Preview
CIV-1 30
ATTORNEY 0R PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name, State Bar number, and address):
FOR COURT USE ONLY
Kyle Geoffrey Bates (SBN 2991 14)
'Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky
2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400 E|Htmnlulw
Emeryville,
TELEPHONE
CA 94608
E-MA'L ADDRESS (Optional):
ATTORNEY FOR
STREET ADDRESS:
MAILING ADDRESS:
(415) 421-7 100
Non:
(Name):
@
FAX NO. (optional):
kbates schneiderwallace .com
Plaintiff Rachel Moniz
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF San Mateo
400 County Center
33—
brfiuplnur
U"
CmrlEI/Czllga/rgldfizfluonw
nFS-In Malia
CITY AND ZIP CODE: Redwood City 94063
BRANCH NAME:
PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER:
Rachel Moniz
DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: Adecco USA, Inc.
CASE NUMBER:
NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT
OR ORDER 17CIV01736
(Check one): UNLIMITED CASE
(Amount demanded
E LIMITED CASE
(Amount demanded was
exceeded $25,000) $25,000 or less)
TO ALL PARTIES :
1. Ajudgment, decree, or orderwas entered in this action on (date): February 7, 2020
2, A copy of the judgment, decree, or order is attached to this notice.
Date;
(TYPE
February 25, 2020
Kyle G. bates
0R PRINT NAME 0F ATTORNEY E PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY)
’ /W1 X /
,
(SIGNATURE)
Page 1 of 2
Form Approved for Optional Use
WWW.COUI1infO.ca.gOV
JudieialCounciI ofCalifomia
ClV-1 30 [New January 1, 201 0]
NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT OR ORDER
CIV-1 30
CASE NUMBER:
PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: Rache! Moniz
_ 17CIv01 736
1
‘
DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: Adecco USA, Inc.
PROOF 0F SERVICE BY FIRST-CLASS MAIL
NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT OR ORDER
(NOTE: You cannot serve the Notice of Entry of Judgment or Order ifyou are a party in the action. The person who served
the notice must complete this proof of service.)
1. | am at least 18 years old and not a party to this action. I am a resident of or employed in the county where the mailing took
place, and my residence or business address is (spechw:
2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400, Emeryville, California 94608
2. I sewed a copy of the Notice of Ently of Judgment or Order by enclosing it in a sealed envelope with postage
fully prepaid and (check one):
a. deposited the sealed envelope with the United States Postal Service.
b_ D placed the sealed envelope for collection and processing for mailing, following
with which l am readily familiar. On the same day correspondence is
this business‘s usual practices,
placed for collection and mailing, it is
deposited in the ordinary course of business with the United States Postal Service.
3. The Notice of Entry of Judgment or Order was mailed:
a, on (date); February 25, 2020
b. from (city and state): EmeI'YViHe, California
4. The envelope was addressed and mailed as follows:
a. Name of person served: c. Name of person served:
Mia Farber Scott P. Jang
Street address: 725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2500 Street address: 50 California Street, 9th Floor
City: L05 AnQe|eS City: San Francisco
State and zip code: CA 90017 State and zip code: CA 941 11
b. Name of person served: d. Name of person served:
Chris Baker
Street address; One California Street, Suite 1250 Street address:
City; San Francisco City;
State and zip code: CA 941 11 State and zip code:
E Names and addresses of additional persons served are attached. (You may use form POS-030(P).)
5. Number of pages attached
| declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
Date: February 25, 2020
Scott L. Gordon ’
(TYPE OR PRINT NAME OF DECLARANT) (SIGNATURE OF DECLARANT)
Page 2 of 2
“"130 [Newanuam' 2°10]
NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT OR ORDER
FILED
SAN MATEO COUNTY
FEB 1 0"2020
‘
Clerko [e room
By
u D PUTYCLERK -
\OOOQoxmAuNH_
‘
I-
Jun
\
r
'
Judgment
'
2242334
3’
I/llllllIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
SUPERIOR COURT 0F THE STATE 0F CALIFORNIA
COUNTY 0F SAN MATEO
COMPLEX CIVIL LITIGATION
RACHEL MONIZ, oh behalf of the State of
'
Case No. 17CIV01736
California and aggrieved employees, ‘
Assigned for All Purposes to ,
Plaintiff, Hon. Marie S. Weiner, Dept. 2
v~.
[WED] JUDGMENT
ADECCO USA, INC., and DOES 1—50,
inclusive, Complaint Filed: April 18, 2017'
NNNNNNNNNr—‘D—‘H—nr—‘r—Ap—AHy—ahn
~
Trial Date: Vacated
Defendants.
WQQM¢WNHO©mflamkwNHO
Plaintiff Rachel Moniz (“Plaintiff”) filed a Renewed Motion for Approval of PAGA
Settlement, which came gm for hearing on October l6, 2019' at 2:00 p.m., in Department 2 of the
above-entitled Court, the Honorable Marie S. Weiner presiding. In addition, denied-intervenor
Péfila Correa and her counsel Baker Curtis & Schwartz P.C. (collectively, “Correa”) filed a
Motion for Attorney Fees and an Incentive Payment, which also came on for hearing on October
16, 2019 at 2:00 p.m., in Department 2 of the above-entitled Coun, the Honorable Marie S.
’
Weiner presiding.
Withvrespect to the Renewed Motion for Approval of PAGA Settlement, the Court has
l .
[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT— Case No. l7CIV01736
reviewed the materials and information submitted by Plaintiff, Defendant Adecco USA, Inc.
(“Defendant”), and the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency (“LWDA”), and
has considered the arguments presented by Plaintiff, Defendant, and the LWDA during the
October 16, 2019 hearing. With réspect to Correa’s Motion forAttorney Fees and an Incentive
\OOONONLJI-bwwr—A
Payment, the Court has reviewed the materials and information submitted by Correa, Plaintiff,
and Defendant, and has considered the arguments presented by Correé, Plaintiff, and Defendant
during the October 16, 2019 hearing.
V
The Court issued an order on “November. 22, 2019 granting approval of the parties’ .
PAGA settlement, and on January 15, 2020 gn order '(1) approving Plaintiff’s requested
attorneys’ feeé afid costs; (2) approving Plaintiff’s requested incentive award in part; and (3)
H'O
denying Cérreajs request for attorney’s fees and incentive payfn'ent in full.
N ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJ'UDGED, AND DECREED that
‘in
W Judgment shall be entered accordance with the Court’s November 22, 2019 Order Granting
$ Approval of PAGA Settlement and the parties’ Settlement Agrgement,‘ and the Court’s January
UI
15, 2020, Order Regarding Attorneys’ Fees, Costs, and Incentive Awards, as follows:
O\
1. All capitalized terms below shall h'avé the sathe definitions and meaning as that
I
fl provided, in the parties’ Settlement Agreement.
I
NNNNNNNNNHHi—hp—Ay—AHHHp—AH
0°
2. The Cour: approves the Settlement Agreement pursuant to Labor Code séctipn
\O
2699(l)(2) because the settlement 'is fair, reasonable, adequate, and advances the purposes of the
Labor Code. Although there is no express authority for the Lébor Workfofce and Development
H,O
Agency to obj ect or comment upon this settlement, the Court allowed the state agency to submit
N comments and objections, and to argue with respect to whether the Settlement Agreement
w shclmld be approved. The Court finds that ihe’ Labor Workforce and Development Agency’s
h objections, comments, and arguments afe unfounded’W. vn r 6 380 n 3 b ’8
UI
—
aml/or onpersow'vs-
Ox l
The parties’ Settlement Agreement is attached to (1') Exhibit 1 of the Supplemental Declaration
of Carolyn Hunt Cottrell In Support of Joint Motion To ‘Approve Settlement’Pursuan‘t to Private
Q Attorneys General Act of 2004 filed on June 3, 2019; and (2) again as Exhibit 3 to the Declaration
of Kyle G. Bates In Support of Renewed Memorandum of Points and Authorities In Support of
00
Motion to Approve Settlement Pursuant to Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, filed on
September 6, 2019. .
.
2
:
[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT— Case No. 17CIV01736
.
o—A
3. The Court specifically approves and awards the following amounts, as they are
N fair, reasonable, adequate, and advance the purposes of the‘ Labor Code:
w a. The Total Settlement Amount of $4,500,000 plus any additional payment
A made pursuant to Section III.I of the Settlement Agreemexit is approved.
Uh
In accordance with the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of
Os
2004, Labor Code sections 2699, et seq. (“PAGA”), seventy-five percent
Q (75%) of the Net Settlement Amount will be distributed to the State of
0°
California and twenty-five percent (25%) pf the Net Settlement Amount
\O will be distributed to the PAGA Settlement Members. Any uncashed
settlement checks will be remitted to the California State Controller’s
Unclaimed Property Funduwhere they can be recovered by the appropriate
PAGA Settlement Member pursuant to the applicable rules governing that
office.
Plaintiff‘s Counsel is awarded $1,500,000 in reasonablg attorneys’ fees
and mm. in reasonable out-of-pocket costs and expenses. The
be.
awarded attorneys’ fees and costs shall deducted from the Total
Settlement Amount.
Plaintiff is awarded-LL12_,0_00. as an additional payment (1'.e., in addition to
WVQm-AWNHOOWQO\M#WNHO
her share of PAGA penalties from the Settlement) for acting as the PAGA
NNN'NN'N-NNNHHHQHHHHHH
representative plaintiff and for agreeing to a broader release ‘on her
personal ciaims against Defendant and all Releaséd Parties. This award
shall be deducted from the Total Settlement Amount.
'
A maximum of $78,000 shall be allocated for payment of costs, fées, and
No
'
expenses to the Settlement Administrator. additional cosfs, fees, or ‘
expenses shall bé incurred by the Séttlemenfi Admirfistrator without prior
Court approval. Any amount paid to the Settlement Administrator for
séttlement administration costs, fees, or expenses shall be deducted from
the Total Settlement Amount.
-
3
[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT— Case No. 17CIV01736
4. \ The Court approves the release provided by the Settlement Agreement. Under
I
the térms of the Settlement Agreement, Plaintiff, the PAGA Settlement Members, and the State
of California (including the Labor and Workforce Development Agency and Deparfinent of
Industrial Relations) release Defendant and all Released Parties from all “Released Claims.”
“Released Claims” means any and all known and unknown claims under the PAGA against the
\Oooqchu-b'up
Released Parties that were or could have been pled based on the factual allegatiofis of the
Complaint, including but not iimifed to Plaintiff’s allegation that Defendant unlawfully
prohibited current and former employees from: (1) disclosing certain information includiné but
not limited to salary, benefits, wages, identities of other employees, training and operations
Ithe wages
10 methods, and office protocols and systems and programs and systems; (2) discussing
11 ‘of others, engaging in. whistleblower activity, or disclOsing or discuséing their working
12 conditions: This includes, but is not limited to, PAGA claims for violation of California Labor
13 Code sections-232, 232.5, 432.5, 1102.5, 1197.5(k), and 2699 et seq. For avoidance of doubt,
14 the only claims beir11g released by the Labor and Workforpe Development Agency and PAGA
15 Settlement Members are claims that were or could have brought under the PAGA, based on the _
‘
16 allegations in Plaintiffs Complaint.
17 5. The Court is not making any findings as to the merits of the claims asserted in
18' this Action and nothing herein is intended or shall be construed as an admission of liability or
I
19 wrongdoing by Defendant or any other entity.
20 6. IND Class Action Administration is appointed as the Settlement Administrator.
21 7. The Court finds that the form of the revised Notice Letter submitted as Exhibit 2
22 to the Declaration of Kyle G. Bates filed on June 14, 2019 is adequate and reasonable, 5nd
23 approves the Settlement Administrator providing notice to the PAGA"! Settlement Members in
24 the aforementioned form.
25 8. No “incentive payment’; or attorneys’ fees or costs are awarded to Correa or her
26 counsel. The Court finds thaf Correa and her counsel have not demonstrated that they conferred
27 a significant benefit upon the PAGA Settlement Members or the State of California beyond the
28 benefits already secured by Plaintiff’s Counsel. Nor hav_e qurea and her counsel demonstrated
4
[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT— Case No. l7CIV01736
that they have satisfied the elements for a “catalyst’.’ fee award.
9. The Court’s November 22, 2019 Order Granting Approval of PAGA Settlement
and January 15, 2020 Order Regarding Attorneys’ Fees, Costs, and Incentive Awards are hereby
incorporated here in full by reference.
\OOOQONLh-hwwg—n
10. Within ten (10) days of the entry of this Judgment, Plaintiff shall submit a copy
of this Judgment to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency; 3nd Ft ‘ %A
|
53%
Norms oi- Eat o(- Suds MM?upon
r5911“ retains Jurisdiction,
ad's: ,Ocaa's wvnu'
including ursuant o California Code of Civil
Procedure section 644.6, over the Parties and this Action.
>—-
n—a-
v_-
DATE: 21/7/80
‘
I
§
,
/M
HON, MARIE S. WEINER
SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE
;—-
4816—8522-1300. v. 1
v—-‘n—-
:—-
7—-
H
H
WQQMhWNF-‘OCWQGMAWNHO
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
5 .
[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT— Cage No. I7CIVO] 736
SERVICE LIST
Moniz v. Adecco, PAGA N0. 17CIV01 736
as of July 20 1 9
Attorneys for Plaintiffs:
CAROLYN HUNT COTTRELL
DAVID LEIMBACH
'
KYLE BATES
SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL
KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP
'2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
‘
Emeryville, CA 94608
(415) 421-7100
Attorneys for Defendant:
MIA FARBER
ADAM SIEGEL
JOHNSON
PHILIP
JACKSON LEWIS PC
725 South Figueroa, Suite 2500
Los Angeles, CA 90017
(213) 689-0404
DYLAN CARP
SCOTT JANG ‘
JACKSON LEWIS PC
50 California Street, Ninth Floor
San Francisco, CA 941 11
(41 5) 394-9400
Attorney for “Proposed InterVenor”:
CHRISBAKER
DEBORAH SCHWARTZ
BAKER CURTIS & SCHWARTZ PC
One California Street, Suite 1250
San Francisco, CA 94.1 1 1
(415) 433-1064 \
PROOF OF SERVICE
I, Scott L. Gordon, declare the following:
I am over the age 0f eighteen years and not a party t0 the above—captioned matter. I am employed
at Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky Wotkyns LLP located at 2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400,
Emeryville, California 94608.
On February 25, 2020, I served the following document(s) described as:
o NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT OR ORDER
on the interested parties listed on the attached Service List:
[V] BY U.S. MAIL: I placed a true copy(ies) thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope(s) with the
postage thereon fully prepaid at the address(es) set forth above and deposited such envelope(s)
10 in the mail at Emeryville, California. I am readily familiar with the firm’s practice of collection
and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited With U.S.
11 Postal Service 0n that same day at Emeryville, California. I am aware that 0n motion 0f the party
served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date 0r postage meter date is more than
12 one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit.
13 [V] BY ONE LEGAL ELECTRONIC SERVICE: I caused a true and correct copy 0f the
documents(s) listed above to be sent Via electronic transmission through One Legal E—Service to
14 the person(s) at the email address(es) set forth above.
15
16 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State 0f California that the foregoing is
17 true and correct. Executed on February 25, 2020, at Emeryville, California.
18
19 ‘ >
Scott L. Gordon
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
PROOF OF SERVICE
SERVICE LIST
Mia Farber
Adam Y. Siegel
Philip A. Johnson
JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2500
Los Angeles, CA 90017
1nia.farber jacksonlewis.com
adamsiege @jacksonlewis.com
philip.j ohnson@jacksonlewis.com
Scott P. Jang
JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
50 California Street, 9th Floor
San Francisco, CA 941 11
scott.jang@j acksonlewis.com
10 Attorneysfor DefendantAdecco USA, Inc.
11
Chris Baker
12 Deborah Schwartz
BAKER CURTIS & SCHWARTZ, P.C.
13 One California Street, Suite 1250
San Francisco, CA 941 11
14 cbaker@baker1p.com
dschwartz@bakerlp.com
15
Attorneysfor Proposed Infervenor Paula Corl'ea
16
17 By Electronic Service Only:
18 Department N0. 2, Courtroom 2E
Superior Court 0f California for the County of San Mateo
19 400 County Center
Redwood City, California
20 complexcivilfi)sanmateocourmrg
21 PAGA Administrator
Labor and Workforce Development Agency
22 1515 Clay Street, Suite 801
Oakland, California 94612
23 PAGAfilings@dir.ca.g0V
via the LWDA PAGA electronicfiling system
24
25
26
27
28
2
PROOF OF SERVICE
Preview
CIV-1 30 ATTORNEY 0R PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name, State Bar number, and address): FOR COURT USE ONLY Kyle Geoffrey Bates (SBN 2991 14) 'Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky 2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400 E|Htmnlulw Emeryville, TELEPHONE CA 94608 E-MA'L ADDRESS (Optional): ATTORNEY FOR STREET ADDRESS: MAILING ADDRESS: (415) 421-7 100 Non: (Name): @ FAX NO. (optional): kbates schneiderwallace .com Plaintiff Rachel Moniz SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF San Mateo 400 County Center 33— brfiuplnur U" CmrlEI/Czllga/rgldfizfluonw nFS-In Malia CITY AND ZIP CODE: Redwood City 94063 BRANCH NAME: PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: Rachel Moniz DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: Adecco USA, Inc. CASE NUMBER: NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT OR ORDER 17CIV01736 (Check one): UNLIMITED CASE (Amount demanded E LIMITED CASE (Amount demanded was exceeded $25,000) $25,000 or less) TO ALL PARTIES : 1. Ajudgment, decree, or orderwas entered in this action on (date): February 7, 2020 2, A copy of the judgment, decree, or order is attached to this notice. Date; (TYPE February 25, 2020 Kyle G. bates 0R PRINT NAME 0F ATTORNEY E PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY) ’ /W1 X / , (SIGNATURE) Page 1 of 2 Form Approved for Optional Use WWW.COUI1infO.ca.gOV JudieialCounciI ofCalifomia ClV-1 30 [New January 1, 201 0] NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT OR ORDER CIV-1 30 CASE NUMBER: PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: Rache! Moniz _ 17CIv01 736 1 ‘ DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: Adecco USA, Inc. PROOF 0F SERVICE BY FIRST-CLASS MAIL NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT OR ORDER (NOTE: You cannot serve the Notice of Entry of Judgment or Order ifyou are a party in the action. The person who served the notice must complete this proof of service.) 1. | am at least 18 years old and not a party to this action. I am a resident of or employed in the county where the mailing took place, and my residence or business address is (spechw: 2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400, Emeryville, California 94608 2. I sewed a copy of the Notice of Ently of Judgment or Order by enclosing it in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid and (check one): a. deposited the sealed envelope with the United States Postal Service. b_ D placed the sealed envelope for collection and processing for mailing, following with which l am readily familiar. On the same day correspondence is this business‘s usual practices, placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary course of business with the United States Postal Service. 3. The Notice of Entry of Judgment or Order was mailed: a, on (date); February 25, 2020 b. from (city and state): EmeI'YViHe, California 4. The envelope was addressed and mailed as follows: a. Name of person served: c. Name of person served: Mia Farber Scott P. Jang Street address: 725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2500 Street address: 50 California Street, 9th Floor City: L05 AnQe|eS City: San Francisco State and zip code: CA 90017 State and zip code: CA 941 11 b. Name of person served: d. Name of person served: Chris Baker Street address; One California Street, Suite 1250 Street address: City; San Francisco City; State and zip code: CA 941 11 State and zip code: E Names and addresses of additional persons served are attached. (You may use form POS-030(P).) 5. Number of pages attached | declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Date: February 25, 2020 Scott L. Gordon ’ (TYPE OR PRINT NAME OF DECLARANT) (SIGNATURE OF DECLARANT) Page 2 of 2 “"130 [Newanuam' 2°10] NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT OR ORDER FILED SAN MATEO COUNTY FEB 1 0"2020 ‘ Clerko [e room By u D PUTYCLERK - \OOOQoxmAuNH_ ‘ I- Jun \ r ' Judgment ' 2242334 3’ I/llllllIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII SUPERIOR COURT 0F THE STATE 0F CALIFORNIA COUNTY 0F SAN MATEO COMPLEX CIVIL LITIGATION RACHEL MONIZ, oh behalf of the State of ' Case No. 17CIV01736 California and aggrieved employees, ‘ Assigned for All Purposes to , Plaintiff, Hon. Marie S. Weiner, Dept. 2 v~. [WED] JUDGMENT ADECCO USA, INC., and DOES 1—50, inclusive, Complaint Filed: April 18, 2017' NNNNNNNNNr—‘D—‘H—nr—‘r—Ap—AHy—ahn ~ Trial Date: Vacated Defendants. WQQM¢WNHO©mflamkwNHO Plaintiff Rachel Moniz (“Plaintiff”) filed a Renewed Motion for Approval of PAGA Settlement, which came gm for hearing on October l6, 2019' at 2:00 p.m., in Department 2 of the above-entitled Court, the Honorable Marie S. Weiner presiding. In addition, denied-intervenor Péfila Correa and her counsel Baker Curtis & Schwartz P.C. (collectively, “Correa”) filed a Motion for Attorney Fees and an Incentive Payment, which also came on for hearing on October 16, 2019 at 2:00 p.m., in Department 2 of the above-entitled Coun, the Honorable Marie S. ’ Weiner presiding. Withvrespect to the Renewed Motion for Approval of PAGA Settlement, the Court has l . [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT— Case No. l7CIV01736 reviewed the materials and information submitted by Plaintiff, Defendant Adecco USA, Inc. (“Defendant”), and the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency (“LWDA”), and has considered the arguments presented by Plaintiff, Defendant, and the LWDA during the October 16, 2019 hearing. With réspect to Correa’s Motion forAttorney Fees and an Incentive \OOONONLJI-bwwr—A Payment, the Court has reviewed the materials and information submitted by Correa, Plaintiff, and Defendant, and has considered the arguments presented by Correé, Plaintiff, and Defendant during the October 16, 2019 hearing. V The Court issued an order on “November. 22, 2019 granting approval of the parties’ . PAGA settlement, and on January 15, 2020 gn order '(1) approving Plaintiff’s requested attorneys’ feeé afid costs; (2) approving Plaintiff’s requested incentive award in part; and (3) H'O denying Cérreajs request for attorney’s fees and incentive payfn'ent in full. N ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJ'UDGED, AND DECREED that ‘in W Judgment shall be entered accordance with the Court’s November 22, 2019 Order Granting $ Approval of PAGA Settlement and the parties’ Settlement Agrgement,‘ and the Court’s January UI 15, 2020, Order Regarding Attorneys’ Fees, Costs, and Incentive Awards, as follows: O\ 1. All capitalized terms below shall h'avé the sathe definitions and meaning as that I fl provided, in the parties’ Settlement Agreement. I NNNNNNNNNHHi—hp—Ay—AHHHp—AH 0° 2. The Cour: approves the Settlement Agreement pursuant to Labor Code séctipn \O 2699(l)(2) because the settlement 'is fair, reasonable, adequate, and advances the purposes of the Labor Code. Although there is no express authority for the Lébor Workfofce and Development H,O Agency to obj ect or comment upon this settlement, the Court allowed the state agency to submit N comments and objections, and to argue with respect to whether the Settlement Agreement w shclmld be approved. The Court finds that ihe’ Labor Workforce and Development Agency’s h objections, comments, and arguments afe unfounded’W. vn r 6 380 n 3 b ’8 UI — aml/or onpersow'vs- Ox l The parties’ Settlement Agreement is attached to (1') Exhibit 1 of the Supplemental Declaration of Carolyn Hunt Cottrell In Support of Joint Motion To ‘Approve Settlement’Pursuan‘t to Private Q Attorneys General Act of 2004 filed on June 3, 2019; and (2) again as Exhibit 3 to the Declaration of Kyle G. Bates In Support of Renewed Memorandum of Points and Authorities In Support of 00 Motion to Approve Settlement Pursuant to Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, filed on September 6, 2019. . . 2 : [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT— Case No. 17CIV01736 . o—A 3. The Court specifically approves and awards the following amounts, as they are N fair, reasonable, adequate, and advance the purposes of the‘ Labor Code: w a. The Total Settlement Amount of $4,500,000 plus any additional payment A made pursuant to Section III.I of the Settlement Agreemexit is approved. Uh In accordance with the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of Os 2004, Labor Code sections 2699, et seq. (“PAGA”), seventy-five percent Q (75%) of the Net Settlement Amount will be distributed to the State of 0° California and twenty-five percent (25%) pf the Net Settlement Amount \O will be distributed to the PAGA Settlement Members. Any uncashed settlement checks will be remitted to the California State Controller’s Unclaimed Property Funduwhere they can be recovered by the appropriate PAGA Settlement Member pursuant to the applicable rules governing that office. Plaintiff‘s Counsel is awarded $1,500,000 in reasonablg attorneys’ fees and mm. in reasonable out-of-pocket costs and expenses. The be. awarded attorneys’ fees and costs shall deducted from the Total Settlement Amount. Plaintiff is awarded-LL12_,0_00. as an additional payment (1'.e., in addition to WVQm-AWNHOOWQO\M#WNHO her share of PAGA penalties from the Settlement) for acting as the PAGA NNN'NN'N-NNNHHHQHHHHHH representative plaintiff and for agreeing to a broader release ‘on her personal ciaims against Defendant and all Releaséd Parties. This award shall be deducted from the Total Settlement Amount. ' A maximum of $78,000 shall be allocated for payment of costs, fées, and No ' expenses to the Settlement Administrator. additional cosfs, fees, or ‘ expenses shall bé incurred by the Séttlemenfi Admirfistrator without prior Court approval. Any amount paid to the Settlement Administrator for séttlement administration costs, fees, or expenses shall be deducted from the Total Settlement Amount. - 3 [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT— Case No. 17CIV01736 4. \ The Court approves the release provided by the Settlement Agreement. Under I the térms of the Settlement Agreement, Plaintiff, the PAGA Settlement Members, and the State of California (including the Labor and Workforce Development Agency and Deparfinent of Industrial Relations) release Defendant and all Released Parties from all “Released Claims.” “Released Claims” means any and all known and unknown claims under the PAGA against the \Oooqchu-b'up Released Parties that were or could have been pled based on the factual allegatiofis of the Complaint, including but not iimifed to Plaintiff’s allegation that Defendant unlawfully prohibited current and former employees from: (1) disclosing certain information includiné but not limited to salary, benefits, wages, identities of other employees, training and operations Ithe wages 10 methods, and office protocols and systems and programs and systems; (2) discussing 11 ‘of others, engaging in. whistleblower activity, or disclOsing or discuséing their working 12 conditions: This includes, but is not limited to, PAGA claims for violation of California Labor 13 Code sections-232, 232.5, 432.5, 1102.5, 1197.5(k), and 2699 et seq. For avoidance of doubt, 14 the only claims beir11g released by the Labor and Workforpe Development Agency and PAGA 15 Settlement Members are claims that were or could have brought under the PAGA, based on the _ ‘ 16 allegations in Plaintiffs Complaint. 17 5. The Court is not making any findings as to the merits of the claims asserted in 18' this Action and nothing herein is intended or shall be construed as an admission of liability or I 19 wrongdoing by Defendant or any other entity. 20 6. IND Class Action Administration is appointed as the Settlement Administrator. 21 7. The Court finds that the form of the revised Notice Letter submitted as Exhibit 2 22 to the Declaration of Kyle G. Bates filed on June 14, 2019 is adequate and reasonable, 5nd 23 approves the Settlement Administrator providing notice to the PAGA"! Settlement Members in 24 the aforementioned form. 25 8. No “incentive payment’; or attorneys’ fees or costs are awarded to Correa or her 26 counsel. The Court finds thaf Correa and her counsel have not demonstrated that they conferred 27 a significant benefit upon the PAGA Settlement Members or the State of California beyond the 28 benefits already secured by Plaintiff’s Counsel. Nor hav_e qurea and her counsel demonstrated 4 [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT— Case No. l7CIV01736 that they have satisfied the elements for a “catalyst’.’ fee award. 9. The Court’s November 22, 2019 Order Granting Approval of PAGA Settlement and January 15, 2020 Order Regarding Attorneys’ Fees, Costs, and Incentive Awards are hereby incorporated here in full by reference. \OOOQONLh-hwwg—n 10. Within ten (10) days of the entry of this Judgment, Plaintiff shall submit a copy of this Judgment to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency; 3nd Ft ‘ %A | 53% Norms oi- Eat o(- Suds MM?upon r5911“ retains Jurisdiction, ad's: ,Ocaa's wvnu' including ursuant o California Code of Civil Procedure section 644.6, over the Parties and this Action. >—- n—a- v_- DATE: 21/7/80 ‘ I § , /M HON, MARIE S. WEINER SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE ;—- 4816—8522-1300. v. 1 v—-‘n—- :—- 7—- H H WQQMhWNF-‘OCWQGMAWNHO N N N N N N N N N 5 . [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT— Cage No. I7CIVO] 736 SERVICE LIST Moniz v. Adecco, PAGA N0. 17CIV01 736 as of July 20 1 9 Attorneys for Plaintiffs: CAROLYN HUNT COTTRELL DAVID LEIMBACH ' KYLE BATES SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP '2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400 ‘ Emeryville, CA 94608 (415) 421-7100 Attorneys for Defendant: MIA FARBER ADAM SIEGEL JOHNSON PHILIP JACKSON LEWIS PC 725 South Figueroa, Suite 2500 Los Angeles, CA 90017 (213) 689-0404 DYLAN CARP SCOTT JANG ‘ JACKSON LEWIS PC 50 California Street, Ninth Floor San Francisco, CA 941 11 (41 5) 394-9400 Attorney for “Proposed InterVenor”: CHRISBAKER DEBORAH SCHWARTZ BAKER CURTIS & SCHWARTZ PC One California Street, Suite 1250 San Francisco, CA 94.1 1 1 (415) 433-1064 \ PROOF OF SERVICE I, Scott L. Gordon, declare the following: I am over the age 0f eighteen years and not a party t0 the above—captioned matter. I am employed at Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky Wotkyns LLP located at 2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400, Emeryville, California 94608. On February 25, 2020, I served the following document(s) described as: o NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT OR ORDER on the interested parties listed on the attached Service List: [V] BY U.S. MAIL: I placed a true copy(ies) thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope(s) with the postage thereon fully prepaid at the address(es) set forth above and deposited such envelope(s) 10 in the mail at Emeryville, California. I am readily familiar with the firm’s practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited With U.S. 11 Postal Service 0n that same day at Emeryville, California. I am aware that 0n motion 0f the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date 0r postage meter date is more than 12 one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. 13 [V] BY ONE LEGAL ELECTRONIC SERVICE: I caused a true and correct copy 0f the documents(s) listed above to be sent Via electronic transmission through One Legal E—Service to 14 the person(s) at the email address(es) set forth above. 15 16 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State 0f California that the foregoing is 17 true and correct. Executed on February 25, 2020, at Emeryville, California. 18 19 ‘ > Scott L. Gordon 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 PROOF OF SERVICE SERVICE LIST Mia Farber Adam Y. Siegel Philip A. Johnson JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2500 Los Angeles, CA 90017 1nia.farber jacksonlewis.com adamsiege @jacksonlewis.com philip.j ohnson@jacksonlewis.com Scott P. Jang JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 50 California Street, 9th Floor San Francisco, CA 941 11 scott.jang@j acksonlewis.com 10 Attorneysfor DefendantAdecco USA, Inc. 11 Chris Baker 12 Deborah Schwartz BAKER CURTIS & SCHWARTZ, P.C. 13 One California Street, Suite 1250 San Francisco, CA 941 11 14 cbaker@baker1p.com dschwartz@bakerlp.com 15 Attorneysfor Proposed Infervenor Paula Corl'ea 16 17 By Electronic Service Only: 18 Department N0. 2, Courtroom 2E Superior Court 0f California for the County of San Mateo 19 400 County Center Redwood City, California 20 complexcivilfi)sanmateocourmrg 21 PAGA Administrator Labor and Workforce Development Agency 22 1515 Clay Street, Suite 801 Oakland, California 94612 23 PAGAfilings@dir.ca.g0V via the LWDA PAGA electronicfiling system 24 25 26 27 28 2 PROOF OF SERVICE