Preview
9/1/2020
Edwin Aiwazian (SBN 232943)
1
edwin@lfjpc.com
2 Arby Aiwazian (SBN 269827)
arby@lfjpc.com
3 LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC
410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203
4
Glendale, California 91203
5 Tel: (818) 265-1020 / Fax: (818) 265-1021
6 Amir Nayebdadash (SBN 232204)
7
amir@protectionlawgroup.com
Heather Davis (SBN 239372)
8 heather@protectionlawgroup.com
PROTECTION LAW GROUP LLP
9 136 Main Street, Suite A
10
El Segundo, California 90245
Tel: (424) 290-3095 / Fax: (866) 264-7880
11
Attorneys for Plaintiff
12
13 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
14 FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
15
16 JAMIE SALES, individually, and on behalf of Case No.: 18CIV05048
other members of the general public, similarly
17 situated; Assigned for all purposes to: Hon. Marie S.
Weiner, Dept. 2
18 Plaintiff, Class Action
19
vs. DECLARATION OF HEATHER DAVIS IN
20 SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR
J.S. INTERNATIONAL SHIPPING CORP., a PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS
21 California corporation; and DOES 1 through ACTION AND PAGA SETTLEMENT
100, inclusive,
22
Hearing Date: September 24, 2020
Defendants.
23 Hearing Time 2:00 p.m.
Department: 2
24
25 Complaint Filed: September 19, 2018
Trial Date: Not Set
26
27
28
DECLARATION OF HEATHER DAVIS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL
1 DECLARATION OF HEATHER M. DAVIS, ESQ.
2 I, Heather M. Davis, declare as follows:
3 1. I am an attorney duly licensed to practice law before all courts of the State of
4 California and all United States District Courts in the State of California. I am a partner of the
5 Protection Law Group, LLP, attorneys of record for named Plaintiff Jamie Sales. I have personal
6 knowledge of the facts stated herein and if called as a witness I could and would competently
7 testify thereto.
8 CLASS COUNSEL’S BACKGROUND AND EXPERIENCE
9 2. I am a duly licensed attorney and have been a member of the Colorado State Bar
10 since 1998, the California State Bar since 2005 and the Arizona State Bar since 2007. I graduated
11 from the University of Denver School of Law in 1998 and I am licensed to practice before all
12 courts of the State of California and Colorado as well as the State of Arizona and District Courts
13 throughout the country.
14 3. Prior to opening my law firm, I developed particular experience in the area of wage
15 and hour litigation. For instance, between 2007 and 2013, I joined the law firm of Littler
16 Mendelson, P.C., the largest labor and employment law firm in the United States.
17 4. During my employment with Littler Mendelson, P.C., I continued my practice of
18 employment law and was responsible for and defended dozens of complex class actions involving
19 some of the largest representative and class actions brought under the California Labor Code,
20 including meal and rest break violations, overtime, minimum wage claims, off the clock work and
21 other related wage claims. My practice included the management of dozens of class actions. My
22 management of these cases included taking and defending hundreds of depositions and interviews
23 of hundreds of putative class members as well as extensive state, federal and appellate briefing on
24 hundreds of wage and hour issues involving class actions.
25 5. During my employment at Littler Mendelson, I played a significant role in the class
26 actions for which I was responsible. In particular, I was often in charge of the leading the strategy
27 of the cases and drafting all of the briefs. I received a wide-array of wage and hour class action
28 experience performing the following types of tasks: drafting demurrers; motions to strike and/or
DECLARATION OF HEATHER DAVIS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL -
1
1 dismiss; removing actions from state court to federal court; drafting and responding to written
2 discovery; drafting and opposing discovery related motions; arguing discovery related motions;
3 drafting motions to consolidate related matters; interviewing putative class members and obtaining
4 declarations in connection with class certification; drafting oppositions to motions for class
5 certification; drafting motions for decertification following class certification; conducting
6 exposure analyses to assess the strengths and weaknesses of asserted claims, the likelihood of
7 prevailing at class certification and potential damages resulting from such claims; drafting
8 mediation briefs; serving as the primary contact to in-house counsel; deposing Plaintiff and
9 putative class members; deposing retained expert witnesses; and defending the depositions of
10 corporate witnesses. In short, I played an integral role in all aspects of litigation from the inception
11 of a matter through and beyond class certification.
12 6. During my practice in other jurisdictions and continuing today, I have been
13 primarily devoted to working in employment law and on complex class action and representative
14 litigation and multi-plaintiff work.
15 7. Protection Law Group LLP is a law firm specifically devoted to the representation
16 of employees against employers in California involving claims relating to violations of the
17 California Labor Code, including claims for failure to pay all wage s owed, failure to pay overtime
18 premiums, failure to ay meal and rest premiums and failure to provide accurate wage records. The
19 practice of employment law is a very specific, narrow field which requires diligence in an ever-
20 evolving field of substantive and procedural law.
21 8. Although not exhaustive, below is a representative list of several of the wage and
22 hour class actions that I performed substantial work on while I was an attorney with Littler
23 Mendelson, including, but not limited to: Villacres v. ABM Industries, Inc., 189 Cal.App.4th 562
24 (2010); Brizuela v. Copart, Inc., CIVRS11101592, (San Bernardino Superior Court class action
25 settlement); Augustus v. ABM Industries, Inc., BC336416, 2 Cal. 5th 257 (2016); Tagaki v. United
26 Airlines, 2:11-CV9191 (Central District class action settlement), Babasa v. Comerica, Inc., 3:11-
27 CV00595, Leyva v. Medline Industries, Inc. 5:11-cv-00164 (Central District), Blue v. Coldwell
28 Banker Residential Brokerage Co., BC417335, (Los Angeles Superior Court, class action
DECLARATION OF HEATHER DAVIS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL -
2
1 settlement), and Acosta v. Texwood Industries, Inc., 2:07-cv-03237-DDP-PLA (Central District
2 class action settlement).
3 9. Since opening my firm, I have served as lead counsel or co-class counsel in several
4 wage and hour class and/or representative actions seeking wages and penalties owed on behalf of
5 employees for which final approval of the settlement or class certification has been granted,
6 including, but not limited to the following:
• Fong et al. v. Regis Corporation, 3:13-cv-13-04497 VC, (United States District Court,
7
Northern District of California, appointing Protection Law Group, LLP as class counsel in
8
settlement);
9
• Sampson v. 24 HR Homecare LLC, BC586019 (Los Angeles County Superior Court wage
10
and hour class action appointing Protection Law Group, LLP as class counsel in
11
settlement);
12
• Torres v. Auto Rescue et al., RIC 1509900 (Riverside County Superior Court wage and
13 hour class action appointing Protection Law Group, LLP as class counsel in settlement);
14 • Kashanian v. Plus Labs, Inc., (Santa Clara County Superior Court wage and hour class
15 action appointing Protection Law Group, LLP as class counsel in settlement);
16 • Drayton v. Hollywood Park Casino, BC593935 (Los Angeles Superior Court wage and
17 hour class action appointing Protection Law Group, LLP as class counsel in settlement);
18 • Holzer v. Wedbush Securities, Inc., BC 550462 (Los Angeles Superior Court wage and
hour class action certifying class and appointing Protection Law Group, LLP as class
19
counsel);
20
• Khan v. FPI Management, Inc., JCCP4819 (Los Angeles Superior Court wage and hour
21
class action appointing Protection Law Group, LLP as class counsel in settlement);
22
• Byrd v. Masonite Corp., 5:16-cv-00035-JGBKK (United States District Court, Central
23
District of California appointing Protection Law Group, LLP as class counsel in
24
settlement);
25
• Utterbach v. Daylight Transport, LLC BC600994 (Los Angeles Superior Court wage and
26
hour class action appointing Protection Law Group, LLP as class counsel in settlement)
27
28
DECLARATION OF HEATHER DAVIS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL -
3
1 • Hadrick v. Woodmont Real Estate Services., et al., CIV 530405 (San Mateo County
2 Superior Court wage and hour class action appointing Protection Law Group, LLP as class
3 counsel in settlement); and
4 • Eiden v. Olive & June, BC654685 (Los Angeles Superior Court wage and hour class action
5 appointing Protection Law Group, LLP as class counsel in settlement)
6 • Lemus v. Slater Inc., CIVDS1703633 (San Bernardino Superior Court wage and hour class
7 action appointing Protection Law Group, LLP as class counsel in settlement)
8 • Deluna v. Amerit Fleet Solutions et al., CIVDS1721564 (San Bernardino Superior Court
9 wage and hour class action appointing Protection Law Group, LLP as class counsel in
10 settlement)
11 • Commick v. Prometheus Real Estate Group, CIV531264 (San Mateo Superior Court wage
12 and hour class action appointing Protection Law Group, LLP as class counsel in
13 settlement).
14 • Martinez v. AMRO Fabricating Corp., BC681938 (Los Angeles Superior Court wage and
15 hour class action appointing Protection Law Group, LLP as class counsel in settlement).
16 • Ramirez v. Western National Properties, BC639319 (Los Angeles Superior Court wage
17 and hour class action appointing Protection Law Group, LLP as class counsel in
18 settlement).
19 • Hernandez v. Access Dental Plan et. al, 34-2017-00220944 (Sacramento Superior Court
20 wage and hour class action appointing Protection Law Group, LLP as class counsel in
21 settlement).
22 • Fernandez v. Sumitomo Rubber North America, Inc., CIVDS 1803211 (San Bernardino
23 Superior Court wage and hour class action appointing Protection Law Group, LLP as class
24 counsel in settlement).
