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 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JUAN QUINTANILLA VASQUEZ, 

GABRIELA PERDOMO ORTIZ, and 

VICTOR HUGO CATALAN MOLINA, 

individually and on behalf of all others similarly 

situated, 

 PLAINTIFFS, 

 vs. 

LIBRE BY NEXUS, INC. and JOHN DOES 1-

50, 

DEFENDANTS. 

Case No. 4:17-cv-00755 

DECLARATION OF JASON S. RATHOD 

IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ 

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY 

APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT 

Hon. Claudia Wilken 

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 134-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 1 of 105
DECLARATION OF JASON S. RATHOD IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR 

PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT 

-1- 

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 

I, Jason S. Rathod, declare as follows: 

1. I am an attorney at law licensed to practice in the District of Columbia and the State 

of Illinois. I am also admitted pro hac vice in this matter and a partner at Migliaccio & Rathod LLP 

(“M&R”), counsel of record for Plaintiffs. I submit this declaration in support of Plaintiff’s Motion for 

Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement and Approval of Notice to Class of Settlement. Unless 

otherwise noted, I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth in this declaration and could and 

would testify competently to them if called upon to do so. 

2. Attached hereto as EXHIBIT 1 is a true and correct copy of the Class Action 

Settlement Agreement. 

3. This declaration addresses: (a) the history of this litigation, which includes a summary 

description of the legal services provided by M&R and co-counsel in this litigation to date; (b) 

evaluation of the proposed settlement; (c) the risks borne by Plaintiffs’ counsel; (d) the lodestar of 

M&R; (e) Plaintiffs’ counsel’s continuing obligations in this litigation and under the Settlement 

Agreement, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as EXHIBIT 1; (f) the Service Award 

request for Plaintiffs; and (g) other information required by the Northern District of California’s 

Procedural Guidance for Class Action Settlements. 

A. History of this Litigation 

4. While a thorough detailing of work performed in a case is often reserved for the final 

approval stage, I thought the Court would benefit from understanding the work performed at this 

stage as well. The work detailed below is from my perspective and I am certain that my co-counsel can 

and, at the final approval stage, will further detail the work it performed as well. 

5. M&R began investigating the subject matter of this lawsuit in November 2016 after 

Jeff Kaliel, a former attorney at the firm of one of my co-counsel, Tycko & Zavareei (“T&Z”), and I 

became aware of a number of the facts underlying the complaint. 

6. In November and December of 2016, and January and February of 2017, I spoke and 

exchanged emails with representatives of several immigrants’ rights non-profit organizations from 

across the country as part of our further investigation. This outreach often occurred in coordination 

with Mr. Kaliel at T&Z. This included an in-person meeting with representatives from two prominent 

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 134-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 2 of 105
DECLARATION OF JASON S. RATHOD IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR 

PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT 

-2- 

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 

immigrant rights organizations based in Washington D.C. I personally also had at least a half dozen 

telephone conversations with attorneys in similar organizations based in different parts of the U.S. In 

some of these conversations I spoke with the attorneys’ clients who had contracts with LBN and had 

M&R’s then law clerk and now associate, Ashley Pileika, assist with translation. These conversations 

were an important part of gathering background information on LBN, its operations, and how it 

impacted the clients of organizations that provide direct services to immigrant clients. Throughout the 

investigation, I regularly conferred with my law partner Nicholas Migliaccio about the nature of the 

potential case and strategies for moving forward. 

7. In early December of 2016, I began corresponding with Aidin Castillo, now the 

directing attorney of the Immigrants’ Rights Program at Centro Legal de la Raza (“Centro Legal”), 

who is also co-counsel in this case. She had clients with ankle monitors through LBN and I learned 

more about LBN’s practices from her extensive experience in immigration law and the specific facts 

impacting her clients. On a few occasions, I was able to speak with the clients on the phone with Ms. 

Castillo’s assistance. 

8. In early 2017, M&R, T&Z, and Centro Legal (collectively, “Plaintiffs’ counsel”) 

formalized a co-counsel agreement and began jointly representing Mr. Juan Quintanilla Vasquez and 

Ms. Gabriela Perdomo Ortiz in this putative class action litigation. To ensure that the clients fully 

comprehended the nature of our representation and their responsibilities as class representatives, M&R 

arranged and paid for a professional Spanish translation of its multi-page class action retainer, and Ms. 

Castillo reviewed the retainer agreement with them. 

9. The Complaint was finalized in mid-February in coordination with Centro Legal, 

including attorneys Ms. Castillo and Mr. Jesse Newmark, the litigation director at Centro Legal, and 

T&Z, including attorneys in its Oakland office such as Ms. Annick Persinger. The Complaint was filed 

on February 15, 2017. 

10. On March 3, 2017, an LBN representative reached out to Plaintiff Vasquez to say that 

LBN would be at his home in two hours to remove his ankle monitor. Plaintiff Vasquez informed 

Plaintiffs’ counsel. Plaintiffs’ counsel immediately reached out to LBN to inquire about the reason for 

the removal and the associated paperwork that it would require Plaintiff Vasquez to sign. Plaintiffs’ 

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 134-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 3 of 105
DECLARATION OF JASON S. RATHOD IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR 

PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT 

-3- 

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 

counsel also advised LBN that it should not go to Plaintiff Vasquez’s home to remove the ankle 

monitor until Plaintiffs’ counsel could be present. 

11. For the next few months, I and other Plaintiffs’ counsel continued to investigate the 

factual circumstances surrounding the claims, including by having further conversations with other 

non-profit organizations. Plaintiffs’ counsel also prepared Freedom of Information Act requests that 

were sent to different federal governmental agencies to try to fortify and expand the factual allegations. 

12. In April and May of 2017, Plaintiffs’ counsel worked collaboratively on amending the 

Complaint to, among other things, add Mr. Victor Hugo Catalan Molina as an additional named 

plaintiff and add additional claims. That First Amended Complaint was filed on May 3, 2017. 

13. In May, Plaintiffs’ counsel conferred internally and with defense counsel in advance of 

the parties’ Joint Case Management Statement and the Initial Case Management Conference, which 

took place on May 23, 2017. 

14. To resolve a dispute with LBN, Plaintiffs agreed to amend the Complaint and remove 

certain claims. On May 10, 2017, LBN moved to partially dismiss the Complaint and to compel 

arbitration. 

15. Plaintiffs engaged in extensive discovery related to the motion to compel arbitration. 

M&R edited discovery requests and the 30(b)(6) notice, both of which T&Z took the lead in preparing. 

M&R took the lead in preparing the objections to the discovery requests served by Defendant on 

Plaintiffs, and worked with Centro Legal to provide substantive responses to the requests and 

assemble the document production. The document production was comprehensive and included 

electronically stored information such as text messages between Plaintiffs and Defendant. 

16. I second-chaired the 30(b)(6) deposition of Libre by Nexus in northern Virginia, which 

was taken by T&Z, and which was focused on arbitration issues, but also elicited critical information 

about the nature of Defendant’s business operations and information systems, guiding future discovery 

from Defendant as well as third party discovery. As second chair, I prepared a set of questions to be 

asked about Defendant’s operations, and conferred with Mr. Kaliel of T&Z on breaks about asking 

additional questions to glean further information. 

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 134-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 4 of 105
DECLARATION OF JASON S. RATHOD IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR 

PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT 

-4- 

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 

17. Following the 30(b)(6) deposition, I prepared a detailed deficiency letter that was sent 

to LBN about gaps in its discovery production, including deficiencies revealed by the 30(b)(6) 

deposition. Plaintiffs’ counsel met and conferred with Defendant about these deficiencies, prompting a 

supplemental production. In this initial phase of litigation, Defendant ultimately produced over 7,000 

documents. 

18. In the summer of 2017, Defendant also deposed each Plaintiff as well as sponsor cosigners of Plaintiffs, including Kevin Calderon, who is named as an additional Plaintiff in the 

settlement Complaint. T&Z and Centro Legal took the lead in preparing the Plaintiffs and co-signers 

for deposition and defended the depositions, which took place in Oakland, California. M&R assisted in 

the preparation of the depositions. 

19. In July 2017, I prepared several document and deposition subpoenas to third parties, 

including bond and surety companies, that Defendant had worked with. After the subpoenas were 

finalized, M&R arranged for service and took the lead in conferring with the targets of the subpoenas 

over time. Around this time, I also know that my co-counsel corresponded and met with a former 

employee of LBN to gather additional information. 

20. On August 1, 2017, Plaintiffs filed their opposition to Defendant’s Partial Motion to 

Dismiss, on which T&Z took the lead and M&R and Centro Legal provided input on as well. The 

litigation was stayed by stipulation on August 10, 2017 for private mediation. Plaintiffs’ counsel 

collaboratively drafted a comprehensive mediation statement. In advance of the mediation in San 

Francisco before Hon. James A. Lambden, Plaintiffs’ counsel, myself included, had an in-person 

meeting among themselves in Oakland, California, followed by an in-person meeting with Defendant 

and defense counsel. The parties then had an all-day session in San Francisco before Judge Lambden 

on October 10, 2017, which was unsuccessful. 

21. In October 2017, Plaintiffs received a civil investigative demand (“CID”) from the 

federal Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”). M&R and Centro Legal took the lead in 

responding to the CID, including by assembling the relevant information and redacting sensitive 

material. 

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 134-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 5 of 105
DECLARATION OF JASON S. RATHOD IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR 

PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT 

-5- 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

22. On November 29, 2017 and January 25, 2018, the case was again stayed by stipulation 

as the parties continued settlement negotiations and another mediation before Judge Lambden, on 

March 29, 2018. 

23. In preparation for the mediation, and in the event that mediation failed, M&R 

researched the viability of various avenues of liability and damages and also took the lead on preparing 

the revised mediation statement. Plaintiffs’ counsel collaboratively strategized in advance of the 

mediation. 

24. Another all-day mediation session took place in San Francisco on March 29, 2018 

before Judge Lambden but was unsuccessful. 

25. Following breakdown in settlement discussions, Defendant re-noticed its Motions to 

Dismiss and to Compel Arbitration. Defendant also filed a Motion for Sanctions under Rule 11. 

Plaintiffs opposed all of the motions and counsel worked collaboratively on the opposition to the 

Motion to Compel arbitration, which was not previously filed, with M&R, T&Z, and Centro Legal 

each taking different substantive portions of the brief. 

26. The Court held oral argument on the motions on August 14, 2018. Ms. Persinger of 

T&Z and Mr. Newmark of Centro Legal appeared and argued at the hearing for Plaintiffs. I assisted in 

preparing co-counsel for the argument, including with strategy calls and exchanging emails about the 

likely arguments we would face and the best responses to present. On August 20, 219, the Court issued 

its order largely denying Defendant’s motions. 

27. Beginning in August 2018, I also worked closely with my associate, Erick Quezada, to 

review the discovery produced by Defendant to-date, identify additional areas of discovery, and draft a 

First Set of Interrogatories and Second Set of Requests for Production of Documents. Plaintiffs’ 

counsel collaborated in reviewing and finalizing the requests, which were served on Defendant by 

T&Z on September 24, 2018. 

28. In September 2018 Defendant filed a notice of appeal of the Court’s order denying 

Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and, in October, filed a motion for leave to appeal the order 

denying the motion to dismiss, as well as a motion to stay pending appeal. 

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 134-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 6 of 105
DECLARATION OF JASON S. RATHOD IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR 

PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT 

-6- 

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 

29. Plaintiffs opposed the motions. M&R took the lead in opposing the motion to stay, 

while T&Z took the lead in opposing the motion for leave, with all counsel providing feedback on the 

respective oppositions. 

30. In September and October 2018, I continued to research an alternative avenue of 

liability under the Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”) and drafted an amendment to the Complaint as 

well as a motion for leave reflecting this theory. That motion was filed on October 29, 2018. That 

same day I filed a motion to extend the discovery deadlines because, in part, Defendant still had to 

meaningfully respond to Plaintiffs’ discovery requests. 

31. In October 2018, Defendant substituted Michael Hassen for its previous counsel. In 

connection with the motions filed and also with outstanding discovery, I met and conferred with Mr. 

Hassen and occasionally Ms. Mary Donne Peters, who has represented Defendant throughout the 

litigation. In the course of these conversations, settlement discussions were revisited. 

32. In October and November, I had several settlement discussions with Mr. Hassen and 

exchanged settlement term sheets. We had one in-person meeting between us in Washington D.C. to 

advance the discussions and another all-day meeting with Mr. Hassen, Ms. Peters, myself, and my 

partner, Mr. Migliaccio in Washington D.C. The parties moved closer to resolution and had another 

all-day session in San Francisco, CA on December 12, 2018, which included Mr. Migliaccio and me as 

well as T&Z and Centro Legal. The parties were yet again unable to reach agreement but continued to 

engage in settlement discussions and exchange term sheets. 

33. In January, the parties agreed that the assistance of a mediator could help them finalize 

a settlement. By stipulation, on February 28, 2019, the parties stayed discovery for another mediation 

before Judge Lambden. In advance of the mediation, the parties continued to exchange term sheets 

and discuss settlement in an attempt to narrow the areas of disagreement. M&R also took the lead on 

preparing the supplemental mediation statement and exhibits. On March 15, the parties had a full-day 

mediation session in San Francisco with Judge Lambden but were unable to reach agreement. 

34. In early April, 2019, following the expiration of the Court’s stay for mediation, I began 

efforts to meet and confer with Defendant on discovery deficiencies and to re-engage third parties to 

whom subpoenas had been sent. Throughout April and May, I sent several emails and had several, 

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 134-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 7 of 105
DECLARATION OF JASON S. RATHOD IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR 

PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT 

-7- 

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 

lengthy telephone calls in an attempt to meet and confer with Defendant about outstanding discovery. 

I also served six notices of deposition of LBN employees. On a number of occasions, when the parties 

had reached an impasse on discovery disputes, I drafted joint letters to the Court in preparation for a 

motion to compel and asked Defendant to insert its positions. 

35. On May 24, 2020, as discovery disputes had reached a boiling point, I received a call 

from Defendant’s counsel Sean Sullivan and Kenneth Payson that they would be taking the lead on the 

case for Defendant, that they would work with Defendant to supplement its production and believed 

that one last settlement push and stay would be worthwhile. 

36. Defendant did make a meaningful supplemental document production, which M&R 

reviewed. The parties continued to discuss settlement among themselves and then held an all-day inperson mediation session on August 16, 2019 in San Francisco before Jill R. Sperber of Judicate West. 

The parties made significant progress but could not reach a final deal. On September 4, 2019, the 

parties held another all-day mediation before Ms. Sperber and reached agreement on material terms, 

which were reflected in a multi-page and detailed term sheet. 

37. Over the next several months, the parties worked to finalize the settlement agreement 

and related paperwork but reached another impasse in March of this year, necessitating another 

mediation before Ms. Sperber on May 13, 2020. That mediation resulted in an executed settlement 

agreement between the parties, which is attached hereto as EXHIBIT 1. 

B. Evaluation of the Proposed Settlement Agreement 

38. A true and correct copy of M&R’s resume is attached as EXHIBIT 2. M&R has 

substantial experience in the litigation, certification, and settlement of class action cases. 

39. Based on my experience, Defendants’ counsel are also highly experienced in complex 

civil litigation of this kind. It is my considered opinion that counsel for each side have fully evaluated 

the strengths, weaknesses, and equities of the parties’ respective positions and believe that the 

proposed settlement fairly resolves their respective differences. 

40. This litigation involved sharply opposed positions on several fundamental legal and 

factual issues. Defendant has argued the following (a) it is not a “debt collector” under the Fair Debt 

Collection Practices Act, nor an “insurer” or “bail licensee” under the California Insurance code; (b) 

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 134-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 8 of 105
DECLARATION OF JASON S. RATHOD IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR 

PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT 

-8- 

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 

the fees charged were lawful and fair and amounted to an upfront charge to cover hard costs along 

with a monthly recurring charge for a full suite of services so its conduct cannot be viewed as unfair, 

deceptive, or fraudulent under consumer protection laws; (c) those same claims fail also because the 

fees charged were transparent as they were conspicuously disclosed in contracts that Plaintiffs signed 

and that were explained orally by LBN employees in whichever language a program participant 

preferred; (d) there can be no class certification in a litigation context because individualized questions 

of materiality, reliance, and injury would predominate – here, Plaintiffs and class members received 

varied information from LBN (different individuals dealt with different case managers and 

representatives), Plaintiffs gave varied responses as to how they were deceived, and Defendant’s 

practices changed throughout the class period. 

41. Plaintiffs maintain that the claims are meritorious; that the Court would certify the 

proposed Classes; that they would establish liability and recover substantial damages if the case 

proceeded to trial; and that the final judgment entered for Plaintiffs and the classes would be affirmed 

on an appeal. But Plaintiffs’ ultimate success would require them to clear, in whole or in part, each 

hurdle. Conversely, Defendants’ success at any stage could or would spell defeat for Plaintiffs and the 

Settlement Class. Thus, continued litigation posed significant risks and countless uncertainties, as well 

as the time, expense and delays associated with trial and appellate proceedings. 

42. The settlement offers substantial non-monetary and monetary relief. In terms of nonmonetary relief, the Settlement Agreement requires LBN to (a) translate changes made to its contract 

into Spanish and at least one additional language by court-certified translators; (b) post its contract in 

print and audio formats in Spanish on its website; (c) inform participants of the contours of the 

contract in clear and concise terms, based on LBN’s implementation of a new contract after the start 

of this litigation; (d) use best efforts to mail its contract to prospective program participants prior to 

their release from ICE custody; (e) obtain informed representations that potential participants are 

aware of their rights and opportunities and have had the opportunity to consult with an attorney; (f) 

provide participants with its contract and the opportunity for an oral translation prior to signing the 

contract; (g) not threaten to report program participants, sponsors, or family members to ICE or 

otherwise threaten immigration detention; (h) modify the criminal prosecution language of its contract; 

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 134-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 9 of 105
DECLARATION OF JASON S. RATHOD IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR 

PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT 

-9- 

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 

(i) make a representation that it presently does not intend to engage in “debt collection” activities for 

past due monthly recurring Program Payments through external providers as to any debts owed as of 

September 1, 2019; (j) continue its fee waiver program for financially distressed clients, and now 

provide a minimum of $150,000 in fee waivers per year; (k) remove leg-affixed GPS monitors in the 

event of pregnancy or medical necessity; (l) not require a leg-affixed GPS monitor for new program 

participants who have an immigration bond with a face value of less than $7,500 unless otherwise 

required by a bond or surety company; (m) remove GPS monitors, stop all GPS monitoring, and stop 

all monthly payments, upon termination of immigration proceedings; and (n) ensure that the 

percentage of program participants required to wear ankle monitors does not increase, use best efforts 

to lower this percentage going forward, and transition away from ankle monitors altogether – to 

instead use less intrusive wrist monitors, cellular telephones, or periodic check-ins – by December 31, 

2021; and (o) impose a total payment cap limiting the total monthly payments to the face amount of 

the immigration bond. 

43. The settlement also offers substantial monetary relief. The settlement establishes a $3.2 

million common fund. From the $3.2 million, LBN will provide $750,000 to the Settlement 

Administrator for distribution as cash payments to the Former and Current Program Participant 

Payments Subclass and Sponsor Payments Subclass. Each member of the Payment Subclasses shall be 

entitled to receive a pro rata payment from the $750,000 Cash Settlement Fund. The pro rata payment 

shall be the $750,000 cash payment amount divided by the number of Class Members in the Payment 

Subclasses who LBN identifies for automatic payment or who submit valid claims, and do not opt out 

from the Settlement. The checks shall indicate that they expire 180 days after issuance. Because of 

financial constraints imposed by COVID-19, Defendant is unable to fund the Subclass until the earlier 

of: (a) certain revenue benchmarks being reached, beginning in December 2021; or (b) January 2024, 

through 12 monthly payments starting January 1, 2023. After the distribution of the initial cash 

payments, any residual funds shall be redistributed by the Settlement Administrator on a pro rata basis 

to members of the Payment Subclasses that cashed the first check sent to them within sixty days. 

Remaining funds following the second distribution, if any exist, will be provided as a cy pres award to 

Al Otro Lado and the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, subject to the Court’s approval. Both of 

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 134-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 10 of 105
DECLARATION OF JASON S. RATHOD IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR 

PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT 

-10- 

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 

these organizations are national nonprofit legal service providers who provide services to immigrants 

in removal proceedings and detention, such as the Class Members in this case. None of the parties or 

their counsel have any relationship with the proposed cy pres recipients, other than Centro Legal de la 

Raza’s occasional interaction with the two other nonprofit organizations as needed in providing 

services to immigrant communities. The Settlement also provides that Defendant will confer additional 

financial relief for the Current Program Participant Subclass in the form of: (a) Consecutive Payment 

Discounts; (b) Timely and In Full Payment Discounts; (c) Total Payment Caps; and (d) a minimum of 

$150,000 in annual fee waivers, as defined in the Agreement. Id. ¶¶ II.A.2, II.B.1.j, m. 

44. Class Counsel will request at Final Approval, and LBN has agreed not to oppose, an 

award of attorneys’ fees and expenses in the amount of twenty five percent of the total $3.2 million 

Settlement Amount. The Parties negotiated and reached agreement regarding fees and costs only after 

agreeing to all material terms of the Settlement. 

