matthew j. matern (sbn 159798) wendy sha (sbn 240364)

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

MOTION FOR FINAL SETTLEMENT APPROVAL;

MEMO IN SUPPORT

U.S.D.C., S.D. Cal. No. 3:09-CV-02422-JM-DHB

MATTHEW J. MATERN (SBN 159798) WENDY SHA (SBN 240364) RASTEGAR & MATERN, ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1010 Crenshaw Boulevard, Suite 100 Torrance, CA 90501 Telephone: (310) 218-5500 Facsimile: (310) 218-1155 [email protected] [email protected] JAMES M. FINBERG (SBN 114850) EVE H. CERVANTEZ (SBN 164709) PEDER J. THOREEN (SBN 217081) ALTSHULER BERZON LLP 177 Post Street, Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 421-7151 Facsimile: (415) 362-8064 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Class Counsel

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DOMONIQUE HINES, individually, and on behalf of all other similarly situated current and former employees of KFC U.S. Properties, Inc., Plaintiffs, v. KFC U.S. PROPERTIES, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,

Defendants.

Case No. 3:09-cv-02422-JM-DHB NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND FOR FINAL CERTIFICATION OF SETTLEMENT CLASS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF Hearing Date: January 28, 2013 Hearing Time: 10:00 a.m. Courtroom: 16 Judge: Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller

Case 3:09-cv-02422-JM-DHB Document 149 Filed 12/21/12 PageID.6876 of 10

mailto:[email protected]





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

-1- MOTION FOR FINAL SETTLEMENT APPROVAL;

MEMO IN SUPPORT


NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on January 28, 2013 at 10:00 a.m., or as soon thereafter as the

matter may be heard, in Courtroom 16 of this Court, located at 940 Front St., San Diego, CA 92101,

Plaintiffs will, and hereby do, move for orders granting final approval of the parties’ class action

settlement, and finally certifying the proposed settlement class.

Plaintiffs’ Motion is based on this Notice, and the accompanying Memorandum of Points and

Authorities, the Declaration of James M. Finberg in Support of Motion for Final Approval of Settlement

(“Finberg Decl.”), the Declaration of Mark Patton (“Patton Decl.”), and the Settlement Agreement

(Docket No. 143-2), all other pleadings and papers on file in this action, and any oral argument the

Court permits.

Dated: December 21, 2012 JAMES M. FINBERG ALTSHULER BERZON LLP By: ____/s/ James M. Finberg______ James M. Finberg

JAMES M. FINBERG (SBN 114850) EVE H. CERVANTEZ (SBN 164709) PEDER J. THOREEN (SBN 217081) ALTSHULER BERZON LLP 177 Post Street, Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 421-7151 Facsimile: (415) 362-8064

MATTHEW J. MATERN (SBN 159798) WENDY SHA (SBN 240364) RASTEGAR & MATERN, ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1010 Crenshaw Boulevard, Suite 100 Torrance, CA 90501 Telephone: (310) 218-5500 Facsimile: (310) 218-1155


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


MEMO IN SUPPORT


MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION

The parties have agreed to settle the claims in this action for $3,550,000, plus interest. The

settlement provides meaningful relief for thousands of class members. The settlement also provides

Class Members a recovery now, without the delays attendant with further litigation. Particularly given

the very real risks associated with continued litigation, the parties’ settlement easily satisfies the “fair,

reasonable, and adequate” standard for final approval. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e).

Class members have responded favorably to the settlement. Class notice and claim forms were

mailed to 17,022 class members on October 29, 2012, in both English and Spanish. Patton Decl., ¶3.

As of December 20, 2012, the claims administrator had already received 3,712 claim forms (id. at ¶8),

and the deadline for submitting claim forms is not until December 28, 2012. The deadline for opting out

of, or objecting to, the settlement passed on December 13, 2012. See id. ¶¶10-11. Only 12 class

members opted out. Id. ¶10. Not one class member objected to the terms of the settlement. Id. ¶11.

Class counsel, who are experienced in litigating employment class action cases, and who were

thoroughly familiar with the law and facts of this case at the time the settlement was negotiated, believe

that this proposed settlement is in the best interest of the class.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

I. THE TERMS OF THE SETTLEMENT ARE FAIR, REALSONABLE, AND

ADEQUATE.

Within 10 days after the Court grants final settlement approval, KFC will deposit the sum of

$3,550,000 into an interest-bearing account set up by the claims administrator for the benefit of the

plaintiff class. Dkt. No. 143-2 (“Settlement Agreement”), Section X. Under the settlement, no portion

of that money will revert to KFC. Settlement Agreement, Section X.B.

After payment of such attorneys’ fees and costs and expenses and payments as are awarded by

the Court, and reasonable costs of claims administration, the entire balance of the Settlement Fund, plus

accrued interest, will be paid to class members who submit timely claims. Id., Section XIII. The net

settlement fund will be allocated among claimants in proportion to days worked in class jobs. Id.,

Section XIII.A.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


MEMO IN SUPPORT


In exchange for these payments, Class Members will release claims arising out of the facts

alleged in this case, as follows:

A. Release of Claims: In consideration of his or her eligibility for a Settlement

Share, as of the date the Final Approval Order is entered by the Court, each and every

Class Member, on behalf of themselves and their heirs and assigns, unless he or she

has properly elected to opt out of the class, upon the Settlement becoming Final,

hereby releases KFC and its former and current parents, subsidiaries, and affiliated

corporations, its officers, directors, shareholders, and any other successors, or assigns

from any claims that were brought, or could have been brought, arising out of the

facts alleged in the Complaint in this action, including statutory, constitutional,

contractual, or common claims for wages, damages, unpaid costs, restitution,

penalties, liquidated damages, punitive damages, interest, attorneys’ fees, litigation

costs, restitution and/or equitable relief for failure to provide meal or rest breaks as

required by California law, the failure to pay for all the time worked after closing

shifts, the failure to pay employees the amounts owed to them when they separated

from KFC based on the facts alleged in the complaint, including claims under the

California Labor Code relating to meal and rest breaks, overtime, waiting time

penalties or record keeping, unfair and unlawful business practices in violation of the

California Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §17200 et seq., arising

from these facts, or penalties established by the California Private Attorney General

Act, Cal. Labor Code §2698 et seq., arising from these facts (“Released Claims”).

B. Waiver of California Civil Code Section 1542: With respect to the subject

matter of their respective Released Claims, Class Members expressly waive and

relinquish the provisions, rights and benefits of section 1542 of the California Civil

Code and any analogous law, statute, or rule. Section 1542 states:

A general release does not extend to claims which the creditor does not know

or suspect to exist in his or her favor at the time of executing the release,

which if known by him or her must have materially affected his or her

settlement with the debtor.

Class Members may hereafter discover facts in addition to or different from those they now know or believe to be true with respect to the subject matter of the Released Claims, but upon the date when the Final Approval Order becomes Final, shall be deemed to have, and by operation of the Final Judgment shall have, fully, finally, and forever settled and released any and all of the Released Claims, whether known or unknown, suspected or unsuspected, contingent or non-contingent, which now exist, or heretofore have existed, upon any theory of law or equity now existing or coming into existence in the future, including, but not limited to, conduct that is negligent, intentional, with or without malice, or a breach of any duty, law or rule, without regard to the subsequent discovery or existence of such different or additional facts.

Settlement Agreement, Section XIV.


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


MEMO IN SUPPORT


II. CLASS COUNSEL WERE FULLY INFORMED WHEN THE SETTLEMENT WAS

NEGOTIATED.

Class Counsel engaged in extensive fact-gathering, motion practice, and discovery before

agreeing to the terms of the proposed settlement. Through the course of litigation, Class Counsel

conducted a thorough investigation into the underlying facts and the merits of the potential claims and

defenses. Finberg Decl. ¶¶15-18.

The parties exchanged and analyzed approximately 25,000 documents. Finberg Decl. ¶16. In

addition, KFC produced electronic time records reflecting over two million shifts worked by Team

Members in California during the relevant time frame, and Class Counsel’s expert extensively analyzed

those time records to determine whether and when members of the class were deprived of their meal and

rest breaks, or worked off the clock. Class Counsel also obtained third party alarm records, which their

expert also analyzed for purposes of calculating the amount of unpaid off-the-clock work and

determining the feasibility of calculating damages for such work on a classwide basis. Id.

Additionally, the parties conducted 28 depositions of KFC management, class members, and

expert witnesses. Finberg Decl. ¶17. Over 90 declarations were obtained and filed with the Court. Id.

Prior to the August 2012 mediation session, Class Counsel performed a comprehensive legal

analysis regarding the ultimate merits of their claims, the damages at issue, and the viability of

proceeding through trial on a class basis. Finberg Decl. ¶18. By the time of the mediation, Class

Counsel were fully informed about the strengths and weaknesses of the case. These extensive efforts

provided ample basis for Class Counsel to weigh the merits of the claims, the viability of litigating those

claims on a class basis, and the reasonableness of the settlement eventually obtained. Id.

III. THE SETTLEMENT WAS NEGOTIATED AT ARMS LENGTH; SETTLEMENT

NEGOTIATIONS WERE SURPERVISED BY THE HON. VAUGHN R. WALKER

(RET.).

The proposed settlement was negotiated in good faith and at arms’ length. The settlement

negotiations were supervised by the Hon. Vaughn Walker (ret.), the former Chief Judge of the Northern

District of California, who presided over a day of mediation. Before the mediation, the parties

submitted mediation briefs and supplemental exhibits. During the mediation, the parties vigorously

pressed their positions. Finberg Decl. ¶19. Although the mediation initially failed to result in


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


MEMO IN SUPPORT


settlement, the parties continued their negotiations with the assistance of Judge Walker, eventually

reaching an agreement in principle and reducing this agreement to a signed memorandum of

understanding, which formed the basis for the Settlement Agreement. Id., ¶20. The settlement creates a

$3.55 million, non-reversionary common fund on behalf of approximately 17,000 KFC employees. Id.

Given the current level of participation in the settlement, and assuming the Court grants in full

Class Counsel’s pending request for attorneys’ fees and costs and a service payment to the named

plaintiff, the anticipated recovery per class member is, on average, over $600. Id. ¶21. For those who

worked for the longest during the Class Period, recoveries may be substantially more than that. Id.

The proposed settlement is the non-collusive result of extensive factual and legal analysis

and protracted arms’ length negotiations between experienced and well-informed counsel under the

supervision of an experienced mediator. Id. ¶¶15-20.

ARGUMENT

The Ninth Circuit has recognized a strong policy favoring voluntary settlement of complex class

actions. “[V]oluntary conciliation and settlement are the preferred means of dispute resolution.”

Officers for Justice v. Civil Serv. Comm’n, 688 F.2d 615, 625 (9th Cir. 1982). This is “especially true in

complex class action” cases, which lend themselves to compromise because of the difficulties of proof,

uncertainty of outcome, and length and complexity of litigation. Id. See also Class Plaintiffs v. City of

Seattle, 955 F.2d 1268, 1276 (9th Cir. 1992) (“[S]trong judicial policy . . . favors settlements,

particularly where complex class action litigation is concerned.”).

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e) requires that a class action settlement be “fair, adequate,

and reasonable” in order to merit approval. The Ninth Circuit has identified a non-exhaustive list of

factors to guide the final approval inquiry, including (1) the amount offered in settlement, (2) the

reaction of the class to the proposed settlement, (3) the strength of the plaintiffs’ case balanced against

the “risk, expense, complexity, and likely duration of further litigation” and the “risk of maintaining

class action status throughout the trial,” (4) the “extent of discovery completed” and the “stage of the

proceedings,” and (5) the informed views of experienced counsel. See Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150

F.3d 1011, 1026 (9th Cir. 1998); see also Staton v. Boeing Co., 327 F.3d 938, 959 (9th Cir. 2003). With

respect to the last factor, the “recommendations of plaintiffs’ counsel should be given a presumption of


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


MEMO IN SUPPORT


reasonableness,” particularly when counsel has significant experience litigating similar cases. Boyd v.

Bechtel Corp., 485 F.Supp. 610, 622 (N.D. Cal. 1979); Ellis v. Naval Air Rework Facility, 87 F.R.D. 15,

18 (N.D. Cal. 1980) (“[T]he fact that experienced counsel involved in the case approved the settlement

after hard-fought negotiations is entitled to considerable weight.”).

When determining whether to grant final approval, “the court’s intrusion upon what is otherwise

a private consensual agreement negotiated between the parties to a lawsuit must be limited to the extent

necessary to reach a reasoned judgment that the agreement is not the product of fraud or overreaching

by, or collusion between, the negotiating parties, and that the settlement, taken as a whole, is fair,

reasonable, and adequate to all concerned.” Officers for Justice, 688 F.2d at 625; see also Hanlon, 150

F.3d at 1026 (“It is the settlement taken as a whole, rather than the individual component parts, that must

be examined for overall fairness.”).

I. THE COURT SHOULD GRANT FINAL APPROVAL TO THE SETTLEMENT.

A. The Settlement Provides Meaningful Relief to the Class

The proposed settlement was negotiated in good faith and at arms’ length. The parties

vigorously pressed their positions throughout. When mediation failed to result in settlement, the parties

continued their discussion, only reaching agreement after extensive negotiations overseen by Judge

Walker. The settlement creates a $3.55 million, non-reversionary common fund on behalf of

approximately 17,000 KFC employees. That figure represents more than the total wages Class Counsel

alleged were owed on the meal break claim, which was the strongest of the Class’s claims. Finberg

Decl. ¶22.

B. The Reaction of the Class Supports Approval of the Settlement.

Class notice and claim forms were sent to 17,022 Class Members on October 29, 2012. See

Patton Decl. ¶3. As to those that were initially returned as undeliverable, the Claims Administrator

obtained new addresses for and resent the notice to 3,067 Class Members. Id. ¶¶6-7. Additionally, on

November 26, 2012, reminder postcards were sent to the 15,481 Class Members who had not yet

submitted a claim form. Id. ¶4. The Claims Administrator has received nearly 650 calls from Class

Members inquiring about the settlement, and has re-mailed notices in response to over 200 of these calls.

Id. ¶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


MEMO IN SUPPORT


Objections and opt-outs were due on December 13, 2012, and class member claims must be

postmarked by December 28, 2012. See Preliminary Approval Order (Dkt. No. 146) at 6-8. As of

December 20, 2012, the Claims Administrator had received 3,712 claim forms. Patton Decl. ¶8. Only

12 class members (or approximately 0.07% of the individuals who were sent notices) have submitted an

opt-out request. Id. ¶10 & Exh. F. Not a single class member has submitted an objection to any of the

terms of the settlement. Id. ¶11. This overwhelming class member support for the settlement strongly

favors final approval.

C. The Litigation Involved Substantial Potential Risks.

The “risk, expense, complexity, and likely duration of further litigation” are factors to be

considered in assessing a proposed settlement. Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1026. Here, the settlement is

exceptional in light of the significant risks faced by Plaintiffs. Although Class Counsel initially secured

class certification of their meal and rest break claims, subsequent decisions by the United States

Supreme Court in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S.Ct. 2541 (2011), and the California Supreme

Court in Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.4th 1004 (2012), raised the very real

possibility that the Court would revisit that ruling. Finberg Decl. ¶23. Indeed, that possibility led the

Court to stay all proceedings in this case for over 15 months in anticipation of the ruling in Brinker.

Since the decisions in Dukes and Brinker were issued, a number of courts have relied on them in

denying class certification in California meal and rest break cases. See, e.g., Gonzalez v. OfficeMax N.

Am., 2012 WL 5473764 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 5, 2012); Ugas v. H & R Block Enters., LLC, 2012 WL

5230297 (C.D. Cal. July 9, 2012); Tien v. Tenet Healthcare Corp., 209 Cal.App.4th 1077 (2012). A

motion by KFC to decertify plaintiffs’ meal and rest break classes, premised on Dukes and Brinker, was

pending when the parties agreed on the terms of the settlement. See Dkt. #125.

D. The Parties Conducted Extensive Investigation and Analysis and the Settlement

Was Reached through Arms’ Length Negotiations.

As described above, Class Counsel engaged in extensive fact-gathering, motion practice, and

discovery (including document requests, interrogatories, and depositions) before agreeing to the terms of

the proposed settlement. By the time of the mediation, Class Counsel were fully informed about the

strengths and weaknesses of the case. As described above, the proposed settlement was negotiated in


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


MEMO IN SUPPORT


good faith and at arms’ length, only after lengthy discussions supervised by the Judge Walker.

E. The Recommendations of Experienced Counsel Favor Approval of the Settlement.

The judgment of experienced counsel regarding the settlement is entitled to significant weight.

See, e.g., Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1026. The recommendation of experienced class counsel should be given

a presumption of reasonableness. See Boyd, 485 F.Supp. at 622.

Here, Class Counsel, who have extensive experience prosecuting and litigating employment

cases and complex class actions, see Finberg Decl. ¶¶3-14; Dkt. No. 148-3 ¶¶2-12, and who conducted a

comprehensive legal and factual investigation into the claims in this case, see discussion supra, firmly

believe that the proposed settlement easily satisfies Rule 23(e)’s requirements and is in the best interest

of all class members. Finberg Decl. ¶24.

II. THE COURT SHOULD GRANT FINAL CLASS CERTIFICATION.

The Court’s October 4, 2012 preliminary approval order conditionally certified a settlement

class. No member of the class has objected to class certification or to the appointment of the class

representative or Class Counsel. See Patton Decl. ¶11.

For this reason, in addition to the reasons stated in plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary approval

and in the Court’s October 4 order, the Court should grant final certification to the settlement class and

should confirm the appointment of the class representative and Class Counsel.

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /


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


MEMO IN SUPPORT


CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court should grant final approval to the parties’ settlement, and

grant final certification to the proposed settlement class.

Dated: December 21, 2012. JAMES M. FINBERG ALTSHULER BERZON LLP By: _/s/ James M. Finberg____________

JAMES M. FINBERG (SBN 114850) EVE H. CERVANTEZ (SBN 164709) PEDER J. THOREEN (SBN 217081) ALTSHULER BERZON LLP 177 Post Street, Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 421-7151 Facsimile: (415) 362-8064 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] MATTHEW J. MATERN (SBN 159798) WENDY SHA (SBN 240364) RASTEGAR & MATERN, ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1010 Crenshaw Boulevard, Suite 100 Torrance, CA 90501 Telephone: (310) 218-5500 Facsimile: (310) 218-1155 [email protected] [email protected]







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 JAMES M. FINBERG ISO FINAL SETTLEMENT APPROVAL

U.S.D.C., S.D. Cal. No. 3:09-cv-02422-JM-DHB

MATTHEW J. MATERN (SBN 159798) WENDY SHA (SBN 240364) RASTEGAR & MATERN, ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1010 Crenshaw Boulevard, Suite 100 Torrance, CA 90501 Telephone: (310) 218-5500 Facsimile: (310) 218-1155 [email protected] [email protected] JAMES M. FINBERG (SBN 114850) EVE H. CERVANTEZ (SBN 164709) PEDER J. THOREEN (SBN 217081) ALTSHULER BERZON LLP 177 Post Street, Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 421-7151 Facsimile: (415) 362-8064 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Class Counsel




Defendants.

Case No. 3:09-cv-02422-JM-DHB DECLARATION OF JAMES M. FINBERG IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND FOR FINAL CERTIFICATION OF SETTLEMENT CLASS Hearing Date: January 28, 2013 Hearing Time: 10:00 a.m. Courtroom: 16 Judge: Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller

Case 3:09-cv-02422-JM-DHB Document 149-1 Filed 12/21/12 PageID.6886 Page 1 of 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

-1- DECLARATION OF JAMES M. FINBERG

ISO FINAL SETTLEMENT APPROVAL U.S.D.C., S.D. CAL. NO. 3:09-CV-02422-JM-DHB

I, JAMES M. FINBERG, declare as follows:

1. I am a member in good standing of the bar of the State of California. I am a partner in

Altshuler Berzon LLP, one of the firms representing Plaintiffs and the Class Members in this action.

2. This Declaration is submitted in support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Final Approval of Class

Action Settlement And For Final Certification of Settlement Class.

My Background And Experience

3. I received a Bachelor of Arts degree, with honors in history and environmental studies,

from Brown University in 1980. I received a Juris Doctor degree from the University of Chicago Law

School in 1983. At the University of Chicago Law School, I was the Executive Editor of the University

of Chicago Law Review.

4. From Fall 1983 through Summer 1984, I served as a law clerk to the Honorable Charles

L. Levin, a Justice of the Supreme Court of the State of Michigan.

5. Since 2005, I have been listed by Best Lawyers in America as one of the best lawyers in

America in the field of law and employment law. I am a fellow of the American College of Labor and

Employment Lawyers. Since 2004, I have been designated by San Francisco magazine as a Northern

California “Super Lawyer,” including being listed as one of the top 100 attorneys in Northern California

since 2005. In 2003, I was selected by The Recorder legal newspaper (based on a survey of judges,

arbitrators, mediators, and lawyers in the field) as the top plaintiffs' securities litigator in the San

Francisco Bay Area. In 2004, I was selected by The Recorder legal newspaper as one of the top

plaintiffs' employment litigators in the San Francisco Bay Area. In 2006, I was selected by The Daily

Journal as one of the Top 100 lawyers in California. In 2009, I was named a California Lawyer of the

Year by the California Lawyer magazine in the area of civil rights law.

6. In 2005, I served as President of the Bar Association of San Francisco. From 2000

through 2001, I served as Co Chair of the delegation of lawyer representatives from the Northern

District of California to the Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference. From 1997 through 1998 and 2009 to

2010, I served as Co Chair of the Board of Directors of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights of the

San Francisco Bay Area. I currently serve on the Executive Committee of the Legal Society –


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



Employment Law Center. From 2008 to 2010, I served on the Visiting Committee of the University of

Chicago Law School.

7. I am a co-author of “Statistical and Other Expert Proof,” in Employment Discrimination

Law (4th ed., Lindemann and Grossman), and I co-edited with Eve Cervantez the 2008 and 2010

supplements to that chapter. I edited the 2000 and 2002 Cumulative Supplements to Chapter 39,

“Statistical Proof,” of that treatise (3d ed.). I have been a contributor to Wage and Hour Laws: A State

by State Survey (BNA, 2004) and to Fair Labor Standards Act: 2004 Cumulative Supplement (BNA,

2004). I edited Chapter 19, regarding class and collective actions, of the 2nd edition of the Fair Labor

Standards Act treatise.

8. I am author or co-author of the following articles, among others: The Use of Expert

Testimony in Employment Cases Post-Dukes (NELA Oct. 2012): “Life After Dukes—Disparate Impact

Claims for Compensation Discrimination are Certified in McReynolds v. Merrill Lynch, 2012 WL

572745, F.3d (7th Cir. 2012) (NELA Annual Convention June 2012); “Representing Misclassified and

Reclassified Workers,” (NELA Annual Convention July 2011); Co-author with Dennis McClelland,

Paul L. Bittner and Janet Herold, “Get in the Game: The Latest News and Developments in Wage and

Hour Litigation,” (ABA 4th Annual CLE Conference November 2010); Ricci v. DeStefano: Sound and

Fury Signifying Little, For Now (ABA EEO Conference March 2010); Co-author with Peder Thoreen,

The Impact of Morgan v. Family Dollar Stores on FLSA Collective Actions, ABA Section of Labor and

Employment Law (2009); Co-author with David Borgen, Julia Akins Clark, Peder Thoreen, Ellen C.

Kearnes, and William C. E. Robinson, White Collar Exemptions, ABA Section of Labor and

Employment Law: The Wage & Hour Track (2008); Co-author with Peder J. Thoreen, The Use of

Representative Testimony and Bifurcation of Liability and Damages in FLSA Collective Actions (ABA

2007); Co-author with Peter E. Leckman, Holding Customers Who Assist Securities Fraud Accountable

Under State Law, Securities Litigation Report (Vol. 3, No. 5, May 2006); Author, State Law Wage/Hour

Class Actions: Alive And Well In Federal Court, ABA Labor and Employment Section 2005; Co

Author with Melissa Matheny, A Developing Consensus: The PSLRA’s ‘Basis’ Requirement Does Not

Require the Disclosure of Confidential Sources in a Complaint, Securities Litigation Report (Vol. 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



No. 1, July/August 2005) (Glasser Legal Works); Co-author with Chimène I. Keitner, New Overtime

Regulations Require Heightened Vigilance, San Francisco Attorney magazine, Spring 2004; Co-author

with Chimène I. Keitner, Summary of Proposed DOL Regulations Re FLSA Overtime Exemptions

(2003) (American Bar Association Labor and Employment Law, Federal Labor Standards Legislation

Committee Annual Report); Title VII’s Remedial Scheme: Employment Discrimination Class Actions at

the Crossroads, San Francisco Attorney (August/September 2002); Certification of Employment

Discrimination Actions After The Passage of the 1991 Civil Rights Act: (b)(2) or Not (b)(2), That Is The

Question, Class Actions & Derivative Suits, Vol. 10 (March 2000); Co-author with Joshua P. Davis,

Allison v. Citgo Petroleum Corp. A Noble Retreat, Class Actions & Derivative Suits, Vol. 9, No. 1

(Winter 1999); Co-author with Kelly Dermody, Discovery in Employment Discrimination Class Actions,

in Litigation and Settlement of Complex Class Actions (Glasser Legal Works 1998); Co-author with

Melanie M. Piech, The Impact of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act: Unintended

Consequences, Securities Reform Act Litigation Reporter, Vol. 6, No. 3 (Dec. 1998); Co-author with

Karen Jo Koonan, The Importance of Anecdotal Testimony to the Jury Trial of a Title VII Class Action:

Lessons from Butler v. Home Depot, Class Actions & Derivative Suits, Vol. 8, No. 3 (Summer 1998);

Northern District of California Requires Internet Posting of Pleadings And Key Briefs In Securities

Actions, Securities Reform Act Litigation Reporter (1997); Class Actions: Useful Devices That Promote

Judicial Economy And Provide Access to Justice, 41 New York Law School Law Review 353 (1997);

Co-author (with Melvin R. Goldman), Deposing Expert Witnesses in Taking Depositions (ABA) (1989);

Co-author (with George C. Weickhardt), New Push For Chemical Weapons, Bulletin of the Atomic

Scientist (Nov. 1986); Comment, The General Mining Law and The Doctrine of Pedis Possessio: The

Case For Congressional Action, 49 University of Chicago Law Review 1027 (1982).

9. During the spring semester of 2008, I served as an Adjunct Professor of Law at the

University of California, Hastings College of Law, where I taught Employment Discrimination Law.

10. During my approximately 28 years of practice, I have served as an attorney in many

complex class actions, including serving as lead plaintiffs’ counsel in many wage and hour class action

lawsuits. I have represented plaintiff classes in class actions in many dozens of cases, including the


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



following: Holloway v. Best Buy, C05-cv-05056 (N.D. Cal.) (final approval of Consent Decree

providing comprehensive injunctive relief in race and gender discrimination class action in 2011);

Amochaev v. Smith Barney, C05-CV-1298 PJH (N. D. Cal.) ($33 million settlement, plus comprehensive

injunctive relief in gender discrimination case); Common Cause of Colorado v. Coffman, C08-CV-2321

WYD (Dist. Colo.) (obtained preliminary injunctive relief in Oct. 2008 protecting voting rights of

approximately 40,000 voters purged from voting rolls); Rosenburg v. Int’l Bus. Machines Corp., No.

C06-0430-PJH (N.D. Cal.) ($65 million settlement of wage and hour class and collective action in

2007); Satchell v. Federal Express Corp., Nos. C03-2659-SI; C03-2878-SI (N.D. Cal.) (settlement of

$55 million, plus comprehensive injunctive relief, of race and national origin discrimination claims in

2007); Jaffe v. Morgan Stanley (Consent Decree providing comprehensive injunctive relief, plus $16

million in monetary relief approved in 2008); Danieli v. IBM (settlement of $7.5 million in wage/hour

misclassification action approved in 2010); Adams v. Inter Con Security Systems, C06-5428-MHP (N.D.

Cal.) (settlement of $4 million in wage/hour settlement in 2008); In re The Pep Boys Overtime Actions,

C07-CV-01755 VBF (C. D. Cal.) (settlement of $6 million in wage/hour case in 2008); Martin v.

NUMMI, C07-CV-3887 PJH (N. D. Cal.) (settlement of $4.65 million in off the clock case in 2008);

Wynne v. McCormick & Schmick’s, C06 CV-3153-CW (N. D. Cal.) (approval in 2008 of Consent

Decree providing comprehensive injunctive relief, plus monetary relief of $2.1 million in race

discrimination case); Butler v. Home Depot, No. C94-4335-SI (settlement of $87.5 million, plus

comprehensive injunctive relief, in gender discrimination case in 1998); Frank v. United Airlines, No.

C92-0692-MJJ (N.D. Cal.) ($36.5 million gender discrimination settlement in 2004); Giannetto v. CSC

Corp., No. CV-03-8201 (C.D. Cal.) ($24 million settlement of wage/hour case in 2005); Gerlach v.

Wells Fargo & Co., No. C05-0585-CW (N.D. Cal.) ($12.8 million settlement of wage and hour class

and collective action in 2007); Trotter v. Perdue Farms, Case No. 99-893 (RRM) (U.S.D.C. Del.) ($10

million settlement in wage and hour case in 2002); Thomas v. CSAA, No. CH217752 (Alameda County

Sup. Ct.) ($8 million settlement of insurance claim adjuster overtime case in 2002); Gottlieb, et al v.

SBC Communications, et al., No. CV 00-4139-AHM (C.D. Cal.) ($10 million ERISA settlement in

2002); Buttram v. UPS, No. C97-1590-MJJ (N.D. Cal.) ($12.2 million settlement, plus comprehensive


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



injunctive relief, of race discrimination action in 1999); Church v. Consolidated Freightways, Inc., 1993

WL149840 (N.D. Cal.) ($13.5 million settlement in age discrimination case in 1993); In re California

Micro Devices Securities Litigation, C94-2817-VRW (N.D. Cal.) ($26 million in settlements

approximately 100% of losses); In re Network Associates, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. C99-1729-

WHA (N.D. Cal.) ($30 million settlement in 2001); In re Mediavision Technology Securities Litigation,

No. C94-1015-EFL (N.D. Cal.) (settlements and judgment totaling $218 million).

11. In September 2003, I served as one of the primary trial counsel representing plaintiffs in a

three-week class and collective action liability phase trial involving approximately 2,700 insurance

claims adjusters in In re: Farmers Insurance Exchange Claims Representatives’ Overtime Pay

Litigation, No. MDL Docket No. 1439 (D. Or.). On November 6, 2003, Judge Robert E. Jones ruled in

favor of the auto and low-level adjusters. The Court found that Farmers acted willfully in violating the

FLSA, and that the auto and low-level adjustors were entitled to liquidated damages as well as actual

damages. During 2004 and 2005, I and colleagues tried the damages phase of that case. Judgments

totaling approximately $52.5 million were entered for plaintiffs in 2005. On March 30, 2007, a three-

judge panel of the Ninth Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded to the District Court for

consideration of state law claims. In re Farmers Exch., Claims Reps. Overtime Pay Litig. 481 F.3d 1119

(9th Cir. 2007). An $8 million settlement of that case received final approval in August, 2010.

12. My partner Eve H. Cervantez also has extensive experience litigating class action

lawsuits, including wage and hour cases. She is a graduate of Washington University and Harvard Law

School, where she was an editor of the Harvard Law Review. She served as a law clerk to Judge

Charles A. Legge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Prior to

joining Altshuler, Ms. Cervantez was a partner at Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, where

she also represented plaintiffs in class action employment and consumer lawsuits. She is the author of

When Should You Bring State Law Wage and Hour Claims in Addition to, or Instead of, FLSA Claims,

The Employee Advocate (Summer/Fall 2003) and co author of Avoiding Procedural Pitfalls, The

Employee Advocate (Summer 2008), and is a chapter editor or contributor to Employment

Discrimination Law (BNA, 2002 Cumulative Supplement to Third Edition and BNA, First, Second,


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



2008, 2009 Supplements to Fourth Edition), Wage and Hour Laws, A State by State Survey (BNA, 2006

Supplement) and The Fair Labor Standards Act (BNA, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 Supplements). She also

lectures regularly on wage and hour, employment discrimination, and class action law.

13. Peder Thoreen, a partner at Altshuler Berzon, also has extensive experience litigating

class action lawsuits, including wage and hour cases. He is a graduate of Pomona College and Yale Law

School, where he was a Senior Editor of the Yale Law and Policy Review. He served as a law clerk to

Judge Harry Pregerson of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and Judge Dean

Pregerson of the United States District Court for the Central District of California. He is on the editorial

board of Bender’s California Labor & Employment Bulletin and has written about various labor and

employment issues.

14. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is the firm resume of Altshuler Berzon LLP. Altshuler

Berzon has substantial experience in wage/hour litigation and in class action litigation.

Thorough Investigation And Litigation Of the Claims In This Case

15. We engaged in extensive fact-gathering, motion practice, and discovery before agreeing

to the terms of the proposed settlement in this case. Through the course of litigation, we conducted a

thorough investigation into the underlying facts and the merits of the potential claims and defenses.

16. The parties exchanged and analyzed approximately 25,000 documents. In addition, KFC

produced electronic time records reflecting over two million shifts worked by Team Members in

California during the relevant time frame, and our expert extensively analyzed those time records to

determine whether and when members of the class were deprived of their meal and rest breaks, or

worked off the clock. We also obtained third party alarm records, which our expert also analyzed for

purposes of calculating the amount of unpaid off-the-clock work and determining the feasibility of

calculating damages for such work on a classwide basis.

17. Additionally, the parties conducted 28 depositions of KFC management, class members,

and expert witnesses. Over 90 declarations were obtained and filed with the Court.

18. Prior to the August 2012 mediation session, we performed a comprehensive legal

analysis regarding the ultimate merits of their claims, the damages at issue, and the viability of


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



proceeding through trial on a class basis. By the time of the mediation, we were fully informed about

the strengths and weaknesses of the case. These extensive efforts described above provided ample basis

for us to weigh the merits of the claims, the viability of litigating those claims on a class basis, and the

reasonableness of the settlement eventually obtained.

Arms’-Length Negotiations

19. The proposed settlement was negotiated in good faith and at arms’ length. The

settlement negotiations were supervised by the Hon. Vaughn Walker (ret.), the former Chief Judge of

the Northern District of California, who presided over a day of mediation. Before the mediation, the

parties submitted mediation briefs and supplemental exhibits. During the mediation, the parties

vigorously pressed their positions.

20. Although the mediation initially failed to result in settlement, the parties continued their

negotiations with the assistance of Judge Walker, eventually reaching an agreement in principle and

reducing this agreement to a signed memorandum of understanding, which formed the basis for the

Settlement Agreement. The settlement creates a $3.55 million, non-reversionary common fund on

behalf of approximately 17,000 KFC employees.

Benefits Of the Settlement; Risks Of Continued Litigation

21. Given the current level of participation in the settlement, and assuming the Court grants

in full Class Counsel’s pending request for attorneys’ fees and costs and a service payment to the named

plaintiff, the anticipated recovery per class member is, on average, over $600. For those who worked

for the longest during the Class Period, recoveries may be substantially more than that.

22. As noted above, in preparation for mediation we prepared a comprehensive damages

analysis. The $3.55 million settlement represents more than we calculated as the total wages owed (not

including interest or associated penalties) on the Class’s meal break claim, which was the strongest of

the Class’s claims.

23. Although we initially secured class certification of their meal and rest break claims,

subsequent decisions by the United States Supreme Court in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S.Ct.

2541 (2011), and the California Supreme Court in Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court, 53


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



Cal.4th 1004 (2012), raised the very real possibility that the Court would revisit that ruling. Indeed, that

possibility led the Court to stay all proceedings in this case for over 15 months in anticipation of the

ruling in Brinker. Since the decisions in Dukes and Brinker were issued, a number of courts have relied

on them in denying class certification in California meal and rest break cases. See, e.g., Gonzalez v.

OfficeMax N. Am., 2012 WL 5473764 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 5, 2012); Ugas v. H & R Block Enters., LLC,

2012 WL 5230297 (C.D. Cal. July 9, 2012); Tien v. Tenet Healthcare Corp., 209 Cal.App.4th 1077

(2012). A motion by KFC to decertify plaintiffs’ meal and rest break classes, premised on Dukes and

Brinker, was pending when the parties agreed on the terms of the settlement. See Dkt. #125.

24. As set forth above, my co-counsel and I have extensive experience prosecuting and

litigating employment cases and complex class actions, and we conducted a comprehensive legal and

factual investigation into the claims in this case. We firmly believe that the proposed settlement easily

satisfies Rule 23(e)’s requirements and is in the best interest of all Class Members.

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

foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on December 21, 2012, at San Francisco, California.

______/s/ James M. Finberg__________________ James M. Finberg


EXHIBIT A


* Gentry v. Superior Court: Obtained California Supreme Court ruling that employers generallymay not prohibit workers from pursuing statutory claims on a classwide or collective basis.

* Bay Area Laundry Workers v. Ferbar (Supreme Court): Established longer statute oflimitations for suits against employers who withdraw from multi-employer pension plans.

* Burlington Northern Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters Local 174: Obtained aunanimous en banc court of appeals decision overturning prior decisions that had severelyweakened the protection afforded by the Norris-LaGuardia Act to union economic action.

* Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Svcs.: Obtained a ruling from the CaliforniaSupreme Court that employers cannot require their employees, as a condition of employment, toresolve employment claims through arbitration, where the arbitration agreement does not providefor specific procedural protections.

* Washington Service Contractors Coalition v. District of Columbia: Successfully defendedagainst a federal preemption challenge a local displaced worker ordinance that requires new servicecontractors to retain the employees of their predecessors.

* Does I Thru XXIII v. Advanced Textile Corp.: Established the right of workers to sue underfictitious names and withhold their identities from their employers, where they reasonably fear thatdisclosure of their identities will result in severe retaliation.

* Granite Rock Co. v. Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters (Supreme Court): Obtained U.S. Supreme Courtdecision rejecting an employer’s unprecedented attempt to expand Section 301 of the LMRA toinclude tort theories for interference with contract by international union.

* Passantino v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Products, Inc.: Successfully defended on appeala multi-million dollar jury award in an employment discrimination action under federal and statelaw.

* Veliz v. Cintas Corp.: Obtained a $22.75 million settlement of class actions and individual casespending in the Ninth Circuit, the Northern District of California, the Judicial Panel on MultidistrictLitigation, and AAA arbitration, each of which challenges a nationwide industrial laundrycompany’s policy of classifying its drivers as exempt from overtime requirements of federal andstate wage-and-hour laws.

* Hawaii State Teachers Assn./United Public Workers v. Lingle: Enjoined the Governor ofHawaii from unilaterally implementing unpaid furloughs for all state employees of three days permonth on the ground that unilateral implementation violated the state constitutional right tocollective bargaining.

* SEIU-UHW v. Fresno County IHSS Public Authority: Obtained an injunction requiring FresnoCounty to maintain the wage and benefit rates paid to providers of in-home support servicespending arbitration of the union's grievance regarding the wage and benefit reduction.

* Narayan v. EGL: Obtained a Ninth Circuit reversal of a district court's grant of summaryjudgment to an employer of delivery truck drivers, on the grounds that the district court hadimproperly applied Texas law to California drivers' statutory wage and hour claims and incorrectconcluded that the drivers were independent contractors rather than employees.


* Harris v. Quinn: Obtained dismissal of a lawsuit brought by the National Right to Work LegalDefense Foundation that challenged the right of home care providers in Illinois to choose a unionrepresentative for purposes of collective bargaining and negotiate fair-share fees to cover the costsof union representation.

* Does I et al. v. The Gap, Inc., et al.: Negotiated $20 million settlement and innovativeworkplace monitoring program in anti-sweatshop class action on behalf of 30,000 Chinese andother foreign workers against Saipan garment factories and retailers for alleged violations of RICO,Alien Tort Claims Act, FLSA, and federal common law.

* Satchell v. FedEx Express: Obtained a consent decree providing $55 million in monetary reliefto two classes of African American and Latino employees of FedEx Express, as well ascomprehensive injunctive relief against discriminatory employment practices, including reducingmanagerial discretion in promotions, compensation and discipline, and prohibiting the use of apromotion test that had an adverse impact on minority employees.

* Bright v. 99 Cent Only Stores, Inc./ Home Depot v. Superior Ct.: Obtained Court of Appealrulings that California workers have private right of action for civil penalties against employerswho violate minimum labor conditions standards guaranteed by IWC Wage Orders.

* Pulaski v. Calif. Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board: Successfully defended thenation’s first safety standard on ergonomics against an industry challenge, and invalidatedexemptions that would have prevented that standard from applying to most California workplaces.

* SkyWest Pilots ALPA Organizing Committee v. SkyWest Airlines, Inc.: Obtained a temporaryrestraining order and a preliminary injunction prohibiting an airline from interfering with its pilots’rights to organize and to free expression under the Railway Labor Act.

* UFCW Local 751 v. Brown Shoe Group, Inc. (Supreme Court): Established union standing tosue employers that violate the WARN Act’s statutory notice requirements.

* State Building & Constr. Trades v. Aubry: Struck down, as a usurpation of legislative authority,administrative regulations that would have lowered by 20 percent the prevailing wage rate paid toconstruction workers on public projects.

* Bell v. Farmers Ins. Exchange (Bell III): Obtained appellate decision upholding the largestovertime pay jury verdict in history, in class action on behalf of insurance company claimsrepresentatives who were misclassified as exempt under California’s wage and hour law, andsubsequently negotiated a settlement in excess of $200 million for class members.

* The Hess Collection Winery v. California Agricultural Relations Bd.: Successfully defendedagainst constitutional challenge a California statute providing for the binding resolution of disputesbetween agricultural employers and their union-represented employees arising from their failure toagree on an initial labor contract, thereby guaranteeing that agricultural workers will obtain aninitial contract.

* Employee Staffing Services, Inc. v. Aubry: Defeated an employee-leasing company’s ERISApreemption challenge to California’s workers’ compensation laws.

* NLRB v. Town & Country Electric, Inc. (Supreme Court): Protected paid union organizers


from discriminatory discharge or refusal to hire under the NLRA.

* Long Beach City Employees v. City of Long Beach: Overturned on state constitutional groundsa city policy requiring public employees to submit to polygraph examinations.

* Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Corp.: Obtained a ruling that a national aluminummanufacturer violated the NLRA by unlawfully locking out 3,000 of its employees and must paythem approximately $175 million in back wages – the highest backpay award in the history of theNLRA.

* Associated Builders and Contractors v. Nunn; ACTA v. Smith: Defeated federal courtpreemption challenges to a regulation raising the minimum wage rates for California apprentices.

* Amaral v. Cintas Corp.: Won $1.6 million summary judgment in a class action challenging anationwide laundry company’s systematic underpayment of its workers, defeating state lawpreemption and federal due process challenges to a local living wage ordinance.

* Capers v. Nunn: Obtained decision upholding a California Apprenticeship Council ruling thatprecluded non-union apprenticeship program from operating outside its approved geographic area.

* Rosenburg v. Int’l Business Machines Corp.: Obtained a $65 million settlement in a classaction brought on behalf of IBM information technology specialists for failure to pay overtimecompensation.

* Air Line Pilots Ass’n, Int’l v. Emery Worldwide Airlines, Inc.: Obtained an eight-figuresettlement of breach of contract claim on behalf of airline pilots who were permanently furloughedwhen their employer ceased flight operations.

* Frazier v. Citicorp Investment Services: Obtained class action settlement for full backpay onbehalf of securities brokers who alleged that their employer violated California and New York lawby enforcing a corporate fine-based disciplinary policy.

* Aguiar v. Superior Court (Cintas Corp.): After two successful appeals, obtained full back payplus interest and civil penalties in settlement on behalf of class of laundry workers who were notpaid the wages required by L.A.'s Living Wage Ordinance.

* In re Farmers Ins. Exchange Claims Representative's Overtime Pay Litigation: Obtains an $8million settlement of claims challenging an insurance company's treatment of its claimsrepresentatives as exempt "administrators."

* Cremin v. Merrill Lynch: Settled nationwide sex discrimination class action on behalf ofwomen brokers, resulting in establishment of novel claims procedure and agreement by brokeragefirm no longer to compel any employees to arbitrate statutory discrimination claims.

* Curtis-Bauer v. Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc.: Obtained a $16 million class-action settlement forAfrican-American and Latino financial advisors and financial advisor trainees that will (amongother non-monetary relief) require Morgan Stanley to change its account distribution procedures tode-emphasize historical factors that have an adverse impact on minorities, to engage in activerecruitment of minority financial advisors, and to tie manager compensation to diversificationefforts.


* Akau v. Tel-A-Com Hawaii: Upheld, against an employer’s ERISA preemption challenge,Hawaii’s Dislocated Workers Act, which provided supplemental unemployment compensationbenefits to workers adversely affected by plant closings.

* Reigh v. Calif. Unemployment Insurance Appeals Bd.: Obtained the right to unemploymentcompensation for workers in non-safety-sensitive jobs who were discharged after refusing to take,or failing, a random drug test.

* AFL-CIO v. Employment Development Department: Compelled California to continue to payunemployment compensation benefits to hundreds of thousands of claimants per year pendingevidentiary hearings on their continued eligibility.

* Gerlach v. Wells Fargo & Co.: Obtained a $12.8 million settlement in a class action broughtagainst Wells Fargo for misclassifying employees given the title “business consultants” as exemptfrom overtime.

* Martens v. Smith Barney: Settled a nationwide sex discrimination class action on behalf ofwomen brokerage employees, resulting in a novel claims procedure allowing for potentially tens ofmillions of dollars in damages.

* California Hospital Ass’n v. Henning: Overcame a federal statutory challenge to a Californialaw requiring payment of accrued vacation pay to workers upon cessation of employment.

* United Public Workers v. Yogi: Invalidated a state public employee wage freeze that conflictedwith the state constitutional right to organize for the purpose of collective bargaining.

* St. Thomas - St. John Hotel & Tourism Ass’n v. Gov’t of the U.S. Virgin Islands: Defeated anNLRA preemption challenge to a Virgin Islands statute that protects employees from terminationwithout cause.

* Simo v. Union of Needletrades, Industrial & Textile Employees: Successfully defended onfederal appeal a labor union’s use of the “garment industry proviso” to § 8(e) of the NLRA.

* Adcock v. United Auto Workers; Patterson v. Heartland Industrial Partners, LLP: Obtaineddecisions from the Fourth Circuit (Adcock) and the Northern District of Ohio (Patterson) holdingthat an agreement under which an employer agrees to remain neutral in union organizingcampaigns in return for the union’s agreement to limitations on such campaigns does not violateSection 302 of the Taft-Hartley Act or RICO.

* Heartland Industrial Partners, LLP and the United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIOObtained an NLRB decision upholding a neutrality and card-check organizing agreement underSection 8(e) of the NLRA.

* Pearson Dental Supplies v. Superior Court: Obtained a California Supreme Court ruling thatrequires heightened judicial review of an arbitration award, issued pursuant to a mandatoryarbitration agreement, that is challenged on the ground that the arbitrator's legal error deprived theclaimant of a hearing on the merits of a fundamental statutory or common law claim.

* Danielli v. Int’l Business Machines Corp.: Obtained a $7.5 million common fund settlement ina class action brought on behalf of IBM employees for IBM’s failure to pay overtime


compensation.

* Vendachalam v. Tata International: Obtained a unanimous decision from the Ninth Circuit thatTata International, India's largest conglomerate, could not force its overseas workers to arbitrateemployment disputes before Tata's hand-picked arbitrators in Mumbai.

* SEIU Local 24/7 v. Professional Technical Security Services, Inc.: Obtained settlement understate wage and hour laws providing payments to hundreds of low-wage workers as reimbursementfor uniform cleaning expenses.

* Int’l Longshore & Warehouse Union, Local 142 v. Brewer: Obtained a settlement on behalf ofa class of retirees from sugar and pineapple plantations compensating them for the company’stermination of their medical plans.

* Vega v. Contract Cleaning Maintenance, Inc.: Obtained class action settlements on behalf oflow-wage janitors and maintenance workers who were misclassified as independent contractors,providing double overtime, reimbursement of allegedly unlawful paycheck deductions andstatutory interest.

* Wynne v. McCormick & Schmick’s Seafood Restaurants, Inc.: Obtained a consent decreeagainst a restaurant chain requiring it to implement a series of measures to increase therepresentation of African-American employees in “front of the house,” i.e., server, bartender andhost/hostess, positions.

* Higazi v. Cadence Design Systems, Inc.: Obtained a $7.664 million class-action settlement forinformation technology workers who were misclassified as exempt employees and denied overtimeand meal and rest breaks in violation of federal and California law.

* In re the Pep Boys Overtime Actions: Obtained a $6 million class-action settlementcompensating employees of a national automobile parts and service retailer, who were denied mealand rest breaks and required to work “off the clock” without pay.

* Adams v. Inter-Con Security Systems, Inc.: Obtained a $4 million settlement compensatingprivate security guards who were required to work “off the clock” without pay and requiring thecompany to pay its employees in the future for the time they spend in mandatory training sessionsand pre-shift briefings.

* Martin v. New United Motor Mfg., Inc.: Obtained a $4.65 million settlement from anautomobile manufacturing plant for failure to compensate its employees for donning and doffingprotective gear, in violation of federal and state law.

* Southern California Edison Co. v. Public Utilities Comm’n: Obtained decision upholding theauthority of the Public Utilities Commission to order utilities to require the payment of prevailingwages to construction workers on energy utility construction projects.

* AFL-CIO v. Marshall: Required payment of an additional 26 weeks of extended unemploymentcompensation benefits, worth billions of dollars, to unemployed workers nationwide.

* IBEW v. Eichleay: Enforced a multi-million dollar arbitration award against an employer thattried to evade its contract obligations through a non-union alter ego.


* Local 1564 v. City of Clovis: Struck down a local “right to work” law enacted by a New Mexicocity.

* Patel v. Sugen: Obtained a nearly $2 million settlement in a class action challenge to apharmaceutical company’s refusal to pay contractually-mandated severance pay and bonuses toemployees upon sale of the company, representing complete recovery of all monies owed plus tenpercent interest.

* Figueroa v. Guess?, Inc.: Obtained a million dollar settlement of a wage and overtime classaction on behalf of Los Angeles garment workers.

* EQR/Legacy Partners: Obtained settlement in administrative action of $1.6 million in backwages to construction workers who were not paid the prevailing wage required on public worksprojects.

*Californians for Safe and Competitive Dump Truck Transportation v. Mendonca : Defeated anindustry challenge to the application of California’s prevailing wage law to motor carriers after theenactment of trucking deregulation.

* Gerke v. Waterhouse Securities: Obtained a $3.3 million overtime settlement on behalf of 1,800employees of a discount brokerage firm who were not paid for half-hour lunch periods duringwhich they were expected to work.

* Fry v. Air Line Pilots Ass’n: Defeated an attempt to hold a union liable under RICO and statetort law for ostracism allegedly directed against strikebreakers.

* IBEW Locals 595 and 6 v. LIS Electric: Won a private attorney general action, after amulti-week trial, against a construction contractor and its president for failing to pay workersprevailing wages on public works projects.

* International Longshore and Warehouse Union Local 142 v. Hawaiian Waikiki Beach Hotel:Obtained an order requiring the corporate parent of a hotel in receivership to arbitrate claims formillions of dollars in accrued vacation and severance pay owed to the hotel’s employees.

* SEIU v. County of San Bernardino: Obtained an injunction prohibiting one of the nation’slargest counties from depriving its employees of their right to discuss union issues at work.

* Retlaw Broadcasting Co. v. NLRB: Successfully defended on appeal the NLRB’s decision thatan employer unlawfully implemented a contract proposal allowing it to bypass the union andnegotiate directly with its individual employees.

* CPS Chem. Co. v. NLRB: Confirmed an employer’s continuing duty to bargain with the localunion that represents its employees, notwithstanding that union’s affiliation with a national union.

* Bishop v. Air Line Pilots Ass’n: Defeated a challenge to a nationwide collective bargainingagreement that had been approved by a majority of the bargaining unit employees in a secret ballotelection.

* San Joaquin Regional Transit Dist.: Obtained an arbitration award stopping a transit districtfrom contracting out numerous jobs held by union-represented workers.


* Driscoll v. Oracle: Negotiated $12.7 million settlement in nationwide overtime case underFLSA and state law on behalf of internet sales representatives.

* UAW Local 2244 and New United Motor Manufacturing, Inc.: Obtained an arbitration awardin excess of a million dollars for violation of a contractual provision requiring an employer to paywage premiums to employees who start their shifts before 6:00 a.m.

* ATU Local 1292 and Alameda County Transit District: Obtained an arbitration awardprohibiting a public transit district from using a lease arrangement to evade contractual restrictionson outsourcing bargaining unit jobs.

* California Federation of Interpreters v. Region 1 Court Interpreter Employment Relations:Committee; California Federation of Interpreters v. Region 2 Court Interpreter EmploymentRelations Committee; California Federation of Interpreters v. Region 4 CourtObtained arbitration awards requiring Superior Courts to pay mileage compensation to courtinterpreters and holding that the Courts acted illegally by giving interpreting assignments toindependent contractors.

* New United Motor Manufacturing, Inc. and United Auto Workers, Local 2244: Successfullychallenged in arbitration an employer’s policy of terminating sick leave benefits for ill or injuredemployees, providing relief to nearly one hundred employees.

* Int’l Bhd. of Electrical Workers Local 551 v. WSB Electric: Enjoined a contractor and itsofficers from continuing to commit unfair business practices by underpaying workers on publicworks projects, leading to the debarment of the contractor from bidding on public works projectsfor three years.

* Associated Builders and Contractors: Obtained an NLRB decision that an association ofnon-union construction contractors violated the NLRA by filing and prosecuting a lawsuitchallenging a union program to recapture jobs for union workers.

* McCabe Hamilton & Renny Co., Ltd. v. Int’l Longshore & Warehouse Union, Local 142:Obtained, and secured against federal court challenge, a $355,000 arbitration award for a longshoreworker who was assaulted, permanently disabled, and forced to spend two years in a witnessprotection program due to the employer’s breach of a contractual duty to provide a safe workplace.

* Advocate Health Care Network v. Service Employees Int’l Union: Obtained dismissal ofdefamation, commercial disparagement, unfair trade practices, and maintenance claims arisingfrom union’s support for community campaign to change hospital chain’s practice of overcharginguninsured patients.

* In re Opinion of Bill Lockyer, Attorney General (State Allocation Board): Obtainedinterpretation from the California Attorney General requiring school districts to utilize competitivebidding laws to award public school construction projects, thereby insuring that union contractorshave an opportunity to bid on such work.

* In re Santa Ana Transit Village: Obtained a California administrative ruling that a transfer ofproperty for a redevelopment project at so-called “fair reuse value” is not equivalent to a transfer atthe “fair market price,” and therefore California construction workers who perform work on suchprojects must be paid prevailing wages.


* Wagner v. Professional Engineers in California Gov’t: Established that the appropriate remedyfor legal deficiencies in a union’s annual fair share fee notice is for the union to correct andre-issue the notice, not to refund fees previously collected.

* Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers Local 3 v. Northern California Mason ContractorsMultiemployer Bargaining Ass’n: Obtained an arbitration award upholding a union’s right toallocate annual economic increases under a collective bargaining agreement between wages andfringe benefits.

* Contra Costa County and Contra Costa Public Defenders Ass’n: Obtained an arbitration awardagainst Contra Costa County for violating the “parity” clause of its collective bargainingagreement, which required the county to provide its public defenders with any new benefitsprovided to its district attorneys.

* Mendoza-Barrera v. San Andreas HVAC, Inc.: Obtained a stipulated judgment of more than$200,000 for four sheet metal workers whose employer failed to pay them the prevailing wage onpublic works projects.

* Acevedo v. SelectBuild: Obtained a settlement for construction workers who alleged they wererequired to work off the clock by their employer, notwithstanding the employer's bankruptcy filing.

* Montoya v. Laborers International Union of North America: Obtained the voluntary dismissalwith prejudice, after filing a motion to dismiss on grounds of justiciability and preemption, of achallenge to an international labor union's procedures from considering a transfer of authority overwork in Mohave County, AZ from one local union to another.

* Southern Wine & Spirits v. Simpkins: Defeated motion for preliminary injunction seeking toprevent California employee of Florida company from working for California competitor.

* SEIU Local 24/7 and Pacific Gas & Electric Company: Obtained seven-figure arbitrationaward for employer's failure to pay its security guards for on-duty meal periods.

* CRONA v. Lucile Packard Children's Hospital: Received an award of $70,355.00 againstemployers for their refusal to arbitrate a union grievance.

* Air Line Pilots Association, International, et al. v. United Airlines, Inc.: Obtained declaratoryand injunctive relief on behalf of United Airlines pilots requiring the airline to comply withCalifornia's Kin Care law, which requires employers that offer paid sick leave to allow employeesto use up to half of that leave to care for ill relatives.

* Harris v. Quinn: Obtained a Seventh Circuit decision upholding the right of Illinois home careproviders to organize and negotiate collective bargaining agreements with the State that includeunion-security provisions.

* UGL-UNNICO Service Co.: Helped obtain National Labor Relations Board decision reinstatinga bar to challenging a union's majority status after a new employer assumes control of an organizedfacility, thereby allowing the parties a reasonable period of time to negotiate a collective bargainingagreement.

* United Healthcare Workers-West v. Borsos: Successfully litigated adversary trial in bankruptcy


court and obtained an order preventing a former local union official who had been held liable infederal district court for violation of his fiduciary duties to the union from discharging thatjudgment debt in bankruptcy.

* Oster v. Lightbourne: Obtained a preliminary injunction to block implementation of aCalifornia statute that would have reduced by 20 percent the hours of in-home support servicesprovided to elderly and disabled Californians funder the state's Medicaid program.

* M.R. v. Dreyfus: Obtained a Ninth Circuit ruling that plaintiffs challenging a ten percentreduction to hours of Medicaid home care services are entitled to a preliminary injunction underthe Americans with Disabilities Act.

* S&F Market Street Health Care LLC and Windsor of North Long Beach: Obtained victorybefore NLRB administrative law judge and NLRA §10(j) injunction in case alleging that nursinghome employer engaged in unlawful “surface bargaining” by unyieldingly insisting on a package ofcontract proposals that would have forced the Union to surrender all representational authority forthe duration of the collective bargaining agreement.

* Sheen v. SAG: Successfully defeated motion for preliminary injunction under theLabor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act seeking to stop the counting of votes in a unionmerger election, resulting in the merger passing by an overwhelming majority.

* Holloway v. Best Buy Co., Inc.: Obtained a consent decree, with a four-year duration, in afederal court class action providing for changes in Best Buy's personnel policies and procedureswhich will enhance the equal employment opportunities for the thousands of women, AfricanAmericans, and Latinos employed by Best Buy nationwide.

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC HEALTH

* NRDC v. Patterson (Rodgers): Obtained a court ruling that the U.S. Bureau of Reclamationillegally dried up California’s second longest river by diverting excessive amounts of water foragricultural and other uses, and subsequently negotiated a comprehensive settlement providing forrestoration of the river and reintroduction of native salmon population.

* United Steelworkers v. California Dep’t of Forestry and Fire Protection: Obtained a decisionholding that the California Department of Forestry’s approval of a plan to log vast portions ofCalifornia’s redwood forests violated the California Forest Practice Act’s requirements for asustainable yield plan.

* Orff v. United States (Supreme Court): Obtained ruling (based on arguments in merits brieffiled on behalf of environmental organizations) rejecting challenge brought by agribusinessinterests to the federal government’s reduction of contractual water allocations to a local waterdistrict for the purpose of protecting threatened salmon and smelt.

. * California Healthcare Ass’n v. California Dep’t of Health Svcs.: Defeated a hospital industrychallenge to a California health regulation requiring minimum nurse-to-patient staffing ratios.

* Les v. Reilly: Required the Environmental Protection Agency strictly to apply the DelaneyClause’s prohibition against cancer-causing substances in processed foods.


* Public Citizen v. Dep’t of Transportation: Obtained a Ninth Circuit ruling (later overturned bythe Supreme Court) blocking for several years the federal government’s decision to allowMexico-domiciled trucks to travel throughout the United States without an Environmental ImpactStatement and a Clean Air Act conformity analysis.

* California v. Browner: Obtained a consent decree, in a challenge to EPA’s systematic failure toenforce federal food safety laws, that required dozens of cancer-causing pesticides to be removedfrom the food supply.

* NRDC v. Price Pfister: Compelled major faucet manufacturers to eliminate lead from drinkingwater faucets pursuant to Proposition 65, the California Toxics Initiative.

* NRDC v. The Reclamation Bd. of the Resources Agency of the State of California: Obtained awrit of mandate overturning a state administrative agency’s approval of an extensive developmentproject on top of a major levee in the Sacramento River Delta, for violating regulations governingflood control levees.

* Sunshine Canyon: Successfully advocated in land use proceedings, on behalf of a coalition ofenvironmental, labor, and community organizations, for stringent environmental conditions to beplaced on a large solid waste landfill in Los Angeles County.

* NRDC v. EPA: Settled Clean Air Act case requiring warning labels on processed foodsmanufactured with methyl bromide, an ozone-depleting substance.

* NRDC v. EPA: Compelled the Environmental Protection Agency to stop holding “closed-door”meetings with industry representatives before setting pesticide health and safety standards.

* NRDC v. Whitman: Forced EPA to reassess the safety of some of the nation’s most dangerouspesticides to protect children, farmworkers, and consumers.

* NRDC v. Smith Kline: Required reductions in lead content of calcium dietary supplements.

* EDF & NRDC v. Sta-Rite: Successfully challenged the widespread use of lead in submersiblewater pumps under the California Toxics Initiative.

* Tosco Corp. v. Communities for a Better Environment: Defeated a declaratory judgment actionbrought by an oil company to preclude environmental organizations from seeking penalties for itsdischarges of dioxin.

* AFL-CIO v. Deukmejian: Required the Governor of California to expand tenfold the list ofcarcinogenic chemicals included within the California Toxics Initiative.

* California Labor Federation v. Cal. OSHA: Preserved the California Toxics Initiative againstan OSHA preemption attack.

* AFL-CIO v. Deukmejian: Overturned a regulation exempting food, drugs and cosmetics fromthe California Toxics Initiative.

* NRDC v. OEHHA: Forced state environmental agency to withdraw “records retention” policythat had required agency scientists to destroy data and documents that were inconsistent with final


agency position.

* AFL-CIO v. Gorsuch: Overturned an EPA moratorium on public disclosure of industrypesticide health and safety studies.

* NRDC v. Wilson: Required the Governor of California timely to determine whether to expandthe list of reproductive toxicants included within the California Toxics Initiative to include fivedozen chemicals identified as reproductive toxicants by U.S. EPA.

* NRDC v. Badger Meters, Inc.: Required manufacturers of water meters that leach lead intoresidential drinking water to shift to a low lead emitting alloy.

* NRDC v. Safeway, Inc.: Required large grocery retailers to achieve a substantial reduction indiesel truck emissions around their grocery distribution centers, which are located primarily inlow-income areas.

* Environmental Law Foundation v. Crystal Geyser Water Co.: Required manufacturers toeliminate unlawfully high levels of arsenic, trihalomethanes, and heterotrophic bacteria frombottled drinking water.

* City and County of San Francisco v. United States Tobacco Co.: Required warnings to beprovided to consumers regarding the health dangers of smokeless tobacco products.

* Environmental Law Foundation v. Ironite Products Co.: Obtained a consent judgment banningthe continued sale in California of a fertilizer manufactured from hazardous waste that containedexcessive levels of arsenic and lead.

* In re Vinegar Litigation: Obtained settlements requiring food retailers to post consumerwarnings regarding the presence of lead in balsamic vinegar.

* In re St. Lukes Hospital Merger: Persuaded the California Attorney General to conduct areview of the terms of a proposed merger of two hospitals, including the extent to which themerger would serve or disserve the needs of the affected communities.

* NRDC v. Kempthorne: Working closely with NRDC and Earthjustice, we overturned the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service’s biological opinion on the effect of the California Central ValleyProject’s operations on threatened Delta smelt and obtained protective interim remedies, includingreduced water pumping from the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and an order requiring theService to issue a new biological opinion.

* Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations v. Gutierrez: Working closely withNRDC and Earthjustice, we overturned the National Marine Fisheries Service’s biological opinionon the effect of the California Central Valley Project’s operations on three species of threatenedand endangered salmon and obtained protective interim remedies, including early opening of damgates and shortening the periods in which the gates are closed, facilitating migration up and downthe Sacramento River; also obtained an order requiring the Service to issue a new biologicalopinion.

* Firebaugh Canal Water District v. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation: Joined with U.S. InteriorDepartment in defeating San Joaguin Valley water districts' attempts to compel the Government to


provide them low-cost drainage services, which would have kept more toxic-laden agriculturallands in production and required more water diversions. Irrigation districts have appealed theruling to the Ninth Circuit.

FREE SPEECH

* Conant v. McCaffrey: Obtained a permanent injunction under the First Amendment prohibitingthe federal government from revoking or threatening to revoke the prescription drug licenses ofCalifornia physicians on the basis of their confidential communications with their seriously illpatients regarding medical marijuana.

* Walker v. Air Line Pilots Ass’n: Obtained a jury verdict following a ten-week trial upholdingthe right of the Air Line Pilots Association to engage in free speech activities promoting solidarityamong strikers.

* Eller Media Co. v. City of Oakland: Defeated efforts by billboard and alcohol industry tooverturn City of Oakland ordinance prohibiting billboards advertising alcoholic beverages inresidential neighborhoods and in proximity to schools and playgrounds.

* Sutter Health v. UNITE HERE: Obtained a California Court of Appeal reversal of a $17.3million defamation verdict against a union based on a communication that was part of a labordispute, on the ground that the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury that the plaintiff wasrequired to prove actual malice.

* SEIU v. City of Houston: After obtaining a preliminary injunction under the First Amendment,obtained on appeal a ruling that three Houston ordinances that restrict the right to protest viaparades, public gatherings in public parks, and the use of sound amplification equipment violatethe First Amendment.

* Connelly v. No On 128, the Hayden Initiative: Enforced a California law requiring stateinitiative campaign advertisements to identify industry campaign contributors.

* Crawford v. Int’l Union of Rubber Workers Local 703: Obtained reversal of a six-figure juryverdict against union and picketers who had exercised free speech right to disparage strikebreakers.

* Buyukmihci v. Regents: Obtained a permanent injunction protecting the free speech rights of aprofessor of veterinary medicine whom the University of California had tried to fire because of hisanimal rights views.

* Carreira v. Trustees of the California State University: Obtained the first order ever issued by aCalifornia court overturning the California State University’s denial of a whistleblower retaliationcomplaint and ordering a jury trial on that claim; and subsequently negotiated a $1,787,000settlement for the whistleblower, a tenured professor at Cal State Long Beach.

* Furukawa Farms v. CRLA: Successfully defended a statewide poverty law office against a suitbrought by agricultural growers to block its advocacy on behalf of farm workers.

* Auvil v. CBS 60 Minutes: Obtained dismissal of a class action product defamation suit broughtby Washington apple growers against the Natural Resources Defense Council for having


publicized the public health hazards of the growth regulator Alar.

* Coors v. Wallace: Defeated an antitrust suit brought by Adolph Coors Company against theorganizers of a nationwide consumer boycott of Coors beer.

* Evergreen Oil Co. v. Communities for a Better Environment: Obtained the dismissal underCalifornia’s anti-SLAPP statute of an oil company’s defamation action against a non-profitenvironmental advocacy group.

* Tosco Corp. v. Communities for a Better Environment: Obtained dismissal for lack of federaljurisdiction of an oil company’s federal court defamation action against an environmental groupthat had engaged in free speech about air pollution issues.

* California Nurses Ass’n v. Stern: Obtained dismissal, under California’s anti-SLAPP statute, ofa lawsuit contending that peaceful home visits by representatives of a labor organizationconstituted “stalking.”

* ABC Security Service, Inc. v. SEIU Local 24/7: Successfully defended labor union against aSLAPP suit brought by an employer seeking damages against union for its organizing campaign toobtain recognition as the representative of the employer’s workers, and negotiated a stipulateddismissal under which the employer entered into a card-check and neutrality agreement with unionto govern the recognition process, resulting in recognition and a collective bargaining agreement.

* Singer v. American Psychological Ass’n: Obtained dismissal, under California’s anti-SLAPPstatute, of a lawsuit seeking to impose defamation liability on professional associations forstatements made in amicus curiae briefs they had filed in court.

* POSCO v. Contra Costa Building & Construction Trades Council: Defeated an antitrust suitbrought against various labor unions for engaging in environmental lobbying and litigation.

* Recall Grey Davis Committee v. Regents of the University of California: Obtained dismissal,under California’s anti-SLAPP statute, of a lawsuit seeking to hold the State Building andConstruction Trades Council of California, which sponsored a political event, vicariously liable forspontaneous protests outside the event venue.

* Schavrien v. Lynch: Obtained dismissal, under California’s anti-SLAPP law, of a suit againstthe former President of the California Public Utilities Commission brought by an executive of anenergy company regulated by the Commission, for publicly exposing the executive’s attendance ata campaign fundraising event in support of the spouse of a Commissioner.

* Knox v. Westly: Defeated preliminary injunction motion brought several days before statewideelection to prohibit union from spending union dues and fees to oppose anti-worker ballotinitiatives, and subsequently obtained Ninth Circuit decision that union had no legal obligation toprovide non-members with a mid-year fair share fee notice when it enacted a temporary increase indues and fees.

* Mosqueda v. CCPOA: Defeated a libel action brought by prison warden against correctionalofficers union for statements made in support of litigation initiated by a union officer.

* Western Growers Ass’n v. UFW: Obtained dismissal under California’s anti-SLAPP statute of


an “unfair business practices” action brought by a growers’ association against a union for its freespeech activities.

* Allied Pilots Ass’n v. San Francisco: Obtained an injunction allowing pilots to handbill andpicket at San Francisco International Airport.

* Bruce Church, Inc. v. UFW: Overturned on First Amendment and statutory grounds a $10million judgment against the United Farm Workers for engaging in allegedly improper boycottactivity.

* Guess?, Inc. v. UNITE: Obtained dismissal under California’s anti-SLAPP statute of complaintalleging union had unlawfully supported picketing and litigation activity directed againstemployer’s workplace practices.

* UFW v. Dutra Farms: Obtained judgments against 18 growers and growers’ associationprohibiting them from illegally financing an “employee committee” to defeat union organizingdrives.

* Steam Press Holdings, Inc. v. Hawaii Teamsters, Local 996: Established that federal labor lawprecludes an employer from obtaining damages under state defamation law for economic lossesresulting from a strike.

CAMPAIGN AND ELECTION

* Brunner v. Ohio Republican Party (U.S. Supreme Court): Helped to defeat the RepublicanParty’s attempt during the November 2008 election to require Ohio election officials to turn overthe records of newly registered voters whose voter registration and motor vehicle information didnot match, which would have enabled the Republican Party to seek disenfranchisement of up to600,000 new voters.

* Curley v. Lake County Bd. of Elections and Registration: Obtained injunction requiring earlyvoting in November 2008 election in predominantly African-American and Latino communities ofGary, Hammond, and East Chicago, Indiana.

* Common Cause of Colorado v. Hoffman: Obtained a stipulation and court order requiring theSecretary of State to stop the unlawful purging of registered voters prior to the November 2008election and to count ballots cast by voters who had previously been improperly purged unlessthere was clear and convincing evidence that they were ineligible to vote.

* Colvin v. Brunner: Project Vote v. Madison County Board of Elections/State ex rel. Helped todefeat the Republican Party’s efforts during the November 2008 election to require voters to wait30 days after registering to vote before being able to cast an absentee ballot, which would havedeprived thousands of voters of their right to vote absentee.

* AFL-CIO v. Eu: Invalidated a proposed initiative requiring a new federal constitutionalconvention on the ground that it violated Article V of the U.S. Constitution.

* Common Cause v. Jones: Obtained a court order requiring the replacement of pre-scored punchcard voting machines in California prior to the 2004 Presidential election.


* Fleischman v. Protect Our City: Obtained, and successfully defended in the Arizona SupremeCourt, an injunction removing an anti-immigrant initiative from the November 2006 Phoenixballot on the ground that the city law granting initiative supporters the right to supplementsignatures after the filing deadline is preempted by state law.

* Hawaii State AFL-CIO v. Yoshina: Overturned on state election law grounds Hawaii’s decisionto ignore abstentions in determining whether the required percentage of votes was cast in favor of aballot measure calling for a new state constitutional convention.

* Central California Farmers Ass’n v. Eu: Defeated on state constitutional grounds an attemptby agribusiness to remove a comprehensive environmental protection initiative from the Californiaballot.

* Kneebone v. Norris: Successfully defended a local election official’s decision to reject aninitiative petition, which would have prohibited a city from entering into project labor agreementson any city-funded construction projects, on the ground that the initiative’s proponents failed tocomply with the publication requirements of the Election Code.

* Cardona v. Oakland Unified School District: Upheld the City of Oakland’s right to delayredistricting on basis of the 1990 census until the census was adjusted to correct for thedisproportionate undercount of minorities.

* Bennett v. Yoshina: Successfully defended against a federal court due process challenge theHawaii electorate’s vote to refuse to hold a new state constitutional convention.

* Barry v. Nishioka: Obtained a writ of mandate ordering election officials to place candidates onballot despite apparent noncompliance with nomination petition formalities.

* Edrington v. Floyd: Successfully defended City of Oakland’s wording of ballot question andballot analysis for “just cause” eviction initiative against challenge by landlords.

* Dallman v. Ritter: Obtained, and successfully defended in the Colorado Supreme Court, apreliminary injunction against Colorado Amendment 54, a voter initiative that would have bannedpublic employee unions from making political contributions in state and local elections, on theground the initiative violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

IMMIGRATION

* AFL-CIO v. Chertoff: Obtained nation-wide injunction against a Department of HomelandSecurity regulation that would turn Social Security Administration “no-match” letters into animmigration-enforcement tool without authorization from Congress.

* Catholic Social Services/Ayuda/Immigrant Assistance Project v. Reno: Obtained the right toapply for legalization under the Immigration Reform and Control Act for hundreds of thousands ofundocumented aliens who were prevented from applying because of unlawful INS regulations; andnegotiated temporary work authorization for approximately three million aliens potentially eligiblefor legalization under the Immigration Reform and Control Act.

* Calif. Rural Legal Assistance v. Legal Services Corp.: Overturned a regulation prohibiting theprovision of federally-funded legal services to a nationwide class of several million aliens who had


been legalized through the amnesty process.

* SEIU Local 535 v. Thornburgh: Compelled the Immigration and Naturalization Service torescind a regulation that deprived temporary nonimmigrant workers of the right to strike.

* Patel v. Quality Inn South / EEOC v. Tortilleria “La Mejor”: Through a series of cases,established the eligibility of undocumented immigrant workers for the full remedial protections ofthe Fair Labor Standards Act and Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

* Lopez-Alvarado v. Ashcroft: Obtained Ninth Circuit reversal of Board of Immigration Appeal’sdecision ordering deportation of an immigrant family that had lived in the United States for morethan ten years.

* Int’l Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftsmen v. Meese: Obtained decision prohibitinggovernment and employers from using non-immigrant business (B-1) visas to circumvent therequirement that temporary, non-immigrant, foreign workers not undercut the prevailing wage.

MISCELLANEOUS

* Blessing v. Freestone (Supreme Court): Preserved the availability of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in casesseeking enforcement of federal statutory rights.

* Kashmiri v. Regents: Won a $33.8 million class action judgment against the University ofCalifornia for improperly charging fee increases to tens of thousands of undergraduate, graduateand professional students, and obtained a preliminary injunction prohibiting the University fromcharging professional students an additional $15 million in fees.

* Horton v. Mayle: Obtained a Ninth Circuit habeas corpus remand of former death penaltydefendant’s murder conviction due to the prosecutor’s failure to disclose potentially exculpatoryevidence, and obtained reversal of the conviction after district court evidentiary hearing, resultingin client's freedom after 27 years in prison.

* Jane Doe v. Reddy: Obtained $11 million settlement in human trafficking case on behalf ofyoung Indian women who were unlawfully brought into the United States and forced to providesex and free labor.

* Anderson v. Regents: Obtained an $11 million recovery in a Contracts Clause class actionchallenging the University of California’s refusal to fund thousands of university professors’ meritsalary increases.

* Oster v. Wagner: Obtained a injunction to block implementation of a California statute thatwould have severely reduced the eligibility of elderly and disabled Californians for in-homesupport services that enable them to remain in their own homes.

* Eklund v. Byron Union School District: Established the right of public school teachers to usegames, role-playing, and other methods considered to be best pedagogical practices to teach aboutthe history, culture and religion of Islam as part of a secular program of education in a worldhistory class.

* United States ex rel. Hendow v. University of Phoenix: Won a $78.5 million settlement in a


False Claims Act case against a for-profit university that allegedly defrauded the government byfalsely certifying its compliance with the Higher Education Act's prohibition against payingcommissions to recruiters of new students, the second-larges settlement ever of a False Claims Actcase in which the U.S. Government declined to intervene.

* Dominguez v. Schwarzenegger: Obtained temporary restraining order in federal court, blockingFresno County from reducing, to the California minimum wage, the wages of In Home SupportiveServices caregivers.

* Sharp v. Next Entertainment, Inc.: Helped to obtain decision holding that the California Rulesof Professional Responsibility do not preclude labor unions and other advocacy groups fromfunding class action litigation, by filing amicus curiae brief and presenting oral argument on behalfof labor and public interest groups, including the ACLU of Southern California.

* Utility Consumers’ Action Network v. Sears/California Federal Bank/Household CreditService/ Texaco Credit Card Services/Capital One/Bank of America: Obtained settlements in aseries of consumer privacy class actions against financial institutions and credit card companiesprohibiting unauthorized dissemination of personal account information to third partytelemarketers.

* In re Gulf USA Corporation and Pintlar Corporation: Preserved millions of dollars of retireemedical benefits in a major bankruptcy proceeding on behalf of thousands of retired Idaho mineand smelter workers.

* California Labor Federation v. Cal. OSHA: Invalidated, on state constitutional grounds,California Budget Act restrictions on the state’s payment of public interest attorneys’ fees.

* Gardner v. Schwarzenegger: Obtained restraining order, preliminary injunction, and permanentinjunction, which was affirmed on appeal, against enforcement of a state statute that would havepermitted incarceration of non-violent drug offenders, contrary to California Proposition 36, whichmandated probation and drug treatment.

* Hamilton v. Great Expectations: Obtained an $8.5 million settlement of a statewide class actionagainst a video dating service that had electronically eavesdropped on confidential membershipinterviews.

* People v. Horton: Obtained a California Supreme Court death penalty reversal on the directappeal of a capital case.

* Garvin v. Utility Consumers' Action Network/Savage v. Utility Consumers' Action Network:Successful defense on appeal of a $14 million settlement of a state law privacy class actionchallenging a bank's practice of selling confidential consumer information to third-party marketingcompanies.

* IBEW Local 595 v. Aubry: Enjoined the Department of Industrial Relations from spendingtaxpayer funds to implement a new methodology that would drastically cut prevailing wage rates,where the Legislature had refused to appropriate funds for that purpose.

* Jensen v. Kaiser Permanente: Obtained the rescission of an HMO’s cost-cutting policyrequiring staff psychiatrists to prescribe psychotropic medications for patients they have not


examined.

* Welfare Rights Org. v. Crisan: Established an evidentiary privilege for communicationsbetween applicants for public benefits and their lay representatives, including unionrepresentatives.

* California State Building and Construction Trades Council v. Duncan: Enjoined theexpenditure of state funds on administrative rulemaking proceedings that would have lowered theminimum wage for apprentices throughout California, on the ground that the Governor lacked theauthority to item-veto the Legislature’s decision not to fund such proceedings.

* Rogers v. Governing Bd. of the Sacramento City Unified Sch. Dist.: Obtained a writ ofmandate and a permanent injunction under the California Charter Schools Act prohibiting a schoolboard from converting an existing public high school into a charter school without the approval ofa majority of the school’s teachers and requiring the school district to open a new non-charterpublic high school upon a showing of community support.

* In re Sealed Case: Obtained a $13.2 million settlement of a False Claims Act case and tworelated wrongful termination cases on behalf of a husband and wife who were terminated afterdisclosing extensive fraud committed by their government contractor employer.

* NAACP v. Davis: Reinstated statutory requirement that California Highway Patrol collect racialprofiling data, despite gubernatorial funding veto.

* California Court Reporters Ass’n v. Judicial Council: Struck down rules that would haveallowed replacement of official court reporters with audiotape recordings in California SuperiorCourts, and obtained an injunction against expenditures of taxpayer funds in furtherance of suchrules.

* In re Marriage Cases: Helped obtain California Supreme Court decision upholding the right tosame-sex marriage under the California Constitution, by filing amicus curiae brief in conjunctionwith professors and students from Howard University Law School.

* Davidson v. County of Sonoma: Obtained a substantial settlement on behalf of a lawenforcement officer injured as a result of his employer’s mock hostage training exercise in whichhe was seized and threatened at gunpoint.

* County of Alameda v. Aubry: Enjoined California from reducing the prevailing wage in theconstruction industry by 20 percent where the agency had failed to comply with APA rulemakingrequirements.

* Vasquez v. State of California: Obtained a unanimous California Supreme Court decisionholding that prevailing plaintiffs who seek private attorney general fees are not required, as acondition of eligibility for a fee award, to demonstrate that they made efforts to settle their disputebefore filing their civil complaint.

* Olney v. Pringle: Negotiated a settlement prohibiting state legislators from paying largeretroactive salary increases to select staff in violation of the State Constitution.

* Gary W. v. State of Louisiana; La Raza Unida v. Volpe: Required Louisiana and California to


pay federal court civil rights attorney’s fee awards despite refusal of State Legislatures toappropriate the monies.

* Dominguez v. Schwarzenegger: Obtained, and successfully defended on appeal, a preliminaryinjunction against the implementation of a state statute that would have reduced the wages ofproviders of in-home support services to elderly and disabled Californians.

* Nobles v. MBNA Corp.: Settlement of a California consumer class action against a bank thatmisleadingly offered consumer lines of credit without disclosing hidden costs and credit impacts,resulting in a payment to class members of more than 85% of the claimed losses with interest.

CURRENT CASES

Altshuler Berzon’s current docket includes the following matters:

* Dominguez v. Brown: An action on remand from the U.S. Supreme Court that presents thequestion whether consumers and providers of in-home support services can bring suit under theSupremacy Clause for injunctive relief to prevent enforcement of a state law that is inconsistentwith the federal Medicaid Act. The Ninth Circuit upheld a preliminary injunction againstenforcement of the state law, which would have sharply reduced the wages paid to providers ofin-home care to the elderly and disabled.

* Luquetta v. Regents of the University of California: A state court class action against theUniversity of California alleging the University breached contracts by increasing fees for tens ofthousands of undergraduate, graduate and professional students.

* 24 hour Fitness/D.R. Horton: Cases of first impression before the NLRB and its Division ofAdvice arguing that an employer’s mandatory arbitration agreement prohibiting class or collectiveactions must be enjoined because it violates Sections 7 and 8(a)(1) of the NLRA.

* Oster v. Wagner: A federal court challenge to a California statute that would entirely eliminateor severely restrict the eligibility of about 120,000 elderly and disabled individuals for in-homesupport services on the grounds the statute violates the Due Process Clause, the Medicaid Act, andother legal requirements.

* UFCW v. Brewer: First and Fourteenth Amendment and labor preemption challenges to twoArizona statutes, SB 1363 and SB 1365, that limit unions’ ability to collect member dues, toparticipate in political advocacy, and to engage in protected speech activities.

* M.R. v. Dreyfus: A federal court challenge, on behalf of low-income elderly and disabledindividuals receiving in-home care through the Medicaid program and the providers who care forthem, to ten percent service cuts in Washington State.

* Friendly House v. Whiting: A federal court constitutional challenge to Arizona’s 2010 lawrequiring State enforcement of immigration law.

* Keller v. California State University: A state court class action lawsuit against the CaliforniaState University alleging the University breached its contracts with thousands of students byimposing last-minute fee increases.


* Dallman v. Ritter: A challenge to Colorado Amendment 54, which would ban public employeeunions in Colorado from making political contributions in local and state elections.

* Air Line Pilots Ass’n, Int’l v. United Air Lines: A state court lawsuit challenging a nationalairline’s violation of California’s “kin care” law by refusing to permit all airline pilots domiciled inCalifornia to use their accrued paid sick leave to care for ill family members.

* Sierra Club v. Brown: A lawsuit against the Governor's administration for delays in addingsubstances to the list of chemicals in California that are known to cause cancer and reproductiveharm.

* NRDC v. Kempthorne: Federal environmental challenge to long-term contracts for the deliveryof more than 2.3 million acre-feet of California Central Valley Project water, which pose a severerisk to the survival and recovery of the threatened Delta smelt.

* Harris v. Quinn: The defense of an Illinois statute that permits in-home care workers tounionize and negotiate collective bargaining agreements.

* County of Los Angeles v. Matosantos: Amicus brief to the California Court of Appeal onwhether the California Constitution prohibits the redirection of redevelopment funds to purposesnot related to redevelopment.

* Narayan v. EGL, Inc.: A class action lawsuit asserting wage and hour claims under theCalifornia Labor Code on behalf of delivery truck drivers who were unlawfully treated asindependent contractors rather than employees.* Faulkner v. Dominguez: The defense of a union representing airline ramp, operations,provisions and freight agents in an action for breach of contract.

* Behaein v. Pizza Hut: A class action lawsuit on behalf of hourly restaurant employees,including drivers, for Pizza Hut's California restaurants alleging that Pizza Hut forces hourlyworkers to work through meal and rest breaks and fails to reimburse them for their out-of-pocketcosts.

* Robert Bell v. Farmers Services: A class action alleging that Farmers Services misclassifiestech support workers as exempt from overtime.

* Kairy v SuperShuttle International: Interlocutory appeal to Ninth Circuit challenging districtcourt's dismissal of an employment class action lawsuit brought by airport shuttle drivers aspreempted by California Public Utilities Act.

* Hines v. KFC: A class action lawsuit on behalf of hourly employees at KFC's Californiarestaurants alleging that KFC forces hourly employees to work through meal and rest breaks and towork off the clock at the end of the last shift.

* Vasquez v. State of California: Defense on appeal of attorney's fee award incurred in CaliforniaSupreme Court case establishing the scope of California's private attorney general fees statute.

* Ruggeri v. Boehringer Ingelheim Corp./Copello v. Boehringer Ingelheim Corp./Batchkoff v.Boehringer Ingelheim Corp.: Court challenges to a pharmaceutical company's failure to payovertime compensation to their sales representatives.


* Van Zandt v. Apple, Inc.: False advertising and breach of warranty consumer class actionchallenging design defect in iPhone 3G that limited connectivity speeds.

* Pryor v. Overseas Administrative Services, Inc.: AAA class arbitration and related federal courtlitigation challenging KBR/Haliburton's practice of not paying required contract wages to truckdrivers in Iraq.

* Hernandez v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.: Appeal from denial of class certification in lawsuiton behalf of low wage restaurant workers who were denied meal periods and rest breaks.

* Pacific Gas & Electric Company v. SEIU Local 24/7: The defense, in federal court, of anarbitration award holding that employer violated collective bargaining agreement by failing to payits security guards for on-duty meal periods.

* D'Arrigo Bros. Co. of California v. UFW: Litigating a motion under California's anti-SLAPPstatute to dismiss a civil lawsuit seeking money damages for a union's alleged conduct in assistingthe General Counsel of the ALRB in an administrative hearing regarding the union's unfair laborpractice charges and election objections.

* United Teachers Los Angeles v. Los Angeles Unified School District:Amicus brief to California Supreme Court on relationship between arbitration provision incollective bargaining agreement and statutory provisions of the California Education Codegoverning charter school formation.

* Salinas Elementary Teachers Council v. Governing Board of Salinas Elementary SchoolDistrict:Appeal to California Supreme Court of Court of Appeal's holding that teachers union wasrequired to arbitrate its claim that school district violated a non-waivable provision of theCalifornia Education Code before pursuing the claim in court.

* Reed v. Los Angeles Unified School District: Appeal from a California Superior Court decisionapproving a settlement agreement that impaired the statutory and contractual rights of publicschool teachers, over the objection of the teachers' represntative (which had not agreed to thesettlement), on the grounds that the approval of the settlement violated the teachers' due processright to an adjudication of the merits of the underlying claim and the requirements of the Californiastatute regarding judgments based on settlements.

* Veronese v. Lucasfilm: Defense on appeal of a pregnancy discrimination jury verdict, where theprincipal issue is whether California should apply a "motivating factor" or a "but for" test forproving unlawful discrimination under FEHA.

* Green v. Bank of America: Ninth Circuit appeal from the dismissal of a complaint underCalifornia's Labor Code Private Attorney General Act, in which the trial court construed themandatory language of California Wage Orders requiring employer to "provide" their employeeswith "suitable seating" as meaning they need only provide such seating upon an employee's specificrequest.

* Shoemaker v. Harris: Civil rights action under state and federal equal protection clauses,challenging irrational classification distinction in California's mandatory sex offender registrationstatute.


* Gale v. First Financial: Ninth Circuit appeal challenging dismissal of pro se plaintiff's Truth inLending Act and Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act claims based on loan servicer's refusal todisclose loan owner's identity, and state law claims contesting non-judicial mortgage foreclosureproceeding.

* International Brotherhood of Teamsters, et al. v. U.S. Department of Transportation, et al.: Afederal court lawsuit to block the Obama administration’s attempt to allow Mexico-domiciledtrucks to travel throughout the United States without complying with specific congressional safetyprerequisites governing such action.

* Villareal v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company: A proposed collective action before the U.S.District Court for the Northern District of Georgia brought against R.J. Reynolds and its two hiringagencies alleging age discrimination against job applicants 40 years of age or older.

* SEIU Healthcare Michigan v. Snyder: A challenge based on the Contract Clause of the U.S.Constitution to a Michigan statute that would nullify an existing collective bargaining agreementcovering thousands of homecare workers.

* Tokoshima v. The Pep Boys -- Manny, Moe & Jack: A state court class action allegingminimum wage violations and failure to reimburse employees for the cost of tools necessary toperform their jobs.

* Brooks v. U.S. Bank: Action challenging U.S. Bank's failure to provide suitable seating fortellers at in-store bank locations.

* Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless v. Husted and SEIU Local 1 v. Husted: Twoactions in federal court seeking to prohibit Ohio from disqualifying thousands of votes cast byregistered Ohio voters based on errors by poll workers, on the ground that disenfranchisement ofthese voters violates federal equal protection and due process.

MISCELLANEOUS

We also represent many local unions and apprenticeship programs on general matters,including litigation, negotiations, arbitrations and advice. In addition, we represent many workersin individual employment matters, we represent public agencies in selected constitutional cases, wedefend public interest groups against SLAPP suits, we represent law firms and public interestorganizations on statutory and common fund attorneys’ fees matters, and we provide legal adviceon the drafting of legislation.

ALTSHULER BERZON’S ATTORNEYS

Fred H. Altshuler, who retired in 2010, was a founding partner of Altshuler Berzon LLP. Heis a graduate of Stanford University and the University of Chicago Law School, where he wasArticles Editor of the University of Chicago Law Review. He served as a law clerk to Judge JohnC. Godbold of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. From 1969 to 1973, he wasa Directing Attorney for California Rural Legal Assistance, and from 1975 to 1978, he practicedwith the San Francisco law firm of Howard, Prim, Rice, Nemerovski, Canady & Pollak. During theWatergate controversy in 1974, he was Counsel to the Impeachment Inquiry staff of the U.S.House of Representatives Judiciary Committee. He is a Life Fellow of the American BarFoundation, has been on the Boards of Directors of the Bar Association of San Francisco, the


Lawyers Club of San Francisco, the CORO Foundation, and California Rural Legal Assistance, andis Co-Chair of the Bar Association of San Francisco's Amicus Curiae Committee. He also serveson the boards of the New Israel Fund (San Francisco Region), Public Advocates and the PlanningAssociation for the Richmond. He was a delegate at the 1996 Democratic National Convention,and in 2004 he was California State Counsel for the Kerry/Edwards Campaign. Mr. Altshuler islisted in "The Best Lawyers in America" for administrative law.

Anne N. Arkush is an associate at Altshuler Berzon LLP. She is a graduate of BrownUniversity and New York University School of Law. She served as a law clerk to Judge Marsha S.Berzon of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and Judge Lewis A. Kaplan ofthe United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Stephen P. Berzon is a founding partner at Altshuler Berzon LLP where he specializes inmajor litigation, frequently involving labor and employment, environment and public health,campaign and election, and constitutional issues, both at the trial and appellate levels. He is agraduate of Cornell University and Harvard Law School. He served as a law clerk to Judge AlvinB. Rubin of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. He was formerlythe Legal Director of the Children's Defense Fund, a public interest organization in Washington,D.C. He also practiced with the Legal Aid Society of Alameda County, and the National Housingand Economic Development Law Project of the University of California, Berkeley Law School(Boalt Hall). He is currently a member of the Ninth Circuit’s Advisory Committee on Rules andInternal Operating Procedures. He is also a member of the Executive Committee of the NorthernDistrict of California Chapter of the Federal Bar Association. He served for seven years (January,2005 - December, 2011) as a member of the National Board of Directors of the AmericanConstitution Society, and for nine years (2000-2009) as a member of the Board of Directors of thenational AFL-CIO Lawyers Coordinating Committee. He also served as Chair of the City ofBerkeley Police Review Commission, and as a member of the Board of Directors of the UrbanStrategies Council. He received the Voting Rights Award from the ACLU of Southern Californiain 2002 for his work on voting rights litigation. In 2009, he was named a California Lawyer of theYear by California Lawyer Magazine in the area of Civil Rights. He is listed in The Best Lawyersin America for labor and employment law, and in San Francisco Magazine's Northern CaliforniaSuper Lawyers in the appellate practice area. He has argued before the United States SupremeCourt, the California Supreme Court, and federal circuit and district courts throughout the country.He has testified before U.S. Senate and House Committees, and California Senate and AssemblyCommittees. He is a Fellow of the American Bar Foundation.

Eric Brown is an associate at Altshuler Berzon LLP. He is a graduate of Yale College andYale Law School. Prior to joining the firm, Eric served as a law clerk to Judge Kermit V. Lipez ofthe United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit and to Chief Judge Mark L. Wolf of theUnited States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

Hamilton Candee is a partner at Altshuler Berzon LLP. He is a graduate of PrincetonUniversity and New York University Law School, where he was a Root-Tilden Scholar. He servedas a law clerk to Judge Thelton E. Henderson of the United States District Court for the NorthernDistrict of California, and as a legislative assistant in the United States Senate. He was formerly aSenior Attorney in the San Francisco Office of the Natural Resources Defense Council andCo-Director of NRDC’s Western Water Project. He has been involved in a variety of efforts torestore ecosystems, protect endangered species, encourage water conservation, and promote otherenvironmental reforms in federal and state water policy. He received a CLAY Award as one ofCalifornia’s "Lawyers of the Year" in 1999 for his work pursuing restoration of the San Joaquin


River and received the Bay Institute's Carla Bard Bay Education award in 2008. He is a member ofthe Board of Trustees of the NRDC Action Fund.

Eve H. Cervantez is a partner at Altshuler Berzon LLP, a San Francisco law firm specializingin labor and employment, environmental, constitutional, campaign and election, and civil rightslaw. Eve specializes in representing workers in employment discrimination and wage and hourclass action lawsuits. She is a graduate of Washington University and Harvard Law School, whereshe was an editor of the Harvard Law Review. She served as a law clerk to Judge Charles A. Leggeof the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Prior to joiningAltshuler, Eve worked as a staff attorney at the Prison Law Office and was a partner at Lieff,Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, where she represented plaintiffs in class action employmentand consumer lawsuits. She is the author of "When Should You Bring State Law Wage and HourClaims in Addition to, or Instead of, FLSA Claims," The Employee Advocate (Summer/Fall 2003)and co-author of “Avoiding Procedural Pitfalls” The Employee Advocate (Summer 2008). Sheserves on the Senior Editorial Board of The Fair Labor Standards Act (BNA), and is a chaptereditor or contributor to Employment Discrimination Law (BNA, Cumulative Supplements to Thirdand Fourth Editions) and Wage and Hour Laws, A State-by-State Survey (BNA, 2nd Ed. andSupplements). She was selected to Northern California Super Lawyers 2010 and 2011. Eve alsolectures regularly on wage and hour, employment discrimination, and class action law.

Barbara J. Chisholm is a partner at Altshuler Berzon LLP. She is a graduate of SwarthmoreCollege and Howard University School of Law, where she was the Submissions and SymposiumEditor of the Howard Law Journal. She served as a law clerk to Judge Emmet G. Sullivan of theUnited States District Court for the District of Columbia. She worked in the Russian Far East forfive years, where she was the founder and director of the Russian Far East branch of ISAR, anorganization working on environmental and human rights issues. She is Chair of the Board ofDirectors of Pacific Environment and the Program Co-Chair for the Bay Area Lawyer Chapter ofthe American Constitution Society. She previously served on the Executive Committee of theLabor and Employment Section of the California State Bar, and on the Board of Directors of theAIDS Legal Referral Panel.

Caroline Cincotta is an associate at Altshuler Berzon LLP. She is a graduate of Reed Collegeand New York University School of Law. She served as a law clerk to Judge Marsha S. Berzon ofthe United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and was a Soros Fellow with theImmigrants’ Rights Project of the American Civil Liberties Union.

Jeffrey B. Demain is a partner at Altshuler Berzon LLP. He is a graduate of BrandeisUniversity (B.A.), where he was summa cum laude and a Louis D. Brandeis Scholar, theUniversity of California, Irvine (M.A.), where he was a National Science Foundation Fellow, andthe law school at the UC Berkeley School of Law, where he received American JurisprudenceAwards in Labor Law, Trusts and Estates, and Criminal Procedure, and was a member of theIndustrial Relations Law Journal. He served as a law clerk to Chief Judge James R. Browning ofthe United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. From 1992 through 1999, he was acontributing editor of Construction Organizing -- An Organizing and Contract Enforcement Guide,published by the George Meany Center for Labor Studies, Inc. From 1999 through 2002, he was amember of the Executive Committee of the Labor and Employment Section of the California StateBar. He is the author of "Recent Developments in Fair Share Fee Law," California PublicEmployee Relations Journal No. 167 (August 2004). He is listed in "The Best Lawyers in America"for labor and employment law. He also lectures regularly on developments in labor andemployment law.


James M. Finberg is a partner at Altshuler Berzon LLP. He is a graduate of Brown Universityand the University of Chicago Law School, where he was Executive Editor of the University ofChicago Law Review. He served as a law clerk to Justice Charles Levin of the Michigan SupremeCourt. From 1992 through 2006, he was a partner at Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP.In 2005, he served as President of the Bar Association of San Francisco. From 2000 through 2001,he served as Co-Chair of the delegation of lawyer representatives from the Northern District ofCalifornia to the Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference. He served as the Co-Chair of the Lawyers’Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area from 1997 through 1998 and 2009 to2010, and presently serves on its Board. He also serves on the Executive Committee of the Boardof Directors of the Legal Aid Society-Employment Law Center of San Francisco and on the Boardof Directors of the National Employment Lawyers Association (“NELA”). He is an adjunctprofessor of law at the University of California Hastings College of the Law, where he teachesEmployment Discrimination Law. He is a fellow of the American College of Labor andEmployment Lawyers. He is the author, or co-author, of numerous articles and book chapters onvarious topics of discrimination and wage/hour law and the use and trial of class and collectiveactions. Since 2005, he has been listed by San Francisco Magazine as one of the Top 100 "SuperLawyers" in Northern California. Since 2005, he has also been listed in "The Best Lawyers inAmerica" for labor and employment Law. In 2009, he was named a "California Lawyer of theYear" by California Lawyer Magazine.

Eileen B. Goldsmith is a partner at Altshuler Berzon LLP. She is a graduate of BrownUniversity and Yale Law School, where she was a Notes Editor for the Yale Law Journal. Sheserved as a law clerk to Judge Marsha S. Berzon of the United States Court of Appeals for theNinth Circuit. She is a member of the Executive Committee of the Labor & Employment Sectionof the State Bar of California, and previously served as a Co-Chair of the Labor Law Committee ofthe National Employment Lawyers Association. She was listed as a "Northern California RisingStar" in San Francisco Magazine's 2011 "Super Lawyers" issue.

Scott A. Kronland is partner at Altshuler Berzon LLP. He is a graduate of Cornell University,where he was Editor-In-Chief of The Cornell Daily Sun, and the UC Berkeley School of Law,where he was elected to the Order of the Coif and was a member of the California Law Review. Heserved as a law clerk to Judge James R. Browning of the United States Court of Appeals for theNinth Circuit. He is the former Chair and a current member of the Executive Committee of theLabor and Employment Law Section of the Bar Association of San Francisco. He is listed as a"Superlawyer" in the 2012 edition of Northern California Super Lawyers magazine.

Danielle E. Leonard is a partner at Altshuler Berzon LLP. She is a graduate of HarvardCollege and Harvard Law School, where she was a Senior Editor of the Harvard EnvironmentalLaw Review. She served as a law clerk to Judge Emmet G. Sullivan of the United States DistrictCourt for the District of Columbia and was a trial attorney in the Honors Program of the UnitedStates Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Voting Rights Section. Danielle currentlyserves as the co-chair of the Employment Subcommittee of the Class Actions and Derivative SuitsCommittee of Litigation Section of the American Bar Association. Danielle is also a member of theExecutive Committee of the Litigation Section of the Bar Association of San Francisco. She wasnamed a "Rising Star" in the 2012 Northern California Super Lawyers listings.

Stacey M. Leyton is a partner at Altshuler Berzon LLP. She is a graduate of StanfordUniversity and Stanford Law School, where she was a Symposium Editor of the Stanford LawReview and active in the Public Interest Law Student Association. She served as a law clerk toJustice Stephen Breyer of the United States Supreme Court, Judge Stephen Reinhardt of the United


States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and Judge Susan Illston of the United States DistrictCourt for the Northern District of California. She is an Appellate Representative to the NinthCircuit Judicial Conference, and has spoken and published articles on a variety of legal topicsincluding recent Supreme Court decisions, health care reform, federal labor and ERISApreemption, and legal issues arising from workers' use of e-mail and other technologies. She servedon the Board of Directors of the Public Interest Clearinghouse from 2002 to 2009 and is currently avolunteer with the Employment Law Center's Workers' Rights Clinic. In 2011, she was named a"California Lawyer of the Year" by California Lawyer Magazine for her work in a case challengingcutbacks to the California program providing in-home care to Medicaid recipients.

Matthew J. Murray is an associate at Altshuler Berzon LLP. He is a graduate of theUniversity of California, Berkeley and Harvard Law School, where he was Student Writing ArticleEditor of the Harvard Law and Policy Review. He also received a Master in Public Policy degreefrom the Harvard University Kennedy School of Government. He served as a law clerk to ChiefJustice Margaret Marshall of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. He was a Coro Fellow,served as a member of the Board of Directors of the American Civil Liberties Union of NorthernCalifornia, and was the student Regent of the University of California. He is currently a member ofthe Legal Committee of the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California.

Peter D. Nussbaum is a partner at Altshuler Berzon LLP. He is a graduate of CornellUniversity and Harvard Law School, where he was Articles Editor of the Harvard Law Review. Heserved as law clerk to Judge Irving R. Kaufman of the United States Court of Appeals for theSecond Circuit and was a Fulbright Scholar at the London School of Economics. Prior to enteringprivate practice in 1974, he worked for various legal services programs, including the Center forSocial Welfare, Policy and Law at Columbia University Law School. He has served as a lawyerrepresentative and Executive Committee Member of the Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference and is amember of the ABA Committee on Practice and Procedure under the NLRA. He has served aschair of the Democratic Party of Contra Costa County and as a member of the Democratic Party'sState Executive Committee. He has been listed for 25 years in "The Best Lawyers in America" forlabor and employment law. He has also been designated as a Northern California "Super Lawyer."He is a Fellow of the College of Labor and Employment Lawyers and he has lectured frequently onlabor topics for the American Bar Association, the Practicing Law Institute and otherorganizations.

P. Casey Pitts is an associate at Altshuler Berzon LLP. He is a graduate of Yale College andYale Law School, where he was a director of the Rebellious Lawyering Conference, managingeditor of the Yale Journal of Law and Feminism, and a senior editor of the Yale Law Journal. Heserved as a law clerk to Judge Stephen Reinhardt of the United States Court of Appeals for theNinth Circuit.

Daniel T. Purtell is a partner at Altshuler Berzon LLP. He is a graduate of Stanford Universityand Stanford Law School. He served as a law clerk to Judge Harry Pregerson of the United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. He is a contributing editor of The Developing Labor Law,and was a member of the Editorial Board of Bender's California Labor & Employment Bulletinfrom 2002 to 2005. He also lectures frequently on issues of labor and employment law, particularlyregarding ethical issues that arise in representing individuals and labor unions.

Diana S. Reddy is an associate at Altshuler Berzon LLP. She received her B.A. and M.A. fromStanford University and her J.D. from New York University School of Law, where she was aRoot-Tilden-Kern Scholar and a Student Articles Development Editor for the Review of Law and


Social Change. She served as a law clerk to Judge Theodore A. McKee of the United States Courtof Appeals for the Third Circuit and Judge Kimba M. Wood of the United States District Court forthe Southern District of New York. She was the 2010-11 Fellowship Attorney at the AFL-CIO.

Michael Rubin is a partner at Altshuler Berzon LLP. He is a graduate of Brandeis Universityand the Georgetown University Law Center, where he was an Editor of the Georgetown LawJournal. He served as a law clerk to Justice William J. Brennan, Jr. of the United States SupremeCourt during the 1980 Supreme Court Term, and previously clerked for Chief Judge James R.Browning of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and Judge Charles B.Renfrew of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Michael is afellow of The College of Labor and Employment Lawyers and is a member of the Board ofDirectors of the AFL-CIO’s Lawyers’ Coordinating Committee. Michael is a three-time recipientof California Lawyer Magazine’s “California Lawyer of the Year” award, winning once in 2002 (inthe Employment Law category for his work on the Saipan sweatshop litigation) and twice in 2010(for False Claims Act Litigation, based on the litigation and $78 million settlement of fraud claimsagainst the for-profit University of Phoenix; and for Criminal Law, based on more than a quartercentury of work for a condemned inmate that resulted in the inmate’s unconditional release fromprison in 2010 – a case that also resulted in Michael receiving the “Johnnie Cochran” award fromthe Criminal Courts Bar Association). Michael was also a 2003 recipient of a “Trial Lawyer of theYear” Award from the Trial Lawyers for Public Justice, for his work on the Saipan litigation.Michael specializes in impact litigation, class actions, and appellate litigation, and has argued inthe U.S. Supreme Court and in many federal circuit courts of appeal and state supreme courts. Forthe past several years, he has been listed in “The Best Lawyers in America” in the categories ofappellate law and labor and employment law, and in the Northern California “Super Lawyers”listings in the areas of appellate practice, labor and employment, and class actions. He has alsobeen listed by Lawdragon Magazine as one of the “Lawdragon 500 Leading Lawyers in America,”one of the “Lawdragon 500 Leading Litigators in America,” and one of the “Lawdragon 500Leading Plaintiffs’ Lawyers in America.” He regularly lectures on developments in California andfederal employment law and other topics.

Jennifer Sung is an associate at Altshuler Berzon LLP. She is a graduate of Oberlin Collegeand Yale Law School. She served as a law clerk to Judge Betty B. Fletcher of the United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and was a Skadden Fellow with the Brennan Center forJustice.

Peder J. Thoreen is a partner at Altshuler Berzon LLP. He is a graduate of Pomona Collegeand Yale Law School, where he was a Senior Editor of the Yale Law and Policy Review. Heserved as a law clerk to Judge Harry Pregerson of the United States Court of Appeals for the NinthCircuit and Judge Dean Pregerson of the United States District Court for the Central District ofCalifornia. He is a member of the Editorial Board of Bender's California Labor and EmploymentBulletin.

Laura S. Trice is an associate at Altshuler Berzon LLP. She received a B.A. from WilliamsCollege, an M.A. from Yale University, and a J.D. from New York University School of Law,where she was a Notes Editor of the Law Review. She served as a law clerk to Judge David S.Tatel of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and to Judge LucyH. Koh of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.

Jonathan Weissglass is a partner at Altshuler Berzon LLP. He is a graduate of Yale Collegeand Yale Law School, where he was an Articles Editor of the Yale Law Journal and a student


director of the Poverty Clinic. He served as a law clerk to Chief Judge Myron H. Thompson of theUnited States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama and was a Karpatkin Fellow withthe national legal department of the American Civil Liberties Union in New York. He received theVoting Rights Award from the ACLU of Southern California in 2002. In 2009, he was named a"California Lawyer Attorney of the Year" by California Lawyer Magazine.

Rachel J. Zwillinger is the Altshuler Berzon LLP-NRDC Joint Fellow. She is a graduate ofPrinceton University and Stanford Law School, where she was Editor-in-Chief of the StanfordEnvironmental Law Journal. She also received a M.S. from Stanford’s Emmett InterdisciplinaryProgram in Environment and Resources. She served as a law clerk to Judge John T. Noonan of theUnited States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and Judge Marilyn L. Huff of the UnitedStates District Court for the Southern District of California.

CITATIONS TO PUBLISHED DECISIONS

The firm’s attorneys have participated in the following U.S. Supreme Court cases, as counselfor either a party or an amicus: Douglas v. Independent Living Center of Southern California,Inc., ___ U.S. ___, 132 S. Ct. 1204 (2012); Granite Rock Co. v. Intl. Brotherhood of Teamsters,___ U.S. ___, 130 S. Ct. 2847 (2010); Rent-A-Center, West v. Jackson, ___ U.S. ___, 1305.ct.2772 (2010); Brunner v. Ohio Republican Party, 555 U.S. 5 (2008); rev’g Chamber ofCommerce v. Brown, 554 U.S. 60 (2008); rev’g Chamber of Commerce v. Lockyer, 463 F.3d 1076(9th Cir. 2006) (en banc); Long Island Care at Home, Ltd. v. Coke, 551 U.S. 158 (2007); Orff v.United States, 545 U.S. 596 (2005); Dep’t of Transportation v. Public Citizen, 541 U.S. 752(2004); BE&K Construction Co. v. NLRB, 536 U.S. 516 (2002), on remand, 351 N.L.R.B. No. 29(2007); Hoffman Plastic Compounds v. NLRB, 535 U.S. 137 (2002); EEOC v. Waffle House,534 U.S. 279 (2001); Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly, 533 U.S. 525 (2001); Lujan v. G&G FireSprinklers, Inc., 532 U.S. 189 (2001); Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams, 532 U.S. 105 (2001);Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., 527 U.S. 471 (1999); Murphy Bros., Inc. v. Michetti PipeStringing, Inc., 526 U.S. 344 (1999); Nat’l Fed’n of Federal Employees, Local 1309 v. Dep’t ofthe Interior, 526 U.S. 86 (1999); Wright v. Universal Maritime Svc. Corp., 525 U.S. 70 (1998);Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (1998); Burlington Indus. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742(1998); Textron Lycoming Reciprocating Engine Division, Avco Corp. v. UAW, 523 U.S. 653(1998); Allentown Mack Sales and Service, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 522 U.S. 359 (1998); Bay AreaLaundry & Dry Cleaning Pension Trust Fund v. Ferbar Corp., 522 U.S. 192 (1997); Blessing v.Freestone, 520 U.S. 329 (1997); Calif. Dep’t of Industrial Relations v. Dillingham Construction,Inc., 519 U.S. 316 (1997); Walters v. Metropolitan Educ. Enterprises, 519 U.S. 202 (1997);Auciello Iron Works, Inc. v. NLRB, 517 U.S. 781 (1996); United Food & Com. Workers v.Brown Group, 517 U.S. 544 (1996); NLRB v. Town & Country Elec., Inc., 516 U.S. 85 (1995);McKennon v. Nashville Banner, 513 U.S. 352 (1995); Hawaiian Airlines v. Norris, 512 U.S. 246(1994); Livadas v. Bradshaw, 512 U.S. 107 (1994); NLRB v. Health Care & Retirement Corp.,511 U.S. 571 (1994); ABF Freight System Inc. v. NLRB, 510 U.S. 317 (1994); Daubert v.Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993); Reno v. Catholic Social Services, 509U.S. 43 (1993); District of Columbia v. Greater Washington Bd. of Trade, 506 U.S. 125 (1992);Forsyth County v. Nationalist Movement, 505 U.S. 123 (1992); Gade v. Natl. Solid WasteManagement Ass’n, 505 U.S. 85 (1992); I.N.S. v. National Center for Immigrants’ Rights, 502U.S. 183 (1991); Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp., 500 U.S. 20 (1991); UAW v. JohnsonControls, Inc., 499 U.S. 187 (1991); ALPA v. O’Neill, 499 U.S. 65 (1991); i, 498 U.S. 479 (1991);United States v. Kokinda, 497 U.S. 720 (1990); Keller v. State Bar of Calif., 496 U.S. 1 (1990);NLRB v. Curtin Matheson, 494 U.S. 775 (1989); Guidry v. Sheetmetal Workers, 493 U.S. 365(1989); Breininger v. Sheetmetal Workers Int’l Ass’n, 493 U.S. 67 (1989); Webster v.


Reproductive Health Services, 492 U.S. 490 (1989); Bd. of Trustees of SUNY v. Fox, 492 U.S.469 (1989); Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (1989); Frisby v. Schultz, 487 U.S. 474(1988); Lingle v. Norge Div. of Magic Chef, Inc., 486 U.S. 399 (1988); Edward J. DeBartoloCorp. v. Florida Gulf Coast Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council, 485 U.S. 568 (1988); Board ofAirport Commissioners v. Jews for Jesus, Inc., 482 U.S. 569 (1987); Caterpillar, Inc. v.Williams, 482 U.S. 386 (1987); Fall River Dying & Finishing Corp. v. NLRB, 482 U.S. 27(1987); Fort Halifax Packing Co. v. Coyne, 482 U.S. 1 (1987); Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry.v. Buell, 480 U.S. 557 (1987); Calif. Federal Savings & Loan Ass’n v. Guerra, 479 U.S. 1312(1987); Baker v. General Motors Corp., 478 U.S. 21 (1986); Int’l Union, UAW v. Brock, 477U.S. 274 (1986); Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (1986); NLRB v. FinancialInstitution Employees, 475 U.S. 192 (1986); Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Public UtilitiesComm., 475 U.S. 1 (1986); Pattern Makers’ League v. NLRB, 473 U.S. 95 (1985); Ruckelshausv. Monsanto Co., 467 U.S. 986 (1984); Ellis v. Broth. of Ry. Airline & S.S. Clerks, 466 U.S. 435(1984); Arizona Governing Committee v. Norris, 463 U.S. 1073 (1983); Shaw v. Delta Airlines,463 U.S. 85 (1983); Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co. v. EEOC, 462 U.S. 669 (1983);Bush v. Lucas, 462 U.S. 367 (1983); Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (1983); Knight v.Minnesota Community College Faculty, 460 U.S. 1048 (1983); Bowen v. United States PostalService, 459 U.S. 212 (1983); Bd. of Educ. v. Pico, 457 U.S. 853 (1982); Heffron v. ISKCON,452 U.S. 640 (1981); Donovan v. Dewey, 452 U.S. 594 (1981); NLRB v. Retail Stores EmployeesUnion, 447 U.S. 607 (1980); Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74 (1980);Whirlpool Corp. v. Marshall, 445 U.S. 1 (1980); Babbitt v. United Farm Workers Nat’l Union,442 U.S. 289 (1979); Cannon v. Univ. of Chicago, 441 U.S. 677 (1979); N.Y. Telephone Co. v.N.Y. Labor Dep’t, 440 U.S. 519 (1979); Hisquierdo v. Hisquierdo, 439 U.S. 572 (1979); City ofLos Angeles v. Manhart, 435 U.S. 702 (1978).

The firm’s attorneys have also participated in the following cases in the federal Courts ofAppeals: Mulhall v. Unite Here Local 355, 667 F.3d 1211 (11th Cir. 2012); M.R. v. Dreyfus, 663F.3d 1100 (9th Cir. 2011); Kairy v. SuperShuttle Intern., 660 F.3d 1146 (9th Cir. 2011); Virginiaex rel. Cuccinelli v. Sebelius, 656 F.3d 253 (4th Cir. 2011); Harris v. Quinn, 656 F.3d 692 (7th Cir.2011); Florida v. U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Svcs., __ F.3d __ (11th Cir. 2011); Knox v.Cal. State Employees Ass'n, 628 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010); Narayan v. EGL, Inc., 616 F.3d 895(9th Cir. 2010); Dominguez v. Schwarzenegger, 596 F.3d 1087 (9th Cir. 2010); ServiceEmployees Intern. Union, Local 5 v. City of Houston, 595 F.3d 588 (5th Cir.); Veldechalam v.Tata America Intern. Corp., 339 Fed.Appx. 761 (9th Cir. 2009); Glass v. UBS FinancialServices, Inc., 331 Fed.Appx. 452 (9th Cir. 2009); The Sierra Club Foundation v. Department ofTransportation, 563 F.3d 897 (9th Cir. 2009); Morgan v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc., 551 F.3d1233 (11th Cir. 2008); Adcock v. Freighliner, LLC, 550 F.3d 369 (4th Cir. 2008); Chicanos PorLa Causa, Inc. v. Napolitano, 544 F.3d 976 (9th Cir. 2008); Ohio Republican Party v. Brunner,544 F.3d 711 (6th Cir. 2008) (en banc), rev’d, 555 U.S. 5 (2008); Granite Rock Co. v. Int’l Bhd.of Teamsters, 546 F.3d 1169 (9th Cir. 2008), cert. granted; Golden Gate Restaurant Ass’n v. Cityand County of San Francisco, 546 F.3d 639 (9th Cir. 2008) and 512 F.3d 1112 (9th Cir. 2008); Inre Farmers Ins. Exchange Claims Representatives’ Overtime Pay Litigation, 481 F.3d 1119 (9thCir. 2007); In re Garabedd Melkonian Trust, 235 Fed.Appx. 404 (9th Cir. 2007); Chamber ofCommerce v. Lockyer, 463 F.3d 1076 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc), rev’d sub nom Chamber ofCommerce v. Brown, 554 U.S. 60 (2008); United States v. Afshari, 446 F.3d 915 (9th Cir. 2006),cert. denied sub nom Rahmani v. United States, 549 U.S. 1110 (2007); Eklund v. Byron UnionSchool District, 154 Fed. Appx. 648, 2005 WL 3086580 (9th Cir. 2005); Recon Refractory &Constr. Inc. v. NLRB, 424 F.3d 980 (9th Cir. 2005); Horton v. Mayle, 408 F.3d 570 (9th Cir.2005); Cummings v. Connell, 402 F.3d 936 (9th Cir. 2005); Lopez-Alvarado v. Ashcroft; 381F.3d 847 (9th Cir. 2004); Assoc. Builders & Contractors v. Nunn, 356 F.3d 979 (9th Cir. 2004),


cert. denied, 543 U.S. 814 (2004); Wagner v. Professional Engineers in California Gov’t, 354F.3d 1036 (9th Cir. 2004); Harik v. California Teachers Ass’n, 326 F.3d 1042 (9th Cir.), cert.denied sub nom Sheffield v. Aceves, 540 U.S. 965 (2003); Deutsch v. Turner Corp., 324 F.3d 692(9th Cir. 2003); Simo v. Union of Needletrades, Industrial & Textile Employees, 322 F.3d 602(9th Cir.), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 873 (2003); Public Citizen v. Dep’t of Transportation, 316 F.3d1002 (9th Cir. 2003), rev’d, 541 U.S. 752 (2004); Cummings v. Connell, 316 F.3d 886 (9th Cir.),cert. denied, 539 U.S. 927 (2003); Conant v. Walters, 309 F.3d 629 (9th Cir. 2002), aff’g Conantv. McCaffrey, 2000 WL 1281174 (N.D. Cal. 2000), 172 F.R.D. 681 (N.D. Cal. 1997), cert. deniedsub nom Walters v. Conant, 540 U.S. 946 (2003); Immigrant Assistance Project v. INS, 306 F.3d842 (9th Cir. 2002); Steam Press Holdings, Inc. v. Hawaii Teamsters and Allied Workers Union,Local 996, 302 F.3d 998 (9th Cir. 2002); Wininger v. Boyden, 301 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2002);Prescott v. County of El Dorado, 298 F.3d 844 (9th Cir. 2002), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1188(2003); Casumpang v. Int’l Longshoremen’s Local 142, 269 F.3d 1042 (9th Cir. 2001), laterproceeding Casumpang v. Int’l Longshore & Warehouse Union, Local 142, 361 F.Supp.2d 1195(D. Hawaii 2005); Foster v. Mahdesian, 268 F.3d 689 (9th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 1112(2002); BE&K Construction Co. v. NLRB, 246 F.3d 619 (6th Cir. 2001), rev’d, 536 U.S. 516(2002); Petrochem Insulation v. NLRB, 240 F.3d 26 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 992(2001); Tosco Corp. v. Communities for a Better Environment, 236 F.3d 495 (9th Cir. 2001);Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v. NLRB, 208 F.3d 229 (D.C. Cir. 2000), aff’d, 237 F.3d 639(D.C. Cir. 2001) (en banc), rev’d, 535 U.S. 137 (2002); Catholic Social Services v. INS, 232 F.3d1139 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc); St. Thomas-St. John Hotel & Tourism Ass’n v. Gov’t of the U.S.Virgin Islands, 218 F.3d 232 (3rd Cir. 2000); Does I through XXIII v. Advanced Textile Corp.,214 F.3d 1058 (9th Cir. 2000); Passantino v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Products, Inc., 212F.3d 493 (9th Cir. 2000); Burlington Northern Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters Local174, 203 F.3d 703 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc); Aramark Corp. v. NLRB, 179 F.3d 872 (10th Cir.1999) (en banc); U.S. Airways, Inc. v. Nat’l Mediation Bd., 177 F.2d 985 (D.C. Cir. 1999);Retlaw Broadcasting Co. v. NLRB, 172 F.3d 660 (9th Cir. 1999); Rosenberg v. Merrill Lynch,Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc., 170 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 1999); CPS Chem. Co. v. NLRB, 160 F.3d 150(3d Cir. 1998); G&G Sprinklers, Inc. v. Bradshaw, 156 F.3d 893 (9th Cir. 1998), vacated andremanded, 526 U.S. 1061 (1999), on remand, 204 F.3d 941 (9th Cir. 2000), rev’d, 532 U.S. 189(2001); Californians v. Mendonca, 152 F.3d 1184 (9th Cir. 1998); Tahara v. Matson Terminals,Inc., 152 F.3d 929, 1998 WL 405855, 1998 U.S.App. LEXIS 15412 (9th Cir. 1998) (mem. disp.);Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 1998); Duffield v. Robertson Stephens & Co.,144 F.3d 1182 (9th Cir. 1998); Bennett v. Yoshina, 140 F.3d 1218 (9th Cir. 1998); McNealy v.Caterpillar, Inc., 139 F.3d 1113 (7th Cir. 1998); San Antonio Comm. Hosp. v. S. Cal. Dist.Council of Carpenters, 137 F.3d 1090 (9th Cir. 1997); McClatchy Newspapers, Inc. v. NLRB,131 F.3d 1026 (D.C. Cir. 1998); Montero v. INS, 124 F.3d 381 (2d Cir. 1997); ConAgra v. NLRB,117 F.3d 1435 (D.C. Cir. 1997); Pryner v. Tractor Supply Co., Inc., 109 F.3d 354 (7th Cir. 1997);Assoc. Builders & Contrs., Inc. v. Local 302, IBEW, 109 F.3d 1353 (9th Cir. 1997); BeverlyEnterprises-Pennsylvania, Inc. v. District 1199C, 90 F.3d 93 (3rd Cir. 1996); Fry v. ALPA, 88F.3d 831 (10th Cir. 1996); WSB Electric, Inc. v. Curry, 88 F.3d 788 (9th Cir. 1996); UnitedAss’n of Journeymen & Apprentices v. Reno, 73 F.3d 1134 (D.C. Cir. 1996); Chamber ofCommerce v. Bragdon, 64 F.3d 497 (9th Cir. 1995); Washington Service Contractors v. Districtof Columbia, 54 F.3d 811 (D.C. Cir. 1995); Legalization Assistance Project v. INS, 50 F.3d 789(9th Cir.1995); Maui Trucking v. Gen. Contractors Labor Ass’n, 37 F.3d 436 (9th Cir. 1994);Electromation, Inc. v. NLRB, 35 F.3d 1148 (7th Cir. 1993); Cannon v. Edgar, 33 F.3d 880 (7thCir. 1994); USS-POSCO Industries v. Contra Costa Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council, 31 F.3d800 (9th Cir. 1994); Wedges/Ledges, Inc. v. City of Phoenix, 24 F.3d 56 (9th Cir. 1994);Combined Management Inc. v. Superintendent of Insurance, 22 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 1994);Employee Staffing Services, Inc. v. Aubry, 20 F.3d 1038 (9th Cir. 1994); Perales v. Thornburgh,


4 F.3d 99 (2d Cir. 1992); American Dental Ass’n v. Martin, 984 F.2d 823 (7th Cir. 1993); UnitedAss’n of Journeymen v. Barr, 981 F.2d 1269 (D.C. Cir. 1992), vacating 768 F.Supp. 375 (D.D.C.1991); Les v. Reilly, 968 F.2d 985 (9th Cir. 1992); Shelby Cty. Health Care Corp. v. AFSCMELocal 1733, 967 F.2d 1091 (6th Cir. 1992); Elec. Jt. Apprenticeship Comm. v. MacDonald, 949F.2d 270 (9th Cir. 1991); Kidwell v. Transportation Communication Int’l Union, 946 F.2d 283(4th Cir. 1991); Int’l Broth. of Electrical Workers v. Eichleay Corp., 944 F.2d 1047 (3rd Cir.1991); Colorado-Ute Elec. Ass’n v. NLRB, 939 F.2d 1392 (10th Cir. 1991); California RuralLegal Assistance v. Legal Service Corp., 937 F.2d 465, 917 F.2d 1171 (9th Cir. 1991); ToledoTypographical Union No. 63 v. NLRB, 907 F.2d 1220 (D.C. Cir. 1990); Indianapolis Power &Light Co. v. NLRB, 898 F.2d 524 (7th Cir. 1990); U.S. Postal Service v. APWU, 893 F.2d 1117(9th Cir. 1990); Hydrostorage v. Northern California Boilermakers, 891 F.2d 719 (9th Cir.1989); News/Sun Sentinel Co. v. NLRB, 890 F.2d 430 (D.C. Cir. 1989); National Posters, Inc. v.NLRB, 885 F.2d 175 (4th Cir. 1989); NLRB v. Parents and Friends of the Specialized LearningCenter, 879 F.2d 1442 (7th Cir. 1989); In re Thornburgh, 869 F.2d 1503 (D.C. Cir. 1989); Stachev. Int’l Union of Bricklayers, 852 F.2d 1231 (9th Cir. 1988); Patel v. Quality Inn South, 846 F.2d700 (11th Cir. 1988); NLRB v. Ashkenazy Property Management Corp., 817 F.2d 75 (9th Cir.1987); UAW v. Brock, 816 F.2d 761 (D.C. Cir. 1987); Local 512, Warehouse and OfficeWorkers’ Union v. NLRB (Felbro), 795 F.2d 705 (9th Cir. 1986); IBEW, Local 387 v. NLRB(Arizona Public Service Co.), 788 F.2d 1412 (9th Cir. 1986); AFSCME v. State of Washington,770 F.2d 1401 (9th Cir. 1985); Calif. Hospital Ass’n v. Henning, 770 F.2d 856 (9th Cir. 1985);‘White v. City of Richmond, 713 F.2d 458 (9th Cir. 1983); Hawaiian Telephone Co. v. HawaiiDep’t of Labor & Industrial Relations, 691 F.2d 905 (9th Cir. 1982), earlier proceeding, 614 F.2d1197 (9th Cir. 1980); Spain v. Mountanos, 690 F.2d 742 (9th Cir. 1982); Gary W. v. State of La.,622 F.2d 804 (5th Cir. 1980); Gates v. Collier, 616 F.2d 1268 (5th Cir. 1980).

In the federal district courts, the firm’s cases have included the following: Oster v.Lightbourne, 2012 WL 685808 (N.D. Cal. March 2, 2012); Carrillo v. Schneider Logistics, Inc.,2012 WL 556309 (C.D. Cal. Jan 31, 2012); Carrillo v. Schneider Logistics, Inc., 2011 WL6104839 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 7, 2011); San Francisco Baykeeper v. West Bay Sanitary Dist., 2011WL 6012936 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 1, 2011); Carrillo v. Schneider Logistics, Inc., 823 F.Supp.2d 1040(2011); United Food and Commercial Workers Local 99 v. Brewer, 2011 WL 4801887 (D. Ariz.Oct. 11, 2011); United Food and Commercial Workers Local 99 v. Brewer, 817 F.Supp.2d 1118(D. Ariz. 2011);Copello v. Boehringer Ingelheim, 2011 WL 3325857 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 2, 2011);M.R. v. Dreyfus, 767 F.Supp.2d 1149, (W.D.Wash. 2011); Southern Wine + Spirits Co. v.Simpkins, 2011 WL 124631 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 14, 2011); Dimenco v. Service Employees Int'l Union,2011 WL 89999 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2011); M.R. v. Dreyfus , 2011 WL 31553 (W.D.Wash. Jan05, 2011) (NO. C10-2052Z); Common Cause of Colorado v. Buescher, 2010 WL 4537073 (D.Colo. Nov. 3, 2010) and 2010 WL 4156486 (D. Colo. Oct. 18, 2010); Dominguez v.Schwarzenegger, 2010 WL 3447691 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 30, 2010) and 2010 WL 2673715 (N.D. Cal.July 2, 2010) and 2010 WL 2348659 (N.D. Cal. June 8, 2010); Danieli v. IBM, 2010 WL 2399329(S.D. N.Y. Mar. 29, 2010); V.L. v. Wagner, 669 F.Supp.2d 1106 (N.D. Cal. 2009); Martinez v.Schwarzenegger, 2009 WL 3353227 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 15, 2009) and 2009 WL 1844989 (June 26,2009); The OSO Group v. Bullock & Assoc., 2009 WL 2422285 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2009); NRDCv. Kempthorne, 627 F. Supp.2d 1212 (E.D. Cal. 2009) and 2009 WL 1575208 (E.D. Cal. June 3,2009) and 2008 WL 5054115 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 19, 2008); Veliz v. Cintas Corp., 2009 WL 1107702(N.D. Cal. 2009); New United Motor Mfg., Inc. v. United Auto Workers, Local 2244, 184L.R.R.M. 2539, 2008 WL 2540702 (N.D.Cal. June 19, 2008); Pacific Coast Fed’n ofFishermen’s Ass’ns v. Gutierrez, 2008 WL 2223070 (E.D. Cal. May 20, 2008), subsequentproceeding, 2008 WL 2851568 (E.D. Cal. July 18, 2008); United States ex rel. UNITE HERE v.Cintas Corp., 2008 WL 1767039 (N.D. Cal. April 16, 2008), appeal pending, Ninth Circuit Appeal


No. 08-16223; McCabe Hamilton & Renny Co., Ltd. v. Int’l Longshore & Warehouse Union,Local 142, 557 F.Supp.2d 1171 (D. Haw. 2008); Service Employees Int’l Union v. City ofHouston, 542 F.Supp.2d 617 (S.D. Tex. 2008); Knox v. Westly, 183 L.R.R.M. 3232, 2008 WL850128 (E.D.Cal. March 28, 2008); Arizona Contractors Ass’n, Inc. v. Candelaria, 534 F.Supp.2d 1036 (D. Ariz. 2008), aff’d sub nom Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. v. Napolitano, 544 F.3d976 (9th Cir. 2008); Golden Gate Restaurant Ass’n v. City and County of San Francisco, 42Employee Benefits Cases 2185, 2007 WL 4570521 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 26, 2007), rev’d, 546 F.3d 639(9th Cir. 2008); Arizona Contractors Ass’n, Inc. v. Napolitano, 526 F.Supp.2d 968 (D. Ariz.2007), later proceeding Arizona Contractors Ass’n, Inc. v. Candelaria, 534 F. Supp.2d 1036 (D.Ariz. 2008), aff’d sub nom Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. v. Napolitano, 544 F.3d 976 (9th Cir.2008); Fusi v. Emery World Airlines, Inc., 183 L.R.R.M. 2225, 2007 WL 4207863 (S.D. Ohio2007); AFL-CIO v. Chertoff, 552 F.Supp.2d 999 (N.D. Cal. 2007); In re American Family Mut.Ins. Co. Overtime Pay Litigation, 155 Labor Cases ¶ 35,353, 2007 WL 2936319 (D. Colo. 2007);Int’l Longshore & Warehouse Union, Local 142 v. C. Brewer & Co., 496 F.Supp.2d 1179 (D.Hawaii 2007); SkyWest Pilots ALPA Org. Comm. v. SkyWest Airlines, Inc., 2007 WL 1848678,182 L.R.R.M. 2485 (N.D. Cal. 2007); Adams v. Inter-Con Security Systems, Inc., 242 F.R.D.530, 2007 WL 1089694 (N.D. Cal. 2007); Chao v. Allied Pilots Ass’n, 2007 WL 518586, 181L.R.R.M. 2578 (N.D. Tex. 2007); Adcock v. United Auto Workers, 2006 WL 3257044, 180L.R.R.M. 3291 (W.D.N.C. 2006); Knox v. Westly, 2006 WL 2374763, 180 L.R.R.M. 3170 (E.D.Cal. 2006), earlier proceeding, 2005 WL 3031622 (E.D. Cal. 2005), subsequent proceedings, 2007WL 516263, 181 L.R.R.M. 2501 (E.D. Cal. 2007), 2006 WL 3147683 (E.C. Cal. 2006); Vega v.Contract Cleaning Maintenance, 2006 WL 1554383, 11 Wage & Hour Cas.2d 1121 (N.D. Ill.2006); Patterson v. Heartland Industrial Partners, LLP, 428 F.Supp.2d 714 (N.D. Ohio 2006),earlier proceeding, 225 F.R.D. 204 (N.D. Ohio 2004); Darensburg v. MetropolitanTransportation Comm’n, 2006 WL 167657 (N.D. Cal. 2006); NRDC v. Rodgers, 381 F.Supp.2d1212 (E.D. Cal. 2005), motion for reconsideration denied, 2005 WL 2466067 (E.D. Cal. 2005),earlier proceeding, 2005 WL 1388671 (E.D. Cal. 2005); Rachford v. Air Line Pilots Ass’n, Int’l,375 F.Supp.2d 908 (N.D. Cal. 2005), later proceeding, 2006 WL 927742 (N.D. Cal. 2006), aff’dmem., 284 Fed.Appx. 473 (9th Cir. 2008); Casumpang v. Int’l Longshore & Warehouse Union,Local 142, 361 F.Supp.2d 1195 (D. Hawaii 2005), subsequent proceeding, 411 F.Supp.2d 1201 (D.Hawaii 2005); Patel v. Sugen, Inc., 354 F.Supp.2d 1098 (N.D. Cal. 2005); In re Farmers Ins.Exchange Claims Representatives’ Overtime Pay Litigation, 300 F.Supp.2d 1020 (D. Ore. 2003),amended, 336 F.Supp.2d 1077 (D. Ore. 2004), aff’d in part and rev’d in part, and remanded, 466F.3d 853 (9th Cir. 2006), later proceeding, 14 Wage & Hour Cas.2d 356, 2008 WL 4763029 (D.Ore. Oct. 28, 2008); Cummings v. Connell, 281 F.Supp.2d 1187 (E.D. Cal. 2003), rev’d, 402 F.3d936 (9th Cir. 2005), later proceeding, 2006 WL 1716160, 180 L.R.R.M. 2159 (E.D. Cal. 2006);SEIU Local 87 et al. v. SEIU Local 1877, 230 F.Supp.2d 1099 (N.D. Cal. 2002); Does I v. Gap,Inc., 2002 WL 1000068 (D.N.M.I. 2002), related proceeding, 1000073 (D.N.M.I. 2002); Chamberof Commerce v. Lockyer, 225 F.Supp.2d 1199 (C.D.Cal. 2002), rev’d, 463 F.3d 1076 (9th Cir.2006) (en banc); Common Cause v. Jones, 213 F.Supp.2d 1110, 213 F.Supp.2d 1116 (C.D. Cal.2002); Catholic Social Services v. Ashcroft, 206 F.R.D. 654 (E.D. Cal. 2002); In re World War IIEra Japanese Forced Labor Litigation, 164 F.Supp.2d 1153 (N.D. Cal. 2001), 114 F.Supp. 939(N.D. Cal. 2000); Does I v. Advance Textile Corp., 2001 WL 1842389 (D.N.M.I. 2001); NRDC v.Whitman, 53 E.R.C. 1673, 2001 WL 1221774 (N.D. Cal.), later proceeding, 2001 WL 1456783(N.D. Cal. 2001), appeal dism. sub nom NRDC v. EPA, 35 Fed.Appx. 590, 2002 WL 1042092 (9thCir. 2002); Eller Media Co. v. City of Oakland, 2000 WL 33376585 (N.D. Cal. 2000), earlierproceedings, 1998 WL 827426 (N.D. Cal. 1998), 1998 WL 549494 (N.D. Cal. 1998); CF&I Steel,L.P. v. Bay Area Rapid Transit District, 2000 WL 1375277 (N.D. Cal. 2000); Chadwick v.IBEW, 2000 WL 1006373 (N.D. Cal. 2000); Friedman v. Cal. State Employees Ass’n, 2000 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 7049, 163 L.R.R.M. 2924 (E.D. Cal. 2000); Foster v. Garcy, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS


21876, 140 Lab. Cas. (CCH) ¶ 58,914 (N.D. Cal. 1999); Tosco v. Communities for a BetterEnvironment, 41 F.Supp.2d 1061 (C.D. Cal. 1999); Bishop v. Air Line Pilots Ass’n, 159L.R.R.M. 2005, 1998 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 11948 (N.D. Cal. 1998), aff’d mem., 2000 US App. LEXIS3270 (9th Cir. March 1, 2000); Martens v. Smith Barney, Inc., 181 F.R.D. 243, 1998 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 9226, 77 FEP Cas. (BNA) 532 (S.D.N.Y. 1998); Catholic Social Services v. Reno, 1998U.S.Dist. LEXIS 10429, 10430, 10431 (E.D. Cal. 1998); Sims v. Alameda-Contra Costa TransitDist., 2 F.Supp.2d 1253 (N.D. Cal. 1998); Cremin v. Merrill Lynch, 957 F.Supp. 1460 (N.D. Ill.1997); McLendon v. Continental Group, Inc., 872 F.Supp. 142 (D.N.J. 1994); Ford v. NewUnited Motors Mfg., Inc., 857 F.Supp. 707 (N.D. Cal. 1994); Alameda Newspapers, Inc. v. Cityof Oakland, 860 F.Supp. 1428 (N.D. Cal. 1994); Sneede v. Coye, 856 F.Supp. 526 (N.D. Cal.1994); In re Gulf USA Corp., 171 Bankr. 379 (D. Id. 1994); Auvil v. CBS, 60 Minutes, 800F.Supp. 928 (E.D. Wash. 1992); Cardona v. Oakland Unified School District, 785 F.Supp. 837(N.D. Cal. 1992); Assoc. Builders & Contrs. v. BACA, 769 F.Supp. 1537 (N.D. Cal. 1991); EEOCv. Tortilleria “La Mejor,” 758 F.Supp. 585 (E.D. Cal. 1991); Akau v. Tel-A-Com Hawaii, Inc.,1990 Dist. LEXIS 4647 (D. Hawaii 1990); Puzz v. U.S. Dep’t of the Interior, 1989 Dist. LEXIS16649 (N.D. Cal 1989); Local 3 v. Masonry & Tile Contractors Ass’n, 136 L.R.R.M. 2319 (D.Nev. 1990); Calif. ex rel. Van de Kamp v. Reilly, 750 F.Supp. 433 (E.D. Cal. 1990); Local 1564 v.City of Clovis, 735 F.Supp. 999 (D.N.M. 1990); Immigrant Assistance Project v. INS, 709F.Supp. 998 (W.D. Wash. 1989) aff’d, 976 F.2d 1198 (9th Cir. 1993), vacated and remanded, 510U.S. 594 (1993); Ayuda, Inc. v. Barr, 687 F.Supp. 650 (D.D.C. 1988), rev’d in part, 880 F.2d1325 (D.C. Cir. 1989), vacated and remanded, 498 U.S. 1117 (1991), on remand, 948 F.2d 742(D.D.C. 1991), 700 F.Supp 49 (D.D.C. 1988), 744 F.Supp 21 (D.D.C. 1990), stayed, 919 F.2d 153(D.C. Cir. 1990), rev’d, 948 F.2d 742 (D.C. Cir. 1991), vacated and remanded, 509 U.S. 916(1993), on remand, 7 F.3d 246 (D.C. Cir. 1993), pet. for rehearing denied, 14 F.3d 61 (D.C. Cir.),cert. denied, 513 U.S. 815 (1994); Bower v. Bunker Hill Company, 675 F.Supp. 1263, 675F.Supp. 1254, 114 F.R.D. 587 (E.D. Wash. 1986), 689 F.Supp. 1032 (E.D. Wash. 1985); Int’lUnion of Bricklayers and Allied Craftsmen v. Meese, 616 F.Supp. 1387 (N.D.Cal. 1985); AdolphCoors Co. v. Sickler, 608 F.Supp. 1417 (C.D. Cal. 1985); Int’l Union, UAW v. Donovan, 570F.Supp. 210 (D.D.C. 1983), rev’d, 746 F.2d 855 (D.C. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 825(1985); Int’l Union, UAW v. Donovan, 568 F.Supp. 1047 (D.D.C. 1983), rev’d, 746 F.2d 839(D.C. Cir. 1984), rev’d sub nom Int’l Union, UAW v. Brock, 477 U.S. 274 (1986), on remand, 816F.2d 761 (D.C. Cir. 1987); Int’l Union, UAW v. Donovan, 554 F.Supp. 1172 (D.D.C. 1983); LaRaza Unida v. Volpe, 545 F.Supp. 36 (N.D. Cal. 1982); AFL-CIO v. Marshall, 494 F.Supp. 971(D.D.C. 1980).

The firm has also participated in the following state supreme court cases, among others:Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.4th 1004 (2012); California Grocers Ass'n v.City of Los Angeles, 52 Cal.4th 177 (2011); Professional Engineers in California Gov’t v.Schwarzenegger, 50 Cal.4th 989 (2010); St. John’s Well Child and Family Center v.Schwarzenegger, 50 Cal.4th 960 (2010); Hawaii Gov’t Employees Assn. v. Lingle, 239 P3d 1(Haw. 2010); City of San Jose v. Operating Engineers Local No. 3, 49 Cal 597 (2010); PearsonDental Supplies, Inc. v. Superior Court, 48 Cal.4th 665 (2010); Amalgamated Transit Union v.Superior Court, 46 Cal.4th 993 (2009); Sheehan v. The San Francisco 49ers, Ltd., 45 Cal.4th992 (2009); Vasquez v. State of California, 45 Cal.4th 243 (2008); State ex rel. Colvin v.Brunner, 120 Ohio St.3d 110, 896 N.E.2d 979 (Ohio 2008); EPIC v. Calif. Dep’t of Forestry &Fire Protection, 44 Cal.4th 459 (2008); In re Marriage Cases, 43 Cal.4th 757 (2008); Gentry v.Superior Court, 42 Cal.4th 443 (2007); Fleischman v. Protect Our City, 214 Ariz. 406, 153 P.3d1035 (2007); Tahara v. Matson Terminals, Inc., 111 Hawaii 16, 136 P.3d 904 (2006); Reynoldsv. Bement, 36 Cal.4th 1075 (2005); City of Long Beach v. Dep’t of Industrial Relations, 34Cal.4th 942 (2004), vacating 110 Cal.App.4th 636, 1 Cal.Rptr.3d 837 (2003); AFL-CIO v. Hood,


885 So.2d 373 (Fla. 2004); Intel Corp. v. Hamidi, 30 Cal.4th 1342 (2003); Viner v. Sweet, 30Cal.4th 1232 (2003); Hamilton v. Maryland Casualty Co., 27 Cal.4th 718 (2002); GoldenGateway Center v. Golden Gateway Tenants Assoc., 26 Cal.4th 1013 (2001); Gerawan Farming,Inc. v. Lyons, 24 Cal.4th 468 (2000); Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Svcs., 24Cal.4th 83 (2000); Morillion v. Royal Packing Co., 22 Cal.4th 575 (2000); Cel-TechCommunications, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Co., 20 Cal.4th 243 (1999); HawaiiState AFL-CIO v. Yoshina, 935 P.2d 89 (Haw. 1997); Masonry & Tile Contractors Ass’n v.Jolley, Urga & Wirth, 941 P.2d 486 (Nev. 1997); People ex rel. Lundgren v. Superior Court(American Standard), 14 Cal.4th 294 (1996); AFL-CIO v. Unemployment Insurance AppealsBoard, 13 Cal.4th 1017 (1996), rev’g 38 Cal.App.4th 1205 (1995); People v. Horton, 11 Cal.4th1068 (1996); Southern Calif. Chapter of Assoc. Builders & Contractors Inc. v. Calif.Apprenticeship Council, 4 Cal.4th 422 (1992); In re Horton, 54 Cal.3d 82 (1991); Cumero v.Public Employment Relations Board, 49 Cal.3d 575 (1989); Keller v. State Bar, 47 Cal.3d 1152(1989); DeTomaso v. Pan American World Airways, 43 Cal.3d 517 (1987); County of LosAngeles v. State of Calif., 43 Cal.3d 46 (1987); Long Beach City Employees Ass’n v. City ofLong Beach, 41 Cal.3d 937 (1986); Regents of the University of Calif. v. Public EmploymentRelations Board, 41 Cal.3d 601 (1986); San Jose Teachers Ass’n v. Superior Court, 38 Cal.3d839 (1985); AFL-CIO v. Eu, 36 Cal.3d 687 (1984); Legislature of the State of Calif. v.Deukmejian, 34 Cal.3d 658 (1983); San Mateo City School Dist. v. Public EmploymentRelations Bd., 33 Cal.3d 850 (1983); Welfare Rights Org. v. Crisan, 33 Cal.3d 766 (1983);Serrano v. Unruh, 32 Cal.3d 621 (1982); Mandel v. Myers, 29 Cal.3d 531 (1981); Pacific LegalFoundation v. Unemployment Insurance Appeals Bd., 29 Cal.3d 101 (1981); Sears Roebuck &Co. v. San Diego County District Council of Carpenters, 25 Cal.3d 317 (1979); Robins v.Pruneyard Shopping Center , 23 Cal.3d 899 (1979).

The firm has also participated in the following cases in the state courts of appeal, amongothers: Hensel Phelps Const. Co. v. San Diego Unified Port Dist., 197 Cal.App.4th 1020(2011);California Chamber of Commerce v. Brown, 196 Cal.App.4th 233 (2011); County of LosAngeles v. Los Angeles County Employee Relations Com'n, 192 Cal.App.4th 1409 (2011);Ralph's Grocery v. United Food and Commercial Workers, 192 Cal.App.4th 200 (2011); HomeDepot v. Superior Ct., 191 Cal.App.4th 210 (2011); EPIC v. Cal. Dept. of Forestry and FireProtection, 190 Cal.App.4th 217 (2010); Bright v. 99 Cents Only Stores, 189 Cal.App.4th 1472(2010); Lazarin v. Superior Court, 188 Cal.App.4th 1560 (2010); Sutter Health v. UNITE-HERE, 186 Cal.App.4th 1193 (2010); Gardner v. Schwarzenegger, 178 Cal.App.4th 1366 (2009);In re Consumer Privacy Cases, 175 Cal.App.4th 545 (2009); County of Sonoma v. SuperiorCourt, 173 Cal.App.4th 322 (2009); Aguiar v. Superior Court (Cintas Corp.), 170 Cal.App.4th313 (2009); Project Vote v. Madison County Bd. of Elections, 2008 WL 4445176 (Ohio Sept. 29,2008); Curley v. Lake County Bd. of Elections and Registration, 896 N.E.2d 24 (Ind. App. 2008);Amaral v. Cintas Corp. No. 2, 163 Cal.App.4th 1157 (2008); Sharp v. Next Entertainment, Inc.,163 Cal.App.4th 410 (2008); State Building and Construction Trades Council of California v.Duncan, 162 Cal.App.4th 289 (2008); Kashmiri v. Regents of the University of Calif., 156Cal.App.4th 809 (2007); Sheet Metal Workers Int’l Ass’n, Local Union No. 104 v. Rea, 153Cal.App.4th 1071 (2007); Aguiar v. Cintas Corp. No. 2, 144 Cal.App.4th 121 (2006); SouthernCalifornia Edison Co. v. Public Utilities Comm’n, 140 Cal.App.4th 1085 (2006); The HessCollection Winery v. California Agricultural Relations Bd., 140 Cal.App.4th 1584 (2006); DuCharme v. Int’l Bhd. of Electrical Workers, Local 45, 110 Cal.App.4th 107 (2003); SEIU v.Superior Court, 89 Cal.App.4th 1390 (2001); Bell v. Farmers Ins. Exchange, 87 Cal.App.4th 805(2001), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1041 (2001), later proceeding, 115 Cal.App.4th 715 (2004), laterproceeding, 135 Cal.App.4th 1138 (2006), later proceeding, 137 Cal.App.4th 835 (2006); United


Farm Workers v. Dutra Farms, 83 Cal.App.4th 1146 (2000); Western Crop Protection Assoc. v.Davis, 80 Cal.App.4th 741 (2000); Pulaski v. California Occupational Safety and HealthStandards Board, 75 Cal.App.4th 1315 (1999); IBEW Local 595 v. Superior Court, 54Cal.App.4th 1291 (1997); IBEW v. Aubry, 41 Cal.App.4th 1632 (1996); Calif. Court ReportersAss’n v. Judicial Council of Calif., 39 Cal.App.4th 15 (1995), 59 Cal.App.4th 959 (1997); L.A.County Court Reporters Ass’n v. Superior Court, 31 Cal.App.4th 403 (1995); Smith v. SuperiorCourt (Degnan), 31 Cal.App.4th 205 (1994); AFL-CIO v. Unemployment Insurance AppealsBoard, 23 Cal.App.4th 51 (1994); Calif. Labor Federation v. Calif. Safety and Health StandardsBoard, 5 Cal.App.4th 985 (1991), 221 Cal.App.3d 1547 (1990); Jerabek v. Public EmploymentRelations Bd., 2 Cal.App.4th 1298 (1991); Zambrano v. Oakland Unified School Dist., 229Cal.App.3d 802 (1991); Rust v. Vallejo, 215 Cal.App.3d 771 (1989); AFL-CIO v. Deukmejian,212 Cal.App.3d 425 (1989); Wallace v. Consumers Cooperative, Inc., 170 Cal.App.3d 836(1985); Filipino Accountants Ass’n, Inc. v. State Board of Accountancy, 155 Cal.App.3d 1023(1984); Brown v. Superior Court, 137 Cal.App.3d 778 (1982); Serrano v. Priest, 131 Cal.App.3d188 (1982); AFL-CIO v. Employment Development Dep’t, 88 Cal.App.3d 811 (1979).


EXHIBIT A


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

NOTICE OF CLASS SETTLEMENT

U.S.D.C., S.D. CAL., NO. 3:09-CV-02422-JM-DHB




Defendants.

Case No. 3:09-cv-02422-JM-DHB NOTICE OF (1) PROPOSED CLASS SETTLEMENT AND (2) FINAL SETTLEMENT APPROVAL HEARING

This Notice, which has been approved by the Court, is to notify Class Members in the class

action Hines v. KFC U.S. Properties, Inc. of the proposed $3.55 million settlement (the

“Settlement”) reached between the parties. The Court has granted preliminary approval to the

Settlement.

Important Dates

If you wish to claim a share of the settlement described in this notice, you must complete and submit a Claim Form, postmarked or received by the Settlement Administrator on or before December 28, 2012, or else you will not receive your share of the settlement.

If you wish to comment on or object to the settlement, your comment or objection must be postmarked or received by the Settlement Administrator on or before December 13, 2012, or else your objections will be deemed waived.

If you do not want to participate in the settlement, you must request exclusion from the Settlement according to the directions in this notice, and your request must be postmarked or received by the Settlement Administrator on or before December 13, 2012, or else you will be bound by the settlement even if you do not claim your share of the settlement.

All claim forms, comments, objections, and requests not to participate in the Settlement must be postmarked or received by the Settlement Administrator by the applicable deadline:

Hines v. KFC Settlement Administrator Post Office Box 10829

Tallahassee, FL 32302-2829 Toll Free: (855) 272-2481

Fax: (850) 385-6008


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

- 2 - NOTICE OF CLASS SETTLEMENTU.S.D.C., S.D. Cal., No. 3:09-cv-02422-JM-DHB

Pursuant to the order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California

(the “Court”) entered on October 4, 2012, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED AS FOLLOWS:

1. SUMMARY OF THE SETTLEMENT AND MY RIGHTS

§ 1.a. What Is a Class Action? A class action is a lawsuit in which the claims and rights of

many similarly situated people (“Class Members”) are decided in a single court proceeding. One or

more representative plaintiffs (“Class Representatives”) file a lawsuit asserting claims on behalf of all

the class members.

§ 1.b. The Class Definition. You were sent this notice because KFC’s records show that you

are a Member of the Class. The Class includes all persons who were employed by KFC in California in

the position of “Team Member” at any time between October 2, 2005 and October 4, 2012, who do not

timely submit a valid request not to participate in the Settlement following the procedure described in §

8. Note that employment by a KFC franchisee does not fall within the definition of the Class.

§ 1.c. Options and Dates. You have several options:

(1) To receive a payment under the Settlement, you must complete a Claim Form (which is

attached to this Notice) and submit it to the Settlement Administrator, postmarked or received by

December 28, 2012, following the procedure described in § 4.a. If you do not do this, you will receive

no money from this Settlement.

(2) You may comment on or object to the Settlement in writing, postmarked or received by

December 13, 2012, following the procedure described in § 8.

(3) You may request that you be excluded from the Settlement according to the instructions

in § 9 below. If you choose to be excluded from the Settlement, you will no longer be a Class Member –

and therefore will receive no money under this Settlement – and you will not release your claims, which

means that you will be able to bring a separate lawsuit on your own for these claims. Unless you

properly request to be excluded, you will be a Class Member and will release all claims alleged in this

case (see § 5, below), even if you do not fill out a Claim Form. In order to request not to participate in

the Settlement, you must follow the instructions described in § 9 and submit your written request to the

Settlement Administrator, postmarked or received by December 13, 2012.


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


2. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

§ 2.a. The Claims at Issue. On October 2, 2009, plaintiff Domonique Hines (“Plaintiff”) filed a

class action complaint against KFC. In the lawsuit, Plaintiff alleged that KFC failed to properly

compensate her and the Class for missed, late, or short meal and rest break periods, as required by

California law, and failed to properly pay her and the Class for off-the-clock work performed after

KFC’s restaurants close. Plaintiff sought compensation due under California wage-and-hour laws.

Plaintiff further alleged that KFC failed to provide her and the Class with accurate records of hours

worked or timely pay all wages due employees whose employment with KFC had ended, as required by

California law. Plaintiff also alleged that by committing the unlawful acts alleged in her complaint,

KFC engaged in unfair competition in violation of California Business and Professions Code § 17200 et

seq.

§ 2.b. KFC’s Denial of Liability. KFC denies all of Plaintiff’s allegations. Specifically, KFC

contends that it provided Plaintiff and the Class with required meal and rest breaks, and provided proper

compensation if those breaks were missed. It also contends that it properly tracked and paid Plaintiff

and the Class for work performed after its restaurants close. KFC further denies that it failed to provide

Plaintiff or the Proposed Class with correctly itemized wage statements, failed to maintain accurate

records, failed to pay minimum wage, failed to timely pay all wages due to discharged employees, or

committed any unlawful acts that constitute unfair competition or any other violation of any laws. KFC

also contends that this case cannot proceed as a class action.

§ 2.c. The Litigation of the Class Action. The parties have actively litigated the case. The

Parties exchanged approximately 25,000 documents, in addition to electronic time records reflecting

over two million shifts worked by Team Members in California during the relevant time frame.

Additionally, the parties conducted 28 depositions of KFC management, Class members, and expert

witnesses. Over 90 written declarations were filed with the Court. In 2010, the Court certified the meal

and rest break claims as class actions. It denied class certification as to the off-the-clock claim but

indicated that Plaintiff could again request class certification of that claim at a later date. In 2012, KFC

asked the Court to reconsider its decision regarding certification of the meal and rest break claims. That

request was pending at the time the Parties reached this Settlement.


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


3. SUMMARY OF THE SETTLEMENT

§ 3.a. The Mediation. The parties participated in extensive settlement discussions, including a

day of mediation before a neutral third party, a former federal judge and respected mediator in San

Francisco. Soon after the mediation, the Parties reached a settlement. The Settlement represents a

compromise regarding disputed claims, considering the risks and uncertainties of continued litigation.

Nothing in the Settlement is intended or will be construed as an admission by KFC that Plaintiffs’

claims in the Action have merit or that it has any liability to Plaintiffs or the Class on those claims.

Plaintiffs’ counsel has determined that the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate and is in the best

interests of the Class Members.

§ 3.b. The Settlement Agreement and the Court’s Final Approval Hearing. The parties have

presented the Settlement to the Court for its review. The Court has granted preliminary approval to the

Settlement. As described in this Notice, the Court will hold a hearing on January 28, 2013 to determine

whether to grant final approval to the Settlement. Only after the Settlement is granted final approval

will money be paid to Class Members under the Settlement.

§ 3.c. How the Settlement Funds Will Be Distributed. Under the Settlement, KFC will pay

$3.55 million. These settlement funds will be used to pay (1) a Class Representative Payment to

Plaintiff to compensate her for her services to the Class (see § 6 below), (2) Class Counsel’s attorneys’

fees and costs (see § 7 below) to compensate Plaintiff’s counsel for their services to the Class, (3) the

reasonable fees and expenses of the Settlement Administrator, (4) KFC’s share of taxes applicable to the

settlement payments designated as wages, and (5) money to all Class Members who properly submit

Claim Forms (see § 4.a below), pursuant to the plan of allocation (see § 4.b below).

§ 3.d. You Must File a Claim Form to Receive Money. In order to receive money from the

Settlement, a Class Member must submit a Claim Form by the deadline set under the Settlement (see § 4

below).

§ 3.e. Unless You Elect Not to Participate in the Settlement, You Will Be Bound. Unless a

Class Member elects not to participate in the Settlement, he or she will be bound by the Settlement,

including its release of claims, and will not be allowed to pursue individual claims released under the

Settlement against KFC, even if he or she has not submitted a claim for a settlement share (see §§ 4 and


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


9 below).

§ 3.f. The Final Approval Hearing. The parties have submitted the Settlement to the Court.

The Court has granted preliminary approval of the Settlement. The Court will hold a hearing on January

28, 2013, at 10:00 a.m., to determine whether to grant final approval to the Settlement (see § 10 below).

Only after the Settlement is granted final approval can money be paid to Class Members under the

Settlement.

4. HOW TO RECEIVE MONEY FROM THE SETTLEMENT (COMPLETING AND SUBMITTING THE CLAIM FORM)

§ 4.a. Participating in the Settlement by Completing and Submitting the Claim Form. If you

want to receive money from the Settlement, you must complete and submit the Claim Form attached to

this notice, postmarked or received by the Settlement Administrator by December 28, 2012: Hines v. KFC Settlement Administrator

Post Office Box 10829 Tallahassee, FL 32302-2829 Toll Free: (855) 272-2481

Fax: (850) 385-6008

A postage pre-paid, self-addressed return envelope is enclosed for your convenience. If you need

another Claim Form, contact the Settlement Administrator.

If you do not properly submit a Claim Form, postmarked or received by the Claims

Administrator by December 28, 2012, you will not receive any money from the Settlement.

§ 4.b. How Will My Settlement Share Be Calculated? The Settlement Fund equals $3,550,000

plus interest running from the date on which KFC deposits the money into the fund. KFC will pay this

amount regardless of the number of Claimants. The Net Settlement Fund equals the Settlement Fund

minus (i) the Class Representative Payment (see § 6), (ii) the Class Counsel Attorneys’ Fees and Costs

Payment (see § 7), (iii) KFC’s share of taxes applicable to the settlement payments designated as wages,

and (iv) the cost of this Notice and settlement administration.

From data provided by KFC, the Settlement Administrator will calculate each Claimant’s

Settlement Share based on the ratio of the Claimant’s total number of Compensable Work Days to the

total number of all Claimants’ Compensable Work Days. Compensable Work Days are defined as shifts

over 3.5 hours by a Class Member during the Covered Period. The Covered Period runs from October


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


2, 2005 to October 4, 2012.

§ 4.c. What if the Information on My Claim Form is Incorrect? The Claim Form enclosed with

this Notice states the dates of your employment as a Team Member in a KFC California Restaurant

within the Covered Period. If you believe the information on the Claim form is incorrect, you must

follow the instructions in § 2 of the Claim Form, including providing the correct information and

enclosing supporting documentation. Challenges will be resolved by the Settlement Administrator

without a hearing.

§ 4.d. When Will My Share of the Settlement Be Distributed to Me? Within 60 days after the

Court’s order granting final approval of the Settlement becomes final and non-appealable, Settlement

Share checks will be mailed to all Claimants who submitted valid and timely Claim Forms. It is

expected that checks will be mailed out sometime in March of 2013, but that date is subject to change.

The Settlement Administrator, working with Plaintiffs’ counsel and KFC, will diligently attempt to

ensure that all eligible Claimants receive their Settlement Shares.

§ 4.e. Settlement Share Checks Not Cashed Within Six Months Will Be Forfeited. If any

Claimant who submitted a timely and valid Claim Form does not cash the check(s) for his or her

Settlement Share within six (6) months after issuance, he or she will not receive any proceeds under the

Settlement, and the Settlement Share proceeds represented by the check (the “Remainder”) will be

distributed as follows:

1. If the Remainder equals $30,000 or more, it will be distributed to all Claimants who cashed their Settlement Share checks proportionately to their respective Settlement Shares.

2. If the Remainder is less than $30,000, it will be donated in the name of the “Hines v. KFC” Settlement Fund to a charity or charities to be agreed upon by the Parties and approved by the Court.

§ 4.f. Tax Consequences. Half of each Settlement Share is considered a settlement of claims

for wages subject to Form W-2 reporting and therefore will be reduced by normal payroll tax

withholding and deductions. KFC’s share of applicable payroll taxes will be paid out of the Settlement

Fund.

The other half of each Settlement Share is considered a settlement of claims for interest and

penalties subject to Form 1099 reporting. You will be responsible for separately paying all taxes owed


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


based on this half of the Settlement Share.

You should consult your tax advisor regarding any questions about the tax consequences of the

treatment of your Settlement Share.

§ 4.g. What Happens If Not All of the Settlement Fund Is Claimed? If not all the Class

Members submit Claim Forms, all of the Settlement Fund available for distribution will be paid to those

Class Members who submitted timely and valid Claim Forms.

5. RELEASE OF CLAIMS

Under the Settlement, each and every Class Member, except those who timely and validly

request not to participate in the Settlement, shall, upon the Settlement becoming Final, release KFC, and

its former and current parents, subsidiaries, and affiliated corporations, its officers, directors,

shareholders, and any other successors, or assigns from any claims that were brought, or could have

been brought, arising out of the facts alleged in the Complaint in this action, including statutory,

constitutional, contractual, or common claims for wages, damages, unpaid costs, restitution, penalties,

liquidated damages, punitive damages, interest, attorneys’ fees, litigation costs, restitution, and/or

equitable relief for failure to provide meal or rest breaks as required by California law, the failure to pay

for all the time worked after closing shifts, the failure to pay employees the amounts owed to them when

they separated from KFC based on the facts alleged in the complaint, including claims under the

California Labor Code relating to meal and rest breaks, overtime, waiting time penalties or record

keeping, unfair and unlawful business practices in violation of the California Unfair Competition Law,

Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §17200 et seq., arising from these facts, or penalties established by the

California Private Attorney General Act, Cal. Labor Code §2698 et seq., arising from these facts

(“Released Claims”).

Waiver of California Civil Code Section 1542: With respect to the subject matter of their

respective Released Claims, Class Members expressly waive and relinquish the provisions, rights and

benefits of section 1542 of the California Civil Code and any analogous law, statute, or rule. Section

1542 states:

A general release does not extend to claims which the creditor does not know or suspect to exist in his or her favor at the time of executing the release, which if known by him or her must have materially affected his or her settlement with the debtor.


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


Class Members may hereafter discover facts in addition to or different from those they now

know or believe to be true with respect to the subject matter of the Released Claims, but upon the date

when the Final Approval Order becomes Final, shall be deemed to have, and by operation of the Final

Judgment shall have, fully, finally, and forever settled and released any and all of the Released Claims,

whether known or unknown, suspected or unsuspected, contingent or non-contingent, which now exist,

or heretofore have existed, upon any theory of law or equity now existing or coming into existence in

the future, including, but not limited to, conduct that is negligent, intentional, with or without malice, or

a breach of any duty, law or rule, without regard to the subsequent discovery or existence of such

different or additional facts.

6. CLASS REPRESENTATIVE PAYMENTS

Plaintiff will request that the Court approve a Class Representative Payment of $15,000. This

amount is in recognition of the services performed by Plaintiff in representing the Class and advancing

the litigation. This payment will be paid in addition to Plaintiff’s Settlement Share as a Class Member.

The Class Representative Payment will be paid only if the Court approves it.

7. CLASS COUNSEL ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS PAYMENT

Plaintiffs’ counsel will request that the Court approve a payment of up to 30% of the principal

Settlement Fund ($1,065,000) to compensate them for their time and effort in bringing this case, and that

it award them an amount up to $100,000 to reimburse them for the out-of-pocket costs they have

incurred during the litigation. These amounts, if awarded, will be paid from the Settlement Fund.

Plaintiffs’ counsel believe the attorneys’ fees and costs requested are fair and reasonable. These fee and

cost payments will be paid only if the Court approves them.

8. HOW TO COMMENT ON OR OBJECT TO THE SETTLEMENT (IF DESIRED)

If you wish, you may comment on or object to the Settlement by submitting a written notice of

comment or objection. Any comments or objections must be postmarked or received by the Settlement

Administrator by December 13, 2012: Hines v. KFC Settlement Administrator

Post Office Box 10829 Tallahassee, FL 32302-2829 Toll Free: (855) 272-2481

Fax: (850) 385-6008


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


The objection need not be in any specific form; a short and simple statement of your objection is

sufficient. You may be represented by your own attorney, but you do not have to be to object. If you

comment through an attorney, you will be solely responsible for the fees and costs of your own attorney.

If you wish to present your objection at the final approval hearing, you should state your intention to do

so in your written objection.

If you object to the Settlement, but wish to receive your individual settlement payment if the

Settlement is approved, you must comply with the Claim Form submission requirements described in

§ 4. If the Court approves the Settlement despite any comments or objections, and you have not

properly submitted a Claim Form, you will not receive any money from the Settlement, even if you

submitted an objection.

9. HOW TO ELECT NOT TO PARTICIPATE IN THE SETTLEMENT (IF DESIRED)

If you fall within the class definition provided in § 1.b, you are automatically a Class Member,

and will be bound by the Settlement’s release of claims, unless you elect to be excluded from the

Settlement. If you elect to be excluded from the Settlement, you will not receive any money from the

Settlement, will not be bound by the Settlement, including its release of claims, and will be free to

pursue your own claim against KFC (at your own expense). To be excluded, you must timely submit a

written request not to participate in the Settlement that contains 1) your name, 2) your signature, and 3)

the following language:

I understand that, by this request to be excluded from the monetary settlement in this case, I am foregoing all monetary benefits from this Settlement and will receive no money from this Settlement. I understand that I may bring a separate legal action seeking damages, but might receive nothing or less than what I would have received if I had filed a claim under the class monetary settlement procedure in this case.

In addition, your written request not to participate in the Settlement must be submitted to the Settlement

Administrator, postmarked or received by December 13, 2012:



Fax: (850) 385-6008


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


10. FINAL SETTLEMENT APPROVAL HEARING

The Court will hold a final approval hearing on January 28, 2013 at 10:00 a.m., in Courtroom 16

of the Court, located at 940 Front Street, San Diego, CA 92101-8900, before the Honorable Jeffrey T.

Miller, to determine whether the Settlement should be finally approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate.

The Court will also be asked to approve Plaintiff’s request for the Class Representative Payment and

Plaintiff’s counsel’s request for the Class Counsel Attorneys’ Fees and Costs Payment. The hearing

may be postponed without further notice to the Class. It is not necessary for you to appear at this

hearing. You may appear at the hearing if you wish, if you have given notice of your comments in

favor of or against the Settlement under the procedures set forth in § 8.

11. OTHER INFORMATION

§ 11.a. No Cost to You. The Settlement does not require you to pay money out of pocket.

However, you are responsible for all taxes owed on your paid Settlement Shares.

§ 11.b. Tax Advice Caveat. Any perceived tax advice in this Notice was not intended or written

to be used, and it cannot be used by any recipient, for the purpose of avoiding any tax penalties that may

be imposed on any person. This Notice imposes no limitation on the disclosure of the tax treatment or

tax structure of any transaction. Plaintiff’s counsel cannot give you tax advice. Class Members will be

responsible for the payment of any taxes and penalties assessed on the payments described herein.

§ 11.c. This Notice Provides Only a Summary. This Notice provides only a summary of the

basic terms of the Settlement. For the precise terms and conditions of the Settlement, you are referred to

the detailed Joint Stipulation of Class Settlement and Class Settlement Agreement and Release, which is

on file with the Clerk of the Court. The pleadings and other records in this litigation, including the

Settlement, may be examined at any time during regular business hours with the Clerk of Court, 940

Front Street, San Diego, CA 92101-8900, or online on through the Public Access to Court Electronic

Resources system, known as “PACER,” at https://ecf.casd.uscourts.gov. You also may contact

Plaintiff’s counsel at 1-310-961-9646. Please do not telephone the court or KFC’s counsel for

information regarding this Settlement or the claim process.

§ 11.d. Questions.

If you have questions, please feel free to contact the Settlement Administrator:


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




Fax: (850) 385-6008

You can also check the website for this Class Action: www.KFCCAwagesettlement.com.

If you would like to speak with an attorney, please contact Class Counsel as follows: Matthew J. Matern and Wendy Sha at Rastegar & Matern, Attorneys At Law, APC, 1010

Crenshaw Boulevard, Suite 100, Torrance, CA 90501 James M. Finberg, Eve H. Cervantez, and Peder J. Thoreen at Altshuler Berzon, LLP,

177 Post St., Suite 300, San Francisco, CA 94108 By telephone: 1-310-961-9646.

* * *

By order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California.

Dated: October 29, 2012. Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller

United States District Judge


EXHIBIT B


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

SPANISH TRANSLATION OF NOTICE OF CLASS SETTLEMENT

U.S.D.C., S.D. CAL., NO. 3:09-CV-02422-JM-DHB




Defendants.

Case No. 3:09-cv-02422-JM-DHB SPANISH TRANSLATION OF NOTICE OF (1) PROPOSED CLASS SETTLEMENT AND (2) FINAL SETTLEMENT APPROVAL HEARING

Este Aviso, que cuenta con la aprobación del Tribunal, es para notificar a los Miembros del

Colectivo de la demanda colectiva Hines v. KFC U.S. Properties, Inc. sobre el Acuerdo propuesto

de $3.55 millones (el “Acuerdo”) acordado por las partes. El Tribunal ha otorgado su aprobación

preliminar al Acuerdo.

Fechas importantes

Si desea reclamar una parte del Acuerdo descrito en este aviso, debe llenar y presentar un Formulario de Reclamación, mismo que debe ser recibido por el Administrador del Acuerdo a más tardar el 28 de diciembre 2012 o contar con matasellos de dicha fecha o anterior; de lo contrario, no recibirá su parte del Acuerdo.

Si desea hacer comentarios o objetar al Acuerdo, su comentario o objeción deberá ser recibido por el Administrador del Acuerdo a más tardar el 13 de diciembre 2012 o contar con matasellos de dicha fecha o anterior; de lo contrario se considerará que ha renunciado a su derecho a presentar una objeción.

Si no desea participar en el acuerdo, debe solicitar su exclusión del mismo de acuerdo con las instrucciones en este aviso y su solicitud deberá ser recibida por el Administrador del Acuerdo a más tardar el 13 de diciembre 2012 o contar con matasellos de dicha fecha o anterior; de lo contrario, usted estará obligado por el acuerdo incluso si no reclama su parte en el mismo.

Todos los formularios de reclamación, comentarios, objeciones y solicitudes de no participar en el Acuerdo deben ser recibidos por el Administrador del Acuerdo o contar con matasellos con fecha de, a más tardar, la fecha límite correspondiente:

Hines v. KFC Administrador del Acuerdo Post Office Box 10829

Tallahassee, FL 32302-2829


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

- 2 - SPANISH TRANSLATION OF NOTICE OF CLASS SETTLEMENTU.S.D.C., S.D. Cal., No. 3:09-cv-02422-JM-DHB

Sin Cargos: (855) 272-2481 Fax: (850) 385-6008

Conforme a la instrucción del Tribunal de Distrito de los Estados Unidos para el Distrito Sur de

California (el “Tribunal”) celebrada el 04 de octubre 2012, POR ESTE MEDIO SE LE NOTIFICA LO

SIGUIENTE:

1. RESUMEN DEL ACUERDO Y MIS DERECHOS

§ 1.a. ¿Qué es una demanda colectiva? Una demanda colectiva es una demanda en la que las

reclamaciones y derechos de varias personas en situación similar (los “Miembros del Colectivo”) se

deciden en un mismo proceso judicial. Uno o más demandantes representativos (los “Representantes del

Colectivo”) presentan una demanda en la que se afirman derechos en representación de todos los

Miembros del Colectivo.

§ 1.b. La definición del Colectivo. Se le envió este aviso porque los registros de KFC

muestran que usted es un Miembro del Colectivo. El Colectivo incluye a todas las personas que

trabajaron en KFC en California con el puesto de “miembro de equipo” en cualquier momento entre el 2

de octubre de 2005 y 04 de octubre 2012, que no presenten en tiempo y forma una solicitud válida de no

participar en el Acuerdo conforme al procedimiento descrito en § 8. Cabe mencionar que trabajar

para un franquiciatario de KFC no entra en la definición del Colectivo.

§ 1.c. Opciones y fechas. Usted tiene varias opciones:

(1) Para recibir un pago conforme al Acuerdo, debe completar un Formulario de

Reclamación (que se adjunta a este Aviso) y enviarlo al Administrador del Acuerdo, mismo que deberá

ser recibido a más tardar el 28 de diciembre 2012 o contar con matasellos de dicha fecha o anterior,

siguiendo el procedimiento descrito en § 4.a. De no hacerlo, no recibirá dinero alguno de este Acuerdo.

(2) Puede comentar u objetar al Acuerdo en documento por escrito, mismo que deberá ser a

más tardar el 13 de diciembre 2012 o contar con matasellos de esa fecha o anterior, siguiendo el

procedimiento descrito en § 8.

(3) Puede solicitar ser excluido del Acuerdo de acuerdo con las instrucciones en § 9 a

continuación. Si decide ser excluido del Acuerdo, no será más un Miembro del Colectivo, y por lo

tanto, no recibirá dinero alguno de este Acuerdo ni relevará su derecho a reclamación, lo que significa


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


que podrá interponer una demanda separada por su cuenta por estas reclamaciones. A menos que

solicite adecuadamente ser excluido, usted será un Miembro del Colectivo y relevará sus derechos sobre

todas las reclamaciones alegadas en este caso (vea § 5, a continuación) aún si no llena un Formulario de

Reclamación. A fin de solicitar no participar en el Acuerdo, debe seguir las instrucciones descritas en §

9 y enviar su solicitud por escrito al Administrador del Acuerdo, misma que deberá ser recibida a más

tardar el 13 de diciembre 2012 o contar con matasellos de esa fecha o anterior.

2. ANTECEDENTES DEL CASO

§ 2.a. Las Reclamaciones en cuestión. El 2 de octubre de 2009, la demandante Domonique

Hines (la “Demandante”) presentó una denuncia de demanda colectiva contra KFC. En la demanda, la

Demandante alegaba que KFC había incumplido remunerar adecuadamente a ella y al Colectivo por las

pausas para comer y descansos perdidos, tardíos o más breves de lo debido, conforme a lo establecido

por las leyes de California, y había incumplido pagar adecuadamente a ella y al Colectivo por el trabajo

realizado después de la hora de cierre de los restaurantes KFC y que no fue registrado por el reloj

checador. La Demandante solicitó la remuneración adeudada conforme a las leyes en materia de

salarios y horarios de California. La Demandante alegó además que KFC había incumplido darle a ella

y al Colectivo registros precisos de las horas trabajadas o pagar a tiempo todos los salarios adeudados a

los empleados cuya relación laboral con KFC había terminado, conforme a lo establecido por las leyes

de California. El Demandante alegó también que, al cometer los actos ilícitos que se alegan en su

denuncia, KFC participó en una competencia desleal en violación del Código de Negocios y Profesiones

de California § 17200 y posteriores.

§ 2.b. Negación de responsabilidad por parte de KFC. KFC niega todos los alegatos de la

Demandante. En específico, KFC argumenta que proporcionó al Demandante y al Colectivo las pausas

para comer y los descansos requeridos y que proporcionó una remuneración adecuada cuando no se

tomaban dichas pausas y descansos. Argumenta también que llevó un registro adecuado y pagó a la

Demandante y al Colectivo por el trabajo realizado después de la hora de cierre de sus restaurantes.

KFC niega además que haya incumplido dar a la Demandante o el Colectivo Propuesto un desglose

correcto de los conceptos del salario, que haya incumplido llevar registros precisos, que haya

incumplido pagar el salario mínimo, que haya incumplido pagar oportunamente todos los salarios


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


adeudados a los empleados despedidos ni que haya cometido acto ilícito alguno que constituya una

competencia desleal ni cualquier otra violación a las leyes. KFC argumenta también que este caso no

puede proceder como demanda colectiva.

§ 2.c. El litigio de la Demanda Colectiva Las partes han litigado el caso activamente. Las

Partes intercambiaron aproximadamente 25,000 documentos, además de registros electrónicos de tiempo

que reflejaban más de dos millones de turnos trabajados por los Miembros de Equipo en California

durante el periodo en cuestión. Además, las partes realizaron 28 declaraciones juradas de directivos de

KFC, miembros del colectivo y peritos. Se presentaron más de 90 declaraciones por escrito al Tribunal.

En 2010, el Tribunal certificó las reclamaciones de pausas para comer y descansos como demandas

colectiva. Negó la certificación de colectivo respecto a la reclamación del trabajo no registrado por el

reloj checador, pero indicó que la Demandante podría nuevamente solicitar la certificación de colectivo

para esa reclamación posteriormente. En 2012, KFC pidió al Tribunal reconsiderar su decisión respecto

a la certificación de las reclamaciones de pausas para comer y descansos. Dicha petición estaba

pendiente al momento en que las Partes llegaron a este Acuerdo.

3. RESUMEN DEL ACUERDO

§ 3.a. La mediación. Las partes participaron en extensas discusiones del Acuerdo, lo que

incluyó un día de mediación ante un tercero neutral, un ex juez federal y mediador respetado en San

Francisco. Poco después de la mediación, las Partes llegaron a un acuerdo. El Acuerdo representa un

compromiso respecto a las reclamaciones motivo de controversia, considerando los riesgos y la

incertidumbre de seguir con un litigio. Nada de lo contenido en este Acuerdo busca ser ni debe ser

interpretado como una aceptación por parte de KFC de que las reclamaciones de la demanda presentada

por los demandantes tenga mérito alguno o de que tenga responsabilidad alguna para con los

demandantes o con el colectivo sobre dichas reclamaciones. Los asesores de la Demandante han

determinado que el Acuerdo es justo, razonable y adecuado y que es para los mejores intereses de los

Miembros del Colectivo.

§ 3.b. El convenio del acuerdo y la audiencia de aprobación final del Tribunal. Las partes han

presentado el Acuerdo al Tribunal para su revisión. El Tribunal ha otorgado su aprobación preliminar al

Acuerdo. Como se describe en este Aviso, el Tribunal sostendrá una audiencia el 28 de enero 2013 para


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


determinar si otorgará la aprobación final del Acuerdo. Solo después que se otorgue la aprobación final

al Acuerdo se pagará el dinero a los Miembros del Colectivo conforme al Acuerdo.

§ 3.c. Cómo se distribuirán los fondos del Acuerdo. Conforme al Acuerdo, KFC pagará $3.55

millones. Los fondos de este acuerdo se usarán para pagar (1) un Pago de Representante del Colectivo a

la Demandante como remuneración por sus servicios para con el Colectivo (vea § 6 a continuación), (2)

los honorarios y gastos legales de los Asesores del Colectivo (vea § 7 a continuación) para remunerar a

los asesores de la Demandante por sus servicios para con el Colectivo; (3) los honorarios y gastos

razonables del Administrador del Acuerdo, (4) la parte de KFC de los impuestos aplicables a los pagos

del acuerdo designados como salarios, y (5) dinero a todos los Miembros del Colectivo que hayan

presentado adecuadamente sus Formularios de Reclamación (vea § 4.a. a continuación), conforme al

plan de asignación (vea § 4.b. a continuación).

§ 3.d. Debe presentar un Formulario de Reclamación para recibir dinero. A fin de recibir

dinero del Acuerdo, un Miembro del Colectivo debe enviar un Formulario de Reclamación a más tardar

en la fecha límite establecida conforme al Acuerdo (vea § 4 a continuación).

§ 3.e. A menos que elija no participar en el Acuerdo, estará obligado por el mismo. A menos

que un Miembro del Colectivo elija no participar en el Acuerdo, estará obligado por el mismo, lo que

incluye su descargo de responsabilidades, y no tendrá permitido emprender por su cuenta las

reclamaciones individuales que hayan sido descargadas al amparo del Acuerdo contra KFC, aún si no

hubiera enviado una reclamación de su parte en el acuerdo (vea §§ 4 y 9 a continuación).

§ 3.f. La audiencia de aprobación final. Las partes han presentado el Acuerdo ante el Tribunal.

El Tribunal ha otorgado su aprobación preliminar al Acuerdo. El Tribunal sostendrá una audiencia el 28

de enero 2013, a las 10 a.m., para determinar si otorgará la aprobación final al Acuerdo (vea § 10 a

continuación). Solo después que se otorgue la aprobación final al Acuerdo se podrá pagar el dinero a los

Miembros del Colectivo conforme al Acuerdo.

4. CÓMO RECIBIR DINERO DEL ACUERDO (LLENAR Y PRESENTAR UN FORMULARIO DE RECLAMACIÓN)

§ 4.a. Participación en el Acuerdo mediante el llenado y la presentación del Formulario de

Reclamación. Si desea recibir dinero del Acuerdo, debe llenar y presentar el Formulario de


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


Reclamación adjunto a este aviso, que deberá ser recibido por el Administrador del Acuerdo a más

tardar el 28 de diciembre 2012 o tener matasellos de dicha fecha o anterior: Hines v. KFC Administrador del Acuerdo

Post Office Box 10829 Tallahassee, FL 32302-2829

Gratis: (855) 272-2481 Fax: (850) 385-6008

Se incluye para su conveniencia un sobre de devolución prepagado y con remitente prellenado. Si

necesita otro Formulario de Reclamación, póngase en contacto con el Administrador del Acuerdo.

Si no presenta adecuadamente un Formulario de Reclamación, que sea recibido por el

Administrador de Reclamaciones a más tardar el 28 de diciembre 2012 o tenga matasellos de dicha

fecha o anterior, no recibirá dinero alguno del Acuerdo.

§ 4.b. ¿Cómo se calculará mi parte del Acuerdo? El Fondo del Acuerdo es igual a $3,550,000

más intereses corrientes a partir de la fecha en que KFC deposite el dinero en el fondo. KFC pagará esta

cantidad independientemente del número de Reclamantes. El Fondo del Acuerdo Neto es igual al Fondo

de Acuerdo menos (i) el pago para el Representante del Colectivo (vea § 6), (ii) el pago de honorarios y

costos legales para los Asesores del Colectivo (vea § 7), (iii) la parte de KFC de impuestos aplicables

para los pagos del Acuerdo designados como salarios, y (iv) el costo de este aviso y la administración

del acuerdo.

Con los datos proporcionados por KFC, el Administrador del Acuerdo calculará la Parte del

Acuerdo de cada Reclamante con base en la proporción del número total de Días de Trabajo

Remunerables del Reclamante en relación al número total de los Días de Trabajo Remunerables de todos

los Reclamantes. Los Días de Trabajo Remunerables se definen como turnos de más de 3.5 horas por

parte de un Miembro del Colectivo durante el Periodo Cubierto. El Periodo Cubierto corre a partir del 2

de octubre de 2005 al 04 de octubre 2012.

§ 4.c. ¿Qué sucede si la información en mi Formulario de Reclamación es incorrecta? El

Formulario de Reclamación incluido con este Aviso indica las fechas de su relación laboral como

Miembro de Equipo en un restaurante de KFC en California dentro del Periodo Cubierto. Si considera

que la información en el Formulario de Reclamación es incorrecta, debe seguir las instrucciones en § 2

de dicho formulario, lo que incluye proporcionar la información correcta e incluir documentación que


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


respalde su dicho. Dichos cuestionamientos serán resueltos por el Administrador del Acuerdo sin una

audiencia.

§ 4.d. ¿Cuándo se me hará llegar mi parte del Acuerdo? Dentro de los 60 días posteriores a que

el fallo del Tribunal que otorga la aprobación final del Acuerdo se vuelva definitivo y no apelable, se

enviarán a todos los Reclamantes que hayan presentado en tiempo y forma su Formulario de

Reclamación los cheques de su Parte del Acuerdo. La expectativa es que se envíen los cheques por

correo alrededor de marzo de 2013, pero dicha fecha está sujeta a cambios. El Administrador del

Acuerdo, en colaboración con los asesores de la Demandante y KFC, tratarán diligentemente de

asegurarse que todos los Reclamantes que cumplan con los requisitos reciban su Parte del Acuerdo.

§ 4.e. Los cheques de su parte del acuerdo no cobrados en un plazo de seis meses seran

perdidos. Si algún Reclamante que haya presentado en tiempo y forma un Formulario de Reclamación

no cobra el(los) cheque(s) de su Parte del Acuerdo en un plazo de 6 (seis) meses después de su emisión,

no recibirá dinero alguno del Acuerdo y su Parte del Acuerdo correspondiente a dicho(s) cheque(s) (el

"Remanente") será distribuido como a continuación:

1. Si el Remanente es igual a $30,000 o más, será distribuido a todos los Reclamantes que hayan cobrado los cheques de su Parte del Acuerdo, de manera proporcional a su parte correspondiente.

2. Si el Remanente es menor a $30,000, será donado a nombre del Fondo de Acuerdo “Hines vs. KFC” a una o varias organizaciones caritativas según lo acuerden las Partes y con aprobación del Tribunal.

§ 4.f. Consecuencias impositivas. La mitad de cada Parte del Acuerdo se considera un acuerdo

de las reclamaciones por salarios sujetas a la presentación del Formulario W-2 y, por ende, se hará la

reducción correspondiente por concepto de retenciones y deducciones del impuesto sobre nóminas

normal. La parte de KFC de impuestos sobre nómina aplicables se pagará con el dinero del Fondo del

Acuerdo.

La otra mitad de cada Parte del Acuerdo se considera un acuerdo de las reclamaciones de

intereses y penalizaciones sujeta a la presentación del Formulario 1099. Usted será el responsable de

pagar por separado todos los impuestos adeudados con base en esta mitad de su Parte del Acuerdo.

Deberá consultar a un asesor fiscal respecto a cualquier pregunta sobre las consecuencias

impositivas del tratamiento de su Parte del Acuerdo.


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


§ 4.g. ¿Qué pasa si no se reclama la totalidad del Fondo de Acuerdo? Si no todos los Miembros

del Colectivo presentan Formularios de Reclamación, todo el Fondo del Acuerdo disponible para su

distribución se pagará a aquellos Miembros del Colectivo que hayan presentado sus Formularios de

Reclamación en tiempo y forma.

5. DESCARGO DE RESPONSABILIDADES.

Conforme al Acuerdo, todos y cada uno de los Miembros del Colectivo, salvo aquellos que

hayan solicitado en tiempo y forma no participar en el Acuerdo, deberán, al convertirse el Acuerdo en

definitivo, liberar a KFC y sus casas matrices, compañías subsidiarias y afiliadas, sus funcionarios,

directivos, accionistas y cualquier otro sucesor o cesionario, de cualquier reclamación que hayan

interpuesto, o pudieran haber interpuesto, resultado de los hechos alegados en la denuncia objeto de esta

demanda, lo que incluye las reclamaciones en materia de derecho legislado, constitucional, contractual o

común por salarios, daños, costos no pagados, indemnización, penalizaciones, daños determinados,

daños punitivos, intereses, honorarios legales, costos de litigio, restitución y/o otros recursos

equiparables por el incumplimiento de proveer pausas para comer y descansos como lo especifica la ley

de California, el incumplimiento del pago de todo el tiempo trabajado después del fin de los turnos, el

incumplimiento de pago a los empleados de los montos que se les adeudaban al terminar su relación

laboral con KFC con base en los hechos alegados en la denuncia, lo que incluye las reclamaciones

conforme al Código Laboral de California en materia de pausas para comer y descansos, horas extras,

penalizaciones por tiempo de espera y la conservación de registros, prácticas comerciales desleales e

ilícitas en violación de la Ley de competencia desleal de California, el Código de Negocios y

Profesiones de California §17200 y posteriores, resultado de estos hechos o las penalizaciones

establecidas y la ley de California sobre el derecho de los particulares a representarse en un juicio

(PAGA), el Código Laboral de California §2698 y posteriores, resultado de estos hechos (las

“Reclamaciones Relevadas”).

Renuncia de la sección 1542 del Código Civil de California: Con respecto al tema de sus

respectivas Reclamaciones Relevadas, los Miembros del Colectivo renuncian expresamente a las

disposiciones, derechos y beneficios de la sección 1542 del Código Civil de California y toda ley,

estatuto o regla análogos. La sección 1542 indica:


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


“Un descargo general no abarca las reclamaciones que el acreedor no sepa ni sospeche que existan en su favor al momento de firmar el descargo, que de haberlas conocido hubieran afectado de manera importante el acuerdo acordado con el deudor.”

Los Miembros del Colectivo pueden en lo sucesivo descubrir hechos adicionales o distintos a los

que ahora conocen o consideran verdaderos con respecto al tema motivo de las Reclamaciones

Relevadas, pero a la fecha en que el fallo de aprobación final se vuelva definitivo, se considerará que

han sido completa, definitiva y por siempre finiquitadas y relevadas, conocidas o desconocidas,

sospechadas o insospechadas, contingentes o no contingentes, que existan ahora o hayan existido en lo

sucesivo, y de hecho así será por resolución de la Sentencia Final, ante cualquier fundamento legal o de

equidad existente ahora o que llegue a existir en el futuro, lo que incluye, de manera enunciativa mas no

limitativa, conductas que sean negligentes, intencionales, con o sin malicia, o una violación de todo

deber, ley o regla, sin considerar el descubrimiento o existencia posterior de dichos hechos distintos o

adicionales.

6. PAGOS A LOS REPRESENTANTES DEL COLECTIVO

El Demandante solicitará que el Tribunal apruebe un Pago para el Representante del Colectivo

por $15,000. Esta cantidad es un reconocimiento de los servicios realizados por la Demandante en

representación del Colectivo y para hacer avanzar el litigio. Este pago se hará adicional a la Parte del

Acuerdo de la Demandante como Miembro del Colectivo. El Pago para la Representante del Colectivo

se hará únicamente si el Tribunal lo aprueba.

7. PAGO DE HONORARIOS Y COSTOS LEGALES A LOS ASESORES DEL COLECTIVO

Los asesores de los Demandantes solicitarán que el Tribunal apruebe un pago de hasta 30% del

capital del Fondo del Acuerdo ($1,065,000) para remunerarlos por su tiempo y esfuerzo para interponer

este caso y que se les otorgue una cantidad de hasta $100,000 para reembolsarles los costos

desembolsados en que hayan incurrido durante el litigio. Estos montos, de ser otorgados, se pagarán con

el Fondo del Acuerdo. Los asesores de los Demandantes consideran que los honorarios y costos legales

solicitados son justos y razonables. El pago de estos honorarios y costos sólo se harán si el Tribunal los

aprueba.

8. CÓMO HACER COMENTARIOS U OBJETAR AL ACUERDO (SI ASÍ LO DESEA)


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


Si quiere, puede hacer comentarios u objetar al acuerdo presentando un aviso por escrito de

dicho comentario u objeción. Todo comentario u objeción debe ser recibido por el Administrador del

Acuerdo a más tardar del 13 de diciembre 2012 o tener matasellos de dicha fecha o anterior: Hines v. KFC Administrador del Acuerdo

Post Office Box 10829 Tallahassee, FL 32302-2829 Sin Cargos: (855) 272-2481

Fax: (850) 385-6008

No es necesario presentar la objeción en un formulario específico; es suficiente con hacer una

declaración breve y sencilla de su objeción. Puede ser representado por su propio abogado, pero no es

necesario contar con uno para poder objetar. Si emite su comentario a través de un abogado, usted será

el único responsable del pago de los honorarios y costos del mismo. Si desea presentar su objeción en la

audiencia de aprobación final, deberá indicar su intención de hacerlo en su objeción por escrito.

Si objeta al Acuerdo pero desea recibir su pago individual del acuerdo en caso que este sea

aprobado, debe cumplir con los requisitos de presentación del Formulario de Reclamación descritos en §

4. Si el Tribunal aprueba el Acuerdo a pesar de los comentarios u objeciones y usted no ha presentado

un Formulario de Reclamación en tiempo y forma, no recibirá dinero alguno del Acuerdo, aún si

presentó una objeción.

9. CÓMO OPTAR POR NO PARTICIPAR EN EL ACUERDO (SI ASÍ LO DESEA)

Si usted está en el supuesto de la definición del colectivo dada en § 1.b, automáticamente es un

Miembro del Colectivo y estará obligado por el descargo de responsabilidades del Acuerdo, a menos que

opte por ser excluido del Acuerdo. Si opta por ser excluido del Acuerdo, no recibirá dinero alguno del

mismo, no estará obligado por el Acuerdo, lo que incluye el descargo de responsabilidades bajo el

mismo, y será libre de emprender su propia reclamación contra KFC (a su cuenta y cargo). Para ser

excluido, debe presentar en tiempo y forma una solicitud por escrito de no participar en el Acuerdo que

contenga 1) su nombre, 2) su firma y 3) el texto siguiente:

Entiendo que, por efecto de esta solicitud de ser excluido del acuerdo monetario en este caso, estoy renunciando a todos los beneficios monetarios de este Acuerdo y no recibiré dinero alguno del mismo. Entiendo que puedo interponer una demanda legal aparte para solicitar la restitución de daños, pero pudiera no recibir nada o recibir menos de lo que podría haber recibido si hubiera presentado una reclamación al amparo del procedimiento del acuerdo monetario colectivo de este caso.


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


Además, su solicitud por escrito de no participar en el Acuerdo se debe enviar al Administrador del

acuerdo, y ser recibida a más tardar del 13 de diciembre 2012 o contar con matasellos de dicha fecha o

anterior: Hines v. KFC Administrador del Acuerdo


Gratis: (855) 272-2481 Fax: (850) 385-6008

10. AUDIENCIA FINAL DE APROBACIÓN DEL ACUERDO

El Tribunal sostendrá una audiencia de aprobación final el 28 de enero 2013 a las 10 a.m., en la

sala 16 del tribunal, ubicada en 940 Front Street, San Diego, CA 92101-8900, ante el Honorable Jeffrey

T. Miller, a fin de determinar si se deberá aprobar definitivamente el Acuerdo como justo, razonable y

adecuado. Se pedirá también al Tribunal que apruebe la solicitud del Demandante del Pago al

Representante del Colectivo y la solicitud de los asesores del Demandante del pago de honorarios y

costos legales para los Asesores del Colectivo. La audiencia pudiera posponerse sin más aviso para el

Colectivo. No es necesario que se presente a esta audiencia. Puede presentarse a la audiencia si así lo

desea, si ha dado aviso de sus comentarios a favor o en contra del Acuerdo conforme a los

procedimientos establecidos en § 8.

11. OTRA INFORMACIÓN

§ 11.a. Sin costo para usted. Para el Acuerdo no es necesario que usted desembolse dinero

alguno. Sin embargo, usted es el responsable de todos los impuestos adeudados por su Parte del

Acuerdo que le sea pagada.

§ 11.b. Advertencia de asesoría fiscal. Toda percepción de asesoría fiscal en este Aviso no es

intencional ni se redactó para su utilización y ningún destinatario puede usarla para fines de evitar

penalizaciones fiscales que pudieran ser impuestas por otros. Este Aviso no impone limitación alguna a

la divulgación del tratamiento o estructura impositiva de cualquier transacción. Los asesores del

Demandante no pueden darle asesoría fiscal. Los Miembros del Colectivo serán los responsables del

pago de los impuestos y penalizaciones que se calculen sobre los pagos descritos en el presente

documento.

§ 11.c. Este Aviso le proporciona únicamente un resumen. Este Aviso le proporciona


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


únicamente un resumen de los términos básicos del Acuerdo. Para ver los términos y condiciones

precisos del Acuerdo, consulte la estipulación conjunta del Acuerdo de la Demanda Colectiva y el

descargo y convenio de Acuerdo de la Demanda Colectiva, que se encuentra en el expediente del

Secretario de Acuerdos. Los escritos iniciales y otros registros de este litigio, incluido el Acuerdo, se

pueden examinar en cualquier momento durante horas laborales regulares con el Secretario de Acuerdos,

940 Front Street, San Diego, CA 92101-8900, o en línea a través del sistema de acceso público a los

recursos electrónicos del tribunal, conocido como “PACER”, en https://ecf.casd.uscourts.gov. También

puede ponerse en contacto con los asesores de la Demandante al 1-310-961-9646. Por favor, no llame

por teléfono al tribunal ni a los asesores de KFC para pedir información respecto a este Acuerdo o

al proceso de reclamación.

§ 11.d. Preguntas.

Si tiene alguna pregunta, no dude en ponerse en contacto con el Administrador del Acuerdo:


Tallahassee, FL 32302-2829 Sin Cargos: (855) 272-2481

Fax: (850) 385-6008

También puede mirar el sitio web de esta Demanda Colectiva:

www.KFCCAwagesettlement.com.

Si desea hablar con un abogado, póngase en contacto con los Asesores del Colectivo, (los

abogados que representan al Colectivo) en: Matthew J. Matern y Wendy Sha de Rastegar & Matern, Attorneys At Law, APC, 1010

Crenshaw Boulevard, Suite 100, Torrance, CA 90501 James M. Finberg, Eve H. Cervantez y Peder J. Thoreen de Altshuler Berzon, LLP, 177

Post St., Suite 300, San Francisco, CA 94108 Por teléfono: 1-310-961-9646.

* * *

Por instrucción del Tribunal de Distrito de los Estados Unidos para el Distrito Sur de California.

Fecha: 29 de octubre 2012. Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller

Juez de distrito de los Estados Unidos


EXHIBIT C


1 of 2 Claim Form

CLAIM FORM

Hines v. KFC U.S. Properties, Inc. Class Action Settlement Hines v. KFC Settlement Administrator


Toll Free: (855) 272-2481 Fax: (850) 385-6008 NOTE: Please read the enclosed “Notice of (1) Proposed Class Settlement and (2) Final Settlement Approval Hearing” (the “Class Notice”) before completing this Claim Form.

DEADLINE: To receive any money from this settlement, you must properly complete, sign, and submit a Claim Form to the Settlement Administrator, POSTMARKED or DELIVERED (via facsimile or professional or personal delivery) by December 28, 2012.

The Claim Form must be personally filled out and signed by the current or former KFC employee who seeks to participate in this settlement, or by someone with a legal right to act on his or her behalf.

Be sure to make a copy of your signed Claim Form for your records.

1. Your Contact Information

Please review and, if necessary, correct on the line to the right your contact information:

«fname» «lname» «Mailid» ____________________________________ «address» «address_2» ____________________________________ «City», «State» «Zip» ____________________________________

If you wish, please add further contact information here. This will help the Settlement Administrator and/or Class Counsel to reach you in the event there are questions or difficulties sending you your settlement check.

Telephone number (daytime): ____________________________________________ Telephone number (evening): ____________________________________________ E-mail: ____________________________________________ Note: it is your responsibility to notify the Settlement Administrator if you change your mailing address after submitting this claim form.

2. Your Dates of Employment as a Team Member at a KFC California Restaurant

According to KFC’s records, you were employed as a Team Member in a KFC California Restaurant during the Covered Period from: «Job1Start» - «Job1End» «Job2Start» - «Job2End» «Job3Start» - «Job3End» «Job4Start» - «Job4End» «Job5Start» - «Job5End»

If you believe that any of your employment history information set forth above is incorrect, please (i) correct that information in the space below (using additional paper if necessary), and (ii) enclose documentary evidence supporting your correction(s). __________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________

Note: If you do not submit a correction with supporting documentation, you waive your right to challenge the above pre-printed information. By submitting a correction, you are authorizing the Settlement Administrator to review KFC’s records and make a determination based on KFC’s records and the records you submit. This determination may increase or decrease the value of your share of the settlement. All such determinations by the Settlement Administrator are final and binding with no opportunity for further appeal.


2 of 2 Claim Form

3. Verification and Consent

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

1. The information set forth above regarding my employment with KFC (including any corrections I have made), is true and correct.

2. I have read the Class Notice and I understand that, in signing this form, I (i) consent to release all of the state and federal claims as described in the Class Notice (see § 5 of the Class Notice); (ii) consent to the jurisdiction of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California presiding over this case; and (iii) authorize Class Counsel to act on my behalf in all matters relating to this action, including the settlement of my claims.

3. I wish to receive my share of the proposed Settlement.

______________________, 2012. Date

__________________________________________ Signature

4. Taxpayer Identification Number Certification

Substitute IRS Form W-9

Enter your Social Security Number: - - Under penalty of perjury, I certify that:

1. The social security number shown on this form is my correct taxpayer identification number; and 2. I am not subject to backup withholding because: (a) I am exempt from backup withholding, or (b) I have

not been notified by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) that I am subject to backup withholding as a result of a failure to report all interest or dividends, or (c) the IRS has notified me that I am no longer subject to backup withholding; and

3. I am a U.S. person (including a U.S. resident alien).

Note: If the IRS has notified you that you are subject to backup withholding, you must cross out item #2 above.

The IRS does not require your consent to any provision of this document other than this Form W-9 certification to avoid backup withholding. 5. Postmark Deadline

Your Claim Form must be POSTMARKED or DELIVERED (via facsimile transmission or professional or personal delivery) on or before December 28, 2012. A Claim Form postmarked or received by the Settlement Administrator later than this deadline will not be accepted absent good cause shown. A postage pre-paid, self-addressed return envelope has been enclosed for your convenience. This Claim Form must be mailed or delivered to the Settlement Administrator at:



Fax: (850) 385-6008


EXHIBIT D


1 de 2 Formulario de Reclamación

FORMULARIO DE RECLAMACIÓN

Hines v. KFC U.S. Properties, Inc. Acuerdo de demanda colectiva Hines v. KFC Administrador del Acuerdo


Sin Cargos: (855) 272-2481 Fax: (850) 385-6008 NOTA: Le pedimos lea el “Aviso de (1) acuerdo propuesto para la demanda colectiva y (2) audiencia de aprobación final del Acuerdo” (el “Aviso de la demanda colectiva”) antes de llenar este Formulario de Reclamación.

FECHA LÍMITE: Para recibir dinero de este acuerdo, debe llenar, firmar y presentar en tiempo y forma un Formulario de Reclamación al Administrador del Acuerdo que sea ENTREGADA (mediante fax o entrega mediante empresa especializada o personalmente) a más tardar el 28 de diciembre 2012 o que tenga matasellos de dicha fecha o anterior.

El Formulario de Reclamación lo debe llenar y firmar personalmente el empleado o ex empleado de KFC que busque participar en este acuerdo, o bien una persona facultada legalmente para actuar en su representación.

Asegúrese de hacer una copia de su Formulario de Reclamación firmado para sus registros.

1. Su información de contacto

Le pedimos revisar, y de ser necesario, corregir en las líneas a la derecha de su información de contacto:

«fname» «lname» «Mailid» ____________________________________ «address» «address_2» ____________________________________ «City», «State» «Zip» ____________________________________

Si así lo desea, añada información de contacto adicional aquí. Esto ayudará al Administrador del Acuerdo y/o a los Asesores del Colectivo a ponerse en contacto con usted en caso que haya preguntas o dificultades para enviarle su cheque del acuerdo.

Teléfono (durante el día): ____________________________________ Teléfono (durante la tarde) ____________________________________ Correo electrónico: ____________________________________

Nota: es responsabilidad de usted notificar al Administrador del Acuerdo si cambia su dirección postal después de presentar este formulario de reclamación.

2. Las fechas de su relación laboral como miembro de equipo en un restaurante de KFC en California

De acuerdo con los registros de KFC, usted trabajó como miembro de equipo en un restaurante de KFC en California durante el Periodo Cubierto del: «Job1Start» - «Job1End» «Job2Start» - «Job2End» «Job3Start» - «Job3End» «Job4Start» - «Job4End» «Job5Start» - «Job5End» Si usted considera que algún dato del historial de su relación laboral antes indicado es incorrecto, le pedimos que (i) corrija esa información en el espacio a continuación (puede usar hojas adicionales de ser necesario) y (ii) adjunte pruebas documentales que respalden sus correcciones. _____________________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Nota: Si no presenta una corrección con documentación que la respalde, renuncia a su derecho a cuestionar la información preimpresa anterior. Al presentar una corrección, está autorizando al Administrador del Acuerdo a revisar los registros de KFC y tomar una determinación con base en los registros de KFC y los registros que usted presente. Esta determinación puede aumentar o reducir el valor de su parte del acuerdo. Todas dichas determinaciones del Administrador del Acuerdo son definitivas y vinculantes sin oportunidad de apelación posterior.


2 de 2 Formulario de Reclamación

3. Verificación y consentimiento

Declaro bajo pena de perjurio de decir la verdad conforme a las leyes de los Estados Unidos que:

1. La información establecida anteriormente respecto a mi relación laboral con KFC (que incluye toda corrección que haya hecho) es verdadera y correcta.

2. He leído el Aviso de la Demanda Colectiva y entiendo que, al firmar este formulario, (i) doy mi consentimiento para descargar todas las reclamaciones estatales y federales como se describen en el Aviso de la Demanda Colectiva (vea § 5 del Aviso de la Demanda Colectiva); (ii) doy mi consentimiento a la jurisdicción del Tribunal de Distrito de los EE.UU. para el Distrito Sur de California que preside en este caso; y (iii) autorizo a los Asesores del Colectivo para actuar en mi representación en todos los asuntos relativos a esta demanda, lo que incluye el finiquito de mis reclamaciones.

3. Deseo recibir mi parte del Acuerdo propuesto.

______________________, 2012. Fecha

__________________________________________ Firma

4. Certificación del número de identificación del contribuyente

5. Formulario Sustituto W-9 de IRS

Anote su número de seguridad social: - - Bajo protesta de decir verdad, certifico que:

1. El número de seguridad social mostrado en este formulario es mi número de identificación del contribuyente correcto; y 2. No estoy sujeto a retención adicional de impuestos porque: (a) estoy exento de dicha retención, o (b) el Servicio de

Administración Tributaria (IRS) no me ha notificado que esté sujeto a dicha retención como resultado de un incumplimiento de informar todos los intereses y dividendos o (c) el IRS me ha notificado que ya no estoy sujeto a dicha retención; y

3. Soy persona estadounidense (lo que incluye los extranjeros residentes de los EE.UU.).

Nota: Si el IRS le ha notificado que está sujeto a la retención adicional de impuestos, debe tachar el punto #2 anterior.

El IRS no necesita de su consentimiento a ninguna provisión de este documento salvo la certificación de este Formulario W-9 para evitar la retención adicional de impuestos. 6. Fecha límite del matasellos

Su Formulario de Reclamación debe ser ENTREGADO (mediante fax o entrega por empresa especializada o en persona) a más tardar el 28 de diciembre 2012 o contar con MATASELLOS de dicha fecha o anterior. Los Formularios de Reclamación recibidos por el Administrador del Acuerdo o con matasellos de una fecha posterior a esta fecha límite no serán aceptados sin una buena causa probada. Se incluye para su conveniencia un sobre de devolución prepagado y con remitente prellenado. Este Formulario de Reclamación se debe enviar por correo o entregarse al Administrador del Acuerdo en:


Tallahassee, FL 32302-2829 Sin Cargos: (855) 272-2481 Fax: (850) 385-6008


EXHIBIT E


IMPORTANT REMINDER REGARDING HINES v. KFC SETTLEMENT Within the last month, you should have received a notice explaining that you have an opportunity to participate in a settlement of a wage-and-hour lawsuit against KFC. The Settlement Administrator’s records indicate that they have not yet received a Claim Form from you. Please note that your rights will be affected by this settlement regardless of whether or not you return a timely and complete Claim Form.

In order to receive a payment from the settlement, you must complete a Claim Form and mail it to P.O. Box 10829, Tallahassee, FL 32302-2829 and it must be postmarked no later than December 28, 2012. If you need a new Claim Form, or have questions about the settlement or claims process, you can contact the Settlement Administrator toll-free by calling (855) 272-2481, or by mail at the address above.

Additionally, please note the Class Counsel have filed their motion for attorneys' fees and reimbursement of costs and expenses. You can review those papers by visiting www.kfccawagesettlement.com.

AVISO IMPORTANTE SOBRE EL ACUERDO DE HINES V. KFC En el último mes, usted debe haber recibido una notificación explicándole que usted tiene la oportunidad de participar en un acuerdo de una demanda de salarios y horas contra KFC. Los registros del Administrador del Acuerdo indican que aún no han recibido un Formulario de Reclamación de usted. Tenga en cuenta que sus derechos se verán afectados por este arreglo, independientemente de si devuelve o no un formulario de reclamación a tiempo y completa.

Con el fin de recibir un pago del acuerdo, debe completar un Formulario de Reclamación y envíelo por correo a PO Box 10829, Tallahassee, FL 32302-2829 y debe tener el sello postal a más tardar el 28 de diciembre 2012. Si usted necesita un Formulario de Reclamación nuevo o tiene preguntas sobre el acuerdo o reclamaciones, puede contactar al administrador del acuerdo al número gratuito llamando al (855) 272-2481, o por correo a la dirección antes mencionada.

Además, tenga en cuenta el Abogado del Grupo ha presentado su propuesta de honorarios y reintegro de costos y gastos. Puede revisar los papeles al visitar www.kfccawagesettlement.com.


Hines v. KFC Settlement Administrator P.O. Box 10829 Tallahassee, FL 32302-2829

[Class Member Address Information]


EXHIBIT F


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

MATTHEW J. MATERN (SBN 159798)WENDY SHA (SBN 240364)RASTEGAR & MATERN, ATTORNEYS AT LAW1010 Crenshaw Boulevard, Suite 100Torrance, CA 90501Telephone: (310) 218-5500Facsimile: (310) [email protected]@rastegar-matern.com

JAMES M. FINBERG (SBN 114850)EVE H. CERVANTEZ (SBN 164709)PEDER J. THOREEN (SBN 217081)ALTSHULER BERZON LLP177 Post Street, Suite 300San Francisco, CA 94108Telephone: (415) 421-7151Facsimile: (415) [email protected]@[email protected]

Class Counsel



DOMONIQUE HINES, individually, and onbehalf of all other similarly situated current andformer employees of KFC U.S. Properties, Inc.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

KFC U.S. PROPERTIES, INC., a Delawarecorporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,

Defendants.

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

Case No. 3:09-cv-02422-JM-DHB

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Courtroom of the Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller

Hearing Date: October 1st, 2012Hearing Time: 10:00 a.m.Courtroom: 16Judge: Hon. Jefferey T. Miller

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE – Case No. 3:09-cv-02422 JM-DHB


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

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, James M. Finberg, certify that I caused to be served upon the following counsel and

parties of record a copy of the following document(s):

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTIONSETTLEMENT AND FOR FINAL CERTIFICATION OF SETTLEMENT CLASS;

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF

DECLARATION OF JAMES M. FINBERG IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR FINALAPPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND FOR FINAL CERTIFICATION

OF SETTLEMENT CLASS

DECLARATION OF MARK PATTON

I am familiar with the United States District Court, Southern District of California’s

practice for collecting and processing electronic filings. Under that practice, documents are

electronically filed with the court. The court’s CM/ECF system will generate a Notice of

Electronic Filing (NEF) to the filing party, the assigned judge, and any registered users in the

case. The NEF will constitute service of the document. Registration as a CM/ECF user

constitutes consent to electronic service through the court’s transmission facilities. Under said

practice, the following CM/ECF users were served:

Regina A. Petty, [email protected] & Phillips LLP4747 Executive Drive, Suite 1000San Diego, CA 92121Telephone: (858) 597-9600Facsimile: (858) 597-9601

Andra Barmash Greene, [email protected] & Manella LLP840 Newport Center Drive, Suite 400Newport Beach, California 92660-6324Telephone: (949) 760-0991Facsimile: (949) 760-5200

Executed on December 21, 2012, at San Francisco, California.

/s/ James M. FinbergAttorneys for PlaintiffDOMONIQUE HINESEmail: [email protected]

1CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE – Case No. 3:09-cv-02422 JM-DHB


matthew j. matern (sbn 159798) wendy sha (sbn 240364)

Documents