DKT 064-1 Ex 1 Settlement Agreement

CASE 0:15-cv-02498-SRN-BRT Document 64-1 Filed 02/16/16 Page 1 of 64
EXHIBIT 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Duniyo Hussein, et al.,
on behalf of themselves,
the Proposed Rule 23 Class, and
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
Case No. 15-CV-2498 (SRN/BRT)

SETTLEMENT AND RELEASE
AGREEMENT
Plaintiffs,
vs.
Capital Building Services Group., Inc.,
Defendant.
Plaintiffs Duniyo Hussein (Plaintiff Hussein), Naima Omar Issa (Plaintiff
Issa), Leyla Yusuf (Plaintiff Yusuf), Raymond Deshler (Plaintiff Deshler),
Assiongbonvi Luc Kangnigan (Plaintiff Kangnigan), Melvin Holmes (Plaintiff
Holmes), Abraham Quevedo Orantes (Plaintiff Quevedo), and Leticia Zuniga
Escamilla (Plaintiff Zuniga), (collectively, the Named Plaintiffs or Plaintiffs),
individually and on behalf of all individuals employed in Minnesota by Defendant
Capital Building Services Group, Inc. (Capital or Defendant) as cleaners (including
crew leads) from May 20, 2012 to January 15, 2016 (Class Members or Proposed
Rule 23 Class), together with Defendant, have entered into this Settlement and Release
Agreement (the Agreement) to settle issues regarding the payment of unpaid wages and
other claims raised in this litigation (the Settlement).
Page 1 of 25
I.
BACKGROUND
A.
Procedural History and Mediation
On May 20, 2015, Plaintiffs filed this putative FLSA collective and Rule 23 class
action against Defendant. (Compl. 1, ECF No. 1.) Plaintiffs alleged that Defendant
failed to pay proper minimum wage and overtime compensation in violation of the
federal FLSA, and that Defendant violated several Minnesota state wage and hour laws.
(Id. 1011.) Specifically, Plaintiffs alleged that Defendant violated: the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. 206, 207, Minnesota Fair Labor Standards Act
(MFLSA), Minn. Stat. 177.23, .24, .25, .255, and .30, and the Minnesota Payment
of Wages Act (PWA), Minn. Stat. 181.032, .101, .13, and .14. (Id. 98175.)
Defendant filed an Answer denying all claims. (ECF No. 29.)
In the Complaint, the Plaintiffs allege Capital failed to pay employees for all hours
worked, resulting in minimum wage, gap time, and overtime violations under the FLSA
and MNFLSA. (Compl. 98-152, ECF No. 1.) Plaintiffs allege that meal breaks are
systematically deducted from employees hours worked, even when those breaks are not
actually taken. (Id.) Plaintiffs allege that some employees have to purchase their own
cleaning supplies, and these unreimbursed expenses cause employees wages to drop
even further below minimum wage. (Id.) Plaintiffs allege that when employees are asked
to clean a store where they do not normally work, their time is seldom tracked, and often
unpaid. (Id.) Plaintiffs allege that travel time between stores is not compensated. (Id.)
Plaintiffs allege that workers have no choice but to be paid with debit cards, and thus
must pay ATM fees in order to access their own wages. (Id.) Plaintiffs allege that
Page 2 of 25
beginning in their second pay period, employees only other option is to receive direct
deposit, which is not an option for workers who do not have bank accounts. (Id.)
Plaintiffs allege that on numerous occasions, terminated employees were not paid for
work performed during their final pay periods. (Id.) Last, Plaintiffs allege that Capital
failed to maintain accurate employment records and supply pay stubs (or electronic
access to pay stubs) to employees. (Id.) Plaintiffs seek damages, equitable relief,
injunctive relief, penalties, attorneys fees, and costs, on their own behalf and on behalf
of all those similarly situated.
Defendant contends that all of Capitals employees were compensated in
compliance with the law and that any alleged failure to pay wages was not willful.
Defendant has denied, and continues denying, each of the claims and contentions alleged
by the Plaintiffs in the Action, and so it denies any wrongdoing or legal liability arising
from any facts or conduct alleged in the Action. Nevertheless, Defendant has concluded
that further litigation would be protracted and expensive and would divert management
and employee time. Defendant has taken into account the uncertainty and risk inherent in
litigation and concluded it is appropriate to fully and finally settle the Action in the
manner, and upon the terms, set forth in this Agreement.
On June 3, 2015, the Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Conditional Certification and
Notice, Class Certification, and a Preliminary Injunction. (ECF No. 5.) On November 20,
2015, this Court granted Plaintiffs motion for conditional certification and deferred
ruling on Plaintiffs motions for class certification and injunctive relief. (ECF 58.) With
mediation pending, the parties entered into a private agreement to defer mailing the courtPage 3 of 25
approved notice and toll the claims of all class members until after mediation. Because
the discussions produced a settlement, Plaintiffs counsel did not send conditional
certification notice to the class.
In pursuing claims at issue in the Action, and in evaluating the merits of the
settlement, Class Counsel have (1) reviewed thousands of pages of data and documents,
(2) conducted over a dozen witness interviews, (3) held meetings and conferences
between representatives of the Parties, (4) researched federal and Minnesota law, (5)
investigated facts regarding the Class Members claims, (6) gathered declarations, (7)
researched and investigated potential defenses to Plaintiffs claims, and (8) analyzed the
damages incurred by the Class.
On December 11, 2015, the Parties participated in a full-day mediation session
conducted by the Honorable Arthur Boylan (Ret.). Following the mediation, the parties
continued negotiating over a variety of sensitive monetary and non-monetary terms. On
January 22, 2016, as a result of these arms length negotiations, the Parties agreed to the
settlement. The Parties have worked diligently to resolve numerous issues regarding
settlement. The Parties believe they are fully and adequately informed of all facts
necessary to evaluate the case for settlement.
B.
Inadmissibility of the Agreement
Neither this Agreement, nor any document, statement, proceeding, and conduct
related to this Agreement, nor any reports and accounts thereof, shall, in any event, be
construed as, offered, and admitted into evidence as, received as, or deemed to be
evidence for any purpose adverse to the Parties. Except for the purposes of settling the
Page 4 of 25
Action, or enforcing the Settlement, this Agreement shall not be disclosed, referred to,
offered, or received into evidence against the Parties in any further proceeding in the
Action, or in any other civil, criminal, or administrative action or proceeding.
II.
TERMS
Subject to Court approval, the Parties agree as follows:
A.
Definitions of Terms that Are Not Otherwise Defined

1.
Action means the lawsuit captioned Hussein, et al. v. Capital
Building Services Group, Inc., No. 15-cv-2498.

2.
Class Members means: (1) the Plaintiffs who filed the Action, (2)
the Opt-In Plaintiffs, and (3) all individuals employed by Defendant as cleaners
(including crew leads) in Minnesota from May 20, 2012 through January 15, 2016.
3.
Class Counsel means the law firms of Nichols Kaster, PLLP.
4.
Court means the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota.
5.
Covered Period means 12:01 a.m. on May 20, 2012 through 11:59
p.m., January 15, 2016.

6.
Final Approval Order means the Courts Order granting final
approval of the Parties settlement and this Agreement.

7.
Notice of Settlement means the form approved by Class Counsel and
Defendant, subject to Court approval, which Class Counsel will mail, via first-class U.S.
mail, to each Class Member to explain the terms of the Settlement.
8.
Opt-In Plaintiffs means all Plaintiffs who filed consents to join the
Action after the case was filed.

Page 5 of 25
9.
Party or Parties means the Class Members, the Settlement Class,
and/or Defendant.
10.
Settlement Class means all Class Members who timely submit a
settlement participation form.

11.
Settlement Effective Date means the first day following the latter of
the following occurrences: (1) the entry of the Final Approval Order; (2) if an objection
has been made to final approval of the Parties settlement, the date on which the
objectors time to appeal the Final Approval Order has expired, with no appeal or other
judicial review having been taken or sought; or (3) if an appeal of the Final Approval
Order has been timely filed, the date the Final Approval Order is affirmed by an appellate
court with no possibility of subsequent appeal, or other judicial review, or the date the
appeal(s) or other judicial review are finally dismissed with no possibility of subsequent
appeal or other judicial review.
12.
Settlement Payment means the payment of $425,000.00, to be paid
by Capital pursuant to this Agreement.

B.
Benefits
1.
Settlement Payment. In exchange for the release of claims in Section
II.C., Capital will pay $425,000.00 to, or on behalf of, the Settlement Class and Class
Counsel. This amount includes all wages, liquidated damages, pay card fees, punitive
damages, equitable relief, penalties of any nature, attorneys fees, costs, and incentive
awards to which Plaintiffs and their counsel claim entitlement in the Action.
Page 6 of 25
2.
Employers Payroll Taxes. In addition to this Settlement Payment,
Capital will pay the employers share of all applicable payroll taxes on amounts treated as
wages.
3.
Reversion. Any portion of the Settlement Payment not negotiated by
any member of the Settlement Class within 90 days of the mailing of the checks shall be
null and void and shall be paid as a cy pres award to Mid-Minnesota Legal Aid, 430 First
Ave North, Suite 300, Minneapolis, MN 55401.. Such reversion payments will be made
by the Parties no later than 220 days after the Settlement Effective Date.
4.
Attorneys Fees and Costs. Class Counsel may apply to the District
Court for an award of fees and costs in the Action (the Fee Application) in the amount
of $151,666.66. Defendant will not oppose, nor will it object, to the reasonableness of the
amount of fees and costs requested by Class Counsel. All fees and costs approved by the
Court will be paid out of the Settlement Payment. If the Court does not approve Class
Counsels request for fees and costs in full, the unapproved portion of the fees and costs
will be apportioned among the Class Members in an equal percentage to each Class
Members original award. The parties shall otherwise bear their own attorneys fees,
costs, and expenses incurred in the prosecution, defenses, and/or settlement of the Action.
5.
Incentive Awards. Class Counsel may apply to the District Court for
an award of incentive compensation up to and including a total of $25,000. Class Counsel

shall request incentive awards as follows:
Duniyo Hussein: $4,500
Naima Omar Issa: $3,000
Page 7 of 25
Leyla Yusuf: $3,000

Raymond Deshler: $2,000
Assiongbonvi Luc Kangnigan: $2,000
Melvin Holmes: $3,000
Abraham Quevedo Orantes: $3,000
Leticia Zuniga Escamilla: $3,000
Jesus Sanchez: $1,500
The incentive awards reflect the contributions Plaintiffs made to the prosecution
and ultimate resolution of the Action. Incentive award payments shall be accompanied by
an IRS form 1099. Incentive awards approved by the Court will be paid out of the
Settlement Payment. If the Court does not approve Class Counsels request for incentive
awards in full, the unapproved portion of the fees and costs will be apportioned among
the Class Members in an equal percentage to each Class Members original award.
6.
Individual Awards. Capital shall pay individual awards to certain
Plaintiffs to resolve individual claims going beyond the scope of the class/collective
claims. Capital shall pay individual awards as follows:
Abraham Quevedo Orantes: $10,000
Leyla Yusuf: $3,000
Duniyo Hussein: $10,000
Leticia Zuniga Escamilla: $5,000
Melvin Holmes: $5,000
Page 8 of 25
Individual Awards will be paid out of the Settlement Payment. Individual Award
payments shall be accompanied by an IRS form 1099.
7.
Consent to Class and Collective Action Certification. For purposes
of the Settlement only, Defendant consents to final certification under (1) 29 U.S.C.
216(b) (216(b)) regarding the claims of all Opt-In Plaintiffs, and (2) Fed. R. Civ. P. 23
of an opt-out class of persons comprised of Class Members. The Parties agree that
certification for purposes of the Settlement is not an admission by Defendant that Rule 23
class and 216(b) collective action certification would be proper absent the Settlement. For
purposes of the Settlement, the Parties stipulate and agree that the requisites for
establishing class and collective action certification with respect to the Settlement Class
have been, and are, met.
C.
Release of Claims
1.
Claims Released. Upon the Settlement Effective Date, the Class
Members, excluding those Class Members who timely exclude themselves, will be
deemed to have released claims as set forth below in Paragraph II.C.2.
2.
Scope of Released Claims of Class Members. Each Class Member,
excluding those Class Members who timely exclude themselves, on behalf of his/her
respective heirs, beneficiaries, devisees, legatees, executors, administrators, trustees,
conservators, guardians, personal representatives, successors-in-interest, and assigns,
hereby knowingly and voluntarily releases all known and unknown claims against
Defendant, its parent, subsidiaries, and affiliated companies and their present, former, and
future successors and assigns, and all of their present, former, and future owners, officers,
Page 9 of 25
directors, shareholders, stockholders, partners, members, employees, agents, consultants,

representatives, insurers, attorneys, trustees, administrators, heirs, in their individual and
representative capacities (herein the Released Parties) that accrued during the Covered
Period based on putative violations of state law alleged in this Action, including but not
limited to failure to pay minimum wage, overtime, or gap time, failure to comply with
Minnesotas wage statement laws, failure to maintain accurate payroll records, failure to
reimburse employees for purchasing supplies, and failure to comply with Minnesotas
law governing the use of pay cards.
3.
Claims Released by the Settlement Class. Upon the Settlement
Effective Date, the Settlement Class will be deemed to have released claims as set forth
below in Paragraph II.C.4.
4.
Scope of Released Claims of Settlement Class. Each Settlement
Class Member, on behalf of his/her respective heirs, beneficiaries, devisees, legatees,

executors, administrators, trustees, conservators, guardians, personal representatives,
successors-in-interest, and assigns, hereby knowingly and voluntarily releases all known
and unknown claims against the Released Parties that accrued during the Covered Period
based on putative violations of federal law alleged in this Action, including but not
limited to failure to pay minimum wage and overtime compensation.
5.
Scope of Released Claims by Certain Named Plaintiffs. Named
Plaintiffs Abraham Quevedo Orantes, Leyla Yusuf, Duniyo Hussein, Melvin Holmes, and
Leticia Zuniga Escamilla, on behalf of their respective heirs, beneficiaries, devisees,
legatees,
executors,
administrators,
trustees,
Page 10 of 25
conservators,
guardians,
personal
representatives, successors-in-interest, and assigns, hereby knowingly and voluntarily

release all known and unknown claims against the Released Parties that accrued on or
before January 22, 2016, including but not limited to any Claims arising under the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Civil
Rights Act of 1991, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Family and Medical Leave
Act, or any other federal, state, or local law, including without limitation, the Minnesota
Human Rights Act, and Claims based on breach of an implied or express contract,
promissory estoppel, emotional distress, defamation, misrepresentation, fraud, public
policy, common law, good faith and fair dealing, negligence, invasion of privacy,
retaliation, or any claim that Named Plaintiffs may have that accrued on or before
January 22, 2016. This release shall not apply to and shall not affect the Named
Plaintiffs right to enforce the terms of this Agreement, to seek remedy for breach of this
Agreement, to assert claims which cannot legally be waived under applicable law, or to
subsequently assert any Claim arising from acts occurring after January 22, 2016.
D.
Settlement Notices
1.
Duty of Cooperation. The Parties agree to cooperate in obtaining
expeditious preliminary and final approval of this Agreement. Capital agrees to share
with Class Counsel any information necessary to confirm the fairness of the Settlement
and the equitable distribution from the Settlement Payment to members of the Settlement
Class. Class Counsel agrees that any information provided by Capital under this
Paragraph is confidential, is for settlement purposes only, and shall not be used for any
other purpose.
Page 11 of 25
2.
Preliminary Approval Order. On, or before, February 15, 2016, the
Parties shall promptly move the Court for an order:
3.
(i)
Preliminarily approving this Agreement;
(ii)
Approving certification of the Rule 23 class as agreed upon

by the Parties for the purpose of effectuating this Agreement;
(iii)
Approving the Notice of Settlement to each Class Member;

and
(iv)
Scheduling a hearing on final approval of this Agreement.
Notice of Settlement. Within ten (10) days after the Court
preliminarily approves the settlement, Class Counsel shall distribute the approved Notice
of Settlement to Class Members by first-class U.S. mail, postage prepaid. Class Counsel
shall, within three days of distributing the Notice of Settlement, notify Defendants
counsel of the date the Notice of Settlement was distributed. A copy of the Notice of
Settlement in English, Spanish, and Somali is attached as Exhibit A.
4.
Diligence in Finding Class Members. Class Counsel will use
reasonable efforts to maximize the probability that the Notice of Settlement will be
received by each member of the Settlement Class.
5.
Enforcing Deadlines. Class Counsel will enforce the deadlines for
Class Members to affirmatively opt out of the Settlement.

6.
Opt-in Procedures. Class Members who wish to participate in the
settlement and thus become members of the Settlement Class shall complete, sign, and
mail the settlement participation form contained on the last page of the Notice of
Settlement. In order to be considered valid, settlement participation forms must be
Page 12 of 25
postmarked or received by Class Counsel within 45 days from the date Class Counsel
first mails the Notice of Settlement
7.
Opt-Out Procedures. Class Members seeking to exclude themselves
from the Parties settlement and this Agreement must, within 45 days from the date Class
Counsel first mails the Notice of Settlement, (1) provide their name, the dates and
locations where they worked for Capital, and (2) sign a statement indicating I
understand I am requesting to be excluded from the Parties settlement and that I will
receive no money from the Parties settlement. I understand that if I am excluded from
the Parties settlement, I may bring a separate legal action seeking damages, but might
recover nothing, or less than what I would have recovered if I had remained in the
Parties settlement in this case (the Opt-Out Notice). Each Opt-Out Notice must be
timely sent to Class Counsel, with a copy to Defendants counsel.
8.
Rescinding Decision to Opt Out. Class Members will be permitted to
withdraw, or rescind, their Opt-Out Notices by submitting a Rescission of Opt-Out

Notice to Class Counsel, which will include the following language: I previously
submitted an Opt-Out Notice seeking exclusion from the Parties settlement. I have
reconsidered, and I wish to withdraw my Opt-Out Notice. I understand that by rescinding
my Opt-Out Notice, I may be eligible to receive a distribution from the Settlement
Payment and may not bring a separate legal action against Defendant with respect to any
Released Claims. A Class Member wishing to submit a Rescission of Opt-Out Notice
will sign and date the statement and deliver it to Class Counsel no more than 60 days
after Class Counsel first mails the Notice of Settlement.
Page 13 of 25
9.
Allocating Settlement Amounts. After accounting for attorneys fees,
costs, expenses, individual awards, and incentive awards, the remaining portion of the
Settlement Payment shall be distributed among the Settlement Class according to a
formula devised by Class Counsel, which shall primarily be based on (1) the weeks
worked by each member of the Settlement Class, and (2) the compensation earned by
each member of the Settlement Class. Each member of the Settlement Class will receive
a minimum payment from the Settlement in the amount of $100.00. Within 65 days after
Class Counsel first mails the Notice of Settlement, Class Counsel will provide Defendant
with the Individual gross, pre-tax allocations due to each member of the Settlement Class.
10.
Joint Motion for Final Approval. Class Counsel will prepare, and
Defendant will approve, a motion for final approval of the Settlement. Upon approval by
Defendants counsel, Class Counsel will timely file the motion for final approval of the
Settlement, which will include the following proposed orders:
11.
(i)
a Final Approval Order adjudging the terms to be fair,

reasonable, and adequate, and directing consummation of its
terms and provisions; and
(ii)
an order dismissing the Action on the merits, with prejudice,

in accordance with the terms of this Agreement.
Fairness Hearing. The Court will hold a fairness hearing before
issuing a Final Approval Order. The Court will decide if the Parties Settlement should be
finally approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate.
12.
Final Approval Order. It is expected that the Final Approval Order
will:
Page 14 of 25
13.
(i)
dismiss with prejudice all claims against Defendant in the

Action;
(ii)
declare that the Class Members are bound by the Release of

Claims described in Paragraph II.C.2. above, and the
Settlement Class is bound by the Release of Claims described
in Paragraph II.C.4. above; and
(iii)
reserve jurisdiction over the construction, interpretation,

implementation, and enforcement of the Parties settlement
and over administration and distributions from the Settlement
Payment.
Issuing Settlement Checks. Within 14 business days after the
Settlement Effective Date, and subject to the terms of this Agreement, Capital will handdeliver to Class Counsel the following:
(i)
(ii)
Settlement checks for each member of the Settlement Class

pursuant to the allocation as described in Paragraph II.D.9.
above. Payments will be divided as follows:
(a)
One half of the amount paid by Capital to each

member of the Settlement Class will be allocated to
wages and reported on an IRS Form W-2. Capital will
withhold state and federal payroll taxes as required by
law. Capital shall bear the responsibility for paying the
employers share of payroll taxes.
(b)
One half of the amount paid by Capital to each

member of the Settlement Class will be allocated to
liquidated damages and reported on an IRS Form
1099. This amount will be excluded from ordinary
payroll withholdings.
(c)
A check representing Class Counsels attorneys fees

and costs, as approved by the Court.
Settlement checks for Plaintiffs receiving incentive awards

and individual awards as described in Paragraph II.B.5 and
Paragraph II.B.6.
Page 15 of 25
14.
Mailing Settlement Checks.
Within
21
days
after
the
Settlement Effective Date, Class Counsel will mail the checks to the Settlement Class. If
any payments to the Settlement Class are returned by the postal service as undeliverable,
Capital will assist Class Counsel in correcting any address errors, and payments will be
promptly re-mailed to the correct addresses, if known. Capital will work with class
counsel in a timely and cooperative manner to ensure that settlement payments reach
participating Plaintiffs within the time prescribed by this agreement.
15.
Inquiries or Communications from Class Members. The Parties
agree to cooperate to resolve any post-settlement inquiries or communications with Class

Members.
16.
Altering Dates. Upon written agreement, or with Court approval, the
Parties may alter the above dates and time periods.

E.
Promises
1.
Compliant Pay Card Disclosure Form. Defendants Counsel will
draft a compliant pay card disclosure form, and Defendant shall not commence paying
employees with pay cards until employees have signed the consent form.
2.
Wage Statements. Defendant will use paper paystubs for employees
in Minnesota for one year and then comply with Minnesota law governing electronic
paystubs thereafter.
3.
Designation to Receive Complaints. Defendant shall designate the
Human Resources/Payroll Manager to receive and address wage complaints.
Page 16 of 25
4.
Travel Time. Defendant shall develop a form for employees to report
employer-required time traveling between stores on a prospective basis and shall pay
employees for the travel time if required by applicable law.
5.
Payment by Check. Defendant shall provide all employees with the
option to be paid via paper check.

6.
No Purchase of Supplies. Defendant shall adopt a formal policy that
under no circumstances are employees to purchase any supplies for Defendant including
cleaning supplies.
7.
Declaration to the Court. Defendant shall submit to the court a
signed declaration stating that Defendant has complied with all injunctive relief
contemplated by this agreement within 60 days of the settlement effective date.
8.
Compliance with Wage and Hour Laws. Capital agrees to comply
with state and federal labor law, including wage payment practices, record keeping,
break, and overtime laws.
9.
Class Counsels Administrative Responsibilities. Class Counsel shall
be responsible for mailing the Notice of Settlement, the application of the allocation
formula described herein, and mailing of payments made from the Settlement Payment.
10.
Taxes on Wages. The Parties recognize that one-half of the
individual distributions from the Settlement Payment constitute wage income subject to
W-2 reporting. Therefore, pursuant to state and federal law, normal payroll taxes and
withholdings will be deducted from this portion of each member of the Settlement
Classs distribution from the Settlement Payment. Capital will make all required
Page 17 of 25
employer contributions with respect to any wage payments, and these amounts will not be
deducted from the individual distributions from the Settlement Payment made to
members of the Settlement Class.
11.
Taxes on Liquidated Damages and Enhancement Payments. The
Parties agree that one-half of the individual distributions from the Settlement Payment
constitute liquidated damages and are not wages. Therefore, all members of the
Settlement Class receiving a distribution from the Settlement Payment for liquidated
damages, will receive an IRS Form 1099 for the liquidated damages, and the Settlement
Class will be responsible for correctly characterizing this compensation for tax purposes
and to pay any taxes owed on said amount.
12.
Tax Liability. The Settlement Class shall be responsible for any tax
liability arising from the allocation of the Settlement Payment as attorneys fees, costs,
expenses, taxable wage income, and taxable non-wage income.
13.
CAFA Compliance. In compliance with 28 U.S.C. 1715,
Defendant will provide to appropriate federal and state officials notice regarding the
Settlement. The Parties understand that the Courts final approval of the Settlement and
this Agreement may not be issued earlier than 90 days after the appropriate Federal and
State officials have been served with notice of the Settlement.
F.
Miscellaneous
1.
Authority. The signatories represent they are fully authorized to
enter into this Agreement and bind the Parties, including the Settlement Class, to these
terms and conditions.
Page 18 of 25
2.
Mutual Full Cooperation. The Parties agree to fully cooperate with
each other to accomplish the terms of this Agreement, including, but not limited to,
executing such documents and taking such other action as may reasonably be necessary
to implement the terms of their settlement. The Parties to this Agreement will use their
best efforts, including all efforts contemplated by this Agreement, and any other efforts
that may become necessary, to effectuate this Agreement and the terms set forth in it. As
soon as practicable after execution of this Agreement, Class Counsel will, with the
assistance and cooperation of Defendant and their counsel, take all necessary steps to
secure the Courts final approval of the Settlement.
3.
Assignments. Except as set forth in this Agreement, the Parties
represent, covenant, and warrant that they have not directly or indirectly, assigned,
transferred, encumbered, or purported to assign, transfer, or encumber to any person or
entity any portion of any liability, claim, demand, action, cause of action, or rights
released and discharged.
4.
Construction. The Parties agree that the terms and conditions of this
Agreement are the result of lengthy, arms-length negotiations between the Parties and
that this Agreement will not be construed in favor of, or against, any party by reason of
the extent to which any Party, or the Partys counsel, participated in the drafting of this
Agreement.
5.
Construction of Captions and Interpretations. Paragraph titles or
captions in this Agreement are only inserted as a matter of convenience and in no way
define, limit, extend, or describe the scope of this Agreement, or any provision in it.
Page 19 of 25
6.
Modification and Waiver. This Agreement may not be changed,
altered, or modified, except in a written document that is signed by the Parties and
approved by the Court. This Agreement may not be discharged, except by performance in
accordance with its terms, or a written document signed by the Parties. The waiver by
one Party of any breach of this Agreement will not be deemed to be a waiver of any prior
or subsequent breach. If the Court modifies any portion of this Agreement without the
consent of both Parties, either party may void this Agreement in its entirety.
7.
Integration Clause. This Agreement includes the entire agreement
between the Parties relating to the transactions described herein, and all prior or
contemporaneous agreements, understandings, representations, and statements, whether
oral or written and whether by a Party or a Partys legal counsel, are merged into this
Agreement.
8.
Binding Effect. This Agreement will be binding upon, and will inure
to the benefit of, the Parties and their respective heirs, trustees, executors, administrators,
and successors.
9.
Class Signatories. Because the Settlement Class includes numerous
individuals, it is impossible or impractical to have every member of the Settlement Class

execute this Agreement. The Notice of Settlement will advise all Class Members of the
binding nature of the Settlement, including the releases set forth in this Agreement, such
that the Notice of Settlement will have the same force and effect as if this Agreement
were executed by each member of the Settlement Class.
Page 20 of 25
10.
Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, and
when each Party has signed and delivered at least one such counterpart, each counterpart
will be deemed an original, and, when taken together with other signed counterparts, will
constitute one Agreement, which, subject to Court approval, will be binding upon and
effective as to all Parties.
Page 21 of 25
Executed this _____ day of ______, 2016.
On behalf of Defendant
Print name
Counsel for Defendant
Print name
Duniyo Hussein, individually, and on behalf of

the Settlement Class
Naima Omar Issa, individually, and on behalf

of the Settlement Class
Leyla Yusuf, individually, and on behalf of the

Settlement Class
Page 22 of 25
Page 23 of 25
Raymond Deshler, individually, and on behalf

of the Settlement Class
Assiongbonvi Luc Kangnigan, individually,

and on behalf of the Settlement Class
Melvin Holmes, individually, and on behalf of

the Settlement Class
Abraham Quevedo Orantes, individually, and

on behalf of the Settlement Class
Page 24 of 25
Leticia Zuniga Escamilla, individually, and on

behalf of the Settlement Class
Class Counsel
Print name
Page 25 of 25
EXHIBIT A
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

Notice of Settlement of Class Action
If you are an employee who worked for Capital Building Service Group, Inc. as a store
cleaner (including as a crew lead) in Minnesota from May 20, 2012 through January
15, 2016, a Proposed Class Action Settlement May Affect Your Rights. You May Be
Entitled to Money.
A U.S. FEDERAL COURT HAS AUTHORIZED THIS NOTICE.

IT IS NOT FROM A LAWYER. YOU ARE NOT BEING SUED.
You are receiving this notice because you have been identified as someone eligible to
receive money from a proposed settlement of a class action lawsuit. The lawsuit was
brought by a group of current and former employees (Plaintiffs) of Capital Building
Services Group, Inc. (Capital or Defendant). The lawsuit is captioned Hussein, et al.
v. Capital Building Services Group, Inc., No. 15-cv-2498 and is pending before Judge
Susan R. Nelson in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota.
The Plaintiffs in this case brought claims on behalf of all other cleaners (including crew
leads) who worked for Capital in Minnesota. The lawsuit alleges violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. 201 et seq., Minnesota Fair Labor Standards Act,
Minn. Stat. 177.24, and Minnesota Payment of Wages Act, Minn. Stat. 181.001, et
seq. Plaintiffs allege that Capital failed to pay them for all hours worked, failed to pay
minimum wage, and failed to pay all overtime earned. Plaintiffs further allege that
Capital violated state and federal labor laws by failing to provide pay stubs, by deducting
time for meal and rest breaks not taken, by requiring employees to purchase their own
cleaning supplies, by failing to compensate employees for travel between stores, by
requiring new employees to be paid on a credit card without authorization, and by
charging fees to access wages.
Defendant has denied and continues to deny all of the allegations in the Plaintiffs
Complaint and that the practices complained of violated federal or Minnesota law. The
Court has not made a determination regarding the merits of Plaintiffs claims or Capitals
defenses.
Rather than continue to litigate these matters, the Plaintiffs and Capital have reached a
settlement. The settlement provides that Capital will pay the class $425,000. Class
members may elect to receive a one-time payment, which will be based on Capitals
records and a good faith estimation of the amount of wages allegedly owed.
-1-
The Court has preliminarily approved the settlement. However, settlement money cannot
be distributed until after the Court grants final approval of the settlement.
The Court has certified the following Class for settlement purposes:
All individuals employed by Defendant as cleaners (including crew
leads)
in
Minnesota from May 20, 2012 through January 15, 2016.
Your legal rights are affected by the Courts decision to certify a Class, and you have a
choice to make now. Please read the following pages carefully, including the Summary
of Your Rights and the Settlement Benefits and My Options sections, which are below.
A Summary of Your Rights and Choices:
Your Legal Rights Are Affected Even If You Do Not Act.
Read This Notice Carefully.
You May:
Effect of Choosing the Option:
By
signing
the
settlement
participation form included in this
Participate by
Notice, you will receive a
Signing the
settlement payment, but you will
Settlement
be bound by the terms of the
Participation
settlement and give up your right
Form
to sue Capital yourself on the
claims raised in this case.
If you do nothing, you will NOT
receive a settlement payment. You
will also give up your right to sue
Capital yourself on the Minnesota
Fair Labor Standards Act and
Do Nothing
Minnesota Payment of Wages Act
claims raised in this case. You will
not give up your right to sue
Capital yourself under federal law.
You can elect to get out of the
Class and keep your right to sue
Capital on your own about the
Exclude
claims in the lawsuit. To exclude
Yourself
yourself from participating in the
settlement you must send in a
signed exclusion request.
-2-
Due Date:
Postmarked on or before
[DATE 45 DAYS FROM DATE
NOTICE IS MAILED]
None.
NOTICE IS MAILED]
File
Objection
Appear at
the Hearing
If you do not get out of the Class,

you can remain a part of the Class
and still write to the Court
explaining why you disagree with
the settlement.
If you do not get out of the class,
you can also ask to speak to the
Court about the fairness of the
settlement. You must send written
notice of your desire to appear in
advance.
NOTICE IS MAILED]
Postmarked on or before [DATE

45 DAYS FROM DATE NOTICE
IS MAILED]
WHAT THIS NOTICE CONTAINS

BASIC INFORMATION
1.
Why did I get this Notice? ....................................................................... 3
2.
What is a class action? ............................................................................. 3
3.
What is this class action about? ............................................................... 4
4.
Who are the class members? .................................................................... 4
5.
Why is the class action being settled? ...................................................... 5
SETTLEMENT BENEFITS AND MY OPTIONS
6.
What are the settlement benefits? ............................................................ 5
7.
How do I receive settlement benefits? ..................................................... 5
REMAINING IN THE CLASS
8.
What happens if I do nothing and stay in the Class? ............................... 6
9.
If I remain in the Class, what am I giving up? ......................................... 6
EXCLUDING YOURSELF FROM THE CLASS
10.
Why would I want to be excluded from the Class? ................................. 6
11.
How do I exclude myself from the Class? ............................................... 6
12.
How do I object to the settlement? ........................................................... 7
THE LAWYERS REPRESENTING YOU
13.
Do I have a lawyer representing my interests in this case? ..................... 8
14.
How will the lawyers be paid? ................................................................. 9
15.
How will the class representatives be paid?............................................. 9
THE COURTS FINAL APPROVAL HEARING
-3-
16.
17.
18.
When and where will the Court decide whether to approve the settlement?
10
Do I have to attend the hearing? ............................................................ 10
Can I have my lawyer appear at the Final Approval Hearing to tell the Court
about my opinions regarding the settlement? ....................................... 10
GETTING MORE INFORMATION

19.
Where do I obtain more information? ................................................... 10
-4-
BASIC INFORMATION
1.
WHY DID I GET THIS NOTICE?
The Court directed this Notice be sent to you because Capitals records show that you
worked for Capital as a cleaner (or crew lead) in Minnesota from May 20, 2012 through
January 15, 2016. Therefore, you may be entitled to money under the terms of the
settlement.
If you are a member of the Class, as defined in Question 4 below, this proposed
settlement will affect your legal rights. Therefore, it is important that you read this notice
carefully. You have choices to make before the Court decides whether to approve the
settlement.
2.
WHAT IS A CLASS ACTION?
In a class action lawsuit, one or more people called Representative Plaintiffs sue one or
more defendants on behalf of other people who may have similar claims. All these people
together are a Class or Class Members. The court can determine whether it will allow
a lawsuit to proceed as a class action. In a class action, one court resolves the common
issues for everyone in the Class except for those people who choose to exclude
themselves from the Class.
3.
WHAT IS THIS CLASS ACTION ABOUT?
The lawsuit alleges that Capital violated the Fair Labor Standards Act, Minnesota Fair
Labor Standards Act, and Minnesota Payment of Wages Act, and seeks payment for
wages wrongfully withheld during the Class period. Plaintiffs allege that Capital failed to
pay them for all hours worked, failed to pay minimum wage, and failed to pay all
overtime earned. Plaintiffs further allege that Capital violated state and federal labor laws
by failing to provide pay stubs, by deducting time for meal and rest breaks not taken, by
requiring employees to purchase their own cleaning supplies, by failing to compensate
employees for travel between stores, by requiring new employees to be paid on a credit
card without authorization, and by charging fees to access wages. Capital has vigorously
denied and continues to deny all of Plaintiffs allegations that it has violated state or
federal law.
The Plaintiffs and Capital have reached a settlement in this case to avoid further
litigation. The Court has not ruled on the merits of the Plaintiffs claims or on Capitals
defenses. Rather, the Court has simply certified the Class for settlement purposes and
tentatively approved the proposed settlement.
4.
WHO ARE THE CLASS MEMBERS?

-5-
In order to determine if you are entitled to benefits from this settlement, you first must
determine if you are a Class Member. The Court has defined the Class (the Class
Definition) as follows:
All employees who worked for Capital as cleaners (including crew leads) in
Minnesota from May 20, 2012 through January 15, 2016.
If you fall within the definition of a Class Member, you may qualify for a payment
pursuant to the criteria set forth in the Settlement Agreement. If you are not a Class
Member as described in the Class Definition, you are not a Class Member and you do not
qualify for settlement benefits.
5.
WHY IS THE CLASS ACTION BEING SETTLED?
This matter is being settled because both sides have agreed to a settlement of this case to
avoid the costs and risks of trial. Capital does not admit it violated the law.
SETTLEMENT BENEFITS AND MY OPTIONS
6.
WHAT ARE THE SETTLEMENT BENEFITS?
The Settlement Agreement, if approved, provides monetary benefits to the Class. Class
Members will receive checks in amounts which will be determined based on a formula
devised by Class Counsel, which shall primarily be based on (1) the weeks worked by
each Class Member, and (2) the compensation earned by each Class Member. Each Class
Member will receive a minimum payment from the settlement in the amount of $100.00;
although, some may receive more. As part of the settlement, Capital has agreed to pay
$425,000 to the Class, which includes attorneys fees and costs as explained in Question
14 below. The total amount Capital has agreed to pay is referred to as the Settlement
Fund.
As described below, if the settlement is approved, the lawyers representing the Class
Members (Class Counsel) will have their attorneys fees, litigation costs, and costs of
administering the settlement paid from the Settlement Fund. The remaining amounts of
the Settlement Fund will be distributed to the Class Members by check.
Checks that are not cashed within 90 days after mailing will be donated to the MidMinnesota Legal Aid.
PARTICIPATING IN THE SETTLEMENT
7.
HOW DO I RECEIVE SETTLEMENT BENEFITS?

-6-
If you are a Class Member as defined in Question 4 above, you must fill out the
settlement participation form below in order to receive settlement benefits. All
settlement participation forms MUST be postmarked on or before [DATE 45 DAYS
FROM THE MAILING OF THIS NOTICE].
You should seek the advice of a tax professional if you have questions about the tax
implications of this settlement.
8.
IF I PARTICIPATE IN THE SETTLEMENT, WHAT AM I GIVING UP?
If the Court approves the settlement, you will have released Capital from any further
claims based on the same allegations made in this lawsuit, including claims for unpaid
wages; unpaid overtime compensation; unpaid minimum wages from May 20, 2012
through January 15, 2016, and you cannot ever sue them about these issues again. Should
you have any questions about the scope of the release, you may contact Class Counsel at
the numbers or addresses listed in Question 13 below.
DOING NOTHING
9.
WHAT HAPPENS IF I DO NOTHING?
If you do nothing, you remain a Class Member as defined in Question 4 above, but you
will NOT receive money. You will be included in the Class, and you will be bound by the
terms and conditions of the settlement; except, you will not release any claims under
federal law.
EXCLUDING YOURSELF FROM THE CLASS
10.
WHY WOULD I WANT TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE CLASS?
You do not have to take part in the settlement. You can exclude yourself from the
settlement by opting out. If you exclude yourself, you will not get the benefits of the
settlement, nor can you object to the settlement. Any Court orders will not apply to you.
By excluding yourself, you keep any right to file or proceed with a lawsuit against
Capital regarding the issues raised in this lawsuit.
If you have sued Capital for claims based on, or related to, the matters raised in this
lawsuit and want to continue with your suit, you are encouraged to seek legal counsel
about protecting your legal rights. If you want to continue with your current lawsuit, you
will need to personally ask, through a signed exclusion request, to be excluded from the
Class. If you exclude yourself, you will not be legally bound by the Courts judgment in
-7-
this case. Similarly, if you wish to start your own lawsuit against Capital for claims
covered by this lawsuit, you must exclude yourself from the Class. Should you do so, you
will have to represent yourself, or hire and pay your own lawyer, for that lawsuit and
prove your own claims. If you exclude yourself so you can start or continue your own
lawsuit against Capital for claims covered by this lawsuit, you should talk to your own
lawyer soon, because your claims may be subject to a statute of limitations.
11.
HOW DO I EXCLUDE MYSELF FROM THE CLASS?
If you are a Class Member and want to be excluded from the Class, you must send in a
written request that includes all of the following information:
Your legal name, current address and telephone number;
The name and number of the lawsuit: Hussein, et al. v. Capital Building
Services Group, Inc., No. 15-cv-2498.
The dates and location(s) where you worked for Capital;
A statement, signed by you, indicating I understand I am requesting to be
excluded from the Parties settlement and that I will receive no money from
the Parties settlement. I understand that if I am excluded from the Parties
settlement, I may bring a separate legal action seeking damages, but might
recover nothing, or less than what I would have recovered if I had remained
in the Parties settlement in this case.
All exclusion requests must be mailed to Class Counsel, who is administering this
settlement, at the following address:
Adam W. Hansen
Nichols Kaster, PLLP
4600 IDS Center
80 South Eighth Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
All exclusion requests MUST be postmarked on or before [DATE 45 DAYS FROM
THE MAILING OF THIS NOTICE]. Class Counsel will provide all exclusion
requests to the Court and Capitals lawyers after this date.
Any exclusion request must include your personal signature, which shall be the
Courts indication that you wish to be excluded from the Class. You cannot exclude
yourself by phone or by email. If you do not follow these instructions properly, you will
lose your right to exclude yourself. There are no exceptions.
-8-
UNLESS YOU PROPERLY SIGN AND MAIL IN A REQUEST FOR

EXCLUSION, YOU WILL BE BOUND BY ANY JUDGMENT IN THIS CASE,
AND YOU WILL NOT BE PERMITTED TO PURSUE ANY PENDING OR
FUTURE LITIGATION REGARDING MATTERS RESOLVED IN THIS
SETTLEMENT. IF YOU WANT TO EXCLUDE YOURSELF FROM THIS
SETTLEMENT, IT IS IMPORTANT THAT YOU FOLLOW THESE
INSTRUCTIONS CAREFULLY.
OBJECTING TO THE SETTLEMENT
12.
HOW DO I OBJECT TO THE SETTLEMENT?
If you do not like the settlement, but do not want to be excluded from it, you may file an
objection to it. This means you can tell the Court that you disagree with the settlement or
some of its terms. For example, you can say you do not think the settlement is fair or
adequate or that you object to the amount of the attorneys fees, costs, or expenses. The
Court will consider your views, but the Court may approve the settlement anyway.
You can object only if you do not exclude yourself from the Class. If you exclude
yourself, you cannot object.
To object, either you, or a lawyer of your own choosing, must prepare an objection that
includes all of the following information:
1.
The name and title of the lawsuit, Hussein, et al. v. Capital Building
Services Group, Inc., No. 15-cv-2498.;
2.
A written statement of objections clearly specifying the grounds, or

reasons, for each objection;
3.
A statement indicating if you, or your lawyer, will ask to appear at the Final
Approval Hearing to talk about your objections, and, if so, how long you
will need to present your objections; and
4.
Copies of documents (if any) you, or your lawyer, will present at the Final
Approval Hearing.
Your objection must be postmarked no later than [DATE 45 DAYS FROM DATE
NOTICE IS MAILED]. Any objection postmarked after that date may be rejected.
Objections must be mailed to Class Counsel at the following address:
Adam W. Hansen
-9-
4600 IDS Center

Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
Class Counsel will file all objections with the Court, and provide all objections to
Capitals lawyers, after [DATE 45 DAYS FROM DATE NOTICE IS MAILED].
Objections postmarked after [DATE 45 DAYS FROM DATE NOTICE IS MAILED]
will be untimely, and may not be considered by the Court.
THE LAWYERS REPRESENTING YOU
13.
DO I HAVE A LAWYER REPRESENTING MY INTERESTS IN THIS
CASE?
Yes. The Court has appointed the following law firm to represent you and other Class
Members. These lawyers are referred to as Class Counsel and include:
Paul Lukas, Adam Hansen, and Carl Engstrom of the law firm Nichols Kaster, PLLP.
Class Counsel can be reached at the following addresses and numbers:
4600 IDS Center
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
Email: ahansen@nka.com
Phone: 1-877-448-0492
Fax: 612-215-6870
You will not be charged directly by Class Counsel for their services, but they will ask the
Court to award them a fee from the Settlement Fund.
If you want, you may hire your own attorney. However, you will be responsible for any
fees and expenses that attorney charges you.
14.
HOW WILL THE LAWYERS BE PAID?
Class Counsel will ask the Court for reimbursement of their out of pocket expenses and
an award of attorneys fees based on their work in this litigation. The amount of
attorneys fees to be awarded will be determined by the Court. Under the terms of the
Settlement Agreement, and subject to Court approval, Class Counsel can petition the
Court for a fee of $151,666.66 of the $425,000 Settlement Fund. Attorneys fees,
- 10 -
litigation costs, and settlement administration costs payable to Class Counsel have been
factored into the value of the settlement.
All attorneys fees, litigation costs, and administration costs will be paid from the
Settlement Fund. Payment of these funds will reduce the Settlement Fund by an equal
amount.
The Settlement Agreement provides further details about the fees and costs payable to
Class Counsel. A copy of the Settlement Agreement may be obtained from Class Counsel
or the Court.
15.
HOW WILL THE REPRESENTATIVE PLAINTIFFS BE PAID?
To compensate the Representative Plaintiffs and certain opt-in Plaintiffs for their work in
this litigation on behalf of the Class, certain Plaintiffs will receive extra incentive
compensation. The settlement agreement allocates a total of $25,000 to be shared among
nine Plaintiffs who filed the case or joined this case prior to class certification. In
addition, five Plaintiffs will receive extra compensation totaling $33,000 for claims that
are individual to those Plaintiffs. These five Plaintiffs have given up their right to sue
Capital for any reason (including for wrongful termination). These Plaintiffs individual
claims have been factored into the value of the settlement.
THE COURTS FINAL APPROVAL HEARING
16.
WHEN AND WHERE WILL THE COURT DECIDE WHETHER TO

APPROVE THE SETTLEMENT?
On [DATE and TIME], the Court will hold a Final Approval Hearing. At this hearing,
the Court will consider if the settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate. If there are
written objections, the Court will consider them, and the Court will listen to people who
have asked to speak at the hearing. After the hearing, the Court will decide whether or not
to approve the settlement.
The Hearing will be held before the Honorable Susan R. Nelson at the United States
Courthouse in St. Paul: 774 Federal Building, 316 North Robert Street, St. Paul,
Minnesota, 55101.
17.
DO I HAVE TO ATTEND THE HEARING?
No. Class Counsel will answer any questions the Court may have, but you may appear at
your own expense. If you send a written objection, the Court will consider it. If you want,
you may also pay your own lawyer to attend the hearing.
- 11 -
18.
IF I HIRE MY OWN LAWYER, CAN MY LAWYER APPEAR AT THE

FINAL APPROVAL HEARING TO TELL THE COURT ABOUT MY
OPINIONS REGARDING THE SETTLEMENT?
Yes. As long as you dont exclude yourself, you have the right to appear through counsel
at the Final Approval Hearing. You may also appear without a lawyer and directly tell
the Court your opinions about the settlement - as long as your Notice of Appearance and
any written objections you may have filed are postmarked by [DATE 45 DAYS
FOLLOWING THE MAILING OF NOTICE]. Note that if you choose to have a lawyer
appear on your behalf, the cost of having that lawyer appear will be at your own expense.
GETTING MORE INFORMATION
19.
WHERE DO I OBTAIN MORE INFORMATION?
If you want additional information, you may call or write Class Counsel at the address
and phone number listed above.
In addition, Class counsel has created a specific website describing the case:
http://www.nka.com/case/capital-building-services-group-inc/
The specific terms of the settlement have also been filed with the Court. You can look at,
and copy, these documents at any time during regular office hours at Clerk of the Court,
United States District Court, District of Minnesota, 300 South Fourth Street, 202, U.S.
Courthouse, Minneapolis, MN 55415. If you have a Public Access to Court Electronic
Records (PACER) account, you may view the documents on the Courts Case
Management/Electronic Court Filing website: www.pacer.gov.
DATE:
Susan R. Nelson
United States District Court Judge
- 12 -
CAPITAL BUILDING SERVICES GROUP, INC.

SETTLEMENT PARTICIPATION FORM
[YOU MUST FILL OUT THIS FORM TO PARTICIPATE IN THE

SETTLEMENT]
I worked for Capital Building Services Group, Inc. as a cleaner (which includes
work as a crew lead) in Minnesota on one or more occasions from May 20, 2012, through
January 15, 2016. I wish to participate in the settlement as described in this Notice. I
understand that by participating in this settlement, I give up the right to sue Capital based
on the claims raised in this lawsuit under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. 201
et seq., Minnesota Fair Labor Standards Act, Minn. Stat. 177.24, and Minnesota
Payment of Wages Act, Minn. Stat. 181.001, et seq.
Date:
Signature
Full Name:
Address:
City, State Zip:
Best Phone Number(s):
Email:
Return this form by

fax, email, or mail to:
Nichols Kaster, PLLP, Attn: Adam Hansen

Fax: (612) 338-4878
Email: forms@nka.com
Address: 4600 IDS Center, 80 S. 8th Street, Minneapolis,
MN 55402
Web: www.nka.com
- 13 -
IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THE SETTLEMENT, THIS FORM MUST be

postmarked on or before [DATE 45 DAYS FROM THE MAILING OF THIS
NOTICE].
- 14 -
EXHIBIT B
With offices in Minneapolis and San Francisco, Nichols Kaster is a premier employment and
consumer litigation firm. Nichols Kasters practice is solely dedicated to plaintiffs work,
advocating for employees and consumers rights on both an individual and class action basis.
The firm is composed of thirty experienced and talented attorneys dedicated to fighting for the
little guy, and who have been recognized locally and nationally for their achievements.
The firm, throughout its thirty-plus years of practice, has developed a sterling reputation as a top
employment and consumer plaintiffs firm. In September 2014, Nichols Kaster was named one
of the top 50 Elite Trial Lawyers by The National Law Journal and Law.com, a list of firms that
are doing the most creative and substantial work on the plaintiffs side. The Natl Law Journal,
Introducing Americas Elite Trial Lawyers, Sept. 8, 2014. In February 2012, the firm was named
to The National Law Journals 2011 Litigation Boutiques Hot List for its attorneys courtroom
abilities. In the article spotlighting Nichols Kaster, the Journal wrote regarding the firms
consumer practice: The firm is credited with mounting the first challenge to a banking practice
known as forced-place insurance and that American Banker magazine recently concluded that
evidence to date in one of the Nichols Kaster suits against JPMorgan Chase suggests serious
trouble for the banks. Jason McLure, Nichols Kaster Takes the Employees Side, The Natl
Law Journal, Litigation Boutiques Hot List, Feb. 13, 2012. Nichols Kaster has also been ranked
as a Best Law Firm by U.S. News & World Report, as a top plaintiffs employment law firm by
Law360, and by Minnesota Lawyer as one of Minnesotas Top 100 Law Firms. In 2009, Nichols
Kaster was ranked as one of the top ten busiest FLSA firms in the country by Litigation Almanac
360, which conducted a study of over 500,000 federal cases and received input from more than
200 law firms. Nichols Kaster was the only plaintiffs firm in the top ten. Nichols Kaster
received a First Tier ranking on the 2014 Best Law Firms list in Minneapolis for LitigationLabor and Employment by US News-Best Lawyers in November 2013. On Martindale Hubbell,
the firm has a 5 out of 5 peer rating. In a recent CityPages article regarding one of the firms
cases, Nichols Kaster was described as one of the top employment firms in the country. Olivia
LaVecchia, The Perfect Victim: Exploitation and Threat of Deportation, CityPages, May 29,
2013.
Nichols Kaster, through the years, has and continues to, secure substantial settlements, win
significant motions on important issues, and vigorously litigate complex class actions and
challenging individual actions against some of the top defense firms nationwide. The firm has
been recognized by judges for its successes and extensive experience. Further, Nichols Kaster
has been appointed lead or co-counsel on hundreds of class and collective actions and frequently
achieves class certification in both litigation and settlement contexts.
1|Page
Nichols Kaster is led by its experienced and talented partners.1
Don H. Nichols has over 35 years of experience in the practice of law, has tried over 100
cases to verdict and has obtained over $50 million dollars for his class and collective
clients. Don is highly respected by the legal community, as seen by his fellowship in The
College of Labor and Employment Lawyers. Don was recently selected by his peers for
inclusion in The Best Lawyers in America 2015 and 2016 for his work in LitigationLabor & Employment. Education: B.A. Augsburg College 1968, J.D. University of
Minnesota Law School 1971.
James H. Kaster has also tried well over 100 cases to verdict or decision, including a
successful case in front of the United States Supreme Court (Kasten v. Saint-Gobain
Performance Plastics Corp.). He was ranked by Chambers USA as number one among
plaintiffs employment lawyers in Minnesota, was named Lawyer of the Year by Best
Lawyers in 2012, and 2016, was selected for inclusion in 2015 as well for his work in
Litigation-Labor & Employment, and was named to the 2013 Super Lawyers Minnesota
Top 100 List. Jims success in the courtroom includes earning many million dollar and
multi-million dollar recoveries for the plaintiffs. Jim is also a frequent lecturer before
local, state, and national organizations on damage recovery and trial skills. He has been
published multiple times in the Minnesota Trial Lawyer publication and was selected as a
Fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers, which is a premier professional trial
organization in America whose membership is limited to 1% of the trial lawyers in any
state or province. In June 2014, Jim was recertified as a Civil Trial Law Specialist, a
program administered by the Minnesota State Bar Association and approved by the State
Board of Legal Certification, and which is earned by leading attorneys who have
completed a rigorous approval process, including an examination in the specialty area,
peer review, and documented experience. The achievement has been earned by fewer
than 3% of all licensed Minnesota attorneys. Education: B.A. Marquette University
1976, J.D. Marquette University 1979.
Paul J. Lukas has been named one of the Top 40 Employment Law Lawyers by
Minnesota Law and Politics, named Top Lawyer by Mpls/St. Paul Magazine and named
in the Whos Who in Employment Law by Minnesota Law and Politics. Paul is also
consistently named to the Minnesota Super Lawyers list each year. Early in his career,
Paul tried a wide variety of criminal cases, including the nationally renowned State v.
Porter case before the Minnesota Supreme Court. He then focused his practice on civil
plaintiff litigation, representing thousands of employees and consumers and obtaining
well over $100MM for his clients. Paul is also a frequent lecturer on a national level.
Education: B.A. St. Johns University 1988, J.D. William Mitchell College of Law 1995.
Steven Andrew Smith was recently honored by the Minnesota Chapter of the National
Employment Lawyers Association as the recipient of the 2014 Karla Wahl Dedicated
Advocacy Award. The Award is given to recipients for their ceaseless and courageous
efforts to protect and advance the rights of Minnesota employees. Steve was also the
recipient of the 2011 Distinguished Pro Bono Service Award from the United States
Biographical information for all of the firms associate attorneys can be found below.
2|Page
District Court for the District of Minnesota, was selected for the Merit Selection Panel
regarding the Re-Appointment of U.S. Magistrate Judge Arthur J. Boylan (D. Minn.
2012), has received the Martindale Hubble AV Preeminent rating, and was named to the
Best Lawyers in America list for 2014, 2015, and 2016. Steves trial experience includes
trials to verdict in sexual harassment, whistleblower, reprisal/retaliation, commission,
contract, gender discrimination, marital status discrimination, disability, and wage and
hour claims. Steve has also litigated several notable cases having substantial effect on
employees rights under state and federal employment laws. Steve is often invited to
lecture on employment issues both nationally and locally. He has also authored a number
of articles on employment law issues such as sexual harassment in the workplace. He
was further recognized in 2014 by the United States District Court and Chief Judge
Michael J. Davis for his involvement in the Pro Se Project, a project by the United States
District Court of Minnesota for assisting individuals representing themselves in federal
court. Education: B.A. Concordia College 1990, J.D. William Mitchell College of Law
1995 cum laude.
Michele R. Fisher has a practice primarily dedicated to national wage and hour class and
collective action litigation. She has represented over a hundred thousand employees
seeking to recover overpayment pay, minimum wages and commission payments. She
has successfully handled numerous jury trials and arbitrations. She is a member of the
firms management committee and the chair of its Business Development and Marketing
Groups, which originate class and collective actions and market the firm. Michele is a
regular speaker at local and national conferences, routinely acts as an author and editor
for wage and hour publications, and is active in several organizations. She is the co-chair
and a faculty member of the Practicing Law Institutes Wage & Hour Litigation and
Compliance conference, the Co-Chair of the ABA Federal Labor Standards Legislation
Committee, the Co-Editor-in-Chief of the ABA Federal Labor Standards Legislation
Committees Midwinter Report, an editorial board member for BNAs the Fair Labor
Standard Act Treatise, and a chapter editor for BNAs Wage and Hour Laws: A State-byState Survey (2d ed.). She has been named to the Super Lawyers and Rising Star lists
repeatedly. Education: B.A. St. Cloud State University 1997, J.D. William Mitchell
College of Law 2000.
Matthew H. Morgan has been an adjunct faculty member at William Mitchell College
of Law and a frequent lecturer at legal seminars. He also received a CALI Award in
Business Organization and was named to the Whos Who in Employment Law. Matt was
recently named to the 2014 Super Lawyers list, Minnesota Super Lawyers, Mpls/St. Paul
Magazine, and Twin Cities Business. Matt is a skilled litigator, trying cases to verdict in
both jury and bench trials. In 2012, Matt tried two jury trials against large health
organizations and received verdicts in favor of the plaintiff in each of them. Matt has
represented clients on a variety of complex matters including non-competition and nonsolicitation provisions of employment and separation agreements, discrimination,
retaliation, professional licensure, sexual harassment, breach of duty of loyalty, unfair
competition, and breach of contract. Education: B.A. University of Minnesota 1996, J.D.
William Mitchell College of Law 2000.
3|Page
Kai H. Richter has years of consumer class action experience, having managed the
Complex Litigation Division of the Minnesota Attorney Generals Office prior to coming
to Nichols Kaster. He has testified before the Minnesota House of Representatives Civil
Law Committee regarding consumer enforcement litigation and other social justice
matters. Kai is also a 2014-15 Co-Chair of the Consumer Litigation Section for the
Minnesota State Bar Association. Education: B.A. Dartmouth College 1995, J.D.
University of Minnesota 1999 cum laude.
Rachhana T. Srey has extensive wage and hour experience. She contributes to the
National Employment Lawyers Association Class and Collective Action Committees
quarterly publication. She recently took a large class case to trial and won significant
recovery for the class members. Rachhana has spoken nationally and locally on topics
related to the FLSA and discovery in civil litigation. Education: B.A. University of
Minnesota 2000, J.D. William Mitchell College of Law 2004 cum laude.
Matthew C. Helland has been named to the Rising Stars list, Northern California Super
Lawyers and San Francisco Magazine and has extensive employment law experience. He
has spoken at several conferences and seminars on the WARN Act and EPPA and FLSA
collective actions. Matt works out of the firms San Francisco office and is well-versed
in both California and Minnesota state law. Matt has worked on multiple large class
actions in his career, involving a variety of issues, including wage and hour rights,
WARN Act violations, breach of contract, and Truth in Lending Act claims. Education:
B.A. Rhodes College 2002, J.D. University of Minnesota Law School 2005 magna cum
laude.
David E. Schlesinger has represented thousands of employees in cases involving

discrimination, retaliation, breach of contract, unpaid wages, shareholder rights, FLSA,
and non-competes and trade secrets. David, as first-chair, has tried and won cases in both
trial and arbitration. He has also argued before the Minnesota Supreme Court. David
teaches Practice and Professionalism at the University of Minnesota Law School.
Education: B.A. Mary Washington College 2001, J.D. University of Minnesota Law
School 2006 cum laude.
Tim C. Selander has litigated claims in federal and state courts, as well as arbitration.
Tim has represented workers in disputes related to unpaid wages, overtime pay,
commissions, and wrongful termination. Tim has been a frequent speaker at continuing
legal education seminars and was recognized as a Rising Star in 2012 and a Super
Lawyer in 2013. Education: B.A. University of Wisconsin-Madison 2002, J.D. William
Mitchell College of Law 2006.
Anna P. Prakash has represented thousands of employees and consumers in collective

and class actions under the Fair Labor Standards Act, Fair Credit Reporting Act, and state
employment and consumer protection laws since joining Nichols Kaster in 2009. She is a
skilled class action litigator, achieving many successes for her clients, including the
summary judgment victories referenced below in Huff, Hart, and Clincy, successful
appeal in Bible, and the trial verdict in FTS. Education: B.A. University of Michigan
2002, J.D. Cornell Law School 2005.
4|Page
The firms partners are consistently named to the Minnesota Super Lawyers or the Super
Lawyers Rising Stars list. In January 2012, the firms partners were featured in Newsweeks 20
Leaders in Employment Law showcase.
Many of Nichols Kasters associate attorneys have also been recognized on the Minnesota Super
Lawyers and Rising Stars lists over the years. Nichols Kasters attorneys are active in many
organizations, have been admitted in numerous state and appellate courts, and frequently speak
to national audiences. Nichols Kaster has tried multiple large class actions to verdict, and its
attorneys have experience arguing before the United States Supreme Court, several federal
Courts of Appeals and the Minnesota Supreme Court.
JUDICIAL RECOGNITION
Courts have widely acknowledged Nichols Kasters exemplary class action practice. Below are
a few examples of such recognition.
The Honorable Judge Sidney H. Stein of the U.S.D.C. S.D.N.Y.:
[T]he quality of representation, as evidenced by the substantial recovery and the
qualifications of the attorneys, is high. As then District Judge Gerard E. Lynch
recognized, Nichols Kaster is a reputable plaintiff-side employment litigation
boutique with a nationwide practice and special expertise prosecuting FLSA
cases.
Febus v. Guardian 1st Funding Grp., LLC, 870 F. Supp. 2d 337 (S.D.N.Y. June 22, 2012) (citing
Imbeault v. Ricks Cabaret Intl Inc., No. 08-Civ.-5458 (GEL), 2009 WL 2482134, at *3
(S.D.N.Y. Aug. 13, 2009)) (granting motion for attorneys fees).
Special Master David R. Cohen (appointed by the Honorable Kathryn Vratil):
So Ill just close by saying that this is as complicated a question as any Ive seen
in any case Ive worked by a factor of, you know not just a little bit more
complicated. Its enormously more complicated. And the worked that all of you
have put into trying to solve this problem ranging from your legal analysis to your
math has been really extraordinary.
Sibley v. Sprint Nextel Corp., No. 08-2063 (D. Kan. Dec. 19, 2014) (transcript from expert
summit) (addressing both parties).
The Honorable Judge Michael J. Davis of the U.S.D.C. D. Minn.:
The settlement was the result of arms-length negotiations between experienced
counsel. Class Counsel is well known by this Court for their expertise in wage
and hour litigation.
5|Page
Burch v. Qwest Commcns Intl., No. 06-03523 (D. Minn. Sept. 14, 2012) (granting settlement
approval).
The Honorable Judge Paul A. Engelmayer of the U.S.D.C. S.D.N.Y.:
The high quality of Nichols Kasters representation strongly supports approval of
the requested fees. The Court has previously commended counsel for their
excellent lawyering. See Dkt 541 at 98 (I have benefited by very high-quality
briefing from both of you.). The point is worth reiterating here. Nichols Kaster
was energetic, effective, and creative throughout this long litigation. The Court
found Nichols Kasters briefs and arguments first-rate. And the documents and
deposition transcripts which the Court reviewed in the course of resolving
motions revealed the firms far-sighted and strategic approach to
discovery.Further, unlike in many class actions, plaintiffs counsel did not build
their case by piggybacking on regulatory investigation or settlement. The
lawyers at Nichols Kaster can genuinely claim to have been the authors of their
clients success.
Hart v. RCI Hospitality Holdings, Inc., No. 09 Civ. 3043, 2015 WL 5577713 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 22,
2015) (granting final approval of settlement and awarding attorneys fees and costs).
The Honorable Judge William Alsup of the U.S.D.C. N.D. Cal.:

Mr. Richter did a fine job in a case I had. . and he came back with a real
settlement that benefited those class members. He did an excellent job in that
case.
Lane v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 12-4026 (N.D. Cal.) (transcript from hearing on motion for
class certification and Nichols Kasters motion to intervene) (referring to the settlement achieved
by Nichols Kaster attorney Kai Richter in Hofstetter v. Chase Home Fin., LLC, No. 10-01313).
I want to say that both sides here have performed at an admirable level. And I
wish that the lawyers of all cases would perform at your level. I say this to both
of you, because you have you have been of assistance to the Court.
Hofstetter v. Chase Home Fin., LLC, No. 10-01313 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 7, 2011) (transcript from
final class settlement approval hearing).
Plaintiffs counsel are experienced class-action counsel.
Hofstetter, No. 10-01313, 2011 WL 1225900 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2011) (order appointing
Nichols Kaster as class counsel and certifying the classes).
6|Page
The Honorable Judge Richard H. Kyle of the U.S.D.C. D. Minn.:

Well, I think you did a great job on this. I mean, I really do. It's nice to see when
cases go, and go quickly, and I know that it's a little different than a lot of other
cases but it still -- you still have a lot of fooling around here that doesn't have to
be done, but it seems to me you folks have gotten it done the right way. So I look
forward to seeing you all [at the final approval hearing].
Bible v. Gen. Revenue Corp., 12-CV-1236 (D. Minn. Jan. 6, 2014) (transcript from preliminary
approval hearing).
The Court finds that counsel is competent and capable of exercising all
responsibilities as Class Counsel for the Settlement Class.
Bible, No. 12-CV-136 (D. Minn. Jan. 7, 2014) (appointing Nichols Kaster as class counsel and
preliminarily certifying a consumer protection class regarding claims under the Fair Debt
Collection Protection Act).
..the court finds that Plaintiffs Lead Counsel are qualified to represent the Class.
Stewart v. CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp., 05-CV-1502-RHK/AJB, 2006 WL 839509, at
*1 (D. Minn. Mar. 28, 2006) (appointing class counsel and preliminarily certifying consumer
protection class regarding illegal heat shut-offs for settlement purposes).
The Honorable Chief Judge Deborah Chasanow of the U.S.D.C. D. Md.:

the attorneys at Nichols Kaster, PLLP are qualified, experienced, and
competent, as evidenced by their background in litigating class-action cases
involving FCRA violations.
.
As noted above, Plaintiffs attorneys are experienced and skilled consumer class
action litigators who achieved a favorable result for the Settlement Classes.
Singleton v. Dominos Pizza, LLC, 976 F. Supp. 2d 665, 677, 683 (D. Md. 2013) (granting final
approval of consumer class action settlement).
the attorneys at Nichols Kaster, PLLP, are qualified, experienced, and
competent.
Singleton, No. 11-cv-01823 (D. Md. May 13, 2013) (appointing class counsel and preliminarily
certifying consumer protection classes regarding claims under the Fair Credit Reporting Act for
settlement purposes).
7|Page
The Honorable Judge Joan M. Azrack of the U.S.D.C. E.D.N.Y.:

Plaintiffs counsel have an established record of competent and successful
prosecution of large wage and hour class actions, and the attorneys working on
the case are likewise competent and experienced in the area.
Nichols Kaster and O&Gs lawyers have substantial experience prosecuting and
settling employment class actions, including wage and hour class actions and are
well-versed in wage and hour law and in class action law.Courts have
repeatedly found Nichols Kaster and O&G to be adequate class counsel in
employment law class actions.
Westerfield v. Wash. Mut. Bank, No. 06-2817, 2009 WL 6490084 (E.D.N.Y. June 26, 2009)
(preliminarily approving settlement and appointing class counsel).
The Honorable Judge Virginia A. Phillips of the U.S.D.C. C.D. Cal.:
Plaintiffs have demonstrated sufficiently that their counsel will represent the
proposed classes adequately. Counsel has identified and investigated the claims
in this action, has extensive experience handling class actions similar to this one,
has demonstrated knowledge of the applicable law, and has adequate resources to
represent the proposed classes.
Cervantez v. Celestica Corp., 253 F.R.D. 562, 574 (C.D. Cal. July 30, 2008) (appointing class
counsel and certifying the class).
Over the past two years, Class Counsel has been active in all stages of litigation
and has particularly benefitted Plaintiffs through capable handling of motion
practice. For example, Plaintiffs obtained summary judgment on a key issue
involving the Morillion doctrine and defeated summary judgment on Defendants
de minimis defense.
Cervantez, No. 07-729 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 29, 2010) (granting final approval of settlement).
The Honorable Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois of the U.S.D.C. D. Minn.
Surprisingly Defendants also argue that Plaintiffs legal counsel is not able to
vigorously prosecute this case, asserting that [Michele Fisher] and her firm do
not have experience with prevailing wage class action suits. Defendants
conclusory assertion is without merit. In support of his motion, Plaintiff
submitted the resume of his firm Nichols Kaster, LLP, which indicates that
Plaintiffs counsel has extensive experience with wage disputes and class actions.
Seipel v. Safety Signs, Inc., No. 15-cv-71 (D. Minn. Aug. 27, 2015) (ECF No. 64)
(recommending that plaintiffs motion for class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 be granted
and Nichols Kaster be appointed as class counsel)
8|Page
The Honorable Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler of U.S.D.C. N.D. Cal.

Plaintiffs retained counsel with significant experience in prosecuting force-placed
insurance cases, and other courts in this district have appointed them class
counsel in force-placed insurance cases. Counsel have worked vigorously to
identify and investigate the claims in this case, and, as this litigation has revealed,
understand the applicable law and have represented their clients vigorously and
effectively.
Ellsworth v. U.S. Bank, N.A., No. C 12-02506 LB, 2014 WL 2734953 at *18 (N.D. Cal. June 13,
2014) (granting plaintiffs motion for class certification and appointing Nichols Kaster as class
counsel).
The Honorable Judge Kathryn Vratil of U.S.D.C. D. Kan.:
The Court must consider the work counsel has done in identifying or investigating
potential claims in the actions, counsels' experience in handling class actions and
other complex litigation and claims of the type asserted in the present action,
counsels' knowledge of the applicable law, and the resources counsel will commit
to representing the class. Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(g)(1)(C). After reviewing the record,
the Court is satisfied that the firms of Nichols Kaster, PLLP and Stueve Siegel
Hanson LLP satisfy these criteria and will adequately represent the interests of
the class as counsel.
Sibley v. Sprint Nextel Corp., 254 F.R.D. 662, 677 (D. Kan. 2008) (order granting class
certification and appointing Nichols Kaster as class counsel).
The Honorable Magistrate Judge Tony N. Leung of the U.S.D.C. D. Minn.:
[T]he combined experience of Plaintiffs counsel as well as the fact that
employment law, particularly the representation of employees, forms a large part
of both the firm and counsels practice persuades this Court that the law firm of
Nichols Kaster, PLLP, and its attorneys Steven Andrew Smith and Anna P.
Prakash will more than adequately protect the interests of the Class Members.
Fearn v. Blazin Beier Ranch, Inc., No. 11-743 (D. Minn. Jan. 30, 2012) (recommending
preliminary approval of settlement and appointing class counsel).
Plaintiffs have shown good cause under Rule 16(b) because Plaintiffs new
counsel has shown the necessary diligence. Plaintiffs brought on Nichols Kaster,
an experienced employment law firm of high repute as lead counsel in May 2012.
Since that time, Plaintiffs have made a concerted effort to comply with this
Courts orders and deadlines.
Alvarez v. Diversified Main. Sys., Inc., No. 11-3106 (D. Minn. Aug. 21, 2012) (granting motion
to amend).
9|Page
The Honorable Judge Gary Larson of Minn. Dist. Ct., Hennepin County:
Plaintiffs counsel are qualified, experienced attorneys that are fully capable of
conducting this class action litigationthey are highly qualified, knowledgeable
attorneys that are willing to invest the resources necessary to fully prosecute this
case.
Karl v. Uptown Drink, LLC, No. 27-CV-10-1926 (Minn. Dist. Ct. Nov. 17, 2010) (appointing
Nichols Kaster as class counsel and certifying the class).
The Honorable Judge Susan M. Robiner:
Plaintiffs counsel are adequate legal representatives for the class. They have
done work identifying and investigating potential claims, have handled class
actions in the past, know the applicable law, and have the resources necessary to
represent the class. The class will be fairly and adequately represented.
Spar v. Cedar Towing & Auction, Inc., No. 27-CV-411-24993 (Minn. Dist. Ct. Oct. 16, 2012)
(certifying class and appointing Nichols Kaster as class counsel).
The Honorable Judge David N. Hurd of the U.S.D.C. N.D.N.Y.:
Finally, Plaintiffs and their counsel have fairly and adequately represented the
interests of the Settlement Classes.
Casey v. Citibank, N.A., et al., 12-CV-820, and Coonan v. Citibank, N.A., 13-CV-353
(N.D.N.Y. April 2, 2014) (appointing Nichols Kaster as co-lead counsel and preliminarily
approving class wide settlement classes in a $110MM force-placed insurance settlement)
The Honorable Judge Lorna G. Schofield of the U.S.D.C. S.D.N.Y.:
Nichols Kaster has demonstrated it is able fairly and adequately to represent the
interests of the putative class
Ernst v. DISH Network, LLC, et al., 12-CV-8794 (S.D.N.Y. July 23, 2013) (appointing Nichols
Kaster as interim class counsel for a putative class with Fair Credit Reporting Act claims against
consumer reporting agency).
The Honorable Judge John G. Koetl of the U.S.D.C. S.D.N.Y.:

..[C]lass counsel ha[s] demonstrated their interest in vigorously pursuing the
claims of the class.
Hart v. Ricks Cabaret, Intl., Inc., No. 09-3043, 2010 WL 5297221, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 20,
2010) (appointing Nichols Kaster as class counsel and certifying the class).
10 | P a g e
The Honorable Judge Larry Alan Burns of the U.S.D.C. S.D. Cal.:
[Defendant] doesnt question whether Plaintiffs are represented by qualified and
competent counsel, and its obvious that they are. Plaintiffs are represented by a
national law firm, Nichols Kaster, that specializes in employment and class action
law.
Norris-Wilson v. Delta-T Grp., Inc., 270 F.R.D. 596, 605 (S.D. Cal. 2010) (certifying a Rule 23
wage and hour class and appointing Nichols Kaster as class counsel).
The Honorable Judge Susan Richard Nelson of the U.S.D.C. D. Minn.:
Plaintiffs Counsel are qualified attorneys with extensive experience in class
action and wage and hour litigation and are hereby appointed as Class Counsel.
Alvarez v. Diversified Main. Sys., Inc., No. 11-3106 (D. Minn. Feb. 14, 2013) (appointing class
counsel and preliminarily certifying the class for settlement purposes).
The Honorable Judge Thomas D. Schroeder of the U.S.D.C. M.D.N.C.:
However, the difficulty of the legal issues involved [and] the skill and experience
of Plaintiffs counsel in FLSA cases . . . make an enhancement of the lodestar
amount appropriate in this case.
Latham v. Branch Banking & Trust Co., No. 1:12-cv-00007, 2014 WL 464236 (M.D.N.C. Jan.
14, 2014) (granting final approval of class action settlement).
Arbitrator Joel Grossman, Esq.
The Arbitrator also notes that the briefs submitted by Claimants counsel and the
performance at the hearing by Claimants counsel were of a very high quality.
Green v. CashCall, Inc., JAMS Arbitration No. 1200047225(JAMS Aug. 22, 2014) (awarding
Nichols Kasters fees and costs).
AREAS OF PRACTICE
EMPLOYMENT LITIGATION: Collective/Class Actions & Individual Plaintiffs
Nichols Kaster has, and continues to, litigate on behalf of thousands of employees in multiple
state and nationwide cases. The firm has filed lawsuits regarding various violations, including
but not limited to, failure to pay overtime, minimum wage violations, misclassification, off-theclock work, donning and doffing, discrimination, and Minnesota gratuities statutes violations.
11 | P a g e
Types of Employment Cases Nichols Kaster Handles:

-Fair Labor Standards Act, Overtime & Minimum Wage Violations
-Wage Fixing
-Equal Pay Act
-Criminal Background Discrimination
-Federal Railway Safety Act Violations
-Employee Benefits
-Breach of Contract
-Non-Compete Agreements
-Defamation
-Severance
-Workers Adjustment Retraining Notification Act
-Sexual Harassment
-Discrimination
-Americans with Disability Act
-Family Medical Leave Act
-Retaliation Claims
CONSUMER LITIGATION: Class Actions

Nichols Kaster has developed a consumer class action team dedicated to investigating and filing
suits to ensure consumers rights are represented. The consumer cases the firm has filed have
alleged various violations, some of which are listed below. In the last six years, the firm has
initiated more than 140 consumer cases, the vast majority of which were brought on a class-wide
basis.
Types of Consumer Cases Nichols Kaster Handles:
-Force-Placed Insurance
-Fair Credit Reporting Act
-Improper Background Checks
-Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
-Student Loans
-False Advertising & Deceptive Marketing
-Information Privacy/Data Breach
-Interest Overcharges & Misapplication of Loan Payments
-Predatory Lending
-Unfair & Deceptive Business Practices
-Unfair & Unconscionable Contracts
-Unfair Credit Billing Practices
-Unfair Credit Reporting Practices
-Unfair Debt Collection Practices
12 | P a g e
WHISTLEBLOWER/QUI TAM
Nichols Kaster represents whistleblowers across the country, protecting individuals who have
blown the whistle on illegal activity. These cases involve the reporting of possible
government fraud, mishandling of toxic substances, violations of tax or securities laws,
discrimination in education, failure to provide access to public facilities, and more. Nichols
Kaster also represents individuals who have brought claims on behalf of the government against
entities who have defrauded the government under the False Claims Act (also known as qui
tam lawsuits).
NOTABLE LITIGATION RESULTS

Recent highlights of Nichols Kasters cases include:
In Heaton v. Social Finance, Inc., No. 3:14-cv-05191-TEH (N.D. Cal. Oct. 15, 2015), the court
denied defendants motion for summary judgment, finding that there were triable issues of fact
as to whether defendants had violated the statutes at issue, whether the alleged violations were
willful, and finding that defendants had failed to meet their burden as to plaintiffs claims under
the California Unfair Competition Law.
In Bible v. United Student Aid Funds, Inc., 799 F.3d 633 (7th Cir. 2015), pet. for rehrg. denied
(7th Cir. Oct. 5, 2015), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed the district
courts dismissal of plaintiffs complaint against a student loan guarantor for wrongfully
charging collection fees on a defaulted student loan, finding that plaintiffs claims for breach of
contract and for violations of the RICO Act were not preempted by the Higher Education Act,
and stating that a guaranty agency may not impose collection costs on a borrower who is in
default for the first time but who has timely entered into and complied with an alternative
repayment agreement. Id.
In Tamez v. BHP Billiton Petroleum (Americas), Inc., No. 5:15-cv-00330 (W.D.T.X. Oct. 5,
2015), the court granted plaintiffs motion for conditional certification, conditionally certifying a
class of employees alleging violations of the overtime wage provisions of the Fair Labor
Standards Act by a multinational corporation that produces major commodities including oil and
gas.
In Payne v. WBY, Inc., No. 1:14-CV-913 (N.D. Ga. Sept. 10, 2015), the court denied defendants
motion to compel arbitration of opt-in plaintiffs in an FLSA conditionally certified collective
action. The court held that the defendants alleged posting of an arbitration agreement on a
bulletin board in the breakroom without additional notice to workers of its existence, its terms, or
its binding nature was insufficient to establish an offer or acceptance of its terms.
In Miller v. Fleetcor Technologies Operating Co., LLC, No. 13-cv-2403, --- F. Supp. 3d ---, 2015
WL 4661921 (N.D. Ga. Aug. 5, 2015), the court denied defendants motion for decertification,
agreeing with plaintiffs that each individual claim and the case as a whole should be kept
together, allowing plaintiffs to move forward as a collective group.
13 | P a g e
In Johnson v. Caseys Gen. Stores, Inc., --- F. Supp. 3d ---, 2015 WL 4542143 (W.D. Mo. July
27, 2015), the court denied defendants motion to dismiss, finding that plaintiffs allegations
regarding Fair Credit Reporting Act violations and the willfulness of defendants conduct
sufficient for litigation to move forward.
In Henderson v. 1400 Northside Drive, Inc., 2015 WL 3823995 (N.D. Cal. June 19, 2015), the
court granted plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment on the issues of: (1) the creative
professional exemption, finding that defendants misclassified adult entertainers as exempt from
the overtime and minimum wage requirements of the FLSA; and (2) offset, finding that
defendants could not offset their minimum wage obligations with tips paid by customers to adult
entertainers.
In Clark v. Centene Company of Texas, LP, No. A-12-CA-174-SS, --- F. Supp. 3d ---, 2015 WL
2250387 (W.D. Tex. May 22, 2015), upon the conclusion of a bench trial, the court awarded
damages to a collective action of utilization review nurses. The court found that plaintiffs
submitted sufficient evidence to create a just and reasonable inference as to overtime hours
worked by the collective and awarded liquidated damages. This victory followed the courts
order on the parties cross-motions for summary judgment and defendants motion for
decertification last year, holding that the defendant misclassified its utilization nurses. 44 F.
Supp. 3d 674 (W.D. Tex. 2014). The court ruled that plaintiffs are not exempt from the Fair
Labor Standards Acts overtime laws and are thus eligible for overtime pay. The court further
held that defendants claim that each plaintiffs claim would need to be analyzed individually to
determine liability and damages was without merit.
In Lengel v. HomeAdvisor, Inc., --- F. Supp. 3d ---, 2015 WL 2088933 (D. Kan. May 6, 2015),
the court denied defendants motion to dismiss, finding that plaintiffs allegations regarding Fair
Credit Report Act violations and the willfulness of defendants conduct sufficient for litigation to
move forward.
In Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Association, 135 S. Ct. 1199 (2015), the United States Supreme
Court ruled unanimously in favor of a group of employees represented by Nichols Kaster. The
Court upheld a Department of Labor interpretation granting minimum wage and overtime
compensation for mortgage loan officers.
In Febus v. Guardian First Funding Group, LLC, --- F. Supp. 3d ---, 2015 WL 925917
(S.D.N.Y. Mar. 4, 2015), plaintiffs brought a motion to enforce a wage and hour settlement from
which one of the individual defendants defaulted. The court ordered the defendant pay the
amount due, imposed an additional thirty percent penalty on the amount due, and awarded
interest. The court noted that Nichols Kaster had been attempting, in vain, to collect, and
emphasized that defendant cannot avoid his contractual obligations because he has decided that
the settlement terms no longer suit his interests.
In Hart v. Ricks Cabaret Intl, Inc., No. 09 Civ 3043, the court denied decertification of the
FLSA Collective and Rule 23 Class of approximately 2,300 adult entertainers at Ricks Cabaret
in New York and granted, in part, plaintiffs affirmative motion for partial summary judgment on
14 | P a g e
damages, finding that no reasonable jury could conclude the Class was owed less than $10.8
million. 2014 WL 6238175 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 14, 2014). This significant ruling came
approximately one year after the court ruled that the Class and Collective Members are
employees as a matter of law under the FLSA and New York Labor Law and that Ricks Cabaret
violated both laws by failing to pay wages. The court further held that the money entertainers
received from Ricks Cabarets customers were tips and not service charges that could offset
wage obligations and that Ricks Cabaret violated New York Labor Law by charging Class and
Collective Members fines and fees as a condition of employment. 967 F. Supp. 2d 901
(S.D.N.Y. Sept. 10, 2013). On September 22, 2015, the court granted final approval of a classwide $15 million gross settlement, finding the settlement to be fair, reasonable, and adequate and
further awarding plaintiffs counsels attorneys fees, expenses, and service awards to the named
plaintiffs and discovery participants. 2015 WL 5577713 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 22, 2015).
In the consolidated lawsuits of Casey v. Citibank, N.A., No. 5:12-cv-0820 (N.D.N.Y.) and
Coonan v. Citibank, N.A., No. 1:13-cv-00353 (N.D.N.Y.) (Aug. 21, 2014), the court granted final
approval of an approximately $110 million settlement on behalf of settlement classes who were
force-placed with flood or hazard insurance by Citibank, N.A. The settlement also provides
substantial injunctive relief, forbidding Citibank and its affiliates from accepting commissions or
any other form of compensation in connection with force-placed insurance for a period of six
years, places limits on the amount of insurance coverage that Citibank may require borrowers to
maintain, and requires Citibank to offer class members the opportunity to reduce their flood
insurance coverage if Citibank had increased their coverage amount to an amount in excess of
the amount required under federal law. The court found the settlement to be fair, reasonable,
and adequate, in the best interests of the Settlement Classes and overruled nine objections.
In Bible v. General Revenue Corp., No. 12-cv-01236 RHK (D. Minn. June 27, 2014), the court
granted final approval of a $1.25 million settlement on behalf of approximately 134,000 class
members, more than double the statutory cap for a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act class
action.
In Pearsall-Dineen v. Freedom Mortgage Corp., No. 13-cv-06836-JEI-JS, 2014 WL 2873878
(D. N.J. June 25, 2014), the court conditionally certified the Fair Labor Standards Act overtime
case as a collective action. The judges order authorized notice of the lawsuit to be disseminated
to all mortgage underwriters who worked for Freedom Mortgage in the last three years,
providing them the opportunity to join the lawsuit and to assert their overtime claims against the
defendant for failing to pay them overtime hours.
In Wolfram v. PHH Corp., No. 12-cv-599 (S.D. Ohio June 17, 2014), the court granted plaintiffs
motion for partial summary judgment, finding that the assigned real estate offices from where
plaintiffs, who are current or former loan officers employed by defendant, worked where all
serving as the employers place of business under the outside sales exemption of the Fair
Labor Standards Act. This established that an employee may work from multiple sites, not
technically owned or operated by the employer, and each of those sites can be considered the
employers place of business under the regulations, therefore any work performed at these sites
is not outside work under the outside sales exemption.
15 | P a g e
In Ellsworth v. U.S. Bank, N.A., No. C 12-2506-LB, 2014 WL 2734953 (N.D. Cal. June 13,
2014), the court issued a broad class certification ruling on behalf of plaintiff-borrowers who
were force-placed with flood insurance. In its order, the court certified multi-state classes of
borrowers spanning forty different states to pursue claims against U.S. Bank for breach of their
mortgage agreements stemming from U.S. Banks force-placed insurance practices. In addition,
the court separately certified classes of borrowers in California and New Mexico to pursue
claims against U.S. Bank and its force-placed insurance vendor, ASIC, for unjust enrichment,
unfair business practices, and/or breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
In MacIntyre v. Lender Processing Services, Inc., No. 3:13-cv-89-J-25JBT (M.D. Fla. Apr. 29,
2014), the court granted affirmative summary judgment to plaintiff (a Minnesota resident) on a
breach of contract claim for an unpaid bonus, and used its discretion to enforce Minnesota state
law for defendants (a Florida company) failure to promptly pay wages. The court
simultaneously denied defendants motion to dismiss plaintiffs gender discrimination claims
ruling, in part, that defendants actions toward plaintiff constituted direct evidence of gender
discrimination.
In Arnett v. Bank of America, N.A., No. 3:11-cv-01372-SI (D. Or. Apr. 17, 2014), the court
preliminarily approved a $31 million settlement for approximately 625,000 class members, the
largest common fund settlement ever negotiated in a case involving force-placed flood insurance.
In Rhodes v. CashCall, JAMS Ref. No. 1200047475, Garcia v. CashCall, JAMS Ref. No.
1200047422, Good v. CashCall, JAMS Ref. No. 1200047220, and Green v. CashCall, Inc.,
JAMS Ref. No. 1200047225 (2014), a JAMS arbitrator ruled that CashCall misclassified Rhodes
and Green, loan processers, and Garcia and Good, underwriters, as exempt from the overtime
requirements of California and federal law. The arbitrator awarded Rhodes $15,000 in unpaid
overtime plus an additional $15,000 in liquidated damages, along with $88,179 in attorneys fees
and costs, Green was awarded $15,067.72 in damages, as well as $54,165.50 in attorneys fees
and costs. The arbitrator also awarded Garcia $10,000 in unpaid overtime plus an additional
$10,000 in liquidated damages, along with $98,709 in attorneys fees and costs, and Good was
awarded $43,631 in unpaid overtime, as well as $50,627.49 in attorneys fees and costs.
In Farmer v. Bank of America, N.A., No. 5:11-cv-00935-OLG (W.D.T.X. Oct. 18, 2013), the
court granted final approval of the parties multi-million dollar settlement with significant
prospective injunctive relief, finally certifying a class of 25,000 Texas mortgagors who had been
sent letters requesting proof of hazard insurance in violation of the language of their deeds of
trust, and appointing Nichols Kaster as class counsel.
In Huff v. Pinstripes, Inc., 972 F. Supp. 2d 1065 (D. Minn. 2013), the court ruled in plaintiffs
favor on cross-motions for summary judgment, finding that Pinstripes had violated the
Minnesota Fair Labor Standards Acts provisions on tip-pooling by requiring its servers to share
their tips with server assistants, who act as servers support staff at the restaurant.
In Monroe v. FTS USA, LLC, No. 2:08-cv-02100-JTF-cgc (W.D. Tenn. Sept. 18, 2013), the court
upheld plaintiffs trial verdict and damages award of more than $3.8 million for the
approximately 300-person collective of cable technicians who were denied overtime pay under
16 | P a g e
the Fair Labor Standards Act. After extensive post-trial briefing, the court denied defendants
motion for judgment as a matter of law, motion for new trial, motion to alter or amend judgment,
and motion for decertification. The court additionally granted plaintiffs motion to compel
defense counsels billing records as part of the then-pending fight over plaintiffs counsels
requested fee award.
In Walsten v. Shank Power Products Co., Inc., No. 19HA-CV-12-1094 (Minn. Dist. Ct., Sept. 9,
2013), a minority shareholder case, an advisory jury returned a $700,000 verdict for the plaintiff,
finding for him on his claims for breach of fiduciary duty and violation of his reasonable
expectation of continuing employment. The trial judge subsequently issued an order sustaining
the $700,000 advisory verdict and awarding $200,000 in attorneys fees.
In Karl v. Uptown Drink, LLC, 835 N.W.2d 14 (Minn. Aug. 14, 2013), the Minnesota Supreme
Court ruled that under Minnesota law, employers cannot require employees to reimburse them
from their tips for items such as cash register shortages, unsigned credit card receipts, and
customer walk outs. The Court also found that employees do not have to show that because of
the deductions their wages fell below the minimum wage in order to prove a violation of Minn.
Stat. 181.79. In this case, the plaintiffs were over 750 employees who worked at three
different bars/night clubs in Minneapolis. At a jury trial in 2011, the plaintiffs prevailed on their
record-keeping and certain minimum wage claims, but lost on the unlawful deductions claims.
Nichols Kaster appealed the deductions issue, and took it all the way to the Minnesota Supreme
Court, where the Court agreed with plaintiffs and instructed the lower court to enter judgment on
the plaintiffs behalf on this claim.
In Ernst v. DISH Network, LLC, No. 12-8794-LGS (S.D.N.Y. July 23, 2013), the court appointed
Nichols Kaster as interim class counsel for the putative class with claims against Defendant
Sterling Infosystems, Inc., finding that Nichols Kaster had demonstrated it is able fairly and
adequately to represent the interests of the putative class. On September 22, 2014, the court
ruled on plaintiffs and two of the defendants cross-motions for partial summary judgment,
granting plaintiffs motion and denying defendants. The court ruled that the summary report
received by two of the defendants was a consumer report for purposes of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act because it communicated information bearing on Plaintiffs character, general
reputation, or mode of living, and the information was collected and expected to be used for
employment purposes. (Order, S.D.N.Y Sept. 22, 2014.)
In Holmes v. Bank of America, N.A., 2013 WL 2317722 (W.D.N.C. May 28, 2013), the court
denied four motions to dismiss plaintiffs claims regarding force-placed insurance and allowing
the case to proceed.
In Singleton v. Dominos Pizza, LLC, No. 8:11-cv-01823(D. Md. May 13, 2013), the court
granted preliminary approval of the parties proposed $2.5 million settlement under the Fair
Credit Reporting Act in a case where plaintiffs alleged that the defendant employer had
improperly procured consumer reports on employees and applicants and had failed to comply
with the pre-adverse action notice requirements of the Act. The court preliminarily certified
three settlement classes of over 50,000 people and appointed Nichols Kaster as class counsel,
describing the firm as qualified, experienced, and competent.
17 | P a g e
In Ulbrich v. GMAC Mortgage, No. 11-32424 (S.D. Fla. May 10, 2013), the court granted final
settlement approval and appointed Nichols Kaster as class counsel for a 2,000+ nationwide class.
The case involved claims against GMAC Mortgage, LLC and Balboa Insurance Services, Inc.
relating to force-placed wind insurance.
In Kirsch v. St. Paul Motorsports, Inc., No. 11-cv-02624, 2013 WL 1900620 (D. Minn. May 7,
2013), the court denied defendants motion for summary judgment in its entirety, finding that
plaintiff had put forth sufficient evidence for a prima facie claim of age discrimination.
In Gustafson v. BAC Home Loan Services, LP, No. 8:11-cv-00915 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 27, 2013),
Judge Josephine Staton Tucker appointed Nichols Kaster as co-lead interim class counsel for
multiple putative classes in a force-placed insurance case against Bank of America and other
defendants.
In Boaz v. Federal Express Customer Info. Services, Inc., 725 F.3d 603 (6th Cir. 2013), the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled that plaintiff, a FedEx project manager who had
claimed that FedEx had failed to pay her overtime wages, in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, and paid her less than male coworkers performing the same job, in violation of
the Equal Pay Act, could pursue her overtime and gender discrimination claims. The federal
laws at issue provide employees three years to file a lawsuit and FedEx had plaintiff sign an
application which stated that lawsuits had to be brought within 6 months or claims were lost.
The lower court had dismissed plaintiffs claims, citing the application. The Sixth Circuit
unanimously sided with plaintiff, reversed the dismissal and remanded the case for trial.
In Calderon v. GEICO General Insurance Co., 2012 WL 6889800 (D. Md. Nov. 29, 2012), the
court granted summary judgment in favor of approximately one hundred current and former
Security Investigators for GEICO, finding that they were not covered by the administrative
exemption. Specifically, the court held that plaintiffs did not exercise discretion and independent
judgment as to matters of significance.
In Spar v. Cedar Towing & Auction, Inc., Case No. 27-CV-11-24993 (Minn. Dist. Ct., Oct. 16,
2012), Nichols Kaster won class certification and was appointed class counsel for a class of
approximately six thousand Minneapolis consumers who plaintiffs alleged had been charged
illegal towing fees by defendant.
In Walls v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., Civ. No. 3:11-cv-00673, 2012 WL 3096660 (W.D. Ky.
July 30, 2012), a case regarding force-placed flood insurance, the court denied defendants
motion to dismiss, stating that the plaintiffs mortgage agreement did not explicitly provide that
the lenders flood insurance requirement could change at will and that Kentucky contracts
contain provisions which can impose limits on discretion afforded by a contract, thus rejecting
defendants interpretation of plaintiffs mortgage agreement for purposes of the motion.
In Bollinger v. Residential Capital, 863 F. Supp. 2d 1041 (W.D. Wash. May 30, 2012), the court
granted plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment, finding that defendants misclassified
the underwriter plaintiffs under the administrative exemption, and rejected defendants argument
18 | P a g e
that there was no evidence of willful violation of the FLSA, stating that a jury could conclude
that Defendants knowingly and recklessly misclassified plaintiffs.
In Lass v. Bank of America, N.A., 695 F.3d 129 (1st Cir. 2012), the United States Court of
Appeals for the First Circuit struck down the district courts ruling that had dismissed plaintiffs
claims. The Court found that plaintiffs allegations regarding excessive flood insurance and
improper kickbacks had been properly alleged and that the case should proceed.
In Kasten v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp., 131 S. Ct. 1325 (2011), the United States
Supreme Court found in favor of the plaintiff and held that an oral complaint of a violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act is protected conduct under the [Acts] anti-retaliation provision.
This was a huge win for employees all over the country, as the Supreme Courts decision set a
new FLSA anti-retaliation standard.
In Clincy v. Galardi South Enterprises, Inc., 808 F. Supp. 2d 1326 (N.D. Ga. Sept. 7, 2011), the
court granted plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of misclassification,
finding that defendants misclassified adult entertainers as independent contractors and that the
entertainers were in fact employees covered by the FLSA.
In Eldredge v. City of Saint Paul, Civ No. 09-2018 (D. Minn. 2011), plaintiff Eldredge reached a
settlement of his case that was the second largest paid by the City of Saint Paul in an
employment lawsuit.
In Hofstetter v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 2011 WL 1225900 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2011),
Nichols Kaster was appointed class counsel for four classes encompassing approximately 40,000
mortgagors against Chase Bank. In the same case, Nichols Kaster secured an approximately
$10MM settlement for the classes. Hofstetter, 2011 WL 5545912 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 2011).
In Stewart v. CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp., 2006 WL 839509 (D. Minn. Mar. 26, 2006),
Nichols Kaster achieved a significant class action settlement on behalf of more than 2,500 lowincome households who were left without heat by CenterPoint Energy in violation of
Minnesotas Cold Weather Rule.
ASSOCIATE BIOGRAPHIES
Alexander M. Baggio:
Alex focuses on class and collective actions, currently representing
thousands of employees regarding commission payments, minimum wage, overtime, and
improper meal and break deductions. Prior to working at Nichols Kaster, Alex clerked for the
Honorable Gary Larson and Janet Poston of the Minnesota District Courts. Education: B.A.
University of Wisconsin-Madison 2005, J.D. University of Minnesota Law School 2009 cum
laude.
Rebekah L. Bailey: Rebekah has significant experience in litigating complex class and
collective actions and had been involved in several of the firms class actions, both consumer and
19 | P a g e
employment. She is an associate editor for the ABA FLSA Legislation Committees Mid-Winter
Report, and a member of the Alumni Advisory Board for the Journal of Law & Inequality.
Rebekah is a frequent speaker at continuing legal education seminars, including the Federal Bar
Associations annual meeting and convention. She won an award for Excellence in Labor and
Employment Law, ABA-BNA, in 2008 and was recognized as a Super Lawyer in 2014 and
2015. Education: B.S. Grand Valley State University 2004, J.D. University of Minnesota Law
School 2008 magna cum laude.
Daniel S. Brome:
Daniel, while in law school, worked with the California Labor
Commissioner, served as the Editor-in-Chief of the Berkeley Journal of Employment and Labor
Law, and as Director of the Workers Rights Clinic. After law school, Daniel worked with a
California law firm representing workers and unions in arbitrations and litigation. Daniel
continues pursuing his passion for employment law at Nichols Kaster, working with the National
Wage and Hour Litigation Team out of the San Francisco office. Education: B.A. Princeton
University 2005, J.D. University of California, Berkeley, School of Law 2011.
Reena I. Desai:
Reena has dedicated the majority of her career to helping thousands of
employees recover unpaid wages and has also handled cases involving race and disability
discrimination. Reena has extensive complex litigation experience and has spoken on several
panels regarding employment and civil rights. Education: B.A. George Washington University
2002, J.D. University of Minnesota Law School 2007 cum laude.
Carl F. Engstrom:
Carl began his legal career in 2010 as a law clerk with Nichols Kaster. He
went on to work as a Judicial Law Clerk in Hennepin County District Court for Judge Philip
Carruthers and Judge Tamara Garcia. He returned to Nichols Kaster in March 2015 to work as
an associate with the Wage & Hour class action team. Education: B.A. Harvard College 1998,
J.D. University of Minnesota Law School 2012
Kate Fisher: Kate has been dedicated to employment law since law school, and garnered
recognition from St. Thomas and the Minnesota State Bar Association for her efforts while a
student, winning the Deans Award in Employment Law and Labor Law and the MSBA Labor &
Employment Law Section Student Award. Education: B.A. College of St. Catherine 2006, J.D.
University of St. Thomas School of Law 2011 cum laude.
Eleanor Frisch:
Prior to joining Nichols Kaster, Eleanor served as a judicial clerk to the
Hon. Roger L. Wollman of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Eleanor is on
Nichols Kasters consumer class action team, and is part of the consumer origination group. She
has published articles in Bench & Bar of Minnesota and the Minnesota Law Review regarding
whistleblower and sexual harassment claims. Education: B.A. Trinity University 2008, J.D.
University of Minnesota Law School 2014 magna cum laude.
Adam W. Hansen:
Adam began his career in the judicial system clerking in the Minnesota
Supreme Court and the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. He then moved to
civil litigation, representing clients in a variety of contexts, including discrimination, retaliation,
harassment, whistleblower, breach-of-contract, severance, wage and hour disputes, and Fair
Credit Reporting Act violations. Adam currently works out of Nichols Kasters San Francisco
20 | P a g e
office and works with the Wage and Hour Team. Education: B.A. University of Wisconsin
2003, J.D. University of Minnesota Law School 2008.
Jason P. Hungerford: Prior to joining Nichols Kaster, Jason practiced in Texas, litigating cases
involving breach of contract, banking fraud, wrongful foreclosure, and consumer bankruptcy.
Jason is now a member of Nichols Kasters Whistleblower/Qui Tam team, and represents
individual employees in a wide range of matters including harassment and discrimination.
Education: B.A. University of Texas at El Paso 2003, J.D. University of Minnesota Law School
2008 magna cum laude.
Lucas J. Kaster:
Lucas received his J.D. from Marquette University Law School, where he
focused his coursework on litigation. Prior to joining Nichols Kaster, Lucas was the founding
attorney of Kaster Law in Milwaukee, Wisconsin where he did criminal defense work. Now,
Lucas works as a part of Nichols Kasters individual rights team, focusing on aggressive
advocacy, creative solutions and responsiveness to clients. Education: B.A. Villanova
University 2004, J.D. Marquette University Law School 2011.
Janet Olawsky:
Janet works on individual employee rights cases with Nichols Kaster,
fighting unlawful employment conduct and discrimination. Prior to joining Nichols Kaster, Janet
volunteered with the Innocence Project of Minnesota and served as a judicial law clerk for the
Hon. Kevin A. Lund and Hon. Robert Birnbaum in Rochester, Minnesota. Janet is also a
qualified neutral under Rule 114 of the Minnesota Rules of General Practice. Education: B.A.
University of St. Thomas 2007, J.D. William Mitchell College of Law 2012 magna cum laude.
Brittany Bachman Skemp: Brittany is part of Nichols Kasters Wage and Hour Litigation team
and focuses on class and collective actions. Prior to working as an associate at Nichols Kaster,
Brittany clerked for Judge Thomas J. Kalitowski and Judge Jill Flaskamp Halbrooks of the
Minnesota Court of Appeals. Brittany also serves as the community service director of the New
Lawyers Section of the Hennepin County Bar Association. Education: B.A. University of St.
Thomas 2008, J.D. William Mitchell College of Law 2013 magna cum laude.
Bonnie M. Smith:
Bonnie has won an unemployment benefits appeal, defeated summary
judgment in a pregnancy discrimination case, second-chaired an arbitration to hold an employer
liable for breach of contract, and negotiated substantial settlements for clients in several cases.
Bonnie has also been a contributor to an ABA subcommittee on the FMLA. Education: B.A.
Yale University 2004, J.D. University of Wisconsin Law School 2010 cum laude.
Brock J. Specht:
Brock has experience litigating complex multi-million dollar lawsuits in
numerous federal courts around the country and currently works with the firms individual
practice, assisting plaintiffs with claims such as retaliation, breach of contract, and whistleblower
claims. Prior to joining the firm, Brock worked with a major Twin Cities law firm, and as a clerk
for two judges on the Minnesota Court of Appeals. Brock also has worked as a Special Assistant
State Public Defender, pro bono, and as an Adjunct Professor of Law at the University of St.
Thomas School of Law. Education: B.A. University of Minnesota 2002, J.D. University of St.
Thomas School of Law 2007 magna cum laude.
21 | P a g e
Nicholas Thompson: Prior to joining Nichols Kaster, Nick worked on personal injury and
criminal cases. Currently, Nick is part of Nichols Kasters Consumer Litigation Team. He
focuses on the Fair Credit Reporting Act, fighting for people who have been denied opportunities
due to credit reports and/or background checks. Education: B.A. (double) University of
Wisconsin 2005, J.D. University of Minnesota Law School 2008.
Ashley Thronson:
Ashley is a member of Nichols Kasters individual rights team, working
on behalf of employees who have been treated unfairly. Prior to joining Nichols Kaster, Ashley
interned with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, worked as a certified student
attorney in the Housing Law Clinic, helped update the legal treatise Minnesota Practice Series:
Employment Law and Practice, and completed an externship with the Hon. Ann D. Montgomery
of the U.S.D.C. for the District of Minnesota. Education: B.S. University of Wisconsin-La
Crosse 2010, J.D. University of Minnesota Law School 2013 magna cum laude.
Megan D. Yelle:
Megan has experience in a variety of complex matters including
commercial, professional liability, products liability and commercial contract litigation matters.
Megan is now a member of Nichols Kasters Consumer Class Action Team and advocates for
consumers who have been victimized by unfair, deceptive, and unlawful trade practices. During
law school, Megan participated in the Asylum Law Project helping recent immigrants to receive
legal asylum in the United States. Education: B.A. St. Thomas University 2004, J.D. University
of Minnesota Law School 2009 magna cum laude.
22 | P a g e

DKT 064-1 Ex 1 Settlement Agreement

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

DKT 064-1 Ex 1 Settlement Agreement

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CASE 0:15-cv-02498-SRN-BRT Document 64-1 Filed 02/16/16 Page 1 of 64

CASE 0:15-cv-02498-SRN-BRT Document 64-1 Filed 02/16/16 Page 2 of 64

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case No. 15-CV-2498 (SRN/BRT)

CASE 0:15-cv-02498-SRN-BRT Document 64-1 Filed 02/16/16 Page 3 of 64

Procedural History and Mediation

CASE 0:15-cv-02498-SRN-BRT Document 64-1 Filed 02/16/16 Page 4 of 64

CASE 0:15-cv-02498-SRN-BRT Document 64-1 Filed 02/16/16 Page 5 of 64

Inadmissibility of the Agreement

CASE 0:15-cv-02498-SRN-BRT Document 64-1 Filed 02/16/16 Page 6 of 64

Definitions of Terms that Are Not Otherwise Defined

Action means the lawsuit captioned Hussein, et al. v. Capital

Building Services Group, Inc., No. 15-cv-2498.

Class Counsel means the law firms of Nichols Kaster, PLLP.

p.m., January 15, 2016.

Final Approval Order means the Courts Order granting final

approval of the Parties settlement and this Agreement.

Notice of Settlement means the form approved by Class Counsel and

Action after the case was filed.

CASE 0:15-cv-02498-SRN-BRT Document 64-1 Filed 02/16/16 Page 7 of 64

Party or Parties means the Class Members, the Settlement Class,

Settlement Class means all Class Members who timely submit a

settlement participation form.

Settlement Payment means the payment of $425,000.00, to be paid

by Capital pursuant to this Agreement.

Settlement Payment. In exchange for the release of claims in Section

CASE 0:15-cv-02498-SRN-BRT Document 64-1 Filed 02/16/16 Page 8 of 64

Employers Payroll Taxes. In addition to this Settlement Payment,

Reversion. Any portion of the Settlement Payment not negotiated by

an award of incentive compensation up to and including a total of $25,000. Class Counsel

CASE 0:15-cv-02498-SRN-BRT Document 64-1 Filed 02/16/16 Page 9 of 64

Leyla Yusuf: $3,000

Individual Awards. Capital shall pay individual awards to certain

CASE 0:15-cv-02498-SRN-BRT Document 64-1 Filed 02/16/16 Page 10 of 64

Consent to Class and Collective Action Certification. For purposes

Claims Released. Upon the Settlement Effective Date, the Class

Scope of Released Claims of Class Members. Each Class Member,

CASE 0:15-cv-02498-SRN-BRT Document 64-1 Filed 02/16/16 Page 11 of 64

directors, shareholders, stockholders, partners, members, employees, agents, consultants,

Claims Released by the Settlement Class. Upon the Settlement

Scope of Released Claims of Settlement Class. Each Settlement

Class Member, on behalf of his/her respective heirs, beneficiaries, devisees, legatees,

Scope of Released Claims by Certain Named Plaintiffs. Named

CASE 0:15-cv-02498-SRN-BRT Document 64-1 Filed 02/16/16 Page 12 of 64

representatives, successors-in-interest, and assigns, hereby knowingly and voluntarily

Duty of Cooperation. The Parties agree to cooperate in obtaining

CASE 0:15-cv-02498-SRN-BRT Document 64-1 Filed 02/16/16 Page 13 of 64

Preliminary Approval Order. On, or before, February 15, 2016, the

Parties shall promptly move the Court for an order:

Preliminarily approving this Agreement;

Approving certification of the Rule 23 class as agreed upon

Approving the Notice of Settlement to each Class Member;

Scheduling a hearing on final approval of this Agreement.

Notice of Settlement. Within ten (10) days after the Court

Diligence in Finding Class Members. Class Counsel will use

Enforcing Deadlines. Class Counsel will enforce the deadlines for

Class Members to affirmatively opt out of the Settlement.

Opt-in Procedures. Class Members who wish to participate in the

CASE 0:15-cv-02498-SRN-BRT Document 64-1 Filed 02/16/16 Page 14 of 64

Opt-Out Procedures. Class Members seeking to exclude themselves

Rescinding Decision to Opt Out. Class Members will be permitted to

withdraw, or rescind, their Opt-Out Notices by submitting a Rescission of Opt-Out

CASE 0:15-cv-02498-SRN-BRT Document 64-1 Filed 02/16/16 Page 15 of 64

Executed this _ day of __, 2016.

Executed this _ day of __, 2016.

Executed this _ day of __, 2016.

Executed this _ day of __, 2016.

Executed this _ day of __, 2016.

Executed this _ day of __, 2016.

Executed this _ day of __, 2016.

Executed this _ day of __, 2016.