MATERN LAW GROUP, PC - Port Logistics Group Settlement · 2017. 6. 28. · BRANDON J. SWEENEY (SBN...
Transcript of MATERN LAW GROUP, PC - Port Logistics Group Settlement · 2017. 6. 28. · BRANDON J. SWEENEY (SBN...
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
ll
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
MATERN LAW GROUP, PC'MATTHEW J. MATERN (SBN 159798)MATTHEW W. CORDON (SBN 26797 I)1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200Manhattan Beach, Califomia 90266Telephone: (310) 531-1900Facsimile: (310) 531-1901Attomeys for Plaintiff, MARGARITA GONZALEZ,aflc/a ANA HERNANDEZ, individually and onbehalf of all others similarly situated
WILSON TRIAL GROUPDENNIS P. WILSON (SBN 133288)3322 W. Victory BoulevardBurbank, Califomia 91505Telephone: (818) 843-1788
ccT'.I.i , . ,.--. -`~t`'Ila
S .,rl_UJJ-,I/ JI L
THE SWEENEY LAW FIRM, APCBRANDON J. SWEENEY (SBN 278532)I 5233 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 500Sherman Oaks, Califomia 91403Telephone: (323) 486-2508
SOLOUKI & SAVOY, I_,LPSHOIIAM J. SOLOUKI (SBN 278538)GRANT JOSEPH SAVOY (SBN 284077)316 W. 2nd Street, Suite 1200Los Angeles, Califomia 90012Telephone: (213) 814-4940; Facsimile: (213) 814-2550Attomeys for Plaintiffs, JUANA MADERO and ALICIA LOPEZ,individually and on behalf of all others similarly situatedlAdditional counsel of record identified belowl
supERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIAcouNTY OF LOS ANGELES -CENTRAL CIVIL WEST
FABIAN HERNANDEZ, an individual;JUANA MADERO, an individual; ALICIALOPEZ, an individual; on behalf ofthemselves and all others similarly situated,
P lainti ffs ,VS.
DSJ WEST, INC. dba PORT LOGISTICSGROUP, a Delaware corporation;CONS OLIDATED STAFFINGSOLUTIONS, INC., a Califomiacorporation; and DOES 1 through 100,inclusive,
Defendants.
CASE NO.: BC538435 (Lead Case)[Consolidated for all purposes withCase No.: BC565104Gonzalez v. Port Logistics Group, Inc., et. al.I
DECLARATION OF MATTHEW J.MATERN IN SUPPORT OFPLAINTIFFS9 MOTION FORPRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASSACTION SETTLEMENT
Date:Time:Dept. :Judge :Action Filed:Trial Date:
May4, 2017ll:00 a.m.31lEon. John Shepard Wiley, Jr.March 5, 2014None Set
DECLARATION OF MATTHEW I. MATERN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FORPRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
-2-
DECLARATION OF MATTHEW J. MATERN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
MARGARITA GONZALEZ a/k/a ANA HERNANDEZ, an individual, on behalf herself, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. PORT LOGISTICS GROUP, INC.; TEMP STAFF, INC., a California corporation; NEW CENTURY HR, INC., a California corporation; ALLSTAR HR, a California corporation; TPE ACQUISITION, INC., a California corporation; d/b/a PORT LOGISTICS GROUP; TRANSPORT EXPRESS, INC., a California corporation, d/b/a PORT LOGISTICS GROUP; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants.
CASE NO.: BC565104 CLASS ACTION [Consolidated for all purposes with Case No. BC538435, Hernandez v. Port Logistics Group, Inc., et. al.] [Assigned for all purposes to the Honorable John Shepard Wiley, Jr., Dept. 311]
ANGELA CRUZ and MOES 1 through 1,000, individually, and on behalf of all other similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, vs.
TRANSPORT EXPRESS, INC., a California corporation; PAYROLL STAFFING SOLUTIONS, INC., a California corporation, and Does 1 through 25, inclusive,
Defendants.
CASE NO: BC592528 [CLASS ACTION] JUDGE: Hon. John Shepard Wiley, Jr. DEPT: 311 [Consolidated for administrative purposes with Case Nos.: BC592538, Cruz, et al. v. Transport Express, Inc., et al. BC592542, Cruz, et al. v. Transport Express, Inc., et al.]
ANGELA CRUZ, and MOES 1 through 1,000, individually, and on behalf of all other similarly situated employees, Plaintiffs, vs. TRANSPORT EXPRESS, INC., a California corporation; PLATINUM STAFFING, a California corporation; and Does 1 through 25, inclusive, Defendants
CASE NO.: BC592538 [Consolidated for administrative purposes with Case Nos.: BC592528, Cruz, et al. v. Transport Express, Inc., et al. BC592542, Cruz, et al. v. Transport Express, Inc., et al.]
-3-
DECLARATION OF MATTHEW J. MATERN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ANGELA CRUZ, and MOES 1 through 1,000, individually, and on behalf of all other similarly situated employees; Plaintiffs, vs. TRANSPORT EXPRESS, INC., a California corporation; TEMP STAFF, INC., a California corporation; and Does 1 through 25, inclusive,
Defendants.
CASE NO: BC592542 [Consolidated for administrative purposes with: Case Nos.: BC592528, Cruz, et al. v. Transport Express, Inc., et al. BC592538, Cruz, et al. v. Transport Express, Inc., et al.]
LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT W. SKRIPKO, JR., APLC
Robert W. Skripko, Jr. (SBN 151226)
1323 N. Broadway, 2nd Floor
Santa Ana, CA 92706
Tel: (714) 543-6200; Fax: (714) 543-6140
DENIS & RASI, PC
Paul J. Denis (SBN 279026)
Ethan E. Rasi (SBN 289848)
38 Corporate Park
Irvine, CA 92606
Tel: (714) 242-4557; Fax: (213) 443-9601
Attorneys for Plaintiff
ANGELA CRUZ and MOES 1 through 1,000, individually,
and on behalf of all other similarly situated employees
-4-
DECLARATION OF MATTHEW J. MATERN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DECLARATION OF MATTHEW J. MATERN
I, MATTHEW J. MATERN, hereby declare as follows:
1. I am an attorney at law duly licensed to practice in the State of California. I am
the principal of Matern Law Group, PC and counsel of record for Plaintiff Margarita Gonzalez
in the above-entitled action. I make this declaration on the basis of personal firsthand
knowledge unless another source of information or belief clearly appears from the context, and
as to all such matters, I believe them to be true. If called as a witness, I could and would readily
and competently testify to all matters stated herein.
2. I make this declaration in support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Approval
of Class Action Settlement.
Background
3. On March 5, 2014, Plaintiff Fabian Hernandez filed a complaint in the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, entitled, “Fabian Hernandez, an
individual, and Class Representative on Behalf of Himself and All Other Similarly Situated Non-
Exempt Former and Current Employees v. DSJ West, Inc. dba Port Logistics Group,
Consolidated Staffing Solutions, Inc., and Does 1 through 100,” Case No. BC538435. The
complaint asserted ten causes of action for: (1) Failure to Pay Overtime Wages; (2) Failure to
Provide Meal Breaks; (3) Failure to Provide Rest Breaks; (4) Waiting Time Penalties; (5)
Failure to Pay All Hours Worked; (6) Failure to Provide Accurate Wage Statements; (7) Private
Attorney General Act; (8) Violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq.; (9) Unlawful
Retaliation [Cal. Labor Code § 1102.5]; and (10) Unlawful Retaliation [Cal. Labor Code §
98.6].
4. On November 7, 2014, Plaintiffs Juana Madero (“Plaintiff Madero”) and Alicia
Lopez (“Plaintiff Lopez”) filed a First Amended Complaint entitled, “Juana Madero, an
individual and Class Representative on Behalf of Herself and All Other Similarly Situated Non-
Exempt Former and Current Employees; Alicia Lopez, an individual and Class Representative
on Behalf of Herself and All Other Similarly Situated Non-Exempt Former and Current
Employees v. DSJ West, Inc. dba Port Logistics Group, a Delaware Corporation; Consolidated
-5-
DECLARATION OF MATTHEW J. MATERN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Staffing Solutions, Inc., a California corporation; and Does 1 through 100, inclusive,” Case No.
BC538435. The First Amended Complaint asserted eight causes of action for: (1) Failure to Pay
Overtime Wages; (2) Failure to Provide Meal Breaks; (3) Failure to Provide Rest Breaks; (4)
Waiting Time Penalties; (5) Failure to Pay All Hours Worked; (6) Failure to Provide Accurate
Wage Statements; (7) Private Attorney General Act; and (8) Violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof.
Code § 17200 et seq.
5. On November 26, 2014, Plaintiff Margarita Gonzalez, a/k/a Ana Hernandez
(“Plaintiff Gonzalez”) filed a complaint in the Superior Court of the State of California, County
of Los Angeles, entitled, “Margarita Gonzalez, a.k.a. Ana Hernandez, an individual, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated v. Port Logistics Group, Inc., Temp Staff, Inc., New
Century HR, Inc., Allstar HR, and Does 1 through 100, inclusive,” Case No. BC565104. The
complaint asserted ten causes of action for: (1) Failure to Provide Required Meal Periods; (2)
Failure to Provide Required Rest Periods; (3) Failure to Pay Overtime Wages; (4) Failure to Pay
Minimum Wage; (5) Failure to Timely Pay Wages; (6) Failure to Pay All Wages Due to
Discharged and Quitting Employees; (7) Failure to Maintain Required Records; (8) Failure to
Furnish Accurate Itemized Statements; (9) Failure to Indemnify Employees for Necessary
Expenditures Incurred in Discharge of Duties; and (10) Unfair and Unlawful Business Practices.
6. On January 30, 2015, Plaintiff Gonzalez filed an Amendment to Complaint
substituting the true name of Defendant TPE Acquisition Group, Inc., a corporation, d/b/a Port
Logistics Group for the fictitious name of “Doe 1,” and an Amendment to Complaint
substituting the true name of Defendant Transport Express, Inc., a California corporation, d/b/a
Port Logistics Group for the fictitious name of “Doe 2” (collectively, Defendants DSJ West,
Inc., Port Logistics Group, Inc., TPE Acquisition, Inc., and Transport Express, Inc. shall be
referred to as “PLG”).
7. On April 20, 2015, the Honorable Jane L. Johnson issued an order finding Case
Nos. BC538435 and BC565104 related within the meaning of Local Rule 3.3(f) and rule 3.300
of the California Rules of Court, and designating Case No. BC538435 as the lead case.
8. On August 4, 2015, the Honorable Jane L. Johnson ordered that Case Nos.
-6-
DECLARATION OF MATTHEW J. MATERN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
BC538435 and BC 565104 shall be consolidated for all purposes.
9. On August 18, 2015, Plaintiff Madero, Plaintiff Lopez, and Plaintiff Gonzalez
filed a consolidated complaint in Case Nos. BC538435 and BC565104. The consolidated class
and representative action complaint asserted eleven causes of action for: (1) Failure to Provide
Required Meal Periods; (2) Failure to Provide Required Rest Periods; (3) Failure to Pay
Overtime Wages; (4) Failure to Pay Minimum Wage; (5) Failure to Timely Pay Wages; (6)
Failure to Pay All Wages Due to Discharged and Quitting Employees; (7) Failure to Maintain
Required Records; (8) Failure to Furnish Accurate Itemized Statements; (9) Failure to
Indemnify Employees for Necessary Expenditures Incurred in Discharge of Duties; (10) Unfair
and Unlawful Business Practices; and (11) Representative Action for Civil Penalties Under the
Private Attorneys General Act.
10. On August 28, 2015, Plaintiff Angela Cruz (“Plaintiff Cruz”) filed a complaint in
the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, entitled, “Angela Cruz, and Moes 1
through 1,000, individually, and on behalf of all other similarly situated employees v. Transport
Express, Inc., a California corporation; Payroll Staffing Solutions, Inc., a California
corporation; and Does 1 through 25, inclusive,” Case No. BC592528.
11. On September 1, 2015, Plaintiff Cruz filed a complaint in the Superior Court of
California, County of Los Angeles, entitled, “Angela Cruz, and Moes 1 through 1,000,
individually, and on behalf of all other similarly situated employees v. Transport Express, Inc.,
a California corporation; Platinum Staffing, a California corporation; and Does 1 through 25,
inclusive,” Case No. BC592538.
12. On September 1, 2015, Plaintiff Cruz filed a complaint in the Superior Court of
California, County of Los Angeles, entitled, “Angela Cruz, and Moes 1 through 1,000,
individually, and on behalf of all other similarly situated employees v. Transport Express, Inc.,
a California corporation; Temp Staff, Inc., a California corporation; and Does 1 through 25,
inclusive,” Case No. BC592542.
13. On October 26, 2015, Plaintiff Cruz filed a First Amended Complaint in Case
No. BC592528 asserting thirteen causes of action: (1) Failure to Pay All Earned Wages; (2)
-7-
DECLARATION OF MATTHEW J. MATERN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Failure to Pay All Earned Overtime Wages; (3) Failure to Permit Paid 10 Minute Rest Periods;
(4) Failure to Provide 30 Minute Meal Periods; (5) Failure to Timely Pay All Earned Wages and
Compensation; (6) Failure to Pay All Accrued Vacation Benefits; (7) Failure to Pay All Earned
Wages and Compensation Upon Termination; (8) Failure to Provide Lawful Wage Statements;
(9) Conversion; (10) Violation of California Wage Theft Prevention Act; (11) Unfair Business
Practices; (12) Private Attorney General Act; and (13) Violation of Labor Code § 2810.3 Shared
Liability for Unpaid Wages.
14. On October 26, 2015, Plaintiff Cruz filed a First Amended Complaint in Case
No. BC592538 asserting twelve causes of action: (1) Failure to Pay All Earned Wages; (2)
Failure to Pay All Earned Overtime Wages; (3) Failure to Permit Paid 10 Minute Rest Periods;
(4) Failure to Provide 30 Minute Meal Periods; (5) Failure to Timely Pay All Earned Wages and
Compensation; (6) Failure to Pay All Accrued Vacation Benefits; (7) Failure to Pay All Earned
Wages and Compensation Upon Termination; (8) Failure to Provide Lawful Wage Statements;
(9) Conversion; (10) Violation of California Wage Theft Prevention Act; (11) Unfair Business
Practices; and (12) Violation of Labor Code § 2810.3 Shared Liability for Unpaid Wages.
15. On October 26, 2015, Plaintiff Cruz filed a First Amended Complaint in Case
No. BC592542 asserting twelve causes of action: (1) Failure to Pay All Earned Wages; (2)
Failure to Pay All Earned Overtime Wages; (3) Failure to Permit Paid 10 Minute Rest Periods;
(4) Failure to Provide 30 Minute Meal Periods; (5) Failure to Timely Pay All Earned Wages and
Compensation; (6) Failure to Pay All Accrued Vacation Benefits; (7) Failure to Pay All Earned
Wages and Compensation Upon Termination; (8) Failure to Provide Lawful Wage Statements;
(9) Conversion; (10) Violation of California Wage Theft Prevention Act; (11) Unfair Business
Practices; and (12) Violation of Labor Code § 2810.3 Shared Liability for Unpaid Wages.
16. On March 2, 2016, this Court issued an order deeming Case Nos. BC592528,
BC592538, and BC592542 related to the consolidated cases of BC538435 and BC565104, with
Case No. BC538435 continuing as the lead case. This Court further ordered that the related
cases are deemed consolidated for administrative convenience.
17. On April 20, 2016, Plaintiff Cruz filed a Second Amended Complaint in Case
-8-
DECLARATION OF MATTHEW J. MATERN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
No. 592528 removing her thirteenth cause of action for Violation of Labor Code § 2810.3
Shared Liability for Unpaid Wages and naming TPE Acquisition Group, Inc. as a defendant.
18. On November 21, 2016, Plaintiff Cruz filed an Amendment to Complaint in Case
No. BC592538, substituting the true name of Defendant Lorena Padilla for the fictitious name
of “Doe 15.”
19. On November 28, 2016, Plaintiff Cruz filed an Amendment to Complaint in Case
No. BC592528, substituting the true name of Defendant Carlos Padilla for the fictitious name of
“Doe 15,” and an Amendment to Complaint in Case No. BC592528, substituting the true name
of Defendant Lorena Padilla for the fictitious name of “Doe 16.”
20. Plaintiffs Madero, Lopez, Gonzalez, and Cruz (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) are
former non-exempt employees of Defendants. PLG provides gateway logistics services,
including warehousing and distribution, with ten facilities serving the Port of Los Angeles and
the Port of Long Beach, including five facilities in the City of Industry, thee facilities in Chino,
and one facility in Mira Loma and Rancho Dominguez. On information and belief, according
to representations of PLG’s counsel, there are approximately 5,500 employees of Defendants
who are eligible to participate in the Settlement.
Settlement Negotiations and Terms
21. On December 12, 2016, the Parties participated in a full-day, private mediation
with an experienced mediator, Gig Kyriacou, Esq. In anticipation of the mediation, PLG
undertook substantial time, energy and resources in providing Plaintiffs’ counsel with an
extensive representative sampling of class-wide data and other documents to facilitate a
productive mediation. Despite the Parties’ efforts at mediation, they were unable to reach an
agreement. Thereafter, the Parties continued to engage in settlement discussions with the
assistance of Mr. Kyriacou. On December 21, 2016, Mr. Kyriacou made a mediator’s proposal,
which outlined the material terms of a proposed class action settlement that would fully resolve
the Actions. On December 28, 2016, the Parties accepted the mediator’s proposal, subject to the
Parties entering into a more comprehensive written settlement agreement. On April 15, 2017,
the Parties fully executed a Stipulation of Class Action Settlement (“Settlement” or “Settlement
-9-
DECLARATION OF MATTHEW J. MATERN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Agreement”) to fully resolve the Actions. A true and correct copy of the Settlement is attached
hereto as Exhibit A.
22. Pursuant to the Settlement, the Parties have agreed that, subject to Court
approval, the Settlement Administrator shall be paid from the Maximum Settlement Amount for
Settlement Administration Costs. My office has received an estimate from Rust Consulting,
Inc. that the cost of administration of the Settlement will not exceed $40,000.00. A true and
correct copy of the estimate from Rust Consulting, Inc. is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
Amount in Controversy and Risks Associated with Proceeding With the Action
23. Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs’ counsel remain confident of the merits of Plaintiffs’
claims. Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs’ counsel considered several factors in reaching the decision to
settle at this point in the litigation. Plaintiffs’ counsel has calculated the maximum damages of
the Class Members to be approximately $20,645,625 and believes this amount will be the
damage potential should the case proceed to trial.
24. A detailed explanation of my form’s valuation is set forth below:
a. Meal Period Violations (Late or Unrecorded Meal Periods):
33% violation rate x 1500 (estimated average number of current non-exempt employees) x 5 shifts per week x 50 workweeks per year x 7.0 years x $13.00 (average hourly rate of pay)
= $11,261,250
b. Rest Period Violations (Based Upon Anecdotal Evidence):
20% violation rate x 1500 (estimated average number of current non-exempt employees) x 5 shifts per week x 50 workweeks per year x 7.0 years x $13.00 (average pay rate per hour)
= $6,825,000
-10-
DECLARATION OF MATTHEW J. MATERN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
c. Unpaid Overtime (Based Upon Off-the-Clock Work):
0.25 hours of unpaid overtime per week x 1500 (estimate average number of current non-exempt employees) x 50 workweeks per year x 7.0 years x $19.50 (average overtime pay rate) = $2,559,375
TOTAL DAMAGES: $11,261,250
+ $ 6,825,000 + $ 2,559,375 _
= $20,645,625
25. Given the maximum potential damages, the settlement sum of $4,575,000 is
reasonable considering the substantial risks entailed by this case. My firm estimates a 60
percent likelihood of obtaining and maintaining certification of Plaintiffs’ claims, which
reduces the value of these claims from approximately $20,645,625 to approximately
$12,387,375. My office further estimates that there is a 60 percent chance that Plaintiffs will
prevail at trial on their claims, further reducing the value of the claims to approximately
$7,432,425. The significant risk that this Court may deny class certification is obviated by the
Settlement. Moreover, continued litigation would very likely reduce and substantially delay
recovery by Class Members. In contrast, because of the proposed Settlement, Class Members
will receive timely relief and avoid the risk of an unfavorable judgment.
26. Furthermore, while Plaintiffs are confident in the merits of the case, a legitimate
controversy exists as to each cause of action. Plaintiffs also recognize that proving the amount
of wages due to each individual Class Member would be an expensive, time-consuming, and
extremely uncertain proposition.
27. In sum, when the risks of litigation, the uncertainties involved in achieving class
certification, the burdens of proof necessary to establish liability, and the probability of appeal
of a favorable judgment are balanced against the merits of Plaintiffs’ claims, it is clear that the
Maximum Settlement Amount is fair, adequate, and reasonable.
/ / /
-11-
DECLARATION OF MATTHEW J. MATERN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
The Proposed Settlement Was Reached Through Arm’s Length Bargaining
28. The Settlement was reached following extensive negotiations during and after a
private mediation with professional mediator Gig Kyriacou, Esq. The settlement negotiations
were at arm’s length and, although conducted in a professional manner, were adversarial. The
parties went into the mediation session willing to explore the potential for a settlement of the
dispute, but each side was also prepared to litigate its position through trial and appeal if a
settlement had not been reached. The Settlement was not reached until after a full day of
mediation with Mr. Kyriacou and subsequent negotiations with the assistance of the mediator.
Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs’ counsel support the proposed Settlement as being in the best interests of
the Class Members.
Investigation and Discovery Prior to Settlement
29. Prior to the Settlement, Plaintiffs’ counsel conducted an investigation into the
claims alleged by Plaintiffs, conducted legal research, and engaged in extensive formal and
informal discovery. PLG produced all written wage and hour policies and a sample of data
consisting of the time records and payroll records for all non-exempt employees of PLG for one
pay period per calendar quarter during the class period, as well as thousands of pages of
invoices pertaining to labor contractors. Plaintiffs’ statistical experts analyzed this information,
including data for over 26,758 shifts, and Plaintiffs’ counsel evaluated the potential liability and
damages for the Class Members. Based upon this information, Plaintiffs’ counsel was able to
act intelligently and effectively in negotiating the proposed Settlement.
30. My firm is informed and believes that the existence of an ascertainable class can
be established through Defendants’ records.
Incentive Awards for the Class Representatives
31. The Settlement provides for a Class Representative Service Award not to exceed
$10,000.00 each for Plaintiffs. The payment is intended to recognize the substantial time and
effort that Plaintiffs expended on behalf of the Class Members. Throughout this litigation,
Plaintiffs cooperated with counsel and took actions to protect the interests of the Class.
Plaintiffs provided valuable information regarding potential witnesses, Defendants’ meal period
-12-
DECLARATION OF MATTHEW J. MATERN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
and rest period practices, Defendants’ reimbursement practices, and Defendants’ failure to
properly compensate for overtime hours. Plaintiffs kept informed of the developments in the
Actions, informed counsel of information relevant to the Actions, participated in decisions
concerning the Actions, provided counsel with the names and contact information of potential
witnesses, and were engaged in the mediation proceedings. The information and documentation
provided by Plaintiffs were instrumental in establishing the wage and hour violations alleged in
the Actions, and the recovery provided for in the Settlement Agreement would have been
impossible to obtain without Plaintiffs’ active participation.
32. Plaintiffs faced many risks in bringing these cases as class actions. Plaintiffs
face actual risks with their future employment opportunities, since filing a public wage-and-hour
lawsuit against an employer could also affect Plaintiffs’ ability to obtain jobs in the future.
Additionally, Plaintiffs also placed themselves at substantial risk because, if Defendants were to
prevail in this action, Plaintiffs could be liable for Defendants’ costs and attorney fees.
Furthermore, Plaintiffs are entering into a general release of all known and unknown claims as
part of the Settlement.
33. Because of Plaintiffs’ efforts, approximately 5,500 Class Members will now
have the opportunity to participate in the Settlement and to recover payment for wage violations
they may have never known about on their own or been willing to pursue on their own. If each
Class Member attempted to pursue his or her legal remedies individually, each person would
have been required to expend a significant amount of his or her own monetary resources and
time.
34. In sum, the Actions would not have been possible without the aid of Plaintiffs,
who put their own time and effort into the litigation, sacrificed the value of their own individual
claims, and placed themselves at risk for the sake of the other Class Members. The requested
Class Representative Service Award of $10,000 to each Plaintiff is therefore reasonable to
compensate Plaintiffs for their active participation in the Actions.
Attorney Fees and Costs
35. The Settlement provides for attorney fees and costs to Class Counsel in an amount
-13-
DECLARATION OF MATTHEW J. MATERN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
up to one-third of the Maximum Settlement Amount, for a maximum fee award of $1,525,000.00,
plus an award of reasonable litigation costs not to exceed $70,000.00, which includes costs for,
among other things, copying, faxing, court filing and service, expert fees, research services, and
mediation.
36. I am informed and believe that the fee and costs provision is reasonable. The fee
percentage requested is less than that charged by my office for other employment cases. My
office invested significant time and resources in the case, with payment deferred to the end of
the case, and then, of course, contingent on the outcome.
37. The efforts expended by Class Counsel thus far include, but are not limited to,
the following: interviews with Plaintiffs and review of documents provided by Plaintiffs;
preparation of multiple drafts of the class action complaint; filing of the class action complaint;
meeting and conferring with Defendants’ counsel to obtain relevant documents and information;
preparing and filing a consolidated complaint; communicating with Plaintiffs regularly
regarding the status of the case; propounding requests for production of documents, special
interrogatories, requests for admission, and form interrogatories to Defendants; review and
analysis of a substantial sampling of time records, payroll records, and other employment
records; working with an expert statistician to analyze the data sample; legal research regarding
Defendants’ wage and hour practices; preparing Plaintiffs’ mediation briefs; appearing at a full-
day mediation; appearing at multiple status conferences; participating in settlement discussions;
and drafting, negotiation, and revision of the Settlement, Class Notice, and Motion for
Preliminary Approval.
38. I received a B. A. with honors in 1986 from Tulane University. I received my
J.D. from Southwestern University School of Law in 1991. I became an Active Member of the
State Bar of California in September 1992, and have been an Active Member in good standing
continuously since then. I have been practicing as a litigation attorney in Los Angeles since
1992, and have been concentrating on employment litigation since approximately 1997.
39. In 1992, I founded the general partnership, which is the predecessor of Rastegar
& Matern, Attorneys at Law, A Professional Corporation. In 2012, I founded Law Offices of
-14-
DECLARATION OF MATTHEW J. MATERN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Matthew J. Matern, which changed its name to Matern Law Group in January 2014 and became
Matern Law Group, PC in 2016. Since 1992, I have been heavily, successfully, and
continuously involved in active litigation and trial work, including extensive work in
employment litigation and wage and hour class actions.
40. My current firm, Matern Law Group, PC (“MLG”) is a fifteen-attorney law firm
that is actively and continuously practicing in employment litigation, representing almost
entirely employee plaintiffs, in both individual and class actions, in this Superior Court, and
other Superior Courts throughout the State, in the Court of Appeal, and in various Federal
courts.
41. My office is qualified to handle this litigation because we are experienced in
litigating Labor Code violations in both individual and class action cases. Matern Law Group,
PC has handled, and is currently handling numerous wage and hour class action lawsuits. Over
the course of my career, I have been involved in over 50 class action settlements, with many of
them settling in the seven figure range.
42. Of the fifteen attorneys at Matern Law Group, PC, I am the attorney with the
most active trial and pretrial calendar. I have personally tried approximately twenty-five cases,
including approximately twenty jury trials. I personally represented clients in numerous wage
and hour class action lawsuits that settled with recovery per class member being in a similar
range to the settlement agreement in the instant case.
43. Since 1992, I have been heavily, continuously, and successfully involved in
active litigation and trial work, including extensive work in employment litigation and wage and
hour class actions. I have tried approximately twenty-five cases, including approximately
twenty jury trials. Over the course of my career, I have been involved in over 50 class action
settlements, with many of them settling in the seven figure range, including settlements in the
amount of $7.0 million, $6.0 million, $6.0 million, $5.0 million, $4.5 million, $4.5 million, $4.2
million, $4.2 million, $3.75 million, $3.75 million, $3.6 million, $3.3 million, $3.1 million, $3.0
million, $2.9 million, $2.65 million $2.5 million, and $2.5 million. I have also been appointed
class counsel in over ten wage and hour class action cases with contested certification
-15-
DECLARATION OF MATTHEW J. MATERN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
proceedings. I have been counsel in a number of cases which resulted in published appellate
victories including a number of published appellate victories, including several published
opinions: Franco v. Athens Disposal Company, Inc., 171 Cal. App. 4th 1277 (March 10, 2009);
Gutierrez v. California Commerce Club, 187 Cal. App. 4th 969 (Aug. 2, 2010); Pantoja v.
Anton, 198 Cal. App. 4th 87 (Aug. 9, 2011); Fuentes v. AutoZone, Inc., 200 Cal. App. 4th 1221
(Nov. 16, 2011); Ventura v. ABM Industries, Inc., 212 Cal. App. 4th 258 (2012); Franco v.
Arakelian Enterprises, Inc., 211 Cal. App. 4th 314 (2012), and other non-published appellate
victories. My work has led me to be recognized as a Southern California Super Lawyer every
year since 2009.
44. My current 2017 billing rate is $850.00 per hour. The current 2017 billing rate
for my senior associate, Matthew W. Gordon, is $575.00 per hour. Mr. Gordon graduated
summa cum laude from Princeton University in 1995. He received his J.D. from the University
of California, Los Angeles School of Law in 2009. He became a member of the State Bar of
California in December 2009, and he has been an active member in good standing continuously
since then. Mr. Gordon has concentrated his practice exclusively in employment litigation since
he was admitted to the Bar. He has worked on numerous motions for class certification in wage
and hour cases and obtained approval of class action settlements. Mr. Gordon was honored as a
Southern California Rising Star in 2016 and 2017. My office requests the foregoing billable
rates be applied in this case, as the rates are more than reasonable in the Southern California
legal market for attorneys who handle complex class actions involving hundreds, and in this
case, thousands, of class members. The current prevailing billing or “market” rates in the Los
Angeles area range from $275 to $900 per hour. See Bihun v. AT&T Information Systems, Inc.
(1993) 13 Cal. App. 4th 976, 1004-1005. In addition, these rates properly take into account the
fact that payment has been delayed for nearly a year.
45. Several courts have approved attorney fee awards based upon my 2017 hourly
rate of $850 per hour and my 2016 hourly rate of $825 per hour, and my 2015 hourly billing rate
of $775 per hour, including but not limited to:
-16-
DECLARATION OF MATTHEW J. MATERN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
In Sanchez v. Fuji Food Products, Inc., Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC487352, the Honorable Ann I. Jones approved an attorney’s fees award based upon my 2017 billing rate of $850 per hour;
In Munoz v. Dependable Highway Express, Inc., Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC 535931, the Honorable Maren E. Nelson approved an attorney’s fees award based upon my 2017 billing rate of $850 per hour;
In Duarte v Mother’s Nutritional Center, Inc., Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC 492647, the Honorable Maren E. Nelson approved an attorney’s fees award based upon my 2017 billing rate of $850 per hour;
In Gutierrez v. Google, Inc., Santa Clara Superior Court Case No. 1-15-cv-277104, the Honorable Brian C. Walsh approved an attorney’s fees award based upon my 2017 billing rate of $850 per hour;
In Ornelas v. RVGC Partners, Inc., Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC500123, this Court approved an attorney’s fees award based upon my 2016 billing rate of $825 per hour;
In Navarette v. Valet Parking Service, Inc., Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC584175, the Honorable Elihu M. Berle approved an attorney’s fees award based upon my 2016 billing rate of $825 per hour;
In Gomez v. Bryant Rubber Corp., Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC584137, the Honorable Kenneth R. Freeman approved an attorney’s fees award based upon my 2016 billing rate of $825 per hour;
In Espana-Garcia v. Gjelina Take Away, et al., Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC 569843, the Honorable Kenneth R. Freeman approved an attorney’s fees award based upon my 2016 billing rate of $825 per hour;
In Campos, et al. v. Southern California Edison Company, Los Angeles Superior
Court Case No. BC499966, the Honorable Ann I. Jones approved an attorney’s fees award based upon my 2016 billing rate of $825 per hour and Matthew W. Gordon’s 2016 billing rate of $525 per hour;
In Mirta Williams v. Success Healthcare, LLC, et al., Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC5333821, the Honorable Amy D. Hogue approved an
attorney’s fee award based on my 2015 billing rate of $775 per hour;
In Alegria v. Student Transportation of America, Inc., et al., Riverside Superior Court Case No. RIC1209792, the Honorable Sharon J. Waters approved an
attorney’s fees award, with a multiplier of 1.8281, based upon my 2015 billing
rate of $775 per hour.
46. I estimate that my firm will need to expend at least another 40 to 60 hours to
monitor the process leading up to final approval and payments made to the class and to prepare
and attend the hearing on Plaintiffs’ motion for final approval. Based on experience, we will
have class members calling our office to inquire about the status of the case and to ask for
-17-
DECLARATION OF MATTHEW J. MATERN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
further information on a frequent basis. We also bear the risk of taking whatever actions are
necessary if PLG fails to pay. In two of my recent cases, my firm spent over 500 hours post-
final approval in efforts to collect on behalf of the class.
47. My office took this case on a contingent basis and has put a substantial amount of
time and energy into litigating this case, all while receiving no payment. The risk to my office
has been very significant, particularly if we would not be successful in pursuing this class
action. In that case, we would have been left with no compensation for all the time taken in
litigating this case. For instance, in Hernandez v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. (LASC Case No.
BC373759), the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s order denying certification in an
action alleging that the defendant failed to provide its restaurant workers with uninterrupted, 30-
minute off-duty meal breaks in a pair of depublished opinions: Hernandez v. Chipotle Mexican
Grill, Inc. (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 1487 and Hernandez v. Chipotle Mexican Grill (2010) 189
Cal.App.4th 751. Similarly, in Gonzalez v. OfficeMax N. Am. (C.D. Cal., Case No. CV-07-
00452), the court issued an order denying certification of plaintiffs’ meal and rest break claims,
finding that the reason any particular employee missed any particular break required
individualized fact finding. See Gonzalez v. OfficeMax N. Am. (C.D. Cal. Nov. 5, 2012) 2012
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 163853. In each of these cases, Class Counsel incurred over $100,000.00 in
costs, and over 5,000 hours in attorney time was expended, only to have class certification
denied. Moreover, courts frequently dismiss class and representative allegations and compel
arbitration in similar cases, as evidenced in several recent cases litigated by Class Counsel:
Chico v. Hilton Worldwide, Inc., et al., (C.D. Cal. Case No. CV-14-5750) (compelling
plaintiff’s individual claims to arbitration and dismissing plaintiff’s class allegations and
representative PAGA claims) and Tapia v. Macy’s, Inc. (C.D. Cal. CV-14-05163) (same).
48. Because most individuals cannot afford to pay for representation in litigation on
an hourly basis, Matern Law Group, PC represents virtually all of its employment law clients on
a contingency fee basis. Pursuant to this arrangement, we are not compensated for our time
unless we prevail at trial or successfully settle our clients’ cases. Because the firm is taking the
risk that we will not be reimbursed for our time unless our client settles or wins his or her case,
-18-
DECLARATION OF MATTHEW J. MATERN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
we cannot afford to represent an individual employee on a contingency basis if, at the end of our
representation, all we are to receive is our regular hourly rate for services. It is essential that we
recover more than our regular hourly rate when we win if we are to remain in practice so as to
be able to continue representing other individuals in civil rights employment disputes.
49. I am informed and believe that the efforts of Plaintiffs’ counsel have resulted in
substantial benefits to the settlement class, in the form of a significant settlement fund
established to compensate settlement class members for missed meal periods and rest breaks,
unpaid overtime, and other wage and hour violations noted above. I am informed and believe
that, without the efforts of Plaintiffs’ counsel, the Labor Code and wage order violations alleged
in the complaint would have gone without remedy.
50. Plaintiffs’ counsel’s agreement regarding the division of attorney fees is set forth
in Paragraph 63(d) of the Settlement.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct. Executed on April 17, 2017 at Manhattan Beach, California.
MATTHEW J. MATERN
EXHIBIT A
-1-
STIPULATION OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
MATERN LAW GROUP, PC MATTHEW J. MATERN (SBN 159798) MATTHEW W. GORDON (SBN 267971) 1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200 Manhattan Beach, California 90266 Telephone: (310) 531-1900 Facsimile: (310) 531-1901 Attorneys for Plaintiff, MARGARITA GONZALEZ, a/k/a ANA HERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated WILSON TRIAL GROUP DENNIS P. WILSON (SBN 133288) 3322 W. Victory Boulevard Burbank, California 91505 Telephone: (818) 843-1788 THE SWEENEY LAW FIRM, APC BRANDON J. SWEENEY (SBN 278532) 15233 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 500 Sherman Oaks, California 91403 Telephone: (323) 486-2508 SOLOUKI & SAVOY, LLP SHOHAM J. SOLOUKI (SBN 278538) GRANT JOSEPH SAVOY (SBN 284077) 316 W. 2nd Street, Suite 1200 Los Angeles, California 90012 Telephone: (213) 814-4940; Facsimile: (213) 814-2550 Attorneys for Plaintiffs, JUANA MADERO and ALICIA LOPEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated [Additional counsel of record identified below]
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – CENTRAL CIVIL WEST
FABIAN HERNANDEZ, an individual; JUANA MADERO, an individual; ALICIA LOPEZ, an individual; on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, vs.
DSJ WEST, INC. dba PORT LOGISTICS GROUP, a Delaware corporation; CONSOLIDATED STAFFING SOLUTIONS, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,
Defendants.
CASE NO.: BC538435 (Lead Case) [Consolidated for all purposes with Case No.: BC565104 Gonzalez v. Port Logistics Group, Inc., et. al.]
STIPULATION OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT Action Filed: March 5, 2014 Trial Date: None Set
-2-
STIPULATION OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
MARGARITA GONZALEZ a/k/a ANA HERNANDEZ, an individual, on behalf herself, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. PORT LOGISTICS GROUP, INC.; TEMP STAFF, INC., a California corporation; NEW CENTURY HR, INC., a California corporation; ALLSTAR HR, a California corporation; TPE ACQUISITION, INC., a California corporation; d/b/a PORT LOGISTICS GROUP; TRANSPORT EXPRESS, INC., a California corporation, d/b/a PORT LOGISTICS GROUP; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants.
CASE NO.: BC565104 CLASS ACTION [Consolidated for all purposes with Case No. BC538435, Hernandez v. Port Logistics Group, Inc., et. al.] [Assigned for all purposes to the Honorable John Shepard Wiley, Jr., Dept. 311]
ANGELA CRUZ and MOES 1 through 1,000, individually, and on behalf of all other similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, vs.
TRANSPORT EXPRESS, INC., a California corporation; PAYROLL STAFFING SOLUTIONS, INC., a California corporation, and Does 1 through 25, inclusive,
Defendants.
CASE NO: BC592528 [CLASS ACTION] JUDGE: Hon. John Shepard Wiley, Jr. DEPT: 311 [Consolidated for administrative purposes with Case Nos.: BC592538, Cruz, et al. v. Transport Express, Inc., et al. BC592542, Cruz, et al. v. Transport Express, Inc., et al.]
ANGELA CRUZ, and MOES 1 through 1,000, individually, and on behalf of all other similarly situated employees, Plaintiffs, vs. TRANSPORT EXPRESS, INC., a California corporation; PLATINUM STAFFING, a California corporation; and Does 1 through 25, inclusive, Defendants
CASE NO.: BC592538 [Consolidated for administrative purposes with Case Nos.: BC592528, Cruz, et al. v. Transport Express, Inc., et al. BC592542, Cruz, et al. v. Transport Express, Inc., et al.]
-3-
STIPULATION OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ANGELA CRUZ, and MOES 1 through 1,000, individually, and on behalf of all other similarly situated employees; Plaintiffs, vs. TRANSPORT EXPRESS, INC., a California corporation; TEMP STAFF, INC., a California corporation; and Does 1 through 25, inclusive,
Defendants.
CASE NO: BC592542 [Consolidated for administrative purposes with: Case Nos.: BC592528, Cruz, et al. v. Transport Express, Inc., et al. BC592538, Cruz, et al. v. Transport Express, Inc., et al.]
LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT W. SKRIPKO, JR., APLC
Robert W. Skripko, Jr. (SBN 151226)
1323 N. Broadway, 2nd Floor
Santa Ana, CA 92706
Tel: (714) 543-6200; Fax: (714) 543-6140
DENIS & RASI, PC
Paul J. Denis (SBN 279026)
Ethan E. Rasi (SBN 289848)
38 Corporate Park
Irvine, CA 92606
Tel: (714) 242-4557; Fax: (213) 443-9601
Attorneys for Plaintiff
ANGELA CRUZ and MOES 1 through 1,000, individually,
and on behalf of all other similarly situated employees
JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
JAMES P. CARTER (SBN 150052)
KATHY LE (SBN 279690)
200 Spectrum Center Drive, Suite 500
Irvine, California 92618
Telephone: (949) 885-1360; Facsimile: (949) 885-1380
Attorneys for Defendants, DSJ WEST dba PORT LOGISTICS GROUP, PORT LOGISTICS
GROUP, INC., TPE ACQUISITION, INC., and TRANSPORT EXPRESS, INC.
-4-
STIPULATION OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED, by and between Plaintiffs JUANA MADERO, ALICIA
LOPEZ, MARGARITA GONZALEZ a/k/a ANA HERNANDEZ, and ANGELA CRUZ
(collectively, “Plaintiffs”), on the one hand, and Defendants DSJ WEST, INC. dba PORT
LOGISTICS GROUP, PORT LOGISTICS GROUP, INC., TPE ACQUISITION GROUP, INC.
d/b/a PORT LOGISTICS GROUP, TRANSPORT EXPRESS, INC. d/b/a PORT LOGISTICS
GROUP (collectively, “PLG”) (hereinafter both Plaintiffs and PLG together shall be referred to
as the “Parties”), on the other hand, and subject to the approval of the Court, that the Actions, as
defined below, are hereby compromised and settled pursuant to the terms and conditions set
forth in this Stipulation and that the Court shall make and enter judgment, subject to the
continuing jurisdiction of the Court as set forth below, and subject to the definitions, recitals,
and terms set forth herein which by this reference become an integral part of this Stipulation.
DEFINITIONS
1. “Actions” means the following putative class and representative actions: Fabian
Hernandez v. DSJ West, Inc. dba Port Logistics Group, et al., Los Angeles Superior Court Case
No. BC538435; Margarita Gonzalez a/k/a/ Ana Hernandez v. Port Logistics Group, Inc., et al.,
Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC 565104; Angela Cruz v. Transport Express, Inc., et
al., Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC592528; Angela Cruz v. Transport Express, Inc., et
al., Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC592538; and Angela Cruz v. Transport Express,
Inc., et al., Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC592542.
2. “Class Counsel” means (a) Matern Law Group, PC, including Matthew J. Matern
and Matthew W. Gordon; (b) Wilson Trial Group, including Dennis P. Wilson; (c) The Sweeney
Law Firm, APC, including Brandon J. Sweeney; (d) Solouki & Savoy, LLP, including Shoham
J. Solouki and Grant J. Savoy; (e) Law Office of Robert W. Skripko, Jr., APLC, including
Robert W. Skripko; and (f) Denis & Rasi, PC, including Paul J. Denis and Ethan E. Rasi.
3. “Class Counsel Award” means reasonable attorneys’ fees for Class Counsel’s
litigation and resolution of the Actions (not to exceed 33 1/3% of the Maximum Settlement
Amount), and Class Counsel’s expenses and costs reasonably incurred in connection with the
Actions (not to exceed $70,000.00).
-5-
STIPULATION OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4. “Class Information” means information regarding Class Members that PLG shall
in good faith compile from its records to the extent possible and shall be authorized by the Court
to transmit in a secured manner to the Settlement Administrator. The Settlement Administrator
shall agree in writing to maintain Class Information in a secure manner. Class Information shall
be transmitted to the Settlement Administrator (as defined in Paragraph 34 hereinbelow) in
electronic form and shall include: each Class Member’s full name, last known address, Social
Security number, and Compensable Workweeks.
5. “Class Members” shall mean all persons employed by PLG as a non-exempt
employee in the State of California at any time during the Class Period (as defined in Paragraph
7 hereinbelow) and all non-exempt workers supplied by a Labor Contractor (as defined in
Paragraph 18 hereinbelow) who performed labor within PLG’s Usual Course of Business (as
defined in Paragraph 36 hereinbelow) in the State of California during the Class Period.
6. “Class Notice” means the Notice of Proposed Class Action Settlement,
substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit 1, which shall be subject to Court approval
and which the Settlement Administrator shall mail to each Class Member, in English and
Spanish, explaining the terms of this Stipulation and the Settlement.
7. “Class Period” means the period from March 5, 2010 through March 1, 2017.
8. “Class Representative Service Award” means the amount that the Court
authorizes to be paid to Plaintiffs, in addition to Plaintiffs’ Individual Settlement Payments (as
defined in Paragraph 16 hereinbelow), in recognition of Plaintiffs’ efforts and risks in assisting
with the prosecution of the Actions.
9. “Compensable Workweeks” means the total number of workweeks worked by
each Participating Class Member (as defined in Paragraph 24 hereinbelow) as a non-exempt
worker during the Class Period based upon PLG’s records and which shall be used to calculate
Individual Settlement Payments.
10. “Court” means the Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles.
11. “Defense Counsel” means Jackson Lewis, P.C., including James Carter and
Kathy Le.
-6-
STIPULATION OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
12. “Effective Date” means the latter of: (a) if there are no objections to the
Settlement, the date upon which the Final Order and Judgment is entered by the Court; (b) if
there are objections to the Settlement, and if an appeal, review or writ is not sought from the
Final Order and Judgment, the sixty-first (61st) day after the date upon which the Final Order
and Judgment is entered; or (c) if an appeal, review or writ is sought from the Final Order and
Judgment, the date upon which all appellate and/or other proceedings resulting from the appeal,
review or writ have been finally terminated in such a manner as to permit the Final Order and
Judgment to take effect in substantially the form described herein.
13. “Employer’s Share of Payroll Taxes” means PLG’s portion of payroll taxes,
including, but not limited to FICA and FUTA, on the portion of the Individual Settlement
Payments that constitutes wages. The Employer’s Share of Payroll Taxes shall be deducted
from the Maximum Settlement Amount by the Settlement Administrator.
14. “Final Approval Hearing” means the hearing to be conducted by the Court after
the filing by Plaintiffs of an appropriate motion and following appropriate notice to Class
Members giving Class Members an opportunity to request exclusion from the Class and
Settlement and to object to the Settlement, at which time Plaintiffs shall request that the Court
finally approve the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the terms and conditions of the
Settlement, enter the Final Order and Judgment, and take other appropriate action.
15. “Final Order and Judgment” means the order and judgment to be entered by the
Court upon granting final approval of the Settlement and this Stipulation as binding upon the
Parties and Participating Class Members.
16. “Individual Settlement Payment” means the amount payable from the Net
Settlement Amount to each Participating Class Member.
17. “Information Sheet” means the form that shall be prepared by the Settlement
Administrator and sent to each Class Member that sets forth the Compensable Workweeks and
the estimated Individual Settlement Payment for the Class Member, substantially in the form
attached hereto as Exhibit 2.
-7-
STIPULATION OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
18. “Labor Contractor” means an individual or entity that supplies, either with or
without a contract, PLG with workers to perform labor within PLG’s Usual Course of Business,
as defined in Labor Code § 2810.3(a).
19. “LWDA” means the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency.
20. “Maximum Settlement Amount” means the maximum amount (including the
Employer’s Share of Payroll Taxes) PLG shall have to pay in connection with this Settlement,
by way of a common fund, which shall be inclusive of all Individual Settlement Payments to
Participating Class Members, the Class Counsel Award, the Settlement Administration Costs (as
defined in Paragraph 33 hereinbelow), the Class Representative Service Awards, and the PAGA
(as defined in Paragraph 23 hereinbelow) payments to Participating Class Members and the
LWDA. Subject to Court approval and the terms of this Stipulation, the Maximum Settlement
Amount PLG shall be required to pay is Four Million Five Hundred Seventy-Five Thousand
Dollars ($4,575,000.00).
21. “Net Settlement Amount” means the Maximum Settlement Amount, less the
Class Counsel Award, the PAGA payment to the LWDA, the Settlement Administration Costs,
and the Class Representative Service Awards.
22. “Notice Packet” means the packet of documents which shall be mailed to all
Class Members by the Settlement Administrator, including the Class Notice, the Request for
Exclusion, and the Information Sheet.
23. “PAGA” means the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004,
California Labor Code sections 2698, et seq.
24. “Participating Class Members” means Plaintiffs and all other Class Members
who do not submit a valid and timely Request for Exclusion.
25. “Parties” means Plaintiffs and PLG.
26. “Plaintiffs” shall mean the following plaintiffs in the Actions: Juana Madero,
Alicia Lopez, Margarita Gonzalez a/k/a Ana Hernandez, and Angela Cruz.
27. “Preliminary Approval Order” means the order to be issued by the Court
approving and authorizing the mailing of the Notice Packet by the Settlement Administrator,
-8-
STIPULATION OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
setting the date of the Final Approval Hearing and granting preliminary approval of the
Settlement set forth in this Stipulation, among other things.
28. “Released Claims” with respect to the Participating Class Members (other than
Plaintiffs) means any and all claims, demands, rights, liabilities, and/or causes of action that
were pleaded or could have been pleaded based upon the factual allegations set forth in the
operative complaints filed in the Actions and arising at any time during the Class Period,
including claims for (1) Failure to Provide Required Meal Periods; (2) Failure to Provide
Required Rest Periods; (3) Failure to Provide Overtime Wages; (4) Failure to Pay Minimum
Wage; (5) Failure to Pay All Wages Due to Discharged and Quitting Employees; (6) Failure to
Maintain Required Records; (7) Failure to Furnish Accurate Itemized Statements; (8) Failure to
Indemnify Employees for Necessary Expenditures Incurred in Discharge of Duties; (9) Unfair
and Unlawful Business Practices; (10) Failure to Timely Pay All Earned Wages; (11) Failure to
Pay All Accrued Vacation Benefits; (12) Conversion; (13) Violation of California Wage Theft
Prevention Act; and (14) Penalties under PAGA.
“Released Claims” with respect to Plaintiffs only means any and all claims, demands,
rights, liabilities, and causes of action of every nature and description whatsoever, known or
unknown, asserted or that might have been asserted, whether in tort, contract, or for violation of
any state or federal statute, rule or regulation, arising out of, relating to, or in connection with
any act or omission by or on the part of any of the Released Parties committed or omitted prior
to the Effective Date. The General Release includes any unknown claims Plaintiffs do not know
or suspect to exist in Plaintiffs’ favor at the time of the release, which, if known by Plaintiffs,
might have affected Plaintiffs’ settlement with, and release of, the Released Parties or might
have affected Plaintiffs’ decision not to object to this Settlement. Plaintiffs stipulate and agree
that, upon the Effective Date, Plaintiffs shall be deemed to have, and by operation of the Final
Approval Order and Judgment shall have, expressly waived and relinquished, to the fullest
extent permitted by law, the provisions, rights, and benefits of Section 1542 of the California
Civil Code, or any other similar provision under federal or state law, which provides:
-9-
STIPULATION OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
A GENERAL RELEASE DOES NOT EXTEND TO CLAIMS WHICH THE
CREDITOR DOES NOT KNOW OR SUSPECT TO EXIST IN HIS OR HER
FAVOR AT THE TIME OF EXECUTING THE RELEASE, WHICH IF
KNOWN BY HIM OR HER MUST HAVE MATERIALLY AFFECTED HIS
OR HER SETTLEMENT WITH THE DEBTOR.
Plaintiffs may hereafter discover facts in addition to or different from those Plaintiffs
now know or believe to be true with respect to the subject matter of the Actions and Released
Claims, but Plaintiffs, upon the Effective Date, shall be deemed to have, and by operation of the
Final Approval Order and Judgment shall have, fully, finally, and forever settled and released
any and all Released Claims, whether known or unknown, suspected or unsuspected, contingent
or non-contingent, which now exist, or heretofore have existed upon any theory of law or equity
now existing or coming into existence in the future.
29. “Released Parties” means Defendants DSJ West, Inc. dba Port Logistics Group,
Port Logistics Group, Inc., TPE Acquisition Group, Inc. d/b/a Port Logistics Group, Transport
Express, Inc. d/b/a Port Logistics Group, their respective present or former parent companies,
subsidiary companies and affiliates, and officers, directors, employees, partners, shareholders,
attorneys, agents, and any other successors, assigns, or legal representatives.
30. “Request for Exclusion” means the form, substantially in the form attached
hereto as Exhibit 3, which shall be sent by the Settlement Administrator to each Class Member
and by which Class Members shall elect, if at all, to be excluded from the Actions and the
Settlement.
31. “Response Deadline” means the date forty-five (45) days after the Settlement
Administrator mails the Notice Packets to Class Members and the last date on which Class
Members may submit a Request for Exclusion or objection to the Settlement.
32. “Settlement” means the final and complete disposition of the Actions pursuant to
this Stipulation.
33. “Settlement Administration Costs” means the reasonable costs and fees of
administration of this Settlement to be paid to the Settlement Administrator from the Maximum
-10-
STIPULATION OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Settlement Amount, including, but not limited to the duties enumerated in Paragraph 62
hereinbelow: (i) translating Notice Packets into Spanish; (ii) printing and mailing (and re-
mailing, if necessary) of Notice Packets to Class Members; (iii) establishing and maintaining a
website for the administration of the settlement; (iv) preparing and submitting to Participating
Class Members and government entities all appropriate tax filings and forms; (v) computing the
amount of and distributing Individual Settlement Payments and resolving any disputes as to the
calculation thereof, Class Representative Service Awards and Class Counsel Award; (vi)
processing and validating Requests for Exclusion; (vii) establishing a Qualified Settlement
Fund, as defined by the Internal Revenue Code; (viii) calculating and remitting to the
appropriate government agencies all employer and employee payroll tax obligations arising
from the Settlement and preparing and submitting filings required by law in connection with the
payments required by the Settlement; (ix) conducting a skip trace to identify the current address
of any and all Participating Class Members whose Notice Packet is returned to the Settlement
Administrator as undeliverable; and (x) establishing and maintaining a toll free number to
address any inquiries by Class Members regarding administration of the Settlement.
34. “Settlement Administrator” means Rust Consulting, Inc.
35. “PLG” means Defendants DSJ West, Inc. dba Port Logistics Group, Port
Logistics Group, Inc., TPE Acquisition Group, Inc. d/b/a Port Logistics Group, and Transport
Express, Inc. d/b/a Port Logistics Group.
36. “Usual Course of Business” means the regular and customary work of a business,
performed within or upon the premises or worksite of PLG in the State of California, as defined
in Labor Code § 2810.3(a).
RECITALS
37. Procedural History. On March 5, 2014, Plaintiff Fabian Hernandez filed a
complaint in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, entitled,
“Fabian Hernandez, an individual, and Class Representative on Behalf of Himself and All Other
Similarly Situated Non-Exempt Former and Current Employees v. DSJ West, Inc. dba Port
Logistics Group, Consolidated Staffing Solutions, Inc., and Does 1 through 100,” Case No.
-11-
STIPULATION OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
BC538435. The complaint asserted ten causes of action for: (1) Failure to Pay Overtime
Wages; (2) Failure to Provide Meal Breaks; (3) Failure to Provide Rest Breaks; (4) Waiting
Time Penalties; (5) Failure to Pay All Hours Worked; (6) Failure to Provide Accurate Wage
Statements; (7) Private Attorney General Act; (8) Violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200
et seq.; (9) Unlawful Retaliation [Cal. Labor Code § 1102.5]; and (10) Unlawful Retaliation
[Cal. Labor Code § 98.6].
38. On November 7, 2014, Plaintiffs Juana Madero (“Plaintiff Madero”) and Alicia
Lopez (“Plaintiff Lopez”) filed a First Amended Complaint entitled, “Juana Madero, an
individual and Class Representative on Behalf of Herself and All Other Similarly Situated Non-
Exempt Former and Current Employees; Alicia Lopez, an individual and Class Representative
on Behalf of Herself and All Other Similarly Situated Non-Exempt Former and Current
Employees v. DSJ West, Inc. dba Port Logistics Group, a Delaware Corporation; Consolidated
Staffing Solutions, Inc., a California corporation; and Does 1 through 100, inclusive,” Case No.
BC538435. The First Amended Complaint asserted eight causes of action for: (1) Failure to Pay
Overtime Wages; (2) Failure to Provide Meal Breaks; (3) Failure to Provide Rest Breaks; (4)
Waiting Time Penalties; (5) Failure to Pay All Hours Worked; (6) Failure to Provide Accurate
Wage Statements; (7) Private Attorney General Act; and (8) Violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof.
Code § 17200 et seq.
39. On November 26, 2014, Plaintiff Margarita Gonzalez, a/k/a Ana Hernandez
(“Plaintiff Gonzalez”) filed a complaint in the Superior Court of the State of California, County
of Los Angeles, entitled, “Margarita Gonzalez, a.k.a. Ana Hernandez, an individual, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated v. Port Logistics Group, Inc., Temp Staff, Inc., New
Century HR, Inc., Allstar HR, and Does 1 through 100, inclusive,” Case No. BC565104. The
complaint asserted ten causes of action for: (1) Failure to Provide Required Meal Periods; (2)
Failure to Provide Required Rest Periods; (3) Failure to Pay Overtime Wages; (4) Failure to Pay
Minimum Wage; (5) Failure to Timely Pay Wages; (6) Failure to Pay All Wages Due to
Discharged and Quitting Employees; (7) Failure to Maintain Required Records; (8) Failure to
Furnish Accurate Itemized Statements; (9) Failure to Indemnify Employees for Necessary
-12-
STIPULATION OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Expenditures Incurred in Discharge of Duties; and (10) Unfair and Unlawful Business Practices.
40. On January 30, 2015, Plaintiff Gonzalez filed an Amendment to Complaint
substituting the true name of Defendant TPE Acquisition Group, Inc., a corporation, d/b/a Port
Logistics Group for the fictitious name of “Doe 1,” and an Amendment to Complaint
substituting the true name of Defendant Transport Express, Inc., a California corporation, d/b/a
Port Logistics Group for the fictitious name of “Doe 2.”
41. On April 20, 2015, the Honorable Jane L. Johnson issued an order finding Case
Nos. BC538435 and BC565104 related within the meaning of Local Rule 3.3(f) and rule 3.300
of the California Rules of Court, and designating Case No. BC538435 as the lead case.
42. On August 4, 2015, the Honorable Jane L. Johnson ordered that Case Nos.
BC538435 and BC 565104 shall be consolidated for all purposes.
43. On August 18, 2015, Plaintiff Madero, Plaintiff Lopez, and Plaintiff Gonzalez
filed a consolidated complaint in Case Nos. BC538435 and BC565104. The consolidated class
and representative action complaint asserted eleven causes of action for: (1) Failure to Provide
Required Meal Periods; (2) Failure to Provide Required Rest Periods; (3) Failure to Pay
Overtime Wages; (4) Failure to Pay Minimum Wage; (5) Failure to Timely Pay Wages; (6)
Failure to Pay All Wages Due to Discharged and Quitting Employees; (7) Failure to Maintain
Required Records; (8) Failure to Furnish Accurate Itemized Statements; (9) Failure to
Indemnify Employees for Necessary Expenditures Incurred in Discharge of Duties; (10) Unfair
and Unlawful Business Practices; and (11) Representative Action for Civil Penalties Under the
Private Attorneys General Act.
44. On August 28, 2015, Plaintiff Angela Cruz (“Plaintiff Cruz”) filed a complaint in
the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, entitled, “Angela Cruz, and Moes 1
through 1,000, individually, and on behalf of all other similarly situated employees v. Transport
Express, Inc., a California corporation; Payroll Staffing Solutions, Inc., a California
corporation; and Does 1 through 25, inclusive,” Case No. BC592528.
45. On September 1, 2015, Plaintiff Cruz filed a complaint in the Superior Court of
California, County of Los Angeles, entitled, “Angela Cruz, and Moes 1 through 1,000,
-13-
STIPULATION OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
individually, and on behalf of all other similarly situated employees v. Transport Express, Inc.,
a California corporation; Platinum Staffing, a California corporation; and Does 1 through 25,
inclusive,” Case No. BC592538.
46. On September 1, 2015, Plaintiff Cruz filed a complaint in the Superior Court of
California, County of Los Angeles, entitled, “Angela Cruz, and Moes 1 through 1,000,
individually, and on behalf of all other similarly situated employees v. Transport Express, Inc.,
a California corporation; Temp Staff, Inc., a California corporation; and Does 1 through 25,
inclusive,” Case No. BC592542.
47. On October 26, 2015, Plaintiff Cruz filed a First Amended Complaint in Case
No. BC592528 asserting thirteen causes of action: (1) Failure to Pay All Earned Wages; (2)
Failure to Pay All Earned Overtime Wages; (3) Failure to Permit Paid 10 Minute Rest Periods;
(4) Failure to Provide 30 Minute Meal Periods; (5) Failure to Timely Pay All Earned Wages and
Compensation; (6) Failure to Pay All Accrued Vacation Benefits; (7) Failure to Pay All Earned
Wages and Compensation Upon Termination; (8) Failure to Provide Lawful Wage Statements;
(9) Conversion; (10) Violation of California Wage Theft Prevention Act; (11) Unfair Business
Practices; (12) Private Attorney General Act; and (13) Violation of Labor Code § 2810.3 Shared
Liability for Unpaid Wages.
48. On October 26, 2015, Plaintiff Cruz filed a First Amended Complaint in Case
No. BC592538 asserting twelve causes of action: (1) Failure to Pay All Earned Wages; (2)
Failure to Pay All Earned Overtime Wages; (3) Failure to Permit Paid 10 Minute Rest Periods;
(4) Failure to Provide 30 Minute Meal Periods; (5) Failure to Timely Pay All Earned Wages and
Compensation; (6) Failure to Pay All Accrued Vacation Benefits; (7) Failure to Pay All Earned
Wages and Compensation Upon Termination; (8) Failure to Provide Lawful Wage Statements;
(9) Conversion; (10) Violation of California Wage Theft Prevention Act; (11) Unfair Business
Practices; and (12) Violation of Labor Code § 2810.3 Shared Liability for Unpaid Wages.
49. On October 26, 2015, Plaintiff Cruz filed a First Amended Complaint in Case
No. BC592542 asserting twelve causes of action: (1) Failure to Pay All Earned Wages; (2)
Failure to Pay All Earned Overtime Wages; (3) Failure to Permit Paid 10 Minute Rest Periods;
-14-
STIPULATION OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(4) Failure to Provide 30 Minute Meal Periods; (5) Failure to Timely Pay All Earned Wages and
Compensation; (6) Failure to Pay All Accrued Vacation Benefits; (7) Failure to Pay All Earned
Wages and Compensation Upon Termination; (8) Failure to Provide Lawful Wage Statements;
(9) Conversion; (10) Violation of California Wage Theft Prevention Act; (11) Unfair Business
Practices; and (12) Violation of Labor Code § 2810.3 Shared Liability for Unpaid Wages.
50. On March 2, 2016, this Court issued an order deeming Case Nos. BC592528,
BC592538, and BC592542 related to the consolidated cases of BC538435 and BC565104, with
Case No. BC538435 continuing as the lead case. This Court further ordered that the related
cases are deemed consolidated for administrative convenience.
51. On April 20, 2016, Plaintiff Cruz filed a Second Amended Complaint in Case
No. 592528 removing her thirteenth cause of action for Violation of Labor Code § 2810.3
Shared Liability for Unpaid Wages and naming TPE Acquisition Group, Inc. as a defendant.
52. On November 21, 2016, Plaintiff Cruz filed an Amendment to Complaint in Case
No. BC592538, substituting the true name of Defendant Lorena Padilla for the fictitious name
of “Doe 15.”
53. On November 28, 2016, Plaintiff Cruz filed an Amendment to Complaint in Case
No. BC592528, substituting the true name of Defendant Carlos Padilla for the fictitious name of
“Doe 15,” and an Amendment to Complaint in Case No. BC592528, substituting the true name
of Defendant Lorena Padilla for the fictitious name of “Doe 16.”
54. On December 12, 2016, the Parties participated in a full-day, private mediation
with an experienced mediator, Gig Kyriacou, Esq. In anticipation of the mediation, PLG
undertook substantial time, energy and resources in providing Class Counsel with an extensive
representative sampling of class-wide data and other documents to facilitate a productive
mediation. Despite the parties’ efforts at mediation, theywere unable to reach an agreement.
Thereafter, the Parties continued to engage in settlement discussions with the assistance of Mr.
Kyriacou. On December 21, 2016, Mr. Kyriacou made a mediator’s proposal, which outlined
the material terms of a proposed class action settlement that would fully resolve the Actions.
On December 28, 2016, the Parties accepted the mediator’s proposal, subject to the Parties
-15-
STIPULATION OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
entering into a more comprehensive written settlement agreement.
55. Benefits of Settlement to Plaintiffs and the Class Members. Plaintiffs and Class
Counsel recognize the expense and length of continued proceedings necessary to litigate
Plaintiffs’ disputes in the Actions through trial and through any possible appeals. Plaintiffs also
have taken into account the uncertainty and risks of the outcome of further litigation, and the
difficulties and delays inherent in such litigation. Plaintiffs and Class Counsel are also aware of
the burdens of proof necessary to establish liability for the claims asserted in the Actions, both
generally and in response to PLG’s defenses thereto, and the difficulties in establishing
damages, penalties, restitution and other relief sought in the Actions. Plaintiffs and Class
Counsel also have taken into account PLG’s agreement to enter into a settlement that confers
substantial benefits upon the Class Members. Based upon the foregoing, Plaintiffs and Class
Counsel have determined that the Settlement set forth in this Stipulation is fair, adequate, and
reasonable, and is in the best interests of all Class Members.
56. PLG’s Reasons for Settlement. PLG has concluded that any further defense of
the Actions would be protracted and expensive for all Parties. Substantial amounts of PLG’s
time, energy, and resources have been, and unless this Settlement is completed, shall continue to
be, devoted to the defense of the claims asserted by Plaintiffs. PLG also has taken into account
the risks of further litigation in reaching its decision to enter into this Settlement. Even though
PLG continues to contend that it is not liable for any of the claims alleged by Plaintiffs in the
Actions, PLG has agreed, nonetheless, to settle in the manner and upon the terms set forth in
this Stipulation and to put to rest the claims alleged in the Actions. PLG has asserted and
continues to assert that the claims alleged by Plaintiffs have no merit and do not give rise to any
liability, damages, restitution, penalties or other payments. This Stipulation is a compromise of
disputed claims. Nothing contained in this Stipulation, no documents referred to herein, and no
action taken to carry out this Stipulation, shall be construed or used as an admission by or
against PLG as to the merits or lack thereof of the claims asserted in the Actions. PLG contends
that it has complied with all applicable state, federal and local laws.
-16-
STIPULATION OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
TERMS OF SETTLEMENT
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants, promises, and
agreements set forth herein, the Parties agree, subject to the Court’s approval, as follows:
57. Binding Settlement. This Settlement shall bind the Parties, all Participating Class
Members, Class Counsel and Defense Counsel, subject to the terms and conditions hereof and
the Court’s approval.
58. Tax Liability. The Parties make no representations as to the tax treatment or
legal effect of the payments specified herein, and Class Members are not relying on any
statement or representation by the Parties, Class Counsel or Defense Counsel in this regard.
The Parties understand and agree that they shall be responsible for the payment of their
respective share of all taxes and penalties assessed on the payments specified herein, and shall
hold each other, Class Counsel and Defense Counsel free and harmless from and against any
claims resulting from treatment of such payments as non-taxable, including the treatment of
such payments as not subject to withholding or deduction for payroll and employment taxes.
59. Circular 230 Disclaimer. The Parties acknowledge and agree that (1) no
provision of this Stipulation, and no written communication or disclosure between or among the
Parties, Class Counsel or Defense Counsel and other advisers, is or was intended to be, nor shall
any such communication or disclosure constitute or be construed or be relied upon as, tax advice
within the meaning of United States Treasury Department Circular 230 (31 CFR Part 10, as
amended); (2) the acknowledging party (a) has relied exclusively upon his, her, or its own,
independent legal and tax counsel for advice (including tax advice) in connection with this
Stipulation, (b) has not entered into this Stipulation based upon the recommendation of any
other party or any attorney or advisor to any other party, and (c) is not entitled to rely upon any
communication or disclosure by any attorney or adviser to any other party to avoid any tax
penalty that may be imposed on the acknowledging party; and (3) no attorney or adviser to any
other party has imposed any limitation that protects the confidentiality of any such attorney’s or
adviser’s tax strategies (regardless of whether such limitation is legally binding) upon disclosure
by the acknowledging party of the tax treatment or tax structure of any transaction, including
-17-
STIPULATION OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
any transaction contemplated by this Stipulation.
60. Preliminary Approval of Settlement. By April 10, 2017, Plaintiffs shall move the
Court to enter the Preliminary Approval Order, thereby conditionally certifying the Class for
settlement purposes only and setting a Final Approval Hearing date. The Parties agree to work
diligently and cooperatively to present this Settlement to the Court for preliminary approval.
The Preliminary Approval Order shall provide for, among other things, the Notice Packet to be
sent to Class Members as specified herein. The Parties agree that the conditional certification of
the Class is for settlement purposes only and is in no way an admission by PLG in the Actions
or in any other proceeding that class certification is proper.
61. Release by Plaintiffs and Other Participating Class Members: Upon the Effective
Date, Plaintiffs and all other Participating Class Members shall be deemed to have released their
respective Released Claims against the Released Parties.
62. Settlement Administration.
a. Within thirty (30) days after entry of the Preliminary Approval Order,
PLG shall provide the Settlement Administrator with the Class Information for purposes of
mailing the Notice Packets to Class Members.
i. Notice by First Class U.S. Mail. Upon receipt of the Class
Information, the Settlement Administrator shall perform a search based on the National Change
of Address Database maintained by the United States Postal Service to update and correct any
known or identifiable address changes. Within fifteen (15) days after receiving the Class
Information from PLG as provided herein, the Settlement Administrator shall mail copies of the
Notice Packet to all Class Members via regular First Class U.S. Mail. The Settlement
Administrator shall exercise its best judgment to determine the current mailing address for each
Class Member. The address identified by the Settlement Administrator as the current mailing
address shall be presumed to be the most current mailing address for each Class Member. The
Parties agree that this procedure for notice provides the best practical notice to Class Members
and fully complies with due process.
ii. Undeliverable Notice Packets. Any Notice Packet returned to the
-18-
STIPULATION OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Settlement Administrator as non-delivered on or before the Response Deadline shall be re-
mailed to the forwarding address affixed thereto. If no forwarding address is provided, the
Settlement Administrator shall promptly attempt to determine a correct address by the use of
skip-tracing, or other type of automated search, using the name, address and/or Social Security
number of the Class Member involved, and shall then perform a re-mailing to the Class Member
whose Notice Packet was returned as non-delivered, assuming another mailing address is
identified by the Settlement Administrator. Class Members who are sent a re-mailed Notice
Packet shall have their Response Deadline extended by fifteen (15) days from the date the
Settlement Administrator re-mails the Notice Packet. If these procedures are followed, notice to
Class Members shall be deemed to have been fully satisfied, and if the intended recipient of the
Notice Packet does not receive the Notice Packet, the intended recipient shall nevertheless
remain a Class Member and shall be bound by all terms of the Settlement and the Final Order
and Judgment.
iii. Determination of Individual Settlement Payments. The
Settlement Administrator shall determine the eligibility for, and the amounts of, each Individual
Settlement Payment under the terms of this Stipulation. The Settlement Administrator’s
determination of the eligibility for and amount of each Individual Settlement Payment shall be
binding upon the Class Member and the Parties, yet subject to review by Class Counsel,
Defense Counsel and the Court. In the absence of fraud or gross negligence, PLG’s records
shall be given the presumption of accuracy.
iv. Disputes Regarding Administration of Settlement. Any dispute
not resolved by the Settlement Administrator concerning the administration of the Settlement
shall be resolved by the Court. Prior to any such involvement of the Court, counsel for the
Parties shall confer in good faith to resolve the dispute without the necessity of involving the
Court.
b. Exclusions. The Class Notice shall explain that Class Members who wish
to exclude themselves from the Class and Settlement must submit a Request for Exclusion to the
Settlement Administrator by the Response Deadline. The Request for Exclusion: (1) must
-19-
STIPULATION OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
contain the name, address, and telephone number of the person requesting exclusion; (2) must
be signed by the Class Member; and (3) must be postmarked by the Response Deadline and
returned to the Settlement Administrator at the specified address. Subject to review by Class
Counsel, Defense Counsel and the Court, the date of the postmark on the return mailing
envelope on the Request for Exclusion shall be the exclusive means used by the Settlement
Administrator to determine whether a Class Member has timely requested exclusion from the
Class and Settlement. Any Class Member who timely and properly requests to be excluded
from the Class and Settlement shall not be entitled to any benefits under the Settlement and shall
not be bound by the terms of the Settlement, nor shall the Class Member have any right to object
to the Settlement or appeal from the entry of the Final Order and Judgment. Class Members
who do not submit a valid and timely Request for Exclusion on or before the Response Deadline
shall be bound by all terms of the Settlement and the Final Order and Judgment entered in this
Action if the Settlement is finally approved by the Court. No later than ten (10) days after the
Response Deadline, the Settlement Administrator shall provide counsel for the Parties with a
complete list of all Class Members who submitted a timely and valid Request for Exclusion.
c. Objections. The Class Notice shall state that Class Members who wish to
object to the Settlement shall submit to the Settlement Administrator a written brief or statement
of objection (“Notice of Objection”) by the Response Deadline. The Notice of Objection must
(1) state the full name of the Class Member; (2) be signed by the Class Member; (3) state the
grounds for the objection; and (4) be postmarked by the Response Deadline and returned to the
Settlement Administrator at the specified addresses. The Settlement Administrator shall
promptly forward all Notices of Objection to Class Counsel and to Defense Counsel. Subject to
review by Class Counsel, Defense Counsel and the Court, the date of the postmark on the return
mailing envelope on the Notice of Objection shall be the exclusive means used by the
Settlement Administrator to determine whether a Class Member has timely objected to the
Settlement. Class Members who fail to timely make objections in the manner specified herein
shall be deemed to have waived any objections and shall be foreclosed from making any
objections (whether by appeal or otherwise) to the Settlement. At no time shall any of the
-20-
STIPULATION OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Parties, Class Counsel or Defense Counsel seek to solicit or otherwise encourage Class
Members to file and serve a Notice of Objection or appeal from the Final Order and Judgment.
The Parties shall file responses to any Notices of Objection at the time the motion for final
approval is filed.
d. Monitoring and Reviewing Settlement Administration. The Parties and
their respective Counsel have the right to monitor and review the administration of the
Settlement to verify that the monies allocated under the Settlement are distributed in a correct
amount, as provided for in this Stipulation.
e. Best Efforts. The Parties agree to use their best efforts to carry out the
terms of this Settlement.
63. Funding and Allocation of Maximum Settlement Amount. Class Members shall
not be required to submit a claim in order to receive a share of the Net Settlement Amount, and
no portion of the Maximum Settlement Amount shall revert to PLG or result in an unpaid
residue. No later than ten (10) days after the Effective Date, PLG shall provide to the
Settlement Administrator in any feasible manner, including, but not limited to, by way of a wire
transfer, the Maximum Settlement Amount. In no event shall there be any distribution from the
Maximum Settlement Amount until after the Effective Date and all conditions precedent
specified in this Stipulation have been completely satisfied. If this Settlement is not finally
approved by the Court in full, or is terminated, rescinded, canceled or fails to become effective
for any reason, or if the Effective Date does not occur, then no Maximum Settlement Amount
shall be paid.
a. Individual Settlement Payments. Individual Settlement Payments shall be
paid by the Settlement Administrator from the Net Settlement Amount and shall be paid
pursuant to the formula set forth herein. Individual Settlement Payments shall be mailed by the
Settlement Administrator by regular First Class U.S. Mail to each Participating Class Member’s
last known mailing address within fourteen (14) days after PLG provides the Settlement
Administrator with the Maximum Settlement Amount. Individual Settlement Payments shall be
allocated as follows: 1/3 as wages subject to all applicable tax withholdings, 1/3 as non-wage
-21-
STIPULATION OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
penalties not subject to payroll tax withholdings, and 1/3 as non-wage interest not subject to
payroll tax withholdings. The Settlement Administrator shall issue an IRS Form W-2 to each
Participating Class Member for the portion of the Individual Settlement Payment allocated as
wages and subject to all applicable tax withholdings. The Settlement Administrator shall issue
an IRS Form 1099 to each Participating Class Member for the portion of the Individual
Settlement Payment allocated as non-wage penalties and interest and not subject to payroll tax
withholdings.
i. Each Participating Class Member’s Individual Settlement
Payment shall be calculated solely by the Settlement Administrator according to the following
formula: PLG shall provide the Settlement Administrator with the Compensable Workweeks for
each Participating Class Member to the extent possible; the Settlement Administrator shall then
(1) divide the Compensable Workweeks worked by each Participating Class Member by the
total Compensable Workweeks worked by all Participating Class Members, and (2) multiply the
result in (1) by the Net Settlement Amount. The Individual Settlement Payment will be reduced
by any required legal deductions for each Participating Class Member.
ii. Individual Settlement Payments shall be made by check and shall
be made payable to each Participating Class Member as set forth in this Stipulation.
iii. The back of each check issued to Participating Class Members
shall state as follows: “My signature hereon constitutes my declaration, under penalty of
perjury, that I am the individual to whom this check was made payable and serves as my full
and complete release of all ‘Released Claims’ as described more fully in this Stipulation and the
Notice of Class Action Settlement.”
iv. All checks for Individual Settlement Payments paid to
Participating Class Members shall advise that the checks will remain valid and negotiable for
ninety (90) days from the date of the checks’ issuance and shall thereafter automatically be void
if not cashed by a Participating Class Member within that time. Any Individual Settlement
Payment that is not cashed by a Participating Class Member within ninety (90) days of issuance
shall be paid, on a pro rata basis according to the formula set forth in Section 63(a)(i) of this
-22-
STIPULATION OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Agreement, to the Participating Class Members who cashed their Individual Settlement Payment
within ninety (90) days of the mailing. The payment of the reapportioned funds to Participating
Class Members who cashed their Individual Settlement Payments shall be referred to as the
“Reapportioned Settlement Payments.” The Settlement Administrator shall mail the
Reapportioned Settlement Payments within ten (10) days after the expiration of the ninety (90)
day period for cashing the Individual Settlement Payments. The Reapportioned Settlement
Payments shall be treated exclusively as payment for penalties and interest and will not be
subject to payroll tax withholdings. The Settlement Administrator shall issue an IRS Form 1099
to each Participating Class Member who is issued a Reapportioned Settlement Payment. All
checks for Reapportioned Settlement Payments paid to Participating Class Members shall advise
that the checks will remain valid and negotiable for ninety (90) days from the date of the
checks’ issuance.
v. If a Reapportioned Settlement Payment check remains uncashed
after ninety (90) days from issuance, the Settlement Administrator shall pay over the amount
represented by the check, without the need to include interest, to the California Department of
Industrial Relations Unpaid Wage Fund with the identity of the Participating Class Member to
whom the funds belong. In such event, the Participating Class Member shall nevertheless
remain bound by the Settlement.
b. Individual Settlement Payments Do Not Trigger Employment
Relationship or Additional Benefits. All monies received by Participating Class Members under
the Settlement which are attributable to wages shall constitute income to such Participating
Class Members solely in the year in which such monies actually are received by the
Participating Class Members. It is expressly understood and agreed that the receipt of
Individual Settlement Payments shall not entitle any Participating Class Member to additional
compensation or benefits under any collective bargaining agreement or under any bonus, contest
or other compensation or benefit plan or agreement in place during the period covered by the
Settlement, nor shall it entitle any Participating Class Member to any increased pension and/or
retirement, or other deferred compensation benefits. It is the intent of the Parties that Individual
-23-
STIPULATION OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Settlement Payments provided for in this Stipulation are the sole payments to be made by PLG
to Participating Class Members in connection with this Settlement, with the exception of
Plaintiffs, and that the Participating Class Members are not entitled to any new or additional
compensation or benefits as a result of having received the Individual Settlement Payments
(notwithstanding any contrary language or agreement in any collective bargaining agreement or
in any benefit or compensation plan document that might have been in effect during the period
covered by this Settlement). Furthermore, the receipt of Individual Settlement Payments by
Participating Class Members shall not, and does not, by itself establish any general, special, or
joint employment relationship between and among the Participating Class Member(s) and PLG.
c. Class Representative Service Awards. Subject to Court approval, each
Plaintiff shall be paid a Class Representative Service Award not to exceed Ten Thousand
Dollars ($10,000.00), or any lesser amount as awarded by the Court, for their time and effort in
bringing and presenting the Actions and for releasing their Released Claims. PLG agrees not to
oppose or object to this request. The Class Representative Service Awards shall be paid to
Plaintiffs from the Maximum Settlement Amount no later than fourteen (14) days after PLG
provides the Settlement Administrator with the Maximum Settlement Amount. The Settlement
Administrator shall issue an IRS Form 1099 to each Plaintiff for his or her respective Class
Representative Service Award. Plaintiffs shall be solely and legally responsible to pay any and
all applicable taxes on their respective Class Representative Service Awards and shall hold
harmless PLG, Class Counsel and Defense Counsel from any claim or liability for taxes,
penalties, or interest arising as a result of payment of the Class Representative Service Awards.
The Class Representative Service Awards shall be made in addition to the Plaintiffs’ Individual
Settlement Payments. Any amount requested by Plaintiffs for the Class Representative Service
Awards and not awarded by the Court shall become part of the Net Settlement Amount and shall
be distributed to Participating Class Members as part of their Individual Settlement Payments.
d. Class Counsel Award. Subject to Court approval, Class Counsel shall be
entitled to receive reasonable attorneys’ fees in an amount not to exceed thirty three and one-
third percent (33 1/3%) of the Maximum Settlement Amount.. In addition, subject to Court
-24-
STIPULATION OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
approval, Class Counsel shall be entitled to an award of reasonable costs associated with Class
Counsel’s prosecution of the Actions in an amount not to exceed Seventy Thousand Dollars
($70,000.00). Class Counsel shall provide the Settlement Administrator with a properly
completed and signed IRS Form W-9 in order for the Settlement Administrator to process the
Class Counsel Award approved by the Court. PLG agrees not to oppose or object to such
requests. In the event the Court awards Class Counsel less than thirty-three and one-third
percent (33 1/3%) of the Maximum Settlement Amount in attorneys’ fees and/or less than
Seventy Thousand Dollars ($70,000.00) in costs, the difference shall become part of the Net
Settlement Amount and shall be distributed to Participating Class Members as part of their
Individual Settlement Payments. Class Counsel shall be paid any Court-approved attorneys’
fees and costs no later than fourteen (14) days after PLG provides the Settlement Administrator
with the Maximum Settlement Amount. Class Counsel shall be solely and legally responsible to
pay all applicable taxes on the Class Counsel Award. The Settlement Administrator shall issue
an IRS Form 1099 to Class Counsel for the Class Counsel Award. This Settlement is not
conditioned upon the Court awarding Class Counsel any particular amount of attorneys’ fees or
costs. Class Counsel agrees that each respective firm shall submit itemized reports of
reasonable litigation costs to the Court for reimbursement, with the total not to exceed Seventy
Thousand Dollars ($70,000.00). Class Counsel agrees that any attorneys’ fees awarded by the
Court pursuant to this Stipulation, including any multiplier (i.e., premium above the lodestar),
shall be divided as follows: thirty-four percent (34%) to Matern Law Group, PC; seventeen
percent (17%) to Wilson Trial Group; seventeen percent (17%) to the Sweeney Law Firm, APC;
17% to Solouki & Savoy, LLP; and fifteen percent (15%) to Law Office of Robert W. Skripko,
APLC and Denis & Rasi, PC together (as to this 15% share of attorneys’ fees, they shall be split
ten percent (10%) to Law Office of Robert W. Skripko, APLC; and 90% to Denis & Rasi, PC).
Class Counsel agrees to direct the Settlement Administrator to pay the award of attorneys’ fees
in a manner consistent with the terms of this Stipulation. This agreement concerning the
division of attorneys’ fees shall not operate to increase the total fee charged by Class Counsel to
their respective clients. This agreement constitutes the entire agreement between Class Counsel
-25-
STIPULATION OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
regarding the division of attorneys’ fees in the Actions and it supersedes all prior agreements,
negotiations, and understandings with respect to the division of attorneys’ fees between Class
Counsel. The signatures of Plaintiffs below shall signify their agreement and consent to this
division of attorneys’ fees in accordance with Rule 2-200 of the California Rules of Professional
Conduct.
e. Settlement Administration Costs. The Settlement Administrator shall be
paid from the Maximum Settlement Amount for the Settlement Administration Costs, which are
estimated not to exceed Forty Thousand Dollars ($40,000.00). To the extent actual Settlement
Administration Costs are greater than $40,000.00, such excess amount shall be taken out of the
Maximum Settlement Amount. Any portion of the estimated or designated Settlement
Administration Costs that are not in fact required to fulfill the total settlement administration
costs shall become part of the Net Settlement Amount and shall be distributed to Participating
Class Members as part of their Individual Settlement Payments. Prior to Plaintiffs filing a
motion for final approval of this Settlement, the Settlement Administrator shall provide the
Parties with a statement detailing the Settlement Administration Costs to date. The Parties agree
to cooperate in the Settlement administration process and to make all reasonable efforts to
control and to minimize Settlement Administration Costs.
i. The Parties each represent they do not have any financial interest
in the Settlement Administrator or otherwise have a relationship with the Settlement
Administrator that could create a conflict of interest.
ii. The Settlement Administrator shall keep the Parties timely
apprised of the performance of all Settlement Administrator responsibilities required by the
Settlement. The Settlement Administrator shall be authorized to establish a Qualified
Settlement Fund (“QSF”) pursuant to IRS rules and regulations in which the Maximum
Settlement Amount shall be placed and from which payments required by the Settlement shall
be made.
iii. The Settlement Administrator shall be entitled to withdraw from
the QSF its Settlement Administration Costs no earlier than fourteen (14) days after PLG
-26-
STIPULATION OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
provides the Settlement Administrator with the Maximum Settlement Amount.
f. Payment to the LWDA. Twenty Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00)
from the Maximum Settlement Amount shall be allocated to penalties under PAGA, of which
Eighteen Thousand Seven Hundred Fifty Dollars ($18,750.00) shall be paid by the Settlement
Administrator directly to the LWDA. The remaining Six Thousand Two Hundred Fifty Dollars
($6,250.00) shall be part of the Net Settlement Amount and shall be distributed to Participating
Class Members as part of their Individual Settlement Payments.
64. Final Settlement Approval Hearing and Entry of Final Order and Judgment.
Upon expiration of the Response Deadline, a Final Approval Hearing shall be conducted to
determine whether to grant final approval of the Settlement, including determining the amounts
properly payable for: (i) the Class Counsel Award; (ii) the Class Representative Service
Awards; (iii) Settlement Administration Costs; and (iv) the payment to the LWDA. Prior to the
Final Approval Hearing, the Settlement Administrator shall provide a written report or
declaration to the Parties describing the process and results of the administration of the
Settlement to date, which report or declaration shall be filed by Plaintiffs with the Court prior to
the Final Approval Hearing. If the Court grants final approval of the Settlement, the Settlement
Administrator shall post notice of final judgment on its website within seven (7) calendar days
of entry of the Final Order and Judgment.
65. Nullification of Settlement. In the event: (i) the Court does not enter the
Preliminary Approval Order; (ii) the Court does not grant final approval the Settlement; (iii) the
Court does not enter the Final Order and Judgment; or (iv) the Settlement does not become final
for any other reason, this Stipulation shall be rendered null and void, any order or judgment
entered by the Court in furtherance of this Settlement shall be treated as void from the
beginning, this Stipulation and any documents related to it shall not be used by any Class
Member or Class Counsel to support any claim or request for class certification in the Actions,
and shall not be used in any other civil, criminal or administrative action against PLG or any of
the other Released Parties, the Parties shall be returned to their respective statuses as of the date
and time immediately prior to the execution of this Stipulation, and the Parties shall proceed in
-27-
STIPULATION OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
all respects as if this Stipulation had not been executed, except that any Settlement
Administration Costs already incurred by the Settlement Administrator shall be equally paid to
the Settlement Administrator by the Parties. In the event an appeal is filed from the Court’s
Final Order and Judgment, or any other appellate review is sought, administration of the
Settlement shall be stayed pending final resolution of the appeal or other appellate review. Any
fees incurred by the Settlement Administrator prior to it being notified of the filing of an appeal
from the Court’s Final Order and Judgment, or any other appellate review, shall be equally paid
by the Parties to the Settlement Administrator.
66. No Admission by PLG. PLG denies all claims alleged in the Actions and denies
all wrongdoing whatsoever. Neither this Stipulation, nor any of its terms and conditions, nor
any of the negotiations connected with it, is a concession or admission, and none shall be used
against PLG as an admission or indication with respect to any claim of any fault, concession, or
omission by PLG or that class certification is proper under the standard applied to contested
certification motions. The Parties stipulate and agree to the certification of the proposed class
for settlement purposes only. As part of this Settlement, PLG shall not be required to enter into
any consent decree nor shall PLG be required to agree to any provision for injunctive or
prospective relief. The Parties further agree that this Stipulation will not be admissible in this or
any other proceeding as evidence that either (i) a class action should be certified or (ii) PLG is
liable to Plaintiffs or any Class Member, other than according to the terms of this Stipulation.
67. Exhibits and Headings. The terms of this Stipulation include the terms set forth
in any attached Exhibits, which are incorporated by this reference as though fully set forth
herein. The Exhibits to this Stipulation are an integral part of the Settlement. The descriptive
headings of any paragraphs or sections of this Stipulation are inserted for convenience of
reference only.
68. Interim Stay of Action. The Parties agree to stay and to request that the Court
stay all proceedings in the Action, except such proceedings necessary to implement and
complete the Settlement and enter the Final Order and Judgment.
69. Amendment or Modification. This Stipulation may be amended or modified only
-28-
STIPULATION OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
by a written instrument signed by counsel for all Parties or their successors-in-interest.
70. Entire Agreement. This Stipulation and any attached Exhibits constitute the
entire agreement between the Parties, and no oral or written representations, warranties, or
inducements have been made to Plaintiffs or PLG concerning this Stipulation or its Exhibits
other than the representations, warranties, and covenants contained and memorialized in this
Stipulation and its Exhibits. No other prior or contemporaneous written or oral agreements may
be deemed binding on the Parties.
71. Authorization to Enter Into Settlement Agreement. Class Counsel and Defense
Counsel warrant and represent they are expressly authorized by the Parties whom they represent
to negotiate this Stipulation and to take all appropriate actions required or permitted to be taken
by such Parties pursuant to this Stipulation to effectuate its terms, and to execute any other
documents required to effectuate the terms of this Stipulation. The Parties, Class Counsel and
Defense Counsel shall cooperate with each other and use their best efforts to effect the
implementation of the Settlement. In the event the Parties are unable to reach agreement on the
form or content of any document needed to implement the Settlement, or on any supplemental
provisions that may become necessary to effectuate the terms of this Settlement, the Parties may
seek the assistance of the Court and/or mediator Gig Kyriacou to resolve such disagreement.
The person signing this Stipulation on behalf of PLG represents and warrants that he/she is
authorized to sign this Stipulation on behalf of PLG. Plaintiffs represent and warrant that they
are authorized to sign this Stipulation and that they have not assigned any claim, or part of a
claim, covered by this Settlement to a third party. The Parties have cooperated in the drafting
and preparation of this Stipulation Agreement. Hence, in any construction made of this
Stipulation, the same shall not be construed against any of the Parties.
72. Binding on Successors and Assigns. This Stipulation shall be binding upon, and
inure to the benefit of, the successors and assigns of the Parties.
73. California Law Governs. All terms of this Stipulation and the Exhibits hereto
shall be governed by and interpreted according to the laws of the State of California, without
giving effect to any law that would cause the laws of any jurisdiction other than the State of
-29-
STIPULATION OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
California to be applied.
74. Counterparts. This Stipulation may be executed in one or more counterparts. All
executed counterparts and each of them shall be deemed to be one and the same instrument.
75. This Settlement is Fair, Adequate and Reasonable. Plaintiffs represent that this
Settlement is a fair, adequate, and reasonable settlement of the Actions and they have arrived at
this Settlement after extensive arms-length negotiations, taking into account all relevant factors,
present and potential.
76. Jurisdiction of the Court. Following entry of the Final Order and Judgment,
pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure §664.6, the Court shall retain jurisdiction with
respect to the interpretation, implementation, and enforcement of the terms of this Stipulation
and all orders and judgments entered in connection therewith, and the Parties, Class Counsel
and Defense Counsel submit to the jurisdiction of the Court for purposes of interpreting,
implementing, and enforcing the Settlement embodied in this Stipulation and all orders and
judgments entered in connection therewith.
77. Invalidity of Any Provision. Before declaring any term or provision of this
Stipulation invalid, the Parties request that the Court first attempt to construe the terms or
provisions valid to the fullest extent possible consistent with applicable precedents so as to
define all provisions of this Stipulation as valid and enforceable. If any provision(s) or term(s)
of this Settlement Agreement is determined to be void or unenforceable except for the release
provisions provided herein, said provision(s) or term(s) shall be stricken from this Settlement
Agreement, and the remaining terms and provisions shall remain valid and enforceable.
78. Binding Nature of Notice of Class Action Settlement. It is agreed that because
the Class Members are so numerous, it is impossible or impractical to have each Class Member
execute the Stipulation. The Class Notice shall advise all Class Members of the binding nature
of the Settlement, and the release of Released Claims and shall have the same force and effect as
if this Stipulation were executed by each Participating Class Member.
79. Confidentiality. Plaintiffs and Class Counsel agree to keep the facts and terms of
this Settlement confidential until the Preliminary Approval Order is sought from the Court, and,
-30-
STIPULATION OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
thereafter, to the fullest extent possible. Plaintiffs and Class Counsel also agree not to make or
offer to make any public disclosure of the Settlement, other than what is necessary and
consistent with the need for judicial approval of the Settlement and notice to Class Members.
Class Counsel shall take all steps necessary to ensure that Plaintiffs are aware of, and will
ensure that they adhere to, the restriction against any public disclosure of the terms of the
Settlement. Class Counsel shall take all steps necessary to ensure that Plaintiffs are aware of,
and will ensure that each adheres to, the terms of this paragraph.
80. The Parties hereto represent, covenant, and warrant that they have not directly or
indirectly, assigned, transferred, encumbered, or purported to assign, transfer, or encumber to
any person or entity any portion of any liability, claim, demand, action, cause of action, or rights
herein released and discharged except as set forth herein.
81. In the event a party to this Settlement Agreement institutes any legal action or
other proceeding against any other party to enforce the provisions of this Settlement Agreement
or to declare rights or obligations under this Settlement Agreement, the prevailing party shall be
entitled to recover from the unsuccessful party or parties reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs,
including expert witness fees incurred in connection with any enforcement proceedings.
82. The Parties acknowledge and agree that this Settlement Agreement reflects their
good faith compromise of the claims raised in the Actions, based on their assessment of the
mutual risks and costs of further litigation and the assessments of their counsel. The Parties are
represented by competent counsel, and they have had an opportunity to consult with counsel
prior to execution of this Settlement Agreement.
83. The Parties acknowledge and agree that: (i) they have been advised of their right
to consult an attorney before signing this Agreement, and are hereby so advised; (ii) they have
consulted with their respective Counsel; (iii) they fully understand the provisions of this
Settlement Agreement and their effect; (iv) Counsel have explained all provisions of this
Settlement Agreement and their effect, and (v) they are signing this Settlement Agreement
voluntarily and free from duress.
[Signatures on next page.]
I
2
aJ
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
l3
t4
l5
t6
17
18
t9
20
2l
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DATED: 't - /& ,2017 rrtoro o*i,Iô,. 6 tn, -
DATED:
DATED:
DATED:
DATED
DATED
2017Plaintiff JUANA MADERO
2017Plaintiff ALICIA LOPEZ
ptaiñtiîfltaRcÄRlTA coNZALE z a/k/ aANA HERNANDEZ
20t7Plaintiff ANGELA CRUZ
2017 Defendant DSJ WEST, INC.
By:NameTitle:
2017 Defendant PORT LOGISTICS GROUP, INC.
By:NameTitle:
2017 Defendant TPE ACQUISITION, INC
ByNameTitle:
-31 -
DATED:
STIPULATION OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
13
DATED: April 2017 SOLOUKI & SAVOY LLP
By:SHOHAM J. SOLOUKI
GRANT J. SAVOY
Attorneys for PlaintiffsJUANA MADERO and ALICIA LOPEZ,
individually and on behalf of all others similarlysituated
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DATED: April Pt2017 DENIS & RASI, PC
DATED; April ii-2017
DATED: April 2017
PAUL J. DENIS
ETHAN E. RASI
Attorneys for Plaintiff, ANGELA CRUZ,individually and on behalf of all others similarlysituated
LAW OFFICE OF
ROBERT W. SKRIPKO, JR., PC
ROBERTJkVrSKRIPF^CLjR.Attorneys for Plaintiff, ANGELA CRUZ,individually and on behalf of all others similarlysituated
JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
By:JAMES P. CARTER
KATHY LE
Attorneys for DefendantsDSJ WEST, INC., PORT LOGISTICS GROUP,INC., TPE ACQUISITION, INC., andTRANSPORT EXPRESS, INC.
-33-
STIPULATION OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT