1017-00004 · Entities. Aurelius Global Media Group · Mediation & Settlement/Class Action

mediation-damages-summary.xlsx DOCUMENT Finance & Banking

105 / 150 ← → ✕

[sheet: Cover]

Field	Value
Document Title	Mediation Position Summary — Damages Analysis for Mediator
Prepared By	Calderwood & Harkness LLP
Prepared For	Hon. Patricia Okoro (Ret.), Westpark Dispute Resolution Inc.
Date	August 18, 2023
Matter	Fuentes v. Aurelius Media Americas Inc., LASC Case No. 22STCV38214 (Consolidated)
Mediation Session	Session #1 — August 25, 2023
Mediator Address	1925 Century Park East, Suite 1700, Los Angeles, CA 90067
C&H Matter No.	1017-00004
Defense Counsel	Renata Vasquez, Partner; Devon Archer, Senior Associate — Calderwood & Harkness LLP, 777 South Flower Street, Suite 4200, Los Angeles, CA 90017
Plaintiffs' Counsel	Marco Castellano / Diane Salas — Castellano Byrne & Salas LLP; Sandra Higuera — Veltrano Employment Law Group PC
Defendant	Aurelius Media Americas Inc. (AMA)
Named Plaintiffs	Marisol Fuentes, Derek Halloran, Yesenia Padilla
Estimated Class Size	~1,850 non-exempt, hourly employees in California
Class Period	November 1, 2018 – October 31, 2023 (as modified in settlement)
Certification Status	Partial certification granted August 11, 2023 (Hon. Raymond Escobedo, Dept. 34) — certified: first meal period auto-deduction, wage statement (§ 226), UCL (§ 17200); denied: rest period, off-the-clock/overtime, minimum wage, second meal period, waiting time penalties
Confidentiality	CONFIDENTIAL — FOR MEDIATION ONLY — SUBJECT TO CAL. EVID. CODE § 1119

[sheet: Damages Comparison]

Claim Category	Certification Status	Rennick — Methodology / Key Assumption	Rennick — Estimated Damages	Lindstrom — Methodology / Key Assumption	Lindstrom — Estimated Damages	AMA Assessment — Realistic Range	Variance — Rennick vs. Lindstrom	Notes
First Meal Period Premiums	CERTIFIED	Every auto-deducted meal period treated as 'missed'; net of attestation records (~18,400 shifts); ~593,600 violations × avg. rate ~$27.50	$16,300,000	Uses actual missed-meal attestation data + conservative extrapolation; accounts for employees who took compliant breaks; actual violation rate substantially lower	$3,400,000	$4,000,000 – $6,000,000	$12,900,000	Core certified claim. Auto-deduction applied across all 7 CA facilities. Attestation feature not activated at Facilities 2 (Studio City), 4 (Burbank), 7 (El Segundo). Usage rates at active facilities: 1.8%–4.1%. Rennick assumption that every deduction = violation is critical flaw.
Rest Period Premiums	DENIED (not certified)	Assumes 50% violation rate based on named plaintiff declarations; ~306,000 violations × ~$27.50	$8,400,000	Not calculated — claim not certified; no systematic evidence	$0	$0 (not certified; released in settlement)	$8,400,000	Court denied certification: 'no common proof of systematic failure to provide rest periods.' Anecdotal only — 3 declarants from different facilities/divisions.
Off-the-Clock Overtime (Pre-Shift / Post-Shift)	DENIED (not certified)	Assumes 37.5 min/shift (midpoint of 30–45 min alleged range) × ~612,000 shifts × 1.5× overtime rate (~$41.25); adjusted downward for non-overtime shifts	$12,200,000	Not calculated — claim not certified; inherently individualized	$0	$0 (not certified; released in settlement)	$12,200,000	Court denied: 'inherently individualized — depends on employee's specific job duties, show unit, and supervisor's expectations.' No policy requiring off-the-clock work.
Second Meal Period (Shifts >10 hrs)	DENIED (not certified)	Included within meal period premium total above	$0	N/A	$0	$0 (not certified)	$0	Court denied: 'too dependent on specific production schedule and show unit.' Favorable ruling for AMA.
Wage Statement Penalties (Cal. Lab. Code § 226)	CERTIFIED (derivative)	Statutory penalties ($50 initial / $100 subsequent) per pay period with inaccurate statement; aggregate calculation	$1,500,000	Reduced calculation accounting for limited scope of certified meal period claim; fewer affected pay periods	$800,000	$500,000 – $1,000,000	$700,000	Certified as derivative of meal period claim. Penalties depend on whether underlying meal period violation is established.
Minimum Wage (Cal. Lab. Code §§ 1197, 1197.1)	DENIED (not certified)	Derivative of overtime/off-the-clock claim — when unrecorded time included, effective rate allegedly fell below minimum wage for certain shifts	$0	N/A	$0	$0 (not certified)	$0	Derivative of denied off-the-clock claim.
Waiting Time Penalties (Cal. Lab. Code §§ 201–203)	DENIED (not certified)	30 days × 8 hrs × avg. rate per separation; estimated ~740 separations in class period	$0	N/A	$0	$0 (not certified)	$0	Court denied: 'depends on whether individual class members were owed wages at separation.'
UCL Restitution (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200)	CERTIFIED (derivative)	Coextensive with meal period premiums — no independent damages above meal period calculation	$0	N/A	$0	Included in meal period range	$0	Certified as derivative. UCL restitution is limited to amounts already captured in meal period premium calculation; no separate award expected.
PAGA Penalties (Cal. Lab. Code § 2698 et seq.)	Proceeding as representative action (no class certification required)	$100 initial + $200 subsequent per pay period per aggrieved employee; applied to all alleged violations across class period	$12,200,000	Subject to significant judicial discretion under Lab. Code § 2699(e)(2); realistic range after reduction is $500K–$1.5M	$500,000	$500,000 – $1,000,000	$11,700,000	PAGA notice filed Sept. 15, 2022; LWDA took no action by Nov. 14, 2022 deadline. Courts routinely reduce PAGA penalties by 75–90%. Pemberton (EPL carrier) reserved rights on PAGA penalty coverage under Policy Penalty Exclusion (§ IV.F) but likely to participate in modest PAGA allocation.
Estimated Interest (Pre-Judgment)	N/A	Included in Rennick model at 7% per annum on meal period premiums from date of violation	$800,000	Not separately calculated; included within Lindstrom's overall conservative estimate	$100,000	$100,000 – $400,000	$700,000	Pre-judgment interest on wage claims accrues at 7% under Cal. Civ. Code § 3287. Adds modest incremental value.
TOTAL — ALL CLAIMS	$38,600,000	$5,800,000	$5,000,000 – $8,000,000	$32,800,000	Plaintiffs' total per Dr. Rennick report (Apr. 28, 2023); Defense total per Dr. Lindstrom rebuttal report (Jun. 9, 2023). Includes $12.2M PAGA in Rennick total.
TOTAL — CERTIFIED CLAIMS ONLY (incl. PAGA)	$30,000,000	$4,700,000	$5,000,000 – $8,000,000	$25,300,000	Subset: first meal period + wage statement + UCL + PAGA. Excludes denied claims (rest period $8.4M, off-the-clock $12.2M, etc.) which are released in any global settlement.

