Motion to Approve or Confirm Settlement in Janet Ugale vs Allen Distribution, LP| Trellis.Law

On July 08, 2020 a Motion-Secondary was filed involving a dispute between Janet Ugale And Jobany Rodriguez, Individually, And On Behalf Of Other Members Of The General Public Similarly Situated And On Behalf Of Aggrieved Employees Pursuant To The Private Attorneys General Act, Janet Ugale Individually And On Behalf Of Other Members Of The General Public Similarly Situated, and Allen Distribution, Lp, A Pennsylvania Limited Partnership, for Unlimited Civil Other Employment in the District Court of San Joaquin County.

Preview
DOUGLAS HAN (SBN 232858) Electronically Filed
1 SHUNT TATAVOS-GHARAJEH (SBN 272164) Superior Court of California
ARSINÉ GRIGORYAN (SBN 319517) County of San Joaquin
2 JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION
751 N. Fair Oaks Avenue, Suite 101 2022-01-10 14:27:07
3 Pasadena, California 91103 Clerk: Kristy Kobus
Tel: (818) 230-7502
Fax: (818) 230-7259
4 Motion for Approval of Class Settlement
ROBERT J. WASSERMAN (SBN 258538) 02/04/2022 09:00 AM in 10D
5 WILLIAM J. GORHAM (SBN 151773)
JENNY D. BAYSINGER (SBN 251014)
6 MAYALL HURLEY P.C.
2453 Grand Canal Boulevard
7 Stockton, California 95207-8253
Telephone: (209) 477-3833
Facsimile: (209) 473-4818
8
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
9
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN
11

12 JANET UGALE and JOBANY Case No.: STK-CV-UOE-2020-0005807
13 RODRIGUEZ, individually, and on behalf of
Honorable Barbara Kronlund
other members of the general public similarly Department 10D
14 situated and on behalf of aggrieved
employees pursuant to the Private Attorneys CLASS ACTION
15 General Act (“PAGA”);
DECLARATION OF DOUGLAS
16 HAN IN SUPPORT OF
Plaintiffs, PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR FINAL
17 APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION
v. SETTLEMENT, ATTORNEYS’
FEES AND COSTS, AND
18 CLASS/PAGA REPRESENTATIVE
ALLEN DISTRIBUTION, LP, a ENHANCEMENT PAYMENTS
19 Pennsylvania limited partnership; and DOES
1 through 100, inclusive; [Notice of Motion and Motion for Final
20 Approval; Declaration of Class Counsel
(Jenny D. Baysinger); Declarations of Class
21 Defendants. Representatives (Jobany Rodriguez and Janet
Ugale); Declaration of Settlement
22 Administrator (Taylor Mitzner); and
[Proposed] Order of Final Approval and
23 Judgment filed concurrently herewith]

24 Hearing Date: February 4, 2022
Hearing Time: 9:00 a.m.
Hearing Place: Department 10D
25
Complaint Filed: July 8, 2020
26 FAC Filed: August 3, 2021
Trial Date: None Set
27

28
1

DECLARATION OF DOUGLAS HAN
1 DECLARATION OF DOUGLAS HAN

2 I, Douglas Han, hereby declare as follows:

3 1. I am an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of California and founder of

4 Justice Law Corporation, attorneys of record for Plaintiff Janet Ugale. I make this declaration

5 in support of the Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement brought by Plaintiffs

6 Jobany Rodriguez and Janet Ugale (“Plaintiffs”). The facts set forth in this declaration are within

7 my personal knowledge and, if called as a witness, I could and would competently testify.

8 PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT

9 2. On September 2, 2021, in Department 23 of the above-entitled court, Honorable

10 Barbara Kronlund preliminarily approved the Joint Stipulation of Class and Representative

11 Action Settlement and Release (“Settlement Agreement,” “Settlement,” or “Agreement”),

12 provisionally certified the Justice Law Corporation and Mayall Hurley P.C. as Class Counsel,

13 conditionally certified the Class, and appointed Plaintiffs as the Class Representatives (“Class

14 Representatives”) for settlement purposes. The Court ordered the mailing of the court-approved

15 Notice of Class Action Settlement (“Class Notice”). The Court further adopted the notice

16 procedures specified in the Settlement, which were outlined in the motion for preliminary

17 approval, and ordered that they be implemented. Phoenix Class Action Administration Solutions

18 (“Phoenix”) was appointed by the Court to serve as the Settlement Administrator for purposes

19 of administering the Settlement. The Court scheduled the final approval hearing for February 4,

20 2022, the date, time, and place of which was set forth in the Class Notice.

21 3. The Settlement has been approved by Plaintiffs. As of the date of this declaration,

22 no objections have been received regarding the request for the Attorneys’ Fees and Costs, the

23 Class/PAGA Representative Enhancement Payments, and the Settlement Administration Costs.

24 WORK PERFORMED BY JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION

25 4. I have been actively engaged in this litigation since it was initially filed July 8,

26 2020, as have other attorneys and staff members in our firm. Justice Law Corporation and

27 Mayall Hurley P.C. have worked cooperatively in seeking expeditious and fair resolution of this

28 matter. The Parties conducted significant investigation and discovery of the facts and law both
2
DECLARATION OF DOUGLAS HAN
1 before and after the case was filed. The investigation entailed, among other things, the exchange

2 of information pursuant to formal and informal discovery. Plaintiffs propounded an initial set of

3 discovery, including special interrogatories, form interrogatories, requests for admission, and

4 requests for production of documents. Pursuant to discovery and in preparation for early

5 mediation, Plaintiffs received, among other things, the following information and evidence with

6 which to properly evaluate the claims: (1) personnel records; (2) information relating to the size

7 and scope of the Class; (3) sampling of time records and pay records; (4) the average hourly rate

8 for Class Members; (5) employee handbooks and procedure manuals regarding, e.g.,

9 timekeeping, payroll, reimbursement, and meal and rest break policies; and (6) a data permitting

10 Plaintiffs to understand the number of pay periods workweeks in that Class Period. Using this

11 information, Class Counsel determined: (i) the total number of former and current employees

12 who worked during the Class Period; (ii) the total number of Class Members employed during

13 the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (“PAGA”) Settlement Period; and (iii) the total

14 number of shifts worked by all Class Members during the Class Period.

15 5. During the litigation, the Parties analyzed numerous documents either produced

16 by Defendant Allen Distribution, L.P. (“Defendant”) or obtained by Class Counsel through other

17 sources. Class Counsel also interviewed Class Members who worked for Defendant during the

18 Class Period, who apprised Class Counsel of their experiences working for Defendant. This

19 enabled Class Counsel to determine the extent and frequency of Labor Code violations, as well

20 as learn more about the day-to-day circumstances giving rise to the alleged violations.

21 6. The documents analyzed by Class Counsel provided a critical understanding of

22 the nature of the work performed by Class Members and Defendant’s policies and procedures.

23 They were used in analyzing potential liability and damages issues in connection with all phases

24 of the litigation, and ultimately with the mediation process. Overall, Class Counsel performed

25 an exhaustive investigation into the claims at issue. This included: (a) determining Plaintiffs’

26 suitability as putative class representatives through interviews and analyses of their employment

27 files and related records; (b) evaluating all Plaintiffs’ potential claims; (c) researching similar

28 wage-and-hour class actions to the claims brought, the nature of the positions, and the type of
3
DECLARATION OF DOUGLAS HAN
1 employer; (d) interviewing putative class members to gather information about potential claims,

2 identify additional witnesses, and obtain documents; (e) propounding formal discovery; (f)

3 analyzing Defendant’s labor policies and practices; (g) researching settlements in similar cases;

4 (h) evaluating Plaintiffs’ claims and estimating Defendant’s liability for purposes of settlement;

5 (i) drafting the mediation brief and the damages analysis; (j) participating in the mediation; (k)

6 litigating to remand the case from federal court to state court; and (l) finalizing the Settlement

7 Agreement. The extensive document and data exchanges have allowed Class Counsel to

8 appreciate the strengths and weaknesses of the claims against Defendant, as well as the benefits

9 of the Settlement Agreement.

10 7. After the exchange of relevant information and evidence, the Parties agreed to

11 enter private mediation to attempt to resolve the claims in the case. On March 4, 2021, the Parties

12 participated in a full-day mediation with Mark J. Feder, a respected mediator of wage-and-hour

13 class actions. Mr. Feder helped to manage the Parties’ expectations and provided a useful,

14 neutral analysis of the issues and risks to both sides. Under the auspices of the mediator, the

15 Parties eventually reached a settlement via a mediator’s proposal, the terms of which were

16 memorialized in the Settlement Agreement. At all times, the Parties’ negotiations were

17 adversarial and non-collusive.

18 8. As set forth more fully in the accompanying motion, Class Counsel seeks

19 attorneys’ fees in the amount of $230,643 as set forth in the Agreement and the Class Notice.

20 This percentage award is commensurate with: (a) the risk Class Counsel took in commencing

21 this action; (b) the time, effort, and expense dedicated to the case; (c) the skill and determination

22 they have shown; (d) the results they have achieved throughout the litigation; (e) the value of

23 the settlement they have achieved for Class Members; and (f) the other cases Class Counsel

24 have turned down to devote their time and efforts to this matter.

25 9. I am aware that the common and acceptable rate for contingency representation in

26 wage-and-hour class action litigation is normally forty percent (40%) before trial, with the range

27 being from thirty-three and one-third percent (33.3%) up to fifty percent (50%).

28 ///
4
DECLARATION OF DOUGLAS HAN
1 10. While not necessarily required to be demonstrated because the contingent fee is

2 proper for such a settlement, Class Counsel have also incurred so many hours of work in

3 connection with this case that the fee request is also justified under a simple lodestar analysis.

4 Since the commencement of this matter, the hours worked by Justice Law Corporation totals

5 292.3 hours and the hours worked by Mayall Hurley P.C. totals 206.85 hours. Attached hereto

6 as Exhibit 1 is a Task and Time Chart setting forth in detail the breakdown of time for the

7 requisite tasks performed by Justice Law Corporation. These hours do not include the additional

8 administrative oversight during the payment period as well as preparation of the final report and

9 reporting before the court regarding the final disbursement of the Settlement.

10 11. The base lodestar fee calculation, based upon the total of 499.15 hours worked

11 (292.3 hours by Justice Law Corporation and 206.85 hours worked by Mayall Hurley P.C.),

12 utilizing a reasonable hourly rate that is commensurate with attorneys’ experience for all firms’

13 time, is collectively $353,739.45 ($199,222.50 for Justice Law Corporation and $154,516.95

14 for Mayall Hurley P.C.) The hourly rates of $775 per hour for myself, $675 per hour for Shunt

15 Tatavos-Gharajeh, and $500 per hour for my associate Arsiné Grigoryan is commensurate with

16 our individual backgrounds and the background of our firm, training, and experience in litigating

17 class actions, and in particular, wage-and-hour matters, as outlined below. In fact, the lodestar

18 cross-check results in a negative multiplier of 0.65 when cross-checked with the requested

19 attorneys’ fees of $230,643. Moreover, our requested hourly rates are in line with the Laffey

20 Matrix, attached hereto as Exhibit 2. Considering the amount of the fee requested, the work

21 performed, the risks incurred, and the contingent nature of representation, the requested fees and

22 costs are reasonable and should be awarded.

23 12. Moreover, Class Counsel has been routinely awarded at least thirty-five percent

24 (35%) fee request or more in similar Class Action and Representative matters. (See Cindy

25 Johnson et al v. Summit Funding, Inc. Sacramento County Superior Court Case No. 34-2018-

26 00237292 final approval granted on May 12, 2021 granting 38% fee request; Patricia Alcantar

27 et al v. Bay Equity, LLC Marin County Superior Court Case No. CIV1903376 final approval

28 granted on February 3, 2021 granting 35% fee request; Kelly Lomeland v. Consolidated Fire
5
DECLARATION OF DOUGLAS HAN
1 Protection Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2019-01056877-CU-OE-CXC final

2 approval granted on January 29, 2021 granting 35% fee request; Ann Marie Albanez v. Bank of

3 Hope Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. 19STCV30577 approval granted on January

4 13, 2021 granting 35% fee request; Ernesto Perez v. Tri-Star Deying and Finishing, Inc. Los

5 Angeles County Superior Court Case No. BC649292 final approval granted on January 14, 2021

6 granting 35% fee request; Erica Corona et al. v. Property West, Inc. San Diego County Superior

7 Court Case No. 37-2017-00028103-CU-OE-CTL final approval granted on January 8, 2021; See

8 Jose Garcia v. Pacific Cost Supply, LLC Sacramento County Superior Court Case No. 34-2019-

9 00247748-CU-OE-GDS final approval granted on March 9, 2020 granting 38% fee request;

10 Georgeta Beldiman v. Agiliti Health, Inc. Kern County Superior Court Case No. BCV-18-

11 102235-SDS final approval granted on January 31, 2020 granting 38% fee request; Juan

12 Sanchez v. Leon Krous Drilling, Inc., Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. BC705069

13 approval granted on February 14, 2020 granting 38% fee request; Caryn Rafferty et al. v.

14 Academy Mortgage Corporation Sacramento County Superior Court Case No. 34-2016-

15 00191285-CU-OE-GDS final approval granted on September 10, 2018 granting 38% fee

16 request; Steven Franklin v. Synergy One Lending, Inc. Kern County Superior Court Case No.

17 BCV-20-100178-SDS approval granted on June 15, 2020, granting 38% fee request; Genio

18 Chuen v. 911 Mobile Mechanic, LLC, Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2017-

19 00943421-CU-OE-CXC final approval granted on August 23, 2019, granting 35% fee request;

20 and Silva Harbabikian et al. v. Williston Financial Group Ventura County Superior Court Case

21 No.56-2016-00485186-CU-OE-VTA final approval granted on August 31, 2018 granting 35%

22 fee request.) Accordingly, the thirty-five percent (35%) fee request is well within a reasonable

23 range and is routinely granted by numerous Courts in California.

24 13. Finally, Class Counsel entered a Co-Counseling Agreement on January 5, 2021

25 whereby they agreed that Justice Law Corporation shall recover forty-five percent (45%) of the

26 Attorneys’ Fees and Costs and Mayall Hurley P.C. will recover fifty-five percent (55%) of the

27 Attorneys’ Fees and Costs. Attached hereto as Exhibit 3 is the fully executed Co-Counseling

28 Agreement between Class Counsel.
6
DECLARATION OF DOUGLAS HAN
1 ADEQUACY OF JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION

2 14. In May of 2004, I graduated from Pepperdine University School of Law with a

3 Juris Doctor degree. In May of 2001, I obtained a Bachelor of Science degree in Political Science

4 with a minor in English from University of Houston.

5 15. From approximately January 2004 to approximately May 2004, I served as a

6 Judicial Extern to the Honorable Lourdes G. Baird of the United States District Court for the

7 Central District of California.

8 16. Since its inception, in or around April of 2013, our firm has almost exclusively

9 focused on the prosecution of consumer and employment class actions, involving wage-and-

10 hour claims, unfair business practices or consumer fraud. Since that time, our firm has

11 successfully litigated to conclusion two hundred twenty (220) wage-and-hour class or

12 representative actions. Currently, we are the attorneys of record in over a dozen employment-

13 related putative class actions in both state and federal courts in the State of California. During

14 this relatively short time, in association with other law firms, we have obtained millions of

15 dollars on behalf of thousands of individuals in California.
16 CLASS ACTION RESULTS
17 17. Attached hereto Exhibit 4 are a list of Class and Representative Actions that have
18 been given final approval:
19 18. Shunt Tatavos-Gharajeh is an Of Counsel at my office. He received his
20 undergraduate degree from University of California, Los Angeles and earned a Juris Doctor
21 degree from Southwestern University School of Law. He was admitted to practice in California
22 in 2010. He is admitted to practice in the Courts of the State of California. The focus of his
23 practice is class action wage-and-hour law. He has worked on multiple class action cases that
24 have been granted final approval, including Keles, et al. v. The Art of Shaving – FL, LLC
25 Alameda County Superior Court Case No. RG13687151, Esters et al v. HDB LTD. Limited
26 Partnership Kern County Superior Court Case No. S-1500-CV-279879 DRL, Bridgette
27 Guzman, et al. v. International City Mortgage, Inc. (San Bernardino Superior Court Case No.
28 CIVDS1502516), Davidson et al. v. Lentz Construction General Engineering Contractor Kern
7
DECLARATION OF DOUGLAS HAN
1 County Superior Court Case No. S-1500-CV-279853 LHB, Betancourt v. Hugo Boss USA, Inc.

2 Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. BC506988, Porras et al. v. DBI Beverage, Inc. et

3 al. Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No. 1-14-CV-266154, Hartzell et al. v. Truitt

4 Oilfield Maintenance Corporation Kern County Superior Court Case No. S-1500-CV-283011,

5 Navarro-Salas et al. v. Markstein Beverage Co. et al., Sacramento County Superior Court Case

6 No. 34-2015-00174957-CU-OE-GDS, David White, et al. v. Pilot Travel Centers, LLC, (San

7 Joaquin County Superior Court Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2013-0009098), McKinnon, et al. v.

8 Renovate America, Inc., et al., San Diego Case No. 37-2015-00038150-CU-OE-CTL, Evelyn

9 Antoine, et al. v. Riverstone Residential CA, Inc., et al. (Sacramento Superior Court Case No.

10 34-2013-00155974), Pina v. Zim Industries, Inc., Kern County Superior Court Case No. S-1500-

11 CV-284498 SPC, Amaya v. Certified Payment Processing et al. Sacramento County Superior

12 Court Case No. 34-2015-00186623-CU-OE-GDS, Burke v. Petrol Production Supply, Inc. Kern

13 County Superior Court Case no. BCV-15-101092, Ceron et al v. Hydro Resources-West, Inc.,

14 Kern County Superior Court Case No. BCV-15-101461, Chavana v. Golden Empire Equipment,

15 Inc., Kern County Superior Court Case No. BCV-16-102796, De La Torre et al. v. Acuity

16 Brands Lighting, Inc., San Bernardino County Super Court Case No. CIVDS1601800, Dobbs v.

17 Wood Group PSN, Inc., Case No. BCV-16-101078 Kern County Superior Court Case No. BCV-

18 16-101078-DRL, Gonzalez et al v. Matagrano, Inc., San Francisco County Superior Court Case

19 No. CGC-16-550494, Harbabikian et al. v. Williston Financial Group, LLC, Ventura County

20 Superior Court Case No. 56-2016-004485186-CU-OE-VTA, Prince v. Ponder Environmental

21 Services, Inc., Kern County Superior Court Case No. BCV-16-100784, Ramirez v. Crestwood

22 Operations, LLC Kern County Superior Court Case No. BCV-17-100503, Reyes v. Halliburton

23 Energy Services, Inc., Kern County Superior Court Case No. S-1500-CV-280215, Rodriguez v.

24 B&L Casing Serve, LLC et al., Kern County Superior Court Case No. S-1500-CV-282709,

25 Marketstar Wage and Hour Cases, Alameda County Superior Court Case No. JCCP004820,

26 Rodriguez et al. v. Delta Sierra Beverage, LLC Sacramento County Superior Court Case No.

27 34-2017-00206727, Stuck v. Jerry Melton & Sons Construction, Inc., Case No. BCV-16-

28 101516, Blevins v. California Commercial Solar, Inc. Kern County Superior Case No. BCV-17-
8
DECLARATION OF DOUGLAS HAN
1 100571, Cisneros et al v. Wilbur-Ellis Company, LLC, Kern County Superior Court Case No.

2 BCV-17-102836, Castro et al. v. General Production Service of California, Inc., Kern County

3 Superior Court Case No. BCV-15-101164. He was also certified as class counsel in Fulmer et

4 al. v. Golden State Drilling, Inc., Kern County Superior Court Case No. S-1500-CV-279707,

5 Manas et al. v. Kenai Drilling Limited, Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No.

6 BC546330, Nuncio et al. v. MMI Services, Inc., Kern County Superior Court Case No. S-1500-

7 CV-282534, cases that were certified after a contested class certification. He is also managing

8 at least a dozen class actions currently pending in various courts throughout California.

9 19. Arsiné Grigoryan is an Associate Attorney at my office. She earned two Bachelor

10 of Arts degrees from the University of California, Berkeley: (1) political science with an

11 emphasis on international relations; and (2) media studies. She obtained her Juris Doctor degree

12 from Southwestern Law School, where she also served on the Board of Governors of the Trial

13 Advocacy Honors Program and competed in national trial competitions. During law school, she

14 also served as a student editor for the Journal of International Media & Entertainment Law and,

15 upon graduation, had the privilege of being selected for the American Board of Trial Advocates

16 (ABOTA) Fellowship. She has also researched and drafted an article focused on international

17 law and humanitarian issues, which was ultimately published in a United Kingdom publication

18 (Arsiné Grigoryan, Severing the Next Generation: Sexual Violence in Genocide 3 U.K. L.

19 Student Rev. 41 (2015)). She is presently admitted to practice in all state courts of California

20 (admitted in 2017) and before all federal district courts in California. The focus of her practice

21 at Justice Law Corporation is currently on class action wage-and-hour law, including Private

22 Attorneys General Act of 2004 (“PAGA”) matters. She has worked on multiple cases which

23 have received final approval, including Fulmer v. Golden State Drilling, S-1500-CV-279707-

24 SDS in Kern County Superior Court; Lee v. Westside Habitats, LLC, BC702296 in Los Angeles

25 County Superior Court (Spring Street Courthouse); Castro v. General Production Service of

26 California Inc., BCV-15-101164-DRL in Kern County Superior Court; Garcia v. Hronis, Inc.,

27 BCV-18-101510-DRL in Kern County Superior Court; McCollumn v. Delta Tech Service, Inc.,

28 FCS049504 in Solano County Superior Court; Morel v. Aseptic Solutions USA Ventures, LLC,
9
DECLARATION OF DOUGLAS HAN
1 RIC1711383 in Riverside County Superior Court; Garcia v. Glide Rite, BC665485 in Los

2 Angeles County Superior Court (Spring Street Courthouse); Castillo v. Gabriel I. Cruz dba GIC

3 Transport, Inc., BCV-17-101807 in Kern County Superior Court; Xiong v. Hilltop Ranch, Inc.,

4 18CV-01340 in Merced County Superior Court; Valencia v. Hill Phoenix, Inc., CIVDS1715125

5 in San Bernardino County Superior Court; Balderama v. Steeler Inc., BCV-18-102314 in Kern

6 County Superior Court; Bunche v. Mettler-Toledo Rainin, LCC, RG18899279 in Alameda

7 County Superior Court; Godinez v. Lazer Spot, Inc., BCV-17-102721 in Kern County Superior

8 Court; Arciniega v. OnY Glo, Inc., dba OGI Mortgage Bankers, CIVDS1901760 in San

9 Bernardino County Superior Court; Corona v. Property West, 37-2017-00028103-CU-OE-CTL

10 in San Diego County Superior Court; Olivas v. VCI Construction, CIVDS1800174 in San

11 Bernardino County Superior Court; Harrington v. Arlon Graphics, LLC, 30-2018-00970444-

12 CU-OE-CXC in Orange County Superior Court; and Sanchez v. Sunpower Corporation, BCV-

13 18-102563-SDS in Kern County Superior Court. She is handling at least a dozen active class

14 action and representative PAGA matters currently pending in various courts throughout the State

15 of California.

16 CLASS/PAGA REPRESENTATIVE ENHANCEMENT PAYMENTS

17 20. The Settlement also provides that Plaintiffs request final approval by the Court for

18 a Class/PAGA Representative Enhancement Payment in the amount of $7,500 to each Plaintiffs

19 for their time and effort serving as the Class Representatives. The Class/PAGA Representative

20 Enhancement Payment requested are fair and appropriate. The Class Representatives spent time

21 and effort in producing relevant documents and past employment records, as well as providing

22 the facts and evidence necessary to prove the allegations. The Class Representatives were

23 available whenever Class Counsel needed them and actively tried to obtain information that

24 would benefit the Class. Accordingly, it is appropriate and just for the Class Representatives to

25 receive a reasonable Class/PAGA Representative Enhancement Payment in addition to their

26 Individual Settlement Payments for their services on behalf of the Class Members.

27 21. As detailed in the Declaration of Taylor Mitzner, the Settlement Administration

28 Costs incurred by Phoenix pursuant to performing its duties are $6,975.
10
DECLARATION OF DOUGLAS HAN
1 LITIGATION COSTS AND EXPENSES INCURRED BY

2 JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION

3 22. Justice Law Corporation has incurred $2,168.31 in costs and litigation expenses

4 as reflected in Exhibit 5. These expenses were reasonable and necessary in the prosecution of

5 this case.

6 23. Plaintiffs have agreed to a thirty-eight percent (38%) contingency agreement in

7 their retainers. I have borne all the risks and costs of litigation.

8 24. I submit that the settlement reached herein is fair, reasonable, and adequate. In

9 addition, the settlement is in the best interest of Plaintiffs and other Class Members.

10 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the

11 foregoing is true and correct.

12 Executed on this 10th day of January 2022 at Pasadena, California.

13
______________________________
14 Douglas Han
15

28
11
DECLARATION OF DOUGLAS HAN
EXHIBIT 1

12
UGALE V. ALLEN DISTRIBUTION, LP.
(SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT CASE No. STK-CV-UOE-2020-0005807)
ATTORNEY TASK AND TIME CHART

TASK JUSTICE LAW
CORPORATION
FIRM
DH STG AG
TOTAL
Investigation and Research / Due Diligence

Pre-Lawsuit Investigation of the Key Facts with a Focus on 1) Class Certification Elements, including
Adequacy, Typicality, Superiority, and Commonality; 2) Merits of Plaintiff’s Claims and the Merits of the
5.4 2.8 3.1 11.3
Claims of the Putative Class Members; and 3) Potential Damages Exposure of Defendant with respect to the
Damages Sustained by Janet Ugale

Investigation of Defendant’s Organizational and Corporate Structure, and Executive Reporting Structure as
1.1 4.8 0 5.9
It Relates to the Employment and Management of the Putative Class Members

Investigation of Defendant’s Executives, Officers, and Leadership with a Focus on Involvement in Wage-
1 2.3 0 2.3
and-Hour Issues and Establishing Willfulness and Uniformity

Research and Analysis of Potential Defenses Defendant May Raise, Including, de minimis Work, Non-
0 2.8 1.7 4.5
compensable Off-the-clock Work, Compliant Policies and Manageability

Prepare a Discovery Strategy Plan of Action, including Topics of Inquiry Important to Certification,
3.2 6.8 2 4
Liability, and Damages/Civil Penalties

Research and Analysis of Defendant’s Litigation History Involving Wage-and-Hour Issues and Other
1 1.5 0 2.5
Related Employment Issues

Meet and Communicate with Named Plaintiff Janet Ugale throughout the Pendency of the Case 9.3 17.3 10.5 37.1

Pleadings and Court Filings

Draft Plaintiff Janet Ugale’s Class Action Complaint for Damages; Legal Research and Analysis of All
0.4 3.4 1.3 5.1
Claims Involved (Filed 7.8.2020)
13
Review Court’s Notice of Case Assignment and Notice of Hearing (Filed 7.8.2020) 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3

Review and Analyze Defendant Allen Distribution, LP’s Notice of Removal to Federal Court; Civil Case
Cover Sheet; Corporate Disclosure Statement; Declarations of Anamaria C. Ogilvie and Matthew B. Golper 1 1.2 1.1 3.3
in Support Thereof (FEDERAL - Filed 8.26.20)

Review Defendant’s Notice of Stay of Proceeding (Filed 8.26.20) 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3

Review Defendant’s Notice to State Court and Adverse Parties of Removal of Action to Federal Court 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3

Review Court’s Notice of Availability of a Magistrate Judge to Exercise Jurisdiction and Appeal
0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3
Instructions (FEDERAL – Filed 8.27.20)

Review Court’s Notice of Availability Voluntary Dispute Resolution (FEDERAL – Filed 8.27.20) 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3

Review Defendant’s Notice of Related Cases (FEDERAL – Filed 8.28.20) 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3

Review Defendant’s Notice of Appearance of Counsel (FEDERAL – Filed 8.31.20) 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3

Draft Stipulation to Extend Time to Respond to Initial Complaint by 14 Days (Local Rule 144 (A))
0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3
(FEDERAL – Filed 9.2.20)

Draft Stipulation and [Proposed] Order to Further Extend Time to Respond to Initial Complaint (FEDERAL
0.5 0 0.3 0.8
– Filed 9.14.20)

Review Court’s Minute Order Dated September 16, 2020 (FEDERAL) 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.4

Review Court’s Order Dated September 18, 2020 (FEDERAL) 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3

Review Court’s Minute Order Dated September 28, 2020 (FEDERAL) 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3

Review Court’s Minute Order Dated September 30, 2020 (FEDERAL) 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3

Review Court’s Order Granting Further Extending Defendant’s Time to Respond to Initial Complaint
0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3
(FEDERAL - Filed 10.7.20)

Review Court’s Related Case Order (FEDERAL - Filed 10.14.20) 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3

14
Review Court’s Order Setting Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference; Order Notice of Availability of a
Magistrate Judge to Exercise Jurisdiction and Appeal Instructions; Review Court’s Notice of Availability 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.9
Voluntary Dispute Resolution (FEDERAL - Filed 10.14.20)

Review Defendant’s Petition for Andrew L. Levy’s Admission to Practice Pro Hac Vice; Andrew L. Levy’s
0.2 0.3 0.2 0.7
Certificate of Good Standing with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court (FEDERAL – Filed 10.15.20)

Review Defendant’s Petition for Micah T. Saul Admission to Practice Pro Hac Vice; Micha T. Saul’s
0.2 0.3 0.2 0.7
Certificate of Good Standing with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court (FEDERAL – Filed 10.15.20)

Review Court’s Order Granting Andrew L. Levy Admission to Practice Pro Hac Vice (FEDERAL – Filed
0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3
10.20.20)

Review Court’s Order Granting Micah T. Saul Admis

Case Info

Judge

Kronlund, Barbara Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

January 10, 2022

Case Filing Date

July 08, 2020

County

Parties

Allen Distribution, LP, a Pennsylvania limited partnership Defendant
Janet Ugale and Jobany Rodriguez, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated and on behalf of aggrieved employees pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA") Plaintiff
Janet Ugale individually and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated Plaintiff
Douglas Han Attorney
Shunt Tatavos-Gharajeh Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Arsine Grigoryan Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Robert Wassermann Attorneys for Plaintiffs
William Gorham Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Matthew Golper Attorneys for Defendants
Nolan McCready Attorneys for Defendants
Andrew Levy Attorney
Marc Feder Attorney

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

Motion-Secondary: Janet Ugale vs Allen Distribution, LP

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties