carlos v. leach, esq., fbn 0540021 morgan & …...5 settlement negotiations 18. as noted above,...

Carlos V. Leach, Esq., FBN 0540021

Morgan & Morgan, P.A.

20 N. Orange Ave., 16th Floor

P.O. Box 4979

Orlando, FL 32802-4979

Telephone: (407) 420-1414

Facsimile: (407) 245-3341

Email: [email protected]

Paul C. Swainston, Esq., IDBN: 6262

Craig, Swapp & Associates

2939 N. Cole Road

Boise, ID 83704

Telephone: (208) 331-0167

Facsimile: (208) 375-2005


Attorneys for Plaintiffs

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF IDAHO

BOISE DIVISION

KAREN FENN, on behalf of herself

and others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

vs.

HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY,

a Foreign Profit Corporation,

Defendant. /

CASE NO.: 1:11-CV-244-BLW

DECLARATION OF CARLOS

LEACH IN SUPPORT OF

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR

PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF

SETTLEMENT, ANDAPPROVAL OF

THE PROPOSED NOTICE OF

SETTLEMENTANDCOLLECTIVE

ACTION SETTLEMENT

PROCEDURE

Case 1:11-cv-00244-BLW Document 75 Filed 11/13/12 of 6

mailto:[email protected]

2

I, Carlos Leach, declare under 28 U.S.C. § 1746 as follows:

1. I am a partner at the firm of Morgan & Morgan, P.A. (“M&M”) in Orlando, Florida,

and have been appointed as Plaintiff’s class counsel herein.

2. M&M is a national firm, with over 200 attorneys, that represents plaintiffs in a wide

variety of employment matters, including individual and class action litigation involving

wage and hour, discrimination, and harassment claims.

3. M&M is the largest Plaintiff-side law firm in the United States.

4. Attorney Paul Swainston of the law firm Craig, Swapp & Associates has also served

as counsel in this case.

5. M&M and Craig, Swapp & Associates have been the sole lawyers responsible for

the prosecution of Plaintiffs’ claims on behalf of the class in this matter.

6. I make these statements based on personal knowledge and would so testify if called

as a witness at trial.

Counsel’s Background and Experience

7. I have been practicing law since January 2002 and have litigated FLSA cases in

multiple states and venues. I am admitted to practice before the Eleventh Circuit Court of

Appeals, the Northern, Middle and Southern District Courts of Florida, Western District of

Tennessee, the United States Court of Federal Claims, and the District Court of Colorado. I

have also litigated in multiple district courts across the country.

8. I have extensive experience litigating collective actions under the Fair Labor

Standards Act (“FLSA”) and wage and hour class actions. I have served as lead counsel

in the following class actions and collective actions, among others: Joiner v.


3

Groupware Int’l, Inc., No. 09 Civ. 01943 (M.D. Fla. 2009); Delva v. Cemex, Inc., No. 07

Civ. 802 (M.D. Fla. 2010); Moultry v. Cemex, Inc., No. 07 Civ. 453 (M.D. Fla. 2008);

Bassitt-Dudley v. GC First Coast, LLC, No. 2010 Civ. 479 (Fla. Cir. Ct. 2010); Schuster

v. Toll Bros., Inc., No. 10 Civ. 332 (Fla. Cir. Ct. 2010); Colson v. Cableview Commc’ns,

Inc., No. 09 Civ. 850 (M.D. Fla. 2010); Kimmel v. Venture Constr. Co., No. 10 Civ. 1388

(N.D. Ga. 2010); Lemming v. Sec. Forces, Inc., No. 10 Civ. 1469, 2010 WL 5058532

(M.D. Fla. Dec. 6, 2010); Keller v. HSNi, LLC, No. 10 Civ. 1198 (M.D. Fla. 2010); Mayo

v. Travel Ctrs. of Am., LLC, No. 11 Civ. 1411 (N.D. Ohio 2011); Jones v. Advanced

Cable Contractors, Inc., No. 11 Civ. 542 (N.D. Ga. 2011); Matthews v. Holmes

Transp. Co., No. 11 Civ. 33 (N.D. Miss. 2011); Lacey v. Lending Solutions, Inc., No. 11

Civ. 714 (N.D. Ga. 2011); Aponte, et al. v. Comprehensive Health Management, Inc., Case

No.: 1:10-cv-04825-PKC, (S.D.N.Y.2011); Toure et al. v. Amerigroup Corp. et al., Case

No.:10-cv-5391-RRM-JLC (E.D.N.Y.2011).

