UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

NEIL ROSENBOHM, on behalf of himself ) CASE NO.: 2:17-CV-00731-ALM and all others similarly situated, ) ) JUDGE ALGENON L. MARBLEY Plaintiff, ) ) MAGISTRATE JUDGE VASCURA vs. ) ) CELLCO PARTNERSHIP ) JOINT MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF d/b/a Verizon Wireless ) SETTLEMENT AND STIPULATION OF ) DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE Defendant. )

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ...... 1

II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND...... 3

A. The Lawsuit ...... 3

B. Negotiation of The Settlement ...... 5

C. The Settlement Terms ...... 6

III. THE PROPRIETY OF APPROVAL ...... 7

A. The Court Should Approve the FLSA Settlement...... 7

a. The Proposed Settlement Is the Product of Contested Litigation...... 8

b. The Proposed Settlement Reflects a Fair and Reasonable Resolution of a Bona Fide Dispute Between the Parties...... 8

i. Bona Fide Dispute Between the Parties Over Liability...... 8

ii. The Proposed Settlement Is Fair and Reasonable...... 9

1. There is no risk of fraud or collusion...... 9

2. This is a complex case with high expenses and the duration could last many years...... 10

3. The Parties have engaged in substantial discovery...... 11

4. There is no guarantee of success on the merits...... 12

5. Counsel and Named Plaintiff Rosenbohm support the settlement and there are no absent members...... 13

6. The Settlement distributions are fair, reasonable and adequate...... 13

B. The Requested Service Awards Should Be Approved...... 15

C. Plaintiffs’ Counsel’s Attorneys’ Fees and Litigation Costs Are Reasonable and Should Be Approved...... 16

a. Plaintiffs’ Requested Attorney’s Fees in the Amount of $650,000 Are Reasonable...... 16

i. Value of the Benefit Provided...... 19

i

ii. Society’s Interest in Rewarding Attorneys ...... 19

iii. Whether Services Were Undertaken on Contingent-Fee Basis ...... 20

iv. Value of Services Rendered on an Hourly Basis ...... 20

v. Complexity of the Litigation ...... 22

vi. Professional Skill and Standing of Counsel ...... 24

b. Plaintiff’s Litigation Costs Should Be Approved...... 24

D. The Court Should Approve the Settlement Administrator’s Fee ...... 25

IV. CONCLUSION ...... 25

ii

I. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

The Parties, Neil Rosenbohm (“Named Plaintiff Rosenbohm”) and Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless (“Defendant” or “Verizon Wireless”) respectfully move this Honorable

Court to review the Parties’ Settlement Agreement (the “Settlement”) and for an Order approving the Settlement as fair and reasonable.

The proposed settlement will resolve bona fide disputes involving off-the-clock work allegations against Verizon Wireless under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. §§

201-219, as well as Ohio wage-and-hour statute. Plaintiff asserted that Defendant unlawfully failed to pay its hourly, non-exempt employees, including Plaintiff and other Solution Specialists, for all hours worked. Specifically, Plaintiff alleged that Solutions Specialists were required by

Defendant to perform unpaid work off-the-clock at the end of their shifts.

The Parties respectfully submit that the proposed Settlement is fair and reasonable and satisfies the criteria for approval under § 216(b) of the FLSA. The Settlement was achieved during arms-length negotiations among the Parties, conducted by experienced counsel, and reached on

March 2, 2020 after a full-day mediation in Chicago, Illinois, with Michael Dickstein, a nationally- recognized and well-respected mediator of FLSA collective actions.

The settlement documents submitted for approval or entry by the Court consist of the following:

Exhibit 1: Settlement Agreement

Exhibit 1A: List of Plaintiffs Dismissed With Prejudice

Exhibit 1B: List of Individuals to Be Dismissed Without Prejudice

Exhibit 1C: List of Individuals to Be Dismissed With Prejudice

Exhibit 1D: List of Opt-ins who are Settlement Class Members

1

Exhibit 1E: Individual Release Agreement for Neil Rosenbohm

Exhibit 1F: [Proposed] Order Approving Settlement and Dismissal with Prejudice

Exhibit 1G: Timeline of Proposed Procedure for Settlement Administration

Exhibit 2: Declaration of Counsel Chastity L. Christy

Exhibit 3: Declaration of Counsel Michael Fradin

Exhibit 4: Declaration of Counsel Douglas M. Werman

Pursuant to Local Rule 7.2(a)(3), the Parties provide this succinct, clear, and accurate

summary of the Memorandum, as it exceeds twenty pages. The Memorandum starts with a

summary of the factual and procedural background of this case, supported with reference to the

record and the declaration of Plaintiffs’ Counsel Chastity L. Christy. See Part II, below. This background section describes the motion practice, discovery process, and settlement negotiations

that resulted in the Parties’ agreement to resolve this matter. This section also describes the

specific terms of the Parties’ Settlement.

Part III of the Memorandum describes the applicable standard for approval of a settlement

under the FLSA. A Court must determine whether the settlement was reached as a result of

contested litigation and whether it is a fair and reasonable resolution of a bona fide dispute. Part

III(A) addresses why this litigation was contested, why the dispute was bona fide, and why the

resolution is fair and reasonable. The latter inquiry involves seven factors in the Sixth Circuit: (1)

the risk of fraud or collusion; (2) the complexity, expense and likely duration of the litigation; (3)

the amount of discovery engaged in by the parties; (4) the likelihood of success on the merits; (5)

the opinions of class counsel and class representatives; (6) the reaction of absent class members;

and (7) the public interest. See UAW v. General Motors Corp. , 497 F.3d 615, 626 (6th Cir. 2007).

2

Part III(A)(b)(ii) describes why this settlement is fair and reasonable under this multi-factor test.

Part III(B) describes the service award contemplated in the Settlement and justifies this

award in light of the services provided by Named Plaintiff Rosenbohm in this suit. Part III(C)

describes Plaintiffs’ Counsel’s request for attorney’s fees and litigation costs. This section

discusses the general practice in Ohio of awarding one-third of the fund in an FLSA settlement.

This section also discusses the six factors the Sixth Circuit identified in Ramey v. Cincinnati

Enquirer, Inc. , 508 F.2d 1188, 1196 (6th Cir. 1974) for analyzing a request for attorneys’ fees: (1) the value of the benefit rendered to the plaintiff class; (2) the value of the services on an hourly basis; (3) whether the services were undertaken on a contingent-fee basis; (4) society’s stake in rewarding attorneys who produce such benefits in order to maintain an incentive to others; (5) the complexity of the litigation; and (6) the professional skill and standing of counsel involved on both sides. Finally, Part III(D) describes the Parties’ request for approval of the costs of a third-party administrator.

II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. The Lawsuit

On August 19, 2017, Named Plaintiff Neil Rosenbohm filed this Lawsuit as a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 201-219, and, on November 9,

2017, filed his Amended Complaint individually, and on behalf of other non-exempt Solutions

Specialists who worked in the Company’s retail stores nationwide, asserting off-the-clock work allegations against Verizon Wireless under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. §§

201-219, and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act (“OMFWSA”), R.C. 4111.03. (Dkt.

No. 1.)

Specifically, Named Plaintiff Rosenbohm alleged that he and other similarly-situated employees were required by Defendant to perform unpaid work off-the-clock at the end of their

3

shifts, including, but not limited to: (a) straightening up the store; (b) preparing a checklist for the

next day; (c) cleaning the store’s office; (d) logging out of workstations; (e) ensuring workstations

are cleaned; (f) sending out nightly sale numbers to the district manager; (g) waiting for another

representative who was with a customer; and (h) setting store alarms. Id.

On January 12, 2018, Named Plaintiff Rosenbohm filed a Motion for Conditional

Certification, Expedited Opt-in Discovery, and Court-Supervised Notice To Potential Opt-in

Plaintiffs (“Motion for Conditional Certification”), seeking to certify a nationwide class of

Solution Specialists who work or worked in one of the Company’s retail stores during the relevant period. (Dkt. No. 21.) On March 2, 2018, Verizon filed its Opposition Brief. Dkt. No. 30. On

March 16, 2018, Plaintiff filed his Reply Brief. (Dkt. No. 32.)

On September 17, 2018, this Court granted Named Plaintiff Rosenbohm’s Motion for

Conditional Certification and, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), conditionally certified a class

consisting of “all former and current Solutions Specialists employed by Cellco Partnership

nationwide at any time during the three years prior to the granting of [the] motion to the present.”

(Dkt. No. 35.)

On October 30, 2018, the Notice was mailed via First Class mail and emailed to

approximately 33,000 potential class members, and the Notice Period closed on November 29,

2018. (Exhibit 2, Declaration of Chastity L. Christy, ¶ 20.) At the close of the Opt-In Period,

nearly 4,000 individuals filed consent forms opting into the lawsuit (the “Opt-In Plaintiffs,” and

together with Named Plaintiff Rosenbohm, “Plaintiffs”). ( Id .)

The Parties agreed to engage in a due diligence period between December 2018 and March

2019, during which time Defendant provided timekeeping, payroll, and scheduling records for an

agreed-upon number of Plaintiffs to facilitate settlement discussions. ( Id . at ¶ 21.)

4

Between March 2019 and February 2020, the Parties engaged in close to a year of

discovery, including written discovery, which included the production of policy documents and

additional timekeeping, payroll and scheduling data, and distribution of an agreed-upon

questionnaire to more than 190 Plaintiffs. ( Id . at ¶ 22.)

Additionally, Plaintiffs’ Counsel engaged in discussions and correspondence with the

Plaintiff and Opt-In Plaintiffs, including distributions of various surveys relating to off-the-clock claims, as well and numerous telephone interviews. ( Id . at ¶¶ 56-57.)

B. Negotiation of The Settlement

Between December 2018 and February 2020, the Parties exchanged information and engaged in numerous telephone discussions regarding the calculation of damages and potential resolution. ( Id. at ¶ 23.)

Between March 15, 2019 and March 2, 2020, the Parties engaged in settlement negotiations, including the exchange of numerous letters and discussions between Counsel for the

Parties detailing the Parties’ legal and factual positions. ( Id. at ¶ 24.)

On March 2, 2020, a mediation was held in Chicago, Illinois, with Michael Dickstein, a nationally-recognized and well-respected mediator of FLSA collective actions and, after a full-day mediation, in an effort to reach a compromise and to avoid the continued expense and burden of litigation, the Parties reached an agreement to settle the Lawsuit on the terms set forth in the

Settlement Agreement attached hereto as Exhibit 1. ( Id. at ¶ 25.)

The Parties engaged in substantial investigation and informal discovery prior to negotiating the Settlement. ( Id. at ¶ 27.) Prior to filing the Lawsuit, Plaintiffs’ Counsel performed a significant

amount of research and factual investigation of the claims to set forth a factually specific and

accurate Complaint for the Court and Defendant. (Id. ) The Parties engaged in a comprehensive

exchange of information regarding Plaintiffs’ claims and Defendant’s defenses to such claims. 5

(Exhibit 3, Christy Decl . at ¶ 28.) This included a complete analysis and calculations of Named

Plaintiff Rosenbohm’s and Opt-In Plaintiffs’ alleged off-the-clock damages. ( Id.) Counsel for the

Parties engaged in numerous and lengthy discussions regarding the damages calculations and

Plaintiffs’ claims and Defendant’s defenses. ( Id. at ¶ 29.)

C. The Settlement Terms

If approved by the Court, the Settlement will cover Named Plaintiff Rosenbohm and the

Opt-In Plaintiffs identified in Exhibit 1D of the Settlement Agreement.

The Settlement Amount is One Million Nine Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars

($1,950,000.00), which is inclusive of: (a) all of the Individual Settlement Payments to Plaintiffs;

(b) Named Plaintiff Rosenbohm’s Service Award Payment as approved by the Court; (c) Plaintiffs’

Counsel’s attorneys’ fees and expenses as approved by the Court; and (d) the fees and costs associated with settlement administration as approved by the Court.

One Million Two-Hundred Twenty-One Thousand Twenty-Six Dollars and Thirty-Six

Cents ($1,221,026.36) of the Settlement Amount will be divided into Individual Settlement

Payments to the Plaintiffs. The Individual Settlement Payments will be calculated proportionally based on each Plaintiff’s alleged off-the-clock damages during the Calculation Period.

Ten Thousand ($10,000.00) of the Settlement Amount will be paid to Named Plaintiff

Rosenbohm, in addition to his Individual Settlement Payment, for his service as the Representative

Plaintiff. In addition, $650,000.00 will be paid to Plaintiffs’ Counsel for attorneys’ fees and

$46,973.64 for expenses incurred, and expected to be incurred, in the Lawsuit and administration of the settlement. Finally, $22,000.00 will be set aside for fees and expenses for a claims administrator to administer the settlement.

In exchange, the Lawsuit will be dismissed with prejudice, Plaintiffs will release Defendant from all off-the-clock work claims, rights, demands, liabilities and causes of action under federal 6

and state law, through the date of the Settlement, including without limitation all known or

unknown claims for unpaid wages, unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, interest,

attorneys’ fees, and expenses.

III. THE PROPRIETY OF APPROVAL

The proposed Settlement is subject to approval by the Court pursuant to § 216(b) of the

FLSA. As shown in the attached Declaration of Counsel Chastity L. Christy, and as explained below, Court approval is warranted. ( See Exhibit 2.)

A. The Court Should Approve the FLSA Settlement.

To approve an FLSA collective action settlement, a district court need only engage in a one-step process. Carr v. Bob Evans Farms, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-1875, 2018 WL 7508650, at *2

(N.D. Ohio July 27, 2018). Because failure to opt in does not bar potential collective action members from bringing their own suits, and this settlement only covers persons who already joined this litigation, collective actions do not implicate the same due process concerns as class actions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. Id. For this reason, the standard for approval

of a FLSA settlement is straightforward: a district court should approve a settlement if it was

reached as a result of contested litigation and it is a fair and reasonable resolution of a bona fide

dispute between the parties. Lynn’s Food Stores, Inc. v. U.S. , 679 F.2d 1350, 1352-54 (11th Cir.

1982) (citing Brooklyn Savings Bank v. O’Neil , 324 U.S. 697 (1945); see also Landsberg v.

Acton Enterprises, Inc. , 2008 WL 2468868 at *1 n.1 (S.D. Ohio June 16, 2008) (the court presiding over an FLSA action may approve a proposed settlement of the action under the FLSA

§ 216(b) “after scrutinizing the settlement for fairness.”) . “The existence of a bona fide dispute serves as a guarantee that the parties have not manipulated the settlement process to permit the employer to avoid its obligation under the FLSA.” Filby v. Windsor Mold USA, Inc., 2015 WL

1119732, at *2 (N.D. Ohio March 11, 2015).

7

a. The Proposed Settlement Is the Product of Contested Litigation.

The Settlement is a result of contested litigation, reached in the context of this Lawsuit.

The Lawsuit has been pending for nearly three years, and was resolved only after substantial

discovery and motion practice, including briefing regarding conditional certification and discovery

disputes relating to the size and scope of representative discovery. In this context, the Parties had

an opportunity to analyze the pertinent factual and legal issues and assess the strengths and

weaknesses of the claims and defenses at issue in this case. (Ex. 2, Christy Decl. ¶¶ 28-29.) And

“the participation of an independent mediator in the settlement negotiations virtually assures that

the negotiations were conducted at arm’s length and without collusion between the parties.” See

Hainey v. Parrot, 617 F. Supp. 2d 668, 673 (S.D. Ohio 2007).

b. The Proposed Settlement Reflects a Fair and Reasonable Resolution of a Bona Fide Dispute Between the Parties.

The second prong of the Court’s settlement approval inquiry focuses on two issues: (1)

confirming the existence of a bona fide dispute between the Parties and (2) reviewing the

fairness and reasonableness of the proposed settlement. Both issues are satisfied here.

i. Bona Fide Dispute Between the Parties Over Liability.

Named Plaintiff Rosenbohm alleges that he and other similarly-situated Solutions

Specialists were required by Defendant to perform unpaid work off-the-clock at the end of their shifts, including, but not limited to: (a) straightening up the store; (b) preparing a checklist for the

next day; (c) cleaning the store’s office; (d) logging out of workstations; (e) ensuring workstations

are cleaned; (f) sending out nightly sale numbers to the district manager; (g) waiting for another

representative who was with a customer; and (h) setting store alarms. Defendant denies that it

engaged in any unlawful or improper conduct, including, expressly, all off-the-clock work claims

of Plaintiffs, and denies all liability and damages of any kind to anyone regarding Plaintiffs’

8

claims.

The Parties also dispute whether collective treatment of Plaintiffs’ FLSA claims was appropriate. Plaintiff filed a Motion for Conditional Certification, which was opposed by

Defendant. Defendant continues to deny that the Lawsuit could be litigated on a collective action basis. Absent settlement, Defendant would file a motion for decertification of the conditionally certified class. If the Court granted Defendant’s decertification motion, the nearly 4,000 Plaintiffs who filed consents to join the Lawsuit would need to file individual lawsuits in order to proceed with their individual claims.

ii. The Proposed Settlement Is Fair and Reasonable.

A district court in the Sixth Circuit has observed, “[t]he need for the court to ensure that any settlement of [an FLSA] action treats the plaintiffs fairly is similar to the need for a court to determine that any class-action settlement is ‘fair, reasonable, and adequate.’” Crawford v.

Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government , 2008 WL 4724499, at *3 (E.D. Ky. Oct. 23, 2008).

The Sixth Circuit uses seven factors to evaluate settlements, and the Crawford court applied those factors in assessing the fairness of an FLSA settlement:

(1) the risk of fraud or collusion; (2) the complexity, expense and likely duration of the litigation; (3) the amount of discovery engaged in by the parties; (4) the likelihood of success on the merits; (5) the opinions of class counsel and class representatives; (6) the reaction of absent class members; and (7) the public interest.

UAW v. General Motors Corp., 497 F.3d 615, 626 (6th Cir. 2007) (citing Granada Invs., Inc. v.

DWG Corp., 962 F.2d 1203, 1205 (6th Cir. 1992); Williams v. Vukovich, 720 F.2d 909, 922-23

(6th Cir. 1983)), quoted in Crawford , 2008 WL 4724499 at *3; see also Dillworth v. Case Farms

Processing, Inc. , No. 5:08-CV-1694, 2010 WL 776933, at *6 (N.D. Ohio Mar. 8, 2010).

1. There is no risk of fraud or collusion.

This settlement was fairly and honestly negotiated. Plaintiffs’ Counsel and Defendant’s

9

Counsel each have extensive experience litigating FLSA claims, including claims for unpaid hours

worked. ( See Exhibits 2-4.) The Settlement Agreement was achieved only after arms-length and

good faith negotiations between the Parties, occurring after substantial discovery, motion practice,

and Counsel for the Parties vigorously arguing their legal and factual positions. (Ex. 2, Christy

Decl. ¶¶ 28-30.) Additionally, the Settlement was achieved through the assistance of a well-known

and respected mediator, Michael Dickstein. In this context, there is a presumption that the risk of

fraud or collusion is negligible. Lewis v. Huntington Nat'l Bank , 2013 WL 12231327, at *3 (S.D.

Ohio May 30, 2013) (Marbley, J.); see also Hainey , 617 F. Supp. 2d at 673.

2. This is a complex case with high expenses and the duration could last many years.

The policy favoring the settlement of wage and hour actions and other complex cases

applies with particular force here. Employment cases in general, and a wage-and-hour case of this particular scale – nearly 4,000 opt-in plaintiffs – are expensive and time-consuming. Moreover,

the Parties continue to disagree over the merits of Plaintiffs’ claims. (Ex. 2, Christy Decl. at ¶ 33. )

The Parties disagreed whether the two-year limitations period for non-willful violations or three- year limitations period for willful violations applied. (Id . at ¶ 35 .) Defendant claims that even if

Plaintiffs succeed on the merits, Plaintiffs cannot not prove a willful violation of the law, and thus, no wages would be owed for the third year of the three-year limitations period. (Id. ) As outlined above, the Parties disagree about the merits of Plaintiffs’ claims and the viability of Defendants’ various defenses. If the litigation continued, Plaintiffs would have faced obstacles and uncertainties, including decertification, summary judgment, and potentially a trial. See, e.g., Lewis v. Huntington Nat'l Bank , No. 2:11-CV-00058, 2013 WL 12231327, at *3 (S.D. Ohio May 30,

2013) (Marbley, J.) (recognizing that, absent settlement, wage and hour plaintiffs “would have had to show, through testimony and documentary evidence, the specific hours, times, and dates

10

worked—a process requiring extensive and expensive additional discovery”); Cornell v. World

Wide Business Servs. Corp., 2015 WL 6662919, at *2 (S.D. Ohio Nov. 2, 2015) (decertifying

collective because of “disparate factual and employment settings” of the individual opt-in plaintiffs).

This matter has already been litigated for nearly three (3) years, and included substantial

discovery and motion practice, including briefing regarding conditional certification and discovery

disputes relating to the size and scope of representative discovery. (Ex. 2, Christy Decl. at ¶ 30.)

Further, the Parties have already incurred substantial expenses, prior to depositions taking place,

including Plaintiffs’ Counsel incurring $46,963.64 in expenses. (Id. at ¶ 66.)

If forced to litigate this case further, the Parties will incur substantial expenses and fees in

continuing discovery, including traveling to various states across the country to take depositions

of Named Plaintiff Rosenbohm and the 94 discovery Opt-In Plaintiffs, as well as Rule 30(b)

depositions of Defendant. (Id. at ¶ 31.) The out-of-pocket costs alone will exceed six-figures.

(Id. )

Moreover, the Parties would incur substantial fees in further motion practice, including

dispositive motions, a decertification motion, and a Rule 23 Motion for Certification. (Id. at ¶ 32.)

By the time of trial, the Parties’ attorneys’ fees on each side are likely to be in the millions, and

costs exceeding six-figures. (Id. at ¶ 32.)

In view of the costs, risks and delay of continued litigation balanced against the benefits of

settlement, the Settlement is in the best interests of the Plaintiffs as it provides substantial relief to

Named Plaintiff Rosenbohm and the Opt-In Plaintiffs promptly and efficiently, and amplifies the benefits of that relief through the economies of collective resolution. (Id. at ¶ 49.)

3. The Parties have engaged in substantial discovery.

The Parties have engaged in substantial investigation prior to and during the settlement 11

negotiations, including formal discovery, and the issues are well understood by both sides. (Ex.

2, Christy Decl. at ¶¶ 26-29.) Relevant information was produced, including policy documents

and timekeeping, payroll and scheduling data for the Plaintiffs, and Plaintiff’s counsel distributed

an agreed-upon questionnaire to more than 190 Plaintiffs. ( Id. at ¶¶ 28-29.)

The legal issues in the case were thoroughly researched and briefed by Counsel for the

Parties. ( Id. at ¶¶ 26-29.) All of aspects of the dispute are well-understood by both sides. ( Id. )

4. There is no guarantee of success on the merits.

The Parties recognize that the final outcome of the litigation is uncertain and that achieving

a final result through the litigation and appeal process would require substantial additional risk,

time and expense. (Id. at ¶ 33.) Defendant denies that it engaged in any unlawful or improper

conduct including, expressly, all off-the-clock work claims of Plaintiffs; denies all liability and

damages of any kind to anyone regarding Plaintiffs’ claims; and denies that this case could be

litigated on a collective action basis. (Id. ) The Parties further dispute whether collective treatment

of Plaintiffs’ FLSA claims is appropriate. (Id. at ¶ 36.)

There is no guarantee that the Plaintiffs will prevail on Defendant’s anticipated motion to

decertify the conditionally certified class or motion for summary judgment. ( Id. at ¶ 37.)

Moreover, Defendant raises affirmative defenses to Plaintiffs’ claims, and the outcome of those

defenses at trial is uncertain as well. (Id. at ¶ 38.) Continued litigation could be risky for all

Parties, and could result in appeals regardless of the outcome of the trial. ( Id. )

If this ligation continues, Plaintiffs face obstacles and uncertainties, including extensive

and expensive discovery, and potential losses during the decertification and summary judgment phases, and a trial. (Id. at ¶ 39.) See, e.g., Lewis v. Huntington Nat’l Bank , No. 2:11-CV-00058,

2013 WL 12231327, *3 (S.D. Ohio May, 2013) (Marbley, J.). For example, Plaintiffs would have

had to show that they were actually performing off-the-clock work, which would require 12

significant discovery and testimony to establish. (Id. at ¶ 33.)

5. Counsel and Named Plaintiff Rosenbohm support the settlement and there are no absent members.

The opinions of experienced Counsel of the Parties support the Settlement, as does

Named Plaintiff Rosenbohm. ( See Exhibits 2-4.) Courts should generally “defer to the judgment of experienced counsel who [have] competently evaluated the strength of [their] proofs,”

Williams v. Vukovich, 720 F.2d 909, 922-23 (6th Cir. 1983), especially when the case has been developed through discovery. See In re Broadwing, Inc. ERISA Litig., 252 F.R.D. 369, 375 (S.D.

Ohio 2006). Plaintiffs’ counsel supports the Settlement. Ex. 2, Christy Decl. ¶¶ 42-43.

The Settlement includes only the Opt-In Plaintiffs who have filed written consent forms to join this Lawsuit and who agree to be bound by any settlement or judgment in this case. (Id. at ¶

41; see Exhibit 1D.) The Settlement does not include Opt-In Plaintiffs who have previously been

dismissed from this Lawsuit with prejudice or those Opt-In Plaintiffs who the Parties seek to have

dismissed at the time the Court enters an order approving the Settlement and dismissing the

Lawsuit with prejudice. ( See Exhibits 1A, 1B and 1C.) As such, there are no absent members.

6. The Settlement distributions are fair, reasonable and adequate.

In reviewing an FLSA collective action settlement, “a court must ensure that the

distribution of the settlement proceeds is equitable.” Crawford v. Lexington-Fayette Urban County

Government , 2008 WL 4724499 (E.D. Ky. Oct. 23, 2008) (citing Ortiz v. Fibreboard Corp., 527

U.S. 815, 855 (1999)). In the present case, the Settlement Agreement provides that the Settlement

Payment, after deduction of the Service Award to Named Plaintiff Rosenbohm, attorneys’ fees,

litigation reimbursements to Plaintiffs’ Counsel, and the costs of a third-party settlement

administrator, will be divided into pro rata Individual Settlement Payments to Plaintiffs.

The benefit that Plaintiffs will receive from the Net Settlement Amount as compared to

13

the maximum they potentially could have received if they had prevailed at trial is fair and

reasonable. The Individual Settlement Payments range from a minimum payment of $25.00 to a

maximum payment of $1,424.07. Ex. 2, Christy Decl. ¶ 47. The Net Settlement Amount of

$1,221,026.36 represents $322.85 per Plaintiff. Id . The Net Settlement Amount of $1,221,026.36

also represents the recovery of 62% of the alleged owed overtime wages of Plaintiffs, which is

an excellent result. Dillworth , 2010 WL 776933, at *8 (finding that a recovery of one-third of the

owed wages for class members, before deducting attorney’s fees and costs, is “well above”

average); Mars Steel Corp. v. Cont’l Ill. Nat’l Bank & Trust, 834 F.2d 677, 682 (7th Cir.1987)

(finding adequate a settlement of 10% of the total sought due to risks and costs of trial).1

All Individual Settlement Payments will be calculated proportionally based on each

Plaintiff’s length of employment and alleged overtime hours worked during the Calculation Period.

The Calculation Period for Plaintiffs is the date three years prior to the date each Opt-In Plaintiff filed with the Court his or her consent to join the Lawsuit until the latter of their termination of employment or September 29, 2019. Between June 7, 2015 and September 29, 2019, Plaintiffs allege that they were denied $1,976,905.89 in alleged owed overtime wages for approximately

24.5 minutes of off-the-clock work per week, based on the records provided by Defendant. This is reasonable method for settlement allocation. Brandenburg v. Cousin Vinny's Pizza, LLC , No.

1 See also Lazy Oil Co. v. Witco, 95 F.Supp.2d 290, 339 (W.D. Pa.1997) (approving 35% recovery for the entire class period, and 25.5% of damages within the limitations period); In re Domestic Air Tranp. Antitrust Litig., 148 F.R.D. 297, 325 (N.D. Ga. 1993) (12.7% to 15.3%); In re Newbridge Networks Sec. Litig., 1998 WL 765724, at *2 (D.D.C. Oct. 23, 1998) (approving settlement and concluding that while “[c]ourts have not identified a precise numerical range within which a settlement must fall in order to be deemed reasonable; [ ] an agreement that secures roughly six to twelve percent of a potential trial recovery, while preventing further expenditures and delays and eliminating the risk that no recovery at all will be won, seems to be within the targeted range of reasonableness”); In re Ravisent Techs., Inc. Sec. Litig., 2005 WL 906361, at *9 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 18, 2005) (approving settlement, which amounted to 12.2% of damages, and citing a study by Columbia University Law School, which determined that “since 1995, class action settlements have typically recovered between 5.5% and 6.2% of the class members’ estimated losses.”) (internal citations omitted). 14

3:16-CV-516, 2019 WL 6310376, at *2 (S.D. Ohio Nov. 25, 2019) (approving FLSA settlement and stating that it is reasonable to allocate settlement based on “(1) when [plaintiffs] opted into the case and (2) how many hours [plaintiffs]. Specifically, those individuals who filed claims earlier may have preserved more of their FLSA claims than those filing later claim forms.”).

B. The Requested Service Awards Should Be Approved.

The Settlement contemplates providing a $10,000 Service Award to Named Plaintiff

Rosenbohm. Service awards to a representative plaintiff recognizing the value of his or her services on behalf of other participants are proper. As stated in In re Dunn & Bradstreet Credit

Services Customer Litigation , 130 F.R.D. 366 (S.D. Ohio 1990):

Numerous courts have not hesitated to grant incentive awards to representative plaintiffs who have been able to effect substantial relief for classes they represent.

130 F.R.D. at 373 (citing Wolfson v. Riley , 94 F.R.D. 243 (N.D. Ohio 1981); Bogosian v. Gulf Oil

Corp. , 621 F. Supp. 27, 32 (E.D. Pa. 1985); In re Minolta Camera Products Antitrust Litigation ,

666 F. Supp. 750, 752 (D. Md. 1987)).

In this Circuit, service awards to representative plaintiffs are “typically justified when

named plaintiffs expend more time and effort beyond that of other class members in assisting class

counsel with litigation, such as by actively reviewing case and advising counsel in prosecution of

case.” In re Southern Ohio Correctional Facility , 175 F.R.D. 270, 273, 276 (S.D. Ohio 1997).

Courts recognize that “differentiation among class representatives based upon the role each played may be proper in given circumstances.” Dun & Bradstreet , 130 F.R.D. at 374 (citing In re

Jackson Lockdown/MCO Cases , 107 F.R.D. 703, 710 (E.D. Mich. 1985)). See also Enterprise

Energy Corp. v. Columbia Gas Transmission Corp. , 137 F.R.D. 240, 250 (S.D. Ohio 1991) (among

the factors warranting incentive awards are the “time and effort spent” by the individuals in

15

question and “whether these actions resulted in a substantial benefit to Class Members”).

In the present case, Counsel Michael Fradin’s Declaration ( see Exhibit 3) establishes that

the proposed Service Award is proper and reasonable. (Ex. 3, Fradin Decl. at ¶¶ 17-19.) Named

Plaintiff Rosenbohm’s services were effective. ( Id .) He provided extensive factual information

to Plaintiffs’ Counsel and faithfully engaged in numerous and extensive calls and other

communications with Plaintiffs’ Counsel. ( Id .) Moreover, he subjected himself to the

responsibilities of serving as named Plaintiff in a lawsuit against his former employer. ( Id .) 2

The requested payment is proportional to service payments recently awarded to plaintiffs in other

FLSA actions. See Castillo v. Morales, Inc. , 2015 WL 13021899, at *5 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 22,

2015) (Marbley, J.) (awarding $8,000 service payment to class representative in wage and hour

case); Swigart v. Fifth Third Bank , 2014 WL 3447947, at *7 (S.D. Ohio July 11, 2014)

(awarding $10,000 service payments to two class representatives in wage and hour case);

Johnson v. Midwest Logistics Sys., Ltd., 2013 WL 2295880, at *5 (S.D. Ohio May 24, 2013)

(awarding $12,500 service award).3

C. Plaintiffs’ Counsel’s Attorneys’ Fees and Litigation Costs Are Reasonable and Should Be Approved.

a. Plaintiffs’ Requested Attorney’s Fees in the Amount of $650,000 Are Reasonable.

The attorney’s fees provision of the FLSA exists to enable plaintiffs to employ reasonably competent lawyers without cost to themselves if they prevail, and thereby to help ensure

2 See Castillo v. Morales, Inc. , 2015 WL 13021899, at *5 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 22, 2015) (Marbley, J.) (awarding $8,000 service payment to class representative in wage and hour case); Swigart v. Fifth Third Bank , 2014 WL 3447947, at *7 (S.D. Ohio July 11, 2014) (awarding $10,000 service payments to two class representatives in wage and hour case); Johnson v. Midwest Logistics Sys., Ltd., 2013 WL 2295880, at *5 (S.D. Ohio May 24, 2013) (awarding $12,500 service award). 3 See also , Koszyk v. Country Fin. , 2016 WL 5109196, at *6-7 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 16, 2016) (approving $10,000 service payments for each of seven plaintiffs in a FLSA collective action). 16

enforcement of the substantive provisions of the Act. 29 U.S.C. §216(b). The provision “insure[s]

effective access to the judicial process by providing attorney fees for prevailing plaintiffs with

wage and hour grievances,” and thus “encourage[s] the vindication of congressionally identified policies and rights.” Fegley v. Higgins , 19 F.3d 1126, 1134 (6th Cir. 1994).

There are two methods for determining whether a fee is reasonable: the lodestar method

and the percentage-of-the-fund method. Van Horn v. Nationwide Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. , 436 F.

App’ 496, 498 (6th Cir. 2011). The Court has the discretion to use either the lodestar method or a percentage of the common fund to award reasonable attorney fees. Castillo v. Morales, Inc. , 2015

WL 13021899, at *6 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 22, 2015) (Marbley, J.) ( citing See Rawlings v. Prudential-

Bache Props., Inc. , 9 F.3d 513, 516-17 (6th Cir. 1993)). “In the Southern District of Ohio, the preferred method is to award a reasonable percentage of the fund, with reference to the lodestar

and the resulting multiplier.” Kimber Baldwin Designs, LLC v. Silv Commc'ns, Inc. , 2017 WL

5247538, at *5 (S.D. Ohio Nov. 13, 2017) (quotations and citation omitted). Here, Plaintiffs

request that the Court use the percentage method and award them one-third of the settlement fund.

“In FLSA collective actions in Ohio, courts have almost uniformly awarded attorney’s fees that constituted one-third of the fund.” Carr v. Bob Evans Farms, Inc. , No. 1:17-CV-1875, 2018

WL 7508650, at *4 (N.D. Ohio July 27, 2018); Brandenburg v. Cousin Vinny's Pizza, LLC, No.

3:16-CV-516, 2019 WL 6310376, at *5 (S.D. Ohio Nov. 25, 2019) (one-third of the fund “is a normal fee amount in a wage and hour case.”) 4 The Ohio practice is in accord with the practice

4 See also Osman, et al. v. Grube, Inc., et al. 2018 WL 2095172, at *5 (N.D. Ohio May 4, 2018) (awarding one-third of the fund); Rotuna v. W. Customer Mgmt. Grp., LLC , No. 4:09CV1608, 2010 WL 2490989, at *3 (N.D. Ohio June 15, 2010); Dillworth v. Case Farms Processing, Inc. , No. 5:08-CV-1694, 2010 WL 776933, at *1 (N.D. Ohio Mar. 8, 2010) (approving one-third of fund where there was a recovery constituting one-third of claimed unpaid wages; litigation risks and significant work expended; and a contingency arrangement); Kritzer v. Safelite Sols. , LLC, 2012 WL 1945144, at *9 (S.D. Ohio May 30, 2012) (awarding 52

17 throughout the Sixth Circuit and nationwide. 5 Here, Plaintiffs’ Counsel requests an award of one- third of the settlement fund as a fee award.

The Sixth Circuit considers the following factors in determining whether the requested fee is reasonable: (1) the value of the benefit rendered to the plaintiff class; (2) the value of the services on an hourly basis; (3) whether the services were undertaken on a contingent-fee basis;

(4) society’s stake in rewarding attorneys who produce such benefits in order to maintain an incentive to others; (5) the complexity of the litigation; and (6) the professional skill and standing of counsel involved on both sides. Castillo , 2015 WL 13021899, at *6 (Marbley, J.)

(citing, among others, Ramey v. Cincinnati Enquirer, Inc. , 508 F.2d 1188, 1196 (6th Cir. 1974)).

Each of these factors weighs strongly in favor of the reasonableness of the requested fee.

percent of maximum settlement fund to counsel in wage and hour case); Swigart v. Fifth Third Bank , No. 1:11-CV-88, 2014 WL 3447947, at *6 (S.D. Ohio July 11, 2014) (awarding 33 percent of $4 million settlement fund in wage and hour case); Moore v. Aerotek, Inc. , 2017 WL 2838148, at *6 (S.D. Ohio June 30, 2017), report and recommendation adopted, No. 2017 WL 3142403 (S.D. Ohio July 25, 2017) (“Fee awards in common fund cases generally are calculated as a percentage of the fund created, with the percentages awarded typically ranging from 20 to 50 percent of the common fund created.”); Kimber Baldwin Designs, LLC v. Silv Commc'ns, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-448, 2017 WL 5247538, at *5-6 (S.D. Ohio Nov. 13, 2017) (awarding one-third of $450,000 fund).

