IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

SAN ANTONIO DIVISION 

MICHAEL J. MORRISON AND DANA 

HARVEY; on behalf of themselves and all 

others similarly situated, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

MARATHON PETROLEUM COMPANY LP,

ANDEAVOR LLC, AND MAHI LLC, 

Defendants. 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

CASE NO. ________________ 

PLAINTIFFS’ CLASS ACTION 

COMPLAINT 

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

Plaintiffs Michael J. Morrison and Dana Harvey (“Plaintiffs”) bring this action individually 

and as a putative class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3) on 

behalf of all others similarly situated. Plaintiffs, by and through their undersigned attorneys, hereby 

state: 

I. INTRODUCTION 

1. This class action arises out of Defendant Marathon Petroleum Company LP’s 

(“Marathon”) breach of Defendant Andeavor LLC’s (“Andeavor”) 2018 Incentive Compensation 

Program (“ICP”). Marathon agreed to pay full non-prorated 2018 ICP bonuses to certain eligible 

employees who were terminated after Marathon’s $23.3 billion acquisition of Andeavor in October 

2018. Despite amending the ICP to provide those eligible employees with non-prorated 2018 ICP 

bonuses as memorialized in the Employee Severance & Benefit Treatment Guide and the S-4 

Registration Statement Marathon filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), as 

well as making verbal representations of the same during Plaintiffs’ exit interviews, Marathon 

refused to pay eligible employees, including Plaintiffs, their full non-prorated 2018 ICP bonuses. 

5:20-cv-480

Case 5:20-cv-00480 Document 1 Filed 04/17/20 Page 1 of 16
2 

Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, now seek payment of those 

portions of their 2018 non-prorated bonuses which Marathon has not paid, exemplary damages, 

attorneys’ fees, and costs. 

2. Keith Casey, a former Executive Vice President of Commercial and Value Chain 

at Andeavor, filed a lawsuit against Defendants in the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Texas on June 21, 2019 alleging that Defendants improperly withheld payment of his 

full non-prorated 2018 ICP bonus. See Keith Casey v. Marathon Petroleum Company LP, et al., 

Civ. No. 19-cv-732 (Doc. 1); see also Am. Compl. (Doc. 8). In support of his claims, in addition 

to referencing the same representations Defendants made to Plaintiffs and other eligible employees 

as described above, Mr. Casey detailed various conversations he had with Marathon and Andeavor 

executives, including Fiona Laird, Greg Goff, and Louis Rubiola, leading up to the merger in 

which it was made clear that Marathon would pay the full non-prorated 2018 ICP bonus to all 

employees, including those employees who were terminated without cause in connection with the 

merger. See Am. Compl. at ¶¶ 19-21 (Doc. 8). Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all others 

similarly situated, share the same grievances as set forth in Mr. Casey’s Amended Complaint – 

Marathon breached the amended ICP, despite repeatedly confirming that Plaintiffs and other 

eligible employees would be paid full non-prorated 2018 ICP bonuses. Plaintiffs, individually and 

on behalf of all others similarly situated, now seek to hold Defendants responsible for failing to 

fulfill their promise to pay full-year, non-prorated ICP bonuses.

II. PARTIES 

3. Plaintiff Michael J. Morrison is an individual residing in Bexar County, Texas and 

is the former Senior Vice President of Marketing. 

Case 5:20-cv-00480 Document 1 Filed 04/17/20 Page 2 of 16
3 

4. Plaintiff Dana Harvey is an individual residing in Bexar County, Texas, and is the 

former Director of Business Insurance. 

5. Defendant Marathon is a limited partnership organized under the laws of Delaware 

with its principal place of business in Findlay, Ohio. Defendant Marathon may be served through 

its registered agent for service of process, CT Corporation System, 1999 Bryan Street, Suite 900, 

Dallas, Texas 75201-3136. 

6. Defendant Andeavor is a limited liability company organized under the laws of 

Delaware. It was formerly headquartered in Texas, but now has a primary place of business in 

Ohio. Andeavor may be served through its registered agent for service of process, CT Corporation 

System, 1999 Bryan Street, Suite 900, Dallas, Texas 75201-3136. 

7. Defendant Mahi LLC (“Mahi”) is a limited liability company organized under the 

laws of Delaware and has a principal place of business in Ohio. Mahi is a wholly-owned subsidiary 

of Marathon. According to Marathon filings with the SEC, Mahi was “formed for the sole purpose 

of merging with and into [Andeavor].” Following the merger of Andeavor and Marathon, Mahi 

“surviv[ed] the merger as the surviving company.” Following the merger, “all of the property, 

rights privileges, immunities, powers, franchises and authority of [Andeavor] and [Mahi] shall vest 

in [Mahi] and all debts, liabilities and duties of [Andeavor] and [Mahi] shall become the debts, 

liabilities and duties of [Mahi].”1 Marathon Petroleum Company is the sole member of Mahi. 

Mahi may be served through its registered agent for service of process, The Company Trust 

Company, Company Trust Center, 1209 Orange Street, City of Wilmington, County of New 

Castle, Delaware 19801.

 

1 See AGREEMENT AND PLAN OF MERGER AMONG ANDEAVOR, MARATHON PETROLEUM 

CORPORATION, MAHI INC. AND MAHI LLC, dated April 29, 2018, and, available at

https://www.sec.gove/Archives/edgar/data/50104/000119312518140585/d542354dex21.htm. 

Case 5:20-cv-00480 Document 1 Filed 04/17/20 Page 3 of 16
4 

III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

8. This Court has diversity jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action under 28 

U.S.C. § 1332. The amount in dispute exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and attorneys’ fees. 

In addition, the Plaintiffs and Defendants are citizens of different states. 

9. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because a substantial 

part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred in the District. Venue is also 

proper because the parties agreed that “[v]enue shall lie exclusively with the United States District 

Court in San Antonio, Texas, where applicable, or with the courts of Bexar County, Texas.” 

IV. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS 

10. Plaintiffs were employees of Andeavor. Michael Morrison worked for Andeavor 

for over 2 years. As of October 3, 2018, Mr. Morrison served as the Senior Vice President for 

Marketing. Ms. Harvey worked for Andeavor for over 15 years at the Director level. As of October 

12, 2018, Ms. Harvey served as Director of Business Insurance.

11. Plaintiffs were eligible for Andeavor’s annual ICP bonus, which was designed to: 

a) Drive a performance-oriented culture by providing a market-competitive, 

incentive pay opportunity that recognizes and rewards employees based on 

collective, measurable contributions that deliver value; 

b) Motivate employees to achieve year-over-year incremental improvements to 

the organization at both the corporate and business unit level; and 

c) Recognize and meaningfully reward high performers.

12. According to the written ICP plan, ICP payouts are based on three components: (a) 

corporate-wide results; (b) business unit results; and (c) individual employee performance. After 

these components are ascertained for a particular year, ICP bonuses are calculated using the 

following strict formula: Incentive-Eligible Earnings X Incentive Target % X Final Scorecard 

Result % X individual Performance Multiplier. 

Case 5:20-cv-00480 Document 1 Filed 04/17/20 Page 4 of 16
5 

13. The ICP plan also states that “[e]mployees who separate from service and meet the 

eligibility requirements for Terminated employees . . . will be calculated using the formula above; 

however, Incentive Eligible Earnings will be what is received through the last paycheck.” 

However, the ICP plan expressly allows for exceptions to this rule as long as they are approved 

“by the Company’s senior officer with oversight of compensation matters.”

14. In April 2018, Marathon and Andeavor entered into a definitive merger agreement 

in which Marathon would acquire all of Andeavor’s outstanding shares, representing a total equity 

value of $23.3 billion and a total enterprise value of $35.6 billion. Mahi (a wholly-owned 

subsidiary of Marathon) acquired all of Andeavor’s debts, liabilities, duties, and obligations 

following the final merger. The board of directors of Marathon and Andeavor unanimously 

approved the merger, and expected to close in the second half of 2018. However, before the merger 

could close, Marathon and Andeavor first needed to persuade shareholders to vote for approval.

15. Marathon and Andeavor feared that job apprehension amongst Andeavor’s 

employees could jeopardize the merger. Therefore, to ensure that Andeavor employees would be 

fully incentivized to work tirelessly through the merger’s closing toward the combined company’s 

long-term goals, Andeavor and Marathon promised all eligible employees, including Plaintiffs, 

that they would not prorate their 2018 ICP bonuses. 

16. Indeed, Andeavor and Marathon memorialized this amendment to the ICP by 

providing Plaintiffs and other eligible employees with Severance & Benefit Treatment Guides, 

which unequivocally state: “You are eligible for a full-year 2018 bonus (non-prorated) based on 

final year-end performance.” (emphasis added). This representation was presented to Plaintiffs and 

other eligible employees on the letter head of both companies, as follows: 

Case 5:20-cv-00480 Document 1 Filed 04/17/20 Page 5 of 16
6 

17. On July 20, 2018, Marathon filed an S-4 Registration Statement with the SEC 

setting forth the details of the merger agreement, including the 2018 Annual Cash Performance 

Bonuses to be paid to eligible Andeavor employees.

18. The S-4 confirms the terms of the Defendants’ amendment of the ICP, as Marathon 

represented in the S-4 that “Eligible Andeavor employees . . . will receive payment of a 2018 

annual cash performance bonus . . . for the full period in accordance with the performance criteria 

and bonus opportunities established by Andeavor for the 2018 bonuses. . . Such bonuses will be 

paid . . . to bonus eligible employees who remain employed through December 31, 2018 (unless 

earlier terminated without cause, provided that this does not result in duplication of benefits) at the 

time Andeavor generally paid such bonuses in the ordinary course . . .” (emphasis added). 

19. Plaintiffs and other eligible employees further received correspondence on 

Marathon letterhead advising that their 2018 ICP bonuses would be paid on April 1, 2019 and 

directing questions to Marathon’s human resources department.

20. In addition, Marathon provided Plaintiffs with 2018 Incentive Compensation 

Statements on Marathon letterhead, which clearly stated that Plaintiffs would receive non-prorated 

2018 bonuses, as well as numerous calculations showing that Plaintiffs’ severance payments would 

include full non-prorated 2018 ICP bonuses.

21. As set forth in Mr. Casey’s Amended Complaint, at an Executive Committee 

meeting in September 2018, Fiona Laird – then Andeavor’s Senior Vice President of Human 

Resources and now Marathon’s Chief Human Resources Officer2 – specifically Mr. Casey, as well 

 

2 On July 25, 2018, Marathon announced its post-merger leadership team, which included Ms. Laird as the Chief 

Case 5:20-cv-00480 Document 1 Filed 04/17/20 Page 6 of 16
7 

as other present that Marathon had committed to paying the full non-prorated ICP bonuses. In that 

meeting, Ms. Laird was seated at the table alongside Greg Goff, now Marathon’s Executive Vice 

Chairman, and she emphasized that both she and Mr. Goff would be in leadership at Marathon 

post-closing to ensure that all commitments would be kept. 

22. In addition, as set forth in Mr. Casey’s Amended Complaint, during Casey’s last 

week at Andeavor, he met with Louis Rubiola, who was then the Vice President of Finance in 

charge of merger integration for Casey’s business unit (and currently Marathon’s Vice President 

of Business Planning and Analysis). Casey specifically reviewed with Mr. Rubiola Andeavor’s 

performance through September 2018 in the context of calculating the ICP payments to Andeavor 

employees. In this conversation, Mr. Rubiola expressed his clear understanding that Marathon was 

committed to pay the full non-prorated ICP bonuses to Andeavor employees, regardless of whether 

their employment continued through the end of the year or terminated in advance. 

23. Marathon promised Plaintiffs it would pay them non-prorated ICP bonuses to 

incentivize them to work tirelessly through the merger’s closing and toward the combined 

company’s long-term goals in order to ensure continuity and the continued success of Andeavor’s 

businesses following the merger. Based, in part, on Marathon and Andeavor’s representations that 

Marathon would pay full 2018 non-prorated ICP bonuses, Plaintiffs exceeded their performance 

expectations. 

24. Defendants made the commitment to pay the full non-prorated ICP bonuses with 

the clear intent of inducing reliance by Plaintiffs and other Andeavor employees. Plaintiffs relied 

on this commitment personally as a factor in agreeing to the terms of their separation. Specifically, 

 

Human Resources Officer. After the announcement, Ms. Laird spent considerable time at Marathon’s headquarters 

in Findlay, Ohio working with Marathon’s Chief Executive Officer Gary Heminger on transition and change-incontrol issues. After the announcement, it was apparent Ms. Laird was acting as an agent of Marathon. 

Case 5:20-cv-00480 Document 1 Filed 04/17/20 Page 7 of 16
8 

Ms. Harvey relied on Defendants’ representations in deciding she would not remain employed 

with Marathon until December 31, 2018. 

25. On or about October 3, 2018, Marathon acquired Andeavor for $23.3 billion. Upon 

closing, Andeavor ceased to exist, its common stock discontinued trading on the New York Stock 

Exchange, and Marathon assumed Andeavor’s contractual obligations and common law liabilities. 

26. Mr. Morrison was involuntarily terminated without cause on October 3, 2018. 

27. Ms. Harvey was involuntarily terminated without cause on October 12, 2018. 

28. Mr. Morrison met with Wendy Salmon, Vice President of Compensation, Fritz 

Aldrine from the legal department, and Anna Palacios-LeBlanc, the lead Marketing Human 

Resources Business Partner on or about September 25, 2018, for his exit interview. In that meeting, 

Ms. Salmon specifically discussed Mr. Morrison’s 2018 ICP bonus and assured Mr. Morrison he 

would receive a full-year non-prorated ICP bonus for 2018. 

29. In addition to receiving confirmation of the amendment to the 2018 ICP in the form 

of the Employee Severance & Benefit Treatment Guide, Ms. Harvey initiated multiple 

conversations to request verbal confirmation that she would receive a full-year 2018 ICP bonus. 

In August 2018, she spoke with human resources representatives Christy Wisely twice and Laura 

Mendoza once about her ICP bonus. Both Ms. Wisely and Ms. Mendoza reiterated that Ms. Harvey 

would receive a full-year non-prorated 2018 ICP bonus. 

30. In executing their Separation Agreements, based on the language in those 

agreements and the accompanying Employee Severance and Benefit Treatment Guides, as well as 

communications with company representatives, Plaintiffs understood that they would receive a 

full 2018 non-prorated ICP bonus in March 2019. 

Case 5:20-cv-00480 Document 1 Filed 04/17/20 Page 8 of 16
9 

31. On or around March 5, 2019, Marathon (from Marathon’s own payroll account) 

paid Mr. Morrison and other employees their 2018 ICP bonus 

32. On or around April 8, 2019, Marathon (from Marathon’s own payroll account) paid 

Ms. Harvey and other eligible employees their 2018 ICP bonuses. 

33. Marathon did not pay full non-prorated bonuses, but rather prorated the 2018 ICP 

bonuses based on Plaintiffs’ last days of employment. 

34. Plaintiffs have repeatedly demanded that Marathon fulfill its promise to pay full 

2018 non-prorated ICP bonuses, but to date Marathon has refused to do so. 

V. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 

35. Plaintiffs bring this action as a class action under Rules 26(a) and (b)(3) of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated.

36. Plaintiffs seeks to represent a Rule 23(b) (3) class initially defined as: All eligible 

Marathon employees who were terminated without cause prior to December 31, 2018 and did not 

receive their full 2018 non-prorated ICP bonuses. 

37. Excluded from the Class are Defendants, their employees, officers, directors, legal 

representatives, heirs, successors, and wholly or partly owned subsidiaries, the judge and court 

staff to whom this case is assigned. 

38. Plaintiffs reserve the right to amend the definition of the Class if discovery or 

further investigation reveals that the class should be expanded or otherwise modified.

Numerosity and Ascertainability 

39. This action satisfies the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 (a)(1). 

Plaintiffs are informed and believe there are approximately fifty eligible employees who did not 

Case 5:20-cv-00480 Document 1 Filed 04/17/20 Page 9 of 16
10 

receive their full 2018 non-prorated ICP bonuses. Individual joinder of all Class Member is 

impracticable. 

40. Each of the Classes is ascertainable because its members can be readily identified 

using public information. Plaintiffs anticipate providing appropriate notice to each certified Class, 

in compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(2)(b), to be approved by the Court after 

class certification. 

Predominance and Commonality 

41. This action satisfies the requirements of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a)(2) 

and 23(b)(3) because questions of law and fact that have common answers predominate over 

questions affecting only individual Class Members. These include, without limitation, the 

following: 

a) Whether Marathon violated the terms of its separation agreements with 

Plaintiffs as alleged herein; 

b) Whether Marathon failed to pay Plaintiffs their full 2018 non-prorated ICP 

bonuses; and 

c) To what extent the members of the Class have sustained damages and the 

proper measure of damages. 

Typicality 

42. This action satisfies the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(3) 

because Plaintiffs claims are typical of the claims of the Class members, and arise from the same 

course of conduct by Marathon.

Adequate Representation 

43. Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the Class. 

Plaintiffs have retained counsel with substantial experience in prosecuting complex class actions. 

Case 5:20-cv-00480 Document 1 Filed 04/17/20 Page 10 of 16
11 

44. Plaintiffs and their counsel are committed to vigorously prosecuting this action on 

behalf of the Class, and have the financial resources to do so. Neither Plaintiffs nor their counsel 

have interests adverse to those of the Class. 

Superiority 

45. This action satisfies the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) 

because the class action is superior to other available methods of fair and efficient adjudication of 

this controversy. The common questions of law and fact regarding Marathon’s conduct and 

responsibility predominate over any questions affecting only individual Class members. 

46. The burden imposed on the judicial system by individual litigation by even a small 

fraction of the Class would be extensive, making class adjudication the superior alternative under 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3). 

47. The conduct of this action as a class action presents far fewer management 

difficulties, far better conserves judicial resources and the parties’ resources, and far more 

effectively protects the rights of each Class member than would piecemeal litigation. Compared 

to the expense, burdens, inconsistencies, economic infeasibility, and inefficiencies of 

individualized litigation, the challenge of managing this action as a class action are substantially 

outweighed by the benefits to the legitimate interests of the parties, the court, and the public of 

class treatment in this court making class adjudication superior to other alternatives, under Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3)(D). 

48. Plaintiffs are not aware of any obstacles likely to be encountered in the management 

of this action that would preclude its maintenance as a class action. Rule 23 provides the Court 

with authority and flexibility to maximize the efficiencies and benefits of the class mechanism and 

reduce management challenges. The Court may, on motion of Plaintiffs or on its own 

Case 5:20-cv-00480 Document 1 Filed 04/17/20 Page 11 of 16
12 

determination, certify classes for claims sharing common legal questions; utilize the provisions of 

Rule 23(d) to certify any particular claims, issues, or common questions of law or fact for classwide adjudication; certify and adjudicate bellwether class claims; and utilize Rule 23(c)(5) to 

divide any Class into subclasses. 

49. The undersigned counsel for Plaintiffs and the Class request that this Court appoint 

them to serve as Class counsel; first on an interim basis and then on a permanent basis pursuant to 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g). Undersigned counsel will fairly and adequately represent 

the interests of the Class, have identified or investigated the Class’ potential claims, are 

experienced in handling class actions, other complex litigation, and contract claims of the type 

asserted in this action, know the applicable law, will commit sufficient resources to represent the 

class, and are best able to represent the Class. 

VI. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF 

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF 

Breach of Contract 

50. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations made in the preceding paragraphs 

as if fully set forth herein. 

51. Plaintiffs and Marathon entered into valid and enforceable agreements, wherein 

Marathon agreed to pay Plaintiffs their full 2018 non-prorated ICP bonuses. 

52. Plaintiffs fulfilled their contractual obligations under their agreements with 

Marathon. 

53. Marathon breached its agreements with Plaintiffs by refusing to pay them their full 

2018 non-prorated ICP bonuses. 

Case 5:20-cv-00480 Document 1 Filed 04/17/20 Page 12 of 16
13 

54. Plaintiffs have been damaged as a direct and proximate result of Marathon’s breach 

of contract in an amount to be proven at trial.

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF 

Declaratory Judgment

55. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations made in the preceding 

paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 

56. Plaintiffs request that the Court enter the following declaratory relief: 

A. A judgment certifying the proposed Rule 42(b)(3) Class and designating 

Plaintiffs as the named representative of the Class, and designating the undersigned as Class 

Counsel; 

B. A judgment that Plaintiffs and Marathon entered into valid and enforceable 

agreements, wherein Marathon agreed to pay Plaintiffs their full 2018 non-prorated ICP bonuses; 

C. A judgment that Marathon refused and failed to pay Plaintiffs their full 2018 

non-prorated ICP bonuses; 

D. A judgment that Plaintiffs fully performed their obligations in their 

agreements with Marathon; and, 

E. A judgment that Plaintiffs are entitled to recover damages from Defendants. 

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF 

Specific Performance 

57. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations made in the preceding paragraphs 

as if fully set forth herein. 

58. Plaintiffs seek the equitable remedy of specific performance of their agreements 

with Marathon – namely, that Marathon pay them their full 2018 non-prorated ICP bonuses. 

Case 5:20-cv-00480 Document 1 Filed 04/17/20 Page 13 of 16
14 

59. Marathon failed and refuses to comply with its obligation to pay Plaintiffs their full 

2018 non-prorated ICP bonuses. 

60. Plaintiffs are entitled to specific performance of his/their agreement/s with 

Marathon to enforce Marathon’s obligation to pay Plaintiffs their full 2018 non-prorated ICP 

bonuses. 

61. Plaintiffs fully performed their obligations in their agreements with Marathon. 

VII. ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS 

62. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations made in the preceding paragraphs 

as if fully set forth herein. 

63. Plaintiffs seek an award of all reasonable and necessary attorneys’ fees and costs 

under all other applicable statutory and common law provisions, in addition to any other relief and 

actual and special damages requested herein. 

64. Plaintiffs seek recovery of all reasonable and necessary attorneys’ fees and costs 

incurred relating to this matter, including any and all attorneys’ fees that may be necessary in 

connection with any appeal of this Court’s judgment, at all levels of the appellate process. 

VIII. CONDITIONS PRECEDENT

65. All conditions precedent to the relief sought by Plaintiffs have occurred or have 

been performed. 

IX. JURY DEMAND

66. Plaintiffs demand a jury trial. 

X. PRAYER 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, pray 

for judgment as follows: 

Case 5:20-cv-00480 Document 1 Filed 04/17/20 Page 14 of 16
15 

A. A judgment certifying the proposed Rule 23(b)(3) Class and designating Plaintiffs as 

the named representative of the Class, and designating the undersigned as Class 

Counsel; 

B. A judgment of all declaratory relief in favor of Plaintiffs and the Class, as requested in 

this Petition and/or any subsequent amended or supplemental petitions; 

C. A judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and the Class of all available damages allowed for by 

law, including interest, in an amount to be proven at trial; the monetary relief sought 

by the class is over $75,000; 

D. Equitable relief (specific performance); 

E. An award of attorneys’ fees and costs; 

F. An award of pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, as provided by law; and, 

G. Any and all further relief, both in law and equity, to which Plaintiffs may be deemed 

justly entitled. 

Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Stephanie A. Rzpeka 

Stephanie A. Rzepka 

Texas State Bar No. 24102442 

stephanie.rzepka@tuckerellis.com

TUCKER ELLIS LLP

405 Main Street, Suite 1000 

Houston, TX 77002 

281.657.0730 

281.657.0739 (fax) 

-andScott J. Stitt 

Ohio State Bar No. 0073943 

scott.stitt@tuckerellis.com 

Application for Admission Pro Hac Vice Forthcoming 

TUCKER ELLIS LLP

175 South Third Street, Suite 520 

Columbus, OH 43215 

614.358.9304 

614.358.9712 (fax) 

-andCase 5:20-cv-00480 Document 1 Filed 04/17/20 Page 15 of 16
16 

4615481.1 

Chelsea M. Croy Smith 

Ohio State Bar No. 0091011 

chelsea.croy@tuckerellis.com 

Application for Admission Pro Hac Vice Forthcoming 

TUCKER ELLIS LLP

950 Main Avenue, Suite 1100 

Cleveland, OH 44113 

216.696.5756 

216.592.5009 (fax) 

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS MICHAEL J. 

MORRISON AND DANA HARVEY, INDIVIDUALLY 

AND AS A PUTATIVE CLASS ACTION PURSUANT 

TO FRCP 23(a) AND (b)(3), ON BEHALF OF ALL 

OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED 

Case 5:20-cv-00480 Document 1 Filed 04/17/20 Page 16 of 16