Contract analysis

I. Executive Summary On April 14, 2023, Plaintiffs Marisol Fuentes, Derek Halloran, and Yesenia Padilla (collectively, "Plaintiffs" or "Named Plaintiffs") filed their Motion for Class Certification before the Honorable Raymond Escobedo, Department 34, of the Los Angeles Superior Court. The Motion is the central procedural milestone in this wage-and-hour class action against our client, Aurelius Media Americas Inc. ("

II. Summary of Plaintiffs' Key Arguments A. Common Question — The Auto-Deduction System The centerpiece of Plaintiffs' certification motion is the contention that AMA's company-wide timekeeping system — the NovaPay Solutions "TimeTrack Pro" platform — creates a uniform common question applicable to all putative class members. Plaintiffs frame the common question as follows: "Did AMA's systematic auto-deduction of 30

III. Assessment of Strengths in Plaintiffs' Motion Having summarized the principal arguments in Plaintiffs' Motion, we turn to an assessment of the strengths of those arguments. As set forth below, Plaintiffs' case for certification is strongest with respect to the auto-deduction common question and the availability of centralized data. It is moderate with respect to Wage Order 12 uniformity and the strength of the P

IV. Assessment of Weaknesses in Plaintiffs' Motion While Plaintiffs' motion presents a coherent and well-organized case for certification — particularly on the meal period auto-deduction claim — it contains several material weaknesses that, if effectively exploited, should enable us to defeat or significantly narrow certification. We identify seven principal areas of vulnerability. A. Dr. Rennick's Foundational Assum

V. Assessment of the *Northgate Enterprises* / *Brinker* Framework A. Plaintiffs' Use of *Northgate Enterprises* Plaintiffs invoke Granite Harbor Partners LLC v. Behrend (2013) 569 U.S. 27 for the proposition that a damages model need not be "perfect" at the certification stage and that methodological disputes about the precise calculation of damages are not a basis for denying certification. Plaintiffs characterize

VI. Predicted Outcome Based on our analysis of Plaintiffs' motion, the applicable legal standards, the strengths and weaknesses of each party's position, and our assessment of Judge Escobedo's likely approach (informed by his rulings in prior wage-and-hour certification motions), we predict the following outcomes: • We assess an approximately 35% probability of defeating certification entirely across all seven causes

VII. Recommended Opposition Strategy A. Lead with Individualized Inquiry / Predominance Our primary argument in opposition should be that individual variation across AMA's fourteen show units and seven facilities — in scheduling practices, supervisory decisions, production demands, and meal and rest break implementation — means that common questions do not predominate over individual questions. This is our strongest

1. Dr. Rennick's assumption that every auto-deducted meal period was a "missed" meal period lacks evidentiary foundation and is inconsistent with the available attestation data, which shows that 96–98% of employees at attestation-active facilities did not report missed breaks.

2. Dr. Rennick's assumption of a 50% rest period violation rate, extrapolated from the declarations of three Named Plaintiffs to a class of approximately 1,850, is speculative and lacks any statistical or empirical basis.

3. Dr. Rennick's PAGA penalty calculation assumes imposition of maximum penalties without accounting for the trial court's discretion under Labor Code Section 2699(e)(2) to reduce penalties if the award would be "unjust, arbitrary and oppressive, or confiscatory." We note that a standalone Sargon motion to exclude Dr. Rennick's testimony is not recommended at this stage. We assess that such a motion would have approx