situated and in their capacity as Private DECLARATION OF

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

DECLARATION OF SHANNON LISS-RIORDAN

LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. TODD M. FRIEDMAN, SBN 216752 [email protected] ADRIAN R. BACON, SBN 280332 [email protected] 21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: 877.206.4741 Facsimile: 866.633.0228

SHANNON LISS-RIORDAN (SBN 310719) ([email protected]) ANNE KRAMER (SBN 315131) ([email protected]) LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 Facsimile: (617) 994-5801

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Settlement Class

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

DANIEL MARKO, JESUS CORONA, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated and in their capacity as Private Attorneys General Representatives,

Plaintiffs, v.

DOORDASH, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. BC659841

DECLARATION OF SHANNON LISS-RIORDAN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES, COSTS, EXPENSES, AND SERVICE AWARDS

Dept.: 7 Trial Date: None Set Hon. Amy D. Hogue

Hearing Date: November 30, 2021 Hearing Time: 9:30 am

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 1


I, Shannon Liss-Riordan, declare as follows:

1. I am a partner at the law firm of Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C., and am lead

attorney and class counsel for the Plaintiff class in the above-captioned matter. I submit this

declaration in support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorneys’ Fees, Costs and Service Awards. I

have personal knowledge of the information set forth herein.

2. As set forth at greater length in Plaintiffs’ forthcoming Motion for Final

Approval of Class Action Settlement, I believe this settlement has produced an excellent result

for the class, providing substantial monetary relief of $100 million to cover misclassification

claims for DoorDash delivery drivers in California and Massachusetts.

PROFESSIONAL BACKGROUND

3. I am a member of the bar in California, Massachusetts, and New York. I am a

partner in the law firm of Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C. I have practiced exclusively in the field

of employment law on the side of employees for my entire two decade legal career. My

specialty for most of my legal career has been wage and hour class actions, with a particular

focus on class actions regarding independent contractor misclassification and arbitration issues.

4. I am an honors graduate of Harvard College (A.B., 1990) and Harvard Law

School (J.D., 1996). Following law school and prior to practicing at Pyle Rome, I served as a

law clerk for two years for U.S. District Court Judge Nancy F. Atlas in the Southern District of

Texas.

5. I am a frequent invited speaker at seminars sponsored by such organizations as

the National Employment Lawyers Association, the American Bar Association, Massachusetts

Continuing Legal Education, the Massachusetts Bar Association, and other organizations on

various topics regarding employment law, class actions, and wage and hour litigation. A

particular focus that I have frequently been invited to speak on over the last fifteen years has

been issues concerning arbitration and class actions.

6. I have been featured by many major publications for my accomplishments

representing low wage workers in a variety of industries. These publications include San

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2 DECLARATION OF SHANNON LISS-RIORDAN

Francisco Magazine (Exhibit A), the Los Angeles Times (Exhibit B), the Wall Street Journal

(Exhibit C), the ABA Journal (Exhibit D), the Recorder (Exhibit E), Mother Jones (Exhibit

F), Politico (Exhibit G), the Boston Globe (Exhibits H and I), and Law360 (Exhibit J).

Politico included me on its list of the “Top 50 thinkers, doers and visionaries transforming

American politics” in 2016. Exhibit G. San Francisco Magazine stated in its profile of me that

“Liss-Riordan has achieved a kind of celebrity unseen in the legal world since Ralph Nader

sued General Motors.” Exhibit A.

7. Last year, I recognized by Benchmark Litigation as the national Labor &

Employment Employee-Side Attorney of the Year. Each year since 2008, I have been selected

for inclusion in Best Lawyers in America (Chambers). Our firm, and my law partner and I have

consistently been ranked in recent years in the top tier for our practice area. The 2013 edition

referred to me as “the reigning plaintiffs’ champion”, and the 2015 edition said I am “probably

the best known wage class action lawyer on the plaintiff side in this area, if not the entire

country”.

8. I have gained a reputation as the preeminent lawyer across the country

challenging the use of independent contractors in the so-called gig economy. I brought the first

lawsuit nationally challenging misclassification in the gig economy industry in the landmark

case, O’Connor v. Uber (N.D. Cal.) Civ. A. No. 13-3826. Since filing that case in 2013, I have

litigated against every major gig economy company (Uber, Lyft, GrubHub, DoorDash,

Postmates, Instacart, Handy, and others) in states around the country (including California,

Massachusetts, New York, Illinois, and Pennsylvania). I have pursued these cases vigorously,

through frequent appeals and using creative tactics, and have obtained landmark rulings that

have developed the law in this area. My work has incited a slew of follow-on cases against all

of these gig economy companies, particularly in California.

9. When these claims have been compelled to arbitration, which has happened

frequently, I pioneered the tactic of bringing mass arbitrations against these companies. That

tactic, too, has been repeatedly copied by other counsel.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


10. My firm was the first to obtain class certification in these cases, in our litigation

against Uber, both in O'Connor v. Uber Technologies, Inc. (N.D. Cal., Sept. 1, 2015, No. C-13-

3826 EMC) 2015 WL 5138097, at *1; O'Connor v. Uber Technologies, Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2015)

311 F.R.D. 547, rev'd and remanded on other grounds (9th Cir. 2018) 904 F.3d 1087, and the

more recent (and currently pending) James v. Uber Technologies Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2021) 338

F.R.D. 123, 129. We were also the first firm (and only, to date) to take a gig economy

misclassification case to trial. That case, Lawson v. Grubhub, Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2018) 302

F.Supp.3d 1071, vacated and remanded (9th Cir., Sept. 20, 2021, No. 18-15386) 2021 WL

4258826, was filed in 2015, tried in 2017, appealed in 2018, and just recently we prevailed on

appeal at the Ninth Circuit, which remanded with an order for the district court to apply the

ABC test to the plaintiff’s claims. See Lawson v. Grubhub, Inc. (9th Cir., Sept. 20, 2021, No.

18-15386) 2021 WL 4258826.

11. I obtained the ruling from the California Supreme Court declaring the Dynamex

decision retroactive in Vazquez v. Jan-Pro Franchising International, Inc. (2021) 10 Cal.5th

944 [273 Cal.Rptr.3d 741, 478 P.3d 1207]. There, the Ninth Circuit held that the ABC test

would apply to an alleged franchisor and emphasized the strength of the ABC test. See Vazquez

v. Jan-Pro Franchising International, Inc. (9th Cir. 2021) 986 F.3d 1106. I have obtained a

number of other significant appellate rulings in California in this area of law. For example, I

recently prevailed in Medina v. Equilon Enterprises, LLC (Cal. Ct. App., Sept. 10, 2021) 2021

WL 4128882, reversing the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to the defendant and

recognizing Shell to be a joint employer of employees working in service stations run by

smaller intermediary franchise-like entities. In Maplebear dba Instacart v. Busick (2018) 26

Cal.App.5th 394, I persuaded the Court of Appeal to reject an attempt by Instacart to avoid an

arbitration ruling that had allowed a class arbitration to proceed. I also obtained the first ruling

on summary judgment in favor of plaintiffs under the Dynamex ABC test in Johnson v. VGC-IS,

LLC (Cal. Sup., July 18, 2018) Case No. 30-2015-00802813, which held that a strip club

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 4


misclassified dancers under this test and applied the ABC test to a variety of claims, including

claims for expense reimbursement (a hotly disputed issue in this area of law).

12. The following is a summary of just some of our firm’s litigation against gig

economy companies. In our initial litigation against Uber, we defeated two separate summary

judgment motions filed by Uber, under the more difficult Borello standard for misclassification.

See O'Connor v. Uber Techs., Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2015) 82 F. Supp. 3d 1133 (denying summary

judgment to Uber on misclassification issue); O'Connor v. Uber Techs., Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2015)

Civ. A. No. 13-3826, Dkt. 499 (denying partial summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ claim under

Cal. Lab. Code § 351). We won a significant victory holding Uber’s arbitration clause not to be

enforceable, see O'Connor v. Uber Technologies, Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2015) 150 F.Supp.3d 1095,

which was eventually overturned on appeal (after a court denied approval of a $100 million

settlement I had reached), see O'Connor v. Uber Technologies, Inc. (9th Cir. 2018) 904 F.3d

1087). In our current case against Uber, the court has certified a class of Uber drivers who

opted out of arbitration. See James v. Uber Technologies Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2021) 338 F.R.D. 123,

129.

13. At the outset of the pandemic, my firm also brought a series of cases against

Uber and Lyft in California and Massachusetts, challenging the companies’ failure to provide

paid sick leave to drivers to the detriment of the drivers and the public. I settled one of these

cases against Uber, which led to the establishment of a program providing financial assistance

to thousands of drivers during the pandemic. See Verhines v. Uber Techs. Inc., (N. D. Cal.) Civ.

A No. 20-01886-EMC. We are continuing to appeal the denial of a preliminary injunction in

other cases, including Rogers v. Lyft, Inc. (9th Cir., No. 20-15689), and Cunningham v. Lyft,

Inc. (D. Mass. 2020) 450 F.Supp.3d 37, where the court agreed that Lyft drivers are exempt

from arbitration under the transportation worker exemption of the FAA. I am currently also

litigating on behalf of Uber drivers for misclassification in New York and Illinois. See Davarci

v. Uber Technologies, Inc. (No. 20-CV-9224, S.D.N.Y.); Leaks v. Uber Techs. Inc., (No. 20-cv-

0643, N.D. Ill).

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


14. Similarly, I have aggressively litigated in numerous other misclassification cases

against gig economy companies, including Lyft, GrubHub, Postmates, Caviar, and Instacart. See,

e.g., Cotter v. Lyft, Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2015) 60 F. Supp. 3d 1067 (denying summary judgment for

Lyft); Lawson v. Grubhub, Inc. (N.D. Cal. July 10, 2017) 2017 WL 2951608, at *1 (denying

summary judgment for GrubHub); Busick v. Maplebear Inc. dba Instacart, JAMS Ref. No.

1100081511 (successfully defended clause construction in a class arbitration); Groves v.

Maplebear dba Instacart (Sept. 2, 2020, L.A. Sup. Ct.) BC695401 (approving class settlement

for California drivers); Cole v. Square Inc. dba Caviar (L.A. Sup. Ct. Nov. 4, 2020) BC719079

(approving class settlement for California drivers); Seifu v. Lyft, (June 1, 2021) Appeal No.

B301774 (affirming denial of motion to compel arbitration of PAGA claims); Talbot v. Lyft Inc.

(S.F. Sup. Ct. Oct. 19, 2018) CGC-18-566392 (court denied motion to compel arbitration for a

subset of Lyft drivers); Cunningham v. Lyft, Inc. (D. Mass., May 22, 2020) 2020 WL 2616302,

at *1, appeal pending, First Cir. No. 20-1567 (holding Lyft drivers exempt from the FAA under

the transportation worker exemption); Singer v. Postmates (N.D. Cal.) 4:15-cv-01284-JSW

(approving national class settlement); Rimler v. Postmates, Inc. (S.F. Superior Court CGC-18-

567868); Albert v. Postmates, Inc. (N.D. Cal. Case No. 18-cv-7592); Lee v. Postmates, Inc.,

(N.D. Cal. Case No. 18-cv-3421), appeal pending Ninth Cir. No. 19-15024; Emmanuel v.

Handy Technologies, Inc. (1st Cir. 2021) 992 F.3d 1 (litigated a bench trial regarding the

enforceability of app-based cleaning company’s arbitration clause).

15. Other gig companies my firm has sued include: Rev (a remote transcription

service), VIPKid (a remote ESL tutoring service), Zum (a rideshare service geared towards

transporting children), Deliv (a same-day delivery service), Saucey (a remote alcohol delivery

company), and Shipt (delivery service). In our case against Zum, we filed a writ petition for

review of an important issue regarding arbitration of PAGA claims and prevailed on appeal. See

Contreras v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (2021) 61 Cal.App.5th 461 [275

Cal.Rptr.3d 741, 61 Cal.App.5th 461].

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 6


16. My firm has also secured groundbreaking victories in a pair of cases against

Amazon on behalf of Amazon Flex delivery drivers, refusing to enforce Amazon’s arbitration

clause, holding the drivers are exempt from the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), 9 U.S.C. § 1,

et seq. under the transportation worker exemption. See Waithaka v. Amazon.com, Inc. (1st Cir.

2020) 966 F.3d 10, cert. denied (U.S., June 21, 2021) 2021 WL 2519107, reh'g denied (U.S.,

Aug. 2, 2021) 2021 WL 3275777; Rittmann v. Amazon.com, Inc. (9th Cir. 2020) 971 F.3d 904,

cert. denied (2021) 141 S.Ct. 1374 [209 L.Ed.2d 121].

17. Other significant appeals I have won include: Roes, 1-2 v. SFBSC Management,

LLC (9th Cir., Dec. 11, 2019) 2019 WL 6721190 (agreeing with our objection to a class

settlement, reversing approval where the settlement included a reversion, an inadequate notice

process, and provided less than 4% recovery of potential classwide damages on primary

claims); Vazquez v. Jan-Pro Franchising International, Inc. (9th Cir. 2021) 986 F.3d 1106

(holding that landmark Dynamex decision applies to misclassification claims against “cleaning

franchisor”, and applies to top-tier company in multi-tier “fissured employment” scheme;

providing guidance on strength of ABC test for employment misclassification; and reinstating

wage claims on behalf of janitors who challenged paying for their jobs and other wage

violations); Haitayan v. 7-Eleven, Inc. No. 18-55462 (9th Cir. 2019) (reinstating wage claims

against 7-Eleven and reversing district court’s denial of injunction for plaintiffs and potential

class members facing choice of pursuing wage claims or keeping their jobs); Maplebear dba

Instacart v. Busick (2018) 26 Cal.App.5th 394 (rejecting attempt to vacate arbitrator award

certifying wage class action on behalf of Instacart drivers); Khanal v. San Francisco Hilton, Inc.

(9th Cir. 2017) No. 15-15493 (reversing order holding wage claims brought by union

employees preempted by LMRA); Williams v. Jani–King of Philadelphia Inc. (3d Cir. 2016)

837 F.3d 314 (affirming class certification in case challenging cleaning workers’ classification

as independent contractor “franchisees” under Pennsylvania law); Marzuq v. Cadete Enterprises,

Inc. (1st Cir. 2015) 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 21301 (Dunkin Donuts general managers could be

eligible for overtime pay by proving management was not their primary duty, distinguishing

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


1982 First Circuit Burger King precedent, which had held fast food managers to be overtime-

exempt); Travers v. Flight Systems & Services (1st Cir. 2015) 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 21671

(affirming jury verdict in favor of skycap who was terminated in retaliation for leading class

action wage complaint challenging policy affecting skycaps’ tips and reinstating claim for front

pay); Villon v. Marriott., Hawaii Supreme Court No. 11-747 (July 15, 2013) (holding that wait

staff employees could recover under Hawaii wage law for service charges not remitted to them);

Depianti v. Jan-Pro Franchising International, Inc. (2013) 465 Mass. 607 (Massachusetts

Supreme Judicial Court held that national company could not evade liability for independent

contractor misclassification by virtue of it not having direct contracts with the workers); Taylor

v. Eastern Connection Operating, Inc. (2013) 465 Mass. 191 (SJC held Massachusetts

independent contractor law applicable to work performed in New York for Massachusetts

company); Matamoros v. Starbucks Corp. (1st Cir. 2012) 699 F.3d 129 (holding that Starbucks

violated Massachusetts Tips Law by allowing shift supervisors to share in tip pool); Awuah v.

Coverall North America, Inc. (2011) 460 Mass. 484 (SJC established the damages awardable

for independent contractor misclassification under Massachusetts law, finding it to violate

Massachusetts wage law and public policy to charge employees for a job); DiFiore v. American

Airlines, Inc. (2009) 454 Mass. 486 (SJC held airline liable for Tips Law violation despite fact

that skycap employees were directly employed by an intermediary company), rev’d on federal

preemption grounds, (1st Cir. 2011) 646 F.3d 81, cert. denied (2011) 132 S. Ct. 761; Skirchak v.

Dynamics Research Corporation (1st Cir. 2007) 508 F.3d 49 (First Circuit struck down class

arbitration waiver in employer’s arbitration policy); Gasior v. Massachusetts General Hospital

(2006) 446 Mass. 645 (SJC determined that discrimination claims, including claims for punitive

damages, survive the plaintiff’s death); Smith v. Winter Place LLC d/b/a Locke-Ober Co., Inc.

(2006) 447 Mass. 363 (SJC held employees engaged in protected activity by making internal

complaints of wage violations); Dahill v. Boston Police Department (2001) 434 Mass. 233 (SJC

decided that Massachusetts law would diverge from federal law in prohibiting discrimination

against individuals with correctable disabilities, resulting in hiring of hearing-impaired police

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 8


officer candidate and jury verdict of $850,000); Cooney v. Compass Group Foodservice, et al.

(2007) 69 Mass. App. Ct. 632 (Appeals Court held that servers were entitled as a matter of law

to receive proceeds of service charges added to function bills); King v. City of Boston (2008) 71

Mass. App. Ct. 460 (Appeals Court reversed grant of summary judgment in sex discrimination

suit, finding that plaintiffs could show that Boston Police Department discriminated against

female superior officers by not providing them with separate locker rooms).

18. Cases that I have won at trial include: Norrell v. Spring Valley Country Club

(class action jury verdict for waitstaff) (Mass. Super. 2017); Travers v. Flight Services &

Systems (D. Mass. 2014) C.A. No. 11-10175 (skycap terminated in retaliation for leading class

action); DiFiore et al. v. American Airlines, Inc. (D. Mass. 2008) C.A. No. 07-10070 (verdict

for plaintiff skycaps challenging $2 per bag charge for curbside check-in); Benoit, et al. v. The

Federalist, Inc. (Mass. Super. 2007) C.A. No. 04-3516 (verdict for plaintiff class for violation

of Massachusetts Tips Law); Calcagno, et al. v. High Country Investor, Inc., d/b/a Hilltop Steak

House (Mass. Super. 2006) C.A. No. 03-0707 (verdict for plaintiff class for violation of

Massachusetts Tips Law); Bradley et al. v. City of Lynn et al. (D. Mass. 2006) 443 F.Supp.2d

145 (verdict for plaintiff class where federal court held following bench trial that

Commonwealth’s entry level firefighter hiring examination has disparate impact on minorities

and violated Title VII); Collins v. Commonwealth (Mass. Super. Court 2007) (jury verdict in

favor of state police trooper who had been disqualified from employment because of his kidney

transplant); Bingham v. Lynn Sand & Stone, 93-BEM-1491 (MCAD 2003) (finding of

discrimination by MCAD after public hearing that company failed to hire African American

truck driver applicant because of his race); Hernandez v. Winthrop Printing Co. (Suffolk

Superior Court 2002) (jury verdict in favor of Native American/Mexican plaintiff who was

terminated in retaliation for complaining of race discrimination); Sprague v. United Airlines, Inc.

(D. Mass 2002) 2002 WL 1803733 (judgment of $1.1 million in a discrimination case brought

by deaf airline mechanic who had been denied employment based on disability); Dahill v.

Boston Police Department (2001) 434 Mass. 233 (Supreme Judicial Court decided that

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


Massachusetts law would diverge from federal law in prohibiting discrimination against

individuals with correctable disabilities, resulting in hiring of hearing-impaired police officer

candidate and jury verdict of $850,000).

19. In addition to the cases described above, I have also participated in numerous

arbitration hearings (and have filed many mass arbitrations). I have also litigated and obtained

favorable court rulings in many dozens of cases on summary judgment, class certification, and

numerous other issues related to wage and hour law, class actions, and arbitration clauses.

Through many of these cases, my firm and I have pioneered groundbreaking precedents in a

variety of industries, establishing that workers have been misclassified as independent

contractors. These industries include the cleaning industry, adult entertainment industry,

trucking industry, call center industry, and others. For more information about these cases and

others I have litigated, see the profiles cited in paragraph 6 and our firm’s website,

www.llrlaw.com.

20. In addition to class action cases that I have won, or resolved successfully, I and

my firm have also worked on many such cases for which we received no compensation at all

because the cases were ultimately not successful. Examples of such cases include:

In the Uber misclassification litigation referenced above, my firm invested

thousands of hours and hundreds of thousands of dollars only to see many of our gains erased by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals with the stroke of a pen. In O’Connor v. Uber Techs. Inc., Civ. A. No. 13-3826-ECM (N.D. Cal.), we litigated a class action on behalf of Uber drivers for misclassification and related Labor Code violations. After defeating Uber’s two summary judgment motions and engaging in months of extensive briefing regarding arbitration issues and class certification and extensive discovery, we succeeded in certifying a class of hundreds of thousands of drivers. On the eve of trial, I negotiated a $100 million settlement. After a number of competing counsel filed objections to the settlement, the court did not approve it. Shortly thereafter, the Ninth Circuit decertified the class, leaving all but a tiny fraction of the proposed settlement class bound by individual arbitration agreements. I eventually settled on behalf of a much smaller class of drivers, but the firm’s lodestar in that settlement exceeded the fee award (and hundreds of thousands of Uber drivers missed out on a chance at recovery) because of the Ninth Circuit’s decision, underscoring the incredible risk under which our contingency practice operates.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 10


In addition, our firm has litigated over the last several years many other casesagainst “gig economy” companies for misclassifying workers as independent contractors for which we have received, and are likely to receive, no or very little compensation. For example, in two such cases we have litigated Taranto, et al. v. Washio, Inc., No. CGC-15-546584 (SF. Sup.) and Iglesias v. Homejoy, Inc. (N.D. Cal.) No. 15-cv-01286-EMC, the companies shut down during the litigation, leaving the workers with no or little payment for their claims and our firm with no or little reimbursement for our fees and expenses.

I spent several years litigating on behalf of Boston and Chicago cab drivers,alleging that they have been misclassified as independent contractors under state law. In the litigation on behalf of the Boston cab drivers, the trial court ruled that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of their claims and entered an injunction against the transfer of assets by the owner of Boston Cab Dispatch, an order that was worth more than $200 million, and which was affirmed on appeal. See Sebago v. Tutunjian (2014) 85 Mass. App. Ct. 1119. That result was, however, unexpectedly reversed on appeal by the Supreme Judicial Court, Sebago v. Boston Cab Dispatch, Inc. (2015) 471 Mass. 321, and that entire litigation, including many hundreds of hours of attorney time, went uncompensated. Similarly, the litigation on behalf of Chicago cab drivers was unsuccessful, and the firm was not compensated for that work either. See Enger v. Chicago Carriage Cab Co. (N.D. Ill. 2014) 77 F. Supp. 3d 712, aff'd (7th Cir. 2016) 812 F.3d 565.

Likewise, our firm has advanced many hundreds of thousands of dollars inexpert expenses and incurred thousands of hours of unpaid attorney time for cases challenging discrimination in promotional exams for police officers in Massachusetts. Although we were successful at trial in an earlier case challenging entry level exams for firefighters and police officers, see Bradley v. City of Lynn (D. Mass. 2006) 443 F. Supp. 2d 145, we lost a follow-up case after 9 years of litigation, Lopez v. City of Lawrence, Massachusetts (D. Mass. June 11, 2010) 2010 WL 2429708, *1, aff’d 2016 WL 2897639 (1st Cir. May 18, 2016).

21. In short, a plaintiffs-side contingency practice like ours, in which we are able to

steadfastly fight legal battles that extend for years, attempting to advance the rights of low wage

workers who could not afford to pay out-of-pocket for counsel -- and fighting until we have

achieved victory or what we believe to be a fair and adequate resolution -- is only made possible

by the nature of contingency fee work. These examples of cases cited above that we have

litigated tenaciously, including those we have fought unsuccessfully, never would have been

possible—nor would many other cases for which we have taken tremendous risks over the years,

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 11


many of which we have succeeded in, and some of which we have disappointingly not—were it

not for contingency fees we have been able to recover for our successful litigation. Our firm

charges a standard one-third contingency fee in the vast majority of our cases, but many

plaintiffs’ attorneys are charging even more than one-third in their fee agreements for wage and

hour clients; a number have been charging 40% in recent years. Thus, in my experience, an

attorneys fee award of 33% to 40% or even more reflects the fair market value of what is

typically negotiated ex ante by workers in wage-and-hour cases like this one.

DESCRIPTION OF MY TIME SPENT ON THIS LITIGATION

22. Since the filing of the Austin v. DoorDash case on behalf of Massachusetts

drivers in 2017 and the filing of the other California DoorDash cases in spring of 2018 (Magana,

Marciano, and Roussel), I conservatively estimate that I have spent to date at least 750 hours

working on my firm’s cases against DoorDash, which are part of this global settlement. I have

reviewed the time records of the other attorneys at my firm in order to estimate the hours I have

worked on these cases. Having spent more hours than Attorney Pagano, as her detailed records

show more than 600 hours, I am conservatively estimating that I spent 750 hours.

23. My time was primarily spent as follows:

• I spent a substantial amount of time reviewing and editing court filings. These includedsubstantial briefing regarding the enforceability of DoorDash’s arbitration clause in Austin,Magana, and Marciano (including supplemental briefing and oral argument before threeseparate judges), Motions for Summary Adjudication in the Marciano cases and in ourfirm’s individual arbitration cases against DoorDash, briefing regarding the application ofDynamex to various Labor Code claims and its retroactivity in our arbitration cases,briefing regarding DoorDash’s various efforts to stay our litigation, and briefing regardingDoorDash’s misleading communications with putative class members in the Maganalitigation, which we appealed and briefed at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

• I have also spent significant time throughout these cases communicating with Plaintiffs andother DoorDash delivery drivers, communicating with defense counsel and counsel co-counsel for the other Plaintiffs, preparing for three separate mediations, attending

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


mediation and engaging in further settlement negotiations over the course of many months with defense counsel.1

• Finally, I have spent an extensive amount of time editing settlement approval briefing, including two Motions for Preliminary Approval, a Reply in support of Preliminary approval, multiple Oppositions to Motions to Intervene, Responses to Objections, an Opposition to an Ex Parte application, and no fewer than five Supplemental Briefs in support of Settlement Approval, as well as the instant Motion for Attorneys’ Fees).

24. The work performed on this case was for the primary benefit of the settlement

class. Each of these cases was filed as a class action and/or PAGA action, explicitly intended to

benefit other similarly situated delivery drivers. Much of our time spent working on these cases

involved briefing motions to compel arbitration (intended to resist enforcement of DoorDash’s

class action waiver) as well as briefing efforts by DoorDash to engage in misleading

communications with putative class members in the Magana case. Even the work of our firm on

the individual arbitrations we litigated against DoorDash was intended to primarily benefit the

class insofar as our hope was to obtain discovery and favorable rulings in arbitration that we

could then move to confirm in court and/or use to inform our litigation in the class cases. We

integrated our work on these individual arbitration cases with our other litigation against

DoorDash to avoid redundancies or duplication of efforts, and we used data from drivers who

1 I have not kept contemporaneous records of my time in many years, but courts have consistently awarded fees based on my reasonable estimates of my time spent litigating cases; many courts have awarded fees based upon reasonable estimates of time spent, even without contemporaneous records. See Brinskele v. United States (N.D. Cal., May 22, 2014, No. C13MISC80094JSWDMR) 2014 WL 4832263, at *2 (“Based upon the court’s familiarity with this litigation and counsel’s work, the court is able to assess the reasonableness of the hours claimed by counsel without the need to inspect contemporaneous time records.”); see also Kilopass Tech., Inc. v. Sidense Corp. (N.D. Cal. 2015) 82 F. Supp. 3d 1154, 1169; Rodgers v. Claim Jumper Rest., LLC (N.D. Cal. Apr. 24, 2015) 2015 WL 1886708, *10; In re Rossco Holdings, Inc. (C.D. Cal. May 30, 2014) 2014 WL 2611385, *8 (“In California, an attorney need not submit contemporaneous time records in order to recover attorney fees”); Cotton v. City of Eureka, Cal. (N.D. Cal. 2012) 889 F. Supp. 2d 1154, 1177; Ackerman v. W. Elec. Co. (9th Cir. 1988) 643 F. Supp. 836, 863-64 (N.D. Cal. 1986), aff'd, 860 F.2d 1514 (noting that “the Ninth Circuit requires only that the affidavits be sufficient to enable the court to consider all the factors necessary to determine a reasonable attorney's fee award …California law is in accord with the Ninth Circuit view.”); Slimfold Mfg. Co. v. Kinkead Indus., Inc. (Fed.Cir.1991) 932 F.2d 1453, 1459.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 13


signed up to pursue arbitrations in connection with our settlement negotiations and attempts to

value the claims in the case. Pursuing these arbitration cases against DoorDash also sent a clear

message that even enforcement of its arbitration clause would not allow DoorDash to escape the

time and expense of litigation of its Labor Code violations, thereby motivating DoorDash to

pursue a global peace.

25. The 750 hours I estimate I have spent already on this litigation does not account

for future work that will be spent preparing the final approval motion and overseeing the

remainder of the settlement including the notice process, any challenges from settlement class

members, distribution of settlement funds, and communicating with class members about the

settlement. I conservatively estimate the remaining work will require at least an additional 50

additional hours of time from myself, reviewing and revising briefing, preparing for and

attending the final approval hearing, and dealing with logistics of the settlement. See Beckman

v. KeyBank, N.A. (S.D.N.Y. 2013) 293 F.R.D. 467, 481–82 (noting that “[i]n wage and hour

cases, Class Counsel is often called upon to perform work after the final approval hearing,

including answering class member questions, answering questions from the claims

administrator, and negotiating and sometimes litigating disagreements with defendants about

administering the settlement and distributing the fund…[b]ecause class counsel will be required

to spend significant additional time on this litigation in connection with implementing and

monitoring the settlement, the multiplier will actually be significantly lower because the award

includes not only time spent prior to the award, but after in enforcing the settlement.”) (internal

citations and quotations omitted).

MY HOURLY RATE

26. I believe an hourly rate of $950 for my services rendered in class action litigation

in California is a reasonable rate. Most recently, I was awarded an hourly rate of $900/hour in a

lodestar analysis for a fee petition for a New York arbitration case I took to hearing and won.

Given that last year I was named the top employment lawyer in the country by Benchmark

Litigation, I believe I merit the top rate that courts have recognized for top-tier litigators, which

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


has exceeded $1,000 per hour in recent years. See, e.g., MSC Mediterranean Shipping Co.

Holding S.A. v. Forsyth Kownacki LLC, 2017 WL 1194372, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 30, 2017)

(finding reasonable the rate of $1,048.47 charged by partners at Gibson Dunn, which represents

Defendant DoorDash in this matter); S. Bank N.A. v. Dexia Real Estate Capital Mkts., 2016 WL

6996176, at *8 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 30, 2016) (approving rates of up to $1,055 per hour). I have

been awarded similar rates in connection with other gig economy settlements approved by

California courts in recent years, and this modest increase reflects rising rates with the passage

of time. See O'Connor v. Uber Techs., Inc., 2019 WL 4394401, at *11 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 13,

2019) (approving settlement with my rate calculated at $850/hour for lodestar cross-check);

Groves v. Maplebear Inc. dba Instacart, (L.A. Sup. Ct.) BC695401 (same); Cole v. Square Inc.

dba Caviar (L.A. Sup. Ct. Nov. 4, 2020) BC719079 (same); see also Cotter v. Lyft Inc., 2017

WL 1033527 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 16, 2017) (Dkt. No. 310) ($800/hour); Singer v. Postmates (N.D.

Cal. April 25, 2018) 4:15-cv-01284-JSW (same).

27. The requested rate is also reasonable based on my knowledge of fees awarded in

other cases to top plaintiffs’ attorneys in California. See, e.g., Independent Living Center of S.

Cal. v. Kent, (C.D. Cal. 2020) 2020 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 13019 (approving rates for senior partners

between $965 and $1,025); Dimry v. Bert Bell/Pete Rozelle NFL Player Ret. Plan (N.D. Cal.

Dec. 22, 2018) 2018 WL 6726963, *1 (three years ago, approving the hourly rate of $900 for

partner in ERISA case); Civil Rights Educ. & Enf't Ctr. v. Ashford Hosp. Tr., Inc. (N.D. Cal.

Mar. 22, 2016) 2016 WL 1177950, *5 (five years ago, approving an hourly rate of $900 for

highly experienced partner); Nat'l Fed'n of the Blind of Cal. v. Uber Techs., Inc. (N.D. Cal. Dec.

6, 2016, No. 14–cv–4086–NC) Order Granting Final Approval and Attorneys’ Fees (Dkt. No.

139) (five years ago, approving hourly rates of $900 and $895 for senior partners).

HOURS AND RATES FOR OTHER ATTORNEYS AND STAFF WHO HAVE WORKED ON THIS CASE

28. Along with me, the primary attorney at our firm who worked on these cases has

been Adelaide Pagano. She became a partner at our firm last year. Ms. Pagano is a summa cum

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 15


laude graduate of Macalester College (B.A., 2009) and a cum laude graduate of Harvard Law

School (J.D., 2014). Ms. Pagano has been named a Rising Star by SuperLawyers every year

since 2018. I am familiar with Ms. Pagano’s work on this case, as I have been responsible for

assigning work tasks related to this case to her, have supervised her on such tasks, and have

seen her work on such tasks.

29. Ms. Pagano has significant experience working on gig economy misclassification

cases, as she was the primary attorney who assisted me in the O’Connor litigation as well as our

firm’s litigation against Instacart in Massachusetts and California and our firm’s prior case

against DoorDash. Ms. Pagano primarily assisted with our firm’s DoorDash cases by being the

main point of contact throughout the case for the named plaintiffs, interviewing and obtaining

documents and information from the named plaintiffs, drafting the complaints and almost every

brief filed in our firm’s litigation, reviewing data analysis regarding damages and penalties, and

drafting our mediation statements. Ms. Pagano also spent substantial time fielding inquiries

from class members and directing our paralegal staff’s work on the case.

30. I believe an hourly rate of $600 for Ms. Pagano’s services rendered in class

action litigation is a reasonable rate. This rate is based on my knowledge of fees awarded in

other cases to attorneys of approximately her experience and position within a law firm. See,

e.g., Jean-Pierre v. J&L Cable TV Svcs. Inc., Civ. A. No. 1:18-cv-11499-MLW (D. Mass. Aug.

31, 2021), Dkt. No. 148 (approving hourly rate of $600 for Lichten & Liss-Riordan partner

Matthew Thomson with commensurate experience); AdTrader, Inc. v. Google LLC (N.D. Cal.,

Mar. 24, 2020) 2020 WL 1921774, at *8, appeal dismissed (9th Cir. 2021) 7 F.4th 803

(approving “hourly rate of $855 per hour for junior partners and of counsel attorneys” in class

action for breach of contract); Superior Consulting Servs., Inc. v. Steeves-Kiss, (N.D. Cal. May

11, 2018) 2018 WL 2183295, at *5 (“[D]istrict courts in Northern California have found that

rates of $475 to $975 per hour for partners... are reasonable.”); Perfect 10, Inc. v. Giganews,

Inc., (C.D. Cal. Mar. 24, 2015) 2015 WL 1746484, at *15-*20 (approving billing rates of $610-

$750 for junior partner as reasonable), aff'd, (9th Cir. 2017) 847 F.3d 657; Independent Living

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


Center of S. Cal. v. Kent (C.D. Cal. 2020) 2020 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 13019 (approving rates of $640

per hour for 2015 graduate).

31. Michelle Cassorla is an associate at our firm who assisted with this case,

including by assuming primary responsibility for the case during Attorney Pagano’s parental

leave. Ms. Cassorla is a summa cum laude graduate of Cornell University (B.A., 2007) and a

cum laude graduate of Georgetown Law School (J.D., 2013), who has practiced in the area of

labor and employment law for the past five years. I am familiar with Ms. Cassorla’s work on

this case, as I have been responsible for assigning work tasks related to this case to her, have

supervised her on such tasks, and have seen her work on such tasks.

32. I believe an hourly rate of $500 for Ms. Cassorla’s services rendered in class

action litigation is a reasonable rate. This rate is based on my knowledge of fees awarded in

other cases to attorneys of approximately her experience and position within a law firm. See,

e.g., Villalpando, 3:12-cv-04137-JCS, Dkt. No. 344-1 at ¶ 74 (asserting $500 hourly rate for

plaintiffs-side wage and hour attorney admitted in 2014); McKibben v. McMahon (C.D. Cal.,

Feb. 28, 2019) 2019 WL 1109683, at *14 (approving $480/hour for attorney with six years of

experience).

33. Anne Kramer is an associate at our firm who assisted with this case, including by

performing research, drafting PAGA letters, complaints, and other briefs, both in our firm’s

litigation and in our arbitration cases against DoorDash and by communicating with many of

our firm’s arbitration clients. Ms. Kramer is a graduate of University of Wisconsin - Madison

(B.S., 2012) and a cum laude graduate of Boston College Law School (J.D., 2016). Attorney

Kramer has substantial experience working on our firm’s other gig economy misclassification

cases, including cases against Uber, Lyft, Caviar, Zum, VIPKid, and numerous other

companies. She was named a Rising Star by Super Lawyers in 2020. I am familiar with Ms.

Kramer’s work on this case, as I have been responsible for assigning work tasks related to this

case to her, have supervised her on such tasks, and have seen her work on such tasks.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


34. I believe an hourly rate of $450 for Ms. Kramer’s services rendered in class

action litigation is a reasonable rate given her experience in the field of wage and hour law, and

misclassification in the gig economy in particular. This rate is based on my knowledge of fees

awarded in other cases to attorneys of approximately her experience and position within a law

firm. See, e.g., Campbell v. Best Buy Stores, L.P., (C.D. Cal. June 23, 2015) 2015 U.S. Dist.

LEXIS 186976, at *27 (assigning hourly rates from $450-$475 to attorneys with 5.5-6.5 years

of experience in its lodestar analysis for a class action); Retta v. Millennium Products, Inc.

(C.D. Cal., Aug. 22, 2017) 2017 WL 5479637, at *12 (assigning hourly rates from $400-$425 to

attorneys with 5-7 years of experience in its lodestar analysis for a class action); Kries v. City of

San Diego, (S.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2021) 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6826, at *27 (assigning a $400

hourly rate to an attorney with 6 years of experience in its lodestar analysis for a Fair Labor

Standard Act case).

35. Several other associates assisted on this case, including Anastasia Doherty and

Tara Boghosian who are recent law school graduates of Northeastern University School of Law

(J.D., 2019) and Harvard Law School (J.D., 2020) respectively. I believe the requested hourly

rate of $350 is eminently reasonable for these associates. See, e.g., WB Music Corp. v. Royce

Int'l Broad. Corp., (C.D. Cal. July 9, 2018) 2018 WL 6177237, at *5 (finding reasonable hourly

rates of $400-$495 for an associate “right out of law school”); 700 Valencia St. LLC v. Farina

Focaccia & Cucina Italiana, LLC, (N.D. Cal. Feb. 8, 2018) 2018 WL 783930, at *3 (finding

reasonable a $420 hourly rate for a first-year associate); Campbell v. Best Buy Stores, L.P.,

(C.D. Cal. June 23, 2015) 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 186976, at *27 (assigning a $375 hourly rate

for an associate with 1.5 years of experience); Dixon v. City of Oakland, (N.D. Cal. Dec. 8,

2014) 2014 WL 6951260, *7 (approving hourly rate of $325 for associate with two years’

experience); Cuviello v. Feld Entm't, Inc., 2015 WL 154197, *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 12, 2015)

(awarding fees of $325 per hour to an associate with 2 years’ experience).

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 18


36. Additionally, several law clerks have performed work on this case. I believe an

appropriate rate for these individuals is $275/hour. See, e.g., McKibben, 2019 WL 1109683, at

*14 (approving rate of $225/hour for law clerks in 2019).

37. A number of paralegals at our firm worked extensively on this litigation,

including Rebecca Shuford, Mary Franco, Maria Jose Cedeno, Kady Matsuzaki, Alexandria

Andrade, Josh Heskel, and Nicole Peer.

38. Attorneys Pagano, Kramer, and I assigned work related to this case to each of

these individuals. Ms. Franco and Ms. Cedeno have worked primarily on communicating with

class members and the named plaintiffs over email and/or telephone regarding the progress of

litigation and, and as the primary legal assistants on this case, proofreading and preparing

documents for filing. Kady Matsuzaki, Alexandria Andrade, Josh Heskel, and Nicole Peer have

spent considerable time corresponding with clients, including putative class members, including

after notice of the settlement was distributed, regarding questions about the settlement, and have

assisted the attorneys in preparing these individuals’ files and documents. Rebecca Shuford is a

senior paralegal and data analyst at the firm, and she spent substantial time assisting with

damages calculations in preparation for mediation.

39. I believe an hourly rate of $225 for these paralegals’ services rendered in class

action litigation is a reasonable rate. These rates are based on my knowledge of fees awarded in

other cases to paralegals of approximately their experience and position within a law firm. See

McKibben v. McMahon (C.D. Cal., Feb. 28, 2019) 2019 WL 1109683, at *14 (approving rates

ranging from $335 for senior paralegals to $175 for junior paralegals); Broomfield v. Craft Brew

All., Inc., (N.D. Cal. Feb. 5, 2020) 2020 WL 1972505, at *12 (assigning a $250 hourly rate to

paralegals in its lodestar analysis for a class action); Hefler v. Wells Fargo & Co., (N.D. Cal.

Dec. 17, 2018) 2018 WL 6619983, at *14 (finding reasonable $245-$350 hourly rates for

paralegals in its lodestar analysis for a class action); WB Music Corp. v. Royce Int'l Broad.

Corp., (C.D. Cal. July 9, 2018) 2018 WL 6177237, at *5 (assigning a $250 hourly rate to

paralegals in its lodestar analysis for a copyright infringement case); 700 Valencia St. LLC v.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 19


Farina Focaccia & Cucina Italiana, LLC, (N.D. Cal. Feb. 8, 2018) 2018 WL 783930, at *4

(finding reasonable $335-$355 hourly rates for paralegals in its lodestar analysis for an unlawful

detainer case); Nitsch v. DreamWorks Animation SKG Inc., (N.D. Cal. June 5, 2017) 2017 WL

2423161, at *9 (finding reasonable hourly rates up to $290 for paralegals in its lodestar analysis

for a class action).

40. My firm’s costs in our litigation against DoorDash in these matters is $26,217.42.

An itemized list of our costs is attached as Exhibit K. These costs include filing fees, charges

associated with providing courtesy copies and mailings to the court, ordering hearing transcripts,

mediation fees for three separate mediation sessions, and costs associated with travel to hearings

(prior to the switch to remote proceedings in March 2020).

41. Based on the above figures, I calculate our firm’s total lodestar in this litigation

to be approximately $1,528,450 including expenses of litigation and estimated additional hours

to be spent on the case, preparing for and attending the final approval hearing, and working with

the Settlement Administrator to effectuate the terms of the settlement. A chart itemizing my

firm’s expenses as well as the time entries for the other attorneys who worked on this case

(including Ms. Pagano, Ms. Cassorla, and Ms. Kramer) is attached here as Exhibit L. A chart

itemizing time entries for the firm’s staff who worked on these cases is attached here as Exhibit

M. The chart below summarizes their fees:

Attorney Rate Hours Est. Future Hours

Total Hours

Total

Shannon Liss-Riordan $950 750 50 800 $760,000

Adelaide Pagano $600 642.2 50 692.2 $415,320

Michelle Cassorla $500 47.3 5 52.3 $26,150

Anne Kramer $450 262.6 20 282.6 $127,170

Anastasia Doherty $350 8.7 8.7 $3,045

Tara Boghosian $350 72 72 $25,200

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 20


Law Clerks $275 98 5 103 $28,325

Paralegal Staff $225 445.1 75 520.1 $117,022.50

Costs $26,217.42

Total: $1,528,449.92

42. Additionally, the lodestars for the other Plaintiffs’ firms involved in the litigation

are set forth below and in their supporting declarations, each of which provides substantiation of

their hourly rates and the time they spent on these cases. The work of these other firms was

critical to obtaining the results we have achieved in this case. First, the fact that these various

cases existed, all bringing claims based on DoorDash’s misclassification of its drivers, brought

tremendous pressure to bear on DoorDash. The company was faced with the prospect of

litigating this battle on multiple fronts, across state and federal courts and in arbitration and

against numerous different firms. This pressure was crucial to motivating DoorDash throughout

this process to reach a deal rather than face the prospect of continued litigation on many fronts.

Second, these firms, including particularly counsel for the Marko Plaintiffs, Todd Friedman,

were intimately involved in the settlement negotiations, and provided feedback and assistance in

negotiating the agreement, and in some cases, assistance in drafting settlement documents,

answering settlement class member inquiries, and strategizing about the litigation.

43. Since the preliminary approval hearing, I have agreed to split my firm’s share of

the fee with two additional law firms, Moss Bollinger and Zimmerman Reed, who have also

represented DoorDash delivery drivers in court actions and arbitrations in California during the

relevant period. Moss Bollinger has a case against DoorDash, Brown v. DoorDash Inc.,

BC712973 (L.A. Sup. Ct.), which has been pending since mid-2018. Zimmerman Reed

objected to a previous version of the settlement and expressed their intent to seek a portion of

the attorneys’ fees award on the ground that their prior objection had helped garner a better

settlement for the class. While I dispute Zimmerman Reed’s characterization, I did not want

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


this disagreement to delay the settlement approval process any further, including risking

delaying the settlement class’s receipt of funds. I thus determined it was in best interests of the

settlement class to reduce my firm’s portion of the proposed fee award in order to include these

firms in the fee split. The other counsel and their clients have agreed to the revised fee split in

writing. See Exhibit N.2 A copy of this declaration will be filed on the settlement website and

will allow the settlement class to be fully apprised of these changes to the proposed attorneys’

fees allocation (which do not affect the relief to be received by settlement class members).

44. The fees and costs for these firms demonstrate that the total lodestar for all firms

is $7,458,938.90, as summarized here:

45. Based on this this total lodestar, Plaintiffs’ fee request of $28 million thus results

in an overall multiplier of 3.75. I believe this multiplier is warranted, based on the excellent

2 The only plaintiff and counsel not to sign the revised fee agreement is Kevin Saunders and his counsel Allen Graves. However, they both signed the earlier version of the fee split, see Exhibit O, and their portion of the fee is unchanged since that time; the only change was a reduction of fees for our firm, Lichten & Liss-Riordan PC, to include the two additional firms Moss Bollinger and Zimmerman Reed.

Firm Lodestar

Lichten & Liss-Riordan PC

$1,528,449.92

The Law Offices of Todd Friedman

$3,757,626.50

Aegis Law Firm $209,966.86

Capstone Law Firm $183,493.94 The Law Offices of Allen Graves $269,127.61

The Parris Law Firm $566,340.65 Mikael Abye, Esq. $36,955.30

Zimmerman Reed $741,445.62

Moss Bollinger $165,532.50

TOTAL: $7,458,938.90

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 22


results obtained for the class and the combined efforts of Plaintiffs’ counsel in this case, which

were instrumental in bringing DoorDash to the table and extracting this historic result for the

settlement class. Courts in the Ninth Circuit have “routinely awarded” multipliers in “the 1x to

4x range.” Perks v. Activehours, Inc. (N.D. Cal., Mar. 25, 2021) 2021 WL 1146038, at *8, and

courts will often award higher multipliers where the circumstances warrant it because of the

excellent results obtained, complexity of the case, and risks involved. See, e.g., Craft v. County

of San Bernardino (C.D. Cal. 2008) 624 F.Supp.2d 1113, 1123 (awarding 25% of common

fund, equivalent to a 5.2 multiplier) (collecting cases); Stevens v. SEI Investments Company

(E.D. Pa., Feb. 28, 2020) 2020 WL 996418, at *13 (holding that “multiples ranging from 1 to 8

are often used in common fund cases” and awarding fees equivalent to a multiplier of 6.16).

Indeed, multipliers in the range of 5x to 10x are not uncommon and some courts have even been

known to award higher multipliers. See, e.g., In re Merry–Go–Round Enterprises, Inc.

(Bankr.D.Md.2000) 244 B.R. 327 (40% award for $71 million fund awarded, resulting in a

cross-check multiplier of 19.6); Stop & Shop Supermarket Co. v. SmithKline Beecham Corp.

(E.D.Pa.) 2005 WL 1213926 ($100 Million class fund in antitrust case, with an award of 20% of

the fund, which amounted to a multiplier of 15.6).

46. Further, I believe this multiplier is warranted because the excellent results

obtained for the class go far beyond any settlement reached with a gig economy company

before; the PAGA penalties of $9.375 million that will be paid to the state far exceed other

settlements that have been routinely approved; and the substantial monetary relief being paid to

the class is far and away the largest such settlement against one of these companies to date.3

3 Of the more than 940,000 total settlement class members, a large proportion worked very little and would have only negligible damages; their inclusion in the class skews the “average” settlement payment. The class members who worked a more substantial amount of time will be receiving far more than the “average” payment. Indeed, it is expected in this settlement, assuming a roughly 50% claim rate, that some class members may receive as much as $34,000. Indeed, based on the data provided by DoorDash, nearly half of Massachusetts settlement class members worked for less than a month, and more than half of California settlement class members worked for two months or fewer, and when class members did work, it was often for only a few hours at a time. Of all California drivers who performed at least one (cont’d)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 23


The combined efforts of Plaintiffs’ counsel in this case, which were instrumental in bringing

DoorDash to the table and extracting an excellent result for the settlement class should be

rewarded with a substantial multiplier (should the Court elect to use the lodestar method).

CLASS REPRESENTATIVES SERVICE AWARDS

47. Under the terms of the settlement, Plaintiffs are also requesting service awards of

$10,000 each for the twelve named plaintiffs involved in the consolidated cases involved in this

settlement.4 Of these plaintiffs, I have personal knowledge of the contributions of Cynthia

Maricano, David Cristini, Jared Roussel, Manuel Magana, and Darnell Austin, each of whom

worked with our firm as a class and/or PAGA representative, seeking to bring claims on behalf

of similarly situated aggrieved DoorDash delivery drivers. Mr. Austin became involved with

our firm more than four years ago, and he has steadfastly pursued claims on behalf of

Massachusetts DoorDash delivery drivers, maintaining the same zeal over the years as he did

when he first contacted my firm. Cynthia Marciano represented delivery drivers in our prior

DoorDash case and decided to continue her effort to hold DoorDash to account following the

California Supreme Court’s ruling in Dynamex. She has worked tirelessly on behalf of

DoorDash delivery drivers, and has worked hard on this case, maintaining close contact with

my firm every step of the way. Mr. Cristini, Mr. Magana, and Mr. Roussel each joined the

effort to hold DoorDash accountable under the Labor Code in the wake of the Dynamex

decision in April 2018, and each has been in close contact with my firm ever since, through

every step of the litigation and settlement process. Each of these drivers have sent us

DoorDash delivery in 2019, approximately 94% of these delivery drivers averaged fewer than 10 hours per week of active time making deliveries on the DoorDash App 4 With the addition of Moss Bollinger and their client, Damone Brown, to the settlement, Plaintiffs now seek a total of $130,000 in incentive payments ($10,000 for each of the thirteen named plaintiffs). Plaintiffs will apprise settlement class members of this change by posting this Declaration and Attorneys’ Fees Motion on the settlement website.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 24


voluminous documents and have reviewed filings in these cases and answered our questions

about DoorDash’s practices.

48. I have reviewed the Declarations submitted by Named Plaintiffs Cynthia

Maricano, David Cristini, Jared Roussel, Manuel Magana, and Darnell Austin, and I agree with

the substance of their declarations. Their involvement in the case was instrumental in obtaining

the settlement. In addition, all of these individuals contributed to the litigation by spreading

word of it to other drivers and encouraging them to support the case and to claim in the

settlement. In my practice, I am well aware of the risks that workers face in putting their names

on high profile cases, which can impact future job opportunities. It is only because some

workers are willing to step forward on behalf of others, in the face of these risks, that this type

of litigation can be pursued at all. Here, this litigation has gone on for years, and these named

plaintiffs have remained committed and steadfast in fulfilling their roles as representatives of

the class.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the state of California that the

foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on September 27, 2021, in Boston, Massachusetts.

By: ____________________________ Shannon Liss-Riordan

EXHIBIT A

Uber’s Worst Nightmare

Diana Kapp | Photo: Justin Kaneps | May 18, 2016

Shannon Liss-Riordan just put a $100 million dent in the sharing economy giant. She’s

out for a lot more than that.

The most reviled woman in Silicon Valley was badly in need of some coffee.

It was 8:40 a.m. on the Friday before Super Bowl Sunday, and Shannon Liss-Riordan had just

arrived in the café of the Westin St. Francis, one arm pulling a rolling suitcase, the other

carrying a still-warm laptop. Wearing a black blazer, black pants, and black leather boots, the

attorney stood out among the throngs of jersey-clad football fans overtaking the lobby—an all-

business peregrine falcon among so many colorful squawking parakeets. “Don’t ask,” she

exhaled apologetically, having rolled up 25 minutes late. “You wouldn’t believe how many

motions we’ve filed in the last 48 hours.”

That morning’s stupor, like so many before it, would prove worthwhile. After months of drafting

briefs into the wee hours, cramming for the California bar exam (necessary because she wasn’t

yet licensed to practice law in the state), and continuous, body-clock-wrecking cross-country

flights, Liss-Riordan would soon win the largest settlement of her career: $100 million for

385,000 Uber drivers in California and Massachusetts who’d sued the company for

misclassifying them as freelancers rather than employees. Ultimately, the deal, which was

announced on April 21, came together secretly and hurriedly, in a flurry of meetings over two

weeks in April. While legal pundits are still debating the settlement’s winners and losers (the

New York Times chalked up a victory for Uber; Mother Jones called it for the workers), one thing

is certain: By preempting the scheduled June 20 trial, Uber avoided having to face off against

Liss-Riordan, who was eager to go for the jugular.

When I met her on Super Bowl Friday, Liss-Riordan was brimming

with confidence that she could convince a San Francisco jury that

Uber’s drivers were not independent contractors, as the company

contended, but in fact employees, highly controlled by

management and due a host of protections conferred by decades

of hard-fought labor battles. Now, two months later, she is almost

rueful about the resolution. “I was so looking forward to this trial,”

she tells me on the Saturday after news of the settlement broke.

For months before its climax, Liss-Riordan’s class action lawsuit

had taken on bellwether status in Silicon Valley. Many onlookers

believed that the ruling would finally resolve the worker-

classification debate looming scythe-like over the head of the new

sharing economy. Some predicted that, should Liss-Riordan prevail, the suit could cripple Uber,

kill other startups in their cradles, and, hell, maybe even end the whole trendy “gig economy”

sector as a whole. That the suit didn’t slay Uber once and for all doesn’t mean that it didn’t inflict

major pain on it. Asked to list the most important reforms assured by the $100 million

settlement, Liss-Riordan touts the deal’s ability to bolster drivers’ job security; to force Uber to

implement a more favorable tipping policy; and to give workers the means to organize as a

group, granting them representation “akin to what unions provide.”

But that’s not everything she was gunning for, I suggest—drivers still won’t be considered

employees under the settlement. “I only settled, and I would only settle,” she responds,

“because I believe what we achieved is a significant achievement in the lives of drivers.” (This

contention was strongly disputed earlier this week by several lawyers pursuing their own class-

action cases against Uber. "She has single-handedly stuck a knife in the back of every Uber

driver in the country,” one of them told Bloomberg.) But more to the point, Liss-Riordan says,

she’s far from finished with Uber and its myriad cousins. The round-one bell may have dinged,

but the attorney intends to continue her crusade on behalf of workers, calling large corporations

to the mat and wringing major concessions and siphoning huge sums from them when

necessary.

Independent contractors, a class of worker that is expected to characterize 40 percent of all

U.S. laborers by 2020, are due no benefits, guarantee of hours, or minimum wage, enabling the

enterprises that employ them to keep labor costs low. But if this galaxy of free agents suddenly

has to be treated like employees, with all the expensive benefits that the status conveys—well,

let’s just say that Silicon Valley offers Liss-Riordan a wealth of opportunity. In fact, when I called

her to talk about the Uber settlement, she told me she had just selected the last of the furniture

for her new Geary Street office. That’s right, the first annex of Liss-Riordan’s Boston-based firm

will soon open in San Francisco. It’ll be located right off of Union Square.

When I visited her in January in Boston’s Back Bay neighborhood, where her firm, Lichten &

Liss-Riordan, PC, is headquartered, Liss-Riordan stood outside her office and gestured at the

businesses lining the block. Dunkin Donuts, Boston Cab, Lord & Taylor, Starbucks—at one time

or another, she has sued all of them for labor violations. “Yes,” she laughed, “it gets pretty hard

avoiding all my companies.”

Uber came into Liss-Riordan’s sights in 2012 when, during a dinner in San Francisco, a friend

whipped out his phone to show off a cool new app. She saw the cars crawling around his screen

and immediately grokked the model—back in Boston, she was representing cab drivers who

wanted the benefits allotted to employees. Seeing the glint in her eye, her friend blurted, “Don’t

you dare. Do not put them out of business!”

Liss-Riordan sealed a major victory on December 9 of last year, when the class action lawsuit

she had filed on behalf of 8,000 California Uber drivers in 2013 was upgraded by a San

Francisco judge to include basically every single Uber driver in California—more than half of the

company’s current U.S. workforce. Suddenly, the Wall Street Journal was calling her “one of the

most influential and controversial figures in Silicon Valley,” and her lawsuit was threatening the

very existence of the world’s largest privately held company (current valuation: approximately

$68 billion, greater than Ford, Honda, and GM).

The crux of her case was whether the sharing economy habit of using contractors rather than

fully vested employees violates basic labor laws. It was a question that could potentially affect

the fortunes of dozens of would-be and actual unicorns in Silicon Valley, including Google

Express, Postmates, Handy, Caviar, Instacart, GrubHub, DoorDash, Jolt, and Lyft, all of which

Liss-Riordan is in some stage of suing. Indeed, the attorney could throw a stone at any car

driving down Post Street, and chances are that she would hit a vehicle delivering food or

passengers or packages for one of the new-economy businesses that she is after.

True to her nickname, Sledgehammer Shannon—bequeathed to her by the American Airlines

skycaps she represented in a 2008 tip-skimming case—Liss-Riordan, 47, has been smashing

up corporate America through rapid-fire class action lawsuits for a decade and a half (she

currently has some 80 suits in motion). Beyond what’s visible outside her firm’s front door in

Boston, her victims include Federal Express, Harvard University, almost every major U.S.

airline, and the strip joint Centerfolds. Her newest clients are teachers for testing giant Kaplan,

who claim they are being deprived of overtime pay, and stage actors working for studios “owned

by people like Danny DeVito and Tim Robbins.” Broadly, she is out to advance the wage-and-

hour corner of labor law, basically everything related to compensation for hourly-wage

Americans, who, she believes, are faring worse than ever. “I’m not feeling good about the big

picture,” she says. “The labor movement has obviously been in sharp decline, which has

seriously impacted worker welfare. It’s very important to push back against this rollback.”

Over the years, Liss-Riordan’s firm, which typically takes one-third of what it wins and charges

nothing when it loses, has pulled in more than $200 million for its class action clients. And in the

process, Liss-Riordan has achieved a kind of celebrity unseen in the legal world since Ralph

Nader sued General Motors. At a three-day Department of Labor “Future of Work” symposium

last December in Washington, D.C., attendees in the hallways were leaping into Liss-Riordan’s

orbit to take selfies with her. This is not normal for plaintiff’s attorneys in the wage-and-hour

racket. “She hadn’t spoken on a panel,” says the National Employment Law Project’s Cathy

Ruckelshaus, who was at the conference. “She was just recognized.”

Liss-Riordan’s path to legal stardom began with the renowned feminist labor activist and

congresswoman Bella Abzug, who hired her soon after she graduated from Harvard. She had

no special connections to Abzug, or to anyone else, but simply copied the number of every New

York–based women’s organization out of the phone book and started dialing. “I loved [Abzug’s]

big ideas, and her big hats,” she reminisces. The office photographs of Abzug marching in union

protests moved Liss-Riordan. “It was inspiring to see her have an idea and make it happen,” she

says. “That’s what made me desire law school, so I could do something bigger.”

Her progressive leanings, though, had been baked in long before that. The progeny of socialists

(her maternal great-grandfather organized unions with Samuel Gompers), Shannon Liss grew

up in Meyerland, Texas, the daughter of a Reagan Democrat dad and a liberal mother. At age

five she professed that when she married, she would hyphenate her last name “because it was

the only way that made any sense.” (Her husband and three children all use Liss-Riordan.) She

excelled in math and science, starting a math club in high school that wound up being voted

“most organized in the country.” (“I never knew there was such a contest,” she says. “I was just

doing my thing.”)

In 1992, she left Abzug to stage a conference featuring Anita Hill, fresh from the carnival of the

Clarence Thomas harassment hearings. Through this work, she met Gloria Steinem, who

introduced her to Rebecca Walker, a Yale student whose treatise on modern-day feminism,

“Becoming the Third Wave,” had just appeared in Ms. magazine. Over burritos in the Village,

the pair hashed out how to turn Walker’s ideas into action. First up was Freedom Summer 1992,

a cross-country bus tour to register women voters. Hillary Clinton blew them off after committing

to meet the bus in Little Rock, which partly explains why Liss-Riordan is now feeling the Bern.

Ultimately, though, she yearned to fix the system from within, while Walker wanted to stay

outside of it. Laws needed to be changed. People needed to be held accountable. So in 1993,

Liss-Riordan headed to Harvard Law School to work on just that.

She opened Lichten & Liss-Riordan, PC, in 2009, breaking off, along with one of her mentors,

Harold Lichten, from an established labor-law firm. “I work for her now,” laughs Lichten, a messy

professor type who, at 18, quit the University of Pennsylvania basketball team rather than get

the required crew cut. Clearly, the two bond over heeding their first principles. Liss-Riordan

bought a Cambridge pizza joint in 2012 after she won a back-pay lawsuit for the employees,

which helped push the restaurant into bankruptcy. After purchasing it, she made most of the

employees part-owners and renamed the pizzeria the Just Crust.

The day I shadowed her in Boston, Liss-Riordan was a whirl of motion. At one point, while we

were chatting in her office, the reception desk buzzed and she disappeared down an exposed-

brick stairwell hung with vintage photos of workers—seamstresses, a 1930s-era stripper. She

returned with a redheaded woman in jeans, whom she motioned to sit at the conference table.

“I was very interested in what you sent me,” Liss-Riordan said, plopping down beside her. The

woman was a massage therapist at Harvard University’s Center for Wellness. “Were you able to

do any snooping around to see if there were other pockets [of contractors] around campus with

similar setups?” the attorney asked. The woman said not yet. Liss-Riordan followed with a run of

questions: How many hours do you work? Thirty a week. Who sets your schedule?

Management. Who buys your equipment? They do. Do you pay for your own insurance? Yes. If

there was a client you had before that you didn’t like, could you say you’d rather not take them

again? The woman shook her head: No way. Liss-Riordan glanced through the documents the

woman had slid her. “There is a good argument that you have been misclassified as a

contractor,” she said, then suggested they go after sick and holiday pay, and perhaps benefits

like free Harvard courses.

