declaration of paul k haines in support of plaintiffs motion for finaCal. Super. - 1st Dist.November 1, 2019 HAINES DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF FINAL APPROVAL OF 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 HAINES LAW GROUP, APC Paul K. Haines (SBN 248226) phaines@haineslawgroup.com Sean M. Blakely (SBN 264384) sblakely@haineslawgroup.com Jamin Xu (SBN 320991) jxu@haineslawgroup.com 222 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 1550 El Segundo, California 90245 Tel: (424) 292-2350 Fax: (424) 292-2355 Attorneys for Plaintiff SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO SEUNGMIN SAMANTHA LEE, an individual, Plaintiff, vs. INFOR (US) INC., a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, Defendants. Case No.: CGC-18-566393 DECLARATION OF PAUL K. HAINES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT, CLASS REPRESENTATIVE’S SERVICE AWARD, AND ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS Date: October 11, 2019 Time: 9:30 a.m. Dept.: 302 Action Filed: May 8, 2018 FAC Filed: June 4, 2018 Trial Date: None Set ELECTRONICALLY F I L E D Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco 09/18/2019 Clerk of the Court BY: EDWARD SANTOS Deputy Clerk 1 HAINES DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF FINAL APPROVAL OF 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 I, PAUL K. HAINES, declare as follows: 1. I am a shareholder and principal of Haines Law Group, APC, and counsel for the named Seungmin Samantha Lee (“Plaintiff”) and the Settlement Class in the above-captioned matter. I am a member in good standing of the bar of the State of California and am admitted to practice in this Court. I have personal knowledge of the facts stated in this declaration and could testify competently to them if called upon to do so. 2. I am a 2006 graduate of Pepperdine University School of Law, where I graduated cum laude. During law school, I worked as a law clerk for the appellate firm of Horvitz & Levy, located in Encino, California. I also spent a semester in law school working as an extern for the Honorable Edward Rafeedie, District Judge for the United States District Court for the Central District of California. 3. Since graduating from law school, my practice has focused almost exclusively on employment litigation. In September 2007, I began working as an associate attorney at the international law firm of Littler Mendelson P.C., at its Los Angeles office, which according to its website is the “largest U.S.-based law firm exclusively devoted to representing management in every aspect of labor and employment law.” While at Littler Mendelson, I was primarily staffed on wage and hour class actions venued in both state and federal courts, and I also worked on a number of single and multi-plaintiff wage and hour matters as well. 4. During my employment at Littler Mendelson, I played a significant role in the class actions that I was staffed on, as I was often the only associate staffed on such cases. In particular, I received a wide-array of wage and hour class action experience performing the following types of tasks: drafting demurrers, motions to strike and/or dismiss; removing actions from state court to federal court; drafting and responding to written discovery; drafting and opposing discovery related motions; arguing discovery related motions; drafting motions to consolidate related matters; interviewing putative class members and obtaining declarations in connection with class certification; drafting oppositions to motions for class certification; drafting motions for decertification following class certification; conducting exposure analyses to assess the strengths and weaknesses of asserted claims, the likelihood of prevailing at class 2 HAINES DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF FINAL APPROVAL OF 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 certification and potential damages resulting from such claims; drafting mediation briefs; serving as the primary contact to in-house counsel; deposing named plaintiffs and putative class members; deposing retained expert witnesses; and defending the depositions of corporate witnesses. In short, I played an integral role in all aspects of litigation from the inception of a matter through and beyond class certification. I also supervised the work of several junior attorneys who were staffed on the same wage and hour class actions. 5. In June 2011, I voluntarily resigned from Littler Mendelson in order to accept an associate attorney position with the international law firm of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, at its Los Angeles office, where I began working in July 2011. During my employment at Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, I worked exclusively on the defense of wage and hour class and collective actions. For the vast majority of these cases, I was the only associate staffed on the matter, and I performed the same job duties as described in the immediately preceding paragraph. In addition to working on wage and hour class actions, at Morgan, Lewis & Bockius I also worked on a number of “hybrid” actions asserting nationwide wage and hour claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), as well as California-specific claims under Rule 23 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. 6. In July 2012, I transitioned into litigating wage and hour class actions from the Plaintiff’s side, first as a Partner with the law firm of Boren, Osher & Luftman, LLP, and since February 2016, as a Shareholder of the Haines Law Group, APC. Currently, over ninety percent (90%) of my practice is dedicated exclusively to the prosecution of wage and hour class actions, and I am currently responsible for prosecuting over thirty (30) wage and hour class actions filed in both State and Federal courts throughout California. Below are some of the matters in which I have been appointed as Class Counsel, all of which have been granted final approval: Hilberger v. Eisenhower Medical Center, Case No. INC1204915, California Superior Court, County of Riverside, Honorable Judge John G. Evans, presiding, (in which I was approved for an hourly rate of $500 for work performed in 2012 and 2013); Lopez v. Cornucopia Tools and Plastics, Inc., Case No. CV138049, California Superior Court, County of San Luis Obispo, Honorable Judge Martin J. Tangeman, presiding, (in which I was approved for an hourly rate of $425 for 3 HAINES DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF FINAL APPROVAL OF 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 work performed in 2013 and 2014); Tacker v. Compass Health, Inc., Case No. CV13-02261 BRO (JCG), United States District Court, Central District of California, Honorable Judge Beverly Reid O’Connell, presiding, (in which I was approved for an hourly rate of $500 for work performed in 2013 and 2014); Noell v. American Professional Ambulance Corporation, Inc., Case No. BC499345, California Superior Court, County of Los Angeles, Honorable Judge Kenneth R. Freeman, presiding, (in which I was approved for an hourly rate of $500 for work performed in 2013 and 2014); Bautista v. Harvest Management Sub LLC, Case No. CV12-10004 FMO (CWx), United States District Court, Central District of California, Honorable Judge Fernando M. Olguin, presiding (in which I was approved for an hourly rate of $500 for work performed in 2012, 2013 and 2014); Davila v. OCB Restaurant Co., Case No. CV13-5403 PA (JCG), United States District Court, Central District of California, Honorable Judge Percy Anderson, presiding (in which I was approved for an hourly rate of $500 for work performed in 2013 and 2014); Abad v. Waste Connections, Inc., Case No. CV12-06708 DDP (PJWx), United States District Court, Central District of California, Honorable Judge Dean D. Pregerson, presiding (in which I was approved for an hourly rate of $500 for work performed in 2013 and 2014); Plantillas v. Snap- On Incorporated, Case No. CV13-05153 DDP (VBKx), United States District Court, Central District of California, Honorable Judge Dean D. Pregerson, presiding (in which I was approved for an hourly rate of $500 for work performed in 2013 and 2014); Theodore v. Keyes European, LLC, Case No. BC521395, California Superior Court, County of Los Angeles, Honorable Judge Elihu Berle, presiding (in which I was approved for an hourly rate of $500 for work performed in 2013 and 2014); Morales v. Sunset Tower Hotel LLC, Case No. BC511924, California Superior Court, County of Los Angeles, Honorable Judge John Shepard Wiley Jr., presiding (in which I was approved for an hourly rate of $500 for work performed in 2013 and 2014); Gonzalez v. Universal Alloy Corp., Case No. SACV13-00807 JVS (MRWx), United States District Court, Central District of California, Honorable Judge James V. Selna, presiding (in which I was approved for an hourly rate of $500 for work performed in 2013 and 2014); Morawski v. Milt Guggia Enterprises, Inc., Case No. CV13-2349 ABC (RZx), United States District Court, Central District of California, Honorable Judge Andre Birotte, Jr., presiding (in which I was approved 4 HAINES DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF FINAL APPROVAL OF 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 for an hourly rate of $500 for work performed in 2013 and 2014); Thorp v. Alcal Industries, Inc., et al., Case No. CV13-02289 YGR, United States District Court, Northern District of California, Honorable Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, presiding (in which I was approved for an hourly rate of $500 for work performed in 2013 and 2014); Myles v. College Hospital, Case No. BC487206, California Superior Court, County of Los Angeles, Honorable Judge John Shepard Wiley, Jr., presiding (in which I was approved for an hourly rate of $500 for work performed in 2013, 2014 and 2015); Sarinana v. DS Waters of America, Inc., Case No. C13-0905 EMC, United States District Court, Northern District of California, Honorable Edward M. Chen, presiding (in which I was approved for an hourly rate of $550 for work performed in 2014 and 2015); Julio v. Anthony, Inc., Case No. CV14-03172 AB (SHx), United States District Court, Central District of California, Honorable Judge Andre Birotte Jr., presiding (in which I was approved for an hourly rate of $550 for work performed in 2014 and 2015); Litt v. Western Stone & Metal Corp., Case No. 3:14-cv-02804-PJH, United States District Court, Northern District of California, Honorable Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton, presiding (in which I was approved for an hourly rate of $550 for work performed in 2014 and 2015); Rubalcava v. United Towing and Transport Burbank, et al., Case No. BC518468, California Superior Court, County of Los Angeles, Honorable Judge Kenneth Freeman, presiding (in which I was approved for an hourly rate of $550 for work performed in 2013, 2014 and 2015); Sanchez v. Res-Care, Inc., Case No. BC526175, California Superior Court, County of Los Angeles, Honorable John S. Wiley, presiding (in which I was approved for an hourly rate of $550for work performed in 2013, 2014 and 2015); Prado v. Warehouse Demo Services, Inc., Case No. CV14-3170 JFW (Ex), United States District Court, Central District of California, Honorable Judge John F. Walter, presiding (in which I was approved for an hourly rate of $550 for work performed in 2014 and 2015); Rivera Regalado v. Jaguar Farm Labor Contracting, Case No. CV 130569, California Superior Court, County of San Luis Obispo, Honorable Martin J. Tangeman, presiding (in which I was approved for an hourly rate of $550 for work performed in 2014 and 2015); Rodas v. Gateways Hospital and Mental Health Center, Case No. BC503179, California Superior Court, County of Los Angeles, Honorable Judge Amy D. Hogue, presiding (in which I was approved for an hourly rate of $550 for work performed in 5 HAINES DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF FINAL APPROVAL OF 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 2014 and 2015); Escobar v. Century West, LLC, Case No BC564873, California Superior Court, County of Los Angeles, Honorable Judge Jane L. Johnson, presiding (in which I was approved for an hourly rate of $550 for work performed in 2014 and 2015 and 2016); Shaw v. Conant Auto Retail, San Diego, Case No. 37-2014-00044052-CU-OE-CTL, California Superior Court, County of San Diego, Honorable Judge Joan M. Lewis, presiding (approving an hourly rate of $575 for work performed in 2014, 2015, and 2016); Tirado v. Ricon Corp., Case No. BC537042, California Superior Court, County of Los Angeles, Honorable John S. Wiley, presiding (approving an hourly rate of $575 for work performed in 2014, 2015, and 2016); and Horta v. Searles Valley Minerals, Inc., Case No. CIVDS 1507615, California Superior Court, County of San Bernardino, Honorable Donald Alvarez presiding (approving an hourly rate of $575 for work performed in 2015 and 2016); Cristobal v. Koos Manufacturing, Inc., Case No. BC591484, California Superior Court, County of Los Angeles, Hon. William F. Highberger presiding (approving an hourly rate of $575 for work performed in 2015 and 2016); Rodriguez v. Spartan, Inc., Case No. BCV-15-100007-DRL, California Superior Court, County of Kern, Honorable David R. Lampe presiding (approving hourly rate of $575 for work performed in 2015, 2016, and 2017); Kostyuk, et al. v. Golden State Overnight Delivery Service, Inc., Case No. RG14727191, California Superior Court, Alameda County, Honorable Winifred Y. Smith presiding (approving an hourly rate of $575 for work performed in 2015, 2016, and 2017); Nunez v. CompuCom Systems, Inc., Case No. BC618385, California Superior Court, County of Los Angeles, Honorable Judge John Shepard Wiley, Jr., presiding (approved at an hourly rate of $600 for work performed in 2016 and 2017); Mansilla v. Haeco Americas Line Services, LLC, et al, Case No. BC615310, Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, Honorable Judge Elihu M. Berle presiding (approved at an hourly rate of $600 for work performed in 2016 and 2017); Morales v. Caremeridian, LLC, et al., Case No. BC593191, California Superior Court, County of Los Angeles, Judge William F. Highberger presiding (granting final approval of settlement on behalf of direct support professionals involving claims for unpaid wages, meal and rest period violations, wage statement violations, and other claims). / / / 6 HAINES DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF FINAL APPROVAL OF 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 7. I have also moved to certify and have received an order certifying a class action and/or conditionally certifying a collective action, in the following cases: Medeiros v. Vortex Financial Management Inc., Case No. 30-2013-00644741-CU-OE- CXC, California Superior Court, County of Orange, Honorable Judge Gail A. Andler, presiding (certifying a class of employees who were misclassified as independent contractors); Javine v. San Luis Ambulance Service, Inc., Case No. CV13-07480 BRO (SSx), United States District Court, Central District of California, Honorable Judge Beverly Reid O’Connell, presiding (conditionally certifying an unpaid FLSA overtime wage class); Prado v. Warehouse Demo Services, Inc., Case No. CV14-3170 JFW (Ex), United States District Court, Central District of California, Honorable Judge John F. Walter, presiding (certifying a rest period violation class and conditionally certifying an FLSA unpaid overtime wage class); Bower v. Cycle Gear, Inc., Case No. CV14-2712 HSG, United States District Court, Northern District of California, Honorable Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., presiding (conditionally certifying an unpaid FLSA overtime wage class); Vega v. Weatherford U.S., Limited Partnership, Case No. CV14-1790-JLT, United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Honorable Jennifer L. Thurston, presiding (conditionally certifying an unpaid FLSA overtime wage class); Galvan v. AMVAC Chemical Corporation, Case No. 30-2014-00716103-CU-OE-CXC, California Superior Court, County of Orange, Honorable Judge William Claster, presiding (certifying unpaid overtime wage class and waiting time penalty class); Ontiveros v. Safelite Fulfillment, Inc., et al, Case No. CV 15-7118-DMG (RAOx), United States District Court, Central District of California, Honorable Dolly M. Gee presiding (certifying six classes of employees for rest period violations, wage statement violations, meal period violations, and overtime and double-time violations); Vazquez v. Kraft Heinz Foods Company, Case No. 16-CV-02749-WQH (BLM), United States District Court, Southern District of California, Honorable William Q. Hayes, 7 HAINES DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF FINAL APPROVAL OF 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 presiding (certifying unpaid wages classes, meal period classes, wage statement class, and waiting time penalty class); and Caudle, et al. v. Sprint/United Management Company, et al. Case No. C 17-06874- WHA, United States District Court, Northern District of California, Honorable William H. Alsup presiding (certifying three classes of employees for unlawful wage deduction violations, wage statement violations, and waiting time violations). 8. In 2015, 2016, and 2017, Thomson Reuters and Los Angeles Magazine recognized me as a Top Young Attorney in Southern California in the annual Rising Star Edition of Super Lawyer. This is an honor awarded to no more than two and a half percent of attorneys under the age of forty in Southern California each year. In 2018, Thomson Reuters recognized me as a “Super Lawyer,” an honor awarded to no more than five percent of attorneys in Southern California each year. 9. As counsel for Plaintiff and the Settlement Class, I have been intimately involved in every aspect of this case from its inception through the present, and I believe that the Settlement is an excellent result for the Settlement Class. 10. On May 8, 2018, Plaintiff filed her initial complaint in San Francisco Superior Court. On June 4, 2018, Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended Class and Representative Action Complaint alleging causes of action for: failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide legally compliant meal periods, failure to authorize and permit legally compliant rest periods, failure to furnish accurate itemized wage statements, failure to timely pay final wages upon separation of employment, unfair competition, and civil penalties under the PAGA. 11. As detailed in Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Approval, Plaintiff alleges that Infor misclassified SDRs as “exempt,” and as a result of the misclassification, failed to pay SDRs overtime wages for overtime hours worked, and failed to provide all legally compliant meal and rest periods. Plaintiff alleges that SDRs did not qualify for any exemption from overtime and meal and rest period requirements as set forth in the applicable Wage Order. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that the “outside salesperson exemption” does not apply because Settlement Class members worked almost exclusively from Infor’s headquarters and were not required or 8 HAINES DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF FINAL APPROVAL OF 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 expected to make “sales,” and as a result, did not engage in outside sales activity. Plaintiff further alleges that Settlement Class members do not qualify for the “commissioned inside sales exemption” because the vast majority of the Settlement Class members’ compensation was not based proportionally upon the amount or value of sales generated. With respect to Plaintiff’s misclassification claims, Infor contends that it properly classified SDRs as exempt at all times throughout the Class Period, and argues that SDRs properly fell under the “commissioned inside sales exemption.” Specifically, Infor argues that SDRs earned more than half of their compensation from commissions. In support of its defense that SDRs were properly classified as “exempt,” Infor argues that SDRs were principally engaged in selling products and/or services. Additionally, Infor argues that SDRs received a percentage of the profits on sales from leads that they generated and as a result, at least a portion of their compensation was based proportionately on the amount and/or value of the sales made. Infor further contends that Plaintiff’s misclassification claims are not suitable for class treatment as an individual analysis would be required with respect to each SDR to determine whether he or she was properly classified as exempt and the amount of damages each Settlement Class member suffered. 12. Plaintiff alleges that due to Infor’s misclassification of SDRs as “exempt,” Infor failed to provide all legally compliant meal and rest periods. Infor contends that Settlement Class members were free to take a meal and/or rest period whenever they choose, and Settlement Class members regularly took meal and rest periods. As a result, Infor contends that any late, short, or missed meal and/or rest periods were the result of employee choice, thereby precluding liability. Infor further argues that Plaintiff’s meal and rest period claims would not be certified due to the lack of any common evidence tying together the reason that Settlement Class members experienced a meal and/or rest period violation. 13. As a further result of Infor’s alleged misclassification of SDRs, Plaintiff alleges that Infor issued inaccurate wage statements in violation of Labor Code § 226 and failed to comply with its final pay obligations set forth in Labor Code §§ 201-203. As for Plaintiff’s claims for waiting time penalties, Infor argues that it possesses strong, good faith defenses to Plaintiff’s underlying claims, thus precluding recovery of waiting time penalties, which are only available 9 HAINES DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF FINAL APPROVAL OF 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 for the “willful” failure to pay wages. As for Plaintiff’s wage statement claim, Infor contends that any alleged wage statement violations were not “knowing and intentional,” and Plaintiff cannot show she or other employees “suffer[ed] injury” due to the alleged wage statement violations, as required by Lab. Code § 226(e) for the imposition of penalties. Infor further argues that no wage statement penalties can lie for failure to list the pay earned, but only for failure to accurately list the pay received. Infor also argues that meal and rest period claims cannot support a claim for wage statement or waiting time penalties. 14. As a further result of Infor’s alleged misclassification of SDRs, Plaintiff alleges that Infor is liable for civil penalties under the PAGA. Since Plaintiff’s PAGA claim is derivative of the underlying claims, Infor asserts the PAGA claim would fail with those claims. Infor also maintains that given its good faith defenses, this Court would exercise its discretion to substantially reduce any PAGA penalties if it were to find Infor liable for any of Plaintiff’s claims. 15. As detailed in Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Approval, there is a significant risk of non-certification and/or not prevailing on the merits with respect to each of Plaintiff’s claims. For example, absent settlement, there was a risk that there would not be a certified class at the time of trial, or if there were, it would consist of a significantly smaller group of employees than the proposed Settlement Class (either due to a narrowing of the class definition in a Court order on a contested motion for class certification, or through settlement agreements entered into by Infor with individual class members by way of Pick-up-Stix type settlement agreements ) and the expected recovery could be significantly reduced, given the settlement amounts that are typically offered through the Pick-up-Stix process. This settlement avoids those risks. 16. These considerations not only bore heavily on the negotiations leading to the Settlement, but also confirm that the Settlement is a fair, adequate, and reasonable compromise in view of the risks of further litigation. Plaintiff carefully vetted the claims at issue and conducted a detailed statistical analysis of class-wide data to arrive at the calculated damages figures. Thus, while these risks are far from exhaustive, they demonstrate that the Settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable in view of them. 10 HAINES DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF FINAL APPROVAL OF 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 17. In connection with mediation, Infor produced payroll data for the putative class, as well as its relevant wage and hour policies and other relevant documents and information. My office conducted a comprehensive analysis of the data produced to calculate Infor’s potential exposure for each of Plaintiff’s claims. 18. On November 28, 2018, the parties participated in a full-day mediation with Tripper Ortman, Esq., a well-respected wage and hour class action mediator. During mediation, the parties vigorously debated their opposing legal positions, the likelihood of certification of Plaintiff’s claims, and the legal basis for the claims and defenses. At the conclusion of mediation, Mr. Ortman issued a mediator’s proposal for a class-wide settlement, which was accepted by both sides. During the months that followed, the parties finalized the terms of the Settlement and executed the long-form Settlement Agreement. 19. Plaintiff submitted the Settlement to the Court with her Motion for Preliminary Approval on May 9, 2019. On June 6, 2019, the Court issued an Order Granting Preliminary Approval of the Settlement. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of the Order granting Preliminary Approval. 20. In my experience in wage and hour class actions matters similar to this one, fee awards generally average around one-third of the gross recovery. 21. My law firm’s work on this case includes, but is not limited to: conducting extensive pre-filing investigation, analyzing Plaintiffs’ claims, conducting extensive pre-filing investigation, conducting legal research and analysis, engaging in informal discovery, reviewing voluminous documents and data produced by Infor, including employee payroll records to prepare for and attend mediation, negotiating and preparing the long-form Settlement Agreement, preparing the Motions for Preliminary and Final Approval, overseeing the Notice process, and otherwise litigating the case. 22. Since undertaking representation of Plaintiff, Class Counsel has borne the costs of litigation for over one year without receiving any compensation to date. To date, my law firm has incurred $8,865.20 in costs. Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a report reflecting these costs, which include but are not limited to: filing fees, messenger fees, service fees, copying costs, 11 HAINES DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF FINAL APPROVAL OF 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 mediation fees, postage, and travel expenses. 23. My firm’s experience in matters similar to this one was integral in evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of this case and the reasonableness of the Settlement. Practice in the narrow field of wage and hour litigation requires skill and knowledge concerning the rapidly evolving substantive state and federal law, as well as the procedural law of class action litigation. This case involved nuanced legal issues regarding both substantive and procedural law, including complex issues with respect to meal and rest period violations, and the propriety of statutory penalties. 24. Given the considerable potential for adverse outcomes in this case, including, but not limited to losing on class certification and/or merits issues, or Infor obtaining individual releases for a fraction of what Settlement Class members are receiving through this Settlement, the contingent risk borne by Class Counsel was great. In addition to the legal and procedural challenges this lawsuit presented, there were also other practical challenges. There was a real risk that I would not be compensated for my work because I handled this matter on a purely contingent basis. Thus, Plaintiff was not responsible for paying my attorneys’ fees and I could only recover attorneys’ fees if Plaintiff was successful. By the time I attend the final approval hearing in this matter, I will have litigated this case for over one year with no payment, all while bearing the risk of non-payment if Plaintiff was unsuccessful. Moreover, as discussed above, Class Counsel has advanced $8,865.20 in litigation costs on a contingency basis, which also carried risk because Class Counsel would not recoup its costs in the event the Plaintiff did not prevail in this lawsuit. 25. The requested service award to Plaintiff of $10,000 is also reasonable. Plaintiff took on significant risks, including the risk that she could be liable for Infor’s costs if this case was unsuccessful. She was integral in the prosecution of this action, by, among other things, gathering documents for use in the lawsuit, reviewed and analyzed documents produced by Infor, and attended several in-person and telephonic meetings with my office to discuss case strategy and Infor’s wage and hour practices and policies on multiple occasions. / / / 12 HAINES DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF FINAL APPROVAL OF 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 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California and the United States that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on September 18, 2019, at El Segundo, California. _____________________________ Paul K. Haines EXHIBIT A EXHIBIT B Haines Law Group, APC Expense Summary SEUNGMIN SAMANTHA LEE v. INFOR (US) INC. EXPENSE AMOUNT Mediation Costs $5,500.00 Filing, Service, and Messenger Fees $2,295.44 Copying and Postage Costs $224.47 Travel Expenses $709.02 Westlaw Charges $136.27 TOTAL: $8,865.20