Preview
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
Superior Court of California,
County of Placer
09/28/2020
Patrick J. Cain (SBN 105331) By: Laurel Sanders, Deputy Clerk
Theodore H. Dokko (SBN 263830)
Smith, Gambrell & Russell, LLP
444 South Flower Street, Suite 1700
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Tel: (213) 358-7213; Fax: (213) 358-7313
Emai peain@sgrlaw.com
Email: tdokko@sgrlaw.com
5
Patricia J. Hill, Pro Hac Vice
6 Yash B. Dave, Pro Hac Vice
Jan M. Jones, Pro Hac Vice
Smith, Gambrel! & Russell, LLP
50 N. Laura Street, Suite 2600
Jacksonville, FL 32202
Tel: (904) 598-6100; F (904) 598-6240
9 Email jhill@segrlay n
Ema day. Us urlaw.com
10 Emai Osorla
11 Attorneys for Defendant SUNBELT RENTALS,
gc INC.,
aes
aES 12
TESS
gags SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
BAS
B28 13
aus 8
ease
ES FOR THE COUNTY OF PLACER
BESS
aOkRS 14
ae sf
Case No. S-CV-00443 13
ao g og
MICHAEL TEBBS, as an individual and on
Soage65 15 behalf of all others similarly situated;
GEah ae
bog
5ou DECLARATION OF YASH B, DAVE IN
roger
ES 16
S39 Plaintiffs, SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT SUNBELT
OFA VS. RENTALS, INC.’S OPPOSITION TO
17
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL
SUNBELT RENTALS, INC., a North
18 Carolina Corpo ation; and DOES 1 through FURTHER RESPONSES TO SI CIAL
50, inclusive; INTERROGATORIES, SET ON
19
Defendants. Date: October 9, 2020
20 Fime: 8:30 am.
Dept.: 3
21
Action Filed: January 21, 2020
22 Trial Date: Not yet assigned
23 DECLARATION OF YASH B, DAVE
24 I, Yash B. Dave, do hereby declare as follows:
25 1 I am an attorney at law, duly licensed to practice before the courts of Florida and
26 Texas, admitted pro hac vice in this litigation, and a partner at Smith, Gambrell & Russell, LLP,
27 attorneys of record Defendant Sunbelt Rentals, Inc. I give this Declaration in support of
28 Defendant Sunbelt Rentals, Inc.’s Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Defendant Sunbelt
DECLARATION OF YASH B. DAVE IN SUPPORT OF D NDANT SUNBELT RENTALS, INCOS-
OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL.
Rentals, Inc.’s Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One. 1 have personal knowledge
of the facts set forth herein. If called as a witness in this matter 1 could and would testify
competently thereto,
2 On July 15, 2020, counsel for the Parties met and conferred via telephone regarding
various issues including Special Interrogatories No. 3 and 7. A true and correct copy of the e-mail
6 chain including correspondence evidencing the July 15, 2020 conference call as well as the meet
and confer efforts relevant to Sunbelt’s opposition is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
3 On July 21, 2020, Sunbelt agreed to the Belaire-West notice process and requested
that Plaintiffs counsel provide a proposed drafi notice. See Exh. A.
10 4 On July 21, 2020, Plaintiff's counsel provided Sunbelt with a proposed Belaire-
11 West notice. See Exh. A. A true and correct copy of Plaintiffs proposed Belaire-West notice,
85
aes
aee8 12 received July 21, 2020 is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
awe
SN
Bast
8a
KE<8 13 5 On July 28, 2020, Sunbelt’s counsel provided Plaintiff with a red-lined version of
Leo
oF 62 xe
OLR5
ae 14 the Plaintiff's original proposed Belaire-West notice. See Exh. A ‘True and correct copies of a
6a
Go Cas red-line and clean version of Sunbelt’s proposed Belaire-West notice are attached hereto as
sce? ae 15
Ozucea
roger 2a
E® 16 Exhibits C and D, respectively.
Sid
Ayes
17 6. On August 21, 2020, Plaintiff’s counsel stated “we’re okay with your revisions to
18 the Belaire notice, with the exception of the postcard.” See Exh. A.
7
19 On August 27, 2020, Plaintiffs counsel notified undersigned counsel that the
20 estimated cost of Belaire-West Notice is $1,295.00, and the cost of including the postcard is
21 $187.50. A true and correct copy of the Belaire-West Notice quote is attached hereto as Exhibit E.
22 Despite further efforts to meet and confer on whether a pre-paid postcard should be included with
23 the notice and which party should bear the costs of the third party administrator. See Exh. A.
24 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is
25 true and correct.
26 W
27 \\\
28 \
2
DECLARATION OF YASH B. DAVE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT SUNBELT REN’ IN
OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL
Executed this 28" day of September, 2020, at Jacksonville, Florida
al Tee ce:
Yash B. Dave
5:
10
11
agc
358 12
Yo
28
aass
g28h 13
gue 5 ob
cee
8E5e
fa
ae at
14
bi
zag? 15
OERY
Ogre
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
DECLARATION OF YASH B. DAVE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT SUNB! .T RENTALS, INC.’S
OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIF S MOTION TO COMPEL
EXHIBIT A
From: Dennis Hyun
To: Dave, Yash B.; Dokko, Ted; “Edward Choi"; bill@polarislawaroup.com; lwlee@diversitylaw.com; “Michelle Lee";
erika@diversitylaw.com; olympia@diversityiaw.com
Ce: Gain, Patrick; Hil , Patricia |.; ones, lat
Subject: RE: Michael Tebbs v. Sunbelt Rentals, Inc.
Date: Friday, August 28, 2020 2:05:22 PM
Attachments: image001.jpq
Yes we disagree. We will raise it with the Court.
From: Dave, Yash B.
Sent: Friday, August 28, 2020 11:04 AM
To: Dennis Hyun ; Dokko, Ted ; ‘Edward Choi'
; bill@polarislawgroup.com; Iwlee@diversitylaw.com;
‘Michelle Lee’ ; erika@diversitylaw.com;
olympia @diversitylaw.com
Ce: Cain, Patrick ; Hill, Patricia J. ; Jones, lan
Subject: RE: Michael Tebbs v. Sunbelt Rentals, Inc.
Dennis,
The cost of the postcard is minimal. As such, this cost should be borne by plaintiff since it is
plaintiff who is seeking the contact information of putative class members. Additionally, as |
noted below, a postcard is typically included with a Belaire Notice. Courts have recognized
that, a Belaire “notice is required because of Plaintiff's desire to use the list to contact putative
class members . . . as part of their investigation.” Willner, Inc. v. Manpower, Inc., 2013 WL
12324002, *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2013). As such, these costs are specially required because
Plaintiff desires to contact putative class members as part of discovery. See In re Autozone
Wage & Hour Empl. Practices Litig., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 132973 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 17, 2011).
Therefore, Plaintiff should bear the costs associated with the notice and “is in the best
position to weigh the usefulness of the information [Plaintiff] seeks versus the costs.” Id.
If you still disagree, then we can address it with the court at the CMC.
Regards,
Yash
Yash B. Dave
Florida Board Certified in Labor and Employment
p | 904-598-6115
EXHIBIT A
f | 904-598-6215
e | ydave@ sgrlaw.com
50 N. Laura Street | Suite 2600 | J acksonville, FL 32202
www.sarlaw.com | My Bio | vCard
From: Dennis Hyun
Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2020 7:48 PM
To: Dave, Yash B. ; Dokko, Ted <[Dokko@sgrlaw.com>; 'Edward Choi'
; bill@polarislawgroup.com; |wlee@diversitylaw.com;
‘Michelle Lee’ ; erika@diversitylaw.com;
lympia@diversitylaw.com
Ce: Cain, Patrick ; Hill, Patricia J. ; Jones, lan
Subject: RE: Michael Tebbs v. Sunbelt Rentals, Inc.
Here is the quote. Let us know what you want to do, so we can tell the Court at the CMC. Thx.
From: Dave, Yash B.
Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2020 11:36 AM
To: Dennis Hyun ; Dokko, Ted ; ‘Edward Choi’
; bill@polarislawgroup.com; |wlee@diversitylaw.com;
‘Michelle Lee' ; erika@diversitylaw.com;
lympia@diversitylaw.com
Ce: Cain, Patrick ; Hill, Patricia J. ; Jones, lan
Subject: RE: Michael Tebbs v. Sunbelt Rentals, Inc.
Dennis,
We are still confirming the numbers, but estimate it at 1,000.
Regards,
Yash
Yash B. Dave
Florida Board Certified in Labor and Employment
p | 904-598-6115
f | 904-598-6215
e | ydave@ sgrlaw.com
50 N. Laura Street | Suite 2600 | J acksonville, FL 32202
www.sarlaw.com | My Bio | vCard
From: Dennis Hyun
Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2020 2:27 PM
To: Dave, Yash B. ; Dokko, Ted <[Dokko@sgrlaw.com>; 'Edward Choi'
; bill@polarislawgroup.com; |wlee@diversitylaw.com;
‘Michelle Lee’ ; erika@diversitylaw.com;
lympia@diversitylaw.com
Ce: Cain, Patrick ; Hill, Patricia J. ; Jones, lan
Subject: RE: Michael Tebbs v. Sunbelt Rentals, Inc.
Yes. Please update so | can get quotes. Thx.
From: Dave, Yash B.
Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2020 11:24 AM
To: Dennis Hyun ; Dokko, Ted ; ‘Edward Choi’
; bill@polarislawgroup.com; |wlee@diversitylaw.com;
‘Michelle Lee' ; erika@diversitylaw.com;
lympia@diversitylaw.com
Ce: Cain, Patrick ; Hill, Patricia J. ; Jones, lan
Subject: RE: Michael Tebbs v. Sunbelt Rentals, Inc.
Dennis,
Is your definition of class based on Plaintiff's Special Interrogatory No. 1? Yes, we also need a
Notice in Spanish as well.
Regards,
Yash
Yash B. Dave
Florida Board Certified in Labor and Employment
p | 904-598-6115
f | 904-598-6215
e | ydave@ sgrlaw.com
50 N. Laura Street | Suite 2600 | J acksonville, FL 32202
www.sarlaw.com | My Bio | vCard
From: Dennis Hyun
Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2020 2:17 PM
To: Dave, Yash B. ; Dokko, Ted <[Dokko@sgrlaw.com>; 'Edward Choi'
; bill@polarislawgroup.com; |wlee@diversitylaw.com;
‘Michelle Lee’ ; erika@diversitylaw.com;
lympia@diversitylaw.com
Ce: Cain, Patrick ; Hill, Patricia J. ; Jones, lan
Subject: RE: Michael Tebbs v. Sunbelt Rentals, Inc.
Can you please get me updated class size? Do we need Spanish as well? Thx.
From: Dave, Yash B.
Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2020 10:09 AM
To: Dennis Hyun ; Dokko, Ted ; ‘Edward Choi’
; bill@polarislawgroup.com; |wlee@diversitylaw.com;
‘Michelle Lee' ; erika@diversitylaw.com;
lympia@diversitylaw.com
Ce: Cain, Patrick ; Hill, Patricia J. ; Jones, lan
Subject: RE: Michael Tebbs v. Sunbelt Rentals, Inc.
Dennis,
The logic is as follows: Quotes are typically provided on a “per notice” or “per mailing” rate.
This will give us a good idea of the costs even if there is a small change to the class size. It is
better to have perspective on whether we are arguing over a few hundred dollars or a few
thousand dollars. | think the court would also appreciate knowing the dollar amounts involved
if we eventually have the court address who should bear the costs.
Regards,
Yash
Yash B. Dave
Florida Board Certified in Labor and Employment
p | 904-598-6115
f | 904-598-6215
e | ydave@ sgrlaw.com
50 N. Laura Street | Suite 2600 | J acksonville, FL 32202
www.sgrlaw.com | My Bio | vCard
From: Dennis Hyun
Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2020 12:56 PM
To: Dave, Yash B. ; Dokko, Ted ; 'Edward Choi'
; bill@polarislawgroup.com; |wlee@diversitylaw.com;
‘Michelle Lee' ; erika@diversitylaw.com;
lympia@diversitylaw.com
Ce: Cain, Patrick ; Hill, Patricia J. ; Jones, lan
Subject: RE: Michael Tebbs v. Sunbelt Rentals, Inc.
| don’t believe in-person is allowed, so we will appear by phone. | don’t get your logic re getting
quotes first. Is it your position that you will only pay for the postcard and % of the notice procedure
if it is below a certain price threshold? Do you have an updated class size to get quotes?
From: Dave, Yash B.
Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2020 9:52 AM
To: Dennis Hyun ; Dokko, Ted ; ‘Edward Choi’
; bill@polarislawgroup.com; |wlee@diversitylaw.com;
‘Michelle Lee’ ; erika@diversitylaw.com;
lympia@diversitylaw.com
Ce: Cain, Patrick ; Hill, Patricia J. ; Jones, lan
Subject: RE: Michael Tebbs v. Sunbelt Rentals, Inc.
Dennis,
As noted in my e-mail below, | think the discussion on who should bear the costs is better left
addressed after we obtain a quote from the third party administrator. Again, do you wish to
contact the third party administrator or want us to? Also, please advise whether you intend to
appear at the CMC in person or via telephone.
Regards,
Yash
Yash B. Dave
Florida Board Certified in Labor and Employment
p | 904-598-6115
f | 904-598-6215
e | ydave@ sgrlaw.com a
50 N. Laura Street | Suite 2600 | J acksonville, FL 32202
www.sgrlaw.com | My Bio | vCard
From: Dennis Hyun
Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2020 12:17 PM
To: Dave, Yash B. ; Dokko, Ted <[Dokko@sgrlaw.com>; 'Edward Choi'
; bill@polarislawgroup.com; lwlee@diversitylaw.com;
‘Michelle Lee’ ; erika@diversitylaw.com;
lympia@diversitylaw.com
Ce: Cain, Patrick ; Hill, Patricia J. ; Jones, lan
Subject: RE: Michael Tebbs v. Sunbelt Rentals, Inc.
Yash,
What | offered below is my compromise. We permitted you to revise the notice and
notwithstanding our practice to never include postcards, we offered you a compromise to pay for 4%
of the notice procedure and the costs of the postcard, given your involvement in revising the notice
and demanding a postcard. Typically, defendants do not get involved in the drafting of the notice
and the procedures, as it is really a communication from plaintiff's counsel. In any event, courts
have held that defendants can be ordered to pay for the costs of the notice procedure. Hypertouch,
Inc. v. Superior Court, 128 Cal. App. 4th 1527, 1552 (2005), as modified on denial of reh'g (June 6,
2005). So, this is our final compromise. If you insist on these conditions, then we will need to
address this with the Court as well.
Dennis
From: Dave, Yash B.
Sent: Monday, August 24, 2020 1:55 PM
To: Dennis Hyun ; Dokko, Ted ; ‘Edward Choi’
; bill@polarislawgroup.com; |wlee@diversitylaw.com;
‘Michelle Lee' ; erika@diversitylaw.com;
lympia@diversitylaw.com
Ce: Cain, Patrick ; Hill, Patricia J. ; Jones, lan
Subject: RE: Michael Tebbs v. Sunbelt Rentals, Inc.
Dennis,
We disagree that defendant should have to bear any of the cost of the Belaire notice process.
These costs are typically borne by the plaintiff and are recoverable costs in the event plaintiff
succeeds at trial. However, before we engage in further arguments on costs, | think it is best
to first obtain a quote from a third party administrator so that we can see how much we are
talking about here. Typically, the postcard does not add much to the cost of the Belaire notice
process. Please let us know whether your office will obtain the quote or you want us to.
Also, with respect to the CMC, are you saying that you will be appearing in person (as opposed
to by telephone) for the CMC?
Regards,
Yash
Yash B. Dave
Florida Board Certified in Labor and Employment
p | 904-598-6115
f | 904-598-6215
e | ydave@ sgrlaw.com
50 N. Laura Street | Suite 2600 | J acksonville, FL 32202
www.sgrlaw.com | My Bio | vCard
From: Dennis Hyun
Sent: Monday, August 24, 2020 3:03 PM
To: Dave, Yash B. ; Dokko, Ted <[Dokko@sgrlaw.com>; 'Edward Choi'
; bill@polarislawgroup.com; lwlee@diversitylaw.com;
‘Michelle Lee’ ; erika@diversitylaw.com;
lympia@diversitylaw.com
Ce: Cain, Patrick ; Hill, Patricia J. ; Jones, lan
Subject: RE: Michael Tebbs v. Sunbelt Rentals, Inc.
Yash,
We disagree that sending a letter as expressly approved by the Federal Judicial Center imposes any
burden. Again, the purpose of the Belaire notice process is to level the playing field. At any rate, we
will agree to the inclusion of the postcard if defendant pays for the entire costs of the postcard and
% of the Belaire-West administration process. Please let us know. And, we will be appearing at the
CMC to talk about the trial date. We think it is premature to set the trial date before class
certification is decided.
Thx.
Dennis
From: Dave, Yash B.
Sent: Monday, August 24, 2020 9:43 AM
To: Dennis Hyun ; Dokko, Ted ; ‘Edward Choi’
; bill@polarislawgroup.com; lwlee@diversitylaw.com;
‘Michelle Lee’ ; erika@diversitylaw.com;
lympia@diversitylaw.com
Ce: Cain, Patrick ; Hill, Patricia J. ; Jones, lan
Subject: RE: Michael Tebbs v. Sunbelt Rentals, Inc.
Dennis,
We are not trying to get any unfair advantage here. It is about protecting the putative class
members’ privacy interests. We should not require them to jump through hoops and incur
costs to protect their own privacy interests. The cases you rely on relate to class certification
notices. We are talking about a Belaire-West notice here. Therefore, you must agree that the
Belaire-West decision is controlling or, at least, persuasive authority. | am sure you know that
in Belaire-West, the court permitted a postcard to be included with the notice. See Belaire-
West Landscape Inc. v. Superior Court, 149 Ca. App.4th 554, 557 (2007). In Talavera v. Sun
Maid Growers of California, No. 1:15-cv-00842-AWI-SAB, 2017 WL 495635 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 6,
2017), the court defined a Belaire notice as, “the opt-out notice sent to potential class
members informing them of the lawsuit and informing them that if they do not want their
contact information released to plaintiff's counsel they may return an enclosed postcard.” /d.
at *5 (citing Belaire-West Landscape Inc., 149 Ca. App.4th 554. There are many other cases
that support the inclusion of a postcard with a Belaire-West notice, but hope the two | have
noted here will suffice.
You rely heavily on Whiteway, but it involved a class certification notice. Additionally, in
Whiteway, the court noted that there are no rules preventing the inclusion ofa postcard, but
noted that FedEx did not point to any authority stating that a postcard is required or a best
practice.
Please let me know if this changes your position on the matter. Otherwise, unfortunately, we
will have to address this with the court.
Regards,
Yash
Yash B. Dave
Florida Board Certified in Labor and Employment
p | 904-598-6115
f | 904-598-6215
e | ydave@ sgrlaw.com a
50 N. Laura Street | Suite 2600 | J acksonville, FL 32202
www.sgrlaw.com | My Bio | vCard
From: Dennis Hyun
Sent: Friday, August 21, 2020 4:37 PM
To: Dave, Yash B. ; Dokko, Ted <[Dokko@sgrlaw.com>; 'Edward Choi'
; bill@polarislawgroup.com; lwlee@diversitylaw.com;
‘Michelle Lee' ; erika@diversitylaw.com;
lympia@diversitylaw.com
Ce: Cain, Patrick ; Hill, Patricia J. ; Jones, lan
Subject: RE: Michael Tebbs v. Sunbelt Rentals, Inc.
Yash,
We disagree. The entire purpose of the Belaire notice is to level the playing field by helping workers’
counsel access to class members. Thus, requiring a letter is not burdensome. As | said below, the
law is on our side. In Whiteway v. FedEx Kinkos Office & Print Servs., No. C 05-2320 SBA, 2007 WL
1381514, at *1 (N.D. Cal. May 8, 2007), the employer argued for a postcard opt-out to be attached
to the notice. In Whiteway, the District Court granted the plaintiff's motion for class certification
and ordered notice to be sent to the class. /d. The employer then filed a motion to compel to
include an exclusion form with the plaintiff's proposed class notice. /d. The Court rejected the
inclusion of such an exclusion form, finding no authority supporting such a request: “FedEx points to
no authority either requiring such an exclusion notice form, or any suggesting that it would make the
notice the best practicable under the circumstances.” /d. The Whiteway Court further noted that
the Federal Judicial Center’s sample opt-out procedure utilized a letter, as proposed by Plaintiff in
this case:
The example notice forms provided by the Federal Judicial Center merely includes language,
on the face of the notice, that a class member may decide to be excluded from the class, and
if they wish to do so, they may send a letter to a given address. See http://www fic.gov/
(Class Action Notices Page). The notice forms do not appear to contemplate the inclusion
of an exclusion notice form. There is nothing preventing the inclusion of such a form. But,
given that the parties dispute including an exclusion form, and FedEx is seeking an order
from the Court requiring the plaintiff to include it, FedEx must demonstrate either that it is
required or that it can support its contention that including an exclusion form constitutes a
“best practices” in this type of litigation. They have done neither, and therefore the motion
should be denied.
Id. at *2 (emphasis added).
Likewise, the District Court in Krzesniak v. Cendant Corp., No. C 05-05156 MEJ, 2007 WL
4468678, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 17, 2007), refused to include an opt-out form per the employer’s
request in a wage and hour class action. As the Krzesniak Court explained, such an opt-out form
could “engender confusion” and actually encourage class members to opt-out:
The notice forms do not appear to contemplate the inclusion of an exclusion notice form.
Further, the Court finds that on balance, such a separate form will “engender confusion”
and may encourage class members to “unwittingly opt out of the class.”
Id. (Emphasis added; quoting Roberts v. Heim, 130 F.R.D. 416, 423 (N.D.Cal.1988)).
If you continue to disagree, we will have to raise it with the Court.
From: Dave, Yash B.
Sent: Friday, August 21, 2020 10:54 AM
To: Dennis Hyun ; Dokko, Ted ; ‘Edward Choi’
; bill@polarislawgroup.com; lwlee@diversitylaw.com;
‘Michelle Lee’ ; erika@diversitylaw.com;
lympia@diversitylaw.com
Ce: Cain, Patrick ; Hill, Patricia J. ; Jones, lan
Subject: RE: Michael Tebbs v. Sunbelt Rentals, Inc.
Dennis,
We cannot agree to this. | am sure you agree that the need to type up, print and mail the
letter, in addition to providing their own addressed envelope and postage will be a bar to
opting out. We have regularly included a postcard with Belaire Notices, and it has not created
any confusion.
lam glad to schedule a call if you wish to discuss this further.
Regards,
Yash
Yash B. Dave
Florida Board Certified in Labor and Employment
p | 904-598-6115
f | 904-598-6215
e | ydave@ sgrlaw.com
50 N. Laura Street | Suite 2600 | J acksonville, FL 32202
www.sgrlaw.com | My Bio | vCard
From: Dennis Hyun
Sent: Friday, August 21, 2020 1:13 PM
To: Dave, Yash B. ; Dokko, Ted ; 'Edward Choi'
; bill@polarislawgroup.com; |wlee@diversitylaw.com;
‘Michelle Lee' ; erika@diversitylaw.com;
lympia@diversitylaw.com
Ce: Cain, Patrick ; Hill, Patricia J. ; Jones, lan
Subject: RE: Michael Tebbs v. Sunbelt Rentals, Inc.
When | say standard, | mean that is the standard we use for all of our Belaire notices. The class
member will write a response stating that he/she does not want to have her information disclosed,
signs and dates it. This is taken from the Federal Judicial Center’s sample notice available here:
https: www.fic.gov/content/employment-discrimination-class-action-certification-full-notice
To ask to be excluded, you must send an “Exclusion Request” in the form of a letter sent by
mail,
stating that you want to be excluded fromJ ohnson v. MNO. Be sureto include your name and
address, and sign the letter. You must mail your ExclusionRequest postmarked by Month 00,
0000,
to: Johnsonv. MNO Exclusions, P.O. Box 0000, City, ST 00000-0000. Y ou may also get an
Exclusion Request form at the website, www mnoclassaction com.
So, it will not be attached. Again, anything attached to the notice will engender confusion. Please
let us know your position.
From: Dave, Yash B.
Sent: Friday, August 21, 2020 10:09 AM
To: Dennis Hyun ; Dokko, Ted ; ‘Edward Choi’
; bill@polarislawgroup.com; lwlee@diversitylaw.com;
‘Michelle Lee' ; erika@diversitylaw.com;
lympia@diversitylaw.com
Ce: Cain, Patrick ; Hill, Patricia J. ; Jones, lan
Subject: RE: Michael Tebbs v. Sunbelt Rentals, Inc.
Dennis,
Could you please share with us the standard signed written letter? Will this “standard” letter
be included with the Notice?
Regards,
Yash
Yash B. Dave
Florida Board Certified in Labor and Employment
p | 904-598-6115
f | 904-598-6215
e | ydave@ sgrlaw.com
50 N. Laura Street | Suite 2600 | J acksonville, FL 32202
www.sgrlaw.com | My Bio | vCard
From: Dennis Hyun
Sent: Friday, August 21, 2020 1:07 PM
To: Dave, Yash B. ; Dokko, Ted <[Dokko@sgrlaw.com>; 'Edward Choi'
; bill@polarislawgroup.com; |wlee@diversitylaw.com;
‘Michelle Lee’ ; erika@diversitylaw.com;
lympia@diversitylaw.com
Ce: Cain, Patrick ; Hill, Patricia J. ; Jones, lan
Subject: RE: Michael Tebbs v. Sunbelt Rentals, Inc.
The standard signed written letter, which has been approved by the Federal Judicial Center and case
authority. Please let me know if you disagree and if so, yes, we should schedule a call and then if
unsuccessful in reaching agreement, need guidance from the Court. Thanks.
From: Dave, Yash B.
Sent: Friday, August 21, 2020 10:04 AM
To: Dennis Hyun ; Dokko, Ted ; 'Edward Choi’
1
; bill@polarislawgroup.com; lwlee@diversitylaw.com;
‘Michelle Lee' ; erika@diversitylaw.com;
lympia@diversitylaw.com
Ce: Cain, Patrick ; Hill, Patricia J. ; Jones, lan
Subject: RE: Michael Tebbs v. Sunbelt Rentals, Inc.
Dennis,
How do you envision putative class members would submit their opt-out request by mail if not
with a post-card? We should include something for the putative class members to mail back
to the TPA.
Let us know if you wish to schedule a call to discuss further
Regards,
Yash
Yash B. Dave
Florida Board Certified in Labor and Employment
p | 904-598-6115
f | 904-598-6215
e | ydave@ sgrlaw.com
50 N. Laura Street | Suite 2600 | J acksonville, FL 32202
www.sgrlaw.com | My Bio | vCard
From: Dennis Hyun
Sent: Friday, August 21, 2020 12:56 PM
To: Dokko, Ted ; 'Edward Choi' ;
bill@polarislawgroup.com; lwlee@diversitylaw.com; 'Michelle Lee’
; erika@diversitylaw.com; olympia@diversitylaw.com
Ce: Cain, Patrick ; Hill, Patricia J. ; Dave, Yash B.
; Jones, lan
Subject: RE: Michael Tebbs v. Sunbelt Rentals, Inc.
And, we’re okay with your revisions to the Belaire notice, with the exception of the postcard. We
cannot agree to that as it will only confuse class members into thinking it’s a claim form. Please let
us know whether you will agree to remove the postcard. Thx.
From: Dennis Hyun
Sent: Friday, August 21, 2020 9:54 AM
To: 'Dokko, Ted' ; 'Edward Choi’ ;
‘bill@polarislawgroup.com' ; 'lwlee@diversitylaw.com'
; 'Michelle Lee’ ;
‘erika@diversitylaw.com' ; 'olympia@diversitylaw.com'
Ce: 'Cain, Patrick’ ; ‘Hill, Patricia J.' ; 'Dave, Yash B.'
; Jones, lan'
Subject: RE: Michael Tebbs v. Sunbelt Rentals, Inc.
Hey Ted,
Can you please advise as to the other remaining discovery items? We also plan to appear at the 9/1
CMC, as we do not think the current trial date provides enough time for us to get all of the discovery
and file our motion for class certification. Thx.
From: Dennis Hyun
Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2020 10:27 AM
To: 'Dokko, Ted' ; 'Edward Choi’ ;
‘bill@polarislawgroup.com' ; 'lwlee@diversitylaw.com'
; 'Michelle Lee’ ;
‘erika@diversitylaw.com' ; 'olympia@diversitylaw.com'
Ce: 'Cain, Patrick’ ; ‘Hill, Patricia J.' ; 'Dave, Yash B.'
; Jones, lan'
Subject: RE: Michael Tebbs v. Sunbelt Rentals, Inc.
Hey Ted,
We will review and get back to you. However, a few points with below. We never do NCOA or skip-
trace for Belaire and never have done so. This is not a class settlement. We cannot agree to that
request.
With respect to the opt-out period, 30 days is standard. We only use 45 days in class settlements.
We've never done a 60-day opt-out period. With that said, if you want email opt-out, we will
compromise and have a 30-day opt-out period. If you insist on having a 60-day opt-out period, then
we can agree to only mail opt-out.
And, we are not agreeable to a post-card. Again, post-cards have never been used and will confuse
class members as they will believe that the post-card is an opt-in settlement.
And, given the conditions you are imposing on the Belaire procedure, we expect that Defendant will
pay for %. Again, the entire purpose of the Belaire process is to level the playing field to give
plaintiff's counsel access to putative class members, which ordinarily a defendant/employer would
solely have. So, courts typically never involve defendants in the process other than to provide the
data.
Lastly, while you say opt-in and opt-out below, I’m sure you’re aware that in California, it is an opt-
out procedure only. So, when you use “opt-in,” | presume you mean the class members who do not
affirmatively opt-out.
Thanks.
Dennis
From: Dokko, Ted
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2020 2:52 PM
To: Edward Choi ; Dennis Hyun ;
bill@polarislawgroup.com; |wlee@diversitylaw.com; Michelle Lee
; erika@diversitylaw.com; olympia@diversitylaw.com
Ce: Cain, Patrick ; Hill, Patricia J. ; Dave, Yash B.
; Jones, lan
Subject: RE: Michael Tebbs v. Sunbelt Rentals, Inc.
Edward,
Attached please find attached a redline of the Belaire West Notice as both a Word doc and a PDF.
Your notice proposed a 30-day Belaire Notice period. Given the pandemic, we would instead
propose a 60-day notice period.
You'll see from our redline that we propose that the putative class members be allowed to opt-out
by e-mail or postcard. The third party administrator should include a self-addressed, stamped
postcard with each notice, and each notice should contain a unique ID associated with each putative
class member. If a putative class member elects to opt out via e-mail, he or she can include the
unique ID number in the e-mail to confirm the identity of the putative class member.
Please provide us with the final version of the notice and postcard from third party administrator
before it is mailed out. The notices must be printed in both Spanish and English.
Additionally, the parties will need to stipulate to the following procedures: The TPA must update all
addresses with the U.S. Post Office’s National Change of Address database, re-mail any notices
returned by the post office with a forwarding address, and use reasonable skip tracing means and
the NCOA searches in order to ensure deliver of the Notices to each putative class members. Within
15 business days of the parties’ retention of a TPA and its finalization of the Belaire Notice, Sunbelt
will provide the TPA with a list of all putative class members and their last know addresses and
telephone numbers. At the close of the opt out period, the TPA will prepare two lists—an Opt-In List
and an Opt-Out List. The Opt-In List will be provided to each party’s counsel within five business
days of the close of the opt-out period. The Opt-Out List will be provided solely to Sunbelt’s counsel
Thank you.
Theodore H. Dokko
Counsel
p | 213-358-7226
f | 213-358-7326
e | tdokko@ sgrlaw.com
444 South Flower Street| Suite 1700 | Los Angeles, CA 90071
www.sgrlaw.com | My Bio | vCard
From: Edward Choi
Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2020 5:25 PM
To: Dokko, Ted ; Dennis Hyun ;
bill@polarislawgroup.com; |wlee@diversitylaw.com; Michelle Lee
; erika@diversitylaw.com; olympia@diversitylaw.com
Ce: Cain, Patrick ; Hill, Patricia J. ; Dave, Yash B.
; Jones, lan
Subject: RE: Michael Tebbs v. Sunbelt Rentals, Inc.
Ted,
Attached is a draft Belaire notice. We would propose Phoenix to administer the Belaire Notice. If
you agree to the attached format, we will bear the costs of administration.
Thanks.
From: Dokko, Ted
Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2020 10:59 AM
To: Dennis Hyun ; bill@polarislawgroup.com; lwlee@diversitylaw.com;
Edward Choi ; Michelle Lee
; erika@diversitylaw.com; olympia@diversitylaw.com
Ce: Cain, Patrick ; Hill, Patricia J. ; Dave, Yash B.
; Jones, lan
Subject: RE: Michael Tebbs v. Sunbelt Rentals, Inc.
Dennis,
Sunbelt will agree to supplement responses to Special Interrogatories 1 and 5 but the process will
take some time as Sunbelt will need create a new report in its system that can pull the requested
data. We anticipate being able to supplement later next week.
We'll also agree to Belaire-West as to Special Interrogatories 2, 3, and 7. Can you send a draft of the
notice that you’d like to use? Or if you prefer, we can prepare the first draft of the Belaire notice. It is
assumed that Plaintiff will bear the costs of the Belaire-West process but do you have a third party
administrator that you would prefer to use and what that administrator’s fees are?
Thanks.
Theodore H. Dokko
Counsel
p | 213-358-7226
f | 213-358-7326
e | tdokko@ sgrlaw.com
444 South Flower Street| Suite 1700 | Los Angeles, CA 90071
www.sgrlaw.com | My Bio | vCard
From: Dennis Hyun
Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 2:38 PM
To: Dokko, Ted ; Navid, Lupe ;
bill@polarislawgroup.com; lwlee@diversitylaw.com; Edward.Choi@choiandassociates.com;
michelle@choiandassociates.com; erika@diversitylaw.com; olympia@diversitylaw.com
Ce: Cain, Patrick
Subject: RE: Michael Tebbs v. Sunbelt Rentals, Inc.
Ted,
Here is a summary of our call. The motion to compel deadline for supplemental responses for both
the Interrogatories and Requests for Production shall be 8/11/20 (calculated from the date of
Defendant’s service of its Supplemental Responses to the Special Interrogatories).
You are going to check with your client to see if you can pull the data to respond to Interrogatory
No. 1, including talking with the third-party payroll provider. Again, if we proceed to mediation,
we're going to need this information. And, we’re entitled to it for class certification. Moreover, your
contention that pulling such information requires individualized inquiries is not well-taken.
Faulkinbury v. Boyd & Assocs., Inc., 216 Cal. App. 4th 220, 240 (2013) (holding that class was
ascertainable by relying on employer’s time and payroll records). Moreover, courts have routinely
certified regular rate claims. Shiferaw v. Sunrise Senior Living Mgmt., Inc., No.
LACV1302171JAKPLAX, 2014 WL 12585796, at *8 (C.D. Cal. June 11, 2014) (“Whether certain
bonuses were discretionary in nature and whether Sunrise included retroactive pay raises and
nondiscretionary bonuses in its calculation of overtime rates are issues that can be addressed as to
the entire class. The Class Certification Motion is GRANTED as to the Regular Rate Subclass.”);
Chavez v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., No. CV-09-4812 SC, 2012 WL 1004850, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 26,
2012) (“Zaldivar’s claims are typical of the 130 non-exempt employees’ claims because all were
subject to the common pay practices of LLI. Zaldivar has stated that he regularly worked more than
forty hours per week and that he received $12,282.87 in sales bonuses that were not incorporated
in his regular rate of pay for the purposes of calculating his overtime rate.”); Faulkinbury, 216 Cal.
App. 4th at 238 (“whether the work uniform maintenance allowance and gasoline reimbursement
must be included in calculating the overtime rate of pay can be decided on a class-wide basis as a
legal matter based on common proof”).
As for Interrogatories Nos. 2-3, and 7, Ted, we talked about Belaire-West to obtain the putative class
member contact information during our first meet and confer call. You did not serve supplemental
responses to these Interrogatories. We need to proceed on Belaire-West. Please confer with your
client.
Regarding Interrogatory No. 5, again, this response needs to be based on a correct response to
Interrogatory No. 1. Please supplement.
Regarding Request for Production No. 7, we told you we would hold this in abeyance, provided that
Defendant supplement all of the interrogatories above.
Please get back to us by next Tuesday, July 21, 2020. Thanks.
Dennis
From: Dokko, Ted
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2020 12:39 PM
To: Dennis Hyun ; Navid, Lupe ;
bill@polarislawgroup.com; lwlee@diversitylaw.com; Edward.Choi@choiandassociates.com;
michelle@choiandassociates.com; erika@diversitylaw.com; olympia@diversitylaw.com
Ce: Cain, Patrick
Subject: RE: Michael Tebbs v. Sunbelt Rentals, Inc.
My colleague Yash Dave will probably join us but we'll go ahead and call you on your cell.
Thanks.
Theodore H. Dokko
Counsel
p | 213-358-7226
f | 213-358-7326
e | tdokko@ sgrlaw.com a
444 South Flower Street | Suite 1700 | Los Angeles, CA 90071
www.sgrlaw.com | My Bio | vCard
From: Dennis Hyun
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2020 9:01 AM
To: Dokko, Ted ; Navid, Lupe ;
bill@polarislawgroup.com; |lwlee@diversitylaw.com; Edward.Choi@choiandassociates.com;
michelle@choiandassociates.com; erika@diversitylaw.com; olympia@diversitylaw.com
Ce: Cain, Patrick
Subject: RE: Michael Tebbs v. Sunbelt Rentals, Inc.
Actually, we would like to discuss Interrogatories Nos. 1, 3-5, and 7, and Request for Production No.
7. If it’s just you, then you can reach me on my cell. 747-258-1389. Thanks.
From: Dokko, Ted
Sent: Monday, July 13, 2020 10:42 AM
To: Dennis Hyun ; Navid, Lupe ;
bill@polarislawgroup.com; lwlee@diversitylaw.com; Edward.Choi@choiandassociates.com;
michelle@choiandassociates.com; erika@diversitylaw.com; olympia@diversitylaw.com
Ce: Cain, Patrick
Subject: RE: Michael Tebbs v. Sunbelt Rentals, Inc.
Sure. 2 PM is fine. Do you want to set up a conference call?
Also, are we just dealing with SROG 1?
Thanks.
Theodore H. Dokko
Counsel
p | 213-358-7226
f | 213-358-7326
e | tdokko@ sarlaw.com
444 South Flower Street | Suite 1700 | Los Angeles, CA 90071
www.sarlaw.com | My Bio | vCard
From: Dennis Hyun
Sent: Friday, July 10, 2020 2:54 PM
To: Dokko, Ted ; Navid, Lupe ;
bill@polarislawgroup.com; lwlee@diversitylaw.com; Edward.Choi@choiandassociates.com;
michelle@choiandassociates.com; erika@diversitylaw.com; olympia@diversitylaw.com
Ce: Cain, Patrick
Subject: RE: Michael Tebbs v. Sunbelt Rentals, Inc.
Let’s do 7/15. Does 2 pm work? | have an issue with Interrogatory No. 1. We need the numerosity
information. Thanks.
From: Dokko, Ted
Sent: Friday, July 10, 2020 2:32 PM
To: Dennis Hyun ; Navid, Lupe ;
bill@polarislawgroup.com; lwlee@diversitylaw.com; Edward.Choi@choiandassociates.com;
michelle@choiandassociates.com; erika@diversitylaw.com; olympia@diversitylaw.com
Ce: Cain, Patrick
Subject: RE: Michael Tebbs v. Sunbelt Rentals, Inc.
Dennis,
We’re available on Wednesday or Thursday of next week (July 15 or 16).
Also, could you outline the responses you want to discuss. Doesn’t have to be a full M&C letter.
Thank you.
Theodore H. Dokko
Counsel
p | 213-358-7226
f | 213-358-7326
e | tdokko@ sarlaw.com
444 South Flower Street | Suite 1700 | Los Angeles, CA 90071
www.sarlaw.com | My Bio | vCard
From: Dennis Hyun
Sent: Thursday, July 9, 2020 3:03 PM
To: Dokko, Ted ; Navid, Lupe ;
bill@polarislawgroup.com; lwlee@diversitylaw.com; Edward.Choi@choiandassociates.com;
michelle@choiandassociates.com; erika@diversitylaw.com; olympia@diversitylaw.com
Ce: Cain, Patrick
Subject: RE: Michael Tebbs v. Sunbelt Rentals, Inc.
Ted,
We received the supplemental responses and we do need to meet and confer. Can you please let us
know your availability? Thanks.
From: Dokko, Ted
Sent: Monday, June 22, 2020 1:48 PM
To: Dennis Hyun ; Navid, Lupe ;
bill@polarislawgroup.com; lwlee@diversitylaw.com; Edward.Choi@choiandassociates.com;
michelle@choiandassociates.com; erika@diversitylaw.com; olympia@diversitylaw.com
Ce: Cain, Patrick
Subject: RE: Michael Tebbs v. Sunbelt Rentals, Inc.
Dennis,
We are hoping to get the supplemental responses to you before the end of the week.
Thanks.
Theodore H. Dokko
Counsel
p | 213-358-7226
f | 213-358-7326
e | tdokko@ sarlaw.com
444 South Flower Street | Suite 1700 | Los Angeles, CA 90071
a
www.sarlaw.com | My Bio | vCard
From: Dennis Hyun
Sent: Friday, June 19, 2020 3:06 PM
To: Navid, Lupe ; bill@polarislawgroup.com; lwlee@diversitylaw.com;
Edward.Choi@choiandassociates.com; michelle@choiandassociates.com; erika@diversitylaw.com;
lympia@diversitylaw.com
Cc: Dokko, Ted <[Dokko@sgrlaw.com>; Cain, Patrick
Subject: RE: Michael Tebbs v. Sunbelt Rentals, Inc.
—e——_
Ted,
Following-up on the supplemental responses to the Special Interrogatories. When can we expect
those? Thx.
From: Navid, Lupe
Sent: Tuesday, June 2, 2020 2:12 PM
To: bill@polarislawgroup.com; lwlee @diversitylaw.com; dhyun@hyunlegal.com;
Edward.Choi@choiandassociates.com; michelle@choiandassociates.com; erika@diversitylaw.com;
lympia@diversitylaw.com
Cc: Dokko, Ted <[Dokko@sgrlaw.com>; Cain, Patrick
Subject: Michael Tebbs v. Sunbelt Rentals, Inc.
Good afternoon,
Attached please find a copy of Defendant Sunbelt Rentals Inc.’s Supplemental Responses to
Plaintiff's Request for Production of Documents, Set One.
Thank you,
Lupe
Lupe D. Navid
Legal Secretary
p | 213-358-7245
f | 213-358-7345
e | Inavid@ sgrlaw.com
444 South Flower Street | Suite 1700 | Los Angeles, CA 90071
www.sgrlaw.com
Confidentiality Notice
This message is being sent by or on behalf of a lawyer. Its intended exclusively for the individual or entity to which it is addressed. This
communication may contain information that is proprietary, privileged or confidential or otherwise legally exempt from disclosure. If you
are not the named addressee, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy or disseminate this message or any part of it. If you have
received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and delete all copies of the message.
Confidentiality Notice
This message is being sent by or on behalf of a lawyer. Its intended exclusively for the individual or entity to which it is addressed. This
communication may contain information that is proprietary, privileged or confidential or otherwise legally exempt from disclosure. If you
are not the named addressee, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy or disseminate this message or any part of it. If you have
received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and delete all copies of the message.
Confidentiality Notice
This message is being sent by or on behalf of a lawyer. Its intended exclusively for the individual or entity to which it is addressed. This
communication may contain information that is proprietary, privileged or confidential or otherwise legally exempt from disclosure. If you
are not the named addressee, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy or disseminate this message or any part of it. If you have
received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and delete all copies of the message.
Confidentiality Notice
This message is being sent by or on behalf of a lawyer. Its intended exclusively for the individual or entity to which it is addressed. This
communication may contain information that is proprietary, privileged or confidential or otherwise legally exempt from disclosure. If you
are not the named addressee, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy or disseminate this message or any part of it. If you have
received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and delete all copies of the message.
Confidentiality Notice
This message is being sent by or on behalf of a lawyer. Its intended exclusively for the individual or entity to which it is addressed. This
communication may contain information that is proprietary, privileged or confidential or otherwise legally exempt from disclosure. If you
are not the named addressee, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy or disseminate this message or any part of it. If you have
received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and delete all copies of the message.
Confidentiality Notice
This message is being sent by or on behalf of a lawyer. Its intended exclusively for the individual or entity to which it is addressed. This
communication may contain information that is proprietary, privileged or confidential or otherwise legally exempt from disclosure. If you
are not the named addressee, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy or disseminate this message or any part of it. If you have
received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and delete all copies of the message.
Confidentiality Notice
This message is being sent by or on behalf of a lawyer. Its intended exclusively for the individual or entity to which it is addressed. This
communication may contain information that is proprietary, privileged or confidential or otherwise legally exempt from disclosure. If you
are not the named addressee, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy or disseminate this message or any part of it. If you have
received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and delete all copies of the message.
Confidentiality Notice
This message is being sent by or on behalf of a lawyer. Its intended exclusively for the individual or entity to which it is addressed. This
communication may contain information that is proprietary, privileged or confidential or otherwise legally exempt from disclosure. If you
are not the named addressee, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy or disseminate this message or any part of it. If you have
received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and delete all copies of the message.
Confidentiality Notice
This message is being sent by or on behalf
of a lawyer. Its intended exclusively for the individual or entity to which it is addressed. This
communication may contain information that is proprietary, privileged or confidential or otherwise legally exempt from disclosure. If you
are not the named addressee, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy or disseminate this message or any part of it. If you have
received this message