“Didn’t you go to Harvard?” the woman inquired timidly. “I read that on your website.” Liss-

Riordan responded with a laugh: “I’ve sued Harvard twice before. They gave me two degrees,

so I’m not sure they appreciate it.” (She roomed there with YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki.) The

woman asked if she would lose her job. “I’m scared,” she said. “No, no way,” Liss-Riordan

retorted. “It’s scary, but you are doing the right thing. Actually, that it’s Harvard protects you.

They know they can’t get away with misbehaving.”

Over the years, Liss-Riordan has sought employee status for truck drivers, call-center workers,

home cleaners, even exotic dancers. “It’s just the next logical extension to take it into these on-

demand jobs, where it’s pretty clear these low-wage workers are not running their own

businesses,” says the National Employment Law Project’s Ruckelshaus, who has worked with

Liss-Riordan on several cases. A lawyer defending one of Liss-Riordan’s suits spins her MO in

another way: “She’s found this tiny niche, and now she’s just exploiting the hell out of it.”

Indeed, her power-to-the-worker rhetoric flies in the face of many of Silicon Valley’s prized

principles and has earned her some well-funded enemies. The very labor laws she defends,

says veteran VC Len Baker of Sutter Hill Ventures, are “encrusted with so much crap they just

really bog us down.” Sam Altman, who heads the prolific startup hatchery Y Combinator,

believes that “individual flexibility and freedom” should trump current laws that tie employees to

employer. “I definitely think it’s bad to make everyone de facto full-time employees,” he says.

The whole point of the on-demand economy, maintains Eric Goldman, director of the High Tech

Law Institute at the Santa Clara University School of Law, “is to allow more granular ways of

people providing their services.” This new, frictionless, seamless way of parsing tasks and

connecting available labor to paying work, says Baker, is “just much more efficient

economically.”

To all this, Liss-Riordan simply responds: Bogus. She finds the cult of contract labor “really kind

of scary, a great loophole” that’s allowing corporations to screw the little guys. In her view,

companies like Uber blatantly skirt minimum-wage and overtime-pay rules, which have been in

place since the New Deal. By classifying drivers as contractors, Uber can fire them at will, have

them run down their own cars and tires while avoiding having to reimburse them the IRS-

mandated 57.5 cents (now 54) per mile for wear and tear, and sidestep mandates for workers’

compensation and health insurance. The legal framework behind this “might be one of the

sharpest attacks on workers we’ve seen in a long time,” Liss-Riordan says. “The rhetoric is, ‘But

oh, this is good for the worker—be this on-demand worker, and you’ll have this freedom.’ But

they are not their own bosses. Technology has created more extreme ways that employers can

take advantage of workers. They are tethered to their phone. There are constant ratings, surge

incentives, and data tracking their behavior at times, with more pull than a human manager

would have.”

Silicon Valley, naturally, would like to come up with another way to get around this existential

divide. “The best thing would be a new categorization” for gig-economy workers, says Altman,

“because these people really lie somewhere between traditional notions of contractor and

employee.” But Liss-Riordan has a standard retort for this third-category concept: “Why is there

this call for dismantling these protections that have been fought for over decades in order to

help a $50 billion company get richer, while the drivers are making less and less and paying

Uber’s business expenses?” To her, the notion that flexibility is incompatible with full-time

employment is a cop-out. “Plenty of companies let workers set their own schedules,” she says.

“If it costs Uber more to make everyone employees, they should just take a bigger cut and at

least be transparent about all this.”

Back in December, in U.S. District Court Judge Edward M. Chen’s domain high above the city,

Liss-Riordan strenuously objected to Uber’s move of emailing every driver a new contract,

which had to be signed for drivers to continue working. Buried within the fine print was a clause

that rendered signers ineligible to join any future class action lawsuits, instead mandating

arbitration to resolve grievances. Liss-Riordan finds it infuriating, if somewhat vindicating, that

companies have turned to such clauses as a way of dodging responsibility. “They didn’t even

deign to talk to class counsel before sending out a communication to my clients,” she said to the

judge. “I would urge the court to consider the arguments that Uber should not be able to curtail

liability. Not on the 14th page of an email on an iPhone.” Judge Chen ruled in her favor,

overriding Uber’s arbitration agreement and allowing drivers to file suit as a class.

Arbitration clauses like the one Judge Chen struck down are increasingly being used by

companies as a legal end-around. The Supreme Court has strengthened the power of these

clauses in recent years, on the grounds that individual mediations are a more efficient means of

resolving disputes. But to Liss-Riordan, the shift serves only to protect big business: “I just think

it’s reprehensible that the Supreme Court has allowed all these companies that are blatantly

breaking the law to protect themselves."

It was Uber’s arbitration clause that ultimately sent Liss-Riordan’s suit careening to a settlement.

When the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, on April 5, agreed to hear Uber’s appeal,

“it was not a good sign at all,” she says. If Judge Chen’s decision to override the arbitration

agreement was reversed by the Ninth Circuit, her clients could be left high and dry. “Uber made

it known they would appeal this all the way to the Supreme Court if they could,” she says. And

given the deadlocked state of the court at the moment, the odds of a 4–4 decision leaving the

lower court’s ruling in place seemed too risky. “There’s just a lot of uncertainty,” she says.

During our meeting at the Westin, I asked Liss-Riordan if she viewed her lawsuits as primarily

having a policing function on bad-acting companies like Uber, or if she believed that she had a

shot at challenging the constitutionality of arbitration clauses. She was circumspect. “There are

so many ways that companies can evade the laws,” she said. “If you chase them in litigation,

they can just keep changing the arbitration clause a little bit. For them, they are like this magic

bullet.”

Using lawsuits, Liss-Riordan is trying to combat these corporate shenanigans by bringing old-

fashioned collective bargaining to the new economy. And increasingly, other jurisdictions are

taking a similar approach. Seattle just passed a law allowing Uber drivers to organize, and new

legislation aimed at enabling gig workers to bargain collectively was recently introduced before

the California legislature. (The bill was pulled before a final vote.) The Teamsters are now

reportedly attempting to create an independent drivers’ “association” akin to a union. “Lawsuits

like hers are already having an impact,” says Arun Sundararajan, professor at the New York

University Stern School of Business and the author of The Sharing Economy: The End of

Employment and the Rise of Crowd-Based Capitalism. The fundamental benefit of these

lawsuits, he says, is in “getting us on a path toward a better solution to funding our social safety

net."

Liss-Riordan is never one to relent unless forced. Says her partner Lichten, admiringly, “She’s

like a pit bull with a Chihuahua in her mouth.” Among the concessions Uber had to make to

reach the April settlement was forgoing its practice of firing drivers without cause. “That’s a

pretty big deal,” says Santa Clara University law professor Goldman. What’s more, drivers will

no longer be deactivated for a low rate of pickups, will receive a warning before losing their job,

and can contest a termination before a panel of their peers. An even bigger deal, Liss-Riordan

says, was convincing the judges in both her Uber and Lyft cases to deny summary judgment.

What this means is that companies will not be able to do away with lawsuits of this nature

quickly and painlessly. “They were saying that any company that finds itself with a lawsuit for

misclassification can find itself in front of a jury. And that’s big,” she says. “It’s a big price to put

an end to the case, and it will continue to give companies pause before they play fast and loose

with these rules.”

There is evidence of this already. On-demand players such as Instacart, Shyp, Zirtual, and

Honor have recently shifted course, reclassifying some of their workers as employees.

“Everyone who wants to be Uber of the next thing—they’ve been watching these battles,” Liss-

Riordan says. And, she is quick to point out, Uber may be paying $100 million to make this suit

go away, but it hasn’t gotten the employment-classification monkey off its back. “No court has

decided here whether these drivers are employees or independent contractors,” she says. At

multiple times during our phone conversation in April, Liss-Riordan returned to her favorite point:

“This was a settlement. Nothing has been decided.”

Before hanging up, I pushed her on my last question: What is your next chess move against

Uber? Is this fight over? She hemmed and hawed over what to reveal publicly, before finally

relenting. “Oh, OK,” she said, grinning audibly on the other end of the line. “You can say I’m not

done with this company.”

Originally published in the June issue of San Francisco

EXHIBIT B

Meet the attorney suing Uber, Lyft, GrubHub and a

dozen California tech firms

Attorney Shannon Liss-Riordan says too many Silicon Valley firms flout labor laws at the expense of low-wage workers (Aram Boghosian / For the Times)

By Tracey Lien • Contact Reporter

JANUARY 24, 2016, 10:19 AM | SAN FRANCISCO

hannon Liss-Riordan made a name for herself defending workers against

FedEx, American Airlines and Starbucks in wage and hour lawsuits.

If you’re a business executive and she’s knocking at your door, it probably

means your company has been accused of doing something few Americans have much

tolerance for: ripping off the little guy.

http://www.latimes.com/la-bio-tracey-lien-staff.html#nt=byline

mailto:[email protected]?subject=Regarding:%20%22Meet%20the%20attorney%20suing%20Uber,%20Lyft,%20GrubHub%20and%20a%20dozen%20California%20tech%20firms%22

So, if you’re an executive in Silicon Valley — where businesses are lauded for disrupting

the old way of doing things, tearing down the hierarchies of the past, making the world a

better place — you’d think you’d get a pass, right?

“

It just doesn't make a lot of sense to me why we should throw all

these worker protections out the window to help a $50-billion

company like Uber.

- Shannon Liss-Riordan

Hardly. After slapping on-demand transportation company Uber with a class-action

lawsuit over driver misclassification in 2013, the Boston lawyer has been busy, filing a

dozen similar lawsuits against California tech firms.

Silicon Valley companies may think they’re a breed apart, but to Liss-Riordan, too many

of them are too similar to the big corporations she’s fought in the past, companies she

says flout labor laws for profit at the expense of low-wage workers.

Where some see Silicon Valley innovation, Liss-Riordan sees an old power struggle,

wrapped in an app.

***

Liss-Riordan hasn’t kept track of how many miles she’s logged between Boston and San

Francisco since she started litigating against companies in the on-demand economy. But

she’s now treated as a regular at the federal courthouse in San Francisco, where she’s

often seen dragging a roller bag of legal documents in and out of the towering gray

building.

An opposing attorney in one of her cases saw her around so much he challenged

whether she should be allowed to file so many lawsuits in the state when she isn’t a

member of the State Bar of California.

http://www.latimes.com/topic/business/transportation-industry/uber-ORCRP0017738-topic.html

If he’d hoped to deter her, it didn’t work. Liss-Riordan responded by registering to take

the California bar exam in February. Once admitted, she plans to open an office in San

Francisco.

Liss-Riordan carries herself more like an activist than a lawyer. At first, she comes off as

approachable, friendly even. But her partner at Boston law firm Lichten & Liss-Riordan,

Harold Lichten, describes her as having the heart of a grass-roots organizer with the

tenacity of “a pit bull with a Chihuahua in its mouth.”

She knows her stuff and can get really academic, but without making people feel dumb.

Opponents have accused her of being opportunistic and taking advantage of young

companies who don’t know legal rules. She counters by saying that the cases she’s filing

aren’t about semantics. They’re about people getting ripped off.

The on-demand economy — driven by smartphone apps with which people can instantly

hail a ride, order a meal or book a house cleaner — is booming in California. Ride-

hailing companies such as Uber and Lyft have achieved multibillion-dollar valuations

from a business model that uses independent contractors to fulfill a core function of

their businesses. Although they compete directly against the taxi industry, they’ve

labeled themselves “technology companies” — intermediaries that simply connect

willing workers with paying customers.

Which would be fine, Liss-Riordan said, if they were also treating their workers as

independent contractors.

In the lawsuits she filed against Uber, Lyft, food-delivery companies DoorDash and

GrubHub, and on-demand laundry service Washio, she alleges that these firms exert the

kind of control that employers would have over employees — without providing any of

the benefits employees, by law, are entitled to.

In response to her efforts, these companies have hired legal big guns. Uber, for example,

hired Gibson Dunn, a global law firm routinely recognized by industry groups as one of

the top litigators in America.

There’s a good reason they’re fighting so hard. A Liss-Riordan victory could put

companies such as Uber and GrubHub on the hook for costs that would eat deeply into

their profit margins. Labor experts estimate that their cost of doing business would

increase by 30% to cover payroll taxes, unemployment insurance and workers’

compensation. Costs would rise even more with overtime payments and — particularly

in the Lyft and Uber cases, in which drivers use their own vehicles and pay for their own

gas — expense reimbursements.

Could big firms such as Uber and Lyft afford it? Liss-Riordan believes so. But in Silicon

Valley, where sky-high profit margins lead to enormous company valuations that could

translate into staggering returns on investment, any increase in the cost of doing

business poses a threat. After all, Uber didn’t become the world’s most highly valued

private company by paying for its drivers’ gas.

If the companies are to be believed, any significant changes to their business model

would fall on the drivers. The Ubers and Lyfts of the world argue that recognizing

workers as employees would come at the cost of flexible working hours, which is the

reason many people sign up to drive for an on-demand service.

Liss-Riordan huffs at the notion. Smaller companies such as Shyp (on-demand

shipping), Munchery (on-demand meal delivery) and Luxe Valet (on-demand valet

parking) have been able to do it while retaining some flexibility, although their workers

now have scheduled shifts.

“These companies just don’t want to do it because it’s going to cost more,” she said.

“And there’s nothing stopping them from giving their workers flexible schedules.”

She almost has to fight back an eye roll when she hears the on-demand economy’s

defense.

“It just doesn’t make a lot of sense to me why we should throw all these worker

protections out the window to help a $50-billion company like Uber when the workers

who are actually doing the work are struggling and need those protections,” she said.

She speaks with an urgency. As she delivers each statement, one can imagine a

concurrent thought bubble floating above her head in which she grabs people by the

shoulders and shakes them: “Can’t you see? Can’t you see why this matters?”

***

Liss-Riordan has brought this kind of fight to big and small players alike. She’s taken on

Starbucks and American Airlines (both were accused of skimming tips from workers)

and sued a Massachusetts strip club and a pizza chain (the former classified its dancers

as independent contractors but expected them to share their tips with managers and

bouncers. The latter was a case in which kitchen staff members were forced to give back

their overtime wages or lose their jobs).

Her track record is strong: In Massachusetts, she’s won worker-misclassification and tip

cases against Starbucks and FedEx. Her lawsuit against the strip club triggered a wave of

similar lawsuits across the state. After her lawsuit drove the pizza chain out of business,

she bought one of the restaurants herself and turned it into a profit-share pizza joint.

“Overall she really cares about workers and advancing the law for workers,” said

Lichten, who has known her for 20 years. “She’s very good about rolling up her sleeves

and meeting with clients to explain to them what’s going on.”

There’s big money to be made in this area, of course. Class-action lawsuits can lead to

hefty payouts, with lawyers walking away with up to a third of what their clients are

awarded. In a recent class action over worker misclassification involving FedEx Ground

(Liss-Riordan was not the plaintiff’s attorney), the company announced a $228-million

settlement with 2,300 California-based drivers.

Liss-Riordan doesn’t charge an upfront fee — so if she doesn’t win, she gets nothing.

Her critics have been blunt, accusing her of taking advantage of confusing and arcane

laws to reap a windfall for her clients and her firm.

“I have a lot of respect for Shannon, but I do see this cottage industry she's created

around the tip statute as becoming abusive toward employers,” attorney Ariel D.

Cudkowicz, who defended several Liss-Riordan-led lawsuits, told the Boston Globe in

2008.

Others have pointed out that sometimes companies have good intentions but simply

misinterpret the law.

Before they get the chance to figure it out, lawsuits like Liss-Riordan’s can “knock them

out of business,” said attorney Robert Berluti, who went up against Liss-Riordan in the

Massachusetts stripper case.

Some of her cases have taken more than a decade to resolve. In 2011, she took on a case

representing a skycap who was fired in retaliation for participating in a class-action

lawsuit; that was a five-year process.

“She kept fighting without getting paid,” said her former client in the skycap case, Joe

Travers, 50. According to Travers, Liss-Riordan continued to represent him even when

the court reversed his victory. She recently won an appeal on his behalf.

“It’s amazing someone would continue to fight for you even when there might not be

anything for them in the end,” he said. “She just doesn’t like people taking advantage of

other people.”

Liss-Riordan doesn’t seem fazed by her critics or the size of the industry she’s taking on.

In her eyes, no company — innovator, disruptor, whatever else they want to call

themselves — deserves a free pass.

When asked whether she’s been known to be intimidated by anyone — a company, an

industry, another law firm — Liss-Riordan’s former colleague, attorney Nicole Horberg

Decter, had this to say: “Ha-ha-ha!”

Then, after a moment: “I don’t think of Shannon as someone who is intimidated by

anything. When she takes on an issue, she’s not taking on a company, she’s taking on an

industry. I think that’s very powerful. So, no, she is not intimidated at all.”

[email protected]

Twitter: @traceylien

mailto:[email protected]

https://twitter.com/traceylien

EXHIBIT C

Meet the Boston Lawyer Who’s Putting Uber

on Trial

Shannon Liss-Riordan has become one of the most influential—and controversial—figures in Silicon Valley

Boston attorney Shannon Liss-Riordan represents drivers who say Uber has illegally classified them as freelancers and not employees. PHOTO: JOSH ANDRUS FOR THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

By LAUREN WEBER and RACHEL EMMA SILVERMAN Nov. 4, 2015 11:47 a.m. ET

BOSTON—With a raft of lawsuits challenging Uber Technologies Inc. and other startups that

summon workers at the touch of an app, attorney Shannon Liss-Riordan has become one of the

most influential—and controversial—figures in Silicon Valley.

In her main suit against Uber, Ms. Liss-Riordan represents drivers who say the ride-service

company has illegally classified them as freelancers and not employees, barring them from

reimbursements for their expenses, among other protections. She is also suing Lyft, Postmates

and others over the labor model on which they depend. The legal battles put Ms. Liss-Riordan,

who also owns a pizzeria with her husband, at the center of the debate over the status of on-

demand workers in the U.S.

The closely watched Uber case, which continues in federal court in San Francisco on

Wednesday, won class-action status in September and could go to trial as early as next year. A

final verdict against Uber in this case could change how the firm does business with its drivers

and send shocks through the on-demand economy.

Uber’s lawyers have argued that it is a software platform connecting car owners with people

seeking rides, and not the manager of a fleet of drivers. The $51 billion venture-backed company

has no plans to settle and is willing to fight the case to the Supreme Court if necessary, according

to people familiar with its legal strategy.

In Ms. Liss-Riordan, Uber faces a tenacious opponent who has fought hard to enforce worker

protections that, she says, many employers would like to erode, although some attorneys and

other advocates question whether her pursuit of that principle always serves her plaintiffs.

Shelby Clark, CEO of Peers, which provides services for independent contractors (such as

reviews of what it’s like to work for an on-demand firm), said he is glad Ms. Liss-Riordan has

drawn attention to the ambiguous status of some workers, but added, “I fear that more harm than

good can come from these lawsuits. I don’t necessarily think she’s speaking on behalf of the

average worker.”

Ms. Liss-Riordan counters that there’s no reason Uber can’t offer drivers flexibility—the prime

benefit Uber and other on-demand firms pitch to potential workers—while still providing them

basic labor protections. “That’s a false choice,” she said.

She has logged victories in the field of wage and hour law, bringing employers

includingStarbucks Corp. and her alma mater, Harvard University, into compliance with state

http://quotes.wsj.com/SBUX

and federal laws governing workers’ pay and employment status. Strategically using each ruling

to build the next, her cases have targeted FedEx Corp., cleaning firms, and a strip club called

King Arthur’s Lounge over the classification of their workers.

With the suits against on-demand startups, her goal is nothing less than shaping the definition of

employment in the fast-evolving digital economy. Although she isn’t closed to the prospect of a

settlement, “I would like to play this out and make some law,” she said.

She first learned about Uber in 2012, during dinner with a friend in San Francisco. Her

companion pulled out his phone and gushed to her about an app “that had changed his life,” she

recalled.

“I could see instantly what was going on” in terms of the labor model, she said. Recognizing the

glint in her eye, Ms. Liss-Riordan’s companion said, “you’re going to put this company out of

business, aren’t you?”

That hasn’t happened, and Ms. Liss-Riordan said she doesn’t think the reclassification of drivers

would threaten Uber’s existence. But friends and associates cite her ferocious work ethic and

near-evangelical belief in her clients’ claims as assets in high-stakes battles. She extends cases

for years even after her battle seems to be lost, and several times has petitioned the Supreme

Court—so far unsuccessfully—to take up legal questions that circuit courts decided against her.

Her doggedness is already manifest in the Uber case. After the company submitted 400

statements from drivers who said they preferred the flexibility of gig labor, Ms. Liss-Riordan

directed a paralegal to contact around 50 of those same drivers, most of whom said that they

would like to be employees if it meant having their expenses reimbursed.

“When the opposing counsel is popping open their champagne, thinking a case is over, she

comes back at them. She’s indefatigable. And it drives management firms crazy that she won’t

give up,” said her law partner, Harold Lichten.

Her fervor can raise eyebrows among opposing counsel. “Sometimes she’s so inflamed about the

issue and the people she represents that she won’t come to settlement even when that’s in her and

http://quotes.wsj.com/FDX

her clients’ best interest,” said Boston lawyer Ellen Kearns of Constangy, Brooks, Smith &

Prophete LLP, who has squared off against Ms. Liss-Riordan.

The pizzeria was also the product of a crusade. In 2010 she sued a pizza chain and its owners for

siphoning employee paychecks to pay a fine for federal labor violations. The chain filed for

bankruptcy two years later, and Ms. Liss-Riordan wound up buying the Cambridge location,

called The Upper Crust, at auction for $220,000. Among her first acts as restaurateur, she set up

a plan for sharing profits with the pizzeria’s employees and re-christened it The Just Crust.

The Uber case will be a key test of Ms. Liss-Riordan’s belief that New Deal-era labor laws are

adequate to respond to the emergence of an on-demand economy.

It applies only to California workers, but Ms. Liss-Riordan has set her sights further. “I’m hoping

that if we’re successful, it could then be expanded nationwide,” she said.

Write to Lauren Weber at [email protected] and Rachel Emma Silverman at

[email protected]



EXHIBIT D

5/27/2016 Do janitorial firms cash in by misclassifying workers as independent contractors?

http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/do_janitorial_firms_cash_in_by_misclassifying_workers_as_independent 1/3

Retrieved on May 27, 2016, 12:55 pm CDT

Shannon LissRiordan:Janitorial firms cash in bymisclassifying workers asindependent contractors.Photo by Carl Tremblay.

Home / InDepth Reporting / Do janitorial firms cash in by misclassifying…

NATIONAL PULSE

Do janitorial firms cash in by misclassifying workers as independentcontractors?POSTED SEP 01, 2014 09:20 AM CDT

BY WENDY N. DAVIS

When Pius Awuah, an immigrant from Ghana, agreed to purchase a cleaningfranchise from the janitorial giant Coverall for more than $14,000, he believed thebusiness would earn $3,000 per month.

The Lowell, Massachusetts, resident used his savings and credit cards to put upmore than $8,000, while Coverall arranged to deduct the rest from his futureearnings. The company gave him clients, at least at first, but the expectedrevenue didn’t materialize, partly because some of them were spread so farapart that he couldn’t realistically travel to every site. After a few months,Coverall took away some of the business it had previously given to Awuah,claiming the clients weren’t satisfied.

In the end, Awuah typically took in less than $1,300 per month, according tocourt papers. Now Awuah is among the lead plaintiffs in a class action that couldreshape the janitorial industry.

For decades, a handful of large cleaning companies have run their businesses on the franchise model, ratherthan hiring employees. Coverall, JaniKing, JanPro, CleanNet and a few others routinely market themselves toimmigrants like Awuah, often by advertising in foreignlanguage newspapers.

The immigrants are promised the chance to run their own, potentially lucrative businesses—provided they payhefty franchise fees, which can run as high as $30,000. But for many, the reality is that they don’t receive enoughwork to be able to support themselves, much less recoup their initial investments. In some cases, the immigrantssay they pay additional fees to have a client assigned to them, only to lose that client on the grounds that theclient supposedly wasn’t satisfied with their work.

OWNER OR EMPLOYEE?“The janitorial industry seems to be on the cutting edge of figuring out how to cheat people out of their wages,”says Chicago attorney Christopher Williams, who represents plaintiffs in a lawsuit against CleanNet.

“This is their business practice, and they’ve been very devoted to it,” says Catherine Ruckelshaus, generalcounsel and program director at the National Employment Law Project, a New York Citybased nonprofit that hasfiled friendofthecourt briefs in several lawsuits against cleaning companies. “It’s a very lucrative way to run theirbusiness.”

In the past, numerous individuals have sued cleaning services companies for breach of contract, often allegingthat they were duped into shelling out money for the franchises. Many of those lawsuits resulted in confidentialsettlements.

http://www.abajournal.com/

http://www.abajournal.com/

http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/



Recently, however, some of the immigrants have banded together in class actions claiming they were never trulyfranchise owners at all but, rather, employees—meaning that they’re entitled to receive at least the minimumwage for the time they worked as janitors. In many cases, that amounts to only a few months because theycouldn’t afford to continue working for such small revenue.

Awuah’s lawsuit, filed in 2007, centers on allegations that Coverall treated the franchise “owners” like employees,in that the company controlled every aspect of the jobs, from the uniforms and badges they wore to the clientsthey received.

The plaintiffs also argue that they are employees under the state of Massachusetts’ expansive definition of theterm, which provides that people are employees if they’re in the same line of business as the employer.

U.S. District Judge William Young sided in a 2010 decision with Awuah and other purported “franchisees,” writingthat they were in the same line of work—that is, the commercial cleaning services trade—as Coverall.

Coverall, a Boca Raton, Floridabased corporation with about 5,000 franchisees, argued that it was in thefranchising business, not the commercial cleaning business.

Young specifically rejected that contention. “Describing franchising as a business in itself, as Coverall seeks to do,sounds vaguely like a description for a modified Ponzi scheme—a company that does not earn money from thesale of goods and services, but from taking in more money from unwitting franchisees to make payments toprevious franchisees,” wrote Young, granting the plaintiffs partial summary judgment.

Coverall is appealing to the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at Boston. The corporation says its regular activitiesconsist of “selling franchises, promoting the Coverall brand, centrally soliciting customer contracts, and providingbilling and collections services to franchise owners.”

Coverall adds that Young’s interpretation of the law would lead to what it calls absurd results about who was orwasn’t an employee. “Franchisors of health clubs would be in the ‘business’ of providing fitness services, andfranchisors of car dealerships would be in the ‘business’ of selling cars.”

‘TRYING TO CRY WOLF’The lobbying group International Franchise Association, based in D.C., is backing Coverall in the appeal, arguingthat Young’s decision could sweep in such companies as McDonald’s and Dunkin’ Donuts.

Gregg Rubenstein of Boston, the Nixon Peabody lawyer who represents the franchise trade group, adds thatYoung didn’t need to issue such a broad ruling. “There were lots of ways to reach the result without implicatingfranchising writ large,” he says. For instance, Young could have found fault with the contracts between Coveralland the plaintiffs, without going so far as to say they were employees.

But Shannon LissRiordan, the Boston attorney for Awuah and others, says the argument is ridiculous.

“They’re trying to cry wolf in order to get out of this judgment we won,” she says of Coverall. She adds thatcompanies like McDonald’s don’t control which customers go to which stores or suddenly take business awayfrom a franchise owner.

“McDonald’s has set up a structure by which independent business owners can run fastfood stores,” says LissRiordan, who has spent the last decade representing people who claim they were duped into purchasingfranchises.

Meanwhile, Young’s decision in the Coverall case, if upheld on appeal, could leave franchisors vulnerable to arange of new lawsuits, including those for civil rights violations, says Dallas attorney Deborah Coldwell, chair ofthe ABA Forum on Franchising.

Coldwell suggests, for instance, that in a case of sexual harassment, employees of franchisees could sue thedeeppocketed corporations if the business was considered an employer.

“Plaintiffs’ counsel are glomming on to the Coverall decision to expand the liability of franchisors,” she says. “ThisCoverall case has opened stricter scrutiny of employeremployee situations.”

The 1st Circuit is expected to decide soon whether those who purchased Coverall franchises are actuallyemployees, but that upcoming ruling won’t be the only word on the matter.



Copyright 2016 American Bar Association. All rights reserved.

Other cases are pending throughout the country. Several lawsuits have resulted in settlements. CleanNet, forinstance, agreed in 2013 to pay $7.5 million to settle a class action in Massachusetts, while Coverall agreed tosettle a lawsuit in California.

Others, however, including one against JaniKing, are still contested.

In that case, U.S. District Judge Samuel Conti in the Northern District of California ruled in 2012 that JaniKingwas not an employer under California law. “JaniKing did not exercise sufficient control over plaintiffs to renderthem employees,” Conti wrote. “Plaintiffs had the discretion to hire, fire and supervise their employees, as well asdetermine the amount and manner of their pay.”

The ruling didn’t dispose of the case. Conti said that the franchise owners were entitled to go to trial on a varietyof other allegations, including that JaniKing violated its contract and didn’t act in good faith.

For now, however, the trial proceedings in that case are on hold while plaintiffs appeal to the 9th Circuit. Thefranchisees argue that Conti’s ruling enables JaniKing “to evade its obligations under the Labor Code throughsubterfuge.”

Whether that argument will carry the day isn’t clear, given that California’s laws differ from those inMassachusetts. “In Massachusetts we happen to be fortunate enough to have very protective laws,” LissRiordansays.

This article originally appeared in the September 2014 issue of the ABA Journal with this headline: “Cleaning Up:Losing money, immigrant franchise owners claim they are employees and should be paid a salary.”

EXHIBIT E

Uber's Least Favorite Lawyer Strikes Again Marisa Kendall 01/06/2016

SAN FRANCISCO — The plaintiffs lawyer who's forged a place as Uber's legal nemesis

launched a fresh attack this week seeking employee protections for dozens of drivers who won't

be included in her huge class action.

Boston-based attorney Shannon Liss-Riordan sued Uber Technologies Inc. on behalf of drivers

left out of O'Connor v. Uber because they drove through intermediary limo companies or used

corporate names.

U.S. District Judge Edward Chen of the Northern District of California found their situations

could be varied enough to preclude class treatment.

"We're not going to leave them out in the cold," Liss-Riordan said. "We represent these

individuals and we want to be sure to protect their rights."

In an email, an Uber spokeswoman pointed out: "The federal district court already rejected

plaintiff's request to certify a class of these groups, whose circumstances vary widely and who

have control over how they use the app."

The suit filed Monday in San Francisco Superior Court names 78 plaintiffs, and Liss-Riordan

said she expects to add more as drivers continue to contact her.

Uber has estimated about 10,000 drivers were excluded from the O'Connor litigation, compared

to the 150,000 in the class that Chen certified.

Ironically, the man whose name is attached to the case, lead plaintiff Douglas O'Connor, was

among those excluded because he drove for Uber through a third-party company. He's named as

a plaintiff in the new suit.

http://pdfserver.amlaw.com/ca/DriversexcludedfromOConnorclass.pdf

The O'Connor case is set for a June trial in the Northern District of California. Liss-Riordan will

argue her clients are Uber employees and must receive employee benefits, reimbursement for

driving expenses, and compensation for tips she claims the company illegally withheld. Uber

maintains its drivers are independent contractors because they have the freedom to control

factors such as the hours and schedules they work and the routes they drive. Chen certified a

class of California drivers in September, and expanded the class last month. Uber is represented

by Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher partner Theodore Boutrous Jr.

Liss-Riordan argues the plaintiffs in her new case also are Uber employees, even though they

drove through intermediaries.

For now Liss-Riordan is litigating the excluded drivers' claims individually, as they may not be

eligible for class treatment under a new arbitration agreement Uber rolled out last month.

"This is the type of result you see," Liss-Riordan said, referring to her ponderous suit, "when

there is a high degree of interest in a case and employees aren't allowed to pursue claims as a

class action."

Contact the reporter at [email protected].

http://www.therecorder.com/id=1202736218449

http://www.therecorder.com/id=1202744492078


EXHIBIT F

Meet "Sledgehammer Shannon," the Lawyer Who Is Uber’s Worst Nightmare —Hannah Levintova on Wed. December 30, 2015 6:00 AM PDT

Miriam Migliazzi and Mart Klein

In early 2012, on a visit to San Francisco, Shannon Liss-Riordan went to a restaurant with

some friends. Over dinner, one of her companions began to describe a new car-hailing app

that had taken Silicon Valley by storm. "Have you seen this?" he asked, tapping Uber on his

phone. "It's changed my life."

Liss-Riordan glanced at the little black cars snaking around on his screen. "He looked up at

me and he knew what I was thinking," she remembers. After all, four years earlier she had

been christened "an avenging angel for workers" by the Boston Globe. "He said, 'Don't you

dare. Do not put them out of business.'" But Liss-Riordan, a labor lawyer who has spent her

career successfully fighting behemoths such as FedEx, American Airlines, and Starbucks on

behalf of their workers, was way ahead of him. When she saw cars, she thought of drivers. And a lawsuit waiting to happen.

Four years later, Liss-Riordan is spearheading class-action lawsuits against Uber, Lyft, and

nine other apps that provide on-demand services, shaking the pillars of Silicon Valley's

much-hyped sharing economy. In particular, she is challenging how these companies

classify their workers. If she can convince judges that these so-called micro-entrepreneurs

are in fact employees and not independent contractors, she could do serious damage to a

very successful business model—Uber alone was recently valued at $51 billion—which relies

on cheap labor and a creative reading of labor laws. She has made some progress in her

work for drivers. Just this month, after Uber tried several tactics to shrink the class, she

won a key legal victory when a judge in San Francisco found that more than 100,000

drivers can join her class action.

http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/blog/2014/08/court-finds-fedex-drivers-are-employees.html

https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2015/09/05/suing-sharing-economy-with-lawyer-shannon-liss-riordan/CyLrBtXAx7KNoOM0K6ynPJ/story.html

http://fortune.com/2015/09/02/uber-lawsuit/

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/12/uber-tries-maneuver-out-its-giant-driver-lawsuit

"These companies save massively by shifting many costs of running a business to the

workers, profiting off the backs of their workers," Liss-Riordan says with calm intensity as

she sits in her Boston office, which is peppered with framed posters of Massachusetts Sen.

Elizabeth Warren. The bustling block below is home to two coffee chains that Liss-Riordan

has sued. If the Uber case succeeds, she tells me, "maybe that will make companies think twice about steamrolling over laws."

"Uber is obviously a car service," she says, and to insist otherwise is "to

deny the obvious."

After graduating from Harvard Law School in 1996, Liss-Riordan was working at a boutique

labor law firm when she got a call from a waiter at a fancy Boston restaurant. He

complained that his manager was keeping a portion of his tips and wondered if that was

legal. Armed with a decades-old Massachusetts labor statute she had unearthed, Liss-

Riordan helped him take his employer to court—and won. "This whole industry was ignoring

this law," Liss-Riordan recalls. Pretty quickly, she became the go-to expert for employees

seeking to recover skimmed tips. And before she knew it, her "whole practice was representing waitstaff."

In November 2012, she won a $14.1 million judgment for Starbucks baristas in

Massachusetts. After a federal jury ordered American Airlines to pay $325,000 in lost tips to

skycaps at Boston's airport, one of the plaintiffs dubbed her "Sledgehammer Shannon."

When one of her suits caused a local pizzeria to go bankrupt, she bought it, raised wages, and renamed it The Just Crust.

Liss-Riordan estimates that she's won or settled several hundred labor cases for bartenders,

cashiers, truck drivers, and other workers in the rapidly expanding service economy.

Lawyers around the country have sought her input in their labor lawsuits, including one that

resulted in a $100 million payout to more than 120,000 Starbucks baristas in California.

(The ruling was later overturned on appeal.) In a series of cases that began in 2005, she

has won multimillion-dollar settlements for FedEx drivers who had been improperly treated

as contractors and were expected to buy or lease their delivery trucks, as well as pay for their own gas.

Her Uber offensive began in late 2012, when several Boston drivers approached her,

alleging that the company was keeping as much as half of their tips, which is illegal under

Massachusetts law. Liss-Riordan sued and won a settlement in their favor. But while looking

more closely at Uber, she confirmed the suspicion that had popped up at that dinner in San

Francisco: The company's drivers are classified as independent contractors rather than

official employees, meaning that Uber can forgo paying for benefits like workers'

compensation, unemployment, and Social Security. Uber can also avoid taking responsibility

for drivers' business expenses such as fuel, vehicle costs, car insurance, and maintenance.

In August 2013, Liss-Riordan filed a class-action lawsuit in a federal court in San Francisco,

where Uber is based. Her argument hinged on California law, which classifies workers as

employees if their tasks are central to a business and are substantially controlled by their

employer. Under that principle, the lawsuit says, Uber drivers are clearly employees, not

contractors. "Uber is in the business of providing car service to customers," notes the

complaint. "Without the drivers, Uber's business would not exist." The suit also alleges that

Uber manipulates the prices of rides by telling customers that tips are included—but then

keeps a chunk of the built-in tips rather than remitting them fully to drivers. The case calls

for Uber to pay back its drivers for their lost tips and expenses, plus interest.

Uber jumped into gear, bringing on lawyer Ted Boutrous, who had successfully represented

Walmart before the Supreme Court in the largest employment class action in US history.

Uber tried to get the case thrown out, arguing that its business is technology, not

transportation. The drivers, the company contended, were independent businesses, and the

Uber app was simply a "lead generation platform" for connecting them with customers.

"Why should we tear apart laws that have been put in place over decades to

help a $50 billion company at the expense of workers?"

Techspeak aside, Liss-Riordan has heard all this before. When she litigated similar cases on

behalf of cleaning workers, the cleaning companies claimed they were simply connecting

broom-pushing "independent franchises" with customers. When she won several landmark

cases brought by exotic dancers who had been misclassified as contractors, the strip clubs

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jun/03/business/fi-starbucks-tips3

http://www.collabrus.com/collabrus_blog/2010/08/26/fedex-to-pay-massachusetts-3-million-in-misclassification-case-settlement-but-there%E2%80%99s-more%E2%80%A6/

http://www.scribd.com/doc/157638392/David-Lavitman-vs-Uber#scribd

http://uberlawsuit.com/Complaint.pdf

argued that they were "bars where you happen to have naked women dancing," Liss-

Riordan recounts with a wry smile. "The court said, 'No. People come to your bar because of

that entertainment. Adult entertainment. That's your business.'"

Uber's argument is pretty similar to that of the strip clubs. "Uber is obviously a car service,"

she says, and to insist otherwise is "to deny the obvious." An Uber spokesperson wouldn't

address that characterization, but said that drivers "love being their own boss" and "use

Uber on their own terms: they control their use of the app, choosing when, how and where they drive."

Some observers have suggested creating a new job category between employee and

contractor. But Liss-Riordan is tired of hearing that labor laws should adapt to accommodate

upstart tech companies, not the other way around: "Why should we tear apart laws that

have been put in place over decades to help a $50 billion company like Uber at the expense of workers who are trying to pay their rent and feed their families?"

For the most part, courts have sided with her. Last March, a federal court in San Francisco

denied Uber's attempt to quash the lawsuit, calling the company's reasoning "fatally flawed"

(and even citing French philosopher Michel Foucault to make its point). In September, the

same court handed Liss-Riordan and her clients a major victory by allowing the case to go

forward as a class action. The judge in the Lyft case has called the company's argument—

nearly identical to Uber's—"obviously wrong." Last July, the cleaning startup HomeJoy shut down, implying that a worker classification lawsuit filed by Liss-Riordan was a key reason.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2658548-OrderDenyingUberMotionSummaryJudgement.html

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2658548-OrderDenyingUberMotionSummaryJudgement.html#document/p24/a269067

http://recode.net/2015/07/17/cleaning-services-startup-homejoy-shuts-down-after-battling-worker-classification-lawsuits/

http://recode.net/2015/07/17/cleaning-services-startup-homejoy-shuts-down-after-battling-worker-classification-lawsuits/

Meanwhile, other sharing-economy startups are changing the way they do business. The

grocery app Instacart and the shipping app Shyp—Liss-Riordan has cases pending against

both—have announced they will start converting contractors to full employees. Liss-Riordan

says that's her ultimate goal: to protect workers in the new economy, not to kill the

innovation behind their jobs. "This is not going to put the Ubers of the world out of business," she says.

One of her opponents has played a more creative offense. Last fall, the laundry-delivery app

Washio convinced a judge that Liss-Riordan had no right to practice law in California. Liss-

Riordan easily could have relied on a local lawyer to head the case, but instead she signed

up to take the California bar exam in February. "Their plan kind of backfired," she says. "I expect they'll be seeing more of me, rather than less."

EXHIBIT G

o most people in Silicon Valley, the “sharing economy” represents a

transformational business model—a new kind of company, and a new kind of work,

poised to revolutionize the economy and free workers from the chains of a single

employer

Shannon Liss-Riordan – The POLITICO 50: Ideas changing politics and ... https://www.politico.com/magazine/politico50/2016/shannon-liss-riordan

1 of 2 5/13/2019, 2:47 PM

To Shannon Liss-Riordan, the sharing economy is a huge yellow light, and she’s been

arguing in courts that what companies tout as “bold” and “disruptive” isn’t much more than

a clever packaging of a corporate strategy to rip off workers. She points out that Lyft and

Uber drivers, along with most workers in the sharing economy, are classified as

independent contractors, which means that, by law, they don’t receive many labor

protections available to actual employees, including the minimum wage, overtime pay,

worker safety protections, unemployment insurance, health insurance and more.

Since 2013, Liss-Riordan has represented thousands of Uber and Lyft drivers in cases

across the country. In April, Uber agreed to settle two of those class-action cases, in

Massachusetts and California, for up to $100 million, offering to provide a fuller

explanation to drivers who might be banned from the app and allowing them to form

“drivers’ associations,” quasi-unions that will meet with Uber each year but do not have

collective bargaining rights. Although a federal judge in August rejected the settlement,

sending the two sides back to negotiations, the point of Liss-Riordan’s litigation is

increasingly clear: Even a brave new workplace is still a workplace, and the new companies

of the sharing economy don’t have a free pass to use the halo of innovation to mask old-

fashioned strong-arming. It’s a fight with 50-state consequences.

Shannon Liss-Riordan – The POLITICO 50: Ideas changing politics and ... https://www.politico.com/magazine/politico50/2016/shannon-liss-riordan

2 of 2 5/13/2019, 2:47 PM

EXHIBIT H

Skycaps and waiters find a legal champion By Jonathan Saltzman Globe Staff / April 29, 2008 Days after a federal jury ordered American

Airlines to pay a group of nine local skycaps

more than $325,000 in lost tips, the

plaintiffs and their legal team celebrated

with a boisterous dinner at Ruth's Chris

Steak House at Boston's Old City Hall.

The skycaps ordinarily spend their workdays lifting heavy baggage onto carts at Logan

International Airport's curbside, but on this recent evening they raised wine glasses and

beer mugs over plates of rib eye steaks to toast their lead lawyer, Shannon Liss-Riordan,

whom they dubbed "Sledgehammer Shannon."

The dinner party got superb service, Liss-Riordan said, which is hardly surprising; she

recently filed class-action suits on behalf of waiters and waitresses at the upscale

restaurant who have accused management of skimming their tips, too.

Since 2001, Liss-Riordan, a partner in a modest-size law firm in downtown Boston, has

brought at least 40 lawsuits on behalf of waiters, bartenders, and other service workers

in Massachusetts who say their employers cheated them out of tips.

She took an obscure 1952 state law that protects tip-dependent workers, who can legally

be paid less than minimum wage, and has used it to reap millions of dollars in awards

and settlements. Lawyers outside Massachusetts have adopted her strategy, including

the lawyers who recently won a $100 million award for baristas at Starbucks cafes in

California.

A Harvard Law School graduate who helped found a feminist activist group in the early

1990s, Liss-Riordan originally wanted to be a civil rights lawyer. Instead, the Houston

native has become something of an avenging angel for workers who rely on customers'

generosity as they carry plates of sirloin and scrod, mix mojitos and martinis, and hoist

luggage.

"It's hard work," Liss-Riordan, 38, said of such jobs. "It's physically tiring, it's stressful,

and you have to be good dealing with people. They work hard for those tips, and part of

the problem with the industry is a lot of managers and owners look at the tips and think,

'They shouldn't be making that much money.' So they want to take a piece of it, or

subsidize their labor costs for other employees."

Her clients speak of her almost reverently. Don Benoit, one of about 40 waiters who

successfully sued the former Federalist restaurant in Boston in Suffolk Superior Court

last year for failing to give them all of the 21 percent service charge added to bills at

private functions, called her "brilliant." A former American Airlines skycap who expects

to get about $3,000 in back tips from the airline said Liss-Riordan champions the

"kickstand of corporate America."

But critics say she has manipulated an arcane and confusing law to reap a windfall for

her clients and firm. If such litigation continues, detractors say, awards could skyrocket

as a result of a state law passed this month mandating that employers pay triple

damages for violations of so-called wage-and-hour laws. Critics say the suits hurt fragile

businesses and, sometimes, her clients' co-workers.

"I have a lot of respect for Shannon, but I do see this cottage industry she's created

around the tip statute as becoming abusive toward employers," said Ariel D. Cudkowicz,

who has defended many restaurants, hotels, and Gillette Stadium against Liss-Riordan's

suits, reaching out-of-court settlements in several. The prospect of large awards, he said,

is "very alluring" to plaintiffs and their lawyers. Liss-Riordan's firm keeps one-third of

the money it obtains for clients.

Liss-Riordan first made national headlines in the early 1990s when she joined the

daughter of writer Alice Walker and helped founded the Third Wave, a nonprofit group

that led voter registration drives in the wake of the Anita Hill-Clarence Thomas

hearings.

After graduating from Harvard Law in 1996 and clerking for a federal judge in Texas,

she joined the firm Pyle, Rome, Lichten & Ehrenberg and has been there since. Her

mentor, Harold L. Lichten, a well-known labor and employment lawyer, said she is "the

smartest, most pugnacious, and toughest attorney I've ever met."

It is not uncommon for him to arrive at their Tremont Street office in the morning only

to find Liss-Riordan at her desk after working through the night, he said, "which is

particularly amazing given that she has three kids." Liss-Riordan's husband is a writer

and stay-at-home father.

Most of her suits allege violations of a state law that prohibits management at

restaurants, bars, and hotels from taking a portion of tips reserved for waiters and

bartenders who can legally be paid as little as $2.63 an hour, well below the state's

minimum wage of $8 an hour.

Some restaurants say other employees, including managers and maitre d's, deserve a

share of tips because they sometimes serve food and drinks and also earn relatively low

wages. But Liss-Riordan says that if those workers deserve more money, owners should

raise their pay.

Defendants have included the Four Seasons Hotel, the Weston Golf Club, Northeastern

University, the Palm, and Ruth's Chris, whose Boston lawyer declined to comment. One

of the biggest awards came in 2006 when an Essex County jury ordered Hilltop

Steakhouse in Saugus to pay an estimated $2.5 million in damages to wait staff, but both

sides settled out of court before the judgment became final.

In 2004, the Legislature expanded the 1952 statute to cover employees outside the food

and beverage industries, paving the way for Liss-Riordan's skycaps suit. In that

complaint, skycaps contended the airline violated the tips law when it began charging

passengers a $2-per-bag fee for curbside check-in service in September 2005. Skycaps

testified that tips plunged because many passengers mistakenly thought the workers

kept the $2 fee and were reluctant to tip on top of it.

The airline countered that it put up signs specifying that the fee excluded tips. But the

jury sided with the plaintiffs, ordering the airline on April 7 to turn over all the fees to

the skycaps. They will receive amounts ranging from $3,066 to $64,138, Liss-Riordan

said. She has since filed similar suits on behalf of skycaps from United Airlines and US

Airways.

Her co-counsel in about half the cases has been Hillary Schwab, a 34-year-old partner at

the firm.

Lawyers elsewhere in the country have followed Liss-Riordan's lead. Last month, a San

Diego County judge ordered Starbucks to pay at least 120,000 baristas in California

more than $100 million in tips and interest to cover gratuities that the company handed

over to shift supervisors.

Starbucks condemned the ruling and said the judge did not consider the interests of

shift supervisors who "deserve their fair share of the tips." Nonetheless, Liss-Riordan

wasted no time filing similar suits in Massachusetts and New York on behalf of baristas

there.

Several people in the restaurant and hotel business say such litigation harms the

industry. William Sander, general manager of the Fifteen Beacon Hotel, location of the

former Federalist restaurant, criticized a December verdict siding with wait staff who

said management illegally shared their tips with private dining room coordinators. He

said the law was unclear about which employees were entitled to tips.

If restaurants are forced to pay managers more, he said, "you'll end up closing 90

percent of the restaurants in the country."

That's hogwash, said Liss-Riordan.

A well-managed business, she said, "does not dip into tips to make ends meet."

EXHIBIT I

EXHIBIT J

Portfolio Media. Inc. | 111 West 19th Street, 5th floor | New York, NY 10011 | www.law360.comPhone: +1 646 783 7100 | Fax: +1 646 783 7161 | [email protected]

Worker Rights Atty Blazes Trail With Whole Foods,Uber CasesBy Brian Dowling and Chris Villani

Law360 (July 24, 2020, 9:02 PM EDT) -- Shannon Liss-Riordan knew it had been a long nightwhen she noticed the morning light breaking and birds chirping outside.

Sitting in her makeshift office in tiny Barnard, Vermont, a small town where Nobel Prize winnerSinclair Lewis also had a summer home, the attorney from Lichten & Liss-Riordan PC had beenhard at work redrafting a complaint against Whole Foods Inc.

Her grocery-worker clients said the supermarket and its parent company, Amazon Inc., hadsimultaneously pretended to support the Black Lives Matter movement while also discipliningemployees who wore BLM face masks during the coronavirus pandemic, even firing one workerthe day before Liss-Riordan's Sunday-into-Monday all-nighter.

"We planned to file first thing Monday morning, and then my lead plaintiff was fired Saturday andthat changed everything. We had to ask to get her reinstated," Liss-Riordan said. "I think I wasediting until 6 a.m. and then up again before eight to put the final touches on it."

Liss-Riordan has made a career out of representing workers and taking on massive companies.The defendants in her firm's numerous class action lawsuits include Uber, Lyft, FedEx, IBM,Michael Bloomberg, the city of Boston and, now, Jeff Bezos' companies.

How many class actions does she have pending?

"I can't even tell you," she said, laughing. "It's a lot."

A quick search through the federal docket shows Liss-Riordan listed as an attorney on four dozenstill-open civil and bankruptcy cases since 2000. In addition to the Whole Foods suit, she isrepresenting Uber and Lyft workers in one case, and Amazon delivery drivers in another, who areseeking to be classified as employees rather than independent contractors.

Her longtime legal partner, Harold Lichten, said that after two decades of practicing law, Liss-Riordan has her eyes set beyond the run-of-the-mill employment claims.

"She sees her calling as going after some of the larger global issues, not just the wage and hourissues," he said. "She's looking for the trailblazing case."

With the coronavirus pandemic and protests against racial injustice shining a spotlight on workers'rights, it's a unique time and opportunity for attorneys willing to take a chance on a case thatdoesn't follow a well-established legal framework.

As the "new normal" takes shape with every big or small decision that employers and workersmake, Liss-Riordan said the opportunity for that sort of impactful litigation is ripe, as is a chancefor profound systemic change.

Since the virus began to spread in the U.S., Liss-Riordan said she, Lichten and the rest of thefirm's attorneys and staff have been working "around the clock." It was clear to her from the

Worker Rights Atty Blazes Trail With Whole Foods, Uber Cases - Law360 https://www.law360.com/articles/1295425/print?section=california

1 of 4 9/25/2021, 12:18 PM

outset that the pandemic would disproportionately affect her clients.

In the Uber and Lyft case, the firm lost an emergency injunction motion for employee status thatcited the public health crisis, although a Massachusetts federal judge said the drivers could stillprevail on their underlying misclassification claim.

"Right away, I saw the impact on the Uber and Lyft drivers we have been representing for years,"she said. "We have been focused on their wage issues and having to pay for their own expensesand what a toll that takes on them. It became so apparent the injustice of them not even gettingpaid sick leave, and what better time than a global pandemic to point out the fact that these areessential workers who should be entitled to their basic rights."

Liss-Riordan said there has been a discernible shift in the public perception of gig workers sincethe pandemic began and people started to rely even more on services like Instacart and AmazonPrime.

"It's been at these very difficult times in our nation's history that some of the greatest movementforward happened," she said, noting that Congress passed the Fair Labor Standards Act after theGreat Depression.

"There is more recognition of the enormous income inequality we have in this country and theplight of workers not getting their rights and companies not recognizing and acknowledging theprotections workers need," Liss-Riordan continued. "I think the sentiment is shifting, and I thinkit's an opportunity for great advances to be made."

So Liss-Riordan has tried to match the moment by opening up new fronts in her ongoing battleswith Uber and Lyft and through new suits like the one against Whole Foods. Most of her casesagainst the ride-hailing companies are in Massachusetts and California. The pandemic has madethings a little easier, allowing her to hop on Zoom for a hearing instead of a cross-country flight.

Her home office has recently been decluttered, having been filled with leftover campaign materialsfrom her unsuccessful bid to unseat Massachusetts U.S. Sen. Ed Markey in the Democraticprimary. Instead, it will be Markey and U.S. Rep. Joe Kennedy III, the grandson of formerAttorney General Robert F. Kennedy and grand-nephew of the 35th president, who will battle itout.

Like many working professionals, Liss-Riordan has had to share her home workspace with herchildren. She said her three teenagers are interested in her work and in social justice. They cameto her campaign events and knocked on doors for U.S. Rep. Ayanna Pressley, D-Mass., and SuffolkCounty District Attorney Rachael Rollins, a pair of unapologetically progressive candidates, bothelected in 2018.

Liss-Riordan said the experience of running for the Senate further motivated her work as a laborlawyer.

"It was such a fabulous opportunity to think more expansively," she said. "There is clearly morepolitical openness now to real change. Joe Biden, who ran as a more centrist candidate, has beenmoving left and heeding a lot of the calls from labor advocates."

With Democrats "possibly on the verge of retaking the White House and the Senate," Liss-Riordansaid they need to be "ready to act."

Asked if he was relieved when Liss-Riordan stepped back from politics and decided to continuepracticing at the firm, Lichten paused, then answered, "No, I wanted what was best for her."

"We would have been fine either way," Lichten said of the firm, adding that it wouldn't have hurthaving his former partner in public office — a possibility he's not ruling out.

"I'm not sure she's done," Lichten said. "Once you get that politics bug, I think it stays with you alittle bit."


2 of 4 9/25/2021, 12:18 PM

As a Democrat and longtime activist herself, Liss-Riordan has not shied away from calling out herown party. She slammed Boston Mayor Marty Walsh for declaring war on racism while defending apolice promotional exam twice found to be discriminatory in a long-running suit led by Lichten &Liss-Riordan PC.

Liss-Riordan organized a protest at City Hall just before the city announced it would appeal ajudgment in favor of minority officers who say they were denied promotions because of the exam.The city recently signaled its intent to take the case to the First Circuit.

"It's shocking that people in power can say one thing they think their base wants to hear and thendo something completely different," she said. "Marty Walsh may say all these things and thencontinues to fight us tooth and nail and spend hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars todefend a racist exam in court."

Liss-Riordan represented former campaign workers in a lawsuit against Bloomberg that allegedthe billionaire failed to pay the staffers of his 2020 White House bid. She criticized him overreports he purchased a Colorado ranch for $45 million, saying a small fraction of that amountcould have resolved the claims that have spawned multiple lawsuits.

As she has taken on powerful figures and corporate giants, it comes as little surprise that Liss-Riordan has made some adversaries in the BigLaw world.

She calls Labor Secretary Eugene Scalia her "arch-nemesis" from his time as a partner at GibsonDunn & Crutcher LLP — one of the firms that gig-economy companies hired to fight off Liss-Riordan's cases — and his ongoing Labor Department efforts to make it easier for businesses toclassify workers as independent contractors. The two have never been opposing counsel on acase.

"Some defense counsel I have good, long-standing relationships with," she said. "Others are notas nice, but we do what we have to do when we battle it out in court."

A representative from the Labor Department declined to comment on Liss-Riordan's description ofScalia. A handful of other attorneys who have litigated across from her also declined to comment.

While the pandemic has spotlighted many inequities, including those endured by gig workers,Liss-Riordan said there is a real chance things could worsen for that group if Uber, Lyft and othersare allowed to continue classifying their workers as independent contractors.

"I worry about what the future of work looks like in this country," she said. "Whenever we emergefrom this pandemic if these companies continue to get away with misclassifying their employees,what if other companies watching these battles play out start looking at that and say, 'We aregoing to bring workers back and make them all independent contractors. Wouldn't that be easierand cheaper and better for society to get them back working?'"

In recent weeks, there has been some good news for her crusade. The First Circuit sided withLiss-Riordan's argument that Amazon can't force its delivery drivers to arbitrate employmentclaims, finding that they qualify as transportation workers engaged in interstate commerce underthe Federal Arbitration Act.

Without being able to force workers into arbitration — where employees' claims are generallyheard on an individual basis — companies like Uber would have to face a whole class of employeesin court and reckon with the possibility of a costly settlement.

Liss-Riordan plans to continue the work that she has been doing in a firm that has swelled in sizein recent years to about a dozen attorneys and at least as many staff. She has also not ruled outanother political campaign and said her recent experience might lend itself to again running forsomething on the national stage.

"I've been excited to be back in the courtroom, but we'll see what the future holds," she said.


3 of 4 9/25/2021, 12:18 PM

--Editing by Jill Coffey.

All Content © 2003-2021, Portfolio Media, Inc.


4 of 4 9/25/2021, 12:18 PM

EXHIBIT K

1

Marciano v. DoorDash

Case Date Cost (USD) Description

Austin 09/14/2017 280.00 Clerk Of The Court - Filing New Complaint

Austin 10/19/2017 10.50 Breakaway Courier Systems

Austin 01/31/2018 18.93 UPS Mailing

Austin 05/25/2018 13.25 Travel

Austin 05/25/2018 18.75 Travel

Austin 06/18/2018 56.70 Transcript

Austin 02/23/2020 505.00 Court Filing

Austin 04/09/2020 19.80 Breakaway Courier Systems

Marciano 09/24/2019 41.00 Parking

Marciano 10/04/2019 6,906.00 Mark L. Irvings, Esquire - Mediation

Marciano 07/19/2018 516.70 One Legal Filing

Marciano 07/31/2018 75.00 Onelegal

Marciano 07/31/2018 75.00 One Legal

Marciano 08/07/2018 21.00 File & Servexpress

Marciano 12/12/2018 50.00 Transcript

Marciano 12/24/2018 44.26 Ups Mailing

Marciano 12/26/2018 178.20 Travel - Flight


Marciano 12/05/2019 25.06 Filing

Marciano 12/09/2019 152.30 File & Servexpress - Marciano

Marciano 12/10/2019 34.10 Travel



Marciano 12/10/2019 201.00 First Legal Network, Llc

Marciano 12/23/2019 953.30 Travel - Flight

Marciano 12/23/2019 1,398.30 Travel - Flight




Marciano 02/11/2020 100.00 First Legal Network, Llc - Marciano

2





Marciano 04/24/2020 1,623.50 First Legal Network, Llc - Marciano

Marciano 06/19/2020 94.00 Courtcall




Marciano 09/22/2020 1,000.00 Ortman Mediation Inc - Mediation






Marciano 02/22/2021 8.20 Sac Court Records


Marciano 02/24/2021 1,000.00 Ortman Mediation Inc



Marciano 03/31/2021 94.00 Ccall Id - Marciano




Marciano 07/25/2021 116.33 One Legal Marko

Marciano 07/29/2021 2.00 La Superior Court Docs

Magana 05/08/2018 75.00 Lwda-Cm-535304-17

Magana 05/22/2018 75.00 Paga - Lwda

Magana 05/25/2018 1,582.70 One Legal

Magana 05/25/2018 75.00 One Legal

Magana 06/07/2018 7.00 File & Servexpress

Magana 06/25/2018 10.93 Orange Co. Superior Court (1/3)

3


Magana 08/16/2018 15.60 La Superior Court Documents

Magana 08/16/2018 7.36 Travel


Magana 08/16/2018 17.50 Travel La Superior Court


Magana 09/11/2018 107.50 First Legal Network, Llc





Magana 09/28/2018 310.00 Us District Court Ndca




Magana 09/28/2018 412.20 Truefiling


Magana 09/30/2018 376.60 Travel - Flight

Magana 09/30/2018 124.91 Travel - Flight

Magana 10/10/2018 44.10 Transcript




Magana 11/23/2018 505.00 Courts - Filing

Magana 11/27/2018 46.52 Ups A39405328

Magana 11/27/2018 30.33 Ups A39405328




Magana 05/08/2019 313.31 First Legal Digital - Briefs



4


Magana 10/25/2019 94.95 UPS

Magana 10/25/2019 8.20 Saccourt Records

Magana 08/04/2020 4.50 Pacer - Slr

Magana 08/31/2020 8.20 Saccourt Records

Magana 09/10/2020 19.20 Documents La Superior

Magana 09/29/2020 1,043.00 File & Servexpress

Roussel 12/03/2018 75.00 Lwda - Filing

Roussel 02/12/2019 1,495.00 File & Servexpress

Roussel 03/25/2019 125.00 One Legal

Roussel 04/12/2019 14.00 File & Servexpress

Roussel 04/24/2019 100.00 One Legal





TOTAL 26,217.42

EXHIBIT L

1 Attorney Key AP – Adelaide Pagano AK – Anne Kramer MRC – Michelle Cassorla AD – Anastasia Doherty TB – Tara Boghosian LC – Law Clerk

Case Date Attorney Total Hours

AP AK MRC AD TB LC Description

Austin 03/16/2017 AP 0.5 0.5 Draft AG form and retainer; email and call potential client

Austin 03/20/2017 AP 1 1 Call with client; send retainer and AG form

Austin 03/21/2017 AP 1 1 Revise and submit AG form; follow up with client

Austin 03/23/2017 AP 1.2 1.2 Telephone call to client; save AG letter; save emails and documents from client; review documents

Austin 04/21/2017 AP 0.1 0.1 Email to putative class member

Austin 4/22/2017 AP 0.7 0.7 Call with putative class member

Austin 08/01/2017 AP 0.7 0.7 Call with client

Austin 08/01/2017 AP 0.4 0.4 Telephone call with client

Austin 08/02/2017 AP 1.4 1.4 Draft complaint

Austin 08/25/2017 AP 1 1 Review driver wage data; revise complaint

Austin 09/26/2017 AP 1.5 1.5 Revise and file complaint; follow up with client

Austin 9/27/2017 AP 2 2 Begin drafting discovery requests

Austin 12/29/2017 AP 0.1 0.1 Email opposing counsel

Austin 01/02/2018 AP 1 1 Draft motion to extend deadlines; correspond with opposing counsel

Austin 01/03/2018 AP 0.5 0.5 Email opposing counsel and file motion

Austin 01/09/2018 AP 1.7 1.7 Call client; review D's brief

2



Austin 01/11/2018 AP 3 3 Research; outline opposition brief

Austin 01/12/2018 AP 3.5 3.5 Draft opposition brief

Austin 01/15/2018 AP 2.7 2.7 Research; revise and finalize draft opposition to motion to compel arbitration

Austin 01/15/2018 AK 1 1 Assist with final revisions and finalizing Opp to MTC for filing

Austin 01/18/2018 AP 2 2 Edit opposition to motion to compel arbitration; perform additional research

Austin 01/22/2018 AP 2 2 Revise opposition to motion to compel arbitration; research

Austin 01/23/2018 AP 3 3 Revise and finalize opposition brief

Austin 02/07/2018 AP 0.2 0.2 Telephone call with opposing counsel; draft email to opposing counsel

Austin 02/08/2018 AP 2 2 Draft response to request for reply; review proposed reply and outline points for possible surreply

Austin 02/09/2018 AP 0.5 0.5 Revise and file response to motion for leave to file reply

Austin 02/12/2018 AP 3.5 3.5 Draft surreply brief

Austin 02/13/2018 AP 1 1 Draft Surreply

Austin 02/26/2018 AP 2 2 Draft motion to move scheduling conference; revise surreply, move emails to opposing counsel

Austin 02/27/2018 AP 2 2 Finalize motion for leave and proposed surreply

Austin 03/02/2018 AK 0.7 0.7 Review and proofread proposed surreply in preparation for filing

Austin 03/02/2018 AP 0.7 0.7 Update and file surreply; review notice of supplemental authority

Austin 03/18/2018 AP 0.5 0.5 Revise joint statement to add proposed schedule

3



Austin 03/19/2018 AP 0.4 0.4 Email and call opposing counsel; revise joint status report

Magana 04/30/2018 AP 1 1 Draft complaint for new case in light of Dynamex

Marciano 05/07/2018 AK 1 1 Drafted PAGA letter

Magana 05/07/2018 AP 3 3 Call C. Marciano; calls with drivers; edit retainer templates; email correspondence following up with drivers

Marciano 05/07/2018 AK 3.4 3.4 Calling CA DD drivers for evidence for PAGA letter

Marciano 05/07/2018 AK 0.8 0.8 Revise; send updated retainer agreements

Marciano 5/8/2018 AP 0.5 0.5 Email correspondence with client

Magana 5/8/2018 AK 0.5 0.5 Drafting documents

Arbitration 05/11/2018 AK 0.5 0.5 Drafting documents

Arbitration 05/11/2018 AK 0.5 0.5 Drafted and filed arbitration demand

Austin 05/14/2018 AP 4 4

Prepare for hearing - pull cases, discuss with S. Liss-Riordan; travel to and attend hearing on motion to compel arbitration and dismiss

Austin 5/15/2018 AP 0.7 0.7 Review minute order regarding supplemental briefing and discuss

Marciano 05/20/2018 AK 0.8 0.8 Reviewing complaint and FAC drafts

Marciano 05/20/2018 AK 0.8 0.8 Reviewing drafts

Austin 05/21/2018 AP 2 2 Draft Epic Systems Supplemental brief

Arbitration 05/21/2018 AK 0.8 0.8 Drafting and filing DoorDash arbitration

Austin 05/23/2018 AP 0.5 0.5 Call and email with client


4



Arbitration 5/31/2018 AK 0.5 0.5 Filing arbitration demands

5/31/2018 AK 1.2 1.2 Emails and calls to claimants re filing demands

Arbitration 6/1/2018 AK 0.2 0.2 Reviewing email from AAA re arbitration

Arbitration 6/1/2018 AK 0.8 0.8 Call with AAA re filing issue with arbitration demand

Arbitration 6/1/2018 AK 0.2 0.2 Reviewing emails with DD re arbitration and Magana

Arbitration 6/6/2018 AK 0.7 0.7 Pulling driving start/end dates for arbitration claimants

Arbitration 6/6/2018 AK 0.1 0.1 Emails re arbitration claimants and Magana class period dates

Magana 6/8/2018 AP 0.4 0.4 Review and discuss notice of removal and strategy

Magana 6/8/2018 AK 2.8 2.8 Reviewing DD's notice of removal and research re removal

Magana 06/11/2018 AP 1 1

Look up rules regarding consent/declination to magistrate and timing of summary judgment motions; look up general order, calendar dates

Magana 6/11/2018 AK 0.3 0.3 Research re consent/declination and remanding case

Arbitration 6/11/2018 AK 0.4 0.4 Reviewing correspondence from AAA re initiation of DD arbitrations

Arbitration 6/12/2018 AK 0.1 0.1 Emails with SLR re arbitration claimant's start and end dates

Arbitration 6/12/2018 AK 1 1 Call with arbitration claimant re start and end dates and pulling records

Magana 6/13/2018 AP 0.2 0.2 Email correspondence re proposed stipulation

Magana 6/13/2018 AK 0.4 0.4 Reviewing DD's stipulation; email correspondence

5



Magana 6/14/2018 AP 0.3 0.3 Coordinate filing of consent/declination to magistrate

Arbitration 6/14/2018 AK 0.1 0.1 Emails with SLR re arbitration claimant's start and end dates

Magana 06/15/2018 AP 1 1 Research re McGill for public injunction briefing

Arbitration 6/15/2018 AK 0.5 0.5 Email with AAA re arbitration demand; follow up

Magana 06/18/2018 LC 8 8

Research re McGill for public injunction briefing, read and summarize arbitration agreements, research on public injunctions

Arbitration 06/18/2018 AK 1 1 Responding to Emails and Voicemails from drivers

Austin 06/18/2018 AP 0.2 0.2 Correspondence re ordering hearing transcript; review minute entries

Roussel 6/19/2018 AK 1.5 1.5 Emails and calls with client

Marciano 06/20/2018 AP 2 2 Draft complaint and anticipated first amended complaint

Marciano 06/20/2018 AP 0.2 0.2 Email correspondence with putative class member

Magana 6/20/2018 AK 1 1 Reviewing/saving screenshot evidence from CA DD drivers

Marciano 6/20/2018 AK 0.9 0.9 Review and proof draft of PAGA complaint and FAC

Arbitration 6/20/2018 AK 0.7 0.7 Emails with SLR and DD re arbitration claimant's start and end dates and arbitrator proposals for all claimants

Arbitration 06/21/2018 AK 0.8 0.8 Reviewing retainers and reaching out to drivers

6



Magana 06/21/2018 AP 0.3 0.3 Review reassigned Judge; discuss

Magana 06/21/2018 AP 0.2 0.2 Email correspondence with client

Magana 6/21/2018 AK 1.8 1.8 Research re judge for Magana case; discuss

Roussel 6/21/2018 AK 0.5 0.5 Call with client

Arbitration 06/21/2018 AK 0.2 0.2 Emails with OC re arbitrator proposals

Arbitration 06/21/2018 AK 2 0.1 Reviewing arbitrators to propose for arbitrations

Arbitration 06/21/2018 AK 0.4 0.4 Emailing with arbitration claimant re misclassification claims

Magana 06/22/2018 LC 4 4 Research on CAFA/remand

Magana 06/22/2018 LC 2 2 Research on CAFA/remand

Arbitration 6/22/2018 AK 0.2 0.2 Emails with AAA re whether DD had paid filing fees for arbitrations

Arbitration 6/22/2018 AK 0.4 0.4 Emails with DD re arbitrator proposals

Marciano 6/25/2018 AP 0.3 0.3 Email correspondence with client; review records

Roussel 6/25/2018 AK 0.2 0.2 Emails with Jarel Roussel

Arbitration 6/26/2018 AK 1 1 Pulling screenshot proof of driving with DD for arbitration and emails to DD

Marciano 6/27/2018 AP 0.4 0.4 Email correspondence with client; save document

Arbitration 06/27/2018 AK 0.5 0.5 Call with putative class member regarding tipping issue

Magana 6/27/2018 AK 0.7 0.7 Saving/reviewing screenshot evidence


Arbitration 07/02/2018 AK 2 2 Researching possible arbitrators

7



Marciano 07/05/2018 AP 0.5 0.5 Finalize new complaint and file with cover sheet and summons

Marciano 07/05/2018 AK 0.4 0.4 Reviewing PAGA complaint

Arbitration 07/06/2018 AK 0.4 0.4 Discuss arbitration demand with client

Arbitration 07/06/2018 AK 1 1 Communications with arbitration clients

Magana 7/6/2018 AK 1 1 Saving/reviewing potential screenshot evidence from CA DD driver for class case




Marciano 07/11/2018 AK 0.2 0.2 Editing FAC

Magana 7/12/2018 AK 0.8 0.8 Reviewing Marko order on motion to compel in preparation for forthcoming MTC in Magana

Arbitration 07/13/2018 AK 2 2 Responding to Voicemails


Roussel 7/15/2018 AK 0.4 0.4 Emails with named plaintiff

Magana 07/16/2018 AP 2 2 Read motion to compel arbitration; outline response

Magana 07/16/2018 AK 0.5 0.5 Reviewed J. Roussel's DoorDash opt out and discuss claims

Arbitration 07/16/2018 AP 0.3 0.3 Discussion of arbitration agreement terms with A. Kramer

Arbitration 07/16/2018 AK 0.3 0.3 Discussion re DoorDash's arbitration provision

Magana 07/17/2018 AP 1 1 Begin drafting response to motion to compel arbitration; email correspondence with clerk re scheduling of CMC

8



Magana 07/17/2018 AK 0.5 0.5 Reading motion to dismiss and outline response

Magana 07/17/2018 AK 0.3 0.3 Reviewing emails with DD re moving MTC deadlines and scheduling

Magana 07/18/2018 AP 0.5 0.5 Draft stipulation and proposed order to continue deadlines

Magana 07/18/2018 AK 0.3 0.3 Research re related cases against DoorDash

Arbitration 07/18/2018 AK 1 1 Edited arbitration demand to include SF and LA minimum wage ordinances

Arbitration 07/18/2018 AK 0.2 0.2 Review list of arbitration clients

Arbitration 07/18/2018 AK 3 3 Reviewing and filing DoorDash arbitration demands

Arbitration 07/18/2018 AK 0.2 0.2 Researching pay boosts

Roussel 7/18/2018 AK 0.3 0.3 Emails with client

Magana 7/19/2018 AP 0.7 0.7 Email correspondence with OC re scheduling; draft stip and proposed order

Magana 7/19/2018 AK 0.1 0.1 Email with DD re scheduling

Magana 7/20/2018 AP 0.2 0.2 Email correspondence with OC re scheduling

Magana 7/20/2018 AP 0.1 0.1 Additional email correspondence re scheduling

Magana 7/20/2018 AK 0.4 0.4 Reviewing stipulation; discuss

Magana 7/23/2018 AP 0.3 0.3 Review stipulation & proposed order for filing; email re scheduling

Marciano 7/24/2018 AK 4.2 4.2

Research on complex judges that we could be assigned to if we applied for complex designation and research re when complex designation is appropriate

9



Marciano 7/26/2018 AP 0.3 0.3 Review filing re complex designation

Marciano 7/26/2018 AK 0.4 0.4 Research re complex designation; discuss

Marciano 7/26/2018 AK 0.5 0.5 Reviewing DD's application for complex designation

Marciano 7/27/2018 AK 0.5 0.5 Reviewing outline of opposition to complex designation

Marciano 7/27/2018 AK 1.3 1.3 Status review of competing PAGA actions to determine whether we can agree to DD's requested 15 day extension

Marciano 7/30/2018 AK 0.4 0.4 Discuss competing PAGA actions and requested extension

Marciano 7/30/2018 AK 0.7 0.7 Reviewing notice of appeal/discussion

Arbitration 07/31/2018 AK 2 2 Responding to Emails and Voicemails

Marciano 08/01/2018 AP 4 4 Draft opposition to complex designation; revise opposition

Magana 08/01/2018 AP 1 1 Draft opposition to motion to compel arbitration

Austin 8/1/2018 AP 0.2 0.2 Review email from client; schedule call

Austin 08/02/2018 AP 0.5 0.5 Call with client regarding his termination

Magana 08/02/2018 AP 4.5 4.5 Draft opposition to motion to compel arbitration; motion for protective order

Arbitration 08/02/2018 AK 0.5 0.5 Responding to Emails and Voicemails

Marciano 08/02/2018 AP 0.5 0.5 Review email from client & from putative class members re Prop 22

Arbitration 8/2/2018 AK 0.5 0.5 Reviewing/saving evidence for arbitration

10



Marciano 8/2/2018 AK 0.5 0.5 Reviewing saving evidence from Marciano to use in PAGA case

Marciano 8/2/2018 AK 0.9 0.9 Dynamex research

Marciano 8/2/2018 AK 4 4 Discussion/research re Dynamex/improper communications when PAGA case is pending

Arbitration 8/2/2018 AK 0.3 0.3 Email with client re arbitration status and communications from DD

Magana 8/2/2018 AK 1 1 Discussion/research to prep for opposition to MTC and amending complaint

Marciano 08/03/2018 AP 0.3 0.3 Research re rules regarding counter-designating the record on appeal

Magana 08/03/2018 AP 1.5 1.5 Draft motion to shorten time and proposed order

Magana 08/03/2018 AP 4 4 Revisions to motion for corrective notice; correspond re filing of motion and meet and confer efforts

Magana 08/03/2018 AK 4.2 4.2 Research; drafting motion for leave to amend complaint

Magana 08/03/2018 AP 0.2 0.2 Correspond re emergency motion and possible amendment to complaint

Marciano 8/3/2018 AK 0.7 0.7 Reviewing draft of motion for protective order and declaration

Marciano 8/3/2018 AK 0.3 0.3 Emails to DD re emergency motion for protective order

Marciano 8/3/2018 AK 3 3 Research on timing for emergency motions to be heard in SF Superior Ct

Magana 8/3/2018 AK 0.2 0.2 Emails to DD and discussion re adding new plaintiff/amending complaint

11



Marciano 8/3/2018 AK 5.6 5.6 Dynamex research and edits to corrective motion and pulling exhibits

Magana 8/3/2018 AK 2.8 2.8 Edits to motion to shorten time and reviewing proposed order

Magana 8/5/2018 AK 0.4 0.4 Reviewing injunction article to use in reply brief

Magana 8/5/2018 AK 0.3 0.3 Discussion re amending complaint as of right vs leave

Austin 08/06/2018 AP 0.7 0.7 Telephone call with client; review screenshots from client

Magana 08/06/2018 AP 1.2 1.2 Draft opposition to motion to compel arbitration

Magana 08/06/2018 AK 3 3 Editing motion

Magana 08/06/2018 AK 2 2 motion for leave to amend complaint

Marciano 8/6/2018 AK 0.4 0.4 Reviewing notice of related case

Roussel 8/6/2018 AK 0.2 0.2 Emails with named plaintiff

Magana 08/07/2018 AP 5 5 Draft renewed motion to shorten time and draft opposition to motion to compel arbitration

Austin 08/07/2018 AP 0.2 0.2 Email correspondence with client

Magana 8/7/2018 AK 0.8 0.8 Reviewing AHP draft of Opp to MTC and declaration

Magana 8/7/2018 AK 0.3 0.3 Discussion re injunction argument

Magana 8/7/2018 AK 0.1 0.1 Emails to DD re denial of motion to shorten time and amending complaint

Magana 8/7/2018 AK 0.5 0.5 Reviewing draft of renewed motion to amend time

12



Magana 8/7/2018 AK 0.1 0.1 Reviewing EFC notices

Magana 08/08/2018 AP 0.7 0.7 Draft email to clerk; revise opposition to motion to compel arbitration

Magana 8/8/2018 AK 0.1 0.1 Emails re amending complaint

Magana 8/8/2018 AK 0.1 0.1 Reviewing ECF notices

Marciano 8/8/2018 AK 0.2 0.2 Reviewing client documents

Magana 08/09/2018 AK 3 3 Editing motion for leave to amend

Magana 08/09/2018 AK 7.5 7.5 Editing opposition to motion to compel arbitration


Marciano 8/9/2018 AK 0.3 0.3 Reviewing amended notice of related cases

Magana 08/10/2018 AK 0.5 0.5 Drafting proposed order to motion to compel

Arbitration 08/13/2018 AK 1 1 Responding to Emails and Voicemails

Arbitration 08/13/2018 AK 0.3 0.3 Review correspondence from AAA


Magana 08/13/2018 AP 0.3 0.3 Discuss briefing of DoorDash's motion to compel arbitration arguments

Magana 08/13/2018 MRC 0.3 0.3 Email and discuss briefing of DoorDash's motion to compel arbitration arguments

Arbitration 08/14/2018 AK 0.2 0.2 Conferring with Sophia Behnia regarding arbitrators

Arbitration 8/14/2018 AK 0.1 0.1 Scheduling emails with DD and AAA

Arbitration 08/15/2018 AK 2 2 Researching Hon. George King for possible use as arbitrator


Marciano 08/16/2018 AP 0.6 0.6 Call with named plaintiff regarding case status and existing settlement

13



Magana 08/16/2018 AP 0.2 0.2 Email correspondence re scheduling with OC

Magana 8/16/2018 AK 0.3 0.3 Emails re scheduling hearings

Magana 8/16/2018 AK 0.1 0.1 Reviewing ECF notice resetting dates

Arbitration 8/16/2018 AK 0.3 0.3 Scheduling emails with DD and AAA

Magana 8/17/2018 AP 0.2 0.2 Review stip from OC

Marciano 8/17/2018 AP 0.4 0.4 Review order denying complex designation

Arbitration 08/17/2018 AK 0.5 0.5 Responding to Voicemails

Marciano 8/17/2018 AK 0.5 0.5 Reviewing judge's order


Austin 8/20/2018 AP 0.5 0.5 Email from client; discuss course of action; email OC




Magana 08/24/2018 AP 2 2 Read opposition to motion to amend and start drafting reply brief

Magana 8/24/2018 AK 0.4 0.4 Research re ADR certification

Marciano 8/26/2018 AK 0.1 0.1 Emails with Cristini

Magana 08/27/2018 AP 5 5

Draft reply in support of motion to amend; draft stipulation to move dates of reply and surreply regarding corrective notice; revise and file stipulation

Arbitration 08/27/2018 AP 0.5 0.5 Conference call with opposing counsel and AAA

Arbitration 08/27/2018 AK 0.2 0.2 Sending Jonathan Weed list of claimants prior to call

14



Arbitration 08/27/2018 AK 0.5 0.5 Initial conference call with Jonathan Weed

Magana 08/27/2018 AP 0.7 0.7 Discuss reply in support of motion for protective order; draft stipulation re dates for reply and surreply

Arbitration 8/27/2018 AK 0.5 0.5 Call with arbitration claimant re claims


Magana 08/28/2018 AP 3 3 Revise reply in support of motion to amend; research for reply in support of corrective notice



Austin 8/29/2018 AP 0.1 0.1 Email with OC

Magana 08/30/2018 AP 4.5 4.5 Finish reply in support of motion to amend; work on corrective notice reply

Magana 08/30/2018 AK 0.3 0.3 Looking for exhibits for reply to motion for corrective notice

Arbitration 8/30/2018 AK 3.5 3.5 Preparing initial checklists for arbitration claimants from AAA

Arbitration 8/30/2018 AK 0.1 0.1 Correspondence from AAA re neutral search platform for arbitrators

Arbitration 8/30/2018 AK 4.8 4.8 Reviewing neutral search platform for arbitrators


Magana 09/04/2018 AP 1 1 Revise reply in support of corrective notice

Magana 09/04/2018 AK 0.5 0.5 Searching for online postings regarding e-mail sent to Dasher about anti-Dynamex petition

15



Marciano 9/4/2018 AK 0.9 0.9 Timing on when we can file MSA

Marciano 9/4/2018 AK 0.4 0.4 Discussions re DD filing of MTC

Marciano 9/4/2018 AK 1.2 1.2 Reviewing DD's MTC and research

Marciano 9/5/2018 AP 1 1 Review petition to compel arbitration filed by DoorDash

Magana 09/05/2018 AP 7 7 Reply in support of corrective notice; revise and finalize draft declaration; add exhibits

Magana 9/5/2018 AK 0.6 0.6 Call with putative class member re class case


Arbitration 09/07/2018 AK 1 1 Research on issue where paychecks are being stolen from drivers to potentially add to arbitration claims

Arbitration 09/10/2018 AK 0.1 0.1 Brian Love: Call with Jonathan Weed regarding Brian Love being assigned to Silverman

Magana 09/11/2018 AP 0.5 0.5 Draft notice of supplemental authority

Magana 09/12/2018 AP 0.1 0.1 Finalize Notice of supplemental authority for filing


Magana 9/12/2018 AK 1.1 1.1 Reviewing DD's opposition to motion for protective order/research

Arbitration 09/15/2018 AK 1.7 1.7 Responding to Emails and Voicemails


Arbitration 9/17/2018 AK 0.7 0.7 Call with arbitration claimant

Magana 9/17/2018 AK 0.3 0.3 Call with putative class member

Magana 9/19/2018 AP 0.3 0.3 Review DoorDash's response to NOSA

Magana 9/19/2018 AK 0.4 0.4 Reviewing ECF notice and DD's supplemental authority

16



Arbitration 09/21/2018 AK 0.2 0.2 Returning voicemail

Magana 09/24/2018 AP 1 1 Pull cases for oral argument prep

Marciano 9/24/2018 AK 0.3 0.3 Discussion re filing MSA

Magana 9/25/2018 AP 0.7 0.7 Review NOSA filed by Defendant


Magana 9/25/2018 AK 1.3 1.3 Reviewing DD's statement of recent decision and research on precedent in 9th circuit

Magana 9/26/2018 AP 1.3 1.3 Correspondence in preparation for oral argument; debrief oral argument; email from OC re scheduling

Arbitration 9/26/2018 AK 0.1 0.1 Emails with AAA and DD re applicable rules for arbitrations

Magana 9/26/2018 AK 0.3 0.3 Discussion re Magana hearing and next steps


Arbitration 9/27/2018 AP 0.4 0.4 Correspondence with OC and AAA

Marciano 9/27/2018 AP 0.1 0.1 Email with OC re scheduling

Arbitration 9/27/2018 AK 1.4 1.4 Emails with AAA and DD re applicable rules for arbitrations and reviewing proposed rules

Marciano 9/27/2018 AK 0.1 0.1 Scheduling emails

Arbitration 9/28/2018 AK 0.1 0.1 Emails with AAA and DD re application of commercial arbitration rules

Magana 10/1/2018 AP 0.5 0.5 Review transcript of oral argument


Austin 10/3/2018 AP 0.3 0.3 Email correspondence with client re possible retaliation

Arbitration 10/3/2018 AK 0.5 0.5 Reviewing arbitrator appointment materials for BL and saving to server

Arbitration 10/4/2018 AK 0.1 0.1 Emails with AAA and DD re Judge King declining arbitrator appointment

17





Marciano 10/5/2018 AK 0.2 0.2 Reviewing documents sent by CM

Marciano 10/09/2018 AP 0.5 0.5 Look up upcoming dates; reserve hearing; email opposing counsel regarding moving hearing dates

Arbitration 10/9/2018 AK 0.5 0.5 Reviewing arbitrator appointment materials for TVB and saving to server

Marciano 10/9/2018 AK 0.3 0.3 Discussion re court reporter and timing of filing MSA

Marciano 10/9/2018 AK 0.1 0.1 Emails with DD re scheduling of hearing and draft stipulations

Marciano 10/10/2018 AP 0.1 0.1 Email with OC

Marciano 10/11/2018 AP 0.7 0.7 Start drafting motion for summary adjudication

Marciano 10/12/2018 AP 3.5 3.5 Draft motion for summary adjudication

Austin 10/12/2018 AP 0.2 0.2 Email client and opposing counsel

Marciano 10/12/2018 AK 0.3 0.3 Discussions re scheduling of hearings/research

Marciano 10/12/2018 AK 0.4 0.4 Reviewing draft stip from DD

Marciano 10/15/2018 AP 4 4 Draft motion for summary adjudication; research company

Marciano 10/16/2018 AP 2 2 Draft statement of facts

Marciano 10/16/2018 AK 0.9 0.9 Reviewing draft of motion for protective order and declaration

Marciano 10/17/2018 AP 0.2 0.2 Email correspondence re scheduling with OC

Marciano 10/18/2018 AP 4.3 4.3 Draft opposition to petition to compel arbitration

18



Marciano 10/19/2018 AP 4 4 Draft opposition to motion to compel arbitration

Marciano 10/19/2018 AP 0.2 0.2 Email correspondence with OC


Marciano 10/22/2018 AP 1 1 Research regarding stays and hearing date rules

Magana 10/22/2018 AK 0.4 0.4 Reading order on motion to compel arbitration

Marciano 10/22/2018 AK 0.2 0.2 Emails with DD re PAGA and MTC/scheduling

Marciano 10/22/2018 AK 0.1 0.1 Reviewing DD counsel notice of withdrawal

Magana 10/23/2018 AK 0.1 0.1 Reviewing ECF notice

Magana 10/23/2018 AK 0.3 0.3 Discussion re MTC order

Marciano 10/24/2018 AP 4 4 Finish drafting and revising documents for filing

Marciano 10/24/2018 AK 0.3 0.3 Calling Marciano and Cristini re declarations

Marciano 10/24/2018 AK 1 1 Drafting declarations for Marciano and Cristini; discuss

Marciano 10/26/2018 AP 0.3 0.3 Draft stipulation

Magana 10/26/2018 AP 0.5 0.5 Discuss meeting regarding appeal

Magana 10/26/2018 AP 0.4 0.4 Draft stipulation; email to OC

Magana 10/26/2018 LC 0.3 0.3 Briefing on issues of law in Ninth Circuit appeal from A. Pagano

Marciano 10/26/2018 AK 0.3 0.3 Reviewing draft stip from DD

Marciano 10/29/2018 AP 5 5

Email correspondence with OC; review ex parte petition; draft response to ex parte application for a stay; draft supporting documents

19



Marciano 10/29/2018 AK 5.8 5.8 Assist in drafting Opposition to Motion to Stay

Magana 10/29/2018 LC 3.75 3.75 Background research.

Marciano 10/29/2018 AK 0.1 0.1 Reviewing DD's notice of ex parte motion

Austin 10/30/2018 AP 0.5 0.5 Review NOSA filed by Defendant

Marciano 10/30/2018 AP 2 2 Revise response to ex parte application, declaration, and exhibits and file

Magana 10/31/2018 LC 2.3 2.3 Looking at Rule 23 Case Law

Magana 11/01/2018 LC 0.5 0.5 Research/Drafting

Magana 11/02/2018 LC 3.7 3.7 Research

Magana 11/05/2018 LC 0.5 0.5 Research

Marciano 11/06/2018 AP 0.2 0.2 Correspondence with client

Marciano 11/06/2018 AP 2.5 2.5 Revise Opposition to Motion to Compel arbitration


Marciano 11/07/2018 AP 2 2 Revise and finalize opposition to motion to compel arbitration and declaration



Arbitration 11/12/2018 AK 0.1 0.1 Email with AAA and DD re setting up initial arbitrator call for TVB

Magana 11/14/2018 AP 0.4 0.4 Discuss potential amicus brief

Arbitration 11/15/2018 AP 0.2 0.2 Correspondence from AAA

Roussel 11/15/2018 AK 0.2 0.2 Emails with Jared Roussel

20



Arbitration 11/15/2018 AK 0.1 0.1 Email with AAA and DD re setting up initial arbitrator call for TVB

Magana 11/16/2018 LC 0.5 0.5 Drafting notice of appeal

Arbitration 11/17/2018 AK 0.1 0.1 Email with arbitration claimant GT for update

Magana 11/18/2018 LC 0.5 0.5 Discussion re notice of appeal and grounds for appeal

Magana 11/19/2018 AP 0.3 0.3 Finalize and file notice of appeal

Magana 11/19/2018 AK 0.1 0.1 Reviewing court order and filings

Marciano 11/20/2018 AP 1 1 Finalize opposition to motion to compel arbitration

Roussel 11/20/2018 AK 0.1 0.1 Call and email to client

Roussel 11/20/2018 AK 0.1 0.1 Discussion re filing Roussel complaint

Magana 11/20/2018 AK 0.1 0.1 Reviewing court order

Magana 11/21/2018 AP 0.4 0.4 Draft mediation questionnaire and service list, calendar dates

Arbitration 11/26/2018 AK 1 1 DoorDash Arbitration Initial conference call; follow up with client and discuss internally

Magana 11/26/2018 AP 0.4 0.4 Correspond and discuss possible Amicus brief

Arbitration 11/26/2018 AK 4 4 Draft MSJ for arbitration case

Arbitration 11/27/2018 AK 1.3 1.3 Reviewing MSJ draft for arbitration case

Arbitration 11/28/2018 AK 0.2 0.2 Email filing of MSJ for arbitration to arbitration & AAA

Roussel 11/29/2018 AK 1 1 Call with client; draft PAGA letter

Marciano 11/30/2018 AP 0.2 0.2 Emails with OC

Magana 11/30/2018 AP 0.2 0.2 Review Ninth Cir. Mediation order

Magana 11/30/2018 LC 1.5 1.5 Research for appeal draft

Marciano 11/30/2018 AK 1 1 Reviewing DD's notice of ex parte hearing and reviewing motion

21



Marciano 12/03/2018 AP 3.5 3.5 Draft response to ex parte application

Roussel 12/03/2018 AP 3 3 Email client; review pay history; revise draft complaint

Roussel 12/3/2018 AP 0.5 0.5 Finalize and file Roussel PAGA letter

Roussel 12/3/2018 AK 0.4 0.4 Filing PAGA Letter

Marciano 12/3/2018 AK 0.7 0.7 Reviewing DD ex parte application

Arbitration 12/3/2018 AK 3.3 3.3 Emails with AAA and DD re discovery call in arbitration; correspond with client; follow up re discovery plan

Marciano 12/04/2018 AP 2 2 Pull relevant cases for hearing; finalize ex parte application response

Marciano 12/05/2018 AP 0.5 0.5 Discuss case law regarding mandatory stay during appeal and Section 558 penalties

Magana 12/05/2018 LC 3 3 Outline research and draft for 9th circuit appeal

Magana 12/5/2018 AK 0.2 0.2 Emails with putative class member

Magana 12/06/2018 LC 2.3 2.3 Research/Drafting

Arbitration 12/6/2018 AK 0.1 0.1 Emails with AAA and DD re discovery call in TVB arbitration

Marciano 12/07/2018 AP 0.3 0.3 Look up cases for hearing; look up potential tentative ruling before hearing

Magana 12/07/2018 LC 7 7 Drafting

Arbitration 12/8/2018 AK 0.1 0.1 Emails with AAA and DD re discovery call in TVB arbitration

Magana 12/10/2018 LC 6.3 6.3 Drafting

Magana 12/10/2018 LC 8 8 Drafting

Arbitration 12/10/2018 AK 0.3 0.3 Emails with AAA and DD re discovery call in arbitration case

Arbitration 12/11/2018 AK 1 1 Call with arbitrator; call with client

22



Arbitration 12/11/2018 AK 0.1 0.1 Emails with AAA and DD re discovery call in arbitration

Arbitration 12/11/2018 AK 0.8 0.8 Reviewing DD settlement offer letter - reviewing client data

Arbitration 12/12/2018 AK 0.8 0.8 Call with client

Marciano 12/12/2018 AP 0.3 0.3 Review order granting motion to stay

Magana 12/12/2018 AP 3.5 3.5 Draft Ninth Circuit brief

Magana 12/12/2018 LC 2 2 Research and drafting; meeting

Arbitration 12/12/2018 AK 0.1 0.1 Emails with DD re TVB arbitration settlement offer

Arbitration 12/12/2018 AK 0.1 0.1 Email to AAA announcing TBV arbitration settlement agreement

Arbitration 12/12/2018 AK 0.7 0.7 Call to TVB re settlement payment timing

Arbitration 12/12/2018 AK 0.1 0.1 Email to AAA taking conference call off calendar for TVB arbitration

Arbitration 12/12/2018 AK 0.1 0.1 Emails with TVB re settlement

Marciano 12/13/2018 AP 0.4 0.4 Read order; look up rules regarding writs

Magana 12/13/2018 AP 4.2 4.2 Draft Ninth Circuit brief; assemble excerpts of the record; review table of contents for excerpts of the record

Magana 12/14/2018 AP 3 3 Revise Ninth Circuit brief; read motion to dismiss; outline response

Arbitration 12/14/2018 AK 0.3 0.3 Emails with AAA re arbitrator selection lists

Magana 12/16/2018 AP 5 5 Revise Ninth Circuit Opening brief

Arbitration 12/16/2018 AK 0.1 0.1 Emails with DD re timing of payment for arbitration

Magana 12/17/2018 LC 8 8 Research, writing motion

Magana 12/17/2018 AP 3.5 3.5 Draft arbitration demand for filing; draft request for judicial notice; discuss opposition to motion to dismiss

23



Arbitration 12/17/2018 AK 0.9 0.9 Drafting arbitration demands

Magana 12/17/2018 AK 0.5 0.5 Assisting staff in filing Magana arbitration demand

Arbitration 12/17/2018 AK 0.5 0.5 Emails and calls to claimants re filing demands

Arbitration 12/17/2018 AK 0.1 0.1 Emails with DD re settlement agreement for TVB

Arbitration 12/17/2018 AK 1.2 1.2 Reviewing arbitration settlement agreement from DD


Magana 12/18/2018 AP 2.2 2.2 Read opposition to motion to dismiss; give revisions

Arbitration 12/18/2018 AK 0.1 0.1 Emails to DD with courtesy copies of arbitration demands filed 12/17/18

Arbitration 12/18/2018 AK 0.9 0.9 Call to client re arbitration settlement

Arbitration 12/18/2018 AK 0.1 0.1 Sending signed documents to DoorDash


Magana 12/19/2018 AP 2 2 Revise opposition to motion to dismiss

Arbitration 12/19/2018 AK 0.1 0.1 Sending LLR signatures/tax forms to DD

Magana 12/20/2018 LC 4 4 Editing motion

Magana 12/20/2018 AP 0.5 0.5 Further edits to motion to dismiss

Magana 12/21/2018 AP 3.2 3.2 Revise Opposition to Motion to Dismiss; declaration of Shannon Liss-Riordan; file

Arbitration 12/24/2018 AK 2.4 2.4

Reviewing invoices and creating tracking system for fee waivers and receipts for fees for filing fees for arbitrations filed against DD

Magana 12/28/2018 AP 1 1 Review reply to response filed by defendant

24



Arbitration 1/3/2019 AK 0.1 0.1 Email to AAA re extending strike list response times

Magana 1/4/2019 AP 0.7 0.7 Call with putative class member

Arbitration 1/7/2019 AK 0.2 0.2 Emails with AAA and DD re dismissing arbitration

Magana 1/8/2019 AP 0.2 0.2 Email correspondence re status of appeal

Arbitration 01/10/2019 AP 0.4 0.4 Look up status of other court cases against DoorDash

Arbitration 01/11/2019 AP 0.3 0.3 Check status of arbitrations

Roussel 1/11/2019 AK 0.4 0.4 Discussion re claims for Roussel complaint

Arbitration 1/11/2019 AK 0.2 0.2 Emails with AAA re scheduling initial conference calls for arbitrations


Austin 01/15/2019 AP 0.5 0.5 Draft notice of supplemental authority

Roussel 1/15/2019 AK 0.8 0.8 Research re DD registered agents and proper mailing address for PAGA notices


Arbitration 1/15/2019 AP 0.1 0.1 Emails with OC

Austin 01/16/2019 AP 0.5 0.5 Revise notice of supplemental authority for filing

Roussel 01/16/2019 AP 2.5 2.5 Analyze pay; revise Complaint; correspond with client; discuss with client

Roussel 01/16/2019 AD 1.3 1.3 Research California court jurisdictional rules for filing in superior court

Arbitration 01/16/2019 AP 0.1 0.1 Email correspondence from AAA

Roussel 1/16/2019 AK 0.1 0.1 Emails with JR re calculations for complaint

25




Roussel 01/17/2019 AP 0.5 0.5 Draft amended complaint

Roussel 1/17/2019 AK 0.5 0.5 Reviewing final drafts of complaint/assisting in filing

Arbitration 1/18/2019 AK 4.2 4.2

Reviewing arbitration initiation/arbitrator appointment documents for EB, JBL, MG, GJ, AE, FH, DE, EB, EF, GT, OX, MM, MC, TD arbitrations and opening up files

Marciano 1/22/2019 AP 0.3 0.3 Correspond with client; review screenshots and documents

Arbitration 1/22/2019 AK 0.1 0.1 Emails with AAA re closing TVB arbitration

Austin 1/23/2019 AD 5 5 Research re interaction of Section 1 and 2 of the FAA and transportation worker exemption

Arbitration 01/24/2019 AP 0.3 Call re arbitrator selection

Arbitration 01/24/2019 MRC 0.3 0.3 Conference with K. McCarty and AHP regarding arbitrator selection

Arbitration 01/28/2019 MRC 1.5 1.5 Reviewing arbitrators

Arbitration 1/28/2019 AK 2.4 2.4 Arbitrator reviews from strike lists

Austin 1/30/2019 AD 2 2 Research re Sections 1 and 2 of FAA and draft NOSA

Arbitration 02/05/2019 AP 1 1 Review and fill out strike lists for arbitrators

Arbitration 02/05/2019 AK 0.9 0.9 Formatting retainer spreadsheet

Arbitration 2/5/2019 AK 0.3 0.3 Email with GT claimant re timeline for filed arbitration claims

Arbitration 2/5/2019 AK 0.7 0.7 Arbitrator reviews from strike lists

26



Arbitration 2/6/2019 AK 1.1 1.1 Sending email updates to arbitration claimants

Austin 2/7/2019 AP 0.7 0.7 Draft NOSA

Arbitration 2/7/2019 AK 0.7 0.7 Call with arbitration claimant re claims

Arbitration 02/08/2019 AP 0.5 0.5 Arbitration status call with arbitrator

Arbitration 02/08/2019 AK 0.5 0.5 Initial conference call

Arbitration 2/8/2019 AK 1.9 1.9 Updating arbitration demand template for CA misclassification claimants

Arbitration 2/8/2019 AK 0.5 0.5 Review of BL case file for arbitration call

Arbitration 2/10/2019 AK 0.1 0.1 Email with GT claimant re timeline for filed arbitration and possibility of adding additional claims

Magana 2/11/2019 AP 0.5 0.5 Call with putative class member

Arbitration 02/12/2019 AP 1 1 Draft letter requesting permission to file summary judgment

Arbitration 2/13/2019 AK 0.1 0.1 Emails with Arbitrator scheduling conference

Arbitration 02/14/2019 AP 0.2 0.2 Calendar dates


Arbitration 2/14/2019 AK 0.1 0.1 Emails with arbitrator Weiss re scheduling conference

Arbitration 2/14/2019 AK 0.1 0.1 Emails with AAA and DD re extension for submitting strike lists

Arbitration 02/15/2019 AP 0.5 0.5 Finalize letter and exhibits and email arbitrator

Arbitration 2/15/2019 AK 0.4 0.4 Assisting in putting together unpublished case index for BL arbitration MSJ

Arbitration 2/15/2019 AK 0.1 0.1 Emails with arbitrator re scheduling conference

Arbitration 2/19/2019 AK 0.4 0.4 Reviewing updated scheduling order from Weiss

27



Arbitration 2/19/2019 AK 0.1 0.1 Scheduling emails with AAA/Arbitrator and DD

2/19/2019 AK 2 2 Calls with arbitration claimants

Magana 2/20/2019 AP 0.5 0.5 Call putative class member

Roussel 02/27/2019 AP 0.7 0.7 Finalize amended complaint for filing

Roussel 2/27/2019 AK 0.4 0.4 Reviewing draft of FAC

Austin 3/1/2019 AP 0.5 0.5 Review NOSA filed by Defendant

Arbitration 3/1/2019 AK 0.1 0.1 Emails re DD filing opposition to MSJ in Weiss arbitration

Arbitration 3/1/2019 AK 1.6 1.6 Reviewing DD's opposition to MSJ in Weiss arbitration

Arbitration 3/2/2019 AK 0.1 0.1 Emails to arbitrator rescheduling MSJ hearing in Weiss arbitration

Roussel 3/4/2019 AP 0.5 0.5 Review order denying complex designation

Arbitration 3/4/2019 AK 0.1 0.1 Emails with arbitrator re exhibits in support of Claimant's MSJ

Arbitration 3/5/2019 AK 0.1 0.1 Email with AAA re conference call dial in for MSJ hearing

03/06/2019 AK 1 1 Call, email correspondence with arbitration claimants

Arbitration 03/06/2019 AP 1 1 Hearing on request for dispositive motions

Arbitration 3/7/2019 AP 1 1 Call with driver; send arbitration retainer

Arbitration 3/8/2019 AK 1.3 1.3 Reviewing DD client retainers for accuracy

Arbitration 3/8/2019 AK 0.2 0.2 Reviewing emails and order from Weiss in BL arbitration and scheduling emails for MSJ hearing

Arbitration 3/10/2019 AK 0.1 0.1 Scheduling emails with AAA/Arbitrator and DD

Roussel 03/11/2019 AP 0.5 0.5 Draft CMS

Roussel 3/11/2019 AK 0.5 0.5 Reviewing updated draft of FAC

28



Arbitration 3/11/2019 AK 0.3 0.3 Scheduling emails with AAA/Arbitrator and DD and reviewing revised 3/8/2019 order

Magana 3/13/2019 AP 1 1 Review draft amicus brief

Arbitration 3/13/2019 AK 0.2 0.2 Emails re DD arbitration claimant

Arbitration 3/15/2019 AK 0.8 0.8 Reviewing offer for arbitration from DD

Magana 3/16/2019 AP 0.5 0.5 Call and email with putative class member

Roussel 3/19/2019 AP 0.1 0.1 Correspond with OC

Arbitration 3/19/2019 AK 0.3 0.3 Discussions re offer for arbitration claims


Magana 3/21/2019 AP 0.3 0.3 Review order denying motion to dismiss

Arbitration 03/21/2019 AP 0.1 0.1 Email client

Arbitration 03/22/2019 AP 0.1 0.1 Email client


Magana 3/25/2019 AK 0.4 0.4 Reviewing ECF notices and order

Arbitration 3/25/2019 AK 0.9 0.9 Call with arbitration claimant re case developments

Arbitration 3/26/2019 AK 0.3 0.3 Review of arbitration data

Arbitration 3/27/2019 AK 0.7 0.7 Call with claimant re case developments

Arbitration 04/01/2019 AP 0.3 0.3 Emails to opposing counsel; discuss motion regarding Dynamex retroactivity and scheduling internally

Arbitration 4/1/2019 AK 0.1 0.1 Review of scheduling order and emails rescheduling filing our motion re Dynamex retroactivity in arbitration case

Arbitration 04/02/2019 AP 3 3 Draft motion regarding dynamex retroactivity

Arbitration 4/2/2019 AK 0.1 0.1 Emails with DD re BL arbitration settlement negotiations

Arbitration 4/2/2019 AK 0.8 0.8 Reviewing APH draft of retroactivity motion for BL arbitration

29



Arbitration 4/2/2019 AK 0.1 0.1 Emails with Arbitrator and DD re retroactivity motion timing and filing

Arbitration 4/3/2019 AK 0.2 0.2 Emails with Arbitrator and DD re retroactivity motion timing and filing

Arbitration 4/3/2019 AK 0.6 0.6 Reviewing arbitration initiation and arbitrator appointment documents and started file on server for claimant

Arbitration 4/3/2019 AK 0.1 0.1 Email re scheduling hearing on retroactivity - calendaring date and call number

Roussel 4/4/2019 AP 0.1 0.1 Email re service of FAC




Arbitration 4/4/2019 AK 0.3 0.3 Emails to claimants re arbitrator assignments

Arbitration 4/5/2019 AK 0.1 0.1 Reviewing emails re time change of retroactivity hearing in Weiss arbitration

Arbitration 4/8/2019 AK 0.2 0.2 Email re arbitration client

Magana 04/09/2019 AP 2 2 Revise ninth circuit brief; input record citations; review appendix

Magana 04/11/2019 AP 0.5 0.5 Revise brief for filing

30



Arbitration 4/11/2019 AK 0.5 0.5 Call to claimant BL re arbitration settlement

Arbitration 4/12/2019 AK 0.3 0.3 Reviewing correspondence from AAA in BL/Weiss arbitration

Magana 04/15/2019 AP 1.7 1.7 Finalize appendix and brief and file

Magana 4/17/2019 AP 0.4 0.4 Discuss related cases against DoorDash

Arbitration 4/17/2019 AK 1.1 1.1 Research and reviewing DD's opposition to retroactivity motion in Weiss arbitration

Arbitration 04/18/2019 AP 6.7 6.7 Draft reply; prepare for oral argument

Arbitration 04/18/2019 AK 0.7 0.7 Reviewing/editing brief on the retroactivity of Dynamex

Arbitration 4/18/2019 AK 0.8 0.8 Research for reply brief in support of retroactivity motion in Weiss arbitration

Arbitration 04/19/2019 AP 2.2 2.2 Prepare for hearing; argue hearing regarding Dynamex retroactivity and discuss

Arbitration 04/19/2019 AK 0.7 0.7 Hearing on retroactive application of Dynamex


Arbitration 4/22/2019 AK 0.1 0.1 Notification email to arb claimant re arbitrator selection

Magana 04/23/2019 AP 0.2 0.2 Look up competing cases

Arbitration 04/23/2019 AP 0.2 0.2 Read decision; email opposing counsel

Arbitration 4/23/2019 AK 0.1 0.1 Emails to DD re confering re discovery in BL arbitration

Arbitration 4/23/2019 AK 0.1 0.1 Scheduling emails with Arbitrator and DD re 5/9/19 conference ordered by arbitrator

Arbitration 04/24/2019 AP 0.4 0.4 Call with client; email client

Arbitration 04/24/2019 AK 0.2 0.2 Reading order re MSA/retroactivity of Dynamex

31



Arbitration 4/24/2019 AK 0.2 0.2 Reviewing/saving arbitrator appointment confirmation and scheduling initial conference call

Arbitration 4/24/2019 AK 0.2 0.2 Reviewing/saving arbitrator appointment confirmation and scheduling initial conference call

Magana 04/26/2019 AP 0.2 0.2 Review details of competing cases

Arbitration 4/26/2019 AK 0.2 0.2 Reviewing/saving arbitrator appointment confirmation and scheduling initial conference call for EB

Arbitration 4/26/2019 AK 0.1 0.1 Scheduling conference call in arbitration case

Arbitration 4/30/2019 AK 0.1 0.1 Reviewing AAA correspondence for MC

Arbitration 4/30/2019 Ak 0.1 0.1 Emails with DD re conferring over arbitration

Arbitration 05/01/2019 AP 0.4 0.4 Call with opposing counsel

Arbitration 05/01/2019 AK 0.4 0.4 Call with Andrew Spurchise to discuss discovery deadlines

Arbitration 5/3/2019 AK 0.1 0.1 Emails with AAA and DD re BL discovery timing and rescheduling conference call

Arbitration 5/4/2019 AK 0.1 0.1 Emails with AAA and DD re BL discovery timing and rescheduling conference call

Arbitration 5/6/2019 AK 0.1 0.1 Emails with AAA scheduling initial call

Arbitration 05/07/2019 AP 0.1 0.1 Calendar dates



Arbitration 5/9/2019 AK 0.1 0.1 Rescheduling conference call for arbitration


Magana 5/10/2019 AK 0.5 0.5 Reviewing motion to relate

Magana 5/13/2019 AP 1.5 1.5 Review Answering Brief and response to motion

32




Arbitration 5/14/2019 AK 0.1 0.1 Reviewing/saving correspondence from AAA re initial arbitrator call for arb claimant and setting up call

Arbitration 05/15/2019 AP 0.1 0.1 Respond to AAA email regarding scheduling

Arbitration 5/15/2019 AK 0.1 0.1 Emails re scheduling initial arbitration call

Arbitration 5/15/2019 AK 0.1 0.1 Emails with AAA re setting up administrative conference call re strike lists

Arbitration 05/16/2019 AP 0.2 0.2 Arbitration call

Arbitration 5/16/2019 AK 0.1 0.1 Emails with AAA and DD re staying arbitrations pending global mediation

Arbitration 5/16/2019 AK 0.1 0.1 Email to Arbitrator staying arbitration pending mediation


Arbitration 5/23/2019 AK 0.2 0.2 Reviewing/saving order staying arbitration pending mediation for arbitration

Roussel 05/28/2019 AP 0.3 0.3 Call and email opposing counsel

Magana 05/28/2019 AP 0.3 0.3 File streamlined request for extension of time to file reply in Ninth Circuit

Roussel 6/5/2019 AP 0.2 0.2 Emails re OC

Roussel 6/6/2019 AP 0.2 0.2 Review draft stip and proposed order

Roussel 06/10/2019 AP 0.5 0.5 Draft stipulation to continue CMC

Magana 06/11/2019 TB 1 1 Prepare for 9th Cir. reply (protective order issue)

33



Magana 06/11/2019 AP 1 1 Read answering brief; take notes



Roussel 06/12/2019 AP 0.7 0.7 Discuss Roussel case and ex parte request to stay; email OC

Roussel 6/12/2019 AK 0.3 0.3 Discussion re ex parte noticed by DD

Roussel 6/13/2019 AK 0.8 0.8 Reviewing DD ex parte motion

Magana 06/14/2019 TB 6.75 6.75 Prepare for 9th Cir. reply (protective order issue)

Magana 06/14/2019 AP 0.3 0.3 Look up dates and fill out notice of oral argument for S. Liss-Riordan

Roussel 06/14/2019 AK 0.4 0.4 Court call re ex parte application

Roussel 6/16/2019 AK 0.1 0.1 Emails with DD re outcome of ex parte


Roussel 6/17/2019 AK 0.1 0.1 Emails with DD re outcome of ex parte

Roussel 6/17/2019 AK 0.3 0.3 Reviewing order on motion to stay




Magana 06/22/2019 TB 4 4 Research and drafting 9th Cir. reply




34



Magana 06/26/2019 AP 1.5 1.5 Redline draft reply brief



Marciano 6/27/2019 AK 0.2 0.2 Reviewing joint stip continuing CMC




Magana 07/02/2019 AP 1 1 Review final draft of brief and provide revisions

Magana 7/3/2019 AP 2 2 Review and finalize brief and coordinate filing

Roussel 7/15/2019 AP 0.2 0.2 Review order continuing CMC; calendar dates

Magana 7/21/2019 AP 0.1 0.1 Review notice of oral argument and calendar dates

Arbitration 7/24/2019 AK 0.7 0.7 Emails with arbitration claimants

Marciano 7/26/2019 AP 0.3 0.3 Discuss upcoming mediation

Marciano 8/2/2019 AP 0.5 0.5 Discuss DD acquisition of Caviar

Marciano 8/2/2019 AK 0.5 0.5 Internal discussion of case developments

Arbitration 8/5/2019 AK 1.3 1.3 Reviewing DD retainers for accuracy

Marciano 8/5/2019 AP 2 2 Calls with clients to discuss upcoming mediation

Arbitration 8/7/2019 AK 2 2 Compile list of arbitration clients with relevant information in preparation for mediation

Arbitration 8/7/2019 AP 0.3 0.3 Review arbitration client list

Marciano 8/8/2019 AP 1 1 Reformat list; email OC in preparation for mediation

Arbitration 8/8/2019 AK 1.2 1.2 Finalizing list of arbitration claimants to send to DD for mediation

Arbitration 08/16/2019 AP 0.2 0.2 Call with client

Austin 08/20/2019 AP 1 1 Draft and file notice of supplemental authority

35



Marciano 08/20/2019 AP 0.1 0.1 Correspond with OC re mediation

Arbitration 8/20/2019 AK 0.1 0.1 Email to DD re timing of arbitration claimant data for mediation

Marciano 08/23/2019 AP 0.5 0.5 Look up other cases against DoorDash; email opposing counsel

Magana 08/28/2019 AP 0.1 0.1 Email opposing counsel

Arbitration 8/28/2019 AK 0.1 0.1 Email to DD re timing of arbitration claimant data for mediation



Marciano 9/2/2019 AP 2 2 Review mediation data; discuss

Arbitration 9/2/2019 AK 3.2 3.2 Reviewing arbitration claimant data provided by DD

Marciano 09/03/2019 AP 6 6 Draft mediation statement; review data calculations

Arbitration 9/3/2019 AK 0.2 0.2 Emails to DD re problems with missing data for claimants

Marciano 09/04/2019 AP 3.2 3.2 Revise mediation statement and exhibits; send to mediator

Marciano 09/04/2019 AP 0.2 0.2 Email correspondence with OC re data issues

Marciano 09/04/2019 AP 0.2 0.2 Email correspondence with mediator

Marciano 9/5/2019 AP 1 1 Calls to clients re mediation

Arbitration 9/5/2019 AK 2.5 2.5 Reviewing additional DD claimant data for mediation

Arbitration 9/6/2019 AK 1.8 1.8 Research related to missing DD claimant data

Marciano 09/10/2019 AP 8 8 Attend mediation

Marciano 09/11/2019 AP 1.5 1.5 Follow up discussions with clients re mediation

Magana 09/11/2019 AP 0.2 0.2 Draft acknowledgement of hearing notice

36



Marciano 09/12/2019 AP 0.2 0.2 Call client; email client

Magana 09/12/2019 AP 0.2 0.2 Call client

Marciano 9/18/2019 AP 0.2 0.2 Email correspondence with arbitration client

Marciano 9/23/2019 AP 0.3 0.3 Email correspondence with arbitration client

Marciano 09/26/2019 AP 0.5 0.5 Follow up discussions with mediator

Magana 09/26/2019 AP 0.2 0.2 Preparation in advance of oral argument

Arbitration 9/26/2019 AK 0.1 0.1 Email with arbitration claimant

Arbitration 9/26/2019 AK 0.1 0.1 Emails with Arbitrator re status of stay

Arbitration 9/27/2019 AK 0.1 0.1 Reviewing/saving AAA correspondence for arbitration

Marciano 9/30/2019 AP 0.4 0.4 Follow up discussions with mediator

Arbitration 9/30/2019 AK 0.1 0.1 Emails with Arbitrator re status of stay

Magana 10/01/2019 AP 0.3 0.3 Print cases in preparation for oral argument

Austin 10/01/2019 AP 1 1 Review Order compelling arbitration

Magana 10/02/2019 AP 2 2 Email correspondence with OC; Call with opposing counsel; draft and revise joint motion and declaration

Magana 10/3/2019 AP 0.3 0.3 Discussion with client

Roussel 10/3/2019 AP 0.5 0.5 Discussion with client

Marciano 10/3/2019 AP 0.4 0.4 Discussion with clients

Austin 10/3/2019 AP 0.2 0.2 Discussion with client


Marciano 10/08/2019 AP 0.1 0.1 Email to OC

Marciano 10/08/2019 MRC 0.5 0.5 Conf with AHP regarding settlement

Marciano 10/10/2019 AP 1.5 1.5 Redline MOU; compare releases from previous settlement

Arbitration 10/10/2019 AK 0.1 0.1 Emails with Weiss re status of stay

Marciano 10/11/2019 MRC 2 2 Review MOU/related cases; conference with AHP regarding settlement

37



Marciano 10/11/2019 AP 1.5 1.5 Redline MOU

Arbitration 10/11/2019 AP 0.1 0.1 Email with arbitrator re stay


Arbitration 10/11/2019 AK 0.1 0.1 Emails with Weiss re status of stay


Marciano 10/16/2019 MRC 1 1 Review related cases/ MOU

Marciano 10/23/2019 AP 8 8 Draft settlement agreement, motion, declaration, proposed order, revise second amended complaint

Marciano 10/23/2019 AP 0.3 0.3 email correspondence with administrator

Marciano 10/24/2019 AP 5 5 Call opposing counsel; revise draft settlement papers, including agreement,motion, and supporting declaration

Marciano 10/24/2019 AP 1 1 Review list of arbitration clients; discuss updates to list

Marciano 10/25/2019 AP 1.2 1.2 Draft revised PAGA letters and email to opposing counsel

Marciano 10/28/2019 MRC 0.5 0.5 Emails w opposing counsel regarding preliminary approval

Marciano 10/29/2019 AP 0.5 0.5 Emails with administrator re quote; review quote

Roussel 10/29/2019 AK 0.2 0.2 Call with Jared Roussel


Marciano 11/1/2019 AP 0.3 0.3 Discuss settlement administration quote

Marciano 11/01/2019 MRC 0.3 0.3 Email correspondence w opposing counsel

Marciano 11/01/2019 AP 0.4 0.4 Draft stipulation to continue CMC

Marciano 11/04/2019 AP 2 2 Review revisions to motion

38



Roussel 11/04/2019 AP 0.2 0.2 Email opposing counsel; draft case management statement

Arbitration 11/5/2019 AP 0.1 0.1 Correspondence with AAA

Arbitration 11/5/2019 AK 0.5 0.5 Status update to AAA re stayed arbitrations

Marciano 11/06/2019 AP 1 1 Call with opposing counsel; discuss with S. Liss-Riordan; call with client

Marciano 11/11/2019 AP 1 1 Call with opposing counsel; review motion for preliminary approval edits

Marciano 11/12/2019 AP 0.5 0.5 Review and revise declaration in support of preliminary approval; email opposing counsel

Marciano 11/14/2019 AP 0.7 0.7 Revise agreement; email and call with opposing counsel

Arbitration 11/14/2019 AK 0.1 0.1 Emails with arbitration claimant

Arbitration 11/14/2019 AK 0.8 0.8 Emails to arbitration claimants re update

Marciano 11/15/2019 AP 0.5 0.5 Call with opposing counsel; emails to administrator

Marciano 11/17/2019 AP 4 4 Review edits to notice, claim form, proposed order; revise Motion and update damages analysis

Marciano 11/18/2019 MRC 0.5 0.5 Review email correspondence; internal discussion with AHP, SLR

Marciano 11/18/2019 AP 2 2 Call with opposing counsel; review and revise settlement documents; emails to administrator; internal discussion

Marciano 11/19/2019 MRC 0.5 0.5 Telephone conference with opposing counsel; email correspondence with AHP regarding same

Marciano 11/19/2019 AP 1.5 1.5 Emails regarding settlement; revise settlement documents

39



Marciano 11/20/2019 MRC 2 2 Settlement approval papers

Marciano 11/20/2019 AP 4 4 Revise settlement documents

Marciano 11/21/2019 MRC 4 4 Work on preliminary approval filing

Marciano 11/21/2019 AP 8 8

Emails to opposing counsel; finalize and file all settlement documents; draft stipulation for excess pages; file revised PAGA letters; file settlement documents

Marciano 11/25/2019 AP 0.2 0.2 Save supplemental settlement agreement; email opposing counsel

Magana 11/26/2019 AP 0.5 0.5 Draft status report; emails with opposing counsel

Magana 11/26/2019 AK 0.4 0.4 Reviewing screenshots from class member re Magana opt out process

Marciano 12/02/2019 AP 0.5 0.5 Inform LWDA of settlement; submit online and separately email LWDA

Magana 12/02/2019 AP 0.2 0.2 Final joint status report at the Ninth Circuit

Roussel 12/03/2019 AK 0.5 0.5 Drafting PAGA letter for Jared Roussel

Marciano 12/05/2019 MRC 0.5 0.5 Email correspondence w/T. Friedman

Marciano 12/05/2019 AP 4.5 4.5 Draft reply in support of preliminary approval

Arbitration 12/8/2019 AK 0.1 0.1 Email with arbitrator Weiss re stay update

Marciano 12/09/2019 AP 0.3 0.3 Draft declaration in support of reply

Marciano 12/10/2019 MRC 5 5

Email correspondence and telephone conference with co-counsel regarding ex parte application; draft opposition to same

Marciano 12/10/2019 AP 4 4

Finalize reply and declaration; draft amendment to settlement agreement; review ex parte application; call with counsel for Marko regarding ex parte hearing

40



Marciano 12/10/2019 AK 1.8 1.8 Reviewing Custis Law ex parte/motion to intervene

Marciano 12/11/2019 MRC 0.6 0.6 email correspondence re ex parte

Marciano 12/11/2019 AP 2.5 2.5

Revise ex parte response; revise supplemental declaration and amendment to settlement; email correspondence re same

Marciano 12/12/2019 AK 1.7 1.7 Reviewing Gibbs motion to intervene

Arbitration 12/13/2019 AK 0.1 0.1 Email with AAA re stay status

Marciano 12/16/2019 MRC 0.5 0.5 Email correspondence regarding prelim approval hearing

Arbitration 12/16/2019 AP 0.3 0.3 Update arbitrator; email opposing counsel; calendar next update

Arbitration 12/16/2019 AK 0.1 0.1 Update to arbitrator

Marciano 12/17/2019 AP 0.5 0.5 Discuss motions to intervene and responses

Marciano 12/17/2019 MRC 0.5 0.5 Conference w AHP regarding motions to intervene; email correspondence regarding same

Arbitration 12/17/2019 AK 0.1 0.1 Email with AAA re stay status

Marciano 12/18/2019 AP 0.7 0.7 Revise stipulation; email objectors' counsel

Marciano 12/19/2019 MRC 0.5 0.5 Email correspondence regarding rescheduling hearings

Marciano 12/19/2019 AP 0.5 0.5 Call with class member

Marciano 12/20/2019 AP 1 1 Email and call clerk regarding rescheduling hearings; email objectors' counsel; email opposing counsel

41



Marciano 12/20/2019 AK 0.1 0.1 Emails with DD re scheduling for prelim approval

Arbitration 12/20/2019 AK 0.1 0.1 Reviewing AAA correspondence for arb claimant

Marciano 12/30/2019 MRC 0.4 0.4 Internal email correspondence regarding motions to intervene

Roussel 01/02/2020 AP 0.3 0.3 Review, revise, and file Case Management statement

Roussel 1/2/2020 AK 0.2 0.2 Discussion re Roussel CMC

Marciano 01/06/2020 AP 0.3 0.3 Draft case management statement and email opposing counsel

Roussel 01/06/2020 AP 0.2 0.2 Court call re ex parte application

Marciano 01/07/2020 AP 5 5 Draft response to motions to intervene

Arbitration 1/7/2020 AK 0.2 0.2 Reviewing email from AAA re appointment confirmation for EF arbitration and alerting AAA to mistake

Marciano 01/08/2020 MRC 0.3 0.3 Meet w/AHP regarding maternity leave coverage of case

Marciano 01/08/2020 AP 2 2 Draft oppositions to motions to intervene

Marciano 01/09/2020 AP 3 3 Draft opposition to motions to intervene

Marciano 01/10/2020 MRC 0.5 0.5 Conference with AHP and MJC regarding opposition brief

Marciano 01/10/2020 AP 2 2 Revise and finalize opposition to motions to intervene and proof of service

Arbitration 1/14/2020 AK 0.1 0.1 Email with arbitration claimant

Arbitration 1/15/2020 AK 1.3 1.3 Emails and calls with arbitration claimant

42



Arbitration 1/16/2020 AK 0.9 0.9 Emails and calls with arbitration claimant

Marciano 01/21/2020 MRC 4 4 Draft opposition to Cho objection

Marciano 01/23/2020 MRC 3 3 Finalize/file reply iso prelim approval

Marciano 1/24/2020 AK 0.6 0.6 Reviewing Custis Law reply

Marciano 01/27/2020 MRC 0.5 0.5 Review order from court; email to named plaintiffs regarding same

Marciano 1/27/2020 AK 0.8 0.8 Reviewing courts notice of entry of order

Magana 01/29/2020 MRC 0.4 0.4 Draft status report to Ninth Circuit

Magana 01/30/2020 MRC 0.3 0.3 Finalize/file 9th Cir status report

Marciano 02/03/2020 MRC 0.4 0.4 Email correspondence from Keller Lenkner; email correspondence w SLR regarding same

Marciano 2/3/2020 AK 0.3 0.3 Emails with Keller Lenkner and DD re competing case orders and opt out procedures

Marciano 2/11/2020 AD 0.1 0.1 Review email re settlement approval in CA

Marciano 2/13/2020 MRC 0.3 0.3 Emails re scheduling and briefing

Marciano 02/20/2020 MRC 0.5 0.5 Email correspondence and telephone conference w David Cristini

Austin 02/20/2020 MRC 0.5 0.5 Draft/file notice of appeal; email correspondence to opposing counsel

Magana 02/25/2020 MRC 0.4 0.4 Telephone conference with client; follow up internally regarding check


Marciano 2/27/2020 AK 0.2 0.2 Reviewing notice of change in counsel filed by Custis law


Marciano 03/03/2020 MRC 2.5 2.5 Draft opposition to motion to stay

Arbitration 3/3/2020 AK 0.8 0.8 Review of arbitration claimant mileage data

43



Austin 03/13/2020 MRC 0.3 0.3 Work on admin forms for appeal

Austin 03/16/2020 MRC 0.3 0.3 Review forms to be filed with First Circuit; conference w M. Cedeno regarding same

Marciano 3/17/2020 AD 0.3 0.3 Email correspondence re settlement approval

Marciano 03/17/2020 MRC 0.5 0.5 Review email correspondence with clerk regarding settlement hearing; email correspondence w SLR regarding same

Magana 03/26/2020 MRC 0.5 0.5 Draft status report to Ninth Circuit; email correspondence w opposing counsel regarding same

Marciano 03/30/2020 MRC 0.5 0.5 Email correspondence w SLR and Capstone Law regarding enhancements; email correspondence regarding settlement

Arbitration 3/30/2020 AK 0.5 0.5 Updates for arbitration claimants

Magana 3/31/2020 MRC 0.5 0.5 Draft status report; email OC

Roussel 04/02/2020 MRC 0.5 0.5 Review/revise joint CMC statement

Marciano 4/13/2020 AK 0.1 0.1 Emails agreeing to e-service

Marciano 04/14/2020 MRC 0.3 0.3 Review Outten & Golden filing

Marciano 4/14/2020 AK 0.1 0.1 Emails agreeing to e-service

Marciano 4/14/2020 AK 0.5 0.5 Reviewing Outten & Golden intervention filing

Austin 04/16/2020 MRC 0.3 0.3 Email correspondence to SLR and opposing counsel

Austin 04/17/2020 MRC 0.4 0.4 Draft joint motion to stay appeal for opposing counsel review

Austin 4/20/2020 MRC 0.3 0.3 Email with OC re joint motion

Austin 04/23/2020 MRC 0.2 0.2 Review 1st circuit order

Marciano 04/29/2020 MRC 0.5 0.5 Review email correspondence from D. Cristini; email correspondence with AHP and SLR regarding same

44



Marciano 04/29/2020 AP 3 3 Review tentative ruling and outline response

Marciano 04/30/2020 MRC 0.5 0.5 Email correspondence with Todd Friedman; email correspondence with A. Pagano regarding supplemental brief

Marciano 04/30/2020 AP 2 2 Draft supplemental briefing in response to court's tentative ruling

Roussel 4/30/2020 AK 0.2 0.2 Reviewing D's CMS

Marciano 05/01/2020 AP 1 1 Draft supplemental settlement briefing

Marciano 05/04/2020 AP 5 5 Draft named plaintiff declarations; draft supplemental briefing; email opposing counsel

Marciano 05/05/2020 AP 3 3 Draft declaration of S. Liss-Riordan; emails to plaintiffs; draft supplemental briefing

Marciano 05/06/2020 MRC 0.3 0.3 Telephone conference and email corr w AHP regarding supplemental briefing

Marciano 05/06/2020 AP 1 1 Call with opposing counsel; follow up email to opposing counsel

Marciano 05/11/2020 AP 3 3 Redline notice and agreement pursuant to the Court's tentative ruling

Marciano 05/12/2020 AP 0.1 0.1 Email opposing counsel

Marciano 05/13/2020 AP 0.5 0.5 Call with opposing counsel; email to S. Liss-Riordan regarding outstanding issues with settlement

Marciano 05/14/2020 AP 1 1 Further redlines to notice and settlement agreement

45



Marciano 05/15/2020 MRC 0.8 0.8

Review email correspondence w clerk and all counsel regarding tentative ruling; review draft declarations from plaintiffs and email correspondence w AHP regarding same

Marciano 05/15/2020 AP 3 3

Revise supplemental settlement briefing; email administrator regarding declaration; review and revise named plaintiff declarations

Marciano 05/16/2020 AP 1.2 1.2 Revise plaintiff declarations and briefing; email opposing counsel

Marciano 05/18/2020 AP 0.5 0.5 Email correspondence with client; update draft Liss-Riordan declaration and supplemental settlement briefing

Marciano 5/20/2020 AP 0.5 0.5 Discussion re DoorDash's arbitration provision

Marciano 5/21/2020 AP 1 1 Review an discuss tentative ruling

Marciano 5/22/2020 AP 0.2 0.2 Email with putative class member

Austin 5/26/2020 AP 0.3 0.3 Emails status report

Magana 5/27/2020 AP 0.3 0.3 emails re status report

Roussel 5/28/2020 AP 0.3 0.3 Review draft CMS for filing

Marciano 5/28/2020 AP 0.2 0.2 Discuss supplemental settlement briefing with OC

Magana 5/28/2020 AP 0.2 0.2 File status report

Arbitration 5/28/2020 AK 0.1 0.1 Status update for AAA re arbitrations

Roussel 5/29/2020 AP 0.1 0.1 Email re CMS

Roussel 5/29/2020 AK 0.3 0.3 Reviewing DD's CMS

Marciano 6/1/2020 AP 0.2 0.2 Discuss settlement briefing with OC

Marciano 6/2/2020 AP 0.1 0.1 Email to co-counsel

Marciano 6/3/2020 AP 0.5 0.5 Emails with co-counsel, OC re settlement

46



Marciano 6/4/2020 AP 4 4 Revise settlement briefing; discuss named plaintiff declarations

Marciano 06/04/2020 MRC 1.5 1.5 Work on revisions to settlement documents

Marciano 6/5/2020 AP 3 3

Discuss settlement briefing with OC; discuss settlement administrator declaration with Simpluris; email with co-counsel re named plaintiff declaration

Marciano 6/6/2020 AP 2.7 2.7 Discuss revisions to settlement documents, including amended complaint and notice

Marciano 6/7/2020 AP 0.3 0.3 Discuss revisions to settlement briefing with co-counsel, OC; revise brief

Marciano 06/08/2020 AP 10 10 Finalize revised settlement papers for filing

Roussel 06/08/2020 MRC 1 1 Assist AHP with filing

Austin 6/9/2020 AP 0.1 0.1 Email with co-counsel re named plf declaration

Arbitration 6/12/2020 AP 0.5 0.5 Discuss fee waivers for arbitration clients

Marciano 6/16/2020 AP 0.3 0.3 Discuss notice of courtcall appearance; discuss upcoming hearing

Marciano 6/16/2020 AK 0.4 0.4 Researching courtcall appearance rules

Marciano 6/18/2020 AP 1 1 Review supplemental filing by proposed intervenor

Marciano 06/19/2020 MRC 0.4 0.4 Review email correspondence to court from DoorDash and Rick Prieto

Marciano 06/19/2020 AP 2 2 Review tentative ruling; help Shannon prepare for hearing

Marciano 06/22/2020 AP 1.5 1.5 Hearing preparation for hearing on motions to intervene; review tentative ruling

47



Austin 06/22/2020 AP 0.2 0.2 Joint status report; email opposing counsel

Marciano 06/23/2020 AP 1.5 1.5 Research regarding PAGA allocations; hearing regarding motions to intervene

Marciano 06/25/2020 AP 1 1 Call with M. Holechek; FLSA cases

Marciano 06/29/2020 AP 2 2 Draft supplemental briefing; email opposing counsel

Marciano 06/30/2020 AP 1 1 Email related action counsel; draft supplemental briefing

Marciano 07/01/2020 MRC 0.3 0.3 Review email correspondence w opposing counsel regarding local ordinance violations

Marciano 07/08/2020 AP 1.5 1.5 Research regarding FLSA cases and PAGA

Marciano 07/09/2020 AP 4 4 Draft supplemental briefing

Marciano 07/09/2020 AP 2 2 Emails with administrator regarding declaration; draft and revise declaration

Marciano 07/14/2020 AP 1.5 1.5 Draft Sutherland declaration; discuss data for local ordinance claims

Marciano 07/16/2020 AP 1 1 Call with Epiq; email and discussion regarding digital payments

Marciano 07/20/2020 AP 0.2 0.2 Call opposing counsel

Marciano 07/21/2020 AP 1 1 Draft S. Liss-Riordan declaration

Marciano 07/22/2020 AP 2 2 Revise Liss-Riordan declaration; review DoorDash declaration; email related case counsel

Marciano 07/23/2020 AP 1.5 1.5 Revise supplemental brief; email related action plaintiffs

Marciano 07/24/2020 MRC 0.5 0.5 Assist w supplemental briefing

48



Marciano 07/24/2020 AP 5 5

Email court; submit revised settlement to LWDA; finish all revisions and finalize revised settlement documents and exhibits and brief; emails to related action counsel; file supplemental briefing

Marciano 07/27/2020 AP 0.5 0.5 Email regarding methodology for minimum wage damages

Marciano 8/11/2020 AP 0.2 0.2 Email correspondence re driver inquiries

Marciano 08/20/2020 AP 0.5 0.5 Strategic discussion re settlements; email from driver

Marciano 08/20/2020 MRC 0.2 0.2 Review email correspondence to court from M. Arbuckle

Austin 8/24/2020 AP 0.3 0.3 Draft joint status report to First Cir.; email OC

Roussel 8/26/2020 AP 0.3 0.3 Review draft CMC; email OC


Roussel 8/28/2020 AK 0.2 0.2 Reviewing DD"s CMS

Magana 08/31/2020 AP 0.5 0.5 Review tentative ruling regarding preliminary approval

Magana 09/01/2020 AP 1 1 Email plaintiffs; email co-counsel; call co-counsel

Magana 9/2/2020 AP 0.2 0.2 Email putative class member

Marciano 09/22/2020 AP 2 2 Draft mediation statement follow up

Marciano 09/22/2020 AP 0.7 0.7 Review mediation data

Marciano 09/24/2020 AP 5 5 Prepare for and attend mediation; debrief

Marciano 09/25/2020 MRC 1 1 Email corr w opposing counsel counsel; draft/file stipulation regarding prelim approval briefing

49



Marciano 9/29/2020 AP 0.3 0.3 Review rejected stip; correct

Arbitration 10/1/2020 AK 0.2 0.2 Email correspondence with arbitration claimants

Marciano 10/2/2020 AP 0.4 0.4 Discussions with named plaintiffs

Marciano 10/7/2020 AP 0.2 0.2 Emails with co-counsel

Marciano 10/15/2020 AP 0.3 0.3 Emails with arbitrator, OC; discuss negotiations

Arbitrations 10/20/2020 AK 0.1 0.1 Email to AAA re status

Austin 10/22/2020 AP 0.2 0.2 Draft status report; email OC

Marciano 10/22/2020 AK 0.1 0.1 Emails with DD re supplemental briefing

Marciano 10/23/2020 AP 0.3 3 Emails with opposing counsel

Austin 10/23/2020 AP 0.1 0.1 Finalize and file status report

Marciano 10/28/2020 AP 1.7 1.7 Call with opposing counsel; redline agreement and notice

Marciano 10/30/2020 AP 2 2 Finalize revised settlement and send out for signature; email clients to collect signatures

Marciano 11/1/2020 AP 0.1 0.1 Email with co-counsel

Marciano 11/2/2020 AP 2.5 2.5 Revise brief; emails to OC, co-counsel; emails with named plaintiffs and administrator

Arbitration 11/2/2020 AK 0.7 0.7 Calls with arbitration claimant

Marciano 11/03/2020 AP 2 2 Revise brief

Marciano 11/04/2020 AP 4 4 Draft settlement papers and supplemental brief

Arbitrations 11/6/2020 AP 0.4 0.4 Review updated list of arbitration clients; call with driver

Marciano 11/17/2020 AP 0.5 0.5 Review objection; discuss; email with OC; email with co-counsel

50



Arbitrations 11/18/2020 AP 0.2 0.2 Email with arbitration client

Marciano 11/19/2020 AP 0.2 0.2 Emails with co-counsel re briefing

Austin 11/23/2020 AP 0.7 0.7 Draft First Circuit joint status report; email OC; emails with client re status update

Magana 11/24/2020 AP 0.3 0.3 Emails with OC re Ninth Cir. Joint status report

Marciano 12/8/2020 AP 0.1 0.1 Email correspondence with co-counsel

Austin 12/10/2020 AP 0.2 0.2 Email correspondence with client t

Arbitration 12/13/2020 AP 0.2 0.2 Email correspondence with arbitration client

Marciano 12/18/2020 AP 0.4 0.4 Email and phone call with driver

Marciano 12/23/2020 AP 0.1 0.1 Email correspondence re scheduling hearing

Roussel 12/28/2020 AP 0.3 0.3 Revise CMS; email opposing counsel

Marciano 12/30/2020 AP 0.5 0.5

Email opposing counsel regarding First Circuit status report; email to opposing counsel regarding motion to intervene; email to arbitration client

Arbitration 12/30/2020 AK 0.6 0.6 Discussions re updates for arbitration claimants and correspondence with claimants

Marciano 01/04/2021 AP 3.5 3.5 Draft response to motion to intervene

Marciano 01/05/2021 AP 1 1 Email administrator; email SLR re settlement challenges and second distribution

Marciano 1/6/2021 AP 0.3 0.3 Emails with OC; co-counsel

Arbitration 1/6/2021 AK 0.3 0.3 Emails with arbitration claimant

Marciano 01/07/2021 AP 0.5 0.5 Review and file amendment to settlement


Arbitration 1/12/2021 AK 0.3 0.3 Arbitration update for

51



Marciano 1/14/2021 AP 0.2 0.2 Emails re scheduling and briefing

Arbitration 1/18/2021 AK 1.2 1.2 Updates to arbitration claimants

Marciano 1/20/2021 AP 0.2 0.2 Emails re scheduling; email to clerk

Marciano 1/20/2021 AK 0.1 0.1 Email from court re scheduling hearing

Magana 1/22/2021 AP 0.3 0.3 Review Ninth Circuit joint status report; email OC

Arbitration 1/22/2021 AK 0.1 0.1 Email to arbitration claimants

Marciano 1/25/2021 AP 1 1 Review objection

Marciano 1/25/2021 AK 0.8 0.8 Reviewing Graves firm objection

Marciano 01/26/2021 AP 0.2 0.2 Email opposing counsel; review objection

Marciano 1/26/2021 AK 0.2 0.2 Emails with DD re Graves firm objection

Marciano 01/28/2021 AP 2.5 2.5 Call opposing counsel; draft response to objection

Marciano 1/28/2021 AK 0.1 0.1 Emails with DD and Graves firm re scheduling

Marciano 01/29/2021 AP 2.7 2.7 Revise response to objections

Marciano 02/01/2021 AP 0.5 0.5 Discuss updated review of related cases in Attachment 1

Marciano 02/02/2021 AP 4 4

Review and analyze updated settlement data; update and revise chart of related actions; revise opposition and send to opposing counsel; review petition to intervene

Marciano 2/3/2021 AP 1 1 Revisions to briefing; emails to OC; internal discussions


Arbitration 2/8/2021 AK 0.1 0.1 Status update to

Marciano 2/8/2021 AK 0.7 0.7 Reviewing Graves firm intervention motion

Marciano 2/9/2021 AP 0.5 0.5 Review and discuss ex parte motion to intervene

52



Marciano 02/10/2021 AP 2 2 Draft opposition to motion to intervene

Marciano 02/11/2021 AP 1 1 Revise opposition to motion to intervene

Marciano 2/12/2021 AP 1 1 Finalize and file opposition to motion to intervene

Marciano 02/15/2021 AP 0.5 0.5 Call and email opposing counsel

Marciano 02/16/2021 AP 1 1 Review previous data and create updated spreadsheet of data we had over time

Marciano 02/17/2021 AP 0.4 0.4 Call with co-counsel in preparation for mediation

Marciano 2/17/2021 AK 0.1 0.1 Court scheduling emails

Marciano 02/18/2021 AP 3 3 Prepare for and attend mediation

Austin 2/22/2021 AP 0.4 0.4 Draft and email OC re First Circuit status report

Marciano 02/24/2021 MRC 0.3 0.3 Email correspondence w A. Pagano regarding claim valuation

Marciano 02/26/2021 MRC 0.4 0.4 Email correspondence w A. Pagano regarding claim valuations

Marciano 02/26/2021 AP 0.6 0.6 Emails re valuation of claims; emails re response to court's tentative

Austin 03/02/2021 AP 2 2 Finish draft mediation update for Tripper Ortmann; email opposing counsel

Marciano 3/4/2021 AK 0.1 0.1 Court scheduling emails

Austin 03/09/2021 AP 0.7 0.7 Email opposing counsel; draft response to motion to intervene, incorporating prior briefing

Marciano 3/10/2021 AP 3 3 Review mediation data; discuss; update calculations

53



Austin 3/12/2021 AP 0.2 0.2 Email correspondence with named plaintiff


Marciano 3/17/2021 AP 1 1 Email OC; discuss mediation

Marciano 3/18/2021 AP 3 3 Prepare for and attend follow up mediation

Austin 03/22/2021 AP 0.3 0.3 Status report re settlement First Circuit

Magana 3/25/2021 AP 0.4 0.4 Draft status report for Ninth Circuit and email OC


Marciano 03/26/2021 AP 1 1 Draft mini mediation statement

Marciano 3/29/2021 AP 0.4 0.4 Review the LA complex division checklist for class settlements

Marciano 03/30/2021 AP 2 2

Review redlined settlement agreement, notice, proposed order, amended complaint; review data and claim valuation calculations and discuss with R. Shuford

Marciano 03/30/2021 AP 0.5 0.5 Redline settlement documents

Marciano 3/31/2021 AP 0.5 0.5 Emails with OC; discuss mediation data calculations

Austin 04/01/2021 AP 0.5 0.5 Call with opposing counsel; email to related action plaintiff's counsel; draft notice of withdrawal

Marciano 04/02/2021 AP 3 3 Draft preliminary approval motion; review settlement papers and edits; email named plaintiffs

Marciano 04/04/2021 AP 0.5 0.5 Revise settlement papers

54



Marciano 04/05/2021 AP 6 6 Revise settlement papers; draft preliminary approval motion and declarations

Marciano 04/06/2021 AP 4 4 Revise settlement papers; emails to opposing counsel and other class counsel firms

Marciano 4/6/2021 AK 2.1 2.1

Research on timing of payout for class/paga settlement based on multiple factors - "effective date"

Marciano 04/07/2021 AP 1 1 Emails with co-counsel and opposing counsel

Marciano 04/08/2021 AP 2 2 Email co-counsel; revise settlement briefing

Marciano 04/09/2021 AP 3.5 3.5

Review revisions to motion for preliminary approval and declarations; emails with opposing counsel and co-counsel; call co-counsel

Marciano 04/12/2021 AP 0.3 0.3 Email opposing counsel; review redlines

Marciano 04/12/2021 AP 0.5 0.5 Revise Liss-Riordan Declaration; email co-counsel

Marciano 4/13/2021 AP 2.5 2.5 Email correspondence with OC, co-counsel; revisions to settlement papers

Marciano 4/14/2021 AP 1.5 1.5 Revisions to Declaration and Motion; email co-counsel; email OC

Marciano 4/15/2021 AP 1 1 Revisions to Liss-Riordan Declaration; emails with co-counsel

Marciano 04/16/2021 AP 3 3 Finalize settlement papers



Discussion re arbitration claimant status update question and prop 22

55



Marciano 4/27/2021 AP 0.3 0.3 Email correspondence with arbitration claimant and OC re compliance with Prop 22

Roussel 4/29/2021 AP 0.2 0.2 Review draft CMC statement

Marciano 4/29/2021 AP 0.5 0.5 Review minute order; discuss

Roussel 4/29/2021 AK 0.3 0.3 Reviewing draft of joint CMS

Roussel 5/1/2021 AP 0.1 0.1 Review finalized CMC statement

Marciano 5/4/2021 AP 0.4 0.4 Email correspondence with arbitration claimant and OC re compliance with Prop 22

Marciano 5/10/2021 AP 0.2 0.2 Prepare and file joint status report with First Circuit

Austin 05/11/2021 AP 0.4 0.4 Draft Joint CMS

Roussel 5/11/2021 AK 0.2 0.2 Reviewing/saving notice continuing CMC; calendar dates

Marciano 5/12/2021 AP 0.1 0.1 Email from OC re filing

Marciano 05/24/2021 AP 0.5 0.5 Review ruling re supplemental briefing

Marciano 05/24/2021 AK 0.5 0.5 Review and discuss supplemental briefing

Marciano 5/25/2021 AP 0.5 0.5 Review declaration from co-counsel; discuss additional declarations and tentative ruling

Marciano 05/27/2021 AP 1.7 1.7

Review tentative in detail and outline response and questions; call with opposing counsel; draft email to settlement administrator re questions on DoorDash settlement

Marciano 06/01/2021 AP 2 2 Draft declarations; call with co-counsel; email to clients

Marciano 06/02/2021 AP 1 1 Call and follow up email to administrator regarding revised quote and supplemental briefing

56



Marciano 06/03/2021 AP 3.3 3.3 Update plaintiff declarations; discuss with staff; draft supplemental briefing

Marciano 6/7/2021 AP 0.1 0.1 Email from co-counsel with declarations

Marciano 06/08/2021 AP 2 2 Research; draft supplemental briefing

Marciano 06/09/2021 AP 3 3 Draft briefing; email settlement administrator

Austin 06/09/2021 AP 0.5 0.5 Draft joint status report; email OC; coordinate filing

Arbitration 6/10/2021 AK 0.4 0.4 Status update to arbitration claimant

Marciano 6/11/2021 AP 0.4 0.4 Email from co-counsel with declaration; discussion re claim form process

Marciano 6/12/2021 AP 0.3 0.3 Emails with co-counsel re declarations

Marciano 06/14/2021 AP 3 3

Revise administrator declaration; email opposing counsel; draft Liss-Riordan Decl; revise briefing; email opposing counsel; call with administrator

Marciano 6/15/2021 AP 0.4 0.4 Email correspondence with co-counsel re declarations; review statistics for previous settlements

Marciano 06/16/2021 AP 4.5 4.5 Draft Liss-Riordan declaration; revise administrator declaration and exhibits; revise brief

Marciano 06/17/2021 AP 5 5 Supplemental briefing; review data and estimates; finalize everything for filing

Marciano 06/17/2021 AK 1 1 Assist with final revisions and finalizing documents for filing

57



Marciano 6/18/2021 AP 0.2 0.2 Review final, filed documents; email from co-counsel

Marciano 06/28/2021 AP 1 1 Review tentative ruling; discuss internally

Marciano 06/29/2021 AP 2 2 Redline notice and settlement agreement; call with opposing counsel

Marciano 06/30/2021 AP 1 1 Review mock-ups; email administrator; draft supplemental briefing

Marciano 6/30/2021 AK 0.3 0.3 Discussion re third party settlement administration costs and procedures

Marciano 7/1/2021 AP 0.5 0.5 Emails with administrator; co-counsel

Marciano 7/2/2021 AP 1 1 Revisions to mock-up settlement documents; correspondence with settlement administrator

Marciano 7/3/2021 AP 0.1 0.1 Email from OC re filing

Marciano 7/6/2021 AP 0.5 0.5 Emails with co-counsel re upcoming hearing; email with administrator re mock-up documents for filing

Marciano 7/7/2021 AP 0.1 0.1 Email inquiry from putative settlement class member

Marciano 7/8/2021 AP 1 1 Emails with co-counsel re fully executed settlement agreement; email to OC; email inquiry from arbitration client

Marciano 07/09/2021 AP 3 3

Discuss court's order; Draft proposed order; emails to co-counsel and opposing counsel; final revisions to settlement agreement; collect signatures

Marciano 07/10/2021 AP 1.5 1.5

Emails to co-counsel regarding proposed order and executed settlement agreement; emails to opposing counsel and administrator regarding preliminary approval and schedule for sending notice

58



Marciano 7/11/2021 AP 0.2 0.2 Emails with OC and co-counsel re preliminary approval hearing

Austin 7/12/2021 AP 0.3 0.3 Review joint motion to file status report instanter

Marciano 7/12/2021 AP 0.4 0.4 Debrief settlement approval hearing

Marciano 07/13/2021 AP 1 1 Emails with settlement administrator; co-counsel regarding logistics for notice

Marciano 7/13/2021 AK 0.2 0.2 Reviewing notice of ruling from Marko case

Austin 7/14/2021 AP 0.4 0.4 Draft and file First Circuit status report; emails to OC

Marciano 7/14/2021 AP 0.3 0.3 Emails with administrator

Marciano 7/16/2021 AP 0.3 0.3 Emails with arbitration client

Magana 7/18/2021 AK 0.1 0.1 Reviewing ECF notification re referral based on related cases

Marciano 7/20/2021 AP 0.1 0.2 Email re settlement class member

Magana 7/21/2021 AP 0.3 0.3 Review Ninth Cir. Status Report; emails with OC re data for settlement administrator

Marciano 7/22/2021 AP 0.2 0.2 Emails with OC re settlement data and timing

Roussel 8/2/2021 AP 0.2 0.2 Discussions with client

Marciano 8/10/2021 AP 0.3 0.3 Emails with administrator, OC

Austin 8/11/2021 AP 0.3 0.3 Draft First Circuit status report and email OC

Marciano 8/13/2021 AP 0.3 0.3 Emails with administrator, co-counsel re notice process

Marciano 8/16/2021 AP 0.5 0.5 Call with settlement administrator; email follow up

Marciano 8/18/2021 AP 0.3 0.3 Emails with administrator

59



Marciano 8/19/2021 AP 1 1 Email correspondence re notice process; review mock-ups

Marciano 8/20/2021 AP 0.5 0.5 Review claim form and email notice; email administrator with revisions

Marciano 8/20/2021 AP 0.4 0.4 Email OC and administrator re notice dates

Arbitration 8/20/2021 AK 0.1 0.1 Reviewing abbayance fees from AAA for stayed arbitrations

Marciano 8/23/2021 AP 0.3 0.3 Call with OC; email with administrator

Marciano 8/25/2021 AP 0.3 0.3 Emails with administrator re notice process

Marciano 8/26/2021 AP 0.3 0.3 Emails with administrator re notice process

Marciano 8/30/2021 AP 0.5 0.5 Outreach to class members re settlement; review reporting metrics with administrator

Marciano 8/31/2021 AP 1 1

Review and revise deadline chart for settlement date tracking; email OC and administrator; emails with administrator re notice

Marciano 9/1/2021 AP 0.4 0.4

Emails with class member re claim filing credentials; emails with administrator re class member inquiries and scheduling call

Marciano 9/2/2021 AP 0.7 0.7 Call with administrator about notice process; discuss internally

Marciano 9/2/2021 AP 0.5 0.5 Emails to class members re filing credentials for settlement; email correspondence with named plaintiff re claim status

Marciano 9/3/2021 AP 0.7 0.7 Outreach to class members re settlement; discuss inquiries with staff; call with arbitration client re settlement

Marciano 9/7/2021 AP 0.5 0.5 Email with arbitrator; emails with class members regarding filing claims

60



Marciano 9/7/2021 AP 0.7 0.7 Discuss email and text message reminders with OC and administrator; outreach to class members with questions

Marciano 9/7/2021 LC 2 2 Research re mega settlements

Marciano 9/7/2021 LC 3 3 Research re mega settlements, attorneys fees

Marciano 9/8/2021 AP 1.5 1.5

Emails to co-counsel; call with arbitration client; email to OC re arbitration clients; review draft declarations for named plaintiffs

Arbitration 9/8/2021 AK 0.2 0.2 Discussion re status update for claimant

Marciano 9/8/2021 AK 0.5 0.5 Discussion re procedures for arbitration claimants on class list


Emails re obtaining alternate info for arbitration claimants with missing info for settlement payments

Marciano 9/9/2021 AP 0.2 0.2 Email administrator and OC re opt out request

Marciano 9/9/2021 AK 0.1 0.1 Emails with DD re arbitration claimant list

Marciano 9/10/2021 AP 0.3 0.3 Discuss named plaintiff declarations with staff; draft declarations

Marciano 9/10/2021 AP 0.3 0.3 Review status of arbitration claimants in settlement; email OC

Austin 9/10/2021 AP 0.3 0.3 Draft status report; email OC re upcoming report due date

Marciano 9/10/2021 LC 2 2 Research for attorneys fees brief

Marciano 9/10/2021 AK 0.4 0.4 Discussion re procedures for arbitration claimants on class list


61



Austin 9/13/2021 AP 0.1 0.1 File status report

Marciano 9/13/2021 AP 1 1 Review time and cost report; format for attorneys fees motion

Marciano 9/13/2021 LC 3 3 Research

Marciano 9/14/2021 AP 0.4 0.4 Draft email to arbitration clients regarding settlement; review list of arbitration clients; discuss internally


Marciano 9/14/2021 AK 0.2 0.2 Proof read email status update for claimants




Marciano 9/15/2021 AP 4 4 Draft attorneys fees motion

Magana 9/15/2021 AP 0.3 0.3 Draft Ninth Cir. status report; email OC

Marciano 9/15/2021 AK 0.2 0.2 Reviewing test email/proof reading for claimants on class list

Marciano 9/16/2021 AP 0.4 0.4 Review statistics regarding notice results; review opt out requests

Marciano 9/16/2021 AP 1 1 Review named plaintiff declarations; call with client

Marciano 9/17/2021 AP 7 7 Draft attorneys fees motion; research for attorneys fees motion

Marciano 9/18/2021 AP 2 2 Drafting attorneys fees briefing

Marciano 9/20/2021 AP 5 5 Draft declaration in support of attorneys fees; call with co-counsel; emails to co-counsel re declarations

Marciano 9/22/2021 AP 6 6 revisions to fee briefing; discuss with S. Liss-Riordan; review staff time records

62



Marciano 9/23/2021 AP 2 2 Call with co-counsel; draft revised fee sharing agreement; calls/emails to co-counsel

Marciano 9/24/2021 AP 0.4 0.4 Call with administrator re claim rate & reminders

Marciano 9/24/2021 AP 2 2 Revisions to attorneys fees briefing; emails with co-counsel and named plaintiff

Marciano 9/25/2021 AP 4 4 Revisions to fee briefing

1130.4 642 263 47.3 8.7 72 98.2

EXHIBIT M

1

Case

Date

Staff Member

Total Hours Description

Austin 11/3/2017 MF 0.5 submitting waiver of service to clerk

Austin 12/20/2017 MF 0.5 updating case files

Austin 1/3/2018 MF 0.3 filing mot for time

Austin 1/5/2018 MF 1 calling judge/clerk re mot for time

Austin 1/23/2018 MF 0.5 finalize and file brief

Austin 1/24/2018 MF 1 sending courtesy copies to court

Austin 2/9/2018 MF 0.5 finalize and file brief

Austin 2/26/2018 MF 0.2 finalize and file motion

Austin 2/27/2018 MF 0.2 file mot for surreply and exhibits

Austin 3/2/2018 MF 0.4 file surreply

Arbitrations 3/7/2018 MF 0.1 corresponding with clients

Magana 5/4/2018 MF 0.5 corresponding with clients

Magana 5/7/2018 MF 0.5 phone call with client

Magana 5/8/2018 MF 2 file complaint/starting docs

Magana 5/8/2018 MF 0.6 corresponding with clients

Marciano 5/8/2018 MF 1 finalizing and filing and sending PAGA letters

Arbitrations 5/11/2018 MF 0.2 updating case files


Marciano 5/15/2018 MF 0.5 meeting with Adelaide

Magana 5/22/2018 MF 0.2 file proof of service of summons

Arbitrations 6/7/2018 MF 0.75 talking to client on phone

Magana 6/8/2018 MF 0.5 prepping docs for SLR

Marciano 6/8/2018 MF 0.5 meeting with Adelaide

Marciano 6/12/2018 MF 4 making spreadsheet of Cristini pay records

Magana 6/14/2018 MF 0.3 file magistrate declination

Magana 6/18/2018 MF 0.2 order hearing transcript


Marciano 6/26/2018 MF 0.5 updating client docs, earnings

Marciano 7/5/2018 MF 2 filing complaint and add'l docs

2

Case

Date

Staff Member


Marciano 7/11/2018 MF 0.2 ordering service of complaint

Arbitrations 7/18/2018 MF 2 prepping arb demands

Marciano 7/25/2018 MF 0.2 arranging for courtesy copies for court of brief


Marciano 7/27/2018 RMS 0.5 Discuss case; assist with filing

Marciano 8/1/2018 MF 0.3 format fixing, filing opp to complex

Marciano 8/1/2018 MF 1.5 researching related cases

Magana 8/3/2018 RMS 1.8 preparing and filing brief - motion for protective order

Magana 8/6/2018 MF 0.8 speaking to emailing clerk re motion hearing dates

Magana 8/7/2018 MF 0.3 meeting with Adelaide about mot to shorten time

Magana 8/7/2018 MF 0.4 researching related cases

Magana 8/7/2018 MF 0.2 fix brief formatting

Magana 8/8/2018 MF 0.2 arranging for courtesy copies for court of brief

Magana 8/9/2018 MF 12 tabling and filing brief, proposed order

Magana 8/9/2018 MF 0.7 filing and courtesy copies of mot withdrawal


Magana 8/13/2018 MF 4 tabling and filing brief


Arbitrations 8/30/2018 MF 1 completing and sending conflict checklists


Magana 8/30/2018 MF 4 tabling and filing brief

Magana 9/5/2018 MF 4 tabling brief


Magana 9/12/2018 MF 0.2 file NOSA

Magana 9/14/2018 MF 0.2 prepping documents for Shannon to review



Magana 9/25/2018 MF 0.2 file brief


3

Case

Date

Staff Member


Magana 10/4/2018 MF 0.2 ordering transcript of hearing

Marciano 10/15/2018 MF 0.4 calling CA sec of state re filed statement of info

Marciano 10/24/2018 MF 7 prepping, tabling, formatting, filing brief and exhibits


Marciano 10/26/2018 MF 0.2 prepping docs for SLR

Marciano 10/29/2018 MF 0.2 updating case files

Marciano 10/30/2018 MF 4 filing and serving on Def


Marciano 10/31/2018 MF 0.1 updating case files

Marciano 11/7/2018 MF 0.2 researching judge

Austin 11/8/2018 MF 0.3 corresponding with clients



Magana 11/19/2018 MF 0.75 filing appeal

Marciano 11/20/2018 MF 2 training re tabling brief and filing procedures

Marciano 11/20/2018 NM 2 tabling brief

Arbitrations 11/28/2018 MF 1.5 formatting arbitration brief, fixing exhibits etc


Marciano 12/4/2018 MF 2 putting together a brief for SLR with relevant documents

Marciano 12/4/2018 MF 5 tabling and filing brief

Marciano 12/6/2018 MF 0.2 arranging courtesy copies to be sent to chambers

Marciano 12/12/2018 MF 0.2 ordering transcript of hearing

Magana 12/13/2018 MF 5 working on record appendix excerpts

Arbitrations 12/18/2018 MF 0.2 emailing re arbitration client

Arbitrations 12/19/2018 MF 1 prepping survey to clients

Magana 12/21/2018 MF 6 prepping exhibits and tabling brief

Magana 1/4/2019 MF 0.2 prepping documents for review by attorneys

Arbitrations 1/7/2019 MF 1 cleaning survey spreadsheet


4

Case

Date

Staff Member



Austin 1/9/2019 MF 1 pulling docket reports from related doordash cases


Austin 1/10/2019 MF 0.2 updating list for writ petition


Austin 1/16/2019 MF 0.2 filing NOSA

Roussel 1/16/2019 MF 0.3 resending PAGA letter

Roussel 1/17/2019 MF 1 filing new complaint

Austin 1/17/2019 MF 0.2 filing NOSA

Roussel 1/17/2019 MF 1 prepping summons, civil cover sheet




Arbitrations 2/1/2019 MF 3 coordinating client information and retainers

Arbitrations 2/5/2019 MF 1 updating client information

Austin 2/7/2019 MF 0.3 file NOSA

Arbitrations 2/7/2019 MF 1 updating client information

Arbitrations 2/8/2019 MF 0.8 talking to client on phone

Arbitrations 2/11/2019 MF 1 compiling arb selection lists




Arbitrations 2/15/2019 MF 1 corresponding with clients



Arbitrations 2/22/2019 MF 1 revising and sending arb selection lists to AAA

Austin 3/1/2019 MF 0.2 preparing docs for SLR review



5

Case

Date

Staff Member




Roussel 3/12/2019 MF 0.3 arranging for service, filing of amended complaint










Roussel 4/4/2019 MF 0.2 filing proof of service - amended complaint


Magana 4/16/2019 MF 5 tabling brief, pulling excerpts to file


Arbitrations 4/18/2019 MF 0.3 compiling caselaw research






Arbitrations 5/15/2019 MF 0.3 admin relating to arb selection


Roussel 5/28/2019 MF 0.3 prepping related case info for CMS



Roussel 6/4/2019 MF 0.4 prepared and filed case management statement, proof of service,


6

Case

Date

Staff Member


Magana 6/17/2019 MF 0.2 filed availability form

Magana 6/17/2019 MF 0.2 filed availability form

Arbitrations 6/25/2019 MF 0.1 corresponding with clients requesting retainer





Magana 7/3/2019 MF 2.5 tabling and filing reply brief


Magana 7/3/2019 MF 2.5 tabling and filing reply brief

Marciano 7/9/2019 MF 0.5 prepare and file case management statement

Marciano 7/9/2019 MF 0.5 prepare and file case management statement



Magana 7/22/2019 MJC 0.1 calendaring

Arbitrations 7/24/2019 MJC 0.1 corresponding with clients requesting retainer




Arbitrations 8/5/2019 MJC 0.2 saving new arbitration retainers






Arbitrations 8/23/2019 MJC 1 corresponding with clients requesting retainer


Arbitrations 8/27/2019 MJC 1 corresponding with clients requesting retainer

Marciano 8/27/2019 RMS 0.1 discussing upcoming calculations requirements with A. Pagano

7

Case

Date

Staff Member



Marciano 9/3/2019 MJC 0.5 slipsheeting/prepping exhibits for mediation statement


Marciano 9/3/2019 RMS 6 damages calculations in preparation for mediation; discuss with counsel

Marciano 9/4/2019 RMS Discussion of damages calculations; additional calculations

Marciano 9/5/2019 MJC 2.5 preparing mediation binders for SLR and AHP

Arbitration 9/19/2019 Staff 1 Survey creation, client e-mail campaign for updated contact information

Magana 10/1/2019 MJC 2 preparing hearing binders for SLR

Magana 10/2/2019 MJC 0.2 discussing with 9th circuit clerk re hearing dates

Magana 10/2/2019 MJC 0.2 filing motion to vacate oral argument

Marciano 10/3/2019 MJC 0.2 consolidate all plaintiff contact details

Marciano 10/10/2019 MJC 0.1 researching other doordash complaints

Marciano 10/23/2019 SK 0.5 Prelim meeting re settlement admin

Marciano 10/24/2019 MJC 0.5 calling court re reserving courtroom

Marciano 10/29/2019 MJC 0.1 corresponding to change courtroom reservations

Marciano 10/30/2019 MJC 0.1 corresponding to change courtroom reservations

Marciano 11/1/2019 JH 0.5 filing a case management statement

Marciano 11/1/2019 SK 0.5 Prelim call w administrator to discuss estimate

Roussel 11/5/2019 MJC 0.2 filed stop to continue case management hearing

Arbitration 11/7/2019 Staff 0.2 Client communication regarding arbitration






Arbitration 11/15/2019 Staff 1 Process intake forms



Marciano 11/21/2019 JH 0.3 sending copy of filing to Keith Yandell via certified mail

8

Case

Date

Staff Member


Marciano 11/21/2019 JH 2 prepping and filing motion for preliminary settlement approval, writing proposed order

Magana 11/21/2019 MJC 0.2 corresponding with client

Magana 11/22/2019 MJC 0.3 corresponding with client, AP about client

Marciano 11/22/2019 MJC 0.1 arranging courtesy copies to be delivered




Magana 12/2/2019 MJC 0.2 filed joint status report





Arbitration 12/9/2019 Staff 1 Arbitration administration; Client communication regarding arbitration

Marciano 12/10/2019 MJC 1.5 tables and filing reply in opp of non party objector


Marciano 12/11/2019 JH 0.5 refiling reply in opp of non party objector


Marciano 12/12/2019 MJC 0.1 calendaring

Arbitration 12/12/2019 Staff 0.5 Process intake forms

Marciano 12/13/2019 MJC 2 create a binder of settlement papers


Arbitrations 12/17/2019 MJC 0.2 call from class member with questions about case status

Arbitration 12/17/2019 Staff 0.5 Internal communication and planning


Marciano 12/19/2019 MJC 0.1 arranging courtesy copies to be delivered

Marciano 12/19/2019 MJC 0.2 filed a stipulation and proof of service


Marciano 1/6/2020 MJC 0.1 file case management statement


9

Case

Date

Staff Member



Marciano 1/8/2020 MJC 0.2 prepare documents for SLR review


Marciano 1/8/2020 Staff 1 Research on related cases


Marciano 1/10/2020 MJC 2 prepared, updated proof of service, tabled, and filed Consolidated opposition to motions to intervene









Marciano 1/21/2020 Staff 0.2 Putative class member communication

Marciano 1/22/2020 MJC 0.2 prepare documents for SLR review

Marciano 1/22/2020 MJC 1 prepped binder of case documents for preliminary approval hearing



Marciano 1/23/2020 MJC 0.1 filed reply ISO prelim In Opp to Cho

Marciano 1/27/2020 MJC 0.1 emailing with MC re clients and hearing



Magana 1/31/2020 MJC 0.1 filed status report





10

Case

Date

Staff Member

















Marciano 2/13/2020 MJC 0.2 prepping documents for submission to the complex litigation department














11

Case

Date

Staff Member



Arbitration 2/17/2020 Staff 0.3 Client Communication





Austin 2/20/2020 MJC 0.2 filing Notice of appeal










Marciano 2/27/2020 MJC 0.2 talked to the clerk about upcoming CMC








Marciano 3/4/2020 MJC 0.1 calendaring, updating case documents





12

Case

Date

Staff Member










Austin 3/16/2020 MJC 2 filing notices of appearances, transcript reports, docketing statement, certificate of service

Marciano 3/16/2020 MJC 0.5 prepping a Opp to intervenors for filing







Marciano 3/18/2020 MJC 0.3 prepare and attend weekly status meeting re gig economy litigation (DoorDash)

Austin 3/18/2020 MJC 0.1 calendaring












13

Case

Date

Staff Member






Magana 3/31/2020 MJC 0.2 filed a joint status report








Roussel 4/1/2020 MJC 0.1 calendaring














Marciano 4/14/2020 MJC 0.1 updated case files



14

Case

Date

Staff Member



Austin 4/20/2020 MJC 0.3 filed a joint motion




Marciano 4/27/2020 MJC 0.1 updating case files

Marciano 4/29/2020 MJC 0.4 converting tentative ruling to Word





Marciano 5/5/2020 MJC 0.5 corresponding with clients re case status

Marciano 5/6/2020 MJC 0.5 calling clients about their declarations


Marciano 5/7/2020 MJC 0.5 calling clients and preparing declaration drafts



Marciano 5/8/2020 MJC 0.2 calling clients and setting up future phone calls


Marciano 5/13/2020 MJC 2 calling clients and preparing declaration drafts




Marciano 5/14/2020 MJC 0.5 calling client about declaration

Marciano 5/14/2020 MJC 0.5 revising declaration drafts





15

Case

Date

Staff Member





Marciano 5/19/2020 MJC 1 revising declaration drafts


Marciano 5/20/2020 MJC 0.5 calling clients about declarations final details









Marciano 5/26/2020 MJC 0.5 corresponding with clients re case status





Magana 5/28/2020 MJC 0.2 filed status report







Marciano 6/4/2020 MJC 0.5 sending out declarations for signature, follow up phone calls


Marciano 6/8/2020 MJC 4 preparing tables, exhibits, proof of services, and filing briefs

16

Case

Date

Staff Member



Marciano 6/10/2020 MJC 0.3 setting up appearances for AP and SLR for hearing on preliminary approval




Marciano 6/16/2020 MJC 0.5 drafted and filed SLR notice of court call appearance




Marciano 6/19/2020 MJC 0.4 converted tentative ruling to Word

Marciano 6/19/2020 MJC 3.5 created virtual binders for hearing




Marciano 6/22/2020 Staff 0.8 Docket research for related cases

Marciano 6/23/2020 MJC 0.1 corresponded with Courtcall about upcoming hearing




Austin 6/25/2020 MJC 0.2 filed a status report






Marciano 6/30/2020 MJC 0.3 drafted notice of errata




17

Case

Date

Staff Member









Marciano 7/13/2020 RMS 1 Review and discuss damages calculations





Marciano 7/24/2020 MJC 4 prepped and filed Supplemental briefing






Marciano 7/27/2020 RMS 1 analyzed data and discussion with counsel


Magana 7/29/2020 MJC 0.1 updated case files









18

Case

Date

Staff Member











Austin 8/24/2020 MJC 0.2 filed joint status report







Arbitrations 8/27/2020 MJC 0.3 researched related cases



Roussel 8/28/2020 MJC 0.1 updated case files

Marciano 8/31/2020 MJC 0.1 processed new tentative ruling









19

Case

Date

Staff Member


Austin 9/23/2020 MJC 0.2 filed status report


Marciano 9/25/2020 KM 0.5 filed stipulation, ordered courtesy copies



Marciano 9/29/2020 MJC 0.2 spoke to clerk about deadlines and procedures


Marciano 9/30/2020 MJC 0.2 spoke to clerk

Marciano 9/30/2020 MJC 0.2 fixing and refiling stipulation













Arbitration 10/21/2020 Staff 1 Client communication regarding arbitration




Austin 10/23/2020 MJC 0.2 filing status report




20

Case

Date

Staff Member






Marciano 10/30/2020 MJC 0.1 prepping settlement agreement

Marciano 11/2/2020 MJC 2 tabled supplemental briefing and converted to word a tentative ruling

Marciano 11/2/2020 MJC 1 called named plaintiffs


Marciano 11/3/2020 RMS 3 Damages calculations


Marciano 11/4/2020 MJC 2 updated tables, made proof of service, prepped and filed a supplemental briefing


Marciano 11/4/2020 RMS 2 Damages calculations; discuss











Marciano 11/17/2020 MJC 0.1 saving documents to files






21

Case

Date

Staff Member






Magana 11/25/2020 MJC 0.1 saving documents to files


Arbitration 12/1/2020 Staff 1 Client communication regarding arbitration










Marciano 12/23/2020 MJC 0.4 calling court about hearing scheduled for January









Marciano 1/7/2021 MJC 0.5 filing amendment to Settlement, writing proof of service




22

Case

Date

Staff Member







Marko 1/22/2021 MJC 0.5 fixing and refiling amended settlement agreement

Austin 1/22/2021 MJC 0.3 filed status report



Marciano 1/23/2021 Staff 0.8 Client communication regarding arbitration













Marciano 2/3/2021 MJC 2 updated tables and filed response to objections







23

Case

Date

Staff Member







Marciano 2/17/2021 MJC 4 prepared a virtual binder for Liss-Riordan for hearing on prelim approval


Marciano 2/18/2021 MJC 0.3 saving documents to files






















24

Case

Date

Staff Member




Marciano 3/15/2021 RMS 0.5 discussed calculations with A. Pagano





Magana 3/25/2021 MJC 0.5 filed a status report

Marciano 3/25/2021 MJC 0.75 filed opposition to intervention




Marciano 3/30/2021 RMS 0.5 discussed calculations and valuation of claims with A. Pagano


Marko 4/2/2021 MJC 1 updated docket and case files

Marciano 4/2/2021 RMS 3 Assist with additional calculations and formatting of analysis; discuss with counsel

Marko 4/5/2021 MJC 0.1 preparing Farran document

Marciano 4/6/2021 MJC 0.5 filing withdrawal of motion for approval, drafting proof of service



Marko 4/9/2021 MJC 0.4 sending out settlement agreement to clients for signature


Marko 4/12/2021 MJC 0.3 following up with client re signature, updating master agreement

Marko 4/13/2021 MJC 0.5 updating table and drafting proof of service

Marciano 4/13/2021 RMS 4 Assist with additional calculations and formatting of analysis; discuss with counsel



Marciano 4/14/2021 RMS 0.1 assisting with preparation of filings


25

Case

Date

Staff Member


Marko 4/16/2021 MJC 2 preparing preliminary approval papers

Marciano 4/16/2021 RMS 1 Data analysis re valuation of claims






Marciano 4/21/2021 MJC 0.5 calling clerk about docket entry, corresponding with attorneys about same






Marko 4/29/2021 MJC 0.1 calendaring

Roussel 5/3/2021 MJC 0.3 saving documents to files










Marko 5/27/2021 MJC 1 converting tentative ruling to Word

Marciano 5/27/2021 MJC 0.75 filed joint CMS, arranged for courtesy copies to be produced




26

Case

Date

Staff Member





Marciano 6/2/2021 SK 1 Call w administrator re settlement admin

Marko 6/3/2021 MJC 4 calling named plaintiffs about declarations

Marciano 6/3/2021 RMS 2.5 calculations regarding settlements

Marko 6/4/2021 MJC 1 following up with plaintiffs about declarations

Marko 6/8/2021 MJC 3 called named plaintiffs to discuss declarations




Marko 6/11/2021 MJC 3 converting to Word and comparing different versions of settlement papers


Marciano 6/14/2021 SK 1 Call w administrator re settlement admin

Marko 6/16/2021 MJC 3 tabled supplemental briefing


Marko 6/17/2021 MJC 2 drafting proof of service and finalizing supplemental briefing

Marciano 6/17/2021 RMS 2.5 calculations regarding settlements











Marciano 6/28/2021 SK 0.3 Settlement notice prep

27

Case

Date

Staff Member





Marciano 6/30/2021 SK 1 Settlement notice prep




Marko 7/9/2021 MJC 2 prepping materials for attorneys for court hearing

Marko 7/9/2021 MJC 0.5 collected signatures for settlement agreement



Marko 7/12/2021 MJC 0.1 updating file with new documents

Austin 7/12/2021 MJC 0.5 filed motion to file joint report instanter

Marko 7/12/2021 MJC 0.3 prepping materials for attorneys for court hearing


Marko 7/13/2021 MJC 0.1 updating files with ECF filings

Marko 7/14/2021 MJC 0.5 combined the final settlement agreement signatures


Marciano 7/15/2021 MJC 0.1 sending correspondence to Michelle Cassorla











28

Case

Date

Staff Member







Marciano 8/27/2021 SK 1 Email correspondence w class members























Marciano 9/27/2021 SK 0.7 Settlement admin tasks

29

Case

Date

Staff Member



TOTAL HOURS: 445.1

EXHIBIT N

FEE-SHARING AGREEMENT AMONG PLAINTIFFS’ COUNSEL

The following plaintiffs and their counsel agree on the following fee-sharing agreement

for any fees awarded in the proposed settlement of Marko v. DoorDash Inc., Case No.

BC659841, (Los Angeles Superior Court) (“Marko”), Marciano v. DoorDash, Inc., CGC-18-

567869 (San Francisco Super. Ct.) (“Marciano”), and Austin v. DoorDash, Inc., No. 1:17-cv-

12498 (D. Mass.) and that was executed in July 2021. This Fee-Sharing Agreement specifically

includes any award of fees in connection with the settlement encompassing the above-referenced

matters as well as multiple other matters, negotiated in a series of mediations first with mediator

Mark Irvings and then with mediator Tripper Ortman between September 10, 2019 and March

18, 2021.

LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN P.C./REALLAW/ 41%

ABYE LAW OFFICES

LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 40%

CAPSTONE LAW APC 3%

AEGIS LAW FIRM, PC 4%

THE GRAVES FIRM APC 4%

THE PARRIS LAW FIRM 2%

ZIMMERMAN REED 4%

MOSS BOLLINGER 2%

Dated: September __, 2021 By: ____________________________

Todd M. Friedman

LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN

P.C.

Attorney for Plaintiffs DANIEL MARKO

AND JESUS CORONA


Mikael Abye

ABYE LAW OFFICES

Attorney for MILOS ANTIC

23

DocuSign Envelope ID: ECEC134E-2E30-405F-9703-2F10A7EB4F9B


Ari Moss

MOSS BOLLINGER

Attorneys for DAMONE BROWN

Dated: September __, 2021 By: __________________________

SUHAIL FARRAN

PLAINTIFF


DANA LOWE

PLAINTIFF


MILOS ANTIC

PLAINTIFF


KEVIN SAUNDERS

PLAINTIFF

Dated: September __, 2021 By:_____________________________

BRANDON CAMPBELL

PLAINTIFF


DANIEL MARKO

PLAINTIFF


JESUS CORONA

PLAINTIFF


CYNTHIA MARCIANO

PLAINTIFF


DAVID CRISTINI

PLAINTIFF

DocuSign Envelope ID: ECEC134E-2E30-405F-9703-2F10A7EB4F9B


Shannon Liss-Riordan LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. Attorney for Plaintiffs CYNTHIA MARCIANO, DAVID CRISTINI, MANUEL MAGANA, JARED ROUSSEL, and DARNELL AUSTIN

Dated: September __, 2021 By: ____________________________ Arnab Banerjee CAPSTONE LAW APC Attorney for DANA LOWE

Dated: September __, 2021 By: ____________________________ Kashif Haque

Jessica L. Campbell Suren Weerasuriya AEGIS LAW FIRM, PC

Attorneys for SUHAIL FARRAN

Dated: September __, 2021 By: ____________________________ Allen Graves

GRAVES LAW FIRM, APC

Attorney for KEVIN SAUNDERS

Dated: September __, 2021 By: ____________________________ R. Rex Parris Kitty K. Szeto John M. Bickford THE PARRIS LAW FIRM Attorneys for BRANDON CAMPBELL

Dated: September __, 2021 By: ____________________________ Caleb Marker

2424

Caleb Marker

9/24/2021 2:48 PM UTC

5742762670

76.171.35.181

38D9CEC0BB17AA3227790E57A06F79922A8DE20B1F7A5E3705256511EF3E43A8

Dated: September __, 2021 By: ____________________________ Shannon Liss-Riordan LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. Attorney for Plaintiffs CYNTHIA MARCIANO, DAVID CRISTINI, MANUEL MAGANA, JARED ROUSSEL, and DARNELL AUSTIN









Dated: September __, 2021 By: ____________________________ Caleb Marker

24

ZIMMERMAN REED

Dated: September __, 2021 By: ____________________________ Ari Moss MOSS BOLLINGER Attorneys for DAMONE BROWN


SUHAIL FARRAN PLAINTIFF

Dated: September __, 2021 By: __________________________ DANA LOWE PLAINTIFF

Dated: September __, 2021 By: __________________________ MILOS ANTIC PLAINTIFF

Dated: September __, 2021 By: __________________________ KEVIN SAUNDERS PLAINTIFF

Dated: September __, 2021 By:_____________________________ BRANDON CAMPBELL PLAINTIFF

Dated: September __, 2021 By: __________________________ DANIEL MARKO PLAINTIFF

Dated: September __, 2021 By: __________________________ JESUS CORONA PLAINTIFF

Dated: September __, 2021 By: __________________________ CYNTHIA MARCIANO PLAINTIFF

ZIMMERMAN REED


Ari Moss MOSS BOLLINGER Attorneys for DAMONE BROWN





MILOS ANTIC PLAINTIFF


KEVIN SAUNDERS PLAINTIFF


BRANDON CAMPBELL PLAINTIFF


DANIEL MARKO PLAINTIFF


JESUS CORONA PLAINTIFF


CYNTHIA MARCIANO PLAINTIFF

24

DocuSign Envelope ID: C1A70F12-E939-44EB-8396-BF9B79ACA3DA

Dated: September __, 2021 By: __________________________ DAVID CRISTINI PLAINTIFF


MANUEL MAGANA PLAINTIFF

Dated: September __, 2021 By:______________________________

JARED ROUSSEL PLAINTIFF


DARNELL AUSTIN PLAINTIFF

Dated: September __, 2021 By:______________________________ DAMONE BROWN PLAINTIFF

24

DocuSign Envelope ID: C1A70F12-E939-44EB-8396-BF9B79ACA3DA

Dated: September __, 2021 By: ____________________________ Shannon Liss-Riordan LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. Attorney for Plaintiffs CYNTHIA MARCIANO, DAVID CRISTINI, MANUEL MAGANA, JARED ROUSSEL, and DARNELL AUSTIN









Dated: September __, 2021 By: ____________________________ Caleb Marker ZIMMERMAN REED

��

24



















DAVID CRISTINI PLAINTIFF

��

��

Dated: September _27_, 2021 By: ____________________________

Shannon Liss-Riordan

LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.

Attorney for Plaintiffs CYNTHIA

MARCIANO, DAVID CRISTINI, MANUEL

MAGANA, JARED ROUSSEL, and

DARNELL AUSTIN


Arnab Banerjee

CAPSTONE LAW APC

Attorney for DANA LOWE


Kashif Haque

Jessica L. Campbell

Suren Weerasuriya

AEGIS LAW FIRM, PC



Allen Graves




R. Rex Parris

Kitty K. Szeto

John M. Bickford

THE PARRIS LAW FIRM

Attorneys for BRANDON CAMPBELL


Caleb Marker

ZIMMERMAN REED


Ari Moss

MOSS BOLLINGER

Attorneys for DAMONE BROWN


SUHAIL FARRAN

PLAINTIFF


DANA LOWE

PLAINTIFF


MILOS ANTIC

PLAINTIFF


KEVIN SAUNDERS

PLAINTIFF


BRANDON CAMPBELL

PLAINTIFF


DANIEL MARKO

PLAINTIFF


JESUS CORONA

PLAINTIFF


CYNTHIA MARCIANO

PLAINTIFF

24


DAVID CRISTINI

PLAINTIFF


MANUEL MAGANA

PLAINTIFF


JARED ROUSSEL

PLAINTIFF


DARNELL AUSTIN

PLAINTIFF


DAMONE BROWN

PLAINTIFF

24

24

24

24

Dated: September __, 2021 By: ____________________________ Shannon Liss-Riordan LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.

Attorney for Plaintiffs CYNTHIA MARCIANO, DAVID CRISTINI, MANUEL MAGANA, JARED ROUSSEL, and DARNELL AUSTIN

Dated: September __, 2021 By: ____________________________ Raul Perez CAPSTONE LAW APC








Dated: September __, 2021 By: ____________________________ R. Rex ParrisKitty K. SzetoJohn M. BickfordTHE PARRIS LAW FIRM

Attorneys for BRANDON CAMPBELL

Dated: September __, 2021 By: ____________________________ Caleb Marker ZIMMERMAN REED

DocuSign Envelope ID: 6769F2CD-D967-413C-A29D-197F2ED40969

27



















DAVID CRISTINI PLAINTIFF

DocuSign Envelope ID: 6769F2CD-D967-413C-A29D-197F2ED40969

9/24/2021

EXHIBIT O

FEE-SHARING AGREEMENT AMONG PLAINTIFFS’ COUNSEL The following plaintiffs and their counsel agree on the following fee-sharing agreement for any fees awarded in the proposed settlement of Marciano v. DoorDash, Inc., CGC-18-567869 (San Francisco Super. Ct.) (“Marciano”), Austin v. DoorDash, Inc., No. 1:17-cv-12498 (D. Mass.) and Marko v. DoorDash, Case No. BC659841, (Los Angeles Superior Court) (”Marko”) that was executed on April 6, 2021. This Fee-Sharing Agreement specifically includes any award of fees in connection with the settlement encompassing the above-referenced matters as well as multiple other matters, negotiated in a series of mediations first with mediator Mark Irvings and then with mediator Tripper Ortman between September 10, 2019 and March 18, 2021. No additional parties may participate in fee-sharing related to the settlement described herein without the approval of all other participants. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN P.C./REALLAW 41% less $40,000 LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 46% CAPSTONE LAW APC 3% AEGIS LAW FIRM, PC 4% ABYE LAW OFFICES $40,000 THE GRAVES FIRM APC 4% THE PARRIS LAW FIRM 2% Dated: April __, 2021 By: ____________________________

Todd M. Friedman LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN P.C. Attorney for Plaintiffs DANIEL MARKO AND JESUS CORONA

Dated: April __, 2021 By: ____________________________ Shannon Liss-Riordan LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.

Attorney for Plaintiffs CYNTHIA MARCIANO, DAVID CRISTINI, DARNELL AUSTIN, MANUEL MAGANA, and JARED ROUSSEL

Dated: April__, 2021 By: ____________________________ Arnab Banerjee CAPSTONE LAW APC


Dated: April __, 2021 By: ____________________________ Kashif Haque Jessica L. Campbell Suren Weerasuriya AEGIS LAW FIRM, PC

Attorney for SUHAIL FARRAN

Dated: April __, 2021 By: ____________________________ Mikael Abye ABYE LAW OFFICES

Attorney for MILOS ANTIC

Dated: April __, 2021 By: ____________________________ Allen Graves THE GRAVES FIRM APC


6

Dated: April __, 2021 By: ____________________________ R. Rex Parris Kitty K. Szeto John M. Bickford THE PARRIS LAW FIRM Attorney for BRANDON CAMPBELL

Dated: April__, 2021 Dated: April __, 2021 Dated: April __, 2021 Dated: April ___, 2021 Dated: April ___, 2021 Dated: April ___, 2021 Dated: April ___, 2021

By: __________________________ DANIEL MARKO PLAINTIFF By: __________________________ JESUS CORONA PLAINTIFF By: __________________________ CYNTHIA MARCIANO PLAINTIFF By: __________________________ DAVID CRISTINI PLAINTIFF By:_____________________________ MANUEL MAGANA PLAINTIFF By:______________________________ JARED ROUSSEL PLAINTIFF By:______________________________ DARNELL AUSTIN PLAINTIFF

Dated: April__, 2021 Dated: April __, 2021 Dated: April __, 2021 Dated: April ___, 2021 Dated: April ___, 2021

By: __________________________ SUHAIL FARRAN PLAINTIFF By: __________________________ DANA LOWE PLAINTIFF By: __________________________ MILOS ANTIC PLAINTIFF By: __________________________ KEVIN SAUNDERS PLAINTIFF By:_____________________________ BRANDON CAMPBELL PLAINTIFF