1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Case 3:09-cv-02422-JM-DHB Document 149 Filed 12/21/12 PageID.6876 Page 1 of 10

1 MATTHEW J. MATERN (SBN 159798) WENDY SHA (SBN 240364) 2 RASTEGAR & MATERN, ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1010 Crenshaw Boulevard, Suite 100 3 Torrance, CA 90501 Telephone: (310) 218-5500 4 Facsimile: (310) 218-1155 [email protected] 5 [email protected]

6 JAMES M. FINBERG (SBN 114850) EVE H. CERVANTEZ (SBN 164709) 7 PEDER J. THOREEN (SBN 217081) ALTSHULER BERZON LLP 8 177 Post Street, Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94108 9 Telephone: (415) 421-7151 Facsimile: (415) 362-8064 10 [email protected] [email protected] 11 [email protected]

12 Class Counsel

13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

14 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

15 DOMONIQUE HINES, individually, and on Case No. 3:09-cv-02422-JM-DHB behalf of all other similarly situated current 16 and former employees of KFC U.S. NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR Properties, Inc., FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION 17 SETTLEMENT AND FOR FINAL Plaintiffs, CERTIFICATION OF SETTLEMENT 18 CLASS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND v. AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT 19 THEREOF KFC U.S. PROPERTIES, INC., a Delaware 20 corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, Hearing Date: January 28, 2013 inclusive, Hearing Time: 10:00 a.m. 21 Courtroom: 16 Judge: Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller 22 Defendants. 23 24 25 26

27 28

MOTION FOR FINAL SETTLEMENT APPROVAL; MEMO IN SUPPORT U.S.D.C., S.D. Cal. No. 3:09-CV-02422-JM-DHB

Case 3:09-cv-02422-JM-DHB Document 149 Filed 12/21/12 PageID.6877 Page 2 of 10

1 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION 2 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on January 28, 2013 at 10:00 a.m., or as soon thereafter as the 3 matter may be heard, in Courtroom 16 of this Court, located at 940 Front St., San Diego, CA 92101,

4 Plaintiffs will, and hereby do, move for orders granting final approval of the parties’ class action 5 settlement, and finally certifying the proposed settlement class. 6 Plaintiffs’ Motion is based on this Notice, and the accompanying Memorandum of Points and 7 Authorities, the Declaration of James M. Finberg in Support of Motion for Final Approval of Settlement 8 (“Finberg Decl.”), the Declaration of Mark Patton (“Patton Decl.”), and the Settlement Agreement 9 (Docket No. 143-2), all other pleadings and papers on file in this action, and any oral argument the 10 Court permits. 11 12 Dated: December 21, 2012 JAMES M. FINBERG ALTSHULER BERZON LLP 13

14 By: ____/s/ James M. Finberg______James M. Finberg 15 JAMES M. FINBERG (SBN 114850) 16 EVE H. CERVANTEZ (SBN 164709) PEDER J. THOREEN (SBN 217081) 17 ALTSHULER BERZON LLP 177 Post Street, Suite 300 18 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 421-7151 19 Facsimile: (415) 362-8064

20 MATTHEW J. MATERN (SBN 159798) WENDY SHA (SBN 240364) 21 RASTEGAR & MATERN, ATTORNEYS AT LAW 22 1010 Crenshaw Boulevard, Suite 100 Torrance, CA 90501 23 Telephone: (310) 218-5500 Facsimile: (310) 218-1155 24 25 26

27 28

MOTION FOR FINAL SETTLEMENT APPROVAL; -1- MEMO IN SUPPORT U.S.D.C., S.D. Cal. No. 3:09-CV-02422-JM-DHB

Case 3:09-cv-02422-JM-DHB Document 149 Filed 12/21/12 PageID.6878 Page 3 of 10

1 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION 2 The parties have agreed to settle the claims in this action for $3,550,000, plus interest. The 3 settlement provides meaningful relief for thousands of class members. The settlement also provides

4 Class Members a recovery now, without the delays attendant with further litigation. Particularly given 5 the very real risks associated with continued litigation, the parties’ settlement easily satisfies the “fair, 6 reasonable, and adequate” standard for final approval. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e). 7 Class members have responded favorably to the settlement. Class notice and claim forms were 8 mailed to 17,022 class members on October 29, 2012, in both English and Spanish. Patton Decl., ¶3. 9 As of December 20, 2012, the claims administrator had already received 3,712 claim forms (id. at ¶8), 10 and the deadline for submitting claim forms is not until December 28, 2012. The deadline for opting out 11 of, or objecting to, the settlement passed on December 13, 2012. See id. ¶¶10-11. Only 12 class 12 members opted out. Id. ¶10. Not one class member objected to the terms of the settlement. Id. ¶11. 13 Class counsel, who are experienced in litigating employment class action cases, and who were 14 thoroughly familiar with the law and facts of this case at the time the settlement was negotiated, believe 15 that this proposed settlement is in the best interest of the class.

16 FACTUAL BACKGROUND

17 I. THE TERMS OF THE SETTLEMENT ARE FAIR, REALSONABLE, AND 18 ADEQUATE. Within 10 days after the Court grants final settlement approval, KFC will deposit the sum of 19 $3,550,000 into an interest-bearing account set up by the claims administrator for the benefit of the 20 plaintiff class. Dkt. No. 143-2 (“Settlement Agreement”), Section X. Under the settlement, no portion 21 of that money will revert to KFC. Settlement Agreement, Section X.B. 22 After payment of such attorneys’ fees and costs and expenses and payments as are awarded by 23 the Court, and reasonable costs of claims administration, the entire balance of the Settlement Fund, plus 24 accrued interest, will be paid to class members who submit timely claims. Id., Section XIII. The net 25 settlement fund will be allocated among claimants in proportion to days worked in class jobs. Id., 26 Section XIII.A.2. 27

MOTION FOR FINAL SETTLEMENT APPROVAL; -1- MEMO IN SUPPORT U.S.D.C., S.D. Cal. No. 3:09-CV-02422-JM-DHB

Case 3:09-cv-02422-JM-DHB Document 149 Filed 12/21/12 PageID.6879 Page 4 of 10

1 In exchange for these payments, Class Members will release claims arising out of the facts 2 alleged in this case, as follows:

3 A. Release of Claims: In consideration of his or her eligibility for a Settlement 4 Share, as of the date the Final Approval Order is entered by the Court, each and every Class Member, on behalf of themselves and their heirs and assigns, unless he or she 5 has properly elected to opt out of the class, upon the Settlement becoming Final, hereby releases KFC and its former and current parents, subsidiaries, and affiliated 6 corporations, its officers, directors, shareholders, and any other successors, or assigns from any claims that were brought, or could have been brought, arising out of the 7 facts alleged in the Complaint in this action, including statutory, constitutional, 8 contractual, or common claims for wages, damages, unpaid costs, restitution, penalties, liquidated damages, punitive damages, interest, attorneys’ fees, litigation 9 costs, restitution and/or equitable relief for failure to provide meal or rest breaks as required by California law, the failure to pay for all the time worked after closing 10 shifts, the failure to pay employees the amounts owed to them when they separated from KFC based on the facts alleged in the complaint, including claims under the 11 California Labor Code relating to meal and rest breaks, overtime, waiting time 12 penalties or record keeping, unfair and unlawful business practices in violation of the California Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §17200 et seq., arising 13 from these facts, or penalties established by the California Private Attorney General Act, Cal. Labor Code §2698 et seq., arising from these facts (“Released Claims”). 14 B. Waiver of California Civil Code Section 1542: With respect to the subject 15 matter of their respective Released Claims, Class Members expressly waive and 16 relinquish the provisions, rights and benefits of section 1542 of the California Civil Code and any analogous law, statute, or rule. Section 1542 states: 17 A general release does not extend to claims which the creditor does not know 18 or suspect to exist in his or her favor at the time of executing the release, 19 which if known by him or her must have materially affected his or her settlement with the debtor. 20 Class Members may hereafter discover facts in addition to or different from those 21 they now know or believe to be true with respect to the subject matter of the Released Claims, but upon the date when the Final Approval Order becomes Final, 22 shall be deemed to have, and by operation of the Final Judgment shall have, fully, 23 finally, and forever settled and released any and all of the Released Claims, whether known or unknown, suspected or unsuspected, contingent or non-contingent, which 24 now exist, or heretofore have existed, upon any theory of law or equity now existing or coming into existence in the future, including, but not limited to, conduct that is 25 negligent, intentional, with or without malice, or a breach of any duty, law or rule, 26 without regard to the subsequent discovery or existence of such different or additional facts. 27 Settlement Agreement, Section XIV. 28

MOTION FOR FINAL SETTLEMENT APPROVAL; -2- MEMO IN SUPPORT U.S.D.C., S.D. Cal. No. 3:09-CV-02422-JM-DHB

Case 3:09-cv-02422-JM-DHB Document 149 Filed 12/21/12 PageID.6880 Page 5 of 10

1 II. CLASS COUNSEL WERE FULLY INFORMED WHEN THE SETTLEMENT WAS NEGOTIATED. 2 Class Counsel engaged in extensive fact-gathering, motion practice, and discovery before 3 agreeing to the terms of the proposed settlement. Through the course of litigation, Class Counsel 4 conducted a thorough investigation into the underlying facts and the merits of the potential claims and 5 defenses. Finberg Decl. ¶¶15-18. 6 The parties exchanged and analyzed approximately 25,000 documents. Finberg Decl. ¶16. In 7 addition, KFC produced electronic time records reflecting over two million shifts worked by Team 8 Members in California during the relevant time frame, and Class Counsel’s expert extensively analyzed 9 those time records to determine whether and when members of the class were deprived of their meal and 10 rest breaks, or worked off the clock. Class Counsel also obtained third party alarm records, which their 11 expert also analyzed for purposes of calculating the amount of unpaid off-the-clock work and 12 determining the feasibility of calculating damages for such work on a classwide basis. Id. 13 Additionally, the parties conducted 28 depositions of KFC management, class members, and 14 expert witnesses. Finberg Decl. ¶17. Over 90 declarations were obtained and filed with the Court. Id. 15 Prior to the August 2012 mediation session, Class Counsel performed a comprehensive legal 16 analysis regarding the ultimate merits of their claims, the damages at issue, and the viability of 17 proceeding through trial on a class basis. Finberg Decl. ¶18. By the time of the mediation, Class 18 Counsel were fully informed about the strengths and weaknesses of the case. These extensive efforts 19 provided ample basis for Class Counsel to weigh the merits of the claims, the viability of litigating those 20 claims on a class basis, and the reasonableness of the settlement eventually obtained. Id. 21 22 III. THE SETTLEMENT WAS NEGOTIATED AT ARMS LENGTH; SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS WERE SURPERVISED BY THE HON. VAUGHN R. WALKER 23 (RET.). 24 The proposed settlement was negotiated in good faith and at arms’ length. The settlement 25 negotiations were supervised by the Hon. Vaughn Walker (ret.), the former Chief Judge of the Northern 26 District of California, who presided over a day of mediation. Before the mediation, the parties

27 submitted mediation briefs and supplemental exhibits. During the mediation, the parties vigorously 28 pressed their positions. Finberg Decl. ¶19. Although the mediation initially failed to result in

MOTION FOR FINAL SETTLEMENT APPROVAL; -3- MEMO IN SUPPORT U.S.D.C., S.D. Cal. No. 3:09-CV-02422-JM-DHB

Case 3:09-cv-02422-JM-DHB Document 149 Filed 12/21/12 PageID.6881 Page 6 of 10

1 settlement, the parties continued their negotiations with the assistance of Judge Walker, eventually 2 reaching an agreement in principle and reducing this agreement to a signed memorandum of 3 understanding, which formed the basis for the Settlement Agreement. Id., ¶20. The settlement creates a

4 $3.55 million, non-reversionary common fund on behalf of approximately 17,000 KFC employees. Id. 5 Given the current level of participation in the settlement, and assuming the Court grants in full 6 Class Counsel’s pending request for attorneys’ fees and costs and a service payment to the named 7 plaintiff, the anticipated recovery per class member is, on average, over $600. Id. ¶21. For those who 8 worked for the longest during the Class Period, recoveries may be substantially more than that. Id. 9 The proposed settlement is the non-collusive result of extensive factual and legal analysis 10 and protracted arms’ length negotiations between experienced and well-informed counsel under the 11 supervision of an experienced mediator. Id. ¶¶15-20. 12 ARGUMENT 13 The Ninth Circuit has recognized a strong policy favoring voluntary settlement of complex class 14 actions. “[V]oluntary conciliation and settlement are the preferred means of dispute resolution.” 15 Officers for Justice v. Civil Serv. Comm’n, 688 F.2d 615, 625 (9th Cir. 1982). This is “especially true in

16 complex class action” cases, which lend themselves to compromise because of the difficulties of proof, 17 uncertainty of outcome, and length and complexity of litigation. Id. See also Class Plaintiffs v. City of 18 Seattle, 955 F.2d 1268, 1276 (9th Cir. 1992) (“[S]trong judicial policy . . . favors settlements, 19 particularly where complex class action litigation is concerned.”). 20 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e) requires that a class action settlement be “fair, adequate, 21 and reasonable” in order to merit approval. The Ninth Circuit has identified a non-exhaustive list of 22 factors to guide the final approval inquiry, including (1) the amount offered in settlement, (2) the 23 reaction of the class to the proposed settlement, (3) the strength of the plaintiffs’ case balanced against 24 the “risk, expense, complexity, and likely duration of further litigation” and the “risk of maintaining 25 class action status throughout the trial,” (4) the “extent of discovery completed” and the “stage of the 26 proceedings,” and (5) the informed views of experienced counsel. See Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150

27 F.3d 1011, 1026 (9th Cir. 1998); see also Staton v. Boeing Co., 327 F.3d 938, 959 (9th Cir. 2003). With 28 respect to the last factor, the “recommendations of plaintiffs’ counsel should be given a presumption of

MOTION FOR FINAL SETTLEMENT APPROVAL; -4- MEMO IN SUPPORT U.S.D.C., S.D. Cal. No. 3:09-CV-02422-JM-DHB

Case 3:09-cv-02422-JM-DHB Document 149 Filed 12/21/12 PageID.6882 Page 7 of 10

1 reasonableness,” particularly when counsel has significant experience litigating similar cases. Boyd v. 2 Bechtel Corp., 485 F.Supp. 610, 622 (N.D. Cal. 1979); Ellis v. Naval Air Rework Facility, 87 F.R.D. 15, 3 18 (N.D. Cal. 1980) (“[T]he fact that experienced counsel involved in the case approved the settlement

4 after hard-fought negotiations is entitled to considerable weight.”). 5 When determining whether to grant final approval, “the court’s intrusion upon what is otherwise 6 a private consensual agreement negotiated between the parties to a lawsuit must be limited to the extent 7 necessary to reach a reasoned judgment that the agreement is not the product of fraud or overreaching 8 by, or collusion between, the negotiating parties, and that the settlement, taken as a whole, is fair, 9 reasonable, and adequate to all concerned.” Officers for Justice, 688 F.2d at 625; see also Hanlon, 150 10 F.3d at 1026 (“It is the settlement taken as a whole, rather than the individual component parts, that must 11 be examined for overall fairness.”). 12 I. THE COURT SHOULD GRANT FINAL APPROVAL TO THE SETTLEMENT. 13 A. The Settlement Provides Meaningful Relief to the Class 14 The proposed settlement was negotiated in good faith and at arms’ length. The parties 15 vigorously pressed their positions throughout. When mediation failed to result in settlement, the parties

16 continued their discussion, only reaching agreement after extensive negotiations overseen by Judge 17 Walker. The settlement creates a $3.55 million, non-reversionary common fund on behalf of 18 approximately 17,000 KFC employees. That figure represents more than the total wages Class Counsel 19 alleged were owed on the meal break claim, which was the strongest of the Class’s claims. Finberg 20 Decl. ¶22. 21 B. The Reaction of the Class Supports Approval of the Settlement. 22 Class notice and claim forms were sent to 17,022 Class Members on October 29, 2012. See 23 Patton Decl. ¶3. As to those that were initially returned as undeliverable, the Claims Administrator 24 obtained new addresses for and resent the notice to 3,067 Class Members. Id. ¶¶6-7. Additionally, on 25 November 26, 2012, reminder postcards were sent to the 15,481 Class Members who had not yet 26 submitted a claim form. Id. ¶4. The Claims Administrator has received nearly 650 calls from Class

27 Members inquiring about the settlement, and has re-mailed notices in response to over 200 of these calls. 28 Id. ¶5.

MOTION FOR FINAL SETTLEMENT APPROVAL; -5- MEMO IN SUPPORT U.S.D.C., S.D. Cal. No. 3:09-CV-02422-JM-DHB

Case 3:09-cv-02422-JM-DHB Document 149 Filed 12/21/12 PageID.6883 Page 8 of 10

1 Objections and opt-outs were due on December 13, 2012, and class member claims must be 2 postmarked by December 28, 2012. See Preliminary Approval Order (Dkt. No. 146) at 6-8. As of 3 December 20, 2012, the Claims Administrator had received 3,712 claim forms. Patton Decl. ¶8. Only

4 12 class members (or approximately 0.07% of the individuals who were sent notices) have submitted an 5 opt-out request. Id. ¶10 & Exh. F. Not a single class member has submitted an objection to any of the 6 terms of the settlement. Id. ¶11. This overwhelming class member support for the settlement strongly 7 favors final approval. 8 C. The Litigation Involved Substantial Potential Risks. 9 The “risk, expense, complexity, and likely duration of further litigation” are factors to be 10 considered in assessing a proposed settlement. Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1026. Here, the settlement is 11 exceptional in light of the significant risks faced by Plaintiffs. Although Class Counsel initially secured 12 class certification of their meal and rest break claims, subsequent decisions by the United States 13 Supreme Court in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S.Ct. 2541 (2011), and the California Supreme 14 Court in Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.4th 1004 (2012), raised the very real 15 possibility that the Court would revisit that ruling. Finberg Decl. ¶23. Indeed, that possibility led the

16 Court to stay all proceedings in this case for over 15 months in anticipation of the ruling in Brinker. 17 Since the decisions in Dukes and Brinker were issued, a number of courts have relied on them in 18 denying class certification in California meal and rest break cases. See, e.g., Gonzalez v. OfficeMax N. 19 Am., 2012 WL 5473764 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 5, 2012); Ugas v. H & R Block Enters., LLC, 2012 WL 20 5230297 (C.D. Cal. July 9, 2012); Tien v. Tenet Healthcare Corp., 209 Cal.App.4th 1077 (2012). A 21 motion by KFC to decertify plaintiffs’ meal and rest break classes, premised on Dukes and Brinker, was 22 pending when the parties agreed on the terms of the settlement. See Dkt. #125.

23 D. The Parties Conducted Extensive Investigation and Analysis and the Settlement 24 Was Reached through Arms’ Length Negotiations. As described above, Class Counsel engaged in extensive fact-gathering, motion practice, and 25 discovery (including document requests, interrogatories, and depositions) before agreeing to the terms of 26 the proposed settlement. By the time of the mediation, Class Counsel were fully informed about the 27 strengths and weaknesses of the case. As described above, the proposed settlement was negotiated in 28

MOTION FOR FINAL SETTLEMENT APPROVAL; -6- MEMO IN SUPPORT U.S.D.C., S.D. Cal. No. 3:09-CV-02422-JM-DHB

Case 3:09-cv-02422-JM-DHB Document 149 Filed 12/21/12 PageID.6884 Page 9 of 10

1 good faith and at arms’ length, only after lengthy discussions supervised by the Judge Walker. 2 E. The Recommendations of Experienced Counsel Favor Approval of the Settlement. 3 The judgment of experienced counsel regarding the settlement is entitled to significant weight.

4 See, e.g., Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1026. The recommendation of experienced class counsel should be given 5 a presumption of reasonableness. See Boyd, 485 F.Supp. at 622. 6 Here, Class Counsel, who have extensive experience prosecuting and litigating employment 7 cases and complex class actions, see Finberg Decl. ¶¶3-14; Dkt. No. 148-3 ¶¶2-12, and who conducted a 8 comprehensive legal and factual investigation into the claims in this case, see discussion supra, firmly 9 believe that the proposed settlement easily satisfies Rule 23(e)’s requirements and is in the best interest 10 of all class members. Finberg Decl. ¶24. 11 II. THE COURT SHOULD GRANT FINAL CLASS CERTIFICATION. 12 The Court’s October 4, 2012 preliminary approval order conditionally certified a settlement 13 class. No member of the class has objected to class certification or to the appointment of the class 14 representative or Class Counsel. See Patton Decl. ¶11. 15 For this reason, in addition to the reasons stated in plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary approval

16 and in the Court’s October 4 order, the Court should grant final certification to the settlement class and 17 should confirm the appointment of the class representative and Class Counsel. 18 / / / 19 / / / 20 / / / 21 22 23 24 25 26

27 28

MOTION FOR FINAL SETTLEMENT APPROVAL; -7- MEMO IN SUPPORT U.S.D.C., S.D. Cal. No. 3:09-CV-02422-JM-DHB

Case 3:09-cv-02422-JM-DHB Document 149 Filed 12/21/12 PageID.6885 Page 10 of 10

1 CONCLUSION 2 For the foregoing reasons, the Court should grant final approval to the parties’ settlement, and 3 grant final certification to the proposed settlement class.

4 Dated: December 21, 2012. JAMES M. FINBERG ALTSHULER BERZON LLP 5 By: _/s/ James M. Finberg______6 JAMES M. FINBERG (SBN 114850) EVE H. CERVANTEZ (SBN 164709) 7 PEDER J. THOREEN (SBN 217081) ALTSHULER BERZON LLP 8 177 Post Street, Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94108 9 Telephone: (415) 421-7151 Facsimile: (415) 362-8064 10 [email protected] [email protected] 11 [email protected]

12 MATTHEW J. MATERN (SBN 159798) WENDY SHA (SBN 240364) 13 RASTEGAR & MATERN, ATTORNEYS AT LAW 14 1010 Crenshaw Boulevard, Suite 100 Torrance, CA 90501 15 Telephone: (310) 218-5500 Facsimile: (310) 218-1155 16 [email protected] [email protected] 17 18 19 20

21 22 23 24 25 26

27 28

MOTION FOR FINAL SETTLEMENT APPROVAL; -8- MEMO IN SUPPORT U.S.D.C., S.D. Cal. No. 3:09-CV-02422-JM-DHB

Case 3:09-cv-02422-JM-DHB Document 149-1 Filed 12/21/12 PageID.6886 Page 1 of 9

12 Class Counsel

13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

14 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

15 DOMONIQUE HINES, individually, and on Case No. 3:09-cv-02422-JM-DHB behalf of all other similarly situated current 16 and former employees of KFC U.S. DECLARATION OF JAMES M. FINBERG Properties, Inc., IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR FINAL 17 APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION Plaintiffs, SETTLEMENT AND FOR FINAL 18 CERTIFICATION OF SETTLEMENT v. CLASS 19 KFC U.S. PROPERTIES, INC., a Delaware Hearing Date: January 28, 2013 20 corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, Hearing Time: 10:00 a.m. inclusive, Courtroom: 16 21 Judge: Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller

22 Defendants. 23 24 25 26 27 28

DECLARATION OF JAMES M. FINBERG ISO FINAL SETTLEMENT APPROVAL U.S.D.C., S.D. Cal. No. 3:09-cv-02422-JM-DHB

Case 3:09-cv-02422-JM-DHB Document 149-1 Filed 12/21/12 PageID.6887 Page 2 of 9

1 I, JAMES M. FINBERG, declare as follows: 2 1. I am a member in good standing of the bar of the State of California. I am a partner in 3 Altshuler Berzon LLP, one of the firms representing Plaintiffs and the Class Members in this action. 4 2. This Declaration is submitted in support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Final Approval of Class 5 Action Settlement And For Final Certification of Settlement Class. 6 My Background And Experience 7 3. I received a Bachelor of Arts degree, with honors in history and environmental studies, 8 from Brown University in 1980. I received a Juris Doctor degree from the University of Chicago Law 9 School in 1983. At the University of Chicago Law School, I was the Executive Editor of the University 10 of Chicago Law Review. 11 4. From Fall 1983 through Summer 1984, I served as a law clerk to the Honorable Charles 12 L. Levin, a Justice of the Supreme Court of the State of Michigan. 13 5. Since 2005, I have been listed by Best Lawyers in America as one of the best lawyers in 14 America in the field of law and employment law. I am a fellow of the American College of Labor and 15 Employment Lawyers. Since 2004, I have been designated by San Francisco magazine as a Northern 16 California “Super Lawyer,” including being listed as one of the top 100 attorneys in Northern California 17 since 2005. In 2003, I was selected by The Recorder legal newspaper (based on a survey of judges, 18 arbitrators, mediators, and lawyers in the field) as the top plaintiffs' securities litigator in the San 19 Francisco Bay Area. In 2004, I was selected by The Recorder legal newspaper as one of the top 20 plaintiffs' employment litigators in the San Francisco Bay Area. In 2006, I was selected by The Daily 21 Journal as one of the Top 100 lawyers in California. In 2009, I was named a California Lawyer of the 22 Year by the California Lawyer magazine in the area of civil rights law. 23 6. In 2005, I served as President of the Bar Association of San Francisco. From 2000 24 through 2001, I served as Co Chair of the delegation of lawyer representatives from the Northern 25 District of California to the Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference. From 1997 through 1998 and 2009 to 26 2010, I served as Co Chair of the Board of Directors of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights of the 27 San Francisco Bay Area. I currently serve on the Executive Committee of the Legal Society – 28 DECLARATION OF JAMES M. FINBERG -1- ISO FINAL SETTLEMENT APPROVAL U.S.D.C., S.D. CAL. NO. 3:09-CV-02422-JM-DHB

Case 3:09-cv-02422-JM-DHB Document 149-1 Filed 12/21/12 PageID.6888 Page 3 of 9

1 Employment Law Center. From 2008 to 2010, I served on the Visiting Committee of the University of 2 Chicago Law School. 3 7. I am a co-author of “Statistical and Other Expert Proof,” in Employment Discrimination 4 Law (4th ed., Lindemann and Grossman), and I co-edited with Eve Cervantez the 2008 and 2010 5 supplements to that chapter. I edited the 2000 and 2002 Cumulative Supplements to Chapter 39, 6 “Statistical Proof,” of that treatise (3d ed.). I have been a contributor to Wage and Hour Laws: A State 7 by State Survey (BNA, 2004) and to Fair Labor Standards Act: 2004 Cumulative Supplement (BNA, 8 2004). I edited Chapter 19, regarding class and collective actions, of the 2nd edition of the Fair Labor 9 Standards Act treatise. 10 8. I am author or co-author of the following articles, among others: The Use of Expert 11 Testimony in Employment Cases Post-Dukes (NELA Oct. 2012): “Life After Dukes—Disparate Impact 12 Claims for Compensation Discrimination are Certified in McReynolds v. Merrill Lynch, 2012 WL 13 572745, F.3d (7th Cir. 2012) (NELA Annual Convention June 2012); “Representing Misclassified and 14 Reclassified Workers,” (NELA Annual Convention July 2011); Co-author with Dennis McClelland, 15 Paul L. Bittner and Janet Herold, “Get in the Game: The Latest News and Developments in Wage and 16 Hour Litigation,” (ABA 4th Annual CLE Conference November 2010); Ricci v. DeStefano: Sound and 17 Fury Signifying Little, For Now (ABA EEO Conference March 2010); Co-author with Peder Thoreen, 18 The Impact of Morgan v. Family Dollar Stores on FLSA Collective Actions, ABA Section of Labor and 19 Employment Law (2009); Co-author with David Borgen, Julia Akins Clark, Peder Thoreen, Ellen C. 20 Kearnes, and William C. E. Robinson, White Collar Exemptions, ABA Section of Labor and 21 Employment Law: The Wage & Hour Track (2008); Co-author with Peder J. Thoreen, The Use of 22 Representative Testimony and Bifurcation of Liability and Damages in FLSA Collective Actions (ABA 23 2007); Co-author with Peter E. Leckman, Holding Customers Who Assist Securities Fraud Accountable 24 Under State Law, Securities Litigation Report (Vol. 3, No. 5, May 2006); Author, State Law Wage/Hour 25 Class Actions: Alive And Well In Federal Court, ABA Labor and Employment Section 2005; Co 26 Author with Melissa Matheny, A Developing Consensus: The PSLRA’s ‘Basis’ Requirement Does Not 27 Require the Disclosure of Confidential Sources in a Complaint, Securities Litigation Report (Vol. 2, 28 DECLARATION OF JAMES M. FINBERG -2- ISO FINAL SETTLEMENT APPROVAL U.S.D.C., S.D. CAL. NO. 3:09-CV-02422-JM-DHB

Case 3:09-cv-02422-JM-DHB Document 149-1 Filed 12/21/12 PageID.6889 Page 4 of 9

1 No. 1, July/August 2005) (Glasser Legal Works); Co-author with Chimène I. Keitner, New Overtime 2 Regulations Require Heightened Vigilance, San Francisco Attorney magazine, Spring 2004; Co-author 3 with Chimène I. Keitner, Summary of Proposed DOL Regulations Re FLSA Overtime Exemptions 4 (2003) (American Bar Association Labor and Employment Law, Federal Labor Standards Legislation 5 Committee Annual Report); Title VII’s Remedial Scheme: Employment Discrimination Class Actions at 6 the Crossroads, San Francisco Attorney (August/September 2002); Certification of Employment 7 Discrimination Actions After The Passage of the 1991 Civil Rights Act: (b)(2) or Not (b)(2), That Is The 8 Question, Class Actions & Derivative Suits, Vol. 10 (March 2000); Co-author with Joshua P. Davis, 9 Allison v. Citgo Petroleum Corp. A Noble Retreat, Class Actions & Derivative Suits, Vol. 9, No. 1 10 (Winter 1999); Co-author with Kelly Dermody, Discovery in Employment Discrimination Class Actions, 11 in Litigation and Settlement of Complex Class Actions (Glasser Legal Works 1998); Co-author with 12 Melanie M. Piech, The Impact of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act: Unintended 13 Consequences, Securities Reform Act Litigation Reporter, Vol. 6, No. 3 (Dec. 1998); Co-author with 14 Karen Jo Koonan, The Importance of Anecdotal Testimony to the Jury Trial of a Title VII Class Action: 15 Lessons from Butler v. Home Depot, Class Actions & Derivative Suits, Vol. 8, No. 3 (Summer 1998); 16 Northern District of California Requires Internet Posting of Pleadings And Key Briefs In Securities 17 Actions, Securities Reform Act Litigation Reporter (1997); Class Actions: Useful Devices That Promote 18 Judicial Economy And Provide Access to Justice, 41 New York Law School Law Review 353 (1997); 19 Co-author (with Melvin R. Goldman), Deposing Expert Witnesses in Taking Depositions (ABA) (1989); 20 Co-author (with George C. Weickhardt), New Push For Chemical Weapons, Bulletin of the Atomic 21 Scientist (Nov. 1986); Comment, The General Mining Law and The Doctrine of Pedis Possessio: The 22 Case For Congressional Action, 49 University of Chicago Law Review 1027 (1982). 23 9. During the spring semester of 2008, I served as an Adjunct Professor of Law at the 24 University of California, Hastings College of Law, where I taught Employment Discrimination Law. 25 10. During my approximately 28 years of practice, I have served as an attorney in many 26 complex class actions, including serving as lead plaintiffs’ counsel in many wage and hour class action 27 lawsuits. I have represented plaintiff classes in class actions in many dozens of cases, including the 28 DECLARATION OF JAMES M. FINBERG -3- ISO FINAL SETTLEMENT APPROVAL U.S.D.C., S.D. CAL. NO. 3:09-CV-02422-JM-DHB

Case 3:09-cv-02422-JM-DHB Document 149-1 Filed 12/21/12 PageID.6890 Page 5 of 9

1 following: Holloway v. Best Buy, C05-cv-05056 (N.D. Cal.) (final approval of Consent Decree 2 providing comprehensive injunctive relief in race and gender discrimination class action in 2011); 3 Amochaev v. Smith Barney, C05-CV-1298 PJH (N. D. Cal.) ($33 million settlement, plus comprehensive 4 injunctive relief in gender discrimination case); Common Cause of Colorado v. Coffman, C08-CV-2321 5 WYD (Dist. Colo.) (obtained preliminary injunctive relief in Oct. 2008 protecting voting rights of 6 approximately 40,000 voters purged from voting rolls); Rosenburg v. Int’l Bus. Machines Corp., No. 7 C06-0430-PJH (N.D. Cal.) ($65 million settlement of wage and hour class and collective action in 8 2007); Satchell v. Federal Express Corp., Nos. C03-2659-SI; C03-2878-SI (N.D. Cal.) (settlement of 9 $55 million, plus comprehensive injunctive relief, of race and national origin discrimination claims in 10 2007); Jaffe v. Morgan Stanley (Consent Decree providing comprehensive injunctive relief, plus $16 11 million in monetary relief approved in 2008); Danieli v. IBM (settlement of $7.5 million in wage/hour 12 misclassification action approved in 2010); Adams v. Inter Con Security Systems, C06-5428-MHP (N.D. 13 Cal.) (settlement of $4 million in wage/hour settlement in 2008); In re The Pep Boys Overtime Actions, 14 C07-CV-01755 VBF (C. D. Cal.) (settlement of $6 million in wage/hour case in 2008); Martin v. 15 NUMMI, C07-CV-3887 PJH (N. D. Cal.) (settlement of $4.65 million in off the clock case in 2008); 16 Wynne v. McCormick & Schmick’s, C06 CV-3153-CW (N. D. Cal.) (approval in 2008 of Consent 17 Decree providing comprehensive injunctive relief, plus monetary relief of $2.1 million in race 18 discrimination case); Butler v. Home Depot, No. C94-4335-SI (settlement of $87.5 million, plus 19 comprehensive injunctive relief, in gender discrimination case in 1998); Frank v. United Airlines, No. 20 C92-0692-MJJ (N.D. Cal.) ($36.5 million gender discrimination settlement in 2004); Giannetto v. CSC 21 Corp., No. CV-03-8201 (C.D. Cal.) ($24 million settlement of wage/hour case in 2005); Gerlach v. 22 Wells Fargo & Co., No. C05-0585-CW (N.D. Cal.) ($12.8 million settlement of wage and hour class 23 and collective action in 2007); Trotter v. Perdue Farms, Case No. 99-893 (RRM) (U.S.D.C. Del.) ($10 24 million settlement in wage and hour case in 2002); Thomas v. CSAA, No. CH217752 (Alameda County 25 Sup. Ct.) ($8 million settlement of insurance claim adjuster overtime case in 2002); Gottlieb, et al v. 26 SBC Communications, et al., No. CV 00-4139-AHM (C.D. Cal.) ($10 million ERISA settlement in 27 2002); Buttram v. UPS, No. C97-1590-MJJ (N.D. Cal.) ($12.2 million settlement, plus comprehensive 28 DECLARATION OF JAMES M. FINBERG -4- ISO FINAL SETTLEMENT APPROVAL U.S.D.C., S.D. CAL. NO. 3:09-CV-02422-JM-DHB

Case 3:09-cv-02422-JM-DHB Document 149-1 Filed 12/21/12 PageID.6891 Page 6 of 9

1 injunctive relief, of race discrimination action in 1999); Church v. Consolidated Freightways, Inc., 1993 2 WL149840 (N.D. Cal.) ($13.5 million settlement in age discrimination case in 1993); In re California 3 Micro Devices Securities Litigation, C94-2817-VRW (N.D. Cal.) ($26 million in settlements 4 approximately 100% of losses); In re Network Associates, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. C99-1729- 5 WHA (N.D. Cal.) ($30 million settlement in 2001); In re Mediavision Technology Securities Litigation, 6 No. C94-1015-EFL (N.D. Cal.) (settlements and judgment totaling $218 million). 7 11. In September 2003, I served as one of the primary trial counsel representing plaintiffs in a 8 three-week class and collective action liability phase trial involving approximately 2,700 insurance 9 claims adjusters in In re: Farmers Insurance Exchange Claims Representatives’ Overtime Pay 10 Litigation, No. MDL Docket No. 1439 (D. Or.). On November 6, 2003, Judge Robert E. Jones ruled in 11 favor of the auto and low-level adjusters. The Court found that Farmers acted willfully in violating the 12 FLSA, and that the auto and low-level adjustors were entitled to liquidated damages as well as actual 13 damages. During 2004 and 2005, I and colleagues tried the damages phase of that case. Judgments 14 totaling approximately $52.5 million were entered for plaintiffs in 2005. On March 30, 2007, a three- 15 judge panel of the Ninth Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded to the District Court for 16 consideration of state law claims. In re Farmers Exch., Claims Reps. Overtime Pay Litig. 481 F.3d 1119 17 (9th Cir. 2007). An $8 million settlement of that case received final approval in August, 2010. 18 12. My partner Eve H. Cervantez also has extensive experience litigating class action 19 lawsuits, including wage and hour cases. She is a graduate of Washington University and Harvard Law 20 School, where she was an editor of the Harvard Law Review. She served as a law clerk to Judge 21 Charles A. Legge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Prior to 22 joining Altshuler, Ms. Cervantez was a partner at Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, where 23 she also represented plaintiffs in class action employment and consumer lawsuits. She is the author of 24 When Should You Bring State Law Wage and Hour Claims in Addition to, or Instead of, FLSA Claims, 25 The Employee Advocate (Summer/Fall 2003) and co author of Avoiding Procedural Pitfalls, The 26 Employee Advocate (Summer 2008), and is a chapter editor or contributor to Employment 27 Discrimination Law (BNA, 2002 Cumulative Supplement to Third Edition and BNA, First, Second, 28 DECLARATION OF JAMES M. FINBERG -5- ISO FINAL SETTLEMENT APPROVAL U.S.D.C., S.D. CAL. NO. 3:09-CV-02422-JM-DHB

Case 3:09-cv-02422-JM-DHB Document 149-1 Filed 12/21/12 PageID.6892 Page 7 of 9

1 2008, 2009 Supplements to Fourth Edition), Wage and Hour Laws, A State by State Survey (BNA, 2006 2 Supplement) and The Fair Labor Standards Act (BNA, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 Supplements). She also 3 lectures regularly on wage and hour, employment discrimination, and class action law. 4 13. Peder Thoreen, a partner at Altshuler Berzon, also has extensive experience litigating 5 class action lawsuits, including wage and hour cases. He is a graduate of Pomona College and Yale Law 6 School, where he was a Senior Editor of the Yale Law and Policy Review. He served as a law clerk to 7 Judge Harry Pregerson of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and Judge Dean 8 Pregerson of the United States District Court for the Central District of California. He is on the editorial 9 board of Bender’s California Labor & Employment Bulletin and has written about various labor and 10 employment issues. 11 14. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is the firm resume of Altshuler Berzon LLP. Altshuler 12 Berzon has substantial experience in wage/hour litigation and in class action litigation. 13 Thorough Investigation And Litigation Of the Claims In This Case 14 15. We engaged in extensive fact-gathering, motion practice, and discovery before agreeing 15 to the terms of the proposed settlement in this case. Through the course of litigation, we conducted a 16 thorough investigation into the underlying facts and the merits of the potential claims and defenses. 17 16. The parties exchanged and analyzed approximately 25,000 documents. In addition, KFC 18 produced electronic time records reflecting over two million shifts worked by Team Members in 19 California during the relevant time frame, and our expert extensively analyzed those time records to 20 determine whether and when members of the class were deprived of their meal and rest breaks, or 21 worked off the clock. We also obtained third party alarm records, which our expert also analyzed for 22 purposes of calculating the amount of unpaid off-the-clock work and determining the feasibility of 23 calculating damages for such work on a classwide basis. 24 17. Additionally, the parties conducted 28 depositions of KFC management, class members, 25 and expert witnesses. Over 90 declarations were obtained and filed with the Court. 26 18. Prior to the August 2012 mediation session, we performed a comprehensive legal 27 analysis regarding the ultimate merits of their claims, the damages at issue, and the viability of 28 DECLARATION OF JAMES M. FINBERG -6- ISO FINAL SETTLEMENT APPROVAL U.S.D.C., S.D. CAL. NO. 3:09-CV-02422-JM-DHB

Case 3:09-cv-02422-JM-DHB Document 149-1 Filed 12/21/12 PageID.6893 Page 8 of 9

1 proceeding through trial on a class basis. By the time of the mediation, we were fully informed about 2 the strengths and weaknesses of the case. These extensive efforts described above provided ample basis 3 for us to weigh the merits of the claims, the viability of litigating those claims on a class basis, and the 4 reasonableness of the settlement eventually obtained. 5 Arms’-Length Negotiations 6 19. The proposed settlement was negotiated in good faith and at arms’ length. The 7 settlement negotiations were supervised by the Hon. Vaughn Walker (ret.), the former Chief Judge of 8 the Northern District of California, who presided over a day of mediation. Before the mediation, the 9 parties submitted mediation briefs and supplemental exhibits. During the mediation, the parties 10 vigorously pressed their positions. 11 20. Although the mediation initially failed to result in settlement, the parties continued their 12 negotiations with the assistance of Judge Walker, eventually reaching an agreement in principle and 13 reducing this agreement to a signed memorandum of understanding, which formed the basis for the 14 Settlement Agreement. The settlement creates a $3.55 million, non-reversionary common fund on 15 behalf of approximately 17,000 KFC employees. 16 Benefits Of the Settlement; Risks Of Continued Litigation 17 21. Given the current level of participation in the settlement, and assuming the Court grants 18 in full Class Counsel’s pending request for attorneys’ fees and costs and a service payment to the named 19 plaintiff, the anticipated recovery per class member is, on average, over $600. For those who worked 20 for the longest during the Class Period, recoveries may be substantially more than that. 21 22. As noted above, in preparation for mediation we prepared a comprehensive damages 22 analysis. The $3.55 million settlement represents more than we calculated as the total wages owed (not 23 including interest or associated penalties) on the Class’s meal break claim, which was the strongest of 24 the Class’s claims. 25 23. Although we initially secured class certification of their meal and rest break claims, 26 subsequent decisions by the United States Supreme Court in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S.Ct. 27 2541 (2011), and the California Supreme Court in Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court, 53 28 DECLARATION OF JAMES M. FINBERG -7- ISO FINAL SETTLEMENT APPROVAL U.S.D.C., S.D. CAL. NO. 3:09-CV-02422-JM-DHB

Case 3:09-cv-02422-JM-DHB Document 149-1 Filed 12/21/12 PageID.6894 Page 9 of 9

1 Cal.4th 1004 (2012), raised the very real possibility that the Court would revisit that ruling. Indeed, that 2 possibility led the Court to stay all proceedings in this case for over 15 months in anticipation of the 3 ruling in Brinker. Since the decisions in Dukes and Brinker were issued, a number of courts have relied 4 on them in denying class certification in California meal and rest break cases. See, e.g., Gonzalez v. 5 OfficeMax N. Am., 2012 WL 5473764 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 5, 2012); Ugas v. H & R Block Enters., LLC, 6 2012 WL 5230297 (C.D. Cal. July 9, 2012); Tien v. Tenet Healthcare Corp., 209 Cal.App.4th 1077 7 (2012). A motion by KFC to decertify plaintiffs’ meal and rest break classes, premised on Dukes and 8 Brinker, was pending when the parties agreed on the terms of the settlement. See Dkt. #125. 9 24. As set forth above, my co-counsel and I have extensive experience prosecuting and 10 litigating employment cases and complex class actions, and we conducted a comprehensive legal and 11 factual investigation into the claims in this case. We firmly believe that the proposed settlement easily 12 satisfies Rule 23(e)’s requirements and is in the best interest of all Class Members. 13 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the 14 foregoing is true and correct. 15 Executed on December 21, 2012, at San Francisco, California. 16

17 ______/s/ James M. Finberg______18 James M. Finberg 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DECLARATION OF JAMES M. FINBERG -8- ISO FINAL SETTLEMENT APPROVAL U.S.D.C., S.D. CAL. NO. 3:09-CV-02422-JM-DHB

Case 3:09-cv-02422-JM-DHB Document 149-2 Filed 12/21/12 PageID.6895 Page 1 of 37

EXHIBIT A Case 3:09-cv-02422-JM-DHB Document 149-2 Filed 12/21/12 PageID.6896 Page 2 of 37 Case 3:09-cv-02422-JM-DHB Document 149-2 Filed 12/21/12 PageID.6897 Page 3 of 37 Page 2

* Gentry v. Superior Court: Obtained California Supreme Court ruling that employers generally may not prohibit workers from pursuing statutory claims on a classwide or collective basis.

* Bay Area Laundry Workers v. Ferbar (Supreme Court): Established longer statute of limitations for suits against employers who withdraw from multi-employer pension plans.

* Burlington Northern Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters Local 174: Obtained a unanimous en banc court of appeals decision overturning prior decisions that had severely weakened the protection afforded by the Norris-LaGuardia Act to union economic action.

* Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Svcs.: Obtained a ruling from the California Supreme Court that employers cannot require their employees, as a condition of employment, to resolve employment claims through arbitration, where the arbitration agreement does not provide for specific procedural protections.

* Washington Service Contractors Coalition v. District of Columbia: Successfully defended against a federal preemption challenge a local displaced worker ordinance that requires new service contractors to retain the employees of their predecessors.

* Does I Thru XXIII v. Advanced Textile Corp.: Established the right of workers to sue under fictitious names and withhold their identities from their employers, where they reasonably fear that disclosure of their identities will result in severe retaliation.

* Granite Rock Co. v. Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters (Supreme Court): Obtained U.S. Supreme Court decision rejecting an employer’s unprecedented attempt to expand Section 301 of the LMRA to include tort theories for interference with contract by international union.

* Passantino v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Products, Inc.: Successfully defended on appeal a multi-million dollar jury award in an employment discrimination action under federal and state law.

* Veliz v. Cintas Corp.: Obtained a $22.75 million settlement of class actions and individual cases pending in the Ninth Circuit, the Northern District of California, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, and AAA arbitration, each of which challenges a nationwide industrial laundry company’s policy of classifying its drivers as exempt from overtime requirements of federal and state wage-and-hour laws.

* Hawaii State Teachers Assn./United Public Workers v. Lingle: Enjoined the Governor of Hawaii from unilaterally implementing unpaid furloughs for all state employees of three days per month on the ground that unilateral implementation violated the state constitutional right to collective bargaining.

* SEIU-UHW v. Fresno County IHSS Public Authority: Obtained an injunction requiring Fresno County to maintain the wage and benefit rates paid to providers of in-home support services pending arbitration of the union's grievance regarding the wage and benefit reduction.

* Narayan v. EGL: Obtained a Ninth Circuit reversal of a district court's grant of summary judgment to an employer of delivery truck drivers, on the grounds that the district court had improperly applied Texas law to California drivers' statutory wage and hour claims and incorrect concluded that the drivers were independent contractors rather than employees. Case 3:09-cv-02422-JM-DHB Document 149-2 Filed 12/21/12 PageID.6898 Page 4 of 37 Page 3

* Harris v. Quinn: Obtained dismissal of a lawsuit brought by the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation that challenged the right of home care providers in Illinois to choose a union representative for purposes of collective bargaining and negotiate fair-share fees to cover the costs of union representation.

* Does I et al. v. The Gap, Inc., et al.: Negotiated $20 million settlement and innovative workplace monitoring program in anti-sweatshop class action on behalf of 30,000 Chinese and other foreign workers against Saipan garment factories and retailers for alleged violations of RICO, Alien Tort Claims Act, FLSA, and federal common law.

* Satchell v. FedEx Express: Obtained a consent decree providing $55 million in monetary relief to two classes of African American and Latino employees of FedEx Express, as well as comprehensive injunctive relief against discriminatory employment practices, including reducing managerial discretion in promotions, compensation and discipline, and prohibiting the use of a promotion test that had an adverse impact on minority employees.

* Bright v. 99 Cent Only Stores, Inc./ Home Depot v. Superior Ct.: Obtained Court of Appeal rulings that California workers have private right of action for civil penalties against employers who violate minimum labor conditions standards guaranteed by IWC Wage Orders.

* Pulaski v. Calif. Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board: Successfully defended the nation’s first safety standard on ergonomics against an industry challenge, and invalidated exemptions that would have prevented that standard from applying to most California workplaces.

* SkyWest Pilots ALPA Organizing Committee v. SkyWest Airlines, Inc.: Obtained a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction prohibiting an airline from interfering with its pilots’ rights to organize and to free expression under the Railway Labor Act.

* UFCW Local 751 v. Brown Shoe Group, Inc. (Supreme Court): Established union standing to sue employers that violate the WARN Act’s statutory notice requirements.

* State Building & Constr. Trades v. Aubry: Struck down, as a usurpation of legislative authority, administrative regulations that would have lowered by 20 percent the prevailing wage rate paid to construction workers on public projects.

* Bell v. Farmers Ins. Exchange (Bell III): Obtained appellate decision upholding the largest overtime pay jury verdict in history, in class action on behalf of insurance company claims representatives who were misclassified as exempt under California’s wage and hour law, and subsequently negotiated a settlement in excess of $200 million for class members.

* The Hess Collection Winery v. California Agricultural Relations Bd.: Successfully defended against constitutional challenge a California statute providing for the binding resolution of disputes between agricultural employers and their union-represented employees arising from their failure to agree on an initial labor contract, thereby guaranteeing that agricultural workers will obtain an initial contract.

* Employee Staffing Services, Inc. v. Aubry: Defeated an employee-leasing company’s ERISA preemption challenge to California’s workers’ compensation laws.

* NLRB v. Town & Country Electric, Inc. (Supreme Court): Protected paid union organizers Case 3:09-cv-02422-JM-DHB Document 149-2 Filed 12/21/12 PageID.6899 Page 5 of 37 Page 4

from discriminatory discharge or refusal to hire under the NLRA.

* Long Beach City Employees v. City of Long Beach: Overturned on state constitutional grounds a city policy requiring public employees to submit to polygraph examinations.

* Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Corp.: Obtained a ruling that a national aluminum manufacturer violated the NLRA by unlawfully locking out 3,000 of its employees and must pay them approximately $175 million in back wages – the highest backpay award in the history of the NLRA.

* Associated Builders and Contractors v. Nunn; ACTA v. Smith: Defeated federal court preemption challenges to a regulation raising the minimum wage rates for California apprentices.

* Amaral v. Cintas Corp.: Won $1.6 million summary judgment in a class action challenging a nationwide laundry company’s systematic underpayment of its workers, defeating state law preemption and federal due process challenges to a local living wage ordinance.

* Capers v. Nunn: Obtained decision upholding a California Apprenticeship Council ruling that precluded non-union apprenticeship program from operating outside its approved geographic area.

* Rosenburg v. Int’l Business Machines Corp.: Obtained a $65 million settlement in a class action brought on behalf of IBM information technology specialists for failure to pay overtime compensation.

* Air Line Pilots Ass’n, Int’l v. Emery Worldwide Airlines, Inc.: Obtained an eight-figure settlement of breach of contract claim on behalf of airline pilots who were permanently furloughed when their employer ceased flight operations.

* Frazier v. Citicorp Investment Services: Obtained class action settlement for full backpay on behalf of securities brokers who alleged that their employer violated California and New York law by enforcing a corporate fine-based disciplinary policy.

* Aguiar v. Superior Court (Cintas Corp.): After two successful appeals, obtained full back pay plus interest and civil penalties in settlement on behalf of class of laundry workers who were not paid the wages required by L.A.'s Living Wage Ordinance.

* In re Farmers Ins. Exchange Claims Representative's Overtime Pay Litigation: Obtains an $8 million settlement of claims challenging an insurance company's treatment of its claims representatives as exempt "administrators."

* Cremin v. Merrill Lynch: Settled nationwide sex discrimination class action on behalf of women brokers, resulting in establishment of novel claims procedure and agreement by brokerage firm no longer to compel any employees to arbitrate statutory discrimination claims.

* Curtis-Bauer v. Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc.: Obtained a $16 million class-action settlement for African-American and Latino financial advisors and financial advisor trainees that will (among other non-monetary relief) require Morgan Stanley to change its account distribution procedures to de-emphasize historical factors that have an adverse impact on minorities, to engage in active recruitment of minority financial advisors, and to tie manager compensation to diversification efforts. Case 3:09-cv-02422-JM-DHB Document 149-2 Filed 12/21/12 PageID.6900 Page 6 of 37 Page 5

* Akau v. Tel-A-Com Hawaii: Upheld, against an employer’s ERISA preemption challenge, Hawaii’s Dislocated Workers Act, which provided supplemental unemployment compensation benefits to workers adversely affected by plant closings.

* Reigh v. Calif. Unemployment Insurance Appeals Bd.: Obtained the right to unemployment compensation for workers in non-safety-sensitive jobs who were discharged after refusing to take, or failing, a random drug test.

* AFL-CIO v. Employment Development Department: Compelled California to continue to pay unemployment compensation benefits to hundreds of thousands of claimants per year pending evidentiary hearings on their continued eligibility.

* Gerlach v. Wells Fargo & Co.: Obtained a $12.8 million settlement in a class action brought against Wells Fargo for misclassifying employees given the title “business consultants” as exempt from overtime.

* Martens v. Smith Barney: Settled a nationwide sex discrimination class action on behalf of women brokerage employees, resulting in a novel claims procedure allowing for potentially tens of millions of dollars in damages.

* California Hospital Ass’n v. Henning: Overcame a federal statutory challenge to a California law requiring payment of accrued vacation pay to workers upon cessation of employment.

* United Public Workers v. Yogi: Invalidated a state public employee wage freeze that conflicted with the state constitutional right to organize for the purpose of collective bargaining.

* St. Thomas - St. John Hotel & Tourism Ass’n v. Gov’t of the U.S. Virgin Islands: Defeated an NLRA preemption challenge to a Virgin Islands statute that protects employees from termination without cause.

* Simo v. Union of Needletrades, Industrial & Textile Employees: Successfully defended on federal appeal a labor union’s use of the “garment industry proviso” to § 8(e) of the NLRA.

* Adcock v. United Auto Workers; Patterson v. Heartland Industrial Partners, LLP: Obtained decisions from the Fourth Circuit (Adcock) and the Northern District of Ohio (Patterson) holding that an agreement under which an employer agrees to remain neutral in union organizing campaigns in return for the union’s agreement to limitations on such campaigns does not violate Section 302 of the Taft-Hartley Act or RICO.

* Heartland Industrial Partners, LLP and the United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO Obtained an NLRB decision upholding a neutrality and card-check organizing agreement under Section 8(e) of the NLRA.

* Pearson Dental Supplies v. Superior Court: Obtained a California Supreme Court ruling that requires heightened judicial review of an arbitration award, issued pursuant to a mandatory arbitration agreement, that is challenged on the ground that the arbitrator's legal error deprived the claimant of a hearing on the merits of a fundamental statutory or common law claim.

* Danielli v. Int’l Business Machines Corp.: Obtained a $7.5 million common fund settlement in a class action brought on behalf of IBM employees for IBM’s failure to pay overtime Case 3:09-cv-02422-JM-DHB Document 149-2 Filed 12/21/12 PageID.6901 Page 7 of 37 Page 6

compensation.

* Vendachalam v. Tata International: Obtained a unanimous decision from the Ninth Circuit that Tata International, India's largest conglomerate, could not force its overseas workers to arbitrate employment disputes before Tata's hand-picked arbitrators in Mumbai.

* SEIU Local 24/7 v. Professional Technical Security Services, Inc.: Obtained settlement under state wage and hour laws providing payments to hundreds of low-wage workers as reimbursement for uniform cleaning expenses.

* Int’l Longshore & Warehouse Union, Local 142 v. Brewer: Obtained a settlement on behalf of a class of retirees from sugar and pineapple plantations compensating them for the company’s termination of their medical plans.

* Vega v. Contract Cleaning Maintenance, Inc.: Obtained class action settlements on behalf of low-wage janitors and maintenance workers who were misclassified as independent contractors, providing double overtime, reimbursement of allegedly unlawful paycheck deductions and statutory interest.

* Wynne v. McCormick & Schmick’s Seafood Restaurants, Inc.: Obtained a consent decree against a restaurant chain requiring it to implement a series of measures to increase the representation of African-American employees in “front of the house,” i.e., server, bartender and host/hostess, positions.

* Higazi v. Cadence Design Systems, Inc.: Obtained a $7.664 million class-action settlement for information technology workers who were misclassified as exempt employees and denied overtime and meal and rest breaks in violation of federal and California law.

* In re the Pep Boys Overtime Actions: Obtained a $6 million class-action settlement compensating employees of a national automobile parts and service retailer, who were denied meal and rest breaks and required to work “off the clock” without pay.

* Adams v. Inter-Con Security Systems, Inc.: Obtained a $4 million settlement compensating private security guards who were required to work “off the clock” without pay and requiring the company to pay its employees in the future for the time they spend in mandatory training sessions and pre-shift briefings.

* Martin v. New United Motor Mfg., Inc.: Obtained a $4.65 million settlement from an automobile manufacturing plant for failure to compensate its employees for donning and doffing protective gear, in violation of federal and state law.

* Southern California Edison Co. v. Public Utilities Comm’n: Obtained decision upholding the authority of the Public Utilities Commission to order utilities to require the payment of prevailing wages to construction workers on energy utility construction projects.

* AFL-CIO v. Marshall: Required payment of an additional 26 weeks of extended unemployment compensation benefits, worth billions of dollars, to unemployed workers nationwide.

* IBEW v. Eichleay: Enforced a multi-million dollar arbitration award against an employer that tried to evade its contract obligations through a non-union alter ego. Case 3:09-cv-02422-JM-DHB Document 149-2 Filed 12/21/12 PageID.6902 Page 8 of 37 Page 7

* Local 1564 v. City of Clovis: Struck down a local “right to work” law enacted by a New Mexico city.

* Patel v. Sugen: Obtained a nearly $2 million settlement in a class action challenge to a pharmaceutical company’s refusal to pay contractually-mandated severance pay and bonuses to employees upon sale of the company, representing complete recovery of all monies owed plus ten percent interest.

* Figueroa v. Guess?, Inc.: Obtained a million dollar settlement of a wage and overtime class action on behalf of Los Angeles garment workers.

* EQR/Legacy Partners: Obtained settlement in administrative action of $1.6 million in back wages to construction workers who were not paid the prevailing wage required on public works projects.

*Californians for Safe and Competitive Dump Truck Transportation v. Mendonca : Defeated an industry challenge to the application of California’s prevailing wage law to motor carriers after the enactment of trucking deregulation.

* Gerke v. Waterhouse Securities: Obtained a $3.3 million overtime settlement on behalf of 1,800 employees of a discount brokerage firm who were not paid for half-hour lunch periods during which they were expected to work.

* Fry v. Air Line Pilots Ass’n: Defeated an attempt to hold a union liable under RICO and state tort law for ostracism allegedly directed against strikebreakers.

* IBEW Locals 595 and 6 v. LIS Electric: Won a private attorney general action, after a multi-week trial, against a construction contractor and its president for failing to pay workers prevailing wages on public works projects.

* International Longshore and Warehouse Union Local 142 v. Hawaiian Waikiki Beach Hotel: Obtained an order requiring the corporate parent of a hotel in receivership to arbitrate claims for millions of dollars in accrued vacation and severance pay owed to the hotel’s employees.

* SEIU v. County of San Bernardino: Obtained an injunction prohibiting one of the nation’s largest counties from depriving its employees of their right to discuss union issues at work.

* Retlaw Broadcasting Co. v. NLRB: Successfully defended on appeal the NLRB’s decision that an employer unlawfully implemented a contract proposal allowing it to bypass the union and negotiate directly with its individual employees.

* CPS Chem. Co. v. NLRB: Confirmed an employer’s continuing duty to bargain with the local union that represents its employees, notwithstanding that union’s affiliation with a national union.

* Bishop v. Air Line Pilots Ass’n: Defeated a challenge to a nationwide collective bargaining agreement that had been approved by a majority of the bargaining unit employees in a secret ballot election.

* San Joaquin Regional Transit Dist.: Obtained an arbitration award stopping a transit district from contracting out numerous jobs held by union-represented workers. Case 3:09-cv-02422-JM-DHB Document 149-2 Filed 12/21/12 PageID.6903 Page 9 of 37 Page 8

* Driscoll v. Oracle: Negotiated $12.7 million settlement in nationwide overtime case under FLSA and state law on behalf of internet sales representatives.

* UAW Local 2244 and New United Motor Manufacturing, Inc.: Obtained an arbitration award in excess of a million dollars for violation of a contractual provision requiring an employer to pay wage premiums to employees who start their shifts before 6:00 a.m.

* ATU Local 1292 and Alameda County Transit District: Obtained an arbitration award prohibiting a public transit district from using a lease arrangement to evade contractual restrictions on outsourcing bargaining unit jobs.

* California Federation of Interpreters v. Region 1 Court Interpreter Employment Relations: Committee; California Federation of Interpreters v. Region 2 Court Interpreter Employment Relations Committee; California Federation of Interpreters v. Region 4 Court Obtained arbitration awards requiring Superior Courts to pay mileage compensation to court interpreters and holding that the Courts acted illegally by giving interpreting assignments to independent contractors.

* New United Motor Manufacturing, Inc. and United Auto Workers, Local 2244: Successfully challenged in arbitration an employer’s policy of terminating sick leave benefits for ill or injured employees, providing relief to nearly one hundred employees.

* Int’l Bhd. of Electrical Workers Local 551 v. WSB Electric: Enjoined a contractor and its officers from continuing to commit unfair business practices by underpaying workers on public works projects, leading to the debarment of the contractor from bidding on public works projects for three years.

* Associated Builders and Contractors: Obtained an NLRB decision that an association of non-union construction contractors violated the NLRA by filing and prosecuting a lawsuit challenging a union program to recapture jobs for union workers.

* McCabe Hamilton & Renny Co., Ltd. v. Int’l Longshore & Warehouse Union, Local 142: Obtained, and secured against federal court challenge, a $355,000 arbitration award for a longshore worker who was assaulted, permanently disabled, and forced to spend two years in a witness protection program due to the employer’s breach of a contractual duty to provide a safe workplace.

* Advocate Health Care Network v. Service Employees Int’l Union: Obtained dismissal of defamation, commercial disparagement, unfair trade practices, and maintenance claims arising from union’s support for community campaign to change hospital chain’s practice of overcharging uninsured patients.

* In re Opinion of Bill Lockyer, Attorney General (State Allocation Board): Obtained interpretation from the California Attorney General requiring school districts to utilize competitive bidding laws to award public school construction projects, thereby insuring that union contractors have an opportunity to bid on such work.

* In re Santa Ana Transit Village: Obtained a California administrative ruling that a transfer of property for a redevelopment project at so-called “fair reuse value” is not equivalent to a transfer at the “fair market price,” and therefore California construction workers who perform work on such projects must be paid prevailing wages. Case 3:09-cv-02422-JM-DHB Document 149-2 Filed 12/21/12 PageID.6904 Page 10 of 37 Page 9

* Wagner v. Professional Engineers in California Gov’t: Established that the appropriate remedy for legal deficiencies in a union’s annual fair share fee notice is for the union to correct and re-issue the notice, not to refund fees previously collected.

* Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers Local 3 v. Northern California Mason Contractors Multiemployer Bargaining Ass’n: Obtained an arbitration award upholding a union’s right to allocate annual economic increases under a collective bargaining agreement between wages and fringe benefits.

* Contra Costa County and Contra Costa Public Defenders Ass’n: Obtained an arbitration award against Contra Costa County for violating the “parity” clause of its collective bargaining agreement, which required the county to provide its public defenders with any new benefits provided to its district attorneys.

* Mendoza-Barrera v. San Andreas HVAC, Inc.: Obtained a stipulated judgment of more than $200,000 for four sheet metal workers whose employer failed to pay them the prevailing wage on public works projects.

* Acevedo v. SelectBuild: Obtained a settlement for construction workers who alleged they were required to work off the clock by their employer, notwithstanding the employer's bankruptcy filing.

* Montoya v. Laborers International Union of North America: Obtained the voluntary dismissal with prejudice, after filing a motion to dismiss on grounds of justiciability and preemption, of a challenge to an international labor union's procedures from considering a transfer of authority over work in Mohave County, AZ from one local union to another.

* Southern Wine & Spirits v. Simpkins: Defeated motion for preliminary injunction seeking to prevent California employee of Florida company from working for California competitor.

* SEIU Local 24/7 and Pacific Gas & Electric Company: Obtained seven-figure arbitration award for employer's failure to pay its security guards for on-duty meal periods.

* CRONA v. Lucile Packard Children's Hospital: Received an award of $70,355.00 against employers for their refusal to arbitrate a union grievance.

* Air Line Pilots Association, International, et al. v. United Airlines, Inc.: Obtained declaratory and injunctive relief on behalf of United Airlines pilots requiring the airline to comply with California's Kin Care law, which requires employers that offer paid sick leave to allow employees to use up to half of that leave to care for ill relatives.

* Harris v. Quinn: Obtained a Seventh Circuit decision upholding the right of Illinois home care providers to organize and negotiate collective bargaining agreements with the State that include union-security provisions.

* UGL-UNNICO Service Co.: Helped obtain National Labor Relations Board decision reinstating a bar to challenging a union's majority status after a new employer assumes control of an organized facility, thereby allowing the parties a reasonable period of time to negotiate a collective bargaining agreement.

* United Healthcare Workers-West v. Borsos: Successfully litigated adversary trial in bankruptcy Case 3:09-cv-02422-JM-DHB Document 149-2 Filed 12/21/12 PageID.6905 Page 11 of 37 Page 10

court and obtained an order preventing a former local union official who had been held liable in federal district court for violation of his fiduciary duties to the union from discharging that judgment debt in bankruptcy.

* Oster v. Lightbourne: Obtained a preliminary injunction to block implementation of a California statute that would have reduced by 20 percent the hours of in-home support services provided to elderly and disabled Californians funder the state's Medicaid program.

* M.R. v. Dreyfus: Obtained a Ninth Circuit ruling that plaintiffs challenging a ten percent reduction to hours of Medicaid home care services are entitled to a preliminary injunction under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

* S&F Market Street Health Care LLC and Windsor of North Long Beach: Obtained victory before NLRB administrative law judge and NLRA §10(j) injunction in case alleging that nursing home employer engaged in unlawful “surface bargaining” by unyieldingly insisting on a package of contract proposals that would have forced the Union to surrender all representational authority for the duration of the collective bargaining agreement.

* Sheen v. SAG: Successfully defeated motion for preliminary injunction under the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act seeking to stop the counting of votes in a union merger election, resulting in the merger passing by an overwhelming majority.

* Holloway v. Best Buy Co., Inc.: Obtained a consent decree, with a four-year duration, in a federal court class action providing for changes in Best Buy's personnel policies and procedures which will enhance the equal employment opportunities for the thousands of women, African Americans, and Latinos employed by Best Buy nationwide.

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC HEALTH

* NRDC v. Patterson (Rodgers): Obtained a court ruling that the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation illegally dried up California’s second longest river by diverting excessive amounts of water for agricultural and other uses, and subsequently negotiated a comprehensive settlement providing for restoration of the river and reintroduction of native salmon population.

* United Steelworkers v. California Dep’t of Forestry and Fire Protection: Obtained a decision holding that the California Department of Forestry’s approval of a plan to log vast portions of California’s redwood forests violated the California Forest Practice Act’s requirements for a sustainable yield plan.

* Orff v. United States (Supreme Court): Obtained ruling (based on arguments in merits brief filed on behalf of environmental organizations) rejecting challenge brought by agribusiness interests to the federal government’s reduction of contractual water allocations to a local water district for the purpose of protecting threatened salmon and smelt.

.* California Healthcare Ass’n v. California Dep’t of Health Svcs.: Defeated a hospital industry challenge to a California health regulation requiring minimum nurse-to-patient staffing ratios.

* Les v. Reilly: Required the Environmental Protection Agency strictly to apply the Delaney Clause’s prohibition against cancer-causing substances in processed foods. Case 3:09-cv-02422-JM-DHB Document 149-2 Filed 12/21/12 PageID.6906 Page 12 of 37 Page 11

* Public Citizen v. Dep’t of Transportation: Obtained a Ninth Circuit ruling (later overturned by the Supreme Court) blocking for several years the federal government’s decision to allow Mexico-domiciled trucks to travel throughout the United States without an Environmental Impact Statement and a Clean Air Act conformity analysis.

* California v. Browner: Obtained a consent decree, in a challenge to EPA’s systematic failure to enforce federal food safety laws, that required dozens of cancer-causing pesticides to be removed from the food supply.

* NRDC v. Price Pfister: Compelled major faucet manufacturers to eliminate lead from drinking water faucets pursuant to Proposition 65, the California Toxics Initiative.

* NRDC v. The Reclamation Bd. of the Resources Agency of the State of California: Obtained a writ of mandate overturning a state administrative agency’s approval of an extensive development project on top of a major levee in the Sacramento River Delta, for violating regulations governing flood control levees.

* Sunshine Canyon: Successfully advocated in land use proceedings, on behalf of a coalition of environmental, labor, and community organizations, for stringent environmental conditions to be placed on a large solid waste landfill in Los Angeles County.

* NRDC v. EPA: Settled Clean Air Act case requiring warning labels on processed foods manufactured with methyl bromide, an ozone-depleting substance.

* NRDC v. EPA: Compelled the Environmental Protection Agency to stop holding “closed-door” meetings with industry representatives before setting pesticide health and safety standards.

* NRDC v. Whitman: Forced EPA to reassess the safety of some of the nation’s most dangerous pesticides to protect children, farmworkers, and consumers.

* NRDC v. Smith Kline: Required reductions in lead content of calcium dietary supplements.

* EDF & NRDC v. Sta-Rite: Successfully challenged the widespread use of lead in submersible water pumps under the California Toxics Initiative.

* Tosco Corp. v. Communities for a Better Environment: Defeated a declaratory judgment action brought by an oil company to preclude environmental organizations from seeking penalties for its discharges of dioxin.

* AFL-CIO v. Deukmejian: Required the Governor of California to expand tenfold the list of carcinogenic chemicals included within the California Toxics Initiative.

* California Labor Federation v. Cal. OSHA: Preserved the California Toxics Initiative against an OSHA preemption attack.

* AFL-CIO v. Deukmejian: Overturned a regulation exempting food, drugs and cosmetics from the California Toxics Initiative.

* NRDC v. OEHHA: Forced state environmental agency to withdraw “records retention” policy that had required agency scientists to destroy data and documents that were inconsistent with final Case 3:09-cv-02422-JM-DHB Document 149-2 Filed 12/21/12 PageID.6907 Page 13 of 37 Page 12

agency position.

* AFL-CIO v. Gorsuch: Overturned an EPA moratorium on public disclosure of industry pesticide health and safety studies.

* NRDC v. Wilson: Required the Governor of California timely to determine whether to expand the list of reproductive toxicants included within the California Toxics Initiative to include five dozen chemicals identified as reproductive toxicants by U.S. EPA.

* NRDC v. Badger Meters, Inc.: Required manufacturers of water meters that leach lead into residential drinking water to shift to a low lead emitting alloy.

* NRDC v. Safeway, Inc.: Required large grocery retailers to achieve a substantial reduction in diesel truck emissions around their grocery distribution centers, which are located primarily in low-income areas.

* Environmental Law Foundation v. Crystal Geyser Water Co.: Required manufacturers to eliminate unlawfully high levels of arsenic, trihalomethanes, and heterotrophic bacteria from bottled drinking water.

* City and County of San Francisco v. United States Tobacco Co.: Required warnings to be provided to consumers regarding the health dangers of smokeless tobacco products.

* Environmental Law Foundation v. Ironite Products Co.: Obtained a consent judgment banning the continued sale in California of a fertilizer manufactured from hazardous waste that contained excessive levels of arsenic and lead.

* In re Vinegar Litigation: Obtained settlements requiring food retailers to post consumer warnings regarding the presence of lead in balsamic vinegar.

* In re St. Lukes Hospital Merger: Persuaded the California Attorney General to conduct a review of the terms of a proposed merger of two hospitals, including the extent to which the merger would serve or disserve the needs of the affected communities.

* NRDC v. Kempthorne: Working closely with NRDC and Earthjustice, we overturned the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s biological opinion on the effect of the California Central Valley Project’s operations on threatened Delta smelt and obtained protective interim remedies, including reduced water pumping from the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and an order requiring the Service to issue a new biological opinion.

* Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations v. Gutierrez: Working closely with NRDC and Earthjustice, we overturned the National Marine Fisheries Service’s biological opinion on the effect of the California Central Valley Project’s operations on three species of threatened and endangered salmon and obtained protective interim remedies, including early opening of dam gates and shortening the periods in which the gates are closed, facilitating migration up and down the Sacramento River; also obtained an order requiring the Service to issue a new biological opinion.

* Firebaugh Canal Water District v. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation: Joined with U.S. Interior Department in defeating San Joaguin Valley water districts' attempts to compel the Government to Case 3:09-cv-02422-JM-DHB Document 149-2 Filed 12/21/12 PageID.6908 Page 14 of 37 Page 13

provide them low-cost drainage services, which would have kept more toxic-laden agricultural lands in production and required more water diversions. Irrigation districts have appealed the ruling to the Ninth Circuit.

FREE SPEECH

* Conant v. McCaffrey: Obtained a permanent injunction under the First Amendment prohibiting the federal government from revoking or threatening to revoke the prescription drug licenses of California physicians on the basis of their confidential communications with their seriously ill patients regarding medical marijuana.

* Walker v. Air Line Pilots Ass’n: Obtained a jury verdict following a ten-week trial upholding the right of the Air Line Pilots Association to engage in free speech activities promoting solidarity among strikers.

* Eller Media Co. v. City of Oakland: Defeated efforts by billboard and alcohol industry to overturn City of Oakland ordinance prohibiting billboards advertising alcoholic beverages in residential neighborhoods and in proximity to schools and playgrounds.

* Sutter Health v. UNITE HERE: Obtained a California Court of Appeal reversal of a $17.3 million defamation verdict against a union based on a communication that was part of a labor dispute, on the ground that the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury that the plaintiff was required to prove actual malice.

* SEIU v. City of Houston: After obtaining a preliminary injunction under the First Amendment, obtained on appeal a ruling that three Houston ordinances that restrict the right to protest via parades, public gatherings in public parks, and the use of sound amplification equipment violate the First Amendment.

* Connelly v. No On 128, the Hayden Initiative: Enforced a California law requiring state initiative campaign advertisements to identify industry campaign contributors.

* Crawford v. Int’l Union of Rubber Workers Local 703: Obtained reversal of a six-figure jury verdict against union and picketers who had exercised free speech right to disparage strikebreakers.

* Buyukmihci v. Regents: Obtained a permanent injunction protecting the free speech rights of a professor of veterinary medicine whom the University of California had tried to fire because of his animal rights views.

* Carreira v. Trustees of the California State University: Obtained the first order ever issued by a California court overturning the California State University’s denial of a whistleblower retaliation complaint and ordering a jury trial on that claim; and subsequently negotiated a $1,787,000 settlement for the whistleblower, a tenured professor at Cal State Long Beach.

* Furukawa Farms v. CRLA: Successfully defended a statewide poverty law office against a suit brought by agricultural growers to block its advocacy on behalf of farm workers.

* Auvil v. CBS 60 Minutes: Obtained dismissal of a class action product defamation suit brought by Washington apple growers against the Natural Resources Defense Council for having Case 3:09-cv-02422-JM-DHB Document 149-2 Filed 12/21/12 PageID.6909 Page 15 of 37 Page 14

publicized the public health hazards of the growth regulator Alar.

* Coors v. Wallace: Defeated an antitrust suit brought by Adolph Coors Company against the organizers of a nationwide consumer boycott of Coors beer.

* Evergreen Oil Co. v. Communities for a Better Environment: Obtained the dismissal under California’s anti-SLAPP statute of an oil company’s defamation action against a non-profit environmental advocacy group.

* Tosco Corp. v. Communities for a Better Environment: Obtained dismissal for lack of federal jurisdiction of an oil company’s federal court defamation action against an environmental group that had engaged in free speech about air pollution issues.

* California Nurses Ass’n v. Stern: Obtained dismissal, under California’s anti-SLAPP statute, of a lawsuit contending that peaceful home visits by representatives of a labor organization constituted “stalking.”

* ABC Security Service, Inc. v. SEIU Local 24/7: Successfully defended labor union against a SLAPP suit brought by an employer seeking damages against union for its organizing campaign to obtain recognition as the representative of the employer’s workers, and negotiated a stipulated dismissal under which the employer entered into a card-check and neutrality agreement with union to govern the recognition process, resulting in recognition and a collective bargaining agreement.

* Singer v. American Psychological Ass’n: Obtained dismissal, under California’s anti-SLAPP statute, of a lawsuit seeking to impose defamation liability on professional associations for statements made in amicus curiae briefs they had filed in court.

* POSCO v. Contra Costa Building & Construction Trades Council: Defeated an antitrust suit brought against various labor unions for engaging in environmental lobbying and litigation.

* Recall Grey Davis Committee v. Regents of the University of California: Obtained dismissal, under California’s anti-SLAPP statute, of a lawsuit seeking to hold the State Building and Construction Trades Council of California, which sponsored a political event, vicariously liable for spontaneous protests outside the event venue.

* Schavrien v. Lynch: Obtained dismissal, under California’s anti-SLAPP law, of a suit against the former President of the California Public Utilities Commission brought by an executive of an energy company regulated by the Commission, for publicly exposing the executive’s attendance at a campaign fundraising event in support of the spouse of a Commissioner.

* Knox v. Westly: Defeated preliminary injunction motion brought several days before statewide election to prohibit union from spending union dues and fees to oppose anti-worker ballot initiatives, and subsequently obtained Ninth Circuit decision that union had no legal obligation to provide non-members with a mid-year fair share fee notice when it enacted a temporary increase in dues and fees.

* Mosqueda v. CCPOA: Defeated a libel action brought by prison warden against correctional officers union for statements made in support of litigation initiated by a union officer.

* Western Growers Ass’n v. UFW: Obtained dismissal under California’s anti-SLAPP statute of Case 3:09-cv-02422-JM-DHB Document 149-2 Filed 12/21/12 PageID.6910 Page 16 of 37 Page 15

an “unfair business practices” action brought by a growers’ association against a union for its free speech activities.

* Allied Pilots Ass’n v. San Francisco: Obtained an injunction allowing pilots to handbill and picket at San Francisco International Airport.

* Bruce Church, Inc. v. UFW: Overturned on First Amendment and statutory grounds a $10 million judgment against the United Farm Workers for engaging in allegedly improper boycott activity.

* Guess?, Inc. v. UNITE: Obtained dismissal under California’s anti-SLAPP statute of complaint alleging union had unlawfully supported picketing and litigation activity directed against employer’s workplace practices.

* UFW v. Dutra Farms: Obtained judgments against 18 growers and growers’ association prohibiting them from illegally financing an “employee committee” to defeat union organizing drives.

* Steam Press Holdings, Inc. v. Hawaii Teamsters, Local 996: Established that federal labor law precludes an employer from obtaining damages under state defamation law for economic losses resulting from a strike.

CAMPAIGN AND ELECTION

* Brunner v. Ohio Republican Party (U.S. Supreme Court): Helped to defeat the Republican Party’s attempt during the November 2008 election to require Ohio election officials to turn over the records of newly registered voters whose voter registration and motor vehicle information did not match, which would have enabled the Republican Party to seek disenfranchisement of up to 600,000 new voters.

* Curley v. Lake County Bd. of Elections and Registration: Obtained injunction requiring early voting in November 2008 election in predominantly African-American and Latino communities of Gary, Hammond, and East Chicago, Indiana.

* Common Cause of Colorado v. Hoffman: Obtained a stipulation and court order requiring the Secretary of State to stop the unlawful purging of registered voters prior to the November 2008 election and to count ballots cast by voters who had previously been improperly purged unless there was clear and convincing evidence that they were ineligible to vote.

* Colvin v. Brunner: Project Vote v. Madison County Board of Elections/State ex rel. Helped to defeat the Republican Party’s efforts during the November 2008 election to require voters to wait 30 days after registering to vote before being able to cast an absentee ballot, which would have deprived thousands of voters of their right to vote absentee.

* AFL-CIO v. Eu: Invalidated a proposed initiative requiring a new federal constitutional convention on the ground that it violated Article V of the U.S. Constitution.

* Common Cause v. Jones: Obtained a court order requiring the replacement of pre-scored punch card voting machines in California prior to the 2004 Presidential election. Case 3:09-cv-02422-JM-DHB Document 149-2 Filed 12/21/12 PageID.6911 Page 17 of 37 Page 16

* Fleischman v. Protect Our City: Obtained, and successfully defended in the Arizona Supreme Court, an injunction removing an anti-immigrant initiative from the November 2006 Phoenix ballot on the ground that the city law granting initiative supporters the right to supplement signatures after the filing deadline is preempted by state law.

* Hawaii State AFL-CIO v. Yoshina: Overturned on state election law grounds Hawaii’s decision to ignore abstentions in determining whether the required percentage of votes was cast in favor of a ballot measure calling for a new state constitutional convention.

* Central California Farmers Ass’n v. Eu: Defeated on state constitutional grounds an attempt by agribusiness to remove a comprehensive environmental protection initiative from the California ballot.

* Kneebone v. Norris: Successfully defended a local election official’s decision to reject an initiative petition, which would have prohibited a city from entering into project labor agreements on any city-funded construction projects, on the ground that the initiative’s proponents failed to comply with the publication requirements of the Election Code.

* Cardona v. Oakland Unified School District: Upheld the City of Oakland’s right to delay redistricting on basis of the 1990 census until the census was adjusted to correct for the disproportionate undercount of minorities.

* Bennett v. Yoshina: Successfully defended against a federal court due process challenge the Hawaii electorate’s vote to refuse to hold a new state constitutional convention.

* Barry v. Nishioka: Obtained a writ of mandate ordering election officials to place candidates on ballot despite apparent noncompliance with nomination petition formalities.

* Edrington v. Floyd: Successfully defended City of Oakland’s wording of ballot question and ballot analysis for “just cause” eviction initiative against challenge by landlords.

* Dallman v. Ritter: Obtained, and successfully defended in the Colorado Supreme Court, a preliminary injunction against Colorado Amendment 54, a voter initiative that would have banned public employee unions from making political contributions in state and local elections, on the ground the initiative violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

IMMIGRATION

* AFL-CIO v. Chertoff: Obtained nation-wide injunction against a Department of Homeland Security regulation that would turn Social Security Administration “no-match” letters into an immigration-enforcement tool without authorization from Congress.

* Catholic Social Services/Ayuda/Immigrant Assistance Project v. Reno: Obtained the right to apply for legalization under the Immigration Reform and Control Act for hundreds of thousands of undocumented aliens who were prevented from applying because of unlawful INS regulations; and negotiated temporary work authorization for approximately three million aliens potentially eligible for legalization under the Immigration Reform and Control Act.

* Calif. Rural Legal Assistance v. Legal Services Corp.: Overturned a regulation prohibiting the provision of federally-funded legal services to a nationwide class of several million aliens who had Case 3:09-cv-02422-JM-DHB Document 149-2 Filed 12/21/12 PageID.6912 Page 18 of 37 Page 17

been legalized through the amnesty process.

* SEIU Local 535 v. Thornburgh: Compelled the Immigration and Naturalization Service to rescind a regulation that deprived temporary nonimmigrant workers of the right to strike.

* Patel v. Quality Inn South / EEOC v. Tortilleria “La Mejor”: Through a series of cases, established the eligibility of undocumented immigrant workers for the full remedial protections of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

* Lopez-Alvarado v. Ashcroft: Obtained Ninth Circuit reversal of Board of Immigration Appeal’s decision ordering deportation of an immigrant family that had lived in the United States for more than ten years.

* Int’l Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftsmen v. Meese: Obtained decision prohibiting government and employers from using non-immigrant business (B-1) visas to circumvent the requirement that temporary, non-immigrant, foreign workers not undercut the prevailing wage.

MISCELLANEOUS

* Blessing v. Freestone (Supreme Court): Preserved the availability of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in cases seeking enforcement of federal statutory rights.

* Kashmiri v. Regents: Won a $33.8 million class action judgment against the University of California for improperly charging fee increases to tens of thousands of undergraduate, graduate and professional students, and obtained a preliminary injunction prohibiting the University from charging professional students an additional $15 million in fees.

* Horton v. Mayle: Obtained a Ninth Circuit habeas corpus remand of former death penalty defendant’s murder conviction due to the prosecutor’s failure to disclose potentially exculpatory evidence, and obtained reversal of the conviction after district court evidentiary hearing, resulting in client's freedom after 27 years in prison.

* Jane Doe v. Reddy: Obtained $11 million settlement in human trafficking case on behalf of young Indian women who were unlawfully brought into the United States and forced to provide sex and free labor.

* Anderson v. Regents: Obtained an $11 million recovery in a Contracts Clause class action challenging the University of California’s refusal to fund thousands of university professors’ merit salary increases.

* Oster v. Wagner: Obtained a injunction to block implementation of a California statute that would have severely reduced the eligibility of elderly and disabled Californians for in-home support services that enable them to remain in their own homes.

* Eklund v. Byron Union School District: Established the right of public school teachers to use games, role-playing, and other methods considered to be best pedagogical practices to teach about the history, culture and religion of Islam as part of a secular program of education in a world history class.

* United States ex rel. Hendow v. University of Phoenix: Won a $78.5 million settlement in a Case 3:09-cv-02422-JM-DHB Document 149-2 Filed 12/21/12 PageID.6913 Page 19 of 37 Page 18

False Claims Act case against a for-profit university that allegedly defrauded the government by falsely certifying its compliance with the Higher Education Act's prohibition against paying commissions to recruiters of new students, the second-larges settlement ever of a False Claims Act case in which the U.S. Government declined to intervene.

* Dominguez v. Schwarzenegger: Obtained temporary restraining order in federal court, blocking Fresno County from reducing, to the California minimum wage, the wages of In Home Supportive Services caregivers.

* Sharp v. Next Entertainment, Inc.: Helped to obtain decision holding that the California Rules of Professional Responsibility do not preclude labor unions and other advocacy groups from funding class action litigation, by filing amicus curiae brief and presenting oral argument on behalf of labor and public interest groups, including the ACLU of Southern California.

* Utility Consumers’ Action Network v. Sears/California Federal Bank/Household Credit Service/ Texaco Credit Card Services/Capital One/Bank of America: Obtained settlements in a series of consumer privacy class actions against financial institutions and credit card companies prohibiting unauthorized dissemination of personal account information to third party telemarketers.

* In re Gulf USA Corporation and Pintlar Corporation: Preserved millions of dollars of retiree medical benefits in a major bankruptcy proceeding on behalf of thousands of retired Idaho mine and smelter workers.

* California Labor Federation v. Cal. OSHA: Invalidated, on state constitutional grounds, California Budget Act restrictions on the state’s payment of public interest attorneys’ fees.

* Gardner v. Schwarzenegger: Obtained restraining order, preliminary injunction, and permanent injunction, which was affirmed on appeal, against enforcement of a state statute that would have permitted incarceration of non-violent drug offenders, contrary to California Proposition 36, which mandated probation and drug treatment.

* Hamilton v. Great Expectations: Obtained an $8.5 million settlement of a statewide class action against a video dating service that had electronically eavesdropped on confidential membership interviews.

* People v. Horton: Obtained a California Supreme Court death penalty reversal on the direct appeal of a capital case.

* Garvin v. Utility Consumers' Action Network/Savage v. Utility Consumers' Action Network: Successful defense on appeal of a $14 million settlement of a state law privacy class action challenging a bank's practice of selling confidential consumer information to third-party marketing companies.

* IBEW Local 595 v. Aubry: Enjoined the Department of Industrial Relations from spending taxpayer funds to implement a new methodology that would drastically cut prevailing wage rates, where the Legislature had refused to appropriate funds for that purpose.

* Jensen v. Kaiser Permanente: Obtained the rescission of an HMO’s cost-cutting policy requiring staff psychiatrists to prescribe psychotropic medications for patients they have not Case 3:09-cv-02422-JM-DHB Document 149-2 Filed 12/21/12 PageID.6914 Page 20 of 37 Page 19

examined.

* Welfare Rights Org. v. Crisan: Established an evidentiary privilege for communications between applicants for public benefits and their lay representatives, including union representatives.

* California State Building and Construction Trades Council v. Duncan: Enjoined the expenditure of state funds on administrative rulemaking proceedings that would have lowered the minimum wage for apprentices throughout California, on the ground that the Governor lacked the authority to item-veto the Legislature’s decision not to fund such proceedings.

* Rogers v. Governing Bd. of the Sacramento City Unified Sch. Dist.: Obtained a writ of mandate and a permanent injunction under the California Charter Schools Act prohibiting a school board from converting an existing public high school into a charter school without the approval of a majority of the school’s teachers and requiring the school district to open a new non-charter public high school upon a showing of community support.

* In re Sealed Case: Obtained a $13.2 million settlement of a False Claims Act case and two related wrongful termination cases on behalf of a husband and wife who were terminated after disclosing extensive fraud committed by their government contractor employer.

* NAACP v. Davis: Reinstated statutory requirement that California Highway Patrol collect racial profiling data, despite gubernatorial funding veto.

* California Court Reporters Ass’n v. Judicial Council: Struck down rules that would have allowed replacement of official court reporters with audiotape recordings in California Superior Courts, and obtained an injunction against expenditures of taxpayer funds in furtherance of such rules.

* In re Marriage Cases: Helped obtain California Supreme Court decision upholding the right to same-sex marriage under the California Constitution, by filing amicus curiae brief in conjunction with professors and students from Howard University Law School.

* Davidson v. County of Sonoma: Obtained a substantial settlement on behalf of a law enforcement officer injured as a result of his employer’s mock hostage training exercise in which he was seized and threatened at gunpoint.

* County of Alameda v. Aubry: Enjoined California from reducing the prevailing wage in the construction industry by 20 percent where the agency had failed to comply with APA rulemaking requirements.

* Vasquez v. State of California: Obtained a unanimous California Supreme Court decision holding that prevailing plaintiffs who seek private attorney general fees are not required, as a condition of eligibility for a fee award, to demonstrate that they made efforts to settle their dispute before filing their civil complaint.

* Olney v. Pringle: Negotiated a settlement prohibiting state legislators from paying large retroactive salary increases to select staff in violation of the State Constitution.

* Gary W. v. State of Louisiana; La Raza Unida v. Volpe: Required Louisiana and California to Case 3:09-cv-02422-JM-DHB Document 149-2 Filed 12/21/12 PageID.6915 Page 21 of 37 Page 20

pay federal court civil rights attorney’s fee awards despite refusal of State Legislatures to appropriate the monies.

* Dominguez v. Schwarzenegger: Obtained, and successfully defended on appeal, a preliminary injunction against the implementation of a state statute that would have reduced the wages of providers of in-home support services to elderly and disabled Californians.

* Nobles v. MBNA Corp.: Settlement of a California consumer class action against a bank that misleadingly offered consumer lines of credit without disclosing hidden costs and credit impacts, resulting in a payment to class members of more than 85% of the claimed losses with interest.

CURRENT CASES

Altshuler Berzon’s current docket includes the following matters:

* Dominguez v. Brown: An action on remand from the U.S. Supreme Court that presents the question whether consumers and providers of in-home support services can bring suit under the Supremacy Clause for injunctive relief to prevent enforcement of a state law that is inconsistent with the federal Medicaid Act. The Ninth Circuit upheld a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the state law, which would have sharply reduced the wages paid to providers of in-home care to the elderly and disabled.

* Luquetta v. Regents of the University of California: A state court class action against the University of California alleging the University breached contracts by increasing fees for tens of thousands of undergraduate, graduate and professional students.

* 24 hour Fitness/D.R. Horton: Cases of first impression before the NLRB and its Division of Advice arguing that an employer’s mandatory arbitration agreement prohibiting class or collective actions must be enjoined because it violates Sections 7 and 8(a)(1) of the NLRA.

* Oster v. Wagner: A federal court challenge to a California statute that would entirely eliminate or severely restrict the eligibility of about 120,000 elderly and disabled individuals for in-home support services on the grounds the statute violates the Due Process Clause, the Medicaid Act, and other legal requirements.

* UFCW v. Brewer: First and Fourteenth Amendment and labor preemption challenges to two Arizona statutes, SB 1363 and SB 1365, that limit unions’ ability to collect member dues, to participate in political advocacy, and to engage in protected speech activities.

* M.R. v. Dreyfus: A federal court challenge, on behalf of low-income elderly and disabled individuals receiving in-home care through the Medicaid program and the providers who care for them, to ten percent service cuts in Washington State.

* Friendly House v. Whiting: A federal court constitutional challenge to Arizona’s 2010 law requiring State enforcement of immigration law.

* Keller v. California State University: A state court class action lawsuit against the California State University alleging the University breached its contracts with thousands of students by imposing last-minute fee increases. Case 3:09-cv-02422-JM-DHB Document 149-2 Filed 12/21/12 PageID.6916 Page 22 of 37 Page 21

* Dallman v. Ritter: A challenge to Colorado Amendment 54, which would ban public employee unions in Colorado from making political contributions in local and state elections.

* Air Line Pilots Ass’n, Int’l v. United Air Lines: A state court lawsuit challenging a national airline’s violation of California’s “kin care” law by refusing to permit all airline pilots domiciled in California to use their accrued paid sick leave to care for ill family members.

* Sierra Club v. Brown: A lawsuit against the Governor's administration for delays in adding substances to the list of chemicals in California that are known to cause cancer and reproductive harm.

* NRDC v. Kempthorne: Federal environmental challenge to long-term contracts for the delivery of more than 2.3 million acre-feet of California Central Valley Project water, which pose a severe risk to the survival and recovery of the threatened Delta smelt.

* Harris v. Quinn: The defense of an Illinois statute that permits in-home care workers to unionize and negotiate collective bargaining agreements.

* County of Los Angeles v. Matosantos: Amicus brief to the California Court of Appeal on whether the California Constitution prohibits the redirection of redevelopment funds to purposes not related to redevelopment.

* Narayan v. EGL, Inc.: A class action lawsuit asserting wage and hour claims under the California Labor Code on behalf of delivery truck drivers who were unlawfully treated as independent contractors rather than employees. * Faulkner v. Dominguez: The defense of a union representing airline ramp, operations, provisions and freight agents in an action for breach of contract.

* Behaein v. Pizza Hut: A class action lawsuit on behalf of hourly restaurant employees, including drivers, for Pizza Hut's California restaurants alleging that Pizza Hut forces hourly workers to work through meal and rest breaks and fails to reimburse them for their out-of-pocket costs.

* Robert Bell v. Farmers Services: A class action alleging that Farmers Services misclassifies tech support workers as exempt from overtime.

* Kairy v SuperShuttle International: Interlocutory appeal to Ninth Circuit challenging district court's dismissal of an employment class action lawsuit brought by airport shuttle drivers as preempted by California Public Utilities Act.

* Hines v. KFC: A class action lawsuit on behalf of hourly employees at KFC's California restaurants alleging that KFC forces hourly employees to work through meal and rest breaks and to work off the clock at the end of the last shift.

* Vasquez v. State of California: Defense on appeal of attorney's fee award incurred in California Supreme Court case establishing the scope of California's private attorney general fees statute.

* Ruggeri v. Boehringer Ingelheim Corp./Copello v. Boehringer Ingelheim Corp./Batchkoff v. Boehringer Ingelheim Corp.: Court challenges to a pharmaceutical company's failure to pay overtime compensation to their sales representatives. Case 3:09-cv-02422-JM-DHB Document 149-2 Filed 12/21/12 PageID.6917 Page 23 of 37 Page 22

* Van Zandt v. Apple, Inc.: False advertising and breach of warranty consumer class action challenging design defect in iPhone 3G that limited connectivity speeds.

* Pryor v. Overseas Administrative Services, Inc.: AAA class arbitration and related federal court litigation challenging KBR/Haliburton's practice of not paying required contract wages to truck drivers in Iraq.

* Hernandez v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.: Appeal from denial of class certification in lawsuit on behalf of low wage restaurant workers who were denied meal periods and rest breaks.

* Pacific Gas & Electric Company v. SEIU Local 24/7: The defense, in federal court, of an arbitration award holding that employer violated collective bargaining agreement by failing to pay its security guards for on-duty meal periods.

* D'Arrigo Bros. Co. of California v. UFW: Litigating a motion under California's anti-SLAPP statute to dismiss a civil lawsuit seeking money damages for a union's alleged conduct in assisting the General Counsel of the ALRB in an administrative hearing regarding the union's unfair labor practice charges and election objections.

* United Teachers Los Angeles v. Los Angeles Unified School District: Amicus brief to California Supreme Court on relationship between arbitration provision in collective bargaining agreement and statutory provisions of the California Education Code governing charter school formation.

* Salinas Elementary Teachers Council v. Governing Board of Salinas Elementary School District:Appeal to California Supreme Court of Court of Appeal's holding that teachers union was required to arbitrate its claim that school district violated a non-waivable provision of the California Education Code before pursuing the claim in court.

* Reed v. Los Angeles Unified School District: Appeal from a California Superior Court decision approving a settlement agreement that impaired the statutory and contractual rights of public school teachers, over the objection of the teachers' represntative (which had not agreed to the settlement), on the grounds that the approval of the settlement violated the teachers' due process right to an adjudication of the merits of the underlying claim and the requirements of the California statute regarding judgments based on settlements.

* Veronese v. Lucasfilm: Defense on appeal of a pregnancy discrimination jury verdict, where the principal issue is whether California should apply a "motivating factor" or a "but for" test for proving unlawful discrimination under FEHA.

* Green v. Bank of America: Ninth Circuit appeal from the dismissal of a complaint under California's Labor Code Private Attorney General Act, in which the trial court construed the mandatory language of California Wage Orders requiring employer to "provide" their employees with "suitable seating" as meaning they need only provide such seating upon an employee's specific request.

* Shoemaker v. Harris: Civil rights action under state and federal equal protection clauses, challenging irrational classification distinction in California's mandatory sex offender registration statute. Case 3:09-cv-02422-JM-DHB Document 149-2 Filed 12/21/12 PageID.6918 Page 24 of 37 Page 23

* Gale v. First Financial: Ninth Circuit appeal challenging dismissal of pro se plaintiff's Truth in Lending Act and Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act claims based on loan servicer's refusal to disclose loan owner's identity, and state law claims contesting non-judicial mortgage foreclosure proceeding.

* International Brotherhood of Teamsters, et al. v. U.S. Department of Transportation, et al.:A federal court lawsuit to block the Obama administration’s attempt to allow Mexico-domiciled trucks to travel throughout the United States without complying with specific congressional safety prerequisites governing such action.

* Villareal v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company: A proposed collective action before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia brought against R.J. Reynolds and its two hiring agencies alleging age discrimination against job applicants 40 years of age or older.

* SEIU Healthcare Michigan v. Snyder: A challenge based on the Contract Clause of the U.S. Constitution to a Michigan statute that would nullify an existing collective bargaining agreement covering thousands of homecare workers.

* Tokoshima v. The Pep Boys -- Manny, Moe & Jack: A state court class action alleging minimum wage violations and failure to reimburse employees for the cost of tools necessary to perform their jobs.

* Brooks v. U.S. Bank: Action challenging U.S. Bank's failure to provide suitable seating for tellers at in-store bank locations.

* Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless v. Husted and SEIU Local 1 v. Husted: Two actions in federal court seeking to prohibit Ohio from disqualifying thousands of votes cast by registered Ohio voters based on errors by poll workers, on the ground that disenfranchisement of these voters violates federal equal protection and due process.

MISCELLANEOUS

We also represent many local unions and apprenticeship programs on general matters, including litigation, negotiations, arbitrations and advice. In addition, we represent many workers in individual employment matters, we represent public agencies in selected constitutional cases, we defend public interest groups against SLAPP suits, we represent law firms and public interest organizations on statutory and common fund attorneys’ fees matters, and we provide legal advice on the drafting of legislation.

ALTSHULER BERZON’S ATTORNEYS

Fred H. Altshuler, who retired in 2010, was a founding partner of Altshuler Berzon LLP. He is a graduate of Stanford University and the University of Chicago Law School, where he was Articles Editor of the University of Chicago Law Review. He served as a law clerk to Judge John C. Godbold of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. From 1969 to 1973, he was a Directing Attorney for California Rural Legal Assistance, and from 1975 to 1978, he practiced with the San Francisco law firm of Howard, Prim, Rice, Nemerovski, Canady & Pollak. During the Watergate controversy in 1974, he was Counsel to the Impeachment Inquiry staff of the U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Committee. He is a Life Fellow of the American Bar Foundation, has been on the Boards of Directors of the Bar Association of San Francisco, the Case 3:09-cv-02422-JM-DHB Document 149-2 Filed 12/21/12 PageID.6919 Page 25 of 37 Page 24

Lawyers Club of San Francisco, the CORO Foundation, and California Rural Legal Assistance, and is Co-Chair of the Bar Association of San Francisco's Amicus Curiae Committee. He also serves on the boards of the New Israel Fund (San Francisco Region), Public Advocates and the Planning Association for the Richmond. He was a delegate at the 1996 Democratic National Convention, and in 2004 he was California State Counsel for the Kerry/Edwards Campaign. Mr. Altshuler is listed in "The Best Lawyers in America" for administrative law.

Anne N. Arkush is an associate at Altshuler Berzon LLP. She is a graduate of Brown University and New York University School of Law. She served as a law clerk to Judge Marsha S. Berzon of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and Judge Lewis A. Kaplan of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Stephen P. Berzon is a founding partner at Altshuler Berzon LLP where he specializes in major litigation, frequently involving labor and employment, environment and public health, campaign and election, and constitutional issues, both at the trial and appellate levels. He is a graduate of Cornell University and Harvard Law School. He served as a law clerk to Judge Alvin B. Rubin of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. He was formerly the Legal Director of the Children's Defense Fund, a public interest organization in Washington, D.C. He also practiced with the Legal Aid Society of Alameda County, and the National Housing and Economic Development Law Project of the University of California, Berkeley Law School (Boalt Hall). He is currently a member of the Ninth Circuit’s Advisory Committee on Rules and Internal Operating Procedures. He is also a member of the Executive Committee of the Northern District of California Chapter of the Federal Bar Association. He served for seven years (January, 2005 - December, 2011) as a member of the National Board of Directors of the American Constitution Society, and for nine years (2000-2009) as a member of the Board of Directors of the national AFL-CIO Lawyers Coordinating Committee. He also served as Chair of the City of Berkeley Police Review Commission, and as a member of the Board of Directors of the Urban Strategies Council. He received the Voting Rights Award from the ACLU of Southern California in 2002 for his work on voting rights litigation. In 2009, he was named a California Lawyer of the Year by California Lawyer Magazine in the area of Civil Rights. He is listed in The Best Lawyers in America for labor and employment law, and in San Francisco Magazine's Northern California Super Lawyers in the appellate practice area. He has argued before the United States Supreme Court, the California Supreme Court, and federal circuit and district courts throughout the country. He has testified before U.S. Senate and House Committees, and California Senate and Assembly Committees. He is a Fellow of the American Bar Foundation.

Eric Brown is an associate at Altshuler Berzon LLP. He is a graduate of Yale College and Yale Law School. Prior to joining the firm, Eric served as a law clerk to Judge Kermit V. Lipez of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit and to Chief Judge Mark L. Wolf of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

Hamilton Candee is a partner at Altshuler Berzon LLP. He is a graduate of Princeton University and New York University Law School, where he was a Root-Tilden Scholar. He served as a law clerk to Judge Thelton E. Henderson of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, and as a legislative assistant in the United States Senate. He was formerly a Senior Attorney in the San Francisco Office of the Natural Resources Defense Council and Co-Director of NRDC’s Western Water Project. He has been involved in a variety of efforts to restore ecosystems, protect endangered species, encourage water conservation, and promote other environmental reforms in federal and state water policy. He received a CLAY Award as one of California’s "Lawyers of the Year" in 1999 for his work pursuing restoration of the San Joaquin Case 3:09-cv-02422-JM-DHB Document 149-2 Filed 12/21/12 PageID.6920 Page 26 of 37 Page 25

River and received the Bay Institute's Carla Bard Bay Education award in 2008. He is a member of the Board of Trustees of the NRDC Action Fund.

Eve H. Cervantez is a partner at Altshuler Berzon LLP, a San Francisco law firm specializing in labor and employment, environmental, constitutional, campaign and election, and civil rights law. Eve specializes in representing workers in employment discrimination and wage and hour class action lawsuits. She is a graduate of Washington University and Harvard Law School, where she was an editor of the Harvard Law Review. She served as a law clerk to Judge Charles A. Legge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Prior to joining Altshuler, Eve worked as a staff attorney at the Prison Law Office and was a partner at Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, where she represented plaintiffs in class action employment and consumer lawsuits. She is the author of "When Should You Bring State Law Wage and Hour Claims in Addition to, or Instead of, FLSA Claims," The Employee Advocate (Summer/Fall 2003) and co-author of “Avoiding Procedural Pitfalls” The Employee Advocate (Summer 2008). She serves on the Senior Editorial Board of The Fair Labor Standards Act (BNA), and is a chapter editor or contributor to Employment Discrimination Law (BNA, Cumulative Supplements to Third and Fourth Editions) and Wage and Hour Laws, A State-by-State Survey (BNA, 2nd Ed. and Supplements). She was selected to Northern California Super Lawyers 2010 and 2011. Eve also lectures regularly on wage and hour, employment discrimination, and class action law.

Barbara J. Chisholm is a partner at Altshuler Berzon LLP. She is a graduate of Swarthmore College and Howard University School of Law, where she was the Submissions and Symposium Editor of the Howard Law Journal. She served as a law clerk to Judge Emmet G. Sullivan of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. She worked in the Russian Far East for five years, where she was the founder and director of the Russian Far East branch of ISAR, an organization working on environmental and human rights issues. She is Chair of the Board of Directors of Pacific Environment and the Program Co-Chair for the Bay Area Lawyer Chapter of the American Constitution Society. She previously served on the Executive Committee of the Labor and Employment Section of the California State Bar, and on the Board of Directors of the AIDS Legal Referral Panel.

Caroline Cincotta is an associate at Altshuler Berzon LLP. She is a graduate of Reed College and New York University School of Law. She served as a law clerk to Judge Marsha S. Berzon of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and was a Soros Fellow with the Immigrants’ Rights Project of the American Civil Liberties Union.

Jeffrey B. Demain is a partner at Altshuler Berzon LLP. He is a graduate of Brandeis University (B.A.), where he was summa cum laude and a Louis D. Brandeis Scholar, the University of California, Irvine (M.A.), where he was a National Science Foundation Fellow, and the law school at the UC Berkeley School of Law, where he received American Jurisprudence Awards in Labor Law, Trusts and Estates, and Criminal Procedure, and was a member of the Industrial Relations Law Journal. He served as a law clerk to Chief Judge James R. Browning of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. From 1992 through 1999, he was a contributing editor of Construction Organizing -- An Organizing and Contract Enforcement Guide, published by the George Meany Center for Labor Studies, Inc. From 1999 through 2002, he was a member of the Executive Committee of the Labor and Employment Section of the California State Bar. He is the author of "Recent Developments in Fair Share Fee Law," California Public Employee Relations Journal No. 167 (August 2004). He is listed in "The Best Lawyers in America" for labor and employment law. He also lectures regularly on developments in labor and employment law. Case 3:09-cv-02422-JM-DHB Document 149-2 Filed 12/21/12 PageID.6921 Page 27 of 37 Page 26

James M. Finberg is a partner at Altshuler Berzon LLP. He is a graduate of Brown University and the University of Chicago Law School, where he was Executive Editor of the University of Chicago Law Review. He served as a law clerk to Justice Charles Levin of the Michigan Supreme Court. From 1992 through 2006, he was a partner at Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP. In 2005, he served as President of the Bar Association of San Francisco. From 2000 through 2001, he served as Co-Chair of the delegation of lawyer representatives from the Northern District of California to the Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference. He served as the Co-Chair of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area from 1997 through 1998 and 2009 to 2010, and presently serves on its Board. He also serves on the Executive Committee of the Board of Directors of the Legal Aid Society-Employment Law Center of San Francisco and on the Board of Directors of the National Employment Lawyers Association (“NELA”). He is an adjunct professor of law at the University of California Hastings College of the Law, where he teaches Employment Discrimination Law. He is a fellow of the American College of Labor and Employment Lawyers. He is the author, or co-author, of numerous articles and book chapters on various topics of discrimination and wage/hour law and the use and trial of class and collective actions. Since 2005, he has been listed by San Francisco Magazine as one of the Top 100 "Super Lawyers" in Northern California. Since 2005, he has also been listed in "The Best Lawyers in America" for labor and employment Law. In 2009, he was named a "California Lawyer of the Year" by California Lawyer Magazine.

Eileen B. Goldsmith is a partner at Altshuler Berzon LLP. She is a graduate of Brown University and Yale Law School, where she was a Notes Editor for the Yale Law Journal. She served as a law clerk to Judge Marsha S. Berzon of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. She is a member of the Executive Committee of the Labor & Employment Section of the State Bar of California, and previously served as a Co-Chair of the Labor Law Committee of the National Employment Lawyers Association. She was listed as a "Northern California Rising Star" in San Francisco Magazine's 2011 "Super Lawyers" issue.

Scott A. Kronland is partner at Altshuler Berzon LLP. He is a graduate of Cornell University, where he was Editor-In-Chief of The Cornell Daily Sun, and the UC Berkeley School of Law, where he was elected to the Order of the Coif and was a member of the California Law Review. He served as a law clerk to Judge James R. Browning of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. He is the former Chair and a current member of the Executive Committee of the Labor and Employment Law Section of the Bar Association of San Francisco. He is listed as a "Superlawyer" in the 2012 edition of Northern California Super Lawyers magazine.

Danielle E. Leonard is a partner at Altshuler Berzon LLP. She is a graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law School, where she was a Senior Editor of the Harvard Environmental Law Review. She served as a law clerk to Judge Emmet G. Sullivan of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and was a trial attorney in the Honors Program of the United States Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Voting Rights Section. Danielle currently serves as the co-chair of the Employment Subcommittee of the Class Actions and Derivative Suits Committee of Litigation Section of the American Bar Association. Danielle is also a member of the Executive Committee of the Litigation Section of the Bar Association of San Francisco. She was named a "Rising Star" in the 2012 Northern California Super Lawyers listings.

Stacey M. Leyton is a partner at Altshuler Berzon LLP. She is a graduate of Stanford University and Stanford Law School, where she was a Symposium Editor of the Stanford Law Review and active in the Public Interest Law Student Association. She served as a law clerk to Justice Stephen Breyer of the United States Supreme Court, Judge Stephen Reinhardt of the United Case 3:09-cv-02422-JM-DHB Document 149-2 Filed 12/21/12 PageID.6922 Page 28 of 37 Page 27

States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and Judge Susan Illston of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. She is an Appellate Representative to the Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference, and has spoken and published articles on a variety of legal topics including recent Supreme Court decisions, health care reform, federal labor and ERISA preemption, and legal issues arising from workers' use of e-mail and other technologies. She served on the Board of Directors of the Public Interest Clearinghouse from 2002 to 2009 and is currently a volunteer with the Employment Law Center's Workers' Rights Clinic. In 2011, she was named a "California Lawyer of the Year" by California Lawyer Magazine for her work in a case challenging cutbacks to the California program providing in-home care to Medicaid recipients.

Matthew J. Murray is an associate at Altshuler Berzon LLP. He is a graduate of the University of California, Berkeley and Harvard Law School, where he was Student Writing Article Editor of the Harvard Law and Policy Review. He also received a Master in Public Policy degree from the Harvard University Kennedy School of Government. He served as a law clerk to Chief Justice Margaret Marshall of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. He was a Coro Fellow, served as a member of the Board of Directors of the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California, and was the student Regent of the University of California. He is currently a member of the Legal Committee of the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California.

Peter D. Nussbaum is a partner at Altshuler Berzon LLP. He is a graduate of Cornell University and Harvard Law School, where he was Articles Editor of the Harvard Law Review. He served as law clerk to Judge Irving R. Kaufman of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and was a Fulbright Scholar at the London School of Economics. Prior to entering private practice in 1974, he worked for various legal services programs, including the Center for Social Welfare, Policy and Law at Columbia University Law School. He has served as a lawyer representative and Executive Committee Member of the Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference and is a member of the ABA Committee on Practice and Procedure under the NLRA. He has served as chair of the Democratic Party of Contra Costa County and as a member of the Democratic Party's State Executive Committee. He has been listed for 25 years in "The Best Lawyers in America" for labor and employment law. He has also been designated as a Northern California "Super Lawyer." He is a Fellow of the College of Labor and Employment Lawyers and he has lectured frequently on labor topics for the American Bar Association, the Practicing Law Institute and other organizations.

P. Casey Pitts is an associate at Altshuler Berzon LLP. He is a graduate of Yale College and Yale Law School, where he was a director of the Rebellious Lawyering Conference, managing editor of the Yale Journal of Law and Feminism, and a senior editor of the Yale Law Journal. He served as a law clerk to Judge Stephen Reinhardt of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Daniel T. Purtell is a partner at Altshuler Berzon LLP. He is a graduate of Stanford University and Stanford Law School. He served as a law clerk to Judge Harry Pregerson of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. He is a contributing editor of The Developing Labor Law, and was a member of the Editorial Board of Bender's California Labor & Employment Bulletin from 2002 to 2005. He also lectures frequently on issues of labor and employment law, particularly regarding ethical issues that arise in representing individuals and labor unions.

Diana S. Reddy is an associate at Altshuler Berzon LLP. She received her B.A. and M.A. from Stanford University and her J.D. from New York University School of Law, where she was a Root-Tilden-Kern Scholar and a Student Articles Development Editor for the Review of Law and Case 3:09-cv-02422-JM-DHB Document 149-2 Filed 12/21/12 PageID.6923 Page 29 of 37 Page 28

Social Change. She served as a law clerk to Judge Theodore A. McKee of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit and Judge Kimba M. Wood of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. She was the 2010-11 Fellowship Attorney at the AFL-CIO.

Michael Rubin is a partner at Altshuler Berzon LLP. He is a graduate of Brandeis University and the Georgetown University Law Center, where he was an Editor of the Georgetown Law Journal. He served as a law clerk to Justice William J. Brennan, Jr. of the United States Supreme Court during the 1980 Supreme Court Term, and previously clerked for Chief Judge James R. Browning of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and Judge Charles B. Renfrew of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Michael is a fellow of The College of Labor and Employment Lawyers and is a member of the Board of Directors of the AFL-CIO’s Lawyers’ Coordinating Committee. Michael is a three-time recipient of California Lawyer Magazine’s “California Lawyer of the Year” award, winning once in 2002 (in the Employment Law category for his work on the Saipan sweatshop litigation) and twice in 2010 (for False Claims Act Litigation, based on the litigation and $78 million settlement of fraud claims against the for-profit University of Phoenix; and for Criminal Law, based on more than a quarter century of work for a condemned inmate that resulted in the inmate’s unconditional release from prison in 2010 – a case that also resulted in Michael receiving the “Johnnie Cochran” award from the Criminal Courts Bar Association). Michael was also a 2003 recipient of a “Trial Lawyer of the Year” Award from the Trial Lawyers for Public Justice, for his work on the Saipan litigation. Michael specializes in impact litigation, class actions, and appellate litigation, and has argued in the U.S. Supreme Court and in many federal circuit courts of appeal and state supreme courts. For the past several years, he has been listed in “The Best Lawyers in America” in the categories of appellate law and labor and employment law, and in the Northern California “Super Lawyers” listings in the areas of appellate practice, labor and employment, and class actions. He has also been listed by Lawdragon Magazine as one of the “Lawdragon 500 Leading Lawyers in America,” one of the “Lawdragon 500 Leading Litigators in America,” and one of the “Lawdragon 500 Leading Plaintiffs’ Lawyers in America.” He regularly lectures on developments in California and federal employment law and other topics.

Jennifer Sung is an associate at Altshuler Berzon LLP. She is a graduate of Oberlin College and Yale Law School. She served as a law clerk to Judge Betty B. Fletcher of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and was a Skadden Fellow with the Brennan Center for Justice.

Peder J. Thoreen is a partner at Altshuler Berzon LLP. He is a graduate of Pomona College and Yale Law School, where he was a Senior Editor of the Yale Law and Policy Review. He served as a law clerk to Judge Harry Pregerson of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and Judge Dean Pregerson of the United States District Court for the Central District of California. He is a member of the Editorial Board of Bender's California Labor and Employment Bulletin.

Laura S. Trice is an associate at Altshuler Berzon LLP. She received a B.A. from Williams College, an M.A. from Yale University, and a J.D. from New York University School of Law, where she was a Notes Editor of the Law Review. She served as a law clerk to Judge David S. Tatel of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and to Judge Lucy H. Koh of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.

Jonathan Weissglass is a partner at Altshuler Berzon LLP. He is a graduate of Yale College and Yale Law School, where he was an Articles Editor of the Yale Law Journal and a student Case 3:09-cv-02422-JM-DHB Document 149-2 Filed 12/21/12 PageID.6924 Page 30 of 37 Page 29

director of the Poverty Clinic. He served as a law clerk to Chief Judge Myron H. Thompson of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama and was a Karpatkin Fellow with the national legal department of the American Civil Liberties Union in New York. He received the Voting Rights Award from the ACLU of Southern California in 2002. In 2009, he was named a "California Lawyer Attorney of the Year" by California Lawyer Magazine.

Rachel J. Zwillinger is the Altshuler Berzon LLP-NRDC Joint Fellow. She is a graduate of Princeton University and Stanford Law School, where she was Editor-in-Chief of the Stanford Environmental Law Journal. She also received a M.S. from Stanford’s Emmett Interdisciplinary Program in Environment and Resources. She served as a law clerk to Judge John T. Noonan of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and Judge Marilyn L. Huff of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California.

CITATIONS TO PUBLISHED DECISIONS

The firm’s attorneys have participated in the following U.S. Supreme Court cases, as counsel for either a party or an amicus: Douglas v. Independent Living Center of Southern California, Inc., ___ U.S. ___, 132 S. Ct. 1204 (2012); Granite Rock Co. v. Intl. Brotherhood of Teamsters, ___ U.S. ___, 130 S. Ct. 2847 (2010); Rent-A-Center, West v. Jackson, ___ U.S. ___, 130 5.ct.2772 (2010); Brunner v. Ohio Republican Party, 555 U.S. 5 (2008); rev’g Chamber of Commerce v. Brown, 554 U.S. 60 (2008); rev’g Chamber of Commerce v. Lockyer, 463 F.3d 1076 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc); Long Island Care at Home, Ltd. v. Coke, 551 U.S. 158 (2007); Orff v. United States, 545 U.S. 596 (2005); Dep’t of Transportation v. Public Citizen, 541 U.S. 752 (2004); BE&K Construction Co. v. NLRB, 536 U.S. 516 (2002), on remand, 351 N.L.R.B. No. 29 (2007); Hoffman Plastic Compounds v. NLRB, 535 U.S. 137 (2002); EEOC v. Waffle House, 534 U.S. 279 (2001); Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly, 533 U.S. 525 (2001); Lujan v. G&G Fire Sprinklers, Inc., 532 U.S. 189 (2001); Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams, 532 U.S. 105 (2001); Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., 527 U.S. 471 (1999); Murphy Bros., Inc. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc., 526 U.S. 344 (1999); Nat’l Fed’n of Federal Employees, Local 1309 v. Dep’t of the Interior, 526 U.S. 86 (1999); Wright v. Universal Maritime Svc. Corp., 525 U.S. 70 (1998); Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (1998); Burlington Indus. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (1998); Textron Lycoming Reciprocating Engine Division, Avco Corp. v. UAW, 523 U.S. 653 (1998); Allentown Mack Sales and Service, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 522 U.S. 359 (1998); Bay Area Laundry & Dry Cleaning Pension Trust Fund v. Ferbar Corp., 522 U.S. 192 (1997); Blessing v. Freestone, 520 U.S. 329 (1997); Calif. Dep’t of Industrial Relations v. Dillingham Construction, Inc., 519 U.S. 316 (1997); Walters v. Metropolitan Educ. Enterprises, 519 U.S. 202 (1997); Auciello Iron Works, Inc. v. NLRB, 517 U.S. 781 (1996); United Food & Com. Workers v. Brown Group, 517 U.S. 544 (1996); NLRB v. Town & Country Elec., Inc., 516 U.S. 85 (1995); McKennon v. Nashville Banner, 513 U.S. 352 (1995); Hawaiian Airlines v. Norris, 512 U.S. 246 (1994); Livadas v. Bradshaw, 512 U.S. 107 (1994); NLRB v. Health Care & Retirement Corp., 511 U.S. 571 (1994); ABF Freight System Inc. v. NLRB, 510 U.S. 317 (1994); Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993); Reno v. Catholic Social Services, 509 U.S. 43 (1993); District of Columbia v. Greater Washington Bd. of Trade, 506 U.S. 125 (1992); Forsyth County v. Nationalist Movement, 505 U.S. 123 (1992); Gade v. Natl. Solid Waste Management Ass’n, 505 U.S. 85 (1992); I.N.S. v. National Center for Immigrants’ Rights, 502 U.S. 183 (1991); Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp., 500 U.S. 20 (1991); UAW v. Johnson Controls, Inc., 499 U.S. 187 (1991); ALPA v. O’Neill, 499 U.S. 65 (1991); i, 498 U.S. 479 (1991); United States v. Kokinda, 497 U.S. 720 (1990); Keller v. State Bar of Calif., 496 U.S. 1 (1990); NLRB v. Curtin Matheson, 494 U.S. 775 (1989); Guidry v. Sheetmetal Workers, 493 U.S. 365 (1989); Breininger v. Sheetmetal Workers Int’l Ass’n, 493 U.S. 67 (1989); Webster v. Case 3:09-cv-02422-JM-DHB Document 149-2 Filed 12/21/12 PageID.6925 Page 31 of 37 Page 30

Reproductive Health Services, 492 U.S. 490 (1989); Bd. of Trustees of SUNY v. Fox, 492 U.S. 469 (1989); Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (1989); Frisby v. Schultz, 487 U.S. 474 (1988); Lingle v. Norge Div. of Magic Chef, Inc., 486 U.S. 399 (1988); Edward J. DeBartolo Corp. v. Florida Gulf Coast Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council, 485 U.S. 568 (1988); Board of Airport Commissioners v. Jews for Jesus, Inc., 482 U.S. 569 (1987); Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386 (1987); Fall River Dying & Finishing Corp. v. NLRB, 482 U.S. 27 (1987); Fort Halifax Packing Co. v. Coyne, 482 U.S. 1 (1987); Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. v. Buell, 480 U.S. 557 (1987); Calif. Federal Savings & Loan Ass’n v. Guerra, 479 U.S. 1312 (1987); Baker v. General Motors Corp., 478 U.S. 21 (1986); Int’l Union, UAW v. Brock, 477 U.S. 274 (1986); Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (1986); NLRB v. Financial Institution Employees, 475 U.S. 192 (1986); Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Public Utilities Comm., 475 U.S. 1 (1986); Pattern Makers’ League v. NLRB, 473 U.S. 95 (1985); Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co., 467 U.S. 986 (1984); Ellis v. Broth. of Ry. Airline & S.S. Clerks, 466 U.S. 435 (1984); Arizona Governing Committee v. Norris, 463 U.S. 1073 (1983); Shaw v. Delta Airlines, 463 U.S. 85 (1983); Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co. v. EEOC, 462 U.S. 669 (1983); Bush v. Lucas, 462 U.S. 367 (1983); Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (1983); Knight v. Minnesota Community College Faculty, 460 U.S. 1048 (1983); Bowen v. United States Postal Service, 459 U.S. 212 (1983); Bd. of Educ. v. Pico, 457 U.S. 853 (1982); Heffron v. ISKCON, 452 U.S. 640 (1981); Donovan v. Dewey, 452 U.S. 594 (1981); NLRB v. Retail Stores Employees Union, 447 U.S. 607 (1980); Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74 (1980); Whirlpool Corp. v. Marshall, 445 U.S. 1 (1980); Babbitt v. United Farm Workers Nat’l Union, 442 U.S. 289 (1979); Cannon v. Univ. of Chicago, 441 U.S. 677 (1979); N.Y. Telephone Co. v. N.Y. Labor Dep’t, 440 U.S. 519 (1979); Hisquierdo v. Hisquierdo, 439 U.S. 572 (1979); City of Los Angeles v. Manhart, 435 U.S. 702 (1978).

The firm’s attorneys have also participated in the following cases in the federal Courts of Appeals: Mulhall v. Unite Here Local 355, 667 F.3d 1211 (11th Cir. 2012); M.R. v. Dreyfus, 663 F.3d 1100 (9th Cir. 2011); Kairy v. SuperShuttle Intern., 660 F.3d 1146 (9th Cir. 2011); Virginia ex rel. Cuccinelli v. Sebelius, 656 F.3d 253 (4th Cir. 2011); Harris v. Quinn, 656 F.3d 692 (7th Cir. 2011); Florida v. U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Svcs., __ F.3d __ (11th Cir. 2011); Knox v. Cal. State Employees Ass'n, 628 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010); Narayan v. EGL, Inc., 616 F.3d 895 (9th Cir. 2010); Dominguez v. Schwarzenegger, 596 F.3d 1087 (9th Cir. 2010); Service Employees Intern. Union, Local 5 v. City of Houston, 595 F.3d 588 (5th Cir.); Veldechalam v. Tata America Intern. Corp., 339 Fed.Appx. 761 (9th Cir. 2009); Glass v. UBS Financial Services, Inc., 331 Fed.Appx. 452 (9th Cir. 2009); The Sierra Club Foundation v. Department of Transportation, 563 F.3d 897 (9th Cir. 2009); Morgan v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc., 551 F.3d 1233 (11th Cir. 2008); Adcock v. Freighliner, LLC, 550 F.3d 369 (4th Cir. 2008); Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. v. Napolitano, 544 F.3d 976 (9th Cir. 2008); Ohio Republican Party v. Brunner, 544 F.3d 711 (6th Cir. 2008) (en banc), rev’d, 555 U.S. 5 (2008); Granite Rock Co. v. Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters, 546 F.3d 1169 (9th Cir. 2008), cert. granted; Golden Gate Restaurant Ass’n v. City and County of San Francisco, 546 F.3d 639 (9th Cir. 2008) and 512 F.3d 1112 (9th Cir. 2008); In re Farmers Ins. Exchange Claims Representatives’ Overtime Pay Litigation, 481 F.3d 1119 (9th Cir. 2007); In re Garabedd Melkonian Trust, 235 Fed.Appx. 404 (9th Cir. 2007); Chamber of Commerce v. Lockyer, 463 F.3d 1076 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc), rev’d sub nom Chamber of Commerce v. Brown, 554 U.S. 60 (2008); United States v. Afshari, 446 F.3d 915 (9th Cir. 2006), cert. denied sub nom Rahmani v. United States, 549 U.S. 1110 (2007); Eklund v. Byron Union School District, 154 Fed. Appx. 648, 2005 WL 3086580 (9th Cir. 2005); Recon Refractory & Constr. Inc. v. NLRB, 424 F.3d 980 (9th Cir. 2005); Horton v. Mayle, 408 F.3d 570 (9th Cir. 2005); Cummings v. Connell, 402 F.3d 936 (9th Cir. 2005); Lopez-Alvarado v. Ashcroft; 381 F.3d 847 (9th Cir. 2004); Assoc. Builders & Contractors v. Nunn, 356 F.3d 979 (9th Cir. 2004), Case 3:09-cv-02422-JM-DHB Document 149-2 Filed 12/21/12 PageID.6926 Page 32 of 37 Page 31

cert. denied, 543 U.S. 814 (2004); Wagner v. Professional Engineers in California Gov’t, 354 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir. 2004); Harik v. California Teachers Ass’n, 326 F.3d 1042 (9th Cir.), cert. denied sub nom Sheffield v. Aceves, 540 U.S. 965 (2003); Deutsch v. Turner Corp., 324 F.3d 692 (9th Cir. 2003); Simo v. Union of Needletrades, Industrial & Textile Employees, 322 F.3d 602 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 873 (2003); Public Citizen v. Dep’t of Transportation, 316 F.3d 1002 (9th Cir. 2003), rev’d, 541 U.S. 752 (2004); Cummings v. Connell, 316 F.3d 886 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 539 U.S. 927 (2003); Conant v. Walters, 309 F.3d 629 (9th Cir. 2002), aff’g Conant v. McCaffrey, 2000 WL 1281174 (N.D. Cal. 2000), 172 F.R.D. 681 (N.D. Cal. 1997), cert. denied sub nom Walters v. Conant, 540 U.S. 946 (2003); Immigrant Assistance Project v. INS, 306 F.3d 842 (9th Cir. 2002); Steam Press Holdings, Inc. v. Hawaii Teamsters and Allied Workers Union, Local 996, 302 F.3d 998 (9th Cir. 2002); Wininger v. Boyden, 301 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2002); Prescott v. County of El Dorado, 298 F.3d 844 (9th Cir. 2002), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1188 (2003); Casumpang v. Int’l Longshoremen’s Local 142, 269 F.3d 1042 (9th Cir. 2001), later proceeding Casumpang v. Int’l Longshore & Warehouse Union, Local 142, 361 F.Supp.2d 1195 (D. Hawaii 2005); Foster v. Mahdesian, 268 F.3d 689 (9th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 1112 (2002); BE&K Construction Co. v. NLRB, 246 F.3d 619 (6th Cir. 2001), rev’d, 536 U.S. 516 (2002); Petrochem Insulation v. NLRB, 240 F.3d 26 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 992 (2001); Tosco Corp. v. Communities for a Better Environment, 236 F.3d 495 (9th Cir. 2001); Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v. NLRB, 208 F.3d 229 (D.C. Cir. 2000), aff’d, 237 F.3d 639 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (en banc), rev’d, 535 U.S. 137 (2002); Catholic Social Services v. INS, 232 F.3d 1139 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc); St. Thomas-St. John Hotel & Tourism Ass’n v. Gov’t of the U.S. Virgin Islands, 218 F.3d 232 (3rd Cir. 2000); Does I through XXIII v. Advanced Textile Corp., 214 F.3d 1058 (9th Cir. 2000); Passantino v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Products, Inc., 212 F.3d 493 (9th Cir. 2000); Burlington Northern Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters Local 174, 203 F.3d 703 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc); Aramark Corp. v. NLRB, 179 F.3d 872 (10th Cir. 1999) (en banc); U.S. Airways, Inc. v. Nat’l Mediation Bd., 177 F.2d 985 (D.C. Cir. 1999); Retlaw Broadcasting Co. v. NLRB, 172 F.3d 660 (9th Cir. 1999); Rosenberg v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc., 170 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 1999); CPS Chem. Co. v. NLRB, 160 F.3d 150 (3d Cir. 1998); G&G Sprinklers, Inc. v. Bradshaw, 156 F.3d 893 (9th Cir. 1998), vacated and remanded, 526 U.S. 1061 (1999), on remand, 204 F.3d 941 (9th Cir. 2000), rev’d, 532 U.S. 189 (2001); Californians v. Mendonca, 152 F.3d 1184 (9th Cir. 1998); Tahara v. Matson Terminals, Inc., 152 F.3d 929, 1998 WL 405855, 1998 U.S.App. LEXIS 15412 (9th Cir. 1998) (mem. disp.); Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 1998); Duffield v. Robertson Stephens & Co., 144 F.3d 1182 (9th Cir. 1998); Bennett v. Yoshina, 140 F.3d 1218 (9th Cir. 1998); McNealy v. Caterpillar, Inc., 139 F.3d 1113 (7th Cir. 1998); San Antonio Comm. Hosp. v. S. Cal. Dist. Council of Carpenters, 137 F.3d 1090 (9th Cir. 1997); McClatchy Newspapers, Inc. v. NLRB, 131 F.3d 1026 (D.C. Cir. 1998); Montero v. INS, 124 F.3d 381 (2d Cir. 1997); ConAgra v. NLRB, 117 F.3d 1435 (D.C. Cir. 1997); Pryner v. Tractor Supply Co., Inc., 109 F.3d 354 (7th Cir. 1997); Assoc. Builders & Contrs., Inc. v. Local 302, IBEW, 109 F.3d 1353 (9th Cir. 1997); Beverly Enterprises-Pennsylvania, Inc. v. District 1199C, 90 F.3d 93 (3rd Cir. 1996); Fry v. ALPA, 88 F.3d 831 (10th Cir. 1996); WSB Electric, Inc. v. Curry, 88 F.3d 788 (9th Cir. 1996); United Ass’n of Journeymen & Apprentices v. Reno, 73 F.3d 1134 (D.C. Cir. 1996); Chamber of Commerce v. Bragdon, 64 F.3d 497 (9th Cir. 1995); Washington Service Contractors v. District of Columbia, 54 F.3d 811 (D.C. Cir. 1995); Legalization Assistance Project v. INS, 50 F.3d 789 (9th Cir.1995); Maui Trucking v. Gen. Contractors Labor Ass’n, 37 F.3d 436 (9th Cir. 1994); Electromation, Inc. v. NLRB, 35 F.3d 1148 (7th Cir. 1993); Cannon v. Edgar, 33 F.3d 880 (7th Cir. 1994); USS-POSCO Industries v. Contra Costa Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council, 31 F.3d 800 (9th Cir. 1994); Wedges/Ledges, Inc. v. City of Phoenix, 24 F.3d 56 (9th Cir. 1994); Combined Management Inc. v. Superintendent of Insurance, 22 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 1994); Employee Staffing Services, Inc. v. Aubry, 20 F.3d 1038 (9th Cir. 1994); Perales v. Thornburgh, Case 3:09-cv-02422-JM-DHB Document 149-2 Filed 12/21/12 PageID.6927 Page 33 of 37 Page 32

4 F.3d 99 (2d Cir. 1992); American Dental Ass’n v. Martin, 984 F.2d 823 (7th Cir. 1993); United Ass’n of Journeymen v. Barr, 981 F.2d 1269 (D.C. Cir. 1992), vacating 768 F.Supp. 375 (D.D.C. 1991); Les v. Reilly, 968 F.2d 985 (9th Cir. 1992); Shelby Cty. Health Care Corp. v. AFSCME Local 1733, 967 F.2d 1091 (6th Cir. 1992); Elec. Jt. Apprenticeship Comm. v. MacDonald, 949 F.2d 270 (9th Cir. 1991); Kidwell v. Transportation Communication Int’l Union, 946 F.2d 283 (4th Cir. 1991); Int’l Broth. of Electrical Workers v. Eichleay Corp., 944 F.2d 1047 (3rd Cir. 1991); Colorado-Ute Elec. Ass’n v. NLRB, 939 F.2d 1392 (10th Cir. 1991); California Rural Legal Assistance v. Legal Service Corp., 937 F.2d 465, 917 F.2d 1171 (9th Cir. 1991); Toledo Typographical Union No. 63 v. NLRB, 907 F.2d 1220 (D.C. Cir. 1990); Indianapolis Power & Light Co. v. NLRB, 898 F.2d 524 (7th Cir. 1990); U.S. Postal Service v. APWU, 893 F.2d 1117 (9th Cir. 1990); Hydrostorage v. Northern California Boilermakers, 891 F.2d 719 (9th Cir. 1989); News/Sun Sentinel Co. v. NLRB, 890 F.2d 430 (D.C. Cir. 1989); National Posters, Inc. v. NLRB, 885 F.2d 175 (4th Cir. 1989); NLRB v. Parents and Friends of the Specialized Learning Center, 879 F.2d 1442 (7th Cir. 1989); In re Thornburgh, 869 F.2d 1503 (D.C. Cir. 1989); Stache v. Int’l Union of Bricklayers, 852 F.2d 1231 (9th Cir. 1988); Patel v. Quality Inn South, 846 F.2d 700 (11th Cir. 1988); NLRB v. Ashkenazy Property Management Corp., 817 F.2d 75 (9th Cir. 1987); UAW v. Brock, 816 F.2d 761 (D.C. Cir. 1987); Local 512, Warehouse and Office Workers’ Union v. NLRB (Felbro), 795 F.2d 705 (9th Cir. 1986); IBEW, Local 387 v. NLRB (Arizona Public Service Co.), 788 F.2d 1412 (9th Cir. 1986); AFSCME v. State of Washington, 770 F.2d 1401 (9th Cir. 1985); Calif. Hospital Ass’n v. Henning, 770 F.2d 856 (9th Cir. 1985); ‘White v. City of Richmond, 713 F.2d 458 (9th Cir. 1983); Hawaiian Telephone Co. v. Hawaii Dep’t of Labor & Industrial Relations, 691 F.2d 905 (9th Cir. 1982), earlier proceeding, 614 F.2d 1197 (9th Cir. 1980); Spain v. Mountanos, 690 F.2d 742 (9th Cir. 1982); Gary W. v. State of La., 622 F.2d 804 (5th Cir. 1980); Gates v. Collier, 616 F.2d 1268 (5th Cir. 1980).

In the federal district courts, the firm’s cases have included the following: Oster v. Lightbourne, 2012 WL 685808 (N.D. Cal. March 2, 2012); Carrillo v. Schneider Logistics, Inc., 2012 WL 556309 (C.D. Cal. Jan 31, 2012); Carrillo v. Schneider Logistics, Inc., 2011 WL 6104839 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 7, 2011); San Francisco Baykeeper v. West Bay Sanitary Dist., 2011 WL 6012936 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 1, 2011); Carrillo v. Schneider Logistics, Inc., 823 F.Supp.2d 1040 (2011); United Food and Commercial Workers Local 99 v. Brewer, 2011 WL 4801887 (D. Ariz. Oct. 11, 2011); United Food and Commercial Workers Local 99 v. Brewer, 817 F.Supp.2d 1118 (D. Ariz. 2011);Copello v. Boehringer Ingelheim, 2011 WL 3325857 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 2, 2011); M.R. v. Dreyfus, 767 F.Supp.2d 1149, (W.D.Wash. 2011); Southern Wine + Spirits Co. v. Simpkins, 2011 WL 124631 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 14, 2011); Dimenco v. Service Employees Int'l Union, 2011 WL 89999 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2011); M.R. v. Dreyfus , 2011 WL 31553 (W.D.Wash. Jan 05, 2011) (NO. C10-2052Z); Common Cause of Colorado v. Buescher, 2010 WL 4537073 (D. Colo. Nov. 3, 2010) and 2010 WL 4156486 (D. Colo. Oct. 18, 2010); Dominguez v. Schwarzenegger, 2010 WL 3447691 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 30, 2010) and 2010 WL 2673715 (N.D. Cal. July 2, 2010) and 2010 WL 2348659 (N.D. Cal. June 8, 2010); Danieli v. IBM, 2010 WL 2399329 (S.D. N.Y. Mar. 29, 2010); V.L. v. Wagner, 669 F.Supp.2d 1106 (N.D. Cal. 2009); Martinez v. Schwarzenegger, 2009 WL 3353227 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 15, 2009) and 2009 WL 1844989 (June 26, 2009); The OSO Group v. Bullock & Assoc., 2009 WL 2422285 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2009); NRDC v. Kempthorne, 627 F. Supp.2d 1212 (E.D. Cal. 2009) and 2009 WL 1575208 (E.D. Cal. June 3, 2009) and 2008 WL 5054115 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 19, 2008); Veliz v. Cintas Corp., 2009 WL 1107702 (N.D. Cal. 2009); New United Motor Mfg., Inc. v. United Auto Workers, Local 2244, 184 L.R.R.M. 2539, 2008 WL 2540702 (N.D.Cal. June 19, 2008); Pacific Coast Fed’n of Fishermen’s Ass’ns v. Gutierrez, 2008 WL 2223070 (E.D. Cal. May 20, 2008), subsequent proceeding, 2008 WL 2851568 (E.D. Cal. July 18, 2008); United States ex rel. UNITE HERE v. Cintas Corp., 2008 WL 1767039 (N.D. Cal. April 16, 2008), appeal pending, Ninth Circuit Appeal Case 3:09-cv-02422-JM-DHB Document 149-2 Filed 12/21/12 PageID.6928 Page 34 of 37 Page 33

No. 08-16223; McCabe Hamilton & Renny Co., Ltd. v. Int’l Longshore & Warehouse Union, Local 142, 557 F.Supp.2d 1171 (D. Haw. 2008); Service Employees Int’l Union v. City of Houston, 542 F.Supp.2d 617 (S.D. Tex. 2008); Knox v. Westly, 183 L.R.R.M. 3232, 2008 WL 850128 (E.D.Cal. March 28, 2008); Arizona Contractors Ass’n, Inc. v. Candelaria, 534 F. Supp.2d 1036 (D. Ariz. 2008), aff’d sub nom Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. v. Napolitano, 544 F.3d 976 (9th Cir. 2008); Golden Gate Restaurant Ass’n v. City and County of San Francisco, 42 Employee Benefits Cases 2185, 2007 WL 4570521 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 26, 2007), rev’d, 546 F.3d 639 (9th Cir. 2008); Arizona Contractors Ass’n, Inc. v. Napolitano, 526 F.Supp.2d 968 (D. Ariz. 2007), later proceeding Arizona Contractors Ass’n, Inc. v. Candelaria, 534 F. Supp.2d 1036 (D. Ariz. 2008), aff’d sub nom Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. v. Napolitano, 544 F.3d 976 (9th Cir. 2008); Fusi v. Emery World Airlines, Inc., 183 L.R.R.M. 2225, 2007 WL 4207863 (S.D. Ohio 2007); AFL-CIO v. Chertoff, 552 F.Supp.2d 999 (N.D. Cal. 2007); In re American Family Mut. Ins. Co. Overtime Pay Litigation, 155 Labor Cases ¶ 35,353, 2007 WL 2936319 (D. Colo. 2007); Int’l Longshore & Warehouse Union, Local 142 v. C. Brewer & Co., 496 F.Supp.2d 1179 (D. Hawaii 2007); SkyWest Pilots ALPA Org. Comm. v. SkyWest Airlines, Inc., 2007 WL 1848678, 182 L.R.R.M. 2485 (N.D. Cal. 2007); Adams v. Inter-Con Security Systems, Inc., 242 F.R.D. 530, 2007 WL 1089694 (N.D. Cal. 2007); Chao v. Allied Pilots Ass’n, 2007 WL 518586, 181 L.R.R.M. 2578 (N.D. Tex. 2007); Adcock v. United Auto Workers, 2006 WL 3257044, 180 L.R.R.M. 3291 (W.D.N.C. 2006); Knox v. Westly, 2006 WL 2374763, 180 L.R.R.M. 3170 (E.D. Cal. 2006), earlier proceeding, 2005 WL 3031622 (E.D. Cal. 2005), subsequent proceedings, 2007 WL 516263, 181 L.R.R.M. 2501 (E.D. Cal. 2007), 2006 WL 3147683 (E.C. Cal. 2006); Vega v. Contract Cleaning Maintenance, 2006 WL 1554383, 11 Wage & Hour Cas.2d 1121 (N.D. Ill. 2006); Patterson v. Heartland Industrial Partners, LLP, 428 F.Supp.2d 714 (N.D. Ohio 2006), earlier proceeding, 225 F.R.D. 204 (N.D. Ohio 2004); Darensburg v. Metropolitan Transportation Comm’n, 2006 WL 167657 (N.D. Cal. 2006); NRDC v. Rodgers, 381 F.Supp.2d 1212 (E.D. Cal. 2005), motion for reconsideration denied, 2005 WL 2466067 (E.D. Cal. 2005), earlier proceeding, 2005 WL 1388671 (E.D. Cal. 2005); Rachford v. Air Line Pilots Ass’n, Int’l, 375 F.Supp.2d 908 (N.D. Cal. 2005), later proceeding, 2006 WL 927742 (N.D. Cal. 2006), aff’d mem., 284 Fed.Appx. 473 (9th Cir. 2008); Casumpang v. Int’l Longshore & Warehouse Union, Local 142, 361 F.Supp.2d 1195 (D. Hawaii 2005), subsequent proceeding, 411 F.Supp.2d 1201 (D. Hawaii 2005); Patel v. Sugen, Inc., 354 F.Supp.2d 1098 (N.D. Cal. 2005); In re Farmers Ins. Exchange Claims Representatives’ Overtime Pay Litigation, 300 F.Supp.2d 1020 (D. Ore. 2003), amended, 336 F.Supp.2d 1077 (D. Ore. 2004), aff’d in part and rev’d in part, and remanded, 466 F.3d 853 (9th Cir. 2006), later proceeding, 14 Wage & Hour Cas.2d 356, 2008 WL 4763029 (D. Ore. Oct. 28, 2008); Cummings v. Connell, 281 F.Supp.2d 1187 (E.D. Cal. 2003), rev’d, 402 F.3d 936 (9th Cir. 2005), later proceeding, 2006 WL 1716160, 180 L.R.R.M. 2159 (E.D. Cal. 2006); SEIU Local 87 et al. v. SEIU Local 1877, 230 F.Supp.2d 1099 (N.D. Cal. 2002); Does I v. Gap, Inc., 2002 WL 1000068 (D.N.M.I. 2002), related proceeding, 1000073 (D.N.M.I. 2002); Chamber of Commerce v. Lockyer, 225 F.Supp.2d 1199 (C.D.Cal. 2002), rev’d, 463 F.3d 1076 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc); Common Cause v. Jones, 213 F.Supp.2d 1110, 213 F.Supp.2d 1116 (C.D. Cal. 2002); Catholic Social Services v. Ashcroft, 206 F.R.D. 654 (E.D. Cal. 2002); In re World War II Era Japanese Forced Labor Litigation, 164 F.Supp.2d 1153 (N.D. Cal. 2001), 114 F.Supp. 939 (N.D. Cal. 2000); Does I v. Advance Textile Corp., 2001 WL 1842389 (D.N.M.I. 2001); NRDC v. Whitman, 53 E.R.C. 1673, 2001 WL 1221774 (N.D. Cal.), later proceeding, 2001 WL 1456783 (N.D. Cal. 2001), appeal dism. sub nom NRDC v. EPA, 35 Fed.Appx. 590, 2002 WL 1042092 (9th Cir. 2002); Eller Media Co. v. City of Oakland, 2000 WL 33376585 (N.D. Cal. 2000), earlier proceedings, 1998 WL 827426 (N.D. Cal. 1998), 1998 WL 549494 (N.D. Cal. 1998); CF&I Steel, L.P. v. Bay Area Rapid Transit District, 2000 WL 1375277 (N.D. Cal. 2000); Chadwick v. IBEW, 2000 WL 1006373 (N.D. Cal. 2000); Friedman v. Cal. State Employees Ass’n, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7049, 163 L.R.R.M. 2924 (E.D. Cal. 2000); Foster v. Garcy, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS Case 3:09-cv-02422-JM-DHB Document 149-2 Filed 12/21/12 PageID.6929 Page 35 of 37 Page 34

21876, 140 Lab. Cas. (CCH) ¶ 58,914 (N.D. Cal. 1999); Tosco v. Communities for a Better Environment, 41 F.Supp.2d 1061 (C.D. Cal. 1999); Bishop v. Air Line Pilots Ass’n, 159 L.R.R.M. 2005, 1998 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 11948 (N.D. Cal. 1998), aff’d mem., 2000 US App. LEXIS 3270 (9th Cir. March 1, 2000); Martens v. Smith Barney, Inc., 181 F.R.D. 243, 1998 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 9226, 77 FEP Cas. (BNA) 532 (S.D.N.Y. 1998); Catholic Social Services v. Reno, 1998 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 10429, 10430, 10431 (E.D. Cal. 1998); Sims v. Alameda-Contra Costa Transit Dist., 2 F.Supp.2d 1253 (N.D. Cal. 1998); Cremin v. Merrill Lynch, 957 F.Supp. 1460 (N.D. Ill. 1997); McLendon v. Continental Group, Inc., 872 F.Supp. 142 (D.N.J. 1994); Ford v. New United Motors Mfg., Inc., 857 F.Supp. 707 (N.D. Cal. 1994); Alameda Newspapers, Inc. v. City of Oakland, 860 F.Supp. 1428 (N.D. Cal. 1994); Sneede v. Coye, 856 F.Supp. 526 (N.D. Cal. 1994); In re Gulf USA Corp., 171 Bankr. 379 (D. Id. 1994); Auvil v. CBS, 60 Minutes, 800 F.Supp. 928 (E.D. Wash. 1992); Cardona v. Oakland Unified School District, 785 F.Supp. 837 (N.D. Cal. 1992); Assoc. Builders & Contrs. v. BACA, 769 F.Supp. 1537 (N.D. Cal. 1991); EEOC v. Tortilleria “La Mejor,” 758 F.Supp. 585 (E.D. Cal. 1991); Akau v. Tel-A-Com Hawaii, Inc., 1990 Dist. LEXIS 4647 (D. Hawaii 1990); Puzz v. U.S. Dep’t of the Interior, 1989 Dist. LEXIS 16649 (N.D. Cal 1989); Local 3 v. Masonry & Tile Contractors Ass’n, 136 L.R.R.M. 2319 (D. Nev. 1990); Calif. ex rel. Van de Kamp v. Reilly, 750 F.Supp. 433 (E.D. Cal. 1990); Local 1564 v. City of Clovis, 735 F.Supp. 999 (D.N.M. 1990); Immigrant Assistance Project v. INS, 709 F.Supp. 998 (W.D. Wash. 1989) aff’d, 976 F.2d 1198 (9th Cir. 1993), vacated and remanded, 510 U.S. 594 (1993); Ayuda, Inc. v. Barr, 687 F.Supp. 650 (D.D.C. 1988), rev’d in part, 880 F.2d 1325 (D.C. Cir. 1989), vacated and remanded, 498 U.S. 1117 (1991), on remand, 948 F.2d 742 (D.D.C. 1991), 700 F.Supp 49 (D.D.C. 1988), 744 F.Supp 21 (D.D.C. 1990), stayed, 919 F.2d 153 (D.C. Cir. 1990), rev’d, 948 F.2d 742 (D.C. Cir. 1991), vacated and remanded, 509 U.S. 916 (1993), on remand, 7 F.3d 246 (D.C. Cir. 1993), pet. for rehearing denied, 14 F.3d 61 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 815 (1994); Bower v. Bunker Hill Company, 675 F.Supp. 1263, 675 F.Supp. 1254, 114 F.R.D. 587 (E.D. Wash. 1986), 689 F.Supp. 1032 (E.D. Wash. 1985); Int’l Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftsmen v. Meese, 616 F.Supp. 1387 (N.D.Cal. 1985); Adolph Coors Co. v. Sickler, 608 F.Supp. 1417 (C.D. Cal. 1985); Int’l Union, UAW v. Donovan, 570 F.Supp. 210 (D.D.C. 1983), rev’d, 746 F.2d 855 (D.C. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 825 (1985); Int’l Union, UAW v. Donovan, 568 F.Supp. 1047 (D.D.C. 1983), rev’d, 746 F.2d 839 (D.C. Cir. 1984), rev’d sub nom Int’l Union, UAW v. Brock, 477 U.S. 274 (1986), on remand, 816 F.2d 761 (D.C. Cir. 1987); Int’l Union, UAW v. Donovan, 554 F.Supp. 1172 (D.D.C. 1983); La Raza Unida v. Volpe, 545 F.Supp. 36 (N.D. Cal. 1982); AFL-CIO v. Marshall, 494 F.Supp. 971 (D.D.C. 1980).

The firm has also participated in the following state supreme court cases, among others: Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.4th 1004 (2012); California Grocers Ass'n v. City of Los Angeles, 52 Cal.4th 177 (2011); Professional Engineers in California Gov’t v. Schwarzenegger, 50 Cal.4th 989 (2010); St. John’s Well Child and Family Center v. Schwarzenegger, 50 Cal.4th 960 (2010); Hawaii Gov’t Employees Assn. v. Lingle, 239 P3d 1 (Haw. 2010); City of San Jose v. Operating Engineers Local No. 3, 49 Cal 597 (2010); Pearson Dental Supplies, Inc. v. Superior Court, 48 Cal.4th 665 (2010); Amalgamated Transit Union v. Superior Court, 46 Cal.4th 993 (2009); Sheehan v. The San Francisco 49ers, Ltd., 45 Cal.4th 992 (2009); Vasquez v. State of California, 45 Cal.4th 243 (2008); State ex rel. Colvin v. Brunner, 120 Ohio St.3d 110, 896 N.E.2d 979 (Ohio 2008); EPIC v. Calif. Dep’t of Forestry & Fire Protection, 44 Cal.4th 459 (2008); In re Marriage Cases, 43 Cal.4th 757 (2008); Gentry v. Superior Court, 42 Cal.4th 443 (2007); Fleischman v. Protect Our City, 214 Ariz. 406, 153 P.3d 1035 (2007); Tahara v. Matson Terminals, Inc., 111 Hawaii 16, 136 P.3d 904 (2006); Reynolds v. Bement, 36 Cal.4th 1075 (2005); City of Long Beach v. Dep’t of Industrial Relations, 34 Cal.4th 942 (2004), vacating 110 Cal.App.4th 636, 1 Cal.Rptr.3d 837 (2003); AFL-CIO v. Hood, Case 3:09-cv-02422-JM-DHB Document 149-2 Filed 12/21/12 PageID.6930 Page 36 of 37 Page 35

885 So.2d 373 (Fla. 2004); Intel Corp. v. Hamidi, 30 Cal.4th 1342 (2003); Viner v. Sweet, 30 Cal.4th 1232 (2003); Hamilton v. Maryland Casualty Co., 27 Cal.4th 718 (2002); Golden Gateway Center v. Golden Gateway Tenants Assoc., 26 Cal.4th 1013 (2001); Gerawan Farming, Inc. v. Lyons, 24 Cal.4th 468 (2000); Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Svcs., 24 Cal.4th 83 (2000); Morillion v. Royal Packing Co., 22 Cal.4th 575 (2000); Cel-Tech Communications, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Co., 20 Cal.4th 243 (1999); Hawaii State AFL-CIO v. Yoshina, 935 P.2d 89 (Haw. 1997); Masonry & Tile Contractors Ass’n v. Jolley, Urga & Wirth, 941 P.2d 486 (Nev. 1997); People ex rel. Lundgren v. Superior Court (American Standard), 14 Cal.4th 294 (1996); AFL-CIO v. Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board, 13 Cal.4th 1017 (1996), rev’g 38 Cal.App.4th 1205 (1995); People v. Horton, 11 Cal.4th 1068 (1996); Southern Calif. Chapter of Assoc. Builders & Contractors Inc. v. Calif. Apprenticeship Council, 4 Cal.4th 422 (1992); In re Horton, 54 Cal.3d 82 (1991); Cumero v. Public Employment Relations Board, 49 Cal.3d 575 (1989); Keller v. State Bar, 47 Cal.3d 1152 (1989); DeTomaso v. Pan American World Airways, 43 Cal.3d 517 (1987); County of Los Angeles v. State of Calif., 43 Cal.3d 46 (1987); Long Beach City Employees Ass’n v. City of Long Beach, 41 Cal.3d 937 (1986); Regents of the University of Calif. v. Public Employment Relations Board, 41 Cal.3d 601 (1986); San Jose Teachers Ass’n v. Superior Court, 38 Cal.3d 839 (1985); AFL-CIO v. Eu, 36 Cal.3d 687 (1984); Legislature of the State of Calif. v. Deukmejian, 34 Cal.3d 658 (1983); San Mateo City School Dist. v. Public Employment Relations Bd., 33 Cal.3d 850 (1983); Welfare Rights Org. v. Crisan, 33 Cal.3d 766 (1983); Serrano v. Unruh, 32 Cal.3d 621 (1982); Mandel v. Myers, 29 Cal.3d 531 (1981); Pacific Legal Foundation v. Unemployment Insurance Appeals Bd., 29 Cal.3d 101 (1981); Sears Roebuck & Co. v. San Diego County District Council of Carpenters, 25 Cal.3d 317 (1979); Robins v. Pruneyard Shopping Center , 23 Cal.3d 899 (1979).

The firm has also participated in the following cases in the state courts of appeal, among others: Hensel Phelps Const. Co. v. San Diego Unified Port Dist., 197 Cal.App.4th 1020 (2011);California Chamber of Commerce v. Brown, 196 Cal.App.4th 233 (2011); County of Los Angeles v. Los Angeles County Employee Relations Com'n, 192 Cal.App.4th 1409 (2011); Ralph's Grocery v. United Food and Commercial Workers, 192 Cal.App.4th 200 (2011); Home Depot v. Superior Ct., 191 Cal.App.4th 210 (2011); EPIC v. Cal. Dept. of Forestry and Fire Protection, 190 Cal.App.4th 217 (2010); Bright v. 99 Cents Only Stores, 189 Cal.App.4th 1472 (2010); Lazarin v. Superior Court, 188 Cal.App.4th 1560 (2010); Sutter Health v. UNITE- HERE, 186 Cal.App.4th 1193 (2010); Gardner v. Schwarzenegger, 178 Cal.App.4th 1366 (2009); In re Consumer Privacy Cases, 175 Cal.App.4th 545 (2009); County of Sonoma v. Superior Court, 173 Cal.App.4th 322 (2009); Aguiar v. Superior Court (Cintas Corp.), 170 Cal.App.4th 313 (2009); Project Vote v. Madison County Bd. of Elections, 2008 WL 4445176 (Ohio Sept. 29, 2008); Curley v. Lake County Bd. of Elections and Registration, 896 N.E.2d 24 (Ind. App. 2008); Amaral v. Cintas Corp. No. 2, 163 Cal.App.4th 1157 (2008); Sharp v. Next Entertainment, Inc., 163 Cal.App.4th 410 (2008); State Building and Construction Trades Council of California v. Duncan, 162 Cal.App.4th 289 (2008); Kashmiri v. Regents of the University of Calif., 156 Cal.App.4th 809 (2007); Sheet Metal Workers Int’l Ass’n, Local Union No. 104 v. Rea, 153 Cal.App.4th 1071 (2007); Aguiar v. Cintas Corp. No. 2, 144 Cal.App.4th 121 (2006); Southern California Edison Co. v. Public Utilities Comm’n, 140 Cal.App.4th 1085 (2006); The Hess Collection Winery v. California Agricultural Relations Bd., 140 Cal.App.4th 1584 (2006); Du Charme v. Int’l Bhd. of Electrical Workers, Local 45, 110 Cal.App.4th 107 (2003); SEIU v. Superior Court, 89 Cal.App.4th 1390 (2001); Bell v. Farmers Ins. Exchange, 87 Cal.App.4th 805 (2001), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1041 (2001), later proceeding, 115 Cal.App.4th 715 (2004), later proceeding, 135 Cal.App.4th 1138 (2006), later proceeding, 137 Cal.App.4th 835 (2006); United Case 3:09-cv-02422-JM-DHB Document 149-2 Filed 12/21/12 PageID.6931 Page 37 of 37 Page 36

Farm Workers v. Dutra Farms, 83 Cal.App.4th 1146 (2000); Western Crop Protection Assoc. v. Davis, 80 Cal.App.4th 741 (2000); Pulaski v. California Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board, 75 Cal.App.4th 1315 (1999); IBEW Local 595 v. Superior Court, 54 Cal.App.4th 1291 (1997); IBEW v. Aubry, 41 Cal.App.4th 1632 (1996); Calif. Court Reporters Ass’n v. Judicial Council of Calif., 39 Cal.App.4th 15 (1995), 59 Cal.App.4th 959 (1997); L.A. County Court Reporters Ass’n v. Superior Court, 31 Cal.App.4th 403 (1995); Smith v. Superior Court (Degnan), 31 Cal.App.4th 205 (1994); AFL-CIO v. Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board, 23 Cal.App.4th 51 (1994); Calif. Labor Federation v. Calif. Safety and Health Standards Board, 5 Cal.App.4th 985 (1991), 221 Cal.App.3d 1547 (1990); Jerabek v. Public Employment Relations Bd., 2 Cal.App.4th 1298 (1991); Zambrano v. Oakland Unified School Dist., 229 Cal.App.3d 802 (1991); Rust v. Vallejo, 215 Cal.App.3d 771 (1989); AFL-CIO v. Deukmejian, 212 Cal.App.3d 425 (1989); Wallace v. Consumers Cooperative, Inc., 170 Cal.App.3d 836 (1985); Filipino Accountants Ass’n, Inc. v. State Board of Accountancy, 155 Cal.App.3d 1023 (1984); Brown v. Superior Court, 137 Cal.App.3d 778 (1982); Serrano v. Priest, 131 Cal.App.3d 188 (1982); AFL-CIO v. Employment Development Dep’t, 88 Cal.App.3d 811 (1979). Case 3:09-cv-02422-JM-DHB Document 149-3 Filed 12/21/12 PageID.6932 Page 1 of 4 Case 3:09-cv-02422-JM-DHB Document 149-3 Filed 12/21/12 PageID.6933 Page 2 of 4 Case 3:09-cv-02422-JM-DHB Document 149-3 Filed 12/21/12 PageID.6934 Page 3 of 4 Case 3:09-cv-02422-JM-DHB Document 149-3 Filed 12/21/12 PageID.6935 Page 4 of 4 Case 3:09-cv-02422-JM-DHB Document 149-4 Filed 12/21/12 PageID.6936 Page 1 of 12

EXHIBIT A Case 3:09-cv-02422-JM-DHB Document 149-4 Filed 12/21/12 PageID.6937 Page 2 of 12

1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3 DOMONIQUE HINES, individually, and on Case No. 3:09-cv-02422-JM-DHB 4 behalf of all other similarly situated current and former employees of KFC U.S. NOTICE OF (1) PROPOSED CLASS 5 Properties, Inc., SETTLEMENT AND (2) FINAL SETTLEMENT APPROVAL HEARING 6 Plaintiffs,

7 v.

8 KFC U.S. PROPERTIES, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, 9 inclusive,

10 Defendants. 11

12 This Notice, which has been approved by the Court, is to notify Class Members in the class 13 action Hines v. KFC U.S. Properties, Inc. of the proposed $3.55 million settlement (the 14 “Settlement”) reached between the parties. The Court has granted preliminary approval to the 15 Settlement. 16 Important Dates 17  If you wish to claim a share of the settlement described in this notice, you must complete and submit 18 a Claim Form, postmarked or received by the Settlement Administrator on or before December 28, 2012, or else you will not receive your share of the settlement. 19  If you wish to comment on or object to the settlement, your comment or objection must be 20 postmarked or received by the Settlement Administrator on or before December 13, 2012, or else your objections will be deemed waived. 21  If you do not want to participate in the settlement, you must request exclusion from the Settlement 22 according to the directions in this notice, and your request must be postmarked or received by the Settlement Administrator on or before December 13, 2012, or else you will be bound by the 23 settlement even if you do not claim your share of the settlement.

24 All claim forms, comments, objections, and requests not to participate in the Settlement must be 25 postmarked or received by the Settlement Administrator by the applicable deadline: Hines v. KFC Settlement Administrator 26 Post Office Box 10829 Tallahassee, FL 32302-2829 27 Toll Free: (855) 272-2481 28 Fax: (850) 385-6008

NOTICE OF CLASS SETTLEMENT U.S.D.C., S.D. CAL., NO. 3:09-CV-02422-JM-DHB

Case 3:09-cv-02422-JM-DHB Document 149-4 Filed 12/21/12 PageID.6938 Page 3 of 12

1 Pursuant to the order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California 2 (the “Court”) entered on October 4, 2012, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED AS FOLLOWS: 3 1. SUMMARY OF THE SETTLEMENT AND MY RIGHTS 4 § 1.a. What Is a Class Action? A class action is a lawsuit in which the claims and rights of 5 many similarly situated people (“Class Members”) are decided in a single court proceeding. One or 6 more representative plaintiffs (“Class Representatives”) file a lawsuit asserting claims on behalf of all 7 the class members. 8 § 1.b. The Class Definition. You were sent this notice because KFC’s records show that you 9 are a Member of the Class. The Class includes all persons who were employed by KFC in California in 10 the position of “Team Member” at any time between October 2, 2005 and October 4, 2012, who do not 11 timely submit a valid request not to participate in the Settlement following the procedure described in § 12 8. Note that employment by a KFC franchisee does not fall within the definition of the Class. 13 § 1.c. Options and Dates. You have several options: 14 (1) To receive a payment under the Settlement, you must complete a Claim Form (which is 15 attached to this Notice) and submit it to the Settlement Administrator, postmarked or received by 16 December 28, 2012, following the procedure described in § 4.a. If you do not do this, you will receive 17 no money from this Settlement. 18 (2) You may comment on or object to the Settlement in writing, postmarked or received by 19 December 13, 2012, following the procedure described in § 8. 20 (3) You may request that you be excluded from the Settlement according to the instructions 21 in § 9 below. If you choose to be excluded from the Settlement, you will no longer be a Class Member – 22 and therefore will receive no money under this Settlement – and you will not release your claims, which 23 means that you will be able to bring a separate lawsuit on your own for these claims. Unless you 24 properly request to be excluded, you will be a Class Member and will release all claims alleged in this 25 case (see § 5, below), even if you do not fill out a Claim Form. In order to request not to participate in 26 the Settlement, you must follow the instructions described in § 9 and submit your written request to the 27 Settlement Administrator, postmarked or received by December 13, 2012. 28

-2 - NOTICE OF CLASS SETTLEMENT U.S.D.C., S.D. Cal., No. 3:09-cv-02422-JM-DHB

Case 3:09-cv-02422-JM-DHB Document 149-4 Filed 12/21/12 PageID.6939 Page 4 of 12

1 2. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE 2 § 2.a. The Claims at Issue. On October 2, 2009, plaintiff Domonique Hines (“Plaintiff”) filed a 3 class action complaint against KFC. In the lawsuit, Plaintiff alleged that KFC failed to properly 4 compensate her and the Class for missed, late, or short meal and rest break periods, as required by 5 California law, and failed to properly pay her and the Class for off-the-clock work performed after 6 KFC’s restaurants close. Plaintiff sought compensation due under California wage-and-hour laws. 7 Plaintiff further alleged that KFC failed to provide her and the Class with accurate records of hours 8 worked or timely pay all wages due employees whose employment with KFC had ended, as required by 9 California law. Plaintiff also alleged that by committing the unlawful acts alleged in her complaint, 10 KFC engaged in unfair competition in violation of California Business and Professions Code § 17200 et 11 seq. 12 § 2.b. KFC’s Denial of Liability. KFC denies all of Plaintiff’s allegations. Specifically, KFC 13 contends that it provided Plaintiff and the Class with required meal and rest breaks, and provided proper 14 compensation if those breaks were missed. It also contends that it properly tracked and paid Plaintiff 15 and the Class for work performed after its restaurants close. KFC further denies that it failed to provide 16 Plaintiff or the Proposed Class with correctly itemized wage statements, failed to maintain accurate 17 records, failed to pay minimum wage, failed to timely pay all wages due to discharged employees, or 18 committed any unlawful acts that constitute unfair competition or any other violation of any laws. KFC 19 also contends that this case cannot proceed as a class action. 20 § 2.c. The Litigation of the Class Action. The parties have actively litigated the case. The 21 Parties exchanged approximately 25,000 documents, in addition to electronic time records reflecting 22 over two million shifts worked by Team Members in California during the relevant time frame. 23 Additionally, the parties conducted 28 depositions of KFC management, Class members, and expert 24 witnesses. Over 90 written declarations were filed with the Court. In 2010, the Court certified the meal 25 and rest break claims as class actions. It denied class certification as to the off-the-clock claim but 26 indicated that Plaintiff could again request class certification of that claim at a later date. In 2012, KFC 27 asked the Court to reconsider its decision regarding certification of the meal and rest break claims. That 28 request was pending at the time the Parties reached this Settlement.

-3 - NOTICE OF CLASS SETTLEMENT U.S.D.C., S.D. Cal., No. 3:09-cv-02422-JM-DHB

Case 3:09-cv-02422-JM-DHB Document 149-4 Filed 12/21/12 PageID.6940 Page 5 of 12

1 3. SUMMARY OF THE SETTLEMENT 2 § 3.a. The Mediation. The parties participated in extensive settlement discussions, including a 3 day of mediation before a neutral third party, a former federal judge and respected mediator in San 4 Francisco. Soon after the mediation, the Parties reached a settlement. The Settlement represents a 5 compromise regarding disputed claims, considering the risks and uncertainties of continued litigation. 6 Nothing in the Settlement is intended or will be construed as an admission by KFC that Plaintiffs’ 7 claims in the Action have merit or that it has any liability to Plaintiffs or the Class on those claims. 8 Plaintiffs’ counsel has determined that the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate and is in the best 9 interests of the Class Members. 10 § 3.b. The Settlement Agreement and the Court’s Final Approval Hearing. The parties have 11 presented the Settlement to the Court for its review. The Court has granted preliminary approval to the 12 Settlement. As described in this Notice, the Court will hold a hearing on January 28, 2013 to determine 13 whether to grant final approval to the Settlement. Only after the Settlement is granted final approval 14 will money be paid to Class Members under the Settlement. 15 § 3.c. How the Settlement Funds Will Be Distributed. Under the Settlement, KFC will pay 16 $3.55 million. These settlement funds will be used to pay (1) a Class Representative Payment to 17 Plaintiff to compensate her for her services to the Class (see § 6 below), (2) Class Counsel’s attorneys’ 18 fees and costs (see § 7 below) to compensate Plaintiff’s counsel for their services to the Class, (3) the 19 reasonable fees and expenses of the Settlement Administrator, (4) KFC’s share of taxes applicable to the 20 settlement payments designated as wages, and (5) money to all Class Members who properly submit 21 Claim Forms (see § 4.a below), pursuant to the plan of allocation (see § 4.b below). 22 § 3.d. You Must File a Claim Form to Receive Money. In order to receive money from the 23 Settlement, a Class Member must submit a Claim Form by the deadline set under the Settlement (see § 4 24 below). 25 § 3.e. Unless You Elect Not to Participate in the Settlement, You Will Be Bound. Unless a 26 Class Member elects not to participate in the Settlement, he or she will be bound by the Settlement, 27 including its release of claims, and will not be allowed to pursue individual claims released under the 28 Settlement against KFC, even if he or she has not submitted a claim for a settlement share (see §§ 4 and

-4 - NOTICE OF CLASS SETTLEMENT U.S.D.C., S.D. Cal., No. 3:09-cv-02422-JM-DHB

Case 3:09-cv-02422-JM-DHB Document 149-4 Filed 12/21/12 PageID.6941 Page 6 of 12

1 9 below). 2 § 3.f. The Final Approval Hearing. The parties have submitted the Settlement to the Court. 3 The Court has granted preliminary approval of the Settlement. The Court will hold a hearing on January 4 28, 2013, at 10:00 a.m., to determine whether to grant final approval to the Settlement (see § 10 below). 5 Only after the Settlement is granted final approval can money be paid to Class Members under the 6 Settlement. 7 4. HOW TO RECEIVE MONEY FROM THE SETTLEMENT (COMPLETING AND 8 SUBMITTING THE CLAIM FORM) 9 § 4.a. Participating in the Settlement by Completing and Submitting the Claim Form. If you 10 want to receive money from the Settlement, you must complete and submit the Claim Form attached to 11 this notice, postmarked or received by the Settlement Administrator by December 28, 2012: Hines v. KFC Settlement Administrator 12 Post Office Box 10829 Tallahassee, FL 32302-2829 13 Toll Free: (855) 272-2481 14 Fax: (850) 385-6008 15 A postage pre-paid, self-addressed return envelope is enclosed for your convenience. If you need 16 another Claim Form, contact the Settlement Administrator. 17 If you do not properly submit a Claim Form, postmarked or received by the Claims 18 Administrator by December 28, 2012, you will not receive any money from the Settlement. 19 § 4.b. How Will My Settlement Share Be Calculated? The Settlement Fund equals $3,550,000 20 plus interest running from the date on which KFC deposits the money into the fund. KFC will pay this 21 amount regardless of the number of Claimants. The Net Settlement Fund equals the Settlement Fund 22 minus (i) the Class Representative Payment (see § 6), (ii) the Class Counsel Attorneys’ Fees and Costs 23 Payment (see § 7), (iii) KFC’s share of taxes applicable to the settlement payments designated as wages, 24 and (iv) the cost of this Notice and settlement administration. 25 From data provided by KFC, the Settlement Administrator will calculate each Claimant’s 26 Settlement Share based on the ratio of the Claimant’s total number of Compensable Work Days to the 27 total number of all Claimants’ Compensable Work Days. Compensable Work Days are defined as shifts 28 over 3.5 hours by a Class Member during the Covered Period. The Covered Period runs from October

-5- NOTICE OF CLASS SETTLEMENT U.S.D.C., S.D. Cal., No. 3:09-cv-02422-JM-DHB

Case 3:09-cv-02422-JM-DHB Document 149-4 Filed 12/21/12 PageID.6942 Page 7 of 12

1 2, 2005 to October 4, 2012. 2 § 4.c. What if the Information on My Claim Form is Incorrect? The Claim Form enclosed with 3 this Notice states the dates of your employment as a Team Member in a KFC California Restaurant 4 within the Covered Period. If you believe the information on the Claim form is incorrect, you must 5 follow the instructions in § 2 of the Claim Form, including providing the correct information and 6 enclosing supporting documentation. Challenges will be resolved by the Settlement Administrator 7 without a hearing. 8 § 4.d. When Will My Share of the Settlement Be Distributed to Me? Within 60 days after the 9 Court’s order granting final approval of the Settlement becomes final and non-appealable, Settlement 10 Share checks will be mailed to all Claimants who submitted valid and timely Claim Forms. It is 11 expected that checks will be mailed out sometime in March of 2013, but that date is subject to change. 12 The Settlement Administrator, working with Plaintiffs’ counsel and KFC, will diligently attempt to 13 ensure that all eligible Claimants receive their Settlement Shares. 14 § 4.e. Settlement Share Checks Not Cashed Within Six Months Will Be Forfeited. If any 15 Claimant who submitted a timely and valid Claim Form does not cash the check(s) for his or her 16 Settlement Share within six (6) months after issuance, he or she will not receive any proceeds under the 17 Settlement, and the Settlement Share proceeds represented by the check (the “Remainder”) will be 18 distributed as follows: 19 1. If the Remainder equals $30,000 or more, it will be distributed to all Claimants who cashed 20 their Settlement Share checks proportionately to their respective Settlement Shares. 2. If the Remainder is less than $30,000, it will be donated in the name of the “Hines v. KFC” 21 Settlement Fund to a charity or charities to be agreed upon by the Parties and approved by 22 the Court. 23 § 4.f. Tax Consequences. Half of each Settlement Share is considered a settlement of claims 24 for wages subject to Form W-2 reporting and therefore will be reduced by normal payroll tax 25 withholding and deductions. KFC’s share of applicable payroll taxes will be paid out of the Settlement 26 Fund. 27 The other half of each Settlement Share is considered a settlement of claims for interest and 28 penalties subject to Form 1099 reporting. You will be responsible for separately paying all taxes owed

-6 - NOTICE OF CLASS SETTLEMENT U.S.D.C., S.D. Cal., No. 3:09-cv-02422-JM-DHB

Case 3:09-cv-02422-JM-DHB Document 149-4 Filed 12/21/12 PageID.6943 Page 8 of 12

1 based on this half of the Settlement Share. 2 You should consult your tax advisor regarding any questions about the tax consequences of the 3 treatment of your Settlement Share. 4 § 4.g. What Happens If Not All of the Settlement Fund Is Claimed? If not all the Class 5 Members submit Claim Forms, all of the Settlement Fund available for distribution will be paid to those 6 Class Members who submitted timely and valid Claim Forms. 7 5. RELEASE OF CLAIMS 8 Under the Settlement, each and every Class Member, except those who timely and validly 9 request not to participate in the Settlement, shall, upon the Settlement becoming Final, release KFC, and 10 its former and current parents, subsidiaries, and affiliated corporations, its officers, directors, 11 shareholders, and any other successors, or assigns from any claims that were brought, or could have 12 been brought, arising out of the facts alleged in the Complaint in this action, including statutory, 13 constitutional, contractual, or common claims for wages, damages, unpaid costs, restitution, penalties, 14 liquidated damages, punitive damages, interest, attorneys’ fees, litigation costs, restitution, and/or 15 equitable relief for failure to provide meal or rest breaks as required by California law, the failure to pay 16 for all the time worked after closing shifts, the failure to pay employees the amounts owed to them when 17 they separated from KFC based on the facts alleged in the complaint, including claims under the 18 California Labor Code relating to meal and rest breaks, overtime, waiting time penalties or record 19 keeping, unfair and unlawful business practices in violation of the California Unfair Competition Law, 20 Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §17200 et seq., arising from these facts, or penalties established by the 21 California Private Attorney General Act, Cal. Labor Code §2698 et seq., arising from these facts 22 (“Released Claims”). 23 Waiver of California Civil Code Section 1542: With respect to the subject matter of their 24 respective Released Claims, Class Members expressly waive and relinquish the provisions, rights and 25 benefits of section 1542 of the California Civil Code and any analogous law, statute, or rule. Section 26 1542 states:

27 A general release does not extend to claims which the creditor does not know or suspect to exist in his or her favor at the time of executing the release, which if known by him or 28 her must have materially affected his or her settlement with the debtor.

-7- NOTICE OF CLASS SETTLEMENT U.S.D.C., S.D. Cal., No. 3:09-cv-02422-JM-DHB

Case 3:09-cv-02422-JM-DHB Document 149-4 Filed 12/21/12 PageID.6944 Page 9 of 12

1 Class Members may hereafter discover facts in addition to or different from those they now 2 know or believe to be true with respect to the subject matter of the Released Claims, but upon the date 3 when the Final Approval Order becomes Final, shall be deemed to have, and by operation of the Final 4 Judgment shall have, fully, finally, and forever settled and released any and all of the Released Claims, 5 whether known or unknown, suspected or unsuspected, contingent or non-contingent, which now exist, 6 or heretofore have existed, upon any theory of law or equity now existing or coming into existence in 7 the future, including, but not limited to, conduct that is negligent, intentional, with or without malice, or 8 a breach of any duty, law or rule, without regard to the subsequent discovery or existence of such 9 different or additional facts. 10 6. CLASS REPRESENTATIVE PAYMENTS 11 Plaintiff will request that the Court approve a Class Representative Payment of $15,000. This 12 amount is in recognition of the services performed by Plaintiff in representing the Class and advancing 13 the litigation. This payment will be paid in addition to Plaintiff’s Settlement Share as a Class Member. 14 The Class Representative Payment will be paid only if the Court approves it. 15 7. CLASS COUNSEL ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS PAYMENT 16 Plaintiffs’ counsel will request that the Court approve a payment of up to 30% of the principal 17 Settlement Fund ($1,065,000) to compensate them for their time and effort in bringing this case, and that 18 it award them an amount up to $100,000 to reimburse them for the out-of-pocket costs they have 19 incurred during the litigation. These amounts, if awarded, will be paid from the Settlement Fund. 20 Plaintiffs’ counsel believe the attorneys’ fees and costs requested are fair and reasonable. These fee and 21 cost payments will be paid only if the Court approves them. 22 8. HOW TO COMMENT ON OR OBJECT TO THE SETTLEMENT (IF DESIRED) 23 If you wish, you may comment on or object to the Settlement by submitting a written notice of 24 comment or objection. Any comments or objections must be postmarked or received by the Settlement 25 Administrator by December 13, 2012: 26 Hines v. KFC Settlement Administrator Post Office Box 10829 27 Tallahassee, FL 32302-2829 28 Toll Free: (855) 272-2481 Fax: (850) 385-6008

-8 - NOTICE OF CLASS SETTLEMENT U.S.D.C., S.D. Cal., No. 3:09-cv-02422-JM-DHB

Case 3:09-cv-02422-JM-DHB Document 149-4 Filed 12/21/12 PageID.6945 Page 10 of 12

1 The objection need not be in any specific form; a short and simple statement of your objection is 2 sufficient. You may be represented by your own attorney, but you do not have to be to object. If you 3 comment through an attorney, you will be solely responsible for the fees and costs of your own attorney. 4 If you wish to present your objection at the final approval hearing, you should state your intention to do 5 so in your written objection. 6 If you object to the Settlement, but wish to receive your individual settlement payment if the 7 Settlement is approved, you must comply with the Claim Form submission requirements described in 8 § 4. If the Court approves the Settlement despite any comments or objections, and you have not 9 properly submitted a Claim Form, you will not receive any money from the Settlement, even if you 10 submitted an objection. 11 9. HOW TO ELECT NOT TO PARTICIPATE IN THE SETTLEMENT (IF DESIRED) 12 If you fall within the class definition provided in § 1.b, you are automatically a Class Member, 13 and will be bound by the Settlement’s release of claims, unless you elect to be excluded from the 14 Settlement. If you elect to be excluded from the Settlement, you will not receive any money from the 15 Settlement, will not be bound by the Settlement, including its release of claims, and will be free to 16 pursue your own claim against KFC (at your own expense). To be excluded, you must timely submit a 17 written request not to participate in the Settlement that contains 1) your name, 2) your signature, and 3) 18 the following language: 19 I understand that, by this request to be excluded from the monetary settlement in this case, I am 20 foregoing all monetary benefits from this Settlement and will receive no money from this Settlement. I understand that I may bring a separate legal action seeking damages, but might 21 receive nothing or less than what I would have received if I had filed a claim under the class monetary settlement procedure in this case. 22 In addition, your written request not to participate in the Settlement must be submitted to the Settlement 23 Administrator, postmarked or received by December 13, 2012: 24 25 Hines v. KFC Settlement Administrator Post Office Box 10829 26 Tallahassee, FL 32302-2829 Toll Free: (855) 272-2481 27 Fax: (850) 385-6008

-9 - NOTICE OF CLASS SETTLEMENT U.S.D.C., S.D. Cal., No. 3:09-cv-02422-JM-DHB

Case 3:09-cv-02422-JM-DHB Document 149-4 Filed 12/21/12 PageID.6946 Page 11 of 12

1 10. FINAL SETTLEMENT APPROVAL HEARING 2 The Court will hold a final approval hearing on January 28, 2013 at 10:00 a.m., in Courtroom 16 3 of the Court, located at 940 Front Street, San Diego, CA 92101-8900, before the Honorable Jeffrey T. 4 Miller, to determine whether the Settlement should be finally approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate. 5 The Court will also be asked to approve Plaintiff’s request for the Class Representative Payment and 6 Plaintiff’s counsel’s request for the Class Counsel Attorneys’ Fees and Costs Payment. The hearing 7 may be postponed without further notice to the Class. It is not necessary for you to appear at this 8 hearing. You may appear at the hearing if you wish, if you have given notice of your comments in 9 favor of or against the Settlement under the procedures set forth in § 8.

10 11. OTHER INFORMATION 11 § 11.a. No Cost to You. The Settlement does not require you to pay money out of pocket. 12 However, you are responsible for all taxes owed on your paid Settlement Shares. 13 § 11.b. Tax Advice Caveat. Any perceived tax advice in this Notice was not intended or written 14 to be used, and it cannot be used by any recipient, for the purpose of avoiding any tax penalties that may 15 be imposed on any person. This Notice imposes no limitation on the disclosure of the tax treatment or 16 tax structure of any transaction. Plaintiff’s counsel cannot give you tax advice. Class Members will be 17 responsible for the payment of any taxes and penalties assessed on the payments described herein. 18 § 11.c. This Notice Provides Only a Summary. This Notice provides only a summary of the 19 basic terms of the Settlement. For the precise terms and conditions of the Settlement, you are referred to 20 the detailed Joint Stipulation of Class Settlement and Class Settlement Agreement and Release, which is 21 on file with the Clerk of the Court. The pleadings and other records in this litigation, including the 22 Settlement, may be examined at any time during regular business hours with the Clerk of Court, 940 23 Front Street, San Diego, CA 92101-8900, or online on through the Public Access to Court Electronic 24 Resources system, known as “PACER,” at https://ecf.casd.uscourts.gov. You also may contact 25 Plaintiff’s counsel at 1-310-961-9646. Please do not telephone the court or KFC’s counsel for 26 information regarding this Settlement or the claim process. 27 § 11.d. Questions. 28 If you have questions, please feel free to contact the Settlement Administrator:

-10 - NOTICE OF CLASS SETTLEMENT U.S.D.C., S.D. Cal., No. 3:09-cv-02422-JM-DHB

Case 3:09-cv-02422-JM-DHB Document 149-4 Filed 12/21/12 PageID.6947 Page 12 of 12

1 Hines v. KFC Settlement Administrator Post Office Box 10829 2 Tallahassee, FL 32302-2829 3 Toll Free: (855) 272-2481 Fax: (850) 385-6008 4 You can also check the website for this Class Action: www.KFCCAwagesettlement.com. 5 If you would like to speak with an attorney, please contact Class Counsel as follows: 6  Matthew J. Matern and Wendy Sha at Rastegar & Matern, Attorneys At Law, APC, 1010 7 Crenshaw Boulevard, Suite 100, Torrance, CA 90501  James M. Finberg, Eve H. Cervantez, and Peder J. Thoreen at Altshuler Berzon, LLP, 8 177 Post St., Suite 300, San Francisco, CA 94108 9  By telephone: 1-310-961-9646. 10 * * * 11 By order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. 12 Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller 13 Dated: October 29, 2012. United States District Judge

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-11 - NOTICE OF CLASS SETTLEMENT U.S.D.C., S.D. Cal., No. 3:09-cv-02422-JM-DHB

Case 3:09-cv-02422-JM-DHB Document 149-5 Filed 12/21/12 PageID.6948 Page 1 of 13

EXHIBIT B Case 3:09-cv-02422-JM-DHB Document 149-5 Filed 12/21/12 PageID.6949 Page 2 of 13

1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3 DOMONIQUE HINES, individually, and on Case No. 3:09-cv-02422-JM-DHB 4 behalf of all other similarly situated current and former employees of KFC U.S. SPANISH TRANSLATION OF 5 Properties, Inc., NOTICE OF (1) PROPOSED CLASS 6 Plaintiffs, SETTLEMENT AND (2) FINAL SETTLEMENT APPROVAL HEARING 7 v.

8 KFC U.S. PROPERTIES, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, 9 inclusive,

10 Defendants. 11

12 Este Aviso, que cuenta con la aprobación del Tribunal, es para notificar a los Miembros del 13 Colectivo de la demanda colectiva Hines v. KFC U.S. Properties, Inc. sobre el Acuerdo propuesto 14 de $3.55 millones (el “Acuerdo”) acordado por las partes. El Tribunal ha otorgado su aprobación 15 preliminar al Acuerdo. 16 Fechas importantes 17  Si desea reclamar una parte del Acuerdo descrito en este aviso, debe llenar y presentar un 18 Formulario de Reclamación, mismo que debe ser recibido por el Administrador del Acuerdo a más tardar el 28 de diciembre 2012 o contar con matasellos de dicha fecha o anterior; de lo contrario, no 19 recibirá su parte del Acuerdo. 20  Si desea hacer comentarios o objetar al Acuerdo, su comentario o objeción deberá ser recibido por el Administrador del Acuerdo a más tardar el 13 de diciembre 2012 o contar con matasellos de dicha 21 fecha o anterior; de lo contrario se considerará que ha renunciado a su derecho a presentar una objeción. 22  Si no desea participar en el acuerdo, debe solicitar su exclusión del mismo de acuerdo con las 23 instrucciones en este aviso y su solicitud deberá ser recibida por el Administrador del Acuerdo a más tardar el 13 de diciembre 2012 o contar con matasellos de dicha fecha o anterior; de lo contrario, 24 usted estará obligado por el acuerdo incluso si no reclama su parte en el mismo. 25 Todos los formularios de reclamación, comentarios, objeciones y solicitudes de no participar en el 26 Acuerdo deben ser recibidos por el Administrador del Acuerdo o contar con matasellos con fecha de, a más tardar, la fecha límite correspondiente: 27 Hines v. KFC Administrador del Acuerdo 28 Post Office Box 10829 Tallahassee, FL 32302-2829 SPANISH TRANSLATION OF NOTICE OF CLASS SETTLEMENT U.S.D.C., S.D. CAL., NO. 3:09-CV-02422-JM-DHB

Case 3:09-cv-02422-JM-DHB Document 149-5 Filed 12/21/12 PageID.6950 Page 3 of 13

1 Sin Cargos: (855) 272-2481 Fax: (850) 385-6008 2 Conforme a la instrucción del Tribunal de Distrito de los Estados Unidos para el Distrito Sur de 3 California (el “Tribunal”) celebrada el 04 de octubre 2012, POR ESTE MEDIO SE LE NOTIFICA LO 4 SIGUIENTE: 5 1. RESUMEN DEL ACUERDO Y MIS DERECHOS 6 § 1.a. ¿Qué es una demanda colectiva? Una demanda colectiva es una demanda en la que las 7 reclamaciones y derechos de varias personas en situación similar (los “Miembros del Colectivo”) se 8 deciden en un mismo proceso judicial. Uno o más demandantes representativos (los “Representantes del 9 Colectivo”) presentan una demanda en la que se afirman derechos en representación de todos los 10 Miembros del Colectivo. 11 § 1.b. La definición del Colectivo. Se le envió este aviso porque los registros de KFC 12 muestran que usted es un Miembro del Colectivo. El Colectivo incluye a todas las personas que 13 trabajaron en KFC en California con el puesto de “miembro de equipo” en cualquier momento entre el 2 14 de octubre de 2005 y 04 de octubre 2012, que no presenten en tiempo y forma una solicitud válida de no 15 participar en el Acuerdo conforme al procedimiento descrito en § 8. Cabe mencionar que trabajar 16 para un franquiciatario de KFC no entra en la definición del Colectivo. 17 § 1.c. Opciones y fechas. Usted tiene varias opciones: 18 (1) Para recibir un pago conforme al Acuerdo, debe completar un Formulario de 19 Reclamación (que se adjunta a este Aviso) y enviarlo al Administrador del Acuerdo, mismo que deberá 20 ser recibido a más tardar el 28 de diciembre 2012 o contar con matasellos de dicha fecha o anterior, 21 siguiendo el procedimiento descrito en § 4.a. De no hacerlo, no recibirá dinero alguno de este Acuerdo. 22 (2) Puede comentar u objetar al Acuerdo en documento por escrito, mismo que deberá ser a 23 más tardar el 13 de diciembre 2012 o contar con matasellos de esa fecha o anterior, siguiendo el 24 procedimiento descrito en § 8. 25 (3) Puede solicitar ser excluido del Acuerdo de acuerdo con las instrucciones en § 9 a 26 continuación. Si decide ser excluido del Acuerdo, no será más un Miembro del Colectivo, y por lo 27 tanto, no recibirá dinero alguno de este Acuerdo ni relevará su derecho a reclamación, lo que significa 28

-2 - SPANISH TRANSLATION OF NOTICE OF CLASS SETTLEMENT U.S.D.C., S.D. Cal., No. 3:09-cv-02422-JM-DHB

Case 3:09-cv-02422-JM-DHB Document 149-5 Filed 12/21/12 PageID.6951 Page 4 of 13

1 que podrá interponer una demanda separada por su cuenta por estas reclamaciones. A menos que 2 solicite adecuadamente ser excluido, usted será un Miembro del Colectivo y relevará sus derechos sobre 3 todas las reclamaciones alegadas en este caso (vea § 5, a continuación) aún si no llena un Formulario de 4 Reclamación. A fin de solicitar no participar en el Acuerdo, debe seguir las instrucciones descritas en § 5 9 y enviar su solicitud por escrito al Administrador del Acuerdo, misma que deberá ser recibida a más 6 tardar el 13 de diciembre 2012 o contar con matasellos de esa fecha o anterior.

7 2. ANTECEDENTES DEL CASO 8 § 2.a. Las Reclamaciones en cuestión. El 2 de octubre de 2009, la demandante Domonique 9 Hines (la “Demandante”) presentó una denuncia de demanda colectiva contra KFC. En la demanda, la 10 Demandante alegaba que KFC había incumplido remunerar adecuadamente a ella y al Colectivo por las 11 pausas para comer y descansos perdidos, tardíos o más breves de lo debido, conforme a lo establecido 12 por las leyes de California, y había incumplido pagar adecuadamente a ella y al Colectivo por el trabajo 13 realizado después de la hora de cierre de los restaurantes KFC y que no fue registrado por el reloj 14 checador. La Demandante solicitó la remuneración adeudada conforme a las leyes en materia de 15 salarios y horarios de California. La Demandante alegó además que KFC había incumplido darle a ella 16 y al Colectivo registros precisos de las horas trabajadas o pagar a tiempo todos los salarios adeudados a 17 los empleados cuya relación laboral con KFC había terminado, conforme a lo establecido por las leyes 18 de California. El Demandante alegó también que, al cometer los actos ilícitos que se alegan en su 19 denuncia, KFC participó en una competencia desleal en violación del Código de Negocios y Profesiones 20 de California § 17200 y posteriores. 21 § 2.b. Negación de responsabilidad por parte de KFC. KFC niega todos los alegatos de la 22 Demandante. En específico, KFC argumenta que proporcionó al Demandante y al Colectivo las pausas 23 para comer y los descansos requeridos y que proporcionó una remuneración adecuada cuando no se 24 tomaban dichas pausas y descansos. Argumenta también que llevó un registro adecuado y pagó a la 25 Demandante y al Colectivo por el trabajo realizado después de la hora de cierre de sus restaurantes. 26 KFC niega además que haya incumplido dar a la Demandante o el Colectivo Propuesto un desglose 27 correcto de los conceptos del salario, que haya incumplido llevar registros precisos, que haya 28 incumplido pagar el salario mínimo, que haya incumplido pagar oportunamente todos los salarios

-3 - SPANISH TRANSLATION OF NOTICE OF CLASS SETTLEMENT U.S.D.C., S.D. Cal., No. 3:09-cv-02422-JM-DHB

Case 3:09-cv-02422-JM-DHB Document 149-5 Filed 12/21/12 PageID.6952 Page 5 of 13

1 adeudados a los empleados despedidos ni que haya cometido acto ilícito alguno que constituya una 2 competencia desleal ni cualquier otra violación a las leyes. KFC argumenta también que este caso no 3 puede proceder como demanda colectiva. 4 § 2.c. El litigio de la Demanda Colectiva Las partes han litigado el caso activamente. Las 5 Partes intercambiaron aproximadamente 25,000 documentos, además de registros electrónicos de tiempo 6 que reflejaban más de dos millones de turnos trabajados por los Miembros de Equipo en California 7 durante el periodo en cuestión. Además, las partes realizaron 28 declaraciones juradas de directivos de 8 KFC, miembros del colectivo y peritos. Se presentaron más de 90 declaraciones por escrito al Tribunal. 9 En 2010, el Tribunal certificó las reclamaciones de pausas para comer y descansos como demandas 10 colectiva. Negó la certificación de colectivo respecto a la reclamación del trabajo no registrado por el 11 reloj checador, pero indicó que la Demandante podría nuevamente solicitar la certificación de colectivo 12 para esa reclamación posteriormente. En 2012, KFC pidió al Tribunal reconsiderar su decisión respecto 13 a la certificación de las reclamaciones de pausas para comer y descansos. Dicha petición estaba 14 pendiente al momento en que las Partes llegaron a este Acuerdo.

15 3. RESUMEN DEL ACUERDO 16 § 3.a. La mediación. Las partes participaron en extensas discusiones del Acuerdo, lo que 17 incluyó un día de mediación ante un tercero neutral, un ex juez federal y mediador respetado en San 18 Francisco. Poco después de la mediación, las Partes llegaron a un acuerdo. El Acuerdo representa un 19 compromiso respecto a las reclamaciones motivo de controversia, considerando los riesgos y la 20 incertidumbre de seguir con un litigio. Nada de lo contenido en este Acuerdo busca ser ni debe ser

21 interpretado como una aceptación por parte de KFC de que las reclamaciones de la demanda presentada 22 por los demandantes tenga mérito alguno o de que tenga responsabilidad alguna para con los 23 demandantes o con el colectivo sobre dichas reclamaciones. Los asesores de la Demandante han 24 determinado que el Acuerdo es justo, razonable y adecuado y que es para los mejores intereses de los 25 Miembros del Colectivo.

26 § 3.b. El convenio del acuerdo y la audiencia de aprobación final del Tribunal. Las partes han 27 presentado el Acuerdo al Tribunal para su revisión. El Tribunal ha otorgado su aprobación preliminar al 28 Acuerdo. Como se describe en este Aviso, el Tribunal sostendrá una audiencia el 28 de enero 2013 para

-4 - SPANISH TRANSLATION OF NOTICE OF CLASS SETTLEMENT U.S.D.C., S.D. Cal., No. 3:09-cv-02422-JM-DHB

Case 3:09-cv-02422-JM-DHB Document 149-5 Filed 12/21/12 PageID.6953 Page 6 of 13

1 determinar si otorgará la aprobación final del Acuerdo. Solo después que se otorgue la aprobación final 2 al Acuerdo se pagará el dinero a los Miembros del Colectivo conforme al Acuerdo. 3 § 3.c. Cómo se distribuirán los fondos del Acuerdo. Conforme al Acuerdo, KFC pagará $3.55 4 millones. Los fondos de este acuerdo se usarán para pagar (1) un Pago de Representante del Colectivo a 5 la Demandante como remuneración por sus servicios para con el Colectivo (vea § 6 a continuación), (2) 6 los honorarios y gastos legales de los Asesores del Colectivo (vea § 7 a continuación) para remunerar a 7 los asesores de la Demandante por sus servicios para con el Colectivo; (3) los honorarios y gastos 8 razonables del Administrador del Acuerdo, (4) la parte de KFC de los impuestos aplicables a los pagos 9 del acuerdo designados como salarios, y (5) dinero a todos los Miembros del Colectivo que hayan 10 presentado adecuadamente sus Formularios de Reclamación (vea § 4.a. a continuación), conforme al 11 plan de asignación (vea § 4.b. a continuación). 12 § 3.d. Debe presentar un Formulario de Reclamación para recibir dinero. A fin de recibir 13 dinero del Acuerdo, un Miembro del Colectivo debe enviar un Formulario de Reclamación a más tardar 14 en la fecha límite establecida conforme al Acuerdo (vea § 4 a continuación). 15 § 3.e. A menos que elija no participar en el Acuerdo, estará obligado por el mismo. A menos 16 que un Miembro del Colectivo elija no participar en el Acuerdo, estará obligado por el mismo, lo que 17 incluye su descargo de responsabilidades, y no tendrá permitido emprender por su cuenta las 18 reclamaciones individuales que hayan sido descargadas al amparo del Acuerdo contra KFC, aún si no 19 hubiera enviado una reclamación de su parte en el acuerdo (vea §§ 4 y 9 a continuación). 20 § 3.f. La audiencia de aprobación final. Las partes han presentado el Acuerdo ante el Tribunal.

21 El Tribunal ha otorgado su aprobación preliminar al Acuerdo. El Tribunal sostendrá una audiencia el 28 22 de enero 2013, a las 10 a.m., para determinar si otorgará la aprobación final al Acuerdo (vea § 10 a 23 continuación). Solo después que se otorgue la aprobación final al Acuerdo se podrá pagar el dinero a los 24 Miembros del Colectivo conforme al Acuerdo.

25 4. CÓMO RECIBIR DINERO DEL ACUERDO (LLENAR Y PRESENTAR UN FORMULARIO DE RECLAMACIÓN) 26 § 4.a. Participación en el Acuerdo mediante el llenado y la presentación del Formulario de 27 Reclamación. Si desea recibir dinero del Acuerdo, debe llenar y presentar el Formulario de 28

-5- SPANISH TRANSLATION OF NOTICE OF CLASS SETTLEMENT U.S.D.C., S.D. Cal., No. 3:09-cv-02422-JM-DHB

Case 3:09-cv-02422-JM-DHB Document 149-5 Filed 12/21/12 PageID.6954 Page 7 of 13

1 Reclamación adjunto a este aviso, que deberá ser recibido por el Administrador del Acuerdo a más 2 tardar el 28 de diciembre 2012 o tener matasellos de dicha fecha o anterior: Hines v. KFC Administrador del Acuerdo 3 Post Office Box 10829 4 Tallahassee, FL 32302-2829 Gratis: (855) 272-2481 5 Fax: (850) 385-6008 6 Se incluye para su conveniencia un sobre de devolución prepagado y con remitente prellenado. Si 7 necesita otro Formulario de Reclamación, póngase en contacto con el Administrador del Acuerdo. 8 Si no presenta adecuadamente un Formulario de Reclamación, que sea recibido por el 9 Administrador de Reclamaciones a más tardar el 28 de diciembre 2012 o tenga matasellos de dicha 10 fecha o anterior, no recibirá dinero alguno del Acuerdo. 11 § 4.b. ¿Cómo se calculará mi parte del Acuerdo? El Fondo del Acuerdo es igual a $3,550,000 12 más intereses corrientes a partir de la fecha en que KFC deposite el dinero en el fondo. KFC pagará esta 13 cantidad independientemente del número de Reclamantes. El Fondo del Acuerdo Neto es igual al Fondo 14 de Acuerdo menos (i) el pago para el Representante del Colectivo (vea § 6), (ii) el pago de honorarios y 15 costos legales para los Asesores del Colectivo (vea § 7), (iii) la parte de KFC de impuestos aplicables 16 para los pagos del Acuerdo designados como salarios, y (iv) el costo de este aviso y la administración 17 del acuerdo. 18 Con los datos proporcionados por KFC, el Administrador del Acuerdo calculará la Parte del 19 Acuerdo de cada Reclamante con base en la proporción del número total de Días de Trabajo 20 Remunerables del Reclamante en relación al número total de los Días de Trabajo Remunerables de todos 21 los Reclamantes. Los Días de Trabajo Remunerables se definen como turnos de más de 3.5 horas por 22 parte de un Miembro del Colectivo durante el Periodo Cubierto. El Periodo Cubierto corre a partir del 2 23 de octubre de 2005 al 04 de octubre 2012. 24 § 4.c. ¿Qué sucede si la información en mi Formulario de Reclamación es incorrecta? El 25 Formulario de Reclamación incluido con este Aviso indica las fechas de su relación laboral como 26 Miembro de Equipo en un restaurante de KFC en California dentro del Periodo Cubierto. Si considera 27 que la información en el Formulario de Reclamación es incorrecta, debe seguir las instrucciones en § 2 28 de dicho formulario, lo que incluye proporcionar la información correcta e incluir documentación que

-6 - SPANISH TRANSLATION OF NOTICE OF CLASS SETTLEMENT U.S.D.C., S.D. Cal., No. 3:09-cv-02422-JM-DHB

Case 3:09-cv-02422-JM-DHB Document 149-5 Filed 12/21/12 PageID.6955 Page 8 of 13

1 respalde su dicho. Dichos cuestionamientos serán resueltos por el Administrador del Acuerdo sin una 2 audiencia. 3 § 4.d. ¿Cuándo se me hará llegar mi parte del Acuerdo? Dentro de los 60 días posteriores a que 4 el fallo del Tribunal que otorga la aprobación final del Acuerdo se vuelva definitivo y no apelable, se 5 enviarán a todos los Reclamantes que hayan presentado en tiempo y forma su Formulario de 6 Reclamación los cheques de su Parte del Acuerdo. La expectativa es que se envíen los cheques por 7 correo alrededor de marzo de 2013, pero dicha fecha está sujeta a cambios. El Administrador del 8 Acuerdo, en colaboración con los asesores de la Demandante y KFC, tratarán diligentemente de 9 asegurarse que todos los Reclamantes que cumplan con los requisitos reciban su Parte del Acuerdo. 10 § 4.e. Los cheques de su parte del acuerdo no cobrados en un plazo de seis meses seran 11 perdidos. Si algún Reclamante que haya presentado en tiempo y forma un Formulario de Reclamación 12 no cobra el(los) cheque(s) de su Parte del Acuerdo en un plazo de 6 (seis) meses después de su emisión, 13 no recibirá dinero alguno del Acuerdo y su Parte del Acuerdo correspondiente a dicho(s) cheque(s) (el 14 "Remanente") será distribuido como a continuación: 15 1. Si el Remanente es igual a $30,000 o más, será distribuido a todos los Reclamantes que hayan cobrado los cheques de su Parte del Acuerdo, de manera proporcional a su parte 16 correspondiente. 17 2. Si el Remanente es menor a $30,000, será donado a nombre del Fondo de Acuerdo “Hines vs. KFC” a una o varias organizaciones caritativas según lo acuerden las Partes y con 18 aprobación del Tribunal. 19 § 4.f. Consecuencias impositivas. La mitad de cada Parte del Acuerdo se considera un acuerdo 20 de las reclamaciones por salarios sujetas a la presentación del Formulario W-2 y, por ende, se hará la 21 reducción correspondiente por concepto de retenciones y deducciones del impuesto sobre nóminas 22 normal. La parte de KFC de impuestos sobre nómina aplicables se pagará con el dinero del Fondo del 23 Acuerdo. 24 La otra mitad de cada Parte del Acuerdo se considera un acuerdo de las reclamaciones de 25 intereses y penalizaciones sujeta a la presentación del Formulario 1099. Usted será el responsable de 26 pagar por separado todos los impuestos adeudados con base en esta mitad de su Parte del Acuerdo. 27 Deberá consultar a un asesor fiscal respecto a cualquier pregunta sobre las consecuencias 28 impositivas del tratamiento de su Parte del Acuerdo.

-7- SPANISH TRANSLATION OF NOTICE OF CLASS SETTLEMENT U.S.D.C., S.D. Cal., No. 3:09-cv-02422-JM-DHB

Case 3:09-cv-02422-JM-DHB Document 149-5 Filed 12/21/12 PageID.6956 Page 9 of 13

1 § 4.g. ¿Qué pasa si no se reclama la totalidad del Fondo de Acuerdo? Si no todos los Miembros 2 del Colectivo presentan Formularios de Reclamación, todo el Fondo del Acuerdo disponible para su 3 distribución se pagará a aquellos Miembros del Colectivo que hayan presentado sus Formularios de 4 Reclamación en tiempo y forma.

5 5. DESCARGO DE RESPONSABILIDADES. 6 Conforme al Acuerdo, todos y cada uno de los Miembros del Colectivo, salvo aquellos que 7 hayan solicitado en tiempo y forma no participar en el Acuerdo, deberán, al convertirse el Acuerdo en 8 definitivo, liberar a KFC y sus casas matrices, compañías subsidiarias y afiliadas, sus funcionarios, 9 directivos, accionistas y cualquier otro sucesor o cesionario, de cualquier reclamación que hayan 10 interpuesto, o pudieran haber interpuesto, resultado de los hechos alegados en la denuncia objeto de esta 11 demanda, lo que incluye las reclamaciones en materia de derecho legislado, constitucional, contractual o 12 común por salarios, daños, costos no pagados, indemnización, penalizaciones, daños determinados, 13 daños punitivos, intereses, honorarios legales, costos de litigio, restitución y/o otros recursos 14 equiparables por el incumplimiento de proveer pausas para comer y descansos como lo especifica la ley 15 de California, el incumplimiento del pago de todo el tiempo trabajado después del fin de los turnos, el 16 incumplimiento de pago a los empleados de los montos que se les adeudaban al terminar su relación 17 laboral con KFC con base en los hechos alegados en la denuncia, lo que incluye las reclamaciones 18 conforme al Código Laboral de California en materia de pausas para comer y descansos, horas extras, 19 penalizaciones por tiempo de espera y la conservación de registros, prácticas comerciales desleales e 20 ilícitas en violación de la Ley de competencia desleal de California, el Código de Negocios y 21 Profesiones de California §17200 y posteriores, resultado de estos hechos o las penalizaciones 22 establecidas y la ley de California sobre el derecho de los particulares a representarse en un juicio 23 (PAGA), el Código Laboral de California §2698 y posteriores, resultado de estos hechos (las 24 “Reclamaciones Relevadas”). 25 Renuncia de la sección 1542 del Código Civil de California: Con respecto al tema de sus 26 respectivas Reclamaciones Relevadas, los Miembros del Colectivo renuncian expresamente a las 27 disposiciones, derechos y beneficios de la sección 1542 del Código Civil de California y toda ley, 28 estatuto o regla análogos. La sección 1542 indica:

-8 - SPANISH TRANSLATION OF NOTICE OF CLASS SETTLEMENT U.S.D.C., S.D. Cal., No. 3:09-cv-02422-JM-DHB

Case 3:09-cv-02422-JM-DHB Document 149-5 Filed 12/21/12 PageID.6957 Page 10 of 13

1 “Un descargo general no abarca las reclamaciones que el acreedor no sepa ni sospeche que existan en su favor al momento de firmar el descargo, que de haberlas conocido 2 hubieran afectado de manera importante el acuerdo acordado con el deudor.” 3 Los Miembros del Colectivo pueden en lo sucesivo descubrir hechos adicionales o distintos a los 4 que ahora conocen o consideran verdaderos con respecto al tema motivo de las Reclamaciones 5 Relevadas, pero a la fecha en que el fallo de aprobación final se vuelva definitivo, se considerará que 6 han sido completa, definitiva y por siempre finiquitadas y relevadas, conocidas o desconocidas, 7 sospechadas o insospechadas, contingentes o no contingentes, que existan ahora o hayan existido en lo 8 sucesivo, y de hecho así será por resolución de la Sentencia Final, ante cualquier fundamento legal o de 9 equidad existente ahora o que llegue a existir en el futuro, lo que incluye, de manera enunciativa mas no 10 limitativa, conductas que sean negligentes, intencionales, con o sin malicia, o una violación de todo 11 deber, ley o regla, sin considerar el descubrimiento o existencia posterior de dichos hechos distintos o 12 adicionales. 13 6. PAGOS A LOS REPRESENTANTES DEL COLECTIVO 14 El Demandante solicitará que el Tribunal apruebe un Pago para el Representante del Colectivo 15 por $15,000. Esta cantidad es un reconocimiento de los servicios realizados por la Demandante en 16 representación del Colectivo y para hacer avanzar el litigio. Este pago se hará adicional a la Parte del 17 Acuerdo de la Demandante como Miembro del Colectivo. El Pago para la Representante del Colectivo 18 se hará únicamente si el Tribunal lo aprueba. 19 7. PAGO DE HONORARIOS Y COSTOS LEGALES A LOS ASESORES DEL 20 COLECTIVO 21 Los asesores de los Demandantes solicitarán que el Tribunal apruebe un pago de hasta 30% del 22 capital del Fondo del Acuerdo ($1,065,000) para remunerarlos por su tiempo y esfuerzo para interponer 23 este caso y que se les otorgue una cantidad de hasta $100,000 para reembolsarles los costos 24 desembolsados en que hayan incurrido durante el litigio. Estos montos, de ser otorgados, se pagarán con 25 el Fondo del Acuerdo. Los asesores de los Demandantes consideran que los honorarios y costos legales 26 solicitados son justos y razonables. El pago de estos honorarios y costos sólo se harán si el Tribunal los 27 aprueba.

28 8. CÓMO HACER COMENTARIOS U OBJETAR AL ACUERDO (SI ASÍ LO DESEA)

-9 - SPANISH TRANSLATION OF NOTICE OF CLASS SETTLEMENT U.S.D.C., S.D. Cal., No. 3:09-cv-02422-JM-DHB

Case 3:09-cv-02422-JM-DHB Document 149-5 Filed 12/21/12 PageID.6958 Page 11 of 13

1 Si quiere, puede hacer comentarios u objetar al acuerdo presentando un aviso por escrito de 2 dicho comentario u objeción. Todo comentario u objeción debe ser recibido por el Administrador del 3 Acuerdo a más tardar del 13 de diciembre 2012 o tener matasellos de dicha fecha o anterior: Hines v. KFC Administrador del Acuerdo 4 Post Office Box 10829 5 Tallahassee, FL 32302-2829 Sin Cargos: (855) 272-2481 6 Fax: (850) 385-6008 7 No es necesario presentar la objeción en un formulario específico; es suficiente con hacer una 8 declaración breve y sencilla de su objeción. Puede ser representado por su propio abogado, pero no es 9 necesario contar con uno para poder objetar. Si emite su comentario a través de un abogado, usted será 10 el único responsable del pago de los honorarios y costos del mismo. Si desea presentar su objeción en la 11 audiencia de aprobación final, deberá indicar su intención de hacerlo en su objeción por escrito. 12 Si objeta al Acuerdo pero desea recibir su pago individual del acuerdo en caso que este sea 13 aprobado, debe cumplir con los requisitos de presentación del Formulario de Reclamación descritos en § 14 4. Si el Tribunal aprueba el Acuerdo a pesar de los comentarios u objeciones y usted no ha presentado 15 un Formulario de Reclamación en tiempo y forma, no recibirá dinero alguno del Acuerdo, aún si 16 presentó una objeción. 17 9. CÓMO OPTAR POR NO PARTICIPAR EN EL ACUERDO (SI ASÍ LO DESEA) 18 Si usted está en el supuesto de la definición del colectivo dada en § 1.b, automáticamente es un 19 Miembro del Colectivo y estará obligado por el descargo de responsabilidades del Acuerdo, a menos que 20 opte por ser excluido del Acuerdo. Si opta por ser excluido del Acuerdo, no recibirá dinero alguno del 21 mismo, no estará obligado por el Acuerdo, lo que incluye el descargo de responsabilidades bajo el 22 mismo, y será libre de emprender su propia reclamación contra KFC (a su cuenta y cargo). Para ser 23 excluido, debe presentar en tiempo y forma una solicitud por escrito de no participar en el Acuerdo que 24 contenga 1) su nombre, 2) su firma y 3) el texto siguiente: 25 Entiendo que, por efecto de esta solicitud de ser excluido del acuerdo monetario en este caso, estoy renunciando a todos los beneficios monetarios de este Acuerdo y no recibiré dinero alguno 26 del mismo. Entiendo que puedo interponer una demanda legal aparte para solicitar la restitución de daños, pero pudiera no recibir nada o recibir menos de lo que podría haber recibido si hubiera 27 presentado una reclamación al amparo del procedimiento del acuerdo monetario colectivo de este caso. 28

-10 - SPANISH TRANSLATION OF NOTICE OF CLASS SETTLEMENT U.S.D.C., S.D. Cal., No. 3:09-cv-02422-JM-DHB

Case 3:09-cv-02422-JM-DHB Document 149-5 Filed 12/21/12 PageID.6959 Page 12 of 13

1 Además, su solicitud por escrito de no participar en el Acuerdo se debe enviar al Administrador del 2 acuerdo, y ser recibida a más tardar del 13 de diciembre 2012 o contar con matasellos de dicha fecha o 3 anterior: Hines v. KFC Administrador del Acuerdo 4 Post Office Box 10829 5 Tallahassee, FL 32302-2829 Gratis: (855) 272-2481 6 Fax: (850) 385-6008 7 10. AUDIENCIA FINAL DE APROBACIÓN DEL ACUERDO 8 El Tribunal sostendrá una audiencia de aprobación final el 28 de enero 2013 a las 10 a.m., en la 9 sala 16 del tribunal, ubicada en 940 Front Street, San Diego, CA 92101-8900, ante el Honorable Jeffrey 10 T. Miller, a fin de determinar si se deberá aprobar definitivamente el Acuerdo como justo, razonable y 11 adecuado. Se pedirá también al Tribunal que apruebe la solicitud del Demandante del Pago al 12 Representante del Colectivo y la solicitud de los asesores del Demandante del pago de honorarios y 13 costos legales para los Asesores del Colectivo. La audiencia pudiera posponerse sin más aviso para el 14 Colectivo. No es necesario que se presente a esta audiencia. Puede presentarse a la audiencia si así lo 15 desea, si ha dado aviso de sus comentarios a favor o en contra del Acuerdo conforme a los 16 procedimientos establecidos en § 8. 17 11. OTRA INFORMACIÓN 18 § 11.a. Sin costo para usted. Para el Acuerdo no es necesario que usted desembolse dinero 19 alguno. Sin embargo, usted es el responsable de todos los impuestos adeudados por su Parte del 20 Acuerdo que le sea pagada. 21 § 11.b. Advertencia de asesoría fiscal. Toda percepción de asesoría fiscal en este Aviso no es 22 intencional ni se redactó para su utilización y ningún destinatario puede usarla para fines de evitar 23 penalizaciones fiscales que pudieran ser impuestas por otros. Este Aviso no impone limitación alguna a 24 la divulgación del tratamiento o estructura impositiva de cualquier transacción. Los asesores del 25 Demandante no pueden darle asesoría fiscal. Los Miembros del Colectivo serán los responsables del 26 pago de los impuestos y penalizaciones que se calculen sobre los pagos descritos en el presente 27 documento. 28 § 11.c. Este Aviso le proporciona únicamente un resumen. Este Aviso le proporciona

-11 - SPANISH TRANSLATION OF NOTICE OF CLASS SETTLEMENT U.S.D.C., S.D. Cal., No. 3:09-cv-02422-JM-DHB

Case 3:09-cv-02422-JM-DHB Document 149-5 Filed 12/21/12 PageID.6960 Page 13 of 13

1 únicamente un resumen de los términos básicos del Acuerdo. Para ver los términos y condiciones 2 precisos del Acuerdo, consulte la estipulación conjunta del Acuerdo de la Demanda Colectiva y el 3 descargo y convenio de Acuerdo de la Demanda Colectiva, que se encuentra en el expediente del 4 Secretario de Acuerdos. Los escritos iniciales y otros registros de este litigio, incluido el Acuerdo, se 5 pueden examinar en cualquier momento durante horas laborales regulares con el Secretario de Acuerdos, 6 940 Front Street, San Diego, CA 92101-8900, o en línea a través del sistema de acceso público a los 7 recursos electrónicos del tribunal, conocido como “PACER”, en https://ecf.casd.uscourts.gov. También 8 puede ponerse en contacto con los asesores de la Demandante al 1-310-961-9646. Por favor, no llame 9 por teléfono al tribunal ni a los asesores de KFC para pedir información respecto a este Acuerdo o 10 al proceso de reclamación. 11 § 11.d. Preguntas. 12 Si tiene alguna pregunta, no dude en ponerse en contacto con el Administrador del Acuerdo:

13 Hines v. KFC Administrador del Acuerdo 14 Post Office Box 10829 Tallahassee, FL 32302-2829 15 Sin Cargos: (855) 272-2481 Fax: (850) 385-6008 16 También puede mirar el sitio web de esta Demanda Colectiva: 17 www.KFCCAwagesettlement.com. 18 Si desea hablar con un abogado, póngase en contacto con los Asesores del Colectivo, (los 19 abogados que representan al Colectivo) en: 20  Matthew J. Matern y Wendy Sha de Rastegar & Matern, Attorneys At Law, APC, 1010 21 Crenshaw Boulevard, Suite 100, Torrance, CA 90501 22  James M. Finberg, Eve H. Cervantez y Peder J. Thoreen de Altshuler Berzon, LLP, 177 Post St., Suite 300, San Francisco, CA 94108 23  Por teléfono: 1-310-961-9646. 24 * * * 25 Por instrucción del Tribunal de Distrito de los Estados Unidos para el Distrito Sur de California. 26 Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller 27 Fecha: 29 de octubre 2012. Juez de distrito de los Estados Unidos

-12 - SPANISH TRANSLATION OF NOTICE OF CLASS SETTLEMENT U.S.D.C., S.D. Cal., No. 3:09-cv-02422-JM-DHB

Case 3:09-cv-02422-JM-DHB Document 149-6 Filed 12/21/12 PageID.6961 Page 1 of 3

EXHIBIT C Case 3:09-cv-02422-JM-DHB Document 149-6 Filed 12/21/12 PageID.6962 Page 2 of 3 CLAIM FORM Hines v. KFC U.S. Properties, Inc. Class Action Settlement Hines v. KFC Settlement Administrator Post Office Box 10829 Tallahassee, FL 32302-2829 Toll Free: (855) 272-2481 Fax: (850) 385-6008

NOTE: Please read the enclosed “Notice of (1) Proposed Class Settlement and (2) Final Settlement Approval Hearing” (the “Class Notice”) before completing this Claim Form. DEADLINE: To receive any money from this settlement, you must properly complete, sign, and submit a Claim Form to the Settlement Administrator, POSTMARKED or DELIVERED (via facsimile or professional or personal delivery) by December 28, 2012. The Claim Form must be personally filled out and signed by the current or former KFC employee who seeks to participate in this settlement, or by someone with a legal right to act on his or her behalf. Be sure to make a copy of your signed Claim Form for your records.

1. Your Contact Information Please review and, if necessary, correct on the line to the right your contact information: «fname» «lname» «Mailid» ______«address» «address_2» ______«City», «State» «Zip» ______

If you wish, please add further contact information here. This will help the Settlement Administrator and/or Class Counsel to reach you in the event there are questions or difficulties sending you your settlement check. Telephone number (daytime): ______Telephone number (evening): ______E-mail: ______

Note: it is your responsibility to notify the Settlement Administrator if you change your mailing address after submitting this claim form.

2. Your Dates of Employment as a Team Member at a KFC California Restaurant According to KFC’s records, you were employed as a Team Member in a KFC California Restaurant during the Covered Period from: «Job1Start» - «Job1End» «Job2Start» - «Job2End» «Job3Start» - «Job3End» «Job4Start» - «Job4End» «Job5Start» - «Job5End»

If you believe that any of your employment history information set forth above is incorrect, please (i) correct that information in the space below (using additional paper if necessary), and (ii) enclose documentary evidence supporting your correction(s). ______Note: If you do not submit a correction with supporting documentation, you waive your right to challenge the above pre-printed information. By submitting a correction, you are authorizing the Settlement Administrator to review KFC’s records and make a determination based on KFC’s records and the records you submit. This determination may increase or decrease the value of your share of the settlement. All such determinations by the Settlement Administrator are final and binding with no opportunity for further appeal.

1 of 2 Claim Form Case 3:09-cv-02422-JM-DHB Document 149-6 Filed 12/21/12 PageID.6963 Page 3 of 3

3. Verification and Consent I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that: 1. The information set forth above regarding my employment with KFC (including any corrections I have made), is true and correct. 2. I have read the Class Notice and I understand that, in signing this form, I (i) consent to release all of the state and federal claims as described in the Class Notice (see § 5 of the Class Notice); (ii) consent to the jurisdiction of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California presiding over this case; and (iii) authorize Class Counsel to act on my behalf in all matters relating to this action, including the settlement of my claims. 3. I wish to receive my share of the proposed Settlement.

______, 2012. Date

______Signature

4. Taxpayer Identification Number Certification Substitute IRS Form W-9 Enter your Social Security Number: - - Under penalty of perjury, I certify that: 1. The social security number shown on this form is my correct taxpayer identification number; and 2. I am not subject to backup withholding because: (a) I am exempt from backup withholding, or (b) I have not been notified by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) that I am subject to backup withholding as a result of a failure to report all interest or dividends, or (c) the IRS has notified me that I am no longer subject to backup withholding; and 3. I am a U.S. person (including a U.S. resident alien). Note: If the IRS has notified you that you are subject to backup withholding, you must cross out item #2 above. The IRS does not require your consent to any provision of this document other than this Form W-9 certification to avoid backup withholding.

5. Postmark Deadline Your Claim Form must be POSTMARKED or DELIVERED (via facsimile transmission or professional or personal delivery) on or before December 28, 2012. A Claim Form postmarked or received by the Settlement Administrator later than this deadline will not be accepted absent good cause shown. A postage pre-paid, self-addressed return envelope has been enclosed for your convenience. This Claim Form must be mailed or delivered to the Settlement Administrator at:

Hines v. KFC Settlement Administrator Post Office Box 10829 Tallahassee, FL 32302-2829 Toll Free: (855) 272-2481 Fax: (850) 385-6008

2 of 2 Claim Form Case 3:09-cv-02422-JM-DHB Document 149-7 Filed 12/21/12 PageID.6964 Page 1 of 3

EXHIBIT D Case 3:09-cv-02422-JM-DHB Document 149-7 Filed 12/21/12 PageID.6965 Page 2 of 3 FORMULARIO DE RECLAMACIÓN Hines v. KFC U.S. Properties, Inc. Acuerdo de demanda colectiva Hines v. KFC Administrador del Acuerdo Post Office Box 10829 Tallahassee, FL 32302-2829 Sin Cargos: (855) 272-2481 Fax: (850) 385-6008

NOTA: Le pedimos lea el “Aviso de (1) acuerdo propuesto para la demanda colectiva y (2) audiencia de aprobación final del Acuerdo” (el “Aviso de la demanda colectiva”) antes de llenar este Formulario de Reclamación. FECHA LÍMITE: Para recibir dinero de este acuerdo, debe llenar, firmar y presentar en tiempo y forma un Formulario de Reclamación al Administrador del Acuerdo que sea ENTREGADA (mediante fax o entrega mediante empresa especializada o personalmente) a más tardar el 28 de diciembre 2012 o que tenga matasellos de dicha fecha o anterior. El Formulario de Reclamación lo debe llenar y firmar personalmente el empleado o ex empleado de KFC que busque participar en este acuerdo, o bien una persona facultada legalmente para actuar en su representación. Asegúrese de hacer una copia de su Formulario de Reclamación firmado para sus registros.

1. Su información de contacto Le pedimos revisar, y de ser necesario, corregir en las líneas a la derecha de su información de contacto: «fname» «lname» «Mailid» ______«address» «address_2» ______«City», «State» «Zip» ______

Si así lo desea, añada información de contacto adicional aquí. Esto ayudará al Administrador del Acuerdo y/o a los Asesores del Colectivo a ponerse en contacto con usted en caso que haya preguntas o dificultades para enviarle su cheque del acuerdo. Teléfono (durante el día): ______Teléfono (durante la tarde) ______Correo electrónico: ______Nota: es responsabilidad de usted notificar al Administrador del Acuerdo si cambia su dirección postal después de presentar este formulario de reclamación.

2. Las fechas de su relación laboral como miembro de equipo en un restaurante de KFC en California De acuerdo con los registros de KFC, usted trabajó como miembro de equipo en un restaurante de KFC en California durante el Periodo Cubierto del: «Job1Start» - «Job1End» «Job2Start» - «Job2End» «Job3Start» - «Job3End» «Job4Start» - «Job4End» «Job5Start» - «Job5End»

Si usted considera que algún dato del historial de su relación laboral antes indicado es incorrecto, le pedimos que (i) corrija esa información en el espacio a continuación (puede usar hojas adicionales de ser necesario) y (ii) adjunte pruebas documentales que respalden sus correcciones. ______Nota: Si no presenta una corrección con documentación que la respalde, renuncia a su derecho a cuestionar la información preimpresa anterior. Al presentar una corrección, está autorizando al Administrador del Acuerdo a revisar los registros de KFC y tomar una determinación con base en los registros de KFC y los registros que usted presente. Esta determinación puede aumentar o reducir el valor de su parte del acuerdo. Todas dichas determinaciones del Administrador del Acuerdo son definitivas y vinculantes sin oportunidad de apelación posterior. 1 de 2 Formulario de Reclamación

Case 3:09-cv-02422-JM-DHB Document 149-7 Filed 12/21/12 PageID.6966 Page 3 of 3

3. Verificación y consentimiento Declaro bajo pena de perjurio de decir la verdad conforme a las leyes de los Estados Unidos que: 1. La información establecida anteriormente respecto a mi relación laboral con KFC (que incluye toda corrección que haya hecho) es verdadera y correcta. 2. He leído el Aviso de la Demanda Colectiva y entiendo que, al firmar este formulario, (i) doy mi consentimiento para descargar todas las reclamaciones estatales y federales como se describen en el Aviso de la Demanda Colectiva (vea § 5 del Aviso de la Demanda Colectiva); (ii) doy mi consentimiento a la jurisdicción del Tribunal de Distrito de los EE.UU. para el Distrito Sur de California que preside en este caso; y (iii) autorizo a los Asesores del Colectivo para actuar en mi representación en todos los asuntos relativos a esta demanda, lo que incluye el finiquito de mis reclamaciones. 3. Deseo recibir mi parte del Acuerdo propuesto.

______, 2012. Fecha

______Firma

4. Certificación del número de identificación del contribuyente 5. Formulario Sustituto W-9 de IRS Anote su número de seguridad social: - - Bajo protesta de decir verdad, certifico que: 1. El número de seguridad social mostrado en este formulario es mi número de identificación del contribuyente correcto; y 2. No estoy sujeto a retención adicional de impuestos porque: (a) estoy exento de dicha retención, o (b) el Servicio de Administración Tributaria (IRS) no me ha notificado que esté sujeto a dicha retención como resultado de un incumplimiento de informar todos los intereses y dividendos o (c) el IRS me ha notificado que ya no estoy sujeto a dicha retención; y 3. Soy persona estadounidense (lo que incluye los extranjeros residentes de los EE.UU.). Nota: Si el IRS le ha notificado que está sujeto a la retención adicional de impuestos, debe tachar el punto #2 anterior. El IRS no necesita de su consentimiento a ninguna provisión de este documento salvo la certificación de este Formulario W-9 para evitar la retención adicional de impuestos.

6. Fecha límite del matasellos Su Formulario de Reclamación debe ser ENTREGADO (mediante fax o entrega por empresa especializada o en persona) a más tardar el 28 de diciembre 2012 o contar con MATASELLOS de dicha fecha o anterior. Los Formularios de Reclamación recibidos por el Administrador del Acuerdo o con matasellos de una fecha posterior a esta fecha límite no serán aceptados sin una buena causa probada. Se incluye para su conveniencia un sobre de devolución prepagado y con remitente prellenado. Este Formulario de Reclamación se debe enviar por correo o entregarse al Administrador del Acuerdo en:

Hines v. KFC Administrador del Acuerdo Post Office Box 10829 Tallahassee, FL 32302-2829 Sin Cargos: (855) 272-2481 Fax: (850) 385-6008

2 de 2 Formulario de Reclamación

Case 3:09-cv-02422-JM-DHB Document 149-8 Filed 12/21/12 PageID.6967 Page 1 of 3

EXHIBIT E Case 3:09-cv-02422-JM-DHBIMPORTANT REMINDER Document REGARDING 149-8 Filed HINES 12/21/12 v. KFC SETTLEMENT PageID.6968 Page 2 of 3 Within the last month, you should have received a notice explaining that you have an opportunity to participate in a settlement of a wage-and-hour lawsuit against KFC. The Settlement Administrator’s records indicate that they have not yet received a Claim Form from you. Please note that your rights will be affected by this settlement regardless of whether or not you return a timely and complete Claim Form. In order to receive a payment from the settlement, you must complete a Claim Form and mail it to P.O. Box 10829, Tallahassee, FL 32302-2829 and it must be postmarked no later than December 28, 2012. If you need a new Claim Form, or have questions about the settlement or claims process, you can contact the Settlement Administrator toll-free by calling (855) 272-2481, or by mail at the address above. Additionally, please note the Class Counsel have filed their motion for attorneys' fees and reimbursement of costs and expenses. You can review those papers by visiting www.kfccawagesettlement.com. AVISO IMPORTANTE SOBRE EL ACUERDO DE HINES V. KFC En el último mes, usted debe haber recibido una notificación explicándole que usted tiene la oportunidad de participar en un acuerdo de una demanda de salarios y horas contra KFC. Los registros del Administrador del Acuerdo indican que aún no han recibido un Formulario de Reclamación de usted. Tenga en cuenta que sus derechos se verán afectados por este arreglo, independientemente de si devuelve o no un formulario de reclamación a tiempo y completa. Con el fin de recibir un pago del acuerdo, debe completar un Formulario de Reclamación y envíelo por correo a PO Box 10829, Tallahassee, FL 32302-2829 y debe tener el sello postal a más tardar el 28 de diciembre 2012. Si usted necesita un Formulario de Reclamación nuevo o tiene preguntas sobre el acuerdo o reclamaciones, puede contactar al administrador del acuerdo al número gratuito llamando al (855) 272-2481, o por correo a la dirección antes mencionada. Además, tenga en cuenta el Abogado del Grupo ha presentado su propuesta de honorarios y reintegro de costos y gastos. Puede revisar los papeles al visitar www.kfccawagesettlement.com. Case 3:09-cv-02422-JM-DHBHines v. KFC Settlement Document Administrator 149-8 Filed 12/21/12 PageID.6969 Page 3 of 3 P.O. Box 10829 Tallahassee, FL 32302-2829

[Class Member Address Information] Case 3:09-cv-02422-JM-DHB Document 149-9 Filed 12/21/12 PageID.6970 Page 1 of 13

EXHIBIT F Case 3:09-cv-02422-JM-DHB Document 149-9 Filed 12/21/12 PageID.6971 Page 2 of 13 Case 3:09-cv-02422-JM-DHB Document 149-9 Filed 12/21/12 PageID.6972 Page 3 of 13 Case 3:09-cv-02422-JM-DHB Document 149-9 Filed 12/21/12 PageID.6973 Page 4 of 13 Case 3:09-cv-02422-JM-DHB Document 149-9 Filed 12/21/12 PageID.6974 Page 5 of 13 Case 3:09-cv-02422-JM-DHB Document 149-9 Filed 12/21/12 PageID.6975 Page 6 of 13 Case 3:09-cv-02422-JM-DHB Document 149-9 Filed 12/21/12 PageID.6976 Page 7 of 13 Case 3:09-cv-02422-JM-DHB Document 149-9 Filed 12/21/12 PageID.6977 Page 8 of 13 Case 3:09-cv-02422-JM-DHB Document 149-9 Filed 12/21/12 PageID.6978 Page 9 of 13 Case 3:09-cv-02422-JM-DHB Document 149-9 Filed 12/21/12 PageID.6979 Page 10 of 13 Case 3:09-cv-02422-JM-DHB Document 149-9 Filed 12/21/12 PageID.6980 Page 11 of 13 Case 3:09-cv-02422-JM-DHB Document 149-9 Filed 12/21/12 PageID.6981 Page 12 of 13 Case 3:09-cv-02422-JM-DHB Document 149-9 Filed 12/21/12 PageID.6982 Page 13 of 13 Case 3:09-cv-02422-JM-DHB Document 149-10 Filed 12/21/12 PageID.6983 Page 1 of 2

12 Class Counsel

14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

15 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

17 DOMONIQUE HINES, individually, and on ) Case No. 3:09-cv-02422-JM-DHB behalf of all other similarly situated current and ) 18 former employees of KFC U.S. Properties, Inc., ) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ) 19 Plaintiffs, ) Courtroom of the Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller ) 20 v. ) Hearing Date: October 1st, 2012 ) Hearing Time: 10:00 a.m. 21 KFC U.S. PROPERTIES, INC., a Delaware ) Courtroom: 16 corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, ) Judge: Hon. Jefferey T. Miller 22 ) Defendants. ) 23 ) ) 24

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE – Case No. 3:09-cv-02422 JM-DHB Case 3:09-cv-02422-JM-DHB Document 149-10 Filed 12/21/12 PageID.6984 Page 2 of 2

1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

2 I, James M. Finberg, certify that I caused to be served upon the following counsel and

3 parties of record a copy of the following document(s):

4 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND FOR FINAL CERTIFICATION OF SETTLEMENT CLASS; 5 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF

6 DECLARATION OF JAMES M. FINBERG IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND FOR FINAL CERTIFICATION 7 OF SETTLEMENT CLASS

8 DECLARATION OF MARK PATTON

9 I am familiar with the United States District Court, Southern District of California’s

10 practice for collecting and processing electronic filings. Under that practice, documents are

11 electronically filed with the court. The court’s CM/ECF system will generate a Notice of

12 Electronic Filing (NEF) to the filing party, the assigned judge, and any registered users in the

13 case. The NEF will constitute service of the document. Registration as a CM/ECF user

14 constitutes consent to electronic service through the court’s transmission facilities. Under said

15 practice, the following CM/ECF users were served:

16 Regina A. Petty, Esq. Andra Barmash Greene, Esq. [email protected] [email protected] 17 Fisher & Phillips LLP Irell & Manella LLP 4747 Executive Drive, Suite 1000 840 Newport Center Drive, Suite 400 18 San Diego, CA 92121 Newport Beach, California 92660-6324 Telephone: (858) 597-9600 Telephone: (949) 760-0991 19 Facsimile: (858) 597-9601 Facsimile: (949) 760-5200

20 Executed on December 21, 2012, at San Francisco, California. 21

22 /s/ James M. Finberg Attorneys for Plaintiff 23 DOMONIQUE HINES Email: [email protected] 24

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE – Case No. 3:09-cv-02422 JM-DHB 1