Wright v. Frontier Management LLC

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: March 16, 2020
• Docket: 2:19-cv-01767
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

l CaroHl.Cy ontt r(eSlB1lN6 6977) OrEid el(sStBe2Ni6 n8 145) 2 SCHNEIDWEARL LACE COTRTELKLO NECLKLYP 3 200P0o wSetlrlSe uei1tt4,e0 0 EmeryvCiallliefo9,rn4 i6a0 8 4 Telep(h4o14n52e)1: - 7100 Facsi(m4i14l52e)1: - 7105 5 ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com oedelstein@schneiderwallace.com AttornfoerPy lsa iannttdih Pffeu tative 7 ClaasnCsdo llective 8 UNITSETDA TDEISS TRCIOCUTR T EASTEDRINS TROIFCC TA LIFORNIA 9 10 JOSHWURAI GHoTnb, e hoafhli fm saenldCf a sNeo2 .: 19-cv-01767-JAM-CKD alolt hseirmsi sliatrulayt ed, 11. STIPULATTOIC OONN DITIONALLY Plaintiff, CERTIFTYH EC OLLECTAINVDE 12 FACILITNAOTTEI CPEU RSUATNO2T 9 vs. U.S§.2 C1.6 A(NbD)[ PROPDO}OS REDER 13 FRONTMIAENRA GEMELNLTC , 14 FRONTSIEENRI LOIRV ILNLGC,a, nG dH JudHgoenJ:.o hAn.M endez SENILOIRV ILNLGCd, b GaRE ENHVAE N 15 ESTTAE ASS SISLTIEVDI NG, ComplFaiilnSeted p:t e6m2,b0 e1r9 TriDaalt e: None 16 Defendants. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 UER SUANT 1 Plaintiff Joshua Wright (“Plaintiff”) and Defendants Frontier Management LLC, Frontier 2 || Senior Living, LLC, and GH Senior Living, LLC dba Greenhaven Estates Assisted Living 3 || (collectively, “Defendants”) (Plaintiff and Defendants are collectively referred to as the “Parties”, 4 || by and through their attorneys of record, hereby stipulate as follows: 5 1. _— Plaintiff initiated this action on September 6, 2019 asserting claims on behalf of a 6 || national Collective against Defendants for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 7 || 201 et seq. (“FLSA”), as well as class claims under the California state wage and hour laws. ECF 8 1. 9 2. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated the FLSA with respect to Plaintiff and the putative Collective by, inter alia, failing to compensate Plaintiff and the Collective for all hours i worked and, with respect to such hours, failing to pay the legally mandated overtime premium for 12 such work and/or mini wage. 3. The proposed Collective is defined as follows: 14 All current and former hourly, non-exempt employees of Frontier 15 Management LLC, Frontier Senior Living, LLC, and GH Senior Living, — LLC dba Greenhaven Estates Assisted Living, in the United States after 16 [DATE (three years prior to date of filing of stipulated motion for 7 - conditional certification)].

18 4, The Parties have met and conferred, and agreed to attempt early resolution via 19 private mediation in May 2020, thereby necessitating the early facilitation of nationwide notice to 20 the proposed Collective. The Parties recognize that the Court may: (1) grant a Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification under § 216(b) of the FLSA, given the low threshold for conditional certification or (2) deny a plaintiff's motion for conditional certification under § 216(b) of the 33 FLSA in light of potentially material differences alleged to exist across the putative Collective, which might preclude a finding of “similarly situated” necessary for conditional certification. “95 Therefore, to promote efficiency and to conserve resources among the Parties’ and the Court, the 26 Parties have also agreed to stipulate to the Court’s entry of an order conditionally certifying a nationwide FLSA Collective. The Parties have also agreed that Plaintiff shall be appointed 28 collective representative and that Plaintiffs counsel shall be appointed collective counsel. STIPULATION TO CONDITIONALLY CERTIFY THE Conor AND FACILITATE NOTICE PURSUANT TO 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) AND [PROPOSED] ORDER Wricht etal v Frontier Mangcement LIC etal Case No 2:19-cv-01767-TAM-CKD

1 5. Pursuant to the Parties’ agreement, Plaintiff now seeks to notify a “Stipulated 2 || Collective” consisting of: 3 All current and former hourly, non-exempt employees of Frontier Management LLC, Frontier Senior Living, LLC, and GH Senior Living, 4 LLC dba Greenhaven Estates Assisted Living, in the United States after 5 [DATE (three years prior to date of filing of stipulated motion for conditional certification)]. 6 6. The decision by Defendants not to oppose conditional certification does not 7 constitute an admission that the named Plaintiff meets the conditions necessary for certification of 8 || a FLSA collective action. Defendants retain the right to move to decertify the Collective action, 9 || oppose any request by Plaintiff for final certification of this Collective action, or otherwise oppose 10 || the claims presented. 7. Within fourteen (14) days of this Order, Defendants shall provide Plaintiff with a 12 || computer-readable data file containing the names, last known mailing addresses, last known email 13 || addresses, and home and cellular telephone numbers of all persons within the Stipulated 14 || Collective. 15 8. _ Defendants shall provide this information for any person who has been employed with 16 |Defendants after [DATE (three years prior to Order granting stipulated motion re conditional 17 |kertification)] 18 9. The Court will appoint a third-party notice administrator (“Notice Administrator”) to 19 |! provide to all persons identified in Defendants’ list a proposed Notice of Collective Action 20 || Lawsuit (“Notice”) and Opt-In Consent Form (attached as Exhibit A) The form of this Notice shall

