Preview
1 Danny Yadidsion (SBN 260282)
LABOR LAW PC
2 100 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 700
Santa Monica, California 90401
3 Telephone: (310) 494-6082
Facsimile: (877) 775-2267
4 danny@laborlawpc.com
5 Attorney for Plaintiff ARTURO AVILA,
individually and on behalf of the putative class
6
7
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
8
FOR THE COUNTY OF KERN
9
10
MARIE BARRAZA VAE, individually and on Lead Case No. BCV-20-103017 BCB
11 behalf of the putative class, Consolidated Case No. BCV-21-100056 BCB
12 Assigned for all Purposes to the Honorable
Plaintiff, Bernard C. Barmann, Jr. (Dept. H)
13
v. CLASS ACTION
14
DECLARATION OF DANNY YADIDSION
15 MOGA TRANSPORT, INC., a California IN SUPPORT OF UNOPPOSED MOTION
Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS
16
Defendants. ACTION SETTLEMENT
17
Vae Complaint Filed: December 29, 2020
18 Vae FAC Filed: March 5, 2021
19 Avila Complaint Filed: January 11, 2021
20
Ojeda Complaint Filed: April 28, 2021
21 Ojeda FAC Filed: July 6, 2021
22 Date: February 25, 2022
Time: 8:30 a.m.
23 Dept.: Division H
24 [filed concurrently with Notice of Motion and
Motion, Memorandum of Points and Authorities,
25 Decl. of Paul K. Haines, Decl. of Sam Sani, Decl.
of Alexander I. Dychter, Decl. of Raphael Katri,
26 Decl. of Bryn Bridley, Decl. of Marie Barraza
Vae, Decl. of Arturo Avila, Decl. of Daniel Ojeda,
27 and [Proposed] Order]
28
DECL. OF DANNY YADIDSION IN SUPPORT OF UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR
FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
1 DECLARATION OF DANNY YADIDSION
2
I, Danny Yadidsion, declare as follows:
3
1. I am an attorney at law, duly licensed and admitted to practice before all courts of the State
4
of California. I am a shareholder of the law firm of Labor Law PC and counsel of record for Plaintiff
5
Arturo Avila (“Avila”) on behalf of similarly situated employees of Defendant MOGA Transport, Inc.
6
(“Defendant”). I and my firm are referred to herein as Class Counsel. I have personal knowledge of the
7
facts herein and if called as a witness, I could and would competently testify.
8
2. All of the matters set forth herein are within my personal knowledge, except those matters
9
that are stated upon information and belief. As to such matters, I believe them to be true. I have
10
represented Plaintiff and the putative Class since its inception. I submit this Declaration in support of the
11
Motion for Final Approval, filed by Plaintiffs Marie Barraza Vae (“Vae”), Avila, and Daniel Ojeda
12
(“Ojeda) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated employees of
13
Defendant, and without opposition from Defendant, for final approval of the parties’ Joint Stipulation and
14
Settlement Agreement (“Settlement Agreement”) a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as
15
Exhibit A.
16
HISTORY OF THE LITIGATION
17
3. On December 29, 2020, Plaintiff Vae notified the LWDA of her claims as part of her
18
obligations under the California Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, codified at Labor Code Section
19
2698 et seq. (“PAGA”). Plaintiff Avila and Plaintiff Ojeda notified the LWDA of their claims on January
20
11, 2021 and April 29, 2021 respectively. The LWDA did not respond to any of the Plaintiffs’ notices.
21
4. On December 29, 2020, Plaintiff Vae filed a complaint in the Superior Court of the State
22
of California, County of Kern, styled as Vae v. MOGA Transport, Inc., et al., Case No. BCV-20-103017
23
DRL, asserting claims against Defendant for (1) failure to pay all minimum wages; (2) failure to pay
24
separately and hourly for time spent on rest periods and other non-productive time; (3) failure to provide
25
accurate wage statements; (4) failure to pay all wages owed upon separation of employment; and (5) unfair
26
and unlawful business practices. On March 5, 2021, Plaintiff Vae filed a First Amended Complaint
27
(“FAC”), adding a cause of action under the California Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”).
28
2
DECL. OF DANNY YADIDSION IN SUPPORT OF UNOPPOSED MTN. FOR
PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
1 5. On January 11, 2021, Plaintiff Avila filed a complaint in the Superior Court of the State of
2 California, County of Kern, styled as Avila v. MOGA Transport, Inc., et al., Case No. BCV-21-100056
3 DRL, asserting claims against Defendant for (1) failure to provide required meal periods; (2) failure to
4 provide required rest periods; (3) failure to pay overtime wages; (4) failure to pay minimum wages; (5)
5 failure to pay all wages during employment; (6) failure to pay wages due to discharged and quitting
6 employees; (7) failure to maintain required records; (8) failure to furnish accurate, itemized wage
7 statements; and (9) unfair and unlawful business practices.
8 6. On or about June 1, 2021, pursuant to a Joint Stipulation between the parties, the Avila
9 action was consolidated with the Vae action and the consolidated action was re-assigned to this
10 Department. On June 28, 2021, at the parties’ initial case management conference, the Court designated
11 this matter as “complex.”
12 7. On April 28, 2021, Plaintiff Daniel Ojeda filed a complaint in the Superior Court of the
13 State of California, County of San Bernardino, styled as Ojeda v. MOGA Transport, Inc., et al., Case No.
14 CIVSB2111590, asserting claims against Defendant for (1) failure to pay minimum wages for all time
15 worked; (2) failure to provide required rest periods; (3) failure to provide accurate wage statements; (4)
16 failure to pay all wages owed upon termination of employment; and (5) unfair and unlawful business
17 practices. On July 6, 2021, Plaintiff Ojeda filed a First Amended Complaint, adding a PAGA cause of
18 action.
19 8. On October 7, 2021, Defendant filed a joint stipulation with Plaintiff Ojeda in the County
20 of San Bernardino to stay the Ojeda action pending preliminary approval of the settlement in this matter.
21 On October 20, 2021, the Parties filed a stipulation for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint to add
22 Daniel Ojeda as a Named Plaintiff in the Vae/Avila consolidated action pending before this Court.
23 9. After engaging in numerous discussions, the Parties agreed to attend a private mediation
24 session and exchange informal discovery. Prior to mediation, Defendant produced considerable relevant
25 data, including several thousand pages of payroll records and payroll journals, driver log sheets, Plaintiff’s
26 employment files and daily time records, weekly time and pay sheets, relevant policy and procedure
27 documents, employment handbooks, employment start and end dates for Defendant’s truck drivers who
28
3
DECL. OF DANNY YADIDSION IN SUPPORT OF UNOPPOSED MTN. FOR
PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
1 worked during the class period, and other information for purposes of preparing damages calculations.
2 Plaintiffs’ expert formulated a damages analysis based on the records provided by Defendant.
3 10. Following a thorough analysis of this information, the Parties attended mediation on
4 September 3, 2021 with the Hon. Joan Lewis (Ret.) of Judicate West serving as mediator. After a full day
5 of arm-length negotiations and bargaining, the Parties reached an agreement and executed a Memorandum
6 of Understanding with the material terms to which the Parties had agreed. The Memorandum of
7 Understanding provided the framework used to draft the Settlement Agreement thereafter. The Parties
8 spent the better part of the next two (2) months negotiating the terms of the Settlement Agreement, which
9 they eventually finalized on October 26, 2021 and the Court preliminarily approved on November 18,
10 2021.
11 EXPOSURE ANALYSIS
12 11. While Plaintiffs believed and continue to believe this is a strong case for certification, the
13 significant risks and expenses associated with class certification and liability proceedings must be taken
14 into account. Although the amount of the Class’ maximum potential damages—if proven—is substantial,
15 the legitimate and serious risks above compelled a considerable discount for settlement.
16 12. Here, Plaintiffs contend that their claims are based on Defendant’s common, class-wide
17 policies and procedures, and that liability could be determined on a class-wide basis without dependence
18 on individual assessments of liability. Plaintiffs’ Counsel calculated Defendant’s total potential exposure
19 assuming Plaintiffs prevailed on all aspects of their claims at trial, but weighed that value against the
20 chance of succeeding at class certification and trial.
21 13. Plaintiffs alleged that Defendant failed to pay them and other Class Members a legal
22 minimum wage and overtime premium wages, as applicable, for all hours worked, and failed to provide
23 them with separate hourly payment for rest and recovery periods and other non-productive working time.
24 Plaintiffs’ unpaid wage and rest and recovery period claims were premised on the theory that Defendant
25 failed to pay Class Members a legal minimum wage and applicable overtime wages for all hours worked
26 due to Defendant’s alleged practice of refusing to compensate Class Members for rest and recovery
27 periods and for non-productive working time during their daily shifts. As a result of this unlawful policy
28
4
DECL. OF DANNY YADIDSION IN SUPPORT OF UNOPPOSED MTN. FOR
PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
1 and practice, Plaintiffs and other Class Members were underpaid for some hours, not paid any wages
2 whatsoever for other hours, and not paid all overtime wages due and owed to them pursuant to California
3 law.
4 14. Plaintiffs estimated that the maximum potential value of their unpaid minimum and
5 overtime wage, rest and recovery time and other non-productive working time claims at approximately
6 $2,355,000, exclusive of interest. The maximum potential value was heavily discounted, however, since
7 proving the claim would have relied on potentially competing testimony from Class Members as to the
8 number of hours they worked because Defendant did not track the hours Class Members worked.
9 15. Plaintiffs’ meal and rest period claims were potentially worth approximately $3,085,000
10 combined. Similar to the unpaid wage claims, Plaintiffs heavily discounted the value of these claims
11 because Class Members did not track the time they worked or whether they took meal or rest breaks.
12 Proving the claims would have relied primarily on testimony from Class Members.
13 16. Plaintiffs’ claims for unreimbursed business expenses were potentially worth
14 approximately $132,815.00. As with their other wage and hour claims, Plaintiffs heavily discounted the
15 value of these claims because establishing these expenses would have relied primarily on testimony from
16 Class Members.
17 17. Plaintiffs’ Counsel considered the arguable presence of various penalties, and weighed the
18 potential recoveries against probable defenses. Plaintiffs calculated wage statement penalties assuming a
19 derivative violation in every pay period. Using the start and end dates of employment and capping the
20 penalties at the $4,000 per person maximum, Plaintiffs calculated a maximum of $327,600 in wage
21 statement penalties assuming a violation in every single pay period. Defendant could argue that Plaintiffs
22 could not show that Class Members suffered an “injury” as a result of wage statement violations as
23 required by Labor Code Section 226.
24 18. For waiting time penalties, based on the documents and data produced by Defendant,
25 Plaintiffs’ expert calculated $1,415,100 in waiting time penalties. However, Defendant could argue that
26 Plaintiffs could not prove the “willful” prong needed to obtain waiting time penalties under Labor Code
27 Section 203. Further, Plaintiffs would not recover any derivative penalties if they failed to prove the
28
5
DECL. OF DANNY YADIDSION IN SUPPORT OF UNOPPOSED MTN. FOR
PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
1 underlying claims. Moreover, Plaintiffs would have to overcome damaging precedent to prove the
2 Class deserved the penalties. See, e.g., Howard v. CVS Caremark Corp., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 172406
3 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 9, 2014) (denying class certification for waiting time penalty claim); Alonzo v. Maximus,
4 Inc., 832 F. Supp. 2d 1122, 1134-1137 (C.D. Cal. 2011) (finding insufficient evidence of bad faith or
5 actual injury).
6 19. The PAGA claim presented even higher hurdles despite a potentially high value of civil
7 penalties. Plaintiffs calculated Defendant’s potential exposure for PAGA civil penalties at approximately
8 $5,526,000, but Defendant could argue that subsequent violations under PAGA only start to accrue after
9 employers receive notice through a citation from the Labor Commissioner. The PAGA claims could also
10 have been deemed unmanageable. Furthermore, the Court would have discretion to reduce the PAGA
11 award based on whether the amount of the award would be “unjust, arbitrary and oppressive, or
12 confiscatory.” Cal. Lab. Code § 2699(e)(2). In theory, the Court could reduce the award by 99%. Based
13 on the foregoing, Plaintiffs could not place a high value on the PAGA penalties. Thus, the Settlement
14 Agreement allocated $80,000 for distribution to the LWDA and Class Members for the settlement of the
15 PAGA civil penalty claims.
16 20. Class Counsel thoroughly investigated the proposed Class Members’ claims, applicable
17 law, and potential defenses. In particular, Class Counsel assessed the value of the class claims using
18 Defendant’s data and documents produced through informal discovery, including several thousand pages
19 of payroll records and payroll journals, driver log sheets, Plaintiff’s employment files and daily time
20 records, weekly time and pay sheets, relevant policy and procedure documents, employment handbooks,
21 employment start and end dates for Defendant’s truck drivers who worked during the class period, and
22 other information for purposes of preparing damages calculations.
23 21. The 225 Participating Class Members will receive the benefits of the entire Net Settlement
24 Fund of $910,667.88; no funds will revert to Defendant. Although Class Counsel were optimistic about
25 the chances of certifying the putative Class and prevailing at trial, they recognized continued litigation
26 carried significant risks that could have prevented the Class from obtaining any recovery; the present
27
28
6
DECL. OF DANNY YADIDSION IN SUPPORT OF UNOPPOSED MTN. FOR
PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
1 settlement terms, however, are certain and meaningful, and the efforts of Class Counsel should be
2 recognized.
3 22. Plaintiffs have provided notice to the LWDA of the Settlement as required by statute, and
4 the LWDA has not objected to or commented on the proposed Settlement Agreement or allocation of the
5 PAGA penalties.
6 COUNSEL’S QUALIFICATIONS
7 23. Class Counsel negotiated a settlement that we consider fair, adequate and reasonable, based
8 on our prior experience litigating these types of cases. The favorable terms include relieving Class
9 Members of the burden of filing claims to participate in the Settlement, convincing Defendant to pay the
10 employer-side taxes (including employer’s portion of FICA, FUTA, SUTA, and all other applicable
11 payroll taxes) separately from and in addition to the Gross Settlement Amount, and no reversion of funds
12 to Defendant.
13 24. Labor Law PC exclusively practices employment law, and is actively litigating several
14 wage and hour class actions pending across the State of California. I have been appointed as Class Counsel
15 and litigated numerous wage and hour class actions involving claims such as unpaid wages, failure to
16 provide accurate wage statements, misclassification, waiting time penalties, and unfair competition.
17 Labor Law PC has litigated and successfully resolved many wage and hour class action cases involving
18 failure to pay wages and derivative Labor Code claims and penalties. See, e.g., Keith Ernst, et al. v.
19 ZogSports Holdings LLC, et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-09043-RGK-MRW (class certification granted and
20 wage and hour class settlement approved); Archer v. Jack Nadel Inc., Los Angeles County Superior Court,
21 Case No. 18STCV07761; Troy Richard Whitmark, et al. v. Altman Specialty Plants, Inc., San Diego
22 County Superior Court, Case No. 37-2018-00055889-CU-OE-NC; Antonio Llamas v. Mapfre Insurance
23 & Subsidiaries, et al., Alameda County Superior Court, Case No. RG 18931346.
24 25. Throughout my legal career, I have exclusively practiced employment law with a specific
25 focus on litigating wage and hour class actions. Prior to becoming a partner of Labor Law PC, I
26 exclusively practiced employment law for over nine years at defense firms. From approximately
27 December 2011 to September 2018, I exclusively practiced employment law and defended numerous
28
7
DECL. OF DANNY YADIDSION IN SUPPORT OF UNOPPOSED MTN. FOR
PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
1 class actions at Jackson Lewis PC in Los Angeles. From June 2009 to December 2011, I exclusively
2 practiced employment law and defended numerous class actions at Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith
3 LLP in Los Angeles. I graduated from UCLA School of Law in May 2008. During law school, I also
4 learned about litigating wage and hour class actions while I worked at an employment litigation boutique
5 firm (Gleason & Favarote LLP). I have been responsible for numerous wage and hour class actions
6 throughout the State of California, in both state and federal courts. Throughout my legal career, I have
7 been responsible for all facets of class actions from the initial investigation of the allegations through
8 successful resolution. By way of example, shortly prior to leaving Jackson Lewis PC, I successfully
9 prevailed on a motion for class certification on behalf of my clients in a case heavily litigated for over
10 7.5 years and successfully moved to dismiss a complaint in federal court based on the federal enclave
11 doctrine. (See Compton v. American Management Services, Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case
12 No. BC 448343; Issac Tafoya v. AECOM, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-04113-GW-PLA (C.D. Cal. June
13 15, 2018.)
14 26. I am the founding partner of Labor Law PC. I currently bill at $700.00 an hour. Shelley
15 Mack, another attorney at Labor Law PC, also helped prepared this Motion and Plaintiffs’ Motion for
16 Preliminary Approval. Ms. Mack was admitted to the California State Bar in December 2000, and
17 received her J.D. from Boalt Hall School of Law (U.C. Berkeley) and her B.A. from the University of
18 Redlands. Ms. Mack’s practice has focused primary on plaintiff-side employment litigation for the past
19 seven (7) years. Ms. Mack currently bills at $700.00 per hour.
20 27. My participation in this case was extensive: I was responsible for preparing and revising
21 the pleadings in the Avila matter; preparing for and attending the mediation; preparing for and attending
22 the hearings; conducting legal research and analysis; conducting investigation, including numerous
23 witness interviews; communicating with our client; reviewing and analyzing documents produced by
24 Defendant during informal discovery; meeting and conferring with defense counsel; and negotiating and
25 drafting the Settlement Agreement.
26 28. Labor Law PC has expended considerable time and effort on this case and will continue
27 to do so through final approval of the Settlement.
28
8
DECL. OF DANNY YADIDSION IN SUPPORT OF UNOPPOSED MTN. FOR
PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
1 CLASS COUNSEL’S FEES AND COSTS
2 29. Given the risks inherent in litigation and the defenses asserted by Defendant, I believe that
3 this settlement before the Court for final approval is fair, adequate, and reasonable and in the best interests
4 of class members. Continued litigation would be costly, time consuming, and uncertain in outcome. By
5 contrast, the Settlement ensures timely relief and substantial recovery of the previously unpaid wages that
6 Plaintiffs contend are owed to the Class.
7 30. Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, Class Counsel is requesting attorneys’ fees
8 in the amount of thirty-five percent (35%) of the Gross Settlement Fund (i.e., $560,000). This fee amount
9 is fair, reasonable, and in line with the “benchmark” for a reasonable fee award. Moreover, my work on
10 this matter precluded me and my firm from accepting potentially other lucrative matters.
11 31. Labor Law PC’s hourly rates are comparable to those charged by other class action
12 plaintiff’s counsel and the firms defending class actions. 1
13 32. Class Counsel’s current lodestar reflects 525.25 hours of work resulting in $349,837.50 in
14 fees, excluding the time Counsel will spend at the final approval hearing and helping with Settlement
15 Administration after final approval. This time could have been spent on other potentially lucrative cases.
16 Class Counsel dedicated significant resources to this case by dividing the tasks required according to skill
17 level, and the professional hours generated by each attorney are neither unreasonable nor duplicative.
18 Class Counsel’s lodestar reflects the efficiencies achieved by a law firm experienced in this field. The
19 chart below shows the hours spent by each attorney on categories of work in this case.
20
21 1
Other courts have approved hourly rates in this range for plaintiff’s side law firms in the Southern
22 California area. See, e.g., Kearney v. Hyundai Motor Am., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91636, *24 (C.D. Cal.
June 28, 2013) (approving hourly rates of $650-$800 for senior attorneys in consumer class action);
23 Parkinson v. Hyundai Motor America, 796 F. Supp. 2d 1160, 1172 (C.D. Cal. 2010) (approving hourly
rates between $445 and $675); Faigman v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15825, *2
24 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 15, 2011) (approving hourly rates of $650 an hour for partner services and $500 an hour
for associate attorney services); Richard v. Ameri-Force Mgmt. Servs., Inc., No. 37-2008-00096019 (San
25 Diego Super. Ct., Aug. 27, 2010) ($695 to $750 an hour for partners; $495 an hour for associates);
Barrera v. Gamestop Corp., No. CV 09-1399 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 29, 2010) ($700 an hour for partners;
26 $475 an hour for associates); Anderson v. Nextel Retail Stores, LLC, No. CV 07-4480 (C.D. Cal June 20,
2010) ($655 to $750 an hour for partners; $300 to $515 an hour for associates); Luquetta v. Regents of
27 Cal., CGC-05-443007 (San Francisco Super. Ct.) (approving 2012 partner rates between $550 and $850
per hour); Holloway v. Best Buy Co., C-05-5056-PJH (MEJ) (N.D. Cal.) (approving 2011 partner rates
28 of $700 to $825 an hour, associate rates between $355 and $405 per hour).
9
DECL. OF DANNY YADIDSION IN SUPPORT OF UNOPPOSED MTN. FOR
PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
DYCHTER SPIEWAK YADIDSION HAINES KATRI SANI MACK
1 Meetings and 14.0 0 10.0 1.5 3.2 8.5 0
Correspondence
2 with Client
Meetings and 16.0 6.5 15.0 2.5 2.1 10.5 0
3
Correspondence
4 with Counsel
Investigation and 26.0 7.0 30.0 3.0 1.1 20.5 0
5 Discovery
Pleadings 31.0 1.35 15.0 5.0 0.6 3.5 0
6 Mediation 63.0 57.1 40.0 1.0 0.5 2.5 0
Preparation
7 and
Attendance
8 Settlement and 23.0 9.3 20.0 1.0 1.5 12.5 35.0
Approval
9 Court 6.5 0 0 0 0 1.0 0
Appearances
10 Legal Research 8.0 0 5.0 0 0 4.5 0
11 Total 187.5 81.25 135.0 14.0 9.0 63.5 35.0
Rate $675.00 $650.00 $700.00 $650.00 $650.00 $575.00 $700.00
12 FEE $126,562.50 $52,812.50 $94,500.00 $9,100.00 $5,850.00 $36,512.50 $24,500.00
13 33. Class Counsel bore the entire risk of recovery. Class Counsel took this case on a pure
14 contingency basis, with no guarantee of any payment. Before mediation, Class Counsel spent significant
15 time on discovery, resolving discovery disputes and preparing for mediation despite the risk of recovering
16 nothing. Had the litigation continued, Defendant would undoubtedly have mounted an aggressive
17 defense at the certification stage and at the merits stage. A defeat at either one of these stages could have
18 foreclosed the possibility of Class Counsel recovering any remuneration for their time and effort. Given
19 the extensive discovery and exhaustive negotiations in this case, Class Counsel have achieved a large
20 settlement through efficient and diligent work.
21 COSTS OF LITIGATION
22 34. To date, my firm has incurred and expects to incur $5,204.66 in litigation costs in
23 connection with this case, as detailed in the chart below:
24 ///
25 ///
26 ///
27
28
10
DECL. OF DANNY YADIDSION IN SUPPORT OF UNOPPOSED MTN. FOR
PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
1
2 Labor Law PC Litigation Costs Summary
3 Exhibit Containing
4 Detail of Charge Itemized Invoice(s) Amount
5 Judicate West mediation fees (Labor
Exhibit C $2,200.00
Law PC’s share of 1/2 plaintiffs’
6 mediation fees)
7 Exhibit D $1,387.50
Berger Consulting (damages analysis)
8 Exhibit E $188.00
CourtCall
9 Exhibit F $65.40
Kern County Superior Court
10 Exhibit G $75.00
LWDA
11 Exhibit H $1,288.76
Nationwide Legal
12
TOTAL $5,204.66
13
14
For each cost, the itemized invoice for each charge is attached herein as Exhibits C through H, inclusively.
15
All of these costs were both reasonable and necessary for the successful prosecution of this case.
16
35. A true and correct copy of the Joint Stipulation and Settlement Agreement is attached
17
hereto as Exhibit A.
18
36. A true and correct copy of this Court’s November 18, 2021 Order Granting Unopposed
19
Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
20
37. True and correct copies of Labor Law PC’s invoices for payments to Judicate West in
21
connection with this action are attached hereto as Exhibit C.
22
38. True and correct copies of Labor Law PC’s invoices for payments to Berger Consulting
23
in connection with this action are attached hereto as Exhibit D.
24
39. True and correct copies of Labor Law PC’s invoices for payments to CourtCall in
25
connection with this action are attached hereto as Exhibit E.
26
40. True and correct copies of Labor Law PC’s invoices for payments to the Kern County
27
Superior Court in connection with this action are attached hereto as Exhibit F.
28
11
DECL. OF DANNY YADIDSION IN SUPPORT OF UNOPPOSED MTN. FOR
PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
1 41. True and correct copies of Labor Law PC’s invoices for payments to the LWDA in
2 connection with this action are attached hereto as Exhibit G.
3 42. True and correct copies of Labor Law PC’s invoices for payments to Nationwide Legal in
4 connection with this action are attached hereto as Exhibit H.
5
6 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is
7 true and correct. Executed this 1st day of February, 2022, at Santa Monica, California.
8
9
10
11 Danny Yadidsion
Attorney for Plaintiff ARTURO AVILA,
12 individually, and on behalf of the putative class
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
12
DECL. OF DANNY YADIDSION IN SUPPORT OF UNOPPOSED MTN. FOR
PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
EXHIBIT A
1 Alexander I. Dychter (SBN 234526)
S. Adam Spiewak (SBN 230872)
2 DYCHTER LAW OFFICES, APC
180 Broadway, Suite 1835
3 San Diego, California 92101
Telephone: (619) 487-0777
4 Facsimile: (619) 330-1827
E-Mail: alex@dychterlaw.com
5 adam@dychterlaw.com
6 Raphael A. Katri (SBN 221941)
LAW OFFICES OF RAPHAEL A. KATRI
7 8549 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 200
Beverly Hills, California 90211
8 Telephone: (310) 940-2034
Facsimile: (310) 733-5644
9 E-Mail: RKatri@SoCalLaborLawyers.com
10 Attorneys for Plaintiff Marie Barraza Vae
[Counsel for Plaintiff Avila & Ojeda on the following page]
11
Shane K. Anderies (SBN 215415)
12 ANDERIES & GOMES LLP
505 Montgomery Street, Floor 11
13 San Francisco, California 94111
Telephone: (415) 217-8802 / Facsimile: (415) 217-8803
14 E-Mail: sanderies@andgolaw.com
15 Attorneys for Defendant MOGA Transport, Inc.
16
17 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
18 COUNTY OF KERN
19 Marie Barraza Vae an individual, on behalf of Lead Case No. BCV-20-103017 BCB
herself and on behalf of all persons similarly Consolidated Case No. BCV-21-100056 BCB
20 situated,
CLASS ACTION
21
Plaintiff, Assigned for all Purposes to the Honorable
22 Bernard C. Barmann, Jr. (Dept. 10)
23
v. JOINT STIPULATION AND
24 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
25 Vae Complaint Filed: December 29, 2020
MOGA TRANSPORT, INC., a California Vae FAC Filed: March 5, 2021
26 Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,
Avila Complaint Filed: January 11, 2021
27
Defendants. Ojeda Complaint Filed: April 28, 2021
28 Ojeda FAC Filed: July 6, 2021
-1-
1 Danny Yadidsion (SBN 260282)
LABOR LAW PC
2 100 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 700
Santa Monica, California 90401
3 Telephone: (310) 494-6082
E-Mail: Danny@LaborLawPC.com
4
Attorneys for Plaintiff Arturo Avila
5
Paul K. Haines (SBN 248226)
6 HAINES LAW GROUP, APC
2155 Campus Drive, Suite 180
7 El Segundo, California 90245
Telephone: (424) 292-2350
8 Facsimile: (424) 292-2355
E-Mail: phaines@haineslawgroup.com
9
Sam Sani (SBN 273993)
10 SANI LAW, APC
15720 Ventura Blvd., Suite 405
11 Encino, California 91436
Telephone: (310) 935-0405
12 Facsimile: (310) 935-0509
E-Mail: ssani@sanilawfirm.com
13
Attorneys for Plaintiff Daniel Ojeda
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-
1 JOINT STIPULATION AND SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
2 Subject to its terms and conditions and the approval of the Court, this Joint Stipulation and
3 Settlement Agreement (hereinafter the “Settlement Agreement” or “Agreement”) is made and
4 entered into by and among Plaintiffs Marie Barraza Vae, Arturo Avila, and Daniel Ojeda
5 (hereinafter the “Plaintiffs”), individually and on behalf of the Settlement Class, as defined herein,
6 and Defendant MOGA TRANSPORT, INC. (hereinafter the “Defendant” or “MOGA”). Plaintiffs
7 and Defendant are jointly referred to in this Settlement Agreement as the “Parties,” and each of
8 them as a “Party.”
9 1. DEFINITIONS
10 1.1 The term “Agreement” means this Settlement Agreement.
11 1.2 The term “Attorneys’ Fees and Costs” means the amount of attorneys’ fees and costs and
12 expenses to be requested by Class Counsel, subject to Court approval, in accordance with
13 Subsection 4.4 of this Agreement.
14 1.3 The term “Claimant” and “Settlement Class Member” means any Class Member who does
15 not opt-out of the Settlement.
16 1.4 The term “Claims Administrator” means Atticus Administration (hereinafter “Atticus”),
17 the entity agreed to by the Parties, subject to Court approval, which will perform the duties
18 of, among other things: (i) translating the Notice into Spanish; (ii) mailing the Notice in
19 English and Spanish to Class Members; (iii) performing an NCOA search and skip-tracing;
20 (iv) tracking and addressing Opt-Out Letters, Objections, and gross wages received
21 disputes/LC 203 subclass eligibility; (v) notifying the Parties regarding submitted Opt-Out
22 Letters, Objections, and gross wages received disputes/LC 203 subclass eligibility disputes
Preview
1 Danny Yadidsion (SBN 260282) LABOR LAW PC 2 100 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 700 Santa Monica, California 90401 3 Telephone: (310) 494-6082 Facsimile: (877) 775-2267 4 danny@laborlawpc.com 5 Attorney for Plaintiff ARTURO AVILA, individually and on behalf of the putative class 6 7 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 8 FOR THE COUNTY OF KERN 9 10 MARIE BARRAZA VAE, individually and on Lead Case No. BCV-20-103017 BCB 11 behalf of the putative class, Consolidated Case No. BCV-21-100056 BCB 12 Assigned for all Purposes to the Honorable Plaintiff, Bernard C. Barmann, Jr. (Dept. H) 13 v. CLASS ACTION 14 DECLARATION OF DANNY YADIDSION 15 MOGA TRANSPORT, INC., a California IN SUPPORT OF UNOPPOSED MOTION Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS 16 Defendants. ACTION SETTLEMENT 17 Vae Complaint Filed: December 29, 2020 18 Vae FAC Filed: March 5, 2021 19 Avila Complaint Filed: January 11, 2021 20 Ojeda Complaint Filed: April 28, 2021 21 Ojeda FAC Filed: July 6, 2021 22 Date: February 25, 2022 Time: 8:30 a.m. 23 Dept.: Division H 24 [filed concurrently with Notice of Motion and Motion, Memorandum of Points and Authorities, 25 Decl. of Paul K. Haines, Decl. of Sam Sani, Decl. of Alexander I. Dychter, Decl. of Raphael Katri, 26 Decl. of Bryn Bridley, Decl. of Marie Barraza Vae, Decl. of Arturo Avila, Decl. of Daniel Ojeda, 27 and [Proposed] Order] 28 DECL. OF DANNY YADIDSION IN SUPPORT OF UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT 1 DECLARATION OF DANNY YADIDSION 2 I, Danny Yadidsion, declare as follows: 3 1. I am an attorney at law, duly licensed and admitted to practice before all courts of the State 4 of California. I am a shareholder of the law firm of Labor Law PC and counsel of record for Plaintiff 5 Arturo Avila (“Avila”) on behalf of similarly situated employees of Defendant MOGA Transport, Inc. 6 (“Defendant”). I and my firm are referred to herein as Class Counsel. I have personal knowledge of the 7 facts herein and if called as a witness, I could and would competently testify. 8 2. All of the matters set forth herein are within my personal knowledge, except those matters 9 that are stated upon information and belief. As to such matters, I believe them to be true. I have 10 represented Plaintiff and the putative Class since its inception. I submit this Declaration in support of the 11 Motion for Final Approval, filed by Plaintiffs Marie Barraza Vae (“Vae”), Avila, and Daniel Ojeda 12 (“Ojeda) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated employees of 13 Defendant, and without opposition from Defendant, for final approval of the parties’ Joint Stipulation and 14 Settlement Agreement (“Settlement Agreement”) a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as 15 Exhibit A. 16 HISTORY OF THE LITIGATION 17 3. On December 29, 2020, Plaintiff Vae notified the LWDA of her claims as part of her 18 obligations under the California Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, codified at Labor Code Section 19 2698 et seq. (“PAGA”). Plaintiff Avila and Plaintiff Ojeda notified the LWDA of their claims on January 20 11, 2021 and April 29, 2021 respectively. The LWDA did not respond to any of the Plaintiffs’ notices. 21 4. On December 29, 2020, Plaintiff Vae filed a complaint in the Superior Court of the State 22 of California, County of Kern, styled as Vae v. MOGA Transport, Inc., et al., Case No. BCV-20-103017 23 DRL, asserting claims against Defendant for (1) failure to pay all minimum wages; (2) failure to pay 24 separately and hourly for time spent on rest periods and other non-productive time; (3) failure to provide 25 accurate wage statements; (4) failure to pay all wages owed upon separation of employment; and (5) unfair 26 and unlawful business practices. On March 5, 2021, Plaintiff Vae filed a First Amended Complaint 27 (“FAC”), adding a cause of action under the California Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”). 28 2 DECL. OF DANNY YADIDSION IN SUPPORT OF UNOPPOSED MTN. FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT 1 5. On January 11, 2021, Plaintiff Avila filed a complaint in the Superior Court of the State of 2 California, County of Kern, styled as Avila v. MOGA Transport, Inc., et al., Case No. BCV-21-100056 3 DRL, asserting claims against Defendant for (1) failure to provide required meal periods; (2) failure to 4 provide required rest periods; (3) failure to pay overtime wages; (4) failure to pay minimum wages; (5) 5 failure to pay all wages during employment; (6) failure to pay wages due to discharged and quitting 6 employees; (7) failure to maintain required records; (8) failure to furnish accurate, itemized wage 7 statements; and (9) unfair and unlawful business practices. 8 6. On or about June 1, 2021, pursuant to a Joint Stipulation between the parties, the Avila 9 action was consolidated with the Vae action and the consolidated action was re-assigned to this 10 Department. On June 28, 2021, at the parties’ initial case management conference, the Court designated 11 this matter as “complex.” 12 7. On April 28, 2021, Plaintiff Daniel Ojeda filed a complaint in the Superior Court of the 13 State of California, County of San Bernardino, styled as Ojeda v. MOGA Transport, Inc., et al., Case No. 14 CIVSB2111590, asserting claims against Defendant for (1) failure to pay minimum wages for all time 15 worked; (2) failure to provide required rest periods; (3) failure to provide accurate wage statements; (4) 16 failure to pay all wages owed upon termination of employment; and (5) unfair and unlawful business 17 practices. On July 6, 2021, Plaintiff Ojeda filed a First Amended Complaint, adding a PAGA cause of 18 action. 19 8. On October 7, 2021, Defendant filed a joint stipulation with Plaintiff Ojeda in the County 20 of San Bernardino to stay the Ojeda action pending preliminary approval of the settlement in this matter. 21 On October 20, 2021, the Parties filed a stipulation for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint to add 22 Daniel Ojeda as a Named Plaintiff in the Vae/Avila consolidated action pending before this Court. 23 9. After engaging in numerous discussions, the Parties agreed to attend a private mediation 24 session and exchange informal discovery. Prior to mediation, Defendant produced considerable relevant 25 data, including several thousand pages of payroll records and payroll journals, driver log sheets, Plaintiff’s 26 employment files and daily time records, weekly time and pay sheets, relevant policy and procedure 27 documents, employment handbooks, employment start and end dates for Defendant’s truck drivers who 28 3 DECL. OF DANNY YADIDSION IN SUPPORT OF UNOPPOSED MTN. FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT 1 worked during the class period, and other information for purposes of preparing damages calculations. 2 Plaintiffs’ expert formulated a damages analysis based on the records provided by Defendant. 3 10. Following a thorough analysis of this information, the Parties attended mediation on 4 September 3, 2021 with the Hon. Joan Lewis (Ret.) of Judicate West serving as mediator. After a full day 5 of arm-length negotiations and bargaining, the Parties reached an agreement and executed a Memorandum 6 of Understanding with the material terms to which the Parties had agreed. The Memorandum of 7 Understanding provided the framework used to draft the Settlement Agreement thereafter. The Parties 8 spent the better part of the next two (2) months negotiating the terms of the Settlement Agreement, which 9 they eventually finalized on October 26, 2021 and the Court preliminarily approved on November 18, 10 2021. 11 EXPOSURE ANALYSIS 12 11. While Plaintiffs believed and continue to believe this is a strong case for certification, the 13 significant risks and expenses associated with class certification and liability proceedings must be taken 14 into account. Although the amount of the Class’ maximum potential damages—if proven—is substantial, 15 the legitimate and serious risks above compelled a considerable discount for settlement. 16 12. Here, Plaintiffs contend that their claims are based on Defendant’s common, class-wide 17 policies and procedures, and that liability could be determined on a class-wide basis without dependence 18 on individual assessments of liability. Plaintiffs’ Counsel calculated Defendant’s total potential exposure 19 assuming Plaintiffs prevailed on all aspects of their claims at trial, but weighed that value against the 20 chance of succeeding at class certification and trial. 21 13. Plaintiffs alleged that Defendant failed to pay them and other Class Members a legal 22 minimum wage and overtime premium wages, as applicable, for all hours worked, and failed to provide 23 them with separate hourly payment for rest and recovery periods and other non-productive working time. 24 Plaintiffs’ unpaid wage and rest and recovery period claims were premised on the theory that Defendant 25 failed to pay Class Members a legal minimum wage and applicable overtime wages for all hours worked 26 due to Defendant’s alleged practice of refusing to compensate Class Members for rest and recovery 27 periods and for non-productive working time during their daily shifts. As a result of this unlawful policy 28 4 DECL. OF DANNY YADIDSION IN SUPPORT OF UNOPPOSED MTN. FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT 1 and practice, Plaintiffs and other Class Members were underpaid for some hours, not paid any wages 2 whatsoever for other hours, and not paid all overtime wages due and owed to them pursuant to California 3 law. 4 14. Plaintiffs estimated that the maximum potential value of their unpaid minimum and 5 overtime wage, rest and recovery time and other non-productive working time claims at approximately 6 $2,355,000, exclusive of interest. The maximum potential value was heavily discounted, however, since 7 proving the claim would have relied on potentially competing testimony from Class Members as to the 8 number of hours they worked because Defendant did not track the hours Class Members worked. 9 15. Plaintiffs’ meal and rest period claims were potentially worth approximately $3,085,000 10 combined. Similar to the unpaid wage claims, Plaintiffs heavily discounted the value of these claims 11 because Class Members did not track the time they worked or whether they took meal or rest breaks. 12 Proving the claims would have relied primarily on testimony from Class Members. 13 16. Plaintiffs’ claims for unreimbursed business expenses were potentially worth 14 approximately $132,815.00. As with their other wage and hour claims, Plaintiffs heavily discounted the 15 value of these claims because establishing these expenses would have relied primarily on testimony from 16 Class Members. 17 17. Plaintiffs’ Counsel considered the arguable presence of various penalties, and weighed the 18 potential recoveries against probable defenses. Plaintiffs calculated wage statement penalties assuming a 19 derivative violation in every pay period. Using the start and end dates of employment and capping the 20 penalties at the $4,000 per person maximum, Plaintiffs calculated a maximum of $327,600 in wage 21 statement penalties assuming a violation in every single pay period. Defendant could argue that Plaintiffs 22 could not show that Class Members suffered an “injury” as a result of wage statement violations as 23 required by Labor Code Section 226. 24 18. For waiting time penalties, based on the documents and data produced by Defendant, 25 Plaintiffs’ expert calculated $1,415,100 in waiting time penalties. However, Defendant could argue that 26 Plaintiffs could not prove the “willful” prong needed to obtain waiting time penalties under Labor Code 27 Section 203. Further, Plaintiffs would not recover any derivative penalties if they failed to prove the 28 5 DECL. OF DANNY YADIDSION IN SUPPORT OF UNOPPOSED MTN. FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT 1 underlying claims. Moreover, Plaintiffs would have to overcome damaging precedent to prove the 2 Class deserved the penalties. See, e.g., Howard v. CVS Caremark Corp., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 172406 3 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 9, 2014) (denying class certification for waiting time penalty claim); Alonzo v. Maximus, 4 Inc., 832 F. Supp. 2d 1122, 1134-1137 (C.D. Cal. 2011) (finding insufficient evidence of bad faith or 5 actual injury). 6 19. The PAGA claim presented even higher hurdles despite a potentially high value of civil 7 penalties. Plaintiffs calculated Defendant’s potential exposure for PAGA civil penalties at approximately 8 $5,526,000, but Defendant could argue that subsequent violations under PAGA only start to accrue after 9 employers receive notice through a citation from the Labor Commissioner. The PAGA claims could also 10 have been deemed unmanageable. Furthermore, the Court would have discretion to reduce the PAGA 11 award based on whether the amount of the award would be “unjust, arbitrary and oppressive, or 12 confiscatory.” Cal. Lab. Code § 2699(e)(2). In theory, the Court could reduce the award by 99%. Based 13 on the foregoing, Plaintiffs could not place a high value on the PAGA penalties. Thus, the Settlement 14 Agreement allocated $80,000 for distribution to the LWDA and Class Members for the settlement of the 15 PAGA civil penalty claims. 16 20. Class Counsel thoroughly investigated the proposed Class Members’ claims, applicable 17 law, and potential defenses. In particular, Class Counsel assessed the value of the class claims using 18 Defendant’s data and documents produced through informal discovery, including several thousand pages 19 of payroll records and payroll journals, driver log sheets, Plaintiff’s employment files and daily time 20 records, weekly time and pay sheets, relevant policy and procedure documents, employment handbooks, 21 employment start and end dates for Defendant’s truck drivers who worked during the class period, and 22 other information for purposes of preparing damages calculations. 23 21. The 225 Participating Class Members will receive the benefits of the entire Net Settlement 24 Fund of $910,667.88; no funds will revert to Defendant. Although Class Counsel were optimistic about 25 the chances of certifying the putative Class and prevailing at trial, they recognized continued litigation 26 carried significant risks that could have prevented the Class from obtaining any recovery; the present 27 28 6 DECL. OF DANNY YADIDSION IN SUPPORT OF UNOPPOSED MTN. FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT 1 settlement terms, however, are certain and meaningful, and the efforts of Class Counsel should be 2 recognized. 3 22. Plaintiffs have provided notice to the LWDA of the Settlement as required by statute, and 4 the LWDA has not objected to or commented on the proposed Settlement Agreement or allocation of the 5 PAGA penalties. 6 COUNSEL’S QUALIFICATIONS 7 23. Class Counsel negotiated a settlement that we consider fair, adequate and reasonable, based 8 on our prior experience litigating these types of cases. The favorable terms include relieving Class 9 Members of the burden of filing claims to participate in the Settlement, convincing Defendant to pay the 10 employer-side taxes (including employer’s portion of FICA, FUTA, SUTA, and all other applicable 11 payroll taxes) separately from and in addition to the Gross Settlement Amount, and no reversion of funds 12 to Defendant. 13 24. Labor Law PC exclusively practices employment law, and is actively litigating several 14 wage and hour class actions pending across the State of California. I have been appointed as Class Counsel 15 and litigated numerous wage and hour class actions involving claims such as unpaid wages, failure to 16 provide accurate wage statements, misclassification, waiting time penalties, and unfair competition. 17 Labor Law PC has litigated and successfully resolved many wage and hour class action cases involving 18 failure to pay wages and derivative Labor Code claims and penalties. See, e.g., Keith Ernst, et al. v. 19 ZogSports Holdings LLC, et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-09043-RGK-MRW (class certification granted and 20 wage and hour class settlement approved); Archer v. Jack Nadel Inc., Los Angeles County Superior Court, 21 Case No. 18STCV07761; Troy Richard Whitmark, et al. v. Altman Specialty Plants, Inc., San Diego 22 County Superior Court, Case No. 37-2018-00055889-CU-OE-NC; Antonio Llamas v. Mapfre Insurance 23 & Subsidiaries, et al., Alameda County Superior Court, Case No. RG 18931346. 24 25. Throughout my legal career, I have exclusively practiced employment law with a specific 25 focus on litigating wage and hour class actions. Prior to becoming a partner of Labor Law PC, I 26 exclusively practiced employment law for over nine years at defense firms. From approximately 27 December 2011 to September 2018, I exclusively practiced employment law and defended numerous 28 7 DECL. OF DANNY YADIDSION IN SUPPORT OF UNOPPOSED MTN. FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT 1 class actions at Jackson Lewis PC in Los Angeles. From June 2009 to December 2011, I exclusively 2 practiced employment law and defended numerous class actions at Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith 3 LLP in Los Angeles. I graduated from UCLA School of Law in May 2008. During law school, I also 4 learned about litigating wage and hour class actions while I worked at an employment litigation boutique 5 firm (Gleason & Favarote LLP). I have been responsible for numerous wage and hour class actions 6 throughout the State of California, in both state and federal courts. Throughout my legal career, I have 7 been responsible for all facets of class actions from the initial investigation of the allegations through 8 successful resolution. By way of example, shortly prior to leaving Jackson Lewis PC, I successfully 9 prevailed on a motion for class certification on behalf of my clients in a case heavily litigated for over 10 7.5 years and successfully moved to dismiss a complaint in federal court based on the federal enclave 11 doctrine. (See Compton v. American Management Services, Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case 12 No. BC 448343; Issac Tafoya v. AECOM, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-04113-GW-PLA (C.D. Cal. June 13 15, 2018.) 14 26. I am the founding partner of Labor Law PC. I currently bill at $700.00 an hour. Shelley 15 Mack, another attorney at Labor Law PC, also helped prepared this Motion and Plaintiffs’ Motion for 16 Preliminary Approval. Ms. Mack was admitted to the California State Bar in December 2000, and 17 received her J.D. from Boalt Hall School of Law (U.C. Berkeley) and her B.A. from the University of 18 Redlands. Ms. Mack’s practice has focused primary on plaintiff-side employment litigation for the past 19 seven (7) years. Ms. Mack currently bills at $700.00 per hour. 20 27. My participation in this case was extensive: I was responsible for preparing and revising 21 the pleadings in the Avila matter; preparing for and attending the mediation; preparing for and attending 22 the hearings; conducting legal research and analysis; conducting investigation, including numerous 23 witness interviews; communicating with our client; reviewing and analyzing documents produced by 24 Defendant during informal discovery; meeting and conferring with defense counsel; and negotiating and 25 drafting the Settlement Agreement. 26 28. Labor Law PC has expended considerable time and effort on this case and will continue 27 to do so through final approval of the Settlement. 28 8 DECL. OF DANNY YADIDSION IN SUPPORT OF UNOPPOSED MTN. FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT 1 CLASS COUNSEL’S FEES AND COSTS 2 29. Given the risks inherent in litigation and the defenses asserted by Defendant, I believe that 3 this settlement before the Court for final approval is fair, adequate, and reasonable and in the best interests 4 of class members. Continued litigation would be costly, time consuming, and uncertain in outcome. By 5 contrast, the Settlement ensures timely relief and substantial recovery of the previously unpaid wages that 6 Plaintiffs contend are owed to the Class. 7 30. Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, Class Counsel is requesting attorneys’ fees 8 in the amount of thirty-five percent (35%) of the Gross Settlement Fund (i.e., $560,000). This fee amount 9 is fair, reasonable, and in line with the “benchmark” for a reasonable fee award. Moreover, my work on 10 this matter precluded me and my firm from accepting potentially other lucrative matters. 11 31. Labor Law PC’s hourly rates are comparable to those charged by other class action 12 plaintiff’s counsel and the firms defending class actions. 1 13 32. Class Counsel’s current lodestar reflects 525.25 hours of work resulting in $349,837.50 in 14 fees, excluding the time Counsel will spend at the final approval hearing and helping with Settlement 15 Administration after final approval. This time could have been spent on other potentially lucrative cases. 16 Class Counsel dedicated significant resources to this case by dividing the tasks required according to skill 17 level, and the professional hours generated by each attorney are neither unreasonable nor duplicative. 18 Class Counsel’s lodestar reflects the efficiencies achieved by a law firm experienced in this field. The 19 chart below shows the hours spent by each attorney on categories of work in this case. 20 21 1 Other courts have approved hourly rates in this range for plaintiff’s side law firms in the Southern 22 California area. See, e.g., Kearney v. Hyundai Motor Am., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91636, *24 (C.D. Cal. June 28, 2013) (approving hourly rates of $650-$800 for senior attorneys in consumer class action); 23 Parkinson v. Hyundai Motor America, 796 F. Supp. 2d 1160, 1172 (C.D. Cal. 2010) (approving hourly rates between $445 and $675); Faigman v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15825, *2 24 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 15, 2011) (approving hourly rates of $650 an hour for partner services and $500 an hour for associate attorney services); Richard v. Ameri-Force Mgmt. Servs., Inc., No. 37-2008-00096019 (San 25 Diego Super. Ct., Aug. 27, 2010) ($695 to $750 an hour for partners; $495 an hour for associates); Barrera v. Gamestop Corp., No. CV 09-1399 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 29, 2010) ($700 an hour for partners; 26 $475 an hour for associates); Anderson v. Nextel Retail Stores, LLC, No. CV 07-4480 (C.D. Cal June 20, 2010) ($655 to $750 an hour for partners; $300 to $515 an hour for associates); Luquetta v. Regents of 27 Cal., CGC-05-443007 (San Francisco Super. Ct.) (approving 2012 partner rates between $550 and $850 per hour); Holloway v. Best Buy Co., C-05-5056-PJH (MEJ) (N.D. Cal.) (approving 2011 partner rates 28 of $700 to $825 an hour, associate rates between $355 and $405 per hour). 9 DECL. OF DANNY YADIDSION IN SUPPORT OF UNOPPOSED MTN. FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT DYCHTER SPIEWAK YADIDSION HAINES KATRI SANI MACK 1 Meetings and 14.0 0 10.0 1.5 3.2 8.5 0 Correspondence 2 with Client Meetings and 16.0 6.5 15.0 2.5 2.1 10.5 0 3 Correspondence 4 with Counsel Investigation and 26.0 7.0 30.0 3.0 1.1 20.5 0 5 Discovery Pleadings 31.0 1.35 15.0 5.0 0.6 3.5 0 6 Mediation 63.0 57.1 40.0 1.0 0.5 2.5 0 Preparation 7 and Attendance 8 Settlement and 23.0 9.3 20.0 1.0 1.5 12.5 35.0 Approval 9 Court 6.5 0 0 0 0 1.0 0 Appearances 10 Legal Research 8.0 0 5.0 0 0 4.5 0 11 Total 187.5 81.25 135.0 14.0 9.0 63.5 35.0 Rate $675.00 $650.00 $700.00 $650.00 $650.00 $575.00 $700.00 12 FEE $126,562.50 $52,812.50 $94,500.00 $9,100.00 $5,850.00 $36,512.50 $24,500.00 13 33. Class Counsel bore the entire risk of recovery. Class Counsel took this case on a pure 14 contingency basis, with no guarantee of any payment. Before mediation, Class Counsel spent significant 15 time on discovery, resolving discovery disputes and preparing for mediation despite the risk of recovering 16 nothing. Had the litigation continued, Defendant would undoubtedly have mounted an aggressive 17 defense at the certification stage and at the merits stage. A defeat at either one of these stages could have 18 foreclosed the possibility of Class Counsel recovering any remuneration for their time and effort. Given 19 the extensive discovery and exhaustive negotiations in this case, Class Counsel have achieved a large 20 settlement through efficient and diligent work. 21 COSTS OF LITIGATION 22 34. To date, my firm has incurred and expects to incur $5,204.66 in litigation costs in 23 connection with this case, as detailed in the chart below: 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 28 10 DECL. OF DANNY YADIDSION IN SUPPORT OF UNOPPOSED MTN. FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT 1 2 Labor Law PC Litigation Costs Summary 3 Exhibit Containing 4 Detail of Charge Itemized Invoice(s) Amount 5 Judicate West mediation fees (Labor Exhibit C $2,200.00 Law PC’s share of 1/2 plaintiffs’ 6 mediation fees) 7 Exhibit D $1,387.50 Berger Consulting (damages analysis) 8 Exhibit E $188.00 CourtCall 9 Exhibit F $65.40 Kern County Superior Court 10 Exhibit G $75.00 LWDA 11 Exhibit H $1,288.76 Nationwide Legal 12 TOTAL $5,204.66 13 14 For each cost, the itemized invoice for each charge is attached herein as Exhibits C through H, inclusively. 15 All of these costs were both reasonable and necessary for the successful prosecution of this case. 16 35. A true and correct copy of the Joint Stipulation and Settlement Agreement is attached 17 hereto as Exhibit A. 18 36. A true and correct copy of this Court’s November 18, 2021 Order Granting Unopposed 19 Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement is attached hereto as Exhibit B. 20 37. True and correct copies of Labor Law PC’s invoices for payments to Judicate West in 21 connection with this action are attached hereto as Exhibit C. 22 38. True and correct copies of Labor Law PC’s invoices for payments to Berger Consulting 23 in connection with this action are attached hereto as Exhibit D. 24 39. True and correct copies of Labor Law PC’s invoices for payments to CourtCall in 25 connection with this action are attached hereto as Exhibit E. 26 40. True and correct copies of Labor Law PC’s invoices for payments to the Kern County 27 Superior Court in connection with this action are attached hereto as Exhibit F. 28 11 DECL. OF DANNY YADIDSION IN SUPPORT OF UNOPPOSED MTN. FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT 1 41. True and correct copies of Labor Law PC’s invoices for payments to the LWDA in 2 connection with this action are attached hereto as Exhibit G. 3 42. True and correct copies of Labor Law PC’s invoices for payments to Nationwide Legal in 4 connection with this action are attached hereto as Exhibit H. 5 6 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is 7 true and correct. Executed this 1st day of February, 2022, at Santa Monica, California. 8 9 10 11 Danny Yadidsion Attorney for Plaintiff ARTURO AVILA, 12 individually, and on behalf of the putative class 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 12 DECL. OF DANNY YADIDSION IN SUPPORT OF UNOPPOSED MTN. FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT EXHIBIT A 1 Alexander I. Dychter (SBN 234526) S. Adam Spiewak (SBN 230872) 2 DYCHTER LAW OFFICES, APC 180 Broadway, Suite 1835 3 San Diego, California 92101 Telephone: (619) 487-0777 4 Facsimile: (619) 330-1827 E-Mail: alex@dychterlaw.com 5 adam@dychterlaw.com 6 Raphael A. Katri (SBN 221941) LAW OFFICES OF RAPHAEL A. KATRI 7 8549 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 200 Beverly Hills, California 90211 8 Telephone: (310) 940-2034 Facsimile: (310) 733-5644 9 E-Mail: RKatri@SoCalLaborLawyers.com 10 Attorneys for Plaintiff Marie Barraza Vae [Counsel for Plaintiff Avila & Ojeda on the following page] 11 Shane K. Anderies (SBN 215415) 12 ANDERIES & GOMES LLP 505 Montgomery Street, Floor 11 13 San Francisco, California 94111 Telephone: (415) 217-8802 / Facsimile: (415) 217-8803 14 E-Mail: sanderies@andgolaw.com 15 Attorneys for Defendant MOGA Transport, Inc. 16 17 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 18 COUNTY OF KERN 19 Marie Barraza Vae an individual, on behalf of Lead Case No. BCV-20-103017 BCB herself and on behalf of all persons similarly Consolidated Case No. BCV-21-100056 BCB 20 situated, CLASS ACTION 21 Plaintiff, Assigned for all Purposes to the Honorable 22 Bernard C. Barmann, Jr. (Dept. 10) 23 v. JOINT STIPULATION AND 24 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT 25 Vae Complaint Filed: December 29, 2020 MOGA TRANSPORT, INC., a California Vae FAC Filed: March 5, 2021 26 Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Avila Complaint Filed: January 11, 2021 27 Defendants. Ojeda Complaint Filed: April 28, 2021 28 Ojeda FAC Filed: July 6, 2021 -1- 1 Danny Yadidsion (SBN 260282) LABOR LAW PC 2 100 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 700 Santa Monica, California 90401 3 Telephone: (310) 494-6082 E-Mail: Danny@LaborLawPC.com 4 Attorneys for Plaintiff Arturo Avila 5 Paul K. Haines (SBN 248226) 6 HAINES LAW GROUP, APC 2155 Campus Drive, Suite 180 7 El Segundo, California 90245 Telephone: (424) 292-2350 8 Facsimile: (424) 292-2355 E-Mail: phaines@haineslawgroup.com 9 Sam Sani (SBN 273993) 10 SANI LAW, APC 15720 Ventura Blvd., Suite 405 11 Encino, California 91436 Telephone: (310) 935-0405 12 Facsimile: (310) 935-0509 E-Mail: ssani@sanilawfirm.com 13 Attorneys for Plaintiff Daniel Ojeda 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -2- 1 JOINT STIPULATION AND SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT 2 Subject to its terms and conditions and the approval of the Court, this Joint Stipulation and 3 Settlement Agreement (hereinafter the “Settlement Agreement” or “Agreement”) is made and 4 entered into by and among Plaintiffs Marie Barraza Vae, Arturo Avila, and Daniel Ojeda 5 (hereinafter the “Plaintiffs”), individually and on behalf of the Settlement Class, as defined herein, 6 and Defendant MOGA TRANSPORT, INC. (hereinafter the “Defendant” or “MOGA”). Plaintiffs 7 and Defendant are jointly referred to in this Settlement Agreement as the “Parties,” and each of 8 them as a “Party.” 9 1. DEFINITIONS 10 1.1 The term “Agreement” means this Settlement Agreement. 11 1.2 The term “Attorneys’ Fees and Costs” means the amount of attorneys’ fees and costs and 12 expenses to be requested by Class Counsel, subject to Court approval, in accordance with 13 Subsection 4.4 of this Agreement. 14 1.3 The term “Claimant” and “Settlement Class Member” means any Class Member who does 15 not opt-out of the Settlement. 16 1.4 The term “Claims Administrator” means Atticus Administration (hereinafter “Atticus”), 17 the entity agreed to by the Parties, subject to Court approval, which will perform the duties 18 of, among other things: (i) translating the Notice into Spanish; (ii) mailing the Notice in 19 English and Spanish to Class Members; (iii) performing an NCOA search and skip-tracing; 20 (iv) tracking and addressing Opt-Out Letters, Objections, and gross wages received 21 disputes/LC 203 subclass eligibility; (v) notifying the Parties regarding submitted Opt-Out 22 Letters, Objections, and gross wages received disputes/LC 203 subclass eligibility disputes