5 In Bessey v. Packerland Plainwell, Inc . 2007 WL 3173972 (W.D. Mich. 2007), the district court approved a one-third attorneys’ fee in an FLSA settlement much like the one presented here. Fulfilling Fegley ’s emphasis on “encourage[ing] the vindication of congressionally identified policies and rights,” the Bessey court found “the percentage of fund method is the proper method in this case for compensating plaintiffs’ counsel. The fact that the damages which could have been claimed by each class member were relatively modest provides a strong reason for adopting the percentage of recovery method, for it rewards counsel for taking on a case which might not otherwise be economically feasible.” Bessey , 2007 WL 3173972, at *4 (citing Rawlings v. Prudential Properties, Inc. , 9 F.3d 513, 516 (6th Cir. 1993) (the district court “must make sure that [class] counsel is fairly compensated for the amount of work done as well as for the results achieved” and “the percentage of the fund method more accurately reflects the results achieved”). Accord, In re Revco Securities Litigation , Fed. Sec. L. Rptr. ¶ 96,956, at 94,069 (N.D. Ohio 1993) (“‘[t]he percentage of the fund approach… provides a fair and equitable means of determining attorney’s fees’” because “‘the size of a common fund is an objective yardstick by which the benefit conferred upon the class can be measured’”).

18

i. Value of the Benefit Provided

Under this Settlement, all Plaintiffs receive direct cash payments representing a substantial

recovery on their alleged off-the-clock work claims. There is no initial claims process that can

dramatically decrease participation in the settlement. See Castillo , 2015 WL 13021899, at *6

(Marbley, J.) (noting, with concern, that the claims process in wage and hour settlement resulted in only 14 percent of eligible participants opting into the settlement). Instead of the risks of continued litigation, the Individual Settlement Payments provide Plaintiffs 62% of their alleged owed wages, which is well above the average recovery in FLSA lawsuits. For example, in

Dillworth , 2010 WL 776933, at *8, the Court concluded that a recovery of one-third of the owed wages for class members, before deducting attorney’s fees and costs, is “well above” average.

Similarly, in Rotuna., 2010 WL 2490989 at *8 the Court explained that a recovery of 75% to 25% of claimed wages as “exceptional.”); Measured against that standard, the Settlement in the present case is exemplary. The Individual Settlement Payments represent approximately 62% of the alleged owed overtime wages Plaintiffs were allegedly denied for 24.5 minutes of off-the-clock work per week, after deduction of the Service Award to Named Plaintiff Rosenbohm, attorneys’ fees, litigation reimbursements to Plaintiffs’ Counsel, and the cost of a third-party settlement administrator.

ii. Society’s Interest in Rewarding Attorneys

There is no doubt that “society certainly has an interest in incentivizing attorneys to assist in combatting illegal nonpayment of wages.” Castillo , 2015 WL 13021899, at *6 (Marbley, J.)

(citing Fegley v. Higgins , 19 F.3d 1126, 1134-35 (6th Cir. 1994)). Plaintiffs’ counsel took on this matter to represent Plaintiffs in their off-the-clock work claims against Defendant and litigated for nearly three years against experienced Defendant’s Counsel. This factor supports awarding

19

the requested fees to encourage qualified attorneys to represent employees in claims for unpaid

wages.

iii. Whether Services Were Undertaken on Contingent-Fee Basis

Plaintiffs’ Counsel undertook the representation on a purely contingent basis. Ex. 3,

Fradin Decl. ¶ 7. Thus, Plaintiffs’ Counsel has borne all of the risk that accompanies contingent-

fee representation, including the prospect – very real in this case, considering the possibility of

decertification and later dispositive motions – that the investment of substantial attorney time

and resources would be lost. Id . Counsel should be compensated for this risk. Lonardo v.

Travelers Indem. Co. , 706 F. Supp. 2d 766, 796 (N.D. Ohio 2010); see also Crosby v. Bowarter

Inc. Ret. Plan , 262 F. Supp. 2d 804, 814 (W.D. Mich. 2003) (“contingency serves to justify the

higher fee”). “There is a public interest in ensuring that attorneys willing to represent clients in

class action litigation are adequately paid so that they and others like them will continue to take

on such cases.” Connectivity Sys. Inc. v. Nat’l City Bank , 2011 WL 292008, at *14 (S.D. Ohio

Jan. 25, 2011).

Had this case not settled, Plaintiffs’ Counsel would have vigorously litigated the case without any promise of success and compensation. (Ex. 2, Christy Decl. at ¶ 61.) At every step of the litigation, Defendant could have succeeded. Therefore, Plaintiffs were at great risk for non- payment. (Id. ) This risk of non-payment strongly supports the amount requested here.

iv. Value of Services Rendered on an Hourly Basis

For purposes of determining a reasonable attorney’s fee, the hourly rate must be calculated in accordance with the prevailing market rate in the relevant community. Blum v.

Stenson , 465 U.S. 896, 895 (1984). Generally, the “prevailing market rate [is] defined as the rate that lawyers of comparable skill and experience can reasonably expect to command within the

20

venue of the court of record.” Geier v. Sundquist, 372 F.3d 784, 791 (6th Cir.2004) (citing

Adcock–Ladd v. Secretary of Treasury, 227 F.3d 343, 350 (6th Cir. 2000)). There is, however, an exception to the general rule that the prevailing market rates of the local community govern the lodestar analysis, and, in this circuit, the exception is known as the “out-of-town specialist.” See

Hadix, 65 F.3d at 535 (citation omitted); Louisville Black Police Officers Org. v. City of

Louisville , 700 F.2d 268, 278 (6th Cir. 1983) (“District courts are free to look to a national

market, an area of specialization market or any other market they believe appropriate to fairly

compensate particular attorneys in individual cases.”). Attorneys who specialize in particular

fields tend to charge more for their services and tend to be found in larger cities where the cost of

litigation is more expensive. See Chrapliwy, 670 F.2d at 769 (emphasis added). When fees are

sought for an “out-of-town specialist,” “courts must determine (1) whether hiring the out-of-

town specialist was reasonable in the first instance, and (2) whether the rates sought by the out-

of-town specialist are reasonable for an attorney of his or her degree of skill, experience, and

reputation.” Hadix, 65 F.3d at 535, citing Chrapliwy, 670 F.2d at 768–69.

Here, the Lawsuit was initiated by Michael L. Fradin, who is highly experienced in civil

rights and employment matters, and who is the only lawyer in Southeast Ohio who represents plaintiffs in class and collective actions. Ex. 3, Fradin Decl. ¶¶ 6-7. It was reasonable for

Plaintiffs to also retain Anthony Lazzaro and his team, who are experienced and accomplished

wage and hour attorneys in Ohio, and whose practice includes similar representation across the

country. Ex. 3, Fradin Decl. ¶ 8. When settlement negotiations stalled, Plaintiffs retained

counsel from outside the local community with extensive experience in wage and hour class mediation, Doug Werman. Id. Werman Salas P.C. are known and recognized lawyers in wage and hour litigation, and have an excellent national reputation. Osman, et al. v. Grube, Inc., et al.

21

2018 WL 2095172, at *4 (N.D. Ohio May 4, 2018)

Here, to date, Plaintiffs’ Counsel’s total lodestar fees are $680,571.77. Ex. 2, Christy

Decl. ¶ 47; Ex. 3, Fradin Decl. ¶ 10; Ex. 4 Werman Decl. ¶ 22. The allocation of fees by

timekeeper and their reasonable rates are detailed in the supporting declarations attached hereto.

Ex. 2, Christy Decl. ¶ 47; Ex. 3, Fradin Decl. ¶ 13; Ex. 4 Werman Decl. ¶¶ 22-23.

Plaintiffs’ Counsel’s requested fee is $650,000 and represents a negative 1.05multiplier of their current lodestar. This Court and others from this district have approved multipliers in other cases awarding a percentage of the fund, including similar wage and hour actions. See, e.g.,

Castillo , 2015 WL 13021899, at *7 (Marbley, J.) (2.5 multiplier of counsel’s lodestar); Swigart,

2014 WL 3447947, at *6 (2.57 multiplier of counsel’s lodestar). 6 In this complex class action

settlement, which resolves the claims of thousands of employees, Plaintiffs’ Counsel’s lodestar is

likely to substantially increase in the future. Plaintiffs’ Counsel will spend time fulfilling their

obligations in the Settlement Agreement, administering the Settlement, and responding to

Plaintiffs’ and thousands of Plaintiffs’ inquiries. Id .

v. Complexity of the Litigation

“Wage-and-hour collective and class actions are, by their very nature, complicated and

time-consuming.” Swigart, 2014 WL 3447947, at *7 (citation omitted). The parties faced

complex motion practice, both over the merits, as well as on collective treatment.

The attorneys’ fees requested by Plaintiffs’ Counsel should not be altered because counsel

efficiently resolved this case early on rather than prolonging the litigation and increasing the potential fees. As the Manual for Complex Litigation recognizes, “one purpose of the percentage

method is to encourage early settlements by not penalizing efficient counsel, thus ensuring

6 See also Johnson , 2013 WL 2295880, at *6 (Marbley, J.) (2.25 multiplier of counsel’s lodestar); Lowther v. AK Steel Corp. , 2012 WL 6676131, at *5 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 21, 2012) (3.06 multiplier). 22

competent counsel continue to be willing to undertake risky, complex, and novel litigation.”

Manual for Complex Litigation (4th) § 14.121.

Plaintiffs’ Counsel’s Declarations contain information that demonstrates the

reasonableness of the proposed fees and expenses. ( See Exhibits 2 and 3.) Plaintiffs’ Counsel has

worked diligently in representing Named Plaintiff Rosenbohm and the Opt-In Plaintiffs. Prior to

filing the Lawsuit, Plaintiffs’ Counsel performed a significant amount of research and factual

investigation of the claims to set forth a factually specific and accurate Complaint for the Court

and Defendant. (Ex. 2, Christy Decl. at ¶ 27; Ex. 3, Fradin Decl, at ¶ 11.) This included

interviewing and obtaining declarations from numerous putative class members. (Ex. 2, Christy

Decl. at ¶ 27; Ex. 3, Fradin Decl. at ¶ 11.)

Over the course of almost (3) years, this matter was contentiously litigated. (Ex. 2, Christy

Decl.¶ 30.) The Parties engaged in substantial discovery and significant motion practice. ( Id. at ¶

52.) Plaintiff filed a Motion for Conditional Certification, which Defendant opposed. ( Id. ) The

Parties engaged in disputes relating to representative discovery, which included conferences with

Magistrate Judge Vascura and the filing of Objections and a Response to Magistrate Judge

Vascura’s Opinions and Orders relating to representative discovery. ( Id. at ¶ 52.)

Plaintiffs’ Counsel issued the Notice via First-Class Mail and email to approximately

33,000 putative class members, and spoke to hundreds of class members during the course of the notice administration ( Id . at ¶ 53.)

The Parties engaged in close to a year of discovery, including written discovery, which included the production and review of policy documents and timekeeping, payroll and scheduling data. (Ex. 2, Christy Decl. at ¶ 54.) Moreover, discovery included the distribution of an agreed- upon questionnaire, which was sent to more than 190 Plaintiffs. ( Id . at ¶ 55.) The questionnaires

23

were sent to Opt-In Plaintiffs from the period of time between July 31, 2019 and February 21,

2020, as certain Opt-In Plaintiffs failed to respond and were dismissed with prejudice from the

Lawsuit. ( Id .) Plaintiffs’ Counsel served the questionnaires, made calls to Opt-In Plaintiffs in an

attempt to get them to respond to the questionnaires, and engaged in telephone conferences with

Opt-In Plaintiffs who had questions relating to the questionnaires. ( Id .)

Additionally, Plaintiffs’ Counsel engaged in discussions and correspondence with the

Named Plaintiff Rosenbohm and thousands of the Opt-In Plaintiffs relating to their off-the-clock work claims, including hundreds of telephone conferences and interviews. ( Id . at ¶56.) Plaintiffs’

Counsel distributed two separate sets of surveys to the approximately 4,000 Plaintiffs, and reviewed and analyzed all of the responses submitted. ( Id . at ¶ 59.)

Moreover, Plaintiffs’ Counsel reviewed and analyzed time, pay, and schedule data of the

Plaintiffs, and performed substantial calculations relating to the alleged damages, which included preparing spreadsheets detailing the calculations performed for the Plaintiffs. ( Id . at ¶ 60; Ex. 4,

Werman Decl. at ¶ 15-19.)

vi. Professional Skill and Standing of Counsel

Counsel are highly qualified and experienced, and each have substantial credentials in federal courts and class and collective action litigation. Ex. 2, Christy Decl. ¶¶ 2-15; Ex. 3, Fradin

Decl. ¶ 3-6; Ex. 4 Werman Decl. ¶ 4-14.

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ Counsel’s requested attorney’s fees of $650,000 should be approved.

b. Plaintiff’s Litigation Costs Should Be Approved.

The litigation expenses sought to be reimbursed are proper and reasonable. Expenses are estimated to be approximately $46,973.64, which includes costs of $29,153.07 for mailing the

Notice to putative collective action members, $11,500.00 for the mediator’s fees, and $2,301.00 24

in travel and other expenses for Plaintiffs’ Counsel to attend the mediation in Chicago, Illinois.

(Ex. 2, Christy Decl at ¶ 66; Ex. 3, ¶ 16.) The expenses incurred are reasonable and their

reimbursement should be approved. Swigart , 2014 WL 3447947, at *7 (reimbursing $39,406.46 in out-of-pocket litigation expenses” that “were reasonable and necessary in connection with litigating and resolving this case and are reimbursable.”) .

D. The Court Should Approve the Settlement Administrator’s Fee

The Could should approve $22,000.00 as settlement administration costs for fees and expenses for a third-party administrator to administer the settlement funds. (Ex. 2, Christy Decl at ¶ 66.) All expenses were incurred during the course of the litigation of this Lawsuit or will be incurred during the administration of the Settlement, including the cost of a third-party administrator. (Id . at ¶ 66; Ex. 3, Fradin Decl. at ¶ 16 .)

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons addressed above, the Parties respectfully request that this Court approve the Settlement by entering the Proposed Order Approving Settlement and Dismissal with Prejudice attached as hereto as Exhibit 1F to the Settlement Agreement.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Chastity L. Christy /s/ Tonya B. Braun (with consent) Chastity L. Christy (0076977) Tonya B. Braun (0075048) Anthony J. Lazzaro (0077962) Jones Day Lori M. Griffin (0085241) 325 John H. McConnell Boulevard, Suite 600 The Lazzaro Law Firm, LLC Columbus, Ohio 43215 The Heritage Building, Suite 250 Phone: (614) 469-3939 34555 Chagrin Boulevard Facsimile: (614) 461-4198 Moreland Hills, Ohio 44022 [email protected] Phone: 216-696-5000 Facsimile: 216-696-7005 Stanley Weiner (0083382) [email protected] Jones Day [email protected] 2727 North Harwood Street [email protected] Dallas, Texas 75201 Phone: (214) 969 -3731 25

Michael L. Fradin Facsimile: (214) 969-5100 Law Office of Michael L. Fradin [email protected] 8401 Crawford Avenue, Suite 104 Skokie, Illinois 60076 Phone: 847- 644-3425 Facsimile: 847-673-1228 [email protected]

Douglas M. Werman Werman Salas, P.C. 77 West Washington St., Suite 1402 Chicago, Illinois 60602 Phone: 312-419-1008 [email protected]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on June 12, 2020, a copy of the foregoing was filed electronically. Notice of this filing will be sent to all parties by operation of the Court’s electronic filing system. Parties may access this filing through the Court’s system.

/s/ Chastity L. Christy Chastity L. Christy

26

Exhibit 1 Settlement Agreement

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

NEIL ROSENBOHM V. VERIZON WIRELESS

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

This agreement, along with all exhibits hereto, (collectively, the “Settlement Agreement”), is entered into by and between Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless (“Defendant” or

“Verizon Wireless”), and Neil Rosenbohm (“Named Plaintiff Rosenbohm”), for himself and on behalf of the opt-in plaintiffs who have filed consent forms to join this action (the “Opt-in

Plaintiffs,” and together with Named Plaintiff Rosenbohm, “Plaintiffs”), in the case of Neil

Rosenbohm v. Cello Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless, Case No. 2:17-cv-731, filed in the United

States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio (the “Lawsuit”). This Settlement Agreement is subject to approval by the Court.

RECITALS

WHEREAS, on August 19, 2017, Named Plaintiff Rosenbohm initiated this collective action lawsuit pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and, on

November 9, 2017, filed his Amended Complaint individually, and on behalf of other non-exempt

Solutions Specialists who worked in the Company’s retail stores nationwide, asserting off-the- clock work allegations against Verizon Wireless.

WHEREAS, on January 8, 2018, Verizon Wireless filed an Answer denying the material allegations of the Amended Complaint.

WHEREAS, on January 12, 2018, Named Plaintiff Rosenbohm filed a Motion for

Conditional Certification, Expedited Opt-in Discovery, and Court-Supervised Notice To Potential

Opt-in Plaintiffs (“Motion for Conditional Certification”), seeking to certify a nationwide class of

Solution Specialists who work or worked in one of the Company’s retail stores during the relevant period.

WHEREAS, on March 2, 2018, Verizon Wireless filed its Opposition to Named Plaintiff

Rosenbohm’s Motion for Conditional Certification.

WHEREAS, on September 17, 2018, the District Court granted Named Plaintiff

Rosenbohm’s Motion for Conditional Certification and, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), conditionally certified a class consisting of “all former and current Solutions Specialists employed by Cellco Partnership nationwide at any time during the three years prior to the granting of [the] motion to the present.”

WHEREAS, notice of the Lawsuit was sent via First Class mail to the conditionally certified class in October 2018 and over 3,900 individuals filed consent forms opting into the

Lawsuit.

WHEREAS, the parties agreed to engage in a due diligence period between December

2018 and March 2019, during which time Verizon Wireless provided timekeeping, payroll, and scheduling records for an agreed-upon number of Plaintiffs to facilitate settlement discussions.

WHEREAS, following the unsuccessful settlement discussions, the parties thereafter engaged in several months of discovery, during which time Verizon Wireless responded to written discovery, including the production of policy documents and additional timekeeping, payroll and scheduling data, and Plaintiffs’ Counsel distributed an agreed-upon questionnaire to more than

190 Plaintiffs.

WHEREAS, during the course of discovery, certain Plaintiffs have been dismissed from the Lawsuit with prejudice. A list of the dismissed individuals is attached hereto as Exhibit 1A.

WHEREAS, the Parties agree that certain Plaintiffs do not fall within the conditionally certified class and therefore request that they be dismissed without prejudice at the time the Court enters an order approving the Settlement Agreement and dismissing the Lawsuit with prejudice.

A list of the individuals to be dismissed without prejudice is attached hereto as Exhibit 1B.

-2-

WHEREAS, the Parties agree that certain Plaintiffs who did not respond to discovery should be dismissed from the case with prejudice at the time the Court enters an order approving the Settlement Agreement and dismissing the Lawsuit with prejudice. A list of the individuals to be dismissed with prejudice is attached hereto as Exhibit 1C.

WHEREAS, on November 12, 2019 the parties agreed to a stay of the Lawsuit in order to pursue mediation.

WHEREAS, on March 2, 2020, a mediation was held in Chicago, Illinois, with Michael

Dickstein, a nationally-recognized and well-respected mediator of FLSA collective actions and, after a full-day mediation, the parties arrived at an agreement to settle Plaintiffs’ off-the-clock work claims and dismiss the Lawsuit with prejudice.

WHEREAS, Verizon Wireless denies that it engaged in any unlawful or improper conduct including, expressly, all off-the-clock work claims of Plaintiffs; denies all liability and damages of any kind to anyone regarding Plaintiffs’ off-the-clock work claims; and denies that the Lawsuit could be litigated on a collective action basis; but nonetheless, without admitting or conceding any liability or damages whatsoever or the propriety of a representative action, has agreed to settle on the terms and conditions in this Settlement Agreement to avoid the burden, expense, and uncertainty of continuing the Lawsuit.

WHEREAS, the parties recognize that the final outcome in the Lawsuit is uncertain and that achieving a final result through the litigation and appeal process would require substantial additional risk, time, and expense.

WHEREAS, Plaintiff and Plaintiffs’ Counsel have investigated and evaluated the facts and law relating to Plaintiffs’ claims asserted in the Lawsuit and other potential off-the-clock claims to determine how best to serve the interests of the Plaintiffs and believe, in view of the costs, risks,

-3-

and delay of continued litigation balanced against the benefits of settlement, that the settlement as provided in this Settlement Agreement is in the best interests of the Plaintiffs and that the settlement provided in this Settlement Agreement represents a fair, reasonable, and adequate resolution of the Lawsuit.

WHEREAS, the parties have agreed to settle this case as to all Plaintiffs, all of whom are parties to this Settlement Agreement by virtue of Named Plaintiff Rosenbohm and Plaintiff’s

Counsel executing the Settlement Agreement on their behalf.

WHEREAS, the Settlement Agreement is intended to, and does, effectuate the full, final, and complete resolution of all off-the-clock claims under federal and state law, including without limitation all known or unknown claims for overtime compensation, liquidated damages, penalties, and interest.

NOW THEREFORE, the parties, intending to be legally bound and in consideration of the mutual covenants and other good and valuable consideration set forth below, do hereby agree as follows:

AGREEMENT

1. Definitions. In addition to various terms defined within the Settlement Agreement, the terms listed in this section shall have the meanings ascribed to them for purposes of this Settlement

Agreement:

(a) Plaintiffs’ Counsel: “Plaintiffs’ Counsel” refers to Werman Salas P.C., The Lazzaro

Law Firm, LLC, and Fradin Law.

(b) Defendant’s Counsel. “Defendant’s Counsel” refers to Jones Day.

(c) Plaintiffs: “Plaintiffs” refers to the list of individuals attached hereto as Exhibit 1D

who submitted consent forms to join this Lawsuit and (i) have not previously been

-4-

dismissed from this Lawsuit with prejudice (see Exhibit 1A) or (ii) are not among

those the Parties seek to have dismissed at the time the Court enters an order

approving the Settlement Agreement and dismissing the Lawsuit with prejudice

(see Exhibits 1B and 1C).

(d) Calculation Period: The “Calculation Period” is the date three years prior to the

date each Opt-In Plaintiff filed with the Court his or her consent to join the Lawsuit

until the latter of their termination of employment or September 29, 2019. Any

week that falls within the Calculation Period is an Applicable Work Week.

2. Settlement Amount. Defendant agrees to a gross settlement amount of $1,950,000.00

(“Settlement Amount”) to be paid and allocated as set forth below. The Settlement Amount is inclusive of all payments made to Plaintiffs; a service award to Named Plaintiff Rosenbohm as approved by the Court; Plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees and costs as approved by the Court; and the fees and costs associated with settlement administration as approved by the Court. Defendant’s settlement liability, other than the employer-portion share of payroll taxes, shall not exceed

$1,950,000.00 under any circumstances.

3. Payments Made to Plaintiffs. As further described below in Paragraph 7, the total pro rata settlement payments to Plaintiffs will be equal to the amount of the Settlement Payment remaining after deducting the administrative costs of settlement, and then the Court-approved attorneys’ fees and costs and the Service Award to Named Plaintiff Rosenbohm.

4. Settlement Amount Payable As Service Award To Named Plaintiff Rosenbohm. Plaintiffs’

Counsel will request a service payment for Named Plaintiff Rosenbohm in the amount of

$10,000.00. Defendant will not oppose or object to such request.

-5-

5. Settlement Amount Payable As Attorneys’ Fees and Costs. Plaintiffs’ Counsel will seek their attorneys’ fees of not more than one-third of the Settlement Amount, in the amount of

$650,000.00, plus reasonable expenses in the amount of $46,973.64. Defendant will not oppose or object to such requests.

6. Settlement Amount Payable As Settlement Administration Costs. A reserve in the amount of $22,000 will be set aside for fees and expenses for claims administration work as detailed in

Paragraph 9.

7. Allocation of Settlement Payments Made to Plaintiffs. The administrative costs of settlement, and then the Court-approved attorneys’ fees and costs and the Service Award to Named

Plaintiff Rosenbohm shall be deducted from the Settlement Amount before determining the pro rata settlement payments to Plaintiffs.

(a) The Settlement Payments will be calculated by first computing the Alleged Owed

Overtime Wages in the Calculation Period as follows:

(i) For each Applicable Work Week, the sum of hours in the Time History

Reports with a Time Sheet Punch Type “Start” or “Meal In” and the Time

Code Description “Work Hours” equals Recorded Hours. For each

Applicable Work Week, the sum of hours in the Payroll Reports with the

descriptions Regular Pay, OT Paid @ 1.0, OT Paid @ 1.0 Times, OT Paid

@ 1.5 Times, and OT Paid @ 2.0 Times equals Recorded Hours. The most

complete data set was used as Recorded Hours per Week.

(ii) For each Applicable Work Week, the sum of amounts in the Payroll

Reports with the descriptions Regular Pay, OT Paid @ 1.0 Times, OT Paid

@ 1.0, 35% Sunday Shift Diff, Sunday Worked Premium – 35%, Bilingual

-6-

Pay, FLSA True Up (x2), OT True Up @ 1.5 (/1.5), OT True Up @ 2.0 (/2)

equals Total Regular Wages.

(iii) For Work Weeks in which the Payroll Reports appear to be accurate, Total

Regular Wages divided by the Recorded Hours per Week equal the Regular

Rate of Pay. For Work Weeks in which the Time History Reports appear to

be more accurate, the Regular Rate of Pay is the average of each

individual’s rate of pay from the Payroll Reports.

(iv) Plaintiffs’ alleged “Off the Clock Time” plus Recorded Hours per Work

Week equals Total Hours Worked per Work Week. For settlement purposes

only, and without Defendant admitting or conceding any liability or

damages, the alleged Off the Clock Time claimed by Plaintiffs is

approximately 24.5 minutes per week.

(v) If the employee’s Hours Recorded in a Work Week were equal to or greater

than 40.00, then the Off the Clock Time multiplied by one-and-one-half

times the employee’s Regular Rate of Pay equals the Alleged Additional

Earned Overtime Wages.

(vi) For Work Weeks where the employee’s Hours Recorded were less than

40.00, but together with the Off the Clock Time were greater than 40.00,

then only the portion of Off the Clock Time that is greater than 40.00

multiplied by one and one half times the employee’s Regular Rate of Pay

equals the Alleged Additional Earned Overtime Wages.

(vii) For each Work Week, the sum of the amounts in the Payroll Reports with

the Descriptions 7th Day Premium, Holiday Premium @ 0.5 Times, Holiday

-7-

Premium @ 1.5 Times, Holiday Worked @ 0.5, Holiday Worked Premium

– 150%, OT Paid @ 0.5 Times, OT Paid @ 2.0 Times (Code 7TH), OT True

Up @ 2.0 (/2), OT Paid @ 1.5 Times (/3), and OT Paid @ 2.0 Times (/2)

equal Premium Wage Payments. Alleged Additional Earned Overtime

Wages minus Premium Wage Payments equals Alleged Owed Overtime

Wages.

(b) The ratable shares of the Net Settlement Amount for the Plaintiffs were determined by dividing each individual’s Alleged Owed Overtime Wages (the numerator) by the total of all

Alleged Owed Overtime Wages for all individuals (the denominator). The result is each individual’s Pro Rata Factor. The Pro Rata Factors for the Plaintiffs multiplied by the Net

Settlement Amount is each individual’s “Preliminary Settlement Amount.”

(c) Plaintiffs shall be eligible to receive a minimum Settlement Payment of $25.00

(“Minimum Settlement Payment”). Named Plaintiff Rosenbohm’s and Opt-in Plaintiffs’

Settlement Payment shall be computed as follows:

(i) If the Plaintiff’s Preliminary Settlement Amount is less than $25.00, their

Settlement Payment will be increased to the Minimum Settlement Payment

of $25.00.

(ii) All Minimum Settlement Payments shall be subtracted from the Net

Settlement Fund, which shall yield the “Adjusted Net Settlement Fund.”

(iii) Any Plaintiff whose Preliminary Settlement Amount exceeds $25.00 will

have his or her Pro Rata Factor recalculated, omitting data from all

Minimum Settlement Payment recipients. Their Alleged Owed Overtime

Wages shall be divided by the sum of all Alleged Owed Overtime Wages

-8-

for all individuals whose Preliminary Settlement Amount exceeds $25.00.

The quotient will be referred to as the “Adjusted Pro Rata Factor.”

(iv) The Settlement Payment for each Plaintiff whose Settlement Amount

exceeds $25.00 shall be computed by multiplying his or her Adjusted Pro

Rata Factor by the Adjusted Net Settlement Fund.

(d) None of the amounts paid to Named Plaintiff Rosenbohm or Opt-in Plaintiffs shall create any credit for, or be included in, or otherwise affect or alter the calculation or accrual of any employee benefit plans, programs, agreements or policies supplied, sponsored, maintained, contributed or otherwise provided by Defendant, including for purposes of any incentive plan.

8. Stay; Motion for Court Approval; Consequences if Not Approved. The parties agree to stay the Lawsuit, except such proceedings as necessary to obtain approval of their forthcoming jointly filed Motion for Approval of Settlement with the Court, including the Individual Release

Agreement, in the form attached hereto as Exhibit 1E, and the proposed Order Approving

Settlement and Dismissal with Prejudice, in the form attached hereto as Exhibit 1F (or substantially similar forms mutually agreeable to the parties). The parties will cooperate and take all necessary steps to effectuate judicial approval of the Settlement Agreement and the motion for attorneys’ fees and costs. The parties agree that this settlement is contingent upon the Motion for Approval of the Settlement Agreement, and should the Court not approve any material terms in its entirety, the parties agree to engage in follow-up negotiations with the intent of resolving the Court’s concerns that precluded initial approval, including, if impasse is reached, by continuation of mediation with mediator Michael Dickstein and resubmitting the settlement for approval. If the settlement is not approved as resubmitted or if the parties are not able to reach another agreement, litigation of the Lawsuit resumes. If litigation of the Lawsuit resumes, the case will proceed as if

-9-

no settlement has been attempted.

9. Settlement Administrator. If the Court grants approval of the Settlement Agreement, the settlement will be administered by a third-party administrator (“Settlement Administrator”).

Defendant will select the Settlement Administrator after consulting with Plaintiffs’ Counsel. The

Settlement Administrator shall be required to agree to a reasonable not-to-exceed cap for all fees and expenses for the claims administration work. Once retained, the Settlement Administrator will establish a “qualified settlement fund” within the meaning of Treasury Regulations § 1.468B-1, et seq. (“QSF”), to which the Defendant will pay the Settlement Amount as defined in Paragraph 2, and the employer-portion share of taxes as set forth herein. The Settlement Administrator will be responsible for administering the entire settlement, including all applicable tax withholding, and issuing all applicable tax forms and completing all required tax reporting.

10. Tax Matters.

(a) In connection with Defendant’s transfer of funds into the QSF, the following

definitions will apply:

(i) Defendant will be a “transferor” within the meaning of Treasury Regulation § 1.468B-1(d)(1) to the QSF with respect to the amounts transferred; and

(ii) The Settlement Administrator will be the “administrator” of the QSF within the meaning of Treasury Regulation § 1.468B-2(k)(3), responsible for causing the filing of all tax returns required to be filed by or with respect to the QSF, paying from the QSF any taxes owed by or with respect to the QSF, and applying with any applicable information reporting or tax withholding requirements imposed by Treasury Regulation § 1.468B-2(1)(2) or any other applicable law on or with respect to the QSF, and in accordance with this Settlement Agreement.

(b) The Settlement Administrator shall promptly provide a current Internal Revenue

Service (“IRS”) Form W-9 of the QSF to Defendant.

-10-

(c) For tax purposes, 50% of each Plaintiff’s payment of his or her portion of the

Settlement Amount pursuant to Paragraph 7 will be treated as wages and 50% of

such payment shall be treated as liquidated damages. The Settlement Administrator

will withhold from each such payment that is treated as wages the individual’s share

of all applicable federal, state, and local income and employment taxes, and shall

report that portion to the IRS and the payee under the payee’s name and social

security number on an IRS Form W-2. The portion of each such payment that is

treated as liquidated damages are not wages and will be paid without withholding,

and will be reported, along with each Plaintiff’s pro-rata share of attorneys’ fees, to

the IRS and the payee under the payee’s name and social security number on an

IRS Form 1099-Misc. in Box 3. With respect to Plaintiffs who are current Verizon

Wireless employees, withholding amounts shall be determined with reference to

each of those employee’s last IRS Form W-4 and applicable state equivalent

provided to, and on file with, Verizon Wireless.

(d) Any Court-approved Service Payment to Named Plaintiff Rosenbohm shall be

treated as non-wages, and will be paid without withholding, and will be reported

by the Claims Administrator to the IRS and the payee under the payee’s name and

social security number on an IRS Form 1099-Misc. in Box 3.

(e) Attorneys’ fees and costs paid pursuant to Paragraph 5 are not wages, and shall be

paid without withholding, and such fees and costs shall be reported by the Claims

Administrator to the IRS and the applicable attorney under the law firm’s name and

taxpayer identification number on an IRS Form 1099-Misc.

-11-

(f) Defendant will pay to the QSF the employer-portion share of the FICA tax and any

federal and state unemployment tax, with respect to payments of the Settlement

Amount that are treated as wages.

(g) Plaintiff’s Counsel and each Plaintiff agrees that he or she shall be solely

responsible for all taxes, interest, and penalties due with respect to any payment

received by him or her pursuant to this Settlement Agreement (other than the

employer-portion share of payroll taxes as set forth above) and shall indemnify,

defend and hold Defendant harmless from and against any and all taxes, interest,

penalties, attorneys’ fees and other costs imposed on Defendant as a result of

Plaintiff’s Counsel and/or a Plaintiff’s failure to timely pay such taxes that were not

employer obligations.

(h) Plaintiffs and Defendant shall have no liability or responsibility whatsoever for

taxes of the QSF (other than Defendant’s funding of the employer obligations as

set forth above) or the filing of any tax returns, information reports or other

documents with the IRS or any other taxing authority with respect thereto. Further,

Defendant shall have no liability or responsibility whatsoever for taxes of Plaintiffs’

Counsel.

(i) Per Treasury Department Circular 230, this Agreement is not intended to provide

tax advice, and any tax advice contained in this Agreement or any notice

summarizing this Agreement is not intended to be used, and cannot be used, for the

purpose of avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or promoting,

marketing, or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed

herein.

-12-

11. Settlement Administration. The parties agree to the following procedure for settlement administration, unless superseded by applicable court order. The timeline of the proposed procedure for settlement administration is attached hereto as Exhibit 1G.

(a) Within 7 business days after the Court approves the Settlement Agreement,

Plaintiffs’ Counsel will provide the Settlement Administrator in a readable and

workable format inclusive of applicable formula functions such as a Microsoft

Excel spreadsheet or Microsoft Access database, the ratable amount of each

Plaintiff’s Individual Settlement Payment as described in Paragraph 7.

(b) Within 7 business days after the Court approves the Settlement Agreement,

Defendant will provide the names, mailing addresses, and Social Security Numbers

of all Plaintiffs to the Settlement Administrator (“Contact Information”). During

this same time period, Plaintiffs’ Counsel will provide the Settlement Administrator

with its most updated list of mailing and email addresses for Plaintiffs, which

updated information shall be used if in conflict with the Contact Information

provided by Defendant and the individual is not a current employee.

(c) Within 7 business days of receiving the list identifying each Plaintiff’s Individual

Settlement Payment described in subpart (a) above, the Settlement Administrator

will calculate and notify Defendant of the final amount due from Defendant for the

employer’s share of payroll taxes, including FICA tax and any federal and state

unemployment tax, with respect to payments of the Settlement Amount that are

treated as wages.

(d) Within 21 business days after receipt of the final amount due for the employer’s

share of payroll taxes described in subpart (c) above, Defendant will fund the QSF

-13-

with the Settlement Amount as defined in Paragraph 2, approved by the Court, and

the employer’s share of payroll taxes.

(e) Within 14 business days after the QSF is funded as provided for in subpart (d)

above, the Settlement Administrator will transmit the Court-approved Service

Award to Named Plaintiff Rosenbohm.

(f) Within 14 business days after the QSF is funded as provided for in subpart (d)

above, the Settlement Administrator will transmit the Court-approved attorneys’

fees and costs to Plaintiffs’ Counsel as they direct.

(g) Within 21 business days after the QSF is funded as provided for in subparts (d)

above, the Settlement Administrator will send by First Class Mail the settlement

checks for each Plaintiff’s Individual Settlement Payment.

(h) Between 65 and 80 business days after mailing the settlement checks, the

Settlement Administrator will send a follow-up notice to be approved by the parties

to any Plaintiffs who have not negotiated their check.

(i) On a rolling basis, the Settlement Administrator will make reasonable efforts to

obtain valid current addresses through a “skip trace” search through the National

Change of Address (“NOCA”) database for any Plaintiffs whose settlement check

is returned as undeliverable. Defendant and Plaintiffs’ Counsel will provide their

best information to and cooperate with the Settlement Administrator to respond to

any reasonable inquiries from the Settlement Administrator necessary to complete

its responsibilities under this Paragraph. Any and all information provided for the

purpose of locating persons whose Individual Settlement Check is returned as

undeliverable, including social security numbers, provided by Defendant shall be

-14-

held in confidence, retained in an electronically secure manner, and shall be used

solely for purposes of effectuating this Settlement Agreement.

(j) For any Plaintiff whose settlement check is not returned undeliverable, but who

contacts the Settlement Administrator (whether directly or through Plaintiffs’

Counsel) to report an address update or a failure to receive the settlement check,

the Settlement Administrator will, after verification of identity, stop payment on

the first check and re-issue a new check to the updated mailing address.

(k) On a rolling basis, the Settlement Administrator will provide the parties with copies

of cancelled checks, including the endorsement on the back of the check or other

proof of endorsement, for all settlement checks that have been cashed or paid.

(l) The Settlement Administrator’s duties shall also include providing periodic updates

to the parties’ counsel regarding withdrawals, skip tracing and remailing(s) for any

mailings returned undeliverable; responding to class member inquiries; validating

a Plaintiff’s claim of lost or destroyed check(s) before reissuing replacement checks

for such lost or destroyed check(s); and handling and/or correcting any

administrative errors such as erroneous payments or check(s) that are both

physically deposited at a financial institution and deposited remotely. At the

conclusion of the settlement process, the Settlement Administrator will provide

Plaintiffs’ Counsel with a final updated contact list for Plaintiffs, and will provide

both parties a final accounting of Plaintiffs who negotiated their checks.

(m) Plaintiffs shall have 120 business days after mailing to cash their checks. Any

settlement checks not cashed within 120 business days after mailing will be voided

and a stop-payment will be issued. The settlement check amounts will be subject

-15-

to the unclaimed property laws of the Plaintiff’s last known state of residence. The

Claims Administrator will comply with reporting and remittance obligations under

such applicable unclaimed property laws. Within twenty (20) business days after

the date 120 business days have passed since the checks were mailed, the

Settlement Administrator shall provide a list to Plaintiffs’ Counsel and Defendant’s

Counsel of checks not delivered or not cashed.

(n) Neither Defendant, Defendant’s Counsel, Plaintiff, nor Plaintiffs’ Counsel will

have any liability for lost or stolen checks, forged signatures on checks,

unauthorized negotiation of checks, or failure to timely cash a check within the 120

business day period.

12. Named Plaintiff Release. As a condition precedent to the effectiveness of this Settlement

Agreement, Named Plaintiff Rosenbohm shall timely and fully execute and return an Individual

Release Agreement in the form attached hereto as Exhibit 1E. The Court’s approval of the

Individual Release Agreement is a further condition precedent to this Settlement Agreement.

13. Opt-In Release. The Court’s approval of the language of the release to be included on the back of the settlement checks issued to Plaintiffs is a condition precedent to this Settlement

Agreement. The back of the settlement check will contain the following language set forth in

Paragraph 13(a) below the endorsement/signature line:

(a) “My endorsement of this check acknowledges that I am receiving this payment

pursuant to the resolution of the lawsuit captioned Rosenbohm v. Cellco

Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless, Case No. 2:17-cv-731 (S.D. Ohio), and that I

opted into the case as a party plaintiff under Section 16(b) of the Fair Labor

Standards Act. I understand that my claims in this case have been resolved and that

-16-

I have released all off-the-clock work claims under federal and state law against

Verizon Wireless, through the date of the settlement, including without limitation

all known or unknown claims for overtime compensation, liquidated damages,

penalties, and interest.”

14. List of Plaintiffs. The parties have reviewed the list of individuals who submitted consent forms to join this Lawsuit and who have not previously been dismissed from this Lawsuit with prejudice (see Exhibit 1A) and who the Parties are not seeking to have dismissed at the time the

Court enters an order approving the Settlement Agreement and dismissing the Lawsuit with prejudice (see Exhibits 1B and 1C, respectively). These individuals are listed in Exhibit 1D.

15. No Admission of Liability or Appropriateness of Class Treatment. By entering into this

Settlement Agreement, Defendant admits no liability of any kind, and Defendant expressly denies any liability or wrongdoing. The parties further agree that this Settlement Agreement does not constitute a determination or admission that any group of similarly situated employees exists to maintain a collective action under the FLSA, and in the event that this Settlement Agreement or a subsequent settlement in the Lawsuit by the parties is not approved by the Court, the parties agree that they will return to the status quo ante and that Defendant may argue that collective treatment is not proper under the FLSA. This Settlement Agreement shall not be admissible in any court or other proceeding except as necessary in connection with a claim of breach of this Settlement

Agreement, an effort to enforce this Settlement Agreement, or for resolution of tax or other legal issues arising from a payment under this Settlement Agreement.

16. Continuing Jurisdiction. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio shall retain continuing and exclusive jurisdiction over the parties to this Settlement Agreement for the purpose of the administration and enforcement of this Settlement Agreement. Any dispute,

-17-

challenge, question, or the like relating to this Settlement Agreement shall be heard only by this

Court, unless the Court rules that it will not hear any such dispute, challenge, question, or the like relating to this Settlement Agreement.

17. Authority to Bind Plaintiffs. Named Plaintiff Rosenbohm and Plaintiffs’ Counsel warrant and represent that they are authorized to bind all Plaintiffs to this Settlement Agreement, on the terms stated herein, upon his execution of this Settlement Agreement. It is agreed by all parties that the execution of this Settlement Agreement shall have the same force and effect as if this

Settlement Agreement were executed by each Plaintiff.

18. Choice of Law. The enforcement of this Settlement Agreement shall be governed and interpreted by and under the laws of the State of Ohio whether or not any party is, or may hereafter be, a resident of another state.

19. Extension of Time. The parties may, by mutual agreement, agree upon a reasonable extension of time for deadlines and dates reflected in this Settlement Agreement, without further notice to the Court.

20. No Waivers, Modifications, Amendments. No waiver, modification or amendment of this

Settlement Agreement, whether purportedly made before or after the Court’s approval of this

Settlement Agreement, shall be valid or binding unless in writing, signed by or on behalf of all parties and then only to the extent set forth in such written waiver, modification or amendment, subject to any required Court approval. Any failure by any party to insist upon the strict performance by the other party of any of the provisions of this Settlement Agreement shall not be deemed a waiver of any of the other provisions of this Settlement Agreement, and such party, notwithstanding such failure, shall have the right thereafter to insist upon the specific performance of all of the provisions of this Settlement Agreement.

-18-

21. Severability. This Settlement Agreement shall be deemed severable, and the invalidity or unenforceability of any one or more of its provisions shall not affect the validity or enforceability of any of the other provisions.

22. Sole and Entire Agreement. This Settlement Agreement constitutes the entire agreement of Defendant and Plaintiffs concerning the subjects contained herein, and all prior and contemporaneous negotiations and understandings between those parties shall be deemed merged into this Settlement Agreement. This Settlement Agreement has been drafted jointly and is not to be construed against any party.

23. Counterparts. This Settlement Agreement shall become effective upon its execution and subsequent Court approval. The parties may execute this Settlement Agreement in counterparts, and execution in counterparts shall have the same force and effect as if Named Plaintiff

Rosenbohm, Plaintiffs’ Counsel, and Defendant had signed the same instrument. Any signature made and transmitted by email to execute this Settlement Agreement shall be deemed an original signature for purposes of this Settlement Agreement and shall bind the signing party.

24. Captions. The captions or headings of the paragraphs in this Settlement Agreement are inserted for convenience or reference only and shall have no effect upon the construction or interpretation of any part of this Settlement Agreement.

25. Payments Do Not Trigger Right to Benefits. Any payments to Plaintiffs pursuant to this

Settlement Agreement do not trigger any entitlement or right to benefits under Verizon Wireless’ benefit plans. All Individual Settlement Payments and the Service Payment to Named Plaintiff

Rosenbohm shall be deemed to be paid in the year in which such payments actually are received.

It is expressly understood and agreed that the receipt of a settlement payment by a Plaintiff or the

Service Payment to Named Plaintiff Rosenbohm will not entitle any such individual to additional

-19-

compensation or benefits under any company bonus, contest, or other compensation or benefit plan or agreement in place during the period covered by the Settlement Agreement, nor will it entitle any such individual to any increased retirement, 401(k) benefits or matching benefits, or deferred compensation benefits. It is the intent of the parties that the Individual Settlement Payments and the Service Payment to Named Plaintiff Rosenbohm are the sole payments to be made to Plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs are not entitled to any new or additional compensation or benefits as a result of having received an Individual Settlement Payment or a Service Payment (notwithstanding any contrary language or agreement in any benefit or compensation plan document that might have been in effect during the period covered by this Settlement Agreement).

26. No Inducements. Named Plaintiff Rosenbohm and Plaintiffs’ Counsel acknowledge that they are entering into this Settlement Agreement as a free and voluntary act without duress or undue pressure or influence of any kind or nature whatsoever and they have not has relied on any promises, representations or warranties regarding the subject matter hereof other than as set forth in this Settlement Agreement.

[signature page follows]

-20-

DocuSign Envelope ID: 6C26B0BA-334D-47B8-9018-4EE7BA0B4F43

June 12, 2020

June 11, 2020

June 11, 2020

THE FOREGOING SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT HAS BEEN READ AND FULLY

UNDERSTOOD BEFORE THE SIGNING OF THIS AGREEMENT.

______Neil Rosenbohm

Dated this ____ day of______, 2020.

THE FOREGOING SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT HAS BEEN READ AND FULLY

UNDERSTOOD BEFORE THE SIGNING OF THIS AGREEMENT.

Counsel for Plaintiffs

Date: Chastity L. Christy The Lazzaro Law Firm, LLC

Date: Michael L. Fradin Fradin Law

Date: Douglas M. Werman Werman Salas P.C.

THE FOREGOING SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT HAS BEEN READ AND FULLY

UNDERSTOOD BEFORE THE SIGNING OF THIS AGREEMENT.

Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless

Date: By:

Printed Name:

Title:

-21-

Exhibit 1A List of Plaintiffs Dismissed With Prejudice

Rosenbohm v. Verizon Wireless Exhibit 1A : List of Plaintiffs Dismissed With Prejudice Name 1 Albertson, Timothy Daniel 2 Bianchi, Ryan 3 Blickman, Christopher A 4 Bond, Creighton P 5 Brown (Monticello), Brandy 6 Torosian Lathom, Kayla H. 7 Bullitt, Jon C 8 Butler, Bertha Elvira 9 Carroll, Jonathan 10 Cassidy, Kyle A 11 Chenoweth, Shaun 12 Cordoba, Francisco 13 Corpus Jr, Juan 14 Crayton Ii, James Rodney 15 Bettis, Alyssa Rei 16 Cunningham, Kendall C 17 Davenport, Maribel 18 Davis, Chad L 19 Delcambre, David A 20 Doneske, Garrett 21 Duncan, Melanie 22 Finley, Kirk 23 Foxworth, Depaul Unoski 24 Frelin, Rashad 25 Tucker, Jessica D. 26 Gagnon, Nicholas 27 Gardner, Jerry 28 Gillen Jr, Timothy J 29 Green, Brittani Necole 30 Guerry, Joshua Dean 31 Guzman, John William 32 Hamilton, Brianna 33 Hanson, Korrtina 34 Harding, Shamareae D 35 Harrell Ii, Randall Wade 36 Heron, Jennifer Rebecca 37 Holland, Austin 38 Hopson, Miquel 39 Howell, Nicholas J 40 Jerath, Sunil 41 Jones, David Allen

1 of 3 Rosenbohm v. Verizon Wireless Exhibit 1A : List of Plaintiffs Dismissed With Prejudice Name 42 Jones, Tracy Amanda 43 Kelleher, Douglas 44 Kilgore, Florence Jean 45 Kline, Chelsea 46 Kraus, Stephen J 47 Lee, Robyn M 48 Lemieszek, Tara 49 Machuca, Carlitos 50 McTiernan, Julie G. 51 Mitchell, David 52 Mitchell, Terrance Mervyn 53 Nash, Heather Nicole 54 Netherland, Christina Nicole 55 Newton, Victoria V 56 Obando, Nelson David 57 Orlando, Michael Jared 58 Owens, Haley M 59 Panchal, Shailesh 60 Perez-Coronado, Emanuel 61 Poirier, Stephanie 62 Rider, Jesse Michael 63 Rivera, Maria E 64 Rojas, Lloana 65 Rucker Iii, Herman 66 Ruiz, Hugo Lennart 67 Saleh, Ahmed Hussein Al Azzani 68 Sherman, Matthew Edward 69 Strauser, Candi 70 Taccone, Lauren 71 Takrouri, Amer Wael 72 Tampol Jr, Benny B 73 Taylor, Daren 74 Tresner, Avery 75 Tonstill, Benjamin 76 Tussing, Joshua 77 Tyler, Santoya Dionne 78 Wilcox, Kalee 79 Witherell, Donald J 80 Woods, Wes 81 Wright, Irene E. 82 Wu, Edmond

2 of 3 Rosenbohm v. Verizon Wireless Exhibit 1A : List of Plaintiffs Dismissed With Prejudice Name 83 Yancy, Tanganiyka Sierra 84 Yi, James 85 Young, Adam T 86 Craig, Brooklynn Marie 87 Hopkins, Bailey Nicole 88 Johnson, Jeremiah 89 Mauldin, Frank Vernon 90 Moreno, Nicole M 91 Proetto, Dante 92 Silva, Amanda 93 Silva, Paul

3 of 3

Exhibit 1B List of Individuals to Be Dismissed Without Prejudice

Rosenbohm v. Verizon Wireless Exhibit 1B: List of Individuals to Be Dismissed Without Prejudice Name 1 Adams, Chad 2 Aiken, Dennis 3 Alexander, Candice 4 Allen, Theophilus 5 Arceo, Erene 6 Arrechea, Jessica 7 Baker, Asriel 8 Bankert, Greta 9 Barnett, James 10 Basilone, Tiffany 11 Beck, Kyle 12 Benitez, Maria 13 Black, Jahazel 14 Blalock, Anthony 15 Bowlin, Nikki 16 Briggman, Barbara 17 Brookes, Hanif 18 Burtch, Daniel 19 Bussey, Keiomi 20 Carreon, Jennifer 21 Castelino, Brian 22 Chen, Tommy 23 Christman, Mike 24 Clark, Walter 25 Covarrubias, Heury 26 Crowther, Miles 27 Csizmadia, Mark 28 Custis, Danielle 29 Daughtry, Tim 30 Davidson, Michelle 31 Davis, Guy 32 Deisher, Kelton 33 Desjardin, Kayla 34 Dickson, Rashaun 35 Dominick, Justin 36 Downs, Justin 37 Egan, Miranda 38 Ferreira, Aaron 39 Forte, Kareena 40 Garcia, Hector 41 Gaspar, Alejandra

1 of 3 Rosenbohm v. Verizon Wireless Exhibit 1B: List of Individuals to Be Dismissed Without Prejudice Name 42 Goncalves, Stephanie 43 Hagooli, Moshe 44 Hardy, Ligia 45 Harmon, Jessica 46 Hassenflug, Matthew 47 Haugen, Jenny 48 Haynes, Marisa 49 Hickenbottom, James 50 Hill, Shermetris 51 Holbrook, Diaja 52 Hunter, Tamira 53 Johnson, Khadjiah 54 Joseph, Nawal 55 Kearney, Jennifer 56 Kemp, Alexander 57 Kingori, Willie 58 Krovontka, Melinda 59 Kumm, David 60 Lackland Ii, Antoine 61 Levy, Jasmin 62 Manzo, Maria 63 Marcelo, Michael 64 Marquez, Erika 65 Martinez, Rosaline 66 Mauro, Salvatore 67 Mcconnon, Patrick 68 Mcgowan, Mike 69 Mcnair, Ted 70 Medina Jr., Israel 71 Munoz, Mark 72 Ndubuisi, Ugochi 73 Ng, Melissa 74 Nguyen, Trung 75 Odell, Sean 76 Palao, Marvin 77 Pena, Silvia V. 78 Pham, Eric 79 Pieczkiewicz, Robert 80 Pischansky, Karl 81 Ralosky, Linda 82 Randla, Jocust

1 of 3 Rosenbohm v. Verizon Wireless Exhibit 1B: List of Individuals to Be Dismissed Without Prejudice Name 83 Reichelt, Danielle 84 Rienstra-Ehlers, Sara 85 Riley, Sean 86 Rodriguez,Brian J 87 Sarwari, Fatima 88 Sausedo, Jonathan 89 Savage Iii, Eddie 90 Secoy, Joseph 91 Selman-Simpson, Rachell 92 Shadle, Eddie 93 Shakoor, Abdul 94 Sims, Charles 95 Soto, Bryan 96 Stephens, Christopher 97 Tankersley, Sharvé 98 Triggs, Nicole 99 Tweedy, Sean 100 Van Houten, Edward 101 Vaughn, Rebecca 102 Venditte, Bernie 103 Villegas, Nexus 104 Williams, Lekeisha 105 Wojciechowski, Derick 106 Wolf, Nate 107 Worthington Livingston, Donna (Lynn) 108 Wrentz, Darius 109 Wright, Teionne

1 of 3

Exhibit 1C List of Individuals to Be Dismissed With Prejudice

Rosenbohm v. Verizon Wireless Exhibit 1C: List of Opt-ins to be Dismissed with Prejudice Name 1 Stojin,Keira L 2 Burkholder,Lauren 3 Nunez,Llenifer 4 Irwin,Travis 5 Brown,Brandon Jamaal 6 Malcolm,Christopher 7 Clark,Nicholas J 8 Roberson,Terrence Eugene

1

Exhibit 1D List of Opt-ins who are Settlement Class Members

Rosenbohm v. Verizon Wireless Exhibit 1D: List of Opt-ins who are Settlement Class Members Last Name First Name 1 Aarons Rick M 2 Abbott Casey I 3 Abdulhadi Immad 4 Abdulhadi Lebnan 5 Abington Carolyn M 6 Aboras Rokaia 7 Abouelenein Kareem 8 Abramowitz Jason 9 Abrishamcar Amean 10 Abro Brenda 11 Abubakar Wali 12 Acevedo Christopher 13 Acevedo David 14 Acevedo Deja Nicole 15 Aceves Israel 16 Aceves Jessica Y 17 Acheampong Antoinette Samantha 18 Ackerman Kalli Anne 19 Ackley George S 20 Acosta Devon M 21 Acosta Edgar 22 Acosta Eric 23 Acosta Jorge 24 Adair Julie Lee 25 Adams Alan J 26 Adams Josh 27 Adams Kenneth Craig 28 Adcock James Edward 29 Adkins Dupree 30 Adkins Jr Isaac Lee 31 Adray Ii M. Samuel 32 Afable Allan Vincent 33 Afton Phillip Andrew 34 Afyoni Dean Ali 35 Agosto Maira 36 Agudelo Diego Esteban 37 Agudelo Eduardo D 38 Aguilar Alfredo 39 Aguilar Cesar A 40 Aguilar Gregorio A 41 Aguilar Maria G

1 of 92 Rosenbohm v. Verizon Wireless Exhibit 1D: List of Opt-ins who are Settlement Class Members Last Name First Name 42 Aguilar Miguel 43 Aguilar Miguel A 44 Aguilar Vargas Luis R 45 Aguilera Julio Gabriel 46 Aguirre Leonardo 47 Ahmad Samantha Marie 48 Ahmad Jr Sayed O 49 Ahmetovic Muamer 50 Aiello Jessica 51 Aiken Jr Patrick A 52 Aimal Najeeb 53 Airas Edward B 54 Akerman Loren John 55 Akers Jason Matthew 56 Akins Shanita L. 57 Alaimo Lonni 58 Alaimo Troy Joseph 59 Alba Crystal E 60 Albatrosov Michael Albert 61 Alberich Travis Alexander 62 Albrecht Kristen 63 Albright Ty Anthony 64 Alcantar Yeltzin Oslu 65 Alcantara Bryan 66 Alcaraz Aaron A 67 Aldrich Melissa G 68 Alduenda Victor U 69 Aleman Tawny 70 Aleshkevich Alexander 71 Alexander Carreca D 72 Alexander Mercedes Breona 73 Alfaro Jennifer 74 Alfaro Marco Antonio 75 Alfonso Osmel Esteban 76 Ali Shandella 77 Alicea Rafael Francisco 78 Alkanawi Annas Salih 79 Allen Edward C 80 Allen Jason T 81 Allen Justin Perry 82 Allen Iii Hubert Devon

2 of 92 Rosenbohm v. Verizon Wireless Exhibit 1D: List of Opt-ins who are Settlement Class Members Last Name First Name 83 Allen Jr Mario Pryor 84 Allen Sr Kimble L 85 Allgaier Jeremy 86 Allie Brian Joseph 87 Allison Rusty James 88 Almaraz Concepcion 89 Alonso Daniel Adrian 90 Alsup Brian 91 Altomare Alex 92 Alvarado Jesse S 93 Alvarado Oscar E 94 Alvarez Elvira 95 Alvarez Emmanuel 96 Alvarez Emmanuel 97 Alvarez Gina M 98 Alvarez Humberto I 99 Alvarez Jessica 100 Alvarez Jose Francisco 101 Alvarez Sariena Atlisa 102 Alvarez Jr Henry 103 Alvaro-Francisco Domingo 104 Alvear Gustavo 105 Amaya Frankie A 106 Ambriz Daniel 107 Ambrose Jermaine Anthony 108 Amey Zechariah 109 Amini Mohammad Ali 110 Amodeo Lisa Marie 111 Amor Valerie 112 Anderson Amika 113 Anderson Christopher Jon 114 Anderson Cory Robert 115 Anderson Daniel 116 Anderson Jayce 117 Anderson Latoya Michelle 118 Anderson Michael Jacob 119 Anderson Nick 120 Anderson Peter 121 Anderson Stefon 122 Anderson Stephen A. 123 Anderson Tee Anna M

3 of 92 Rosenbohm v. Verizon Wireless Exhibit 1D: List of Opt-ins who are Settlement Class Members Last Name First Name 124 Andonov Kris 125 Andrade Gloria Yoselin 126 Andrews Anthony 127 Andrews Marcia Rachael 128 Andrews Monique 129 Angelo Thomas M 130 Anibas Shawn 131 Anis Uzhair 132 Anwer Naveed 133 Apnar Kayla L 134 Apodaca Manuel A 135 Aponte Jr Hector L 136 Apruzzese Zachary J 137 Arambula Beatriz 138 Arboleda Jimena Maria 139 Arcaya Jonathan 140 Archuleta David J 141 Arellano Diego 142 Arellano Gina Gionnella 143 Arellano Tatiana 144 Arias Jose Carlo 145 Arias Olinda 146 Arias Avila Osvaldo Neftali 147 Arlow Sara 148 Armah Kofi 149 Armstead Shameika T 150 Arndt Jordan Carter 151 Arnette Michael Vernon 152 Arnott Timothy S 153 Arnow Dustin J 154 Arps Ryan Edward 155 Array Ericka J 156 Arreguin Sergio 157 Arrieta David Anthony 158 Arroyo James 159 Arshed John Adam-Joseph 160 Artman Rachel Rebeccah 161 Arvelo Daniel 162 Ascencio Victor 163 Ashby Christopher S 164 Ashe Sharon

4 of 92 Rosenbohm v. Verizon Wireless Exhibit 1D: List of Opt-ins who are Settlement Class Members Last Name First Name 165 Ashley Justin N 166 Assaad Cheryl Beth 167 Atchison Sara Danelle 168 Atkins Corey J. 169 Atkins Kenneth L 170 Attivie Bertha Dzibodie 171 Atts Bjorn 172 Atty Jay 173 Atwell Sharon N 174 Austin Daniel 175 Avalos Adelis Andrea 176 Avila Alexander Damasio 177 Avila Eimy 178 Avila Holly 179 Avila Justo 180 Avilan Ivan 181 Aviles Justin 182 Aviles Susana J 183 Avilez Mario Alejandro 184 Awad Yaser 185 Awad Zachariah Fayeq 186 Ayala Jose 187 Ayala Jr Luis 188 Ayler Peter 189 Ayroso Jennifer 190 Aziz Mohammad M 191 Azzam Mohammad Azzam 192 Baayoun Khloud 193 Babajany Paul 194 Bacha Monica 195 Bachan Katlyn 196 Bacher Samantha 197 Baek Charles 198 Baheyadeen Yahya W. 199 Baier Stefanie S 200 Bailey Aaron I 201 Bailey Brandon 202 Bailey Brandon Arthur 203 Bailey Jerica Nicole 204 Bailey Russell 205 Baines Gary K

5 of 92 Rosenbohm v. Verizon Wireless Exhibit 1D: List of Opt-ins who are Settlement Class Members Last Name First Name 206 Bains Ii Gurpreet S 207 Bakaliya Bilal A 208 Baker Christopher T 209 Baker Jason T 210 Baker Jeffrey Tyler 211 Baker Kyle E 212 Baker Nicholas J. 213 Baker Shane 214 Baker Steven 215 Baker Susan K 216 Baker Thomas 217 Baker Iii Edgar 218 Balan Philippe 219 Balecha Kevin 220 Ball Karen F 221 Balla Emmanuel S. K. 222 Ballard Jasmine S 223 Balogun Ayodele 224 Banach Johnathon 225 Banda Josue 226 Banghart Adam James 227 Bankhead Dasean L 228 Banks Maya 229 Banks Allen G 230 Banks Henry Maurice 231 Banuelos Alma Lorena 232 Barack Farishta 233 Barbarich Zachery Stephen 234 Barber Eric Micael 235 Barbosa Katherine 236 Barbour Randy 237 Bardowell Mark 238 Barkadehi Omid 239 Barnes Tiffany 240 Barnes Jr Mark Anthony 241 Barnett Breanna 242 Barnett Michael W 243 Barnett Tevin O 244 Barnwell Jacob Anthony 245 Baron Cory Thomas 246 Barr Ii Johnny Jay

6 of 92 Rosenbohm v. Verizon Wireless Exhibit 1D: List of Opt-ins who are Settlement Class Members Last Name First Name 247 Barraza Ana 248 Barraza Juan 249 Barrera Sergio 250 Barreras Rodriguez Giancarlo R 251 Barriger Paige 252 Bartolome Alvin Cristofer Alix 253 Barton Chad A 254 Barton Corey Dean 255 Barton James Bradley 256 Barwick Jessica Victoria 257 Bashore Danielle 258 Basile John A 259 Bass William Chase 260 Batchelor Sara V 261 Bates Jessica 262 Bates Jessica M 263 Batiz Stephen 264 Battikhi Osama Sharif 265 Battisti Janelle Leah 266 Batty Jonathan Lloyd 267 Bauer Kyle Cranston 268 Baughman Constance R 269 Bautista Zarco Jose Adrian 270 Bawdon Julie 271 Bay Kory R. 272 Baylor Chaz 273 Beach Lillian R 274 Beachner Jr Gregory Wayne 275 Beane Nicole H 276 Beans Patricia 277 Beard Sabian 278 Beasley Jesse Rogers 279 Beasley Sarah Clark 280 Beatty Tylise J 281 Beaty Ian Timothy 282 Beaver Sherry 283 Becker Nicholas 284 Becker Pamela J 285 Beckett Sean 286 Becton Donald M 287 Bedford Melissa Ann

7 of 92 Rosenbohm v. Verizon Wireless Exhibit 1D: List of Opt-ins who are Settlement Class Members Last Name First Name 288 Beeler Wesley Carter 289 Behrends Shawn 290 Beighley Breanna Nicole 291 Bekkerman Michael 292 Beland Jason Alexander 293 Beldock John Patrick 294 Bell Jonathan 295 Bell Joyce 296 Bella Mark S 297 Belle Janie M. 298 Bellville David 299 Benavides Luis Alberto 300 Benavides Jr Jesus 301 Bengio Daniel 302 Benitez Uriel 303 Benjamin Shinaycie A 304 Bennett-Reuben Lashea 305 Benoist Chad Marshall 306 Berg David Anthony 307 Berg Kyle R 308 Berg Mark 309 Berger Jacqualine Lee 310 Beringer Jason 311 Berman Charles A 312 Berman Frederick J 313 Bermudez Jenice 314 Bernal Victor G 315 Bernardes Jeffrey 316 Berner Joshua Allen 317 Bernstein Daniel S 318 Berrio Sr Oscar 319 Berry Jessica 320 Berry Ii James A 321 Berthelson Ryan Nicklaus 322 Bertolotti Nicholas 323 Beshara Mark 324 Betancourt Victor H. 325 Bethea Brittany Michelle 326 Bethina Romero Melissa 327 Bettencourt Joanna 328 Bey Geniece V

8 of 92 Rosenbohm v. Verizon Wireless Exhibit 1D: List of Opt-ins who are Settlement Class Members Last Name First Name 329 Beyley Gabriel Toby 330 Bezama John A 331 Bianchi Scott S 332 Bichr Asmaa 333 Biedron Adam Scott 334 Biegler Iii Joseph Thomas 335 Biehl Kimberly 336 Biggs Jr Gerard A 337 Billie Shamicca Nicole 338 Binkley Kelly S 339 Biricocchi Karen M 340 Biro Dylan Wesley 341 Bishop Dustin Ryley 342 Bishop Joseph 343 Bishop Jr Danny M 344 Biss Lindsay Skye 345 Bixler Autumn Rae 346 Bizri Zanubia 347 Black Casey 348 Black Charles W 349 Black Jason Maurice 350 Black William 351 Blackburn Timothy Scott 352 Blackshire Jerrell 353 Blackwell Lisa 354 Blackwell Roberts Courtney 355 Blaha Jessica Renee 356 Blaha Timothy P 357 Blaine Danielle Renee 358 Blake Candice Elizabeth 359 Blake Kyle Webster 360 Blanco Consuelo M 361 Blanco Gomez Omar 362 Blankenship Whitney 363 Blevins Andrew W. 364 Blocki Sarah Elizabeth 365 Bloom Michael Timothy 366 Blose Janice 367 Blount-Harvey Joy 368 Blumenthal Justin 369 Blunt Christian Alexander

9 of 92 Rosenbohm v. Verizon Wireless Exhibit 1D: List of Opt-ins who are Settlement Class Members Last Name First Name 370 Bobadilla Melissa 371 Bocanegra Fernando 372 Bochicchio Jacob 373 Bochkareva Natalia 374 Bodenhammer Brandon K 375 Bodkins Sergio O 376 Boe Allison J 377 Boeze' John M 378 Boger Angela Shehan 379 Boggess Dwayne Ray 380 Bogomolny Bernardo 381 Bohle Kayla Marie 382 Bohoman Calep Ray 383 Boisen Brandon Dean 384 Bolanos Alejandro 385 Bolduc Blaine M 386 Bonafe Jr Felix 387 Bonder Alex Scott 388 Bonhomme Max 389 Bonilla-Villela Cinthia M 390 Bonnelly Fred 391 Bonner Tynisha 392 Bonovitch Steven M. 393 Booker Kyler Terry Markee 394 Boone Brandon Micheal 395 Boone Jr Alphonzo 396 Boozer Chandler Synclair 397 Boppre William Guy 398 Borden Brian 399 Bordner Charles E 400 Bornmann Kari E 401 Bothwell Ryan William 402 Bouchard Irina 403 Boudreau Carol Anne 404 Boudreaux Jonathan Wilbert 405 Boulden Kelly Allan 406 Boulware Tiffany 407 Bounthavy Carter 408 Bourne Thomas D 409 Boursinos Athena S. 410 Boutte Tina Marie

10 of 92 Rosenbohm v. Verizon Wireless Exhibit 1D: List of Opt-ins who are Settlement Class Members Last Name First Name 411 Bova Kathryn Lorraine 412 Bowen Meredith 413 Bowers Joshua James 414 Bowman Micheal V 415 Boyd Brooke P. 416 Boyd Christopher George 417 Boyd Jason 418 Boyer Desmond Reginald 419 Boyett David 420 Boykin Graham 421 Boyle Renee Michelleen 422 Boynton Melissa Erin 423 Bozeman Gail 424 Brackebusch Kyle John 425 Braddell Laurence 426 Bradford Jason Paul 427 Bradley Brandon Joe 428 Bradley Matt P 429 Bradley Tadj Rakiime 430 Bradshaw Erica L 431 Braithwaite Kareem Russell 432 Brandon Lindsay R 433 Branscome Claudia 434 Branson Glen W 435 Brant April D 436 Braswell Martina Laney 437 Bratton Justin K 438 Brauburger Brian Chris 439 Bravo Evelyn 440 Bravo Kevin 441 Brent Amena M 442 Brewer Javon 443 Brewer Michael Chase 444 Brewton Erica N 445 Briggs Israel S 446 Briggs Mary K 447 Brigham Marrissa 448 Bright John Darrel 449 Bringas Kelly 450 Brinson William Cody 451 Brister John

11 of 92 Rosenbohm v. Verizon Wireless Exhibit 1D: List of Opt-ins who are Settlement Class Members Last Name First Name 452 Bristow Lavaris 453 Britton James Lee 454 Broadnax Decimber 455 Brockington Jena 456 Brockmann Christian Graydon Parry 457 Brockmeier Donald Roy 458 Brody Matthew Aaron 459 Broellos Candice C 460 Brookfield Michael Wesley 461 Brooks Bianca 462 Brooks Phyllis A 463 Brooks Robert Jamal 464 Brooks Rosemarie 465 Brooks Ii Roger 466 Brooks Jr George 467 Broughman Philip D 468 Broughton Melissa Monique 469 Brown Akeal 470 Brown Anthony 471 Brown Ashley M 472 Brown Brittany Briana 473 Brown Chadwell E 474 Brown Chantil 475 Brown Christy D 476 Brown Gerard 477 Brown Gregory 478 Brown Jacob M 479 Brown Jaron 480 Brown Jeffrey S 481 Brown Jessica Maria 482 Brown Joanna 483 Brown Jonathan 484 Brown Justin 485 Brown Kendall Robert 486 Brown Kevin Eric 487 Brown Latrina 488 Brown Matthew W 489 Brown Nicholas 490 Brown Peter G 491 Brown Rahshard H 492 Brown Roy Donald

12 of 92 Rosenbohm v. Verizon Wireless Exhibit 1D: List of Opt-ins who are Settlement Class Members Last Name First Name 493 Brown Ryan 494 Brown Steven Leonidas 495 Brown Tyshawn 496 Brown William 497 Brown Sr Darrell Anthony 498 Bruce Cardia Quinzell 499 Bruce Chris Desean 500 Brumbaugh Eric William 501 Brumskill Nyjah Schecane 502 Brunner Jordan 503 Bryant Jasmine M. 504 Bryant Scott G 505 Bryson Carl 506 Bryson Jermaine Terrell 507 Bseiso Said Hafez 508 Bsharah Andrew J 509 Bucco Frank 510 Bucco Henry W 511 Buchanan Joshua 512 Bucher Thomas E 513 Buck Brian T 514 Buckborough Jordan 515 Buenrostro Adrian 516 Bui Kim 517 Bui Tan V 518 Buis Stephanie 519 Bukhari Syed Fahad 520 Bulger Cory Alan 521 Bullard Nicholas Christian 522 Bullock Sr Alfonzo 523 Bunch Enoch Mcewen 524 Bunch Kristopher Jon 525 Bunton Garren 526 Burgess Benjamin Lloyd 527 Burgess Michael Roy 528 Burgio John Anthony 529 Burk Andrew Thomas 530 Burke Alissa 531 Burks Phylicia Sophia 532 Burleson Dalton Jared 533 Burnell Chantel Ann

13 of 92 Rosenbohm v. Verizon Wireless Exhibit 1D: List of Opt-ins who are Settlement Class Members Last Name First Name 534 Burnett Justin Anthony 535 Burnette James 536 Burns Mclean Tamarquez 537 Burnside Deana Lee 538 Burrell Alexis 539 Burris Shaquille 540 Burton Deja Laray 541 Burton Jamilah 542 Burton Stanley 543 Busboom Kari 544 Bushell Andre S 545 Bustillos Jannet 546 Bustos Victor Manuel 547 Butler Elizabeth 548 Butler Lia T 549 Butler Whitney L 550 Buttz Morgann 551 Byers Ashley 552 Byford Robert J 553 Byrd Donald 554 Byrd Jiniah K 555 Byrne Iv Palmer C 556 Caballero Alfonso T 557 Caballero Ariana Maciel 558 Caballero Jessica Cristina 559 Cabarcas David 560 Cabrera Jose M 561 Caceres Glenda Marisol 562 Cadena James Michael 563 Caggiano Rachel 564 Cain Calvin J 565 Calamari Christopher Charles 566 Calderon Miguel Reinaldo 567 Caldwell Cessi Lee 568 Caldwell Douglas Wilson 569 Caldwell Shannon Nicole 570 Caldwell Timothy J. 571 Calica Ryan Paul 572 Callan Ashley D 573 Callison Matthew B 574 Calsadillas Tyawn

14 of 92 Rosenbohm v. Verizon Wireless Exhibit 1D: List of Opt-ins who are Settlement Class Members Last Name First Name 575 Calvin Theodore Jacob 576 Camacho Armando 577 Camacho Monica 578 Camacho Cobos Cinthia 579 Campbell Cody A 580 Campbell John Wallace 581 Campbell Stephanie Marie 582 Campbell Steven 583 Camplese Jr Mark A 584 Campos Javier 585 Campos Sergio 586 Canady Bonita Jalane 587 Canady Tamara 588 Canario Jose Enrique 589 Candido-Moore Jessika 590 Canel Laura 591 Cannady Joshua 592 Capasso Alyson 593 Capone Michael Paul 594 Cappell Jeffrey J 595 Cappiello Sr Michael J 596 Cardinale Bianca 597 Cardoso Andre Zibetti 598 Carey Blake 599 Carlin Danielle R 600 Carlson John Terry 601 Carmack Kelly B 602 Carman Indira 603 Carmichael Jr John Albert 604 Carmona Hugo 605 Carnes Tamala 606 Carney Matthew William 607 Carney Jr Lincoln C 608 Caro Brianna Elise 609 Carpenter Shonta 610 Carpintero Giddings Alfred 611 Carradine Marcus D 612 Carrasco Diana Salazar 613 Carrington Celeena 614 Carroll Hannah Daile 615 Carroll Lee Ann Marie