45. On the basis of the investigation and evaluation by Plaintiffs’ counsel, including me, 

and our experience with and knowledge of the law and procedure governing the claims of Plaintiffs 

and the Settlement Class, it is our belief that it is in the best interest of the class to enter into this 

Settlement. Indeed, in light of the risks, uncertainties and delays associated with continued litigation, 

the Settlement represents a significant achievement by providing guaranteed benefits to class members 

in the form of the prospective non-monetary relief outlined above, as well as the monetary relief. In 

addition, the allocation of benefits under the Settlement treats all Class Members fairly based on the 

strength of their claims. There was a substantial risk that class members would recover only nominal 

damages, or nothing at all. Even in the best case, it could take several years to get a judgment for class 

members and, even then, there would be a strong possibility that it would be a judgment in paper only. 

I say that after having reviewed a sworn statement by Defendant about its financial condition and 

receiving representations it has made about its financial outlook caused in no small part because of the 

Covid-19 pandemic. The Settlement provides substantial relief to the certified class now. 

46. Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs’ counsel appropriately determined that the Settlement 

outweighs the gamble of continued litigation. While I firmly believe in the merits of this litigation and 

that Plaintiff would ultimately win at trial, I also believe that recovery is far from guaranteed and that 

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 134-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 11 of 105
DECLARATION OF JASON S. RATHOD IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR 

PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT 

-11- 

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 

the benefits of settlement in this case outweigh the risks and uncertainties of continued litigation, as 

well as the attendant time and expenses associated with possible interlocutory appellate review, pretrial 

motion practice, trial, and final appellate review. After taking into account the foregoing along with 

other risks and the costs of further litigation, I am satisfied that the terms and conditions of this 

Agreement are fair, reasonable, adequate and equitable, and that a settlement of the litigation and the 

prompt provision of effective relief to the Settlement Class are in the best interest of the Settlement 

Class Members. 

C. The Risks Borne by Plaintiffs’ Counsel, Including M&R 

47. In accepting this case, Plaintiffs’ Counsel bore considerable risk. M&R took this case 

on a fully contingent basis, meaning that we were not paid for any of our time, and that we paid all 

costs and out of pocket expenses without any reimbursement to date. During the pendency of this 

case, M&R turned away other work. In evaluating the case at the outset, my partner and I recognized 

that M&R would be contributing a substantial amount of time and advancing significant costs in 

prosecuting a class action, with no guarantee of compensation or recovery, in the hopes of prevailing 

against a well-funded defense. We did take some solace, however, knowing that at least some of the 

statutes under which Plaintiffs would be suing authorized fee-shifting to a prevailing plaintiff who 

achieved a benefit for the class members and general public. 

48. Because Defendants were represented by a large, highly-skilled and well-resourced 

litigation firm, there was increased risk that Plaintiffs would not certify a class and/or receive a verdict 

for the defense after a prolonged trial. 

D. Lodestar and Expenses for M&R 

49. Since the outset of this case, M&R has spent a total 883.7 hours working on this case, 

including for the work detailed above, which involved the following categories, among other things: (1) 

investigating the merits of the case (2) coordinating litigation efforts with co-counsel; (3) drafting and 

revising Plaintiffs’ Complaint and four Amended Complaints; (4) engaging in written discovery 

including writing deficiency letters and engaging in meet and confer sessions; ; (5) attending deposition; 

(6) drafting and filing motions and memoranda ; (7) drafting and reviewing mediation statements; (8) 

negotiating settlement terms; and (9) drafting and revising settlement documents. The time this reflects 

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 134-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 12 of 105
DECLARATION OF JASON S. RATHOD IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR 

PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT 

-12- 

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 

was time actually spent, in the exercise of reasonable judgment by lawyers and staff of M&R, which are 

available for in camera submissions to the Court upon request. Given the ongoing nature of the notice 

program, there will likely be many additional hours not yet recorded for this case, both prior to and 

after final approval. The hourly rates shown in the table below for the attorneys and staff at M&R are 

the same as the regular rates – pursuant to the “adjusted Laffey Matrix” – charged by M&R for their 

services in other cases and as have been approved by state and federal courts across the country. For 

example, M&R’s rates were recently approved in a collective action settlement in the United States 

District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. See Whitfield v. Trinity Rest. Grp., LLC, No. 18-

10973, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 182055 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 3, 2019) . M&R’s rates were also approved in

Singer, et al. v. Postmates, No. 4:15-cv-01284-JSW (N.D. Cal. April 25, 2018) (Dkt. 98), where M&R 

served as co-counsel in a multistate wage theft class and collective action in which couriers alleged they 

were misclassified as exempt from minimum wage and overtime laws. That suit settled on a common 

fund basis for $8.75 million. M&R proffered a declaration detailing our lodestar using rates consistent 

with the foregoing rate scale (see Dkt. 89-3), and the full attorneys’ fee request was ultimately approved 

(see Dkt. 98). 

Timekeeper Hours Rate Total 

Nicholas Migliaccio 54.25 $747 $40,524.75 

Jason Rathod 650.7 $747 $486,072.90 

Erick Quezada 90.6 $372 $33,703.20 

Ashley Pileika 14.5 $372 $5,394.00 

Bruno Ortega 7.65 $202 $1,545.30 

Dominique Reid 16 $202 $3,232 

TOTAL 833.7 $570,472.15 

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 134-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 13 of 105
DECLARATION OF JASON S. RATHOD IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR 

PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT 

-13- 

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 

50. I have also reviewed the declarations of my co-counsel, Jesse Newmark and Annick 

Persinger, on behalf of their organizations. Adding their lodestar amounts to M&R’s yields a total 

lodestar amount of $1,689,048.35. 

51. Expenses are accounted for and billed separately and are not duplicated in my 

professional billing rate. M&R has not received reimbursement for expenses incurred in connection 

with this litigation. As of June 1, 2020, M&R incurred a total of $ 24,393.70 in unreimbursed actual 

third-party expenses in connection with the prosecution of these cases. The actual expenses incurred in 

the prosecution of these cases are reflected on the computerized accounting records of my firm, based 

on receipts and check records, and accurately reflect all actual expenses incurred. These unreimbursed 

costs and expenses were incurred in connection with the effective prosecution of this litigation and 

include mediation, travel, translation and process server fees. 

52. I have also reviewed the expenses detailed in the declarations of my co-counsel Jesse 

Newmark and Annick Persinger, on behalf of their organizations. Adding their expenses to M&R’s 

yields a total of $68,648.62. 

E. Plaintiffs’ Counsel’s Continuing Obligations to Class Members 

53. I am aware of no conflicts between Plaintiff’s Counsel and the the Class Members. If 

this Court grants preliminary approval to the Settlement, Plaintiffs’ counsel, including M&R, will 

establish standardized procedures to ensure that all inquiries from Settlement Class Members are 

timely and accurately handled. M&R will also work with the Settlement Administrator to assure that 

settlement website functions properly (i.e., is easy to use and properly designed). M&R will also work 

with the Settlement Administrator to assure that notice is disseminated in accordance with the terms of 

the Settlement Agreement. M&R will receive updates from the Settlement Administrator regarding the 

administration of the settlement. M&R will continue in this capacity should the settlement be finally 

approved. M&R will prepare for and appear at the fairness hearing. If the settlement is approved and 

fees awarded, M&R also will oppose any appeals that may be filed. Under the terms of the settlement, 

M&R will also need to monitor LBN’s finances to determine if it meets the thresholds triggering 

payments into the settlement fund, and M&R will do so. Based on my experience with class actions, I 

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 134-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 14 of 105
DECLARATION OF JASON S. RATHOD IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR 

PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT 

-14- 

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 

anticipate that there will be at least another 100 hours of work before this Litigation is entirely 

complete and that is assuming the Court’s judgment is not appealed. 

F. Service Award to Plaintiffs 

54. Plaintiffs are requesting a Representative Service Award of $10,000 for each Plaintiff. 

To date, Plaintiffs’ involvement in this litigation has been superb. For example, Plaintiffs searched their 

personal records for relevant documents and attended deposition. Plaintiffs also took on substantial 

risk, most importantly the risk of publicity. Further, Plaintiffs also agreed to enter into a broader 

release than the other class members. In my opinion, Plaintiffs’ participation in this litigation has been 

exemplary. Mr. Newmark has also set forth a more detailed explanation of the work done by Plaintiffs 

and the risks they have taken in his declaration in support of this Motion. 

G. Information Required by the Northern District of California’s 

Procedural Guidance for Class Action Settlements. 

55. The proposed settlement administrator is JND Legal Administration. Defendant is 

bearing the costs of claims administration and they initially proposed the administrator as competent 

to handle a complex class action settlement like the one here. JND is a highly respected and 

experienced Settlement Administrator, with experience in administering complex litigation matters. 

Further details regarding JND’s background and expertise are described in the declaration of Jennifer 

M. Keough. Defendant’s counsel recommended JND after soliciting bids from JND, Angeion Group, 

and Postlethwaite & Netterville, three highly reputable settlement administrators. After receiving 

detailed bids from each, which I also received and reviewed, Defendant’s counsel recommended JND 

both because they submitted the most competitive bid, and because Defendant’s counsel had 

experience with JND from prior settlements. Given the sensitive nature of the class member 

information here, Defendant’s counsel believed that JND would take appropriate measures to ensure 

the privacy of that data. Class Counsel has had no prior engagement with JND. Based on my review of 

JND’s proposal and the declaration of Ms. Keough, and based on defense counsel’s representations 

about its experiences with JND in other class action settlements, I believe that JND will adequately 

and professionally discharge its duties as settlement administrator, and that the anticipated 

administrative costs, capped at $80,000, are reasonable given the nationwide notice and coordination 

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 134-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 15 of 105
DECLARATION OF JASON S. RATHOD IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR 

PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT 

-15- 

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 

of payments to the Payments Subclasses, as well as the anticipated number of Settlement Class 

Members. 

56. Pursuant to N.D. Cal. Procedural Guidance for Class Action Settlements (“N.D. Cal. 

Guide”) ¶11, M&R provides the following information for a comparable settlement. While M&R has 

other settlements comparable in settlement amount, they primarily are wage theft or product defect 

settlements that are different in nature than this case. One case that is comparable in that it involves 

allegations of excessive fees charged to “subprime” borrowers, who can be more difficult to reach 

because they are a more transient population, is Carr v Transit Employees Federal Credit Union, Civil 

Action No. 2017 CA 008613 B (D.C. Super. Ct. 2019). There, a borrower asserted claims on behalf of 

54 class members against a credit union following its failure to comply with Washington, D.C. 

regulations in the repossession, notification, storage, and sale of District of Columbia borrowers’ 

collateral. The parties agreed to settle for $215,000 on the following core terms: (a) each class member 

received a pro-rata distribution from a common fund based on the number of violations per class 

member (which resulted in an average recovery of $842.69 per class member); (b) each class member 

whose vehicles was sold at auction was made eligible to request a deletion of the three major credit 

bureaus’ tradelines associated with their auto loan account with the credit union; and (c) the defendant 

agreed to 1) no longer seek repossession fees and daily storage fees in excess of the statutory 

maximums; 2) ensure redemption letters state the correct storage address of repossessed vehicles; 3) 

use commercially reasonable efforts to ensure third-party repossession vendors stores repossessed 

automobiles in compliance with Washington D.C. regulations; and 4) ensure that no further collection 

actions be taken on deficiency judgments. In Carr, the defendant agreed to pay plaintiff’s counsel up to 

$71,666 in attorneys’ fees, or 1/3 of the total settlement amount. Plaintiff’s counsel also had $1,206.36 

in costs. Notice was sent by first-class mail and the costs of settlement administration were capped at 

$11,000. Of the 54 class members, only three notices were ultimately returned undeliverable. Following 

the expiration of the checks, only eight checks remained uncashed, which, under the terms of the 

settlement agreement, are deposited into the Washington D.C. Unclaimed Property Unit. Nine 

individuals timely filed tradeline deletion requests (which required class members to affirmatively 

submit a document), and two made untimely requests, which were honored. 

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 134-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 16 of 105
DECLARATION OF JASON S. RATHOD IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR 

PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT 

-16- 

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 

 I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the United States and the State of California 

that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on 

June 2, 2020 in Washington D.C. 

Dated: June 2, 2020 Respectfully submitted, 

 

 By: /s/ Jason S. Rathod 

 Jason S. Rathod 

 MIGLICACCIO & RATHOD LLP 

JASON S. RATHOD, pro hac vice

412 H St NE, Suite 302 

Washington, DC 20002 

Telephone (202) 470-3520 

jrathod@classlawdc.com 

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 134-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 17 of 105
EXHIBIT 1 

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 134-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 18 of 105
Page 1 of 34 

CONFIDENTIAL SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE 

This Confidential Settlement Agreement and Release (the “Settlement Agreement”) is 

made by and between Plaintiffs Juan Quintanilla Vasquez, Gabriela Perdomo Ortiz, Victor Hugo 

Catalan, and Kevin Calderon (“Plaintiffs”), and Libre by Nexus (“LBN”). 

RECITALS 

WHEREAS, on February 15, 2017, Plaintiffs filed a putative class action against LBN in 

the United States District Court, Northern District of California, entitled Vasquez et al. v. Libre by 

Nexus, Inc., Case No. 4:17-cv-00755-CW (the “Action”), asserting numerous claims for violations 

of California and federal law; 

WHEREAS, on July 10, 2017, LBN moved to dismiss a portion of the complaint and to 

compel arbitration; 

WHEREAS, on August 20, 2018, the court presiding over the action denied LBN’s motion 

to compel arbitration and granted in part and denied in part LBN’s motion to dismiss; 

WHEREAS, on December 6, 2018, Plaintiffs filed the operative Third Amended 

Complaint in this Action, asserting claims for violations of the California Unfair Competition Law, 

the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and 

California’s Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act; 

WHEREAS, on September 18, 2018, LBN appealed the court’s denial of its motion to 

compel arbitration, and the appeal remains pending (the “Appeal”); 

WHEREAS, on or before December 15, 2019, the Plaintiffs will file a joint motion for 

leave to file an amended Settlement Complaint defining the Settlement Class, the Former and 

Current Program Participant Payments Subclass, the Sponsor Payments Subclass, and adding 

Plaintiff Kevin Calderon as class representative of the Sponsor Payments Subclass; 

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs’ Counsel and Defendant’s Counsel conducted a thorough 

examination and investigation of the facts and law relating to the matters in this Action. Such 

investigation and discovery included: the exchange and review of thousands of pages of 

documents, including of electronically stored information; depositions of the Named Plaintiffs and 

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 134-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 19 of 105
Page 2 of 34 

a 30(b)(6) deposition of LBN; and Plaintiffs’ Counsel’s review of confidential financial 

information provided by LBN; 

WHEREAS, prior to the consummation of this agreement, the Parties participated in 

several all-day mediation sessions, including three with Hon. James R. Lambden of ADR Services, 

Inc. and two with Jill R. Sperber, Esq. of Judicate West, as well as several other in-person sessions 

(including two in Washington D.C. and one in San Francisco) and telephonic sessions without the 

assistance of a mediator; 

WHEREAS, on Sept. 4, 2019, the Parties participated in an all-day mediation session with 

Ms. Sperber that resulted in a term sheet and the settlement memorialized in this Settlement 

Agreement. The Settlement Agreement was arrived at after extensive arm’s length negotiations 

conducted in good faith by counsel for the Parties, and is supported by the Plaintiffs. The Parties 

did not negotiate attorneys’ fees and costs until after relief had been fashioned for the Settlement 

Class; 

WHEREAS, the Parties agree that LBN’s service facilitates the much-needed freedom of 

immigrants from detention; 

WHEREAS, the Parties agree that the foregoing Settlement Agreement is not an admission 

of liability by LBN or by Plaintiffs that their claims lacked merit; 

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs’ Counsel, after taking into account the risks and the 

costs of further litigation, are satisfied that the terms and conditions of this Settlement Agreement 

are fair, reasonable, adequate, and equitable, and that a settlement of the Action and the provision 

of effective relief to the Class are in the best interest of the Settlement Class Members; 

WHEREAS, it is the intention of the Parties to settle and dispose of, fully and completely, 

any and all claims, demands and causes of action that are or could have been asserted by Plaintiffs 

in the Action, including the Appeal. 

NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises contained herein, and for 

good and valuable consideration, the sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, it is hereby 

agreed by and between the Parties as follows: 

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 134-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 20 of 105
Page 3 of 34 

I. DEFINITIONS 

a. “Class Counsel” means Centro Legal De La Raza, Migliaccio & Rathod LLP, and 

Tycko & Zavareei LLP. 

b. “Class Notice” means the Court-approved “Notice of Class Action Settlement” as 

described more fully in Section IV, below. 

c. “Class Representatives” means Juan Quintanilla Vasquez, Gabriela Jamileth 

Perdomo Ortiz, Victor Hugo Catalan Molina, and Kevin Calderon. 

d. “Court” means the United States District Court, Northern District of California. 

e. “Defendant’s Counsel” means Davis Wright Tremaine LLP. 

f. “District Court Final Approval Date” means the day on which the Court’s 

Settlement Approval Order and Final Judgment (defined at paragraph I.i. below) is entered. 

g. “Fee and Expense Award” means the amount awarded to Class Counsel by the 

Court for attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses, which is not to exceed Eight Hundred Thousand 

Dollars ($800,000.00). Any Fee and Expense shall be deducted from the Settlement Amount but 

not from the Cash Settlement Fund reserved for cash payment to Settlement Class Members, as 

defined below. 

h. “Final Approval Hearing” means the hearing held by the Court to determine 

whether to finally approve the settlement set forth in this Settlement Agreement as fair, reasonable 

and adequate. 

i. “Final Settlement Approval Date” means the date which is thirty one (31) days after 

entry of Settlement Approval Order and Final Judgment on the Parties and all objectors to the 

Settlement Agreement, if any, without any appeal being taken, or if an appeal or request for review 

has been taken, the date on which the Settlement Approval Order and Final Judgment has been 

affirmed by the court of last resort to which an appeal or request for review has been taken and 

such affirmance is no longer subject to further appeal or review, or the date of denial of review 

after exhaustion of all appellate remedies. 

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 134-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 21 of 105
Page 4 of 34 

j. “Incentive Awards” means any awards sought by application to and approved by 

the Court that are payable to the Class Representatives from the Class Settlement Amount, not to 

exceed Forty Thousand Dollars ($40,000.00) total. Any Incentive Awards shall be deducted from 

the Settlement Amount but not from the Cash Settlement Fund reserved for cash payment to 

Settlement Class Members, as defined below. 

k. “ICE” means United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement. 

l. “DHS” means United States Department of Homeland Security. 

m. “LBN Contract” is defined to mean all paperwork provided by LBN to or signed 

by LBN program participants and/or sponsors, a current copy of which will be attached as an 

exhibit to the Motion for Preliminary Approval. . 

n. “Notice and Other Administrative Costs” means all costs and expenses actually 

incurred by the Settlement Administrator (defined below) in the publication of Class Notice, 

providing notice as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1715(b), establishment of the Settlement Website, and 

the processing, handling, reviewing claims, and opt-outs, or as otherwise agreed to by the Parties 

and the Claims Administrator or as ordered by the Court. All such costs and expenses shall be 

deducted from the Settlement Amount but not from the Cash Settlement Fund reserved for cash 

payment to Settlement Class Members, as defined below. 

o. “Parties” means Juan Quintanilla Vasquez, Gabriela Jamileth Perdomo Ortiz, 

Victor Hugo Catalan Molina, Kevin Calderon, and LBN. 

p. “Preliminary Approval” means that the Court has entered an order preliminarily 

approving the terms and conditions of this Settlement Agreement, including the manner of 

providing and content of notice to Settlement Class Members. 

q. “Preliminary Approval Date” means the date on which the Court enters an Order 

granting Preliminary Approval. 

r. “Preliminary Approval Order” means the order preliminarily approving the 

settlement and proposed Class Notice, substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A. 

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 134-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 22 of 105
Page 5 of 34 

s. “Program Payments” is defined as monthly payments subsequent to the program 

participant’s release from detention, and therefore excludes the initial payment and set up fees 

made by the program participants and/or their sponsors and are not bond collateral payments. 

t. “Released Persons” means: 

i. “LBN Releasees”: LBN and each of its present, former, and future parents, 

predecessors, successors, assigns, assignees, affiliates, subsidiaries, conservators, divisions, 

departments, subdivisions, owners, partners, principals, trustees, creditors, shareholders, joint 

ventures, co-venturers, officers, and directors (whether acting in such capacity or individually), 

attorneys, vendors, accountants, nominees, agents (alleged, apparent, or actual), representatives, 

employees, managers, administrators, insurers, bond companies and each person or entity acting 

or purporting to act for them or on their behalf; and 

ii. “Plaintiff Releasees”: Plaintiffs and each Member of the Payment 

Subclasses who has fully paid their obligations to LBN and who has not opted out of the Settlement 

Class. 

u. “Residual Funds” means the amount of any checks issued to Former and Current 

Program Participant Payments Subclass and Sponsor Payments Subclass that remain uncashed one 

hundred eighty [180] days after the date of issuance. 

v. “Response Deadline” means the date by which Settlement Class Members must file 

exclusions from or objections to the settlement. 

w. “Settlement Administrator” means the independent third-party administrator to be 

retained to provide services in the administration of this settlement, including providing Class 

Notice to the Settlement Class Members, the processing and evaluation of Claims, and the 

processing of other documents or tasks as provided for in this Settlement Agreement or as 

otherwise agreed to by the Parties or as ordered by the Court. The name of the Settlement 

Administrator is: JND Legal Administration. 

x. “Settlement Amount” Settlement Amount, as used herein, means an amount of 

$3,200,000 in monetary consideration (including the value of debt forgiveness, the value of cash 

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 134-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 23 of 105
Page 6 of 34 

payments, settlement administration and notice costs, incentive awards, and attorneys’ fees and 

costs) to be made available by LBN pursuant to this settlement, which represent LBN’s total 

monetary liability under this Settlement Agreement. The Settlement Amount is non-reversionary. 

The monetary consideration to the Settlement Class from the Settlement Amount is comprised of 

two distinct parts – the “Cash Settlement Fund” and the “Debt Forgiveness Fund” as defined 

below: 

i. The “Cash Settlement Fund” consists of Seven Hundred and Fifty Thousand 

Dollars ($750,000) of the Settlement Amount that will be reserved to be paid to the Former and 

Current Program Participant Payments Subclass and to the Sponsor Payments Subclass 

(collectively, the “Payments Subclasses”). 

ii. The “Debt Relief Fund” consists of the remainder of the Settlement Amount 

after payment of the Cash Settlement Fund, Notice and Other Administrative Costs, Incentive 

Awards, and the Fee and Expense Award. 

y. “Settlement Approval Order and Final Judgment” means an order and judgment 

issued and entered by the Court, substantially in the form as that attached hereto and made a part 

hereof as Exhibit B, approving this Settlement Agreement as binding upon the Parties and the 

Settlement Class Members and dismissing the Action with prejudice, and setting the amount for 

an award of attorneys’ fees and costs not to exceed twenty-five percent of the total Settlement 

Amount to Class Counsel. The Settlement Approval Order and Final Judgment shall constitute a 

judgment within the meaning and for purposes of Rule 54 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

The Parties jointly shall request the Court to enter the proposed Settlement Approval Order and 

Final Judgment substantially in the form attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit C. 

z. “Settlement Class” shall be defined as all current or former LBN “program 

participants” and “sponsors” who paid, or caused to be paid on their behalf, a fee to LBN. Excluded 

from the Class are: (a) individuals for whom LBN or any surety or bond company has paid a 

treasury invoice or the bond or for whom a demand for payment for breach of a bond has been 

made by the U.S. Government which remains outstanding or open; (b) any judge or magistrate 

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 134-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 24 of 105
Page 7 of 34 

presiding over this action and members of their families; (c) Defendant and its current or former 

employees; and (d) all persons who properly execute and file a timely request for exclusion. The 

Settlement Class is comprised of three Subclasses: 

i. “The Current Program Participant Subclass” shall be defined as all current 

LBN “program participants” and “sponsors” who paid, or caused to be paid, or caused to be paid 

on their behalf, a fee to LBN. 

ii. “The Former and Current Program Participant Payments Subclass” shall be 

defined as all former LBN “program participants” who paid, or caused to be paid on their behalf, 

a Program Payment to LBN and all current LBN program participants who, within six months of 

the Final Settlement Approval Date have been issued a Form I-391. LBN represents that, as of 

September 4, 2019, data from surety companies and otherwise reveals that there are 2,214 I-391 

Forms that have been issued to LBN program participants. 

iii. “The Sponsor Payments Subclass” shall be defined as all sponsors of 

members of the Former and Current Program Participants Payments Subclass who paid a fee to 

LBN, including any initial payment or set up fee. 

aa. “Settlement Class Members” means those persons who are members of the 

Settlement Class and who do not timely and validly request exclusion from the Settlement Class. 

bb. “Settlement Website” means a website operated and maintained by the Settlement 

Administrator solely for purposes of making available to the Settlement Class Members the 

documents, information, and Form I-391 submission process described in Section IV.E.8 below. 

II. SETTLEMENT CONSIDERATION 

A. Monetary Benefit to Settlement Class Members. 

1. Benefit to the Settlement Class Members from the Settlement Amount. The 

$3.2 Million Settlement Amount will be used to provide benefits to or on behalf of the Settlement 

Class as follows: (i) cash payments to the Former and Current Program Participant Payments 

Subclass and Sponsor Payments Subclass, (ii) debt relief to the Current Program Participant 

Subclass, (iii) payment of Notice and Other Administrative Costs actually incurred by the 

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 134-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 25 of 105
Page 8 of 34 

Settlement Administrator, discussed in Section II.A.c.i. below, (iv) the Fee and Expense Awards, 

discussed in Section II.A.1.c.ii below, and (v) any Incentive Awards to the Class Representatives, 

as discussed in Section II.A.1.c.ii below. 

a. Cash Payments to the Former and Current Program Participant 

Payments Subclass and Sponsor Payments Subclass: Pursuant to the schedule below, LBN will 

pay $750,000 to the Settlement Administrator to distribute to the Former and Current Program 

Participant Payments Subclass and Sponsor Payments Subclass in cash payments. Each member 

of the Payments Subclasses shall be entitled to receive a pro rata payment from the Payments 

Subclasses Cash Settlement Fund. The pro rata payment shall be the cash payment amount 

($750,000) divided by the number of Settlement Class Members in the Former and Current 

Program Participant Subclass and Sponsor Payments Subclass. The checks shall indicate that they 

expire one hundred eighty [180] days after the date of issuance. 

i. Distribution of Residual Funds: Any Residual Funds shall be 

distributed by the Settlement Administrator on a pro rata basis to members of the Former and 

Current Program Participant Payments Subclass and Sponsor Payments Subclass who cashed the 

first check sent to them within sixty [60] days after the expiration of the checks issued pursuant to 

paragraph II.A.1.a. If any funds are remaining after this second distribution, those funds will be 

paid, subject to the Court’s approval, to the following 26 U.S.C. § 501(c)(3) non-profit 

organizations: Al Otro Lado; Northwest Immigrant Rights Project. 

b. Debt Relief to the Current Program Participant Subclass: The 

remainder of the Class Settlement Amount, after payment of the Payments Subclasses Cash 

Settlement Fund, Notice and Other Administrative Costs, Incentive Award, and Fee and Expense 

Award, will consist of credits to be made to the accounts of current program participants for past 

due program fees due and owing as of the date the Plaintiffs file their motion for Preliminary 

Approval. Each member of the Current Program Participant Subclass shall be entitled to receive a 

pro rata credit from the Debt Relief Fund. The pro rata credit shall be the Debt Relief Fund divided 

by the number of Settlement Class Members in the Current Program Participant Subclass. 

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 134-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 26 of 105
Page 9 of 34 

However, for each member of the Current Program Participant Subclass who has past due program 

fees lower than the pro rata payment, the pro rata payment amount in excess of the past due 

program fees shall be redistributed to members of the Subclass with remaining past due program 

fees. This process shall continue until the Debt Relief Fund is exhausted. 

c. Schedule of LBN’s Payments of the Settlement Amount: LBN shall 

make payments of the Settlement Amount in accordance with the following schedule: 

i. Initial Deposit: LBN shall pay an initial deposit for Notice 

and Other Administrative Costs to the Settlement Administrator within [14] days of the 

Preliminary Approval Date, and shall thereafter make periodic payments of Notice and Other 

Administrative Costs within [30] days after approval by Class Counsel and LBN’s Counsel of an 

invoice by the Settlement Administrator. Any such deadline may be extended by mutual consent 

of the Parties. 

ii. Payments of Cash Settlement Fund, Fee and Expense Award, and 

Incentive Awards: LBN shall have paid to the Settlement Administrator the $750,000 amount for 

the Cash Settlement Fund, the amount of the Fee and Expense Award, and the amount of any 

Incentive Awards to the Class Representatives, as approved by the Court, upon the following 

occurrences: 

a. Beginning December 1, 2021, if Libre’s gross revenues 

reach the following thresholds, representing the amount of 

Libre’s revenues with a one-year look back when compared 

to Libre’s 2019 revenues (the “Benchmark”), Libre shall pay 

into an escrow account established by the Settlement 

Administrator the following amounts to fund the Cash 

Settlement Fund, Fee and Expense Award, and Incentive 

Awards, until such amounts are paid in full: 

 75%-80% - $1,000 week 

 80%-90% $10,000 week 

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 134-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 27 of 105
Page 10 of 34 

 90%-100% $25,000 week 

 100%-110% $100,000 week 

The Benchmark shall be re-determined on a quarterly basis, 

such that Libre’s commitment the escrow fund shall increase 

or decrease based on Libre’s Benchmark for that quarter. 

The Settlement Administrator shall be responsible for 

disbursing the Cash Settlement Fund, Fee and Expense 

Award, and Incentive Awards from the funds that Libre 

places in escrow pursuant to a schedule the parties shall 

agree upon to minimize settlement administration and check 

printing and mailing expenses. 

b. In the event that the foregoing payment schedule does not 

satisfy the total amount by January 1, 2023, then the balance 

due will be paid in twelve (12) equal monthly installments 

beginning January 20, 2023. 

In all cases, the Settlement Administrator shall be responsible for timely and properly filing all 

informational and other tax returns necessary or advisable with respect to the Settlement Fund. 

iii. Credits: LBN shall apply the credits to the accounts of 

current program participants for past due program fees due and owing as of the date the Plaintiffs 

file their motion for Preliminary Approval, within [20] days after: (a) the Final Settlement 

Approval Date; and (b) Class Counsel informs LBN in writing of the pro rata payment formula 

for the credits. 

2. Additional Monetary Relief for the Current Program Participant Subclass: 

a. Consecutive Payment Discounts: Program participants who make 

three (3) consecutive monthly payments on time and in full will have their monthly recurring fee 

reduced by ten percent (10%) [the “Consecutive Payment Discount”]. Program participants who 

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 134-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 28 of 105
Page 11 of 34 

make an additional three (3) consecutive monthly payments on time and in full (for a total of 6 

consecutive on time and in full payments) will have their monthly recurring fee reduced by a 

further ten percent (10%) from the original fee amount set for each program participant [the 

“Second Consecutive Payment Discount”] for a total of a twenty percent (20%) discount from their 

original recurring fee. LBN shall identify the program participants who are eligible for the 

Consecutive Payment Discount and Second Consecutive Payment Discount on the 15th day 

following January 1 and the 15th day following July 1 in each calendar year, and the discount shall 

be applied on the next full month following the identification of qualifying program participants 

(i.e. in February and August). Program participants shall receive their respective 10% or 20% 

discounts going back to the time of compliance, even though LBN would not identify or apply 

those discounts until later. For instance, if a participant makes three full and timely payments in 

February, March, and April, they are entitled to the 10% discount for May and June; for logistical 

reasons, LBN may not identify the participant until July or apply the discount until August, but the 

participant should be credited at the reduced rate for May and June (even if they made a late or 

partial payment those months). The mandatory nature of the Consecutive Payment Discounts shall 

sunset three years after the Final Settlement Approval Date. 

b. Timely and In Full Payment Discount: If, as of the Final Settlement 

Approval Date, a program participant currently pays more than $420 per month in monthly 

recurring program fees, and that program participant pays on time and in full by the first of the 

month, such program participant’s monthly recurring fee for the month in which the timely and in 

full payment was made shall be reduced to $415. 

c. Total Payment Cap: To provide more certainty and clarity to 

program participants who are fully compliant with performance and payments regarding the total 

amount in Program Payments they may have to make, LBN will impose a total payment cap for 

Program Payments, excluding the initial payment and set up fees made by the program participants 

and/or their sponsors, to an amount not to exceed the face amount of the bond. This in no way 

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 134-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 29 of 105
Page 12 of 34 

constitutes an admission or concession that program participants’ fees are not connected to LBN’s 

suite of services. 

d. As used in this section, a payment shall be considered “on time and 

in full” when the full amount of such monthly recurring payment is received by LBN before 

midnight on the second business day of each month. LBN will not charge program participants 

late fees if payments are received after the second business day of each month, so long as the full 

amount owed is received at some point during the month in which the fee is due. 

e. LBN shall implement the above cap providing additional monetary 

relief within twenty [20] days after the Court enters the Preliminary Approval Order. 

f. LBN shall implement the above discounts providing additional 

monetary relief by the later of April 1, 2020, or within twenty [20] days after the Final Settlement 

Approval Date. 

B. Non-Monetary Benefits to Settlement Class Members. 

1. LBN’s Business Practices. Upon or before the later of April 1, 2020, or 

within twenty [20] days of the Final Settlement Approval Date, LBN will provide the following 

programmatic and other non-monetary benefits to Settlement Class Members: 

a. Translate Contract: LBN will translate changes made to the LBN 

Contract into Spanish by a court-certified translator. Within a reasonable period of time, but no 

later than three months after the Final Settlement Approval Date, LBN will translate the LBN 

Contract into any language for which the percentage of program participants met or exceeded five 

percent (5%) of the total volume of program participants as of January 1, 2019. LBN’s best present 

estimate is that, based on current figures, the LBN Contract will need to be translated into one 

additional language; 

b. Post Contract and Audio Online, and Offer Verbal Translations: 

LBN will post the LBN Contract on its website. LBN will also post audio versions of the LBN 

Contract in Spanish on its website. Before a prospective program participant or sponsor signs any 

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 134-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 30 of 105
Page 13 of 34 

part of the LBN Contract, LBN will offer to play the audio version or orally read the terms of the 

contract into Spanish for any Spanish-speaking potential participant or sponsor; 

c. Clear and Concise Contract Terms: The LBN Contract will continue 

to inform program participants, in clear and concise terms, of the contours of the contract they are 

entering into; 

d. Best Efforts to Mail: When feasible, LBN will also use best efforts 

to mail the LBN Contract to prospective program participants so that they receive the documents 

and are able to review them prior to release from ICE custody. Notwithstanding the foregoing, 

LBN shall not be required to mail the LBN Contract if such mailing would significantly delay the 

release of the prospective program participant and shall not be required to prove or document that 

the program participant actually received the LBN Contract prior to release; 

e. Sponsor Rights and Opportunities: Prior to the release of a 

prospective program participant (“prospective participant”) from ICE custody and before the 

prospective participant signs any part of the LBN Contract, LBN will obtain from the sponsor a 

representation that the sponsor: (a) received or had access to the LBN Contract prior to the 

prospective participant’s release; (b) had the right and opportunity to consult with an attorney of 

their choice; (c) had the right and opportunity to meet in person (if allowed by the detention 

facility) or via telephone with the prospective participant, privately and outside the presence of 

LBN to discuss the Contract prior to the prospective participant signing; and (d) had the right and 

opportunity to have the LBN Contract translated by the entity of their choice. The sponsor shall 

further attest, prior to the prospective participant’s release, that he or she understands these rights 

and (1) that he or she used best efforts to contact the prospective participant, in person or by 

telephone, (2) that if possible, he or she went over all of the terms of all of the LBN Contract with 

the prospective participant, and (3) that the prospective participant has advised the sponsor that 

they understand and agree to all of the terms of the Contract. 

f. Provide Contract to Participants Prior to Signing: Before a 

prospective participant signs any part of the LBN Contract, LBN will provide the prospective 

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 134-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 31 of 105
Page 14 of 34 

participant with the LBN Contract and provide the oral translation or translation opportunity set 

forth above. 

g. No Immigration-Related Threats: LBN and its agents will not 

threaten, verbally or in writing, to report any program participant, sponsor, or family member to 

ICE or otherwise threaten immigration detention. LBN may, however, inform program 

participants of the potential consequences of failing to appear for hearings. In the case of program 

participants for which a bond has been breached and a notice of breach has been issued by DHS, 

LBN or its subsidiaries may have a duty to produce the individual program participant to DHS. 

h. Modified Criminal Prosecution Language: LBN shall remove the 

current language in Paragraph 3.4 of the LBN Contract, but may include the following disclosure 

in its contracts with program participants, in lieu of the current language: “Please Note: 

Destroying, tampering with, or disabling LBN’s GPS monitoring device by anyone other than a 

law enforcement officer or LBN or any of its authorized agents, may result in criminal prosecution. 

Please contact LBN if you need assistance in order to avoid tampering with the device.” 

i. Debt Collection Representations: To date, LBN has neither engaged 

in “debt collection” activities through external providers, nor provided adverse information about 

a program participant’s credit-worthiness in the past. For the Settlement Class Members, LBN has 

no present intention to engage in “debt collection” activities for past due monthly recurring 

Program Payments through external providers as to any debts owed as of September 1, 2019. 

j. Fee Waiver Program: LBN will continue its fee waiver program for 

financially distressed clients in which it awards waivers of its fees (in whole or in part) on a needs 

basis each year. Program participants who receive such a fee waiver are not be required to make 

any payment for the approved month or months, such time periods to be specifically agreed to by 

LBN in writing and which may include month to month waivers on a case-by-case basis. LBN 

will post on its website fee waiver forms for financial hardship and agrees to continue such fee 

waiver program the value of fee waived to be determined by LBN but which shall not be less than 

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 134-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 32 of 105
Page 15 of 34 

$150,000 per year. LBN shall have the sole and exclusive right to determine which program 

participants shall be entitled to participate in the fee waiver program. 

k. GPS Monitor Removal for Pregnancy or Medical Necessity: LBN 

will use commercially reasonable best efforts to ensure that leg-affixed GPS monitors are removed 

in the event of pregnancy or medical necessity within fourteen [14] days of the date that LBN 

receives the request for removal (with supporting documentation from a licensed physician or 

licensed physician’s assistant) if the program participant is able to present to a LBN office, and 

within sixty [60] days if the program participant is not able to visit an LBN office. LBN reserves 

the right to require an independent medical examination by an LBN-approved licensed physician 

(at LBN’s cost) prior to approval of a GPS removal request. LBN reserves the right (in its sole and 

absolute discretion) to require the program participant whose leg-affixed GPS device is removed 

to wear and/or use a smaller GPS device (such as a wrist unit) or to use another electronic checkin device or method following removal of the leg-affixed GPS device. Any monitoring device 

shall be subject to removal if pregnancy or other medical need requires, subject to the 

documentation and verification requirements above. 

l. No Leg-Affixed GPS Monitors for Bonds Under $7,500: Unless 

required in writing by a bond company or a surety company for a particular potential client, LBN 

will not require a leg-affixed GPS monitor for new program participants who have an immigration 

bond with a face value of less than $7,500, but may in its discretion, require a wrist monitoring 

GPS unit or other electronic check-in device. LBN’s best present estimate is that, based on current 

figures, approximately 19% of program participants have bonds under $7,500. 

m. GPS Monitor Removal and No Further Payments Upon Termination 

of Immigration Proceedings: Upon its receipt of an I-391 or I-210, LBN shall also remove any 

GPS monitor, stop all GPS monitoring, and stop all monthly payments, upon verification that a 

program participant’s removal case has terminated, and if necessary, their compliance with a 

removal order, with documentation as set forth in Appendix A and posted on LBN’s website. If 

the program participant presents to a LBN office with the appropriate documentation during 

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 134-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 33 of 105
Page 16 of 34 

regular business hours for staffed offices, the removal of the GPS monitor shall be done 

immediately. If the program participant does not present to a LBN office, the removal of the GPS 

monitor shall be done within thirty [30] days. If the program participant does not have the I-391 

but can present documentation sufficient to prove that an I-391 will be issued as set forth in 

Appendix A, LBN shall suspend payments and GPS monitoring and remove any leg-affixed GPS 

monitor but may, in its sole discretion, require telephone check-ins or other forms of monitoring 

until the I-391 is received by LBN. If the program participant presents to a LBN office, the 

removal of the leg-affixed GPS monitor shall be done immediately. If the program participant 

does not present to a LBN office, the removal of the leg-affixed GPS monitor shall be done within 

thirty [30] days. 

n. Less Intrusive and Reduced Monitoring: LBN also represents that: 

(1) since the commencement of this lawsuit, the percentage of program participants wearing ankle 

monitors has been reduced substantially to approximately 27% percent; and (2) LBN has 

transitioned program participants to a technologically upgraded ankle monitor. LBN shall: (1) 

ensure that such use percentages do not increase relative to the total population of LBN clients; 

and (2) use best efforts to lower these use percentages going forward. LBN will within a reasonable 

period of time, but no later than December 31, 2020, ensure that all program participants who wear 

ankle monitors have the technologically upgraded ankle monitor used by the company so long as 

such program participants present to LBN offices. Within a reasonable period of time, but no later 

than December 31, 2021, LBN agrees to use commercially reasonable efforts to transition away 

from use of ankle monitors altogether and to instead use a wrist bracelet monitor or other similarly 

less intrusive monitors, such as cellular telephones or periodic check-ins.. LBN, however, shall 

be excused from compliance with the terms of this paragraph to the extent such compliance is 

prohibited by government regulations or written requirements of a surety company, with such 

writing provide to Plaintiffs’ counsel by LBN. 

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 134-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 34 of 105
Page 17 of 34 

III. CLASS COUNSEL ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND EXPENSES AND CLASS 

REPRESENTATIVE INCENTIVE AWARDS 

A. Attorneys’ Fees, Costs and Expenses. On or before twenty-one (21) days prior to 

the Response Deadline, Class Counsel will petition the Court for an award of attorneys’ fees and 

costs in an amount not to exceed twenty-five percent of the total $3.2 Million Settlement Amount 

(the “Fee Application”). LBN agrees not to oppose a request for attorneys’ fees and expenses that 

does not exceed twenty-five percent of the Settlement Amount. The Attorneys’ Fees and Costs 

Award in the amount of twenty-five percent of the Class Settlement Amount shall be the total 

obligation of LBN to pay for attorneys’ fees, costs and/or expenses of any kind. 

B. Incentive Awards. On or before twenty-one (21) days prior to the Response 

Deadline, Class Counsel will petition the Court for approval of Incentive Awards payable to the 

Class Representatives in amounts not to exceed $10,000 for each Class Representative, for a total 

of $40,000 (the “Service Award Application”). 

C. LBN shall pay the Fee and Expense Award, and any Incentive Awards to the Class 

Representatives to the Settlement Administrator pursuant to the schedule set forth in paragraph 

II.A.1.c.ii above. 

IV. NOTICE TO CLASS AND ADMINISTRATION OF SETTLEMENT 

A. Preserving Confidentiality of Class Member Information. The Settlement 

Administrator has executed a Confidentiality Agreement. The Settlement Administrator, Class 

Counsel, and Defendant’s Counsel understand and agree that they will be provided with certain 

personal identifying information relating to Settlement Class Members, they agree to keep this 

information secure and not to disclose or disseminate this information to any third parties, and they 

agree such information will be used solely for the purpose of effecting this settlement. The 

Confidentiality Agreement executed by the Settlement Administrator provides additional 

provisions for protection of Class Member information that may be provided to it during the course 

of administering this settlement. 

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 134-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 35 of 105
Page 18 of 34 

B. Class Notice. The Class Notice is attached hereto as Exhibit D and the Parties agree 

that it conforms to all applicable requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the United 

States Constitution (including Due Process Clauses), and any other applicable law, but is subject 

to approval and revision, in manner and form, by the Court. 

C. General Notice Terms. The Class Notice: 

1. Informs Settlement Class Members that, if they do not exclude themselves 

from the Class, they may be eligible to receive the relief under the proposed settlement; 

2. Contains a short, plain statement of the background of the Action, the Class 

certification and proposed settlement;; 

3. Describes the proposed settlement relief outlined in this Settlement 

Agreement; 

4. States that any relief to Settlement Class Members is contingent on the 

Court’s final approval of the proposed settlement. 

D. Notice of Exclusion and Objection Rights. The Class Notice informs Settlement 

Class Members of their rights to exclude themselves from the Class or object to the proposed 

settlement, as described in paragraph IV.E.9 below. 

E. Time and Manner of Notice. 

1. As soon as practicable, but starting within fourteen (14) days of entry of the 

Preliminary Approval order, LBN shall provide the Settlement Administrator with access to the 

telephone numbers for members of the Former and Current Program Participant Payments 

Subclass Members, and the Sponsor Payments Subclass Members for whom LBN has contact 

information. In providing such access, LBN may rely on its reasonably available electronic records 

and is only obligated to provide the last known telephone number as it presently exists in its 

business records. The access provided to the Settlement Administrator shall be through a secure 

portal that permits the Settlement Administrator to access the telephone numbers for use in 

providing notice, but does not permit the Settlement Administrator to download, copy or otherwise 

retain any numbers or other Settlement Class identifying information onto its servers or other 

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 134-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 36 of 105
Page 19 of 34 

devices utilized to provide notice to the Settlement Class, except temporarily as necessary to send 

the notice contemplated in this agreement. To the extent any such information is downloaded, 

copied or otherwise retained on a server or device beyond the term necessary to effectuate notice, 

whether intentionally, or unintentionally, or by operation of the device at issue, all such 

information shall be immediately deleted upon discovery. 

2. Text Message Notice. As soon as practicable, but starting no later than 

within thirty [30] calendar days of entry of the Preliminary Approval Order, the Settlement 

Administrator shall send a text message in both English and Spanish to all the Former and Current 

Program Participant Payments Subclass Members, and the Sponsor Payments Subclass Members 

for whom LBN has telephone numbers. The text messages will be substantially similar to the 

sample notice contained in Exhibit E, and will provide details on how to access a prerecorded 

message that will be in English and Spanish and that provides information to the Settlement Class 

on the settlement and how to access the Settlement Website. If a text message sent to a Settlement 

Class Member fails to send, the Settlement Administrator will make up to two additional text 

message attempts on days and times chosen by the Settlement Administrator as reasonably likely 

to achieve delivery. 

3. Postcard Notice. If, even after the two additional text message attempts, a 

text message fails to send or the Settlement Administrator receives other information indicating 

that the message did not reach the intended recipient, the Settlement Administrator shall send a 

Postcard Notice by mail to that Settlement Class Member. For any such Postcard Notice LBN 

shall provide the Settlement Administrator with access to mailing addresses for such Class 

Members for whom LBN has contact information. In providing such access, LBN may rely on its 

reasonably available electronic records and is only obligated to provide the last known mailing 

address as it presently exists in its business records. The access provided to the Settlement 

Administrator shall be through a secure portal that permits the Settlement Administrator to access 

the mailing addresses for use in providing notice, but does not permit the Settlement Administrator 

to download, copy or otherwise retain any addresses or other Settlement Class identifying 

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 134-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 37 of 105
Page 20 of 34 

information onto its servers or other devices utilized to provide notice to the Settlement Class, 

except temporarily as necessary to send the notice contemplated in this agreement. To the extent 

any such information is downloaded, copied or otherwise retained on a server or device beyond 

the term necessary to effectuate notice, whether intentionally, or unintentionally, or by operation 

of the device at issue, all such information shall be immediately deleted upon discovery. The 

Postcard Notice will be substantially similar to the sample notice contained in Exhibit F. 

4. Publication Notice. As soon as practicable, but starting within thirty (30) 

calendar days of entry of the Preliminary Approval Order, the Settlement Administrator shall place 

a notice of the settlement in the following periodicals: La Opinion, El Sol, and El Mundo and mail 

the publication notice to the following organizations: American Immigration Lawyers Association, 

National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild. The Publication Notice will be 

substantially similar to the sample notice contained in Exhibit G. 

5. Posting of the Class Notice. As soon as practicable, but starting within thirty 

(30) calendar days of entry of the Preliminary Approval Order, the Settlement Administrator will 

post the Class Notice referenced in paragraph IV.B. on the Settlement Website. 

6. Additional Information for the Class. 

a. Settlement Website. Prior to the date on which the Settlement 

Administrator initiates the Class Notice, the Settlement Administrator shall also establish the 

Settlement Website, which shall contain: 

i. The Class Notice, in both Spanish and English. 

ii. A contact information page that includes the address for the 

Settlement Administrator and addresses and telephone 

numbers for Class Counsel and Defendant’s Counsel; 

iii. The Settlement Agreement; 

iv. The signed Preliminary Approval Order and publicly filed 

motion papers and declarations in support thereof; 

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 134-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 38 of 105
Page 21 of 34 

v. A description of the method by which Settlement Class 

Members may submit their I-391s; and 

vi. (when they become available) the publicly filed motion for 

Final Approval, Fee Application, Service Award 

Application, and any papers and declarations in support 

thereof. 

b. The Settlement Website shall remain accessible until thirty (30) 

calendar days after the Settlement Administrator has completed its obligations under this 

Settlement Agreement. 

7. Responsibilities of Settlement Administrator. The Parties will retain one or 

more Settlement Administrators (including subcontractors) to help implement the terms of the 

proposed Settlement Agreement. The Settlement Administrator(s) shall be responsible for 

administrative tasks, including, without limitation (a) notifying the appropriate state officials about 

the settlement, (b) arranging, as set forth herein, for distribution of Class Notice (in the form 

approved by the Court) to Settlement Class Members, (c) answering inquiries from Settlement 

Class Members and/or forwarding such written inquiries to Class Counsel or their designee, (d) 

receiving and maintaining on behalf of the Court and the Parties any Settlement Class Member 

correspondence regarding requests for exclusion to the settlement, (e) establishing the Settlement 

Website that posts notices and other related documents, (f) receiving and processing claims and 

distributing payments, and (g) otherwise assisting with implementation and administration of the 

Settlement Agreement terms. The actual costs and expenses of the Settlement Administrator, 

which the Settlement Administrator has agreed shall be no more than $80,000, will be paid from 

the Settlement Amount. 

8. Process for Obtaining Monetary Relief from the Settlement Amount. 

Members of the Former and Current Program Participant Payments Subclass, and the Sponsor 

Payments Subclass, for whom LBN has a record of having been issued a Form I-391 within six 

[6] months of the Final Settlement Approval Date, and who have not timely excluded themselves 

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 134-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 39 of 105
Page 22 of 34 

from the settlement, will automatically receive a pro rata share of the $750,000 Cash Settlement 

Fund from the Settlement Amount set aside for the Former and Current Program Participant 

Payments Subclass and Sponsor Payments Subclass. Members of the Former and Current Program 

Participant Payments Subclass, and the Sponsor Payments Subclass, may also submit a Form I391 to LBN, or to the Settlement Administrator through means set forth on the Settlement Website, 

which shall include options to submit in paper via first class mail or online at the Settlement 

Website. Any valid Form I-391 received by the Settlement Administrator or LBN on or before 

the date six months from the date of the Final Settlement Approval Date shall be considered timely 

submitted for purposes of including the Class Member in the Former and Current Program 

Participant Payments Subclass and Sponsor Payments Subclass. These Settlement Class 

Members, who have not timely excluded themselves from the settlement, will receive a pro rata 

share of the $750,000 Cash Settlement Fund from the Settlement Amount set aside for the Former 

and Current Program Participant Payments Subclass and Sponsor Payments Subclass. Payments 

of the pro rata share of the Settlement Amount shall be made in the manner and pursuant to the 

schedule set forth in paragraph II.A.1.c.ii. 

9. Requests for Exclusion. As set forth below, Settlement Class Members shall 

have the right to opt out of the Class and this settlement. 

a. In the event a Settlement Class Member wishes to be excluded from 

the settlement and not to be bound by this Settlement Agreement, that person must, prior to the 

Response Deadline, submit in paper via first class mail or online at the Settlement Website a notice 

of intention to opt-out of the settlement to the Settlement Administrator. The request for exclusion, 

must: be postmarked or submitted online before the Response deadline; include the Settlement 

Class Member’s name, address, and telephone number; be signed and dated by the Settlement 

Class Member; and contain a clear request that the individual would like to “opt-out” or be 

excluded, by use of those words or other words clearly indicating a desire not to participate in the 

settlement. Any Settlement Class Member who timely and properly requests exclusion in 

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 134-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 40 of 105
Page 23 of 34 

compliance with these requirements will not be entitled to any benefit under the settlement, and 

will not be bound by this Settlement Agreement or the Final Approval Order and Judgment. 

10. Objection Requirements. As set forth below, any Settlement Class Member 

may object to this Settlement Agreement, the Fee Application, and/or the Incentive Award 

application. 

a. Any Settlement Class Member who has not submitted a timely optout form and who wishes to object to the fairness, reasonableness, or adequacy of the settlement 

must sign and mail a letter to the Settlement Administrator, stating their intention to object to the 

settlement. 

b. For a written objection to be considered, the written objection must: 

i. be postmarked on or before the Response Deadline; 

ii. include the objecting Settlement Class Member’s name, 

address, and telephone number, 

iii. be personally signed and dated by the objecting Settlement 

Class Member; 

iv. state each objection and the specific legal and factual bases 

for each; and 

v. include proof that the Settlement Class Member is or was an 

LBN program participant. 

11. Failure to Object. Any Settlement Class Member who does not provide a 

timely written objection or who does not make a record of his or her objection at the Final Approval 

Hearing shall be deemed to have waived any objection and shall forever be foreclosed from making 

any objection to the fairness, reasonableness, or adequacy of the proposed settlement, Fee 

Application, Fee and Expense Award, Incentive Award Application, or Incentive Awards. 

12. Responses to Objections. The Class Representatives, Class Counsel, and/or 

LBN may file responses to any timely written objections no later than seven (7) days prior to the 

Final Approval Hearing. 

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 134-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 41 of 105
Page 24 of 34 

V. MUTUAL RELEASES 

A. Release by Settlement Class Members. Upon the Final Settlement Approval Date, 

each Plaintiff and each Settlement Class Member who has not opted out of the Settlement Class 

releases, waives, and forever discharges LBN Releasees from any and all claims they have or may 

have against the LBN Releasees with respect to any claim or issue which was or could have been 

brought in the litigation as of the Final Settlement Approval Date, any claim related to payments, 

services or products offered by LBN, and any claim regarding the manner of Class Notice (the 

“Released LBN Claims”). Settlement Class Members acknowledge that they have been fully and 

fairly compensated for all claims that have been made or which could have been made as of the 

date of the settlement. The foregoing acknowledgement is not intended to limit the rights and 

remedies available, if any, to any regulatory authorities. The Parties acknowledge that Plaintiffs 

and Settlement Class Members cannot release claims brought by governmental entities. 

B. Release by Class Representatives. Upon the Final Settlement Approval Date, the 

Class Representatives also release all claims arising, or that could arise in the future, out of any 

conduct or omissions occurring as of the date of the Settlement Agreement that might be 

attributable to LBN, including waiving any such claims, rights or benefits they may have under 

Cal. Civ. Code § 1542 and any similar federal or state law, right, rule, or legal principle that may 

be applicable. The Parties agree and acknowledge that this waiver is an essential term of this 

Settlement Agreement. California Civil Code § 1542 provides as follows: 

A GENERAL RELEASE DOES NOT EXTEND TO CLAIMS WHICH THE CREDITOR 

OR RELEASING PARTY DOES NOT KNOW OR SUSPECT TO EXIST IN HIS OR 

HER FAVOR AT THE TIME OF EXECUTING THE RELEASE AND THAT, IF 

KNOWN BY HIM OR HER, WOULD HAVE MATERIALLY AFFECTED HIS OR HER 

SETTLEMENT WITH THE DEBTOR OR RELEASING PARTY. 

C. Release by LBN. Upon the Final Settlement Approval Date, LBN releases, waives, 

and forever discharges Plaintiffs’ Releasees from any and all claims it has or may have against the 

Plaintiff Releasees with respect to any claim for existing Program Payments or fees (the “Released 

Plaintiffs’ Claims”). 

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 134-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 42 of 105
Page 25 of 34 

D. Sole and Exclusive Remedy. This settlement shall be the sole and exclusive 

remedy for any and all claims released in this Section V against any of the Parties. All releasing 

Parties shall be barred from initiating, asserting, or prosecuting the released claims as described in 

this Section V. The foregoing exclusive remedy and bar terms are not intended to limit the rights, 

if any, of any regulatory authorities. 

VI. CERTIFICATION OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASS 

A. The Parties agree, for settlement purposes only, that this Action shall be certified 

and proceed as a class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3), with a class 

consisting of all Settlement Class Members, the Current Program Participant Subclass, the Former 

and Current Program Participant Payments Subclass, and the Sponsor Payments Subclass, with 

Juan Quintanilla Vasquez, Gabriela Jamileth Perdomo Ortiz, Victor Hugo Catalan Molina, and 

Kevin Calderon as Class Representatives, and with Centro Legal De La Raza, Migliaccio & 

Rathod LLP, and Tycko & Zavareei LLP as Class Counsel. LBN specifically reserves any and all 

rights with respect to any individuals who opt out of this settlement, including but not limited to 

enforcing the terms of the contractual arbitration agreement. 

B. Any certification of a conditional, preliminary, or final settlement class pursuant to 

the terms of this Settlement shall not constitute, and shall not be construed as, an admission on the 

part of LBN that this Action, or any other proposed or certified class action, is appropriate for trial 

class treatment pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or any state or federal class action 

statute or rule. 

VII. COURT APPROVAL PROCEDURES 

A. Motion for Preliminary Approval. The Class Representatives, through Class 

Counsel, shall apply to the Court for entry of the Preliminary Approval Order (substantially in the 

form attached as Exhibit H) as soon as practicable following the signing of this Settlement 

Agreement for the purpose of, among other things: 

1. Finding that the requirements for provisional certification the Settlement 

Class have been satisfied; 

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 134-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 43 of 105
Page 26 of 34 

2. Appointing Plaintiffs as the Class Representatives; 

3. Appointing Class Counsel as counsel for the Settlement Class; 

4. Appointing JND Legal Administration as the Settlement Administrator; 

5. Scheduling a Final Approval Hearing on a date ordered by the Court, 

provided in the Preliminary Approval Order, and in compliance with applicable law, to 

determine whether the settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable and adequate, and to 

determine whether the Settlement Approval Order and Final Judgment should be entered 

dismissing the Action with prejudice; 

6. Approving the Class Notice plan set forth in Section IV above;; 

7. Preliminarily approving the form of the Settlement Approval Order and 

Final Judgment; 

8. Preliminarily enjoining Plaintiffs and the Settlement Class Members who 

do not properly and timely request exclusion from the Settlement Class from prosecuting any 

Released LBN Claims against any LBN Releasees; 

9. Establishing dates by which the Parties shall file and serve all papers in 

support of the application for final approval of the settlement and in response to any valid and 

timely objections; 

10. Providing that all Settlement Class Members will be bound by the 

Settlement Approval Order and Final Judgment dismissing the Action with prejudice unless such 

Settlement Class member timely files a valid written request to opt out in accordance with this 

Settlement Agreement and the Class Notice; and 

11. Approving the objection, and exclusion procedures for Settlement Class 

Members. 

B. Motion for Final Approval. The Class Representatives, through Class Counsel, 

shall file a motion for Final Approval 100 days after the court grants Preliminary Approval, that 

seeks to obtain from the Court a final Settlement Approval Order and Final Judgment in the form 

substantially similar to Exhibit I that does all of the following: 

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 134-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 44 of 105
Page 27 of 34 

1. Finds that the Court has personal and subject matter jurisdiction over the 

Settlement Class Members and the Action, and that venue is proper; 

2. Certifies the Settlement Class for settlement purposes; 

3. Approves the settlement; 

4. Finds that the Class Notice given in the manner described herein 

constitutes the best notice practicable and in full compliance with California law, federal law, 

and due process; 

5. Confirms that Class Representative, Settlement Class Members, and LBN 

have released all released claims described in Section V above and are permanently barred and 

enjoined from asserting, commencing, prosecuting, or continuing any of those claims against the 

released parties described in Section V above; 

6. Identifies those who have timely opted out of the settlement; and 

7. Within ninety (90) days of issuing the payments pursuant to paragraph 

II.A.1.c.ii above, the Parties will provide the Court a report verifying their compliance with this 

Settlement Agreement to the date of the report. 

8. Court Retains Jurisdiction. The Court retains jurisdiction relating to the 

administration, consummation, validity, enforcement, and interpretation of this Settlement 

Agreement, the Settlement Approval Order and Final Judgment, any final order approving the 

Fee and Expense Award and Incentive Awards, and for any other necessary purpose. 

C. Dismissal of the Appeal. Within seven (7) days of the Final Settlement Approval 

Date, LBN shall dismiss the Appeal with prejudice. 

D. Filing of the Third Amended Complaint. Following the execution of this Settlement 

Agreement, with Court approval, the Parties agree that Plaintiffs will file a Third Amended 

Complaint that brings claims on behalf of the Sponsor Subclass. 

E. Confidentiality Until Preliminary Approval. The terms of the settlement shall 

remain confidential until the Parties move for preliminary approval. 

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 134-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 45 of 105
Page 28 of 34 

F. Mutual Non-Disparagement. The Parties and their counsel agree not to make any 

disparaging public statements about the Parties and counsel. The Parties agree that they will not 

make any statements to undermine, disparage, and discredit the settlement before, during and after 

the settlement approval process. 

G. Counterparts. This Settlement Agreement may be executed in one or more 

counterparts, with the same force and effect as if executed in one complete document.

H. Facsimile Signature Deemed Original. The Parties and their counsel may execute 

this Settlement Agreement in counterparts (any one or all of which may be facsimile or 

PDF/electronic copies), and execution in counterparts shall have the same force and effect as if all 

signatories had signed the same document. 

I. Effectiveness of Agreement. This Settlement Agreement shall become effective 

upon the last date of its execution by all of the persons for whom signature spaces have been 

provided below. 

J. Authority. Each individual signing this Settlement Agreement warrants and 

represents that he or she has full capacity and authority to execute the Settlement Agreement on 

whose behalf he or she so signed.

K. Governing Law. This Settlement Agreement is made and entered into in the State 

of California and shall, in all respects, be interpreted, enforced and governed by and under the laws 

of the State of California, without regard to conflict of law provisions.

L. Amendments and/or Modifications. This Settlement Agreement may be amended 

or modified only by a writing signed by all Parties to this Settlement Agreement.

M. Headings. Paragraph headings are for reference only and shall not affect the 

interpretation of any paragraph thereto.

N. Warranty. Each of the Parties to this Settlement Agreement warrants that no 

promise or inducement has been made or offered by any of the Parties, except as set forth herein, 

and that this Settlement Agreement is not executed in reliance upon any statement or representation 

of any of the Parties or their representatives, not otherwise reflected herein.

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 134-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 46 of 105
Page 29 of 34 

O. Successors and Assigns. This Settlement Agreement shall be binding upon and 

inure to the benefit of the Parties hereto and their respective agents, heirs, insurers, successors and 

assigns.

P. Further Assurances. The Parties hereto expressly agree to execute such other 

documents and to take such other action as may be reasonably necessary to further the purpose of 

this Settlement Agreement.

Q. Interpretation of Agreement. In the event that any provision of the Settlement 

Agreement requires interpretation, it is agreed by the Parties that the person interpreting or 

construing this Settlement Agreement shall not apply a presumption that the terms of this 

Settlement Agreement shall be more strictly construed against one Party, by reason of the rule of 

construction that a document is to be construed more strictly against the Party who (by itself or 

through its agent) prepared the document, it being agreed among the Parties that all Parties have 

participated in the preparation of this Settlement Agreement.

R. Entire Agreement. This Settlement Agreement constitutes the full and entire 

agreement between the Parties and each Party acknowledges that there are no representations, 

warranties, agreements, arrangements, or undertakings, oral or written, between the Parties relating 

to the subject matter of this Settlement Agreement, which were not fully expressed herein.

S. Parties Rely on Own Judgment. The Parties hereto, and each of them, represent and 

declare that in executing this Settlement Agreement, they rely solely upon their own judgment, 

belief and knowledge, and on the advice and recommendations of their own independently selected 

counsel, concerning the nature, extent and duration of their rights and claims and that they have 

not been influenced to any extent whatsoever in executing the same by any representations or 

statements covering any matters made by any of the Parties hereto or by any person representing 

them or any of them. The Parties acknowledge that no Party hereto nor any of her or its 

representatives has made any promise, representation, or warranty whatsoever, written or oral, as 

any inducement to enter into this Settlement Agreement, except as expressly set forth in this 

Settlement Agreement.

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 134-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 47 of 105
Page 30 of 34 

T. Investigation. Each Party to this Settlement Agreement has made such investigation 

of the facts pertaining to this settlement and this Settlement Agreement and of all the matters 

pertaining thereto as it deems necessary.

U. Voluntary Settlement. The Parties hereto, or a responsible representative thereof, 

and each of them, further represent and warrant that they have carefully read this Settlement 

Agreement and know and understand the contents thereof, and that they signed this Settlement 

Agreement freely and voluntarily.

V. Continuing Jurisdiction. The Court shall retain exclusive and continuing 

jurisdiction over this Settlement Agreement and over all Parties and Settlement Class Members to 

interpret, effectuate, enforce, and implement this Settlement Agreement. The Court shall have 

exclusive jurisdiction to resolve any disputes involving this Settlement Agreement. 

W. Attorneys’ Fees. In any action or proceeding arising out of or to enforce the terms 

of this Settlement Agreement, the prevailing party in said action or proceeding shall be entitled to 

recover all reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred.

X. Severability. If any provision, paragraph, clause, or sentence in this Settlement 

Agreement is declared to be illegal, void, invalid, or unenforceable by a court or other authority 

with jurisdiction thereof, the remaining provisions, paragraphs, clauses and sentences shall be 

severable and shall remain in full force and effect. The Parties agree that a void or invalid 

paragraph, clause, or provision shall not affect the validity or enforceability of the remaining 

provisions of this Settlement Agreement.

Y. Revert to Status Quo. This Settlement Agreement is governed by the terms of 

Federal Rule of Evidence 408 and is for settlement purposes only, and neither the fact of, nor any 

provision contained in this Settlement Agreement or its attachments, nor any action taken 

hereunder shall constitute, be construed as, or be admissible in evidence as, any admission of the 

validity of any claim, defense or any fact alleged by any of the Parties in the Action or in any other 

pending or subsequently filed action or of any wrongdoing, fault, violation of law, or liability of 

any kind on the part of any Party, or admission by any Party of any claim, defense or allegation 

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 134-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 48 of 105
Page 31 of 34 

made in the Action or any other action, nor as an admission by any Party of the validity of any fact 

or defense asserted against them in the Action or any other action. If the Court should for any 

reason fail to approve this Settlement Agreement in the form agreed to by the Parties, decline to 

enter the Settlement Approval Order and Final Judgment in the form described in paragraph I.i., 

or impose any condition to approval of the settlement to which the Parties do not consent, or if the 

Settlement Approval Order and Final Judgment is reversed or rendered void, then (a) this 

Settlement Agreement shall be considered null and void, (b) neither this Settlement Agreement 

nor any of the related negotiations shall be of any force or effect, and (c) all Parties to this 

Settlement Agreement shall stand in the same position, without prejudice, as if the Settlement 

Agreement had been neither entered into nor filed with the Court. Invalidation of any portion of 

this Settlement Agreement shall invalidate this Settlement Agreement in its entirety unless the 

Parties agree in writing that the remaining provisions shall remain in full force and effect. This 

includes that the provisional certification of the Settlement Class shall have no bearing in deciding 

whether the claims asserted in the Action are or were appropriate for class treatment in the absence 

of settlement. If this Settlement Agreement terminates or is nullified, the provisional class 

certification shall be vacated by its terms, and the Action shall revert to the status that existed 

before the execution of this Settlement Agreement. Upon nullification of this Settlement 

Agreement, Class Representatives shall be free to pursue any claims available to them, and LBN 

shall be free to assert any defenses available to it, including, but not limited to, denying the 

suitability of this case for class treatment. Nothing in this Settlement Agreement shall be argued 

or deemed to estop any Party from asserting such claims or defenses. In the event the Court should 

for any reason fail to approve this Settlement Agreement in the form agreed to by the Parties, 

decline to enter the Settlement Approval Order and Final Judgment in the form described in 

paragraph I.i., or impose any condition to approval of the settlement to which the Parties do not 

consent, or if the Settlement Approval Order and Final Judgment is reversed or rendered void, the 

Parties will negotiate in good faith to address the issues raised by said events, including seeking 

mediation with Jill R. Sperber. 

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 134-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 49 of 105
Page 32 of 34 

Z. Exhibits. All of the Exhibits to this Settlement Agreement are material and integral 

parts thereof and are fully incorporated herein by this reference. 

AA. Waiver. The waiver by one Party of any provision or breach of this Settlement 

Agreement shall not be deemed a waiver of any other provision or breach of this Settlement 

Agreement. 

BB. Calculation of Time. All time listed in this Settlement Agreement is in calendar 

days. Time is calculated by (a) excluding the day of the event that triggers the period; (b) counting 

every day, including intermediate Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays; and (c) including the 

last day of the period, but if the last day is a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, the period continues 

to run until the end of the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have entered into and executed this Settlement 

Agreement as indicated below: 

Date: __________ By: _______________________________ 

Juan Quintanilla Vasquez 

Date: __________ By: _______________________________ 

Gabriela Perdomo Ortiz 

Date: __________ By: _______________________________ 

Victor Hugo Catalan 

Date: __________ By: _______________________________ 

Kevin Calderon 

Class Representatives 

June 2, 2020

June 2, 2020

June 2, 2020

June 2, 2020

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 134-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 50 of 105
Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 134-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 51 of 105
Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 134-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 52 of 105
Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 134-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 53 of 105
Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 134-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 54 of 105
Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 134-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 55 of 105
Page 34 of 34 

Appendix A – Documentation Sufficient to Show Termination of Immigration Proceedings 

1. Immigration judge order granting relief from removal and reflecting that all parties waived 

appeal; 

2. Immigration judge order granting relief from removal and 30 days or more have passed since 

that order, and either (a) documentation confirming that no appeal is pending through the 

Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) E-Registry, or (b) LBN confirmation that 

no appeal is pending through EOIR’s Case Status Information Line; 

3. Board of Immigration Appeals’ order sustaining an immigration judge’s grant of relief from 

removal; 

4. Immigration judge order denying relief from removal and reflecting that all parties waived 

appeal, and a completed Form I-392; 

5. Immigration judge order denying relief from removal, a completed Form I-392, and either (a) 

documentation confirming that no appeal is pending through the EOIR E-Registry, or (b) 

LBN confirmation that no appeal is pending through EOIR’s Case Status Information Line; 

6. Board of Immigration Appeals’ order sustaining an immigration judge’s denial of relief or 

reversing an immigration judge’s grant of relief without an order of remand, and a completed 

Form I-392; or 

7. Immigration judge order granting voluntary departure and reflecting that all parties waived 

appeal, and a completed Form I-392. 

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 134-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 56 of 105
Exhibit A

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 134-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 57 of 105
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

12613-001/00725721_1 Error! Unknown document property name.

[PROPOSED] PRELIMINARY APPROVAL AND PROVISIONAL CLASS CERTIFICATION ORDER

Case No. 17-cv-00755-CW

NICHOLAS A. MIGLIACCIO (Pro Hac Vice) 

JASON S. RATHOD (Pro Hac Vice) 

MIGLICACCIO & RATHOD LLP

412 H St. NE, Suite 302 

Washington, DC 20002 

Tel: (202) 470-3520 

nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com 

jrathod@classlawdc.com

ANNICK M. PERSINGER (Bar No. 272996)

TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP

1970 Broadway, Suite 1070

Oakland, CA 94612

Tel: (510) 254-6808

apersinger@tzlegal.com

JESSE NEWMARK (Bar No. 247488) 

AIDIN CASTILLO (Bar No. 280262)

CENTRO LEGAL DE LA RAZA

3022 International Blvd., Suite 410 

Oakland, CA 94601 

Tel: (510) 437-1863 

jessenewmark@centrolegal.org 

acastillo@centrolegal.org

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JUAN QUINTANILLA VASQUEZ, GABRIELA 

PERDOMO ORTIZ, and VICTOR HUGO 

CATALAN MOLINA, and KEVIN CALDERON, 

individually and on behalf of all others similarly 

situated,

 

 Plaintiffs,

vs.

LIBRE BY NEXUS, INC. and JOHN DOES 1-50,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 4:17-cv-00755-CW

CLASS ACTION

[PROPOSED] PRELIMINARY 

APPROVAL AND PROVISIONAL CLASS 

CERTIFICATION ORDER

 

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 134-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 58 of 105
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

[PROPOSED] PRELIMINARY APPROVAL AND PROVISIONAL CLASS CERTIFICATION ORDER

Case No. 17-cv-00755-CW

On ____________, this Court heard the motion by plaintiffs Juan Quintanilla Vasquez, 

Gabriela Perdomo Ortiz, Victor Hugo Catalan Molina, and Kevin Calderon (“Plaintiffs”) for preliminary 

approval of class settlement and provisional class certification. Defendant Libre by Nexus, Inc. (“LBN”) 

did not oppose the motion. This Court reviewed the motion, including the Settlement Agreement and 

Release (“Agreement” or “Settlement”). Based on this review and the findings below, the Court finds 

good cause to GRANT the motion. 

FINDINGS:

A. Unless otherwise specified, defined terms in this Preliminary Approval and Provisional 

Class Certification Order have the same definition as the terms in the Agreement.

B. The Agreement resulted from extensive arm’s-length negotiations with participation of 

an experienced mediator.

C. For settlement purposes only, the Classes are so numerous that joinder of all Class 

Members is impracticable, Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the Classes’ claims, there are questions of law 

and fact common to the Classes, which predominate over any questions affecting only individual Class 

Members, and class certification is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient 

adjudication of the controversy.

D. The Court finds that (a) the detailed Class Notice, Text Message Notice, Postcard 

Notice, and Publication Notice constitute the best notice practicable under the circumstances, (b) they 

constitute valid, due, and sufficient notice to all members of the Class, and (c) they comply fully with the 

requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, the California and United States Constitutions, and other applicable 

law.

E. The Agreement falls within the range of possible approval as fair, reasonable and 

adequate. 

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

1. Settlement Approval. The Agreement, including the Class Notice, Text Message 

Notice, Postcard Notice, and Publication Notice, is preliminarily approved.

2. Provisional Certification. The following Classes are provisionally certified for 

settlement purposes only:

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 134-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 59 of 105
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

[PROPOSED] PRELIMINARY APPROVAL AND PROVISIONAL CLASS CERTIFICATION ORDER

Case No. 17-cv-00755-CW

a. “Settlement Class” shall be defined as all current or former LBN “program participants” 

and “sponsors” who paid, or caused to be paid on their behalf, a fee to LBN. Excluded 

from the Class are: (a) individuals for whom LBN or any surety or bond company has 

paid a treasury invoice or the bond or for whom a demand for payment for breach of a 

bond has been made by the U.S. Government which remains outstanding or open; (b) 

any judge or magistrate presiding over this action and members of their families; (c) 

Defendant and its current or former employees; and (d) all persons who properly 

execute and file a timely request for exclusion. The Settlement Class is comprised of 

three Subclasses:

i. “The Current Program Participant Subclass” shall be defined as all current LBN 

“program participants” and “sponsors” who paid, or caused to be paid, or 

caused to be paid on their behalf, a fee to LBN.

ii. “The Former and Current Program Participant Payments Subclass” shall be 

defined as all former LBN “program participants” who paid, or caused to be paid 

on their behalf, a “Program Payment” to LBN and all current LBN “program 

participants” who, within six months of the “Final Settlement Approval Date”

have been issued a Form I-391. 

iii. “The Sponsor Payments Subclass” shall be defined as all sponsors of members 

of the Former and Current Program Participants Payments Subclass who paid a 

fee to LBN, including any initial payment or set up fee.

3. Appointment of Class Representatives and Class Counsel. Plaintiffs Juan 

Quintanilla Vasquez, Gabriela Perdomo Ortiz, Victor Hugo Catalan Molina, and Kevin Calderon are 

conditionally certified as the Class Representatives to implement the Parties’ Settlement in accordance 

with the Agreement. Tycko & Zavareei LLP, Migliaccio & Rathod LLP, and Centro Legal De La Raza 

are conditionally appointed as Class Counsel for settlement purposes. Plaintiffs and Class Counsel must 

fairly and adequately protect the Classes’ interests.

4. Appointment of Settlement Administrator. JND Legal Administration is hereby 

appointed as the Settlement Administrator for this case. 

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 134-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 60 of 105
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

3

[PROPOSED] PRELIMINARY APPROVAL AND PROVISIONAL CLASS CERTIFICATION ORDER

Case No. 17-cv-00755-CW

5. Provision of Class Notice. The Settlement Administrator, will notify Class Members 

of the Settlement in the manner specified in the Agreement.

6. Objection to Settlement. Class Members who have not submitted a timely written 

exclusion request pursuant to the Agreement and who want to object to the Agreement, the Fee 

Application and/or the Incentive Award Application may sign and mail a written objection to the 

Settlement Administrator. Written objections must: (i) be postmarked on or before the Response 

Deadline; (ii) include the objecting Settlement Class Member’s name, address, and telephone number; 

(iii) be personally signed and dated by the objecting Settlement Class Member; (iv) state each objection 

and the specific legal and factual bases for each; and (v) include proof that the Settlement Class Member 

is or was an LBN program participant. Any Settlement Class Member who does not provide a timely 

written objection or who does not make a record of his or her objection at the Final Approval Hearing 

shall be deemed to have waived any objection and shall forever be foreclosed from making any 

objection to the fairness, reasonableness, or adequacy of the proposed settlement, Fee Application, Fee 

and Expense Award, Incentive Award Application, or Incentive Award. The Class Representatives, 

Class Counsel, and/or LBN may file responses to any timely written objections no later than seven (7) 

days prior to the Final Approval Hearing. 

7. Requesting Exclusion. Settlement Class Members shall have the right to opt out of 

the Class and the settlement. In the event a Settlement Class Member wishes to be excluded from the 

settlement and not to be bound by this Settlement Agreement, that person must, prior to the Response 

Deadline, submit in paper via first class mail or online at the Settlement Website a notice of intention to 

opt-out of the settlement to the Settlement Administrator. The request for exclusion, must: be 

postmarked or submitted online before the Response deadline; include the Settlement Class Member’s 

name, address, and telephone number; be signed and dated by the Settlement Class Member; and 

contain a clear request that the individual would like to “opt-out” or be excluded, by use of those words 

or other words clearly indicating a desire not to participate in the settlement. Any Settlement Class 

Member who timely and properly requests exclusion in compliance with these requirements will not be 

entitled to any benefit under the settlement, and will not be bound by this Settlement Agreement or the 

Final Approval Order and Judgment 

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 134-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 61 of 105
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

[PROPOSED] PRELIMINARY APPROVAL AND PROVISIONAL CLASS CERTIFICATION ORDER

Case No. 17-cv-00755-CW

8. Termination. If the Agreement terminates for any reason, the following will occur: (a) 

Class certification will be automatically vacated; (b) Plaintiffs will stop functioning as the Class 

Representatives and Class Counsel will stop functioning as class counsel; and (c) this Action will revert 

to its previous status in all respects as it existed immediately before the Parties executed the Agreement. 

This Order will not waive or otherwise impact the Parties’ rights or arguments.

9. No Admissions. Nothing in this Order is, or may be construed as, an admission or 

concession on any point of fact or law by or against any Party. 

10. Stay of Dates and Deadlines. All discovery and pretrial proceedings and deadlines, are 

stayed and suspended until further notice from the Court, except for such actions as are necessary to 

implement the Agreement and this Order.

11. Injunction Against Asserting Released Claims Pending Settlement Approval. 

Pending final determination of whether the settlement should be approved, Class Representatives, all 

Settlement Class Members, and any person or entity allegedly acting on behalf of Settlement Class 

Members, either directly, representatively or in any other capacity, are preliminarily enjoined from 

commencing or prosecuting against the LBN Releasees any action or proceeding in any court or tribunal 

asserting any of the Released LBN Claims, provided, however, that this injunction shall not apply to 

individual claims of any Settlement Class Members who timely exclude themselves in a manner that 

complies with this Order. This injunction is necessary to protect and effectuate the settlement, this 

Order, and the Court’s flexibility and authority to effectuate this settlement and to enter judgment when 

appropriate, and is ordered in aid of the Court’s jurisdiction and to protect its judgments pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1651(a).

12. Fees and Cost Application. Class Counsel shall file their Fee, Expense, and Incentive 

Payment Application, together with all supporting documentation, on or before twenty-one (21) days 

prior to the Response Deadline, sufficiently in advance of the expiration of the objection period that any 

Settlement Class Member will have sufficient information to decide whether to object and, if applicable, 

to make an informed objection..

13. Discretion of Counsel. Counsel are hereby authorized to take all reasonable steps in 

connection with approval and administration of the Settlement not materially inconsistent with this 

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 134-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 62 of 105
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

5

[PROPOSED] PRELIMINARY APPROVAL AND PROVISIONAL CLASS CERTIFICATION ORDER

Case No. 17-cv-00755-CW

Order or the Agreement, including, without further approval of the Court, making minor changes to the 

content of the Class Notice that they jointly deem reasonable or necessary.

14. Final Approval Hearing. On __________ 2020, at __________ , this Court will hold 

a Final Approval Hearing to determine whether the Agreement should be finally approved as fair, 

reasonable, and adequate. This Court may order the Final Approval Hearing to be postponed, 

adjourned, or continued. If that occurs, the Parties will not be required to provide additional notice to 

Settlement Class Members.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: ____________________ ___________________________

Hon. Claudia Wilken

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 134-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 63 of 105
Exhibit B / C

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 134-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 64 of 105
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

12613-001/00725721_1 Error! Unknown document property name.

[PROPOSED] FINAL APPROVAL ORDER AND JUDGMENT

Case No. 17-cv-00755-CW

NICHOLAS A. MIGLIACCIO (Pro Hac Vice) 

JASON S. RATHOD (Pro Hac Vice) 

MIGLICACCIO & RATHOD LLP

412 H St. NE, Suite 302 

Washington, DC 20002 

Tel: (202) 470-3520 

nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com 

jrathod@classlawdc.com

ANNICK M. PERSINGER (Bar No. 272996)

TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP

1970 Broadway, Suite 1070

Oakland, CA 94612

Tel: (510) 254-6808

apersinger@tzlegal.com

JESSE NEWMARK (Bar No. 247488) 

AIDIN CASTILLO (Bar No. 280262)

CENTRO LEGAL DE LA RAZA

3022 International Blvd., Suite 410 

Oakland, CA 94601 

Tel: (510) 437-1863 

jessenewmark@centrolegal.org 

acastillo@centrolegal.org

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JUAN QUINTANILLA VASQUEZ, GABRIELA 

PERDOMO ORTIZ, and VICTOR HUGO 

CATALAN MOLINA, and KEVIN CALDERON, 

individually and on behalf of all others similarly 

situated,

 

 Plaintiffs,

vs.

LIBRE BY NEXUS, INC. and JOHN DOES 1-50,

Defendants.

Case No. 4:17-cv-00755-CW

[PROPOSED] FINAL APPROVAL 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT

 

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 134-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 65 of 105
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

[PROPOSED] FINAL APPROVAL ORDER AND JUDGMENT

Case No. 17-cv-00755-CW

On __________________, 2020, this Court heard the unopposed motion for final approval of 

class action settlement (“Motion”) brought by Plaintiffs Juan Quintanilla Vasquez, Gabriela Perdomo 

Ortiz, Victor Hugo Catalan Molina, and Kevin Calderon (“Plaintiffs”). The Court reviewed (1) the 

motion and the supporting papers, including the Settlement Agreement and Release (“Agreement” or 

“Settlement”); (2) any objections filed with or presented to the Court; (3) Plaintiffs’ and Defendant 

Libre by Nexus, Inc.’s (“LBN”) (collectively, “the Parties”) responses to any objections; and (4) 

counsel’s arguments. Based on this review and the findings below, the Court finds good cause to 

GRANT the Motion.

FINDINGS:

1. Unless otherwise specified, defined terms in the Agreement have the same definition as 

used in this Final Approval Order and Judgment.

2. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the Agreement with respect to and 

over all parties to the Agreement, including Plaintiffs and all Settlement Class Members.

3. Venue is proper in this judicial district.

4. The Court finds the Settlement was entered into in good faith, that it is fair, reasonable, 

and adequate, and that it satisfies the standards and applicable requirements for final approval of this 

class action settlement under Federal Rules of Civil Procedures 23(a) and 23(b)(3).

5. The Parties adequately performed their obligations to date under the Agreement.

6. Defendant LBN and the Settlement Administrator provided notice to the Class 

Members in compliance with the Agreement, Rule 23, the California and United States Constitutions, 

and other applicable law. The notice: (a) fully and accurately informed Class Members about the lawsuit 

and Settlement; (b) provided sufficient information so that the Class Members were able to decide

whether to accept the benefits offered, opt out and pursue their own remedies, or object to the 

proposed Settlement; (c) provided procedures for Class Members to file written objections to the 

proposed Settlement, appear at the final Fairness Hearing, and state objections to the proposed 

Settlement; and (d) provided the time, date, and place of the final Fairness Hearing. The Court has 

afforded a full opportunity to all Settlement Class Members to be heard. Accordingly, the Court 

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 134-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 66 of 105
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

[PROPOSED] FINAL APPROVAL ORDER AND JUDGMENT

Case No. 17-cv-00755-CW

determines that all Settlement Class Members, except those who timely excluded themselves from the 

Settlement Class, are bound by this Final Approval Order and Judgment.

7. Within ten (10) days after the filing of the proposed Agreement in this Court, LBN

served a notice of the proposed settlement upon the appropriate state official of each State in which a 

Class member resides and upon the Attorney General of the United States. The Court finds that the 

notice provided by LBN satisfied the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1715(b) and that more than ninety 

(90) days have elapsed since LBN provided the required notice, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1715(d).

8. An award of $ _____________ in attorneys’ fees and costs to Class Counsel is fair and 

reasonable in light of the nature of this case, Class Counsel’s experience and efforts in prosecuting this 

Action, and the benefits obtained for the Class.

9. An incentive award to Plaintiffs in the amount of $ _________________ (each) is fair 

and reasonable in light of Plaintiffs’ risks (including financial, professional, and emotional) in 

commencing this Action as the Class Representatives, the time and effort spent by Plaintiffs in litigating 

this Action as the Class Representatives, Plaintiffs’ full release and waiver of all known and unknown 

claims, and Plaintiffs’ public interest and service.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. Class Members: For Settlement purposes only, the Court makes final its preliminary 

certification of the following Settlement Class: 

Settlement Class: All current or former LBN “program participants” and “sponsors” 

who paid, or caused to be paid on their behalf, a fee to LBN. Excluded from the Class 

are: (a) individuals for whom LBN or any surety or bond company has paid a treasury 

invoice or the bond or for whom a demand for payment for breach of a bond has been 

made by the U.S. Government which remains outstanding or open; (b) any judge or 

magistrate presiding over this action and members of their families; (c) Defendant and its 

current or former employees; and (d) all persons who properly execute and file a timely 

request for exclusion.

The Class is also comprised of three Subclasses, defined as follows:

Current Program Participant Subclass: All current LBN “program participants” and 

“sponsors” who paid, or caused to be paid, or caused to be paid on their behalf, a fee to 

LBN.

Former and Current Program Participant Payments Subclass: All former LBN 

“program participants” who paid, or caused to be paid on their behalf, a “Program 

Payment” to LBN and all current LBN “program participants” who, within six months 

of the “Final Settlement Approval Date” have been issued a Form I-391. 

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 134-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 67 of 105
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

3

[PROPOSED] FINAL APPROVAL ORDER AND JUDGMENT

Case No. 17-cv-00755-CW

Sponsor Payments Subclass: All sponsors of members of the Former and Current 

Program Participants Payments Subclass who paid a fee to LBN, including any initial 

payment or set up fee.

2. Binding Effect of Order: This Order applies to all claims or causes of action settled 

under the Settlement Agreement, and binds all Class Members, including those who did not properly 

request exclusion under paragraph ___ of the Preliminary Approval and Provisional Class Certification 

Order. This Order does not bind persons who filed timely and valid requests for exclusion. Attached as 

Exhibit A is a list of persons who properly requested to be excluded from the Settlement.

3. Objections Overruled. The Court has considered and hereby overrules all objections 

brought to the Court’s attention, whether properly filed or not.

4. No Admission. Neither this Final Approval Order and Judgment nor the Agreement is 

an admission or concession by Defendant of the validity of any claims or of any liability or wrongdoing 

or of any violation of law and not an admission by Plaintiffs that their claims lacked merit. 

5. Dismissal. This Court hereby dismisses this Action with prejudice all claims of Class 

Representatives and Settlement Class Members against LBN that have been, or could have been, alleged 

in the Action.

6. Release. Plaintiffs and all Settlement Class Members who did not properly request 

exclusion are deemed to have released and discharged LBN from all claims arising out of or asserted in 

this Action and claims released under the Settlement Agreement, as described in the Agreement.

7. By operation of this judgment, Plaintiffs, but not Settlement Class Members, also 

expressly waive any and all claims, rights, or benefits they may have under California Civil Code § 1542 

and any similar federal or state law, right, rule, or legal principle that may apply. California Civil Code § 

1542 provides as follows:

A GENERAL RELEASE DOES NOT EXTEND TO CLAIMS THAT THE 

CREDITOR OR RELEASING PARTY DOES NOT KNOW OR SUSPECT TO 

EXIST IN HIS OR HER FAVOR AT THE TIME OF EXECUTING THE 

RELEASE AND THAT, IF KNOWN BY HIM OR HER, WOULD HAVE 

MATERIALLY AFFECTED HIS OR HER SETTLEMENT WITH THE DEBTOR 

OR RELEASED PARTY.

8. LBN releases, waives, and forever discharges Plaintiffs and each Member of the 

Payments Subclasses (“Plaintiff Releasees”) who has fully paid their obligations to LBN and 

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 134-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 68 of 105
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

[PROPOSED] FINAL APPROVAL ORDER AND JUDGMENT

Case No. 17-cv-00755-CW

who has not opted out of the Settlement Class from any and all claims it has or may have against the

Plaintiff Releasees with respect to any claim for existing Program Payments or fees.

9. Injunction Against Asserting Released Claims. Class Representatives and the

Settlement Class Members, and LBN, having released all claims as described above, are permanently

enjoined from commencing or prosecuting any of those claims against the released parties as described 

above, provided, however, that this injunction shall not apply to individual claims of any Settlement 

Class Members listed in Exhibit A who properly excluded themselves from the Settlement Class. This 

injunction is necessary to protect and effectuate the settlement, this Final Approval Order and 

Judgment, and the Court’s flexibility and authority to effectuate this settlement and to enter judgment 

when appropriate, and is ordered in aid of the Court’s jurisdiction and to protect its judgments pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a).

10. Class Relief. The Settlement Amount will be used to provide benefits to or on behalf of 

the Settlement Class as set forth in the Agreement. Payments shall be made according to the schedule 

set forth in the Agreement.

a. Cash relief. The Settlement Administrator shall issue a payment to each Former 

and Current Program Participant Payments Subclass Member and Sponsor Payments Subclass Member 

in accordance with the Agreement. Following a secondary distribution, any unused funds shall be paid 

to the Cy Pres Recipients in accordance with the Agreement. 

b. Debt relief. The remainder of the Settlement Amount, after payment of the cash 

relief referenced above, Notice and other Administrative Costs, any Incentive Award as set forth herein, 

and any Fee and Expense Award as set forth herein, will consist of credits to be made to the accounts of 

current program participants for past due program fees due and owing as of the date the Plaintiffs filed

their motion for Preliminary Approval, as set forth in the Agreement.

c. Additional monetary relief. As set forth in the Agreement, members of the 

Current Program Participant Subclass will benefit from several financial changes to their contracts with 

LBN and LBN’s business practices. First, Program Participants who make three (3) consecutive monthly 

payments on time and in full will have their monthly recurring fee reduced by ten percent (10%) [the 

“Consecutive Payment Discount”]. Program Participants who make an additional three (3) consecutive 

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 134-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 69 of 105
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

5

[PROPOSED] FINAL APPROVAL ORDER AND JUDGMENT

Case No. 17-cv-00755-CW

monthly payments on time and in full (for a total of 6 consecutive on time and in full payments) will 

have their monthly recurring fee reduced by a further ten percent (10%) from the original fee amount 

set for each program participant [the “Second Consecutive Payment Discount”] for a total of a twenty 

percent (20%) discount from their original recurring fee. Second, Program Participants who pay more 

than $420 per month in monthly recurring program fees, and pay on time and in full by the first of the 

month, shall have their payment that month reduced to $415. Third, LBN will impose a total payment 

cap for Program Payments, excluding the initial payment and set up fees made by the program 

participants and/or their sponsors, to an amount not to exceed the face amount of the bond. Fourth, 

LBN will stop all monthly payments upon termination of immigration proceedings. Fifth, LBN will 

provide fee waivers of at least $150,000 per year to Program Participants.

d. Other business practice changes. Libre will also provide programmatic and 

other non-monetary benefits to Settlement Class Members through other business practice changes set 

forth in the Agreement, which include but are not limited to: (1) translating written and verbal contracts

and posting them online; (2) providing clear and concise contract terms; (3) using best efforts to ensure

meaningful program participant and sponsor review of contracts prior to signing; (4) not making any 

immigration-related threats; (5) modifying language on criminal prosecution; (5) representing that LBN 

has no present intent to collect certain debt from program participants or their sponsors; (6) removing

GPS monitors in a timely manner for pregnancy or medical necessity, or upon termination of 

immigration proceedings; (7) not requiring leg-affixed GPS monitors for new program participants with 

bonds of less than $7,500 (impacting approximately 19% of program participants); (8) transitioning to 

technologically upgraded ankle monitors that are less intrusive and do not require program participants 

to stay in place to charge the monitors, by December 31, 2020 at the latest; and (9) using commercially 

reasonable efforts to transition away from use of ankle monitors altogether and to instead use wrist 

bracelet monitors or other similarly less intrusive monitors, such as cellular telephones or periodic 

check-ins, by December 31, 2021 at the latest. Further details as to these business practices and any 

exceptions are set forth in the Settlement Agreement.

11. Attorneys’ Fees and Costs. Class Counsel is awarded $ _________________ total in 

fees ($ _________________) and costs ($ _________________) to be paid from the Settlement 

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 134-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 70 of 105
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

[PROPOSED] FINAL APPROVAL ORDER AND JUDGMENT

Case No. 17-cv-00755-CW

Amount, but no the Cash Settlement Fund, in accordance with the timeliness set forth in the Settlement 

Agreement.

12. Incentive Award. Plaintiffs are each awarded $ _________________ as a service award 

to be paid from the Settlement Amount, but not the Cash Settlement Fund, in accordance with the 

timelines set forth in the Agreement.

13. Settlement Administrator Costs. The Court approves the payment to the Settlement 

Administrator in a total amount not to exceed $ _________________, to be paid from the Settlement 

Amount, but not the Cash Settlement Fund, without prejudice to the Parties’ ability to agree to pay 

increased amounts to the Settlement Administrator based on material changes in the assumptions 

originally used by the Settlement Administrator in setting the cap.

14. Judgment. The Court finds there is no reason for delay and directs the Clerk to enter 

judgment in accordance with the terms of this Order as of the date of this order.

15. Court’s Jurisdiction. Without affecting the finality of this Final Approval Order and 

Judgment, pursuant to the Parties’ request, the Court retains jurisdiction over this Action and the Parties 

until final performance of the Agreement.

16. Status Report. By no later than _________________, 202_, Class Counsel shall file a 

status report to the Court specifying the total amount paid to Authorized Claimants and the total 

amount of uncashed checks that will be paid to the approved Cy Pres Recipients.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: ____________________ ___________________________

Hon. Claudia Wilken

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 134-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 71 of 105
Exhibit D

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 134-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 72 of 105
Detailed Notice

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 134-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 73 of 105
-2-

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF 

CALIFORNIA

IF YOU PAID LIBRE BY NEXUS IN CONNECTION WITH RELEASE FROM 

IMMIGRATION DETENTION, FOR YOURSELF OR AS A SPONSOR OF ANOTHER 

PERSON, YOU SHOULD READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY BECAUSE IT WILL 

AFFECT YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS.

A FEDERAL COURT AUTHORIZED THIS NOTICE.

THIS IS NOT AN ADVERTISEMENT FROM A LAWYER. YOU ARE NOT BEING SUED.

 A settlement (“Settlement”) has been proposed in the class action lawsuit Vazquez et al. 

v. Libre by Nexus, Inc., Case No. 4:17-cv-00755-CW, pending in the United States 

District Court for the Northern District of California. You may be a Settlement Class 

Member in the proposed Settlement and may be entitled to participate in the proposed 

Settlement.

 The United States District Court for the Northern District of California has ordered the 

issuance of this notice in this Action. Libre by Nexus (“LBN”) denies it did anything 

wrong and has defended itself throughout the lawsuit. The Court has not decided who is 

right. Both sides have agreed to settle the dispute to avoid burdensome and costly 

litigation.

 If the Court gives final approval to the Settlement, LBN will provide a check or 

electronic payment to Settlement Class Members who have timely provided a U.S. 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement Form I-391 (Notice of Immigration Bond 

Cancelled) to LBN or the Settlement Administrator – confirming that their immigration 

case has been closed. The amount of a Settlement Class Member’s payment depends 

upon the number of persons who participate in the Settlement. 

 If the Court gives final approval to the Settlement, Settlement Class Members, regardless 

of whether they are able to provide a Form I-391, may be entitled to receive debt relief, 

discounts, payment caps, and/or non-monetary relief as discussed below. 

YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS AND OPTIONS IN THIS SETTLEMENT

SUBMIT A 

FORM I-391 

Unless LBN already has a record of your 

receiving a Form I-391, this is the only way to 

get a payment under the Settlement. Visit the 

Settlement website located at 

www.lbnsettlement.com for instructions on 

submitting a Form I-391 to LBN or the 

Settlement Administrator.

Deadline: [Month] [Day], 

[Year]

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 134-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 74 of 105
-3-

YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS AND OPTIONS IN THIS SETTLEMENT

EXCLUDE 

YOURSELF

If you exclude yourself from the Settlement, you 

will not receive a payment or debt relief under 

the Settlement. Excluding yourself is the only 

option that allows you to bring or maintain your 

own lawsuit against LBN regarding the 

allegations in the Action ever again.

Deadline: [Month] [Day], 

[Year]

OBJECT You may write to the Court about why you 

object to (i.e., don’t like) the Settlement and 

think it shouldn’t be approved. Submitting an 

objection does not exclude you from the 

Settlement.

Deadline: [Month] [Day], 

[Year]

GO TO THE 

“FAIRNESS 

HEARING” 

The Court will hold a “Fairness Hearing” to 

consider the Settlement, the request for 

attorneys’ fees and costs of the lawyers who 

brought the Action, and the Class 

Representatives’ request for service awards for 

bringing the Action. 

You may, but are not required to, speak at the 

Fairness Hearing about any objection you 

submitted to the Settlement. 

Hearing Date: [Month] 

[Day], [Year]

DO 

NOTHING

If LBN already has a record of your receiving a 

Form I-391, you will receive a payment under 

this Settlement. Otherwise, you will not receive 

any payment but may receive debt relief, 

discounts, payments caps, and/or non-monetary 

relief as discussed below. You will also give up 

your right to object to the Settlement and you 

will not be able to be part of any other lawsuit 

about the legal claims in this case.

N/A

• These rights and options – and the deadlines to exercise them – are explained in more 

detail below.

• The Court in charge of this Action has preliminarily approved the Settlement and must 

decide whether to give final approval to the Settlement. The payments and other relief 

for Settlement Class Members discussed here will be provided only if the Court gives 

final approval to the Settlement and, if there are any appeals, after the appeals are 

resolved in favor of the Settlement. Please be patient.

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 134-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 75 of 105
-4-

WHAT THIS NOTICE CONTAINS

BACKGROUND INFORMATION .............................................................................................5

1. Why did I get this notice?

2. What is this lawsuit about?

3. Why is this a class action?

4. Why is there a Settlement?

5. How do I know if I am part of the Settlement?

6. I’m not sure if I am included.

THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT..............................................................................................6

7. What relief does the Settlement provide to the Settlement Class Members?

HOW TO REQUEST A PAYMENT UNDER THE SETTLEMENT –

SUBMITTING A FORM I-391 ........................................................................................9

8. How can I get a Settlement payment?

9 When will I get a Settlement payment?

THE LAWYERS IN THIS CASE AND THE REPRESENTATIVE PLAINTIFFS...............9

10. Do I have a lawyer in this case?

11. How will the lawyers be paid?

12. Will the Class Representatives receive any compensation for their efforts?

DISMISSAL OF ACTION AND RELEASE OF ALL CLAIMS............................................10

13. What am I giving up to obtain relief under the Settlement?

HOW TO EXCLUDE YOURSELF FROM THE SETTLEMENT........................................10

14. How do I exclude myself from the Settlement?

HOW TO OBJECT TO THE SETTLEMENT.........................................................................10

15. How do I tell the Court that I disagree with the Settlement?

16. What is the difference between excluding myself and objecting to the Settlement?

FAIRNESS HEARING................................................................................................................11

17. What is the Fairness Hearing?

18. When and where is the Fairness Hearing?

19. May I speak at the hearing?

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION...............................................................................................12

20. How do I get more information?

21. What if my address or other information has changed or changes after I submit a 

Form I-391?

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 134-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 76 of 105
-5-

1. Why did I get this notice?

You received this Notice because a Settlement has been reached in this Action. If you are a 

member of the Settlement Class you may be eligible for the relief detailed below.

This Notice explains the nature of the Action, the general terms of the proposed Settlement, and 

your legal rights and obligations. To obtain more information about the Settlement, including 

information about how you can see a copy of the Settlement Agreement (which defines certain 

capitalized terms used in this Notice), see Section 20 below. 

2. What is this lawsuit about?

Plaintiffs Juan Quintanilla Vasquez, Gabriela Perdomo Ortiz, Victor Hugo Catalan, and Kevin 

Calderon (the “Class Representatives”) filed a lawsuit against LBN on behalf of themselves and 

all others similarly situated. The lawsuit alleges LBN deceived consumers into believing, 

among other things, that LBN was their only option to leave detention, that the financial terms 

were manageable, that LBN could return them to detention, and that wearing an LBN ankle 

“bracelet” would not be onerous, when in fact the terms of LBN’s loans are alleged to be

onerous and exploitative. The lawsuit also alleges that LBN unlawfully charges its clients 

exorbitant fees to “lease” an ankle bracelet that is not required by law. Plaintiffs claim that as a 

result of LBN’s false and deceptive practices, consumers desperate for themselves or their loved 

ones to be released from immigration detention suffered money damages. 

LBN denies each and every one of the allegations of unlawful conduct, any wrongdoing, and 

any liability whatsoever, and believes its actions complied with applicable law. LBN has 

asserted many defenses it believes would succeed at trial. No court or other entity has made 

any judgment or other determination of any liability. LBN further denies that any Class 

Member is entitled to any relief and, other than for settlement purposes, that this Action is 

appropriate for certification as a class action. 

The issuance of this Notice is not an expression of the Court’s opinion on the merits or the 

lack of merits of the Representative Plaintiffs’ claims in the Action.

For information about how to learn about what has happened in the Action to date, please see

Section 20 below.

3. Why is this a class action?

In a class action lawsuit, one or more people called “Representative Plaintiff(s)” (in this Action,

Juan Quintanilla Vasquez, Gabriela Perdomo Ortiz, Victor Hugo Catalan Molina, and Kevin 

Calderon) sue on behalf of other people who allegedly have similar claims. For purposes of this 

proposed Settlement, one court will resolve the issues for all Class Members. The company 

sued in this case, LBN, is called the Defendant.

4. Why is there a Settlement?

The Representative Plaintiffs have made claims against LBN. LBN denies that it has done 

anything wrong or illegal and admits no liability. The Court has not decided that the Class 

Representatives or LBN should win this Action or any other pending action. Instead, both sides 

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 134-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 77 of 105
-6-

agreed to a Settlement. That way, they avoid the cost of a trial, and the Settlement Class 

Members will receive relief now rather than years from now, if at all.

5. How do I know if I am part of the Settlement?

1. The Court has decided that everyone who fits any of these descriptions is a Settlement Class 

Member for purposes of the proposed Settlement: 

 Settlement Class: All current or former LBN “program participants” and “sponsors” 

who paid, or caused to be paid on their behalf, a fee to LBN.

 Current Program Participant Payment Subclass: All current LBN “program 

participants” and “sponsors” who paid, or caused to be paid, or caused to be paid on 

their behalf, a fee to LBN.

 Former and Current Program Participant Payment Subclass: All former LBN “program 

participants” who paid, or caused to be paid on their behalf, a Program Payment to LBN 

and all current LBN program participants who, within six months of final approval of 

the settlement have been issued a Form I-391.

 Sponsor Payment Subclass: All sponsors of members of the Former and Current 

Program Participants Payments Subclass who paid a fee to LBN, including any initial 

payment or set up fee.

2. Excluded from the Settlement Class are individuals for whom LBN or any surety or bond 

company has paid a treasury invoice or the bond or for whom a demand for payment for breach 

of a bond has been made by the U.S. Government which remains outstanding or open. Also 

excluded from the Settlement Class are LBN and its current and former employees, the Court, 

the Court’s staff, and their families. All persons who properly execute and file a timely request 

for exclusion are also excluded from the Settlement Class.

6. I’m not sure if I am included.

If you are not sure whether you are included, you can visit the settlement website: 

www.lbnsettlement.com or contact your lawyers, who are identified in paragraph 10 below.

7. What relief does the Settlement provide to the Settlement Class Members?

The relief you are eligible for will depend on which Subclass you belong to. The Subclass 

definitions can be found above, in paragraph 5. 

Payments:

All members of the Former and Current Program Participant Payment Subclass or the Sponsor 

Payment Subclass who timely provide an I-391 to LBN or the Settlement Administrator, and 

who do not opt out of the Settlement, are entitled to receive a check or electronic payment to be 

issued by the Settlement Administrator from the Cash Settlement Amount. The Cash 

Settlement Amount is $750,000, to be funded by LBN. The attorneys’ fees and costs to be paid 

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 134-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 78 of 105
-7-

to Class Counsel, the awards to the Class Representatives for bringing this Action, and the costs 

of the Settlement Administrator for providing notice to the Settlement Class of the Settlement 

and administering the settlement, will not be subtracted from the Cash Settlement Amount. The 

actual amount of the cash settlement distributed to each Settlement Class Member will be 

determined by the number of eligible Settlement Class Members six months after final approval 

of the settlement and the number of eligible Settlement Class Members who cash or otherwise 

negotiate their checks or electronic payments. 

Debt Forgiveness:

All members of the Current Program Participant Payment Subclass, who do not opt out of the 

Settlement, will receive debt relief. The debt relief will consist of credits made to the accounts 

of current program participants for past due program fees due and owing as of the date the 

Plaintiffs file their motion for Preliminary Approval. 

The debt relief will amount to $3.2 million, minus the Cash Settlement Amount ($750,000), 

attorneys’ fees and costs to be paid to Class Counsel, and the awards to the Class 

Representatives for bringing this Action. Class Counsel intends to seek attorney’s fees and 

costs in the amount of 25% of the Settlement Amount, or $800,000, and service awards for the 

Class Representatives in the amount of $10,000 each, or $40,000 total. Thus, estimated debt 

relief provided to the Current Program Participant Payment Subclass is $1.6 million. The actual 

amount of credit provided to each Settlement Class Member will also depend on the number of 

eligible Settlement Class Members.

Discounts:

Members of the Current Program Participant Subclass who make three (3) consecutive monthly 

payments on time and in full will have their monthly recurring fee reduced by ten percent (10%)

going forward. For instance, if a participant makes three full and timely payments in February, 

March, and April, they are entitled to the 10% discount for May and June and the months 

afterward; for logistical reasons, LBN may not identify the participant until July or apply the 

discount until August, but the participant should be credited at the reduced rate for May and 

June (even if the participant made a late or partial payment those months).

Members of the Current Program Participant Subclass who make an additional three (3) 

consecutive monthly payments on time and in full (for a total of 6 consecutive on time and in 

full payments) will have their monthly recurring fee reduced going forward by a further ten 

percent (10%) from the original fee amount set for each program participant for a total of a 

twenty percent (20%) discount from their original recurring fee.

Furthermore, Members of the Current Program Participant Subclass who pay more than $420 in 

monthly recurring program fees, and who pay on time and in full by the first of the month, will

have their recurring fees for those months reduced to $415. For instance, if a Member of the 

Current Program Participant Subclass pays $475 in monthly recurring program fees, and that 

Subclass Member pays on time and in full on August 1, then that Subclass Members’ payment 

for the month of August will be $415. 

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 134-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 79 of 105
-8-

Cap on Payments:

LBN will change its policy so that a customer’s total monthly program payments – excluding 

the initial payment and set up fees – will not exceed the total amount of their immigration bond.

Non-Monetary Relief:

In addition to the monetary benefits described above, LBN will comply with the following

business practices:

 Translate its contract into Spanish and any other language for which there are at least 

5% program participants;

 Post written and audio versions of its contract, in Spanish, on its website;

 Ensure the contract terms are clear and concise;

 Use best efforts to mail the contract to program participants for review, prior to their 

release from ICE custody;

 Ensure that sponsors have sufficient opportunity to review the contract in their preferred 

language, consult with an attorney, and discuss the contract with the program 

participant;

 Provide prospective program participants with the LBN contract;

 Abstain from verbal or written threats to report any program participant, sponsor, or 

family member to ICE or otherwise threaten immigration detention, although LBN may 

continue to inform its customers of the potential consequences of failing to appear for 

hearings;

 Modify language in its contract regarding potential criminal prosecution for tampering 

with the ankle bracelet device;

 Provide fee waivers of at least $150,000 per year for financially distressed clients and 

provide forms for this program on its website;

 Remove a program participant’s ankle bracelet within 14 days of the program 

participant’s request to have it removed for pregnancy or medical necessity, if the 

participant presents to a LBN office, or within 60 days if the participant is not able to 

visit a LBN office.

 Discontinue the use of ankle bracelets for any program participant whose bond is under 

$7,500;

 Remove a program participant’s ankle bracelet and stop monthly payments upon 

verification that the program participant’s immigration removal case has been closed;

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 134-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 80 of 105
-9-

 Reduce the use of ankle bracelets generally, transition to an upgraded ankle bracelet that

does not require the wearer to be tethered to an electrical outlet while the device 

recharges by December 31, 2020, and transition to a wrist bracelet monitor or other 

similarly less intrusive monitor, such as cellular telephones or periodic check-ins, by 

December 31, 2021.

8. How can I get a Settlement payment?

If you are a member of the Former and Current Program Participant Payment Subclass or the 

Sponsor Payment Subclass, as defined in paragraph 5, and timely provide a Form I-391, you are 

entitled to receive a Settlement payment. If LBN already has a record of your receiving a Form 

I-391, you will be sent a payment under this Settlement unless you opt out. However, to be 

certain that LBN has received your Form I-391, you may wish to follow the instructions below 

to resubmit your Form. Also, your check will be sent to the last address on file with LBN so if 

you have changed addresses or are unsure if your current address is on file, please update your 

address by filling out the form at www.lbnsettlement.com/updateaddress. 

If LBN does not have a record of your receiving a Form I-391, you must submit a Form I-391 to 

LBN or the Settlement Administrator with six months of the date of final approval of the 

settlement. Otherwise, you will not receive any payment but may still receive debt relief, 

discounts, payment caps, and/or non-monetary relief as discussed below. You can send a copy 

of your Form I-391 to the Claims Administrator by mail to [address] or email to [administrator 

email address], or upload the form on the secure portal at [website address]. Instructions for 

submitting your Form I-391 are available at [website address]. 

9. When will I get a Settlement payment?

As described in Sections 17 and 18, the Court will hold a hearing on [Month] [Day], [Year] at 

[time], to decide whether to approve the Settlement. If the Court approves the Settlement, after 

that, there may be appeals. It’s always uncertain whether these appeals can be resolved, and 

resolving them can take time, perhaps more than a year. You can check on the progress of the 

case on the website dedicated to the Settlement at www.lbnsettlement.com. Please be patient.

10. Do I have a lawyer in this case?

The Court has ordered that the non-profit organization Centro Legal de la Raza, and the law 

firms of Migliaccio & Rathod LLP and Tycko & Zavareei LLP, (“Class Counsel”) will 

represent the interests of all Settlement Class Members. You can contact your lawyers by email 

at: info@classlawdc.com or by phone at 202-470-3520. You will not be separately charged for 

these lawyers. If you want to be represented by your own lawyer, you may hire one at your 

own expense. 

11. How will the lawyers be paid?

Class Counsel will petition the Court to receive attorneys’ fees and costs up to 25% of the $3.2 

million Settlement Amount, or $800,000 (total). The Court will make the final decision as to 

the amount to be paid to the attorneys for their fees and costs. You will not be required to 

separately pay any attorneys’ fees or costs.

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 134-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 81 of 105
-10-

12. Will the Class Representatives receive any compensation for their efforts?

The Class Representatives will request a service award of up to $10,000 (each), or $40,000 

total, for their services as class representatives and their efforts in bringing the Action. The 

Court will make the final decision as to the amount to be paid to the Class Representatives. 

13. What am I giving up to obtain relief under the Settlement?

If the Court approves the proposed Settlement, unless you exclude yourself from the Settlement, 

you will be releasing your claims against LBN. This generally means that you will not be able 

to file a lawsuit, continue prosecuting a lawsuit, or be part of any other lawsuit against LBN

regarding the allegations in the Action, as of the date of final approval of the Settlement. The 

Settlement Agreement, available on the Internet at the website www.lbnsettlement.com contains 

the full terms of the release.

14. How do I exclude myself from the Settlement?

You may exclude yourself from the Settlement Class and the Settlement. If you want to be 

excluded, send a letter or postcard to the Settlement Administrator that must: (i) state the name 

and case number of the Action; (ii) include your name, address, and telephone number; (iii) be 

personally signed and dated by you; and (iv) contain a clear request that you would like to “opt 

out” or be excluded, by use of those or other words clearly indicating a desire not to participate 

in the Settlement. The letter or postcard must be postmarked no later than [Month] [Day], 

[Year] and sent to the Settlement Administrator at: 

Vasquez et al. v. Libre by Nexus Settlement

c/o _________________________

[Address]

[City] [State], [Zip Code]

If you timely request exclusion from the Settlement Class, you will be excluded from the 

Settlement Class, you will not be bound by the judgment entered in the Action, and you will not 

be precluded from prosecuting any timely, individual claim against LBN based on the conduct 

complained of in the Action.

15. How do I tell the Court that I disagree with the Settlement?

At the date, time, and location stated in Section 18 below, the Court will hold a Fairness 

Hearing to determine if the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate, and to also consider the 

attorneys’ who initiated the Action’s request for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs, and a 

service award to the Class Representatives.

If you wish to object to the fairness, reasonableness, or adequacy of the Settlement Agreement 

or the proposed Settlement, you must submit the objection no later than (i.e., postmarked by) 

[Month] [Day], [Year] to the Settlement Administrator at:

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 134-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 82 of 105
-11-

Vasquez et al. v. Libre by Nexus Settlement

c/o _________________________

[Address]

[City] [State], [Zip Code]

Any written objections must: (i) state the name and case number of the Action; (ii) state the 

objector’s intention to object to the Settlement and/or appear at the Final Approval Hearing to 

make an objection to the Settlement on the record; (iii) include the objecting Settlement Class 

Member’s name, address, and telephone number; (iv) be personally signed and dated by the 

objecting Settlement Class Member; (v) state each objection and the specific legal and factual 

bases for each; (vi) include information sufficient to show that the objector is a member of the 

Settlement Class. The objection will not be valid if it only objects to the lawsuit’s 

appropriateness or merits. You may, but need not, submit your objection through counsel of 

your choice. If you do make your objection through an attorney, you will be responsible for 

your personal attorney’s fees and costs. 

IF YOU DO NOT TIMELY MAKE YOUR OBJECTION, YOU WILL BE DEEMED TO 

HAVE WAIVED ALL OBJECTIONS AND WILL NOT BE ENTITLED TO SPEAK AT 

THE FAIRNESS HEARING. 

If you intend to appear at the Fairness Hearing through counsel, you must also identify the 

attorney(s) representing you who will appear at the Fairness Hearing and include the attorney(s) 

name, address, phone number, e-mail address, and the state bar(s) to which counsel is admitted. 

Also, if you intend to request the Court to allow you to call witnesses at the Fairness Hearing, 

such request must be made in your written brief, which must also contain a list of any such 

witnesses and a summary of each witness’ expected testimony.

16. What is the difference between excluding myself and objecting to the Settlement?

Objecting is simply telling the Court that you disagree with something about the Settlement. 

You can object only if you stay in the Settlement Class. Excluding yourself is telling the Court 

that you don’t want to be part of the Settlement Class. If you exclude yourself, you have no 

basis to object because the Settlement no longer affects you.

17. What is the Fairness Hearing?

The Court has preliminarily approved the Settlement and will hold a hearing to decide whether 

to give final approval to the Settlement. The purpose of the Fairness Hearing will be for the 

Court to determine whether the Settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable, adequate, 

and in the best interests of the Settlement Class; to consider the award of attorneys’ fees and 

expenses to the attorneys who initiated the Action; and to consider the request for a service 

award to the Class Representatives. 

18. When and where is the Fairness Hearing? 

On [Month] [Day], [Year] at [time], a hearing will be held on the fairness of the proposed 

Settlement. At the hearing, the Court will be available to hear any objections and arguments 

concerning the proposed Settlement’s fairness. The hearing will take place before the 

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 134-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 83 of 105
-12-

Honorable Judge Claudia Wilken, Oakland Federal Courthouse, 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, 

California 94612, Second Floor, Courtroom 6, on _______, 2020, at ____am/pm. The hearing 

may be postponed to a different date or time or location without notice. Please check 

www.lbnsettlement.com for any updates about the Settlement generally or the Fairness Hearing 

specifically. If the date or time of the Fairness Hearing changes, an update to the Settlement 

website will be the only way you will be informed of the change.

19. May I speak at the hearing?

At that hearing, the Court will be available to hear any objections and arguments concerning the 

fairness of the Settlement. You may attend, but you do not have to. If you have requested 

exclusion from the Settlement, however, you may not speak at the Fairness Hearing.

20. How do I get more information?

To see a copy of the Settlement Agreement, the Court’s Preliminary Approval Order, the 

application for attorneys’ fees and costs, and the operative complaint filed in the Action, please 

visit the Settlement website located at: www.lbnsettlement.com. Alternatively, you may 

contact the Settlement Administrator at the email address [xxxx]@[xxxx].com or the U.S. 

postal (mailing) address: [Address] [City], [State], [Zip Code].

This description of this Action is general and does not cover all of the issues and proceedings 

that have occurred. In order to see the complete file you should visit www.lbnsettlement.com

or the Clerk’s office at 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, California 94612. The Clerk will tell you 

how to obtain the file for inspection and copying at your own expense.

21. What if my address or other information has changed or changes after I submit a 

Claim Form?

It is your responsibility to inform the Settlement Administrator of your updated information. 

You may do so at the address below:

Vasquez et al. v. Libre by Nexus Settlement

c/o _________________________

[Address]

[City] [State], [Zip Code]

****

DO NOT ADDRESS ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE SETTLEMENT OR THE 

LITIGATION TO THE CLERK OF THE COURT OR THE JUDGE.

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 134-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 84 of 105
Exhibit E

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 134-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 85 of 105
Text Message Notice

This message is authorized by the United States District Court for the Northern District of 

California in Vasquez v. Libre by Nexus, Inc., Case No. 4:17-cv-00755-CW. IF YOU PAID 

LIBRE BY NEXUS IN CONNECTION WITH RELEASE FROM IMMIGRATION 

DETENTION, FOR YOURSELF OR AS A SPONSOR OF ANOTHER PERSON YOU MAY 

BE ENTITLED TO RECEIVE A PAYMENT, DEBT FORGIVENESS, OR OTHER RELIEF 

FROM A CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT. YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED. CLICK 

HERE FOR MORE INFORMATION.

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 134-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 86 of 105
Exhibit F

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 134-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 87 of 105
Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 134-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 88 of 105
Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 134-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 89 of 105
Exhibit G

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 134-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 90 of 105
LEGAL NOTICE LEGAL NOTICE

What is the lawsuit about? The name of the lawsuit is Vazquez et al. v. Libre by Nexus, Inc., Case No. 4:17-cv-00755-CW, pending in the 

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The lawsuit alleges Libre by Nexus (LBN) deceived consumers into believing, 

among other things, that LBN was their only option to leave detention, that the financial terms were manageable, that LBN could return 

them to detention, and that wearing an LBN ankle “bracelet” would not be onerous, when in fact the terms of LBN’s loans are onerous 

and exploitative. LBN denies all wrongdoing. The Court has not decided who is right. 

You received this notice because LBN’s records indicate you may be a Class Member. You are included in the Settlement Class if you 

meet any of the following descriptions: Current Program Participant Payment Subclass: All current LBN program participants and 

sponsors who paid, or caused to be paid, or caused to be paid on their behalf, a fee to LBN; Former and Current Program Participant 

Payments Subclass: All former LBN program participants who paid, or caused to be paid on their behalf, a Program Payment to LBN and 

all current LBN program participants who, within six months of final approval of the settlement have been issued a Form I-391; Sponsor 

Payments Subclass: All sponsors of members of the Former and Current Program Participants Payments Subclass who paid a fee to LBN, 

including any initial payment or set up fee.

What are your options? If you are a Class Member, you must choose whether to stay in the Settlement Class. If you stay in the 

Settlement Class, and money or benefits are obtained, you will be notified about how you can share in any benefits for which you are 

eligible. You will be bound by all orders and judgments of the Court, whether favorable or not, and you won’t be able to sue LBN for the 

claims at issue in this case. If you want to stay in the Settlement Class, YOU DO NOT HAVE TO DO ANYTHING NOW.

To exclude yourself from the lawsuit, you must send a letter asking to be excluded. Instructions for making this request can be found at 

the website or by calling the toll-free number below. You must mail your exclusion request postmarked by [DATE]. If you exclude 

yourself, you cannot get any money or benefits from this lawsuit, but you will not be bound by any orders or judgments in this case. If you

do not request exclusion, you may (but do not have to) enter an appearance in the Court through your own counsel. Detailed information 

is available at the website and toll-free number listed below.

www.XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX.com • 1-XXX-XXX-XXXX

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 134-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 91 of 105
EXHIBIT 2 

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 134-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 92 of 105
412 H St NE / Washington, D.C. 20002

(202) 470-3520 / www.classlawdc.com

SUMMARY

The attorneys at Migliaccio & Rathod LLP (“M&R”) have decades of experience in 

complex civil litigation and have successfully prosecuted a number of noteworthy consumer 

protection, environmental contamination, civil rights, privacy, and wage theft. The firm’s 

attorneys, located in Washington D.C. and California, focus primarily on class or collective 

actions and take all of their cases on a contingent basis. The attorneys at the firm have litigated 

cases leading to recoveries of hundreds of millions of dollars in recoveries for consumers, 

workers, and other victims of corporate misconduct. M&R has a track record of investing the 

time, energy, and resources necessary to develop cases which implicate significant economic, 

societal, and health concerns. 

NOTABLE MATTERS AND SUCCESSES

o Young v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 693 F.3d 532, 535 (6th Cir. 2012). Represented classes of 

insureds against several major insurance companies for the failure to use technological 

advances in verifying the addresses of insureds, leading to overcharges. Litigation culminated 

in several multi-million dollar settlements. 

o Matthews v. TCL Communications et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-95 (W.D.N.C.). Represented

plaintiffs in a class action brought on behalf of purchasers of Alcatel OneTouch Idol 3 

smartphones who alleged that a firmware update removed Band 12 LTE functionality from 

their phones, greatly reducing their functionality. Served as Court-appointed class counsel in 

a class action settlement which provided class members with either the reinstatement of Band 

12 LTE functionality on their phones, or new phones with LTE Band 12 functionality.

o In re: JUUL Labs, Inc. Products Litigation, Case No. 3:18-cv-02499 (N.D. Cal.) M&R was 

appointed as co-lead interim class counsel in action brought on behalf of a nationwide class 

arising from marketing and sale of electronic cigarettes by JUUL, the world’s largest ecigarette manufacturer, which is valued at several billions of dollars. 

o Wheeler et al. v. Lenovo (United States) Inc., Case No. 13-0007150 (D.C. Sup. Ct.) and 

Kacsuta v. Lenovo (United States), Inc., Case No. 13-00316 (C.D. Cal.). Represented plaintiffs 

in a class action brought on behalf of purchasers of Lenovo laptops that suffered from Wi-Fi 

connectivity problems. Served among the Court-appointed class counsel in a nationwide 

settlement where Lenovo agreed to refund $100 cash or issue a $250 voucher (which required 

no purchase to use) to owners of the laptops.

o Camara, et al. v. Mastro’s Restaurants LLC, Case No. 1:18-cv-00724 (D.D.C.). M&R is lead 

counsel in a conditionally certified nationwide collective action lawsuit on behalf of servers 

who were allegedly not paid minimum wage. 

o Valsartan N-Nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA) Products Liability Litigation, MDL Case No:

1:19-md-02875-RBK-JS (D.N.J.). Represent plaintiffs in multi-district litigation arising from 

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 134-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 93 of 105
2

worldwide recalls of generic Valsartan that had been found to be contaminated with probable 

human carcinogens. M&R was appointed to the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee and serves as 

co-chair of the medical monitoring committee. 

o Adeli v. Silverstar Automotive, Inc., Case No. 5:17-cv-05224 (W.D. Ark.). M&R was co-lead 

trial counsel in this individual consumer fraud suit for economic losses that resulted in a trial 

verdict of over $5.8 million, the vast majority of which was in punitive damages (judgment 

later reduced to $533,622, inclusive of a reduced but sizable punitive damages amount, which 

was affirmed by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals). 

o Nelson v. Sabre Companies LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-0314 (N.D.N.Y.). M&R was lead counsel 

in this nationwide collective action that settled for $2.1 million on behalf of oil and gas workers

for unpaid overtime. 

o Fath et al. v. Honda North America, Inc., Case No. 0:18-cv-01549 (D. Minn.). M&R is serving 

on the Plaintiff Steering Committee in this putative nationwide action arising from Honda’s 

alleged manufacture, design, marketing and sale of vehicles with an oil dilution defect. 

o Beture v. Samsung Electronics America, Case No. 17-cv-05757 (D.N.J.). M&R was appointed 

as co-lead interim class counsel in action brought on behalf of a nationwide class arising from 

a hardware defect affecting hundreds of thousands of Samsung Galaxy Note 4 smartphones. 

o Restaino et al. v. Mario Badescu, Inc., Case No. MID-L-5830-14 (N.J. Super. Ct.). 

Represented 36 individuals who had become physically addicted to undisclosed corticosteroids 

in a purportedly botanical face cream, and sought damages for personal injuries arising from 

the symptoms of topical steroid withdrawal. After three years of litigation, the case settled for 

significant relief to the plaintiffs. 

o Peppler, et al. v. Postmates, Inc., Case No. 2015 CA 006560 (D.C. Sup. Ct.) and Singer, et al. 

v. Postmates, Inc., 4:15-cv-01284-JSW (N.D. Cal.). Represented plaintiffs in a wage theft 

class action against application-based courier startup company, alleging that the couriers were 

misclassified as independent contractors. M&R was named class counsel in the settlement 

agreement providing for $8.75 million in relief to a nationwide class.

o Bland v. Calfrac Well Services, Case No. 2:12-cv-01407 (W.D. Pa.). Represented oil field 

workers in a nationwide collective and class action lawsuit against Defendant Calfrac Well 

Services for its alleged failure to properly pay overtime to its field operators. After extensive 

litigation, the case settled for $6 million, which provided a gross recovery per class member of 

between $250 and approximately $11,500.

o Walsh et al. v. Globalstar, Inc., Case No. 3:07-cv-01941 (N.D. Cal.), represented Globalstar 

satellite telephone service customers who brought claims that Globalstar knew that it was 

experiencing failures in its satellite constellation and its satellite service was rapidly 

deteriorating and was no longer useful for its intended purpose, yet failed to disclose this 

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 134-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 94 of 105
3

information to its potential and existing customers. Served as Court-appointed class counsel 

in a nationwide settlement that provided an assortment of benefit options, including, but not 

limited to, monetary account credits, free minutes, or cash back for returned equipment. 

o Snodgrass v. Bob Evans, Case No. 2:12-cv-768 (S.D. Ohio). Represented Bob Evans’ Assistant 

Managers in a case alleging that Bob Evans, a restaurant chain with hundreds of locations 

predominantly in the Midwest, had misclassified its Assistant Managers as exempt from 

federal and state overtime laws. After a landmark ruling on the application of the so-called 

“fluctuating workweek” method of payment, the lawsuit settled for $16.5 million. The gross 

recovery per class member was approximately $6,380. In issuing its order approving the 

settlement, the court took special note of the “competence of class counsel in prosecuting this 

complex litigation.”

o Delandro v. County of Allegheny, Case No. 06-927 (W.D. Pa.). Represented pre-trial detainees 

who were subjected to unlawful strip searches prior to their admission at Allegheny County 

Jail, located in Pittsburgh, PA. After winning class certification, partial summary judgment on 

liability, and an injunction, the case settled for $3 million.

o Nnadili v. Chevron, Case No. 02-1620 (D.D.C.). Represented owners and residents of 

properties in the District of Columbia that were contaminated with gasoline constituents from 

leaking underground storage tanks that were installed by Chevron. The plaintiffs, who resided 

in over 200 properties in the Riggs Park neighborhood of Northeast Washington, D.C., alleged 

that Chevron’s contamination interfered with the use and enjoyment of their property, impacted 

their property values, constituted a trespass on their land, and caused fear and emotional 

distress. The United States Environmental Protection Agency conducted an extensive 

investigation into the contamination. After approximately five years of litigation, the case 

settled for $6.2 million.

o Corbin v. CFRA, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-00405 (M.D.N.C.). Represented 1,520 servers in 

collective action against major IHOP franchise for wage theft violations, culminating in $1.725 

million settlement. 

o Craig v. Rite Aid, Case No. 4:08-CV-2317 (M.D. Pa.). Represented Rite Aid Assistant 

Managers in a case alleging that Rite Aid had misclassified its Assistant Managers as exempt 

from federal and state overtime laws. Plaintiffs alleged that their primary duties involved 

manual labor such as loading and unloading boxes, stocking shelves, cashiering and other 

duties which are not exempt under federal and state overtime laws. After extensive litigation, 

the case settled for $20.9 million, covering over 1,900 current and former assistant store 

managers. In issuing its order approving the settlement, the court stated that the settlement 

“represents an excellent and optimal settlement award for the Class Members” resulting from 

“diligent, exhaustive, and well-informed negotiations.”

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 134-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 95 of 105
4

o Ousmane v. City of New York, Case No. 402648/04 (NY Sup. Ct.). Represented New York 

City street vendors in a pro bono class action suit against the City of New York for excessive 

fines and helped secure a settlement with a value of over $1 million.

o Stillman v. Staples, Case No. 07-849 (D.N.J.). Represented Staples Assistant Managers in Fair 

Labor Standards Act Claims for unpaid overtime. Served as a member of the trial team where 

the plaintiffs won a nearly $2.5 million verdict against Staples for unpaid overtime on behalf 

of 342 sales managers after a six-week jury trial. After the verdict, nearly a dozen wage and 

hour cases against Staples from across the country were consolidated in a multi-district 

litigation. Served in a central role in the consolidated litigation, which lasted nearly two years 

after the Stillman verdict. The consolidated litigation ultimately settled for $42 million.

o In re National Security Agency Telecommunications Records Litigation, Case No. 3:06-md01791 (N.D. Cal.). Represented Sprint subscribers in privacy suit against telecom companies 

to enjoin the alleged disclosure to the National Security Agency of telephone calling records. 

Appointed, with co-counsel, interim lead counsel for the Sprint subscriber class in the MDL 

proceedings. The litigation was ultimately dismissed after Congress granted retroactive 

immunity to the telecom companies.

ATTORNEYS

Nicholas A. Migliaccio

Nicholas Migliaccio has been practicing for over 16 years, and litigates across the firm’s 

practice areas. He has successfully prosecuted numerous noteworthy class and mass action cases

over the course of his career, and has been appointed class counsel in both litigation and 

settlement classes. He has been recognized by his peers as a Superlawyer in 2016 - 2019.

Mr. Migliaccio graduated from the State University of New York at Binghamton in 1997 

(B.A., cum laude in Environmental Studies and Philosophy) and received his law degree from 

Georgetown University Law Center in 2001, where he was an Editor of the Georgetown 

International Environmental Law Review. 

Notable Cases Include:

• Represented assistant managers in a Fair Labor Standards Act misclassification case and 

served as a member of the trial team for a six-week jury trial that resulted in a $2.5 

plaintiffs’ verdict. After the verdict, nearly a dozen wage and hour cases against the 

defendant from across the country were consolidated in a multi-district litigation. Served 

in a central role in the consolidated litigation, which ultimately settled for $42 million.

• Represented worker class in wage theft assistant manager misclassification case against 

national restaurant chain that culminated in a $16.5 million settlement

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 134-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 96 of 105
5

• Represented worker class in wage theft rate miscalculation case against multinational 

fracking company, resulting in $6 million settlement

• Represented plaintiffs in a consumer class in defective laptop case against multinational 

computer manufacturer, resulting in a nationwide settlement where defendant agreed to 

refund $100 cash or issue a $250 voucher (which required no purchase to use) to owners 

of the laptops.

• Represented pre-trial detainees who were subjected to unlawful strip searches prior to their 

admission at Allegheny County Jail, located in Pittsburgh, PA. After winning class 

certification, partial summary judgment on liability, and an injunction, the case settled for 

$3 million.

• Represented owners and residents of properties in the District of Columbia that were 

contaminated with gasoline constituents from leaking underground storage tanks that were 

installed by a major oil company. The plaintiffs alleged that the contamination interfered 

with the use and enjoyment of their property, impacted their property values, constituted a 

trespass on their land, and caused fear and emotional distress. After extensive litigation, 

the case settled for $6.2 million.

• Represented New York City street vendors in a pro bono class action suit against the City 

of New York for excessive fines and helped secure a settlement with a value of over $1 

million.

Admissions:

• New York

• Washington, D.C. 

• United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

• United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

• United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

• United States District Court for the District of Colorado

• United States District Court for the District of Columbia

• United States District Court for the District of Maryland

• United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan

• United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York

• United States District Court for the Northern District of New York

• United States District Court for the Southern District of New York

• United States District Court for the Western District of New York

• United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania

Education:

• Georgetown University Law Center, J.D., 2001

• State University of New York at Binghamton, BA, 1997

Publications and Speaking Engagements:

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 134-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 97 of 105
6

• Co-authored “Environmental Contamination Treatise: Overview of the Litigation 

Process,” in R. Simons, Ph.D, When Bad Things Happen to Good Property 

(Environmental Law Institute, 2005).

• Presentation on The Motor Carrier Act Exception to the FLSA’s Overtime Provisions -

13(b)(1) and the SAFETEA-LU Amendments, Worker’s Injury Litigation Group / Ohio 

Association of Justice Meeting, Winter 2014.

• Presentation on Litigating Fair Labor Standards Act Collective Action Cases, Worker’s 

Injury Litigation Group / Ohio Association of Justice Convention, Fall 2011.

Awards:

• SuperLawyers, 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 134-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 98 of 105
7

Jason S. Rathod

Jason Rathod litigates class actions across the firm’s areas of practice, including 

consumer protection, worker rights, and civil rights. Mr. Rathod has been appointed class 

counsel in a number of noteworthy class actions. He has been the principal brief writer in several 

critical submissions, before trial and appellate courts, that resulted in favorable rulings 

concerning class certification and summary judgment. He was also co-lead trial counsel in an 

individual auto fraud case involving economic losses in which the jury returned a plaintiff 

verdict on all counts and awarded millions of dollars in punitive damages (later reduced on 

remittitur but to a sizable sum). 

Mr. Rathod has been recognized as a leader in his field beyond the courtroom. He is the 

author of several published works, including a law review article on aggregate litigation in poor 

countries. Another recent law review article that he co-authored, comparing public and private 

enforcement in the United State and Europe, was cited by the Consumer Financial Protection 

Bureau in its proposed rule prohibiting class action waivers in the fine print of consumer 

contracts.

Mr. Rathod graduated from Grinnell College in 2006 (B.A. with honors in Political 

Science and Religious Studies). After college, he traveled to Fiji, Mauritius, South Africa, 

Trinidad & Tobago, Guyana, and Suriname on a Watson Fellowship, studying the Indian 

Diaspora. He graduated law school from the Duke University School of Law in 2010, where he 

was an Articles Editor of the Duke Law Journal. In law school, he also worked for the SelfEmployed Women’s Association in Ahmedabad, India on behalf of street vendors seeking an 

injunction against the city government for unlawful harassment and evictions.

Notable Cases Include:

• Representing consumer classes in insurance overcharge cases, including by drafting 

appellate briefs about the propriety of class certification. The Sixth Circuit Court of 

Appeals affirmed order for the classes 3-0, leading to several multi-million-dollar 

settlements;

• Representing consumer in consumer fraud trial for economic losses that resulted in 

verdict for the Plaintiff on all counts and a multimillion dollar punitive damages award 

(later reduced on remittitur, but still totaling in the hundreds of thousands of dollars);

• Representing consumer class at trial in product defect class action; 

• Representing worker class in wage theft assistant manager misclassification case against 

national restaurant chain that culminated in a $16.5 million settlement;

• Representing worker class and collective against multinational startup company for 

Independent contractor misclassification claims, resulting in $8.75 million settlement;

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 134-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 99 of 105
8

• Representing worker class in wage theft rate miscalculation case against multinational 

fracking company, resulting in $6 million settlement;

• Representing over 1,500 servers in multistate collective action, resulting in $1.72 million 

settlement; 

• Representing consumer class in defective laptop case against multinational computer 

manufacturer; and

• Representing consumer class in defective construction case against multinational home 

builder, drafting key briefs leading to class certification and maintenance of suit in court, 

rather than arbitration.

Education:

• Duke University School of Law, J.D. 2010

• Grinnell College, B.A., 2006

Admissions:

• Illinois

• Washington, D.C.

• United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

• United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

• United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

• United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

• United States District Court for the District of Columbia

• United States District Court for the District of Maryland

• United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania

• United States District Court for the District of Colorado

• United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan

Publications and Speaking Engagements:

• The Arc and Architecture of Private Enforcement Regimes in the United States and 

Europe: A View Across the Atlantic, 14 U.N.H. L. Rev. 303 (2016) (co-authored)

• Trying the Class Action: Practical Tips from the Pros (June 4, 2015) (panelist)

• Emerging Markets, Vanishing Accountability: How Populations in Poor Countries Can 

Use Aggregate Litigation to Vindicate Their Rights, 24 Transnat’l L. & Contemp. Probs. 

69 (2014)

• Note: Not Peace, But a Sword: Navy v. Egan and the Case Against Judicial Abdication in 

Foreign Affairs, 59 Duke L.J. 595 (2009)

Awards:

• SuperLawyers Rising Stars, 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2020

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 134-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 100 of 105
9

Esfand Y. Nafisi

Esfand Nafisi worked for several years at a corporate law firm before joining the 

plaintiffs’ bar. During that time, he quickly demonstrated an aptitude for high-stakes trial work 

and innovation in complex electronic discovery, including the development of statistical 

sampling models, database discovery, and marshaling these tools to develop trial theory. As part 

of a trial team in an antitrust matter brought on behalf of a small corporation, Esfand was 

responsible for managing a team of seven attorneys, preparing witness examinations, creating 

trial demonstratives, and developing case theory and themes. Esfand also represented a Fortune 

100 company in parallel criminal investigations from the U.S. Department of Justice, U.S. Postal 

Inspectors, numerous states’ attorneys general, and FinCEN. In that matter, he played an 

extensive role, including managing a group of 32 attorneys, developed technology-assisted 

review protocols that were vetted and approved by DOJ officials, and developing and drafting 

presentations for high-ranking meetings in a matter that resulted in $100,000,000 settlement. 

Now, as an advocate for consumers and others impacted by corporate misconduct, Mr. 

Nafisi’s practice focuses on class actions, with a focus on corporate misconduct arising from 

emerging or new technologies. 

Notable Cases Include:

• Represented corporate plaintiff in antitrust litigation that settled at trial for $125,000,000.

Insignia Sys. V. News America Marketing In-Store, Case No. 04-cv-4213 (D. Minn.).

• Represented Fortune 500 company in parallel wire fraud and money laundering 

investigations by federal authorities, which settled on favorable terms. 

• Represented consumers in case alleging unlawful concealment of defective graphical 

processing units that led to nationwide repair and reimbursement program. Book v. Apple, 

Case No. 14-cv-04746 (N.D. Cal.).

• Represented three dozen individuals in consolidated personal injury action arising from 

undisclosed corticosteroids in an over-the-counter face cream. Worked closely with leading 

experts to develop theory of injury arising from topical steroid withdrawal. After three 

years of litigation, achieved more than $16,000,000 in relief to 36 plaintiffs. Restaino et al. 

v. Mario Badescu, Inc., Case No. MID-L-5830-14 (N.J. Super. Ct.).

• Represented consumers in case against NVIDIA, Inc. related to misrepresentations 

concerning performance of graphics cards. 

Education: 

• Northwestern University School of Law, J.D. 2009

• George Mason University, B.S., 2006

Admissions: 

• California

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 134-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 101 of 105
10

• New York

• Washington, D.C. 

• United States District Court for the Northern District of California

• United States District Court for the Eastern District of California

• United States District Court for the District of Columbia

Publications and Speaking Engagements: 

• Daubert and its Discontents 76 BROOK. L. REV. 131 (2010) (co-authored)

• Developing Case Theory in Complex Litigations, New York (2011) 

• Of Wheat and Chaff: Predictive Coding in Federal Biomet Case, 159 Chicago Daily Law 

Bulletin 101 (May 22, 2013)

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 134-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 102 of 105
11

Erick Quezada

Prior to joining Migliaccio & Rathod, LLP, Mr. Quezada worked as Legal Fellow at a 

plaintiff-side employment litigation firm where he served as an advocate for employees facing 

discrimination, retaliation, and wage theft. Erick has written briefs resulting in favorable 

summary judgment rulings and examined witnesses in arbitration. As part of Migliaccio & 

Rathod LLP, Mr. Quezada strives to represent those marginalized and exploited by unlawful 

corporate practices.

Mr. Quezada graduated from Washington State University in 2013, receiving a B.A., 

magna cum laude, in Political Science and Criminal Justice System Studies. He received his J.D. 

from the Georgetown University Law Center in 2017, where he served as an editor for the Tax 

Lawyer, Georgetown’s tax focused journal published by the ABA. While attending law school, 

Mr. Quezada worked as a research assistant with a focus in consumer protection and critical race 

theory literature. Throughout his second and third years of law school, Mr. Quezada provided 

litigation support to his professor working on the General Motors Ignitions Switch Defect 

litigation. 

Notable Cases Include:

• Assisted in the representation of consumers in the ongoing General Motors Ignitions 

Switch MDL 

Education:

• Georgetown University Law Center, J.D., 2017

• Washington State University, B.A., 2013

Admissions:

• Washington, D.C.

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 134-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 103 of 105
12

Ashley M. Pileika 

As an associate at Migliaccio & Rathod LLP, Ms. Pileika’s practice focuses on complex 

class and collective actions on behalf of those harmed by corporate or governmental wrongdoing. 

Ms. Pileika has represented a wide range of clients in disputes involving unfair business 

practices, wage theft, pharmaceutical injuries, data privacy breaches, and unconstitutional 

detentions. She has extensive experience in all aspects of state and federal litigation, including 

motion practice and discovery.

Prior to joining Migliaccio & Rathod LLP, Ms. Pileika completed a fellowship with the 

Office of the Attorney General for the state of Connecticut in the Civil Rights and Torts 

Division. Ms. Pileika graduated with highest honors from the University of North Carolina at 

Chapel Hill with a B.S. in Business Administration and a minor in Social and Economic Justice. 

She received her J.D. from Notre Dame Law School, where she served as Senior Articles Editor 

for the Notre Dame Journal of Legislation and Co-President of the Hispanic Law Students 

Association. In addition to clerking for Migliaccio & Rathod LLP, while in law school, Ms. 

Pileika externed for several public defender offices including the Public Defender Service for the 

District of Columbia (P.D.S.) and the Federal Public Defender for the Eastern District of 

California. Ms. Pileika also spent a summer at the U.S. Embassy in Bogotá, Colombia assisting 

the Judicial Attaché on operations involving national security, international law, and diplomacy.

Notable Cases Include:

• Assisted in representing a certified class of 400 detainees whose constitutional rights

were violated by the Montgomery County Jail in Montgomery County, New York. After 

winning class certification and defeating the County’s motion for summary judgment, a 

preliminary settlement of $1 million has been reached by the parties. 

• Assisted in deposing and defending six expert witnesses and drafting a Daubert motion to 

admit expert witnesses on general causation in a pharmaceutical injury case against 

Forest Pharmaceuticals, Inc. on behalf of mothers who took Lexapro during pregnancy 

and gave birth to children with neurodevelopmental damage. 

• Assisted in representing 1,520 servers in collective action against major IHOP franchise 

for wage theft violations, culminating in $1.725 million settlement. 

Education:

• Notre Dame Law School, J.D., 2018

• University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, B.S., 2012

Admissions:

• Washington, D.C.

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 134-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 104 of 105
13

• New York 

• United States District Court for the Southern District of New York

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 134-1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 105 of 105