Common use of BACKGROUND OF THE ACTION Clause in Contracts

BACKGROUND OF THE ACTION. On September 18, 2023, Plaintiff provided written notice to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency (“LWDA”) of the specific provisions of the California Labor Code that Plaintiff contends were violated (“PAGA Letter”). On October 27, 2023, Plaintiff commenced a putative class action lawsuit by filing a Class Action Complaint for Damages in the Action. On November 27, 2023, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Class Action Complaint for Damages and Enforcement Action Under the Private Attorneys General Act, California Labor Code §§ 2698 Et Seq. (“Operative Complaint”), adding a cause of action under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 pursuant to California Labor Code Section 2698, et seq. (“PAGA”). Plaintiff contends that Defendant failed to properly pay minimum and overtime wages, provide compliant meal and rest breaks and associated premiums, timely pay wages during and upon termination of employment and associated waiting- time penalties, provide accurate wage statements, and reimburse business expenses, and thereby engaged in unfair business practices in violation of the California Business and Professions Code section 17200, et seq., and conduct that gives rise to penalties under PAGA. Plaintiff seeks, among other things, recovery of unpaid wages and meal and rest period premiums, unreimbursed business expenses, restitution, penalties, interest, and attorneys’ fees and costs. Defendant denies all of the allegations in the Action or that it violated any law. The Parties participated in mediation with a respected class action mediator, and as a result, the Parties reached a settlement. The Parties have since entered into a Joint Stipulation of Class Action and PAGA Settlement (“Settlement” or “Settlement Agreement”). On [Date of Preliminary Approval], the Court entered an order preliminarily approving the Settlement. The Court has appointed ILYM Group, Inc. as the administrator of the Settlement (“Settlement Administrator”), Plaintiff ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ as representative of the Class (“Class Representative”), and the following Plaintiff’s attorneys as counsel for the Class (“Class Counsel”): If you are a Class Member, you need not take any action to receive an Individual Settlement Payment, but you have the opportunity to request exclusion from the Class Settlement (in which case you will not receive an Individual Settlement Payment), object to the Class Settlement, and/or dispute the Workweeks and/or PAGA Pay Periods credited to you, if you so choose, as explained more fully in Sections III and IV below. If you are a PAGA Employee, you do not need to take any action to receive an Individual PAGA Payment; you will not have the opportunity to object or seek exclusion from the PAGA Settlement and all PAGA Employees will be bound to the PAGA Settlement if the Court grants final approval of the Settlement. The Settlement represents a compromise and settlement of highly disputed claims. Nothing in the Settlement is intended or will be construed as an admission by Defendant that the claims in the Action have merit or that Defendant has any liability to Plaintiff, Class Members, or PAGA Employees. Plaintiff and Defendant, and their respective counsel, have concluded and agree that, in light of the risks and uncertainties to each side of continued litigation, the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate, and is in the best interests of the Class Members, the State of California, and PAGA Employees.

BACKGROUND OF THE ACTION. On September October 18, 20232017, Plaintiff provided written notice to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency (“LWDA”) of the specific provisions of the California Labor Code that Plaintiff contends were violated (“PAGA Letter”). On October 27, 2023, Plaintiff ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ commenced a putative class action lawsuit by filing a her Class Action Complaint for Damages in the Los Angeles County Superior Court (“▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ Action”). On November 27January 12, 20232018, Plaintiff ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ filed a First Amended Class Action Complaint for Damages. On February 5, 2018, Plaintiff ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ filed a Second Amended Class Action Complaint for Damages. On November 26, 2018, Plaintiffs ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇ and ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇ commenced a class and representative action in the Ventura County Superior Court (“▇▇▇▇▇ Action”). On March 5, 2019, Defendant iPayment, Inc. filed a Petition for Coordination with the Judicial Council of California seeking coordination of the ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ Action and ▇▇▇▇▇ Action. On April 10, 2019, the ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ Action and ▇▇▇▇▇ Action were coordinated in the Los Angeles County Superior Court as the iPayment Wage and Hour Cases, Coordinated Case Number JCCP5009 (collectively the “Actions”). On December 10, 2019, Plaintiffs DiStefano, ▇▇▇▇▇, and Brims (“Plaintiffs”) filed an Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint for Damages and & Enforcement Action Under the Private Attorneys General Act, California Labor Code §§ 2698 2698, Et Seq. (“Operative Complaint”)4824-8141-8413.1 Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants violated the California Labor Code and California Business and Professions Code with respect to themselves and the Class Members by, adding a cause of action inter alia, failing to properly pay for all hours worked, including minimum and overtime wages, failing to provide legally-compliant meal and rest periods or premium pay in lieu thereof, failing to properly reimburse business expenses, failing to provide accurate wage statements, failing to maintain accurate payroll records, and failing to timely pay wages upon separation and during employment and associated waiting time penalties thereby engaging in unfair business practices and owing penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 pursuant to Act, California Labor Code Section section 2698, et seq. (“PAGA”). Plaintiff contends that Defendant failed to properly pay minimum and overtime wagesCollectively, provide compliant meal and rest breaks and associated premiums, timely pay wages during and upon termination of employment and associated waiting- time penalties, provide accurate wage statements, and reimburse business expenses, and thereby engaged in unfair business practices in violation of the California Business and Professions Code section 17200, et seq., and conduct that gives rise to penalties under PAGA. Plaintiff seeksPlaintiffs seek, among other things, recovery of unpaid wages and meal and rest period premiums, unreimbursed business expensesrestitution, restitutiondeclaratory relief, penalties, interest, and attorneys’ fees and costs. Defendant denies Defendants deny all of the allegations in the Action Actions or that it they violated any law, and contend that at all times they have fully complied with all applicable federal, state, and local laws. Defendants further contend that their written meal and rest period policies were lawful, that they paid employees for all time worked, that they paid overtime when required and reimbursed any employees for any business expenses which they paid or incurred. It is Defendants’ position that, if litigation continued, class certification would be denied on all claims and/or the claims would be subject to motions for summary adjudication and/or summary judgment. Defendants contend that the theories put forth by the Plaintiffs in the Actions are contrary to the facts and that the PAGA claim lacks merit. Defendants further contend that the Plaintiffs are not adequate class representatives as, inter alia, they have serious credibility issues; their claims are not typical of the Class Members; and individual issues predominate over common ones. The Parties participated in mediation two full-day mediations session with a respected class action mediator, and as a result, the Parties reached a settlement. The Parties have since entered into a the Joint Stipulation of Class Action and PAGA Settlement and Release and First Amendment to Joint Stipulation of Class Action and PAGA Settlement and Release (“Settlement” or “Settlement Agreement”). On [Date of Preliminary ApprovalApproval Date], the Court entered an order preliminarily approving the Settlement. The Court has appointed ILYM GroupSimpluris, Inc. as the administrator of the Settlement settlement (“Settlement Administrator”), Plaintiff Plaintiffs as representatives of the Class (“Class Representatives”), and the following law firms as counsel for the Class (“Class Counsel”): ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇ as representative of the Class (“Class Representative”)Lawyers for Justice, and the following Plaintiff’s attorneys as counsel for the Class (“Class Counsel”): If you are a Class Member, you need not take any action to receive an Individual Settlement Payment, but you have the opportunity to request exclusion from the Class Settlement (in which case you will not receive an Individual Settlement Payment), object to the Class Settlement, and/or dispute the Workweeks and/or PAGA Pay Periods credited to you, if you so choose, as explained more fully in Sections III and IV below. If you are a PAGA Employee, you do not need to take any action to receive an Individual PAGA Payment; you will not have the opportunity to object or seek exclusion from the PAGA Settlement and all PAGA Employees will be bound to the PAGA Settlement if the Court grants final approval of the Settlement. PC The Settlement settlement represents a compromise and settlement of highly disputed claims. Nothing in the Settlement settlement is intended or will be construed as an admission by Defendant Defendants that the claims in the Action Actions have merit or that Defendant has Defendants have any liability to Plaintiff, Plaintiffs or to Class Members, or PAGA Employees. Plaintiff Plaintiffs and DefendantDefendants, and their respective counsel, have concluded and agree that, in light of the risks and uncertainties to each side of continued litigation, the Settlement settlement is fair, reasonable, reasonable and adequate, and that the settlement is in the best interests of the Class Members, the State of California, and PAGA Employees.