[sheet: Risk-Adjusted Expected Value]

Issue / Component	Plaintiffs' Best-Case Value	Defense Best-Case Value	Prob. of Plaintiff Prevailing — Plaintiffs' View	Prob. of Plaintiff Prevailing — Defense View	Plaintiffs' Risk-Adjusted Value	Defense Risk-Adjusted Value	Notes
First Meal Period — Liability (class-wide)	$16,300,000	$3,400,000	80%	50%	$13,040,000	$1,700,000	Certification order is strong signal but not merits ruling. Auto-deduction practice 'presents poorly' (per mediator's initial assessment). Defense: Brinker requires only that employer 'provide' opportunity — many employees took compliant breaks.
Wage Statement Penalties (§ 226) — Derivative	$1,500,000	$800,000	75%	40%	$1,125,000	$320,000	Derivative of meal period claim — flows from liability on underlying violation. If meal period claim fails, wage statement claim fails.
UCL Restitution — Derivative	$0	$0	75%	40%	$0	$0	No independent damages above meal period calculation. Included for completeness.
PAGA Penalties	$12,200,000	$500,000	85%	70%	$10,370,000	$350,000	High probability of some PAGA recovery, but amount subject to massive judicial discretion reduction. Courts routinely reduce by 75–90%. Realistic PAGA settlement: $500K–$1.5M.
Non-Certified Claims (Rest Period, Off-the-Clock, OT, Min Wage, Waiting Time) — Value in Release	$8,600,000	$0	N/A — not certified; value reflected in global settlement	N/A	$0	$0	Not certified but released in any global settlement. Release value estimated at $0–$2M premium over certified-claims-only value, reflecting elimination of follow-on individual litigation risk.
SUBTOTAL — Trial Risk-Adjusted Value	$24,535,000	$2,370,000	Sum of individual component risk-adjusted values above.
Adjustment for Release of Non-Certified Claims	$0	$2,000,000	AMA values broad release at ~$2M (avoids individual litigation by class members on non-certified claims)
Adjustment for PAGA Penalty Reduction (Judicial Discretion)	-$10,000,000	$0	Plaintiffs' PAGA figure ($12.2M) is theoretical maximum; realistic recovery after judicial reduction is $500K–$1.5M. Adjusts Plaintiffs' EV downward.
Adjustment for Litigation Costs Avoided (Defense)	$0	$2,800,000	Trial estimated at $1.2M–$1.8M in additional defense fees/expenses (midpoint $1.5M); plus continued pre-trial fees ~$1.3M. Total avoided costs ~$2.8M.
TOTAL — Adjusted Risk-Adjusted Expected Value	$24,500,000	$7,200,000	Plaintiffs' risk-adjusted view: ~$24.5M. AMA risk-adjusted view: ~$7.2M. Midpoint of settlement zone: ($24.5M + $7.2M) / 2 ≈ $15,850,000.

[sheet: Settlement Zone Analysis]

Parameter	Value / Range	Notes
Plaintiffs' Opening Demand (expected)	$28,000,000	Based on pre-mediation communications; approximately 73% of Rennick total ($38.6M)
Plaintiffs' Risk-Adjusted Expected Value	~$24,500,000	After adjustment for PAGA judicial reduction and trial risk
Defense Risk-Adjusted Expected Value	~$7,200,000	Includes value of broad release ($2M) and avoided litigation costs ($2.8M)
Midpoint of Risk-Adjusted Values	~$15,850,000	($24.5M + $7.2M) / 2 = ~$15.85M
AMA Proposed Settlement Range (GSA)	$10,000,000 – $14,000,000	Per settlement authority memorandum; opening offer anticipated at $8M
Percentage of Plaintiffs' Claimed Exposure at $14.75M	38.2%	$14,750,000 / $38,600,000 = 38.2%
Comparable California Wage-and-Hour Class Settlements	15%–40% of claimed exposure	Per defense counsel experience; $14–15M range is at upper end
EPL Carrier (Pemberton) — Authorized Contribution	$9,250,000	Policy No. PMA-EPL-2022-00837; $5M SIR substantially exhausted through ~$3.1M defense costs. Pemberton authorized $9.25M contribution out of $15M aggregate limit.
AMA Self-Funded Portion (at $14.75M GSA)	$5,500,000	$14,750,000 – $9,250,000 = $5,500,000
PAGA Component (recommended allocation from GSA)	$500,000 – $1,000,000	75% to LWDA / 25% to aggrieved employees per Lab. Code § 2699(i)
Estimated Attorneys' Fees (Class Counsel — 33.33%)	$4,916,175	At $14,750,000 GSA; 33.33% × $14,750,000
Estimated Litigation Costs (Class Counsel)	$412,300	Per fee petition documentation
Service Awards (Total)	$35,000	Fuentes $15,000 + Halloran $10,000 + Padilla $10,000
Settlement Administration (Meridian Settlement Services LLC)	$385,000	Budget per claims administrator proposal
PAGA Allocation (from GSA, midpoint)	$750,000	Midpoint of $500,000 – $1,000,000 recommended PAGA allocation
Estimated Net Settlement Fund (at $14.75M GSA)	$8,251,525	$14,750,000 − $4,916,175 − $412,300 − $35,000 − $385,000 − $750,000 = $8,251,525
Estimated Average Per-Member Payment	~$4,460	$8,251,525 ÷ 1,850 class members ≈ $4,460
Settlement Zone — Recommended Target	$14,000,000 – $16,000,000 (GSA)	Based on midpoint analysis (~$15.85M), comparable settlements, and insurance coverage parameters
Defense Expert Valuation (Dr. Lindstrom)	$5,800,000	Aggregate damages per June 9, 2023 rebuttal report; excludes PAGA penalties
Plaintiffs' Expert Valuation (Dr. Rennick)	$38,600,000	Aggregate damages per April 28, 2023 report; includes $12.2M PAGA penalties

[sheet: Key Assumptions & Methodology]

Item	Assumption / Source
Class Size	~1,850 non-exempt, hourly employees per class definition (November 1, 2018 – October 31, 2023)
Average Hourly Rate	~$27.50 across class (per NovaPay Solutions TimeTrack Pro payroll data extract)
Total Auto-Deducted Shifts (Class Period)	~612,000 shifts where 30-minute auto-deduction was applied
Missed Meal Attestation Records	~18,400 shifts with attestation recorded (premiums already paid)
Attestation Feature Activation	Active at 4 of 7 facilities (West Hollywood HQ, Sherman Oaks, Hollywood, Santa Monica); NOT active at Studio City, Burbank, El Segundo
Attestation Usage Rates (Where Active)	West Hollywood: 2.3%; Sherman Oaks: 4.1%; Hollywood: 1.8%; Santa Monica: 3.7%
Auto-Deduction Threshold	Configured at 6 hours (should be 5 hours per IWC Wage Order 12); corrected to 5 hours December 2022
AMA California Facilities	7 facilities: West Hollywood HQ (Facility 1), Studio City (Facility 2), Sherman Oaks (Facility 3), Burbank (Facility 4), Hollywood (Facility 5), Santa Monica (Facility 6), El Segundo (Facility 7)
Show Units (Active During Class Period)	14 distinct production units operating under Wage Order 12
Timekeeping System	NovaPay Solutions 'TimeTrack Pro' — electronic punch-in/punch-out; auto-deduction of 30 min for shifts ≥ 6 hrs
Plaintiffs' Expert	Dr. Howard Rennick, Pinnacle Economic Consulting Group LLC; report dated April 28, 2023
Defense Expert (Damages)	Dr. Catherine Lindstrom, Hargrove Analytics Inc.; rebuttal report dated June 9, 2023
Defense Expert (Commonality/I-O)	Dr. Rajesh Makhija, Workforce Dynamics Consulting LLC; report dated May 19, 2023 — significant variability across 14 show units and 7 facilities
Certification Order Date	August 11, 2023 — Hon. Raymond Escobedo, Dept. 34, LA Superior Court
Probability Estimates	Defense litigation team's assessment based on case law, deposition record (18 depositions taken), expert analyses, and certification order language
PAGA Notice Date	September 15, 2022 — LWDA took no action by November 14, 2022 deadline
Document Production	AMA: 147,832 documents (~1.2M pages); Plaintiffs: 3,412 documents
Depositions Completed	18 total (11 by Plaintiffs, 7 by Defense)
EPL Policy	Pemberton Mutual Assurance Co. — Policy No. PMA-EPL-2022-00837; $5M SIR / $15M aggregate limit
Defense Costs Incurred to Date	~$2,800,000 (through August 2023)
Trial Cost Estimate (if no settlement)	$1,200,000 – $1,800,000 in additional fees and expenses (15–20 court days)

[sheet: Rennick Methodology Critique]

Critique #	Component	Rennick Assumption	Defense Critique	Impact on Damages Estimate
1	Meal Period Premiums	Every auto-deducted meal period is treated as a 'missed' meal period	Auto-deduction is a timekeeping method designed to record compliant meals, not violations. Employees who took full 30-minute breaks are correctly captured by the deduction. Only employees who did NOT take a compliant break are underpaid — requires individualized proof.	Overstates meal period damages by treating ~593,600 auto-deductions as violations when the vast majority accurately reflect compliant breaks. Attestation data shows only 2–4% of shifts flagged as missed at active facilities.
2	Rest Period Violation Rate	Assumes 50% violation rate across entire class based on 3 named plaintiff declarations	50% rate is entirely unsupported — extrapolated from 3 individuals across 3 different facilities/divisions to 1,850 class members. No statistical basis, no survey, no empirical data. Rest periods are not tracked in TimeTrack Pro.	Inflates rest period damages by ~$8.4M based on speculative assumption. Court denied certification of this claim.
3	Off-the-Clock Time	Assumes 37.5 minutes of unrecorded work per shift (midpoint of 30–45 min alleged range)	No empirical basis for 37.5-minute figure. Different employees in different roles performed different tasks (or none). Pre-shift setup varies by show unit (studio vs. field vs. post-production).	Inflates off-the-clock damages by ~$12.2M. Court denied certification: 'inherently individualized.'
4	No Facility-Level Differentiation	Treats all 7 facilities and 14 show units as homogeneous	Dr. Makhija's analysis demonstrates statistically significant variation: missed-meal attestation rates range from 2.1% (Kitchen Clash, studio-based) to 18.7% (Summit Challenge, field-based). Supervisory practices materially different across units.	Masks actual violation rates by averaging across vastly different operational environments. Facilities with active attestation feature and low usage rates (suggesting compliant breaks) are lumped with facilities lacking the feature.
5	PAGA Penalties — Maximum Statutory Rate	Applies $100 initial / $200 subsequent per pay period per employee at maximum rate without reduction	Cal. Lab. Code § 2699(e)(2) gives court broad discretion to reduce PAGA penalties where maximum award would be 'unjust, arbitrary and oppressive, or confiscatory.' Courts routinely reduce by 75–90%.	PAGA figure of $12.2M is theoretical maximum. Realistic outcome: $500K–$1.5M — a reduction of 88–96%.
6	No Credit for Premiums Already Paid	Model subtracts ~18,400 attestation-recorded shifts from total but does not account for any other meal period premiums paid by AMA outside the attestation system (e.g., supervisor-initiated corrections, payroll adjustments)	AMA's payroll records show additional meal period premiums paid via manual payroll adjustments — not captured in Rennick's model. Defense expert (Lindstrom) accounts for these.	Further overstates net damages by failing to credit all premiums already paid.

[sheet: Cover]
Field | Value
Document Title | Mediation Position Summary — Damages Analysis for Mediator
Prepared By | Calderwood & Harkness LLP
Prepared For | Hon. Patricia Okoro (Ret.), Westpark Dispute Resolution Inc.
Date | August 18, 2023
Matter | Fuentes v. Aurelius Media Americas Inc., LASC Case No. 22STCV38214 (Consolidated)
Mediation Session | Session #1 — August 25, 2023
Mediator Address | 1925 Century Park East, Suite 1700, Los Angeles, CA 90067
C&H Matter No. | 1017-00004
Defense Counsel | Renata Vasquez, Partner; Devon Archer, Senior Associate — Calderwood & Harkness LLP, 777 South Flower Street, Suite 4200, Los Angeles, CA 90017
Plaintiffs' Counsel | Marco Castellano / Diane Salas — Castellano Byrne & Salas LLP; Sandra Higuera — Veltrano Employment Law Group PC
Defendant | Aurelius Media Americas Inc. (AMA)
Named Plaintiffs | Marisol Fuentes, Derek Halloran, Yesenia Padilla
Estimated Class Size | ~1,850 non-exempt, hourly employees in California
Class Period | November 1, 2018 – October 31, 2023 (as modified in settlement)
Certification Status | Partial certification granted August 11, 2023 (Hon. Raymond Escobedo, Dept. 34) — certified: first meal period auto-deduction, wage statement (§ 226), UCL (§ 17200); denied: rest period, off-the-clock/overtime, minimum wage, second meal period, waiting time penalties
Confidentiality | CONFIDENTIAL — FOR MEDIATION ONLY — SUBJECT TO CAL. EVID. CODE § 1119
[sheet: Damages Comparison]
Claim Category | Certification Status | Rennick — Methodology / Key Assumption | Rennick — Estimated Damages | Lindstrom — Methodology / Key Assumption | Lindstrom — Estimated Damages | AMA Assessment — Realistic Range | Variance — Rennick vs. Lindstrom | Notes
First Meal Period Premiums | CERTIFIED | Every auto-deducted meal period treated as 'missed'; net of attestation records (~18,400 shifts); ~593,600 violations × avg. rate ~$27.50 | $16,300,000 | Uses actual missed-meal attestation data + conservative extrapolation; accounts for employees who took compliant breaks; actual violation rate substantially lower | $3,400,000 | $4,000,000 – $6,000,000 | $12,900,000 | Core certified claim. Auto-deduction applied across all 7 CA facilities. Attestation feature not activated at Facilities 2 (Studio City), 4 (Burbank), 7 (El Segundo). Usage rates at active facilities: 1.8%–4.1%. Rennick assumption that every deduction = violation is critical flaw.
Rest Period Premiums | DENIED (not certified) | Assumes 50% violation rate based on named plaintiff declarations; ~306,000 violations × ~$27.50 | $8,400,000 | Not calculated — claim not certified; no systematic evidence | $0 | $0 (not certified; released in settlement) | $8,400,000 | Court denied certification: 'no common proof of systematic failure to provide rest periods.' Anecdotal only — 3 declarants from different facilities/divisions.
Off-the-Clock Overtime (Pre-Shift / Post-Shift) | DENIED (not certified) | Assumes 37.5 min/shift (midpoint of 30–45 min alleged range) × ~612,000 shifts × 1.5× overtime rate (~$41.25); adjusted downward for non-overtime shifts | $12,200,000 | Not calculated — claim not certified; inherently individualized | $0 | $0 (not certified; released in settlement) | $12,200,000 | Court denied: 'inherently individualized — depends on employee's specific job duties, show unit, and supervisor's expectations.' No policy requiring off-the-clock work.
Second Meal Period (Shifts >10 hrs) | DENIED (not certified) | Included within meal period premium total above | $0 | N/A | $0 | $0 (not certified) | $0 | Court denied: 'too dependent on specific production schedule and show unit.' Favorable ruling for AMA.
Wage Statement Penalties (Cal. Lab. Code § 226) | CERTIFIED (derivative) | Statutory penalties ($50 initial / $100 subsequent) per pay period with inaccurate statement; aggregate calculation | $1,500,000 | Reduced calculation accounting for limited scope of certified meal period claim; fewer affected pay periods | $800,000 | $500,000 – $1,000,000 | $700,000 | Certified as derivative of meal period claim. Penalties depend on whether underlying meal period violation is established.
Minimum Wage (Cal. Lab. Code §§ 1197, 1197.1) | DENIED (not certified) | Derivative of overtime/off-the-clock claim — when unrecorded time included, effective rate allegedly fell below minimum wage for certain shifts | $0 | N/A | $0 | $0 (not certified) | $0 | Derivative of denied off-the-clock claim.
Waiting Time Penalties (Cal. Lab. Code §§ 201–203) | DENIED (not certified) | 30 days × 8 hrs × avg. rate per separation; estimated ~740 separations in class period | $0 | N/A | $0 | $0 (not certified) | $0 | Court denied: 'depends on whether individual class members were owed wages at separation.'
UCL Restitution (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200) | CERTIFIED (derivative) | Coextensive with meal period premiums — no independent damages above meal period calculation | $0 | N/A | $0 | Included in meal period range | $0 | Certified as derivative. UCL restitution is limited to amounts already captured in meal period premium calculation; no separate award expected.
PAGA Penalties (Cal. Lab. Code § 2698 et seq.) | Proceeding as representative action (no class certification required) | $100 initial + $200 subsequent per pay period per aggrieved employee; applied to all alleged violations across class period | $12,200,000 | Subject to significant judicial discretion under Lab. Code § 2699(e)(2); realistic range after reduction is $500K–$1.5M | $500,000 | $500,000 – $1,000,000 | $11,700,000 | PAGA notice filed Sept. 15, 2022; LWDA took no action by Nov. 14, 2022 deadline. Courts routinely reduce PAGA penalties by 75–90%. Pemberton (EPL carrier) reserved rights on PAGA penalty coverage under Policy Penalty Exclusion (§ IV.F) but likely to participate in modest PAGA allocation.
Estimated Interest (Pre-Judgment) | N/A | Included in Rennick model at 7% per annum on meal period premiums from date of violation | $800,000 | Not separately calculated; included within Lindstrom's overall conservative estimate | $100,000 | $100,000 – $400,000 | $700,000 | Pre-judgment interest on wage claims accrues at 7% under Cal. Civ. Code § 3287. Adds modest incremental value.
TOTAL — ALL CLAIMS | $38,600,000 | $5,800,000 | $5,000,000 – $8,000,000 | $32,800,000 | Plaintiffs' total per Dr. Rennick report (Apr. 28, 2023); Defense total per Dr. Lindstrom rebuttal report (Jun. 9, 2023). Includes $12.2M PAGA in Rennick total.
TOTAL — CERTIFIED CLAIMS ONLY (incl. PAGA) | $30,000,000 | $4,700,000 | $5,000,000 – $8,000,000 | $25,300,000 | Subset: first meal period + wage statement + UCL + PAGA. Excludes denied claims (rest period $8.4M, off-the-clock $12.2M, etc.) which are released in any global settlement.
[sheet: Risk-Adjusted Expected Value]
Issue / Component | Plaintiffs' Best-Case Value | Defense Best-Case Value | Prob. of Plaintiff Prevailing — Plaintiffs' View | Prob. of Plaintiff Prevailing — Defense View | Plaintiffs' Risk-Adjusted Value | Defense Risk-Adjusted Value | Notes
First Meal Period — Liability (class-wide) | $16,300,000 | $3,400,000 | 80% | 50% | $13,040,000 | $1,700,000 | Certification order is strong signal but not merits ruling. Auto-deduction practice 'presents poorly' (per mediator's initial assessment). Defense: Brinker requires only that employer 'provide' opportunity — many employees took compliant breaks.
Wage Statement Penalties (§ 226) — Derivative | $1,500,000 | $800,000 | 75% | 40% | $1,125,000 | $320,000 | Derivative of meal period claim — flows from liability on underlying violation. If meal period claim fails, wage statement claim fails.
UCL Restitution — Derivative | $0 | $0 | 75% | 40% | $0 | $0 | No independent damages above meal period calculation. Included for completeness.
PAGA Penalties | $12,200,000 | $500,000 | 85% | 70% | $10,370,000 | $350,000 | High probability of some PAGA recovery, but amount subject to massive judicial discretion reduction. Courts routinely reduce by 75–90%. Realistic PAGA settlement: $500K–$1.5M.
Non-Certified Claims (Rest Period, Off-the-Clock, OT, Min Wage, Waiting Time) — Value in Release | $8,600,000 | $0 | N/A — not certified; value reflected in global settlement | N/A | $0 | $0 | Not certified but released in any global settlement. Release value estimated at $0–$2M premium over certified-claims-only value, reflecting elimination of follow-on individual litigation risk.
SUBTOTAL — Trial Risk-Adjusted Value | $24,535,000 | $2,370,000 | Sum of individual component risk-adjusted values above.
Adjustment for Release of Non-Certified Claims | $0 | $2,000,000 | AMA values broad release at ~$2M (avoids individual litigation by class members on non-certified claims)
Adjustment for PAGA Penalty Reduction (Judicial Discretion) | -$10,000,000 | $0 | Plaintiffs' PAGA figure ($12.2M) is theoretical maximum; realistic recovery after judicial reduction is $500K–$1.5M. Adjusts Plaintiffs' EV downward.
Adjustment for Litigation Costs Avoided (Defense) | $0 | $2,800,000 | Trial estimated at $1.2M–$1.8M in additional defense fees/expenses (midpoint $1.5M); plus continued pre-trial fees ~$1.3M. Total avoided costs ~$2.8M.
TOTAL — Adjusted Risk-Adjusted Expected Value | $24,500,000 | $7,200,000 | Plaintiffs' risk-adjusted view: ~$24.5M. AMA risk-adjusted view: ~$7.2M. Midpoint of settlement zone: ($24.5M + $7.2M) / 2 ≈ $15,850,000.
[sheet: Settlement Zone Analysis]
Parameter | Value / Range | Notes
Plaintiffs' Opening Demand (expected) | $28,000,000 | Based on pre-mediation communications; approximately 73% of Rennick total ($38.6M)
Plaintiffs' Risk-Adjusted Expected Value | ~$24,500,000 | After adjustment for PAGA judicial reduction and trial risk
Defense Risk-Adjusted Expected Value | ~$7,200,000 | Includes value of broad release ($2M) and avoided litigation costs ($2.8M)
Midpoint of Risk-Adjusted Values | ~$15,850,000 | ($24.5M + $7.2M) / 2 = ~$15.85M
AMA Proposed Settlement Range (GSA) | $10,000,000 – $14,000,000 | Per settlement authority memorandum; opening offer anticipated at $8M
Percentage of Plaintiffs' Claimed Exposure at $14.75M | 38.2% | $14,750,000 / $38,600,000 = 38.2%
Comparable California Wage-and-Hour Class Settlements | 15%–40% of claimed exposure | Per defense counsel experience; $14–15M range is at upper end
EPL Carrier (Pemberton) — Authorized Contribution | $9,250,000 | Policy No. PMA-EPL-2022-00837; $5M SIR substantially exhausted through ~$3.1M defense costs. Pemberton authorized $9.25M contribution out of $15M aggregate limit.
AMA Self-Funded Portion (at $14.75M GSA) | $5,500,000 | $14,750,000 – $9,250,000 = $5,500,000
PAGA Component (recommended allocation from GSA) | $500,000 – $1,000,000 | 75% to LWDA / 25% to aggrieved employees per Lab. Code § 2699(i)
Estimated Attorneys' Fees (Class Counsel — 33.33%) | $4,916,175 | At $14,750,000 GSA; 33.33% × $14,750,000
Estimated Litigation Costs (Class Counsel) | $412,300 | Per fee petition documentation
Service Awards (Total) | $35,000 | Fuentes $15,000 + Halloran $10,000 + Padilla $10,000
Settlement Administration (Meridian Settlement Services LLC) | $385,000 | Budget per claims administrator proposal
PAGA Allocation (from GSA, midpoint) | $750,000 | Midpoint of $500,000 – $1,000,000 recommended PAGA allocation
Estimated Net Settlement Fund (at $14.75M GSA) | $8,251,525 | $14,750,000 − $4,916,175 − $412,300 − $35,000 − $385,000 − $750,000 = $8,251,525
Estimated Average Per-Member Payment | ~$4,460 | $8,251,525 ÷ 1,850 class members ≈ $4,460
Settlement Zone — Recommended Target | $14,000,000 – $16,000,000 (GSA) | Based on midpoint analysis (~$15.85M), comparable settlements, and insurance coverage parameters
Defense Expert Valuation (Dr. Lindstrom) | $5,800,000 | Aggregate damages per June 9, 2023 rebuttal report; excludes PAGA penalties
Plaintiffs' Expert Valuation (Dr. Rennick) | $38,600,000 | Aggregate damages per April 28, 2023 report; includes $12.2M PAGA penalties
[sheet: Key Assumptions & Methodology]
Item | Assumption / Source
Class Size | ~1,850 non-exempt, hourly employees per class definition (November 1, 2018 – October 31, 2023)
Average Hourly Rate | ~$27.50 across class (per NovaPay Solutions TimeTrack Pro payroll data extract)
Total Auto-Deducted Shifts (Class Period) | ~612,000 shifts where 30-minute auto-deduction was applied
Missed Meal Attestation Records | ~18,400 shifts with attestation recorded (premiums already paid)
Attestation Feature Activation | Active at 4 of 7 facilities (West Hollywood HQ, Sherman Oaks, Hollywood, Santa Monica); NOT active at Studio City, Burbank, El Segundo
Attestation Usage Rates (Where Active) | West Hollywood: 2.3%; Sherman Oaks: 4.1%; Hollywood: 1.8%; Santa Monica: 3.7%
Auto-Deduction Threshold | Configured at 6 hours (should be 5 hours per IWC Wage Order 12); corrected to 5 hours December 2022
AMA California Facilities | 7 facilities: West Hollywood HQ (Facility 1), Studio City (Facility 2), Sherman Oaks (Facility 3), Burbank (Facility 4), Hollywood (Facility 5), Santa Monica (Facility 6), El Segundo (Facility 7)
Show Units (Active During Class Period) | 14 distinct production units operating under Wage Order 12
Timekeeping System | NovaPay Solutions 'TimeTrack Pro' — electronic punch-in/punch-out; auto-deduction of 30 min for shifts ≥ 6 hrs
Plaintiffs' Expert | Dr. Howard Rennick, Pinnacle Economic Consulting Group LLC; report dated April 28, 2023
Defense Expert (Damages) | Dr. Catherine Lindstrom, Hargrove Analytics Inc.; rebuttal report dated June 9, 2023
Defense Expert (Commonality/I-O) | Dr. Rajesh Makhija, Workforce Dynamics Consulting LLC; report dated May 19, 2023 — significant variability across 14 show units and 7 facilities
Certification Order Date | August 11, 2023 — Hon. Raymond Escobedo, Dept. 34, LA Superior Court
Probability Estimates | Defense litigation team's assessment based on case law, deposition record (18 depositions taken), expert analyses, and certification order language
PAGA Notice Date | September 15, 2022 — LWDA took no action by November 14, 2022 deadline
Document Production | AMA: 147,832 documents (~1.2M pages); Plaintiffs: 3,412 documents
Depositions Completed | 18 total (11 by Plaintiffs, 7 by Defense)
EPL Policy | Pemberton Mutual Assurance Co. — Policy No. PMA-EPL-2022-00837; $5M SIR / $15M aggregate limit
Defense Costs Incurred to Date | ~$2,800,000 (through August 2023)
Trial Cost Estimate (if no settlement) | $1,200,000 – $1,800,000 in additional fees and expenses (15–20 court days)
[sheet: Rennick Methodology Critique]
Critique # | Component | Rennick Assumption | Defense Critique | Impact on Damages Estimate
1 | Meal Period Premiums | Every auto-deducted meal period is treated as a 'missed' meal period | Auto-deduction is a timekeeping method designed to record compliant meals, not violations. Employees who took full 30-minute breaks are correctly captured by the deduction. Only employees who did NOT take a compliant break are underpaid — requires individualized proof. | Overstates meal period damages by treating ~593,600 auto-deductions as violations when the vast majority accurately reflect compliant breaks. Attestation data shows only 2–4% of shifts flagged as missed at active facilities.
2 | Rest Period Violation Rate | Assumes 50% violation rate across entire class based on 3 named plaintiff declarations | 50% rate is entirely unsupported — extrapolated from 3 individuals across 3 different facilities/divisions to 1,850 class members. No statistical basis, no survey, no empirical data. Rest periods are not tracked in TimeTrack Pro. | Inflates rest period damages by ~$8.4M based on speculative assumption. Court denied certification of this claim.
3 | Off-the-Clock Time | Assumes 37.5 minutes of unrecorded work per shift (midpoint of 30–45 min alleged range) | No empirical basis for 37.5-minute figure. Different employees in different roles performed different tasks (or none). Pre-shift setup varies by show unit (studio vs. field vs. post-production). | Inflates off-the-clock damages by ~$12.2M. Court denied certification: 'inherently individualized.'
4 | No Facility-Level Differentiation | Treats all 7 facilities and 14 show units as homogeneous | Dr. Makhija's analysis demonstrates statistically significant variation: missed-meal attestation rates range from 2.1% (Kitchen Clash, studio-based) to 18.7% (Summit Challenge, field-based). Supervisory practices materially different across units. | Masks actual violation rates by averaging across vastly different operational environments. Facilities with active attestation feature and low usage rates (suggesting compliant breaks) are lumped with facilities lacking the feature.
5 | PAGA Penalties — Maximum Statutory Rate | Applies $100 initial / $200 subsequent per pay period per employee at maximum rate without reduction | Cal. Lab. Code § 2699(e)(2) gives court broad discretion to reduce PAGA penalties where maximum award would be 'unjust, arbitrary and oppressive, or confiscatory.' Courts routinely reduce by 75–90%. | PAGA figure of $12.2M is theoretical maximum. Realistic outcome: $500K–$1.5M — a reduction of 88–96%.
6 | No Credit for Premiums Already Paid | Model subtracts ~18,400 attestation-recorded shifts from total but does not account for any other meal period premiums paid by AMA outside the attestation system (e.g., supervisor-initiated corrections, payroll adjustments) | AMA's payroll records show additional meal period premiums paid via manual payroll adjustments — not captured in Rennick's model. Defense expert (Lindstrom) accounts for these. | Further overstates net damages by failing to credit all premiums already paid.

[sheet: Cover]

Record

Parties

Dates

Amounts