1017-00004 · Entities. Aurelius Global Media Group · Insurance

letter-pemberton-updated-claim-info.docx DOCUMENT Finance & Banking

87 / 150 ← → ✕

CALDERWOOD & HARKNESS LLP Attorneys at Law

777 South Flower Street, Suite 4200 Los Angeles, California 90017 Telephone: (213) 555-7200 Facsimile: (213) 555-7201 www.calderwoodharkness.com

August 20, 2023

VIA EMAIL AND CERTIFIED MAIL

Claims Department Pemberton Mutual Assurance Co. 3400 Asylum Avenue Hartford, CT 06105

Re: Updated Claim Information and Settlement Demand Range Policy No.: PMA-EPL-2022-00837 Named Insured: Aurelius Media Americas Inc. Claim: Fuentes v. Aurelius Media Americas Inc., LASC Case No. 22STCV38214 (Consolidated) C&H Matter No.: 1017-00004

Dear Claims Department:

We write on behalf of our client, Aurelius Media Americas Inc. ("AMA"), the Named Insured under the above-referenced Employment Practices Liability Policy No. PMA-EPL-2022-00837 (the "Policy"), to provide an update on the above-referenced claim and to request Pemberton Mutual Assurance Co.'s ("Pemberton") active participation in forthcoming settlement discussions. As Pemberton is aware, AMA tendered the Fuentes action to Pemberton by initial tender letter dated November 8, 2022. Pemberton acknowledged coverage for the claim, subject to a reservation of rights, by letter dated December 22, 2022. Since that time, the litigation has advanced significantly through discovery, expert reports, and class certification proceedings. This letter summarizes those developments, sets forth AMA's anticipated settlement range, details defense costs incurred to date, and identifies certain questions on which AMA requests Pemberton's timely guidance in advance of the first mediation session, currently scheduled for August 25, 2023.

This letter, and all related coverage correspondence on this matter, is being coordinated by Bernard Crawford, Partner, in our firm's Insurance Recovery and Policyholder Counseling Practice Group.

I. CASE STATUS UPDATE

A. Procedural History Since Last Correspondence

Since AMA's initial tender of the Fuentes action and Pemberton's December 22, 2022 acknowledgment letter, the following significant procedural developments have occurred:

1. On November 18, 2022, a related action captioned Halloran v. Aurelius Media Americas Inc., LASC Case No. 22STCV39501, was filed by plaintiff Derek Halloran asserting substantially overlapping class and PAGA claims. On AMA's motion, the Court consolidated Halloran with Fuentes by order dated February 3, 2023, designating Fuentes v. Aurelius Media Americas Inc., Case No. 22STCV38214, as the lead case. The consolidated action will be referred to herein as the "Fuentes Action" or the "Action."

2. Following consolidation, plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint adding Yesenia Padilla as a third named plaintiff. All three named plaintiffs — Marisol Fuentes, Derek Halloran, and Yesenia Padilla — are former non-exempt, hourly production employees of AMA who worked at AMA's California production facilities during the relevant class period.

3. AMA filed its Answer and Affirmative Defenses to the Consolidated Amended Complaint on February 17, 2023, denying all material allegations and asserting, among other defenses, the affirmative defenses of compliance with applicable wage and hour laws, good faith reliance on established business practices, and the individualized nature of plaintiffs' claims.

4. The case has been assigned to the Honorable Raymond Escobedo, Department 34, Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles — Central District. Judge Escobedo conducted the Initial Case Management Conference on March 10, 2023, at which the Court set discovery cutoffs, expert disclosure deadlines, and a class certification briefing schedule.

5. The parties entered into a Stipulation and Order Regarding the discovery and Production of Electronically Stored Information (the "ESI Protocol Stipulation") on January 13, 2023, which governs search terms, custodian identification, de-duplication, and production format. Additionally, the parties entered into a Stipulated Protective Order on February 15, 2023, governing the designation and handling of confidential and highly confidential business information produced in the litigation.

B. Discovery Completed

Fact discovery in the Fuentes Action is now substantially complete. The scope and volume of discovery has been extensive, reflecting the complexity of the underlying wage-and-hour class and PAGA claims and AMA's multi-facility California operations. The key discovery activities are summarized below:

Document Productions. AMA produced a total of 147,832 documents, comprising approximately 1.2 million pages. These productions encompassed, among other categories, timekeeping records from AMA's NovaPay Solutions TimeTrack Pro system for all putative class members during the class period, payroll records, wage statements, employee handbooks and policy manuals, internal memoranda and correspondence regarding meal and rest period policies, production schedules, facility-level operational procedures, communications among AMA's human resources and operations personnel, and NovaPay system configuration records. Plaintiffs produced 3,412 documents, consisting primarily of personal employment records, correspondence with AMA, and documents relating to their individual claims.

Depositions. The parties took a total of eighteen (18) depositions — eleven (11) by Plaintiffs and seven (7) by AMA. The deponents included all three named plaintiffs (Marisol Fuentes, Derek Halloran, and Yesenia Padilla), as well as the following key AMA witnesses:

• Lorraine Okafor, Senior Vice President of Human Resources, who testified regarding AMA's company-wide wage and hour policies, the implementation of meal and rest period procedures across AMA's California facilities, and the circumstances surrounding the adoption and configuration of the NovaPay TimeTrack Pro timekeeping system;

• Celine Arroyo, Director of Production Operations, who testified regarding AMA's production schedules, shift structures, and the operational demands that affected meal and rest period scheduling at each of AMA's seven California production facilities and fourteen show units;

• Karen Fong, Payroll Manager, who testified regarding AMA's payroll practices, the automatic meal period deduction feature within the NovaPay TimeTrack Pro system, the Missed Meal Attestation feature, and the calculation and payment of premium pay; and

• Jonathan Mercer, President of Aurelius Media Americas Inc., who testified regarding AMA's corporate structure, management oversight of California operations, and strategic decisions relating to the implementation of timekeeping and payroll systems.

Third-Party discovery. AMA served a third-party subpoena on NovaPay Solutions Inc. ("NovaPay"), AMA's payroll and timekeeping vendor. NovaPay produced timekeeping data, system configuration records, and documentation regarding the functionality of the TimeTrack Pro automatic meal deduction feature and the Missed Meal Attestation module. The production was overseen and authenticated by Marcus Yee, NovaPay's Director of Client Data Services, who also sat for a deposition on June 22, 2023.

