CALDERWOOD & HARKNESS LLP
CONFIDENTIAL — ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT
ORAL ARGUMENT OUTLINE — FINAL APPROVAL HEARING
Date of Preparation: January 31, 2024
This document is prepared solely for the use of Calderwood & Harkness LLP attorneys in connection with the representation of Aurelius Media Americas Inc. in the above-captioned matter. This document constitutes attorney work product and is protected from disclosure under the attorney work-product doctrine and, to the extent applicable, the attorney-client privilege. This document should not be disclosed to any person outside of Calderwood & Harkness LLP without the express written authorization of the Responsible Partner.
I. OPENING STATEMENT
(Estimated time: 2 minutes)
"Good morning, Your Honor. Renata Vasquez of Calderwood & Harkness LLP, appearing for Defendant Aurelius Media Americas Inc."
AMA joins in Plaintiffs' motion for final approval of the class action settlement and respectfully submits that this settlement satisfies all of the requirements for final approval under California law. The settlement was negotiated at arm's length between experienced counsel, facilitated by a highly respected retired judicial officer, and the terms of the settlement fall squarely within the range of reasonableness for settlements of this nature and magnitude. The settlement provides meaningful monetary relief to the class, and the class has overwhelmingly expressed its support for the settlement through a historically high claims rate and a minimal number of opt-outs and objections.
By way of brief framing, this settlement resolves a significant and hard-fought wage-and-hour class action that has been actively litigated for over fifteen months. During that time, the parties engaged in extensive discovery — including the production of nearly 150,000 documents, 18 depositions, and the exchange of competing expert reports on damages, commonality, and typicality. The parties fully briefed and argued a class certification motion, and the Court entered a thoughtful order granting certification in part and denying certification in part. Only after all of this work was completed did the parties engage in two full-day mediation sessions that ultimately produced the settlement now before the Court. In short, this settlement represents a fair, carefully negotiated, and thoroughly informed resolution of this dispute for all parties.
AMA wishes the Court to know that it is prepared to fund the settlement promptly upon entry of the Final Approval Order. The funding mechanism is in place, the insurance carrier has provided its written authorization, and AMA has reserved its self-funded share. There will be no delay in getting money into the hands of the class members.
II. SETTLEMENT FAIRNESS — THE CORE ARGUMENT
(Estimated time: 3 minutes)
A. Arm's-Length Negotiation Process
The settlement was the product of extensive, adversarial, arm's-length negotiations between sophisticated parties represented by experienced counsel. The negotiations took place over two full-day mediation sessions conducted on August 25, 2023 and September 8, 2023, before the Honorable Patricia Okoro (Retired), of Westpark Dispute Resolution Inc. Judge Okoro is a retired Los Angeles Superior Court Judge who served on the bench for over 25 years and has developed a specialty in the mediation of employment class actions. She is widely respected and frequently retained in matters of this complexity and magnitude.
The parties spent a combined approximately 16 hours in mediation over the two sessions. The negotiations were genuinely adversarial and hard-fought. Multiple offers and counteroffers were exchanged over the course of both sessions, and the opening positions of the parties were significantly apart — Plaintiffs opened at $28 million and AMA opened at $8 million. The final settlement amount of $14,750,000 reflects genuine compromise by both sides and was reached only after each party had the opportunity to carefully evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of its respective position in light of the full record of discovery, expert analysis, and the Court's class certification ruling.
The involvement of Judge Okoro as mediator provides further assurance that the settlement was negotiated in good faith and at arm's length. Her participation ensures that neither side was able to gain an unfair advantage in the negotiation process and that both sides were pushed to evaluate their positions realistically.
B. Extensive Investigation and discovery Before Settlement
The parties entered the mediation sessions fully informed of the facts, the law, and the relative strengths and weaknesses of each side's position. This was not a pre-discovery settlement in which the parties lacked the information necessary to assess the value of the claims. To the contrary, the settlement was reached only after the parties had engaged in comprehensive discovery and motion practice, including the following:
Document Production. AMA produced 147,832 documents, comprising approximately 1.2 million pages of material, including payroll records, timekeeping data, meal and rest period policies, employee handbooks, training materials, internal memoranda, corporate communications, and facility-level operations documents. Plaintiffs produced 3,412 documents, consisting primarily of personnel files, pay stubs, and communications with co-workers. The full document corpus was processed and hosted by Marlowe Asset Management Litigation Technology Inc., a nationally recognized e-discovery vendor.
