, based on these risks. 11 12

d.

Labor Code § 226 Claim (Wage Statement Penalties)

Plaintiff claims there is an independent wage statement violation because

13 Defendants do not comply with the requirements of Labor Code section 14 226. Specifically, section 226(a) requires: “(2) the total hours worked by the 15 employee,” which is a direct and independent violation of Labor Code section 16 226(a). Likewise, there is a derivative claim that the paystubs are improper, as they 17 do not show the accurate (1) gross wages earned, (2) all deductions, and/or (3) net 18 wages earned. The exposure on this claim is approximately $13,615,450. This claim 19 also has a one year statute based on the California Supreme Court’s decision in 20 Murphy v. Kenneth Cole Productions, Inc. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 1094. 21

However, this full exposure amount has to be discounted for risks of

22 prevailing on class certification and at trial on the merits regarding liability and 23 damages. Plaintiff thought she had a 50% chance of prevailing at class certification 24 based on the fact that the direct claim is a common issue for all class members, 25 though the derivative claims may raise ascertainability issues. Plaintiff thought she 26 had a 10% chance of prevailing on the liability for two reasons. First, recent court 27 opinions have determined that there is no violation of Section 226 where the paystub 28 fails to show total hours, which negatively impacts the direct violation claim. Case No. 2:14-cv-04378 (RGK) SHx 11 DECLARATION OF RAYMOND P. BOUCHER IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND ATTORNEYS’ FEES, COSTS, AND SERVICE AWARD

Case 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Document 59-1 Filed 12/14/15 Page 13 of 27 Page ID #:1108

1 Second, Plaintiff would have to show a “willful” violation which, like the waiting 2 time claim, could be very difficult as the underlying claims are based on case law 3 that has been constantly evolving and therefore a finding of willfulness is difficult 4 burden and is also a discretionary penalty. As such, Plaintiff felt that the real 5 exposure for this claim was approximately $680,773, based on these risks. 6 7

e.

Business Expense Reimbursement

Plaintiff also claims that Defendants failed to reimburse Plaintiff and other

8 Class Members for necessary business expenditures such as mileage when required 9 to make trips using personal vehicles to pick up supplies or products. California

21600 Oxnard Street, Suite 600 Woodland Hills, California 91367-4903

10 Labor Code section 2802 and Wage Order 5 require employers to indemnify 11 employees for all necessary expenditures or losses incurred by the employees in 12 direct consequence of the discharge of the employee’s duties. Plaintiff estimated the 13 exposure of this claim to be $689,911. Plaintiff thought she had a 20% chance of 14 prevailing at class certification based on the fact that this claim may not be a 15 common issue for all class members. Plaintiff thought she had a 20% chance of 16 prevailing on the liability as Plaintiff would have to demonstrate necessary business 17 expenses that were incurred but not reimbursed. As such, Plaintiff felt that the real 18 exposure for this claim was approximately $27,596, based on these risks. 19 20

f.

Labor Code § 2699 Claim (PAGA Violations)

PAGA allows for a $100.00 penalty for the initial violation and a $200.00

21 penalty for each subsequent violation per pay period per putative class member. The 22 exposure on this claim is approximately $27,230,900. 23

This is another discretionary penalty and Plaintiff does not believe this Court

24 would issue this penalty on top of other penalties. As such, Plaintiff does not believe 25 this added any value to the settlement. 26

28.

Plaintiff’s counsel obtained a settlement of $2,000,000 exclusive of

27 Defendants’ employer-side payroll taxes with a claim form requirement and 28 reversion to the Defendants. Assuming all Class Members submit claims, the Case No. 2:14-cv-04378 (RGK) SHx 12 DECLARATION OF RAYMOND P. BOUCHER IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND ATTORNEYS’ FEES, COSTS, AND SERVICE AWARD

Case 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Document 59-1 Filed 12/14/15 Page 14 of 27 Page ID #:1109

1 settlement represents a 50.4% recovery of the real exposure full value of the claims, 2 which is $3,965,273. 3

29.

Plaintiff and her co-counsel consider this to be a good settlement for

4 the Class Members, taking into account all issues and risks related to liability, 5 damages and class certification, and also considering the case law regarding fair, 6 reasonable, and adequate settlements. Officers for Justice v. Civil Serv. Comm’n (9th 7 Cir. 1982) 688 F.2d 615, 628 (“It is well-settled law that a cash settlement 8 amounting to only a fraction of the potential recovery does not . . . render the 9 settlement inadequate or unfair”); In re Omnivision Technologies, Inc. (N.D. Cal.

21600 Oxnard Street, Suite 600 Woodland Hills, California 91367-4903

10 2007) 2007 U.S. Dist LEXIS 95616, at 21 (noting that certainty of recovery in 11 settlement of 6% of maximum potential recovery after reduction for attorneys’ fees 12 was higher than median percentage for recoveries in shareholder class action 13 settlements, averaging 2.2%-3% from 2002 through 2006). ATTORNEY COMPETENCE IN CLASS ACTIONS

14 15

30.

The attorneys at Boucher, LLP have significant experience prosecuting

16 complex class action litigation on behalf of plaintiffs. Attached as Exhibits “3” and 17 “4,” respectively, are true and correct copies of the Boucher, LLP firm resume and 18 my curriculum vitae (“CV”). 19

31.

As set forth in the attached resume and CV, Boucher, LLP and I have

20 wide-ranging experience leading and managing a variety of complex litigation 21 matters in state and federal courts, including Judicial Council Coordinated 22 Proceedings (“JCCPs”) in California state court, multi-district litigation (“MDLs”) 23 involving mass tort matters and class actions in federal courts, and state and 24 nationwide class action lawsuits. A representative sampling of the cases in which 25 attorneys from my firm and I have held lead, liaison, or co-lead positions in several 26 mass torts, class actions, and complex coordinated actions follows: 27 28 Case No. 2:14-cv-04378 (RGK) SHx 13 DECLARATION OF RAYMOND P. BOUCHER IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND ATTORNEYS’ FEES, COSTS, AND SERVICE AWARD

Case 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Document 59-1 Filed 12/14/15 Page 15 of 27 Page ID #:1110

1

a.

Abrica v. Tosco et al., Case No. BC239882 (Superior Court of

2 California, County of Los Angeles): Mass action relating to toxic refinery fire, 3 which resolved successfully. 4

b.

Bartley v. Camarillo Miramonte Homeowners Association, Case

5 No. SC020953 (Superior Court of California, Ventura County). Class action against 6 real estate developers on behalf of individual unit owners of a condominium project 7 for faulty construction and repairs. The units were constructed over a high water 8 table and on poor soils which expanded and contracted, causing the units to sink, 9 and causing floor slabs, foundations, and walls to crack. The defendants knew about

21600 Oxnard Street, Suite 600 Woodland Hills, California 91367-4903

10 the defects but did not disclose them. After receiving complaints, developers failed 11 to repair as promised. Homeowners complained the repairs were not performed, or 12 were not performed improperly. Resolved on the eve of trial. 13

c.

Black v. Blue Cross, Case No. BC250339 (Superior Court of

14 California, County of Los Angeles): Certified class action against a health insurer 15 for improper mid-year contract modifications, which led to a $22.5 million 16 settlement. 17

d.

Bustamante v. Southern California Gas Company, et al., Case

18 No. BC285598 (Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles): Class action 19 against energy companies on behalf of California citizens for manipulation of the 20 market for natural gas by reporting false price and volume information to the price 21 indices and industry publications that were used to establish the cost of natural gas 22 to end users, and the value of natural gas in the commodities markets. 23

e.

Chavez v. Nestle USA, Inc., Case No.: CV09-9192 GW (CWx)

24 (C.D. Cal.): Class action to recover for false advertising in the marketing of a 25 beverage for infants. 26

f.

Clergy Cases I & II, California Judicial Council Coordinated

27 Proceedings (“JCCPs”) 4286, 4297, and 4359: Litigated childhood sexual abuse 28 Case No. 2:14-cv-04378 (RGK) SHx 14 DECLARATION OF RAYMOND P. BOUCHER IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND ATTORNEYS’ FEES, COSTS, AND SERVICE AWARD

Case 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Document 59-1 Filed 12/14/15 Page 16 of 27 Page ID #:1111

1 cases against the Archdioceses of Los Angeles, San Diego, and Orange and other 2 Catholic entities with the total settlement exceeding $1.2 billion. 3

g.

County of Santa Clara v. Smithkline Beecham Corporation, C.A.

4 NO. 2:10-cv-01637-CMR (E.D. Pa.). This is an action on behalf of the People of the 5 State of California for false advertising and deceptive business practices in the 6 marketing, sales and distribution of the Type 2 Diabetes drug Avandia. 7

h.

In Re Crestor Products Liability Cases, California JCCP No.

8 4713. Appointed Plaintiffs’ Co-Liaison Counsel in coordinated proceeding 9 involving alleged personal injuries from ingestion and use of prescription drug

21600 Oxnard Street, Suite 600 Woodland Hills, California 91367-4903

10 Crestor. 11

i.

In re Transient Occupancy Tax Cases, California JCCP 4472:

12 Represented the City of Los Angeles in a class action on behalf of all cities in the 13 state of California to recover unremitted occupancy taxes from certain online travel 14 companies. 15

j.

In re Galvanized Steel Pipe Litigation, Case No. BC174649

16 (Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles): Class action involving 17 construction defects that resolved successfully for $41 million. 18

k.

In re Wholesale Electricity Antitrust Cases I & II, California

19 JCCP 4204-00005 and 4204-00006: Actions in which the plaintiffs sought to 20 recover damages from energy traders for unfair business practices. 21

l.

In re Wellpoint, Inc. Out-of-Network “UCR” Rates Litig., MDL

22 No. 09-2074 (C.D. Cal.): Serves in a leadership role in this consolidated action to 23 recover for anticompetitive price fixing and for artificial deflation of medical 24 payments and reimbursements, leading to underpayments to doctors for medical 25 care that they provided, and to artificially high charges for out-of-pocket costs to 26 insured individuals for medical care that they received. 27

m.

In Re: Wright Medical Technology, Inc., Conserve Hip Implant

28 Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2329 and Wright California JCCP. Co-Lead Case No. 2:14-cv-04378 (RGK) SHx 15 DECLARATION OF RAYMOND P. BOUCHER IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND ATTORNEYS’ FEES, COSTS, AND SERVICE AWARD

Case 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Document 59-1 Filed 12/14/15 Page 17 of 27 Page ID #:1112

1 Counsel and Plaintiffs’ Steering Committees in complex national and state complex 2 litigations involving defective hip system product. 3

n.

In re Yaz, Yasmin, Ocella Contraception Cases, California JCCP

4 No. 4608 (Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles): Serves as liaison 5 counsel to the court. This coordinated proceeding involves personal injury actions 6 resulting from ingestion of the oral contraceptives Yaz, Yasmin and Ocella. 7

o.

Silver v. Del Webb, Nevada Case No. A437325: A certified class

8 construction defect suit involving the installation of faulty plumbing systems in new 9 homes. The litigation resulted in a $21 million settlement.

21600 Oxnard Street, Suite 600 Woodland Hills, California 91367-4903

10

p.

Skeen, et al. v. BMW of North America LLC, et al., Case No.

11 2:13-cv-1531-WHW-CLW (Dist. N.J.) Appointed Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel 12 in nationwide putative class action involving alleged claims for breach of warranties 13 and violations of state consumer protection statutes for automobile defects in Mini 14 vehicles. 15

q.

Zoloft Birth Defects Cases, JCCP No. 4771. Appointed

16 Plaintiffs’ Co-Lead Counsel in coordinated proceeding involving alleged birth 17 defect claims arising from mother plaintiffs’ use and ingesting of prescription anti18 depressant drug. 19

32.

As more fully set forth in my CV, a true and correct copy of which is

20 attached hereto as Exhibit 4, throughout my career I have also held numerous 21 leadership positions in various legal organizations. I was the 2007 President of 22 Consumer Attorneys of California (“CAOC”), and the 2005 President of Consumer 23 Attorneys Association of Los Angeles (“CAALA”). I am presently a member of the 24 Board of Directors of Public Justice; the California State Delegate to the American 25 Association of Justice; and a member of the Pepperdine School of Law Board of 26 Visitors. I also previously served on the Los Angeles County Bar Association Board 27 of Directors. 28 Case No. 2:14-cv-04378 (RGK) SHx 16 DECLARATION OF RAYMOND P. BOUCHER IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND ATTORNEYS’ FEES, COSTS, AND SERVICE AWARD

Case 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Document 59-1 Filed 12/14/15 Page 18 of 27 Page ID #:1113

1

33.

I have been honored with numerous awards and distinctions for my

2 work. Notably, I was the recipient of the Los Angeles Daily Journal Trial Lawyer of 3 the Decade, 2001-2010, in particular for my work in California JCCPs entitled 4 Clergy Cases I & II, JCCPs 4286, 4297, and 4359. In 2007, I received both the 5 CAALA and CAOC Trial Lawyer of the Year Awards. I have also received the Trial 6 Lawyer of the Year Award from the Orange County Trial Lawyers Association. I 7 have also received the CLAY award from California Lawyer Magazine, which 8 recognizes attorneys from across the state whose achievements have made a 9 profound impact on the law. Additionally, the Honorable Chief Justice Ronald

21600 Oxnard Street, Suite 600 Woodland Hills, California 91367-4903

10 George and the California State Bar honored me with an award for my efforts on 11 behalf of court funding and on behalf of the State Courts of California. In 2006, I 12 was presented with the David S. Casey, Jr. Consumer Advocate Award by the 13 Consumer Attorneys of San Diego; and the Justice Armand Arabian Award by the 14 Project Sister organization. The California League of Conservation Voters awarded 15 me with the 2005 Environmental Leadership Award for my longstanding dedication 16 to the environment and public health rights of individuals, and I was the recipient of 17 the Ted Horn Memorial Award, a CAALA honor for the selfless gift of one’s talent. 18 Additionally, I have been the recipient of numerous Presidential Awards, Awards of 19 Merit and Commendation from Trial Bars around the country. 20

34.

I personally have extensive trial experience and have briefed and

21 argued many appeals before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and California 22 Courts of Appeal. 23

35.

I am a frequent speaker at CAOC, CAALA, AAJ, law schools, and

24 National College of Advocacy seminars and various educational conventions 25 throughout the country. 26

36.

I spend a considerable amount of time performing pro bono work and

27 community service. I began my career doing pro bono work with Cesar Chavez and 28 the United Farm Workers. More recently, I took a humanitarian trip to Uganda to Case No. 2:14-cv-04378 (RGK) SHx 17 DECLARATION OF RAYMOND P. BOUCHER IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND ATTORNEYS’ FEES, COSTS, AND SERVICE AWARD

Case 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Document 59-1 Filed 12/14/15 Page 19 of 27 Page ID #:1114

1 assist improving the Juvenile Justice system. I have spearheaded fundraisers for 2 various local, state and national organizations. BOUCHER, LLP’S VIEWS ON THE SETTLEMENT

3 4

37.

The settlement between Plaintiff and Defendants was reached after

5 hard-fought litigation, including investigation and discovery, law and motion, arms6 length negotiations between the parties as well as formal mediation and other 7 settlement discussions and meetings. 8

38.

In my judgment, based on my experience with complex class action

9 litigation, including wage and hour class actions, and based on the circumstances of

21600 Oxnard Street, Suite 600 Woodland Hills, California 91367-4903

10 the case, the settlement is fair, adequate, and a reasonable resolution of the 11 Plaintiff’s and proposed class members’ claims against Defendants. ATTORNEYS’ FEES & COSTS

12 13

39.

The fees and costs requested by Class Counsel are, in my view,

14 reasonable in light of the risks and costs undertaken to advance this litigation. The 15 fees were wholly contingent in nature and the case presented far more risk that the 16 usual contingent fee case. The work performed in this litigation precluded work on 17 other cases. There was the prospect of the enormous cost inherent in class action 18 litigation, as well as a long battle with corporate Defendants. Class Counsel risked 19 not only a great deal of time, but also a great deal of expense to ensure the 20 successful litigation of this action on behalf of all Class Members. The 21 reasonableness of the fees and costs request are also supported by the settlement 22 obtained, which provides substantial monetary benefit to Class members. 23

40.

In the present case, Class Counsel are requesting $500,000 for

24 attorneys’ fees, which represents 25% percent of Defendants’ total settlement 25 obligation exclusive of Defendants’ payroll obligations. Class Counsel believe that 26 this is appropriate based upon a common fund. This settlement is for a maximum 27 amount of $2,000,000 exclusive of Defendants’ share of payroll taxes, in a lump 28 sum. Plaintiff’s co-counsel believes that this request is fair and reasonable in view of Case No. 2:14-cv-04378 (RGK) SHx 18 DECLARATION OF RAYMOND P. BOUCHER IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND ATTORNEYS’ FEES, COSTS, AND SERVICE AWARD

Case 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Document 59-1 Filed 12/14/15 Page 20 of 27 Page ID #:1115

1 the typical common fund attorneys’ fees awards and similar California class action 2 wage and hour settlements. A lodestar cross-check of the total attorneys’ fees, 3 sought demonstrates the reasonableness of the request. A detailed statement of costs 4 and expenses by Class Counsel is provided herein and in the Declaration of Sahag 5 Majarian II. 6

41.

With the Court’s approval, Plaintiff’s’ co-counsel shall be paid any

7 court-approved fees and costs no later than fourteen (14) calendar days after

21600 Oxnard Street, Suite 600 Woodland Hills, California 91367-4903

8 Defendants fully fund the Maximum Settlement Fund. 9

A.

The Work Performed in This Litigation

10

42.

Throughout this litigation, the law firms and lawyers representing

11 Plaintiff and Class Members worked in a collaborative and efficient manner to 12 provide excellent representation while minimizing duplication wherever possible. 13 Class Counsel operated as an “executive committee” that considered and decided 14 case strategy and the issues at hand, then delegated tasks among Class Counsel. For 15 example, certain attorneys were assigned to various tasks, such as conducting 16 informal discovery or to research or motions practice, whereas other attorneys were 17 assigned to research and analysis of key issues in the case. At times, attorneys from 18 different firms would join forces to jointly take on the primary responsibility of a 19 task, and at other times, one attorney would handle a task based on the assessment 20 of the time and resources needed for the task. To avoid redundancy and unnecessary 21 expense, to the extent possible, Class Counsel also assigned certain attorneys to 22 appear for certain hearings and conferences. 23

B.

Law Offices of Sahag Majarian II Attorneys’ Fees and Costs

24

43.

As set forth in the Declaration of Sahag Majarian II filed concurrently

25 herewith, Mr. Majarian expended a total of 145.20 hours on this case to date at a 26 billable rate of $700.00, for a total lodestar of $101,640.00. Expenses incurred by 27 his office total $7,120.20. Support for Mr. Majarian’s billable rate, time and 28 expenses is provided in detail in his declaration. 19

Case No. 2:14-cv-04378 (RGK) SHx DECLARATION OF RAYMOND P. BOUCHER IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND ATTORNEYS’ FEES, COSTS, AND SERVICE AWARD

Case 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Document 59-1 Filed 12/14/15 Page 21 of 27 Page ID #:1116

1

C.

Boucher, LLP Attorneys’ Fees and Costs

2

44.

The summary schedules below are a true and correct reflection of the

3 time spent by Boucher, LLP working on this case. The summary schedule was 4 prepared based on the contemporaneous time records of all work performed. All of 5 the tasks performed, and the time expended, were reasonable and necessary for the 6 prosecution and ultimate settlement of the claims of Plaintiff and the Class. The 7 schedules below indicate a total lodestar of $299,041.40, which was calculated 8 based on the hourly rate in effect at the time the work was performed. The current 9 rates have been approved by other courts, including most recently in a settled wage

21600 Oxnard Street, Suite 600 Woodland Hills, California 91367-4903

10 and hour class action before Judge Amy D. Hogue in the Los Angeles Superior 11 Court, entitled Lopez v. Citrus Valley Health Partners, Inc., Case No. BC544139. 12

45.

A summary of Boucher, LLP’s lodestar calculation sorted by

13 professionals is set forth as follows: 14

PROFESSIONAL

15

17

Raymond P. Boucher (Name Partner of Boucher, LLP and Shareholder of Law Offices of Raymond Boucher, APC) Shehnaz M. Bhujwala (Partner)

18

Maria L. Weitz (Partner)

19

Brandon K. Brouillette (Associate)

16

20

HOURS

RATE

LODESTAR

57.7 110.7

$950 $1,100

$54,815.00 $121,770.00

89.6

$750

$67,200.00

1.8

$750

$1,350.00

119.65

$395

$47,268.60

21

Christine Cramer (Paralegal)

1.5

$185

$ 277.50

22

Eliza Donay (Paralegal)

3.0

$185

$555.00

23

Sandra Haro (Paralegal)

30.78

$185

$5,694.30

24

Maria Zarate (Paralegal)

0.6

$185

$111.00

25

TOTAL

415.33

$299,041.40

26 27

46.

A summary of Boucher, LLP’s lodestar calculation sorted by category

28 of work performed is set forth as follows: 20

Case No. 2:14-cv-04378 (RGK) SHx DECLARATION OF RAYMOND P. BOUCHER IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND ATTORNEYS’ FEES, COSTS, AND SERVICE AWARD

Case 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Document 59-1 Filed 12/14/15 Page 22 of 27 Page ID #:1117

1

CATEGORY

TIME

LODESTAR

2

Analysis/Strategy

53.3

$52,508.50

3

Case Administration

14.6

$10,272.00

Client Communications/Meetings

10.8

$6,115.50

Court Appearance

4.3

$3,260.00

Depositions

0.8

$457.00

Discovery: Expert

0.1

$110.00

Discovery: Written

11.0

$7,385.00

Document Production

0.8

$316.00

Document Review

1.1

$697.50

21.08

$7,376.80

35.6

$33,302.50

4 5 6 7 8 9

21600 Oxnard Street, Suite 600 Woodland Hills, California 91367-4903

10 11 12 13

Document/File Management Experts/Consultants

14

Fact Investigation/Development

1.8

$852.00

15

Other

4.9

$3,110.00

16

Pleadings and Pre-Trial Motions

112.2

$63,126.35

17

Research

17.7

$12,177.50

18

Settlement/Mediation

125.25

$97,979.75

19

TOTALS

415.33

$299,041.40

20 21

47.

The summary schedules below are a true and correct reflection of the

22 time spent by attorneys and paralegals at the Khorrami firm. The summary schedule 23 was prepared based on the contemporaneous time records of work performed. All of 24 the tasks performed, and the time expended, were reasonable and necessary for the 25 prosecution and ultimate settlement of the claims of Plaintiff and the Class. The 26 schedules below indicate a total lodestar of $39,381.50, which was calculated based 27 on the hourly rate in effect at the time the work was performed. A summary of the 28 Khorrami firm’s lodestar calculation is set forth as follows: Case No. 2:14-cv-04378 (RGK) SHx 21 DECLARATION OF RAYMOND P. BOUCHER IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND ATTORNEYS’ FEES, COSTS, AND SERVICE AWARD

Case 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Document 59-1 Filed 12/14/15 Page 23 of 27 Page ID #:1118

1

PROFESSIONAL

2

Scott Tillett (Associate) Corina Valderrama (Associate) TOTAL

3 4 5

HOURS

RATE

LODESTAR

82.4

$395

$32,548.00

17.3

$395

$6,833.50

99.7

$39,381.50

6 7 8 9

21600 Oxnard Street, Suite 600 Woodland Hills, California 91367-4903

10

48.

A summary of the Khorrami firm’s lodestar calculation sorted by

category of work performed is set forth as follows: CATEGORY Analysis/Strategy

TIME

LODESTAR 16.1

$6,359.50

11

Case Administration

0.1

$39.50

12

Depositions

1.3

$513.50

13

Discovery: Written

11.3

$4,463.50

14

Fact Investigation/Development

3.0

$1,185.00

15

Pleadings and Pre-Trial Motions

30.3

$11,968.50

16

Research

37.6

$14,852.00

17

TOTALS

99.7

$39,381.50

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

49.

Based on a review of the State Bar website, Shawn Khorrami, the sole

shareholder of the Khorrami firm, was ordered inactive by the California State Bar on November 23, 2015, and is thus ineligible to practice law. Over the past several months, creditors of Mr. Khorrami and his firm have communicated to me an intent to secure payments from Khorrami, LLP’s quantum meruit interest in certain cases, including this case. Upon request, I have also provided information regarding this case to a court-appointed receiver in Hamilton Capital VII, LLC v. Khorrami, LLP et al., New York State Supreme Court Case No. 650791/2015, in which a bank that provided financing to the Khorrami firm obtained an $8.5 million default judgment

28 Case No. 2:14-cv-04378 (RGK) SHx 22 DECLARATION OF RAYMOND P. BOUCHER IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND ATTORNEYS’ FEES, COSTS, AND SERVICE AWARD

Case 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Document 59-1 Filed 12/14/15 Page 24 of 27 Page ID #:1119

1 against the firm on November 4, 2015. Accordingly, I request that the Court enter a 2 line-item order for any award of attorneys’ fees for work performed by the 3 Khorrami firm on this case based on the lodestar calculation provided, as well as for 4 costs incurred by that firm, which funds will be placed into a segregated account 5 maintained by my firm for the benefit of the Khorrami firm’s creditors. 6

50.

Thus, the total number of hours expended by Boucher, LLP and the

7 Khorrami firm on this case as reflected above is 515.03. The total lodestar for work 8 as reflected herein is $338,422.90. With the approximately 35 hours of additional 9 time I have spent on the final approval and fees, costs and service award motions

21600 Oxnard Street, Suite 600 Woodland Hills, California 91367-4903

10 and will continue to spend after the date of this declaration relating to settlement 11 administration and final approval at my current hourly rate, the total number of 12 hours will be 550.03 hours and total lodestar will be $376,922.90. 13

51.

The hourly rates for the attorneys and staff identified herein at the time

14 the work was performed are commensurate with the prevailing market rates for 15 attorneys of comparable experience and skill handling complex litigation. 16 Additionally, all reasonable attempts were made to assign tasks to time-keepers at 17 the appropriate billing rates. Attached as Exhibit “5” is a true and correct copy of a 18 survey conducted by The National Law Journal for the year 2002, which provides a 19 sample of billing rates for California lawyers where six California firms provided 20 their hourly billing rates. Of those six firms, five regularly charge in excess of 21 $500.00 per hour for their partners. In fact, four of the firms charge as high as 22 $600.00, $620.00, $650.00, and up to $850.00 per hour. These firms are located in 23 Orange County, Los Angeles County, San Francisco County and San Diego County. 24 These are rates for defense firms. The only difference is that these defense attorneys 25 are likely paid on a monthly basis and would not have to advance any costs on a 26 case. To the contrary, Class Counsel are only paid if we favorably resolve a case 27 through settlement or trial, which in this particular case will result in payment 28 approximately two years after the case was originally filed. Case No. 2:14-cv-04378 (RGK) SHx 23 DECLARATION OF RAYMOND P. BOUCHER IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND ATTORNEYS’ FEES, COSTS, AND SERVICE AWARD

Case 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Document 59-1 Filed 12/14/15 Page 25 of 27 Page ID #:1120

1

52.

Attached hereto as Exhibit “6” is a true and correct summary of

2 expenses incurred by Boucher, LLP during the course of this litigation, including 3 court filing fees, attorney service fees, mediation fees, photocopy services and costs, 4 fax costs, postage costs, and mileage/parking costs. The expenses pertaining to this 5 case are reflected in the books and records of my firm. This expense summary was 6 prepared based on expense vouchers, check records and other documents and is an 7 accurate record of the expenses. Exhibit 6 indicates a total of $ 14,207.01 in 8 expenses incurred by Boucher, LLP to date in connection with the prosecution of 9 this litigation, of which $6,838.20 were reimbursed by Law Offices of Sahag

21600 Oxnard Street, Suite 600 Woodland Hills, California 91367-4903

10 Majarian for his share on certain costs. Thus, the total expenses incurred by 11 Boucher, LLP to date are: $7,368.81. I believe the litigation expenses incurred were 12 reasonable and necessary given the complex nature and scope of the case. 13

53.

Attached hereto as Exhibit “7” is a true and correct summary of

14 expenses incurred by the Khorrami firm relating to this case, including court filing 15 fees, attorney service fees, postage costs, photocopy costs, and a mediation fee. This 16 expense summary was prepared based on records in my possession for this case and 17 I believe it is an accurate record of the Khorrami firm’s litigation expenses relating 18 to this case. Exhibit 7 indicates a total of $1,737.15 in expenses incurred by the 19 Khorrami firm in connection with this case. I believe the litigation expenses 20 incurred were reasonable and necessary given the complex nature and scope of the 21 case. 22

54.

Thus, the total amount of unreimbursed expenses incurred for this case

23 by Boucher, LLP and the Khorrami firm, as set forth in Exhibits 6 and 7, is 24 $9,105.96. 25

D.

Total Requested Fees and Costs

26

55.

Collectively, Class Counsel spent approximately 695.20 hours for a

27 total lodestar of $478,562.90. Thus, the $500,000 amount requested in attorney’s 28 Case No. 2:14-cv-04378 (RGK) SHx 24 DECLARATION OF RAYMOND P. BOUCHER IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND ATTORNEYS’ FEES, COSTS, AND SERVICE AWARD

Case 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Document 59-1 Filed 12/14/15 Page 26 of 27 Page ID #:1121

1 fees will compensate counsel at a multiplier of approximately 1.045 of our 2 collective lodestar. 3

56.

Collectively, Class Counsel expended a total of $16,226.16, which

4 amount falls within falls under the $25,000 authorized in the proposed settlement. CLASS REPRESENTATIVE SERVICE AWARD

5 6

57.

I believe that a Class Representative Service Award of $5,000 for

7 Plaintiff is fair and reasonable. Plaintiff initially informed counsel of the policies 8 and procedures of Defendants at issue, and has put a significant amount of time and 9 effort into this litigation, including: remaining in contact with her counsel

21600 Oxnard Street, Suite 600 Woodland Hills, California 91367-4903

10 throughout the litigation and the settlement process, collecting and providing to 11 Plaintiff’s co-counsel all of the documents in her possession, reviewing numerous 12 pages of documents provided by Defendants, attending the all-day mediation and 13 reviewing settlement related documents. She estimates spending approximately 70 14 hours on this case, time that could have been spent in myriad other ways. All in all, 15 Plaintiff has been diligent and acted above and beyond that of which is expected of a 16 class representative throughout all stages of the litigation, up to and including final 17 approval of class action settlement. There are few individuals that are willing to act 18 as a class representatives and provide the work, diligence and willingness to assume 19 the substantial risk should the Defendants have prevailed in this case. Plaintiff’s 20 willingness to assume the financial risk is significant as California law states that the 21 losing party must pay the prevailing party’s costs. As such, if Plaintiff would have 22 not prevailed in this case, she could have been subjected to a cost award in the 23 amount of several thousands of dollars. Additionally, she assumed the burdens of 24 litigation for the benefit of Class members. 25

58.

Plaintiff’s co-counsel believes that no action would likely have been

26 taken by Class Members individually, and no compensation would have been 27 recovered for them, but for Plaintiff’s willingness to serve as Class Representative 28 on Class Members’ behalf. In addition, by actively pursuing this action, Plaintiff Case No. 2:14-cv-04378 (RGK) SHx 25 DECLARATION OF RAYMOND P. BOUCHER IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND ATTORNEYS’ FEES, COSTS, AND SERVICE AWARD

Case 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Document 59-1 Filed 12/14/15 Page 27 of 27 Page ID #:1122

1 furthered California’s public policy goal of enforcing the State’s wage and hour 2 laws. See Sav-On Drug Stores, Inc. v. Super. Ct. 34 Cal. 4th 319, 340 (2004) 3 (recognizing the “clear public policy” that is specifically directed at the enforcement 4 of California wage laws). 5

59.

Finally, Plaintiff have signed a general release for claims related to her

6 employment with Defendants, so she cannot pursue any other potential claims 7 arising from the same set of facts. As such, Plaintiff’s co-counsel believe that a 8 $5,000 service award for the Class Representative is fair and reasonable. CLAIMS ADMINISTRATION

9

21600 Oxnard Street, Suite 600 Woodland Hills, California 91367-4903

10

60.

CPT Group, Inc. is the Court-appointed Settlement Administrator for

11 the notice and claims administration procedures. The costs of the notice plan and 12 claims administration is $56,500. Plaintiff’s co-counsel supports the Court’s 13 issuance of an order authorizing payment in this amount to CPT Group, Inc., as it 14 has performed its obligations under the Stipulation and will continue to do so. 15

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of

16 America that the foregoing is true and correct. 17

Executed on this 14th day of December, 2015, at Woodland Hills, California.

18 19 20

/s/ Raymond P. Boucher Raymond P. Boucher

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case No. 2:14-cv-04378 (RGK) SHx 26 DECLARATION OF RAYMOND P. BOUCHER IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND ATTORNEYS’ FEES, COSTS, AND SERVICE AWARD

Case 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Document 59-2 Filed 12/14/15 Page 1 of 105 Page ID #:1123

Exhibit “1”

Case 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Document 59-2 Filed 12/14/15 Page 2 of 105 Page ID #:1124

Allison C. Eckstrom, State Bar No. 217255 [email protected] 2 Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C. 695 Town Center Drive, Suite 1500 3 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: 714.800.7900 4 Facsimile: 714.754.1298 1

5

Attorneys for Defendants

6

Additional Counsel Listed on Next Page

7 8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10 11

BERTA MARTIN DEL CAMPO, individually and on behalf of all others 12 similarly situated,

CASE NO. 2:14-cv-4378 RGK (SHx) CLASS ACTION

13

Plaintiff,

14 15

v.

JOINT STIPULATION RE: CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND RELEASE

16

HOMETOWN BUFFET, INC., a Minnesota corporation; OCB 17 RESTAURANT COMPANY, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company; 18 OVATION BRANDS, INC.; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, 19

Judge: Hon. R. Gary Klausner Action Filed: Trail Date:

March 11, 2014 None

Defendants.

20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

2:14-cv-4378 RGK (SHx)

JOINT STIPULATION RE: CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND RELEASE 00037018.7

Case 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Document 59-2 Filed 12/14/15 Page 3 of 105 Page ID #:1125

1 2 3 4 5 6

Raymond P. Boucher, State Bar No. 115364 [email protected] Shehnaz M. Bhujwala, State Bar No. 223484 [email protected] Brandon K. Brouillette, State Bar No. 273156 [email protected] BOUCHER LLP 21600 Oxnard Street, Suite 600 Woodland Hills, California 91367-4903 Tel: (818) 340-5400 Fax: (818) 340-5401

Sahag Majarian II, State Bar No. 146621 [email protected] 8 LAW OFFICES OF SAHAG MAJARIAN II 18250 Ventura Boulevard 9 Tarzana, California 91356 Tel: (818) 609-0807 10 Fax: (818) 609-0892 7

11

Attorneys for Plaintiff Berta Martin Del Campo and the Putative Class

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1

2:14-cv-4378 RGK (SHx)

JOINT STIPULATION RE: CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND RELEASE 00037018.7

Case 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Document 59-2 Filed 12/14/15 Page 4 of 105 Page ID #:1126

1

STIPULATION OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND RELEASE

2

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED, by and among Plaintiff Berta Martin Del

3

Campo, on behalf of herself and the Class Members, on the one hand, and

4 Defendants OCB Restaurant Company, LLC and Hometown Buffet, Inc., on the 5 other hand, that the above-captioned Action is hereby being compromised and 6 settled pursuant to the terms and conditions set forth herein subject to the Court’s 7 approval (the “Stipulation” or “Agreement”). 8 1.

DEFINITIONS

9

Unless otherwise defined herein, capitalized terms used in this Agreement

10 shall have the meanings set forth below: 11

1.1

“Action” means Berta Martin Del Campo v. Hometown Buffet, Inc.,

12 et, al., which is currently pending before the Honorable R. Gary Klausner in the 13 United States District Court for the Central District of California, Case No. 2:1414 cv-04378-RGK-SH (removed from the Superior Court of California, County of 15 Los Angeles, Case No. BC538899). 16

1.2

“Agreement,” “Settlement,” or “Stipulation” means this Joint

17 Stipulation re: Class Action Settlement and Release. 18

1.3

“CAFA” Notice means the notice of the proposed Settlement required

19 pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1715, which Defendants 20 will serve on the appropriate State and Federal officials no later than 10 days after 21 the filing of a Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement. 22

1.4

“Claim Form” means the Claim Form to be submitted by Settlement

23 Class Members who wish to receive a portion of the Net Settlement Fund 24 (substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit B). 25

1.5

“Class Counsel” and “Plaintiff’s Counsel” mean and refer to

26 collectively, Raymond P. Boucher, Shehnaz M. Bhujwala, and Brandon K. 27 Brouillette of Boucher, LLP, and Sahag Majarian, II of the Law Offices of Sahag 28 Majarian II. 1

2:14-cv-4378 RGK (SHx)

JOINT STIPULATION RE: CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND RELEASE 00037018.7

Case 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Document 59-2 Filed 12/14/15 Page 5 of 105 Page ID #:1127

1

1.6

“Class Counsel Fees” means the amount authorized by the Court to be

2 paid to Class Counsel for the services they have rendered in prosecuting this 3 Action. Class Counsel Fees shall be paid from the Maximum Settlement Fund. 4 Any portion of the requested Class Counsel Fees that is not awarded to Class 5

Counsel shall be part of the Net Settlement Fund and be distributed to Settlement

6

Class Members as provided in this Agreement.

7

1.7

“Class Counsel Costs” means the amount authorized by the Court to

8 be paid to Class Counsel for expenses and costs incurred by Class Counsel in 9 prosecuting this Action. Class Counsel Costs shall be paid from the Maximum 10 Settlement Fund. Any portion of the requested Class Counsel Costs that is not 11 awarded to Class Counsel shall be part of the Net Settlement Fund and be 12 distributed to Settlement Class Members as provided in this Agreement. 13

1.8

“Class Information” means information regarding Class Members,

14 which Defendants in good faith will compile from their records and provide to the 15 Settlement Administrator. Class Information shall be provided as a Microsoft 16 Excel spreadsheet and shall include: each Class Member’s full name; last known 17 mailing address; last known home telephone number; Social Security Number; 18 start date of employment; end date of employment; and Compensable Workweeks. 19 The Class Information shall also include the sum of all Compensable Workweeks 20 for the Class, which Defendants estimate to be 472,047. Because Social Security 21 Numbers are included in the Class Information, the Settlement Administrator shall 22 maintain the Class Information in confidence; access shall be limited to those with 23 a need to use the Class Information as part of the administration of the Settlement. 24

1.9

“Class” or “Class Members” means all current and former non-

25 exempt, non-managerial employees employed by Defendants in California at any 26 time between July 19, 2012 and March 31, 2015. Defendants estimate there are 27 approximately 11,000 Class Members. 28

1.10 “Class Period” means the period from July 19, 2012 through and 2

2:14-cv-4378 RGK (SHx)

JOINT STIPULATION RE: CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND RELEASE 00037018.7

Case 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Document 59-2 Filed 12/14/15 Page 6 of 105 Page ID #:1128

1 2 3 4

including March 31, 2015. 1.11 “Class Representative” means Berta Martin Del Campo in her capacity as representative of the Class. 1.12 “Class Representative Service Award” means the amount that the

5

Court authorizes to be paid to Plaintiff if appointed as Class Representative, not to

6

exceed Five Thousand U.S. Dollars ($5,000), in addition to her Individual

7

Settlement Payment, in recognition of her efforts in assisting with the prosecution

8 of the Action on behalf of Class Members and risks in assisting with the 9 prosecution of the Action and as consideration for executing this Stipulation and 10 release of her claims against Defendants. 11

1.13 “Compensable Workweeks” means the number of weeks worked by

12 Class Members during the Class Period according to Defendants’ payroll records. 13 A workweek, which is defined as a fixed and regularly recurring period seven 14 consecutive 24-hour periods totaling 168 hours, shall only be counted as “worked” 15 if the Class Member worked and was present during at least one shift during that 16 calendar week. 17

1.14 “Court” shall mean the United States District Court for the Central

18 District of California. 19

1.15 “Defendants” collectively means OCB Restaurant Company, LLC and

20 Hometown Buffet, Inc. 21

1.16 “Defense Counsel” or “Counsel for Defendant” shall mean Ogletree,

22 Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, 695 Town Center Drive, Suite 1500, Costa 23 Mesa, CA 92626. 24

1.17 “Effective Date” means the latest of the following dates: (i) the date

25 upon which the Court grants final approval of the Settlement if no Settlement Class 26 members file objections to the Settlement; or (ii) if a Class Member files an 27 objection to the Settlement, the Effective Date shall be the date thirty (30) days 28 after the date upon which the Court grants final approval of the Settlement if no 3

2:14-cv-4378 RGK (SHx)

JOINT STIPULATION RE: CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND RELEASE 00037018.7

Case 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Document 59-2 Filed 12/14/15 Page 7 of 105 Page ID #:1129

1

appeal is initiated by an objector; or (iii) if a timely appeal is initiated by an

2

objector, the Effective Date shall be the date of final resolution of that appeal

3

(including any requests for rehearing and/or petitions for certiorari), resulting in

4

final judicial approval of the Settlement.

5

1.18 “Estimated Individual Settlement Payment” means the estimated

6

amount payable to each Settlement Class Member who submits a valid Claim

7

Form, as calculated pursuant to Paragraph 3.14.1 herein and assuming, for

8 purposes of the calculation, that the Net Settlement Fund equals $1,396,000, and 9 that all Class Members do not submit a valid timely Request for Exclusion and 10 submit a valid timely Claim Form. 11

1.19 “Final Approval Hearing” means the hearing held on the motion for

12 final approval of the Settlement. 13

1.20 “Final Judgment” means the Court’s entry of an order of judgment in

14 this Action following the Court’s final approval of the Settlement. 15

1.21 “Final Approval” Order means the Court’s entry of an order finally

16 approving the Settlement, which may not be issued earlier than 90 days after the 17 later of the dates on which the appropriate State and Federal Officials are served 18 with the CAFA Notice. 19

1.22 “Individual Settlement Payment” means the amount payable from the

20 Net Settlement Fund to each Settlement Class Member who submits a valid Claim 21 Form. The Individual Settlement Payment shall be calculated pursuant to 22 Paragraph 3.14.1 herein. 23

1.23 “LWDA PAGA Allocation” means the amount payable from the

24 Maximum Settlement Fund to the State of California’s Labor Workforce 25 Development Agency and the Settlement Class as specified in Paragraph 3.17 26 herein. 27

1.24 “Maximum Settlement Fund” means Two Million Dollars

28 ($2,000,000), exclusive of Defendants’ corporate payroll tax obligations, which 4

2:14-cv-4378 RGK (SHx)

JOINT STIPULATION RE: CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND RELEASE 00037018.7

Case 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Document 59-2 Filed 12/14/15 Page 8 of 105 Page ID #:1130

1

shall be paid separately by Defendants in addition to the Maximum Settlement

2

Fund.

3

1.25 “Net Settlement Fund” means the Maximum Settlement Fund, less

4

Class Counsel Fees, Class Counsel Costs, Class Representative Service Award,

5

Settlement Administrator Costs, and the LWDA PAGA Allocation portion paid to

6

the LWDA. Assuming all requested fees, costs and awards are granted as

7

requested, the Parties estimate this amount to be $1,396,000.

8 9 10

1.26 “Notice of Settlement” means the Notice of Class Action Settlement (substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A). 1.27 “Notice Packet” means the Notice of Class Action Settlement, Claim

11

Form, Request for Exclusion, and self-addressed, stamped envelope for return to

12

the Settlement Administrator (substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibits

13

A - C).

14

1.28 “Parties” means Plaintiff and Defendants, and “Party” shall mean

15 either Plaintiff or Defendants, individually. 16

1.29 “Payment Ratio” means the respective Compensable Workweeks for

17 each Class Member divided by the total Compensable Workweeks for all Class 18 Members who submit a valid Claim Form. 19

1.30 “Plaintiff” means Berta Martin Del Campo.

20

1.31 “Preliminary Approval” or “Preliminary Approval Date” means the

21 date the Court enters the Preliminary Approval Order. 22

1.32 “Preliminary Approval Order” means the Proposed Order

23 (substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit D). 24

1.33 “Released Claims” means any and all claims asserted in the Action

25 against the Released Parties, or that could have been asserted against the Released 26 Parties based upon the facts alleged in the First Amended Class Action Complaint 27 to be filed in the Action, by Plaintiff or any Settlement Class Member from July 28 19, 2012 to March 31, 2015. The Released Claims include, but are not limited to, 5

2:14-cv-4378 RGK (SHx)

JOINT STIPULATION RE: CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND RELEASE 00037018.7

Case 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Document 59-2 Filed 12/14/15 Page 9 of 105 Page ID #:1131

1

any and all claims for (i) alleged failure to provide meal and rest breaks in

2

violation of California Labor Code §§ 226.7, 516, and 558, (ii) alleged failure to

3

reimburse employees for necessary business expenditures in violation of California

4

Labor Section §§ 2802 and 2804, (iii) alleged violations of California Labor Code

5 §§ 201-203 including, but not limited to, failure to pay final wages timely, or pay 6 penalties for untimely final wages; (iv) alleged violations of California Labor Code 7 § 226(a) for failure to provide accurate wage statements; (v) alleged violation of 8 California Business and Professions Code § 17200 et seq. based on underlying 9 violations of the California Labor Code identified herein at (i) through (iv), and 10

(vi) alleged violations of California Labor Code § 2698 et seq. based on derivative

11

violations of the Labor Code including, but not limited to, Labor Code §§ 201,

12

202, 203, 204, 226, 226.7, 512, 2802, and 2804. The Released Claims also

13

include all claims for interest and/or penalties of any kind or nature arising out of

14

or relating to the Released Claims and further extends to and includes claims for

15

damages, civil penalties, restitution, injunctive relief, declaratory relief, punitive

16

damages, and any other form of relief or remedy. The Released Claims also

17

include all claims Plaintiff and Settlement Class Members may have against the

18

Released Parties relating to (i) the payment and allocation of attorneys’ fees and

19

costs to Class Counsel pursuant to this Agreement and (ii) the payment of the Class

20

Representative Enhancement Award pursuant to this Agreement. It is the intent of

21

the Parties that the judgment entered by the Court upon final approval of the

22

Settlement shall have res judicata effect and be final and binding upon Plaintiff

23

and all Settlement Class Members regarding all of the Released Claims, whether or

24

not the Settlement Class Members submit Claim Forms. For the sake of clarity, the

25

parties agree that the Released Claims include only those claims that meet the

26

definition of Released Claims. As such, for example, Released Claims do not

27

include claims for wrongful termination, unlawful harassment, or Worker’s

28

Compensation. Nor does this release constitute a blanket waiver of all claims, 6

2:14-cv-4378 RGK (SHx)

JOINT STIPULATION RE: CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND RELEASE 00037018.7

Case 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Document 59-2 Filed 12/14/15 Page 10 of 105 Page ID #:1132

1

potential or actual, known or unknown for violations of California’s Labor Code

2

and Wage Orders by current and former employees of Defendants. 1.34 “Released Parties” means Defendants and their past, present and/or

3

4 future, direct and/or indirect, parent companies, subsidiaries, affiliates, divisions, 5 officers, directors, managers, members, heirs, employees, agents, representatives, 6 attorneys, insurers, partners, investors, shareholders, predecessors, successors, 7 and/or assigns.

1.35 “Request for Exclusion” means the Request for Exclusion form

8

9 (substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit C).

1.36 “Response Deadline” means the date sixty (60) days after the

10

11 Settlement Administrator mails Notice Packets to Settlement Class Members and 12 the last date on which Settlement Class Members may: (a) postmark, fax, or email 13 Claims Forms; (b) postmark, fax, or email Requests for Exclusion; or (c) file and 14 serve Objections to the Settlement.

1.37

15

“Settlement” means the disposition of the Action pursuant to this

16 Agreement.

1.38 “Settlement Administration Costs” means the amount to be paid to the

17

18 Settlement Administrator from the Maximum Settlement Fund for the 19 administration of the Settlement. The amount is not to exceed $56,500. 20

1.39 “Settlement Administrator” means CPT Group.

21

1.40 “Settlement Class Members” or “Settlement Class” means all Class

22 Members who do not opt out of the Settlement by timely submitting a Request for 23 Exclusion.

1.41 “Settlement Fund Account” means the bank account established

24

25 pursuant to the terms of this Stipulation from which all monies payable under the 26 terms of this Settlement shall be paid, as set forth herein. 27

2.

RECITALS

28

2.1

Class Certification. The Parties stipulate and agree to the certification 7

2:14-cv-4378 RGK (SHx)

JOINT STIPULATION RE: CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND RELEASE 00037018.7

Case 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Document 59-2 Filed 12/14/15 Page 11 of 105 Page ID #:1133

1

of this Action for purposes of this Settlement only. Should the Settlement not

2

become final and effective as herein provided, class certification shall immediately

3

be set aside (subject to further proceedings on motion of any party to certify or

4

deny certification thereafter). The Parties’ willingness to stipulate to class

5

certification as part of the Settlement shall have no bearing on, and shall not be

6

admissible in or considered in connection with, the issue of whether a class should

7

be certified in a non-settlement context in this Action and shall have no bearing on,

8

and shall not be admissible or considered in connection with, the issue of whether a

9

class should be certified in any other lawsuit.

10

2.2

Procedural History. On or about March 11, 2014, Plaintiff filed the

11

instant Action in the Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles. Defendants’ 12

agent for service of process was served with the Class Action Complaint, together 13

with accompanying Summons and pleadings on May 9, 2014. On June 6, 2014, 14

Defendants filed a Notice of Removal with the United States District Court for the 15

Central District of California, and the case was assigned to the Honorable Judge R. 16

Gary Klausner. Defendants sought removal on the grounds that CAFA jurisdiction 17

existed. On July 7, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Remand, arguing that the 18

Defendants did not demonstrate that the amount in controversy exceeded $5 19

million, as required under CAFA. On August 6, 2014, the Court granted Plaintiff’s 20

motion and remanded the case to the Superior Court for the County of Los 21

Angeles. On June 1, 2015, Defendants removed the action to federal court a 22

second time based on a verified discovery response from Plaintiff, which affirmed 23

that the amount in controversy exceeded the requisite $5 million for CAFA 24

jurisdiction. Upon removal, the case was again removed to the United States 25

District Court for the Central District of California and again assigned to the 26

Honorable Judge R. Gary Klausner. 27 28

The Class Action Complaint alleged, inter alia, that Defendants violated 8

2:14-cv-4378 RGK (SHx)

JOINT STIPULATION RE: CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND RELEASE 00037018.7

Case 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Document 59-2 Filed 12/14/15 Page 12 of 105 Page ID #:1134

1

various provisions of the California Labor Code by, among other things, failing to

2 provide meal and rest periods, failing to reimburse for necessary business 3 expenditures, failing to timely pay wages upon termination or resignation, and 4 failing to furnish accurate wage statements. The parties immediately commenced 5 an investigation of the claims and defenses alleged in the case and thereafter 6 agreed to attempt to resolve the claims through mediation. 7

On March 10, 2015, the Parties attended mediation with Mark Rudy, an 8

experienced and well-known class action mediator. Although the Parties were 9

unable to reach a settlement at mediation, counsel for the Parties continued their 10

settlement efforts with the continued assistance of Mr. Rudy, and reached an 11

agreement on the material terms of a proposed settlement on March 16, 2015. 12 13

2.3

Amendment Of Class Action Complaint. As part of the Preliminary

14

Approval process, Plaintiff shall amend the Class Action Complaint to add a cause

15

of action for penalties pursuant to the Private Attorney General Act of 2004

16

(“PAGA”) (Cal. Lab. Code §§ 2698 et. seq.). Defendants will stipulate to leave to

17

amend as set forth in this paragraph. In the event that the Settlement does not

18

become final for any reason, then Defendants shall file their Answer to the First

19

Amended Class Action Complaint within 30 days of such order lifting the current

20

stay of proceedings.

21

2.4

Federal Court Jurisdiction. The Parties agree that the United States

22

District Court for the Central District of California has jurisdiction over the Action, 23

and also that venue is proper in that Court. 24 25

2.5

Benefits of Settlement to Settlement Class Members. Plaintiff and

26

Class Counsel recognize the expense and length of continued proceedings

27

necessary to litigate their disputes through trial and through any possible appeals.

28

Plaintiff has also taken into account the uncertainty and risk of the outcome of 9

2:14-cv-4378 RGK (SHx)

JOINT STIPULATION RE: CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND RELEASE 00037018.7

Case 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Document 59-2 Filed 12/14/15 Page 13 of 105 Page ID #:1135

1

further litigation, and the difficulties and delays inherent in such litigation.

2

Plaintiff and Class Counsel are also aware of the burdens of proof necessary to

3

establish liability for the claims asserted in the Action, both generally and in

4

response to Defendants’ defenses thereto (many of which have been shared at the

5

mediation), and potential difficulties in establishing damages for the Settlement

6

Class Members. Plaintiff and Class Counsel have also taken into account

7

Defendants’ agreement to enter into a settlement that confers substantial relief

8

upon Settlement Class Members. Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff and Class

9

Counsel have determined that the Settlement set forth in this Agreement is a fair,

10

adequate and reasonable settlement, and is in the best interests of the Settlement

11

Class Members.

12

2.6

Defendants’ Reasons for Settlement. Defendants have concluded that

13

any further defense of this litigation would be protracted and expensive for all 14

Parties. Substantial amounts of time, energy and resources of Defendants have 15

been and, unless this Settlement is made, will continue to be devoted to the defense 16

of the claims asserted by Plaintiff and Class Members. Defendants have also taken 17

into account the risks of further litigation in reaching its decision to enter into this 18

Settlement. Despite continuing to contend that they are not liable for any of the 19

claims set forth by Plaintiff in the Action, Defendants have, nonetheless, agreed to 20

settle in the manner and upon the terms set forth in this Agreement to put to rest 21

the claims as set forth in the Action. 22 23

2.7

Class Members’ Claims. Class Members, by and through Plaintiff,

24

have claimed and continue to claim that the Released Claims have merit and give

25

rise to liability on the part of Defendants. This Agreement is a compromise of

26

disputed claims. Nothing contained in this Agreement and no documents referred

27

to herein and no action taken to carry out this Agreement may be construed or used

28

as an admission by or against the Class Members or Class Counsel as to the merits 10

2:14-cv-4378 RGK (SHx)

JOINT STIPULATION RE: CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND RELEASE 00037018.7

Case 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Document 59-2 Filed 12/14/15 Page 14 of 105 Page ID #:1136

1

or lack thereof of the claims asserted.

2

2.8

Defendants’ Defenses. Defendants have claimed and continue to

3

claim that the Released Claims have no merit and do not give rise to liability. This 4

Agreement is a compromise of disputed claims. Nothing contained in this 5

Agreement and no documents referred to herein and no action taken to carry out 6

this Agreement may be construed or used as an admission by or against Defendants 7

as to the merits or lack thereof of the claims asserted. 8

2.9

9

Maximum Amount Payable by Defendant. Under the terms of this

10

Settlement, the maximum amount payable by Defendants shall not exceed the

11

Maximum Settlement Fund of Two Million U.S. Dollars ($2,000,000), exclusive of

12 Defendants’ employer-side payroll tax obligations that shall be paid separately and 13 in addition to the Maximum Settlement Fund. 14 15

3.

TERMS OF AGREEMENT The Parties agree as follows:

16 17 18 19

3.1

Class Size. Defendants represent that there are approximately 11,000

Class Members. 3.2

Release As To All Class Members. As of the Effective Date, the

20

Settlement Class Members, including Plaintiff, release the Released Parties from

21

the Released Claims for the Class Period.

22

With respect to the Released Claims only, the Parties stipulate and agree

23 that, upon the Effective Date, the Plaintiff and Settlement Class Members shall be 24 deemed to have, and by operation of the Final Judgment shall have, expressly 25 waived and relinquished, to the fullest extent permitted by law, the provisions, 26 rights and benefits of Section 1542 of the California Civil Code, or any other 27 similar provision under federal or state law, which Section provides: 28 11

2:14-cv-4378 RGK (SHx)

JOINT STIPULATION RE: CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND RELEASE 00037018.7

Case 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Document 59-2 Filed 12/14/15 Page 15 of 105 Page ID #:1137

1 2 3 4 5

A general release does not extend to claims which the creditor does not know or suspect to exist in his or her favor at the time of executing the release, which if known by him or her must have materially affected his or her settlement with the debtor. The Plaintiff and Settlement Class Members may hereafter discover facts in

6

addition to or different from those they now know or believe to be true with respect

7

to the subject matter of the Released Claims, but upon the Effective Date, shall be

8

deemed to have, and by operation of the Final Judgment shall have, fully, finally,

9

and forever settled and released any and all of the Released Claims, whether

10

known or unknown, suspected or unsuspected, contingent or non-contingent,

11

which now exist, or heretofore have existed, upon any theory of law or equity now

12

existing or coming into existence in the future, including, but not limited to,

13

conduct that is negligent, intentional, with or without malice, or a breach of any

14

duty, law or rule, without regard to the subsequent discovery or existence of such

15

different or additional facts.

16

3.3

Tax Liability. The Parties make no representations as to the tax

17

treatment or legal effect of the payments called for hereunder, and Plaintiff and 18

Settlement Class Members are not relying on any statement or representation by 19

the Parties in this regard. Plaintiff and Settlement Class Members understand and 20

agree that they will be responsible for the payment of any taxes and penalties 21

assessed on the payments described herein and will hold the Parties free and 22

harmless from and against any claims resulting from treatment of such payments as 23

non-taxable damages, including the treatment of such payment as not subject to 24

withholding or deduction for payroll and employment taxes. 25 26

3.4

No Knowledge Of Other Claims. Class Counsel and Plaintiff agree

27

and represent that they are not aware of any claim that could have been brought

28

against Defendants by any person or entity, other than the claims that were alleged 12

2:14-cv-4378 RGK (SHx)

JOINT STIPULATION RE: CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND RELEASE 00037018.7

Case 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Document 59-2 Filed 12/14/15 Page 16 of 105 Page ID #:1138

1

in the Action, or could have been alleged based on the facts alleged in the Action.

2

3.5

Confirmatory Discovery. On May 14, 2015, an expert retained by

3

Class Counsel reviewed Defendants’ financials for purposes of validating 4

statements made by Defendants at mediation regarding their financial distress. The 5

Parties agree that the foregoing confirmatory discovery sufficiently established to 6

Class Counsel’s satisfaction that, in light of Defendants’ distressed financial 7

condition and taking into account all relevant factors, present and potential, the 8

Settlement is fair, adequate, reasonable and beneficial to members of the 9

Settlement Class. 10 11

3.6

Settlement Approval and Implementation Procedures. As part of this

12

Settlement, the Parties agree to the following procedures for obtaining the Court’s

13

preliminary approval of the Settlement, certifying a class for settlement purposes,

14

notifying Class Members of the Settlement, obtaining the Court’s final approval of

15

the Settlement, and processing the Individual Settlement Payments.

16

3.6.1 Preliminary Approval and Certification. On or before August 17

3, 2015, the Parties will jointly submit this Stipulation to the Court for its 18

preliminary approval. Such submission will include this Agreement, the proposed 19

Notice Packet, attached hereto as Exhibits A through C, the proposed Preliminary 20

Approval Order, attached hereto as Exhibit D, and any motions, memoranda and 21

evidence as may be necessary for the Court to determine that this Agreement is 22

fair, adequate and reasonable. The Parties agree to request the Court to enter an 23

order approving the certification of a provisional settlement Class after the 24

preliminary approval hearing in accordance with Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of 25

Civil Procedure. 26 27

3.6.2 Class Information. No more than fifteen (15) calendar days

28

after the entry of the Preliminary Approval Order, Defendants shall provide the 13

2:14-cv-4378 RGK (SHx)

JOINT STIPULATION RE: CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND RELEASE 00037018.7

Case 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Document 59-2 Filed 12/14/15 Page 17 of 105 Page ID #:1139

1

Settlement Administrator with the Class Information for purposes of mailing

2

Notice Packets to Class Members.

3

3.6.3 Notice By First Class U.S. Mail. Upon receipt of the Class

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Information, the Settlement Administrator will perform a search on the National Change of Address database to update the Class Members’ addresses. No more than fourteen (14) calendar days after receiving the Class Information from Defendants as provided herein, the Settlement Administrator shall mail copies of the Notice Packet to all Class Members by regular First Class U.S. Mail. The Settlement Administrator shall exercise its best judgment to determine the current mailing address for each Class Member. The address identified by the Settlement Administrator as the current mailing address shall be presumed to be the best mailing address for each Class Member. It will be conclusively presumed that, if an envelope so mailed has not been returned within thirty (30) days of the mailing, the Class Member received the Notice Package.

16

3.6.4 Reminder Postcard. A reminder postcard shall be mailed thirty

17

(30) days after the original mailing date of the Notices to all Class Members who

18

have not returned a Claim Form, Request for Exclusion or Notice of Objection to

19

the Settlement.

20 21

3.6.5 Undeliverable Notices. Any Notice Packets returned to the

22

Settlement Administrator as non-delivered on or before the Response Deadline

23

shall be re-mailed to the forwarding address affixed thereto. If no forwarding

24

address is provided, the Settlement Administrator shall make reasonable efforts to

25

obtain an updated mailing address within five (5) business days of the date of the

26

return of the Notice Packet. If an updated mailing address is identified, the

27

Settlement Administrator shall resend the Notice Packet to the Class Member.

28

Class Members to whom Notice Packets are re-sent after having been returned undeliverable to the Settlement Administrator shall have fourteen (14) calendar 14

2:14-cv-4378 RGK (SHx)

JOINT STIPULATION RE: CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND RELEASE 00037018.7

Case 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Document 59-2 Filed 12/14/15 Page 18 of 105 Page ID #:1140

1

days thereafter to or until the Response Deadline has expired, whichever is later, to

2

mail, fax or email the Claim Form or Request for Exclusion, or mail, fax or email a

3

Notice of Objection. Notice Packets that are resent shall inform the recipient of

4

this adjusted deadline. If a Class Member’s Notice Packet is returned to the

5

Settlement Administrator more than once as non-deliverable, then an additional

6

Notice Packet shall not be remailed.

7

3.6.6 Compliance with the procedures specified in paragraphs 3.6.3

8 9 10 11 12 13

through 3.6.5 herein shall constitute due and sufficient notice to Class Members of this Settlement and shall satisfy the requirement of due process. Nothing else shall be required of, or done by, the Parties, Class Counsel, and Defense Counsel to provide notice of the proposed settlement. 3.7

Submission of Claims. Only Class Members who submit valid and

14

timely Claim Forms shall receive Individual Settlement Payments from the Net

15

Settlement Fund. The Claim Form shall include instructions on how to submit the

16

form, shall list the Estimated Individual Settlement Payment for each respective

17

Class Member, and shall notify Class Members of the Response Deadline. The

18

date of the postmark on the Claim Form, either based on the date on the return

19

envelope, the date of the fax stamp, or the date of email transmission, shall be the

20

exclusive means used to determine whether a Class Member has timely returned

21

his/her Claim Form on or before the Response Deadline. For purposes of this

22

Agreement, a Claim Form shall be deemed valid only if it is signed by the Class

23

Member and postmarked, fax or email stamped on or before the Response

24

Deadline.

25 26

3.8

Cure for Defective Claim Forms. If a Class Member’s Claim Form is

27

not signed or lacks required information, the Class Member shall be given an

28

opportunity to cure the defect. Any such Claim Form shall be returned to the Class Member no later than three (3) business days after receipt of the defective Claim 15

2:14-cv-4378 RGK (SHx)

JOINT STIPULATION RE: CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND RELEASE 00037018.7

Case 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Document 59-2 Filed 12/14/15 Page 19 of 105 Page ID #:1141

1

Form with a cure letter stating that the Class Member has fifteen (15) days from

2

the date of the cure letter or from the Response Deadline, whichever date is later,

3

to submit, by mail, facsimile or email transmission, a revised Claim Form. If the

4

revised Claim Form is not postmarked, faxed or email stamped within that period,

5

it shall be deemed untimely and that Class Member will receive an Individual

6

Settlement Payment only if the Parties so agree. If a Class Member submits both a

7

Claim Form and Request for Exclusion, the Class Member will be given an

8

opportunity to clarify his or her response. The Settlement Administrator will send

9

a cure letter no later than three (3) business days after receiving the conflicting

10

response stating that the Class Member has fifteen (15) days from the date of the

11

cure letter or from the Response Deadline, whichever date is later, to clarify his or

12

her response. If no clarification is provided, the Request for Exclusion shall be

13

invalidated, the Class Member will be bound by the Settlement, and the Class

14

Member shall receive an Individual Settlement Payment. Class Members who

15

receive Notice Packets but do not submit a valid and timely Claim Form may not

16

receive an Individual Settlement Payment; however, such persons shall nonetheless

17

be deemed Settlement Class Members and will be bound by all terms of the

18

Settlement and any Final Judgment entered in this Action if the Settlement receives

19

final approval by the Court.

20

3.9

Claim Disputes. Class Members will have the opportunity, should

21

they disagree with Defendants’ records regarding the dates of employment stated 22

on their Claim Form, to provide documentation and/or an explanation to show 23

contrary employment dates. If there is a dispute, the Settlement Administrator will 24

consult with the Parties to determine whether an adjustment is warranted. The 25

Settlement Administrator shall determine the eligibility for, and the amounts of, 26

any Individual Settlement Payments under the terms of this Agreement. The 27

Settlement Administrator’s determination of the eligibility for and amount of any 28

Individual Settlement Payment shall be binding upon the Class Member and the 16

2:14-cv-4378 RGK (SHx)

JOINT STIPULATION RE: CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND RELEASE 00037018.7

Case 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Document 59-2 Filed 12/14/15 Page 20 of 105 Page ID #:1142

1

Parties.

2

3.10 Exclusions (Opt-Outs). The Notice Packet shall state that Class 3

Members who wish to exclude themselves from the Settlement must submit a 4

Request for Exclusion by the Response Deadline. The Request for Exclusion: (1) 5

must contain the name, address, telephone number and the last four digits of the 6

Social Security number of the person requesting exclusion, (2) must be signed by 7

the Class Member; and (3) must be postmarked, fax or email stamped by the 8

Response Deadline and returned to the Settlement Administrator at the specified 9

address, fax telephone number or email address. If the Request for Exclusion does 10

not contain the information listed in (1)-(2), it will not be deemed valid for 11

exclusion from this Settlement, except a Request for Exclusion form not containing 12

a Class Member’s telephone number and/or last four digit of the Social Security 13

number will be deemed valid. The date of the postmark on the Request for 14

Exclusion, either based on the date on the return mailing envelope, date of the fax 15

stamp, or date of email transmission, shall be the exclusive means used to 16

determine whether a Request for Exclusion has been timely submitted. Any Class 17

Member who requests to be excluded from the Settlement Class will not be entitled 18

to any recovery under the Settlement and will not be bound by the terms of the 19

Settlement or have any right to object, appeal or comment thereon. Class Members 20

who receive a Notice Packet but fail to submit a valid and timely Request for 21

Exclusion on or before the Response Deadline shall be bound by all terms of the 22

Settlement and any Final Judgment entered in this Action if the Settlement is 23

approved by the Court. No later than fourteen (14) calendar days after the 24

Response Deadline, the Settlement Administrator shall provide counsel for the 25

Parties with a complete list of all members of the Class who have timely submitted 26

Requests for Exclusion. At no time shall any of the Parties or their counsel seek to 27

solicit or otherwise encourage any Class Member to submit Requests for Exclusion 28

from the Settlement. 17

2:14-cv-4378 RGK (SHx)

JOINT STIPULATION RE: CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND RELEASE 00037018.7

Case 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Document 59-2 Filed 12/14/15 Page 21 of 105 Page ID #:1143

1

3.11 Objections. The Notice Packet shall state that Class Members who

2

wish to object to the Settlement must mail a written statement of objection

3

(“Notice of Objection”) to the Settlement Administrator by the Response Deadline.

4

The date of the postmark on the return envelope, or fax date or email date shall be

5

deemed the exclusive means for determining that a Notice of Objection was timely

6

submitted. The Notice of Objection must be signed by the Class Member and

7

state: (1) the full name, address, and telephone number of the Class Member; (2)

8

the dates of employment of the Class Member; (3) the job title(s) and job

9

location(s) of the Class Member; (4) the last four digits of the Class Members’

10

Social Security number ; (5) the basis for the objection; and (6) whether the

11

Settlement Class Member intends to appear at the Final Approval Hearing, and

12

provide any legal briefs, papers or memoranda the objecting Class Member

13

proposes to submit to the Court. Class Members who fail to make objections in the

14

manner specified above shall be deemed to have waived any objections and shall

15

be foreclosed from making any objections (whether by appeal or otherwise) to the

16

Settlement. No later than fourteen (14) days after the Response Deadline, the

17

Settlement Administrator shall provide counsel for the Parties with complete

18

copies of all objections received, including the postmark dates or other proof of

19

timely submission for each objection. Class Members who submit a timely Notice

20

of Objection will have a right to appear at the Final Approval Hearing in order to

21

have their objections heard by the Court. At no time shall any of the Parties or

22

their counsel seek to solicit or otherwise encourage Class Members to file or serve

23

written objections to the Settlement or appeal from the Order and Final Judgment.

24

Class Counsel shall not represent any Class Members with respect to any such

25

objections.

26

3.12 No Solicitation of Settlement Objections or Exclusions. The Parties 27

agree to use their best efforts to carry out the terms of this Settlement. At no time 28

shall any of the Parties or their counsel seek to solicit or otherwise encourage Class 18

2:14-cv-4378 RGK (SHx)

JOINT STIPULATION RE: CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND RELEASE 00037018.7

Case 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Document 59-2 Filed 12/14/15 Page 22 of 105 Page ID #:1144

1

Members to submit either written objections to the Settlement or Requests for

2

Exclusion from the Settlement, or to appeal from the Court’s Final Judgment.

3

3.13 Funding and Allocation of Settlement. Defendant is required to pay 4

the sum of the Individual Settlement Payments, the Class Representative Service 5

Award, the Class Counsel Fees and Costs, the PAGA Allocation and the 6

Settlement Administration Costs, as specified in this Agreement, up to the 7

Maximum Settlement Fund of Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000). 8

3.13.1

9

Within fifteen (15) business days following the Preliminary

10

Approval Date of the Settlement, Defendants shall deposit into the

11

Settlement Fund Account Two Hundred and Fifty Thousand

12

Dollars ($250,000) of the Maximum Settlement Fund. The interest

13

that accrues within the Settlement Fund Account shall be applied

14

toward the Maximum Settlement Fund.

15

3.13.2

Within fifteen (15) calendar days following the Effective Date

16

of the Settlement, Defendants shall deposit into the Settlement 17

Fund Account the balance owing in accordance with the terms of 18

this Agreement. No distributions from the Settlement Fund 19

Account shall occur until authorization in writing or via e-mail is 20

provided to the Settlement Administrator by Class Counsel and 21

Defendants’ counsel. 22

3.13.3

23

No more than five (5) business days after the Settlement is

24

fully funded, the Settlement Administrator will provide the Parties with an

25

accounting of all anticipated payments and awards from the fund. Payments from

26

the fund shall be made for (1) Individual Settlement Payments to Settlement Class

27

Members who submitted timely and valid Claim Forms, (2) the Class

28

Representative Service Award, as specified in this Agreement and approved by the 19

2:14-cv-4378 RGK (SHx)

JOINT STIPULATION RE: CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND RELEASE 00037018.7

Case 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Document 59-2 Filed 12/14/15 Page 23 of 105 Page ID #:1145

1

Court; (3) Class Counsel Fees and Class Counsel Costs, as specified in this

2 Agreement and approved by the Court; (4) the Settlement Administration Costs, as 3 specified in this Agreement and approved by the Court; and (5) the LWDA PAGA 4 Allocation, as specified in this Agreement and approved by the Court. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

3.14 Individual Settlement Payments. Individual Settlement Payments will be paid from the Net Settlement Fund and shall be paid pursuant to the formula set forth in Paragraph 3.14.1 herein. Individual Settlement Payments shall be mailed by regular First Class U.S. Mail to Settlement Class Members’ last known mailing address within fourteen (14) calendar days after the funding of the Settlement is completed. Individual Settlement Payments reflect settlement of a dispute regarding wages and interest/penalties. Individual Settlement Payments will be allocated as follows: thirty-three and one third percent (33.3%) as penalties; thirtythree and one third percent (33.3%) as interest; and thirty-three and one third percent (33.3%) as wages. The Settlement Administrator shall issue the appropriate tax documents associated with the Individual Settlement Payments. Any checks issued to Settlement Class Members shall remain valid and negotiable for ninety (90) days from the date of their issuance. After that time, any unclaimed checks will revert back to Defendants.

20

3.14.1

Calculation of Individual Settlement Payments. Defendants

21

will calculate the total Compensable Workweeks for all Class Members. The

22

respective Compensable Workweeks for each Class Member will be divided by the

23

total Compensable Workweeks for all Class Members, resulting in the Payment

24

Ratio for each Class Member. Each Class Member’s Payment Ratio will then be

25

multiplied by the Net Settlement Fund to determine his or her Individual

26

Settlement Payment. Each Individual Settlement Payment will be reduced by any

27

legally mandated deductions for payroll taxes or other required withholdings.

28

Defendants shall be responsible for any employer-related taxes in addition to the 20

2:14-cv-4378 RGK (SHx)

JOINT STIPULATION RE: CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND RELEASE 00037018.7

Case 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Document 59-2 Filed 12/14/15 Page 24 of 105 Page ID #:1146

1

Maximum Settlement Fund, provided that any unclaimed funds shall first be used

2

to satisfy any employer-related taxes before reverting back to Defendants. Other

3

than Plaintiff, Settlement Class Members are not eligible to receive any

4

compensation other than an Individual Settlement Payment, and they may only

5

receive an Individual Settlement Payment if they timely and validly submit a

6

Claim Form, or submit a Claim Form consistent with the cure provisions for

7

defective claims set forth in this Agreement.

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

3.15 Class Representative Service Award. Defendants agree not to oppose or object to any application or motion by Plaintiff to be appointed Class Representative and for a Class Representative Service Award, not to exceed to Five Thousand U.S. Dollars ($5,000.00), as consideration for the release of all Released Claims and for his time and effort in bringing and prosecuting this matter. The Class Representative Service Award shall be paid to Plaintiff from the Maximum Settlement Fund no later than fourteen (14) calendar days after funding of the Settlement is completed. The Settlement Administrator shall issue an IRS Form 1099–MISC to Plaintiff for his Class Representative Enhancement Award. Plaintiff agrees to provide the Settlement Administrator with an executed Form W9 before the Class Representative Enhancement Award is issued. Plaintiff shall be solely and legally responsible to pay any and all applicable taxes on his Class Representative Service Award and shall hold harmless Defendants from any claim or liability for taxes, penalties, or interest arising as a result of the Class Representative Service Award. The Class Representative Service Award shall be in addition to Plaintiff’s Individual Settlement Payment as a Settlement Class Member. In the event that the Court awards less than the requested amount of the Class Representative Service Award, then any portion of the requested amount not awarded to Plaintiff shall be added to the Net Settlement Fund. In the event the Court reduces or does not approve the requested Class Representative Service Award, Plaintiff shall not have the right to revoke her agreement to the Settlement, 21

2:14-cv-4378 RGK (SHx)

JOINT STIPULATION RE: CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND RELEASE 00037018.7

Case 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Document 59-2 Filed 12/14/15 Page 25 of 105 Page ID #:1147

1

which shall remain binding on the Parties.

2

3.16 Class Counsel Fees and Costs. Defendants agree not to oppose or 3

object to any application or motion by Class Counsel for attorneys’ fees not to 4

exceed Five-Hundred Thousand U.S. Dollars ($500,000) and Class Counsel Costs 5

not to exceed Twenty-Five Thousand U.S. Dollars ($25,000), as supported by 6

declarations from Class Counsel, from the Maximum Settlement Fund. Class 7

Counsel shall be paid any Court-approved fees and costs, including any interest 8

accrued thereon, no later than fourteen (14) calendar days after the Settlement is 9

fully funded. Class Counsel shall be solely and legally responsible to pay all 10

applicable taxes on the payment made pursuant to this paragraph. The Settlement 11

Administrator shall issue an IRS Form 1099–MISC to Class Counsel for the 12

payments made pursuant to this paragraph. This Settlement is not contingent upon 13

the Court awarding Class Counsel any particular amount in attorneys’ fees and 14

costs. In the event the Court reduces or does not approve the requested Class 15

Counsel Fees and/or Class Counsel Costs, the Settlement shall remain binding on 16

the Parties. Any amount requested by Class Counsel for the Class Counsel Fees 17

and Class Counsel Costs and not granted by the Court shall return to the Net 18

Settlement Fund and be distributed as provided in this Agreement. 19 20

3.17 PAGA. Subject to Court approval, the Parties shall allocate a total of

21

Ten Thousand U.S. Dollars ($10,000) from the Maximum Settlement Fund for the

22

compromise of claims under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, Cal. Lab.

23

Code § 2698 et seq. (the “PAGA Allocation”). California Labor Code section

24

2699(i) requires that the parties distribute any settlement of PAGA claims as

25

follows: seventy-five percent (75%) to the State of California’s Labor Workforce

26

Development Agency (“LDWA”) for enforcement of labor laws and education of

27

employers; and twenty-five percent (25%) to “aggrieved employees.” The Parties,

28 therefore, agree that Seven Thousand Five Hundred U.S. Dollars ($7,500.00) of the 22

2:14-cv-4378 RGK (SHx)

JOINT STIPULATION RE: CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND RELEASE 00037018.7

Case 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Document 59-2 Filed 12/14/15 Page 26 of 105 Page ID #:1148

1

PAGA Allocation shall be paid to the State of California LWDA (“LWDA PAGA

2

Allocation”) from the Maximum Settlement Fund by the Claims Administrator no

3

later than fourteen (14) calendar days after the Settlement is fully funded. The

4

remaining Two Thousand Five Hundred U.S. Dollars ($2,500.00) of the PAGA

5

Allocation shall be part of the Net Settlement Fund to be distributed in accordance

6

with the terms of this Stipulation.

7

3.18 Option to Terminate Settlement. If, after the Response Deadline and 8

before the Final Approval Hearing, the number of individuals who submitted 9

timely and valid Requests for Exclusion from the Settlement exceeds ten percent 10

(10%) of all potential Settlement Class Members, Defendants shall have, in their 11

sole discretion, the option to terminate this Settlement. If Defendants exercise 12

their option to terminate this Settlement, Defendants shall pay all Settlement 13

Administration Costs incurred up to the date of termination. 14 15

3.19 Settlement Administration Costs. The Settlement Administrator shall

16

be paid for the costs of administration of the Settlement from the Maximum

17

Settlement Fund. No fewer than thirty (30) days prior to the Final Approval

18

Hearing, the Settlement Administrator shall provide the Parties with a statement

19

detailing the costs of administration, showing the estimated Individual Settlement

20

Payments to be made to Participating Class members, and listing the names and

21

number of Class Members who have objected to or requested exclusion from the

22

Settlement. The Settlement Administrator, on Defendants’ behalf, shall have the

23

authority and obligation to make payments, credits and disbursements, including

24

payments and credits in the manner set forth herein, to Settlement Class Members

25

calculated in accordance with the methodology set out in this Agreement and

26

orders of the Court. The Parties agree to cooperate in the Settlement

27

Administration process and to make all reasonable efforts to control and minimize

28

the cost and expenses incurred in administration of the Settlement. The Parties 23

2:14-cv-4378 RGK (SHx)

JOINT STIPULATION RE: CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND RELEASE 00037018.7

Case 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Document 59-2 Filed 12/14/15 Page 27 of 105 Page ID #:1149

1

each represent they do not have any financial interest in the Settlement

2

Administrator or otherwise have a relationship with the Settlement Administrator

3

that could create a conflict of interest. The Settlement Administrator shall be

4

responsible for: processing and mailing payments to the Class Representative,

5 Class Counsel, Settlement Class Members; printing and mailing the Notice Packets 6 to the Class Members as directed by the Court; receiving and reporting the 7 Requests for Exclusion, Notices of Objection, and Claim Forms submitted by Class 8 Members; providing declaration(s) as necessary in support of preliminary and/or 9 final approval of this Settlement; development and maintenance of a settlement 10 website to post key documents regarding the Settlement and Final Judgment, and 11 other tasks as the Parties mutually agree or the Court orders the Settlement 12 Administrator to perform. The Settlement Administrator shall keep the Parties 13 timely apprised of the performance of all Settlement Administrator responsibilities. 14 Any legally-mandated tax reports, tax forms, tax filings, or other tax documents 15 required by administration of this Agreement shall be prepared by the Settlement 16 Administrator. Any expenses incurred in connection with such preparation shall 17 be a cost of administration of the Settlement. The Settlement Administrator shall 18 be paid the Settlement Administration Costs no later than fourteen (14) calendar 19 days after the Settlement is fully funded. 20

3.20 Final Approval Hearing. At a reasonable time following the Response 21

Deadline, the Court shall hold the Final Approval Hearing, where objections, if 22

any, may be heard, and the Court shall determine amounts properly payable for (i) 23

the Class Counsel Fees and Costs, (ii) the Class Representative Service Award, 24

(iii) Individual Settlement Payments, (iv) the LWDA PAGA Allocation and (v) the 25

Settlement Administration Costs. 26 27 28

3.21 Entry of Final Judgment. If the Court approves this Settlement at the Final Approval Hearing, the Parties shall request that the Court enter the Final 24

2:14-cv-4378 RGK (SHx)

JOINT STIPULATION RE: CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND RELEASE 00037018.7

Case 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Document 59-2 Filed 12/14/15 Page 28 of 105 Page ID #:1150

1

Judgment after the Settlement has been fully funded, with the Court retaining

2

jurisdiction over the Parties to enforce the terms of the judgment. Notice of Entry

3

of Final Judgment will be provided on the Settlement Website to be created and

4

maintained by the Settlement Administrator, which the Parties agree will satisfy

5

due process.

6

3.22 No Effect on Employee Benefits. Amounts paid to Plaintiff or other 7

Settlement Class Members pursuant to this Agreement will not count as earnings 8

or compensation for purposes of any benefits (e.g., 401(k) plans or retirement 9

plans) sponsored by Defendants. 10 11

3.23 Nullification of Settlement Agreement. In the event: (i) the Court

12

does not enter the Preliminary Approval Order substantially in the form specified

13

herein; (ii) the Court does not grant final approval of the Settlement as provided

14

herein; (iii) the Court does not enter a Final Judgment as provided herein; or (iv)

15

the Settlement does not become final for any other reason, this Settlement

16

Agreement shall be null and void and any order or judgment entered by the Court

17

in furtherance of this Settlement shall be treated as void from the beginning. In

18

such a case, the Parties and any funds to be awarded under this Settlement shall be

19

returned to their respective statuses as of the date and time immediately prior to the

20

execution of this Agreement, and the Parties shall proceed in all respects as if this

21

Agreement had not been executed, except that any fees already incurred by the

22

Settlement Administrator shall be paid by the Parties in equal shares. In the event

23

an appeal is filed from the Court’s Final Judgment, or any other appellate review is

24

sought, administration of the Settlement shall be stayed pending final resolution of

25

the appeal or other appellate review, but any fees incurred by the Settlement

26

Administrator prior to it being notified of the filing of an appeal from the Court’s

27

Final Judgment, or any other appellate review, shall be paid to the Settlement

28

Administrator by Defendants within thirty (30) days of said notification. 25

2:14-cv-4378 RGK (SHx)

JOINT STIPULATION RE: CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND RELEASE 00037018.7

Case 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Document 59-2 Filed 12/14/15 Page 29 of 105 Page ID #:1151

1

3.24 No Admission By the Parties. Defendants deny any and all claims

2

alleged in this Action and deny all wrongdoing whatsoever. This Agreement is not

3

a concession or admission, and shall not be used against Defendants as an

4

admission or indication with respect to any claim of any fault, concession or

5

omission by Defendants.

6

3.25 Dispute Resolution. Except as otherwise set forth herein, all disputes 7

concerning the interpretation, calculation or payment of settlement claims, or other 8

disputes regarding compliance with this Agreement shall be resolved as follows: 9

3.25.1

10

If Plaintiff or Class Counsel, on behalf of Plaintiff or any

11

Settlement Class Members, or the Defendants at any time believes that the other

12

Party has breached or acted contrary to the Agreement, that party shall notify the

13

other party in writing of the alleged violation.

14

3.25.2

15 16 17 18

Upon receiving notice of the alleged violation or dispute, the

responding party shall have ten (10) days to correct the alleged violation and/or respond to the initiating party with the reasons why the Party disputes all or part of the allegation.

19

3.25.3

If the response does not address the alleged violation to the

20

initiating party’s satisfaction, the Parties shall negotiate in good faith for up to ten

21

(10) days to resolve their differences.

22

3.25.4

23

If Class Counsel and Defendants are unable to resolve their

24

differences after twenty (20) days, either Party may file an appropriate motion for

25

enforcement with the Court.

26

3.26 Exhibits and Headings. The terms of this Agreement include the 27

terms set forth in any attached Exhibits A-D, which are incorporated by this 28

reference as though fully set forth herein. Any Exhibits to this Agreement are an 26

2:14-cv-4378 RGK (SHx)

JOINT STIPULATION RE: CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND RELEASE 00037018.7

Case 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Document 59-2 Filed 12/14/15 Page 30 of 105 Page ID #:1152

1

integral part of the Settlement. The descriptive headings of any paragraphs or

2

sections of this Agreement are inserted for convenience of reference only and do

3

not constitute a part of this Agreement.

4

3.27 Interim Stay of Proceedings. The Parties agree to make all efforts to 5

obtain a stay of all proceedings in the Action, except such proceedings necessary to 6

implement and complete the Settlement, in abeyance pending the Final Approval 7

Hearing to be conducted by the Court. 8 9

3.28 Amendment or Modification. This Agreement may be amended or

10

modified only by a written instrument signed by counsel for all Parties or their

11

successors-in-interest.

12

3.29 Entire Agreement. This Agreement and any attached Exhibits 13

constitute the entire Agreement among these Parties, and no oral or written 14

representations, warranties or inducements have been made to any Party 15

concerning this Agreement or its Exhibits other than the representations, warranties 16

and covenants contained and memorialized in the Agreement and its Exhibits. 17 18

3.30 Authorization to Enter Into Settlement Agreement. Counsel for all

19

Parties warrant and represent they are expressly authorized by the Parties whom

20

they represent to negotiate this Agreement and to take all appropriate actions

21

required or permitted to be taken by such Parties pursuant to this Agreement to

22

effectuate its terms, and to execute any other documents required to effectuate the

23

terms of this Agreement. The Parties and their counsel will cooperate with each

24

other and use their best efforts to effect the implementation of the Settlement. In

25

the event the Parties are unable to reach agreement on the form or content of any

26

document needed to implement the Settlement, or on any supplemental provisions

27

that may become necessary to effectuate the terms of this Settlement, the Parties

28

may seek the assistance of the Court to resolve such disagreement. The persons 27

2:14-cv-4378 RGK (SHx)

JOINT STIPULATION RE: CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND RELEASE 00037018.7

Case 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Document 59-2 Filed 12/14/15 Page 31 of 105 Page ID #:1153

1

signing this Agreement on behalf of Defendants represent and warrant that they are

2

authorized to sign this Agreement on behalf of Defendants. Plaintiff represents

3

and warrants that she is authorized to sign this Agreement and that she has not

4

assigned any claim, or part of a claim, covered by this Settlement to a third-party.

5

3.31 Binding on Successors and Assigns. This Agreement shall be binding 6

upon, and inure to the benefit of, the successors or assigns of the Parties hereto, as 7

previously defined. 8 9

3.32 California Law Governs. All terms of this Agreement and the

10

Exhibits hereto shall be governed by and interpreted according to the laws of the

11

State of California.

12

3.33 This Settlement is Fair, Adequate and Reasonable. The Parties 13

believe this Settlement is a fair, adequate and reasonable settlement of this Action 14

and have arrived at this Settlement after extensive arms-length negotiations, taking 15

into account all relevant factors, present and potential. 16 17

3.34 Jurisdiction of the Court. The Parties agree that the Court shall retain

18

jurisdiction with respect to the interpretation, implementation and enforcement of

19

the terms of this Agreement and all orders and judgments entered in connection

20

therewith, and the Parties and their counsel hereto submit to the jurisdiction of the

21

Court for purposes of interpreting, implementing and enforcing the settlement

22

embodied in this Agreement and all orders and judgments entered in connection

23

therewith.

24

3.35 Invalidity of Any Provision. Before declaring any provision of this 25

Agreement invalid, the Court shall first attempt to construe the provisions valid to 26

the fullest extent possible consistent with applicable precedents so as to define all 27

provisions of this Agreement valid and enforceable. 28 28

2:14-cv-4378 RGK (SHx)

JOINT STIPULATION RE: CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND RELEASE 00037018.7

Case 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Document 59-2 Filed 12/14/15 Page 32 of 105 Page ID #:1154

1 2

3.36 Waiver of Certain Appeals. The Parties agree to waive appeals and to stipulate to class certification for purposes of this settlement only.

3

3.37 Cooperation. The Parties agree to cooperate fully with one another to 4

accomplish and implement the terms of this Settlement. Such cooperation shall 5

include, but not be limited to, execution of such other documents and the taking of 6

such other action as may be reasonably necessary to fulfill the terms of this 7

Settlement. The Parties to this Settlement shall use their best efforts, including all 8

efforts contemplated by this Settlement and any other efforts that may become 9

necessary by Court order, or otherwise, to effectuate this Settlement and the terms 10

set forth herein. 11 12

3.38 Confidentiality of Settlement. The Parties and their respective

13

counsel (and all employees thereof) expressly agree that they will maintain in strict

14

confidence the fact that this Action has settled, and the terms of the Settlement,

15

until such time as the Notice Packets are mailed to the Settlement Class Members.

16

The Parties recognize that aspects of this Settlement will be on file with the Court.

17

However, except for information or documents disclosed to the Court as part of the

18

approval of the Settlement, the Parties will not disclose, or initiate the disclosure of

19

this Settlement or its terms until such time as the Notice Packets are mailed to the

20

Settlement Class Members.

21

3.39 Publicity. Plaintiff and Class Counsel agree not to publicize the 22

Action, the facts giving rise to the Action, and/or the outcome of the Settlement 23

other than on its website for a period of no more than six (6) months from the date 24

of the final order approving this Settlement. This provision shall not prevent Class 25

Counsel from referring to this Settlement in court-filed “adequacy of counsel” 26

showings in other class, collective, and/or representative actions. 27 28

3.40 Notices. Unless otherwise specifically provided, all notices, demands 29

2:14-cv-4378 RGK (SHx)

JOINT STIPULATION RE: CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND RELEASE 00037018.7

Case 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Document 59-2 Filed 12/14/15 Page 33 of 105 Page ID #:1155

1

or other communications in connection with this Stipulation shall be: (1) in

2

writing; (2) deemed given on the third business day after mailing; and (3) sent via

3

United States registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, addressed as

4

follows:

5 6

To Plaintiff:

To Defendants:

7

Raymond P. Boucher Shehnaz M. Bhujwala 8 Brandon Brouillette Boucher, LLP 9 21600 Oxnard Street, Suite 600 Woodland Hills, California 91367

OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. Allison C. Eckstrom, Esq. 695 Town Center Drive Suite 1500 Costa Mesa, CA 92626

10

Sahag Majarian, II Law Offices of Sahag Majarian, II 18250 Ventura Blvd. 12 Tarzana, CA 91356 11

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 30

2:14-cv-4378 RGK (SHx)

JOINT STIPULATION RE: CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND RELEASE 00037018.7

Case 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Document 59-2 Filed 12/14/15 Page 34 of 105 Page ID #:1156

1

3.41 Execution by Settlement Class Members. It is agreed that it is

2

impossible or impractical to have each Class Member execute this Settlement

3

Agreement. The Notice will advise all Settlement Class Members of the binding

4

nature of the release and such shall have the same force and effect as if each

5

Settlement Class Member executed this Stipulation.

6

3.42 Execution by Plaintiff. Plaintiff, by signing this Stipulation, is bound 7

by the terms herein and further agrees not to request to be excluded from the 8

Settlement and not to object to any terms of this Stipulation. Any such request for 9

exclusion or objection shall therefore be void and of no force or effect. 10 11

3.43 The Parties hereto agree that the terms and conditions of this

12

Stipulation of Settlement are the result of lengthy, intensive, arms-length

13

negotiations between the Parties and that this Stipulation shall not be construed in

14

favor of or against any of the Parties by reason of their participation in the drafting

15

of this Stipulation.

16

3.44

Counterparts. This Stipulation shall become effective upon its

17

execution by all of the undersigned. Plaintiff, Class Counsel, Defendants, and

18

Defense Counsel may execute this Stipulation in counterparts, and execution of

19

counterparts shall have the same force and effect as if each had signed the same

20

instrument. Copies of the executed agreement shall be effective for all purposes as

21

thought the signatures contained therein were original signatures.

22 23 24 25 26 27 28 31

2:14-cv-4378 RGK (SHx)

JOINT STIPULATION RE: CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND RELEASE 00037018.7

Case 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Document 59-2 Filed 12/14/15 Page 35 of 105 PAGE Page ID 01 FEDEX OFFICE 0360 #:1157

07/30/2015

16:40

310--31

l

2 DATED:

1-30- L5

PLAINTIFF:

3

!lJ:t uunpo t:k/0.!6(12

By~~ erta artm

4

5

e.

6 7

DATED: 7-30-2015

By:

8

_________

-~-a--~-o-nd~P.-B~o-u-c~he_r

BOUCHER, LLP

9

10

11 DATED: 12 13

14

DATED:

DEFENDANTS:

15 16

By: _______________________

17

Title:

18 19

20

By:.

21

Allison C. Eckstrom

.

Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.

22 23

24 25

26 27 28 •

32

2; 14-cv-4378 RGK (SHx)

JOINT S'I'WOX::A:'flON R:E: CLASS AC'l10N SE'I'ILEMEN'l' AND RELEASE

0003701S.7

Case2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Document Document3659-2 Filed 12/14/15 Page 3642 of Case Filed 07/31/15 Page 42 of

105 Page ID PagelD#:401

#:1158

2

PLAINTIFF:

DATED:

3 4

Bv:

'

Bcrta Marlin DcFCampo

6 7

DATED:

Bv:

'

8

Ravmond P. BoTicFer B(3l ICI 1 I£R. 1 J LP

9

0

DATED:

By:

* 12

Sahaa Majarian II LAW OFFICES OF SAHAG MAJARIAN II

13 14

DATED:

S( -

DEFENDANTS:

15

A

lb

By:

£

17

IS

Title:

O

20

Bv:

'

21

Allison C. Eckstrom

Uj^l

Ogleiree, Dcakins. Nash. Smoak & Stewart. P.C.

23 24 25

26 27

28

32 00037018,3

2 1 'bcy--U7S iUik (SHx)

Case 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Document 59-2 Filed 12/14/15 Page 37 of 105 Page ID #:1159

EXHIBIT A

Case 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Document 59-2 Filed 12/14/15 Page 38 of 105 Page ID #:1160

NOTICE OF PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT Berta Martin Del Campo v. Hometown Buffet, Inc., et al. United States District Court, Central District of California Case No. 2:14-cv-04378 (RGk) SHx THIS NOTICE MAY AFFECT YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS. PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY. A court authorized this Notice. This is not a solicitation. This is not a lawsuit against you, and you are not being sued. However, your legal rights are affected whether you act or not. WHAT IS IN THIS NOTICE 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Why should you read this Notice? ................................................................. Page 1 What is the Lawsuit about? ............................................................................ Page 2 The Proposed Settlement ................................................................................ Page 2 What do I have to do in response to this Notice? .......................................... Page 4 How will my rights be affected? .................................................................... Page 5 Who are the attorneys representing the Parties? ............................................ Page 7 How do I obtain additional information? ........................................................ Page 7

1.

Why should you read this notice?

You received this Notice because your employment records indicate that you are eligible to receive a settlement payment as a Class Member under the proposed Settlement in the lawsuit titled Del Campo v. Hometown Buffet, Inc., et al., which is pending before the United States District Court for the Central District of California Court Case No. 2:14-cv-04378 (RGk) SHx (the “Lawsuit”). Because your rights may be affected by the proposed Settlement whether you act or not, it is important that you carefully read this Notice. The Court in this Lawsuit ordered that this Notice be mailed to all Class Members to notify you of the proposed Settlement. This Notice does not express any opinion by the Court regarding the merits of any claims or defenses asserted by any party in the Lawsuit. Instead, this Notice was sent to you to inform you that this Lawsuit is pending and the terms of the proposed Settlement, so that you may make appropriate decisions. In the event that this Notice conflicts with the Settlement Agreement, the terms of the Settlement Agreement shall govern.

00039442.3

Case 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Document 59-2 Filed 12/14/15 Page 39 of 105 Page ID #:1161

The proposed Settlement will apply to all persons who meet the definition of the following Class: All current and former non-exempt, non-managerial employees employed by Hometown Buffet, Inc. and/or OCB Restaurant Company, LLC (“Defendants”) in California at any time between July 19, 2012 and March 31, 2015 (the “Class Period”). According to the Defendants’ employment records, you are a member of the Class (“Class Member”) because you are or were employed by one or both of these companies as a “nonexempt, non-managerial” employee in California sometime between July 19, 2012 and March 31, 2015. Again, as a Class Member, you are eligible to receive a settlement payment under the proposed Settlement. The parties have presented this Settlement to the Court for its review and approval. On _____, 2015, the Court ordered that this Notice be provided to Class Members. The Court will decide whether to provide final approval to the Settlement at a court hearing scheduled for _____________ at ___ a.m., in Courtroom 850 of the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Western Division, which is located at the Edward R. Roybal Federal Building and United States Courthouse, 255 East Temple Street, Los Angeles, California, 90012, before the Honorable R. Gary Klausner (the “Final Approval Hearing”). The Final Approval Hearing may be continued to another date, which will be posted on the Settlement Website at [insert settlement website address]. Notice of Final Approval and judgment will also be posted to the Settlement Website at [insert settlement website address].

2.

What is the Lawsuit about?

The Lawsuit is a class action, meaning a lawsuit where the claims and rights of many people are decided in a single court proceeding. In this case, there is one named plaintiff, Ms. Berta Martin Del Campo (“Plaintiff”). The Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated employees, filed a lawsuit against Defendants on March 11, 2014 in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, but the case was removed to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on June 1, 2015, where it was assigned to the Honorable R. Gary Klausner. The Lawsuit alleges that Defendants failed to provide employees with meal and rest breaks or pay them premium payments for missed meal and rest breaks, failed to reimburse employees for business expenses including mileage, failed to timely provide final wages upon resignation or termination, and failed to timely provide accurate itemized wage statements, in violation of the California Labor Code, the Industrial Welfare Commission’s Wage Orders, California’s Unfair Competition Law, and the California Private Attorney General Act (“PAGA”). Defendants deny these allegations and contend that they complied with the law. Despite their respective positions and arguments, the Parties recognize the risks of further litigation of the

00039442.3

Case 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Document 59-2 Filed 12/14/15 Page 40 of 105 Page ID #:1162

Lawsuit, which would be protracted and expensive for all Parties. Accordingly, the Parties have agreed to settle the Lawsuit, subject to Court approval, upon the terms set forth in the Joint Stipulation Re: Class Action Settlement and Release (the “Stipulation” or “Settlement Agreement”). Defendants, by settling the Lawsuit, do not admit, concede or imply any fault, wrongdoing or liability.

3.

The proposed Settlement

In exchange for the release of claims against Defendants and final judgment in the Lawsuit, Defendants agreed to pay Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000) (“Maximum Settlement Fund”) plus employer-side payroll tax obligations. After payment of a Service Award to Plaintiff, a payment to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency (“LDWA”), settlement administration costs, and attorney’s fees and costs are deducted from the Maximum Settlement Fund, the remaining funds (the “Net Settlement Fund”) will be distributed to Class Members who: (1) do not submit valid, timely Requests for Exclusion from the Settlement and (2) submit valid, timely Claim Forms (called “Settlement Class Members”), as further explained below: A. Plaintiff’s Service Award. The Class Counsel may ask the Court to authorize a Service Award of up to Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000) to Plaintiff for serving as a Class Representative. Plaintiff will also be entitled to receive her portion of the Settlement proceeds. B. Payment to the LDWA. Seven Thousand and Five Hundred Dollars ($7,500), will be paid to the LDWA. C. Settlement Administration Costs. The Settlement Administrator, CPT Group, will be paid no more than Fifty Six Thousand and Five Hundred Dollars ($56,500) for administering the proposed Settlement, which includes such tasks such as mailing and tracking this Notice, establishing and maintaining the Settlement Website, calculating Class Member individual settlement payments, mailing checks and tax forms, and reporting to the parties and the Court. D. Class Counsel Attorney’s Fees and Costs. You do not need to pay any portion of either Plaintiff’s or Defendants’ attorney’s fees and costs. Class Counsel will ask the Court to award attorney’s fees up to Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($500,000) or Twenty-Five percent (25%) of the Maximum Settlement Fund and a Cost Award of up to Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000). E. Net Settlement Amount. The amounts described in Subparts A – D, above, all will be paid from the Maximum Settlement Fund, and any amounts not approved by the Court will revert to the Net Settlement Fund for distribution to Settlement Class Members who timely submit valid claims. Subject to Court approval, distribution to Settlement Class Members will be as follows: Individual Settlement Payments to Settlement Class Members. The Settlement Administrator will determine the portion of the Net Settlement

00039442.3

Case 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Document 59-2 Filed 12/14/15 Page 41 of 105 Page ID #:1163

Fund to be paid to each Settlement Class Member by dividing the number of Compensable Workweeks for each Class Member by the total number of Compensable Workweeks for all Class Members during the Class Period (“Payment Ratio”). The term “Compensable Workweeks” simply means the number of weeks in which you worked for Defendants and were present for at least one shift during the Class Period, according to Defendant’s payroll records. Each Settlement Class Member who submits a timely valid Claim Form will receive an Individual Settlement Payment equal to the Payment Ratio multiplied by the Net Settlement Fund, less all applicable taxes except employer-side payroll taxes to be paid by Defendants. Based on Defendants’ payroll records, there were approximately 472,047 Compensable Workweeks available at the time of the parties’ March 10, 2015 mediation to be claimed by approximately 11,000 Class Members. According to Defendants’ payroll records, you worked for Defendants as a non-exempt, non-managerial employee at one of Defendants’ California locations between ______ and _________, and the number of your Compensable Workweeks during the Class Period (between July 19, 2012 and March 31, 2015 ) is _________. If you dispute this information, then you must mail in your dispute and supporting documentation to the Settlement Administrator by [Response Deadline]. If you fail to timely dispute this information or timely submit supporting documentation, then your settlement payment will be based on Defendants’ records, which are presumed to be correct. Your estimated Individual Settlement Payment, if you decide to participate in the Settlement and submit a timely, valid Claim Form, is $____________ , less all applicable taxes. The Individual Settlement Payment will be allocated as follows: thirty-three and one third percent (33.3%) as penalties; thirty-three and one third percent (33.3%) as interest; and thirty-three and one third percent (33.3%) as wages. This amount may increase or decrease depending on the Court’s Orders and the number of Class Members who timely request exclusion from the Settlement. The check for your Individual Settlement Payment will be mailed by U.S. Mail at your last known mailing address within fourteen (14) days after twenty-nine (29) days of the Effective Date of the Settlement and will remain valid and negotiable for ninety (90) days from the date of issuance. After that time, any unclaimed checks will revert back to Defendants.

00039442.3

Case 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Document 59-2 Filed 12/14/15 Page 42 of 105 Page ID #:1164

4.

What do I have to do in response to this Notice?

To participate in this Settlement and receive your share of the Net Settlement Fund, you must sign and return the enclosed Claim Form to the Settlement Administrator. You also have a right to request to be excluded from the Settlement completely, and the right to object to the Settlement. The option you choose affects whether you receive a settlement payment and whether you give up certain rights. The option you choose will in no way affect your employment with Defendants. Your options are listed below: A. Participate in the Settlement. To participate in this Settlement and receive your share of the Net Settlement Fund, you must sign and return the Enclosed Claim Form to the Settlement Administrator either (1) by First Class or certified U.S. Mail post-marked no later than [Response Deadline], or (2) by facsimile or email to _________ no later than [Response Deadline]. If you submit a Claim Form, please retain proof of mailing or fax or email, or call the Settlement Administrator to make sure your Claim Form was received. If you need another Claim Form, please contact the Settlement Administrator. B. Object to the Settlement. If you wish to object to the proposed Settlement Agreement, Class Counsel’s requested attorney’s fees and costs, and/or Plaintiff’s requested service award, then you must return a written statement of objection (“Notice of Objection”) to the Settlement Administrator either (1) by First Class or certified U.S. Mail post-marked no later than [Response Deadline], or (2) by facsimile or email to _________ no later than [Response Deadline]. To be valid, a Notice of Objection must be postmarked or emailed/faxed on or before [Response Deadline] and must contain: (1) the full name, address, telephone number and the last four digits of the Social Security number of the Class Member objecting to the Settlement; (2) his or her dates of employment; (3) his or her job title(s) and job location(s); (4) a statement of objections; (5) a statement advising if the objecting Class Member plans to address the Court at the Final Approval Hearing, and any legal briefs, papers or memoranda that the objecting Class Member proposes to submit to the Court. The date of the postmark on the return mailing envelope, or the date of the fax or email transmission to the Settlement Administrator shall be the exclusive means used to determine whether an objection was timely submitted. If you fail to make objections in the manner specified above then you will be deemed to have waived any objections and will be foreclosed from making any objection (whether by appeal or otherwise) to the Settlement. If you have submitted a valid and timely Notice of Objection, then you have the right to address the Court at the Final Approval Hearing scheduled for_____________ at ___ a.m., in Courtroom 850 of the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Western Division, which is located at the Edward R. Roybal Federal Building and United States

00039442.3

Case 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Document 59-2 Filed 12/14/15 Page 43 of 105 Page ID #:1165

Courthouse, 255 East Temple Street, Los Angeles, California, 90012, before the Honorable R. Gary Klausner. Class Members who object to the Settlement do not need to attend the Final Approval hearing in order for their objections to be considered by the Court. However, only members of the Class who have submitted valid and timely Notices of Objection will be entitled to be heard at the Final Approval Hearing, unless the Court orders otherwise. You have the right to retain your own attorney, at your own expense, to submit an objection or appear on your behalf at the Final Approval Hearing. You may both object to the Settlement and participate in it. Filing an objection will not exclude you from the Settlement. If you wish to be excluded from the Settlement, then you must follow the procedure below. C. Exclude yourself from the Settlement. If you wish to exclude yourself from this proposed Settlement, you must submit a written request to the Settlement Administrator to be excluded from the Settlement either (1) by First Class or certified U.S. Mail post-marked no later than [Response Deadline], or (2) by facsimile or email to _________ no later than [Response Deadline]. To be valid, a request for exclusion must: (1) contain the name, address, telephone number and the last four digits of the Social Security number of the Class Member requesting exclusion; (2) be signed by the Class Member requesting exclusion; and (3) be postmarked or on or before the [Response Deadline]. The date of the postmark on the return mailing envelope, or the date of the fax or email transmission to the Settlement Administrator, shall be the exclusive means used to determine whether a request for exclusion has been timely submitted. Any Class Member who requests an exclusion from the Class will not be entitled to any recovery under the Settlement and will not be bound by the Settlement or have any right to object to or appeal the Settlement. Unless you timely request to be excluded from the Settlement, you will be bound by the judgment upon final approval of the Settlement, including the Release described in this Notice.

5.

How will my rights be affected?

If the proposed Settlement is approved by the Court, Plaintiffs and every member of the Class who does not timely opt out by timely submitting a valid Request for Exclusion to the Settlement Administrator under the procedures set forth above (“Settlement Class Member”) will release Defendants and their past, present and/or future, direct and/or indirect, parent companies, subsidiaries, affiliates, divisions, officers, directors, managers, members, heirs, employees, agents, representatives, attorneys, insurers, partners, investors, shareholders, predecessors, successors, and/or assigns from the “Released Claims,” which include any and all claims asserted in the Action against the Released Parties, or that could have been asserted against the Released Parties based upon the facts alleged in the First Amended Class Action Complaint filed

00039442.3

Case 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Document 59-2 Filed 12/14/15 Page 44 of 105 Page ID #:1166

in the Action by Plaintiff or any Settlement Class Member from July 19, 2012 to March 31, 2015. The Released Claims include, but are not limited to, any and all claims for (i) alleged failure to provide meal and rest breaks in violation of California Labor Code §§ 226.7, 516, and 558, (ii) alleged failure to reimburse employees for necessary business expenditures in violation of California Labor Section §§ 2802 and 2804, (iii) alleged violations of California Labor Code §§ 201-203 including, but not limited to, failure to pay final wages timely, or pay penalties for untimely final wages; (iv) alleged violations of California Labor Code § 226(a) for failure to provide accurate wage statements; (v) alleged violation of California Business and Professions Code § 17200 et seq. based on underlying violations of the California Labor Code identified herein at (i) through (iv), and (v) alleged violations of California Labor Code § 2698 et seq. based on derivative violations of the Labor Code including, but not limited to, Labor Code §§ 201, 202, 203, 204, 226, 226.7, 512, 2802, and 2804. The Released Claims also include all claims for interest and/or penalties of any kind or nature arising out of or relating to the Released Claims and further extends to and includes claims for damages, civil penalties, restitution, injunctive relief, declaratory relief, punitive damages, and any other form of relief or remedy. The Released Claims also include all claims Plaintiff and Settlement Class Members may have against the Released Parties relating to (i) the payment and allocation of attorneys’ fees and costs to Class Counsel pursuant to this Agreement and (ii) the payment of the Class Representative Enhancement Award pursuant to this Agreement. It is the intent of the Parties that the judgment entered by the Court upon final approval of the Settlement shall have res judicata effect and be final and binding upon Plaintiff and all Settlement Class Members regarding all of the Released Claims, whether or not the Settlement Class Members submit Claim Forms. For the sake of clarity, the Released Claims include only those claims that meet the definition of Released Claims. As such, for example, Released Claims do not include claims for wrongful termination, unlawful harassment, or Worker’s Compensation. Nor does this release constitute a blanket waiver of all claims, potential or actual, known or unknown for violations of California’s Labor Code and Wage Orders by current and former employees of Defendants. The Released Claims include any claims as discussed herein that the Plaintiff and Settlement Class Members do not know or suspect to exist in their favor at the time of the release that do arise, or could have arisen, out of the claims alleged in the Lawsuit, which, if known by them, might have affected their settlement with, and release of, the Released Parties or might have affected their decision not to object to this Settlement.

6.

Who are the attorneys representing the parties?

Attorneys for Plaintiff & the Class Are:: Raymond P. Boucher, Esq. Shehnaz M. Bhujwala, Esq. Brandon K. Brouillette, Esq. BOUCHER LLP 21600 Oxnard Street, Suite 600 Woodland Hills, CA 91367

00039442.3

Attorneys for Defendants Are: Allison C. Eckstrom, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 695 Town Center Drive, Suite 1500 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: 714.800.7900

Case 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Document 59-2 Filed 12/14/15 Page 45 of 105 Page ID #:1167

Tel: (818) 340-5400 / Fax: (818) 340-5401 Emails: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]

Facsimile: 714.754.1298 Email: [email protected]

Sahag Majarian II, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF SAHAG MAJARIAN II 18250 Ventura Boulevard Tarzana, CA 91356-4229 Tel.: (818) 609-0807 / Fax: (818) 609-0892 Email: [email protected]

7.

How do I obtain additional information?

This Notice only summarizes the class action lawsuits, the Settlement and related matters. For more information, you may inspect the relevant Court files on the Settlement Website at [insert settlement website address].You may also call Class Counsel Brandon Brouillette (818-3405400) or email him at [email protected] You may also contact the Settlement Administrator and ask about the Hometown Buffet, Inc. Settlement: Hometown Buffet, Inc. Settlement Administrator c/o CPT Group [ADDRESS] PLEASE DO NOT TELEPHONE THE COURT FOR INFORMATION ABOUT THIS SETTLEMENT. PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT DEFENDANTS’ CORPORATE OFFICE, MANAGERS, OR ATTORNEYS FOR INFORMATION ABOUT THIS SETTLEMENT . Dated:

00039442.3

Case 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Document 59-2 Filed 12/14/15 Page 46 of 105 Page ID #:1168

EXHIBIT B

Case 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Document 59-2 Filed 12/14/15 Page 47 of 105 Page ID #:1169 MUST BE POSTMARKED NO LATER THAN ______________

CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT CLAIM FORM Berta Martin Del Campo v. Hometown Buffet, Inc., et al. United States District Court, Central District of California Case No. 2:14-cv-04378 (RGk) SHx TO MAKE A CLAIM FOR A SETTLEMENT PAYMENT IN THIS CASE, YOU MUST COMPLETE, SIGN AND RETURN THIS CLAIM FORM WITH ANY NECESSARY DOCUMENTS BY U.S. MAIL, FAX, OR E-MAIL, BY______________, 2015 TO: MAIL THIS COMPLETED FORM TO: [CLAIMS ADMINISTRATOR ADDRESS]

1. IS YOUR INFORMATION BELOW CORRECT? If any of your information in the left column of Section 1 is incorrect or needs to be updated, please provide the corrected information in the right column: CLAIMANT INFORMATION:

CORRECTED INFORMATION (IF ANY):

NAME: _____________________________________ STREET ADDRESS: _____________________________________ CITY, STATE, ZIP CODE: _____________________________________ TELEPHONE NUMBER: _____________________________________ LAST FOUR DIGITS OF SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER: _____________________________________

NAME: _____________________________________ STREET ADDRESS: _____________________________________ CITY, STATE, ZIP CODE: _____________________________________ TELEPHONE NUMBER: _____________________________________ LAST FOUR DIGITS OF SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER: _____________________________________

2. EMPLOYMENT INFORMATION According to the employment and payroll records of Defendants OCB Restaurant Company, LLC and Hometown Buffet, Inc. (“Defendants”), you worked for Defendants as a non-exempt, non-managerial employee at one of Defendants’ California locations between July 19, 2012 and March 31, 2015 for a total of ___________ Compensable Workweeks during the Class Period (July 19, 2012 through March 31, 2015). You are part of the Settlement Class unless you timely submit a valid Request for Exclusion Form.

00039711.3

YOU MUST COMPLETE ALL PAGES OF THIS CLAIM FORM

Case 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Document 59-2 Filed 12/14/15 Page 48 of 105 Page ID #:1170 MUST BE POSTMARKED NO LATER THAN ______________

If the information in Section 2 is accurate, you may sign and return this Claim Form. If you disagree with the information in this Section 2, but still wish to participate in the Settlement, please check the appropriate box in Section 3 and mail your disagreement and any supporting documents together with a signed Claim Form to the Settlement Administrator, CPT Group, at the address listed at the top of this form. 3. ACCURACY OF THE INFORMATION LISTED IN SECTION 2: Please read both options below and check one that applies: [ ] The information set forth in Section 2 above is accurate. [ ] I challenge the total number of my Compensable Workweeks during the Class Period (July 19, 2012 through March 31, 2015) that is provided in Section 2. I have included with my signed Claim Form a written statement with what I believe is the correct number of Compensable Workweeks that I worked during the Class Period (July 19, 2012 through March 31, 2015). I have also included copies of any documentary evidence that supports my claim. I understand that my challenge will not be accepted without such statement or evidence being provided. I understand that, by submitting this challenge, I authorize the Settlement Administrator to review and make a decision based on Defendants’ records and the records/statement I submitted. I understand that this decision may increase or decrease the amount of my settlement share. I understand that such decisions are final and binding, with no opportunity for further appeal. 4. UNDERSTANDING OF SETTLEMENT I have received the NOTICE OF PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT and Exhibits A and B thereto (of which this Claim Form is Exhibit B)(“Notice”). I submit this Claim Form as part of my consent to participate and receive a settlement payment under the terms of the Settlement Agreement described in the Notice and acknowledge that upon the settlement becoming final, I will be bound by the Release set forth in the Settlement Agreement. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the information in this Claim Form is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Executed on _______________, 2015, at _____________________, __________________. (City) (State) __________________________________________ (Signature) __________________________________________ [Printed Name to be Inserted]

00039711.3

YOU MUST COMPLETE ALL PAGES OF THIS CLAIM FORM

Case 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Document 59-2 Filed 12/14/15 Page 49 of 105 Page ID #:1171

EXHIBIT C

Case 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Document 59-2 Filed 12/14/15 Page 50 of 105 Page ID #:1172 MUST BE POSTMARKED NO LATER THAN ______________

REQUEST FOR EXCLUSION FROM CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT FORM Berta Martin Del Campo v. Hometown Buffet, Inc., et al. United States District Court, Central District of California Case No. 2:14-cv-04378 (RGk) SHx TO EXCLUDE YOURSELF FROM THE SETTLEMENT IN THIS CASE, YOU MUST COMPLETE, SIGN AND RETURN THIS FORM BY U.S. MAIL, FAX, OR E-MAIL, BY______________, 2015 TO: MAIL THIS COMPLETED FORM TO: [CLAIMS ADMINISTRATOR ADDRESS]

1. PERSONAL INFORMATION Please provide the following information: YOUR INFORMATION: NAME (Last, First, Middle Initial): ________________________________________________________ STREET ADDRESS: ________________________________________________________ CITY, STATE, ZIP CODE: _____________________________________________________ TELEPHONE NUMBER : ( )____________________________________________________ LAST FOUR DIGITS OF SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER: _________________________________________________________ E-MAIL ADDRESS (Optional – Will Only Be Used to Communicate With You About the Settlement) _________________________________________________________ ________________ 2. REQUEST FOR EXCLUSION FROM CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT By signing and returning this Request for Exclusion Form, I certify that I have carefully read the Class Action Notice and that I wish to be excluded from the Settlement described therein. I understand that this means I will not be eligible to receive any Settlement Payment and I will not

00039823.3

YOU MUST COMPLETE ALL PAGES OF THIS CLAIM FORM

Case 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Document 59-2 Filed 12/14/15 Page 51 of 105 Page ID #:1173 MUST BE POSTMARKED NO LATER THAN ______________

have standing to object to the Settlement or Class Counsel’s Motion for Reasonable Attorney’s Fees and Costs Payment and Request for Plaintiff’s Service Award. I also understand that, if I am excluded from the Settlement, I may bring a separate lawsuit seeking damages, but that there is no guarantee of the outcome of such case and I might recover nothing or less than what I would have recovered if I had filed a Claim Form under this Settlement. 3. CERTIFICATION I have received the NOTICE OF PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT and Exhibits A and B thereto (of which this Request for Exclusion Form is Exhibit B)(“Notice”). I submit this Request for Exclusion Form to request exclusion from the Settlement in this case. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the information in this Claim Form is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Executed on _______________, 2015, at _____________________, __________________. (City) (State) __________________________________________ (Signature) __________________________________________ [Printed Name to be Inserted]

00039823.3

YOU MUST COMPLETE ALL PAGES OF THIS CLAIM FORM

Case 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Document 59-2 Filed 12/14/15 Page 52 of 105 Page ID #:1174

EXHIBIT D

Case 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Document 59-2 Filed 12/14/15 Page 53 of 105 Page ID #:1175

1 Raymond P. Boucher, State Bar No. 115364 [email protected] 2 Shehnaz M. Bhujwala, State Bar No. 223484 [email protected] 3 Brandon K. Brouillette, State Bar No. 273156 [email protected] 4 BOUCHER LLP 21600 Oxnard Street, Suite 600 5 Woodland Hills, California 91367-4903 Tel: (818) 340-5400 6 Fax: (818) 340-5401

21600 Oxnard Street, Suite 600 Woodland Hills, California 91367-4903

7 Sahag Majarian, II, State Bar No. 146621 [email protected] 8 LAW OFFICES OF SAHAG MAJARIAN II 18250 Ventura Boulevard 9 Tarzana, California 91356 Tel: (818) 609-0807 10 Fax: (818) 609-0892 11 Attorneys for Plaintiff, Berta Martin Del Campo 12 13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

14

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, WESTERN DIVISION

15 BERTA MARTIN DEL CAMPO, Individually and On Behalf of All 16 Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff,

17 18

v.

