Contract analysis

I. IDENTIFICATION OF THE RELATED CASE The related action of which AMA hereby gives notice is identified as follows: Case Title: Derek Halloran v. Aurelius Media Americas Inc. Case Number: 22STCV39501 Court: Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles — Central District Date Filed: November 18, 2022 Department: Not yet assigned as of the date of this Notice The Halloran action was filed four days

II. PARTIES IN THE RELATED CASE A. Plaintiff. The plaintiff in the related action is Derek Halloran, who brings suit individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated. Mr. Halloran is a former Post-Production Assistant within the Digital Content Division of Aurelius Media Americas Inc. Upon information and belief, Mr. Halloran's residence is located at 1518 N. Cahuenga Boulevard, Unit 3B, Hollywood, Califor

III. NATURE OF THE RELATED CASE A. Overview. The Halloran action, like the instant Fuentes action, is a putative class action alleging wage-and-hour violations under the California Labor Code and related statutes against Aurelius Media Americas Inc. Both actions are brought on behalf of a substantially identical putative class of current and former non-exempt, hourly employees of AMA who worked in the State of Califo

1. Failure to Provide Compliant Meal Periods — in violation of California Labor Code Sections 226.7 and 512, alleging that AMA failed to provide its non-exempt employees with timely, uninterrupted, duty-free meal periods of not less than thirty (30) minutes for every work period of more than five (5) hours, and failed to pay one additional hour of compensation at the employees' regular rate of pay for each workday on

2. Failure to Provide Compliant Rest Periods — in violation of California Labor Code Section 226.7, alleging that AMA failed to authorize and permit its non-exempt employees to take paid rest periods of not less than ten (10) net minutes for every four (4) hours of work, or major fraction thereof, and failed to pay the required premium compensation when such rest periods were not provided.

3. Failure to Pay Overtime Compensation — in violation of California Labor Code Sections 510 and 1194, alleging that AMA failed to compensate its non-exempt employees at the applicable overtime rate for all hours worked in excess of eight (8) hours in any one workday, in excess of forty (40) hours in any one workweek, and for the first eight (8) hours of work on the seventh consecutive day of work in any one workweek

4. Failure to Pay Minimum Wage — in violation of California Labor Code Sections 1197 and 1197.1, alleging that AMA's practices, including its failure to compensate for all hours actually worked, resulted in the effective hourly rate for certain pay periods falling below the applicable California minimum wage.

5. Failure to Provide Accurate, Itemized Wage Statements — in violation of California Labor Code Section 226, alleging that AMA failed to furnish its non-exempt employees with accurate, itemized wage statements reflecting, among other things, all hours worked, all applicable rates of pay, and the correct calculation of gross and net wages earned during each pay period.

6. Waiting Time Penalties — pursuant to California Labor Code Sections 201 through 203, alleging that AMA willfully failed to pay all wages earned and unpaid to employees at the time of their separation from employment, thereby entitling such employees to continuation wages for up to thirty (30) days.

7. Unfair Business Practices — pursuant to California Business and Professions Code Section 17200 et seq. (the "UCL"), alleging that AMA's wage-and-hour violations constitute unlawful, unfair, and/or fraudulent business practices.

8. PAGA Representative Claims — pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, California Labor Code Sections 2698 through 2699.8, seeking civil penalties on behalf of the State of California and all aggrieved employees for each violation of the California Labor Code alleged in the complaint. C. Putative Class Definition The putative class definition in the Halloran action is substantially identical to the cl

IV. BASIS FOR RELATEDNESS UNDER CALIFORNIA RULES OF COURT, RULE 3.300 Under California Rules of Court, Rule 3.300(a), cases are related when they: (1) Involve the same parties and are based on the same or similar claims; (2) Arise from the same or substantially identical transactions, incidents, or events requiring the determination of the same or substantially identical questions of law or fact; (3) Involve claims a

V. REQUEST FOR RELIEF For the foregoing reasons, Defendant Aurelius Media Americas Inc. respectfully requests that the Court:

1. Determine that Case No. 22STCV39501 (Halloran v. Aurelius Media Americas Inc.) is related to Case No. 22STCV38214 (Fuentes v. Aurelius Media Americas Inc.) within the meaning of California Rules of Court, Rule 3.300;

2. Assign Case No. 22STCV39501 to the same judicial officer assigned to, or to be assigned to, Case No. 22STCV38214 for all purposes; and

3. Set the matter for a hearing on consolidation or, alternatively, enter an order relating the cases and directing counsel in both actions to meet and confer regarding a stipulation for consolidation of the two actions. AMA respectfully notes that it intends to seek consolidation of the Fuentes and Halloran actions for all purposes pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1048, with Case No. 22STCV3821