E-discovery Management. The collection, processing, review, and production of electronically stored information in this matter was managed by Marlowe Asset Management Litigation Technology Inc. ("Marlowe Asset Management"), a nationally recognized e-discovery services provider retained by AMA. Marlowe Asset Management's costs are included in the defense cost figures set forth in Section III below.

C. Expert Reports Exchanged

The parties have completed expert discovery, including the exchange of expert reports and rebuttal reports. The following expert reports are of particular significance:

Plaintiffs' Expert — Dr. Howard Rennick (Pinnacle Economic Consulting Group LLC). Plaintiffs' damages expert, Dr. Howard Rennick of Pinnacle Economic Consulting Group LLC, submitted his expert report on April 28, 2023. Dr. Rennick opined that aggregate class-wide damages total approximately $38.6 million, inclusive of approximately $12.2 million in penalties under the California Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA"), Cal. Lab. Code § 2698 et seq. Dr. Rennick's damages model assumed liability on all seven causes of action alleged in the Consolidated Amended Complaint, including the claims on which the Court subsequently denied class certification. His model also assumed maximum statutory penalty rates under PAGA and applied his methodology across the full putative class without differentiation among AMA's seven California facilities.

Defense Expert (Commonality/Typicality) — Dr. Rajesh Makhija (Workforce Dynamics Consulting LLC). AMA's expert on class certification issues, Dr. Rajesh Makhija of Workforce Dynamics Consulting LLC, submitted his expert report on May 19, 2023. Dr. Makhija conducted a detailed analysis of AMA's operational data across its seven California production facilities and fourteen show units. He opined that significant variability in production schedules, shift structures, staffing levels, and supervisory practices across AMA's facilities renders class-wide determination of liability infeasible for most of the claims asserted. His analysis was particularly effective in opposing certification of the rest period, off-the-clock, and overtime claims.

Defense Expert (Damages/Economics) — Dr. Catherine Lindstrom (Hargrove Analytics Inc.). AMA's damages expert, Dr. Catherine Lindstrom of Hargrove Analytics Inc., submitted a rebuttal report on June 9, 2023. Dr. Lindstrom conducted an independent damages analysis and opined that aggregate damages, properly calculated, total approximately $5.8 million, excluding PAGA penalties. Dr. Lindstrom identified numerous methodological deficiencies in Dr. Rennick's model, including his failure to account for the NovaPay TimeTrack Pro system's logged data showing that the vast majority of first meal periods were in fact timely provided, his assumption of maximum penalty rates under PAGA without accounting for the statutory discretion afforded to courts to reduce such penalties, and his failure to differentiate between facilities where the Missed Meal Attestation feature was and was not activated.

A summary of the expert reports is enclosed with this letter for Pemberton's reference.

D. Class Certification

Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification on April 14, 2023. AMA filed its opposition on June 16, 2023, supported by declarations from Lorraine Okafor, Celine Arroyo, Karen Fong, Dr. Rajesh Makhija, and Dr. Catherine Lindstrom. Plaintiffs filed their reply on July 7, 2023. The Court held oral argument on the class certification motion on July 28, 2023.

On August 11, 2023, Judge Escobedo issued his Order on Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. The Court granted the motion in part and denied it in part. A copy of the Order is enclosed with this letter.

E. Details of Partial Certification Order (August 11, 2023)

The Court's ruling is summarized below:

Certified Claims:

1. First Cause of Action — Meal Period (First Meal Period Only): The Court certified the first meal period claim on a class-wide basis. The Court found that AMA's use of the automatic meal period deduction system in NovaPay TimeTrack Pro, combined with the inconsistent activation of the Missed Meal Attestation feature across AMA's seven California production facilities (the feature was activated at only four of seven facilities), presented a common question susceptible to common proof. The Court noted that the automatic deduction system created a uniform risk that meal periods were being deducted from employee timekeeping records regardless of whether the meal periods were actually provided in compliance with California Labor Code § 512, and that this systemic practice could be adjudicated on a class-wide basis without resort to individualized inquiries.

2. Fifth Cause of Action — Wage Statement Violations (Cal. Lab. Code § 226): The Court certified this claim as derivative of the meal period claim, reasoning that if the class establishes that AMA failed to provide compliant first meal periods and failed to pay meal period premiums, the resulting wage statements would necessarily be inaccurate.

3. Seventh Cause of Action — Unfair Competition Law (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200): The Court certified this claim as derivative of the meal period claim, holding that the unlawful prong of the UCL claim rises and falls with the underlying Labor Code violation.

4. PAGA Representative Claim: The Court permitted the PAGA representative action to proceed alongside the certified class claims. As the Court noted, PAGA claims proceed as representative actions rather than class actions, and the Court's partial certification order does not affect the scope of the PAGA claim, which encompasses all violations alleged in the Consolidated Amended Complaint on behalf of all aggrieved employees.

Denied Claims:

1. Second Meal Period Claims: The Court denied certification of the second meal period claim, finding that entitlement to a second meal period is too dependent on individual production schedules, shift lengths, and voluntary overtime decisions to be susceptible to class-wide adjudication.

2. Rest Period Claims: The Court denied certification of the rest period claim, finding that Plaintiffs failed to present systemic common proof of a rest period violation. The Court characterized Plaintiffs' evidence as consisting only of "anecdotal testimony from a handful of declarants," which was insufficient to establish a common policy or practice of denying rest periods.

3. Off-the-Clock / Overtime Claims: The Court denied certification of the off-the-clock and overtime claims, finding these claims to be inherently individualized, as they depend on each employee's particular work activities, the instructions of their immediate supervisor, and the employee's own conduct in recording or failing to record time worked.

4. Minimum Wage Claims: The Court denied certification of the minimum wage claim, which was derivative of the overtime claim, on the same grounds.

5. Waiting Time Penalty Claims (Cal. Lab. Code § 203): The Court denied certification of the waiting time penalty claim, finding that determination of whether penalties are owed requires an individual assessment of whether each separated employee was owed unpaid wages at the time of separation, and whether AMA's failure to pay (if any) was willful — inquiries that cannot be resolved on a class-wide basis.

Certified Class Definition:

The Court defined the certified class as follows:

"All current and former non-exempt, hourly employees of Aurelius Media Americas Inc. who worked in the State of California at any time from November 1, 2018 through the date of preliminary approval of any class settlement, who were subject to AMA's automatic meal period deduction in the NovaPay Solutions TimeTrack Pro timekeeping system."

Based on AMA's employment records and NovaPay data, the estimated class size is approximately 1,850 individuals.

Class Representatives: The Court appointed Marisol Fuentes, Derek Halloran, and Yesenia Padilla as Class Representatives.

Class Counsel: The Court appointed Castellano Byrne & Salas LLP as lead Class Counsel and Veltrano Employment Law Group PC as PAGA co-counsel.

F. Significance of the Partial Certification Order

The Court's denial of certification on five of the seven causes of action represents a significant victory for AMA and substantially reduces AMA's trial exposure. In particular, the denial of the rest period, off-the-clock, overtime, minimum wage, and waiting time penalty claims eliminates the vast majority of the damages calculated in Dr. Rennick's $38.6 million model, a substantial portion of which was attributable to overtime and off-the-clock claims that will no longer be adjudicated on a class-wide basis.

However, the certified first meal period claim, combined with the PAGA representative action (which is not limited to the certified class claims), still presents meaningful litigation risk. The Court's finding that AMA's automatic meal deduction system in NovaPay TimeTrack Pro, coupled with the inconsistent deployment of the Missed Meal Attestation feature, constitutes a common question susceptible to common proof, gives Plaintiffs a viable path to class-wide liability on the meal period claim.

Notably, the Court rejected AMA's argument that certification should be limited to a subclass of employees at the three facilities (Facilities 2, 4, and 7) where the Missed Meal Attestation feature was never activated. The Court found that utilization rates at all seven facilities were uniformly low — ranging from only 2% to 4% of eligible meal periods — and that this rendered the distinction between facilities with and without the feature "functionally irrelevant." This aspect of the ruling narrows a potential defense argument at trial and broadens the scope of AMA's class-wide exposure on the meal period claim.

II. ANTICIPATED SETTLEMENT RANGE

Following the partial certification order, AMA anticipates that the Fuentes Action will resolve through a negotiated settlement. AMA and Class Counsel have agreed to participate in mediation, and the first mediation session is scheduled for August 25, 2023, before the Honorable Patricia Okoro (Ret.) of Westpark Dispute Resolution Inc. Judge Okoro is a retired Los Angeles Superior Court Judge with over twenty-five years on the bench and extensive experience mediating employment class action and PAGA matters. She is widely regarded as one of the preeminent employment mediators in Southern California, and her involvement reflects both parties' commitment to a good-faith settlement process.

Based on AMA's thorough assessment of the certified claims, the competing expert analyses, the litigation risks associated with both the class claims and the PAGA representative action, and the dynamics of the case following the partial certification order, AMA anticipates that the Fuentes Action will resolve in the range of $10,000,000 to $16,000,000 (the "Gross Settlement Amount" or "GSA").

AMA anticipates that the settlement will be structured as a non-reversionary common fund and will include the following components:

• Release of All Class and PAGA Claims. The settlement is expected to include a comprehensive release of all class and PAGA claims asserted in the Consolidated Amended Complaint, including both the certified claims (first meal period, wage statement, and UCL) and the non-certified claims (second meal period, rest period, off-the-clock, overtime, minimum wage, and waiting time penalties). Obtaining a global release that encompasses the non-certified claims is a critical objective for AMA, as it will foreclose the risk of future individual or representative actions based on the same underlying facts.

• PAGA Component. The PAGA component of the settlement is estimated at $500,000 to $1,000,000 from the GSA. Pursuant to Cal. Lab. Code § 2699(i), 75% of any PAGA penalties recovered will be payable to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency ("LWDA"), with 25% distributed to aggrieved employees.

• Attorneys' Fees for Class Counsel. Class Counsel is expected to seek attorneys' fees of approximately 33.33% of the GSA, which is consistent with the prevailing benchmark in the Central District of the Los Angeles Superior Court for employment class action settlements of this magnitude.

• Settlement Administration Costs. The settlement will include an allocation for settlement administration costs to be paid from the GSA, covering notice, claims processing, distribution, and tax reporting, to be performed by a Court-approved settlement administrator.

• Class Representative Service Awards. The settlement is expected to include modest service awards for each of the three Class Representatives, to be approved by the Court.

AMA believes this settlement range appropriately accounts for the following factors: the strength of the certification order on the first meal period claim; the defense's strong position on the non-certified claims, which will nonetheless be released; Dr. Lindstrom's alternative damages figure of $5.8 million (excluding PAGA penalties); the litigation risk premium associated with proceeding to trial on the certified claims and the PAGA representative action; and the significant costs and management burden that continued litigation would impose on AMA.

III. DEFENSE COSTS UPDATE

Through August 2023, AMA has incurred approximately $2,800,000 in combined defense costs (professional fees and litigation expenses) in connection with the Fuentes Action. These costs include the following categories:

• Calderwood & Harkness LLP Fees and Expenses. Professional fees for attorneys and paraprofessional staff engaged in the defense of the Fuentes Action, including all aspects of pleadings, discovery, motion practice, depositions, expert coordination, and class certification briefing, as well as associated out-of-pocket expenses.

• Expert Witness Fees. Fees and costs incurred in connection with the retention and work product of AMA's two retained experts: Dr. Rajesh Makhija of Workforce Dynamics Consulting LLC (class certification/commonality and typicality analysis) and Dr. Catherine Lindstrom of Hargrove Analytics Inc. (damages and economic analysis and rebuttal).

• E-discovery Vendor Costs. Fees and costs incurred in connection with the services of Marlowe Asset Management Litigation Technology Inc., including the collection, processing, hosting, review platform licensing, technology-assisted review, and production of electronically stored information, as well as project management services.

• Deposition Transcript and Court Reporter Costs. Fees for certified court reporters, deposition transcripts, videography services, and related costs incurred in connection with the eighteen depositions taken in this matter.

• Filing Fees and Related Litigation Expenses. Court filing fees, service of process costs, and other miscellaneous litigation expenses.

These defense costs have been incurred within, and applied against, the $5,000,000 self-insured retention ("SIR") under the Policy. AMA anticipates that the combined total of defense costs and any settlement payment will exceed the SIR, thereby triggering Pemberton's direct coverage obligations under the Policy. Specifically, AMA notes that with $2,800,000 in defense costs already incurred and additional defense costs expected through mediation and any post-settlement approval proceedings, AMA's defense costs alone will consume a substantial majority of the SIR. Any settlement payment within the anticipated range of $10,000,000 to $16,000,000 will far exceed the remaining SIR balance and will implicate Pemberton's coverage obligations up to the Policy's $15,000,000 aggregate limit of liability.

