No Value: Evelyn Reed vs Thaila Ramanujam. M.D., Inc , et al

On January 27, 2021 a No Value was filed involving a dispute between Reed , Evelyn, Thaila Ramanujam. M.D., Inc, and Ramanujam, Thalia, Md, Ramanujam, Thalia Md, Thaila Ramanujam. M.D., Inc, for (15) Unlimited Other Employment in the District Court of Santa Cruz County.

Preview
1 S. BRETT SUTTON 143107
JARED HAGUE 251517
2 BRADY BRIGGS 310934

3 SUTTON HAGUE LAW CORPORATION, P.C.
5200 N. Palm Avenue, Suite 203
4 Fresno, California 93704
Telephone: (559) 325-0500
5 Facsimile: (559) 981-1217

6 Attorneys for Plaintiff

7 EVELYN REED

8 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

9 COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ
10 * * *
11
EVELYN REED, an individual, Case No. 21CV00200
12
Plaintiff, DECLARATION OF BRADY BRIGGS
13 IN SUPPORT OF JOINT MOTION
vs. FOR APPROVAL OF PAGA
14
SETTLEMENT
15 THAILA RAMANUJAM, M.D., INC., a
California Corporation; THAILA Hearing: April 25, 2024
16 RAMANUJAM, M.D., an individual; and Dept: 5
DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Judge: Hon. Syda Cogliati
17
Defendants. Action Filed: January 27, 2021
18
Trial: Vacated
19

Sutton Hague
28
Law Corporation, P.C.
5200 N. PALM AVENUE
SUITE 203
FRESNO, CA 93704
1
DECLARATION OF BRADY BRIGGS IN SUPPORT OF JOINT MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF PAGA SETTLEMENT
1 I, BRADY BRIGGS, declare:

2 1. I am an attorney licensed to practice law in the state of California and before this

3 Court. I am an attorney of the law firm of Sutton Hague Law Corporation, P.C., attorneys for

4 Plaintiff EVELYN REED (“Plaintiff”). The facts set forth herein are personally known to me

5 and, unless otherwise noted, are based on my firsthand knowledge and/or observation. If called

6 as a witness, I could and would competently testify thereto under oath.

7 2. This declaration is submitted in support of the Joint Motion for PAGA Settlement

8 Approval, filed concurrently herewith.

9 RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY

10 3. On December 28, 2020, Plaintiff sent a letter to Defendants and the the California

11 Labor and Workforce Development Agency (“LWDA”), providing them with written notice of

12 alleged violations of the California Labor Code by Defendants and Plaintiff’s intent to seek

13 penalties pursuant to the Private Attorney General Act of 2004, Labor Code section 2698 et seq.

14 (“PAGA”), on behalf of herself and other aggrieved employees stemming from such violations.

15 4. The LWDA did not provide any notice that it intended to investigate Plaintiff’s

16 allegations.

17 5. On or around January 27, 2021, Plaintiff filed a Complaint against Thaila

18 Ramanujam, M.D., Inc., titled Evelyn Reed v. Thaila Ramanujam, M.D., Inc., et al., in Santa

19 Cruz County Superior Court, Case No. 21CV00200, alleging claims arising out of and relating to

20 her employment (the “Action”).

21 6. On or about April 30, 2021, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) in

22 the Action, in which she added various claims under PAGA.

23 7. On or around March 26, 2021, Thaila Ramanujam, M.D., Inc. filed a Cross-

24 Complaint in the Action, naming Plaintiff as the sole cross-defendant and alleging claims of

25 negligence, intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, and intentional

26 interference with contract.

27 8. On or around March 4, 2022, Thaila Ramanujam, M.D., Inc. filed a First

Sutton Hague
28 Amended Cross-Complaint, in which it added three causes of action for civil damages for theft,
Law Corporation, P.C.
5200 N. PALM AVENUE
SUITE 203
FRESNO, CA 93704
2
DECLARATION OF BRADY BRIGGS IN SUPPORT OF JOINT MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF PAGA SETTLEMENT
1 conversion, and deceit.

2 9. During the more than 3-year litigation, Plaintiff and Defendants engaged in both

3 formal and informal discovery, including, without limitations, production of the records for

4 Plaintiff and certain employees covered by Plaintiff’s PAGA claims, the number of employees

5 within Plaintiff’s PAGA claims and their pay rates, and other policy documents. Formal

6 discovery included multiple depositions. Defendants deposed the Plaintiff, and Plaintiff deposed

7 representatives of Defendants, including Defendant Thalia Ramanujam, M.D. The Parties also

8 exchanged multiple sets of written discovery, with Plaintiff alone serving six separate sets of

9 interrogatories and five sets of document requests. The Parties also informally exchanged

10 information relating to Defendants’ PAGA exposure for purposes of mediation.

11 10. On or around May 31, 2022, the Santa Cruz County Superior Court granted, in

12 part, Plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, which resulted in the dismissal of the first

13 through third causes of action in Defendants’ First Amended Cross-Complaint, for negligence,

14 intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, and intentional interference with

15 contract.

16 11. On or around March 7, 2023, the Santa Cruz County Superior Court granted

17 Plaintiff’s motion for summary adjudication with respect to the remaining causes of action of the

18 First Amended Cross-Complaint, i.e., Defendants’ claims for civil damages for theft, conversion,

19 and deceit, resulting in the dismissal of the First Amended Cross-Complaint in its entirety.

20 12. On or around March 7, 2023, the Santa Cruz County Superior Court granted

21 Plaintiff’s motion for summary adjudication with respect to Defendants’ liability as to Plaintiff’s

22 First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, Ninth, Tenth, Eleventh, Twelfth, Thirteenth,

23 Fourteenth, Fifteenth and Sixteenth Causes of Action.

24 MEDIATION

25 13. On July 10, 2023, the parties engaged in a full-day mediation before experienced

26 mediator Shirish Gupta, Esq. However, that mediation session was not successful in producing

27 an agreement between the parties.

Sutton Hague
28 14. On January 31, 2024, the parties engaged in a half-day mediation before
Law Corporation, P.C.
5200 N. PALM AVENUE
SUITE 203
FRESNO, CA 93704
3
DECLARATION OF BRADY BRIGGS IN SUPPORT OF JOINT MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF PAGA SETTLEMENT
1 experienced mediator Leonard Gumport, Esq. Following arm’s-length and hard-fought

2 negotiations through Mr. Gumport, the parties agreed to resolve this Action.

3 15. To resolve this action, the parties negotiated two separate settlements. First, they

4 negotiated a confidential settlement of Plaintiff’s individual claims and all claims for Plaintiff’s

5 attorneys’ fees, litigation expenses, and costs associated with the litigation of this Action. Next,

6 the parties separately negotiated a complete settlement of the PAGA claims, for which the parties

7 now jointly seek this Court’s approval under Labor Code section 2699(1)(2). Because it was

8 resolved in the settlement of Plaintiff’s individual action, Plaintiff is not seeking attorneys’ fees

9 and costs as part of the PAGA settlement.

10 16. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of the parties’ PAGA

11 settlement.

12 17. Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of the proposed “Notice

13 Form” to be sent to the Covered Employees who will be receiving individual payments from the

14 settlement.

15 18. At the time of filing this Motion, our office has submitted a copy of the

16 Agreement to the LWDA in accordance with Labor Code section 2699(l)(2). Attached hereto as

17 Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of an email my office received from the LWDA confirming

18 our office’s submission of the Agreement on March 20, 2024.

19 EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT

20 19. As a result of Plaintiff’s formal and informal discovery, Plaintiff learned that

21 there are approximately 20 “aggrieved employees,” including Plaintiff, throughout the State of

22 California for the period between January 27, 2020 and the settlement date (the “PAGA period”).

23 These 20 aggrieved individuals worked approximately 950 aggregated pay periods during this

24 time.

25 20. Using this information and the default PAGA penalty of Labor Code § 2699(f)(2)

26 for violations of the Labor Code—which provides for a $100 penalty for each initial violation

27 and $200 for each subsequent violation—Plaintiff estimates Defendant’s maximum exposure for

Sutton Hague
28 PAGA penalties to be $950,000 (i.e., $100 x 10 Labor Code violations x 950 pay periods).
Law Corporation, P.C.
5200 N. PALM AVENUE
SUITE 203
FRESNO, CA 93704
4
DECLARATION OF BRADY BRIGGS IN SUPPORT OF JOINT MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF PAGA SETTLEMENT
1 21. In reaching this maximum exposure estimate, Plaintiff applied only the initial

2 violation rate, in accordance with case law indicating that the subsequent violation rate only

3 applies where the Labor Commissioner or a court has previously notified the employer that it

4 was in violation of the Labor Code, and further violations occurred thereafter. See Gunther v.

5 Alaska Airlines, Inc. (2021) 72 Cal. App. 5th 334, 356; see also Amaral v. Cintas Corp. No. 2

6 (2008) 163 Cal. App. 4th 1157, 1209; Bernstein v. Virgin Am., Inc. (9th Cir. 2021) 3 F.4th 1127,

7 1144. Here, Plaintiff has found no evidence that Defendants were previously notified that their

8 policies and practices were in violation of the Labor Code, and it appears Plaintiff’s action is the

9 first time an action for PAGA penalties has been pursued against Defendants. Although the

10 Court found Defendants liable for wage and hour violations in its summary adjudication order of

11 March 7, 2023, Plaintiff believes Defendants had largely if not entirely corrected the wage and

12 hour practices of which she complained by that time. Accordingly, the initial violation rate is

13 highly likely to apply to all alleged violations here.

14 22. For settlement purposes, this maximum exposure estimate was discounted by the

15 following considerations:

16 a) Whether Labor Code violations can be “stacked,” i.e., whether PAGA

17 penalties may be assessed for multiple Labor Code violations in a single pay

18 period, remains a question without a clear answer in the case law. Federal district

19 courts have generally allowed stacking, albeit in unpublished opinions. See, e.g.,

20 Schiller v. David’s Bridal, Inc., 2010 WL 2793650, at *6 (E.D. Cal. July 14,

21 2010). However, Plaintiff anticipated Defendants would strongly argue against

22 stacking, and there was a likelihood the Court might agree with Defendants’

23 argument. If stacking were not permitted, then the maximum exposure would be

24 reduced to $95,000 (i.e., $100 x 1 Labor Code violation x 950 pay periods).

25 b) Labor Code § 2699(e)(2) allows the Court to reduce the amount of PAGA

26 penalties if, under the circumstances, the Court determines the penalty would be

27 “unjust, arbitrary and oppressive, or confiscatory.” To Plaintiff’s counsel’s

Sutton Hague
28 knowledge, Defendants have not previously been subject to investigation or an
Law Corporation, P.C.
5200 N. PALM AVENUE
SUITE 203
FRESNO, CA 93704
5
DECLARATION OF BRADY BRIGGS IN SUPPORT OF JOINT MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF PAGA SETTLEMENT
1 assessment of penalties by the LWDA. Accordingly, there is a high likelihood that

2 a substantial award of PAGA penalties at trial would be found unjust,

3 confiscatory, or oppressive, and would be greatly reduced by the Court. In fact,

4 California courts commonly and frequently reduce the amount of penalties

5 awarded against employers by as much as 80%. See, e.g., Thurman v. Bayshore

6 Transit Management, Inc. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 1112, 1135 (affirming the trial

7 court’s 30% reduction of PAGA penalties); Bernstein v. Virgin America, Inc., 365

8 F.Supp.3d 980, 991 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 16, 2019) (25% reduction of PAGA

9 penalties); Fleming v. Covidien, Inc., 2011 WL 7563047 at *4 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 12,

10 2011) (after a bench trial, the district court reduced an award of PAGA penalties

11 from $2.8 million to $500,000, a reduction of more than 80%). If the Court here

12 were to reduce the maximum exposure by 80%, it would become $190,000. If

13 both stacking were not allowed and the court reduced it by 80%, then the

14 maximum exposure would become only $19,000.

15 c) Lastly, the employees other than Plaintiff who are allegedly “aggrieved”

16 would arguably need to attend trial and prove their claims in order to obtain civil

17 penalties under PAGA. If any of them were unable or unwilling to appear for

18 trial, it may prove difficult to establish liability for them and obtain penalties on

19 their behalf. See, e.g., De Paz v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 2020 WL 2404897, at

20 *6 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 18, 2020) (“[A] PAGA plaintiff has the burden to prove

21 violations for all employees the plaintiff seeks to represent, so the absence of a

22 viable plan for proving violations as to all employees ... means that [plaintiff] may

23 ultimately be unable to prove his case.”). If this were to happen, then the

24 maximum exposure could potentially become zero for the other “aggrieved”

25 employees. Here, Plaintiff’s counsel received a letter from 10 of the allegedly

26 aggrieved employees indicating an unwillingness to be involved in the case or

27 participate in discovery, and disapproving of Plaintiff’s action on the basis that

Sutton Hague
28 their experience working for Defendants had been “consistently very positive.”
Law Corporation, P.C.
5200 N. PALM AVENUE
SUITE 203
FRESNO, CA 93704
6
DECLARATION OF BRADY BRIGGS IN SUPPORT OF JOINT MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF PAGA SETTLEMENT
1 Subsequently, I took the depositions of two allegedly aggrieved employees, who

2 both generally testified that they were paid for all hours worked and received all

3 meal and rest periods to which they were entitled. While Plaintiff continues to

4 believe based on the discovery that all aggrieved employees experience Labor

5 Code violations during the applicable time period, Plaintiff also reasonably

6 perceives difficulties in establishing the extent of those violations at trial, given

7 these indications from the aggrieved employees, who would likely be called to

8 testify. Accordingly, a further substantial reduction of Defendants’ estimated

9 exposure is justified on this basis.

10 23. Based on the foregoing, the gross settlement amount of $50,000 for PAGA

11 represents an excellent recovery for the State of California as well as the “aggrieved” employees

12 other than Plaintiff.

13 EXPERIENCE OF PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL

14 24. With respect to my qualifications, I graduated from the University of Utah with a

15 Bachelor of Arts in International Studies and a minor in French in 2011. I received my Juris

16 Doctor from the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, summa cum laude, in June 2015. Upon

17 graduation, I received the James E. Rogers Outstanding Scholastic Achievement Award, having

18 achieved the academic rank of first in class. I also served as Lead Articles Editor of the Nevada

19 Law Journal, and was a member of the Phi Kappa Phi National Honor Society.

20 25. Following law school, I worked for Sutton Hague Law Corporation, which

21 specializes in employment and labor law, and represents both plaintiffs and defendants in such

22 matters.

23 26. In August 2016, I left Sutton Hague Law Corporation to begin a two-year judicial

24 clerkship for the Honorable Robert C. Jones of the United States District Court for the District of

25 Nevada. I completed the clerkship in August 2018, at which time I returned to Sutton Hague and

26 have remained here since that time.

27 27. I am a member of the California State Bar Association and State Bar of Nevada.

Sutton Hague
28 28. I was selected to the list of 2023 Mountain States Super Lawyers Rising Stars in
Law Corporation, P.C.
5200 N. PALM AVENUE
SUITE 203
FRESNO, CA 93704
7
DECLARATION OF BRADY BRIGGS IN SUPPORT OF JOINT MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF PAGA SETTLEMENT
1 the practice area of Employment Litigation: Plaintiff.

2 29. I have served as counsel for plaintiffs and defendants in a number of wage and

3 hour class and PAGA representative action cases in both federal and state court, including:

4 Snipes v. Dollar Tree Distribution, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-00878-MCE-KJN (California Eastern

5 District); Sullivan v. Softpath System, LLC, et al., Case No. FCS049482 (Solano County Sup.

6 Ct.); Burnett v. EDRO Engineering, Inc., Case No. 19STCV04508 (Los Angeles County Sup.

7 Ct.); Stapleton et al. v. Covenant Care California, LLC, Case No. 37-2018-00010777 (San Diego

8 County Sup. Ct.); Pineda v. Oldcastle Infrastructure, Inc., Case No. RIC2001981 (Riverside

9 County Sup. Ct.); Sarina v. Physician’s Automated Laboratory, Inc. et al., Case No. 18cv-0143

10 (San Luis Obispo County Sup. Ct.); Jennings v. Hydratech, LLC, Case No. 21CECG00511

11 (Fresno County Sup. Ct.); Rangel v. Westmont Living, Inc., Case No. 20CVP-0242 (San Luis

12 Obispo County Sup. Ct.); Duran v. TKS Care Services, Inc., Case No. 21CECG00239 (Fresno

13 County Sup. Ct.); Goulet v. Industrial Finishes & Systems, Inc., Case No. 20STCV09977 (Los

14 Angeles County Sup. Ct.); Edwards v. Healthcomp, LLC, Case No. 20CECG02338 (Fresno

15 County Sup. Ct.); Cruz et al. v. MM 879, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-01563 (E.D. Cal.); Rouse

16 v. Right Start Mortgage, Inc., Case No. 18STCV08953 (Los Angeles County Sup. Ct.);

17 Shweiki/Masterson v. Donor Network West, Case Nos. C20-00073 & C20-00983 (Contra Costa

18 County Sup. Ct.); Dickerson v. Aera Energy, LLC, Case No. BCV-21-101646 (Kern County Sup.

19 Ct.); Easley v. Institute of Technology, Inc. et al., Case No. 9000308 (Stanislaus County Sup.

20 Ct.); Garrison v. StreetDelivery.com, Inc., Case No. RG20068186 (Alameda County Sup. Ct.);

21 and Gomez v. Bristol Bay Holdings, LLC et al., Case No. RG21109426 (Alameda County Sup.

22 Ct.).

23 30. My office is fully committed to dedicating the time and resources to see this case

24 through to its conclusion.

25 31. I have no interest in the designated cy pres recipient Foundation for Advocacy,

26 Inclusion & Resources (“FAIR”), and am unaware of any conflict of interest between myself or

27 Sutton Hague Law Corporation and FAIR.

Sutton Hague
28 32. I have no interest in Phoenix Settlement Administrators, Inc. (“PSA”), and am
Law Corporation, P.C.
5200 N. PALM AVENUE
SUITE 203
FRESNO, CA 93704
8
DECLARATION OF BRADY BRIGGS IN SUPPORT OF JOINT MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF PAGA SETTLEMENT
1 unaware of any conflict of interest between myself or Sutton Hague Law Corporation and PSA.

2 33. Based on all of the foregoing and my experience in this arena of complex wage

3 and hour litigation, and as counsel for Plaintiff, it is my assessment that the Settlement is fair and

4 reasonable and in the best interests of Plaintiff, the aggrieved employees, and the State of

5 California, and that the Court should grant approval.

7 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of California that the foregoing is true

8 and correct and that this declaration was executed on March 21, 2024.

10 _____________________________
BRADY BRIGGS
11

Sutton Hague
28
Law Corporation, P.C.
5200 N. PALM AVENUE
SUITE 203
FRESNO, CA 93704
9
DECLARATION OF BRADY BRIGGS IN SUPPORT OF JOINT MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF PAGA SETTLEMENT
EXHIBIT A
DocuSign Envelope ID: BEC83A39-CB32-4EF2-9840-56F2059775B4

1 EVELYN REED v.
2 THAILA RAMANUJAM, M.D., INC., et al.
3 California Superior Court, County of Santa Cruz
4 Case No. 21CV00200
5 PAGA SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE OF CLAIMS
6 Plaintiff EVELYN REED (“Plaintiff”), in her capacity as representative of the State of
7 California and on behalf of other aggrieved employees, and Defendants THAILA RAMANUJAM,
8 M.D., INC., and THAILA RAMANUJAM, M.D. (“Defendants”), hereby enter into this Settlement
9 Agreement and Release (“PAGA Settlement Agreement” or as used herein “Settlement” or
10 “PAGA Settlement”). The Private Attorney General Act of 2004, Labor Code section 2698 et seq.
11 is hereinafter referred to as (“PAGA”).
12 This PAGA Settlement Agreement is a compromise between Defendants and Plaintiff
13 regarding Plaintiff’s allegations regarding certain violations of the California Labor Code on
14 behalf of herself and other aggrieved employees pursuant to the PAGA, sought in the following
15 action titled: Evelyn Reed v. Thalia Ramanujam, M.D., Inc. et al., Santa Cruz County Superior
16 Court Case No. 21CV00200 (the “Action”).
17 The Parties acknowledge that the resolution of Plaintiff’s individual, non-PAGA claims
18 are resolved under a separate confidential agreement (Non-PAGA Settlement Agreement) and that
19 the Parties contemplate that Plaintiff’s individual, non-PAGA claims will be dismissed with
20 prejudice prior to the submission of this Settlement to the Court for its approval, whether by
21 stipulation or by noticed motion. The Court’s approval of this Settlement is not a condition
22 precedent of the effectiveness of the agreement to resolve Plaintiff’s individual, non-PAGA
23 claims.
24 This PAGA Settlement is subject to the approval of the Court and is made for the sole
25 purpose of consummating the settlement of this PAGA Action subject to the following terms and
26 conditions. As detailed below, in the event the Court does not enter orders consistent with the
27 terms of the PAGA Settlement or the conditions precedent are not met for any reason, this PAGA
28

-1-
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE OF CLAIMS
016073.00002 - 334406.1
DocuSign Envelope ID: BEC83A39-CB32-4EF2-9840-56F2059775B4

1 Settlement Agreement and the agreements and obligations embodied therein shall be void and shall
2 be of no force or effect whatsoever.
3 I. DEFINITIONS
4 As used in this PAGA Settlement Agreement, the following terms shall have the meanings
5 specified below. To the extent terms or phrases used in this PAGA Settlement Agreement are not
6 specifically defined below, but are defined elsewhere in this Settlement, they are incorporated by
7 reference into this definition section.
8 1. Action.
9 “Action” shall refer to the civil action of Evelyn Reed v. Thalia Ramanujam, M.D., Inc. et
10 al., Santa Cruz County Superior Court Case No. 21CV00200, including any amendments thereto.
11 2. Administrative Expenses.
12 “Administrative Expenses” shall include all costs and expenses associated with the
13 Settlement Administrator.
14 3. Covered Employees.
15 The term “Covered Employees,” for the purposes of this Settlement only, shall mean and
16 include all current and former nonexempt employees of Thalia Ramanujam, M.D., Inc. in
17 California from January 27, 2020, through the date of the Court’s approval of this Settlement.
18 Defendants estimate there are approximately twenty (20) Covered Employees.
19 4. Court.
20 “Court” shall mean the Superior Court of California in and for the County of Santa Cruz.
21 5. Defendants.
22 “Defendants” shall mean Thalia Ramanujam, M.D., Inc. and Thalia Ramanujam, M.D.
23 6. Defense Counsel.
24 “Defense Counsel” shall mean Aidan W. Butler, Esq., Attorney at Law or other counsel of
25 record for any Defendant.
26 7. Effective Date.
27 The “Effective Date” shall be the date when all of the following events have occurred: (1)
28 the Court enters an order and judgment approving the Settlement; and (2) the time for appeal, if

-2-
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE OF CLAIMS
016073.00002 - 334406.1
DocuSign Envelope ID: BEC83A39-CB32-4EF2-9840-56F2059775B4

1 applicable (as explained herein), has expired. If no objection by the LWDA is made to the
2 Settlement, there is no right to appeal and the Effective Date is the date upon which the Court signs
3 the final order and judgment. If an objection by the LWDA has been filed and/or heard at the
4 hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion for Approval, the Effective Date means: (1) the date of final
5 affirmation of the approval order and judgment from any appeal, the expiration of the time for, or
6 the denial of, a petition to review the approval order, or if review is granted, the date of final
7 affirmation of the approval order and judgment following review pursuant to that grant; (2) the
8 date of final dismissal of any appeal from the approval order and judgment or the final dismissal
9 of any proceeding to review the approval order and judgment, provided that the approval order
10 and judgment is affirmed and/or not reversed in any part; or (3) if no appeal is filed, the expiration
11 date of the time for the filing or noticing of any appeal from the Court’s approval of the Resolution,
12 as determined under Rule 8.104(a)(3) of the California Rules of Court.
13 8. Gross Settlement Amount.
14 “Gross Settlement Amount” or “GSA” shall mean Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000). The
15 GSA includes: (1) Administrative Expenses; (2) Individual Penalties Payments; and (3) the
16 payment to the LWDA.
17 9. Individual Penalties Payment.
18 “Individual Penalties Payment” shall mean the amount which is ultimately distributed to
19 each Covered Employee.
20 10. Net Settlement Amount.
21 “Net Settlement Amount” or “NSA” shall mean the GSA, less Administrative Expenses.
22 11. PAGA Representative.
23 “PAGA Representative” shall mean Plaintiff Evelyn Reed.
24 12. Parties.
25 “Parties” shall mean the Plaintiff and Defendants.
26 13. Plaintiff.
27 “Plaintiff” shall mean Plaintiff Evelyn Reed.
28 ///

-3-
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE OF CLAIMS
016073.00002 - 334406.1
DocuSign Envelope ID: BEC83A39-CB32-4EF2-9840-56F2059775B4

1 14. Plaintiff’s Counsel.
2 “Plaintiff’s Counsel” shall mean the attorneys of Sutton Hague Law Corporation, P.C. or
3 any other counsel of record for Plaintiff.
4 15. Released Claims.
5 “Released Claim(s)” shall mean and include any and all claims for civil penalties that
6 could have been assessed or collected by Plaintiff or the LWDA, a State of California Executive
7 Branch Agency (“LWDA”) under the PAGA, based on the factual allegations of Plaintiff’s
8 December 28, 2020 letter to the LWDA and/or Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, filed in this
9 Action on or around April 30, 2021, including but not limited to any claims for civil penalties for
10 misclassification as independent contractor, failure to pay overtime, failure to pay provide
11 compliant meal periods, failure to provide compliant rest periods, failure to timely pay all wages,
12 failure to pay wages due upon demand, failure to pay wages due upon termination, failure to issue
13 accurate itemized wage statements, failure to maintain accurate payroll records for its non-exempt
14 employees, failure to provide sick leave and/or written notice of accrued paid sick leave, and
15 failure to provide notice of pay. The Released Claims only include claims under the PAGA, arising
16 out of the facts and circumstances at issue in the Action, and do not include the individual or non-
17 PAGA claims of the Aggrieved Employees.
18 16. Released Parties.
19 “Released Parties” shall mean and include Defendants and their past, present and/or future
20 officers, directors, employees, and agents.
21 17. Settlement.
22 “Settlement” shall mean the settlement memorialized in this agreement.
23 18. Settlement Administrator.
24 “Settlement Administrator” means Phoenix Settlement Administrators, Inc., or any other
25 third-party administrator mutually agreed to by the Parties and approved by the Court, which will
26 perform the duties of: (a) calculating the amounts due to each Aggrieved Employee pursuant to
27 the Settlement; (b) providing Individual Penalties Payments, along with IRS Forms 1099, to the
28 Aggrieved Employees; (c) reporting the Individual Penalties Payment amounts of each Aggrieved

-4-
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE OF CLAIMS
016073.00002 - 334406.1
DocuSign Envelope ID: BEC83A39-CB32-4EF2-9840-56F2059775B4

1 Employee to all required taxing and other authorities; (d) utilizing the National Change of Address
2 Database maintained by the United States Postal Service, mail-forwarding information and/or skip
3 tracing methods, as reasonable, to update the Database and taking steps to send Individual
4 Penalties Payments to current mailing addresses; (e) performing such other duties as are described
5 herein; (f) establishing a Qualified Settlement Fund pursuant to applicable law for the purpose of
6 administering this Settlement; and (g) providing payment to the LWDA pursuant to Paragraph
7 III.2.a) below.
8 19. Settlement Approval Date.
9 “Settlement Approval Date” shall mean the date upon which the Court enters an order
10 approving this Settlement.
11 20. Settlement Period.
12 The “Settlement Period” shall be defined as commencing on January 27, 2020, and
13 continuing through the date on which the Court enters an order approving the Settlement.
14 II. RECITALS
15 1. This Settlement encompasses and shall include all Covered Employees as defined
16 herein.
17 2. On December 28, 2020, Plaintiff, on behalf of all Covered Employees, notified the
18 Labor and Workforce Development Agency (“LWDA”) of her allegations against Thalia
19 Ramanujam, M.D., Inc. for misclassification as independent contractor, failure to pay overtime,
20 failure to provide compliant meal periods, failure to provide compliant rest periods, failure to
21 timely pay all wages, failure to pay wages due upon demand, failure to issue accurate itemized
22 wage statements, failure to pay wages due and owing upon termination, failure to maintain accurate
23 payroll records for its non-exempt employees, and failure to provide notice of pay. The LWDA
24 did not provide any notice that it intended to investigate Plaintiff’s allegations.
25 3. On or about January 27, 2021, Plaintiff filed Case No. 21CV00200 in the Superior
26 Court of Santa Cruz County, alleging claims on an individual basis arising out of and relating to
27 her employment. On or about April 30, 2021, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint in the
28 Action, in which she added various claims under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act

-5-
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE OF CLAIMS
016073.00002 - 334406.1
DocuSign Envelope ID: BEC83A39-CB32-4EF2-9840-56F2059775B4

1 of 2004 (“PAGA”), alleging claims against Thalia Ramanujam, M.D., Inc. for civil penalties for
2 misclassification as independent contractor, failure to pay overtime, failure to provide compliant
3 meal periods, failure to provide compliant rest periods, failure to timely pay all wages, failure to
4 pay wages due upon demand, failure to issue accurate itemized wage statements, failure to pay
5 wages due and owing upon termination, failure to maintain accurate payroll records for its non-
6 exempt employees, and failure to provide notice of pay.
7 4. Defendants filed a general denial to Plaintiff’s Complaint, denying all material
8 allegations of liability and asserting various affirmative defenses. Defendants asserted that they
9 complied with applicable laws in that it compensated Covered Employees for all hours worked
10 and otherwise complied with its obligations under the California Labor Code and associated
11 regulations and Industrial Wage Orders.
12 5. Defendants are entering this Settlement solely to avoid the time and expense of
13 further litigation. Nothing in this Settlement may be construed as an admission of any wrongdoing
14 by Defendants. Defendants have taken into account the uncertainty and risks inherent in litigation.
15 Defendants have therefore concluded that it is desirable that the Action be resolved in the manner
16 and upon the terms and conditions set forth in this Settlement.
17 6. On July 10, 2023, the parties engaged in a full-day mediation before experienced
18 mediator Shirish Gupta, Esq. Prior to mediation, Plaintiff and Defendants engaged in both formal
19 discovery and informal discovery of records for Plaintiff and certain Covered Employees, the
20 number of Covered Employees and their pay rates, and other policy documents. Formal discovery
21 included multiple depositions. Defendants deposed the Plaintiff, and Plaintiff deposed
22 representatives of Defendants, including Defendant Thalia Ramanujam, M.D. The Parties
23 exchanged multiple sets of written discovery, with Plaintiff alone serving six separate sets of
24 interrogatories and five sets of document requests. The Parties also informally exchanged
25 information related to Defendants’ PAGA exposure. However, that mediation session was not
26 successful in producing an agreement between the Parties.
27

-6-
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE OF CLAIMS
016073.00002 - 334406.1
DocuSign Envelope ID: BEC83A39-CB32-4EF2-9840-56F2059775B4

1 7. On January 31, 2024, the parties engaged in a half-day mediation before
2 experienced mediator Leonard Gumport, Esq. Following arm’s length and hard-fought
3 negotiations through Mr. Gumport, the parties agreed to resolve this Action.
4 8. Defendants represent there are approximately 950 pay periods worked by Covered
5 Employees in the representative period of time encompassed within the Settlement Period.
6 9. Plaintiff warrants she has not sold, assigned, or transferred any claim or cause of
7 action, which she has or had against Defendants or any other person or entity who is covered by
8 this release of claims.
9 THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises, assurances, and covenants set forth
10 in this Settlement, the parties agree as follows:
11 III. SETTLEMENT TERMS
12 1. Gross Settlement Amount. Subject to the notice procedures set forth below and
13 Approval by the Court, Defendants agree to pay the Gross Settlement Amount (“GSA”) of FIFTY
14 THOUSAND DOLLARS AND ZERO CENTS ($50,000.00) to settle the Action. The GSA shall
15 be allocated as follows, subject to approval by the Court: (i) up to Five Thousand Dollars
16 ($5,000.00) for payment of Administrative Expenses; (iii) after deduction of the amount
17 enumerated above, the Net Settlement Amount (“NSA”), estimated to be at least Forty-Five
18 Thousand Dollars ($45,000), shall be made to the Covered Employees (including Plaintiff) and to
19 the LWDA in accordance with Paragraph III.2.
20 2. Distribution of the Net Settlement Amount. The NSA shall be calculated after
21 deducting the Administrative Expenses. The NSA will then be distributed as follows:
22 a) A total of 75% of the NSA shall be paid to the LWDA pursuant to Labor
23 Code section 2699(i).
24 b) A total of 25% of the NSA shall be distributed to the Covered Employees
25 on a pro rata basis, based on their respective number of compensable pay periods during the
26 Settlement Period, according to Defendants’ records. Covered Employees will receive an IRS
27 Form 1099-MISC (Box 3) for this payment.
28

-7-
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE OF CLAIMS
016073.00002 - 334406.1
DocuSign Envelope ID: BEC83A39-CB32-4EF2-9840-56F2059775B4

1 3. Court Approval. After full execution of this Settlement, the Parties shall submit a
2 stipulation for approval by the Court, along with the Settlement and proposed Notice Form
3 described in Paragraph VI.3 below, as well as justification for the settlement’s fairness and
4 adequacy. Defendants shall have an opportunity to review Plaintiff’s Counsel’s declaration(s) prior
5 to submission of the stipulation contemplated herein. If the Court does not approve the Settlement
6 by stipulation as proposed herein, unless otherwise directed by the Court, Plaintiff shall promptly
7 move the court for approval of the Settlement, as well as approval of all amounts to be deducted
8 from the GSA as described in Paragraph III.1. Defendants shall not oppose the motion and shall
9 make reasonable efforts to cooperate in obtaining approval of the Settlement. Prior to submission
10 of the earlier of stipulation or noticed motion, Plaintiff’s Counsel shall submit the Settlement to
11 the LWDA, as necessary under Labor Code section 2699(l) and any other applicable provision.
12 Should the Court not grant approval of this Settlement then the entirety of the Settlement shall be
13 null and void, unless otherwise agreed upon in writing by the Parties. Similarly, if the LWDA
14 objects to the Settlement and the Court sustains the objection, then the entirety of the Settlement
15 shall be null and void. The Court shall retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms and conditions of
16 the judgment. If the Settlement is null and void, and a new trial date is selected, all discovery
17 deadlines shall be based on the new trial date.
18 4. No Reversion. In the event the Court does not approve any amount requested to be
19 deducted from the GSA as described in Paragraph III.1, including Administrative Expenses, any
20 amount requested but not approved shall not revert to Defendants, but shall be added to the NSA
21 for distribution pursuant to Paragraph III.2.
22 IV. RELEASED CLAIMS
23 1. Plaintiff’s Release of Claims and General Release. Plaintiff, on behalf of herself
24 and the State of California, agrees to release the Released Parties from the Released Claims as
25 defined in this PAGA Settlement.
26 V. ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES
27 1. The Settlement Administrator’s

Case Info

Judge

Cogliati, Syda Kosofsky Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

March 22, 2024

Case Filing Date

January 27, 2021

County

Parties

Briggs, Brady Attorney
Briggs, Brady Attorney for the Plaintiff
Briggs, Brady Attorney
Briggs, Brady Attorney for the Plaintiff
Butler, Aidan Woodward Attorneys for Defendants
Butler, Aidan Woodward Attorney for the Defendant
Butler, Aidan Woodward Attorney
Butler, Aidan Woodward Attorney for the Defendant
Ramanujam, Thalia, MD Defendant
Ramanujam, Thalia MD Defendant
Reed , Evelyn Cross Defendant
Reed , Evelyn Plaintiff
Reed , Evelyn Cross Defendant
Reed , Evelyn Plaintiff
Thaila Ramanujam. M.D., Inc Cross Complainant
Thaila Ramanujam. M.D., Inc Defendant
Thaila Ramanujam. M.D., Inc Cross Complainant
Thaila Ramanujam. M.D., Inc Defendant
Shirish Gupta Attorney
S. Sutton Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Maria Bradish Attorney

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

No Value: Evelyn Reed vs Thaila Ramanujam. M.D., Inc , et al

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties