Preview
ORIGINAL
Superior Court Of C3lifor|nia,
SBcramentD
06/17/2022
Shaun Setareh (SBN 204514) atum9r4
shaun@setarehlaw.com Bv , D<»p|ity
2 William M. Pao (SBN 219846) Case Number:
william@setarehlaw.com
3 SETAREH LAW GROUP 34-2017"00210560
9665 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 430
4 Beverly Hills, California 90212
Telephone (310) 888-7771
5 Facsimile (310) 888-0109
6 BLUMENTHAL NORDREHAUG BHOWMIK
DE BLOUW LLP
7 Norman B. Blumenthal (State Bar #068687)
Kyle R. Nordrehaug (State Bar #205975)
8 Aparajit Bhowmik (State Bar #248066)
>- 2255 Calle Clara
9- La Jolla, CA 92037 -
CD Telephone: (858) 551-1223
10 Facsimile: (858) 551-1232
Email: Kyle@bamlawca.com
11
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
12 ANDREA SPEARS and TOMAS ARANA
13
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
14
FOR THE COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
15
ANDREA SPEARS, an individual, on behalf Consolidated Case No. 34-2017-00210560-
16 of herself and on behalf of all persons CU-OE-GDS
similarly situated.
17 Assigned For All Purposes to the Honorable
Plaintiff, Jill H. Taley, Department 25
18
DECLARATION OF SHAUN SETAREH
19 HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC., a IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION
California Corporation; and Does 1 through FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS
20 50, inclusive, ACTION SETTLEMENT
21 Defendants. Date: July 12, 2022
Time: 9:00 a.m.
22 TOMAS R. ARANA, on behalf of himself, all Courtroom: Department 25
others similarly situated,
23 Original Complaint Filed: April 5, 2017
Plaintiff, FAC Filed: June 29, 2017
24 Consolidated Complaint Filed: Dec. 21, 2017
25
HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC., a
26 California corporation; and DOES 1-50,
inclusive.
27
28 Defendants.
DECLARATION OF SHAUN SETAREH IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF
CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
DECLARATION OF SHAUN SETAREH
2 I, Shaun Setareh, declare as follows:
'3 1. 1 am an attomey in good standing duly admitted to the State Bar of Califomia, the
4 principal attomey at Setareh Law Group, counsel of record for PlaintiflFTOMAS R. ARANA, ("Arana")
5 in this action along with PlaintiflF ANDREA SPEARS ("Spears") (both collectively referred to as
6 "Plaintiffs") who is represented by Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP against
7 Defendant HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC. ("Health Net" or "Defendant"). This declaration is
8 made in support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Award of Attorneys' Fees, Costs and Service Awards.
9 2. Except for those matters stated on information and belief, which I am informed and
10 believe are true and correct, I have personal knowledge of all matters set forth herein. If called as a
11 witness, I could and would competently testify thereto.
12 Adequacy
13 3. I have no known conflicts of interest with PlaintifF or with absent Class Members, and I
14 am aware of no conflicts of interest between PlaintifF and absent Class Members. Furthermore,
15 throughout this litigation, Plaintiffhas pursued the interests of the Class above her own interests.
16 4. I received my undergraduate degree from UCLA in 1996 and my law degree from
17 Loyola Law School in 1999. Since being admitted to the State Bar ofCalifornia in 1999,1 have actively
18 practiced civil litigation for the entirety of that time period.
19 5. Setareh Law Group and I, as its principal attomey, are well-experienced class action
20 attomeys. I, along with the senior attomey assigned to this case, Thomas Segal, have considerable
21 experience in class action litigation. 1, and the attomeys at Setareh Law Group, have been involved as
22 lead class counsel, co-lead class counsel, and other levels of involvement in over 100 wage-and-hour,
23 consumer, and antitrust class action cases. Because of this, Setareh Law Group has more than 250
24 Westlaw citable opinions, including the following noteworthy appellate decisions:
25 State Appellate Decisions
26 a. Troester v. Starbucks Corporation, et al, 5 Cal.5th 829 (2018) (reversed summary
27 judgment in favor of Defendants, issuing a landmark published decision that clarified and rejected the
28 application of the widely adopted federal de minimis doctrine to Califomia's wage-and-hour laws). Due
DECLARATION OF SHAUN SETAREH IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF
CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
1 to the significance and importance of this seminal victory before the Califomia Supreme Court, I
2 received the Califomia Lawyer of the Year or "CLAY" award from the Daily Joumal for my work on
3 the case.
4 b. Allen v. Labor Ready Southwest, Inc. (2013) 2013 WL 1910293 (reversing an Order
5 from the Superior Court of Los Angeles County compelling\PlaintifPs claims to arbitration, finding that
6 Defendant waived the right to compel arbitration by litigating the merits of Plaintiffs arbitrable federal
7 and state claims).
8 Setareh Law Group has prevailed in its six most recent Ninth Circuit appeals. Four of the six
9 cases resulted in reversals of the trial court decision, with the remaining two cases {Harris and Parsittie)
10 affirming a decision favorable to the PlaintifF. These six cases are listed below:
11 Ninth Circuit Decisions
12 c. Troester v. Starbucks Corp., 738 Fed. Appx. 562 (9th Cir. 2018) (Ninth Circuit opinion
13 following the Califomia Supreme Court answering the Ninth Circuit's certified question).
14 d. Gilberg v. California Check Cashing Stores, LLC, 913 F.3d 1169 (9th Cir. 2019)
15 (vacated district court's summary judgment in favor of Defendants and remanded for further
16 proceedings, holding that Defendants' Fair Credit Reporting Act disclosure form lacked sufficient
17 clarity in a published opinion).
