barnow and associates, p.c. ben barnow (pro hac vice...

1 No. 2:15-cv-02171 FMO (FFMx) BARNOW DECL ISO MOTION FOR ATTYS’ FEES, EXPENSES AND SERVICE AWARDS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

BARNOW AND ASSOCIATES, P.C. BEN BARNOW (pro hac vice) ERICH P. SCHORK (pro hac vice) 1 North LaSalle Street, Suite 4600 Chicago, IL 60602 Tel: 312/621-2000 312/641-5504 (fax) [email protected] [email protected] BLOOD HURST & O’REARDON, LLP TIMOTHY G. BLOOD (149343) THOMAS J. O’REARDON, II (247952) PAULA R. BROWN (254142) 701 B Street, Suite 1700 San Diego, CA 92101 Tel: 619/338-1100 619/338-1101 (fax) [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Class Counsel

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA BRIAN WARNER, KENNETH MACLEOD, MICHAEL MEADE, MICHAEL WATSON, JAMES FULLER, and DALE FRANQUET, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC., a California corporation, Defendant.

Case No. 2:15-cv-02171-FMO-(FFMx) CLASS ACTION DECLARATION OF BEN BARNOW IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES, EXPENSES AND SERVICE AWARDS DATE: April 27, 2017 Time: 10:00 a.m. USDJ: Fernando M. Olguin Ctrm: 6th Floor – 1st Street USMJ: Frederick F. Mumm Ctrm: E, 9th Floor – Spring JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Complaint Filed: March 24, 2015

Case 2:15-cv-02171-FMO-FFM Document 111-3 Filed 02/27/17 of 39 Page ID #:1844


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

I, BEN BARNOW, declare as follows: I. Introduction

1. I am an attorney duly licensed to practice in the State of Illinois and

the State of New York. I am the President and sole shareholder of the law firm

Barnow and Associates, P.C. I am one of Co-Lead Settlement Class Counsel and

am one of counsel for Plaintiffs in this Action and the Related Action, Burns v.

Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., No. 2:14-cv-02208-PKH, pending before the

Honorable P.K. Holmes in the United States District Court of the Western District

of Arkansas (together, the “Litigation”). Except as otherwise noted, I have personal

knowledge of the matters stated herein and, if called upon, I could and would

competently testify thereto. I submit this Declaration in support of Plaintiffs’

Motion for Award of Attorneys’ Fees, Costs, and Expenses, and Representative

Plaintiff Incentive Awards.

2. I have been practicing law for over 47 years. During the last twenty-

plus years, I have successfully prosecuted some of the nation’s largest class action

lawsuits. Attached as Exhibit A is a copy of my firm’s resume, which includes my

curriculum vitae and the qualifications of the attorneys from my firm who worked

on the Litigation.

3. As detailed below, as of February 17, 2017, my firm spent in excess

of 3,655 hours working on the Litigation for a lodestar of $1,709,016. My firm also

paid over $42,102 in out-of-pocket costs and expenses in furtherance of the

Litigation. Time and expenses will continue to be incurred in furtherance of the

Litigation and Settlement.

4. I believe the requested awards of attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses,

and the requested incentive awards to be reasonable and appropriate, particularly in

light of the extraordinary result achieved on behalf of the Settlement Class.



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

II. My Firm Has Been Actively Involved in Every Aspect of this Case

5. My firm has been actively involved in every aspect of this case since

inception. These efforts include a significant pre-filing investigation, additional

continued investigation throughout the course of the Litigation, involvement in

preparing or reviewing every substantive filing by Plaintiffs in the Litigation,

managing and participating in discovery, settlement negotiations, preparing

settlement documentation, and responding to Class member inquiries. Throughout

the Litigation, I have worked closely with Co-Lead Settlement Class Counsel,

Timothy G. Blood, Blood Hurst & O’Reardon LLP (“BHO”), to ensure the

litigation was prosecuted in an efficient manner. These efforts included assigning

briefing to experienced and knowledgeable attorneys, assigning research tasks to

specific attorneys, overseeing the discovery and document review process,

coordinating with consulting experts, and keeping Plaintiffs’ counsel apprised of

the status of the Litigation. I have also worked with other Plaintiffs’ counsel in the

matter.

6. My firm conducted a substantial pre-filing investigation to investigate

whether other owners of Toyota trucks had similarly experienced premature frame

rust problems. The initial investigation focused on Internet-based research

including, among other things, reviewing complaints filed with the National

Highway Traffic Safety Administration (“NHTSA”) and reviewing numerous

message boards and other forums where owners of Toyota trucks raised issues with

their vehicles. My firm also researched the feasibility of successfully bringing a

class action against Toyota under various consumer fraud and warranty laws. The

factual investigation continued after filing suit, eventually leading to the

identification of other Toyota vehicles suffering from severe premature frame rust.

Through that investigation, document review, and expert analysis, we learned that

frame rust had been an issue for Toyota Tacoma, Sequoia, and Tundra vehicles for



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

some time, learned more about the issues involved and examined Toyota’s limited

service campaigns directed to a subset of the Subject Vehicles.

7. Ryan Burns’ complaint was filed in the Western District of Arkansas

on October 3, 2014. Shortly after that filing, my firm and other Plaintiffs’ counsel

began to receive calls and emails from individuals who owned a Toyota truck and

experienced frame rust issues. I and other attorneys from my firm participated in

many of these calls. The communications were extremely informative, led to

Plaintiffs Brian Warner, Kenneth MacLeod, Michael Meade, Michael Watson,

James Fuller, and Dale Franquet retaining my firm and other Plaintiffs’ counsel to

represent them in the Litigation, and resulted in the filing of the initial Class Action

Complaint before the Court.

8. My firm was involved in the drafting or the review of all substantive

filings in the Litigation. These filings included, but were not limited to, four

complaints, three oppositions to motions to dismiss, an opposition to a motion for

summary judgment, an opposition to a motion to deny class certification, two

motions to compel, status reports, and various settlement-related documents. For

example, my firm took the lead in opposing Toyota’s motion for summary

judgment and Toyota’s preemptive motion to deny class certification. In its motion

for summary judgment, Toyota argued that Burns’ claims were mooted by its

Limited Service Campaigns for certain Tacoma vehicles instituted in May 2014

and April 2015, and that it would be impossible for Burns to prove the actual

damage or injury element of his claims under Arkansas law. In its preemptive

motion to deny class certification, Toyota argued that the proposed Class was not

ascertainable, that individual questions predominated, that Class members’ lacked

Article III Standing, and that a class action was not a superior method to fairly and

adjudicate the Arkansas case. The Arkansas Court denied Toyota’s motion to deny

class certification and denied Toyota’s motion for summary judgment, except with



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

respect to Burns’ claims for injunctive relief, which were dismissed. I believe these

rulings, in addition to the Arkansas Court’s denial of Toyota’s motion to dismiss in

substantial part, paved the way for Plaintiffs to aggressively seek and obtain

discovery from Toyota and were important steps towards resolving this matter.

9. Mr. Blood and I worked together to lead and manage the discovery

process in this litigation. Much of these efforts focused on curtailing Toyota’s

resistance to producing discovery. The process included serving written discovery

on Toyota, serving five third-party subpoenas, filing two motions to compel,

opposing a motion to stay discovery, and several meet and confer conferences with

Toyota’s counsel. In early 2016, Plaintiffs were involved in a substantial

disagreement with Toyota over the scope of its discovery obligations. The

disagreement focused on three primary areas: (1) Toyota’s refusal to produce any

documents responsive to several of Burns’ document requests; (2) Plaintiffs’

Counsel’s belief that the ESI parameters used by Toyota to cull its document

production were inadequate; and (3) Toyota’s redaction of over 43% of the

documents it had produced on relevance grounds. Attorneys from my firm, BHO,

and the Roberts Law Firm engaged in multiple meet and confers and other

communications with Toyota’s counsel in an attempt to resolve these disputes.

After these efforts were unsuccessful, attorneys from my firm, BHO, and the

Roberts Law Firm worked together to draft and file a motion to compel Toyota to

produce documents responsive to several of Burns’ document requests, to revamp

its search for electronic discovery, to disclose new ESI search parameters to be

approved by Plaintiffs’ Counsel, to use the agreed upon parameters to cull

electronic data to be produced to Plaintiffs’ Counsel, and to produce unredacted

versions of all previously produced documents containing redactions solely on

relevance grounds. Shortly before the hearing on the motion to compel, the Parties

reached an agreement that gave Plaintiffs nearly everything they sought.



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

10. Toyota ultimately produced approximately 2.5 million pages of

documents in connection with the Litigation. My firm and BHO led and managed

the review of these documents. That process involved, among other things,

assigning batches of documents to individual attorneys, monitoring the review of

documents, assigning and reviewing memoranda on specific topics, and

assimilating and summarizing the information provided by the reviewers. All of

the documents produced by Toyota were ultimately reviewed and coded by the

reviewers. Four associates from my firm were involved in the review process. On

account of the size of Toyota’s production and time frame for getting through the

documents, my firm retained three project attorneys to work on the review full-

time from June 2016 to October 2016. BHO similarly retained three project

attorneys to review documents full-time during that period. When we learned that

the production contained certain documents in Japanese, BHO retained an

additional project attorney to review those documents.

11. Throughout the course of the Litigation, attorneys from my firm and

BHO communicated with three appropriate and qualified consulting experts. The

conversations focused on metallurgy, vehicle safety, and the effects a rusted-out

and perforated frame would have on the structural integrity, drivability, and crash-

worthiness of Subject Vehicles.

12. I was heavily involved in negotiating the Settlement. The Settlement

was ultimately reached after over seven months of hard-fought negotiations,

assisted by Settlement Special Master Patrick A. Juneau. Mr. Juneau is a highly

experienced special master. Mr. Blood and I participated in nine face-to-face

meetings with Toyota’s counsel. Specifically, we met with Toyota’s counsel on

April 19, 2016, in New Orleans, Louisiana, with Special Master Juneau, on April

20, 2016, in Fort Smith, Arkansas, on May 2–3, 2016, June 14–15, 2016, and

September 22–23, 2016, in Los Angeles, California, again with Mr. Juneau, on



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

April 6, 2016, in Newport Beach, California, on May 12, 2016, and October 18,

2016, in New York, New York, and on August 25, 2016, in Newport, Rhode

Island. I, along with Mr. Blood, also participated in numerous conference calls,

telephone calls, and emails as part of these negotiations.

13. After the terms of the Settlement were agreed upon, I and other

attorneys at my firm played an active role in negotiating and finalizing the actual

language of the Settlement Agreement and in working with the claims

administrator to finalize the notice documents and claim form. Mr. Blood and other

attorneys from BHO were also heavily involved in preparing and reviewing such

documents. My firm took an active role in moving for preliminary approval of the

Settlement. We were responsible for drafting certain documents filed in support of

Plaintiffs’ motion, including the declarations from Class Representatives filed in

support of the motion. For documents drafted by BHO, I and other members of my

firm reviewed and provided input on these documents prior to finalization. I

appeared at the preliminary approval hearing along with Mr. Blood.

14. Since entry of the Court’s Order granting preliminary approval of the

Settlement, my firm has communicated with numerous individuals requesting

information regarding the Settlement. Based on my experience, these inquiries will

continue until long after the Final Fairness Hearing, especially since the Settlement

provides for the receipt of benefits as late as approximately 2022, and potentially

later. My firm will work with BHO in drafting the motion for final approval of the

Settlement, including responding to any objections received. I intend to appear at

the Final Fairness Hearing on April 27, 2017, along with Mr. Blood.



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

III. The Requested Attorneys’ Fees, Costs, and Expenses

15. In accordance with best practices and the terms of the Settlement, the

Parties waited to negotiate attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses, and the incentive

awards until agreement was reached on all of the substantive terms of the

Settlement. Settlement Agreement (“SA”), §VIII.A-B.

16. My firm prosecuted this case on a contingent-fee basis with no

guarantee of recovery. My firm, BHO, and other Plaintiffs’ Counsel incurred 100%

of the risk in litigating this Action. My firm was forced to forgo other employment

in order to devote the time necessary to pursue this litigation. My firm advanced

expenses with the understanding that we would be paid a fee and receive

reimbursement for expenses only if successful.

17. The information in this declaration regarding my firm’s time and out-

of-pocket expenses is taken from time and expense records prepared and

maintained by the firm in the ordinary course of business using timekeeping

software. The time records were prepared shortly thereafter by each attorney

working on the litigation. The expense records are prepared from receipts, expense

vouchers, check records, and other documents and are an accurate record of the

expenses. I reviewed the printouts and also reviewed the backup documentation

where necessary. The purpose of these reviews was to confirm the accuracy of the

entries on the printouts as well as the necessity for, and reasonableness of, the time

and expenses committed to the Litigation.

18. My firm managed the case efficiently with minimal duplication of

efforts within our firm or between our firm and other Plaintiffs’ Counsel. As

shown above, my firm actively participated in all aspects of the Litigation. The

services rendered and work performed by my firm’s attorneys during the course of

the Litigation from inception through the present included all aspects of the

Litigation. This included pre-filing research and investigation into the factual and



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

legal claims, drafting complaints, responding to various motions filed by Toyota,

participating in discovery, settlement negotiations, preparing settlement

documentation, and assisting with claims administration and Class Member

inquiries. I believe the time expended by my firm working on the Litigation was

reasonable and necessary in light of the amount of work accomplished and given

Toyota’s aggressive litigation tactics as described in the Motion and in Mr. Blood’s

Declaration in Support of Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement,

Certification of Settlement Class, and Approval of Class Notice, ECF No. 88-2.

My firm will continue to spend significant time to complete the Settlement

approval process, in responding to Class Member calls and emails regarding the

Settlement, and in overseeing the claims administration process, including

addressing any claim review issues, for which no further compensation will be

paid.

19. The summary below includes the name of each person from my firm

who worked on the case, years of experience, hourly billing rates, and the total

number of hours expended. The background and qualifications of the attorneys at

my firm who worked on the matter are set forth in my firm resume, attached as

Exhibit A. A team of three project attorneys was retained after learning that Toyota

would be producing over 2,000,000 pages of documents that needed to be

reviewed in a short time frame. Toyota ended up producing in excess of 2,500,000

pages of documents. The three project attorneys identified below, along with the

project attorneys retained by BHO, were necessary to reaching the successful

resolution of this Litigation in a prompt and efficient manner. The resumes of the

project attorneys are attached as Exhibit B. These attorneys, along with four

project attorneys retained by BHO, along with attorneys from my firm, BHO, and

other Plaintiffs’ counsel, collectively reviewed and coded millions of pages of

documents over a five-month period.



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

20. From inception to February 17, 2017, attorneys at my firm and

working with the firm as shown above spent in excess of 3,655 hours working on

this Litigation. The firm’s lodestar is $1,709,016, calculated at current rates. Attorney Year

Admitted to Practice

Hours Rate Lodestar

Ben Barnow (Partner) 1969 403.8 $850 $343,230

Erich P. Schork (Associate) 2006 528.1 $650 $343,265

Jeffrey D. Blake (Associate) 2013 309.9 $420 $130,158

Anthony Parkhill (Associate) 2014 96.5 $400 $38,600

Sharon Harris1 (Associate) 1998 137.80 $525 $72,345

Rommel Dizon (project) 2011 754 $350 $263,900

Jorge F. Espinosa (project) 2010 743.75 $375 $278,906

Mike S. Li (project) 2011 681.75 $350 $238,612

Total 3,655.6 $1,709,016

21. The hourly rates shown above for me and the associates at my firm

are the current usual and customary rates set by my firm for each individual. The

rates reflect what would be charged to a fee-paying client in the private legal

marketplace for complex litigation. The rates are also in line with the rates charged

by other firms that handle complex cases and class actions. The hourly rates shown

above for the project attorneys employed are based on the experience of each such

attorney. 1 Ms. Harris is a former associate. The summary includes her standard hourly rate as of the time she left the firm.



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

22. The hours and lodestar incurred by my firm will increase because, as

Co-Lead Settlement Class Counsel, Mr. Blood and I are responsible for any further

briefing in this case, preparing for and attending the final approval hearing, and

post-hearing work, including issues relating to claims administration and

implementation. As described in Mr. Blood’s Supplemental Declaration, filed

herewith, settlement implementation will continue through early 2023 and will

likely involve hundreds of hours of additional work. On an ongoing basis, my firm

has been, and will continue to be, in regular contact with the Claims Administrator

and Toyota regarding the claims and opt-out processes, will continue to oversee the

claim process, and will continue to regularly review and act on the reports

provided by the Claims Administrator, as well as address issues which may arise.

Further and continuing contact with Settlement Class members regarding the

Settlement is likely a certainty.

23. The expenses for which reimbursement is sought are reasonable in

amount and were necessary for the effective and efficient litigation of the case. The

expenses are all of a type that, in my view, would normally be charged to a fee-

paying client in the private legal marketplace. My firm has received reimbursement

for similar expenses in numerous cases.



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

24. My firm seeks to be reimbursed $42,102.43 in out-of-pocket litigation

expenses as summarized below:

Expense Category Total Transcripts $21.60 FedEx/Delivery Charges $306.97 Filing Fees / Certificates of Good Standing $657 Westlaw/PACER $9,485.79 Conference Calls $243.89 Travel $19,001.83 Electronic Document Management $4,225 Expert Fees $4,987.50 Special Master Fees $3,172.85 Total $42,102.43

25. The following is additional information regarding these expenses:

(a) Transcripts: $21.60. The amount of $21.60 was paid for a

transcript of the April 20, 2016 proceeding before the Honorable P.K. Holmes, III,

in the Arkansas case.

(b) FedEx/Delivery Charges: $306.97. These costs were incurred to

federal express documents relating to the Litigation on eleven occasions.

(c) Filing Fees / Certificates of Good Standing: $657. These costs

were paid in connection with my and Mr. Schork’s motions for pro hac vice

(together, $650), and to purchase the required certificates of good standing filed in

support of such motion ($7 total).

(d) Electronic Research: $9,485.79. The amount of $9,462.79 was

paid to Westlaw for legal research, and the amount of $23 was paid to PACER for

research in federal court filings. Westlaw is used to obtain access to legal research,

factual databases, and for cite-checking of briefs. The expense amount detailed

herein represents the out-of-pocket costs incurred by my firm in connection with

use of these services in connection with this litigation. My firm has a flat-rate

contract with Westlaw for use of its services. When my firm utilizes Westlaw



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

services, the case name is entered for the specific case being researched. At the end

of each billing period in which a service is used, my firm’s costs for such services

are allocated to specific cases based on the percentage of use in connection with

that specific case in the billing period. As a result of the contract negotiated by my

firm, the Class enjoys substantial savings in comparison with the “market-rate” for

a la carte use of online legal research services, which some law firms pass on to

their clients.

(e) Conference Calls: $243.89. These conference call charges were

incurred to make or host conference calls with Toyota’s attorneys or with our co-

counsel for meet and confers on discovery and for settlement negotiations. The

charges were also incurred to host conference calls with Plaintiffs’ counsel to

discuss assignments, strategy, and other matters. At my firm, each conference call

is allocated to the relevant case shortly before or after the call occurs, and the

conference call charges for each case are entered into our billing system.

(f) Travel: $19,001.83. These costs were paid by my firm in

connection with my traveling to nine face-to-face settlement meetings and to

multiple court appearances and hearings. The amount includes the costs of airfare,

lodging, food, and transportation associated with such trips.

(g) Electronic Document Management Fees: $4,225. These costs

were paid by my firm to DTI Global for loading, storing, and managing the

documents produced in the action in response to discovery requests.2 My firm,

BHO, and other Plaintiffs’ counsel were then able to review and code documents

using Relativity, accessible through DTI. The costs also include the monthly user

fees paid by my firm to DTI to access the document review platform.

2 My firm and BHO shared the costs of paying DTI for these services. Amounts paid by BHO to DTI are not included in the above figure.



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

(h) Expert Fees: $4,987.50. My firm paid these amounts to two

consulting experts retained in this matter.3

(i) Special Master Fees: $3,172.85. My firm paid Court-appointed

Special Master Patrick A. Juneau $3,172.85 for his work in this matter.4

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of

America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 24th day of February

2017, at Chicago, Illinois.

Dated: February 24, 2017

By: /s/ Ben Barnow

BEN BARNOW

3 Payments to these experts were shared by my firm and BHO. Amounts paid by BHO to these experts are not included in the above figure. 4 Payments to Special Master Juneau were shared by my firm and BHO. Amounts paid by BHO to Special Master Juneau are not included in the above figure.


Exhibit A


BEN BARNOW BARNOW AND ASSOCIATES

a professional corporation ATTORNEYS AT LAW

Ben Barnow is nationally recognized for his experience in leading some of the

nation’s largest consumer class actions. In that capacity, he has successfully led the prosecution of a number of large-scale class actions relating to consumer protection issues, consumer data security breaches, and antitrust violations. He has been appointed to and served in leadership positions in cases throughout the nation, in both state and federal courts, including MDL proceedings. His efforts have delivered resolutions in numerous significant cases, including cases against America Online, Inc., DaimlerChrysler Corporation, McDonald’s Corporation, Microsoft Corporation, Shell Oil Company, and various Sony entities.

Ben Barnow graduated from the University of Wisconsin in June of 1966 with a Bachelor’s degree in Business Administration. He received his Juris Doctor from the University of Michigan Law School in May of 1969. He is licensed to practice in the State of Illinois and the State of New York. Mr. Barnow is also admitted to practice before the Supreme Court of the United States of America, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, and the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin. He is a member of the American Bar Association, the American Association for Justice, the Illinois State Bar Association, and the Chicago Bar Association where he serves as a member of its Cy Pres Committee. He has also served as a member of the Panel of Arbitrators of the American Arbitration Association; in that capacity, he arbitrated a number of disputes. He is listed in Martindale-Hubbell with an AV rating.


Ben Barnow was an Associate Professor at Northern Michigan University from 1969-1971, where he taught business law and unfair competition. Mr. Barnow joined the law firm of Herrick, McNeill, McElroy & Peregrine in July 1971, where he became a partner in 1977.

As part of a series of articles by Law360 featuring notable plaintiff attorneys,

Ben Barnow was recognized as a Titan of the Plaintiffs Bar, and Barnow and Associates, P.C. “a plaintiffs’ class action outfit known for winning big-time antitrust and data breach settlements . . .” Sindhu Sundar, Titan of the Plaintiffs Bar: Ben Barnow, Law360 (Oct. 8, 2014), http://www.law360.com/ articles/ 585655/ titan-of-the-plaintiffs-bar-ben-barnow (last visited Dec. 30, 2014).

Selected Litigation Cases Deceptive Trade Practice and Other Consumer Protection Cases Palace v. DaimlerChrysler Corp. Ben Barnow was one of Co-Lead Class Counsel in this litigation relating to the defendant’s alleged sale of Neon model vehicles containing defective head gaskets. After several years of contested litigation, a settlement was reached and granted final approval, making up to $8.25 million available to Class members for reimbursement of repair costs and other expenses. Schulte v. Fifth Third Bank. Ben Barnow served as one of Co-Lead Settlement Class Counsel in this action relating to allegations that the defendant unlawfully re-sequenced debit card transactions in order to maximize overdraft fees. In this capacity, he negotiated a settlement with Defendant’s counsel providing for the establishment of a $9.5 million settlement fund and including substantial injunctive relief, the present value of which Plaintiffs’ expert estimated to be approximately $58.8 million over five years and $108.3 million over ten years. The settlement has been granted final approval. Miner v. Philip Morris USA, Inc. Ben Barnow served as one of Class Counsel in this litigation concerning Philip Morris USA, Inc.’s practice of marketing and selling its Marlboro Lights and Marlboro Ultra-Lights cigarettes as less harmful to smoke than regular cigarettes when, in fact, they were not. A settlement was reached and granted final approval, providing for Philip Morris’s payment of $45,000,000 for the benefit of class members.


Schwab v. America Online, Inc. (America Online Access Litigation). Ben Barnow served as Class Counsel and Co-Chair in this highly publicized litigation relating to AOL’s representation that users would have unlimited access to AOL for $19.95/month and the connectivity problems that ensued in conjunction therewith. In the face of what was ultimately over one hundred class actions filed nationwide, Mr. Barnow organized over 50 law firms and set up the co-chairmanship and the Executive Committee, which brought order and resolution to this litigation. A settlement was reached and was granted final approval, resulting in a multi-million dollar benefit to a Class estimated to include over 8 million people. Boland v. McDonald’s Corp. (McDonald’s Sweepstakes Litigation). As Co-Lead Class Counsel in this litigation, Ben Barnow coordinated the efforts of approximately 25 plaintiffs’ firms. The litigation concerned certain McDonald’s promotional games and arose from the fraudulent removal of winning game pieces from random public distribution. Mr. Barnow developed and accomplished the settlement concept; to wit, for a chance lost, a chance would be given. The settlement, valued at approximately $20 million, included fifteen $1 million prizes given away by random selection. The settlement included the United States and nine other countries. Campos v. Calumet Transload R.R., LLC, Ben Barnow served as one of Co-Lead Settlement Class Counsel in this litigation relating to the defendants’ alleged negligent storage and handling of petroleum coke and coal at certain industrial storage facilities in Chicago, Illinois. Two settlements were reached which collectively provided for the payment of $1,455,000 for the benefit of Settlement Class members. The settlements were granted final approval. Fernandez v. Vitamin Shoppe Industries, Inc. Ben Barnow served as Co-Lead Counsel in this national class action that settled, resulting in injunctive relief regarding labeling practices, and additional relief by way of discount coupons and cy pres relief to appropriate charities. Gianopolous v. Interstate Brand Corp. and Interstate Bakeries Corp. Ben Barnow was appointed one of Class Counsel in this litigation concerning allegedly adulterated bakery goods. A settlement was reached and granted final approval, making valuable relief available to consumers.


Glenz v. RCI, LLC. Ben Barnow served as one of three Class Counsel in this litigation involving the RCI Points program and allegations of improper use of points by RCI. The settlement made available cash benefits of approximately $19,000,000 to members of the Settlement Class, and included substantial injunctive relief. Final approval of the settlement has been granted. Heilman v. Perfection Corp. Ben Barnow served as Co-Lead Class Counsel in this national class action concerning allegedly defective dip tubes in over 14.2 million hot water tanks sold throughout the United States. In this capacity, Mr. Barnow organized twenty-three law firms and oversaw numerous filings in bringing about a national unified settlement that provided for a 100% recovery of out-of-pocket expenses and requisite repairs, including preventive replacement of all concerned dip tubes, whether or not the dip tubes had actually failed. In Re: Chicago Flood Litigation. As Co-Lead Class Counsel and a member of the Executive Committee, Ben Barnow was responsible for several major aspects of this class action, which included years of litigation, appellate practice, trial, and a multi-million dollar settlement. Mr. Barnow argued a related portion of the matter before the Supreme Court of the United States, Jerome B. Grubart, Inc. v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co., 513 U.S. 527 (1995), and was responsible for preparing the petition for a writ of certiorari and all related filings. At the Supreme Court level, opposing counsel was John Roberts, who now sits as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. In Re: High Sulfur Content Gasoline Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 1632 (“Shell Oil”). Ben Barnow served as Co-Lead Settlement Class Counsel in this 26-case MDL proceeding relating to the defendant’s alleged sale of defective gasoline. A settlement was reached and was granted final approval, resulting in approximately $100 million being made available towards the satisfaction of consumers’ claims. In Re: Mercury Class Action Litigation. Ben Barnow served as Co-Lead Class Counsel in this case relating to the location of mercury-containing gas regulators in and on real estate. A settlement was reached and granted final approval that provided for medical monitoring, removal of the regulators, and cash compensation to certain class members.


In Re: M3Power Marketing Practices Litigation, MDL No. 1704. Ben Barnow was appointed Co-Lead Class Counsel in this MDL proceeding relating to the defendant’s allegedly deceptive marketing and sale of M3Power shaving razors. A settlement was reached and granted final approval, making available benefits of more than $7 million to Class members. In Re: Pilot Flying J Fuel Rebate Contract Litigation. Ben Barnow served as one of Settlement Class Counsel in this litigation involving allegations that the defendants withheld portions of fuel discounts and rebates that Class members were contractually entitled to receive in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-68 (“RICO”), and various state laws. The settlement was granted final approval. In Re: Starlink Corn Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 1403. Ben Barnow served as Co-Lead Class Counsel in this MDL proceeding relating to the alleged inclusion of genetically engineered corn in the defendants’ food products. A settlement was reached, valued at $9 million, including the return of up to $6 million to consumers on a fluid recovery/cy pres basis through price reduction on future purchases coupled with a cash payment to approved charities based on shortfall in the redemption. In Re: United Parcel Service, Inc., Shipper Excess Value Insurance Coverage Litigation. Ben Barnow was one of Settlement Class Counsel in this litigation. A settlement was reached and granted final approval, providing relief to UPS shippers who had paid premiums for excess value insurance coverage. Ori v. Fifth Third Bank. Ben Barnow served as one of Co-Lead Settlement Class Counsel in this action relating to inactive mortgage loans that were erroneously reported as active to Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies. The Settlement Class included approximately 55,000 individuals, and the settlement made available cash benefits of approximately $3,000,000 to members of the Settlement Class. Final approval of the settlement has been granted. Orrick v. Sonic Communications. Ben Barnow was one of Lead Class Counsel in this matter relating to the practice known as “slamming.” The private actions and actions filed on behalf of various Attorneys General were consolidated. A settlement covering all of the pending cases and providing benefits of approximately $8.3


million was achieved and granted final approval. This litigation is believed to be the first class certification and class settlement relating to the practice known as “slamming.” Rosen v. Ingersoll-Rand Co., Kryptonite Corp. Ben Barnow was Co-Lead Class Counsel in this matter relating to allegedly defective bicycle locks. Mr. Barnow organized 18 U.S. and Canadian law firms and negotiated a settlement on behalf of Class members in the United States and Canada. The settlement was granted final approval, providing valuable relief to purchasers of the allegedly defective U-shaped tubular cylinder bicycle locks throughout the United States and Canada. Schneider v. Dominick’s Finer Foods, Inc. Ben Barnow was Co-Class Counsel in this matter relating to the defendant’s alleged failure to deliver on representations of 100% ground beef. A settlement was reached and granted final approval, which included significant remedial relief in the form of shop signage regarding cleanliness and meat grinding practices, and fluid recovery mechanisms to compensate the class members by way of in-store sales and published coupons. Schwab v. Binney & Smith. Ben Barnow served as Co-Lead Class Counsel in this case relating to crayons that were produced for decades with talc, which allegedly contained, or was subject to containing, asbestos. Mr. Barnow negotiated a national class settlement that contributed to the reformulation of most crayons produced in this country, so as to eliminate the inclusion of talc and, thus, the alleged asbestos inclusion, and the settlement was granted final approval. This represented one of the largest classes ever certified, if not the largest. Siegel v. Syncronys. Ben Barnow was Co-Class Counsel in this nationwide class action concerning an allegedly defective computer product. The matter was settled, resulting in a remedy for the Class that provided for a 100% reimbursement on moneys spent for the product; the value of the settlement was estimated at $22 million. Smith v. J.M. Smucker Co. Ben Barnow was Class Counsel in this litigation relating to allegedly deceptive advertising practices. Mr. Barnow negotiated a national settlement and organized a group of plaintiffs’ counsel from over 25 firms throughout the country who supported the settlement. The settlement was granted final approval, making available valuable relief to consumers of spreadable fruit products labeled “Simply 100% Fruit,” including a change of labeling practices by


the defendant, which added and maintained the following language, in prominent fashion, on the front label of its Simply 100% Fruit products: “Sweetened with fruit syrup from apple, pineapple or pear juice concentrate,” thus fairly and fully advising consumers of the product they were purchasing. Stelk v. BeMusic, Inc. Ben Barnow served as Co-Lead Class Counsel in this litigation relating to charges for shipping and handling in the context of a “free” offer. The Class included an estimated 16 million members. A settlement was reached and granted final approval providing substantial relief to Class members, including a guaranteed minimum of $8 million. Antitrust Cases Wisconsin Civil Microsoft Antitrust Litigation. Ben Barnow served as one of Co-Lead Class Counsel in this indirect purchaser antitrust lawsuit. Mr. Barnow and his co-counsel successfully petitioned the Wisconsin Supreme Court to recognize the rights of indirect purchasers to recover under Wisconsin’s antitrust laws. Olstad v. Microsoft Corp., 700 N.W.2d 139 (Wis. 2005). Subsequently thereto, Mr. Barnow negotiated a settlement valued at approximately $224 million that was granted final approval by the Court. Arkansas, Kansas, South Dakota Civil Microsoft Antitrust Litigations. Ben Barnow served as a Co-Lead Class Counsel in the Arkansas, Kansas, and South Dakota Microsoft civil antitrust cases. Each of these cases settled and the settlements were granted final approval. Fond Du Lac Bumper Exchange, Inc. v. Jui Li Enterprise Co., Ltd., Ben Barnow serves as a Co-Lead Counsel for third-party payor plaintiffs in this antitrust action alleging that certain defendants conspired to artificially inflate the prices of aftermarket sheet metal automotive parts sold in the United States. Settlements with four of the six defendants have been granted final approval, collectively providing for the payment of $9,850,000 for the benefit of the Settlement Class. Loeb Industries, Inc. v. Sumitomo Corp. Ben Barnow served as Co-Lead Counsel in this nationwide class action antitrust litigation, which sought recovery on behalf of a class of scrap copper purchasers who were allegedly harmed by activities


allegedly designed to manipulate the copper market. A $20 million cash settlement with one of the defendants (Merrill Lynch) was reached and granted final approval. Microsoft Civil Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1332. Ben Barnow served as a member of the nine-member Plaintiffs’ Lead Counsel Committee in this MDL antitrust proceeding before Judge Motz in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. Vichreva v. Cabot Corp., et al. Ben Barnow served as Co-Lead Counsel in this Florida antitrust litigation. An $825,500 common fund, which is believed to be the largest per-consumer Carbon Black state court antitrust class action settlement in the country, was obtained. Data Security Breach Cases In Re: Sony Gaming Networks and Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, MDL 2258. The Honorable Anthony J. Battaglia appointed Ben Barnow to the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee—a committee of seven firms established to lead the litigation—in this MDL proceeding involving over 60 cases relating to a data security breach that affected approximately 50 million consumers in the United States and Canada. A settlement agreement was entered into and has been granted final approval. At the final fairness hearing, Judge Battaglia remarked: “Just in the final analysis, the order, much like all the work by both sides throughout the case, has been impeccable, highly professional, and skilled. It’s been a real pleasure dealing with you.” In Re: TJX Retail Security Breach Litigation, MDL No. 1838. Ben Barnow served as one of Co-Lead Settlement Class Counsel for the Consumer Track in this MDL proceeding relating to the theft of approximately 45,000,000 credit and debit card numbers used at TJX stores and the personal information of over 454,000 TJX customers. Mr. Barnow took the lead in negotiating a settlement with TJX’s attorneys that made available benefits valued at over $200 million to the Class. The Honorable Judge Young granted final approval to the settlement, which he referred to as “excellent” and as containing “innovative” and “groundbreaking” elements.


In Re: Countrywide Fin. Corp. Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, MDL No. 1998. Ben Barnow served as one of Co-Lead Settlement Class Counsel in this forty-case MDL proceeding relating to a former Countrywide employee’s theft and sale of millions of Countrywide customers’ private and confidential information. Mr. Barnow negotiated a settlement that was granted final approval, making benefits valued at over $650 million available to approximately seventeen (17) million Settlement Class Members. In the opinion granting final approval to the settlement, the Honorable Chief Judge Russell noted that “Co-Lead Settlement Counsel are nationally recognized in the field of class actions, particularly those involving security breaches,” and stated that “the Court was impressed with Co-Lead Counsel and Countrywide counsels’ knowledge and skill, as represented in the various motions and hearings that took place throughout this settlement process.” In Re: Heartland Payment Systems Inc., Data Security Breach Litigation, MDL No. 2046. Ben Barnow served as one of Co-Lead Counsel for the Consumer Track in this MDL proceeding relating to what has been reported as one of the largest (if not the largest) data security breaches in history. Mr. Barnow negotiated a settlement on behalf of a Settlement Class that is estimated to include more than 120 million members. Notice of the settlement was completed and only one objection was received. Final approval of the settlement has been granted. Lockwood v. Certegy Check Services, Inc. Ben Barnow served as one of Co-Lead Settlement Class Counsel in this consolidated proceeding relating to the theft of approximately 37 million individuals’ private and confidential information from Certegy Check Services, Inc.’s computer databases. Mr. Barnow organized all plaintiffs’ counsel and pending cases without the benefit of an MDL and negotiated a settlement that was granted final approval, making benefits valued at over $500 million available to Settlement Class Members. At the final fairness hearing, the Honorable Judge Merryday described the settlement as a “good deal,” providing “a real benefit to a large class of persons” as “the result of the focused attention of skilled counsel for a protracted time.” McGann v. Schnuck Markets, Inc., Ben Barnow served as one of Co-Lead Settlement Class Counsel in this proceeding relating to the theft of the credit and debit card information of an estimated 777,000 individuals from point-of-sale terminals at affected Schnucks stores. Mr. Barnow negotiated a settlement that has been granted final approval, making significant benefits available to the Settlement Class.


Rowe v. Unicare Life and Health Insurance Co. Ben Barnow was Lead Counsel in this proceeding relating to the defendants’ alleged failure to secure the private health information of approximately 220,000 individuals enrolled in the defendants’ health insurance plans, resulting in such information being accessible to the public via the Internet. Mr. Barnow negotiated a settlement that was granted final approval, making benefits valued at over $20 million available to Settlement Class Members. At the preliminary approval hearing, the Honorable Judge Hibbler described the efforts of the parties as “exemplary.” Public Speaking Engagements

1. Bridgeport Continuing Education’s 2016 Class Action Litigation & Management Conference (Los Angeles, CA, April 15, 2016) (Program Co-Chair)

2. HarrisMartin’s Data Breach Litigation Conference: The Coming of Age Agenda (San Diego, CA, March 25, 2015), topic: “Creative Approaches to Settling Data Breach Cases.”

3. Bridgeport Continuing Education’s 2014 National Consumer Class

Action Conference (Chicago, IL, Jun. 12-13, 2014); topic: “Privacy/TCPA Class Actions: State of the Law, Claims and Defenses, What Does the Future Hold?”

4. HarrisMartin’s MDL Conference: Target Data Security Breach

Litigation (San Diego, CA, Mar. 26, 2014); topic: “Settlement of a Data Breach Case.”

5. NetDiligence Cyber Risk & Privacy Liability Forum (Marina del

Rey, CA, Oct. 11–12, 2012).

6. 25th Annual Producer Conference (Stowe, VT, Sept. 10–12, 2012); topic: “Cyber 2.0—The Evolution of Cyber in the Boardroom.”


7. NetDiligence 2012 Cyber Risk & Privacy Liability Forum (Philadelphia, PA, June 4–5, 2012); topic: “State of the Cyber Nation—Cases, Theories, and Damages.”

8. Tulane University Law School’s symposium on The Problem of

Multidistrict Litigation (February 15–16, 2008); topic: “The Practicalities of Multidistrict Litigation.”


ERICH P. SCHORK

Mr. Schork is an associate at Barnow and Associates, P.C. He received his Juris Doctor magna cum laude from The University of Illinois College of Law, where he was an editor of the University of Illinois Law Review and a member of the Illinois College of Law’s National Moot Court Team, and received his Bachelor of Science in Management from Purdue University. He is licensed to practice in the State of Illinois. He is also admitted to practice before the United States Courts of Appeals for the Third, Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth Circuits, and the United States District Courts for the Northern District of Illinois and the Eastern District of Wisconsin.

Mr. Schork’s practice focuses on complex consumer fraud, antitrust, and

privacy class action matters. He has more than a decade of experience prosecuting some of the nation’s largest class action cases in state and federal courts throughout the country. Mr. Schork’s achievements include successfully arguing before the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in In re Horizon Healthcare Services Inc. Data Breach Litig., 846 F.3d 625 (3d Cir. 2017), and before the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Galaria v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co., 663 Fed App’x 384 (6th Cir. 2016). In both decisions, the Court of Appeals vacated the decision of the trial court and remanded the matter for further proceedings.

The cases Mr. Schork has worked on include the following: Fond Du Lac

Bumper Exchange, Inc. v. Jui Li Enterprise Co., Ltd., (E.D. Wis.) (settlements reached with four of six defendants in this ongoing international antitrust action providing for the payment of $9,850,000); Miner v. Philip Morris USA, Inc. (Ark. Cir. Ct.) ($45 million settlement reached relating to allegations that the defendant engaged in deceptive marketing practices); Campos v. Calumet Transload R.R., LLC (N.D. Ill.) (settlements reached providing for payment of $1,455,000 for the benefit of the Settlement Class in action relating to the alleged negligent storage and handling of petroleum coke and coal at certain industrial storage facilities); In Re: Sony Gaming Networks and Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, MDL 2258 (S.D. Cal.) (settlement reached in this 60-case data breach MDL); Schulte v. Fifth Third Bank (N.D. Ill.) ($9.5 million settlement fund and injunctive relief valued at $108.4 million over ten years achieved relating to allegations that the defendant unlawfully re-sequenced debit card transactions); In Re: Countrywide Fin. Corp. Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, MDL No. 1998 (W.D. Ky.) (settlement reached in this 40-


case data breach MDL making benefits valued at over $650 million available to the Class); In Re: TJX Retail Security Breach Litigation, MDL No. 1838 (D. Mass.) (settlement reached in this data breach MDL making benefits valued at over $200 million available to the Class); In Re: High Sulfur Content Gasoline Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 1632 (E.D. La.) (settlement reached in this 26-case MDL relating to the alleged sale of defective gasoline resulting in approximately $100 million being made available towards satisfaction of consumers’ claims); Palace v. DaimlerChrysler Corp. (Ill. Cir. Ct.) ($8.25 million settlement achieved relating to the defendant’s alleged sale of vehicles with defective head gaskets).

JEFFREY BLAKE Jeff Blake is an associate at Barnow and Associates, P.C. He earned his Juris

Doctor, cum laude, from Chicago-Kent College of Law in 2012. During his time there, he participated in the Chicago-Kent Law Review as Executive Articles Editor. He received his Bachelor of Science from the University of Illinois at Chicago. He is admitted to practice in the State of Illinois and before the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Prior to joining Barnow and Associates, P.C., Mr. Blake was a judicial law clerk for the Honorable Patrick J. McKay, Superior Court Judge for the Third Judicial District of Alaska.

Mr. Blake’s practice focuses on complex consumer class action litigation.

Since joining the firm in 2014, he has been involved in the prosecution of class action matters involving the alleged violation of certain privacy and data security breach laws, state deceptive trade practices acts, and federal consumer protection laws, including the Fair Credit Reporting Act, Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, and the Telephone Consumer Privacy Act. His experience includes litigating deceptive trade practice claims against food and automobile manufacturers, and litigating privacy and data security breach cases against credit reporting agencies and insurance companies.


ANTHONY L. PARKHILL

Mr. Parkhill is an associate at the firm. He received his Juris Doctor from The University of Chicago Law School in 2014. He received his Bachelor of Arts, summa cum laude, in Political Science from DePaul University in 2010. He is admitted to practice in the State of Illinois and before the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

Prior to joining Barnow and Associates, P.C., Mr. Parkhill worked as Special

Assistant Corporation Counsel for the City of Chicago Law Department (2014-2015) and as an associate attorney at the law firm of Haynes, Studnicka, Kahan, O’Neill, and Poulakidas (2015-2016). In these roles, Mr. Parkhill had primary responsibility for substantial cases spanning a variety of practice areas, including commercial litigation in state and federal courts, catastrophic injury defense, administrative law, and coverage litigation.

Mr. Parkhill’s practice focuses on complex consumer fraud, antitrust, and

privacy class action matters. Since joining Barnow and Associates, P.C., in April of 2016, Mr. Parkhill has represented parties in connection with a multitude of important class action matters including cases regarding food labeling, breaches of data privacy and security, and automotive deceptive trade practices.


Exhibit B


600 W. Broadway Suite 2100 San Diego, CA 92101

T 619.234.3181 F 619.234.3068 roberthalflegal.com

Rommel Dizon

EDUCATION

CALIFORNIA WESTERN SCHOOL OF LAW, San Diego, CA

Juris Doctorate, April 2011

Dean’s Scholar; President, Hawaii Law Student Association

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT RIVERSIDE, Riverside, CA

B.A., Economics/Law & Society, December 2006

Alpha Phi Omega, Circle K International

EXPERIENCE

Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman December 2015

– March 2016

Staff Attorney

Staff attorney working on a complex class action case involving long-term care insurance.

Research and write memorandums to determine whether insurance carrier misrepresented

its claim regarding adequate monetary reserves to pay for claims.

Proficient with both Relativity and DocuMatrix database programs.

Johnson & Weaver, LLP November 2015 –

January 2016

Staff Attorney

Staff attorney working on a shareholder rights litigation case involving misrepresentations

made by a popular online deal site.

Conducted relevance review and second-level privilege review using the Concordance

database program.

Nossaman, LLP

October 2015

Staff Attorney

Staff attorney working worked on government and administrative law case involving the

development of

a major highway.

Perform quality control review on Relativity database program




Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman August 2014 –

February 2015

Staff Attorney

Staff attorney working on a complex class action case involving residential mortgage

backed securities.

Research and write mediation memorandums on complex issues involving home loan

origination and securitization.

Discover violations in loan origination and securitization processes and communicate them

to head attorneys to strengthen their case.

Proficient in DocuMatrix database program.

Conduct first-level review and second-level quality control review of discovery evidence.

American Federation of Government Employees, Local 3723 November 2012 –

December 2014

Business Representative

Represent federal civilian employees and the organization in all types of employment

matters such as disciplinary proceedings, discrimination complaints, MSPB proceedings,

ULPs, EEO proceedings, OSC complaints, Privacy Act complaints, contract negotiation,

and arbitration.

Advise union officials on the proper representation of employees and contract negotiations.

Ensure organization and employer is in compliance with collective bargaining agreements,

laws, and regulations.

Make requests to the agency pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to

investigate employee complaints.

Draft and review settlement agreements and contracts between employees and

management.

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan January 2014 –

March 2014

Contract Attorney

Staff attorney working on a multi-billion dollar case involving residential mortgage backed

securities.

Familiar with the processes of residential home loan origination and securities regulation.

Identify violations of federal securities laws and loan origination practices.

Proficient in both Relativity and Xerox OmniX database programs.

Conduct first-level relevance review and second-level privilege review.




Law Office of Russell S. Babcock, San Diego, CA April 2010 –

August 2012

Associate Attorney/Post-Bar Law Clerk/Legal Intern

Criminal defense attorney for a boutique law firm that handles all types of cases, including

major fraud, drug, homicide, and sex cases.

Assisted lead attorneys in preparation for litigation such as researching and writing

memorandums on complex issues of criminal law, compiling evidence to be used at trial,

summarizing transcripts, drafting motions and arguments for lead attorneys. .

Managed the firm’s appellate department and wrote appeals in both state and federal court,

including a death penalty opening brief.

Appeared in court for arraignments, motions, change of pleas, continuances, and proof

hearings.

Communicated extensively with clients regarding their cases.

Employee Rights Center, San Diego, CA April 2009 –

September 2009

Legal Intern

Union representative for American Federation of Government Employees, Local 3723,

federal government employee union.

Researched, wrote, and submitted grievances to employer pertaining to violations of the

Collective Bargaining Agreement.

Traveled to work sites throughout Southern California for meetings between employer and

employees.

Researched and drafted memorandums regarding employment issues to be used in litigation

and administrative proceedings.

Observed employee contract negotiations and mediations

Discussed with the union on how to improve their union contract and best practices.

PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIPS AND AWARDS

State Bar of California December

2011-Present

Board Member, Filipino American Lawyers of San Diego January

2012 - Present

“Best of Bar” Honoree by San Diego Business Journal

2015 - 2016




Jorge F. Espinosa

Education Santa Clara University School of Law

Juris Doctor, May 2007 California Bar No. 269189 (Admitted March 2010) Admitted to U.S.D.C. Southern District of California

University of California, Berkeley School of Letters and Science B.A. in Political Science, May 2000

Experience SELF EMPLOYED

Attorney October 2012 to Present Represented clients in Chapter 7 and Chapter 13 bankruptcy proceedings; successfully confirmed Chapter 13 plan for client; assisted other attorneys with the preparation and filing of their Chapter 7 and Chapter 13 cases; made special appearances on behalf of other attorneys; advised clients on personal property sale agreement, services agreement, and real estate issues.

TOWER LEGAL SOLUTIONS, Mexico City Contractor – Document Review May 2014 to January 2015

April 2015 to October 2015 Participated in a document review in Mexico City related to an internal investigation of a major financial institution; reviewed documents in Spanish using Relativity software for responsiveness, and for other specific issues determined by the client; participated in other projects such as summarizing content of audio tapes, redacting documents for privilege and to conform to Bank Secrecy laws, and reviewed other team members’ work in order to maintain quality control, among other tasks.

ADVANCED DISCOVERY LLC, Irvine, CA

Contractor – Document Review June 2013 to November 2013 Participated in a business litigation document review involving an international food manufacturer; reviewed documents in Spanish using Relativity software for responsiveness, privilege, and for other specific issues determined by client; redacted documents according to protocol; formulated searches in Relativity to narrow down document sets, reviewed other team members’ work in order to maintain quality control.




LAW OFFICES OF KENNETH M. COOKE, San Diego, CA Associate Attorney December 2010 to October 2012

Assisted clients with their bankruptcy case from the initial client interview up to the discharge of debts and with post-discharge issues. Advised clients regarding their options between Chapter 7 and Chapter 13 bankruptcies, as well as on issues related to their particular case. Reviewed bankruptcy petitions and related paperwork with clients. Represented clients at the 341(a) Meeting of Creditors, as well as in Chapter 13 related court hearings. Gained experience dealing with violations of the automatic stay and post-discharge violations, as well as drafting motions. Assisted clients in Spanish.

CASA CORNELIA LAW CENTER, San Diego, CA Pro Bono Attorney March 2010 to October 2010

Personally handled an asylum application with the guidance of the law center’s staff attorney. Responsibilities include representing the client in Immigration Court, drafting client’s immigration application and related motions, researching applicable law, and arguing the client’s case at an individual merits hearing.

FINDLAW (THOMSON REUTERS), Sunnyvale, CA

Contractor April 2008 to July 2008

Summarized federal circuit court, state supreme and appellate court opinions for the company's daily e-mail newsletter and online case summary database. Edited ABA reference material for the website's reference library.

LEXIS NEXIS (MATTHEW BENDER), San Francisco, CA

Contractor October 2007 to December 2007

Edited legal volumes, collaborating closely with the author or the in-house editor, throughout various stages of the publication process. Updated LexisNexis’ online database using their proprietary software; worked on setting up several practice areas on LexisNexis Total Practice Solutions.

KATHARINE & GEORGE ALEXANDER COMMUNITY LAW CENTER,

Santa Clara, CA

Workers’ Rights Clinic Student and Volunteer

Interviewed walk-in clients in English or Spanish in order to gather information regarding the person’s workers’ right claim. Analyzed facts, researched for the applicable law, and recommended a course of action for the client under the guidance of a supervising attorney.

MÁRQUEZ, BOND & MEISEL LLP, San José, CA

Law Clerk June 2006 to August 2006

Researched issues on third party liability, change of control, & workplace harassment; wrote memorandums for clients and attorney regarding various issues; assisted attorney with court filings and general paperwork related to various clients.




FAST TRACK LITIGATION SUPPORT, Oakland, CA

Project Manager September 2001 to May 2004

Created and administered coding cases for the Coding Department; prepared invoices and weekly departmental forecasts; maintained and fostered relationships with clients by writing weekly status reports detailing a project’s progress; coordinated with the Directors of the Coding Department and Electronic Evidence, as well as Team Leaders in order to ensure the efficient and timely completion of projects; organized and maintained case binders, coded data archive and image archive. Supervised a team of 22 independent contractors for various coding & unitizing projects; worked independently in the export of finished coding project and the creation of a final data base for the client.

Other Skills Fluent in Spanish and English, Typing - 60 WPM, Adobe Photoshop, MS Windows, MS

Word/Excel, IPro, Relativity, Summation, Concordance, EZ-Filing




MIKE S. LI

E X P E R I E N C E

Law Office of Mike S. Li, Esq. – San Diego, CA 2011 – Present

Active member in good standing of the State Bars of California and Nevada (CA #277335 and NV #12433)

Contract Attorney. Reviewed documents for multiple Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities class actions. Most notably:

one brought by the Federal Housing Finance Agency against Countrywide via Bank of America (settled in March 2014 for

$9.3 billion); another brought by the Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi against Bear Stearns via

JPMorgan Chase (settled in May 2015 for $500 million).

Familiar with the processes of residential home loan origination and securitization.

Conducted first level review for relevance as well as second level quality control review for privilege.

Proficient in electronic discovery platforms: LDiscovery's Relativity, Xerox's OmniX, and Epiq's DocuMatrix.

Summarized deposition testimony of key figures from previous RMBS litigation.

Attorney. Established general civil practice with an emphasis on Consumer Rights Law (consumer debt, identity theft, fair

debt collection, and class actions). Managed caseload of approximately 25 clients at peak.

Drafted Complaints, Answers, Discovery Requests, Discovery Responses, and various Motions.

Attended various hearings such as Case Management Conferences and Trial Readiness Conferences.

Deposed plaintiffs in consumer debt cases, including original lenders and third party collection agencies.

Negotiated global settlements regarding alleged consumer debt and potential fair debt collection violations.

Composed approval documents for class action settlements under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Legal Writing Editor. Touched over 75 articles discussing various aspects of legal procedure and a wide range of

substantive matters. Primary responsibility of simplifying language and increasing overall readability for a lay audience.

Explained complicated processes such as joining a class action settlement or participating in multidistrict

litigation.

Demystified complex legal theories and causes of action such as product liability and personal injury by

replacing technical terms and legal jargon.

Sharpened focus by eliminating lengthy hypothetical situations and overly-detailed descriptions of legal

minutiae.

Highlighted key information by distinguishing it from legally irrelevant facts

Blue Shield of California – San Francisco, CA 2015

Product Operations Analyst for Customer Contract Development. Worked with a team of approximately 25 on a wide

variety of projects related to the development and production of both filing document (standard form) and street document

(distribution-ready) versions of member-facing artifacts.

Custom Fulfillment: prepared Contracts and Evidence of Coverage (EOC) booklets for over 75 custom groups,

consisting primarily of Health Maintenance Organization (HMO) and Preferred Provider Organization (PPO)

plans.

EOC Rewrite: revised over 20 sections of the EOC of varying length. Rewrote language to be clear and concise

without distorting benefit intent. Helped reduce average reading level from college level to high school level.

C O M M U N I T Y

Pan Asian Lawyers of San Diego – San Diego, CA 2009

Student Representative. Served as the liaison between fellow law students and the board of directors of a local diversity

bar association. Worked closely with board members to plan, organize, and host events for students, attorneys, and judges.

Moot Court Honors Board – San Diego, CA 2009

Chairman of the Judges Committee. Directed the recruitment of attorneys to serve as judges in intramural moot court

competitions. Served as the point of contact between campus organization and the legal community. Established new

policies resulting in more efficient recruiting. Coordinated efforts of 25 members including direct oversight of a 5 person

committee.

CWSL Student Bar Association – San Diego, CA 2008-2009

Treasurer. Supervised the allocation of a 1,000-person student body's annual budget of approximately $125,000.

Collaborated with school administration to refine existing processes, providing clarity and eliminating redundancy.




E D U C A T I O N

California Western School of Law – Juris Doctor (JD+MBA) 2011

San Diego State University – Master of Business Administration (JD+MBA) 2010


Case No. 2:15-cv-02171 FMO (FFMx)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

BL

OO

D H

UR

ST

& O

’RE

AR

DO

N, L

LP

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on February 27, 2017, I electronically filed the

foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send

notification of such filing to the e-mail addresses denoted on the Electronic Mail

Notice List, and I hereby certify that I have mailed the foregoing document or

paper via the United States Postal Service to the non-CM/ECF participants

indicated on the Electronic Mail Notice List.

I certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of

America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on February 27, 2017.

s/ Timothy G. Blood TIMOTHY G. BLOOD

BLOOD HURST & O’REARDON, LLP 701 B Street, Suite 1700 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: 619/338-1100 619/338-1101 (fax) [email protected]


barnow and associates, p.c. ben barnow (pro hac vice...

Documents