Case3:13-cv-00581-WHO Document1 Filed02/11/13 Page1 of 52

1 Janette Wipper (SBN 275264) Felicia Medina (SBN 255804)
2 SANFORD HEISLER, LLP 3 555 Montgomery Street, Suite 1206
San Francisco, CA 94111 4 (415) 795-2020 (main)
(415) 795-2021 (fax) 5 jwipper@sanfordheisler.com
finedina@sanfordheisler.com 6
7 Attorneys for the Plaintiffs and the Class

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

lO SARA WELLENS, KELLY JENSEN,

)

11 JACQUELINE PENA, BERNICE

)

GIOVANNI, LARA HOLLINGER,

)

12 and JENNIFER BENNIE

)

on behalf ofthemselves and all others

)

13 similarly situated,

)

14

)

PLAINTIFFS,

)

15

)

v.

)

16

)

DAIICHI SANKYO, INC.

)

17

)

18

)

DEFENDANT.

)

19 ~------------------------------

c

0581

CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

20

Plaintiffs Sara Wellens, Kelly Jensen, Jacqueline Pena, Bernice Giovanni, Lara

21 Hollinger, and Jennifer Bennie ("Plaintiffs" or "Class Representatives"), by and through

22 their attorneys, Sanford Heisler, LLP, bring this action in their individual capacities, and

23 on behalf of the class of women defined below, against Defendant Daiichi Sankyo, Inc. to

24 redress gender discrimination in employment. Plaintiffs allege upon knowledge as to

25 themselves and otherwise upon information and belief as follows:

26 II

27 II

28 II
1 Case No. _ _ _ _ _ -- CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT

Case3:13-cv-00581-WHO Document1 Filed02/11/13 Page2 of 52

1

INTRODUCTION

2

1. Defendant Daiichi Sankyo, Inc. ("Daiichi Sankyo," "Daiichi," the

3 "Company," or "Defendant") manufactures and sells cardiovascular, diabetes, and

4 metastatic melanoma therapies and pharmaceuticals. Daiichi Sankyo's parent company -

5 Daiichi Sankyo Company, Ltd. -is a Japan-based pharmaceutical drug giant that serves

6 over fifty-five countries and employs over thirty thousand workers worldwide.

7 Approximately, three thousand of those employees work for the Company in the United

8 States.

9

2.

Daiichi Sankyo reaps multi-billion dollar profits by relying upon a

10 predominantly female sales force to promote its pharmaceutical drugs to health care

11 providers and institutions across the United States. Instead of employing a business plan

12 designed to reward the talents of female sales employees and advance their careers,

13 Daiichi treats them largely as props in a sales and marketing strategy. Like dinners,

14 sports outings, and speaking fees, female sales reps are considered one of many

15 variations on the inducements that the pharmaceutical company dangles to sway doctors

16 to its brand. Daiichi asks its female sales reps to wine and dine male doctors; offer

17 friendships and gifts to foster "quid pro quo" relationships; and devote unbounded

18 attention to obtain their allegiance to Daiichi's drugs. When female sales reps seek well-

19 deserved career advancement or decide to have children, their role in a sales strategy built

20 upon gender stereotypes becomes even more evident. Essentially, the Company deems

21 its female sales employees unworthy to stand on equal footing with their male

22 com1terparts.

23

3. Daiichi Sankyo's glass ceiling is indisputable. While female employees

24 dominate rank-and-file sales positions, male employees control all tiers of management

25 from the manager-level to the director-level to the officer-level and above. There are no

26 women at the top executive level. Men also reign supreme at Daiichi Sankyo's parent

27 company, which has publicly acknowledged that the "Board of Directors and Board of

28 Kansayaku [its statutory auditors] do not currently have any female members."
2 Case No. _ _ _ _ _ -- CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT

Case3:13-cv-00581-WHO Document1 Filed02/11/13 Page3 of 52

1

4. Daiichi Sankyo's predominantly male sales leadership team maintains

2 control over virtually all aspects of the sales force's employment, including, but not

3 limited to, pay, promotion, and termination decisions. Without a seat at the table, female

4 employees have not fared well in these decisions.

5

5. Daiichi Sankyo has systemically paid female sales employees less than

6 similarly situated male sales employees. The Company has also denied female sales

7 employees access to leadership positions across the Company, among other

8 discriminatory acts.

9

6. Female sales employees who are pregnant, talce maternity leave, or avail

10 themselves of the Company's flexible work schedule policy- which permits employees

11 to work part-time to care for their newborn children, purportedly without fear of career

12 repercussions - are particularly vulnerable at Daiichi Sankyo. Undeniably, pregnant

13 women and working mothers with yonng children do not fit within the stereotypical role

14 promoted by Daiichi's sales and marketing strategy.

15

7. Women are actively discouraged from having children while working at

16 Daiichi Sankyo. Female sales employees of childbearing age have been cautioned

17 against committing "career suicide" if they decide to become pregnant, take maternity

18 leave, or seek part-time work schedules at Daiichi. Women who have been pregnant

19 while working at Daiichi Sankyo have been faced with situations where they were called

20 "baby-makers;" forced to attend work meetings in smoke-filled bars while pregnant;

21 subjected to suspect compensation "offsets" after returning from maternity leave;

22 discouraged from breastfeeding; and "managed out" or demoted for complaining about

23 gender discrimination or for becoming pregnant.

24

8. Recently, the Company publicly acknowledged its disregard for working

25 mothers. It am1ounced that it has "shifted [its] focus from actively supporting women's

26 work-life balance" to other (illusory) career development programs. In other words, by

27 the Company's own admission and despite its predominantly female sales force, Daiichi

28 no longer supports work-life balance for women even on paper.
3 Case No. _ _ _ _ _ -- CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT

Case3:13-cv-00581-WHO Document1 Filed02/11/13 Page4 of 52

1

9. Daiichi Sankyo's male sales leadership team and Human Resources

2 ("HR") department have long been on notice that a vast disconnect exists between the

3 gender-equal, diverse, and family-friendly culture Daiichi Sankyo claims to possess and

4 the dismal reality for hundreds of female sales employees who have been underpaid,

5 under-promoted, and/or terminated because of their gender or caregiver status.

6 Nevertheless, the Company has failed to take appropriate remedial measures.

7

10. The Company's discriminatory policies and practices span the gamut of

8 prohibited acts, which read like an employment discrimination primer on how a company

9 should not operate or treat female employees. To remedy the gender discrimination they

10 witnessed and experienced at Daiichi Sankyo, the Class Representatives and the class are

11 seeking all legal and equitable relief available under state and federal anti-

12 discrimination/equal pay/retaliation statutes, including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of

13 1964, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000(e) et seq., as amended; the Equal Pay Act of 1963, 29

14 U.S.C. Section 201, et seq.; the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, Cal. Gov't

15 Code Section 12940, et seq.; the California Equal Pay Act, Cal. Lab. Code Section

16 1197.5, and the California Unfair Business Practices Act, Cal. Bus. and Prof. Code

17 Section 17200, et seq. Notably, Plaintiffs seek much needed injunctive relief to rectify

18 Daiichi Sankyo's discriminatory employment policies and practices and ensure that going

19 forward the Company abides by the law.

20

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

21

11. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this suit pursuant to 28

22 U.S.C. Section 1331; Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Section

23 2000(e)-5(f), et seq., as amended ("Title VII"); the Equal Pay Act, 29 U.S. C. Section 201,

24 et seq. ("EPA"); and the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993,29 U.S.C. Section 2601,

25 et seq. ("FMLA"). This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' state law

26 claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1367.

27

12. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 139l(b) and

28 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e-5(f)(3) because Defendant conducts substantial business in the
4 Case No. _ _ _ _ _ -- CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT

Case3:13-cv-00581-WHO Document1 Filed02/11/13 Page5 of 52

1 Northern District of California and because unlawful employment practices were

2 committed in this District.

3

13. Plaintiffs have standing to bring this suit as Plaintiff Jacqueline Pena has

4 duly filed individual and class charges of discrimination with the California Department

5 of Fair Employment and Housing ("DFEH") and the U.S. Equal Employment

6 Opportunity Commission ("EEOC").

7

THE PARTIES

8

14. Plaintiff Sara Wellens ("Ms. Wellens") is a woman who, at all times

9 relevant to this action, lived and worked in Northern California. Ms. Wellens, a current

10 employee of Daiichi Sankyo, began working for the Company in September 2009. At

11 present, Ms. Wellens is a Primary Care Sales Representative III/Sales Specialist in the

12 Pacific Northwest Region.

13

15. Plaintiff Kelly Jensen ("Ms. Jensen") is a woman who, at all times

14 relevant to this action, lived and worked in Southern California. Ms. Jensen, a cunent

15 employee of Daiichi Sankyo, began working for the Company in August 2008. At

16 present, Ms. Jensen is a Primary Care Sales Representative III in the Southern California

17 Region.

18

16. Plaintiff Jacqueline Pena ("Ms. Pena") is a woman who, at all times

19 relevant to this action, lived and worked in Southern California. Ms. Pena worked for

20 Daiichi Sankyo from May 2006 through November 2012, when the Company terminated

21 her employment. Daiichi Sankyo terminated Ms. Pena because of her

22 pregnancy/caregiver status, and in retaliation for her engaging in protected conduct,

23 including taldng family and/or disability leave, as well as complaining about

24 gender/pregnancy discrimination to Daiichi Sankyo's HR department, the EEOC, and the

25 DFEH. At the time of her tennination, Ms. Pena was a Senior Cardiovascular Sales

26 Representative in the Cardiovascular West Region.

27

17. Plaintiff Bernice Giovanni ("Ms. Giovanni") is a woman who, at all

28 times relevant to this action, lived and worked in Northern California. Ms. Giovanni
5 Case No. _ _ _ _ _ -- CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT

Case3:13-cv-00581-WHO Document1 Filed02/11/13 Page6 of 52

1 worked for Daiichi Sankyo from August 2009 through March 2012, when she was forced

2 to resign due to the discrimination she experienced. At the time of her resignation, Ms.

3 Giovanni was a Primary Care Sales Representative I in the Pacific Northwest Region.

4

18. Plaintiff Lara Hollinger ("Ms. Hollinger") is a woman who, at all times

5 relevant to this action, lived and worked in Northern California. Ms. Hollinger worked

6 for Daiichi Sankyo from August 2008 to August 2012, when she was forced to resign due

7 to the discrimination she experienced. At the time of her resignation, Ms. Hollinger was

8 a Primary Care District Manager in the Pacific Northwest Region.

9

19. Plaintiff Jennifer Bennie ("Ms. Bennie") is a woman who, at all times

10 relevant to this action, lived and worked in Southern California. Ms. Bennie worked for

11 Daiichi Sankyo from October 2006 to March 2012, when she was forced to resign due to

12 the discrimination she experienced. At the time of her resignation, Ms. Bennie was a

13 Cardiovascular Sales Representative II in the Cardiovascular West Region.

14

20. Defendant Daiichi Sankyo, Inc. is a pharmaceutical company that

15 conducts substantial business in California and employs personnel in California. The

16 Company is based in Parsippany, New Jersey and is incorporated under the laws of the

17 state of Delaware. In 2010, the Company reported sales of more than $2.6 billion in

18 North America and employed approximately 3,000 people nationwide.

19

FACTUALALLEGATIONS

20

A. PLAINTIFF SARA WELLENS

21

21. Ms. Wellens is currently a Primary Care Sales Representative III/Sales

22 Specialist in Daiichi Sankyo's Pacific Northwest Region. The Company first hired Ms.

23 Wellens in September 2009. Prior to joining the Company, Ms. Wellens had three years

24 of sales representative experience.

25

22. During her tenure with Daiichi Sankyo, Ms. Wellens has consistently

26 achieved superior results in sales and distinguished herself as a top performer at the

27 Company. She has won multiple district sales awards. In 2010, Ms. Wellens was ranked

28 9th out of approximately 500 Primary Care 3 sales representatives in terms of sales
6 Case No. _ _ _ _ _ -- CLASS AND COLLECTNE ACTION COMPLAINT

Case3:13-cv-00581-WHO Document1 Filed02/11/13 Page7 of 52

1 growth in the West region. Ms. Wellens is currently ranked in the upper 30 percentile of

2 approximately 2,500 Primary Care sales representatives in tl1e nation.

3

23. As detailed herein, despite Ms. Wellens' exemplary performance, the

4 Company has systematically discriminated against her because of her gender and

5 caregiver status.

6

Pay, Promotion, and Pregnancy Discrimination

7

24. Upon information and belief, Daiichi Sankyo assigned Ms. Wellens during

8 her initial hire to a lower level position, compensation band, and/or tier than similarly

9 situated male employees. Notably, Ms. Wellens' starting salary was $66,000, which was

10 well under market given Ms. Wellens' experience, title, and responsibilities.

11

25. Ms. Wellens has also received lower merit increases, bonuses, and other

12 compensation perks tl1an comparably situated male sales representatives.

13

26. Daiichi Sankyo also discriminated against Ms. Wellens by promoting (also

14 internally referred to as "tiering") lesser qualified male employees more rapidly ilian her.

15 For example, ilie Company fast-tracked a lower performing male sales representative on

16 Ms. Wellens' sales team to a Sales Representative III position, but stalled Ms. Wellens'

17 promotion to this level because she became pregnant in 201 0 and took maternity leave in

18 2011.

19

27. While Ms. Wellens was on maternity leave, her supervisor, District

20 Manager Brian Komrosky ("DM Komrosky") made unlawful and degrading comments

21 about Ms. Wellens' pregnancy and caregiver status. For example, in April2011, during a

22 Las Vegas business trip, DM Komrosky referred to Ms. Wellens as a "baby-maker"

23 during a conversation with Richard VanDePol, a male sales employee.

24

28. Upon returning from maternity leave in July 2011, Ms. Wellens elected to

25 work part-time pursuant to the Company's flex time policy. From July 2011 to October

26 2011, Ms. Wellens regular paychecks dramatically decreased to $300 per pay period.

27 Apparently, ilie HR department grossly mismanaged Ms. Wellens' (and oilier pregnant

28 employees') disability/maternity leave benefits and claimed that Ms. Wellens had been
7 Case No. _ _ _ _ _ -- CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT

Case3:13-cv-00581-WHO Document1 Filed02/11/13 Page8 of 52

1 "overpaid" during her maternity leave. Ms. Wellens complained to HR about this

2 compensation offset. HR did not provide an adequate justification for its

3 mismanagement of her disability/maternity leave benefits and instead told Ms. Wellens

4 she should consider herself "lucky" the Company was even allowing her to work part-

5 time.

6

29. Ms. Wellens also complained to HR about her inability to breastfeed

7 during certain Company-sponsored events. In response, HR told Ms. Wellens that

8 breastfeeding could not interfere with work-related events, such as outside dinners and

9 boat rides in Seattle. Accordingly, Ms. Wellens and other female employees who were

10 breastfeeding during tins timeframe were not able to pump breast milk during Company-

11 sponsored events.

12

30. From November 2011 to February 2012, Ms. Wellens switched from part-

13 time to full-time hours. Ms. Wellens worked at least 40 hours a week as a full-time

14 employee. However the Company continued to pay her at part-time rate. Ms. Wellens

15 again complained about unequal pay, disparate treatment, and pregnancy discrimination

16 to HR and DM Kmmosky. In response, DM Kmmosky called Ms. Wellens a

17 "disgruntled employee" and was othetwise dismissive of her concerns. Thereafter,

18 Daiichi Sankyo consistently required Ms. Wellens to work full-time hours while paying

19 her at a part-time rate until it finally corrected the problem in February 2012.

20

31. In February 2012, during a Seattle business trip, DM Kmmosky made

21 disparaging remarks regarding pregnancy/motherhood, telling Ross Rushton, a male sales

22 employee, "Hey, if you want to have your own [hotel] room, just say you're a

23 breastfeeding mom." In March 2012, during another business trip to San Diego,

24 California, DM Komrosky told a group of employees, "Let's take a group picture, but

25 instead of saying 'cheese,' let's say 'matenlity leave."' DM Komrosky's offensive

26 "joke" made female employees who had just returned from matemity leave feel

27 uncomfortable and lUteasy.

28 //
8 Case No. _ _ _ _ _ -- CLASS AND COLLECTNE ACTION COMPLAINT

Case3:13-cv-00581-WHO Document1 Filed02/11/13 Page9 of 52

1

32. In April 2012, Regional Director Adam Arana ("RD Arana") invited sales

2 representatives to a retention meeting. During this meeting, RD Arana greeted all of Ms.

3 Wellens' male colleagues but deliberately refused to acknowledge Ms. Wellens'

4 presence. Ms. Wellens found such behavior suspect given the fact that she had

5 previously lodged HR complaints about gender discrimination and also because at that

6 time Ms. Wellens was the top-ranked sales representative out of approximately 500 sales

7 representatives in the Pacific Northwest region.

8

33. Similarly, DM Komrosky routinely recognized male sales employees for

9 their accomplishments and supported their careers and failed to extend the same

I 0 recognition and support to female sales representatives, especially those with children.

11 For instance, DM Komrosky regularly scheduled strategy meetings with male sales

12 employees to help improve their performance and rewarded their achievements with

13 compensation perks and company-sponsored dinners/events. DM Komrosky did not

14 offer female sales employees comparable opportunities. Specifically, DM Komrosky

15 failed to adequately aclmowledge Ms. Wellens and fellow Class Representative Ms.

16 Vaughn with requisite rewards even after both women won 23 consecutive district

17 contests. Ms. Wellens and Ms. Vaughn complained to DM Komrosky about this

18 disparate treatment. DM Komrosky responded by saying: "I thought you would rather be

19 home with your families and kids."

20

34. In July 2012, Ms. Wellens received her 360 perfonnance review, which

21 was conducted by DM Komrosky. In the review, DM Komrosky stated that Ms. Wellens

22 had no interest in developing her skills with the Company. Ms. Wellens disagreed with

23 DM Komrosky's assessment and clarified that she was interested in becoming a mentor

24 and being promoted to Specialty Sales Representative. However, Mr. Komrosky

25 discounted her career development interests.

26

35. DM K01mosky has also subjected Ms. Wellens to heightened scrutiny and

27 disparate treatment since he learned of Ms. Wellens' involvement with the instant

28 lawsuit.
9 Case No. _ _ _ _ _ -- CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT

Case3:13-cv-00581-WHO Document1 Filed02/11/13 Page10 of 52

1

B. PLAINTIFF KELLY JENSEN

2

36. Ms. Jensen is currently a Primary Care Sales Representative III in Daiichi

3 Sankyo's Southern California Region. In August 2008, Daiichi Sankyo hired Ms. Jensen

4 as a Primary Care Sales Representative II. Prior to joining the Company, Ms. Jensen had

5 two and a half years of sales representative experience.

6

37. During her tenure with Daiichi Sankyo, Ms. Jensen has consistently

7 achieved superior results and distinguished herself as a top perfonner at the Company. In

8 2009, Ms. Jensen was ranked 4th out of approximately 70 sales representatives in sales

9 growth in the Southern California Region (previously known as the West region) and

10 won a Director Cabinet award due to her stellar sales performance. Since 2010, Ms.

11 Jensen has consistently ranked in the top 30 to 40% in her region.

12

38. As detailed herein, despite Ms. Jensen's perfonnance, the Company has

13 systematically discriminated against her because of her gender and caregiver status.

14

Pay, Promotion, and Pregnancy Discrimination

15

39. Upon information and belief, the Company assigned Ms. Jensen during

16 her initial hire to a lower level position, lower compensation band, and/or lower tier in

17 comparison to similarly situated male employees. Additionally, Ms. Jensen's starting

18 salary was $65,000, which was well under market given Ms. Jensen's experience, title,

19 and responsibilities.

20

40. Ms. Jensen has also received unwarranted lower merit increases, bonuses,

21 and other compensation perks tl1an male sales representatives, including male coworkers

22 on her sales team.

23

41. In August 2011, Ms. Jensen became pregnant. She took maternity leave

24 from April to July 2012.

25

42. In March 2012, after the male sales leadership team learned of Ms.

26 Jensen's pregnancy, they told Ms. Jensen that she could no longer market Welchol to

27 physicians. Upon infonnation and belief, the male sales leadership team knew tlmt taking

28 Ms. Jensen off Welchol would negatively impact her career because Ms. Jensen's prior
ll-------------------~------------~~~-----------10
Case No. __________ -- CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT

. \
Case3:13-cv-00581-WHO Document1 Filed02/11/13 Page11 of 52

1 Welchol marketing efforts were producing marked results for her in her ten·itory.

2 Instead, the male sales leadership team shifted Ms. Jensen's Welchol responsibilities to a

3 male sales representative. As a result of this discriminatory change in responsibilities,

4 the male sales employee's sales rankings, bonus opportunities, and promotion prospects

5 increased, while Ms. Jensen's sales rankings and employment opportunities decreased.

6

43. Upon returning from maternity leave in July 2012, Ms. Jensen's regular

7 paychecks dramatically decreased to an average of $800 per pay period as a post-

S maternity leave compensation offset. As occurred with fellow Class Representative Sara

9 Wellens, the HR department recklessly mismanaged Ms. Jensen's disability/maternity

10 leave benefits and claimed that Ms. Jensen was overpaid $7,129.43 during her maternity

11 leave. Ms. Jensen is unaware of any male sales employees who have been subjected to

12 such a high compensation offset after returning from disability leave.

13

44. In July 2012, Ms. Jensen elected to work part-time pursuant to the

14 Company's flex time policy. Her supervisor, District Manager, Shane Widener ("DM

15 Widener"), was not supportive of Ms. Jensen's decision to work part-time and pressured

16 her to start working full-time as soon as possible. Ms. Jensen's male colleagues also told

17 her that she should work full-time. Upon infonnation and belief, Ms. Jensen was

18 strongly encouraged to stop working a flexible schedule because of Daiichi Sankyo's

19 stereotypical view that working mothers or those seeldng to work part-time are less

20 cmmnitted to their jobs and the success of the Company.

21

45. Daiichi Sankyo also discriminated against Ms. Jensen by denying her

22 equal promotional opportunities, and promoting lesser qualified employees without

23 childcare responsibilities more quickly than her. In September 2012, Ms. Jensen applied

24 for a promotion to the Specialty Sales Representative position. Despite Ms. Jensen's

25 qualifications, the Company gave the Specialty Sales Representative position to a sales

26 employee without any childcare responsibilities. Further, this sales employee had less

27 than two years of sales experience and was less qualified than Ms. Jensen. When Ms.

28 Jensen asked District Manager Joe Chirco ("DM Chirco") what she could have done
11~----------------~~~~~~---===~~~~~-------11
Case No. _________ -- CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT

Case3:13-cv-00581-WHO Document1 Filed02/11/13 Page12 of 52

1 differently in order to receive the promotion, DM Chirco told her that there was nothing

2 she could have done. DM Chirco also told a highly qualified female applicant, who

3 applied for the position while on disability, that the otl1er candidates (without children)

4 were more "up and running." Despite Daiichi Sankyo's repeated failures to promote Ms.

5 Jensen, she continues to seek advancement opportunities at the Company.

6

46. In December 2012, DM Widener conducted Ms. Jensen's annual

7 performance review. In fue review, DM Widener lowered Ms. Jensen's rankings in five

8 categories in an effort to manage her out of the Company. DM Widener has also

9 insinuated to Ms. Jensen fuat it would be a good idea for her to start talking to outside

10 employment recmiters for oilier job opportunities.

11

C. PLAINTIFF JACQUELINE PENA

12

47. In May 2006, the Company hired Ms. Pena as a Primary Care Sales

13 Manager. Prior to joining Daiichi Sankyo, Ms. Pena had seven years of pharmaceutical

14 sales and management experience. In 2009, Ms. Pena was promoted to a Cardiovascular

15 Sales Manager. In October 2011, Daiichi Sankyo discriminatorily demoted Ms. Pena to a

16 Senior Cardiovascular Sales Representative, a position she held until her wrongful

17 termination on November 14, 2012.

18

48. While employed at Daiichi Sankyo, Ms. Pena consistently achieved

19 superior results and distinguished herself as a top performer. She has won several sales

20 awards, including multiple high Gold Cup rankings. The Gold Cup Award is the most

21 prestigious award given by the Company and is reserved for the top 3% of sales

22 employees nationwide.

23

49. As detailed herein, despite Ms. Pena's performance, the Company has

24 systematically discriminated against her because of her gender and caregiver status.

25

Pay, Promotion, and Pregnancy Discrimination

26

50. Upon information and belief, Daiichi Sankyo assigned Ms. Pena during

27 her initial hire to a lower level position, lower pay band, and/or lower tier than similarly

28 situated male employees.
~~~----------~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~=-12
Case No. _________ -- CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT

Case3:13-cv-00581-WHO Document1 Filed02/11/13 Page13 of 52

1

51. For the 2006 fiscal year, Ms. Perra was denied her rightly earned Platinum

2 Performer Bonus, Gold Cup trip, and full incentive compensation because of her gender,

3 and/or for becoming pregnant and taking maternity leave.

4

52. For both the 2007 and 2008 fiscal years, Ms. Pena, yet again, was Gold

5 Cup ranked. These accomplislnnents were significant given the fact that Ms. Pena was

6 assigned to a poor performing sales district. Gold Cup ranked male sales employees

7 typically receive merit increases in the 8-10% range. However, in 2009, Ms. Pena's

8 merit increase was prorated to much less than 8% because she took maternity leave.

9

53. In 2009, Daiichi Sankyo discriminatorily denied Ms. Pena a promotion to

10 the senior status compensation tier. Additionally, in 2009, 2010, and 2011, Daiichi

11 Sankyo failed to pay Ms. Pena her full incentive compensation and/or increase her

12 compensation and title because of her gender and/or because she became pregnant and

13 took maternity leave.

14

54. Ms. Perra was pregnant in 2007, 2009, and 2011. Ms. Perra took maternity

15 leave from August to December 2007, October 2008 to March 2009, and May to August

16 2011.

17

55. In late 2011, Ms. Pena returned from maternity leave and asked to use the

18 Company's flex work policy, which was designed to allow new parents to bond with their

19 children. Ms. Pena's request was approved; however, she was subsequently forced to

20 work during her days off and on the weekends without compensation. Daiichi Sankyo

21 refused to pay Ms. Perra's full salary while requiring that she intermittently work full-

22 time.

23

56. During this time, Ms. Perra's direct manager, Regional Director Jamie

24 Paplomatas ("RD Paplomatas") inappropriately asked Ms. Pena at a lunch in front of her

25 peers if she was planning to breastfeed while working. In later communications, RD

26 Paplomatas discouraged Ms. Pena from breastfeeding. Ms. Perra was not given

27 appropriate times or areas where she could pump breast milk, which forced her to stop

28 breastfeeding prematurely.
n~--~------------~~~~~~~~==~==~~~~~~_13
Case No. ----~ -- CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT

Case3:13-cv-00581-WHO Document1 Filed02/11/13 Page14 of 52

1

57. RD Paplomatas also told Ms. Pena that she could not do her job because

2 she had children, took maternity leave, and was seeking to work a flexible work schedule.

3 Further, RD Paplomatas has subjected Ms. Pena to heightened scrutiny and has called her

4 degrading names, such as "dmnbass," in the presence oflarge groups of employees.

5

58. In October 2011, Daiichi Sankyo essentially demoted Ms. Pena from Sales

6 Manager to a Senior Cardiovascular Sales Representative position because of its

7 discriminatory view that Ms. Pena could no longer do her job after having children. RD

8 Paplomatas told Ms. Pena that she would be managed out once her flex-time schedule

9 ended if she did not accept the demotion. This demotion also came with a significant

10 reduction in pay.

11

59. Ms. Pena complained to HR Representative Terri Williams about this

12 unlawful disparate treatment to no avail. Under duress, Ms. Pena accepted the demotion

13 in order to stay employed.

14

60. Daiichi Sankyo attempted to categorize Ms. Perra's demotion and

15 reduction in pay as part of a layoff that did not pertain to her division. The Company

16 filled Ms. Perra's vacated district manager position by hiring DM Chirco, a similarly

17 situated male manager who also had children but who, due to his gender, the Company

18 perceived as capable of handling his work responsibilities.

19

61. In November 2011, a month after Ms. Perra's forced demotion, Daiichi

20 Sankyo decreased the number of non-California sales representatives in Ms. Perra's

21 former district. As a result, DM Chirco had substantially less travel and managerial

22 demands than Ms. Pena had while she held the district manager position with a newborn

23 baby.

24

62. Additionally, the salary decrease that accompanied Ms. Pena's demotion

25 was larger than the salary decreases typically associated with demotions at the Company.

26 For example, even though Ms. Pena was a Cardiovascular Manager with twelve years of

27 experience, she received a much larger reduction in salary than a similarly situated male

28 employee, District Manager Jim Warkentin, when he was demoted to Primary Care Sales

~~~----------~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~=-14
Case No. _ _ _ _ _ -- CLASS AND COLLECTNE ACTION COMPLAINT

Case3:13-cv-00581-WHO Document1 Filed02/11/13 Page15 of 52

1 Representative.

2

63. In 2009, the Company also forced Ms. Pena to relocate from Los Angeles

3 to Orange County. Contrary to Company practice, however, Daiichi Sankyo did not

4 provide Ms. Pena with a relocation package. Other employees have received generous

5 relocation allowances under similar circumstances before and after Ms. Pena' s forced

6 relocation.

7

64. Nevertheless, Ms. Pena excelled in her new role following her demotion

8 and led the Northern Los Angeles district in hospital dollar sales and hypertension

9 prescription sales.

10

Retaliation & Wrongful Termination

11

65. After Ms. Pena returned from her 2011 maternity leave, Ms. Pena's

12 predominantly male managers attempted to manage her out of the Company by

13 subjecting her to heightened scmtiny and adverse treatment because Ms. Pena

14 complained about gender discrimination and had taken protected medical leaves. In

15 April 2012, DM Chirco tried to force Ms. Pena to accept another demotion to a Primary

16 Care Sales position in order to remove her from his and RD Paplomatas' sales team.

17 After Ms. Pena refused to take another discriminatory pay cut and demotion, Ms. Pena's

18 managers became increasingly hostile towards her.

19

66. In May 2012, Ms. Pena had to go on disability leave because of the stress

20 and amdety she experienced due to the discrimination she was subjected to at work.

21

67. In September 2012, Ms. Pena filed a charge of discrimination with the

22 EEOC and DFEH, alleging that Daiichi Sankyo had discriminated against her based on

23 her gender and pregnancy/caregiver status.

24

68. On November 14, 2012, prior to Ms. Pena's return from her leave, Daiichi

25 Sankyo unlawfully tenninated her employment. Upon information and belief, the

26 Company terminated Ms. Pena because of her gender and pregnancy/caregiver status, and

27 in retaliation for her engaging in protected conduct related to that status, including taking

28 maternity leave and complaining of gender/pregnancy discrimination to HR, the EEOC,
~~~------------~~~~~~~==~~==~~~~~=--15
Case No. _________ -- CLASS AND COLLECTNE ACTION COMPLAmT

Case3:13-cv-00581-WHO Document1 Filed02/11/13 Page16 of 52

1 and the DFEH.

2

D. PLAINTIFF BERNICE GIOVANNI

3

69. In August 2009, Daiichi Sankyo hired Ms. Giovanni as a Phannaceutical

4 Sales Representative I in the Oakland, California territory. Prior to joining the Company,

5 Ms. Giovanni had five years of sales representative experience.

6

70. During her tenure with Daiichi Sankyo, Ms. Giovanni consistently

7 achieved superior results and distinguished herself as a top performer at the Company.

8 She won several awards and in 2011 was ranked 8th out of over 200 sales representatives

9 in sales growth in the Pacific Northwest region.

10

71. As detailed herein, despite Ms. Giovanni's perfonnance, the Company

11 systematically discriminated against her because of her gender and caregiver status.

12

Pay, Promotion, and Pregnancy Discrimination

13

72. Upon information and belief, Daiichi Sankyo assigned Ms. Giovanni

14 during her initial hire to a lower level position, lower compensation band, and/or lower

15 tier than similarly situated male employees. Ms. Giovanni also received lower merit

16 increases, bonuses, and other compensation perks than similarly situated male sales

17 representatives.

18

73. The Company has also discriminated against Ms. Giovanni by denying her

19 equal promotional opportunities afforded to similarly situated male sales employees.

20 Specifically, the Company fast-tracked and promoted a lesser qualified Sales

21 Representative on her sales team to a Specialty Representative position, while causing

22 Ms. Giovanni's career to stagnate because of her gender, caregiver status, and/or for

23 taking maternity leave.

24

74. Specifically, Ms. Giovanni became pregnant in November 2010 and took

25 maternity leave from July 2011 to January 2012. In March 2011, Ms. Giovanni's

26 supervisor, DM Komrosky made many inappropriate comments about women with

27 children and breastfeeding. As discussed above, DM Komrosky referred to Class

28 Representative Sara Wellens, who was also on Ms. Giovanni's sales teatn, as a "baby-
~~~--~----------~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 16
Case No. _________ -- CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT

Case3:13-cv-00581-WHO Document1 Filed02/11/13 Page17 of 52

1 maker."

2

75. Additionally, in March 2011, the Company housed Ms. Giovmmi in a

3 hotel room that was located approximately 1.2 miles away from the conference meetings

4 during a business trip in Las Vegas, Nevada. As such, it was difficult for her to commute

5 m1d/or walk to business meetings. Worse yet, some Company meetings were held in bars

6 that contained cigarette m1d/or cigar smoke, which was obviously toxic to Ms. Giovmmi

7 and her baby's health.

8

76. Ms. Giovmmi had to seek emergency medical attention during the Las

9 Vegas business trip because of rapid health deterioration that was precipitated by her

10 work enviromnent. Among other things, Ms. Giovmmi had blood in her urine and her

II legs becmne swollen. As a result of these developments, Ms. Giovalll1i had to start her

12 maternity leave prematurely.

13

77. Upon returning from maternity leave in January 2012, Ms. Giovmmi's

14 paycheck was drmnatically decreased to $650 per pay period. As occurred with Class

15 Representatives Sara Wellens and Kelly Jensen, the HR department mishandled Ms.

16 Giovamli's disability/maternity leave benefits. In Jmmary 2012, Ms. Giovmmi contacted

17 HR to inquire about the offset in her paychecks and received no response. In February

18 2012, Ms. Giovmmi contacted HR again and learned that she had to pay the Company

19 back $5,839.16 because of HR's reckless administration of its maternity leave

20 benefits/policies.

21

78. At a Seattle business trip in February 2012, DM Komrosky told a male

22 sales employee, Ross Rushton, that Mr. Ruston should say he was a "breastfeeding mom"

23 in order for Mr. Rushton to get his own hotel room during business trips. Ms. Giovmmi

24 was a nursing mother when DM Komrosky made these comments and it was distressing

25 to her to be exposed to such blatant gender a11d pregnm1cy discrimination.

26

79. In March 2012, during a business trip to San Diego, California, DM

27 Konnosky made a ')oke" by telling a group of employees to say "maternity leave"

28 instead of "cheese" when taking a group picture. DM Kormosky's comment made Ms.
~~~------------~~~~~~~==~~==~~~~~---17
Case No. _________ -- CLASS AND COLLECTfVE ACTION COMPLAINT

Case3:13-cv-00581-WHO Document1 Filed02/11/13 Page18 of 52

1 Giovanni and her female coworkers who had just returned from maternity leave feel very

2 uncomfortable.

3

80. Also, after Ms. Giovanni returned from maternity leave, she learned that

4 her number 8-ranked sales position had essentially defaulted to a male sales

5 representative on her team, who was not trained or knowledgeable about the

6 phannaceutical sales underpinning the ranking. This change in ranking adversely

7 impacted Ms. Giovanni's promotion prospects, bonus opportLmities, as well as her

8 opportunity to win the Gold Cup award. Ms. Giovanni's ranking dropped from 8 to 64 in

9 2012 because the Company permitted the male sales representative on Ms. Giovanni's

10 team to talce credit for her prior sales efforts.

11

81. In March 2012, Ms. Giovanni was forced to resign from Daiichi Sankyo

12 because of the gender and caregiver discrimination she experienced.

13

E. PLAINTIFF LARA HOLLINGER

14

82. In August 2008, Daiichi Sankyo hired Ms. Hollinger as a District

15 Manager. Ms. Hollinger held that position until she was forced to resign in August 2012

16 because of the gender discrimination she was subjected to at the Company. Prior to

17 joining the Company, Ms. Hollinger had eight years of management experience.

18

83. While employed by Daiichi Sankyo, Ms. Hollinger consistently achieved

19 superior results and distinguished herself as a top perfonner. In 2010, she was the top

20 ranked district manager in the West region.

21

84. As detailed herein, despite Ms. Hollinger's performance, the Company

22 systematically discriminated against her because of her gender.

23

Pay and Promotion Discrimination

24

85. Upon information and belief, Daiichi Sankyo assigned Ms. Hollinger

25 during her initial hire to a lower level position, lower compensation band, and/or lower

26 tier than similarly situated male sales employees. Ms. Hollinger also received lower

27 merit increases, bonuses, and other compensation perks than her sales rankings and

28 accomplishments warranted. Specifically, despite her ranking as No. 1 District Manager
11=--~----------~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~18
Case No. _ _ _ _ _ -- CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT

Case3:13-cv-00581-WHO Document1 Filed02/11/13 Page19 of 52

1 in the West region in 2010, Ms. Hollinger received lower merit increases compared to her

2 male coworkers, Jolm Mo, Shane Widener, Glen Mott, and John Bellar. Ms. Hollinger

3 complained to Regional Director Frank Schellack ("RD Schellack"). However, RD

4 Schellack failed to address Ms. Hollinger's concerns. In July 2012, Ms. Hollinger

5 received the same merit increase (2.99%) as her male counterpart, DM Komrosky, who

6 ranked substantially lower than her. Ms. Hollinger complained to Regional Director

7 Adam Arana ("RD Arana") about her pay and the Company's overall failure to

8 acknowledge or reward her accomplishments. However, RD Arana rebuffed her

9 concerns.

10

86. Daiichi Sankyo also discriminated against Ms. Hollinger by

11 promoting/tiering lesser qualified male employees more rapidly than her. For example,

12 comparably situated District Managers John Mo, Shane Widener, and Herbert Van Patton

13 were promptly promoted to a Senior District Manager position, yet Ms. Hollinger

14 remained a District Manager throughout her four years with Daiichi Sankyo.

15

87. The Company also subjected Ms. Hollinger to other forn1s of unlawful

16 disparate treatment. Specifically, in February 2011, rumors circulated within the sales

17 organization that the Company was going to undergo a corporate realignment. Before the

18 realignment was officially announced, RD Arana began assigning work to Ms.

19 Hollinger's male colleagues, assuming they would be on his team. Ms. Hollinger

20 informed HR of Mr. Arana's actions. The company took no action in response to Ms.

21 Hollinger's complaint in spite of being informed ofRD Arana's indisputable motive <md

22 intent to work almost exclusively with male district managers. When the realigmnent was

23 announced, Ms. Hollinger was placed on a sales team headed by RD Arana, who then

24 subjected Ms. Hollinger to heightened scrutiny and hostility for complaining about RD

25 Arana's biased and discriminatory behavior.

26

88. While RD Arana was Ms. Hollinger's supervisor, he also habitually

27 undern1ined Ms. Hollinger's decisions. RD Arana even hired an under-qualified male

28 employee to join Ms. Hollinger's sales temn. When Ms. Hollinger expressed concerns
11~--~-------------=~~~~~~--~~~~~~~~---19
Case No. __________ -- CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT

Case3:13-cv-00581-WHO Document1 Filed02/11/13 Page20 of 52

1 that the hire was mediocre, RD Arana told her that the part of her district where the new

2 male hire was placed was "not important."

3

89. In 2012, RD Arana provided Ms. Hollinger with her 360 Performance

4 Review and informed her that he had editorial license over her peer evaluations. Ms.

5 Hollinger's review did not coincide with her stellar sales performance. Upon infonnation

6 and belief, RD Arana unilaterally conducted Ms. Hollinger's performance review- and

7 provided negative comments - in retaliation for Ms. Hollinger's complaints of

8 discrimination. Furthermore, the writing style throughout the review was consistent,

9 suggesting that one person wrote all the reviews. Moreover, all of Ms. Hollinger's male

10 peers denied submitting a 360 Performance Review of her. Ms. Hollinger infonned HR

11 that she did not trust the sanctity of the review and asked for a formal investigation.

12 However, HR again failed to take any action in response to Ms. Hollinger's complaint.

13

90. In August 2012, Ms. Hollinger resigned from the Company because of the

14 gender discrimination she experienced.

15

G. PLAINTIFF JENNIFER BENNIE

16

91. In October 2006, Ms. Be~mie was hired by Daiichi Sankyo as a Primary

17 Care Sales Representative I. In March 2012, she resigned from the Company because of

18 the gender discrimination she experienced. At the time of her forced resignation, Ms.

19 Bennie was a Cardiovascular Sales Representative II.

20

92. Prior to joining the Company, Ms. Bennie had seven years of management

21 experience while serving as a Naval Aviator and a Lieutenant in the United States Navy.

22 Throughout her =ployment at Daiichi, Ms. Bennie consistently distinguished herself as

23 a top performer and has been awarded Gold Cup and Platinum Perfonner distinctions.

24

93. Despite Ms. Bennie's performance, the Company systematically

25 discriminated against her because of her gender and caregiver status.

26

Pay, Promotion, and Pregnancy Discrimination

27

94. Upon information and belief, Daiichi Sankyo assigned Ms. Bennie during

28 her initial hire to a lower level position, lower compensation band, and/or lower tier than
~~~----------~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~=-20
Case No. _________ -- CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT

Case3:13-cv-00581-WHO Document1 Filed02/11/13 Page21 of 52

1 similarly situated male employees and failed to lend credence to Ms. Bennie's seven

2 years of prior management experience in the Navy.

3

95. h1 late 2009, a vacancy existed in the Santa Barbara, California territory

4 when male sales representative, Petar Samac, moved out of state. Ms. Bem1ie applied to

5 lateral from Oceanside, California to the Santa Barbara territory. Ms. Bennie was

6 obviously qualified for the position as she had a proven record of success in Oceanside,

7 California.

8

96. Nevertheless, the Company did not permit Ms. Bennie to even interview

9 for the job and she was denied the transfer without explanation. However, Mr. Samac,

10 the outgoing sales representative with close personal ties to the male sales leadership

11 team, received a $3,000 signing bonus for referring the outside hire who was ultimately

12 offered the position.

13

97. In 2010, Ms. Bennie interviewed for a Cardiovascnlar Specialty Sales

14 Representative position. She was three months pregnant when she interviewed for the

15 position with her District Manager, Rodney Carr ("DM Carr"). DM Carr later asked Ms.

16 Bennie why she hid her pregnancy from him upon learning that she was pregnant. Ms.

17 Bennie explained to DM Carr that her pregnancy status had no bearing on her ability to

18 perform. DM Carr later told Ms. Bennie that he informed RD Paplomatas of Ms.

19 Be1mie's pregnancy.

20

98. Ms. Bennie was eventually offered the Cardiovascular position; however,

21 DM Carr again asked her why she purportedly hid her pregnancy. Such questioning

22 made Ms. Bennie nneasy and concemed about her job security as she has observed

23 Daiichi Sankyo systematically discriminate against female sales employees, especially

24 those who became pregnant.

25

99. Ms. Bennie excelled in her role as a Cardiovascular Specialty Sales

26 Representative and, as a result, in March 2011, Ms. Bennie applied to become a district

27 manager. Ms. Bennie was ranked first in her district when she applied for the

28 management position. Ms. Bennie then interviewed for the position with RD Schellack.
11~--~------------~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~_21
Case No. _ _ _ _ _ -- CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT

Case3:13-cv-00581-WHO Document1 Filed02/11/13 Page22 of 52

1 RD Schellack inappropriately questioned Ms. Bennie about her new caregiver

2 responsibilities throughout the interview. Furthennore, RD Schellack haphazardly

3 canceled a meeting Ms. Bennie had scheduled with an important client as part of the

4 interview process, thereby denying Ms. Be1mie a significant opportunity to showcase her

5 skills and abilities.

6

100. The Company later gave Mr. Samac, mentioned above, the District

7 Manager position. Unlike Ms. Bennie, Mr. Samac had been out of the territory for two

8 and a half years, had no management experience, never ranked in the top 3% of sales, and

9 never won a Gold Cup. Ms. Be1mie asked RD Schellack what she could have done

10 differently in the interview process in order to have received the position. In response,

11 RD Schellack said there was nothing she could have done differently and that he could

12 not explain why she did not receive the promotion.

13

101. In March 2012, Ms. Bennie resigned from the Company because of the

14 gender and pregnancy discrimination she experienced.

15

TITLE VII AND FEHA CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

16

Centralized Decision-Making, Ineffective Human Resources Functions, and

17

Discriminatory Corporate Culture

18

102. Daiichi Sankyo's compact and predominantly male sales leadership team

19 maintains centralized control over the sales employees' tenns and conditions of

20 employment, including, without limitation, job assignment, career progression,

21 promotion, discipline, demotion, evaluations, reorganizations/realignments, territory and

22 growth potential/account assignments, and compensation policies, practices and

23 procedures.

24

103. Upon information and belief, a cadre of mostly male executives and senior

25 sales managers chair the Company's "Governance Board," "Compensation Committee,"

26 "Exception Committee," and other ad hoc committees. These committees are responsible

27 for reviewing and approving the acts, policies, and practices that either have a disparate

28 impact on female employees, or result in systemic disparate treatment of women.
~~~------------~~~~~~~==~~~~~~~~=-22
Case No. _________ -- CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT

Case3:13-cv-00581-WHO Document1 Filed02/11/13 Page23 of 52

1

104. For example, the "Governance Board" of Daiichi Sankyo "establishes the

2 Daiichi Sankyo compensation philosophy and market pay strategy." Upon information

3 and belief, the Governance Board is male-dominated and abuses its authority to make pay

4 decisions that favor male employees over similarly situated female employees. Similarly,

5 the "Compensation Committee" has editorial review over performance evaluations,

6 which are used in calculating merit increases. Upon information and belief, the

7 Compensation Committee is also male dominated and exploits its power to

8 discriminatorily award or deny performance based bonuses. The "Exception

9 Committee," which, upon infonnation and belief, is also male-dominated, exercises

10 overarching authority over tiered promotion decisions. The Exception Committee has

11 full discretion in allocating developmental opportunities an1ong Daiichi's employees and

12 uses its authority to either deny or delay promotions to female sales employees.

13

105. Additionally, Daiichi Sankyo does not have a management development

14 program or written/established criteria concerning eligibility to be considered for

15 management. The male leadership team is thereby allowed to offer management

16 opportunities to whomever it desires, irrespective of perforn1ance. Indeed, the male

17 leadership team has actively tried to "manage out" female first level district managers,

18 especially if they become pregnant, and replace them with tmderperforming or ill-

19 qualified male employees.

20

106. Daiichi Srulkyo, in effect, bars female sales employees from better and

21 higher-paying positions, which have traditionally been held by male employees. The

22 systemic means of accomplishing such gender-based stratification include, but are not

23 limited to, Defendant's assignment, career progression, promotion, discipline, demotion,

24 termination, evaluation, reorganizations/realigmnents, territory ru1d growth

25 potential/account assignments, and compensation policies, practices and procedures.

26 These practices and procedures all suffer from a lack of: transparency; adequate quality

27 standards ru1d controls; sufficient implementation metrics; management/HR review; and

28 opportunities for redress or challenge. As a result, employees are assigned, evaluated,
11~----------------~~~~~----~~~==~~~-------23
Case No. __________ -- CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT

Case3:13-cv-00581-WHO Document1 Filed02/11/13 Page24 of 52

1 compensated, developed, promoted, and terminated within a system that is insufficiently

2 designed, articulated, explained or implemented to consistently, reliably or equitably

3 manage or reward employees.

4

107. Within these flawed structures, specific policies and practices negatively

5 affect female sales employees. For example, Defendant's common and centralized

6 employment policies have been implemented in an intentionally discriminatory manner

7 and have had an adverse disparate impact on female sales employees. Defendant's

8 centralized decision-making by predominately male executives and senior sales

9 leadership has been implemented in an intentionally discriminatory manner and has had

10 an adverse disparate impact on female sales employees.

Defendant's

11 realignments/restructurings and/or layoffs, management structure, and resource allocation

12 has been implemented in an intentionally discriminatory mam1er and has had an adverse

13 disparate impact on female sales employees. Such policies, practices, and procedures are

14 not valid, job-related, or justified by business necessity.

15

108. Without the appropriate standards, guidelines, or transparency necessary

16 to ensure an equitable workplace, unfounded criticisms may be lodged against female

17 sales employees who are female, pregnant, or mothers, and illegitimate criticisms may be

18 given undue weight. Moreover, taking leave or flex time for pregnancy and caretaldng

19 reasons can constitute a negative factor in employees' evaluations, compensation, and

20 promotion prospects. Defendant's HR and management have failed to curb a corporate

21 culture that presumes that being a mother mal(es an employee less dedicated or

22 productive.

23

109. These problems are systemic and company-wide because, upon

24 infonnation and belief, they all stem from flawed policies, practices and procedures that

25 emanate from the Company's centralized predominantly male sales leadership team.

26

110. Where HR complaint and compliance policies exist, they lack meaningful

27 quality controls, standards, implementation metrics, and means of redress. Concerns

28 about discrimination made to leadership and HR itself are allowed to go unaddressed.
n~--~----------~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~_24
Case No. _________ -- CLASS AND COLLECTNE ACTION COMPLAINT

Case3:13-cv-00581-WHO Document1 Filed02/11/13 Page25 of 52

1 Worse, there is no meaningful separation between the HR complaint processes and the

2 executives and managers who create discriminatory or hostile work conditions for

3 women and mothers, such that victims of discrimination often face retaliation or are

4 dissuaded from voicing concems altogether.

5

111. Defendant has failed to impose adequate discipline on male employees

6 who violate equal employment opportunity laws and have failed to create adequate

7 incentives for its managerial and supervisory persom1el to comply with such laws

8 regarding the employment policies, practices, and procedures described above.

9

112. Thus, Defendant tolerates and even cultivates a hostile enviromnent in

10 which women and mothers are openly devalued and where (a) retaliation for voicing

11 gender discrimination complaints is the norm, and (b) women and mothers who question

12 or even inadvertently disrupt the Company's gendered nonns are routinely pushed out of

13 the Company.

14

113. In sum, Defendant has demonstrated a reckless disregard and deliberate

15 indifference to its female sales employees by overlooking or otherwise dismissing even

16 blatant evidence of gender discrimination.

17

114. Because of Defendant's pattem or practice of gender discrimination and

18 disparate impact gender discrimination, the Class Representatives and class they seek to

19 represent have been individually and systemically discriminated against. Such gender

20 discrimination includes, without limitation: (a) paying the Class Representatives and

21 other female sales employees less than similarly situated male employees; (b) failing to

22 promote or advance the Class Representatives and other female sales employees at the

23 same rate as similarly situated male employees; (c) treating pregnant employees and

24 mothers differently from non-pregnant employees, male employees, and non-caregivers;

25 (d) carrying out discriminatory hires, job assignments, job reassigmnents, demotions,

26 terminations, realignments/restructurings, and/or layoffs; (e) sexual harassment and/or

27 hostile work environment; (f) retaliation; (g) failing to prevent, respond to, adequately

28 investigate, and/or appropriately resolve instances of gender discrimination, sexual
~~~----------~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~=-25
Case No. _ _ _ _ _ -- CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT

Case3:13-cv-00581-WHO Document1 Filed02/11/13 Page26 of 52

1 harassment, retaliation, and pregnancy/caregiver discrimination in the workplace, and (h)

2 other adverse employment actions.

3

115. The Class Representatives and the class have no plain, adequate, or

4 complete remedy at law to redress the wrongs alleged herein, and this suit is their only

5 means of securing adequate relief. The Class Representatives and the class have

6 suffered, and will continue to suffer, irreparable injury from Defendant's ongoing,

7 unlawful policies, practices, and procedures as set forth herein unless those policies,

8 practices, and procedures are enjoined by this Court.

9

Class Definitions of the Title VII and FEHA Classes

10

116. Class Representatives seek to maintain claims on their own behalf and on

11 behalf of a class of current, former, and future female sales employees in a sales

12 representative and first level district manager role, including, without limitation, Sales

13 Representative; Sales Representative I-V; Sales Specialist; Senior Sales Specialist; Senior

14 Sales Professional; Cardiovascular ("CV") Specialty Sales Representative; CV Specialty

15 Sales Representative I-III; Senior CV Specialty Sales Representative; Senior CV

16 Specialty Sales Professional; Hospital Representative; Hospital Representative I-3;

17 Senior Hospital Sales Representative; Hospital Sales Specialist; and Primary Care, CV

18 and Hospital District Manager, who worked at any time in Defendant's sales organization

19 in the United States during the applicable liability period.

20

117. The Title VII Class consists of all female sales employees as described

21 above, who are, have been, or will be employed by Defendant in the United States at any

22 time during the applicable liability period, including until the date of judgment in this

23 case. Upon information and belief, there are hundreds of such employees in the proposed 24 class.

25

118. The California FEHA Class consists of all female sales employees as

26 described above, who are, have been, or will be employed by Defendant in California at

27 any time during the applicable liability period, including until the date ofjudgment in this

28 case. Upon information and belief, there are hundreds of such employees in the proposed
u~--~----------~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~26
Case No. _ _ _ _ _ -- CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT

Case3:13-cv-00581-WHO Document1 Filed02/11/13 Page27 of 52

1 class.

2

119. The Class Representatives seek to represent all of the female sales

3 employees described above. The systemic gender discrimination described in this

4 Complaint has been, and is, continuing in natnre.

5

Efficiency of Class Prosecution of Common Claims

6

120. Certification of the class of female sales employees, as described above, is

7 the most efficient and economical means of resolving the questions of law and fact,

8 which are common to the claims of the Class Representatives and the proposed class.

9

121. The individual claims of the Class Representatives require resolution of

10 the common questions of whether Defendant has engaged in a systemic pattern or

11 practice of gender discrimination or disparate impact discrimination against female sales

12 employees. Class Representatives seek remedies to eliminate the adverse effects of such

13 discrimination in their own lives, careers, and working conditions, and in the lives,

14 careers, and working conditions of the proposed class members, and to prevent continued

15 gender discrimination in the future.

16

122. Plaintiffs have standing to seek such relief because of the adverse effect

17 that such discrimination has had on them individually and on female sales employees

18 generally. Defendant caused Plaintiffs' injuries through its discriminatory practices,

19 policies, and procedures, as well as its disparate tTeatment of employees who are female,

20 pregnant, and/or have caregiving responsibilities. These injuries are redressable through

21 systemic relief, such as an injunction, and other appropriate class-wide and individual

22 remedies sought in this action.

23

123. In order to gain such relief for themselves, as well as for the class

24 members, Class Representatives will first establish the existence of systemic gender

25 discrimination as the premise for the relief they seek.

26

124. Without class certification, the same evidence and issues would be subject

27 tore-litigation in a multitude of individual lawsuits with an attendant risk of inconsistent

28 adjudications and conflicting obligations. Certification of the proposed class of females
11------------------=~~~--~----==~~-------------27
Case No. _________ -- CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT

Case3:13-cv-00581-WHO Document1 Filed02/11/13 Page28 of 52

1 is the most efficient and judicious means of presenting the evidence and arguments

2 necessary to resolve such questions for the Class Representatives, the proposed class, and

3 the Defendant.

4

Numerosity and Impracticability of Joinder

5

125. The class that the Class Representatives seek to represent is too numerous

6 to make joinder practicable. Upon information and belief, the proposed class consists of

7 htmdreds of current, fom1er, and future female sales employees during the liability

8 period. Defendant's pattern or practice of gender discrimination and disparate impact

9 gender discrimination also makes joinder impracticable by discouraging females fi·om

10 applying for or pursuing promotional, training, or transfer opport1111ities, thereby making

11 it impractical and inefficient to identify many members of the class prior to determination

12 of the merits of Defendant's class-wide liability.

13

Common Questions of Law and Fact

14

126. The prosecution of the class claims requires the adjudication of numerous

15 questions of law and fact common to both the Class Representatives' individual claims

16 and those of the class they seek to represent.

17

127. The common questions of law include, inter alia: (a) whether Defendant

18 has engaged in a pattern or practice of unlawful, systemic gender discrimination in its

19 compensation, assigmnent, selection, performance evaluation, promotion, advancement,

20 transfer, leave, and tennination policies, practices, and procedures, and in the general

21 terms and conditions of work and employment under Title VII, FEHA, and/or other

22 statutes; (b) whether Defendant has engaged in unlawful disparate impact gender

23 discrimination in its compensation, assigmnent, selection, performance evaluation,

24 promotion, advancement, transfer, leave, and termination policies, practices, and

25 procedures, and in the general terms and conditions of work and employment 1111der Title

26 VII, FEHA, and/or other statutes; (c) whether the failure to institute adequate standards,

27 quality controls, implementation metrics, or oversight in assignment, compensation,

28 evaluation, development, maternity and flex/time, promotion, and termination systems
11~--~----------~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~28
Case No. _ _ _ _ _ -- CLASS AND COLLECTNE ACTION COMPLAINT

Case3:13-cv-00581-WHO Document1 Filed02/11/13 Page29 of 52

1 violates Title VII, FEHA, and/or other statutes; (d) whether the lack of transparency and

2 of opportunities for redress in those systems violates Title VII, FEHA, and/or other

3 statutes; (e) whether senior management and HR's failure to prevent, investigate, or

4 properly respond to evidence and complaints of discrimination in the workplace violates

5 Title VII, FEHA, and/or other statutes; and (f) whether Defendant is liable for a

6 continuing systemic violation of Title VII, FEHA, and/or other statutes; and a

7 determination of the proper standards for proving a pattern or practice of discrimination

8 by Defendant against its female sales professionals.

9

128. The common questions of fact include whether Defendm1t has, inter alia:

10 (a) used a system of assignment that lacks meaningful or appropriate standards,

11 implementation metrics, quality controls, transparency, and opportunities for redress; (b)

12 through the use of that system of assignment, placed female sales professionals in job

13 titles or classifications lower tl1an similarly-situated male employees; (c) systematically,

14 intentionally, or knowingly placed female sales professionals in job titles or

15 classifications lower than similarly-situated male employees; (d) used a compensation

16 system that lacks meaningful or appropriate standards, implementation metrics, quality

17 controls, transparency, and opportunities for redress; (e) through the use of that

18 compensation system, compensated female sales professionals less than similarly-situated

19 males in salary, bonuses, and/or other perks; (f) systematically, intentionally, or

20 knowingly compensated female sales professionals less than similarly-situated males; (g)

21 used a system of development and mentoring that lacks meaningful or appropriate

22 standards, implementation metrics, quality controls, transparency, and opportunities for

23 redress; (h) through the use of that development m1d mentoring system, failed to develop

24 or mentor female sales professionals in a commensurate mmmer to tl1eir similarly-

25 situated male counterparts; (i) systematically, intentionally, or knowingly failed to

26 develop or mentor female sales professionals in a commensurate manner to their

27 similarly-situated male counterparts; (j) used a promotion system that lacks meaningful

28 or appropriate standards, implementation metrics, quality controls, transparency, and
l\-----------------~------------~~~~-------------29
Case No. __________ -- CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT

Case3:13-cv-00581-WHO Document1 Filed02/11/13 Page30 of 52
1 opportunities for redress; (k) through the use of that promotion system, precluded or 2 delayed the promotion of female sales professionals into higher level jobs traditionally 3 held by male employees; (I) systematically, intentionally, or knowingly precluded or 4 delayed the promotion of female sales professionals into higher level jobs traditionally 5 held by male employees; (m) used a system for performance evaluations that lacks 6 meaningful or appropriate standards, implementation metrics, quality controls, 7 transparency, and opportunities for redress; (n) through the use of that performance 8 evaluation system, inaccurately, inequitably, or disparately measured and classified 9 female and male sales professionals' performance; (o) systematically, intentionally, or 10 knowingly subjected female sales professionals to inaccurate, inequitable, or 11 discriminatorily lowered perfonnance evaluations; (p) through its policies, practices, and 12 procedures, developed male and female sales professionals inequitably; (q) used a 13 termination and/or layoff system that lacks meaningful or appropriate standards, 14 implementation metrics, quality controls, transparency, and opporhmities for redress; (r) 15 through the use of that termination and/or layoff system, terminated or laid off female 16 sales professionals at a higher rate than similarly-situated males; (s) systematically, 17 intentionally, or knowingly terminated or laid off female sales professionals at a higher 18 rate than similarly-situated males; (t) used maternity and flex time policies, practices, and 19 procedures that lack meaningful or appropriate standards, implementation metrics, 20 quality controls, transparency, or opportunities for redress; (u) tln·ough the use of those 21 policies, practices, and procedures, treated pregnant employees and mothers differently 22 and discriminatorily from non-pregnant employees, male employees, and non-caregivers; 23 (v) systematically, intentionally, or knowingly subjected pregnant employees and 24 mothers to disparate and discriminatory terms and conditions of employment; (w) used 25 HR and EEO systems that lack meaningful or appropriate standards, implementation 26 metrics, quality controls, transparency, or opportunities for redress; (x) through the use of 27 those systems, minimized, ignored, or covered up evidence of gender discrimination and 28 harassment in the workplace and/or otherwise mishandled the investigation of and
11-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-30 Case No. _ _ _ _ _ -- CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT

Case3:13-cv-00581-WHO Document1 Filed02/11/13 Page31 of 52

1 response to complaints of discrimination and harassment brought to the attention of

2 senior management, the human resources department, or other reporting channels; (y)

3 systematically, intentionally, knowingly, or deliberately showed an indifference to

4 evidence of discrimination in the workplace or otherwise minimized, ignored,

5 mishandled, or covered up evidence of or complaints about gender and pregnancy

6 discrimination and harassment in the workplace; (z) failed to adequately or meaningfully

7 train, coach, or discipline senior management on EEO principles and compliance; and

8 (aa) carried out

hires, terminations, demotions, job reassignments,

9 realignments/restructurings, and/or layoffs in a discriminatory manner based on gender.

10

129. The employment policies, practices, and procedures to which the Class

11 Representatives and the class members are subjected are set by Defendant's

12 predominantly male sales leadership team. These employment policies, practices, and

13 procedures are not unique or limited to any office location; rather, they apply to all office

14 locations and, thus, affect the Class Representatives and class members in the same ways

15 regardless of the office, area, or position in which they work.

16

130. Throughout the liability period, a disproportionately large percentage of

17 Defendant's executives, senior executives, officers, and senior managers have been male.

18

131. Defendant's assignment, development, promotion, advancement,

19 compensation, perfom1at1ce evaluation, leave, and termination policies, practices, and

20 procedures all suffer from a lack of: transparency, adequate quality standards and

21 controls, sufficient implementation metrics, management/HR review, and opportunities

22 for redress or challenge. As a result, employees are assigned, evaluated, compensated,

23 developed, promoted, at1d tenninated within a system that is insufficiently designed,

24 articulated, explained, or implemented to consistently, reliably, or equitably manage or

25 reward employees.

26

132. Discrimination in development, promotion, advancement, compensation,

27 performance evaluation, leave, and terminations occurs in a pattern or practice

28 throughout all offices in Defendant's sales operations in the U.S. Employment
~~~----------~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~=-31
Case No. _ _ _ _ _ -- CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT

Case3:13-cv-00581-WHO Document1 Filed02/11/13 Page32 of 52

1 opportunities are driven by personal familiarity, subjective decision-maldng, pre-

2 selection, aod interaction between male executives and subordinates, rather than by merit

3 or equal opportunity. As a result, male employees have advanced and continue to

4 advance more rapidly to better aod higher-paying jobs than do female sales employees.

5 Defendant's policies, practices, aod procedures have had an adverse impact on female

6 sales employees seeking selection for, or advaocement to, better aod higher-paying

7 positions. In general, the higher the level of the job classification, the lower the

8 percentage of female sales employees holding it.

9

Typicality of Claims and Relief Sought

10

133. The claims of Class Representatives are typical of the claims of the class.

11 The relief sought by the Class Representatives for gender discrimination complained of

12 herein is also typical of the relief, which is sought on behalf of the class.

13

134. Like the members of the class, Class Representatives are female sales

14 employees who have worked for Defendaot during the liability period.

15

135. Discrimination in assignment, selection, promotion, advaocement,

16 compensation, leave, and termination affects the compensation and employment

17 opportunities of the Class Representatives aod all the female sales employee class

18 members in the same or similar ways.

19

136. Defendaot has failed to create adequate incentives for its executives and

20 maoagers to comply with its own policies and equal employment opportunity laws

21 regarding each of the employment policies, practices, and procedures referenced in this

22 Complaint, aod have failed to discipline adequately its executives, managers, and other

23 employees when they violate Company policy or discrimination laws. These failures

24 have affected the Class Representatives and the class members in the same or similar

25 ways.

26

137. The relief necessary to remedy the claims of the Class Representatives is

27 the same relief necessary to remedy the claims of the class members in this case. Class

28 Representatives seek the following relief for their individual claims and for tl1ose of the
11-----------------~~----------==~~~~---------32
Case No. _ _ _ _ _ -- CLASS AND COLLECTNE ACTION COMPLAINT

Case3:13-cv-00581-WHO Document1 Filed02/11/13 Page33 of 52

1 members of the proposed class: (A) a declaratory judgment that Defendant has engaged

2 in systemic gender discrimination and disparate impact discrimination against female

3 sales employees by (1) paying female sales employees less than their male counterparts,

4 (2) denying female sales employees promotions into better and higher-paying positions,

5 (3) advancing female sales employees at a slower rate than their male counterparts, (4)

6 treating pregnant employees and mothers differently from non-pregnant employees, male

7 employees, and non-caregivers, (5) failing to prevent, respond to, adequately investigate,

8 and/or appropriately resolve instances of gender discrimination and pregnancy/caregiver

9 discrimination in the workplace, and (6) tenninating, demoting, and reassigning a

10 disproportionate number of females sales employees, including, without limitation,

11 during corporate realigmnents/restructurings and/or layoffs; (B) a permanent injunction

12 against such continuing discriminatory conduct; (C) injunctive relief which affects a

13 restructuring of Defendant's promotion, transfer, assigmnent, demotion, training,

14 perfonnance evaluation, compensation, leave, and tennination policies, practices, and

15 procedures, so that female sales employees will be able to compete fairly in the future for

16 promotions, transfers, and assigmnents to better and higher-paying positions with terms

17 and conditions of employment 1mditionally enjoyed by male employees; (D) back pay,

18 front pay, and other equitable remedies necessary to make the female sales employees

19 whole from the Defendant's past discrimination; (E) punitive and nominal damages to

20 prevent and deter Defendant from engaging in similar discriminatory practices in the

21 future; (F) compensatory damages; (G) pre- and post-judgment interest; and (H)

22 attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses.

23

Adequacy of Representation

24

138. The Class Representatives' interests are co-extensive with those of the

25 members of the proposed class, which they seek to represent in this case. Class

26 Representatives seek to remedy Defendant's discriminatory employment policies,

27 practices, and procedures so that female sales employees will no longer be prevented

28 from advancing into higher paying and more desirable higher level positions. Plaintiffs
n~--~----------~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~33
Case No. _________ -- CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT

Case3:13-cv-00581-WHO Document1 Filed02/11/13 Page34 of 52

I are willing and able to represent the proposed class fairly and vigorously as they pursue

2 their individual claims in this action.

3

13 9. Class Representatives have retained counsel who is qualified, experienced,

4 and able to conduct this litigation and to meet the time and fiscal demands required to

5 litigate an employment discrimination class action of this size and complexity. The

6 combined interests, experience, and resources of Plaintiffs' counsel to litigate

7 competently the individual and class claims at issue in this case clearly satisfy the

8 adequacy of representation requirement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(4).

9

Requirements Of Rule 23(b)(2)

I 0

140. Defendant has acted on grounds generally applicable to the Class

11 Representatives and the class by adopting and implementing systemic policies, practices,

12 and procedures that are discriminatory. Disparate impact and systemic gender

13 discrimination are Defendant's standard operating procedures rather than sporadic

14 occurrences. Defendant has refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class

15 by, inter alia: (1) paying Plaintiffs and other female sales employees less than similarly-

16 sitnated male employees; (2) failing to promote or advance Plaintiffs and other female

17 sales employees at the same rate as similarly-situated male employees; (3) treating

18 pregnant employees and mothers differently from non-pregnant employees, male

19 employees, and non-caregivers; (4) failing to prevent, respond to, adequately investigate,

20 and/or appropriately resolve instances of gender discrimination, sexual harassment, and

21 pregnancy/caregiver discrimination in the workplace; and (5) carrying out discriminatory

22 hires, terminations, demotions, and/or job reassignments including, without limitation,

23 during corporate realignments/restructurings, and/or layoffs.

24

141. Defendant's systemic discrimination and refusal to act on grounds that are

25 not discriminatory have made appropriate the requested final injunctive and declaratory

26 relief with respect to the class as a whole.

27

Requirements of Rule 23(b)(3)

28

142. The common issues of fact and law affecting the claims of Class

~~~----------~~~~~~~==~~~~~~~~~34
Case No. _________ -- CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT

Case3:13-cv-00581-WHO Document1 Filed02/11/13 Page35 of 52

1 Representatives and proposed class members, including, but not limited to, the common

2 issues previously identified herein, predominate over any issues affecting only individual

3 claims. These issues include whether Defendant has engaged in gender discrimination

4 against female employees by: (1) paying Plaintiffs and other female sales employees less

5 than similarly-situated male employees; (2) failing to promote or advance Plaintiffs and

6 other female sales employees at the same rate as similarly-situated male employees; (3)

7 treating pregnant employees and mothers differently from non-pregnant employees, male

8 employees, and non-caregivers; (4) failing to prevent, respond to, adequately investigate,

9 and/or appropriately resolve instances of gender discrimination, sexual harassment, and

10 pregnancy/caregiver discrimination in the workplace; and (5) carrying out discriminatory

11 hires, tenninations, demotions, and/or job reassignments including, without limitation,

12 during corporate realignments/restructurings and or layoffs.

13

143. A class action is superior to other available means for the fair and efficient

14 adjudication of the claims of the Class Representatives and members of the proposed

15 class.

16

144. The cost of proving Defendant's pattern or practice of discrimination

17 makes it impracticable for the Class Representatives and members of the proposed class

18 to prosecute their claims individually.

19

CALIFORNIA AND FEDERAL EQUAL PAY ACT CLAIMS

20

145. Plaintiffs Wellens, Jensen, Pena, Giovanni, Hollinger, and Bennie

21 incorporate by reference the allegations from the previous paragraphs of this Complaint

22 alleging class-based common policies and practices resulting in unequal pay earned by

23 similarly-situated female sales employees.

24

146. Plaintiffs Wellens, Jensen, Pena, Giovmmi, Hollinger, and Bennie bring

25 collective claims alleging violations of the Equal Pay Act ("EPA") as a collective action

26 pursuant to Section 16(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. § 216(b)

27 on behalf of all members of the EPA Class. The EPA Class consists of all current,

28 fonner, a11d future female sales employees in a sales representative and first level district
11=--~----------~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~35
Case No. _ _ _ _ _ -- CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT

Case3:13-cv-00581-WHO Document1 Filed02/11/13 Page36 of 52

1 manager role, including, without limitation, Sales Representative; Sales Representative I-

2 V; Sales Specialist; Senior Sales Specialist; Senior Sales Professional; Cardiovascular

3 ("CV") Specialty Sales Representative; CV Specialty Sales Representative I-III; Senior

4 CV Specialty Sales Representative; Senior CV Specialty Sales Professional; Hospital

5 Representative; Hospital Representative I-3; Senior Hospital Sales Representative;

6 Hospital Sales Specialist; and Primary Care, CV, and Hospital District Manager, who

7 worked at any time in Defendant's sales organization in the United States during the

8 applicable liability period.

9

147. Plaintiffs Wellens, Jensen, Pena, Giovanni, Hollinger, and Bennie seek to

10 represent all of the female sales employees described above. The systemic gender

11 discrimination described in this Complaint has been, and is, continuing in nature.

12

148. The EPA Class includes female sales employees, as described above, who

13 (a) were not compensated equally to males who had substantially similar job

14 classifications, job functions, job families, job codes, job titles, job descriptions, and/or

15 job duties based on Defendant's common employment policies and centralized decision-

16 making; (b) were not compensated equally to males who performed substantially similar

17 work based on Defendant's conm1on employment policies and centralized decision-

18 maldng; and (c) who were denied assignment, placement, promotion, and/or

19 advancement opportunities that would have resulted in greater compensation in favor of

20 lesser qualified male employees based on Defendant's common employment policies and

21 centralized decision-maldng.

22

149. Questions of law and fact common to the Plaintiffs and the EPA Class as a

23 whole include, but are not limited to, the following:

24

(a) Whether Defendant unlawfully failed and continues to fail to compensate

25 female sales employees at a level commensurate with similarly situated male employees;

26

(b) Whether Defendant unlawfully failed and continues to fail to assign, place,

27 promote, and advance female sales employees to higher paying positions in a fashion

28 commensurate with similarly situated males;
~~~----------~~~~~~~~~~==~~~~~=-36
Case No. _________ -- CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT

Case3:13-cv-00581-WHO Document1 Filed02/11/13 Page37 of 52

1

(c) Whether Defendant's policy or practice of failing to compensate female sales

2 employees on a par with comparable male employees as a result of (a) and (b) violate

3 applicable provisions of the EPA; and

4

(d) Whether Defendant's failure to compensate female sales employees on par

5 with comparable male employees as a result of (a) and (b) was willful within the meaning

6 oftheEPA.

7

150. C01mts for violation of the EPA may be brought and maintained as an "opt-

8 in" collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), for all claims asserted by the

9 Plaintiffs, because their claims are similar to the claims of the EPA Class.

10

151. Plaintiffs Wellens, Jensen, Pena, Giovmmi, Hollinger, Be~mie, and the EPA

11 Class (a) are similarly situated; (b) have substantially similar job classifications, job

12 functions, job fmnilies, job titles, job descriptions, a11d/or job duties; and (c) are subject to

13 Defendant's connnon compensation policies a11d practices, and centralized decision-

14 making resulting in unequal pay based on sex by (i) failing to compensate fe~nale sales

15 employees on a par with men who perfonn substantially equal work and/or hold

16 equivalent levels, job titles, and positions, and (ii) failing to provide female sales

17 employees equal pay by denying opportunities for assignment, placement, promotion,

18 and advancement that would have resulted in greater compensation to them comparable

19 to those afforded to males who perfonn substantially equal work.

20

152. Plaintiffs Wellens, Jensen, Pena, Giovarmi, Hollinger, and Be1111ie also

21 bring claims alleging violations of the California Equal Pay Act ("CA EPA") pursuant to

22 California Labor Code Section 1197.5 on behalf of all members ofthe California EPA

23 Class. The California EPA Class consists of all current, former, and future female sales

24 employees in a sales representative a11d first level district manager role, including,

25 without limitation, Sales Representative; Sales Representative I-V; Sales Specialist;

26 Senior Sales Specialist; Senior Sales Professional; Cardiovascular ("CV") Specialty Sales

27 Representative; CV Specialty Sales Representative I-III; Senior CV Specialty Sales

28 Representative; Senior CV Specialty Sales Professional; Hospital Representative;
11~--~------------~~~~~~~~==~==~~~~~---37
Case No. __________ -- CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT

Case3:13-cv-00581-WHO Document1 Filed02/11/13 Page38 of 52

1 Hospital Representative I-3; Senior Hospital Sales Representative; Hospital Sales

2 Specialist; and Primary Care, CV, and Hospital District Manager, who worked at any

3 time in Defendant's sales organization in California during the applicable liability period.

4

CAUSES OF ACTION

5

(INDIVIDUAL AND CLASS/COLLECTIVE ACTION CLAIMS)

6

COUNTl

7

VIOLATIONS OF TITLE VII OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964

GENDER DISCRIMINATION

8

42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq.

9 (On Behalf of All Class Representatives, in their Individual and Representative Capacities, and the Title VII Class Against Daiichi Sankyo)

10

11

153. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation

12 contained in the previous paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

13

154. This Count is brought on behalf of all Plaintiffs in their individual and

14 representative capacities, and all members of the class.

15

155. Daiichi Sankyo has discriminated against the Plaintiffs and the class in

16 violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq., as amended by

17 the Civil Rights Act of 1991 ("Title VII"), by subjecting them to different treatment on

18 the basis of their gender. Plaintiffs and the class have suffered both disparate impact and

19 disparate treatment discrimination as a result ofDaiichi Sankyo's wrongful conduct.

20

156. Daiichi Sankyo has discriminated against the Plaintiffs and all members of

21 the class by treating them differently from and less preferably than similarly-situated

22 male employees and by subjecting them to disparate pay, discriminatory denial of pay

23 raises, disparate terms and conditions of employment, discriminatory job assignment,

24 discriminatory demotions, discriminatory denial of promotions, harassment, hostile work

25 environments, and other fonns of discrimination, in violation of Title VII.

26

157. Defendant has failed to prevent, respond to, adequately investigate, and/or

27 appropriately resolve instances of gender discrimination and pregnancy/caregiver

28 discrimination in the workplace.
n~--~----------~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~_38
Case No. _________ -- CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT

Case3:13-cv-00581-WHO Document1 Filed02/11/13 Page39 of 52

1

158. Defendant's conduct has been intentional, deliberate, willful, malicious,

2 reckless, and conducted in callous disregard of the rights of the Class Representatives and

3 all members of the class, entitling the Class Representatives and all members of the class

4 to punitive damages.

5

159. Daiichi Sankyo's policies, practices, and/or procedures have produced a

6 disparate impact on the Plaintiffs and the members of the class with respect to the tenus

7 and conditions of their employment.

8

160. As a result of Daiichi Sankyo's conduct alleged in this Complaint, the

9 Class Representatives and the members of the class have suffered and continue to suffer

10 harm, including but not limited to, lost earnings, lost benefits, lost future employment

11 opportunities, and other financial loss, as well as non-economic damages.

12

161. By reason of the continuous nature of Defendant's discriminatory conduct,

13 which persisted throughout the employment of the Class Representatives and the

14 members of the class, the Class Representatives and the members of the class are entitled

15 to application of the continuing violations doctrine to all violations alleged herein.

16

162. By reason of Defendant's discrimination, the Class Representatives and

17 the members of the class are entitled to all legal and equitable remedies available for

18 violations of Title VII, including reinstatement and an award of compensatory and

19 punitive damages.

20

163. Attomeys' fees and costs should be awarded under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-

21 5(k).

22

COUNT2

23 VIOLATIONS OF TITLE VII OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964

24

PREGNANCY AND FAMILY RESPONSIBILITIES DISCRIMINATION

42 U.S.C. § 2000e(k) et seq. 25 (On Behalf of Class Representatives Wellens, Pena, Jensen, Giovanni, and Bennie,

26

in their Individual and Representative Capacities, and the Title VII Class Against Daiichi Sankyo)

27

28

164. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation

ll----------------------------------------------------39 Case No. ________ -- CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT

Case3:13-cv-00581-WHO Document1 Filed02/11/13 Page40 of 52

1 contained in the previous paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

2

165. This Count is brought on behalf of Plaintiffs Wellens, Pena, Giovanni, and

3 Bennie in their individual and representative capacities, and all members of the class.

4

166. Defendant discriminated against the Class Representatives and the

5 members of the class because of or on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related

6 medical conditions.

7

167. The Class Representatives and members of the class were not treated the

8 same for all employment-related purposes, including receipt of disparate compensation

9 and raises, as other persons not so affected but similar in their ability or inability to work.

10

168. Daiichi Sankyo's policies, practices, and/or procedures have produced a

11 disparate impact on the Plaintiffs and the members of the class with respect to the tenns

12 and conditions of their employment.

13

169. Defendant's conduct has been intentional, deliberate, willful, malicious,

14 reckless, and conducted in callous disregard of the rights of Class Representatives and

15 members of the class.

16

170. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's aforementioned conduct,

17 Class Representatives and all members of the class were damaged and suffered economic

18 losses and non-economic damages.

19

171. By reason of the continuous nature of Defendant's discriminatory conduct,

20 persistent throughout the employment of Class Representatives and the class members,

21 Plaintiffs and the class members are entitled to application of the continuing violation

22 doctrine to all of the violations alleged herein.

23

172. By reason of the pregnancy discrimination suffered as a result of

24 Defendant's discriminatory conduct, Plaintiffs and members of the class are entitled to

25 legal and equitable remedies available under Title VII, including an award of

26 compensatory and punitive damages.

27

173. Attorneys' fees should be awarded under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(k).

28 //

ll----------------------------------------------------40 Case No. __________ -- CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT

Case3:13-cv-00581-WHO Document1 Filed02/11/13 Page41 of 52

I

COUNT3

2

VIOLATION OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT OF 1938,

3

AS AMENDED BY THE EQUAL PAY ACT OF 1963

4

DENIAL OF EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK

29 U.S.C. §§ 206, et seq.

5 (On Behalf of All Class Representatives, in their Individual and Representative Capacities, and the EPA Class Against Daiichi Sankyo)

6

7

174. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation

8 contained in the previous paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

9

175. This Count is brought on behalf of all Plaintiffs in their individual and

10 representative capacities, and all members of the EPA Class, including all EPA Plaintiffs

II who "opt in" to this action.

12

176. Defendant has discriminated against the Class Representatives and the

13 EPA Class in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 29 U.S.C. §§ 206, et

14 seq., as amended by the Equal Pay Act of 1963 ("EPA"), by providing them with lower

15 pay than similarly situated male colleagues even though Class Representatives, and all

16 other similarly situated female sales employees, performed substantially similar duties

17 requiring the same skill, effort, and responsibility of male cotmterparts, and are or were

18 performed under similar working conditions.

19

177. Defendant so discriminated by subjecting the Class Representatives and

20 the EPA Plaintiffs to cotmnon discriminatory pay policies, including discriminatory

21 salaries, bonuses, and other compensation incentives, and discriminatory assigmnents,

22 denials of promotions, and other advancement opportunities that would result in higher

23 compensation, and other fonns of discrimination in violation of the EPA.

24

178. The differential in pay between male and female employees was not due to

25 seniority, merit, quantity or quality of production, but was due to gender.

26

179. Defendant caused, attempted to cause, contributed to, or caused the

27 continuation of, the wage rate discrimination based on sex in violation of the EPA.

28

180. The foregoing conduct constitutes a willful violation of the EPA within

11~----------------~~~~~~---===~~~~~~-----41
Case No. _________ -- CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT

Case3:13-cv-00581-WHO Document1 Filed02/11/13 Page42 of 52

1 the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 255(a). Because Defendant has willfully violated the EPA, a

2 three-year statute oflimitations applies to such violations, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 255.

3

181. As a result of Defendant's conduct alleged in this Complaint, Class

4 Representatives and all EPA Plaintiffs have suffered and will continue to suffer harm,

5 including but not limited to: lost eamings, lost benefits, and other financial loss, as well

6 as non-economic damages.

7

182. By reason of Defendant's discrimination, Class Representatives and all

8 EPA Plaintiffs are entitled to all legal and equitable remedies available for violations of

9 the EPA including liquidated damages for all willful violations, prejudgment interest,

10 attomeys' fees, costs, and other compensation pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).

11

183. Attomeys' fees should be awarded under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).

12 COUNT4

13

VIOLATION OF THE CALIFORNIA FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING

14

ACT

15

CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE§ 12940, et seq.

GENDER DISCRIMINATION

16 (On Behalf of All Class Representatives , in their Individual and Representative

Capacities, and the California FEHA Class Against Daiichi Sankyo)

17

18

184. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation

19 contained in the previous paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

20

185. This Count is brought on behalf of all Plaintiffs in their individual and

21 representative capacities, and all members of the California FEHA class.

22

186. Daiichi Sankyo has discriminated against the Plaintiffs and the California

23 FEHA class in violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (the

24 "FEHA''), Cal. Gov't Code § 12940, et seq, by subjecting them to different treatment on

25 the basis of their gender. Plaintiffs and the California FEHA class have suffered both

26 disparate impact and disparate treatment as a result of Defendant's wrongful conduct and

27 its policies, practices, and procedures.

28

187. Defendant has discriminated against the Class Representatives and all

11---~------------~~~~~~~~=-~~~=---~~-42 Case No. ________ -- CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT

Case3:13-cv-00581-WHO Document1 Filed02/11/13 Page43 of 52

1 members of the California FEHA class by treating them differently from and less

2 preferably than similarly-situated male employees and by subjecting them to disparate

3 pay, discriminatory denial of pay raises, disparate terms and conditions of employment,

4 discriminatory job assignment, discriminatory demotions, discriminatory denial of

5 promotions, harassment, hostile work environments and other forms of discrimination, in

6 violation of the FEHA.

7

188. Defendant has failed to prevent, respond to, adequately investigate, and/or

8 appropriately resolve instances of gender discrimination and pregnancy/caregiver

9 discrimination in tl1e workplace.

10

189. Defendant's conduct has been intentional, deliberate, willful, malicious,

11 reckless, and conducted in callous disregard of the rights of the Class Representatives and

12 all members of the California FEHA class, entitling the Class Representatives and all

13 members of the California FEHA class to punitive damages.

14

190. Daiichi Sankyo's policies, practices, and/or procedures have produced a

15 disparate impact on the Plaintiffs and the members of the California FEHA class with

16 respect to the terms and conditions of their employment.

1 7

191. As a result of Daiichi Sankyo' s conduct alleged in this complaint, the

18 Class Representatives and the members of the California FEHA class have suffered and

19 continue to suffer harm, including but not limited to, lost earnings, lost benefits, lost

20 future employment opportunities, and other financial loss, as well as non-economic

21 damages.

22

192. By reason of the continuous nature of Defendant's discriminatory conduct,

23 which. persisted throughout the employment of the Class Representatives and the

24 members of the class, the Class Representatives and the members of the California FEHA

25 class are entitled to application of the continuing violations doctrine to all violations

26 alleged herein.

27

193. By reason of Defendant's discrimination, the Class Representatives and

28 the members of the California FEHA class are entitled to all legal and equitable remedies
l\-----------------~~------------~~---------------43
Case No. __________ -- CLASS AND COLLECTNE ACTION COMPLAINT

Case3:13-cv-00581-WHO Document1 Filed02/11/13 Page44 of 52

1 available for violations of the FEHA, including reinstatement and an award of

2 compensatory and punitive damages.

3

194. Attorneys' fees should be awarded under Cal. Gov't Code§ 12940.

4

COUNTS

5 VIOLATION OF THE CALIFORNIA FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING

6

ACT

CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE§ 12940, et seq.

7

PREGNANCY AND FAMILY RESPONSIBILITIES DISCRIMINATION

(On Behalf of Class Representatives Wellens, Jensen, Pena, Giovanni, and Bennie, 8 in their Individual and Representative Capacities, and the California FEHA Class

9

Against Daiichi Sankyo)

10

195. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation

11 in each and every aforementioned paragraph as if fully set forth herein.

12

196. This Count is brought on behalf of Plaintiffs Wellens, Jensen, Pena,

13 Giovanni, and Bennie in their individual and representative capacities, and all members

14 of the class.

15

197. Defendant has discriminated against the Class Representatives and all

16 members of the California FEHA class in violation of the FEHA, by subjecting them to

17 different treatment on the basis of their gender. Plaintiffs and the California FEHA class

18 have suffered both disparate impact and disparate treatment as a result of Defendant's

19 wrongful conduct and its policies, practices and procedures.

20

198. Defendant has discriminated against the Class Representatives and all

21 members of the California FEHA class by treating them differently from and less

22 preferably than similarly-situated male employees and female employees without primary

23 caregiving responsibilities, and by subjecting them to differential and substandard terms

24 and conditions of employment, including but not limited to, discriminatory denials of fair

25 compensation, discriminatory denials of promotions and discriminatory treatment with

26 respect to work responsibilities and other terms and conditions of employment in

27 violation of the FEHA.

28

199. Defendant's conduct has been intentional, deliberate, willful, malicious,

ll----------------------------------------------------44 Case No. __________ -- CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT

Case3:13-cv-00581-WHO Document1 Filed02/11/13 Page45 of 52

1 reckless and conducted in callous disregard of the rights of the Class Representatives and

2 all members of the California FEHA class, entitling the Class Representatives and all

3 members of the California FEHA class to punitive damages.

4

200. By reason of the continuous nature of Defendant's discriminatory conduct,

5 which persisted throughout the employment of the Class Representatives and the

6 members of the California FEHA class, the Class Representatives and the members of the

7 class are entitled to application of tl1e continuing violations doctrine to all violations

8 alleged herein.

9

201. As a result of Defendant's conduct alleged in this complaint, the Class

10 Representatives and the members of the California FEHA class have suffered and

11 continue to suffer harm, including but not limited to lost earnings, lost benefits, lost

12 future employment opportunities, and other financial loss, as well as non-economic

13 dan1ages.

14

202. Defendant's policies, practices and/or procedures have produced a

15 disparate impact on the Class Representatives and the members of the class with respect

16 to the terms and conditions of their employment.

17

203. By reason of Defendant's discrimination, the Class Representatives and

18 the members of the California FEHA class are entitled to all legal and equitable remedies

19 available for violations of the FEHA, including an award of compensatory and punitive

20 damages.

21

204. Attorneys' fees should be awarded under Cal. Gov't Code§ 12940 et seq.

22

COUNT6

23 VIOLATION OF THE CALIFORNIA EQUAL PAY ACT

24

CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE§ 1197.5, et. seq.

(On Behalf of All the Class Representatives, in their Individual and Representative

25

Capacities, and the California EPA Class Against Daiichi Sankyo)

26

205. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation

27 contained in the previous paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.

28

206. This Count is brought on behalf of all Plaintiffs in their individual and

11~----------------~~~~~~~--~~~~~~~--------45
Case No. _________ -- CLASS AND COLLECTNE ACTION COMPLAINT

Case3:13-cv-00581-WHO Document1 Filed02/11/13 Page46 of 52

1 representative capacities, and all members of the California EPA class.

2

207. Defendant has discriminated against the Plaintiffs and all California EPA

3 class members in violation of the Califomia Labor Code § 1197.5, et. seq. Defendant has

4 discriminated against the Plaintiffs and Califomia EPA class members by treating them

5 differently from and less preferably than similarly-situated male employees who

6 performed jobs which required equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which were

7 performed under similar working conditions. Defendant so discriminated by subjecting

8 them to discriminatory pay, discriminatory denials of bonuses and other compensation

9 incentives, discriminatory denials of promotions and other advancement opportunities

10 that would result in higher compensation, and other fonns of discrimination in violation

11 of the Califomia Equal Pay Act.

12

208. Defendant caused, attempted to cause, contributed to, or caused the

13 continuation of, the wage rate discrimination based on sex in violation of the California

14 Equal Pay Act. Moreover, Defendant willfully violated the California Equal Pay Act by

15 intentionally paying women less than men.

16

209. As a result of Defendant's conduct alleged in this Complaint and/or

17 Defendant's willful, knowing, and intentional discrimination, the Plaintiffs have suffered

18 and will continue to suffer harm, including but not limited to lost earnings, lost benefits,

19 and other financial loss, as well as non-economic damages.

20

210. The Plaintiffs and the California EPA class are therefore entitled to all

21 legal and equitable remedies, including doubled compensatory awards for all willful

22 violations.

23

211. Attorneys' fees should be awarded under California Labor Code §

24 1197.5(g).

25 II

26 II

27 II

28 II 11---~------------~~--~~~~~~~-=~~---=~_46 Case No. _ _ _ _ _ --CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT

Case3:13-cv-00581-WHO Document1 Filed02/11/13 Page47 of 52

I

COUNT7

2

VIOLATIONS OF TITLE VII OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT,

3

42 U.S.C. § 2000e(k), et seq., and

4

CALIFORNIA FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING ACT, Cal. Gov. Code§ 12940, et seq.

5

RETALIATION

(On Behalf of Jacqueline Pena Against Daiichi Sankyo)

6

7

212. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation

8 contained in the previous paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.

9

213. Defendant retaliated against Ms. Pena for becoming pregnant and taking

10 protected maternity leave. Defendant also retaliated against Ms. Pena for engaging in

II oppositional and!or protected activities by, inter alia, complaining about gender and

12 pregnancy discrimination and filing a charge of discrimination with the U.S. Equal

13 Employment Opportunity Commission and the California Department of Fair Housing

14 and Employment.

15

214. Defendant took adverse employment actions against Ms. Pena for

16 engaging in protected activities. Such adverse employment actions include subjecting her

17 to heightened scrutiny and unfavorable terms and conditions of employment, including,

18 without limitation, negative performance reviews, denial of pay increases and!or

19 relocation compensation, demotions, and wrongful termination.

20

215. Defendant's actions were intentional, deliberate, willful, malicious,

21 recldess, and conducted in callous disregard of causing harm to Ms. Pena.

22

216. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's aforementioned conduct,

23 Ms. Pena has been damaged and suffered economic losses, mental and emotional harm,

24 anguish, and humiliation.

25

217. As a result of the Defendant's retaliation, Ms. Pena is entitled to all legal

26 and equitable remedies available for violations of Title VII and the FEHA, including an

27 award of compensatory and punitive damages.

28 II
11=--~----------~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~47
Case No. _________ -- CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT

Case3:13-cv-00581-WHO Document1 Filed02/11/13 Page48 of 52

1

218. Attorneys' fees should be awarded pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(k) and

2 Cal. Gov't Code § 12940 et seq.

3

4

COUNTS

5

WRONGFUL TERMINATION IN VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY

(On Behalf of Jacqueline Pena Against Daiichi Sankyo)

6

7

219. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation

8 contained in the previous paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.

9

220. On November 14, 2012, Daiichi Sankyo terminated Ms. Perra for

10 becoming pregnant and taking protected maternity leave, and for engaging in

11 oppositional and/or protected activities by, inter alia, complaining about gender and

12 pregnancy discrimination and filing a charge of discrimination with the U.S. Equal

13 Employment Opportunity Commission and the California Department of Fair Housing

14 and Employment.

15

221. Daiichi Sankyo's termination of Ms. Perra's employment as alleged herein

16 constitutes an unlawful employment practice in violation of public policy. Class

17 Representative Pena was terminated for exercising the rights afforded to her under Title

18 VII, FMLA, FEHA, CRLA, PDA, and California's Business and Professions Code §

19 17200 et seq. Daiichi Sankyo's retaliatory termination constitutes a violation of said

20 statues and violates California's prohibition against terminations motivated by purposes

21 that contravene fundamental public policies.

22

222. As a direct, foreseeable, and proximate result of Daiichi Sankyo's

23 wrongful termination of her employment, Ms. Perra has suffered and continues to suffer

24 substantial losses of eamings and benefits, and emotional distress.

25

223. The aforementioned conduct by Daiichi Sankyo was willful, wanton,

26 malicious, and oppressive, thereby warranting an award of exemplary and punitive

27 damages to Ms. Pena.

28 //
~~~----------~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~=-48
Case No. _ _ _ _ _ -- CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT

Case3:13-cv-00581-WHO Document1 Filed02/11/13 Page49 of 52

1

COUNT9

2

UNFAIR COMPETITION IN VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA BUSINESS AND

3

PROFESSIONS CODE

4

California Business and Professions Code § 17200-17208

(On Behalf of All Class Representatives in their Individual and Representative

5

Capacities, and the California FEHA and the California EPA Classes Against

Daiichi Sanl,yo)

6

7

224. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation

8 contained in the previous paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.

9

225. This Count is brought on behalf of all Plaintiffs in their individual and

10 representative capacities, and all members of the California classes.

11

226. Defendant Daiichi Sankyo is a "person" as defined nnder California

12 Business & Professions Code§ 17021.

13

227. Defendant's willful failure to pay women equally and otherwise offer

14 women equal employment opportunities as alleged above, constitutes nnlawful and/or

15 nnfair and/or fraudulent activity prohibited by California Business and Professions Code

16 § 17200. As a result of its tmlawliJl and/or unfair and/or fraudulent acts, Defendant

17 reaped and continues to reap unfair benefits and illegal profits at the expense of Plaintiffs

18 and the Califomia class members. Defendant should be enjoined from this activity and

19 made to disgorge these ill-gotten gains pursuant to Business and Professions Code §

20 17203.

21

228. Accordingly, Plaintiffs and the class members respectfully request that the

22 Court award judgment and relief in their favor to provide restitution with interest and

23 other equitable relief.

24

PRAYER FOR RELIEF ON CLASS, COLLECTIVE ACTION, AND

25

INDIVIDUAL CLAIMS

26

27

229. WHEREFORE, the Class Representatives, on their own behalf and on

28 behalf of the Classes, as defined above, pray that this Court:
~~~----------~~~~~~~~~~==~~~~~=-49
Case No. _ _ _ _ _ -- CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT

Case3:13-cv-00581-WHO Document1 Filed02/11/13 Page50 of 52

1

A. Certify this case as a class action maintainable under Federal Rules of

2 Civil Procedure Rule 23 (a), (b)(2) and/or (b)(3) on behalf of the proposed Plaintiff

3 Classes; designate the proposed Class Representatives as representatives of these Classes;

4 and designate Plaintiffs' counsel of record as Class Counsel;

5

B. Designate this action as a collective action on behalf of the proposed EPA

6 Collective Action Plaintiffs and

7

(i) promptly issue notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) to all similarly-situated

8 members of the EPA Collective Action Opt-In Class, which (a) apprises them of the

9 pendency of this action, and (b) permits them to assert timely EPA claims in this action

10 by filing individual Consent to Join forms pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b); and

11

(ii) toll the statute of limitations on the claims of all members of the EPA

12 Collective Action Opt-In Class from the date the original complaint was filed until the

13 Class members are provided with reasonable notice of the pendency of this action and a

14 fair opporhmity to exercise their right to opt-in as Plaintiffs;

15

C. Declare and adjudge Daiichi Sankyo's employment policies, practices

16 and/or procedures challenged herein are illegal and in violation of the rights of Class

17 Representatives and Class members;

18

D. Issue a pennanent injunction against Daiichi Sankyo, Inc. and its partners,

19 officers, owners, agents, successors, employees, and/or representatives, and any and all

20 persons acting in concert with them, enjoining them from engaging in any further

21 unlawful practices, policies, customs, usages, gender/pregnancy discrimination, and

22 retaliation as set forth herein;

23

E. Order Defendant to initiate and implement programs that will: (i) provide

24 equal employment opportunities for female employees; (ii) remedy the effects of

25 Defendant's past and present tmlawful employment policies, practices, and/or

26 procedures; and (iii) eliminate the continuing effects of the discriminatory and retaliatory

27 practices described above;

28 //
n~--~----------~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~50
Case No. _________ -- CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT

Case3:13-cv-00581-WHO Document1 Filed02/11/13 Page51 of 52

1

F. Order Defendant to initiate and implement systems of assigning, training,

2 transferring, compensating, and promoting female employees in a non-discriminatory

3 manner;

4

G. Order Defendant to establish a task force on equality and fairness to

5 determine the effectiveness of the programs described in E and F above, which would

6 provide for: (i) monitoring, reporting, and retaining of jurisdiction to ensure equal

7 employment opportunity; (ii) the assurance that injunctive relief is properly implemented;

8 and (iii) a quarterly report setting forth information relevant to the detennination of the

9 effectiveness of the programs described in E and F above;

10

H. Order Defendant to adjust the wage rates and benefits for the Class

11 Representatives and the Class members to the level that they would be enjoying but for

12 the Defendant's discriminatory policies, practices, and/or procedures;

13

I.

Order Defendant to place, reinstate, or restore the Class Representatives

14 and the Class members into those jobs they would now be occupying but for Defendant's

15 discriminatory policies, practices, and/or procedures;

16

J.

Order that this Court retain jurisdiction of this action until such time as

17 the Court is satisfied that the Defendant has remedied the practices complained of herein

18 and is determined to be in full compliance with the law;

19

K. Award nominal, compensatory, and punitive damages to the Class

20 Representatives and the Class members, in excess of one hundred million dollars;

21

L. Award litigation costs and expenses, including, but not limited to,

22 reasonable attorneys' fees, to the Class Representatives and Class members;

23

M. Award back pay, front pay, lost benefits, preferential rights to jobs, and

24 other damages for lost compensation and job benefits with pre-judgment and post-

25 judgment interest suffered by the Class Representatives and the Class members to be

26 determined at trial;

27

N. Order Defendant to mal(e whole the Class Representatives and Class

28 members by providing them with appropriate lost earnings and benefits, and other
n~--~----------~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~51
Case No. _ _ _ _ _ -- CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT

Case3:13-cv-00581-WHO Document1 Filed02/11/13 Page52 of 52

I affirmative relief;

2

0. Award any other appropriate equitable relief to the Class Representatives

3 and Class members; and

4

P. Award any additional and further relief as this Court may deem just and

5 proper.

6

7

JURY DEMAND

8

Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury on all issues triable of right by jury.

9

10 Dated: 2/1112013

11

12

}~~

13

14

Janette Wipper (SBN 275264)

15

Felicia Medina (SBN 255804)

SANFORD HEISLER, LLP

16

555 Montgomery Street, Suite 1206

San Francisco, CA 94111

17

(415) 795-2020 (main)

(415) 795-2021(fax)

18

jwipper@sanfordheisler.com

19

finedina@sanfordheisler. com

20

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs and the Class

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 11-----------------~~--~~~~=---~-=~~--~---52 Case No. __________ -- CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT

 
 Case3:13-cv-00581-WHO Document23 Filed04/12/13 Page1 of 21

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
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO

GEORGE A. STOHNER, State Bar No. 214508 MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 300 South Grand Avenue, 22nd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-3132 Tel: 213.612.2500 Fax: 213.612.2501
MEGAN BARRY BOROVICKA, State Bar No. 241205 MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP One Market, Spear Street Tower San Francisco, CA 94105-1126 Tel: 415.442.1000 Fax: 415.442.1001 mborovicka@morganlewis.com
SARI M. ALAMUDDIN (Pro Hac Vice Application Pending) ALLISON N. POWERS (Pro Hac Vice Application Pending) MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 77 West Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60601-5094 Tel: 312.324.1000 Fax: 312.324.1001 salamuddin@morganlewis.com apowers@morganlewis.com
Attorneys for Defendant DAIICHI SANKYO, INC.
Caption continued on following page

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SARA WELLENS, KELLY JENSEN, JACQUELINE PENA, BERNICE GIOVANNI, LARA HOLLINGER, and JENNIFER BENNIE on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,

Case No. C 13-00581 CW
DEFENDANT DAIICHI SANKYO, INC.’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE TO THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY (28 U.S.C. § 1404(a)); MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF

vs. DAIICHI SANKYO COMPANY, INC,
Defendant.

Date:

May 23, 2013

Time: 2:00 p.m.

Judge: Hon. Claudia Wilken

Courtroom: 2

Complaint Filed: February 11, 2013

Trial Date:

None Set

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE

Case No. C 13-00581 CW

Case3:13-cv-00581-WHO Document23 Filed04/12/13 Page2 of 21

1 BLAIR J. ROBINSON, Pro Hac Vice Application Pending A. KLAIR FITZPATRICK, Pro Hac Vice Application Pending1
2 1701 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103
3 T: (215) 963-5000 F: (215) 963-5001
4 blair.robinson@morganlewis.com

kfitzpatrick@morganlewis.com 5

6

Attorneys for Defendant DAIICHI SANKYO, INC.

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO

DB1/ 73852477.8

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE

Case No. C 13-00581 CW

Case3:13-cv-00581-WHO Document23 Filed04/12/13 Page3 of 21

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
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO

TO PLAINTIFFS SARA WELLENS, KELLY JENSEN, JACQUELINE PENA, BERNICE GIOVANNI, LARA HOLLINGER, JENNIFER BENNIE AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on May 23, 2013 at 2:00 p.m. or as soon after that time as counsel may be heard, in Courtroom 2 of the above-entitled Court, located at 1301 Clay Street, Courtroom 2, Fourth Floor, Oakland, California 94612, Defendant Daiichi Sankyo, Inc. (“DSI”) will, and hereby does, move this Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), for an order transferring this case to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey.
As explained more fully in the attached memorandum, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), this case should be transferred to the District of New Jersey for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interests of justice.

This motion is based upon this Notice of Motion and Motion, the accompanying Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the Declaration of David Benadon, all other records on

file with the Court relating to this matter, and any and all argument provided by counsel at the

hearing.

Dated: April 12, 2013

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP

By: /s/ Megan Barry Borovicka
Megan Barry Borovicka Attorneys for Defendant DAIICHI SANKYO, INC.

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE

Case No. C 13-00581 CW

Case3:13-cv-00581-WHO Document23 Filed04/12/13 Page4 of 21

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

2

Page

3 I. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1

4 II. 5

FACTUAL BACKGROUND ............................................................................................. 2 A. DSI .......................................................................................................................... 2
1. DSI’s Field Sales Force............................................................................... 2

6

B. Plaintiffs’ Allegations Of “Centralized Control.”................................................... 3

7 III. 8

ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................... 4
A. This Action Could and Should Have Been Brought in the District of New Jersey....................................................................................................................... 4

9

B. The Balance of Private Interests Weighs in Favor of Transfer............................... 5

1. Plaintiffs’ Forum Choice is Entitled to Less Deference Given Their

10

Nationwide Class and Collective Action Allegations................................. 6

11

2. The Convenience of the Parties and Witnesses Favors Transfer ................ 9

3. The Location of Records Weighs in Favor of Transfer ............................ 12

12

4. Other Factors Favor Transfer Or Are At Worst Neutral ........................... 12

13 IV. Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 14

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
DB1/ 73852477.8

-i-

Case No. C 13-00581 CW

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE

Case3:13-cv-00581-WHO Document23 Filed04/12/13 Page5 of 21

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
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

CASES

Page(s)

Adam v. Hawaii Property Ins. Ass’n, No. No. Civ. 04-342-SM, 2005 WL 643358 (D.N.H. Mar. 21, 2005).................................... 11

Commercial Lighting Prods., Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 537 F.2d 1078 (9th Cir. 1976)................................................................................................... 4

Evancho v. Sanofi-Aventis U.S., Inc., No. C 07-00098, 2007 WL 1302985 (N.D. Cal. May 3, 2007) ............................................ 6, 7

Foster v. Nationwide Mutual Ins. Co., No. C 07-04928, 2007 WL 4410408 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 14, 2007) ............................................ 12

Freeman v. Hoffman-La Roche Inc., No. 06CV13497, 2007 WL 895282 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 21, 2007).......................................... 8, 11

Gerin v. Aegon USA, Inc., No. C 06-5407 SBA, 2007 WL 1033472 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 4, 2007)........................................ 11

Hill v. R+L Carriers Shared Services, LLC, No. C 09–1907, 2010 WL 3769247 (N.D. Cal. 2010) .............................................................. 8

Hoefer v. U.S. Dep’t of Commerce, No. C 00 0918 VRW, 2000 WL 890862 (N.D. Cal. June 28, 2000) ........................................ 6

Hoffman v. Blaski, 363 U.S. 335 (1960) .................................................................................................................. 4

In re Horseshoe Entertainment, 337 F.3d 429 (5th Cir. 2003)................................................................................................... 12

Jarvis v. Marietta Corp, No. C 98-4051 MJJ, 1999 WL 638231 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 1999) .................................... 9, 12

Johns v. Panera Bread Co., No. 08-1071 SC, 2008 WL 2811827 (N.D. Cal. July 21, 2008)............................................. 13

Jones v. Walgreens, 463 F. Supp. 2d 267 (D. Conn. 2006) ................................................................................. 7, 12

Kaas v. Pratt & Whitney, 1991 WL 158943 (S.D. Fla. 1991)............................................................................................ 8

Kaiser v. Daiichi Sankyo, Inc., No. 1:10-cv-918, slip op., (S.D. Ohio Apr. 26, 2011) ....................................................... 5, 11

i

Case No. C 13-00581 CW

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE

DB1/ 73852477.8

Case3:13-cv-00581-WHO Document23 Filed04/12/13 Page6 of 21

1 Koster v. Am. Lumbermen’s Mut. Cas. Co., 330 U.S. 518 (1947) .................................................................................................................. 6
2

3

Lou v. Belzberg, 834 F.2d 730 (9th Cir. 1987)................................................................................................. 6, 8

4 Metz v. U.S. Life Ins. Co.,

5

674 F. Supp. 2d 1141 (C.D. Cal. 2009)................................................................................... 13

6 Morris v. Safeco Ins. Co.,

No. C 07-2890 PJH, 2008 WL 5273719 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 19, 2008)......................................... 9 7

8

Peralta v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., No. C 09-3288 PJH, 2009 WL 3837235 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 16, 2009) .......................... 4, 5, 6, 12

9 Renfro v. Spartan Computer Services, Inc.,

10

2008 WL 474253 (D. Kan. Feb. 19, 2008) ............................................................................... 8

11 Roling v. E*Trade Securities, LLC,

756 F. Supp. 2d 1179 (N.D. Cal. 2010) .................................................................................. 13

12

Rollins v. Alabama Cmty. Coll. Sys.,

13

2:09-CV-636-WHA, 2010 WL 4269133 (M.D. Ala. Oct. 25, 2010)........................................ 8

14 Stewart v. AT&T, Inc.,

15

No C 06-7363 SI, 2007 WL 1031263 (N.D. Cal. April 3, 2007).............................................. 6

16 Van Deusen v. Barrack,

376 U.S. 612 (1964) .................................................................................................................. 4

17

Waldmer v. SER Solutions, Inc.,

18

No. 05-2098-JAR, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4934 (D. Kan. Feb. 3, 2006)................................. 7

19 Waste Distillation Tech., Inc. v. Pan Am. Resources, Inc.,

20

775 F. Supp. 759 (D. Del. 1991) ............................................................................................... 6

21 Waters v. Heublein, Inc., C-73-1148 ACW, 1975 WL 285 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 5, 1975) ...................................................... 7
22 STATUTES
23 28 U.S.C. § 1331 ............................................................................................................................. 4
24 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d) ........................................................................................................................ 5
25
26 28 U.S.C. § 1337 ............................................................................................................................. 4
27 28 U.S.C. §1391(b) ......................................................................................................................... 5

28
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO

28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) ............................................................................................................... passim

ii

Case No. C 13-00581 CW

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE

DB1/ 73852477.8

Case3:13-cv-00581-WHO Document23 Filed04/12/13 Page7 of 21

1 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) ...................................................................................................................... 7, 8

2 42 U.S.C. §2000e-5(f)(1) ................................................................................................................ 5
3 Equal Pay Act of 1963, 29 U.S.C. § 206(d) ........................................................................... 1, 4, 7
4 Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq.. ........................................................................ 7
5 Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. .................................... passim 6
OTHER AUTHORITIES 7
Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 23 ............................................................................................................... 7, 8 8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO

DB1/ 73852477.8

iii
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE

Case No. C 13-00581 CW

Case3:13-cv-00581-WHO Document23 Filed04/12/13 Page8 of 21

1

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES

2 I. INTRODUCTION

3

Plaintiffs Sara Wellens, Kelly Jensen, Jacqueline Pena, Bernice Giovanni, Lara Hollinger,

4 and Jennifer Bennie (“Plaintiffs”) have brought a purported nationwide class and collective action

5 against Defendant Daiichi Sankyo, Inc. (“DSI” or “Defendant”). They allege “systemic” gender

6 discrimination and disparate impact in pay, benefits, and promotional and career advancement

7 opportunities under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. (“Title

8 VII”) and the Equal Pay Act of 1963, 29 U.S.C. § 206(d) (the “Equal Pay Act”), and their

9 California counterparts. Although Plaintiffs themselves contend that the alleged “systemic” and

10 “company-wide” problems “stem from flawed policies, practices and procedures that emanate

11 from the Company’s centralized predominately males sales leadership team” (Compl. ¶109),

12 Plaintiffs have filed this case not in the District of New Jersey, where that leadership team

13 resides, but instead in the Northern District of California. A review of the relevant factors,

14 however, support a discretionary transfer of this case to the District of New Jersey pursuant to 28

15 U.S.C. § 1404(a).

16

Though Plaintiffs are California residents, their choice of forum is accorded less deference

17 where, as here, putative class members and opt-ins—including all but one who have opted in to

18 the litigation thus far—reside outside of the state. And, while DSI denies that it “engaged in” any

19 “systemic” discriminatory policies or procedures, the very nature of Plaintiffs’ “pattern or

20 practice” discrimination claim requires that they prove that DSI maintained “centralized control”

21 over the sales employees’ terms and conditions of employment…” (Compl. ¶ 102.) Such alleged

22 “centralized control” only could have been formulated and administered in Parsippany, New

23 Jersey.

24

Furthermore, most of the management witnesses who would be called to testify about the

25 challenged pay, benefit and promotional policies and procedures implicated by Plaintiffs’ claims

26 reside in New Jersey and work out of DSI’s corporate headquarters in New Jersey, less than 23

27 miles from the Federal Courthouse in Newark, New Jersey. Moreover, the personnel files, job

28 descriptions, employment policies and procedures (including those related to compensation and

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO

1
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE

Case No. C 13-00581 CW

DB1/ 73852477.8

Case3:13-cv-00581-WHO Document23 Filed04/12/13 Page9 of 21

1 promotions), compensation plans, training materials, payroll documents, and benefit plans are all

2 located in New Jersey. Thus, because the key evidence and witnesses are located in New Jersey,

3 it would be more convenient and efficient to litigate this case in New Jersey.

4

Finally, the remaining relevant factors favor transfer or, at worst, are neutral. Given the

5 nature of Plaintiffs’ nationwide claims, the state of New Jersey has at least as much interest in this

6 case as California; a federal district court judge in New Jersey is just as capable of deciding

7 Plaintiffs’ claims; and a transfer to New Jersey is likely to promote judicial efficiency. In sum,

8 the logical course of action would be to transfer this case to New Jersey. Thus, the Court should

9 grant DSI’s motion and transfer this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).

10 II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

11

A. Daiichi Sankyo, Inc.

12

Daiichi Sankyo, Inc. (“DSI”), a pharmaceutical company, began operating in the U.S. in

13 2006. (Declaration of David Benadon (“Benadon Decl.” ¶ 1.) DSI is incorporated in Delaware

14 and its principal place of business is Parisppany, New Jersey. (Id.) Its global clinical

15 development organization, Daiichi Sankyo Pharma Development (“Daiichi Pharma”) an

16 unincorporated subsidiary, is located in Edison, New Jersey. (Id.)

17

1. DSI’s Field Sales Force

18

DSI employs sales representatives to inform physicians about DSI’s products and thereby

19 convince the physicians to write prescriptions for appropriate patients. (Benadon Decl. ¶ 4.)

20 Sales representatives are categorized by the group of health care providers to whom they sell

21 particular groupings of products — e.g., products marketed to primary care physicians, hospital-

22 marketed products, and products marketed to specialists, such as cardiologists. (Id.) The

23 representatives also are assigned particular geographical territories, with each representative

24 reporting to a District Manager (“DM”). (Id.) The DM typically manages multiple territories,

25 often in multiple states, within a geographic boundary comprising a district. (Id.)

26

B. Plaintiffs’ Allegations Of “Centralized Control.”

27

Plaintiffs, who are California residents, allege that DSI “engaged in” a “pattern or practice

28 of gender discrimination and disparate impact gender discrimination” and that the Class

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO

2
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE

Case No. C 13-00581 CW

Case3:13-cv-00581-WHO Document23 Filed04/12/13 Page10 of 21

1 Representatives and class they seek to represent “have been individually and systemically

2 discriminated against.” (Compl. ¶ 114.) For the nation-wide and California classes, they seek to

3 represent “current, former and future female sales employees in a sales representative and first

4 level district manager role . . . .” (Compl. ¶¶ 116, 146, 152.)

5

The gravamen of Plaintiffs’ claims is that “Daiichi Sankyo’s compact and predominately

6 male sales leadership team maintains centralized control over the sales employees’ terms and

7 conditions of employment, including, without limitation, job assignment, career progression,

8 promotion, discipline, demotion, evaluations, reorganization/realignments, territory and growth

9 potential/account assignments, and compensation policies, practices and procedures.” (Id. ¶ 102)

10 (emphasis added). This theory of “centralized control” permeates Plaintiffs’ class allegations:

11

 “Defendant’s common and centralized employment policies have been

12

implemented in an intentionally discriminatory manner and have had an adverse

13

disparate impact on female sales employees. Defendant’s centralized decision-

14

making by predominately male executives and senior sales leadership has been

15

implemented in an intentionally discriminatory manner and has had an adverse

16

disparate impact on female sales employees” (Id. ¶107) (emphasis added);

17

 “These problems are systemic and company-wide because, upon information and

18

belief, they all stem from flawed policies, practices and procedures that emanate

19

from the Company’s centralized predominately male sales leadership team.” (Id.

20

¶109) (emphasis added);

21

 “In order to gain such relief for themselves, as well as for the class members, Class

22

Representatives will first establish the existence of systemic gender discrimination

23

as the premise for the relief they seek.” (Id., ¶123) (emphasis added).

24

 “The employment policies, practices, and procedures to which the Class

25

Representatives and the class members are subjected are set by Defendant’s

26

predominately male sales leadership team.” (Id. ¶129).

27

28

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO

3
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE

Case No. C 13-00581 CW

Case3:13-cv-00581-WHO Document23 Filed04/12/13 Page11 of 21

1 III. ARGUMENT

2

“For the convenience of the parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court

3 may transfer any civil action to any other district or division in which it might have been

4 brought.” 28 U.S.C. §1404(a). Congress enacted §1404(a) “to prevent the waste of time, energy

5 and money and to protect litigants, witnesses, and the public against unnecessary inconvenience

6 and expense.” Van Deusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612, 616 (1964). To transfer a case under

7 Section 1404(a), a party must first show that the transferee district is one where the action might

8 have been brought. See Peralta v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., No. C 09-3288 PJH, 2009 WL

9 3837235, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 16, 2009). The court then assesses various factors related to

10 convenience and the interest of justice. Id. (citing Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495,

11 498-99 (9th Cir. 2000)).

12

Because this case could have been brought in the District of New Jersey and only can be

13 resolved through evidence and witnesses found in New Jersey, the interests of justice warrant a

14 transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) to the District of New Jersey.

15

A. This Action Could and Should Have Been Brought in the District of New

16

Jersey.

17

A district court is a forum where the action “might have been brought” if it has subject

18 matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction over the defendant, and venue would have been

19 proper. Hoffman v. Blaski, 363 U.S. 335, 343-44 (1960); Commercial Lighting Prods., Inc. v.

20 U.S. Dist. Ct., 537 F.2d 1078, 1079 (9th Cir. 1976). Here, all three criteria are met.

21

Indisputably, Plaintiff could have brought this matter in the District of New Jersey. First,

22 the District of New Jersey has subject matter jurisdiction over this matter under both 28 U.S.C.

23 Section 1331 and 28 U.S.C. Section 1337. Federal question jurisdiction exists because the

24 Plaintiffs have asserted claims under Title VII and the Equal Pay Act. Plaintiffs’ remaining state

25 law claims arise out of the same nuclei of facts and are therefore subject to the Court’s

26 supplemental jurisdiction. The District of New Jersey, like this Court, also has subject matter

27 jurisdiction over this case under the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”), 28 U.S.C. Section

28 1332(d) because there are more than 100 members in the putative class, there is at least $5 million

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO

4
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE

Case No. C 13-00581 CW

Case3:13-cv-00581-WHO Document23 Filed04/12/13 Page12 of 21

1 in controversy, and at least some members of the putative class have a different citizenship than

2 Defendant. (See Compl. ¶¶ 14-19; Benadon Decl. ¶ 8(d)-(n).)

3

Moreover, Title VII confers jurisdiction upon “any judicial district in the State in which

4 the unlawful employment practice is alleged to have been committed, in the judicial district in

5 which the employment records relevant to such practice are maintained and administered, or in

6 the judicial district in which the aggrieved person would have worked but for the alleged unlawful

7 employment practice.” 42 U.S.C. §2000e-5(f)(1). Here, Plaintiffs have alleged that the

8 discriminatory practices “emanate from the Company’s centralized predominantly males sales

9 leadership team” (Compl. ¶109); that sales leadership team is located in New Jersey. (See

10 Benadon Decl. ¶¶ 8(a), (g)). Furthermore, the records relevant to the challenged employment

11 practices are maintained and administered in the District of New Jersey. (Benadon Decl. ¶ 6).

12

In addition, venue is proper in any jurisdiction in which a defendant is deemed to reside.

13 28 U.S.C. §1391(b). DSI is headquartered in New Jersey. “Accordingly, DSI is deemed a

14 resident of the District of New Jersey, and venue for this litigation is proper there.” Kaiser v.

15 Daiichi Sankyo, Inc., No. 1:10-cv-918 (S.D. Ohio Apr. 26, 2011) slip op. at 4.

16

B. The Balance of Private Interests Weighs in Favor of Transfer.

17

“Courts apply a multi-factor balancing test to determine if transfer would serve the

18 convenience of the parties and witnesses, and would be in the interest of justice.” Peralta, 2009

19 WL 3837235, at *7 (citing Jones, 211 F.3d at 498-99)). Factors that the Court may consider

20 include the following: (1) the plaintiff’s choice of forum; (2) convenience of the parties; (3)

21 convenience of the witnesses; (4) relative ease of access to the evidence; (5) familiarity of each

22 forum with the applicable law; (6) feasibility of consolidation with other claims; (7) any local

23 interest in the controversy; and (8) the relative court congestion and time of trial in each forum.

24 Id. (citing Decker Coal Co. v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 805 F.2d 834, 843 (9th Cir. 1986)).

25 The balance of these factors weighs in favor of transfer to New Jersey.

26

27

28

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO

5
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE

Case No. C 13-00581 CW

Case3:13-cv-00581-WHO Document23 Filed04/12/13 Page13 of 21

1

1. Plaintiffs’ Forum Choice is Entitled to Less Deference GivenTheir

Nationwide Class and Collective Action Allegations. 2

3

Because Plaintiffs are California residents and have brought California claims, their

4 choice of forum is “accorded some deference.” Evancho v. Sanofi-Aventis U.S., Inc., No. C 07-

5 00098, 2007 WL 1302985, at *2 (N.D. Cal. May 3, 2007). But, while a plaintiff’s choice of

6 venue is a factor to be considered, “[c]ourts will not blindly prefer the plaintiff’s choice of

7 forum.” Waste Distillation Tech., Inc. v. Pan Am. Resources, Inc., 775 F. Supp. 759, 764 (D. Del.

8 1991). Indeed, in addition to their California claims, Plaintiffs purport to bring a nationwide class

9 and collective action under Title VII and the EPA on behalf of “hundreds” of putative class

10 members. Compl. ¶ 117-118, 125. Where, as here, “the gravamen of the case involves federal

11 law, a state law claim is usually not a significant consideration on a motion to transfer venue.”

12 Hoefer, 2000 WL 890862 at *3 (granting motion to transfer).

13

Moreover, any deference to Plaintiffs’ choice of forum is further weakened because they

14 have brought this case as a class and collective action. See Koster v. Am. Lumbermen’s Mut. Cas.

15 Co., 330 U.S. 518, 524 (1947) (“[W]here there are hundreds of potential plaintiffs, . . . all of

16 whom could with equal show of right go into their many home courts, the claim of any one

17 plaintiff that a forum is appropriate . . . is considerably weakened.”); see also Lou v. Belzberg,

18 834 F.2d 730, 739 (9th Cir. 1987) (when a plaintiff “brings a derivative suit or represents a class,

19 the named plaintiff’s choice of forum is given less weight.”) ; Hoefer v. U.S. Dep’t of Commerce,

20 No. C 00 0918 VRW, 2000 WL 890862, at *2 (N.D. Cal. June 28, 2000) (“Little deference . . . is

21 given to a plaintiff’s choice of forum on behalf of a nationwide class.”); Stewart v. AT&T, Inc.,

22 No C 06-7363 SI, 2007 WL 1031263, at *2 (N.D. Cal. April 3, 2007) (giving plaintiff’s choice of

23 forum less deference as she represented a nationwide class). Because Plaintiffs purport to

24 represent a class, the Court must look to whether the operative facts occurred within the forum

25 and whether the forum has an interest in the parties or subject matter; if not, the plaintiff’s choice

26 is entitled to minimal consideration. Peralta, 2009 WL 3837235, at *7 (affording plaintiff’s

27 forum choice “not a significant amount” of deference because plaintiff purported to represent a

28 class) (citing Lou, 834 F.2d at 739).

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO

6
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE

Case No. C 13-00581 CW

Case3:13-cv-00581-WHO Document23 Filed04/12/13 Page14 of 21

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
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO

Here, the operative facts on which Plaintiffs’ class claims are based—the alleged “systemic” and “centralized” discriminatory policies that “emanate” from corporate headquarters—cannot possibly be said to have been promulgated in California. Assuming, arguendo, that any such “systemic” policies or procedures existed—and DSI maintains that they did not—they necessarily would have originated in New Jersey. See Jones v. Walgreens, 463 F. Supp. 2d 267, 276 (D. Conn. 2006) (holding that it was “significant to the Court’s analysis” in granting a motion to transfer nationwide Title VII class action that plaintiff was raising an allegation of “systemic and pervasive pattern and practice discrimination,” as “in order for the ‘systemic’ and ‘endemic’ discrimination [p]laintiff’ describes to have occurred, there would have had to have been either some affirmative acts or, at a minimum, intentional disregard at the Walgreens corporate level.”); Evancho, 2007 WL 1302985, at *4 (granting motion to transfer where “it appears that defendant made most, if not all, of the relevant personnel decisions in New Jersey, at its headquarters.”); Waldmer v. SER Solutions, Inc., No. 05-2098-JAR, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4934, at *17 (D. Kan. Feb. 3, 2006) (“[T]he logical origin of this dispute is in Virginia. It was at the company’s headquarters in Virginia that [defendant]’s personnel made and implemented the decision to treat plaintiffs as exempt under the FLSA. No company policies were ever established in Kansas.”)
Furthermore, Plaintiffs have sought to bring a nationwide EPA claim, which will proceed not as a class action on behalf of absent class members, but rather as a collective action under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b),1 which requires putative plaintiffs to affirmatively opt-in to the litigation. These party-plaintiffs, unlike absent Rule 23 class members, may be subject to the same discovery

1 The Equal Pay Act is part of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. Recovery for EPA violations is governed by 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). Under Rule 216(b), an “action to recover such liability may be maintained in any court of competent jurisdiction by any one or more employees for and on behalf of himself or themselves and other employees similarly situated. No employee shall be a party plaintiff to any such action unless he gives his consent in writing to become such a party and such consent is filed in the court in which such action is brought.” “This procedure is exactly the opposite of that in Rule 23 where members of the class are bound by the judgment unless, in certain instances, they “opt-out” of the case.” Waters v. Heublein, Inc., C-73-1148 ACW, 1975 WL 285 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 5, 1975); see also Rollins v. Alabama Cmty. Coll. Sys., 2:09-CV-636-WHA, 2010 WL 4269133 (M.D. Ala. Oct. 25, 2010) (analyzing motion for conditional certification of EPA collective action by reference to FLSA and ADEA cases, which, like the EPA, involve collective actions brought pursuant to § 216(b) of the FLSA).

7
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE

Case No. C 13-00581 CW

Case3:13-cv-00581-WHO Document23 Filed04/12/13 Page15 of 21

1 demands as the named Plaintiffs themselves. See Hill v. R+L Carriers Shared Services, LLC, No.

2 C 09–1907, 2010 WL 3769247 (N.D. Cal. 2010) (ordering depositions of certain opt-in plaintiffs

3 in FLSA overtime case because the “job responsibilities and expectations differ among opt-ins,”

4 making depositions necessary to determine whether the class members are similarly situated);

5 Renfro v. Spartan Computer Services, Inc., 2008 WL 474253 (D. Kan. Feb. 19, 2008) (permitting

6 depositions and individualized discovery for opt-in plaintiffs in FLSA claim for overtime

7 because plaintiffs had failed to show undue burden with particularized facts and because each

8 plaintiff to be deposed had consented to participate in the lawsuit); Kaas v. Pratt & Whitney, 1991

9 WL 158943, *3 (S.D. Fla. 1991) (finding, in FLSA case, because the defendant could challenge

10 the joinder of any party with respect to whether the parties are in fact similarly situated,

11 meaningful discovery is not only permissible, but “essential”).

12

For many of these party-plaintiffs, California will not be a favored venue. Indeed, aside

13 from the named Plaintiffs, only two of the additional twelve individuals who already have

14 consented to join this suit as party-plaintiffs is a California resident—the rest are scattered

15 throughout the country, in states as far afield from California as Georgia, Texas, Iowa, North

16 Carolina and Alabama. (See Benadon Decl. ¶ 8(g) to (n)) The presence of party-plaintiffs from

17 around the country further diminishes Plaintiffs’ choice of California as forum in this case. See

18 Lou, 834 F.2d at 739; Freeman v. Hoffman-La Roche Inc., No. 06CV13497, 2007 WL 895282, *3

19 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 21, 2007) (noting that plaintiff’s choice of forum “is afforded little weight” in a

20 purported class action where “numerous potential plaintiffs [are] each possibly able to make a

21 showing that a particular forum is best suited.”)

22

2. The Convenience of the Parties and Witnesses Favors Transfer.

23

“The relative convenience to the witnesses is often recognized as the most important

24 factor to be considered in ruling on a motion under § 1404(a).” Morris v. Safeco Ins. Co., No. C

25 07-2890 PJH, 2008 WL 5273719, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 19, 2008) (internal quotation marks

26 omitted)). See also Jarvis v. Marietta Corp, No. C 98-4051 MJJ, 1999 WL 638231, at *4 (N.D.

27 Cal. Aug. 12, 1999) (“One of the most important factors in determining whether to transfer is the

28 convenience of the witnesses”). On balance, this factor favors transfer.

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO

8
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE

Case No. C 13-00581 CW

Case3:13-cv-00581-WHO Document23 Filed04/12/13 Page16 of 21

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
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO

It is true that the named Plaintiffs live and work or worked in California. Ten of the twelve additional opt-in plaintiffs, however, do not. (See Benadon Decl. ¶ 8(g) –(n).2 And, Plaintiffs’ allegations concerning “flawed policies, practices and procedures that emanate from the Company’s centralized predominately male sales leadership team” (Compl. ¶109) will necessitate testimony from several of DSI’s Parsippany-based human resources, sales, and business leaders, all of whom work and reside in or around the District of New Jersey. By way of example:
a. William McLean, Vice President of Sales, works at the Parsippany headquarters and has ultimate responsibility for DSI’s Primary Care, Specialty and Hospital field sales operations. (Benadon Decl. ¶ 5(a)).
b. Another member of the implicated “sales leadership team,” Northeast Area Business Director Brian Hauser, works at DSI’s Northeast Area office in Basking Ridge, New Jersey.3 (Benadon Decl. ¶ 5(b)).
c. The Human Resources (“HR”) department, including the three HRBPs who support field sales personnel, work at the Parsippany headquarters. (Benadon Decl. ¶ 5(c)). They will be called to refute Plaintiffs’ contention that “[w]here HR complaint and compliance policies exist, they lack meaningful quality controls, standards, implementation metrics and means of redress.” (Compl. ¶110).
d. Sue Feldman, the Senior Director, Compensation and Benefits, has responsibility for the administration of benefits plans offered to DSI employees and relating to the compensation and classification of field sales personnel. Ms. Feldman manages a staff of nine. These managers are responsible for the administration of

2 Plaintiffs allege that Opt-in Plaintiff Carol Vaughn worked in the same district in California as Plaintiff Wellens. (See Compl. ¶ 33.)
3 The remaining two Area Business Directors, William Pruit (West) and Lerryn Trzcinski (Southeast) are located in Dallas, TX and Atlanta, GA, respectively. (Benadon Decl. ¶ 5(b) n.2). The Regional Directors named in the Complaint, James Paplomatas, Frank Schellack and Adam Arena, likewise reside outside of California. (Benadon Decl. ¶ 8(a)-(c)).

9
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE

Case No. C 13-00581 CW

Case3:13-cv-00581-WHO Document23 Filed04/12/13 Page17 of 21

1

compensation and benefits challenged by Plaintiffs in this suit. (Benandon Decl. ¶

2

5(d)). Ms. Feldman and her staff all work in Parsippany, New Jersey. (Id.)

3

e. The members of DSI’s Governance Committee, Total Reward Working Group,

4

Total Reward Committee, and Tier Promotion Exception Committee, who,

5

according to Plaintiffs, “are responsible for reviewing and approving the acts,

6

policies and practices that either have a disparate impact on female employees, or

7

result in systemic disparate treatment of women,” (Compl. ¶ 103), work out of

8

DSI’s corporate headquarters. (Benadon Decl. ¶ 5(e)).

9

f. Margarita Goettlicher, DSI’s Senior Director, Talent Staffing and Diversity, is

10

responsible for managing recruiting processes, including those that pertain to field

11

sales personnel. She supervises seven direct reports, including a core recruiting

12

team that includes a Manager of Sales Recruiting and a Recruiting Coordinator.

13

Ms. Goettlicher and her core recruiting team have knowledge regarding the sales

14

recruiting process nationwide (Benadon Decl. ¶ 5(f)), placed at issue by Plaintiffs’

15

contention that DSI “placed female sales professionals in job titles or

16

classifications lower than similarly-situated male employees” (Compl. ¶128).

17

Ms. Goettlicher and her core team work at DSI’s corporate headquarters in

18

Parsippany. (Benadon Decl. ¶ 5(f)).

19

g. Jim Melvin is DSI’s Director of Sales Incentives. Mr. Melvin and his three direct

20

reports work at the corporate headquarters in New Jersey. These individuals have

21

responsibility for the various sales incentive compensation plans applicable to field

22

sales personnel. (Benadon Decl. ¶ 5(g)).

23

h. John Sjovall and his staff lead the development and implementation of DSI

24

training for its sales force. Mr. Sjovall and his training team (which consists of

25

over 30 individuals) work at the Parsippany (New Jersey) Training Center.

26

(Benadon Decl. ¶ 5(h)).

27

In other words, “[t]he policies about which [Plaintiffs] complain[] were formulated in

28 New Jersey and the witnesses there are necessary to understanding the contours of and rationale

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO

10
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE

Case No. C 13-00581 CW

Case3:13-cv-00581-WHO Document23 Filed04/12/13 Page18 of 21

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
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO

behind the policies.” Kaiser, No. 1:10-v-918, slip op. at 10. See also Freeman, 2007 WL 895282 at *2 (convenience of the New Jersey-based corporate witnesses was an important factor); Gerin v. Aegon USA, Inc., No. C 06-5407 SBA, 2007 WL 1033472, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 4, 2007) (“Plaintiff’s only basis for filing the suit in this venue is that [named plaintiff] Gerin and Hughes reside here and purchased their annuities here. Thus, in the event plaintiffs Gerin and Hughes are dismissed, there will be essentially no reason for venue in the Northern District of California. . . . [By contrast,] most of the Defendants’ material witnesses and documentary evidence are located in Florida.”); Adam v. Hawaii Property Ins. Ass’n, No. No. Civ. 04-342-SM, 2005 WL 643358, at *4 (D.N.H. Mar. 21, 2005) (“Here, [the named] plaintiff and his family members appear to be the only witnesses who reside in New Hampshire. Virtually all other material witnesses live in Hawaii (though, according to plaintiff, some now live in Florida and Arizona). Obviously, many relevant witnesses are employed by defendants and live in Hawaii;” granting transfer because “New Hampshire simply does not have the type of interest in the outcome that Hawaii does.”). Under these circumstances, “it is more convenient for the present Plaintiffs to travel to the District of New Jersey than for the named witnesses of the Defendant, who are much more numerous, to travel to the [Northern District of California].”4 Kaiser, No. 1:10-v-918, slip op. at 10. Thus, “the convenience of the witnesses and the materiality of their testimony weigh strongly in favor of transferring the case to the District of New Jersey.” Id. at 11.
3. The Location of Records Weighs in Favor of Transfer. Though modern technology and electronic storage have lessened the importance of the location of documents in venue analysis, it remains a consideration. Where “the location of the evidence is supported by other factors in favor of transfer, the relative ease of access to proof is an important factor to be considered in deciding whether to grant a motion to transfer under section 1404.” Jarvis, 1999 WL 638231, at *5. See also Foster v. Nationwide Mutual Ins. Co., No. C 07-04928, 2007 WL 4410408, at * 6 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 14, 2007) (“while developments in electronic conveyance have reduced the cost of document transfer somewhat, the cost of litigation

4 DSI is prepared to take Plaintiffs’ depositions in California.
11
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE

Case No. C 13-00581 CW

Case3:13-cv-00581-WHO Document23 Filed04/12/13 Page19 of 21

1 will be substantially lessened if the action is venued in the same district where most of the

2 documentary evidence is found.”) (internal quotations omitted). This is especially true when the

3 case involves claims under Title VII. See In re Horseshoe Entertainment, 337 F.3d 429, 434 (5th

4 Cir. 2003) (holding that location of relevant employment records should be given significance

5 because it was expressly stated in the Title VII venue provision).

6

Here, documents relevant to the allegations in Plaintiffs’ Complaint are primarily

7 maintained at DSI’s corporate headquarters within the District of New Jersey. These include

8 personnel files, job descriptions, promotional materials, policies and procedures (including those

9 relating to employment, compensation, and benefit plans and documents). (See Benadon Decl. ¶

10 6.) Thus, this factor also favors transfer to the District of New Jersey.

11

4. Other Factors Favor Transfer Or Are At Worst Neutral.

12

Other relevant factors include the familiarity of each forum with the applicable law, and

13 any local interest in the controversy. Peralta, 2009 WL 3837235, at *8. In this case, each of

14 these factors is neutral or favors transfer.

15

Although Plaintiffs bring California claims, putative class members reside outside of the

16 State, and the challenged policies and practices “emanate,” according to Plaintiffs, from DSI’s

17 headquarters in New Jersey. See Jones, 463 F. Supp. 2d at 277 (“Because the allegations involve

18 claims of pervasive and systemic discrimination, the Court finds that the locus of operative facts

19 is likely to be in Illinois. Any systemic policy that resulted in unequal pay for female employees

20 necessarily would have originated at the company’s headquarters.”). Thus, the District of New

21 Jersey has at least as much – if not more – interest in this case than the Northern District of

22 California.

23

Familiarity of each forum with the applicable law is also neutral. While this Court may be

24 more familiar with Plaintiffs’ state law claims, there is no reason to believe that the New Jersey

25 court could not successfully apply California law to those claims. See Johns v. Panera Bread

26 Co., No. 08-1071 SC, 2008 WL 2811827, at * 5 (N.D. Cal. July 21, 2008) (“Plaintiff’s First

27 Amended Complaint contains one claim under the FLSA and four claims under California law. It

28 is true that this Court is more familiar with California law than is the Eastern District of Missouri.

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO

12
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE

Case No. C 13-00581 CW

Case3:13-cv-00581-WHO Document23 Filed04/12/13 Page20 of 21

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
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO

It is also true, however, that other federal courts are fully capable of applying California law.”) (citing Foster, 2007 WL 4410408, at *7). Moreover, “it has been noted that where a federal court’s jurisdiction is based on the existence of a federal question, as it is here, one forum’s familiarity with supplemental state law claims should not override other factors favoring a different forum.” Id. See also Roling v. E*Trade Securities, LLC, 756 F. Supp. 2d 1179, 1186 (N.D. Cal. 2010) (“Two of plaintiffs’ four claims require the interpretation of California law. E*Trade argues that New York courts are best equipped to adjudicate claims under New York law. While this may be true, E*Trade fails to recognize that the converse is also true. E*Trade’s own argument that courts outside of California are fully capable of applying California law also holds true of this court’s ability to interpret New York law.”); Metz v. U.S. Life Ins. Co., 674 F. Supp. 2d 1141, 1148 (C.D. Cal. 2009) (holding that judges in both New York and California are fully capable of deciding issues arising under both California and New York law).
Finally, transferring this matter to the District of New Jersey will not cause any significant delay. In fact, a transfer may promote judicial efficiency, because the District of New Jersey moves cases to disposition more quickly.5 Therefore, this factor also favors transfer. IV. CONCLUSION
This case should be transferred to the District of New Jersey. The majority of putative class members are located outside of the Northern District of California. The majority of witnesses are located outside of the Northern District of California, and the key management witnesses reside in New Jersey. And, the District of New Jersey has at least an equal interest, if not a greater interest, in the outcome of the case at bar. Accordingly, Defendant DSI respectfully requests that this Court transfer the instant action to the District of New Jersey pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1404(a).

5 For civil cases, the median time from filing to disposition is 6.1 months in the District of New Jersey, compared to 8.2 months in the Northern District of California. See Table C-5 to the Judicial Caseload Statistics, attached as Exhibit A to the Declaration of Allison N. Powers, filed herewith.

13
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE

Case No. C 13-00581 CW

Case3:13-cv-00581-WHO Document23 Filed04/12/13 Page21 of 21

1 Dated: April 12, 2013 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

/s/ Megan Barry Borovicka _________________________________________
GEORGE A. STOHNER, State Bar No. 214508 300 South Grand Avenue, 22nd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-3132 Phone: (213) 612-2500 Fax: (213) 612-2501 gstohner@morganlewis.com
MEGAN B. BOROVICKA, State Bar No. 241205 One Market, Spear Street Tower San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: (415) 442-.1000 Fax: (415) 442-1001 mborovicka@morganlewis.com
SARI M. ALAMUDDIN, Pro Hac Vice Application Pending ALLISON N. POWERS, Pro Hac Vice Application Pending 77 West Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60601-5094 Tel: (312) 324-1000 Fax: (312) 324-1001 salamuddin@morganlewis.com apowers@morganlewis.com
BLAIR J. ROBINSON, Pro Hac Vice Application Pending A. KLAIR FITZPATRICK, Pro Hac Vice Application Pending1701 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 T: (215) 963-5000 F: (215) 963-5001 blair.robinson@morganlewis.com kfitzpatrick@morganlewis.com
Attorneys for Defendant DAIICHI SANKYO, INC.

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO

14
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE

Case No. C 13-00581 CW

 
 Case3:13-cv-00581-WHO Document42 Filed06/25/13 Page1 of 11

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3

4 SARA WELLENS, KELLY JENSEN, JACQUELINE PENA, BERNICE
5 GIOVANNI, LARA HOLLINGER, and JENNIFER BENNIE,
6 on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
7 Plaintiffs,
8 v.
9
10 DAIICHI SANKYO COMPANY, INC., Defendant.
11 ________________________________/

No. C 13-00581 CW
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE (Docket No. 38)

12

Defendant Daiichi Sankyo, Inc. (DSI) moves, pursuant to 28

13 U.S.C. § 1404(a), to transfer this action to the United States

14 District Court for the District of New Jersey for the convenience

15 of parties and witnesses and in the interests of justice.

16 Plaintiffs Sara Wellens, Kelly Jensen, Jacqueline Pena, Bernice

17 Giovanni, Lara Hollinger and Jennifer Bennie oppose the motion.

18 The Court having considered the papers DENIES Defendant's Motion

19 to Transfer Venue.

20

BACKGROUND

21

DSI, a pharmaceutical company, began operating in the United

22 States in 2006. DSI is incorporated in Delaware and its principal

23 place of business is Parisppany, New Jersey. Benadon Decl. ¶ 1.

24

Plaintiffs are all California residents and have been

25 employed by DSI in the state of California. Wellens Decl. ¶ 2;

26 Jensen Decl. ¶ 2; Pena Decl. ¶ 4; Giovanni Decl. ¶ 4; Hollinger

27 Decl. ¶ 4; Bennie Decl. ¶ 4. Plaintiffs seek to represent a

28 California and nation-wide class of "current, former and future

Case3:13-cv-00581-WHO Document42 Filed06/25/13 Page2 of 11

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 female sales employees in a sales representative and first level

2 district manager role . . . ." See Compl. ¶¶ 114, 116, 146, 152.

3

Plaintiffs allege systemic gender discrimination and

4 disparate impact in pay, benefits and promotional and career

5 advancement opportunities under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act

6 of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000(e), et seq., as amended; the Equal Pay

7 Act of 1963, 29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq.; the California Fair

8 Employment and Housing Act, Cal. Gov't Code § 12940, et seq.; the

9 California Equal Pay Act, Cal. Lab. Code § 1197.5, and the

10 California Unfair Business Practices Act, Cal. Bus. and Prof. Code

11 §§ 17200, et seq. Plaintiffs contend that the common employment

12 policies, practices and actions that underpin Plaintiffs' pay,

13 promotion and pregnancy/caregiver employment discrimination claims

14 were implemented, and the effects felt, in California, not New

15 Jersey. Wellens Decl. ¶ 7. DSI responds that this may be true

16 for named Plaintiffs' individual claims, but not for Plaintiffs'

17 nationwide class action.

18

LEGAL STANDARD

19

Title 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) provides, "For the convenience of

20 the parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district

21 court may transfer any civil action to any other district or

22 division where it might have been brought." A district court has

23 broad discretion to adjudicate motions for transfer on a

24 case-by-case basis, considering factors of convenience and

25 fairness. See Stewart Org. Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22, 29

26 (1988); Sparling v. Hoffman Constr. Co., 864 F.2d 635, 639 (9th

27 Cir. 1988). Factors the court may consider include (1) the

28 plaintiff's choice of forum; (2) convenience of the parties;

2

Case3:13-cv-00581-WHO Document42 Filed06/25/13 Page3 of 11

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 (3) convenience of the witnesses; (4) relative ease of access to

2 the evidence; (5) familiarity of each forum with the applicable

3 law; (6) feasibility of consolidation with other claims; (7) any

4 local interest in the controversy; and (8) the relative court

5 congestion and time to trial in each forum. Saleh v. Titan Corp.,

6 361 F. Supp. 1152, 1156 (N.D. Cal. 2005) (citing Jones v. GNC

7 Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495, 498–99 (9th Cir. 2000), and

8 Decker Coal Co. v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 805 F.2d 834, 843 (9th

9 Cir. 1986)).

10

The movant bears the burden of justifying the transfer by a

11 strong showing of inconvenience. Decker Coal, 805 F.2d at 843.

12 The motion may be denied if the increased convenience to one party

13 is offset by the added inconvenience to the other party. Id. As

14 a general rule, the plaintiff's choice of forum is given

15 significant weight and will not be disturbed unless other factors

16 weigh substantially in favor of transfer. See 28 U.S.C.

17 § 1404(a). However, when the plaintiff represents a class that

18 includes members in other fora, the plaintiff's choice of forum is

19 given less weight. Lou v. Belzberg, 834 F.2d 730, 739 (9th Cir.

20 1987).

21

Title 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(3) provides that Title VII

22 cases: 23 24 25 26 27 28

may be brought in any judicial district in the State in which the unlawful employment practice is alleged to have been committed, in the judicial district in which the employment records relevant to such practice are maintained and administered, or in the judicial district in which the aggrieved person would have worked but for the alleged unlawful employment practice, but if the respondent is not found within any such district, such an action may be brought within the judicial

3

Case3:13-cv-00581-WHO Document42 Filed06/25/13 Page4 of 11

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1

district in which the respondent has his principal office. For purposes of sections 1404 and 1406 of

2

Title 28, the judicial district in which the

respondent has his principal office shall in all

3

cases be considered a district in which the action

might have been brought. 4

DISCUSSION 5

Neither Plaintiffs nor DSI denies that this action could have 6

been brought in the District of New Jersey, but they vigorously 7

contest which forum is most convenient for the parties and 8

witnesses and which promotes the interest of justice. 9

As a preliminary matter, DSI is correct that "the analysis 10

prescribed for section 1404(a) transfers governs in spite of the 11

fact that a case includes Title VII allegations," and "ample case 12

law supports the basic proposition that the statute does not 13

prohibit transfers away from a plaintiff's chosen forum." Ellis 14

v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 372 F. Supp. 2d 530, 537 (N.D. Cal. 15

2005), overruled in part on other grounds by Ellis v. Costco 16

Wholesale Corp., 657 F.3d 970, 988 (9th Cir. 2011). However, 17

Plaintiffs are correct that the Title VII venue provision 18

"influences the contours of the section 1404(a) analysis." Ellis, 19

372 F. Supp. 2d at 537. 20

I. Plaintiffs' Choice of Forum 21

The parties disagree as to the level of deference to be given 22

to Plaintiffs' choice of forum. 23

Plaintiffs maintain that their choice of forum should be 24

given deference because their allegations arise under Title VII's 25

special provision and because the named Plaintiffs have worked in 26

California. The Ninth Circuit has held that "the effect of Title 27

VII's venue provision is to allow suit in the judicial district in 28

4

Case3:13-cv-00581-WHO Document42 Filed06/25/13 Page5 of 11

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 which the plaintiff worked." Passantino v. Johnson & Johnson

2 Consumer Products, Inc., 212 F.3d 493, 504 (9th Cir. 2000).

3 Moreover, "a plaintiff's choice of forum is entitled to greater

4 deference where a case arises under Title VII." Ellis, 372 F.

5 Supp. 2d at 537.

6

However, DSI argues that Plaintiffs' choice of forum should

7 not be given "greater deference" under Title VII, because

8 Plaintiffs' suit is brought as a nationwide class and collective

9 action. "[W]here there are hundreds of potential plaintiffs,

10 . . . all of whom could with equal show of right go into their

11 many home courts, the claim of any one plaintiff that a forum is

12 appropriate . . . is considerably weakened." Koster v. Am.

13 Lumbermen's Mut. Cas. Co., 330 U.S. 518, 524 (1947). When

14 plaintiffs represent a class, their choice of forum is given less

15 weight. Lou, 834 F.2d 730, 739. DSI contends that Plaintiffs'

16 choice of forum is weakened because California will not be a

17 favored forum for many of the class members from different states.

18 Def. Mot. 8:12-17.

19

Koster and Lou are distinguishable because Plaintiffs' claims

20 arise under Title VII, which is governed by a more permissive

21 standard of evaluation that applies deference in class action

22 suits as well as individual actions. Ellis, 372 F. Supp. 2d at

23 537 ("Where venue is governed by a more permissive standard, a

24 plaintiff's choice of forum is entitled to greater deference as a

25 matter of law, even where that case is brought as a class

26 action.").

27

DSI also asserts that, because Plaintiffs' nationwide

28 allegations against DSI contend that discrimination resulted from

5

Case3:13-cv-00581-WHO Document42 Filed06/25/13 Page6 of 11

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 "centralized control" by individuals who worked at corporate

2 headquarters in New Jersey, venue is more proper in New Jersey.

3 Def. Reply 4:5-7. Plaintiffs counter that all of the named

4 Plaintiffs live and work in California and the effects of DSI's

5 alleged discriminatory policies, practices and actions were

6 implemented in California and felt by Plaintiffs in California.

7 Pl's Opp. 2:12-14.

8

The Ninth Circuit has held that "unless the balance of

9 factors is strongly in favor of the defendants, the plaintiff's

10 choice of forum should rarely be disturbed." Sec. Investor

11 Protection Corp. v. Vigman, 764 F.2d 1309, 1317 (9th Cir. 1985).

12 "Congress expanded the available fora to plaintiffs grieving civil

13 rights violations, thereby expressing intent to broaden a Title

14 VII plaintiff's choice of forum." Ellis, 372 F. Supp. 2d at 537.

15 The Court will give deference to Plaintiffs' choice of forum and

16 this factor weighs against transfer.

17 II. Convenience of the Parties

18

The parties dispute which venue is the most convenient forum.

19 DSI asserts that the most convenient venue is New Jersey because

20 ten of the twelve additional opt-in Plaintiffs do not live in

21 California and Plaintiffs' allegations of a "centralized

22 predominately male sales leadership team" will necessitate

23 testimony from several of DSI's New Jersey-based human resources,

24 sales and business leaders, all of whom work and reside in or

25 around the District of New Jersey. Def. Mot. 9:1-7.

26

However, Plaintiffs respond that all named Plaintiffs reside

27 in, work or have worked in California. Plaintiffs argue that to

28 require them to travel across the country when they have familial

6

Case3:13-cv-00581-WHO Document42 Filed06/25/13 Page7 of 11

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 obligations in the state of California would cause them hardship

2 and would shift the inconvenience from DSI to themselves. Pl's

3 Opp. 14:23-26; see Gelber v. Leonard Wood Mem'l for the

4 Eradication of Leprosy, No. C 07-01785, 2007 U.S. LEXIS 47535

5 (N.D. Cal. 2007) (citing Jumara v. State Farm Ins. Co., 55 F.3d

6 873, 879 (3d Cir. 1995)). Where the defendant attempts to shift

7 the inconvenience——and disproportionately so——onto plaintiff,

8 transfer must be denied. Decker Coal, 805 F.2d at 843. The Court

9 finds transfer would disproportionately shift the inconvenience

10 from DSI, which is a major corporation that does business in

11 California and has litigated in California, to Plaintiffs. Thus,

12 this factor weighs against transfer.

13 III. Convenience of the Witnesses

14

The parties disagree as to which forum would be most

15 convenient for the parties' witnesses. The convenience of

16 witnesses is often the most important factor in deciding whether

17 to transfer an action. Getz v. Boeing Co., 547 F. Supp. 2d 1080,

18 1083 (N.D. Cal. 2008).

19

DSI's potential witnesses are employees or officers of DSI

20 and reside in the District of New Jersey. Def. Mot. 9:6. The

21 Court, however, discounts inconvenience to the parties' employees,

22 whom the parties can compel to testify. STX, Inc. v. Trik Stik,

23 Inc., 708 F. Supp. 1551, 1556 (N.D. Cal. 1988) (discounting

24 inconvenience to witnesses when they are employees who can be

25 compelled to testify).

26

A majority of Plaintiffs' potential witnesses, some of whom

27 are non-party witnesses, reside in California. Pl's Opp. 16:1-3.

28 The convenience of witnesses includes "a separate but related

7

Case3:13-cv-00581-WHO Document42 Filed06/25/13 Page8 of 11

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 concern, the availability of compulsory process to bring unwilling

2 witnesses live before the jury." Brackett v. Hilton Hotels Corp.,

3 619 F. Supp. 2d 810, 820 (N.D. Cal.). Plaintiffs argue that, if

4 DSI's transfer motion is granted, they may lose their non-party

5 witnesses because the witnesses would not be within New Jersey's

6 subpoena power. Pl's Opp. 16:7-10. DSI argues that Plaintiffs

7 have "cobbled up" these non-party witnesses residing in California

8 for the purposes of defeating the transfer motion. Def. Reply

9 10:24-26. However, DSI fails to provide supporting evidence for

10 this charge. This factor weighs against transfer because

11 Plaintiffs would be prejudiced by not being able to compel their

12 non-party witnesses to testify in New Jersey.

13 IV. Ease of Access to Sources of Proof

14

The parties disagree as to whether the location of relevant

15 records favors transfer. DSI argues that this factor weighs in

16 favor of transfer because the electronically stored information

17 (ESI) and hard copy documents relevant to the allegations in

18 Plaintiffs' complaint are primarily maintained at DSI's corporate

19 headquarters within the District of New Jersey. Def. Reply 13:24-

20 25. These records include personnel files, job descriptions,

21 promotional materials, policies and procedures (including those

22 relating to employment, compensation and benefit plans and

23 documents). Def. Mot. 12:6-10; Benadon Decl. ¶ 6.

24

Plaintiffs admit that key evidence can be found in New

25 Jersey. However, Plaintiffs argue the location of the ESI is

26 irrelevant because this evidence can be transferred without grave

27 inconvenience through modern technology. Pl's 21:15-16. "Given

28 technological advances in document storage and retrieval,

8

Case3:13-cv-00581-WHO Document42 Filed06/25/13 Page9 of 11

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 transporting documents between districts does not generally create

2 a burden." Brackett, 619 F. Supp. 2d at 820.

3

The Court finds that the burden on DSI of transferring the

4 records to California would be minimal.

5 V. Remaining Factors

6

A. State's Interest in the Controversy

7

The parties dispute whether New Jersey or California has a

8 greater interest in this controversy. An important consideration

9 in transfer of venue disputes is the "local interest in having

10 local controversies decided at home." Decker Coal, 805 F.2d at

11 843. DSI argues that the local interest in this controversy is

12 either neutral or favors transfer to New Jersey. Def. Mot. 12:12-

13 14. DSI argues that although Plaintiffs bring California claims,

14 putative class members reside outside of the State and the

15 challenged policies and practices "emanate" from DSI's

16 headquarters in New Jersey——thus favoring transfer to New Jersey.

17 Def. Mot. 12:15-22.

18

However, Plaintiffs respond that, because all named

19 Plaintiffs have worked, resided and allegedly been subjected to

20 DSI's discriminatory policies in the state of California,

21 California has a strong public interest in deciding this

22 controversy involving its citizens. Lockman Foundation v.

23 Evangelical Alliance Mission, 930 F.2d 764, 771 (9th Cir. 1991).

24 Plaintiffs argue that California's interest in protecting its

25 citizens prevails because named Plaintiffs have filed actions

26 under California's Fair Employment and Housing Act and other

27 California statues. Pl's Opp. 19:7-13.

28

9

Case3:13-cv-00581-WHO Document42 Filed06/25/13 Page10 of 11

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1

The Court finds that both states have a relatively equal

2 interest in this matter and views this factor as neutral.

3

B. Court's Familiarity with the Law

4

Plaintiffs assert that a Northern District of California

5 court is more familiar with California law underlying Plaintiffs'

6 state class claims and therefore transfer should be denied. Pl's

7 Opp. 18:12-13. However, "other federal courts are capable of

8 applying California law." Foster v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co.,

9 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95240, at *15 (N.D. Cal.). In addition,

10 "where a federal court's jurisdiction is based on the existence of

11 a federal question, as it is here, one forum's familiarity with

12 supplemental state law claims should not override other factors

13 favoring a different forum." Id. at *16.

14

The Court finds that although it may be more familiar with

15 Plaintiffs' state law claims, there is no reason to believe that

16 the New Jersey court could not successfully apply California law.

17 The Court weighs this factor as neutral in the section 1404

18 analysis.

19

C. Districts' Judicial Efficiency

20

The parties disagree whether transferring this case to the

21 District of New Jersey would promote judicial efficiency. DSI

22 argues transferring this matter to New Jersey will not cause any

23 significant delay and a transfer may promote judicial efficiency

24 because the District of New Jersey moves cases to disposition more

25 quickly. Def. Mot. 13:13-15. Judges in the District of New

26 Jersey handle an average of 570 cases per year compared to 602

27 cases heard per year in the Northern District of California. Def.

28 Reply 14:12-13; see Chukwu Decl. ¶ 2, Ex. 1.

10

Case3:13-cv-00581-WHO Document42 Filed06/25/13 Page11 of 11

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1

Plaintiffs contend that if this Court is to consider

2 congestion, the focus should be the median time from the filing to

3 trial. Pl's Opp. 22:11-12. In the Northern District, the median

4 time from filing to trial is 32.7 months and in the District of

5 New Jersey the median time from filing is 35.6 months. Chukwu

6 Decl. ¶ 2, Ex. 1.

7

The Court finds that this factor is neutral because the

8 backlogs are not disproportionate taking either method into

9 consideration.

10 VI. Balancing of Factors

11

DSI fails to meet its burden of establishing that the balance

12 of inconveniences weighs heavily in favor of transfer to the

13 District of New Jersey. As noted above, Plaintiffs' choice of

14 forum is afforded deference, which is increased because they

15 allege Title VII claims. Accordingly, Plaintiffs' choice of forum

16 will not be disturbed.

17

CONCLUSION

18

For the forgoing reasons, Defendant's Motion to Transfer

19 Venue (Docket No. 38) is DENIED.

20

IT IS SO ORDERED.

21

22 Dated: 6/25/2013 23

CLAUDIA WILKEN United States District Judge

24

25

26

27

28

11

 
 2014 WL 2126877 United States District Court,
N.D. California.
Sara Wellens, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
Daiichi Sankyo, Inc., Defendant.
Case No. 13–cv–00581–WHO |
Signed 05/22/2014
Attorneys and Law Firms
Janette L. Wipper, Chioma Ifeyinwa Chukwu, Felicia Maria Medina, Sanford Heisler LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiffs.
Megan Barry Borovicka, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, San Francisco, CA, Alice Klair Fitzpatrick, Blair J. Robinson, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Philadelphia, PA, Allison Nugent Powers, Sari M. Alamuddin, Morgan Lewis Bockius LLP, Chicago, IL, George Alan Stohner, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant.

BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs work or worked for defendant Daiichi Sankyo, Inc. (DSI) as Sales Representatives and District Managers. DSI manufactures and sells cardiovascular, diabetes, and metastatic melanoma therapies and pharmaceuticals. Plaintiffs’ complaint, filed February 11, 2013, alleges the following causes of action: employment discrimination under Title VII (42 U.S.C. § 2000e); pregnancy and family discrimination under Title VII (42 U.S.C. § 2000e(k)); violation of the Equal Pay Act (29 U.S.C. § 206); violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (Cal. Govt.Code § 12940) based on gender, pregnancy, and family discrimination; violation of the California Equal Pay Act (Cal. Labor Code § 1197.5); and violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law (Cal. Bus. & Prof.Code § 17200).1
Plaintiffs now move for conditional collective action certification of their Equal Pay Act claims (EPA, 29 U.S.C. § 206(d)) and for equitable tolling of the statute of limitations for the same. DSI opposes both motions. I heard argument on May 14, 2014.

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR CONDITIONAL CERTIFICATION; GRANTING IN
PART PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR TOLLING
Re: Dkt. Nos. 84, 116, 120
WILLIAM H. ORRICK, United States District Judge
*1 Plaintiffs are women who bring several claims against their employer, Daiichi Sankyo, Inc. (DSI), stemming from alleged gender discrimination. The question I must answer here is whether they have met their low evidentiary burden to justify conditional collective action certification of their Equal Pay Act claims and whether factors outside of their or their counsels’ control justify further tolling of the EPA claims. For the reasons discussed below, I GRANT plaintiffs’ motion for conditional certification and GRANT, in limited part, tolling through the end of the opt-in period.

LEGAL STANDARD
I. CONDITIONAL COLLECTIVE ACTION CERTIFICATION The Equal Pay Act, 29 U.S.C. § 206(d), is an amendment to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), and therefore incorporates FLSA’s enforcement provisions and collective action requirements. See, e.g., Anderson v. State Univ. of N.Y., 169 F.3d 117, 119 (2d Cir. 1999), vacated on other grounds, 528 U.S. 1111 (2000). Under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), an employee may bring a collective action on behalf of other “similarly situated” employees.2
The majority of courts have adopted a two-step approach for determining whether a class is “similarly situated.” Harris v. Vector Mktg. Corp., C–08–5198 EMC, 716 F.Supp.2d 835, 837 (N.D.Cal.2010); see also Daniels v. Aéropostale West, Inc. C–12–05755 WHA, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59514, * 5 (N.D.Cal. Apr. 24, 2013). At step one, the court must determine whether the proposed class should be informed of the action. Harris, 716 F.Supp.2d at 837. The “notice” stage determination of whether the
1

putative class members will be similarly situated is made under a “fairly lenient standard” which typically results in conditional class certification. Daniels, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59514,* 6. The plaintiff must make substantial allegations that the putative class members were subject to an illegal policy, plan, or decision, by showing that there is some factual basis beyond the “mere averments” in the complaint for the class allegations. Id.3 The question is essentially whether there are “potentially similarly-situated class members who would benefit from receiving notice at this stage of the pendency of this action as to all defendants.” Carrillo v. Schneider Logistics, Inc., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26927, * 45 (C.D.Cal. Jan. 31, 2012).
*2 Given the lenient standard at the notice stage, courts have held that the plaintiff bears a “very light burden” in substantiating the allegations. Prentice v. Fund for Pub. Interest Research, Inc., C–06–7776 SC, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71122, *5 (N.D.Cal. Sept. 18, 2007) (“Given that a motion for conditional certification usually comes before much, if any, discovery, and is made in anticipation of a later more searching review, a movant bears a very light burden in substantiating its allegations at this stage.”). Courts have also rejected attempts by defendants to introduce evidence going to the merits of plaintiff’s allegations at the notice stage. See, e.g., Labrie v. UPS Supply Chain Solutions, Inc., C–08–3182 PJH, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25210, * 20 (N.D.Cal. Mar. 18, 2009) (rejecting defendant’s evidence in evaluating conditional certification as “beyond the scope of this court’s analysis in a first tier determination insofar as the evidence raises questions going to the merits of whether plaintiffs are sufficiently similarly situated to allow this action to proceed as a FLSA collective action, and is more appropriately considered as part of the court’s analysis in a second tier determination on a motion to decertify after conditional certification is granted, notice has been given, the deadline to opt-in has passed, and discovery has closed.”); see also Harris, 716 F.Supp.2d at 838 (“A plaintiff need not submit a large number of declarations or affidavits to make the requisite factual showing. A handful of declarations may suffice.... The fact that a defendant submits competing declarations will not as a general rule preclude conditional certification.”).
II. EQUITABLE TOLLING Under some circumstances, a court may equitably toll an otherwise applicable statute of limitations. “Equitable tolling applies when the plaintiff is prevented from asserting a claim by wrongful conduct on the part of the defendant, or when extraordinary circumstances beyond

the plaintiff’s control made it impossible to file a claim on time.” Stoll v. Runyon, 165 F.3d 1238, 1242 (9th Cir.1999). In the Ninth Circuit, “[c]ourts have equitably tolled the statute of limitations in a FLSA action when doing so is in the interest of justice.” Castle v. Wells Fargo Fin., Inc., C06–4347 SI, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31206, *4 (N.D.Cal. Apr. 10, 2007). For example, during a stay pending a decision from the California Supreme Court on a state law issue (id.); where the court’s discretionary case management decisions have led to procedural delay beyond the control of the putative collective action member (Koval v. Pac. Bell Tel. Co., C– 12–1627 CW, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 113196, * 19–20 (N.D.Cal. Aug. 10, 2012)); or where defendant’s unjustifiable delay prevented class members from learning about the litigation sooner. Rai v. Santa Clara Valley Transp. Auth., C–12–4344 PSG 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109117, 4 (N.D.Cal. Aug. 2, 2013) (tolling FLSA statute “in the interests of fairness to the potential plaintiffs” because defendants unjustifiably refused to provide class member contact information to plaintiffs).

DISCUSSION

I. MOTION FOR CONDITIONAL COLLECTIVE ACTION CERTIFICATION Plaintiffs seek conditional certification of a class of around 1500 women, within six different job titles— specifically, all:

Current, former, and future female

sales employees in a sales

representative and first level district

manager role, including, without

limitation, Sales Representative;

Sales Representative I–V; Sales

Specialist; Senior Sales Specialist;

Senior Sales Professional;

Cardiovascular (“CV”) Specialty

Sales Representative; CV Specialty

Sales Representative I–III; Senior

CV Specialty Sales Representative;

Senior CV Specialty Sales

Professional;

Hospital

Representative;

Hospital

Representative I–III; Senior

Hospital Sales Representative;

Hospital Sales Specialist; and

Primary Care CV, Hospital District

Manager who worked at any time

2

in Defendant’s sales organization in the United States during the applicable liability period.
Complaint, ¶ 116. Plaintiffs assert that DSI paid them less than their male peers for performing the same job duties in violation of the EPA.
Plaintiffs rely on declarations submitted by a geographically diverse group of 35 named plaintiffs and opt-in plaintiffs. See Declaration of Felicia M. Medina [Docket No. 16–1], Exs. 1–31; Reply Decl. of Felicia M. Medina [Docket No. 119–1], Exs. 1–4. The declarations follow the same general form: the named or opt-in plaintiff explains when she started working at DSI, whether she still works at DSI or when she left, and discusses the positions she has held and the job duties for each position. The declarant also discusses her understanding that compensation policies are common and uniform and compensation levels are set by a small predominately male group (“sales leadership team”). The declarant concludes by identifying a male “comparator” who, according to the plaintiff, has the same job title and whose work required substantially equal skill, effort, and responsibility, but who was paid more than the declarant. See also Mot. for Certification at 12 (chart comparing salaries of declarants to comparators).
*3 Plaintiffs argue that they were subjected to common compensation policies that apply in the same manner to all plaintiffs regardless of tier, job title, or geographic location.4 They contend that the “sales leadership team” creates the compensation policies and implements compensation and other employment decisions.5 Specifically along with select members of H R, plaintiffs assert that the Regional Directors always “recommend” and then approve the base salary for Sales Representatives.6 The Regional Directors also recommend for approval by higher members of the leadership team the base salaries for District Managers.7 Plaintiffs rely on deposition testimony to show that District Managers never have authority to make “final” pay decisions.8
Plaintiffs say that DSI’s “Merit Increase Policy” applies in much the same manner to determine merit increases, with Regional Directors reviewing and approving the increases.9 Regional Director determinations are then sent to the Division Presidents for final review and approval. Id.
Plaintiffs assert that the pay differentials are the result of a “discriminatory scheme” effectuated through uniform corporate policies that empowered the sales leadership team to make final pay decisions. The small group of

mostly male decision-makers includes the Regional Directors, Area Business Directors, Vice President and President of Sales. Mot. for Certification at 3. As evidence of the general “disfavored” status of women at DSI, plaintiffs also rely on the evidence that while half of the sales representatives are females, only one-third of the district managers are female, and the remaining upperlevel management positions are almost exclusively male.10 Plaintiffs also rely on the “high” number of harassment and discrimination complaints to characterize the environment at DSI as hostile to women. Mot. for Certification at 5–7.
Plaintiffs note that the six job titles they seek to represent are employed in three different divisions: primary care (PC), cardiovascular (CV) and hospital. Within the job titles at issue, there are tiering levels, but plaintiffs assert that a change in tiers does not change job duties, as the job descriptions remain the same.11 Plaintiffs also claim, citing to the plaintiffs’ declarations as support, that there is significant overlap in duties across the PC, CV, and Hospital field sales markets.12
DSI attacks plaintiffs’ evidence and submits a significant amount of its own. DSI first argues that plaintiffs’ evidence demonstrates that the compensation of plaintiffs is not based on common policies, but on individualized decisions/situations. Oppo. to Certification at 12–13 (citing deposition testimony from plaintiffs that that discrimination occurred only after they became pregnant, some salaries were low because managers did not recognize prior work, etc.). That argument is more appropriately addressed at the second step of FLSA certification.13 See, e.g., Gilbert v. Citigroup, Inc., C–08– 0385 SC, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18981, * 10 (N.D.Cal. Feb. 18, 2009) (“Defendants’ concern about individualized inquiries does not require the Court to deny conditional certification.... Under the two-stage certification procedure, Defendants can present this evidence and make these arguments as part of a motion to decertify the class once discovery is complete.”). On this record, DSI has not shown that individualized decisions or situations would negate plaintiffs’ allegation of widespread compensation disparity based on gender in light of the pay scales and ranges uniformly used by DSI for all positions.
*4 DSI also contends that the compensation policies cannot be the “unlawful” policy that ties together the purported class because those policies are gender-neutral and not illegal on their face. Plaintiffs can, however, base their common policy claim on the unofficial policy of DSI (allegedly effectuated by the sales leadership team) to unfairly compensate women. The evidence submitted by
3

plaintiffs consists primarily of their own declarations, identifying a male comparator, and their contention that they were paid less than him. At this early stage and before the completion of discovery, plaintiffs do not need to have full and complete evidence demonstrating the existence or impact of the alleged policy.
DSI also challenges plaintiffs’ declarations and moves to strike them, arguing that they are formulaic, impermissibly argumentative, and contradict plaintiffs’ deposition testimony. Oppo. to Mot. for Certification at 19–20. The request to strike is DENIED. The declarations, while formulaic and somewhat generalized in their assertions, are specific enough to meet plaintiffs’ burden for conditional collective certification. DSI also suggests that in order to meet their burden, plaintiffs are required to rely on a statistical analysis showing widespread wage disparity. Oppo. to Mot. for Certification at 15. However, while some plaintiffs have relied on statistical analyses at the conditional certification stage, given the low burden at this stage, that type of analysis is not required.
DSI also attacks the assumptions made by the declarants regarding their male comparators as faulty. For example, DSI contends that while Pena and Bennie’s salaries were lower than their two male comparators for a period of time, the male comparators worked in different regions or districts and those women’s salaries soon surpassed their comparators, in part because of promotions. Oppo. to Mot. for Certification at 15; Declaration of Blair Robinson [Docket No. 112], Exs A & B. Other women compare themselves to men in different tiers that are subject to different salary scales. Robinson Decl., Exs. C– E. DSI contends that the plaintiffs intentionally “cherrypicked” comparators from other districts in order to obscure the fact that “they often earned more than men holding their positions within their districts.” Oppo. to Mot. for Certification at 16–17 (challenging the comparators selected by eight of the 31 initial declarations).
The question here is not whether plaintiffs have proven their case that there is a widespread and discriminatory pay differential between men and women, but whether there is a reasonable basis to conclude that there are “potentially” similarly-situated class members who would “benefit” from notice. See, e.g., Carrillo v. Schneider Logistics, Inc., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26927 at *45. Whether it is fair to compare the salaries of women and men who are in different tiers or geographic locations— when plaintiffs provided evidence that the job descriptions for the different tiers and locations are the same—is a question to be resolved at the second step of

the certification process.14 Further, that in some years some subset of the plaintiffs may have earned more than comparator men would not undermine evidence that in other years, or portions of years, they have been paid less.15 Cf. Garner v. G.D. Searle Pharmaceuticals & Co., 802 F.Supp. 418, 423 (M.D.Ala.1991) (“In a representative suit under the EPA, however, plaintiffs are not required to establish that the entire class of females has been victimized.”).
*5 DSI argues that the employees within the proposed collective class cannot be similarly situated because the job duties for the various positions included in the class (e.g., District Managers versus Sales Representatives versus Hospital Sales Specialist) vary widely. Oppo. at 18–25. Defendant, however, misperceives the question relevant to this conditional certification stage: are plaintiffs similarly situated with respect to their EPA allegations? See, e.g., Carrillo, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26927 at * 46 (showing that class members are “similarly situated with respect to the disputed claims.”).16 Here, they are. Plaintiffs contend, as supported by their declarations, that they were subjected to a policy at DSI to pay women less in violation of the EPA. They have made a preliminary showing that within their job titles, they are similarly situated. That DSI may pay different wages for different positions (within set ranges), that job duties vary between divisions and job titles, and that different positions are compensated differently based on location, are not factors that defeat conditional certification. Instead, whether the “disparate factual and employment settings of the individual plaintiffs” means that this case cannot proceed collectively, or would need to be prosecuted with subclasses for each of the job titles or geographic locations, is a matter to be determined at the second stage of the certification process. See, e.g., Harris, 716 F.Supp.2d at 837.17
None of the defenses raised by DSI is precluded at the second stage of the certification process. But plaintiffs have cleared the fairly lenient standard for conditional certification of their Equal Pay Act claims.
II. MOTION FOR EQUITABLE TOLLING Plaintiffs ask the Court to toll the statute of limitations for all EPA class members from April 12, 2013 through the end of the opt-in period. Mot. for Tolling at 1. Plaintiffs argue that tolling is necessary because delays outside of their control prevented them from filing the motion for conditional certification earlier. Those delays include: DSI’s filing a “baseless” motion to transfer venue; the Court’s delay in holding a CMC, due in part to the
4

reassignment of this case; and DSI’s delays in producing discovery that plaintiffs argue was necessary to both investigate the strength of the EPA claims and to move for conditional certification. None of those reasons justifies tolling.
Defendant’s venue motion was filed promptly, had a good faith basis (seeking transfer to New Jersey, where DSI has its principal place of business), and was decided prior to the noticed hearing date. See also Adedapoidle–Tyehimba v. Crunch, LLC, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 113519, * 25 (N.D.Cal. Aug. 9, 2013) (“good faith motion practice by a defendant does not amount to wrongful conduct warranting equitable tolling of FLSA claims.”). It is not a reason to toll.
The reassignment did not cause significant delay. In light of the motion to transfer, the parties stipulated to continue the initial CMC to July 24, 2013. After the case was reassigned, a CMC was held on August 6, 2013. The 13 day continuance in CMC dates was not significant.
*6 The breadth of the claims at issue (EPA, gender discrimination, pregnancy discrimination) means that wide-ranging discovery has been sought and allowed in this case. That necessitated phasing discovery with the deadline for Phase I on January 31, 2014. Therefore, some delay was necessitated by the scope of the case as defined by the plaintiffs. Moreover, while plaintiffs complain that defendant failed to produce all required discovery by the January 31, 2014 Phase I deadline—including the contact information for the absent class members (produced by March 10, 2014 under Judge Ryu’s order); discrimination complaints (completely produced by March 14, 2014); and discrimination complaint logs (produced by March 14, 2014)—plaintiffs do not show that they could not have filed their motion for conditional certification without this discovery. In fact, they filed that motion on March 6, 2014 without it.
Finally, while plaintiffs complain that the discovery they actually relied on in their motion for conditional certification—job descriptions and aggregate workforce data (EEO reports)—was requested in May 2013, but only produced in late October and on January 3, 2014, the Court does not find that those productions justify tolling. The production occurred within the January 31, 2014 timeframe set by the Court. Further, it does not appear that DSI simply withheld all discovery until the end of 2013 and early 2014, but rather that the parties were meeting and conferring on how to best organizes defendant’s rolling production in light of the breadth of discovery requested.

Plaintiffs also ask to toll the time between the hearing on the motion for conditional certification and the end of the opt-in period, noting that courts have frequently tolled the time during which they have a motion for conditional certification under consideration. Mot. for Tolling at 13. I have ruled on the motion for conditional certification promptly after the hearing date. Nonetheless, considering that potential opt-in plaintiffs may not know about their EPA claims (because they may not know about the alleged gender pay disparity, unlike a FLSA misclassification or donning and doffing case where the potential opt-in plaintiffs know about their classification and time requirements to prepare for their work), I find it appropriate to toll the EPA statute of limitations from the date of the hearing on the motion for conditional certification through the end of the opt-in period.
Therefore, the EPA claims are tolled from April 16, 2014 (the original hearing date on plaintiffs’ motion for conditional certification) through the end of the period allowing for potential plaintiffs’ to opt into the conditionally certified class.
III. NOTICE The parties shall meet and confer as to the form of and timing for the opt-in notice and attempt to agree on those matters within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Order. If the parties’ cannot agree, they shall submit their proposals to me within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Order and I will determine the matters promptly.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, I GRANT plaintiffs’ motion for conditional collective action certification. I also GRANT in part the motion for equitable tolling. The EPA statute of limitations shall be tolled from April 16, 2014 through the end of the opt-in period.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
All Citations
Not Reported in F.Supp.3d, 2014 WL 2126877, 97 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 45,080
5

Footnotes

1

The Complaint also alleges a few individual causes of action brought by plaintiff Jacqueline Pena. Those claims are not at issue on

these motions.

2

This analysis is distinct from the Rule 23 class certification analysis. See, e.g., Hill v. R+L Carriers, Inc., C–09–1907 CW, 690

F.Supp.2d 1001, 1009 (N.D.Cal.2010) (“collective actions under the FLSA are not subject to the requirements of Rule 23 of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for certification of a class action.”).

3

At step two, which occurs after discovery is completed, defendant may move to decertify the class and the court makes a factual

determination whether the plaintiffs are similarly situated by weighing factors including: (1) the disparate factual and

employment settings of the individual plaintiffs; (2) the various defenses available to the defendant which appeared to be

individual to each plaintiff; and (3) fairness and procedural considerations. Harris, 716 F.Supp.2d at 837.

4

Medina Decl., Exs. 54, 55 (policies).

5

Medina Decl., Exs. 57–59 (regional and area business director job descriptions).

6

Medina Decl., Exs. 57–58 (regional director job descriptions).

7

Id.; see also Ex. 34, Deposition of Lara Hollinger at 45:21–46:21.

8

Ex. 34, Hollinger Depo. 45:16–47:23; Ex 33, Deposition of Bernice Giovanni at 34:7–35:4.

9

Hollinger Depo. 47:12–18.

10 Medina Decl., Exs. 43 (EEO Reports), 44–55 (organizational charts); see also Ex. 44 (women held less than 17% of positions at or above regional director).
11 Medina Decl., Exs. 48–53.

12 For example, under DSI policies, Sales Representatives across all three divisions are charged with: (i) building and developing relationships with key healthcare providers; (ii) serving as “disease state experts”; and (iii) implementing promotional strategies to increase selling opportunities. Medina Decl., Exs. 48–49, 53 (Sales Representative job descriptions).
13 DSI also argues that because District Managers play a role in setting the compensation of the Sales Representative, plaintiffs’ theme that the predominately male sales leadership team sets the salaries and effectuates the pay disparities is fatally undermined. Oppo. to Certification at 13–14. However, the policies and testimony are consistent that the District Manager’s role is to implement the salaries “recommended” by HR and higher managers. The fact that the DMs may play a role in the margins of setting the salaries, does not undermine plaintiffs’ ability to pursue a collective action at this juncture.
14 In support of its “cherry-picking” argument, DSI relies on two cases which held that at the merits stage, plaintiffs could not ignore the existence of men who were comparably paid and single out the highest paid men. See Hein v. Oregon College of Education, 718 F.2d 910, 916 (9th Cir.Or.1983); Huebner v. ESEC, Inc., 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28289, *11–12 (D.Ariz. Mar. 26, 2003). These cases are inapposite on conditional certification.
15 While DSI criticizes plaintiffs for not presenting a statistical analysis showing wide-ranging pay disparity based on gender, other than disputing aspects of the showings made by 8 of the 31 initial plaintiff declarations and a few discrete examples comparing plaintiffs to men in their districts or regions, DSI does not present a comprehensive or statistical analysis of the pay differential (or lack thereof) between men and women although it has the data to do so.

6

16 DSI argues that at stage one, plaintiffs must demonstrate substantial similarity by demonstrating they satisfied the EPA statute: that the potential plaintiffs all performed “equal work” requiring “equal skill, effort and responsibility” under “similar working conditions.” Oppo. to Mot. to Certification at 11, 18. The case DSI relies on for that proposition, Moore v. Publicis Groupe SA, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92675, *32 (S.D.N.Y. June 28, 2012), actually rejected that standard. The Moore Court held that it “cannot hold Plaintiffs to a higher standard simply because it is an EPA action rather an action brought under the FLSA,” and instead applied the more lenient standard requiring plaintiff to “demonstrate that they and potential plaintiffs together were victims of a common policy or plan that violated the law.” Id. at * 31–33.
17 Also before the Court is plaintiffs’ administrative motion to file under seal unredacted copies of four opt-in plaintiff declarations. Docket No. 120. Consistent with the Court’s prior ruling sealing the names of the male comparators for purposes of these motions, Docket No. 115, plaintiffs’ narrowly tailored administrative motion to file under seal is GRANTED.
7

 
 2015 WL 10090564 United States District Court,
N.D. California.
Sara Wellens, Kelly Jensen, Jacqueline Pena, Bernice Giovanni, Lara Hollinger, and Jennifer Bennie on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
Daiichi Sankyo, Inc., Defendant.
Case No. C 13-00581 WHO |
Signed 10/16/2015
Attorneys and Law Firms
Felicia Maria Medina, Yonina E. Alexander, Sanford Heisler Kimpel LLP, San Francisco, CA, David W. Sanford, Sanford Wittels & Heisler, LLP, Washington, DC, for Plaintiffs.
Sacha Marie Steenhoek, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, San Francisco, CA, Alice Klair Fitzpatrick, Morgan Lewis and Bockius LLP, Blair J. Robinson, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Philadelphia, PA, Allison Nugent Powers, Sari M. Alamuddin, Morgan Lewis Bockius LLP, Chicago, IL, for Defendant.
ORDER: (1) PROVISIONALLY CERTIFYING SETTLEMENT CLASSES AND COLLECTIVE
ACTION; (2) GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT; (3) APPROVING CLASS NOTICE AND NOTICE PLAN; (4) SETTING SCHEDULE
FOR FINAL APPROVAL
Honorable William H. Orrick, United States District Judge
*1 Upon consideration of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement, and upon the Court’s review of exhibits annexed to such motion, including the Settlement Agreement and exhibits thereto, the Court now FINDS, CONCLUDES and ORDERS as follows:

I. JURISDICTION This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the litigation and over all parties to this litigation, including all members of the Settlement Class, as defined below.
II. CERTIFICATION OF SETTLEMENT CLASS AND EQUAL PROTECTION ACT COLLECTIVE ACTION 1. The proposed Settlement Classes are as follows:
California Settlement Class: All female sales force employees who are or were employed in a sales representative and/or first level district manager role, including, without limitation, Sales Representative; Sales Representative I–V; Sales Specialist; Senior Sales Specialist; Senior Sales Professional; Cardiovascular (“CV”) Specialty Sales Representative; CV Specialty Sales Representative I–III; Senior CV Specialty Sales Representative; Senior CV Specialty Sales Professional; Hospital Representative; Hospital Representative I–3; Senior Hospital Sales Representative; Hospital Sales Specialist; and Primary Care, CV, and Hospital District Manager in DSI’s sales organization in California for at least one day between April 16, 2011 and October 16, 2015.
Non–California Settlement Class: All female sales force employees who are or were employed in a sales representative and/or first level district manager role, including, without limitation, Sales Representative; Sales Representative I–V; Sales Specialist; Senior Sales Specialist; Senior Sales Professional; Cardiovascular (“CV”) Specialty Sales Representative; CV Specialty Sales Representative I–III; Senior CV Specialty Sales Representative; Senior CV Specialty Sales Professional; Hospital Representative; Hospital Representative I–3; Senior Hospital Sales Representative; Hospital Sales Specialist; and Primary Care, CV, and Hospital District Manager in DSI’s sales organization in the United States for at least one day between April 16, 2011 and October 16, 2015.
2. Members of the Settlement Classes allege claims for gender discrimination brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et seq. (“Title VII”), the Equal Pay Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 206 et seq. (“The Equal Pay Act”) and, with respect to the California Settlement Class, the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 12940 et seq..
1

3. For settlement purposes only, and without any effect whatsoever in the event that the settlement is not consummated, the Court FINDS and CONCLUDES that the Settlement Classes described above satisfy all of the requirements for certification under Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Because certification of the Settlement Classes is proposed in the context of a settlement, the Court need not inquire whether the case, if tried as a class action, would present intractable management problems. Accordingly, the Court preliminarily CERTIFIES these Settlement Classes under Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
*2 4. For settlement purposes only, and without any effect whatsoever in the event that the settlement is not consummated, the Court designates those Settlement Class Members who have returned Consent-to-join forms a certified collective action under the Equal Pay Act, 29 U.S.Code § 206, pursuant to 29 U.S.Code § 216(b). The Court FINDS and CONCLUDES that such Settlement Class Members who have returned Consent-to-join forms are similarly situated.
III. APPOINTMENT OF CLASS REPRESENTATIVES AND CLASS COUNSEL 1. For settlement purposes only, and without any effect whatsoever in the event that the settlement is not consummated, the Court finds that Class Representatives Sara Wellens, Kelly Jensen, Jacqueline Pena, Bernice Giovanni, Lara Hollinger, and Jennifer Bennie have claims typical of Class Members and are adequate representatives of Class Members. The Court appoints them to serve as Class Representatives.
2. For settlement purposes only, and without any effect whatsoever in the event that the settlement is not consummated, pursuant to Rule 23(g) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court appoints as Class Counsel, David Sanford, Esq., Felicia Medina, Esq. and Yonina Alexander, Esq. of SANFORD HEISLER KIMPEL, LLP to represent the Settlement Classes for purposes of the Settlement.
IV. PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT The Court has reviewed the terms of the Settlement Agreement and Plaintiffs’ description of the settlement in the Motion papers. The Court has also read and considered the declarations submitted by Plaintiffs in

support of preliminary approval. Based on review of those papers, and the Court’s familiarity with this case, the Court concludes that the settlement and Settlement Agreement are the result of extensive, arm’s length negotiations between the Parties after they investigated the class claims and became familiar with the strengths and weakness of Plaintiffs’ case. The assistance of an experienced mediator in the settlement process confirms that the Settlement is non-collusive. Based on that review, and the Court’s familiarity with the issues in the case, the Court concludes that the proposed Settlement Agreement has no obvious defects and is within the range of possible settlement approval, such that notice to the Class is appropriate.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:
1. The Court PRELIMINARILY APPROVES the Settlement Agreement as being fair, reasonable and adequate, subject to the right of any Class Member to challenge the fairness, reasonableness or adequacy of the Settlement Agreement and to show cause, if any exists, why a final judgment dismissing this case and all released claims and awarding attorneys’ fees and expenses to Class Counsel, should not be entered following a Final Fairness Hearing.
2. As of the date hereof, all discovery and other proceedings in this case are STAYED until further order of this Court, except as may be necessary to implement the Settlement Agreement.
3. Based on the terms of the Settlement Agreement, each Class Member shall receive a monetary award from the “Core Component” under Section 5.1(i) of the Settlement Agreement. The calculation of each proportionate share will be based on the total Workweeks of all Proposed Class Members and the number of Workweeks worked by each Proposed Class Member, based on the applicable damages period as defined by the Settlement Agreement.
4. Pursuant to CAFA, 28 U.S.C. § 1715, Defendant shall serve upon the appropriate State Official in which any Proposed Class Member resides, as determined by DSI’s records, a notice of the proposed Settlement in compliance with the requirements of CAFA, 28 U.S.C. § 1715.
*3 5. Should the Settlement Agreement receive final approval, the Court will retain jurisdiction over this matter for purposes of resolving issues relating to administration, implementation, and enforcement of the Settlement Agreement for (2) years following the “Effective Date,” as defined in Section 3.1(r) of the Settlement Agreement.
2

V. CONFIDENTIALITY AND EFFECT OF TERMINATION 1. If the settlement is terminated as provided in the Settlement Agreement, then, in such event, the Settlement Agreement, including any amendment(s) thereof, and this Order, shall be deemed null and void ab initio, of no further force or effect, and without prejudice to any party, and may not be introduced as evidence or referred to in any actions or proceedings by any person or entity, as set forth in the Settlement Agreement, and each party shall be restored to his, her, or its respective position as of the date and time immediately prior to the execution of the Settlement Agreement.
2. All negotiations and information and materials pertaining in any way to the Settlement Agreement or the settlement of the Lawsuit will be inadmissible and remain confidential to the fullest extent permitted by law, as set forth in the Settlement Agreement.
VI. OTHER CASES ENJOINED The Court orders that, pending Final Approval, each member of the Settlement Class who does not request exclusion is preliminarily enjoined from commencing, prosecuting or maintaining in any court other than this Court any claim, action or other proceeding that challenges or seeks review of or relief from any order, judgment, act, decision or ruling of this Court in connection with this Settlement Agreement.
VII. APPROVAL OF THE FORM AND MANNER OF DISTRIBUTING CLASS NOTICE AND CLAIM FORM 1. The Parties have also submitted for this Court’s approval a proposed Class Notice, which the Court has carefully reviewed. The Court FINDS and CONCLUDES as follows: The Court hereby APPROVES the substance, form and manner of the Notice of Proposed Class Action Settlement (the “Notice”), attached as Exhibit A to this Order. The Parties are directed to mail the Notice to the Class pursuant to the Settlement Agreement following the entry of this Order. Because the Settlement Agreement does not contemplate mailing the Claim Form to the Class until after Final Approval, the Court defers ruling on the Claim Form until that time.
2. The Court finds and concludes that the proposed plan for distributing the Notice and Claim Form (“Notice

Materials”) will provide the best notice practicable, satisfies the notice requirements of Rule 23(e), and satisfies all other legal and due process requirements.
VIII. PROCEDURE FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF THE SETTLEMENT
1. Fairness Hearing Based on the deadlines set forth in the Settlement Agreement, a Final Fairness Hearing shall take place on February 10, 2016 at 2:00 p.m. in the courtroom of the Honorable William H. Orrick at the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Courtroom 2, 17th floor, San Francisco Courthouse, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102, to determine whether the proposed settlement of this action on the terms and conditions provided for in the Settlement Agreement is fair, reasonable, and adequate and should be finally approved by the Court pursuant to Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and whether this action should be dismissed pursuant to the settlement.
2. Deadline to Request Exclusion from the Settlement *4 Class Members shall be bound by the judgments in this case unless such Class Members request exclusion from the Settlement Class in a timely and proper manner, as herein provided. A Class Member requesting exclusion shall send a written request for exclusion by mail, postmarked within sixty (60) days after the postmark date of the Notice to the Claims Administrator, at the address designated in the Notice. A Class Member must sign the request for exclusion and state her name, address and telephone number in the request. The request for exclusion shall not be effective unless it provides the required information and is made within the time stated above, or the exclusion is otherwise accepted by the Court.
3. Deadline for Filing Objections to Settlement and Settlement Agreement The Court will consider objections to the Settlement if such written objections are filed with the Clerk of the Court, United States District Court for the Northern District of California, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102, postmarked within sixty (60) days after the postmark date of the Notice. Class Members who fail to submit objections in the manner specified above shall be deemed to have waived any objections and shall
3

be foreclosed from making any objection to the Settlement Agreement.
4. Deadline for Submitting Claims Forms After Final Approval Based on the terms of the Settlement Agreement, a Class Member shall be eligible to receive a monetary award from the “Claim Form Component” under Section 5.1(ii) of the Settlement Agreement if the Class Member submits a Claim Form to the Claims Administrator postmarked within (60) days after the Court grants final approval of the Settlement Agreement. The postmark date of the submitted Claim Form shall be the exclusive means of determining whether a Claim Form is timely.
5. Deadline for Petition for Attorneys’ Fees Class Counsel shall file with this Court their petition for an award of attorneys’ fees and reimbursement of expenses no later than fourteen (14) days before the Fairness Hearing.
6. Deadline for Petition for Approval of Service Payments Class Counsel shall file with this Court their petition for an award of service fees no later than fourteen (14) days before the Fairness Hearing.
IX. NAMED PLAINTIFFS’ AND CLASS MEMBERS’ RELEASE If, at the Fairness Hearing, this Court grants Final Approval to the Settlement and Settlement Agreement, Named Plaintiffs and each individual Settlement Class Member who does not timely opt out will release claims, as set forth in the Settlement Agreement, by operation of this Court’s entry of the Judgment and Final Approval, regardless of whether she submits a Claim Form or receives any share of the Settlement Fund.
X. APPOINTMENT OF CLAIMS ADMINISTRATOR RUST CONSULTING, INC., One Market Plaza, Suite 1275, San Francisco, CA 94105 is hereby appointed Claims Administrator and shall perform the duties set forth in the Settlement Agreement.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 16th day of October, 2015.

Exhibit A
THIS IS A NOTICE OF A PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT FROM THE UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
If you are a woman who is, or was, employed as a SALES REPRESENTATIVE or DISTRICT SALES MANAGER for DAIICHI SANKYO, INC. in the United States at any time from April 16, 2011 through October 16, 2015, A PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT MAY AFFECT YOUR RIGHTS.
Please read this Notice carefully. This Notice describes a proposed settlement (the “Settlement”) of a pending gender discrimination class action lawsuit and your rights under this Settlement, including your right to receive money from this Settlement. If you do not want to be part of this Settlement, this Notice details the steps you must take to be excluded from it.
SUMMARY OF SETTLEMENT *5 On February 11, 2013, Plaintiffs Sara Wellens, Kelly Jensen, Jacqueline Pena, Bernice Giovanni, Lara Hollinger, and Jennifer Bennie filed a class action complaint against Daiichi Sankyo, Inc. (“DSI”) in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of themselves and all current and former DSI female sales representatives and first-level sales managers for gender discrimination in employment, including pay, promotion to District Manager and pregnancy discrimination. The Class Representatives litigated this gender discrimination case against DSI for over two years until the parties reached a final settlement agreement in August 2015.
The settlement makes available a Total Settlement Fund of $8,200,000, plus other benefits to the Class, as described in this Notice. As a former or current female sales force employee, you are eligible to participate in the settlement benefits.
DSI denies any liability or wrongdoing of any kind associated with the claims alleged in this lawsuit and this Settlement is in no way an admission by DSI that it engaged in any unlawful behavior.
The Court has preliminarily approved the Settlement. Before deciding whether to grant final approval to the
4

Settlement, the Court wishes to inform you of the general terms of the Settlement, and what actions you need to take to participate in the benefits provided by the settlement.
The Court will hold a Settlement Hearing to consider whether the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate, and to decide whether to give final approval to this Settlement. The hearing will be held at 2:00 p.m. on February 10, 2016, in the courtroom of the Honorable William H. Orrick at the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Courtroom 2, 17th floor, San Francisco Courthouse, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102. If the Settlement is granted final approval by the Court after the Settlement Hearing, the Court’s judgment will be final and binding. You are not required to appear at the hearing. If you are a Class Member you will be represented by attorneys for the Class at no cost to you.
If you wish to remain a Class Member and receive a share of the monetary relief, you do not have to do anything in response to this Notice.
If you wish to have an opportunity to receive an additional share of the monetary relief for your alleged promotion to District Manager discrimination, sexual harassment, retaliation and emotional distress damages, you will be required to complete and submit a Claim Form, including any supporting documentation and information, within 60 days after the date the Court grants final approval of the Settlement (which will occur on or after February 10, 2016). A Claim Form will be mailed to you within 15 days after the date the Court grants final approval of the Settlement.
If you wish to opt-out and exclude yourself from the settlement or object to it, this Notice will describe the procedures to do so.
For additional information, you may contact Class Counsel, as listed on page 11, or visit www.sanfordheisler.com.
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THIS NOTICE
Purpose of this Notice...––––
Background of this Gender Discrimination Lawsuit...––––
Class Definition–You are a Member of the Settlement Class...––––

Summary of Settlement Terms...–––– How Will the Total Settlement Fund Be Distributed?...–– ––
How Will My Settlement Award Be Calculated?...––––
What Does DSI Have to Do Under the Settlement?...––––
What Are the Important Deadlines for this Settlement?...– –––
Are There Tax Consequences for Any Money I Get?...––– –
Release of Claims...–––– What Claims Am I Releasing?...––––
The Settlement Process and Final Approval Hearing....––– –
*6 The Lawyers Representing You and the Class...–––– How Will the Lawyers Be Paid?...––––
Service Payments to Lawsuit Participants...––––
Getting More Information...––––
GENERAL INFORMATION
PURPOSE OF THIS NOTICE The purpose of this Notice is to inform you about this litigation, the certification of a class (the “Class”), the terms of a proposed settlement (the “Settlement”), and your rights in connection with a hearing to be held before the Court at 2:00 p.m. on February 10, 2016, to consider the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the Settlement and related matters. This Notice also describes the steps to be taken by those who wish to be excluded from the Class and, for those who remain Class Members, your rights to receive a monetary award and the steps necessary to seek an additional share in the distribution of the Settlement Fund in the event the Settlement is approved by the Court.
BACKGROUND OF THIS GENDER DISCRIMINATION CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT On September 12, 2012, Jackie Pena, a former employee of DSI, filed a charge of discrimination against DSI with
5

the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) and the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing. On February 11, 2013, Plaintiffs Sara Wellens, Kelly Jensen, Jacqueline Pena, Bernice Giovanni, Lara Hollinger, and Jennifer Bennie (“Named Plaintiffs” or “Class Representatives”) filed a complaint with class action allegations against Daiichi Sankyo, Inc. (“DSI”) in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.
After the parties engaged in extensive litigation for more than two years, the parties agreed to a mediation to explore possible resolution of this matter. Under the supervision of a nationally known and experienced mediator, the parties engaged in settlement negotiations that resulted in the agreement to settle this action as reflected in this Notice of Class Action Settlement and the underlying Settlement Agreement. Because of the extensive discovery conducted between the parties during litigation and the mediation process, the parties were able to reliably assess the merits of their respective positions and to reach a fair and equitable agreement.
Based upon their investigation, Class Counsel and Named Plaintiffs have concluded that the terms of the proposed settlement are fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best interests of the Class. In reaching this conclusion, Class Counsel has analyzed the benefits of the settlement and the risk of an unfavorable outcome, as well as the expense and length of continued proceedings necessary to prosecute this action. DSI has agreed to these settlement terms because it wishes to avoid further costly, disruptive, and time-consuming litigation, and desires to obtain complete and final settlement of the claims of the Named Plaintiffs and Class Members. DSI denies any liability or wrongdoing of any kind associated with the claims alleged in this lawsuit and this Settlement is in no way an admission by DSI that it engaged in any unlawful behavior.
CLASS DEFINITION – YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS *7 You are a member of the Class affected by the Settlement if you fit within either of the following definitions:
California Settlement Class: All female sales force employees who are or were employed in a sales representative and/or first level district manager role, including, without limitation, Sales Representative; Sales Representative I–V; Sales Specialist; Senior Sales Specialist; Senior Sales Professional; Cardiovascular (“CV”) Specialty

Sales Representative; CV Specialty Sales Representative I–III; Senior CV Specialty Sales Representative; Senior CV Specialty Sales Professional; Hospital Representative; Hospital Representative I3; Senior Hospital Sales Representative; Hospital Sales Specialist; and Primary Care, CV, and Hospital District Manager in DSI’s sales organization in California for at least one day between April 16, 2011 and October 16, 2015.
Non–California Settlement Class: All female sales force employees who are or were employed in a sales representative and/or first level district manager role, including, without limitation, Sales Representative; Sales Representative I–V; Sales Specialist; Senior Sales Specialist; Senior Sales Professional; Cardiovascular (“CV”) Specialty Sales Representative; CV Specialty Sales Representative I–III; Senior CV Specialty Sales Representative; Senior CV Specialty Sales Professional; Hospital Representative; Hospital Representative I3; Senior Hospital Sales Representative; Hospital Sales Specialist; and Primary Care, CV, and Hospital District Manager in DSI’s sales organization in the United States for at least one day between April 16, 2011 and October 16, 2015.
You have received this Notice because DSI’s records reflect that you fit one of the definitions outlined above, and therefore you are a Class Member in the proposed settlement of this lawsuit. Your rights may be affected by the legal proceedings in this action.
SUMMARY OF SETTLEMENT TERMS
How Will the Total Settlement Fund be Distributed? DSI will pay a total of $8.2 million to settle and satisfy the gender discrimination claims in this case. DSI will set aside $200,000 in order to implement changes to its employment policies and practices. $4.6 million will be paid into an interest bearing Class Settlement Fund. The remaining $3.6 million will be used to reimburse costs and expenses of the litigation, pay Class Counsel’s fees as awarded by the Court, pay service payments to the Class Representatives and lawsuit participants, and pay for the administration of the settlement process.
How Will My Settlement Award Be Calculated? The Class Settlement Fund of $4.6 million will be divided
6

into two components:
1. Core Component: $3.7 million will be proportionately divided among all Named Plaintiffs and Class Members to compensate them for back pay related to the claims asserted in the case. All Proposed Class Members, including Named Plaintiffs, will receive a monetary award based on a proportionate share of the Core Component. The calculation of each proportionate share will be based on the total workweeks of all Class Members during the damages periods as defined in the Settlement Agreement and the number of workweeks worked by each Class Member during the damages period as defined in the Settlement Agreement. In order to be eligible for a Core Component monetary award, you do not need to do anything in response to this Notice.
*8 2. Claim Form Component: An additional $926,200 will be proportionately divided among Named Plaintiffs and Class Members, if eligible, who submit a timely and complete Claim Form for alleged gender, pregnancy, and caregiver discrimination related to denial of promotion to District Manager, harassment, retaliation or emotional distress damages. Within fifteen (15) days after the date the Court grants final approval of the Settlement, a Claim Form will be mailed to each Class Member. In order to be eligible for a Claim Form Component monetary award, you WILL BE REQUIRED TO COMPLETE the Claim Form and supply information related to your claims within sixty (60) days after the date the Court grants final approval of the Settlement. If you need assistance in completing your Claim Form, you can get free help by contacting Class Counsel, as listed on page 11.
Thereafter, an Independent Claim Expert shall review the Claim Forms and any evidence submitted in connection with the Claim Forms and allocate a certain number of points to Claimants. Following the finalization of the award of points to Claimants, the Independent Claim Expert shall total the points applicable to all eligible Class Members, total the number of Claims Forms received, determine each eligible Class Member’s proportionate share of the total points, and determine the individual monetary award amount based on her individual point total. No Class Member may receive an award under the Claim Form Component of the Agreement that is higher than the limitation on compensatory and punitive damages provided for by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. (i.e., $300,000).
What Does DSI Have to Do Under the Settlement? Under the Settlement Agreement, in addition to the

payment of $8,200,000 discussed above, DSI has agreed to programmatic relief provisions whereby the company will retain an independent consultant to review its employment policies and practices with respect to the issues raised by this Lawsuit and look for possible enhancements to those policies and practices.
Programmatic relief provisions include:
1. DSI will provide all employees with a written or electronic communication of commitment to equal employment opportunities, together with copies or an electronic link to policies addressing nondiscrimination, anti-harassment, and anti-retaliation. DSI will distribute policies (in hard copy or via an electronic link) that address nondiscrimination, antiharassment, and anti-retaliation to all employees upon hire, promotion to a management position and to new managers during management training and annually. DSI will require all District Managers and above to undergo training in these policies upon hire and promotion, and every two years.
2. DSI will retain an Independent HR Consultant to review its policies and practices to enhance said policies and practices. The topics the Independent HR Consultant will review concern Flexible Work Arrangements, Pregnancy & Maternity Leave, criteria in Promotions and Career Development, Performance Management, and breastfeeding accommodations. DSI will consider any recommendations made by the consultant and make good faith enhancements to procedures consistent with recommendations.
3. DSI will post all District Manager positions with clear posting of the requirements and qualifications for the role. DSI will also confer with the consultant regarding (1) the amount of time the DM positions will remain posted; and (2) the role that candidates’ current managers play in the process of promotion from a sales representative to DM.
*9 4. DSI will continue to support the Women’s Forum and continue to maintain the Company’s mentoring program. DSI will also provide Women’s Forum board members (or equivalent leadership) the opportunity to meet with the consultant for a minimum of two hours to discuss their experiences at the Company and provide input with respect to the areas for reform described herein.
5. DSI will also work with the Independent HR Consultant to develop a training module that will provide guidance to all employees on the appropriate way to treat new mothers returning to work, create a
7

brief hand-out informing returning mothers of their rights and the appropriate procedure to follow if they feel those rights have been violated, investigate methods, such as software, to avoid overpayments to employees on maternity leave and other processes to seek repayment where such overpayments cannot be avoided, identify a resource in HR to whom questions regarding maternity leave policies can be directed, and eliminate the merit increase offset proration for individuals who take medical leaves of absence.
6. DSI will establish an Internal Compliance Panel of senior executives from HR and Legal to meet semiannually to review compliance with above requirements.
7. DSI, through its counsel, will provide a certification to Class Counsel every six (6) months for two years from October 16, 2015 detailing what programmatic changes were actually done.
What Are the Important Deadlines for this Settlement?
• To participate in the Core Component of the monetary relief portion of the settlement, you do not have to do anything. All Class Members are automatically entitled to a monetary payment.
• Claim Form Submission – Postmarked by 60 days after the date the Court grants final approval of the Settlement. To receive an individual monetary award from the Claim Form Component of the Settlement, YOU WILL BE REQUIRED TO COMPLETE A CLAIM FORM AND PROVIDE DOCUMENTATION OR INFORMATION SUPPORTING YOUR CLAIM. A copy of the Claim Form will be mailed to Class Members by 15 days after the date the Court grants final approval of the settlement. If you complete a Claim Form, then you will be eligible to receive an additional monetary award. In order to be eligible to receive such an award, you will be required to return your Claim Form and supporting documentation and information postmarked by 60 days after the date the Court grants final approval of the Settlement. If you need assistance in completing your Claim Form, you can get free help by contacting Class Counsel: Sanford Heisler Kimpel, LLP, 111 Sutter Street, Suite 975, San Francisco, CA 94104, Tel: (415) 795–2020, Fax: (415) 795–2021.

• Exclusion – Postmarked by 60 days after the postmark date of this Notice. If you want to exclude yourself from the settlement (that is, not receive any money from the settlement, and not be bound by the settlement), you must mail an opt-out statement requesting exclusion, postmarked within 60 days after the postmark date of this Notice, to the Claims Administrator: Rust Consulting, Inc., One Market Plaza, Suite 1275, San Francisco, CA 94105. The postmark date of the mailing envelope shall be the exclusive means used to determine whether a request for exclusion (opt-out) has been timely submitted. The request for exclusion must be signed by the Class Member who seeks to opt out and must contain her name, address and telephone number. No opt-out request may be made on behalf of a group of Class Members. If you exclude yourself from this settlement, you will not be eligible to receive any money or be bound by this Settlement.
*10 • Objection – Postmarked by 60 days after the postmark date of this Notice. You can ask the Court to deny approval by filing an objection. You can’t ask the Court to order a larger settlement; the Court can only approve or deny the settlement. If the Court denies approval, no settlement payments will be sent out and the lawsuit will continue. If that is what you want to happen, you must object.
You may object to the proposed settlement in writing. You may also appear at the Final Approval Hearing, either in person or through your own attorney. If you appear through your own attorney, you are responsible for paying that attorney. All written objections and supporting papers must (a) clearly identify the case name and number (Wellens et al., v. Daiichi Sankyo, Inc., Case Number 3:13–cv– 00581–WHO), (b) be submitted to the Court either by mailing them to the Class Action Clerk, United States District Court for the Northern District of California, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102, or by filing them in person at any location of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, and (c) be filed or postmarked on or before sixty (60) days after the postmark date of this Notice.
Class Members who fail to make objections in the manner specified above shall be deemed to have waived any objections and shall be
8

foreclosed from making any objection (whether by appeal or otherwise) to the Settlement Agreement.
Are There Tax Consequences for Any Money I Get? One-half (50%) of each Core Component payment will be deemed wages and reported to the appropriate tax authorities on a IRS Form W–2 issued to the Class Member with her taxpayer identification number, and shall be subject to deductions for applicable taxes and withholdings as required by federal, state, and local law. The other one-half (50%) of each payment will be deemed non-wage income such as interest and statutory penalties and reported as non-wage income to the appropriate tax authorities on an IRS Form 1099 issued to the Class Member.
One-fourth (25%) of each Claim Form Component payment will be deemed wages and reported to the appropriate tax authorities on a IRS Form W–2 issued to the Class Member with her taxpayer identification number, and shall be subject to deductions for applicable taxes and withholdings as required by federal, state, and local law. The other three-fourths (75%) of each Claim Form Component payment will be deemed non-wage income such as interest and statutory penalties, and reported as non-wage income to the appropriate tax authorities on an IRS Form 1099 issued to the Class Member.
Any Service Payments shall not be treated as lost wages, but instead shall be treated as compensable damages, including damages for emotional distress and will be subject to an IRS Form 1099.
Class Counsel are not tax advisors and cannot give you advice on any tax matters. You are responsible for your own taxes.
RELEASE OF CLAIMS If the Court grants final approval of the settlement, then all Class Members who do not opt out will release employment claims against DSI set forth in this lawsuit up to the date of the final settlement. When claims are “released” it means that a person covered by the release cannot sue DSI for the same claims that are covered by the lawsuit as set forth in the Class Action Complaint and the Settlement Agreement. The terms of release are set forth in Section 3.1(v) and Section 9 of the Settlement Agreement. You may obtain a copy of the Settlement Agreement by contacting Class Counsel, as listed on page 11, or you can view the Settlement Agreement in hard

copy in the Office of the Clerk, United States District Court for the Northern District of California, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102.
What Claims Am I Releasing? *11 Unless you exclude yourself from the settlement, the released claims include, but are not limited to claims of alleged employment discrimination based on gender or sex and retaliation claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et seq. (“Title VII”); the California Fair Housing and Employment Act, California Government Code § 12940 et seq. (“FEHA”); the California Business and Professions Code §§ 17200–17208; the California Equal Pay Act, California Labor Code § 1197.5 et seq. and any other federal, state, or local statutes, common law, or regulation relating to gender-based employment discrimination, sexual harassment or retaliation.
By cashing your individual monetary award check, you will also be deemed to join the portion of this action brought under the Equal Pay Act of 1963, 29 U.S.C. § 206(d) (the “Equal Pay Act” or “EPA”) and will release claims of alleged gender discrimination under the EPA. If you do not cash your individual monetary award check, you will not release any EPA claims. However, unless you exclude yourself from the settlement, you will release the other claims affected by the settlement regardless of whether you cash your individual monetary award check.
THE SETTLEMENT PROCESS AND FINAL APPROVAL HEARING Every class action must be approved by the court that presided over the class action lawsuit. Thus far, the Court has only decided that the proposed settlement may be fair and, therefore, justifies the sending of this Notice of Class Action Settlement. A Final Approval Hearing will be held at 2:00 p.m. on February 10, 2016, at the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102. This date may change without further notice to the Class. You are advised to check the settlement website or the Court’s PACER site to confirm that the date has not been changed. You may, but are not required to attend this hearing. You may also enter an appearance in the case through your own attorney, if you so desire, which appearance must be filed with the Clerk’s office and served on the Claims Administrator and Class Counsel so that it is received at least fourteen (14) days before the Final Approval Hearing in order for your attorney to be heard.
9

THE LAWYERS REPRESENTING YOU AND THE CLASS As a Class Member, you are represented in this litigation by Class Counsel, as follows:
David Sanford, Esq. (Pro Hac Vice )
Felicia Medina, Esq.
Yonina Alexander, Esq.
Sanford Heisler Kimpel, LLP
111 Sutter Street, Suite 975
San Francisco, CA 94104
Phone: (415) 795–2020
Fax: (415) 795–2021
Unless you elect to exclude yourself from the Settlement, you will continue to be represented by Class Counsel in connection with implementation and monitoring of the Settlement throughout the two-year term of the Settlement at no cost to you.
How Will the Lawyers Be Paid? In connection with the Settlement, the Court will award Class Counsel reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses out of the Total Settlement Fund. If you are a Class Member and receive an award from the Settlement Fund, you will not owe any fees or expenses to the lawyers who have represented you as part of the Class. The attorneys’ fees and expenses of Class Counsel, as awarded by the Court, will be paid only from the Total Settlement Fund and only if and after the Settlement has been approved by the Court.
As is routine in class action cases, Class Counsel will request an award of attorneys’ fees and expenses already incurred as well as the fees and expenses that will be incurred during the two-year term of the Settlement. These substantial fees and expenses have been incurred as Class Counsel have pursued these claims on behalf of Plaintiffs and the Class for three years without receiving any compensation for their services or reimbursement of their out-of-pocket litigation expenses. Class Counsel have undertaken significant risks in pursuing this matter. They have done so with the understanding that, if they obtained a recovery for the Class, their expenses would be

reimbursed and they would receive fees from the fund recovered. Accordingly, Class Counsel will request that the Court award them $3,000,000 for attorneys’ fees and expenses.
SERVICE PAYMENTS TO LAWSUIT PARTICIPANTS *12 Class Counsel will apply for service payments of $25,000 each for the Class Representatives to compensate them for the time and effort they devoted to representing the Class in this case, including the time they spent consulting with Class Counsel about the case. Neither the size nor any conditions placed on the service payments undermine the adequacy of the class representatives. In addition, Class Counsel will apply for service payments of $1,000 each for the Class Members who submitted a declaration in support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Conditional Certification and $5,000 each for the Class Members who were deposed to compensate them for the time and effort they devoted to the case. These payments will come from the Total Settlement Fund.
GETTING MORE INFORMATION If you have further questions or are still not sure whether you are included, you can get free help by contacting Class Counsel in this case at the contact numbers/address listed on page 11. You may also contact the Claims Administrator as follows:
Claims Administrator Rust Consulting, Inc.
One Market Plaza, Suite 1275
San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: (612) 359–2000
Fax: (612) 359–2050
Website: www.rustconsulting.com
This notice summarizes the proposed settlement. For the precise terms and conditions of the settlement, please see the settlement agreement available at [Claims Administrator created website], by contacting Class Counsel at the numbers/address listed on page 11, by accessing the Court docket in this case through the Court’s Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) system athttps://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov, or by visiting the office of the Clerk of the Court for the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, at 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94201, between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Court holidays. This Notice,
10

the motions for approval and for attorneys’ fees and any other important documents in the case are also available at www.sanfordheisler.com.
PLEASE DO NOT TELEPHONE THE COURT OR THE COURT CLERK’S OFFICE TO INQUIRE ABOUT THIS SETTLEMENT OR THE CLAIM PROCESS.

All Citations
Not Reported in F.Supp.3d, 2015 WL 10090564, 2015 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 344,053

11

 
 10/26/2017

CAND-ECF

ADRMOP,CLOSED,REFDIS

U.S. District Court California Northern District (San Francisco) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:13-cv-00581-WHO

Wellens et al v. Daiichi Sankyo, Inc. Assigned to: Judge William H. Orrick Referred to: Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu Cause: 42:2000 Job Discrimination (Age)
Plaintiff Sara Wellens

Date Filed: 02/11/2013 Date Terminated: 02/11/2016 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: Federal Question
represented by Felicia Maria Medina Sanford Heisler LLP 111 Sutter Street, Suite 975 San Francisco, CA 94104 415-795-2020 Fax: 415-795-2021 Email: fmedina@medinaorthwein.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Janette L Wipper Sanford Heisler, LLP 555 Montgomery Street, Suite 1206 San Francisco, CA 94111 415-795-2020 Fax: 415-795-2021 Email: jwipper@nydclaw.com TERMINATED: 01/15/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY

Chioma Ifeyinwa Chukwu Sanford Heisler, LLP 555 MONTGOMERY ST STE 1206 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 415-795-2020 Email: cchukwu@sanfordheisler.com TERMINATED: 06/16/2014

David W. Sanford Sanford Heisler Sharp, LLP 1666 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 310 Washington, DC 20009 (202) 499-5201 Fax: (202) 499-5119 Email: dsanford@sanfordheisler.com PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?756420977413834-L_1_0-1

Elizabeth R Gropman
1/25

10/26/2017

CAND-ECF

Leonard Carder LLP 1330 Broadway Suite 1450 Oakland, CA 94612 510-272-0169 Fax: 510-272-0174 Email: egropman@leonardcarder.com TERMINATED: 11/24/2014

Plaintiff Kelly Jensen

Yonina E Alexander McCracken, Stemerman & Holsberry, LLP 595 Market Street Suite 800 San Francisco, CA 94105 415-597-7200 Fax: 415-597-7201 Email: yalexander@msh.law ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Felicia Maria Medina (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Janette L Wipper (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/15/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY

Chioma Ifeyinwa Chukwu (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/16/2014

David W. Sanford (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Elizabeth R Gropman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/24/2014

Plaintiff Jacqueline Pena

Yonina E Alexander (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Felicia Maria Medina (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Janette L Wipper

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?756420977413834-L_1_0-1

2/25

10/26/2017

CAND-ECF

Janette L Wipper
(See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/15/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY

Chioma Ifeyinwa Chukwu (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/16/2014

David W. Sanford (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Elizabeth R Gropman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/24/2014

Plaintiff Bernice Giovanni

Yonina E Alexander (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Felicia Maria Medina (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Janette L Wipper (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/15/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY

Chioma Ifeyinwa Chukwu (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/16/2014

David W. Sanford (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Elizabeth R Gropman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/24/2014

Yonina E Alexander (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff

Lara Hollinger

represented by Felicia Maria Medina

(See above for address)

LEAD ATTORNEY

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?756420977413834-L_1_0-1

3/25

10/26/2017
Plaintiff Jennifer Bennie on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated

CAND-ECF ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Janette L Wipper (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/15/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY
Chioma Ifeyinwa Chukwu (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/16/2014
David W. Sanford (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elizabeth R Gropman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/24/2014
Yonina E Alexander (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Felicia Maria Medina (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Janette L Wipper (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/15/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY
Chioma Ifeyinwa Chukwu (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/16/2014
David W. Sanford (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elizabeth R Gropman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/24/2014
Yonina E Alexander (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.

Defendant

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?756420977413834-L_1_0-1

4/25

10D/26e/2f0e1n7dant Daiichi Sankyo, Inc.

CAND-ECF
represented by Alison Bowman Willard Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP One Market, Spear Street Tower San Francisco, CA 94105-1126 415-442-1000 Fax: 415-442-1001 Email: awillard@morganlewis.com TERMINATED: 10/28/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY

Megan Barry Borovicka Morgan, Lewis & Bockius One Market Street Spear Tower San Francisco, CA 94105 415-442-1000 Fax: 415-442-1001 Email: mborovicka@morganlewis.com TERMINATED: 08/14/2013 LEAD ATTORNEY

Sacha Marie Steenhoek Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP One Market, Spear Street Tower San Francisco, CA 94105 415 442-1000 Fax: 415-442-1001 Email: ssteenhoek@morganlewis.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Alice Klair Fitzpatrick Morgan Lewis and Bockius LLP 1701 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 215-963-5000 Fax: 215-963-5001 Email: kﬁtzpatrick@morganlewis.com PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Allison Nugent Powers Morgan Lewis Bockius LLP 77 West Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60601-5094 312-324-1000 Fax: 312-324-1001 Email: apowers@morganlewis.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?756420977413834-L_1_0-1

Blair J. Robinson Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP 1701 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103
5/25

10/26/2017

CAND-ECF

Philadelphia, PA 19103
215-963-5398 Fax: 215-963-5001 Email: Blair.Robinson@morganlewis.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

George Alan Stohner Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP 300 South Grand Avenue, 22nd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 213-612-1015 Fax: 213-612-2501 Email: george.stohner@faegrebd.com TERMINATED: 02/02/2015

Sari M Alamuddin Morgan Lewis Bockius LLP 77 West Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60601-5094 312-234-1000 Fax: Email: salamuddin@morganlewis.com PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 02/11/2013
02/11/2013
02/11/2013 02/11/2013 02/13/2013 02/21/2013 02/21/2013

# Docket Text
1 CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT: JURY TRIAL DEMANDED; against Daiichi Sankyo, Inc. ( Filing fee $ 350.00, receipt number 34611083126.). Filed bySara Wellens, Kelly Jensen, Jacqueline Pena, Lara Hollinger, Bernice Giovanni, Jennifer Bennie. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(aaa, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/11/2013) (Additional attachment(s) added on 6/5/2015: # 2 Receipt) (aaa, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/12/2013)
2 ADR SCHEDULING ORDER: Case Management Statement due by 5/8/2013. Case Management Conference set for 5/15/2013 10:00 AM. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nathanael M. Cousins on 2/11/13. (Attachments: # 1 NC Standing Order, # 2 Standing Order)(aaa, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/11/2013) (Entered: 02/12/2013)
3 Certiﬁcate of Interested Parties or Entities; by Jennifer Bennie, Bernice Giovanni, Lara Hollinger, Kelly Jensen, Jacqueline Pena, Sara Wellens (aaa, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/11/2013) (Entered: 02/12/2013)
4 Summons Issued as to Daiichi Sankyo, Inc. (aaa, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/11/2013) (Entered: 02/12/2013)
5 NOTICE by Jennifer Bennie, Bernice Giovanni, Lara Hollinger, Kelly Jensen, Jacqueline Pena, Sara Wellens First Notice of Filing of Consent to Join Forms (Wipper, Janette) (Filed on 2/13/2013) (Entered: 02/13/2013)
6 CONSENT/DECLINATION to Proceed Before a US Magistrate Judge by Jennifer Bennie, Bernice Giovanni, Lara Hollinger, Kelly Jensen, Jacqueline Pena, Sara Wellens.. (Wipper, Janette) (Filed on 2/21/2013) (Entered: 02/21/2013)
7 CLERK'S NOTICE of Impending Reassignment to U.S. District Judge. (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/21/2013) (Entered: 02/21/2013)

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?756420977413834-L_1_0-1

6/25

10/26/2017
02/22/2013
02/25/2013
02/26/2013 02/28/2013 03/12/2013 03/15/2013 03/19/2013 04/08/2013 04/12/2013 04/12/2013 04/12/2013 04/12/2013 04/12/2013 04/12/2013 04/12/2013

CAND-ECF
8 ORDER REASSIGNING CASE. Case reassigned to Judge Hon. Claudia Wilken for all further proceedings. Magistrate Judge Nathanael M. Cousins no longer assigned to the case.. Signed by Executive Committee on 2/22/13. (as, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/22/2013) (Entered: 02/22/2013)
9 CASE MANAGEMENT SCHEDULING ORDER FOR REASSIGNED CIVIL CASE: Case Management Statement due by 5/8/2013. Case Management Conference set for 5/15/2013 02:00 PM. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 2/25/2013. (Attachments: # 1 Standing Order)(ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/25/2013) (Entered: 02/25/2013)
10 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Jennifer Bennie, Bernice Giovanni, Lara Hollinger, Kelly Jensen, Jacqueline Pena, Sara Wellens re 9 Case Management Scheduling Order, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Wipper, Janette) (Filed on 2/26/2013) (Entered: 02/26/2013)
11 NOTICE by Jennifer Bennie, Bernice Giovanni, Lara Hollinger, Kelly Jensen, Jacqueline Pena, Sara Wellens Second Notice of Filing of Consent to Join Forms (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A)(Wipper, Janette) (Filed on 2/28/2013) (Entered: 02/28/2013)
12 NOTICE by Jennifer Bennie, Bernice Giovanni, Lara Hollinger, Kelly Jensen, Jacqueline Pena, Sara Wellens Third Notice of Filing of Consent to Join Form (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Wipper, Janette) (Filed on 3/12/2013) (Entered: 03/12/2013)
13 NOTICE by Jennifer Bennie, Bernice Giovanni, Lara Hollinger, Kelly Jensen, Jacqueline Pena, Sara Wellens Fourth Notice of Filing of Consent to Join Forms (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Wipper, Janette) (Filed on 3/15/2013) (Entered: 03/15/2013)
14 NOTICE by Jennifer Bennie, Bernice Giovanni, Lara Hollinger, Kelly Jensen, Jacqueline Pena, Sara Wellens Fifth Notice of Filing of Consent to Join Forms (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Wipper, Janette) (Filed on 3/19/2013) (Entered: 03/19/2013)
15 NOTICE by Jennifer Bennie, Bernice Giovanni, Lara Hollinger, Kelly Jensen, Jacqueline Pena, Sara Wellens Sixth Notice of Filing of Consent to Join Forms (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Wipper, Janette) (Filed on 4/8/2013) (Entered: 04/08/2013)
16 ANSWER to Complaint byDaiichi Sankyo, Inc.. (Borovicka, Megan) (Filed on 4/12/2013) (Entered: 04/12/2013)
17 NOTICE of Appearance by Megan Barry Borovicka , George A. Stohner, Sari M. Alamuddin, Blair J. Robinson, Allison N. Powers, and A. Klair Fitzpatrick (Borovicka, Megan) (Filed on 4/12/2013) (Entered: 04/12/2013)
18 MOTION for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice [Sari M. Alamuddin] ( Filing fee $ 305, receipt number 0971-7625687.) ﬁled by Daiichi Sankyo, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Borovicka, Megan) (Filed on 4/12/2013) (Entered: 04/12/2013)
19 MOTION for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice [Blair J. Robinson] ( Filing fee $ 305, receipt number 0971-7625696.) ﬁled by Daiichi Sankyo, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Borovicka, Megan) (Filed on 4/12/2013) (Entered: 04/12/2013)
20 MOTION for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice [Allison N. Powers] ( Filing fee $ 305, receipt number 0971-7625699.) ﬁled by Daiichi Sankyo, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Borovicka, Megan) (Filed on 4/12/2013) (Entered: 04/12/2013)
21 MOTION for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice [A. Klair Fitzpatrick] ( Filing fee $ 305, receipt number 0971-7625704.) ﬁled by Daiichi Sankyo, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Borovicka, Megan) (Filed on 4/12/2013) (Entered: 04/12/2013)
22 Certiﬁcate of Interested Entities by Daiichi Sankyo, Inc. (Borovicka, Megan) (Filed on 4/12/2013) (Entered: 04/12/2013)

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?756420977413834-L_1_0-1

7/25

10/26/2017
04/12/2013
04/12/2013 04/12/2013 04/12/2013
04/14/2013 04/16/2013 04/16/2013 04/16/2013 04/16/2013 04/23/2013
04/24/2013
04/25/2013 04/25/2013

CAND-ECF
23 MOTION to Transfer Case ﬁled by Daiichi Sankyo, Inc.. Motion Hearing set for 5/23/2013 02:00 PM in Courtroom 2, 4th Floor, Oakland before Hon. Claudia Wilken. Responses due by 4/26/2013. Replies due by 5/3/2013. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Granting Motion to Transfer Venue)(Borovicka, Megan) (Filed on 4/12/2013) (Entered: 04/12/2013)
24 Declaration of David Benadon in Support of 23 MOTION to Transfer Case ﬁled byDaiichi Sankyo, Inc.. (Related document(s) 23 ) (Borovicka, Megan) (Filed on 4/12/2013) (Entered: 04/12/2013)
25 Declaration of Allison N. Powers in Support of 23 MOTION to Transfer Case ﬁled byDaiichi Sankyo, Inc.. (Related document(s) 23 ) (Borovicka, Megan) (Filed on 4/12/2013) (Entered: 04/12/2013)
26 Index of Unpublished Authorities and Exhibits 1-12 in support of re 23 MOTION to Transfer Case ﬁled byDaiichi Sankyo, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 13-18)(Related document(s) 23 ) (Borovicka, Megan) (Filed on 4/12/2013) Modiﬁed on 4/15/2013 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/12/2013)
27 ERRATA re 16 Answer to Complaint by Daiichi Sankyo, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Answer) (Borovicka, Megan) (Filed on 4/14/2013) (Entered: 04/14/2013)
28 Order granting 18 Motion for Pro Hac Vice entered by Hon. Claudia Wilken. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 04/16/2013)
29 Order granting 19 Motion for Pro Hac Vice entered by Hon. Claudia Wilken. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 04/16/2013)
30 Order granting 20 Motion for Pro Hac Vice entered by Hon. Claudia Wilken. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 04/16/2013)
31 Order granting 21 Motion for Pro Hac Vice entered by Hon. Claudia Wilken. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 04/16/2013)
32 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER to continue case management conference and modify dates for Rule 26(F) conference and motion to transfer Brieﬁng Schedule ﬁled by Daiichi Sankyo, Inc., Sara Wellens, Jacqueline Pena, Kelly Jensen, Lara Hollinger, Bernice Giovanni, Jennifer Bennie. (Powers, Allison) (Filed on 4/23/2013) Modiﬁed on 4/24/2013 (cpS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/23/2013)
33 ADR Certiﬁcation (ADR L.R. 3-5 b) of discussion of ADR options of Plaintiffs Sara Wellens, Kelly Jensen, Jacqueline Pena, Bernice Giovanni, Lara Hollinger, and Jennifer Bennie (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Wipper, Janette) (Filed on 4/24/2013) (Entered: 04/24/2013)
34 ADR Certiﬁcation (ADR L.R. 3-5 b) of discussion of ADR options (Powers, Allison) (Filed on 4/25/2013) (Entered: 04/25/2013)
35 ORDER Granting re 32 STIPULATION to continue case management conference and modify dates for Rule 26(F) conference and motion to transfer Brieﬁng Schedule ﬁled by Sara Wellens, Jennifer Bennie, Daiichi Sankyo, Inc., Lara Hollinger, Kelly Jensen, Bernice Giovanni, Jacqueline Pena Case Management Conference previously set for 5/15/2013 is continued to 7/24/2013 02:00 PM. Hearing re motion to transfer venue is continued to 6/27/2013 02:00 PM; Opposition is due 5/17/2013

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?756420977413834-L_1_0-1

8/25

10/26/2017
04/25/2013 05/02/2013 05/07/2013 05/17/2013
06/03/2013 06/07/2013 06/19/2013 06/25/2013

CAND-ECF
and reply by 6/7/2013. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 4/25/2013. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/25/2013) (Entered: 04/25/2013)
Set/Reset Deadlines as to 23 MOTION to Transfer Case . Responses due by 5/17/2013. Replies due by 6/7/2013. Motion Hearing set for 6/27/2013 02:00 PM before Hon. Claudia Wilken. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/25/2013) (Entered: 04/25/2013)
36 NOTICE of Appearance by Janette L Wipper Notice of Appearance of Chioma Chukwu as Counsel (Wipper, Janette) (Filed on 5/2/2013) (Entered: 05/02/2013)
37 NOTICE of Appearance by Janette L Wipper Notice of Appearance of Felicia Medina as Counsel (Wipper, Janette) (Filed on 5/7/2013) (Entered: 05/07/2013)
38 RESPONSE (re 23 MOTION to Transfer Case ) Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Transfer ﬁled byJennifer Bennie, Bernice Giovanni, Lara Hollinger, Kelly Jensen, Jacqueline Pena, Sara Wellens. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Declaration of Crystal Walter, # 2 Declaration Declaration of Douglas Forrest, # 3 Declaration Declaration of Lara Hollinger, # 4 Declaration Declaration of Sara Wellens, # 5 Declaration Declaration of Bernice Giovanni, # 6 Declaration Declaration of Jacqueline Pena, # 7 Declaration Declaration of Jennifer Bennie, # 8 Declaration Declaration of Kelly Jensen, # 9 Declaration Declaration of Chioma Chukwu)(Wipper, Janette) (Filed on 5/17/2013) (Entered: 05/17/2013)
39 Seventh Notice of Filing of Consent to Join Formsby Jennifer Bennie, Bernice Giovanni, Lara Hollinger, Kelly Jensen, Jacqueline Pena, Sara Wellens (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A) (Wipper, Janette) (Filed on 6/3/2013) Modiﬁed on 6/4/2013 (kcS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/03/2013)
40 REPLY (re 23 MOTION to Transfer Case ) ﬁled byDaiichi Sankyo, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Supplemental Declaration of Allison N. Powers, # 2 Supplemental Index of Unpublished Authorities)(Powers, Allison) (Filed on 6/7/2013) (Entered: 06/07/2013)
41 Eighth Notice of Filing of Consent to Join Forms by Jennifer Bennie, Bernice Giovanni, Lara Hollinger, Kelly Jensen, Jacqueline Pena, Sara Wellens (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A)(Wipper, Janette) (Filed on 6/19/2013) Modiﬁed on 6/20/2013 (kcS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/19/2013)
CLERKS NOTICE. Notice is hereby given that the Court, on its own motion, shall take the 23 motion to transfer under submission on the papers. The hearing previously scheduled for Thursday, June 27, 2013, is vacated.

(This is a text only docket entry, there is no document associated with this notice.)

06/25/2013 06/27/2013
06/28/2013

(ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/25/2013) (Entered: 06/25/2013)
42 ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken DENYING DEFENDANT'S 23 MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/25/2013) (Entered: 06/25/2013)
CASE REASSIGNED to the Honorable William H. Orrick, United States District Judge. All parties must review the reassignment order posted at http://cand.uscourts.gov/orders/who-order.pdf and comply with its requirements, including submitting a case management statement. This is a text only docket entry. The reassignment order associated with this notice may be viewed at http://cand.uscourts.gov/orders/who-order.pdf. Signed by The Executive Committee on 6/27/2013. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/27/2013) (Entered: 06/27/2013)
43 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Jennifer Bennie, Bernice Giovanni, Lara Hollinger,

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?756420977413834-L_1_0-1

9/25

10/26/2017
07/12/2013
07/23/2013
08/06/2013
08/13/2013 08/14/2013 08/16/2013 08/20/2013 08/27/2013 09/10/2013 09/10/2013 09/18/2013 09/18/2013

CAND-ECF
Kelly Jensen, Jacqueline Pena, Sara Wellens WHO Standing Orders (Medina, Felicia) (Filed on 6/28/2013) (Entered: 06/28/2013)
44 CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT AND [PROPOSED] ORDER Joint Case Management Statement ﬁled by Jennifer Bennie, Bernice Giovanni, Lara Hollinger, Kelly Jensen, Jacqueline Pena, Sara Wellens. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A (Plaintiffs' Proposed Protective Order), # 2 Exhibit B (Defendant's Proposed Protective Order), # 3 Exhibit C (Compare Version of the Proposed Protective Orders))(Wipper, Janette) (Filed on 7/12/2013) Modiﬁed on 7/18/2013 (aaaS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/12/2013)
45 CLERKS NOTICE - Case Management Conference set for 8/6/2013 02:00 PM in Courtroom 2, 17th Floor, San Francisco. There is no need for counsel to submit a supplemental Case Management Statement in advance of the conference. This is a text only docket entry; there is no document associated with this notice. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/23/2013) (Entered: 07/23/2013)
46 Minute Entry: Case Management Conference held on 8/6/2013 before William H. Orrick. Case Management Statement due by 8/20/2013. Further Case Management Conference set for 8/27/2013 02:00 PM in Courtroom 2, 17th Floor, San Francisco. Counsel Sari Almudden granted leave to appear telephonically. (Court Reporter: FTR 2:04-2:06, 2:412:51.) (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 8/9/2013) (Entered: 08/09/2013)
47 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Regarding Protective Order ﬁled by Jennifer Bennie, Bernice Giovanni, Lara Hollinger, Kelly Jensen, Jacqueline Pena, Sara Wellens. (Wipper, Janette) (Filed on 8/13/2013) (Entered: 08/13/2013)
48 NOTICE of Substitution of Counsel by Alison Bowman Willard For Defendant (Willard, Alison) (Filed on 8/14/2013) (Entered: 08/14/2013)
49 STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER re 47 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER. Signed by Judge William H. Orrick on 08/16/2013. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/16/2013) (Entered: 08/16/2013)
50 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT Supplement ﬁled by Daiichi Sankyo, Inc.. (Powers, Allison) (Filed on 8/20/2013) (Entered: 08/20/2013)
51 Minute Entry: Case Management Conference held on 8/27/2013 before William H. Orrick. Further Case Management Conference set for 2/11/2014 02:00 PM in Courtroom 2, 17th Floor, San Francisco. (Court Reporter FTR 2:07-2:13.) (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 8/27/2013) (Entered: 08/28/2013)
52 NOTICE by Jennifer Bennie, Bernice Giovanni, Lara Hollinger, Kelly Jensen, Jacqueline Pena, Sara Wellens Ninth Filing of Consent to Join Forms (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit) (Medina, Felicia) (Filed on 9/10/2013) (Entered: 09/10/2013)
53 Letter from Plaintiffs and Defendant Regarding Discovery Disputes. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Dfdt's Objs and Resps to Pltfs' First Set of RFPs)(Wipper, Janette) (Filed on 9/10/2013) (Entered: 09/10/2013)
54 CLERKS NOTICE - Telephone Conference set for 9/18/2013 10:00 AM. This is a text only docket entry; there is no document associated with this notice. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/18/2013) (Entered: 09/18/2013)
55 Minute Entry: Telephone Conference as to discovery dispute. Parties to meet and confer, narrow the issues in dispute as much as possible, and provide a joint letter to the Court advising as to any issues remaining in dispute within seven days. The Court will then issue a written order as to those speciﬁed issues. (Court Reporter n/a) (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 9/18/2013) (Entered: 09/23/2013)

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?756420977413834-L_1_0-1

10/25

10/26/2017
09/25/2013

CAND-ECF
56 Letter from Plaintiffs and Defendant Regarding Discovery Disputes Pursuant to Minute Entry (Dkt. No. 55). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit)(Wipper, Janette) (Filed on 9/25/2013) (Entered: 09/25/2013)

09/30/2013

57 ORDER ON DISCOVERY DISPUTE re 56 Letter. Signed by Judge William H. Orrick on 09/30/2013. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/30/2013) (Entered: 09/30/2013)

11/19/2013

58 NOTICE by Jennifer Bennie, Bernice Giovanni, Lara Hollinger, Kelly Jensen, Jacqueline Pena, Sara Wellens Tenth Filing of Consent to Join Forms (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Lisa Propper's Consent to Join Form)(Wipper, Janette) (Filed on 11/19/2013) (Entered: 11/19/2013)

01/10/2014

59 NOTICE by Jennifer Bennie, Bernice Giovanni, Lara Hollinger, Kelly Jensen, Jacqueline Pena, Sara Wellens Eleventh Notice of Filing of Consent to Join Forms (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Medina, Felicia) (Filed on 1/10/2014) (Entered: 01/10/2014)

01/15/2014

60 (For hearings held before Judge Orrick on 8/6/13 and 8/27/13; transcriber Kathy Wyatt assigned.) TRANSCRIPT ORDER by Daiichi Sankyo, Inc. for Court Reporter FTR - San Francisco. (Alamuddin, Sari) (Filed on 1/15/2014) Modiﬁed on 1/15/2014 (djc, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/15/2014)

01/15/2014

61 NOTICE of Change In Counsel by Felicia Maria Medina Notice of Withdrawal of Janette Wipper as Counsel of Record (Medina, Felicia) (Filed on 1/15/2014) (Entered: 01/15/2014)

01/17/2014

62 Transcript of Proceedings of ofﬁcial electronic recordings held on 8-6-13, before Judge William H. Orrick. Court Reporter/Transcriber Kathy Wyatt, transcriber, Telephone number 925-212-5224 wyattkathy994@gmail.com. Per General Order No. 59 and Judicial Conference policy, this transcript may be viewed only at the Clerks Ofﬁce public terminal or may be purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber until the deadline for the Release of Transcript Restriction.After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Any Notice of Intent to Request Redaction, if required, is due no later than 5 business days from date of this ﬁling. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 2/18/2014. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 4/17/2014. (kpw, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/17/2014) (Entered: 01/17/2014)

01/17/2014

63 Transcript of ofﬁcial electronic sound recording Proceedings held on 8-27-13, before Judge William H. Orrick. Court Reporter/Transcriber Kathy Wyatt, transcriber, Telephone number 925-212-5224. Per General Order No. 59 and Judicial Conference policy, this transcript may be viewed only at the Clerks Ofﬁce public terminal or may be purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber until the deadline for the Release of Transcript Restriction.After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Any Notice of Intent to Request Redaction, if required, is due no later than 5 business days from date of this ﬁling. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 4/17/2014. (kpw, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/17/2014) (Entered: 01/17/2014)

01/20/2014

64 Letter from Plaintiffs and Defendant Regarding Class Contact Information Discovery Dispute. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Medina, Felicia) (Filed on 1/20/2014) (Entered: 01/20/2014)

01/21/2014

65 ORDER OF REFERENCE to Magistrate Judge for Discovery purposes. Signed by Judge William H. Orrick on 01/21/2014. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/21/2014) (Entered: 01/21/2014)

01/22/2014

CASE REFERRED to Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu for Discovery (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/22/2014) (Entered: 01/22/2014)

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?756420977413834-L_1_0-1

11/25

10/26/2017
01/22/2014

CAND-ECF
66 ORDER Setting Hearing on joint discovery letter 64 . Motion Hearing set for 2/27/2014 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu.. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu on 01/22/14. (dmrlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/22/2014) (Entered: 01/22/2014)

01/24/2014

67 ** For Transcriber Kathy Wyatt: 8/6/13 transcript ﬁled at #63 and 8/27/13 transcript ﬁled at #62. ** TRANSCRIPT ORDER by Jennifer Bennie, Bernice Giovanni, Lara Hollinger, Kelly Jensen, Jacqueline Pena, Sara Wellens for Court Reporter FTR - San Francisco. (Medina, Felicia) (Filed on 1/24/2014) Modiﬁed on 1/28/2014 (djc, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/24/2014)

02/11/2014

68 Minute Entry: Case Management Conference held on 2/11/2014 before William H. Orrick. The parties are directed to submit a ﬁve-page joint letter regarding their discovery dispute. Further Case Management Conference set for 4/15/2014 02:00 PM in Courtroom 2, 17th Floor, San Francisco. (Case Management Statement due by 4/8/2014.) (Court Reporter FTR 2:17-2:21.) (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 2/11/2014) (Entered: 02/12/2014)

02/25/2014

69 Joint Discovery Letter BriefPursuant to Dkt. No. 68 ﬁled by Jennifer Bennie, Bernice Giovanni, Lara Hollinger, Kelly Jensen, Jacqueline Pena, Sara Wellens. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Medina, Felicia) (Filed on 2/25/2014) (Entered: 02/25/2014)

02/26/2014

70 NOTICE by Jennifer Bennie, Bernice Giovanni, Lara Hollinger, Kelly Jensen, Jacqueline Pena, Sara Wellens Twelfth Filing of Consent to Join Forms (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A) (Medina, Felicia) (Filed on 2/26/2014) (Entered: 02/26/2014)

02/27/2014

71 Minute Entry: Motion Hearing HELD on 2/27/2014 before Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu re: Discovery Letter Docket No. 64 . Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel GRANTED IN PART. Written Order from the Court to follow. (Court Reporter Diane Skillman.) (ig, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 2/27/2014) (Entered: 02/27/2014)

02/27/2014

72 TRANSCRIPT ORDER by Jennifer Bennie, Bernice Giovanni, Lara Hollinger, Kelly Jensen, Jacqueline Pena, Sara Wellens for Court Reporter Diane Skillman. (Medina, Felicia) (Filed on 2/27/2014) (Entered: 02/27/2014)

02/28/2014

73 TRANSCRIPT ORDER by Daiichi Sankyo, Inc. for Court Reporter Diane Skillman. (Alamuddin, Sari) (Filed on 2/28/2014) (Entered: 02/28/2014)

03/03/2014 03/05/2014

74 Transcript of Proceedings held on February 27, 2014, before Judge Donna M. Ryu. Court Reporter Diane E. Skillman, Telephone number 510-451-2930, Diane_Skillman@cand.uscourts.gov, diane.transcripts@aol.com. Per General Order No. 59 and Judicial Conference policy, this transcript may be viewed only at the Clerks Ofﬁce public terminal or may be purchased through the Court Reporter until the deadline for the Release of Transcript Restriction.After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Any Notice of Intent to Request Redaction, if required, is due no later than 5 business days from date of this ﬁling. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/2/2014. (Related documents(s) 73 , 72 ) (Skillman, Diane) (Filed on 3/3/2014) (Entered: 03/03/2014)
75 ORDER GRANTING IN PART DISCOVERY LETTER 64 . Signed by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu on 03/05/14. (dmrlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/5/2014) (Entered: 03/05/2014)

03/06/2014

76 ORDER REFERRING DISCOVERY DISPUTE (See Dkt. 69 ) to Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu. Signed by Judge William H. Orrick on 03/06/2014. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/6/2014) (Entered: 03/06/2014)

03/06/2014 77 NOTICE by Jennifer Bennie, Bernice Giovanni, Lara Hollinger, Kelly Jensen, Jacqueline

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?756420977413834-L_1_0-1

12/25

10/26/2017

CAND-ECF
Pena, Sara Wellens Thirteenth Filing of Consent to Join Forms (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Medina, Felicia) (Filed on 3/6/2014) (Entered: 03/06/2014)

03/06/2014

78 MOTION to Certify Class Equal Pay Act Conditional Collective Action Certiﬁcation ﬁled by Jennifer Bennie, Bernice Giovanni, Lara Hollinger, Kelly Jensen, Jacqueline Pena, Sara Wellens. Motion Hearing set for 4/16/2014 02:00 PM in Courtroom 2, 17th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. William H. Orrick. Responses due by 3/20/2014. Replies due by 3/27/2014. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Felicia M. Medina, # 2 Exhibit 1-11, # 3 Exhibit 12-31, # 4 Exhibit 32-66, # 5 Proposed Order)(Medina, Felicia) (Filed on 3/6/2014) (Entered: 03/06/2014)

03/06/2014

79 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Documents in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Equal Pay Act Conditional Collective Action Certiﬁcation ﬁled by Jennifer Bennie, Bernice Giovanni, Lara Hollinger, Kelly Jensen, Jacqueline Pena, Sara Wellens. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Felicia M. Medina, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Exhibit 1 Redacted, # 4 Exhibit 1 Unredacted, # 5 Exhibit 2 Redacted, # 6 Exhibit 2 Unredacted, # 7 Exhibit 3 Redacted, # 8 Exhibit 3 Unredacted, # 9 Exhibit 4 Redacted, # 10 Exhibit 4 Unredacted, # 11 Exhibit 5 Redacted, # 12 Exhibit 5 Unredacted, # 13 Exhibit 6 Redacted, # 14 Exhibit 6 Unredacted, # 15 Exhibit 7 Redacted, # 16 Exhibit 7 Unredacted, # 17 Exhibit 8 Redacted, # 18 Exhibit 8 Unredacted, # 19 Exhibit 9 Redacted, # 20 Exhibit 9 Unredacted, # 21 Exhibit 10 Redacted, # 22 Exhibit 10 Unredacted, # 23 Exhibit 11 Redacted, # 24 Exhibit 11 Unredacted, # 25 Exhibit 12 Redacted, # 26 Exhibit 12 Unredacted, # 27 Exhibit 13 Redacted, # 28 Exhibit 13 Unredacted, # 29 Exhibit 14 Redacted, # 30 Exhibit 14 Unredacted, # 31 Exhibit 15 Redacted, # 32 Exhibit 15 Unredacted, # 33 Exhibit 16 Redacted, # 34 Exhibit 16 Unredacted, # 35 Exhibit 17 Redacted, # 36 Exhibit 17 Unredacted, # 37 Exhibit 18 Redacted, # 38 Exhibit 18 Unredacted, # 39 Exhibit 19 Redacted, # 40 Exhibit 19 Unredacted, # 41 Exhibit 20 Redacted, # 42 Exhibit 20 Unredacted, # 43 Exhibit 21 Redacted, # 44 Exhibit 21 Unredacted, # 45 Exhibit 22 Redacted, # 46 Exhibit 22 Unredacted, # 47 Exhibit 23 Redacted, # 48 Exhibit 23 Unredacted, # 49 Exhibit 24 Redacted, # 50 Exhibit 24 Unredacted, # 51 Exhibit 25 Redacted, # 52 Exhibit 25 Unredacted, # 53 Exhibit 26 Redacted, # 54 Exhibit 26 Unredacted, # 55 Exhibit 27 Redacted, # 56 Exhibit 27 Unredacted, # 57 Exhibit 28 Redacted, # 58 Exhibit 28 Unredacted, # 59 Exhibit 29 Redacted, # 60 Exhibit 29 Unredacted, # 61 Exhibit 30 Redacted, # 62 Exhibit 30 Unredacted, # 63 Exhibit 31 Redacted, # 64 Exhibit 31 Unredacted, # 65 Exhibit 43 Unredacted, # 66 Exhibit 44, Part 1 Unredacted, # 67 Exhibit 44, Part 2 Unredacted, # 68 Exhibit 45 Unredacted, # 69 Exhibit 48 Unredacted, # 70 Exhibit 49 Unredacted, # 71 Exhibit 50 Unredacted, # 72 Exhibit 51 Unredacted, # 73 Exhibit 52 Unredacted, # 74 Exhibit 53 Unredacted, # 75 Exhibit 54 Unredacted, # 76 Exhibit 55 Unredacted, # 77 Exhibit 56 Redacted, # 78 Exhibit 56 Unredacted, # 79 Exhibit 57 Unredacted, # 80 Exhibit 58 Unredacted, # 81 Exhibit 59 Unredacted, # 82 Exhibit 61 Unredacted, # 83 Exhibit 62 Unredacted, # 84 Exhibit 63 Unredacted, # 85 Exhibit 64 Unredacted, # 86 Exhibit 65 Unredacted, # 87 Exhibit 66 Unredacted) (Medina, Felicia) (Filed on 3/6/2014) (Entered: 03/06/2014)

03/06/2014

80 Supplemental Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Documents in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Equal Pay Act Conditional Collective Action Certiﬁcation ﬁled by Jennifer Bennie, Bernice Giovanni, Lara Hollinger, Kelly Jensen, Jacqueline Pena, Sara Wellens. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Felicia Medina, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Declaration of Felicia M. Medina in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Equal Pay Act Conditional Collective Action Certiﬁcation - Redacted, # 4 Declaration of Felicia M. Medina in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Equal Pay Act Conditional Collective Action Certiﬁcation - Unredacted)(Medina, Felicia) (Filed on 3/6/2014) (Entered: 03/06/2014)

03/11/2014

81 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Jennifer Bennie, Bernice Giovanni, Lara Hollinger, Kelly Jensen, Jacqueline Pena, Sara Wellens re 79 Administrative Motion to File Under

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?756420977413834-L_1_0-1

13/25

10/26/2017
03/12/2014 03/12/2014 03/12/2014
03/13/2014 03/17/2014 03/18/2014
03/24/2014 03/25/2014 03/26/2014 03/27/2014 03/27/2014

CAND-ECF
Seal Documents in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Equal Pay Act Conditional Collective Action Certiﬁcation, 80 Supplemental Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Documents in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Equal Pay Act Conditional Collective Action Certiﬁcation (Medina, Felicia) (Filed on 3/11/2014) (Entered: 03/11/2014)
82 ORDER Setting Hearing on Motion 69 Joint Discovery Letter: Motion Hearing set for 4/10/2014 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu.. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu on 03/12/14. (dmrlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/12/2014) (Entered: 03/12/2014)
83 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to Plaintiffs' Motion for Equal Pay Act Conditional Collective Action Certiﬁcation ﬁled by Daiichi Sankyo, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Sari M. Alamuddin, # 2 Proposed Order)(Powers, Allison) (Filed on 3/12/2014) (Entered: 03/12/2014)
84 MOTION for Equitable Tolling ﬁled by Jennifer Bennie, Bernice Giovanni, Lara Hollinger, Kelly Jensen, Jacqueline Pena, Sara Wellens. Motion Hearing set for 4/16/2014 02:00 PM in Courtroom 2, 17th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. William H. Orrick. Responses due by 3/26/2014. Replies due by 4/2/2014. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Declaration of Felicia M. Medina, # 3 Exhibit 1-23)(Medina, Felicia) (Filed on 3/12/2014) (Entered: 03/12/2014)
85 Declaration of Sari M. Alamuddin Pursuant to L.R. 79-5 Resonding to Plaintiffs' 79 Administrative Motions to File Under Seal ﬁled byDaiichi Sankyo, Inc.. (Powers, Allison) (Filed on 3/13/2014) Modiﬁed on 3/14/2014 (aaaS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/13/2014)
86 RESPONSE (re 83 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to Plaintiffs' Motion for Equal Pay Act Conditional Collective Action Certiﬁcation ) ﬁled byJennifer Bennie, Bernice Giovanni, Lara Hollinger, Kelly Jensen, Jacqueline Pena, Sara Wellens. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Felicia M. Medina)(Medina, Felicia) (Filed on 3/17/2014) (Entered: 03/17/2014)
87 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO ENLARGE TIME by Hon. William H. Orrick granting 83 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. The Court will also equitably toll the statute of limitations for all collective action class members from April 16, 2014 through the date plaintiffs' motion is actually heard. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/18/2014) (Entered: 03/18/2014)
88 TRANSCRIPT ORDER by Jennifer Bennie, Bernice Giovanni, Lara Hollinger, Kelly Jensen, Jacqueline Pena, Sara Wellens for Court Reporter FTR - San Francisco. (Medina, Felicia) (Filed on 3/24/2014) (Entered: 03/24/2014)
89 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER to continue Case Management Conference ﬁled by Jennifer Bennie, Bernice Giovanni, Lara Hollinger, Kelly Jensen, Jacqueline Pena, Sara Wellens. (Medina, Felicia) (Filed on 3/25/2014) (Entered: 03/25/2014)
90 RESPONSE (re 84 MOTION for Equitable Tolling ) Defendant's Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Equitable Tolling ﬁled byDaiichi Sankyo, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Allison Powers, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3, # 5 Exhibit 4)(Willard, Alison) (Filed on 3/26/2014) (Entered: 03/26/2014)
91 TRANSCRIPT ORDER by Daiichi Sankyo, Inc. for Court Reporter FTR - San Francisco. (Alamuddin, Sari) (Filed on 3/27/2014) (Entered: 03/27/2014)
92 EXHIBITS re 90 Opposition/Response to Motion, Missing Exhibits 5-8 to Declaration of Allison Powers ISO Defendant's Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Equitable Tolling

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?756420977413834-L_1_0-1

14/25

10/26/2017
03/27/2014
03/31/2014 04/01/2014 04/01/2014 04/02/2014 04/03/2014 04/04/2014
04/08/2014 04/08/2014 04/08/2014 04/09/2014 04/11/2014

CAND-ECF
ﬁled byDaiichi Sankyo, Inc.. (Related document(s) 90 ) (Willard, Alison) (Filed on 3/27/2014) (Entered: 03/27/2014)
93 STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE re 89 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER. Case Management Statement due by 5/6/2014. Case Management Conference continued to 5/13/2014 02:00 PM in Courtroom 2, 17th Floor, San Francisco. Signed by Judge William H. Orrick on 05/27/2014. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/27/2014) (Entered: 03/27/2014)
94 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER re 84 MOTION for Equitable Tolling to Continue Hearing on Motion for Equitable Tolling ﬁled by Daiichi Sankyo, Inc.. (Alamuddin, Sari) (Filed on 3/31/2014) (Entered: 03/31/2014)
95 Order by Hon. William H. Orrick granting 94 Stipulation. The hearing on the Motion for Equitable Tolling will be continued to the same date as the hearing on the Motion to Conditionally Certify, when that date is set by the Court. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/1/2014) (Entered: 04/01/2014)
Set/Reset Hearing - Motion hearings set for 4/16/2014 VACATED per 95 Order on Stipulation and 87 Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/1/2014) (Entered: 04/01/2014)
96 REPLY (re 84 MOTION for Equitable Tolling ) ﬁled byJennifer Bennie, Bernice Giovanni, Lara Hollinger, Kelly Jensen, Jacqueline Pena, Sara Wellens. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Felicia M. Medina, # 2 Exhibit 1)(Medina, Felicia) (Filed on 4/2/2014) (Entered: 04/02/2014)
97 NOTICE by Jennifer Bennie, Bernice Giovanni, Lara Hollinger, Kelly Jensen, Jacqueline Pena, Sara Wellens Fourteenth Filing of Consent to Join Forms (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Medina, Felicia) (Filed on 4/3/2014) (Entered: 04/03/2014)
98 Transcript of Ofﬁcial Electronic Proceedings held on 2/11/14, before Judge William H. Orrick. Court Reporter/Transcriber Candace Yount, Telephone number 415-994-5619, email: candace.yount@gmail.com. Per General Order No. 59 and Judicial Conference policy, this transcript may be viewed only at the Clerks Ofﬁce public terminal or may be purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber until the deadline for the Release of Transcript Restriction.After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Any Notice of Intent to Request Redaction, if required, is due no later than 5 business days from date of this ﬁling. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 7/3/2014. (Related documents(s) 88 ) (Yount, Candace) (Filed on 4/4/2014) (Entered: 04/04/2014)
99 ORDER TAKING DISCOVERY LETTER 69 UNDER SUBMISSION WITHOUT ORAL ARGUMENT. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu on 04/08/14. (dmrlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/8/2014) (Entered: 04/08/2014)
Set/Reset Hearing (dmrlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/8/2014) (Entered: 04/08/2014)
100 NOTICE by Jennifer Bennie, Bernice Giovanni, Lara Hollinger, Kelly Jensen, Jacqueline Pena, Sara Wellens Fifteenth Filing of Consent to Join Forms (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Medina, Felicia) (Filed on 4/8/2014) (Entered: 04/08/2014)
101 NOTICE by Jennifer Bennie, Bernice Giovanni, Lara Hollinger, Kelly Jensen, Jacqueline Pena, Sara Wellens Sixteenth Filing of Consent to Join Forms (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Medina, Felicia) (Filed on 4/9/2014) (Entered: 04/09/2014)
102 Order by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu denying 69 Discovery Letter Brief. (dmrlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/11/2014) (Entered: 04/11/2014)

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?756420977413834-L_1_0-1

15/25

10/26/2017
04/15/2014
04/21/2014 04/21/2014 04/21/2014 04/21/2014
04/21/2014 04/21/2014 04/21/2014 04/21/2014 04/21/2014

CAND-ECF
103 Renotice motion hearing re 84 MOTION for Equitable Tolling , 78 MOTION to Certify Class Equal Pay Act Conditional Collective Action Certiﬁcation ﬁled byJennifer Bennie, Bernice Giovanni, Lara Hollinger, Kelly Jensen, Jacqueline Pena, Sara Wellens. Motion Hearing set for 5/14/2014 02:00 PM in Courtroom 2, 17th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. William H. Orrick. Responses due by 4/21/2014. Replies due by 4/28/2014. (Related document(s) 84 , 78 ) (Medina, Felicia) (Filed on 4/15/2014) (Entered: 04/15/2014)
104 NOTICE by Jennifer Bennie, Bernice Giovanni, Lara Hollinger, Kelly Jensen, Jacqueline Pena, Sara Wellens Seventeenth Filing of Consent to Join Forms (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Medina, Felicia) (Filed on 4/21/2014) (Entered: 04/21/2014)
105 RESPONSE (re 78 MOTION to Certify Class Equal Pay Act Conditional Collective Action Certiﬁcation ) ﬁled byDaiichi Sankyo, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix, # 2 Certiﬁcate/Proof of Service)(Powers, Allison) (Filed on 4/21/2014) (Entered: 04/21/2014)
106 Declaration of James Melvin in Support of 105 Opposition/Response to Motion, ﬁled byDaiichi Sankyo, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E)(Related document(s) 105 ) (Powers, Allison) (Filed on 4/21/2014) (Entered: 04/21/2014)
107 Declaration of Allison N. Powers in Support of 105 Opposition/Response to Motion, ﬁled byDaiichi Sankyo, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J)(Related document(s) 105 ) (Powers, Allison) (Filed on 4/21/2014) (Entered: 04/21/2014)
108 Declaration of Dana Barbee in Support of 105 Opposition/Response to Motion, ﬁled byDaiichi Sankyo, Inc.. (Related document(s) 105 ) (Powers, Allison) (Filed on 4/21/2014) (Entered: 04/21/2014)
109 Declaration of Steve Burg in Support of 105 Opposition/Response to Motion, ﬁled byDaiichi Sankyo, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Related document(s) 105 ) (Powers, Allison) (Filed on 4/21/2014) (Entered: 04/21/2014)
110 Declaration of Philip Sigler, Jr. in Support of 105 Opposition/Response to Motion, ﬁled byDaiichi Sankyo, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Related document(s) 105 ) (Powers, Allison) (Filed on 4/21/2014) (Entered: 04/21/2014)
111 Declaration of Blair J. Robinson in Support of 105 Opposition/Response to Motion, ﬁled byDaiichi Sankyo, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-P)(Related document(s) 105 ) (Powers, Allison) (Filed on 4/21/2014) (Entered: 04/21/2014)
112 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal ﬁled by Daiichi Sankyo, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Redacted Version of Memorandum of Law in Opposition, # 4 Unredacted Version of Memorandum of Law in Opposition, # 5 Redacted Version of Declaration of Allison Powers, # 6 Undacted Version of Declaration of Allison Powers, # 7 Unredacted Version of Exhibit A to Powers Declaration, # 8 Unredacted Version of Exhibit B to Powers Declaration, # 9 Unredacted Version of Exhibit C to Powers Declaration, # 10 Unredacted Version of Exhibit D to Powers Declaration, # 11 Unredacted Version of Exhibit E to Powers Declaration, # 12 Unredacted Version of Exhibit F to Powers Declaration, # 13 Unredacted Version of Exhibit G to Powers Declaration, # 14 Unredacted Version of Exhibit H to Powers Declaration, # 15 Redacted Version of Exhibit I to Powers Declaration, # 16 Unredacted Version of Exhibit I to Powers Declaration, # 17 Redacted Version of Exhibit J to Powers Declaration, # 18 Unredacted Version of Exhibit J to Powers Declaration, # 19 Redacted Version of Declaration of Blair Robinson, # 20 Unredacted Version of Declaration of Blair

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?756420977413834-L_1_0-1

16/25

10/26/2017
04/21/2014 04/23/2014 04/24/2014 04/28/2014

CAND-ECF
Robinson, # 21 Redacted Version of Exhibit A to Robinson Declaration, # 22 Unredacted Version of Exhibit A to Robinson Declaration, # 23 Redacted Version of Exhibit B to Robinson Declaration, # 24 Unredacted Version of Exhibit B to Robinson Declaration, # 25 Redacted Version of Exhibit C to Robinson Declaration, # 26 Unredacted Version of Exhibit C to Robinson Declaration, # 27 Redacted Version of Exhibit D to Robinson Declaration, # 28 Unredacted Version of Exhibit D to Robinson Declaration, # 29 Redacted Version of Exhibit E to Robinson Declaration, # 30 Unredacted Version of Exhibit E to Robinson Declaration, # 31 Redacted Version of Exhibit F to Robinson Declaration, # 32 Unredacted Version of Exhibit F to Robinson Declaration, # 33 Redacted Version of Exhibit G to Robinson Declaration, # 34 Unredacted Version of Exhibit G to Robinson Declaration, # 35 Redacted Version of Exhibit H to Robinson Declaration, # 36 Unredacted Version of Exhibit H to Robinson Declaration, # 37 Redacted Version of Exhibit I to Robinson Declaration, # 38 Unredacted Version of Exhibit I to Robinson Declaration, # 39 Redacted Version of Exhibit J to Robinson Declaration, # 40 Unredacted Version of Exhibit J to Robinson Declaration, # 41 Redacted Version of Exhibit K to Robinson Declaration, # 42 Unredacted Version of Exhibit K to Robinson Declaration, # 43 Redacted Version of Exhibit L to Robinson Declaration, # 44 Unredacted Version of Exhibit L to Robinson Declaration, # 45 Redacted Version of Exhibit M to Robinson Declaration, # 46 Unredacted Version of Exhibit M to Robinson Declaration, # 47 Redacted Version of Exhibit N to Robinson Declaration, # 48 Unredacted Version of Exhibit N to Robinson Declaration, # 49 Redacted Version of Exhibit O to Robinson Declaration, # 50 Unredacted Version of Exhibit O to Robinson Declaration, # 51 Redacted Version of Exhibit P to Robinson Declaration, # 52 Unredacted Version of Exhibit P to Robinson Declaration)(Powers, Allison) (Filed on 4/21/2014) (Entered: 04/21/2014)
113 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Daiichi Sankyo, Inc. re 112 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal (Powers, Allison) (Filed on 4/21/2014) (Entered: 04/21/2014)
114 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER to Continue Case Management Conference ﬁled by Daiichi Sankyo, Inc.. (Alamuddin, Sari) (Filed on 4/23/2014) (Entered: 04/23/2014)
115 ORDER RE ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL by Judge William H. Orrick granting in part and denying in part 79 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; denying as moot 80 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; and granting 112 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. There is no reason why plaintiffs memorandum in support of their 78 motion should be redacted. Therefore, within ﬁve (5) days of the date of this Order, plaintiffs shall e-ﬁle an unredacted copy of their memorandum in the public docket and shall submit to chambers, a copy of their 78 motion and all supporting documents (unredacted) in a binder with all of the exhibits ordered and tabbed. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/24/2014) (Entered: 04/24/2014)
116 MOTION to Certify Class CORRECTION OF DOCKET # 78 , Modiﬁed Pursuant to the Court's April 24, 2014 Order Re Administrative Motions to File Under Seal (Dkt. 115) ﬁled by Jennifer Bennie, Bernice Giovanni, Lara Hollinger, Kelly Jensen, Jacqueline Pena, Sara Wellens. Motion Hearing set for 5/14/2014 02:00 PM in Courtroom 2, 17th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. William H. Orrick. Responses due by 4/21/2014. Replies due by 4/28/2014. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Felicia Medina, # 2 Exhibit 1 - 11 to Medina Declaration, # 3 Exhibit 12 -31 to Medina Declaration, # 4 Exhibit 32 - 43 to Medina Declaration, # 5 Exhibit 44, Part 1 of 2 to Medina Declaration, # 6 Exhibit 44, Part 2 of 2 to Medina Declaration, # 7 Exhibit 45 to Medina Declaration, # 8 Exhibit 46 54 to Medina Declaration, # 9 Exhibit 55 - 66 to Medina Declaration, # 10 Proposed Order)(Medina, Felicia) (Filed on 4/28/2014) (Entered: 04/28/2014)

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?756420977413834-L_1_0-1

17/25

10/26/2017
04/28/2014

CAND-ECF
117 STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE re 114 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER. Case Management Statement due by 5/7/2014. Case Management Conference set for 5/14/2014 02:00 PM in Courtroom 2, 17th Floor, San Francisco. Signed by Judge William H. Orrick on 04/28/2014. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/28/2014) (Entered: 04/28/2014)

04/28/2014

118 NOTICE by Jennifer Bennie, Bernice Giovanni, Lara Hollinger, Kelly Jensen, Jacqueline Pena, Sara Wellens Eighteenth Filing of Consent to Join Forms (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Medina, Felicia) (Filed on 4/28/2014) (Entered: 04/28/2014)

04/28/2014

119 REPLY (re 78 MOTION to Certify Class Equal Pay Act Conditional Collective Action Certiﬁcation ) ﬁled byJennifer Bennie, Bernice Giovanni, Lara Hollinger, Kelly Jensen, Jacqueline Pena, Sara Wellens. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Felicia M. Medina, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3, # 5 Exhibit 4, # 6 Exhibit 5, # 7 Exhibit 6) (Medina, Felicia) (Filed on 4/28/2014) (Entered: 04/28/2014)

04/28/2014

120 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Documents in Support of Plaintiffs' Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion for Equal Pay Act Conditional Collective Action Certiﬁcation ﬁled by Jennifer Bennie, Bernice Giovanni, Lara Hollinger, Kelly Jensen, Jacqueline Pena, Sara Wellens. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Felicia Medina, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Exhibit 1 Redacted, # 4 Exhibit 1 Unredacted, # 5 Exhibit 2 Redacted, # 6 Exhibit 2 Unredacted, # 7 Exhibit 3 Redacted, # 8 Exhibit 3 Unredacted, # 9 Exhibit 4 Redacted, # 10 Exhibit 4 Unredacted)(Medina, Felicia) (Filed on 4/28/2014) (Entered: 04/28/2014)

04/29/2014

121 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Jennifer Bennie, Bernice Giovanni, Lara Hollinger, Kelly Jensen, Jacqueline Pena, Sara Wellens re 120 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Documents in Support of Plaintiffs' Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion for Equal Pay Act Conditional Collective Action Certiﬁcation (Medina, Felicia) (Filed on 4/29/2014) (Entered: 04/29/2014)

05/02/2014

122 RESPONSE (re 120 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Documents in Support of Plaintiffs' Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion for Equal Pay Act Conditional Collective Action Certiﬁcation ) (Declaration of Sari M. Alamuddin) ﬁled byDaiichi Sankyo, Inc.. (Alamuddin, Sari) (Filed on 5/2/2014) (Entered: 05/02/2014)

05/07/2014 123 NOTICE of Appearance by Elizabeth R Gropman as Counsel for Plaintiffs (Gropman, Elizabeth) (Filed on 5/7/2014) (Entered: 05/07/2014)

05/07/2014 124 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT ﬁled by Daiichi Sankyo, Inc.. (Alamuddin, Sari) (Filed on 5/7/2014) (Entered: 05/07/2014)

05/14/2014

125 Minute Entry: Motion Hearing held on 5/15/2014 before William H. Orrick re 116 MOTION to Certify Class and 84 MOTION for Equitable Tolling. Motions taken under submission; written order to follow. Further Case Management Conference set for 11/14/2014 02:00 PM in Courtroom 2, 17th Floor, San Francisco. (Court Reporter FTR 2:46-3:07) (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 5/14/2014) (Entered: 05/15/2014)

05/22/2014

126 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR CONDITIONAL CERTIFICATION; GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR TOLLING by Judge William H. Orrick granting 84 Motion for equitable tolling, 116 Motion for conditional collective action certiﬁcation, and 120 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/22/2014) (Entered: 05/22/2014)

06/05/2014 127 Joint Discovery Letter Brief Regarding Form of Notice Pursuant to Court Order (Dkt. 126) ﬁled by Jennifer Bennie, Bernice Giovanni, Lara Hollinger, Kelly Jensen, Jacqueline

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?756420977413834-L_1_0-1

18/25

10/26/2017
06/10/2014 06/16/2014 06/20/2014 07/01/2014
07/21/2014 08/01/2014 08/11/2014
08/11/2014 08/11/2014 08/25/2014 09/02/2014

CAND-ECF
Pena, Sara Wellens. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Pltfs' and Dfdt's Proposed Notices) (Medina, Felicia) (Filed on 6/5/2014) (Entered: 06/05/2014)
128 ORDER APPROVING FORM OF NOTICE by Hon. William H. Orrick re 127 Discovery Letter Brief. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Approved Form of Notice) (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/10/2014) (Entered: 06/10/2014)
129 NOTICE of Change In Counsel by Felicia Maria Medina Notice of Withdrawal of Chioma Chukwu as Counsel of Record (Medina, Felicia) (Filed on 6/16/2014) (Entered: 06/16/2014)
130 TRANSCRIPT ORDER by Daiichi Sankyo, Inc. for Court Reporter FTR - San Francisco. (Alamuddin, Sari) (Filed on 6/20/2014) (Entered: 06/20/2014)
131 Transcript of Proceedings of the ofﬁcial sound recording held on 05/14/14, before Judge William Orrick. FTR/Transcriber Echo Reporting; Tara Bauer, Telephone number (858) 453-7590; echoreporting@yahoo.com. Tape Number: FTR 2:46 - 3:07. Per General Order No. 59 and Judicial Conference policy, this transcript may be viewed only at the Clerks Ofﬁce public terminal or may be purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber until the deadline for the Release of Transcript Restriction.After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Any Notice of Intent to Request Redaction, if required, is due no later than 5 business days from date of this ﬁling. (Re 130 Transcript Order ) Redaction Request due 7/22/2014. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 8/1/2014. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 9/29/2014. (Related documents(s) 130 ) (tgb, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/1/2014) (Entered: 07/01/2014)
132 NOTICE ﬁled by Jennifer Bennie, Bernice Giovanni, Lara Hollinger, Kelly Jensen, Jacqueline Pena, Sara Wellens of Nineteenth Filing of Consent to Join Forms (Attachments: #(1) Exhibit A)(Medina, Felicia) (Filed on 7/21/2014) (Entered: 07/21/2014)
133 NOTICE by Jennifer Bennie, Bernice Giovanni, Lara Hollinger, Kelly Jensen, Jacqueline Pena, Sara Wellens Twentieth Filing of Consent to Join Forms (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Medina, Felicia) (Filed on 8/1/2014) (Entered: 08/01/2014)
134 PLEASE DISREGARD DOCKET ENTRY 134 , CLERK'S NOTICE ISSUED IN ERROR. SEE DOCKET ENTRY 136 INSTEAD. CLERK'S NOTICE: Notice is hereby given to all parties and counsel of record that Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu has amended her General Standing Order. Effective immediately, all parties shall follow Judge Ryu's revised General Standing Order which can be found on the Court's website at www.cand.uscourts.gov. (This is a text only docket entry, there is no document associated with this notice.) (ig, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/11/2014) Modiﬁed on 8/11/2014 (igS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/11/2014)
135 NOTICE by Jennifer Bennie, Bernice Giovanni, Lara Hollinger, Kelly Jensen, Jacqueline Pena, Sara Wellens Twenty-First Filing of Consent to Join Forms (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Medina, Felicia) (Filed on 8/11/2014) (Entered: 08/11/2014)
136 NOTICE OF AMENDED DISCOVERY PROCEDURES. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu on 8/11/14. (ig, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/11/2014) (Entered: 08/11/2014)
137 NOTICE by Jennifer Bennie, Bernice Giovanni, Lara Hollinger, Kelly Jensen, Jacqueline Pena, Sara Wellens Twenty-Second Filing of Consent to Join Forms (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Medina, Felicia) (Filed on 8/25/2014) (Entered: 08/25/2014)
138 NOTICE by Jennifer Bennie, Bernice Giovanni, Lara Hollinger, Kelly Jensen, Jacqueline

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?756420977413834-L_1_0-1

19/25

10/26/2017
09/08/2014 09/18/2014 09/23/2014 10/01/2014 10/28/2014 11/04/2014 11/06/2014
11/19/2014 11/21/2014
11/21/2014 11/25/2014
11/25/2014 12/02/2014

CAND-ECF
Pena, Sara Wellens Twenty-Third Filing of Consent to Join Forms (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Medina, Felicia) (Filed on 9/2/2014) (Entered: 09/02/2014)
139 NOTICE by Jennifer Bennie, Bernice Giovanni, Lara Hollinger, Kelly Jensen, Jacqueline Pena, Sara Wellens Twenty-Fourth Filing of Consent to Join Forms (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Medina, Felicia) (Filed on 9/8/2014) (Entered: 09/08/2014)
140 NOTICE by Jennifer Bennie, Bernice Giovanni, Lara Hollinger, Kelly Jensen, Jacqueline Pena, Sara Wellens Twenty-Fifth Filing of Consent to Join Forms (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Medina, Felicia) (Filed on 9/18/2014) (Entered: 09/18/2014)
141 NOTICE by Jennifer Bennie, Bernice Giovanni, Lara Hollinger, Kelly Jensen, Jacqueline Pena, Sara Wellens Twenty-Sixth Filing of Consent to Join Forms (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Medina, Felicia) (Filed on 9/23/2014) (Entered: 09/23/2014)
142 NOTICE by Jennifer Bennie, Bernice Giovanni, Lara Hollinger, Kelly Jensen, Jacqueline Pena, Sara Wellens Twenty-Seventh Filing of Consent to Join Forms (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Medina, Felicia) (Filed on 10/1/2014) (Entered: 10/01/2014)
143 NOTICE of Substitution of Counsel by Alison Bowman Willard (Willard, Alison) (Filed on 10/28/2014) (Entered: 10/28/2014)
144 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER to Continue Case Management Conference ﬁled by Jennifer Bennie, Bernice Giovanni, Lara Hollinger, Kelly Jensen, Jacqueline Pena, Sara Wellens. (Medina, Felicia) (Filed on 11/4/2014) (Entered: 11/04/2014)
145 ORDER granting 144 STIPULATION to Continue Case Management Conference. Case Management Statement due by 11/25/2014. Further Case Management Conference set for 12/2/2014 02:00 PM in Courtroom 2, 17th Floor, San Francisco. Signed by Judge William H. Orrick on 11/06/2014. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/6/2014) (Entered: 11/06/2014)
146 Joint Discovery Letter BriefRegarding Opt-In Discovery ﬁled by Daiichi Sankyo, Inc.. (Alamuddin, Sari) (Filed on 11/19/2014) (Entered: 11/19/2014)
147 ORDER Setting Hearing on Motion 146 Joint Discovery Letter BriefRegarding OptIn Discovery : Motion Hearing set for 12/18/2014 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu.. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu on 11/21/2014. (dmrlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/21/2014) (Entered: 11/21/2014)
148 NOTICE by Jennifer Bennie, Bernice Giovanni, Lara Hollinger, Kelly Jensen, Jacqueline Pena, Sara Wellens Withdrawal of Elizabeth Gropman as Counsel (Medina, Felicia) (Filed on 11/21/2014) (Entered: 11/21/2014)
149 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER RE: Phase I Discovery of Electronically Stored Information ﬁled by Jennifer Bennie, Bernice Giovanni, Lara Hollinger, Kelly Jensen, Jacqueline Pena, Sara Wellens. (Medina, Felicia) (Filed on 11/25/2014) (Entered: 11/25/2014)
150 CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT ﬁled by Jennifer Bennie, Bernice Giovanni, Lara Hollinger, Kelly Jensen, Jacqueline Pena, Sara Wellens. (Medina, Felicia) (Filed on 11/25/2014) (Entered: 11/25/2014)
152 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Hon. William H. Orrick: Case Management Conference held on 12/2/2014. Schedule through class certiﬁcation set. Further Case Management Conference set for 6/23/2015 02:00 PM in Courtroom 2, 17th Floor, San Francisco. Case Management Statement due by 6/16/2015. Court Reporter: FTR 2:10-2:33. Plaintiff Attorney Felicia M. Medina. Defendant Attorney

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?756420977413834-L_1_0-1

20/25

10/26/2017
12/03/2014 12/04/2014 12/04/2014 12/08/2014
12/10/2014 12/18/2014
12/29/2014 02/02/2015 02/06/2015 02/06/2015

CAND-ECF
George Stohner. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 12/2/2014) (Entered: 12/03/2014)
151 TRANSCRIPT ORDER by Jennifer Bennie, Bernice Giovanni, Lara Hollinger, Kelly Jensen, Jacqueline Pena, Sara Wellens for Court Reporter FTR - San Francisco. (Medina, Felicia) (Filed on 12/3/2014) (Entered: 12/03/2014)
153 TRANSCRIPT ORDER by Daiichi Sankyo, Inc. for Court Reporter FTR - San Francisco. (Alamuddin, Sari) (Filed on 12/4/2014) (Entered: 12/04/2014)
154 Order by Hon. William H. Orrick granting 149 Stipulation. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/4/2014) (Entered: 12/04/2014)
155 Transcript of the Ofﬁcial Electronic Sound Recording of the Proceedings held on 12/2/14 before Judge William H. Orrick. Contract Court Reporter/Transcriber Candace Yount, Telephone number 415-994-5619, e-mail: candace.yount@gmail.com. Tape Number: FTR time: 2:10-2:33 = 23 minutes. Per General Order No. 59 and Judicial Conference policy, this transcript may be viewed only at the Clerks Ofﬁce public terminal or may be purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber until the deadline for the Release of Transcript Restriction.After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Any Notice of Intent to Request Redaction, if required, is due no later than 5 business days from date of this ﬁling. (Re 151 Transcript Order, 153 Transcript Order ) Release of Transcript Restriction set for 3/9/2015. (Related documents(s) 151 , 153 ) (Yount, Candace) (Filed on 12/8/2014) (Entered: 12/08/2014)
156 NOTICE of Appearance by Yonina E Alexander (Alexander, Yonina) (Filed on 12/10/2014) (Entered: 12/10/2014)
157 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu: Motion Hearing held on 12/18/2014 re 146 Joint Discovery Letter Brief Regarding Opt-In Discovery. Motion Granted in part, Denied in part. Court's written Order to follow. FTR Time 11:23-11:53. Attachment Civil Law and Motion Minute Order. (ig, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 12/18/2014) (Entered: 12/19/2014)
158 Order by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu granting in part and denying in part 146 Discovery Letter Brief.(dmrlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/29/2014) (Entered: 12/29/2014)
159 NOTICE of Change In Counsel by Sari M Alamuddin Notice of Withdrawal of George Stohner as Counsel of Record (Alamuddin, Sari) (Filed on 2/2/2015) (Entered: 02/02/2015)
160 TRANSCRIPT ORDER by Daiichi Sankyo, Inc. for Court Reporter FTR - Oakland. (Alamuddin, Sari) (Filed on 2/6/2015) Modiﬁed on 2/6/2015 (oh, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/06/2015)
161 Transcript of Proceedings of the ofﬁcial sound recording held on 12/18/14, before Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu. FTR/Transcriber Echo Reporting, Inc./Tara Bauer, Telephone number (858) 453-7590; echoreporting@yahoo.com. Tape Number: FTR 11:23 - 11:53. Per General Order No. 59 and Judicial Conference policy, this transcript may be viewed only at the Clerks Ofﬁce public terminal or may be purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber until the deadline for the Release of Transcript Restriction.After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Any Notice of Intent to Request Redaction, if required, is due no later than 5 business days from date of this ﬁling. (Re 160 Transcript Order ) Redaction Request due 2/27/2015. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 3/9/2015. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/7/2015. (Related documents(s) 160 ) (tgb, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/6/2015) (Entered: 02/06/2015)

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?756420977413834-L_1_0-1

21/25

10/26/2017
06/12/2015

CAND-ECF
162 CLERK'S NOTICE - Case Management Conference continued to 7/16/2015 01:00 PM in Courtroom 2, 17th Floor, San Francisco. Case Management Statement due by 7/9/2015. (CMC set for 6/23/2015 VACATED.) (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/12/2015) (Entered: 06/12/2015)

07/06/2015

163 CLERK'S NOTICE - Case Management Conference continued to 8/4/2015 02:00 PM in Courtroom 2, 17th Floor, San Francisco. Case Management Statement due by 7/28/2015. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/6/2015) (Entered: 07/06/2015)

07/28/2015 164 NOTICE of Change of Address by Felicia Maria Medina Notice of Change of Firm Name and Address (Medina, Felicia) (Filed on 7/28/2015) (Entered: 07/28/2015)

07/28/2015 165 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT ﬁled by Daiichi Sankyo, Inc.. (Alamuddin, Sari) (Filed on 7/28/2015) (Entered: 07/28/2015)

07/29/2015

166 CLERK'S NOTICE - Case Management Conference continued to 9/8/2015 02:00 PM in Courtroom 2, 17th Floor, San Francisco. Case Management Statement due by 9/1/2015. (CMC set for 8/4/2015 VACATED.) (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/29/2015) (Entered: 07/29/2015)

08/28/2015

167 First MOTION for Settlement; -Plaintiffs' Notice of Motion for Preliminary Approval of the Class Settlement ﬁled by Jennifer Bennie, Bernice Giovanni, Lara Hollinger, Kelly Jensen, Jacqueline Pena, Sara Wellens. Motion Hearing set for 9/8/2015 02:00 PM in Courtroom 2, 17th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. William H. Orrick. Responses due by 9/11/2015. Replies due by 9/18/2015. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Declaration of Felicia Medina, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit 1 - Settlement Agreement, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit 2 Claim Form, # 4 Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Medina, Felicia) (Filed on 8/28/2015) (Entered: 08/28/2015)

08/28/2015

168 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT and [PROPOSED] ORDER ﬁled by Jennifer Bennie, Bernice Giovanni, Lara Hollinger, Kelly Jensen, Jacqueline Pena, Sara Wellens. (Medina, Felicia) (Filed on 8/28/2015) (Entered: 08/28/2015)

08/31/2015

169 CLERK'S NOTICE - Case Management Conference and Motion Hearing as to 167 First MOTION for Settlement; -Plaintiffs' Notice of Motion for Preliminary Approval of the Class Settlement continued to 9/16/2015 at 2:00 PM in Courtroom 2, 17th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. William H. Orrick. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/31/2015) (Entered: 08/31/2015)

09/01/2015

170 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER re 169 Clerk's Notice,, Set Motion and Deadlines/Hearings, Joint Stipulation to Continue CMC and Motion Hearing to September 30, 2015 ﬁled by Jennifer Bennie, Bernice Giovanni, Lara Hollinger, Kelly Jensen, Jacqueline Pena, Sara Wellens. (Medina, Felicia) (Filed on 9/1/2015) (Entered: 09/01/2015)

09/02/2015

171 ORDER TO CONTINUE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AND MOTION HEARING granting 170 STIPULATION - Case Management Conference and Motion Hearing as to 167 First Motion for Settlement continued to 9/30/2015 02:00 PM in Courtroom 2, 17th Floor, San Francisco. Case Management Statement due by 9/23/2015. Signed by Judge William H. Orrick on 09/02/2015. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/2/2015) (Entered: 09/02/2015)

09/04/2015 172 MOTION & [PROPOSED] ORDER for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice ( Filing fee $ 305, receipt number 0971-9813002.) ﬁled by Jennifer Bennie, Bernice Giovanni, Lara

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?756420977413834-L_1_0-1

22/25

10/26/2017
09/08/2015 09/22/2015 09/30/2015 09/30/2015 09/30/2015
10/15/2015 10/15/2015
10/16/2015 10/16/2015
10/16/2015 10/16/2015

CAND-ECF
Hollinger, Kelly Jensen, Jacqueline Pena, Sara Wellens. (Attachments: # 1 Certiﬁcate of Good Standing)(Sanford, David) (Filed on 9/4/2015) Modiﬁed on 9/8/2015 (aaaS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/04/2015)
173 Order by Hon. William H. Orrick granting 172 Motion for Pro Hac Vice by David Stanford. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/8/2015) (Entered: 09/08/2015)
174 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT ﬁled by Jennifer Bennie, Bernice Giovanni, Lara Hollinger, Kelly Jensen, Jacqueline Pena, Sara Wellens. (Medina, Felicia) (Filed on 9/22/2015) (Entered: 09/22/2015)
175 EXHIBITS re 167 First MOTION for Settlement Preliminary Approval Dually Executed Class Settlement Agreement ﬁled byJennifer Bennie, Bernice Giovanni, Lara Hollinger, Kelly Jensen, Jacqueline Pena, Sara Wellens. (Related document(s) 167 ) (Medina, Felicia) (Filed on 9/30/2015) (Entered: 09/30/2015)
176 EXHIBITS re 167 First MOTION for Settlement Preliminary Approval Unopposed Revisions to Class Notice and Claim Form ﬁled byJennifer Bennie, Bernice Giovanni, Lara Hollinger, Kelly Jensen, Jacqueline Pena, Sara Wellens. (Related document(s) 167 ) (Medina, Felicia) (Filed on 9/30/2015) (Entered: 09/30/2015)
177 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Hon. William H. Orrick: Motion Hearing held on 9/30/2015 re 167 First MOTION for Settlement. The papers and proposed order will be revised to more clearly outline the relief sought. The Court is generally inclined to grant preliminary approval of the settlement. FTR Time 2:00-2:09. Plaintiff Attorneys David Sanford and Felicia Medina. Defendant Attorney Blair Robinson. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 9/30/2015) (Entered: 09/30/2015)
178 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER re 167 First MOTION for Settlement Preliminary Approval, 176 Exhibits, Joint Stipulation Regarding Class Period of the Settlement Class ﬁled by Jennifer Bennie, Bernice Giovanni, Lara Hollinger, Kelly Jensen, Jacqueline Pena, Sara Wellens. (Medina, Felicia) (Filed on 10/15/2015) (Entered: 10/15/2015)
179 NOTICE by Jennifer Bennie, Bernice Giovanni, Lara Hollinger, Kelly Jensen, Jacqueline Pena, Sara Wellens re 167 First MOTION for Settlement Preliminary Approval, 176 Exhibits, 177 Motion Hearing, 178 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER re 167 First MOTION for Settlement Preliminary Approval, 176 Exhibits, Joint Stipulation Regarding Class Period of the Settlement Class PLaintiffs' Notice of Revisions Regarding Docket Nos. 167, 176, and 177 (Medina, Felicia) (Filed on 10/15/2015) (Entered: 10/15/2015)
180 ORDER REGARDING CLASS PERIOD OF SETTLEMENT CLASS by Hon. William H. Orrick; granting 178 Joint Stipulation. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/16/2015) (Entered: 10/16/2015)
181 ORDER: (1) PROVISIONALLY CERTIFYING SETTLEMENT CLASSES AND COLLECTIVE ACTION; (2) GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT; (3) APPROVING CLASS NOTICE AND NOTICE PLAN; (4) SETTING SCHEDULE FOR FINAL APPROVAL by Hon. William H. Orrick granting 167 Motion. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/16/2015) (Entered: 10/16/2015)
Set Hearing: Final Fairness Hearing set for 3/10/2016 02:00 AM in Courtroom 2, 17th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. William H. Orrick. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/16/2015) (Entered: 10/16/2015)
Reset Hearing (to correct scrivener's error): Final Fairness Hearing set for 2/10/2016

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?756420977413834-L_1_0-1

23/25

10/26/2017
01/06/2016 01/06/2016 01/12/2016 01/13/2016 01/13/2016 01/14/2016
01/14/2016 02/04/2016 02/09/2016

CAND-ECF
02:00 PM in Courtroom 2, 17th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. William H. Orrick. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/16/2015) (Entered: 10/16/2015)
182 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER re 181 Order on Motion for Settlement, Joint Stipulation Regarding Amending Schedule for Final Approval and Class Notice ﬁled by Jennifer Bennie, Bernice Giovanni, Lara Hollinger, Kelly Jensen, Jacqueline Pena, Sara Wellens. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Medina, Felicia) (Filed on 1/6/2016) (Entered: 01/06/2016)
183 ORDER AMENDING CLASS NOTICE AND SCHEDULE FOR FINAL APPROVAL by Hon. William H. Orrick granting 182 Stipulation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B) (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/6/2016) (Entered: 01/06/2016)
184 First MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages ﬁled by Jennifer Bennie, Bernice Giovanni, Lara Hollinger, Kelly Jensen, Jacqueline Pena, Sara Wellens. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Proposed order, # 2 Signature Page (Declarations/Stipulations) Stipulation)(Medina, Felicia) (Filed on 1/12/2016) (Entered: 01/12/2016)
185 Order by Hon. William H. Orrick granting 184 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/13/2016) (Entered: 01/13/2016)
186 Final MOTION for Settlement (Final Approval) ﬁled by Jennifer Bennie, Bernice Giovanni, Lara Hollinger, Kelly Jensen, Jacqueline Pena, Sara Wellens. Motion Hearing set for 2/10/2016 02:00 PM in Courtroom 2, 17th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. William H. Orrick. Responses due by 1/27/2016. Replies due by 2/3/2016. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Declaration, # 3 Proposed Order)(Medina, Felicia) (Filed on 1/13/2016) (Entered: 01/13/2016)
187 First MOTION for Settlement MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF ATTORNEYSFEES, COSTS, EXPENSES, AND SERVICE AWARDS ﬁled by Jennifer Bennie, Bernice Giovanni, Lara Hollinger, Kelly Jensen, Jacqueline Pena, Sara Wellens. Motion Hearing set for 2/10/2016 02:00 PM in Courtroom 17, 16th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. William H. Orrick. Responses due by 1/28/2016. Replies due by 2/4/2016. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Declaration of F. Medina, # 2 Declaration Declaration of D. Fuschetti, # 3 Exhibit Fuschetti Decl., Ex. 1-6, # 4 Exhibit Fuschetti Decl., Ex. 7-14, # 5 Exhibit Fuschetti Decl., Ex. 15-24, # 6 Exhibit Fuschetti Decl., Ex. 25-34)(Medina, Felicia) (Filed on 1/14/2016) (Entered: 01/14/2016)
188 EXHIBITS re 187 First MOTION for Settlement MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF ATTORNEYSFEES, COSTS, EXPENSES, AND SERVICE AWARDS Table of Contents and Table of Authorities ﬁled byJennifer Bennie, Bernice Giovanni, Lara Hollinger, Kelly Jensen, Jacqueline Pena, Sara Wellens. (Related document(s) 187 ) (Medina, Felicia) (Filed on 1/14/2016) (Entered: 01/14/2016)
189 STIPULATION re 186 Final MOTION for Settlement (Final Approval), 187 First MOTION for Settlement MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF ATTORNEYSFEES, COSTS, EXPENSES, AND SERVICE AWARDS Plaintiffs' Notice of Supplemental Information and Joint Stipulation Regarding Revised Claim Form ﬁled by Jennifer Bennie, Bernice Giovanni, Lara Hollinger, Kelly Jensen, Jacqueline Pena, Sara Wellens. (Medina, Felicia) (Filed on 2/4/2016) (Entered: 02/04/2016)
190 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Hon. William H. Orrick: Motion Hearing held on 2/10/2016 re 186 Final MOTION for Settlement and 187 MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF ATTORNEYS FEES, COSTS, EXPENSES, AND SERVICE AWARDS. A written order will issue granting approval, fees and costs. FTR Time 1:57-2:03. Plaintiff Attorneys David Sanford, Felicia Medina, and

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?756420977413834-L_1_0-1

24/25

10/26/2017
02/11/2016 07/07/2016 07/12/2016

CAND-ECF
Danielle Fuschetti. Defendant Attorney Blair J. Robinson. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 2/9/2016) (Entered: 02/10/2016)
191 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT, ANDMOTION FOR FEES, REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES AND SERVICE PAYMENTS. Signed by Judge William H. Orrick on 02/11/2016. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/11/2016) (Entered: 02/11/2016)
192 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER REGARDING CY PRES BENEFICIARIES OF UNUSED CLASS SETTLEMENT FUNDS ﬁled by Jennifer Bennie, Bernice Giovanni, Lara Hollinger, Kelly Jensen, Jacqueline Pena, Sara Wellens. (Medina, Felicia) (Filed on 7/7/2016) (Entered: 07/07/2016)
193 Order Regarding Cy Pres Beneﬁcaries by Hon. William H. Orrick; granting 192 Joint Stipulation Regarding Cy Pres Beneﬁciaries of Unused Class Settlement Funds. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/12/2016) (Entered: 07/12/2016)

PACER Service Center

Transaction Receipt

PACER Login:
Description:
Billable Pages:

10/26/2017 18:30:27

hs0328:2563377:0 Client Code:

Docket Report

Search Criteria:

24

Cost:

3:13-cv-00581WHO
2.40

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?756420977413834-L_1_0-1

25/25