19 HOMETOWN BUFFET, INC., a Minnesota Corporation; OCB 20 RESTAURANT COMPANY, LLC, a Minnesota Limited Liability Company; 21 OVATION BRANDS, INC.; and DOES 1-50, Inclusive, 22 Defendants. 23

Case No. 2:14-cv-04378 (RGK) SHx CLASS ACTION [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND CONDITIONAL CERTIFICATION Assigned to the Hon. R. Gary Klausner and to Magistrate Stephen J. Hillman for Discovery Mattters Trial Date:

None

24 25 26 27 28 00039612.6

Case No. 2:14-cv-04378 (RGK) SHx [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

Case 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Document 59-2 Filed 12/14/15 Page 54 of 105 Page ID #:1176

1

The unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement

2 and Conditional Certification by Plaintiff Berta Martin Del Campo (“Plaintiff”) was 3 heard on _________, 2015. The Court, having considered the proposed Joint 4 Stipulation Re: Class Action Settlement and Release (“Settlement Agreement”), 5 Class Notice, Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement , and the 6 parties’ respective points and authorities, declarations, supplemental declarations 7 and arguments, and for good cause appearing, HEREBY ORDERS THE 8 FOLLOWING: 9

1.

This Order hereby incorporates by reference the definitions of the

21600 Oxnard Street, Suite 600 Woodland Hills, California 91367-4903

10 Settlement Agreement as though fully set forth herein, and all terms used herein 11 shall have the same meaning as set forth in the Settlement Agreement. 12

2.

As of the date of this Order, the Court accepts for filing the First

13 Amended Complaint attached to the declaration filed in support of Preliminary 14 Approval. In the event that the Settlement is not finally approved and the current 15 stay of proceedings is therefore lifted, Defendants shall file their Answer to the First 16 Amended Complaint within 30 days of such order lifting the current stay of 17 proceedings. 18

3.

The Court conditionally certifies and approves, for settlement purposes

19 only, the following Class: 20

All current and former non-exempt, non-managerial employees

21

employed by Hometown Buffet, Inc. and/or OCB Restaurant Company,

22

LLC (“Defendants”) in California at any time between July 19, 2012

23

and March 31, 2015.

24

4.

The Court preliminarily appoints the law firms of Boucher, LLP, and

25 Law Office of Sahag Majarian, II (“Class Counsel”) as Class Counsel. Any Class 26 Member may enter an appearance in the Action, at their own expense, either 27 individually or through counsel of their own choice. However, if they do not enter 28 an appearance, they will be represented by Class Counsel. 00039612.6

Case No. 2:14-cv-04378 (RGK) SHx 2 [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

Case 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Document 59-2 Filed 12/14/15 Page 55 of 105 Page ID #:1177

1

5.

The Court preliminarily appoints Plaintiff Berta Martin Del Campo as

2 Class Representative. 3

6.

The Court hereby preliminarily approves the proposed Settlement upon

4 the terms and conditions set forth in the Settlement Agreement attached to the 5 Supplemental Declaration of Raymond P. Boucher as Exhibit 1. The Court 6 preliminarily finds that the Settlement is within the range of reasonableness 7 necessary for preliminary approval by the Court. The Court finds that the 8 requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3) are met 9 and that the Settlement terms are fair, adequate, and reasonable as to all potential

21600 Oxnard Street, Suite 600 Woodland Hills, California 91367-4903

10 Class Members when balanced against the probable outcome of further litigation, 11 given the risks relating to liability and damages. It further appears that extensive 12 and costly investigation and research has been conducted such that counsel for the 13 Parties at this time are reasonably able to evaluate their respective positions. It 14 further appears to the Court that settlement at this time will avoid substantial 15 additional costs by all parties, as well as the delay and risks that would be presented 16 by the further prosecution of the above-titled action (the “Action”). It appears that 17 the Settlement has been reached as a result of intensive, arms-length negotiations 18 utilizing an experienced third party neutral. 19

7.

The Court approves CPT Group as the Settlement Administrator and

20 preliminarily approves settlement administrative costs not to exceed $56,500, which 21 shall be paid from the Maximum Settlement Fund for services rendered on behalf of 22 the Class. No fewer than thirty (30) calendar days prior to the Final Approval 23 Hearing, the Settlement Administrator shall provide the Court, Class Counsel and 24 Counsel for Defendants, with a statement detailing the costs of administration, 25 showing the estimated Individual Settlement Payments to be made to Participating 26 Class Members, and listing the names and number of Class Members who have 27 objected to or requested exclusion from the Settlement. CPT Group is directed to 28 perform all other Settlement Administration responsibilities set forth in the 00039612.6

Case No. 2:14-cv-04378 (RGK) SHx 3 [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

Case 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Document 59-2 Filed 12/14/15 Page 56 of 105 Page ID #:1178

1 Settlement Agreement. 2

8.

A Final Approval Hearing (the “Hearing”) shall be held on

3 ______________, 2015 at ___ a.m. before the Honorable R. Gary Klausner in 4 Courtroom 850 of the Roybal Federal Courthouse. The purpose of such Hearing 5 will be to: (a) determine whether the proposed Settlement should be approved by the 6 Court as fair, reasonable and adequate; (b) determine the reasonableness of Class 7 Counsels’ request for attorneys’ fees and costs; (c) the reasonableness of the Service 8 Award requested for Plaintiff; and (d) Order entry of Judgment in the Action, which 9 shall constitute a complete release and bar with respect to the Released Claims

21600 Oxnard Street, Suite 600 Woodland Hills, California 91367-4903

10 described in Paragraph 14, below. 11

9.

The Court hereby approves, as to form and content, the Notice of

12 Proposed Class Action Settlement (“Notice”) attached as Exhibit A to the 13 Settlement Agreement, including the Claim Form and Request for Exclusion Form 14 attached thereto as Exhibits A and B, respectively. The Court finds that the Notice 15 and procedures for mailing and distributing the Notice set forth in the Settlement 16 Agreement meet the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 23, 17 due process, are the best notice practicable under the circumstances, and shall 18 constitute due and sufficient notice to all persons entitled thereto. Accordingly, The 19 Court directs the mailing of the Notice via First Class Mail to Class Members in 20 accordance with the Settlement Agreement. 21

10.

The Court directs Defendants to provide to the Claims Administrator

22 within fifteen (15) calendar days of this Order “Class Information” of Class 23 Members that Defendants will in good faith compile from their records. Class 24 Information shall be provided as a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet and shall include: 25 each Class Member’s full name; last known mailing address; last known home 26 telephone number; Social Security Number; start date of employment; end date of 27 employment; and Compensable Workweeks. The Class Information shall also 28 include the sum of all Compensable Workweeks for the Class. Because Social 00039612.6

Case No. 2:14-cv-04378 (RGK) SHx 4 [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

Case 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Document 59-2 Filed 12/14/15 Page 57 of 105 Page ID #:1179

1 Security Numbers are included in the Class Information, the Court directs the 2 Settlement Administrator to maintain the Class Information in confidence and 3 restrict access to counsel for the Parties and those others with a need to use the Class 4 Information as part of the administration of the Settlement. 5

11.

The deadline for submitting Requests for Exclusion from the

6 Settlement shall be sixty (60) days from the date of mailing of the Notice. Any 7 Class Member who wishes to opt out of the Settlement must timely mail their 8 Request for Exclusion to the Claims Administrator by the aforementioned deadline 9 in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Settlement Agreement. Class

21600 Oxnard Street, Suite 600 Woodland Hills, California 91367-4903

10 Members who submit valid and timely Requests for Exclusion will not be entitled to 11 any recovery under the Settlement and will not be bound by the Settlement or have 12 any right to object, appeal or comment thereon. Class Members who do not to 13 submit valid and timely Requests for Exclusion shall be Participating Class 14 Members and shall be bound by all terms of the Settlement Agreement and any 15 Final Judgment. 16

12.

The deadline for objecting to the Settlement, Class Counsel’s

17 application for attorneys’ fees and costs, or Plaintiffs’ application for Service 18 Awards shall be sixty (60) days from the date of mailing of the Notice. Class 19 Members who do not timely request exclusion may object to the Settlement and 20 appear at the Final Approval Hearing to have their objections heard by the Court. 21 Any Class Member who wishes to object to the Settlement, Class Counsel’s 22 application for attorneys’ fees and costs or Plaintiff’s application for a Service 23 Award must timely mail a Notice of Objection to the Claims Administrator by the 24 aforementioned deadline in accordance with the procedures set forth in the 25 Settlement Agreement. Any Class Member who does not make his or her objection 26 in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Settlement Agreement shall be 27 deemed to have waived such objection and shall forever be foreclosed from making 28 any objection to the fairness or adequacy of the proposed Settlement, award of 00039612.6

Case No. 2:14-cv-04378 (RGK) SHx 5 [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

Case 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Document 59-2 Filed 12/14/15 Page 58 of 105 Page ID #:1180

1 attorneys’ fees and costs to Class Counsel, or a Service Award to Plaintiff, unless 2 otherwise ordered by the Court. Plaintiff and/or Defendants may file oppositions to 3 any valid timely Notices of Objections no later than seven (7) days prior to the date 4 of the Final Approval Hearing. 5

13.

The Court hereby preliminarily approves the definition and disposition

6 of the Maximum Settlement Fund in the amount of $2,000,000 as set forth in the 7 Settlement Agreement, which shall be inclusive of: Class Counsel’s attorneys’ fees, 8 not to exceed $500,000 or Twenty-Five percent (25%) of the Maximum Settlement 9 Fund; Class Counsel’s costs, not to exceed $25,000; Administration Costs, not to

21600 Oxnard Street, Suite 600 Woodland Hills, California 91367-4903

10 exceed $56,500; a Service Award to Plaintiff, not to exceed $5,000; and $7,500 to 11 the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency; all subject to the Court’s 12 final approval of the Settlement. The Court preliminarily approves the above 13 distribution of the Maximum Settlement Fund, all subject to the Court’s final 14 approval of the Settlement. Defendants shall be required to pay only the Maximum 15 Settlement Fund of $2,000,000, in addition to its portion of any payroll taxes (which 16 will be paid by Defendants in addition to the Maximum Settlement Fund). 17

14.

Upon entry of Judgment by the Court in accordance with the Settlement

18 Agreement, all Participating Class Members shall fully and finally release and 19 discharge Defendants and their past, present and/or future, direct and/or indirect, 20 parent companies, subsidiaries, affiliates, divisions, officers, directors, managers, 21 members, heirs, employees, agents, representatives, attorneys, insurers, partners, 22 investors, shareholders, predecessors, successors, and/or assigns(“Released Parties”) 23 from all “Released Claims,” any and all claims asserted in the Action against the 24 Released Parties, or that could have been asserted against the Released Parties based 25 upon the facts alleged in the Class Action Complaint filed in the Action, by Plaintiff 26 or any Settlement Class Member from July 19, 2012 to March 31, 2015. The 27 Released Claims include, but are not limited to, any and all claims for (i) alleged 28 failure to provide meal and rest breaks in violation of California Labor Code §§ 00039612.6

Case No. 2:14-cv-04378 (RGK) SHx 6 [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

Case 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Document 59-2 Filed 12/14/15 Page 59 of 105 Page ID #:1181

1 226.7, 516, and 558, (ii) alleged failure to pay all wages due under California law §§ 2 1194, 1197, and 558; (iii) alleged failure to reimburse employees for necessary 3 business expenditures in violation of California Labor Section §§ 2802 and 2804, 4 (iv) alleged violations of California Labor Code §§ 201-203 including, but not 5 limited to, failure to pay final wages timely, or pay penalties for untimely final 6 wages; (v) alleged violations of California Labor Code § 226, including, but not 7 limited to, failure to provide accurate wage statements; (vi) alleged violation of 8 California Business and Professions Code § 17200 et seq. based on underlying 9 violations of the California Labor Code identified herein at (i) through (vi), and (vii)

21600 Oxnard Street, Suite 600 Woodland Hills, California 91367-4903

10 alleged violations of California Labor Code § 2698 et seq. based on derivative 11 violations of the Labor Code including, but not limited to, Labor Code §§ 201, 202, 12 203, 204, 226, 226.7, 512, 558, 1194, 1197, 2802, and 2804. The Released Claims 13 also include all claims for interest and/or penalties of any kind or nature arising out 14 of or relating to the Released Claims and further extends to and includes claims for 15 damages, civil penalties, restitution, injunctive relief, declaratory relief, punitive 16 damages, and any other form of relief or remedy. The Released Claims also include 17 all claims Plaintiff and Settlement Class Members may have against the Released 18 Parties relating to (i) the payment and allocation of attorneys’ fees and costs to Class 19 Counsel pursuant to this Agreement and (ii) the payment of the Class Representative 20 Enhancement Award pursuant to this Agreement. It is the intent of the Parties that 21 the judgment entered by the Court upon final approval of the Settlement shall have 22 res judicata effect and be final and binding upon Plaintiff and all Settlement Class 23 Members regarding all of the Released Claims. The Released Claims include any 24 claims as discussed herein that the Plaintiff and Settlement Class Members do not 25 know or suspect to exist in their favor at the time of the release that do arise, or 26 could have arisen, out of the claims alleged in the Action, which, if known by them, 27 might have affected their settlement with, and release of, the Released Parties or 28 might have affected their decision not to object to this Settlement. 00039612.6

Case No. 2:14-cv-04378 (RGK) SHx 7 [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

Case 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Document 59-2 Filed 12/14/15 Page 60 of 105 Page ID #:1182

1

15.

All papers in support of the Final Approval of this Settlement and any

2 application for reimbursement of attorneys’ fees and expenses, service award, or 3 Settlement Administrator costs, shall be filed by ______________, 2015. 4

16.

The Court reserves the right to adjourn the date of the Hearing without

5 further notice to the Class Members, and retains jurisdiction to consider all further 6 applications arising out of or connected with the proposed Stipulation. 7

17.

Pending Final Approval, the Class Representative and Class Members,

8 whether directly, representatively, or in any other capacity, whether or not such 9 persons have appeared in the Action, shall not institute or prosecute any claims

21600 Oxnard Street, Suite 600 Woodland Hills, California 91367-4903

10 against Defendants, its directors, officers, employees, agents, and anyone acting in 11 concert with it, or any parent, related or affiliated, predecessor or subsidiary 12 corporation, which have been or could have been asserted in the action based upon 13 the acts and transactions alleged therein, including any claims related to or arising 14 out of the allegations in the action. 15

18.

All further proceedings in this Action shall be stayed except such

16 proceedings necessary to review, approve, and implement this Settlement. 17

19.

In the event: (i) the Court does not finally approve the Settlement as

18 contemplated by the Settlement; (ii) the Court does not enter a Final Approval Order 19 as contemplated by the Settlement, which becomes final as a result of the occurrence 20 of the Effective Date (as that term is defined by in the Settlement Agreement); (iii) 21 Defendants elect to void the Settlement as provided under the terms of the 22 Settlement Agreement; or (iv) the Settlement does not become final for any other 23 reason, the Settlement shall be null and void and any order or judgment entered by 24 this Court in furtherance of the Settlement shall be deemed as void from the 25 beginning. In such a case, the Parties and any funds to be awarded under this 26 Settlement shall be returned to their respective statuses as of the date and time 27 immediately prior to the execution of the Settlement, and the Parties shall proceed in 28 all respects as if the Settlement had not been executed. 00039612.6

Case No. 2:14-cv-04378 (RGK) SHx 8 [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

Case 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Document 59-2 Filed 12/14/15 Page 61 of 105 Page ID #:1183

1

20.

Neither the Settlement, preliminarily approved or not approved, nor any

2 exhibit, document or instrument delivered hereunder, nor any statement, transaction 3 or proceeding in connection with the negotiation, execution or implementation of 4 this Settlement, shall be admissible in evidence for any except as provided in the 5 Settlement. 6 7 DATED: August ___, 2015 8 9 HONORABLE R. GARY KLAUSNER

21600 Oxnard Street, Suite 600 Woodland Hills, California 91367-4903

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 00039612.6

Case No. 2:14-cv-04378 (RGK) SHx 9 [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

Case 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Document 59-2 Filed 12/14/15 Page 62 of 105 Page ID #:1184

Exhibit “2”

Case 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Document 59-2 Filed 12/14/15 Page 63 of 105 Page ID #:1185

August 4, 2015 DECLARATION OF CHRISTINA E. CARROLL, CFA I, Christina E. Carroll, declare as follows: 1. I am a Managing Director with Stout Risius Ross, Inc. I have been retained by Boucher LLP, who represents Plaintiff Berta Martin Del Campo in a case called Del Campo v. Hometown Buffet, Inc., et al., currently pending before the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Case Number 2:14-cv-04378 (RGK) SHx. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth herein, except as to those stated on information and belief and, as to those, I am informed and believe them to be true. If called as a witness, I could and would competently testify to the matters stated herein. I make this declaration in support of Plaintiff’s Notice Of Motion And Motion For Preliminary Approval Of Class Action Settlement. 2. I have extensive experience providing valuation and transaction related advice, including rendering fairness opinions, solvency and related transaction opinions, in addition to performing numerous other financial advisory engagements across a broad spectrum of industries. As such, I am qualified to conduct the analysis described herein and render an opinion. Attached as Exhibit 1 to this declaration is a true and correct copy of my current Curriculum Vitae. 3. I have reviewed Hometown Buffet, Inc.’s (“Hometown Buffet”) financial statements and corresponding footnotes for the fiscal years ended July 3, 2013 and July 2, 2014, the 12-week periods ended December 18, 2013 and December 17, 2014, and the 24-week periods ended December 18, 2013 and December 17, 2014 (collectively, the “Financial Statements”). 4. I have performed certain financial analyses in order to assess the financial condition of Hometown Buffet based on a review of the Financial Statements and the actual balance sheet, income statement, and cash flow statement results contained therein. 5. Based on my review of the Financial Statements and my performance of the afortementioned financial analyses, I observed that Hometown Buffet is experiencing annual declines in restaurant sales, profitability, cash flow, and cash balances. 6. I have also been made aware of and considered several qualitative facts regarding Hometown Buffet, including: (i) Hometown Buffet management has actively considered filing for bankruptcy, (ii) Hometown Buffet’s suppliers have materially tightened credit terms by shortening the period of time with which Hometown Buffet must pay for its food supplies, and (iii) Hometown Buffet maintains a material number of unfavorable leases. 7. Resulting solely from my aforementioned observations, analyses, and consideration of certain qualitative facts, it is my opinion that Hometown Buffet’s financial condition appears to be deteriorating. 8. I note that in arriving at my opinion I did not have access to financial statements more recent than December 17, 2014 nor access to any projected or budgeted financial information. I also did not have information with which to consider the impact going forward of Hometown Buffet’s recent investments in capital expenditures related to upgrades and improvement to certain of its restaurants. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on this 4th day of August, 2015, at 10100 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 975, Los Angeles, California. Yours very truly,

Christina E. Carroll, CFA 10100 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 975 Los Angeles, CA 90067 ph. +1.310.601.2300 fax +1.866.855.5135 www.srr.com

Case 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Document 59-2 Filed 12/14/15 Page 64 of 105 Page ID #:1186

Christina E. Carroll, CFA Christina E. Carroll is a Managing Director in the Valuation and Financial Opinions Group where her responsibilities include providing valuation and transaction related advice. Her experience includes rendering fairness opinions, solvency and related transaction opinions to board of directors, special committees, financial institutions, pension funds and other fiduciaries in conjunction with mergers & acquisitions, going private transactions, spin-offs, recapitalizations and financing transactions. Ms. Carroll also performs independent valuations of businesses and securities for tax, financial reporting, estate and gift tax planning, Employee Stock Ownership Plans and other purposes. Ms. Carroll’s experience has encompassed many industries, including technology and telecommunications, energy, financial institutions, asset management, consumer, food and retail, healthcare, industrials and manufacturing and real estate. Managing Director Direct +1.310.846.8897 Mobile +1.310.562.7131 [email protected]

Prior to joining SRR, Ms. Carroll was a Director in the Financial Advisory Services Group at Houlihan Lokey, Inc. where she was responsible for business valuations, fairness opinions, co-investment advice, portfolio valuation and other strategic transaction advice to institutional investors and large private and public companies.

Education

Prior to Houlihan Lokey, Christina was a Transaction Advisory Services partner with Ernst & Young serving in Los Angeles, California, Dublin, Ireland and Dallas, Texas.

M.B.A The Anderson School at UCLA Business Administration B.A. University of California, Los Angeles Economics Business

Ms. Carroll received a B.A. in economics and business, with magna cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa honors from the University of California, Los Angeles, and an M.B.A. from the Anderson School at UCLA. Ms. Carroll is a member of the CFA Institute, and has earned the Chartered Financial Analyst designation. She also serves on the Board of Directors of the Los Angeles Regional Food bank. Recent Publications:

Professional Designations Chartered Financial Analyst

“The Power Pendulum: GP and LP Dynamics in Private Equity,” The SRR Journal, Fall 2013

Case 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Document 59-2 Filed 12/14/15 Page 65 of 105 Page ID #:1187

Exhibit “3”

Case 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Document 59-2 Filed 12/14/15 Page 66 of 105 Page ID #:1188

Boucher LLP is a new firm, steeped in the tradition of obtaining justice for the people who need it most. Founded by Raymond P. Boucher—Los Angeles Daily Journal’s Trial Lawyer of the Decade (2001-2010)—Boucher LLP focuses on the prosecution of high-impact, complex litigation, including class actions, mass actions, and representative actions on behalf of consumers and employees harmed by major corporations and insurance companies; civil rights and police misconduct cases; cases involving the sexual abuse of minors and disabled; and significant personal injury and wrongful death cases. Boucher and his colleagues are frequently appointed class counsel in major class actions and often serve among plaintiffs’ leadership in state and federal coordinated proceedings. Boucher’s successes include a groundbreaking $1 billion settlement on behalf of the victims of childhood sexual abuse by Catholic priests. He has long been a trusted resource for referring attorneys. His skill and tenacity also make him sought after as co-counsel. Boucher built the firm from the ground up, handpicking dynamic, talented, and experienced attorneys who share his vision and values. Clients can expect meticulous preparation and tenacious, relentless representation, as well as highly individualized and compassionate service. The firm is new. The founding principles of Boucher LLP are timeless. EXPERTISE AND RESOURCES Boucher LLP has the expertise and resources to handle cases against major corporations from intake through trial. The firm is presently comprised of three partners, three associates, two of counsel attorneys, and several paralegals and staff members. The firm is well-equipped to conduct discovery in a variety of cases, including large complex cases. The firm uses sophisticated technology and protocol to capture, evaluate, and present information gleaned from documents numbering in the multi-millions. In coordinated proceedings, the firm has the experience and leadership qualities needed to effectively manage resources to ensure efficiency of litigation. Boucher LLP has expertise in the following practice areas: Consumer Class Actions The firm has extensive experience with consumer class action litigation and the relevant issues in evaluating and settling class action claims. Boucher LLP’s attorneys have litigated and certified consumer class actions in a range of areas—from automotive and other product defects, to privacy and data breach, to antitrust, breach of contract, and other business disputes. Boucher LLP’s attorneys have served as lead class counsel and/or on the plaintiffs’ steering committee in numerous consumer class action cases including, In Re Aetna UCR Litigation, Dist. N.J., MDL No. 2020 (Class Counsel), American Medical Association et al. v. Wellpoint, Inc., C.D. Cal, MDL No. 2074 (Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel), Black v. Blue Cross of California, Super. Ct. Los Angeles County, No. BC250339 (Class Counsel), Chavez v. Nestlé USA, Inc. C.D. Cal., No. CV09-9192 GW (CWx) (Lead Counsel), In Re: Facebook, Inc. Internet Tracking Litig., N.D. Cal., MDL No. 2314 (Interim Liaison Counsel), In Re Galvanized Steel Pipe Litigation, Super. Ct.

21600 Oxnard Street, Suite 600, Woodland Hills, California 91367 Telephone 818.340.5400 | Facsimile 818.340.5401

Case 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Document 59-2 Filed 12/14/15 Page 67 of 105 Page ID #:1189

Los Angeles County, No. BC174649 (Lead Class Counsel), In re: Pellicano Cases, Super. Ct. Los Angeles County No. BC316318 (Co-Lead Class Counsel), Sister Sledge et al. v. Warner Music Group Corp., N.D. Cal., No. 12-CV-0559-RS (Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel), and Skeen, et al. v. BMW of North America LLC, et al., Dist. N.J., No. 2:13-cv-1531-WHW-CLW (Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel). Employment Class and Representative Actions Boucher LLP is currently prosecuting numerous class and representative cases against corporations on behalf of thousands of workers alleging wage-and-hour violations, including claims for violations of meal and rest break laws, illegal rounding of time, and failure to pay all wages. The firm is committed to ensuring employees are properly compensated under state and federal laws, and to holding corporations accountable for failing to abide by the law. Mass Tort Litigation Boucher LLP’s attorneys have obtained favorable recoveries for thousands of clients harmed by major pharmaceutical companies. Boucher presently serves in leadership for numerous coordinated proceedings in state and federal court, including In Re Crestor Products Liability Cases, Super. Ct. Los Angeles County, JCCP No. 4713 (Plaintiffs’ Co-Liaison Counsel), In Re Diet Drug Litigation, Super. Ct. Los Angeles County, JCCP 4032 (Plaintiffs’ Co-Liaison Counsel), In re Wright Medical Technology, Inc., Conserve Hip Implant Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2329 (Co-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs and state Liaison Counsel), and Zoloft Birth Defects Cases, JCCP No. 4771 (Plaintiffs’ Co-Lead Counsel). Boucher LLP’s attorneys have also successfully resolved mass tort cases involving toxic exposure, including, among others, Bunker Hill Twrs Condo Ass’n, et al. v. W.R. Grace & Co., Super. Ct. Los Angeles County, No. B072642, and Zachary et al. v. ARCO et al., Super. Ct. Los Angeles County, No. BC209944. Complex, High-Impact Litigation Boucher LLP is committed to advancing the rights of the people and to holding corporations accountable. Throughout his career, Mr. Boucher has brought worthy cases in furtherance of these goals. For example, in the California Gubernatorial Recall Election Litigation, Boucher represented former Governor Gray Davis in a challenge to the qualification of the 2003 California gubernatorial recall election. In Madrid v. Perot Systems Corporation et al., Super. Ct. Sacramento County, No. 03AS04763, Boucher resolved an antitrust and unfair competition action to recover from Perot Systems Corporation for aiding and abetting the manipulation, distortion, and corruption of California’s electricity market. More recently, in Centinela Freeman Emergency Medical Associates, et al. v. Maxwell-Jolly, et al., Super. Ct. Los Angeles County, Pending, No. BC406372, Boucher and his partners obtained an order compelling California’s Department of Health Care Services to comply—for the first time ever—with their obligation to annually review of Medi-Cal physician reimbursement rates to ensure access to quality healthcare in California. 2

Case 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Document 59-2 Filed 12/14/15 Page 68 of 105 Page ID #:1190

These are but a few of the many “impact” cases Boucher and his colleagues have pursued in the interest of positive social change. Civil Rights and Police Misconduct Cases Boucher LLP prosecutes individual, mass, and class actions against public entities for civil rights violations and police misconduct. The firm is committed to helping people obtain justice and to motivating significant policy changes. Boucher is particularly proud of the published result in Wallace v. City of Los Angeles (1993) 12 Cal. App. 4th 1385, a case of first impression he brought against the City on behalf of Demetria Wallace, a teenaged honors student who was shot and killed while waiting for a bus, just five days before she was to testify against a man accused of fatally shooting a taxi driver. After non-suit was granted at trial, the appeals court held the police had a duty to warn the victim. The case affirmed the government’s responsibility to protect citizens who place their lives in jeopardy by stepping forward as witnesses to crimes, and prompted changes in police procedures that have saved countless other witnesses’ lives since. Sexual Abuse Cases Boucher LLP prosecutes individual and mass action cases against public and private entities that fail to protect minors and the disabled from sexual abuse. The firm’s attorneys have extensive experience representing survivors of sexual abuse in such cases. For example, in The Clergy Cases, Super. Ct. California, JCCP Nos. 4286, 4297, 4359, Boucher served as Plaintiffs’ Liaison Counsel on behalf of almost 1,000 individuals and their families in significant personal injury claims involving molestation at the hands of Catholic priests. In Jane Doe v. Garden Grove Unified School District, Boucher prosecuted claims on behalf of a child victim of sexual abuse at school against a public school district. Elena A. et al. v. Casa de Angeles Cal. Corp., d/b/a Healthy Start, et al., Super. Ct. Los Angeles County, No. BC457840, was brought on behalf of developmentally disabled adults who were subjected to serious verbal, physical, and sexual abuse and neglect while attending an adult day care center. And Boucher was a leader in Los Angeles Unified School District Sexual Molestation Cases, which were brought on behalf of the many children who were molested by a teacher at Miramonte Elementary School. Significant Personal Injury and Wrongful Death Boucher LLP represents individuals who have suffered serious personal injury or the death of loved ones. The firm is committed to obtaining the justice that its clients deserve. For example, in Young v. Johnny’s Hot Dog Stand, et al., Super. Ct. Los Angeles County, No. BC102837, Boucher obtained a jury verdict in excess of $1 million in compensatory damages on behalf of 57-year-old indigent person who was shot by a waitress outside of a hot dog stand. The firm is also passionate about seeking justice on behalf of children and adults who have suffered serious injuries from in apparel fires. 3