21 || be determined by the Court in light of the following: The Parties have met-and-conferred 22 || extensively on the form of notice and agreed on all aspects but have reached an impasse on 23 language pertaining to notice of imposition of costs and notice of Rule 11. The Parties’ respective 24 || positions are set forth below for the Court’s consideration. 25 || Plaintiff’s Position: 26 Plaintiff requests that the Court approve the Notice found in Exhibit B attached to this 27 || Stipulation. This notice omits a detailed discussion of the imposition of costs and fees in favor of a 28 || ir STIPULATION TO CONDITIONALLY CERTIFY THE COLLECTIVE AND FACILITATE NOTICE PURSUANT TO 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) AND [PROPOSED] ORDER Wricht etal v. Frontier Management LLC. et al.. Case No. 2:19-cv-01767-JAM-CKD

| || statement in Section IV (for ease of the Court’s consideration the statement is bolded, underlined, 2 || and italicized in the attached Exhibit A; however in the notice sent to Collective members the 3 || statement would be unformatted) approved by courts in this district providing that, “Costs and fees 4 || will be determined by federal statute and/or the concern agreement you have with your 5 |} attorney.” See Gomez v. H & R Gunlund Ranches, Inc., No. CV F 10-1163 LJO MJS, 2010 U.S. 6 || Dist. LEXIS 137736, at *32 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2010) (rejecting defendants request for language 7 || alerting collective members of the potential imposition of costs, however approving language 8 || reflecting that "If the class does not prevail, costs and fees will be determined by federal statute 9 || and/or the contractual agreement you have with your attorney.") 10 Plaintiff objects to the inclusion of any reference to Rule 11 sanctions as inappropriate and 11 || unwarranted. There is no basis for including any such language, and to do so will act to chill 12 || participation in this collective action. See Phelps v. MC Communs., Inc., No. 2:11-CV-00423- 13 || PMP-LRL, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84428, at *19-20 (D. Nev. Aug. 1, 2011) (“Defendants present 14 || no authority that a plaintiff may be liable for a defendant-employer's costs and attorney's fees in 15 || an FLSA action absent bad faith conduct. [citing cases]. The remote possibility of bad faith 16 || litigation conduct does not support the requested language and would serve only to discourage 17 || putative collective action members from joining the suit.”) 18 Defendant’s Position: 19 Defendant’s Position re Imposition of Costs: Defendants understand their meet-and-confer 20 || efforts with Plaintiff have placed the Parties in agreement that some form of notice to Collective 21 || Members regarding imposition of costs is appropriate. Defendants understand Plaintiff to simply 22 || favor this language: “Costs and fees will be determined by federal statute and/or the contractual 23 || agreement you have with your attorney” based on Gomez v. H & R Gunlund Ranches, Inc. 24 || (“Gomez”), 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 137736, *32 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2010). Plaintiff's proposed 25 |) language describes what it ought to convey at simply too high a level of generality. Plaintiff's 26 proposed language also affirmatively states, in relevant part, “Costs and fees will be determined 27 by the contractual agreement you have with your attorney.” This may be inaccurate in light of the 28 SY STIPULATION TO CONDITIONALLY CERTIFY THE COLLECTIVE AND FACILITATE NOTICE PURSUANT TO 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) AND [PROPOSED] ORDER - Wricht etal v. Frontier Manacement LLC et al. Case No. 2:19-cv-01767-JAM-CKD

1 || proposed Notice provision that informs Collective Members they may obtain independent 2 || counsel: “you ... may retain a different lawyer to represent you and have that lawyer enter an 3 || appearance in this lawsuit on your behalf ...” Proposed Notice, § IV. There is presently no 4 || information as to what the cost and fee arrangement is other than between Plaintiff and his 5 |} Counsel. Plaintiffs proposed language, in effect, impermissibly purports to speak as to the cost 6 || and fee arrangement between Collective Members and any of their independent counsel not 7 presently in the case. Therefore, Defendants propose that the more accurate language under the 8 || circumstances and the language that reasonably mitigates confusion is this: “Jf Joshua Wright and his attorneys do not prevail, any costs and fees that you could be liable for will be determined by 10 |! federal statute and/or the contractual agreement you have with your attorney.) (emphasis as to 11 I! Defendants’ proposed language). Plaintiff relies on Gomez, but Gomez did not involve issues 12 related to the interplay between terms of notice and collective members’ right to independent counsel. If anything, Gomez supports Defendants’ proposed language because Gomez relied on Garcia v. Elite Labor Sery., Ltd., 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9824 (N.D. Ill. July 12, 1996), a case involving a substantially identical prefatory clause to the one Defendants propose and one that partly predicated Gomez’s outcome. Gomez, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS * 31 (“If you are represented by plaintiffs attorneys, their costs and fees ...”). Plaintiff's proposed is inaccurate and contains 18 an impermissible risk of confusion; these defects run afoul of the requirement that notice be 19 “accurate.” See, Hoffmann-La Roche, Inc. v. Sperling, 493 U.S. 165, 170 (1989). 20 Defendant’s Position re Fed. R. Civ. P. 11: Defendants propose adding a paragraph to the al “Effect of Joining This Suit” section that informs Collective Members of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff contends a Rule 11 notice would “chill” participation. There 8 are no facts to support that notion. Plaintiff's speculative submission is also beside the point because FLSA notices are no more an exercise in crafting a mechanism designed to guarantee or result in the largest number of actual opt-ins than they are an exercise in providing notice in name ° only and constrict participation. Those are just not the issues at hand. Rather, this Court’s task is to maintain neutrality and facilitate “accurate and timely notice concerning the pendency of the STIPULATION TO CONDITIONALLY CERTIFY THE COnteenTE AND FACILITATE NOTICE PURSUANT TO 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) AND [PROPOSED] ORDER Wricht etal v Frontier Manacement LIC etal. Case No. 2:19-cv-01767-JAM-CKD

1 || collective action, so that [potential collective members] can make informed decisions about 2 || whether to participate.” Hoffman-LaRoche, 493 U.S. at 170. Anything more is an impermissible 3 || thumb on the scales. Here, Rule 11 is a basic norm of universal application in federal litigation; it 4 || helps focus litigants’ minds, mitigates litigation as a mere reflex response, and by seeking to 5 eliminate baseless litigation, ultimately serves the interests of all sides, including courts. 6 || Notwithstanding, Plaintiff contends informing Collective Members of Rule 11 is unwarranted 7 Il based on Phelps v. MC Communs., Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84428 (D. Nev. Aug. 1, 2011). 8 |! But Phelps dealt with whether a FLSA notice as to costs and fees was appropriate as a matter of 9 || the FLSA’s statutory fee-shifting provision; Phelps had nothing to do with Rule 11. The mere fact 10 Plaintiff advances a FLSA claim does not insulate this case from Rule 11’s operation. All told, a Rule 11 provision here would provide for a balanced notice and allow Collective Members to 12 make an informed decision about whether to participate. 13 Defendants’ proposed notice is attached hereto as Exhibit C. Defendants’ proposed terms 14 are in § IV and are visible in blue ink. The final version, if accepted, would not be underlined. 10. Plaintiff proposes that Heffler Claims Group be appointed to administer the Notice. a Plaintiff shall pay the costs of the Notice Administrator, subject to claiming the costs as a reimbursable litigation expense. The Notice Administrator shall provide the Notice and Opt-In Consent Form by: (1) first class mail, (2) email, and (3) electronically at website hosted by the Notice Administrator within seven (7) days of receipt of the list of Defendants ‘eligible current and former employees, or as soon thereafter as practicable. 11. Within seven (7) days of the Notice Administrator’s receipt of the list of Defendants’ eligible current and former employees, or as soon thereafter as practicable, the Defendants shall post a copy of the Notice in appropriate, conspicuous, visible, and accessible places at each of its offices or other locations in which Collective Members currently work and maintain such posting throughout the sixty (60)-day notice period. Plaintiff's counsel may also post a copy of the Notice and Opt-In Consent Form on Plaintiff's counsel’s firm website during this sixty (60)-day notice period. 28 | STIPULATION TO CONDITIONALLY CERTIFY THE COLLECTIVE AND FACILITATE NOTICE PURSUANT TO 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) AND [PROPOSED] ORDER Wrieht etal v Frontier Manacement LLC etal. Case No. 2:19-cv-01767-JAM-CKD

1 12. Eligible persons shall be given sixty (60)-days from the latest of the date on which 2 || the Notice and Opt-In Consent Form is sent via first class mail, the date on which the Notice and 3 || Opt-In Consent Form is sent via email, or the date on which it is posted electronically, in which to 4 || return their Opt-In Consent Form (received, postmarked, or completed via an electronic signature 5 || service) to the Notice Administrator or Plaintiff's counsel. 6 13. Eligible persons who have not submitted their Opt-In Consent Form after forty (40) 7 || days of the initial mailing contemplated in Paragraph 9 will receive a reminder by email from the 8 {| Notice Administrator. All Opt-In Consent Forms will be deemed to have been filed with the Court 9 || the date they are stamped as received by Plaintiff's Counsel or the Notice Administrator, and 10 || Plaintiff's Counsel will file them electronically on the docket on a weekly basis. Plaintiff's 11 || counsel may cure and re-file any Opt-In Consent Forms that were filed and later found to be 12 || deficient. 13 14 NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED: 15 That this action be conditionally certified as a FLSA collective action, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 16 || §§ 201 et seq. 17 18 || Dated: March 13, 2020 19 Ori Edelstein Carolyn H. Cottrell 20 Ori Edelstein SCHNEIDER WALLACE 21 COTTRELL KONECKY LLP 22 Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Putative Class and Collective 23 24 25 26 27 yg STIPULATION TO CONDITIONALLY CERTIFY THE COLLECTIVE AND FACILITATE NOTICE PURSUANT TO 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) AND [PROPOSED] ORDER Wrioht etal v Frontier Management LLC. et al. Case No. 2:19-cv-01767-JAM-CKD

1 |} Dated: March 13, 2020 /s/ Vincent R. Fisher Joseph P. Lordan a Vincent R. Fisher LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP 4 Attorneys for Defendants FRONTIER 5 MANAGEMENT LLC, FRONTIER SENIOR 6 LIVING, LLC and GH SENIOR LIVING, LLC dba GREENHAVEN ESTATES ASSISTED LIVING 7 . 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 □ 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Sn STIPULATION TO CONDITIONALLY CERTIFY THE COLLECTIVE AND FACILITATE NOTICE PURSUANT TO 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) AND [PROPOSED] ORDER Wricht etal v Frontier Management IIC etal. Case No. 2:19-cv-01767-JAM-CKD

ORDER 2 Plaintiff Joshua Wright (‘Plaintiff’) and Defendants Frontier Management LLC, Frontie 3 {| Senior Living, LLC, and GH Senior Living, LLC dba Greenhaven Estates Assisted Livin 4 || (collectively, “Defendants”) (Plaintiff and Defendants are collectively referred to as the “Parties”), 5 |}; have stipulated to conditionally certify as a FLSA collective action, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §§ 201 e 6 || seq., the following Collective: 7 All current and former hourly, non-exempt employees of Frontier Management LLC, Frontier Senior Living, LLC, and GH Senior Living, 8 LLC dba Greenhaven Estates Assisted Living, in the United States after [DATE (three years prior to date of filing of stipulated motion for 9 II. conditional certification)]. 10 Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated the FLSA with respect to Plaintiff and the putative 11 || Collective by, inter alia, failing to compensate Plaintiff and the Collective for all hours worked and, 12 || with respect to such hours, failing to pay the legally mandated overtime premium for such wor 13 || and/or minimum wage. 14 Having considered the Parties’ Stipulation, the allegations in Plaintiff's Complaint, and give 15 |] the low threshold for conditional certification under Section 216(b) of the FLSA, see Ramirez v. 16 |! Ghilotti Bros. Inc., 941 F. Supp. 2d 1197, 1203 (N.D. Cal. 2013), Plaintiff has met the lenien 17 || standard at this stage for conditional certification and for this Court to facilitate notice to proposed 18 || Collective members pursuant to the FLSA. 19 The decision by Defendants not to oppose conditional certification does not constitute a 20 || admission that the named Plaintiff meets the conditions necessary for certification of a FLS 21 || collective action. Defendants retain the right to move to decertify the Collective action, oppose any, 22 || request by Plaintiff for final certification of this Collective action, or otherwise oppose the claims 23 presented. However, at this time, the Court has determined Plaintiff's allegations are sufficient to 24 |! provide Defendants’ other non-exempt employees notice of the litigation and an opportunity to opt- 25 || in to the action to pursue their FLSA claims. 26 Therefore, Stipulation for Conditional Certification and to Facilitate Notice under 29 U.S.C. 27 |] § 216(b) is GRANTED as follows: 28 gi STIPULATION TO CONDITIONALLY CERTIFY THE COLLECTIVE AND FACILITATE NOTICE PURSUANT TO 29 U.S.C. §216(b} AND [PROPOSED] ORDER Wrieht etal. v. Frontier Management LLC. etal .Case No. 2:19-ev-01767-JAM-CKD

1 l. Within fourteen (14) days of this Order, Defendants shall provide Plaintiff with a 2 || computer-readable data file containing the names, last known mailing addresses, last known email 3 || addresses, and home and cellular telephone numbers of all persons within the following definition: 4 All current and former hourly, non-exempt employees of Frontier Management LLC, Frontier Senior Living, LLC, and GH Senior Living, 5 LLC dba Greenhaven Estates Assisted Living, in the United States after 6 [DATE (three years prior to date of filing of stipulated motion for conditional certification)]. 7 2. Defendants shall provide this information for any person who has been employed with 8 |\Defendants at any time from [DATE (three years prior to date of filing of stipulated motion fo 9 |onditional certification)]. 10 3. Plaintiff shall be appointed class and collective representative and Plaintiff's counsel 11 || shall be appointed class and collective counsel. The Court will appoint a third-party notice 12 |! administrator (“Notice Administrator’) to provide the proposed Notice of Collective Action 13 || Lawsuit (“Notice”) and Opt-In Consent Form to all persons identified in Defendants’ list. 14 4, The Court approves the Opt-In Form attached to the Parties’ Stipulation as Exhibit 15 | A. 16 5. The Court approves the Proposed Notice attached to the Stipulation as: 17 Exhibit B (Plaintiff's proposed Notice); or 18 Exhibit C (Defendants’ proposed Notice). 19 6. The Court will appoint a third-party notice administrator (“Notice Administrator”) to 20 || mail and email the proposed Notice of Collective Action Lawsuit and Opt-In Consent Form to all 21 || persons identified in Defendant’s list. Heffler Claims Group is approved as the Notice 22 || Administrator. Plaintiff shall pay the costs of the Notice Administrator, subject to claiming the 23 || costs as a reimbursable litigation expense. The Notice Administrator shall provide the Notice and |_ 24 Opt-In Consent Form by: (1) first class mail, (2) email, and (3) electronically at a website hosted 25 || by the Notice Administrator within seven (7) days of receipt of the list of Defendants’ eligible 26 || current and former employees, or as soon thereafter as practicable. 27 7. Within seven (7) days of the Notice Administrator’s receipt of the list of Defendants’ 28 Sn nnn STIPULATION TO CONDITIONALLY CERTIFY THE COLLECTIVE AND FACILITATE NOTICE PURSUANT TO 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) AND [PROPOSED] ORDER Wrioht etal v Frontior Maonacement TIC etal Case No. 2:19-cv-01767-JAM-CKD

1 || eligible current and former employees, or as soon thereafter as practicable, the Defendants shall 2 || post a copy of the Notice in appropriate, conspicuous, visible, and accessible places at each of its 3 || offices or other locations in which Collective Members currently work and maintain such posting 4 || throughout the sixty (60)-day notice period. Plaintiff's counsel may also post a copy of the Notice 5 || and Opt-In Consent Form on Plaintiffs counsel’s firm website during this sixty (60)-day notice- 6 || period. 7 8. Eligible persons shall be given sixty (60) days from the latest of the date on which 8 || the Notice and Opt-In Consent Form is sent via first class mail, the date on which the Notice and 9 || Opt-In Consent Form is sent via email, or the date on which it is posted electronically, in which to 10 || return their Opt-In Consent Form (received, postmarked, or completed via an electronic signature 11 || service) to the Notice Administrator or Plaintiff's counsel. 12 9. Eligible persons who have not submitted their Opt-In Consent Form within forty 13 || (40) days of the initial mailing contemplated in Paragraph 3 will receive a reminder by email from 14 |} the Notice Administrator. 15 10. All Opt-In Consent Forms will be deemed to have been filed with the Court the date 16 || they are stamped as received by Plaintiff's Counsel or the Notice Administrator, and Plaintiff's 17 || Counsel will file them electronically on the docket on a weekly basis. Plaintiff's counsel may cure 18 || and re-file any Opt-In Consent Forms that were filed and later found to be deficient. 19

21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 23 Dated: 3 ltt ROK HON. J@HN A. MENDEZ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 25 .

26 27 28 | |< $$ ir? STIPULATION TO CONDITIONALLY CERTIFY THE COLLECTIVE AND FACILITATE NOTICE PURSUANT TO 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) AND [PROPOSED] ORDER Wright. et al. v. Frontier Management LLC, et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-01767-JAM-CKD

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 2 [hereby certify that I electronically filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court 3 || for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California, by using the Court’s CM/ECF 4 || system on March 13, 2020. 5 I certify that all participants in the case are registered CM/ECF users and that service will be 6 || accomplished by the Court’s CM/ECF system. 7 8 || Dated: March 13, 2020 Respectfully submitted, 9 /s/ Ori Edelstein 10 Carolyn H. Cottrell Ori Edelstein 11 SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP 12 Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Putative Class 13 and Collective 14 15 SIGNATORY ATTESTATION 16 The e-filing attorney hereby attests that concurrence in the content of the attached documents 17 |fand authorization to file the attached documents has been obtained from the other signatory indicated 18 y a conformed signature (/s/) within the attached e-filed documents. 19 9 |PDated: March 13, 2020 /s/ Ori Edelstein Ori Edelstein 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 S| STIPULATION TO CONDITIONALLY CERTIFY THE COLLECTIVE AND FACILITATE NOTICE PURSUANT TO 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) AND [PROPOSED] ORDER Wright, et al. v. Frontier Management LLC. et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-01767-JAM-CKD

EXHIBIT A

OPT-IN CONSENT FORM Wright v. Frontier Management LLC, Frontier Senior Living, LLC, and GH Senior Living, LLC dba Greenhaven Estates Assisted Living United States District Court, Eastern District of California Case No. 2:19-cv-01767-JAM-CKD Complete And Submit To: [Notice Administrator [Plaintiff's Counsel _Address Address Fax/email] Fax/email]

Name: Date of Birth: (Please Print) Address: Phone No. !: Phone No. 2: E-mail Address:

CONSENT TO JOIN COLLECTIVE ACTION Pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201, et seq. 1. I consent and agree to pursue my claims relating to and arising from Defendants’ (Frontier Management LLC, Frontier Senior Living, LLC, and GH Senior Living, LLC dba Greenhaven Estates Assisted Living) alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201, et seg. in connection with the above-referenced litigation. 2. have worked as a/an (job title) for Defendant in (city and state where worked) from approximately on or about (date employment began) to approximately on or about (date employment ended) . 3. I understand that this litigation has been filed as a proposed collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201, et seg. I hereby consent, agree, and opt-in to become a Plaintiff herein and be bound by any judgment of the Court or any settlement of this action. 4. I specifically authorize my attorneys, Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky LLP to prosecute this lawsuit on my behalf and to negotiate a settlement of any and all claims I have against the Defendants in this litigation. Sn —— Date Signed) a **IMPORTANT NOTE** Statute of Limitations concerns mandate that you return this form as soon as possible to preserve your rights,

EXHIBIT B

NOTICE OF COLLECTIVE ACTION LAWSUIT This Notice has not been prepared by the Court. This Notice is not a representation by the Court of the merits of the lawsuit. Wright v. Frontier Management LLC, Frontier Senior Living, LLC, and GH Senior Living, LLC dba Greenhaven Estates Assisted Living United States District Court, Eastern District of California Case No. 2:19-cv-01767-JAM-CKD

TO: All current and former hourly, non-exempt employees of Frontier Management LLC, Frontier Senior Living, LLC, and GH Senior Living, LLC dba Greenhaven Estates Assisted Living, in the United States after [DATE (three years prior to date of filing of stipulated motion for conditional certification)]. RE: Federal Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) lawsuit seeking alleged unpaid wages, including minimum wages, wages at the agreed rate, and overtime compensation

KKKK PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY. THIS NOTICE COULD AFFECT YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS. I. INTRODUCTION The purpose of this Notice is to inform you of the existence of a collective action lawsuit, to advise you of how your rights may be affected by this suit, and to instruct you on the procedure for participating in this suit, should you choose to do so. YOU HAVE NOT JOINED THE LAWSUIT UNTIL YOU RETURN THE “OPT-IN CONSENT FORM” PROVIDED WITH THIS NOTICE TO THE CLAIMS ADMINISTRATOR AND/OR PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL LISTED BELOW. Il. TION OF T IT This lawsuit is brought by Joshua Wright, a former Med Tech at Greenhaven Estates, on behalf of current and former hourly, non-exempt employees of Defendants Frontier Management LLC, Frontier Senior Living, LLC, and GH Senior Living, LLC dba Greenhaven Estates Assisted Living (“Defendants”) throughout the United States after [DATE (three years prior to date of filing of stipulated motion for conditional certification)]. Joshua Wright, the Plaintiff, has made the following claims, among others: 1) Defendants allegedly failed to pay wages for all hours worked, including, without limitation: for time spent working before and after scheduled shifts; and for time spent working during meal breaks;

2) Defendants allegedly failed to pay all wages owed, including payment of at least minimum wage and overtime pay for all hours worked, as well as compensation for wage deductions for the cost of purchase and/or maintenance for required uniforms/protective gear; and 3) Defendants allegedly failed to make, keep, and preserve required accurate records of all hours worked by the employees. Defendants deny all of these contentions and Plaintiff's other allegations in this lawsuit. Defendants also deny that this case can properly be maintained, litigated, or adjudicated as a collective action. Defendants assert that they have always properly paid all wages due to employees, including as to at least minimum and overtime wages. Plaintiff seeks to recover payment for all hours worked, including payment for unpaid straight time and the time worked above 40 hours in a work week, and minimum wage violations, including interest thereon, statutory penalties and liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys’ fees, and litigation costs on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated workers. It is your own decision whether to join this lawsuit. This lawsuit was filed against Defendants, on September 6, 2019 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. The case name is Joshua Wright v. Frontier Management LIC, Frontier Senior Living, LLC, and GH Senior Living, LLC dba Greenhaven Estates Assisted Living. The case_number is 2:19-cv-01767-JAM-CKD. The Parties have stipulated to conditional certification of this case to notify you of the lawsuit and to give you a chance to join the lawsuit.

Ill. YOUR RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS SUIT You may join, or “opt in” to, this lawsuit by submitting your “Opt-in Consent Form to the Claims Administrator by: (1) visiting the following website [hyperlink to administrator website] and submitting your completed “Opt-In Consent Form” electronically, (2) emailing your completed “Opt- in Consent Form” to [email addresé of Claims Adiinistrtor and Plainif?s Counsel), (3) taxing your completed “Opt-In Consent Form” to [fax numbers of Claims Administrator and Plaintiff's Counsel] or (4) mailing your completed “Opt-In Consent Form” to the oe at the following address: FRONTIER AND GREENHAVEN FLSA LITIGATION _clo Claims Admin _ Claim Admin Address You are not required to join or “opt in” to this lawsuit, but if you wish to do so, this form must be returned to the Claims Administrator and/or Plaintiff's Counsel on or before [INSERT DATE — 60 days after mailing/emailing/posting of notice.] If you fail to return the “Opt-In Consent Form” to the Claims Administrator and/or Plaintiff's Counsel on or before [DATE] , you may not be able to participate in this lawsuit. If you choose not to join in this lawsuit, you are only waiving your right to join this particular lawsuit; you would be free to file your own lawsuit against Defendants. If you file an “Opt-In Consent Form,” your continued right to participate in pursuing these FLSA claims in this action may depend upon a later decision by the Court as to whether you and the named Plaintiff are actually “similarly situated” in accordance with federal law.

IV. EFFECT OF JOINING THIS SUIT If you choose to join this suit, you will be bound by the judgment or settlement, whether it is favorable or unfavorable as to claims made in this action under the FLSA. If the Court or jury rules in favor of the Defendants, you will not be entitled to any relief, monetary or otherwise, under the FLSA if you join this action. Costs and fees will be determined by federal statute and/or the contractual agreement you have with your attorney. Your decision to file an Opt-In Consent Form does not necessarily determine whether or not you will be required to submit evidence or provide testimony during the case. Defendants contend its policies were lawful and that individualized inquiries into your claims may be warranted. Joshua Wright’s attorneys and Defendants’ attorneys may take evidence and testimony from both those who submit an Opt-In Consent Form as well as those who do not.

VI. NO LEGAL EFFECT IN NOT JOINING THIS SUIT If you choose not to join this suit, you will not be affected by any judgment or settlement rendered in this case, whether favorable or unfavorable. If you choose not to join in this lawsuit, the only right you are forfeiting is the right to join this particular lawsuit, and you would be free to file your own lawsuit. Vil. NO OPINI TOT T This Notice is for the sole purpose of determining the identity of those persons who wish to join and participate in this lawsuit. Although the United States District Court for the Eastern District of _ California has authorized the sending of this Notice, This Notice is not from the Court. The Court has not decided whether Plaintiff or Defendants are correct, and the Court is not suggesting whether Plaintiff will win or lose the case. The Court expresses no opinion regarding the merits of Plaintiffs claims or Defendants’ defenses, as this is ongoing litigation and those issues have not yet been decided. VIII. NO RETALIATION PERMITTED Federal law prohibits Defendants from discharging or in any other manner discriminating or retaliating against you because you have exercised your rights under the FLSA to join, or not to join, this action. TX. YOUR LEGAL REPRESENTATION IF YOU JOIN By joining this lawsuit, you may designate Joshua Wright, the Named Plaintiff, and his attorneys as your agents to make decisions on your behalf concerning the litigation. The law firm of Schneider Wallace Cottrell and Konecky LLP will represent those who receive this notice and join the collective action. If you desire, however, you also may retain a different lawyer to represent you and have that lawyer enter an appearance in this lawsuit on your behalf, or you may choose not to retain a lawyer and represent yourself in this action within the applicable statute of limitations period.

If you have any questions, you may contact the attorneys listed below: Carolyn H. Cottrell Ori Edelstein Michelle S. Lim SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP 2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400 Emeryville, California 94608 Telephone: (415) 421-7100 Facsimile: (415) 421-7105 Email: ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com oedelstein@schneiderwallace.com mlim@schneiderwallace.com

**PLEASE NOTE** There is a two (2) year deadline for filing overtime claims or three (3) years if the violation is determined to be willful. This deadline continues to run until you “opt-in” to this conditionally certified Collective Action. If you wish to participate in this Collective Action, return your “Opt-in Consent Form” as soon as possible so that your rights may be preserved.

EXHIBIT C

NOTICE OF COLLECTIVE ACTION LAWSUIT This Notice has not been prepared by the Court. This Notice is not a representation by the Court of the merits of the lawsuit.

Wright v. Frontier Management LLC, Frontier Senior Living, LLC, and GH Senior Living, LIC dba Greenhaven Estates Assisted Living United States District Court, Eastern District of California Case No. 2:19-cv-01767-JAM-CKD

TO: All current and former hourly, non-exempt employees of Frontier Management LLC, Frontier Senior Living, LLC, and GH Senior Living, LLC dba Greenhaven Estates Assisted Living, in the United States after [DATE (three years prior to date of filing of stipulated motion for conditional certification)]. RE: Federal Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) lawsuit seeking alleged unpaid wages, including minimum wages, wages at the agreed rate, and overtime compensation

kkk PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY. THIS NOTICE COULD AFFECT YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS. I. INTRODUCTION The purpose of this Notice is to inform you of the existence of a collective action lawsuit, to advise you of how your rights may be affected by this suit, and to instruct you on the procedure for participating in this suit, should you choose to do so. YOU HAVE NOT JOINED THE LAWSUIT UNTIL YOU RETURN THE “OPT-IN CONSENT FORM” PROVIDED WITH THIS NOTICE TO THE CLAIMS ADMINISTRATOR AND/OR PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL LISTED BELOW. II. DESCRIPTION OF THE LAWSUIT This lawsuit is brought by Joshua Wright, a former Med Tech at Greenhaven Estates, on behalf of current and former hourly, non-exempt employees of Defendants Frontier Management LLC, Frontier Senior Living, LLC, and GH Senior Living, LLC dba Greenhaven Estates Assisted Living (“Defendants”) throughout the United States after [DATE (three years prior to date of filing of stipulated motion for conditional certification)]. Joshua Wright, the Plaintiff, has made the following claims, among others: 1) Defendants allegedly failed to pay wages for all hours worked, including, without limitation: for time spent working before and after scheduled shifts; and for time spent working during meal breaks;

4814-5748-6519.1

2) Defendants allegedly failed to pay all wages owed, including payment of at least minimum wage and overtime pay for all hours worked, as well as compensation for wage deductions for the cost of purchase and/or maintenance for required uniforms/protective gear; and 3) Defendants allegedly failed to make, keep, and preserve required accurate records of all hours worked by the employees. Defendants deny all of these contentions and Plaintiffs other allegations in this lawsuit. Defendants also deny that this case can properly be maintained, litigated, or adjudicated as a collective action. Defendants assert that they have always properly paid all wages due to employees, including as to at least minimum and overtime wages. Plaintiff seeks to recover payment for all hours worked, including payment for unpaid straight time and the time worked above 40 hours in a work week, and minimum wage violations, including interest thereon, statutory penalties and liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys’ fees, and litigation costs on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated workers. It is your own decision whether to join this lawsuit. This lawsuit was filed against Defendants, on September 6, 2019 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. The case name is Joshua Wright v. Frontier Management LLC, Frontier Senior Living, LLC, and GH Senior Living, LLC dba Greenhaven Estates Assisted Living. The case number is 2:19-cv-01767-JAM-CKD. The Parties have stipulated to conditional certification of this case to notify you of the lawsuit and to give you a chance to join the lawsuit.

