Preview
Vinesign Doc jment ID: 8F1DB5E5-3E7C-4DC0-8749-12B09C26AC20
FlLED/E^OORSE D
1 Shaun Setareh (SBN 204514) FEB 1 ^ 2022
shaun@setarehlaw.com
2 WUUam M. Pao (SBN 219846)
william@setarehlaw.com By: E. Macdonald
Deputy Clerk
3 Jose Maria D. Patino, Jr. (SBN 270194)
jose@setarehlaw.com
4 Nolan E. DUts (SBN 328904)
nolan@setarehlaw. com
5 SETAREH LAW GROUP
9665 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 430
6 Beverly Hills, Califomia 90212
Telephone (310)888-7771
7 Facsimile (310) 888-0109
8 Attomeys for Plaintiff
TOMAS R. ARANA
9
10 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
11 FOR THE COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
12 UNLIMITED JURISDICTION
13 ANDREA SPEARS, an individual, on behalf Consolidated Case No.: 34-2017-00210560-CU-
of herself and on behalf of all persons similarly OE-GDS
14 situated,
DECLARATION OF SHAUN SETAREH IN
15 Plaintiff, SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' UNOPPOSED
V. MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL
16 OF CLASS SETTLEMEIVT
HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC., a
17 Califomia Corporation; and Does 1 through 50,
inclusive.
18 Date: March 10, 2022
Time: 9:00 a.m.
Defendants Place: Department 54
19
20 Reservation ID: 2617934
21 TOMAS R. ARANA, on behalf of himself, all Complaint Filed: January 14, 2019
others similarly situated,
22
Plaintiff,
23
24
HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC., a
25 Califomia corporation; and DOES 1-50,
inclusive,
26
Defendants.
27
28
DECLARATION OF SHAUN SETAREH IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR
The Signed dltcument can be validateS'^IM^Fy^P^fffe^iyn^foffrA^S^TTLEMENT
"lyo 0¥ rax
1 DECLARATION OF SHAUN SETAREH
2 I, Shaun Setareh, declare as follows:
3 1. I am an attomey in good standing duly admitted to the State Bar of California, the
4 principal attomey at Setareh Law Group, counsel of record for PlaintiflFTOMAS R. ARANA ("Arana")
5 in this consolidated action with Plaintiff ANDREA SPEARS ("Spears") {Arana and Spears, collectively,
6 "PlaintifTs") against Defendant HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC. ("Health Net" or
7 "Defendant") (PlaintifTs and Defendant, collectively, the "Parties"). This declaration is made in support
8 of Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of the Class Settlement filed concurrently
9 herewith.
10 2. Except for those matters stated on information and belief, which I am informed and
11 believe are tme and correct, I have personal knowledge of all matters set forth herein. If called as a
12 witness, I could and would competently testify thereto.
13 Experience and Adequacy of Plaintiff Arana's Counsel
14 3. 1 received my undergraduate degree from UCLA in 1996 and my law degree from Loyola
15 Law School in 1999. Since being admitted to the State Beir of Califomia in 1999,1 have actively
16 practiced civil litigation for the entirety of that time period.
17 4. Setareh Law Group and I, as its principal attomey, are well-experienced class action
18 attomeys. I, along with the senior attomey assigned to this case, William M. Pao, have considerable
19 experience in class action litigation. I, and the attomeys at Setareh Law Group, have been involved as
20 lead class counsel, co-lead class counsel, and other levels of involvement in over 100 wage-emd-hour,
21 consumer, and antitmst class action cases. Because of this, Setareh Law Group has more than 140
22 Westlaw citable opinions, including the following noteworthy appellate decisions:
23 State Appellate Decisions
24 a. Troester v. Starbucks Corporation, et a i , 5 Cal.5th 829 (2018) (reversed
25 summary judgment in favor of Defendants, issuing a landmark published decision that clarified
26 and rejected the application of the widely adopted federal de minimis doctrine to Califomia's
27 wage-and-hour laws). In this victory for Plaintiff in the Supreme Court of California, I was
28 appointed as Lead Counsel and received the Califomia Lawyer of the Year or "CLAY" award
1
DECLARATION OF SHAUN SETAREH IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT
1 for my work on the case.
2 Setareh Law Group has prevailed in its five most recent Ninth Circuit appeals. Three of the five cases
3 resulted in reversals of the trial court decision, with the remaining two cases {Harris and Parsittie)
4 afEiiming a decision favorable to the Plaintiff. These five cases are listed below:
5 Ninth Circuit Decisions
6 b. Tmester v. Starbucks Corp., 738 Fed. Appx. 562 (9th Cir. 2018) (Ninth Circuit
7 opinion following the Califomia Supreme Court answering the Ninth Circuit's certified
8 question).
9 c. Gilberg v. California Check Cashing Stores. LLC, 913 F.3d 1169 (9th Cir. 2019)
10 (vacated district court's summary judgment in favor of Defendants and remanded for further
11 proceedings, holding that Defendants' Fair Credit Reporting Act disclosure form lacked
12 sufficient clarity in a published opinion).
13 d. Rodriguez v. U.S. Healthworks, 813 Fed.Appx. 315 (9th Cir. 2020) (reversed
14 district court's summary judgement in favor of Defendants with instmctions to remand the action
15 to state court).
16 e. Harris v. KM Industrial, Inc., 980 F.3d 694 (9"^ Cir. November 13, 2020)
17 (affirmed the district court's granting of PlaintifTs motion to remand, holding in a published
18 opinion that Defendants had failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the
19 amount in controversy exceeded $5 million as required under the Class Action Faimess Act for
20 removal).
21 f Parsittie v. Schneider Logistics, Inc. et ai, Case No. 20-55470 (9th Cir. June 9,
22 2021) (reversed the district court's dismissal of PlaintifTs meal and rest break claims, holding
23
that PlaintifTs security check allegations were sufficient to state a claim for break-time violations
24
and remanding for further proceedings).
25
Class Counsel Appointments. The following is a sampling of class actions in which the Setareh
26
Law Group and I have been appointed as class counsel:
27
Federal Cases
28
g. Cerdenia v. USA Truck, Inc., U.S. District Court, Central District of Califomia,
2
DECLARATION OF SHAUN SETAREH IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT
1 Case No. 10-CV-1489-JVS (granted final approval in an action on behalf of tmck drivers for
2 meal and rest period violations, off-the-clock pre- and post-shift work, and unauthorized wage
3 deductions).
4 h. Fronda v. Stqffinark, U.S. District Court, Northem District of Califomia, Case
5 '^No. 15-CV-02315-MEJ (granted final approval in a case involving alleged uncompensated
6 security checks for warehouse workers).
7 i. Garcia v. 'Am. Gen. Fin. Mgmt. Corp., U.S. District Court, Central District of
8 California, Case No. 09-CV-1916 (granted final approval in a case filed on behalf of account
9 managers in case involving, among other things, alleged overtime miscalculations and meal and
10 rest period violations).
11 j . Jones V. Shred-It USA, Inc., U.S. District Court, Central District of Califomia,
12 Case No. 1 l-CV-00526 (granted final approval in a case brought on behalf of customer service
13 representatives and balers for alleged off-the-clock work and meal and rest period violations).
14 k. O We/7/ V. Genesis Logistics, Inc., U.S. District Court, Northem District of
15 California, Case No. 08-CV-4707 (granted final approval in a case involving claims for failure to
16 provide meal periods to employees who worked as drivers delivering goods to 7-11 stores
17 throughout Califomia and failure to pay final wages in a timely manner to terminated
18 employees).
' \9 1. Padilla v. UPS, U.S. District Court, Central District of Califomia, Case No. 08-
20 CV-1590 (granted final approval in a case involving claims for failure to provide meal periods to
21 part time employees engaged in sort operations and failure to pay final wages in a timely maimer
22 to terminated employees).
23 m. Pitrev. JFaZ-Mar/i'/oA-es,/«c., U.S. District Court, Central District of California,
24 Case No. 17-cv-01281 -DOC (granting class certification against Wal-Mart for a class of almost
25 5,000,000 in a Fair Credit Reporting Act action).
r
26 n. Utne v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., U.S. District Court, Northem District of
27 California, Case No. 16-cv-01854-RS (granting class certification against Home Depot in
28 connection with uncompensated off-the-clock work occurring at the start of all employee shifts
3
DECLARATION OF SHAUN SETAREH IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT
1 and at the end of closing shifts).
2 o. Vang v. Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse Corp., U.S. District Court, Central
3 District of Califomia Case No. 09-CV-8061 (granted final approval in a case involving, among
4 other things, vacation pay forfeitures, failures to provide meal and rest periods, and failures to
5 pay overtime wages based on employee misclassification).
6 p. Wilson V. TE Connectivity, Northem District of Califomia Case No. 3:14-cv-
7 04872-EDL (granted class certification through contested motion in case on behalf of
8 manufacturing facility employees subject to auto-deduction of meal breaks).
9 '' State Cases
10 q. Alvarez v. Gary Grace Enterprises, LP, Marin Superior Court, Case No. CIV
11 1002553 (granted final approval in a case on behalf of hair salon employees for overtime
12 miscalculation and related claims).
13 r. Butler v. Lexxiom, Inc., Sem Bernardino Superior Court, Case No. CFVRS
14 1001579 (granted final approval in an action on behalf of debt resolution center employees
15 alleging, among other things, meal and rest period violations and overtime calculation errors).
16 s. Calderon v. GreatCall, Inc., San Diego Superior Court, Case No. 37-2010-
17 00093743-CU-OE-CTL (granted final approval in a case on behalf of customer service
18 employees for, among other things, alleged meal and rest period violations and overtime
19 calculation errors).
20 t. Douglas V. California Credit Union, Los Angeles Superior Court, Case No.
21 BC445050 (granted final approval in a case on behalf of customer service representatives
22 alleging overtime miscalculation claims).
23 u. Green v. Staples Contract and Commercial, Inc., Los Angeles Superior Court,
24 Case No. BC389789 (granted final approval in a case involving claims for unprovided meal and
25 rest periods, inaccurate wage statements, waiting time penalties, and unfair business practices on
26 behalf of tmck drivers delivering Staples office supplies in Califomia).
27 V. Green v. Universal Music Group, Los Angeles Superior Court, Case No.
28 BC374253 (granted final approval in a case involving misclassification claims of current or
4
DECLARATION OF SHAUN SETAREH IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT
1 former IT Support employees, including engineers, server analysts, desktop support, and
2 technical leads).
3 w. Sandoval v. Rite Aid Corp., Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case No.
4 BC431249 (granted class certification through contested motion in case on behalf of former
5 pharmacy employees based on late final wage payments in violation of Labor Code §§ 201-203;
6 subsequently granted final approval of class action settlement).
7 x. Spokes V. Lush Cosmetics, LLC, Los Angeles Superior Court, Case No.
8 BC391397 (granted final approval in a case alleging failures to provide meal and rest periods and
9 failure to timely pay all final wages to Califomia sales associates and key holders).
10 y. Valencia v. SCISAir Security Corp., Los Angeles Superior Court, Case No.
11 BC421485 (granted class certification through contested motion in case on behalf of former
12 security workers based on late final wage payments in violation of Labor Code §§ 201-203;
13 subsequently granted preliminary approval of proposed class action settlement).
14 5. As the above shows, the Setareh Law Group and 1 have substantial experience in wage-
15 and-hour class action litigation, including actions alleging failure to provide meal and/or rest periods,
16 failure to pay wages, failure to provide accurate wage statements, failure to provide timely final wage
17 payments, and other related claims. We are knowledgeable about the applicable law and have worked
18 diligently to investigate and identify the potential claims in this action. I will continue to commit my
19 firm's resources tofiirtherthe interests of the Class. I and my firm have no conflicts of interest with
20 Plaintiffs or with absent class members.
21 Adequacy of Plaintiff Arana and Typicality of His Claims
22 6. Plaintiff Arana is a typical class representative. Like Settlement Class Members, Arana
23 was an hourly non-exempt employee of Defendant in Califomia during the Class Period. Mr. Arana
24 alleges he was not paid for all hours worked due to off-the-clock work and due to improper rounding
25 practices, was misclassified as an exempt employee rather than non-exempt, was not provided with
26 compliant meal and rest breaks, did not receive all overtime wages owed due to Defendant's failure to
27 calculate such wages based upon the correct regular rate of pay, and did not receive accurate wage
28 statements. Plaintiff Arana has no conflict of interest with the Settlement Class Members and has agreed
5
DECLARATION OF SHAUN SETAREH IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT
1 to place the Class's interests above his own. Setareh Law Group also has no conflicts of interest with the
2 Settlement Class Members.
3 7. The requested service award of $ 10,000 to Plaintiff Arana is warranted. Mr. Arana spent
4 considerable time speaking with his counsel, gathering documents, responding to discovery, having his
5 deposition taken by Defendant, participating in mediation, and reviewing the Settlement. He also took
6 on the risk of facing intmsive discovery, facing a potential costs award, and the risk that being involved
7 in litigation would be viewed unfavorably by potential employers.
8 Reasonableness and Fairness of Fees to Be Sought by Class Counsel
9 8. The amount of Class Counsel's fee request (one-third of the Gross Settlement Amount) is
10 reasonable as a percentage of the settlement fund. Setareh Law Group and I have been awarded
11 attorneys' fees equaling approximately one-third of the fiind in several recent wage and hour class
12 actions, including, but not limited to: O'Brien v. Optima Network Services, Inc., San Bemeirdino County
13 Superior Court, Case No. CIVRS1107056 (one-third of settlement fund); Noyd v. The Cristcat Group, et
14 ai, Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case No. BC439558 (one-third of settlement fund); Perez v.
15 Southwest Dealer Services, Inc., Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case No. BC439253 (one-third of
16 settlement fund); Alvarez v. Gary Grace Enterprises, LP, Marin County Superior Court, Case No.
17 CrV 1002553 (one-third of settlement fiind); Calderon v. GreatcaU, Inc., San Diego Superior Court, Case
18 No. 37-2010-00093743-CU-OE-CTL (one-third of settlement fiind); Butler v. Lexxiom, Inc., San
19 Bemardino County Superior Court, Case No. CIVRS 1001579 (one-third of settlement fund); Huynh v.
20 Carefusion Resources, LLC, et al San Diego County Superior Court, Case No. 37-2009-00103277-CU-
21 OE-CTL (one-third of settlement flind); Stucker v. L'Oreal USA S/D, Inc., Los Angeles County Superior
22 Court, Case No. BC456080 (one-third of settlement fund); Sandoval v. Thrifty Payless, Inc., Los Angeles
23 County Superior Court, Case No. BC431249 (one-third of settlement fiind); Tucker v. Maly's West, Inc.,
24 Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case No. BC483920 (one-third of settlement fund); Tiwari v.
25 Merrill's Packaging, San Mateo Superior Court, Case No. 519070 (one-third of settlement fund);
26 Montgomery v. Del Monte Corp., et al. Kings County Case No. 13C0204 (one-third of settlement fiind);
27 Adams v. Medical Staffing Network et al, Sacramento County Case No. 34-2012-00137491 -CU-OE-
28
GDS (33% of gross settlement fijnd).
6
DECLARATION OF SHAUN SETAREH IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT
1 Fair and Reasonable Settlement
2 9. I believe that the Settlement is in the best interest of the Class Members based on
3 Plaintiffs' investigation and discovery, my detailed understanding of the issues raised, and the outcome
4 of extensive settlement negotiations. The settlement is fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the Class
5 Members' best interest. Plaintiffs' counsel balanced the Settlement against the probable outcome of
6 class certification, liabiUty, the range of recovery at trial, therisksof losing class certification, losing at
7 trial, or not recovering as much as provided by the proposed Settlement, as well as the difficulties and
8 complexity of the Utigation, the lengthy process of litigating to judgment, and the various possible delays
9 and appeals.
10
11 I declare under the penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of Califomia that the foregoing is
12 tme and correct to the best of my knowledge. Executed 02/09/2022 in Beverly Hills, Califomia.
13
14
15 Shaun Setareh
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DECLARATION OF SHAUN SETAREH IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT
RECEIVED
LAW Af^D MOTIOH DROP BOX
MFEBII+ mU'U2
GIJSSC CfiURTHC-.S';
SUPERU1R CC-jRl
OF CALIf-Cf-.NlA
SACRAMENTO JOUNTV
Preview
Vinesign Doc jment ID: 8F1DB5E5-3E7C-4DC0-8749-12B09C26AC20 FlLED/E^OORSE D 1 Shaun Setareh (SBN 204514) FEB 1 ^ 2022 shaun@setarehlaw.com 2 WUUam M. Pao (SBN 219846) william@setarehlaw.com By: E. Macdonald Deputy Clerk 3 Jose Maria D. Patino, Jr. (SBN 270194) jose@setarehlaw.com 4 Nolan E. DUts (SBN 328904) nolan@setarehlaw. com 5 SETAREH LAW GROUP 9665 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 430 6 Beverly Hills, Califomia 90212 Telephone (310)888-7771 7 Facsimile (310) 888-0109 8 Attomeys for Plaintiff TOMAS R. ARANA 9 10 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 11 FOR THE COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 12 UNLIMITED JURISDICTION 13 ANDREA SPEARS, an individual, on behalf Consolidated Case No.: 34-2017-00210560-CU- of herself and on behalf of all persons similarly OE-GDS 14 situated, DECLARATION OF SHAUN SETAREH IN 15 Plaintiff, SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' UNOPPOSED V. MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL 16 OF CLASS SETTLEMEIVT HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC., a 17 Califomia Corporation; and Does 1 through 50, inclusive. 18 Date: March 10, 2022 Time: 9:00 a.m. Defendants Place: Department 54 19 20 Reservation ID: 2617934 21 TOMAS R. ARANA, on behalf of himself, all Complaint Filed: January 14, 2019 others similarly situated, 22 Plaintiff, 23 24 HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC., a 25 Califomia corporation; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, 26 Defendants. 27 28 DECLARATION OF SHAUN SETAREH IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR The Signed dltcument can be validateS'^IM^Fy^P^fffe^iyn^foffrA^S^TTLEMENT "lyo 0¥ rax 1 DECLARATION OF SHAUN SETAREH 2 I, Shaun Setareh, declare as follows: 3 1. I am an attomey in good standing duly admitted to the State Bar of California, the 4 principal attomey at Setareh Law Group, counsel of record for PlaintiflFTOMAS R. ARANA ("Arana") 5 in this consolidated action with Plaintiff ANDREA SPEARS ("Spears") {Arana and Spears, collectively, 6 "PlaintifTs") against Defendant HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC. ("Health Net" or 7 "Defendant") (PlaintifTs and Defendant, collectively, the "Parties"). This declaration is made in support 8 of Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of the Class Settlement filed concurrently 9 herewith. 10 2. Except for those matters stated on information and belief, which I am informed and 11 believe are tme and correct, I have personal knowledge of all matters set forth herein. If called as a 12 witness, I could and would competently testify thereto. 13 Experience and Adequacy of Plaintiff Arana's Counsel 14 3. 1 received my undergraduate degree from UCLA in 1996 and my law degree from Loyola 15 Law School in 1999. Since being admitted to the State Beir of Califomia in 1999,1 have actively 16 practiced civil litigation for the entirety of that time period. 17 4. Setareh Law Group and I, as its principal attomey, are well-experienced class action 18 attomeys. I, along with the senior attomey assigned to this case, William M. Pao, have considerable 19 experience in class action litigation. I, and the attomeys at Setareh Law Group, have been involved as 20 lead class counsel, co-lead class counsel, and other levels of involvement in over 100 wage-emd-hour, 21 consumer, and antitmst class action cases. Because of this, Setareh Law Group has more than 140 22 Westlaw citable opinions, including the following noteworthy appellate decisions: 23 State Appellate Decisions 24 a. Troester v. Starbucks Corporation, et a i , 5 Cal.5th 829 (2018) (reversed 25 summary judgment in favor of Defendants, issuing a landmark published decision that clarified 26 and rejected the application of the widely adopted federal de minimis doctrine to Califomia's 27 wage-and-hour laws). In this victory for Plaintiff in the Supreme Court of California, I was 28 appointed as Lead Counsel and received the Califomia Lawyer of the Year or "CLAY" award 1 DECLARATION OF SHAUN SETAREH IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT 1 for my work on the case. 2 Setareh Law Group has prevailed in its five most recent Ninth Circuit appeals. Three of the five cases 3 resulted in reversals of the trial court decision, with the remaining two cases {Harris and Parsittie) 4 afEiiming a decision favorable to the Plaintiff. These five cases are listed below: 5 Ninth Circuit Decisions 6 b. Tmester v. Starbucks Corp., 738 Fed. Appx. 562 (9th Cir. 2018) (Ninth Circuit 7 opinion following the Califomia Supreme Court answering the Ninth Circuit's certified 8 question). 