4 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27 •28
ROBERT BERKE, ESQ. [STATE BAR #5fi<w JOSEPH A. PERTEL, ES*Q. [STATE BAR liaUv! LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT BERKE #181657] 1717 Fourth Street, Suite 300 Santa Monica, California 90401 (310)917-5599
Attorneys for Plaintiff Shearwood Fleming, Jr.
DELLA BAHAN, ESQ. [STATE BAR #8864Q1 JANET HEROLD, ESQ. [STATE BAR#l^4]1Ql BAHAN & HEROLD rt^#ioo419]
128 N. Fair Oaks Avenue Pasadena, California 91103 (626)796-5100
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Charles Ervtn and UNITE
AUG 1 3 2002 C LUNT, Deputy
SUPERIOR COURT OF THF qtate ^
^ rHE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELA
CHARLES ERV1N, SHEARWOOD EDDIE FLEMING, JR., AND THE UNION OF NEEDLETRADES, INDUSTRIAL & TEXTILE EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO,
Plaintiffs,
v.
CASE NO. GIC 740832
ESSEST ORDER FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT
JOHN M. RATELLE, individually and in his official capacity; TIMOTHY MARSH, individually and in his official capacity- R ESTES, individually and in his official' capacity; PIERRE S LEI MAN, individually and in his official capacity; CM T BLUF^ 'NC.,; NO FEAR, INC.; MECCA, USA NC; NEWPORT BLUES, Inc.; TRINIDAD TEES; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive
Defendants.
jjonorablg.William C Pato
F:\F)eming\Judgment-Ordar-Prop2.wpd
•   P™**** °RDE* «» ENTRY OF JUDGMENT
^ On January 16, 2002, this matter came on for trial in Department 60 of the above-
2 entitled Court. After consideration of the points and authorities submitted by the parties, the
3 evidence presented at trial, and oral argument of counsel, the Court granted judgment in favor
4 of Plaintiffs with respect to the first, second, and eighth causes of action in Plaintiffs' Fourth
5 Amended Complaint A true and correct copy of the Court's findings and rulings is attached
6 hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference.
7 On May 9, 2002, after proper notice was provided to the Plaintiff class members, this
8 Court granted approval of the settlement of Plaintiffs' claims for Defendant CMT Blues' iate
9 payment of wages to the Plaintiff class members.
10 On June 18, 2002, after consideration of the parties' stipulation concerning the
11 settlement of attorneys fees and costs, including the points and authorities and declarations
12 contained therein, this Court accepted the parties' stipulation and granted tentative approval of
13 the settlement. A true and correct copy of the Court's order accepting the parties' stipulation
14 and granting tentative approval of the settlement is attached hereto as Exhibit B and
15 incorporated herein by reference.
16 On July 24, 2002, after proper notice was provided to the Plaintiff class members, this
17 Court granted approval of the settlement of Plaintiffs' claims for attorneys fees and costs.
18 IT IS ORDERED, that Plaintiffs shall recover from Defendant CMT Blues a total of
19 $611,875.90 in damages, restitution and penalties as set forth in the Court's Judgment of
20 March 11, 2002. In addition, Plaintiffs shall recover from Defendant CMT Blues a total of
21 $229,313.20 as settlement of Plaintiffs claims for the late payment of damages, as previously
22 approved by this Court.
23 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that Plaintiffs shall recover from Defendant CMT Blues a
24 total of $435,000 as settlement of Plaintiffs' claims for attorney's fees and $65,000 as
25 settlement of Plaintiffs' claims for costs, as previously approved by this Court. • All sums shall
26 be paid in the manner specified in the Court's previous orders of March 11, 2002, attached
27 hereto as Exhibit A, and June 18, 2002, attached hereto as Exhibit B, which remain in effect
28
F:\Fleming\Judgment-Order-Prop2.wpd 2
[PROPOSED] ORDER FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT
1 02 Q4:41R K
Law
ices o'
1
1
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
and urn
.diminished in any way by this order.
Dated:
AUG 1 3 2002
Honorable William C. Pate Superior Court of San Diego County
Approved as to form:
By,
^obfirtyütv^yy .
Attofeeffor Defendant CMTBluesv—"
^^^^^^'^^PROPOSEDl ORDER FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT
öi/12/2332
6192"
alpha atty sek
PAGE 01
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
21 im
C. LÜNT; Deputy
THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO {UNLIMITED JURISDICTION]
CHARLES ERVIN, SHEARWOOD FLEMING AND THE UNION OF NEEDLETRADES, INDUSTRIAL & TEXTILE EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO
Plaintiffs,
vs.
JOHN M. RATELLE, individually and in his official capacity; TIMOTHY MARSH, individually and in his official capacity; R. ESTES, individually and in his official capacity; JAMES GOMEZ, Individually and in his official capacity; PIERRE SLEIMAN, individually and in his official capacity; CMT BLUES, INC.; NO FEAR. INC.; MECCA USA, INC.; NEWPORT BLUES, INC.; TRINIDAD TEES; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,
Defendants.
) Case Number. Q1C740832 [PROPOSSP] JUDGMENT
Independent Calendar Hon. William C. Pate, Jr. Dept.: 60
Date 1" Action Filed: August 23,1999 Trial Date: January 7, 2002 Time: 8:30 a.m.
-1-
(PROPOSED) JUDGMENT
P. 28
This matter came before the Court on January 16, 2001,, for purposes of-trying the factual issues disputed. The parties' were represented as follows: Janet Herotd and Robert Berks for the Plaintiffs and Robert Shipley for Defendant CMT Blues, Inc. Plaintiff and Defendant waived jury. Based upon the evidence heard, the numerous factual stipulations fried by the parties, and briefing submitted by the parties in connection with the motions in limine, the Court HEREBY FINDS AND RULES as follows: I.       VIOLATIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE
In Plaintiffs' First and Second Causes of Action, Plaintiffs complain of several different violations of the California Labor Code.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
11 i        1.     Defendant's Requirement that Plaintiffs Work an Unpaid Period As a Condition
12 j of Hire.
13 I        Plaintiffs have offered credible, undisputed evidence that they were paid no
14 I compensation for hours worked during an initial work period typically testing 240 hours, known
15 I as the "training period." This Court reiterates its ruling of January 14,2002, that the Labor I® | Code does apply to the employment relationship formed between Defendant and the plaintiff
| inmate class. The Court finds that the Labor Code's provisions and the implementing
18 1
I regulations issued by the California Industrial Welfare Commission in Wage Order 1 ("Wage
19 i
B Order") provide that Defendant is an employer, subject to the Labor Code's and the Wage
20
Order's minimum wage and other protections. The plaintiff class comes within the definition
21
22 1 °* "emP*°veeB pro^^ 'n the Wage Order. Defendant has cited no law nor regulation which u authorizes an exemption from the Labor Code or the Wage Order for the Defendant. The
24 jj Court reiterates its finding that the California voter proposition, Proposition 139. Penal Code §
25 | 2717 et seq., which authorized the leasing of inmate labor to private employers such as the
26 \ Defendant clearly provided that in order to prevent employers, such as Defendant, from
27 | obtaining a competitive advantage, such employers would be subject to the same wage and
28 g hour and other labor requirements as a private business employing non-inmate labor. This
(PROPOSED) JUDGMENT
tor id '02   u = 48ari Lfl. TICES
law also supports the Court's conclusion that the terms of the Labor Coda apply to Defendant's employment of the plaintiff inmate class, in light of the appjtcattffty of the Labor Code to the employment of the plaintiff dass, the Court accordingly finds that Defendant was required under California law to pay each Plaintiff no less than the minin»um wsgo for ail hours 5 I worked, including those hours worked by Plaintiffs during the initial employment period known as the training period." The Court bases this ruling; on the following facts which are undisputed by the Defendant: a) Plaintiffs were required to complete this unpaid period in order to obtain employment with the Defendant: b) Plaintiffs' positions with the Defendant were advertised to the plaintiffs as "job" opportunities; c) Plaintiffs' work during the training period occurred during normal business hours; d) Plaintiffs' work during the initial period was directed toward improving the skills of each plaintiff to perform a particular job with and for the Defendant; and e) Plaintiffs' work for the Defendant during the initial unpaid period was riot I part of a recognized educational program or curriculum. Simmons, Richard J., Waoe and Hour
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Manual For California Employers. §§ 3.2 (h), 7.10(a) (Eighth Edition 2001); DLSE Opinion
Letter 1993.10.21.
17 J        Pursuant to the stipulation regarding calculation of damages submitted by the parties. Defendant failed to pay the plaintiff class $ 100,533.50 in minimum wages for hours worked by the plaintiff dass during the initial work period. Pursuant to Labor Code § 1194.2(a), the imposition of liquidated damages by this Court is mandatory, absent evidence by the Defendant of a defense cognizable under Labor Code § 1194.2(b). Since the Defendant has not raised any such defense, the Court hereby orders Defendant to pay the $ 100,533.60 in
18
19
20
21
22
23
24 j minimum wages due to the plaintiff class, as well as $ 100.533,60 in liquidated damages.
25 5        Pursuant to Labor Code §§1194 and 1194.2, Plaintiffs are also entitled to pre-judgment
26 \ interest on both the minimum wages Defendant failed to pay and the liquidated damages due.
27 | The Court hereby orders the Defendant to pay $ 62,855.84 in pre-judgment interest to the
28 I plaintiff class. The Court further finds and rules that having prevailed on their daim of violation
mb
P. 31
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
the settietfOTt and UP°° ^ Court's review and approval, the Court orders the parties to have the notice sent directly by the Claims Administrator (as described further herein). The hearing on any objections regarding the proposed settlement will be commenced on March 23, 2001 at 3:00 p.m. The Court further finds and rules that, having prevailed on thoir cteifn that Defendant violated California's minimum wage law by failing to pay their wages v^4ien due, Plaintiffs are hereby awarded the costs and reasonable attorneys fees incurred in prosecuting these claims, provided that Plaintiffs duly submit a reasonable application for costs and fees in accordance with the applicable rules of civil procedure. 3.      Waiting Time Penalties, •
Labor Code § 203 provides for a civil penalty for employers who fail to cure the underpayment of wages prior to the end of a worker's employment. As explained above, Defendant failed to pay the $100,533.60 in minimum wages due to the plaintiff ciass for the hours worked during the training period, and, as wilt be discussed beJow, Defendant also failed
15 I to pay the plaintiff inmate class $107,132.70 in prevailing wages due. Defendant stipulated on
16 | the record during trial that this failure to pay these minimum and prevailing wages was "wiltfui,"
17 las that term is used in Labor Code § 203.
18 |        in Sight of these facts, the Court ORDERS and FINDS that Defendant is subject to the
19 I
g civil penalty of thirty days wages for each plaintiff class member no longer employed by
20 !
I Defendant. The parties, by stipulation, have identified the class members no longer employed
21 |
5 by Defendant and have also agreed by stipulation that a total of $132,567.40 in waiting time
22 J
| penalties is due to those plaintiff class members no longer employed with Defendant The
24 | Court hereby ORDERS Defendant to pay those plaintiff ciass members no longer employed
25 I with Defendant the $132,567.40 in waiting penalties due.
26 §        The Court further finds and rules that, having prevailed on their claim that Defendant
27 | violated Labor Code § 203 by failing to pay ail wages due to Plaintiff class members no longer 26 I employed by Defendant, Plaintiffs are hereby awarded the costs and reasonable attorneys
| (PROPOSED) JUDGMENT
14 '92   Ii;sonn l_pw ICES
p.32
fees incurred in prosecuting these ctaims, provided that Plaintiffs duly submit a reasonable application for costs and fees in accordance with the applicable rules of civil procedure. 4.      Record-Keeping Violations,
4 I        The Labor Code provides specific record-keeping obligations for employers engaged in
5 J garment manufacturer in California. Labor Code § 2673 requires any employer engaged in
6 1
B garment manufacturing to maintain records for at least three years which show all of the
I following: the names and address of garment workers employed; the hours worked by 8 1
1 employees each day, including the times employees begin and end each work period and the ^Q 1 times meal periods taken; the daily production sheets of each employee; the wage and wage ^ .j I rates paid each payroll period; and any other conditions of employment." Labor Code § 1174.
12 I which applies to "every person employing labor in this state," further requires alt employer to
13 I keep at a central location "payroll records showing the hours worked daily by, and the wages 14| paid to. ernptoyees..
15 8        it has been stipulated that Defendant does not possess complete and/or accurate ^ I payroll records as required in the provisions of the Labor Code cited above. In light of this 17 J stipulation, the Court hereby finds that Defendant violated Labor Code § 1174, and therefore
13 n
| is subject to the civil penalty provided in Labor Code § 1174.5. Plaintiffs bring this claim in the
I form of a class action, which means that this claim is brought on behalf of each of the 167
20 I
I members of the plaintiff class. Thus, the Court hereby orders and rules that Defendant pay
21 I
22 I S83.500 in civil penalties to the plaintiff class.
23 J II.      BREACH OF WRITTEN CONTRACT
24 J Plaintiffs' Third Cause of Action seeks relief for alleged breaches of the written joint
25 | venture agreement ("Joint Venture Agreement") between the Defendant and the State of
26 | California. The Court has previously found and ruled (see Court Order dated May 14,2001)
27 | that Plaintiffs are intended third-party beneficiaries, creditor beneficiaries, of the Joint Venture
28 1 Agreement's promises by Defendant to pay the wages of the Plaintiff Class.
[ (PROPOSED) JUDGMENT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
14  '02    li:5ißM L£W -"ICES
P, 33
Upon review of the Joint Venture Agreement, however, the Court does not Axi a breach of the written agreement. Plaintiffs argue that Defendant's promese to pay wages, and the promise to pay wages consistent with EDD Guidelines, must be construed in a manner consistent with California law. Thus, Plaintiffs argue that Defendants promise to pay wages must mean the promise to pay, at least, the minimum lawful wages. Similarly, Plaintiffs argue that the promise to pay wages consistent with EDD guidelines references Defendant's obligation to pay prevailing wages under Penal Code § 2717.8.
The Court, however, is not persuaded by these arguments. Rather, as Defendant emphasizes, the Joint Venture Agreement specifically purported to permit Defendant not to pay wages during the training of the inmates. Second, Defendant paid Plaintiffs the minimum
12 I wage for hours outside the training period, and the minimum wage is a permitted wage
13 J according to the schedule of prevailing wages attached to the Joint Venture Agreement; \
14 1 furthermore, the Joint Venture Agreement did not impose on Defendant the obligation of
15 J ascertaining "comparable wages" for its employeas. While Plaintiffs are correct that these
16 I provisions in the contract violate PenaJ Code § 2717.8, this observation does not mean that
17 Plaintiffs have shown a breach of contract
iii.     VIOLATION OF BUSINESS & PROFESSIONS CODE §17200 ET SEQ.
Plaintiffs' claims under Business & Professions Code § 17200 et seq. duplicate their claims for violation of the California Labor Code and for breach of contract. In summary, Plaintiffs contend that by violating the California Labor Code and failing to pay Piaintiffs prevailing wages due both under the Joint Venture Agreement and the clear language of
18
19
20
21
22
23
24 ] Penal Code §2717.8, Defendant engaged in unlawful and unfair business practices. As this
25 j Court has found that Defendant violated the Labor Code by failing to pay all minimum wages
26 \ due, failing to pay wages promptly, and failing to keep full and accurate records of the hours
27 I worked, these violations alone support the Court's conclusion that Defendant's conduct failed
28 D to comply with Business & Professions Code § 17200 et seq.
(PROPOSED) JUDGMENT
w-----
P. 34
The Court, however, also FINDS and RULES that Defendant's fated to comply with the prevailing wage requirements of Penai Code § 2717.8. As the Court noted above, there can be no doubt that Penal Code § 2717.8 requires private employers participating in joint venture programs with the California Department of Corrections, such as Defendant, to pay the participating inmates prevailing wages for all hours worked. On January 16, 2002, Plaintiffs presented testimony concerning the prevailing wages that should be assigned to each position in which the plaintiff class members worked in the past or currently work. This Court, in large part, credited the testimony, and has concluded that the prevailing wage for the job positions at issue are as follows:
Sower, Tool man, Warehouse Personnel,
Quality Control Operator_ Minimum Wage plus $0.25 hourly
increase per two years of service, capped at One-dollar ($1.00) above the minimum wage.
_ $7.50 per hour plus $0.25 hourly
increase per two years of service, capped at $8.50 per hour.
_ $10.00 per hour plus $0.25
hourly increase per two years of service, capped at $11.00 per hour.
_ $1.00 over the Minimum Wage
plus $0.25 hourly increase per two years of service, capped at Two Dollars (S2.0O) above the Minimum Wage.
Spreader
Cutter, Noncertrfied Mechanic.
Lead Person
TT
(PROPOSED) JUDGMENT
- ■ ^HT!       ' OFFICES
P. 35
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
There is no dispute that Defendant did not compfy with this schedule in making wage
Defendants failure to pay such prevailing wages also supports this Court's finding that
Defendant engaged in unlawful and unfair business practices violative of Business &
Professions Code § 17200 et seq. In light of the Court's finding, the Court rules and orders
that Defendant pay the Plaintiff Class $ 841.188.44 in minimum wages, liquidated damages,
waiting time and civil penalties, prevailing wages, and interest due. The Court, however,
suspends enforcement of $709,303.74 of the Court's monetary order, which dupikates
Plaintiffs' Labor Code damages, unless and until the Court's orders relating to the Plaintiffs'
First and Second Causes of Action have been reversed or remanded on appeal. Thus, the
total judgment on the unsuspended damage portion of this cause of action and the damages
this Court has ordered Defendant to pay on the Plaintiffs' First and Second Causes of Action
total $841,188.44. The parties will brief the Court regarding Plaintiffs' entitlement to fees and
costs as a prevailing party on this Eighth Cause of Action.
IV.     INJUNCTIVE REUEF
Plaintiffs seek preliminary and permanent injunctive relief for the array of violations 18 B
I contained in this Complaint. More than three years ago, Defendant ceased requiring its inmate employees to complete unpaid "training periods." Plaintiffs do not dispute that Defendant has ceased violating the minimum wage law in regard to its "training" practices, but nevertheless seek injunctive relief so as to assure the plaintiff dass a ready means of redressing future violations, should Defendant change its mind about complying with the Labor
24 I Code in the future. The Court finds that Plaintiffs' position is justified, given Defendant's
25 | continuing refusal to comply with other aspects of the Labor Code, grants Plaintiffs' request for
26 I injunctive relief, and ORDERS Defendant, its agents, joint venturers, and partners henceforth
27 I to comply fully with all aspects of California's Labor Code regarding the payment of minimum
28 | wages, including complying with the implementing regulation found in the Industrial Welfare
(PROPOSED) JUDGMENT
19
20
21
22
23
p.3S
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Commission's industrial Wage Orders.
Defendant does not dispute that it has not paid, nor does it now pay, wages consistent with the schedule of prevailing v^sgss speafted by ths Court above. The parties' factual stipulations regarding payroll records also demonstrate that those mentbers of the Plaintiff Class still employed by Defendant are still not receiving their weges within the time periods specified by Labor Code § 204. Since Defendant has not cured its employment practices, the Court finds and grants Plaintiffs' request for preliminary and permanent injunctive relief and ORDERS Defendant, its agents, joint venturers, and partners henceforth to pay aH inmate employees of Defendant prevailing wages specified by this Court order and/or by Penal Code § 2717.8; and to ensure, insofar as it is within its ability to do so in light of the fact that it is
12 ] required, pursuant to its Agreement with the State of California, to forward all wages to a State
13 of California designee for distribution to inmate employees and others pursuant to Penal Code Section 2717.8, that alt inmate employees receive their wages within the time periods specified by California Labor Code § 204. This Court reserves jurisdiction should Defendant
16 J fail to comply with this Order. The parties will brief the Court regarding Plaintiffs' entitlement to ^ I fees and costs as a prevailing party on their claim for injunctive relief. 18   V.      NOTICE TO CLASS. PAYMENT OF JUDGEMENT. APPGiNTaSENT QF CLAiSSS ADMINISTRATOR
The Court acknowledges the representation of the parties that the Defendant will be unable to immediately satisfy the Judgment. Accordingly, the Court hereby provides the
14
15
19
20
21
22
following orders regarding distribution and oversight of the judgment issued for Plaintiffs
23
24 I above:
25 I 1 -      On behalf of the Plaintiff class, counsel for Plaintiffs have negotiated an interim
26 { payment schedule, allowing Defendant time to seek imiernnification for this judgment from the
27 I State of California. In accordance with this schedule, Defendant is ordered to pay $40,000 by
28 I March 29, 2002. If Defendant is continuing to operate and/or has not filed for bankruptcy,
(PROPOSED) JUDGMENT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
P.37
defendant is ordered to pay a minimum of $10,000 par month, and. rf its operating receivables jemiit sucfr payment, $15,000 per month, beginning on June 15, 2002 and due on the 15m tey of each month thereafter. Interest on the unpaid portion of the judgment w& be at the statutory rate of ten percent (10%).
2. Defendant is hereby ordered to assign first position vrith respect to its right to >ayment received from the State of California pursuant to the inoen?nity agreement set forth in ts Joint Venture Program Contract, or any other legal action against the State of California arising from the claims set forth in this case, to the extent necessary to satisfy the judgment in this action.
3. In the event that Defendant no longer prosecutes its claim for irxiemnrfication, the entire judgment, plus interest, will be due within thirty days of the tima Defendant no longer prosecutes this dairn. in any event, the full remaining judgment will be due and payable on February 15, 2004. even if Defendant's claim for indenrniflcaison from the State of California has hot yet been resolved.
4. Until the judgment in this matter is satisfied, Defendant, its officers, agents, employees, and all other persons acting, or purporting to act, on its behalf, are hereby restrained and enjoined from withdrawing transferring, encumbering, disposing of, and/or secreting away any monies, stocks, properties and/or other assets'of Defendant, with the exception of normal and customary business transactions which are reasonably necessary for the continued operation and survival of Defendant
5. In the event that Defendant fails to comply with the above-referenced payment schedule, Defendant, its officers, agents, employees, and all other persons acting, or purporting to act, on its behalf, are ordered to assign to Plaintiffs, until such time as the judgment herein is fully satisfied or this order is amended, its rights to payments due or to become due, including, but not limited to accounts receivable, rents, commissions, royalties, non-exempt insurance policy loan values, general intangibles, judgment and instruments.
(PROPOSED) JUDGMENT
P. 39
9
10
11
12
13
(CCP 708.510.) In addition, Defendant its officer*, agents, employees, and alt. other person acting, or purporting to act. on its behalf, are restrained and enjoined from assigning or otherwise disposing of its rights to payments that are to be assigned to Plaintiffs. (CCP 708.520(a).) Failure by the Defendant to compJy vjith these orders may subjsct the Defendant to being held in contempt of court. (CCP 708.520(d).) 8 6,      Defendant is ordered to provide Plaintiffs' counsel the opportunity to review and
7
inspect, every sixty days at their request, at the office of Defendant's counsel, complete
8
financial statements and accounts, including quarterly reports, bank records, tax returns, and other financial documents, until the judgment is paid in full by Defendant Defendant is further ordered to provide Plaintiffs counssi the opportunity to inspect and inventory, every sixty days at their request. Defendant's equipment, furniture, materials, merchandise, and other assets, until the judgment is paid in full by Defendant. *
14 I From the payments made by Defendants. Plaintiffs' counsel will first be reimbursed for
15 J the costs incurred in prosecuting these claims on behalf of the Plaintiff class. The exact
16 I amount of costs will be determined by the Court, after an application of Plaintiffs' counsel.
17 J After the costs are paid, the remaining payments will be allocated as follows: Seventy-Five
18 1
I Percent (75%) of each payment will be allocated to pay the wages, damages, and penalties
19 |
J due to the Plaintiff class; and Twenty-Five Percent (25%) will be allocated to pay the attorney
20 J
I fees owed to counsel for the Plaintiffs for all services rendered to the Plaintiff Class in pursuing
21 1
I this litigation.
2j | The Court hereby APPOINTS the Claims Administrator. Rosenthal & Company, jointly
24 | selected by the parties, to provide notice of this judgment, providing notice of the Court-approved Notice of Proposed Settlement, to oversee all monies wired by Defendant to the Plaintiff Trust Account, to pay all claims due to class members from this Judgment, and to refund to Defendant any and all judgment monies relating to plaintiff class members who the Claims Administrator could not locate, after making reasonable efforts to do so, within One (1)
(PROPOSED) JUDGMENT
25
26
27
28
' 03/12/2302 17:13
61977 ">B
alpha attv ser*
page s2
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
year of this Order and Judgment. The Court orders the Claims Administrator louse any funds deposited by Defendant in the Client Trust Account to first compensate counsel for Plaintiffs for any costs incurred in bringing this actionf and which this Court finds and Orders are due. The Court further ORDERS Defendant to bear all costs incurred by the Claims Administrator in complying with this Order, at the rate of Seventy Dollars ($70) per hour, including but not limited to consolidating existing damage distribution and plaintiff address data, providing notice to the Class, locating plaintiff class members who have moved or relocated, providing Plaintiffs with appropriate W-2 or 1099 documents regarding any damage payment received, and making all appropriate filings and/or interacting with the Internal Revenue Service regarding such damage payments to the Plaintiff class.
To ensure that prompt notice of this Order and Judgment is given, the Court hereby Orders Defendant to pay the Claims Administrator within Seven (7) days of this Order $2500, to be deposited into the Plaintiff Trust Account of the Claims Administrator, so as to cover the initial costs incurred by the Claims Administrator in establishing the address database and providing notice of this judgment. All additional costs incurred by the Claims Administrator shall be paid within Seven (7) days of the Defendant receiving a billing for the costs incurred.
This Court reserves jurisdiction to oversee compliance with the orders and judgments contained herein. IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
MAR 1 1 2002
WILLIAM C. PATE
Honorable William C. Pate Superior Court of San Diego County
-T3
(PROPOSED) JUDGMENT
f 14  '32    11:5s*, LA <TICES
I P.40
Submitted by:
LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT BERKE
1
2
3
4 J By: ___
5 Attortey for PLAINTIFF CLASS
6 I and Plaintiff SHEARWOOD FLEMING, JR.
7
8 \ BAHAN & HEROLD
9
10
11
12
13
14
Attorney for PLAINTIFF CLASS and Plaintiffs CHARLES ERVIN and UNITE
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
15 8 ROBERT L. SHIPLEY, A.P.LX.
16
^ J By: See next paoe for facsimile signature 4 Q I        Robert L. Shipley, Esq.
J Attorney for Defendant CMT BLUES
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(PROPOSED) JUDGttEHT
14  '03    U:S5AM Lf4s 'ICES
p.41
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
Submitted by:
LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT BERKE
By:
Robert Berite, Esq.
Attorney for PLAINTIFF CLASS
and Plaintiff SHEARWOOD FLEMING, JR.
BAHAN & HEROLD
By:
Janet Herotd, Esq.
Attorney for PLAINTIFF CLASS and
Plaintiffs CHARLES ERVIN and UNITE
APPROVED AS TO FORM: ROBERT L SHIP
By:
-T5
(PROPOSED) JUDGMENT