UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

AMRO HEGAB, individually and on behalf of all 

other persons similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

v.

FAMILY DOLLAR STORES, INC., 

Defendant.

Civil Action No. 11-cv-01206 (CCC)(JAD)

ELECTRONICALLY FILED

DECLARATION OF SETH R. LESSER

1. I am a partner in Klafter Olsen & Lesser LLP and I, with co-counsel, represent the 

Plaintiffs and the Class as putative Settlement Class Counsel. I am fully familiar with the facts 

and circumstances set forth herein, and I make this Declaration in support of the parties’ Joint 

Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Agreement, as well as for the sending of notice 

and the scheduling of a Final Approval Hearing. 

2. Plaintiff worked as a store manager (“SM”) for Family Dollar in New Jersey. In 

March 2011, he filed the instant action alleging that defendant misclassified its store managers in 

New Jersey as exempt from state overtime requirements and seeking unpaid overtime 

compensation on behalf of himself and all salaried store managers employed at Family Dollar 

stores in New Jersey at any time since March 3, 2009, the beginning of the limitations period.

3. In June 2012, this action was stayed upon request of the parties to provide an 

opportunity to mediate. This mediation initially was scheduled in conjunction with mediation in 

the parallel New York actions, Youngblood, et. al. v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc. et al., No. 09-cv3176, and Rancharan v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc., No. 10-cv-7580. These consolidated federal 

Case 2:11-cv-01206-CCC-JAD Document 49-1 Filed 06/06/14 Page 1 of 5 PageID: 430
2

actions were brought under New York Labor Law and involved similar claims to the claims here: 

that store managers in New York were misclassified as exempt under New York law. By the time 

of the mediation, Rancharan and Youngblood involved extensive discovery, including the 

exchange of 200,000 pages of materials and 31 depositions and significant briefing of the class 

certification issue. The suits were on a trial-ready track at the time that extensive settlement 

negotiations were undertaken, negotiations that spanned months and multiple mediation and 

negotiation sessions. 

4. On June 7, 2013, the district court approved settlement of these actions in New 

York. Youngblood v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc., 09-cv-3176 (S.D.N.Y.) (ECF. No. 162) (Exhibit

A attached hereto). As a result of these actions, counsel – on both sides of the case –became 

intimately familiar with their respective claims and defenses. This information, along with 

information obtained in the instant litigation, provided the parties with significant evidence of the 

manner in which Family Dollar operates its retail stores in New Jersey, actual job duties that 

store managers perform, and the opportunity to evaluate the strength of the claims if this action 

proceeded to trial. Following the final approval of the settlement in Youngblood/Rancharan, the 

negotiation efforts in this action became more serious and ultimately led to the settlement now 

being proposed.

5. In addition to the work undertaken in Youngblood/Rancharan, the parties here, 

before the stay was entered, engaged in discovery; Family Dollar took the deposition of plaintiff 

and both parties served and responded to written discovery requests and produced thousands of 

pages of materials including, among many other things, job descriptions, personnel files, 

company policies, store schematics, corporate email correspondence, and pay records. 

Case 2:11-cv-01206-CCC-JAD Document 49-1 Filed 06/06/14 Page 2 of 5 PageID: 431
3

6. The parties had discussions over discovery issues and various motions were being 

considered by both sides at the time the stay was entered. Counsel for both parties also spent 

considerable time investigating the claims. Family Dollar interviewed numerous store managers 

and reviewed documents at New Jersey stores, while plaintiff’s counsel interviewed putative 

class members to determine the nature of their daily activities and other information relevant to 

their claims. 

7. The parties prepared for mediation after the June 2012 order staying this action 

(ECF No. 47), but ultimately decided not to pursue mediation until clarity was reached as to the 

Rancharan/Youngblood litigation. Accordingly, upon final approval of the settlement in that 

litigation, settlement discussions in this lawsuit commenced anew, leading to a meeting in North 

Carolina on January 14, 2014 at which counsel reached an agreement in principle. The parties 

then negotiated the final settlement agreement, which is now being presented for preliminary 

approval. 

8. In summary, the discovery, investigations, and settlement negotiations in the 

instant action and the parties’ experience in Youngblood and Rancharan place the parties in a 

favorable position to evaluate the merits of their claims and defenses. Plaintiffs’ Counsel are 

uniquely informed of the issues since they have taken or defended 32 depositions in this or the 

New York actions, reviewed hundreds of thousands of pages of documents, and spoken to 

hundreds of SMs, providing them with substantial insight into the strengths and weaknesses of 

their claims. As Class Counsel, I can unequivocally state – and believe this cannot be gainsaid –

that the proposed settlement is the product of two fully informed sides negotiating intensely at 

arm’s length. The parties believe that the settlement offers a fair and reasonable resolution of the 

litigation and incorporates and recognizes the substantial risks each side faced, whether at trial or 

Case 2:11-cv-01206-CCC-JAD Document 49-1 Filed 06/06/14 Page 3 of 5 PageID: 432
4

upon appeals, had the litigation continued. By the time the parties agreed to discuss settlement, 

there can be no question whatsoever that both sides were well versed in the facts, circumstances, 

and law applicable to the disputed issues and had a comprehensive knowledge of what a 

potential trial record would look like. 

9. Based on my firm’s experience in similar matters, this settlement will provide 

substantial benefit to the class members. For example, and in addition to the parallel New York 

cases in which my co-counsel here were also co-counsel, my firm has in recent years 

successfully litigated to conclusion over two dozen FLSA/state wage and hour cases and 

settlements that, to date, constitute millions of dollars in value. This includes Stillman v. Staples, 

Inc., 07-cv-849 (D.N.J.), a FLSA wage and hour case that was successfully tried to a jury verdict 

on behalf of 342 opt-in plaintiffs and which case is one of the rare FLSA misclassification cases 

that has been successfully tried to a jury verdict. Ultimately, Staples resulted in an omnibus 

settlement totaling $42 million, In re Staples Wage & Hour Litig., MDL No. 2025 (D.N.J.) (final 

approval obtained November 3, 2011; my firm was the agreed-upon lead counsel). More 

recently, my firm successfully took a FLSA collective action to verdict in an arbitration 

proceeding (details are confidential pursuant to the terms of the arbitral tribunal). These 

experiences permitted Plaintiffs’ counsel to evaluate the risks of a trial and negotiate fair 

settlement terms for the class members. A copy of my firm’s resume is attached as Exhibit E 

hereto.

10. Similarly, Hepworth, Gershbaum and Roth, PLLC (who were, as noted, cocounsel in Youngblood/Rancharan) has in recent years successfully litigated over a dozen 

FLSA/state wage and hour actions and reached settlements that, to date, total millions of dollars 

in value. A copy of this firm’s resume is attached as Exhibit F hereto.

Case 2:11-cv-01206-CCC-JAD Document 49-1 Filed 06/06/14 Page 4 of 5 PageID: 433
5

11. Likewise, Lite DePalma Greenberg, LLC is also experienced in complex and 

class and collective action lawsuits, including having worked on wage and hour cases, and also 

were co-counsel in Youngblood/Rancharan. A copy of this firm’s resume is attached as Exhibit 

G hereto. 

12. Attached as Exhibit B hereto is the parties’ Settlement Agreement.

13. Attached as Exhibit C hereto is parties’ proposed Notice of Settlement of Class 

Action Lawsuit.

14. Attached as Exhibit D hereto is the parties proposed Claim Form.

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

and corrected. Executed on this 6th day of June 2014, in Rye Brook, New York.

Case 2:11-cv-01206-CCC-JAD Document 49-1 Filed 06/06/14 Page 5 of 5 PageID: 434