IV. REQUEST FOR PEMBERTON'S POSITION

In light of the foregoing developments and the imminent mediation scheduled for August 25, 2023, AMA respectfully requests that Pemberton advise on the following matters at its earliest convenience:

1. Willingness to Contribute. AMA requests confirmation of whether Pemberton is willing to contribute to a class settlement within the anticipated range of $10,000,000 to $16,000,000. AMA believes that a settlement within this range is reasonable, in good faith, and well within the bounds of Pemberton's coverage obligations under the Policy, and that Pemberton's timely participation is essential to achieving a resolution that protects the interests of both AMA and Pemberton.

2. Authorized Contribution Amount. AMA requests that Pemberton advise as to the amount of Pemberton's authorized contribution to a settlement, taking into account the following:

• The $5,000,000 SIR under the Policy, which has been substantially consumed by the $2,800,000 in defense costs incurred to date and will continue to erode through additional defense costs in the coming weeks and months;

• The $15,000,000 aggregate limit of liability under the Policy, which represents the maximum amount of Pemberton's coverage obligations for all covered claims arising under the Policy;

• The anticipated settlement range of $10,000,000 to $16,000,000, which, when combined with defense costs, will substantially implicate and may exhaust the Policy's aggregate limit.

3. Conditions on Consent. AMA requests that Pemberton identify any conditions it intends to impose on its consent to settlement, including but not limited to:

• Any allocation requirements between covered wage-and-hour claims and potentially excluded categories of damages or penalties (e.g., PAGA penalties);

• Any requirements regarding the scope of the release to be obtained in the settlement, including whether Pemberton requires that the release encompass all asserted claims or specific categories of claims;

• Any requirements regarding the structure of the settlement, including whether Pemberton has a preference as to claims-made versus pro rata distribution, reversionary versus non-reversionary fund, or other structural features;

• Any documentation Pemberton requires in order to evaluate and grant consent to the settlement, including, for example, a mediator's recommendation, a draft class settlement agreement, a class notice plan, or a declaration from defense counsel regarding the reasonableness of the settlement.

4. PAGA Penalties. AMA requests Pemberton's position on coverage for the PAGA component of any settlement. AMA is aware that Pemberton's December 22, 2022 reservation of rights letter identified a potential coverage issue with respect to PAGA penalties under the Policy's Penalty Exclusion (Section IV.F). AMA acknowledges this reservation but respectfully submits that a modest PAGA allocation of $500,000 to $1,000,000 within a larger Gross Settlement Amount of $10,000,000 to $16,000,000 should be included in Pemberton's contribution obligation as part of a global resolution of the Fuentes Action. The PAGA component is an integral and inseparable element of the anticipated settlement, and its inclusion is necessary to obtain the comprehensive release that serves both AMA's and Pemberton's interests. AMA reserves all rights to dispute the applicability of the Penalty Exclusion to the PAGA component of the settlement.

V. RELATED MATTER — ALDRICH EXECUTIVE DISPUTE (NO CHANGE)

For the sake of completeness, AMA notes that the related individual action captioned Aldrich v. Aurelius Media Americas Inc., LASC Case No. 22STCV41087, remains pending on a separate litigation track. As Pemberton is aware, Pemberton's December 22, 2022 reservation of rights letter denied coverage for the Aldrich matter. AMA is not seeking coverage for the Aldrich matter in this letter and is self-funding the defense of that action. AMA does, however, preserve all of its rights under the Policy with respect to the Aldrich matter, including the right to seek coverage at a later date should circumstances warrant.

VI. CONTACT INFORMATION AND COORDINATION

All coverage correspondence relating to the Fuentes Action should be directed to:

Bernard Crawford, Partner Calderwood & Harkness LLP 777 South Flower Street, Suite 4200 Los Angeles, California 90017 Telephone: (213) 555-7214

Email: bcrawford@calderwoodharkness.com

With copies to:

Gregory Tanaka Vice President, Legal & Compliance Aurelius Media Americas Inc. 8500 Sunset Boulevard, Suite 1400 West Hollywood, California 90069

Email: gtanaka@aureliusmedia.com

Samuel Okonkwo Managing Director Kestrel Risk Advisors Ltd. One Broadgate London EC2M 2QS, United Kingdom

Email: sokonkwo@kestrelrisk.co.uk

AMA's insurance broker, Kestrel Risk Advisors Ltd., has been copied on this correspondence and is available to facilitate discussions between AMA and Pemberton regarding coverage, settlement participation, and any related matters.

VII. RESERVATION OF RIGHTS

AMA hereby reserves all of its rights under the Policy, including but not limited to the right to seek full indemnity for any settlement payment, reimbursement of defense costs incurred above the SIR, and all other benefits to which AMA is entitled under the Policy. Nothing in this letter is intended to, nor shall it be construed to, waive, limit, modify, or otherwise prejudice any of AMA's rights, claims, or remedies under the Policy, at law, or in equity.

AMA requests Pemberton's prompt response to the matters set forth in this letter given the imminent mediation date of August 25, 2023 and the critical need for AMA to have clarity on Pemberton's position, including its willingness to contribute and any conditions on consent, prior to engaging in settlement discussions with Plaintiffs' counsel.

CLOSING

We respectfully request that Pemberton acknowledge receipt of this letter at its earliest convenience and advise us of the identity of any coverage counsel, claims examiner, or claims adjuster who has been assigned to handle the settlement phase of the Fuentes Action on Pemberton's behalf. We are available to discuss any aspect of this letter or the underlying claim at Pemberton's convenience, and we would welcome the opportunity to schedule a conference call with Pemberton's claims team in advance of the August 25, 2023 mediation session to ensure alignment on settlement parameters and strategy.

We appreciate Pemberton's attention to this matter and look forward to Pemberton's response.

Sincerely,

CALDERWOOD & HARKNESS LLP

By: ________

Bernard Crawford Partner

Enclosures:

1. Class Certification Order, Fuentes v. Aurelius Media Americas Inc., LASC Case No. 22STCV38214 (Hon. Raymond Escobedo, August 11, 2023)

2. Summary of Expert Reports (Dr. Howard Rennick, Pinnacle Economic Consulting Group LLC; Dr. Rajesh Makhija, Workforce Dynamics Consulting LLC; Dr. Catherine Lindstrom, Hargrove Analytics Inc.)

cc:

Gregory Tanaka, Vice President, Legal & Compliance, Aurelius Media Americas Inc. Samuel Okonkwo, Managing Director, Kestrel Risk Advisors Ltd. Renata Vasquez, Calderwood & Harkness LLP Philippa Cartwright, AGMG

CALDERWOOD & HARKNESS LLP Attorneys at Law
777 South Flower Street, Suite 4200 Los Angeles, California 90017 Telephone: (213) 555-7200 Facsimile: (213) 555-7201 www.calderwoodharkness.com
August 20, 2023
VIA EMAIL AND CERTIFIED MAIL
Claims Department Pemberton Mutual Assurance Co. 3400 Asylum Avenue Hartford, CT 06105
Re: Updated Claim Information and Settlement Demand Range Policy No.: PMA-EPL-2022-00837 Named Insured: Aurelius Media Americas Inc. Claim: Fuentes v. Aurelius Media Americas Inc., LASC Case No. 22STCV38214 (Consolidated) C&H Matter No.: 1017-00004
Dear Claims Department:
We write on behalf of our client, Aurelius Media Americas Inc. ("AMA"), the Named Insured under the above-referenced Employment Practices Liability Policy No. PMA-EPL-2022-00837 (the "Policy"), to provide an update on the above-referenced claim and to request Pemberton Mutual Assurance Co.'s ("Pemberton") active participation in forthcoming settlement discussions. As Pemberton is aware, AMA tendered the Fuentes action to Pemberton by initial tender letter dated November 8, 2022. Pemberton acknowledged coverage for the claim, subject to a reservation of rights, by letter dated December 22, 2022. Since that time, the litigation has advanced significantly through discovery, expert reports, and class certification proceedings. This letter summarizes those developments, sets forth AMA's anticipated settlement range, details defense costs incurred to date, and identifies certain questions on which AMA requests Pemberton's timely guidance in advance of the first mediation session, currently scheduled for August 25, 2023.
This letter, and all related coverage correspondence on this matter, is being coordinated by Bernard Crawford, Partner, in our firm's Insurance Recovery and Policyholder Counseling Practice Group.
I. CASE STATUS UPDATE
A. Procedural History Since Last Correspondence
Since AMA's initial tender of the Fuentes action and Pemberton's December 22, 2022 acknowledgment letter, the following significant procedural developments have occurred:
1. On November 18, 2022, a related action captioned Halloran v. Aurelius Media Americas Inc., LASC Case No. 22STCV39501, was filed by plaintiff Derek Halloran asserting substantially overlapping class and PAGA claims. On AMA's motion, the Court consolidated Halloran with Fuentes by order dated February 3, 2023, designating Fuentes v. Aurelius Media Americas Inc., Case No. 22STCV38214, as the lead case. The consolidated action will be referred to herein as the "Fuentes Action" or the "Action."
2. Following consolidation, plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint adding Yesenia Padilla as a third named plaintiff. All three named plaintiffs — Marisol Fuentes, Derek Halloran, and Yesenia Padilla — are former non-exempt, hourly production employees of AMA who worked at AMA's California production facilities during the relevant class period.
3. AMA filed its Answer and Affirmative Defenses to the Consolidated Amended Complaint on February 17, 2023, denying all material allegations and asserting, among other defenses, the affirmative defenses of compliance with applicable wage and hour laws, good faith reliance on established business practices, and the individualized nature of plaintiffs' claims.
4. The case has been assigned to the Honorable Raymond Escobedo, Department 34, Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles — Central District. Judge Escobedo conducted the Initial Case Management Conference on March 10, 2023, at which the Court set discovery cutoffs, expert disclosure deadlines, and a class certification briefing schedule.
5. The parties entered into a Stipulation and Order Regarding the discovery and Production of Electronically Stored Information (the "ESI Protocol Stipulation") on January 13, 2023, which governs search terms, custodian identification, de-duplication, and production format. Additionally, the parties entered into a Stipulated Protective Order on February 15, 2023, governing the designation and handling of confidential and highly confidential business information produced in the litigation.
B. Discovery Completed
Fact discovery in the Fuentes Action is now substantially complete. The scope and volume of discovery has been extensive, reflecting the complexity of the underlying wage-and-hour class and PAGA claims and AMA's multi-facility California operations. The key discovery activities are summarized below:
Document Productions. AMA produced a total of 147,832 documents, comprising approximately 1.2 million pages. These productions encompassed, among other categories, timekeeping records from AMA's NovaPay Solutions TimeTrack Pro system for all putative class members during the class period, payroll records, wage statements, employee handbooks and policy manuals, internal memoranda and correspondence regarding meal and rest period policies, production schedules, facility-level operational procedures, communications among AMA's human resources and operations personnel, and NovaPay system configuration records. Plaintiffs produced 3,412 documents, consisting primarily of personal employment records, correspondence with AMA, and documents relating to their individual claims.
Depositions. The parties took a total of eighteen (18) depositions — eleven (11) by Plaintiffs and seven (7) by AMA. The deponents included all three named plaintiffs (Marisol Fuentes, Derek Halloran, and Yesenia Padilla), as well as the following key AMA witnesses:
• Lorraine Okafor, Senior Vice President of Human Resources, who testified regarding AMA's company-wide wage and hour policies, the implementation of meal and rest period procedures across AMA's California facilities, and the circumstances surrounding the adoption and configuration of the NovaPay TimeTrack Pro timekeeping system;
• Celine Arroyo, Director of Production Operations, who testified regarding AMA's production schedules, shift structures, and the operational demands that affected meal and rest period scheduling at each of AMA's seven California production facilities and fourteen show units;
• Karen Fong, Payroll Manager, who testified regarding AMA's payroll practices, the automatic meal period deduction feature within the NovaPay TimeTrack Pro system, the Missed Meal Attestation feature, and the calculation and payment of premium pay; and
• Jonathan Mercer, President of Aurelius Media Americas Inc., who testified regarding AMA's corporate structure, management oversight of California operations, and strategic decisions relating to the implementation of timekeeping and payroll systems.
Third-Party discovery. AMA served a third-party subpoena on NovaPay Solutions Inc. ("NovaPay"), AMA's payroll and timekeeping vendor. NovaPay produced timekeeping data, system configuration records, and documentation regarding the functionality of the TimeTrack Pro automatic meal deduction feature and the Missed Meal Attestation module. The production was overseen and authenticated by Marcus Yee, NovaPay's Director of Client Data Services, who also sat for a deposition on June 22, 2023.
E-discovery Management. The collection, processing, review, and production of electronically stored information in this matter was managed by Marlowe Asset Management Litigation Technology Inc. ("Marlowe Asset Management"), a nationally recognized e-discovery services provider retained by AMA. Marlowe Asset Management's costs are included in the defense cost figures set forth in Section III below.
C. Expert Reports Exchanged
The parties have completed expert discovery, including the exchange of expert reports and rebuttal reports. The following expert reports are of particular significance:
Plaintiffs' Expert — Dr. Howard Rennick (Pinnacle Economic Consulting Group LLC). Plaintiffs' damages expert, Dr. Howard Rennick of Pinnacle Economic Consulting Group LLC, submitted his expert report on April 28, 2023. Dr. Rennick opined that aggregate class-wide damages total approximately $38.6 million, inclusive of approximately $12.2 million in penalties under the California Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA"), Cal. Lab. Code § 2698 et seq. Dr. Rennick's damages model assumed liability on all seven causes of action alleged in the Consolidated Amended Complaint, including the claims on which the Court subsequently denied class certification. His model also assumed maximum statutory penalty rates under PAGA and applied his methodology across the full putative class without differentiation among AMA's seven California facilities.
Defense Expert (Commonality/Typicality) — Dr. Rajesh Makhija (Workforce Dynamics Consulting LLC). AMA's expert on class certification issues, Dr. Rajesh Makhija of Workforce Dynamics Consulting LLC, submitted his expert report on May 19, 2023. Dr. Makhija conducted a detailed analysis of AMA's operational data across its seven California production facilities and fourteen show units. He opined that significant variability in production schedules, shift structures, staffing levels, and supervisory practices across AMA's facilities renders class-wide determination of liability infeasible for most of the claims asserted. His analysis was particularly effective in opposing certification of the rest period, off-the-clock, and overtime claims.
Defense Expert (Damages/Economics) — Dr. Catherine Lindstrom (Hargrove Analytics Inc.). AMA's damages expert, Dr. Catherine Lindstrom of Hargrove Analytics Inc., submitted a rebuttal report on June 9, 2023. Dr. Lindstrom conducted an independent damages analysis and opined that aggregate damages, properly calculated, total approximately $5.8 million, excluding PAGA penalties. Dr. Lindstrom identified numerous methodological deficiencies in Dr. Rennick's model, including his failure to account for the NovaPay TimeTrack Pro system's logged data showing that the vast majority of first meal periods were in fact timely provided, his assumption of maximum penalty rates under PAGA without accounting for the statutory discretion afforded to courts to reduce such penalties, and his failure to differentiate between facilities where the Missed Meal Attestation feature was and was not activated.
A summary of the expert reports is enclosed with this letter for Pemberton's reference.
D. Class Certification
Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification on April 14, 2023. AMA filed its opposition on June 16, 2023, supported by declarations from Lorraine Okafor, Celine Arroyo, Karen Fong, Dr. Rajesh Makhija, and Dr. Catherine Lindstrom. Plaintiffs filed their reply on July 7, 2023. The Court held oral argument on the class certification motion on July 28, 2023.
On August 11, 2023, Judge Escobedo issued his Order on Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. The Court granted the motion in part and denied it in part. A copy of the Order is enclosed with this letter.
E. Details of Partial Certification Order (August 11, 2023)
The Court's ruling is summarized below:
Certified Claims:
1. First Cause of Action — Meal Period (First Meal Period Only): The Court certified the first meal period claim on a class-wide basis. The Court found that AMA's use of the automatic meal period deduction system in NovaPay TimeTrack Pro, combined with the inconsistent activation of the Missed Meal Attestation feature across AMA's seven California production facilities (the feature was activated at only four of seven facilities), presented a common question susceptible to common proof. The Court noted that the automatic deduction system created a uniform risk that meal periods were being deducted from employee timekeeping records regardless of whether the meal periods were actually provided in compliance with California Labor Code § 512, and that this systemic practice could be adjudicated on a class-wide basis without resort to individualized inquiries.
2. Fifth Cause of Action — Wage Statement Violations (Cal. Lab. Code § 226): The Court certified this claim as derivative of the meal period claim, reasoning that if the class establishes that AMA failed to provide compliant first meal periods and failed to pay meal period premiums, the resulting wage statements would necessarily be inaccurate.
3. Seventh Cause of Action — Unfair Competition Law (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200): The Court certified this claim as derivative of the meal period claim, holding that the unlawful prong of the UCL claim rises and falls with the underlying Labor Code violation.
4. PAGA Representative Claim: The Court permitted the PAGA representative action to proceed alongside the certified class claims. As the Court noted, PAGA claims proceed as representative actions rather than class actions, and the Court's partial certification order does not affect the scope of the PAGA claim, which encompasses all violations alleged in the Consolidated Amended Complaint on behalf of all aggrieved employees.
Denied Claims:
1. Second Meal Period Claims: The Court denied certification of the second meal period claim, finding that entitlement to a second meal period is too dependent on individual production schedules, shift lengths, and voluntary overtime decisions to be susceptible to class-wide adjudication.
2. Rest Period Claims: The Court denied certification of the rest period claim, finding that Plaintiffs failed to present systemic common proof of a rest period violation. The Court characterized Plaintiffs' evidence as consisting only of "anecdotal testimony from a handful of declarants," which was insufficient to establish a common policy or practice of denying rest periods.
3. Off-the-Clock / Overtime Claims: The Court denied certification of the off-the-clock and overtime claims, finding these claims to be inherently individualized, as they depend on each employee's particular work activities, the instructions of their immediate supervisor, and the employee's own conduct in recording or failing to record time worked.
4. Minimum Wage Claims: The Court denied certification of the minimum wage claim, which was derivative of the overtime claim, on the same grounds.
5. Waiting Time Penalty Claims (Cal. Lab. Code § 203): The Court denied certification of the waiting time penalty claim, finding that determination of whether penalties are owed requires an individual assessment of whether each separated employee was owed unpaid wages at the time of separation, and whether AMA's failure to pay (if any) was willful — inquiries that cannot be resolved on a class-wide basis.
Certified Class Definition:
The Court defined the certified class as follows:
"All current and former non-exempt, hourly employees of Aurelius Media Americas Inc. who worked in the State of California at any time from November 1, 2018 through the date of preliminary approval of any class settlement, who were subject to AMA's automatic meal period deduction in the NovaPay Solutions TimeTrack Pro timekeeping system."
Based on AMA's employment records and NovaPay data, the estimated class size is approximately 1,850 individuals.
Class Representatives: The Court appointed Marisol Fuentes, Derek Halloran, and Yesenia Padilla as Class Representatives.
Class Counsel: The Court appointed Castellano Byrne & Salas LLP as lead Class Counsel and Veltrano Employment Law Group PC as PAGA co-counsel.
F. Significance of the Partial Certification Order
The Court's denial of certification on five of the seven causes of action represents a significant victory for AMA and substantially reduces AMA's trial exposure. In particular, the denial of the rest period, off-the-clock, overtime, minimum wage, and waiting time penalty claims eliminates the vast majority of the damages calculated in Dr. Rennick's $38.6 million model, a substantial portion of which was attributable to overtime and off-the-clock claims that will no longer be adjudicated on a class-wide basis.
However, the certified first meal period claim, combined with the PAGA representative action (which is not limited to the certified class claims), still presents meaningful litigation risk. The Court's finding that AMA's automatic meal deduction system in NovaPay TimeTrack Pro, coupled with the inconsistent deployment of the Missed Meal Attestation feature, constitutes a common question susceptible to common proof, gives Plaintiffs a viable path to class-wide liability on the meal period claim.
Notably, the Court rejected AMA's argument that certification should be limited to a subclass of employees at the three facilities (Facilities 2, 4, and 7) where the Missed Meal Attestation feature was never activated. The Court found that utilization rates at all seven facilities were uniformly low — ranging from only 2% to 4% of eligible meal periods — and that this rendered the distinction between facilities with and without the feature "functionally irrelevant." This aspect of the ruling narrows a potential defense argument at trial and broadens the scope of AMA's class-wide exposure on the meal period claim.
II. ANTICIPATED SETTLEMENT RANGE
Following the partial certification order, AMA anticipates that the Fuentes Action will resolve through a negotiated settlement. AMA and Class Counsel have agreed to participate in mediation, and the first mediation session is scheduled for August 25, 2023, before the Honorable Patricia Okoro (Ret.) of Westpark Dispute Resolution Inc. Judge Okoro is a retired Los Angeles Superior Court Judge with over twenty-five years on the bench and extensive experience mediating employment class action and PAGA matters. She is widely regarded as one of the preeminent employment mediators in Southern California, and her involvement reflects both parties' commitment to a good-faith settlement process.
Based on AMA's thorough assessment of the certified claims, the competing expert analyses, the litigation risks associated with both the class claims and the PAGA representative action, and the dynamics of the case following the partial certification order, AMA anticipates that the Fuentes Action will resolve in the range of $10,000,000 to $16,000,000 (the "Gross Settlement Amount" or "GSA").
AMA anticipates that the settlement will be structured as a non-reversionary common fund and will include the following components:
• Release of All Class and PAGA Claims. The settlement is expected to include a comprehensive release of all class and PAGA claims asserted in the Consolidated Amended Complaint, including both the certified claims (first meal period, wage statement, and UCL) and the non-certified claims (second meal period, rest period, off-the-clock, overtime, minimum wage, and waiting time penalties). Obtaining a global release that encompasses the non-certified claims is a critical objective for AMA, as it will foreclose the risk of future individual or representative actions based on the same underlying facts.
• PAGA Component. The PAGA component of the settlement is estimated at $500,000 to $1,000,000 from the GSA. Pursuant to Cal. Lab. Code § 2699(i), 75% of any PAGA penalties recovered will be payable to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency ("LWDA"), with 25% distributed to aggrieved employees.
• Attorneys' Fees for Class Counsel. Class Counsel is expected to seek attorneys' fees of approximately 33.33% of the GSA, which is consistent with the prevailing benchmark in the Central District of the Los Angeles Superior Court for employment class action settlements of this magnitude.
• Settlement Administration Costs. The settlement will include an allocation for settlement administration costs to be paid from the GSA, covering notice, claims processing, distribution, and tax reporting, to be performed by a Court-approved settlement administrator.
• Class Representative Service Awards. The settlement is expected to include modest service awards for each of the three Class Representatives, to be approved by the Court.
AMA believes this settlement range appropriately accounts for the following factors: the strength of the certification order on the first meal period claim; the defense's strong position on the non-certified claims, which will nonetheless be released; Dr. Lindstrom's alternative damages figure of $5.8 million (excluding PAGA penalties); the litigation risk premium associated with proceeding to trial on the certified claims and the PAGA representative action; and the significant costs and management burden that continued litigation would impose on AMA.
III. DEFENSE COSTS UPDATE
Through August 2023, AMA has incurred approximately $2,800,000 in combined defense costs (professional fees and litigation expenses) in connection with the Fuentes Action. These costs include the following categories:
• Calderwood & Harkness LLP Fees and Expenses. Professional fees for attorneys and paraprofessional staff engaged in the defense of the Fuentes Action, including all aspects of pleadings, discovery, motion practice, depositions, expert coordination, and class certification briefing, as well as associated out-of-pocket expenses.
• Expert Witness Fees. Fees and costs incurred in connection with the retention and work product of AMA's two retained experts: Dr. Rajesh Makhija of Workforce Dynamics Consulting LLC (class certification/commonality and typicality analysis) and Dr. Catherine Lindstrom of Hargrove Analytics Inc. (damages and economic analysis and rebuttal).
• E-discovery Vendor Costs. Fees and costs incurred in connection with the services of Marlowe Asset Management Litigation Technology Inc., including the collection, processing, hosting, review platform licensing, technology-assisted review, and production of electronically stored information, as well as project management services.
• Deposition Transcript and Court Reporter Costs. Fees for certified court reporters, deposition transcripts, videography services, and related costs incurred in connection with the eighteen depositions taken in this matter.
• Filing Fees and Related Litigation Expenses. Court filing fees, service of process costs, and other miscellaneous litigation expenses.
These defense costs have been incurred within, and applied against, the $5,000,000 self-insured retention ("SIR") under the Policy. AMA anticipates that the combined total of defense costs and any settlement payment will exceed the SIR, thereby triggering Pemberton's direct coverage obligations under the Policy. Specifically, AMA notes that with $2,800,000 in defense costs already incurred and additional defense costs expected through mediation and any post-settlement approval proceedings, AMA's defense costs alone will consume a substantial majority of the SIR. Any settlement payment within the anticipated range of $10,000,000 to $16,000,000 will far exceed the remaining SIR balance and will implicate Pemberton's coverage obligations up to the Policy's $15,000,000 aggregate limit of liability.
IV. REQUEST FOR PEMBERTON'S POSITION
In light of the foregoing developments and the imminent mediation scheduled for August 25, 2023, AMA respectfully requests that Pemberton advise on the following matters at its earliest convenience:
1. Willingness to Contribute. AMA requests confirmation of whether Pemberton is willing to contribute to a class settlement within the anticipated range of $10,000,000 to $16,000,000. AMA believes that a settlement within this range is reasonable, in good faith, and well within the bounds of Pemberton's coverage obligations under the Policy, and that Pemberton's timely participation is essential to achieving a resolution that protects the interests of both AMA and Pemberton.
2. Authorized Contribution Amount. AMA requests that Pemberton advise as to the amount of Pemberton's authorized contribution to a settlement, taking into account the following:
• The $5,000,000 SIR under the Policy, which has been substantially consumed by the $2,800,000 in defense costs incurred to date and will continue to erode through additional defense costs in the coming weeks and months;
• The $15,000,000 aggregate limit of liability under the Policy, which represents the maximum amount of Pemberton's coverage obligations for all covered claims arising under the Policy;
• The anticipated settlement range of $10,000,000 to $16,000,000, which, when combined with defense costs, will substantially implicate and may exhaust the Policy's aggregate limit.
3. Conditions on Consent. AMA requests that Pemberton identify any conditions it intends to impose on its consent to settlement, including but not limited to:
• Any allocation requirements between covered wage-and-hour claims and potentially excluded categories of damages or penalties (e.g., PAGA penalties);
• Any requirements regarding the scope of the release to be obtained in the settlement, including whether Pemberton requires that the release encompass all asserted claims or specific categories of claims;
• Any requirements regarding the structure of the settlement, including whether Pemberton has a preference as to claims-made versus pro rata distribution, reversionary versus non-reversionary fund, or other structural features;
• Any documentation Pemberton requires in order to evaluate and grant consent to the settlement, including, for example, a mediator's recommendation, a draft class settlement agreement, a class notice plan, or a declaration from defense counsel regarding the reasonableness of the settlement.
4. PAGA Penalties. AMA requests Pemberton's position on coverage for the PAGA component of any settlement. AMA is aware that Pemberton's December 22, 2022 reservation of rights letter identified a potential coverage issue with respect to PAGA penalties under the Policy's Penalty Exclusion (Section IV.F). AMA acknowledges this reservation but respectfully submits that a modest PAGA allocation of $500,000 to $1,000,000 within a larger Gross Settlement Amount of $10,000,000 to $16,000,000 should be included in Pemberton's contribution obligation as part of a global resolution of the Fuentes Action. The PAGA component is an integral and inseparable element of the anticipated settlement, and its inclusion is necessary to obtain the comprehensive release that serves both AMA's and Pemberton's interests. AMA reserves all rights to dispute the applicability of the Penalty Exclusion to the PAGA component of the settlement.
V. RELATED MATTER — ALDRICH EXECUTIVE DISPUTE (NO CHANGE)
For the sake of completeness, AMA notes that the related individual action captioned Aldrich v. Aurelius Media Americas Inc., LASC Case No. 22STCV41087, remains pending on a separate litigation track. As Pemberton is aware, Pemberton's December 22, 2022 reservation of rights letter denied coverage for the Aldrich matter. AMA is not seeking coverage for the Aldrich matter in this letter and is self-funding the defense of that action. AMA does, however, preserve all of its rights under the Policy with respect to the Aldrich matter, including the right to seek coverage at a later date should circumstances warrant.
VI. CONTACT INFORMATION AND COORDINATION
All coverage correspondence relating to the Fuentes Action should be directed to:
Bernard Crawford, Partner Calderwood & Harkness LLP 777 South Flower Street, Suite 4200 Los Angeles, California 90017 Telephone: (213) 555-7214
Email: bcrawford@calderwoodharkness.com
With copies to:
Gregory Tanaka Vice President, Legal & Compliance Aurelius Media Americas Inc. 8500 Sunset Boulevard, Suite 1400 West Hollywood, California 90069
Email: gtanaka@aureliusmedia.com
Samuel Okonkwo Managing Director Kestrel Risk Advisors Ltd. One Broadgate London EC2M 2QS, United Kingdom
Email: sokonkwo@kestrelrisk.co.uk
AMA's insurance broker, Kestrel Risk Advisors Ltd., has been copied on this correspondence and is available to facilitate discussions between AMA and Pemberton regarding coverage, settlement participation, and any related matters.
VII. RESERVATION OF RIGHTS
AMA hereby reserves all of its rights under the Policy, including but not limited to the right to seek full indemnity for any settlement payment, reimbursement of defense costs incurred above the SIR, and all other benefits to which AMA is entitled under the Policy. Nothing in this letter is intended to, nor shall it be construed to, waive, limit, modify, or otherwise prejudice any of AMA's rights, claims, or remedies under the Policy, at law, or in equity.
AMA requests Pemberton's prompt response to the matters set forth in this letter given the imminent mediation date of August 25, 2023 and the critical need for AMA to have clarity on Pemberton's position, including its willingness to contribute and any conditions on consent, prior to engaging in settlement discussions with Plaintiffs' counsel.
CLOSING
We respectfully request that Pemberton acknowledge receipt of this letter at its earliest convenience and advise us of the identity of any coverage counsel, claims examiner, or claims adjuster who has been assigned to handle the settlement phase of the Fuentes Action on Pemberton's behalf. We are available to discuss any aspect of this letter or the underlying claim at Pemberton's convenience, and we would welcome the opportunity to schedule a conference call with Pemberton's claims team in advance of the August 25, 2023 mediation session to ensure alignment on settlement parameters and strategy.
We appreciate Pemberton's attention to this matter and look forward to Pemberton's response.
Sincerely,
CALDERWOOD & HARKNESS LLP
By: ________
Bernard Crawford Partner
Enclosures:
1. Class Certification Order, Fuentes v. Aurelius Media Americas Inc., LASC Case No. 22STCV38214 (Hon. Raymond Escobedo, August 11, 2023)
2. Summary of Expert Reports (Dr. Howard Rennick, Pinnacle Economic Consulting Group LLC; Dr. Rajesh Makhija, Workforce Dynamics Consulting LLC; Dr. Catherine Lindstrom, Hargrove Analytics Inc.)
cc:
Gregory Tanaka, Vice President, Legal & Compliance, Aurelius Media Americas Inc. Samuel Okonkwo, Managing Director, Kestrel Risk Advisors Ltd. Renata Vasquez, Calderwood & Harkness LLP Philippa Cartwright, AGMG