9 c. Gilberg v. California Check Cashing Stores. LLC, 913 F.3d 1169 (9th Cir. 2019) 10 (vacated district court's summary judgment in favor of Defendants and remanded for further 11 proceedings, holding that Defendants' Fair Credit Reporting Act disclosure form lacked 12 sufficient clarity in a published opinion). 13 d. Rodriguez v. U.S. Healthworks, 813 Fed.Appx. 315 (9th Cir. 2020) (reversed 14 district court's summary judgement in favor of Defendants with instmctions to remand the action 15 to state court). 16 e. Harris v. KM Industrial, Inc., 980 F.3d 694 (9"^ Cir. November 13, 2020) 17 (affirmed the district court's granting of PlaintifTs motion to remand, holding in a published 18 opinion that Defendants had failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the 19 amount in controversy exceeded $5 million as required under the Class Action Faimess Act for 20 removal). 21 f Parsittie v. Schneider Logistics, Inc. et ai, Case No. 20-55470 (9th Cir. June 9, 22 2021) (reversed the district court's dismissal of PlaintifTs meal and rest break claims, holding 23 that PlaintifTs security check allegations were sufficient to state a claim for break-time violations 24 and remanding for further proceedings). 25 Class Counsel Appointments. The following is a sampling of class actions in which the Setareh 26 Law Group and I have been appointed as class counsel: 27 Federal Cases 28 g. Cerdenia v. USA Truck, Inc., U.S. District Court, Central District of Califomia, 2 DECLARATION OF SHAUN SETAREH IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT 1 Case No. 10-CV-1489-JVS (granted final approval in an action on behalf of tmck drivers for 2 meal and rest period violations, off-the-clock pre- and post-shift work, and unauthorized wage 3 deductions). 4 h. Fronda v. Stqffinark, U.S. District Court, Northem District of Califomia, Case 5 '^No. 15-CV-02315-MEJ (granted final approval in a case involving alleged uncompensated 6 security checks for warehouse workers). 7 i. Garcia v. 'Am. Gen. Fin. Mgmt. Corp., U.S. District Court, Central District of 8 California, Case No. 09-CV-1916 (granted final approval in a case filed on behalf of account 9 managers in case involving, among other things, alleged overtime miscalculations and meal and 10 rest period violations). 11 j . Jones V. Shred-It USA, Inc., U.S. District Court, Central District of Califomia, 12 Case No. 1 l-CV-00526 (granted final approval in a case brought on behalf of customer service 13 representatives and balers for alleged off-the-clock work and meal and rest period violations). 14 k. O We/7/ V. Genesis Logistics, Inc., U.S. District Court, Northem District of 15 California, Case No. 08-CV-4707 (granted final approval in a case involving claims for failure to 16 provide meal periods to employees who worked as drivers delivering goods to 7-11 stores 17 throughout Califomia and failure to pay final wages in a timely manner to terminated 18 employees). ' \9 1. Padilla v. UPS, U.S. District Court, Central District of Califomia, Case No. 08- 20 CV-1590 (granted final approval in a case involving claims for failure to provide meal periods to 21 part time employees engaged in sort operations and failure to pay final wages in a timely maimer 22 to terminated employees). 23 m. Pitrev. JFaZ-Mar/i'/oA-es,/«c., U.S. District Court, Central District of California, 24 Case No. 17-cv-01281 -DOC (granting class certification against Wal-Mart for a class of almost 25 5,000,000 in a Fair Credit Reporting Act action). r 26 n. Utne v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., U.S. District Court, Northem District of 27 California, Case No. 16-cv-01854-RS (granting class certification against Home Depot in 28 connection with uncompensated off-the-clock work occurring at the start of all employee shifts 3 DECLARATION OF SHAUN SETAREH IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT 1 and at the end of closing shifts). 