Electronically Filed by Superior Court of California, County of Orange, 06/04/2021 04:21:00 PM.

30-2019-01044791-CU-OE-CXC - ROA # 142 - DAVID H. YAMASAKI, Clerk of the Court By Olga Lopez, Deputy Clerk.

1 UMBERG ZIPSER LLP

9 COUNTY OF ORANGE

10
MIGUEL HARO LOPEZ, an individual, on Case No. 30-2019-01044791-CU-OE-
11 behalf of himself and others similarly CXC
situated,
12 CLASS ACTION
Plaintiff,
13 Assigned for All Purposes To:
vs. Hon. Kirk Nakamura
14 Dept.: CX-103
TW SERVICES, INC., a California
15 corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, DECLARATION OF WALTER
inclusive, HAINES IN RESPONSE TO ORDER
16 TO SHOW CAUSE
17 Defendants.
OSC Hearing: June 10, 2021
18 Time: 2:30 p.m.
Dept.: CX103
19
Complaint Filed: January 16, 2019
20 PAGA Complaint Filed: March 22, 2019
First Amended: July 8, 2020
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
U MBERG Z IPSER LLP {218341.2}
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
IRVINE
RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
 1 I, Walter Haines, declare as follows:
2 1. I am an attorney duly licensed to practice in the State of California and am an
3 attorney of record for Plaintiffs Miguel Haro Lopez and Jesus Rodriguez (collectively,
4 “Plaintiffs”) in this action. I provide this declaration as my response to the Court’s Order To
5 Show Cause issued May 6, 2021.
6 2. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth herein, and if called upon as a
7 witness, I could and would testify to them, except where I specify that I am declaring on
8 information and belief, in which case I am informed and believe the facts to be true.
9 3. As explained further below, I did not know that the declaration of my co-counsel
10 filed in support of the Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement (“Motion for Final
11 Approval”) was inaccurate with respect to the hours spent by co-counsel’s associate on this case.
12 As also explained further below, the hours included in my declaration filed in support of the
13 Motion for Final Approval were, and remain, my best estimate of the hours I spent working on
14 this case.
15 4. I was admitted to the California Bar in December 1976 after graduating from San
16 Fernando College of Law the same year. I have been a member in good standing of the
17 California Bar since that time.
18 5. I have been practicing law for over 40 years, and I am the most senior attorney in
19 the firm. I worked on this litigation continually throughout the two plus years of its prosecution.
20 6. My firm, United Employees Law Group (“UELG”), is highly experienced in
21 actions of this nature, having represented over 1,500 clients in wage and hour disputes. I have co-
22 counseled over 300 class actions, which include actions against Fortune 500 companies such as
23 Pepsi, Intel, Home Depot, Kaiser, Wells Fargo, Bank of America, Cisco Systems, First American
24 Title Co., Yahoo!, WellPoint, Inc., Sun Microsystems, and Kaiser Foundation Hospitals.
25 7. The case at issue, Miguel Haro Lopez v. TW Services, Inc., was initiated in
26 September 2018, when Mr. Lopez contacted UELG regarding his employment concerns. UELG
27 collected documentation, spoke with Mr. Lopez and analyzed the facts and circumstances to
28 evaluate the matter. Because the defendant was a substantial company with significant resources,
U MBERG Z IPSER LLP {218341.2} 2
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
IRVINE
RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
 1 UELG decided to bring in co-counsel to share the anticipated work and costs. Specifically,
2 UELG invited David Yeremian & Associates (“Yeremian”) to be co-counsel on the matter.
3 Yeremian agreed.
4 8. Yeremian agreed to act as de facto lead counsel, with UELG handling tasks
5 delegated to it by Yeremian.
6 9. Before Yeremian was approached, UELG already had handled the initial
7 conferences with the client and the preliminary fact investigation.
8 10. After the retainer agreement was signed, UELG’s participation consisted of
9 monitoring the progress of the case, periodic research of case matters in cooperation with lead
10 counsel, and assisting as necessary with client liaison and other tasks that Yeremian assigned us
11 to handle.
12 11. After settlement, Yeremian advised UELG that Yeremian would prepare and file
13 the briefs in support of the motions for preliminary approval and then final approval of the
14 settlement. Although the fee award was primarily to be based on a contractually agreed
15 percentage of the recovery, the Motion for Final Approval included information about lodestar
16 fees and a request for enhancement awards.
17 12. In connection with Yeremian’s preparation of the Motion for Final Approval, I
18 prepared and sent to Yeremian a declaration in support setting forth my best estimate of the hours
19 I spent on this litigation through March 31, 2021. As I previously stated in my declaration filed
20 with the Court on April 14, 2021, I reviewed emails, pleadings, and other documents to determine
21 I spent approximately 46 hours on the case.
22 13. Yeremian filed the Motion for Final Approval, including both Mr. Yeremian’s and
23 my supporting declarations, on April 14, 2021. After filing, they sent a final copy to my office.
24 14. I did not review Mr. Yeremian’s declaration, nor the exhibits attached thereto,
25 prior to its filing, as Mr. Yeremian was primarily responsible for this submission, and Mr.
26 Yeremian was in a much better position than me to assess and review the accuracy of his and his
27 associate’s time records. Similarly, after Yeremian sent UELG a copy of the final documents
28 which had been filed with the Court, I had no reason to review them before the hearing because
U MBERG Z IPSER LLP {218341.2} 3
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
IRVINE
RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
 1 Mr. Yeremian, and not me, was to appear before the Court for oral argument as was necessary.

2 15. After receiving the Court’s tentative ruling dated May 6, 2021 setting this Order

3 To Show Cause, I re-reviewed my declaration along with the other papers submitted in

4 connection with the Motion for Final Approval, including, for the first time, David Yeremian’s

5 declaration. Although I did not keep contemporaneous records of my time spent on this matter, I

6 went back and thoroughly re-reviewed my emails, pleadings, and other documents and confirmed

7 that my previous estimate of 46 hours was reasonable. Based on my review, I continue to believe

8 that 46 hours is a reasonable – and my best – estimate of the time I spent on this litigation as co-

9 counsel for plaintiffs. Attached hereto as Exhibit “A” is a chart I created after reviewing the

10 Court’s May 6 tentative ruling, and after re-reviewing my files, showing the various tasks I

11 performed during the course of the litigation, along with the dates I performed them.

12 16. I regret that an inaccurate filing was submitted to this Court that contained my

13 name on the pleading caption. I had no knowledge of the inaccuracy, and thus did not willfully or

14 intentionally mislead the Court.

15 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the

16 foregoing is true and correct.

17 Executed this 4th day of June, 2021 at Los Angeles, California.

18
19 ______________________________________
Walter Haines
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
U MBERG Z IPSER LLP {218341.2} 4
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
IRVINE
RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
 

Exhibit A
UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP, PC HARO LOPEZ vs.TW SERVICES, INC.

Date Description

09/24/18 Review intake ‐ issue re Arb Agr & record keeping.  Discussion w/staff
09/25/18 Discuss w/staff & research Arb issue‐ send to Yeremian
09/27/18 f/u re pay stubs
10/01/18 Review & sign retainer agr & discussion
10/24/18 f/u re documentation & competing case research
Discuss w/staff ‐ re attempts to reach client & coordination with Yeremian's 
12/12/18 off.
12/17/18 Discuss issues re prosecuting  case and deadline
12/24/18 f/u re attempts to contact client and SOL
12/26/18 Further discussion with staff re email to Lopez
12/27/18 Staff discussion re contact with Lopez
12/27/18 Communication re f/u with Lopez
01/04/19 F/U with staff re outcome of contact
01/04/19 F/U with Yeremian's off re results of meeting w/client & research
06/06/19 Update on Lopez with counsel
11/02/19 Discussion re request for mediation brief
11/05/19 Discussions & mediation prep
11/06/19 Review mediation issues & comment
11/19/19 Discussion re additional plaintiffs & research
11/20/19 Extensive communications re issues with Lopez & settlement
11/24/19 Prep w/co counsel re Lopez
11/27/19 Discussion re Lopez meeting
04/09/20 Co‐counsel discussion re stipulation 
04/27/20 Issues discussed re first amnd complaint & consolidation
07/08/20 Review docs & discuss delay re court closure
Review general release research and communicate with co‐counsel re scope 
07/08/20 of release.

07/08/20 Review communication & research, ltr  and settlement agr re Lopez
07/13/20 Discussion re additional client claims
07/16/20 Discussions & review ltr to Lopez and comments
Discussion with staff &  co‐counsel & research re issues re Lopez/Rodriguez 
08/11/20 & approaches re signing settlement.
09/10/20 Review tentative ruling for Prelim Approval
09/10/20 F/u on responding to issues presented by tentative.
10/07/20 Review and approve declaration
01/11/21 Update on lead plaintiffs and execution of settlement
03/30/21 Review and prepare time and breakdown on case

1
 1 PROOF OF SERVICE
2 I am a resident of the State of California, employed in the County of Orange; I am over
the age of eighteen years and not a party to the within action; my business address is 1920 Main
3 Street, Suite 750, Irvine, CA 92614.
4 On June 4, 2021, I served on the interested parties in this action the within document(s)
entitled:
5
WALTER HAINES’ RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
6
[X] BY EMAIL: The document was sent electronically to each of the individuals at the
7 email addresses(es) indicated on the attached service list, pursuant to C.C.P. Section
1010.6 and C.R.C. Rules 2.256 and 2.251. The transmission as made with no error
8 reported.
9 DAVID YEREMIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. Attorneys for Plaintiffs
DAVID YEREMIAN (SBN 226337)
10 [email protected]
JASON ROTHMAN (SBN 304961)
11 [email protected]
535 N. Brand Blvd., Suite 705
12 Glendale, California 91203
13 Erick J. Becker, P.C.
[email protected]
14 Noura K. Rizzuto
[email protected]
15 Ed Farrell
[email protected]
16 CUMMINS & WHITE, LLP
2424 S.E. Bristol Street, Suite 300
17 Newport Beach, CA 92660-0764
18
I declare under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the State of California, that the above
19 is true and correct.
20 Executed on June 4, 2021, at Irvine, California.
21
22
23
Shawn Beem
24
25
26
27
28
U MBERG Z IPSER LLP {218341.2} 5
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
IRVINE
RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE