Testimonials

"Class Counsel [RIGHETTI GLUGOSKI] capably represented the Class Members in a manner in which has resulted in a settlement well received by the Class Members and which has been approved by this Court. The Court recognizes the skill, creativity, integrity and zeal with which class counsel represented the class in this matter – and the fact that this case was heavily litigated through a contested class certification hearing where plaintiffs prevailed in obtaining certification of the class. This case then proceeded toward trial before settlement was reached. The case presented novel issues of law which are hardly settled in the field of wage and hour litigation and the Court recognizes that the attorneys for the class worked diligently, responsibly and with great care for the interests of the Class Members."

"Class counsel capably represented the class in a manner which has resulted in a settlement well received by the class and which has been approved by this Court. The Court recognizes the skill, creativity, integrity and zeal with which class counsel represented the class in this matter – and the fact that this case was heavily litigated through a contested class certification hearing where plaintiffs prevailed in obtaining certification of the class. This case then proceeded up to the eve of trial before settlement was reached. The case presented novel issues of law which are hardly settled in the field of wage and hour litigation and the Court recognizes that the attorneys for the class worked diligently, responsibly and with great care for the interests of the class members. The Court has cross-checked the percentage of the fund recovery against loadstar recovery. The Court finds that the hourly rates are fairly reflective of rates charged by attorneys with similar experience and qualifications in the community and that the loadstar time was fairly and reasonably expended on these litigations that lasted nearly five years and settled on the eve of trial."

Holton v. Marvell Semiconductor, Inc., Case No. 106 CV 073295 on Final Approval of Settlement, Honorable James P. Kleinberg

"Class counsel capably represented the class in a manner which has resulted in settlement well received by the class and which has been approved by this Court. The Court recognized the skill, creativity, integrity and zeal with which class counsel represented the class in this manner – and the fact that this case was heavily litigated through a contested class certification hearing where plaintiffs prevailed in obtaining certification of the class. This case then proceeded up to the eve of trial before settlement was reached. The case presented novel issues of law which are hardly settled in the field of wage and hour litigation and the Court recognized that the attorneys for the class worked diligently, responsibly and with great care for the interests of the class members."

Anna's Linens Overtime Cases, OCSC 04CC00660
SDSC GIC 840 481, on Final Approval of Class Action Settlement, Honorable Nancy Wieben Stock

"Class counsel capably represented the class in a manner which has resulted in a settlement well received by the class and which has been approved by this Court. The Court recognizes the skill, creativity, integrity and zeal with which class counsel represented the class in this matter – and the fact that this case was heavily litigated through a contested class certification hearing where plaintiffs prevailed in obtaining certification of the class. This case then proceeded toward trial before settlement was reached. The case presented novel issues of law that were hardly settled in the field of wage and hour litigation, and the Court recognizes that the attorneys for the class worked diligently, responsibly and with great care for the interests of the class members."

Pfizenmeier and Rosa Kaiser v. Citifinancial Management Corp., Case no. 37-2008-00084289-CU-OE-CTL on Final Approval of Class Action Settlement, Honorable Steven Denton

"Having observed and supervised class counsel's work on behalf of the class during the course of this litigation the Court believes class counsel has capably represented the class. The Court acknowledges the skill, creativity, integrity and zeal with which class counsel represented the class in this matter – and the fact that this case was extensively litigated. The hourly rates set forth in the fee application are fair, reasonable and commensurate with the rates of similarly skilled attorneys in the community. The case presented novel issues of law which are hardly settled in the field of wage and hour litigation and the Court recognizes that class counsel worked diligently, responsibly and with great care for the interests of the class members."

Pierce and Hughes v. AT&T Corp. et al., Case no. RG10507014 on Final Approval of Class Action Settlement, Honorable Steven B. Freedman

"The Court is satisfied that class counsel has capably represented the class in a manner which has resulted in a settlement well received by the class and which has been approved by this court. This case presented untried issues of law."

Circle K Overtime Cases, JCCP 4267, Order on Final Approval of Class Action Settlement, Honorable William F. McDonald

"Class counsel have extensive experience litigating class actions, particularly in the area of labor and employment, and prosecuted this matter efficiently and with a high degree of professionalism. Class Counsel's costs in prosecuting this Action are hereby approved as reasonably incurred."

Lopez et al. v. Euromarket Designs, Inc., (d/b/a Crate and Barrel), Case No. BC436515 on Final Approval of Class Action Settlement, Judge Soussan G. Burguera

"Class counsel capably represented the class in a manner which has resulted in a settlement well received by the class and which has been approved by this Court. This case presented issues of law which are hardly settled in the field of wage and hour litigation and the Court recognizes that the attorneys for the class worked diligently and responsibly for the interests of the class members."

Groves et al. v. Ross Stores aka "Ross Dress for Less Stores", Case no. RG 04183362 on Final Approval of Class Action Settlement, Honorable Steven Brick

"Righetti Glugoski, P.C., and Magana Cathcart & McCarthy capably represented the class in a manner which has resulted in a settlement well received by the class and which has been approved by this Court. The Court recognized the skill, creativity, integrity and zeal with which Righetti Glugoski, P.C., and Magana Cathcart & McCarthy represented the class in this matter – the fact that this case was heavily litigated through a contested class certification hearing where plaintiffs prevailed in obtaining certification of the classes. The requested hourly rates for the Lodestar analysis are reasonable. This case presented novel issues of law which are hardly settled in the field of wage and hour litigation and the Court recognizes that Righetti Glugoski, P.C., and Magana Cathcart & McCarthy worked diligently, responsibly and with great care for the interests of the class members."

Van Vleet et al. v. Gate City Beverage Distributors, Case no. 142242 on Order on Final Approval of Class Action Settlement, Honorable Christopher J Warner

"Class counsel vigorously prosecuted this class action. It appears that class counsel pursued extensive investigation and discovery and efficiency and expeditiously litigated this case with a high degree of creativity and professionalism. These factors are commendable. Moreover, Class Counsel frequently dealt with sophisticated legal issues in prosecuting this case where this appears to be the first class action to have proceeded through a liability trial under California's quantitative exemption standard. The results obtained by this settlement are commendable and have been endorsed by the Class Members. The settlement negotiations were protracted and appear to have been at "arm's length." The questions of fees were properly left solely to the discretion of this Court and there has been no objection by any interested party. Having observed the high quality of class counsel's work, having noted the response of class members to the settlement terms, and being familiar with fee awards in similar cases, a fee of forty percent based on the Common Fund Doctrine is reasonable."

Wyatt Crandall, et al. v. U-Haul International, Inc., et al., Case No. BC178775 on Final Approval of Class Action Settlement, Honorable J. Stephen Czuleger

"Class Counsel vigorously prosecuted this class action. Class Counsel pursued extensive investigation and discovery and efficiently and expeditiously litigated this case with a high degree of creativity and professionalism. Moreover, Class Counsel frequently dealt with sophisticated legal issues in prosecuting this case. The results obtained by this settlement both as to the monetary relief and the significant non-monetary relief are significant and have been endorsed by the vast majority of Class Members. The settlement negotiations were protracted and appear to have been at "arm's length." The question of fees was properly left solely to the discretion of this Court. Having observed the quality of Class Counsel's work, having noted the response of Class Members to the settlement terms, and being familiar with fee awards in similar cases, a fee of thirty-five percent (35%) of the monetary relief, based on the Common Fund Doctrine, is fair and reasonable."

Steve Albrecht, Tim Weise, Victoria Burdette, and Robert Harkness, as Individuals v Rite Aid Corporation, Thrifty Payless, Inc., Case no. 729219 on Final Approval of Class Action Settlement, Honorable Richard Haden

"I cannot do justice to Mr. Righetti's rendition of the various issues that were adjudicated and tried. Suffice to say, that the case was transferred to complex and the parties and the Court ultimately devised a tripartite trial approach to these issues. The first phase of the trial on the issue of task classification was commenced on February 7, 2007. Thereafter, the parties adduced additional evidence as well as conducted additional discovery regarding a proposed statistical analysis as to particular class members.

In December 2008, Defendant filed a motion seeking decertification of the class, a motion that was significant in terms of evaluating the risk of further litigation in this case. That motion was pending at the time of the negotiations leading to this proposed settlement.

At the time of the settlement, a motion for decertification would have, had it been granted, resulted in years of further appeals. Even assuming class status adhered, the defendant's had stated their intention to seek a review of the trial court's decision, thus ensuring further delay. At a minimum, even had those outcomes not occurred, there was an enormous risk that the approach and the methodology that the plaintiffs proposed to use in this case would not have ultimately been successful or availing at trial or on appeal. Task classification for one, did prove itself to be very complex and difficult to establish factually.

The settlement was a result of arm's length negotiations through an independent mediator, Mr. Rothman. These agreements were conducted in good faith and in light of the risks inherent in continuing trial and motions hearings by both sides.

The monetary benefits to this class are significant. There was a settlement fund of $47.5 million after payment of attorneys' fees, legal costs advanced, costs of administration and enhancements to class representatives.

The amount constitutes by any standard or measure a generous recovery to the class of unpaid wages, penalties and interest. Plaintiffs' counsel and this Court believe that the proposed settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate and in the best interest of the plaintiff and the other members of the class."

Robert Rocher et al. v. Sav-On Drug Stores, Inc., Los Angeles Superior Court, Case No. BC 227551, October 14, 2009 Final Hearing re: Settlement before the Honorable Ann I. Jones, Dept. CX 308, pg. 14 line 2 thru page 18 line 2 of the reporter's transcript.

"The Court: Very Good. The Court would give Final Approval to the Class Action Settlement. The Court concludes that this was an excellent settlement; that class members were amply rewarded. We had a 62 percent return rate resulting in a 75 percent take on the net settlement.

This resulted in 18,863 work weeks out of 25,738 work weeks available. As to the prior release subclass, we had 78 percent of the work weeks claimed in that process.

The Court concludes that class counsel have earned the right to seek a fee which ultimately would result in about 37 percent of the gross settlement fund on the basis that this is an appropriate percentage based upon market circumstances, given that this was a, quote-unquote, day-of-trial settlement and forced plaintiff's counsel to be thoroughly prepared for trial in what would have been a very complicated and complex matter.

The case was hard fought. The Court is influenced, in part, by the sheer duration of the case. This is a coordinated matter, and it involved a number of lawsuits, and there were developments that occurred even during the course of the case involving arbitration clauses and potential concerns about the status of the class representatives.

There were cross–complaints against the class not normally associated with just the simple garden variety wage-and-hour case.

The Court would note that at least one of these cases was commenced in 2004, and the sheer duration of the case and the drain upon the resources of counsel would further justify the court's finding. The court further concludes that the work in the case was exemplary high-quality work in all aspects, both in oral advocacy and in written product. This case raised a number of significantly difficult issues not yet fully tested in California.

Based upon the Sav-On case, which was the result of – the result of which was obtained by some of class counsel and lead class counsel in this case, the ability to try to a successful conclusion a misclassification case involving retail assistant managers and managers is a huge undertaking with many uncertainties, that has not been fully tested end-to-end in any California courtroom that I'm aware of. This required class counsel to be sophisticated, aggressive, and to be very vigilant in pursuing this aspect."

Anna's Linens overtime cases, JCCP 4437, Orange County Superior Court, comments from the September 14, 2011 Final Approval Hearing before the Honorable Nancy Wieben Stock, Dept. CX 105, pg. 5 line 22 thru page 7 line 19 of the reporter's transcript.