Shaun Setareh (SBN 204514) 

shaun@setarehlaw.com

Thomas Segal (SBN 222791) 

thomas@setarehlaw.com

SETAREH LAW GROUP 

9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Ste. 907 

Beverly Hills, California 90212 

Tel: (310) 888-7771 

Fax: (310) 888-0109 

MARCUS CHISM, an individual on behalf of 

himself, all others similarly situated, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

PEPSICO, INC, a North Carolina 

Corporation; FRITO-LAY, INC a Delaware 

Corporation; FIRST ADVANTAGE 

BACKGROUND SERVICES CORP, a Florida 

Corporation and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, 

Defendants. 

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 

Case No. 3:17-cv-00152-VC 

DECLARATION OF SHAUN SETAREH 

IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR FINAL 

APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION 

SETTLEMENT ; AWARD OF 

ATTORNEY FEES AND EXPENSES; 

CLASS REPRESENTATIVE SERVICE 

AWARD; SETTLEMENT 

ADMINISTRATOR EXPENSES 

HearinM Information 

Date: September 6, 2018 

Time: 10:00am. 

Courtroom: 4 17th Floor 

Judge: Hon. Vince Chhabria 

Attorneys for Plaintiff, 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

DECLARATION OF SHAUN SETAREH IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT 

Case 3:17-cv-00152-VC Document 95-1 Filed 07/09/18 Page 1 of 7
DECLARATION OF SHAUN SETAREH 

I, SHAUN SETAREH, declare as follows: 

1. I am an attorney duly licensed to practice law in the State of California, and an 

attorney of record for Plaintiff Marcus Chism ("Plaintiff") in his action against Frito-Lay, Inc. 

("Frito-Lay" or "Defendant"). Except for those matters stated on information and belief, which I 

am informed and believe to be true and correct, I have personal knowledge of all matters set 

forth herein. If called as a witness, I could and would competently testify thereto under oath. 

Plaintiff's Investigation and Discovery 

2. On January 12, 2017, Plaintiff filed a putative class action lawsuit entitled 

Marcus Chism v. Pepsico Inc, Case No. 3:17-cv-00152-VC, in the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of California. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff's operative complaint alleges 

claims for violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681 et seq. and 

related California law claims. Plaintiff alleges that Frito-Lay used disclosure forms in 

connection with applications for employment that violated the FCRA by including extraneous 

information. The case has been prosecuted diligently for more than a year. Plaintiff's counsel's 

investigation included meeting with Plaintiff, conducting legal research and analysis of the 

applicable law as applied to the facts discovered regarding Plaintiffs claims and the defenses 

thereto and analyzing Defendant's potential liability exposure. 

3. As part of the investigation, Plaintiffs counsel also has conducted a study and 

investigation of the law and facts relating to the claims that were asserted and that could have 

been asserted, as well as a study and investigation of the scope and identity of the settlement 

class, and has concluded, taking into account the benefits of this settlement, and the risks and 

delays of further litigation, as well as the strengths and weakness of Plaintiffs claims and FritoLay's defenses, that this settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate, and in the best interests of 

the Plaintiff and all members of the classes affected by it. 

4. Plaintiffs counsel also reviewed Frito-Lay's background check policies and the 

actual background check disclosure and authorization forms of those who applied for 

employment at Frito-Lay during the class period. 

5. Plaintiffs counsel thoroughly analyzed the evolving, and often conflicting case 

law governing FCRA class actions as well as other types of actions including the related Fair 

and Accurate Credit Transaction Act where "willfulness" and "proof of actual injury" are often 

disputed. All of this review and investigation allowed Plaintiffs counsel to structure a 

1 

DECLARATION OF SHAUN SETAREH IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT 

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 

Case 3:17-cv-00152-VC Document 95-1 Filed 07/09/18 Page 2 of 7
settlement that provides benefits directly to the persons who were required to use the allegedly 

unlawful forms. 

6. Plaintiff propounded Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents, 

to which Defendant responded. 

7. The first mediation session in this case occurred in San Francisco conducted by 

mediator Michael Dickstein on September 12, 2017. The case did not settle at that mediation. 

8. On November 16, 2017, the parties participated in a second mediation session by 

video-conference. At both mediations, the parties extensively discussed their views of the 

strengths and weaknesses of the case including the merits and also the motion to compel 

arbitration and motion to transfer that were filed after the first mediation. After the second 

mediation, mediator Michael Dickstein made a mediator's proposal which the parties accepted. 

9. Based on the information obtained through informal discovery, as well as the 

stage of the proceedings, Plaintiff and his counsel had sufficient information to intelligently 

evaluate Defendant's potential exposure to the Class in view of the risks of continued litigation. 

I believe that the proposed settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate. 

The Parties Settled After Arm's Length Discussions 

10. The proposed Settlement was the culmination of discussions between the parties 

following a thorough analysis of the pertinent facts and law at issue. Plaintiff obtained formal

and informal discovery including documents pertaining to background checks. Following these 

negotiations, the parties were able to reach an agreement on all material terms of the proposed 

relief to the class. Only after the parties had reached this agreement did they negotiate 

attorneys' fees, costs and incentive awards. Ultimately, the parties reached an agreement on 

these terms as well, formalizing all terms in the Settlement Agreement. 

14. A true and correct copy of the Parties' Settlement Agreement ("Settlement") is 

attached hereto as Exhibit 1. 

Experience of Counsel/ Attorney Fees and Expenses 

15. My firm and I, as a partner at Setareh Law Group, are well-experienced class 

action attorneys. I, along with the senior attorney assigned to this case, Thomas Segal, have 

considerable experience in class action litigation including employment and Fair Credit 

Reporting Act cases. 

16. I have been involved as lead or co-lead class counsel in numerous labor and 

employment cases. The following is a sampling of class actions in which I have been appointed 

as class counsel both for a settlement class and after a contested motion: 

2 

DECLARATION OF SHAUN SETAREH IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT 

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 

Case 3:17-cv-00152-VC Document 95-1 Filed 07/09/18 Page 3 of 7
a. Fronda v. Stafftnark,U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, Case No. 15-CV02315-MEJ (granted final approval in a case involving alleged uncompensated security 

checks for warehouse workers). 

b. Ortiz v. Randstad., U .S. District Court, Nothernl District of California Case No. 13-CV05050-MMC (granted fmal approval in a case involving, among other things, failure to 

provide meal and rest periods). 

c. Valencia v. SCIS Air Security Corp., Los Angeles Superior Court, Case No. BC421485 

(granted class certification through contested motion in case on behalf of former security 

workers based on late final wage payments in violation of Labor Code §§ 201-203). 

d. Sandoval v. Rite Aid Corp., Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case No. BC431249 

(granted class certification through contested motion in case on behalf of former pharmacy 

employees based on late final wage payments in violation of Labor Code §§ 201-203; 

subsequently granted final approval of class action settlement). 

e. Utne v. Home Depot, Northern District of California Case No. 3:16-cv-01854-RS (granted 

class certification through contested motion in case on behalf of retail store employees 

allegedly required to work off the clock). 

f. Wilson v. TE Connectivity, Northern District of California Case No. 3:14-cv-04872-EDL 

(granted class certification through contested motion in case on behalf of manufacturing 

facility employees subject to auto-deduction of meal breaks). 

17. The Setareh Law Group has been counsel in multiple actions alleging violation 

of the standalone disclosure requirement of the FCRA. The litigation in these cases, and the 

varying results, provide Setareh Law Group with a good ability to assess the value of similar 

cases. The paragraphs below provide a non-exhaustive summary of that experience as relevant 

to the ability to assess the value of the settlement in this case. 

18. Setareh Law Group is Class Counsel for the Settlement Class in the case of 

Burnthorne-Martinez v. Sephora USA, Inc., Northern District of California Case No. 4:16-cv02843. That case also involves allegations that the defendant in that case obtained background 

checks using disclosure forms that contained extraneous information. A motion for final 

approval is pending. The settlement was reached after a class certification motion and motion 

for summary judgment were fully briefed. The settlement consists of a non-reversionary 

3 

DECLARATION OF SHAUN SETAREH IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT 

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 

Case 3:17-cv-00152-VC Document 95-1 Filed 07/09/18 Page 4 of 7
settlement fund of $750,000 for 11,429 class members or $65.60 per class member. 

19. Setareh Law Group is Class Counsel for the Settlement Class in the case of 

Garza v. Brinderson Constructors, Inc., Northern District of California Case No. 15-cv-05742-

EJD. That case also involves allegedly unlawful disclosure forms containing extraneous 

information. Preliminary approval has been granted in that case. The settlement was arrived at 

after a class certification motion was fully briefed. The settlement consists of a non-reversionary 

settlement fund of $1.5 million with approximately 12,818 class members of $117.02 per class 

member. 

20. The Brinderson and Sephora cases did not involve any arbitration agreements 

and in both cases some of the forms at issue contained unambiguous liability releases like the 

one in Syed v. M-I LLC, 853 F.3d 492 (9th Cir. 2017). 

21. The Setareh Law Group has been involved as counsel in two standalone 

disclosure cases where summary judgment was granted in favour of the defendant. Those cases 

are Lewis v. Southwest Airlines, 2018 WL 400775 (N.D. Tex. January 11, 2018) and Gilberg v. 

California Check Cashing Stores, Inc., Eastern District of California Case No. 2:15-cv-02309-

JAM-AC (summary judgment granted June 13, 2017). Both are cases where the FCRA 

disclosure form contained extraneous information but not a Syed type liability release. 

22. The Setareh Law Group has been counsel in a significant number of cases 

involving arbitration agreements. The following are examples of cases that were effectively 

ended because a motion to compel arbitration was granted: 

a) Ortiz v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., Case No. 2:13-cv-01619. Motion to compel individual 

arbitration granted September 30, 2014. 

b) Jefferson v. ABM Janitorial Services-South Central, Inc., Case No RG16832708 (Alameda 

County Superior Court): Motion to compel individual arbitration granted in putative wage and 

hour class action on March 14, 2017 

c) Perry v. John Stewart Company, Case No. CGC-17-558785 (San Francisco Superior Court): 

Ordered to individual arbitration. 

d) Perez v. Ensign Services, Inc. Case No. BC652450 (Los Angeles Superior Court) Motion to 

compel individual arbitration granted on September 15, 2017. 

4 

DECLARATION OF SHAUN SETAREH IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT 

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 

Case 3:17-cv-00152-VC Document 95-1 Filed 07/09/18 Page 5 of 7
e) Bailey v. Sectran Security Inc., Case No. BC659813 (Los Angeles Superior Court) Motion to 

compel individual arbitration granted on May 1, 2017. 

f)Hernandez v. San Gabriel Temporary Staffing Services, LLC, 2018 WL 1582914 (Northern 

District of California) motion to compel individual arbitration of FCRA claims granted on April 

2, 2018). 

23. The attorneys who billed time to this matter are attorney Shaun Setareh who has 

an hourly rate of $750 an hour, attorney Thomas Segal (a 2002 graduate of the University of 

California Hastings College of the Law) who has an hourly rate of $650 an hour, attorney 

Farrah Grant (a 2013 graduate of UCLA Law School) who has an hourly rate of $450 an hour, 

and attorney William Pao (a 2002 graduate of Loyola Law School) who has an hourly rate of 

$450 an hour. Mr. Segal has practiced plaintiff's side class action litigation since 2005, has 

argued appeals to the California Court of Appeal and the Ninth Circuit, and has been a member 

of the trial team in two class action trials that resulted in judgments in favour of the plaintiff 

class. Ms. Grant has practiced exclusively in plaintiff's side employment litigation since 2014. 

Mr. Pao has spent most of his career advising employers on compliance with employment law, 

but now works as a plaintiff's side employment litigator. 

24. The firm's total lodestar in this matter is $396,112.5. The timekeepers on this 

matter and the hours and hourly rates are set forth below: 

Attorney Bar Date Hourly Rate Hours Lodestar 

Shaun Setareh 1999 $750 251.25 $188,437.5 

Thomas Segal 2002 $650 242.25 $159,412.50 

Farrah Grant 2013 $450 96.50 $43,425 

William Pao 2002 $450 10.75 4,837.50 

25. Setareh Law Group represented Plaintiff and the Settlement Class on a 

contingent basis with no guarantee of payment. 

Litigation Expenses 

26. A true and correct copy of an itemization of the expenses incurred in this case 

prepared by Setareh Law Group's bookkeeper is attached hereto as Exhibit 2. Those costs total 

$24,408.53. I estimate that at least an additional $900 will be incurred travelling to the Final 

Approval hearing, including a flight, hotel, Uber charges, and meal charges. Therefore, Plaintiff 

5 

DECLARATION OF SHAUN SETAREH IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT 

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 

Case 3:17-cv-00152-VC Document 95-1 Filed 07/09/18 Page 6 of 7
provisionally requests $25,308.53 in litigation expenses. 

Settlement Administration Expenses 

27. In my experience, the charges of the Settlement Administrator KCC (based on 

the represented $110,000 cost) are reasonable given the class size and the work involved in 

administering the settlement. 

I declare under the penalty of perjury of the laws of the United States that the foregoing 

is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. Executed July 9, 2018 at Beverly Hills, 

California. 

/s/ Shaun Setareh 

SHAUN SETAREH 

Declarant 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

6 

DECLARATION OF SHAUN SETAREH IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT 

Case 3:17-cv-00152-VC Document 95-1 Filed 07/09/18 Page 7 of 7