UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION

CASE NO.: 1:20-cv-21784-DPG

AUGUSTINO SANTIAGO, LILLY LEYVA,

GUILLERMO CREAMER, and MARIA

ACEITUNO, individually and as representative

of a class of participants and beneficiaries of

behalf of the University of Miami Retirement

Savings Plan,

Plaintiffs,

v.

UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI,

Defendant.

DECLARATION OF BRANDON J. HILL

I, Brandon J. Hill, declare under penalty of perjury as follows:

1. Unless otherwise indicated, the facts set forth below are based on my personal 

knowledge and the opinions set forth herein are my own. I understand that this declaration under 

oath may be filed in the above captioned action. 

2. I am filing this Declaration in support of Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion for 

Preliminary Approval of the Parties’ Class Action Settlement. 

3. As explained further below, I support the settlement reached by the Parties in this 

case as fair, reasonable, and adequate, and ask that the Court approve it. 

4. I am a partner at Wenzel Fenton & Cabassa, P.A. and counsel in the above-styled 

case. 

Case 1:20-cv-21784-DPG Document 58-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/23/2021 Page 1 of 7
2

3. I am a licensed attorney in Florida, Illinois, and the District of Columbia. I have 

been a member of the Florida Bar since April of 2007, and have practiced almost exclusively labor 

and employment law since that time. I have an LL.M. from the George Washington University 

School of Law, a J.D. from Florida State University College of Law, and two Bachelor’s degrees 

from the University of Kansas. 

5. I am admitted in the United States District Courts for the Middle and Southern 

District of Florida, the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern District of Michigan, and the United 

States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. 

6. I have represented employers and employees in all stages of litigation in federal 

and state courts throughout Florida, and beyond. In the Middle District of Florida alone I have 

served as co-counsel or lead counsel in nearly 500 federal cases. 

7. I, along with Luis A. Cabassa, have been appointed as class counsel in multiple 

class action cases, including, for example, in: Rigney v. Target Corp., M.D. Fla. Case No.: 8:15-

cv-02456 (Doc. 58) (appointed as class counsel in ERISA class action brought for deficient 

COBRA notice involving 92,000 class members nationwide); Hicks v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 

8:19-cv-00261-JSM-TGW (Doc. 41) (appointed as class counsel in ERISA class action brought 

for deficient COBRA notice involving 54,000 class members nationwide); Hargrett, et al. v. 

Amazon.com, DEDC, LLC, 8:15-cv-02456-WFJ-AAS, M.D. Fla. Case No.: 8:15-cv-02456 

(appointed as class counsel in FCRA case with 480,000+ class members nationwide); Brown, et 

al. v. Lowe’s Companies, Inc., and LexisNexis Screening Solutions, Inc., Case No.: 5:13-CV00079-RLV-DSC (W.D.N.C) (appointed as co-class counsel in national FCRA class action matter 

involving 451,000 class members nationwide); Vazquez v. Marriott International, Inc., M.D. Fla. 

Case No.: 8:17-cv-00116-MSS-SPF (appointed as class counsel in ERISA/COBRA class action 

Case 1:20-cv-21784-DPG Document 58-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/23/2021 Page 2 of 7
3

case involving over 19,000 class members); Silberstein v. Petsmart, Inc., M.D. Fla. Case No.: 

8:19-cv-02800-SCB-AAS(appointed as co-class counsel in ERISA/COBRA class action case 

involving over 12,000 class members; Mahoney v. TT Pines, SD Fl. Case No.: 9:17-cv-80029

(appointed as class counsel in TCPA case with 375,000+ class members); Valdivieso v. Cushman 

& Wakefield, Inc., 8:17-cv-00118-SDM-JSS (appointed as class counsel in ERISA/COBRA class 

action case involving over 2,000 class members); Figueroa v. Baycare Healthcare Systems, Inc. 

8:17-cv-01780-JSM-AEP (appointed class counsel for FCRA class case); Speer v. Whole Foods 

Market Group, Inc., 8:14-cv-03035-RAL- TBM (M.D. Fla.) (Fair Credit Reporting Act class 

action settlement involving 20,000 individuals presided over by Judge Lazzara); Kohler, Kimberly 

v. SWF Operations, LLC and Domino’s Pizza, LLC, Case No. 8:14-cv-2568-T-35TGH (appointed 

class counsel for FCRA class case); Smith, et al. v. QS Daytona, LLC, Case No.: 6:15-cv-00347-

GAP-KRS (M.D. Fla.) (Doc. 45) (appointed as class counsel in FCRA class action); Patrick, 

Nieyshia v. Interstate Management Company, LLC, Case No. 8:15-cv-1252-T-33AEP (M.D. Fla.) 

(appointed as class counsel in FCRA class action with approximately 32,000 class members); 

George v. Primary Care Holding Inc., Case No. 0:17-cv-60217-BB (S.D. Fla.) (appointed as class 

counsel in FCRA class); Moody, et al v. Ascenda, et al., Case No. 0:16-cv-60364-WPD (S.D. Fla.) 

(appointed as class counsel in FCRA class action with approximately 12,000 class members). 

8. I support the settlement reached by the Parties in this case as fair, reasonable, and 

adequate, and ask that the Court approve it. 

9. If permitted by the Court, I will also continuing representing the class through final 

approval and will defend against any objectors. 

Case 1:20-cv-21784-DPG Document 58-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/23/2021 Page 3 of 7
4

10. The Named Plaintiffs, Augustino Santiago, Lilly Leyva, Guillermo Creamer, and 

Maria Aceituno, have each been excellent class representative and taken an active role in this 

litigation. 

11. None of the Named Plaintiffs have any existing conflicts with class members of 

which I am aware. Since the inception of this case they each have communicated with their 

attorneys, spent time preparing for and being deposed by Defendant’s counsel, reviewed 

documents provided in discovery, participated in discovery, prepared for and participated in the 

mediation and settlement discussions, and have otherwise done everything necessary to keep the 

case on track and protect the Class Members’ interests.

12. The case was litigated thoroughly and the decision to settle was well-informed. 

13. The Named Plaintiffs filed the operative complaint on April 29, 2020. Miami 

moved to dismiss the complaint on July 8, 2020. 

14. On March 1, 2021, Magistrate Judge Lauren F. Louis issued a Report and 

Recommendation (“R&R”), granting in part and denying in part the University of Miami’s motion 

to dismiss. Count I of Plaintiffs’ complaint survived the motion to dismiss. In Count I, Plaintiffs 

allege Miami breached its ERISA duty of prudence by, among other things: (1) contracting with 

multiple recordkeepers for the Plan’s administrative services, thus incurring duplicative and 

excessive fees; (2) allowing excessive payments to third-party service providers; and (3) and 

failing to implement a competitive bidding process for administrative services. In short, Plaintiffs 

contend that these actions and omissions resulted in the Plan paying excessive and unreasonable 

administrative fees. Miami objected to the R&R, but its objection was overruled by Judge Darrin 

P. Gayles on March 26, 2021. 

Case 1:20-cv-21784-DPG Document 58-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/23/2021 Page 4 of 7
5

15. Plaintiffs then served extensive class-wide discovery on Defendant on April 21, 

2021, including requests for production, interrogatories, and a Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(b)(6) deposition 

notice. 

16. On April 5, 2021, Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify a class. 

17. The Named Plaintiffs, Augustino Santiago, Lilly Leyva, Guillermo Creamer, and 

Maria Aceituno, were each deposed at different times on May 12 and May 13, 2021. 

18. Prior to the Named Plaintiffs’ depositions, Defendant produced extensive records 

and documents related to the claims and defenses in this case for review and analysis by Plaintiffs’ 

counsel. 

19. After each of the Named Plaintiffs were deposed, and following Defendant’s large 

document production, the parties agreed to extend Miami’s response date to the motion to certify 

so the parties could participate in a mediation to try and resolve this case without incurring 

additional and unnecessary litigation costs.

20. On June 22, 2021, the parties engaged in a full-day mediation with a nationally 

recognized mediator, David Geronemus, Esq., who has extensive experience handling ERISA 

fiduciary-breach lawsuits similar to this one. 

21. The mediation was successful, resulting in the parties reaching agreement on the 

principal terms of the settlement, memorialized in a fully-executed term sheet, which was finalized 

during the evening of June 22. 

22. If approved here, the settlement provides for immediate relief to the Settlement 

Class Members. The Settlement provides for a monetary payment of $1,850,000 as compensation 

to the Settlement Class. (See Ex. A, Settlement Agreement § 2.21.) This “Gross Settlement 

Amount” will cover the independent fiduciary fees; settlement administration fees and costs; any 

Case 1:20-cv-21784-DPG Document 58-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/23/2021 Page 5 of 7
6

Plaintiffs’ Compensation approved by the Court; and any Class Counsel fees and costs approved 

by the Court. (Id. § 2.21.) The remaining “Net Settlement Amount” will be distributed to 

Settlement Class Members pursuant to the proposed Plan of Allocation. (See id. §§ 6.1-6.12.) 

23. As explained in the Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval, for those 

Settlement Class Members with an active account in one or more of the Plans as of August 31, 

2021, and who are not Zero Account Balance Current Participants at the time settlement payments 

are made, automatic settlement payments will be made directly to their Plan accounts (id. § 6.4.) 

For those Settlement Class Members who are a Zero Account Balance Current Participants, their 

settlement payments will be made via check to the address of such participants (id. §6.4, 6.5). 

Settlement Class Members who do not have an active account in any of the Plans as of August 31, 

2021, will submit—either electronically or by mail—a simple claim form to become eligible to 

receive a cash payment via check. (See id. § 6.6; see also id. Ex. 1 to Settlement Agreement 

(Former Participant Claim Form).)

24. No payment less than $10 shall be distributed to any Settlement Class Member who 

is a Former Participant of the Plans. (Id. § 6.3.3.) Any Net Settlement Amount remaining after the 

settlement distributions are made and all Administrative Costs or applicable taxes have been paid, 

if any, shall be returned to the Plans to defray administrative fees and expenses of the Plans; there 

will be no cy pres payment or reversion to Miami. (See id. § 6.11-6.12.) 

25. In my opinion, the $1.85 million recovery falls well within the range of 

reasonableness in this case, as it is a substantial percentage of the estimated recovery Plaintiffs’ 

counsel estimated could be recovered if successful in litigating the case through trial. 

26. In addition, the University has agreed to certain non-monetary terms that will 

further benefit Settlement Class Members and the Plans more generally. Specifically, within three 

Case 1:20-cv-21784-DPG Document 58-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/23/2021 Page 6 of 7
7

years of the Settlement Effective Date, the Plans’ fiduciaries will initiate a request for proposals 

(“RFP”) for recordkeeping and administrative services for the Plans. Additionally, the University 

and the Plans’ fiduciaries have agreed that they will not agree to any increase in the current 

contractual fees paid by the Plans to Fidelity and TIAA for recordkeeping services those entities 

provide to the Plans during the three following the Settlement Effective Date. (Id. §§ 10.1-10.3.) 

27. I support the settlement reached by the Parties in this case as fair, reasonable, and 

adequate, and ask that the Court approve it. 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true 

and correct. 

Dated this 23rd day of November, 2021. 

/s/ Brandon J. Hill

BRANDON J. HILL

Case 1:20-cv-21784-DPG Document 58-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/23/2021 Page 7 of 7