Preview
1 HOFFMAN EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS
2 LEONARD EMMA (SBN 224483) ELECTRONICALLY
lemma@employment-lawyers.com
3 AARON LANGENBACH (SBN 279004)
F I L E D
Superior Court of California,
alangenbach@employment-lawyers.com County of San Francisco
4 1999 Harrison Street, 18th Floor 07/19/2019
5 Oakland, CA 94612 Clerk of the Court
BY: VANESSA WU
Tel: (415) 362-1111 Deputy Clerk
6 Fax: (415) 362-1112
7
Attorneys for Plaintiff xxx xxx xxxxxx xxx
8
9 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
HOFFMAN EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS
1999 Harrison Street, 18th Floor
11
xxx xxx xxxxxx xxx on behalf of Case No. CGC-18-565169
Oakland, CA 94612
12 herself, all others similarly situated, and
(415) 362-1111
13 the general public, DECLARATION OF LEONARD
EMMA IN SUPPORT OF
14 Plaintiff, PLAINTIFF’S UNOPPOSED MOTION
FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF
vs. CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
15
16 FLEXPORT, INC., a Delaware Date: August 12, 2019
Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, Time: 3:00p.m.
17 inclusive, Dept.: 304
18
Defendants.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
i
xxx v. Flexport, Inc.
Emma Declaration ISO Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement
DECLARATION OF LEONARD EMMA IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’
1 UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION
SETTLEMENT
2
I, Leonard Emma, (“Class Counsel”) declare as follows:
3
1. I am an attorney duly licensed to practice law in the State of California and
4
before this Court. I am an attorney with Hoffman Employment Lawyers, attorneys of record
5
for Plaintiff xxx xxx xxxxxx xxx (“Plaintiff”).
6
2. I have personal knowledge of the matters stated herein and, if called upon to
7
testify as witnesses, could and would competently testify thereto. I submit this declaration in
8
support of Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement.
9
3. A true and correct copy of the Joint Stipulation of Class Settlement and
10
HOFFMAN EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS
Representative Action (“Settlement”) is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
1999 Harrison Street, 18th Floor
11
4. Flexport is a full-service air and ocean freight forwarder that provides a
Oakland, CA 94612
12
(415) 362-1111
technology platform and management for supply-side logistics. Flexport has developed an
13
online product through which its customers work with Flexport’s Operations Associates
14
(“OAs”) to streamline their internal logistics operations, or to completely outsource their
15
supply chain needs to Flexport. Plaintiff xxx worked as an OA at Flexport from May 2017 to
16
February 2018.
17
5. The Parties agreed to confidentially resolve Plaintiff’s individual claims after
18
the Parties had agreed to the key terms of the class action Settlement. Plaintiff’s confidential
19
individual settlement agreement may be reviewed by the Court in camera.
20
6. The Parties conducted written discovery and have exchanged considerable
21
information and data concerning the claims, defenses, and alleged damages at issue. The
22
Parties produced and reviewed well over one thousand documents pursuant to written
23
discovery requests, including documents pertaining to the policies and practices complained of
24
herein. The Parties propounded and responded to special interrogatories and form
25
interrogatories, and exchanged data about the Class sufficient to permit a damages analysis. In
26
addition to formal written discovery, Class Counsel separately interviewed several putative
27
28
-1 -
xxx v. Flexport, Inc.
Emma Declaration ISO Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement
1 class members at the outset of this litigation and the Parties informally exchanged additional
2 information in advance of mediation.
3 7. Class Counsel had investigated Plaintiff’s claims and analyzed a wealth of
4 evidence prior to mediating. The Parties and their counsel are sufficiently familiar with the
5 facts of this case and the applicable laws to make an informed judgment as to the fairness of
6 the Settlement. The Parties are represented by competent wage and hour counsel and have had
7 the opportunity to consult with counsel prior to submitting the Settlement to the Court.
8 8. Plaintiff and Class Counsel believe that the Settlement is fair, adequate and
9 reasonable, and in the best interest of the Class in light of all known facts and circumstances,
10 including the defenses asserted by Defendant, the risk of delay, and potential appellate issues.
HOFFMAN EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS
1999 Harrison Street, 18th Floor
11 9. On December 5, 2018, the Parties engaged in a full-day of arm’s length
Oakland, CA 94612
12 negotiations before David A. Rotman, an experienced and well-respected neutral for wage and
(415) 362-1111
13 hour class action litigation. At mediation, the Parties reached an agreement of the key terms of
14 the Settlement. The Parties entered into a Memorandum of Understanding, which was later
15 memorialized in the Settlement Agreement.
16 10. Although a settlement has been reached, Flexport continues to deny liability or
17 wrongdoing of any kind associated with the claims alleged in the action and further denies that,
18 for any purpose other than settling the action, it is appropriate for class treatment. Flexport
19 contends that ithas complied with applicable wage and hour laws and that Class Members
20 were properly classified as exempt employees. Flexport contends that Plaintiff will not certify
21 the case as a class action because Plaintiff does not share sufficient common issues of fact or
22 law with the proposed class, she is not an adequate representative of the proposed class, her
23 claims are not typical of the proposed class, and that individualized inquiries would
24 predominate. In addition, one hundred and six (106) Class Members have signed arbitration
25 agreements with class-action waivers, which, if enforceable, could leave a Class of only
26 twenty-three (23) individuals. If Plaintiff were to obtain and maintain class certification
27 through trial and then secure a favorable verdict, an appeal regarding the propriety of class
28 certification, among other things, would likely follow.
-2 -
xxx v. Flexport, Inc.
Emma Declaration ISO Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement
1 11. Plaintiff alleges that she and other OAs are misclassified by Flexport as exempt
2 employees. Plaintiff contends that OAs are primarily engaged in the nonexempt tasks of data
3 entry and providing basic customer service to Flexport’s clients. Plaintiff contends that OAs
4 spend the majority of their working hours updating Flexport’s database, determining the
5 location and timing of shipments, and responding to routine customer inquiries about shipment
6 status. Plaintiff maintains that the true nature of the OA job is that of a customer service
7 representative and/or data entry clerk, and that she and OAs have been misclassified as a result.
8 Flexport disagrees with Plaintiff’s characterization of the OA job position.
9 12. Flexport maintains that the exempt classification is proper because the OA job
10 position is that of a “traffic manager” because OAs “plan[] the most economical and quickest
HOFFMAN EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS
1999 Harrison Street, 18th Floor
11 routes for shipping merchandise to and from the plant . . . [and] making the necessary
Oakland, CA 94612
12 rearrangements resulting from delays, damages, or irregularities in transit...” 29 C.F.R. §
(415) 362-1111
13 541.208(e). The position of “traffic manager” is covered under the administrative exemption,
14 and is a proper exemption in the IWC wage order governing this industry. Id.; See also
15 Condren v. Sovereign Chem. Co., 142 F.3d 432, at *3 (6th Cir. 1998). Flexport contends that
16 OAs spend most of their workdays engaged in complex problem-solving and data analysis as
17 they: (1) engage in planning the most cost-effective and quickest shipment routes, and decide
18 which carriers to contract with for the particular shipment; (2) arrange and rearrange carriers
19 due to unanticipated shipment irregularities (such as delays, congested ports of entry, a revised
20 client schedule, or some other shipment exception); and (3) negotiate with carriers for cost
21 adjustments caused by delays and other unanticipated events. To the extent that OAs engage in
22 clerical tasks such as data entry, Flexport maintains that such activities are “directly and
23 closely related” to exempt “traffic manager” work, and thus qualify for the exemption. 29
24 C.F.R. § 541.208; Bucklin v. Am. Zurich Ins. Co., No. 2:11-CV-05519-SVW, 2013 WL
25 3147019, at *17 (C.D. Cal. June 19, 2013), aff’d sub nom. Bucklin v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co., 619
26 F. App’x 574 (9th Cir. 2015) (where 60% of an employee’s work involved tasks such as
27 inputting information into a computer, he was still properly classified as administrative because
28
-3 -
xxx v. Flexport, Inc.
Emma Declaration ISO Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement
1 these tasks were directly related to the performance of exempt work). Accordingly, Flexport
2 contends that OAs are properly classified as exempt employees.
3 13. Plaintiff alleges that she and Class Members often worked more than 8 hours in
4 a day and 40 hours in a week. Plaintiff’s unpaid overtime claim is dependent on Plaintiff first
5 prevailing in her allegation of misclassification. Thus, the same risks described above apply
6 here.
7 14. Flexport does not track hours worked by Class Members because Class
8 Members are classified as exempt employees. Because there are no independent timekeeping
9 records showing the actual hours worked, Plaintiff and Class Members would have to provide
10 testimony to estimate damages. Class Counsel interviewed Plaintiff and several Class
HOFFMAN EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS
1999 Harrison Street, 18th Floor
11 Members at the outset of the case and obtained this information prior to attending mediation
Oakland, CA 94612
12 and negotiating the instant settlement.
(415) 362-1111
13 15. With respect to meal and rest breaks, Plaintiff argues that Flexport failed to
14 provide compliant meal and rest breaks as required by California law. Plaintiff’s meal and rest
15 break claims are dependent on Plaintiff first prevailing in her allegation of misclassification.
16 Thus, the same risks described above apply here.
17 16. Plaintiff contends that the fast-paced nature of the industry, along with staffing
18 issues at Flexport, created an environment in which it was impractical for OAs to consistently
19 take uninterrupted meal and rest breaks. As discussed above, Flexport denies Plaintiff’s
20 claims, and contend that they properly classified OAs as exempt. Furthermore, Defendant
21 contends that Class Members were in fact provided meal and rest breaks as required by
22 California law. Defendant argues that the fact that employees routinely took meal and rest
23 breaks evidences that meal and rest breaks were provided, authorized, and permitted. These
24 arguments may undercut Plaintiff’s ability to prevail at trial.
25 17. The Class claims for failure to pay final wages on time, unfair business
26 practices, and PAGA violations are predicated on, and derive from, the underlying violations
27 described above. Thus, the same risks described above apply. Further, the Court has virtually
28 unlimited discretion to reduce the amount of penalties under PAGA. This adds significant
-4 -
xxx v. Flexport, Inc.
Emma Declaration ISO Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement
1 uncertainty regarding the evaluation of damages for derivative claims, as the Court may be
2 reluctant to permit duplicative recovery for a single underlying violation.
3 18. Plaintiff estimates that if the Class were to prevail in all claims at trial, with all
4 factual and legal disputes being resolved in the Class’ favor, the maximum potential recovery
5 for the class would be approximately $1,614,947.
6 19. Flexport has identified 129 Class Members who worked approximately
7 6,857workweeks during the Class Period. Flexport reported that the average OA salary was
8 $74,699.51, with an average hourly rate of $35.91. Flexport has identified 27 former
9 employees. Based on information gathered from Plaintiff and Class Members, it was estimated
10 that OAs worked, on average, no less than 2 hours of unpaid overtime per workweek. Finally,
HOFFMAN EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS
1999 Harrison Street, 18th Floor
11 based on information gathered from Plaintiff and Class Members, it was estimated that, on
Oakland, CA 94612
12 average, OAs were not provided with compliant meal or rest periods at least twice per
(415) 362-1111
13 workweek.
14 20. Accordingly, Defendant Flexport’s maximum potential liability to the Class
15 breaks down as follows:
16 Unpaid Overtime Wages: $738,705
17 Meal and Rest Period Premiums: $492,470
18 Waiting Time Penalties: $165,772
19 Wage Statement Penalties: $218,000
20 Estimate for Class: $1,614,947
21 21. Plaintiff acknowledges that a recovery of this magnitude might not be likely
22 given the risks identified herein. As discussed above, Defendant contends that it has no
23 liability in this case and that certification would be inappropriate. Class Counsel represents
24 that the proposed settlement of $400,000 is an exemplary result and is certainly fair,
25 reasonable, and adequate under the circumstances.
26 22. The Settlement Administrator will be Rust Consulting, an experienced wage and
27 hour class action administrator that has been providing legal administrative services for over 40
28 years and is known to this Court through its work in connection with other settlements.
-5 -
xxx v. Flexport, Inc.
Emma Declaration ISO Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement
1 23. $15,000 of the Gross Settlement Amount will be paid to the LWDA for PAGA
2 penalties under Labor Code section 2699 et seq. (Settlement ¶ VI.2.11.4.) The proposed
3 Settlement has been submitted to the LWDA pursuant to Labor Code section 2699(l)(2).
4 24. Plaintiff has also agreed to a release of all known and unknown claims against
5 Defendant.
6 25. The Settlement is fair, adequate, reasonable, and in the best interests of Class
7 Members. The Settlement was reached after a year of investigation and litigation into the facts
8 and law surrounding the allegations. The Settlement avoids significant risks associated with
9 continued litigation. The Settlement provides excellent value to Class Members and is the
10 result of extensive arms-length negotiation before an experienced mediator and the
HOFFMAN EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS
1999 Harrison Street, 18th Floor
11 independent assessment of counsel.
Oakland, CA 94612
12 26. Class Counsel met extensively with Plaintiff and spoke with several Class
(415) 362-1111
13 Members prior to filing the case and prior to resolving this matter. Class Counsel propounded
14 voluminous written discovery requests and reviewed thousands of pages of documents
15 produced by Defendant, including but not limited to Defendant’s employee handbook, written
16 policies relating to wage and hour issues, personnel files, wage statements, job descriptions,
17 training programs, and related information. Defendant provided class-wide data prior to
18 mediation to enable Class Counsel to conduct a detailed damages assessment.
19 27. On December 5, 2018, the Parties mediated this matter over the course of a full
20 day before David A. Rotman. Mr. Rotman is a well-known and highly respected employment
21 class action mediator. The mediation was conducted at arms-length and progressed toward a
22 resolution, which is reflected herein. The Parties entered into a Memorandum of
23 Understanding, which has been memorialized in the Settlement.
24 28. Defendant denies that it misclassified Plaintiff or any other OA. Accordingly,
25 Defendant denies all of the claims, contentions, and allegations made by Plaintiff and further
26 denies that any conduct that could be found to be unlawful would be deemed willful.
27 Defendant further contends that Plaintiff will not prevail in obtaining/maintaining class
28 certification.
-6 -
xxx v. Flexport, Inc.
Emma Declaration ISO Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement
1 29. Plaintiff acknowledges the risks associated with continued litigation. As
2 described above, Defendant maintains that OAs are properly classified and 106 OAs have
3 signed arbitration agreements with class action waivers. In light of the facts uncovered in
4 discovery, the risk posed by Defendant’s defenses, Class Counsel believes that continued
5 litigation would be protracted, uncertain, and contrary to the interests of Class Members. In
6 light of these realities, a prompt and fair settlement is the best way to resolve the disputes
7 between them.
8 30. In the experience of Class Counsel, the total settlement amount of $400,000
9 falls within the acceptable and usual range of settlements of wage and hour disputes of this
10 size, concerning these issues and involving these facts. Based on a Net Settlement Amount of
HOFFMAN EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS
1999 Harrison Street, 18th Floor
11 $230,000, the average recovery per Class Member would be approximately $1,783.
Oakland, CA 94612
12 31. If Plaintiff and the Class were to prevail on all claims, with all factual findings
(415) 362-1111
13 and legal inferences being drawn in their favor, Class Counsel estimates that class-wide
14 damages would max out at approximately $1,614,947 (excluding PAGA penalties and
15 interest). The basis for this estimate is provided below.
16 32. Meal Period Premiums: Class Members reported approximately one day per
17 week with a meal period violation. Maximum damages are estimated to be $246,235. This is
18 calculated as $35.91 per premium x 6,857 work weeks.
19 33. Rest Period Premiums: Class Members reported approximately one day per
20 week with a rest period violation. Maximum damages are estimated at $246,235. This is
21 calculated as $35.91 per premium x 6,857 work weeks.
22 34. Defendant disputes the meal and rest period claims, contends it properly
23 classified OAs as exempt and provided all employees with the reasonable opportunity to take
24 meal and rest periods, and therefore has good-faith defenses under Brinker and its progeny.
25 35. Unpaid Wages: Plaintiff estimates that Class Members worked an average of 2
26 unpaid hours of overtime work per week. Maximum damages are estimated at $738,705. This
27 is calculated as $35.91 per hour x 1.5 (overtime rate of pay) x 2 hours x 6,857 work weeks.
28
-7 -
xxx v. Flexport, Inc.
Emma Declaration ISO Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement
1 36. Derivative Causes of Action: If Plaintiff were to prevail in the claims described
2 above, Class Members may also be entitled to recover the following: (i) A maximum of
3 $165,772 in waiting time penalties, calculated as follows: annual salary of ($74,699.51 / 365
4 days per year) x 30 days x 27 terminated Class Members; (ii) Wage statement penalties, which
5 are calculated at $50.00 for the first violation and $100.00 for each of the subsequent
6 violations, up to a maximum of $4,000 per Class Member. Taking into account the one-year
7 statute of limitations for this claim and the fact that many Class Members would not be entitled
8 to the maximum penalty due to the length of their employment, maximum class-wide wage
9 statement penalties are estimated at $218,000; (iii) Plaintiff’s cause of action for PAGA
10 penalties derives from the conduct that Plaintiffs allege above. Given that (1) Plaintiff is
HOFFMAN EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS
1999 Harrison Street, 18th Floor
11 attempting to recover under both PAGA and the California Labor Code for the same conduct
Oakland, CA 94612
12 and (2) the Court has discretion to set PAGA penalties (Cal. Lab. Code § 2699(e)(2)), it is
(415) 362-1111
13 difficult to affix a sum certain to Plaintiff’s PAGA cause of action. As is the custom and
14 practice in wage and hour class action settlements, the Parties have agreed to apportion a
15 meaningful sum ($15,000) for distribution to the LWDA.
16 37. Defendant disputes these derivative claims for the reasons outlined above. First,
17 Defendant contends that these derivative claims must fail because OAs were properly
18 classified as exempt. Second, even if OAs were misclassified, Defendant contends that it
19 provided OAs with meal and rest periods. Third, Defendant contends that any wage statement
20 inaccuracies resulting from misclassification were not knowing and intentional and also that no
21 injury actually resulted. Defendant further disputes its actions were “willful” to trigger waiting
22 time penalties. Defendant contends that a good faith belief in a legal defense can preclude a
23 finding of willfulness. Defendant therefore argue that since it provided employees with the
24 opportunity to take meal and rest breaks, it has good faith defenses to Plaintiff’s claims.
25 Gonzalez v. Downtown LA Motors, 215 Cal. App. 4th 36, 54 (2013); 8 C.C.R. § 13520.
26 Although authority is divided, Defendant also further disputes that meal and rest period
27 violations can give rise to waiting time and wage statement claims. See, e.g., Ling v. P.F.
28 Chang’s China Bistro, 245 Cal. App. 4th 1242 (2016) (suggesting action for meal and rest
-8 -
xxx v. Flexport, Inc.
Emma Declaration ISO Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement
1 periods cannot support waiting time penalties); Culley v. Lincare Inc., 236 F.Supp.3d 1184,
2 1195-96 (E.D. Cal. 2017) (finding action for meal and rest period premium pay cannot support
3 waiting time or wage statement penalties).
4 38. This results in total maximum damages estimated at $1,614,947. Class Counsel
5 submits that this Settlement of $400,000 represents 25% of the maximum potential recovery
6 and is an excellent result for Class Members given the risks of continued litigation.
7 39. Class Counsel further submits the amount allocated for distribution to the
8 LWDA under PAGA ($15,000) is reasonable and should be approved by the Court. There is no
9 articulated standard for approving PAGA settlements. The Court has discretion to award lesser
10 civil penalties under PAGA under section 2699 (e)(2) of the Labor Code, and PAGA
HOFFMAN EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS
1999 Harrison Street, 18th Floor
11 settlements for as little as $0 have been approved. See Nordstrom Com’n Cases, 186 Cal. App.
Oakland, CA 94612
12 4th 576, 589 (2010) (approving PAGA settlement and release that allocated $0 to PAGA
(415) 362-1111
13 claim). Courts have also approved settlements for $20,000 or less. See, e.g., Hicks v. Toys ‘R’
14 Us–Delaware, Inc., 2014 WL 4703915, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 2, 2014) (approving $5,000
15 PAGA payment in a case involving $4 million settlement); Franco v. Ruiz Food Prods., Inc.,
16 2012 WL 5941801 at *14 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 27, 2012) (approving PAGA penalties of $10,000 as
17 part of $2.5 million settlement); Chu v. Wells Fargo Invest. LLC, 2011 WL 672645, at *1
18 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 16, 2011) (approving PAGA payment of $7,500 in $6.9 million settlement);
19 Williams v. Brinderson Constructors, 2017 WL 490901, at *5 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 6, 2017)
20 ($10,000 PAGA settlement in $300,000 settlement).
21 40. Based on my experience litigating wage and hour class action cases on behalf of
22 workers, I believe the settlement in this matter is fair and reasonable and in the best interests of
23 the Class. I graduated from George Washington University law school in 2000, and I have
24 been practicing law for over 16 years. I have been litigating wage and hour class actions in
25 California for over 10 years. I have served as counsel of record in over twenty-five certified
26 class actions, including the following:
27 a. Amenya v. Henry Industries, RG15754205 (Alameda Superior Court). Class
28 action on behalf of drivers classified as independent contractors. Various wage
-9 -
xxx v. Flexport, Inc.
Emma Declaration ISO Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement
1 and hour claims were asserted as a result of alleged misclassification. The
2 Court approved a class settlement.
3 b. Brewer v. General Nutrition Corporation, 11-CV-03587-YGR (United States
4 District Court, N.D. Cal.). Wage and hour class action on behalf of non-exempt
5 sales associates and assistant managers alleging various wage and hour
6 violations. The Court approved a class settlement.
7 c. Buck v. Saputo Cheese USA, VCU 256347 (Tulare Superior Court). Wage and
8 hour class action on behalf of non-exempt plant production employees alleging
9 off-the-clock violations, meal and rest period violations, and derivative claims.
10 The Court approved a class settlement.
HOFFMAN EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS
1999 Harrison Street, 18th Floor
11 d. Carranza v. Arctic Glacier USA, RG13692993 (Alameda Superior Court).
Oakland, CA 94612
12 Wage and hour class action on behalf of drivers and other non-exempt hourly
(415) 362-1111
13 employees alleging off-the-clock, meal period, rest period and derivative
14 violations. The Court approved a class settlement.
15 e. Clark v. American Residential Services, LLC, 175 Cal. App. 4th 785 (2009).
16 Successfully appealed trial court’s approval of class action settlement on behalf
17 of objectors.
18 f. Davison v. Academy of Art, CGC-10-497727 (San Francisco Superior Court).
19 Wage and hour class action alleging that Defendant misclassified its directed
20 study advisors as exempt employees and independent contractors. The Court
21 approved a class settlement.
22 g. Dilliehunt v. Togos, RG14750133 (Alameda Superior Court). Wage and hour
23 class action on behalf of store employees. The Court approved a class
24 settlement.
25 h. Donald v. Xanitos, 14-CV-05416 (United States District Court, N.D. Cal.).
26 Wage and hour class action alleging that Defendant misclassified its
27 environmental services supervisors as exempt employees and independent
28 contractors. The Court approved a class settlement.
-10 -
xxx v. Flexport, Inc.
Emma Declaration ISO Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement
1 i. Flores v. Zales, CV-00539-TEH (United States District Court, N.D. Cal.).
2 Class action on behalf of retail store managers classified by Defendant as
3 exempt. Lawsuit alleged unpaid overtime, missed meal and rest breaks and
4 related wage and hour claims. The Court approved a class settlement.
5 j. Garcia v. Hoffman Southwest, 37-2010-00094333-CU-OE-CTL (San Diego
6 Superior Court). Wage and hour class action on behalf of service technicians.
7 The Court approved a class settlement.
8 k. Harris v. Kiddie Kandids, C-08-0852-PJH-MEJ (United States District Court,
9 N.D. Cal.). Class action on behalf of retail store managers classified by
10 Defendant as exempt. Lawsuit alleged unpaid overtime, missed meal and rest
HOFFMAN EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS
1999 Harrison Street, 18th Floor
11 breaks and related wage and hour claims. The Court approved a class
Oakland, CA 94612
12 settlement.
(415) 362-1111
13 l. Ita v. Roto-Rooter, CIV 462474 (San Mateo County Superior Court). Wage and
14 hour class action on behalf of service technicians alleging unpaid overtime,
15 missed meal and rest breaks and related claims. The Court approved a class
16 settlement.
17 m. James v. Park n’ Fly Service, LLC, et al., 17-CIV-05465 (San Mateo County
18 Superior Court). Wage and hour class action on behalf of non-exempt, hourly
19 employees alleging unpaid overtime, missed meal and rest breaks and related
20 claims. The Court approved a class settlement.
21 n. Kellenbenz v. Seton Medical Center, CIV514600 (San Mateo Superior Court).
22 Class action on behalf of registered nurses alleging failure to pay for all hours
23 worked, missed meal/rest periods, and other wage and hour violations. The
24 Court approved a class settlement.
25 o. Lewis v. NAVCO, RG09480367 (Alameda County Superior Court). Wage and
26 hour class action on behalf of field service employees. The Court approved a
27 class settlement.
28 p. Martinez v. Occidental Petroleum Corporation, S-1500-CV-282523-TSC (Kern
-11 -
xxx v. Flexport, Inc.
Emma Declaration ISO Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement
1 Superior Court). Wage and hour class action on behalf of non-exempt gas plant
2 operators alleging off-the-clock, meal period, rest period and derivative
3 violations. The Court preliminarily approved a class settlement and notice has
4 gone out to the class.
5 q. McClellan v. SFN Group, C10-05972 SBA (United States District Court, N.D.
6 Cal.). Wage and hour class action on behalf of recruiters alleging unpaid
7 overtime based on misclassification as exempt employees. The Court approved
8 a class settlement.
9 r. Nettles v. Pitney Bowes, RG08397421 (Alameda County Superior Court).
10 Wage and hour class action on behalf of field service technicians alleging
HOFFMAN EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS
1999 Harrison Street, 18th Floor
11 unpaid overtime, missed meal and rest breaks and related claims. The Court
Oakland, CA 94612
12 approved a class settlement.
(415) 362-1111
13 s. Newman, et al. v. All-Pro Bail Bonds, Inc., RG16825571 (Alameda County
14 Superior Court). Wage and hour class action on behalf of non-exempt, hourly
15 employees alleging unpaid overtime, missed meal and rest breaks and related
16 claims. The Court approved a class settlement.
17 t. Robinson v. Nestle, 30-2011-00463094-CU-OE-CXC (Orange County Superior
18 Court). Wage and hour class action on behalf of route sales representatives.
19 The Court approved a class settlement.
20 u. Stymest v. Bill Howe Plumbing, 37-2007-00069216-CU-OE-CTL (San Diego
21 County Superior Court). Wage and hour class action on behalf of service
22 technicians alleging unpaid overtime, missed meal and rest breaks and related
Preview
1 HOFFMAN EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS 2 LEONARD EMMA (SBN 224483) ELECTRONICALLY lemma@employment-lawyers.com 3 AARON LANGENBACH (SBN 279004) F I L E D Superior Court of California, alangenbach@employment-lawyers.com County of San Francisco 4 1999 Harrison Street, 18th Floor 07/19/2019 5 Oakland, CA 94612 Clerk of the Court BY: VANESSA WU Tel: (415) 362-1111 Deputy Clerk 6 Fax: (415) 362-1112 7 Attorneys for Plaintiff xxx xxx xxxxxx xxx 8 9 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO HOFFMAN EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS 1999 Harrison Street, 18th Floor 11 xxx xxx xxxxxx xxx on behalf of Case No. CGC-18-565169 Oakland, CA 94612 12 herself, all others similarly situated, and (415) 362-1111 13 the general public, DECLARATION OF LEONARD EMMA IN SUPPORT OF 14 Plaintiff, PLAINTIFF’S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF vs. CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT 15 16 FLEXPORT, INC., a Delaware Date: August 12, 2019 Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, Time: 3:00p.m. 17 inclusive, Dept.: 304 18 Defendants. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 i xxx v. Flexport, Inc. Emma Declaration ISO Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement DECLARATION OF LEONARD EMMA IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ 1 UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT 2 I, Leonard Emma, (“Class Counsel”) declare as follows: 3 1. I am an attorney duly licensed to practice law in the State of California and 4 before this Court. I am an attorney with Hoffman Employment Lawyers, attorneys of record 5 for Plaintiff xxx xxx xxxxxx xxx (“Plaintiff”). 6 2. I have personal knowledge of the matters stated herein and, if called upon to 7 testify as witnesses, could and would competently testify thereto. I submit this declaration in 8 support of Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement. 9 3. A true and correct copy of the Joint Stipulation of Class Settlement and 10 HOFFMAN EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS Representative Action (“Settlement”) is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 1999 Harrison Street, 18th Floor 11 4. Flexport is a full-service air and ocean freight forwarder that provides a Oakland, CA 94612 12 (415) 362-1111 technology platform and management for supply-side logistics. Flexport has developed an 13 online product through which its customers work with Flexport’s Operations Associates 14 (“OAs”) to streamline their internal logistics operations, or to completely outsource their 15 supply chain needs to Flexport. Plaintiff xxx worked as an OA at Flexport from May 2017 to 16 February 2018. 17 5. The Parties agreed to confidentially resolve Plaintiff’s individual claims after 18 the Parties had agreed to the key terms of the class action Settlement. Plaintiff’s confidential 19 individual settlement agreement may be reviewed by the Court in camera. 20 6. The Parties conducted written discovery and have exchanged considerable 21 information and data concerning the claims, defenses, and alleged damages at issue. The 22 Parties produced and reviewed well over one thousand documents pursuant to written 23 discovery requests, including documents pertaining to the policies and practices complained of 24 herein. The Parties propounded and responded to special interrogatories and form 25 interrogatories, and exchanged data about the Class sufficient to permit a damages analysis. In 26 addition to formal written discovery, Class Counsel separately interviewed several putative 27 28 -1 - xxx v. Flexport, Inc. Emma Declaration ISO Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement 1 class members at the outset of this litigation and the Parties informally exchanged additional 2 information in advance of mediation. 3 7. Class Counsel had investigated Plaintiff’s claims and analyzed a wealth of 4 evidence prior to mediating. The Parties and their counsel are sufficiently familiar with the 5 facts of this case and the applicable laws to make an informed judgment as to the fairness of 6 the Settlement. The Parties are represented by competent wage and hour counsel and have had 7 the opportunity to consult with counsel prior to submitting the Settlement to the Court. 8 8. Plaintiff and Class Counsel believe that the Settlement is fair, adequate and 9 reasonable, and in the best interest of the Class in light of all known facts and circumstances, 10 including the defenses asserted by Defendant, the risk of delay, and potential appellate issues. HOFFMAN EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS 1999 Harrison Street, 18th Floor 11 9. On December 5, 2018, the Parties engaged in a full-day of arm’s length Oakland, CA 94612 12 negotiations before David A. Rotman, an experienced and well-respected neutral for wage and (415) 362-1111 13 hour class action litigation. At mediation, the Parties reached an agreement of the key terms of 14 the Settlement. The Parties entered into a Memorandum of Understanding, which was later 15 memorialized in the Settlement Agreement. 16 10. Although a settlement has been reached, Flexport continues to deny liability or 17 wrongdoing of any kind associated with the claims alleged in the action and further denies that, 18 for any purpose other than settling the action, it is appropriate for class treatment. Flexport 19 contends that ithas complied with applicable wage and hour laws and that Class Members 20 were properly classified as exempt employees. Flexport contends that Plaintiff will not certify 21 the case as a class action because Plaintiff does not share sufficient common issues of fact or 22 law with the proposed class, she is not an adequate representative of the proposed class, her 23 claims are not typical of the proposed class, and that individualized inquiries would 24 predominate. In addition, one hundred and six (106) Class Members have signed arbitration 25 agreements with class-action waivers, which, if enforceable, could leave a Class of only 26 twenty-three (23) individuals. If Plaintiff were to obtain and maintain class certification 27 through trial and then secure a favorable verdict, an appeal regarding the propriety of class 28 certification, among other things, would likely follow. -2 - xxx v. Flexport, Inc. Emma Declaration ISO Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement 1 11. Plaintiff alleges that she and other OAs are misclassified by Flexport as exempt 2 employees. Plaintiff contends that OAs are primarily engaged in the nonexempt tasks of data 3 entry and providing basic customer service to Flexport’s clients. Plaintiff contends that OAs 4 spend the majority of their working hours updating Flexport’s database, determining the 5 location and timing of shipments, and responding to routine customer inquiries about shipment 6 status. Plaintiff maintains that the true nature of the OA job is that of a customer service 7 representative and/or data entry clerk, and that she and OAs have been misclassified as a result. 8 Flexport disagrees with Plaintiff’s characterization of the OA job position. 9 12. Flexport maintains that the exempt classification is proper because the OA job 10 position is that of a “traffic manager” because OAs “plan[] the most economical and quickest HOFFMAN EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS 1999 Harrison Street, 18th Floor 11 routes for shipping merchandise to and from the plant . . . [and] making the necessary Oakland, CA 94612 12 rearrangements resulting from delays, damages, or irregularities in transit...” 29 C.F.R. § (415) 362-1111 13 541.208(e). The position of “traffic manager” is covered under the administrative exemption, 14 and is a proper exemption in the IWC wage order governing this industry. Id.; See also 15 Condren v. Sovereign Chem. Co., 142 F.3d 432, at *3 (6th Cir. 1998). Flexport contends that 16 OAs spend most of their workdays engaged in complex problem-solving and data analysis as 17 they: (1) engage in planning the most cost-effective and quickest shipment routes, and decide 18 which carriers to contract with for the particular shipment; (2) arrange and rearrange carriers 19 due to unanticipated shipment irregularities (such as delays, congested ports of entry, a revised 20 client schedule, or some other shipment exception); and (3) negotiate with carriers for cost 21 adjustments caused by delays and other unanticipated events. To the extent that OAs engage in 22 clerical tasks such as data entry, Flexport maintains that such activities are “directly and 23 closely related” to exempt “traffic manager” work, and thus qualify for the exemption. 29 24 C.F.R. § 541.208; Bucklin v. Am. Zurich Ins. Co., No. 2:11-CV-05519-SVW, 2013 WL 25 3147019, at *17 (C.D. Cal. June 19, 2013), aff’d sub nom. Bucklin v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co., 619 26 F. App’x 574 (9th Cir. 2015) (where 60% of an employee’s work involved tasks such as 27 inputting information into a computer, he was still properly classified as administrative because 28 -3 - xxx v. Flexport, Inc. Emma Declaration ISO Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement 1 these tasks were directly related to the performance of exempt work). Accordingly, Flexport 2 contends that OAs are properly classified as exempt employees. 3 13. Plaintiff alleges that she and Class Members often worked more than 8 hours in 4 a day and 40 hours in a week. Plaintiff’s unpaid overtime claim is dependent on Plaintiff first 5 prevailing in her allegation of misclassification. Thus, the same risks described above apply 6 here. 7 14. Flexport does not track hours worked by Class Members because Class 8 Members are classified as exempt employees. Because there are no independent timekeeping 9 records showing the actual hours worked, Plaintiff and Class Members would have to provide 10 testimony to estimate damages. Class Counsel interviewed Plaintiff and several Class HOFFMAN EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS 1999 Harrison Street, 18th Floor 11 Members at the outset of the case and obtained this information prior to attending mediation Oakland, CA 94612 12 and negotiating the instant settlement. (415) 362-1111 13 15. With respect to meal and rest breaks, Plaintiff argues that Flexport failed to 14 provide compliant meal and rest breaks as required by California law. Plaintiff’s meal and rest 15 break claims are dependent on Plaintiff first prevailing in her allegation of misclassification. 16 Thus, the same risks described above apply here. 17 16. Plaintiff contends that the fast-paced nature of the industry, along with staffing 18 issues at Flexport, created an environment in which it was impractical for OAs to consistently 19 take uninterrupted meal and rest breaks. As discussed above, Flexport denies Plaintiff’s 20 claims, and contend that they properly classified OAs as exempt. Furthermore, Defendant 21 contends that Class Members were in fact provided meal and rest breaks as required by 22 California law. Defendant argues that the fact that employees routinely took meal and rest 23 breaks evidences that meal and rest breaks were provided, authorized, and permitted. These 24 arguments may undercut Plaintiff’s ability to prevail at trial. 25 17. The Class claims for failure to pay final wages on time, unfair business 26 practices, and PAGA violations are predicated on, and derive from, the underlying violations 27 described above. Thus, the same risks described above apply. Further, the Court has virtually 28 unlimited discretion to reduce the amount of penalties under PAGA. This adds significant -4 - xxx v. Flexport, Inc. Emma Declaration ISO Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement 1 uncertainty regarding the evaluation of damages for derivative claims, as the Court may be 2 reluctant to permit duplicative recovery for a single underlying violation. 3 18. Plaintiff estimates that if the Class were to prevail in all claims at trial, with all 4 factual and legal disputes being resolved in the Class’ favor, the maximum potential recovery 5 for the class would be approximately $1,614,947. 6 19. Flexport has identified 129 Class Members who worked approximately 7 6,857workweeks during the Class Period. Flexport reported that the average OA salary was 8 $74,699.51, with an average hourly rate of $35.91. Flexport has identified 27 former 9 employees. Based on information gathered from Plaintiff and Class Members, it was estimated 10 that OAs worked, on average, no less than 2 hours of unpaid overtime per workweek. Finally, HOFFMAN EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS 1999 Harrison Street, 18th Floor 11 based on information gathered from Plaintiff and Class Members, it was estimated that, on Oakland, CA 94612 12 average, OAs were not provided with compliant meal or rest periods at least twice per (415) 362-1111 13 workweek. 14 20. Accordingly, Defendant Flexport’s maximum potential liability to the Class 15 breaks down as follows: 16 Unpaid Overtime Wages: $738,705 17 Meal and Rest Period Premiums: $492,470 18 Waiting Time Penalties: $165,772 19 Wage Statement Penalties: $218,000 20 Estimate for Class: $1,614,947 21 21. Plaintiff acknowledges that a recovery of this magnitude might not be likely 22 given the risks identified herein. As discussed above, Defendant contends that it has no 23 liability in this case and that certification would be inappropriate. Class Counsel represents 24 that the proposed settlement of $400,000 is an exemplary result and is certainly fair, 25 reasonable, and adequate under the circumstances. 26 22. The Settlement Administrator will be Rust Consulting, an experienced wage and 27 hour class action administrator that has been providing legal administrative services for over 40 28 years and is known to this Court through its work in connection with other settlements. -5 - xxx v. Flexport, Inc. Emma Declaration ISO Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement 1 23. $15,000 of the Gross Settlement Amount will be paid to the LWDA for PAGA 2 penalties under Labor Code section 2699 et seq. (Settlement ¶ VI.2.11.4.) The proposed 3 Settlement has been submitted to the LWDA pursuant to Labor Code section 2699(l)(2). 4 24. Plaintiff has also agreed to a release of all known and unknown claims against 5 Defendant. 6 25. The Settlement is fair, adequate, reasonable, and in the best interests of Class 7 Members. The Settlement was reached after a year of investigation and litigation into the facts 8 and law surrounding the allegations. The Settlement avoids significant risks associated with 9 continued litigation. The Settlement provides excellent value to Class Members and is the 10 result of extensive arms-length negotiation before an experienced mediator and the HOFFMAN EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS 1999 Harrison Street, 18th Floor 11 independent assessment of counsel. Oakland, CA 94612 12 26. Class Counsel met extensively with Plaintiff and spoke with several Class (415) 362-1111 13 Members prior to filing the case and prior to resolving this matter. Class Counsel propounded 14 voluminous written discovery requests and reviewed thousands of pages of documents 15 produced by Defendant, including but not limited to Defendant’s employee handbook, written 16 policies relating to wage and hour issues, personnel files, wage statements, job descriptions, 17 training programs, and related information. Defendant provided class-wide data prior to 18 mediation to enable Class Counsel to conduct a detailed damages assessment. 19 27. On December 5, 2018, the Parties mediated this matter over the course of a full 20 day before David A. Rotman. Mr. Rotman is a well-known and highly respected employment 21 class action mediator. The mediation was conducted at arms-length and progressed toward a 22 resolution, which is reflected herein. The Parties entered into a Memorandum of 23 Understanding, which has been memorialized in the Settlement. 24 28. Defendant denies that it misclassified Plaintiff or any other OA. Accordingly, 25 Defendant denies all of the claims, contentions, and allegations made by Plaintiff and further 26 denies that any conduct that could be found to be unlawful would be deemed willful. 27 Defendant further contends that Plaintiff will not prevail in obtaining/maintaining class 28 certification. -6 - xxx v. Flexport, Inc. Emma Declaration ISO Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement 1 29. Plaintiff acknowledges the risks associated with continued litigation. As 2 described above, Defendant maintains that OAs are properly classified and 106 OAs have 3 signed arbitration agreements with class action waivers. In light of the facts uncovered in 4 discovery, the risk posed by Defendant’s defenses, Class Counsel believes that continued 5 litigation would be protracted, uncertain, and contrary to the interests of Class Members. In 6 light of these realities, a prompt and fair settlement is the best way to resolve the disputes 7 between them. 8 30. In the experience of Class Counsel, the total settlement amount of $400,000 9 falls within the acceptable and usual range of settlements of wage and hour disputes of this 10 size, concerning these issues and involving these facts. Based on a Net Settlement Amount of HOFFMAN EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS 1999 Harrison Street, 18th Floor 11 $230,000, the average recovery per Class Member would be approximately $1,783. Oakland, CA 94612 12 31. If Plaintiff and the Class were to prevail on all claims, with all factual findings (415) 362-1111 13 and legal inferences being drawn in their favor, Class Counsel estimates that class-wide 14 damages would max out at approximately $1,614,947 (excluding PAGA penalties and 15 interest). The basis for this estimate is provided below. 16 32. Meal Period Premiums: Class Members reported approximately one day per 17 week with a meal period violation. Maximum damages are estimated to be $246,235. This is 18 calculated as $35.91 per premium x 6,857 work weeks. 19 33. Rest Period Premiums: Class Members reported approximately one day per 20 week with a rest period violation. Maximum damages are estimated at $246,235. This is 21 calculated as $35.91 per premium x 6,857 work weeks. 22 34. Defendant disputes the meal and rest period claims, contends it properly 23 classified OAs as exempt and provided all employees with the reasonable opportunity to take 24 meal and rest periods, and therefore has good-faith defenses under Brinker and its progeny. 25 35. Unpaid Wages: Plaintiff estimates that Class Members worked an average of 2 26 unpaid hours of overtime work per week. Maximum damages are estimated at $738,705. This 27 is calculated as $35.91 per hour x 1.5 (overtime rate of pay) x 2 hours x 6,857 work weeks. 28 -7 - xxx v. Flexport, Inc. Emma Declaration ISO Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement 1 36. Derivative Causes of Action: If Plaintiff were to prevail in the claims described 2 above, Class Members may also be entitled to recover the following: (i) A maximum of 3 $165,772 in waiting time penalties, calculated as follows: annual salary of ($74,699.51 / 365 4 days per year) x 30 days x 27 terminated Class Members; (ii) Wage statement penalties, which 5 are calculated at $50.00 for the first violation and $100.00 for each of the subsequent 6 violations, up to a maximum of $4,000 per Class Member. Taking into account the one-year 7 statute of limitations for this claim and the fact that many Class Members would not be entitled 8 to the maximum penalty due to the length of their employment, maximum class-wide wage 9 statement penalties are estimated at $218,000; (iii) Plaintiff’s cause of action for PAGA 10 penalties derives from the conduct that Plaintiffs allege above. Given that (1) Plaintiff is HOFFMAN EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS 1999 Harrison Street, 18th Floor 11 attempting to recover under both PAGA and the California Labor Code for the same conduct Oakland, CA 94612 12 and (2) the Court has discretion to set PAGA penalties (Cal. Lab. Code § 2699(e)(2)), it is (415) 362-1111 13 difficult to affix a sum certain to Plaintiff’s PAGA cause of action. As is the custom and 14 practice in wage and hour class action settlements, the Parties have agreed to apportion a 15 meaningful sum ($15,000) for distribution to the LWDA. 16 37. Defendant disputes these derivative claims for the reasons outlined above. First, 17 Defendant contends that these derivative claims must fail because OAs were properly 18 classified as exempt. Second, even if OAs were misclassified, Defendant contends that it 19 provided OAs with meal and rest periods. Third, Defendant contends that any wage statement 20 inaccuracies resulting from misclassification were not knowing and intentional and also that no 21 injury actually resulted. Defendant further disputes its actions were “willful” to trigger waiting 22 time penalties. Defendant contends that a good faith belief in a legal defense can preclude a 23 finding of willfulness. Defendant therefore argue that since it provided employees with the 24 opportunity to take meal and rest breaks, it has good faith defenses to Plaintiff’s claims. 25 Gonzalez v. Downtown LA Motors, 215 Cal. App. 4th 36, 54 (2013); 8 C.C.R. § 13520. 26 Although authority is divided, Defendant also further disputes that meal and rest period 27 violations can give rise to waiting time and wage statement claims. See, e.g., Ling v. P.F. 28 Chang’s China Bistro, 245 Cal. App. 4th 1242 (2016) (suggesting action for meal and rest -8 - xxx v. Flexport, Inc. Emma Declaration ISO Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement 1 periods cannot support waiting time penalties); Culley v. Lincare Inc., 236 F.Supp.3d 1184, 2 1195-96 (E.D. Cal. 2017) (finding action for meal and rest period premium pay cannot support 3 waiting time or wage statement penalties). 4 38. This results in total maximum damages estimated at $1,614,947. Class Counsel 5 submits that this Settlement of $400,000 represents 25% of the maximum potential recovery 6 and is an excellent result for Class Members given the risks of continued litigation. 7 39. Class Counsel further submits the amount allocated for distribution to the 8 LWDA under PAGA ($15,000) is reasonable and should be approved by the Court. There is no 9 articulated standard for approving PAGA settlements. The Court has discretion to award lesser 10 civil penalties under PAGA under section 2699 (e)(2) of the Labor Code, and PAGA HOFFMAN EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS 1999 Harrison Street, 18th Floor 11 settlements for as little as $0 have been approved. See Nordstrom Com’n Cases, 186 Cal. App. Oakland, CA 94612 12 4th 576, 589 (2010) (approving PAGA settlement and release that allocated $0 to PAGA (415) 362-1111 13 claim). Courts have also approved settlements for $20,000 or less. See, e.g., Hicks v. Toys ‘R’ 14 Us–Delaware, Inc., 2014 WL 4703915, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 2, 2014) (approving $5,000 15 PAGA payment in a case involving $4 million settlement); Franco v. Ruiz Food Prods., Inc., 16 2012 WL 5941801 at *14 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 27, 2012) (approving PAGA penalties of $10,000 as 17 part of $2.5 million settlement); Chu v. Wells Fargo Invest. LLC, 2011 WL 672645, at *1 18 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 16, 2011) (approving PAGA payment of $7,500 in $6.9 million settlement); 19 Williams v. Brinderson Constructors, 2017 WL 490901, at *5 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 6, 2017) 20 ($10,000 PAGA settlement in $300,000 settlement). 21 40. Based on my experience litigating wage and hour class action cases on behalf of 22 workers, I believe the settlement in this matter is fair and reasonable and in the best interests of 23 the Class. I graduated from George Washington University law school in 2000, and I have 24 been practicing law for over 16 years. I have been litigating wage and hour class actions in 25 California for over 10 years. I have served as counsel of record in over twenty-five certified 26 class actions, including the following: 27 a. Amenya v. Henry Industries, RG15754205 (Alameda Superior Court). Class 28 action on behalf of drivers classified as independent contractors. Various wage -9 - xxx v. Flexport, Inc. Emma Declaration ISO Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement 1 and hour claims were asserted as a result of alleged misclassification. The 2 Court approved a class settlement. 3 b. Brewer v. General Nutrition Corporation, 11-CV-03587-YGR (United States 4 District Court, N.D. Cal.). Wage and hour class action on behalf of non-exempt 5 sales associates and assistant managers alleging various wage and hour 6 violations. The Court approved a class settlement. 7 c. Buck v. Saputo Cheese USA, VCU 256347 (Tulare Superior Court). Wage and 8 hour class action on behalf of non-exempt plant production employees alleging 9 off-the-clock violations, meal and rest period violations, and derivative claims. 10 The Court approved a class settlement. HOFFMAN EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS 1999 Harrison Street, 18th Floor 11 d. Carranza v. Arctic Glacier USA, RG13692993 (Alameda Superior Court). Oakland, CA 94612 12 Wage and hour class action on behalf of drivers and other non-exempt hourly (415) 362-1111 13 employees alleging off-the-clock, meal period, rest period and derivative 14 violations. The Court approved a class settlement. 15 e. Clark v. American Residential Services, LLC, 175 Cal. App. 4th 785 (2009). 16 Successfully appealed trial court’s approval of class action settlement on behalf 17 of objectors. 18 f. Davison v. Academy of Art, CGC-10-497727 (San Francisco Superior Court). 19 Wage and hour class action alleging that Defendant misclassified its directed 20 study advisors as exempt employees and independent contractors. The Court 21 approved a class settlement. 22 g. Dilliehunt v. Togos, RG14750133 (Alameda Superior Court). Wage and hour 23 class action on behalf of store employees. The Court approved a class 24 settlement. 25 h. Donald v. Xanitos, 14-CV-05416 (United States District Court, N.D. Cal.). 26 Wage and hour class action alleging that Defendant misclassified its 27 environmental services supervisors as exempt employees and independent 28 contractors. The Court approved a class settlement. -10 - xxx v. Flexport, Inc. Emma Declaration ISO Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement 1 i. Flores v. Zales, CV-00539-TEH (United States District Court, N.D. Cal.). 2 Class action on behalf of retail store managers classified by Defendant as 3 exempt. Lawsuit alleged unpaid overtime, missed meal and rest breaks and 4 related wage and hour claims. The Court approved a class settlement. 5 j. Garcia v. Hoffman Southwest, 37-2010-00094333-CU-OE-CTL (San Diego 6 Superior Court). Wage and hour class action on behalf of service technicians. 7 The Court approved a class settlement. 8 k. Harris v. Kiddie Kandids, C-08-0852-PJH-MEJ (United States District Court, 9 N.D. Cal.). Class action on behalf of retail store managers classified by 10 Defendant as exempt. Lawsuit alleged unpaid overtime, missed meal and rest HOFFMAN EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS 1999 Harrison Street, 18th Floor 11 breaks and related wage and hour claims. The Court approved a class Oakland, CA 94612 12 settlement. (415) 362-1111 13 l. Ita v. Roto-Rooter, CIV 462474 (San Mateo County Superior Court). Wage and 14 hour class action on behalf of service technicians alleging unpaid overtime, 15 missed meal and rest breaks and related claims. The Court approved a class 16 settlement. 17 m. James v. Park n’ Fly Service, LLC, et al., 17-CIV-05465 (San Mateo County 18 Superior Court). Wage and hour class action on behalf of non-exempt, hourly 19 employees alleging unpaid overtime, missed meal and rest breaks and related 20 claims. The Court approved a class settlement. 21 n. Kellenbenz v. Seton Medical Center, CIV514600 (San Mateo Superior Court). 22 Class action on behalf of registered nurses alleging failure to pay for all hours 23 worked, missed meal/rest periods, and other wage and hour violations. The 24 Court approved a class settlement. 25 o. Lewis v. NAVCO, RG09480367 (Alameda County Superior Court). Wage and 26 hour class action on behalf of field service employees. The Court approved a 27 class settlement. 28 p. Martinez v. Occidental Petroleum Corporation, S-1500-CV-282523-TSC (Kern -11 - xxx v. Flexport, Inc. Emma Declaration ISO Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement 1 Superior Court). Wage and hour class action on behalf of non-exempt gas plant 2 operators alleging off-the-clock, meal period, rest period and derivative 3 violations. The Court preliminarily approved a class settlement and notice has 4 gone out to the class. 5 q. McClellan v. SFN Group, C10-05972 SBA (United States District Court, N.D. 6 Cal.). Wage and hour class action on behalf of recruiters alleging unpaid 7 overtime based on misclassification as exempt employees. The Court approved 8 a class settlement. 9 r. Nettles v. Pitney Bowes, RG08397421 (Alameda County Superior Court). 10 Wage and hour class action on behalf of field service technicians alleging HOFFMAN EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS 1999 Harrison Street, 18th Floor 11 unpaid overtime, missed meal and rest breaks and related claims. The Court Oakland, CA 94612 12 approved a class settlement. (415) 362-1111 13 s. Newman, et al. v. All-Pro Bail Bonds, Inc., RG16825571 (Alameda County 14 Superior Court). Wage and hour class action on behalf of non-exempt, hourly 15 employees alleging unpaid overtime, missed meal and rest breaks and related 16 claims. The Court approved a class settlement. 17 t. Robinson v. Nestle, 30-2011-00463094-CU-OE-CXC (Orange County Superior 18 Court). Wage and hour class action on behalf of route sales representatives. 19 The Court approved a class settlement. 20 u. Stymest v. Bill Howe Plumbing, 37-2007-00069216-CU-OE-CTL (San Diego 21 County Superior Court). Wage and hour class action on behalf of service 22 technicians alleging unpaid overtime, missed meal and rest breaks and related