Depositions. The parties collectively took 18 depositions — 11 by Plaintiffs and 7 by the Defense. The deponents included all three named plaintiffs (Marisol Fuentes, Derek Halloran, and Yesenia Padilla), AMA's designated person most knowledgeable witnesses (Lorraine Okafor, Vice President of Human Resources; Celine Arroyo, Senior Director of Payroll Operations; and Karen Fong, Regional Operations Manager), AMA's President Jonathan Mercer, and a third-party custodian of records from NovaPay Solutions, Marcus Yee. These depositions provided both sides with a thorough understanding of the factual landscape underlying the class claims.
Expert Reports. The parties exchanged detailed expert reports addressing both liability and damages issues:
• Plaintiffs' damages expert, Dr. Howard Rennick of Pinnacle Economic Consulting Group LLC, calculated aggregate damages of $38.6 million, including $12.2 million attributable to PAGA penalties.
• AMA's commonality/typicality expert, Dr. Rajesh Makhija of Workforce Dynamics Consulting LLC, provided an opinion addressing the individualized nature of the class members' claims and the lack of common proof on several claim categories.
• AMA's rebuttal damages expert, Dr. Catherine Lindstrom of Hargrove Analytics Inc., provided a rebuttal damages opinion calculating aggregate damages of $5.8 million — substantially lower than Plaintiffs' estimate — based on a more conservative methodology that accounted for the individualized nature of certain claims and AMA's compliance efforts.
Class Certification. The parties fully briefed and argued Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Plaintiffs filed their motion on April 14, 2023. AMA filed its opposition on June 16, 2023. Plaintiffs filed their reply on July 7, 2023. The Court held a hearing on July 28, 2023, and entered its class certification order on August 11, 2023. The order granted certification on three of the seven causes of action and denied certification on the remaining four — a result that materially shaped the negotiation dynamics that followed.
In sum, by the time the parties sat down at the mediation table, each side had a comprehensive understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of its position, the evidentiary record, the competing damages analyses, and the scope of the class as defined by the Court's certification order. The settlement that resulted from these negotiations was therefore fully informed and reflects a genuine assessment of the risks and rewards of continued litigation.
C. Settlement Amount Is Fair, Adequate, and Reasonable
The Gross Settlement Amount of $14,750,000 represents a substantial and fair recovery for the class. It represents approximately 38.2% of the $38.6 million in total damages calculated by Plaintiffs' expert, Dr. Howard Rennick. Based on counsel's experience handling over 40 California wage-and-hour class actions over the course of 18 years, settlements in this area typically fall in the range of 15% to 40% of the claimed exposure. This settlement, at 38.2%, is at the upper end of that range, reflecting both the strength of Plaintiffs' claims and the significant work performed by class counsel to develop the factual record and press the case to a favorable resolution.
Critically, the settlement amount must be evaluated in light of the Court's class certification order of August 11, 2023. That order granted certification on only three of the seven causes of action asserted: (1) the first meal period auto-deduction claim, (2) the derivative wage statement claim under Labor Code section 226, and (3) the Unfair Competition Law claim under Business and Professions Code section 17200. The Court denied certification on five claim categories: rest period, off-the-clock/overtime, minimum wage, second meal period, and waiting time. The partial denial of certification significantly reduced Plaintiffs' leverage in the settlement negotiations, as the non-certified claims could not have been pursued on a classwide basis at trial.
At the same time, the settlement appropriately accounts for the litigation risk on both sides. AMA had meritorious defenses, including the TimeTrack Pro Missed Meal Attestation feature, written compliant policies, and the favorable Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court (2012) 53 Cal.4th 1004 "provide" standard. However, AMA also faced significant vulnerabilities, including the fact that the attestation feature had been deactivated at three of AMA's seven facilities during portions of the class period, that utilization rates were low at the facilities where the feature remained active, and that there was a discrepancy between the 6-hour and 5-hour meal period threshold that AMA's own timekeeping system applied. These competing considerations support the conclusion that the settlement amount represents a fair compromise that accounts for the risks faced by both parties.
D. Scope of Release Provides Comprehensive Finality
The settlement includes a broad release of all class and PAGA claims arising from the operative facts of the case. The release encompasses both the certified claims — the first meal period auto-deduction claim, the wage statement claim under Labor Code section 226, and the UCL claim under Business and Professions Code section 17200 — and the non-certified claims, including rest period, off-the-clock/overtime, minimum wage, second meal period, and waiting time claims.
This broad release is a critical component of the settlement from AMA's perspective because it eliminates the risk of follow-on individual litigation by class members who might otherwise attempt to re-litigate the non-certified claims on an individual basis. The release provides comprehensive finality for both parties and ensures that this litigation is fully and finally resolved.
The settlement also includes the resolution of all PAGA claims, with a designated PAGA payment of $750,000. Consistent with the requirements of PAGA, 75% of the PAGA payment ($562,500) will be paid to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency, and 25% ($187,500) will be distributed to the aggrieved employees.
III. CLASS SUPPORT FOR SETTLEMENT
(Estimated time: 2 minutes)
A. Claims Rate
The claims rate in this case is extraordinarily strong. Out of 1,850 class members, 1,262 submitted valid claims — a claims rate of 68.2%. This is well above the typical range for California wage-and-hour class action settlements, where claims rates of 20% to 50% are the norm. A claims rate of 68.2% reflects broad class awareness of and enthusiasm for the settlement. It demonstrates that the class members were informed about the settlement, understood its terms, and affirmatively chose to participate. This high participation rate is one of the strongest indicators that the class supports the settlement.
B. Opt-Outs. Only 23 class members submitted valid requests to opt out of the settlement, representing just 1.24% of the 1,850-member class. This is well below the 5% threshold — which would equate to 93 individuals — that would trigger AMA's contractual right to void the settlement under Section 12.3 of the Settlement Agreement. Importantly, there is no discernible pattern among the opt-outs. They come from multiple facilities and multiple show units across AMA's operations. No single attorney or law firm appears to be organizing the opt-outs, and there is no indication that any individual or group is marshaling opt-outs for the purpose of pursuing separate litigation. The minimal opt-out rate provides further confirmation that the class as a whole supports the settlement.
C. Notice Administration
The Court should be satisfied that the notice program was conducted in full compliance with the Preliminary Approval Order entered on October 18, 2023. The details of the notice administration are set forth in the Declaration of Angela Truong, the project manager at Meridian Settlement Services LLC, filed with the Court on January 22, 2024.
Specifically, Meridian mailed 1,843 individual notices to class members by first-class mail on November 3, 2023. Only 7 notices were initially returned as undeliverable. All 7 were re-mailed to updated addresses obtained through a skip-trace process, and all 7 were subsequently confirmed as delivered. In addition to the mailed notices, Meridian established and maintained a dedicated settlement website, which received 2,847 unique visits during the claims period, and a toll-free information line, which received 312 calls from class members seeking additional information about the settlement.
The notice administration was conducted professionally and thoroughly, and it is clear that the class received adequate and effective notice of the proposed settlement. The settlement administration budget of $385,000, to be paid from the Gross Settlement Amount, covers all costs of notice, claims processing, tax reporting, and check distribution by Meridian Settlement Services LLC.
IV. FINANCIAL TERMS SUMMARY
(Estimated time: 2 minutes)
AMA respectfully asks the Court to consider the following breakdown of the settlement fund, which illustrates how the Gross Settlement Amount will be allocated:
The Net Settlement Fund of $8,251,525 will be distributed among the class members. Dividing by the total class of 1,850 members, the estimated average individual payment is approximately $4,460 per class member. Actual individual payments will vary based on the distribution formula.
The distribution formula allocates 60% of each class member's individual payment based on the number of weeks worked during the class period and 40% based on recorded overtime hours. This formula was negotiated at arm's length during the mediation sessions and is designed to allocate greater recovery to those employees who worked more weeks and more overtime hours during the class period, as those employees were statistically more likely to have experienced the meal period violations at the heart of this case. The 60/40 weighting reflects a reasonable compromise: weeks worked captures the breadth of potential violations — because all shifts, regardless of length, are eligible for meal period claims — while overtime hours captures the intensity of the exposure, as employees with more overtime generally worked longer shifts and therefore had a greater probability of missing or having shortened meal periods.
The class period runs from November 1, 2018 through October 31, 2023, a period of five years that encompasses the full scope of the claims asserted in the operative complaint.
V. RESPONSE TO OBJECTIONS
(Estimated time: 3 minutes)
Only 4 objections were received out of 1,850 class members — a rate of 0.22%. This minimal objection rate is itself a strong indicator of class satisfaction with the settlement. AMA respectfully asks the Court to overrule each objection for the reasons set forth below.
A. Carlos Vega — Attorneys' Fee Objection
Objection: Mr. Vega objects that the attorneys' fee award of 33.33% of the Gross Settlement Amount is excessive and should be limited to 25%.
Response: The requested fee of 33.33% is standard and well within the range routinely approved by California courts in wage-and-hour class action settlements. The California Supreme Court in Laffitte v. Robert Half International Inc. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 480 expressly endorsed the percentage-of-fund method for calculating attorneys' fees in common fund class action cases and recognized that one-third of the common fund is a common benchmark for fee awards. Courts throughout California regularly approve fee awards in the range of 25% to 40% of the common fund, depending on the circumstances of the case and the quality of the result achieved.
Here, class counsel — Castellano Byrne & Salas LLP and Veltrano Employment Law Group PC — achieved a significant result for the class after extensive and hard-fought litigation spanning over 15 months. The litigation effort included full discovery (147,832 documents produced), 18 depositions, engagement and exchange of expert reports from three separate experts, complete briefing and argument on the class certification motion, and two full-day mediation sessions before a retired judicial officer. The result — a Gross Settlement Amount of $14,750,000, representing 38.2% of the total claimed exposure — is at the high end of the typical settlement range for California wage-and-hour class actions. The fee of $4,916,175 is commensurate with the work performed, the risks undertaken, and the result obtained for the class, and the Court should approve it.
B. Rachel Kimura — Allocation Formula Objection
Objection: Ms. Kimura objects that overtime hours should be weighted more heavily than 40% in the distribution formula, arguing that employees who worked more overtime also worked longer shifts and were therefore more likely to have missed meal periods.
Response: The 60/40 split — 60% based on weeks worked and 40% based on recorded overtime hours — was negotiated at arm's length between experienced class counsel and defense counsel during the mediation sessions facilitated by Judge Okoro. The formula represents a reasonable compromise that balances two legitimate allocation principles. The weeks-worked component captures the breadth of potential meal period violations, because every work week during the class period — regardless of whether the employee worked overtime — presented an opportunity for a meal period violation to occur. The overtime-hours component captures the intensity of the exposure, reflecting the common-sense proposition that employees who worked more overtime generally worked longer shifts and had a correspondingly greater likelihood of experiencing meal period interruptions.
The Court has broad discretion to approve the allocation methodology, and this formula falls squarely within the range of reasonable approaches employed in comparable settlements. Importantly, no alternative formula proposed by the objector — or any other allocation that might plausibly be adopted — would materially change the individual payment amounts for the vast majority of class members. The objection does not identify any fundamental flaw in the methodology and should be overruled.
C. Samuel Torres — "Settlement Is Too Low" Objection
Objection: Mr. Torres objects that the settlement amount is insufficient and argues that the class should have received at least $25 million based on what he describes as the "true" value of the claims.
Response: The Gross Settlement Amount of $14,750,000 represents a substantial recovery for the class. As noted, it constitutes approximately 38.2% of the $38.6 million in total damages calculated by Plaintiffs' own expert, Dr. Howard Rennick, and it represents 254% of the $5.8 million calculated by AMA's rebuttal damages expert, Dr. Catherine Lindstrom. The Court has the benefit of both expert analyses in assessing the reasonableness of the settlement, and the GSA falls well within the range defined by those competing opinions.
Moreover, the reasonableness of the settlement amount must be assessed in light of the litigation risks that both sides faced. The Court's class certification order of August 11, 2023 denied certification on five of the seven causes of action asserted by Plaintiffs — including the rest period, off-the-clock/overtime, minimum wage, second meal period, and waiting time claims. This partial denial of certification significantly reduced Plaintiffs' litigation leverage, as the non-certified claims could not have been tried on a classwide basis. Proceeding to trial on the remaining certified claims alone would have entailed substantial additional costs — estimated at $1.2 to $1.8 million in additional defense costs, with comparable costs on the plaintiff side — and would have required 15 to 20 court days of trial. Both sides faced meaningful appellate risk regardless of the trial outcome. The settlement eliminates these risks, costs, and delays, and provides certainty of recovery to the class. The objection should be overruled.
D. Dawn Prescott — Broad Release Objection
Objection: Ms. Prescott objects that the release of non-certified claims — including rest period and off-the-clock claims — without separate compensation is unfair to class members who may have experienced those specific violations.
Response: A broad release encompassing all claims arising from the operative facts — including non-certified claims — is standard practice in California wage-and-hour class action settlements. The $14,750,000 Gross Settlement Amount was not negotiated solely on the basis of the three certified claims; rather, it was negotiated in light of the full basket of claims asserted in the litigation, both certified and non-certified. Plaintiffs' counsel, as experienced class counsel with a fiduciary duty to act in the best interests of the class, agreed to the broad release as part of the arm's-length negotiation process. The value of the non-certified claims was factored into the overall settlement number, and the GSA reflects that inclusion.
Furthermore, individual class members who believe the settlement does not adequately compensate them for their specific claims had the option to opt out of the settlement and pursue individual litigation. Only 23 class members — 1.24% of the class — chose to exercise that right. The overwhelming decision by 98.76% of the class to remain in the settlement confirms broad class support for the settlement as a whole, including the scope of the release. The objection should be overruled.
VI. ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS
(Estimated time: 1 minute)
AMA does not oppose the requested attorneys' fees, litigation costs, or service awards, all of which are subject to the Court's approval.
Attorneys' Fees. The requested fee of $4,916,175 represents 33.33% of the Gross Settlement Amount and is consistent with the benchmark recognized by the California Supreme Court in Laffitte v. Robert Half International Inc. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 480 and with prevailing California practice in common fund class action settlements.
Litigation Costs. The requested litigation costs of $412,300 are documented and reasonable. The costs include court filing fees, deposition transcript costs, expert fees for Plaintiffs' damages expert, e-discovery processing and hosting costs (Marlowe Asset Management Litigation Technology Inc.), mediation fees (Westpark Dispute Resolution Inc.), and related litigation expenses. All costs are itemized in the Declaration of Marco Castellano filed in support of the motion for final approval.
Service Awards. The requested service awards are as follows:
• Marisol Fuentes: $15,000 — Ms. Fuentes served as the lead named plaintiff, sat for a full-day deposition, appeared in person at both mediation sessions, and maintained regular communication with class counsel throughout the litigation.
• Derek Halloran: $10,000 — Mr. Halloran participated as a named plaintiff, sat for a deposition, and cooperated with class counsel in the development of the factual record.
• Yesenia Padilla: $10,000 — Ms. Padilla participated as a named plaintiff, sat for a deposition, and cooperated with class counsel in the development of the factual record.
The total service award amount of $35,000 is well within the standard range for California class action representative awards. Each named plaintiff assumed personal risk by lending their name to the litigation, devoted time and effort to the prosecution of the case, and contributed to achieving the settlement on behalf of the class.
VII. AMA'S READINESS TO FUND
(Estimated time: 1 minute)
AMA is prepared to fund the full Gross Settlement Amount of $14,750,000 within 14 days of entry of the Final Approval Order. The funding structure is as follows:
• EPL Carrier Contribution (Pemberton Mutual Assurance Co.): $9,250,000 — Pemberton has provided written consent and authorization for this contribution in a letter from its coverage counsel, Thornhill & Reade LLP, dated September 13, 2023. The authorization is conditioned solely upon entry of the Final Approval Order with prejudice. A copy of the authorization letter has been lodged with the Court as an exhibit to the Supplemental Declaration of Renata Vasquez.
• AMA Self-Funded Portion: $5,500,000 — AMA has reserved this amount and confirmed that the funds are available for immediate wire transfer.
• Total Funding: $14,750,000
Upon entry of the Final Approval Order, the full $14,750,000 will be wired to Meridian Settlement Services LLC's dedicated escrow account in accordance with the terms of the settlement administration agreement. Meridian will then process and distribute individual settlement checks to class members within 30 days of receiving the funds. Checks that remain uncashed after 180 days will be donated to the Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles, which has been designated as the cy pres recipient under the Settlement Agreement, subject to the Court's approval.
There will be no delay in funding. AMA is committed to ensuring that class members receive their payments as quickly as possible following entry of the Final Approval Order.
VIII. CLOSING
(Estimated time: 1 minute)
Your Honor, the settlement before the Court is the product of informed, arm's-length negotiations between experienced counsel for both sides, facilitated by a distinguished retired Los Angeles Superior Court Judge. The parties negotiated this settlement only after completing extensive discovery, exchanging expert reports, and receiving the Court's guidance through its class certification order. The result — a Gross Settlement Amount of $14,750,000, representing 38.2% of the total claimed exposure — is a fair, adequate, and reasonable resolution of this case.
The reaction of the class speaks volumes. The claims rate of 68.2% is extraordinary. The opt-out rate of 1.24% is minimal. And only 4 objections were received out of 1,850 class members. By every objective measure, the class has expressed its overwhelming support for this settlement.
The settlement provides comprehensive finality for both sides. All class claims, PAGA claims, and individual claims arising from the operative facts of this case will be fully and finally resolved. Neither side faces the risk of further litigation on these claims.
On behalf of Aurelius Media Americas Inc., we respectfully request that the Court:
1. Grant final approval of the class action settlement;
2. Enter the Final Approval Order and Judgment;
3. Approve the requested attorneys' fees of $4,916,175 and litigation costs of $412,300;
4. Approve the service awards of $15,000 to Ms. Fuentes, $10,000 to Mr. Halloran, and $10,000 to Ms. Padilla; and
5. Overrule all four class member objections.
AMA is prepared to fund the settlement promptly upon entry of the order. Thank you, Your Honor.
IX. ANTICIPATED QUESTIONS FROM THE COURT AND PROPOSED RESPONSES
The following table sets forth questions that the Court may raise during the hearing, together with proposed responses for counsel's reference. These responses should be adapted as necessary based on the Court's specific phrasing and the context of the hearing.
Q: "Why is the fee percentage 33.33% rather than a lower amount?"
A: "Your Honor, 33.33% is standard in California class action settlements of this nature and magnitude. The California Supreme Court in Laffitte v. Robert Half International Inc. expressly endorsed the percentage-of-fund method and recognized that one-third is a common benchmark for fee awards in common fund cases. Here, class counsel achieved an excellent result after over 15 months of active litigation, including 18 depositions, competing expert analyses, full class certification briefing and hearing, and two full-day mediation sessions. The fee is proportionate to the work performed and the result obtained. The $14.75 million GSA, at 38.2% of claimed exposure, is at the high end of the typical settlement range, and the fee should be approved."
Q: "How do you respond to the objection that non-certified claims should receive separate compensation?"
A: "Your Honor, the broad release is standard practice in California wage-and-hour class settlements. The $14.75 million GSA was negotiated in light of the full basket of claims — both certified and non-certified. Class counsel, who have a fiduciary duty to the class, factored the value of the non-certified claims into the overall negotiation. The non-certified claims are not being released for nothing; their value was incorporated into the aggregate settlement amount. And importantly, class members who disagreed with the scope of the release had the option to opt out and pursue individual claims — only 1.24% did so, which confirms broad class support for the settlement as a whole, including the release."
Q: "What happens to funds from uncashed checks?"
A: "Your Honor, under Section 14.5 of the Settlement Agreement, any funds attributable to checks that remain uncashed after 180 days from the date of mailing will be donated to the Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles, which has been designated as the cy pres recipient. This is subject to the Court's approval, and it ensures that no settlement funds revert to AMA."
Q: "Is AMA confident it can fund the settlement within 14 days?"
A: "Yes, Your Honor. AMA has confirmed its funding capacity. The EPL carrier, Pemberton Mutual Assurance Co., has provided written authorization for its $9.25 million contribution through a letter from Pemberton's coverage counsel, Thornhill & Reade LLP, dated September 13, 2023. That authorization is conditioned only on entry of the Final Approval Order with prejudice — which is the order we are requesting today. AMA has reserved its $5.5 million self-funded share and has confirmed that the funds are available for immediate wire transfer. Both amounts are ready for wire transfer to Meridian Settlement Services LLC's escrow account upon entry of the order. There will be no funding delay."
Q: "Why should the Court approve service awards at these amounts?"
A: "Your Honor, the service awards of $15,000 for Ms. Fuentes, $10,000 for Mr. Halloran, and $10,000 for Ms. Padilla are well within the range approved by California courts in comparable class action settlements. Each named plaintiff assumed personal risk by lending their name to this litigation. Each sat for a lengthy deposition — in Ms. Fuentes's case, a full day. Ms. Fuentes also appeared in person at both mediation sessions. All three maintained cooperation with class counsel throughout the life of the case. The modest total of $35,000 in service awards is a small fraction of the $14.75 million GSA and appropriately reflects the named plaintiffs' contributions to achieving this result for the class."
Q: "What is the estimated timeline for distribution?"
A: "Your Honor, the timeline is straightforward. Upon entry of the Final Approval Order, AMA has 14 calendar days to wire the full $14.75 million to Meridian Settlement Services LLC's escrow account. Meridian will then process and mail individual settlement checks within 30 days of receiving the funds. Assuming the Court enters the Final Approval Order within approximately 7 days of today's hearing, we anticipate that class members will receive their checks within approximately 45 to 60 days from today. Ms. Truong of Meridian has confirmed this timeline in her declaration."
X. SUPPORTING DECLARATIONS AND FILINGS REFERENCED
The following documents should be available at the hearing for immediate reference. Counsel should bring tabbed copies of each document in the hearing binder.
1. Declaration of Renata Vasquez in Support of Preliminary Approval — Filed September 22, 2023.
2. Supplemental Declaration of Renata Vasquez in Support of Final Approval — Filed January 30, 2024.
3. Declaration of Marco Castellano in Support of Preliminary Approval — Filed September 22, 2023. (Class counsel's declaration; includes description of litigation history, fee calculation, and cost itemization.)
4. Declaration of Angela Truong (Meridian Settlement Services LLC) re: Notice Administration and Claims Data — Filed January 22, 2024. (Sets forth details of notice mailing, website traffic, call volume, claims data, opt-out data, and objection data.)
5. Declaration of Devon Archer re: Settlement Implementation and Compliance — Filed January 22, 2024. (Confirms AMA's compliance with settlement obligations and readiness to fund.)
6. Class Action Settlement Agreement and Release (Execution Version) — Dated September 15, 2023. (The operative settlement agreement, including all exhibits and attachments.)
7. Motion for Final Approval — Filed January 22, 2024.
8. Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Final Approval — Filed January 22, 2024.
9. Response to Class Member Objections — Filed January 22, 2024. (Addresses all four objections: Vega, Kimura, Torres, Prescott.)
10. [Proposed] Final Approval Order and Judgment — Filed January 22, 2024. (Lodged for the Court's consideration; includes findings of fact and conclusions of law, approval of settlement terms, approval of fees and costs, approval of service awards, and order overruling objections.)
11. Preliminary Approval Order — Entered October 18, 2023.
12. Class Certification Order — Entered August 11, 2023. (Granting certification on first meal period auto-deduction, wage statement (Lab. Code § 226), and UCL (Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200) claims; denying certification on rest period, off-the-clock/overtime, minimum wage, second meal period, and waiting time claims.)
13. Pemberton Coverage Counsel Settlement Contribution Authorization Letter — Dated September 13, 2023. (Letter from Thornhill & Reade LLP on behalf of Pemberton Mutual Assurance Co. authorizing $9.25 million carrier contribution, conditioned on entry of Final Approval Order with prejudice.)
END OF ORAL ARGUMENT OUTLINE
This document is CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT prepared in anticipation of the final approval hearing scheduled for February 2, 2024. This document should not be filed with the Court or disclosed to opposing counsel, the class, or any third party. All questions regarding this document should be directed to Renata Vasquez or Devon Archer.
CALDERWOOD & HARKNESS LLP Matter No. 1017-00004
| Hearing: | February 2, 2024, 8:30 a.m., Department 34 |
| Court: | Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles — Central District |
| Judge: | Hon. Raymond Escobedo |
| Case: | Fuentes, Halloran, and Padilla v. Aurelius Media Americas Inc., Lead Case No. 22STCV38214 (Consolidated with 22STCV39501) |
| Matter No.: | 1017-00004 |
| Prepared by: | Devon Archer, Senior Associate |
| Reviewed by: | Renata Vasquez, Responsible Partner |
| Appearing for Defendant AMA: | Renata Vasquez |
| Component | Amount |
| Gross Settlement Amount (GSA) | $14,750,000 |
| Less: Attorneys' Fees (33.33% of GSA) | ($4,916,175) |
| Less: Litigation Costs | ($412,300) |
| Less: Service Awards (Fuentes $15K, Halloran $10K, Padilla $10K) | ($35,000) |
| Less: Settlement Administration (Meridian Settlement Services LLC) | ($385,000) |
| Less: PAGA Payment | ($750,000) |
| Net Settlement Fund | $8,251,525 |