Contract analysis

I. INTRODUCTION Defendant Aurelius Media Americas Inc. ("AMA") respectfully submits this Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. AMA is a Delaware corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of Aurelius Global Media Group PLC, a public limited company organized under the laws of England and Wales. AMA is headquartered at 8500 Sunset Boulevard, Suite 1400, West Hol

II. STATEMENT OF FACTS A. AMA's California Operations AMA operates seven California production facilities, each serving distinct functions within the company's entertainment production business. (Declaration of Celine Arroyo ("Arroyo Decl.") ¶¶ 3–10.) These facilities are:

1. Facility 1 — 8500 Sunset Boulevard, Suite 1400, West Hollywood, California 90069: AMA's corporate headquarters and primary post-production center, housing executive offices, editorial suites, audio mixing stages, and color correction bays. Facility 1 also serves as the primary production location for several studio-based unscripted programs, including "Kitchen Clash." (Arroyo Decl. ¶ 4.)

2. Facility 2 — 4024 Penmark Strategy Partners Avenue, Studio City, California 91604: A two-stage production facility (Stage A and Stage B) dedicated to unscripted programming. Facility 2 houses multiple concurrent unscripted productions and is characterized by variable shooting schedules that fluctuate based on the production calendar for each show unit. (Arroyo Decl. ¶ 5.)

3. Facility 3 — 15301 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 300, Sherman Oaks, California 91403: AMA's digital content division, which produces short-form and social media content for AMA's portfolio of brands and shows. Facility 3 operates on a hybrid model, with some employees working in a studio environment and others working remotely. (Arroyo Decl. ¶ 6.)

4. Facility 4 — 3800 West Alameda Avenue, Burbank, California 91505: The hub for AMA's live events and field production division. This facility serves as the coordination and staging center for live concerts, award shows, and remote field productions, including the outdoor adventure competition series "Summit Challenge." Employees at Facility 4 frequently work at off-site locations with schedules dictated by the live

5. Facility 5 — 1438 North Gower Street, Hollywood, California 90028: AMA's scripted development center, housing writers' rooms, development offices, and associated post-production editorial. Facility 5 operates on a more traditional office schedule. (Arroyo Decl. ¶ 8.)

6. Facility 6 — 2120 Colorado Avenue, Santa Monica, California 90404: AMA's e-commerce studio, producing product photography, video content, and related digital assets for AMA's consumer-facing businesses. This facility operates regular studio hours with scheduled shooting blocks. (Arroyo Decl. ¶ 9.)

7. Facility 7 — 888 North Sepulveda Boulevard, El Segundo, California 90245: A post-production annex facility housing overflow editorial, visual effects, and quality control operations. Facility 7 supplements the post-production capacity of Facility 1 during peak production periods. (Arroyo Decl. ¶ 10.) Across these seven facilities, AMA operates fourteen distinct production or show units, all subject to Industrial W

III. LEGAL STANDARD FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION Under Code of Civil Procedure section 382 and California Rules of Court, Rule 3.764, a plaintiff seeking class certification bears the burden of establishing each of the following prerequisites: (1) an ascertainable class; (2) a community of interest among class members, which encompasses the requirements of predominance of common questions, typicality, and adequacy of repr

IV. ARGUMENT A. Common Questions Do Not Predominate Over Individual Questions

1. The Auto-Deduction Is a Timekeeping Method, Not a Substantive Policy of Denying Breaks Plaintiffs' theory of class-wide liability rests on a fundamental conceptual error: the conflation of a timekeeping mechanism with a substantive employment practice. The TimeTrack Pro automatic meal-period deduction records time — it does not deny breaks. When an employee works a shift of six or more hours (now corrected to five

2. The Meal Period Claim Requires Individualized Inquiry Across 14 Show Units and 7 Facilities Even if the auto-deduction could be characterized as a common issue — which it cannot — the predominance of individualized questions across AMA's fourteen show units and seven facilities would independently defeat class certification. Dr. Makhija's expert analysis demonstrates that AMA's fourteen show units operate in mater

3. The Attestation Feature Variation Does Not Create a Uniform Common Question Plaintiffs contend that the inconsistent activation of the Missed Meal Attestation feature across AMA's seven facilities creates a universal deficiency that unifies the class. This argument fails for multiple reasons. First, the facility-level split in attestation feature availability actually demonstrates the opposite of Plaintiffs' thesi

4. Rest Period Claims Cannot Be Adjudicated Class-Wide Plaintiffs' rest period claims present an even clearer case for denial of certification than the meal period claims. Unlike meal periods, rest periods are not tracked in the TimeTrack Pro system. (Fong Decl. ¶ 20.) This is standard practice in the California entertainment industry and across industries generally: because rest periods are paid time, employers are

5. Off-the-Clock / Overtime Claims Are Inherently Individualized Plaintiffs allege that AMA non-exempt employees routinely performed approximately thirty to forty-five minutes of pre-shift setup work and approximately fifteen to thirty minutes of post-shift wrap work that was not recorded in TimeTrack Pro and for which they were not compensated. These claims are inherently individualized and wholly unsuitable for cla

6. Wage Statement, Minimum Wage, and Waiting Time Penalty Claims Are Derivative Plaintiffs' remaining claims — for wage statement violations under California Labor Code section 226, for minimum wage violations under Labor Code sections 1197 and 1197.1, and for waiting time penalties under Labor Code sections 201 through 203 — are entirely derivative of the underlying meal period, rest period, and off-the-clock claims

1. The 100% Violation Assumption Is Unsupported The most fundamental flaw in Dr. Rennick's model is his assumption that every auto-deducted meal period — net of attestation overrides — constitutes a "missed" meal period requiring a one-hour premium payment. Dr. Rennick calculates approximately 593,600 net auto-deducted shifts across the class period. He then multiplies this figure by the average hourly rate of approx

2. The Rest Period and Off-the-Clock Assumptions Lack Empirical Basis Dr. Rennick's rest period and off-the-clock damages calculations are similarly infirm. His fifty-percent rest period violation rate is derived from the deposition testimony of the three named Plaintiffs and is not supported by any statistical analysis, survey, time-study, or data of any kind. (Lindstrom Decl. ¶ 18.) Extrapolating from the experienc

3. No Facility-Level or Show-Unit-Level Analysis Dr. Rennick's model treats all seven facilities and all fourteen show units as a single, homogeneous class, applying uniform violation rates and uniform time assumptions across the entire putative class. (Lindstrom Decl. ¶ 21.) This approach is directly contrary to the unrebutted evidence of significant operational variation across AMA's facilities and show units, as d

4. Evidentiary Objections to Dr. Rennick's Report AMA has filed separate evidentiary objections to Dr. Rennick's expert report (Document 88 in the Court's file). Those objections are made pursuant to California Evidence Code sections 801 and 802 and the California Supreme Court's decision in Sargon Enterprises, Inc. v. University of Southern California (2012) 55 Cal.4th 747. AMA objects on three principal grounds: (1