response-to-class-member-objections.docx

1017-00004 · Entities. Aurelius Global Media Group · Settlement Approval

response-to-class-member-objections.docx DOCUMENT Finance & Banking

149 / 150 ← → ✕

CALDERWOOD & HARKNESS LLP Renata Vasquez (SBN 224578) Devon Archer (SBN 301462) 777 South Flower Street, Suite 4200 Los Angeles, California 90017 Telephone: (213) 555-7200 Facsimile: (213) 555-7201

Email: rvasquez@calderwoodharkness.com

Email: darcher@calderwoodharkness.com

Attorneys for Defendant Aurelius Media Americas Inc.

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES — CENTRAL DISTRICT

DEFENDANT AURELIUS MEDIA AMERICAS INC.'S RESPONSE TO CLASS MEMBER OBJECTIONS TO PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

I. INTRODUCTION

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

On October 18, 2023, after full briefing and oral argument, this Court granted preliminary approval of the parties' settlement agreement, finding that the settlement fell within the range of reasonableness warranting notice to the class and a final fairness hearing. Pursuant to the Court's Preliminary Approval Order, class notice was mailed on November 3, 2023, to 1,843 class members by Meridian Settlement Services LLC ("Meridian"), the Court-appointed claims administrator. The class notice informed class members of the material terms of the settlement, including the gross settlement amount, the proposed allocation formula, the scope of the release, the requested attorneys' fees and costs, the proposed service awards, and the procedures for submitting claims, opting out, or filing objections. The deadline for class members to opt out of the settlement or file objections was January 2, 2024.

The class response to the proposed settlement has been overwhelmingly favorable. Of 1,850 estimated class members (1,843 of whom received mailed notice), only 23 class members opted out of the settlement — a mere 1.24%, well below the 5% opt-out threshold that courts have identified as indicative of class acceptance. Even more importantly, only 4 class members filed objections to the settlement — representing approximately 0.22% of the class. On the other side of the ledger, 1,262 class members submitted valid claims, yielding a claims rate of 68.2%. That claims rate is well above the average for California wage-and-hour class action settlements, which typically range from 20% to 50%, depending on the size and composition of the class. The extraordinarily high claims rate in this case reflects the class's recognition that the settlement provides meaningful, tangible relief.

These metrics — considered individually and together — reflect overwhelming class support for the proposed settlement. The class has spoken, and it has spoken clearly: the settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable, and class members wish to participate in the recovery it provides.

None of the four objections warrants denial or modification of the settlement. Each raises issues that are standard in class settlement proceedings — the reasonableness of attorneys' fees, the appropriateness of the allocation formula, the adequacy of the settlement amount, and the scope of the release — and each is addressed by well-established California authority. As set forth in detail below, every objection lacks merit and should be overruled.

AMA joins with Class Counsel — Castellano Byrne & Salas LLP and Veltrano Employment Law Group PC — in requesting that the Court overrule all four objections and grant final approval of the proposed settlement at the February 2, 2024 hearing.

II. BACKGROUND

A. The Litigation

This putative class action was initiated on November 1, 2022, when named plaintiff Marisol Fuentes filed a complaint in this Court (Case No. 22STCV38214) alleging range wage-and-hour violations against AMA. Approximately two weeks later, on November 18, 2022, a related action was filed by Derek Halloran (Case No. 22STCV39501), asserting substantially overlapping claims against AMA on behalf of a substantially overlapping class. On February 3, 2023, this Court entered an order consolidating the two cases under Lead Case No. 22STCV38214, with all proceedings assigned to the Honorable Raymond Escobedo in Department 34. Yesenia Padilla was subsequently added as a named plaintiff in the consolidated action.

The putative class consists of approximately 1,850 current and former non-exempt, hourly employees of AMA who worked in the State of California at any time during the class period from November 1, 2018 through October 31, 2023 — a five-year period. The class encompasses employees who worked across AMA's various California operations, including seven distinct facilities and fourteen show units spanning studio productions, field productions, and live events.

Plaintiffs' operative complaint asserted a broad array of California wage-and-hour claims, including claims for: failure to provide compliant meal periods (Cal. Lab. Code §§ 226.7, 512); failure to provide compliant rest periods (Cal. Lab. Code § 226.7); failure to pay overtime wages (Cal. Lab. Code §§ 510, 1198); failure to pay minimum wages (Cal. Lab. Code §§ 1194, 1197, 1197.1); failure to furnish accurate, itemized wage statements (Cal. Lab. Code § 226); failure to timely pay wages upon separation of employment (Cal. Lab. Code §§ 201–203); unfair business practices (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq. (the "UCL")); and civil penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 ("PAGA") (Cal. Lab. Code §§ 2698–2699.8). The claims were asserted under, and governed by, the applicable Industrial Welfare Commission ("IWC") Wage Orders, primarily Wage Order 12 governing the Motion Picture Industry.

According to Plaintiffs' retained damages expert, Dr. Howard Rennick of Pinnacle Economic Consulting Group LLC, the aggregate claimed exposure across all causes of action totaled approximately $38.6 million. This figure included approximately $12.2 million in civil penalties under PAGA. AMA vigorously contested both the legal theories underlying Plaintiffs' claims and the damages calculations. AMA's retained damages expert, Dr. Catherine Lindstrom of Hargrove Analytics Inc., assessed aggregate damages at only $5.8 million — less than one-sixth of Plaintiffs' claimed figure — based on a more conservative and, in AMA's view, more accurate model of the class's actual damages.

B. Extensive Pre-Settlement Litigation and discovery

This case was actively and adversarially litigated for over fourteen months before the parties reached the settlement now before the Court. The pre-settlement proceedings included extensive discovery, robust motion practice, and a contested class certification hearing, all of which informed the parties' evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses of their respective positions and contributed to the ultimately reasonable settlement reached under the supervision of a neutral mediator.

discovery. discovery in this action was extensive by any measure. AMA produced 147,832 documents comprising approximately 1.2 million pages in response to Plaintiffs' discovery requests. The production included payroll records, timekeeping data from AMA's NovaPay Solutions TimeTrack Pro system, personnel files, policy manuals, memoranda from human resources and operations leadership, training materials, and communications among supervisory personnel at each of AMA's seven California facilities. Plaintiffs produced 3,412 documents, primarily consisting of individual employment records, personal calendars, and communications between class members and their supervisors. All e-discovery in this matter was managed by Marlowe Asset Management Litigation Technology Inc., which hosted the parties' document review platforms and facilitated the exchange of electronically stored information.

The parties took a total of 18 depositions during the discovery period. Plaintiffs' counsel took 11 depositions, including depositions of AMA's Person Most Qualified on timekeeping policies and procedures, AMA's Director of Human Resources, the Vice President of Operations for AMA's California facilities, facility managers at each of AMA's seven California locations, and two members of AMA's payroll department. Defense counsel took 7 depositions, including depositions of each of the three named plaintiffs — Marisol Fuentes, Derek Halloran, and Yesenia Padilla — as well as four putative class members who had been identified as witnesses with relevant knowledge regarding AMA's meal and rest period practices.

Expert Retention. Both sides retained qualified experts in support of their respective positions. In addition to Dr. Lindstrom (damages and economics), AMA retained Dr. Rajesh Makhija of Workforce Dynamics Consulting LLC as an industrial/organizational expert. Dr. Makhija provided analysis and testimony concerning class certification issues, specifically the commonality and typicality requirements of California Code of Civil Procedure section 382. Dr. Makhija's report detailed the significant operational differences among AMA's seven facilities and fourteen show units, including differences in production type (studio, field, and live events), shift lengths, supervisory structures, scheduling practices, and meal period administration. Dr. Makhija opined that these differences precluded common proof of liability on the majority of Plaintiffs' claims. Plaintiffs' damages expert, Dr. Rennick, provided the aggregate damages analysis referenced above, which served as the basis for Plaintiffs' claimed exposure of $38.6 million.

Class Certification. Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification on April 14, 2023. AMA filed its opposition on June 16, 2023, supported by the declarations and reports of Dr. Makhija and Dr. Lindstrom. The Court heard oral argument on the class certification motion on July 28, 2023.

On August 11, 2023, the Court issued a detailed written order granting class certification in part and denying it in part. The Court certified only three of Plaintiffs' claims for class treatment: (1) the first meal period auto-deduction claim (alleging that AMA's automatic thirty-minute meal period deduction from employee time records resulted in unpaid meal period premiums when employees did not receive compliant meal periods); (2) the derivative wage statement claim under Labor Code section 226 (alleging that AMA's wage statements were inaccurate as a result of the meal period violations); and (3) the UCL claim (to the extent it was predicated on the certified meal period claim). The Court denied certification of the remaining five claims: rest period violations, off-the-clock work/overtime, minimum wage violations, second meal period violations, and waiting time penalties. In denying certification of these claims, the Court credited Dr. Makhija's analysis and found that individualized inquiries would predominate, particularly given the significant operational differences among AMA's facilities and show units.

The partial certification order significantly narrowed the scope of the class case and materially affected the parties' respective assessments of the litigation risk.

C. The Settlement

Following the Court's class certification ruling, the parties agreed to explore settlement. Two full-day mediation sessions were held before the Honorable Patricia Okoro (Ret.) of Westpark Dispute Resolution Inc. The first session took place on August 25, 2023, and the second on September 8, 2023. Judge Okoro is a retired Los Angeles Superior Court judge with over 25 years of judicial experience and extensive expertise in complex employment class actions and PAGA disputes. The mediations were conducted on an arm's-length basis, with the parties represented by experienced counsel and supported by their respective expert analyses.

At the conclusion of the second mediation session, the parties reached an agreement in principle. The Settlement Agreement was subsequently finalized and executed on September 15, 2023.

The principal terms of the settlement are as follows:

Gross Settlement Amount. AMA agreed to pay a total, non-reversionary Gross Settlement Amount ("GSA") of $14,750,000. The non-reversionary nature of the fund means that all monies will be distributed — none will revert to AMA.

Deductions from GSA. The following amounts are to be deducted from the GSA prior to distribution to class members:

• Attorneys' Fees (33.33%): $4,916,175, to be paid to Class Counsel (Castellano Byrne & Salas LLP and Veltrano Employment Law Group PC), subject to Court approval.

• Litigation Costs: $412,300, representing Class Counsel's documented out-of-pocket litigation expenses, including expert fees, deposition costs, e-discovery expenses, and other costs advanced during the course of the litigation.

• Service Awards: $35,000 in total, allocated among the three named plaintiffs as follows: Marisol Fuentes ($15,000), Derek Halloran ($10,000), and Yesenia Padilla ($10,000). The service awards compensate the named plaintiffs for their time, effort, and risk in serving as class representatives.

• Settlement Administration Costs: $385,000, to be paid to Meridian Settlement Services LLC for its services as Court-appointed claims administrator, including class notice preparation and mailing, claims processing, toll-free telephone support, settlement website maintenance, and distribution of settlement payments.

• PAGA Payment: $750,000, to be allocated as follows: 75% ($562,500) to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency ("LWDA"), and 25% ($187,500) to aggrieved employees, in accordance with Labor Code section 2699, subdivision (i).

Net Settlement Fund. After all deductions, the Net Settlement Fund ("NSF") available for distribution to class members who submitted valid claims is $8,251,525.

Estimated Per-Member Recovery. Based on the 1,850 estimated class members, the estimated average individual payment is approximately $4,460 per class member. Actual payments will vary based on each class member's individual work history during the class period.

Distribution Formula. Individual settlement payments are calculated using a formula that weights two factors: (1) 60% based on the number of weeks each class member worked during the class period; and (2) 40% based on each class member's recorded overtime hours during the class period. This formula was negotiated at arm's length and was designed to allocate settlement funds in proportion to each class member's relative exposure to the alleged violations.

Release. In exchange for the settlement payment, participating class members grant AMA a broad release of all class, PAGA, and individual wage-and-hour claims arising from the operative facts alleged in the complaint, including claims that were not certified for class treatment. The scope of the release was fully disclosed in the class notice.

D. Notice and Claims Administration

The Court entered its Preliminary Approval Order on October 18, 2023, approving the form and manner of class notice and setting the schedule for the claims administration process.

Class notice was mailed by Meridian Settlement Services LLC on November 3, 2023, to 1,843 class members at their last known addresses. Meridian's principal contact for this matter, Angela Truong, oversaw all aspects of the notice and claims administration process. The notice package included a long-form notice describing the settlement terms in detail, a claim form, an opt-out form, and instructions for filing objections.

Of the 1,843 notices mailed, 7 were initially returned as undeliverable. Meridian conducted skip tracing and obtained updated addresses for all 7 class members, and the notices were promptly re-mailed. All class members for whom addresses could be identified received notice of the settlement.

Meridian also established a dedicated settlement website, which was visited 2,847 times during the claims period, and a toll-free telephone number, which received 312 calls from class members seeking information about the settlement, the claims process, or their individual employment records. Meridian's declaration, filed concurrently with Class Counsel's motion for final approval, provides a detailed accounting of the notice and claims administration process.

The opt-out and objection deadline was January 2, 2024. As of that date, Meridian reported the following results:

• Valid Opt-Outs: 23 (1.24% of the class)

• Objections Filed: 4 (0.22% of the class)

• Valid Claims Submitted: 1,262 (68.2% claims rate)

These results are remarkable by any standard. The low opt-out rate and the minimal number of objections reflect broad class acceptance of the settlement terms. The 68.2% claims rate — far exceeding the typical range of 20% to 50% in comparable settlements — confirms that class members view the settlement as providing meaningful relief and have actively participated in the claims process to secure their share of the recovery.

III. LEGAL STANDARD FOR EVALUATING OBJECTIONS

Under California law, the Court evaluates class settlement objections in the context of the overall fairness, adequacy, and reasonableness of the proposed settlement. A class action settlement must be fair, adequate, and reasonable to be entitled to final approval, and the Court examines objections as one component of its independent assessment of the settlement's merits. Kullar v. Foot Locker Retail, Inc. (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 116, 128; Dunk v. Ford Motor Co. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1794, 1801.

In making its determination, the Court considers the following factors, as articulated by the Court of Appeal in Dunk:

(1) the strength of the plaintiff's case;

(2) the risk, expense, complexity, and likely duration of further litigation;

(3) the risk of maintaining class action status throughout trial;

(4) the amount offered in settlement;

(5) the extent of discovery completed and the stage of the proceedings;

(6) the experience and views of counsel;

(7) the presence of a governmental participant; and

(8) the reaction of the class members to the proposed settlement.

Dunk, 48 Cal.App.4th at 1801. No single factor is dispositive; the Court weighs all relevant considerations in the exercise of its broad discretion.

Among these factors, the reaction of the class is "a significant factor" in the Court's analysis. Wershba v. Computer, Inc. (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 224, 245. A low opt-out rate and a small number of objections are strong indicia that the settlement is fair and reasonable, because class members — who are the real parties in interest — have voted with their feet in favor of the settlement. Id. Conversely, a high opt-out rate or widespread objections may signal that the settlement does not adequately serve the interests of the class. Here, as detailed above, the class response is overwhelmingly supportive.

Importantly, an objector bears the burden of demonstrating that the settlement is unfair, inadequate, or unreasonable. It is not sufficient for an objector to simply assert dissatisfaction or to speculate that a better result might have been achieved; the objector must identify specific deficiencies in the settlement that render it unfair to the class as a whole. Clark v. American Residential Services LLC (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 785, 791. The mere fact that an objector would have preferred different terms does not establish that the settlement falls outside the range of reasonableness. Id. Courts recognize that settlement by its nature involves compromise, and a settlement need not be perfect to warrant approval — it need only be fair, adequate, and reasonable. Kullar, 168 Cal.App.4th at 130.

With these principles in mind, AMA addresses each of the four objections below.

IV. RESPONSE TO INDIVIDUAL OBJECTIONS

A. Objection of Carlos Vega — Attorneys' Fees

Objector: Carlos Vega, former production assistant, Facility 3 (Sherman Oaks), 15301 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 300, Sherman Oaks, California 91403.

Summary of Objection: Mr. Vega objects to the proposed attorneys' fee award of 33.33% of the Gross Settlement Amount ($4,916,175), arguing that the fee is excessive and should be limited to 25% of the GSA.

Response:

AMA respectfully submits that Mr. Vega's objection should be overruled. The requested fee of 33.33% is well within the range routinely approved by California courts in class action settlements, is consistent with the market rate for contingent-fee class litigation, and is justified by the complexity of the litigation and the quality of the result achieved for the class.

1. The percentage-of-fund method is the standard approach in California class action settlements. The California Supreme Court endorsed the percentage-of-fund method for common fund class actions in Laffitte v. Robert Half International Inc. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 480, 503–506. Under this method, attorneys' fees are calculated as a percentage of the total recovery obtained for the class, rather than by multiplying counsel's hourly rates by the number of hours worked (the "lodestar" method). The Supreme Court recognized that the percentage-of-fund method is "the predominant method for determining attorneys' fees in class action cases where there is a common fund," and that fee awards in the range of 25% to 33.33% are common and presumptively reasonable. Id. at 503. The percentage-of-fund method aligns counsel's incentives with those of the class by rewarding results rather than hours, and it avoids the administrative burden of lodestar calculations.

2. A fee of 33.33% is within the range of fees routinely approved by California courts in comparable wage-and-hour class settlements. Courts in this District and throughout California have consistently approved one-third fee awards in wage-and-hour class actions. The 33.33% figure — one-third of the common fund — is the standard contingency-fee rate in the California plaintiffs' employment bar and reflects the prevailing market rate for this type of representation. Mr. Vega's suggestion that fees should be capped at 25% finds no support in California law. While some courts have approved fee awards of 25%, there is no rule or presumption limiting fees to that percentage. To the contrary, the Supreme Court in Laffitte expressly recognized that one-third fees are within the range of reasonableness. Laffitte, 1 Cal.5th at 503.

3. The result achieved justifies the fee. Class Counsel achieved a $14,750,000 recovery for the class — a recovery representing 38.2% of Plaintiffs' total claimed exposure of $38.6 million (as calculated by Dr. Howard Rennick of Pinnacle Economic Consulting Group LLC). This result was achieved after extensive, adversarial litigation spanning over fourteen months of active proceedings, including the production and review of 147,832 documents (approximately 1.2 million pages), the taking of 18 depositions, the retention and management of competing expert analyses, the preparation and briefing of a contested class certification motion, and the conduct of two full-day mediation sessions. Class Counsel prosecuted this case entirely on a contingent-fee basis, advancing all costs and bearing the full risk of non-recovery. The fee requested compensates Class Counsel for the substantial investment of time, resources, and risk that made this recovery possible.

4. Reducing the fee to 25% would not benefit class members and would undermine the class action mechanism. Mr. Vega appears to assume that a reduction in attorneys' fees would increase the recovery to class members. However, in a common fund settlement such as this, attorneys' fees are paid from the GSA — they are not paid in addition to the class recovery. A reduction of the fee from 33.33% to 25% would yield a fee of $3,687,500 — a reduction of $1,228,675 — but this reduction would not increase the GSA. It would simply reallocate funds within the existing settlement structure. More importantly, a reduction of this magnitude would undercompensate Class Counsel for the substantial work performed and the risk undertaken in this case, and it would send a discouraging signal to the plaintiffs' employment bar that vigorous, well-resourced prosecution of class actions will not be fairly compensated. Such a result would ultimately harm employees, who depend on private counsel willing to invest time and resources in class litigation.

5. The fee is subject to independent Court review. AMA acknowledges that the Court retains full discretion to evaluate the reasonableness of the requested fee independently of the parties' agreement. AMA takes no affirmative position on the appropriate fee percentage, but notes that the 33.33% figure is consistent with prevailing practice, was agreed upon at arm's length as part of a comprehensive settlement negotiated under the supervision of a neutral mediator, and is supported by the quality and quantity of work performed by Class Counsel in this matter.

Recommendation: The Court should overrule Mr. Vega's objection.

B. Objection of Rachel Kimura — Allocation Formula

Objector: Rachel Kimura, current production coordinator, Facility 1 (West Hollywood HQ), 8500 Sunset Boulevard, Suite 1400, West Hollywood, California 90069.

Summary of Objection: Ms. Kimura objects to the settlement's allocation formula, which distributes the Net Settlement Fund based on a 60/40 weighting (60% based on weeks worked during the class period; 40% based on recorded overtime hours). Ms. Kimura argues that overtime hours should be weighted more heavily because, in her view, employees who worked more overtime were more likely to have missed meal periods and therefore suffered greater harm.

Response:

AMA respectfully submits that Ms. Kimura's objection should be overruled. The 60/40 allocation formula was the product of extensive arm's-length negotiations, reasonably reflects the certified claims, and is within the range of formulas routinely approved by California courts.

1. The 60/40 allocation formula was negotiated at arm's length. The allocation formula was not imposed unilaterally by either party. Rather, it was the product of extensive negotiations between Class Counsel and defense counsel during two full-day mediation sessions facilitated by the Honorable Patricia Okoro (Ret.) of Westpark Dispute Resolution Inc. Judge Okoro is a retired Los Angeles Superior Court judge with over 25 years of judicial service and deep experience in employment class action settlements. Judge Okoro reviewed the proposed allocation formula in the context of the underlying claims and the available data, and she found the formula to be a reasonable method of allocating the settlement fund among class members. The formula reflects a negotiated compromise between the parties' competing views of how the fund should be distributed, and it is entitled to a presumption of reasonableness.

2. The formula reflects the certified claims. The Court certified only the first meal period auto-deduction claim for class treatment. That claim arises from AMA's practice of automatically deducting thirty minutes from employees' daily time records to account for meal periods, regardless of whether employees actually received a compliant, uninterrupted meal period. This claim is not limited to employees who worked overtime — it applies to all non-exempt employees who worked shifts during which an auto-deduction was applied, including employees who worked regular, non-overtime shifts. The "weeks worked" component of the formula (60%) appropriately weights the primary driver of exposure under the certified claim: the number of shifts during which an auto-deduction was applied. Each week worked during the class period represents an opportunity for the alleged meal period violation to have occurred. The "overtime hours" component (40%) provides additional weight for employees who worked longer shifts, recognizing that longer shifts may have been associated with a greater likelihood of meal period non-compliance.

3. Ms. Kimura's proposed alternative is not supported by the evidentiary record. Ms. Kimura's objection rests on the assumption that there is a direct, strong correlation between overtime hours and missed meal periods. While there may be some correlation between these variables, the evidence developed during discovery — including deposition testimony from facility managers and data from AMA's NovaPay Solutions TimeTrack Pro timekeeping system — shows that meal period experiences varied significantly across AMA's 7 facilities and 14 show units. The variation was driven by multiple factors, including production type (studio productions, field productions, and live events), supervisory practices at individual facilities, scheduling constraints specific to particular show units, and the availability and utilization of the Missed Meal Attestation feature in the TimeTrack Pro system. In light of this variability, there is no basis to conclude that overtime hours are a better or more accurate proxy for missed meal periods than weeks worked. Ms. Kimura's objection does not cite any data, expert analysis, or legal authority supporting her proposed alternative weighting.

4. The allocation formula is within the Court's broad discretion. California courts routinely approve allocation formulas in class action settlements that balance multiple factors, and there is no single "correct" formula mandated by statute or case law. The Court has broad discretion to evaluate the reasonableness of the proposed formula, and courts have approved a wide range of allocation methodologies in comparable wage-and-hour settlements, including formulas weighted by weeks worked, hours worked, overtime hours, pay rates, or combinations of these factors. The 60/40 split proposed here is reasonable, reflects the underlying claims, and treats class members equitably by accounting for both the breadth of exposure (weeks worked) and the intensity of exposure (overtime hours).

Recommendation: The Court should overrule Ms. Kimura's objection.

C. Objection of Samuel Torres — Settlement Amount

Objector: Samuel Torres, former segment coordinator, Facility 4 (Burbank), 3800 W. Alameda Avenue, Burbank, California 91505.

Summary of Objection: Mr. Torres objects that the $14,750,000 Gross Settlement Amount is "too low" 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:

AMA respectfully submits that Mr. Torres's objection should be overruled. The settlement amount of $14,750,000 is fair, reasonable, and adequate in light of the litigation risks, the competing expert analyses, the Court's partial certification order, and the substantial costs and uncertainties of continued litigation.

1. The settlement amount is fair, reasonable, and adequate in light of the litigation risks. The $14,750,000 GSA represents 38.2% of Plaintiffs' expert's total claimed exposure of $38.6 million, as calculated by Dr. Howard Rennick of Pinnacle Economic Consulting Group LLC in his report dated April 28, 2023. This percentage is at the high end of the range typically seen in California wage-and-hour class action settlements, which generally fall between 15% and 40% of claimed exposure, depending on the strength of the claims, the litigation posture, and the risks of continued litigation. The settlement thus provides class members with a recovery that compares favorably to — and in many cases exceeds — the recoveries achieved in comparable settlements throughout this state.

2. The claimed exposure of $38.6 million was subject to serious challenge. Mr. Torres's objection assumes that the $38.6 million claimed exposure represents the "true" value of the class's claims. It does not. AMA's damages expert, Dr. Catherine Lindstrom of Hargrove Analytics Inc., calculated aggregate damages of only $5.8 million in her report dated June 9, 2023 — less than one-sixth of Dr. Rennick's figure. Dr. Lindstrom's analysis identified critical flaws in Dr. Rennick's model, including the unsupported assumption that every auto-deducted meal period was a "missed" meal period for which a premium was owed. Dr. Lindstrom's analysis accounted for evidence that many class members did, in fact, receive timely, uninterrupted meal periods and that the auto-deduction accurately reflected their actual meal period experience. When viewed from the defense perspective, the $14,750,000 settlement is approximately 254% of the defense expert's valuation of $5.8 million — a highly favorable result for the class by any measure.

3. The Court's partial certification order significantly reduced the class's litigation leverage. On August 11, 2023, this Court denied class certification on five of seven causes of action, including the rest period, off-the-clock/overtime, minimum wage, second meal period, and waiting time penalty claims. Only the first meal period auto-deduction claim, the derivative wage statement claim, and the UCL claim were certified. The five denied claims would have accounted for a substantial portion of the $38.6 million damages figure calculated by Dr. Rennick. Had the case proceeded to trial, the class would have been limited to litigating the three certified claims on a class-wide basis; the remaining claims would have required individual prosecution. The settlement's broad release of all claims — including the non-certified claims — provides the class with recovery for claims that could not have been pursued on a class-wide basis. This represents a significant benefit to class members that would not have been available through continued litigation.

4. Continued litigation would be expensive, uncertain, and protracted. If the settlement is not approved, AMA would continue to vigorously defend the case through trial and, if necessary, appeal. AMA estimated that trial costs would range from $1.2 million to $1.8 million in additional defense costs alone, exclusive of post-trial motions and appellate proceedings. A trial on the certified first meal period auto-deduction claim would involve complex factual disputes about the design and operation of AMA's NovaPay Solutions TimeTrack Pro timekeeping system, the mechanics of the auto-deduction mechanism, and the availability and utilization of the Missed Meal Attestation feature — a function within the TimeTrack Pro system that allowed employees to report missed meal periods. The evidence showed that the Missed Meal Attestation feature was implemented at different times across AMA's 7 facilities and 14 show units, and that utilization rates varied widely. These factual complexities would have required extensive expert testimony and facility-by-facility analysis, with the outcome far from certain. Moreover, any trial verdict — whether favorable to Plaintiffs or AMA — would be subject to appeal, potentially adding years to the resolution of the case and delaying any recovery for the class.

5. The class's reaction overwhelmingly supports the settlement. As noted above, only 23 class members opted out of the settlement (1.24%), and only 4 class members filed objections. Meanwhile, 1,262 class members submitted valid claims, yielding a claims rate of 68.2%. This response is powerful evidence that the class views the settlement as fair and reasonable. Wershba v. Computer, Inc. (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 224, 245 (the class's reaction is a "significant factor" in evaluating settlement fairness). The objections of a single class member cannot override the expressed preferences of the overwhelming majority.

6. Mr. Torres's proposed $25 million figure has no analytical basis. The objection does not identify any methodology, expert analysis, damages model, or legal authority supporting a valuation of $25 million. Mr. Torres does not engage with the competing expert analyses of Dr. Rennick and Dr. Lindstrom, does not address the impact of the Court's partial certification order on the class's litigation exposure, and does not explain how his proposed figure accounts for the substantial litigation risks described above. The objection is, in substance, a bare assertion that the settlement should be larger — a sentiment that, while understandable, does not satisfy the objector's burden of demonstrating that the settlement is unfair, inadequate, or unreasonable. Clark v. American Residential Services LLC (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 785, 791.

Recommendation: The Court should overrule Mr. Torres's objection.

D. Objection of Dawn Prescott — Broad Release of Non-Certified Claims

Objector: Dawn Prescott (no relation to Dwayne Prescott, Vice President of Unscripted Programming, AMA), former post-production assistant, Facility 7 (El Segundo), 888 N. Sepulveda Boulevard, El Segundo, California 90245.

Summary of Objection: Ms. Prescott objects to the settlement's release provision, which releases non-certified claims — including rest period, off-the-clock/overtime, and waiting time penalty claims — without providing separate or additional compensation allocated specifically to those claims.

Response:

AMA acknowledges that Ms. Prescott's objection raises the most substantive issue of the four objections filed. AMA takes this objection seriously and addresses it in detail below. However, for the reasons set forth herein, the objection should be overruled.

1. The broad release was a negotiated term that directly benefited the class. During the two full-day mediation sessions before the Honorable Patricia Okoro (Ret.), the scope of the release was a central and heavily negotiated term of the settlement. AMA's willingness to pay $14,750,000 — a figure that substantially exceeds the realistic exposure on the three certified claims standing alone — was directly tied to AMA's interest in obtaining a comprehensive release of all claims arising from the operative facts alleged in the complaint. In other words, the broad release was not a one-sided concession by the class; it was a bargained-for exchange in which the class received a premium — a higher settlement amount — in return for granting AMA finality across the full spectrum of asserted claims. The GSA of $14,750,000 reflects the value of the comprehensive release, and the class received meaningful consideration for granting it.

2. The non-certified claims were factored into the overall settlement valuation. Although the Court denied class certification of the rest period, off-the-clock/overtime, minimum wage, second meal period, and waiting time penalty claims, those claims remained available for individual pursuit by class members. The risk that hundreds of individual claims could be filed — and the substantial defense costs associated with responding to such claims — was a significant factor in AMA's assessment of the litigation risk and its willingness to settle at a GSA exceeding the defense expert's valuation of the certified claims alone. From AMA's perspective, the settlement provides finality not only on the certified class claims but also on the non-certified claims that could have generated significant individual litigation. The class thus received indirect but tangible compensation for the non-certified claims through the overall settlement amount, which was set at a level reflecting the value of the comprehensive release.

3. Broad releases are routinely approved in California class action settlements. California courts regularly approve settlements that include releases extending beyond the claims certified for class treatment, provided that the overall settlement amount is fair and that the class has been adequately informed of the scope of the release. See, e.g., Predding v. United Teachers Los Angeles (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 322, 337 (affirming approval of class settlement with broad release); Villacres v. Northpoint Services Inc. (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 562, 585 (affirming approval of settlement releasing claims beyond those certified for class treatment). These authorities recognize that broad releases are a standard feature of class action settlements and that they serve legitimate interests — both the defendant's interest in finality and the class's interest in maximizing the overall settlement recovery. The inclusion of a broad release does not, standing alone, render a settlement unfair.

4. The class notice clearly disclosed the scope of the release. The long-form class notice mailed to all 1,843 class members on November 3, 2023, described the scope of the release in clear, plain-language terms, including an explicit statement that participating class members would release not only the certified claims but also all other wage-and-hour claims arising from the facts alleged in the complaint, including claims that were not certified for class treatment. The notice identified the specific categories of released claims, including rest period violations, off-the-clock/overtime claims, and waiting time penalty claims. Class members were thus fully informed of the release's scope and could make an informed decision about whether to participate in the settlement or to opt out and preserve their individual claims.

5. Class members who wished to preserve their non-certified claims had the opportunity to opt out. The class notice clearly described the opt-out procedure and the January 2, 2024 deadline for submitting opt-out requests. Class members who objected to releasing their non-certified claims had the right — and were expressly informed of their right — to opt out of the settlement and pursue their individual claims independently. Twenty-three class members exercised this right, and their individual claims remain fully preserved. Notably, Ms. Prescott did not opt out of the settlement. She chose to remain in the class and to file an objection instead. While Ms. Prescott's decision to remain in the class does not waive her right to object, it does weigh against her contention that the release is fundamentally unfair. An objector who remains in the class — and who will receive a settlement payment — is in a different posture than one who contends that the release is so unfair as to require rejection of the settlement as a whole.

6. Separate compensation for non-certified claims would have resulted in a lower per-member recovery on the certified claims. Ms. Prescott's objection appears to contemplate a settlement structure in which separate compensation would be allocated for the non-certified claims. However, in a fixed-fund settlement such as this, any allocation of funds to non-certified claims would necessarily reduce the funds available for the certified claims. If the $14,750,000 GSA had been fragmented into separate allocations for each claim category — certified and non-certified — each individual allocation would have been smaller, and the per-member recovery on the certified claims would have been lower. The unified Net Settlement Fund of $8,251,525, distributed pro rata to all participating class members based on the 60/40 formula, provides a cleaner, more efficient, and more equitable distribution than a fragmented allocation that would have required the parties and the Court to assign relative values to each individual claim category — an exercise that would itself have been contested and potentially contentious.

Recommendation: The Court should overrule Ms. Prescott's objection.

V. THE SETTLEMENT MERITS FINAL APPROVAL NOTWITHSTANDING THE OBJECTIONS

For all of the foregoing reasons, the four objections filed by class members Carlos Vega, Rachel Kimura, Samuel Torres, and Dawn Prescott — individually and collectively — do not undermine the fairness, adequacy, or reasonableness of the proposed settlement. The objections reflect disagreements on the margins — the fee percentage, the allocation formula weights, the settlement amount, and the release scope — but none identifies a deficiency that falls outside the range of terms routinely approved by California courts in comparable wage-and-hour class action settlements. None of the objectors has carried the burden of demonstrating that the settlement is unfair, inadequate, or unreasonable. Clark v. American Residential Services LLC (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 785, 791.

The overwhelming support of the class is the most reliable and probative indicator of the settlement's fairness. A total of 1,262 class members — representing 68.2% of the class — submitted valid claims, affirmatively choosing to participate in the settlement and receive their share of the recovery. Only 23 class members opted out, a rate of 1.24%. And only 4 class members filed objections, representing approximately 0.22% of the class. As the Court of Appeal recognized in Wershba, a low opt-out rate and few objections are "strong indicia" that the settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable. Wershba v. Computer, Inc. (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 224, 245.

The settlement was reached after extensive, adversarial litigation spanning over fourteen months of active proceedings. The parties conducted comprehensive discovery, retained and presented competing expert analyses, fully briefed a contested class certification motion, and engaged in two full-day mediation sessions before a highly experienced retired jurist. The settlement was negotiated at arm's length, with the benefit of full information and the active involvement of a neutral mediator. It was not the product of collusion or capitulation; it was the product of hard-fought litigation and principled compromise.

In light of all relevant factors — the strength of the parties' respective positions, the litigation risks, the complexity and expense of continued proceedings, the partial certification order, the competing damages analyses, the arm's-length negotiations, the experience and views of counsel, and the overwhelmingly positive class reaction — the settlement falls well within the range of fairness, adequacy, and reasonableness and merits final approval.

AMA and Class Counsel respectfully request that the Court overrule all four objections and grant final approval of the proposed class action settlement at the February 2, 2024 hearing.

VI. CONCLUSION

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

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

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

3. Enter the [Proposed] Final Approval Order and Judgment submitted concurrently herewith.

Dated: January 22, 2024

CALDERWOOD & HARKNESS LLP

By: /s/ Renata Vasquez

________________________________________

Renata Vasquez (SBN 224578) Devon Archer (SBN 301462) 777 South Flower Street, Suite 4200 Los Angeles, California 90017 Telephone: (213) 555-7200 Facsimile: (213) 555-7201

Email: rvasquez@calderwoodharkness.com

Attorneys for Defendant Aurelius Media Americas Inc.

PROOF OF SERVICE

CCP § 1013a

I, the undersigned, declare that I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of eighteen (18) years and not a party to the within action. My business address is Calderwood & Harkness LLP, 777 South Flower Street, Suite 4200, Los Angeles, California 90017.

On January 22, 2024, I served the foregoing document described as DEFENDANT AURELIUS MEDIA AMERICAS INC.'S RESPONSE TO CLASS MEMBER OBJECTIONS TO PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT on the interested parties in this action by placing a true and correct copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid, in the United States mail at Los Angeles, California, addressed as follows:

Marco Castellano, Esq. Diane Salas, Esq. Trevor Kim, Esq. Castellano Byrne & Salas LLP 11755 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 900 Los Angeles, California 90025

Sandra Higuera, Esq. Veltrano Employment Law Group PC 350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2800 Los Angeles, California 90071

Carlos Vega 15301 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 300 Sherman Oaks, California 91403

Rachel Kimura 8500 Sunset Boulevard, Suite 1400 West Hollywood, California 90069

Samuel Torres 3800 W. Alameda Avenue Burbank, California 91505

Dawn Prescott 888 N. Sepulveda Boulevard El Segundo, California 90245

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on January 22, 2024, at Los Angeles, California.

________________________________________

Gabriela Montoya

MARISOL FUENTES, DEREK HALLORAN, and YESENIA PADILLA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,

(Consolidated with Case No. 22STCV39501)

Plaintiffs,

AURELIUS MEDIA AMERICAS INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,	DEFENDANT AURELIUS MEDIA AMERICAS INC.'S RESPONSE TO CLASS MEMBER OBJECTIONS TO PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
Defendants.	Hearing Date: February 2, 2024

Time: 8:30 a.m.

Dept.: 34

CALDERWOOD & HARKNESS LLP Renata Vasquez (SBN 224578) Devon Archer (SBN 301462) 777 South Flower Street, Suite 4200 Los Angeles, California 90017 Telephone: (213) 555-7200 Facsimile: (213) 555-7201
Email: rvasquez@calderwoodharkness.com
Email: darcher@calderwoodharkness.com
Attorneys for Defendant Aurelius Media Americas Inc.
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES — CENTRAL DISTRICT
DEFENDANT AURELIUS MEDIA AMERICAS INC.'S RESPONSE TO CLASS MEMBER OBJECTIONS TO PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
I. INTRODUCTION
Defendant Aurelius Media Americas Inc. ("AMA"), by and through its counsel of record, Calderwood & Harkness LLP, respectfully submits this Response to the four objections filed by class members to the proposed class action settlement in the above-captioned matter. AMA files this Response in advance of the final fairness hearing currently scheduled for February 2, 2024, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 34 before the Honorable Raymond Escobedo.
On October 18, 2023, after full briefing and oral argument, this Court granted preliminary approval of the parties' settlement agreement, finding that the settlement fell within the range of reasonableness warranting notice to the class and a final fairness hearing. Pursuant to the Court's Preliminary Approval Order, class notice was mailed on November 3, 2023, to 1,843 class members by Meridian Settlement Services LLC ("Meridian"), the Court-appointed claims administrator. The class notice informed class members of the material terms of the settlement, including the gross settlement amount, the proposed allocation formula, the scope of the release, the requested attorneys' fees and costs, the proposed service awards, and the procedures for submitting claims, opting out, or filing objections. The deadline for class members to opt out of the settlement or file objections was January 2, 2024.
The class response to the proposed settlement has been overwhelmingly favorable. Of 1,850 estimated class members (1,843 of whom received mailed notice), only 23 class members opted out of the settlement — a mere 1.24%, well below the 5% opt-out threshold that courts have identified as indicative of class acceptance. Even more importantly, only 4 class members filed objections to the settlement — representing approximately 0.22% of the class. On the other side of the ledger, 1,262 class members submitted valid claims, yielding a claims rate of 68.2%. That claims rate is well above the average for California wage-and-hour class action settlements, which typically range from 20% to 50%, depending on the size and composition of the class. The extraordinarily high claims rate in this case reflects the class's recognition that the settlement provides meaningful, tangible relief.
These metrics — considered individually and together — reflect overwhelming class support for the proposed settlement. The class has spoken, and it has spoken clearly: the settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable, and class members wish to participate in the recovery it provides.
None of the four objections warrants denial or modification of the settlement. Each raises issues that are standard in class settlement proceedings — the reasonableness of attorneys' fees, the appropriateness of the allocation formula, the adequacy of the settlement amount, and the scope of the release — and each is addressed by well-established California authority. As set forth in detail below, every objection lacks merit and should be overruled.
AMA joins with Class Counsel — Castellano Byrne & Salas LLP and Veltrano Employment Law Group PC — in requesting that the Court overrule all four objections and grant final approval of the proposed settlement at the February 2, 2024 hearing.
II. BACKGROUND
A. The Litigation
This putative class action was initiated on November 1, 2022, when named plaintiff Marisol Fuentes filed a complaint in this Court (Case No. 22STCV38214) alleging range wage-and-hour violations against AMA. Approximately two weeks later, on November 18, 2022, a related action was filed by Derek Halloran (Case No. 22STCV39501), asserting substantially overlapping claims against AMA on behalf of a substantially overlapping class. On February 3, 2023, this Court entered an order consolidating the two cases under Lead Case No. 22STCV38214, with all proceedings assigned to the Honorable Raymond Escobedo in Department 34. Yesenia Padilla was subsequently added as a named plaintiff in the consolidated action.
The putative class consists of approximately 1,850 current and former non-exempt, hourly employees of AMA who worked in the State of California at any time during the class period from November 1, 2018 through October 31, 2023 — a five-year period. The class encompasses employees who worked across AMA's various California operations, including seven distinct facilities and fourteen show units spanning studio productions, field productions, and live events.
Plaintiffs' operative complaint asserted a broad array of California wage-and-hour claims, including claims for: failure to provide compliant meal periods (Cal. Lab. Code §§ 226.7, 512); failure to provide compliant rest periods (Cal. Lab. Code § 226.7); failure to pay overtime wages (Cal. Lab. Code §§ 510, 1198); failure to pay minimum wages (Cal. Lab. Code §§ 1194, 1197, 1197.1); failure to furnish accurate, itemized wage statements (Cal. Lab. Code § 226); failure to timely pay wages upon separation of employment (Cal. Lab. Code §§ 201–203); unfair business practices (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq. (the "UCL")); and civil penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 ("PAGA") (Cal. Lab. Code §§ 2698–2699.8). The claims were asserted under, and governed by, the applicable Industrial Welfare Commission ("IWC") Wage Orders, primarily Wage Order 12 governing the Motion Picture Industry.
According to Plaintiffs' retained damages expert, Dr. Howard Rennick of Pinnacle Economic Consulting Group LLC, the aggregate claimed exposure across all causes of action totaled approximately $38.6 million. This figure included approximately $12.2 million in civil penalties under PAGA. AMA vigorously contested both the legal theories underlying Plaintiffs' claims and the damages calculations. AMA's retained damages expert, Dr. Catherine Lindstrom of Hargrove Analytics Inc., assessed aggregate damages at only $5.8 million — less than one-sixth of Plaintiffs' claimed figure — based on a more conservative and, in AMA's view, more accurate model of the class's actual damages.
B. Extensive Pre-Settlement Litigation and discovery
This case was actively and adversarially litigated for over fourteen months before the parties reached the settlement now before the Court. The pre-settlement proceedings included extensive discovery, robust motion practice, and a contested class certification hearing, all of which informed the parties' evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses of their respective positions and contributed to the ultimately reasonable settlement reached under the supervision of a neutral mediator.
discovery. discovery in this action was extensive by any measure. AMA produced 147,832 documents comprising approximately 1.2 million pages in response to Plaintiffs' discovery requests. The production included payroll records, timekeeping data from AMA's NovaPay Solutions TimeTrack Pro system, personnel files, policy manuals, memoranda from human resources and operations leadership, training materials, and communications among supervisory personnel at each of AMA's seven California facilities. Plaintiffs produced 3,412 documents, primarily consisting of individual employment records, personal calendars, and communications between class members and their supervisors. All e-discovery in this matter was managed by Marlowe Asset Management Litigation Technology Inc., which hosted the parties' document review platforms and facilitated the exchange of electronically stored information.
The parties took a total of 18 depositions during the discovery period. Plaintiffs' counsel took 11 depositions, including depositions of AMA's Person Most Qualified on timekeeping policies and procedures, AMA's Director of Human Resources, the Vice President of Operations for AMA's California facilities, facility managers at each of AMA's seven California locations, and two members of AMA's payroll department. Defense counsel took 7 depositions, including depositions of each of the three named plaintiffs — Marisol Fuentes, Derek Halloran, and Yesenia Padilla — as well as four putative class members who had been identified as witnesses with relevant knowledge regarding AMA's meal and rest period practices.
Expert Retention. Both sides retained qualified experts in support of their respective positions. In addition to Dr. Lindstrom (damages and economics), AMA retained Dr. Rajesh Makhija of Workforce Dynamics Consulting LLC as an industrial/organizational expert. Dr. Makhija provided analysis and testimony concerning class certification issues, specifically the commonality and typicality requirements of California Code of Civil Procedure section 382. Dr. Makhija's report detailed the significant operational differences among AMA's seven facilities and fourteen show units, including differences in production type (studio, field, and live events), shift lengths, supervisory structures, scheduling practices, and meal period administration. Dr. Makhija opined that these differences precluded common proof of liability on the majority of Plaintiffs' claims. Plaintiffs' damages expert, Dr. Rennick, provided the aggregate damages analysis referenced above, which served as the basis for Plaintiffs' claimed exposure of $38.6 million.
Class Certification. Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification on April 14, 2023. AMA filed its opposition on June 16, 2023, supported by the declarations and reports of Dr. Makhija and Dr. Lindstrom. The Court heard oral argument on the class certification motion on July 28, 2023.
On August 11, 2023, the Court issued a detailed written order granting class certification in part and denying it in part. The Court certified only three of Plaintiffs' claims for class treatment: (1) the first meal period auto-deduction claim (alleging that AMA's automatic thirty-minute meal period deduction from employee time records resulted in unpaid meal period premiums when employees did not receive compliant meal periods); (2) the derivative wage statement claim under Labor Code section 226 (alleging that AMA's wage statements were inaccurate as a result of the meal period violations); and (3) the UCL claim (to the extent it was predicated on the certified meal period claim). The Court denied certification of the remaining five claims: rest period violations, off-the-clock work/overtime, minimum wage violations, second meal period violations, and waiting time penalties. In denying certification of these claims, the Court credited Dr. Makhija's analysis and found that individualized inquiries would predominate, particularly given the significant operational differences among AMA's facilities and show units.
The partial certification order significantly narrowed the scope of the class case and materially affected the parties' respective assessments of the litigation risk.
C. The Settlement
Following the Court's class certification ruling, the parties agreed to explore settlement. Two full-day mediation sessions were held before the Honorable Patricia Okoro (Ret.) of Westpark Dispute Resolution Inc. The first session took place on August 25, 2023, and the second on September 8, 2023. Judge Okoro is a retired Los Angeles Superior Court judge with over 25 years of judicial experience and extensive expertise in complex employment class actions and PAGA disputes. The mediations were conducted on an arm's-length basis, with the parties represented by experienced counsel and supported by their respective expert analyses.
At the conclusion of the second mediation session, the parties reached an agreement in principle. The Settlement Agreement was subsequently finalized and executed on September 15, 2023.
The principal terms of the settlement are as follows:
Gross Settlement Amount. AMA agreed to pay a total, non-reversionary Gross Settlement Amount ("GSA") of $14,750,000. The non-reversionary nature of the fund means that all monies will be distributed — none will revert to AMA.
Deductions from GSA. The following amounts are to be deducted from the GSA prior to distribution to class members:
•  Attorneys' Fees (33.33%): $4,916,175, to be paid to Class Counsel (Castellano Byrne & Salas LLP and Veltrano Employment Law Group PC), subject to Court approval.
•  Litigation Costs: $412,300, representing Class Counsel's documented out-of-pocket litigation expenses, including expert fees, deposition costs, e-discovery expenses, and other costs advanced during the course of the litigation.
•  Service Awards: $35,000 in total, allocated among the three named plaintiffs as follows: Marisol Fuentes ($15,000), Derek Halloran ($10,000), and Yesenia Padilla ($10,000). The service awards compensate the named plaintiffs for their time, effort, and risk in serving as class representatives.
•  Settlement Administration Costs: $385,000, to be paid to Meridian Settlement Services LLC for its services as Court-appointed claims administrator, including class notice preparation and mailing, claims processing, toll-free telephone support, settlement website maintenance, and distribution of settlement payments.
•  PAGA Payment: $750,000, to be allocated as follows: 75% ($562,500) to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency ("LWDA"), and 25% ($187,500) to aggrieved employees, in accordance with Labor Code section 2699, subdivision (i).
Net Settlement Fund. After all deductions, the Net Settlement Fund ("NSF") available for distribution to class members who submitted valid claims is $8,251,525.
Estimated Per-Member Recovery. Based on the 1,850 estimated class members, the estimated average individual payment is approximately $4,460 per class member. Actual payments will vary based on each class member's individual work history during the class period.
Distribution Formula. Individual settlement payments are calculated using a formula that weights two factors: (1) 60% based on the number of weeks each class member worked during the class period; and (2) 40% based on each class member's recorded overtime hours during the class period. This formula was negotiated at arm's length and was designed to allocate settlement funds in proportion to each class member's relative exposure to the alleged violations.
Release. In exchange for the settlement payment, participating class members grant AMA a broad release of all class, PAGA, and individual wage-and-hour claims arising from the operative facts alleged in the complaint, including claims that were not certified for class treatment. The scope of the release was fully disclosed in the class notice.
D. Notice and Claims Administration
The Court entered its Preliminary Approval Order on October 18, 2023, approving the form and manner of class notice and setting the schedule for the claims administration process.
Class notice was mailed by Meridian Settlement Services LLC on November 3, 2023, to 1,843 class members at their last known addresses. Meridian's principal contact for this matter, Angela Truong, oversaw all aspects of the notice and claims administration process. The notice package included a long-form notice describing the settlement terms in detail, a claim form, an opt-out form, and instructions for filing objections.
Of the 1,843 notices mailed, 7 were initially returned as undeliverable. Meridian conducted skip tracing and obtained updated addresses for all 7 class members, and the notices were promptly re-mailed. All class members for whom addresses could be identified received notice of the settlement.
Meridian also established a dedicated settlement website, which was visited 2,847 times during the claims period, and a toll-free telephone number, which received 312 calls from class members seeking information about the settlement, the claims process, or their individual employment records. Meridian's declaration, filed concurrently with Class Counsel's motion for final approval, provides a detailed accounting of the notice and claims administration process.
The opt-out and objection deadline was January 2, 2024. As of that date, Meridian reported the following results:
•  Valid Opt-Outs: 23 (1.24% of the class)
•  Objections Filed: 4 (0.22% of the class)
•  Valid Claims Submitted: 1,262 (68.2% claims rate)
These results are remarkable by any standard. The low opt-out rate and the minimal number of objections reflect broad class acceptance of the settlement terms. The 68.2% claims rate — far exceeding the typical range of 20% to 50% in comparable settlements — confirms that class members view the settlement as providing meaningful relief and have actively participated in the claims process to secure their share of the recovery.
III. LEGAL STANDARD FOR EVALUATING OBJECTIONS
Under California law, the Court evaluates class settlement objections in the context of the overall fairness, adequacy, and reasonableness of the proposed settlement. A class action settlement must be fair, adequate, and reasonable to be entitled to final approval, and the Court examines objections as one component of its independent assessment of the settlement's merits. Kullar v. Foot Locker Retail, Inc. (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 116, 128; Dunk v. Ford Motor Co. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1794, 1801.
In making its determination, the Court considers the following factors, as articulated by the Court of Appeal in Dunk:
(1) the strength of the plaintiff's case;
(2) the risk, expense, complexity, and likely duration of further litigation;
(3) the risk of maintaining class action status throughout trial;
(4) the amount offered in settlement;
(5) the extent of discovery completed and the stage of the proceedings;
(6) the experience and views of counsel;
(7) the presence of a governmental participant; and
(8) the reaction of the class members to the proposed settlement.
Dunk, 48 Cal.App.4th at 1801. No single factor is dispositive; the Court weighs all relevant considerations in the exercise of its broad discretion.
Among these factors, the reaction of the class is "a significant factor" in the Court's analysis. Wershba v. Computer, Inc. (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 224, 245. A low opt-out rate and a small number of objections are strong indicia that the settlement is fair and reasonable, because class members — who are the real parties in interest — have voted with their feet in favor of the settlement. Id. Conversely, a high opt-out rate or widespread objections may signal that the settlement does not adequately serve the interests of the class. Here, as detailed above, the class response is overwhelmingly supportive.
Importantly, an objector bears the burden of demonstrating that the settlement is unfair, inadequate, or unreasonable. It is not sufficient for an objector to simply assert dissatisfaction or to speculate that a better result might have been achieved; the objector must identify specific deficiencies in the settlement that render it unfair to the class as a whole. Clark v. American Residential Services LLC (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 785, 791. The mere fact that an objector would have preferred different terms does not establish that the settlement falls outside the range of reasonableness. Id. Courts recognize that settlement by its nature involves compromise, and a settlement need not be perfect to warrant approval — it need only be fair, adequate, and reasonable. Kullar, 168 Cal.App.4th at 130.
With these principles in mind, AMA addresses each of the four objections below.
IV. RESPONSE TO INDIVIDUAL OBJECTIONS
A. Objection of Carlos Vega — Attorneys' Fees
Objector: Carlos Vega, former production assistant, Facility 3 (Sherman Oaks), 15301 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 300, Sherman Oaks, California 91403.
Summary of Objection: Mr. Vega objects to the proposed attorneys' fee award of 33.33% of the Gross Settlement Amount ($4,916,175), arguing that the fee is excessive and should be limited to 25% of the GSA.
Response:
AMA respectfully submits that Mr. Vega's objection should be overruled. The requested fee of 33.33% is well within the range routinely approved by California courts in class action settlements, is consistent with the market rate for contingent-fee class litigation, and is justified by the complexity of the litigation and the quality of the result achieved for the class.
1. The percentage-of-fund method is the standard approach in California class action settlements. The California Supreme Court endorsed the percentage-of-fund method for common fund class actions in Laffitte v. Robert Half International Inc. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 480, 503–506. Under this method, attorneys' fees are calculated as a percentage of the total recovery obtained for the class, rather than by multiplying counsel's hourly rates by the number of hours worked (the "lodestar" method). The Supreme Court recognized that the percentage-of-fund method is "the predominant method for determining attorneys' fees in class action cases where there is a common fund," and that fee awards in the range of 25% to 33.33% are common and presumptively reasonable. Id. at 503. The percentage-of-fund method aligns counsel's incentives with those of the class by rewarding results rather than hours, and it avoids the administrative burden of lodestar calculations.
2. A fee of 33.33% is within the range of fees routinely approved by California courts in comparable wage-and-hour class settlements. Courts in this District and throughout California have consistently approved one-third fee awards in wage-and-hour class actions. The 33.33% figure — one-third of the common fund — is the standard contingency-fee rate in the California plaintiffs' employment bar and reflects the prevailing market rate for this type of representation. Mr. Vega's suggestion that fees should be capped at 25% finds no support in California law. While some courts have approved fee awards of 25%, there is no rule or presumption limiting fees to that percentage. To the contrary, the Supreme Court in Laffitte expressly recognized that one-third fees are within the range of reasonableness. Laffitte, 1 Cal.5th at 503.
3. The result achieved justifies the fee. Class Counsel achieved a $14,750,000 recovery for the class — a recovery representing 38.2% of Plaintiffs' total claimed exposure of $38.6 million (as calculated by Dr. Howard Rennick of Pinnacle Economic Consulting Group LLC). This result was achieved after extensive, adversarial litigation spanning over fourteen months of active proceedings, including the production and review of 147,832 documents (approximately 1.2 million pages), the taking of 18 depositions, the retention and management of competing expert analyses, the preparation and briefing of a contested class certification motion, and the conduct of two full-day mediation sessions. Class Counsel prosecuted this case entirely on a contingent-fee basis, advancing all costs and bearing the full risk of non-recovery. The fee requested compensates Class Counsel for the substantial investment of time, resources, and risk that made this recovery possible.
4. Reducing the fee to 25% would not benefit class members and would undermine the class action mechanism. Mr. Vega appears to assume that a reduction in attorneys' fees would increase the recovery to class members. However, in a common fund settlement such as this, attorneys' fees are paid from the GSA — they are not paid in addition to the class recovery. A reduction of the fee from 33.33% to 25% would yield a fee of $3,687,500 — a reduction of $1,228,675 — but this reduction would not increase the GSA. It would simply reallocate funds within the existing settlement structure. More importantly, a reduction of this magnitude would undercompensate Class Counsel for the substantial work performed and the risk undertaken in this case, and it would send a discouraging signal to the plaintiffs' employment bar that vigorous, well-resourced prosecution of class actions will not be fairly compensated. Such a result would ultimately harm employees, who depend on private counsel willing to invest time and resources in class litigation.
5. The fee is subject to independent Court review. AMA acknowledges that the Court retains full discretion to evaluate the reasonableness of the requested fee independently of the parties' agreement. AMA takes no affirmative position on the appropriate fee percentage, but notes that the 33.33% figure is consistent with prevailing practice, was agreed upon at arm's length as part of a comprehensive settlement negotiated under the supervision of a neutral mediator, and is supported by the quality and quantity of work performed by Class Counsel in this matter.
Recommendation: The Court should overrule Mr. Vega's objection.
B. Objection of Rachel Kimura — Allocation Formula
Objector: Rachel Kimura, current production coordinator, Facility 1 (West Hollywood HQ), 8500 Sunset Boulevard, Suite 1400, West Hollywood, California 90069.
Summary of Objection: Ms. Kimura objects to the settlement's allocation formula, which distributes the Net Settlement Fund based on a 60/40 weighting (60% based on weeks worked during the class period; 40% based on recorded overtime hours). Ms. Kimura argues that overtime hours should be weighted more heavily because, in her view, employees who worked more overtime were more likely to have missed meal periods and therefore suffered greater harm.
Response:
AMA respectfully submits that Ms. Kimura's objection should be overruled. The 60/40 allocation formula was the product of extensive arm's-length negotiations, reasonably reflects the certified claims, and is within the range of formulas routinely approved by California courts.
1. The 60/40 allocation formula was negotiated at arm's length. The allocation formula was not imposed unilaterally by either party. Rather, it was the product of extensive negotiations between Class Counsel and defense counsel during two full-day mediation sessions facilitated by the Honorable Patricia Okoro (Ret.) of Westpark Dispute Resolution Inc. Judge Okoro is a retired Los Angeles Superior Court judge with over 25 years of judicial service and deep experience in employment class action settlements. Judge Okoro reviewed the proposed allocation formula in the context of the underlying claims and the available data, and she found the formula to be a reasonable method of allocating the settlement fund among class members. The formula reflects a negotiated compromise between the parties' competing views of how the fund should be distributed, and it is entitled to a presumption of reasonableness.
2. The formula reflects the certified claims. The Court certified only the first meal period auto-deduction claim for class treatment. That claim arises from AMA's practice of automatically deducting thirty minutes from employees' daily time records to account for meal periods, regardless of whether employees actually received a compliant, uninterrupted meal period. This claim is not limited to employees who worked overtime — it applies to all non-exempt employees who worked shifts during which an auto-deduction was applied, including employees who worked regular, non-overtime shifts. The "weeks worked" component of the formula (60%) appropriately weights the primary driver of exposure under the certified claim: the number of shifts during which an auto-deduction was applied. Each week worked during the class period represents an opportunity for the alleged meal period violation to have occurred. The "overtime hours" component (40%) provides additional weight for employees who worked longer shifts, recognizing that longer shifts may have been associated with a greater likelihood of meal period non-compliance.
3. Ms. Kimura's proposed alternative is not supported by the evidentiary record. Ms. Kimura's objection rests on the assumption that there is a direct, strong correlation between overtime hours and missed meal periods. While there may be some correlation between these variables, the evidence developed during discovery — including deposition testimony from facility managers and data from AMA's NovaPay Solutions TimeTrack Pro timekeeping system — shows that meal period experiences varied significantly across AMA's 7 facilities and 14 show units. The variation was driven by multiple factors, including production type (studio productions, field productions, and live events), supervisory practices at individual facilities, scheduling constraints specific to particular show units, and the availability and utilization of the Missed Meal Attestation feature in the TimeTrack Pro system. In light of this variability, there is no basis to conclude that overtime hours are a better or more accurate proxy for missed meal periods than weeks worked. Ms. Kimura's objection does not cite any data, expert analysis, or legal authority supporting her proposed alternative weighting.
4. The allocation formula is within the Court's broad discretion. California courts routinely approve allocation formulas in class action settlements that balance multiple factors, and there is no single "correct" formula mandated by statute or case law. The Court has broad discretion to evaluate the reasonableness of the proposed formula, and courts have approved a wide range of allocation methodologies in comparable wage-and-hour settlements, including formulas weighted by weeks worked, hours worked, overtime hours, pay rates, or combinations of these factors. The 60/40 split proposed here is reasonable, reflects the underlying claims, and treats class members equitably by accounting for both the breadth of exposure (weeks worked) and the intensity of exposure (overtime hours).
Recommendation: The Court should overrule Ms. Kimura's objection.
C. Objection of Samuel Torres — Settlement Amount
Objector: Samuel Torres, former segment coordinator, Facility 4 (Burbank), 3800 W. Alameda Avenue, Burbank, California 91505.
Summary of Objection: Mr. Torres objects that the $14,750,000 Gross Settlement Amount is "too low" 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:
AMA respectfully submits that Mr. Torres's objection should be overruled. The settlement amount of $14,750,000 is fair, reasonable, and adequate in light of the litigation risks, the competing expert analyses, the Court's partial certification order, and the substantial costs and uncertainties of continued litigation.
1. The settlement amount is fair, reasonable, and adequate in light of the litigation risks. The $14,750,000 GSA represents 38.2% of Plaintiffs' expert's total claimed exposure of $38.6 million, as calculated by Dr. Howard Rennick of Pinnacle Economic Consulting Group LLC in his report dated April 28, 2023. This percentage is at the high end of the range typically seen in California wage-and-hour class action settlements, which generally fall between 15% and 40% of claimed exposure, depending on the strength of the claims, the litigation posture, and the risks of continued litigation. The settlement thus provides class members with a recovery that compares favorably to — and in many cases exceeds — the recoveries achieved in comparable settlements throughout this state.
2. The claimed exposure of $38.6 million was subject to serious challenge. Mr. Torres's objection assumes that the $38.6 million claimed exposure represents the "true" value of the class's claims. It does not. AMA's damages expert, Dr. Catherine Lindstrom of Hargrove Analytics Inc., calculated aggregate damages of only $5.8 million in her report dated June 9, 2023 — less than one-sixth of Dr. Rennick's figure. Dr. Lindstrom's analysis identified critical flaws in Dr. Rennick's model, including the unsupported assumption that every auto-deducted meal period was a "missed" meal period for which a premium was owed. Dr. Lindstrom's analysis accounted for evidence that many class members did, in fact, receive timely, uninterrupted meal periods and that the auto-deduction accurately reflected their actual meal period experience. When viewed from the defense perspective, the $14,750,000 settlement is approximately 254% of the defense expert's valuation of $5.8 million — a highly favorable result for the class by any measure.
3. The Court's partial certification order significantly reduced the class's litigation leverage. On August 11, 2023, this Court denied class certification on five of seven causes of action, including the rest period, off-the-clock/overtime, minimum wage, second meal period, and waiting time penalty claims. Only the first meal period auto-deduction claim, the derivative wage statement claim, and the UCL claim were certified. The five denied claims would have accounted for a substantial portion of the $38.6 million damages figure calculated by Dr. Rennick. Had the case proceeded to trial, the class would have been limited to litigating the three certified claims on a class-wide basis; the remaining claims would have required individual prosecution. The settlement's broad release of all claims — including the non-certified claims — provides the class with recovery for claims that could not have been pursued on a class-wide basis. This represents a significant benefit to class members that would not have been available through continued litigation.
4. Continued litigation would be expensive, uncertain, and protracted. If the settlement is not approved, AMA would continue to vigorously defend the case through trial and, if necessary, appeal. AMA estimated that trial costs would range from $1.2 million to $1.8 million in additional defense costs alone, exclusive of post-trial motions and appellate proceedings. A trial on the certified first meal period auto-deduction claim would involve complex factual disputes about the design and operation of AMA's NovaPay Solutions TimeTrack Pro timekeeping system, the mechanics of the auto-deduction mechanism, and the availability and utilization of the Missed Meal Attestation feature — a function within the TimeTrack Pro system that allowed employees to report missed meal periods. The evidence showed that the Missed Meal Attestation feature was implemented at different times across AMA's 7 facilities and 14 show units, and that utilization rates varied widely. These factual complexities would have required extensive expert testimony and facility-by-facility analysis, with the outcome far from certain. Moreover, any trial verdict — whether favorable to Plaintiffs or AMA — would be subject to appeal, potentially adding years to the resolution of the case and delaying any recovery for the class.
5. The class's reaction overwhelmingly supports the settlement. As noted above, only 23 class members opted out of the settlement (1.24%), and only 4 class members filed objections. Meanwhile, 1,262 class members submitted valid claims, yielding a claims rate of 68.2%. This response is powerful evidence that the class views the settlement as fair and reasonable. Wershba v. Computer, Inc. (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 224, 245 (the class's reaction is a "significant factor" in evaluating settlement fairness). The objections of a single class member cannot override the expressed preferences of the overwhelming majority.
6. Mr. Torres's proposed $25 million figure has no analytical basis. The objection does not identify any methodology, expert analysis, damages model, or legal authority supporting a valuation of $25 million. Mr. Torres does not engage with the competing expert analyses of Dr. Rennick and Dr. Lindstrom, does not address the impact of the Court's partial certification order on the class's litigation exposure, and does not explain how his proposed figure accounts for the substantial litigation risks described above. The objection is, in substance, a bare assertion that the settlement should be larger — a sentiment that, while understandable, does not satisfy the objector's burden of demonstrating that the settlement is unfair, inadequate, or unreasonable. Clark v. American Residential Services LLC (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 785, 791.
Recommendation: The Court should overrule Mr. Torres's objection.
D. Objection of Dawn Prescott — Broad Release of Non-Certified Claims
Objector: Dawn Prescott (no relation to Dwayne Prescott, Vice President of Unscripted Programming, AMA), former post-production assistant, Facility 7 (El Segundo), 888 N. Sepulveda Boulevard, El Segundo, California 90245.
Summary of Objection: Ms. Prescott objects to the settlement's release provision, which releases non-certified claims — including rest period, off-the-clock/overtime, and waiting time penalty claims — without providing separate or additional compensation allocated specifically to those claims.
Response:
AMA acknowledges that Ms. Prescott's objection raises the most substantive issue of the four objections filed. AMA takes this objection seriously and addresses it in detail below. However, for the reasons set forth herein, the objection should be overruled.
1. The broad release was a negotiated term that directly benefited the class. During the two full-day mediation sessions before the Honorable Patricia Okoro (Ret.), the scope of the release was a central and heavily negotiated term of the settlement. AMA's willingness to pay $14,750,000 — a figure that substantially exceeds the realistic exposure on the three certified claims standing alone — was directly tied to AMA's interest in obtaining a comprehensive release of all claims arising from the operative facts alleged in the complaint. In other words, the broad release was not a one-sided concession by the class; it was a bargained-for exchange in which the class received a premium — a higher settlement amount — in return for granting AMA finality across the full spectrum of asserted claims. The GSA of $14,750,000 reflects the value of the comprehensive release, and the class received meaningful consideration for granting it.
2. The non-certified claims were factored into the overall settlement valuation. Although the Court denied class certification of the rest period, off-the-clock/overtime, minimum wage, second meal period, and waiting time penalty claims, those claims remained available for individual pursuit by class members. The risk that hundreds of individual claims could be filed — and the substantial defense costs associated with responding to such claims — was a significant factor in AMA's assessment of the litigation risk and its willingness to settle at a GSA exceeding the defense expert's valuation of the certified claims alone. From AMA's perspective, the settlement provides finality not only on the certified class claims but also on the non-certified claims that could have generated significant individual litigation. The class thus received indirect but tangible compensation for the non-certified claims through the overall settlement amount, which was set at a level reflecting the value of the comprehensive release.
3. Broad releases are routinely approved in California class action settlements. California courts regularly approve settlements that include releases extending beyond the claims certified for class treatment, provided that the overall settlement amount is fair and that the class has been adequately informed of the scope of the release. See, e.g., Predding v. United Teachers Los Angeles (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 322, 337 (affirming approval of class settlement with broad release); Villacres v. Northpoint Services Inc. (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 562, 585 (affirming approval of settlement releasing claims beyond those certified for class treatment). These authorities recognize that broad releases are a standard feature of class action settlements and that they serve legitimate interests — both the defendant's interest in finality and the class's interest in maximizing the overall settlement recovery. The inclusion of a broad release does not, standing alone, render a settlement unfair.
4. The class notice clearly disclosed the scope of the release. The long-form class notice mailed to all 1,843 class members on November 3, 2023, described the scope of the release in clear, plain-language terms, including an explicit statement that participating class members would release not only the certified claims but also all other wage-and-hour claims arising from the facts alleged in the complaint, including claims that were not certified for class treatment. The notice identified the specific categories of released claims, including rest period violations, off-the-clock/overtime claims, and waiting time penalty claims. Class members were thus fully informed of the release's scope and could make an informed decision about whether to participate in the settlement or to opt out and preserve their individual claims.
5. Class members who wished to preserve their non-certified claims had the opportunity to opt out. The class notice clearly described the opt-out procedure and the January 2, 2024 deadline for submitting opt-out requests. Class members who objected to releasing their non-certified claims had the right — and were expressly informed of their right — to opt out of the settlement and pursue their individual claims independently. Twenty-three class members exercised this right, and their individual claims remain fully preserved. Notably, Ms. Prescott did not opt out of the settlement. She chose to remain in the class and to file an objection instead. While Ms. Prescott's decision to remain in the class does not waive her right to object, it does weigh against her contention that the release is fundamentally unfair. An objector who remains in the class — and who will receive a settlement payment — is in a different posture than one who contends that the release is so unfair as to require rejection of the settlement as a whole.
6. Separate compensation for non-certified claims would have resulted in a lower per-member recovery on the certified claims. Ms. Prescott's objection appears to contemplate a settlement structure in which separate compensation would be allocated for the non-certified claims. However, in a fixed-fund settlement such as this, any allocation of funds to non-certified claims would necessarily reduce the funds available for the certified claims. If the $14,750,000 GSA had been fragmented into separate allocations for each claim category — certified and non-certified — each individual allocation would have been smaller, and the per-member recovery on the certified claims would have been lower. The unified Net Settlement Fund of $8,251,525, distributed pro rata to all participating class members based on the 60/40 formula, provides a cleaner, more efficient, and more equitable distribution than a fragmented allocation that would have required the parties and the Court to assign relative values to each individual claim category — an exercise that would itself have been contested and potentially contentious.
Recommendation: The Court should overrule Ms. Prescott's objection.
V. THE SETTLEMENT MERITS FINAL APPROVAL NOTWITHSTANDING THE OBJECTIONS
For all of the foregoing reasons, the four objections filed by class members Carlos Vega, Rachel Kimura, Samuel Torres, and Dawn Prescott — individually and collectively — do not undermine the fairness, adequacy, or reasonableness of the proposed settlement. The objections reflect disagreements on the margins — the fee percentage, the allocation formula weights, the settlement amount, and the release scope — but none identifies a deficiency that falls outside the range of terms routinely approved by California courts in comparable wage-and-hour class action settlements. None of the objectors has carried the burden of demonstrating that the settlement is unfair, inadequate, or unreasonable. Clark v. American Residential Services LLC (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 785, 791.
The overwhelming support of the class is the most reliable and probative indicator of the settlement's fairness. A total of 1,262 class members — representing 68.2% of the class — submitted valid claims, affirmatively choosing to participate in the settlement and receive their share of the recovery. Only 23 class members opted out, a rate of 1.24%. And only 4 class members filed objections, representing approximately 0.22% of the class. As the Court of Appeal recognized in Wershba, a low opt-out rate and few objections are "strong indicia" that the settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable. Wershba v. Computer, Inc. (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 224, 245.
The settlement was reached after extensive, adversarial litigation spanning over fourteen months of active proceedings. The parties conducted comprehensive discovery, retained and presented competing expert analyses, fully briefed a contested class certification motion, and engaged in two full-day mediation sessions before a highly experienced retired jurist. The settlement was negotiated at arm's length, with the benefit of full information and the active involvement of a neutral mediator. It was not the product of collusion or capitulation; it was the product of hard-fought litigation and principled compromise.
In light of all relevant factors — the strength of the parties' respective positions, the litigation risks, the complexity and expense of continued proceedings, the partial certification order, the competing damages analyses, the arm's-length negotiations, the experience and views of counsel, and the overwhelmingly positive class reaction — the settlement falls well within the range of fairness, adequacy, and reasonableness and merits final approval.
AMA and Class Counsel respectfully request that the Court overrule all four objections and grant final approval of the proposed class action settlement at the February 2, 2024 hearing.
VI. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant Aurelius Media Americas Inc. respectfully requests that the Court:
1.  Overrule the objections of Carlos Vega, Rachel Kimura, Samuel Torres, and Dawn Prescott in their entirety;
2.  Grant final approval of the class action settlement on the terms set forth in the Settlement Agreement executed September 15, 2023; and
3.  Enter the [Proposed] Final Approval Order and Judgment submitted concurrently herewith.
Dated: January 22, 2024
CALDERWOOD & HARKNESS LLP
By: /s/ Renata Vasquez
________________________________________
Renata Vasquez (SBN 224578) Devon Archer (SBN 301462) 777 South Flower Street, Suite 4200 Los Angeles, California 90017 Telephone: (213) 555-7200 Facsimile: (213) 555-7201
Email: rvasquez@calderwoodharkness.com
Attorneys for Defendant Aurelius Media Americas Inc.
PROOF OF SERVICE
CCP § 1013a
I, the undersigned, declare that I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of eighteen (18) years and not a party to the within action. My business address is Calderwood & Harkness LLP, 777 South Flower Street, Suite 4200, Los Angeles, California 90017.
On January 22, 2024, I served the foregoing document described as DEFENDANT AURELIUS MEDIA AMERICAS INC.'S RESPONSE TO CLASS MEMBER OBJECTIONS TO PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT on the interested parties in this action by placing a true and correct copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid, in the United States mail at Los Angeles, California, addressed as follows:
Marco Castellano, Esq. Diane Salas, Esq. Trevor Kim, Esq. Castellano Byrne & Salas LLP 11755 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 900 Los Angeles, California 90025
Sandra Higuera, Esq. Veltrano Employment Law Group PC 350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2800 Los Angeles, California 90071
Carlos Vega 15301 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 300 Sherman Oaks, California 91403
Rachel Kimura 8500 Sunset Boulevard, Suite 1400 West Hollywood, California 90069
Samuel Torres 3800 W. Alameda Avenue Burbank, California 91505
Dawn Prescott 888 N. Sepulveda Boulevard El Segundo, California 90245
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on January 22, 2024, at Los Angeles, California.
________________________________________
Gabriela Montoya
MARISOL FUENTES, DEREK HALLORAN, and YESENIA PADILLA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, | Lead Case No. 22STCV38214
(Consolidated with Case No. 22STCV39501)
Plaintiffs, | Assigned for all purposes to Hon. Raymond Escobedo, Dept. 34
v.
AURELIUS MEDIA AMERICAS INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, | DEFENDANT AURELIUS MEDIA AMERICAS INC.'S RESPONSE TO CLASS MEMBER OBJECTIONS TO PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
Defendants. | Hearing Date: February 2, 2024
Time: 8:30 a.m.
Dept.: 34

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

I. INTRODUCTION

II. BACKGROUND

III. LEGAL STANDARD FOR EVALUATING OBJECTIONS

IV. RESPONSE TO INDIVIDUAL OBJECTIONS

V. THE SETTLEMENT MERITS FINAL APPROVAL NOTWITHSTANDING THE OBJECTIONS

VI. CONCLUSION

CALDERWOOD & HARKNESS LLP

PROOF OF SERVICE

Record

Parties

Dates

Amounts