Contract analysis

I. INTRODUCTION Defendant Aurelius Media Americas Inc. ("AMA"), by and through its counsel of record, Calderwood & Harkness LLP, respectfully submits this Response to the four objections filed by class members to the proposed class action settlement in the above-captioned matter. AMA files this Response in advance of the final fairness hearing currently scheduled for February 2, 2024, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 34 be

II. BACKGROUND A. The Litigation This putative class action was initiated on November 1, 2022, when named plaintiff Marisol Fuentes filed a complaint in this Court (Case No. 22STCV38214) alleging range wage-and-hour violations against AMA. Approximately two weeks later, on November 18, 2022, a related action was filed by Derek Halloran (Case No. 22STCV39501), asserting substantially overlapping claims against AMA on

III. LEGAL STANDARD FOR EVALUATING OBJECTIONS Under California law, the Court evaluates class settlement objections in the context of the overall fairness, adequacy, and reasonableness of the proposed settlement. A class action settlement must be fair, adequate, and reasonable to be entitled to final approval, and the Court examines objections as one component of its independent assessment of the settlement's merits.

IV. RESPONSE TO INDIVIDUAL OBJECTIONS A. Objection of Carlos Vega — Attorneys' Fees Objector: Carlos Vega, former production assistant, Facility 3 (Sherman Oaks), 15301 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 300, Sherman Oaks, California 91403. Summary of Objection: Mr. Vega objects to the proposed attorneys' fee award of 33.33% of the Gross Settlement Amount ($4,916,175), arguing that the fee is excessive and should be limited to

1. The percentage-of-fund method is the standard approach in California class action settlements. The California Supreme Court endorsed the percentage-of-fund method for common fund class actions in Laffitte v. Robert Half International Inc. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 480, 503–506. Under this method, attorneys' fees are calculated as a percentage of the total recovery obtained for the class, rather than by multiplying counsel'

2. A fee of 33.33% is within the range of fees routinely approved by California courts in comparable wage-and-hour class settlements. Courts in this District and throughout California have consistently approved one-third fee awards in wage-and-hour class actions. The 33.33% figure — one-third of the common fund — is the standard contingency-fee rate in the California plaintiffs' employment bar and reflects the prevai

3. The result achieved justifies the fee. Class Counsel achieved a $14,750,000 recovery for the class — a recovery representing 38.2% of Plaintiffs' total claimed exposure of $38.6 million (as calculated by Dr. Howard Rennick of Pinnacle Economic Consulting Group LLC). This result was achieved after extensive, adversarial litigation spanning over fourteen months of active proceedings, including the production and rev

4. Reducing the fee to 25% would not benefit class members and would undermine the class action mechanism. Mr. Vega appears to assume that a reduction in attorneys' fees would increase the recovery to class members. However, in a common fund settlement such as this, attorneys' fees are paid from the GSA — they are not paid in addition to the class recovery. A reduction of the fee from 33.33% to 25% would yield a fee

5. The fee is subject to independent Court review. AMA acknowledges that the Court retains full discretion to evaluate the reasonableness of the requested fee independently of the parties' agreement. AMA takes no affirmative position on the appropriate fee percentage, but notes that the 33.33% figure is consistent with prevailing practice, was agreed upon at arm's length as part of a comprehensive settlement negotiat

1. The 60/40 allocation formula was negotiated at arm's length. The allocation formula was not imposed unilaterally by either party. Rather, it was the product of extensive negotiations between Class Counsel and defense counsel during two full-day mediation sessions facilitated by the Honorable Patricia Okoro (Ret.) of Westpark Dispute Resolution Inc. Judge Okoro is a retired Los Angeles Superior Court judge with ove

2. The formula reflects the certified claims. The Court certified only the first meal period auto-deduction claim for class treatment. That claim arises from AMA's practice of automatically deducting thirty minutes from employees' daily time records to account for meal periods, regardless of whether employees actually received a compliant, uninterrupted meal period. This claim is not limited to employees who worked o

3. Ms. Kimura's proposed alternative is not supported by the evidentiary record. Ms. Kimura's objection rests on the assumption that there is a direct, strong correlation between overtime hours and missed meal periods. While there may be some correlation between these variables, the evidence developed during discovery — including deposition testimony from facility managers and data from AMA's NovaPay Solutions TimeTr

4. The allocation formula is within the Court's broad discretion. California courts routinely approve allocation formulas in class action settlements that balance multiple factors, and there is no single "correct" formula mandated by statute or case law. The Court has broad discretion to evaluate the reasonableness of the proposed formula, and courts have approved a wide range of allocation methodologies in comparabl

1. The settlement amount is fair, reasonable, and adequate in light of the litigation risks. The $14,750,000 GSA represents 38.2% of Plaintiffs' expert's total claimed exposure of $38.6 million, as calculated by Dr. Howard Rennick of Pinnacle Economic Consulting Group LLC in his report dated April 28, 2023. This percentage is at the high end of the range typically seen in California wage-and-hour class action settlem

2. The claimed exposure of $38.6 million was subject to serious challenge. Mr. Torres's objection assumes that the $38.6 million claimed exposure represents the "true" value of the class's claims. It does not. AMA's damages expert, Dr. Catherine Lindstrom of Hargrove Analytics Inc., calculated aggregate damages of only $5.8 million in her report dated June 9, 2023 — less than one-sixth of Dr. Rennick's figure. Dr. Li

3. The Court's partial certification order significantly reduced the class's litigation leverage. On August 11, 2023, this Court denied class certification on five of seven causes of action, including the rest period, off-the-clock/overtime, minimum wage, second meal period, and waiting time penalty claims. Only the first meal period auto-deduction claim, the derivative wage statement claim, and the UCL claim were ce

4. Continued litigation would be expensive, uncertain, and protracted. If the settlement is not approved, AMA would continue to vigorously defend the case through trial and, if necessary, appeal. AMA estimated that trial costs would range from $1.2 million to $1.8 million in additional defense costs alone, exclusive of post-trial motions and appellate proceedings. A trial on the certified first meal period auto-deduc

5. The class's reaction overwhelmingly supports the settlement. As noted above, only 23 class members opted out of the settlement (1.24%), and only 4 class members filed objections. Meanwhile, 1,262 class members submitted valid claims, yielding a claims rate of 68.2%. This response is powerful evidence that the class views the settlement as fair and reasonable. Wershba v. Computer, Inc. (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 224, 24

6. Mr. Torres's proposed $25 million figure has no analytical basis. The objection does not identify any methodology, expert analysis, damages model, or legal authority supporting a valuation of $25 million. Mr. Torres does not engage with the competing expert analyses of Dr. Rennick and Dr. Lindstrom, does not address the impact of the Court's partial certification order on the class's litigation exposure, and does

1. The broad release was a negotiated term that directly benefited the class. During the two full-day mediation sessions before the Honorable Patricia Okoro (Ret.), the scope of the release was a central and heavily negotiated term of the settlement. AMA's willingness to pay $14,750,000 — a figure that substantially exceeds the realistic exposure on the three certified claims standing alone — was directly tied to AMA

2. The non-certified claims were factored into the overall settlement valuation. Although the Court denied class certification of the rest period, off-the-clock/overtime, minimum wage, second meal period, and waiting time penalty claims, those claims remained available for individual pursuit by class members. The risk that hundreds of individual claims could be filed — and the substantial defense costs associated wit

3. Broad releases are routinely approved in California class action settlements. California courts regularly approve settlements that include releases extending beyond the claims certified for class treatment, provided that the overall settlement amount is fair and that the class has been adequately informed of the scope of the release. See, e.g., Predding v. United Teachers Los Angeles (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 322, 33

4. The class notice clearly disclosed the scope of the release. The long-form class notice mailed to all 1,843 class members on November 3, 2023, described the scope of the release in clear, plain-language terms, including an explicit statement that participating class members would release not only the certified claims but also all other wage-and-hour claims arising from the facts alleged in the complaint, including

5. Class members who wished to preserve their non-certified claims had the opportunity to opt out. The class notice clearly described the opt-out procedure and the January 2, 2024 deadline for submitting opt-out requests. Class members who objected to releasing their non-certified claims had the right — and were expressly informed of their right — to opt out of the settlement and pursue their individual claims indepe

6. Separate compensation for non-certified claims would have resulted in a lower per-member recovery on the certified claims. Ms. Prescott's objection appears to contemplate a settlement structure in which separate compensation would be allocated for the non-certified claims. However, in a fixed-fund settlement such as this, any allocation of funds to non-certified claims would necessarily reduce the funds available

V. THE SETTLEMENT MERITS FINAL APPROVAL NOTWITHSTANDING THE OBJECTIONS For all of the foregoing reasons, the four objections filed by class members Carlos Vega, Rachel Kimura, Samuel Torres, and Dawn Prescott — individually and collectively — do not undermine the fairness, adequacy, or reasonableness of the proposed settlement. The objections reflect disagreements on the margins — the fee percentage, the allocation f

VI. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Defendant Aurelius Media Americas Inc. respectfully requests that the Court:

1. Overrule the objections of Carlos Vega, Rachel Kimura, Samuel Torres, and Dawn Prescott in their entirety;

2. Grant final approval of the class action settlement on the terms set forth in the Settlement Agreement executed September 15, 2023; and

3. Enter the [Proposed] Final Approval Order and Judgment submitted concurrently herewith. Dated: January 22, 2024 CALDERWOOD & HARKNESS LLP By: /s/ Renata Vasquez ________________________________________ Renata Vasquez (SBN 224578) Devon Archer (SBN 301462) 777 South Flower Street, Suite 4200 Los Angeles, California 90017 Telephone: (213) 555-7200 Facsimile: (213) 555-7201 Email: rvasquez@calderwoodharkness.com Atto