15 of 92 Rosenbohm v. Verizon Wireless Exhibit 1D: List of Opt-ins who are Settlement Class Members Last Name First Name 616 Carter Candice 617 Carter Clayton 618 Carter Ferdinand L 619 Carter Jamilah Corean 620 Carter Jason 621 Carter Jessica Lyn 622 Carter Justin A 623 Carter Michael Joe 624 Casanas Moises 625 Casarubbia Milan A 626 Casero Natalie Martine 627 Cassaro Jennifer 628 Cassidy Gerald Lee 629 Cassidy Sean M 630 Castaneda Margarita 631 Casteel David J 632 Casteel Eric Jason 633 Castel Ralph 634 Castillo Emmanuel 635 Castillo Hailee 636 Castillo Karla P 637 Castillo Luis Ernesto 638 Castillo Rosanna M 639 Castner Amanda A 640 Castro-Larios Jr Isaias 641 Castro-Stevenson Devon J 642 Catanzaro Ashley 643 Catanzaro James M 644 Caulk Kevin 645 Cavazos Jazmin Rae 646 Cavazos Noe 647 Cavill Desiree Elaine 648 Cecil Kristy Lynn 649 Cedano Jr Milciades Milcy 650 Ceja Frank E 651 Ceja-Garcia Eliana 652 Cepeda Jason C 653 Cerchione Gregory 654 Ceron Edgardo Antonio Miranda 655 Cervantes Jorge A 656 Cervantes Jr Fabian Enrique

16 of 92 Rosenbohm v. Verizon Wireless Exhibit 1D: List of Opt-ins who are Settlement Class Members Last Name First Name 657 Cervantes Jr Rogelio 658 Chadwick Christopher M 659 Chaffin Corey Michael 660 Chaidez Joel R 661 Chambers Melody 662 Chambers Steaddria 663 Champion Thomas David 664 Chamrene Ricky R 665 Chan Alice 666 Chan Laurie 667 Chandler Wesley James 668 Chaney Jr Karl B 669 Chapman Brandon 670 Chargualaf Kayla 671 Charske William P 672 Chatfield David Mark 673 Chattin Kevin W 674 Chavarria Ian H 675 Chavez Bryan Alan 676 Chavez Cesar Adrian 677 Chavez Gabriel De Jesus 678 Chavez Isaac Paul 679 Chavez Jose Vicente 680 Chavez Peter 681 Chavez-Chavez Ricardo 682 Cheek Ii Gregory Dean 683 Cheeks Kevin Rayshon 684 Chen Cindy Tran 685 Cheney Kyle Austin 686 Cherico Samuel Blake 687 Cherubino Tiago Costa 688 Cheshier Kory A 689 Chewning Larry 690 Chieffo Brandon 691 Chiluisa Jonathan P 692 Chin Lombardo Federico Eduardo 693 Cho Gloria Soojean 694 Choate Amanda M 695 Choate Kevin 696 Choi Anthony 697 Chreng Jinamartin

17 of 92 Rosenbohm v. Verizon Wireless Exhibit 1D: List of Opt-ins who are Settlement Class Members Last Name First Name 698 Christensen Carrie 699 Christiansen Jessie Shannon 700 Christianson Kayla Marie 701 Christmas Teneisha Nicole 702 Christner Heather 703 Church Steven B 704 Cianciulli Jason 705 Ciccarelli Daniel John 706 Cifelli Leah 707 Cifuentes Juan C. 708 Cima-Yarnell Kayla Pierina 709 Ciotti Kyra Michelle 710 Cipriano John P 711 Cirillo Michael 712 Cisco-Olowosayo Michelle A 713 Cistone Anthony 714 Citro Noelle 715 Clark Andrew 716 Clark Calif 717 Clark Cory 718 Clark Daryll L 719 Clark Gary Marcus 720 Clark Jamal William 721 Clark Jeffrey W 722 Clark John R 723 Clark Melani Michele 724 Clark Ryan Mathew 725 Clark Iii Vernon 726 Clarke Dylan James 727 Clarke Elease S 728 Clarke Shiann 729 Clatworthy C.R. 730 Claudio Adbeel Yamil 731 Clayton Keyandre 732 Clements Timothy 733 Clerk Tyjuan 734 Cleveland Renee K 735 Cliff Morgan Courtney 736 Clifton Carlos 737 Clinkscales Ryan Charles 738 Clinton Jermare Devon

18 of 92 Rosenbohm v. Verizon Wireless Exhibit 1D: List of Opt-ins who are Settlement Class Members Last Name First Name 739 Cloutier Maurice 740 Clyne Jasmin Shanice 741 Coate Heath A 742 Cobb Shatoya Y. 743 Coca Lucy Ann 744 Cochran James 745 Cody Lauren 746 Coffee Antonio 747 Coffie Lester F 748 Coggins Kheli 749 Cohen Brett Goodman 750 Coker Stacey L 751 Cole Samantha 752 Cole Jr Nathaniel T 753 Coleman Brittany 754 Coleman Elexes 755 Coleman Ernest W 756 Coleman Zach 757 Coley Hasan 758 Collier Johnathon 759 Collier Kandace 760 Colling Mark Christopher 761 Collins Brandon Michael 762 Collins Nathan Charles 763 Collins Paul David 764 Collins Troy 765 Collins Jr James A 766 Collopy Josh R 767 Colon-Rodriguez Jr Jose Antonio 768 Colston Kellie 769 Colucci Jason 770 Comer Stewart Thomas 771 Compitello Nicole 772 Conceicao Gabriela 773 Cone Joy E 774 Conell Katelyn Victoria 775 Conklin Jamie 776 Conlan Henry 777 Conley Alyscia 778 Connelly Adam D. 779 Connely Laron

19 of 92 Rosenbohm v. Verizon Wireless Exhibit 1D: List of Opt-ins who are Settlement Class Members Last Name First Name 780 Connolly Erin M 781 Conrad Rory S 782 Conran Stephanie Rose 783 Consaul Kevin 784 Conti Nicholas Joseph 785 Conway Angelica 786 Conwell Dane M 787 Conwell Robert Allen 788 Conyers Tiara N 789 Cook Nick 790 Cook Ryan Seth 791 Cook Iii Richard G 792 Cooper Ashley Elizabeth 793 Cooper Chanelle 794 Cooper Kyle R 795 Copelin Brittany Reyon 796 Coral Jr Roberto H 797 Corbin Bryan C 798 Cordell Shaun Daniel 799 Cordero Kristine De Vera 800 Cordi Jr Jim F 801 Cordova David Ray 802 Cordova Iii Francisco Juan 803 Coreas Gilberman J 804 Corell Joshua Paul 805 Corley Lesley R 806 Cornejo Chantel Tatiana 807 Cornett Tamika 808 Corona Melissa Ann 809 Corral Salina Nissa 810 Cortes Andy 811 Cortes Lorena Maricel 812 Cortez Jr Salvador 813 Cosom Jamila 814 Cost Sheila A 815 Cota Erica Renee 816 Cottingham Amy Marie 817 Cotton Nishawn Lavette 818 Coubert Keith Allen 819 Council Desia 820 Courtney Brannon J

20 of 92 Rosenbohm v. Verizon Wireless Exhibit 1D: List of Opt-ins who are Settlement Class Members Last Name First Name 821 Covarrubias Jeremiah Ezekiel 822 Covert Kanika 823 Cowherd Adrian 824 Cox Jay 825 Coy Matthew J 826 Coyne Brittany 827 Cozier Maceo R 828 Craig Janelle Renee 829 Crandall Cody N 830 Crandall Iii Louie W 831 Cratty Christopher Scott 832 Crawford Porsche 833 Crawford Stephen 834 Cress Justin H 835 Croft Rochelle Marie 836 Crooks Ryan Kahlil 837 Crooms Douglas R E 838 Cropanese Anthony 839 Crossley Bethany 840 Cruz Abner Saul 841 Cruz Crystal 842 Cruz Kayla Whitney 843 Csordas Dennis P 844 Cubas Marco 845 Cullison Stephanie Rose 846 Culverhouse Amanda 847 Cummings Michael A. 848 Cunningham Michael J. 849 Curry Jamarus 850 Curry Marshall Wagner 851 Curry Shalanda R 852 Curtis Tsuyoshi Michael 853 Cushman Rachael Jordan 854 Cuthbertson Nichole Renee 855 Cuthbertson Zachary Kevin 856 Czekai Amber R 857 Da Costa Robert C 858 Dagle Jamie 859 Dakdduk Kamal N 860 Daley Bernadette Elizabeth 861 Dalil Max

21 of 92 Rosenbohm v. Verizon Wireless Exhibit 1D: List of Opt-ins who are Settlement Class Members Last Name First Name 862 Daly Robert Shawn 863 Danel Samantha J 864 Dang Quang Duc 865 Daniel Brian 866 Daniel Mackensey L 867 Danielian Melanie 868 Daniels Dayzionae D 869 Daniels Marlene Maria 870 Daniels Nichole L 871 Dao Hung Chi 872 Darden Jr Michael Anthony 873 Dasher Quinceys Lamar 874 David Jessica 875 Davidson Christopher Neal 876 Davidson Cody Jacob 877 Davidson Randall 878 Davila Sergio Bryan 879 Davis Adam D 880 Davis Adrienne 881 Davis Antoria 882 Davis Christopher Brian 883 Davis Danielle Faith 884 Davis Eugina 885 Davis Jennifer L 886 Davis Jennifer Lynn 887 Davis Levon Lavelle 888 Davis Raymond 889 Davis Remington C 890 Davis Ryan S 891 Davis Shameika 892 Davis Shondreka L 893 Davis Yahontis Denae 894 Davis Jr Brian Dean 895 Davis Jr Darren L. 896 Davis-Deemer Meshawn Mechelle 897 Dawson Dale Anthony 898 Dawson Jacqueline L 899 Dawson Jolan J 900 Day Anthony A 901 De Luna Rebecca 902 De Martino Jason Pasquale

22 of 92 Rosenbohm v. Verizon Wireless Exhibit 1D: List of Opt-ins who are Settlement Class Members Last Name First Name 903 De Witt Jamey M 904 De Witt Tara 905 Deal Matthew Jospeh 906 Dean Dessles 907 Dean Dorothy Ann 908 Dean Sarah 909 Dean Terrence G 910 Deas Orlanda S 911 Debaun Carl Ryan 912 Dedic Daniel R 913 Deglau James Bryant 914 Degregory Matthew James 915 Deguzman Reyji 916 Deherrera Alejandro 917 Dekany Brian Andrew 918 Del Rio Lorenzo Miguel 919 Delapa John Henry 920 Delashmutt Shirley B 921 Delaverdac Andre 922 Delay Scott Allen 923 Delerme Jennifer Christina 924 Delgadillo Cesar 925 Delgadillo Sandy Diane 926 Delgado Cesar A 927 Delgado Donovan Jay 928 Delgado Eladio M 929 Delgado Gabriela 930 Delgado Jr Hector 931 Delmar Braden Michael 932 Deloach Frederick Allen 933 Denmark Ian C 934 Dennis Brian J 935 Dennison Dawn Michele 936 Deppe Alexandra Rene' 937 Deshner Maria Celeste 938 Desisto Andrew Lawson 939 Desmith James 940 Dest Michael A 941 Devero Jamual T 942 Dew Randy Allyn 943 Dewald Johannes

23 of 92 Rosenbohm v. Verizon Wireless Exhibit 1D: List of Opt-ins who are Settlement Class Members Last Name First Name 944 Dewitt April Joy 945 Diaz Edwin O 946 Diaz Rita 947 Diaz Albertini Oscar 948 Diaz Jr Jorge Alberto 949 Diaz-Fernandez Amanda 950 Dicarlo Adam J 951 Diem Jonathan O 952 Diepeveen Jesse M 953 Diffenderfer Thomas Henry 954 Diggs Sherry C 955 Dillahunty Jr Byron C 956 Dillon Kenneth James 957 Dillon Michael 958 Dillon Nicholas 959 D'Intino Katya 960 Distefano Joseph C 961 Diven Chris M 962 Dixon Kela 963 Dixon Travis 964 Dixon Jr Donald Charles 965 Dixson Keith Dewayne 966 Do Dat 967 Dodds Trent Arlon 968 Doherty Andrew Robert 969 Domenech Sr Ricardo 970 Domingo Diego L 971 Dominguez Anthony J 972 Dominguez Matthew 973 Donatelli Zachary 974 Donato Daniel J 975 Donegan Brian 976 Donnelly-Durkin Kristen 977 Dooley Kenneth 978 Dorey Justin 979 Doss Michelle 980 Dossa Faizaan 981 Douglas Brian 982 Dover Eric D 983 Dowell Robert T 984 Dragwa Lindsey Alexandra

24 of 92 Rosenbohm v. Verizon Wireless Exhibit 1D: List of Opt-ins who are Settlement Class Members Last Name First Name 985 Drummer Elizabeth 986 Drumwright Iii William Lee 987 Ducette Jr Theodore E 988 Dudley Christopher S 989 Dudley Kirby Thomas 990 Duenas Alejandro 991 Duff Brittany Lynn 992 Duff Bruce A 993 Duft Brad J 994 Duh Dalal A 995 Duignan Derek E 996 Dukeman Joshua R 997 Dukes Albert 998 Duman Bolet 999 Duncan Alexandra 1000 Duncan Ania Elizabeth 1001 Duncan Robert William 1002 Durr Jason E 1003 Dursi Jason 1004 Duty Jonathan M 1005 Dvorin Eric J 1006 Dynda Laura J 1007 Eagel Tara 1008 Ealy Joshua J 1009 Earley Jane Rebecca 1010 Earley Vernon Allen 1011 Eck Richard Austin 1012 Economos Justin Allen 1013 Edgington Daniel R 1014 Edwards Aaron J. 1015 Edwards Kerry M 1016 Edwards Larry K 1017 Edwards Torrence Timothy 1018 Ege Malachi 1019 Eid Ronnie 1020 Eilert Benjamin L 1021 El Iman Elizabeth 1022 Elam Jr Calvin Eugene 1023 Elder Brittany 1024 Eliacin Annabelle 1025 Elkins Alison

25 of 92 Rosenbohm v. Verizon Wireless Exhibit 1D: List of Opt-ins who are Settlement Class Members Last Name First Name 1026 Ellicott David J 1027 Elliott Starlynne M 1028 Ellis Laci Marie 1029 Ellis Miranda 1030 Ellis Timothy 1031 Ellis Iii Wendell Leroy 1032 Ellsberry Timothy Allen 1033 Elmore Tamara J 1034 Emil Justin 1035 Emons Justin K 1036 Emory Kylee Ann 1037 Englehart Craig R 1038 Englehart Jr Bradley Elvon 1039 Enquist Kaitlyn 1040 Enriquez Nickolas Ryan 1041 Erdelez Tome 1042 Ernst Joseph Justin 1043 Ershadi Karen P. 1044 Esan Adebowale A 1045 Escalante Andrew 1046 Escobar Alejandro 1047 Escobar Samira 1048 Escobedo Francisco 1049 Escobedo Sarah N 1050 Escolar Jason 1051 Escorza Samantha 1052 Eshesimua Felix 1053 Eshleman Jeremy 1054 Espinosa Stephanie J 1055 Espinoza Veronica 1056 Esqueda Mario 1057 Esquibel Joshua M 1058 Esse Jared 1059 Estrada Ivan 1060 Estrada Juan D 1061 Estrada Jr Eleuterio 1062 Etherton Marcus Anthony 1063 Etienne Michael S 1064 Evangelista Kevin 1065 Evans Courtney S 1066 Evans Janine

26 of 92 Rosenbohm v. Verizon Wireless Exhibit 1D: List of Opt-ins who are Settlement Class Members Last Name First Name 1067 Evans Kitron L 1068 Evans Zachary 1069 Everetts Chris 1070 Evins Nathan Ross 1071 Fadavi B Bobby 1072 Fadero Akinbayode 1073 Fancher Eric Charles 1074 Fandino Sam 1075 Fantetti Sean 1076 Farah Ehab 1077 Farda David Anthony 1078 Farias Eduardo 1079 Farr Iii George W. 1080 Farrington Jacob 1081 Farrington Michael Edward 1082 Farrington Tyler Hodges 1083 Farris Jonathan David 1084 Fasone Hollie Lynn 1085 Faught Danny Warren 1086 Favors Nate 1087 Favreau Daniel L 1088 Fazio Erik 1089 Feaster Aubrey 1090 Feaster Jr Lee A 1091 Featherer Jr Robert Edward 1092 Feehan John Christopher 1093 Feehan Joy 1094 Feher Iii Richard James 1095 Feliciano Sandra Iris 1096 Felton Sierra R 1097 Felton Stephen 1098 Femminineo Jessica 1099 Fernandez Alfonso Manuel 1100 Fernandez Avelina C 1101 Fernandez Francisco 1102 Fernandez Marco Antonio 1103 Fernandez Jr Luis E 1104 Ferrari Christine 1105 Ferreira Karen Goncalves 1106 Ferreira Kathleen Nicole 1107 Ferreira Sydney J

27 of 92 Rosenbohm v. Verizon Wireless Exhibit 1D: List of Opt-ins who are Settlement Class Members Last Name First Name 1108 Ferrell Chloe Monique 1109 Ficca Kathleen D 1110 Figueroa Araceli 1111 Figueroa Christopher J 1112 Figueroa Laura M 1113 Figueroa Veronica 1114 Fike Samantha 1115 Filkins Cecilia Marie 1116 Fink Matt 1117 Finley Rodriquez M. 1118 Finn Kim M 1119 Finney Derek W 1120 Fischer Tonya L 1121 Fish Noretta D 1122 Fisher Alisha Renee 1123 Fisher Chad 1124 Fisher Dustin Lee 1125 Fisher Tyler Roy 1126 Fisher Jr Derek A 1127 Fithen Charles 1128 Fitzgerald Christina M 1129 Fitzhugh Casey Nelson 1130 Fitzpatrick Steven G 1131 Fiume Patrick Anthony 1132 Flemister Sr Geovante Glenn 1133 Flessner Justin William 1134 Fletcher Casey K 1135 Florencio Hildaliz 1136 Florentino Radelquis 1137 Flores Alexander Milton 1138 Flores Ashley M 1139 Flores David 1140 Flores Felicia 1141 Flores Helianna Leslie 1142 Flores Patrice G 1143 Flores Patrick Daniel 1144 Flores Valerie 1145 Florestano Alexia 1146 Flowers Jacob W 1147 Flueck Ii Denny 1148 Flynn Michael

28 of 92 Rosenbohm v. Verizon Wireless Exhibit 1D: List of Opt-ins who are Settlement Class Members Last Name First Name 1149 Fochesato Mark A 1150 Fodge Chris 1151 Foggie James Leon 1152 Fontanez Melissa Ann 1153 Forbis Dustin R 1154 Ford Christopher 1155 Ford Denique La Shaun 1156 Ford Derrick L. 1157 Ford Michael Yuichi 1158 Formby Zachary Jay 1159 Forsythe Bradley James 1160 Forsythe John W 1161 Fortenberry Wachovia Yvonne 1162 Fortin Whitney Marie 1163 Fortino Frank 1164 Foster Audrey L 1165 Foster Erik 1166 Fouse Lorie 1167 Fowler Krystle 1168 Fowler Mark A 1169 Frabbiele Linda 1170 Frahm Patrick J 1171 Fraley Jr Jeffrey T 1172 Francis April D 1173 Franco Edgar 1174 Franco Fernando 1175 Franco Sharon C 1176 Francois Max Goldy 1177 Frank Lana Marisa 1178 Fraticelli Anthony Flavio 1179 Frazier Cortrez 1180 Frederick Tyrell Javon 1181 Frederickson Blake Andrew 1182 Free Margaret R 1183 Freed Nicole S 1184 Fregoso Vanessa 1185 French Latasha 1186 French Natalie A 1187 Frias David J 1188 Frisbee Jr Earl Lee 1189 Fritsch Ricci Elaine

29 of 92 Rosenbohm v. Verizon Wireless Exhibit 1D: List of Opt-ins who are Settlement Class Members Last Name First Name 1190 Frost Inga 1191 Frye Ashley Nicole 1192 Fudalan Leo James L. 1193 Fuentes Jenny Carolina 1194 Fuentes Jose Mauricio 1195 Fuentes Mikel P 1196 Fuentes Roberto 1197 Fuhrman Ashley Ann 1198 Fujisaki Arthur 1199 Fulk Michael Allen 1200 Fuller Deandre Dwayne 1201 Fuller Jay T 1202 Fulmer Rory James 1203 Fulton Quantacia 1204 Gaeta Christina Dawn 1205 Gagne Jimmy 1206 Gaines Monique R 1207 Galea Katrina C 1208 Galland Stephen M 1209 Gallant Joseph Pierre 1210 Gallardo Jorge 1211 Galmore Joshua Akeem 1212 Galvan Raul Michael 1213 Galvin Jamante Antonio 1214 Gamble Brenden R 1215 Gamboa Emma 1216 Gamboa Gerardo 1217 Gamboa Jr Michael V 1218 Gambrell Brady Stephen 1219 Gamez Padilla Joel 1220 Gandy Christopher 1221 Gannon Mary Katherine 1222 Ganshorn Jeremy A 1223 Gantt Paul 1224 Garcia Alberto R 1225 Garcia Alcor Ian Cruz 1226 Garcia Alejandro 1227 Garcia Amanda 1228 Garcia Brian 1229 Garcia Brianna N M 1230 Garcia Carmen

30 of 92 Rosenbohm v. Verizon Wireless Exhibit 1D: List of Opt-ins who are Settlement Class Members Last Name First Name 1231 Garcia Cindy J 1232 Garcia Dora M. 1233 Garcia Eduardo Elias 1234 Garcia Haydee S 1235 Garcia Ignacio 1236 Garcia Jeffrey 1237 Garcia Jeison A 1238 Garcia Joel 1239 Garcia Jorge C 1240 Garcia Judith 1241 Garcia Kiemmy Y 1242 Garcia Kris Fabiola 1243 Garcia Mayra 1244 Garcia Osmin G 1245 Garcia Ramon Manuel 1246 Garcia Rogelio 1247 Garcia Xavier Alexis 1248 Garcia Ii Angel M 1249 Garcia Jr Villanel 1250 Gard Tony D. 1251 Gardner Bridget Ann 1252 Garman James 1253 Garmendia Ricardo 1254 Garner Joshua 1255 Garney David 1256 Garraway Beverly Abbey 1257 Garrett Demunshay 1258 Garrett Jason K 1259 Garza Paul 1260 Gaspar Yesenia Elizabeth 1261 Gastelum Jr Martin 1262 Gathman Ryan 1263 Gause Artee L 1264 Gause Danielle Rehanna 1265 Gazoo John R 1266 Gearhart Allison Marie 1267 Gehring Michael A 1268 Gendron Seth Conrad 1269 Gensemer George T. 1270 George Michael Lyndon 1271 Georgi Ciro Eduardo

31 of 92 Rosenbohm v. Verizon Wireless Exhibit 1D: List of Opt-ins who are Settlement Class Members Last Name First Name 1272 Gerber Clayton 1273 Gerber Grey R 1274 Germain Brianne 1275 Gerner Frederick M 1276 Gertino Jordan John 1277 Gettinger Jeff 1278 Giarritta Gregory C 1279 Gibbons James 1280 Gibson John Curtis 1281 Gibson Marcia R 1282 Gibson Tyrell C 1283 Gierlowski Dan 1284 Gilbert Jeremy S 1285 Gilbert John R 1286 Gilbert Keisha Reece 1287 Gillespie Antonio 1288 Gillespie Irene R 1289 Gillespie Iv Richard David 1290 Gilliard Jimmie Lee 1291 Gilmore Lauriel A 1292 Gindi Courtney Lynn 1293 Gines Zackary D 1294 Gipson Derek M 1295 Givens Ii Carl Anthony 1296 Glasier Betty Jo 1297 Glaske Lisa Michelle 1298 Glauner Lisa 1299 Glenn Jamie L. 1300 Glover Tara Dyvonne 1301 Glymph Kyshona Kamille 1302 Gobin Poonam Dian 1303 Godette Lauren A 1304 Goebel Brenton 1305 Goede Shannon 1306 Goetsch Bryan L 1307 Goforth Kaleb Z 1308 Goins Brittani M 1309 Goist Ryan 1310 Goitia Jessica 1311 Gomes Andrew L 1312 Gomez Dorian Mirina

32 of 92 Rosenbohm v. Verizon Wireless Exhibit 1D: List of Opt-ins who are Settlement Class Members Last Name First Name 1313 Gomez Giovanni 1314 Gomez Monica 1315 Goncalves Melissa Margaret 1316 Goncalves Sara 1317 Gongora Sara Anne 1318 Gonzales Adam D 1319 Gonzales Heather 1320 Gonzales Jerrell Elias 1321 Gonzales Marshall E 1322 Gonzales Steven J 1323 Gonzales Jr Ted G 1324 Gonzalez Adriana 1325 Gonzalez Arthur 1326 Gonzalez Carmen 1327 Gonzalez Christopher Andrew 1328 Gonzalez Erik 1329 Gonzalez Hugo 1330 Gonzalez Jose Carlos 1331 Gonzalez Kirick David 1332 Gonzalez Luis N 1333 Gonzalez Marta A 1334 Gonzalez Royer Lehi 1335 Gonzalez Yocshio Salvador 1336 Gonzalez Yolanda L 1337 Gonzalez Jr Jose Luis 1338 Gonzalez-Reynoso Antonio 1339 Goodman Joletha M 1340 Goodwin Swansetta 1341 Gordon Donyashae 1342 Gordon Dorothy C 1343 Gordon Taylor 1344 Gords Seantrez Lanell 1345 Gore Alexandra Moranda 1346 Gotcher Brooke Aaron 1347 Goupil Kevin 1348 Gour Matthew Michael 1349 Gowdy Marcella Jean 1350 Gowdy Ii Ricky Lee 1351 Graciano-Arredondo Josue 1352 Grafton Trammel R 1353 Grant Keith Christopher

33 of 92 Rosenbohm v. Verizon Wireless Exhibit 1D: List of Opt-ins who are Settlement Class Members Last Name First Name 1354 Grant Jr Bernard Dewayne 1355 Gravatt Brittany R. 1356 Gray Garrett S. 1357 Gray Kanin D 1358 Gray Rebeka M 1359 Gray Richard Kevin 1360 Gray Ryan 1361 Gray Ted Allen 1362 Green Khary Kj 1363 Green Kimberly 1364 Green Porsia J 1365 Green Roberta 1366 Green Scott M 1367 Greene James Patrick 1368 Greene Justin Charles 1369 Greenwood Brittany N 1370 Greer Catrina 1371 Gregg Logan James 1372 Gregory Jeremy 1373 Gregory John 1374 Gregory Marvin Edward 1375 Greiss Eric 1376 Grella Michael A 1377 Grewal Shruti 1378 Grieco Vincent 1379 Grier Cynthia A 1380 Griffin Anna Maria 1381 Griffin Jared 1382 Griffin Lashonda Marie 1383 Griffith David Michael 1384 Grigsby James Anthony 1385 Grill Deborah N. 1386 Grimes Ii William 1387 Grippe Faithe Ann 1388 Gronewold Kyle 1389 Gross Mitch W 1390 Grout Richard Anthony 1391 Grove Anton 1392 Gruhl Geremy 1393 Grullon Luis 1394 Grutzmacher Faith R

34 of 92 Rosenbohm v. Verizon Wireless Exhibit 1D: List of Opt-ins who are Settlement Class Members Last Name First Name 1395 Guardado Soraya 1396 Gubber Michael 1397 Guckert Robert Michael 1398 Guerra Ashly K 1399 Guerra Jr Hector D. 1400 Guerrero Brenda C 1401 Guerrero Jaime 1402 Guerrero Martin A 1403 Guerrero Reymundo 1404 Guerrero Steven M 1405 Guggenberger Danielle 1406 Gulley Cindy Marie 1407 Gumin Jr Roger P 1408 Gums Sharick Lamay 1409 Gunn Jacob A 1410 Gunn Shane Bradley 1411 Guo Xiang 1412 Gurgel Yan 1413 Gustafson Bailey Danielle 1414 Gutierrez Edzna S 1415 Gutierrez Ignacio 1416 Gutierrez Joanna 1417 Gutierrez Kris 1418 Gutierrez Lorraine 1419 Guzman Hector Jesus 1420 Guzman Lindsey T 1421 Guzman Victor Hugo 1422 Haase Brittany M 1423 Haberecht Sarah Lynn 1424 Hadden Jeremy A 1425 Haddock Natalie Bollen 1426 Haders Suzanne 1427 Haeffner Mckenzie Lynn 1428 Haffley Scott 1429 Hairston Jonathan Douglass 1430 Halabi Sammy 1431 Hale Valencia M. 1432 Hale Iii Luetenner 1433 Hall Justin D 1434 Hall Kimberly 1435 Hall Tynisha Nicole

35 of 92 Rosenbohm v. Verizon Wireless Exhibit 1D: List of Opt-ins who are Settlement Class Members Last Name First Name 1436 Halse Kevin Brian 1437 Halsted Mandi N. 1438 Hamann Mason 1439 Hamby Zacarrii 1440 Hamilton Amanda Marie 1441 Hamilton James A. 1442 Hamilton Jamilah Danielle 1443 Hamilton Jennifer 1444 Hamilton Mackenzie Morgan 1445 Hamilton Robert Henry 1446 Hamilton Sabrina P 1447 Hammonds Sanchez D 1448 Hamrac Misty 1449 Hanley Ii Steven Douglas 1450 Hansard Aaron M 1451 Hansen Annmarie 1452 Hansen Mitchell Stephen 1453 Hanson Bret Andrew 1454 Hao Shyya Nawailohi Hiapo 1455 Happ Ryan Thomas 1456 Hardy Tiffany Monay 1457 Hargrove Yolanda 1458 Hariprasad Clinton 1459 Harken Brandon Christopher 1460 Harman Lisa R 1461 Harmon Deanna M 1462 Haro Ivan 1463 Harper Brianna 1464 Harper Michael Allan 1465 Harpp Brodie T 1466 Harrell Gabriel C 1467 Harris Artemus Martin 1468 Harris Danny Wade 1469 Harris Heather Ann 1470 Harris Lemuel Schaine 1471 Harris Matthew J 1472 Hart Monica Joy 1473 Harty Joshua L 1474 Harvey Bailey 1475 Hashimi Sayed 1476 Hatcher R. C.

36 of 92 Rosenbohm v. Verizon Wireless Exhibit 1D: List of Opt-ins who are Settlement Class Members Last Name First Name 1477 Hatman Cody J 1478 Haupt Stephen Jin 1479 Hawk Jonathan Adam 1480 Hawkins Andrew 1481 Hawkins James 1482 Hawkins Synetta J 1483 Hawley Samuel L 1484 Hawthorne Jasmin L 1485 Hayes Danielle Paige 1486 Hayes Jordan L 1487 Haygood Dennis Richard 1488 Haynes James L 1489 Hays Matthew 1490 Healy-Mcgue Gavin Michael 1491 Hearn Gabriel 1492 Hearns Jr Brian Cortez 1493 Hebert Corey Edward 1494 Hem Christina 1495 Hemeon Amanda Lee 1496 Henderson Britt M 1497 Henderson Christopher John 1498 Henderson Sean A 1499 Henderson Sherman Glen 1500 Henderson Taylor Elaine 1501 Hendi Mehrzad 1502 Hendricks Charles Brian 1503 Hendricks Millie J 1504 Hendrix Angelica 1505 Henry Albert Scott 1506 Henry Lawrence M 1507 Hensel Dave 1508 Hensel Miles 1509 Henson Alexander Barton 1510 Heredia Rosa M 1511 Hernandez Alejandro 1512 Hernandez Almadelia S 1513 Hernandez Brian 1514 Hernandez Damien A 1515 Hernandez David 1516 Hernandez Dora A 1517 Hernandez Eduardo

37 of 92 Rosenbohm v. Verizon Wireless Exhibit 1D: List of Opt-ins who are Settlement Class Members Last Name First Name 1518 Hernandez Elena Marie 1519 Hernandez Eleonel 1520 Hernandez Elias Francisco 1521 Hernandez Elmert Estuardo 1522 Hernandez Erika Ivette 1523 Hernandez Jose E 1524 Hernandez Juan G 1525 Hernandez Mayra 1526 Hernandez Rene Joel 1527 Hernandez Stephanie 1528 Hernandez Jr Pedro 1529 Herndon Shelby E 1530 Herrera Aris A 1531 Herrera Jenny 1532 Herrera Luis Alfredo 1533 Herrera Ryan 1534 Herrera Garcia Lisa A 1535 Herrera Jr Martin E 1536 Herrera Valadez Claudio Carlos 1537 Herrero Lance Evan 1538 Herrick Drew Robert 1539 Herriott Troy 1540 Herron Matthew 1541 Hertzberg Rory 1542 Hess Kalli King 1543 Heston Drew 1544 Hezekiah Jr Anthony 1545 Hicks Felicia M 1546 Hicks Nathan Dale 1547 Hidalgo Ricardo O 1548 Hijazi Hassan J 1549 Hildebrand Brian D 1550 Hildred Shantelle 1551 Hill Bradley 1552 Hill Christopher 1553 Hill Kenisha C 1554 Hill Shayla R 1555 Hill Subaya R 1556 Himes Derek 1557 Himes Tristan J. 1558 Hinawi Rami Nabil

38 of 92 Rosenbohm v. Verizon Wireless Exhibit 1D: List of Opt-ins who are Settlement Class Members Last Name First Name 1559 Hinde Christopher 1560 Hinger Tyler Wayne 1561 Hinson Joshua D 1562 Hinson Marcus 1563 Hisiro Paige 1564 Hisle Damyon 1565 Hitch Austin Gregory 1566 Hitzler Randi 1567 Hoaglund Teresa 1568 Hobbs Michelle W 1569 Hockerson Audrey 1570 Hodge Lance 1571 Hodge Robert K 1572 Hodge Terra Lynne Boots 1573 Hodges Jennifer L 1574 Hodges Lashay 1575 Hoeffer Tricia 1576 Hoffman Benjamin J 1577 Hoffman Javonne Chevelle 1578 Hogan Melissa 1579 Hogan Stephen M 1580 Hoke Sheldon 1581 Holaday Lance James 1582 Holderness Katherine 1583 Hollandsworth Kayla A 1584 Hollenbeck Casey R 1585 Holley Zane A 1586 Hollingworth Thomas Edward 1587 Hollis Kendra L 1588 Hollon Amber M 1589 Holmes Branden J 1590 Holmes Jason Corie 1591 Holmes Thomas J 1592 Holmon Tiffany M 1593 Holt Rebekah Lyn 1594 Holtman Linda L 1595 Homewood Mark Alan 1596 Honeycutt Bradley Ray 1597 Honeycutt Mary E 1598 Hoovler Sara Maria 1599 Hopkins Jasmine Nicole

39 of 92 Rosenbohm v. Verizon Wireless Exhibit 1D: List of Opt-ins who are Settlement Class Members Last Name First Name 1600 Horak Daniel Michael 1601 Horning Jonathan Paul 1602 Hornsby Andrew B 1603 Horvath Aaron M 1604 Hostager Joel Kristian 1605 Hotter Mitchel S 1606 Houck Mark 1607 Houston Tracey A. 1608 Hovhannisyan Levon 1609 Hovland Michael Patrick 1610 Howard Toddrick J 1611 Howe Christopher S 1612 Howe Jennifer Aaron 1613 Howell Mark 1614 Howell Micheal 1615 Howell Nicholas J 1616 Howland John Elgin 1617 Hsu James 1618 Hsu Ya T 1619 Hu Angela 1620 Hubbard Shaquisha M 1621 Huckaby Matthew G 1622 Hudson Colin Anton 1623 Hudson Heidi Alyn 1624 Hudson Pamela Reed 1625 Huerta Millie 1626 Huey Phaedra 1627 Huffman John David 1628 Huffman Patrick M. 1629 Hufford Brett Thomas 1630 Hughes Heather D 1631 Hughes Jacobia 1632 Huizar Susanna 1633 Hull Colin Anthony 1634 Hull Trisha L 1635 Hullum Jeff Tyler 1636 Hulsey Jason Paul 1637 Humphrey Brandy Lynch 1638 Humphrey Calvin E 1639 Humphrey Damien 1640 Humphrey Luke Anthony

40 of 92 Rosenbohm v. Verizon Wireless Exhibit 1D: List of Opt-ins who are Settlement Class Members Last Name First Name 1641 Hunt Darren G 1642 Hunter Dexter Darnell 1643 Hunter Jalyse Elizabeth 1644 Hunter Josh M 1645 Hurst Toby Nathaniel 1646 Hussain Bilal 1647 Hutslar Jason Lee 1648 Huwe Jordan 1649 Huynh Lynda 1650 Huynh Vinh K 1651 Huynh Xuan Thanh 1652 Ian Weng Keong 1653 Idos Jr Manuel A 1654 Incerto Jennifer Marie 1655 Inen Jeffrey Andrew 1656 Ingraham Markell P 1657 Ingwerson Ashley A 1658 Innocent-Staye Krysanju T 1659 Ion Lauren 1660 Irabor Osahon 1661 Irish Jason Daniel 1662 Irizarry Corey M. 1663 Irizarry Jason Antonio 1664 Ivy Jonathan 1665 Izzo Jr John D. 1666 Jacka Trevis Ray 1667 Jackson Ashley 1668 Jackson Ethan 1669 Jackson Frank J 1670 Jackson Gail 1671 Jackson Jarrett 1672 Jackson Jennifer 1673 Jackson Kareem Olajuwon 1674 Jackson La Shana R 1675 Jackson Michelle L 1676 Jackson Shamia 1677 Jackson Ternesha Lashawn 1678 Jackson Jr Fran Staccato 1679 Jacob Tammie Louise 1680 Jacobo Jr Lionel 1681 Jacobs Michael

41 of 92 Rosenbohm v. Verizon Wireless Exhibit 1D: List of Opt-ins who are Settlement Class Members Last Name First Name 1682 Jacoby Michelle A 1683 Jacquot Tyler 1684 Jaeger Renee 1685 James Andrew 1686 James Frederick A 1687 James Mark E 1688 James Marquillis 1689 James Michael 1690 James Iii Willie Lee 1691 Jameson Jason Edward 1692 Jamison Rebecca A 1693 Jamison Vannessa 1694 Jamnik Christopher Michael 1695 Jancarik Douglas E 1696 Janelle Kim Ellen 1697 Janke Shannon 1698 Jaramillo Jesus R 1699 Jefferson Ashlee Monet 1700 Jenkins Carnesha 1701 Jenkins Carrie Brooke 1702 Jenkins Julecia J 1703 Jenkins Kathryn Nicole 1704 Jenkins Malinda 1705 Jennings Travis W 1706 Jensen Anten 1707 Jensen Timothy J 1708 Jerard Nathan C 1709 Jerde John 1710 Jessup Stefani D 1711 Jimenez Rafael 1712 Jimenez Jr Rafael 1713 Jinks Bobby 1714 Johnson Andre C 1715 Johnson Anthony 1716 Johnson Bryan 1717 Johnson Carlton Maurice 1718 Johnson Cedric Garrod 1719 Johnson Chelsey E 1720 Johnson Christopher 1721 Johnson Cole 1722 Johnson Cotrice Renee

42 of 92 Rosenbohm v. Verizon Wireless Exhibit 1D: List of Opt-ins who are Settlement Class Members Last Name First Name 1723 Johnson Daryl Denise 1724 Johnson Derrick 1725 Johnson Ethan A 1726 Johnson Graham William 1727 Johnson Hope 1728 Johnson Jacob Lee 1729 Johnson Jessica 1730 Johnson John Cory 1731 Johnson Juliann Christine 1732 Johnson Kayleigh M 1733 Johnson Lacey 1734 Johnson Mahuryce D 1735 Johnson Michael 1736 Johnson Nicole Leilani 1737 Johnson Norman 1738 Johnson Randy C 1739 Johnson Santosha Nate' 1740 Johnson Tanner 1741 Johnson Torre 1742 Johnson Tyler 1743 Johnson Zachary 1744 Johnson Jr Dale Lee 1745 Johnson Jr Michael E 1746 Johnston Andrew K 1747 Johnston Shahayla Rae 1748 Jones Brandon M 1749 Jones Bryan 1750 Jones Daniel 1751 Jones Dereck 1752 Jones Eric R 1753 Jones James C 1754 Jones Joel 1755 Jones Jordan Scott 1756 Jones Joshua 1757 Jones Joshua D 1758 Jones Mary L 1759 Jones Melody A 1760 Jones Nolan Lee 1761 Jones Rachelle L 1762 Jones Ryan Mathew 1763 Jones Tanner E

43 of 92 Rosenbohm v. Verizon Wireless Exhibit 1D: List of Opt-ins who are Settlement Class Members Last Name First Name 1764 Jones Tanner L 1765 Jones Terence 1766 Jones Travontae L 1767 Jones Wilbur 1768 Jones Jr Adrian L 1769 Jones Jr Charles 1770 Jordan Ana 1771 Jordan Eric 1772 Jordan Jessica N 1773 Jordan Kalandra Kay 1774 Jordan Lauren M 1775 Jordan Micah 1776 Jorgensen Justin James 1777 Joseph Eddy 1778 Joseph Emmanuel F.R 1779 Joseph Fendley 1780 Joseph Scott 1781 Joseph Shainnen Amy 1782 Jovel Jonathan 1783 Joyce Kirk Pierce 1784 Juarez Andrew 1785 Justin Davidson 1786 Kaczmarek Ryan 1787 Kaiser Kiara 1788 Kaiser Wesley Tyson 1789 Kaltenborn Eric 1790 Kamor Bradlee Michael 1791 Kandart Christine 1792 Kandel Jaclyn Ann 1793 Kandola Hardeep Singh 1794 Kaneaster James 1795 Kang Gunjot S 1796 Kapphan Clark A 1797 Karageorge Hannah 1798 Karlstrum Aaron Baxter 1799 Karoffa Jeffrey M 1800 Karpy Iv Alexander Jerome 1801 Kassis David E 1802 Katz Nicholas 1803 Katzman Justin R 1804 Kebbeh Habib

44 of 92 Rosenbohm v. Verizon Wireless Exhibit 1D: List of Opt-ins who are Settlement Class Members Last Name First Name 1805 Kehler Dawn Michelle 1806 Kehoe Kevin W 1807 Keller Veronica Rojas 1808 Kelley Brandi Lee 1809 Kelley Jennifer 1810 Kelley Julie 1811 Kelley Nicole 1812 Kelly Brenna Colleen 1813 Kelly Casey 1814 Kelly Errol A 1815 Kelly Jonathan Edward 1816 Kelly Lawanda Michelle 1817 Kelly Micah 1818 Kemp Aaron K 1819 Kempf Lynn 1820 Kendig Amanda 1821 Kenison Joshua R 1822 Kentrup Chris 1823 Kenward Samuel Clay 1824 Kenyon Joseph 1825 Keough Jason 1826 Kerry Brian 1827 Kershaw Tara A 1828 Kerstetter Jr Glen Alan 1829 Kesatie Erica 1830 Kessler Meredith D 1831 Key Bryan T 1832 Khairzadah Masseeh 1833 Khalaf Rommy 1834 Khalid Latonya E 1835 Khan Muhammad Abulhassan 1836 Kidd Christopher P 1837 Kikani Justin Nishith 1838 Kilburg Sarah K. 1839 Killinger James Kyle 1840 Killinger Kayla Nicole 1841 Kim Andrew 1842 Kim Carol 1843 Kim Matthew 1844 Kim Michelle 1845 Kim Rory

45 of 92 Rosenbohm v. Verizon Wireless Exhibit 1D: List of Opt-ins who are Settlement Class Members Last Name First Name 1846 Kincer Richard Brett 1847 Kindler Caleb D 1848 King Dustin 1849 King Michael Joseph 1850 King Zechariah 1851 Kingdon John 1852 Kinney Erika Lea 1853 Kirby Lisa O 1854 Kirchhoff Robert T 1855 Kirk Benjamin J 1856 Kirkham Rachel Rene' 1857 Kiryakoza Teresa Rajah 1858 Kiurski Kelly M. 1859 Kleven Christopher Adam 1860 Klikus Christina M 1861 Klus-Osban Brianna 1862 Knabb Jeffrey Alan 1863 Knautz Brittney 1864 Kneitz David A 1865 Knight Kelley 1866 Knight Megan 1867 Knights Astarra 1868 Knittel Benjamin Jacob 1869 Koch Michael Howard 1870 Koech Qiana 1871 Koehler Jay A 1872 Koelzer Angelica 1873 Koerbel Matthew David 1874 Kohls Jr William Charles 1875 Kokkinakis Stella A 1876 Kollasch Stephanie 1877 Komar Scott 1878 Koonce Jesse 1879 Kopey Danielle April 1880 Kopp Ian 1881 Korolian Alex P 1882 Kouri Eileen 1883 Kovacs Stephen A 1884 Krahn Clinton 1885 Kranz Kyle W 1886 Kreib Robert A

46 of 92 Rosenbohm v. Verizon Wireless Exhibit 1D: List of Opt-ins who are Settlement Class Members Last Name First Name 1887 Kreiler Marissa 1888 Kroledge Lisa 1889 Krueger Rutger Alexander 1890 Krull Tabitha 1891 Kua-Nachor Melissa 1892 Kugel Jeff R. 1893 Kula Jason M 1894 Kunnas David 1895 Kuschnik Danielle Nicole 1896 Kuy Christine S 1897 Kuy Pheng 1898 Kwasniewski Michael Robert 1899 Kwon Claribel 1900 Laborde Laishawn 1901 Labor-Koroma Yasento 1902 Lacek Christopher D 1903 Lacey Jr Timothy A 1904 Lacour Samantha A 1905 Lacurts Matthew 1906 Ladd Janet 1907 Laduke Anthony Walter 1908 Lajeunesse Adam Joseph 1909 Lake Joseph D 1910 Lake Tara 1911 Lakhanpal Stephanie Michelle 1912 Lam Vong Sa 1913 Lambert Randy 1914 Lamberth Scott David 1915 Landeros Daniel 1916 Lang David 1917 Lang John Michael 1918 Lang Richard 1919 Lange George Robert 1920 Langhart Brock 1921 Lankau Jonathan B 1922 Lanphear Colin Andrew 1923 Larsen Timothy 1924 Larson Gregory A 1925 Lashomb Tyler Lynn 1926 Laterra Anthony 1927 Laughlin Wesley W

47 of 92 Rosenbohm v. Verizon Wireless Exhibit 1D: List of Opt-ins who are Settlement Class Members Last Name First Name 1928 Laurel Vanessa J 1929 Lauts Amanda Nicole 1930 Lavone Zachary Thomas 1931 Lawler John M. 1932 Lawrence Michael 1933 Lawrence Timothy James 1934 Lawson Kenneth C 1935 Lawson Mark Ryan 1936 Lawson Scott 1937 Layes Molly 1938 Layne Christopher 1939 Layton Iii Morris Christopher 1940 Lazarus Jermaine A 1941 Lazarus Vaughn Raymond 1942 Le Son Thai 1943 Le Tony 1944 Le Tuan Cong 1945 Leabo Jessica M 1946 Leach Ian 1947 Leach Michelle 1948 Leavitt Adrein 1949 Leblanc Lindsay M 1950 Lebold Deborah A 1951 Lebrun Jessica Mae 1952 Lecarpentier Deanna 1953 Ledesma Michelle 1954 Lee Angelina 1955 Lee Jeremiah T 1956 Lee Mark 1957 Lee Micah 1958 Lee Robert Edward 1959 Lee Roberta 1960 Lee Terry William 1961 Lee Victoria 1962 Lefebvre Shelby 1963 Leggat Dharma R 1964 Legrand Katherine M 1965 Legrand Michael 1966 Leichliter Brandy Lee 1967 Leinheuser Kristopher V. 1968 Leiton Cristina Raquel

48 of 92 Rosenbohm v. Verizon Wireless Exhibit 1D: List of Opt-ins who are Settlement Class Members Last Name First Name 1969 Lemaster Justin William 1970 Lemboris Tammy Lynn 1971 Leon Jose G 1972 Leonard Simba A 1973 Leoni Nicole 1974 Lewis Allan 1975 Lewis Brandon L 1976 Lewis Dominic J 1977 Lewis Jonathan O 1978 Lin Henry 1979 Lin Rosy 1980 Linares Francisco J 1981 Lindow Eric 1982 Lindsay Ian James-Albert 1983 Lindsey Daria 1984 Lindsey Marites D 1985 Lindsey Ryan Scott 1986 Linton Trunda 1987 Lipo Jr James 1988 Lipson Martez D 1989 Little Corrine Renea 1990 Little Crystal Ann 1991 Little Thomas David 1992 Liu John 1993 Lo Curto-Smith Jessica A 1994 Loaiza Robert R 1995 Loberiza Martinez Jose Manuel 1996 Loch Stephanie L 1997 Locke David H. 1998 Lockhart Vanita 1999 Loebenstein Michael Vale 2000 Lofton Shante L 2001 Long Adrienne 2002 Loomis Justin 2003 Loor Gino 2004 Lope Kimberly 2005 Lopes Matthew 2006 Lopes Tayler Justine 2007 Lopez Alexander 2008 Lopez Casey 2009 Lopez Crystal

49 of 92 Rosenbohm v. Verizon Wireless Exhibit 1D: List of Opt-ins who are Settlement Class Members Last Name First Name 2010 Lopez Ed Jonathan 2011 Lopez German 2012 Lopez Jeffrey 2013 Lopez Jeffrey R 2014 Lopez Jennifer Itzamara 2015 Lopez Jonathan 2016 Lopez Leslie S 2017 Lopez Liz 2018 Lopez Rosa Maria Lopez 2019 Lopez Yaneth A 2020 Lopez Nader Yamilleth 2021 Lopez Zamora Homar 2022 Lopez-Cruz Mary Ann 2023 Lorsung Danielle R 2024 Lort Easton Jake 2025 Louka Marvin M 2026 Lovelace Antonio M 2027 Loveland Brian 2028 Lovett Jr Mark A 2029 Lowe Megan 2030 Lowry Erika Leigh 2031 Lowry Jonah 2032 Loy Jonathan 2033 Loya Jesus 2034 Loya-Cabrera Samuel 2035 Lozano Evelyn V 2036 Lozano Jimmy 2037 Lozano Leslie Denise 2038 Lubom Monneka L 2039 Luce Jonell Lindy 2040 Lucero Joanna L 2041 Luckett Jamal Kevin 2042 Lucky Ralph Wardell 2043 Luczai Debra L 2044 Luedike Eric J. 2045 Lugrain Ii Brian Keith 2046 Luke Jr Andre Jermaine 2047 Luker Cory 2048 Luker Eric 2049 Lum Isaac N 2050 Luna Nathan Glenn

50 of 92 Rosenbohm v. Verizon Wireless Exhibit 1D: List of Opt-ins who are Settlement Class Members Last Name First Name 2051 Luna Phillip 2052 Lux Tyler 2053 Luzier Thomas Brooks 2054 Lynch Jamie 2055 Lynch Jeffrey J 2056 Lyons Jr Michael T 2057 Macario Meaghan 2058 Macentee Connor Michael 2059 Machado Robin A 2060 Machado Ryan J. 2061 Macias Hector S 2062 Macias Jr Ruben 2063 Maciel Anissa 2064 Macon Michelle 2065 Madara Jr Richard David 2066 Madison Allison L. 2067 Madison Joseph Allen 2068 Madrid Evette 2069 Madrigal Alexis 2070 Madsen David 2071 Maffett Alexandra Hope 2072 Magallanez Ivan Alberto 2073 Magdaleno Jacob Armando 2074 Magee Tracee L 2075 Mahuad Daniel 2076 Maier Kyle 2077 Majhu Seema 2078 Majikas Brandon James 2079 Malcon Jabrail 2080 Maldonado Ignacio 2081 Maldonado Luis 2082 Maldonado Manuel A 2083 Mallory Joshua Leon 2084 Malta Robert T 2085 Maltba Roland 2086 Maltese Jason Joseph 2087 Manahan Dustin 2088 Mancco Andrew 2089 Manis Dustin S. 2090 Manning Laura I 2091 Manning Paul David

51 of 92 Rosenbohm v. Verizon Wireless Exhibit 1D: List of Opt-ins who are Settlement Class Members Last Name First Name 2092 Manrique Adrian 2093 Manshack Melissa 2094 Manzo Angel 2095 Marano Matthew 2096 Marclef Kraig 2097 Marcos Cassie Gale 2098 Marcum Richard M 2099 Mariona Carlos M. 2100 Marks Julia Marie 2101 Marlin Kyle Thomas 2102 Marozick Paul N 2103 Marquez Rodolfo 2104 Marquez Roque Karim 2105 Marra Michael Anthony 2106 Marrama Danielle Elizabeth 2107 Marrow Brooke 2108 Marrujo Justin J 2109 Marshall Christopher 2110 Marshello Donald Zachary 2111 Marta Rey 2112 Marten Ryan 2113 Martenet Andrew W 2114 Martin Amy H 2115 Martin Anthony Christian 2116 Martin Bobbie Jo 2117 Martin Bobbye 2118 Martin Bradley 2119 Martin David W 2120 Martin Emily 2121 Martin Rachel 2122 Martin Jr Carlos Alberto 2123 Martinez Aaron Louis 2124 Martinez Alexis 2125 Martinez Bryan 2126 Martinez Carlos 2127 Martinez Carlos A 2128 Martinez Derek J 2129 Martinez Francisco Javier 2130 Martinez Jacquelyn C 2131 Martinez Jorge 2132 Martinez Mary

52 of 92 Rosenbohm v. Verizon Wireless Exhibit 1D: List of Opt-ins who are Settlement Class Members Last Name First Name 2133 Martinez Noemi 2134 Martinez Salvador I 2135 Martini Lee R 2136 Marzett Shaunte R 2137 Marzocco Vanessa Danielle 2138 Maslivar Daniel Armando 2139 Mason Airek 2140 Massaro Michael 2141 Mastrolonardo Paula 2142 Matayoshi Clinton 2143 Mathay Erika M 2144 Mathis Rachel Lee 2145 Matsubara Michael 2146 Matsuk Viacheslav 2147 Matthew Amila 2148 Matthews Randall Travis 2149 Mauser Benjamin 2150 May Derek M 2151 May Marvin Randy 2152 Maycock John P 2153 Mayer Akil L 2154 Mayes Ashli Nicole 2155 Mayon Jonathan 2156 Mays Charles E 2157 Mays Dior C 2158 Mays Rodney Jamal 2159 Mazzocca Richard A 2160 Mcadams Meredith Alys 2161 Mcallister Ronald B 2162 Mcavoy Jamie Lee 2163 Mcbride Tee'La 2164 Mccall Janet L 2165 Mccallum Brianna Janel 2166 Mccallum Paige 2167 Mccarron Brian M 2168 Mccarthy Marcie M 2169 Mccarty Austin R 2170 Mccaskill Kenya S 2171 Mccastle Jr Vincent J C 2172 Mccausland Lindsay 2173 Mccloskey Shane D

53 of 92 Rosenbohm v. Verizon Wireless Exhibit 1D: List of Opt-ins who are Settlement Class Members Last Name First Name 2174 Mccollum Amanda L 2175 Mccombs Joseph Mitchell 2176 Mcconnell Laura 2177 Mccormick John D 2178 Mccormick Iii Donald E. 2179 Mccracken Jason T 2180 Mccullough James F 2181 Mcdaniel Danielle 2182 Mcdaniel Jr Bruce James 2183 Mcdonald Chantal Diana 2184 Mcdonald Jennifer Lynn 2185 Mcdowell Bouaraphanh 2186 Mcdowell Jene Hill 2187 Mcdowell Jr Paul W 2188 Mcgalla Kelly Sue 2189 Mcgaugh Joshua L 2190 Mcgregor Bret 2191 Mcinnis Adrian E 2192 Mcintosh Deedrick 2193 Mcintosh James E 2194 Mcintyre Joseph 2195 McKay Maria 2196 Mckeehan Jonathan D 2197 Mckenzie Jeremy 2198 Mckenzie Joseph E. 2199 Mckenzie Tomesha Bren'Dra 2200 McKessler Annemarie 2201 Mcknight Jason 2202 Mclaughlin Kevin J 2203 Mclean Mone R 2204 Mcmannen Laurie 2205 Mcmillan Jonathan 2206 Mcmillian Linda 2207 Mcnair Maxwell 2208 Mcnally Scott Philip 2209 Mcnie Angela 2210 Mczeal Brikinya 2211 Mead Gary D 2212 Medearis Jerelle A 2213 Medina Hilario Rene 2214 Megill Raymond

54 of 92 Rosenbohm v. Verizon Wireless Exhibit 1D: List of Opt-ins who are Settlement Class Members Last Name First Name 2215 Meier Gary 2216 Mejia Rosanoemi Alvarez 2217 Melani Domenic 2218 Melendrez Guadalupe 2219 Melgar Kevin J 2220 Mendelson Phillip Michael 2221 Mendez Giovanni 2222 Mendez Gladys Y 2223 Mendez Jr Martin 2224 Mendoza Estella Maria 2225 Mendoza Luis G 2226 Mendoza Mayra A 2227 Menge Ashley B 2228 Mercado Michael 2229 Merced Steven J 2230 Meredith Bettina Leanne 2231 Merigold Summer Michelle 2232 Merlin Carolina 2233 Merritt Evette 2234 Merritt Shequita 2235 Merz Beth L 2236 Meshal Ahmed 2237 Metcalf Joseph M 2238 Metoyer Amanda Danielle 2239 Metz Shiane 2240 Meurette Michelle Lynn 2241 Meyers Andrew C 2242 Meyers Christopher A 2243 Michael Justin W 2244 Michel Christian Charles 2245 Mickiewicz Anthony W 2246 Middlebrook William C 2247 Middleton Kenneth Ray 2248 Mikkelsen Nathan Daniel 2249 Miles Christopher 2250 Millan Julie Nicole 2251 Miller Benjamin Bojames 2252 Miller Brian A 2253 Miller Charity 2254 Miller Eboni K. 2255 Miller Joshua Allen

55 of 92 Rosenbohm v. Verizon Wireless Exhibit 1D: List of Opt-ins who are Settlement Class Members Last Name First Name 2256 Miller Kimberly I 2257 Miller Leslie 2258 Miller Monica Renee 2259 Miller Sara Lynn 2260 Miller Sherri 2261 Miller Tracie L 2262 Miller Travis 2263 Miller Sr Christopher M 2264 Mills Amber Cora-Mae 2265 Mills Charles Daniel 2266 Mills Gracie 2267 Millsaps William Andrew 2268 Millwood Sandra N 2269 Minnillo Michael Ray 2270 Minnis Kyle Daniel 2271 Minto Paul 2272 Minton Mark 2273 Misher Rachel V 2274 Mitchell Deandre 2275 Mitchell India Lasall 2276 Mitchell Sr Eric D. 2277 Mobley Shamira 2278 Modica Andrew 2279 Modica Nicole A 2280 Mohammed Habibu Dawuda 2281 Mohar Anton J 2282 Mojica Juan 2283 Mojica Veronica 2284 Molina Jesus 2285 Monaco Jr James P 2286 Monasterio Charls Philip 2287 Mondesir Anthony 2288 Mondesir Stephan 2289 Monier Devin 2290 Monreal Erika Escobar 2291 Monroe Eric D 2292 Monroe Lamar 2293 Montalbano David 2294 Montanez Andrew 2295 Monteon Adrian 2296 Montero Elida

56 of 92 Rosenbohm v. Verizon Wireless Exhibit 1D: List of Opt-ins who are Settlement Class Members Last Name First Name 2297 Montes Veronica Michelle 2298 Montes Jr Raul 2299 Montgomery Jr Eric L 2300 Monthie Kyle 2301 Montoya Fabiola 2302 Montoya Jessica Veronica 2303 Moody Jr Kenneth Harold 2304 Moody Jr Vernon 2305 Moon Christopher Joseph 2306 Moon Joshua Peter 2307 Mooney Autumn P 2308 Moore Aaron 2309 Moore Adan J 2310 Moore Amanda Denise 2311 Moore Anthony Francis 2312 Moore Gerald Warren 2313 Moore Hayden A 2314 Moore Joshua A 2315 Moore Kadeem Jamal 2316 Moore Malinda Catherine 2317 Moore Marcus A 2318 Moore Nicholas S 2319 Moore Tammiko Denise 2320 Moore Tiffany 2321 Moore Iii Charles Richard 2322 Mora Jr David 2323 Moradi Amanda 2324 Morales Brenda 2325 Morales Christine Ann 2326 Morales David Charles 2327 Morales Israel Santiago 2328 Morales Janet 2329 Morales Jimmy 2330 Morales Julietta 2331 Morales Maricela 2332 Morales Michael 2333 Morales Michael 2334 Morales Vanessa 2335 Morales-Gerardo Pavel 2336 Morales-Tellez Victor Gerardo 2337 Morehead Michael David

57 of 92 Rosenbohm v. Verizon Wireless Exhibit 1D: List of Opt-ins who are Settlement Class Members Last Name First Name 2338 Moreno Louis Anthony 2339 Moreno Mara Sarhaj 2340 Moreno Marcelo R 2341 Moreno Matthew John 2342 Morente Brent E 2343 Moretz Lauryn Camille 2344 Morgan Charrion 2345 Morgan Janessa 2346 Morgan Leonda Lettrice 2347 Morgan Natasha 2348 Morgan Oscar A 2349 Morgan Troy 2350 Morgia David J. 2351 Mori Theodore 2352 Morin Janel 2353 Moronez Elizabeth 2354 Morrill Nicole 2355 Morris Alicia R 2356 Morris Arnold W 2357 Morris Colten Dallas 2358 Morris Dustin P 2359 Morrison Ashley C 2360 Morrison Ryan A 2361 Morrow Benjamin 2362 Morrow Kristina Luree 2363 Morton John Lesley 2364 Mosconi Kyler A 2365 Moseley Katherine 2366 Moskowitz Aaron 2367 Mosquera Serena Michele 2368 Moss Amanda Sue 2369 Moua Sheri 2370 Moulton Scott 2371 Mourey Anthony K 2372 Moutaki Safia 2373 Mowen Brian M 2374 Mowjood Umar 2375 Moyer Gabrielle 2376 Mrehin Aref S 2377 Muhammad Colby Natasha 2378 Mull Gregory M

58 of 92 Rosenbohm v. Verizon Wireless Exhibit 1D: List of Opt-ins who are Settlement Class Members Last Name First Name 2379 Muller Ashton L 2380 Mungin Jemaire 2381 Munoz Marjorie Gene 2382 Munsey Juddie A 2383 Munuz Claudia U. 2384 Mure Jr Julius Kennard 2385 Murillo Jr Gerardo J 2386 Murnyack Joseph 2387 Murphy Jordon Thomas 2388 Murphy Monique Rochelle 2389 Murphy Natalie 2390 Murphy Nicholas D 2391 Murray Kelby 2392 Murray Rachel 2393 Murray Thomas E 2394 Musser Brittney 2395 Mustafa Mike 2396 Mustafa Mohammed A 2397 Mustico Paula Maria 2398 Myers Anthony Joseph 2399 Myers Caitlin 2400 Myers Paige Elizabeth 2401 Myles Ryan Keith 2402 Mynatt India Nicole 2403 Mzannar Mohamed 2404 Nadler Drew 2405 Nagy Jay Parker 2406 Nagy Tia 2407 Naranjo Rose M 2408 Narcisse Michelle 2409 Narkawicz Dylan 2410 Nartker Rusty 2411 Nashland Seth 2412 Natale Michael W 2413 Nations Stella Chiakakpori 2414 Nazario Lucy 2415 Neal Raegan M 2416 Neary Donna K 2417 Neely William Cody 2418 Neijar Michael 2419 Neilssen Matthew David

59 of 92 Rosenbohm v. Verizon Wireless Exhibit 1D: List of Opt-ins who are Settlement Class Members Last Name First Name 2420 Nellucci Oris 2421 Nelms Ii Vincent 2422 Nelson Bailey Alec 2423 Nelson Chelsea A 2424 Nelson Eric D 2425 Nelson Kimberly Kae 2426 Nelson Levi 2427 Nelson Nate D 2428 Nelson Tenika 2429 Nemes Ashley 2430 Nesses Joseph Ryan 2431 Netto Richard T 2432 Neubauer Michael 2433 Neumann Riley Allen 2434 Nevarez Roberto I 2435 Nevels Damien Anthony 2436 Neverson Cynia 2437 New Amy L 2438 Newsholme Craig 2439 Neymeiyer Matthew William 2440 Nguyen Charlene M 2441 Nguyen Chien 2442 Nguyen Nam K 2443 Nguyen Toan 2444 Nicastro Christopher R 2445 Nicholson Jr Rodney 2446 Nicoletti Joanna M 2447 Nicolini Cynthia D 2448 Nicolini Rick 2449 Nikpour Shayan Ray 2450 Niosi Amanda 2451 Nissen Jr Dennis R 2452 Niven Kari Jo 2453 Nix Kevin B 2454 Nixon David R. 2455 Nixon Whitney C 2456 Noack Jared W 2457 Nodd Nneka 2458 Noehren Kristin 2459 Nohe Amber Lynn 2460 Noland William Joseph

60 of 92 Rosenbohm v. Verizon Wireless Exhibit 1D: List of Opt-ins who are Settlement Class Members Last Name First Name 2461 Noll Ashley Nicole 2462 Nollen Tara Kathleen 2463 Norcross Jason P 2464 Nordell Jessica Noah 2465 Nored Toya Joanne 2466 Norgaisse Steven 2467 Norlin Kelsey 2468 Norris Terraesha 2469 Norwood Lennie Darius 2470 Novak Timothy Edward 2471 Nowak Amanda 2472 Nowlin Jr Garth Wate 2473 Nsiah Christina 2474 Nuetzman Zachary 2475 Null Rahn Christopher 2476 Nunez Raiti Patricia 2477 Nunez Jr Carlos 2478 Nutting Anthony 2479 Obanjoko Adeyemi O 2480 Oboyle Sean 2481 Obrien Matthew Kyle 2482 O'Brien Marissa 2483 O'Brien Robert 2484 Ocampo Luz Amaparo 2485 Ochoa Javier A 2486 Oconnor Eileen Onella 2487 Octave Kevin Earl 2488 O'Dell Jackie L 2489 O'Dell Jason Ryan 2490 Oden Eddie D 2491 Odugbesan Bobby 2492 Oellein Nicholas 2493 Offet Matthew 2494 Ogent Brian J 2495 Ogles James Nolan 2496 Oglesby Donald L 2497 Oglesby Shanbria 2498 Ogundipe Ayodele 2499 Ohearn Kyle Edward 2500 Olarte Noemi Sandoval 2501 Olave Miguelangel

61 of 92 Rosenbohm v. Verizon Wireless Exhibit 1D: List of Opt-ins who are Settlement Class Members Last Name First Name 2502 Oleary Clayton F 2503 Oler Cathy 2504 Oliva Klaus 2505 Oliva-Carlen Vanessa Lee 2506 Oliver Chanel Nicole 2507 Olson Adam Bruce David 2508 Olson Eric 2509 Olson Jacob T. 2510 Omega Analyssa Jasmin 2511 Onofre-Lopez Jacqueline R. 2512 Ophardt Alicia M 2513 Oregel Veronica 2514 Orengo Cruz Josean 2515 Orijel Christopher 2516 Orlandi-Carman Julie M 2517 Ornelas Jr Rafael 2518 Orozco Henry M 2519 Orozco Barcenas Manuel 2520 Orsak Judy Lynn 2521 Ortega Christopher M. 2522 Ortega Josefina 2523 Ortega Valentin 2524 Ortega Jr Jose 2525 Ortiz Felix John 2526 Ortiz Ivan 2527 Ortiz John P 2528 Ortiz Julio C 2529 Ortiz Jr Federico 2530 Ortman Luke 2531 Orwig Joyce A. 2532 Orzechowski Robert Louis 2533 Oshita Susan Villanueva 2534 Osmonson John 2535 Ostrander Joe 2536 Outler Brittany Nicole 2537 Owens Juanita 2538 Owens Nicholas J 2539 Owens Rodrique 2540 Owens-Planck Keith Edmund 2541 Ozcelik Emine 2542 Pace Montell Renne'

62 of 92 Rosenbohm v. Verizon Wireless Exhibit 1D: List of Opt-ins who are Settlement Class Members Last Name First Name 2543 Pacheco Jeffrey 2544 Pacificador Alan M 2545 Padial Carlos 2546 Padilla Brian John 2547 Padilla Cynthia C 2548 Padilla Geraldo 2549 Padilla Jesus 2550 Padilla Ricardo R 2551 Pagano Kamie E 2552 Pagano Valerie 2553 Page Ashley 2554 Page Devin 2555 Page Jordan G 2556 Paige Londi Mi-Kee Denice 2557 Paige Steven Folger 2558 Paikos Sarah Nichole 2559 Palkki Dana O 2560 Palkki Matthew T 2561 Palmer Anthony D 2562 Palmer Joshua Charles 2563 Palmer Robert Oliver 2564 Palmer Trina R 2565 Palmer Jr Richard Brown 2566 Palmeri Jr Michael J 2567 Palmisano Dana Kathryn 2568 Palomo John J 2569 Pandy Aimee E 2570 Papadopoulos Vaios K 2571 Paparic Bridget L 2572 Papillon Serge M 2573 Pappo Samuel Isaiahs 2574 Parada Kenny P 2575 Paresa Rebecca 2576 Parihar Krishna L 2577 Paris Ann E 2578 Park Jonathan 2579 Park Sung 2580 Parker Anthony Roderick 2581 Parker Britian D 2582 Parker Jimere Leon 2583 Parkey Sr Derrick Lamont

63 of 92 Rosenbohm v. Verizon Wireless Exhibit 1D: List of Opt-ins who are Settlement Class Members Last Name First Name 2584 Parks Jr Larry 2585 Partridge Kathryn Carrie 2586 Pasquarelli Kevin 2587 Passero Michael A 2588 Pastore Michael 2589 Patania Daniela 2590 Patel Deepash 2591 Paterson Kathryn Michele 2592 Patient Lila F 2593 Patrick Evan 2594 Patten Branden Edward 2595 Patterson Anna K 2596 Patterson Darius A 2597 Patterson Todd 2598 Patton Christopher Eugene 2599 Patton Laquita Magail 2600 Pau Jessica 2601 Paul Kendra 2602 Pauley Karen Lynne 2603 Paulmeno Dan 2604 Paulson David Christian 2605 Pavon Michael Lenin 2606 Pax Michael 2607 Paxinos Joannis 2608 Payne Christopher William 2609 Payne Kathie Y 2610 Payne Kristopher 2611 Payne Kyle R 2612 Payton Shenavia T 2613 Paz Dominic 2614 Paz Noel 2615 Pearson Darnell 2616 Pearson Gina B 2617 Pearson Latiyyah Malikah 2618 Peatross Bertha Mariana 2619 Pecorino Steven Luigi 2620 Peden Landri 2621 Pedregon Lupe 2622 Peisker Jr Clifford Joseph 2623 Pelkey Susan Theresa 2624 Pelletier Timothy Marc

64 of 92 Rosenbohm v. Verizon Wireless Exhibit 1D: List of Opt-ins who are Settlement Class Members Last Name First Name 2625 Pells Donald Gregory 2626 Peluso James A. 2627 Pena Crystal Ashley 2628 Pena Jose 2629 Penn Sokoeurn 2630 Peoples Aaron J 2631 Peppentenzza Donald Joseph 2632 Pepper Ethan 2633 Perea Rocio G. 2634 Pereira Rachel Sonia 2635 Perez Alejandrina G 2636 Perez Araceli 2637 Perez Bryan E 2638 Perez Edward 2639 Perez Eric 2640 Perez Ericksson 2641 Perez Iris Elyssa 2642 Perez Jason 2643 Perez Javier 2644 Perez Jose A 2645 Perez Michael G 2646 Perez Robert R 2647 Perez Romeo 2648 Perez Zaira 2649 Perez Garcia Vanessa 2650 Perez Jr Pedro 2651 Perius Noah Michael 2652 Perrier Kurtley 2653 Perry Latashia 2654 Perryman Hailey Nicole 2655 Peter Royal M 2656 Peterkin Jr Andre R 2657 Peters Johnathan 2658 Peters Ryan 2659 Peters Scott Daniel 2660 Peters Jr Edward Rodriguez 2661 Petersen Erich 2662 Peterson Jeffrey Joseph 2663 Petrucelli Ryan Anthony 2664 Pham Christine 2665 Pham Jody

65 of 92 Rosenbohm v. Verizon Wireless Exhibit 1D: List of Opt-ins who are Settlement Class Members Last Name First Name 2666 Pham Linh Duy 2667 Pham Quoc David 2668 Pheister Callie 2669 Phelps Araceli 2670 Phillips Anthony R 2671 Phillips Brianna Aiden 2672 Phillips Darrell D 2673 Phillips Eric E 2674 Phillips Kyle D 2675 Phillips Robert 2676 Philp-Fenter Kale Annice 2677 Phimmavong Vencent 2678 Phiropoulos Matthew 2679 Pickett Jasmine 2680 Pico Marie P 2681 Pierce Megan 2682 Pierce Tiffany N 2683 Pimental Christopher Joseph-Keoki 2684 Pruden James 2685 Pineda Juan 2686 Pineda Ronald E 2687 Pineres Eduardo 2688 Pinkerman Scott 2689 Pinon Danielle 2690 Pinson Michael 2691 Piraino John Vincent 2692 Piscopio Daniel 2693 Pistilli Joseph E 2694 Pitter Michael William 2695 Pitts Daniel 2696 Pitts Jermaine 2697 Pitts Ii Donald G. 2698 Plancarte Victor 2699 Plante Joseph L 2700 Platte Casey W 2701 Ploof Joshua Joseph 2702 Plotcher Dru 2703 Plum Thomas R 2704 Plymale Savannah Cavell 2705 Pocock Ezekiel 2706 Podrug Travis J

66 of 92 Rosenbohm v. Verizon Wireless Exhibit 1D: List of Opt-ins who are Settlement Class Members Last Name First Name 2707 Poggioli Eric 2708 Poindexter Staci L 2709 Polanco Jonathan B 2710 Poleski John Edward 2711 Poleti Brian D 2712 Polis Mike B 2713 Polito Iii James Francis 2714 Polk Esther Elizabeth Natelia 2715 Ponce Gabriella 2716 Pond Bradford 2717 Popa Stefan M 2718 Popal Aisha 2719 Pope Brandon 2720 Pope Jr Warren W 2721 Porreca Anthony 2722 Porter Atina 2723 Porter Denise Decell 2724 Porter Jr Brian Ashley 2725 Portillo Julie 2726 Posey Allan 2727 Potthoff Robert Gerhardt 2728 Potts Chelsea A 2729 Powell Brittany 2730 Powell Latricia Ashley 2731 Powell Patrick 2732 Powell Jr Bruce T. 2733 Powell Jr Dwayne 2734 Powers Antoine P 2735 Powers Chad R 2736 Powers Jr Stephen Timothy 2737 Pozo Ivan 2738 Prainito Michael Joseph 2739 Pratt Brandi Elizabeth 2740 Pratt Rachael 2741 Pratt Stephanie N 2742 Predko Anthony 2743 Prendergast Candice M 2744 Presley Dawn Ann 2745 Price Gregory W 2746 Price-Barnes Philip A 2747 Prival John

67 of 92 Rosenbohm v. Verizon Wireless Exhibit 1D: List of Opt-ins who are Settlement Class Members Last Name First Name 2748 Privett Scott Edward 2749 Prugar Steven 2750 Pugh Ryan C 2751 Pullen Kenneth 2752 Pullom Marcella 2753 Purnell Lovett S 2754 Purvis Jamie L 2755 Pyatt- Jackson Avery 2756 Qazi Moinuddin 2757 Quallen Jesse Levi James 2758 Quesada Desiree 2759 Quigley Casey Jo 2760 Quijas Guillermo 2761 Quillen Tasheena Michelle 2762 Quinde Joann 2763 Quinn Todd 2764 Quinones Camilo 2765 Quinonez Jr Richard 2766 Quiray Marianne 2767 Radford Jonathan A 2768 Rahman Hafizur 2769 Rai Manjinder 2770 Raikes Jr Kenneth 2771 Railey Erin Marie 2772 Raina Asad I 2773 Rainey Drew C 2774 Rajab-Shahri Masoud 2775 Rambo Nicholas E 2776 Ramirez Abdias 2777 Ramirez Andres 2778 Ramirez Dora Ahmadi 2779 Ramirez Jaime 2780 Ramirez Joe Michael 2781 Ramirez Jose Eduardo 2782 Ramirez Marco A 2783 Ramirez Rosa A 2784 Ramon Roxanna Marie 2785 Ramos Alfredo 2786 Ramos Crecencio 2787 Ramos Daniel Anthony 2788 Ramos Darwin R

68 of 92 Rosenbohm v. Verizon Wireless Exhibit 1D: List of Opt-ins who are Settlement Class Members Last Name First Name 2789 Ramos Jennifer 2790 Ramos Jesus A 2791 Ramos Maria Gaudalupe 2792 Ramos Rachelle 2793 Ramos Jr Gilbert T 2794 Ramos Jr Louis Enrique 2795 Rana Suhail 2796 Randle Jr El 2797 Randolph Aundrea M 2798 Randolph Blake 2799 Rangel Erika 2800 Rankin Sara T 2801 Ransom Brent 2802 Rapa Brian M 2803 Ray Carly Eileen 2804 Ray David Brandon 2805 Ray Jonathan 2806 Ray-Britt Lindsay R 2807 Read Lindsey Scarlett 2808 Ream Matthew 2809 Reandeau Sarah Anne 2810 Reasoner Allison 2811 Rebman Jennifer Irene 2812 Recard Sandy 2813 Reck Jonathan R 2814 Reddy Ayiesha Mykia 2815 Redus Daryl 2816 Reece Daniel Scott 2817 Reece Jessica Leann 2818 Reed Derek 2819 Reed Michael William 2820 Reed Stephanole De'Mara 2821 Reed Jr Keith 2822 Reese Christopher 2823 Reese Derek A 2824 Regis Francis 2825 Reilly Kyle 2826 Reilly Michael B 2827 Reiner Andrew M 2828 Reisinger Samantha Lynne 2829 Rentas Michael Lane

69 of 92 Rosenbohm v. Verizon Wireless Exhibit 1D: List of Opt-ins who are Settlement Class Members Last Name First Name 2830 Reyes Blanca 2831 Reyes Christina R. 2832 Reyes Evelyn P 2833 Reyes Guillermo 2834 Reyes Isabelle 2835 Reyes Jonathan 2836 Reyner Yarvic K 2837 Reynolds Christopher B 2838 Reynolds Joseph Corey 2839 Reynolds Madison 2840 Reynolds Rhyan Lindsay 2841 Reynoso Janae V. 2842 Rhodes Aisha Y 2843 Rhodes Shay 2844 Rice Jr Henry J 2845 Richards Darryl Anthony 2846 Richards Sean Alan 2847 Richardson Arika 2848 Richardson David Jordan 2849 Richardson Jackie Michael 2850 Richardson Matthew 2851 Richberg Tierra S 2852 Richey Michaela Sue 2853 Ricketts Timothy Tyler 2854 Rider Shannon 2855 Ridings Joseph Hilton 2856 Ridley Ryan Frank 2857 Riggs Paige Leeann 2858 Riley Jonathan L 2859 Riley Rick 2860 Rincon Anthony 2861 Rinfret Justin 2862 Ringle Jr. Michael 2863 Rios Emmanuel 2864 Rios Pablo D 2865 Ritchey Michelle L. 2866 Rivas Luis Alfredo 2867 Rivas Jr Mario Noe 2868 Rivera Andrew D 2869 Rivera Daniel 2870 Rivera Francisco

70 of 92 Rosenbohm v. Verizon Wireless Exhibit 1D: List of Opt-ins who are Settlement Class Members Last Name First Name 2871 Rivera Hector David 2872 Rivera Jeremy J 2873 Rivera Jesus H 2874 Rivera Judy 2875 Rivera Klara L 2876 Rivera Nereida Elysse 2877 Rivera Trent Andrew 2878 Rivera Del Rio Sergio E 2879 Rivers Keena 2880 Rizzo Tyler 2881 Robayo Christian Giovanni 2882 Robbins Hilary Michele 2883 Robertson Atlana 2884 Robertson Blaire K. 2885 Robertson Nicholas C 2886 Robinson Ashawnta M 2887 Robinson Chundra 2888 Robinson Dyjon Demone 2889 Robinson Seville E 2890 Robinson Jr Desi Arnez 2891 Robles Sean E 2892 Rocha Miguel Angel 2893 Rocha Noemi Lizabeth 2894 Rocha Rebecca Lynn 2895 Rocke Monique N 2896 Rodarte Sarah Lee 2897 Rode Matthew 2898 Rodgers Bruce T 2899 Rodgers Valerie S 2900 Rodriguez April 2901 Rodriguez Dawnmarie 2902 Rodriguez Faith 2903 Rodriguez Jennifer 2904 Rodriguez Joanne 2905 Rodriguez Juan Francisco 2906 Rodriguez Judith Y 2907 Rodriguez Julio V 2908 Rodriguez Kevin R 2909 Rodriguez Melissa 2910 Rodriguez Miguel 2911 Rodriguez Ruben Rodney

71 of 92 Rosenbohm v. Verizon Wireless Exhibit 1D: List of Opt-ins who are Settlement Class Members Last Name First Name 2912 Rodriguez Sergio 2913 Rodriguez Gonzalez Daniel A 2914 Roedahl Tiffany 2915 Rogers Clint Ross 2916 Rogers Lugenia P 2917 Rogers Rafaela 2918 Rogers Iii Charles Ernest James 2919 Rojas Luis Andres 2920 Rojas Naomi 2921 Rojas-Taylor Faith K 2922 Rojo Ivan 2923 Rollek Allyson T 2924 Roller Adam 2925 Roman Liliana 2926 Romano Evan Blake 2927 Romero Daniel J 2928 Romero Marjorie L 2929 Romero Mike Lester 2930 Romero Randall R 2931 Romero Shannon N 2932 Romick Michael R 2933 Roney Paris Ciara 2934 Roode Derek Ian 2935 Roosen Jonathan Noah 2936 Rosado Yasmin 2937 Rosales Cubias Alvaro O 2938 Rosenbaum Jr Gary Lee 2939 Rosenberg Daniel 2940 Rosenbohm Neil James 2941 Ross Marcelious A 2942 Ross William M 2943 Ross Iv Walter C 2944 Ross Jr Charles L 2945 Rossell Christopher L 2946 Rossi Andrew L 2947 Ross-Pearson Terrill A. 2948 Roth Thomas Wade 2949 Roufail Bishoy 2950 Rouse Heather 2951 Roush Phillip Joseph 2952 Rowe Kevon

72 of 92 Rosenbohm v. Verizon Wireless Exhibit 1D: List of Opt-ins who are Settlement Class Members Last Name First Name 2953 Rowland Selena 2954 Rowlett Brandon James 2955 Rualizo Celeste A 2956 Rubin Kevin Eric 2957 Rublaitus Kyle Allen 2958 Rucker Erika 2959 Ruelas Karla Andreana 2960 Rufus Jordan 2961 Ruggles Raymond Scott 2962 Ruiz Christian Jacob 2963 Ruiz Juan Jose 2964 Ruiz Omar Rashad 2965 Rumph Brian C 2966 Rushing Chamard 2967 Rutt Elliot J 2968 Ryng Stanley 2969 Rzehak Daniel Andreas 2970 Saavedra Maritza 2971 Sabala Daniel 2972 Sabloski John Michael 2973 Sabo Julianne 2974 Sacripanti Cynthia 2975 Saetveit Christopher Tait 2976 Saffold Cameron Bryant 2977 Sakhta Hassan 2978 Sakil Rasheed 2979 Sakiotis Peter M 2980 Salazar Mauricio 2981 Saldana Sherilyn Rachel 2982 Salinas Gary Louis 2983 Salinas Polanco Leila Marie 2984 Sallady Taylor 2985 Salouhy Ines D 2986 Salz Christopher 2987 Salza Mario N 2988 Sam Xuan T 2989 Samaguey Sandra 2990 Sampson Robert J. 2991 Samuel Jr Christopher L. 2992 Samuels Shana Joanna 2993 Sanchez Alejandra Christine

73 of 92 Rosenbohm v. Verizon Wireless Exhibit 1D: List of Opt-ins who are Settlement Class Members Last Name First Name 2994 Sanchez Andy 2995 Sanchez Esther C 2996 Sanchez Giovanni 2997 Sanchez Joshua Michael 2998 Sanchez Mark 2999 Sanchez Yadira Judith 3000 Sanchez Jr Ruben S 3001 Sanders Chad W 3002 Sanders Demetral 3003 Sandoval Anthony 3004 Sandoval Christine P 3005 Sandoval Mario 3006 Sands James S. 3007 Sands Laura M 3008 Sanford Benson William 3009 Santa Cruz Joanna C. 3010 Santana Alves 3011 Santana Cynthia 3012 Santana Yahayra 3013 Santiago Jennifer Carmen 3014 Santiago Rolando 3015 Santos Adolfo Ruben 3016 Santos Lilian Lay 3017 Santos Peter Jason 3018 Santos Rui 3019 Sarcos Josiahs 3020 Sarff Sara Michelle 3021 Saris Kasyah A 3022 Saroff Monica Mary 3023 Saucedo Michelle 3024 Saul Bryan David 3025 Saunders Tanisha Marie 3026 Saur Mary Elizabeth 3027 Savage Anthony Christopher 3028 Savage Donte 3029 Savary Christopher Mark 3030 Save Bryan Alan 3031 Sawyer-Creel Cheryl L. 3032 Scanlon Andre Robert 3033 Scerbo Dimitri 3034 Schaffer Richard Brian

74 of 92 Rosenbohm v. Verizon Wireless Exhibit 1D: List of Opt-ins who are Settlement Class Members Last Name First Name 3035 Scherer Jason M 3036 Schiavo Ryan C 3037 Schlissberg Michael S 3038 Schlotterer Joseph Lee 3039 Schmidt Bree 3040 Schmidt Nicholas E 3041 Schnabel Mark 3042 Schofield Joseph 3043 Schofield Jr Ronald 3044 Schreiber Andrew Thomas 3045 Schroeder Eric 3046 Schultz Alexandrea 3047 Schultz Jacquelyn Lacy 3048 Schwartz Allyson 3049 Schwier David Robert 3050 Sciabarrasi Savanna 3051 Scoggins Briana Rose 3052 Scott Andrew 3053 Scott Brennan 3054 Scott Devin Jamaal 3055 Scott Hilton W 3056 Scott James A 3057 Scott John Trent 3058 Scott Kristan Aleisha 3059 Scott Rita Renee 3060 Scott Shar-Danae Cherreylle 3061 Scotto Demitri L 3062 Seabrook Alicia Cherisse 3063 Seaverson Austin 3064 Seese Kevin C 3065 Seggman Elizabeth Ashley 3066 Segoviano Jr Manuel J 3067 Segundo Jr Raymundo 3068 Seguy Marisol 3069 Seighman Ryan E 3070 Seiha Radar 3071 Seiler Adam 3072 Seiler Diana 3073 Sembrat Alec 3074 Senatus Leah Q 3075 Serafin Matthew R

75 of 92 Rosenbohm v. Verizon Wireless Exhibit 1D: List of Opt-ins who are Settlement Class Members Last Name First Name 3076 Serafin Peter 3077 Serio Anthony 3078 Serna Roberto Enrique 3079 Serrata Jessenia 3080 Setterlund Patrick 3081 Shackleton Jr James Dennis 3082 Shaffer Christine 3083 Shamon Stanley S 3084 Shams Tabish 3085 Shankland Rudger 3086 Shanks Jr Joseph Michael 3087 Sharp Michael 3088 Sharp Iii Robert Earl 3089 Shaughnessy John 3090 Shaw Joseph 3091 Shaw Travis 3092 Shaw Iii Earl M 3093 Shawareb Nidal A 3094 Shea Linda Marie 3095 Shealey James L 3096 Sheely Jr Brad L 3097 Shelby Jr Randy 3098 Shelly Hannah 3099 Shelman Kamisha 3100 Shepardson Noah J 3101 Shepherd Jennifer Rose 3102 Sheppard Deirdre Shadawn 3103 Sheriff John J 3104 Sherman Brenda 3105 Sherman Daniel E 3106 Shide Ismail G 3107 Shillady Taryn Ashleigh 3108 Shine Kathleen 3109 Shipley David 3110 Sholett Tiffany 3111 Shreve Marc 3112 Shreve Melissa Ann 3113 Shrivastav Harsh 3114 Shropshire Joshua 3115 Shumakh Vladimir 3116 Shuman Steven L

76 of 92 Rosenbohm v. Verizon Wireless Exhibit 1D: List of Opt-ins who are Settlement Class Members Last Name First Name 3117 Sic Chelsea 3118 Sidam Edwin 3119 Sidhu Harman 3120 Siegwald Michael John 3121 Sillyman Nathan Eric 3122 Silsby Laura 3123 Silva Alejandro 3124 Silva Joseph Warren 3125 Silva Marilee 3126 Silva Roudy 3127 Simensky Taylor Daniel 3128 Simkins Shunn 3129 Simmer Russell G 3130 Simmons Vicky L 3131 Simon Catherine 3132 Simpson James 3133 Simpson Maurice 3134 Sims Kristi L 3135 Sims Marie Celeste 3136 Sims Tracy 3137 Simsek Ali 3138 Sines Arthur 3139 Sintas Toby 3140 Sisco Derek J 3141 Sison Don 3142 Sivori Andres 3143 Skarbek John 3144 Skehan James M. 3145 Slade Latrice S. 3146 Slater Joshua B 3147 Sleight Autumn Hope 3148 Slinsen Jason 3149 Sloan Erica 3150 Small Patrice T 3151 Smart Eric F 3152 Smeyne Robert 3153 Smith Amii R 3154 Smith Andrew M 3155 Smith Anthony W. 3156 Smith Ashley 3157 Smith Branon D

77 of 92 Rosenbohm v. Verizon Wireless Exhibit 1D: List of Opt-ins who are Settlement Class Members Last Name First Name 3158 Smith Brian Lee 3159 Smith Brittlee 3160 Smith Callie G 3161 Smith Cyrena Celine 3162 Smith Danielle K 3163 Smith Devon 3164 Smith Eric 3165 Smith Eric D 3166 Smith Erik 3167 Smith Evan R 3168 Smith Forrest R 3169 Smith James David 3170 Smith James P 3171 Smith Jerry 3172 Smith Katherine 3173 Smith Kimberly Meshell 3174 Smith Kyle 3175 Smith Mykel Demariae 3176 Smith Nytasha Myre 3177 Smith Raymi 3178 Smith Sharif 3179 Smith Sharon 3180 Smith Vincent Sean 3181 Smith Wendy M. 3182 Smith Zachary T 3183 Smith Jr Nathan E 3184 Smith Jr Richard A 3185 Smith-Jenkins Toria 3186 Snider Craig A 3187 Snyder Brandon K 3188 Snyder Brandon Nicholas 3189 Solano Rosa 3190 Solis Gerardo R 3191 Solis-Agreda Karlette L 3192 Solla Richard Lazo 3193 Solla Jr Robert Lazo 3194 Solorio Sr Joel Cerna 3195 Soluri Paul 3196 Sommer Christopher Lee 3197 Sordelet Ashley Mckay 3198 Sorensen Dan E.

78 of 92 Rosenbohm v. Verizon Wireless Exhibit 1D: List of Opt-ins who are Settlement Class Members Last Name First Name 3199 Sosa Christopher Anthony 3200 Sosa Nicole 3201 Sosa Vanessa 3202 Soto Wendy Jasmin 3203 Soulinthavong Corey Stephen 3204 Soumas Callie 3205 Souza Charles 3206 Spangler Britiny 3207 Spannbauer Joseph D 3208 Spatola Jessica Dawn 3209 Speaks Deidra L 3210 Spearman Stacie E 3211 Speed Jr Dwayne R 3212 Spencer Ashlee 3213 Spencer Deven 3214 Spencer Matthew A 3215 Spencer Steven Joseph 3216 Spickard Thomas A 3217 Spiotto Amber Rose 3218 Spisinski Jeffrey R. 3219 Spitler Shawn P 3220 Spoor Isak 3221 Springer Beth Ann 3222 Spurling Scott N 3223 St. Marie Robert D 3224 St.Angelo Nicholas David 3225 Stager Iii George 3226 Standfield Jr Larry 3227 Stanek Brandon Scott 3228 Stanley Gerald 3229 Stansberry Iv Montell Franklin 3230 Stanton Ii Arnold 3231 Stapp Bryan 3232 Staravoitava Natallia V 3233 Starkey Jason Alden 3234 Starling Matthew Elliot 3235 Stasko Jace 3236 Statham Tegan Ashley 3237 Stave Daniel Eric 3238 Steamer Jason 3239 Stebbins David L

79 of 92 Rosenbohm v. Verizon Wireless Exhibit 1D: List of Opt-ins who are Settlement Class Members Last Name First Name 3240 Steckelberg Jennifer J 3241 Steed Vanessa 3242 Steele Sara Dawn 3243 Steeples Andy Zachary 3244 Stefanik Jennifer 3245 Steinman Sean D 3246 Stengel Mark 3247 Stephens Ii Daniel I 3248 Stephenson Anthony 3249 Stephenson Leon 3250 Stetina Matthew 3251 Stevens Grant 3252 Stevens Kaley R. 3253 Stevens Zokeisha D 3254 Steward Monica Cherelle 3255 Steward Rasheed Khadir 3256 Stewart Andre Charles 3257 Stewart Christopher Lloyd 3258 Stewart Deondre 3259 Stewart Francesca I 3260 Stewart Joseph Dylan 3261 Stewart Lauren 3262 Stewart Milton 3263 Stewart Rico Raynard 3264 Stewart Stacy L 3265 Stewart Terrance 3266 Stewart Tyrell 3267 Stidham Ii Michael Dan 3268 Stiehm Sean 3269 Stockert David Paul 3270 Stoddard Daniel 3271 Stoll Daniel J 3272 Stoll Jerred A 3273 Stone Kala 3274 Stone Shane 3275 Stonkus Mark 3276 Stowe Alyssa 3277 Straub Jr Greg L 3278 Strickland Iii Cornelius H 3279 Stringer Phillip D 3280 Strobeck Richard L

80 of 92 Rosenbohm v. Verizon Wireless Exhibit 1D: List of Opt-ins who are Settlement Class Members Last Name First Name 3281 Strong Austin 3282 Struletz Andrew 3283 Stuetze Greg 3284 Stutts Angel Aneshall 3285 Styles Christopher 3286 Suarez Scarleth Karina 3287 Sugrue Eric 3288 Sullivan Christopher 3289 Sullivan Shawn Francis 3290 Suman Cody E 3291 Sumer Evelyn 3292 Summerfield Jason J 3293 Summers Tyler 3294 Suppa Joshua E 3295 Suttles Bradley L 3296 Sutton Christopher 3297 Sutton Frances Trull 3298 Swailim Hanin Bassam 3299 Sweeney Joshua R 3300 Swift Shonre Seneca 3301 Swiger Jenna Kathleen 3302 Swindle Chadwick Haynes 3303 Swinford Thomas 3304 Sylvester Collin 3305 Sylvia Douglas 3306 Symister Careca S 3307 Sypher Jazmin 3308 Szakacs Paul W 3309 Szymanek Elaine C 3310 Szyrwiel Iii Edward 3311 Tabatabai Kamal 3312 Taherian Maysam 3313 Takase Scott Gerald 3314 Tallant Brian D 3315 Tallent Jeremy 3316 Tan Charlie 3317 Taner Derek M 3318 Taormina David J 3319 Tarakji Michael M 3320 Tardy Quinton 3321 Tarrats Jean Carlos

81 of 92 Rosenbohm v. Verizon Wireless Exhibit 1D: List of Opt-ins who are Settlement Class Members Last Name First Name 3322 Tarves Jeremy Scott 3323 Tarvin Lourenco 3324 Tate Dustin J 3325 Tate Isaih 3326 Tavera Ruben 3327 Tayler Kathleen A 3328 Taylor Allen 3329 Taylor Blaine Risher 3330 Taylor Carlos 3331 Taylor Jeffrey David 3332 Taylor John A 3333 Taylor Tristan 3334 Taylorhill D'Andre 3335 Tchapock Chesela Brianna 3336 Teeden Monique 3337 Temple Krystal Cherisse 3338 Teo Kar Wei 3339 Termuende Cynthia 3340 Terry James D 3341 Terry Todd 3342 Tesfaye Fikirte 3343 Tetreault Nicholas S 3344 Tetteh Romeo 3345 Tetter Dejuan P 3346 Thaxter Tanja Calica 3347 Thigpen Cydnee 3348 Thoen Sam 3349 Thomas Alicia Noel 3350 Thomas Cartiere C 3351 Thomas Christopher Chaquin 3352 Thomas Colby Simmons 3353 Thomas Denise J. 3354 Thomas Eric Marcus 3355 Thomas Ezekiel Lamar 3356 Thomas Jermaine 3357 Thomas Jerriod 3358 Thomas Lasalle 3359 Thomas Phillip 3360 Thomas Trinity 3361 Thomas Victoria Celeste 3362 Thomasson Robert M

82 of 92 Rosenbohm v. Verizon Wireless Exhibit 1D: List of Opt-ins who are Settlement Class Members Last Name First Name 3363 Thomma - Frank Carmen K 3364 Thompson Aaron Adam 3365 Thompson Gary M 3366 Thompson Kevin 3367 Thompson Patricia A 3368 Thompson Ray 3369 Thompson Reyallan 3370 Thompson Ii John Colby 3371 Thompson Jr Joe Louis 3372 Thomson Heidi 3373 Thomson Robert Andrew 3374 Thoresen Ryan Thomas 3375 Thorne Shakeita A 3376 Thornton Demitrius 3377 Threatte Joseph A 3378 Tierney Cecilia Kelley 3379 Tilton Scott 3380 Tinkel Mark J 3381 Tinsley Jeffery Maurice 3382 Tirado Sandra 3383 Toal Eric Taylor 3384 Tofsrud Steven D 3385 Tolentino Nicco D 3386 Toler Rhio R 3387 Toliver Van B 3388 Tomis Brendan Paul 3389 Toms Johnathan Richard 3390 Tomson Shane R 3391 Tongson Michael 3392 Toprani Mahendra 3393 Tornow Megan 3394 Torok Christopher 3395 Torrence Iii James 3396 Torres Engelin M 3397 Torres Bryce 3398 Torres Daniel 3399 Torres David 3400 Torres Elliot Joseph 3401 Torres Emanuel 3402 Torres Juan 3403 Torres Savier

83 of 92 Rosenbohm v. Verizon Wireless Exhibit 1D: List of Opt-ins who are Settlement Class Members Last Name First Name 3404 Torres Steven C 3405 Toth-Fedor Desiree Irene Mary 3406 Tougas Daniel Ian 3407 Townsend Nicholas Daniel 3408 Tran Donna 3409 Tran Kenny 3410 Trask Donald F 3411 Travers Victoria 3412 Trebatch Steve 3413 Trejo Mirehya Judith 3414 Tremel Iii Donald Joseph 3415 Trevino Jonathan Israel 3416 Trigally Margaret 3417 Tristan Isaac 3418 Trossman Cameron Lewis 3419 Trujillo Aron C 3420 Trujillo Javier 3421 Trujillo Osmar Alexander 3422 Trujillo-Fierros Uriel 3423 Truong Thu Ha Thi 3424 Truong Vinh 3425 Tucker Brandon Lamar 3426 Tucker Kanhnilla 3427 Tucker Teresa Ann 3428 Tucker Thomas J 3429 Tumey Kanesha F 3430 Turek Lannie M 3431 Turnbull Kurstin 3432 Turner Emily M 3433 Turner Emmanuel Joshua 3434 Turner Tabitha L 3435 Turner Zachary David 3436 Turner Iii Theodore 3437 Turner Iv Richard A 3438 Tuttle Justine Ann 3439 Tyler David James 3440 Tyson-Mashburn Cassie 3441 Tyzinski Jenna L 3442 Udechukwu Jennifer 3443 Ugochukwu Nnadozie Franklin 3444 Uhrenholt Ryan C

84 of 92 Rosenbohm v. Verizon Wireless Exhibit 1D: List of Opt-ins who are Settlement Class Members Last Name First Name 3445 Ulino Daniel Raymond 3446 Unkel Daniel 3447 Urban Charles Michael 3448 Urbanavage Charisa Danielle 3449 Urbano Ryan L. 3450 Urbiha Lindsey 3451 Uribe Jennifer 3452 Utt David Dodge 3453 Utt Trevor C 3454 Vaden Julie 3455 Valbuena Louis A 3456 Valdes Lou Samuel 3457 Valdez Argel Enrique 3458 Valdez Falana Tashelle 3459 Valdez Rosemary Sawi 3460 Valdez Achoy David Miguel 3461 Valdivia Ariana 3462 Valdivia Yesenia 3463 Valdovinos Jessica 3464 Valencia Alejandro Alberto 3465 Vallejos Adriana 3466 Van Dillen Vincent Mcnair 3467 Van Dyke Cathy A 3468 Van Lier Nicholas John 3469 Van Vickle Bradley Joseph 3470 Vander Meulen Rachael Samara 3471 Vanderwerken Jason H 3472 Vanduch Celeste Patricia 3473 Vann Jeremy 3474 Varela Chad Tyler 3475 Varga Kathryn 3476 Vargas Alberto Carlos 3477 Vargas Kevin Josue 3478 Vargas Silva Gilbert Anthony 3479 Varner Carolyn Kay 3480 Vasquez Dyshun 3481 Vasquez Natasha Elyzza 3482 Vasquez Iii Juan Lopez 3483 Vasylyk Oleh 3484 Vathananonh Brandon 3485 Vazquez Andres M

85 of 92 Rosenbohm v. Verizon Wireless Exhibit 1D: List of Opt-ins who are Settlement Class Members Last Name First Name 3486 Vazquez David 3487 Vazquez Vanessa 3488 Vega Roxanna 3489 Vega Iii Conrad 3490 Velez Jayson 3491 Vences Christina Plata 3492 Venegas Veronica B 3493 Venekamp Joel 3494 Venisee Leslie Renee 3495 Ventresca Curtis Andrew 3496 Vera Mario 3497 Verdugo Angel Renee 3498 Verduzco Laura T 3499 Vergara Rodriguez Luis E 3500 Vicioso Javier 3501 Victoriano Skye Michael 3502 Vidaurre Michael 3503 Vie Joshua Michael 3504 Viehdorfer Kelly Lyn 3505 Vigil Gregory 3506 Vilandry Jennifer Lynn 3507 Villa Jr Ruben 3508 Villalobos Christian 3509 Villalobos Frank 3510 Villasenor Hector Armando 3511 Villatoro Denise 3512 Villegas Javier 3513 Viner Stephen 3514 Vinson Ii Haskell 3515 Virag Steven 3516 Visconti Robert 3517 Vitale Charles 3518 Vives Andrew 3519 Vizziello Nicco Jesse 3520 Vo Steven 3521 Vogel Amanda M 3522 Vogel Jose Luis 3523 Volman David Alan 3524 Vongphouthone Jorlar 3525 Vorenkamp David 3526 Vorise Justin Gervon

86 of 92 Rosenbohm v. Verizon Wireless Exhibit 1D: List of Opt-ins who are Settlement Class Members Last Name First Name 3527 Voss Jr Charles E 3528 Votzakis Jason 3529 Vuong Thai B 3530 Waddell Joshua Matthew 3531 Waddell Nathan K 3532 Wade Zachary Michael 3533 Waege Sean 3534 Wahl Daniel Anthony 3535 Waisblatt Adam 3536 Wakefield Monique Rene 3537 Walkenhorst Richard M 3538 Walker Beau 3539 Walker Joseph 3540 Walker Martell D 3541 Walker Suzette M. 3542 Walker Teresa G 3543 Walker Warren O'Brian 3544 Walker Jr Donald Edward 3545 Wallace Chad Eric 3546 Wallace Katy M 3547 Wallace Sandra C 3548 Waller Garrett 3549 Waller William E. 3550 Wallingford Thomas 3551 Walls Lauren 3552 Walsh Nicholas Andrew 3553 Walton Keionna L 3554 Wang Alvin 3555 Wang Matthew Eleh 3556 Wann Misty Amber 3557 Ward Matthew 3558 Ware Daniel L 3559 Ware Donte 3560 Warfield Marqis D. 3561 Warmboe Kyle Alan 3562 Warren James K. 3563 Washburn Timothy Henry 3564 Washington Candice 3565 Washington Chad 3566 Washington Crystal Lynn 3567 Washington Raymond

87 of 92 Rosenbohm v. Verizon Wireless Exhibit 1D: List of Opt-ins who are Settlement Class Members Last Name First Name 3568 Washington Robert G 3569 Washington Sr Nicholas 3570 Watford Foy D 3571 Watkins Courtney Ynclan 3572 Watson Briana 3573 Watson Celeste Christine 3574 Watters Brittany 3575 Waugh Ii Byron Marcus 3576 Weaver Gregory Z 3577 Weaver Jonathan 3578 Weaver Jordan Michael 3579 Weaver Meghan 3580 Webb Barbara Ann 3581 Webb James Thoedore 3582 Webb Jesse Adam 3583 Webb Matthew 3584 Webb Seneca 3585 Webb - Owens Felisa 3586 Webber Brittany 3587 Weber Cory F 3588 Webster Joseph B 3589 Webster Katie Jo 3590 Weeden Nicholas Scott 3591 Wehrle Joshua Timothy 3592 Weiand Nathanial J 3593 Weisbrod Anne L 3594 Welch Andre L 3595 Welch Clayton 3596 Welch Jared 3597 Welch Nicholas 3598 Wells Hollie K 3599 Wells Jennifer M 3600 Welsh Ashley A 3601 Werner Tara Ann 3602 West Robert F. 3603 West Traci 3604 West Jr Warren Lee 3605 Westfall Chad 3606 Whalen David J 3607 Whatley Jerrill Lawrence 3608 Whatley Nikki

88 of 92 Rosenbohm v. Verizon Wireless Exhibit 1D: List of Opt-ins who are Settlement Class Members Last Name First Name 3609 Wheatley Casey Tamara 3610 Wheatley Courtney 3611 Whelihan Kyle Andrew 3612 Whipkey Lauren 3613 Whitaker Cody 3614 Whitaker Immanuel 3615 Whitaker Johnathan D 3616 Whitaker Kaytlin A 3617 White Christopher M 3618 White Eric J 3619 White Jeffrey Calvin 3620 White Kathryn Elise 3621 White Sarah 3622 White Sarah Jane 3623 White Sharon 3624 Whiting Brandon Alexander 3625 Whitley Norman Eugene 3626 Whittaker Robert W 3627 Whittington Kimberly 3628 Widhalm Jessica Claire 3629 Widmer Peter 3630 Wiggins Kyle Jerod 3631 Wiggleton Whitney Nicole 3632 Wilburg Raymond Freddrick 3633 Wildingclore Shellee 3634 Wildt Amanda L 3635 Wiley Caitlin 3636 Wilkerson Heather 3637 Wilkins Edward Scott 3638 Willem Lea Christine 3639 Willey Allison Marie 3640 Williams Amanda Jeannette 3641 Williams Anthony 3642 Williams Antoine 3643 Williams Arthur 3644 Williams Bradley James 3645 Williams Calvin 3646 Williams Christopher Blake 3647 Williams Devon A 3648 Williams Dominique 3649 Williams Ellis Lashondra

89 of 92 Rosenbohm v. Verizon Wireless Exhibit 1D: List of Opt-ins who are Settlement Class Members Last Name First Name 3650 Williams Iesha Hayes 3651 Williams James 3652 Williams Jasmine S 3653 Williams Jason 3654 Williams Keisha Y 3655 Williams Kelsey 3656 Williams Kevin Darnell 3657 Williams Lynn D 3658 Williams Mary E. 3659 Williams Maxine L 3660 Williams Randy R. 3661 Williams Raquel 3662 Williams Shante M 3663 Williams Tamika Rejeanne 3664 Williams Ii Thomas 3665 Williams Jr Fredrick Stephane 3666 Willis Harriet Benette 3667 Willis Veronica R 3668 Willoughby Michael 3669 Wilson Dyamond Deshae 3670 Wilson Janelle A 3671 Wilson Jeffrey Donald 3672 Wilson Jocquel B 3673 Wilson Ka Wu 3674 Wilson L'Tosha 3675 Wilson Ryan 3676 Wilson Sharonda L 3677 Wilson Sloan D 3678 Wilson Jr Gregory E. 3679 Wilson-Gunsolus Deena 3680 Wiltz Felicia Rene 3681 Winborn Brannon Lee 3682 Windish Jr John Stephen 3683 Winford Shamim 3684 Winfrey Deborah L 3685 Winland Jr Robert Lee 3686 Winters Elisha 3687 Wireman Amanda Jo 3688 Wirth Joseph 3689 Wirth Karl J 3690 Wise Latasha

90 of 92 Rosenbohm v. Verizon Wireless Exhibit 1D: List of Opt-ins who are Settlement Class Members Last Name First Name 3691 Wise Ryan 3692 Wittman Scott 3693 Wix Brittnay Marie 3694 Wixom Mitchell 3695 Wnuk Brittany V 3696 Wolder Ricky Joseph 3697 Wolf Shane A 3698 Wolfe Patrick Michael 3699 Womack Benjamin J 3700 Womack Charles L 3701 Womack Dominique Eugene 3702 Woodhull Kathryn Anne 3703 Woodin Jason Bryant 3704 Woods Jr Sean D 3705 Woodward Jason M 3706 Wree Daniel W 3707 Wright Antoria Danyelle 3708 Wright Charity A 3709 Wright Christopher D 3710 Wright Corey 3711 Wright Jamel Lorne 3712 Wright Lashon Anthony 3713 Wright Lytia O 3714 Wright Jr Robert George 3715 Wurm John D 3716 Wylie Brejae Charmayne 3717 Wyman Brittany Marie 3718 Wyman David Benard 3719 Wyrick Blair T 3720 Xalis Iv James Nicholas 3721 Yaldo Nagam S 3722 Yamraj Deanna Meena 3723 Yance Celia M. 3724 Yang Da 3725 Yantis Andrew 3726 Yarish John 3727 Yates Desmond 3728 Yates Judson L 3729 Yates Martin 3730 Yates Travis Michael 3731 Ybarra Robert D

91 of 92 Rosenbohm v. Verizon Wireless Exhibit 1D: List of Opt-ins who are Settlement Class Members Last Name First Name 3732 Yeatts Jonathan Michael 3733 Yew Kevin Joseph 3734 Yodi Freddy Junior 3735 York Kurtis Ryan 3736 Young Brandy Monique 3737 Young Chad 3738 Young Charles Michael 3739 Young Ebony 3740 Young James Ritchey 3741 Young Lonnie 3742 Young Stacy Diane 3743 Young Tabatha 3744 Young Tayler A 3745 Young II John Westly 3746 Young Jr Howard David 3747 Youseph Matthew Bradley 3748 Yumozhapova Namsalma 3749 Zaharopoulos Bill 3750 Zahory Fariba 3751 Zahran Samantha 3752 Zajicek Jeffrey Andrew 3753 Zandt Andrew 3754 Zapata Francisco Javier 3755 Zaragoza Andreas 3756 Zarco Fernando 3757 Zarzuela Gibel 3758 Zavala Michael 3759 Zepeda Omar 3760 Zeringue Adam Michael 3761 Ziglar Jamal Anson 3762 Zinda Tanja Christine 3763 Zitek Kyle A 3764 Zjacic Marko 3765 Zuazua Alejandro 3766 Zubrod Jessica Lynn 3767 Zurbano Keno 3768 Zuyev Maksim 3769 Zwetkof-Ryan Devon

92 of 92

Exhibit 1E Individual Release Agreement for Neil Rosenbohm

EXHIBIT 1E INDIVIDUAL RELEASE AGREEMENT FOR PLAINTIFF NEIL ROSENBOHM INDIVIDUAL RELEASE AGREEMENT

THIS INDIVIDUAL RELEASE AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) is made and entered into by and between Neil Rosenbohm (“Named Plaintiff Rosenbohm”) on the one hand, and Cellco Partnership, d/b/a Verizon Wireless (“Defendant” or “Verizon Wireless”), on the other (collectively “the Parties”).

WHEREAS, Rosenbohm filed a collective action lawsuit pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, captioned Rosenbohm v. Cellco Partnership, d/b/a/ Verizon Wireless, Case No. 2:17-cv-00731, asserting off-the-clock work allegations against Verizon Wireless (the “Lawsuit”);

WHEREAS, Verizon Wireless denied and continues to deny all material allegations made in the Lawsuit;

WHEREAS, Verizon Wireless and Named Plaintiff Rosenbohm entered into a settlement agreement (collectively, with all exhibits thereto, the “Settlement Agreement”) to effectuate the full, final and complete resolution of all off-the-clock claims under federal and state law, including without limitation all known or unknown claims for overtime compensation, liquidated damages, penalties, and interest, made in the Lawsuit as to all Plaintiffs (as defined pursuant to Paragraph 1 of the Settlement Agreement); and

WHEREAS, as a condition precedent to the effectiveness of the Settlement Agreement, Named Plaintiff Rosenbohm agreed to fully execute and return this Individual Release Agreement;

NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed by and between the Parties as follows:

1. Conditions Precedent.

(a) This Agreement is expressly contingent upon the provisions set forth in the Settlement Agreement, which is separately being entered into by the Parties. Should the Court not approve this Agreement in its entirety, and dismiss the Lawsuit with prejudice, the terms of this Agreement will be null and void. In such event, the Parties agree to continue to negotiate in good faith over an alternative settlement.

(b) The Parties acknowledge that there will be no payment of the Settlement Amount, as defined in Paragraph 4 of this Agreement, if the settlement is barred by operation of law, invalidated, or ordered not to be carried out by a court of competent jurisdiction unless this Agreement is approved by a court, and unless the court dismisses this lawsuit with prejudice against Verizon Wireless.

2. Release of Claims by Named Plaintiff Rosenbohm.

(a) In consideration of the promises contained herein, Named Plaintiff Rosenbohm, on his own behalf, and on behalf of all and each of his agents, attorneys, representatives, heirs, executors, administrators, and assigns, hereby knowingly and

voluntarily releases and forever discharges Verizon Wireless, together with Verizon Wireless’s parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, divisions, partners, members, joint ventures, predecessor and successor corporations and business entities, past, present, and future and its and their agents, directors, officers, employees, shareholders, insurers and reinsurers, representatives, attorneys, and employee benefit plans and administrators (and the trustees or other individuals affiliated with such plans) past, present, and future (collectively the “Releasees”), of and from any and all state, local, or federal claims, obligations, demands, actions, rights, causes of action, and liabilities, whether known or unknown, against Releasees for alleged unpaid overtime wages, liquidated or other damages, unpaid costs, penalties, premium pay, interest, attorneys’ fees, litigation costs, restitution, or other compensation and relief arising under the FLSA, or any other state or local wage-related law emanating from the same facts alleged in the Lawsuit and relating to the allegations asserted in the Lawsuit, and, in addition, knowingly and voluntarily releases and forever discharges Releasees from any and all claims, demands, rules or regulations, or any other causes of action of whatever nature, whether known or unknown, including, but not limited to:

• claims based on any express or implied contract, or other agreement or representation relating to the terms and conditions of Named Plaintiff Rosenbohm’s employment, which may have been alleged to exist between Named Plaintiff Rosenbohm and the Releasees (or any of them), and claims that Defendant violated any personnel policies, handbooks, or any covenant of good faith and fair dealing;

• claims based on any state or federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination such as, without limitation, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Equal Pay Act, Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, the National Labor Relations Act, the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, the Rehabilitation Act, the Occupational Health and Safety Act, the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (“COBRA”), the Health Insurance and Portability Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”), the Genetic Information Non- Discrimination Act, the Ohio Civil Rights Act, Ohio’s equal pay statute, the Ohio wage payment anti-retaliation statute, Ohio Whistleblower’s Protection Act, Ohio Workers’ Compensation anti-retaliation statute, and any and similar federal, state or local laws and regulations;

• claims for personal injury, harm, or other damages grounded in tort (whether intentional or unintentional including, without limitation, negligence, defamation, misrepresentation, fraud, intentional or negligent infliction of emotional distress and/or mental anguish, assault, battery, invasion of privacy, negligent hiring, training, supervision and retention, tortious interference with contract, detrimental reliance, promissory estoppel, violations of public policy, loss of consortium to Named Plaintiff Rosenbohm or any member of each or all of his family or his significant other, and other such claims); 2

• claims growing out of any legal restrictions on Defendant’s right to terminate employees; claims for wages or any other compensation; claims for benefits including, without limitation, those arising under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act;

• and claims based on any other action or grievance against the Releasees, based upon any conduct occurring up to and including the date of the execution of this Agreement.

(b) Nothing in this Agreement shall release or preclude any claims that arise after execution of this Agreement or any claims that cannot be waived by operation of law, including the right to file a charge with or participate in an investigation conducted by a governmental agency, including but not limited to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”), or the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”). Except where otherwise prohibited by law, the consideration provided to Named Plaintiff Rosenbohm in this Agreement shall be the sole relief provided to him for the claims that are released herein and Named Plaintiff Rosenbohm will not be entitled to recover, and will agree to waive, any monetary benefits or recovery against the Releasees in connection with any such claim, charge or proceeding without regard to who has brought such Complaint or Charge.

3. Named Plaintiff Rosenbohm’s Knowing and Voluntary Waiver of Unknown Claims. For the purpose of implementing a complete release and discharge of Releasees for the specific claims described in Paragraph 2, Named Plaintiff Rosenbohm expressly acknowledges that this Agreement is intended to include all claims described in Paragraph 2 whether or not Plaintiff knows about the claims at the time Named Plaintiff Rosenbohm executes this Agreement.

4. Settlement Amount. In consideration for signing this Agreement and the fulfillment of the promises herein, Verizon Wireless will pay Named Plaintiff Rosenbohm (a) any court-approved Service Award pursuant to Paragraph 4 of the Settlement Agreement and (b) his pro rata Individual Settlement Payment, pursuant to Paragraph 6 of the Settlement Agreement, both in accordance with Paragraph 9 of the Settlement Agreement. All consideration amounts and payments identified in this Paragraph 4 are amounts to which Named Plaintiff Rosenbohm is not otherwise entitled, absent resolution of the Lawsuit. In the event that it is subsequently determined by any taxing authority that Named Plaintiff Rosenbohm owes any additional taxes with respect to any money distributed under this Agreement, the determination of any tax liability is between Named Plaintiff Rosenbohm and the taxing authority, and Verizon Wireless will not be responsible for the payment of such taxes, including any interest and/or penalties. Named Plaintiff Rosenbohm agrees to release and hold harmless Verizon Wireless and the Releasees with respect to any tax liability or penalty relating these payments.

5. Legal Representation/Satisfaction with Terms. In executing the Agreement, the parties acknowledge that they have had the opportunity to consult with counsel, that they are satisfied with the terms incorporated herein, which represent a full and fair settlement, and that they have executed the Agreement after independent investigation and without fraud, duress, or undue influence. Named Plaintiff Rosenbohm further attests that no other promises or 3

inducements have been offered for this Agreement, other than those set forth herein, and that he is legally competent to execute this Agreement and accept full responsibility for it.

6. Non-Admission of Liability. This Agreement shall not in any way be construed as an admission by Verizon Wireless that it acted wrongfully with respect to Named Plaintiff Rosenbohm or any other person, or that Named Plaintiff Rosenbohm has any rights whatsoever against Verizon Wireless, and Verizon Wireless specifically disclaims any liability to or wrongful acts against Named Plaintiff Rosenbohm or any other person. Furthermore, this Agreement does not constitute a determination or admission that any group of similarly situated employees exists to maintain a collective action under the FLSA or a class action under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (or comparable state laws or rules); an adjudication of the merits of the Lawsuit; or an adjudication of any other matters released in this Agreement.

7. Non-Cooperation With Third Parties. As an inducement for Verizon Wireless to enter into this Agreement, as a material condition thereof, and to the extent permissible by law, Named Plaintiff Rosenbohm shall: (i) not assist or cooperate with any third party in any complaint, claim, demand, cause of action, or lawsuit of any kind whatsoever against Verizon Wireless or the Releasees relating to the allegations in the Lawsuit without being served with a subpoena or an order issued by a court of competent jurisdiction; and (ii) not encourage any other parties or attorneys to commence a claim or proceeding against Verizon Wireless or the Releasees.

8. Non-Disparagement. Named Plaintiff Rosenbohm agrees that he shall not communicate about Verizon Wireless or the Releasees in any defamatory manner with respect to any matter. Verizon Wireless agrees to instruct Verizon Wireless employee Igrain Padilla that he/she shall not communicate about Named Plaintiff Rosenbohm in any defamatory manner. The parties agree that Verizon Wireless cannot be held responsible for actions by Igrain Padilla outside the scope of his/her employment or after his/her employment ends.

9. Neutral Employment Reference. In the event Verizon Wireless receives an inquiry from a potential employer with respect to Named Plaintiff Rosenbohm, Verizon Wireless will refer prospective employers seeking a reference to log into www.theworknumber.com or call 1-800-996-7566, through which prospective employers will only be provided Named Plaintiff Rosenbohm’s dates of employment and job title(s) held.

10. No Future Employment. Named Plaintiff Rosenbohm will not be eligible to apply for future employment with Verizon Wireless or any affiliate, subsidiary or parent. Accordingly, Named Plaintiff Rosenbohm hereby agrees that he will withdraw any pending applications for employment and shall not seek reinstatement or apply for future employment with Verizon Wireless; and should Named Plaintiff Rosenbohm apply for reinstatement or re-employment in violation of this Paragraph, Verizon Wireless, or any affiliate, subsidiary or parent, shall not incur any liability by virtue of its refusal to hire him or consider him for employment.

11. Choice of Law. This Agreement is made and entered into in the State of Ohio, and shall in all respects be interpreted, enforced, and governed by and under the laws of the State of Ohio, without reference to conflicts of laws principles.

4

12. Binding Agreement. This Agreement shall be binding upon the Parties and upon their respective heirs, administrators, representatives, executors, successors, and assigns, and shall inure to the benefit of the Releasees, and to the respective heirs, administrators, representatives, executors, successors, and assigns.

13. Severability. This Agreement shall be deemed severable, and the invalidity or unenforceability of any one or more of its provisions shall affect the validity or enforceability of any of the other provisions.

14. Sole and Entire Agreement. This Agreement and the Settlement Agreement constitute the entire agreement of Defendant and Named Plaintiff Rosenbohm concerning the subjects contained herein and in the Settlement Agreement, and all prior and contemporaneous negotiations and understandings between those parties shall be deemed merged into this Settlement Agreement. This Agreement has been drafted jointly and is not to be construed against any party.

15. Non-Use. This Agreement may not be used as evidence in any subsequent proceeding of any kind (without Verizon Wireless’s written consent), except in a proceeding that a party institutes alleging a breach of this Agreement, or as required by law.

16. Counterparts. This Agreement shall become effective upon its execution and subsequent Court approval. The Parties may execute this Agreement in counterparts, and execution in counterparts shall have the same force and effect as if Named Plaintiff Rosenbohm and Defendant had signed the same instrument. Any signature made and transmitted by email to execute this Agreement shall be deemed an original signature for purposes of this Agreement and shall bind the signing party.

[signature page follows]

5

DocuSign Envelope ID: 6C26B0BA-334D-47B8-9018-4EE7BA0B4F43

THE FOREGOING SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE OF ALL CLAIMS HAS BEEN READ AND FULLY UNDERSTOOD BEFORE THE SIGNING OF THIS AGREEMENT.

Dated: ______Neil Rosenbohm

FOR CELLCO PARTNERSHIP, D/B/A VERIZON WIRELESS

Dated:______Cellco Partnership, d/b/a Verizon Wireless

6

Exhibit 1F [Proposed] Order Approving Settlement and Dismissal with Prejudice

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

NEIL ROSENBOHM, individually, and ) CASE NO. 2:17-cv-00731 on behalf of all others similarly situated, ) ) JUDGE: Algenon L. Marbley Plaintiff, ) ) MAGISTRATE: Chelsey M. v. ) Vascura ) CELLCO PARTNERSHIP, d/b/a Verizon ) Wireless, ) ) Defendant. )

[PROPOSED] ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT AND DISMISSAL OF LAWSUIT WITH PREJUDICE

After a review of the Parties’ Joint Motion for Approval of Settlement and Stipulation of

Dismissal with Prejudice, the Settlement Agreement, and the Declarations of Plaintiffs’ Counsel, the Court is satisfied that the settlement reached is a “fair and reasonable resolution of a bona fide dispute” under the Fair Labor Standards Act. See, e.g., Dillworth et. al. v. Case Farms Processing,

Inc., No. 5:08-cv-1694, 2010 WL 776933, at *9 (N.D. Ohio Mar. 8, 2010); see also Lynn’s Food

Stores, Inc. v. United States, 679 F.2d 1350 (11th Cir. 1982); 29 U.S.C. § 216.

ACCORDINGLY, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

1. The Settlement Agreement between Named Plaintiff Neil Rosenbohm (“Named

Plaintiff Rosenbohm”) and the Opt-In Plaintiffs identified in Exhibit 1D of the Settlement

Agreement (collectively, with Named Plaintiff Rosenbohm, referred to as “Plaintiffs”), on one hand, and Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless (“Defendant” or “Verizon Wireless”), on the other, is APPROVED, including, but not limited to, the Individual Settlement Payments to

Plaintiffs; the Service Award to Named Plaintiff Rosenbohm; and attorneys’ fees and costs to

Plaintiffs’ Counsel. 2. The Individual Release Agreement between Named Plaintiff Rosenbohm and

Verizon Wireless, attached as Exhibit 1E to the Settlement Agreement, is APPROVED.

3. The form of the release to be executed by each individual Plaintiff, as set forth in

Paragraph 13(a) of the Settlement Agreement, is APPROVED.

4. The Court DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE, the 3,769 Plaintiffs listed in Exhibit

1D to the Settlement Agreement and the 8 Plaintiffs listed in Exhibit 1C of the Settlement

Agreement.

5. The Court DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the 109 Plaintiffs listed in

Exhibit 1B to the Settlement Agreement who submitted consent forms to join the Lawsuit but who do not fall within the conditionally certified class.

6. The Court further DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE this action and all claims that were raised or that could have been raised in this action.

7. Without affecting the finality of this Order in any way, the Court retains continuing and exclusive jurisdiction over the Parties to this action for the purpose of the administration and enforcement of the Settlement Agreement.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: Honorable Algenon L. Marbley U.S. District Court Judge .

2

Exhibit 1G Timeline of Proposed Procedure for Settlement Administration

EXHIBIT 1G SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT TIMELINE ROSENBOHM V. CELLCO PARTNERSHIP D/B/A VERIZON WIRELESS CASE NO. 2:17-CV-731 (S.D. OHIO)

Maximum Number of Days from Date of Settlement Timing in Settlement Responsible Court Approval of Action Required by Settlement Agreement Agreement Agreement Party Settlement Reference Agreement Provide the Settlement Administrator in a readable and workable format inclusive of applicable formula functions such as a Plaintiff Microsoft Excel spreadsheet or Microsoft ¶ 11(a) Access database, the ratable amount of each Plaintiff’s Individual Settlement Payment as described in Paragraph 6. Within 7 business days +7 business days Provide names, mailing addresses, and Social after Court approval of Defendant Security Numbers of all Plaintiffs to the ¶ 11(b) Settlement Agreement Settlement Administrator. Provide the Settlement Administrator with its most updated list of mailing and email addresses for Plaintiffs, which updated Plaintiff ¶ 11(b) information shall be used if in conflict with the Contact Information provided by Defendant and the individual is not a current employee. Calculate and notify Defendant of the final Within 7 business days of amount due from Defendant for the receiving the list employer’s share of payroll taxes, including Settlement identifying each +14 business days FICA tax and any federal and state ¶ 11(c) Administrator Plaintiff’s Individual unemployment tax, with respect to payments Settlement Payment of the Settlement Amount that are treated as wages.

EXHIBIT 1G SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT TIMELINE Maximum Number of Days from Date of Settlement Timing in Settlement Responsible Court Approval of Action Required by Settlement Agreement Agreement Agreement Party Settlement Reference Agreement Within 21 business days after receipt of final Fund the QSF with the Settlement Amount as amount due for + 35 business days Defendant defined in Paragraph 2, approved by the Court, ¶ 11(d) employer’s share of and the employer’s share of payroll taxes. payroll taxes Transmit the Court-approved Service Award ¶ 11(e) to Named Plaintiff Rosenbohm. Within 14 business days Settlement +49 business days after QSF is funded Administrator Transmit the Court-approved attorneys’ fees ¶ 11(f) and costs to Plaintiffs’ Counsel as they direct. Send by First Class Mail the settlement checks Within 21 business days Settlement +56 business days for each Plaintiff’s Individual Settlement ¶ 11(g) after QSF is funded Administrator Payment. Between 65 and 80 Between Send a follow-up notice to be approved by the business days after +121 business days Settlement parties to any Plaintiffs who have not ¶ 11(h) mailing settlement and Administrator negotiated their check. checks +136 business days Make reasonable efforts to obtain valid current addresses through a “skip trace” search through the National Change of Address ¶ 11(i) Between (“NOCA”) database for any Plaintiffs whose Rolling basis after +56 business days Settlement settlement check is returned as undeliverable. mailing settlement and Administrator Provide the parties with copies of cancelled checks +176 business day checks, including the endorsement on the back of the check or other proof of endorsement, for ¶ 11(k) all settlement checks that have been cashed or paid.

EXHIBIT 1G SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT TIMELINE Maximum Number of Days from Date of Settlement Timing in Settlement Responsible Court Approval of Action Required by Settlement Agreement Agreement Agreement Party Settlement Reference Agreement 120 business days after Individual mailing settlement +176 business days Cash settlement checks. ¶ 11(m) Plaintiffs checks Within 20 business days after the date 120 Provide a list to Plaintiffs’ Counsel and Settlement business days have +196 business days Defendant’s Counsel of checks not delivered ¶ 11(m) Administrator passed since the checks or not cashed. were mailed

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

NEIL ROSENBOHM, on behalf of himself ) CASE NO.: 2:17-CV-00731-ALM and all others similarly situated, ) ) JUDGE ALGENON L. MARBLEY Plaintiff, ) ) MAGISTRATE JUDGE VASCURA vs. ) ) CELLCO PARTNERSHIP ) DECLARATION OF CHASTITY L. d/b/a Verizon Wireless ) CHRISTY ) Defendant.

I, Chastity L. Christy, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, hereby declare, under penalty of perjury, that the following is true and correct to the best of my personal knowledge, information, and belief:

1. I am one of the attorneys who represents Neil Rosenbohm and the Opt-In Party

Plaintiffs (collectively “Plaintiffs”) with respect to the settlement in the above-captioned matter.

Professional Experience

2. Since September 8, 2015, I have been employed as an attorney with The Lazzaro

Law Firm, LLC.

3. The firm was founded in 2006 to advocate for the employment, overtime and minimum wage rights of employees. The firm’s primary focus is litigating collective actions, class actions and individual cases for employees with overtime and minimum wage claims.

4. The firm commonly handles claims that include misclassifying employees as

exempt or as independent contractors; failing to pay for off-the-clock-work, pre-shift and post-

shift work, changing into and out of uniforms, meal periods, short rest periods and travel time;

improper rounding of start and stop times; and improper tip pooling.

1

5. Since the firm was founded, the firm has recovered over $45 million in settlement payments on behalf of employees.

6. The firm has litigated over 100 certified collective and class actions against small and large employers, including 1-800-Flowers, Inc., Aarons, Inc., Aldi, Inc., Allied-Horizontal

Wireline Services, City of Cleveland, Forever 21, Nestlé, Papa John’s USA, Inc., Progressive

Casualty Insurance, RadioShack Corp, and Utz Qualify Foods.

7. Finally, since the firm was founded, the firm has filed approximately 20% of the

FLSA cases brought in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio.

8. From July 31, 2008 through August 14, 2015, I was employed as an attorney with

Caryn Groedel & Associates, Co., LPA, representing employees in employment-related matters, including wage and hour matters.

9. From March 2004 through July 29, 2008, I was employed as an Associate, and then a Partner, at Zipkin Whiting Co., LPA, representing employees in employment-related matters.

10. I graduated from Case Western Reserve University School of Law in 2003, and have been licensed to practice law in the State of Ohio since November 2003.

11. I am a member in good standing of the bars of the Ohio Supreme Court, the United

States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, the United States District Court for the Northern

District of Ohio, and the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.

12. Since my admission to the practice of law, I have practiced almost exclusively in litigating on behalf of employees in various employment-related matters.

13. From March 2004 through the present, I have successfully litigated or assisted in

litigating hundreds of employment-related matters in federal, state, and appellate courts, as well as

arbitrations, and have recovered millions of dollars in settlement payments on behalf of employees.

2

14. From 2012 to 2018, I was named an Ohio Super Lawyers Rising Star, which is a designation awarded to the top 2.5% of all attorneys in the State of Ohio who are 40 years of age or under, or who have been practicing law for 10 years or fewer. Since 2019, I have been named an Ohio Super Lawyer, a designation awarded to the top 5% of all attorneys in the State of Ohio.

15. I have been selected to speak at multiple National Business Institute seminars and in the CMBA’s 16 th Annual Northern Ohio Labor & Employment Law Conference, presenting on various topics, including, but not limited to, litigating employment claims from start to finish, employment discrimination law, latest developments in employment law, the Fair Labor Standards

Act, and ethics.

Factual and Procedural Background

16. On August 19, 2017, Plaintiff Neil Rosenbohm filed this Action as a collective

action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 201-219, and alleged that

Defendant failed to pay its hourly, non-exempt employees, including Plaintiff and other Solution

Specialists, for all hours worked, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C.

§§ 201-219, as well as a “class action” pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 to remedy violations of the

Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act (“OMFWSA”), R.C. 4111.03. (Doc. 1.)

17. Specifically, Plaintiff alleged that he and other similarly-situated employees were required by Defendant to perform unpaid work off-the-clock at the end of their shifts, including, but not limited to: (a) straightening up the store; (b) preparing a checklist for the next day; (c) cleaning the store’s office; (d) logging out of workstations; (e) ensuring workstations are cleaned;

(f) sending out nightly sale numbers to the district manager; (g) waiting for another representative who was with a customer; and (h) setting store alarms. (Doc. 1.)

3

18. On January 12, 2018, Named Plaintiff Rosenbohm filed a Motion for Conditional

Certification, Expedited Opt-in Discovery, and Court-Supervised Notice To Potential Opt-in

Plaintiffs (“Motion for Conditional Certification”), seeking to certify a nationwide class of

Solution Specialists who work or worked in one of the Company’s retail stores during the relevant period. (Doc. 21.) On March 2, 2018, Verizon filed its Opposition Brief. On March 16, 2018,

Plaintiff filed his Reply Brief. (Doc. 32.)

19. On September 17, 2018, this Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion for Conditional

Certification and, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), conditionally certified a class consisting of “all former and current Solutions Specialists employed by Cellco Partnership nationwide at any time during the three years prior to the granting of [the] motion to the present.” (Doc. 35.)

20. On October 30, 2018, the Notice was mailed via First Class mail and emailed to approximately 33,000 potential class members, and the Notice Period closed on November 29,

2018. At the close of the Opt-In Period, there were nearly 4,000 Opt-In Plaintiffs.

21. The Parties agreed to engage in a due diligence period between December 2018 and

March 2019, during which time Defendant provided timekeeping, payroll, and scheduling records for an agreed-upon number of Plaintiffs to facilitate settlement discussions.

22. Between March 2019 and February 2020, the Parties engaged in close to a year of discovery, including written discovery, which included the production of policy documents and additional timekeeping, payroll and scheduling data, and distribution of an agreed-upon questionnaire to more than 190 Plaintiffs..

23. Between December 2018 and February 2020, the Parties exchanged information and engaged in numerous telephone discussions regarding the calculation of damages and potential resolution.

4

24. Between March 15, 2019 and March 2, 2020, the Parties engaged in settlement negotiations, including the exchange of numerous letters and discussions between Counsel for the

Parties detailing the Parties’ legal and factual positions.

25. On March 2, 2020, a mediation was held in Chicago, Illinois, with Michael

Dickstein, a nationally-recognized and well-respected mediator of FLSA collective actions and, after a full-day mediation, in an effort to reach a compromise and to avoid the continued expense and burden of litigation, the Parties reached an agreement to settle the Action on the terms set forth in the Settlement Agreement attached as Exhibit 1.

26. I have vigorously represented Representative Plaintiff Neil Rosenbohm and the

Opt-In Plaintiffs regarding their claims, have conducted a significant investigation of their claims, and have obtained a thorough familiarity with the factual and legal issues presented in their case.

27. The Parties engaged in substantial investigation and informal discovery prior to negotiating the Settlement. Prior to filing the Action, Plaintiffs’ Counsel performed a significant amount of research and factual investigation of the claims to set forth a factually specific and accurate Complaint for the Court and Defendant. This included interviewing and obtaining declarations from numerous putative class members.

28. The Parties engaged in a comprehensive exchange of information regarding

Plaintiffs’ claims and Defendant’s defenses to such claims. This included a complete analysis and

calculations of Representative Plaintiff’s and Opt-In Party Plaintiffs’ overtime damages.

29. The Parties engaged in extensive legal discussion, which included numerous and

lengthy discussions between counsel for the Parties.

30. This matter has already been litigated for nearly three (3) years, and included

substantial discovery and motion practice, including briefing regarding conditional certification

5

and discovery disputes relating to the size and scope of representative discovery.

31. If forced to litigate this case further, the Parties will incur substantial expenses and fees in continuing discovery, including traveling to various states across the country to take depositions of Plaintiff and the 94 representative sample of Opt-In Plaintiffs, as well as Rule 30(b) depositions of Defendant. The out-of-pocket costs alone will exceed six-figures.

32. Moreover, the Parties would incur substantial fees in further motion practice, including dispositive motions, a decertification motion, and a Rule 23 Motion for Certification. By the time of trial, the Parties’ attorneys’ fees on each side are likely to be in the million, and costs exceeding six-figures.

33. Counsel for both sides believe in the merits of their clients’ positions, but nonetheless recognize that the litigation of claims is uncertain in terms of duration, cost, and result.

Defendant denied Plaintiffs’ allegations, denied that Plaintiffs or other employees were performing work off-the-clock, asserted that Plaintiffs were properly paid, and denied that Plaintiffs were entitled to any damages.

34. The Parties agree that bona fide disputes exist between the Parties, including whether Plaintiffs were properly compensated under the FLSA and/or and whether they are entitled to their claimed overtime compensation under the FLSA and/or OMFWSA.

35. Additionally, there is a bona fide dispute over whether the two-year or three-year statute of limitations applies and whether Plaintiffs would be entitled to liquidated damages as

Defendant claims it did not act willful and has a good faith defense.

36. The Parties further disputed whether collective treatment of Plaintiffs’ FLSA claims were appropriate. Thus, Plaintiffs were at risk of having the case decertified, which would require the filing of nearly 4,000 separate lawsuits if Plaintiffs wanted to proceed with their

6

individual claims.

37. There is no guarantee that the Plaintiffs will win on a motion to decertify the class, which Defendant has indicated it will file. Further, Defendant has indicated it will file a motion for summary judgment, and there is no guarantee that Plaintiffs will prevail.

38. Moreover, in the present case, Defendant raises affirmative defenses to Plaintiffs’ claims, and the outcome of those defenses at trial is uncertain as well. Continued litigation could be risky for all, and could result in appeals regardless of the outcome of the trial.

39. If this ligation continued, Plaintiffs faced obstacles and uncertainties, including

extensive and expensive discovery, and potential losses during the decertification and summary judgment phases, and a trial.

40. In an effort to reach a compromise and to avoid the expense and burden of litigation,

the Parties reached an agreement to settle the Action on March 2, 2020 (the terms are embodied in

the Joint Stipulation of Settlement and Release, attached as Exhibit 1 to the Parties’ Joint Motion

for Approval of Settlement and Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice.)

41. The Settlement covers Representative Plaintiff and the Opt-In Plaintiffs who opted

into the Action and consented to be bound by any settlement reached by the Parties.

42. From my experience litigating this case and many other similar wage and hour

cases, I believe that the proposed Settlement is in the best interests of Representative Plaintiff and

Opt-In Party Plaintiffs.

43. I also believe that the proposed Settlement is a fair, adequate, and reasonable compromise of disputed claims.

44. The Total Settlement Amount is One Million Nine Hundred and Fifty Thousand

Dollars ($1,950,000.00), which sum will cover: (a) all of the Individual Payments to Plaintiffs; (b)

7

Representative Plaintiff’s Service Award Payment; and (c) Plaintiffs’ Counsel’s attorneys’ fees

and expenses, including the expenses for a third-party administrator to administer the settlement.

45. One Million Two-Hundred Twenty-One Thousand Twenty-Six Dollars and Thirty-

Six Cents ($1,221,026.36) of the Total Settlement Amount will be divided into Individual

Payments to the Plaintiffs. The Individual Payments will be calculated proportionally on each

Plaintiff’s alleged overtime damages during the Calculation Period by Plaintiffs’ Counsel using the data produced by Defendant. The calculation period for the Plaintiff and Opt-In Plaintiffs is the date three years prior to date each Opt-In Plaintiff filed with the Court his or her consent to join until the latter of their termination of employment or September 29, 2019.

46. Between June 7, 2015 and September 28, 2019, Plaintiffs alleges that they were denied $1,976,905.89 in overtime compensation for approximately 24.5 minutes of off-the-clock work per week, based on the records provided by Defendant.

47. If approved by the Court, the Proposed Settlement will provide adequate payments to Plaintiffs for unpaid overtime compensation. The Individual Settlement Payments range from a minimum payment of $25.00 to a maximum payment of $1,424.07. The Net Settlement Amount of $1,221,026.36 represents $322.85 per Plaintiff. Pursuant to the Settlement, each Plaintiff will receive 62% of their alleged overtime damages resulting from Defendant’s failure to pay them for off-the-clock work relating to closing tasks

48. In exchange, the Action will be dismissed, Plaintiffs will release Defendant from all federal and state wage-and-hour off-the-clock work claims, rights, demands, liabilities and causes of action that they have or could have, including those asserted in Plaintiff’s Complaint, including but not limited to claims for unpaid wages, unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, interest, attorneys’ fees, and expenses

8

49. As such, this Settlement is fair and reasonable and provides immediate and

substantial relief without the attendant risks and delay of continued litigation, including the risk of

decertification, summary judgment, and trial.

50. Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00) of the Total Settlement Amount will be paid to

Representative Plaintiff Neil Rosenbohm, in addition to his Individual Payments, for his service

as the Representative Plaintiff.

51. In addition, $650,000.00 will be paid to Plaintiffs’ Counsel for attorneys’ fees and

$46,973.64 for expenses incurred, and expected to be incurred, in the Action and administration

of the settlement. Finally, $22,000.00 will be set aside for fees and expenses for a claims

administrator to administer the settlement.

52. Over the course of almost (3) years, this matter was contentiously litigated. The

Parties engaged in substantial discovery, and the docket is clear that the Parties engaged in

significant motion practice. Plaintiff filed a Motion for Conditional Certification, which

Defendant opposed. The Parties engaged in disputes relating to representative discovery, which

included conferences with Magistrate Judge Vascura and the filing of Objections and a Response

to Magistrate Jude Vascura’s Opinions and Orders relating to representative discovery.

53. Plaintiffs’ Counsel issued the Notice via First-Class Mail and email to

approximately 33,000 putative class members, and spoke to hundreds of class members during the

course of the notice administration.

54. The Parties engaged in close to a year of discovery, including written discovery, which included the production and review of policy documents and timekeeping, payroll and scheduling data.

9

55. Moreover, discovery included the distribution of an agreed-upon questionnaire,

which was sent to more than 190 Plaintiffs. The questionnaires were sent to Opt-In Plaintiffs from

the period of time between July 31, 2019 and February 21, 2020, as certain Opt-In Plaintiffs failed

to respond and were dismissed from the litigation by the Court. Plaintiffs’ Counsel served the

questionnaires, made calls to Opt-In Plaintiffs in an attempt to get them to respond to the

questionnaires, and engaged in telephone conferences with Opt-In Plaintiffs who had questions

relating to the questionnaires.

56. Additionally, Plaintiffs’ Counsel engaged in discussions and correspondence with the Plaintiff and thousands of the Opt-In Plaintiffs relating to the claims in this Action, as well as other potential off-the-clock work performed by Opt-In Plaintiffs, and engaged in hundreds of telephone conferences and interviews.

57. In March 2019, Plaintiffs’ Counsel distributed a survey to the nearly 4,000 Opt-In

Plaintiffs to obtain specific information from each Opt-In Plaintiff relating to the number of shifts he/she worked per week, how many closing shifts she/she worked per week, the average number of closing shifts he/she performed off-the-clock work, the amount of time he/she performed off- the-clock work during his/her closing shifts, and the locations of the Verizon stores at which he/she worked. Plaintiffs’ Counsel read and analyzed all responses to the questionnaires and performed statistical analyses of the information obtained directly from Opt-In Plaintiffs to further analyze the similarly of Plaintiff’s and Opt-In Plaintiffs’ employment experiences and claims relating to off-the-clock work. Further, Plaintiff’s Counsel used this information to perform calculations relating to Plaintiffs’ potential damages.

58. From July 2019 through February 2020, Plaintiffs’ Counsel distributed the discovery questionnaire to Plaintiff and Opt-In Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs’ Counsel read and analyzed

10

all responses to the questionnaires and performed statistical analyses of the information obtained

directly from Opt-In Plaintiffs to further analyze the similarly of Plaintiff’s and Opt-In Plaintiffs’ employment experiences and claims relating to off-the-clock work. Further, Plaintiff’s Counsel used this information to perform calculations relating to Plaintiffs’ potential damages.

59. In February 2020, in preparation for the mediation, Plaintiffs’ counsel distributed a second survey to the Opt-In Plaintiffs to obtain specific information from each Opt-In Plaintiff relating to the stores at which they worked, programs and applications utilized during the course of his/her employment with Defendant, the purpose of those programs and applications, information relating to his/her use of those programs and applications, off-the-clock work being performed utilizing said programs and applications, and written and verbal policies his/she was required to follow. Plaintiffs’ Counsel read and analyzed all responses to the surveys in order to provide details and statistical results of the information obtained directly from Opt-In Plaintiffs for purposes of the mediation.

60. Moreover, Plaintiffs’ Counsel reviewed and analyzed time, pay, and schedule data of Plaintiff and Opt-In Plaintiffs, and performed substantial calculations relating to the damages, which included preparing spreadsheets detailing the calculations performed.

61. Had this case not settled, Plaintiffs’ Counsel would have vigorously litigated the case without any promise of success and compensation. At every step of the litigation, Defendant could have succeeded. Therefore, Plaintiffs were at great risk for non-payment. This risk of non- payment strongly supports the amount requested here and warrants notice to the class of Plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fee request.

62. The services rendered to Plaintiff and Opt-In Plaintiffs reflect the significant experience Plaintiffs’ Counsel has with litigating collective and class actions, as discussed above.

11

63. The attorneys’ fees in this case were entirely contingent upon the success of this

litigation. Plaintiffs’ Counsel expended significant time and effort and advanced substantial costs

and expenses without any guarantee of compensation. Plaintiffs’ counsel has been actively

working on this case for nearly three (3) years. It is a complex FLSA and Rule 23 matter and it

has been hard fought by both sides.

64. The attorneys’ fees requested are reasonable in light of the exceptional benefit achieved for Plaintiff and the Opt-In Plaintiffs. Courts consistently approve a one-third fee request and Plaintiffs’ Counsel’s one-third fee request has been approved in similar collective and class actions in Federal Courts, including this Court. See, e.g., Shumate v. Genesco, Inc. , et al, Case

No. 1:17-cv-03574 (S.D. Ind.); Grayer, et al. v. Kennametal, Inc. , Case No. 1:16-cv-01382 (N.D.

Ohio); Allen v. Sutherland Global Services , Case No. 6:17-cv-6059 (W.D.N.Y); Lawrence v.

Platinum Home Helper , Case No. 1:17-cv-1479 (N.D. Ohio); Fullerton v. Golden Flake Snack

Foods, Inc ., Case No. 3:17-cv- 00296 (N.D. Florida); Miller v. Flowers Baking Co. of Ohio , Case

No. 3:17-cv-725 (N.D.NY.); Caringi v. Relentless Recovery , Case No. 1:16-cv-2236 (N.D. Ohio);

Tabor v. A Better Alternative to Senior Care, Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-1281 (N.D. Ohio); Castro v.

Heart Home Care, LLC , Case No. 1:16-cv-571 (N.D. Ohio); Bainbridge v. Medline Industries ,

Case No. 5:16-cv-00555 (N.D. Ohio); Terry v. All Hearts Home Health Care , Case No. 1:16-cv-

515 (N.D. Ohio); Webber v. Nine Energy , Case No. 4:15-cv-2406 (S.D. Texas); Swiger, et al. v.

Utz Quality Foods, Inc ., Case No. 1:15-cv-2196 (M.D. Penn); Houston, et. al. v. Progressive

Casualty Insurance Co ., Case No. 1:15-cv-01853 (N.D. Ohio); Hillebrandt, et al. v. Horizontal

Wireline Services, LLC, et al ., Case No. 2:15-cv-1307 (W.D. Pa); Rucker v. Quality Blow Molding,

Case No. 1:15-cv-1039 (N.D. Ohio); Green v. H.A.D., Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-933 (S.D. Ohio);

Douglas, et al. v. J&K Subway, Inc., Case No. 4:14-cv-2621 (N.D. Ohio); McPherson v.

12

Horseshoe Cleveland , Case No. 1:14-cv-02475 (N.D. Ohio); Smith v. CMHA , Case No. 1:14-cv-

1409 (N.D. Ohio); Armbruster v. City of Cleveland , Case No. 1:13-cv-2626 (N.D. Ohio); Williams

v. Beckett Air, Inc ., Case No. 1:12-cv-2796 (N.D. Ohio); Welch v. Incept Corporation , Case No.

5:12-cv-1775 (N.D. Ohio); Malaj v. Gohlke , Case No. 1:11-cv-1578 (N.D. Ohio); Campbell v.

Judson Services , Case No. 1:11-cv-906 (N.D. Ohio); Murphy v. 1-800-Flowers , Case No. 1:10-

cv-1822 (N.D. Ohio); Miller v. National Enterprise Systems , Case No. 1:10-cv-1664 (N.D. Ohio);

Osolin v. Turocy & Watson LLP , et al, Case No. 1:09-cv-2935 (N.D. Ohio); Kelly v. National

Enterprise Systems , Case No. 1:09-cv-2268 (N.D. Ohio); McNelley v. Aldi , Case No. 1:09-cv-1868

(N.D. Ohio); Rotuna v. West Customer Management Group , Case No. 4:09-cv-1608 (N.D. Ohio);

Jackson v. Papa John’s , Case No. 1:08-cv-2791 (N.D. Ohio); Dillworth v. Case Farms , Case No.

5:08-cv-1694 (N.D. Ohio); Fincham v. Nestlé Prepared Foods Company , Case No. 1:08-cv-73

(N.D. Ohio); McGhee v. Allied Waste Industries , Case No. 1:07-cv-1110 (N.D. Ohio).

65. The Lazzaro Law Firm, LLC has incurred the following amount of hours at the

corresponding hourly rates of pay: Attorney Anthony J. Lazzaro, 265 hours, $450 per hour;

Attorney Chastity L. Christy, 285.5 hours, $450 per hour; Attorney Lori M. Griffin, 275 hours,

$350 per hour; and Paralegal Alex Landis, 667 hours; $100 per hour. The Lazzarro Law Firm’s

lodestar as of June 2, 2020 is $410,675.

66. The Settlement also provides for Plaintiffs’ Counsels’ litigation expenses, which

are approximately $46,973.64, which includes costs of $29,153.07 for mailing the Notice to putative class members $11,500.00 for the mediator’s fees, and $2,301.00 in travel and other

expenses for Plaintiffs’ Counsel to attend the mediation in Chicago, Illinois. Furthermore, the cost

of a third-party administrator to administer the settlement funds is $22,000.00. All expenses were

13

incurred during the course of the litigation of this Action or will be incurred during the

administration of the Settlement, including the cost of a third-party administrator.

/s/ Chastity L. Christy Chastity L. Christy (0076977) The Lazzaro Law Firm, LLC The Heritage Building, Suite 250 34555 Chagrin Boulevard Moreland Hills, Ohio 44022 Phone: 216-696-5000 Facsimile: 216-696-7005 [email protected]

Signed in Cuyahoga County, Ohio, This 12 th day of June, 2020.

14

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

Neil Rosenbohm Case No. 2:2017 -cv -00 731 Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated

Plaintiffs, JUDGE ALGENON L. MARBLEY

v. MAGISTRATE JUDGE CHELSEY M. VASCURA Cellco Partnership, d/b/a Verizon Wireless Defendant.

DECLARATION OF MICHAEL L. FRADIN

I, Michael L. Fradin, declare as follows:

1. I am a member in good standing of the Illinois State Bar and Ohio State Bar and

am also admitted to practice by the Courts in the Northern District of Illinois (including trial bar),

Southern District of Ohio, and Northern District of Ohio. I submit this declaration in support of

Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion for Approval of Settlement, Appointment of Settlement

Administrator, and Approval of Service Awards and Attorneys’ Fees and Costs.

2. I have personal knowledge of the factual matters set forth in this declaration.

My Experience

3. I graduated from DePaul College of Law, to which I won an academic merit

scholarship, in 2006. I received my undergraduate degree from Oberlin College in 2000, where

I double-majored in biopsychology and English and was an all-conference baseball player.

4. I was admitted to practice law in the State of Illinois on November 9, 2006 and to

1 practice law in the State of Ohio on May 5, 2014. I have a law office in Skokie, Illinois and an office in Athens, Ohio and I travel between the two locations for hearings, depositions, trials, and client meetings. During the entire course of my legal career, I have practiced primarily in complex, highly contested, and highly challenging litigation and have learned the value of building a strong team in litigating these difficult cases.

5. My practice now focuses on civil rights and injury cases for plaintiffs and I often take on difficult cases that other lawyers have turned away or will only accept on an hourly basis and some of which result in a net loss for my office. I have litigated multiple cases through trial and appeals and am a member of the Northern District of Illinois Trial Bar.

6. I am highly experienced in federal courts in civil rights and employment matters and have been appointed class counsel and am highly competent in class action litigation. and the Fair Labor Standards Act. (See Steger v. Life Time Fitness 14-cv-06056 (N.D. IL) (rule 23 class settlement), Robinson v. Ultimate Fitness Group, LLC 16-cv-10231 (N.D. IL) (FLSA settlement approved), Wiersema v. Life Time Fitness 17-cv-01585 (N.D. IL) (FLSA opt-in settlement approved), Barton v. Lancaster Wings 17-cv-0476 (S.D. Ohio) (FLSA class settlement approved), Young v. Rolling in the Dough, Inc. 17-cv-07825 (N.D. IL) (FLSA class settlement approved), Rodino v. NRJM, Inc. , 18-cv-05167 (N.D. IL) (FLSA class settlement approval pending), Smith v. MT Pizza Ventures, Inc. , 18-cv-06674 (N.D. IL) (FLSA class settlement approved)).

7. My office initiated this FLSA collective action and took the financial risk inherent in representing the Plaintiff on a contingency basis. I believe I am the only lawyer in Southeast

Ohio who represents plaintiffs in class and collective actions and after significant time was spent meeting with Plaintiff at my Athens, Ohio office, conducting research, and investigating facts, I

2 agreed to represent the Plaintiff on a contingency-fee basis.

8. Soon after filing suit, I was joined by Anthony Lazzaro and his team. Anthony

Lazzaro, arguably the most experienced and accomplished FLSA attorney in Ohio, and his team filed nearly 4,000 opt-in consent forms. When settlement negotiations stalled, Douglas

Werman, arguably the most experienced and accomplished FLSA attorney in the Midwest, also joined as co-counsel and has used his experience, especially with wage and hour class mediation,

to finalize a settlement.

My Lodestar in this Litigation

9. Plaintiff’s Counsel exercised prudent billing judgment in delegating the work

among attorneys.

10. As of April 17, 2020, my total lodestar fees are $152,250.00 That represents 304.5

hours at $500.00 per hour.

11. During the course of the litigation, Plaintiff’s Counsel: (i) interviewed scores of

current and former employees employed by Defendant; (ii) Drafted the initial Complaint and

contributed to the drafting of the First Amended Complaint and Motion for Conditional

Certification, (iii) reviewed the thousands of pages of documents produced by Defendants and

hundreds of thousands of lines of electronic time and pay data for thousands of potential

individual Opt-in Plaintiffs and class members; (iv) obtained discovery responses from

approximately 100 opt-in Plaintiffs (v) obtained sworn declarations from witnesses to support

Plaintiff’s Motion for Conditional Certification; (vi) opposed lengthy and complex Objections to

Discovery Orders, (vii) contributed to the preparation of a class-wide damages model, (viii)

participated in a full day, in person mediations in Chicago, Illinois and (ix) prepared class

settlement documents.

3 12. Plaintiff’s Counsel also notes that the lodestar presented above does not take into consideration future time Plaintiff’s Counsel will spend fulfilling their future obligations in the

Settlement Agreement, conferring with the Settlement Administrator, monitoring the administration of the Settlement, and responding to Plaintiff’s and Settlement Class members’ inquiries. Plaintiff’s Counsel expects these future attorneys’ fees to be substantial.

Reasonable Hourly Billing Rates

13. My current billing rate is $500/hr. for Ohio cases and $550/hr. for Illinois cases.

Although my practice primarily works on a contingency fee rate, I do sometimes charge clients on an hourly basis and in years past have charged primarily on an hourly basis. My hourly rate has progressed throughout my legal career at a rate consistent with the billing rate requested here.

14. Based on the rates awarded by other courts in other wage and hour cases, Class

Counsel believes the rates requested by Class Counsel here are within the prevailing market rates for lawyers of Plaintiff’s counsel’s experience and expertise.

The Requested Fee Represents a Modest Multiplier of Plaintiffs’ Counsel’s Lodestar

15. Counsel’s requested fee is $650,000.00 and represents a negative 1.05 multiplier of our current loadstar. The amount Plaintiff’s Counsel seeks in attorneys’ fees does not take into consideration the time Plaintiff’s Counsel will spend fulfilling our obligations in the Settlement

Agreement, conferring with the Settlement Administrator, monitoring the administration of the

Settlement, and responding to settlement inquiries.

Litigation Expenses

16. My firm has incurred $12,260.55 in litigation costs. These costs include, but are not limited, to the following: class-wide mailings, filing fees, travel expenses, and mediation

4 fee. The expenses incurred are reasonable and their reimbursement should be approved.

The Service Award is Proper and Reasonable

17. Representative Named Plaintiff Rosenbohm’s Services were Effective.

18. Plaintiff Rosenbohm Provided Extensive Factual Information to Plaintiffs’

Counsel and engaged in numerous and extensive calls and communications with Plaintiffs’

Counsel.

19. Plaintiff Rosenbohm subjected himself to the responsibilities of serving as named

Plaintiff in a lawsuit against his former employer.

The Settlement Should be Approved

20. The settlement in this case surpasses the standard for approval. The settlement was the result of careful pre-suit investigation and substantial arm’s-length negotiations.

Recognizing the uncertain legal and factual issues involved, the Parties only reached the settlement after private mediation before Michael Dickstein, a highly experienced and recognized FLSA class-action mediator.

21. The settlement provides significant compensation to the settlement class members.

22. I declare under penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746 that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed this June 12, 2020, Athens, Ohio.

/s/ Michael L. Fradin

Michael L. Fradin, Attorney at Law 8401 Crawford Ave. Ste. 104 Skokie, IL 60076

5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

NEIL ROSENBOHM, individually, and ) CASE NO. 2:17-cv-00731 on behalf of all others similarly situated, ) ) JUDGE: Algenon L. Marbley Plaintiff, ) ) MAGISTRATE: Chelsey M. v. ) Vascura ) CELLCO PARTNERSHIP, d/b/a Verizon ) Wireless, ) ) Defendant. )

DECLARATION OF DOUGLAS M. WERMAN

I, Douglas M. Werman, declare as follows:

1. I am the managing shareholder of Werman Salas P.C. and was admitted pro hac vice in this litigation as co-counsel of record for Plaintiff.

2. I submit this declaration in support of the Parties’ Joint Motion for Approval of

Settlement and Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice.

3. I have personal knowledge of the factual matters set forth in this declaration and

would so testify if called as a witness at trial.

My Background and Experience

4. I graduated from Loyola University of Chicago’s School of Law in 1990. I

received my undergraduate degree from the University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana, in 1987. I

was admitted to practice law in the State of Illinois in 1990. Since 2001, my practice has been

highly concentrated in representing employees in collective and class actions arising under state

and federal employment, privacy and consumer laws.

5. I am admitted in the following courts:

1 COURT OF ADMISSION DATE OF ADMISSION State Admissions State of Illinois 11/08/1990 U.S. District Courts Northern District of Illinois 12/20/1990 Western District of Michigan 06/24/1999 Central District of Illinois 03/30/2001 Eastern District of Michigan 03/25/2003 Southern District of Illinois 04/08/2010 Northern District of Indiana 10/25/2010 Western District of New York 07/22/2015 Federal Claims Court 08/13/2015 Southern District of Indiana 11/05/2015 Eastern District of Arkansas 12/04/2015 District of Colorado 06/06/2017 U.S. Circuit Courts Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals August 4, 1994 Second Circuit Court of Appeals November 21, 2013 Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals May 6, 2015 Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals April 21, 2016 Ninth Circuit of Appeals May 20, 2016

6. I have been lead counsel in over seven hundred (700) collective and class action cases filed in the state and federal courts. Some of these cases include:

 Ortiz v. Manpower, Inc., No. 12 C 5248 (N.D. Ill. August 21, 2012) (class action for unpaid wages certified under F.R.C.P. 23 for over 85,000 employees);

 Arrez v. Kelly Services, Inc., No. 07 C 1289 (N.D. Ill.) (class action for unpaid wages certified under F.R.C.P. 23 for over 95,000 employees);

 Polk v. Adecco , No. 06 CH 13405 (Cook County, Il.) (class action for unpaid wages for certified under Illinois law for over 36,000 employees);

 Robbins v. Blazin Wings, Inc., No. 15-CV-6340 CJS, 2016 WL 1068201, at *1 (W.D.N.Y. Mar. 18, 2016) (FLSA certification of a collective of 62,000 employees);

 Martignago, et al v. Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc ., Case No. 11-cv-03923-PGG (SDNY) (multi-state class action certified for over 10,000 employees);

 Garcia v. JC Penney Corp., Inc. , No. 12-CV-3687, 2016 WL 878203 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 8, 2016) (class action for owed pay for over 36,000 employees);

2  Haschak v. Fox & Hound Rest. Grp., No. 10 C 8023, 2012 U.S. Dist. 162476, at * 2 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 14, 2012) (F.R.C.P. 23 class certification for over 6,000 employees);

 Schaefer v. Walker Bros. Enters., Inc., No. 10 C 6366, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65432, at *4 (N.D. Ill. May 7, 2012) (F.R.C.P. 23 class certification for over Illinois employees);

 Kernats v. Comcast Corp. Inc., Nos. 09 C 3368 and 09 C 4305, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112071 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 20, 2010) (F.R.C.P. 23 class certification granted for over 8,000 Illinois employees);

 Magpayo v. Advocate Health & Hosps. Corp., No. 16-CV-01176, 2018 WL 950093, at *1 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 20, 2018) (certifying Illinois state law claims under F.R.C.P. 23)

 Driver v. AppleIllinois, LLC , 265 F.R.D. 293, 311 (N.D. Ill. 2010) & Driver, No. 06 C 6149, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27659, at *15 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 2, 2012) (FRCP 23 class certification for 19,000 tipped employees, decertification denied);

 Schmidt v. Smith & Wollensky, 268 F.R.D. 323 (N.D. Ill. 2010) (F.R.C.P. 23 class certification for Illinois tipped employees);

 Hardaway v. Employbridge of Dallas, et al ., No. 11 C 3200 (N.D. Ill.); Williams v. Volt , No. 10 C 3927 (N.D. Ill.) (IWPCA class action for owed pay for over 15,000 employees);

 Rosales v. Randstad , No. 09 C 1706 (N.D. Ill.) (class action certified under F.R.C.P. 23 for owed pay for over 20,000 employees);

 Cope v. Let's Eat Out, Inc., 354 F. Supp. 3d 976 (W.D. Mo. 2019) (denying motion to decertify F.R.C.P. 23 class action under Missouri law and FLSA collective action).

These and other cases have successfully recovered owed wages for hundreds of thousands of working people across the United States.

7. Several federal courts have recognized the expertise that my firm and I possess in collective and class action litigation. For example:

 “Plaintiffs’ Counsel are known and recognized lawyers in wage and hour litigation and have an excellent national reputation in representing tipped employees in this type of case. Courts recognize Plaintiffs’ Counsel as leaders in advocating the rights of such workers throughout the United States.” Osman, et al. v. Grube, Inc., et al. 2018 WL 2095172, at *4 (N.D. Ohio May 4, 2018);

 Douglas Werman and Werman Salas P.C. are “national leaders in advocating the rights of working people in wage and hour litigation” and describing Mr. Werman as a “highly respected and experienced lawyer[]…” Sanchez v. Roka Akor

3 Chicago LLC , No. 14 C 4645, 2017 WL 1425837, at *5-7 (N.D. Ill., Apr. 20, 2017);

 Awarding Werman Salas P.C. attorney’s fees and stating that Mr. Werman and his firm are “… national leaders in advocating the rights of working people in wage and hour litigation. Knox v. Jones Grp., No. 15-CV-1738 SEB-TAB, 2017 WL 3834929, at *5 (S.D. Ind. Aug. 31, 2017);

 Describing Mr. Werman as a “highly experienced attorney” in class actions. Schmidt v. Smith & Wollensky, LLC , 268 F.R.D. 323, 328 n.5 (N.D. Ill. 2010) (Castillo, C.J.).

8. My published cases exceed 250 decisions and include:

 Ervin v. OS Rest. Servs ., 632 F.3d 971 (7th Cir. 2011), the leading appellate decision addressing the propriety of a combined Rule 23 class action and a FLSA collective action under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b);

 Marsh v. J. Alexander's LLC , 869 F.3d 1108 (9th Cir. 2017), on reh'g en banc , 905 F.3d 610 (9th Cir. 2018) (the successful en banc reversal of a panel decision holding that the U.S. Department of Labor’s sub-regulatory guidance that tipped employees are entitled to the full minimum wage for time spent in non-tipped occupations was a reasonable choice within a legislative gap left open by Congress and should receive Auer deference);

 Fast v. Applebee’s Int’l, Inc., 638 F.3d 872 (8th Cir. 2011) cert. denied __ U.S. ___, 181 L. Ed. 2d 977 (Jan. 17, 2012) (explaining under Section 3(m) of the Fair Labor Standards Act what duties a tipped employee may lawfully perform while receiving a tip-credit wage rate);

 Roach v. T.L. Cannon Corp. , No. 13-3070-CV, 2015 WL 528125 (2d Cir. Feb. 10, 2015). (the lead appellate decision addressing the impact of the United States Supreme Court decision in Comcast Corp. v. Behrend , ___ U.S. ___, 133 S. Ct. 1426 (2013) on the predominance prong of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) in wage and hour class actions). 9. I am a frequent speaker and author on class actions. Some examples of my speaking engagements are:

National Employment Lawyers Strategies for Litigating Mass Individual Association, Denver, 2019 Arbitrations Chicago Bar Association, 2018 What’s Hot (and not) in Class Action Litigation Chicago Bar Association, 2017, Chicago Settlement Strategies: Mediation and Fall Seminar on Wage and Hour Court Approved Settlements in Wage and

4 Litigation Hour Litigation National Employment Lawyers Co-Counseling & Cooperating with Other Association National Convention, Los Plaintiffs’ Lawyers Angeles , 2016 National Employment Lawyers Who is an Employer & Who is an Association National Convention, Los Employee? Angeles, 2016 Federal Bar Association, Chicago Enforcement and Litigation Chapter, Moderator, 2016 Priorities: EEOC, NLRB, DOL National Employment Lawyers Settlement Issues in Settling Wage and Association National Convention, Hour Class and Collective Actions Washington, D.C., 2015 American Bar Association, Fair Labor Litigation Issues in Wage and Hour Class Standards Legislation Committee, Puerto and Collective Actions Vallarta, Mexico 2015 Bridgeport Legal Conferences, Wage and Settlement of Wage and Hour Class Hour Class Action, Chicago, 2015 Actions Practicing Law Institute, Chicago, 2013, FLSA Wage and Hour Update 2014, 2015 Chicago Bar Association, Class Litigation Current Terrain in Class Action Litigation Committee, 2011 Illinois Institute of Continuing Legal Litigating Class Action Claims Education, 2008 AFL-CIO Lawyers Coordinating Arbitrating Wage and Hour Cases Committee, 2008

10. At the request of Judge Amy St. Eve who sits on the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, I was 1 of 10 lawyers in the United States (5 lawyers who primarily represent employees and 5 who primarily represent employers) who in 2017 authored FLSA

Initial Discovery Protocols designed to streamline discovery of such cases in federal courts. See, https://www.txs.uscourts.gov/sites/txs/files/Final_Initial_Discovery_Protocols_FLSA.pdf . The protocols were drafted in conjunction with the Federal Judicial Center (FJC) and the Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System.

11. I was a member of the working committee that helped author the 2006 amendments to the Illinois Day and Temporary Labor Services Act and the 2006 amendments to

5 the Illinois Minimum Wage Law. I was also a member of the working committee that co-

authored the 2010 “Wage Theft” amendments to the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act.

12. I was a co-author of the National Employment Lawyers Association (“NELA”) amicus brief filed in the case Fast v. Applebee’s Int’l, Inc., 638 F.3d 872 (8th Cir. 2011) cert. denied ___ U.S. ___, 181 L. Ed. 2d 977 (Jan. 17, 2012), which deals with Section 3(m) of the

Fair Labor Standards Act, and what duties a tipped employee may lawfully perform while receiving a tip-credit wage rate. I was also a co-author of the NELA amicus brief filed in the case

Roach v. T.L. Cannon Corp. , Case No. 13-3070, which resulted in the successful appeal and reversal of a district court’s decision denying class certification on the grounds that individualized damages in a wage and hour class action defeated predominance under Fed. R.

Civ. P. 23(b)(3). Roach v. T.L. Cannon Corp. , No. 13-3070-CV, 2015 WL 528125 (2d Cir. Feb.

10, 2015). The Roach decision is the lead appellate decision addressing the impact of the United

States Supreme Court decision in Comcast Corp. v. Behrend , ___ U.S. ___, 133 S. Ct. 1426

(2013) on the predominance prong of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) in wage and hour class actions.

13. I am a member of the Board of Editors of the Leading Treatise on the Fair Labor

Standards Act, entitled, “Kearns, The Fair Labor Standards Act ,” published by Bloomberg BNA in conjunction with the American Bar Association Section of Labor and Employment Law.

Before being elevated to the Board of Editors in 2016, I was the Senior Chapter Editor of

Chapter 20 (“Hybrid” FLSA/State Law Actions”) of that same treatise.

14. In 2012, I was the recipient of the Thirteenth Annual Award for Excellence in Pro

Bono Service awarded by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, in conjunction with the Chicago Chapter of the Federal Bar Association.

6 My Role in the Litigation

15. On March 20, 2020, the Court granted my motion to appear pro hac vice in this

litigation. But I first began working on this matter on May 6, 2019, when I first communicated

with counsel for Defendant to help facilitate a settlement of the Litigation. To that end, one primary responsibility I had in the Litigation was working with the data produced by Verizon on

November 1, 2019, May 8, 2020 and May 28, 2020, to concretize the potential value of the case

and create a damages model. To advance that responsibility, I worked with certain time and pay

data Defendant produced in the Litigation, including:

 seven Excel workbooks identified by Defendant as Time History Reports that contain Employee ID, Employee Name, Timesheet Date, Timesheet Punch Type, Timesheet Punch Time, Time Reporting Code (TRC), TRC Description, and Quantity for the time period June 5, 2015 through November 7, 2017.

 seven Excel workbooks identified by Defendant as Time History Reports that contain Employee ID, Employee Name, Work_Date, DayofWeek, ACTUAL_PUNCH, ELASPED_PUNCH, Hours, Time Code, Time Code Description for the time period September 10, 2017 through September 30, 2019. 1

 eleven Excel workbooks identified by Defendant as Payroll Reports that contain Employee ID, Employee Name, JOBCODE, EARNS_END_DT, Pay End Date, Code, Description, Class / Tax / Hours, Total Gross, and Earning Type for the time period June 13, 2015 through September 28, 2019.

16. The data produced by Verizon on November 1, 2019 included approximately

374,897 work weeks for Opt-In Plaintiffs. Of these 374,897 week, 236,704 weeks contained both time and pay records for individual work weeks for the same Opt-In Plaintiffs. For the balance of the individual work weeks, time or pay records were either not complete or not produced for particular Opt-In Plaintiffs in certain work works. This is reflected in the chart below:

1 Defendant produced an additional Time History Report workbook for Meshawn M. Davis-Deemer only. Plaintiff incorporated this data into the other eight Time History Report workbooks.

7 Hours Recorded Weeks Missing Pay 123,821 2,894 Time 14,372 72,891 Time and Pay 236,704 374,897 75,785

17. To begin settlement discussions, Plaintiff used the following methodology to calculate the overtime wages owed to Plaintiffs in weeks they worked in excess of 40 hours in one or more individual work weeks during their applicable limitations period (“Applicable Work

Weeks”). No “gap time” damages are included in Plaintiff’s calculations.

For each Applicable Work Week, Plaintiff summed the Hours in the Time History Reports with a Time Sheet Punch Type “Start” or “Meal In” and the Time Code Description “Work Hours.” Then Plaintiff summed the Hours in the Payroll Reports with the Descriptions: Regular Pay, OT Paid @ 1.0, OT Paid @ 1.0 Times, OT Paid @ 1.5 Times, and OT Paid @ 2.0 Times. Plaintiff used the most complete data set as Hours Recorded per Week. 2

For each Applicable Work Week, Plaintiff summed the Total Regular Wages in the Payroll Reports with the Descriptions: Regular Pay, OT Paid @ 1.0 Times, OT Paid @ 1.0, 35% Sunday Shift Diff, Sunday Worked Premium – 35%, Bilingual Pay, FLSA True Up (x2), OT True Up @ 1.5 (/1.5), OT True Up @ 2.0 (/2).

For Work Weeks in which the Payroll Reports appear to be accurate, Plaintiff divided the Total Regular Wages by the Hours Recorded per Week to compute the Regular Rate of Pay. For Work Weeks in which the Time History Reports appear to be more accurate, Plaintiff used the average of each individual’s Regular Rate of Pay. 3

Plaintiff added “Off the Clock Time” to each Work Week to compute the Total Hours Worked per Work Week. For settlement purposes, the Off the Clock Time is 60 minutes per week. If the employee’s Hours Recorded were equal to or greater than 40.00, then the Off the Clock Time was multiplied by one-and-one-half times the employee’s Regular Rate of Pay to compute Additional Earned Overtime Wages. If the employee’s Hours Recorded together with the Off the Clock Time was greater than 40.00, then only the portion of Off the Clock Time that is greater than 40.00 was multiplied by one and one half times the employee’s Regular Rate of Pay to compute Additional Earned Overtime

2 An example of incomplete data is that Defendant’s Payroll Reports are missing the Regular Pay information for the time period January 2019 to March 2019. Plaintiff relied on the Time History Reports for this time period.

3 The average Regular Rate of Pay only needed to be computed for approximately 4% of the work weeks.

8 Wages. Any Off the Clock Time portion that is greater than 40.00 is the OT OTC Time.

Plaintiff then summed any Premium Wage Payments in the Payroll Reports with the Descriptions: 7 th Day Premium, Holiday Premium @ 0.5 Times, Holiday Premium @ 1.5 Times, Holiday Worked @ 0.5, Holiday Worked Premium – 150%, OT Paid @ 0.5 Times, OT Paid @ 2.0 Times (Code 7TH), OT True Up @ 2.0 (/2), OT Paid @ 1.5 Times (/3), and OT Paid @ 2.0 Times (/2). For each Work Week, Plaintiff subtracted the Premium Wage Payments from Additional Earned Overtime Wages to compute Owed Overtime Wages.

For each work week, the formula is as follows:

Σ Total Regular Wages ÷ Hours Recorded per Week = Regular Rate of Pay

If Hours Recorded per Week >= 40, Off the Clock Time = OT OTC Time

If Hours Recorded per Week + Off the Clock Time > 40, (Hours Recorded per Week + Off the Clock Time) – 40 = OT OTC Time

OT OTC Time * 1.5 * Regular Rate of Pay = Add’l Earned OT Wages

Additional Earned Overtime Wages – Premium Wages Payments = Owed OT Wages

Plaintiff ultimately used a virtually identical methodology to determine ratable settlement amounts after the case resolved. After the administrative costs of settlement, and then the Court- approved attorneys’ fees and costs and the Service Award to Named Plaintiff Rosenbohm are deducted from the Settlement Amount, the Settlement Payments were calculated by first computing the Alleged Owed Overtime Wages as follows:

(i) For each Applicable Work Week, the sum of hours in the Time History Reports with a Time Sheet Punch Type “Start” or “Meal In” and the Time Code Description “Work Hours” equals Recorded Hours. For each Applicable Work Week, the sum of hours in the Payroll Reports with the descriptions Regular Pay, OT Paid @ 1.0, OT Paid @ 1.0 Times, OT Paid @ 1.5 Times, and OT Paid @ 2.0 Times equals Recorded Hours. The most complete data set was used as Recorded Hours per Week.

(ii) For each Applicable Work Week, the sum of amounts in the Payroll Reports with the descriptions Regular Pay, OT Paid @ 1.0 Times, OT Paid @ 1.0, 35% Sunday Shift Diff, Sunday Worked Premium – 35%, Bilingual Pay, FLSA True Up (x2), OT True Up @ 1.5 (/1.5), OT True Up @ 2.0 (/2) equals Total Regular Wages.

9 (iii) For Work Weeks in which the Payroll Reports appear to be accurate, Total Regular Wages divided by the Recorded Hours per Week equal the Regular Rate of Pay. For Work Weeks in which the Time History Reports appear to be more accurate, the Regular Rate of Pay is the average of each individual’s rate of pay from the Payroll Reports.

(iv) “Off the Clock Time” plus Recorded Hours per Work Week equals Total Hours Worked per Work Week. For settlement purposes the Off the Clock Time is approximately 24.5 minutes per week.

(v) If the employee’s Hours Recorded in a Work Week were equal to or greater than 40.00, then the Off the Clock Time multiplied by one-and-one-half times the employee’s Regular Rate of Pay equals the Alleged Additional Earned Overtime Wages.

(vi) For Work Weeks where the employee’s Hours Recorded together with the Off the Clock Time was greater than 40.00, then only the portion of Off the Clock Time that is greater than 40.00 multiplied by one and one half times the employee’s Regular Rate of Pay equals the Alleged Additional Earned Overtime Wages.

(vii) For each Work Week, the sum of the amounts in the Payroll Reports with the Descriptions 7 th Day Premium, Holiday Premium @ 0.5 Times, Holiday Premium @ 1.5 Times, Holiday Worked @ 0.5, Holiday Worked Premium – 150%, OT Paid @ 0.5 Times, OT Paid @ 2.0 Times (Code 7TH), OT True Up @ 2.0 (/2), OT Paid @ 1.5 Times (/3), and OT Paid @ 2.0 Times (/2) equal Premium Wage Payments. Alleged Additional Earned Overtime Wages minus Premium Wage Payments equals Alleged Owed Overtime Wages.

18. The ratable shares of the Net Settlement Amount for the Plaintiffs were then determined by dividing each individual’s Alleged Owed Overtime Wages (the numerator) by the total of all Alleged Owed Overtime Wages for all individuals (the denominator). The result is each individual’s Pro Rata Factor. The Pro Rata Factors for the Plaintiffs multiplied by the Net

Settlement Amount is each individual’s “Preliminary Settlement Amount.”

19. Plaintiffs are eligible to receive a minimum Settlement Payment of $25.00

(“Minimum Settlement Payment”). Named Plaintiff Rosenbohm’s and Opt-in Plaintiffs’

Settlement Payment shall be computed as follows:

10 (i) If the Plaintiff’s Preliminary Settlement Amount is less than $25.00, their Settlement Payment will be increased to the Minimum Settlement Payment of $25.00.

(ii) All Minimum Settlement Payments shall be subtracted from the Net Settlement Fund, which shall yield the “Adjusted Net Settlement Fund.”

(iii) Any Plaintiff whose Preliminary Settlement Amount exceeds $25.00 will have his or her Pro Rata Factor recalculated, omitting data from all Minimum Settlement Payment recipients. Their Alleged Owed Overtime Wages shall be divided by the sum of all Alleged Owed Overtime Wages for all individuals whose Preliminary Settlement Amount exceeds $25.00. The quotient will be referred to as the “Adjusted Pro Rata Factor.”

(iv) The Settlement Payment for each Plaintiff whose Settlement Amount exceeds $25.00 shall be computed by multiplying his or her Adjusted Pro Rata Factor by the Adjusted Net Settlement Fund.

Contingent Nature of Action

20. My firm employs six lawyers. Because of the size and commitment of this litigation, my firm expended time on this litigation that could have been spent on other fee- generating work. And because my firm represented Plaintiff on a contingency-fee basis, my firm and co-counsel took the risk of expending substantial time and expenses in litigating this action without any monetary gain in the event of an adverse judgment.

Time Spent on the Litigation

21. Each attorney and member of Werman Salas’ professional staff kept records of the time they worked on this litigation through a software program — commonly known as

“Sage Timeslips” — that is loaded onto Werman Salas P.C.’s network server. The Timeslips file created for the instant litigation is named “Verizon – Spark Litigation.” Beginning with my firm’s initial work on the matter, whenever I or other members of Werman Salas P.C. performed work on behalf of Plaintiff in connection with this litigation, time entries were made in the

11 Timeslips program. These entries consist of a description of the work performed on the date of

the entry and the amount of time spent during the day performing the work described.

Amount of Reasonable Time Billed

22. As of June 3, 2020, Werman Salas P.C.’s reasonably incurred attorney’s fees were

$117,646.77.

23. The reasonable time Plaintiffs’ Counsel have expended in litigating this complex

collective action over the last year and the reasonable rates for that work, are as follows:

Timekeeper Rate Hours Slip Value Werman $ 700.00 74.82 $ 52,376.33 Salas $ 550.00 1.83 $ 1,004.67 Calderon $ 230.00 248.84 $ 57,232.43 Reyes $ 150.00 1.50 $ 224.50 Tecun $ 150.00 4.50 $ 675.50 Tresnowski $ 400.00 15.33 $ 6,133.33 346.82 $ 117,646.77

24. All of the time expended on this litigation was reasonably incurred. My firm was also involved in developing the strategy for mediation and settlement, drafting the settlement documents, working with the voluminous electronic time and payroll documents produced by

Defendant, and will be involved in settlement administration.

Reasonable Hourly Billing Rates

25. My current rate is $700/hr. I charge that rate for my frequent work as a private

mediator of national wage and hour collective and class actions. I also charge hourly paying

clients $700/hr individual employment matters, including the review of severance agreements,

employment contracts, and for human resource consulting. I have also billed $700/hr for my

work as an expert witness in a legal malpractice case relating to the alleged negligent advice a

national management-side labor law firm provided one of its clients.

12 26. I have been awarded $700/hr as my reasonable hourly rate by courts in class

action litigation. See, e.g., Bainter v. Akram Investments, LLC , No. 17 C 7064, 2018 WL

4943884, at *5 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 9, 2018). For work I performed primarily before 2018, I was

awarded $650/hr for my work numerous times. See, e.g., Soto v. Wings ‘R Us Romeoville, Inc. ,

No. 15 C 10127, 2018 WL 1875296, at *4 (N.D. Ill. April 16, 2018); Osman, et al. v. Grube,

Inc., et al. 2018 WL 2095172, at *4 (N.D. Ohio May 4, 2018); and Knox v. Jones Grp., No. 15-

CV-1738 SEB-TAB, 2017 WL 3834929, at *4 (S.D. Ind. Aug. 31, 2017); Sanchez , 2017 WL

1425837, at *5-7.

27. The other hourly rates sought by Werman Salas professional and administrative

staff are either hourly rates that are charged to paying clients of the firm and/or have been

awarded to such persons by courts. See, e.g., Bainter, supra ; Burton v. DRAS Partners, LLC , No.

2019-CV-02949, 2019 WL 5550579, at *6 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 27, 2019).

Plaintiffs’ Counsel’s Litigation Expenses

28. My firm has written off all incurred litigation costs.

I declare under penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746 that the foregoing is true

and correct.

Executed this June 12, 2020, Chicago, Illinois.

Douglas M. Werman

Werman Salas P.C. 77 West Washington Street, Ste. 1402 Chicago, Illinois 60602 (312) 419-1008

13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

NEIL ROSENBOHM, individually, and ) CASE NO. 2:17-cv-00731 on behalf of all others similarly situated, ) ) JUDGE: Algenon L. Marbley Plaintiff, ) ) MAGISTRATE: Chelsey M. v. ) Vascura ) CELLCO PARTNERSHIP, d/b/a Verizon ) Wireless, ) ) Defendant. )

[PROPOSED] ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT AND DISMISSAL OF LAWSUIT WITH PREJUDICE

After a review of the Parties’ Joint Motion for Approval of Settlement and Stipulation of

Dismissal with Prejudice, the Settlement Agreement, and the Declarations of Plaintiffs’ Counsel, the Court is satisfied that the settlement reached is a “fair and reasonable resolution of a bona fide dispute” under the Fair Labor Standards Act. See, e.g., Dillworth et. al. v. Case Farms Processing,

Inc., No. 5:08-cv-1694, 2010 WL 776933, at *9 (N.D. Ohio Mar. 8, 2010); see also Lynn’s Food

Stores, Inc. v. United States, 679 F.2d 1350 (11th Cir. 1982); 29 U.S.C. § 216.

ACCORDINGLY, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

1. The Settlement Agreement between Named Plaintiff Neil Rosenbohm (“Named

Plaintiff Rosenbohm”) and the Opt-In Plaintiffs identified in Exhibit 1D of the Settlement

Agreement (collectively, with Named Plaintiff Rosenbohm, referred to as “Plaintiffs”), on one hand, and Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless (“Defendant” or “Verizon Wireless”), on the other, is APPROVED, including, but not limited to, the Individual Settlement Payments to

Plaintiffs; the Service Award to Named Plaintiff Rosenbohm; and attorneys’ fees and costs to

Plaintiffs’ Counsel. 2. The Individual Release Agreement between Named Plaintiff Rosenbohm and

Verizon Wireless, attached as Exhibit 1E to the Settlement Agreement, is APPROVED.

3. The form of the release to be executed by each individual Plaintiff, as set forth in

Paragraph 13(a) of the Settlement Agreement, is APPROVED.

4. The Court DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE, the 3,769 Plaintiffs listed in Exhibit

1D to the Settlement Agreement and the 8 Plaintiffs listed in Exhibit 1C of the Settlement

Agreement.

5. The Court DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the 109 Plaintiffs listed in

Exhibit 1B to the Settlement Agreement who submitted consent forms to join the Lawsuit but who do not fall within the conditionally certified class.

6. The Court further DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE this action and all claims that were raised or that could have been raised in this action.

7. Without affecting the finality of this Order in any way, the Court retains continuing and exclusive jurisdiction over the Parties to this action for the purpose of the administration and enforcement of the Settlement Agreement.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: Honorable Algenon L. Marbley U.S. District Court Judge .

2