Procedural History

9. Plaintiff, Karen Fenn, filed a collective lawsuit on behalf of Hewlett Packard

customer service representatives nationwide. See Doc. 1.

10. The Complaint asserted collective action claims under the FLSA and sought

recovery of, among other things, unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, and attorneys’

fees and costs. See id.

11. On May 7, 2012, the Court entered an Order conditionally certifying a collective

action. See Doc. 55. In its Order, the Court limited the class to Customer Service

Representatives who worked in Boise, Idaho and in the same building as the Class


4

Representative (excluding individuals who worked in HP’s NMCI customer service

representative group) during the August 2, 2008 through October 10, 2009 time period.

12. Subsequent to the Court’s Order, but prior to dissemination of the notices to the class

members, the Parties participated in an all-day mediation on September 13, 2012, in Dallas,

Texas, which was presided over by experienced mediator, Gloria Portella. The Parties

reached a settlement at the conclusion of the mediation.

Pre-Mediation/Settlement Discovery

13. Pursuant to Court Order, the parties engaged in limited discovery before agreeing to

resolve this case.

14. Defendant deposed the named Plaintiff, Opt-in Plaintiff John Shaul, and one other

individual who submitted a declaration in support of Plaintiff’s class certification motion.

15. Plaintiff deposed four (4) of Defendant’s Rule 30(b)(6) witnesses who testified

about the job duties of CSR’s, the requirements for the CSR position, Defendant’s payroll

policies and practices, the training CSR’s receive, and other related issues.

16. Plaintiff also responded to discovery requests for the two Plaintiffs. Defendant

produced hundreds of pages of documents in response to Plaintiff’s document requests,

including corporate policies, training materials, work schedules, payroll records,

personnel files, production reports, emails, and memoranda.

17. In addition, Plaintiff interviewed a significant number of former CSR’s regarding

their duties and hours worked.


5

Settlement Negotiations

18. As noted above, prior to disseminating notices to the class members, the Parties

participated in an all-day mediation on September 13, 2012, in Dallas, Texas, that was

presided over by experienced mediator, Gloria Portella. The Parties reached a settlement at

the conclusion of the mediation.

19. Prior to the mediation, Defendant provided Plaintiff class data including dates of

employment, workweeks, and hourly rates for each class member. Plaintiff’s counsel

prepared a detailed damage model for each class member.

20. Subsequently, the parties drafted a detailed Stipulation and Settlement Agreement,

which incorporated all terms and which all parties have signed. A fully executed copy of the

Stipulation is attached hereto as EXHIBIT A.

21. In Plaintiff counsel’s estimation, the settlement represents a significant percentage of

the recovery that Plaintiffs would have achieved had they prevailed on all of their claims

and survived an appeal. On average, each class member will recover approximately

$683, before attorneys’ fees and costs are deducted.

Claims Administration

22. Defendant has retained CPT Group Inc., a wage and hour claims administrator, to

administer the settlement.

23. There are approximately 450 members of the proposed class.

I declare under penalty of perjury, under 28 U.S.C. § 1746, that the foregoing is

true and correct to the best of my knowledge.


6

DB1/ 71838213.1

Executed this 13th day of November, 2012

/s/ CARLOS LEACH

Carlos V. Leach, Esquire

FBN 0540021

Morgan & Morgan, P.A.

20 N. Orange Ave., 16th Floor

P.O. Box 4979

Orlando, FL 32802-4979

Telephone: (407) 420-1414

Facsimile: (407) 245-3341


Attorneys for Plaintiff


Case 1:11-cv-00244-BLW Document 75-1 Filed 11/13/12 Page 1 of 45

carlos v. leach, esq., fbn 0540021 morgan & …...5 settlement negotiations 18. as noted above,...

Documents