Superior Court of The State of California For The County of Orange

Electronically Filed by Superior Court of California, County of Orange, 06/04/2021 05:21:00 PM.
30-2019-01044791-CU-OE-CXC - ROA # 145 - DAVID H. YAMASAKI, Clerk of the Court By Olga Lopez, Deputy Clerk.
1 DAVID YEREMIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.

DAVID YEREMIAN (SBN 226337)
2 [email protected]
3 535 N. Brand Blvd., Suite 705
Glendale, California 91203
4 Telephone: (818) 230-8380
Facsimile: (818) 230-0308
5
6 UNITED EMPLOYE ES LAW GROUP, PC

WALTER HAINES (SBN 71075)
7 [email protected]
5500 Bolsa Ave., Suite 201
8 Huntington Beach, CA 92649
9 Telephone: (310) 652-2242
10 Attorneys for Plaintiffs' Miguel Haro Lopez and Jesus

Rodriguez, on behalf of themselves and all others
11
similarly situated
12
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
13
FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE
14
15
MIGUEL HARO LOPEZ, an individual, on Case No.: 30-2019-01044791-CU-OE-CXC
16 behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, CLASS ACTION
17
18 Plaintiff, Assigned for All Purposes To:

Hon. Kirk Nakamura
19 vs. Dept.: CX-103
20 TW SERVICES, INC., a California DECLARATION OF JASON W.
21 corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, ROTHMAN IN RESPONSE TO
inclusive, COURT'S ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
22
Defendants.
23
Complaint Filed: January 16, 2019
24 PAGA Complaint Filed: March 22, 2019
First Amended: July 8, 2020
25
26
27
28
Page - 1 Haro Lopez v TW Services, Inc.

Case No.: 30-2019-01044791
1
DECLARATION OF JASON ROTHMAN
2
3 I, Jason W. Rothman, declare as follows:
4 1. I am an attorney duly licensed to practice before all of the courts of the State of
5 California. I have personal knowledge of all of the foregoing, and if called upon to testify, could and
6 would competently testify thereto.

7 2. I was admitted to the California State Bar in October 2015. I was employed as an
8 associate attorney with the law firm of David Y eremian & Associates, Inc., from March of 2018 until
9 April 9, 2021. I left David Yeremian & Associates, Inc., ("DYA") to seek employment with a
10 different law firm for reasons completely unrelated to the above-entitled case. Mr. Yeremian knew
11 about my departure as I provided him advance two weeks' notice.

12 3. While employed with David Yeremian & Associates, Inc., I was assigned to work on
13 Haro Lopez v. TW Services, Inc., which I worked on from its inception until I left the law firm. One of
14 the last tasks I completed while working for DYA was drafting the Motion for Final Approval and
15 supporting moving documents. I left the Motion for Final Approval in a substantially completed state
16 by the time of my departure.

17 4. Throughout my work on this case, I kept contemporaneous time records on an excel
18 spreadsheet and in the firm's billing software system. The spreadsheet and time records were
19 maintained at David Y eremian's ("Mr. Yeremian") law firm and have been produced by him in
20 response to the Order to Show Cause by the Court. For this case, I was able to specifically account for
21 185 hours of time, based on my contemporaneous time records and the work I did on the motion to
22 approve the class settlement to the extent that work was not otherwise recorded before I left the firm.
23 5. As an associate attorney, I was charged with the initial draft of the Motion for Approval
24 of the class settlement reached between the parties, including the motion for attorney fees. It was one
25 of the last tasks I completed before leaving the firm, done at a time when I was attempting to wrap up
26 my work on about fifty (50) active cases. I provided Mr. Yeremian with the draft documents in
27 connection with this motion, including drafts of the motion, his declaration and Exhibit C, which is the
28 subject of the OSC. The draft declaration and motion included blanks for Mr. Yeremian to fill in the
Page -2 Haro Lopez v TW Services, Inc.

Case No.: 30-2019-01044791
1 total time worked by me and others at the firm, presumably based on his review of all the time records
2 in the file. All of these documents were in draft form, with the expectation that the motion and
3 supporting documents would be finalized and filed after careful review and revision by Mr. Yeremian.
4 6. Unfortunately, because I was leaving the firm and rushing to complete this task and
5 others before my last day, I did not have an opportunity to discuss the draft with Mr. Yeremian in
6 detail or clarify what I was attempting to do in the summary of work I prepared, which was attached as
7 Exhibit C. I was working remotely at the time, so I left a note at the bottom of the document, stating
8 that the time documented was exaggerated by approximately twice the amount of time I actually spent
9 on the case, with the expectation that Mr. Yeremian would read it and take it into consideration for
10 purposes of calculating the reasonable value of services under the Lodestar. The summary, unlike the
11 time records in the file, was meant to address the reasonable value of services under Lodestar, whereas
12 my actual time spent on the case was as reflected in my time records and in the note.
13 7. The summary detail reflected in Exhibit C provides an accurate summary of the tasks I
14 performed on the case, but incorporates a multiplier based upon my time incurred. The time reflected
15 is roughly double what I actually expended. As reflected in the note, this was meant to demonstrate
16 what I viewed would be a reasonable amount of time spent on the case, using a multiplier of 2, for
17 Lodestar purposes as part of the motion for fees. I felt that my time spent on the case was very
18 efficient, and that double that would have been justified by the complexity of the issues and the multi-
19 million dollar results obtained for purposes of calculating the reasonable value of services under
20 Lodestar. It was not my intention that the hours reflected in Exhibit C be presented to the court as the
21 actual hours I spent on the case. This was reflected in my note to Mr. Yeremian on Exhibit C, which
22 attempted to inform Mr. Y eremian of my actual hours worked (consistent with the time records and my
23 work on the motion), and the fact that the hours in the summary had been increased (by a factor of 2)
24 to which I believed was reasonable for purposes of calculating the Lodestar.
25 8. While I assumed that Mr. Yeremian would review Exhibit C, my note thereon, and my
26 time records, and thereafter submit my actual hours into his declaration, while using the hours in
27 Exhibit C with a multiplier for purposes of the Lodestar. In hindsight, it appears that Mr. Yeremian
28 did not read the note. Additionally, in using the multiplier on the hours instead of the hourly rate, I

Case No.: 30-2019-01044791
1 misapplied the Lodestar when I drafted Exhibit C. This mistake was the result of my rush to complete
2 the supporting documents before my departure, without reference back to the moving papers or
3 applicable law related to the Lodestar.
4 9. I did not intend that my time be misrepresented to the court. In my haste to complete
5 draft documents for Mr. Y eremian before my departure, I made a critical error by not clarifying with
6 him what I was attempting to do, or simply accurately reflecting the hours from my time records. I am
7 embarrassed by this error and mortified that the final paperwork represented to the court that I actually
8 worked hours that I did not.
9 10. At all times, I understood that the firm was working on a contingency fee, and that the
10 attorney fees would be based on a contingency fee agreement with the client with a reference to the
11 Lodestar, based on the significant, seven figure recovery we obtained for the class. At no time did I
12 prepare the summary of hours worked with the expectation that the firm would be paid based on the
13 hours worked. I had no motivation to artificially inflate my hours for the motion, and certainly did not
14 intend for anyone to make a misrepresentation to the court.

15 11. I do not submit this declaration as an excuse, but rather to request the court's leniency in
16 addressing the issue of sanctions before it. As an officer of the court, I take my duty to the court and
17 the class seriously. I understand the court's concerns, and I will appear at the hearing to address them
18 should the court have further questions.

19 12. I apologize to the court, and respectfully request that any sanctions be waived or
20 reduced. Additionally, I request that the court not penalize the class for my error.
21
22 I swear under penalty of perjury under the Laws of the State of California that the foregoing is
23 true and correct.
24
25 Executed this 4th Day of June 2021 at Los Angeles, California

26
27
28

Case No.: 30-2019-01044791
1 PROOF OF SERVICE
2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES:
3 I am employed in the aforesaid county, State of California; I am over the age of 18 years
and not a party to the within action; my business address is 535 N. Brand, Blvd. Suite 705,
4 Glendale CA 91203.
5 On June 4, 2021, I served the foregoing: DECLARATION OF JASON W.
ROTHMAN IN RESPONSE TO COURT’S ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE on Interested
6 Parties in this action by placing a true copy thereof, enclosed in a sealed envelope, addressed as
follows:
7
Erick J. Becker, P.C.
8 [email protected]
Noura K. Rizzuto
9 [email protected]
Ed Farrell
10 [email protected]
CUMMINS & WHITE, LLP
11 2424 S.E. Bristol Street, Suite 300
Newport Beach, CA 92660-0764
12
[ ] (BY MAIL) I placed such envelope with postage thereon fully paid in the United States
13 mail at Glendale, California. I am “readily familiar” with this firm’s practice of collecting and
processing correspondence for mailing. It is deposited with U.S. Postal Service on that same day
14 in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of party served, service is
presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than 1 day after date of
15 deposit for mailing in affidavit.
16 [X] (ONLY BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION) Only by e-mailing the document(s) to
the persons at the e-mail address(es) listed based on notice provided on June 4, 2021 that, during
17 the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, this office will be working remotely, not able to send
physical mail as usual, and is therefore using only electronic mail. No electronic message or other
18 indication that the transmission was unsuccessful was received within a reasonable time after the
transmission.
19
[ ] (BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY) I enclosed the documents in an envelope or package
20 provided by an overnight delivery carrier and addressed to the persons at the address above. I
placed the envelope or package for collection and overnight delivery at an office or a regularly
21 utilized drop box of the overnight delivery carrier.
22 [X] (STATE) I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of
California that the foregoing is true and correct.
23
Executed on June 4, 2021, at Glendale, California.
24
25
Natalia Bermudes
26
27
28

Superior Court of The State of California For The County of Orange

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Superior Court of The State of California For The County of Orange

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Electronically Filed by Superior Court of California, County of Orange, 06/04/2021 05:21:00 PM.

1 DAVID YEREMIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.

6 UNITED EMPLOYE ES LAW GROUP, PC

10 Attorneys for Plaintiffs' Miguel Haro Lopez and Jesus

18 Plaintiff, Assigned for All Purposes To:

Page - 1 Haro Lopez v TW Services, Inc.

3 I, Jason W. Rothman, declare as follows:

6 would competently testify thereto.

11 about my departure as I provided him advance two weeks' notice.

16 by the time of my departure.

Page -2 Haro Lopez v TW Services, Inc.

24 to which I believed was reasonable for purposes of calculating the Lodestar.

Page - 3 Haro Lopez v TW Services, Inc.

8 worked hours that I did not.

14 intend for anyone to make a misrepresentation to the court.

18 should the court have further questions.

25 Executed this 4th Day of June 2021 at Los Angeles, California

Page - 4 Haro Lopez v TW Services, Inc.

You might also like