lee r. feldman, esq. (sbn 171628) [email protected]...
TRANSCRIPT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 ______________________________________________________________________________
DECLARATION OF LEONARD H SANSANOWICZ IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 1
FE
LD
MA
N B
RO
WN
E O
LIV
AR
ES
A P
RO
FE
SSIO
NA
L C
OR
PO
RA
TIO
N
Lee R. Feldman, Esq. (SBN 171628) [email protected] Alicia Olivares, Esq. (SBN 181412) [email protected] Leonard H. Sansanowicz, Esq. (SBN 255729) [email protected] FELDMAN BROWNE OLIVARES A Professional Corporation 12400 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1100 Los Angeles, California 90025 Telephone: (310) 207-8500 Fax: (310) 207-8515 Attorneys for Plaintiff, DAVID L. TOTTEN, and all others similarly situated
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA DAVID L. TOTTEN, an individual, and all others similarly situated
Plaintiffs,
vs. KELLOGG BROWN & ROOT, LLC, a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,
Defendants.
CASE NO. 5:14-cv-01766-DMG-DTBx [Case Assigned to the Honorable Dolly M. Gee in Courtroom 8C – First Street] [San Bernardino County Superior Court Case No. CIVDS1408596] DECLARATION OF LEONARD H. SANSANOWICZ IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
Before Honorable United States District Judge Dolly M. Gee Hearing Date: TBD Time: TBD Courtroom: 8C (First Street) Notice of Removal Filed: August 28, 2014 Trial Date: June 12, 2018
Case 5:14-cv-01766-DMG-DTB Document 110-2 Filed 06/30/17 Page 1 of 156 Page ID #:1395
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 ______________________________________________________________________________
DECLARATION OF LEONARD H SANSANOWICZ IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 1
FE
LD
MA
N B
RO
WN
E O
LIV
AR
ES
A P
RO
FE
SSIO
NA
L C
OR
PO
RA
TIO
N
DECLARATION OF LEONARD H. SANSANOWICZ
I, Leonard H. Sansanowicz, declare:
1. I am an attorney licensed to practice before all courts of the State of
California and the United States District Courts for the Central, Eastern, and Northern
Districts of California. I am Senior Counsel at Feldman Browne Olivares, A
Professional Corporation, counsel for the class action Plaintiff herein, and have
personal knowledge of the facts thereto. If called as a witness, I could and would
competently testify herein.
I. SETTLEMENT DOCUMENTS
2. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of the Parties’
Stipulation re: Settlement of Class Action (“Settlement” or “Agreement”).
3. Attached hereto as Exhibit 2 is a true and correct copy of the [Proposed]
Order Granting Preliminary Approval, which is Exhibit 1 to the Agreement.
4. Attached hereto as Exhibit 3 is a true and correct copy of the [Proposed]
Notice re: Pendency of Class Action and Settlement (“Class Notice,” or “Notice”),
which includes the Claim Form. This is Exhibit 2 to the Agreement.
5. Attached hereto as Exhibit 4 is a true and correct copy of the [Proposed]
Order Granting Final Approval of Settlement, which is Exhibit 3 to the Agreement.
6. Attached hereto as Exhibit 5 is a true and correct copy of the [Proposed]
Judgment, which is Exhibit 4 to the Agreement.
7. The [Proposed] Order Granting Preliminary Approval is filed
concurrently with this Motion.
II. ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS
8. Attached hereto as Exhibit 6 is a true and correct copy of Neil Gorsuch
Often Sided With Employers in Workers’ Rights Cases, The Denver Post, Feb. 27,
2017, available online at http://www.denverpost.com/2017/02/27/neil-gorsuch-
workers-rights-cases/.
9. Attached hereto as Exhibit 7 is a true and correct copy of a letter from
Case 5:14-cv-01766-DMG-DTB Document 110-2 Filed 06/30/17 Page 2 of 156 Page ID #:1396
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 ______________________________________________________________________________
DECLARATION OF LEONARD H SANSANOWICZ IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 2
FE
LD
MA
N B
RO
WN
E O
LIV
AR
ES
A P
RO
FE
SSIO
NA
L C
OR
PO
RA
TIO
N
National Employment Lawyers Association to the Senate Judiciary Committee
regarding Justice Gorsuch’s nomination, dated March 13, 2017.
10. Attached hereto as Exhibit 8 is a true and correct copy of Amy Howe,
Murphy Oil’s Law: Solicitor General’s Office Reverses Course in Arbitration Cases,
Supports Employers, SCOTUSblog, June 19, 2017, available online at
http://www.scotusblog.com/2017/06/murphy-oils-law-solicitor-generals-office-
reverses-course-arbitration-cases-supports-employers/#more-257105.
III. SETTLEMENT TERMS
11. The following is a summary of the key terms of the Settlement:
a. The proposed “Settlement Class” is comprised of all non-exempt
construction workers of Defendant Kellogg Brown & Root, LLC who
worked in California at the Molycorp Mountain Pass rare earth
facility (in San Bernardino, CA) at any time from June 16, 2010,
through the date of Preliminary Approval, who do not properly
request to exclude themselves from the settlement. (Settlement,
Section VI, ¶1.35).
b. Defendant shall pay a gross amount of $3,750,000. This
Maximum Settlement Amount (“MSA”) includes payments made to
Participating Class Members, settlement administration costs, awards
of attorneys’ fees and costs, the Class Representative Enhancement
for Plaintiff, employer and employee payroll taxes on the portion of
the settlement payments to Participating Class Members deemed as
wages, and payment to the California Labor and Workforce
Development Agency (“LWDA”). (Settlement, Section VI, ¶1.18).
c. There are 847 Members who worked a combined 19,304
workweeks, for an average of 22.79 workweeks. (Settlement, Section
VI, ¶¶1.4, 1.18).
d. Putative Class Members who submit claim forms and do not opt
Case 5:14-cv-01766-DMG-DTB Document 110-2 Filed 06/30/17 Page 3 of 156 Page ID #:1397
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 ______________________________________________________________________________
DECLARATION OF LEONARD H SANSANOWICZ IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 3
FE
LD
MA
N B
RO
WN
E O
LIV
AR
ES
A P
RO
FE
SSIO
NA
L C
OR
PO
RA
TIO
N
out of the settlement will be referred to as Participating Class
Members or Participaing Claimants. (Settlement, Section VI, ¶1.26).
e. The sum available for use for payments to Participating Class
Members after settlement administration costs, awards of attorneys’
fees and costs, the Class Representative Enhancement to Plaintiff, and
the PAGA payment to the LWDA is designated in the Agreement as
the Maximum Settlement Portion for Payments to Participating
Claimants (“MSP”), with a portion designated and taxed as wages.
(Settlement, Section VI, ¶¶ 1.19, 2.52).
f. Defendant will pay at least 50% of the MSP to Participating Class
Members, up to $2,666,000. Unclaimed funds revert to Defendant.
(Settlement, Section VI, ¶¶ 1.19, 2.52, 2.6.2).
g. Each Participating Class Member will receive a proportionate
share of the MSP equal to (i) the number of workweeks he or she
worked, mutiplied by (ii) the quotient of the MSP divided by the total
number of workweeks worked by all Participating Class Members.
(Settlement, Section VI, ¶¶ 1.36, 1.37, 2.1.2, 2.1.3).
h. Subject to Court approval, Plaintiff shall be paid a Class
Representative Enhancement not to exceed $20,000 for his time and
effort in bringing and presenting the action, and in exchange for a
general release of all claims, known or unknown, as well as a
dismissal of the charge he filed with the National Labor Relations
Board (“NLRB” or “Board”) related to this case in which he
challenged the arbitration agreement and class action waiver and
prevailed. (Settlement, Section VI, ¶¶1.18, 2.8.2).
i. Subject to Court approval, Plaintiffs’ Counsel shall receive an
award of attorneys’ fees in an amount not to exceed $937,500.00,
representing 25% of the MSA, and costs in an amount not to exceed
Case 5:14-cv-01766-DMG-DTB Document 110-2 Filed 06/30/17 Page 4 of 156 Page ID #:1398
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 ______________________________________________________________________________
DECLARATION OF LEONARD H SANSANOWICZ IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 4
FE
LD
MA
N B
RO
WN
E O
LIV
AR
ES
A P
RO
FE
SSIO
NA
L C
OR
PO
RA
TIO
N
$21,500. (Settlement, Section VI, ¶¶1.18, 2.8.1).
j. Subject to Court Approval, $100,000 of the MSA shall be
allocated to settlement of PAGA claims – 75% of which shall be paid
to the LWDA and 25% of which shall be part of the MSP distributed
to Participating Class Members. (Settlement, Section VI, ¶1.18).
k. The Parties have agreed to the appointment of Rust Consulting,
Inc. (“Rust”) as the Class Administrator. This Claims Administrator’s
costs will be paid out of the MSA and, in the event the Class
Administrator is awarded less than requested, shall be redistributed
pro-rata to class members. (Settlement, Section VI, ¶¶1.3, 1.18).
l. Employer and employee taxes will be deducted from the wage
portion (25%) of the MSP (the remaining 75% is deemed payment for
penalties, liquidated damages, and interest). Participating Class
Members shall be responsible for any tax liability, if any, on the non-
wage portion of their respective Settlement Sums (i.e., the total, gross
amount due to an individual Participating Claimant). (Settlement,
Section VI, ¶¶1.27, 2.1.1, 2.2.1).
m. Settlement Class Members release all claims related to the claims
in this action, including an allegation of failure to provide rest periods
or pay rest period premiums, arising from the class members’
employment in California during the Class Period (June 16, 2010,
through the date of Preliminary Approval), except Settlement Class
Members who do not submit claim forms and become Participating
Class Members will not be deemed to have released claims arising
directly under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). (Settlement,
Section VI, ¶¶1.34, 1.42, 2.7.1).
n. The Released Claims include any known or unknown claims
under state or federal law, for wages, damages, unpaid costs,
Case 5:14-cv-01766-DMG-DTB Document 110-2 Filed 06/30/17 Page 5 of 156 Page ID #:1399
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 ______________________________________________________________________________
DECLARATION OF LEONARD H SANSANOWICZ IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 5
FE
LD
MA
N B
RO
WN
E O
LIV
AR
ES
A P
RO
FE
SSIO
NA
L C
OR
PO
RA
TIO
N
penalties, liquidated damages, punitive damages, interest, attorneys’
fees, litigation costs, restitution, or equitable relief, that arose from
Defendant employing the Class Members in California, and is
intended to bind all Class Members who do not opt out of the
Agreement. (Settlement, Section VI, ¶¶1.34, 1.35, 1.42).
o. Subject to Court approval, the Claims Administrator shall
perform, without limitation, the following duties: (a) using the data
provided by Defendant to prepare the Class Notice; (b) utilizing the
U.S. Postal Service’s National Change of Address Database
(“NCAD”) to review the accuracy of Class Members’ mailing
addresses and updating addresses where possible (“Reasonable
Address Verification Measure”); (c) mailing the Settlement
Documents to Class Members by First Class U.S. Mail;
(d) undertaking another Reasonable Address Verification Measure for
any returned mail from the initial mailing; (e) undertaking a
Secondary Address Verification Measure (updating addresses through
standard skip trace) to search for addresses unavailable through the
NCAD; (f) one-time remailing of undelivered notices from the initial
mailing; (g) tracking returned Requests for Exclusion, Objections or
work week disputes; (h) notifying Defendant and Class Counsel of
timely and untimely exclusions, objections or work week disputes; (i)
sending a reminder postcard and a text message to Class Members
who have not responded by 30 days before the Response Deadline; (j)
sending a “cure letter” to Class Members who have submitted both an
Opt Out Form and a Qualifying Claim Form; (k) calculating the
amounts due to each Class Member pursuant to the Settlement;
(l) notifying Defendant and Class Counsel of any disputes regarding
claims by the Class Members; (m) allowing Defendant and Class
Case 5:14-cv-01766-DMG-DTB Document 110-2 Filed 06/30/17 Page 6 of 156 Page ID #:1400
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 ______________________________________________________________________________
DECLARATION OF LEONARD H SANSANOWICZ IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 6
FE
LD
MA
N B
RO
WN
E O
LIV
AR
ES
A P
RO
FE
SSIO
NA
L C
OR
PO
RA
TIO
N
Counsel to comment on any disputes regarding claims by the Class
Members, and making a final conclusion which the Parties agree to
treat as determinative, provided it is consistent with pertinent law; (n)
preparing and mailing all settlement checks and tax forms to
Qualified Claimants by First Class U.S. Mail; (o) paying the
Enhancement Award approved by the Court; (p) paying Class
Counsel the fees and costs approved by the Court; (q) paying the
Claims Administrator’s fees approved by the Court; and (r) paying
the LWDA the portion of PAGA penalties due to the State.
(Settlement, Section VI, ¶¶1.33, 1.43, 2.4.1, 2.4.2, 2.4.4, 2.4.6, 2.4.7,
2.4.8, 2.5.5).
p. The Claims Administrator will provide to Class Counsel and to
Defendant’s Counsel the number of Class Members who (a) object to
the Settlement, (b) request exclusion from the Settlement, or (c)
otherwise express any opposition to the Settlement, on a reasonable
basis. The Claims Administrator also shall provide the Court a
declaration of due diligence at least ten (10) calendar days prior to the
Final Approval Hearing date detailing the Claims Administrator’s
mailing of the Class Notice, its attempts to locate Class Members, the
number of Class Members for whom the Notice was ultimately
undeliverable, and the final participation, objection, and Opt-Out
rates. (Settlement, Section VI, ¶2.9.2).
q. Participating Class Members who wish to opt out of or object to
the settlement will have 60 days from the mailing of the Class Notice
to postmark a Request for Exclusion from, or objection to, the
Settlement. (Settlement, Section VI, ¶¶1.23, 2.5.1, 2.5.4).
IV. THE CLASS
12. Plaintiff seeks to represent all non-exempt construction workers of
Case 5:14-cv-01766-DMG-DTB Document 110-2 Filed 06/30/17 Page 7 of 156 Page ID #:1401
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 ______________________________________________________________________________
DECLARATION OF LEONARD H SANSANOWICZ IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 7
FE
LD
MA
N B
RO
WN
E O
LIV
AR
ES
A P
RO
FE
SSIO
NA
L C
OR
PO
RA
TIO
N
Defendant Kellogg Brown & Root, LLC (“Defendant” or “KBR”) who worked in
California at the Molycorp Mountain Pass rare earth facility (in San Bernardino, CA)
at any time from June 16, 2010, through the date of Preliminary Approval, who do not
properly request to exclude themselves from the settlement (“Class Members”).
13. According to the data provided and representations made by Defendant,
there are 847 Class Members who worked a total of 19,304 workweeks during the
relevant time period. The average regular hourly rate of pay was $24.36 per hour.
14. KBR contracted to build a salt recovery plant at the mountaintop facility,
and Plaintiff and others similarly situated worked there from the time construction
began in 2011 until the end of the project in January 2014 (with the majority of the
work performed in 2012 and 2013).
V. CLASS CLAIMS
15. Plaintiff alleges, among other things, that Defendant failed to pay
compensable drive time, failed to pay overtime premium pay for overtime hours
worked as a result of unaccounted for drive time, and failed to provide meal and rest
periods. Defendant denies these allegations and all others asserted in this action.
16. Plaintiff alleges Defendant required its workers to park their vehicles in a
designated parking area and take Defendant-owned and -operated vehicles from the
parking area to and from the work site (with no other access to the work site aside
from Defendant’s vehicles), yet Defendant did not pay for this travel time. Plaintiff
further alleges that because KBR only paid for the workers’ scheduled 10-hour shifts
and not the drive time, it failed to pay overtime or provide second meal periods or
third rest periods. Plaintiff also alleges that because Defendant failed to account for
the drive time workers spent in the mornings, and because all workers were sent to
work exactly five hours after the start of their scheduled shifts (11:30 a.m. when the
shift started at 6:30 a.m. or 12:00 p.m. when the shift started at 7:00 a.m.), Defendant
failed to timely provide first meal periods, as well.
17. The statutory and civil penalties are derivative of these claims.
Case 5:14-cv-01766-DMG-DTB Document 110-2 Filed 06/30/17 Page 8 of 156 Page ID #:1402
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 ______________________________________________________________________________
DECLARATION OF LEONARD H SANSANOWICZ IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 8
FE
LD
MA
N B
RO
WN
E O
LIV
AR
ES
A P
RO
FE
SSIO
NA
L C
OR
PO
RA
TIO
N
VI. INVESTIGATION AND EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION
18. Over the course of the litigation, I conducted extensive investigation into
the claims asserted in this case. That investigation included the review, analysis and
statistical sampling of numerous records and other documents, and research and
evaluation of claims and defenses. That investigation also included personal
interviews of Class Members regarding the claims alleged by Plaintiff.
19. Defendant's counsel and I have worked cooperatively regarding extensive
document and data productions sufficient for both sides to fully evaluate this case.
This included the following informal exchange of information:
a. Payroll data for 137 Class Members from the four largest of the
fourteen work crews on the Molycorp project, for eight randomly
selected weeks from September 2011 through May 2013 (this
accounted for 5,565.70 workweeks, or 28.83% of total workweeks);
b. Handwritten time sheets reflecting the 137 Class Members
scheduled shifts for the same weeks;
c. Documents related to morning meetings all workers were required
to attend at which certain policies were discussed;
d. KBR’s attendance policy.
20. In addition, Defendant took Plaintiff’s deposition (which I defended), and
I deposed Randy Bynum, KBR’s Senior Account and Finance Manager, who oversaw
payroll functions for the Molycorp project. Attached hereto as Exhibit 9 is a true and
correct copy of the relevant portions of the Bynum deposition transcript. Attached
hereto as Exhibit 10 is a true and correct copy of the relevant portions of Plaintiff’s
deposition transcript.
21. Randy Bynum testified that: KBR required its workers to park their
vehicles at a designated parking lot down the mountain from the work site; there was
just a single access road from the parking lot to the work site; workers were not
allowed to walk or ride a bicycle up the access road; the only way to access the work
Case 5:14-cv-01766-DMG-DTB Document 110-2 Filed 06/30/17 Page 9 of 156 Page ID #:1403
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 ______________________________________________________________________________
DECLARATION OF LEONARD H SANSANOWICZ IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 9
FE
LD
MA
N B
RO
WN
E O
LIV
AR
ES
A P
RO
FE
SSIO
NA
L C
OR
PO
RA
TIO
N
site was to take buses, shuttles, or pickup trucks owned and operated by KBR; if a
worker tried to go up the access road on his own he would be disciplined; and that
workers were required to clock in before they boarded the KBR vehicles to go up the
mountain and did not clock out again until after the KBR vehicles had transported the
workers back down to the employee parking lot. (Bynum Depo 46:15-47:5, 48:6-19,
49:6-9).
22. Bynum further testified that workers’ times did not start (for payroll
purposes) until the start times of their shifts, either 6:30 a.m. or 7:00 a.m., and that
KBR did not pay for any of the drive time because the workers were not actually
working during that time. (Bynum Depo 57:14-22, 143:2-23, 163:21-164:2).
23. Bynum testified that Class Members were required to punch in and out at
a time clock next to the designated parking area (as opposed to at the work site at the
top of the mountain, where there were no time clocks), and that he forwarded the
punch data from the time clocks to KBR corporate offices in Houston, Texas.
However, defense counsel has represented that the punch data no longer exists.
(Bynum Depo 103:22-105:5).
24. Bynum also testified that he forwarded payroll data from the Molycorp
project to corporate offices in other states during the time period of November 2013
through January 2014. (Bynum Depo 203:10-21).
25. Defense counsel represented (and Bynum confirmed at deposition) that
there were no written wage and hour policies for the Molycorp project. Bynum further
testified that there were no meal period waivers or on-duty meal period agreements on
file for any of the workers, and that KBR never provided second meal periods if
workers worked more than ten hours, nor did it pay meal period premium pay. He also
testified that that lunch started at the same time for all workers, either 11:30 a.m. when
the shift started at 6:30 a.m. or 12:00 p.m. when the shift started at 7:00 a.m., and that
workers were required to eat at a designated area that took time to walk to and from
the workers’ workstations, yet Defendant expected all workers to return to their work
Case 5:14-cv-01766-DMG-DTB Document 110-2 Filed 06/30/17 Page 10 of 156 Page ID #:1404
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 ______________________________________________________________________________
DECLARATION OF LEONARD H SANSANOWICZ IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 10
FE
LD
MA
N B
RO
WN
E O
LIV
AR
ES
A P
RO
FE
SSIO
NA
L C
OR
PO
RA
TIO
N
stations and be ready to start working 30 minutes after the start of the meal period, and
automatically deducted 30 minutes for lunch from each worker’s daily hours. Bynum
also was unaware of any policy to grant a third rest period for workers who worked
more than ten hours. (Bynum Depo 42:17-43:6, 43:7-19, 45:20-46:4, 59:15-18,
137:14-138:8, 138:10-19).
26. Bynum also testified that there were 400-450 workers at the work site in
any given workweek (average of 425 workers per week). (Bynum Depo 49:13-21).
27. Our office called and spoke with each of the 137 Class Members whose
contact information Defendant provided, including those for whom we had to find
updated phone numbers or make several phone calls to reach. We also obtained six
declarations regarding the alleged violations, including a declaration from Billy King,
the KBR Project Manager for the Molycorp project from September 2011 until March
2013 who was responsible for overseeing all aspects of the project during that time.
28. Plaintiff testified that in addition to his job duties as a rigging foreman he
also drove a company bus or shuttle regularly, and that he and the workers he drove
experienced frequent delays while driving the access road due to detours, traffic, or
blasting on the mountain, in addition to having to wait for workers to board the bus at
at the work site, before driving down, the end of the day. Plaintiff estimated it took
between 15 and 35 minutes to get down to the parking area from the work site,
depending on the delays. He also testified that there were three school buses and two
shuttle buses to transport the estimated 425 workers up and down the mountain each
week (buses held 55 people, shuttles held 24 people). (Totten Depo 38:7-8, 65:8-66:5,
67:25-68:3, 71:18-24, 84:7-25).
29. It is my opinion that the substantial exchange of information and other
investigation that took place in this case was more than adequate for both sides to fully
assess their respective positions.
VII. LEGAL RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS
30. I conducted substantial legal research on the significant issues involved
Case 5:14-cv-01766-DMG-DTB Document 110-2 Filed 06/30/17 Page 11 of 156 Page ID #:1405
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 ______________________________________________________________________________
DECLARATION OF LEONARD H SANSANOWICZ IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 11
FE
LD
MA
N B
RO
WN
E O
LIV
AR
ES
A P
RO
FE
SSIO
NA
L C
OR
PO
RA
TIO
N
in this litigation, including spending considerable effort staying apprised of appellate
determination on the issues related to this matter.
VIII. POTENTIAL RECOVERY/REASONABLE ANALYSIS
31. Based on my investigation, research and analysis, and my experience in
this type of litigation, it is my opinion that, if litigated to judgment, Plaintiff is likely
to prevail on at least some (and potentially all) of the major issues in the case and has
a strong likelihood of obtaining class certification on all of Plaintiff's claims.
32. Nevertheless, significant legal uncertainties exist in cases such as this
one, as they can be factually complex and require protracted litigation to resolve.
Defendant has vigorously contested and continues to contest liability for the claims
asserted in the action. Although Defendant believes that class certification would be
unlikely on such claims, it nevertheless agreed to attempt resolution of the case
through mediation to avoid the expense, distraction and uncertainty of protracted
litigation.
33. Most importantly in this case, the United States Supreme Court has
granted certiorari on a trifecta of cases (NLRB v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc. (5th Cir.), Epic
Systems v. Lewis (7th Cir.), Ernst & Young, LLP v. Morris (9th Cir.)) that will be
heard in one argument in the upcoming term regarding an issue that this Court has
already ruled on: whether an employer may enforce a class action waiver and compel
bilateral arbitration with the employee who signed the agreement as a condition of
employment. This Court, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, has
found that such waivers violate employees’ substantive right to engage in concerted
activity codified in Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act and are not
preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act. However, if the Supreme Court reverses the
findings of this Court and of the Ninth Circuit it would eviscerate this class action,
reducing it it a PAGA-representative action, and the Class Members potentially would
not recover nearly as much as they could in the class action context.
34. Thus, Plaintiff and his counsel concluded that it was reasonable to enter
Case 5:14-cv-01766-DMG-DTB Document 110-2 Filed 06/30/17 Page 12 of 156 Page ID #:1406
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 ______________________________________________________________________________
DECLARATION OF LEONARD H SANSANOWICZ IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 12
FE
LD
MA
N B
RO
WN
E O
LIV
AR
ES
A P
RO
FE
SSIO
NA
L C
OR
PO
RA
TIO
N
into the proposed settlement.
35. In order to assess the likelihood of recovery, Plaintiff made the following
determinations based on the data produced:
a. Average of 425 workers per workweek (400-450/week, per
Bynum)
b. Average of 5.47 workdays per week of shifts of 9.1 hours (based
on payroll data produced)
c. Regular rate of pay: $24.36/hr (stipulated); overtime rate: $36.54
(1.5x regular rate); double time (2.0x regular rate): $48.72
d. Average of 40 minutes of unpaid daily overtime hours in
compensable travel time (at least 15 minutes in either direction plus
10 minutes, on average, for delays or for workers who were
incentivized to arrive especially early for their shifts – based on
Plaintiff’s testimony and five Class Member declarations)
e. Number of workweeks in the revelant time period: 126 (August 1,
2011, through December 31, 2013)
f. The following chart reflects the number of days reported (1,494
workdays) at various hourly shifts, plus their percentage of the whole:
15 hr 14 hr 13 hr 12 hr 11 hr 10 hr 9 hr 8 hr 7 hr 6 hr 5 hr 4 hr 3 hr 2 hr
1 4 11 91 75 930 42 135 1 36 8 47 6 102
0.07% 0.27% 0.74% 6.11% 5.04% 62.46% 2.82% 9.07% 0.07% 2.42% 0.54% 3.16% 0.40% 6.85%
g. For purposes of calculations, shifts of fewer than 6 hours were
attributed either to reporting time (“show up time”) pay, or to
inclement weather/half-days (where drive time may have been
accounted for differently), or as de minimus (e.g, 5-hour shifts).
h. Double time: The records show Defendant failed to pay double
time rate for all reported shifts over 12 hours (16 of the 1,494 days, or
Case 5:14-cv-01766-DMG-DTB Document 110-2 Filed 06/30/17 Page 13 of 156 Page ID #:1407
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 ______________________________________________________________________________
DECLARATION OF LEONARD H SANSANOWICZ IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 13
FE
LD
MA
N B
RO
WN
E O
LIV
AR
ES
A P
RO
FE
SSIO
NA
L C
OR
PO
RA
TIO
N
1.07% of the time), instead paying the overtime rate. The difference
between the overtime rate and the double time rate is $12.18 per hour.
///
36. With that in mind, the following are Plaintiff’s calculations regarding
potential recovery for each of the major claims in this case:
a. Drive time/overtime claims. Assuming an average of 40 minutes
(2/3 of an hour) daily of unpaid compensable drive time, and that
over 86% of all workdays would incur overtime hours as a result of
adding the unpaid travel time (based on the above chart), Plaintiff
calculates:
i. For shifts of 6-7 hours: 2/3 add’l hr x $24.36 (regular rate)
x (425 x 2.49%) x 126 weeks in the class period = $16.24 x
10.5825 x 126 = $21,654.33
ii. For shifts of 8-11 hours: 2/3 add’l hr x $36.54 (OT rate) x
(425 x 79.39%) x 126 weeks in the class period = $24.36 x 337
x 126 = $1,034,374.32
iii. For shifts of 12 or more hours: 2/3 add’l hr x $48.72
(double time rate) x (425 x 7.19%) x 126 weeks in the class
period = $32.48 x 31 x 126 = $126,866.88
iv. Additional adjustment for shifts of 12 or more hours:
$12.18 x (425 x 1.07%) x 126 = $12.18 x 5 x 126 = $7,673.40
v. Thus, Plaintiff’s calculation of the total estimated potential
recover for drive time/overtime claims is $21,654.33 +
$1,034,374.32 + $126,866.88 + $7,673.40 = $1,190,568.93.
b. Meal periods. Because Class Members had to spend at least some
time on travel time in the morning that was not accounted for, and
because all workers were instructed to take first meal periods exactly
five hours after the start of their shift, Plaintiff contends this
Case 5:14-cv-01766-DMG-DTB Document 110-2 Filed 06/30/17 Page 14 of 156 Page ID #:1408
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 ______________________________________________________________________________
DECLARATION OF LEONARD H SANSANOWICZ IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 14
FE
LD
MA
N B
RO
WN
E O
LIV
AR
ES
A P
RO
FE
SSIO
NA
L C
OR
PO
RA
TIO
N
necessarily meant that KBR failed to provide a meal period before the
start of the sixth hour of work. The data shows Class Members had to
work at least six hours 89.05% of the time. Plaintiff thus calculates
the meal period compensation as: $24.36 x (425 x 89.05%) x 5.47
days x 126 workweeks = $6,354,157.99.
c. Rest periods. Because of the unaccounted travel time, Plaintiff
contends that any Class Members who worked shifts of at least 10
hours were entitled to a third rest period. The data reflects Class
Members worked shifts of 10 hours or more 74.69% of the time.
Thus, Plaintiff calculates calculates the rest period compensation as:
$24.36 x (425 x 74.69%) x 5.47 days x 126 workweeks =
$5,329,500.96. However, this claim must be discounted as the Court
never granted Plaintiff leave to amend his complaint to include rest
period claims.
d. Total recovery: Plaintiff calculates Class Members’ total potential
recovery of the damages portion as $1,190,568.93 + $6,354,157.99 +
$5,329,500.96 = $12,874,227.88.
37. Statutory penalties. Statutory penalties for wage statement violations and
“waiting time” are derivative of the above violations and therefore speculative for the
above reasons and because Plaintiff would have to establish “willful” conduct and/or
injury to Class Members to recover. However, Plaintiff asserts a separate stand-alone
basis for the wage statement claim, based on Bynym’s testimony, that Defendant
failed to maintain copies of wages statements on file “for at least three years at the
place of employment or at a central location within the State of California.” Cal. Lab.
Code §226(a). Plaintiff calculates these penalties as follows: Plaintiff filed this action
on June 16, 2014. One year prior is June 16, 2013. Defendant paid its workers on a
weekly basis. There were 28 weeks between June 16 and December 31, 2013. Thus, at
$50 per employee for the first violation and $100 per employee for each subsequent
Case 5:14-cv-01766-DMG-DTB Document 110-2 Filed 06/30/17 Page 15 of 156 Page ID #:1409
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 ______________________________________________________________________________
DECLARATION OF LEONARD H SANSANOWICZ IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 15
FE
LD
MA
N B
RO
WN
E O
LIV
AR
ES
A P
RO
FE
SSIO
NA
L C
OR
PO
RA
TIO
N
violation, Plaintiff calculates wage statement penalties as: 425 x $2,750 = $1,168,750.
If waiting time penalties could be obtained, the calculation would be: 847 employees x
[(8 x $24.36) regular hours + (1.1 x $36.54) overtime hours] daily rate x 30 days =
847 x ($194.88+$40.19) x 30 = 847 x $235.07 x 30 = $5,973,128.70.
38. The $3,750,000 settlement, then, represents 29.12% of the major
damage components Plaintiff alleges in this matter, 49.70% if the rest period claim is
excluded. (This amount does not include PAGA penalties because penalties are
discretionary with the Court, thereby making any assessment of such damages highly
speculative.) The Maximum Settlement Amount is eminently reasonable in light of the
great risks involved in this case.
39. I am convinced that the proposed Settlement is in the best interest of the
class based on the negotiations and a detailed knowledge of the issues present in this
action. The settlement amount is, of course, a compromise figure. Plaintiff took into
account the risks related to proving his claims and the strengths and weaknesses of
Defendant’s other defenses. He also considered the possibility that if a settlement were
reached after additional years of litigation, the great expenses and attorneys' fees of
litigation would reduce the amount of funds available to Class Members for
settlement. In addition, the prospect of a potentially fatal Supreme Court ruling, class
certification issues as well as the uncertainty of class certification, the difficulties of
complex litigation, the lengthy process of establishing specific damages and various
possible delays and appeals, were also carefully considered by Class Counsel in
agreeing to the proposed Settlement. In light of the above, the proposed Settlement is
well within the “ballpark” of reasonableness and should be granted preliminary
approval.
///
IX. FAIR AND REASONABLE SETTLEMENT PROCESS
40. This case was settled through arm’s-length negotiation. Class Counsel
submits that the settlement for each participating Class Member is fair, reasonable,
Case 5:14-cv-01766-DMG-DTB Document 110-2 Filed 06/30/17 Page 16 of 156 Page ID #:1410
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 ______________________________________________________________________________
DECLARATION OF LEONARD H SANSANOWICZ IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 16
FE
LD
MA
N B
RO
WN
E O
LIV
AR
ES
A P
RO
FE
SSIO
NA
L C
OR
PO
RA
TIO
N
and adequate given the inherent risk, cost and length of litigation. The amount
recoverable for each Class Member as set forth in the Memorandum of Points and
Authorities, is fair and reasonable based in a review of all objective evidence. The
settlement that has been reached, subject to this Court’s approval, is the product of
tremendous effort, and a great deal of expense by the Parties and their counsel.
41. On April 6, 2017, the Parties participated in a full day mediation session
with mediator David Rotman in San Francisco, which I attended, and reached this
Settlement with his assistance two weeks later. Prior to mediation, Defendant
provided Class Counsel informal discovery and engaged in numerous conferences
through counsel with Class Counsel. At all times, the Parties’ settlement negotiations
have been non-collusive, adversarial, and at arm’s length.
X. CLASS CERTIFICATION FACTORS
42. Numerosity: The settlement class consists of 847 total identified class
members. Thus, the requirement of numerosity is easily met because joinder of 847
individuals into a single case is otherwise impracticable in light of the circumstances
of this case.
43. Typicality: The claims of the class representative are typical of the claims
of the class members as a whole. The named Plaintiff suffered the same alleged
violations (e.g. off-the-clock drive time, unpaid overtime, failure to provide meal and
rest periods, paystub violations, and failure to pay all wages due at termination) as the
class as a whole did and, thus, Plaintiff’s claims fairly represent the claims of the class
as a whole. Nor does Plaintiff allege any claims or facts unique to himself. Thus, this
requirement is satisfied.
44. Adequacy: Plaintiff has proven to be an adequate class representative.
He has conducted himself diligently and responsibly in representing the class in this
litigation, understands his fiduciary obligations, and has actively participated in the
prosecution of this case. Plaintiff has spent hours in meetings and conferences with
counsel to get a better understanding of his work environment and requirements,
Case 5:14-cv-01766-DMG-DTB Document 110-2 Filed 06/30/17 Page 17 of 156 Page ID #:1411
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 ______________________________________________________________________________
DECLARATION OF LEONARD H SANSANOWICZ IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 17
FE
LD
MA
N B
RO
WN
E O
LIV
AR
ES
A P
RO
FE
SSIO
NA
L C
OR
PO
RA
TIO
N
provided needed information for settlement discussions, and approved the settlement
on behalf of all class members. Further, Plaintiff has no interest that is adverse to the
interests of the other class members. Proposed class counsel also is adequate to
represent the class for settlement purposes, for reasons articulated below.
45. Commonality. Many common issues of law and fact unite the class. The
common questions of law and fact include, but are not limited to:
a. Whether Defendant violated California Labor Code sections 1194 and 1197 by not paying employees’ wages at least at a minimum wage rate for time that Class Members were subject to Defendants’ control but were not paid;
b. Whether Defendant violated California Labor Code sections 510 and 1194 by not paying Class Members at the applicable overtime rates of pay for workdays worked in excess of eight hours as a result of not paying Class Members for all hours worked in a workday;
c. Whether Defendant violated California Labor Code sections 512 and 226.7, as well as the applicable Wage Order, by employing Class Members without providing all their required meal periods or paying meal period premium wages;
d. Whether Defendant violated California Labor Code section 226.7 and the applicable Wage Order by employing Class Members without providing all their required rest periods or paying rest period premium wages;
e. Whether Defendant failed to provide Class Members with accurate itemized statements;
f. Whether Defendant failed to provide Class Members with all unpaid wages within the statutory time period following separation of employment;
g. Whether Defendant committed unlawful business acts or practices within the meaning of Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq.;
h. Whether Class Members are entitled to unpaid wages, penalties, interest, fees and other relief in conjunction with their claims;
i. Whether, as a consequence of Defendant’s unlawful conduct, Class Members are entitled to restitution, and/or equitable relief;
j. Whether Defendant’s affirmative defenses, if any, raise any
Case 5:14-cv-01766-DMG-DTB Document 110-2 Filed 06/30/17 Page 18 of 156 Page ID #:1412
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 ______________________________________________________________________________
DECLARATION OF LEONARD H SANSANOWICZ IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 18
FE
LD
MA
N B
RO
WN
E O
LIV
AR
ES
A P
RO
FE
SSIO
NA
L C
OR
PO
RA
TIO
N
common issues of law or fact; and
k. The appropriate amount of PAGA civil penalties.
46. Superiority: A class action is superior to other available means for the
fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy. Joinder of all members of the
proposed class is impractical. Class treatment will permit a large number of similarly-
situated persons to prosecute their common claims in a single forum simultaneously
for settlement purposes without the unnecessary duplication of effort and expense that
numerous individual actions would engender.
XI. EXPERIENCED AND QUALIFIED COUNSEL SUPPORT THE
SETTLEMENT
47. Experienced counsel, operating at arms-length, have weighed the
strengths of the case and examined all of the issues and risks of litigation and endorse
the proposed settlement. Both Plaintiff’s and Defendant’s counsel are experienced in
employment, wage and hour, and class action matters.
48. Lee R. Feldman is a partner and principal of Feldman Browne Olivares,
APC. Mr. Feldman graduated from Emory University and then from the Boston
University School of Law in 1991. He was admitted to the State Bar of Pennsylvania
in 1991 and briefly practiced labor and employment law in Philadelphia before
moving to Los Angeles in 1994, upon being admitted to the California Bar.
49. Mr. Feldman has practiced employment law and has been trying
employment cases in California for more than 20 years and has been recognized over
the years as among the top employment lawyers in California. In each of the last four
(4) consecutive years, he has been named to the Daily Journal’s annual list of Top
Labor & Employment Lawyers in California, which typically includes just 15-25
plaintiff’s-side lawyers. Additionally, in each of the past eleven (11) consecutive
years (2007-2017) he has been selected by the publishers of Law and Politics and
Super Lawyers Magazine as a Southern California Super Lawyer. The Super Lawyer
distinction is awarded to only 5% of Southern California lawyers and was based on a
survey of 80,000-plus attorneys asked to name the best lawyers in Southern
Case 5:14-cv-01766-DMG-DTB Document 110-2 Filed 06/30/17 Page 19 of 156 Page ID #:1413
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 ______________________________________________________________________________
DECLARATION OF LEONARD H SANSANOWICZ IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 19
FE
LD
MA
N B
RO
WN
E O
LIV
AR
ES
A P
RO
FE
SSIO
NA
L C
OR
PO
RA
TIO
N
California. He also was named to the past five (5) consecutive (2013- 2017) editions
of Best Lawyers in America. This publication has been described by The American
Lawyer magazine as “the most respected referral list of attorneys in practice.” Best
Lawyers is published by Woodward/White, Inc., based on exhaustive evaluations by
more than four million lawyers across the country.
http://www.bestlawyers.com/about/MethodologyBasic.aspx.
50. Further, in 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017, Feldman Browne Olivares, APC,
was named by U.S News & World Report’s Best Law Firms in America publication as
one of the best Labor & Employment firms. The firm was awarded US News’ highest
“Tier 1” rating. All of Feldman Browne Olivares’ partners and six (6) of their
associates have also been named Super Lawyers or Rising Stars.
51. Mr. Feldman has served as lead counsel on the following wage and hour
class actions: Noe v. Superior Court (AEG/Levy), 237 Cal.App.4th 316 (2015)
(settlement on theories of joint employer liability for unpaid wages and willful
misclassification under Section 226.8 and PAGA), which resulted in a settlement of
$8,000,000 and a published opinion that advanced employee rights in California; and
against such employers as AT&T (the first CFRA/FMLA class action brought on
behalf of employees from whom private medical information was demanded and who
were fired in violation of the California Family Rights Act), resulting in a settlement
of $6,800,000; A Place For Mom (class of nursing home placement consultants denied
overtime, minimum wage), resulting in a settlement of $1,800,000; NTL Trucking
(intrastate truck drivers denied overtime and meal breaks), resulting in a settlement of
$1,500,000; Hawaiian Gardens (casino workers whose tips were taken and given to
managers), resulting in a settlement of $1,500,000; Shield Security (security guards
denied off duty meal breaks), resulting in a settlement of $1,000,000; Barney’s
Beanery (waitresses denied meal breaks), resulting in a settlement of $900,000; and
Allied Beverages (drivers denied overtime), resulting in a settlement of $875,000.
Case 5:14-cv-01766-DMG-DTB Document 110-2 Filed 06/30/17 Page 20 of 156 Page ID #:1414
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 ______________________________________________________________________________
DECLARATION OF LEONARD H SANSANOWICZ IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 20
FE
LD
MA
N B
RO
WN
E O
LIV
AR
ES
A P
RO
FE
SSIO
NA
L C
OR
PO
RA
TIO
N
52. I received my Juris Doctor from Loyola Law School in 2007 and was
admitted to the California bar in May 2008. While in law school, I completed
externships at the Office of the City Attorney of Los Angeles, the Los Angeles District
Attorney's Office, and the United States Attorney's Office, Central District of
California. As a certified law clerk at the U.S. Attorney's Office, I successfully
prosecuted a misdemeanor trial as the lead trial attorney, obtaining a sentence from the
U.S. Magistrate Judge. As a certified law clerk at the District Attorney's Office, I
personally conducted over a dozen preliminary hearings and sat second chair for a
felony trial that resulted in conviction. While at the City Attorney's Office, I assisted
in trial preparation and sat second chair in a civil lawsuit the City successfully
defended. Also while in law school, I was a member of the prestigious Byrne Trial
Advocacy Team, which consistently is considered one of the nation's top law school
mock trial advocacy teams by the U.S News & World Report's Annual Ranking, and
was a Senior Articles Editor of the Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review, where a
contributing professor noted her “appreciation to Leonard H. Sansanowicz for
editorial suggestions.” See Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review, Volume 40, Number
1, available at
http://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/do/search/?q=author_lname%3A%22Russell%22%20a
uthor_fname%3A%22Irma%22&start=0&context=1609392 (last viewed January 5
2016).
53. Since becoming an attorney, I have practiced exclusively in the area of
employment law, representing plaintiffs in individual and multi-plaintiff wage and
hour actions, state and federal class, collective, and representative actions, wrongful
termination, discrimination, harassment and retaliation cases.
54. Immediately prior to and upon passing the bar exam, I worked for three
and one-half years as a law clerk and associate to Steven G. Pearl of The Pearl Law
Firm. Mr. Pearl is a recognized authority in the area of wage and hour law who has
been recognized as a SuperLawyer both as an attorney and as a mediator, and is an
Case 5:14-cv-01766-DMG-DTB Document 110-2 Filed 06/30/17 Page 21 of 156 Page ID #:1415
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 ______________________________________________________________________________
DECLARATION OF LEONARD H SANSANOWICZ IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 21
FE
LD
MA
N B
RO
WN
E O
LIV
AR
ES
A P
RO
FE
SSIO
NA
L C
OR
PO
RA
TIO
N
Advisor and former Executive Committee Member of the State Bar Labor and
Employment Law Section. Together with Mr. Pearl, I co-authored a chapter on the
Fair Labor and Standards Act in a practice guide published by the National
Employment Lawyers Association and Lexis Nexis’s Matthew Bender series. During
my time with The Pearl Law Firm, I tried four bench trials on my own, and sat second
chair for a jury trial and two other bench trials, all in the wage and hour context.
55. Following The Pearl Law Firm, I was an associate with Lavi &
Ebrahimian, LLP for approximately two and one-half years, where I handled
numerous cases in all aspects of employment law, including individual and multi-
plaintiff wage and hour actions, state and federal class actions, wrongful termination,
discrimination, harassment and retaliation cases. During my time at Lavi &
Ebrahimian, LLP, I was lead (and sole) trial counsel in two jury trials, both of which
resulted in 12-0 verdicts in favor of my clients: Arrellano v. The Castle Valet Car
Wash, Inc., et al., Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2009-00116989 (2013),
and Hernandez v. Headquarters Marketing, Inc., et al., Los Angeles Superior Court
Case No. BC443589 (2012).
56. Also during my time at Lavi & Ebrahimian, LLP, I handled wage and
hour class actions against such employers as: Option One Home Medical Equipment,
Inc., which settled for $3,000,000; Burrtec Waste Group, Inc., which settled for
$2,789,000; Trojan Battery Co., Inc., which settled for $850,000; Packaging
Dynamics Corporation, which settled for $625,000; Famsa, Inc., which settled for
$602,000; Juicy Couture, Inc., which settled for $520,000; CR&R Inc., which settled
for $350,000; Exopack-Ontario, Inc., which settled for $350,000; Visterra Credit
Union, which settled for $325,000; BHFC Operating, LLC, which settled for
$315,000; Philatron International, Inc., which settled for $250,000; United Natural
Foods West, Inc., which settled for $250,000; and TeamOne Employment Specialists,
LLC, which settled for $220,000.
57. Since joining Feldman Browne Olivares, APC, in January, 2014, I have
Case 5:14-cv-01766-DMG-DTB Document 110-2 Filed 06/30/17 Page 22 of 156 Page ID #:1416
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 ______________________________________________________________________________
DECLARATION OF LEONARD H SANSANOWICZ IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 22
FE
LD
MA
N B
RO
WN
E O
LIV
AR
ES
A P
RO
FE
SSIO
NA
L C
OR
PO
RA
TIO
N
continued to handle numerous cases in all aspects of employment law. To date, the
class actions I have handled since joining the firm that have resolved were against
Golden Road Food Services, LLC, which settled for $1,500,000; Matheson Tri-Gas,
Inc., which settled for $1,300,000; Space Exploration Technologies Corp., which
settled for $750,000; and The Fat Cow, LLC, which settled for $140,000. Currently, I
am working on five other pending class actions.
58. In addition, I sat second chair in a successful prosecution of a disability
discrimination/wrongful termination/defamation trial, Rivera v. Costco Wholesale
Corporation, Riverside County Superior Court Case No. RIC 1218368, which resulted
in a verdict of $1,686,500 in our client’s favor.
59. In each of the past five consecutive years (2013-2017), I have been
named a Southern California Rising Star by Super Lawyers magazine, a distinction
given to 2.5% of attorneys who either are under forty (40) years of age or have been in
practice for less than ten (10) years based on peer balloting.1 For the past three years
(2015-2017), I have been named to the Rising Stars Up & Coming 100 list. I also am a
contributing author to the California State Bar Labor & Employment Law Review, co-
authoring the Wage and Hour Update.
60. I am a member of and active in several plaintiff’s and employment
groups, including the California Employment Lawyers Association (“CELA”), a
statewide organization of over 1,200 attorneys who devote the major portion of their
practices to representing employees in individual employment cases and class actions,
the Los Angeles chapter of the National Employment Lawyers Association (“NELA”),
and the Los Angeles County Bar Association Labor and Employment Law Section
(“LACBA”). I am co-chair of LACBA’s Saturday Seminar Committee and member of
the Labor and Employment Section Executive Committee, and a co-chair of CELA’s
Worker Outreach Committee, through which I coordinate the association’s Know
Your Rights campaign and pro bono advocacy opportunities on behalf of low wage 1 The Super Lawyer selections process is conducted by the publishers of Law and Politics magazine and results are published in Los Angeles Magazine, The New York Times and Southern California Super Lawyers Magazine.
Case 5:14-cv-01766-DMG-DTB Document 110-2 Filed 06/30/17 Page 23 of 156 Page ID #:1417
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 ______________________________________________________________________________
DECLARATION OF LEONARD H SANSANOWICZ IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 23
FE
LD
MA
N B
RO
WN
E O
LIV
AR
ES
A P
RO
FE
SSIO
NA
L C
OR
PO
RA
TIO
N
workers. I also am an active member of CELA’s Legislative, Technology, and Wage
and Hour Committees.
61. In association with the State Bar Labor and Employment Section, I
moderated a webinar, “Using Unpaid Interns, Apprentices, Volunteers, and Trainees:
It Could Cost You!” (Dec. 2015). In May 2017, I moderated a panel on discovery at
CELA’s Thirteenth Annual Advanced Wage and Hour Conference. In past years, I
have moderated panels on arbitration (CELA’s Twelfth Annual Advanced Wage and
Hour Conference, May 2016) and emerging trends in wage and hour law (CELA’s
Eleventh Annual Advanced Wage and Hour Conference, April 2015), and a panel on
Electronically Stored Information (CELA’s Annual Conference, Oct. 2014). I also was
a panelist for a continuing legal education event, “When Industry Practice and Labor
Law Collide: Hot Topics in Entertainment and Employment Law,” Beverly Hills Bar
Association Labor & Employment Section (Dec. 2012). Through my work on
LACBA’s Saturday Seminar Committee, I coordinated and hosted a mock voir dire
presentation with four exceptional practitioners (Dan Stormer and David deRubertis
for Plaintiff, Tracey Kennedy (Sheppard Mullin) and Elena Baca (Paul Hastings) for
Defendant), two jury consultants, and Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge
Mary Anne Murphy (June, 2014) and moderated a seminar on employment law
(including wage and hour, discrimination, retaliation, and wrongful termination) (Jan.
2012).
62. Pursuant to my work with CELA’s Wage and Hour Committee, I
submitted Amicus letters requesting de-publication of the following cases: Bain v. Tax
Reducers, Inc. (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 110; Tien v. Tenet Healthcare Corp. (2011)
192 Cal.App.4th 1055; and In re: Lamps Plus Overtime Cases, Flores, et al. v. Lamps
Plus, Inc., et al. (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 389. All three cases were de-published.
XII. CLASS REPRESENTATIVE ENHANCEMENT
63. I believe that the named plaintiff performed considerable services on
behalf of the Class, since he searched for an attorney, collected and gathered the
Case 5:14-cv-01766-DMG-DTB Document 110-2 Filed 06/30/17 Page 24 of 156 Page ID #:1418
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 ______________________________________________________________________________
DECLARATION OF LEONARD H SANSANOWICZ IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 24
FE
LD
MA
N B
RO
WN
E O
LIV
AR
ES
A P
RO
FE
SSIO
NA
L C
OR
PO
RA
TIO
N
requested documents and information, met with us, made himself available each and
every single time that I called to answer questions about Defendant’s policies and
procedures produced in discovery or discussed during conversations with opposing
counsel or raised in pleadings filed in this matter. He consulted regularly with our firm
about developments in the case and helped to explain to us certain evidence obtained
in discovery. He had several sessions to prepare for his deposition, and had to drive
from Reno, Nevada to Las Vegas, Nevada and back again in the span of 24 hours to be
able to attend his deposition and not miss work. He also attended a full day mediation
in San Francisco, California wherein he explained Defendant’s procedures to the
mediator, and had to sleep in his car on the way back to Reno in order to wait out a
snowstorm that made passage dangerous. Significantly, Plaintiff filed a charge with
National Labor Relations Board related to this case in which he challenged the
arbitration agreement and class action waiver and prevailed (and now will be
dismissing as part of the Agreement).
64. I believe that the proposed Class Representative Enhancement of $20,000
for the Class Representative is fair and reasonable and warranted for his time and
effort, when Class Members are able to receive $3,750,000.00 as a result of his efforts.
XIII. ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS
65. Our firm made every effort to litigate this action in an efficient and cost-
effective manner. Given my years of experience, my trial experience, and the focus of
my practice, if I were to charge for my type of work by the hour, my current hourly
rate would be $550.00 per hour. Mr. Feldman’s current hourly rate is $850.00 per
hour. We both have been approved at these rates, including in wage and hour matters.
These rates are our firm’s current billing rates and are supported by the extensive and
specialized experience in these types of cases and recognized expertise described
above. I have personal knowledge of the hourly rates charged by other attorneys with
comparable experience to mine. Based on that information, I believe that our rates are
fully consistent with the market rate for attorneys with comparable expertise,
Case 5:14-cv-01766-DMG-DTB Document 110-2 Filed 06/30/17 Page 25 of 156 Page ID #:1419
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 ______________________________________________________________________________
DECLARATION OF LEONARD H SANSANOWICZ IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 25
FE
LD
MA
N B
RO
WN
E O
LIV
AR
ES
A P
RO
FE
SSIO
NA
L C
OR
PO
RA
TIO
N
experience and qualifications in Los Angeles.
66. Pursuant to and consistent with the terms of the Settlement and subject to
Court approval, Class Counsel respectfully now moves for an award of attorneys’ fees
in an amount of up to $937,500.00 or 25% of the $3,750,000 Maximum Settlement
Amount. Defendant does not object to this request and it is fair and reasonable in light
of the result achieved, the work performed, and the substantial risks undertaken.
67. Our firm maintains all records regarding costs expended on each case. I
have reviewed the records of costs expended in this matter. According to our records,
our firm has incurred approximately $21,000.00, in costs in this matter. This amount
includes costs associated with the expenses associated with out-of-state and
videoconference depositions, mediation in San Francisco, and costs associated with
filing of the papers filed and responded to in this matter. Defendant does not object to
a request of costs up to $21,500.00. Class Counsel will file a detailed statement of
costs at the time of Final Approval.
68. Based on my experience and the amount of work to be performed,
including a text message and postcard reminder campaign, the Claims Administrator’s
estimate that its expenses will not exceed $30,000 to administrate this settlement,
which falls within the range of estimates I have been quoted and billed in the past with
settlements of similar size and circumstances. Further, the proposed claims
administrator is an experienced class settlement administration company, and has
acted as claims administrator in numerous wage and hour cases.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States and the
State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed this 30th day of June, 2017, at Los Angeles, California.
/s/ Leonard H. Sansanowicz LEONARD H. SANSANOWICZ, Declarant
Case 5:14-cv-01766-DMG-DTB Document 110-2 Filed 06/30/17 Page 26 of 156 Page ID #:1420
Case 5:14-cv-01766-DMG-DTB Document 110-2 Filed 06/30/17 Page 27 of 156 Page ID #:1421
Case 5:14-cv-01766-DMG-DTB Document 110-2 Filed 06/30/17 Page 28 of 156 Page ID #:1422
Case 5:14-cv-01766-DMG-DTB Document 110-2 Filed 06/30/17 Page 29 of 156 Page ID #:1423
Case 5:14-cv-01766-DMG-DTB Document 110-2 Filed 06/30/17 Page 30 of 156 Page ID #:1424
Case 5:14-cv-01766-DMG-DTB Document 110-2 Filed 06/30/17 Page 31 of 156 Page ID #:1425
Case 5:14-cv-01766-DMG-DTB Document 110-2 Filed 06/30/17 Page 32 of 156 Page ID #:1426
Case 5:14-cv-01766-DMG-DTB Document 110-2 Filed 06/30/17 Page 33 of 156 Page ID #:1427
Case 5:14-cv-01766-DMG-DTB Document 110-2 Filed 06/30/17 Page 34 of 156 Page ID #:1428
Case 5:14-cv-01766-DMG-DTB Document 110-2 Filed 06/30/17 Page 35 of 156 Page ID #:1429
Case 5:14-cv-01766-DMG-DTB Document 110-2 Filed 06/30/17 Page 36 of 156 Page ID #:1430
Case 5:14-cv-01766-DMG-DTB Document 110-2 Filed 06/30/17 Page 37 of 156 Page ID #:1431
Case 5:14-cv-01766-DMG-DTB Document 110-2 Filed 06/30/17 Page 38 of 156 Page ID #:1432
Case 5:14-cv-01766-DMG-DTB Document 110-2 Filed 06/30/17 Page 39 of 156 Page ID #:1433
Case 5:14-cv-01766-DMG-DTB Document 110-2 Filed 06/30/17 Page 40 of 156 Page ID #:1434
Case 5:14-cv-01766-DMG-DTB Document 110-2 Filed 06/30/17 Page 41 of 156 Page ID #:1435
Case 5:14-cv-01766-DMG-DTB Document 110-2 Filed 06/30/17 Page 42 of 156 Page ID #:1436
Case 5:14-cv-01766-DMG-DTB Document 110-2 Filed 06/30/17 Page 43 of 156 Page ID #:1437
Case 5:14-cv-01766-DMG-DTB Document 110-2 Filed 06/30/17 Page 44 of 156 Page ID #:1438
Case 5:14-cv-01766-DMG-DTB Document 110-2 Filed 06/30/17 Page 45 of 156 Page ID #:1439
Case 5:14-cv-01766-DMG-DTB Document 110-2 Filed 06/30/17 Page 46 of 156 Page ID #:1440
Case 5:14-cv-01766-DMG-DTB Document 110-2 Filed 06/30/17 Page 47 of 156 Page ID #:1441
Case 5:14-cv-01766-DMG-DTB Document 110-2 Filed 06/30/17 Page 48 of 156 Page ID #:1442
Case 5:14-cv-01766-DMG-DTB Document 110-2 Filed 06/30/17 Page 49 of 156 Page ID #:1443
Case 5:14-cv-01766-DMG-DTB Document 110-2 Filed 06/30/17 Page 50 of 156 Page ID #:1444
Case 5:14-cv-01766-DMG-DTB Document 110-2 Filed 06/30/17 Page 51 of 156 Page ID #:1445
Case 5:14-cv-01766-DMG-DTB Document 110-2 Filed 06/30/17 Page 52 of 156 Page ID #:1446
Case 5:14-cv-01766-DMG-DTB Document 110-2 Filed 06/30/17 Page 53 of 156 Page ID #:1447
Case 5:14-cv-01766-DMG-DTB Document 110-2 Filed 06/30/17 Page 54 of 156 Page ID #:1448
Case 5:14-cv-01766-DMG-DTB Document 110-2 Filed 06/30/17 Page 55 of 156 Page ID #:1449
Case 5:14-cv-01766-DMG-DTB Document 110-2 Filed 06/30/17 Page 56 of 156 Page ID #:1450
Case 5:14-cv-01766-DMG-DTB Document 110-2 Filed 06/30/17 Page 57 of 156 Page ID #:1451
Case 5:14-cv-01766-DMG-DTB Document 110-2 Filed 06/30/17 Page 58 of 156 Page ID #:1452
Case 5:14-cv-01766-DMG-DTB Document 110-2 Filed 06/30/17 Page 59 of 156 Page ID #:1453
Case 5:14-cv-01766-DMG-DTB Document 110-2 Filed 06/30/17 Page 60 of 156 Page ID #:1454
Case 5:14-cv-01766-DMG-DTB Document 110-2 Filed 06/30/17 Page 61 of 156 Page ID #:1455
Case 5:14-cv-01766-DMG-DTB Document 110-2 Filed 06/30/17 Page 62 of 156 Page ID #:1456
Case 5:14-cv-01766-DMG-DTB Document 110-2 Filed 06/30/17 Page 63 of 156 Page ID #:1457
Case 5:14-cv-01766-DMG-DTB Document 110-2 Filed 06/30/17 Page 64 of 156 Page ID #:1458
Case 5:14-cv-01766-DMG-DTB Document 110-2 Filed 06/30/17 Page 65 of 156 Page ID #:1459
Case 5:14-cv-01766-DMG-DTB Document 110-2 Filed 06/30/17 Page 66 of 156 Page ID #:1460
Case 5:14-cv-01766-DMG-DTB Document 110-2 Filed 06/30/17 Page 67 of 156 Page ID #:1461
Case 5:14-cv-01766-DMG-DTB Document 110-2 Filed 06/30/17 Page 68 of 156 Page ID #:1462
Case 5:14-cv-01766-DMG-DTB Document 110-2 Filed 06/30/17 Page 69 of 156 Page ID #:1463
Case 5:14-cv-01766-DMG-DTB Document 110-2 Filed 06/30/17 Page 70 of 156 Page ID #:1464
Case 5:14-cv-01766-DMG-DTB Document 110-2 Filed 06/30/17 Page 71 of 156 Page ID #:1465
Case 5:14-cv-01766-DMG-DTB Document 110-2 Filed 06/30/17 Page 72 of 156 Page ID #:1466
Case 5:14-cv-01766-DMG-DTB Document 110-2 Filed 06/30/17 Page 73 of 156 Page ID #:1467
Case 5:14-cv-01766-DMG-DTB Document 110-2 Filed 06/30/17 Page 74 of 156 Page ID #:1468
Case 5:14-cv-01766-DMG-DTB Document 110-2 Filed 06/30/17 Page 75 of 156 Page ID #:1469
Case 5:14-cv-01766-DMG-DTB Document 110-2 Filed 06/30/17 Page 76 of 156 Page ID #:1470
Case 5:14-cv-01766-DMG-DTB Document 110-2 Filed 06/30/17 Page 77 of 156 Page ID #:1471
Case 5:14-cv-01766-DMG-DTB Document 110-2 Filed 06/30/17 Page 78 of 156 Page ID #:1472
Case 5:14-cv-01766-DMG-DTB Document 110-2 Filed 06/30/17 Page 79 of 156 Page ID #:1473
Case 5:14-cv-01766-DMG-DTB Document 110-2 Filed 06/30/17 Page 80 of 156 Page ID #:1474
Case 5:14-cv-01766-DMG-DTB Document 110-2 Filed 06/30/17 Page 81 of 156 Page ID #:1475
Case 5:14-cv-01766-DMG-DTB Document 110-2 Filed 06/30/17 Page 82 of 156 Page ID #:1476
Case 5:14-cv-01766-DMG-DTB Document 110-2 Filed 06/30/17 Page 83 of 156 Page ID #:1477
Case 5:14-cv-01766-DMG-DTB Document 110-2 Filed 06/30/17 Page 84 of 156 Page ID #:1478
Case 5:14-cv-01766-DMG-DTB Document 110-2 Filed 06/30/17 Page 85 of 156 Page ID #:1479
Case 5:14-cv-01766-DMG-DTB Document 110-2 Filed 06/30/17 Page 86 of 156 Page ID #:1480
Case 5:14-cv-01766-DMG-DTB Document 110-2 Filed 06/30/17 Page 87 of 156 Page ID #:1481
Case 5:14-cv-01766-DMG-DTB Document 110-2 Filed 06/30/17 Page 88 of 156 Page ID #:1482
Case 5:14-cv-01766-DMG-DTB Document 110-2 Filed 06/30/17 Page 89 of 156 Page ID #:1483
Case 5:14-cv-01766-DMG-DTB Document 110-2 Filed 06/30/17 Page 90 of 156 Page ID #:1484
Case 5:14-cv-01766-DMG-DTB Document 110-2 Filed 06/30/17 Page 91 of 156 Page ID #:1485
Case 5:14-cv-01766-DMG-DTB Document 110-2 Filed 06/30/17 Page 92 of 156 Page ID #:1486
Case 5:14-cv-01766-DMG-DTB Document 110-2 Filed 06/30/17 Page 93 of 156 Page ID #:1487
Case 5:14-cv-01766-DMG-DTB Document 110-2 Filed 06/30/17 Page 94 of 156 Page ID #:1488
Case 5:14-cv-01766-DMG-DTB Document 110-2 Filed 06/30/17 Page 95 of 156 Page ID #:1489
Case 5:14-cv-01766-DMG-DTB Document 110-2 Filed 06/30/17 Page 96 of 156 Page ID #:1490
Case 5:14-cv-01766-DMG-DTB Document 110-2 Filed 06/30/17 Page 97 of 156 Page ID #:1491
Case 5:14-cv-01766-DMG-DTB Document 110-2 Filed 06/30/17 Page 98 of 156 Page ID #:1492
Case 5:14-cv-01766-DMG-DTB Document 110-2 Filed 06/30/17 Page 99 of 156 Page ID #:1493
Case 5:14-cv-01766-DMG-DTB Document 110-2 Filed 06/30/17 Page 100 of 156 Page ID #:1494
Case 5:14-cv-01766-DMG-DTB Document 110-2 Filed 06/30/17 Page 101 of 156 Page ID #:1495
Case 5:14-cv-01766-DMG-DTB Document 110-2 Filed 06/30/17 Page 102 of 156 Page ID #:1496
Case 5:14-cv-01766-DMG-DTB Document 110-2 Filed 06/30/17 Page 103 of 156 Page ID #:1497
Case 5:14-cv-01766-DMG-DTB Document 110-2 Filed 06/30/17 Page 104 of 156 Page ID #:1498
Case 5:14-cv-01766-DMG-DTB Document 110-2 Filed 06/30/17 Page 105 of 156 Page ID #:1499
Case 5:14-cv-01766-DMG-DTB Document 110-2 Filed 06/30/17 Page 106 of 156 Page ID #:1500
Case 5:14-cv-01766-DMG-DTB Document 110-2 Filed 06/30/17 Page 107 of 156 Page ID #:1501
Case 5:14-cv-01766-DMG-DTB Document 110-2 Filed 06/30/17 Page 108 of 156 Page ID #:1502
Case 5:14-cv-01766-DMG-DTB Document 110-2 Filed 06/30/17 Page 109 of 156 Page ID #:1503
Case 5:14-cv-01766-DMG-DTB Document 110-2 Filed 06/30/17 Page 110 of 156 Page ID #:1504
Case 5:14-cv-01766-DMG-DTB Document 110-2 Filed 06/30/17 Page 111 of 156 Page ID #:1505
Case 5:14-cv-01766-DMG-DTB Document 110-2 Filed 06/30/17 Page 112 of 156 Page ID #:1506
Case 5:14-cv-01766-DMG-DTB Document 110-2 Filed 06/30/17 Page 113 of 156 Page ID #:1507
Case 5:14-cv-01766-DMG-DTB Document 110-2 Filed 06/30/17 Page 114 of 156 Page ID #:1508
Case 5:14-cv-01766-DMG-DTB Document 110-2 Filed 06/30/17 Page 115 of 156 Page ID #:1509
Case 5:14-cv-01766-DMG-DTB Document 110-2 Filed 06/30/17 Page 116 of 156 Page ID #:1510
Case 5:14-cv-01766-DMG-DTB Document 110-2 Filed 06/30/17 Page 117 of 156 Page ID #:1511
Case 5:14-cv-01766-DMG-DTB Document 110-2 Filed 06/30/17 Page 118 of 156 Page ID #:1512
Case 5:14-cv-01766-DMG-DTB Document 110-2 Filed 06/30/17 Page 119 of 156 Page ID #:1513
Case 5:14-cv-01766-DMG-DTB Document 110-2 Filed 06/30/17 Page 120 of 156 Page ID #:1514
Case 5:14-cv-01766-DMG-DTB Document 110-2 Filed 06/30/17 Page 121 of 156 Page ID #:1515
Case 5:14-cv-01766-DMG-DTB Document 110-2 Filed 06/30/17 Page 122 of 156 Page ID #:1516
Case 5:14-cv-01766-DMG-DTB Document 110-2 Filed 06/30/17 Page 123 of 156 Page ID #:1517
Case 5:14-cv-01766-DMG-DTB Document 110-2 Filed 06/30/17 Page 124 of 156 Page ID #:1518
Case 5:14-cv-01766-DMG-DTB Document 110-2 Filed 06/30/17 Page 125 of 156 Page ID #:1519
Case 5:14-cv-01766-DMG-DTB Document 110-2 Filed 06/30/17 Page 126 of 156 Page ID #:1520
Case 5:14-cv-01766-DMG-DTB Document 110-2 Filed 06/30/17 Page 127 of 156 Page ID #:1521
Case 5:14-cv-01766-DMG-DTB Document 110-2 Filed 06/30/17 Page 128 of 156 Page ID #:1522
Case 5:14-cv-01766-DMG-DTB Document 110-2 Filed 06/30/17 Page 129 of 156 Page ID #:1523
Case 5:14-cv-01766-DMG-DTB Document 110-2 Filed 06/30/17 Page 130 of 156 Page ID #:1524
Case 5:14-cv-01766-DMG-DTB Document 110-2 Filed 06/30/17 Page 131 of 156 Page ID #:1525
Case 5:14-cv-01766-DMG-DTB Document 110-2 Filed 06/30/17 Page 132 of 156 Page ID #:1526
Case 5:14-cv-01766-DMG-DTB Document 110-2 Filed 06/30/17 Page 133 of 156 Page ID #:1527
Case 5:14-cv-01766-DMG-DTB Document 110-2 Filed 06/30/17 Page 134 of 156 Page ID #:1528
Case 5:14-cv-01766-DMG-DTB Document 110-2 Filed 06/30/17 Page 135 of 156 Page ID #:1529
Case 5:14-cv-01766-DMG-DTB Document 110-2 Filed 06/30/17 Page 136 of 156 Page ID #:1530
Case 5:14-cv-01766-DMG-DTB Document 110-2 Filed 06/30/17 Page 137 of 156 Page ID #:1531
Case 5:14-cv-01766-DMG-DTB Document 110-2 Filed 06/30/17 Page 138 of 156 Page ID #:1532
Case 5:14-cv-01766-DMG-DTB Document 110-2 Filed 06/30/17 Page 139 of 156 Page ID #:1533
Case 5:14-cv-01766-DMG-DTB Document 110-2 Filed 06/30/17 Page 140 of 156 Page ID #:1534
Case 5:14-cv-01766-DMG-DTB Document 110-2 Filed 06/30/17 Page 141 of 156 Page ID #:1535
Case 5:14-cv-01766-DMG-DTB Document 110-2 Filed 06/30/17 Page 142 of 156 Page ID #:1536
Case 5:14-cv-01766-DMG-DTB Document 110-2 Filed 06/30/17 Page 143 of 156 Page ID #:1537
Case 5:14-cv-01766-DMG-DTB Document 110-2 Filed 06/30/17 Page 144 of 156 Page ID #:1538
Case 5:14-cv-01766-DMG-DTB Document 110-2 Filed 06/30/17 Page 145 of 156 Page ID #:1539
Case 5:14-cv-01766-DMG-DTB Document 110-2 Filed 06/30/17 Page 146 of 156 Page ID #:1540
Case 5:14-cv-01766-DMG-DTB Document 110-2 Filed 06/30/17 Page 147 of 156 Page ID #:1541
Case 5:14-cv-01766-DMG-DTB Document 110-2 Filed 06/30/17 Page 148 of 156 Page ID #:1542
Case 5:14-cv-01766-DMG-DTB Document 110-2 Filed 06/30/17 Page 149 of 156 Page ID #:1543
Case 5:14-cv-01766-DMG-DTB Document 110-2 Filed 06/30/17 Page 150 of 156 Page ID #:1544
Case 5:14-cv-01766-DMG-DTB Document 110-2 Filed 06/30/17 Page 151 of 156 Page ID #:1545
Case 5:14-cv-01766-DMG-DTB Document 110-2 Filed 06/30/17 Page 152 of 156 Page ID #:1546
Case 5:14-cv-01766-DMG-DTB Document 110-2 Filed 06/30/17 Page 153 of 156 Page ID #:1547
Case 5:14-cv-01766-DMG-DTB Document 110-2 Filed 06/30/17 Page 154 of 156 Page ID #:1548
Case 5:14-cv-01766-DMG-DTB Document 110-2 Filed 06/30/17 Page 155 of 156 Page ID #:1549
Case 5:14-cv-01766-DMG-DTB Document 110-2 Filed 06/30/17 Page 156 of 156 Page ID #:1550