DECLARATION OF HEATHER DAVIS ISO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL 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 Edwin Aiwazian (Cal. State Bar No. 232943) [email protected]Arby Aiwazian (Cal. State Bar No. 269827) [email protected]L A W Y E R S for J U S T I C E, PC 410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203 Glendale, California 91203 Tel: (818) 265-1020 / Fax: (818) 265-1021 Heather Davis (Cal. State Bar No. 239372) [email protected]PROTECTION LAW GROUP LLP 136 Main Street, Suite A El Segundo, California 90245 Tel: (424) 290-3095 / Fax: (866) 264-7880 Attorneys for Plaintiffs UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA DERRICK BYRD; RANDY MAUNAKEA, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated and on behalf of other aggrieved employees pursuant to the California Private Attorneys General Act, Plaintiff, vs. MASONITE CORPORATION, an unknown business entity; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants. Case No.: 5:16-cv-00035-JGBKK DECLARATION OF HEATHER DAIVS ISO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT Judge: Hon. Jesus G. Bernal Date: December 11, 2017 Time: 9:00 a.m. Courtroom.: 1 Complaint Filed: November 17, 2015 FAC Filed: March 18, 2016 Case 5:16-cv-00035-JGB-KK Document 86-1 Filed 11/06/17 Page 1 of 67 Page ID #:1500
67
Embed
ROTECTION AW ROUP - Violation Tracker · 410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203 Glendale, California 91203 Tel: (818) 265-1020 / Fax: (818) 265-1021 Heather Davis (Cal. State Bar No. 239372)
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
DECLARATION OF HEATHER DAVIS ISO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL
Tel: (424) 290-3095 / Fax: (866) 264-7880 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA DERRICK BYRD; RANDY MAUNAKEA, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated and on behalf of other aggrieved employees pursuant to the California Private Attorneys General Act, Plaintiff, vs. MASONITE CORPORATION, an unknown business entity; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants.
Case No.: 5:16-cv-00035-JGBKK DECLARATION OF HEATHER DAIVS ISO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT Judge: Hon. Jesus G. Bernal Date: December 11, 2017 Time: 9:00 a.m. Courtroom.: 1
Complaint Filed: November 17, 2015 FAC Filed: March 18, 2016
Case 5:16-cv-00035-JGB-KK Document 86-1 Filed 11/06/17 Page 1 of 67 Page ID #:1500
DECLARATION OF HEATHER DAVIS ISO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL- 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
27
28
DECLARATION OF HEATHER M. DAVIS, ESQ.
I, Heather M. Davis, declare as follows:
1. I am an attorney duly licensed to practice law before all courts of the
State of California and all United States District Courts in the State of California.
I am a partner of the Protection Law Group, LLP, attorneys of record for named
Plaintiffs Randy Maunakea and Derrick Byrd. I have personal knowledge of the
facts stated herein and if called as a witness I could and would competently testify
thereto.
2. I am a duly licensed attorney and have been a member of the Colorado
State Bar since 1998, the California State Bar since 2005 and the Arizona State
Bar since 2007. I graduated from the University of Denver School of Law in 1998
and I am licensed to practice before all courts of the State of California and
Colorado as well as the State of Arizona and District Courts throughout the
country.
CLASS COUNSEL’S BACKGROUND AND EXPERIENCE
3. Prior to opening my law firm, I developed particular experience in the
area of wage and hour litigation. For instance, between 2007 and 2013, I joined
the law firm of Littler Mendelson, P.C., the largest labor and employment law firm
in the United States
4. During my employment with Littler Mendelson, P.C., I continued my
practice of employment law and was responsible for and defended dozens of
complex class actions involving some of the largest representative and class
actions brought under the California Labor Code, including meal and rest break
violations, overtime, minimum wage claims, off the clock work and other related
wage claims. My practice included the management of dozens of class actions.
My management of these cases included taking and defending hundreds of
depositions, interviewing hundreds of putative class members, as well as extensive
state, federal and appellate briefing on hundreds of wage and hour issues involving
class actions.
5. During my employment at Littler Mendelson, I played a significant
Case 5:16-cv-00035-JGB-KK Document 86-1 Filed 11/06/17 Page 2 of 67 Page ID #:1501
DECLARATION OF HEATHER DAVIS ISO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL- 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
27
28
role in the class actions for which I was responsible. In particular, I was often in
charge of leading the strategy of the cases and drafting all of the briefs. I received
a wide-array of wage and hour class action experience performing the following
types of tasks: drafting demurrers; motions to strike and/or dismiss; removing
actions from state court to federal court; drafting and responding to written
discovery; drafting and opposing discovery related motions; arguing discovery
related motions; drafting motions to consolidate related matters; interviewing
putative class members and obtaining declarations in connection with class
certification; drafting oppositions to motions for class certification; drafting
motions for decertification following class certification; conducting exposure
analyses to assess the strengths and weaknesses of asserted claims, the likelihood
of prevailing at class certification and potential damages resulting from such
claims; drafting mediation briefs; serving as the primary contact to in-house
counsel; deposing named plaintiffs and putative class members; deposing retained
expert witnesses; and defending the depositions of corporate witnesses. In short,
I played an integral role in all aspects of litigation from the inception of a matter
through and beyond class certification.
6. During my practice in other jurisdictions and continuing today, I have
been primarily devoted to working in employment law and on complex class
action and representative litigation and multi-plaintiff work.
7. Protection Law Group LLP is a law firm specifically devoted to the
representation of employees against Employers in California involving claims
relating to violations of the California Labor Code, including claims for failure to
pay all wage s owed, failure to pay overtime premiums, failure to ay meal and rest
premiums and failure to provide accurate wage records. The practice of
employment law is a very specific, narrow field which requires diligence in an
ever-evolving field of substantive and procedural law.
8. Although not exhaustive, below is a representative list of several of
the wage and hour class actions that I performed substantial work on while I was
an attorney with Littler Mendelson, including, but not limited to: Villacres v. ABM
Case 5:16-cv-00035-JGB-KK Document 86-1 Filed 11/06/17 Page 3 of 67 Page ID #:1502
DECLARATION OF HEATHER DAVIS ISO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL- 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
27
28
Industries, Inc., 189 Cal.App.4th 562 (2010); Brizuela v. Copart, Inc.,
CIVRS11101592, (San Bernardino Superior Court class action settlement);
Augustus v. ABM Industries, Inc., BC336416, 233 Cal.App.4th 1065 (2014),
review granted; Tagaki v. United Airlines, 2:11-CV9191 (Central District class
action settlement), Babasa v. Comerica, Inc., 3:11-CV00595, Leyva v. Medline
Industries, Inc. 5:11-cv-00164 (Central District), Blue v. Coldwell Banker
Residential Brokerage Co., BC417335, (Los Angeles Superior Court, class action
settlement), and Acosta v. Texwood Industries, Inc., 2:07-cv-03237-DDP-PLA
(Central District class action settlement).
9. Since opening my firm, I have served as lead counsel or co-class
counsel in several wage and hour class and/or representative actions seeking wages
and penalties owed on behalf of employees including, but not limited to the
following:
a. Morera v. Continental Assets Mgmt., BC502003, (Los Angeles
Superior Court wage and hour Class action appointing
Protection Law Group, LLP as class counsel in settlement);
b. Fong et al. v. Regis Corporation, 3:13-cv-13-04497 VC,
(United States District Court, Northern District of California,
preliminarily approving 5.75 Million wage and hour class
action settlement and appointment Protection Law Group, LLP
as class counsel in settlement);
c. Espinoza v. Financial Partners Credit Union, BC502165 (Los
Angeles Superior Court wage and hour Class action appointing
Protection Law Group, LLP as class counsel in settlement);
d. Kesheshian, et al v. S. Cal. Logistics, BC557981 (Los Angeles
Superior Court wage and hour class action appointing
Protection Law Group as Class Counsel in settlement)
e. Sampson v. 24 HR Homecare LLC, BC586019 (Los Angeles
County Superior Court wage and hour class action appointing
Protection Law Group as Class Counsel in settlement).