Case 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Document 59-2 Filed 12/14/15 Page 69 of 105 Page ID #:1191

RAYMOND P. BOUCHER Raymond P. Boucher, a veteran trial lawyer specializing in complex consumer litigation, class actions, product liability, toxic tort litigation, employment discrimination and bad faith, is the Founder and Senior Partner of Boucher LLP. During his professional career, which spans three decades, Boucher has tried more than 50 cases, and has helped obtain verdicts and settlements on behalf of clients in excess of $3 billion. In two of his more notable cases, he served as lead attorney in the landmark $660 million sexual abuse settlement with the Catholic Archdiocese of Los Angeles in which he represented over 250 abuse victims in the July 2007 settlement as well as obtaining nearly $200 million for 144 survivors in a lawsuit against the Roman Catholic Diocese of San Diego. Boucher has briefed and argued more than 20 appeals before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and California Courts of Appeal. For his professional achievements, Boucher has received a diverse array of honors and awards, to include recognition as: “Top 100 Attorneys in California” (2002) by the Daily Journal; “Trial Lawyers of the Decade, “ (2001-2010) by the Daily Journal; “California Lawyer Attorney of the Year” (2008) by California Lawyer; “Consumer Attorney of the Year” (2007) by the Consumer Attorneys of California; and “Trial Lawyer of the Year” by the Consumer Attorneys Association of Los Angeles (additional awards listed below). A noted author and lecturer, Boucher has lectured at numerous law schools (e.g. Stanford, Pepperdine, Loyola) and has delivered hundreds of presentations to bar associations and other legal organizations as well as legal media sponsored events and educational and government forums. Prior to founding Boucher, LLP, Boucher served several other Los Angeles area law firms, including: Kiesel, Boucher & Larson LLP (Partner), Law Offices of Raymond P. Boucher (Founder/Senior Partner), Nordstrom, Steele, Nicolette & Jefferson (Of Counsel), Sayre, Moreno, Purcell & Boucher (Managing Partner), and Gould & Sayre. A native of Massachusetts, Boucher received his undergraduate education at Fort Lewis College in Durango, CO where he received his Bachelor of Arts degree with a double major in Business Administration and Political Science. He was Student Body President, on the Dean’s List and later was honored as its “Alumnus of the Year” (2007). He matriculated to Colorado State University where he received a Master of Science degree in Management. Boucher obtained his Juris Doctor degree from Pepperdine University School of Law While in law school, Boucher ranked in the top 15% of his class, was a member of the Phi Delta Phi honor society and later honored in 2002 with its Distinguished Alumnus Award. He received an Honorary Doctor of Law by Whittier College School of Law in 2005. Boucher is admitted to the State Bar of California as well as the United States District Court for the Central, Northern, Southern and Eastern Districts of California. He is a member of, and has held leadership positions in, numerous legal professional entities, including: •

American Association for Justice, Member



American Bar Association, Admitted as a Fellow of the American Bar



Association of Trial Lawyers of America, State of California Delegate Member

Case 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Document 59-2 Filed 12/14/15 Page 70 of 105 Page ID #:1192



Beverly Hills Bar Association, Member



California Courts, Administrative Office of the Courts (2002 to 2007), Committees: Court Funding, Complex Courts System, Court Integration



California State Bar Association, Member



Civil Justice Foundation, Member



Consumer Attorneys Association of Los Angeles (Formerly the Los Angeles Trial Lawyers Association) President (2005), Board of Governors, Emeritus Member (2005 to present), Board of Governors, Member (1996 to 2006)



Consumer Attorneys of California (Formerly the California Trial Lawyers Association, President (2007), Board of Governors (1997 to present)



Consumer Attorneys of San Diego (2001 to present), Consumer Advocate of the Year (2007)



Diversity in Law Foundation, Board of Directors



Los Angeles County Bar Association, Board of Trustees (2000 to 2002)



Los Angeles Superior Court Bench and Bar Committee (2001 to 2008)



National College of Advocacy, Fellow



Orange County Trial Lawyers Association, Member



Pepperdine School of Law, Board of Visitors (1997 to present)



Public Citizen, Member



Public Justice (Formerly Trial Lawyers for Public Justice), Board of Directors (1996 to present), Member (1984 to present)



The Roscoe Pound Foundation, Member

Among the other honors, awards and other forms of recognition Boucher has received for his professional achievements and accomplishments from legal, community, educational, nonprofit and media entities, include: •

American Association for Justice Steven J. Sharp Public Service Award (2008)



Consumer Attorneys Association of Los Angeles Ted Horn Memorial Award in recognition of service to the California State Bar (2002), Finalist, Trial Lawyer of the Year (1996) , Several Presidential Awards for Outstanding Contribution to the Trial Bar



Consumer Attorneys of California Legislative Champion Award (2002), Several Presidential Awards of Merit



Consumer Attorneys of San Diego David S. Casey, Jr. Consumer Advocate Award (2006)



California League of Conservation Voters Environmental Leadership Award (2005) for dedication to the environment and for fostering the public health rights of individuals



Fort Lewis College, Durango, Colorado Alumnus of the Year (2007)

Case 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Document 59-2 Filed 12/14/15 Page 71 of 105 Page ID #:1193



Lawdragon Named one of 500 Leading Lawyers in America (2009-2014)



Los Angeles Daily Journal Law Business Named one of the 100 Most Influential Attorneys in California several times



Los Angeles Magazine Super Lawyer (2001 to present); named one of the Top 100 Super Lawyers in Southern California (2010 to present)



Loyola Law School Champion of Justice Award (2008)



Martindale-Hubbell, Peer Reviewed AV (highest rating)



Orange County Trial Lawyers Association Top Gun Award (2008)



Pepperdine University School of Law Distinguished Alumnus Award (2002)



Project Sister Family Services Justice Armand Arabian Award (2006) for outstanding efforts to secure justice for victims of clergy abuse



Trial Lawyers for Public Justice Trial Lawyer of the Year (1994)

Additionally, Boucher has been the recipient of presidential awards, awards of merit, recognition and commendation from federal, state and local government entities as well as a variety of bar associations. Boucher, who resides in Tarzana, CA, is active in numerous business, civic, community and charitable organizations (e.g. Ambassador, Make a Wish Foundation). He is also active in fund raising for various local, state and national organizations for whom he has raised millions of dollars. He spends significant time doing pro bono work and frequently advises California Senate, Assembly and constitutional offices about legal and political issues.

Case 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Document 59-2 Filed 12/14/15 Page 72 of 105 Page ID #:1194

SHEHNAZ M. BHUJWALA Shehnaz M. Bhujwala, a strong advocate of consumer rights in civil courts and the California Legislature, is a partner of Boucher LLP. Bhujwala helps consumers harmed by defective products or business practices of corporations and insurance companies obtain justice through the courts. She exclusively prosecutes class actions, mass torts, and other complex civil cases on behalf of consumers in federal and California state courts. In recent years, she has developed expertise with class actions involving data breaches and corporate privacy violations. Bhujwala, who has been recognized for her work as a consumer attorney as a “Southern California Rising Star” by both Los Angeles Magazine and Southern California Rising Stars Magazine (2009-2011), and was bestowed with a Martindale-Hubbell “AV Preeminent” rating for her professionalism and ethics in 2015, has helped bring resolution to numerous cases through settlement and trials over the course of her legal career, including: •

A $58 million jury verdict for a construction worker who suffered severe burn injuries from a defective O-ring part on his construction vehicle



A historic settlement on behalf of hundreds of survivors of childhood sexual abuse against the Los Angeles and San Diego Catholic Archdioceses



A favorable settlement on behalf of a news reporter who suffered severe electrical burns and related injuries when her transmission truck hit overhead power lines



A class action settlement with the Writers Guild of America on behalf of writers to ensure the Guild’s payment of collected, foreign levy funds to them.

Prior to joining Boucher LLP, Bhujwala worked for top plaintiffs’ firms in the Los Angeles area, including Khorrami Boucher, LLP, Kiesel Boucher & Larson, LLP, and Greene, Broillet, Panish & Wheeler, LLP. An active author and speaker on consumer law subjects, Bhujwala is a member of, and has held leadership positions in, numerous professional organizations, including: •

Consumer Attorneys of California - (Board of Governors – 2011-2015; Chair-Elect, Women’s Caucus – 2014, Chair, Woman’s Caucus – 2015)



Consumer Attorneys Association of Los Angeles - (Board of Governors, 2013-2014)



Los Angeles County Bar Association - (Litigation Section, Legislative Chair – 2014, member of Judicial Appointments Committee)



American Association for Justice



Public Justice

Through her work with the Consumer Attorneys of California, Bhujwala also regularly speaks with California legislators regarding the need for sufficient court funding and other issues affecting consumers.

Case 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Document 59-2 Filed 12/14/15 Page 73 of 105 Page ID #:1195

A California native and current resident of Los Angeles, Bhujwala received her undergraduate education at the University of California, Los Angeles where she obtained her Bachelor of Arts degree in Psychology. Thereafter, she attended the University of Southern California’s Gould School of Law, where she obtained her Juris Doctor degree. During law school, she externed for the Honorable U.S. District Court Judge Robert Takasugi of the Central District of California and counseled victims of domestic violence through the Los Angeles County Bar Association’s Barrister’s Project.

Case 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Document 59-2 Filed 12/14/15 Page 74 of 105 Page ID #:1196

BRANDON BROUILLETTE Brandon Brouillette, a consumer fraud and wage-and-hour class action lawyer, is an associate of Boucher LLP. During his legal career, Brouillette has consistently fought for the interests of both consumers and employees against corporate fraud and wrongdoing through his representation of plaintiffs in class actions against corporate defendants such as national retail chains, drug manufacturers, insurance companies, banks and financial service companies, and through his involvement as an active member with Consumer Attorneys of California. Brouillette obtained his Juris Doctor degree from Loyola Law School in Los Angeles. While in law school, he was involved in numerous activities, including: interning in the Corporate Legal and Theatrical Clearance departments of Warner Brothers Entertainment; actively participating in the Sports and Entertainment Law Society; and, serving as a volunteer providing tax assistance to individuals in lower income surrounding communities. Brouillette is admitted to practice before the California Supreme Court. A native of Minneapolis, MN, Brouillette received his undergraduate education at the University of Southern California from which he obtained his Bachelor of Science degree in Business Administration. As part of his undergraduate studies, he took courses at Corvinus University in Budapest, Hungary.

Case 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Document 59-2 Filed 12/14/15 Page 75 of 105 Page ID #:1197

BRIAN BUSH Brian Bush, a trial lawyer who concentrates his legal practice in the areas of civil rights, personal injury and mass tort litigation, is an Associate of Boucher LLP. Bush is admitted to the State Bar of California as well as the United States District Courts for the Central, Eastern and Northern Districts of California. Among his professional affiliations, he is a member of the American Association for Justice, Los Angeles County Bar Association and the Consumer Attorneys Association of Los Angeles (CAALA). Bush received his Juris Doctor degree from Loyola Law School in Los Angeles. Throughout law school, Bush volunteered at the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office. In his capacity as a certified law student, he presided over numerous felony preliminary hearings, evidence suppression hearings and also served as second chair for the prosecution in a child molestation trial. While in law school, Bush competed in trial advocacy tournaments in California and New York as a member of Loyola’s nationally-ranked Byrne Trial Advocacy Team and served as speaker, co-chair and vice president of Loyola’s student chapter of CAALA. Additionally, at Loyola, he earned First Honors awards in White Collar Crimes, Cross Examination and Advanced Trial Advocacy. A native of Seattle, WA, Bush attended Washington State University where he obtained a Bachelor of Arts degree in Communications with an Advertising Emphasis. At the university, he was on the Dean’s Honor Roll (2001-2004), was a graduate of the WSU Honors College, served as President and Vice President of the Ad Club and was a member of the student chapter of the American Advertising Federation.

Case 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Document 59-2 Filed 12/14/15 Page 76 of 105 Page ID #:1198

MILIN CHUN Milin Chun, an attorney with experience in both criminal and civil law, is a Senior Associate of Boucher LLP. Throughout her career, Chun has focused her practice on federal white-collar criminal defense and appellate matters. She has represented clients in criminal investigations, including cases arising out of the Hobbs Act, Contraband Cigarette Trafficking Act, False Claims Act, securities fraud, money laundering, wire fraud, and tax evasion. Chun has previously represented a CEO of a major defense firm and executive director of a large non-profit organization in Washington, D.C. Chun has been named to the Maryland Rising Stars list by Maryland Super Lawyers for three consecutive years (2013-2015), and in 2015 was named “Top 40 Under 40” by the National Trial Lawyers. Chun currently serves on the Diversity Task Force for the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, the nation’s leading organization devoted to ensuring a just legal process for all criminal cases, and previously served on the Editorial Advisory Board of the Daily Record, a legal and business newspaper in Maryland. Chun is admitted to practice in California, Maryland, and the District of Columbia. She is also admitted to practice in the United States District Courts for the Central District of California, District of Maryland, and the District of Nebraska, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Raised in Southern California, Chun attended the University of California, San Diego, where she received a Bachelor of Arts degree in Political Science. She then obtained her Juris Doctor degree from the University of Maryland, Baltimore, where she served as the Managing Editor of the University of Maryland Law Journal of Race, Religion, Gender, and Class. Following law school, Chun clerked for the Honorable Gale E. Rasin in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City.

Case 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Document 59-2 Filed 12/14/15 Page 77 of 105 Page ID #:1199

CATHY KIM Cathy Kim is an Associate of Boucher LLP. During her legal career, Cathy has focused her practice on representing individuals in mass tort litigation (e.g. products liability) against major pharmaceutical companies and medical device manufacturers in state and federal proceedings. Cathy is admitted to the State Bar of California and the United States District Court, Central District of California. Among her professional affiliations, she is a member of Consumer Attorneys of California and the Korean American Bar Association. Raised in Torrance, CA, Cathy attended the University of California, Los Angeles where she received a Bachelor of Arts degree in Business Economics with a minor in East Asian Languages and Cultures. Cathy graduated magna cum laude, was a member of Phi Beta Kappa Honor Society and the Golden Key International Honour Society, as well as being on the Provost’s Honors List for six quarters. Cathy matriculated to Loyola Law School in Los Angeles where she obtained her Juris Doctor degree while receiving numerous academic honors and recognition, including the First Honors Award in Advanced Legal Research. During law school, she served as a judicial extern to the Honorable Samuel L. Bufford in the United States Bankruptcy Court. Cathy also served as the Internal and External Vice President of the Asian Pacific American Law Students Association. An accomplished musician (e.g. piano, violin) who has won many awards in competitions and performed in various orchestras, Cathy is active in community and cultural organizations. Among her involvements, she has served as a Korean-English translator for the Asian Pacific American Legal Center’s Citizenship Workshops and Volunteer Income Tax Assistance.

Case 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Document 59-2 Filed 12/14/15 Page 78 of 105 Page ID #:1200

HERMEZ MORENO Hermez Moreno, a veteran trial lawyer who specializes in complex police misconduct litigation and catastrophic person injury and trial work, serves as Of Counsel to Boucher LLP. During his professional career, which spans nearly four decades, Moreno has a diverse array of litigation experience and has attained verdicts and settlements for his clients up to eight figures. Some of the legal areas he has litigated include: •

Civil Rights



Medical/Legal Malpractice



Mass Torts



Insurance Bad Faith



Police Misconduct



Excessive Use of Force



False Arrest/Imprisonment



Asbestos Personal Injury



Mishandling of Human Remains



Traumatic Brain Injury



Asbestos Commercial Property Damage



Asbestos Personal Injury



Jail Abuse

Moreno also has extensive experience in transactional work and has been involved in the negotiating and drafting of contracts and other documents for entertainers in the fields of film, music recordings and film and recording financing. He has also negotiated and drafted contracts for the sale and purchase of businesses and landmark real estate in the Los Angeles area. Moreno, who began his career handling civil rights cases throughout California, served as Special Counsel to Cesar Chavez (1984-1993) and as Trial Counsel for the United Farm Workers Union (1984-1990) in areas involving labor disputes and cases brought by growers’ efforts to break the union. He also represented indigent clients in pro bono cases and continues to do so. In addition to his legal practice, Moreno is actively serving as a professor of trial advocacy. He has served as a Clinical Professor at the UCLA School of Law in its Trial Advocacy Program and has been both a Visiting Associate Professor of Law, Clinical Instructor in the Trial Advocacy Program of Southwestern Law School and currently serves as an Adjunct Professor of Law in the school’s Trial Advocacy and Civil Rights Program. Moreno is admitted to the State Bar of California as well as the United States Supreme Court, United States Court of Appeal Ninth Circuit, United States Court of Appeal, Federal Circuit and the United States District Court for the Central, Northern, and Eastern Districts of California. Among his professional affiliations, he is or has been a member of:

Case 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Document 59-2 Filed 12/14/15 Page 79 of 105 Page ID #:1201



Consumer Attorneys of California



Consumer Attorneys Association of Los Angeles



Trial Lawyers for Public Justice



Mexican American Bar Association (Board of Trustees)



Mexican American Bar Foundation (Board of Directors)



Santa Monica Third Street Development Corporation (Board of Directors)

A native of Mexico, Moreno attended the University of California, Santa Barbara where he received a Bachelor of Arts degree in Political Science. He obtained his Juris Doctor degree from the UCLA School of Law. While in law school, he co-founded Centro Legal de Santa Monica, Inc., a non-profit legal aid office operated by UCLA Chicano law students. The organization, which subsequently merged with Westside Legal Services, provided legal services to underprivileged residents in Santa Monica and Moreno served as a Board of Trustees member and supervising attorney. Moreno lives with his wife in Moorpark, CA on a 15-acre horse ranch. Among his personal interests, he is an art collector, an artist, and has written his first novel.

Case 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Document 59-2 Filed 12/14/15 Page 80 of 105 Page ID #:1202

MARIA L. WEITZ Maria L. Weitz, an attorney with broad experience in numerous areas of consumer law, is a partner of Boucher LLP. Throughout her legal career, Weitz has focused her practice on unfair, deceptive, and fraudulent business practices, and seeking legal accountability on behalf of injured plaintiffs. As a result, her diverse range of litigation experience spans a wide array of legal issues, including complex class actions, product liability and other personal injury cases, employment litigation, and appellate practice. Weitz’s interest in civil justice developed while attending the University of California, Davis School of Law, where she earned her Juris Doctor degree. She received a Public Service Law Certificate recognizing her legal work in public interest organizations and government agencies. This work included serving as co-counsel in a federal jury trial on behalf of an inmate alleging civil rights violations, and working within the California Attorney General’s Office to prosecute civil cases for violations of California’s Air Pollution Control Laws. She also received a Witkin Award for Academic Excellence in Legal Writing and the Sacramento County Bar Association Diversity Fellowship. Weitz is admitted to the State Bar of California and the United States District Courts in the Northern, Southern, Central, and Eastern Districts of California. Among her professional affiliations, she is a member of the Consumer Attorneys Association of Los Angeles. In recognition of her career accomplishments, Weitz has twice been selected as a Southern California Rising Star by Super Lawyers Magazine and was listed among Top Women Attorneys by Los Angeles Magazine. Weitz received her undergraduate education at the University of California, Los Angeles, where she earned a Bachelor of Arts degree in Sociology and Communications.

Case 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Document 59-2 Filed 12/14/15 Page 81 of 105 Page ID #:1203

Exhibit “4”

Case 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Document 59-2 Filed 12/14/15 Page 82 of 105 Page ID #:1204

CURRICULUM VITAE RAYMOND PAUL BOUCHER, ESQ. BOUCHER LLP 21600 Oxnard Street, Suite 600 Woodland Hills, California 91367 Tel. (818) 340-5400 | Fax (818) 340-5401 [email protected] | www.boucher.la EDUCATION Pepperdine University School of Law, Malibu, California Distinguished Alumnus Award (2002). Juris Doctorate (1984). Ranked in top fifteen percent of class. Moot Court (first place petitioner brief). Phi Delta Phi honor society. Whittier College School of Law, Costa Mesa, California Honorary Doctor of Law (2005). Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado Master of Science in Management (1981). Graduate assistant. Sigma Iota Epsilon honor society. Fort Lewis College, Durango, Colorado Alumnus of the Year (2007). Bachelor of Arts (1979). Double Major, Business Administration and Political Science. Student Body President. Dean’s List. ADMISSIONS State Courts of California; United States District Courts for the Central, Northern, Southern, and Eastern Districts of California PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE Boucher LLP, Woodland Hills, California Partner (2014 to Present) Khorrami Boucher LLP, Los Angeles, California Member (2013 to 2014) Kiesel, Boucher & Larson LLP, Beverly Hills, California Partner (1999 to 2013) Law Offices of Raymond P. Boucher, Tarzana, California Partner (1990 to present) Nordstrom, Steele, Nicolette & Jefferson, Los Angeles, California Attorney of Counsel (1993 to 1996) Sayre, Moreno, Purcell & Boucher, Los Angeles, California Managing Partner (1985 to 1990) Gould & Sayre, Santa Monica, California Attorney at Law (1984 to 1985)

Case 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Document 59-2 Filed 12/14/15 Page 83 of 105 Page ID #:1205 Raymond Paul Boucher Curriculum Vitae Page 2

AFFILIATIONS AND SELECTED LEGAL INVOLVEMENT American Association for Justice, Member American Bar Association, Admitted as a Fellow of the American Bar Association of Trial Lawyers of America State of California Delegate Member Beverly Hills Bar Association, Member California Courts, Administrative Office of the Courts (2002 to 2007) Committees: Court Funding, Complex Courts System, Court Integration California State Bar Association, Member Civil Justice Foundation, Member Consumer Attorneys Association of Los Angeles Formerly the Los Angeles Trial Lawyers Association President (2005) Board of Governors, Emeritus Member (2005 to present) Board of Governors, Member (1996 to 2006) Consumer Attorneys of California Formerly the California Trial Lawyers Association President (2007) Board of Governors (1997 to present) Consumer Attorneys of San Diego (2001 to present) Consumer Advocate of the Year (2007) Diversity in Law Foundation, Board of Directors Los Angeles County Bar Association Board of Trustees (2000 to 2002) Los Angeles Superior Court Bench and Bar Committee (2001 to 2008) Make a Wish Foundation, Ambassador National College of Advocacy, Fellow Orange County Bar Association, Member Orange County Trial Lawyers Association, Member Pepperdine School of Law Board of Visitors (1997 to present) Public Citizen, Member Public Justice, Board of Directors Formerly Trial Lawyers for Public Justice Board of Directors (1996 to present) Member (1984 to present) The Roscoe Pound Foundation, Member

00027041.2

Case 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Document 59-2 Filed 12/14/15 Page 84 of 105 Page ID #:1206 Raymond Paul Boucher Curriculum Vitae Page 3

SELECTED AWARDS AND HONORS Trial Lawyer of the Decade (2001-2010) Los Angeles Daily Journal American Association for Justice Steven J. Sharp Public Service Award (2008) California Lawyer Magazine California Lawyer Attorney of the Year (CLAY) Award (2008) Consumer Attorneys of Los Angeles Trial Lawyer of the Year (2007) Ted Horn Memorial Award in recognition of service to the California State Bar (2002) Finalist, Trial Lawyer of the Year (1996) Several Presidential Awards for Outstanding Contribution to the Trial Bar Consumer Attorneys of California Consumer Attorney of the Year (2007) Legislative Champion Award (2002) Several Presidential Awards of Merit Consumer Attorneys of San Diego David S. Casey, Jr. Consumer Advocate Award (2006) California League of Conservation Voters Environmental Leadership Award (2005) for dedication to the environment and for fostering the public health rights of individuals Fort Lewis College, Durango, Colorado Alumnus of the Year (2007) Lawdragon Named one of 500 Leading Lawyers in America (2009-2011) Los Angeles Daily Journal Law Business Named one of the 100 Most Influential Attorneys in California several times Los Angeles Magazine Super Lawyer (2001 to present); named one of the Top 100 Super Lawyers in Southern California (2010 to present) Loyola Law School Champion of Justice Award (2008) Martindale-Hubbell, Peer Reviewed AV (highest rating) Orange County Trial Lawyers Association Top Gun Award (2008) Pepperdine University School of Law Distinguished Alumnus Award (2002)

00027041.2

Case 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Document 59-2 Filed 12/14/15 Page 85 of 105 Page ID #:1207 Raymond Paul Boucher Curriculum Vitae Page 4

Project Sister Family Services Justice Armand Arabian Award (2006) for outstanding efforts to secure justice for victims of clergy abuse Trial Lawyers for Public Justice Finalist, Trial Lawyer of the Year (2000, 2008) Trial Lawyer of the Year (1994) Recipient of presidential awards, awards of merit, recognition, and commendations from federal, state, and local governmental entities and a variety of bar organizations. LITIGATION Tried more than fifty cases to verdict, recovering in excess of three billion dollars in verdicts and settlements for clients. Briefed and argued more than twenty appeals before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and California Courts of Appeal. Selected class actions and complex litigation generated: Adderton v. Nextel Commc'n, Inc., et al. (“Boost Mobile”) Super. Ct. Los Angeles County, 2006, No. BC344300. Owners of Pipeline asserted Nextel unlawfully used its power as majority interest holder to force Pipeline’s owners to sell their shares in Boost Mobile for below market value. Nextel withheld financial and marketing support from Boost Mobile until the Pipeline owners sold their interests, and provided false valuations and withheld financial information so that Pipeline could not know Boost Mobile’s true value. Resolved. In Re Aetna UCR Litigation Dist. N.J., Pending, MDL No. 2020, No.: 2:07-cv-3541 (FSH)(PS) Appointed Class Counsel for class of subscribers to Aetna’s healthcare insurance plan in class action alleging Aetna knowingly used inherently flawed databases licensed from Ingenix to set usual, customary, and reasonable (“UCR”) rates for out-of-network services, resulting in artificially reduced reimbursements to plaintiffs. Plaintiffs allege the existence of a secret and illegal agreement by Aetna, UnitedHealth Group, Ingenix, and most of the country’s largest health insurers to systemically under-reimburse consumers for out-of-network services in violation of ERISA, RICO, and the Sherman Act, as well as state law. Pending. American Medical Association et al. v. Wellpoint, Inc. C.D. Cal, Pending, MDL No. 09-2074 PSG (FFMx) Appointed Co-Lead Counsel in action on behalf of physicians and physician groups to recover payment from insurers who violated federal antitrust laws by fixing artificially low reimbursement rates for treatment provided to out-ofnetwork patients. Pending.

00027041.2

Case 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Document 59-2 Filed 12/14/15 Page 86 of 105 Page ID #:1208 Raymond Paul Boucher Curriculum Vitae Page 5

Balasubramaniam v. Cty of Los Angeles, et al. Super. Ct. Los Angeles County, 2004, Case No. BC158506. Represented plaintiff medical doctor in case of employment discrimination based upon color. Resolved after trial, on appeal. Bartley v. Camarillo Miramonte Homeowners Ass’n Super. Ct. Ventura County, 2002, No. SC020953. Class action against real estate developers on behalf of individual condominium owners for faulty construction and repairs. The units were constructed over a high water table and on poor soils which expanded and contracted, causing the units to sink, and causing floor slabs, foundations, and walls to crack. The defendants knew about the defects but did not disclose them. After receiving complaints, developers failed to repair as promised. Resolved on eve of trial. Bianchi v. Schneiderman, et al. Super. Ct. Los Angeles County, 2003, No. EC033688. Represented plaintiff in suit for breach of an agreement and for fraud after Schneiderman fraudulently obtained control of L.A. Digital Post and then transferred it to his wife in order to hide assets from creditors. Resolved. Black v. Blue Cross of California Super. Ct. Los Angeles County, 2007, No. BC250339. A certified class action against a health insurer for improper mid-year contract modifications. Settled for an eight-figure amount after a liability trial. Berger v. The Berger Foundation, et al. Super. Ct. Riverside County, 2011, Case No. INC 10010664. H. N. and Frances Berger founded a charitable organization to promote and support education and alleviate human suffering. Defendants diverted millions from this foundation to engage in self-dealing transactions and to pay themselves excessive compensation, and to fund ventures to employ their relatives. Represented the Berger Foundation to remedy these wrongs and safeguard a family legacy. Resolved. Bunker Hill Twrs Condo Ass’n, et al. v. W.R. Grace & Co. Super. Ct. Los Angeles County, No. B072642. Represented 250 resident unit owners in a 32-story, luxury downtown high-rise in an action against the nation’s leading asbestos products manufacturer. The building’s steel girders were coated with asbestos, which contaminated the building with hazardous amounts of emitted asbestos fibers in breathable dust. A jury awarded over $6 million to compensate for the cost of the abatement. California Gubernatorial Recall Election Litigation Represented former Governor Gray Davis in a challenge to the qualification of the 2003 California gubernatorial recall election.

00027041.2

Case 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Document 59-2 Filed 12/14/15 Page 87 of 105 Page ID #:1209 Raymond Paul Boucher Curriculum Vitae Page 6

Castaneda, et al. v. State of California et al. Super. Ct. Los Angeles County, 2004, No. BC299062. The California Legislature passed a bill to allow victims of wrongful deportation or coerced emigration between 1929 and 1944 to bring civil actions. Castaneda was a class action on behalf of approximately 400,000 U.S. citizens and resident aliens who were wrongfully expelled from California because of their Mexican heritage. Complaint withdrawn after governor’s veto of the bill. Catalina Toys v. Forward Winsome Super. Ct. Orange County, No. 68-59-34. Defended Forward Winsome, one of the largest toy manufacturers in the world, and represented it on a cross complaint. Plaintiffs alleged that Forward Winsome intentionally delayed shipments of goods and breached an agreement in order to place the plaintiffs in financial duress and to foreclose upon their assets. After a fifteen-day trial, the jury entered a unanimous verdict awarding Forward Winsome more than $6 million; settled before punitive damages phase. Centinela Freeman Emergency Medical Associates, et al. v. Maxwell-Jolly et al. Super. Ct. Los Angeles County, Pending, No. BC406372. Action on behalf of emergency room doctors who received medical reimbursements in amounts that were significantly below the costs that they incurred to treat their patients. Writ of mandate issued; case pending. Chavez v. Nestlé USA, Inc. C.D. Cal., 2013, No. CV09-9192 GW (CWx). Appointed lead counsel in class action for false advertising in the marketing of a beverage for infants. Resolved following successful appeal to Ninth Circuit. CIGNA Litigation Class action against medical insurers who under-reimbursed hundreds of thousands of medical patients for out-of-network care they received. The plaintiffs allege the health insurers manipulated data to artificially depress reimbursements for medical care. Pending. The Clergy Cases Super. Ct. California, JCCP Nos. 4286, 4297, 4359 Served as Plaintiffs’ Liaison Counsel representing almost 1,000 individuals and their families in significant personal injury claims involving molestation at the hands of Catholic priests. Settlements totaled in excess of $1.5 billion. The Clergy Cases I, California JCCP 4286 (Diocese of Orange). Ninety survivors of Clergy sexual abuse filed lawsuits against the Roman Catholic Diocese of Orange. In December 2004, after nearly two years of intense negotiations, lead negotiations to successfully settle all claims against the Diocese for $100 million on the condition that the secret files of the Diocese of Orange would be made public.

00027041.2

Case 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Document 59-2 Filed 12/14/15 Page 88 of 105 Page ID #:1210 Raymond Paul Boucher Curriculum Vitae Page 7

The Clergy Cases I, California JCCP 4286 (Archdiocese of Los Angeles). Five-hundred and eight survivors of clergy sexual abuse filed lawsuits against the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Los Angeles. On the eve of the first of more than a dozen scheduled trials, successfully negotiated an agreement with the Archbishop to resolve all cases against it for $660 million, the largest resolution with any diocese in the United States. The case is still pending as the parties litigate the public release of abusing priest and Church files. The Clergy Cases II, California JCCP 4297 (Archdiocese of San Diego). One-hundred and forty-four survivors were sexually abused by Clergy members in the Roman Catholic Diocese of San Diego. In the secondlargest settlement by a Roman Catholic diocese nationwide since claims of sexual abuse by clergy members came to light in 2002, the Diocese agreed to pay nearly $200 million to these 144 survivors. The case is pending as the parties litigate over the public release of the offending priests’ files. In Re Crestor Products Liability Cases Super. Ct. Los Angeles County, Pending, California JCCP No. 4713. Appointed Plaintiffs’ Co-Liaison Counsel in Judicial Council coordinated proceeding pending before the Los Angeles Superior Court involving personal injury claims arising from use of Crestor pharmaceutical drug. Pending. DePUY ASR Artificial Hip Implants Litigation Super. Ct., San Francisco County, Pending, California JCCP No. 4649. Nationwide personal injury actions on behalf of patients who received the recalled, defective, surgically implanted, metal-on-metal ASR XL Acetabular and ASR Hip Resurfacing systems manufactured by DePuy Orthopedics, a unit of Johnson & Johnson. The complaints allege DePuy Orthopedics was aware its ASR hip implants were failing at a high rate, yet continued to manufacture and sell the product to unsuspecting physicians and patients. Pending. In Re Diet Drug Litigation Super. Ct. Los Angeles County, California JCCP 4032. Appointed Co-Plaintiffs’ Liaison Counsel. Claims arose from injuries resulting from the use of the diet drug Phen-Fen. Resolved. Jane Doe v. Garden Grove Unified School District Represented a child victim of sexual abuse at school. Resolved. Elena A. et al. v. Casa de Angeles Cal. Corp., d/b/a Healthy Start, et al. Super. Ct. Los Angeles County, Pending, No. BC457840. Case on behalf of developmentally disabled adults who were subjected to serious physical and verbal abuse and neglect while attending an adult day care center. The abuse included sexual molestation which caused rashes, bruises, scratches, abrasions, scarring, and cuts and the contraction of venereal disease. It also included the withholding of medical care, and the failure to provide appropriate meals, leading to dehydration, malnutrition, and anemia. It included rough

00027041.2

Case 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Document 59-2 Filed 12/14/15 Page 89 of 105 Page ID #:1211 Raymond Paul Boucher Curriculum Vitae Page 8

handling acts of humiliation, and threats to harm family members after clients witnessed inappropriate behavior. Pending. In Re: Facebook, Inc. Internet Tracking Litig., N.D. Cal., Pending, MDL No. 2314, No. 5:12-md-02314-EJD. Appointed Interim Liaison Counsel in this class action lawsuit seeking damages and injunctive relief for the knowing interception of users’ Internet communications and activity after logging out of their Facebook accounts, in violation of state and federal laws including the Federal Wiretap Act, the Stored Communications Act, and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. In Re Galvanized Steel Pipe Litigation Super. Ct. Los Angeles County, 2010, No. BC174649 Appointed Lead Counsel (2001). Class action involving construction defects. Settled for an amount in the high eight figures. Gillis et al. v. Ralph Wyatt Plastering Company, et al. Super. Ct. Los Angeles County, 1999, No. SC034918. Case to recover for negligent construction leading to water intrusion and an infestation of highly toxigenic mold, resulting in the total loss of the plaintiff’s home and all of its contents. Eight-figure settlement. Grossman v. Unger Fabrik, LLC Super. Ct. Los Angeles County, 2013, No. BC480626. Breach of contract action on behalf of an executive who made $55 million in sales for a company that then failed to pay her commissions. Resolved. Hablian et al. v. Zurich U.S. et al. Cal. Comp. Bd. of Appeals Class action to recover workers’ compensation benefits that were due to injured employees, but that employers and their insurers instead kept for themselves. The California Workers Compensation Appeals Board has ruled that a class action may be brought. Case pending. Leslie v. Hochman, Salkin & Deroy Super. Ct. Los Angeles County, 1997, No. BC127454. In this legal malpractice case, attorneys arranged to provide the plaintiffs with a tax shelter plan under which a commodities broker would reduce their income tax burden through trades in gold futures, and the attorneys would take $20 for each of the broker’s transactions in return for legal representation about the tax consequences of the trades. The Ninth Circuit then ruled that the types of deductions the attorneys advised the plaintiffs to take on their tax returns were not based on genuine losses, such that the plaintiffs were now responsible for unpaid taxes, interest, and penalties. Litigation ensued in which the attorneys represented the plaintiffs before the U.S. Tax Court, promising that they would prevail when all the while they had no reasonable possibility of doing so. Resolved.

00027041.2

Case 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Document 59-2 Filed 12/14/15 Page 90 of 105 Page ID #:1212 Raymond Paul Boucher Curriculum Vitae Page 9

Los Angeles Unified School District Sexual Molestation Cases Represented numerous children who were molested at Miramonte Elementary School in the Los Angeles Unified School District. Madrid v. Perot Systems Corporation et al. Super. Ct. Sacramento County, No. 03AS04763. Antitrust and unfair competition action to recover from Perot Systems Corporation for aiding and abetting the manipulation, distortion, and corruption of California’s electricity market, including the design and sale of derivative securities, in the wake of the deregulation of California’s energy sector. Resolved. Martinez et al. v. EMI Music Distribution et al. (“Compact Disc Minimum-Advertised Price Antitrust Litigation”) C.D. Cal, No. CV-00-05730 RAP (RNBx). Suit to recover from recorded-music distributors and retailers for price fixing. Resolved. Murray v. Belka (“First Pension”) Super. Ct. Orange County, California JCCP No. 3131. Suit against a pension plan administrator, one of the nation’s largest law firms, and one of the world’s largest accounting firms to recover damages and for restitution to hundreds of investors who had lost their life savings to a Ponzi scheme. Co-tried a four month trial with Michael Aguirre, resulting in a liability and punitive damages verdict. The Orange County, California jury in the case found that Pricewaterhouse Coopers helped defraud the investors by creating fraudulent audits and reviews that First Pension Corporation used in its filings with government agencies over nine years. The case resolved on the eve of the punitive damage phase for nearly nine figures. In re: National Association of Music Merchants, Musical Instruments and Equipment Antitrust Litigation S.D. Cal. MDL No. 2121. Class action in antitrust to recover for anticompetitive price fixing. Northbridge Homeowners v. The Newhall Land and Farming Co., et al. Super. Ct. Los Angeles County, 2010, No. BC174649. Recovered $41 million on behalf of 5,000 Santa Clarita Valley residents in a suit against real estate developers for the installation of defective galvanized steel pipes which rusted and leaked inside their new homes. In Re Northridge Earthquake Litigation Appointed Plaintiffs’ Liaison Counsel (2002). Numerous coverage lawsuits against State Farm Insurance, 21st Century Insurance, Farmers Insurance, and USAA Insurance Company for fraudulent insurance practices arising out of the Northridge Earthquake. Resolved.

00027041.2

Case 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Document 59-2 Filed 12/14/15 Page 91 of 105 Page ID #:1213 Raymond Paul Boucher Curriculum Vitae Page 10

In re: Pellicano Cases Super. Ct. Los Angeles County, 2014, No. BC316318. Appointed as Co-Lead Counsel in class action against AT&T. Cases involved wiretapping in violation of the California Penal Code. Settled. Quesada v. Herb Thyme Farms, Inc. Super. Ct. Los Angeles, County, No. BC436557. Action against the largest grower and marketer of herbs in California for labeling conventionally grown food as “fresh organic” in order to mislead consumers into paying more. Pending in Supreme Court of California. Residents of Tucson, Arizona v. Tucson Airport Authority et al., AZ Court of Appeals, No. 2 CA-CV 93-0204. Actions on behalf of over 1,600 residents of the Sunnyside community of Tucson against the Tucson Airport Authority and other defendants for dumping a carcinogen, trichloroethylene (TCE), into disposal pools and allowing it to seep into the city’s ground water. After an EPA-sponsored researcher found high levels of TCE and other carcinogens in drinking water, experts discovered that several unusual forms of cancer, particularly among children in the area, were at almost epidemic levels. The actions settled for $84.5 million. Silver et al. v. Aetna Health Inc., PA, et al. N.D. Cal., No. C10-00143. Class action against medical insurers who under-reimbursed hundreds of thousands of medical patients for out-of-network care they received. The plaintiffs allege the health insurers manipulated data to artificially depress reimbursements for medical care. Pending. Silver v. Del Webb Super. Ct. Nevada. No. A437325. Appointed Lead Counsel (2001). Certified class construction defect suit involving installation of faulty plumbing systems in new homes. Resolved. Sinskey, et al. v. Ernst & Young et al. Super. Ct. Los Angeles County, No. BC247851. Represented plaintiffs in action for fraud in the sale of securities. Resolved. Sister Sledge et al. v. Warner Music Group Corp. N.D. Cal., No. 12-CV-0559-RS. Appointed Interim Co-Lead Counsel in this suit to recover for the shortchanging of artists in the licensing of their works to third parties for subsequent retail sale as digital downloads and ringtones. Settled for $11.5 Million. Skeen, et al. v. BMW of North America LLC, et al. Dist. N.J., Pending, No. 2:13-cv-1531-WHW-CLW. Appointed Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel in putative class action on behalf of owners and lessees of MINI Cooper vehicles manufactured with defective “timing chain tensioner” parts that cause premature engine damage and failure. Pending.

00027041.2

Case 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Document 59-2 Filed 12/14/15 Page 92 of 105 Page ID #:1214 Raymond Paul Boucher Curriculum Vitae Page 11

The Temptations et al. v. UMG Recordings, Inc. N.D. Cal., No. 12-CV-1289-JCS. Suit to recover for shortchanging of artists in the licensing of their works to third parties for subsequent retail sale as digital downloads and ringtones. Pending. Terry W. et al. v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. et al. Super. Ct., Los Angeles County, No. BC187451. Case against Kaiser for failing to take action to protect patients after receiving complaints that one of their doctors was molesting minors. The doctor was later arrested, convicted, and incarcerated for his crimes. Resolved. In re Transient Occupancy Tax Cases Super. Ct. Los Angeles County, California JCCP 4472. Action on behalf of thirty-nine separate California cities to recover unremitted occupancy taxes from online travel companies. In re Trasylol Drug Cases Super. Ct. Los Angeles County, California JCCP 4593. Action on behalf of the people of the State of California against a pharmaceutical company that continued to aggressively market a drug after becoming aware that it significantly increased the risk of renal failure, stroke, and death, and which was ultimately removed from the market. Resolved. Welch v. Orkin Exterminating Co. Super. Ct. Los Angeles County, No. 516323. Orkin’s negligent treatment of the plaintiffs’ San Diego home for termites caused plaintiffs to develop chemical sensitivities. Orkin argued the plaintiffs were only imagining their injuries, or that the injuries preexisted. Orkin denied that it misapplied the chemicals, and denied that the chemicals could cause any injury. After an eighteen-day trial, a jury awarded plaintiffs approximately $1 Million. In re Wright Medical Technology, Inc., Conserve Hip Implant Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2329. Appointed Co-Lead Counsel and state Liaison Counsel in this national MDL involving actions against a manufacturer of defective surgically implanted metalon-metal hip replacement systems. Pending. Yaz, Yasmin and Ocella Contraceptive Cases Super. Ct., Los Angeles County, California JCCP 4608. Appointed and served as Plaintiffs’ Co-Liaison Counsel in cases on behalf of women who were prescribed Yasmin and Yaz oral contraceptives and suffered blood clots, deep vein thrombosis, strokes, or heart attacks. Case involved allegations that Bayer failed to warn. Young v. Johnny’s Hot Dog Stand et al. Super. Ct. Los Angeles County, 1997, No. BC102837. Ronald Young, a 57 year-old homeless man who had been a hospital orderly before going on disability, had been frequenting Johnny’s Hot Dog Stand for more than twenty years. After Young approached the window of Johnny’s with

00027041.2

Case 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Document 59-2 Filed 12/14/15 Page 93 of 105 Page ID #:1215 Raymond Paul Boucher Curriculum Vitae Page 12

money in his pocket to purchase a cup of coffee, the waitress shouted insults at him. Minutes later, the waitress walked out of the stand, approached Young, and shot him six times, leaving him permanently disfigured and almost $70,000 in debt to the hospital. The police never recovered the gun and the district attorney declined to prosecute. At trial, the jury found the restaurant negligent and ordered Johnny’s to pay nearly $1 million in compensatory damages. Zachary et al. v. ARCO et al. Super. Ct. Los Angeles County, No. BC209944. Appointed Lead Counsel. Mass tort toxic refinery fire resulting in injury to plaintiffs and their property. Resolved. Among cases involving published decisions: Bains v. Moores (2009) 172 Cal. App. 4th 445. Action on behalf of investors to recover for fraud in the sale of certain securities. Callahan v. Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP (2011) 194 Cal. App. 4th 557. Represented family members in suit against law firm that drafted a partnership agreement which damaged the family business. Resolved. Harrell v. 20th Century Ins. Co. (9th Cir. 1991) 934 F.2d 203. Suit to recover for fraud in the sale of a small business. Resolved. Ileto v. Glock, Inc. (C.D. Cal. 2006) 421 F. Supp. 2d 127. Action against weapons manufacturers Glock and China North, whose firearms were used by a member of the Aryan Nation to shoot several children and kill a postal worker. Ramirez v. Fox Television Station (9th Cir. 1993) 998 F.2d 743. Suit for unconstitutional employment discrimination based on national origin. Shirk v. Vista Unified School District (2007) 42 Cal. 4th 201. Case to recover for sexual molestation by a public school teacher. Regents of University of California v. Superior Court (2010) 183 Cal. App. 4th 755. Represented relatives of decedents who willed their bodies to a medical school for research and teaching purposes, only to learn the remains had been improperly disposed of in a grotesque and undignified manner after scientific uses were concluded. Donors were told that after use, their remains would be cremated and scattered in a rose garden. Human remains were commingled with other remains and incompletely incinerated, leaving hair and flesh intact. Remains were placed in a mixture of incinerated human bodies, laboratory animal carcasses, and medical waste into garbage dumpsters and then transported to a landfill where they were disposed of with common refuse. Rippon v. Bowen (2008) 160 Cal. App. 4th 1308. Case on behalf of California citizens who challenged the constitutionality of Proposition 140, which imposed lifetime term limits upon state legislators and other state officers.

00027041.2

Case 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Document 59-2 Filed 12/14/15 Page 94 of 105 Page ID #:1216 Raymond Paul Boucher Curriculum Vitae Page 13

Santillan v. Roman Catholic Bishop of Fresno (2008) 163 Cal. App. 4th 4. Case on behalf of a victim of childhood sexual abuse. Wallace v. City of Los Angeles (1993) 12 Cal. App. 4th 1385. Demetria Wallace, a teenaged honors student, was shot and killed by a shotgun blast as she sat on a bench waiting for a bus five days before she was to testify against a man accused of fatally shooting a taxi driver. Following granting of nonsuit at trial, the appeals court held the police had a duty to warn the victim. The case affirmed the government’s responsibility to protect citizens who jeopardize their lives by stepping forward as witnesses to crimes, and prompted changes in police procedures that have saved other witnesses’ lives since. Wholesale Electricity Antitrust Cases I & II (2007) 147 Cal. App. 4th 1293. Co-lead counsel in suit to recover from energy traders for antitrust and unfair business practices in the wake of the deregulation of California’s energy sector. Resolved in conjunction with the Attorney General’s office for over $1.1 billion. PRESENTATIONS Guest Lecturer Stanford Law School, Stanford, California Pepperdine University School of Law, Malibu, California Loyola Law School, Los Angeles, California Continuing Legal Education Delivered hundreds of continuing legal education presentations to organizations including the Los Angeles County Bar Association, the Consumer Attorneys of California, the Consumer Attorneys Association of Los Angeles, the Association of Southern California Defense Counsel, the American Association for Justice, the Orange County Bar Association, the California League of Cities, Pepperdine Law School, Mealey’s, the Los Angeles Daily Journal, Glasser Legal Works, and the National College of Advocacy.

00027041.2

Case 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Document 59-2 Filed 12/14/15 Page 95 of 105 Page ID #:1217

Exhibit “5”

Case 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Document 59-2 Filed 12/14/15 Page 96 of 105 Page ID #:1218

A Firm-by-Firm Sampling of Billing Rates Nationwide The Naticm(ll/ 1..~w Journal iu•ked the respondents

'Q

ini 2002. .s1.1rvey of the nation's 250 l~rgest law pro vide na~rly b1llmg rat:e intormacion for pmtne~ ~nd ali~Ocl u es ftrmvviele. n1e firms that s.upp1it in formation •T incl1.1ding some firms thi:lt are not in t.he NL.J 2.50 ~- era Ustsci t>&lovv 1n 1llpnE1betical or numl:ier after a firm's 11ame 1ndici!lr~s r.M total number of cm:orney:; at ttiat firm. The di:y 11sted bel nam~ of ii firm 1s the locat1on of ttie firm's principal office or largest office.

.AllCP Allh1, G~ntp, smuir:o, rt11wer • fl!ll" (1,Dl1) (Wi1Sh1ngi:on, O.C.) l"ilrLll~tS ~llSO-fWO

~1ociai;es

$l 70-1f330

~llfl'/ Prye ll War-r-cn (JSIJ) (New Ycir'X)

rarmers $300·$S90 Ai;i;Qc1ares $180-$375 ~mer

l.eivin N!dt4111"1&.1'ri1n1.lrmers 1f3JO-!FS75 A~BOC1at:M olH70-~SOC

Althalmet &. Grav c:sen.) (Ch1c:a90) Pl'lrtne~ ,n.n-.,i;~5

A55oaates

~U5-~~ei1l

Andr.ew11 • Kurth (3:.'!i) (MousionJ P~ rtnc:r.. oioi-•S5l5

A&SOC1:11es $1 ?D -~oo I

Arent Fo.i< IC1nt11cr Plhnkln • ICalin (64U} CWil!llN•hston, D.C'.'.) Panners if.Ji.S-$560

L

M

~ne

N

Powoill ~..
"51iC1 C11l t~ $ l.50-'30Q

111~c:Jwl'e'i1 5.inder$ Pe~c:r M;i~n (JO\.J

·Hillnltr. Phdp:i •

Pnllllp~

{ica11sas rmel"ll $~ 7:1·,Ji.S ;\S~OClilteS $125•ifl95

Jlr•ll9well II P111U1r11Gn (302) (HOuston) $210-Gt>CO

Mcc.n.ir" 13nufi:lih [:!)'11J

A5SOCll(li!$ $1~.!:•$325

l'U'lners

Rae•• White (l8l.) ( D,fm1nollllM , Ala )

Allsoc1llf'!!I

P~rCnus

'Ne..arl\, II( J )

~250·$495 $14D-~Z6S

111·aarc v, Arant,

pann~rs ~20S·s365 J\S.$OC1ai:es $lSO·S27 5

Brlrtkl; Hofer.:GUson

(Cn11::aaol PRnntrs

r>an:n•uli .,210-f!';ls

a. U11ne (138J

M!)Qt1lites ,85-~2!1

IUdl;iel

f2.95~$500

A.!ISOC1ares

H~ulr11Nou111s (IHll) (l\JC11mo11~. v11.)

Be~t

llt friedticll (349)

(M1IWi1u1Ceel

'i65·''-!10

Pa~n•~s: .!llBO-f4l5 AS5d~t~tl $11![)-~L40

lryiin C;iwu US4l) (Sr. UlUlS) Partn~

Miller, Cilnfleld, Paddock lllld iiicane {301)

$4.2S-$'20

Alisoc1ares

(Pf!T~1~J

U35 -~10

PllrtnfrS $UO•S'471S

Buch11INr, Nem•tr fl•ltt.11; i. Younqer (137)

(i.o:; AnUClc:'6)

Pi!rt11Cl'S ~310·,450 ~oi;'~~li 1160-,JiO

011 c h o r1ttn inucra;oll

"'"llf •

Cflavaller {U3)

lW

(B01leon)

(!l1rminn11• 111 . Ala.J

0-R

JWQC:1lltH '140·$225

(lb1rtniliyfl' Rflllm1nn Hilxw.,f "Hipp•' (UO}

Piutn• rw ,ao.S-f3C>2 B1m~c 1

S.on11 (104)

(llCtfCJ ltJ P• rtnc~ $205-$3 BO ASSOClllt e5 U35·$2l5

(1'111IO'IO~ I PMIJ P~ n;nera :t~OO·!f"t7$ fli$$0Clllt05 ifl. 4 )·~~~:>

Oiifletree, Peak.Ins, 111••"1, Smak • SfJ"'lillfl'.

{Ui2)

hnp ://www ,law .com/spec:ial/profe9siooals/nljli002/fimi._!:iy_funi._sam.pliDg_of_billing_ra... 11 /l !il/2003

Case 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Document 59-2 Filed 12/14/15 Page 98 of 105 Page ID #:1220

d os- SollutU Fleming & Wri11k• (59) (rWhOlulu) ~1as'-p2s

p;,....,..,,

."'""'""es ~·~5-J~Os C•r1ton n1>ld:t C2l.ll lflom~. fm .) ~f1:t1Ur5 •U0"1"'JU 1'1:~oc;tll~ $ 1'30... ~7 0

C..H 11lgelow lk Lomi.ardl 130) tttona1u11..1)

·

P•n:ners '1i1o' f34Q

.........."" ' l 25-'J.)

Partners !f36S-.,soo

ASsac.atn .f 19Q-,f360

Pepper

tl~mllldllffrllP•nhelmer wclff &

t389)

P• m>ort

k!l2~1i~1

O•mm.,; S'U~ -S 425 Artl . CoM.)

Edwmfs &.Allaell (:2!10)

M-t•te5 $1•0·~230

,170 -f.
W~lu

Stoel "1Yes {3i4) lPnBno. Ole.) , P nm>e~ 52l0-}1CO

..,99• B•nlaor lUU)

..._. .........

(TOJl'1PI', Fl>,) ;.1 7 5- f.J ~ O

A.it M"1ues r;125"-f225 C::lifd e)-~

Wvrn'lti: Se¥1ell (2.8B)

r..J.J

P•rtn•rs , ~a s•~oo

AtSotmcs s i.45-H6S

_.,en~

& Yown11 U-4~1

Pit!tncrs !f200-$'S5S

""'°""""" $1~0~0

(D·a:.1w;

~on..w, Ot1.J!1>t0, Oo12n, Qn"l'finger

, ._~ 0 · '3 i 0

" Portnmfessionab/nlj/2002/fum_t>y_fum_ sampling_ of_billing_ra... 11/ l !:>/2003

Case 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Document 59-2 Filed 12/14/15 Page 100 of 105 Page ID #:1222

C:ray Cl'rY Wa.-c a Froi4cnric:h ('402) (Palo Alto. QIJ,f,J PiltrMrs '3l0-~Q2D ..

A5sQ11 1 D.C.) Pa11f!Ol'S $ 2SO-!ji7SO ASY.Ol'tiltes $1 l.5•.Jlt!fi

P~rt11er.1

tW111Cc Ptllll'lll,

(l.s:n

N.~ .)

f'lll'tn~rs -'245-$artDill':I fl.90-"'$()1) AS!loo

11

CL, § t . n, to "J ®n ^ ^ cc

ft I O f CO 0

-f

1Z

QC ® c

14 "o o

O

15

Doi

o § ! 16 v $0.15

Total

$793.75 $168.00 $7,006,20

Travel, Parking, Gas Credit Card

3/10/2015

CreditCard

3/10/2015

Credit Card

3/10/2015

Total

TOTAL COSTS

* Boucher, LLP reflects 50% of the costs

Sahag j Erika

Client

Parking for mediation

$38.00

Parking for mediation

saaoo

Parking for mediation

$38.00

$114.00

$7,120.20

Case 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Document 59-5 Filed 12/14/15 Page 3 of 5 Page ID #:1251

Exhibit “2”

12/11/2015

matrix Case 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Document 59-5 Filed 12/14/15 Page 4 of 5 Page ID #:1252

is

/&

t\

ran

E9D

NX

i

Years Out of Law School * Paralegal/

Sua® ysss

.SS3J."U7fi

See the Matrix

dk

Year

Adjustmt

Law

Factor**

Cleric

1-3

4-7

8-10

11-19

20 4-

6/01/15- 5/31/16

1.0089

$180

$331

$406

$586

$661

$796

6/01/14- 5/31/15

1.0235

$179

$328

$402

$581

$655

$789

6/01/13- 5/31/14

1.0244

$175

$320

$393

$567

$640

$771

6/01/12- 5/31/13

1.0258

$170

$312

$383

$554

$625

$753

6/01/11-5/31/12

1.0352

$166

$305

$374

$540

$609

$734

6/01/10- 5/31/11

1.0337

$161

$294

$361

$522

$589

$709

6/01/09- 5/31/10

1.0220

$155

$285

$349

$505

$569

$686

6/01/08- 5/31/09

1.0399

$152

$279

$342

$494

$557

$671

6/01/07-5/3 1/08 J

1.0516

$146

$268

$329

$475

$536

$645

6/01/06-5/31/07

1.0256

$139

$255

$313

$452

$509

$614

USanu)

ants ¦

6/1/05-5/31/06

1.0427

$136

$249

$305

$441

$497

$598

6/1/04-5/31/05

1.0455

$130

$239

$293

$423

$476

$574

6/1/03-6/1/04

1.0507

$124

$228

$280

$405

$456

$549

6/1/02-5/31/03

1.0727

$118

$217

$267

$385

$434

$522

6/1/01-5/31/02

1.0407

$110

$203

$249

$359

$404

$487

6/1/00-5/31/01

1.0529

$195

$239

$345

$388

$468

6/1/99-5/31/00

1.0491

$101

$185

$227

$328

$369

$444

6/1/98-5/31/99

1.0439

$96

$176

$216

$312

$352

$424

6/1/97-5/31/98

1.0419

$92

$169

$207

$299

$337

$406

6/1/96-5/31/97

1.0396

$88

$162

$198

$287

$323

$389

6/1/95-5/31/96

1.032

$85

$155

$191

$276

$311

$375

6/1/94-5/31/95

1.0237

$82

$151

$185

$267

$301

$363

$106

The methodology of calculation and benchmarking for this Updated Laffey Matrix has been approved in a number of cases. See, e.g., McDowell v. District of Columbia, Civ. A. No. http://www.laffeymatrix.com/see.html

1/2

matrix Case 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Document 59-5 Filed 12/14/15 Page 5 of 5 Page ID #:1253

12/11/2015

00-594 (RCL), LE-XSEE 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81 14 (D.D.C, June 4, 2001); Salazar v.

Dist. of Col., 123 F,Supp,2d 8 (D.D.C. 2000), * «

Years Out of Law School" is calculated from June 1 of each year, when most law students graduate. "1-3" includes an attorney in his 1st, 2nd and 3rd years of practice, measured from date of graduation (June 1). "4-7" applies to attorneys in their 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th years of practice. An attorney who graduated in May 1996 would be in tier "1-3" from June 1 , 1996 until May 31, 1999, would move into tier "4-7" on June 1, 1999, and tier "8-10" on June 1,2003.

** The Adjustment Factor refers to the nation-wide Legal Services Component of the Consumer Price Index produced by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the United States Department of Labor.

http://www.laffeymatrix.com/see.html

2/2

Case 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Document 59-6 Filed 12/14/15 Page 1 of 6 Page ID #:1254

1 2

3 4 5

6 7

8 9

Raymond P. Boucher, State Bar No, 1 15364 * oucher. la [email protected] Shennaz M. Bhujwala, State Bar No. 223484 [email protected], la Brandon K. Brouillette, State Bar No. 273 156 brouillettefibboucher. la

BOUCHER tLP

21600 Oxnard Street Suite 600 Woodland Hills, California 91367-4903 Tel: (818) 340-5400 ~ ' Fax: (818) 340-5401 Sahag Majarian, II, State Bar No. 146621 [email protected] com LAW OFFICES OF SAHAG MAJARIAN II 18250 Ventura Boulevard Tarzana, California 91356 Tel: 818) 609-0807

10

Fax:

11

Attorneys for Plaintiffand the Class

818) 609-0892

12 13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

14

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

15 16

Case No.: 2:14-cv-4378 RGK (SHx)

BERTA MARTIN DEL CAMPO,

individually and on behalf of all others 17

CLASS ACTION

similarly situated,

18

DECLARATION OF TIM Plaintiff,

19

CUNNINGHAM FOR CPT GROUP,

INC., SETTLEMENT 20

ADMINISTRATOR

v.

21

HOMETOWN BUFFET, INC., a Minnesota

22

corporation; OCB RESTAURANT

Judge: Hon. R. Gary Klausner

COMPANY, LLC, a Minnesota limited 23

liability company; OVATION BRANDS,

24

INC.; and DOES 1-50, inclusive,

25

HEARING Date: January 11, 2016 Time: 9:00 a.m. Courtroom: 760

Defendants.

26 27 28

- 1 DECLARATION OF TIM CUNNINGHAM FOR CPT GROUP, INC., SETTLEMENT ADMINISTRATOR

Case 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Document 59-6 Filed 12/14/15 Page 2 of 6 Page ID #:1255

I, Tim Cunningham, declare as follows: 1.

1

I am a Case Manager for CPT Group, Inc. ("CPT"), the Court-approved

2

class action settlement administrator for the case entitled Del Campo v. Hometown

2

Buffet, Inc., Case Number 2:14-cv-4378-(RGk) SHx. My business address is 16630

^

Aston, Irvine, CA 92606. My telephone number is (949) 428-1056. I am authorized to make this declaration on behalf of CPT. I have personal knowledge of the facts set

6

forth in this declaration and, if called upon to testify, I could and would testify _ . _ competently to such facts.

7 8

2.

CPT has extensive experience in providing notice of class actions and

administering class action settlements. In the past 25 years, we have provided

9

notification and/or claims administration services in hundreds of class action cases.

10

CPT was engaged by counsel for the parties in this case, Plaintiff Berta Martin Del

11

Campo and Defendants Hometown Buffet, Inc. and OCB Restaurant Company, LLC,

12

to provide notice of the settlement and process claims and exclusions in this action. In

13

this capacity, CPT was charged with the following duties: (a) preparing, printing and

14 15

mailing the Notice of Proposed Class Action Settlement ("Notice"),

Class Action

Settlement Claim Form ("Claim Form "), and Request for Exclusion from Class Action Settlement Form ("Exclusion Form ") in both English and Spanish, and a Business

16

Reply Mail envelope (herein collectively referred to as "Notice Packet") to class 17 18 19

members as well as Reminder Postcards; (b) processing undeliverable mail and locating updated addresses for class members; (c) receiving other communications

about the settlement; (d) notifying the parties of the number of class members who filed

20

timely claims, requests for exclusion or notices of objections; (e) notifying the parties

21

of the number of class members who filed untimely or deficient claims or requests for

22

exclusion, and taking steps to cure the deficiencies; (f) establishing and maintaining a

23

toll free case hotline where class members can speak to case representatives regarding

24

case

25

26

specific

questions;

(g)

establishing

and

maintaining

www.cptgroup.com/DelCampoVHometownBuffetSettlement

a

static

website

containing

court

documents and information regarding the settlement, including a Notice of Entry of Final Judgment if entered; and (h) being responsible for calculating and mailing

27 28

-2DECLARATION OF TIM CUNNINGHAM FOR CPT GROUP, INC., SETTLEMENT ADMINISTRATOR

Case 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Document 59-6 Filed 12/14/15 Page 3 of 6 Page ID #:1256

Individual Settlement Payment checks to the Settlement Class Members, as well as 1

distribution of the Class Representative Service Award to the Class Representative,

Class Counsel Fees and Class Counsel Costs, Settlement Administration Costs, and the

3

LWDA PAGA Allocation to the California Labor Workforce Development Agency as

4

approved by the Court, as well as completing any associated tax withholding and

5

reporting to the State and Federal tax authorities and sending Settlement Class

6

Members and Class Counsel appropriate tax documents associated with their payments.

7

3.

CPT obtained a toll free phone number (1-866-991-3885) for class

g

members to call with questions regarding the settlement, and created and maintained a

g

website

(www.cptgroup.com/DelCampoVHometownBuffetSettlement)

identified on

the Notice for viewing, downloading and/or printing the Settlement Agreement, 10

Preliminary Approval Order, the First Amended Complaint with Exhibit 1 thereto, and 11

the Notice in English and Spanish, and obtaining additional information regarding the 12 13

14 15

16 17

settlement. If the Court grants final approval of the settlement, notice of Final Judgment will be given to class members by posting the Court's orders, when

available, to the website as well. 4.

CPT received the Court-approved text for the Notice documents from

Class Counsel on September 16, 2015. 5.

CPT prepared a draft of the Notice Packets for mailing to the potential

Class Members consisting of a 6-page Notice, 1-page Claim Form, 1-page Exclusion 19 20

Form, in both English and Spanish, and a Business Reply Mail envelope.

CPT

received approval from the parties and a sufficient number of Notice Packets were printed according to the anticipated class size. A copy of the Notice Packet is attached

21

hereto as Exhibit A. 22 6. 23 24 25

On September 24, 2015, CPT received data files from Defendants

containing the name, last known mailing address, social security number, telephone number, and employment dates for each Class Member, as well as the total number of

Compensable Workweeks by all class members.

The initial mailing list provided by

26 27 28

-3DECLARATION OF TIM CUNNINGHAM FOR CPT GROUP, INC., SETTLEMENT ADMINISTRATOR

Case 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Document 59-6 Filed 12/14/15 Page 4 of 6 Page ID #:1257

Defendants contained Twelve Thousand Two Hundred Ninety One (12,291) Class 1 2

Members. 7.

On October 6, 2015, CPT conducted a National Change of Address

3

(NCOA) search, via the NCOA database maintained by the U.S. Postal Service, to

4

update the class list of addresses with accurate information. A search of this database

5

provides updated addresses for any individual who has moved in the previous four

6

years and notified the U.S Postal Service of their change of address.

7

8.

The Notice Packets were enclosed in envelopes with the names and

g

known addresses printed on them.

g

mailed via U.S. First-Class mail to all class members identified by Defendants. 9.

On October 14, 2015, the Notice Packets were

On November 13, 2015, CPT mailed reminder postcards to a total of Ten

10

Thousand Seven Hundred Fifteen (10,715) class members who had not yet submitted a 11

response. Attached hereto as Exhibit B is the Reminder Postcard. 12 13

14

10.

On December 9,

2015,

CPT mailed a Notice Packet to

One

(1)

subsequently identified class member confirmed by Counsel. 11.

As of the date of this declaration, One Thousand Seven Hundred Twenty

15

Three (1,723) Notice Packets have been returned to our office by the Post Office, of

16

which One Hundred Forty Nine (149) had a forwarding address. CPT performed a Skip

17

Trace on all returned mail in an effort to locate a better address using Accurint, one of

the most comprehensive address databases available.

1g 20

It utilizes hundreds of different

databases supplied by credit reporting agencies, public records and a variety of other national databases. 12.

As a result of either skip trace, forwarding address provided by the Post

21

Office, or re-mail requests from Counsel or Class Members, a total of One Thousand 22

One Hundred Six (1,106) Notice Packets have been re-mailed to-date. A total of One 23 24

25 26

Thousand Fifty Six (1,056) Notice Packets were ultimately undeliverable, as no better address was provided from the Post Office, or obtained through skip trace. 13.

As of the date of this declaration, there are no written objections to the

settlement.

27 28

-4DECLARATION OF TIM CUNNINGHAM FOR CPT GROUP, INC., SETTLEMENT ADMINISTRATOR

Case 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Document 59-6 Filed 12/14/15 Page 5 of 6 Page ID #:1258

14. 1

As of the date of this declaration, Claims Administrator has received a

total of Two Thousand Seven Hundred Twenty Seven (2,727) responses, of which Two Thousand Five Hundred Fifteen (2,583) are claims.

3

4 5

15.

As of the date of this declaration, there are Forty Nine (49) invalid

responses due to duplicate submissions from the same Class Member. 16.

As of the date of this declaration, there are Ninety Five (95) requests for

6

exclusion, of which Four (4) are deficient.

7

members requesting a cure.

8

g

17.

Letters have been sent to these class

As of the date of this declaration, there are Two Hundred Forty Eight

(248) deficient claims. Examples of deficiencies include not signing the forms returned or checking both boxes in section 3

confirming accuracy of total number of

10 Compensable Workweeks and challenging the same. Letters have been sent to these 11

class members requesting a cure. 12

13

18.

As of the date of this declaration, there are Four (4) potential disputed

claims, more specifically, disputing their total number of Compensable Workweeks.

14

Letters have been sent to these class members requesting clarification and supporting

15

documentation for their dispute.

16

timely received, CPT will forward to Counsel for review.

If clarification and supporting documentation is

17

19.

As of the date of this declaration, there are no late claims.

18

20.

As of the date of this declaration, CPT reports that out of the Twelve

19 20

Thousand Two Hundred Ninety Two (12,292) Class Members, Two Thousand Five Hundred Eighty Three (2,583), if the deficient claims are cured and accepted, have submitted a valid Claim Form.

This represents 21.01% of the total Class Members.

21

The estimated valid claimed amount to date is $454,352.41 which represents 32.31% of 22

the amount available to the Class. A copy of the Weekly Report is attached hereto as 23 24 25

Exhibit C. 21.

The approximate range of settlement pay-outs is between $2.74 and

$386.21, with an average payment of $175.90.

26 27 28

-5DECLARATION OF TIM CUNNINGHAM FOR CPT GROUP, INC., SETTLEMENT ADMINISTRATOR

Case 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Document 59-6 Filed 12/14/15 Page 6 of 6 Page ID #:1259

22. 1

The claims filing, opt-out and objection deadlines fall

on Monday,

December 14, 2015, and there remains time for certain class members to respond to requests to cure deficiencies with submitted forms. Accordingly, CPT will provide a

3

supplemental declaration with updated information prior to the hearing on Plaintiffs

4

final approval motion.

5

23.

With regard to payment for CPT's services, CPT will charge a total of

6

$56,500.00 in costs associated with the administration of the settlement as described

7

herein and in the settlement agreement. This includes all costs incurred to date, as well

g

as estimated costs involved in completing the settlement.

9 I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of California and the 10

United States that the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration is executed 11

this 1 1th day of December, 2015, at Irvine, California.

12

13 14

Tim Cunningham

15 16 17

18 19

20 21 22

23 24

25 26 27 28

-6DECLARATION OF TIM CUNNINGHAM FOR CPT GROUP, INC., SETTLEMENT ADMINISTRATOR

Case 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Document 59-7 Filed 12/14/15 Page 1 of 6 Page ID #:1260

1 Raymond P. Boucher, State Bar No. 115364 [email protected] 2 Shehnaz M. Bhujwala, State Bar No. 223484 [email protected] 3 Brandon K. Brouillette, State Bar No. 273156 [email protected] 4 BOUCHER LLP 21600 Oxnard Street, Suite 600 5 Woodland Hills, California 91367-4903 Tel: (818) 340-5400 6 Fax: (818) 340-5401

21600 Oxnard Street, Suite 600 Woodland Hills, California 91367-4903

7 Sahag Majarian, II, State Bar No. 146621 [email protected] 8 LAW OFFICES OF SAHAG MAJARIAN II 18250 Ventura Boulevard 9 Tarzana, California 91356 Tel: (818) 609-0807 10 Fax: (818) 609-0892 11 Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Class 12 13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

14

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, WESTERN DIVISION

15 BERTA MARTIN DEL CAMPO, Individually and On Behalf of All 16 Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff,

17 18

v.

19 HOMETOWN BUFFET, INC., a Minnesota Corporation; OCB 20 RESTAURANT COMPANY, LLC, a Minnesota Limited Liability Company; 21 OVATION BRANDS, INC.; and DOES 1-50, Inclusive, 22 Defendants. 23 24

Case No. 2:14-cv-04378 (RGK) SHx CLASS ACTION [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND ATTORNEYS’ FEES, COSTS AND SERVICE AWARD AND JUDGMENT Date: January 11, 2016 Time: 9:00 A.M. Crtrm.: 850 (Roybal) Assigned to the Hon. R. Gary Klausner and to Magistrate Stephen J. Hillman for Discovery Matters

25 26

Trial Date:

June 14, 2016

27 28 Case No. 2:14-cv-04378 (RGK) SHx [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND ATTORNEYS’ FEES, COSTS AND SERVICE AWARD

Case 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Document 59-7 Filed 12/14/15 Page 2 of 6 Page ID #:1261

1

The Honorable R. Gary Klausner, District Court Judge for the United States

2 District Court, Central District of California, Western Division, held a hearing on 3 the unopposed Motion for an Order Granting Final Approval of Class Action 4 Settlement and unopposed Motion for Attorneys’ Fees, Costs, and Service Award, 5 filed by Plaintiff Berta Martin Del Campo (“Plaintiff”) in the above-entitled matter, 6 on Monday, January 11, 2016, at 9:00 a.m., in Courtroom 850 of the United States 7 District Court for the Central District of California, Western Division, located at the 8 Edward R. Roybal Federal Building and United States Courthouse, 255 East Temple 9 Street, Los Angeles, California 90012. Due and adequate noticed was given to the

21600 Oxnard Street, Suite 600 Woodland Hills, California 91367-4903

10 Class, as defined below, of this hearing. The Court, having considered all of the 11 arguments raised by Counsel in support of the Motions, and any objections received 12 to the proposed settlement, now issues the following findings and orders. 13

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED:

14

1.

The Court maintains jurisdiction over this Action, Del Campo v.

15 Hometown Buffet, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-04378 (RGK) SHx pursuant to the Class 16 Action Fairness Act of 2005 (“CAFA”), 28 U.S.C. 1332(d), and over Plaintiff, 17 Defendants Hometown Buffet, Inc. and OCB Restaurant Company, LLC 18 (“Defendants”), and all members of the Class, defined as: 19

All current and former non-exempt, non-managerial employees

20

employed by Hometown Buffet, Inc. and/or OCB Restaurant Company,

21

LLC (“Defendants”) in California at any time between July 19, 2012

22

and March 31, 2015. (“Class”)

23

2.

The term “Stipulation” shall refer to the Joint Stipulation Re: Class

24 Action Settlement and Release submitted by Plaintiff in support of the Motions, and 25 all terms used herein shall have the same meaning as the terms defined in the 26 Stipulation unless otherwise stated in this Order. 27

3.

The Court grants final approval of the terms of the Stipulation because

28 it meets the criteria for final settlement approval. The settlement described in the Case No. 2:14-cv-04378 (RGK) SHx 2 [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND ATTORNEYS’ FEES, COSTS AND SERVICE AWARD

Case 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Document 59-7 Filed 12/14/15 Page 3 of 6 Page ID #:1262

1 Stipulation falls within the range of possible approval and is fair, adequate, and 2 reasonable. It results from an arm’s length, informed negotiation by counsel for the 3 parties. It treats all members of the Class fairly. 4

4.

Notice by First Class U.S. Mail of the Notice Packets, consisting of the

5 Court-approved Notice, Claim Form, and Request for Exclusion Form, constituted 6 the best practicable notice to all Class members of the settlement, as set forth in the 7 Stipulation, under the circumstances and fully complied with due process 8 requirements under the United States Constitution, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 9 the law of the State of California, and other applicable laws. Based on the evidence

21600 Oxnard Street, Suite 600 Woodland Hills, California 91367-4903

10 submitted in conjunction with the hearing on the Motions, the Court determines that 11 Notice was adequate. These papers informed members of the Class of the terms of 12 the settlement, their right to claim a share of the settlement proceedings, their right 13 to request exclusion from the settlement, and their right to object to the settlement or 14 the Motion for Attorneys’ Fees, Costs and Service Award (“Fees Motion”), as well 15 as their right to appear in person or by counsel at the Final Approval hearing and to 16 be heard regarding approval of the settlement and the Fees Motion. Adequate and 17 sufficient periods of time were provided for each of these procedures. A full 18 opportunity was afforded to the Class members to participate in the Final Approval 19 hearing. No member of the Class objected to the Stipulation or the Fees Motion. A 20 total of 95 members of the Class requested exclusion from the settlement. 21 Accordingly, the Court determines that all Class members who did not timely and 22 validly exclude themselves from the settlement are bound by this Order and 23 Judgment. 24

5.

The Court finds, for settlement purposes only, that the Class satisfies

25 the applicable standards for certification under Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3) of the 26 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and incorporates by reference herein all reasons 27 set forth in the Court’s Preliminary Approval Order for granting final approval to 28 certify the Class defined above. Because the Class is being certified for settlement Case No. 2:14-cv-04378 (RGK) SHx 3 [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND ATTORNEYS’ FEES, COSTS AND SERVICE AWARD

Case 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Document 59-7 Filed 12/14/15 Page 4 of 6 Page ID #:1263

1 purposes, the Court need not and will not address the manageability requirement of 2 Rule 23(b)(3). See Anchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 (1997). 3

6.

The Court approves the settlement, and each of the releases and other

4 terms set forth in the Stipulation as fair, reasonable, and adequate as to the Class 5 members who did not timely and validly request exclusion, the Plaintiff, and 6 Defendants. The Plaintiff, Defendants, and the Claims Administrator are directed to 7 perform in accordance with the terms set forth in the Stipulation. 8

7.

With the exception of any individual member of the Class who validly

9 and timely requested exclusion, all of the claims asserted are dismissed with

21600 Oxnard Street, Suite 600 Woodland Hills, California 91367-4903

10 prejudice as to the Plaintiff and the members of the Class. The parties are to bear 11 their own fees and costs except as otherwise provided in the Stipulation and herein. 12

8.

By this Judgment, Plaintiff and all members of the Settlement Class,

13 except for Class members who timely and validly requested exclusion, regardless of 14 whether the Class members submitted timely, valid claim forms or not, hereby 15 release Defendants and the Released Parties as defined in the Stipulation from the 16 Released Claims as defined in the Stipulation. 17

9.

By this Judgment, the Settlement Class members and Class Counsel

18 shall be deemed to have released all claims for attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in 19 connection with this Action and settlement thereof. 20

10.

The Action is dismissed on the merits and with prejudice, permanently

21 barring the Settlement Class members from prosecuting any Released Claims. The 22 Court reserves and retains exclusive and continuing jurisdiction over the above23 captioned matter, the Plaintiff, the Settlement Class, and Defendants for the purpose 24 of supervising the implementation, effectuation, enforcement, construction, 25 administration, and interpretation of the Stipulation and this Judgment. 26

11.

The Court determines that the plan of allocation for payment of the Net

27 Settlement Amount as set forth in the Stipulation is fair and reasonable and that 28 distribution of the Net Settlement Amount to the Settlement Class shall be done in Case No. 2:14-cv-04378 (RGK) SHx 4 [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND ATTORNEYS’ FEES, COSTS AND SERVICE AWARD

Case 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Document 59-7 Filed 12/14/15 Page 5 of 6 Page ID #:1264

1 accordance with the terms outlined in the Class Notice and Stipulation. 2

12.

Plaintiff, Berta Martin Del Campo, is hereby appointed Class

3 Representative for purposes of settlement. 4

13.

Raymond P. Boucher, Shehnaz M. Bhujwala, and Brandon K.

5 Brouillette of Boucher, LLP, and Sahag Majarian II of Law Offices of Sahag 6 Majarian II, are appointed as Class Counsel for the Class for purposes of settlement. 7

14.

Defendants agree for the Settlement Administrator, CPT Group, Inc., to

8 pay from the Maximum Settlement Amount: (i) the Claims Administrator its 9 reasonable fees for its services; (ii) the PAGA Penalty Payment to the LWDA; and

21600 Oxnard Street, Suite 600 Woodland Hills, California 91367-4903

10 (iii) the Incentive Payment to the Class Representative to reimburse him for his 11 valuable services to the Settlement Class. A.

12

The Court hereby approves the payment of settlement

13 administration costs in the amount of $56,500.00 to CPT Group, Inc., the Claims 14 Administrator, for services rendered in this matter. B.

15

The Court hereby approves the payment of $7,500.00 from the

16 Maximum Settlement Fund to the California Labor Workforce Development 17 Agency (“LWDA”). C.

18

The Court also approves the Class Representative Service Award

19 to the Class Representative in the amount of $5,000.00, payable from the Maximum 20 Settlement Fund, in recognition of her service to the Class in initiating and 21 maintaining this litigation. 22

15.

The Court hereby awards to Class Counsel the amount of $500,000.00

23 for attorneys’ fees. Based on Plaintiff’s Fees Motion, the Court determined that the 24 requested legal fees meets the 25% benchmark for attorneys’ fees in the Ninth 25 Circuit, are supported by the lodestar cross-check conducted by the Court with the 26 application of a reasonable multiplier of approximately 1.045, and are reasonable 27 based on detailed information regarding the work performed that was submitted by 28 Class Counsel. Case No. 2:14-cv-04378 (RGK) SHx 5 [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND ATTORNEYS’ FEES, COSTS AND SERVICE AWARD

Case 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Document 59-7 Filed 12/14/15 Page 6 of 6 Page ID #:1265

1

16.

The Court hereby awards to Class Counsel the amount of $16,266.16

2 for reimbursement of reasonable litigation costs incurred in this Action. 3

17.

Of the attorneys’ fees and costs awarded to Class Counsel herein, the

4 amount of $39,381.50, representing the firm’s quantum meruit based on lodestar 5 hours for Khorrami, LLP, and the amount of $1,737.15, representing costs incurred 6 by the Khorrami firm, shall be paid into to a segregated account maintained by 7 Boucher, LLP for the benefit of the Khorrami firm’s creditors. 8

18.

The Court finds that the payments to the Settlement Administrator,

9 LWDA, the Class Representative, and Class Counsel are fair and reasonable. The

21600 Oxnard Street, Suite 600 Woodland Hills, California 91367-4903

10 Settlement Administrator is directed to make the foregoing payments in accordance 11 with the terms of the Stipulation and Class Counsel’s further instructions. 12

19.

This document shall constitute a judgment pursuant to Rule 58 of the

13 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15 16 DATED: January __, 2016 17 18 19

HON. R. GARY KLAUSNER

20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case No. 2:14-cv-04378 (RGK) SHx 6 [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND ATTORNEYS’ FEES, COSTS AND SERVICE AWARD

Case 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Document 59-8 Filed 12/14/15 Page 1 of 1 Page ID #:1266

PROOF OF SERVICE

1

2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

At the time of service, I was over 18 years of age and not a party to this action. I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. My 4 business address is 21600 Oxnard Street, Suite 600, Woodland Hills, CA 913674903. 3

5

On December 14, 2015, I served true copies of the following document(s) on

6 the interested parties in this action:

1. PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION 8 SETTLEMENT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF; 7

9

2.

DECLARATION OF RAYMOND P. BOUCHER IN SUPPORT

21600 Oxnard Street, Suite 600 Woodland Hills, California 91367-4903

10 OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR ORDER GRANTING FINAL

APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND ATTORNEYS’ 11 FEES, COSTS, AND SERVICE AWARD;

3. DECLARATION OF BERTA MARTIN DEL CAMPO IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF 13 CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND ATTORNEYS’ FEES, COSTS AND CLASS REPRESENTATIVE SERVICE AWARD; 12

14

4.

DECLARATION OF SAHAG MAJARIAN II IN SUPPORT OF

15 PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION

SETTLEMENT AND ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS; 16

5.

DECLARATION OF TIM CUNNINGHAM FOR CPT GROUP,

17 INC., SETTLEMENT ADMINISTRATOR;

6. [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND 19 ATTORNEYS’ FEES, COSTS AND SERVICE AWARD AND JUDGMENT. 18

BY CM/ECF NOTICE OF ELECTRONIC FILING: I electronically filed the document(s) with the Clerk of the Court by using the CM/ECF system. 21 Participants in the case who are registered CM/ECF users will be served by the CM/ECF system. Participants in the case who are not registered CM/ECF users will 22 be served by mail or by other means permitted by the court rules. 20

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct and that I am employed in the office 24 of a member of the bar of this Court at whose direction the service was made. 23

25

Executed on December 14, 2015, at Woodland Hills, California.

26 27 28

/s/ Sandra Haro Sandra Haro

CM/ECF - California Central District

Page 1 of 2

Applications/Ex Parte Applications/Motions/Petitions/Requests 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Berta Martin Del Campo v. Hometown Buffet, Inc., et al ACCO,(SHx),DISCOVERY,REOPENED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT for the CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered by Boucher, Raymond on 12/14/2015 at 5:33 PM PST and filed on 12/14/2015 Case Name: Berta Martin Del Campo v. Hometown Buffet, Inc., et al Case Number: 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Filer: Berta Martin Del Campo Document Number: 59 Docket Text: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Settlement Approval of Class Action Settlement and Final Approval of Class Action Settlement filed by Plaintiff Berta Martin Del Campo. Motion set for hearing on 1/11/2016 at 09:00 AM before Judge R. Gary Klausner. (Attachments: # (1) Declaration of Raymond P. Boucher, # (2) Exhibit 1-7 to Boucher Declaration, # (3) Declaration of Berta Martin Del Campo, # (4) Declaration of Sahag Majarian II, # (5) Exhibit 1-2 to Majarian Declaration, # (6) Declaration of Tim Cunningham for CPT Group, Inc., Settlement Administrator, # (7) Proposed Order, # (8) Proof of Service) (Boucher, Raymond) 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Notice has been electronically mailed to: Allison C Eckstrom

[email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

Brandon Kyle Brouillette Fatemeh S Mashouf John Kevin Lilly

[email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

[email protected], [email protected]

Raymond Paul Boucher Sahag Majarian , II Shannon R Boyce

[email protected]

[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

[email protected] [email protected], [email protected]

Shehnaz M Bhujwala

[email protected]

2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Notice has been delivered by First Class U. S. Mail or by other means BY THE FILER to : The following document(s) are associated with this transaction: Document description:Main Document Original filename:C:\fakepath\Campo - Mtn for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement.pdf Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP cacdStamp_ID=1020290914 [Date=12/14/2015] [FileNumber=206625600] [a6ae00a976b5942898aaef0930de8210ee3d17672ff87bb52378ee4abd5eab7161 a50c8c43d55d8ee7bc30faac62fcef6a29387fd2afdf1d6a483c8102b75438]] Document de scription:Declaration of Raymond P. Boucher Original filename:C:\fakepath\Boucher Decl.pdf Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP cacdStamp_ID=1020290914 [Date=12/14/2015] [FileNumber=206625601] [12fd984fdb60c524c1938fa583c37cf109957e06b4c80a67892f3da5dfc8551791 e2f61f1a2b54a224e45b47411343e04b2e6fa2f1fe34e1f7ca889e1fb82691]] Document description:Exhibit 1-7 to Boucher Declaration Original filename:C:\fakepath\Boucher Decl Exhibits.pdf Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP cacdStamp_ID=1020290914 [Date=12/14/2015] [FileNumber=206625602] [0140d719973e20efc30c4d04c7716af6d5f859c8987af7ef4482678913c85662f0 3206884474f2f64df6d26f9f9fced6f755527471ce9e18ba0d024fb7977986]] Document description:Declaration of Berta Martin Del Campo Original filename:C:\fakepath\Campo Decl.pdf Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP cacdStamp_ID=1020290914 [Date=12/14/2015] [FileNumber=206625603] [7b19e3b68b911ff90d09bd5d667d86c022035f7a487416529cb5370765858c23ec 08952c924fac7b5042c2581d2e6da1f93977b8e9986aff5c1e02633796adfc]] Document description:Declaration of Sahag Majarian II Original filename:C:\fakepath\Majarian Decl.PDF Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP cacdStamp_ID=1020290914 [Date=12/14/2015] [FileNumber=206625604] [916b21191af1568b057b422faaf2f757d74fbd3db75d53be5a36ca6328c1da2337 747154deb726a6dc3254e4b1cb041439f6d941223ddfb10cc7705aa67ca014]] Document description:Exhibit 1-2 to Majarian Declaration Original filename:C:\fakepath\Exhibits to Majarian Decl.PDF Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP cacdStamp_ID=1020290914 [Date=12/14/2015] [FileNumber=206625605] [11382e518b8f9e6460872cc8a0ffcb49ffde56b954d0c0e6c46f7f1f5c0fe9ba9b 98758c3276b6ca8cb5b4cede16b46b1d84fe7fc6c71d223ab4c03e6f0a0fbb]] Document description:Declaration of Tim Cunningham for CPT Group, Inc., Settlement Administrator Original filename:C:\fakepath\Cunningham Decl.pdf Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP cacdStamp_ID=1020290914 [Date=12/14/2015] [FileNumber=206625606] [a891638b9e576458b2763c6e439dea570522f46e0894e116d9f9369788a2c1d742 5b8150b776f4f607245c729a2dcbbd97132219fe0524e3ae0fccebac46b8f8]] Document description:Proposed Order Original filename:C:\fakepath\Campo Proposed Order.pdf Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP cacdStamp_ID=1020290914 [Date=12/14/2015] [FileNumber=206625607] [1cfbf13f3c8a2f51425ee07c00bea56ee97bf2e9320c5c38d9e754c8e1111744f5 94f274c4c3b2d4c75bba2828f088ff0f12dc17fc5e1fbe31f5548ac0cdb1c2]] Document description: Proof of Service Original filename:C:\fakepath\POS - Mtn for Final Approval.pdf Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP cacdStamp_ID=1020290914 [Date=12/14/2015] [FileNumber=20662560-

https://ecf.cacd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/Dispatch.pl?316077836120476

12/14/2015

CM/ECF - California Central District

Page 2 of 2

8] [14b2d6189524ade40bca707c962142fa263e0e8a815e3ef6a113518e04666dc691 4fd60d1e9921cb19eee34e09844ad69a968c10f0da149b85e89bac7372660a]]

https://ecf.cacd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/Dispatch.pl?316077836120476

12/14/2015

Loading...

Mtn for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement - CPT Group

Case 2:14-cv-04378-RGK-SH Document 59 Filed 12/14/15 Page 1 of 26 Page ID #:1070 1 Raymond P. Boucher, State Bar No. 115364 [email protected] 2 Shehnaz ...

5MB Sizes 0 Downloads 0 Views

Recommend Documents

No documents