2 o. Vang v. Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse Corp., U.S. District Court, Central 3 District of Califomia Case No. 09-CV-8061 (granted final approval in a case involving, among 4 other things, vacation pay forfeitures, failures to provide meal and rest periods, and failures to 5 pay overtime wages based on employee misclassification). 6 p. Wilson V. TE Connectivity, Northem District of Califomia Case No. 3:14-cv- 7 04872-EDL (granted class certification through contested motion in case on behalf of 8 manufacturing facility employees subject to auto-deduction of meal breaks). 9 '' State Cases 10 q. Alvarez v. Gary Grace Enterprises, LP, Marin Superior Court, Case No. CIV 11 1002553 (granted final approval in a case on behalf of hair salon employees for overtime 12 miscalculation and related claims). 13 r. Butler v. Lexxiom, Inc., Sem Bernardino Superior Court, Case No. CFVRS 14 1001579 (granted final approval in an action on behalf of debt resolution center employees 15 alleging, among other things, meal and rest period violations and overtime calculation errors). 16 s. Calderon v. GreatCall, Inc., San Diego Superior Court, Case No. 37-2010- 17 00093743-CU-OE-CTL (granted final approval in a case on behalf of customer service 18 employees for, among other things, alleged meal and rest period violations and overtime 19 calculation errors). 20 t. Douglas V. California Credit Union, Los Angeles Superior Court, Case No. 21 BC445050 (granted final approval in a case on behalf of customer service representatives 22 alleging overtime miscalculation claims). 23 u. Green v. Staples Contract and Commercial, Inc., Los Angeles Superior Court, 24 Case No. BC389789 (granted final approval in a case involving claims for unprovided meal and 25 rest periods, inaccurate wage statements, waiting time penalties, and unfair business practices on 26 behalf of tmck drivers delivering Staples office supplies in Califomia). 27 V. Green v. Universal Music Group, Los Angeles Superior Court, Case No. 28 BC374253 (granted final approval in a case involving misclassification claims of current or 4 DECLARATION OF SHAUN SETAREH IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT 1 former IT Support employees, including engineers, server analysts, desktop support, and 2 technical leads). 3 w. Sandoval v. Rite Aid Corp., Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case No. 4 BC431249 (granted class certification through contested motion in case on behalf of former 5 pharmacy employees based on late final wage payments in violation of Labor Code §§ 201-203; 6 subsequently granted final approval of class action settlement). 7 x. Spokes V. Lush Cosmetics, LLC, Los Angeles Superior Court, Case No. 8 BC391397 (granted final approval in a case alleging failures to provide meal and rest periods and 9 failure to timely pay all final wages to Califomia sales associates and key holders). 10 y. Valencia v. SCISAir Security Corp., Los Angeles Superior Court, Case No. 11 BC421485 (granted class certification through contested motion in case on behalf of former 12 security workers based on late final wage payments in violation of Labor Code §§ 201-203; 13 subsequently granted preliminary approval of proposed class action settlement). 14 5. As the above shows, the Setareh Law Group and 1 have substantial experience in wage- 15 and-hour class action litigation, including actions alleging failure to provide meal and/or rest periods, 16 failure to pay wages, failure to provide accurate wage statements, failure to provide timely final wage 17 payments, and other related claims. We are knowledgeable about the applicable law and have worked 18 diligently to investigate and identify the potential claims in this action. I will continue to commit my 19 firm's resources tofiirtherthe interests of the Class. I and my firm have no conflicts of interest with 20 Plaintiffs or with absent class members. 21 Adequacy of Plaintiff Arana and Typicality of His Claims 22 6. Plaintiff Arana is a typical class representative. Like Settlement Class Members, Arana 23 was an hourly non-exempt employee of Defendant in Califomia during the Class Period. Mr. Arana 24 alleges he was not paid for all hours worked due to off-the-clock work and due to improper rounding 25 practices, was misclassified as an exempt employee rather than non-exempt, was not provided with 26 compliant meal and rest breaks, did not receive all overtime wages owed due to Defendant's failure to 27 calculate such wages based upon the correct regular rate of pay, and did not receive accurate wage 28 statements. Plaintiff Arana has no conflict of interest with the Settlement Class Members and has agreed 5 DECLARATION OF SHAUN SETAREH IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT 1 to place the Class's interests above his own. Setareh Law Group also has no conflicts of interest with the 2 Settlement Class Members. 3 7. The requested service award of $ 10,000 to Plaintiff Arana is warranted. Mr. Arana spent 4 considerable time speaking with his counsel, gathering documents, responding to discovery, having his 5 deposition taken by Defendant, participating in mediation, and reviewing the Settlement. He also took 6 on the risk of facing intmsive discovery, facing a potential costs award, and the risk that being involved 7 in litigation would be viewed unfavorably by potential employers. 8 Reasonableness and Fairness of Fees to Be Sought by Class Counsel 9 8. The amount of Class Counsel's fee request (one-third of the Gross Settlement Amount) is 10 reasonable as a percentage of the settlement fund. Setareh Law Group and I have been awarded 11 attorneys' fees equaling approximately one-third of the fiind in several recent wage and hour class 12 actions, including, but not limited to: O'Brien v. Optima Network Services, Inc., San Bemeirdino County 13 Superior Court, Case No. CIVRS1107056 (one-third of settlement fund); Noyd v. The Cristcat Group, et 14 ai, Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case No. BC439558 (one-third of settlement fund); Perez v. 15 Southwest Dealer Services, Inc., Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case No. BC439253 (one-third of 16 settlement fund); Alvarez v. Gary Grace Enterprises, LP, Marin County Superior Court, Case No. 17 CrV 1002553 (one-third of settlement fiind); Calderon v. GreatcaU, Inc., San Diego Superior Court, Case 18 No. 37-2010-00093743-CU-OE-CTL (one-third of settlement fiind); Butler v. Lexxiom, Inc., San 19 Bemardino County Superior Court, Case No. CIVRS 1001579 (one-third of settlement fund); Huynh v. 20 Carefusion Resources, LLC, et al San Diego County Superior Court, Case No. 37-2009-00103277-CU- 21 OE-CTL (one-third of settlement flind); Stucker v. L'Oreal USA S/D, Inc., Los Angeles County Superior 22 Court, Case No. BC456080 (one-third of settlement fund); Sandoval v. Thrifty Payless, Inc., Los Angeles 23 County Superior Court, Case No. BC431249 (one-third of settlement fiind); Tucker v. Maly's West, Inc., 24 Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case No. BC483920 (one-third of settlement fund); Tiwari v. 25 Merrill's Packaging, San Mateo Superior Court, Case No. 519070 (one-third of settlement fund); 26 Montgomery v. Del Monte Corp., et al. Kings County Case No. 13C0204 (one-third of settlement fiind); 27 Adams v. Medical Staffing Network et al, Sacramento County Case No. 34-2012-00137491 -CU-OE- 28 GDS (33% of gross settlement fijnd). 6 DECLARATION OF SHAUN SETAREH IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT 1 Fair and Reasonable Settlement 2 9. I believe that the Settlement is in the best interest of the Class Members based on 3 Plaintiffs' investigation and discovery, my detailed understanding of the issues raised, and the outcome 4 of extensive settlement negotiations. The settlement is fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the Class 5 Members' best interest. Plaintiffs' counsel balanced the Settlement against the probable outcome of 6 class certification, liabiUty, the range of recovery at trial, therisksof losing class certification, losing at 7 trial, or not recovering as much as provided by the proposed Settlement, as well as the difficulties and 8 complexity of the Utigation, the lengthy process of litigating to judgment, and the various possible delays 9 and appeals. 10 11 I declare under the penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of Califomia that the foregoing is 12 tme and correct to the best of my knowledge. Executed 02/09/2022 in Beverly Hills, Califomia. 13 14 15 Shaun Setareh 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DECLARATION OF SHAUN SETAREH IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT RECEIVED LAW Af^D MOTIOH DROP BOX MFEBII+ mU'U2 GIJSSC CfiURTHC-.S'; SUPERU1R CC-jRl OF CALIf-Cf-.NlA SACRAMENTO JOUNTV