Case 5:16-cv-00035-JGB-KK Document 86-1 Filed 11/06/17 Page 4 of 67 Page ID #:1503
DECLARATION OF HEATHER DAVIS ISO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL- 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
27
28
f. Kashanian v. Plus Labs Inc. 2016-1-cv-294231 (Santa Clara
Superior Court wage and hour class action appointing
Protection Law Group, LLP as class counsel in settlement)
g. Abdelaziz v. Auto Rescue, RIC1509900 (Riverside Superior
Court wage and hour class action appointing Protection Law
Group LLP as class counsel in settlement);
h. Eiden v. Olive & June LLC, BC654685 (Los Angeles Superior
Court wage and hour class action appointing Protection Law
Group LLP as class counsel in settlement)
i. Khan v. FPI Management, Inc., BC541747 (Los Angeles
Superior Court wage and hour class action)
j. Cadena v. Tetra Property Management, 257425 (Tulare County
Superior Court wage and hour class action)
k. Glenn v. Decron Properties Corp., BCC 578035 (Los Angeles
Superior Court wage and hour class action);
l. Holzer v. Wedbush Securities, Inc., BC 550462 (Los Angeles
Superior Court wage and hour class action);
m. Utterbach v. Daylight Transport LLC, BC600994 (Los Angeles
Superior Court wage and hour class action);
n. Hadrick v. Woodmont Real Estate, CIV530405 (San Mateo
Superior Court wage and hour class action)
10. In addition, LAWYERS for JUSTICE, P.C. also represented Plaintiffs
and the class in this case and devoted substantial time toward this litigation.
LAWYERS for JUSTICE, P.C is law firm devoted exclusively to the
representation of employees in class-wide employment disputes. There are no
conflicts of interest between class counsel and the settlement class members.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND
11. Defendant Masonite Corp. (Defendant) is a manufacturer and
merchandiser of interior and exterior doors, door components, and entry systems.
Case 5:16-cv-00035-JGB-KK Document 86-1 Filed 11/06/17 Page 5 of 67 Page ID #:1504
DECLARATION OF HEATHER DAVIS ISO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL- 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
27
28
Among its customers are distributors, jobbers, home center chains, and wholesale
and building supply dealers in North, Central, and South America, Ireland, the
United Kingdom, Israel, Europe, and Asia. Defendant lauds itself as one of the
largest manufacturers of doors in the world, and operates four (4) plants in the
State of California and additional plants throughout the country.
12. Plaintiffs Derrick Byrd and Randy Maunakea are former Masonite
employees. Derrick Byrd worked for Masonite from approximately March 2013
to October 2014 as an hourly-paid Assembler. Randy Maunakea worked for
Masonite building doors from approximately November 2013 to May 2016. Both
Mr. Byrd and Mr. Maunakea worked at Masonite’s plant in Moreno Valley,
California.
13. On November 17, 2015, Plaintiff Byrd filed a Complaint in the
Superior Court of California, County of Riverside. The complaint alleged
violations of the following provisions of California law: (1) failure to pay overtime
pursuant to Labor Code sections 510 and 1198; (2) failure to provide meal period
premiums in violation of Labor Code sections 226.7 and 512(a); (3) failure to
provide rest period premiums in violation of Labor Code section 226.7; (4) failure
to pay minimum wages pursuant to Labor Code sections 1194, 1197, and 1197.1;
(5) failure to pay timely wages upon termination in violation of Labor Code
sections 201 and 202; (6) failure to provide accurate and itemized wage statements
in violation of Labor Code section 226(a); (7) failure to reimburse business
expenses in violation of Labor Code sections 2800 and 2802; (8) violations of
California Business and Professions Code §§17200 et seq.; and (9) violation of
section 2698, et seq., of the Labor Code (the Private Attorney General’s Act
(PAGA)); on behalf of all current and former hourly-paid or non-exempt
individuals employed by Defendant within the State of California at any time
during the period from November 17, 2011 to July 14, 2017.
14. On January 6, 2017, Defendant removed this action to United States
District Court for the Central District of California.
15. After several motions to dismiss by Defendant and the re-filing of
Case 5:16-cv-00035-JGB-KK Document 86-1 Filed 11/06/17 Page 6 of 67 Page ID #:1505
DECLARATION OF HEATHER DAVIS ISO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL- 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
27
28
amended complaints by Plaintiffs, Defendant filed its answer on August 12, 2016.
16. While litigating these disputes Plaintiff began to engage in discovery.
On March 29, 2016, Plaintiff served Defendant requests for admission, special
interrogatories, and requests for production. Defendant responded to this
discovery on May 11, 2016. Thereafter, the parties met and conferred extensively
and on July 7, 2016, Defendant provided a supplemental production of documents.
17. Multiple depositions were taken in this matter. On June 28, 2016,
Defendant took Plaintiff’s deposition. On July 14-15, 2016, I took the deposition
of Defendants Persons Most Qualified, Human Resources Director Anna
Kubickova and Payroll Supervisor Jamie Ziegler. Following these depositions, my
office served additional document demands in August 2016.
18. During initial discovery, Defendant attempted to limit the scope of
Plaintiff’s inquiry to a single location worked at by the named Plaintiff. Defendant
objected to providing any documents or evidence outside the Moreno Valley
location
19. On August 29, 2016, the Court ordered that discovery proceed on a
class-wide basis for all California locations.
20. In September and October 2016, Defendant produced an additional
7,000 pages of documents including a 20% sampling of time and payroll records
and class-wide policy documents. In January 2017, Defendant produced a 20%
sampling of earning statements for its Stockton location.
21. Also in September 2016, Plaintiff Randy Maunakea filed a letter with
the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency to bring claims under
the Private Attorney General’s Act after Defendant contended that Plaintiff Byrd’s
claim was outside the statute of limitations. The LWDA did not respond after 60
days and on November 28, 2016, Plaintiff filed a third amended complaint adding
Plaintiff Maunakea as a class and PAGA representative.
22. On January 17, 2017, the parties attended private mediation with Mark
Rudy. Defendant produced a class-wide sampling of payroll and timekeeping data
for approximately 20% of the putative class in addition to the data formally
Case 5:16-cv-00035-JGB-KK Document 86-1 Filed 11/06/17 Page 7 of 67 Page ID #:1506
DECLARATION OF HEATHER DAVIS ISO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL- 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
27
28
produced in discovery. However, the data was in a state of disarray and in order to
prepare for the mediation, Plaintiffs were required to hire an outside consultant to
assimilate all of the data in readable forms and determine the scope.
23. In conjunction with an outside consultant, my office analyzed the
class-wide time and payroll data in preparation for mediation and also reviewed
approximately 8,000 pages of policies, work schedules, time records and payroll
records formally produced by Defendant prior to mediation.
24. Prior to mediation my office attempted to contact approximately 200
members of the putative class.
25. While the parties were unable to resolve this matter at the January
mediation, on January 24, 2017, the parties agreed to stay formal discovery while
negotiations continued.
26. In March 2017, the parties resumed formal discovery. Plaintiffs served
deposition notices for approximately 25 employees who had provided declarations
in support of Defendant’s position, re-noticed the deposition of Defendant’s
Person Most Knowledgeable, and drafted a motion to compel further testimony
which Plaintiffs intended to file with the Court. Plaintiff also resumed the process
of meeting and conferring with Defendant regarding its responses to Plaintiffs’
third set of document requests and a motion to compel would likely have been
required as both parties were adamant in their positions.
27. On April 21, 2017, the parties agreed to attend another session of
mediation with Mark Rudy. At the conclusion of a second full day of meditation,
the parties were able to reach a settlement and executed a Memorandum of
Understanding. A long form settlement agreement was eventually signed on
August 2, 2017, and my office advised the Court of the agreed upon settlement on
August 11, 2017. The long form settlement agreement, was based on the
understanding that there were approximately 700 putative class members and
100,000 workweeks.
28. However, shortly thereafter, I was contacted by Defendant’s counsel
and informed that after reviewing the class data, Defendant had determined that as
Case 5:16-cv-00035-JGB-KK Document 86-1 Filed 11/06/17 Page 8 of 67 Page ID #:1507
DECLARATION OF HEATHER DAVIS ISO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL- 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
27
28
of May 14, 2017, there were approximately 119 more class members than
originally estimated and an additional 10,243 workweeks. After review, Defendant
discovered that there were in fact 836 putative class members and 114,209
workweeks in the class period.
29. Because of this increase in workweeks exceeded 100,000, pursuant to
the terms of the Joint Stipulation and Settlement Agreement, Plaintiffs had the
right to rescind the Agreement. However, the Agreement also required that the
parties meet and confer in good faith to determine whether an upward pro rata
Adjustment of the Gross Settlement Amount was warranted. Based upon my
review and analysis of supplemental data which confirmed that there were an
additional 10,243 workweeks, I met and conferred with Defendant’s counsel about
increasing the settlement amount. After serious negotiations the parties agreed that
a pro rata increase, as contemplated in the Joint Settlement Agreement, was
warranted. Therefore, based on the additional increase in workweeks, the parties
executed an addendum to the Joint Stipulation of Class Action Settlement and
PAGA Release to increase the Gross Settlement Amount by $100,000, from
$2,425,000.00 to $2,525,000.00
SUMMARY OF THE TERMS OF SETTLEMENT
30. Plaintiffs Derrick Byrd and Randy Maunakea (“Named Plaintiffs”)
seek preliminary approval of the proposed class action settlement. Attached hereto
as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of the parties’ Joint Stipulation of
Settlement and Release (hereinafter “Settlement Agreement” or “Agreement”).
Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of the proposed Addendum
to Joint Stipulation of Class Action and PAGA Settlement and Release (hereinafter
“Addendum”). Attached hereto as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of the
proposed Notice of Class Action Settlement.
31. Named Plaintiffs seek to provisionally certify the following class for
settlement purposes, which consists of approximately 836 current and former non-
exempt employees employed by Defendant in the state of California from
November 17, 2011 to July 14, 2017. (Agreement ¶6; Addendum 3:13-14)
Case 5:16-cv-00035-JGB-KK Document 86-1 Filed 11/06/17 Page 9 of 67 Page ID #:1508
DECLARATION OF HEATHER DAVIS ISO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL- 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
27
28
32. Subject to Court approval, Named Plaintiffs and Defendant Masonite
(“Defendant”) have agreed to settle the class claims for the Gross Settlement
Amount of $2,525,000.00. (Agreement, ¶13 Addendum 3:19-23).
33. The Gross Settlement Amount allocations are as follows:
a. Attorneys’ Fees in an amount of thirty-five percent (35%) of the Class
Settlement Amount, amounting to $883,750.00 (Agreement. ¶3;
Addendum 3:19-23);
b. Attorneys’ Costs, according to proof, not more than $65,000.00 Id.;
c. The Settlement Administration Costs, for work to be performed by
Simpluris, estimated to be $15,000 (Agreement. ¶29);
d. The Class Representative Enhancement Payments to Named Plaintiffs
in the amount of $5,000.00 each (Agreement ¶36(b));
e. The PAGA Payment in the amount of $37,500.00 which is 75% of the
PAGA Settlement Amount of $50,000.00; the remaining 25% will be
distributed to the Settlement Class as part of the Net Settlement
Amount (Agreement ¶38(a)); and
f. Net Settlement Amount of $1,513,750.00 (See Agreement ¶15)
34. The Net Settlement Amount shall be distributed to the Settlement
Class Members on a pro-rata basis based on the number of Workweeks worked
during the Class Period. (Agreement ¶42). There are an estimated 114,209
workweeks for the Class Members included in the settlement, the estimated
average payment per work week is $13.25. (See Addendum 3:13-14) The
estimated average payment to each Settlement Class Member will vary based on
the number of workweeks the member worked, but assuming an equal number of
workweeks across the class would provide an average settlement payment of
$1,810.70.
35. This proposed Settlement resolves all of the Settlement Class
Members’ claims against Defendants arising from the same facts and claims
alleged in the complaint. (Agreement ¶23).
36. The proposed settlement will release all claims by the Named
Case 5:16-cv-00035-JGB-KK Document 86-1 Filed 11/06/17 Page 10 of 67 Page ID #:1509
DECLARATION OF HEATHER DAVIS ISO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL- 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
27
28
Plaintiffs against Defendant. (Agreement ¶36(b)). This expanded general release,
the work undertaken by Plaintiffs Byrd and Maunakea, and the exposure of serving
as class representatives support the granting incentive payments of $5,000 to each
Plaintiff. This payment does not bestow preferential treatment. These efforts will
be fully briefed in the motion for final approval.
THE SETTLEMENT IS REASONABLE
37. This proposed settlement resolves hotly disputed claims. Defendant
vehemently denied and opposed Plaintiffs’ allegations and maintained that at all
times it complied with California law. Regarding the unpaid overtime and
minimum wage claims Defendant argued that employees were alerted by a bell
system when they were supposed to clock-in and clock-out and that claims
involving unpaid workhouse would require an individualized inquiry. Defendant
also maintained nearly a dozen varying practices and procedures regarding its
rounding policy that increased the difficulty of establishing a uniform policy.
Defendant had ultimately changed the policy and practice for doing so on several
occasions at several different locations. Therefore, it argued that there was no
uniform policy or practice of its rounding practice. With respect to the meal period
claims, although there was a period when Defendant’s automatically deducted
employee meal periods, this ceased in April 2013, and in June 2015, Defendant
updated their employee handbook and implemented a facially compliant policy.
Similarly, Defendant updated its rest period policy in June 2015 and that even prior
to this it properly provided compliant rest breaks and that as they were not required
to maintain records Plaintiff would not be able to certify this claim. Further,
Defendant maintained that it properly reimbursed employees up to $60 per year
for safety shoes and provided other work-related equipment free of charge. These
potential defenses and changes in company policy limited the damages of these
claims and also limited the potential liability for the associated waiting time
penalties.
38. Limited participation by the class members also hindered the
prosecution of these claims. Although my office contacted more than 200 class
Case 5:16-cv-00035-JGB-KK Document 86-1 Filed 11/06/17 Page 11 of 67 Page ID #:1510
DECLARATION OF HEATHER DAVIS ISO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL- 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
27
28
members, many of the current employees at Masonite were unwilling to participate
in support of these claims for fear of retaliation. Defendant was also able to obtain
declarations from approximately 25 class members in support of its defenses
whom my office would have been forced to depose.
39. Additionally, although the parties had engaged in significant formal
and informal discovery and class-wide data analysis, significant costs and
expenses associated remained. Plaintiffs intended to depose each of the
approximately 25 class members from which Defendant obtained declarations.
Plaintiffs also had outstanding discovery issues with respect the deposition of
Defendant’s Person Most Qualified and the parties had already prepared a Joint
Stipulation Regarding Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Depositions. Moreover,
preparation for class certification and trial remained for the parties as well as the
prospect of appeals in the wake of a disputed class certification ruling for
Plaintiffs. As a result, the parties would incur considerably more attorneys' fees
and costs through trial.
40. This proposed class action settlement provides a significant monetary
recovery for the settlement class in the face of hotly disputed claims. Regarding
the overtime claim, Plaintiffs’ data analysis revealed that the putative class
members worked an average of 1 hour of overtime per week. According to
Plaintiffs calculations, the average hourly rate was $14.25. Defendants underpaid
overtime wages to the putative class by approximately $712,750, calculated as
follows: $14,25 hourly wage* 0.5 OT Premium* 100,000 OT hours= $712,750
underpaid OT Taking into account the risk involved with class certification, and
the defenses raised as to whether individual issues predominated, this amount was
reduced by 50% probability of prevailing on the merits and certification for a total
of $356,375
41. For Plaintiffs’ minimum wage claims, the same issues presented
themselves regarding whether Defendant’s rounding practices could be proven at
the certification stage and/or merits stage. Specifically, based on the records
presented, it appeared that Defendants had reduced the pay for employees based
Case 5:16-cv-00035-JGB-KK Document 86-1 Filed 11/06/17 Page 12 of 67 Page ID #:1511
DECLARATION OF HEATHER DAVIS ISO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL- 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
27
28
on time shaving for a period of time during the class period; however, the practice
varied from location to location and changed several times throughout the class
period. Nevertheless, Plaintiffs estimated if they had been able to fully recover
for their claims on failing to pay minimum wages the total recovery would be
approximately $900,000. Taking into account the same risks presented for the
overtime claim, this estimated recovery was reduced by 50% probability of
prevailing on the merits and certification for a total of $450,000.
42. With respect to the meal period claim, prior to March 2013, Defendant
engaged in an auto-deduct policy that automatically deducted lunch periods from
employees. Plaintiffs assumed a 95% violation rate during this period. After
ceasing this practice, Plaintiffs’ analysis revealed meal breaks were taken late or
not at all approximately 37% of the shifts. Based on this data, Plaintiffs estimate
there were approximately 47,541 missed or late meal periods. Based on an average
hourly rate of pay of $14.25 for non-exempt employees Plaintiffs calculated
Masonite’s maximum potential rest period exposure as follows: 47,541 meal
period violations* $14.25 meal period premium payment= $677,459.25. Taking
into account Masonite’s argument that meal periods were made available to non-
exempt employees, and that any missed meal periods were the result of individual
choices rather than a company-wide practice, Plaintiff’s discounted these potential
damages 50% for a risk of non-certification and by an additional 50% on the merits
for a risk of approximately $169,364.81in potential exposure.
43. With respect to the rest period claim, Defendant failed to produce a
compliant rest period policy until June 2015. Although the rest period policy
stated that employees were entitled to breaks, Plaintiffs assumed a mere 50%
compliance in accordance with legally required rest periods. Based on the shift
data provided by Defendant Plaintiffs estimated approximately 71,721
violations. Based on an average hourly rate of pay of $14.25 for non-exempt
employees Plaintiffs calculated Masonite’s maximum potential rest period
exposure as follows: 71,721 rest period violations* $14.25 rest period penalty
payment= $1,022,024. However, Defendant contended that Plaintiffs would face
Case 5:16-cv-00035-JGB-KK Document 86-1 Filed 11/06/17 Page 13 of 67 Page ID #:1512
DECLARATION OF HEATHER DAVIS ISO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL- 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
27
28
serious difficulty in both certifying this claim and in proving the attendant
damages, particularly given that it was not required to keep records of rest
periods. For these reasons and other risks in certifying the claim Plaintiffs
discounted the potential for this recovery by 50% and for an additional 50% for
risks related to proceeding on the merits. This led to a total value of $255,506.06.
44. With respect to the waiting time penalty claim, Masonite’s records
confirmed that there were 243 former non-exempt employees in the putative class
who separated their employment with Masonite within the three years
immediately preceding the filing of the Complaint. Based on an average hourly
rate of pay of $14.25, Plaintiffs estimated the average waiting time penalty per
employee to be approximately $3,420 ($14.25 * 8 hours* 30 days). Therefore,
Plaintiffs estimated Masonite’s potential waiting time penalty exposure as
follows 243 separated employees* $3,420 average waiting time penalty=
$831,060. However, based on Defendant’s potential defenses, Plaintiffs
discounted the value of the waiting time penalty claim by 75% to account for an
adverse merits ruling, to arrive at $205,265.00.
45. With respect to wage statement penalties, Masonite’s data also
reflected that there were approximately 653 non-exempt employees employed by
Masonite during the one-year statute of limitations period for the wage statement
claim. Although Plaintiffs presented claims about the failure to include proper
wage statements, Defendant presented exemplars showing the wage statements
may have properly included all items required under Labor Code section 226(a).
Thus, Plaintiffs estimated the wage statement penalties as follows: 653
employees * $4,000 (statutory maximum penalties) =$2,612,000 However, again
based Masonite’s defenses to certification and the merits Plaintiffs discounted
the value of the wage statement penalty claim by 50% for the risk of an adverse
certification ruling and an additional 75% to account for an adverse merits ruling
for a projected total of $326,500.
46. Finally, with respect to PAGA Penalties, Plaintiffs estimated a total
PAGA exposure of $12,777,741 for PAGA penalties for the entire class. Based
Case 5:16-cv-00035-JGB-KK Document 86-1 Filed 11/06/17 Page 14 of 67 Page ID #:1513
DECLARATION OF HEATHER DAVIS ISO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL- 15
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
on the defenses raised by Defendants that (1) Plaintiff Byrd had filed outside the
statute of limitations and that Plaintiff Maunakea was only within the period of
August 2015 forward, and (2) the potential defenses raised as to whether Plaintiff
would be able to proceed on behalf of all of the aggrieved employees, Plaintiffs
discounted that figure by 50% for a risk of losing on the beginning stages and
another 50% for the risk of the Court reducing penalties, to arrive at a projected
total of $638,887.05 The Parties allocated $50,000.00 of the settlement to the
parties PAGA claims, of which 75% ($37,500) will be paid to the LWDA. The
remaining 25% will be distributed to the class members. My office provided
Notice to the LWDA after execution of the addendum on November 6, 2017.
Fifty thousand dollars constitutes approximately 2% of the total settlement value,
a percentage within the range regularly approved in both state and federal courts.
See e.g.
• Davis v. Brown Shoe Co., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 149010 (E.D. Cal.
2015) (PAGA Payment of $5,000 in a $1.5 million class settlement)
• Zamora v. Ryder Integrated Logistics, Inc., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
184096 (S.D. Cal. 2014) ($7,500 payment to LWDA for PAGA on a
$1.5 million class settlement)
• Lusby v. Gamestop Inc., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42637 (N.D. Cal.
2015) (PAGA Payment of $5,000 in a $500,000 class settlement)
• Cruz v. Sky Chefs, Inc., 2014 U.S. Dist Lexis 17693 (N.D. Cal. 2014)
(approving payment of $10,000 to the LWDA for PAGA out of
A lawsuit was commenced by a former employee of Masonite Corporation (“Masonite” or “Defendant”) on
November 17, 2015. The case is currently pending the United States District Court, Central District of California,
Case No. 5:16-cv-00035-JGB-KK.
The lawsuit claims that Masonite did not provide compliant meal and rest periods and associated premium pay, did
not properly pay all overtime and minimum wage compensation due and owing, did not provide accurate wage
statements, did not timely pay all overtime and minimum wage compensation due and owing, did not timely pay all
wages owed at termination of employment, did not maintain accurate records, and did not reimburse employees for
business expenses incurred on behalf of Masonite. The lawsuit also seeks associated penalties (including and not
limited to penalties pursuant to the California Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”)) and relief for unfair
business practices. The lawsuit claims that the Defendant violated the California Labor Code and the California
Business and Professions Code, entitling Class Members to, inter alia, damages, penalties and restitution. Defendant
denies all alleged violations, and denies that it owes Class Members any remedies. The Court has not made a ruling
on the merits of the case.
22.. WWhhyy iiss tthhiiss aa ccllaassss aaccttiioonn??
In a class action, one or more people called Class Representatives (in this case Derrick Byrd and Randy Maunakea,
also known as “Plaintiffs”), sue on behalf of people who appear to have similar claims (in this case all individuals
who have been employed by Masonite in the state of California as non-exempt employees at any time from
November 17, 2011 through July 14, 2017). All these people are referred to here as Class Members. One court
resolves the issues for all Class Members in one lawsuit, except for those who exclude themselves from the Class.
The United States District Court, Central District of California, is in charge of this class action.
33.. WWhhyy iiss tthheerree aa sseettttlleemmeenntt??
The Court has not decided in favor of the Plaintiffs, Class, or Defendant. Instead, both sides agreed to a
settlement which is memorialized in the Joint Stipulation of Class Action and PAGA Settlement and Release
and the Amended Joint Stipulation of Class Action and PAGA Settlement and Release (collectively “Settlement
Agreement” or “Settlement”).
Case 5:16-cv-00035-JGB-KK Document 86-1 Filed 11/06/17 Page 61 of 67 Page ID #:1560
-2-
On _____, the Court granted preliminary approval of the Settlement and appointed Plaintiffs Derrick Byrd and
Randy Maunakea as Class Representatives and appointed their attorneys LAWYERS for JUSTICE, P.C. and
PROTECTION LAW GROUP, LLP as counsel for the Class (“Class Counsel”).
The Class Representatives and Class Counsel think the Settlement is best for the Class.
WHO IS IN THE SETTLEMENT?
44.. HHooww ddoo II kknnooww iiff II aamm ppaarrtt ooff tthhee sseettttlleemmeenntt??
You are part of the Settlement, and a Class Member, if you were employed by Masonite as a non-exempt employee in the state of California at any time from November 17, 2011 through July 14, 2017.