III. YOUR RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS SUIT You may join, or “opt in” to, this lawsuit by submitting your “Opt-in Consent Form to the Claims Administrator by: (1) visiting the following website [hyperlink to administrator website] and submitting your completed “Opt-In Consent Form” electronically, (2) emailing your completed “Opt- In Consent Form” to [eatéll Sobers Aig foe tna Ping ON Gi). ) faxing your completed “Opt-In Consent Form” to [fax numbers of Claims Administrator and Plaintiff's Counsel] or (4) mailing your completed “Opt-In Consent Form” to the Claims Administrator at the following address: FRONTIER AND GREENHAVEN FLSA LITIGATION clo Claims Admin Claim Admin Address You are not required to join or “opt in” to this lawsuit, but if you wish to do so, this form must be returned to the Claims Administrator and/or Plaintiff's Counsel on or before [INSERT DATE — 60 days after mailing/emailing/posting of notice.] If you fail to return the “Opt-In Consent Form” to the Claims Administrator and/or Plaintiff's Counsel on or before [DATE] , you may not be able to participate in this lawsuit. If you choose not to join in this lawsuit, you are only waiving your right to join this particular lawsuit; you would be free to file your own lawsuit against Defendants. If you file an “Opt-In Consent Form,” your continued right to participate in pursuing these FLSA claims in this action may depend upon a later decision by the Court as to whether you and the named Plaintiff are actually “similarly situated” in accordance with federal law. 4814-5748-6519.1

IV. EFFECT OF JOINING THIS SUIT If you choose to join this suit, you will be bound by the judgment or settlement, whether it is favorable or unfavorable as to claims made in this action under the FLSA. If the Court or jury rules in favor of the Defendants, you will not be entitled to any relief, monetary or otherwise, under the FLSA | if you join this action. If Joshua Wright and his attorneys do not prevail, any costs and fees will be determined by federal statute and/or the contractual agreement you have with your attorney. Your decision to file an Opt-In Consent Form does not necessarily determine whether or not you will be required to submit evidence or provide testimony during the case. Defendants contend its policies were lawful and that individualized inquiries into your claims may be warranted. Joshua Wright’s attorneys and Defendants’ attorneys may take evidence and testimony from both those who submit an Opt-In Consent Form as well as those who do not. If this case is found to be presented for an improper purpose, not warranted by law. or without factual support, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, you may be required to pay some or all of the attorneys fees incurred by Frontier Management LLC, Frontier Senior Living, LLC, or GH Senior Living, LLC dba Greenhaven Estates Assisted Living. VI. NOLEGAL EFFECT IN NOT JOINING THIS SUIT If you choose not to join this suit, you will not be affected by any judgment or settlement rendered in this case, whether favorable or unfavorable. If you choose not to join in this lawsuit, the only right you are forfeiting is the right to join this particular lawsuit, and you would be free to file your own lawsuit. VII. NO OPINION EXPRESSED AS TO THE MERITS OF THE CASE This Notice is for the sole purpose of determining the identity of those persons who wish to join and participate in this lawsuit. Although the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California has authorized the sending of this Notice, This Notice is not from the Court. The Court has not decided whether Plaintiff or Defendants are correct, and the Court is not suggesting whether Plaintiff will win or lose the case. The Court expresses no opinion regarding the merits of Plaintiff's claims or Defendants’ defenses, as this is ongoing litigation and those issues have not yet been decided. VII. NO RETALIATION PERMITTED Federal law prohibits Defendants from discharging or in any other manner discriminating or retaliating against you because you have exercised your rights under the FLSA to join, or not to join, this action. IX. YOUR LEGAL REPRESENTATION IF YOU JOIN By joining this lawsuit, you may designate Joshua Wright, the Named Plaintiff, and his attorneys as your agents to make decisions on your behalf concerning the litigation. The law firm of Schneider Wallace Cottrell and Konecky LLP will represent those who receive this notice and join the collective action. If you desire, however, you also may retain a different lawyer to represent you and have that lawyer enter an appearance in this lawsuit on your behalf, or you may choose not to retain a lawyer and represent yourself in this action within the applicable statute of limitations period.

If you have any questions, you may contact the attorneys listed below: Carolyn H. Cottrell Ori Edelstein . Michelle S. Lim SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP 2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400 Emeryville, California 94608 Telephone: (415) 421-7100 Facsimile: (415) 421-7105 Email: ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com □ oedelstein@schneiderwallace.com mlim@schneiderwallace.com

**PLEASE NOTE** There is a two (2) year deadline for filing overtime claims or three (3) years if the violation is determined to be willful. This deadline continues to run until you “opt-in” to this conditionally certified Collective Action. If you wish to participate in this Collective Action, return your “Opt-in Consent Form” as soon as possible so that your rights may be preserved.