18 e. Rodriguez v. U.S Healthworks, 813 Fed.Appx. 315 (9th Cir. 2020) (reversed district
19 court's summary judgement in favor of Defendants with instructions to remand the action to state court).
20 f Harris v. K M Industrial, Inc., 980 F.3d 694 (9* Cir. November 13, 2020) (affirmed the
21 district court's granting of PlaintifPs motion to remand, holding in a published opinion that Defendants
22 had failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeded $5
23 million as required under the Class Action Faimess Act for removal).
24 g. Parsittie v. Schneider Logistics, Inc et ai, Case No. 20-55470 (9th Cir. June 9, 2021)
/ 25 (reversed the district court's dismissal of Plaintiffs meal and rest break claims, holding that PlaintifTs
26 security check allegations were sufficient to state a claim for break-time violations and remanding for
27 further proceedings).
28 h. Ahlstrom v. DHIMortg Co., Ltd., L.P.,2\ F.4th 631 (9th Cir. December 29, 2021)
2
DECLARATION OF SHAUN SETAREH IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF
CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
(reversed the district court's ruling compelling claims to arbitration, holding that parties cannot delegate
2 issues of formation of an arbitration agreement to the arbitrator for determination).
3 i. Allen v. Bedolla, 787 F.3d 1218 (9* Cir. June 2, 2015) (affirming the district court's
4 Order denying objector's motion to intervene ahd remanding to the district court where settlement was
5 granted final approval. Final approval was upheld on a subsequent appeal in the 9* Cir. [see Bedolla v.
6 Allen, 736 Fed.Appx. 614 (9"^ Cir. May 18, 2018)]).
7 Class Counsel Appointments. The following is a sampling of class actions in which the
8 Setareh Law Group and I have been appointed as class counsel:
9 Federal Cases
10 j. Cerdenia v. USA Truck, Inc., U.S. District Court, Central District of Califomia, Case No.
11 10-CV-1489-JVS (granted final approval in an action on behalf of truck drivers for meal and rest period
12 violations, off-the-clock pre- and post-shift work, and unauthorized wage deductions).
13 k. Fronda v. Staffmark, U.S. District Court, Northem District of Califomia, Case No. 15-
14 CV-02315-MEJ (granted final approval in a case involving alleged uncompensated security checks for
15 warehouse workers).
16 I. Garcia v. Am. Gen. Fin. Mgmt. Corp., U.S. District Court, Central District of Califomia,
17 Case No. 09-CV-1916 (granted final approval in a casefiledon behalf of account managers in case
18 involving, among other things, alleged overtime miscalculations and meal and rest period violations).
19 m. Jones v. Shred-It USA, Inc., U.S. District Court, Central District of Califomia, Case No.
20 I l-CV-00526 (granted final approval in a case brought on behalf of customer service representatives
21 and balers for alleged off-the-clock work and meal and rest period violations).
22 n. O 'Neill v. Genesis Logistics, Inc., U.S. District Court, Northem District of Califomia,
23 Case No. 08-CV-4707 (granted final approval in a case involving claims for failure to proyide meal
24 periods to employees who worked as drivers delivering goods to 7-11 stores throughout Califomia and
25 failure to payfinalwages in a timely manner to terminated employees).
26 o. Padilla v. UPS, U.S. District Court, Central District of Califomia, Case No. 08-CV-l 590
27 (granted final approval in a case involving claims for failure to provide meal periods to part time
28 employees engaged in sort operations and failure to pay final wages in a timely manner to terminated
3
DECLARATION OF SHAUN SETAREH IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF
CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
I employees).
2 p. Pitre V. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., U.S. District Court, Central District of Califomia, Case
3 No. 17-CV-01281-DOC (granting class certification in a highly contested Action against Wal-Mart for a
4 class of almost 5,000,000 in a Fair Credit Reporting Act action).
5 q. Utne v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., U.S. District Court, Northem District of Califomia,
6 Case No. 16-cv-Ol 854-RS (granting class certification in a highly contested Action against Home Depot
7 in connection with uncompensated off-the-clock work occurring at the start of all employee shifts and at
8 the end of closing shifts).
9 r. Vang v. Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse Corp., U.S. District Court, Central District
10 of Califomia Case No. 09-CV-8061 (granted final approval in a case involving, among other things,
11 vacation pay forfeitures, failures to provide meal and rest periods, and failures to pay overtime wages
12 based on employee misclassification).
13 s. Wilson V. TE Connectivity, Northem District of Califomia Case No. 3:14-cv-04872-EDL
14 (granted class certification through contested motion in case on behalf of manufacturing facility
15 employees subject to auto-deduction of meal breaks).
16 State Cases
17 t. Sandoval v. Rite Aid Corp., Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case No. BC431249
18 (granted class certification through contested motion in case on behalf of former pharmacy enriployees
19 based on late final wage payments in violation of Labor Code §§ 201-203; subsequently granted final
20 approval of class action settlement).
21 u. Valencia v. SCIS A ir Security Corp., Los Angeles Superior Court, Case No. BC421485
22 (granted class certification through contested motion in case on behalf of former security workers based
23 on late final wage payments in violation of Labor Code §§ 201-203; subsequently granted preliminary
24 approval of proposed class action settlement).
25 6. As the above shows, I have substantial experience in wage-and-hour class action
26 litigation, including actions alleging failure to provide meal and/or rest periods, failure to pay wages,
27 failure to provide accurate wage statements, failure to provide timely final wage payments, and other
28 related claims. I am knowledgeable about the applicable law, have worked diligently to investigate and
DECLARATION OF SHAUN SETAREH IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF
CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
identify the potential claims in this action, and will continue to commit myfirm'sresources to further the
2 interests of the Class. I and my firm have no conflicts of interest with Plaintiffs and with absent class
3 members.
4 Lodestar
5 7. The Setareh Law Group has done extensive work in connection with this case, including
6 but not limited to conducting the initial investigation of the case and developing the facts and theories
7 regarding the claims asserted in this case, reviewing thousands of pages of documents obtained in
8 discovery, opposing Defendant's various modons to strike, demurrer, motions for summary adjudication,
9 defending Arana's deposition, conducting a review of the record and preparing a thorough mediation
10 brief and damage analysis in preparation for mediation, engaging in contention arm's-length negotiation
11 at the mediation, and working with all parties to prepare the Settlement Agreement, related forms, and
12 approval motions.
13 8. The Setareh Law Group prosecuted this matter on a contingency basis meawning that if
14 the case were unsuccessful the firm would have received no compensation or reimbursement of costs.
15 The time spent on the litigation took a considerable amount of time and effort that could have been spent
16 on other fee generating work.
17 9. I have reviewed the work performed on the case and the billing entered by the attomeys
18 working on this case at myfirm.The table below includes a summary of all the hours worked. My
19 firm's lodestar is currently $$373,316.75.
20 10. Looking at the work of attomeys for Plaintiff in this matter, the lodestar for all firm
21 attomeys involved in this matter is estimated to be as follows:
22 Attorney Bar Year Hourly Rate . Hours Total Fees
23 Shaun Setareh 1999 $925.00 65.5 $60,587.50
24 William M Pao 2002 $900.00 208.42 $187,578.00
25 Jose Patino 2010 $725.00 19.25 $13,956.25
26
Alex Mcintosh 2018 $425.00 2.75 $1,168.75
27
Li lit Ter-Astvatsatryan 2018 $425.00 72.05. $30,621.25
28
DECLARATION OF SHAUN SETAREH IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF
CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
I Nolan Dilts 2019 $350.00 12.6 $5,040.00
2 Christopher Orlando 2020 $375.00 0.4 $150.00
3 Ashley Batiste 2017 $475.00 55 $26,125.00
4 Farrah Grant 2013 $650.00 9.25 $6,012.50
5 H. Scott Leviant 1999 $925.00 32.6 $30,155.00
6 Stacey Shim 2015 $550.00 14.45 $7,947.50
7 Lauren Farrington (Para egal) $125.00 3.80 $475.00
8 Daisy Sanchez (Paralegal) $125.00 28 $3,500.00
9
Total 524.07 $373316.75'
10
11
11. Plaintiffs counsel will incur approximately 5 additional hours in preparing for the final
12
approval hearing, appearing at the final approval hearing, communicating with class members, and
13
communicating with the Settlement Administrator.
14
Litigation Costs
15
12. Setareh Law Group incurred costs of $31,559.04 for, out-of-pocket costs and expenses
16
actually incurred in connection with this action. Attached as Exhibit A is a spreadsheet detailing the
17
costs incurred by my firm.
18
Settlement Administrator
19
13. The Parties retained the services of ILYM Group, Inc. ("ILYM") as the administrator in
20
this matter. Plaintiffs' counsel obtained bids from several established class action settlement
21
administrators. Ultimately, ILYM was selected as it presented the most cost-effective bid. ILYM is an
22
experienced class action settlement administrator. Based on my experience, ILYM's bid of a capped fee
23
at $50,000.00 for 5,266 class members (the class size provided by Defendant to the settlement
,24
administrator after preliminary approval was granted) is reasonable for a settlement with a class ofthis
25
size.
26
Procedural History
27
14. On April 5, 2017, Plaintiff Spearsfileda Complaint against Defendant in the Superior
28
DECLARATION OF SHAUN SETAREH IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF
CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
I Court of the State of Califomia, County of Sacramento ("Spears Action"). Plaintiff Spears asserted the
2 following claims against Defendant: (1) unfair competition in violation of Cal. Bus & Prof Code §§
3 17200, et seq.; (2) failure to pay overtime wages in violation of Cal. Labor Code § 510; (3) failure to
4 provide accurate itemized wage statements in violation of Califomia Labor Code § 226; and, (4) failure
5 to provide wages at termination in violation of Cal. Lab. Code § 201, 202, and 203. On June 29, 2017,
6 Plaintiff Andrea Spearsfileda First Amended Complaint in the Spears Action which added a claim for
7 violation ofthe Private Attomey General Act, Cal. Labor Code §§2698, et seq. ("PAGA").
8 15. On August I , 2017, plaintiff Tomas R. Arana filed a Complaint against Defendant in the
9 Superior Court of the State of Califomia, County of Sacramento ("Arana Action"). Plaintiff Arana
10 asserted claims that Defendant: (I) failed to Provide Meal Periods in violation of Califomia Labor Code
11 §§ 204, 223, 226.7, 512, and 1198; (2) failed to Provide Rest Periods in violation ofCalifornia Labor
12 Code §§ 204, 223, 226.7, and 1198; (3) failed to Pay Hourly Wages in violation ofCalifornia Labor
13 Code §§ 223, 510, 1194, 1194.2, 1197, 1197.1 and 1198; (4) failed to Provide Accurate Written Wage
14 Statements in violation of Califomia Labor Code § 226(a); (5) failed to Timely Pay All Final Wages in
15 violation of Califomia Labor Code §§ 201-203; and, (6) violated Califomia Business and Professions
16 Code §§ 17200, et seq. On October 3, 2017, plaintiff Tomas R. Arana filed a First Amended Complaint
17 which added a claim against Defendant for violation of the PAGA in the Arana Action.
18 16. On October 11, 2017, the Court consolidated the Spears Action and the Arana Action.
19 On December 21, 2017, Plaintiffsfileda Consolidated Complaint against Defendant asserting claims
20 that Defendant: (1) failed to Provide Meal Periods in violation of Califomia Labor Code §§ 204,223,
21 226.7, 512, and 1198; (2) failed to Provide Rest Periods in violation of Califomia Labor Code §§ 204,
22 223, 226.7, and 1198; (3) failed to Pay Hourly Wages in violation of Califomia Labor Code §§ 223,
23 510, 1194, 1194.2, 1197, 1197.1 and 1198; (4) failed to Provide Accurate Written Wage Statements in
24 violation of Califomia Labor Code § 226(a); (5) failed to Timely Pay All Final Wages in violation of
25 Califomia Labor Code §§ 201-203; (6) violated Califomia Business and Professions Code §§ 17200, et
26 seq.; and, (7) violated PAGA.
27 17. October 23,2018, the Court denied in part and granted in part Defendant's Motion for
28 Summary Adjudication in the Action. On Febmary 26, 2019, the Court denied Defendant's Renewed
7
DECLARATION OF SHAUN SETAREH IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF
CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
Motion for Summary Adjudication in the Action. On or around March 25, 2019, Defendantfileda
2 Petition for Writ of Mandate, Prohibition, Certiorari, or Other Appropriate Relief regarding the Court's
3 order denying Defendant's Renewed Motion for Summary Adjudication. On April 25, 2019, the
4 Califomia Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District denied Defendant's Petition for Writ of Mandate,
5 Prohibition, Certiorari, or Other Appropriate Relief On September 30,2019, the Court denied
6 Defendant's Motion for Why Plaintiffs Spears and Arana's Cases Should Not Proceed as PAGA
7 Representative Actions.
8 18. On October 8, 2019, the Court granted class certification in the Action. On October 22,
9 2020, the Court denied Defendant's Motion for an Order to Strike Plaintiff Tomas R. Arana's claims
10 and Motion for an Order to Strike Plaintiff Spears' Claims.
11 19. Class Counsel has conducted a thorough investigation into the facts of the class action.
12 Class Counsel began investigating the Class Members' claims before the Action wasfiled.Class
13 Counsel engaged in formal discovery, which required the filing of (i) a Motion for an Opt Out Privacy
14 Notice to be sent to the Class Members on November 16, 2017 [ROA 34]; (ii) a Motion to compel
15 Defendant to produce documents on December 1, 2017 [ROA 40], and, (iii) a Motion to compel
16 Defendant to respond to interrogatories on December 6, 2017 [ROA 49].
17 20. The Opposition to the Motion to Sequence Discovery was filed by Plaintiff Spears on
18 March 26, 2018. (Register of Actions ("ROA") 107.) Due to Plaintiff Spears' efforts in briefing and
19 arguing the motion, the Court denied Defendant's Motion to Sequence. The day after Plaintiff Spears
20 filed the Motion to Sequence, Defendant filed a Motion for Sanctions against Plaintiff Spears only in an
21 attempt to punish Plaintiff Spears for her counsel's diligent attempts to secure the wage and hour records
22 and class list required to prosecute all claims in the consolidated cases. (ROA 54.) The Court denied the
23 Motion for Sanctions against Plaintiff Spears.
24 21. While this briefing was occurring, Defendant had alsofileda Motion for Summary
25 Adjudication on February 5, 2018 (the "MSJ"). (ROA 100.) This MSJ attacked Plaintiff Spears' regular
26 rate claims, Plaintiff Arana's regular rate claims, and Plaintiff Arana's rounding claims. After
27 continuing the hearing on the motion to allow for discovery to be provided, the Court eventually
28 DENIED the Defendant's MSJ. Defendant then filed a Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment on
8 • "
DECLARATION OF SHAUN SETAREH IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF
CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
November 19, 2018, [ROA 280], which focused on the claims raised in this case by Plaintiff Spears
2 pertaining solely to the Defendant's regular rate violations. Plaintiff Spearsfiledan opposition to the
3 renewed motion and then Defendant's renewed MSJ was denied by the Court. Defendant ultimately
4 stipulated to class certification of Plaintiff Spears' regular rate claims.
5 22. Plaintiff Arana also pursued a claim based on off the clock violations. The certification
6 of this claim required contested motion practice. After the hearing on this motion, as to Plaintiff Arana's
7 claim, the Court certified the following predominant common question: "Did the time recording systems
8 in effect during the relevant periods prevent an accurate capture of the start time of the class members?"
9 This certified off-the-clock claim then also was ordered by the Court to proceed along with the regular
10 rate claim. Class notice was sent out to all Class Members and then Plaintiffs' counsel began
11 preparations to take this case to trial on behalf of the certified classes before this case was eventually
12 even set for mediation.
13 Fair and Reasonable Settlement
14 23. I believe that the Settlement is in the best interest of the class members based on my
15 firm's investigation and discovery, my detailed understanding of the issues raised, and the outcome of
16 extensive settlement negotiations. The settlement is fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the Class
17 Members' best interest. Plaintiffs' counsel balanced the Settlement against the probable outcome of the
18 range of recovery at trial, the risks of decertification, losing at trial, or not recovering as much as
19 provided by the proposed Settlement, as well as the difficulties and complexity of the litigation, the
20 lengthy process of litigating to judgment, and the various possible delays and appeals. I have devoted
21 my firm's resources to take all steps as may be reasonably necessary to secure both Preliminary
22 Approval and Final Approval of the Settlement, to the extent not inconsistent with the terms of the
23 Settlement Agreement, and will not take any action adverse to each other in obtaining court approval,
24 and, if necessary, appellate approval, of the Settlement in all respects.
25 ///
26 ///
27 ///
28 ///
9
DECLARATION OF SHAUN SETAREH IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF
CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
I 1 declare under the penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of Califomia that the foregoing is
2 true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
3 Executed on the 17th day in June, 2022 in Beverly Hills, Califomia.
4
5
/sf Shaun Setareh
6 Shaun Setareh
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DECLARATION OF SHAUN SETAREH IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF
CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
Preview
ORIGINAL Superior Court Of C3lifor|nia, SBcramentD 06/17/2022 Shaun Setareh (SBN 204514) atum9r4 shaun@setarehlaw.com Bv , D<»p|ity 2 William M. Pao (SBN 219846) Case Number: william@setarehlaw.com 3 SETAREH LAW GROUP 34-2017"00210560 9665 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 430 4 Beverly Hills, California 90212 Telephone (310) 888-7771 5 Facsimile (310) 888-0109 6 BLUMENTHAL NORDREHAUG BHOWMIK DE BLOUW LLP 7 Norman B. Blumenthal (State Bar #068687) Kyle R. Nordrehaug (State Bar #205975) 8 Aparajit Bhowmik (State Bar #248066) >- 2255 Calle Clara 9- La Jolla, CA 92037 - CD Telephone: (858) 551-1223 10 Facsimile: (858) 551-1232 Email: Kyle@bamlawca.com 11 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 12 ANDREA SPEARS and TOMAS ARANA 13 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 14 FOR THE COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 15 ANDREA SPEARS, an individual, on behalf Consolidated Case No. 34-2017-00210560- 16 of herself and on behalf of all persons CU-OE-GDS similarly situated. 17 Assigned For All Purposes to the Honorable Plaintiff, Jill H. Taley, Department 25 18 DECLARATION OF SHAUN SETAREH 19 HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC., a IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION California Corporation; and Does 1 through FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS 20 50, inclusive, ACTION SETTLEMENT 21 Defendants. Date: July 12, 2022 Time: 9:00 a.m. 22 TOMAS R. ARANA, on behalf of himself, all Courtroom: Department 25 others similarly situated, 23 Original Complaint Filed: April 5, 2017 Plaintiff, FAC Filed: June 29, 2017 24 Consolidated Complaint Filed: Dec. 21, 2017 25 HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC., a 26 California corporation; and DOES 1-50, inclusive. 27 28 Defendants. DECLARATION OF SHAUN SETAREH IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT DECLARATION OF SHAUN SETAREH 2 I, Shaun Setareh, declare as follows: '3 1. 1 am an attomey in good standing duly admitted to the State Bar of Califomia, the 4 principal attomey at Setareh Law Group, counsel of record for PlaintiflFTOMAS R. ARANA, ("Arana") 5 in this action along with PlaintiflF ANDREA SPEARS ("Spears") (both collectively referred to as 6 "Plaintiffs") who is represented by Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP against 7 Defendant HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC. ("Health Net" or "Defendant"). This declaration is 8 made in support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Award of Attorneys' Fees, Costs and Service Awards. 9 2. Except for those matters stated on information and belief, which I am informed and 10 believe are true and correct, I have personal knowledge of all matters set forth herein. If called as a 11 witness, I could and would competently testify thereto. 12 Adequacy 13 3. I have no known conflicts of interest with PlaintifF or with absent Class Members, and I 14 am aware of no conflicts of interest between PlaintifF and absent Class Members. Furthermore, 15 throughout this litigation, Plaintiffhas pursued the interests of the Class above her own interests. 16 4. I received my undergraduate degree from UCLA in 1996 and my law degree from 17 Loyola Law School in 1999. Since being admitted to the State Bar ofCalifornia in 1999,1 have actively 18 practiced civil litigation for the entirety of that time period. 19 5. Setareh Law Group and I, as its principal attomey, are well-experienced class action 20 attomeys. I, along with the senior attomey assigned to this case, Thomas Segal, have considerable 21 experience in class action litigation. 1, and the attomeys at Setareh Law Group, have been involved as 22 lead class counsel, co-lead class counsel, and other levels of involvement in over 100 wage-and-hour, 23 consumer, and antitrust class action cases. Because of this, Setareh Law Group has more than 250 24 Westlaw citable opinions, including the following noteworthy appellate decisions: 25 State Appellate Decisions 26 a. Troester v. Starbucks Corporation, et al, 5 Cal.5th 829 (2018) (reversed summary 27 judgment in favor of Defendants, issuing a landmark published decision that clarified and rejected the 28 application of the widely adopted federal de minimis doctrine to Califomia's wage-and-hour laws). Due DECLARATION OF SHAUN SETAREH IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT 1 to the significance and importance of this seminal victory before the Califomia Supreme Court, I 2 received the Califomia Lawyer of the Year or "CLAY" award from the Daily Joumal for my work on 3 the case. 4 b. Allen v. Labor Ready Southwest, Inc. (2013) 2013 WL 1910293 (reversing an Order 5 from the Superior Court of Los Angeles County compelling\PlaintifPs claims to arbitration, finding that 6 Defendant waived the right to compel arbitration by litigating the merits of Plaintiffs arbitrable federal 7 and state claims). 8 Setareh Law Group has prevailed in its six most recent Ninth Circuit appeals. Four of the six 9 cases resulted in reversals of the trial court decision, with the remaining two cases {Harris and Parsittie) 10 affirming a decision favorable to the PlaintifF. These six cases are listed below: 11 Ninth Circuit Decisions 12 c. Troester v. Starbucks Corp., 738 Fed. Appx. 562 (9th Cir. 2018) (Ninth Circuit opinion 13 following the Califomia Supreme Court answering the Ninth Circuit's certified question). 14 d. Gilberg v. California Check Cashing Stores, LLC, 913 F.3d 1169 (9th Cir. 2019) 15 (vacated district court's summary judgment in favor of Defendants and remanded for further 16 proceedings, holding that Defendants' Fair Credit Reporting Act disclosure form lacked sufficient 17 clarity in a published opinion). 18 e. Rodriguez v. U.S Healthworks, 813 Fed.Appx. 315 (9th Cir. 2020) (reversed district 19 court's summary judgement in favor of Defendants with instructions to remand the action to state court). 20 f Harris v. K M Industrial, Inc., 980 F.3d 694 (9* Cir. November 13, 2020) (affirmed the 21 district court's granting of PlaintifPs motion to remand, holding in a published opinion that Defendants 22 had failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeded $5 23 million as required under the Class Action Faimess Act for removal). 24 g. Parsittie v. Schneider Logistics, Inc et ai, Case No. 20-55470 (9th Cir. June 9, 2021) / 25 (reversed the district court's dismissal of Plaintiffs meal and rest break claims, holding that PlaintifTs 26 security check allegations were sufficient to state a claim for break-time violations and remanding for 27 further proceedings). 28 h. Ahlstrom v. DHIMortg Co., Ltd., L.P.,2\ F.4th 631 (9th Cir. December 29, 2021) 2 DECLARATION OF SHAUN SETAREH IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT (reversed the district court's ruling compelling claims to arbitration, holding that parties cannot delegate 2 issues of formation of an arbitration agreement to the arbitrator for determination). 3 i. Allen v. Bedolla, 787 F.3d 1218 (9* Cir. June 2, 2015) (affirming the district court's 4 Order denying objector's motion to intervene ahd remanding to the district court where settlement was 5 granted final approval. Final approval was upheld on a subsequent appeal in the 9* Cir. [see Bedolla v. 6 Allen, 736 Fed.Appx. 614 (9"^ Cir. May 18, 2018)]). 7 Class Counsel Appointments. The following is a sampling of class actions in which the 8 Setareh Law Group and I have been appointed as class counsel: 9 Federal Cases 10 j. Cerdenia v. USA Truck, Inc., U.S. District Court, Central District of Califomia, Case No. 11 10-CV-1489-JVS (granted final approval in an action on behalf of truck drivers for meal and rest period 12 violations, off-the-clock pre- and post-shift work, and unauthorized wage deductions). 13 k. Fronda v. Staffmark, U.S. District Court, Northem District of Califomia, Case No. 15- 14 CV-02315-MEJ (granted final approval in a case involving alleged uncompensated security checks for 15 warehouse workers). 16 I. Garcia v. Am. Gen. Fin. Mgmt. Corp., U.S. District Court, Central District of Califomia, 17 Case No. 09-CV-1916 (granted final approval in a casefiledon behalf of account managers in case 18 involving, among other things, alleged overtime miscalculations and meal and rest period violations). 19 m. Jones v. Shred-It USA, Inc., U.S. District Court, Central District of Califomia, Case No. 20 I l-CV-00526 (granted final approval in a case brought on behalf of customer service representatives 21 and balers for alleged off-the-clock work and meal and rest period violations). 22 n. O 'Neill v. Genesis Logistics, Inc., U.S. District Court, Northem District of Califomia, 23 Case No. 08-CV-4707 (granted final approval in a case involving claims for failure to proyide meal 24 periods to employees who worked as drivers delivering goods to 7-11 stores throughout Califomia and 25 failure to payfinalwages in a timely manner to terminated employees). 26 o. Padilla v. UPS, U.S. District Court, Central District of Califomia, Case No. 08-CV-l 590 27 (granted final approval in a case involving claims for failure to provide meal periods to part time 28 employees engaged in sort operations and failure to pay final wages in a timely manner to terminated 3 DECLARATION OF SHAUN SETAREH IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT I employees). 2 p. Pitre V. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., U.S. District Court, Central District of Califomia, Case 3 No. 17-CV-01281-DOC (granting class certification in a highly contested Action against Wal-Mart for a 4 class of almost 5,000,000 in a Fair Credit Reporting Act action). 5 q. Utne v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., U.S. District Court, Northem District of Califomia, 6 Case No. 16-cv-Ol 854-RS (granting class certification in a highly contested Action against Home Depot 7 in connection with uncompensated off-the-clock work occurring at the start of all employee shifts and at 8 the end of closing shifts). 9 r. Vang v. Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse Corp., U.S. District Court, Central District 10 of Califomia Case No. 09-CV-8061 (granted final approval in a case involving, among other things, 11 vacation pay forfeitures, failures to provide meal and rest periods, and failures to pay overtime wages 12 based on employee misclassification). 13 s. Wilson V. TE Connectivity, Northem District of Califomia Case No. 3:14-cv-04872-EDL 14 (granted class certification through contested motion in case on behalf of manufacturing facility 15 employees subject to auto-deduction of meal breaks). 16 State Cases 17 t. Sandoval v. Rite Aid Corp., Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case No. BC431249 18 (granted class certification through contested motion in case on behalf of former pharmacy enriployees 19 based on late final wage payments in violation of Labor Code §§ 201-203; subsequently granted final 20 approval of class action settlement). 21 u. Valencia v. SCIS A ir Security Corp., Los Angeles Superior Court, Case No. BC421485 22 (granted class certification through contested motion in case on behalf of former security workers based 23 on late final wage payments in violation of Labor Code §§ 201-203; subsequently granted preliminary 24 approval of proposed class action settlement). 25 6. As the above shows, I have substantial experience in wage-and-hour class action 26 litigation, including actions alleging failure to provide meal and/or rest periods, failure to pay wages, 27 failure to provide accurate wage statements, failure to provide timely final wage payments, and other 28 related claims. I am knowledgeable about the applicable law, have worked diligently to investigate and DECLARATION OF SHAUN SETAREH IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT identify the potential claims in this action, and will continue to commit myfirm'sresources to further the 2 interests of the Class. I and my firm have no conflicts of interest with Plaintiffs and with absent class 3 members. 4 Lodestar 5 7. The Setareh Law Group has done extensive work in connection with this case, including 6 but not limited to conducting the initial investigation of the case and developing the facts and theories 7 regarding the claims asserted in this case, reviewing thousands of pages of documents obtained in 8 discovery, opposing Defendant's various modons to strike, demurrer, motions for summary adjudication, 9 defending Arana's deposition, conducting a review of the record and preparing a thorough mediation 10 brief and damage analysis in preparation for mediation, engaging in contention arm's-length negotiation 11 at the mediation, and working with all parties to prepare the Settlement Agreement, related forms, and 12 approval motions. 13 8. The Setareh Law Group prosecuted this matter on a contingency basis meawning that if 14 the case were unsuccessful the firm would have received no compensation or reimbursement of costs. 15 The time spent on the litigation took a considerable amount of time and effort that could have been spent 16 on other fee generating work. 17 9. I have reviewed the work performed on the case and the billing entered by the attomeys 18 working on this case at myfirm.The table below includes a summary of all the hours worked. My 19 firm's lodestar is currently $$373,316.75. 20 10. Looking at the work of attomeys for Plaintiff in this matter, the lodestar for all firm 21 attomeys involved in this matter is estimated to be as follows: 22 Attorney Bar Year Hourly Rate . Hours Total Fees 23 Shaun Setareh 1999 $925.00 65.5 $60,587.50 24 William M Pao 2002 $900.00 208.42 $187,578.00 25 Jose Patino 2010 $725.00 19.25 $13,956.25 26 Alex Mcintosh 2018 $425.00 2.75 $1,168.75 27 Li lit Ter-Astvatsatryan 2018 $425.00 72.05. $30,621.25 28 DECLARATION OF SHAUN SETAREH IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT I Nolan Dilts 2019 $350.00 12.6 $5,040.00 2 Christopher Orlando 2020 $375.00 0.4 $150.00 3 Ashley Batiste 2017 $475.00 55 $26,125.00 4 Farrah Grant 2013 $650.00 9.25 $6,012.50 5 H. Scott Leviant 1999 $925.00 32.6 $30,155.00 6 Stacey Shim 2015 $550.00 14.45 $7,947.50 7 Lauren Farrington (Para egal) $125.00 3.80 $475.00 8 Daisy Sanchez (Paralegal) $125.00 28 $3,500.00 9 Total 524.07 $373316.75' 10 11 11. Plaintiffs counsel will incur approximately 5 additional hours in preparing for the final 12 approval hearing, appearing at the final approval hearing, communicating with class members, and 13 communicating with the Settlement Administrator. 14 Litigation Costs 15 12. Setareh Law Group incurred costs of $31,559.04 for, out-of-pocket costs and expenses 16 actually incurred in connection with this action. Attached as Exhibit A is a spreadsheet detailing the 17 costs incurred by my firm. 18 Settlement Administrator 19 13. The Parties retained the services of ILYM Group, Inc. ("ILYM") as the administrator in 20 this matter. Plaintiffs' counsel obtained bids from several established class action settlement 21 administrators. Ultimately, ILYM was selected as it presented the most cost-effective bid. ILYM is an 22 experienced class action settlement administrator. Based on my experience, ILYM's bid of a capped fee 23 at $50,000.00 for 5,266 class members (the class size provided by Defendant to the settlement ,24 administrator after preliminary approval was granted) is reasonable for a settlement with a class ofthis 25 size. 26 Procedural History 27 14. On April 5, 2017, Plaintiff Spearsfileda Complaint against Defendant in the Superior 28 DECLARATION OF SHAUN SETAREH IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT I Court of the State of Califomia, County of Sacramento ("Spears Action"). Plaintiff Spears asserted the 2 following claims against Defendant: (1) unfair competition in violation of Cal. Bus & Prof Code §§ 3 17200, et seq.; (2) failure to pay overtime wages in violation of Cal. Labor Code § 510; (3) failure to 4 provide accurate itemized wage statements in violation of Califomia Labor Code § 226; and, (4) failure 5 to provide wages at termination in violation of Cal. Lab. Code § 201, 202, and 203. On June 29, 2017, 6 Plaintiff Andrea Spearsfileda First Amended Complaint in the Spears Action which added a claim for 7 violation ofthe Private Attomey General Act, Cal. Labor Code §§2698, et seq. ("PAGA"). 8 15. On August I , 2017, plaintiff Tomas R. Arana filed a Complaint against Defendant in the 9 Superior Court of the State of Califomia, County of Sacramento ("Arana Action"). Plaintiff Arana 10 asserted claims that Defendant: (I) failed to Provide Meal Periods in violation of Califomia Labor Code 11 §§ 204, 223, 226.7, 512, and 1198; (2) failed to Provide Rest Periods in violation ofCalifornia Labor 12 Code §§ 204, 223, 226.7, and 1198; (3) failed to Pay Hourly Wages in violation ofCalifornia Labor 13 Code §§ 223, 510, 1194, 1194.2, 1197, 1197.1 and 1198; (4) failed to Provide Accurate Written Wage 14 Statements in violation of Califomia Labor Code § 226(a); (5) failed to Timely Pay All Final Wages in 15 violation of Califomia Labor Code §§ 201-203; and, (6) violated Califomia Business and Professions 16 Code §§ 17200, et seq. On October 3, 2017, plaintiff Tomas R. Arana filed a First Amended Complaint 17 which added a claim against Defendant for violation of the PAGA in the Arana Action. 18 16. On October 11, 2017, the Court consolidated the Spears Action and the Arana Action. 