25 • Stone v. Universal Protection Services, AAA Case No. 01-15-0002-7497 (American
26 Arbitration Association wage and hour class action appointing Protection Law Group, LLP
27 as class counsel in settlement)
28
DECLARATION OF HEATHER DAVIS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL -
4
1 • Fuentes v. Communications Test Design, Inc. Case No. CIVDS1802427 (San Bernardino
2 Superior Court wage and hour class action appointing Protection Law Group, LLP as class
3 counsel in settlement).
4 • Hartline v. Senior Operations, LLC, Case No. BC697665 (Los Angeles Superior Court
5 wage and our class action appointing Protection Law Group, LLP as class counsel in
6 settlement).
7 • Mendoza v. Cruise America, Inc. Case No. RG18922083 (Alameda Superior Court wage
8 and hour class action certifying class and appointing Protection Law Group, LLP as class
9 counsel in settlement.)
10 • White v. Windy Pizza Plus, LLC, Case No BC593377 (Los Angeles Superior Court wage
11 and hour class action certifying class and appointing Protection Law Group, LLP as class
12 counsel)
13 • Carrozzella v. Basalite Concrete Products, LLC, Case No. 34-2017-00220214
14 (Sacramento Superior Court wage and hour class action certifying class and appointing
15 Protection Law Group, LLP as class counsel in settlement.)
16 • Howey v. Battery Systems, Inc., Case No. 2026114 (Stanislaus Superior Court wage and
17 hour class action appointing Protection Law Group, LLP as class counsel in settlement)
18 • Correa v. Cashbak, LLC, Case No. BC723845 (Los Angeles Superior Court wage and hour
19 class action appointing Protection Law Group LLP as class counsel in settlement)
20 10. I am fully familiar with the legal and factual issues in this case, and have specific
21 experience litigating complex wage and hour actions as class actions, including employment cases
22 as set forth above.
23 11. The Settlement presented here only resulted after having engaged in extensive
24 informal discovery and investigation and is the product of hard-fought litigation and extensive
25 arms’ length negotiations. In my opinion as an experienced class counsel, the Settlement is fair,
26 reasonable, adequate, and in the best interests of the Class.
27
28
DECLARATION OF HEATHER DAVIS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL -
5
1 PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND
2 12. Plaintiff Jamie Sales is a former employee of Defendant J.S. International Shipping,
3 Corp. Ms. Sales worked for Defendant as an hourly-paid, non-exempt administrator and facilities
4 coordinator from October 2015 to August 2016.
5 13. J.S. International Shipping, Corp., is a transportation, distribution and supply chain
6 management corporation. In July 2018, J.S. International Shipping Corp., was acquired by another
7 corporation, Omni Logistics.
8 14. On September 19, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Class Action Complaint for Damages.
9 Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of non-exempt employees in California for, inter alia,
10 Defendant’s alleged failure to provide overtime wages, failure to provide meal breaks, failure to
11 authorize and permit rest breaks, failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay timely pay wages
12 upon termination, failure to timely pay wages during employment, failure to provide accurate,
13 itemized wage statements, failure to keep complete or accurate payroll records, failure to reimburse
14 necessary business expenses as well as violation of California Business and Professions Code
15 §17200 for unfair business practices.
16 15. Following the filing of the Complaint, Defendant filed a Motion to Compel
17 Arbitration.
18 16. In response, Plaintiff conducted discovery regarding the arbitration agreement and
19 conditions under which it was entered including propounding requests for production and taking
20 the deposition of Defendant’s Person Most Qualified. Thereafter, on May 13, 2019, filed an
21 opposition to Defendant’s Motion to compel Arbitration.
22 17. After hearing oral argument, on September 4, 2019, the Court entered an order
23 denying Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration.
24 18. On October 31, 2019, Defendant filed a Notice of Appeal regarding the Court’s
25 order denying its Motion to Compel Arbitration. However, shortly after filing its Notice of Appeal,
26 the Parties agreed to attend mediation in an effort to informally resolve this matter and accordingly
27 stipulated to continue the filing of their respective briefs.
28
DECLARATION OF HEATHER DAVIS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL -
6
1 19. In advance of mediation, Defendant provided Plaintiff with substantial informal
2 discovery including all relevant policies in place during the class period, Plaintiff’s personnel file,
3 and a sampling of time and payroll data for the putative class through which Plaintiff was able to
4 perform a damages analysis and estimate Defendant’s potential liability.
5 20. After extensive review of these documents, on February 13, 2020, the Parties
6 attended a full day of meditation with David Rotman Esq., a mediator with substantial experience
7 mediating wage and hour class actions. At the mediation, the Parties engaged in a full day of
8 intensive settlement discussions during which they debated their respective positions and
9 exchanged views regarding the strengths and weaknesses of their claims and defenses.
10 21. After extensive settlement discussions and with the help of the mediator, the parties
11 reached an agreement to resolve this matter on class and representative basis for a Class Settlement
12 Amount of $375,000 and entered into a memorandum of understanding.
13 22. Thereafter, the Parties drafted and revised a long form settlement agreement. As
14 part of this agreement Plaintiff agreed to amend her complaint to add a cause of action under the
15 Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA).
16 23. On March 11, 2020, the Parties requested that the Court of Appeal vacate the
17 briefing deadlines for Defendant’s Appeal of the Court’s Order denying Defendant’s Motion to
18 Compel Arbitration, stay appellate proceedings, and remand to this matter to the San Mateo
19 Superior Court for the limited purpose of approving the settlement. On March 12, 2020, the Court
20 of Appeal lifted the automatic stay on this Action for the sole purpose of adjudicating the
21 settlement of this matter.
22 24. On June 15, 2020, Plaintiff submitted notice of her intent to bring a PAGA claim
23 to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA). More than 65 days had passed and
24 having received no notice from the LWDA that it intended to investigate these claims.
25 Accordingly, in conjunction with the Motion for Preliminary Approval Plaintiff requests the Court
26 permit Plaintiff to file a First Amended Complaint adding this claim. Attached hereto as Exhibit
27 1 is a true and correct copy of the First Amended Complaint adding a cause of Action under the
28 Private Attorneys General Act of 2004.
DECLARATION OF HEATHER DAVIS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL -
7
1 SUMMARY OF THE TERMS OF SETTLEMENT
2 25. Plaintiff Jamie Sales (“Plaintiff”) seeks preliminary approval of the proposed class
3 action settlement. Attached hereto as Exhibit 2 is a true and correct copy of the parties’ Settlement
4 Agreement and Release (hereinafter “Settlement” or “Agreement”). A true and correct copy of the
5 proposed Notice of Class Action Settlement is attached hereto as Exhibit 3.
6 26. Plaintiff seeks to provisionally certify the following class for settlement purposes:
7 “all non-exempt employees employed by J.S. International Shipping, Corp. in California from
8 September 19, 2014 to the date of Preliminary Approval by the Court of Settlement.”. See
9 Agreement ¶A.5.
10 27. The Settlement Class contains approximately 106 class members.
11 28. Subject to Court approval, Plaintiff and Defendant J.S. International Shipping Corp.
12 (“Defendant”) have agreed to settle the class claims for the Class Settlement Amount of $375,000.
13 Agreement ¶A.6
14 29. The Class Settlement Amount allocations are as follows:
15 a. Attorneys’ Fees in an amount of thirty-five percent (35%) of the Gross
16 Settlement Amount, amounting to $131,250.
17 b. Attorneys’ Costs, not to exceed $35,000.
18 c. The Settlement Administration Costs, for services performed by Phoenix
19 Class Action Administrative Solutions, estimated to be $6,250.
20 d. The Class Representative Enhancement Award in the amount of $7,500
21 e. PAGA Payment of $5,000 to for PAGA Penalties, 75% of which will be
22 distributed to the LWDA and 25% of which will be included in the Net
23 Settlement Amount and distributed to participating class members.
24 30. After deducting these amounts, the Net Settlement Amount of approximately
25 $191,250 shall be distributed to the Settlement Class Members on a pro-rata basis based on the
26 number of Workweeks worked during the Class Period.
27
28
DECLARATION OF HEATHER DAVIS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL -
8
1 31. The payment to each Settlement Class Member will vary based on the number of
2 workweeks the member worked but will provide an average estimated settlement payment of
3 $1,804.24.
4 32. This proposed Settlement resolves all of the Settlement Class Members’ claims
5 against Defendant as to the facts alleged in the operative complaint (the First Amended Complaint
6 attached hereto as Exhibit 1) and all claims that could have been alleged based on such facts.
7 33. Each Class Member’s settlement allocation will be allocated between wage and
8 nonwage payments as follows: twenty-five percent wages subject to withholding, forty percent
9 penalties and thirty-five percent interest.
10 34. Employee will be withheld for the wage portion of their individual settlement
11 payments. Employer-side payroll taxes on the wage portion of employees’ individual settlement
12 payments shall be deducted from the Net Settlement Amount.
13 35. The proposed Agreement is a non-reversionary, non-claims made settlement. All
14 money from the Net Settlement Amount will be distributed to the class members. No money will
15 revert to Defendant.
16 36. Any settlement checks that are mailed to the Settlement Class Members will remain
17 negotiable for one hundred and eighty (180) days. Following this period, any residue sent to the
18 California State Controller’s Office pursuant to California Unclaimed Property Law, California
19 Civil Code §1500. As such the Parties agree no unpaid residue will result from the settlement.
20 THE SETTLEMENT IS REASONABLE
21 Method of Distribution
22 37. The proposed settlement is based on the number of Workweeks worked by each
23 class member. This method is commonly used in wage and hour class actions because it relies
24 upon objective evidence of the total days of employment, which Class Members can easily review
25 and confirm for themselves. This information is readily available from Defendant’s records, and
26 the Settlement Administrator can apply the formula in a fair and transparent manner.
27 38. Additionally, this method of distribution is commonly used in wage and hour class
28 actions because it allows for a distribution that corresponds closely to the alleged damages since
DECLARATION OF HEATHER DAVIS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL -
9
1 employees experience the same working conditions, so their damages are directly related to the
2 amount of time they were employed.
3 39. The effectiveness of Class Counsel in prosecuting this case has translated into
4 monetary benefits for the Settlement Class in the following respects: (1) the Settlement Class will
5 recover over a reasonably short period of time as opposed to waiting additional years for the same,
6 or possibly, a worse, result; (2) a guaranteed result that compares favorably with other similar class
7 action settlements of this type, (3) significant savings in Class Counsel’s fees and costs which
8 would have only increased significantly had the case progressed through trial, appeals, and
9 continued litigation.
10 Discovery and Informed Arms-Length Negotiations
11 40. Settlement was reached in this matter only after extensive informal discovery
12 including review and analysis of a class wide sampling of time and payroll data, review of
13 Defendant’s written policies, briefing and argument regarding the strengths and weaknesses of
14 Plaintiff’s claims and Defendant’s defenses, and extensive settlement discussions. The Parties
15 engaged in a full day of mediation with the David Rotman, Esq. a highly respected mediator with
16 particular experience in wage and hour class actions. The settlement negotiations were at arm’s
17 length and, although conducted in a professional manner, were adversarial. Defendant at all times
18 maintained that they had complied with California wage and hour laws. Likewise, if this matter
19 had not resolved at mediation, Plaintiff was prepared to vigorously litigate this dispute including
20 through class certification and trial. The proposed Settlement was reached at the end of a process
21 that was neither fraudulent nor collusive. To the contrary, counsel for the Parties advanced their
22 respective positions throughout the settlement negotiations.
23 41. Defendant provided my office with substantial informal discovery prior to
24 mediation. Prior to mediation, Defendant informally produced a sampling of time and payroll
25 records, Plaintiff’s personnel file, Defendant’s written policies in effect during the class period,
26 and other relevant documents and information regarding the size and scope of the class. My office
27 and my co-counsel with Lawyers for Justice thoroughly reviewed this discovery and conducted a
28 class-wide assessment and analysis of Defendant’s potential damages based on the documents and
DECLARATION OF HEATHER DAVIS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL -
10
1 information provided. The parties extensively briefed these issues and provided their analyses to
2 the mediator for her consideration. This investigation allowed Plaintiff’s counsel to act
3 intelligently in negotiating the settlement.
4 Estimate of Potential Value
5 42. My office analyzed all available data and estimated Defendant’s maximum
6 potential exposure at approximately $1,475,383 assuming the Litigation was successful at trial on
7 the principal claims at issue, and then reduced this exposure analysis based on the likelihood of
8 obtaining class certification, prevailing at trial, and other attendant risks. This amount is based on
9 the total estimated maximum liability for all the workweeks at the time of mediation. Based on
10 review and analysis of the documents provided including a representative sampling of employee
11 time and payroll records I estimated the total meal break damages owed at $563,923.80 for all
12 class members during the class period. Rest breaks were not recorded. However, based on informal
13 investigation that revealed the similar practices that were leading to employees missing meal
14 breaks, or receiving short and late meal periods, I estimated there would be approximately
15 $187,974.60 in potential damages for rest period violations. Plaintiff’s claims for overtime and
16 minimum wage violations were based on off-the-clock work performed including work performed
17 before and after Plaintiff’s scheduled shift and during meal breaks when she was off-the-clock.
18 Based on these practices, I estimated that Defendant owed the class approximately $140,980.95 in
19 unpaid wages and overtime. Waiting time penalties amounted to $471,504. Penalties for inaccurate
20 wage statements amounted to $111,000. My office did not assign a significant value to Plaintiff’s
21 separately alleged claims regarding unpaid business expenses, recordkeeping claims, or claims
22 regarding the timely payment of wages during employment. Although this amount constitutes my
23 maximum estimated liability during the mediation, Defendant raised several issues which
24 impacted the risks attendant to proceeding on a class-wide basis.
25 Specific Risks Considered
26 43. Although the investigation and information discovered supports Plaintiff’s
27 contentions, Defendant raised potential defenses and other circumstances that impacted the risk of
28 proceeding on a class-wide basis.
DECLARATION OF HEATHER DAVIS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL -
11
1 44. First, Defendant maintained that Plaintiff and the class’ claims were subject to
2 arbitration. While Plaintiff successfully defeated Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration, and
3 thereby cleared this initial procedural hurdle, Defendant took steps to appeal this decision and
4 strongly believed the Court of Appeal would rule in their favor.
5 45. Defendant also proffered defenses to both certification and the merits of Plaintiff’s
6 claims. Consideration of these risks factored into the decision to enter this settlement. Defendant
7 contended that Plaintiff’s claims are not suitable for class certification because individual issues
8 and affirmative defenses would predominate should this case go to trial. As with all class actions,
9 these complex cases raise difficult management and proof issues and, accordingly, there is a
10 significant risk that the Court may deny class certification.
11 46. Potential individualized issues exist with respect to Plaintiff’s meal period claims.
12 Although Plaintiff maintains that Defendant maintained an unlawful meal period policies and
13 practices, Defendant argued its practices were lawful. Defendant argued that individualized issues
14 regarding why a meal period was missed predominated and Class Counsel had to consider the risk
15 that the Court would find validity to this individualized proof defense.
16 47. Defendant also challenged Plaintiff’s ability sufficiently prove the alleged rest
17 period violations as Defendant was not required to record these breaks. Defendant claims it
18 allowed employees to take their rest periods and that its practices comply with California law.
19 Given the lack of records, Defendant argued that even if Plaintiff managed to establish a practice
20 of denying compliant rest breaks, Plaintiff could not demonstrate significant damages.
21 48. Plaintiff also faced challenges certifying and proving liability for her minimum
22 wage and overtime claims. These claims were largely based on uncompensated off-the-clock work
23 performed by the class members before and after their scheduled shift and during meal periods.
24 Certifying this claim was not certain and would likely have required complex analysis and was
25 subject to the same challenges regarding individualized inquiry and to prove the damages
26 established by the putative class members.
27 49. There are also risks associated with Plaintiff’s claims regarding Defendant’s failure
28 to timely pay wages, wage statement, and recordkeeping claims. These claims were derivative of
DECLARATION OF HEATHER DAVIS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL -
12
1 Plaintiff’s claims for unpaid meal and rest period premiums, overtime, and Defendant’s failure to
2 compensate class members for all time worked. The risks faced by these claims also affected the
3 viability of these claims. Moreover, each of these claims faced additional risks specific to each
4 claim. For instance, Plaintiff would need to prove that Defendant’s waiting time violations were
5 willful and legal challenges to Plaintiff’s recordkeeping claims and claims regarding the timely
6 payment of wages. These derivative claims were therefore uncertain and constituted a large portion
7 of Defendant’s liability.
8 50. My office also investigated Plaintiff’s claim for unpaid business expenses. This
9 claim was primarily related to complaints from Plaintiff regarding the use of her personal vehicle
10 and cell phone. However, Plaintiff faced significant hurdles in establishing there was an unlawful
11 policy, practice, or procedure, and obtaining class certification on this issue. Plaintiff was unable
12 to locate a written uniform policy she believed would be certifiable and there were numerous
13 individualized issues. Given the significant problems surrounding this claim, I did not assign
14 significant value to this claim when considering the settlement.
15 51. Finally, Defendant wished for the settlement to include a release of claims arising
16 under the Private Attorneys’ General Act. Shortly before this Action was filed, Defendant J.S.
17 International Shipping Corp. was acquired by Omni Logistics, whom Plaintiff Sales did not work
18 for. Accordingly, by the time of the Parties February 2020, mediation, the statute of limitations for
19 any employee to bring a claim under PAGA had arguably expired, as more than one year had
20 passed since any employee worked for J.S. International Shipping, Corp.
21 52. Nonetheless, my office separately contemplated the risks of proceeding with the
22 PAGA action and potential liability Defendant could face from this claim prior to agreeing to
23 include this claim in the proposed settlement. The parties agreed during settlement negotiations to
24 allocate $5,000 of the Settlement towards the PAGA claims. Five thousand dollars is
25 approximately 1.3% of the Gross Settlement Amount. This percentage of the settlement is well
26 within the range of PAGA settlements regularly approved in both state and federal court when a
27 lawsuit includes both a class and PAGA action. A settlement that allocates approximately 1% of
28
DECLARATION OF HEATHER DAVIS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL -
13
1 the total settlement value to resolve PAGA claims is typical of wage-and-hour settlements and
2 PAGA amounts as little 0.27 percent of the gross settlement amount have been approved. See e.g.
3
• Davis v. Brown Shoe Co., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 149010 (E.D. Cal. 2015) (PAGA
4 Payment of $5,000 in a $1.5 million class settlement)
5 • Zamora v. Ryder Integrated Logistics, Inc., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 184096 (S.D.
Cal. 2014) ($7,500 payment to LWDA for PAGA on a $1.5 million class
6 settlement)
7 • Lusby v. Gamestop Inc., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42637 (N.D. Cal. 2015) (PAGA
Payment of $5,000 in a $500,000 class settlement)
8
• Cruz v. Sky Chefs, Inc., 2014 U.S. Dist Lexis 17693 (N.D. Cal. 2014) (approving
9 payment of $10,000 to the LWDA for PAGA out of $1,750,000 class settlement)
10 • Chu v. Wells Fargo Investments, LLC, 2011 WL 672645, *1 (N.D. Cal. 2011)
(approving PAGA payment of $7,500 to the LWDA out of $6.9 million common-
11
fund settlement)
12 • Martino v. Ecolab Inc., No. 3:14CV04358 (N.D. Cal. 2017) ($100,000 allotted as
PAGA penalties or 0.48% of $21,000,000 settlement amount).
13
• East v. Comprehensive Educational Services Inc., Case No. 11-CECG-04226
14
(2015) ($10,000 allotted as PAGA penalties or 0.13% of $7,595,846 settlement
15 amount).
16
• Bararsani v. Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage Company, Case No.
BC495767 (2016) ($10,000 allotted as PAGA penalties or 0.22% of $4,500,000
17 settlement amount).
18 • Rico v. Cardinal Health 200 Inc. No. CIVRS-14-01451 (2017) ($5,000 allotted as
PAGA penalties or 0.14% of $3,500,000 settlement amount).
19
• Moppin v. Los Robles Medical Center, No. 5:15CV01551 (C.D. Cal. 2017)
20 ($15,000 allotted as PAGA penalties or 0.40% of $3,775,000 settlement amount).
21 • Scott-George v. PVH Corporation. No., 2:13CV00441 (E.D. Cal. 2017) ($15,000
allotted as PAGA penalties or 0.46% of $3,250,000 settlement amount).
22
• Hart v. Parkview Community Hospital Medical Center,No. RIC-14-06044 (2016)
23 ($10,000 allotted as PAGA penalties or 0.39% of $2,550,000 settlement amount).
24 • Nehrlich v. RPM Mortgage Inc., No. 30-2013-00666783-CU-OE-CXC (2017)
($10,000 allotted as PAGA penalties or 0.40% of $2,500,000 settlement amount).
25
• Kelley v. The Related Companies of California L.L.C. No. CIVDS-13-07167 (2016)
26 ($10,000 allotted as PAGA penalties or 0.50% of $2,000,000 settlement amount).
27 • Castrejon v. O'Connell Landscape Maintenance Inc., No. RIC-12-12798 (2015)
($5,000 allotted as PAGA penalties or 0.33% of $1,500,000 settlement amount
28
DECLARATION OF HEATHER DAVIS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL -
14
1 53. In allocating $5,000 to PAGA Plaintiff considered that PAGA penalties were
2 arguably beyond the statute of limitations for any individual to recover, would be subject to the
3 same defenses and risks as Plaintiff’s class claims as well as defenses unique to PAGA, that PAGA
4 penalties may not be stacked for violations based on the same conduct, and the substantial risk that
5 PAGA penalties may be reduced where they are duplicative, arbitrary or oppressive.
6 54. Defendant denies Plaintiff’s allegations and claims that it has properly paid putative
7 class members for all time worked. Based on Class Counsel’s experience litigating similar
8 complex matters along with my familiarity with defense counsel’s reputation and experience, I
9 would reasonably expect a vigorous and lengthy defense to both class certification and on the
10 merits absent a settlement. Taking into account the risks pertaining to procedural issues including
11 arbitration and class certification and the issues raised by Defendant, I reduced the value of the
12 case by fifty percent. Finally, given the uncertainty of recovery, even after certification, I further
13 reduced this valuation for merits-based risks by fifty percent reaching a final valuation of
14 $368,485.75
15 55. I therefore submit that the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate. The
16 Settlement is in the best interest of the Class Members and is within the accepted range of
17 recoveries for this type of litigation given the inherent risk of litigation, the risk of obtaining and
18 maintaining class certification, and the costs of further litigation.
19 ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS
20 56. Plaintiff’s Counsel’s fees incurred are in line with the common fund requested.
21 Plaintiff’s Counsel is seeking 35 percent of the Gross Settlement Amount or $131,250. Plaintiff’s
22 Counsel has achieved an excellent result for the class during hard fought negotiations. Plaintiff’s
23 Counsel have extensive experience in wage and hour disputes and were able to use their extensive
24 experience and skills to achieve this result. The Motion for Final Approval will elaborate on the
25 nature of the legal services provided, the time incurred in performing those services, and Class
26 Counsel’s hourly rates. The Motion for Final Approval will also elaborate on the reimbursement
27 for costs sought by Settlement Class Counsel, which are currently estimated at approximately
28
DECLARATION OF HEATHER DAVIS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL -
15
1 $35,000. Notice of Plaintiff’s Counsel’s requested fees are disclosed in the Notice to the Class.
2 See Exhibit 3.
3 THE METHOD OF NOTICE IS VERY LIKELY TO GIVE ACTUAL NOTICE
4 57. No later than fourteen (14) days after the Court grants preliminary approval of the
5 Settlement, Defendant will provide to the Settlement Administrator the following information
6 about each Settlement Class Member: (1) name; (2) last known address; (3) last known telephone
7 number; (4) first and last date of employment; (5) workweeks worked; and (6) social security
8 number and/or employee ID number.
9 58. The Settlement Administrator will run all the addresses provided through the
10 United States Postal Service NCOA database (which provides updated addresses for any individual
11 who has moved in the previous four years who has notified the U.S. Postal Service of a forwarding
12 address) to obtain current address information.
13 59. Within fourteen (14) calendar days of receiving the data, the Settlement
14 Administrator shall mail, the Notice by U.S. First Class to the Class Members.
15 60. I am not aware of an alternative method of providing Notice to the Class which
16 would result in a higher likelihood of actual notice. The original source of the mailing addresses
17 is from each Class Member, who provided the information to Defendant. As a fail-safe to this
18 highly reliable method, skip tracing will be performed if necessary. Under the terms of the
19 Settlement, the Settlement Administrator will track any and all opt outs, objections, and disputes.
20 SUBMISSION OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT TO LWDA
21 61. On September 1, 2020, my office submitted the proposed Settlement attached
22 hereto as Exhibit 2 and these supporting papers to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency
23 pursuant to California Labor Code section 2699(1)(4). Attached as Exhibit 4 is a confirming email
24 my office received from the LWDA regarding the submission of the settlement.
25 //
26 //
27 //
28 //
DECLARATION OF HEATHER DAVIS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL -
16
1
2 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
3 foregoing is true and correct. Executed on September 1, 2020.
4
5 PROTECTION LAW GROUP, LLP
6
,
By: _______________________________________
7
Heather Davis, Esq.
8 Attorneys for Plaintiff
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DECLARATION OF HEATHER DAVIS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL -
17
Exhibit 1
1 Edwin Aiwazian (SBN 232943)
LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC
2 410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203
Glendale, California 91203
3 Tel: (818) 265-1020 / Fax: (818) 265-1021
4 Heather Davis (SBN 239372)
PROTECTION LAW GROUP LLP
5 136 Main Street, Suite A
El Segundo, California, 90245
Telephone: (424) 290-3095
6 Facsimile: (866) 264-7880
7 Attorneys for Plaintiff
8
9 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10 FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
Case No.: 18CIV05048
11 JAMIE SALES, individually, and on behalf of
other members of the general public, similarly
Assigned for all purposes to: Hon. Marie S.
12 situated; Weiner, Dept. 2
13 Plaintiff, Class Action
lawyers
14 vs. FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
15 J.S. INTERNATIONAL SHIPPING CORP., a
California corporation; and DOES 1 through (1) Violation of California Labor Code
16 100, inclusive, §§ 510 and 1198 (Unpaid
Overtime);
17 (2) Violation of California Labor Code
Defendants.
§§ 226.7 and 512(a) (Unpaid Meal
18 Period Premiums);
(3) Violation of California Labor Code
19 § 226.7 (Unpaid Rest Period
Premiums);
20 (4) Violation of California Labor Code
§§ 1194, 1197, and 1197.1 (Unpaid
21 Minimum Wages);
(5) Violation of California Labor Code
22 §§ 201 and 202 (Final Wages Not
Timely Paid);
23 (6) Violation of California Labor Code
§ 204 (Wages Not Timely Paid
24 During Employment);
(7) Violation of California Labor Code
25 § 226(a) (Non-Compliant Wage
Statements);
26 (8) Violation of California Labor Code
§ 1174(d) (Failure To Keep
27 Requisite Payroll Records);
(9) Violation of California Labor Code
28 §§ 2800 and 2802 (Unreimbursed
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
Business Expenses);
1 (10) Violation of California Business
& Professions Code §§ 17200, et
2 seq.
(11) Violation of California Labor
3 Code § 2698, et seq. (California
Labor Code Private Attorneys
4 General Act of 2004
5
Complaint Filed: September 19, 2018
6 Trial Date: Not Set
7
8
9 COMES NOW, Plaintiff JAMIE SALES (“Plaintiff”), individually, and on behalf of
10 other members of the general public similarly situated, and alleges as follows:
11 JURISDICTION AND VENUE
12 1. This class action is brought pursuant to the California Code of Civil Procedure
13 section 382. The monetary damages and restitution sought by Plaintiff exceeds the minimal
14 jurisdiction limits of the Superior Court and will be establi
Preview
9/1/2020 Edwin Aiwazian (SBN 232943) 1 edwin@lfjpc.com 2 Arby Aiwazian (SBN 269827) arby@lfjpc.com 3 LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC 410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203 4 Glendale, California 91203 5 Tel: (818) 265-1020 / Fax: (818) 265-1021 6 Amir Nayebdadash (SBN 232204) 7 amir@protectionlawgroup.com Heather Davis (SBN 239372) 8 heather@protectionlawgroup.com PROTECTION LAW GROUP LLP 9 136 Main Street, Suite A 10 El Segundo, California 90245 Tel: (424) 290-3095 / Fax: (866) 264-7880 11 Attorneys for Plaintiff 12 13 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 14 FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO 15 16 JAMIE SALES, individually, and on behalf of Case No.: 18CIV05048 other members of the general public, similarly 17 situated; Assigned for all purposes to: Hon. Marie S. Weiner, Dept. 2 18 Plaintiff, Class Action 19 vs. DECLARATION OF HEATHER DAVIS IN 20 SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR J.S. INTERNATIONAL SHIPPING CORP., a PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS 21 California corporation; and DOES 1 through ACTION AND PAGA SETTLEMENT 100, inclusive, 22 Hearing Date: September 24, 2020 Defendants. 23 Hearing Time 2:00 p.m. Department: 2 24 25 Complaint Filed: September 19, 2018 Trial Date: Not Set 26 27 28 DECLARATION OF HEATHER DAVIS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL 1 DECLARATION OF HEATHER M. DAVIS, ESQ. 2 I, Heather M. Davis, declare as follows: 3 1. I am an attorney duly licensed to practice law before all courts of the State of 4 California and all United States District Courts in the State of California. I am a partner of the 5 Protection Law Group, LLP, attorneys of record for named Plaintiff Jamie Sales. I have personal 6 knowledge of the facts stated herein and if called as a witness I could and would competently 7 testify thereto. 8 CLASS COUNSEL’S BACKGROUND AND EXPERIENCE 9 2. I am a duly licensed attorney and have been a member of the Colorado State Bar 10 since 1998, the California State Bar since 2005 and the Arizona State Bar since 2007. I graduated 11 from the University of Denver School of Law in 1998 and I am licensed to practice before all 12 courts of the State of California and Colorado as well as the State of Arizona and District Courts 13 throughout the country. 14 3. Prior to opening my law firm, I developed particular experience in the area of wage 15 and hour litigation. For instance, between 2007 and 2013, I joined the law firm of Littler 16 Mendelson, P.C., the largest labor and employment law firm in the United States. 17 4. During my employment with Littler Mendelson, P.C., I continued my practice of 18 employment law and was responsible for and defended dozens of complex class actions involving 19 some of the largest representative and class actions brought under the California Labor Code, 20 including meal and rest break violations, overtime, minimum wage claims, off the clock work and 21 other related wage claims. My practice included the management of dozens of class actions. My 22 management of these cases included taking and defending hundreds of depositions and interviews 23 of hundreds of putative class members as well as extensive state, federal and appellate briefing on 24 hundreds of wage and hour issues involving class actions. 25 5. During my employment at Littler Mendelson, I played a significant role in the class 26 actions for which I was responsible. In particular, I was often in charge of the leading the strategy 27 of the cases and drafting all of the briefs. I received a wide-array of wage and hour class action 28 experience performing the following types of tasks: drafting demurrers; motions to strike and/or DECLARATION OF HEATHER DAVIS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL - 1 1 dismiss; removing actions from state court to federal court; drafting and responding to written 2 discovery; drafting and opposing discovery related motions; arguing discovery related motions; 3 drafting motions to consolidate related matters; interviewing putative class members and obtaining 4 declarations in connection with class certification; drafting oppositions to motions for class 5 certification; drafting motions for decertification following class certification; conducting 6 exposure analyses to assess the strengths and weaknesses of asserted claims, the likelihood of 7 prevailing at class certification and potential damages resulting from such claims; drafting 8 mediation briefs; serving as the primary contact to in-house counsel; deposing Plaintiff and 9 putative class members; deposing retained expert witnesses; and defending the depositions of 10 corporate witnesses. In short, I played an integral role in all aspects of litigation from the inception 11 of a matter through and beyond class certification. 12 6. During my practice in other jurisdictions and continuing today, I have been 13 primarily devoted to working in employment law and on complex class action and representative 14 litigation and multi-plaintiff work. 15 7. Protection Law Group LLP is a law firm specifically devoted to the representation 16 of employees against employers in California involving claims relating to violations of the 17 California Labor Code, including claims for failure to pay all wage s owed, failure to pay overtime 18 premiums, failure to ay meal and rest premiums and failure to provide accurate wage records. The 19 practice of employment law is a very specific, narrow field which requires diligence in an ever- 20 evolving field of substantive and procedural law. 21 8. Although not exhaustive, below is a representative list of several of the wage and 22 hour class actions that I performed substantial work on while I was an attorney with Littler 23 Mendelson, including, but not limited to: Villacres v. ABM Industries, Inc., 189 Cal.App.4th 562 24 (2010); Brizuela v. Copart, Inc., CIVRS11101592, (San Bernardino Superior Court class action 25 settlement); Augustus v. ABM Industries, Inc., BC336416, 2 Cal. 5th 257 (2016); Tagaki v. United 26 Airlines, 2:11-CV9191 (Central District class action settlement), Babasa v. Comerica, Inc., 3:11- 27 CV00595, Leyva v. Medline Industries, Inc. 5:11-cv-00164 (Central District), Blue v. Coldwell 28 Banker Residential Brokerage Co., BC417335, (Los Angeles Superior Court, class action DECLARATION OF HEATHER DAVIS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL - 2 1 settlement), and Acosta v. Texwood Industries, Inc., 2:07-cv-03237-DDP-PLA (Central District 2 class action settlement). 3 9. Since opening my firm, I have served as lead counsel or co-class counsel in several 4 wage and hour class and/or representative actions seeking wages and penalties owed on behalf of 5 employees for which final approval of the settlement or class certification has been granted, 6 including, but not limited to the following: • Fong et al. v. Regis Corporation, 3:13-cv-13-04497 VC, (United States District Court, 7 Northern District of California, appointing Protection Law Group, LLP as class counsel in 8 settlement); 9 • Sampson v. 24 HR Homecare LLC, BC586019 (Los Angeles County Superior Court wage 10 and hour class action appointing Protection Law Group, LLP as class counsel in 11 settlement); 12 • Torres v. Auto Rescue et al., RIC 1509900 (Riverside County Superior Court wage and 13 hour class action appointing Protection Law Group, LLP as class counsel in settlement); 14 • Kashanian v. Plus Labs, Inc., (Santa Clara County Superior Court wage and hour class 15 action appointing Protection Law Group, LLP as class counsel in settlement); 16 • Drayton v. Hollywood Park Casino, BC593935 (Los Angeles Superior Court wage and 17 hour class action appointing Protection Law Group, LLP as class counsel in settlement); 18 • Holzer v. Wedbush Securities, Inc., BC 550462 (Los Angeles Superior Court wage and hour class action certifying class and appointing Protection Law Group, LLP as class 19 counsel); 20 • Khan v. FPI Management, Inc., JCCP4819 (Los Angeles Superior Court wage and hour 21 class action appointing Protection Law Group, LLP as class counsel in settlement); 22 • Byrd v. Masonite Corp., 5:16-cv-00035-JGBKK (United States District Court, Central 23 District of California appointing Protection Law Group, LLP as class counsel in 24 settlement); 25 • Utterbach v. Daylight Transport, LLC BC600994 (Los Angeles Superior Court wage and 26 hour class action appointing Protection Law Group, LLP as class counsel in settlement) 27 28 DECLARATION OF HEATHER DAVIS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL - 3 1 • Hadrick v. Woodmont Real Estate Services., et al., CIV 530405 (San Mateo County 2 Superior Court wage and hour class action appointing Protection Law Group, LLP as class 3 counsel in settlement); and 4 • Eiden v. Olive & June, BC654685 (Los Angeles Superior Court wage and hour class action 5 appointing Protection Law Group, LLP as class counsel in settlement) 6 • Lemus v. Slater Inc., CIVDS1703633 (San Bernardino Superior Court wage and hour class 7 action appointing Protection Law Group, LLP as class counsel in settlement) 8 • Deluna v. Amerit Fleet Solutions et al., CIVDS1721564 (San Bernardino Superior Court 9 wage and hour class action appointing Protection Law Group, LLP as class counsel in 10 settlement) 11 • Commick v. Prometheus Real Estate Group, CIV531264 (San Mateo Superior Court wage 12 and hour class action appointing Protection Law Group, LLP as class counsel in 13 settlement). 14 • Martinez v. AMRO Fabricating Corp., BC681938 (Los Angeles Superior Court wage and 15 hour class action appointing Protection Law Group, LLP as class counsel in settlement). 16 • Ramirez v. Western National Properties, BC639319 (Los Angeles Superior Court wage 17 and hour class action appointing Protection Law Group, LLP as class counsel in 18 settlement). 19 • Hernandez v. Access Dental Plan et. al, 34-2017-00220944 (Sacramento Superior Court 20 wage and hour class action appointing Protection Law Group, LLP as class counsel in 21 settlement). 22 • Fernandez v. Sumitomo Rubber North America, Inc., CIVDS 1803211 (San Bernardino 23 Superior Court wage and hour class action appointing Protection Law Group, LLP as class 24 counsel in settlement). 25 • Stone v. Universal Protection Services, AAA Case No. 01-15-0002-7497 (American 26 Arbitration Association wage and hour class action appointing Protection Law Group, LLP 27 as class counsel in settlement) 28 DECLARATION OF HEATHER DAVIS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL - 4 1 • Fuentes v. Communications Test Design, Inc. Case No. CIVDS1802427 (San Bernardino 2 Superior Court wage and hour class action appointing Protection Law Group, LLP as class 3 counsel in settlement). 4 • Hartline v. Senior Operations, LLC, Case No. BC697665 (Los Angeles Superior Court 5 wage and our class action appointing Protection Law Group, LLP as class counsel in 6 settlement). 7 • Mendoza v. Cruise America, Inc. Case No. RG18922083 (Alameda Superior Court wage 8 and hour class action certifying class and appointing Protection Law Group, LLP as class 9 counsel in settlement.) 10 • White v. Windy Pizza Plus, LLC, Case No BC593377 (Los Angeles Superior Court wage 11 and hour class action certifying class and appointing Protection Law Group, LLP as class 12 counsel) 13 • Carrozzella v. Basalite Concrete Products, LLC, Case No. 34-2017-00220214 14 (Sacramento Superior Court wage and hour class action certifying class and appointing 15 Protection Law Group, LLP as class counsel in settlement.) 16 • Howey v. Battery Systems, Inc., Case No. 2026114 (Stanislaus Superior Court wage and 17 hour class action appointing Protection Law Group, LLP as class counsel in settlement) 18 • Correa v. Cashbak, LLC, Case No. BC723845 (Los Angeles Superior Court wage and hour 19 class action appointing Protection Law Group LLP as class counsel in settlement) 20 10. I am fully familiar with the legal and factual issues in this case, and have specific 21 experience litigating complex wage and hour actions as class actions, including employment cases 22 as set forth above. 23 11. The Settlement presented here only resulted after having engaged in extensive 24 informal discovery and investigation and is the product of hard-fought litigation and extensive 25 arms’ length negotiations. In my opinion as an experienced class counsel, the Settlement is fair, 26 reasonable, adequate, and in the best interests of the Class. 27 28 DECLARATION OF HEATHER DAVIS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL - 5 1 PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND 2 12. Plaintiff Jamie Sales is a former employee of Defendant J.S. International Shipping, 3 Corp. Ms. Sales worked for Defendant as an hourly-paid, non-exempt administrator and facilities 4 coordinator from October 2015 to August 2016. 5 13. J.S. International Shipping, Corp., is a transportation, distribution and supply chain 6 management corporation. In July 2018, J.S. International Shipping Corp., was acquired by another 7 corporation, Omni Logistics. 8 14. On September 19, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Class Action Complaint for Damages. 9 Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of non-exempt employees in California for, inter alia, 10 Defendant’s alleged failure to provide overtime wages, failure to provide meal breaks, failure to 11 authorize and permit rest breaks, failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay timely pay wages 12 upon termination, failure to timely pay wages during employment, failure to provide accurate, 13 itemized wage statements, failure to keep complete or accurate payroll records, failure to reimburse 14 necessary business expenses as well as violation of California Business and Professions Code 15 §17200 for unfair business practices. 16 15. Following the filing of the Complaint, Defendant filed a Motion to Compel 17 Arbitration. 18 16. In response, Plaintiff conducted discovery regarding the arbitration agreement and 19 conditions under which it was entered including propounding requests for production and taking 20 the deposition of Defendant’s Person Most Qualified. Thereafter, on May 13, 2019, filed an 21 opposition to Defendant’s Motion to compel Arbitration. 22 17. After hearing oral argument, on September 4, 2019, the Court entered an order 23 denying Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration. 24 18. On October 31, 2019, Defendant filed a Notice of Appeal regarding the Court’s 25 order denying its Motion to Compel Arbitration. However, shortly after filing its Notice of Appeal, 26 the Parties agreed to attend mediation in an effort to informally resolve this matter and accordingly 27 stipulated to continue the filing of their respective briefs. 28 DECLARATION OF HEATHER DAVIS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL - 6 1 19. In advance of mediation, Defendant provided Plaintiff with substantial informal 2 discovery including all relevant policies in place during the class period, Plaintiff’s personnel file, 3 and a sampling of time and payroll data for the putative class through which Plaintiff was able to 4 perform a damages analysis and estimate Defendant’s potential liability. 5 20. After extensive review of these documents, on February 13, 2020, the Parties 6 attended a full day of meditation with David Rotman Esq., a mediator with substantial experience 7 mediating wage and hour class actions. At the mediation, the Parties engaged in a full day of 8 intensive settlement discussions during which they debated their respective positions and 9 exchanged views regarding the strengths and weaknesses of their claims and defenses. 10 21. After extensive settlement discussions and with the help of the mediator, the parties 11 reached an agreement to resolve this matter on class and representative basis for a Class Settlement 12 Amount of $375,000 and entered into a memorandum of understanding. 13 22. Thereafter, the Parties drafted and revised a long form settlement agreement. As 14 part of this agreement Plaintiff agreed to amend her complaint to add a cause of action under the 15 Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA). 16 23. On March 11, 2020, the Parties requested that the Court of Appeal vacate the 17 briefing deadlines for Defendant’s Appeal of the Court’s Order denying Defendant’s Motion to 18 Compel Arbitration, stay appellate proceedings, and remand to this matter to the San Mateo 19 Superior Court for the limited purpose of approving the settlement. On March 12, 2020, the Court 20 of Appeal lifted the automatic stay on this Action for the sole purpose of adjudicating the 21 settlement of this matter. 22 24. On June 15, 2020, Plaintiff submitted notice of her intent to bring a PAGA claim 23 to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA). More than 65 days had passed and 24 having received no notice from the LWDA that it intended to investigate these claims. 25 Accordingly, in conjunction with the Motion for Preliminary Approval Plaintiff requests the Court 26 permit Plaintiff to file a First Amended Complaint adding this claim. Attached hereto as Exhibit 27 1 is a true and correct copy of the First Amended Complaint adding a cause of Action under the 28 Private Attorneys General Act of 2004. DECLARATION OF HEATHER DAVIS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL - 7 1 SUMMARY OF THE TERMS OF SETTLEMENT 2 25. Plaintiff Jamie Sales (“Plaintiff”) seeks preliminary approval of the proposed class 3 action settlement. Attached hereto as Exhibit 2 is a true and correct copy of the parties’ Settlement 4 Agreement and Release (hereinafter “Settlement” or “Agreement”). A true and correct copy of the 5 proposed Notice of Class Action Settlement is attached hereto as Exhibit 3. 6 26. Plaintiff seeks to provisionally certify the following class for settlement purposes: 7 “all non-exempt employees employed by J.S. International Shipping, Corp. in California from 8 September 19, 2014 to the date of Preliminary Approval by the Court of Settlement.”. See 9 Agreement ¶A.5. 10 27. The Settlement Class contains approximately 106 class members. 11 28. Subject to Court approval, Plaintiff and Defendant J.S. International Shipping Corp. 12 (“Defendant”) have agreed to settle the class claims for the Class Settlement Amount of $375,000. 13 Agreement ¶A.6 14 29. The Class Settlement Amount allocations are as follows: 15 a. Attorneys’ Fees in an amount of thirty-five percent (35%) of the Gross 16 Settlement Amount, amounting to $131,250. 17 b. Attorneys’ Costs, not to exceed $35,000. 18 c. The Settlement Administration Costs, for services performed by Phoenix 19 Class Action Administrative Solutions, estimated to be $6,250. 20 d. The Class Representative Enhancement Award in the amount of $7,500 21 e. PAGA Payment of $5,000 to for PAGA Penalties, 75% of which will be 22 distributed to the LWDA and 25% of which will be included in the Net 23 Settlement Amount and distributed to participating class members. 24 30. After deducting these amounts, the Net Settlement Amount of approximately 25 $191,250 shall be distributed to the Settlement Class Members on a pro-rata basis based on the 26 number of Workweeks worked during the Class Period. 27 28 DECLARATION OF HEATHER DAVIS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL - 8 1 31. The payment to each Settlement Class Member will vary based on the number of 2 workweeks the member worked but will provide an average estimated settlement payment of 3 $1,804.24. 4 32. This proposed Settlement resolves all of the Settlement Class Members’ claims 5 against Defendant as to the facts alleged in the operative complaint (the First Amended Complaint 6 attached hereto as Exhibit 1) and all claims that could have been alleged based on such facts. 7 33. Each Class Member’s settlement allocation will be allocated between wage and 8 nonwage payments as follows: twenty-five percent wages subject to withholding, forty percent 9 penalties and thirty-five percent interest. 10 34. Employee will be withheld for the wage portion of their individual settlement 11 payments. Employer-side payroll taxes on the wage portion of employees’ individual settlement 12 payments shall be deducted from the Net Settlement Amount. 13 35. The proposed Agreement is a non-reversionary, non-claims made settlement. All 14 money from the Net Settlement Amount will be distributed to the class members. No money will 15 revert to Defendant. 16 36. Any settlement checks that are mailed to the Settlement Class Members will remain 17 negotiable for one hundred and eighty (180) days. Following this period, any residue sent to the 18 California State Controller’s Office pursuant to California Unclaimed Property Law, California 19 Civil Code §1500. As such the Parties agree no unpaid residue will result from the settlement. 20 THE SETTLEMENT IS REASONABLE 21 Method of Distribution 22 37. The proposed settlement is based on the number of Workweeks worked by each 23 class member. This method is commonly used in wage and hour class actions because it relies 24 upon objective evidence of the total days of employment, which Class Members can easily review 25 and confirm for themselves. This information is readily available from Defendant’s records, and 26 the Settlement Administrator can apply the formula in a fair and transparent manner. 27 38. Additionally, this method of distribution is commonly used in wage and hour class 28 actions because it allows for a distribution that corresponds closely to the alleged damages since DECLARATION OF HEATHER DAVIS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL - 9 1 employees experience the same working conditions, so their damages are directly related to the 2 amount of time they were employed. 3 39. The effectiveness of Class Counsel in prosecuting this case has translated into 4 monetary benefits for the Settlement Class in the following respects: (1) the Settlement Class will 5 recover over a reasonably short period of time as opposed to waiting additional years for the same, 6 or possibly, a worse, result; (2) a guaranteed result that compares favorably with other similar class 7 action settlements of this type, (3) significant savings in Class Counsel’s fees and costs which 8 would have only increased significantly had the case progressed through trial, appeals, and 9 continued litigation. 10 Discovery and Informed Arms-Length Negotiations 11 40. Settlement was reached in this matter only after extensive informal discovery 12 including review and analysis of a class wide sampling of time and payroll data, review of 13 Defendant’s written policies, briefing and argument regarding the strengths and weaknesses of 14 Plaintiff’s claims and Defendant’s defenses, and extensive settlement discussions. The Parties 15 engaged in a full day of mediation with the David Rotman, Esq. a highly respected mediator with 16 particular experience in wage and hour class actions. The settlement negotiations were at arm’s 17 length and, although conducted in a professional manner, were adversarial. Defendant at all times 18 maintained that they had complied with California wage and hour laws. Likewise, if this matter 19 had not resolved at mediation, Plaintiff was prepared to vigorously litigate this dispute including 20 through class certification and trial. The proposed Settlement was reached at the end of a process 21 that was neither fraudulent nor collusive. To the contrary, counsel for the Parties advanced their 22 respective positions throughout the settlement negotiations. 23 41. Defendant provided my office with substantial informal discovery prior to 24 mediation. Prior to mediation, Defendant informally produced a sampling of time and payroll 25 records, Plaintiff’s personnel file, Defendant’s written policies in effect during the class period, 26 and other relevant documents and information regarding the size and scope of the class. My office 27 and my co-counsel with Lawyers for Justice thoroughly reviewed this discovery and conducted a 28 class-wide assessment and analysis of Defendant’s potential damages based on the documents and DECLARATION OF HEATHER DAVIS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL - 10 1 information provided. The parties extensively briefed these issues and provided their analyses to 2 the mediator for her consideration. This investigation allowed Plaintiff’s counsel to act 3 intelligently in negotiating the settlement. 4 Estimate of Potential Value 5 42. My office analyzed all available data and estimated Defendant’s maximum 6 potential exposure at approximately $1,475,383 assuming the Litigation was successful at trial on 7 the principal claims at issue, and then reduced this exposure analysis based on the likelihood of 8 obtaining class certification, prevailing at trial, and other attendant risks. This amount is based on 9 the total estimated maximum liability for all the workweeks at the time of mediation. Based on 10 review and analysis of the documents provided including a representative sampling of employee 11 time and payroll records I estimated the total meal break damages owed at $563,923.80 for all 12 class members during the class period. Rest breaks were not recorded. However, based on informal 13 investigation that revealed the similar practices that were leading to employees missing meal 14 breaks, or receiving short and late meal periods, I estimated there would be approximately 15 $187,974.60 in potential damages for rest period violations. Plaintiff’s claims for overtime and 16 minimum wage violations were based on off-the-clock work performed including work performed 17 before and after Plaintiff’s scheduled shift and during meal breaks when she was off-the-clock. 18 Based on these practices, I estimated that Defendant owed the class approximately $140,980.95 in 19 unpaid wages and overtime. Waiting time penalties amounted to $471,504. Penalties for inaccurate 20 wage statements amounted to $111,000. My office did not assign a significant value to Plaintiff’s 21 separately alleged claims regarding unpaid business expenses, recordkeeping claims, or claims 22 regarding the timely payment of wages during employment. Although this amount constitutes my 23 maximum estimated liability during the mediation, Defendant raised several issues which 24 impacted the risks attendant to proceeding on a class-wide basis. 25 Specific Risks Considered 26 43. Although the investigation and information discovered supports Plaintiff’s 27 contentions, Defendant raised potential defenses and other circumstances that impacted the risk of 28 proceeding on a class-wide basis. DECLARATION OF HEATHER DAVIS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL - 11 1 44. First, Defendant maintained that Plaintiff and the class’ claims were subject to 2 arbitration. While Plaintiff successfully defeated Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration, and 3 thereby cleared this initial procedural hurdle, Defendant took steps to appeal this decision and 4 strongly believed the Court of Appeal would rule in their favor. 5 45. Defendant also proffered defenses to both certification and the merits of Plaintiff’s 6 claims. Consideration of these risks factored into the decision to enter this settlement. Defendant 7 contended that Plaintiff’s claims are not suitable for class certification because individual issues 8 and affirmative defenses would predominate should this case go to trial. As with all class actions, 9 these complex cases raise difficult management and proof issues and, accordingly, there is a 10 significant risk that the Court may deny class certification. 11 46. Potential individualized issues exist with respect to Plaintiff’s meal period claims. 12 Although Plaintiff maintains that Defendant maintained an unlawful meal period policies and 13 practices, Defendant argued its practices were lawful. Defendant argued that individualized issues 14 regarding why a meal period was missed predominated and Class Counsel had to consider the risk 15 that the Court would find validity to this individualized proof defense. 16 47. Defendant also challenged Plaintiff’s ability sufficiently prove the alleged rest 17 period violations as Defendant was not required to record these breaks. Defendant claims it 18 allowed employees to take their rest periods and that its practices comply with California law. 19 Given the lack of records, Defendant argued that even if Plaintiff managed to establish a practice 20 of denying compliant rest breaks, Plaintiff could not demonstrate significant damages. 21 48. Plaintiff also faced challenges certifying and proving liability for her minimum 22 wage and overtime claims. These claims were largely based on uncompensated off-the-clock work 23 performed by the class members before and after their scheduled shift and during meal periods. 24 Certifying this claim was not certain and would likely have required complex analysis and was 25 subject to the same challenges regarding individualized inquiry and to prove the damages 26 established by the putative class members. 27 49. There are also risks associated with Plaintiff’s claims regarding Defendant’s failure 28 to timely pay wages, wage statement, and recordkeeping claims. These claims were derivative of DECLARATION OF HEATHER DAVIS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL - 12 1 Plaintiff’s claims for unpaid meal and rest period premiums, overtime, and Defendant’s failure to 2 compensate class members for all time worked. The risks faced by these claims also affected the 3 viability of these claims. Moreover, each of these claims faced additional risks specific to each 4 claim. For instance, Plaintiff would need to prove that Defendant’s waiting time violations were 5 willful and legal challenges to Plaintiff’s recordkeeping claims and claims regarding the timely 6 payment of wages. These derivative claims were therefore uncertain and constituted a large portion 7 of Defendant’s liability. 8 50. My office also investigated Plaintiff’s claim for unpaid business expenses. This 9 claim was primarily related to complaints from Plaintiff regarding the use of her personal vehicle 10 and cell phone. However, Plaintiff faced significant hurdles in establishing there was an unlawful 11 policy, practice, or procedure, and obtaining class certification on this issue. Plaintiff was unable 12 to locate a written uniform policy she believed would be certifiable and there were numerous 13 individualized issues. Given the significant problems surrounding this claim, I did not assign 14 significant value to this claim when considering the settlement. 15 51. Finally, Defendant wished for the settlement to include a release of claims arising 16 under the Private Attorneys’ General Act. Shortly before this Action was filed, Defendant J.S. 17 International Shipping Corp. was acquired by Omni Logistics, whom Plaintiff Sales did not work 18 for. Accordingly, by the time of the Parties February 2020, mediation, the statute of limitations for 19 any employee to bring a claim under PAGA had arguably expired, as more than one year had 20 passed since any employee worked for J.S. International Shipping, Corp. 21 52. Nonetheless, my office separately contemplated the risks of proceeding with the 22 PAGA action and potential liability Defendant could face from this claim prior to agreeing to 23 include this claim in the proposed settlement. The parties agreed during settlement negotiations to 24 allocate $5,000 of the Settlement towards the PAGA claims. Five thousand dollars is 25 approximately 1.3% of the Gross Settlement Amount. This percentage of the settlement is well 26 within the range of PAGA settlements regularly approved in both state and federal court when a 27 lawsuit includes both a class and PAGA action. A settlement that allocates approximately 1% of 28 DECLARATION OF HEATHER DAVIS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL - 13 1 the total settlement value to resolve PAGA claims is typical of wage-and-hour settlements and 2 PAGA amounts as little 0.27 percent of the gross settlement amount have been approved. See e.g. 3 • Davis v. Brown Shoe Co., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 149010 (E.D. Cal. 2015) (PAGA 4 Payment of $5,000 in a $1.5 million class settlement) 5 • Zamora v. Ryder Integrated Logistics, Inc., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 184096 (S.D. Cal. 2014) ($7,500 payment to LWDA for PAGA on a $1.5 million class 6 settlement) 7 • Lusby v. Gamestop Inc., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42637 (N.D. Cal. 2015) (PAGA Payment of $5,000 in a $500,000 class settlement) 8 • Cruz v. Sky Chefs, Inc., 2014 U.S. Dist Lexis 17693 (N.D. Cal. 2014) (approving 9 payment of $10,000 to the LWDA for PAGA out of $1,750,000 class settlement) 10 • Chu v. Wells Fargo Investments, LLC, 2011 WL 672645, *1 (N.D. Cal. 2011) (approving PAGA payment of $7,500 to the LWDA out of $6.9 million common- 11 fund settlement) 12 • Martino v. Ecolab Inc., No. 3:14CV04358 (N.D. Cal. 2017) ($100,000 allotted as PAGA penalties or 0.48% of $21,000,000 settlement amount). 13 • East v. Comprehensive Educational Services Inc., Case No. 11-CECG-04226 14 (2015) ($10,000 allotted as PAGA penalties or 0.13% of $7,595,846 settlement 15 amount). 16 • Bararsani v. Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage Company, Case No. BC495767 (2016) ($10,000 allotted as PAGA penalties or 0.22% of $4,500,000 17 settlement amount). 18 • Rico v. Cardinal Health 200 Inc. No. CIVRS-14-01451 (2017) ($5,000 allotted as PAGA penalties or 0.14% of $3,500,000 settlement amount). 19 • Moppin v. Los Robles Medical Center, No. 5:15CV01551 (C.D. Cal. 2017) 20 ($15,000 allotted as PAGA penalties or 0.40% of $3,775,000 settlement amount). 21 • Scott-George v. PVH Corporation. No., 2:13CV00441 (E.D. Cal. 2017) ($15,000 allotted as PAGA penalties or 0.46% of $3,250,000 settlement amount). 22 • Hart v. Parkview Community Hospital Medical Center,No. RIC-14-06044 (2016) 23 ($10,000 allotted as PAGA penalties or 0.39% of $2,550,000 settlement amount). 24 • Nehrlich v. RPM Mortgage Inc., No. 30-2013-00666783-CU-OE-CXC (2017) ($10,000 allotted as PAGA penalties or 0.40% of $2,500,000 settlement amount). 25 • Kelley v. The Related Companies of California L.L.C. No. CIVDS-13-07167 (2016) 26 ($10,000 allotted as PAGA penalties or 0.50% of $2,000,000 settlement amount). 27 • Castrejon v. O'Connell Landscape Maintenance Inc., No. RIC-12-12798 (2015) ($5,000 allotted as PAGA penalties or 0.33% of $1,500,000 settlement amount 28 DECLARATION OF HEATHER DAVIS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL - 14 1 53. In allocating $5,000 to PAGA Plaintiff considered that PAGA penalties were 2 arguably beyond the statute of limitations for any individual to recover, would be subject to the 3 same defenses and risks as Plaintiff’s class claims as well as defenses unique to PAGA, that PAGA 4 penalties may not be stacked for violations based on the same conduct, and the substantial risk that 5 PAGA penalties may be reduced where they are duplicative, arbitrary or oppressive. 6 54. Defendant denies Plaintiff’s allegations and claims that it has properly paid putative 7 class members for all time worked. Based on Class Counsel’s experience litigating similar 8 complex matters along with my familiarity with defense counsel’s reputation and experience, I 9 would reasonably expect a vigorous and lengthy defense to both class certification and on the 10 merits absent a settlement. Taking into account the risks pertaining to procedural issues including 11 arbitration and class certification and the issues raised by Defendant, I reduced the value of the 12 case by fifty percent. Finally, given the uncertainty of recovery, even after certification, I further 13 reduced this valuation for merits-based risks by fifty percent reaching a final valuation of 14 $368,485.75 15 55. I therefore submit that the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate. The 16 Settlement is in the best interest of the Class Members and is within the accepted range of 17 recoveries for this type of litigation given the inherent risk of litigation, the risk of obtaining and 18 maintaining class certification, and the costs of further litigation. 19 ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS 20 56. Plaintiff’s Counsel’s fees incurred are in line with the common fund requested. 21 Plaintiff’s Counsel is seeking 35 percent of the Gross Settlement Amount or $131,250. Plaintiff’s 22 Counsel has achieved an excellent result for the class during hard fought negotiations. Plaintiff’s 23 Counsel have extensive experience in wage and hour disputes and were able to use their extensive 24 experience and skills to achieve this result. The Motion for Final Approval will elaborate on the 25 nature of the legal services provided, the time incurred in performing those services, and Class 26 Counsel’s hourly rates. The Motion for Final Approval will also elaborate on the reimbursement 27 for costs sought by Settlement Class Counsel, which are currently estimated at approximately 28 DECLARATION OF HEATHER DAVIS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL - 15 1 $35,000. Notice of Plaintiff’s Counsel’s requested fees are disclosed in the Notice to the Class. 2 See Exhibit 3. 3 THE METHOD OF NOTICE IS VERY LIKELY TO GIVE ACTUAL NOTICE 4 57. No later than fourteen (14) days after the Court grants preliminary approval of the 5 Settlement, Defendant will provide to the Settlement Administrator the following information 6 about each Settlement Class Member: (1) name; (2) last known address; (3) last known telephone 7 number; (4) first and last date of employment; (5) workweeks worked; and (6) social security 8 number and/or employee ID number. 9 58. The Settlement Administrator will run all the addresses provided through the 10 United States Postal Service NCOA database (which provides updated addresses for any individual 11 who has moved in the previous four years who has notified the U.S. Postal Service of a forwarding 12 address) to obtain current address information. 13 59. Within fourteen (14) calendar days of receiving the data, the Settlement 14 Administrator shall mail, the Notice by U.S. First Class to the Class Members. 15 60. I am not aware of an alternative method of providing Notice to the Class which 16 would result in a higher likelihood of actual notice. The original source of the mailing addresses 17 is from each Class Member, who provided the information to Defendant. As a fail-safe to this 18 highly reliable method, skip tracing will be performed if necessary. Under the terms of the 19 Settlement, the Settlement Administrator will track any and all opt outs, objections, and disputes. 20 SUBMISSION OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT TO LWDA 21 61. On September 1, 2020, my office submitted the proposed Settlement attached 22 hereto as Exhibit 2 and these supporting papers to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency 23 pursuant to California Labor Code section 2699(1)(4). Attached as Exhibit 4 is a confirming email 24 my office received from the LWDA regarding the submission of the settlement. 25 // 26 // 27 // 28 // DECLARATION OF HEATHER DAVIS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL - 16 1 2 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the 3 foregoing is true and correct. Executed on September 1, 2020. 4 5 PROTECTION LAW GROUP, LLP 6 , By: _______________________________________ 7 Heather Davis, Esq. 8 Attorneys for Plaintiff 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DECLARATION OF HEATHER DAVIS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL - 17 Exhibit 1 1 Edwin Aiwazian (SBN 232943) LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC 2 410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203 Glendale, California 91203 3 Tel: (818) 265-1020 / Fax: (818) 265-1021 4 Heather Davis (SBN 239372) PROTECTION LAW GROUP LLP 5 136 Main Street, Suite A El Segundo, California, 90245 Telephone: (424) 290-3095 6 Facsimile: (866) 264-7880 7 Attorneys for Plaintiff 8 9 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10 FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO Case No.: 18CIV05048 11 JAMIE SALES, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public, similarly Assigned for all purposes to: Hon. Marie S. 12 situated; Weiner, Dept. 2 13 Plaintiff, Class Action lawyers 14 vs. FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 15 J.S. INTERNATIONAL SHIPPING CORP., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through (1) Violation of California Labor Code 16 100, inclusive, §§ 510 and 1198 (Unpaid Overtime); 17 (2) Violation of California Labor Code Defendants. §§ 226.7 and 512(a) (Unpaid Meal 18 Period Premiums); (3) Violation of California Labor Code 19 § 226.7 (Unpaid Rest Period Premiums); 20 (4) Violation of California Labor Code §§ 1194, 1197, and 1197.1 (Unpaid 21 Minimum Wages); (5) Violation of California Labor Code 22 §§ 201 and 202 (Final Wages Not Timely Paid); 23 (6) Violation of California Labor Code § 204 (Wages Not Timely Paid 24 During Employment); (7) Violation of California Labor Code 25 § 226(a) (Non-Compliant Wage Statements); 26 (8) Violation of California Labor Code § 1174(d) (Failure To Keep 27 Requisite Payroll Records); (9) Violation of California Labor Code 28 §§ 2800 and 2802 (Unreimbursed FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Business Expenses); 1 (10) Violation of California Business & Professions Code §§ 17200, et 2 seq. (11) Violation of California Labor 3 Code § 2698, et seq. (California Labor Code Private Attorneys 4 General Act of 2004 5 Complaint Filed: September 19, 2018 6 Trial Date: Not Set 7 8 9 COMES NOW, Plaintiff JAMIE SALES (“Plaintiff”), individually, and on behalf of 10 other members of the general public similarly situated, and alleges as follows: 11 JURISDICTION AND VENUE 12 1. This class action is brought pursuant to the California Code of Civil Procedure 13 section 382. The monetary damages and restitution sought by Plaintiff exceeds the minimal 14 jurisdiction limits of the Superior Court and will be establi