Preview
7/16/2021
1 DAVID YEREMIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
David Yeremian (SBN 226337)
2 david@yeremianlaw.com
Roman Shkodnik (SBN 285152)
3 roman@yeremianlaw.com
535 N. Brand Blvd., Suite 705
4 Glendale, California 91203
Telephone: (818) 230-8380
5 Facsimile: (818) 230-0308
6
Attorneys for Plaintiff Vivian Ly
7 on behalf of herself and others similarly situated
8
9 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10 FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
11 COMPLEX CIVIL LITIGATION
12
13 In re MOBILEONE WAGE AND HOUR Judicial Council Coordination Proceedings
CASES, No. JCCP 5039
14
Coordinated Proceeding Special Title (CRC Assigned for All Purposes to the Honorable Marie
15 Rule 3.550) S. Weiner, Department 2
16 CLASS ACTION
17 DECLARATION OF DAVID YEREMIAN
IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR
18 PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF THE
CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
19
[filed concurrently with Plaintiffs’ Notice of
20 Motion and Motion; Memorandum of Points and
Authorities; Declarations of
21 Shaun Setareh; and [Proposed] Order]
22
Date: August 10, 2021
23 Time: 2:00 p.m.
Place: Department 2
24
Complaint Filed: May 30, 2018
25 First Amended Consolidated Complaint Filed:
March 27, 2020
26
27
28
DECLARATION OF DAVID YEREMIAN IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL
1 DECLARATION OF DAVID YEREMIAN
2 I, David Yeremian, declare:
3 1. I am an attorney licensed and admitted to practice before all courts of the State of
4 California, the United States District Court for the Central, Southern, Eastern, and Northern
5 Districts of California, and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. I am the managing attorney of
6 David Yeremian & Associates, Inc., counsel for Plaintiff Vivian Ly (“Plaintiff” or “Class
7 Representative”) on behalf of herself and similarly situated employees of Defendant Mobileone,
8 LLC (“Defendant”). I and my firm are referred to herein as Class Counsel. I have personal
9 knowledge of the facts herein and if called as a witness, I could and would competently testify.
10 2. All of the matters set forth herein are within my personal knowledge, except those
11 matters that are stated to be upon information and belief. As to such matters, I believe them to be
12 true. I have represented Plaintiff Vivian Ly and the putative Class since the inception of this
13 matter. I submit this Declaration in support of the Motion for Preliminary Approval, filed by
14 Plaintiff Vivian Ly and Plaintiff Kiki Chess (“Plaintiffs”), on behalf of themselves and other
15 similarly situated employees of Defendant, and without opposition from Defendant, for
16 preliminary approval of the parties’ Joint Stipulation of Class Action Settlement.
17 QUALIFICATIONS AND ADEQUACY OF CLASS COUNSEL
18 3. My firm is well qualified because of our experience, knowledge, and resources to act as
19 counsel and represent Plaintiff Vivian Ly and the putative class in this action. My practice is
20 exclusively focused on employment matters, with a substantial percentage devoted to litigating
21 wage, hour, and working-conditions violations on a class-wide basis.
22 4. I graduated from UC Berkeley in 1997 and received my law degree and MBA from
23 UCLA in 2001. I am a member of the Los Angeles County Bar Association and the California
24 Employment Lawyers Association. I have been honored as a Super Lawyers Rising Star in 2009,
25 2010, 2012-2015. I have been named honored as a Super Lawyer since 2016.
26 5. I have been practicing law since 2003. Since 2007, I have focused almost exclusively
27 on representing employees, including in wage-and-hour class actions. During my career I have
28 represented employees in over 100 wage-and-hour class action lawsuits as lead or co-lead counsel
-1-
DECLARATION OF DAVID YEREMIAN IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL
1 (including in the Central, Southern, Eastern and Northern Districts of California), and I have
2 obtained six and seven figure settlements against a range of defendants, including Fortune 500
3 companies. These cases have involved the gamut of wage-and-hour claims, including claims for
4 failure to pay minimum wages, unpaid wages and overtime, failure to provide meal breaks,
5 inaccurate pay statements, failure to pay timely wages - similar to claims at issue in the present
6 matter.
7 6. I am experienced in prosecuting employment matters, particularly class actions. In
8 addition to the present case, I am also class counsel for dozens of other putative wage-and-hour
9 class-action lawsuits pending in various state and federal jurisdictions throughout California.
10 7. My extensive experience in litigating employment wage and hour matters has been
11 integral in identifying legal issues, evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of a case, and
12 generally negotiating fair and reasonable class action settlements. Practice in the narrow field of
13 wage and hour litigation requires skill and knowledge concerning the constantly evolving
14 substantive law (state and federal), as well as the procedural law of class action litigation. In this
15 action, I am fully equipped to use the skills and knowledge I have developed through more than a
16 decade of prosecuting and defending wage and hour class actions to fairly and adequately
17 represent the interests of the Class. Therefore, on the account of my resources, experience, and
18 knowledge, I am well qualified to act as Class Counsel and represent Plaintiff Vivian Ly and the
19 putative Class Members in this action.
20 8. In the last several years I have had several contested class cases certified. When
21 necessary we pursue cases on appeal. Owing to my experience, I am well qualified to evaluate the
22 class claims in this action, to evaluate settlement v. trial and defenses raised. I have negotiated
23 over 100 class action settlements, including many involving the same issues presented in this
24 case. A selection of cases wherein I have served as lead or co-lead class counsel includes: Galavis
25 v. Patina Restaurant Group, LLC (LASC BC375225; class size approx. 10,000; co-lead counsel);
26 Milford v. ADT Security Services, Inc. (CACD CV08-2236; class size approx. 2,000; lead
27 counsel); Carreon v. Wolfgang Puck Catering and Events, LLC (LASC BC398569; class size
28 approx. 1,400; lead counsel); Fluke v. RFG Oil, Inc. (LASC BC403354; class size approx. 1,400;
-2-
DECLARATION OF DAVID YEREMIAN IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
APPORVAPPROVAL
1 lead counsel); Urena v. Camachos Restaurant (LASC BC365913; class size approx. 887; lead
2 counsel); Smith v. Rio Rancho Pontiac GMC Buick Inc. (LASC BC391187; class size approx.
3 860; lead counsel); Callela v. Dolce Group (LASC BC364711; class size approx. 600; lead
4 counsel); Vasquez v. The Hollywood Pig n Whistle LP (LASC BC335075; class size approx. 600;
5 lead counsel); Goldman v. Aorta Restaurant Operating LP (LASC BC379688; class size approx.
6 300; lead counsel); Sink-Crilly v. Centex Homes (CACD CV09-2476; class size approx. 250; lead
7 counsel); Utley v. Cranbrook Partners Inc. (LASC BC392813; class size approx. 200; lead
8 counsel); Garcia v. California Credits Group (LASC BC353213; class size approx. 160; lead
9 counsel); Afanasyev v. Miller Infiniti, Inc. (LASC BC350788; class size approx. 160; lead
10 counsel); Morris v. Gymboree, Inc. (LASC BC393270; class size approx. 150; lead counsel);
11 Ortega v. AJC Sandblasting, Inc. (LASC BC378806; class size approx. 140; lead counsel);
12 Lulejyan v. Jim Falk Motors of Beverly Hills, Inc. (LASC BC398459; class size approx. 72; lead
13 counsel); Rylko v. The Griddle Café, Inc. (LASC BC386126; class size approx. 70; lead counsel);
14 Healy v. Siemens IT Solutions and Services, Inc. (Santa Clara Superior Court 108CV113479;
15 class size approx 60; lead counsel). My firm has been awarded one-third-common-fund attorneys’
16 fees in numerous class actions. See Carreon v. Jonathan Louis International, Ltd., No. BC543678
17 (Los Angeles Super. Ct. Aug. 15, 2016) (approving an award of attorney’s fees of at least 33% of
18 the settlement); Cicairos v. Summit Logistics, Inc. (consolidated with Bluford v. Safeway Stores,
19 Inc.), Nos. CV014837 and CV028541 (San Joaquin Super. Ct. Aug. 4, 2015) (approving an award
20 of attorney’s fees of at least 33.3% of the settlement); Montes v. Southern California Discount
21 Tire Co, Inc., No. 37-2012-00086167-CU-OE-CTL (San Diego Super. Ct. Mar 21, 2014)
22 (approving an award of attorney’s fees of at least 33.3% of the settlement); Grom. v. Men’s
23 Warehouse, Inc., No. 34-2012-00117446-CU-OE-GDS (Sacramento Super. Ct. Nov. 1, 2013)
24 (approving an award of attorney’s fees of at least 33% of the settlement).
25 9. I do not believe that I have any conflicts of interest with the Class or with the Class
26 Representatives. I am not related to the Class Representatives. I have not previously represented
27 Defendant in any matter. I respectfully submit that I, and David Yeremian & Associates, Inc. are
28 well suited to act as Class Counsel in this action, and we have and will continue to vigorously
-3-
DECLARATION OF DAVID YEREMIAN IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
APPORVAPPROVAL
1 represent the interests of the Class Members.
2 PLAINTIFF’S PARTICIPATION
3 10. Plaintiff Vivian Ly has been intimately involved in this case since its inception. She
4 has devoted a substantial amount of time to helping Class Counsel effectively develop and
5 prosecute this action at every stage of the litigation. Both before and after the filing of this
6 lawsuit, Plaintiff Vivian Ly conferred with Class Counsel on numerous occasions to discuss every
7 aspect of her case. Plaintiff Vivian Ly provided Class Counsel with information about Defendant
8 and about the industry generally, reviewed documents, identified witnesses, consulted Class
9 Counsel throughout the litigation repeatedly and at length, participated in the mediation process,
10 monitored the progress of the litigation with Class Counsel, and reviewed and signed the
11 Settlement Agreement.
12 CRITERIA SATISFIED FOR CERTIFICATION OF SETTLEMENT CLASS
13 11. The proposed Classes satisfy the criteria for certification of a settlement class under
14 California law, as embodied in California Code of Civil Procedure § 382. Defendant has agreed to
15 the certification of the class for settlement purposes. In general, courts may take a proposed
16 settlement into account in evaluating the propriety of class certification. See Dunk v. Ford Motor
17 Co. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1794, 1807 fn. 19. Indeed, a “lesser standard” of scrutiny applies in
18 certifying classes for settlement purposes. Ibid. Therefore the Court should take into
19 consideration the fact that the parties have settled their claims and stipulated to certification for
20 settlement purposes when assessing typicality and adequacy.
21 a. Numerosity. The putative classes are so numerous that joinder of all members is
22 impractical. Class Members are all current and former employees who worked for Defendant in
23 California from May 30, 2014 through the date that the Court grants preliminary approval of this
24 Settlement. There are approximately 1,474 persons answering to this definition. Thus, there are a
25 sufficient number of Class Members to warrant certifying this as a class action for settlement
26 purposes.
27 b. Ascertainability. The putative classes are defined in a manner that is precise,
28 objective, and ascertainable. The Class Members have already been identified by reference to
-4-
DECLARATION OF DAVID YEREMIAN IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
APPORVAPPROVAL
1 Defendant’s payroll and personnel records.
2 c. Typicality. A class representative’s claims are typical when they arise from the
3 same event, practice, or course of conduct that gives rise to the claims of other putative class
4 members, and if their claims rest on the same legal theories. The class representatives’ claims
5 must be “typical” but not necessarily identical to the claims of other class members. It is
6 sufficient that the representative is similarly situated so that he or she will have the motive to
7 litigate on behalf of all Class Members. Classen v. Weller (1983) 145 Cal.App.3d 27, 47; B.W.I.
8 Custom Kitchens v. Owens-Illinois, Inc. (1987) 191 Cal.App.3d 1341, 1347 (“[I]t has never been
9 the law in California that the class representative must have identical interests with the class
10 members.”). Thus, it is not necessary that the class representative should have personally incurred
11 all of the damages suffered by each of the other class members. Wershba v. Apple Computer, Inc.
12 (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 224, 228.
13 Plaintiff Vivian Ly’s claims are typical of Class Members’ claims because they arose from
14 the same factual basis and are based on the same legal theories. Plaintiff Vivian Ly was employed
15 by Defendant from about July 2017 to February 5, 2018 as an hourly paid, non-exempt sales
16 representative and during the Class Period subject to the allegedly unlawful meal break policies
17 and pay practices at issue in this litigation. Accordingly, Plaintiff Vivian Ly is a member of the
18 class. The central issues of this litigation (whether Defendant failed to pay all wages, whether
19 Defendant failed to provide meal periods etc.), which would arise if this were an individual action
20 brought by Plaintiff, apply to the other Class Members as well, and the answer to these questions
21 would determine Defendant’s liability to the entire putative class. Thus, Plaintiff’s claims are
22 typical of the claims of the putative class. Accordingly, the typicality requirement is satisfied.
23 d. Adequacy. A class representative must possess the same interest and suffer the
24 same injury as the class members. “To assure ‘adequate’ representation, the class representative’s
25 personal claim must not be inconsistent with the claims of other members of the class.” J.P.
26 Morgan & Co., Inc. v. Sup.Ct. (Heliotrope General, Inc.) (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 195, 212. Thus,
27 the adequacy requirement is satisfied when the class representative’s interests are not antagonistic
28 to those of the class. McGhee v. Crocker-Citizens Nat. Bank (1976) 60 Cal.App.3d 442, 451.
-5-
DECLARATION OF DAVID YEREMIAN IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
APPORVAPPROVAL
1 Plaintiffs have no conflicts with the class and in fact their interests are aligned with those
2 of the class. Because Plaintiffs’ claims are identical to those that would be asserted by the
3 unnamed Class Members were they before the Court, Plaintiffs have every interest in zealously
4 representing the unnamed class members. Plaintiffs have not shrunk from this responsibility.
5 Indeed, Plaintiffs have devoted a substantial amount of time and energy to litigating this action
6 and effecting a settlement. Furthermore, as detailed above, Class Counsel are experienced in
7 wage-and-hour litigation, especially class actions, and have zealously represented the interests of
8 the class in litigating this case. See infra ¶¶3-9. Accordingly, the adequacy requirement is
9 satisfied.
10 e. Commonality. Common questions of law or fact in this case predominate over
11 individual questions. This action involves, inter alia, a determination about Defendant’s alleged
12 failure to provide meal periods, failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay all wages due to
13 allegedly common and unlawful policies, the resulting failure to pay final wages when required,
14 the failure to provide accurate paystubs, and largely derivative claims under the Business &
15 Professions Code and PAGA. Plaintiffs contend these practices, including an alleged practice of
16 failing to provide complete meal periods, related meal period policies applicable to the class, and
17 the alleged failure to provide corresponding premium payments, that affected class members in
18 the same way. All class members were employed during the Class Period. Therefore, the
19 operative complaint delineates a common course of conduct applicable to all Class Members.
20 Therefore, based on Class Counsel’s investigation, the review of the discovery produced by
21 Defendant, and their discussions with Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs contend the evidence supports their
22 position that the employment practices and policies of Defendant’s business were consistent and
23 uniform.
24 f. Predominance. Individualized issues do not predominate over the issues of law and
25 fact that are common to the class as a whole. The principal issues of controversy are whether
26 Class Members were paid for all hours worked and provided lawful meal breaks. As explained,
27 supra, there are common issues of law and fact given that Plaintiffs and all Class Members were
28 subjected to the same policies and pay practices during the relevant time period. Plaintiffs and
-6-
DECLARATION OF DAVID YEREMIAN IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
APPORVAPPROVAL
1 Class Members seek meal premiums, unpaid wages and overtime, and penalties for work
2 performed as non-exempt employees for Defendant. These issues are suitable for common
3 adjudication because all Class Members were subject to the same employment policies and
4 Plaintiffs contend the practices applied uniformly to all Class Members.
5 g. Superiority. Class resolution is superior to other available methods for the fair and
6 efficient adjudication of the controversy. There is little interest or incentive for Class Members to
7 individually control the prosecution of separate actions. Although the injury resulting from
8 Defendant’s policies and practices are real and significant, the cost of individually litigating each
9 such case against Defendant would easily exceed the value of any relief that could be obtained by
10 any one Class Member individually. If Class Members are forced to litigate their claims
11 individually this would result in about 1,474 individual actions against Defendant. Here, the
12 alternative methods of resolution are individual suits for relatively small amounts. Hence, an
13 individual suit would prove uneconomical for potential plaintiffs because litigation costs would
14 dwarf a potential recovery.
15 h. Except for Plaintiffs’ case before this Court, Plaintiffs are unaware of any other
16 actions by Class Members against Defendant asserting similar claims as here. Furthermore, San
17 Mateo County is a compelling forum for this action given that Defendant’s location is in San
18 Mateo County and numerous Class Members work in this County.
19 i. There are no serious manageability difficulties presented by preliminarily
20 approving the case for settlement purposes. As this case will not go to trial if finally approved, all
21 that would remain is claims administration and responding to possible objectors.
22 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
23 foregoing is true and correct.
24 Executed this 15th day of July, 2021 at Glendale, California.
25
26 David Yeremian
27
28
-7-
DECLARATION OF DAVID YEREMIAN IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
APPORVAPPROVAL
PROOF OF SERVICE
I am a citizenofthe United States andam employed in the County ofLos Angeles, State
of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action. My business address
is 9665 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 430 Beverly Hills, CA 90212.
OnJuly 16, 2021, 1 served the foregoing documents describedas:
DECLARATIONOF DAVIDYEREMIANIN SUPPORTOF MOTIONFOR
PRELIMINARYAPPROVALOF CLASSACTIONSETTLEMENT
in this action by transmitting a tme copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope addressed as
follows:
David Yeremian Walter Haines
10 david/a) eremianlaw.com whaines@uelg.com
Roman Shkodnik UNITEDEMPLOYEESLAWGROUP,PC
romani a v eremianlaw. corn 5500 Bolsa Ave., Suite 201
Natalia Bermudes HuntingtonBeach, CA 92649
12
Natalia eremianlaw.com Counsel for Plaintiff VIVIAN LY
13 DAVID YEREMIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
535 N. Brand Blvd., Suite 705
14 Glendale, CA 91203
15
Counsel for PlaintiffVIVIANLY
16 Tracy Waren Department 2
twarren a buchalter.com
17 400 County Center
KathrynB. Fox RedwoodCity, CA 94063
18
kfox a buchalter. com corn lexcivil'Ssanmateocourt.or
Candice E. Caufield
19 ccaufield a buchalter.com
BUCHALTER, APC
20
655 W. Broadway, Suite 1625
21 SanDiego, CA 92101
Counsel for DefendantMOBILEONE,LLC.
22
23 [X] ONLY BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION
24 Only by e-mailing the document(s) to the persons at the e-mail address(es) listed based
on noticeprovided on March20, 2020that, duringthe Coronavirus (COVID-19)pandemic, this
25 office will be workingremotely, not ableto sendphysicalmail as usual, and is therefore using
26
only electronic mail. No electronic messageor other indicationthat the transmissionwas
unsuccessful was received within a reasonable time after the transmission.
27
[X] STATE I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that
28 the above is tme and correct.
1
PROOFOF SERVICE
Executed on
Executed July l6,
on July 16, 202
2021, at Beverly Hills,
1 , at Hills, California.
California.
2
3
4
539
Lauren Farrington
Lauren
5 Farrington
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
PROOF
PROOF OF SERVICE
OF SERVICE
Preview
7/16/2021 1 DAVID YEREMIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. David Yeremian (SBN 226337) 2 david@yeremianlaw.com Roman Shkodnik (SBN 285152) 3 roman@yeremianlaw.com 535 N. Brand Blvd., Suite 705 4 Glendale, California 91203 Telephone: (818) 230-8380 5 Facsimile: (818) 230-0308 6 Attorneys for Plaintiff Vivian Ly 7 on behalf of herself and others similarly situated 8 9 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10 FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO 11 COMPLEX CIVIL LITIGATION 12 13 In re MOBILEONE WAGE AND HOUR Judicial Council Coordination Proceedings CASES, No. JCCP 5039 14 Coordinated Proceeding Special Title (CRC Assigned for All Purposes to the Honorable Marie 15 Rule 3.550) S. Weiner, Department 2 16 CLASS ACTION 17 DECLARATION OF DAVID YEREMIAN IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR 18 PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF THE CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT 19 [filed concurrently with Plaintiffs’ Notice of 20 Motion and Motion; Memorandum of Points and Authorities; Declarations of 21 Shaun Setareh; and [Proposed] Order] 22 Date: August 10, 2021 23 Time: 2:00 p.m. Place: Department 2 24 Complaint Filed: May 30, 2018 25 First Amended Consolidated Complaint Filed: March 27, 2020 26 27 28 DECLARATION OF DAVID YEREMIAN IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL 1 DECLARATION OF DAVID YEREMIAN 2 I, David Yeremian, declare: 3 1. I am an attorney licensed and admitted to practice before all courts of the State of 4 California, the United States District Court for the Central, Southern, Eastern, and Northern 5 Districts of California, and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. I am the managing attorney of 6 David Yeremian & Associates, Inc., counsel for Plaintiff Vivian Ly (“Plaintiff” or “Class 7 Representative”) on behalf of herself and similarly situated employees of Defendant Mobileone, 8 LLC (“Defendant”). I and my firm are referred to herein as Class Counsel. I have personal 9 knowledge of the facts herein and if called as a witness, I could and would competently testify. 10 2. All of the matters set forth herein are within my personal knowledge, except those 11 matters that are stated to be upon information and belief. As to such matters, I believe them to be 12 true. I have represented Plaintiff Vivian Ly and the putative Class since the inception of this 13 matter. I submit this Declaration in support of the Motion for Preliminary Approval, filed by 14 Plaintiff Vivian Ly and Plaintiff Kiki Chess (“Plaintiffs”), on behalf of themselves and other 15 similarly situated employees of Defendant, and without opposition from Defendant, for 16 preliminary approval of the parties’ Joint Stipulation of Class Action Settlement. 17 QUALIFICATIONS AND ADEQUACY OF CLASS COUNSEL 18 3. My firm is well qualified because of our experience, knowledge, and resources to act as 19 counsel and represent Plaintiff Vivian Ly and the putative class in this action. My practice is 20 exclusively focused on employment matters, with a substantial percentage devoted to litigating 21 wage, hour, and working-conditions violations on a class-wide basis. 22 4. I graduated from UC Berkeley in 1997 and received my law degree and MBA from 23 UCLA in 2001. I am a member of the Los Angeles County Bar Association and the California 24 Employment Lawyers Association. I have been honored as a Super Lawyers Rising Star in 2009, 25 2010, 2012-2015. I have been named honored as a Super Lawyer since 2016. 26 5. I have been practicing law since 2003. Since 2007, I have focused almost exclusively 27 on representing employees, including in wage-and-hour class actions. During my career I have 28 represented employees in over 100 wage-and-hour class action lawsuits as lead or co-lead counsel -1- DECLARATION OF DAVID YEREMIAN IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL 1 (including in the Central, Southern, Eastern and Northern Districts of California), and I have 2 obtained six and seven figure settlements against a range of defendants, including Fortune 500 3 companies. These cases have involved the gamut of wage-and-hour claims, including claims for 4 failure to pay minimum wages, unpaid wages and overtime, failure to provide meal breaks, 5 inaccurate pay statements, failure to pay timely wages - similar to claims at issue in the present 6 matter. 7 6. I am experienced in prosecuting employment matters, particularly class actions. In 8 addition to the present case, I am also class counsel for dozens of other putative wage-and-hour 9 class-action lawsuits pending in various state and federal jurisdictions throughout California. 10 7. My extensive experience in litigating employment wage and hour matters has been 11 integral in identifying legal issues, evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of a case, and 12 generally negotiating fair and reasonable class action settlements. Practice in the narrow field of 13 wage and hour litigation requires skill and knowledge concerning the constantly evolving 14 substantive law (state and federal), as well as the procedural law of class action litigation. In this 15 action, I am fully equipped to use the skills and knowledge I have developed through more than a 16 decade of prosecuting and defending wage and hour class actions to fairly and adequately 17 represent the interests of the Class. Therefore, on the account of my resources, experience, and 18 knowledge, I am well qualified to act as Class Counsel and represent Plaintiff Vivian Ly and the 19 putative Class Members in this action. 20 8. In the last several years I have had several contested class cases certified. When 21 necessary we pursue cases on appeal. Owing to my experience, I am well qualified to evaluate the 22 class claims in this action, to evaluate settlement v. trial and defenses raised. I have negotiated 23 over 100 class action settlements, including many involving the same issues presented in this 24 case. A selection of cases wherein I have served as lead or co-lead class counsel includes: Galavis 25 v. Patina Restaurant Group, LLC (LASC BC375225; class size approx. 10,000; co-lead counsel); 26 Milford v. ADT Security Services, Inc. (CACD CV08-2236; class size approx. 2,000; lead 27 counsel); Carreon v. Wolfgang Puck Catering and Events, LLC (LASC BC398569; class size 28 approx. 1,400; lead counsel); Fluke v. RFG Oil, Inc. (LASC BC403354; class size approx. 1,400; -2- DECLARATION OF DAVID YEREMIAN IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPORVAPPROVAL 1 lead counsel); Urena v. Camachos Restaurant (LASC BC365913; class size approx. 887; lead 2 counsel); Smith v. Rio Rancho Pontiac GMC Buick Inc. (LASC BC391187; class size approx. 3 860; lead counsel); Callela v. Dolce Group (LASC BC364711; class size approx. 600; lead 4 counsel); Vasquez v. The Hollywood Pig n Whistle LP (LASC BC335075; class size approx. 600; 5 lead counsel); Goldman v. Aorta Restaurant Operating LP (LASC BC379688; class size approx. 6 300; lead counsel); Sink-Crilly v. Centex Homes (CACD CV09-2476; class size approx. 250; lead 7 counsel); Utley v. Cranbrook Partners Inc. (LASC BC392813; class size approx. 200; lead 8 counsel); Garcia v. California Credits Group (LASC BC353213; class size approx. 160; lead 9 counsel); Afanasyev v. Miller Infiniti, Inc. (LASC BC350788; class size approx. 160; lead 10 counsel); Morris v. Gymboree, Inc. (LASC BC393270; class size approx. 150; lead counsel); 11 Ortega v. AJC Sandblasting, Inc. (LASC BC378806; class size approx. 140; lead counsel); 12 Lulejyan v. Jim Falk Motors of Beverly Hills, Inc. (LASC BC398459; class size approx. 72; lead 13 counsel); Rylko v. The Griddle Café, Inc. (LASC BC386126; class size approx. 70; lead counsel); 14 Healy v. Siemens IT Solutions and Services, Inc. (Santa Clara Superior Court 108CV113479; 15 class size approx 60; lead counsel). My firm has been awarded one-third-common-fund attorneys’ 16 fees in numerous class actions. See Carreon v. Jonathan Louis International, Ltd., No. BC543678 17 (Los Angeles Super. Ct. Aug. 15, 2016) (approving an award of attorney’s fees of at least 33% of 18 the settlement); Cicairos v. Summit Logistics, Inc. (consolidated with Bluford v. Safeway Stores, 19 Inc.), Nos. CV014837 and CV028541 (San Joaquin Super. Ct. Aug. 4, 2015) (approving an award 20 of attorney’s fees of at least 33.3% of the settlement); Montes v. Southern California Discount 21 Tire Co, Inc., No. 37-2012-00086167-CU-OE-CTL (San Diego Super. Ct. Mar 21, 2014) 22 (approving an award of attorney’s fees of at least 33.3% of the settlement); Grom. v. Men’s 23 Warehouse, Inc., No. 34-2012-00117446-CU-OE-GDS (Sacramento Super. Ct. Nov. 1, 2013) 24 (approving an award of attorney’s fees of at least 33% of the settlement). 25 9. I do not believe that I have any conflicts of interest with the Class or with the Class 26 Representatives. I am not related to the Class Representatives. I have not previously represented 27 Defendant in any matter. I respectfully submit that I, and David Yeremian & Associates, Inc. are 28 well suited to act as Class Counsel in this action, and we have and will continue to vigorously -3- DECLARATION OF DAVID YEREMIAN IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPORVAPPROVAL 1 represent the interests of the Class Members. 2 PLAINTIFF’S PARTICIPATION 3 10. Plaintiff Vivian Ly has been intimately involved in this case since its inception. She 4 has devoted a substantial amount of time to helping Class Counsel effectively develop and 5 prosecute this action at every stage of the litigation. Both before and after the filing of this 6 lawsuit, Plaintiff Vivian Ly conferred with Class Counsel on numerous occasions to discuss every 7 aspect of her case. Plaintiff Vivian Ly provided Class Counsel with information about Defendant 8 and about the industry generally, reviewed documents, identified witnesses, consulted Class 9 Counsel throughout the litigation repeatedly and at length, participated in the mediation process, 10 monitored the progress of the litigation with Class Counsel, and reviewed and signed the 11 Settlement Agreement. 12 CRITERIA SATISFIED FOR CERTIFICATION OF SETTLEMENT CLASS 13 11. The proposed Classes satisfy the criteria for certification of a settlement class under 14 California law, as embodied in California Code of Civil Procedure § 382. Defendant has agreed to 15 the certification of the class for settlement purposes. In general, courts may take a proposed 16 settlement into account in evaluating the propriety of class certification. See Dunk v. Ford Motor 17 Co. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1794, 1807 fn. 19. Indeed, a “lesser standard” of scrutiny applies in 18 certifying classes for settlement purposes. Ibid. Therefore the Court should take into 19 consideration the fact that the parties have settled their claims and stipulated to certification for 20 settlement purposes when assessing typicality and adequacy. 21 a. Numerosity. The putative classes are so numerous that joinder of all members is 22 impractical. Class Members are all current and former employees who worked for Defendant in 23 California from May 30, 2014 through the date that the Court grants preliminary approval of this 24 Settlement. There are approximately 1,474 persons answering to this definition. Thus, there are a 25 sufficient number of Class Members to warrant certifying this as a class action for settlement 26 purposes. 27 b. Ascertainability. The putative classes are defined in a manner that is precise, 28 objective, and ascertainable. The Class Members have already been identified by reference to -4- DECLARATION OF DAVID YEREMIAN IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPORVAPPROVAL 1 Defendant’s payroll and personnel records. 2 c. Typicality. A class representative’s claims are typical when they arise from the 3 same event, practice, or course of conduct that gives rise to the claims of other putative class 4 members, and if their claims rest on the same legal theories. The class representatives’ claims 5 must be “typical” but not necessarily identical to the claims of other class members. It is 6 sufficient that the representative is similarly situated so that he or she will have the motive to 7 litigate on behalf of all Class Members. Classen v. Weller (1983) 145 Cal.App.3d 27, 47; B.W.I. 8 Custom Kitchens v. Owens-Illinois, Inc. (1987) 191 Cal.App.3d 1341, 1347 (“[I]t has never been 9 the law in California that the class representative must have identical interests with the class 10 members.”). Thus, it is not necessary that the class representative should have personally incurred 11 all of the damages suffered by each of the other class members. Wershba v. Apple Computer, Inc. 12 (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 224, 228. 13 Plaintiff Vivian Ly’s claims are typical of Class Members’ claims because they arose from 14 the same factual basis and are based on the same legal theories. Plaintiff Vivian Ly was employed 15 by Defendant from about July 2017 to February 5, 2018 as an hourly paid, non-exempt sales 16 representative and during the Class Period subject to the allegedly unlawful meal break policies 17 and pay practices at issue in this litigation. Accordingly, Plaintiff Vivian Ly is a member of the 18 class. The central issues of this litigation (whether Defendant failed to pay all wages, whether 19 Defendant failed to provide meal periods etc.), which would arise if this were an individual action 20 brought by Plaintiff, apply to the other Class Members as well, and the answer to these questions 21 would determine Defendant’s liability to the entire putative class. Thus, Plaintiff’s claims are 22 typical of the claims of the putative class. Accordingly, the typicality requirement is satisfied. 23 d. Adequacy. A class representative must possess the same interest and suffer the 24 same injury as the class members. “To assure ‘adequate’ representation, the class representative’s 25 personal claim must not be inconsistent with the claims of other members of the class.” J.P. 26 Morgan & Co., Inc. v. Sup.Ct. (Heliotrope General, Inc.) (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 195, 212. Thus, 27 the adequacy requirement is satisfied when the class representative’s interests are not antagonistic 28 to those of the class. McGhee v. Crocker-Citizens Nat. Bank (1976) 60 Cal.App.3d 442, 451. -5- DECLARATION OF DAVID YEREMIAN IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPORVAPPROVAL 1 Plaintiffs have no conflicts with the class and in fact their interests are aligned with those 2 of the class. Because Plaintiffs’ claims are identical to those that would be asserted by the 3 unnamed Class Members were they before the Court, Plaintiffs have every interest in zealously 4 representing the unnamed class members. Plaintiffs have not shrunk from this responsibility. 5 Indeed, Plaintiffs have devoted a substantial amount of time and energy to litigating this action 6 and effecting a settlement. Furthermore, as detailed above, Class Counsel are experienced in 7 wage-and-hour litigation, especially class actions, and have zealously represented the interests of 8 the class in litigating this case. See infra ¶¶3-9. Accordingly, the adequacy requirement is 9 satisfied. 10 e. Commonality. Common questions of law or fact in this case predominate over 11 individual questions. This action involves, inter alia, a determination about Defendant’s alleged 12 failure to provide meal periods, failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay all wages due to 13 allegedly common and unlawful policies, the resulting failure to pay final wages when required, 14 the failure to provide accurate paystubs, and largely derivative claims under the Business & 15 Professions Code and PAGA. Plaintiffs contend these practices, including an alleged practice of 16 failing to provide complete meal periods, related meal period policies applicable to the class, and 17 the alleged failure to provide corresponding premium payments, that affected class members in 18 the same way. All class members were employed during the Class Period. Therefore, the 19 operative complaint delineates a common course of conduct applicable to all Class Members. 20 Therefore, based on Class Counsel’s investigation, the review of the discovery produced by 21 Defendant, and their discussions with Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs contend the evidence supports their 22 position that the employment practices and policies of Defendant’s business were consistent and 23 uniform. 24 f. Predominance. Individualized issues do not predominate over the issues of law and 25 fact that are common to the class as a whole. The principal issues of controversy are whether 26 Class Members were paid for all hours worked and provided lawful meal breaks. As explained, 27 supra, there are common issues of law and fact given that Plaintiffs and all Class Members were 28 subjected to the same policies and pay practices during the relevant time period. Plaintiffs and -6- DECLARATION OF DAVID YEREMIAN IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPORVAPPROVAL 1 Class Members seek meal premiums, unpaid wages and overtime, and penalties for work 2 performed as non-exempt employees for Defendant. These issues are suitable for common 3 adjudication because all Class Members were subject to the same employment policies and 4 Plaintiffs contend the practices applied uniformly to all Class Members. 5 g. Superiority. Class resolution is superior to other available methods for the fair and 6 efficient adjudication of the controversy. There is little interest or incentive for Class Members to 7 individually control the prosecution of separate actions. Although the injury resulting from 8 Defendant’s policies and practices are real and significant, the cost of individually litigating each 9 such case against Defendant would easily exceed the value of any relief that could be obtained by 10 any one Class Member individually. If Class Members are forced to litigate their claims 11 individually this would result in about 1,474 individual actions against Defendant. Here, the 12 alternative methods of resolution are individual suits for relatively small amounts. Hence, an 13 individual suit would prove uneconomical for potential plaintiffs because litigation costs would 14 dwarf a potential recovery. 15 h. Except for Plaintiffs’ case before this Court, Plaintiffs are unaware of any other 16 actions by Class Members against Defendant asserting similar claims as here. Furthermore, San 17 Mateo County is a compelling forum for this action given that Defendant’s location is in San 18 Mateo County and numerous Class Members work in this County. 19 i. There are no serious manageability difficulties presented by preliminarily 20 approving the case for settlement purposes. As this case will not go to trial if finally approved, all 21 that would remain is claims administration and responding to possible objectors. 22 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the 23 foregoing is true and correct. 24 Executed this 15th day of July, 2021 at Glendale, California. 25 26 David Yeremian 27 28 -7- DECLARATION OF DAVID YEREMIAN IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPORVAPPROVAL PROOF OF SERVICE I am a citizenofthe United States andam employed in the County ofLos Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action. My business address is 9665 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 430 Beverly Hills, CA 90212. OnJuly 16, 2021, 1 served the foregoing documents describedas: DECLARATIONOF DAVIDYEREMIANIN SUPPORTOF MOTIONFOR PRELIMINARYAPPROVALOF CLASSACTIONSETTLEMENT in this action by transmitting a tme copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope addressed as follows: David Yeremian Walter Haines 10 david/a) eremianlaw.com whaines@uelg.com Roman Shkodnik UNITEDEMPLOYEESLAWGROUP,PC romani a v eremianlaw. corn 5500 Bolsa Ave., Suite 201 Natalia Bermudes HuntingtonBeach, CA 92649 12 Natalia eremianlaw.com Counsel for Plaintiff VIVIAN LY 13 DAVID YEREMIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. 535 N. Brand Blvd., Suite 705 14 Glendale, CA 91203 15 Counsel for PlaintiffVIVIANLY 16 Tracy Waren Department 2 twarren a buchalter.com 17 400 County Center KathrynB. Fox RedwoodCity, CA 94063 18 kfox a buchalter. com corn lexcivil'Ssanmateocourt.or Candice E. Caufield 19 ccaufield a buchalter.com BUCHALTER, APC 20 655 W. Broadway, Suite 1625 21 SanDiego, CA 92101 Counsel for DefendantMOBILEONE,LLC. 22 23 [X] ONLY BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION 24 Only by e-mailing the document(s) to the persons at the e-mail address(es) listed based on noticeprovided on March20, 2020that, duringthe Coronavirus (COVID-19)pandemic, this 25 office will be workingremotely, not ableto sendphysicalmail as usual, and is therefore using 26 only electronic mail. No electronic messageor other indicationthat the transmissionwas unsuccessful was received within a reasonable time after the transmission. 27 [X] STATE I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that 28 the above is tme and correct. 1 PROOFOF SERVICE Executed on Executed July l6, on July 16, 202 2021, at Beverly Hills, 1 , at Hills, California. California. 2 3 4 539 Lauren Farrington Lauren 5 Farrington 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 PROOF PROOF OF SERVICE OF SERVICE