19 On December 21, 2017, Plaintiffsfileda Consolidated Complaint against Defendant asserting claims 20 that Defendant: (1) failed to Provide Meal Periods in violation of Califomia Labor Code §§ 204,223, 21 226.7, 512, and 1198; (2) failed to Provide Rest Periods in violation of Califomia Labor Code §§ 204, 22 223, 226.7, and 1198; (3) failed to Pay Hourly Wages in violation of Califomia Labor Code §§ 223, 23 510, 1194, 1194.2, 1197, 1197.1 and 1198; (4) failed to Provide Accurate Written Wage Statements in 24 violation of Califomia Labor Code § 226(a); (5) failed to Timely Pay All Final Wages in violation of 25 Califomia Labor Code §§ 201-203; (6) violated Califomia Business and Professions Code §§ 17200, et 26 seq.; and, (7) violated PAGA. 27 17. October 23,2018, the Court denied in part and granted in part Defendant's Motion for 28 Summary Adjudication in the Action. On Febmary 26, 2019, the Court denied Defendant's Renewed 7 DECLARATION OF SHAUN SETAREH IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT Motion for Summary Adjudication in the Action. On or around March 25, 2019, Defendantfileda 2 Petition for Writ of Mandate, Prohibition, Certiorari, or Other Appropriate Relief regarding the Court's 3 order denying Defendant's Renewed Motion for Summary Adjudication. On April 25, 2019, the 4 Califomia Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District denied Defendant's Petition for Writ of Mandate, 5 Prohibition, Certiorari, or Other Appropriate Relief On September 30,2019, the Court denied 6 Defendant's Motion for Why Plaintiffs Spears and Arana's Cases Should Not Proceed as PAGA 7 Representative Actions. 8 18. On October 8, 2019, the Court granted class certification in the Action. On October 22, 9 2020, the Court denied Defendant's Motion for an Order to Strike Plaintiff Tomas R. Arana's claims 10 and Motion for an Order to Strike Plaintiff Spears' Claims. 11 19. Class Counsel has conducted a thorough investigation into the facts of the class action. 12 Class Counsel began investigating the Class Members' claims before the Action wasfiled.Class 13 Counsel engaged in formal discovery, which required the filing of (i) a Motion for an Opt Out Privacy 14 Notice to be sent to the Class Members on November 16, 2017 [ROA 34]; (ii) a Motion to compel 15 Defendant to produce documents on December 1, 2017 [ROA 40], and, (iii) a Motion to compel 16 Defendant to respond to interrogatories on December 6, 2017 [ROA 49]. 17 20. The Opposition to the Motion to Sequence Discovery was filed by Plaintiff Spears on 18 March 26, 2018. (Register of Actions ("ROA") 107.) Due to Plaintiff Spears' efforts in briefing and 19 arguing the motion, the Court denied Defendant's Motion to Sequence. The day after Plaintiff Spears 20 filed the Motion to Sequence, Defendant filed a Motion for Sanctions against Plaintiff Spears only in an 21 attempt to punish Plaintiff Spears for her counsel's diligent attempts to secure the wage and hour records 22 and class list required to prosecute all claims in the consolidated cases. (ROA 54.) The Court denied the 23 Motion for Sanctions against Plaintiff Spears. 24 21. While this briefing was occurring, Defendant had alsofileda Motion for Summary 25 Adjudication on February 5, 2018 (the "MSJ"). (ROA 100.) This MSJ attacked Plaintiff Spears' regular 26 rate claims, Plaintiff Arana's regular rate claims, and Plaintiff Arana's rounding claims. After 27 continuing the hearing on the motion to allow for discovery to be provided, the Court eventually 28 DENIED the Defendant's MSJ. Defendant then filed a Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment on 8 • " DECLARATION OF SHAUN SETAREH IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT November 19, 2018, [ROA 280], which focused on the claims raised in this case by Plaintiff Spears 2 pertaining solely to the Defendant's regular rate violations. Plaintiff Spearsfiledan opposition to the 3 renewed motion and then Defendant's renewed MSJ was denied by the Court. Defendant ultimately 4 stipulated to class certification of Plaintiff Spears' regular rate claims. 5 22. Plaintiff Arana also pursued a claim based on off the clock violations. The certification 6 of this claim required contested motion practice. After the hearing on this motion, as to Plaintiff Arana's 7 claim, the Court certified the following predominant common question: "Did the time recording systems 8 in effect during the relevant periods prevent an accurate capture of the start time of the class members?" 9 This certified off-the-clock claim then also was ordered by the Court to proceed along with the regular 10 rate claim. Class notice was sent out to all Class Members and then Plaintiffs' counsel began 11 preparations to take this case to trial on behalf of the certified classes before this case was eventually 12 even set for mediation. 13 Fair and Reasonable Settlement 14 23. I believe that the Settlement is in the best interest of the class members based on my 15 firm's investigation and discovery, my detailed understanding of the issues raised, and the outcome of 16 extensive settlement negotiations. The settlement is fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the Class 17 Members' best interest. Plaintiffs' counsel balanced the Settlement against the probable outcome of the 18 range of recovery at trial, the risks of decertification, losing at trial, or not recovering as much as 19 provided by the proposed Settlement, as well as the difficulties and complexity of the litigation, the 20 lengthy process of litigating to judgment, and the various possible delays and appeals. I have devoted 21 my firm's resources to take all steps as may be reasonably necessary to secure both Preliminary 22 Approval and Final Approval of the Settlement, to the extent not inconsistent with the terms of the 23 Settlement Agreement, and will not take any action adverse to each other in obtaining court approval, 24 and, if necessary, appellate approval, of the Settlement in all respects. 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 9 DECLARATION OF SHAUN SETAREH IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT I 1 declare under the penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of Califomia that the foregoing is 2 true and correct to the best of my knowledge. 3 Executed on the 17th day in June, 2022 in Beverly Hills, Califomia. 4 5 /sf Shaun Setareh 6 Shaun Setareh 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DECLARATION OF SHAUN SETAREH IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT