valdivia, et al. v. di pietro todd - post street llc, et ... · the three class representatives,...

Valdivia et al v Di Pietro Todd - Post Street LLC et al ndash Ps and As in Support of Motion for Attorneysrsquo Fees and Costs

Case No CGC-16-551342

1

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

28

Patrick R Kitchin Esq (State Bar No 162965) KITCHIN LEGAL APC 312 Sutter Street Suite 316 San Francisco CA 94108 Telephone (415) 677-9058 Email prkkitchinlegalcom Robert E Nuddleman Esq (State Bar No 190269) NUDDLEMAN LAW FIRM PC 5820 Stoneridge Mall Road Suite 207 Pleasanton CA 94588 Telephone (925) 400-9052 Email Robertnuddlemancom Counsel to Plaintiffs Mayra Valdivia Amanda Freeman and Noel Williams-Richardson

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

MAYRA VALDIVIA et al

Plaintiffs

vs

DI PIETRO TODD ndash POST STREET LLC a

California limited liability company DI

PIETRO TODD ndash WALNUT CREEK LLC a

California limited liability company DI

PIETRO TODD ndash FILLMORE STREET LLC

a California limited liability company DI

PIETRO TODD ndash MILL VALLEY LLC a

California limited liability company DPT-

PALO ALTO LLC a California limited

liability company and DOES 1-100 inclusive

Defendants

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )


POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN

SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR

ATTORNEYSrsquo FEES COSTS AND

SERVICE AWARDS TO PLAINTIFFS

JUDGE Hon Mary E Wiss

LOCATION Dept 305

400 McAllister Street

San Francisco California 94102

DATE 982017

TIME 930 am



i

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

28

Table of Contents

I INTRODUCTION AND REQUEST FOR RELIEFhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip2

II A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE LITIGATIONhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip3

III PLAINTIFFSrsquo COUNSELS ARE ENTITLED

TO AN AWARD OF FEES AND COSTShelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip4

A Statutory Authorityhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip4

B Methods of Calculationhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip5

IV PLAINTIFFSrsquo COUNSELSrsquo LODESTAR FIGURES SUPPORT THE

REQUESTED AWARDhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip6

A The Work Plaintiffsrsquo Counsels Performed and the Number of

Hours Spent on this Matter Are Reasonablehelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip6

B The Hourly Rates Upon Which Plaintiffsrsquo Lodestar Calculations

Are Based Are Reasonablehelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip7

V THE COMMON FUND DOCTRINE ALSO SUPPORTS CLASS

COUNSELSrsquo REQUESTED AWARD OF ATTORNEYSrsquo FEEShelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip10

A The Common Fund Doctrine is based on Principles of Fairness and

Justice10

B The Portion of the GSA Set Aside for Attorneysrsquo Fees is Reasonablehelliphellip12

C Plaintiffsrsquo Counsels Do Not Seek a Fee Enhancement or Multiplierhelliphelliphellip12

VI CLASS COUNSEL ARE ENTITLED TO REIMBURSEMENT OF THEIR

REASONABLE LITIGATION EXPENSES helliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip13

VII PLAINTIFFSrsquo REQUEST FOR SERVICE AWARDS TO THE CLASS

REPRESENTATIVES SHOULD BE APPROVED helliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip13

VIII CONCLUSION helliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip15



ii

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

28

Table of Authorities

Cases

California Cases

Arntz Cntracting Co v St Paul Fire and Marine Ins Co (1996) 47 Cal App 4th 464 13

Bussey v Affleck (1990) 225 Cal App 3d 1162 13

Cal Hous Fin Agency v ER Fairway Assocs (1995) 37 Cal App 4th 1508 13

Childrenrsquos Hosp and Med Ctr v Bonta (2002) 97 CalApp4th 740helliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip7

City and County of San Francisco v Sweet (1995) 12 Cal4th 105 10

Estate of Stauffer (1959) 53 Cal2d 124 11

Graham v DaimlerChrysler Corp (2014) 34 Cal 4th 553 6

Heritage Pacific Financial LLC v Monroy (2013) 215 CalApp4th

972 7

In re Vitamin Cases (2003) 110 CalApp4th 1041 6

Ketchum v Moses (2001) 24 Cal4th 1122 6 7

Laffitte v Robert Half International Inc (2016) 1 Cal5th

480 5 10 11 12

Lealao v Beneficial Cal Inc (2000) 82 Cal App4th 19 6 7

Linder v Thrifty Oil Co (2000) 23 Cal4th 429 11

Melendres v City of Los Angeles (1975) 45 CalApp3d 267 11

PLCM Group Inc v Drexler (2000) 22 Cal4th 1084 7

Robertson v Fleetwood Travel Trailers of Cal Inc (2006) 144 CalApp4th 785 7

Russell v EF Internl Lang Schools Inc (2016) LA Sup Ct Case No BC481435hellip 6 11

Serrano III v Priest (1977) 20 Cal3d 25 6 11

Syers Properties III Inc v Rankin (2014) 226 Cal App 4th 691 9

Vo v Las Virgenes Mun Water Dist (2000) 79 CalApp4th 440 6

Wershba v Apple Computer (2001) 91 CalApp4th 224 5

Federal Cases

Blanchard v Bergeron 489 US 87 96 (1989)helliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip7

Blum v Stenson 465 US 886 895 n11 (1984)helliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip7

Cabrales v County of Los Angeles 935 F2d 1050 1052-53 (9th Cir 1991) 6



iii

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

28

Camacho v Bridgeport Fin Inc 523 F3d 973 979 (9th Cir 2008) 7

Caudle v Bristow Optical Co Inc 224 F3d 1014 1028 (9th Cir 2000) 6

City of Detroit v Grinnell Corp 495 F2d 448 470 (2d Cir 1974) 6

Cook v Ligurotis 142 F3d 1004 1016 (7th Cir 1998)helliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip7

Cunningham v County of Los Angeles 879 F2d 481 488 (9th Cir 1988) 6

Guippone v BH SampB Holdings LLC No 09 Civ 1029 2011 US Dist LEXIS 126026 at

20 (SDNY Oct 28 2011) 14

Hanlon v Chrysler Group Inc 150 F3d 1011 1029 (9th Cir 1998) 6

Hensley v Eckerhart 461 US 424 431 (1983) 6

In re Bluetooth Headset Products Liab Lit 654 F3d 935 941 (9th Cir 2011) 6

In re HPL Technologies Inc Securities Litigation 366 F Supp 2d 912 920 (2005) 11

In re Linerboard Antitrust Litig 2004 US Dist LEXIS 10532 14

Laffey v Northwest Airlines Inc 572 F Supp 354 (DDC 1983) 9

Widrig v Apfel 140 F3d 1207 1209 (9th Cir 1998) 8

Statutes

California Rule of Court 3769helliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip5

Code of Civil Procedure sect 10215 5


Code of Civil Procedure sect 1033helliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip13

Labor Code sect 1194 5



Labor Code sect 2699helliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip5



2

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

28

I INTRODUCTION AND REQUEST FOR RELIEF

Granting final approval of the $1 million non-reversionary settlement the Court

preliminarily approved on May 8 2017 will resolve significant wage and hour claims on

behalf of 238 cosmetologists employed by Defendants between April 2012 and May 2017

The settlement provides significant monetary benefits to these cosmetologists Further

Settlement Class Members1 employed by Defendants at or after the time the lawsuit was filed

already have benefitted from employment policy changes at Defendantsrsquo salons this lawsuit

catalyzed including the termination of mandatory off-the-clock model hunting by Assistants

The three Class Representatives Mayra Valdivia Amanda Freeman and Noel

Richardson and their attorneys Kitchin Legal APC and the Nuddleman Law Firm PC

achieved this exceptional settlement through their skilled and committed advocacy on behalf

of the Settlement Class over the past 15 months The Class Representatives each deserve

reasonable compensation for their service to the Settlement Class in addition to their

respective share of the Net Settlement Amount (ldquoNSArdquo) They worked closely with their

attorneys to identify practices that were contrary to Californiarsquos labor laws and to coordinate

communications with witnesses who provided invaluable evidence in support of the claims

They provided insights to counsels and they all fully participated in the class litigation

process including at mediation Together the Class Representatives spent a total of

approximately 160 hours working to achieve a fair outcome for all Class Members Each of

them should be awarded service fees of $750000 out of the Gross Settlement Amount

(ldquoGSArdquo)

Plaintiffsrsquo counsels in turn are entitled under California law to reasonable

compensation for the work they performed and the costs they incurred on a contingent basis

on behalf of the entire Class Class Counsels worked diligently to gather the evidence

1 The capitalized terms used in this memorandum have the same meaning as defined in the Settlement

Agreement



3

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

28

required to evaluate liability and to calculate potential damages and penalties They worked

closely with the Class Representatives and other witnesses to prepare this matter for

mediation where they applied their litigation skills and their knowledge of the facts and law

to negotiate a fair and reasonable settlement for the Class

Plaintiffs respectfully request an award of attorneysrsquo fees in the amount $333000 and

litigation costs of $814435 for their successful prosecution and resolution of this complex

employment class action and Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act (ldquoPAGArdquo)

representative action on behalf of the Settlement Class Plaintiffsrsquo request for attorneysrsquo fees

equal to thirty-three percent of the Gross Settlement Amount is in line with and supported by

their attorneysrsquo fee lodestar calculations

II A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE LITIGATION2

The Class Representatives brought this action to recover unpaid wages and penalties

arising out of their employment by the diPietro Todd hair salons They allege they and their

co-workers were required to work off the clock without compensation while hunting for hair

models denied meal and rest periods misclassified as commissioned salespersons subjected

to unlawful wage deductions and denied proper payroll records In addition to damages and

statutory penalties Plaintiffs also brought the action under the PAGA seeking civil penalties

on behalf of the State of California and other aggrieved employees

Though Defendants denied Plaintiffsrsquo allegations they quickly recognized that the

only realistic alternative to early resolution would involve protracted and expensive litigation

that could bankrupt the five limited liability companies that own the salons Based on their

investigations of Defendantsrsquo assets Plaintiffs also recognized that early resolution was in the

putative classrsquos best interest

2 Please see Plaintiffsrsquo Memorandum in Support of Motion For Conditional Certification Of Settlement Class

And Preliminary Approval Of Class Action Settlement and supporting pleadings filed February 6 2017 for a

complete history of the lawsuit



4

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

28

Following extensive negotiations between the parties and the exchange of voluminous

documents including payroll data for the putative class the parties engaged in mediation with

Jeffrey Ross on November 14 2016 At mediation the parties entered into a settlement valued

at $1 million plus the employersrsquo share of payroll taxes The agreement specified that

Plaintiffs would seek service payments of $7500 each and that Class Counsels would seek

attorneysrsquo fees equal to thirty-three percent of the GSA ($33300000) plus litigation-related

costs up to $10000003 Defendants agreed not to oppose these requests

Following mediation the parties negotiated the detailed terms of the settlement With

Class Counsels taking the lead the parties designed a class notice form and selected a

proposed settlement administrator Class Counsels designed a complex settlement

distribution model that fairly distributes the Net Settlement Amount (ldquoNSArdquo) to Settlement

Class Members based on their individual employment histories

Plaintiffs presented the proposed settlement to the Court for preliminary approval on

February 6 2017 At the initial hearing on Plaintiffsrsquo motion for preliminary approval

(3142017) the Court directed the parties to review certain aspects of the settlement

agreement and class notice and to return for a subsequent hearing On May 2 2017 after the

parties had modified the settlement agreement and notice form as requested the Court

reconvened the hearing and granted preliminary approval of the settlement The Courtrsquos May

8 2017 Order granting preliminary approval established the schedule for providing notice to

the Class including that Plaintiffs are to file their motion for attorneysrsquo fees and costs and for

service payments to the Class Representatives no later than August 2 2017

III PLAINTIFFSrsquo COUNSELS ARE ENTITLED TO AN AWARD OF FEES

AND COSTS

A Statutory Authority

Plaintiffsrsquo counsels are entitled to a reasonable fee for the work they performed on

3 See paragraph 34 of the Stipulation of Settlement and Release of Claims submitted as Exhibit 1 to the Second

Supplemental Declaration of Patrick R Kitchin in Support of Motion for Preliminary Approval filed 552017



5

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

28

behalf of the Class pursuant to Labor Code sectsect 2185 1194 2699 and 2802 and Code of Civil

Procedure sect 10215 each of which provides in relevant part

Labor Code sect 2185(a) ldquoIn any action brought for the nonpayment of wages fringe

benefits or health and welfare or pension fund contributions the

court shall award reasonable attorney s fees and costs to the

prevailing party if any party to the action requests attorney s fees

and costs upon the initiation of the actionhelliprdquo

Labor Code sect 1194(a) ldquoNotwithstanding any agreement to work for a lesser wage any

employee receiving less than the legal minimum wage or the

legal overtime compensation applicable to the employee is

entitled to recover in a civil action the unpaid balance of the full

amount of this minimum wage or overtime compensation

including interest thereon reasonable attorneyrsquos fees and costs of

suitrdquo

Labor Code sect

2699(g)(1)

ldquoAny employee who prevails in any [PAGA] action shall be

entitled to an award of reasonable attorneys fees and costsrdquo

Labor Code sect 2802(c) ldquoFor purposes of this section the term lsquonecessary expenditures or

lossesrsquo shall include all reasonable costs including but not

limited to attorneyrsquos fees incurred by the employee enforcing the

rights granted by this sectionrdquo

Code of Civil Procedure

sect 10215

ldquoUpon motion a court may award attorneys fees to a successful

party against one or more opposing parties in any action which

has resulted in the enforcement of an important right affecting the

public interest if (a) a significant benefit whether pecuniary or

nonpecuniary has been conferred on the general public or a large

class of persons (b) the necessity and financial burden of private

enforcement or of enforcement by one public entity against

another public entity are such as to make the award appropriate

and (c) such fees should not in the interest of justice be paid out

of the recovery if anyrdquo

B Methods of Calculation

In California ldquo[c]ourts recognize two methods for calculating attorney fees in civil

class actions the lodestarmultiplier method and the percentage of recovery methodrdquo (See

Wershba v Apple Computer (2001) 91 CalApp4th 224 254 and Laffitte v Robert Half

International Inc (2016) 1 Cal5th

480 502) Whether analyzed under the lodestarmultiplier

method or percentage-of-recovery method Plaintiffsrsquo request for $333000 in attorneysrsquo fees

out of the $1 million GSA is appropriate



6

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

28


REQUESTED AWARD

Under California law ldquo[t]he primary method for establishing the amount of reasonable

attorney fees is the lodestar methodrdquo In re Vitamin Cases (2003) 110 CalApp4th 1041

1052 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted) See also Serrano III v Priest (1977)

20 Cal3d 25 49 (ldquoSerrano IIIrdquo) (quoting City of Detroit v Grinnell Corp 495 F2d 448

470 (2d Cir 1974)) Lealao v Beneficial Cal Inc (2000) 82 Cal App4th 19 39 and In re

Bluetooth Headset Products Liab Lit 654 F3d 935 941 (9th Cir 2011) (citing Cunningham

v County of Los Angeles 879 F2d 481 488 (9th Cir 1988))

The lodestar method requires the Court to determine a ldquotouchstonerdquo or lodestar figure

based on the amount of time reasonably spent on the litigation multiplied by the reasonable

hourly compensation rates for each attorney See eg Graham v DaimlerChrysler Corp

(2014) 34 Cal 4th 553 579 Vo v Las Virgenes Mun Water Dist (2000) 79 CalApp4th 440

445 Lealao 82 CalApp4th at 26 Hanlon v Chrysler Group Inc 150 F3d 1011 1029 (9th

Cir 1998)

A The Work Plaintiffsrsquo Counsels Performed and the Number of Hours Spent on

this Matter Are Reasonable4

Generally hours are reasonable if they were ldquoreasonably expended in pursuit of the

ultimate result achieved in the same manner that an attorney traditionally is compensated by a

fee-paying clientrdquo Hensley v Eckerhart 461 US 424 431 (1983) See also Ketchum v

Moses (2001) 24 Cal4th 1122 1133 (fee award should be ldquofully compensatory [and] absent

circumstances rendering the award unjust an attorney fee award should ordinarily include

compensation for all the hours reasonably spentrdquo) Serrano III 20 Cal 3d at 49 (counsel are

entitled to compensation for all hours reasonably expended) Hensley 461 US at 435-36

Caudle v Bristow Optical Co Inc 224 F3d 1014 1028 (9th Cir 2000) and Cabrales v

County of Los Angeles 935 F2d 1050 1052-53 (9th Cir 1991)

4 See Kitchin Decl parapara 20-37 and Nuddleman Decl parapara 15-26



7

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

28

Class Counsels seek fees for the work they performed on behalf of the Class including

the additional work remaining to be performed in securing final Court approval of the

Settlement and ensuring that the Settlement is fairly administered and fully implemented in

accordance with the Courtrsquos Orders

To date Class Counsels have spent a total of 7531 hours performing necessary work

on behalf of the Class from gathering evidence in support of the claims resolved by the

Settlement to preparing this motion for fees costs and service payments More work remains

to be done Class Counselsrsquo diligent work and excellent results justify their fee request under

California law (See Nuddleman and Kitchin declarations filed herewith)

B The Hourly Rates Upon Which Plaintiffsrsquo Lodestar Calculations Are Based

Are Reasonable5

The second step in the lodestar analysis is to determine the reasonable market value of

the attorneysrsquo services on an hourly basis Ketchum 24 Cal4th at 1134 Blum v Stenson 465

US 886 895 n11 (1984) PLCM Group Inc v Drexler (2000) 22 Cal4th 1084 1094

Camacho v Bridgeport Fin Inc 523 F3d 973 979 (9th Cir 2008) This step applies even if

the attorneys normally work on a contingent fee basis See eg Robertson v Fleetwood

Travel Trailers of Cal Inc (2006) 144 CalApp4th 785 818 Blanchard v Bergeron 489

US 87 96 (1989)

Rates are reasonable if they are ldquowithin the range of reasonable rates charged by and

judicially awarded comparable attorneys for comparable workrdquo Childrenrsquos Hosp and Med

Ctr v Bonta (2002) 97 CalApp4th 740 783 A reasonable hourly rate is the prevailing rate

charged by attorneys of similar skill and experience in the relevant community in this case

San Francisco PLCM Group Inc v Drexler (2000) 22 Cal4th 1084 1095 Lealao v

Beneficial Cal Inc (2000) 82 Cal App4th 19 and Heritage Pacific Financial LLC v

Monroy (2013) 215 CalApp4th

972 1009 Declarations regarding the prevailing market rate

5 See Kitchin Decl parapara 46-48 and Nuddleman Decl para 31



8

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

28

in the relevant community are sufficient to establish a reasonable hourly rate See Widrig v

Apfel 140 F3d 1207 1209 (9th Cir 1998) As the declarations of Patrick Kitchin and Robert

Nuddleman establish the fees sought herein are at the low end of the hourly rates approved by

California and federal courts for similar work in complex employment class action cases and

other representative matters

Patrick R Kitchin of Kitchin Legal APC has significant experience not only in class

actions generally and employment litigation but specifically in wage and hour class actions

His experience includes serving as the plaintiffsrsquo lead counsel in a 6700-member certified

wage and hour class action jury trial in federal District Court against Polo Ralph Lauren

Corporation in 20106 As set forth in the supporting declaration of Mr Kitchin his firm

regularly achieves exceptional results and the present settlement is no exception (Kitchin

Decl parapara 10-19)

With nearly 25 years of litigation experience Kitchin seeks fees at the rate of $500 per

hour This rate is substantially lower than the rate scale set out in the most recent regionally-

unadjusted Laffey Matrix which shows a rate $826 per hour for attorneys with 20 or more

years of experience (See Kitchin Decl para 48 and Exhibit A and B thereto)

Robert Nuddleman of the Nuddleman Law Firm PC in turn has nearly 20 years of

experience prosecuting and defending wage and hour claims including class and

representative actions in state and federal courts and before governmental agencies As set

out in his concurrently filed declaration Mr Nuddleman is a frequent presenter regarding

employment law matters providing seminars and presentations to attorneys and other

professionals on matters directly relevant to the present case (Nuddleman Decl parapara 4-14)

Mr Nuddleman seeks fees at the rate of $400 per hour which is less than half the

$826 per hour rate set out in the Laffey Matrix even before adjusting it upward for regional

6 The case settled after Plaintiffs finished their case-in-chief (Otsuka v Polo Ralph Lauren Corporation US

Dist Ct N Dist CA Case No C07-02780 SI)



9

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

28

differences in rates between Washington DC and San Francisco (Nuddleman Declaration

para 31 and Kitchin Decl para 48 Exhibits A and B)

In May 2014 the California First District Court of Appeal relied on the Laffey Matrix7

(and the declaration of an experienced area attorney) to find that the trial court had not abused

its discretion in using a regionally adjusted Laffey Index to determine the reasonable

compensation rate for attorneys in the San Francisco Bay Area (Syers Properties III Inc v

Rankin (2014) 226 Cal App 4th 691 695 696) (See Exhibit B to Kitchin Decl)

Whether based on rates set out in the Laffey Matrix or on the other evidence of

reasonable rates that Class Counsels present in their declarations five hundred dollars per

hour is a very reasonable compensation rate for the work Kitchin performed on this complex

employment class action (See Declaration of Patrick R Kitchin parapara 46-48) Four hundred

dollars per hour for Mr Nuddleman is more than reasonable as well

Robert Nuddleman and Patrick Kitchin worked together closely to develop strategies

designed to maximize the recovery on behalf of the Plaintiffs and the Class In doing so they

carefully coordinated their work on the case to avoid duplicating efforts They distributed

tasks between themselves in a way that maximized the efficient management of projects For

example Mr Nuddleman managed the employment data based on his superior skills in data

analysis freeing Mr Kitchin to focus on witness communication and declarations (Kitchin

Decl parapara 20-37 and Nuddleman Decl para 15-26)

Mr Kitchin and Mr Nuddleman invested an appropriate amount of work in this case

to achieve a very beneficial resolution on behalf of the Class More work will be required of

counsels until the settlement process is completed including preparing a motion for final

7 The Laffey Matrix whose name is from Laffey v Northwest Airlines Inc (572 F Supp 354 (DDC 1983)

affrsquod in part revrsquod in part on other grounds 746 F2d 4 (DC Cir 1984) cert denied 472 US 1021 (1985))mdashis

published each year by the US Attorneyrsquos office for the District of Columbia and sets out tiered rates for

lawyers differentiated according to their years of experience



10

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

28

approval and working with the Settlement Administrator to ensure the Settlement process

complies with the Courtrsquos Orders (Kitchin Decl para 44 and Nuddleman Decl para 29)8

V THE COMMON FUND DOCTRINE ALSO SUPPORTS CLASS COUNSELSrsquo

REQUESTED AWARD OF ATTORNEYSrsquo FEES

The preliminarily-approved Settlement provides that Defendants will ldquonot oppose

Class Counsels request for Attorneysrsquo Fees up to 33 of the GSArdquo9 In this case the lodestar

figures described above fully supports an award of $333000 in attorneysrsquo fees Analyzing

Plaintiffsrsquo request pursuant to the common fund doctrine supports the fees Plaintiffs seek

A The Common Fund Doctrine is based on Principles of Fairness and Justice

The common fund doctrine in California is grounded on long-standing equitable

principles When attorneys recover a sum of money for the benefit of a large group of

persons in vindication of a public policy grounded in the California Constitution they may be

awarded their attorneysrsquo fees and costs from the fund they obtained (Laffitte supra 1 Cal5th

at p 498) ldquoClass action litigation can result in an attorney fee award pursuant to a statutory

fee shifting provision or through the common fund doctrine when [hellip] a class settlement

agreement establishes a relief fund from which the attorney fee is to be drawnrdquo Id at p 489

In City and County of San Francisco v Sweet (1995) 12 Cal4th 105 110-11 the

California Supreme Court observed that the common fund doctrine had been applied

ldquoconsistently in California when an action brought by one party creates a fund in which other

persons are entitled to sharerdquo It is only fair that the successful litigant ldquowho might otherwise

receive no benefit because his recovery might be consumed by the expensesrdquo is able to

recover those expenses out of the fund Id at p 111 It also is fair that ldquoothers who are

8 Class counsels separate their activities on the case into four categories investigation pleadings settlement and

Court In In re HPL Technologies Inc Securities Litigation 366 F Supp 2d 912 920 (2005) Judge Vaughn

Walker wrote that the use of these fee categories represented ldquoan especially helpful compromise between

reporting hours in the aggregate (which is easy to review but lacks informative detail) and generating a complete

line-by-line billing report (which offers great detail but tends to obscure the forest for the treesrdquo 9 Settlement Agreement para 15 Exhibit 1 to Second Sup Decl of Kitchin in Support of Motion for Conditional

Certification of Settlement Class and Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement filed May 4 2017



11

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

28

entitled to share in the fund [hellip] should bear their share of the burden of its recoveryrdquo Id at

p 111

Recently in Laffitte supra the California Supreme Court resolved any remaining

doubt that a percentage basis award of attorneysrsquo fees may be the primary basis of a trial

courtrsquos calculation of a fee award Thus trial courts have broad discretion to evaluate the

reasonableness of a percentage fee request in light of the facts of the case including factors

described as relevant in Serrano III (1977) 20 Cal3d 25 such as ldquothe risks and potential value

of the litigationrdquo ldquoinformation on contingency novelty and difficulty together with the skill

shown by counsel the number of hours worked and the asserted hourly ratesrdquo (Lafitte supra

1 Cal5th 480 504 see also Nuddleman Decl para26) In the end ldquo[t]he choice of a fee

calculation method is generally one within the discretion of the trial court the goal under

either the percentage or lodestar approach being the award of a reasonable fee to compensate

counsel for their effortsrdquo Id at 504

In addition to spreading costs among the beneficiaries of an action brought for their

benefit common fund awards benefit society by encouraging ldquothe attorney for the successful

litigant who will be more willing to undertake and diligently prosecute proper litigation for

the protection or recovery of the fund if he is assured that he will be properly and directly

compensated should his efforts be successful (Melendres v City of Los Angeles (1975) 45

CalApp3d 267 273 [quoting Estate of Stauffer (1959) 53 Cal2d 124 132]) Experienced

attorneys must be sufficiently compensated for their skill time and efforts in taking on large

risky complex class action cases If they are not then they may avoid taking on these kinds

of cases thus frustrating Californiarsquos policy favoring contingent-fee class action cases

Class actions provide critical benefits to all Californians which the courts have long

acknowledged (Linder v Thrifty Oil Co (2000) 23 Cal4th 429 434-35) They are a means

ldquoto prevent a failure of justice in our judicial systemrdquo Id In the instant case it is unlikely

that more than a small handful of Class Members would have ever sought on their own to



12

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

28

vindicate their important employment rights This class action pursued rights and remedies

that otherwise would have been lost to time

B The Portion of the GSA Set Aside for Attorneysrsquo Fees is Reasonable

Plaintiffs request attorneysrsquorsquo fees equal to 33 of the $1 million settlement This

percentage falls squarely within the scope of awards in employment wage and hour class

action cases in California10

In Laffitte the Supreme Court upheld the trial courtrsquos award of

attorneysrsquo fees equal to one-third of a $19 million gross settlement fund finding that the trial

court had properly evaluated relevant factors in determining that the percentage fee negotiated

by the parties was reasonable (supra 1 Cal5th 480)

We therefore agree with the Court of Appeal below that [t]he percentage of

fund method survives in California class action cases and the trial court did

not abuse its discretion in using it in part to approve the fee request in this

class action We hold further that trial courts have discretion to conduct a

lodestar cross-check on a percentage fee as the court did here they also retain

the discretion to forgo a lodestar cross-check and use other means to evaluate

the reasonableness of a requested percentage fee

Id at p 506

In sum Plaintiffsrsquo request for fees representing 33 of the GSA is reasonable The

percentage of the GSA identified in the Settlement Agreement closely mirrors the reasonable

hours and rates upon which Plaintiffsrsquo counselsrsquo lodestars are based

C Plaintiffsrsquo Counsels Do Not Seek a Fee Enhancement or Multiplier

Plaintiffsrsquo counsels do not seek a fee enhancement in this case Based on their work

and the results of their efforts they ask the Court to award them the $333000 the amount

permitted under the Settlement Agreement This amount falls $15890 short of the Plaintiffsrsquo

counselsrsquo lodestar amounts as of July 10 2017 ($348890) with substantial work remaining

10 Recently for example in Russell v EF International Language Schools Inc a piece-rate compensation

class action case the Los Angeles Superior Court awarded Plaintiffrsquos counsel one-third of the common fund

recovery Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No BC481435 as reported in Russell v EF International

Language Schools Inc Case No B263612 (2d Dist Div 1 Oct 27 2016) (unpublished decision)



13

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

28


REASONABLE LITIGATION EXPENSES

The cases cited in the preceding sections of this Memorandum universally approve

awards that include reimbursement of all costs and expenses reasonably incurred by counsel

in the litigation These are not limited to the costs recoverable under Code of Civil Procedure

sect 1032 and 10335 of the Code of Civil Procedure (See Bussey v Affleck (1990) 225 Cal

App 3d 1162 1166 Cal Hous Fin Agency v ER Fairway Assocs (1995) 37 Cal App 4th

1508 1514ndash15 Arntz Contracting Co v St Paul Fire and Marine Ins Co (1996) 47 Cal

App 4th 464 492)

Class Counsels request reimbursement of their out-of-pocket expenses incurred to

prosecute this class action in the total amount of $814435 These litigation expenses which

counsels kept to a minimum were incidental to and necessary for the effective representation

of the Class including the initial complex litigation filing fee ($1450) service of process fees

($191) motion fees ($120) third party data analyses ($600) subscription legal research

service charges $580 mediation fees ($5000) investigator expenses ($60) plus limited

copying charges (Kitchin Decl para 50 and Nuddleman Decl para 33)


REPRESENTATIVES SHOULD BE APPROVED

Plaintiffs Mayra Valdivia Amanda Freeman and Noel Richardson11

have been

excellent Class Representatives Each of them was dedicated to the fair prosecution of the

claims in this case Each Class Representative spent hours with Class Counsels or on the

phone helping them to understand the ways in which Defendantsrsquo policies affected their

wages and the wages of others they worked with Each of them worked with Class Counsels

to locate and interview witnesses and to help gather documents diPietro Todd had provided to

its workforce

11

Please see the declarations of Mayra Valdivia Amanda Freeman and Noel Williams-Richardson in support of

the instant motion



14

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

28

Mayra Valdivia Amanda Freeman and Noel Richardson attended mediation where

they continued to provide their counsels and the mediator with information pertaining to the

factual basis of the claims in the case Their direct and sustained involvement in the

prosecution of this case greatly contributed to the settlement achieved on behalf of the Class

ldquoBecause a named plaintiff is an essential ingredient of any class action an incentive

award is appropriate if it is necessary to induce an individual to participate in the suitrdquo Cook

v Ligurotis 142 F3d 1004 1016 (7th

Cir 1998) see also In re Linerboard Antitrust Litig

2004 US Dist LEXIS 10532 at 56 (ED PA June 2 2004) (Where ldquothe class

representatives have conferred benefits on all other class members they deserve to be

compensated accordinglyrdquo)

By filing suit against Defendants for alleged violations of law resulting from the

companyrsquos ongoing policies and practices Plaintiffs sought to protect the interests of the

putative class over their own interests As Plaintiffsrsquo declarations verify they elected to

pursue this case on behalf of all of the other similarly situated employees placing their own

interests in a position secondary to those of the absent Class Members

Additionally the requested service enhancements are justified in light of the

reputational risk Plaintiffs assumed in bringing a lawsuit against a well-known San Francisco

Bay area hair salon and academy See Guippone v BH SampB Holdings LLC No 09 Civ 1029

2011 US Dist LEXIS 126026 at 20 (SDNY Oct 28 2011) (ldquoEven where there is not a

record of actual retaliation notoriety or personal difficulties class representatives merit

recognition for assuming the risk of such for the sake of absent class membersrdquo) Employers

can easily learn via the internet whether an employee or prospective employee has filed a

lawsuit information that may be used to evaluate a prospective employee See Id at 4

(noting ldquothe fact that a plaintiff has filed a federal lawsuit is searchable on the internet and

may become known to prospective employers when evaluating the personrdquo) Thus by

bringing this action against their employer Plaintiffs have assumed a considerable

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1 1

12

1 3

1 4

15

16

1 7

1 8

19

20

2 1

22

2 3

24

2 5

26

reputational risk that may impact their ability to find employment In the future (See

Valdivia Declaration ~ 11 and Richardson Declaration ~ 10)

Providing each of the Class Representatives with a service payment in the amount of

$750000 is fair and reasonable

VIII CONCLUSION

Class representatives Mayra Valdivia Amanda Freeman and Noel Williams-

Richardson performed all that was required of them as class representatives standing up and

fighting for the Class The successful resolution of this complex case is a testament to their

involvement and dedication They deserve just compensation

In turn without any guarantee of success Class Counsels vigorously pursued this

litigation to a successful resolution a global settlement valued at over $1 million

Furthermore the litigation served as a catalyst for policy changes that have benefitted

currently employed Class Members The Settlement represents an excellent recovery for the

Class and confirms the skill and dedication of Class Counsels

Accordingly pursuant to California Rule of Court 3769(b) and for the reasons set

forth above and in the declarations filed herewith Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court

award Class Counsels reasonable attorneys fees of $333 000 00 and the reimbursement of

expenses in the amount of $814435 Additionally the Court is respectfully requested to

approve the payment of service awards in the amount of $750000 to each of the Class

Representatives

Date July 30 2017 KITCHIN LEGAL APC

BY ~ Counsel to Plaintiffs Mayra Valdivia Amanda Freeman and Noel Williams-Richardson

Valdivia et al v Di Pietro Todd - Post Street LLC el at - Ps and As in Support 0 Motionor Attorneys Fees and Costs Case No CGC-16-55J 342 15



i

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

28

Table of Contents

I INTRODUCTION AND REQUEST FOR RELIEFhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip2

II A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE LITIGATIONhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip3

III PLAINTIFFSrsquo COUNSELS ARE ENTITLED

TO AN AWARD OF FEES AND COSTShelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip4

A Statutory Authorityhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip4

B Methods of Calculationhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip5


REQUESTED AWARDhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip6

A The Work Plaintiffsrsquo Counsels Performed and the Number of

Hours Spent on this Matter Are Reasonablehelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip6

B The Hourly Rates Upon Which Plaintiffsrsquo Lodestar Calculations

Are Based Are Reasonablehelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip7

V THE COMMON FUND DOCTRINE ALSO SUPPORTS CLASS

COUNSELSrsquo REQUESTED AWARD OF ATTORNEYSrsquo FEEShelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip10

A The Common Fund Doctrine is based on Principles of Fairness and

Justice10

B The Portion of the GSA Set Aside for Attorneysrsquo Fees is Reasonablehelliphellip12

C Plaintiffsrsquo Counsels Do Not Seek a Fee Enhancement or Multiplierhelliphelliphellip12


REASONABLE LITIGATION EXPENSES helliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip13


REPRESENTATIVES SHOULD BE APPROVED helliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip13

VIII CONCLUSION helliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip15



ii

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

28


Cases

California Cases









972 7




480 5 10 11 12











Federal Cases






iii

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

28







20 (SDNY Oct 28 2011) 14








Statutes











2

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

28





















(ldquoGSArdquo)





Agreement



3

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

28





























4

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

28























AND COSTS







5

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

28














suitrdquo

Labor Code sect

2699(g)(1)








sect 10215





















6

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

28


REQUESTED AWARD













Cir 1998)















7

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

28











Are Reasonable5







US 87 96 (1989)












8

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

28





























9

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

28





























10

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

28































11

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

28


p 111



























12

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

28


















Id at p 506















13

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

28









App 4th 464 492)











have been






its workforce

11


the instant motion



14

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

28




























1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1 1

12

1 3

1 4

15

16

1 7

1 8

19

20

2 1

22

2 3

24

2 5

26





VIII CONCLUSION















Representatives






ii

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

28


Cases

California Cases









972 7




480 5 10 11 12











Federal Cases






iii

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

28







20 (SDNY Oct 28 2011) 14








Statutes











2

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

28





















(ldquoGSArdquo)





Agreement



3

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

28





























4

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

28























AND COSTS







5

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

28














suitrdquo

Labor Code sect

2699(g)(1)








sect 10215





















6

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

28


REQUESTED AWARD













Cir 1998)















7

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

28











Are Reasonable5







US 87 96 (1989)












8

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

28





























9

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

28





























10

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

28































11

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

28


p 111



























12

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

28


















Id at p 506















13

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

28









App 4th 464 492)











have been






its workforce

11


the instant motion



14

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

28




























1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1 1

12

1 3

1 4

15

16

1 7

1 8

19

20

2 1

22

2 3

24

2 5

26





VIII CONCLUSION















Representatives






iii

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

28







20 (SDNY Oct 28 2011) 14








Statutes











2

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

28





















(ldquoGSArdquo)





Agreement



3

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

28





























4

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

28























AND COSTS







5

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

28














suitrdquo

Labor Code sect

2699(g)(1)








sect 10215





















6

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

28


REQUESTED AWARD













Cir 1998)















7

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

28











Are Reasonable5







US 87 96 (1989)












8

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

28





























9

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

28





























10

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

28































11

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

28


p 111



























12

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

28


















Id at p 506















13

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

28









App 4th 464 492)











have been






its workforce

11


the instant motion



14

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

28




























1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1 1

12

1 3

1 4

15

16

1 7

1 8

19

20

2 1

22

2 3

24

2 5

26





VIII CONCLUSION















Representatives






2

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

28





















(ldquoGSArdquo)





Agreement



3

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

28





























4

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

28























AND COSTS







5

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

28














suitrdquo

Labor Code sect

2699(g)(1)








sect 10215





















6

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

28


REQUESTED AWARD













Cir 1998)















7

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

28











Are Reasonable5







US 87 96 (1989)












8

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

28





























9

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

28





























10

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

28































11

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

28


p 111



























12

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

28


















Id at p 506















13

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

28









App 4th 464 492)











have been






its workforce

11


the instant motion



14

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

28




























1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1 1

12

1 3

1 4

15

16

1 7

1 8

19

20

2 1

22

2 3

24

2 5

26





VIII CONCLUSION















Representatives






3

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

28





























4

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

28























AND COSTS







5

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

28














suitrdquo

Labor Code sect

2699(g)(1)








sect 10215





















6

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

28


REQUESTED AWARD













Cir 1998)















7

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

28











Are Reasonable5







US 87 96 (1989)












8

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

28





























9

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

28





























10

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

28































11

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

28


p 111



























12

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

28


















Id at p 506















13

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

28









App 4th 464 492)











have been






its workforce

11


the instant motion



14

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

28




























1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1 1

12

1 3

1 4

15

16

1 7

1 8

19

20

2 1

22

2 3

24

2 5

26





VIII CONCLUSION















Representatives






4

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

28























AND COSTS







5

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

28














suitrdquo

Labor Code sect

2699(g)(1)








sect 10215





















6

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

28


REQUESTED AWARD













Cir 1998)















7

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

28











Are Reasonable5







US 87 96 (1989)












8

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

28





























9

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

28





























10

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

28































11

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

28


p 111



























12

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

28


















Id at p 506















13

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

28









App 4th 464 492)











have been






its workforce

11


the instant motion



14

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

28




























1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1 1

12

1 3

1 4

15

16

1 7

1 8

19

20

2 1

22

2 3

24

2 5

26





VIII CONCLUSION















Representatives






5

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

28














suitrdquo

Labor Code sect

2699(g)(1)








sect 10215





















6

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

28


REQUESTED AWARD













Cir 1998)















7

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

28











Are Reasonable5







US 87 96 (1989)












8

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

28





























9

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

28





























10

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

28































11

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

28


p 111



























12

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

28


















Id at p 506















13

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

28









App 4th 464 492)











have been






its workforce

11


the instant motion



14

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

28




























1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1 1

12

1 3

1 4

15

16

1 7

1 8

19

20

2 1

22

2 3

24

2 5

26





VIII CONCLUSION















Representatives






6

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

28


REQUESTED AWARD













Cir 1998)















7

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

28











Are Reasonable5







US 87 96 (1989)












8

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

28





























9

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

28





























10

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

28































11

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

28


p 111



























12

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

28


















Id at p 506















13

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

28









App 4th 464 492)











have been






its workforce

11


the instant motion



14

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

28




























1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1 1

12

1 3

1 4

15

16

1 7

1 8

19

20

2 1

22

2 3

24

2 5

26





VIII CONCLUSION















Representatives






7

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

28











Are Reasonable5







US 87 96 (1989)












8

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

28





























9

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

28





























10

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

28































11

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

28


p 111



























12

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

28


















Id at p 506















13

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

28









App 4th 464 492)











have been






its workforce

11


the instant motion



14

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

28




























1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1 1

12

1 3

1 4

15

16

1 7

1 8

19

20

2 1

22

2 3

24

2 5

26





VIII CONCLUSION















Representatives






8

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

28





























9

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

28





























10

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

28































11

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

28


p 111



























12

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

28


















Id at p 506















13

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

28









App 4th 464 492)











have been






its workforce

11


the instant motion



14

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

28




























1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1 1

12

1 3

1 4

15

16

1 7

1 8

19

20

2 1

22

2 3

24

2 5

26





VIII CONCLUSION















Representatives






9

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

28





























10

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

28































11

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

28


p 111



























12

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

28


















Id at p 506















13

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

28









App 4th 464 492)











have been






its workforce

11


the instant motion



14

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

28




























1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1 1

12

1 3

1 4

15

16

1 7

1 8

19

20

2 1

22

2 3

24

2 5

26





VIII CONCLUSION















Representatives






10

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

28































11

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

28


p 111



























12

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

28


















Id at p 506















13

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

28









App 4th 464 492)











have been






its workforce

11


the instant motion



14

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

28




























1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1 1

12

1 3

1 4

15

16

1 7

1 8

19

20

2 1

22

2 3

24

2 5

26





VIII CONCLUSION















Representatives






11

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

28


p 111



























12

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

28


















Id at p 506















13

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

28









App 4th 464 492)











have been






its workforce

11


the instant motion



14

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

28




























1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1 1

12

1 3

1 4

15

16

1 7

1 8

19

20

2 1

22

2 3

24

2 5

26





VIII CONCLUSION















Representatives






12

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

28


















Id at p 506















13

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

28









App 4th 464 492)











have been






its workforce

11


the instant motion



14

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

28




























1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1 1

12

1 3

1 4

15

16

1 7

1 8

19

20

2 1

22

2 3

24

2 5

26





VIII CONCLUSION















Representatives






13

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

28









App 4th 464 492)











have been






its workforce

11


the instant motion



14

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

28




























1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1 1

12

1 3

1 4

15

16

1 7

1 8

19

20

2 1

22

2 3

24

2 5

26





VIII CONCLUSION















Representatives






14

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

28




























1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1 1

12

1 3

1 4

15

16

1 7

1 8

19

20

2 1

22

2 3

24

2 5

26





VIII CONCLUSION















Representatives




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1 1

12

1 3

1 4

15

16

1 7

1 8

19

20

2 1

22

2 3

24

2 5

26





VIII CONCLUSION















Representatives




valdivia, et al. v. di pietro todd - post street llc, et ... · the three class representatives,...

Documents